'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' as nominator.--
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' per noms. BDD is a strong contributor with thousands of edits and years of experience. I have no problem supporting.
'''Support''', with great pleasure. I work with BDD at the [[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]] (where we're both coordinators), and have seen their good work at RM and AfD. A fine addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' There are plenty of important roles on this project, of which content creator is only one of them. BDD has done good work over a number of years. That his primary activity is not content creation is not of concern.
'''Support''' per noms. I don't see a reason not to.
'''Support'''  BDD already wields a broom pretty well, so why not formalize it? I'm not too concerned about the lack of in-depth experience in developing articles because he has contributed so much to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|Guild of Copy Editors]] backlog drives: as his [[User:BDD/Barnstars|his barnstars]] attest, he has often been on the leaderboard. We don't all need to take the same route to adminship. My only quibble is a very minor one - what's with all the edits to his user talk archives? I hope that he will keep any current discussions involving administration on his main talk page, so other editors can find them easily.
'''Support''' barring a completely unexpected answer to pro-forma question 6 above. The heads up about the old [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BDD&oldid=16988125 2005 User Page] is a good one; someone that "right on" at age 17 is certainly worthy of support after the better part of a decade of additional seasoning (sporting a clean block log and no indications of assholery over that time, unsurprisingly). Concerns about relative lack of content creation are misplaced; administrative functions are only tangential to content writing, which is the reason that some of the best writers are not administrators and some of the best administrators do little in the way of mainspace content creation. An excellent candidate.
'''Support''' because I see no good reason not to.
'''Support''' if a qualified editor is asking for the tools to work on [[WP:RM|requested moves]], an area in which hardly any administrator is willing to touch, they should be given the tools pretty much by default.
'''Support''' - I've done a formal review on him previously, and considered nominating him myself, but wasn't sure if I could be around to do a fair job of it. I'm very comfortable handing him the extra tools.
'''Support''' From his hard work in copyediting to his kind and helpful personality, I fully support this candidate.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - my father told me you can always trust a W&M grad. {{smiley}} In all seriousness, I have run into BDD at AfD several times and have long thought he was a solid admin candidate; glad to see he finally ran. Good luck.
Yea, I've seen him a lot. Good candidate. —
'''Support''' Net positive contributor. '''
'''Support''', looks good to me. Competent user looking to work in an area that's often short of admins. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' No Problem.--'''
'''Support''' looks like a great candidate for the mop.
'''Support''' Here since 2004 + no problems = WP:DEAL.  Looks solid and trustworthy.  Content creation is unrelated to whether he'll use the tools properly, but the candidate has numerous DYKs.  He's also surely familiar with current resources, since any academic librarian who was in high school in 2004 hasn't been in the field too long.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support''' BDD seems like a good candidate. I also reviewed this editor according to my own [[User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy|user page criteria]] and am satisfied.
'''Support''' No worries. From what I've seen, [[User:BDD|BDD]] is always civil and thoughtful to others, and I definitely think we can trust him with the admin tools. ''[[q:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film)#Galadriel|May he be a light in dark places when all other lights go out]].''<!--(paraphrase)--> (Good luck, and be good.) ~
'''Support''', although one would be generally concerned regarding the peak of editing leading up to the 2012 election season, upon review of the edits during the months leading up to the 2012 general election in the United States most edits were outside of the realm of politics. The subject of this RfA has become an avid contributor to the community, and works with the GoCE (always a good sign, IMHO), and has a clean block log record.--
'''Support'''. I can understand opposers who want to see more content work, but I don't accept that admins are a "governing class". Or at least, we're not supposed to be - we're supposed to be a serving class. I know there are some admins who think they're the bosses, and I've clashed with one or two of them in my time. But I do think that those who are best at creating content should create content and those who can serve best by protecting and assisting them in that task should become admins (though I would like to see more overlap in the two roles). So when evaluating candidates at RfA, my final decision to some extent comes down to whether I think they have a "serving" or a "ruling" mentality - and I think BDD fits in the former category quite easily. --
'''Support''' - I understand the opposers in principle, but I think BDD ''has'' had content work, certainly enough to know how things operate and have a sense of the difficulties content creators have. I'm impressed by BDD from my interactions with them.
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support''', looks like a fine editor.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Per noms. -
'''Support''' - Good overall experience and a sound understanding of how the back office functions. I'm not really understanding the opposes so far, <s>some of which seem like the typical thread-shitting bitterness that plagues the bottom of RfAs these days.</s> BDD has created some admirable articles such as [[Steven Amstrup]] and ''[[Extra Virginity]]''. His talk page interactions seem fine, and he seems to have a positive vision for the project. -
'''Support'''. No concerns.--<font face="bold">
'''Support''' - Adept at [[WP:RM|RM]]. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  As much as I respect Malleus, S Marshall and Colonel Warden for their content creation efforts, and Jusdafax for his usually sound reasoning, I must say that I believe that these four gentlemen are singing a tad off-key in this instance.  Like them, I like to see well-rounded administrator candidates who have a sound appreciation for editors who create content and have shown some talent for doing so themselves.  Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia, and our principal purpose is to create good content; that purpose includes all users, including admins.  That having been said, I think BDD has demonstrated he knows how to write well enough in the English vernacular, and how to create an encyclopedia article based on a dozen or more among the 38 articles he has created.  Sure, I would love to see several Good Articles among his accomplishments, but he's also shown that he has a strong command of policy and a head full of good sense.  Cheers to you, BDD, good luck as an admin, and never forget why we're all here.
'''Support''' I trust you and think you'll make a great administrator.
'''Support''' I've no concerns, will make an excellent addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I'm satisfied this candidate has the temperament and experience to wield the mop safely. Some good evidence of dispute resolution on their talk page and archives.
'''Support''' Builders build houses for people to live in. Decorators paint them. Groundwork people prepare sites for builders to build on. Demolition men remove houses that are not sound. Removal men bring the belongings of the people who are going to live in the houses. Legislators make regulations concerning standards of construction and safety. All necessary jobs, unless you live in a grass or mud hut area. They don't all need a full knowledge of each other's jobs. I can't see any reason why BDD won't make a good admin.
'''Support''' - I somewhat share the concerns of some of the opposers but I probably disagree with them on the solution - the answer to a lack of content-creating admin candidates is to nominate some content-creating editors for adminship. Opposing the nominations of those with ''other'' skills is not the answer. That's like saying, ''"we don't have enough police so I'm going to oppose the hiring of more fire fighters"''. Nominate your content-creators; I'll back them too!
'''Support''' per the opposers. The ones who aren't writing articles 24/7 are the ones that should be admins, not the other way around.
'''Support''' 9 years of experience, coordinating the most important of our clean-up projects, solid experience in the sort of contentious administrative tasks that most admins prefer to avoid, and several DYK articles, when weighed against a lack of a GA, clearly show that BDD has no clue how Wikipedia works. [[Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory|Wait. Strike that. Reverse it.]]
'''Support''' Content creation is important, but the editor has 10 DYKs, which is more than enough for me. All told, plenty of clue and plenty of experience merits plenty of support for BDD.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">
'''Support'''. Sound candidate. Contributions evidence good judgment.  As to the criticism of Q9 response, closing such discussions is a skill best learnt on the job. [[WP:DRV]] exists in case of errors. The answers given (if not necessarily perfect) seem to be a sensible starting point for a new admin. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - An overall [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] for the project. Best of luck to you BDD. —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''Support''' - In addition to the points raised by [[User:Secret|Secret]] above, I support this candidate because of their strong contributions and leadership of the [[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]].  I hope the opposing comments motivate the editor to promote articles and create more original content.  - <b>

'''Support''' &mdash; Why not?
'''Support''' A few of the AFD votes are questionable for me, but overall the candidate seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' No concerns for me.
'''Support''' I don't normally participate in RfAs, but in view of the reservations being related to content creation and being a content animal (more or less than those raising reservations), I'd say DYK quality counts for more than quantity of content. There have been admins with less DYK. In any case what is needed is temperament, and BDD has that. Look also at who is nominating. Support.
If an editor has 10,000 edits to mainspace, and someone pops up to suggest that the editor has no content experience, that person should be ignored. Other than that, this is a thunk-he-was-already.
'''Support''' No problems here - Mop please!! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''', based on review. Like others, I would like to see more content work over time.
'''Weak Support''' candidate has sufficient content contributions to satisfy my criteria, and otherwise seems clueful and mostly sensible. Weak because I'm nervous about handing them the delete button. The idea in their answer to Q9 that because a town becomes uninhabited it loses its notability is troubling especially when they thought that was supported by [[wp:NPLACE]] ''
'''Support:''' My experience with the candidate has been very, very, good! -
'''Support'''. I join with several of the editors above in thinking that BDD was already an admin - and that speaks, I think, to BDD's general reasonableness. I don't agree necessarily with some of their AFD !votes, but I appreciate that there is a reasoning behind them - it's not just "Keep because reasons" or whatever. If the tools are granted in this case, I believe we would find ourselves with another thoughtful admin who would not jump headfirst into things and screw them up - and we've been lacking that sort of admin recently. I read through the opposes, and - while I respect my esteemed colleagues under that heading - I find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' - With Wikipedia having more than 4 million articles already, it's not easy to find a subject for creating a new notable one, let alone start a GA or FA from scratch. The certain lack of content creation and his statements/answers above convince me that he would be a rather excellent admin...
'''Support'''.  I like this candidate's history with Wikipedia.  I think this candidate's decision-making processes would be appropriate for the project.  - <font color="#668353">
'''Support''' - I've been aware of the user and their work for some time now, and I generally have confidence in their judgement and understanding of Wikipedia. I'm surprised to find from the responses to questions that the user is no older than mid-20s, as I perceived them to be somewhat more mature than that age implies. I don't like the peculiar answers to Q9 -- they caused me to reconsider my opinions of the user, but I think we can trust the user to have the good sense to be more cautious about closing AFDs than those answers indicated.  --
'''Support''' - User seems solid in their work. Not a major article writer and I would like to see more content work but admins don't do much of that anyway so this is probably a good fit.
'''Support''' per Shadowjams and Nyttend. The candidate is helpful and clueful with just about enough content experience to be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust the user with the tools. '''
'''Support'''. User was helpful at a recent RfM I started and has a solid edit history; the "content creation" aspect is important, certainly, but not everyone does content creation and BDD wants to use the tools for work with moves and the like, so I don't see a problem. Stalwart111 and Peridon above hit the nail on the head: some people do lots of stuff, other people specialize. So what? '''<font color='red'>
'''Support''' Hardworking editor with plenty of clue. Already familiar with behind-the-scenes, janitorial type tasks. About time they had a mop! --
'''Support'''. On Wikipedia, as in the larger world, there are creators and there are custodians of that which has been created. Both roles are critical, and neither should be dismissed as inferior or unimportant. Of course, there are those who flourish in both roles, but likely there aren't enough of them to constitute a sufficient pool of RfA candidates. BDD looks to be a highly competent, productive editor who would not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Looks like they will be a helpful, productive, and trustworthy admin.
'''Support'''. A good candidate. Good luck. —
'''Support'''. As per Shadowjams and Nyttend. Further long term user has 10 DYKs with creating 38 articles.Feel the user can trusted with tools and see no scope for misuse based on track.
'''Support'''.  This is the type of non-controversial editor needed among admins.
'''Support'''. The candidate seems trustworthy and knowledgeable, and I don't see any red flags. — '''''
'''Support.''' Candidate seems to be trustworthy, knows what's going on, has experience working in the background.  I don't buy into the content-creation requirement - different editors work in different arenas.
'''Support'''.  Lots of good experience working in admin-related areas, good communication skills, I don't see any problems.
'''Support''' no concerns ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Solid work at WP:RM.
'''Support''':  Greatly productive and knowledgeable.
'''Support'''. I like the look of highly detailed answers to the questions. It makes me think that he will have solid admin skills.
'''Support''' High edit-counts and nice answers. -
'''Support''' While there may be concerns raised about content creation, 10 DYKs still represents a large amount of work, especially when content creation is not everyone's ''forte'', and it is also more than quite a few of our most respected admins.--<span style="">
[[WP:NETPOS]]. Reviewed the candidate eralier and no reason to suppose he can't use the buttons wisely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - it's been such a very long time since I last got to do that. I agree with Malleus and others below, knowledge of content creation is important in administrators, but I disagree it's important in all administrators. Wikipedia, as a project, needs a wide variety of different 'types' of administrators, it's nice we have some who focus on images, others who focus on templates and yet more who try and deal with the vandalism that's so prevalent. WP exists in a state where compromise is essential and no one solution is perfect, having content led administrators would be good for many things but not everything, so when good candidates come forward who will be a net positive to the project, even if they don't have a FA, GA, DYK and the triple crown, I feel we should support them and make use of the skills they offer the community.
'''Support''' Net positive, clueful editor. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' we could use some help on the non-drama section of the XfD such as [[WP:RFD]]. Oh BTW, GA's, FA's and other shinies are not required by law although [[Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas|some people think so]].  --
'''Support''' with great enthusiasm. I have worked with him on RM and some AFDs in the past and completely respect his approach to the process, and believe he already makes a great addition to the non-administrative work and promoting him with a mop only improves his ability to contribute further.
'''Support''' Saw his sig around; impressed by how clearly he explained his thoughts in discussions. A row of GA, FA, etc. topicons isn't needed. Trust is. He has mine.
'''Support''' Answers appear generally clueful, no reason to think tools will be abused. (And I ''still'' haven't done a GA...)--
'''Support'''. I'm not concerned by the supposed 'lack' of content creation, and I think we can trust BDD not to abuse the tools. It's no big deal.
'''Support'''{{spaced ndash}} This person comes across as trustworthy and competent to utilize the administrative tools on Wikipedia.
'''Support''', though I would strongly recommend the candidate be cautious with non-housekeeping CSD nominations, given the lack of experience there and the mistaken tagging of [[Oakwud]] (though the answer to Q10 is encouraging in this regard). Otherwise seems perfectly qualified with no red flags. I think RfA actually has the opposite problem to that identified by some of the opposers: a lot of editors now expect candidates to have "content creation", which isn't defined as contributing to articles, or even writing articles, but as something closer to writing GAs and FAs. The skills required to do this have basically nothing to do with the vast majority of administrative work. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''...opposes offer a few extremely minor red flags, but not enough to believe that this editor will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' I thought they were already an admin, but that's because I confused their name with [[User:Bbb23]] :-) Seriously, though, I think they're plenty qualified. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' great user, with a good record of content creation as well.--
'''Support''' Moved from oppose. See below.
'''Support''' While I lend a great deal of weight to several of the opposes below, specifically Hobit and DGG's, I find them as a majority to be unconvincing. The candidate is unlikely commit any intentional asshattery that is going to break the encyclopedia. That works for me.
'''Support''' BDD has been a good RM closer and gives the appearance of being a thoughtful person. Giving him the opportunity to expand into other administrative areas of the project will, I believe, benefit the project. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. There are a few valid rationales in the oppose section - which has degenerated into the typical example of why suitable candidates are reluctant to run for admiship -  but my research plus instinct confirm that this candidate is mature and can be trusted not to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' – A great contributor with a ton of experience and a clean track record that speaks for itself. —
'''Support'''. "Trust" seem to not be in question. Sufficient content work. Admin Help at WP:RM is needed. Please be cautious with speedy deletions. --
'''Support''' per Dirtlawyer1. Nobody is an allrounder and I have no problems with admins focussing on (or mainly working in) specific areas.
'''Support'''. I don't see the lack of extensive content creation experience as a major factor for an editor who primarily wants to help with a RM backlog. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per clean block log and no indication of troublesome behavior that would suggest abusing these tools. Have come across him in AfDs and found him easy to communicate with. Content creation would be nice, but I do not find it a requirement. If there are issues regarding adding and removing content that requires admin involvement, I hope he will seek additional input in such matters. It's just not a reason to oppose him being able to use the tools.
'''Support''' - no major concerns; I actually thought you already were one!
'''Support''' - Per pretty much everyone else. In response to the opposition over lack of a GA, I'd say that his dozen or so DYKs are probably equivalent in work to at least one GA.
'''Support'''. I've tried to take the oppose arguments very seriously, and I have thought about them carefully before landing here. It seems to me that the concerns are about what ''could'' happen: bad decisions due to lack of detailed content work, bad decisions about deletion discussions. However, I just don't see anything to make me believe that these things will actually ''be'' problems if the candidate becomes an administrator. I see plenty of evidence that the candidate listens thoughtfully to feedback and is ready to self-correct, and I see ''enough'' experience with content. I also note that the long history of the user account began when the candidate was still quite young, so I'm more interested in today than in long ago. --
'''Support''' - The encounters I've had with BDD have always left me with a feeling that the editor was a competent and greatly useful contributor. I have no worries that he will continue helping to improve Wikipedia with his new tools. I want to note, again, that I find "lack of content creation" to be a very poor reason to oppose. Wikipedia needs content contributors. Wikipedia needs editors interested in discussions and dispute resolution. Wikipedia needs gnomish editors. Wikipedia needs administrators. Some users are lucky enough to be part of more than one of those categories. Requiring RfA candidates to be content-oriented, discussion-oriented and maintenance-oriented all at once is really fucking stupid and it's the reason why hardly anybody wants to volunteer for an RfA, and even less make it through. Y'all need to [[WP:NBD|chill out]] and let people who want to help [[WP:NETPOS|actually do so]], as long as they're not grievously inexperienced or have shown poor behaviour or judgement. Granted, if the process for revoking adminship wasn't so cumbersome, perhaps it would help, but that's another debate altogether. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·
'''Support''' Per noms.--
'''Support''' Impressed by self-disclosure and sense of humility.  I see a net positive here.  This inclusionist has no concerns with thoughtful deletionists.
'''Support''' Without reservation.
'''Support''' No worries. Looks good. '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #6698FF;">
'''Support'''. BDD has been very helpful in closing [[WP:RM]] requests, and being an admin will be able to help eliminate the backlog there. WP:RM is designed to not have a backlog, if enough admins were available to close or relist the requests.
'''Oppose'''. No significant content experience therefore no real understanding of how Wikipedia actually works, or more often doesn't work.
Although I wouldn't put it quite like Malleus, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the ratio of content-creating sysops to non-content creating ones.  We're in the process of electing a governing class who see content creation as something other people do, and although we can appoint these people, we can't un-appoint them if we turn out to have made a mistake.  I don't think you need to write content to understand Wikipedia, but I do think you need to write content to achieve a full understanding of the problems and issues facing content-creators.  I would support next time if this candidate could show either (a) evidence of collaborating with others to build a more substantial article or (b) evidence of having written audited content by himself (e.g. a Good Article).—
'''Oppose''' I was interested in this question of content creation so I looked above where the candidate seems to suggest that he's proud of creating [[Pro-Life (politician)]].  But, on close inspection, that article was started by someone else and the candidate just expanded it.  Looking at the contributions for last October, I notice the creation of [[List of breweries in Idaho]].  This seems quite weak in that none of the entries are blue-links and the source is quite promotional in tone ("Visit Idaho").  And, as the candidate is quite proficient with redirects, it's surprising that he didn't go on to create redirects for the distinctive brewery names like [[Laughing Dog Brewery]].  As the candidate is a librarian, I would have expected them to do a better job by turning up sources like ''Beer and Brewing in the Inland Northwest, 1850 to 1950'' or ''Great American Craft Beer''.  My impression is that the candidate still has a lot to learn.
'''Oppose''' - After some thought, I am with the opposes here, and Colonel Warden and S Marshall bring up some specific concerns that have me in agreement with them. Admins should be a bit more well-rounded than the candidate appears to be, and since Wikipedia adminship is for life as currently construed, six months of seasoning in dedicated content creation would not be a bad thing.
'''Oppose''' I honestly appreciate your detailed answer to my rather annoying question.  And I fully realize that answering a hypothetical can be fairly bogus.  But the answers scare me a bit. <small>
'''Oppose''' As far as I can tell, the ed. still thinks that notability is only valid if it's permanent. The example for an abandoned town illustrates it: there is nothing in NPLACE saying what he thinks. The actual practice is at WP:NGEO, " Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history.  ."   It's not a formal guideline, because it is almost impossible to establish a notability subguideline due to stubborn objections to anything proposed, but it's consistent practice.I'm also concerned at some recent AfD contributions like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Turner]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Research Institute]] where the ed. did not consider the possibility of merging or redirecting.'''
'''Oppose''' Lack of CSD participation, as well as content creation, make this a no.
'''Oppose''' per Q9 and Hobit. These answers were eccentric. Also per Malleus; RfA candidates should have some content creation under their belt. --
'''Oppose''' IMO the candidate seriously lacks editorial judgement ... I agree w/ [[User:Shearonink]] at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories]], the candidate never responded to Shearonink, and the supporters who did respond, didn't do BDD's position any favors.
'''Oppose''' I'm also concerned about the lack of content creation experience. Mine might class as weak oppose, but with no real ability to remove an admin once they're appointed, I have to fall into the oppose category.
'''Weak oppose''' Yesterday I checked out his content contributions to see if the opposing editors had a point. Because he has no notable articles and his 10 Dyk articles are the basis for the counter-claim of his supporters, I checked out his latest Dyk. I was welcomed by a vastly oversized portrait, which was at first normal and then it was oversized by the candidate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duane_Nellis&diff=546980707&oldid=546919161]. Perhaps "normal" is not a good word because the creator of the image (not the candidate), who also removed the salary and a first name in the article, seems to be very close to the subject of the article and that should have been investigated by this candidate too. But the fact that he does not know the normal size of images is enough for me to believe he has a lot to learn.--
'''Oppose'''. The main problem is the suspiciously enthusiastic nomination by Cuchullain, who has a hobby of making trouble for me.
'''Fruitless oppose''' The second I mention "lack of content creation", the beuraucrat will move on to the next oppose and completely ignore anything I have to say as past precedent has shown for the past several years. Despite that, it is still the reason I'm opposing this candidate and I'll continue to do so with every candidate that can't be bothered to expand articles, regardless of what closing bureaucrats and current administrators think. I don't have a "good article," nor do I care to apply for one even though I've made significant contributions, but if admins want to consider me a 'snob' for daring to have a dissenting opinion, so be it. '''
'''Oppose''' BDD has been helpful at ANI, in my experience, perhaps by avoiding  vindictive threads. On the other hand, we need more focus on improving articles as a community, lest the goals of encyclopedia-writing continue to be slighted as this site turns into a political-front for Google and training-ground for Wikia editors, both for-profit enterprises. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I'm keen to support sensible candidates but am concerned by lack of significant content contributions and experience within the areas the candidate wishes to work. I'm interested to see the response to Mkdw's question, but will stay in neutral for now '''
'''Neutral''' for now. I am concerned at the scarcity of significant conytent creation; while it is perfectly possiblec to be an excellent admin and not continue to create articles, some prior experience is I think essential; on the other hand, voting at AfD is actually wholly irrelevant to this discussion, because the final decision at an AfD is determined by an assessment of concensus, or lack thereof, and the admin's personal view should play no part in the decision.--<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' for now, I think that the candidate should be more experienced with more edits.
'''Neutral''' (having withdrawn my oppose) the answer to Q9 is poor, and I do have concerns about US-centric and recentist tendencies expressed in that RM and some other ways, but he's a competent, drama-free editor and GOCE coordinator, he won't break the encyclopedia or mistreat other editors, and he'll develop admin skills better as an admin than as not-an-admin. My oppose was going too far. I strongly disagree with those who think his content development insufficient. --
'''Support''' Exceeds the qualifications on every point.  Look like an excellent candidate:reasonable, moderate and focused.  Good find by the nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen him around. He seems more than fine. --
'''Yes''' - CCI is hugely backlogged and needs every hand it can get. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' as I trust nom. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - Best candidate I have seen in a while: Wizardman is trustworthy, Bilby has the content experience, has his priorities in the right place (e.g., here to build an encyclopedia), and is willing to help in an area where help is desperately needed. Why are we still discussing this?
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' . Fully  qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Fine candidate working in an important area. Will be able to help out even more with the mop.
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. The copyvios are calling... (Admin tools are required to remove autopatrolled/reviewer from editors who are subject to a CCI).
'''Support''' - CCI volunteer, who needs the tool kit for that work, if nothing else. Sufficient tenure, clean block log, etc.
'''Support''' – no problems here. I thought he was an admin already. '''
'''Support''' of course! <big>[[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Garamond">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Garamond">C</font>]]
'''Support''' About time.
'''Support''' Never came across this user. But supporting because I trust nom. --
'''Support''' - no concerns.
{{pro}} --
'''Support''' - Good candidate. NO concerns, as per nomination. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seems reasonable and trustworthy. —
'''Support''', do not see any problem and wants to work in one of the most understaffed areas.--
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Good''' --
'''Support'''. Solid contributor.
'''Support'''. An editor who really cares about the content of the encyclopedia, and does lots of great work in the very under-appreciated area of copyright? Yes please! --
'''Support''' - 100 percent, with absolute confidence.
'''Support''' -  he deserves the tools.
'''Support''': The editor is a good candidate who is willing to help with one of our largest backlogs! A well-rounded contrubutor. --
'''Support'''  The project will benefit significantly from this grant of tools, the editor seems level-headed, and CCI is a thankless, important task.  In reviewing his contributions ''outside'' of his primary areas of interest, I saw evidence of [[WP:CLUE]], humility, and putting the encyclopedia and consensus first.  I have no concerns.  --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. We need more people who know what they're doing in that area.
'''Support''' Joe Decker said ''exactly'' what I was going to say. --
'''Support''' A trusted, experienced user that won't mess things up. '''
'''Support''' <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">

'''Support'''. I've been spot checking Bilby's contributions and the worst thing I found were stylistic errors, e.g., "violating" [[MOS:HEAD]] at [[Barry Hannah]] and other articles. If that's the worst thing ... Otherwise, I agee with Joe Decker's comments and would add that Bilby seems to defuse drama rather than create it, which would be welcome. Actually, he just seems genuinely nice.--
'''Support''' - Great work on improving article quality! —'''''
'''Support''' - can't see why not.
'''Support'''. This is a very easy one for me. I've worked with Bilby numerous times, and I know from direct observation that this is someone with all of the right attributes for the position: intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, courteous, respectful of other editors, unlikely to overreach. --
'''Support''' - Seems like an extremely qualified and well spoken candidate that's willing to help out in an area that needs the help.
'''Support''' My only regret is not being higher on this list. As others have pointed out CCI is perhaps one of the most thankless jobs on Wikipedia. It is both extremely time consuming and under the radar for most editors. As one of the most backlogged areas, and even ahead of AFC, CCI also requires a tremendous understand of Wikipolicy due to the nuance in every use rationale that can come along. I have no concerns that this editor is light in other administrative areas; I've always supported the fact that we should trust editors with the tools where they need them, and to assume good faith that if they venture into other areas they will show the same responsibility they have shown up until this point.
'''Support'''. Extremely well qualified candidate.
'''Support''', based on review.
'''Support''' experienced, well trusted user, with great communication skills, who wishes to work in an area crying out for help. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per Tryptofish.
'''Support''' A most worthy candidate.
I trust your judgement. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - I have learnt so much from this candidate, about editing on Wikipedia; without their help in steering myself in the right direction, through their '[[tough love]]' - I probably wouldn't be where I am today. They have an impeccable reputation on the project, creating quality in articles, and an interest in WP:CCI - I'm quite confident that they'll make a wonderful Administrator. Bilby, good luck, and thank you. —
Reasoned, thoughtful, intelligent, academic, polite. Indications are that Bilby is interested in and supportive of the project as a whole, rather than just working in favoured topic areas. Seems spot on. '''
'''Adelaide cabal support'''. Excellent candidate. ~
'''Support''' No issues. The oppose does not concern me. That [[sheepskin boots]] was a content fork of [[Ugg boots]] is a legitimate reason to favour deletion,
'''Support'''
You gave a tremendous answer to Q9; answering the first part so completely you answered the second part without an additional word. Believe me, I know I have nothing at all to be concerned with in this candidacy.--
Sure.--'''
'''Support''' - No issues here. Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' There's nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said. Bixby is an excellent candidate who will most assuredly be a superb administrator, serve this site to the best of his strong capabilities, and truly benefit the project in its entirety. Best of luck to you, mate!
'''Support''' I have no concerns that Bilby will be anything but a conscientious, helpful, and trustworthy admin.--
Looks like you'll do well. You have my vote.
'''Support''' - He seems like a strong contributor and I would be glad to have him as an admin. [[WP:CCI]] is one of the most important things on Wikipedia and I'm glad to have an admin who works so diligently on it. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font:1.25em,Geneva; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af; font-color:teal">TheOneSean <sup>[
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' —
No red flags, good record and a genuine need for the tools. <b>
'''Support''' Great answers to questions (especially #9). This nominee has my total confidence.
'''Support''' I see no reasons why another mop should not be dished out. '''
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate for copyright work, and, if that's all the opposers can bring up, he's more qualified than most.
'''Support''' – Well qualified, no concerns.
The name sounds familiar. There is no indication that Bilby would misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support'''—admins don't have to be professionals in all levels of possible admin work. I don't have experience with this editor, or with CCI in general, but it doesn't seem like there would be any problem with tool abuse. '''<font color='red'>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', persuaded by his answers, his copyright knowledge and experience, and his off-wiki work.
'''Support''', no concerns about how Bilby will use the tools provided
'''Support''' I collaborated with Bilby on the [[Shrine of Remembrance]] FAR back in 2008 which was a very positive experience, and since that time have observed him frequently popping up on my watchlist making thoughtful contributions.<small>Oh and kudos for his analysis of the [[:File:Dissected_frog_cake.jpg|internal workings]] of a [[frog cake]].</small>--
'''Support''', certainly.
'''Support'''. Good day, Bruce. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Long overdue, imho.
'''Support'''; I'm confident that Bilby can be trusted with the mop, and would be a net positive.
'''Support''' As per Wizardman and Experienced  and has been editing regularly without a break since Jan 2008.Good content work including creating 31 articles and also in [[WP:CCI]].The Project will only gain withe user having tools fully trustworthy.
'''Support''' per Wizardman's nomination.
'''Strong support'''. Trustworthy and clueful candidate. I have no reservations.
'''Support'''. There's nothing I can add to the supports above, really. Great candidate. — '''''
'''Support''' - I'm impressed with Bilby's reasoning on talk pages, AfD discussions and in the questions posed above, especially number 8 (DGG's; both parts). I'm certain he will make a fine admin. -
Well [[User:Bilby|Bilby]], you have '''Major Support''' from me on this one. {{=)}} This is a really promising candidate. '''
'''Support'''; given the great answers to questions 10-15, a clean block record, and the subject of this RfA is a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] to the community I am happy to support giving the subject of this RfA access to the Admin tools.--
'''Support''' —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>

'''Support''' - Passes [[User:ZappaOMati/Admin criteria|my criteria]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support'''.  Looks like a fine, experianced editor.
'''Support''' Appears to be very sensible and knowledgable in the principal proposed area of work, and it would be reasonable to expect equally good judgment elsewhere. '''
'''Support''' - Highly-qualified, thoughtful candidate who is entirely unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Level-headed, calm and experienced. I don't see that the issue raised by the one "oppose" so far is a serious one. Long running disputes have two (or more) sides, and I don't see that Bilby has been unreasonable in advocating one side.
'''Support'''. I saw him around at [[WP:requested templates]] and he helped very much new / unexperienced editors. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' - Appears to be qualified, competent and trustworthy to be a sysop with the tools.
'''Suuport''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' no issues, and plenty of support from editors I trust.
'''Support'''. Welcome aboard :) --
'''Support''' Bilby is great! Totally trust him with thy mop.
[[WP:RFX100]] '''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've seen a lot of good work with copyright issues--
'''Support''' per all the good work they've done in the past, the work they intend to do as admin (CCI needs help), and their excellent answer to Q3. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' Why yes of course, I'm sure Bilby will be a valuable admin to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' having reviewed answers and a smattering of contributions, I see no reason for concern about future use of the bit; I found the tone of the answer to #9 reassuring. --
'''Support''' While I recognize warden's oppose below and I am totally in support of his position, I find the candidate's answer to Q9 to be adequate. I see no reason to believe that this user will be anything but a net-positive as an admin.
'''Support''' - meets most of my [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|standards]], although I am concerned about the lack of work at [[WP:AfD]].
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions were all satisfactory.
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Only did a quick vetting, since this seems a landslide anyway, but didn't find any problems.
'''Strong support''' As I'm the person referred to by Bilby (as "another local editor" in his response to the first question No. 8 above, first paragraph),  I have met him personally through several [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide|Adelaide Meetups]]. I have been very impressed by his knowledge of WP policies and issues, and his personal skills, experience and willingness to help. This has been especially apparent in his support of my own proposal to help improve the uneven quality of WP articles on South Australian natural and cultural history topics, through setting up [[WP:GLAM|GLAM]] collaborations with our local cultural institutions, and recruiting their volunteer guides and teaching them the skills to become proficient WP editors. Giving Bilby the admin tools would certainly raise the credibility of this proposal with these institutions.
'''Support''' I thought that Bilby already was an admin... Thanks for nominating!
'''Support''' no concerns with the request.
'''Support''' No concerns. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. --
Fully qualified candidate. -
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' Thoughtful, measured answers.
'''Strong Support''', Bilby isn't already an admin?  Astonishing.  I can personally vouch from working closely with him during his time at WMAU that Bilby is thoughtful, intelligent, and will be even more of an asset to the project with the tools.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions mostly, particularly 9, 17 and 18. I think the oppose !voters are drawing an incorrect conclusion from the evidence because it does not follow that defending certain edits would automatically lead to misusing admin tools, especially when everything else in Bilby's record seems to indicate that he'll be a fair admin.--
'''Support''' Have been impressed by this editor the few times I have run across him. No doubt he will do a fine job.
I've had a look through your editing history as well as your talk page archives, the latter of which indicates you are friendly and approachable. I'm particularly impressed by your experience with copyright investigations and think you'll be helpful in this area as an administrator. Your activity at the Teahouse is also indicative of the fact that you are welcoming of newcomers and willing to collaborate and help those in need. Weighing all this against the opposes below, I'm convinced you'll be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] as a sysop. I'm happy to '''support'''. Good luck.
'''Support''' I judged this user based only on their userpage according to the policy [[User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy|here]]. This user meets my expectations and based only on that, I support this user's promotion. Others should check other aspects of this user's work.
'''Support''' I took a brief look at the user's contributions and I honestly feel that Bilby will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support'''. Has clue and will use the tools well. '''
'''Support''' I give full support of this candidate for no reason other than the fact that the only complaint that the !voters can come up with was a single instance of something that happened over two years ago that there is clearly a [[WP:GRUDGE|GRUDGE]] there.  That being said, this encourages me that Bilby must have a pretty clean track record since that is the best they could come up with.
'''Support''' Outstanding candidate whose activity indicates continued positive contribution to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Great responses to questions and a solid edit history. The opposes don't sound too concerning. This editor seems deserving of the trust needed for the admin tools. - <b>
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' Why not? --<span style="">
'''Support''' Looks like a very good candidate to me --
'''Support''' No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' and thanks very much for your willingness to work on copyright investigations. <font face="Comic sans MS">
100%.
'''Support:''' A great candidate! -
'''Oppose''' When I checked his contributions, I noticed a particular interest in [[Ugg boots]].  This reminded me of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheepskin boots]], in which  the candidate seemed to prefer that we address the topic in a proprietary way, rather than a generic one.  This does not seem sufficiently neutral and so I am concerned that he might use admin tools in a partisan way.  It may well be that he is very sensible in other respects but as I am most familiar with that particular incident, I'll put the boot in :).
'''Oppose''' Bilby seems to be a very fine candidate in most respects. But Warden has highlighted a problem. On the [[Ugg boots trademark disputes]] article, there has been a series of Requests For Comment. The first one was closed improperly by an Australian problem editor who has been involved in repeated misconduct. The second one has an obvious meatpuppet case by another Australian editor described [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADpmuk&diff=555224192&oldid=555093685 here], and another possible case that is more subtle and much more damaging to Wikipedia described [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUgg_boots_trademark_disputes&diff=553967503&oldid=553963004 here], also possibly involving several Australian editors. As I have said on the Talk page, it looks good but it smells bad. I think Bilby is a fine editor. He is the best Australian editor involved in that series of articles. But when the trouble started, he disappeared. Bilby has done nothing to counsel the problem editors from Australia and improve their behavior. Instead he has become their ally whenever they needed one. Therefore I am concerned that we are giving administrative powers to one side in a content dispute. I am also concerned that the first RFC was closed improperly, and the second may be closed improperly in a very similar way. Consensus should be determined by [[WP:CONSENSUS#Determining_consensus]]: "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The number of votes is not mentioned and should not matter. Also, in [[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions]]: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads." But the first RFC was closed by the Australian problem editor, by counting votes and ignoring policy arguments. The second time it was closed, the administrator admitted that one side had stronger policy arguments, but he allowed the larger number of votes on the other side to balance it, producing a "no consensus" result. This RFC needs greater participation by experienced editors who will rely on policy, not the number of votes. Bilby has voted on the side that has more votes and no policy arguments. Then he disappeared. This raises doubts about how he would use administrative tools if they are given to him. I regret I must oppose this nomination.
'''Neutral'''. I am unconvinced that revdeletion is an important part of dealing with copyright violations. I am surprised that Bilby hasn't mentioned inspection of deleted content, which would be a legitimate part of investigation of suspected copyright infringement. Toegther with infrequent AfD contributions (only two this year) and an absence of CSD tagging, I am reluctant to endorse use of the deletion tool.
'''Support''' as nom. Good luck Darkwind.
'''Support'''.  Knowledge of copyright, and the trust of [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Clerks&diff=prev&oldid=529450783] are more than sufficient to merit confirmation.  [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]])
<small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' - I found nothing wrong when reviewing his contributions.
'''Support''' - great contributions.
'''Support''' great contributions, would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] with the tools. --  '''
'''Support''' - He seems like a very able, levelheaded editor. I can't see anything wrong with him becoming an Administrator.
'''Support''' - grand candidate.
'''Support'''. - Looks like a fine candidate to me. We could use all the help we can get, so thanks for being willing to help out.
'''Support''' - Experienced and trusted long-time contributor. Help with backlogs is always badly needed.
'''Support''' - Looks like a competent candidate who would use the tools well.
'''Support''' - Long-time user, seems competent. The opposes don't bother me, either. He'll be a good addition to the admin team. <small>(
'''Support''' - He may not be a constant work-horse, but we need all the help we can get. He seems to be a competent, levelheaded editor and familiar with the various administrator forums and procedures. I don't see any problems, personally.
'''Support''' Per Thine Antique Pen.
'''Support''', there's nothing wrong with gnoming, and there's ''certainly'' nothing wrong with filing an RfA at any time. If we mean to prohibit RfAs at any given time of year, we ought to notate the page to say that, but I would not support any such action. A review of the candidate's contributions don't show me any wrongdoing, and do show me a long history of well-thought interaction that's led to very little conflict. What are they supposed to do, deliberately go get in a fight just to take the high ground in it, and then somehow know what everyone's preferred time to file is?
'''Support''' Long time level headed user, no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' This user needs admin tools to make gnome work more efficient. After demonstrating a long history of good behavior, I think it is safe to expect at least more of the same. The user has a lot of experience in [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Darkwind&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia what they do]. I like this user's friendly userpage because it tells what this person does on Wikipedia. In considering the oppose statements, users Diesel-50, Dennis Brown, Townlake, John, Bwilkins, Miniapolis, are all correct that this person is lacking in much of the typical experience which admins have. Darkwind may not be inclined to be able to handle all of the problems which admins often handle, but I would trust this user to know how to refer problems to someone who can find resolution to the problem. I do not think all admins need to do all things, and I do hope that this person continues to experiment in various community areas, and this person has not experimented to the extent that many other admins have, but this is still a very experienced person with a long history of doing work in admin-fields. The community would benefit from this user's adminship.
'''Support''' Handy with a mop already and hasn't broken anything. Interested in working in an area with an obscene backlog. All pluses, no true negatives that I can see. I'm not at all concerned with the gaps in editing; Wikipedia is a volunteer operation, not a full-time job.
'''Strong support''' ''Nine'' years of generally problem-free editing doesn't qualify you to be an admin?  If you'd had an RFA in 2005, you would have passed.
'''Support''' Seems to meet my criteria.  --
'''Extremely strong support''' I've only just missed out on conflicts for ''three and a half'' years, with three years of complete inactivity in the middle. <span style="background-color:Yellow;color:Blue;">
'''Support''' - Candidate has been here longer than most of us have and has a squeaky-clean record. Opposers concerns are unconvincing.
'''Support''' Does it say anywhere that admins have to be full-time operatives? Some of us can squeeze apparently full-time presence in between other lives (at this moment I'm in a wet field by a lake that's currently going down, otherwise I'd be having to leave quickly and wouldn't be online at all...). Some can't. So long as the candidate isn't a wrecker, does it matter if they are here one month and not the next? "All this user does is housekeeping work" - isn't that a good qualification for getting a mop? I spend my time mostly deleting things - which on the whole improves the overall quality of the project by removing offerings to the great Kon-Tent that have been deemed unacceptable. Housekeeping. Some admins are politicians, some are techies, some are janitors. I can't currently see a problem in giving Darkwind a mop.
'''Support''' Candidate is not perfect, but he does not need to be. I'm inclined to go with the [[WP:NETPOS]] approach. The specific drawbacks outlined here do not disqualify adminship. User has stated he will apply the tools to the areas he knows best and expand from there. No history of edit warring. A perfect candidate would be on Wikipedia constantly, but having periods of inactivity doesn't detract from the time they spend on the project. No reason to think the tools will be misused. --
'''Support'''. Administrators don't need to be jacks-of-all-trades. He has demonstrated competency and promise in backlog and cleanup work.
Opposes are wholly unconvincing, and I've either had a pleasant interaction with him or I've seen one with someone else. Can't remember which.
<font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
Great candidate. --
'''Support''', we could use the help, and I agree with what Shrigley said above.
Well, if you've been around for 9 years why not? &ndash;
'''Support''' Candidate seems competent and  has made great contributions, and I agree with Shrigley and Peridon.
'''Support''' Despite initial reservations about editing history, I now think this candidate would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] as an admin.
'''Support''' I am happy with the answers to my questions. He'll be a good admin. —
'''Support''' - Clean block log and no indications of assholery. The on-and-off nature of participation at WP is unusual for an administrative candidate (zero edits for Nov. 2012, for example) but cumulatively there is sufficient contribution over a far more than sufficient interval of time to make this a "Adminship is No Big Deal" situation in this case. Answers seem level-headed.
'''Support''' very long term civil user with a clean block log and many useful contributions. ''
'''Support''' A trusted user to me. --
'''Support''' I [[WP:AGF|expect]] this user will continuing going about his business and perhaps help with the admin backload as well. Can't imagine he'll suddenly start getting into controversies and abusing the tools. Also admire the honesty of the answer to question 9. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]][[User talk:Audacity|<font color="blue">α</font>]]
'''Support''' - the honest answer to Q9 has eased my concerns over the breaks in editing - sometimes it's good to get away. Upon further consideration, I believe that this user will not abuse the tools., and could actually further their good work around here with them.
'''Support''' editing or nine years and hasn't blown up the wiki yet? That's enough. Adminship is "no big deal" and the opposes are ridiculous. Seriously, the nom lacks experience? Give me a break.--
'''Support''' - my examination of their record seems fine, and the opposes are ridiculous in the extreme.
'''Support''' While article work is lacking (which probably would have kept me from participating in this RFA), Scott is right, and to counter some of these ridiculous oppose votes.
'''Support'''. Opposes are ridiculous, copyright work is far more important than having to write a bunch of featured articles.
'''Support''' per Scott Mac and Secret. There's too much "gotcha" in the oppose section, and it makes me want to enter an opposite !vote in reaction. Darkwind, if you pass, please prove my AGF well-placed, and if you don't, please learn from it and try again. --
'''Support''' It takes all kinds.  Gnomes are important too.
'''Support''' From the supporters, I mostly agree with Scott and WillyD.  From the opposers, I mostly agree with Bishonen.  The only difference I have with Bishonen's oppose and which led me to this side is I think the response to Q5 (and Q14) will be a slap in the face to the candidate that the community generally doesn't see civility as black and white as the candidate does.  I personally have trouble reconciling my feelings about the importance of civility and respect for each other with the endless assault that FA builders receive and their feelings when their work is shredded and also with the folks who are constantly dealing with civil POV pushers.  On the one hand, I think everyone gets a block like the candidate, but on the other it's a matter of an endless assault on some people that is bound to cause a reaction.--v/r -
'''Support''' While I don't think Darkwind is perfect, I do think he will be a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' Seems to be straightforward. And, I agree with Wily D and Scott Mac.
'''Support'''.  Sufficiently qualified, in my view.
'''Support''': WikiGnome seeks tools for improved gnoming, news at 11. --
'''Support'''. Although some (not all) of the opposers have made some valid points, on balance I believe the candidate is well-qualified to work as an administrator in the area of copyright enforcement, and will have the sense to move cautiously in other areas until he gains more experience in them. Given that the candidate has edited for nearly a decade, albeit not every day or every week, I don't see great risk in conferring adminship. That being said, if this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope the candidate will address the opposers' concerns and come back to this page in the future.
'''Support'''. Per Wizardman. I think experience with copyright issues is a huge plus. I also really like the candidate's answer to question 9 (regarding inactivity). I feel Darkwind is sincere that they're up to speed on policy and ready to jump in to admin duties right away. Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Copyright experience.  Also, gnoming experience is likely to give broad knowledge of policy and content issues. --
'''Support''' - Darkwind is a solid editor with 9+ years of experience. Despite inconsistent editing patterns, the mop would allow him to do what he has already been doing more efficiently.
I am convinced that Darkwind would me a huge asset to Wikipedia as an administrator, particularly when it comes to [[WP:CP|fixing copyright violations]]. A cursory review of his [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Darkwind&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia editing statistics] indicates that while his activity is indeed sporadic, he has still been a dedicated contributor for a long time with plenty of experience under his belt. I do not share the same concerns as some of the opposers regarding his answer to Q5 &mdash; he advocates an even application of [[WP:CIVIL|our civility policy]], but I trust his assurance that he would not block outside the bounds of reason. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] is a relatively inexperienced nominator, but not an idiot; I'm confident that he recognized a good candidate in Darkwind and nominated him on that basis. Opposing someone because their nominator does not meet a certain threshold is ludicrous. Finally, I see no indication that Darkwind is lacking in communication skills, although the points raised by [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis]], [[User:John|John]], [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing]], et al are perfectly valid and were factored in before I opted to support.
'''Support''' - I trust that Darkwind won't use the tools for evil. He's a good reporter at [[WP:AIV]] and his contributions in copyright matters would help the wiki greatly. He's also a long time contributor, even through he might not have edited for long periods at a time.
'''Support''' we need admins working copyright desperately. --'''
'''Support''' After reviewing a number of contributions (including some AfD participation), I roughly end up sharing the thoughts expressed by Newyorkbrad.  In addition, I know this will help the editor's work with copyright, which is an area of need, and I trust the editor to not screw the place up irretrievably.  --
'''Support.''' His tenure here at Wikipedia is long, he have made sensible contributions and is fighting against vandalism. I trust Darkwind , he helps other Wikipedians, and I am sure he will continue it. His stand on the copyrighty thing was right. Trust by a user and stand on copyright are my basis in backing an admin.'''
'''Support:''' A net positive. -
'''Support''' I don't see any compelling reasons to oppose what appears to be a sufficiently experienced and clueful candidate.
'''Support''' I appreciate the candidate's disposition towards careful and civil editing guidelines. To me, attitude matters more than actual editing experience, and I believe the candidate meets the minimum threshold for both.
'''Support''' I can see no major issues that would preclude him being an excellent admin.  Best,
'''Support''' Answers seem satisfactory, contribs and experience are good, I can see no problem with handing him the tools. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="black">
'''Support''' Has clue and seems trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' Not convinced by the opposers' rationales. '''
'''Support''' I can't really see why this would go wrong and I find that gnomes often make good admins because they're less likely to think in terms of wikipolitics. I also want to take this opportunity to say that opposes based primarily on the strength of the nominator are beyond depressing. They're also mildly insulting to the nominator who, as far as I can tell, is an editor in good standing with >1k edits and six months of activity. Back in the days, this might even have looked good enough for a credible RfA candidate. Now we're told it's not good enough to be a nominator? Please...
'''Support''' I read to the bottom--support, oppose and comment--and chose to land here even though some of the opposes are by members whose opinions I respect and with whom I usually agree. From "All this user does is housekeeping..." (the role of the sysop, in my opinion) to "lack of interaction" (not a lot but enough to show me that Darkwind is reasonable and civil), I found nothing among the opposes to hint this candidate would misuse the tools. For myself, that was enough to support. Stated willingness to work on backlogs and to continue valued contributions makes me hope he will be a superior admin.
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and has a long record of positive contributions. I can't see any reason to suggest that he would abuse the tools. — '''''
'''Support''' - the timing actually makes me more inclined to support, given the slower-than-usual admin response time over the break. A great real-time example of a need for more admins generally and a lots-of-little-things admin is always valuable.
'''Support'''. The issues cited by the opposers don't look like they would lead to the candidate repeatedly creating problems as an administrator. Trustworthy. --
'''Support'''. +sysop is not a big deal and I don't see major issues that would make the candidate unsuitable. <i><b>
'''Support''' (moved from ''neutral'') I don't see any compelling reasons to indicate that the candidate's use of the tools would be damaging to the project. Although finding scant evidence of user interactions, things like [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RRArchive168#User:Godmadeuniverse1 reported by User:Darkwind (Result: 48h)]] (and communications leading up to it) all seem in order. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' Valuable contributor, already accustomed to doing "behind the scenes" type of things which will be made easier with a mop. I like his answers to questions and his clean record, and I have no fear that he will abuse the tools. I think he will be an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' - I think this is the first time I have ever changed my mind on an RfA. I am still concerned about the candidates lack of interraction, but the new information provided has eased those concerns considerably, and it was enough to nudge me in the other direction. I thank the candidate for suffering through this RfD process, regardless of the outcome. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, and even if most of the activities done after becoming an admin are small Gnomish activities, that's fine with me.
'''Support'''  Gnomes are important too, and 9 years of controversy free editing is incredible, even if there is less activity.  I am concerned with the lack of content contributions, but I think that it should not be required for adminship.
Looks strong. —
Generally seems sane, and while there are things I would prefer that the candidate improve on (the opposers have highlighted the vast majority of them), I tend to agree with basically every supporter who has posted a reason. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - We can always use more admins interested in copyvios, and [[WP:RM]] can certainly use help. The opposes aren't all that convincing for me. I've seen Darkwind's name pop up over the years, and I can't recall any instances where his behavior was in any way questionable. Best of luck, Darkwind.
'''Strong Support''' - Darkwind will definitely be fit for a very, very good admin.
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing. <strong>
Per Sue Rangell, basically. - Dank (
'''Support''' Housekeeping of the 'pedia is valuable work too and another admin helping out with copyvios would very helpful. I see nothing to suggest that Darkwind can't be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' I'm working on the assumption that someone who managed to avoid conflict this long as an editor will probably choose admin chores that will also let him avoid conflict.
'''Support''' Since no sufficient evidence has been presented that this editor will abuse the tools or the position, I support.--
'''Weak support'''  While I honestly have no strong feelings one way or the other about this candidate, I am STILL a sucker for that (probably unintentional) userbox combination of "this user is a gay male" and "this user plays the pipe organ". So good luck  :)
'''Support''' looks qualified, we definitely need more administrators willing to do copyright work, and I'm not at all impressed by the oppose rationales. Increased content contributions would have little if any effect on the areas the candidate proposes to work in, as is the case for most admin tasks. It's clear that the candidate has sufficient communication skills to deal with people questioning their admin actions. And the opposes citing Q5 merely amount to complaining about the latest political trend. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Why not?  Happy New Year.—
'''Support.''' Clean logs, good answers to the questions, and broad experience across the project are all more than enough for me to support. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">
'''Support'''. Looks competent and trustworthy. While more experience with content is desirable, admins come in all shapes and sizes and there's plenty of tasks that Darkwind would be well suited to.
'''Support''' - Minimal content creation means nothing to me in the context of admin duties. I believe the candidate has shown proper civility where required, and has sufficiently shown that they intend to use the admin tools for the general improvement of Wikipedia. --<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">&#124;</font>
Agreed with Uncle Milty - this editor has done nothing to make me question their judgement.
'''Support''' this candidate's experience, demeanor, intentions, and readiness to assume the responsibilities of adminship.  –
'''Support''' I note Bish's concern about civility enforcement, but deem that an administrator is not required to get involved in civility enforcement to be a useful administrator to the project. ''
'''Support''' Having reviewed the editor's record, etc, I see a mature editor who takes well to mop work, and has done a good job.  I trust them with the bit.  None of the opposes are compelling.  --
'''Support''' Response and clarification of response to Q15 showed maturity and personality traits I would hope for in a sysop. -
'''Support'''. Hard working, thoughtful, serious about the project. No concerns from me. --
← &mdash;&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' (moved from oppose). A long history of constructive edits and some good-article reviewing (the first providing good guidance, and the 2nd being rather perfunctory of a carefully edited anime article; the 3rd, and 4th, you can evaluate). The straightforward and intelligent response to the civility question is a model of honesty and perspicacity. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No issues - give him a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - We need admins more than we need to find reasons to oppose! User seems to have a clue, hasn't caused trouble and has been around for a while. Contribs are kinda low and lacking in depth but using the contribs as a guide it doesn't seem like this user is going to abuse the tools nor start tearing things up trying to make a name for themselves.
'''Support'''.  Seems competent and level-headed.  I'm sure he will familiarize himself before just stomping through new china shops.  As a fellow wikibreaker, it would be hypocritical for me to oppose on those grounds.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As no big deal.--<span style="">
'''Support''' -
All this user does is housekeeping work.  There is no interaction with others on user or article talk pages, none at all, and we have no idea how this candidate will comport himself in a dispute.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, per the reasons in my neutral and more.  You created 5 stubs and didn't do more than one or two edits to them (one probably needs to be at AFD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covin_(automobile)]), The most you have spend on any user talk page is 10 edits, most of them were only one edit.  I see only 12 months of sporatic ''real'' contributions, it just took 9 years to get that.  The most edits to one article is 17.  #10 in that list is 8 edits.  Your #10 top talk page is 3 edits, meaning you don't talk on article pages much at all.  Same with user talk.  In short, I simply have NO idea what kind of admin you would be.  I'm sure you wouldn't intentionally do anything bad, no doubt, but with literally no experience in extended discussions in any venue, I have no evidence you will see a problem through, can deal with a heated content dispute, or determine consensus.  The overly simplified answer to #5 also worries me that you would be too quick to block for minor rudeness, not out of meanness, but out of not understanding the nuances of the policy. Don't get me wrong, I think gnomes are the unsung heros at Wikipedia and I think you are a good one, but I can't support adminship.
Inexperience where it matters, as reflected in the answer to Q3 and as noted by other opposers. Adminship is generally supposed to be granted to trusted users, and for me this candidate doesn't have enough of a track record yet for me to know if I can trust them in controversial situations. This is not a commentary on the value of the editorial work the candidate does; not every good editor should be an admin.
'''Oppose''' with regret per Dennis. I am regretful because from a quick look at the quality of the copyvio work I thought that Darkwind would have been a useful addition to the admin corps. On article content building (Q4), these additions are very minimal (though I love that the candidate is an Asimov fan!) and don't give sufficient evidence that as an admin Darkwind would have adequate understanding of the concerns of those of us who devote hours to building and polishing content. On Q5, this very vanilla answer gives no assurance that the candidate would not create more problems by blocking for minor breaches of civility. I needed to see some understanding of just what a delicate and nuanced area civility has become in recent years and this wasn't apparent in the answer. As Dennis says, there is little to no interaction in user talk to judge the candidate's people skills on either. I am sad because I had a good gut feeling about this candidate, but I have to default to oppose at this time. --
'''Oppose''' I'll have to echo Dennis' comments above.  Although gnomish work is good, sometimes you need to step up and take responsibility for something, somewhere - otherwise, we'll never see you "in action" or understand how you'll truly react when poked with a firebrand.  That said, I'm also against RfA's that abuse the break between Christmas and New Year's when most editors are out doing ''family'' things - note, the latter is '''not''' the primary reason for this oppose, but it does say something about you as an editor ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose''' Others indicate that the candidacy is weak.  In checking myself, I find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen%27s_arrest&diff=prev&oldid=501592158 this edit].  In this, a large block of text is removed on the grounds that it is uncited OR.  The text appears to be quoting from the California Penal Code and so these grounds seem misleading.
'''Oppose''' per lack of consistent contributions, although I have no problem with the timing of this RfA. Perhaps it was more convenient for the candidate to run at this time because he will have more time to devote to the RfA due to being off of work or something.
'''Oppose''' per Dennis and John.
'''Oppose''' per concerns expressed mainly by Dennis. Namely, inconsistency and low amounts of communication. —'''<font color=#232323>
'''Oppose'''. Little evidence of collaboration with other editors and limited content creation.
'''Oppose''' per the concerns about collaboration with other editors and content creation listed above, as well as concerns about improper CSD tagging (particularly around March 2012 in his CSD log).--
'''Oppose, not yet'''.  This RFA has generated significant amounts of guidance that Darkwind can use to make him a more well rounded candidate for adminship in a few months.
This is another of recent RfA's where I stated my decision was swayed by the strength of the nominator. With all things equal, I very well may have supported adminship now, on a good self nomination; but I find this nomination ill advised. Unless I am missing something, the nominator is not experienced enough to make the strong claims necessary to recommend an administrator. A serious candidate might be flattered by a new user making such a gesture, but they would be showing wisdom to have consulted with others; perhaps admins; prior to running. The nominator calls Darkwind one of his or her four "friends" on their user page and I consider that a bit conflicting. Take all the advice from this RfA and come back in 6 months. I think it will benefit you as well to be that prepared when you do get the tools. And there are many users here who will help you along over those six months, I'm sure. --
'''Oppose.''' I'm sorry, I know question 5 (civility enforcement) is very difficult and there certainly isn't one "correct" answer. But I'm not happy to see such a carefree, almost jaunty reply to it. Are you aware that, precisely, the question of what civility/incivility and egregious personal attacks ''are'' is tearing the community and the admin corps apart? (Your answer to Q 14, while fuller, doesn't exactly suggest such an awareness either.) You may be the only person I've ever seen using the phrase "clearly defined" in this area. I wouldn't oppose you for having opposite opinions on civility enforcement to my own, but I really think I must oppose somebody who doesn't appear to see the problems. Sorry. I'll be prepared to reconsider if you revise your answer a bit, or perhaps rather add to it, because it's not so much what you say as what you don't say. Adminship may not be a big deal, but it's not something to enter without having thought some about this, the most difficult, part of the job and showing some awareness of the inherent problems, and being willing to discuss them in a somewhat analytical and personal way. For instance, "preventative not punitive" is a very pious ideal, but what exactly does it mean? It's very easy to game. Many blocks are in my opinion obviously punitive (if you don't agree, please say so), but get defended as being intended to deter (=prevent) others from committing the same offence. If this is the actual situation, might it be better to rephrase the good old wikisaying as "blocks are not for revenge, but for prevention and for defining the limits of behaviour on Wikipedia" or something like that? That's just a thought, one example, I don't necessarily expect you to address that particular one. But I'd just like to see a little more depth in this answer, and more of your own personal opinions, too. Your current answer is superficial and by-the-book.
Regretful '''Oppose''', for a couple of reasons. I think gnome work is great, and in many ways gnomes are the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. But I think a suitable admin candidate needs to be able to demonstrate reasonably extensive interaction with other editors, with some experience of disputes or other problematic areas, so that we can get some idea of how they will handle interactions under pressure. Admin actions will get you into disputes, sometimes quite fraught ones, and getting the tone of interaction with others right can be very difficult - I have lots of experience of it, and I still get it wrong sometimes. Also, as others have suggested, I don't think I see a proper appreciation of the complexity of civility - it's something that has divided the community for some time, and it really is a lot more difficult than "talk nice or face action". I'd suggest getting involved in dispute resolution for a while. For example, look for newcomers having problems and try to help them out - there are plenty of places you can find disputes to help with. I look forward to being able to support a future admin run when I can see something of how you handle interaction and dispute. --
Also regretful '''Oppose''', largely per Dennis Brown. I have no reason to think Darkwind will use the tools irresponsibly but there is not enough related experience for me to judge either way, and his very sporadic busts of activity don't help that situation. I think Darkwind's commitment to CV work sees him on the right track, but I would like to see him build his expertise a little more before running for adminship.
'''Weak oppose (from neutral)''' - The lack of focused content creation and following up on disputes in talk namespace is what moved me from neutral to weak oppose. I think that if perhaps he gets a GA or even a couple solid B-class articles, my concerns will be mostly addressed, but I have trouble supporting a candidate who doesn't have a lot of experience in content creation and improvement.
'''Oppose''' I think the editor would probably not misuse the tools, however when looking a bit further I noticed that his contributions to articles represent more than half of his edits (51.43%) but his talkpage contributions only represent 2%. Frankly.....this is unacceptable for an admin candidate. Besides his own talkpage discussions...his communication with others is almost nonexistent.--
'''Oppose''' - The candidate is to be lauded for his contributions and demeanor, but regretfully, I have concerns similar to those expressed by others about the lack of experience on article talk pages, solid article editing, and the somewhat glib answers to the civility questions (5 & 14; per Bishonen's comments). It's very possible that he would be a great admin, but there are just too many unknowns in my mind to tip the scale toward supporting the candidate at this time. I would urge him to contribute more in the areas where he lacks experience, and come back in another 6-12 months for another try. -
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen and Boing!
'''Oppose''' - Not enough of a track record, some of the supports give me pause, and both Dennis and My76 bring up points enough for me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - The answers to my questions weren't horrible, however the answers to the other questions and other editors concerns have me here for this go-round. Mainly the lack of content and talkpages, but also some concerns about civility. I'd rethink a support in about 6 months maybe, after some good article work and continuing without anything bad happening.
'''Oppose''' with some regret.  I would need to see some significant, recent interaction with other users (including collaboration on article creation and improvement).  And although I don't believe an admin needs to be a premier prolific content creator, I do believe that admins need to have at least '''''some''''' nontrivial content experience (more than just gnoming).  I would be much more attracted to your candidacy if you were to get at least one or two Good Articles under your belt.  Also, please take to heart the various concerns that have been raised about the civility issue (including disruptive superficial civility or "civil POV pushing" as described in [[WP:PUSH]]) — this has become a very serious issue, and we need to become more conscious of it.  —
'''Oppose.''' I too am concerned about the lack of substantive content contributions, which appear to me to be a prerequisite to acquiring the delete function. Also the superficial understanding of the whole civility issue, which is an enormous and thorny problem. Further, "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phycological Society of America|algae isn't very interesting]]" is not an attitude I'm looking for in an administrator.
Per Sue and Dennis - being an admin requires experience much as it does knowledge. You will be required to make judgement calls and to interact with others and sometimes (or often) in problematic disputes. Your editing stats just don't show that there's enough experience with these sorts of situations. We have little evidence of your  abilities in the more difficult areas of editing here thus we have no idea how you'll react when faced with having to intervene. On this basis like Sue, Dennis & John I'd oppose regretfully until you spend more time on these aspects of your editing---
'''Oppose.'''The candidate doesn't seem to have strong idea in what areas he would use his mop, even suggesting perhaps ANI and DELETE discussions, when he has literally no record of interfacing with others in contentious situations?! So no. (If the candidate wanted to concentrate in his areas of expertise, presumably copyright, Commons moves, Requested moves, then I think it is a big loss too, but it isn't his fault, since he has numerous years of proven stability, but the Admin tools are not broken up to give him what he needs in those areas. The candidate's responses to civility issues were shallow, but that squares with me as normal given no experience in contentious areas. And there is major lack of experience in content creation or building. I would not want to hand over the block button to the candidate under those circumstances unless either it was clear he was definitely not interested in going into areas like ANI and DELETION. We are losing a reliable hand here in the copyright and other areas, but that is not his fault, it is the fault that Admin tools are not broken up at all to support speciality areas, while keeping the block button and tools for other content-related areas separate and for other candidates with evidenced experience in the pertinent areas. [I'm not trying to open a thread here about why we don't separate the tools, but I am puzzled why WP hasn't made that logical move yet, and prefers to have these endless debates based on the same illogical point that 1) the Admin package includes all the tools, 2) an Admin candidate needs to be trusted in all the areas those tools apply, 3) it isn't realistic to expect a candidate to demonstrate trusted experience/knowledge in all those areas, and 4) that the candidate should re-apply to RfA after spending time boosting his experience/knowledge in those areas [even though the candidate may not have any interest in those areas -- which is like making someone eat "peas" when they may not like them]. For me ''that'' is why RfA is "broken"/dysfunctional, because the tools are not divided up but come in one package only. And not because of nitpicking. [The "nitpicking" is a function of the dysfunction that the tools are not broken up!])
'''Oppose''', per Dennis Brown - there is simply not enough evidence of engagement with other contributors to make adminship a sensible choice here.
'''Oppose''' - per Dennis, nine years but not much focused communication or content work...
'''Oppose''' - not yet ready for prime time.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Dennis definitely holds a good chunk of my concerns in his response. To expand though, the lack of response to talkpage questions is concerning especially when thinking forward to blocks. I'm also concerned that [[WP:PACT|you might use AGF as a suicide pact]] and assume AGF too much when a block needs to be issued. In your copyright question you stated that you AGF. Sometimes you have to assume intent of a user and block, especially if the repeatedly post copyvios. The contributions pattern that you have also indicates that you might not be able to keep up with the changes going on with admin tools, although that is not required, it's important to at least have a clue what is going on. This oppose is not about what I can see, but what I can't see, and it's too concerning to support right now. Don't get me wrong, your work is good, but I don't think your ready just yet. --
'''Neutral''' Only returned from a 2 month disappearance less than 3 weeks ago and when queried about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwind&oldid=527296878 made a comment] that he wouldn't do well at RfA because of the repeated breaks.  Can you assure us that you won't be a part time admin in the future? Your month by month edit count is interesting, to say the least.
'''neutral''' I have had a good look at the prods.  Many are worthwhile, and some are let down by admins applying an inappropriate speedy delete.  Some others I have restored as I think the article was worht having in the encyclopedia.  Many of the deleted contributions are due to file being marked for move to commons and then uploading there and being deleted.  However I note that despite al this picture work there have not been any ''valid'' fairuse uploads.  The invalid was years ago and so is excusable.  SO no real rason to oppose, but I will need to check more before any support.
'''Neutral'''. I truly want to support this RfA, as I'm pretty sure Darkwind would do fine with the tools. But absent significant interactions with other editors, I'm just not sure. Basically I'm caught between Newyorkbrad's support and Boing's oppose.
'''Neutral''' . Candidate hasn't  done anything  wrong as far as I  can make out, but I  need to  see more experience in solid content  work  for someone who  would have the power to  police articles, and I need to  see more interaction to  evaluate the parts of adminship  that don't  actually  need the the use of tools. There is support  and opposition  from  editors who make valid points and whose judgement I trust, but they  seem  to  have balanced each  other out, so  like Someguy1221, I'm  caught  in  the middle.  A change of focus with  more  emphasis on  collaborative work  in admin areas and I'll most  likely  support the next RfA.
'''Neutral''' – Just like Someguy1221 and Kudpung, I am caught in between many great supports and opposes. But other than intermittent editing, I think Darkwind would be great with the tools. '''
'''Neutral''' - I would <u>love</u> to support Darkwind, as he has done some great non-admin mop work, however I cannot get over the sense that it is still a bit too soon. Also his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkwind/PROD_log PROD success] been questionable, although [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkwind/CSD_log CSDs are a bit better], however this shows concern that he doesn't have a great eye for good AfD materials yet. Also concern over frequent wikibreaks. And while he provides a lot of help over at copyvio and aiv, which are great efforts, there has been little engagement beyond cleaning up quick fixes as one-offs. Lack of dispute or conflict is likely due to this sort of one-off edits. It concerns me that he wants tools but doesn't want to specifically stay within a specific realm, but roam around with admin tools. I might be more inclined if he specifically stuck to one area and showed a depth of experience in that area; or conversely, if the desire is to roam, then he needs more experience in other areas to support his use of tools in these other areas.
'''Neutral''' Great points from both sides, as people have said before, he would be a great admin most likely, but there is too much unknown about this user. Cheers!
'''Neutral''' which would prefer to support.  I think that Darkwind would be a net positive as an admin, and i lean that way; his reply to Q5, however, put some worry in my mind which was not alleviated by the further answer on civility.  An area which is tearing even the admin corps apart, let alone pushing editors away, requires a better understanding ~ or evidence thereof ~ by an RfA candidate. Cheers, '''
'''Strong support''': Excellent candidate! --
'''Support''' experienced on Commons, and I've seen the candidate make insightful comments on the English Wikivoyage as well, so I'm sure they can understand the differences in local policies. --'''
'''Strong support''': of course, I'm the nominator
support. Administrative experience on commons and writing experience here. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&diff=next&oldid=507333928 misused  "vandal" to refer to a badly POV edit] to a badly POV article on [[Pussy Riot]], noted in an above question; unless he has repeatedly made this mistake after having been notified about "vandalism" on en:WP, one incident is not a serious issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Great candidate for admin. He has his admin experience from commons and have also been doing great work in english wikipedia. I don't see any reason to oppose this editor.
Being an admin on commons is a good reason for me to support, though you don't have to be an admin on any wiki to move images to commons.  However you have lots of experiance, so good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' I have no problems - should be trusted with the mop! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
--
'''Support''' I have had a number of interactions at Commons with INeverCry a few months after we seriously butted heads here at enwp, an incident where neither of us were perfect but I accept the lion's share of blame.  It would have been easy for him to take a different approach but he acted professionally towards me afterwards as an admin at Commons and I would expect no less from him here.  Plenty of clue, obviously here to build an encyclopedia, and has good general experience as an admin already.  Like the rest of us, he isn't perfect, but after interacting with him in both mundane and heated circumstances, I have no problem trusting him with the tools.
'''Support''', based on my generally positive interaction with the candidate, both here and on Commons.--
'''Support''' as co-nom. —
'''Support''' Unusual to see almost a thousand edits to an article by one user ([[List of Russian-language novelists]]) and a lot of these should have been marked minor (''really'' minor), but that's no reason to oppose an RfA. Commons experience and saying he'll walk before he runs are both points in the candidate's favour, and his talk page archives show frequent positive interaction, hence support '''
Yes, we ''definitely'' need more admins comfortable with image copyright. [[User:Filelakeshoe/RFA standards|Support]]. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''', excellent candidate. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. This candidate would provide an important bridge between Commons and EnWiki, and would bring this project some much-needed expertise on a subject many are unfamiliar with. Their primary goal in seeking adminship reflects this. On my one encounter with this person in the past, involving an image on Commons, they responded promptly and courteously to my request, and then followed up with me when the problem recurred - really going the extra mile. --
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown.
'''Yes'''. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I see no difficulty trusting that similar experience elsewhere will allow effectiveness here.
'''Support''' I'm tempted to oppose, simply because he's so active with deletions at Commons and because so few other people are — I don't want him to be distracted by admin tasks over here :-)  This many edits shows that he's gotten a bit of experience, and his record at Commons shows that he's quite capable of being an administrator.  I do hope you don't reduce your activity at Commons, but you'll do a good job here and should have the tools.
'''Support''' I see the candidate at Commons a lot. While I'm sympathetic to the observation of limited AfD involvement, I'm also aware that candidate is mainly interested in Commons related activity, and is unlikely to be active in AfD. While we don't put limits on such activity, candidates experience convinces me that any such actions will be only be done after getting fully up to speed.--
'''Support''' Dennis Brown's support following a dispute (and the candidate's admission that the situation should perhaps have been handled differently) are indicative of the candidate's suitability as an en.WP admin.
--
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to. The issues raised on the oppose section do not concern me.
'''Support''' One thing that I was happy to see was that you recognized that you may not have handled a dispute in the best way possible. I'm not saying that it was good that you may not have handled a dispute in the best way possible, but at least you didn't say that it was all the other editor's fault and you were totally okay about it. I am also pleased to see that Dennis Brown himself is fine with having you with the tools. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Strong support''' As sysop on Commons INeverCry is very active, just see [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/adminstats.php?wiki=commonswiki_p&tlimit=7884000 here]. If he does 10% of the actions here, my vote will have already been worthwhile. Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' Well I sort of expected to see Sven support because this appears to be a candidate right in his neighborhood.  I disagree with Bwilkins on this candidate.  This isn't an AFD candidate.  This is a files candidate.  So AFD !votes on notability should not have any bearing on the candidate.  Files issues should.  As a commons admin, I think this user is qualified to handle files on the English Wikipedia.  Their assistance could be useful on [[WP:FfD]] and [[WP:CSD]] for files.  It's nice to have rounded administrators, I think, but it's also nice to have admins with a specific niche.  This one does and I think he'd be an asset.--v/r -
Yeah, sure, why not? ;)
'''Support'''. Sure, there are some animosities between en.wiki and Commons (though I've not been part of them myself). But the way to address that is by building bridges, not barriers. And from everything I see, I'm confident that INeverCry will prove an asset to inter-wiki cooperation and goodwill. Oh, and someone who understands image copyright is always welcome, in my view. --
'''Support''' as per Boing! said  Zebedee – my thoughts exactly. Also, general breadth of experience renders INeverCry more than able to handle some extra responsibilities.
'''Support''' Competent user with admin related experience. No problems here. Commons and Enwiki are similar in their admin tasks per Boing! said Zebedee.
Happy to '''Support'''; I am familiar with their work on the Commons and think they are ready to take on more admin tasks. This user is one of the people who gets it. --
'''Support'''. Moved from  'neutral' based on  the support from  some of my  respected colleagues. The concerns expressed in  my  neutral  statement  still  stand, that  is, that  the candidate does not  provide me with  sufficient  metrics to  meet my  criteria. On  the other hand, as stated, I  have no  reason  to  believe this editor  would misuse the tools or his privileges of judgement. As all  admins probably do  most  of their serious learning on-the-job, I  am confident  that for what  he does not  know already or is unsure of, he will indeed either ask for advice or watch  carefully  how we do things here before acting.
{{+1}} '''Support''' No problems here. INeverCry is an excellent admin on Commons and the user has a lot of administrative experience. I definitely think INeverCry would be an excellent admin on the english Wikipedia as well.
'''Support''' - I think his experience with files and on the Commons will make him a good addition to the admin team, and his answers to the questions are satisfactory for me.
'''Support''' Will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' &ndash; I know INeverCry from Commons. He is very friendly and well competent. He has willingness to put in the extra effort to resolve your requests/needs. He understands Wikimedia tools which are almost same on all the projects. Good track record here on English Wikipedia, if not exceptional. Honestly, I see no reason why he should not be admin.
'''Support''' I've known INeverCry for a while both here and in the commons. He was always nice and encouraged me to do more work. I believe he would be one of the better admins rather than borderline. <b>
'''Strong support'''. Willingness to help, full competence, lots of common sense, excellent track record, - all the good things abound. --
'''Support'''; I feel comfortable with this user being an admin (and I would be happy to welcome them back to OTRS as well, for that matter!)
'''Support''' I've dealt with INeverCry in his administrative capacity at Commons. Seems sane and reasonable. Based on his answers to questions, I have no reason to think he won't be sane and reasonable with the mop here. —
'''Support''' More than useful on Commons --
Yes. Seems solid and reasonable. The only issue I saw in recent contributions was the reverting and warning an IP incident already mentioned, and INeverCry appears to have learnt from that. '''
We need more copyright experts for administrators.
'''Support''' has a clue and lots of experience in the area where he plans to work. That's what counts. We don't reject RfA candidates who have loads of experience at AfD and plan to work there just because they have limited experience with the files policy. Besides it's bizarre to pretend that the deletion policy is something so complex that two years of dutiful study are required to grasp it. When entering an area where they have limited experience, longtime, responsible and clueful editors like INeverCry don't come crashing in like a bull in a china shop. Moreover people who are admins on Commons and en.wiki can be very useful and very efficient at solving routine maintenance tasks that require some coordination between the two wikis.
'''Support''' Has always seen an honest sort.
Not the easiest thing in the world, getting admin experience when someone isn't an admin. Their work at commons tells me all I need to know.
'''Support''' Go now and take the mop! Well deserved. No problem anyway with this user as he seems have learnt from his recent issues.
'''Support'''. Welcome. --
'''Support'''. I'm satisfied by his admin experience on Commons and his pledge to go slowly while learning the ropes here. The issues with the "vandalism" reverts and OTRS are minor and don't really concern me. — '''''
'''Support'''. If this person isn't qualified, I don't want to be a Wikipedian anymore. The opposes I see here highlight what is wrong with RfA. Every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, and it is ridiculous to expect every person who stumbles into RfA to be a god-tier expert in everything Wiki. Some people are never satisfied, though. I'm sure if this editor had a strong knowledge of deletion policy then he would instead be brought to task for... I don't know... never creating a featured portal or something.
'''Support''' Temperament and trust are present, areas the editor can be helpful in are apparent, specific areas the editor might not be familiar with can be learned. --
'''Support'''  I see no evidence he would intentionally misuse tools.  I do see evidence that he admits mistakes and corrects them. Not perfect but none of us are; good enough and trusted trumps perfection.
'''Strong Support''' Helpful. Also has admin experience at commons. So I have nothing to oppose.--'''
'''Support''' Great administrator on Commons; will handle administrative tasks here too. &mdash;
'''Support''' He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Hulse&diff=prev&oldid=535221314 knows how to use scripts], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeverCry&diff=524998601&oldid=524995471 can respond to questions well], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers?limit=1&username=INeverCry can be trusted and has knowledge of tools], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/INeverCry has done more than just edit], [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=INeverCry&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia has a long and steady history] and [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=INeverCry&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 has article creations]. I have no doubt he will be a good admin. '''
'''Support'''. I have to admit that I think there are too many questions for candidates at RfA, and I generally do not like asking them. I asked Q12 this time because I saw a request for such a question on the RfA talk page, and it struck me as a reasonable request. But the question I asked is a sufficiently tricky one that it can lend itself to being a "gotcha", which is something I generally disapprove of in RfA. All of that is a long way of getting around to saying that, for me, this RfA comes down to evaluating whether I trust a candidate who has a strong track record at Commons to understand how to deal with ''content'', rather than files, here. I'm entirely satisfied. Q12 deals with a situation that actually comes up rather regularly at [[WP:FFD]], pitting a nominator who is a stickler for limiting the use of non-free files (not permitted at Commons, and an important difference between there and here) against a content editor who sees the value of the particular image for the particular content. I don't want admins doing file work who fail to listen to the content editors. The cautious answer, along with the honest admissions elsewhere in the RfA of mistakes from which the candidate has learned, tell me that this is someone who is going to be careful to do no harm. Although a lot of the editing history here has been gnomish edits and work on list pages, I looked carefully at the editing history of [[George Crabbe]], and I find clear evidence of actual sourcing and content work. Taking that all together, I'm fully comfortable that this is someone who can work administratively with image files while understanding what goes into serious content creation. --
'''Support''' Good admin on commons, his skills in image copyrights will be a great benefit to en-wiki. I see no reason not to trust him to use the tools correctly. '''
Per TParis.
'''Strong support''': INeverCry has been working here for over four years, and after 30000 edits understands Wikipedia's ethos and standards thoroughly.  He's helpful, courteous, hard-working, and willing to admit mistakes and learn.  His record on Commons shows he's an invaluable admin over there, and I'm sure he will be here.  We need a lot more people like INeverCry. --
'''Support''': Seems trustworthy, has admin rights on Commons and uses them effectively. And has  made significant contribution to the wiki, SUPPORT.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - en.wp work is good and the activity on Commons is just icing on the cake.
'''Support''' per [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard's]] oppose below and for the following.... The candidate has strong experience on Commons and with OTRS, in addition to enough of a history on English Wikipedia.  INeverCry was courageous enough to voice and act on his/her belief that identities of admins and other editors should be protected on wikipedia.  I must commend the candidate for taking a stand on this rather long-held policy of wikipedia to protect users' identities.  Since INeverCry was able to be strong about this opinion, I would trust the mop with him/her.  - <b>
'''Support''' – their experience at Commons indicates to me that they will make good judgements here, too, especially given that their stated area of interest is files. '''
'''Support''' - a trustworthy and helpful candidate. I understand the opposes about not having much experience of deletion discussions, but at least the candidate has some. Also, from my perspective, it's perfectly ok to volunteer for a specific role - such as OTRS - and then later resign. Otherwise, I agree with Doctree that we should be looking for candidates that are good enough, but we shouldn't require perfection.
'''Support''' No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' Image-related admins are always needed, and this user has a solid amount of experience and clue. '''
'''Support''' Per Dennis Brown.  In addition, this user has a massive amount of admin experience already.
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with decent content contributions and useful image expertise. Although the editor's experience is limited in some Wikipedia areas, the responses suggest s/he will exercise appropriate caution where s/he is not expert.
'''Support''' Vast amount of admin experience already at Commons, would be a good admin here.--
'''Support''' I see no reason why not to.
I've come across him on Commons where he has deleted some of the images I've tagged for deletion. There is a lot to be said for having some closer links between what may well be our two larger projects and for that reason I welcome this RFA. I'm especially happy that rather than just focus on his Wikipedia experience, clean blocklog and so forth he mentions relevant Commons experience. Deleting testpages and user requests are really not that different between the two projects, and apart from fair use the copyvio aspects of files should be pretty much the same. ''
'''Support''' - some issues have been raised, but there is nothing of great concern, and I do not feel the tools will mis-used.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
Calm and clueful, particularly in the area that he's planning on working in: that handily counters the relatively low participation in FFD here on en-WP. And low FFD count is the only non-ridiculous reason ("doesn't hate Germans", "isn't happy with the notion of his privacy being traded away in a straw poll") given by anyone opposing thus far.
'''Support''' - though I agree with the general sentiment that Commons needs work and I hope adminship here will not greatly diminish INeverCry's good work there.
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown. Having en-wp admins with significant Commons experience is always handy. My initial concern that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seryozha_(novel)&diff=prev&oldid=458075345 this insertion] of {{lf|Seryozha.jpg}} could be questionable has been satisfied after referring to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Images|WikiProject Books#Images]] (with which I was largely unfamiliar). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' Long Term Editor  and an admin in commons .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools in particular with his/her expertise  in images.
'''Support''' Plainly trusted with the tools at Commons. I trust that he will understand differences between Wikipedia and Commons, and we can always use more help with files. --
'''Support''' —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0em"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0">&nbsp;
'''Support''' he's shown sufficient caution in areas he doesn't know well on Commons, I'm confident he'll grow into the role on en-wiki as well.  --
'''Support''', trustworthy in my experience, and no suggestion that he would maliciously mishandle the tools.
'''Weak support''' - per [[User:Go Phightins!/Admin criteria|my criteria]]; a likely [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]].
'''Support''' - I don't see a convincing reason not to support this candidate. I trust them with the tools. <font color="#454545">
'''Strong Support'''.

'''support''' sounds good —
'''Support'''. I'm happy with the questions and there is enough general experience. I like to see conflict well handled or well reflected, and Dennis Brown's support says much for that. Tryptofish's Q and commentary suggest restraint. I'm not privy to OTRS, so I'll ignore that. I'm mindful of the opposes, and the AfD results stats scare me: small numbers, heavy delete, poor diagonal, not appealing to policy. Please don't close anytime soon. I'd also like to see candidates make WP:AIV reports. Image copyrights have their own special twists, so that is a plus. Talk page shows some appropriate initiative. Images are a mess on Commons, so opposing has a selfish benefit, but volunteers get to choose where they work.
No particular concerns. ''
'''Support'''. I'd like to have seen more participation at AfD etc, but on the whole I think this candidate is a net positive to the project and can be trusted with the admin toolset.
'''Support''' No issues here.—
'''Support''' - No problems here.  <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
Per noms. - Dank (
'''Support''' It appears they have plenty of relevant experience. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' - Qualified editor who I trust with the admin tools. The OTRS matter reflects well, in my view. Looking at the overall vote totals and current percentage, allow me to be the first to say: Have a great adminship!
'''Support''' no concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' for many reasons well stated by others above, but especially because Dennis Brown in supporting.
'''Support''' seems like a reasonable person so don't see why not. --
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support''' based on review of overall work.
'''Unfortunate oppose''' 21 !votes in AFD's does not give me the ability to see their understanding of en-Wikipedia's deletion processes.  A lack of activity at the admin-ish areas here (AN/ANI/etc) concerns me, as it's significantly different than at Commons.  The edit count here on EN is quite low over the last few months - a significant drop (likely due to duties on Commons).  Speaking of Commons, it's a festering cesspool (based on the number of complaints at Jimbo's page), and something that needs significant work to bring it up to scratch - ''that'' is where I would use my skillsets if I were INeverCry. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose'''. After reading the nomination describing INeverCry's Wikimedia Commons work, and the answer to question 1, I was expecting a strong history of contribution to [[WP:FFD]]. I found one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yesken_Sergebayev&diff=prev&oldid=509663032 proposed deletion], one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_authors_published_by_Bloomsbury_Publishing&diff=prev&oldid=506824528 AfD !vote] and (I think) a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Streetsahead1 CSD tag] in August 2012. There were a number of AfD !votes in July 2012 and a handful of earlier AfD !votes. I believe that WP:FFD would be the best place for INeverCry's admin skills. However he has little experience with deletion in Wikipedia.
'''Regretful oppose''' The conditions around the candidate's recent resignation from OTRS lead me to oppose. The candidate chose to give up his/her access because he/she did not like a discussion that was happening on the OTRS wiki; even though the action INeverCry disagreed with has no chance of happening, that there was even a discussion on it was enough for the candidate to decide that he/she no longer wanted to be a part of the OTRS community. While INeverCry did not to anything objectively wrong in this case, and most certainly did not break any OTRS rules, if a toothless discussion is enough to make the candidate leave a project/process, that doesn't really make me comfortable with his/her general mindset. <small>The OTRS wiki is only accessible to OTRS members. The thread being discussed is [https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator_requests here].</small>
'''Oppose''' - no confidence, sorry. --
'''Oppose for now''': The candidate's experience in admin-relevant en.wikipedia processes is simply, and rather clearly, insufficient.  I don't agree that any of the minor issues that have been raised with regard to alleged mistakes, attitude/temperament, etc., are of any consequence, and I see no trust problems in the larger, most important senses that relate to honesty and integrity. However, WP administrative knowledge and competence are important and complex, and when absent, resolve to a trust issue of a less personal but no less pertinent kind.  I would happily support in 6 months if I saw a lot more involvement in XfDs, AN/ANI, etc., not just content work and things relating to moving images to Commons. That the candidate has a good track record as Commons admin is very promising. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
Concerns with experience in administrative areas. <font color="00ff00">
'''Oppose''' per SMcCandlish, and also because of some of the neutral comments. I agree, the wiki specific privileges shouldn't carry over, and I think there's an anticipation of some of that here. I'm ok with what Candlish has said so far on this subject overall.
after looking through [[Special:Contributions/INeverCry]]. -
'''Neutral''' - I'm gonna sit in the neutral camp for now. 60,000 deletions at Commons with an expressed desire to do File work here combined with extensive use of automated tools gives me severe pause. We've had "shoot from the hip" File volunteers before and a great deal of stress and controversy has resulted. I'm not seeing hardcore activity at En-WP after the "Semi-Retired" banner went up either, and that also bugs me at some level... Leery.
I've only looked quickly through this page, your user page, your talk page, and talk archives, but everything is very impressive so far and I'm happy to support for now. - Dank (
'''Support'''-- I was unfamiliar with this user. But when I saw this user's contributions and count I have no problem. Nothing to oppose.--'''
'''Moral support''' I doubt that this will pass, but I don't believe the candidate would abuse the tools.
Why not? I don't see any reason that promoting this user would be harmful to the project. Not everyone can be a perfect admin candidate, with N many edits to AFD, RFPP, etc. But here we have someone who is trusted, has been here for a while, and generally knows what's going on. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. <small>(
Seems to meet my requirements, and bonus props for apparent honesty in the unusual Q1 answer.  --
I like his honesty, and he is clearly a reliable user, so I think we can trust him with the tools. '''
I really don't see why not. --'''
I think you're doing quite well and would be a good administrator even if, as per your own admission, you might not be among the most active ones.  We shouldn't oppose for your being honest.
Don't see any evidence that tools will be misused. The candidate surely has enough experience and judgment to know when tool use is appropriate. —'''
[[User:Filelakeshoe/RFA standards|Support]]. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support'''. I don't admin a whole lot either - and a lot of admins stop by infrequently at best. So when a candidate for adminship says he's not gonna do a whole lot as admin, honestly that doesn't bother me in the slightest. There is no evidence in their edits or their statements here that suggest anything other than a reasonable editor. I see nothing here that would disqualify this editor - so I have to support. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Anybody sweeping the floors at a Temple of Pafnuty deserves the mop. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
--
'''Support''' in large part because it would be helpful to see some additional love bestowed on RefToolbar (which I've used quite a bit), and because I trust this editor to do no harm.  (Additionally? Many of the opposes express concern that the editor would make little use of the tools.  Yet, in my experience, the community has often expressed a concern about the problems of having a smaller set of "full-time admins," putatively detached from the concerns of writing and editing an encyclopedia. The alternative to that model is a larger set of "part-time admins", and in many ways, I think there's a strong argument that that's the way we should be trending.)  Finally, I do share some of the concerns expressed by Mephistophelian, and hope, which ever way this goes, that the candidate will take those concerns seriously. --
'''<s>(Weak)</s> Support''' Net positive, won't break the encyclopedia. Not a politician; the candidate's answers obviously haven't been coached. No real experience in conflict situations, but that's not where they plan to work anyway.
If he has been editing for over 7 years, then there is no reason to be concerned about him being given access the the tools.
Per [[WP:NONEED]] &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''': Per Ultra. —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0em"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Seems like a good editor. I think most of the opposes are reading to deeply into the responses looking for a reason to oppose rather than a reason to Support.
'''Support''' Sure, why not. A refreshingly honest request; for me it's much easier to trust a long-term contributor than someone who has spent the last few months gathering NACs specifically to pass an RfA '''
'''Support''' - he doesn't want to block anyone, delete anything or protect anything. He just wants to get on with editing slightly more efficiently. Can't see the problem with this as long as he is trustworthy, and he looks like he is. Not convinced by opposes who think that being an admin needs to be "serious". It's people taking it seriously that causes half the drama. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' - Man after my own heart: ''"There's very little I intend to do. Mostly I would like to be able to edit protected pages without needing to wait for time-wasting and cumbersome edit-requests. At the moment I would like the ability to start editing some javascript sources related to the WP:Reftoolbar. My editing du jour changes on roughly a monthly basis. I'm not particularly interested in doing deletion/blocking/banning work and don't see me bothering with that in the near future either."'' Of course, that's exactly NOT what the Administrative clique wants to hear, particularly from someone with the temerity to self-nominate in this hallowed process. Kudos to you, my friend.
'''Support''' - How many times Jason chooses to use the tools doesn't really matter, its just that whenever he does use them that he does so properly, which I believe he will do so.
'''Support'''. I see no reason to believe he would misuse the tools, and even an infrequent use is a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]]. &mdash;
'''Strong support'''. This application is very similar to the basis on which I successfully ran for adminstration in 2007. The reasons ''why'' Jason may choose to use the tools are completely irrelevant. The only criterion is that he uses them well. There is nothing that gives me doubt that he will; his user page is exemplary and he appears to be a very level-headed editor. Also, as MSGJ points out, [[WP:NONEED]] explicitly refutes several of the oppose reasons given below. —
'''Moral Support''' as per AutomaticStrikeout, this editor may be have opposing wills but I also see that this user will not abuse helpful admin tools.
'''Support''' - Seems like good editor, I feel that candidate gets too much flak for giving honest answer to Q1 instead of going full politician. This RfA probably won't pass though.--
'''Support''' Although you may not be the best candidate, I admire your candor and I really think you would be a good administrator. Should this attempt not succeed, I would encourage you to come back in a year and try again.
'''Support'''. It appears that if this RfA is successful (I almost wrote "if the candidate is promoted," but that's not really the right way to think about these things), the candidate will never win "Most active administrator of the year"&mdash;but that is not necessarily the best way to evaluate. Although a slightly more ambitious adminship agenda would not have gone amiss, I appreciate the candidate's candor, and the answer to question 6 convinces me that the RfA has been filed for reasonable reasons. As such, I can support.
'''Support''' Demonstrated "needs the tools", per the RefToolbar.  As for the activity, even if he doesn't try to tackle a backlog, he's going to be doing ''something''.  And ''something'' helps the backlog more than the ''nothing'' of not appointing an admin. &ndash;&nbsp;''
'''Support''' Long term editor with obvious commitment to the project so I don't see why not. I don't really understand the opposes citing his response to question 1. On the one hand, we don't seem to like editors who work solely toward adminship and on the other hand we lambast editors who are willing to become admins without any specific agenda in mind. I, for one, will always prefer an editor who hasn't really thought about being an admin before but has demonstrated a strong commitment to the project. Being an admin should be a sideshow to editing on Wikipedia, not the main event. --
'''Support''' - Per the whole net positive stuff. Thanks for volunteering,
'''Support''' - Responsible editor with plenty of experience. I see little risk in giving Jason Quinn a few extra buttons. I'm puzzled by the opposes as it seemed to me that "no need for tools" had recently been going out of style as a reason to oppose an RfA. Now it's making a comeback as "being bored is not a good reason for wanting the tools" but it seems obvious to me that this is JQ's way of saying "I'd like to explore other ways of helping out". I would suggest that everyone who's worked on Wikipedia for more than two or three years (and that includes many of the opposes below) knows that feeling. You join Wikipedia to work on articles about 19th-century entomologists, you get a little jaded and you start coordinating WikiProject Insects. That slowly becomes less interesting so you switch gears and start doing some anti-vandalism work but that's only interesting and challenging for a few months and you decide that your time would be better spent in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Tanzanian culture. I suspect that "I'm kinda bored and am looking for new challenges" is actually a very typical motivation in RfA candidates. People are also opposing because of Q1's "there's very little I intend to do" but again, if giving JQ the tools means 5 fewer edit-requests a year, then this is a net positive.
'''Support''' Would be a net plus for Wikipedia, trusted user. '''
'''Support''' If adminship was a permanent full-time job, I wouldn't be keen on supporting. It isn't. It's a sign of trust and a few extra buttons. If he uses them to do some tasks that I don't understand but which need these buttons, well enough. It's not costing the project anything. He's been here long enough to have a fair idea of what's what, and I can't see him going hell for leather blocking people for their first reversion. I didn't even know that that thing was called the 'RefToolbar'. Not my area of working. (Don't even use it much except for the 'nowiki' thing...)
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. He genuinely wants to help by working on something that unfortunately needs edit full protected permissions that would help the community. He may have been a little too candid with answer one and maybe could have written it a little differently while conveying the same intent, but I can't see holding the request for not wanting to be among the most active of admins. Also, this wouldn't be the first time we gave the sysops for performing technical changes to protected pages or templates.
'''Support''' because like others have said, there is no reason to believe that the tools will be misused. I think Pichpich responds to the oppositions over "boredom" very well and hope that the closing bureaucrat will not weigh these oppositions too much. I do think that Mephistophelian brings up a good case about the quality of Jason Quinn's contributions and hope that Jason will review the points made if he is to deal with sourcing issues on an admin level. Otherwise, the mop should be No Big Deal.
'''Support''' and props to you, mate. I too would find admin tools quite handy if I had them, and would probably contribute a little to administrative chores, but I don't see myself ever passing a nom for the same reason yours is probably going to be a narrow miss. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Support''' See no reason to believe the tools will be misused. -
'''Support''' with no reservation.  [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason]]'s editing history shows broad experience. Looks like he's always civil.  He plans to spend time cleaning up code that requires adminship to edit.  What I see in his history shows Jason will fix some code; then he'll look for another way to contribute.  Perhaps he'll wander over to [[WP:Admin backlog]].  Jason is [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Expectations_of_adminship|exactly what is expected of an admin]].  Perhaps not the perfect balance of experience and skill some demand but more than good enough.
Based on his answers to the questions, I have little doubt that [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] will use the admin toolset responsibly and would be beneficial in making necessary fixes to fully protected pages. The sourcing issues are legitemate, but in my opinion somewhat minor and not a disqualification from acquiring the sysop flag.
Jason is a longterm editor who has done a lot for this project, he has a clean blocklog and his deleted edits don't trouble me either. The views he expresses on his userpage are mostly ones I share, but even where we disagree such as over signatures his views show an understanding of the community and that he has the right attitude to be an administrator. OK there is a touch of naivety about his attitude to accounts that look like actual names, (hint: not every account that looks like a real name is in the name of the account holder) but I'm sure he would do well as an admin. As for the opposes, we need admins to do many things, including editing protected pages. ''
'''Support''' per rogerd.
'''Support''' I have concerns with question one, but that's no reason to oppose.—
'''Support'''. Nobody "needs" adminship, and infrequent activity ≠ detrimental. The editor's amount of time served on Wikipedia means he can be trusted with the tools. He stated his intention, to edit within the protection field, and has thorough knowledge of protection policy (see Q8). Although I don't think this will pass, I am leaving my support. Good luck James!
'''Support''' without reservation.  Any incremental administrative contributions are still a benefit, and more contributions by level-headed editors such as this candidate should be welcome.
Per Newyorkbrad and WereSpielChequers. '''<font color="navy">
Q1 is probably the worst answer I've seen, but I have a good gut feeling.
'''Support''' per RegentsPark and WereSpielChequers. Good luck. <span style="">
'''Support''' What I see here is a candidate that is very independent, fairly blunt, knows when to walk away and when to run. That he doesn't have major plans for the tools doesn't disturb me.  Most of us end up doing different things than we expected once we get the bit.  Being a little rough around the edges doesn't deter me either. While I don't think he will be the most active admin in mediation or putting out fires (skills I usually favor at RfA), I think he will be a net positive and having the tools may encourage him to work in new areas over time.  '''Real''' honesty when answering questions at RfA often gets you into trouble, or at least a pile of opposers, but I find it refreshing and a reason to trust you with the tools.
'''Support''' per Wizardman. I think that the answer to question 1 is one of the most sublime examples of "foot in mouth" syndrome I have ever seen. But still... I have a good impression of this editor and don't see any reason to believe that they would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per most above (including Dennis). —
'''Support'''.  Honesty is refreshing.  Besides, he seems trustworthy with the tools.
Basically, I trust you. That's why I ended up here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Dennis really summed up what I was going to say here, so I suppose I'll keep this rather short. I believe you have the personality of a good admin. I really admire the truth and honesty you've shown here. I don't believe there's ever a ''need'' for the tools, so the fact that you aren't quite sure where or when you'll use them doesn't bother me. I don't believe anyone is perfect and I don't think adminship is perfection or that anyone in an administrator position should be looked up to as such. Your work here is very respectable and I see you gaining the tools as a net positive for all.
'''Support''' - you seem like a decent guy.
'''Support'''.  What does Jimbo have to say on the issue?  He [[WP:DEAL|decided]] to "make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops".  Anyone who's been active here for '''nine years''' with no problems can be trusted, and everyone who can be trusted should be an admin unless they don't want to.  In particular, I don't understand why people simultaneously oppose for "bored" and for "I'm just going to edit protected pages" — if you're bored, you'll probably find yourself fulfilling lots of other admin tasks as well.  Since it's just a technical matter that sysop powers aren't given to everyone, you should have them if you qualify.  Finally, it's not as if we have a limited number of admins, so there's nothing wrong with giving tools to a trustworthy person who will use them only rarely, and every protected page that Jason edits is one less task for the rest of the admins to worry about.
''Support''. 7+ years, nearly 20k edits, doesn't appear to have broken the wiki, and no one has raised any conduct issues or skulduggery. Says he won't do much with the tools, so am not terribly concerned whether he is up on the latest alphabet soup of policies or criteria, seems to have a head on his shoulders in discussion. The concern raised in the opposes I find unpersuasive - I flipped through a few of the articles raised as concerning and see embryonic articles that could be made better, but not concerning.
'''Support.''' I have never actually had any interaction with Jason but after looking at his contributions, intentions and answers to questions I feel that having the admin flag would benefit the project. He is honest, as shown in question 1, has far more content writing under his belt than I did when I flaged and nothing shows that he would missuse the tools. His intentions are all good and nodoubt he would help out with current admin team. I hope the closing crat reads all of the supports and opposes carfully as there are some really 'special' ones out there which seem to have very little, if any reasoning behind them. As Filelakeshoe said in a comment "adminship wasn't a big deal" and in years past anyone would be handed the flag as long as their intentions were good and they had a little evidence of that. Jason has both good intentions and a massive history to back it up. '''
<font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''', established user who's proven them-self a "net positive" by their contributions. Most importantly, the user has demonstrated trustworthiness sufficiently enough that I trust their good intentions and am not concerned by anything lacking in clue.'''''&mdash;
'''Support'''. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to do much admin work - even one task a year is one task a year that someone else doesn't have to do. And I think people are taking the "bored" thing rather too seriously - it's just a light-hearted comment. Anyway, I'm here in the support camp essentially because Jason Quinn is someone I trust with the tools, based on his long term service and clearly good work. (As an aside, I think the ability to edit protected pages, especially templates that are protected because of their ubiquity and/or complexity, is an obvious case for unbundling - it's an "expert" action, not an "admin" action, and when they are edited, admins just do what the experts tell them.) --
A trustworthy and respected editor should not face so much flak for seeking a couple of extra buttons, with which I have faith they will do no harm and more than no good.
'''Support.''' A candidate who self-noms (instead of for instance collecting those silly co-noms from high-prestige users, as if adminship was some snobbish country club) always gets extra points from me. And when they also reply frankly to the questions instead of doing an opportunistic balancing act in order to offend absolutely nobody — I love it. We need admins with some self-respect. Agree heartily with Boing! and with [[WP:NONEED]] that there's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to do ''much'' admin work.
'''Support.''' - been here seven years...I find myself that page protection and issues surrounding it are admin-related activities I do the most, so I fully understand where you're coming from. Better than even chance of being a net positive.
'''Support''', strong contribution history, and I agree with the [[WP:NONEED]] arguments that it doesn't matter whether or not he plans on doing a whole bunch of admin work.
'''Support''''  Good answers to questions 1 and 3!! No reason to think he will abuse the tools.
If Jason Quinn had refrained from the "bored" comment and reworded the part about his lack of interest in blocks and deletions to say that they'd be areas of adminship he'd "move into at a later date", this RfA would be well on its way to success. The amount of "no need" opposes is surprising, especially given how we've never had a shortage of mops to give out and how much complaining there is at the declining number of admins. Jason Quinn has been around for close to decade, has had a relatively stable edit rate for the past several years and his last RfA was over five years ago; I think he'd be a safe person to have as an administrator. If he rarely uses the tools, but always uses them to help and never generates drama, he'll be a net positive.
I hardly ever comment in RFAs anymore, but this meets my participation criteria: (a) seems to be close, (b) seems to be headed toward making a mistake.  Here we have a level-headed, experienced person with clue, who doesn't appear to plan on blocking anyone, nor use adminship as a way to win arguments.  Pretty much everyone who meets these criteria should be given adminship. Although I agree in general with [[WP:NONEED]], it doesn't even apply in this case: he's been clear about at least one area he "needs" the tools. --
An experienced user who's unlikely to cause any harm as an admin. I think his answer to Q1 merely displays a lack of familiarity with the RfA process, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
'''Support''' experience and any help you do will most likely be done well.
'''Support'''. After reading through everything here, I see no valid reason not to support. Here we have someone willing to do a lot of mind-numbing, behind-the-scenes work, and we have people indicating he doesn't need the tools ''enough''? Really? Are we going to need to create [[WP:DOESNTNEEDENOUGH]]? He clearly is going to be far more than simply a net positive, so why not give him the mop? All these people who are stating he doesn't need the mop ''enough'' are part of the problem why we don't have more people running for adminship. ···
'''Support''' What will you find next? He did not self-nom on a full moon, so he must be a werewolf? Many are complaining about not enough admins and the problems at RFA, but still decent candidates get shot down here.
'''Support''' I see absolutely nothing that would make me think this user would not be competent using the administrator tools. There may be come issues with the candidate, sure, but in my opinion none of them affect whether or not he could competently poke those few extra buttons. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''' Per the rationale set out by Nihonjoe above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Good track record, civil, seems to know what (s)he is doing.
Editing is pretty boring most of the time. As is adminship, but if you've been able to keep yourself entertained all these years, maybe you'll enjoy it. Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer-based endeavor with no system in place to entice users to stay. If a longstanding, sane, and productive editor asks for this harmless promotion, it's the least we can do.
'''Support'''. I understand people's concerns with Q1, but I feel these concerns were resolved in Q6 (and Q15 a little). At worst, the candidate is refreshingly honest. I'm confident they'll be a net positive with the tools. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' - I dithered a bit on this, but I decided that I'd like to support. I don't think you're a stellar candidate, but you do have quite a number of contributions to diverse areas and seem knowledgeable enough about policies and guidelines. I think that wanting to edit protected pages is a viable reason to be an admin, and at least you don't seem willing to jump into things you don't understand to screw them up. :) I see no red flags about your past either, so you have my support. -- '''
'''Support''' because I think he can do the job. An opinion in the oppose column (supported by other opposers), says "so if you don't intend to be busy, sorry you don't meet the job qualifications". Absolutely untrue and  '''''[[WP:ADMIN|contrary to Wikipedia policy ]]''''' which clearly states admins {{tq|i=yes|"....are never required to use their tools"}}. That's '''''policy'''''. More than half of our 1400 admins [[Wikipedia:List of administrators|are not active]] so why should Jason Quinn be expected to be any different? If he carries out admin tasks only occasionally that would still be a plus for the stability of Wikipedia. I fear many people, even with Wiki's interests at heart, can't see the wood for the trees.
'''Support''' If Jason performs just a handful of admin tasks, then that's a handful that another admin won't need to address.  Every little helps.
'''Support'''.  Regarding the opposes over question #1, I tend to take an opposite view.  I think it's refreshing to see someone who appears to have no ego to massage, and no desire to assert some perceived authority.  These are exactly the types of admins that are seldom seen, who don't go searching for drama to engage in, and simply go about the project fixing things that need fixed.  I sense a refreshing bit of honesty in this candidate, and I see absolutely no reason to ''withhold'' a few extra abilities simply because they have no desire to politicize something that's supposed to be a ''mop'' and not a ''badge and gun''. This is a ''volunteer'' website, not a crime-ridden slum.  (well - most of the time anyway.) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''- mostly because the answers to the questions make me confident in this candidate, and partly because I consider the "boredom == unworthiness" opposes below to be so wrongheaded I'm honour bound to cancel them as best I can.
'''Support''' I like Q1--honesty is a good quality for an admin to have. We have a number of admins who use the tools sparingly but uncontroversially, and I don't mind letting him join them.
Support. Per Floquenbeam for example. This editor is just asking for a corkscrew for occasional use. It would  help them improve the encyclopedia. Even if they only used it once a year, why not give it to them? Adminship is not a scarce resource or limited good. For some reason, at Wikipedia we only hand out the corkscrew in a [[:File:Wenger EvoGrip S17.JPG|package along with other tools]]. From what I've read, I am confident that this editor won't abuse the knife, saw, or scissors. In my own very biased opinion, some of the best admins here use their tools infrequently and specifically, when it helps them do what they'd be doing anyway, as editors. Looking for loads of new tasks for all of one's new tools hasn't always shown to be unproblematic. ---
'''Support'''.  Candidate seems sensible, and it can't hurt to have another admin, certainly the more there are the more efficiently things get done.
&ndash;
'''Support''' Sensible and trustworthy. That's all I expect of an admin. We're running a bit low in that class at the moment. If he finds a good use for the tools, all the better. Hopefully, this will encourage him to get involved in tooly areas.  --
'''Support''' per Floquenbeam, and because I actually quite like the answer to Q1. Sometimes you need variety and administrative work is one way to find something else to do. If he can be trusted with the tools - which I firmly believe he can - why not let him have them and keep him interested in the project? Win-win for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' – This user can be trusted with the tools. The user has solid AfD and very good article contributions. As mentioned many times above, another admin would help (and wouldn't hurt), and only some admin work is definitely better than none. '''
'''Support''' Long term and reliable contributor, unlikely to misuse tools.  Find opposes unconvincing; we have no shortage of bits, we may have a shortage of administrators.--
'''Support'''. A welcome addition to the admin corps. Not swayed by any of the opposes. Candidate has shown he is trustworthy and genuinely wants to improve Wikipedia, and if the admin toolset reinvigorates his desire to do that, all the better. Also per Ched above. --
'''Support''' per Floquenbeam and Ched. I trust an admin who is not eager to act, but wants to do what is necessary, --
Ched's argument is convincing. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I can't see any reason he would misuse the tools. Even if he only uses the tools properly once, it's still a benefit to the project. '''''
As an administrator, Jason may find areas he wants to participate it&mdash;or not. It doesn't really matter. I said in my RfA that I was going to help at DYK. Did I mean it at the time? Yes. Did that ever happen? Not really. Once you become an administrator, you may find that different things draw your attention. So, while it's nice to have a declared area of interest, it's not a requirement for me. He's a hard-working, long-tenured, level-headed editor: good enough for me.
Per above. -
'''Support''': For much the same reason as noted by Ched.  There is a candor in Jason's responses I respect, even if the answer to #1 is a touch unfortunate in its wording.  He knows where his strengths lie, and wants the capacity to move on to new challenges.  Who among us hasn't felt that way?  I have confidence that if called upon to take on the more traditional duties of an admin, he'll do so, and with care.  --
[[WP:100]], per Ched.
I see nothing in my review that would indicate that you are not trustworthy enough to be granted the extra tools.  How much or how little you will use the tools does not make any difference.
I see the answer to question two as a great indicator for a successful administrator. If anything, I see this as the strongest indicator for an enthusiastic, dedicated, and competent editor who will use the tools well.
'''Support'''. I've read the supports and the opposes, and I find the supports more convincing. I'd have preferred that the candidate intended to be more active with the tools than it would appear from question 1, but we're all volunteers here, and any needed admin tasks that he can take care of himself instead of having to go get an admin to do saves the rest of the admin corps some work. I'd also prefer the articles he'd written be better referenced (and indeed I've opposed over unreferenced articles before) and that has kept me on the fence until now, but the unhappy idea of a candidate who's offered to help being rejected because he might not help "enough" has motivated me to put myself in the support column.
'''Support''' It is no big deal. As with others, seeing Q. 1 was a little ... surprising ... for an RfA nomination, butis that necessarily a bad thing?--<span style="">
'''Support''' The tools should be given out freely to content creators.
'''Support''' I'm confident Jason will use his admin tools constructively and usefully. I have carefully reviewed the "oppose" comments and I just don't see a problem. It's common to have editors and admins cycle through different activities on Wikipedia; more importantly, it's useful to have editors and admins with the broad perspective and skills base this leads to. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Per the answer to question one and the opposes based on it. He could well easy have given a politically correct answer, but chose to give the truth instead.
'''Support''' With all due respect to the admins in the oppose and neutral sections below, I too have no problem granting admin rights to those who may intend to only use it sparingly. Plenty of current admins seem to do just that (or not at all). No harm is done to the wiki by these actions (or lack of). So barring any serious issues with cluefulness or behaviour, I see no reason not to happily support, however the candidate chooses to volunteer in the future.
'''Support''' I originally opposed, but have reconsidered. The project they are taking on is very admirable, and as they said, very difficult to take on without admin tools (through countless uses of {{tl|editprotected}}). This would be very difficult and time-consuming. My original oppose was based on the fact that the user would be using the tools for him/herself, and not benefiting the community as a good admin should do. My evidence for this was that the user said they would like to edit protected pages. At first I thought this meant so they could edit without using {{tl|editprotected}}, basically for convenience. Now I reconsider however. The user has, as I already stated above, said different, stating they would like to undertake a basically admin-only project. This I believe shows the user would make a healthy administrator worthy of helping and improving the project, and not a user simply HAT collecting.
'''Support'''. I trust this candidate with the tools. Let's face it: the answers to questions weren't constructed with a view to hat collecting or saying the right thing. Unquestionably honest, so that's something I can trust. There's enough of a track record to give confidence that no harm will be done. There's nothing wrong with an administrator who isn't eager to block people. The kind of editor who likes correcting typos is likely to be good with a mop. And let's shoot down the logic behind arguments that RfA candidates must declare that they want to be very active as admins. Option 1: fails RfA and does not become an admin. Option 2: passes RfA and makes constructive use of the tools, just not as frequently as some other admins. Really, does anyone think that Option 1 is the greater net positive for the project? I'm endorsing Option 2. --
'''Support''' No alarm bells. Level headed and experienced.  Reasons for wanting the tools seem solid. I remember I mainly wanted the tools so I could do page moves myself without having to ask an admin to do it, so I understand the wanting to edit through protection. Though it is worth pointing out that admins are still restricted from editing a fully protected article unless they have consensus for their edit. '''
'''Support''' seems a solid editor, has a valid reason to want the tools, unlikely to break things.  I'd urge care in using the tools in areas you don't know well, and to show care about editing protected articles per SilkTork.
'''Support''' for reasons similar to Dennis Brown's. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' per my firm belief that admin tools are, first and foremost, editing tools. If someone wants to edit protected templates, and seems unlikely to screw things up, then by all means give them the tools.
'''Support'''; a trustworthy user and every sign of a smart and competent one. I'd be delighted if reftoolbar got some love, as well :-)
'''Support''' There seems to be no likelihood that Jason will miss-use the tools given his lengthy and trouble free editing history, and good grasp of policy as demonstrated in the answers above. As such, there's no good reason that he shouldn't have access to the admin tools.
'''Support''' Even if JQ only uses the tools a few times for a purpose beneficial to the encyclopedia JQ should have the tools. I don't think JQ will use any of the extra buttons in a way that is detrimental to Wikipedia. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' A cool calm customer, who looks like he can be trusted with the mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
The opposes are deeply unconvincing, and pretty much a textbook example of the lazy stop energy ("oh look, the nom statement has something I disagree with in it, thank God I don't have to bother looking through their user's contributions before making up my mind") that forms a key part of modern RFA's problems. Plenty of clue demonstrated by the candidate, a solid contributions history weighted away from drama, and no red flags. This is not hat-collecting: it's a trustworthy editor asking for the community to help him out a bit in improving the project by granting him a few extra bits. If he reciprocates that trust by doing the odd bit of backlog reduction in addition to his significant content work, all the better.
'''Support''' per Floquenbeam and 28bytes. '''
'''Support''' per many of the above. Having a specific admin objective as an RFA candidate has proven almost invariably to be a waste of everyone's time. No indication that he'd misuse tools, lots of indication that the project will benefit from his having access to them.
Seems qualified for the job. I think you'll make a good admin. <font color="00ff00">
Excellently honest answer to Q1. Wanting to edit without waiting for edit requests is more than sufficient reason, IMO. <strong>
'''Support''' and support for a "free to edit protected pages" flag as well to be created.
'''Support''' He has the right desire, "to produce a high-quality encyclopedia". Can he be trusted with the tools and will he put them to good use in an area where they are needed?  I think so. --
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience, and I like the answer to Q1.
'''Support''' I do not understand why there is even a question as to whether he can be an admin. I mean yeah, I suppose that there's always the possibility that after making useful contributions fairly regularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Jason+Quinn&namespace= since March of 2004] and after having rollback [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AJason+Quinn&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 since March of 2008], that having the insane, unbelievable, crushing responsibility of being an admin on ''the English Wikipedia'' (gasp) thrust on his shoulders will cause him to finally crack and try to take down everything he's worked hard to help build and maintain for the last ''nine years'' (can I stress that fact enough?). Seriously people, you are treating this like you're giving him the keys and launch codes to a nuclear missile submarine, not letting him block random 12-year-olds from writing "yolo" in an online encyclopedia. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. I don't see what the opposers are on about. They're treating the questions as an exercise in themselves rather than a reflection on future admin actions, seems to me.
'''Support'''. Per Risker, no concerns. -- '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. There are some very cogent opposes from people I like and respect, but I don't agree with them. Even if this candidate is unlikely to be very active, they are in my view extremely unlikely to make any mistakes and even their little bit of admin work will be a net positive.
'''Support''' - Initially I was concerned about the boredom factor that some have opposed for but having thought about it more I decided that it's not really an issue. I trust this user with the tools, activity isn't really a reason for opposition. While articles without sources are the bane of my Wiki-career, it isn't a reason for me to oppose his adminship. <font color="#454545">
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse the tools or the position...

'''Support''' Handled a rough RfA with grace, and that tipped the scales for me.
'''Support''' Calm responses to hostile badgering convince me this editor has the right temperament to be an admin - although I caution him about editing protected pages. That is rarely a good idea.
'''Support''' I like the nothing fancy quality - just experience,  with a solid and straightforward attitude.(
'''Adamant oppose''' — After glancing through your contributions, I noticed that there are significant problems with the quality of some of your articles, issues that an editor ought to identify and reconcile before requesting a promotion to become an administrator. To provide some instruction going forward, I would strongly recommend that you review the policy on verification ([[WP:V]]), and guidance on identifying reliable sources ([[WP:IRS]]), before revisiting the articles that you have created to address the various problems. <span><b>
'''Oppose''' - I'm typically fairly liberal with supporting users in RfA, but I have some concerns here.  The answer to question 1 is troubling; admin tools should not be handed out because someone is "bored" with regular editing.  And looking at his talk page (and related contributions), I see some problems with some of his edits that seem like violations of pretty basic principles.  I'm sure the user has good intentions, but I cannot support this RfA.
'''Oppose''' without reading much further, the answer to Q1 starts as "There's very little I intend to do" - well, admins are pretty busy at times, so if you don't intend to be busy, sorry you don't meet the job qualifications ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose''' Whilst honesty is admirable, the response to Q1 basically reads to me like: "I'd like to have the tools to improve my experience of Wikipedia". That's in every way the wrong attitude for an admin to have. We get the tools to enable us to provide a service to the Wikipedia community, not because we want to edit things we aren't currently allowed to or because having extra buttons is more fun. If you don't plan on providing that service, there's no reason for you to have the toolset.
'''Oppose''' - sorry to hear you're getting bored of editing, but getting the admin tools is not the solution to that.
'''Oppose''' ~ Jason's response to question 1 is a worry – "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" to which they respond "''There's very little I intend to do. Mostly I would like to be able to edit protected pages without needing to wait for time-wasting and cumbersome edit-requests''" — Per that answer, I don't believe that Jason has a particular ''need'' for these tools. Admin tools are not supposed to be given out, to motivate people to edit. Motivation, should already be there. I don't believe these tools would be misused - but neither do I believe that they'll be used frequently, if at all. Jason: If this request is unsuccessful, please remember: [[WP:DEAL|it's no big deal]] - you have ~20k edits over nearly a decade, to be proud of - an impeccable record. Good luck, — [[User:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Oppose''' being bored of editing is not a reason for adminship.
'''Oppose''' - per Mephistophelian. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are necessary for an admin to understand.
'''Oppose''' - I oppose self-nominated candidates on principle. Besides, the answers to the questions and his "track record" do not inspire any confidence.
'''Oppose''' per BWilkins and others above. I think adminship should be a more serious commitment than the answer to question #1 indicates in this case.
'''Oppose''' per the above. I'd like to know that the people we give adminship to are going to do serious work with them. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Oppose''' per Stradivarius.
'''Oppose''' I don't like the idea of somebody seeking adminship because of "boredom" as he put it himself he even said "I'm not going to do much administrative things" more or less. There needs to be a reason I'm going to vote for you and I just plainly do not see it. --'''
'''Oppose''' As has been said above, the answer to Question one is a killer. If you are not going to use the tools there is nbo reason for you to have them. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' per Anthony Bradbury & Yunshui. --
'''Oppose'''.  Having the bit to help you edit protected pages is not the purpose of adminship.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">
'''Oppose''' I think what a lot of people are saying that adminship is not a reward for what I consider your great track record, but fundamentally a desire to serve the community, outside of writing and editing. I admire all your work, but it's not a natural progression.
'''Oppose''' Decent candidate but... The answer to question one didn't sit well with me; however, I have broader concerns that the candidate's knowledge in various areas of policy is not sufficient to use the full set of admin tools in an appropriate fashion. I appreciate the candidate wants to use the tools for fairly limited tasks, but I cannot support unless I feel they have the required knowledge and skill to use ''all'' the tools appropriately.
'''Oppose''' Based on his answers, I don't think Jason has enough experience or grasp of the policy that I expect of an admin. Question one is not the most problematic. I also don't see significant high-quality content creation. I'm ready to support if those areas are improved. I also hope that you take this RFA as "no big deal" should it fail. <b>
'''Oppose'''. Per Bwilkins and Anthony on the lack of interest in using the tools. Honesty is great but not if what is being admitted is not. In passing, I've never been fond of "why not" RfA supports. Also per Mephistophelian. Wikipedia does ''not'' need more stubs with either no sources or unreliable sources. I agree with Jason's point (on the talk page); I'd throw [[WP:N]] into the mix. Editors would do far better to ''improve'' bad articles than to create new bad ones.--
'''Oppose''' After reading both sides' arguments, mostly in league with the "unnecessary powers" arguments. Sorry, though, seems like a nice guy
'''Oppose''' I've never !voted based upon the nomination statement (I ignore the obvious snowies as others can and do state the necessary more usefully than I) until now . That desultory, offhand tone (bored? It shows). How it says nothing but not because its all to come further on or out of circumspection or failure of  communication skills but because there is apparently nothing you want to say. I can't see any enthusiasm or desire - not even much interest - in what few and occasional tasks and responsibilities you state you may be willing to apply yourself to; nothing there beyond "suppose I might". The Q answers haven't make any positive difference to these impressions: your answer to Q9 suggests you think you deserve the adminship for your intrinsic qualities, not for what you do.
'''Oppose''' as per BWilkins.  Your answers to questions 1 and 3 concern me the most.  You've stated that you intend to do very little admin work, that you're bored of the encyclopedia and you can't give any instances of when you've been involved in conflict with another editor?  The admin side can be extremely busy sometimes, especially if there's not many of us online.  Plus, if you're bored of the encyclopedia what's to say that once you've mastered the admin tools you won't become bored of them too?  Thirdly, in an RFA you'd ideally have to show evidence of how you've coped when coming into conflict with another editor as it then shows us how you interact with others and how you would deal with conflict.  I'd suggest trying again in another 6 months or so and hopefully it'll be third time lucky--
'''Oppose''' - BWilkins speaks for me, and I will add that the notion of someone running for admin because they are bored is just plain wrong. I suppose there is something to be said for honesty, but this is an encyclopedia, not a video game.
'''Oppose'''Boredom is not sufficient reason for adminship and for that reason I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Admin is not a "special" right which you get when you want. You need to do something to get this right and in my opinion you are not yet qualified yet.
'''Adamantly oppose''' - The user indicated that they have no intention to use the tools, why then run for RfA? It seems to me like this is another case of vainglorious haberdashery. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
'''Oppose'''. This statement is the main problem: "''There's very little I intend to do.''" In my opinion, people who aren't going to use the tools shouldn't be admins. Minimal input in admin-related areas, although this arguably is unimportant since he isn't going to be doing anything there anyway. The mediocre content contribution doesn't help either. (By the way, there are ways to contribute that don't involve direct editing: GAN reviews, FAC reviews, RfCs, AfD !votes, RfA !votes, etc.)
'''Oppose''' - Comments 2-7 in this section all hit the nail on the head. ''
'''Neutral''' pending further responses. You state in your second response that "... after seven years, I'm just getting bored with editing. It would be nice to have something new to explore." I'm a bit concerned (and I'm sure other editors may share my concern) that an editor who is 'bored' with editing would like to be granted sysop rights just to dull the boredom - the last thing we need is another bored administrator.
'''Neutral''' I'm not too keen on the user's answer to Q1, saying he is getting bored of editing. However, I do not see anything that will make me support or oppose now. I will have to look more into the user's contributions. --  '''
'''Neutral''' - The answer to Q1 kinda tickles my mind when he states that he gets bored of editing. RfA just started today, so I'll try digging deeper to see whether or not to support/oppose. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Neutral (from oppose)''' - Does this candidate meet all my criteria for adminship? No. But an answer to #6 as thoughtful as that and the honesty shown in #1, though I don't necessarily like the answer, keep me from opposing.
'''Neutral'''. Basically  as per Yunshui's oppose vote. I'm  sorry, but  you talked yourself out of any convincing  reasons for wanting the mop before this RfA even got off the ground. Come back  in a few months with  a more compelling  self-nom, or better still  a recommendation  from  one or two  established users, and I'll  do  the research  I  usually  do. I'm  pretty  sure you  will  meet my  criteria metrics and then I  will  be happy  to  support.
'''Neutral'''. Your contributions and policy knowledge seems great from a quick view but a few things. 1.(Addressed.)You said that you are going to use the tools very little and mostly on want to edit fully protected pages and JS. With the mention that you don't want to use any of the other tools. Though I would love to see admins are focus on specific areas running for adminship just to edit fully protection pages is not one thing I would support. 2.Your knowledge of the protection and blocking policy (though you don't intent on using it) is partially a worry as your understanding is not as indepth as I would have expected from a editor for 7 years, Knowledge of the policy is not the main thing. Experience is, so I will see if I can cancel this worry. 3.In question 13 you did not answer it fully which is explaining when page protection should not be used, again joined to concern ''2''. If you (or someone) points out that my three concerns are invalid then I would support.
'''Neutral'''. I would have much liked to support, particularly a fellow mathematician. The candidate is certainly experienced and trustworthy and has made significant contributions to the project. I don't think that any RfA candidate has to demonstrate any kind of a "need" for the tools. However, Mephistophelian raises valid concerns and I find the candidate's response at this RFA's talk page troubling rather than reassuring. I do not believe that any adminship candidate needs to necessarily have any FA,GA or DYK  articles in their record.  Different people contribute to the project in different ways, and, for example, concentrating on gnomish work is perfectly fine. But I do think that any experienced user, and most certainly any admin candidate, needs to make sure that the new content they do create is taken to some basic level of acceptability, at the very least to the level of a respectable stub. By that I mean a stub where at least the main basic facts are expressly referenced to [[WP:RS]] and notability of the topic is made apparent to a casual passer-by. After that is done, it is perfectly fine to leave the article in peace and let other users work on expanding it.  But creating completely unsourced stubs and leaving them in the mainspace as easy targets for PRODding/AfDing or at least for getting slapped with ugly maintenance tags is not OK. In this case the candidate has created quite a few stubs that I would consider sub-par and below the standard of being a minimally respectable stub. E.g. the articles [[Crotaphion]], [[Apoquindo Waterfall]], [[Andreas Airfield]], [[Wildlife of Chile]], [[Salar de Pedernales]] and [[Sharp map]] remain completely unsourced even now (and even after concerns about them have been raised in this RfA). The [[Crotaphion]] article was created in April 2012, not 7-8 years ago (when    unsourced articles were viewed as more acceptable).
Experienced, trustworthy, no fear of power-hunger and potential abuse from this candidate.  I would support with a re-attempt of Q1.  (fortunately, you can't break the project with a single edit; nearly everything can be fixed)  --
'''Neutral'''.  I am not impressed by his answer to questions #1 or #13.  At the same time, I don't see anything else that actively impels me to oppose.  I looked at some of Mephistophelian's long list of supposedly poor-quality work, but I really can't get all that worked up about stubs that still need good sources.  —&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' (from Oppose). After pause for reflection, I realise that my reasons for opposing were a bit too [[WP:NONEED]], and some of the answers to questions above (in particular Q6) have made me realise that the candidate deserves more than that. Good luck!


I have supported candidates in the past for having no admin experience or little interest in admin areas.  In my opinion, the tools are cheap and should be given out freely.  I won't go back on my previous statements on this matter and change my mind now to oppose this candidate for it.  I believe that we should have so many admins, that getting and removing the bits is as uncontroversial as getting and removing rollback.  However, the candidates that I supported before weren't bored and looking for some new 'thing' to be different for them either.  I understand boredom, I'm bored too.  But I was enthusiastic when applying for the tools and had imagined a TParis who closed AFDs and CSDs for years to come.  Unfortunately that didn't happen, but I gave Wikipedia 6 months of it before I slowed down.  I can't support a candidate going in being this disillusioned to the project (not meant to be offensive).  So I won't support, but I won't oppose.--v/r -
First off, congratulations on salvaging this RfA. I hope I haven't spoken too soon. You seem like a valuable and reasonably active contributor. However, I am reluctant to throw my support behind a borderline candidate who does not offer [[WP:AOR|recall]]. Have you considered this?
'''<s>Oppose</s>Neutral''' - I'm particularly concerned that he wants to work primarily in editing protected pages, but I can only see [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Jason+Quinn&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+page+protection&server=enwiki&max= requests for protection on 5 pages]. That doesn't provide adequate evidence of not just ''understanding'' when to protect a page, but being ''pro-active'' in doing so. His problems with working on [[WP:REFTOOLS]] is a valid concern, but one I'd prefer to solve with a different set of permissions - indeed, Jason himself has suggested he would prefer this. The guy's kept his nose clean and stayed out of trouble, and long may he continue to do so.
'''Neutral''' - I think this user would be a good admin, but it seems he only wants to be an admin just because he get's ''bored'' and it seems he doesn't want to alot of Admin jobs anyways
Any day. He's very good to work with and I believe this is a perfect fit for him.--
Definitely clueful, understands policy, and also holds sysop/crat on Wikidata and is familiar with the tools. --'''
'''Support''' as nom.
--
'''Support''' — The candidate has a wide range of experience, having worked with anti-vandalism, deletion, technical stuff (bots, Village Pump, edit filter, etc.), content editing, and more. Legoktm definitely has clue and, from what I have seen personally, helps other users whenever he can. And as a bonus, he has experience from Wikidata as a sysop and 'crat. '''
Legoktm does an impressive amount of work in an impressive number of places. —
'''Support''' — Looks good to me.
'''Support''' [[User:The Anonymouse|Anonymouse]] stated it very well and it would be an overall [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] for the project. —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' I'm pretty sure I told you to try an RfA the other day, didn't I?
'''Support''' despite not being able to find me a picture of a vintage [[Lego tire]], still an all around excellent user. --
'''Support'''  I've seen enough of this editor to consider Legoktm sufficiently trustworthy and clueful. This is reinforced by their role on Wikidata. Best wishes.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strongest possible support''' &mdash; I've only ever had good interactions with him. This is long overdue. Legoktm is eminently qualified for the role.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Phenomenal work with Legobot, and a very impressive CSD log. The candidate would be very useful to have around helping with CSD and protected edit requests. His content contributions may be a bit on the thin side, but giving him the tools would certainly be a net benefit to Wikipedia. — '''''
'''Support''' as a fellow Wikidata bureaucrat.--
'''Weak support'''. Seems sensible and constructive, but should improve some of the articles to DYK--C--B status. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' About time.—
'''Support''' Awesome guy. You should have been a sysop lot of time ago. --
'''Support''' Clearly a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]].  I haven't seen him bite off more than he can chew, so I don't expect him to go maverick anytime soon.  Good clue and understanding of what we are here for.
'''Support''' I largely agree with what the nominator has said. His bot work is good, and template work will be a good fit for him. The AFD statistics tool oppose doesn't have much ground on which to stand. If WilyD can pull up instances where the candidate obviously misrepresented the deletion policy, it would give his oppose more weight. Additionally, I would like to encourage you to take Kiefer's advice and write a GA or at least a B-class article.
'''Support'''. No problems, I think he can be trusted with admin tools. <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">
'''Support'''. He'll do very useful things. --
!!!
-
'''Oppose''' this guy not having the mop.
'''Support''' yes indeed!
Lego needed this years ago. Sir <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' I had this RfA title watchlisted--I'd seen this editor in a number of venues and they've always demonstrated CLUE.  Review of contributions confirmed those impressions. In view of the AfD-related oppose here, I went and re-reviewed AfD  contributions, there haven't been many in the last year (and that might be a reason to go a tiny bit slow in closing AfDs), but I saw nothing that gave me concern, and a couple indications of the right attitude and clue toward the process--this is an editor who is more concerned with the process getting the right result than being right themselves. --
'''Support''' - no concern, wide range of expertise and seems thoughtful. Will be of benefit to the community as a whole.
'''Support''' - his intended admin tasks are realistic and consistent with his demonstrated interests. I trust him to be careful not to use these tools where he doesn't have the experience.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I've posted a question inviting the candidate to respond to the opposers' concern about his deletion !votes.
'''Support''' - [[User:The Anonymouse|Anonymouse]] hit the nail on the head, I think.
'''Support'''  - He is not an admin already? Wow. From all my experiences with him at the IRC, Legoktm has been certainly very much suitable for this adminship. Also, Anonymouse explains very well why.
'''Support''', obviously. Legoktm knows what he's doing and he can be trusted with the few additional buttons. --
'''Support''', given that he will supply me with cookies until the end of time.
'''Support''' because I like Legos.--
'''Support''' - Lego has tons of experience. I think he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - per nomination statement.--
'''Strong support''', obviously. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - yeah, I'd perhaps like to see some more activity at AFD before he jumps into closing discussions there but I'm fine with in-the-job learning.
'''Support''' I like the candidate's versatility; opposes are no concern here.

Familiar with Legoktm; I am surprised he was not already an admin. I think he will do just fine. Clearly, he has good taste - I like his Nyan Cat. '''
'''Support''' Not a length CSD log track record, but no mistakes in there either. Their AFD track record is possibly a bit low not because the editor doesn't understand consensus, but a suggestion of their ability to apply guidelines to articles in line with the status quo. For me this is a bigger issue, but certainly not at 75%. Healthy balance of contributions in all spaces. Very happy to support. I will continue reading their answers to questions since it's still early in the RFA.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' absolutely. Legoktm is an extremely clueful and helpful editor, and exactly the sort of person who should be an administrator. Regarding the oppose section, I do think that "AFD accuracy" is a terrible reason to oppose. We require that administrators understand policy and know how to judge a consensus. But there is no requirement that every administrator agree with consensus. In fact, I think Wikipedia would be far worse if "agreeing with the majority on most issues" was a prerequisite for getting the bit. I'm confident that Lego will acknowledge consensus when it appears, and that's all that matters.
'''Support''' Remember that being involved in an AFD can often provide a different perspective from closing one.  When the AFD is closed, all the arguments are seen and can be evaluated--during the process, the arguments are still being formed.  If "AFD Accuracy" is the measure to be an administrator, then all we need is someone with 100% predictability.  We wouldn't need to have the discussion in the first place.  But we have the discussions, and I think we are better off hearing both sides and not just one side on any topic. A good faith editor.--
Definitely. <font face="Verdana">

I thought you already were an admin. --
'''Support''' per nomination.
I trust Lego completely. He has always been clueful, friendly, and sensible user. I've felt that he should have run for a while now, and I'm glad that his time has come. <small>(
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Editor is really helpful when it comes to answering questions in the IRC --
'''Support''' - No concerns, aside from the fact that he isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' - I don't recall ever having problems with this user. --
'''Support''' - no brainer.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - overall impression of the candidate is good, and the responses to the concerns brought up in the Oppose section also give a positive feeling as to Legokym's judgement. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Another easy choice - this is a good start to May so far :-) --
'''Support''' - No problem with me. User is competent and has the experience necessary to do the job.
'''Support''' No problem.--'''
'''Support.''' Legoktm is clearly experienced and trusted enough to be made an administrator.
'''Support''' No problems. '''
Yessssssssssssssssss. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
seems fine. -
'''Support''' - Great candidate.
'''Support'''. Yes please! [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''[[The Most Interesting Man in the World|I don't !vote in permissions requests often, but when I do, I vote for legoktm]]'''. <small><fanboying class="unnecessarily-long-support-!vote" style="gushiness:100%">Lego's one of the only editors I've ever met who seems to have fully internalized that user rights are about what you can do for the community, not about what you want to do. He requested EFM because he wanted to help monitor AbuseFilter bugs and false positives on private filters. He requested sysop on Wikidata because he was finding a lot of duplicates needing deletion, and was later nominated for 'crat after establishing himself as one of our best users, including working heavily on bot policy. If we could replace all of our admins, good or bad, with <code title={{NUMBEROFADMINS}}><nowiki>{{NUMBEROFADMINS}}</nowiki></code> Legoktms, I'd happily support it. I've found that sometimes, somehow, certain admins manage to be bold whenever moderation is called for, and unnecessarily bureaucratic when decisive action is needed. Legoktm is the opposite of this: He knows exactly when to go with his gut, and when to seek broader input. If anyone else said at RFA that they hadn't really been in any conflicts, I'd call bullshit. But... he hasn't. Pretty much makes the right call in anything he does. So yeah.</fanboying></small>''' —&nbsp;<u>[[User:PinkAmpersand|<font color="000">PinkAmpers</font>]]
'''Support''' - clearly a trusted user and I have nothing but respect for someone who helps out at OTRS. --
'''Support''' - I'm familiar with this user's work. Having encountered this editor several times, I can say that this one is easy to work with and knows the policies. I agree with [[User:PinkAmpersand]]'s strong positive comments above. - <b>
'''Support''' - Administrative experience on Wikidata and a great understanding of pretty much everything there is to understand! What's not to like? <big>[[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Garamond">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Garamond">C</font>]]
'''Support'''. I looked this over yesterday and all seemed to be in order. Good candidate.
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Support''' I see no reason to think he will misuse the tools. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Net positive contributor, the misuse of administrator privileges are very unlikely.

'''Support''' - I am quite familiar with this users' work across Wikimedia projects and en.wiki adminship would definitely be suited for him.
'''Support''' - Clueful.
'''Support''' . Has sufficient  tenure and edits in  a variety  of areas in  spite of the long  relative absences. No  reason  to  believe that  the candidate would abuse the tools and he appears to  understand quite clearly  the differences between CSD and AfD.
'''Support'''. No significant concerns, has ideas how to use tools... why not? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''  You mean he's not an admin already?!
'''Support''' A great editor.
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:ADH10|<span style="color:teal">Addi</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks OK to me. Seen around not causing trouble. Plenty of clue and cautious.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I do not consider the AfD errors particularly significant. I've done similar, and so has everyone who does not stick to the utterly obvious. If we all agreed, or never made mistakes, we wouldn't need discussions. That he withdraws a AfD when he sees he was wrong to enter it is a plus, not a minus. And reverse copyvio is a particularly tricky area. '''
'''Support''' 100% support. Great candidate.
'''Support''' I was concerned with the opposes mentioning AfD results, but then I went and checked: [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Legoktm], and I see nothing unusual.
'''Support''' I trust him with the tools. --
'''Support unreservedly''' as one of the most reliable guys on the site. '''
'''Support''', absolutely.
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' sound and trustworthy user. <i><b>
'''Support''' - Legoktm is clueful and would make a great admin. I was waiting to get [[WP:100]] but unfortunately [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] beat me to it!
'''support''' —
'''Support''' - I don't know the user personally but what I've looked at since the AfD seems solid, as does the proceedings here.
'''Support''' - per WilyD below. AfD needs people who approach the system with well thought out rationales that go against popular opinion. The one thing that AfD doesn't need is oatmeal brained 'yes-men' who have obvious inclusionist or deletionist agendas that they are carrying with them. I only see a net positive here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A  long-term contributor whose contributions to Wikipedia go far beyond what we can see in [[Special:Contributions/Legoktm]].
'''Support''' I've seen the way he acts on Wikidata, and from that I really don't need to check on anything else. (I did anyways, but I didn't ''need'' to.)
I have personally observed Legoktm on several instances from my watchlist, and always have been impressed that his conduct and comments reflected clue coupled with empathy and tact. A review of contributions support my impression and nothing of even a remote concern has manifest. I am happy to '''support''' this nomination.
'''+'''
'''Support''' - Not that much of a contributor in article space, but the overall production is great. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support'''  - A consistently constructive contributor, no convincing reasons given for opposition. &ndash;&nbsp;''
'''Support''' <s>Today I am delighted to finally nominate [[User:Legoktm]] for [[WIKIPEDIA:ADMIN|adminship]].</s>(<small>Looks like I missed all of this recently</small>) Legoktm has been on the project since 2007 contributing over a wide range of areas and namespaces collecting over 20,000 edits. When it comes to policy Legoktm has a very broad knowledge and understanding, If I ever have a Wikipedia related question where the answer doesn't spring to mind Legoktm is always at hand. They have article writing experience, DYKs, are a member of [[WP:OTRS|OTRS]],  works well with tools and has a selection of [[User:Legobot|bots]] as well as also being sysop on Wikidata. I have no reason to doubt Legoktm at all and I am sure they will use their mop well serving the community. '''
'''Support''' Great contributor (even if not focused on content creation), clearly someone who will make good use of the mop. No concerns about maturity.  --
'''Support''' No evidence they will abuse tools or position.--
'''Support''' No concerns!

'''Support''' per Wizardman <small>(good thing I proofread this...I originally said per "wizman"...)</small>
'''Support'''. This RFA confused me; thought he was already one. '''''
'''Support'''. Plenty of clue and experience. I see no reason why Legoktm cannot be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' Seen him around, like the cut of his jib. I'd trust him with the bit.
'''Support''' I also don't see the AfD stuff as a convincing reason for not giving him the mop. He seems to have the experience we want an an Admin as well as the conduct. I think he'd be an asset.
'''Support:''' Will make a great admin! -
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' user can be trusted. -- --
'''Support''': good contributions, helpful editor. ~
'''Support'''. I've seen the candidate around, and I cannot think of any problems. A strong candidate. --
'''Support'''—I am familiar with Legoktm and I believe he can be trusted with the administrator tools.
'''Support''' — Looks good.
'''Support''' Wide variety of experience in many areas over a long period plus thoughtful and considerate. Yes, definitely support.
'''Support''' No concerns. Looks good actually. --
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with him as a janitor. He has a firm grasp of the required knowledge needed to efficiently help out users, and I think an admin toolset could help him out with his duties.
'''Support'''—<span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''
'''Support''' Absolutely. --
'''Support''' I'd trust him with the mop. ~
'''Support''' - trustworthy, reliable, competent
'''Support''' Good guy and I presume he'll learn from Warden's objection.--
'''Support''' Solid contributor who I feel will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I trust they will make a fine admin. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' As long as you block [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] for real next time ;) Regards, —
'''Support''' - Seems abundant with clue, so I'm adding my "me too". -
'''Support''' Everything looks absolutely fantastic to me!
'''Support''' Well, I'm just one of many supporters that is about to land you adminship in just a few hours, but I just want to say that he is an '''excellent''' fit to be an admin. Best of luck with your edit. Cheers! {{=)}}
'''Support''' His understanding of policy, bots and common sense makes him an ideal candidate for the task. I tend to avoid RfA - haven't voted in years but I can gladly make an exception for him. --<small>
'''Support''' Because adminbots. 'Nuff said.
'''Support''' just because.
'''Support'''. Last minute support! --
'''Support'''. Legoktm has been instrumental in getting Wikidata off the ground as an administrator there, and his performance there has been second-to-none. I am confident he will be a true asset to the English Wikipedia, as he has been to Wikidata. —
'''Oppose''' - Given their terrible track record at AfD [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Legoktm] (when confronted with an article the community would retain, they more often than not argue for it's deletion), I have to infer they simply don't have the understanding of the purpose and practices of Wikipedia necessary to process deletion requests; yet the first task they mention taking on is CSD; that would undoubtably go very poorly.
'''Oppose''' Reviewing the candidate's contributions last October, I find [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL)]].  The history of this is that the candidate tried to speedy delete the topic within 5 minutes of its creation.  Over the next day, the topic is greatly expanded with dozens of sources and the speedy is refused but the candidate then takes it to AFD.  The result is a snow keep and only then does the candidate conclude that the topic is "obviously notable" when a simple google search would have told him this at the outset.
'''oppose''' if you're a productive user, keep being productive. i'd rather you stayed there than went to go work o csd etc. there are enough mop-weilders about doing that. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
Pending the answer to NYB's question. The issue with !votes/comments at AfD are a not insignificant concern.
'''Neutral'''. There are enough dodgy AfD !votes to make me hesitant to endorse CSD deletion tools. Content creation is mediocre.
'''Neutral'''. First let me say to the subject of the RfA, thanks for answering my questions. Although I find no reason to oppose the subject outright, and am sure that given the current straw poll results that the subject will be given the Admin tools, I would be more inclined to voting in support of the subject if the subject had more experience in content creation. I understand that content creation is not everyone's preference, but at the core of Wikipedia is the content which has become a valuable resources to the millions of readers of the millions of articles which make up Wikipedia. Without having experience in creating content up to higher levels of quality, it maybe more difficult for an Admin to tackle some critical areas that the community has asked Admins to oversee. Good luck in the future.--
'''Neutral'''- Would have been a Support, but I didn't see this before it had been mentioned to me. :D Not worried that I'll skew the result.
'''YESS!!''' <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Is supporting before the candidate's acceptance allowed? :) —
'''<font color="navy">
255 edits to his FA, which is well-written. Reasonable amount of article writing. Arbcom Clerk, and a clear net positive. '''
I supported the last one, so unless there's some surprise here, I'm on board. - Dank (

knows what he is doing --
I would much rather have someone amass 7000 edits as high-quality as his (assuming--correct if wrong) than 20000 of lesser quality like we've seen in the past. He's managed to make 42% of his contributions to article space, has an FA, and 7 GAs, all the while being a respected ArbCom clerk. He has the NW seal of approval (not as familiar with Roger, but that's probably a plus too {{smiley}}). I'm really finding no reason to oppose, and lots of reasons to support.
'''Support''' per nom and co-nom.
Solid contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' A quality contributor that will be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] as an admin.
'''Support''' Great content work and experience with sticky situations at [[WP:RFM]]; no concerns '''
'''Support'''.
'''Dub thee administrator'''. Arbcom clerks need the keys to Heaven and Hell, and if my memory is correct Lord Roem has been honourable and efficient as a clerk. My previously stated concerns about his editing experience and about his writing standard English have been addressed by sustained editing projects focused on quality articles. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great candidate, No general reason to oppose or raise any concern.
'''Support''' He isn't one already? Make it so, Mr. 'Crat! I have the utmost confidence in his integrity, and he's a top notch contributor at many levels. He will excel, I feel. All the best. Cheers! -
'''Support''' a lot of experience in MedCom, as a clerk, and commissioner for the ArbCom elections. --'''
'''Support''' what's to oppose?  He's touched all the bases.--
Fuck yes.
'''Support''' – I'm somewhat familiar with Lord Roem's record by watching his sensible edits in Arbcom-related matters. His FA work at [[Washington v. Texas]] certainly looks good. No concerns.
'''Support''' I can't believe it's already been 7 months since the last RfA.  No doubt you're going to pass this one.—
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and my view of Lord Roem has not changed since. I am certain he will use the tools wisely.
Same as last time.
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Abso-fricking-lutely!'''
'''Support''', seems like a good candidate. Lessons from the previous RfA seem to have been learned.--
'''Support''' should have been elected last time, IMHO--he's more than ready.
'''Support''' has a record of high quality work. Has learned a lot from previous RfA, which is commendable. Work on [[Washington v. Texas]] was first rate.
'''Support''' Last time was perhaps borderline. He has taken note of objections raised then and met them. no concerns now. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' - He is an excellent editor. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' This user has a lot of good edits and is fit for an admin because he can enforce MediaWiki Policies and not get rid of users he doesn't like.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' Hell yeah!
'''Support as co-nominator''' &nbsp;
'''Support''' I've been keeping an eye out for this nomination, and am glad to see it now. No concerns whatsoever. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
A sure no-brainer. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' Absolutely yes! '''
'''Support.''' Experienced, trustworthy candidate. No concerns whatsoever. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]
'''Support 100%'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Well, if you insist... ;)
'''Support''' clueful editor.
'''Support''' same rationale as previous RfA
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me, and he's had a lot of very good contributions. Work clerking at ArbCom is good as well.
Should've been the first time.
'''Support''' Having read the diffs and objection of the first oppose, but also being familiar with the other work of the candidate, I support.  I agree with the oppose that that area of inquiry needed to be explored in that case, particularly the seemingly extreme off-site "campaign."  However, the query was rather indirect and unfocused, and the clerk has the sometimes tough job of herding cats ''to focus,'' and is bound to step on toes -- in the end it seems that action was within not unreasonable bounds for that job, even if not perfect (also, the issue in the view of the oppose was in fact hashed out elsewhere, so no irremediable foul).
'''Support''' Nice answers for my questions and good contributions to the wiki. '''
'''Support''' - Good contributions and judgement. No concerns at all. -
'''Support''' - Per Legoktm. It's a
'''Support'''.  I've interacted with Lord Roem and have found him to be very clueful.  I believe he understands both user interaction and content creation, and I have no qualms about supporting his RfA.  I acknowledge the one objection that has been raised thus far, but although I believe that concern was expressed in good faith, I don't consider it sufficiently serious to sway my positive opinion.  —&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Seems generally decent. Per noms.
'''Support''' Done good work as an ArbCom clerk, seems to have good judgment and gives thoughtful, measured opinions. No concerns.
'''Support''' - Although I have some reservations based on this users actions as a clerk in some Arbcom cases I don't think they would delete the main page either. I think the user has also been too focused on Arbitration and mediation matters and not enough on Article creation or admin related duties that don't pertain to those 2 areas but that to me is still no reason to oppose. I also have a lot of respect for Roger Davies opinion so if he thinks this user is good enough then that's good enough for me.
'''Support''' - Slam dunk, no research necessary. Be nice to the little people...
'''Support''' - Well contributions. No cause for opposing.--'''
'''Support''' Well-rounded, looks good. '''
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' – Great FA. Edit history and AfD seem good. '''
'''Support''' - Everything looks great.
'''Support'''. I thought we could trust Lord Roem with the administrative tools at the time of his first RfA, and I am still of that same opinion.
'''Support''' I see no reasons for opposing this editor especially at his adminship.
'''Support''' I think he can trusted with the mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - no concerns.
—
'''Support'''. Solid content contributions and no red flags that I noticed.
{{ec}} <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
It looks like the candidate has addressed the concerns raised at the last RfA, and then some. I'm not concerned about the clerking incident raised in Tryptofish's oppose, as a) the clerks were specifically asked to be strict about enforcing the rules in that case, b) isolated incidents shouldn't topple an RfA unless they are major screw-ups (which this one wasn't), and c) the functions of an ArbCom Clerk don't have all that much overlap with the functions of an administrator anyway. — '''''
Ja.
'''Support''' - no concerns, has worked on the issues raised in last RFA which is always a good sign.
'''Reluctant Support''' — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' as I had supported you in the previous nom--
'''Support''' Per nom and an assessment of Roem's contributions.
Clueful, intelligent guy. Knows what he's doing. I have no concerns. <font face="Verdana">
Seems to be OK, although I am worried about the number of edits since the previous RfA.
I supported the last time around, might as well support this time, too!  &ndash;&nbsp;''
Absolutely. Worked with him on arbcom clerks, completely trust him. <small>(
'''Support''' Good track record of article writing, experience of dispute resolution as an Arbcom clerk, no evidence of [[WP:BITE|biting]] in contributions I looked at, demonstrates a capability to use tools responsibly and defer to consensus calmly. --
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' Seems to be a trustworthy and capable editor. -
'''Weak Support''' - I'm a bit concerned about the answer to Q10, in which case the info shouldn't be "'''simply''' [[WP:REVDEL|RevDel'ed]] using the administrator tools", but [[WP:SIGHT|Oversighted per point 1]]; the particular understanding of RevDel/Oversight policies is minor but I worry it may indicate that the user is prompt to enact the first solution that presents itself instead of looking farther and finding a better, more appropriate solution. However his experience at the ArbCom levels of Wikipedia and his passion for dispute resolution leads me to believe he can be trusted with [[WP:NBD|a few extra buttons]], since I have no doubt he wouldn't be clerking ArbCom is there were serious flaws in his general trustworthiness. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">
'''Support''' While I was hoping for a deeper answer to my question, I think Lord Roem is ready for the mob. His other answers and general behavior show a good grasp and understanding of Wikipedia policies, and he has a sufficient level of content creation. <b>
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''', excellent candidate, level-headed and fair.
'''Yes'''. Learns from mistakes. Willing to help out. '''
'''Support''' Excellent editor. I think he's learned from his last RFA and he is now a trusted ArbCom clerk. He has created many quality articles. I see no reason why this user shouldn't be an admin.
'''Support'''. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - No problems last time, ditto. Good luck.  {{font|font= Trebuchet MS|
No obvious issues.--
'''Support''': From what I've seen, LR receiving the tools will result in a clear net benefit to the project. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' at one point I had some conflict with this user.  Looking back, I'd say he was more in the right than I.  But in any case, he handled the conflict fairly well.  I think he may be a bit too rules bound (which is saying quite a bit coming from me) but I think he'll do fine.  Just look at the larger picture and be willing to go out on a limb to do the right thing, rather than the easy thing, a bit more.  I'll admit to not looking closely at his more recent work (given I'm supporting already and the oppose votes all come from things I'm familiar with I don't see a need).
'''Support''' I'm impressed with the users experience in MedCom.
'''Support'''. —
Longterm user, clean block log and many sensible edits. As for the opposes, few other than NewYorkBrad came well out of the Fae case. I've trawled back through the edits and seen Lord Roem insisting that people on both sides furnish diffs and not elaborate their case beyond what the diffs would support. Perhaps there was something egregious that I've missed, but if so I'd rely on others to find it and perhaps consider whether it was important enough to oppose over. As for me I've supported candidates where I've taken the opportunity to chide them over the odd flaw, others may yet find the odd flaw in this candidate but it would take more than one recent mistake for me to reconsider my position. ''
'''Support''' WereSpielChequers expresses it well. I have a high regard for Salvio's opinions and his oppose gave me pause but, perhaps because I wasn't involved in the fae case, don't really see anything egregious there. To the contrary, I see Lord Roem as having been a firm arbcom clerk and that also gives me the confidence that he'll be a strong administrator as well. --
'''Support''' Seems like a solid candidate, and I appreciate his welcoming approach toward newer editors and his focus on editor retention.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. I don't see a problem with the ArbCom clerking.
--
'''Support'''. The opposes bring up a couple points, but I don't see any long-running issues. I had a [[WP:Requests for adminship/Ks0stm|rather controversial RfA]] in part because of a single incident, and such an incident has not happened before or since. On the whole I prefer not to !vote based on limited incidents but rather long term patterns, and Lord Roem's positive long term patterns compel me to support. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''' per my rationale the first time.  "Seems to be a good editor, and I doubt that ArbCom would trust someone enough to make him a clerk if he were untrustworthy enough that he wouldn't be a good admin."
'''Support.''' Repeating what I said last time: " Lord Roem rolls up the sleeves to help in a variety of areas, understands procedure and protocol better than most, and demonstrates consistent good judgment everywhere I've observed his work." --
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good content contributor. He is clued in and seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' - notoverly concerned by the opposes. Don't get this rubbish about concerns that the editor "wants" to be an admin when half of WT:RFA is filled up with comments that we should look through CAT:ADMINHOPEFULLS for good candidates. Solid editor, will do just fine. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
{{ec}} '''Support''', per WereSpielChequers. If this RfA is successful and the candidate ''does'' exercise poor judgement<del>/bias</del>, then the community can deal with it at that time. Until I've investigated further, there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to oppose (one editor who participated in the case referred to under ''oppose'' is even supporting this time, after opposing last time). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Weak Support''' the opposers has some valid points, and I do have some concerns about some of the NAC closures he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avaya_Definity&oldid=526622851 one example], but I see a net positive, and Trevj is right, if anything does happen we have more community control than before dealing with problematic administrators (though still nowhere near perfect yet).
'''Support''' Thought they passed the first time round! All the best,
'''Support''' Looks good! I hope he'll be a great admin. Good wishes! --
'''Support''' Seems to be a trustworthy editor. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' Don't see any reason not to. —
'''Support''' Supported last time and I still think this user will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--

'''Support''' - And I thought this user ''was'' an administrator when I first saw them! Good luck,
'''Support''' - Appears to be a firm candidate. After reading through the opposition, I'm unconvinced that this will make him a ''bad'' administrator. Certainly, giving LR the mop will be a net positive to the project. '''
'''Weak support''' I really consider the number of deleted edits important in RfAs. And I think 73 (1.05% of total edits) deleted edits are not very appropriate for showing if know or not the deletion policy, to me. So It's a "weak support".
'''Strong support''' I wish we had 20 more like him. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] EDIT: after carefully reading the oppose arguments, I still support. Should this pass, I suggest that they wait a year, review his work as an admin, and give an "I was right" or "I was wrong" opinion. In fact, I think that would be a good thing in all RfA cases. --
'''No brainer support''' Lord Roem is very well qualified, and can clearly be trusted to use the tools sensibly.
'''Support''' - I had a long look at the opposes and there are some cogent observations there - <s>however I don't want to upset the "winners" and am simply sucking up to all those named above</s> however I don't believe a candidate with genuine potential should be expected to be perfect at RfA, and assume his lordship will take on board these comments if he is successful.
'''Support''' There are some valid sounding concerns in the opposes, but I consider the positive side outweighs them. I can't see anything wrong with being the sole editor of an article, by the way. At least we've got an article on it now - and it could well mean that no-one's managed to improve on it anyway...
'''Support''' I think the opposition is sensible, but so is the defense to them.  Maybe LR's actions at the Fæ Arb case were wrong, but also maybe they weren't.  They were questionable, but within the domain of reasonable discourse.  They weren't gross inadequacies.  Now, if all of LR's actions were merely defensible, and none indubitably good, then there would be no question of his inadmissibility.  However, this is just one questionable case among many indubitably good. I think his content creation was good: If it was done merely to establish his credentials for this RfA and for ArbCom, I don't think that matters, as admins are not required to be content creators but merely, I think, should be familiar with the intricacies of it.  Having made an FA and a GA I think shows that he has this familiarity.  Finally, I think if an admin acts in the model established in LordRoem's history, then the project would be, overall, improved. --<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' - I'm a bit concerned about this candidate leaning pretty hard on the inclusionist side of the spectrum, but all things considered, that concern isn't enough for me to oppose.
'''Support''' without reservation.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">

'''Support''' I have no concerns. Lord was ready for the mop a long time ago. If he can't make the cut at RFA then the bar is way too high. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' level headed, composed. No obvious concerns that I can see.
'''Support''' - no concerns here.--<font face="bold">
'''Support''' per [[WP:DEAL]]: clueful, and unlikely to break Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - I don't find the opposes to be enough reason for me not to support and I don't see anything else that would warrant an oppose. <font color="#454545">
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support'''. There's no reason to mistrust his future use of the admin toolkit, even given others' concerns about arbcom etc. &mdash;
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Will be an asset to the community. --
'''Support'''. The candidate is a dedicated, experienced editor who has made useful contributions in a wide variety of ways. The concerns about the candidate's work as an arbitration clerk do not, in my view, reflect on the candidate so much as on the difficulties of the role in the context of especially contentious arbitration cases. While I am sure Lord Roem will take the other concerns raised on the RfA into account going forward, on balance I find him to be an excellent candidate and am glad to be supporting him.
'''Support''' - Quite possibly more qualified than most current admins.
'''Support''', I took a look back through the Fae case and do not see the candidate taking any actions that I can in any reasonable way perceive as biased, either individually or taken as a whole. I'd be willing to consider more specifics, but I just don't see anything that matches the generalities given. As to "wanting to be an admin"&mdash;we better hope more people "want to be an admin". You'd damn well need to in order to come here and put up with that kind of silliness. (Though putting up with silliness at RfA is, I suppose, good preparation for what awaits should you pass.) Candidates who come here without preparation tend to fail pretty spectacularly. Now, apparently, candidates who come here and ''did'' consider their decision and prepare accordingly get opposes.
'''Support''': Great to work with; will handle the mop with alacrity.
'''Support''' Happy to support per my [[User:Mkdw/RfA Standards|RFA standards]].
'''Support'''. As per my oppose vote in  the previous RfA, I'm  now happy  to offer my  solid support. Without  prejudice to  the concerns expressed by  the opposition below, I'm actually  quite impressed with  his work  as an Arcom  clerk and the sincerity  with  which  he has calmly responded to  the heavy  discussions in  the question  section above.
'''Support''' per rogerd.  As an aside, while Im not sure I fully understood the dynamics of the Fæ case, plenty of others have offered their opinion, so here's mine. Right at the start, the Arbs asked for extra strict clerking, especially against unsupported speculation. Any clerk who dutifully implemented the Arb's request was inevitably going to attract criticism from some. Perhaps you now think there's a few things you could have done better, but for me your performance at the Fæ case was close to flawless.
'''Support'''  The opposing views are concerned that LordRoem supported the popular rather than remaining completely neutral.  Perhaps he saw consensus?  I find no reason to oppose and have always found him civil and thoughtful.  He will be an asset to WP, in my opinion.
'''Oppose''', but I'm open to persuasion. In a change from what often happens in RfAs, I actually supported last time, but oppose now. In that last RfA, there were questions about the candidate's clerking in an arbitration case that was going on at the same time as that RfA. I supported, and specifically commented that I thought that the clerking looked just fine to me. Very shortly after, I ended up feeling like I had put my foot in my mouth. I raised what I ''know'' was an appropriate question, one that the arbitrators ought to follow, on the evidence talk page. Then, this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FF%C3%A6%2FEvidence&diff=497602019&oldid=497601788], happened. I asked Lord Roem about it on his talk page, and got what I feel was an insufficient answer: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem&diff=prev&oldid=497603690]. I explained further: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem&diff=next&oldid=497605879]. The discussion that I tried to start on the evidence talk ended up moving to my own talk page, and many editors commented that it shed more light than just about anything else in that case. Ironically, I know that some of the arbitrators followed it there, because some of them made comments there. Some of the users who opposed the last RfA said that Lord Roem seems very focused on having the position of administrator, but lacked the nuances of judgment that are needed. They were right and I was wrong, then. If you parse his response to me, in the diff above, there's nothing grossly wrong: it's professional and workmanly. But it just doesn't ''get it''. Now, that said, I began by saying that I'm open to persuasion, and I am. Please feel free to pile on. But I'm not looking for an ArbCom circling of the wagons, so please don't tell me that the arbs supported the hatting. What I ''am'' looking for is convincing evidence of growth and learning. --
I apologise for being blunt, but, unfortunately, there is no gentler way to express my opinion. In the end, adminship comes down to trust and I don't trust you with a mop. I have witnessed the way you clerked Fae's case and, in my opinion, in some cases you did not act in a neutral fashion, but simply chose to side with the ''popular guys''. Flaiano once wrote ''Italians are always ready to run to the rescue of the winners''; my fear is that, as an admin, you would do the same. On top of that, I get the feeling that you've been trying to tick all the right boxes to get the mop. For these reasons, I don't believe you should be made an admin. Disclosure: I was peripherally involved in the cited ArbCom case though I have a strongly held view regarding the issue. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''', per Salvio. I have adopted his concern regarding LR and am not comfortable supporting this RfA.&nbsp;--
'''Oppose''' per Salvio and Tryptofish. Sorry, but this is a matter of trust and on reflection I share the concerns of these respected users. I hope I am proved wrong as this looks like it will pass. --
'''Oppose''' I hate to jump on the losing side of a battle, but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't and frankly, I'm not afraid of being in the minority.  On a personal level, I have no beef with LR, and he has always been very nice to me and from what I've seen, most everyone else.  I am opposing for the same reason I opposed last time.  Salvio actually sums it up fairly well, but as I articulated last time, Lord Roem isn't independent enough to be an effective admin.  I think he means well, but he does seem to take the "popular side" as Salvio puts it.  Admin '''must''' be neutral and use their own discretion, or non-admin can't trust their judgement.  Assuming this passes, I sincerely hope Lord Roem separates himself from the pack and will use his own common sense and judgement, rather than go along with the crowd.  While there may be safety in numbers, blindly taking the lead from others is very damaging to retention and overall morale around here, and fuels the (incorrect) assumption of "cabals". There is a fine line between "getting along" and "jumping on the bandwagon", and I sincerely hope that if you get the bit, you are able to make that distinction.  Given my druthers, I would prefer waiting to get the bit until you can do that first.
'''Oppose''' - per Salvio.
'''Oppose''' as per Salvio. It's my impression that the candidate uncritically follows the populist path, and his evident desire to become an administrator is disturbing in one without a demonstrated ability for independent thought.
Agree with Dennis Brown, though I don't think waiting a bit would change my opinion. The populist politics are concerning, but not all that trouble me about this candidate. I like to see significant content contributions from admins. Some like to see FAs or GAs. I personally think FA/GA can be more about proper formatting rather than writing a comprehensive encyclopedia article, but it usually shows how one responds to criticism. FA/GA at RfA ''should'' be about two things: showing that actual writing of the encyclopedia is a top priority and showing collaboration with other users. The FA/GAs appear to have been written out of a desire to pass RfA (and subsequent Arbcom). Further, they were written entirely by Lord Roem and show no collaboration with others. The topics were simply not interesting enough for anyone else to even start a stub on the topic.[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Taylor_v._Illinois] In [[Taylor v. Illinois]], there are 3 listed references plus the primary source opinion/judgement/ruling/whatever. One of the references (Stocker) is used only once, one (Atkinson) is used 12 times, and the third (Heiderscheit) is used 5 times. Basically, this "good" article is based on one source. But there are so many <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags thrown in there it appears as if the article is well sourced. This isn't to say the article is not needed on Wikipedia, but it does show that you are more interested in ticking off the boxes needed to make a Good Article rather than writing a good article. The same argument goes for the FA written by Lord Roem, and probably the other content contributions though I haven't looked in-depth. -
'''Oppose''' - per Tryptofish, Salvio and Dennis. I came to very similar conclusions at the time.
'''Oppose''' per Tryptofish, Salvio and Dennis as well. I wasn't going to vote. But I feel strongly enough about it to a least agree with these editors. No offense to the the nom.--
'''Oppose''' per John and Salvio. There is an evitable run for arbcom in the making here, and I am uncomfortable with the tendancies so far, including evidenced judgement, as well as the transparency of the account to go with the direction in which the wind is blowing. Ironically I think we might have another Salvio here.
'''Oppose''' per Tryptofish, Salvio and Dennis - I did not !vote in the first Rfa, if I remember this correctly, due to concerns expressed by opposers, and before I could weigh in, the candidate withdrew. Having worked with Tryptofish previously, I know him to be a most thoughtful, careful Wikipedian. I fully agree with his concerns, and feel this candidate is not currently a good choice for a lifetime appointment as an Administrator.  I do thank the candidate for services to the project to date.
'''Oppose''', mainly per Salvio and Dennis Brown. I'd also note that Lord Roem's evaluation of sourcing in legal articles is troubling; many of the articles he has worked on rely extensively on ''law student'' pieces in law reviews (which are glorified term papers, unreviewed by working professionals) rather than genuine scholarly work by authors with demonstrated expertise.
'''Neutral''' I really like Lord Roem as an editor, but I am cautious to support as an administrator for the reasons Salvio and Tryptofish lay out.  I'm split between supporting because the user is a good user, and opposing because the candidate has focused on becoming an administrator.  As the candidate pointed out by quoting NW, intent is important.  In this case, I question whether the intent is to be an admin or to help Wikipedia.  I feel bad being here, but Salvio is right and Tryptofish has a valid concern.--v/r -
'''Neutral''' but leaning toward oppose for reasons outlined by TP above.
'''Neutral''' It's looking like you'll get the bit, but you must remember to remain neutral in situations.
'''Strong support''' - Matty's work around the football wikiproject has been extremely impressive, it's always been a pleasure to interact with him, I couldn't think of a better candidate for adminship right now, he'd be a net gain for the project if he was given the bit.
'''Support'''. I've been familiar with Matty's work for several years through our involvement in WikiProject Football. I [[User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_11#Adminship|offered to nominate]] him some four years ago, and since then my belief in his suitability has only strengthened. His first RFA is so long ago that the issues raised therein have loooong since ceased to be an issue, IIRC he was still in school then. It is safe to say he has matured in the six years between then and now; I've seen it happen first-hand. He is primarily a prolific content contributor and topic specialist, and I don't expect that to change if he's given the bit. But it would mean all those requests he makes to RFPP and AIV don't need to take up someone else's time (So far this year I count 30-odd reports to RFPP and 20-odd to AIV).
'''Support''' as nominator. — '''''
'''Support''' Seen this editor around for several years and am fairly sure he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Sure thing. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' -
Strongly, would have gladly nominated him myself if I knew he was interested in RFA.
'''Support''' – Great editor, has done incredible work with articles relating to York City F.C. and one of the mainstays of [[WP:FOOTY]]. He is also very active in dealing with vandalism and dubious or unsourced edits. I've always found him very approachable and extremely helpful. I have to concur with [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] I can't think of a better candidate at the moment. &#9733;&#9734;
'''Support''' - It doesn't look like the user will be heavily active in Admin stuff but they appear to be a trustworthy user. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Though he may not be the busiest admin of the project it will be a net gain to have him as an admin as has been stated above. I believe him to be trustworthy with the mop. I give him my full support.
'''Support''' - All issues from 2007 seem to have been adressed; the candidate also has an interest in participating in the often back-logged WP:AIV, so definately plus. Good luck! —
'''Support''' - I don't see any problems.--
'''Support''' - plenty of content work, no problems after a quick search. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">'''
'''Support''' - An easy yes for me. —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Satisfied. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">
'''Support''' - Longtime, respected Wikipedian. Willingness to help at AIV a big plus. My thanks to the candidate for being willing to serve.
'''Support''' as co-nom. cheers,
Definitely. Mattythewhite brings a diverse range of experience and would be very helpful as an administrator.
'''Support''' per above.  I don't care about 2007.--
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' - I have known Matty for a good number of years over at [[WP:FOOTBALL]] and I cannot commend him enough - honest, hard-working, smart - everything we need in an Admin. His work rate and experience are second-to-none and he will be an asset to the community.
'''Support''' Sure. —
'''Support''' per nom, et al, though I do question the candidate's wisdom and emotional stability. I mean, it says something when an editor is willing to wait this many years before having another go at RFA - perhaps we were not sufficiently brutal the first time around. Doesn't look like we'll break him this time around, either, so might as well give'im the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' 6 years shows a determination to improve which implies a determination to be a commendable admin. ```
'''Support''' In short, [[WP:NETPOS]] clearly applies here.  Editor is clueful and dedicated.  The tools will help them do even more.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Obvious improvement since 2007.
'''Support'''. Yep, great hard-working contributor with a calm head - should be just fine. --
'''Support''' per nom. It's a
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.--'''[[User:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Pr<font color="red">at</font><font color="blue">yya</font></span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Pratyya Ghosh|<span style="color:orange;font-family:Verdana">'''(Hello!)'''</span>]]</sup> 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)--'''
{{pro}} --
'''Support''' Absolutely agree with nom --
'''Support''' after a review of contributions.  --
'''Support''' Well, we clearly know what his interest is! With a demonstration of such great knowledge over his interests (via creation of several featured lists) he knows how to make a great encyclopaedia better. At this moment, he deserves to have admin privileges.
--[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 19:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)  Support, though weakly.  The opposition raises concerns with a weakness in investigation at AfD.  This may be OK if you are going to begin administrative work at PROD.  I would oppose if you had said you would begin with clearing CSD nominations.  Please take their criticism seriously and be cautious.  --
'''Support''' I judged this user based only on their userpage according to the policy [[User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy|here]]. This user meets my expectations and based only on that, I support this user's promotion. Others should check other aspects of this user's work.
'''Support''' per everyone above. <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">
'''Support''' Good candidate
'''Support''' I've seen Matty around and have always been impressed with his edits. I think he'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' - haven't interacted with the candidate much (as far as I can recall) but I can't see anything that concerns me greatly.
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.  Good answers to the questions, and I trust the user with the tools.
'''Support''' I am little concerned about this editor limited participation at AFD to only [[soccer|football]] related nominations. A more broad level of participation to be familiar with the status quo at AFD would have been my one criticism for a candidate that wants to specifically go into closing AFDs as a sysop. Unfortunately (but fortunately in this case) I'm sure the participants would let them know immediately if they felt the close was incorrect. There are plenty of editors whom I have the utmost respect for supporting this candidate so I am inclined to happily add myself to the supports.
'''Support''' - experienced editor with great contributions. No concerns at all.
No red flags and good record. While I don't think there's a strong need for the tools, I think he'll be a net positive. <b>
'''Support''' edit history and answers demonstrate more than adequate maturity and knowledge. No reason for concern; will be an asset as admin. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Great user, experienced and should be fine with the tools.
'''Support''' - Adequate tenure and contributions. Blotch on block log is 5 years distant. Good answers to questions, no concerns.
'''Support''' - based on review and issues from 2007 seem to be moot.
'''Support'''. Good user, net positive. '''

I am not seeing any reason for the editor not to get the Admin tools, however, I would have preferred that the editor give a better conflict of interest statement, especially in regards to "external relationships" which may trigger potential COIs in the future. Otherwise, the single block the editor has had was a long time ago, and the editor has contributed positively to Wikipedia as evident by the numerous GAs, and FAs that the editor has helped promote.--
'''Support''' per Oppose #3. <big>[[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Garamond">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Garamond">C</font>]]
'''Support''' not reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Yes'''. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' Back of the net.
'''Support''' Great user. '''
'''Support''' I vote mainly on the basis of demeanour and general competence. Matty has both. --
'''Support''' Good candidate who learns from mistakes, an important trait. Legitimate (non-SPA) opposes not a concern; many candidates (including me) don't know during their RfA where they'll be most useful, and specialization (in an encyclopedia) is a plus—not a minus.
'''Support''' - This is only the second RfA candidate I can remember having a genuine opinion about, and it is pretty much positive all around. Really not sure what is going on with the two trolling SPA opposes, although the trolling nature of one of the other votes doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It's been six long years since the first RfA, and everything presented here suggests that none of the issues from then are still relevant.
'''Support''' - I admit I originally had every intention to oppose. His very high percentage in AfD where his !vote was the same as the outcome usually speaks to me of a yes-man who only puts their opinion in after they already know which way the AfD is likely to go, simply parroting the same opinion as someone above them. After an hour of looking through his contributions, I found this wasn't the case at all. He is often the first person to speak up in quite a few AfDs and gives opinions  grounded in policy and common sense. That works for me.
'''Support''' Seems completely qualified, and Wikipedia could use more sports subject matter expert admins, especially given the massive amount of maintenance that sports articles can require.
'''Full support'''
'''Support''' - good content editor, great knowledge of policy, will probably make a better admin than I am.
'''Support'''.  Okay, I'm mildly annoyed that X!/TParis' edit counter isn't working and I can't do my usual analysis of an administrator candidate.  That's no reason to continue to withhold my support !vote, however, from a clearly well-qualified candidate by temperament and accomplishment.  I see a lot to like: strong participation in football-related AfDs, two-thirds of his edits to article space, good history of contribution to GA and FA content, and relatively unflappable demeanor.  To my way of thinking, Matty is pretty darn close to an ideal candidate.
'''Support'''. Now that I know he's a wizard ... Part of the reason I'm voting for him is ''because'' he's a sports nut. I think it's good for the admin corps to be diverse. I know almost zilch about sports and frankly don't even like most of them, but I recognize that I'm in a small minority. He also seems like a good, hard-working, clueful fellow.--
'''Support''' - seems like a decent candidate; wasn't going to participate at all, but the tomfoolery below is not fair to the candidate. For the record, I do not think the topic on which someone chooses to write should have ''any bearing whatsoever'' on their competency overall as a writer or admin candidate. If someone is interested in chords, write about it. If someone (i.e. this candidate) likes football and can write about it using reliable sources, then that is what we are here to do. Chastising someone because of their personal interests about which they like to write is ludicrous and has no place in a broad, collaborative encyclopedia.
'''Support''' – willing to work as an administrator in an area of Wikipedia containing many very popular articles (in terms of both readers and contributors). An extra admin in a high-traffic area of the 'pedia could only be useful. '''
'''Support''' Haven't seen too much football admins out there.  I think this would be a great move for Wikipedia and for the entire football community.
'''Support''' – I don't come around these parts often, but I wanted to back this candidate. I've been exposed to his work at FLC before and have been impressed by it. Matty strikes me as the level-headed type, and I think the project will benefit from giving him the tools.
'''Support''' I have crossed paths with the candidate on several occasions, mainly making similar vandalism reversions to articles and notices to vandals. I read football articles much more than I edit them, so I fully support someone who watches over the accuracy of these articles and keeps them up. I have noted that he is an extremely diligent and productive editor. My comment turns out to be similar to the preceding comment by [[User:Giants2008]].
'''Support''' I have some concerns about the users ability to make tough calls which can be required of an admin. The answers also left me unimpressed being quite wooly with little meat. But there is nothing which indicates he would abuse the tools and he could do some of the mop work and maybe step outside the world of footy to look at [[WP:Admin backlog]].--
'''Support''' No problems here - give the man a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
The arguments of the editors who have opposed are unconvincing (and one vote to oppose is particularly unpleasant and unsupportable). The candidate's writing is entirely comprehensible, and his established record of mainspace contributions is better than the record of many of our best administrators. As for his AFD votes, my own opinion aligns with Trusilver's above and I disagree that the candidate's participation at AFD demonstrates anything other than satisfactory judgement and a commitment to reducing backlogs. While I was tempted to support merely because rejecting a candidate because they only contribute to articles on sport would be an awful precedent to set, the only relevant question here is whether the candidate is experienced and trustworthy. He plainly is. '''Support.'''
'''Support''' No concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Supporting''' on behalf of Kiefer Wolfowitz, because Kiefer won't. Isn't he precious. Listen: this is the encyclopedia with the goal of bringing the sum of human knowledge to all humans. The ''sum''. Not "things that had an entry in Britannica" or "things that make academic chairs puff contentedly on their pipes"; the sum. I don't care if you've written an FA on football or on [[dactylic hexameter]], you're a good candidate and you have my trust to be an admin. Anyone who thinks your choice of subjects makes a difference to where you should be allowed to work needs to get over themselves.
'''Support''' This is a collaborative writing project. No editor should be discouraged from writing for lack of a PHD, but in fact they ought to welcome copy edits that subsequently improve on their contributions. Kiefer, I believe your zeal is misplace here, at RfA, because it is not as much one's writing skills that ought to be factored, but rather their communication skills. Mattythewhite has shown that he can communicate in a clear and concise manner and this will serve him well as an administrator. And he's one heck of a colleague on collaborative writings as well.--
'''Support'''. As someone who has known him for many years at WikiProject Football, I can only see this being a positive to the encyclopaedia. A strong content creator who is thoroughly pleasant, dedicated and hard-working.
'''Strong support''' - prolific editor, with many high-quality articles, he easily passes [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RfA_standards|my guidelines]].
'''Support''' mainly per Ironholds. He does make grammatical mistakes but his prose is easily good enough to express himself clearly as an admin, which is the point of this discussion. One doesn't need to pass an Rfa to edit articles. To reject a candidate because he or she chooses to work in a sports-related subject area is just nonsense, imo.
'''Support'''  As per Ironholds .User is highly dedicated ,experienced and committed to the Project and has been here for ages and the  concerns raised in the previous RFA and the block for image copyright violation in 2007 are moot now .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools and see no scope for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds']] spot on summation above. --
'''Support''' Absolutely. '''
'''Support'''. Lots of experience, good temperament, great contributions. I don't see any reason to suppose that we cannot trust Mattythewhite with the admin toolset.
'''Support''' The first thing I see when looking at his contributions is a persistence to fighting vandalism and improper edits altogether. His usage of Twinkle to warn and report wrongdoing users is brilliant. -- <span class="nowrap"><sup>[[User talk:Numbermaniac|<span style="color:#2CA05B">(T) </span>]]</sup>[[User:Numbermaniac|<span style="color:#07E">Numbermaniac</span>]]<sub>
'''Support''' He is a good all rounder! --
'''Support''' Looks great to me. 6-7 years is a long time to edit, and they are clearly here for the right reasons. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' Bah, how did I miss this?  Absolutely no problem here.  MOT.
'''Support''' No issues with this candidate '''
'''Absolutely''' - Outstanding work in a popular area of the project, no issues.
'''Support'''. I have no worries. I think Matty will be an asset to the Admin team. Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' I see no strong reasons stated in the oppose column, and see many strong reasons to support.
-- <b>
'''Support''' - Looks like a great candidate with plenty of experience.
'''Support''' - Never let perfection get in the way of good enough. MTW far surpasses good enough even after considering somewhat valid criticism in the oppose area. I trust he'll take care in closing AfD's for a bit, closing the more obvious consensus early and carefully considering all comments as time progresses. No consensus is always an option. He's ready for the mop 'n' bucket.
'''Support''' Supporting coz I trust nom. --
User wishes to work at AfD, but I cannot find one instance within the last year where they provided a rational that wasn't basically "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL". Piling on delete votes on obviously non-notable football players at AfD does not show ability to interpret deletion policy. I'm also concerned that in X years and Y edits, you're only able to point to one article in Q2. (Granted it asks for the best, but you provided more than one example.) (See [[User:Nathan Johnson/dissent|On dissent]]) -

'''Oppose''' Would seem to be well qualified to be an administrator on [[Wikia]] or football wikis, but I don't see contributions to traditional encyclopedic content. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 08:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The <u>cliches and tortured syntax of this editor's responses to the standard questions</u> confirm that this candidate is unlikely to be the C.L.R. James of football. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">

'''Oppose''' I too have looked at this material, and I agree with Unscintillating-- there is not a single AfD comment that shows any effort to actually look at the article under discussion, let alone took for sources. A me-too vote is when the editor simply echos a previous comment taking it on faith that the previous comment represented the true state of affairs. Naturally, considering the great number of articles we unfortunately get submitted on football players who do not  meet our standards, commenting "delete" on everyone listed as such will be right almost all the time. As here. I would be nowhere as concerned if the candidate had not stated an intent to concentrate on this area.  '''
'''Based on the lightweight AFD work'''.  Part of being a good writer is doing research.  Rubber stamp AFDs don't show evidence of researching and bringing in new insights.  The analysis above is quite good.  (I am not taking into account the crits on grammar or topic emphasis).
'''Oppose''' I was contemplating support, but the editor wishes to work at AfD and has shown insufficient insight at that venue for me to trust him in closing discussions. Unscintillating asked a relevant question 3 days ago which was not answered, which only heightens my concerns. I will happily swing my vote if it is answered and shows some insight into the process,
'''Oppose''' Based on AfD concerns raised above.
'''Neutral''' - Matty is a great all around candidate, other than AfDs. He says he wants to work with them, yet I looked at his last 250 and found some prominent red flags in his noms. The issues are to strong for me to support, but too weak for me to oppose. Although I am sure this RfA will pass, I urge Matty to look at his past AfD noms and try to improve in the future. Unscintillating really outlined this above.
Per answers to the questions and areas of interest.
I'd like the closing crat to understand my "neutral" comment as actually being very close to "support", and it's clear to me that this RfA is going to be successful. But I've had to think unusually hard and for an unusually long time about this RfA, and I think that my concerns can get a bit more attention here than they would have gotten in the support section. I hope that the candidate will regard what I say as friendly feedback, because I'm saying it in that spirit. Obviously, anyone with this extensive a track record is a trustworthy contributor to the project. And I put a lot of faith in nominations by Mr. Strad. Nevertheless, I actually find a lot of substance in the much-maligned opposes. Is it a problem if someone who tends to follow the crowd closes AfDs? Actually, we kind of want admins to follow the consensus, rather than force a super-vote over consensus. And we absolutely should never disqualify an RfA candidate whose subject interests are disliked, so long as they are within the scope of what passes [[WP:NOT]]. But I kind of agree with DGG that we have too many low-quality fan-cruft pages about sports persons, and I want to make sure that closing admins will exert critical thinking instead of just following "keep" !votes. Does it matter if an admin is careless about grammar? Well, it's not a disqualifier, but put yourself in the shoes of a user who ended up on the losing side of an admin decision, and finds that decision explained with an obvious language error. It shakes confidence, and that undermines the project. So I have more sympathy for those editors who oppose the candidate, than the majority here appears to have. But I believe that the candidate will take this feedback constructively, and if he does, he'll probably do fine as an administrator. --
'''Neutral''' - valid concerns have been expressed over AfD but  not  enough to  make me want  to  oppose.
'''Support''' As nominator. —
'''Support''' Good editor; Came across a bit while in the background, no main reason to oppose or concerns <s>just the lack of editing in the beginning</s>.
Recently came across this editor in an article RFC; she displayed exemplary character and calmness, willingness to discuss and answer questions (actually past the point of IDHT on the part of the other party). Seems to have a good grasp of policy.
'''Support'''. Miniapolis displays great qualities; Wikipedia would be lucky to have her as an administrator.
'''Support''' - Looks like the oppose(s) have a to-do list for you. No qualms here, Good luck.  {{font|font= Trebuchet MS|
'''Support''': Miniapolis's interpersonal skills are a lot more than just "decent", and I'm particularly glad that she is willing to spend time helping at ANI, where such skills and maturity are sorely needed. Easy support. --
'''Support''' Good editor, no concerns about suitability for adminship.
--
'''Support''' I have never crossed roads with Miniapolis, but I am aware that she is a very kind user (a must for an admin, I might say) and judging her contributions, I think that she'll make a good use of the tools. Best regards,
'''Indeed'''. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor that is obviously a [[WP:Net positive|net positive]] to the project. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' Miniapolis is a great editor, and I have absolutely no reason to think she wouldn't use the tools responsibly. I'm proud to be casting my first RfA vote in support of her. --
Don't see why not. &ndash;
'''Support''' I am familiar with the user's work with the GOCE. They are a capable editor with clue, able and willing to learn. --

'''Support''' as I see no reason not to. Regarding the reasons given for opposing this request, I find nothing wrong with the quality of Mini's edits in administrative areas, even if my colleagues take issue with the quantity of those edits.
No reason not to. Miniapolis would likely do a great job.
'''Support''' As per Someguy1221 and the user has been editing regularly since November 2010.There absolutely no reason to think or suggest that she wouldn't use the tools responsibly.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
Yeah, no concerns here, and she sounds very nice. AfD experience looks perfectly sufficient to me. ''
'''Support''', pretty strongly, based on Miniapolis clearly being an intelligent and calm contributor with buckets of common sense, lots of great content work, and a clear understanding of how this collegial project works. Do I need to see more action in the AfD arena? With some candidates, I would, but not with Miniapolis - clear common sense (supported by pretty good answers to questions) is plenty for me. Miniapolis strikes me as someone who will be cautious, and is not going to be doing anything contentious without careful deliberation and without seeking help from colleagues. --
'''Support''' As per Boing <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Tentative support''', in the absence of glaringly problematic areas being raised by ''opposes''/''neutrals'', per [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. Whether or not this request is successful, you might wish to consider whether a few of the userboxes you display could potentially be viewed as off-putting by editors visiting your user page: while I'm sure you're very capable of editing with a neutral POV, some may infer otherwise by your obvious expression of personal opinions in such a way. Good luck. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support'''. In part, I admit to thinking we need more female admins, but that's only a minor reason. There's a good track record of high quality copyedit work, indicating attention to details and a proclivity for helping other editors make articles better. I see no reason to worry about anything getting broken. As for AfD being a drama-fest, no kidding! And it's spilling over to here, in opposes based on disagreeing with the candidate's views about keeping or deleting particular pages. RfA isn't about settling scores in the perpetual inclusion-deletion conflict. --
'''Support'''. Fair-minded answers.  Miniapolis seems highly unlikely to take controversial admin actions in areas unfamiliar to her.
'''Support'''. I think Miniapolis can be trusted to use the tools in a responsible fashion and believe her when she says she would tread carefully. Any potential concerns over AfD could easily be addressed through a mentoring period. I'm encouraged by the interest in working on backlogs and a demonstrated history of doing so at GOCE.
'''Support''' Not massively experienced but it sounds like the candidate will take it slow and learn from any mistakes '''
'''Support''' – the concerns listed in the Oppose section have not been enough to make me personally oppose the candidate. '''
'''Support''' While the answer to question 1 is not perfect, the opposes are not convincing in my view, because she mentions that she would use the tools cautiously and would seek mentoring if anything arises. That question shows she won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' no concerns, user will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
Net positive <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Looks more than competent, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I trust this editor to not misuse the admin buttons and to be a thoughtful force for good here. Opposes fail to convince me; the insistence that Afd's should have a certain "correct" percentage, for example, should carry little weight. Thanks for your service to date, and best wishes!
'''Support''' - I believe this editor will stay within her purvue and know when back down.
'''Support''' She seems sensible, and unlikely to rush into closing contentious AfDs.
'''Support''' - can't see any specific problem.
'''Support'''. It's not the strongest support I've every given, as I have some concerns about answers to the questions. The answer to Q6 kinda rubs me a little wrong...I would have preferred an answer along the lines of "I would not close the AfD but would instead !vote", as that's a good middle ground between just walking away and letting bias affect your close. The other answers seem just a hair off from what I would like to see as well, but all in all I still feel that I can support. The user is generally clueful; I trust their judgement and ability to get it right. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''' Can't see any problem to not to give support.--'''
'''Support''' You want to work on backlogs? Sounds like a job for an admin to me, you have my support. Best of luck to you. —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -
'''Support '''I like the idea of a kind admin. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" and all that jazz. And determining a consensus is a different thing to expressing one's opinion, although that subtlety seems to have passed one or two by here.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - The supposed lack of experience is not a reason to oppose, experience is gained while serving. The answers to the questions are IMO perfect.
'''Support''' I've pondered this RfA longer than any other.  On one hand, you come up short on in mediation experience, by a large margin.  On the other hand, you are unquestionably here to build an encyclopedia and have a good attitude.  My choice boils down to "play it safe" or "take a leap of faith".  Your overall demeanor and style allow me to leap here. I don't think you would ever ''intentionally'' cause problems, so the leap is that you are wise enough to know your limits. I do recommend you go very slowly at AFD and ANI for a while, instead learning at RFPP, participating at AFD without using the bit, and similar.  Do what you already do best, and I'm sure you will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I'm not sure if others have interpreted the comments in a different way to me (which is, of course, their prerogative) but I don't interpret the answer to Question 1 as, ''"I'm going to jump into AFD and start closing sh*t like a crazy banshee"''. For me, editor contributions at AFD are about consensus building, while admin closes at AFD are about consensus reading. I don't think one necessarily makes for good practice for the other. Take RFPP for example - how are you supposed to "learn RFPP" as a non-admin? By making lots of requests? [[User:Salvidrim|Salvidrim]] was recently granted the bit, jumped in at RFPP and made some cracking calls, including rejecting one of the half-arsed, half-asleep requests I made in frustration late one night. So for me, it comes down to whether or not we trust the person to be sensible and to wield the mop in furtherance of the project's goals. The rest is [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]].
'''Support''' — You're really good at this. --'''
'''Support''' Candidate doesn't look like she'll break the wiki, so per [[WP:DEAL]] she should have the tools.
'''Support''' I've been thinking about this for a few days.  I have political differences with Miniapolis, but I never would have known it from her behavior on-wiki, as she is always very helpful, even-tempered, and willing to learn.  I've never seen her push any POV, and she is very clued in.  I have some concerns about her less-than-stellar AfD record and answer to Dennis Brown's question (just remember that being ad admin doesn't preclude you from participating as a regular editor if you can contribute more that way), but I'm comforted by her general attitude about taking care in all her activities. She's done a great job with her copy editing and coordinating for the [[WP:GOCE]] as well. If being an admin is really no big deal, people like Miniapolis are exactly who we want: smart, considerate folk who won't embarrass Wikipedia with foolish or hasty actions.  She's the kind of person that may not know everything in and out ''now'', but will be viewed as one of our best admins years down the line. —<B>
'''Support''' per Dianna, Dennis, and others. Good attitude and willingness to learn.
Opposes not convincing at all.
[[User:Filelakeshoe/RFA standards|support]]. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' The candidate is very unlikely to break the wiki and is likely to mature into a good admin. Clearly the nom statement is weak and fuzzy as Kiefer says but I'm not going to hold that against the candidate. There are issues of experience as well (the removal of the userbox, closing something as no consensus where she has an opinion) but that's something that is easily learned on the job for someone with the right attitude (which I think she has). And I like her  response to Pichpich's oppose. No sense in waiting when all evidence points to someone becoming a good admin so I hope this is successful. --
'''Support''' The candidate answers the questions very confidently and convincingly. I can see the candidate's committment to WP, in not taking wikibreaks, and trying to log on few times a day to check stuff. Trust that the candidate will be a good admin.
'''Support''' As long as a bull in the china shop approach is not used with administrative experience, due to the slightly under-participation in AfD and the like, I think Miniapolis will make a good sysop. There is clearly a level head with common sense at work, and I think the tools would be appropriately used. ''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' I trust Hahc's judgment, and I see no reason why I shouldn't support the candidate at this time.
'''Support''' Largely per regentspark. No concerns from me.
'''Support''': Use the opposes as a to-do list to focus on your weak areas (I think someone above me mentioned something like this).
'''Support''' - Sufficient tenure, clean block log, and no indications of assholery. Nice mix of mainspace to other edits. We actually are in need of more closers at AfD as there is a disturbing trend towards punching the EXTEND DEBATE button instead of making a call after multiple extensions. Thanks for your work.
'''Support''' The answer to question 12 made me gun shy as I wasn't necessarily looking for a number but rather a plan in which none was offered in how to take Dennis' advice. That said, this editor has an <u>outstanding</u> record of contributions and history on Wikipedia. More than meets my [[User:Mkdw/RfA Standards]]. If any mistakes are made at the AfD, I'm almost fairly certain someone take it for DRV (as mentioned NAC's are not going well and even admin closures).
'''Support''' as per above, could be trusted with the mop
'''Support''' - While the user does not have a lot of experience with AfD, I am confident she will ease her way into it.  Edits overall look good.
'''Support''' largely per [[user:Dennis Brown]], [[User:Gobonobo|User:Gobōnobō]] and [[User:Boing! said Zebedee]]. Fortunately, AFD is one of the ''easiest'' areas to see what an admin is doing and if they are doing it well, and to correct any errors. I think Miniapolis has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMiniapolis&diff=537080973&oldid=537065702 learned already]. :) As others have, I would recommend beginning slowly with AFDs - you can train yourself by watching instead of closing difficult ones to see how other admins handle it and ''also'' by watching [[WP:DRV]]. And if you ever feel like doing copyright work and want some feedback, please feel free to come by my talk page. :D --
'''Support''' I can't see this one rushing in and causing chaos. Seems to have clue and be willing to learn.
'''Support''' after a review of contributions, including AfC work.  Regarding AfDs, I'd echo Moonriddengirl and other's comments, and as I've done a bit of AfD closing myself, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if I can be of assistance. --
'''Support''' I can see that this may need some experience at AfD before jumping too far in; there are pleanty of other things which ~I am sure they are fully competent to do. The userbox (now removed, unnecessarily in my view) is a quote from "Imagine" by John Lennon, which has been voted as one of the best songs ever written, and even if it were a personal statement by this user would be wholly irrelevant at an RfA.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' on the condition that the candidate goes slowly at AfD. Looking through her AfD comments, I am concerned by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_York_City_Subway_in_popular_culture&diff=530529433&oldid=530387462 this comment] which suggests that whether sources are in the article or not should affect the decision to delete the page. It is always a good idea to add sources to an article that needs better references, of course, but it is only whether the sources ''exist'' that affects the subject's notability. Also, these two comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean-Claude_Bigu%C3%A9&diff=518243373&oldid=518126639][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Nature&diff=518244460&oldid=517242531] suggest that the articles in question should be deleted for having a promotional tone. This would be true if they were unambiguously promotional throughout, per [[WP:G11|CSD G11]], but the problems with these articles weren't nearly as bad as that. If there are no other problems, these kinds of articles [[WP:NOTCLEANUP|should be cleaned up]], by reducing them to stubs if necessary, but not deleted. I almost opposed over these comments and the general lack of experience at AfD, but Miniapolis is otherwise a great editor, and she could do very useful work in other areas. Given that she has agreed to tread carefully at AfD already, I think that making her an admin would be a net benefit for the project. — '''''
'''Support'''...no evidence candidate will abuse the tools or the position.--
'''Support''' - good candidate for admin.
'''Support'''. The real issue for debate here is the candidate's answer to question 1. I've come to think that question is a bit of a trip-up one, because people are inclined to answer things that seem like they will be a sufficiently sizable contribution (and voters expect that too, as we saw at a recent RFA), but you can't really know what suits you until you get into stuff as an admin. The big mistake for new admins is to overreach, but I see nothing to indicate that this editor will do so, and much to indicate she will be (appropriately) cautious.
Long-term, trustworthy editor who will move cautiously into administrator areas so she learns as she goes? Yes please.
'''Support'''.  Solid "young" editor with over 12,000 total edits and almost 7,500 to article space.  I had more that I was going to say, but you know what?  Ed's comment immediately above sums it up nicely: she's good now, and with time and a little growth in the job, she has the potential to be a great admin.
'''Support''' Good editor!
Struggling to see a reason to oppose here. Can't really complain about "lack of content contributions" when over half the candidate's edits are in article space. —
The opposes mostly seem to be rewordings of "not enough experience" which has never been convincing to me.  What I like to see is a lack of embarrassing or troublesome incidents in your history, and in that you definitely pass.
'''Support''' With one caveat: my advice to any editor who doesn't like non-English sources is '''learn'''. The world does not revolve around English and neither does the Wikipedia. You cannot be expected to be able to handle sources in every language (although that doesn't seem to worry reviewers) but translation resources are always available. TCO's advice about the ban hammer is also well worth remembering.
'''Support''' I do agree with some of the concerns mentioned here ( question 6's answer for example ), but not enough to be neutral or oppose. I would hope that dealing with XfD would start carefully, ideally with a mentor.
This was a tough call. I'm well aware of the concerns of those in the oppose section that you leave something to be desired in some aspects of administrative work, AFD in particular. But, having scanned your talk page archives going back to July 2012, read your responses to the questions and reactions to criticism on this RFA, and seen you interact with other users, I'm convinced that giving you a mop would be a net positive to the project. You come across as thoughtful, deliberative, and willing to learn from your mistakes—all traits crucial to success as an administrator. I also appreciate your [[WP:GNOME|gnomish]] work as well with [[WP:GOCE]] and think that your willingness to clean up in the background and do the less glamorous mopping around the project is commendable. After weighing things out, I'm convinced that you'll be an asset to the project as an administrator and am happy to '''support'''. Absolute best of luck.
'''Support''' I stayed on the fence for a long time with this one, almost entirely because of DGG's oppose below, but I feel he was mistaken. I see no legitimate reason to oppose this user... and a lack of admin-related experience isn't a legitimate reason. I am sure the candidate doesn't need to be reminded to be careful while making the transition into mop-related duties, but here is the reminder again all the same.
'''Support''' -- good and thoughtful responses to the questions that were asked; enough editing work and two good articles created.  Some concerns about the lack of AfD experience and hope she participates more in them before closing anything vaguely controversial, but a happy support on balance. --
'''Support'''  Like several  other !voters, it  took  me a long  time to  make my  mind up. DGG makes a sound rationale to oppose, and the candidate doesn't  quite tick  [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|all  my  boxes]]. However, I'm  impressed with  the content  work and general  engagement, and I  trust  that  she will take note of the advice and comments  here. Rather than go  neutral, I  have enough  trust  in  this candidate to  tip  my scales to  'support'.
'''Support''' - some lack of experience in admin-related activity but experience can be gained, a calm and thoughtful personality is much harder to acquire and commensurately much more valuable!
'''Support''' per Tyrol5.  Tread carefully and slowly when you start at AfD. --
'''Support''' I like what I've seen; and they appear to be open to discussion.  I haven't seen any red flags. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' The ability alone to discuss things in a calm and thoughtful manner is a great plus which will come in handy. AfD experience is not a must, and can be acquired.
'''Support''' But I would advise care when wading into controversial AfD closings. Deletion is one of the more permanent things we do here. <strong>
'''Weak oppose''' - She expresses an interest in working at AFD, but she only has participated in 22 AFDs, never performed an NAC, and has voted out of consensus nearly 30% of the time. In the last 2 months, she's only participated in 4 and voted with consensus only twice. I don't like opposing good candidates for adminship, but for someone who expresses an interest in closing AFDs, I need to see more experience in that area. I am open to changing my vote, but for now, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' Excellent work as an editor, but insufficient experience in discussions relating to administrative tasks, as explained by the caveats stated by the first two neutral opinions. I suggest obtaining more relevant experience and applying again in a few months. I do recommends doing some NACs; the difficulties experienced by some people have been because of a considerable series of  erratic and unjustified closes, & I would hope to see otherwise.  '''
'''Weak oppose''' Sorry, but simply not enough experience at AfD for someone who really wants to work there.
''''''Strong''' Oppose''' - Not enough admin area experience, as DGG says. I'm all the more bothered by the follow up responses. I see nothing encouraging in terms of experience here.
'''Oppose''' - When confronted with articles at AfD that end up getting kept, they've !voted delete ''more often'' than they've !voted keep.  They've demonstrated poor judgement at AfD, and yet list working on the "backlog" at AfD as something they intend to do.  (And are apparently unfamiliar enough with the process to be unaware AfD doesn't have a backlog.  Perhaps they meant CfD, RfD, FfD, or MfD?)
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, fluffy nomination and statements, and concerns over prose and maturity. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per DGG.  I have very few expectations of candidates.  I am willing to pass a candidate who has no admin experience and makes no promise to even do admin work and oppose a candidate who says they intend to work an area because they have no experience.  It's a matter of trust and damage.  I trust a candidate who intends to start easy or use the tools sparingly if they have no experience but have shown an ample supply of clue and trust.  I do not believe that person would cause damage.  I am concerned about Miniapolis though.  When you come to RfA and you answer the first question with an admin area, I want to see experience.  Am I punishing someone for offering to do work?  Maybe.  But I don't see it that way.  When someone wants to work an area they have no experience, they can potentially cause damage.  Further, ANI should be the ending place that admins work, not the start.  A brand new sysop should not ''start'' at ANI.  New sysops should start at RFPP, UAA, PROD and PERM.  Areas that are the least controversial.  What this boils down to is that I am not confident that Miniapolis is aware of their limits.  I'm sorry.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' - nothing more than lack of experience in the areas you want to participate in; you look to be a good editor and so will be happy to support when you run in future :)
'''Oppose''' - Per KW and TP.
'''Oppose''' No candidate who displays an anti-religious userbox should ever be granted adminship.  It shows terrible judgment on the part of the candidate, and serves only to alienate other editors who actually want to keep their religion, thank you very much.  A userbox stating the world would be better off without (for example) Jews, homosexuals or black people would probably get someone banned.  This is really no different.
'''Weak Oppose''' - per experience, as noted above, at this point in time.
'''Oppose''' per Kiefer and DGG. Not enough experience in important admin-related areas. '''
'''Weak oppose'''. Good candidate overall but I'm a little worried about the AfD record. Three of six nominations (using Snottywong's stats) should not have been nominated and Miniapolis seems to believe that it's ok to send articles to AfD without checking if sources exist. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Boucher]] she wrote "''I'm up to my neck in cleanup work as it is and have no dog in this fight; the burden of proof to provide reliable sources rests with the editor(s) who want the article kept.''" It's true that a lot of unreferenced junk needs to be deleted (as well as a significant chunk of kinda-sorta-referenced junk) and I'd probably argue that too many things are kept at AfD. But AfD is not a place to give "clean it up or it dies" ultimatums.
'''Oppose'''. I am concerned about the candidate's lack of experience at AfD (including occasional faulty nominations and inappropriate rationales), given her intention to work there. I'm particularly concerned by the example of [[Marcel Boucher]] brought up by Pichpich, and by the candidate's response to that oppose. I don't feel the delete function should be given to editors who don't always make time to check for sources before deciding to delete, especially in the context of PRODs where the deleting admin might be the only experienced editor to look over the article. Additionally, "This BLP is not well-sourced in English (almost all sources are untranslated Hungarian)" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gábor Koltai]]) & "as sources, they should contain enough of a translation to demonstrate that they verify the material" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change 123]]) both suggest a lack of understanding that sources need not be in English.
'''Oppose'''. Generally good contributions, but lacking in AfD !votes. (I am not concerned by the absence of non-admin closures. I don't consider NAC to be desirable, neither for RfA candidates nor in general.)
'''Oppose'''&mdash;while Miniapolis is a strong contributor to Wikipedia, I'm not confident the editor has the experience in fields such as AfD. Give it a few months and perhaps she can change my mind. —
'''Oppose''' Seems too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' per DGG & Pichpich. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''weak oppose''' I'm torn between GiantSnowman's reasoning and Dennis Brown's.  On the whole I think waiting for people to acquire the needed clue before being an admin makes more sense than assuming they will acquire said clue even if it seems likely they will get that clue.  Had you not expressed an interest in working at AfD I'd probably end up as neutral.  But your stated intent to work there with what seems like a lack of deep understanding is troubling.  Participate in AfDs (and ideally DRVs) and we'll chat.  That said, maybe I'll swing out some questions and see how you do as a clue check...
'''Oppose''' Per Espresso Addict and very low contributions to other admin areas user wishes to participate in. I also think DGG makes some good recommendations that would help me determine my position better. --
'''Oppose''' [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Miniapolis&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects Lack of content creation], and lack of experience in other admin-related areas.--
'''Oppose''' per DGG et al and because of the candidate's dreadful answer to Hobit's question 12. An editor who doesn't even consider [WP:BLPPROD] when evaluating "a newly created BLP which has no sources" isn't showing enough understanding of the deletion process to be given the tools to manage that process.
'''Weak oppose'''. Sigh. I don't want to be here when a candidate is clearly a good, likable, and conscientious editor. Edits and tenure are fine. My problem is when a candidate says they want to work in X, then I will judge with reference to X. ANI is about conflict, but Q3 doesn't describe experience with conflict. I'd expect an editor with 9K article/talk edits to have bumped into some difficult editors; the candidate has apparently avoided that learning experience. The desire to work in ANI is odd given edit stats imply < 63 edits to ANI; editors don't have to be admins to comment there. AfD is also mentioned, but the experience there is minimal and the main diagonal is poor. Q8 gives an explanation about using policy arguments in AfD comments, but Northamerica1000's question misleads with "congruent with other editor opinions". The AfD stats show congruence with the closing admin's determination of consensus and not whether one voted with or against the crowd. That's a subtle but important distinction; policy arguments should trump a majority w/o policy; a poor main diagonal indicates a problem with applying policy rather than failing to follow the crowd. Examining some AfDs leaves me more uncomfortable; the experience/judgment is not there. For a candidate who wants to work at ANI and AfD, I need to see better evidence of good judgment. I want to go the other way, but 68% is difficult to swallow. It looks like you'll get the bit; please be careful with it.
'''Oppose, for now''' The more questions that get answered, the weaker the candidate looks - unfortunately.  This is probably a "not now" - I would like to see 6 months of admin-ish-type work ... to see how you respond around ANI, AFD, etc ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Neutral''' - lack of experience in certain areas. Among first areas to get involved she mentioned ANI and AfD, but 23 AfD votes is quite limited amount, and as far as I can see she has never edited/commented on ANI up to now. Also she doesn't seem to have been involved in any prolonged discussions on article talk pages, highest number of talk page edits are 11 and 7 but these weren't proper discussions, and the rest are all 5 and below. On other hand, I fully approve her copy editing contributions and find it unlikely that she would cause serious problems as admin. So neutral it is.--
'''Neutral''' - I am nervous to support a candidate to work in areas that they lack experience in, especially technical areas like ANI and AfD (A discussion can turn from a debate to a drama fest in '''seconds'''). I'm definitely not going to oppose a candidate for these reasons though. I 100% agree with what Dennis has stated above. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- <span class=plainlinks><font color="#000000">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers,]</font><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Neutral''' - I can't support at this time. Some of the answers to the questions seem one sided, where an administrator would be able to see all sides and answer accordingly, presenting ever possible solution. I just don't see the maturity and responsibility I'd be looking for at this time. However, I have no reason to outright suspect the user will abuse the toolkit, so I'm in the neutral pool for now.
Lots of clue in the nomination, and I'd like to support here, but the lack of concrete evidence of experience in adminny areas gives me pause. Other than Keepscases's usual disruption the opposition is pretty much all around AfD, and I'd wager that it's going to end up being dominated by the usual suspects, but there are some in there whose opinions I really trust in that area (such as TParis) and I do agree that Miniapolis probably isn't ready to participate in AfD in an administrative capacity. This is one of those noms that is pretty much a stick-on the next time around IMO.
'''Sweet kid, but light on the writing'''.  If you pass, then go easy on the banhammer and the dramaz for a while (forever works too).  And spend more time writing (actual writing, not comma-fixing).  If you get dinged, then don't let it bring your spirits down.  This place can be stressful.  Just spend more time and you'll breeze through on the next one.
'''Neutral''' Would like more experience, but you don't seem like the type that would do anything rash either.  I like that you are willing to learn, e.g. Dennis Brown's discussion above about participating instead of closing close AfDs.  For Q12 re: BLP, you did not mention [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people]].  If this RfA is successful, keep in mind that you don't have to close AfDs.  I've been a mop for almost 6 months and have yet to close one.  For myself, I've found participating in AfDs to make the consensus obvious to the closer more rewarding (so far).—
'''Neutral leaning oppose'''. The candidate is clearly inexperienced in what she wants to accomplish, and the more she answers questions the less I like it. Since she is clearly going to pass, I only hope that she starts slowly and learns things quicker than breaks them. On the other had, I do not see any potential for the tools abuse here, and we are somewhere in the middle of the learning curve, this is why I am in this section.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', obviously (dammit, got beaten to the punch on the first vote!).
{{EC|2}} '''Support''' - I've reviewed his contributions, which largely seem fine. His [[WP:CSD|CSD]] nominations are on par with the accuracy that one should expect of an administrator. His [[WP:AFC|AFC]] reviews also looked fine. [[James Gwyn]] is an example of a well-done good article.
'''Support''' in general. I see good work at CSD and some very good content work, at [[James Gwyn]] and elsewhere. I'm a little concerned about some of the AFD activity in early-to-mid March of this year - and I see now that the candidate addressed that while I was supporting, here. Good luck!
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support''' under the principle of "I thought he was already an admin". Mkdw has already demonstrated his ability to work in the back office realm to help keep the machinery running smoothly. -
I saw this RfA coming a mile away. It's finally a reality. Outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' excellent candidate. Answer to my question was good too.
'''Support'''. You mean you're not an admin already?
'''Support''' per clean block log, willingness to engage in discussion (such as at [[Talk:Iron Man in film]]), sensible comments at film-related AfDs, and clueful contributions on articles like [[sheng nu]].
'''Strong Support'''  I spent a long time reading back contributions for Mkdw.  I was actually glad to find some minor flaws and times when he got a little hot under the collar, since his recent history of flawless admin-grooming type edits didn't impress me much.  I believe Mkdw will be a fine admin, one willing to go beyond groupthink, with a nuanced understanding of policy and its application.  Some may like to see thousands of flawless bot-type edits for many months, but I think such edits indicate little about someone's character.  In any case, his recent history has plenty of that too, if it floats your boat.
'''Support''' I'm not worried about the vague non-answer to Q7.  My Q6 was a concern that the user was too focused in removing religion topics.  No matter a person's position on the subject, which I wouldn't judge someone on, an all out vendetta against religion would've been concerning.  Obviously that's not the case at all which renders Q7 moot.  Happy to support.--v/r -
'''Support''' some good answering to questions.--
'''Support''' (ec) Nice demeanour. Q1 and Q7 suggest that he'll stay in areas of competence. --
'''Support''' - Great editor and great answers to questions. No concerns at all.
'''Support'''  Weird coincidence, I was looking through some of this editor's (and that of some other editors) AfC work last night, and was left with a good impression, one that confirms my previous observations of this editor over the years.  I also quite liked the answer to TP's Q7, there are many places one encounters as an admin where a respect for just how much one may not know about a problem is essential. --
'''Support''' per above supporters. Seems like a mature editor.--
'''Support'''.  Another good editor.
'''Support''' Seen around with no problems. Good answers - it's important to know what you don't know about, and not think you do. (I know what I mean. It's been a very hard day...)
'''Support''' Great contributions. Seems very humble to me, especially after reading the answer to Q4. <big>[[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Garamond">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Garamond">C</font>]]
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''' Good contributions.  Good answers to the questions, and good work in the areas where he wants to do admin work.
'''Support''' The activity and contributions and the counts (he has nearly 20,000 live edits) are really hopeful. Good luck with the adminship. Cheers! {{=)}}
'''Support''' per nom, an overall [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] for the project. {{smiley}} —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''Support''' Per nom, and [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=Mkdw&max=250&startdate=&altname= 93.7%] is unusually high even for for most current admins.
'''Support''' Decent answers to good questions, and I appreciate the candidate's willingness to admit (and learn from) mistakes.
'''Support''', sure. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I've seen Mkdw around and I know that he is very accurate in CSD, but i'm also impressed with his other contributions on here as well. I think he'll make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Most definitely! A competent, level-headed editor. A real asset to the project. I also liked his answer to question #4. --
'''Support''' - another person on my "what, they're not admins already?" list. A great helper on the IRC help channel, and the AfD ratio is truly impressive.
'''Support'''. Looks like a strong candidate. Impressive CSD log, nice content work, good answers to questions. Good luck.
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support'''. Great candidate. I don't have anything to add to the supports above. — '''''
Absolutely. I [[User_talk:Mkdw/Archive_2#UBX|offered]] to nominate about 6 years ago, so I definitely think he's ready now :) ~
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Seen them around plenty, not likely to abuse the tools, reasonable and calm in their demeanor, good all around experience.  Unquestionably a net positive.
'''Support''' <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - per Q8 and 8A.
'''Support''' - A clear asset to the project.
'''Support''' No concerns with this user.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''I just deleted something he nommed for CSD, stop wasting my time and do it yourself already'''  There are some answers here that strike me as a tad odd, which is why I've held off until now, but diversity in opinion is a valuable thing and I don't need to agree with something to think s/he would make a good sysop.  I think Mkdw will overwhelmingly continue to do good work for the project and am happy to see him with more ways to do that. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - a good candidate for adminship. —
'''Support''' - Answers to the questions look great to me <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">[[User:Cabe6403|Cabe]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Cabe6403|6403]]</font> <sup>([[user_talk:Cabe6403|Talk]]•
'''Support''' No problem.
'''Support''' ☯
'''Support''' .. I was under the impression that s/he is already admin.--<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani</font><sub>
'''Support''' well-thought out answers to questions, no concerns, will be a benefit to the Project.
'''Full on support!''' I'm a little too late to co-nominate him, but Mkdw is someone I feel will be an outstanding admin and will contribute much to the project. Like the others, I just assumed that he was already admin- he takes up a lot of the slack and does a lot of the work that admins should do! (BTW, I also think that you [[Wikipedia:Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations#User:Mkdw|deserve a shirt]]!)
'''Support'''. Mop'n'bucket are not a big deal, and it seems reasonable to assume Mkdw will use them responsibly. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
Another thunk-he-was. Admirable candor in responding to an excessive degree of questioning.
'''Support''' — The candidate seems well-rounded in various admin-related tasks. '''
'''Oppose''' We cannot have admins who confuse "differ" with "defer" or "it's" with "its". Standards must be upheld. --
'''Support''' - Thanks so much for answering my questions, the answers appear to show that the subject of this RfA is trustworthy of the tools of the Admin. I look forward to good things from this future admin, and hope that the trust we place upon Mkdw is not misplaced.--
'''Support''' without hesitation - lots of great experience, and a very positive attitude to the project and to its contributors. --
'''Support''' - Definite net positive.  <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - I continue to be surprised by the excellent candidates who I've never heard of, no offense intended (of course). Also, the answer to question 15 is very interesting.
'''Support''' - I like what I see, another mop to be given out. '''
'''Support''' - Never interacted with the user before but no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' Seems to walk the walk.
'''Support''' !!!
'''Support''' Vancouver represent! But srsly, I've seen Mkdw's work, and there's no red flags.  Has the best interests of the project at heart. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support:''' Great candidate and clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. -
'''Support'''.  I only know Mkdw from a handful of encounters in talk page discussions, and was unfamiliar with the vast majority of his contributions.  Before !voting in this RfA, I wanted to have the opportunity to review his contributions.  While I personally believe that 5,300 or so article space edits is on the light side for an administrator candidate, I also respect his hard work and 13,000+ edits in other administrative aspects of the project.  Based on his candid answers and track record, I am supporting Mkdw and wish him well in his future efforts as an admin.
'''Support'''. I've seen them around, and I think that this is a very strong candidate, no significant problems. I think that the answers to questions were thoughtful and intelligent. --
'''Support'''. As someone who [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#Boston College|has worked with Mkdw in the past]], I can safely say that he is one of the most solid potential administrators on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Seen their work on the Project, now and then, and I'm very satisified. Good luck Mkdw! {{=)}} —
'''Support'''. Looks like good admin material to me. --
'''Support''' sure!
'''Support''' Very trusted indeed, and deserves the mop and bucket in every respect. I've added an optional question just in-case he does decide to work at UFAA during his admin career, but still, this is likely to pass, whether he/she gets my optional question wrong or not.
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. I haven't found any problems. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support'''. No problems here. The two allegedly poor AfD noms are fine; both were improved while at AfD, but the sources used to do so were largely foreign-language and their potential improvement should not have been a given.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Reading the contributions, definitely deserving of the mop. [[Hakuna matata]]! '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' - fully  qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - I've worked with this editor before and interacted with him on IRC. I feel confidant saying that he is fully qualified for the admin tools and will continue to positively contribute to the project. - <b>
'''Support''' - well-rounded candidate. No concerns.
'''Support''' - No problems here '''''
'''Support''' Obvious support is obvious.--<span style="">

'''Support''': looks like he has more than enough clue to avoid breaking the encyclopedia. An easy support - more of these, please. --
'''Support''' As a hell-bound atheist Sodomite admin, I have to say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mkdw&diff=prev&oldid=554964680#Oppose the opposes are rather unconvincing] thus far. But, seriously, I've seen Mkdw around and they seem reasonable and sensible. Give 'em a mop. —
Yes. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' I was waiting for someone to oppose in the hope that there would be some reason to think deeply about this. But, now that we do have an oppose, I see no reason to strain my brain over this. Slam dunk excellent admin addition. --
'''Support''' - I haven't seen anything too unbecoming yet.
'''Support''' - Not to jinx ya, but it appears the only question now is if you will hit [[WP:100]]. To be more serious, there are an awful lot of editors I respect supporting you. My congrats, and condolences, at being an admin for life.
'''Support''' Seems like a good egg who'll respect the mop! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
Candidate is clearly trustworthy and competent.
'''Support''' Good candidate to become admin.
'''Support''' Sadly not going to be the [[WP:100]] !vote, but I would ''swear'' I had !voted in support of this candidate years ago ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">
'''Support''' No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' Good answers to questions.  Why not?  Robot or no robot I see a trustworthy administrator here.
'''Support''' I reviewed this editor according to [[User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy|my own guideline]] and this user meets my expectations.
'''Support''' per WP:99.
'''Support'''.  Hadn't ever noticed him before, but he seems a perfectly fine candidate.  --
'''Support''' per what I've been observing on this whole RfA. '''''
'''Support''' per MONGO.  Article edit ratio is perhaps a little low, but i'm not really infected with editcountitis, so no worries. Cheers, '''
I'm impressed, Mkdw. Your demeanor is commendable and fitting for an administrator, as is your cordiality in interactions with other editors and your willingness to take advice and learn from your own mistakes (as you illustrate in Q3). I also like your answers to Q4, Q7, and Q8, in which you show that you take the role of a sysop seriously (but not too seriously so as to let it go to your head), express a desire to delve into the facts before formulating an opinion and display a degree thoughtfulness. By the way, based on your answers themselves, you seem to be very well-spoken and an above average writer in my humble opinion. But, at any rate, I'm confident you'll do very well as a sysop and I'm happy to '''support'''. Good luck.
'''Support''' per pretty much everyone, above, as well as my criterion for adminship.  Excellent candidate, great contributions.  --
While I disagree that spelling is part of any "standard", it is important to tell the difference between it's and its. Worse though, is for that same admin who also opposed to spend time reverting good edits. I was hoping for a better answer to 16, and 17 fell in to the normal trap of not reading the question. The question was are '''any''' of these three acceptable, and instead of just saying yes, or possibly, (BOBotto), an explanation of what they would do with each was given. 16 b) has now been correctly closed as "moved", something that I would hope anyone going to WP:RM and finding and reading [[WP:RMCI]] would be able to determine, without just saying, "to comment on a RM with no experience I think would [be] ill advised for myself, or anyone". That has not stopped countless others, nor should it be a reason in itself. There are no degrees in editing needed to participate in RM discussions, but there is a degree of experience needed to be an admin, which, of course, is a foregone conclusion.
'''Neutral'''. Leaning towards support. [[User:Mkdw|Mkdw]] stated way back in 2007: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mkdw&diff=98100421&oldid=98045281 ''I'm not an admin. I would like to be one day, but at the moment I am not. Sorry.''], and then he started acting a bit funny, to my eyes. It seems to me that he was almost acting as if to show that he was worthy of being an admin — he even started citing policies to those who already knew them, which can be annoying. Another incident that caught my eye was when two different users complained that he had been editing their User page, and when they asked him to stop, in both cases, Mkdw cited [[WP:CIVIL]], but as a trick (as in "I know policy and you don't"), to somehow make their complaints seem less valid.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mkdw&diff=109498289&oldid=109497704][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mkdw&diff=114406294&oldid=114404792] Granted, that is all very ancient history, and now [[User:Mkdw|Mkdw]]'s more recent answers on his Talk page inspire me much more confidence. I do not actually think it has all been an "act" by him to get adminship, but I thought I should express my concerns here anyway. Now, I do see his good interactions with other users, and his very thoughtful replies, which is exactly what I want from an admin. Alas, even though Mkdw characterizes himself as a "below average' writer", his low percentage of edits to articles (only 33%) is still not so good. In any case, [[User:Mkdw|Mkdw]] is obviously a very nice guy, I suspect he will make a fine admin, and I wish him the best, but, for the above reasons, I stay neutral for now. ~
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning oppose owing to two sets of very concerning AfD nominations.</s> My AfD concerns have been basically satisfied although I do advise the (pretty much inevitable) new administrator to always err on the side of caution when pursuing deletion and to be careful not to squish the baby ducks when driving the tractor... I'll just sit this one out without further comment.
Proudly, as the nominator.
'''Support''', per nom.  Looks good.
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.  Seems like a very helpful, friendly user who will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per nomination statement. '''
'''Support''' - I'm not a big teahouse person but I appreciate what the tea-makers do and Nthep is among their best. Happy to support.
'''Support''' – Article creation, AfD, CSD, and other contributions seem good. And the Teahouse work is the "icing on the cake". '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - At first I was a little concerned by the answer to the conflict question, but a quick look made me realize the problem was not the RFA candidate at all, but a truly confrontational editor that was simply unable to express themselves clearly and was not getting an answer to his "question" (and I use that term loosely here) in any of the venues he was asking because it was a very badly formulated question with distracting graphics and long over written, and confusing prose. That was a no win scenario as Nthep gave a number of answers to cover what he thought was the question. I thought it was fine but the contributor that was asking flipped out and "nutted" up. The reason it turns out was the editor did not have even a basic understanding of how to download an image to his own computer and had over complicated his question so much it was impossible for anyone to know their basic limitations.--
'''Support''' - I've not crossed paths with the candidate before, but the stats looks fine, the history of editor retention goals looks solid, Teahouse is good experience and he has done well there, and I always appreciate candidates that have a calm demeanor and the ability (and willingness) to explain details to editors.  He seems to understand that communications is of the utmost importance, and willing to admit when he falls a little short, as we all do from time to time.  I agree with Amadscientist above as well.  Very likely to be helpful with admin/non-admin relations.
I love his answer to Q4; it is very well thought out and reflects a depth of understanding as to what Wikipedia is all about. The interaction he mentions in Q3 demonstrates a very calm yet assertive approach to disagreements and disputes, a crucial trait to have as an administrator. A quick look through his Wikipedia namespace edits indicates that he has sufficient experience in administrative areas (particularly those specified in Q1). I am convinced that [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] will do a great job, and I see no reason whatsoever to oppose.
'''Support''' - Nthep is one of the Wikipedians I admire most, particularly because of his work to the Teahouse. As a fellow Teahouse host, I know how well Nthep has familiarized with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If others also take a look at his responses to the [[WP:THQ]] you'll see what I am taking about. --
'''Support'''. I have to confess I hadn't heard of Nthep before I saw this RfA, but I've spent some time examining things now. I came up with three specific things I wanted to comment on - and then I saw that Amadscientist, Dennis Brown and Kurtis have beaten me to it on exactly the same issues. The editor in Q3 was rather aggressive (and really not making the question clear), Nthep looks to be very good on communication and has a very positive demeanour, and Q4 is answered very well indeed. Overall, I see a great admin candidate. --
'''Support''' Looks fine as far as I can tell.
'''Support''' trust the nom and like what I see. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't make it any secret that I think the Teahouse, like [[WP:Esperanza|Esperanza]] before it, is an enormous waste of time which speaks more of social networking than it does encyclopedia building. Normally, a candidate that claims Teahouse as their greatest achievement would simply make me say "maybe you need to go work on something else, then come back later." However, I do like what I see when I go over this user's contributions, and if you were to take the "Facebook by way of Wikipedia" aspect totally out of the mix, I would support him without reservation. He is drama-free. He doesn't burden himself with Wikibureaucracy any more than is necessary to get things done. He is active in a wide range of tasks. His answer to Q4 is something I find particularly impressive. It was well thought out, thought provoking, and proves that the candidate is more than just a parrot that can recite policy - something I love to see in an admin candidate. All in all... I see a definite net-positive.
{{ec}}'''Support''', everything is good as far as I can see.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidates.
I was supposed to be the other nominator with Go Phightins but I couldn't write an extremely detailed nomination because of school and stuff. Nthep fully qualifies my strict criteria for administrative status. His help in the Teahouse shows a calm demeanor with newer editors that is sorely needed in the administrative ranks. He also has a clear need for the tools as more of a cleanup type editor, so I trust him in doing tasks such as CSD.
'''Support''' - answers look good to me and we desperately need admins who understand image issues and will work on the related backlogs. --
'''Support''', I presently am not seeing any reason to object to this nomination. The editor's activities appear to be above the board. --
'''Support'''. Responding to PaleAqua's oppose below: FFD and PUF, where copyright law takes priority and participants are scarce, cannot be closed like AfDs. Admins have to use their judgment. The candidate's answers to question 7 are much better than PaleAqua's suggestion.
{{ec}}'''Support''' Writing skills are a bit sketchy, but contribs look good and I'm happy to see that the candidate wants to take on some of the less-popular grunt work.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with solid content contributions. The answers to the optional questions are strong.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy and has clue. '''
'''Support''' - Seen this editor about, no reason to doubt that he can't be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Long term editor experienced  with over 59 articles.We need more admins to work with copyright and images.
'''Support''' per Kurtis (#10) and Pharaoh (#27), and because he helps new users a lot. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - per Kurtis and "A calm demeanor, a willingness to help out wherever needed, and content experience." Deserves the mop! {{=)}} Good luck! —
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Sure''' -
'''Support''' Unlike some, I have encountered this user and haven't come across any problems that I can recall. Seems polite and clueful. The archaeologists don't seem to have unearthed evidence pointing to any serious misdemeanours yet, anyway.
We need more admins dealing with copyvios! Many admins simply don't have the experience and the knowledge in that (not that easy) area! <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' - Nthep was one of the first contributors to help me out when I was getting started, well before Teahouse days. They were helpful, knowledgeable and encouraging then, and they have been since both to me and to others. Policy knowledge, content creation, demeanour etc - all boxes ticked, although I don't have one for Teahouse. The numerous faults that I exhibit today are ''completely'' unrelated to Nthep's guidance when I was a tyro ;) -

'''Support''' - We could always use more help, and I see no problems here.
'''Support''' I've seen Nthep around (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) and been quietly impressed; I like the answers to the questions above, and I reckon he's got the right attitude to be a competent admin.
'''Support''' – The answer to Q7 indicates that they do indeed have (a) the requisite knowledge and (b) the motivation to work in their chosen area of copyright violations. '''
'''Support''' I don't see any problems - he has good answers to questions and he's very helpful. -
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Sufficient tenure. Outstanding answers on Q4 and Q5. Dennis Brown support adds another point.
'''Support'''.  Qualified candidate, respectable contributions, solid article creation record, strikes the correct tone in his responses.
'''Support'''. I'm another person who hasn't crossed paths with the candidate before, but the honest answer to question 3 is a plus for me. I had much the same reaction to it as Amadscientist did, above. I look very positively on the track record of helping new editors. I also think that the interests in copyvio and images address important needs. --
'''Support'''. Good content contributions, a helpful and friendly demeanour, and spot checks of Wikipedia-space edits and deleted contribs didn't show up any problems. I'm happy to support. — '''''
'''Support''' - Based on what I see, I trust this user with the admin tools. Edit summaries are useful, but not mandatory. <font color="#454545">
'''Support''' --
'''[[Swaha]]''' (read '''Support''') Passed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Titodutta/RFA&oldid=547250148 most of the criteria I generally check]. except B1. Also, several times, I have seen the candidate's contributions and edits, which I felt where highly helpful/constructive, which makes me believe that he'll be a good admin as well. Good wishes! --
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions.
'''Support''', seems helpful, patient and well-spoken.  Looks like he'd make a great admin.
'''Support''' as there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' no concerns, following some spot checks of contributions, answers to questions.  --
'''Support'''; looks good to me.
'''Support''' No problems as far as I can tell.
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]].
Yo. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' No concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support''' No problem.--'''
'''Support''' There is no major problems that he has caused or have been involved in, so he will probably not misuse the tools.--
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, no reason to think this editor will abuse the tools.
'''Support''', looks fine. --<span style="font:14px Arial;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''Support''' Your response to my follow-up question has impressed me. I hope you will live up to this. (
'''Support''' Cheers, '''
'''Support'''  Great contributions all around and steady demeanor.
''''Support''' Adminship = No Big Deal.--<span style="">
'''Support''' After more looking, found no other concerns. And have seen some interactions on the various pages that I watch which lead me to believe that Nthep will make a good admin. I still have slight concerns with the nuances of phrasing ( but not the reasonings ) in the answer to question 7, but not enough to be neutral or restore my original oppose.
'''Support''' No concerns. Good luck as an admin!
'''Support''' Appears to be experienced, reasonable and polite.
I'm pleased to make it 73. '''Support'''. ☯
'''Support'''. No concerns, no big deal.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.. '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #6698FF;">
'''Support''' - Of course! I've seen Nthep's Teahouse work show how polite and reasonable he can be. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
The outcome of this RFA is pretty evident no matter how I !vote, but I'll chime in here at the end to offer my thoughts. First of all, I'm impressed with your involvement at the Tea House. Advising newcomers is not easy work and requires a broad knowledge of policy, a friendly demeanor, and level-headedness. I'm convinced you have all three characteristics, which are crucial to being a successful administrator. I've perused your talk page archives going back to last January and see an editor who's friendly and willing to learn from mistakes. I also like your answer to Q3; sysops ''must'' learn from mistakes. Lastly, you have a good amount of experience and a clean block log. I'm more than happy to '''support'''. Good luck Happy Easter if you celebrate it.
'''Support''' looks okay.--

The candidate seems competent but I would like to see a few Q&A's before making a decision.  <small>(IP24 whoever you are, I'll remove this when I'm ready)</small>
'''Neutral''' - I'm neutral for now because I, like a few of the supporters have indicated, have never heard of this nominee. That's not a bad thing... but it makes me wonder a bit about experience in admin areas. The teahouse and other village pump areas are all well and good, but being friendly at the local watering hole isn't necessarily what we need to get things done. I'm neutral because right now, I'm ''precisely'' that. I haven't seen anything particularly good or bad looking through the history. I do want to maybe ask some people to put some breaks on and look a bit deeper, maybe ask some questions... and not gotcha questions, or hypothetical policy ones... but I'd like to hear Nthep point to some of the admin areas they'd work in and what they've done in the past in those areas. I'll be looking into stuff more within the next day or so, but I just want to register my thoughts now.
'''Neutral'''. I would have liked to see a more positive response to question #9, especially a declared intention to increase edit summary employment to virtually 100% in the future, at least outside of Nthep's own user space. Nthep might have offered to turn on the warning message in user preferences.
As nominator
Strongly, a very valuable editor who done more to the project, with a few exceptions. His Wikipedia Library project is just truly exceptional and has helped so much content creators build an encyclopedia. Obvious needs for the tools.
Good work on [[Julian Assange]]'s talk page. Seems familiar with policies and writes clearly. Writes on talk pages of serious writers covering current events. Andy the Grump can tell us how to vote. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom. Good clear writer, good edits, no reason to distrust this one. --
I don't see much speedy deletion activity, which concerns me in light of the answer to question 1. I would urge Ocaasi to be extremely cautious with CSD, particularly as AFC rejection is much broader then the CSD criteria. Even for the AFC rejection reasons that similar, they are often interpreted differently in AFC space then the corresponding CSD criteria is. That said, in light of the other reasons for requesting admin outlined in question one, which are fine reasons, and my positive opinion of Ocaasi generally, I am supporting.
Per nominator, great editor. --
<small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
Good editor.
A very strong candidate. - Dank (
Seriously impressed by the clarity of Ocaasi's posts. I think Ocaasi will make a great administrator. '''
Easiest support vote I've made in 2012. Ocaasi brings a lot to the table.
'''Obvious support''' -
'''Support''' Seems to be a trustworthy editor. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''', seems to meet my requirements --
'''Obvious support is obvious'''. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' good candidate.
'''Support''' as I find no reason not to.
'''Support''' - Enthusiastically, whole-heartedly, and with joy.  He has proven himself to be a keeper of "clue".
'''Support''' - am still keen to read answers to editor questions (especially the one from ''Go Phightins!'') but the answers to stock questions are enough to convince me.
'''Strong Support''' - I am highly impressed by the exceptional quality of the user's talk page. Anyone with something so amazingly breathtaking in their userspace should automatically have the bit. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">
I was aware that Ocaasi had not already been granted the sysop bit, but that's only because I had to keep reminding myself of this fact. I've encountered his name plenty of times through my involvement with articles relating to the [[Arab Spring]], and he's always come across as a voice of reason in discussions. He will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - looks pretty good to me, and I couldn't care less how his talk page is laid out.
'''Strong Obvious Support'''
'''Support''' Hard-working, clueful user with positive and innovative ideas.  No red flags. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I know this user personally because he does a large amount of off-wiki community organizing, outreach, and Wikipedia training. I collaborate with him on projects. He speaks well in public and people want to hear what he says about Wikimedia projects. Off-wiki Wikipedia activities have not traditionally been a standard for measurement in the RfA process, but I think that they should be because these things have at least as much impact on the Wikipedia community as any admin function. On wiki, this person is a model user with lots of experience. I support his RfA because I know that having the tools would save him time and because I know that he will use them in accordance with community guidelines.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No concerns--he seems like a pretty sensible guy.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions; talk-page objection no concern here.
'''Support'''. This is an easy decision for me. I've interacted with the candidate before, and they are clearly experienced, clueful, considerate, friendly, and articulate. (Oh, and there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOcaasi&diff=432962043&oldid=432943399 this].) --
'''Support''' No evidence that I can see of problems.  Talk page layouts are not a sufficient reason to tell someone that he's not qualified to block malcontents, delete copyvios, or determine discussion consensus.
'''Support''' - based on those above who support as well as the answer to my question, which seems reasonable.
'''Support''' - The user looks to be more than qualified to be an admin.  Best of luck,
'''Support'''; great candidate.
'''Support''' - Looks like a great candidate to me. --  '''
'''Support'''. Well qualified, no concerns. -- '''
'''Support''' Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  One of the best qualified people out there who isn't already one, and better than some whom the community has elected.--
'''Support'''. Very well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' The answer to my question is a bit short, but it hits the spot. Regards. —
'''Support''' - Solid contributor with a great attitude and aptitude. Ocaasi's help with providing free access to research databases has had a positive impact to the project. -
'''Support''' - It's not very often that I have to do no research at all on a RfA nomination because of close familiarity and complete trust in the candidate. That is the case here. My highest possible recommendation.
'''Support'''. Hmm. Well. Thought he was an admin already. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. The candidate is serious, dedicated, well-organized, helpful, and learns from past mistakes. He exhibits good communication skills and a mature temperment. I trust he will make a better-than-average sysop.
'''Support.''' Obviously. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">
'''Support''', do not expect any problems in this case.--
'''Support''', good answers to the questions, solid editing history, and my interactions with this editor have all been positive - very level headed and thoughtful.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - everything looks good to me.
'''Support'''; Did good work on the Assange talk page, lots of pro-active work getting source access, OTRS communication is pretty good (I looked through some tickets and in fact, a lot better than most) and he is a friendly chap. Trustworthy with the tools and can do useful things with them. --'''
'''Support''' - I recognized the username from several aritlces he has contributed to; he seems trustworthy and will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; I've been honored to work with Ocaasi on various Wikipedia Library and upcoming projects and I've always been impressed by his articulateness, dedication, and initiative. &mdash; <strong><tt>
'''Support''' It seems like the tools will be in good hands.
'''Support''' – has the interests of the project at heart.
'''Support''' I'm convinced by the candidate's rationale for needing the tools and equally convinced of their competence and cluefulness to use them.
I wasn't expecting to see this when I flicked onto the RfA page today. '''Full hearted strong support!''' <font color="#151B8D">'''
No qualms. —
No concerns. '''<font color="navy">
Support - Candidate looks fine.
'''Strong Support''' -- reasons given above.
'''Support''': Very impressed with his handling of questions directed at him and to him  on this page. (
Ocaasi does good work on wiki and off. He will be a fine admin. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Reasonable, stand-up guy.
'''Strong support''': Easy to work with, good social skills, cool head, knows his policy, constructive, active, good judgment, takes criticism well. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Looks like a very good editor. No concerns for me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' – I see no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' Net benefit.
'''Supprt''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' Ocaasi's been a huge asset to the project so far; handing him a mop would only serve to make him more useful still.
'''Support''' He's a sensible chap who won't break any of the family china. —
'''Support''' - looks to be a solid candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' Of course.--<span style="">
Absolutely.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--More likely to get us free full access to gbooks than to to blow up the main page. And if he can get that for us, I might just spearhead a drive to give him a unique user right.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - This editor understands policy and has made substantial content contributions.
'''Support''' - No brainer.

'''Support''' - Having had disagreements with Ocaasi in the distant past, I've had the pleasure of watching him grow into a most clueful editor, and a real benefit to the project. I appreciate Axl's concerns about a lack of CSD work, but admins are never made "fully-formed" and have to learn their art. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ocaasi will learn with the tools, and won't break the 'pedia in the meantime. --
'''Support'''. No reason why not.--
'''Support''' - per everyone above. I have nothing new to add, but wanted to go on record. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' - I keep on running into this editor, and I keep on being impressed.  --
'''support''' Since the issue of CSD experience was raised, I think a personal of overall good judgment such as Ocaasi can learn   details of the rules easily enough, & can be relied upon following consensus in interpreting them. .  '''
'''Support'''. Content contributor, experienced, appears to understand policy, no reason to think he will abuse tools.
'''Support''' no worries --
'''Support''' One of the better candidates I've seen here.  Looked at the opposes, wondering who would oppose this guy, and was pretty disappointed to see my name in there, "sarcasm" be damned.  I've supported many, many RfA candidates over the years--someone who has more free time than I do (and who, frankly, cares more) is welcome to add 'em up.  Anyways, this will be a landslide, congratulations.
'''Support'''- I have worked w/ Editor Ocassi on an essay and an aricle or two. Wonderful collaborator. ```
'''Support''' Good candidate, has clue. '''
'''Support''' - long overdue.
'''Support'''
You already have Risker's easiest support in 2012, and you now have my easiest '''support''' in 2013 so far :-) And I expect it will remain one of my easiest supports by the end of the year - I've seen Ocaasi around the place a lot, and I really have no doubts at all. --
'''Support'''. Ocaasi is helpful, competent, and knows policy. A definite plus to the mop corps.
'''Support''' No brainer.—
'''Support'''. Introspective, interesting, flexible, willing to learn, eclectic, self-aware, smart, good writer. One oppose is frivolous. One oppose is silly. The third is unpersuasive.--
'''Support''' Absolutely 110%! {{smiley}}
I haven't found any reasons not to support. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' A good candidate who can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. Sure! Looks trustworthy and competent. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support.''' I had [[WP:ABF|assumed]] for some time that Ocassi was on the take, but he says he is not and I couldn't find satisfactory evidence that he is lying about that or anything else.

'''Support'''.  I've seen them around, and "RfA" seems to be a reasonable step. <small>(and congrats on the [[WP:100]])</small> — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. Seems a bit eager, which is not a bad thing, but otherwise I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the tools. Please accept my congrats as well on reaching the WP 100 :)
'''Support'''. Ocaasi has done excellent work on the Wikipedia Library, and does dispute resolution well. S/he showed me the ropes at [[WP:DRN]] soon after it was created, and I learned a lot from watching how s/he handled disputes. I am also a fan of Ocaasi's work on COI issues, and I particularly like the [[WP:PSCOI|plain and simple conflict of interest guide]]. A very strong candidate. — '''''
'''Support'''. Ocaasi has plenty of clue, judgement and tact. I especially like the way he/she handled Q12. Best wishes.
'''Support''' will be one of the better admins from day one I think. ''

'''Support''' - I only wish the candidate had left the talk page alone so I could evaluate the Oppose. No worries, I checked the history...took a few more seconds. -
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Judging by the answers to questions in this very RfA (not to mention the great contributions to the project), this is exactly the type of editor we need as an admin.
'''Support''', if the worst thing we can find to criticize a candidate for is some junk on the talk page, I think I can give a pretty resounding "yes". Never run into a bit of trouble with Ocassi, never known of anyone to, and from all indications here, just as levelheaded as ever. Also, the linked conduct on the Assange article was exemplary. I know (but won't name) more than one who could do with a careful study of that.
'''Support''', per [[WP:HighBeam|HighBeam]], other worthwhile contributions and positive user interactions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' no worries.  <code>
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' No concerns here!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Better late than never, seems fully qualified.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Ocaasi's effort to secure access to library databases for Wikipedians demonstrate that he can identify a pressing need and work with others to address that need.
'''Support''' - A fine addition to the admin group. Overwhelming support from trusted editors.
'''Support''' answers and activities are clueful about what is needed.
'''Support''', very strong candidate.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', candidate has extensive activity in various areas on Wikipedia and appears properly well-rounded to be considered an admin. <font color="silver">
'''Support''' no problems here. --
'''Support''' strongly and with pleasure. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">
'''Support:''' Ocaasi is a net positive. -
'''Oppose''' A productive user flying through RfA without any problems. Clearly something's up :)
'''Support''' Slight red flag at wanting to work in CSD, but other than that, I think I can support.--
'''Phew'''. I'm far to inactive. I nearly missed this.
'''Support''' Ocaasi is a great admin candidate - the extra buttons will be helpful with his already substantial work at OTRS and I have no concerns with regard to his wielding the mop and clearing the never-ending backlogs here on en-wiki. --
'''Support''' No issues. Thanks all :-) --&nbsp;
'''Support''': Looks good to me. I liked the answers to questions. Good luck! <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC) As a side note, I think the answer to Q6 would be slightly better off without the "cool-down" parenthesis. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' Literally one of those "he's not already" moments.  No humanly-visible reason to Oppose, and clearly a net-positive to the project. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Support'''. Very committed editor.
'''Support''' No reason not to. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' I can't see any reason not to hand you the mop - wield it well. '''
'''Support''' Good user, no reason to oppose.  ~~
'''Support''' - See no reason to oppose.
'''Support'' per very diplomatic answer to #12--v/r -
Obviously I'm way late to the party, but I'll go ahead and register my support as well. Ocaasi is a good editor and I think s/he will be an excellent admin. Congratulations on the high level of heartfelt support for your candidacy - it reflects very well on you as an editor. '''
'''Support''' I see nothing that worries me about this nomination. '''
'''Support'''. I won't pretend that I thought he was already an admin, because I knew he wasn't. He soon will be though, and it's about time.
'''Support'''  This editor's commitment and experience with HighBeam combined with the answers to questions are my reasons for giving my support. - <b>
'''Support''' Seen good work and lots of it.
'''Support''' Answers above demonstrate high level of clue, and don't remember any editing incidents that would worry me. --
'''Support''' - The resource project is very useful and shows dedication to advance Wikipedia not just individually, but from a community-wide level. Few individuals show such determination to go the extra mile for the betterment of the community, Ocaasi is exceptional and would be a good admin.
'''Support''' I can't provide my own rationale here, the nomination and several of the above supports all voice it out for me.
'''Support''' I've seen quite a bit of Ocaasi's editing over the years, and am confident that he or she will make a good admin.
I recognize this username, and I've hardly edited in two years. Solid work behind the scenes. Admin material without a doubt. Good luck!
'''Support''' Valuable contributions in the past and more anticipated.
'''Support''' No problems here. Great user who deserves the mop.
'''Support'''. Got in there just in time ;) --
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' Of course! Excellent editor. --
'''Suppor''' - don't even have to check anything here. Ocaasi has always struck me as an excellent and responsible contributor. -
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' its all been said
'''Support''' Good luck, Ocaasi.
'''Support''' I have worked with Ocaasi both as a volunteer and in my staff capacity. The man is loaded with clue. He understands how to cooperate with others and has always been willing to assess his own actions, to adjust them as necessary to conform with consensus. To me, these are among the most important assets of an administrator. I trust him to bring this great good sense to this as all other roles. :) --
'''Strong Support''' I had a look through user's contribution they were helpful and useful so i support <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 4px black;"><b style="color:#333333;">
'''Strong Support''' Just back after a break but he is one editor whom I can implicitly trust.This dedication and commitment to the project is truly outstanding as shown in Highbeam project.His Wikipedia Library project is just truly exceptional.The project only gains with the user having tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Wholeheartedly. As one of those who very much appreciated his HighBeam/Questia program, I am naturally positively biased. But I also found his answers above to very thoughtful, like for instance the one on incivility. So, from I have seen from him, he appears to have the kind of attitude that I want to see in an administrator.
'''Support'''.  Per Gnan, it has all been said. Seems like a level-headed and responsible editor that would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good choice, see no reason to oppose after checking the comments below. Spot checks good.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Everything looks good and okay. All the very best Ocaasi. ~'''''
Candidate's talk page is a pointlessly disorganized mess, and the light amount of traffic there indicates the messiness might discourage communication. Candidate looks strong in other areas, but talk page is one of the very basics; it has to be easy to use.
'''Oppose'''. I do not believe that experience in AfC is adequate to judge CSDs. With only a few !votes in AfD, Ocaasi does not have the required experience to delete articles, let alone CSDs. While the tools may well be helpful for his OTRS work, Ocaasi's declared intention to work with CSD is enough for me to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. This user is a good contributor, but I don't think he/she would make a good admin.
Not entirely satisfied with the answer to Q8, particularly with respect to the answer to Q9 and the "Articles created"  list generally.
Don't really have an opinion on this, but I think it is clear this RFA isn't going to fail so can't a crat close this already?--
'''Support''' - enthusiastically, as nom.
'''Support'''.  Paul has been a strong editor, regular talk page participant, and prolific content contributor, especially in his favorite subject areas of American college football and Kansas history, with [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Paulmcdonald&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 over 1,700 new articles created].  He has also been a long-term and regular AfD participant, with over 1,000 AfD discussions to his credit.
'''Support'''  I've run into this editor before at AfD, and I a positive impression of his contributions there, one that's confirmed by my review of AfD, article creation, and talk page histories.   --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Terrific nom by Go Phightins! Paul strikes me as a very mature person. One stretch that must have been very trying was a mass AfD nomination of articles created by him, and I think he handled it well - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paulmcdonald&diff=prev&oldid=239838056#Deletions this talk page discussion] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_6#Deletion_spamming|this wikiproject discussion]]. And that was back in 2008. Also, in all of the nominations that I found from this incident, the articles are still there. One minor thing: If he becomes an admin, he should start archiving his talk page discussions instead of deleting them.
'''Weak Support''' The potential for narcissistic behavior and the disapproval of anonymous editing are a little concerning.
'''Support''' - per nom. Paul also has met consensus [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=Paulmcdonald&max=250&startdate=&altname= 83%] of the time on AfDs when !voting ('''not''' counting AfDs that were closed as no consensus), which is much higher than some other admin candidates.
'''Support'''.  Another fine editor.
'''Support'''. Great AfD work. We still need a few more admins to help us clear the AfD queue occasionally. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Everything looks great to me.  Seems like he'll keep his cool, and he's done good work with AFDs.
Absolutely.
'''Support'''
'''Strongly Support''': Paul seems like a very active, strong editor. Also, it's nice to see a clean block log {{;)}} Cheers and good luck.
'''Support''' - Very mature editor. I agree with RM, though, that he should probably archive his talk threads. [[User talk:TCN7JM#top|<font color="blue" face="OCR A Std">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="OCR A Std">C</font>]]
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''', an overall [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] for the project. —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''
'''Support'''. What I see is an editor familiar with AfD who would like to get the tools to help him in this area, and open to learning how to use them elsewhere, with no indication he would misuse them. As for me mop'n'bucket are not a big deal, I don't see why this editor should not get to try them out. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per dirtylawyer, this editor is obviously focused on building the project, 1700+ articles, bravo!
'''Support'''. Lots of content contribution + great work at AfD + lengthy service while remaining drama-free + nice answers to the standard questions + legit reasons for wanting the mop + a balanced approach = a great candidate for adminship. It's no big deal, after all.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. It doesn't trouble me that he doesn't know me, as I don't know him either!
'''Support'''. I have seen Paul around at AfD, and his comments always seemed helpful and incisive. I trust that he will go slowly in areas that he is not familiar with, so I'm not worried about the relative lack of experience in user conduct venues he mentioned in question eight. He has plenty of experience at AfD, which is the venue he wants to work in, and that's more than good enough for me. — '''''
'''Support''' No major concerns '''
'''Support'''. I am a little uneasy about the answer to question 5. However Paulmcdonald's AfD work is strong.
'''Support''' - Good editor, has a great demeanor and is perfectly suited for adminship. Good AfD work, but I don't even care about that, because I'm confident this editor could learn any necessary field quickly and fairly. One of the best RfA candidates I've seen in a while.
'''Support''' - A good contributor with some AFD experience. I'm also supporting per the opposes.
'''Support''' - Tons of content, understands AFD well, hasn't been sucked into the drama of the admin pit, great answers to the questions, what is not to love?  Seems like a calm and highly independent candidate who understands our own flaws and the difficulties that new editors face, which is exactly the kind of person I like to see at RfA.  It doesn't hurt that I trust the nominator as well. I actually like his answer to #5, btw, and think it shows he actually understands how the policy works, or sometimes doesn't.
'''Support''' - no concerns and I think he'll do good things at AFD. Has a solid understanding of sports notability criteria which can be harder to judge (both in terms of policy and consensus) so will be a valuable asset in that sense.
'''Support''' - I've seen him at AfD before, and he provided some great arguments. I'm not at all concerned about him, and I think he'll do well with the sysop tools. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' - don't see any problems. <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">
'''Strong Support''' - He's managed to edit in areas (sports) that can produce huge amounts of drama and has done so without producing drama. I trust him to work slowly in areas he's unfamiliar with, and he's mature enough to ask for advice and then respect that advice (something that seems all too rare in some quarters).
'''Support''' - Excellent work with WP:CFB.
'''Very strong support''' - Apparently there is a big backlog at AfD, and some "prolific" and celebrated "content creators" are providing new entries at AfD every day. So, every hand in this area is more than welcome.
'''Support''' marvelous candidate.
'''Support''' - No concerns here. Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''', and a pretty easy one at that. Lots of great contributions, calm and friendly interaction, plenty of clue, strong nomination, answers to questions just fine - sounds like someone who will work well in areas he knows and will be cautious in areas he doesn't. --
'''Support''' Good responses to the questions and the strong nom well supported by evidence (nice work on the nom Go Phightins!) all point to a level headed and clueful editor. --
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, the few opposes down there are utterly unconvincing, not seeing any red flags otherwise.
'''Resounding support''' - Great answers to questions, super strong background in admin related activities. Trustworthy, active and clueful enough to deserve the bit. -<span style="background:#000000">
'''Support'''; without hesitation.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Candidate seems very clueful.
'''Support''' - Absolutely because admin is and should be no big deal. I have seen the user here and there but never interacted with them. I suspect this user will be one of the 650+ that rarely uses the tools but I also don't think I need to worry about them deleting the main page either.
'''Support''' — The candidate understands policy, is a great content creator, and has a strong edit history and a clean block log. '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' - no concerns, admins with AfD interest/experience always welcome.
'''Support''' - Seems to have a breadth of experience, including admin related areas, and good answers to questions. Candidate seems trustworthy, clueful and calm in the face of adversity.
'''Support''' - although I do not recall any interaction with the subject of this RfA, all the numbers look good, and there doesn't appear to be any object able answers to questions or past actions by the subject of this RfA. Furthermore, outside of the quality work that the subject has created, he is an [[Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)|Eagle scout]], a plus IMHO.--
'''Support''' - Good answers; seems clueful and confident. '''
'''Support''' A great candidate - calm, clueful and willing. --
'''Support''' – no concerns.--
'''Support''' Good to see someone with a healthy proportion of mainspace edits. Nobody should show up here with less than 50% and expect my vote. A little disappointing that this editor can devote over 100 edits to an article and its still a start class.
'''Support''' – Likely to be fine. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''',
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Despite my being an ardent defender of the rights of IPs, this is clearly a strong candidate.
'''Yes''' - impressive answers to questions above; no red flags here.
'''Support'''. Some of the questions give me the feeling people are just digging for an opinion they can disagree with and oppose based on. Overall I'm pretty happy with how Paulmcdonald has handled it, and other aspects look very positive. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - can't see any reason to think there will be abuse of the tools. Particularly impressed with the answers to Q9-11. -
'''Support''' No problem.--'''
'''Support''' - More than adequate tenure, over half of edits to mainspace is a positive bonus, clean block log and no indications of assholery. No concerns whatsoever with previous AfD participation and a sensible answer above in the questions section on the relationship between WP:IAR and WP:GNG that should be required reading for any administrator ever seeking to close an AfD debate. Keep up the good work!
'''Strong support'''. Wasn't going to vote, but the opposes are flat out ridiculous. For what it's worth, me and him disagree on AfDs quite often, so the guy certainly is more inclusionist then I'd like. Conversely, I'm sure I'm more deletionist than he'd like (he's not alone there). That being said, he doesn't keep articles just to do so, but actually provides sound arguments and analyzes the discussions accordingly. Not only do I trust him, I would trust him with AfDs over a lot of users. The fact that he's against IP usage only strengthens my support; dealing with copyright and vandalism would be so much easier with registration. I'm usually not a question guy, but I can't see where anyone with common sense would actually have a problem with any of the answers.
'''Support''' The opposes just don't swing it for me. '''
'''Support''' Net positive contributor.
'''Support'''. Can't  think  of or find any  compelling  reasons why  not  to. I  can understand sScottywong  who  raises some interesting  points, but  I'm impressed with  the reflection and maturity  in the responses to  all  the questions.
'''Support'''.  Per everyone above and trust in the nominator.
'''Support'''.  Per Dennis Brown.
'''Support:''' Will make a great admin. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Especially because of his answers to Q5--the simplest and best statement I've ever seen on that particular problem;  and  also to Q15 & Q16. '''
'''Support'''. Per Dennis Brown and several other rationales above. For me this falls into the category of "I thought Paul already was one"
'''Support''' I am always interested and supportive of candidates with strong article contributions and plenty of AFD experience. We certainly need more admins who are willing to make a tough close and recognize that 'no consensus' can be as bad as a wrong keep or delete outcome. That said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Scottywong, and while Q11 seems a bit odd, I didn't really like to see as confrontational an answer though no where near making me want to oppose.
'''Support''' I'm pleased to see this nomination. Clearly a thoughtful, co-operative and level-headed person.
'''Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support''' No concerns here!

'''Support''' btw, I ''especially'' like his refusal to classify himself according to the deletionist/inclusionist tribes, which really ought to be a precondition to getting the tools, imo. Anyway, no issues from what I can see. I like his answers and the fact that he defends himself lucidly and firmly. Good for him.
'''support''' Happy to show up and see this.  Long liked Paul as a mostly reasonable person with a frank way of doing things.  That said, I'd urge Paul to take seriously some of the issues that the opposers raise.  In particular just be sure to be thinking first as an admin and second as Paul, pretty much per your answer to 18.
'''Support''' never interacted with this user but I am very impressed by this user's attitude and answers to questions. I also couldn't care less about what they vote on AfDs. <i><b>
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' I particularly appreciate the amount of content creation.--
'''Support''' per the last sentence of the candidate's answer to Q6. I see some concerns about his opinions on AfD being different than those of other editors (and perhaps different than mine), but I don't see any convincing arguments that he would use adminship to push his opinions against consensus. --
Very qualified candidate - should be a great admin. –
This'll wrap-up fairly shortly, but I feel compelled to stop by and offer my '''support''' before it ends. I've perused through Paul's talk page, in which I see plenty of cordial interactions and a friendly editor who's willing to collaborate with others. Per the nomination statement, Paul has a broad range of experience and has proven that he can remain level-headed even in a dispute. This coupled with his impressive demeanor and the fact that he's been a steady contributor here for quite some time make him a more than suitable candidate for the mop. Good luck and all the best, Paul.
'''Support''' Encourage cogitation rather than rote application of guidelines. Definite support.
I wasn't planning on participating in this one, but I do like the question answers. ''
Primarily, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's also a community, especially when it comes to administration. I initially was neutral per the concerns raised by Keepscases and when you add that to a lack of knowledge of other adminisitrators, I just can't support this process. While I acknowledge it would be impossible to get to know everybody, it helps to know at least a decent selection of admins in the community that you are working in.--
'''Oppose''' per nominator, but '''weak'''. There seems to be little development of quality articles or extended interaction with other editors. The candidate showed admirable soft-spoken leadership at [[Talk:Murder_of_Emily_Sander/Archive_1]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I don't know Paul McDonald, nor can I recall any past interaction with him, but I'm just not getting the warm fuzzy feeling that I like to have about candidates that I support.  Some of my feelings echo Secret's neutral vote below.  Some of it is per Paul's answers to my questions 9-11.  None of the 3 questions were actually answered.  Answers were given, but not to the questions asked.  I don't know if this is caused by a lack of competence (i.e., an inability to understand the question that was asked), or if it some kind of attempt to be political by dodging the questions, or some other reason.  The answers to questions 5, 7, and 12 are similarly uninspiring, and in some cases, concerning.  Overall, I feel that the candidate's approach to adminship lacks seriousness and maturity.  Maybe it's just my personality clashing with his, I don't know, but I feel I can't support this one.
'''Oppose''' I planned to stay neutral while mentioning my main concern of Paul below, as I dealt with him in the past as we have the same interests, but the answers to Scottywong questions just doesn't feel right. He kept mentioning his track record on AFD (which is one of the more flip-floppy I've seen from an editor during my time on Wikipedia) instead of directly answering the questions, even the very opinionated ones that shouldn't be counted against an editor. The answer to question 15 is simply way off and just about confirms my [[WP:SUPERVOTE]] concerns. Also read my original comment listed in the now indented neutral. As someone who closed policy-based AFDs on a regular basis, I can't support. Sorry.
'''oppose''' 55% article space is a good mix alrady. given user's penchant for afd etc, the mop/bucket/badge thing will paradoxically make the user ''less'' productive. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
answers to questions are underwhelming. -
'''Oppose'''. The answer to Q11 in particular is quite confrontational and sarcastic. Also, when a comment is made with a rationale, to reply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Discriminate_vs_indiscriminate_information&diff=prev&oldid=553334299 as here], with "I think you're over-thinking it" and no rationale, is a cheap put-down, not a reply at all. And using the WP:SOFIXIT shortcut to [[WP:BB]] is a way of saying "put up or shut up". Said to someone who has spent most of his Wikipedia career helping '''other''' editors get their FAs and GAs and working to clear the copyedit backlogs, "WP:SOFIXIT" is just rude. This is the sort of holier-than-thou attitude we need to keep out of the admin corps. --
While there are many good reasons for supporting expressed above, I am swayed by the comments of Scottywong which align with my own general impressions. Couple these with Keepscases observation of a potential for narcissism, which I see evidenced in many of his answers to questions, and the candidate becomes a nominee I am unable to support. I do however, wish him the best, and respect the emerging consensus that isn't swayed by similar reservations.
'''Neutral''' The candidate's responses to questions 7 and 12 cause me some concern but I'm willing to be swayed (his edit history, content creation, lack of blocks, and commitment to the project are admirable). The candidate wants to be an administrator and has a long and significant edit history but in his response to question 7 he stated that he doesn't "really know other admins on Wikipedia". I find that amazing considering the amount of edits and interactions he has accumulated. Also, the candidate seems to want to be more active in the AfD process but in his response to question 12 he stated that the only times he would want to make a non-admin closure of a deletion discussion are discussions in which he has participated. I don't entirely understand why he wouldn't be interested in making an effort to branch out and try closing other discussions to learn the process, if he wants to become an admin to work on the AfD backlog. I would be more comfortable supporting this candidate if he cleared up these potential contradictions. Such an explanation might also illuminate a why this editor would be not be a concern for making a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]], as outlined by [[User:Secret|Secret]], above. - <b>
'''Neutral'''. See question 4. I'm not going to oppose someone because he wrote an essay I don't like. But I do hope that Paul will not override a clear consensus because that consensus is based on an interpretation of policy considered valid by the community but not by him. Based on his personality, I don't think he will.
'''Neutral''' I've always found him to be clear and cordial, and wish him the best on his imminent approval.  I did notice in the past that he his AfD !votes involving [[quarterback]]s in [[college football]] leaned on the more liberal side when only trivial/routine coverage existed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan LaSecla]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myles Eden]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Rogers]].  I trust he would be able to read consensus and avoid a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]], or just stick with participating and not closing in these rare cases. His general track record seems excellent otherwise.—
I'm not convinced a calm, mature, educated, nondramatic grownup will fit in with the rest of us, but it's worth a shot I suppose. --
The metrics are strong; 45% to article space, >3 edits per page which shows dedication to seeing an issue through rather than just driving by, and no less than 300 edits per month since January 2012, but what strikes me most is what Secret pointed out in his nomination and what's been pointed out in his/her answer to question 3: a willingness and an eagerness to discuss issues rather than gripe about them, a willingness to mediate calmly and seek to solve problems rather than punish users, and an overall calm civil nature. Coupled with a ringing endorsement from Secret, I am ecstatic to '''strongly support''' this nomination.
'''Support'''. Per nomination. Appears to be a valuable, serious contributor and good candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per floquenbeam.
'''Support''' per Floq. After all, this isn't rock science! It's RockMagnetist (okay, that was lame, I admit it)!
'''Support''': Yes. An actual grown-up! :) --
'''Support''' My own relatively in depth editing and discussion interaction with this user over several days, a few months ago, leads me to support.  He was knowledgeable and focused, as well as communicative and willing listen and alter course.  Thanks for volunteering.
The interactions I've had with RM lead me to believe that he'll(?) be a good addition to the admin corps. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - cool head, good knowledge of policy, and excellent work over at WikiProject Women Scientists.
'''Support''' - No concerns. I did a brief scan through Wikipedia space to see where his name was mentioned, and the few items I found there were all positive. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Request early termination of RfC|Here's an ANI from November 2011]], and [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Algoman orogeny/archive1|here he is working cooperatively with a peer reviewer]] on an article he was trying to get to GA.
'''Support''' Seems too good to be working as a greeter and janitor but I like that he will set a good example.
'''Strong support''' - For all the obvious reasons.
Per all above.
'''Support''', with pleasure.
'''Support''' - no areas of concern.
'''Support''' absolutely, and without reservation.
'''Support''' —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''Support''' I was glad to see the "Hero Of The Momentum Article" nominated, and after looking at the answers above and poking around his history, he looks like a great choice. --
Longterm user with a clean blocklog and quality contributions, deleted contribs look good too. ''
'''Support''' base on previous interaction. --
'''Support''' I cannot find anything negative about the user.--
'''Support''' an excellent candidate who I think will make a fine admin.
Per Floq. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' All looks good, happy to support.
'''Very strong support''' &mdash; For starters, we ''need'' more editors with expertise in the sciences. I'm glad we have someone like [[User:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]], and I hope he will continue all the good work he puts into physics-related articles long after becoming an administrator. [[User:Secret|Secret]]'s outstanding nomination statement is what cinches it for me: the links provided demonstrate a resounding degree of patience, experience, policy knowledge, and good sense. He is excellent at resolving disputes and getting people focused on the crux of a given situation. I have tremendous confidence that RockMagnetist would put the sysop tools to good use. Glad to support.
'''Support'''. Seems capable and level-headed, has great content work, and is good at dispute resolution to boot. I spot-checked the AfD contributions and everything looks good. Will make a fine admin. — '''''
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Quiet people who do good work are likely to be excellent admins, especially when they like whittling down backlogs.  And "there is no requirement that the subject like its contents" shows that he knows the [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]]!
'''Support''' and support... seems good and will not misuse Wikipedia with his new tools.
'''Support''': RM is a strong editor overall. I am especially impressed with the 45.15% of edits to articles. I have no problem at all with this user becoming an admin. Best of luck,
'''Support''' as there is no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' - zero concerns.
'''Support''': no concerns at all.--

'''Support''' Definitely qualified--
'''Support''' Technically it could be argued that there should be more AfD experience as he plans to work in that area, but overall looks very solid candidate so its not an issue for me.--
'''Support''' Not come across him that I can remember (sometimes not a bad thing, that...) but I like what I see here. I can't see him rushing into AfD and making PoV closes against consensus. Or otherwise wrecking the place.  He has opinions about how things could be improved, and seems to be going about things in a reasonable way.
'''Support'''
''' Easy support'''. An expert in their field (and a scientific one at that), with a strong understanding of the Wikipedia way of doing things and with excellent temperament and communication skills - yes please! --
As nom, 41 comments late, opps.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''', this isn't rock(et) science :) It's a
'''Support'''. Looks like just the type of calm, methodical mind we need in the admin corps.
'''Support''' Good Track and has over 29 articles and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Oppose.  Too smart and calm for an admin.'''

'''Support'''. high likelihood of being a net positive.
'''Support''' Level-headed editor who doesn't sound like they'll let POV stand in the way of policy.
'''Support''', no reason for rejection.
'''Support''' because I see no good reason not to. With regard to the oppose section, let me say that no administrator is required to ''agree'' with the guidelines and policies as they currently exist. But I see no evidence to suggest that RockMagnetist would actually violate them, which is all that matters.
'''Support'''. Great, drama-free contributor. No concerns at all.
'''Support''' Not someone I've crossed paths with before, but looking at the contribs and history, and the broad support from a variety of people I respect here, it would appear this is a good choice for the tools.
'''Support'''. No issues really.
'''Support''' Not a user I've run into before (that's probably good, since it indicates a general avoidance of the drama-heavy parts of Wikipedia), but his stats and answers look good, and a review of his edits and interactions shows a mature, competent, level-headed editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I've no concerns.
'''Support''' As per Floquenbeam - Mop please <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - Per reasons stated in the nomination. Obviously this is someone with abundant clue who interacts well with others. Hand them a [[Swiffer]]. -
'''Support''' - After a review of contributions and answers to questions.  --
'''Support'''. An academic scientist? I've gotta support! And I've been another participant in the policy discussion that is linked in oppose #1, and I'm not seeing a problem. I trust the candidate to understand what consensus is, and I am confident that there is enough clue. --
I'm very impressed. I've perused your talk page archives going back to February 2012 and your contributions, and I'm impressed with your ability to remain calm during disputes, seek policy-based solutions, your wide breadth of editing experience (with more than a thousand edits in the WP space in addition to solid article work), and overall sense of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] you exhibit in your work here. I'm more than happy to '''support''' a low-key editor who's a valuable contributor, interacts very well with other editors, and doesn't stir up drama. Good luck.

'''Support''' Good editor. Sure.--'''
'''Support''' no issues --
'''Support''' substantial contributor who demonstrates maturity, spine, and good humor.  --
'''Support''' No concerns at all '''
'''Support''' the admin bit for anti-drama grownups.  Good luck,
'''Support''', based on review.
'''Moved to support''' His answers to my concerns were very levelheaded and sensible, much more than I think I would've under similar circumstances. As long as he doesn't jump right in to closing contentious AfD debates, one more levelheaded admin won't do damage. Also, I'm biased by his academic background. Anybody who's had to spend time dealing with legions of undegrads has to have developed a good sense of patience. <strong>
-
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
'''Support''' I haven't had much interaction with this editor, but have read this debate and thought about the concerns that one editor has raised. I've taken a close look at one recent AfD about a Polish dinosaur expert, and have seen a calm willingness to engage with others, and accept emerging consensus. Those are the attributes of a good administrator. Good luck to you in a tough job, RockMagnetist.
'''Support'''.  Solid answers, strong contributions, good content editor.
'''Support''' per Cullen328.--<font face="bold">
'''Support''' - Like the the answers to the additional questions. Spot checks look good. If RockMagnetist had been actively seeking admin I might have questioned the motives and timing of withdrawing the AfD mentioned in the oppose section, but think it was honest move. I also see no problem with an administrator that argues some policy should be changed, as long as they either carry out existing policy in their actions or leave those cases to other admins.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' We have enough administrators with rocks in their heads. This editor rocks! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' seems like a reliable person.
'''Support''' Looks good to me!
'''Support''' - Clean block log with no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure with a decent percentage of work to mainspace. We are in need of additional closers at AfD and this seems to be a likely person to pitch in intelligently with the science and academics sort of nominations.
'''Support'''. Strong candidate, impressive nomination statement. Also, SCIENCE! &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per Carrite. Calm and methodical editor is a good material for adminship.
'''Support''' Best candidate in a while.
'''Support'''. The combination of an admin and an expert, to me, is gold. It means I can pester them when I have a question. RM also communicates well and appears to have as cool a head as the rocks xe deals with. I guardedly recommend that RM spend a bit more time on the drama boards. RM's participation there has been almost non-existent. Those boards could use all of the detached temperance they can get, and perhaps what admins appear unable to do (significantly reduce the drama), RM can do using the laws of physics, of which I know about as much as the scarecrow before he got a brain. Finally, I do not hold it against RM that their first substantive contribution to Wikipedia was [[Rock Magnetism|autobiographical]].--
I recently found RockMagnetist to be collegial and intelligent while working out a perplexing problem at [[Talk:List of lakes by area]], the discussion spilling over to the associated [[Lake Michigan–Huron]] talk page. I trust him to keep a level head.
'''Support''' No issues. I don't find the opposes an issue for me,
'''Support''' Looks fine. --
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.--
{{ec}} Unconvincing opposes combined with a frighteningly excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' &ndash; No concerns.
'''Support''' with pleasure. An entirely admirable candidate who's a refreshing change from the more usual MMORPG kids.
'''Support''' Why not? --<span style="">
'''Support''' Seems a good, trustworthy candidate for the [[WP:MOP]]. :)  --
'''Support''' Had a few interactions, only good memories. &mdash;&thinsp;
'''Oppose'''. It is with reluctance that I am inclined oppose this RfA because [[user:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] has done much fine editing of science subjects. However his statement in reply to question 1 "particularly pages related to science and bibliographies. Help with the latter is especially needed because few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to them" rings alarm bells. [[user:RockMagnetist|RockMagnetist]] is currently engaged in a policy debate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28academics%29&oldid=542763929#Proposed_addition] about the notability of scholars and researchers. In the AfD for the BLP of a borderline (for notability) palaeontologist [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Maryańska]] he comments, in sarcasm, "so much emphasis on notability!" Well, notability is what it is about in determining the suitability of articles for inclusion. His comment "few people seem to understand how Wikipedia policies apply to them" seems to suggest that he thinks he knows better than consensus. I am reluctant to give administrative powers to somebody with such strong and arguably non-consensus views on policy. If he were to give an undertaking to avoid admin activity in such areas I would reconsider my opposition.
'''Reluctant oppose''' I do not feel comfortable with the candidate. I'm always pleased to argue with anyone about the standards for academics, and I'm aware I am saying this as someone taking almost a diametrically opposed position on the issues involved, and for both of it is a main area of our interest -- in my case to the extent that I would be willing to decrease work on my other areas of interest here to concentrate on this issue if I had reason to be really concerned about the trend. I know I've never used the button for my views on this area--even were it permitted, I would in any case prefer to argue the matter and convince others about the principles, rather than the relative triviality of winning individual AfDs. I hope he'll do likewise, but I do not assume it, in part because of the recent confrontations on these issues.   Despite the totally correct and unimpeachably orthodox answers to the questions i asked, my feel about this is strong enough that it forces me to express my doubts.   Since he will clearly become an admin, I hope I'm wrong, and will gladly apologize when that proves to be the case '''
'''Oppose''' - I have no history with this candidate, an obvious future admin, but I feel the need to oppose just prior to the close based on the two opposes above, which raise concerns. To be brief, I fear that granting a lifetime adminship to this type of editor creates an elite class or "rank" which runs counter to my ideals for the project, where we are all are equal. There is something self-congratulatory about this Rfa that raises my hackles, and I strongly urge RM to take extreme care with the tools, especially the block button, and edit with humility. My best wishes in the coming months and years.
<del>'''Neutral'''</del>. '''Moral Support'''. I've only run across RockMagnetist once in my travels in checking/editing articles on this Wikipedia, and RockMagnetist seems like a good candidate for this based on the description above. However, since I have to base my votes on the actual experience I have had with the user as an editor, I cannot sway my vote either way. Either way, I am leaning more towards a support, but since I vote based on interaction, I have neither any positive nor negative thoughts going through my head, so I vote "Neutral".
I intend to co-nominate as well, but I'm trying to make a deadline, so it will be a few hours late. '''
'''Support''' Sensible candidate. Also, why his past RFA has not been oversighted? I see '''too much''' personal information there that should not be visible to everyone. If there is an oversighter reading this... —&nbsp;
Secret is a user who has been around a while, and I have full faith in his capabilities to be an effective admin here. He's a terrific article writer, and has shown he can work cooperatively with other users. Although he has been subject to some controversy in the past, I'm confident that those issues are resolved, and I believe that they would not hinder his ability to operate as an administrator. The main question here is: do we trust Secret to be an administrator? I'm sure I speak for many of us here when I say '''yes'''. <small>(
'''Support''' I am convinced that the issues mentioned above have been fixed, and I am going to assume good faith here with their future actions.
Over the course of years, he has shown us that he is experienced and capable, and I have no qualms to letting him use a few extra tools. This wiki is slow to forgive, but I hope we can, over here. <span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur; background:white;">→[[User:Σ|<font color="#BA0000">Σ</font>]][[User talk:Σ|<font color="#036">σ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Σ|<font color="#036">ς</font>]].&nbsp;<small>(
'''Support''' Everyone makes mistakes, and Secret has certainly learned from them. Will definitely be an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' I looked at his contribs from 2009 and now. Let me point out 2009 was over 3 years ago and that's all I have to say. --'''
'''Support''' for the same reasons as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Secret_2&diff=457944491&oldid=457941514 last time]. '''
'''Support''' - mostly per Ktr101 and Sigma; also meets [[User:Go Phightins!/Admin criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support''' This editor has a long and productive history. He has been open about his previous medical problem, which caused aberrent behaviour which is detailed in his previous RfA. In my opinion the chance of any further inappropriate behaviour is vanishingly small, and I would trust him with the mop.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Take concerns of opposers on board, but no one is perfect over the long term.  Doubtful he would abuse the tools, and has the experience to use them effectively.--
'''Support''' - No major blowups in over a year. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Secret_2&oldid=458247418 My initial judgement] was correct.
'''Support''' - Secret has had his share of issues in the past, but I see nothing that would make me overly concerned about giving him back the mop. If anything, the opposes only strengthen my position on this. Wikipedia is [[Dante Alighieri|Dante Alighieri's]] fifth circle of Hell, where the wrathful will spend eternity attacking each other. The level of petty attitudes I see in the opposes like "I have watchlisted this and the next RfA for secret because I don't want him to be an admin, ever, nyah!!" is FAR more unbecoming of a Wikipedian than anything the candidate has done in recent years.
'''Support'''.  Secret possesses a remarkable, almost ''encyclopedic'' knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as the unwritten culture of the project.
'''Support''' Secret has the skills and I can put the past in the past.  My experiences with him have always been positive and I'm confident that he will be a net positive for the community with the bit.  While I understand the reservation of some, I think his positive contributions over the years override the concerns.
'''Support''' His editing over the past year brings up no red flags, and I think he'd be a fine addition to the admin corps. I believe it's clear that he's learned from past mistakes.
'''Support'''...long term editor with minimal issues overall. I do not at the time see any reason they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' per Tariqabjotu.
'''Support''', passes the clue test.
Last time around, I went neutral because I felt that it might be best for Secret to avoid high-stress areas for a while given the concerns that arose in 2009 (which I remember, having been around back then), as well as issues that came up beforehand. Now, I support his reinstatement as an administrator. He seems to have gotten a handle on his emotions in recent times, which was the only thing that really held him back from being an outstanding administrator.
'''Support'''. Secret has had problems in the past, has been open about them and they seem to be well under control now, and I don't think getting the admin bit back will be of any great risk to him or to the project now. Secret has a lot of knowledge and experience, has contributed massively over the years, and would be a boon to the project as an admin. He has my trust. --
'''Support''' as nominator, obviously.  Pardon my late support, I was right in the teeth of a very nasty snowstorm and my on-wiki time was very limited.
'''Support''' clueful, no reason to believe mop will be abused -- especially as life appears to be getting saner. :-) --
'''Support'''. I've had plenty of opportunity to observe Secret's ability to interact with other editors, and I'm very comfortable putting myself here in the support column. I see that a number of folks who are neutral are looking to be convinced, so please let me make a case. There's a big difference between a medical disorder that has not yet been properly diagnosed, and therefore is not being properly treated, and one that is. For entirely logical, scientific reasons, it's a mistake to use past performance as a predictor of future behavior this time. As long as Secret continues to get the medical help described above, there is a very low likelihood that the previous "incident" will repeat. For what it's worth, I take medication for something, myself, and in real life I won a lawsuit over discrimination against me for doing so, so I'm very sensitized to these issues. I feel very strongly that people who deal with medical – not moral! – issues such as those that Secret and I have to deal with should not be subjected to some sort of assumption of untrustworthiness. Secret is very smart and very clueful about how Wikipedia works. Secret clearly wants what is good for the project, and can be trusted not to harm the project. 'Nuff said. --
'''Support'''. Several of the supports above are people that I trust the opinion of. Introspection into previous issues seems good, and sounds like the cause is being handled properly.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - three years, people, and seeing him about always being helpful ... net positive to the project.--<span style="">
'''Support''' - he and I have interacted at a few AFDs (not always on the same side) and I've always found him collegial and convincing. AFDs in which I have not participated suggest his approach has been consistent in that regard. Previous what-not does not interest me.
'''Support''' - Highly experienced content editor and alot of past experience as an active admin. Seems like he's learned to deal with the personal issues, so I say give him another chance.
'''Support''' [[WP:NETPOS|Net positive]], previous admin experience, good judgment (at times) in the past. Health issues apparently under control. Can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' My first RfA !vote ever. Because I never would have thought Secret ''was not'' a sysop, he has the calm and collected demeanor and knowledge of Wikipedia that I tend to expect and find in all of them. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§
Per Miniapolis. --
'''Support''' The vast majority of Secret's administrative actions weren't controversial and he did some really excellent work before the drama bomb. Because so many people are aware of the past problems and issues, I feel that Secret will likely have quite a few eyes watching for any untoward actions. If something bad goes down, I feel like this is probably a case where a desysop wouldn't be very hard or controversial. On the other hand we get an extremely experienced admin who is willing to tackle quite a bit of work. The benefits far outweigh the risks here.
'''Support''' Secret has matured ''tremendously'' within the last few years. He's mellowed out, he's improved his communication skills, and he's learned to focus on the important things. He's clearly committed to the project, and I think he'd be an asset to the admin crew.
'''Support''', although I <s>was opposing</s> was undecided last time, I shortly recognized after the RfA that this was a mistake and thus I'm supporting now! <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</small> 06:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (corrected, reread the last RfA. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''', per Boing! said Zebedee, --
'''Support''' To paraphrase my comment from the last RFA - I've interacted with Secret for literally years. I believe he'll be fine with the toolset. Basically I trust him to go easy with the bits and use them wisely and for the benefit of Wikipedia. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Supported last time and my thoughts on the candidate have not changed. Was a good admin and believe he will be an even better asset for the site with the tools again.
'''Support''' Although I wonder how good Wikipedia has been for the candidate, they have provided sufficient context to ally concerns arising from their previous history.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, and rehashing grudges that date back years is not helpful for anybody. <strong>
'''Support''', certainly. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I really don't see any major problems. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' I've always had good personal interactions with Secret. '''
'''Support''' Tryptofish has it.
'''Support''': You have been through a lot. Since it appears you have a grip on things again, I will support.
'''Support''': Obviously this is a tough call, but what he says about drama in Q3 is spot on, and he has loads of experience and know-how that show up in the answers to the what-would-you-do-if questions. Above all, his choice of what to work on -- "{{green|The key backlog I want to focus on however is articles for creation, which has tons of massive BLP and copyright violations, attack pages, spam and other "crap" in the declined archives that needs to be deleted.}}" -- shows that he wants to use the tools to improve content. These jobs need doing. Also, as often, I agree with Tryptofish. --
'''Support''' - he has improved a lot from the last RFA. I also can't find any red lights from his contributions.
'''Support''' Opposes have failed to demonstrate any problems since the last RFA in March 2012 (10 months ago) despite consistent editing during the period between that RFA and this one.  The candidate has remained calm during this RFA, even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Secret&diff=prev&oldid=537934308 keeping his sense of humor], and together, these indicate to me that the stress-related problems are being managed.--v/r -
While I do have some reservations, in the end I believe that Secret was a capable, and IMO ''good'' administrator when he had the tools the last time.  I believe his use of the tools was a net benefit to the project and I'm willing to accept his offer of help again.  I do wish him the very best with his health issues, but it is not my remit to "take care of him".  I've also double-checked their previous administrative actions and feel comfortable with his use of the tools.  If he feels up to the task, then I trust him to use the tools wisely. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. I still have some background concerns about Secret caring too much, but then, I worry about just about everyone one way or another, and there are worse things than caring. I'm not seeing the warning signs of instability or lack of confidence that I noticed in previous RFAs from Secret, and my impression is that he's reached a point where he can look carefully at stressful situations and decide whether they're worth getting involved in or reacting emotionally to. This RFA looks to me like a case of someone who's "grown up" with wikipedia, has overcome some issues that were contributing to instability, and who is now ready to re-assume the roles he may not have been ready for a few years ago. Secret, I like your involuntary recall idea, but I think it could stand some more fleshing out - perhaps if this RFA closes successful, you could start an RfC where the community can work out binding recall criteria for you that both you and it are comfortable with.
I note that some who are in opposition cite maturity concerns and past mistakes. I can respect that, however I feel that the good work Secret has done over the years and their work to learn from past mistakes counteracts that sufficiently enough for me to support his nomination. <font face="Verdana">
Per TParis and more so Fluffernutter. We all endeavor to become better people, to move on from our mistakes, and Secret is doing that with this RfA. --
Support,
'''Support''' Having not known anything about Secret's past, I was wondering what the fuss was about. Now I know more, and it doesn't worry me. It's the present I take more notice of, and I can't see any current problems here. Also per Fluffer (or is it Nutter?) above.
'''Support''' per AniMate. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' I am aware of the history. Ultimately I think the chances of being a net benefit outweigh the chances of a problem, ''and'' if there is a problem, it won't be one that requires a huge cleanup by other editors. Hence I think it is worthwhile giving him a chance again. really.
'''Support''' Secret's calm demeanour during the RFA demonstrates that he's now on the right track, health-wise. Getting the correct diagnosis and the correct medical treatment has made a big difference, IMO, and we will now see the real Secret – the person you were meant to be. For that reason I don't think that events of the long-ago are very relevant any more. One reservation: I would like to see you using more formal English and taking more care that your posts are clear and grammatically correct. --
'''Support''' I'm so glad you've returned to health - I know how hard illness can be, and I'm pleased to see you've recognized the problems your actions caused and that you've matured from the grumpy teenager I knew back in the day. Let's put the past in the past. - '''[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa</font></font>]]
'''Support''' At the last blanked Rfa I believe I opposed and urged you to forget about the bit and focus on getting better. Judging by the list of notable people who have made major contributions to society with Graves' disease, Wiki adminship seems rather small in comparison (though I have the greatest appreciation for what they do here). Perhaps more importantly, as others have noted, time and increased maturity appear to have played their own natural role, too (though I note that there are some in this project for whom chronological age appears to have done little in this regard). Anyhoo, I join others willing to give you another chance, as I am reasonably confident that the mistakes of the past are in the past. Of course, I scarcely need to point out that your actions will be closely watched, as you are aware, and there can -- imho --  be no question of getting the bit back, should it prove to be too much for you again.
'''Support'''. I don't find the opposition arguments compelling. The person is a long-term, experienced, adept, and accomplished Wikipedian with a good grasp of policy. He's willing to do admin work, and we need a steady supply of new admins. I understand the opposing points, but I'm not much bothered by someone feeling a bit wuffly after going through a failed RfA. That's just human. I don't care if he's had a bunch of RfA's -- so what? The other stuff with the desysopping and all was a while back and he's aware that he's not perfect, has undertaken to work on his areas that need work, and has apparently done so. I hope and suggest that he work in some subset of administrating that is best suited to his temperment rather than trying to do everything, though.
'''Support''' —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' This user demonstrated level-headedness regarding an brusque interaction I had with another editor. This user clearly knows how to use the admin tools and can, I believe, handle them in a fair way. Best of luck in this difficult process! - <b>
'''Strong support''' I was going to be a nominator but things got busy with school and I fell off the face of the earth. Secret is a dependable and trustworthy user. Has he had issues, health and otherwise, in the past? Yes, but he has improved substantially since 2009. I fully trust his judgement and I think that we need to only view his contributions from the past year to a year and a half. Looking at the opposes, many of them aren't worth the electrons they are written with. The fact that this is his 10th RfA is meaningless reason to oppose; all but three of them are from 2006 or before. I find the judgement related opposes to be a few years out of date. A few other opposes seem to come from parties with axes to grind. --
I thought long and hard about this. He's been an admin and not an admin more times than I can count, and it kept me from nominating him myself. Some of the opposition (not Tariq's) I can understand as a result. This would admittedly be a last chance deal; if he requests removal of the tools yet again I can't in good conscience support another RfA. Despite all that, I look at one thing when evaluating admins. Are they a net positive as a Wikipedian and an admin? There's no question in my mind that Secret is, even though I wish he just stuck to article writing and stopped trying to get the tools back, especially with the utter lack of mercy an RfA can have.
I have every confidence that giving Secret the tools will be, on the whole, a net benefit to the encyclopedia. It's also a benefit that he's been an admin before, in my opinion. Health related issues here do not concern me, and I believe that the high number of RfAs Secret has undergone shows nothing more than an intense drive to further help the project. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support'''. Being relatively new to Wikipedia (is it really two years already?), I don't remember any of the previous issues, but whenever I've encountered Secret he has been knowledgeable, helpful, and civil. I take this as an indication that he is long past his previous issues. I also find Anthony Bradbury's reply to Ks0stm in the neutral section to be particularly persuasive. — '''''
'''Support''' This one is a tough one overall.  Secret was trusted with the tools in the past, and rightly so.  They made an incredibly stupid error in judgement ''many years ago'' that led to a forced desysop.  I am of the belief that this many years later, Secret has learned from that single piece of stupidity and that it will not recur.  With respect to "health issues", I'm always rather pissed off when people drudge someone's health through RFA.  If this was a ''job interview'' in the US, the "Americans with disabilities act" might kick in.  Rather than using illness as a crutch, Secret has admitted that it has been an issue in the past, and seems to be prepared to a) handle incidents, and b) disengage if and when health-related issues arise.  As we know that desysopping can be a challenge, I would have been happeir to have seen much stronger response to my question on Recall, however, it is my belief that he is amenable to a way forward that protects both him ''and'' the project.  Secret has a lot to offer this project, and has given a lot to the project.  In short, they've been trusted before, they seem to have their shit together now, and they're willing to face the music if they screw up - 'nuf said. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Support''' I trust you--
'''Support''' - The candidate points out that the prior misuse of the administrator toolkit was due to mental health issues, which are now being treated. Given that the misuse had a medical reason, I can see no real reason why not to support. Furthermore, the number of armchair psychiatrists below me is a little ridiculous. How many of you even have a degree in psychiatry or psychology, and, if you do, how can you make a diagnosis without ever seeing the "patient"?
'''Support''', net positive.
'''Support''' I, after reviewing the candidates recent activities and interactions, believe that (s)he has the knowledge and judgement to use the tools productively. I see nothing recent that would lead me to believe the candidate would misuse the tools, and a return of the tools will be to the advantage of the project. Net Positive.
'''Support'''. I supported the last RFA and see no reason not to do so this time. By his own admission, Secret has done many nutty things over the years, but actually he has ''not'' done many of the things opposers are assuming he will do as a renewed admin. His worst conflicts have been with long-established editors (including Jimmy Wales) not with newbies, trolls, or the rank and file. His desysopping was not over a pattern of misuse of the tools; he has always used them judiciously.
'''Support''' One more chance - hopefully it will matter; and work out...
'''Support''', per Modernist and Chick Bowen immediately above.
'''Support'''. My support is not without trepidation. The last thing I want to see is a re-grant, a relapse, and another worst day for Secret. Opposing would finesse most of that fear and would be simpler. I acknowledge that a lot has been laid bare here, but it is both a plus and a minus. Those revelations and the ten or so standings for RfA (some successful) suggest the candidate may want the bit too much, and that in itself may not be healthy. Some of the prior acts were disturbing, and I'm not sure I believe all of the back story, but things can be forgiven over time. IIRC, the block was self-requested, and that speaks well. Contributions suggest Secret has an anti-list-of-X-article bent that could be toned down, but that is a content issue. I trust the nominators have considered the downside of Secret standing for this RfA and the additional stress should it succeed, so I'm willing to give Secret another shot.
'''Support'''.  Not much I can add that hasn't already been said.  <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>
'''Support''' because I don't see what all the hubbub is. I understand the concerns that my colleagues have in the oppose section, but nothing there is of great concern to me in the context of this RfA. I believe Secret will make a good administrator once again, and I wish him all the best on Wikipedia, however this RfA turns out.
'''Support''' Why not?--'''
Adminship is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Administrators no big deal (I like the old link)].  Everyone seems to agree that Secret has the best interest of the project at heart.  I've seen some suggestions that Secret should find a new ''hobby'', aside from WP -- I disagree.  Whether admin or not his hobby is currently a strong net positive to the project, and I appreciate the effort he puts in.  He was a fine admin before, and would be one again.  The simple fact is that all admin actions, especially from admin who have a history, are among the most highly scrutinized changes in the project and I have no fear that his work will easily survive such scrutiny.
'''Support'''. I don't think any of the concerns about past conduct accurately reflect the candidate we're looking at today - much has changed, as discussed above (and below, a bit). But the candidate should also be aware that there will be lots of editors watching for any screwup - so do be careful mate, ok? For my part, on the merits, I have no reservations whatsoever. Good luck!
'''Support''' (from Neutral). I stand by my opinion that you would enjoy your Wikipedia life more as an editor rather than an Admin. But you are an adult, so you decide. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' Regards, —
'''Support'''. Is capable. Well experienced. I am persuaded that enough time has passed and enough sincerity expressed to overcome passed temperament issues. I see no real threat of his adminship damaging other editors, and no danger of an unlikely relapse creating unfixable damage. I trust him. --
'''Support''' While I understand the hesitation some have expressed, I don't see reason to doubt the trust many above have placed in Secret. Best of luck, --
'''Support''' I take Secret's word for them being stable now and so feel that this user can be trusted with the administrative tools.  <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' I think we ought to give another chance here. If the previous incidents were caused by a medical condition which is now being properly treated then there's no reason to think that they will recur. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' per Balloonman, especially re:competence and commitment '''
'''Support'''; the past belongs in the past.  There are very many people who have screwed up in years gone by, and who have since been productive and valuable members of the community.  There ''must'' be a point at which past sins are forgiven, otherwise we end up with a punitive system where people are marked with a scarlet letter.  People and circumstances change, and I see no reason to believe that Secret isn't now a perfectly suitable candidate to wield a mop.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I've seen that this user has created some great articles on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Cluefuel, experienced and dedicated. With respect to possible concerns that I might harbor, I tend to agree with Smokey Joe, Chick Bowen and 7, among others. --
'''Support'''. - Per Coren.
'''Support''' I think Secret has clearly shown that, while there have been issues in the past, he had grown because of them and become a better editor. And he meets all the other criteria that I would judge an editor against. An easy, solid support vote from me. <font color="silver">
'''Support'''. Some of the comments in  the oppose section  have their merits while some others are just  pile-ons, votes from raw newbs, or from  voters who  should find a new hobby. On  the face of it, Secret  has far more than enough experience and should not  be judged on events of the distant past. I  voted neutral on  the previous attempt and I am far happier supporting  this RfA than I  would, for example, for  some marginal, relatively new, hat-collecting teenager who  happens to  check  all  my  boxes. His work as an admin  would be very  much  under the loupe anyway, and as long  as any  advice he gets is given in  a collegial  manner, he will  be a net  positive to  the corps of sysops.
'''Support''' seems to be handling this (rather stressful) RfA well.  In addition the usernames question/answer was good and this user clearly has a clue.  Just promise you'll take a break if you need one.
'''Support'''.
Welcome back. —'''
'''Support''': per Coren, Kudpung, Hobit and others. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Concerns that stress might prove problematic seem, at least in what I assume is a stressful and close RfA, not in evidence. Enough clue to wield the mop well appears plainly in evidence.  --
'''Support''' per pretty much all the above, and Ballonman's support below. [[WP:100]] !
'''Support''', perhaps better described as a weak support.  I'm very wary of a user who attempts to use a medical condition to excuse misbehaviour, but frankly all the problems are well in the past, content contributions are great, and I think this is a user who's due a second chance.
'''Support''' I voted support last time, I see no reason to change. '''
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support'''  " I'm not seeking adminship just for the hell of it, I am seeking it because I know I can help this project with the tools." more or less sums up why the tools should be given.  I am also interested to see if Secret can come up with a recall with teeth.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - per Fluffernutter. We should encourage - not discourage - editors to improve and learn from prior mishaps.
I've waited on this one for a simple reason; RFA is a crucible, perhaps the hardest one we have short of being the subject of an arbitration case, and I wanted to see how the candidate handled it. Ge;s handled it well, so that tips the "undecided" meter over to support.
My opinion on this is a Secret. --'''
'''Support''' per Coren. —
'''Oppose''', per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Secret_2&diff=458197286&oldid=458195340 rationale at previous RfA]. -- '''
'''Oppose''', this user has demonstrated a pattern of behavior that makes it very difficult to recommend for they to be granted adminship status. Admin role is not akin to a trophy displayed on a mantle, but a role that demands immense trust in its holder. In turn it is the responsibility of the community to decline the nominations of users that do not meet the standards of trust.
'''Oppose''' - It seems this user is far too impulsive / easily frustrated, and while I feel for the user, I am not confident that the bad behavior and poor judgment would not return during a period of stress.  I'm not sure exactly what happened in "late 2009", and I would ask, but the user does not seem to want to go into that.  That also concerns me, as it appears the user is not willing to be completely open about what has happened in the past.  And while I respect those wishes, it's also another reason why I cannot support this RfA.
'''Oppose''' -  While I am sympathetic to the editor's medical issues, I find that a cursory inspection of the past few years precludes my ability to support for adminship. Hoping your health improves and best wishes always.
'''Oppose''' this user has consistently failed to meet the standards of trust placed upon him by the community, and I see absolutely no indication that this will change.
'''Weak oppose'''; past drama was not limited to a single isolated incident, I feel. Much more drama has surrounded previous desperate attempts to get the mop &c. I have no doubt that this is a competent editor on a day-to-day basis, but when something gets wrong and criticism starts flying - which is inevitable sooner or later if you're going to wield a mop - I fear for the worst. Tariqabjotu's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Secret_2&diff=458197286&oldid=458195340 previous concerns] still stand. I don't normally follow RfA but I had manually added [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 3]] to my watchlist in 2011 when it was still a redlink. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 4]] is still on my watchlist; after !voting here I have watchlisted [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Secret 5|5]]. The only thing that surprises me is the username; as Secret's comments about a clean start a couple of years ago had led me to expect a new RfA with a different username.
'''Oppose'''—Per several of the comments above.
'''Oppose'''. The good news is that the editor is a valuable member of the community. The bad news is that, for reasons described in the last RfA, another administrative tenure is too risky for WP and the editor. The best news is that the candidate doesn't need administrative tools to continue making great contributions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I don't really care about the health issues. I am opposing because I am not particularly impressed with the user's maturity.
'''Oppose''' - not every good editor will make a good admin. I share concerns above re:maturity and history. Happy to be converted though.
'''Oppose''' - I am not really familiar with whole history here. But after reading answer for Question 4, diagonally skimming previous RfA, and quick check at block log and list of previous RfAs, I don't feel confident to have this user promoted. I fully believe that he is very good editor, but considering somewhat unorthodox circumstances, I simply don't consider a year with no issues sufficient for being sure. I would be ready to consider revising this position in a year or two.--
'''Oppose''' per Jusdafax and others. '''
Per Floq. -
'''Oppose''' Per Kw and others.
'''Oppose'''.  The candidate has repeatedly, over many years, displayed judgement and temperament that are incompatible with adminship.
'''Oppose''' This user has been a admin before and that clearly did not work, maybe you should take a break trying to be an admin if you do not succeed.
'''Oppose''' - I remember this user's previous RfA well. I opposed without much conviction, and sincerely hoped this user would prove me wrong by taking the RfA's failure in a mature way, particularly since they spent the entire time vigorously trying to convince the community that they're completely mentally sound, level-headed could handle stress without issue. That didn't happen. Secret declared an indefinite Wikibreak and posted a lengthy statement on their userpage (now deleted) explaining that they had to recuperate after the RfA and declaring that they probably couldn't handle another one. I have tons of respect for this user, but, judging them with the same standards as I would anyone else, I simply don't have complete confidence in their maturity or stability. ''
This user's emotional response to the last RfA tells me that he does not have thick enough skin to be an admin.
Way too many areas of concern with this candidate. Based on the available background I cannot see that the potential benefit outweighs the fairly obvious risks.
'''Oppose''' as per previous comments <span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. The candidate clearly has the best of intentions. But while I think they might perform some admin tasks perfectly capably, other such tasks require steady hands, and I am not sure the candidate has matured to that point yet. (Debundling admin rights would help here.) I also would like the candidate to work on his writing skills; some of the comments above seem to betray a lack of care in that respect, which make me feel there may be a more general issue with exercising due diligence.
'''Oppose''' - I do not trust him with the tools. He's had them in the past and misused them on more than one occasion. Also, in my opinion he doesn't seem to be mature enough to be an admin. The fact that this is his 10th (at least) RfA makes me think he wants to be an admin a bit too much.--
This is a tough one, which is why I think I skipped voting on the previous RfAs (although I believe Jaranda was an admin before I began editing and was eligible to vote). Basically, opposing per the comments Flo made above. Great user, obviously deeply dedicated to Wikipedia, probably not ideal for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' The candidate should find a new hobby.
'''Oppose'''.  Happy to have him as a fellow editor, but am not comfortable trusting him with the mop given the history here.--
'''Sorry, But No'''. This RfA reminds me of that famous quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And as the tenth RfA, the editor's obsession with obtaining administrator responsibilities is embarrassing.
'''Oppose''' His reaction to the failure of his last RFA shows a temperament unsuitable for an admin. As an admin you're going to suffer abuse from people you block and whose pages you delete, and it takes a particular type of mental constitution to handle such abuse, which this candidate still does not seem to have.
'''Oppose''' The RfA process reflects the community's general mistrust of the current body of Sysops, and you need to have impeccable [recent] past and an unshakeable temperament to weather an RfA these days. Secret doesn't seem to possess either. I can already feel the cracks showing under the pressure, and would have reservations about appointing one who doesn't have a firm grasp as well as nerves of steel needed to wield the mop around here. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' Too many negative points.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I've been swayed by other editors concerns regarding maturity and the fact that this is the 10th RFA now...
'''Oppose''' - After much thought it boils down to this: I don't trust this user with the tools. The "2009 incident" and previous RFAs concern me enough to oppose. This user has a history of erratic behaviour and I don't feel confident that it won't return should the stress rise. <font color="#454545">
'''Oppose''' Sorry to oppose Secret. But as what I've seen above regarding those negative points, concerns and others that you're involved, I'll do nothing but to oppose this RfA.
'''Oppose''' Unreliable temperament: inability to handle stress and (despite his oft-repeated assertions to the contrary) develop the necessary, consistent self-awareness as to the consequences. These numerous attempts at and associated history with adminship may obscure the fact that Secret has very considerable abilities as an editor and I hope he will instead concentrate on those strengths of developing the encyclopaedia content.
'''Oppose''' While I'm happy that Secret is here making article contributions, I have concerns both about his ability to avoid scene-making and to adequately communicate. Grammar issues in articles can be hammered out by a copy editor later, but if you're explaining policy on a new user's talk page you have to be clear the first time.
'''Oppose''' per Epeefleche. The risk of problems may be low but the consequences could be relatively serious. Therefore, I can't support with confidence, and am reluctant to even offer weak support. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
Can't decide. Secret seems to be a hard-working and all-round nice guy... until things happen that go against him, and he is prone to flip out. I'm just concerned that, if he were to crack while in possession of the mop, things might get messy. —
Not often I end up in the neutral section. My impression of Secret is that they are a solid editor, with a good degree of experience. Overall, I have a good impression of his editing over the past 12 months; however, there is just too much history for me to feel comfortable that he will cope with the pressures of adminship again. Tricky one...
First of all and most importantly, I commend, admire, and respect your decision to run at RFA with such health and personal issues that could be reason to not try at all (not to mention your extraordinary openness about them). I hope your health remains well as you cope with Graves' disease. That said, there are some very germane issues raised in this RFA. Namely, the suggestion that you might act impulsively or out of frustration is of great concern (which, tragically, might be—as you write on your userpage—a consequence of your health). Although I wish you the very best in terms of your health, I'm afraid that, while I commend your decision to run and firmly believe that you are generally a good-natured person, '''I cannot support (nor can I oppose)''' your becoming an administrator. I find myself in the neutral section because I think it's unfair to oppose your candidacy on such a subjective basis (since nobody required you to be open about your health &c). Your contributions are commendable and will continue to be no matter the outcome of this RFA. I must also make clear that my concerns are grounded upon your past conduct as an editor and not your medical condition (which you seem to be managing very effectively). Thank you for your understanding and I wish you the very best of luck.
'''Neutral'''. Secret has many good contributions, including previous administrative actions. However the scale of the previous problem is too large too ignore, not least because of the stress to Secret himself. Despite Secret's assurance that his illness is controlled, this will always be a sword of Damocles for him, and may even be quoted against him during conflicts.
'''Neutral''' You clearly have all the right intentions, but your health status might continue to cause problems, and so I can neither support nor oppose you as an administrator. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose'''. It's an issue of trust. Can we trust the candidate that what happened will not repeat itself? Yes, he gave a medical explanation, and I understand it's not his fault. But can we feel confident it's absolutely over? No; we can&nbsp;not. That being said, a year might be enough time to expose any problems there might still be, and he's passed that. Still, I feel like we're being asked to take a leap of faith here, and I'm not sure I can acquiesce to that. So I'll !vote neutral, but am leaning towards opposing. --
'''Neutral''' - I say this as someone with a repeated acquaintance with Secret. I think he's generally a good person, I like him, and would like to support him because I like him. But I can't. I can sometimes be strict (as most people are) when evaluating someone for adminship, and someone with a track record like Secret I couldn't support. If this was someone else asking for adminship I'd probably flat-out oppose but I can't bring myself to do so here. -- '''
'''Sigh''' After posting a series of questions the way I did I feel like I owe Secret a solid yes-or-no answer, so I am not happy that I feel unable to give one. There certainly does seem to have been some growth, the behavior that marred so many of the previous RFAs is not present here, and while the answers to the username questions aren't ''exactly'' what i would have done in each case they are close enough and all well within policy. And yet I still feel uneasy about supporting. I could go on and on about the thoughts i have had about this but the short version is that I just can't seem to come down solidly on one side or the other.

'''Neutral''' Until looking at this RFA, I always thought Secret ceased being an admin voluntarily and unprovoked while he was named Jaranda. It's too bad he didn't do a full [[WP:CLEANSTART]], as most if not all the opposers are bringing up incidents from years ago.  I'd fully support if I did not know about the track record, or if this was a real job and I could meet face-to-face and follow up on references.  As it is, I can also see how people are wary. Without doing more research, I'm willing to live with consensus either way and will sit out.—
'''Neutral''' - Ten tries at the brass ring is too many, but I'm satisfied that this is a good person and will thus attenuate my grumpiness...
'''Support''' as nominator. Shirt58 is an exceptionally good editor, who demonstrates all the abilities I'd want in an administrator. One of which has recently been demonstrated is caution, he wanted to make sure he had time to handle this RfA, and that he was ready for it, which is why it's been a little while coming. I'd much rather have an administrator who considers the options before diving in!
'''Support''' A good attitude, a sizable portion of clue, a nice range of edits and an excellent nominator... Shirt58's got all the things I expect to see in an admin, except for the toolset - we should rectify that.
'''Strong support''' Shirt58 has all the right qualities: calm, extremely clueful, lots of experience, independent minded, good common sense, balanced demeanor and he is focused on improving Wikipedia.  I prefer those that look before they leap and he has shown to do just that.  An excellent candidate that I'm happy to support.
'''Support'''. Good guy, unique sense of humour, bucketloads of common sense. Will use the tools sensibly.
'''Support''' per noms. —
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.
'''Support''' Seems eminently qualified.
'''Support''' per answer 1.--
'''Support''' Sure.--'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - I trust Worm's judgment...also having Yunshui and Dennis as the first two supports with Dennis even throwing a '''strong''' in there is the icing on the cake for me. I have seen him around; he seems "adminential". Sorry, that was supposed to be a spoof off of "seeming presidential", but it fell flat in my face. Oh well. Enough rambling. Support.
'''Support''' Shirt58 appears to take his time and consider his actions, a good quality in an admin. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">[[User:Cabe6403|Cabe]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Cabe6403|6403]]</font> <sup>([[user_talk:Cabe6403|Talk]]•
'''Support''' looks completely qualified and has a very good, helpful attitude.
'''Support''' I've seen Shirt58 around the place plenty, always doing good work and always remaining cool and collegial. I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. No concerns whatsoever, should make a fine admin.
Finally! I've been waiting ''days'' for this to go live! Anyways, Shirt58 will do fine as an administrator. Glad to support.
'''Support''' Seems to be a Tasmanian and a lawyer but I suppose we shouldn't hold this against him.
'''Support''' - seems OK, and I trust Worm.
'''Support''' - More than adequate tenure, heading for 15K edits to mainspace, no indications of assholery. Dennis Brown weighing in strongly in favor is also a very good indicator of a capable candidate.
'''Support''' As per Yunshui. Good contributions and is experienced and has over 362 articles and  is a Generalist .The Project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
'''Support'''. Shirt58 is great, a quality editor with intellect and competence.
'''Support''' Gnoming generalist article starting lawyers from Tasmania are unlikely to screw up.
'''Support''' Trusted and experienced editor.
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''', per nominator. Good contributions and is an experienced editor. --
I trust him to do a good job. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support.''' No red flags - or even yellow flags, for that matter. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">
'''Support''' Highly unlikely to break the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' per: (i) Worm<sup>TT</sup>,  (ii) Drmies and others above,  (iii) Bucket load of clue,  (iv) appears to be here for all the right reasons, and has the temperament and demeanor for the tasks at hand. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' No concerns
Yes! <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' I see no significant concerns in his past history and he looks to have the right attitude to build an encyclopedia.--
'''Support''' Good, trustworthy candidate. '''
'''Support''' per nominators. This user will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' per a WTT nomination.
'''Support''' as nominator.
No other things to do but to '''support''' this user! This user is very good and I have no concerns regarding his edits and I guess even the most of the community have not seen serious concerns to fail this user especially in his adminship. Strong support and congratulations in advance to Shirt58 because it's obvious that this RfA will not fail..
'''Support''' trusted, why not?--
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' experienced user. No concerns regarding his work here.
'''Support''' per nom and because the editor has the skills to be an admin, not least of which is the patience to read one of world's longest novels twice.
'''Support''' - absolutely. He and I have had some very productive interactions in the past and I've always been impressed by his discussions with other editors (which are usually far more eloquent and succinct than mine). I think he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' Seen around a lot - can't recall any problems. Plenty of clue, polite and cautious.
'''Support''' Pretty happy with this nomination - Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''', overall no concerns. I would encourage him to take part in writing some articles on a GA level; experience in content creation is important.
'''Support'''. I don't believe I know Shirt, although that may just be a memory lapse. It would be ''really'' hard for me not to support a candidate who is supported by all three of my co-nominators (Dennis, Drmies, the Lady). They obviously have excellent judgment and exquisite taste. However, I've also looked at Shirt's contribution history, and I'm struck by his polite, self-effacing, humor-eccentric demeanor. He also owns up whenever he thinks he's wrong, and he does so with grace (and that goes all the way back to 2006 when he first started editing using this account). I'm not troubled by the AfD issue. I trust Shirt to use the tools, including AfD closures, cautiously (particularly at first) and incisively.--
'''Support''' I'm confident that they will keep a cool head and continue to use common sense in administrative work. I liked the answers to the first 3 questions. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
--
'''Support''' No concerns ''<B>--

'''Support''' - He's generally struck me as clueful. Good luck!
would prefer more content experience. but [[User:Keeper76/Write Right]] and all... -
'''Support''' - everything looks good to me, and the answer to question 1 is satisfactory.
Longterm editor with a clean block log and some useful edits. I find the opposes that Shirt often argues against consensus at AFD troubling because of the risk that someone who is heavy handed at deletion can do a lot of damage and a pattern of trying to delete stuff that others then decide to keep would normally be a red flag. However in this case the CSD tagging is pretty good, and the most recent AFD's include some which weren't so much keep as redirect, so I'm going to give Shirt the benefit of the doubt. I did notice one mistaken tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=The+P.E.A.K.&timestamp=20130126051509&diff=prev a BLPprod that was on a group of people], subsequently deleted as a blatant hoax, presumably because of the strange reasons why they won their many Nobel prizes. Admins only I'm afraid but take a look at it after the RFA. ''
'''Support''' - looks good to me too.
'''Support''' —
'''Weak support'''. I am a little concerned by some of the rationales given in AfD. On the other hand, Shirt58 hasn't declared an intention to close AfDs. Content creation is mediocre. Otherwise, other contributions are good. I am delighted to see that Shirt58 is ignoring the "optional" questions.
'''Support''' - Seems to be clueful, sensible, and civil. A few issues with AfDs, but I'm confident that Shirt will approach these sensibly and with caution.
'''Support''' - I do not have a history of interaction with the candidate, but I like what I see in the nomination, the candidate's answers to the standard questions, and my review of the contributions history. Furthermore, I am unimpressed by the reasons given by the opposers. One of the concerns expressed by opposers relates to insufficient content experience. Although the user is a self-identified wikignome, unlike many wikignomes, I see a solid record of contributing personal sweat and intelligent thought to content creation, both by creating new pages and by making substantive improvements to other pages. Another concern expressed by opposers is a record of sometimes !voting "delete" in AfDs that ended as "keep". That should not be a concern -- it's far better, IMHO, for a user to say what they think than to !vote for an expected outcome so as to improve their "AfD score". --
'''Support:''' No problems here <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I agree to the letter with what Orlady said above.
'''Support''' I see no reason why I shouldn't.
'''Support''' Looks good. Good wishes! --[[User:Titodutta|Tito Dutta]] ([[User talk:Titodutta|contact]]) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Have read the message at his talk page where he has mentioned the reasons of delays in answering questions. Will wait to see answer, else this vote will be moved to !Neutral. --
'''Support''' - Reasonable excuse on the delay, hope the damage wasn't too bad. Did my usual spot checks and didn't see anything that stood out, except for the delay to question answers. Answer to Q4 looks detailed, though seems almost too detailed. I've scanned the opposes below, I partially agree with the Question answer ones ( and almost went oppose because of that ). The AfD deletes votes on keep article don't worry me too much, that is something that improves with experience.
'''Support''' I have concerns for what Staberinde has pointed out, but that is an editing issue, not an admin issue,
'''Support''', with pleasure.
'''Support''' When you're a wikignome, you shouldn't be expected to write GAs — they're hard for some of us.  You should be able to demonstrate that you've been a helpful and trustworthy contributor in the realms that you enjoy doing, and Shirt58 has done that, as far as I can tell.  If we were all power-writers of content, what would happen to the smaller articles that aren't prominent enough to be GA-able?  They'd languish as they were ignored, because people like Shirt58 weren't around.
'''Support''' I've had alot of interactions with Shirt58 and have no concerns.
'''Support''' IMO a very good admin candidate. Best wishes.
'''Support''' Great answers, especially Q1. Being a vandal fighter here, I would appreciate his efforts especially on what he mentioned in the answer to Q1. Also, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arctic_Kangaroo&diff=537046647&oldid=537043693 this one and only message] that he left on my talk page is very polite.
'''Support''' Good interaction with this editor. I trust him with the tools, (but would not trust him to drive my car). I think he will do just fine.
'''Support''' No reason not to give him the tools. Best of luck!
'''Support''' looks fine, no red flags. I don't think high-quality contributions are needed for doing the vast majority of admin tasks, and in contrast to oppose 3 I would suggest that requiring all prospective administrators to do GAs would be harmful to the project. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Good (if tardy) answers to additional questions, which I use to gauge a candidate's grasp of policy.
'''Support'''. My interactions with Shirt58 have shown him to be exactly what he says he is: someone who's interested in resolving things rather than inflaming them.
'''Support''' Seems to be a solid editor with the qualities needed in an administrator.--

'''Support'''.  Concurring with  Worm's nomination.
'''Support''' - You seem like a nice guy who'd get the job done. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Support''' Impressive contributions, demonstrates maturity, seems determined to continue improving.  No major concerns.  --
'''Support''' - Good contributions, knowledge, judgement and attitude. Though there were some honest concerns in the oppose section below, I believe they pale in comparison to the benefits that the project will realize when we hand Shirt58 a mop. -
'''Support''' - My easiest support in quite some time! Shirt is a gem to the Project, very down to earth - knows and understands Wikipedia policies, as if they were written on the back of his hand. Good luck! {{=)}} —
'''Support'''. I agree with B in the oppose section that the answer to Shirt's questions were slightly off. When asking for review of admin actions, it is better to go to a noticeboard than to ask an admin of your choosing, in order to avoid allegations of favouritism. That's not to say you can't ask an admin of your choosing privately for their opinion, but once things go on-wiki it's best to do everything possible to be fair, and to appear fair. I also concur with B's opinion on question seven, and for question six I would have preferred that Shirt link to the specific policy that applied ([[WP:BIODEL]]). Not mentioning the policy gives me the suspicion that he might not have known it, although to be fair he did come to almost the same conclusion in his answer. However, despite my misgivings over the questions, I am well aware of the amount of good work Shirt has done for the project, and I think making him an admin would be a net positive for Wikipedia. — '''''
'''Support''' Looks good. And I actually like the non-herd behavior :) --
'''Support'''...no evidence candidate will abuse the tools or the position.--
'''Support''', although I'd prefer to see at least a few pages where the candidate has done extensive content work over a period of time (and some of the sense of humor, the "manly man" stuff on the user talk page, seems a bit strange to me). But I trust a lot of the people vouching for him, and I think that arguing against the majority at AfD is a sign of character, not a flaw, so long as one accepts consensus in the end. --
'''Support''' per nom and no issues  --
I've waited most of this one out, because of the questions. I was originally concerned about the delayed response but, upon reading about your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirt58&diff=542967545&oldid=542966287 RL situation], my concerns have been alleviated. I've skimmed over your talk page and contributions, which illustrate an editor who's level-headed, well-versed in policy, and willing to accept advice. Being a [[WP:GNOME|WikiGnome]] doesn't hurt either. I'm happy to interject here and offer my late '''support'''. Best of luck,
'''Support''' - Was just waiting for the questions to be answered, happy to see this through. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - strong maintenance candidate.
'''Support''' I was thinking about it for the past few days, and while Staberinde oppose '''is''' rather concerning, I'm a bit surprised with the strong answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - What I see here looks good.
'''Support''' No concerns about his editing, will probably make a good admin. —

'''Support''' per nom and as a responsible maintenance editor. I hope the user sees the oppose !votes as a challenge to promote an article to GA -- a challenge that will eventually be accepted. - <b>
'''Support''' - I don't know this editor, but appears clueful and competent. By the way, grats on making [[WP:100]].
I find the oppose rationales unconvincing.
'''Support''' Good candidate and reasonable editing history.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good candidate, no concerns.--<font face="bold">
'''Oppose''' - at 60% of the AfDs they've participated in where the result was keep, they've argued for deletion (including several nominations).  I think it's inevitable they'd misuse the delete tool due to such poor judgement.
'''Oppose''' Looking through the list, he seems to have nominated things for deletion without doing proper source checking before, and everyone else but him said keep.  I also worry how he'll close schools that are nominated for deletion based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forward_Degree_College].  He nominated for deletion an article about someone hew knew was a well known potter with "at least one of his works is in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Jepson] Why try to delete an article like that?  He nominated an article for deletion which had nine people show up and say Keep to, and no one else saying delete. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madura_Station] The articles he has created seem to be very short stubs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcola,_Louisiana] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Petrie_%28botanist%29], so bragging about creating hundreds of two sentence stubs isn't much to brag about.
'''You can do a GA.'''  They are not that hard.  Just buckle down, fire up the Google search and write the damned thing.  Do it as an exercise.  I will support after that.  You might learn something about formatting and Wikitricks and all that at the same time.  You don't have to do them forever if you prefer <s>Blofelding</s> stubbing.  Seriously, the work ethic (or moderate smarts, or social courage to put content "out there") to do content work, you really don't belong as an adminstrator on a project writing encylopedia articles.  This is not to devalue other aspects of the enterprise...but if someone lacks the willingness or ability to write, they should not be a supervisor here.  It really ends up warping and hurting the project when we do. [edited for tone]
tco addressed some problems. The statement about a fa prerequisite suggests maturity and factual concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose, with regret'''. I really like Shirt58, especially his sense of humour, but not answering the questions is bad. I know they're optional, but it's hard-going-on-impossible to call admins to account once they have the mop, so failing to give an account of oneself while requesting the community's trust is a bad omen. It's also disrespectful, imho. <s>Also, with regard to [[WP:ANI#Violetcries]], Shirt has just done [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreeRangeFrog&diff=542792428&oldid=542657218 this]. A sense of humour is great, but there's a time to use it and a time not to. That was facetious.</s> --
'''Oppose''' - two days of unanswered questions.  Shirt58 was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShirt58&diff=542379378&oldid=542359663 notified that afternoon] by another editor and has been editing in that time.  Sure, they're optional questions, but even if you don't want to answer for whatever reason, the courtesy of acknowledging their existence is something one would generally expect.  --
'''Oppose''' While I have no problem with creating lots of short stubs, I do disagree with creation of BLPs that I would describe only as "underwhelming" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walcyr_Carrasco&oldid=538380166][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saskia_Post&oldid=536002124][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%B6rg_Freyhof&oldid=530280563][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jenkins_(director)&oldid=509598661][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anisa_Mohammed&oldid=513539750]. If you are simply going to tag BLP that you yourself created, and move on to never return, then you probably shouldn't have created it in first place. Obviously its not against any rules, but I just can't approve such [[meta:Eventualism|eventualist]] approach to BLPs.--
'''Neutral''' tending towards support. Once I have seen answers to the questions posed I shall probably move across. He seems like a well intentioned editor and I personally am a big fan in [[WP:WikiGnome|WikiGnomes]] becoming sysops. ''
'''Moral Support''' Seems like a perfectly competent editor, however, the delay in answering questions makes me hesitant regarding his potential value as an administrator. '''<font color="gold">★[[User:Retrolord|★]]</font>[[User:Retrolord|Retro]][[User talk:Retrolord|Lord]]
'''Neutral'''. As I vote based on actual interaction with an editor, since I have never interacted with this editor at all in the past, I have to vote "Neutral".
It's not enough for me to oppose, but I wholeheartedly agree with Staberinde's oppose (#7) above. Creating articles that are clearly substandard and tagging them for others to deal with is not good practice, and I'd encourage Shirt to take the time to assemble enough basic sources for a BLP stub that it can stand on its own.
'''Support''' as nominator. — '''''
'''Strongest possible support''' I'd have co-nommed this if I'd gotten here in time. Tokyogirl79 has been on my list of potential admins since before ''I'' was an admin; her contributions to book-and-author-related pages are first-rate and her tremendously in-depth arguments at AFD have always impressed me. I see absolutely no reason not to trust her with the toolkit; she's an assest to Wikipedia now and will only be more valuable with a mop.
'''Support'''. I spotted this nomination in the making over the weekend, and I was very pleased to see it. I've seen Tokyogirl79 around the place a lot, doing all sorts of great work. She's calm, collegial, friendly, understands all manner of wikithings, and I'm sure she'll make an excellent admin. --
'''Strongest possible support''' - thrilled to be near the top of this list. A friendly, collegial editor with a penchant for saving articles, an even-handed and logical approach to [[WP:AFD|AFD]], solid source-finding skills and a beautiful drafting style. Would have co-nom'd if I'd known this was coming.
'''Support''' Full support.
A big '''support'''! I'm not much working with Tokyogirl7. Nevertheless, I see that Tokyogirl is a very good editor and is rightful to have the mop.
'''Support'''  As per Secret and Yunshai. User has been around editing regularly since October 2011 and has created over 90 articles.See no concerns.
A friendly, courteous and likeable regular at AfD; she has well knowledge of our core policies and guidelines. Has created numerous, substantial articles and I see no reason why I should ''not'' '''Support'''. ☯
'''Support''', no problems with this candidate.
'''Support''' Yes --
'''Support'''. Tokyogirl79 is a quality editor with a high level of both reasonableness and clue, and I would have no reservations whatsoever about granting her the tools. Honestly, I almost marked this as "Oppose: Editor's nominators went over their wordlimit telling how awesome the candidate is...", but I know some well-intentioned chap would just remove it as a misplaced oppose. You guys are no fun any more.
'''Support''' Longstanding editor with zero block log and (as far as I can see) no substantial disputes.  Such editors should be given a support pretty much by default.
'''Support'''. Always impressed by the thought and research that goes into her comments at AfD.
'''Support''' as an obvious excellent pick for admin.  Wish we had a dozen more candidates like her. Dedicated, hard working, focused on improving the encyclopedia, and we know that she will put the tools to very good use doing what she is already doing.  Very happy to hear she is finally seeking the bit.
'''Support''' - Seems to be a perfectly reasonable and good editor. However, I disagree with the nomination statement of {{xt|"Her good judgement in this area is reflected in the 90.6% rate with which her comments match the discussion close."}} Some people (like myself) generally don't vote in AFDs that are obviously going one way, which would lower the metric. It is easy to get 90%+ "accuracy" if you go find AFDs that are clearly going to close one way and then vote "per everyone else".
'''Support''' - I've always noted that Tokyogirl's arguments at AfD are usually among the most well-reasoned and thoughtful.  I offered to nominate her awhile ago, before she felt ready for RfA.  She'll do great.
'''Support''' - I'm familiar with her work, especially at AfD. She has also done some good article rescue work, for example, [[Dead Sea products]]. Definitely someone we can trust to keep the machinery well-oiled. -
'''Support''' No concerns, great candidate.
'''Support''' I've seen her work at AfD (and other places) - and been impressed by her attempts to find references and additional info for articles. Any delete !votes at AfD are because she's not been able to rescue the articles in question.
'''Support''' What? No! I wanted to nominate her! :( —
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support''' impressive nominations; plus the areas the candidate says they want to go into (AfD) match their previous strengths as laid out in those nominations. '''
As co nom
'''Support''' - I've only ran into Tokyogirl recently as a volunteer at DRN but I thought she seemed like a level headed person willing to listen to the other side and make consessions. Happy to offer support <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">[[User:Cabe6403|Cabe]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Cabe6403|6403]]</font> <sup>([[user_talk:Cabe6403|Talk]]•
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor, good track record on AfDs and making sure article quality is upheld.
'''Support''' Quality candidate. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]]
'''Support'''  Another excellent candidate and Secret makes a particularly compelling case.--
'''Support''' - I think that improving an article is the best approach to settling an AfD, and I'm glad to see that she frequently does that.
'''Non-contemplative support''' - I've run in to her enough times at AfD that I really don't need to think further as far as whether I think she should have the tools. Good contributor.
'''Support''' - I rarely get myself involved in RFAs; here, I'm making an exception. Tokyogirl is a fantastic example of what all admins should be: she works hard, she listens to discussions, and she has a grasp of policy. She's neither a deletionist, nor a keepist, merely someone who goes the extra mile (or several) to attempt to improve articles. I've never bumped into her away from AfDs, apart from occasionally on talk pages, but I've no qualms whatsoever with her.
'''Support''' I trust bibliophiles.  And she seems to have support from AfD regulars, which is where she intends to work.  No red flags. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support''' - Has lots of common sense, especially on AfD posts. &ndash;
'''Support'''  Has plenty of clue.
'''Support''' per noms. Great candidate.
'''Support''', if only to find out what on earth a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tokyogirl79&diff=466506022&oldid=466505984 fish] does with a mop. Joking apart, the closely argued AFD comments are excellent, lots of people beat a path to her talk page for help and advice, and you've got to like an editor who, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steelheart_(novel)&action=history improves a WP:TOOSOON article before turning it into a redirect], so that there will be useful stuff there when it's no longer too soon. Good answer to Q3, too. --
'''Support''', certainly. I've seen her name frequently when I closed AfDs, always providing insightful comments. I'm sure she is more ready than ever to become an admin. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
<small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support fully''', with admiration for her willingness to [[WP:BEFORE|look]] for sources and [[WP:SOFIXIT|improve articles (''if'' possible)]], before offering an opinion at AFD. Congenial and knowledgeable editor. Of great value to the project. '''
'''Support'''  From observations of her work at AfD.  Abundant CLUE. --
'''Support''' Tokyogirl's comments at AfD are sufficient evidence that she knows the difference between thoughtful and useless !votes. AfD sorely needs more voters like her. She'll also do fine as a closer.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', with pleasure.

Just be wary of the [[tl;dr]] effect from now on. ;)
'''Support''' as co-nominator. Should have done this sooner ;)
'''Support''' an extremely careful and conscientious editor, very helpful in dealing with problem articles. Willing to admit error or the rare occasions they occur, and not self-important. This is the sort of person we need as an administrator. '''
'''Strong Support''' her ability to find and evaluate sources on tricky AFDs is amazing and has earned my respect many times.  She'll make a fine admin.
'''OK, I'm impressed Support''' — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''; impressed by her comments whenever I saw them, I thought her to already be an admin.
'''Support''' Yes please. No one works harder at AFDs than her. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§
'''Support''' - Great user, I have no concerns. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support'''. Looks like a very good candidate to me. --
'''Support'''. I've noticed this editor's work (mostly around AfD) for some time. Her thoughtfulness and understanding of policies will make her a valuable asset as an admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid">
'''Support''' knowledgeable and tactful.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''', with a suggestion I have a feeling might be necessary: when closing debates, try not to over-explain; if you address every argument made, you'll drown out the overall thrust.

'''Support''' per Secret and Stfg.  Tokyogirl79 looks like exactly the kind of sysop we want.  Committed to core values, willing to put in the time and effort to improve the 'pedia, and calm and relaxed enough to not make a big deal of it.  Perfect.  ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' I've seen Tokyogirl79 around in [[WP:AFD|AFD]] and to be honest I'm impressed with what she does. I think she'll make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' Nice user. I'm sure user'll become a good admin.--'''
seems fine <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' obviously. No concerns here. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Support''': Yes, sure! Excellent contributor! Good wishes! --
'''Support''' because I see no good reason not to.
'''Support'''. It's terrific news for the project that TG79 has decided to run for adminship, and I'm delighted to support.
great editor --
'''Support''': Yes! A dedicated editor, with a clear head and a caring nature. Will be a great addition to the ranks of administrators&nbsp;&ndash;&#32;<br />&nbsp;&ndash;&#32;<strong>
'''Support''' - No brainer.  Probably one of the most consistently well-reasoned !voters at AFD, and she isn't afraid of elbow grease.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' after substantial reflection (see my earlier comments under "Oppose", below).  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- We've crossed paths at AFD now and again, and I've always supported her stances and rationales. (Not to mention I have to support a fellow "90% success rate at AFD editor" too!).
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support'''. I know of Tokyogirl's AfD contributions--oddly enough in AfDs I put up, not so much from the ones I closed--and find their contributions invariably well-phrased, well-reasoned, and cucumber-cool, whether they agree with my assessment or not. Often they add relevant coverage, and more than once have given me serious thought. To my surprise I just discovered that they also wrote a fair number of articles; I looked at half a dozen and am pleased enough. Good luck,
'''Support''' - no concerns, seems a strong candidate who will be nothing but a benefit to the Project.
'''Support''' Per nomination statements, and a pleasure to do so as well. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No concerns, and you seem like a good person in addition to all of the technical details like AfD. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Support''' No concerns, answers seem good. It's a
'''Support''' based on review.

'''Support''': Tokyo has made many fine contributions, such as writing good articles and improving ones that need help. Tokyo also seems to be very knowledgeable with AfD, as their votes matched consensus 90.9% of the time according to [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=Tokyogirl79&max=250&startdate=&altname= this]. I am semi-satisfied with the answer to my question Tokyo will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Very helpful and friendly towards users I have seen Tokyogirl make alot of great additions to wikipedia, i think she would make a great admin ^-^. -
'''Support'''. I've seen Tokyogirl out and about in AFD and from what I've seen I have full faith that she would make a great admin.
'''Support''' good candidate
'''Support''' this reliable candidate. I wish she could be a little less verbose without sacrificing content.
'''Support''' I don't usually wander too much into AFD areas, but the one time I was, sure enough Tokyogirl was involved and my interactions with her were excellent. She has my full trust. '''
'''Support''' I admit that I have visited AfD a few times. OK, a few thousand times. I can think of few participants there who have been as thoughtful, diplomatic, helpful and devoted to the improvement of this encyclopedia as Tokyogirl79. Except for me and my buddies, that is. Her balance between exclusionism and deletionism makes those categories obsolete, as they ought to be.  Seriously, when I think about becoming a better AfD participant, she is my model. Support without hesitation.
'''Support''', a competent editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor; will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Solid editor, will be a reliable AfD closer.
'''Support''' - No concerns.--<font face="bold">
Very happy to see her here. Tokyogirl79 has consistently impressed me with her contributions notably at AfD. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Of course.  Excellent contributor.--
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, adequate tenure, adequate number of edits with a nice percentage to mainspace. Bonus points for Dennis Brown endorsement.
'''Support'''. No record by Chuck Woolery. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. A level head at AfD, focused on policy and on improving the wiki.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Nice work at AfD, generally clueful and civil. '''''<span style="color:#00FFFF;background:#000000;border:2px solid#000000;">~
Happily. Bags of clue. I've been trying to come up with a theory to rationalise the opposes, and my best guess is that they moved St Patrick's Day forward this year and forgot to tell me.
'''Bam 100''' Pile on support.--v/r -
'''Support''' per Kilopi.
'''Support''' trusting this editor with the mop. I've seen her comment often at film-related AfDs, and she always makes sensible efforts and arguments about assessing an article for deletion. One commendable effort was her rescue of ''[[The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby]]''. Good luck! :)

'''Support'''. Good editor, admirable participation at AfDs, positive contributor. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions at AfDs, will make a great Admin.
'''Support'''. I haven't crossed paths with the candidate much, but the nominations are very convincing. Looks like an experienced and careful candidate. (And Wikipedia needs more female administrators!) --
'''Support'''. I have only recently taken notice of Tokyogirl79, but I have a favorable impression in that she appears to be calm, thoughtful, and tactful to others. I would feel comfortable approaching her for advice or other requests.
'''Support''' I have seen good work at DYK.
'''Support''' - Not really familiar with her, but seems like a good risk.
'''Support''' Solid work on [[Strange Fruit (novel)|Strange Fruit]].
'''support''' per Carrite.--
'''support''' Good judgement, broad experience, good contributions.
'''Support''' Based on my recollection, I have seen a number of times where someone has said "let's ask Tokyogirl" ... when you're a go-to resource like that, it says lots about your knowledge of the project.  I have been unable to find any situations where she has shown any hint of inability to "keep cool".  Obviously the editing stats speak for themselves.  This is a pretty emphatic "yes", but I reaaaallly ask that there are times you might not want to use your admin bit so that you can keep using your strengths (i.e. your arguments at AFD often turn the course of the discussion - since closing them is not a supervote, your strong arguments might be more important than closing) ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
I trust the nominator's judgment, candidate looks fine, no red flags pop up for me. Don't see the need to disagree with 110 of my fellow Wikipedians. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Tokyogirl has been a great contributor and does the best she can for the pedia. I think that she would make a great admin and could work quite well in the AFD area for sure.
'''Support''', just hope her new role will not slow her excellent work as editor.
'''Support''' Sure. --
'''Support''' About time.  A very thoughtful, smart editor.
'''Support''' looks well suited all around. Few times I have personally seen her at AfD left very good impression too.--
'''Strong Support!''' Tokyo is everything I strive for as an editor around the AFDs.
I've had a look at your contribution spread (very well-balanced between article work and WP space work), last several AFD votes (which show active attempts to ''research'' and apply policy, instead of merely voting with the crowd; I like that), and your talk page archives going back to November 2012 (which is populated with thoughtful and friendly interactions with other editors, as well as a considerable amount of awards and appreciation—which isn't necessarily a requirement, since low-key editors aren't always noticed—but is most certainly positive nonetheless), and everything looks good. You have a reputation as a friendly and productive editor, two necessities to perform well in the sysop role. I'm happy to '''support'''. Good luck.
I find it hard to believe that I've never heard of such a well-qualified editor. Nice work so far, and keep it up.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per noms. Seems well qualified for the work she intends to do. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support'''. I've been (mostly) pleased with the quality of her work at AfD. Her content work is solid, and she is a thoughtful, hard-working editor. She has my trust.
'''Yay'''.
'''Support'''{{spaced ndash}} A well-intentioned editor that has done valuable work at AfD. I'm particularly impressed by this editor's mindful research regarding sources when contributing at AfD.
Seems like they'll do good work. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' Long standing contributor, lots of good work, trustworthy. What's not to like? :) --
'''Support''' This is a superfluous vote at this point, but nevertheless I'd like to be on record as supporting this editor.  I have found her to be skilled, enthusiastic, knowledgeable about policy, and generally a joy to work with.  She is exactly the kind of editor who ought to be an admin, and I'm glad that my fellow editors overwhelmingly agree.&mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. Nothing in the opposes below moves me to that direction. Agree with a lot of the supports above.
'''Support'''.  I've seen her around at AfD, and as the supports and noms above describe, she is an incredibly diligent and policy-respecting editor.
'''Support''' Positive contributor. I am convinced she will use the tools properly.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I am familiar with this user's contributions at AfD and am happy to support. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support'''I have encountered the subject of this RfA on a few occasions, and in those occasions I do not recall any issues which would give me a reason to oppose this nomination. The editor, in those encounters, have been the epitome of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]].--
'''Support'''. Good contributor, no reason to think she will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Useful addition to the world of admins. '''
'''Support''' Squeaky clean (unless someone carps about only 85% edit summaries <g>)
'''Support''' Positive contributor with enough experience and a clean history. - <b>
'''Support''' I reviewed this person's userpage and talkpage, as well as answers to the above questions. Tokyogirl79 seems polite and clear-speaking as an admin should be.
'''Support'''. Welcome aboard. --
'''Support''' - One hour left till this RfA closes. Putting my first ever RfA vote on this candidate as a support. :)
'''Last minute support''' - Good luck! —
'''Support''' - Everything looks great to me!
<!-- '''oppose''' -->'''Comment''': I did some research, and from what I can tell, this user writes like a 13 year-old speaks, well sort of. I mean, is that what we expect of an administer? I don't think so. At least I don't. But then again, I may vaguewave at some guidelines and say a lot of words that mean nothing in the hopes that you don't realize that I actually have said nothing but typed alot. Sometimes, the contributions at AfD are outstanding, but sometimes confusing. Xe say that can come up with sources for an article. But then, most of the mentions in those sources are brief, or I don't really know if this qualifies for deletion or not. But I'll make sure to bold my vote anyway. Lke srsly, who does that? Xe had a recent speedy declined at [[Smoky Joe's]], but I don't know, that might not have been xys fault. Xe also nominated the same article at AfD, which will likely be kept, but I think that the AfD nomination had merit. Also has a declined speedy at [[Jon Pastor]], but two declined speedies in the last month is probably a fluke considering how long xe has been editing. Well, has really only been editing since 10/2010, but that's a long time in Internet years. What else, IDK, user has a habit of writing way too much for what, in essence, be said in a just a few, short words. At AFD, user will always mention that xe has done research. If xe has done a search, that will also be noted. Will almost always say something vaguely related, but not relevant, in what seems to be a concerted effort to appear smart. Well okay. I guess that's your style, but it's not for me. My concern is that xe will always find a way to be on the fence, even on non-controversial issues. I may or may not find other issues, but the concerns brought up here convince me that this user may or may not be suitable to be an administrator or hold other advanced positions. I will continue to look for issues and pass on them if this survives. Well, RfA is nobigdeal so I guess I'll support.<!-- '''oppose''' --> -
'''Come back in a year please'''.  I see overall similar things to Nathan, but a little extra example:  I checked the AFD she had spent most time on: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse]].  This is from last October.  Tokyo seems to rebut many individuals with the same points (she has 24 edits to the page).  As if she feels like the closer will not count votes that are individually rebutted.  ''She also has a 960 word paragraph'' (1.3 pages in MS Word, single spaced) and a 450 word paragraph.  Other than that, she seems sweet by tone and I can see why she is non controversial.  If you pass, Tokyo...please learn how to hit the return bar twice to make paragraphs.  And you can do it with indented text in this crazy talk system of Wiki where we don't have separate post boxes (just copy the stupid Wikicolons.)
'''Support''' as nom. &mdash; <strong><tt>
'''Support'''  Hell, yes! Valuable contributor, just not in the usual manner. No sign he might misuse tools.
'''Support''' as nom.  A great asset to our community in a unique capacity.
'''Support''' No concerns, very competent contributor.
'''Support''' I rarely edit these days, but West has my trust from very positive interactions in the past.
'''Support'''. It's almost impossible to ''not'' trust West. It's a
Acknowledged, this could be construed as an unconventional request due to your area of focus, which is primarily technical work; but I've always been of the opinion that we need more administrators working on the technical side of the project. Viewing this candidacy in that light, you're well-qualified to do it. I've gone through your edits, in which I see some intriguing technical work and some good policy discussion and community involvement to boot. Looking through your talk page archives through early 2012, I see nothing but cordial interactions and friendly engagement with other editors. Your work on STiki is commendable and it seems to me that you're uniquely qualified to work with some of the more technical aspects of the site. You've got the right mindset and temperament, not to mention your technical experience, to be a sysop. I'm more than happy to '''support'''.
'''Support''' No concerns. Creator of [[WP:STiki]], and a very competent user. Research is a great use of tools. I would have co-nommed had I known.
'''Support''' Very valuable contributor. His answers to the questions demonstrates skill and competence. --  '''
'''Support''' and good luck with your research! Sounds interesting! --
'''Support''' Excellent personal interactions with the candidate. '''
'''Support''' Absolutely, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the research that the bit will enable.  <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>
'''Support''' per [[Special:Contributions/West.andrew.g]]
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' Easy to trust him with the tools when he's made one of them! I'm excited to see what else he has in store. --
'''Support''' clear communicator, helpful, and dedicated user.
Great editor. <font color="00ff00">
I trust the nominators, and we need way more editors like him in the project. Knowledgeable scholar with a specific focus with the tools. Huge net positive.
'''Support''' The researcher flag sounds much more suitable, but since there's some problem obtaining that, I certainly prefer researchers of this calibre to have access to data. --
'''Support''' Per all the above.--
'''Support''' --
Looks good enough. &ndash;
'''Support''' - sure.
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' OK .. I'm impressed.  Often people with this level of technical skill suffer from either an inflated ego, or lack the ability and/or desire to interact well with others; not the case here.  A fine example is the aforementioned STiki project: Not only is the work an exceptional benefit to the project; but the attention to detail in documentation is wonderfully rare addition to the tool.  (also noting a rather good salesmanship ability in there as well. :)).  I have no idea how long Mr. West will continue his studies and observations here with us, but I think it is a wonderful match which benefits the project greatly.  If you don't mind the informality sir, then I say "Good luck in all Andy". — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' - A bit of a dust-up a few years ago, but that was then. Now, a fine choice to have extra buttons, and I salute the candidate's dedication and service to the encyclopedia. Should you pass Rfa, as it appears, my best wishes in your adminship!
Good candidate. —
'''Support''', and may he come up with a cool new tool for us with the mop.
'''Support''' Sure. Why not?! He has good contributions and also developer of an anto-vandal tool (STiki). I'm sure he would make a good admin.--'''
'''Support''' While I have always cringed at the concept of an anti-vandalism "leaderboard", the STiki tool itself is an excellent contribution to the community, and that alone shows a huge amount of commitment to the project that is admin-worthy. Easily meets my [[User:Trusilver/RFA|RfA criteria.]]
'''Support''' without reservation. -
Too many reasons to list.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy, polite, and has good communication skills.--
'''Support''' - I'm very surprised that he isn't an administrator, already.  Promotion will only lead to good things for Wikipedia, and he's already given us a lot with no indication of wrongdoing.  He provides good support for the need for additional rights, too. --
'''Support''' per noms. '''
'''Support''' Full support from me.
'''Support''' – My first thought was "why does he want to be an admin". But it was nicely explained in the nom. Looks like a good move.
'''Support''' Extremely trustworthy editor. His sincere work at this project is highly appreciated by me. He'll learn along the way.
'''Support''' Given the nature of the request. I would probably not support otherwise given limited participation in other areas.--
'''Support''' I have interacted with Andrew regarding the Stiki tool, and i have found him to be extremely responsive, with a good understanding of Wikipedia policies.His reasons for becoming an admin are clearly explained, and the project will benefit by accepting his request.
What's not to like? Orchestrating an attack on WP? Limited contributions? Limited discussions? The advantage of this user is that he has not criticized the arrogance and incompetence of many administrators, one of the complaints of <s>WTT</s>Rschen and  <s>Fluffer</s> an annoying administrator about Carrite. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' We need users like this on the inside p*****g out! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''! being a user for years and having improved WP for creating such tools for reverting vandalism such as STiki. This nomination is very favorable of being successful at the end for this user should have been an admin ages ago.
'''Support'''. Definitely a net positive. — '''''
Obvious '''Support'''. Trustworthy and long standing user.I'm pretty sure that he won't be deleting the main page.If Andrew is unaware of any policies as some people here say, I think he should first go through them or take suggestions from experienced admins.In my opinion, adminship is all about trust and Andrew seems to have it. '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #6698FF;">
'''Support'''. Years of experience with anti-vandalism tools, absolute net positive to the project. While I appreciate Shirik's concerns below, I think there's enough evidence to show he won't get involved in areas he's not experienced in at all, so I predict he will either disengage or defer to another admin should somebody ever see his bit and read him the riot act in response.
'''Support''' - The admin tool bucket is mostly a vandal fighting power pack. Here we have someone who can make good use of the gear.
'''Support''' - As per nominated. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Trustworthy contributor who has settled down, and their reason for wanting the tools makes sense.
'''Support''':  Its hard to identify many editors who have done more to help with the work of admins through Andrew's anti-vandalism tools.  Also, after collaborating with him on a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-04/Special_report|Signpost article]], I found his calm demeanor and intellect to be compatible with his nomination.--'''
'''Support'''.  The anti-vandalism tools he has created have been very, very useful. In fact, I use STiki much more than other such tools.  Seems like he has his head on straight too.
'''Support'''. This user is obviously here for the right reasons, and is definitely trustworthy enough to be an admin, even if they don't intend to be a typical admin. The fact that he got IRB approval for his spam experiment says a lot (IRB approval can be notoriously hard to get, in my experience) and the tools he has written as a result are really something. Net positive is an understatement. I say give him whatever he needs to continue his work. Also, I read the (single) oppose below, and while I agree that this could potentially be viewed as a "hack" solution to getting the researcher right, I would point out that "hack"ing solutions together is what Wikipedia is all about. [[WP:IAR|Ignore all rules]] is a pillar, after all :-) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' - trusted user
'''Support''' - Hell yes - This user has proven his mettle more than most of the existing admin corps, further, his unorthodox rationale for Adminship is technically valid and very astutely proposed. Every inclination suggests he is an extremely clueful user and would continue to expand and develop as a huge asset to the community if we gave him what he needs to do this. I wish him the best of luck. -
The Researcher right would not allow him to see the content of deleted revisions, and if we want him to improve his anti vandalism tools further it would help if he could  see the actual text that was added by vandals. ''
'''Support''' - If someone goes through the trouble of writing a complicated anti-vandalism software package, then I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's here for the best interests of the project.
'''Support'''. I actually don't think this is as unusual an RFA as it might seem. Basically, the candidate wants to work primarily on copyright issues, which is clearly an admin area. ''How'' he intends to work on them, as long as it doesn't break anything which it won't, is his business.
'''Support''', trusted user. As long as the Researcher right doesn't include viewdeleted, the tools are necessary for the task. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' As the user is trustworthy, what is wrong with giving him the tools for selective use?
'''Support''' I see no reason that I shouldn't.
'''Support''' I trust this user based on their work they have done for Wikipedia, such as the creation of STiki and since the <code>'researcher'</code> user right does not include looking into deleted edits, I see how getting the admin rights are needed for this user.
'''Support''' No concerns, very competent.
'''Support''' [[Iff]] he can make a better tool to detect and delete copyvios, this may the easiest !vote I've ever made. Even if he doesn't, he's not the kind of guy to go peeking through deleted revisions to search for faeces to throw at a fan.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. West.andrew.g's work has been of enormous benefit to the project, and giving such an academic pioneer access to deleted pages to help him further that work can only be a positive thing for us. I can understand the opposers who don't want RfA to be used for anything other than becoming a "proper" admin - but our processes are here to serve the project, not the other way round. So if the project would benefit from giving West.andrew.g access to deleted pages, if legal issues require a process of similar rigour to RfA, if RfA is the only process that satisfies that, and if we have no method for unbundling "view deleted pages", then we should use what we have to achieve something that's clearly good for us. (I also trust West.andrew.g with the whole admin toolkit anyway, even if he doesn't want to use it all) --
'''Support''' I opposed Carrite's recent RfA because it was essentially a "view-deleted" RfA.  I have no such concerns here.  Sure, that right is included, but I am confident that that they are being used in an "administrative" "I need the tools to improve the Wiki" sense that is appropriate here.  Also unlike Carrite's RfA, this one is careful not to argue that a lower bar should be applied and there is no indication that the access to deleted information will be the only use of the tools.  This, I believe, is sufficient. &ndash;&nbsp;''
'''Support''', and I ask anyone opposing due to this being an unorthodox request to consider whether the research the candidate intends to do may actually help the project.
'''Support'''.  I would be willing to support his use of all the tools, simply because he's been [[WP:DEAL|around for a while helping]] without showing any signs of misuse after the spam research several years ago.  Why would I oppose him just because he won't use some of the tools?
'''Support''' per Ched and per Q9.  This is a case of a user doing fantastic things for the project, reaching a point where advanced permissions are holding him back from doing even more fantastic things, and requesting the ability to do those things.  He has shown the maturity to handle the responsibility, the ability to utilize the tools to the fullest, and good ol' fashioned [[WP:SENSE|common sense]].  We need more Wikimedians like West.andrew.g. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''

'''Support''' - yeah, there have been a few of these lately and I'm not particularly excited about them. I think if you sign up for the tools, there needs to be an acknowledgement that the community is trusting you with everything, even if you only <u>plan</u> to use one particular tool. Like another recent RFA with a similar single-tool intention, I'm supporting this because I would otherwise support the nominee regardless. I would trust them to use everything. I don't care if they then decide to limit their own work to one particular tool.
West.andrew.g will certainly put the tools to good use. The breaching experiment is not a particularly serious issue in my view, and I think we can forgive him for that.
'''Support''' - I think he would be an incredibly helpful admin and a huge net positive even if all he ever did was look at deleted pages and start to figure out how to detect copyvio better. Having said that, I think he'll be an asset with the bit in the vandal-fighting arenas too, clearly he has extensive knowledge in that regard as well.
'''Support'''.  User would be capable of excellent administrative service; the work he intends to engage in would be a huge asset for the project.
--
'''Support''' —
'''Weak Support''' it is obvious failure in procedures then only way to give someone rights for seeing deleted material require also giving him rights to protect/delete/block. I am just going by gut feeling that it probably won't cause any issues in this case.--
'''Support''' per Ched and others.  The idea of an admin being interested only in one or two specific areas doesn't bother me in the least.  Trust is a universal thing, either he can be trusted or he can't, and specialists are not a bad thing at Wikipedia.  In this case, the trust is well earned and I'm happy he is interested in using the bit in ''any'' capacity.

'''Support''': I'm glad you could confront and explain your past issues. We need more administrators like you.
'''Weak Support''' - Competent contributor, understands and admits when he's made a mistake, and helpful. My one concern is how many userspace edits he has and how few talk edits he has. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">

'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Viewing deleted pages is fine here as it was for Carrite'''.  I don't get why it was WMF-wrong for Carrite but paradoxically WMF-required here (won't allow researchers it otherwise).  In any case, I agree that the research is a very useful purpose and I think Wiki will get some other use out of the fellow on the side.
'''Support'''. Thanks for the work you've done in the past. Yes, definitely. --
'''Support'''.  I do not have a problem with niche admin rolls. '''
Net positive. I have a slight inhibition against this degree of nicheness, but I always have supported on the basis they are still a net positive. Satisfied with extremely straight answer to Q9, despite its inherently unfair nature. ''
I'm supporting, but I'm just barely this side of neutral. So, to do research about sensitive content that we would not make available on demand to researchers contacting us from the general public, we have to determine that the person is trustworthy at the level of trust we place in administrators (reasonable, as far as that goes), but we are being asked to evaluate someone to ''be'' an administrator, even though they are unlikely to do most of the things that administrators do. On the one hand, I see a lot of editors whose opinions I value expressing enthusiastic support above. On the other hand, most of the candidate's editing track record is in reverting, and I feel like there's a defensive tone (questions should really be asked somewhere else, asking me if I was hinting at something) in the replies to questions, not a communication style I would generally favor in an administrator. And the concern expressed in many of the opposes and neutrals, about giving access to sensitive information, is a very real one. If the candidate were to want to be a typical administrator, I'd have concerns, but I've decided to make my decision here based on what he says he will actually do. Ultimately, I'm satisfied that we can trust the candidate to keep all sensitive information secure and private, and that the research is a net positive, so I think that this experiment is worth a try. --
'''Support''' Though researcher rights seem to be the key issue, I do not believe he will abuse the tools. And that providing him the admin bits will be a benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Copyright violations are a huge issue. We need more help to dealing with it. It these "no big deal" admin bits will help him I am supportive of him having them.
'''Support''' This user has done way more than necessary to establish my trust for adminship.  Even as someone who probably likes a little more process than the average Wikipedian, I'm finding opposition based on "this isn't the right rights package" to be a little bureaucratic. Given this editor's previous contributions... I'm convinced that granting this request is in the best interests of the project.  --
'''Support''' I agree with the opposes that note that administrator rights is not for research, etc., but there's no alternative at the moment. If the candidate wasn't fully qualified to be an admin, I'd say no - but they appear to be qualified, safe and mostly harmless, so why not
'''Support''', since this is for the overall benefit of the project. Good luck!
'''Support'''. No reservations whatever. --
'''Support''' I had extensive discussions with Andrew when I asked him for assistance with work needed regarding a long term abuser. Andrew was very helpful and demonstrated a desire to help the project, and is trusted. The concerns raised about this unusual RfA are valid, and any similar RfAs in the future should receive full scrutiny to ensure that the candidate is supported with a similarly good track record, and a very good reason that admin access would benefit the encyclopedia (detecting copyvios would be of significant benefit).
'''Support''' Trustworthy user. --
'''Support''' No concerns; Andrew is a competent and trustworthy editor. He may not intend to do much work in administrative areas, but giving him the tools would likely result in a considerable net benefit to Wikipedia, so why not hand them over to him?
'''Support'''. yup --
'''Support''' --<span style="">
'''Support with caveat''': the nominee should announce that he would be an [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall|administrator open to recall]].  As much as I support this candidate and the benefits he has brought to the project, the concerns listed by the opposing voices are too strong and relevant to brush aside. - <b>
'''Support''' - I trust this user not to abuse the tools. What they intend to do with them is of little relevance to me so long that it is within policy. <font color="#454545">
'''Support'''. Trustworthy. West.andrew.g's proposed use of the tools is narrow but the upside is great imo. --
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Oppose''' Really I'm usually the last one in this section, considering I generally feel the restrictions on being administrator are too strong, but I'm really surprised by the reaction so far. So since I'm the first, I guess that means the burden's on me to lay out some solid reasoning. I took a moment to peruse through your contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. The only thing I was able to conclude is that you're something of a robot. Yes, you've done a lot of vandalism cleanup, and it appears that you also have some solid work in enhancing that field. But that is ''not'' what an administrator is. An administrator needs to be someone capable of making solid decisions, especially ones surrounded by controversy. What I don't see, and what I need to see to be able to support, or at least go neutral, is some understanding of policy. I just don't see it. Yes, I get that you don't intend to be floating around [[WP:DR]]. Yes, I get that you probably won't close any [[WP:AFD]]s. I don't expect any administrator to know every policy. I don't think there is any administrator here that does. But that doesn't mean you can be completely ignorant of those policies. Instead, what I saw in your Wikipedia namespace contributions was two things: a lack of substance, and a significant bias towards your anti-vandalism tool. Don't get me wrong, I'm a software engineer myself, and I know the amount of work a tool like that takes. I value this contribution a lot. But I keep going back to that is ''not'' what an administrator is. I fear that this RFA is really some form of a backdoor researcher user right, and if that's really what you're after, then we should find some way to fix that problem rather than, to use a software term, hack out a solution. This RFA to me feels just like that, a hack, and I cannot support it until I find some solid purpose for granting the right and evidence to support knowledge backing up that purpose. --
'''Oppose'''. Not specifically this candidate but I am wholly opposed to the precedent that the highly selective intended use of tools establishes. Regardless of WMF guidance, this is not what RfA is intended for. This candidate will pass without effective all-round scrutiny and once successful will not be the last to seek selection using this approach.
'''Oppose''', if I'm understanding the candidate's intentions correctly (and if I'm not, I'd appreciate a reply from him or the nom giving some more detail). It sounds like Andrew wants the bits to do (useful) work on his automated tools, and possibly academic research. It does not sound, in my reading of nom and candidate statements, like he intends to do any administrative work with the admin tools. If that's the case, then I feel similarly to Shirik - this is a hacky, if well-intentioned, way of getting what the Researcher right ought to do, not an offer to do administrative tasks for the community. I'll reference and expand on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carrite&diff=536922680&oldid=536922000 my !vote in the Carrite RFA] a few weeks ago (which, contrary to the claim Kiefer Wolfowitz makes above, had absolutely nothing to do whether anyone has criticized administrators): I'm opposed to giving admin rights to people who intend to simply use it to view deleted content for research tasks or personal curiosity. I understand that viewdelete could be useful to Andrew's work, and that his work on tools could be of use to the encyclopedia, but I nevertheless feel that unless the candidate intends to use his admin rights for admin tasks, giving him the admin toolkit is the wrong way to go. We make people administrators because they intend to do administrative work; we make people researchers if they intend to do research work (and I would certainly re-evaluate my position on this matter if this were a "Request for Researcher", where Andrew was asking for community scrutiny to grant him +researcher).
'''Strong oppose'''. And I'm not changing my mind. I understand how some people need to see deleted pages for some reason. However, the English Wikipedia does not currently have a way to do so without assigning Administrator rights. We assign Administrator rights for the maintenance of the project. We do '''not''' assign them because someone needs one right that they can't get elsewhere. Per WMF Legal, any review of deleted material should go through a process ''identical in rigour'' to RfA... Not RfA itself. Until the community comes up with a RfDeleteview type system, we should '''not''' be hacking around it by just making "temporary" or "single-purpose" administrators. If West.andrew.g needs to view deleted pages for some reason, they can contact WMF Legal and either have a special group made for them, or have the Legal department okay a temporary (i.e. ''set'' length of time) adminship for him for that sole purpose. If West.andrew.g rins another RfA, and expresses believable wish to maintain the project with the admin toolkit, then I may support.
'''Strong oppose''' - nothing against the editor, but becoming an admin is not something that should be done because someone wants to do research purposes.  I suggest that if the user really wants to be able to do what he wants to do here, he make a stronger push to give the Research user group more abilities.  The process of RfA and adminship should not be hijacked for personal gain, even if that personal gain is admirable an will eventually benefit society and the Wikipedia community.
'''Oppose''' – I'm sorry but I can not support this RfA. I am concerned that deleted contributions, rev-deleted personal information and other non-public information might end up in a spreadsheet for shared analyses that was never intended; but rather guarded against.&mdash;'''''<sub><font size="1">
'''Oppose''' Not that it matters.
Q2. I can't support anyone that can't point to at least one mainspace article when answering that question. -
'''rigorous, but ill-conceived'''
I oppose this as well, on similar grounds as for instance Inks.LWC and gwickwire. If the foundation wants someone to be vetted for a particular right, let them come up with a vetting procedure (maybe limited to certain rights, who knows), not this odd backdoor. I supported Carrite's request last time, and still feel a bit odd about that--but they were an actual contributor with proven knowledge of policy. If the usual standards for RfA are applied, then unfortunately it ought to be a clear fail since there are no mainspace contributions that expand the project, and such contributions, as precedent shows, are usually deemed mandatory for ''any'' admin candidate. This is simply the wrong procedure.
'''Temporarily neutral'''. I need to think about this. It is unusual to give a researcher access to raw data of a potentially sensitive nature that is not first stripped off any person information. That's what most organizations do. Shouldn't we, or rather Wikimedia, be thinking of how to make that possible?   --
'''Neutral''' Although I support West.andrew.g in essence, as he seems a perfectly good candidate, I cannot bring myself to support somebody that does not particularly want to use the tools other than in a very narrow sense. I do not expect a sysop to take part in every single part of Wikipedia that requires an admin, but I feel it is too niche; and potentially a conflict of interest if he is performing research (although, I appreciate this is coming to an end). My concerns are not enough to warrant an oppose, but unless he was considering using a wider range of the tools, I can not support either. ''
I trust West.andrew.g, and I'm glad that [[WP:STIKI]] exists and that lots of people use it to rid Wikipedia of vandalism. I have no reason to think he'd misuse admin tools or do anything stupid with them. But I'm marginally uncomfortable with this kind of request. Not quite enough for me to oppose. It seems like what would be ideal is if the Foundation offered some kind of "researcher plus" right, which could be granted to technically competent people who are doing research. —
I believe West is generally trustworthy, but nonetheless, this is a request for the entire admin bit, and there is nothing to go on that says he'll be a good admin. It's too bad there isn't a way to get a partial bit, but I'm going to have to stay neutral.
I believe the subject is trustworthy, but I was under the impression that making certain things (like deleted revisions) "administrator-only" shields the site from certain types of liability. That shielding would arise if administrators are insiders to the site, etc. I wonder how far we damage that if we give people administrative status solely for the purpose of conducting and publishing research based on deleted revisions. <strong>
'''Neutral'''. This is the most unusual RfA since I saw a bot account at RfA a few years ago. West.andrew.g has helped Wikipedia with Stiki. However he has contributed little by way of content creation. Together with the declared intent to actually not undertake administrative duties, there is no compelling reason to grant the tools. I assume good faith with regard to his declaration to avoid any further spam/misuse of Wikipedia.
Glad to be your first support Ymblanter, I have no doubts that you will use the tools to the betterment of this community. Good luck
A fine contributor, wise and thoughtful.
'''Support''' per nom, and based on my interactions with Ymblanter.
'''Support''' Trusted user. --
Globally trusted and familiar with enwiki norms. --'''
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''', easily passes the trust / clue / experience test, and my previous observations of his comments have always been favorable.
'''Support''' looking at logs and deleted content shows there has been plenty of patrolling and reviewing feedback.  I see no image uploading, but there have been edits to file pages.  I am happy to see efforts to preserve articles by adding sources too.
'''Support''' I'm glad you've changed your mind [[:commons:User_talk:Ymblanter#Admin.3F|in the last year]], even if it is on en-wiki instead. --
Like a lot of recent candidates, someone I've seen around a bit and always been impressed by. Easy decision to support.
'''Support''' One of the most intelligent and valuable wikipedians I have ever had the pleasure of collaborating with.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Good editor and should get the admin rights.--'''
'''Support''' - I'm glad to see another candidate who has done substantial new article creation work, as well as a calm demeanor and solid knowledge of our policies. -
'''Support''' As per Wizardman  and good track .See no concerns.
'''Support''' Trusted contributor, [[WP:net positive|net positive]].
'''Support''' Thought he was one already, and was satisfied his his performance, so I guess I'll support :)
'''Support''', based on review.
Ymblanter will meet your best expectations, but only <span style="letter-spacing:0.125em">when he’ll perform tasks he is good with</span>, such as dealing with PoV pushers, puppeteers, as well as miscellaneous job in the article space. Please, do not encourage him to meddle into conflicts between established users. <small>For example, I was unhappy about [{{canonicalurl:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|diff=514272010}} this Ymblanter’s comment] despite his apparent intention to help me.</small> If somebody insists, I can explain my concerns on the talk page.
'''Support'''. I've seen Yaroslav around the place plenty, and I can easily support his nomination - I'm pretty sure he won't ''destroy the world for the honest people'' :-) (see Q3). --
'''Support'''; happy with this candidate and confident he has the community's trust.
I have had several positive interactions with this candidate and have no concerns about this RFA. ''
As nom
'''Support''' as co-nom. :)—
'''Support''' strong candidate; I see no issues. --
'''Support'''. No concerns (really like the answer to Q4, btw).
'''Support'''.  Substantial contributions in a specialized topic area, interesting background and proper perspective.
'''Support'''. Helpful and trusted, --
'''Support''' Did a quick spot check and was impressed, also trust the judgement of several of the supporters above.
'''Support'''.  Keep up the good work.
'''Support''': I particularly appreciate the strong work in article creation.--
'''Support'''.  Seems level-headed.
'''Support''' Mature, experienced editor.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. Seen him around and not seen any problems.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Impressed by the overwhelming support for the candidate above. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy candidate, plenty of clue.
'''Support''' Good candidate and good command of English.--
'''Support''' because I see no reasons not to.
'''Support'''. May he bring enlightenment! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - If Wizardman, Rschen, Dennis, Gerda, Mark, Boing, Reaper, WSC, and Kiefer all agree on something, chances are it can't be that bad.
'''Support''', clearly herre to help.
'''Support''', nothing but positive impressions from previous interactions with this editor.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —
Wizardman nomination, article writer, no major red flags that I can see, and an entirely unconvincing oppose.
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Strong support'''. Thought he was an admin already. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - yeah, I'd probably like to see some more substantive commentary at AFD because it would help others to understand ''why'' Ymblanter holds the views he does (which helps to establish consensus). But he seems willing to improve as he goes (response to Q#1) and I liked his response to Q#4. I think he'll make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - Молодец!
'''Yay'''.
'''Support''' likely net positive
'''Support'''. Love the distribution. Answers are focused; sometimes letting the other guy get the last word is an appropriate response. AfD main diagonal is good.
I ''know'' I've seen Ymblanter's name before, but I can't quite put my finger on where it was that I initially encountered him. He mostly edits articles pertaining to [[Russia]], so I may or may not have bumped into him during my occasional forays into that particular topic; he's also active in Wikipedia space. All in all, a very strong candidate who will do good as an administrator.
Strongly. We need more scholarly experts as administrators, and his resume is just wow. If we can get more editors like him and RockMagnestist to contribute to the project, the future is extremely bright for the project.
'''Support''' a tireless and trusted editor.
'''Support''': Ymblanter is a strong editor who will greatly benefit the project as an administrator. Best of luck,
'''Support''' As a Russophile, I've  come across many samples of YmB's work here; his answers haven't given me any cause for concern (quite the contrary) and generally its a pleasure to recommend this outstandingly knowledgeable - and hard-working - candidate.
'''Support''' I cannot find anything negative about the user.--

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make a terrific admin. [[User talk:TCN7JM#top|<font color="blue" face="OCR A Std">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="OCR A Std">C</font>]]
Thought I supported this ages ago.  Of course. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - a strong candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''', definitely a strong candidate.
'''Support''' - A trustworthy and competent editor, and I appreciated the detailed and candid answer to my question #6 above.
OK.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. No concerns. '''
'''Support''' I am impressed on how you interact with others.
'''Support'''. I actually do share many of the concerns Nathan Johnson has below. A lot of Ymblanter's AfD comments sound like the arguments given at [[WP:ITSNOTABLE]], which is not a desirable trait to have in an admin who is going to be closing AfD discussions. However, after looking at the big picture of his AfD contributions I could find plenty of counterexamples that demonstrate that he does know what is required by the notability guidelines. (For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GEAR_Video&diff=532572010&oldid=532455217][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdur_Razzaq_%28barrister%29&diff=536166160&oldid=536114171][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calvin_Jung&diff=536164958&oldid=536133887].) I am more concerned by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Quantum_Theory&diff=535876611&oldid=535774525 this], which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion, and I hope that the candidate will wait until he has more experience with speedy deletion before working in this area in an admin capacity. Having said all of this, on the whole I find Ymblanter to be a thoughtful, considerate, and productive editor, and I think making him an admin would be a benefit to the project. — '''''
'''Support''' per [[:User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]. '''
'''Support'''. Good contributions, see no reason to think he will abuse the tools.
Sure, fine.
'''Support''' per everyone. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Support''' - Responsible, knows what he's doing; should make a good admin.
Trusted <font color="00ff00">
'''Support'''. Definitely a plus for the project. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me!
'''Support''' good luck.--
'''Support''' Yes; thoughtful, has clue...I see no real problems. The opposes do not convince me.
'''Support'''  on the basis of the well-considered, measured, and clearly-expressed answers.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - Appears to be a responsible editor who will use the mop wisely. '''
'''Support''' Have had good impressions.
'''Support:''' Will make a great admin. -
'''Support:''' Excellent candidate.

'''Support''' Good candidate, will use the tools well. '''
'''Support''' He's a smart fellow. --
'''Support''' I was convinced by the time I got through the end of the acceptance statement. Questions 1-3 confirmed it for me. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' Studying the diffs in '''Oppose 1''' and some random contributions resulted in my wholehearted support. More than enough clue.
'''Support'''. Prolific, long-term content contributor with no red flags.
Clueful, dedicated user. I'm impressed by your answers to questions, particularly #6; I admire your philosophy, and I would be glad to see more administrators with a similar mindset. ~
'''Support'''
'''Damn'''.  If I can't be [[WP:100|100]], then at least I can be [[Wayne Gretzky]].  Solid clue, admin-y type work, trust of the community...appears to have the temperament  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A very strong candidate, with a well-rounded set of experiences. I was very impressed by the thoughtful and careful answers to questions. I don't see the issues surrounding AfDs as disqualifying, just a matter of taking things slowly at first, and I trust the candidate to do so. --
'''Support''' Reliable editor for years. ''
'''<strike>Oppose</strike>''' '''Support''' <u>Nominee seems to have handled my criticism with a pleasant lack of drama. I'm not a regular in AfD (especially in the past few years) so I may have been idealistically hasty and demanding. Incidentally, I do very much agree the view on templates.</u> In general, the nominee seems like a good and hardworking volunteer, and I originally thought I'd go neutral even with the following. If it was close I'd probably do neutral. But I'm sorry, to send the right message I have to oppose. I was disappointed with his vote the other day at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum_Foundation]] (still open). If the ruler of Dubai announces at the World Economic Forum that he'll put $10b into a foundation (making it the [[List of wealthiest charitable foundations|6th largest in the world]]), then you need to do a little research before !voting delete to show that you really understand the situation. The AfD nominator did not appear to be much work, and Ymblanter's simply said "agree per nominator". It took me 5 minutes or so to find multiple sources such as partnerships with the UN, books for Gaza children, scholarships, etc. I'm not sure if that's typical for his AfD research. I hope not, and a cursory review seems to show some evidence of more due diligence. But I'm sorry, I cannot agree with the underlying judgement. Meanwhile !votes for keep for a borderline [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kukerpillid|Estonian band]]. I realize AfD is tiresome work and so I'm sorry to be harsh.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, including AfD.
'''Support''' - Can't see a problem with issuing a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' I share some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Stradivarius and others about AFD judgement, so I'm trusting the candidate to be careful in these matters and consider avoiding closing AFDs that are questionable.  Otherwise no issues.
'''Support''' Very solid candidate.  Good catch by the noms. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>

This RfA can't be closed without my vote. Good luck, Ymblanter. —
'''I thought he was one...'''
'''Support'''. He has a great admin expericence in different wiki-projects. And just because he is a good person :) --
'''Support'''. - Thanks for being willing to help out with admin duties. Good luck!
'''Support''' --<span style="">
'''Support''' - No concerns. I see an editor with great contributions and a good demeanor.
You've got a lot going for you. I've read the nominations, your answers to the questions, and perused your talk page archives doing back to late last year. You come across as friendly and willing to collaborate, which is an absolute must. One thing that particularly impressed me was your ability to settle into a niche upon recognizing your limitations (i.e. sticking with building up stubs due to being a non-native English speaker). It's extremely important that an administrator knows his or her limitations and works accordingly, and it seems to me you're able to do that. <small>Not to mention my inherent respect for anyone with an understanding of any variant of [[Cyrillic script]]. :)</small> I'm more than happy to '''support'''. Good luck.
'''Support''' By al means.  <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;

'''Support''' Ymblanter has plenty of clue and experience to handle the tools well.
'''Support''' Looks good, experienced, and hardworking. I am actually pretty impressed..--
'''Support''' Seen his participation at AfD, seems a reasonable person. Can't see any good reason to oppose. —
'''Support''' - Great candidate, clueful, plenty of experience, and seems capable at dispute resolution. Also, it's very rare that I find that "oppose" votes reflect well on a candidate, but in this case I think they do. -- '''
'''Support''' - While I haven't come across Ymblanter before, from what I can see of his history and his contributions and abilities, providing the tools will be nothing but a positive to the project. -
'''Support'''. Can't knock a Wizardman nomination! A well qualified candidate, seems clueful and trustworthy. No concerns. --
'''Support''' – No concerns about the candidate. '''

'''Oppose''' Past conflict with multiple users is never a good sign.
I am supporting you for our country, even i am new to wikipedia. You are our representative ! GO GO GO !
Your advocacy is good and i support it , i also love my country but next time you should sign your posts -
Sorry, but you don't have enough documented experience to convince me that you are ready for this.
'''Strong oppose''' - Sorry, but the fact you didn't sign your post means you're not familiar enough with Wikipedia to be able to handle the tools responsibly enough.
'''Strong oppose''' -- occasional editor with barely any relevant experience. Please take time contributing to the encyclopedia before seeking a senior position. Evidence of POV here and on userpage. Poor English. Only 16% edit summaries on major edits, 0% on minor edits. --
'''Obvious oppose''' Unsuitable on so many levels at this time. Improve your written English and come back in 2015.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think the problem with your English is an issue here - it's self-correcting, eventually. But you can't rely on 4 years of experience on an account that is 7 months old with only 300-some-odd edits. If you had other accounts, we'd need to see those as well. I get the impression that you're eager and want to help out, but you don't seem to have the requisite experience necessary to become an admin on enwiki. It's possible this is a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]] as opposed to [[WP:NOTEVER]], so who knows? Edit well and reliably for a time and we'll see.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid you don't have anything like the experience and qualifications people look for in potential administrators. For instance you only have about 300 edits. For a request for adminship to be taken seriously you would need at least several thousand. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose''' Not enough documented experience and the motivations for wanting to become an admin are things which could be done without administrator userrights.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Feel free to try again after a lot more edits.--
I'm sorry, but I can't support right now. You've been around for a long time, and that's great, but you've made less than 1,000 edits. Typically, successful admin candidates have that longevity ''and'' more than 1,000 (usually more than 2,000 in fact) edits. Anti-vandalism is absolutely necessary, and you're doing a great job at that, so keep that up. I would also suggest that you get a little more content work in, get a Good article or two under your belt, because some people here at RfA like seeing that kind of stuff. If this RfA fails, I'd recommend you wait six months or more (preferably more) before going for another RfA; give yourself plenty of time to improve and show the community that you'd make a great administrator. Also, I would avoid another self-nom; you should find somebody who's willing to nominate you. [[WP:RRN|This page]] has a list of very good editors that are willing to review your contributions and nominate you if they think you're ready for adminship. I see a lot of potential in you, and while I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet, I believe you'll be a great administrator in time. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Sorry AppleJack, I cannot support your sysop request. I think that you need a lot more experience around Wikipedia as a whole. Some more useful links to check out are [[WP:RFAADVICE]] and [[WP:RFA Guide]]. They give a lot of advice that I think you could benefit from. Cheers, —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''NotNow''' Too few article space edits.
Currently '''Oppose'''; been here a while, but not enough experience/understanding, as demonstrated for me by {{diff|User_talk:United_States_Man|prev|556042641|this diff}} and a couple preceding, which demonstrate either a complete misaprehension of what was happening or a lack of knowledge of policy. Snoop around a bit, learn some, gain some experience, participate in discussions, and come back here later for a likely pass. Cheers, '''
'''Oppose''' AppleJack-7, you seem like a nice person ''but'' you lack what I would deem to be a considerable amount of experience necessary for utilizing the tools from a position of knowledge and practical experience. A full list of my [[User:Mkdw/RfA Standards|RFA standards]] is available and I would be more than happy to reassess your next RFA when meet them.
'''Oppose''' While I don't have a hard threshold and pretty lax on statistical requirements, I do think a candidate needs to have at least a few thousand edits including over a thousand of them as article edits.  You currently have 179 article edits.  There simply isn't enough information to determine how you would use the admin bit.  I respect the enthusiasm, but it is too soon.
'''Oppose''' . I  appreciate your enthusiasm AppleJack-7 , but  as others have stated, you  do  not  meet the   minimum  of requirements generally  expected by  the community. Do  make an effort to  read all  the advice pages about  admin candidacy  before trying  again.
Not to pile on here, but what others have said above are good reasons to oppose this self-nomination for now. This editor has all the potentials of one day possibly being nominated by someone else for Admin ship, but with fewer then a thousand edits, an inconsistent editing history ... good luck in the future.--
As an aside, I'm not sure your user page makes sense.  It states it's not cluttered with "userboxen" like  a previous version--where is said previous version?
Yes, I would be interested to know if you were referring to another account. If you have had an account before, you should consider cross-referencing the two before your next RfA (as it appears unlikely that this one will pass). A note of encouragement, though - you do not need to be an administrator to take part in most discussions (though there is not much "discussion" at [[WP:AIV]]).
'''Support''' Why not?  His contributions are good.
I don't see why not, <s>but I do advice a little more details on the first question, or you might not get much support.</s>  User intends to work on templates and many of these are protected for only sysop users so even that requires the mop.  &ndash;
'''Support''' Why not - looks like a good editor with good intentions.
'''support''' - Looks good.
'''Weak support''' - doesn't seem to check [[User:Go Phightins!/Admin criteria|all of my boxes]], but I think the editor will likely be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]].
'''Support''' per [[WP:NETPOS]], although more consistent activity would be nice.
'''Support''' Sure.--'''
Would do fine as an admin. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' I spent the last forty-five minutes going through this user's contributions and past history and the only thing that I can ask is why they have never been through an RfA before? Definitely meets my [[User:Trusilver/RFA|RfA criteria.]]
'''Support''' I think he can be trusted with the mop <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' I'm not that very affiliated with this user much but I think this user has good potentials for being an admin here. Could be trusted.
'''Support''' Having gone through his contributions (per[[user:Trusilver|Trusilver]]) I am also certain that he will be a useful recipient of the tools. Short opposes talking about immaturity seem specious, given his (almost) eight-year history here, not to mention his obvious editing skill. It might be sensible to expand the answer to Q1 - not everyone here will know what Lua is, let alone what you can do with it here.--<font color="Red">
'''Weak Support''' The candidate is light on content-building and isn't the most articulate chap around here. That said, he's a hard worker, even-tempered, helpful and will be a net positive. He's stated a valid reason for needing the mop, and the likelihood of him abusing it is low.
'''Support''' Can't see why not. Sure the nom could be better but seems like a good guy and I don't think Banaticus is likely to break the wiki. What the heck is a Banaticus anyway? --
Thanks for sorting out Cleopatra's ancestry. ''
'''Support''' Candidate seems like a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]], although I trust that their boldness (which is appreciated) will be tempered with insight into their limitations.
'''Support''' As far as I am concerned, nomination statements and edit statistics should not be solely used to judge an admin candidate.  Based on the candidate's contributions and what the candidate wants to do with admin tools, I support this candidate. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' After eight years of generally problem-free and completely block-free editing, is he going to start breaking the wiki now?  He needs the tools for a specific task and is planning to work on other tasks too, so let's let him be helpful.
'''Support''' But please be very very careful playing around with the cite templates. In fact, if you're going to play around with something that transcludes to tens of thousands of articles, be ''really'' careful, please. <strong>
'''Support''' I trust you and I would vote support even without the Lua script protection issue.  As an aside I didn't even know the Module namespace existed until I saw this RfA; I assume it must've been a very low-key software rollout.
'''Gives me a good vibe and I think the opposes are trying to make every Wikian too cookie cutter'''.  I'm actually not really int gnoming or patrolling.  But I liked that the fellow seemed like a real person (really!) and not just some Wiki-drone spouting policy.  The comments about smilies were cool as about his experience with part time employees.  I don't think there is any danger from the fellow and I think the project will do well to have some "civilians" (normal people).  Who cares if he has a job and spends time in the woods.  Very cool actually.
'''Support''' it looks like he won't do any harm, and he could user the mop. He looks like an ideal candidate. — '''[[User:Nerdfighter|<font color=#088A08>nerd</font color=#088A08>]][[User_Talk:Nerdfighter|<font color=#0489B1>fighter</font color=#0489B1>]]'''<sup><small>(
'''Support'''  After cogitating over oppose argueents, I choose to support Bart's request.  If he is too [[WP:Bold|bold]], he may find a prominent spot in the [[WP:STOCKS|Village stocks]].  A strength of Wikipedia is that even an overambitious and under-tested change to a template used throughout the encyclopedia can be reverted.  I trust that he would not intentionally harm WP and judge that he is likely to be a significant help.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools--
'''Support''' rogerd, above, has said exactly what I was going to say. The reasons given below for opposing this candidacy are entirely unconvincing. —
'''net positive'''

'''Support'''. I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments that turning on the sysop bit here would result in harm or even danger to the project as a result of some supposed recklessness on the part of the nominee. I also don't see the sporadic editing history as a problem either; there is no requirement for adminship to be a full time job, and no requirements for candidates to have worked on Wikipedia full time either. ~
'''Oppose''' The nomination statement reads like a load of baloney. There is no clue yet as to exactly what this candidate seeks to do with a trust-based, lifetime position and a whole lot more detailed scrutiny on their policy knowledge will be needed to convince me to change this !vote.
'''Oppose''' - ''Baloney'' describes it very well. Besides, 9,000 edits since 2005 is not much, 10% of it on his own user page, only 43 % in article space. Besides, slipshod editing, and then going through the apologizing routine. An admin (claiming 8 years experience) should be a little more careful.
'''Oppose''' - Per Above, extremely underwhelming nomination statement, poor editing statistics.
'''Oppose''' Immaturity and jumbled prose. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''', I'm sorry to say. While we need a certain number of admins with the expertise to work on the interface, they also need to recognize that, first, the interface is still subject to community consensus same as everything else; and second, changes that affect hundreds or thousands of pages require a considerably greater amount of discussion and care than those that do not. [[Template talk:Str sub#Use new lua invoke command to greatly reduce the size/complexity of this template|This exchange from earlier today]] shows a somewhat casual attitude, and [[Template talk:User-multi#Displaying a different username|this earlier one]], somewhat similarly, proposes a complex change to a massively used template for a relatively trivial purpose. This user, in short, makes me nervous. I'd feel better if there were a nomination from one of our current admins who frequently edit complex templates and interface pages.
'''Regretfully Oppose''' as per Chick Bowen. I would expect a candidate for the mop, with the main intention of affecting such technical nature and far-reaching consequences, to be much more careful with his edits (or in this case, his attempted edits). It is a shame, as I feel we need more technical editors, and more [[WP:WikiGnome|WikiGnomes]], and in the future I hope Banaticus applies when he is a little less bold on such fundamental pages (although [[WP:BOLD]] does have a time and place). ''
'''Oppose''' Per Chick Bowen. I don't feel as if I can trust the candidate with the tools. '''
'''Oppose'''. I want admins with clarity and reserve. I'm not seeing clarity. The Q1/Q3 answers suggest the candidate doesn't know what's important to say here. I'm not seeing reserve. Q5 has an incident where a good faith edit was tagged as vandalism. I'm pleased to see lots of AIV reports, but I haven't scanned them. Banaticus isn't seeking the bit to fight vandals but rather scripting. The tone for Q7/citation templates isn't reassuring. I can read the comments a couple ways. I'm happy with neither. Stradivarius's neutral is a good summary. I commend the candidates response, but I'm more cautious. I'm worried that fixes will break other things.
Reply to Chick Bowen. -
'''Oppose'''. I think from a personal perspective, Bart is a great person to have around. That said, I wish he was actually around a bit more. The sporadic editing is disconcerting for me. I'm also in agreement with Chick. I would rather see a consistent editing history before taking the bit and running with it. At this point, I don't feel confident that he is ready to take on the role of admin. Respectfully, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' - Like Soap said, you're clearly a nice guy. What's shaking me up a little is that you identify as an Eventualist. I'd rather see admins react swiftly to more than simply spam or nonsense. Also, five and a half thousand edits is a little too low in edit count for someone who has been around since 2005, and like the other opposers your sporadic editing raises a serious question. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Oppose''', per Chick Bowen, above.
Per all above.
'''Oppose'''  discussing that new editors are missing but reverting (good/AGF) edits is a bad idea. (so per Q5) <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Oppose''' I can't agree with NETPOS or "won't break the wiki" supports when the user is talking about getting involved restructuring one of our most important templates. I have no problem with the sporadic editing, mine has been similar, and the fact that you return after each busy spell shows dedication to the project '''
'''Oppose''': Nothing against the candidate, but with heavily used templates, it would be better to keep the business of doing the coding separate from that of deciding when a change is well enough tested to go live. Opposing on the issues raised by Boing! said Zebedeee (Neutral 7) and Kurtis (Neutral 8). --
'''Weak Oppose''': First off, I don't think administrators should wait to take necessary action (you mentioned you were an Eventualist), and I don't see a whole ton of activity in AfD or [[WP:UAA]], which are key areas I look for in potential admins. Don't get me wrong, you are a great editor, but I don't see you necessarily being a great admin.
'''Oppose''' The sporadic editing does not bother me. People have real lives and since Wikipedia is project, largely based on writing, when inspiration or you take up a focus, then the edits can peak. The quality of the edits is also not unfavourable but I find the care and diplomacy in some of the actions a little to be lacking.
'''Oppose''' I really don't know why the user wants to be a admin, seems like he was advoiding answering the first couple of questions. Also the user has not been consistent with his edits.
'''Very regretful oppose''' per Chick Bowen, but I might be persuaded to change. It's a
'''Oppose''' per above. —
'''Oppose''' per Chick Bowen.  I also don't like the outcome of the candidate's adoption efforts, although that's a relatively minor issue. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Chick Bowen, and per his answers to Q5. The candidate doesn't seem anywhere near careful enough to be safe with admin tools. --
'''Weak oppose'''. Many of the opposes above give me cause for concern, and neutral !votes 7 and 8 especially do so. I also have the usual concerns about a lack of content creation, and the overall professionalism of the nominee in communication. But, overall, it's what neutral !votes 7 and 8 refer to that cause me to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' Per {{U|Chick Bowen}}'s rationale. I would hope Banaticus takes aboard these opposing statements as constructive criticism, and that they maintain and improve their editing skills. Re-nominate in a year, and I'm sure they will have changed their ways. —
I'm a bit turned off by the copy/pasted nomination statement from the candidate's userpage, but I'll return when I have time to review his past contributions.
'''Neutral'''. User seems to be OK, but I don't like the attitude in the nomination statement and answers to the questions. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' The nomination statement did not impress me but I don't consider it necessary to ridicule it by calling it baloney.
I just don't think that I can come down solidly either way on this candidacy. On the one hand, Banaticus has undoubtedly made some fantastic contributions here. Looking through your talk page archives over the past year, you generally come across as a nice guy and your intention to do the more gnomish tasks around the project with the mop is commendable. On the other hand, I find myself thinking along the lines of Chick Bowen above me in the oppose section. The general uneasiness about a perceived lack of caution is of concern and relevance. ''But, most importantly, you're a great editor and a fantastic wikignome.'' So, while I cannot support your candidacy at this time, I just can't bring myself to oppose either.
'''Neutral'''. The answer to my question six was pretty good, and was just about what I would have done. I also see good contributions in general, and a couple of quite complex templates that demonstrate their template skill, in particular {{tl|is daylight savings on}}. However, I also see some warning signs, such as the mistaken parameters in the {{tl|edit protected}} template used in the answers to my question,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_album/color&diff=539578738&oldid=537003601][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_album/color&diff=539608831&oldid=539578738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asymmetric_warfare&diff=539582018&oldid=539334808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asymmetric_warfare&diff=539608965&oldid=539582018] the discussions which Chick Bowen mentions, and the recently created template {{tl|About me}} which really should be in userspace rather than template space. These worry me enough to keep me from supporting. — '''''
'''Neutral''' - We need more admins willing to work in "background" technical areas and some of our most valuable admins run bots and tools that most of us use every day. We need technical people to make up for the non-technical people like me. However, that non-technical side of me also makes it hard to understand exactly what it is that the nominee will do with the toolkit. If there's someone willing and able to explain the ''technical'' benefit of adminship in this instance. The nominee hasn't indicated a want to work in any of the areas where I think we could do with more admins. That's perfectly fine; but I suppose I just want to understand the nomination better if that's the case.
'''Neutral/leaning Oppose'''. I'm disturbed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Str_sub#Use_new_lua_invoke_command_to_greatly_reduce_the_size.2Fcomplexity_of_this_template this]. If I understand it correctly, the candidate proposed a change that would have altered the way a template uses parameters, thus breaking potentially thousands of transclusions. Such a change absolutely must be exactly compatible with the existing version, and it's a rookie mistake to break that. Secondly, you shouldn't propose such a change without demonstrating that you have tested it, and that's another rookie mistake. So while I see someone who is clearly technically clever, I also think I see a cavalier attitude to proper software development practice - and people who approach it like that should not be able to make changes without review. The only thing that keeps me from the Oppose section is the "''If I understand it correctly''" clause, above - if anyone can verify/refute my understanding, do please let me know. --
God, I would ''really'' hate to oppose [[User:Banaticus|Banaticus]]. He is obviously a great volunteer, someone with enthusiasm and a willingness to pitch in wherever he can. [[User:Kraxler|Kraxler]]'s opposing points do not concern me in the slightest; 43% of his edits are to article space? That's a very large portion of content contributions, especially considering the good work he did at [[Cleopatra]]'s article. As far as I'm concerned, it has no bearing on how he would perform as an administrator, and the somewhat sporadic editing patterns are offset by the fact that he has generally been active on a consistent basis for the past two years (albeit to varying degrees, but only in a few months out of this period has he been genuinely "inactive" by my personal definition of the term). The reason I am in neutral is because I have to agree with [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] and [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Str_sub#Use_new_lua_invoke_command_to_greatly_reduce_the_size.2Fcomplexity_of_this_template This exchange] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:User-multi&oldid=476571065#Displaying_a_different_username another previous proposal from roughly a year ago] gives me pause and makes me wonder whether or not Banaticus would act unilaterally as an administrator, a concern that was not alleviated in his response to Chick's oppose above. Acting without discussing things beforehand can be very costly, especially with technical features such as templates which are transcluded onto ''thousands'' of pages throughout Wikipedia. I feel as though I would be more comfortable if he gave an explicit guarantee that he would open discussions at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|Village Pump for technical features]] and gathered consensus from other users with experience in scripting before enacting any significant changes. Also, [[User:Wifione|Wifione]] lists some instances in Question 5 where Banaticus should probably have exercised a bit more caution (specifically, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanveer_Ashraf_Kaira&diff=518666399&oldid=518665524 re-adding this paragraph without also including a reference] was a bit hasty, as that content did indeed violate [[WP:BLP|BLP]]); however, we all make mistakes. Banaticus has adequately responded to those concerns, and I think he will make a point to be more meticulous in his work from here on out. With a few more months experience and a better demonstrated adherence to [[WP:CONSENSUS|the principle of consensus]], I can pretty much guarantee a support.
'''Neutral''' per Boing, Chick and Strat. You have some excellent technical skills that are needed and impressive, but you need to work on the cooperative skills.  I understand holding firm on your ideas, but when they affect broad sections of the encyclopedia, you need to be quicker to accept consensus, and be willing to test more on the sidelines.  [[Interdependence]] is something all admin need to understand, particularly in the technical areas of the encyclopedia.  Give it a little time and work on your teamwork skills, and most of the neutrals and opposers will be in the support column next time.
'''Neutral'''.  As others have said, you seem to be very intelligent and a good person; that said, I think you could learn a bit more about being a sysop (based off of your nomination statement). That being said, there's no reason you should not try to become an administrator in a few more months.  '''
Kind of a "moral support". When I saw the percentage support/oppose, I initially figured this was a "snow" situation, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this is actually someone I could support in the future. A likable, well-meaning contributor to the project, who has something helpful to offer in an esoteric (to me) corner of the project. WMF: hire this person part-time. On the other hand, there are opposes and neutrals with which I really cannot disagree, so I cannot support now. As others have noted, Chick Bowen's oppose raises some concerns. On the other hand, it looks to me like the candidate readily accepted that consensus was against him, but we just don't know if administrative actions might set off some unanticipated consequences. --
'''Neutral'''. Absolutely no problems with the candidate's contributions or intentions, but some of the behaviors displayed in this RfA (e.g. the rather strange nomination statement, some unclear answers to Qs, attitude in responses to !voters) leave me unable to support at the present time.
'''Neutral''' more or less in the vein of Tryptofish.  Learning support largely because the the candidate is absolutely, 100% right about the "ball of yuck" that is our cite templates, in a way that affects some of the work I do, and LUA could make a practical difference to the usability of the encyclopedia. --
'''Neutral'''. I am somewhat concerned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanislav_Bini%C4%8Dki&diff=prev&oldid=538999967 this edit] (identified by Wifione) where a good faith contribution has been labelled as "vandalism". While his edits are generally good, there are occasional errors that make me reluctant to grant the tools for such a far-reaching purpose.
'''Neutral'''.  I don't see a benefit to piling on the "oppose" pile, and while they seem like a great person, I don't think they are admin. material at this time.  Several possible suggestions: 1) If you want to impress people with your technical skills, referring to a particular skill-set as "''nitty-gritty mumbo-jumbo''", and "''a gigantic snarled ball of yuck''" might need a bit of copy-editing.  2) In a nomination, your particular time zone isn't really relevant.  3)  Being in IRC and creating userboxes don't often equate to "support" !votes.  4) In question #3, I don't think that {{ec}} is really what you want to address there; 2 entirely different things.  I do appreciate your contributions however, and encourage you to continue. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''', leaning to oppose, for the same reasons as Ched. While "a gigantic snarled ball of yuck" might be an appropriate description for some templates, I find some editors can be quite passionate about them, and if untangling them involves listing them at TfD (and deleting them as an admin), Banaticus might get some unpleasant blowback.
'''Resounding support''' as co nom. Here is someone truly committed to our collective efforts toward building a great encyclopedia. Binksternet comes equipped with plenty of clue and will make us a fine admin. -
Generally clueful, no reason to think he'll abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' When this went live? —
'''Support''' - Per nom. Delighted to be an early supporter. I have seen this editor around and am sure they will use the extra buttons for the good of all.
'''Support''' -- It's clear (s)he'll be very helpful to WP with the mop.
Trust the nominator; it's nice to see a nominee who is upfront about his past and who has turned things around. '''<font color="navy">
-
Support, Good luck
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - experienced user and has great contributions. No concerns at all.
'''Support''' A major content creator. Has done great work. Have worked with him on articles like [[Bomber Mafia]], [[George Kenney]] and [[Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]]. We don't always agree, but he is a pleasure to argue with.
'''Support''' had some help with a matter, and was delt with accordingly thanks to Binksternet. Best,
Very sensible.
'''Support''' - While it is apparent that his passion for WP has resulted in him going a little too far in the past, I also feel like he has moved beyond those problems and would use the mop wisely in the future. --<span style="outline:1px dotted #d1bfa4;"><font color="#ffffff">&#124;</font>
'''Support''' per NuclearWarfare.--<font face="bold">
'''Support''' A valuable Wikipedian with a strong orientation toward content creation. I have often encountered them at AfD and other places, and have found them to be helpful and clueful; in fact I assumed they were already an admin. I'm surprised to see so many blocks in their past, but I note that all of them seem to arise from excessive passion over content; I don't see any blocks for personal attacks which would concern me more.  --
'''Support''' Mine is not a reluctant or tentative support, but for the record, just wanted to provide some basic questions to the candidate (above) to help alleviate any fears or suspicions and as a sort of series of reminders. Fully satisfied that candidate is smart enough not to abuse the tools or the position.--
'''Support''' I came across Binksternet some time back when working on [[Madonna (entertainer)]] and there's no doubt he shows passion, commitment and determination. The answers to the questions show he understands basic policy and how to defuse tricky situations. While I appreciate where the "oppose" !voters are coming from, my take on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet/Archive20#Final_Warning:_Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney this situation] is that he straightaway put his hands up and said "Yup, I was wrong". That's a good test of character.
'''Support'''. A good editor who I believe will use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''. I have had interactions with him on several articles. I found him to be knowledgeable and I had no problems working with him; I would agree, as one states above, he has "passion, commitment and determination".
'''Support'''. I seem to run across Binksternet rather often. I have seen him reverting vandalism and POV-pushing, ferreting out sockpuppets, engaging in talk-page discussions, creating new content, contributing to [[WP:DYK|DYK]], removing citations to non-[[WP:RS|RS]] sources, and communicating with users he's intersected with. In my judgement, he understands WP policy and guidelines, shows good judgment, and is thoughtful in his user communications (one example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salim_Dekkiche&oldid=539846571]). He's also consistently productive (where does he find the time?), which is an asset in a sysop. I believe his record over the last year indicates that he has internalized Wikipedia's rules of engagement and will not  repeat the behaviors that led to blocking in the past. I perceive that his work on articles about political topics is motivated by a desire to build and maintain a quality encyclopedia, and he is generally effective in doing so. Not all of us have his courage and fortitude to wade into controversial topics about which many people are passionate -- and about which most of his have opinions that we can't always disguise. IMO, the criticisms of his recent work that have been raised in the "Oppose" column should be chalked up to the logic that (1) these articles are minefields and (2) if you walk through minefields often enough, sooner or later a mine will explode in your face. People who are brave enough to walk through minefields should not be punished for making an occasional misstep. I believe he can be trusted with the broom and the mop -- and I predict that he will shoulder a good chunk of the admin workload. --
'''Suppprt''' I've worked with Binksternet on a number of articles, and think that they would make a good admin. The responses to the questions above are excellent and indicate a good understanding of the norms which apply to how the admin tools should be used.
'''Need more writers and less patrollers'''.  I don't agree with him on some things (seems to endorse the ban the not of the body school of Wiki).  That said, the guy is flipping smart and a polymath.  And we have recently elected some rather weak lumpkins.
'''Support''' I think this editor knows Wikipedia and himself well enough to stay clear of using admin powers in any situation where he is involved or strongly opinionated, which is the main concern when a valuable editor with strong opinions comes before RfA. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Every experience I've had with this user has been great and memorable.  As others have already mentioned, Binksternet has a reputation for being experienced, knowledgeable, thoughtful, fair, balanced and productive.  This is everything one could want in an admin and more.  Judging by the quality of the opposes, I would say Binksternet is a good choice for moving Wikipedia forward.
'''Support''', though it unfortunately looks like this RfA will struggle to get up. I've seen him around a lot, always been pretty impressed by his comments and I actually assumed he was an admin. I was surprised by his block log, but it seems to me like he's learned a lot from it and I highly doubt he will ever get in position of being blocked again, whether this RfA is successful or not. Looking up through some of the supports as I type, I think I'm basically trying to say what Orlady did, though I'm obviously not doing as eloquent or thorough a job of it.
'''Support'''. I have interacted with Binks in the past. And there have been times we have disagreed, leaving me frustrated. But when I went back to review the conversation, I came to the conclusion that I'm just a lunkhead at times. Even in the disagreements, there will always be something to learn. I don't have to agree with everything Binks says or does, but I believe s/he is an asset to the community. S/he is a strong supporter of ensuring neutrality. When articles are in trouble or there is a dispute, s/he often jumps in and does a copyedit and cleanup. S/he also spends time sourcing articles to help a troubled article. If something is broken, s/he [[WP:SOFIXIT|fixes it]]. I think s/he should be commended for the reform shown over the past what was it? 16 months? I have no concerns that would lead me to opposing at this time. I believe the tools would be used to benefit the project. Thanks for tossing your hat in the ring. Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' [[WP:NETPOS|Net positive]]. I've seen the candidate around, and have liked what I've seen. I don't expect perfection in an admin, and think he has matured enough to be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' Demonstrating a temperament that is incompatible with being an administrator and then changing his ways and spending sixteen months showing it is a Very Good Thing. It shows self-control (unlikely to misuse the tools) and makes him particularly well-suited for understanding and dealing with editors who are doing now what he did then. --
'''Strong Support'''  It would be good to see more of this sort of editor wearing the Admin badge.  We need people like Binksternet right now as Wikipedia faces the problems of having an increasing number of editors who have had enough of what they see as a disconnect between the workers and the bosses that wield the power around here.  It happens to every corporation as it grows, and it has happened here.   Binksternet is a passionate man who is willing to stand for what he believes and he is willing to fight for it.  He is honest and sincere.  But most importantly to me as I consider his "promotion" is the fact that he would not lose sight of the frustrations of what I call the worker bees, people like me.  I'd also like to add that as a woman myself, I have found Binksternet to be a strong supporter of fairness in editing articles that deal with woman's issues and concerns.
'''Support''' I think that Binksternet will be a fine admin, he has been in the thick of it and knows right from wrong. He is mature enough to know what is expected of him in the new role and will soon find his niche.
'''Support''' A fine Wikipedian who for a long time now has demonstrated the smarts, skills and resilience we need in admins. Condescending slurs in the ''oppose'' section, e.g. about "temperament" and "personality", only serve to strengthen my support, per Binks's answers to the questions and also per Guy Macon, Viriditas, Orlady, MONGO, Sarek,  Nomoskedasticy, Jusdafax et al.
Late but strong support by the nominator, who would have been first if she hadn't been out sick!
'''Support''' Binksternet is a good user, with powers to err (like all human), but a good user.
'''Support''' I'm not worried about your block log. Last block 16 months ago. Some people just don't understand that a block isn't the end of the word -- everyone makes mistakes. Albeit you repeatedly made the same mistake, but you have shown in the past year+ that you have learned. I feel that as an administrator you would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] to the project. As an admin I would think that you would be more careful not to violate 3RR and/or cause an civility concerns; and if you did you would face appropriate consequences anyway. You seem to be experienced, and if you can keep your combat-like attitude (which is okay to have!) in check while acting as an administrator I think you'll be fine.
'''Support''' per NW.
'''Strong support''' The are quite a few things to admire about the candidate's 93,000+ contributions. Binksternet has earned his stripes in some of the most contentious topic areas and is familiar with the problems that editors face. He knows the ins and outs of this place, is wise enough to avoid past mistakes, honest enough to admit new ones, and will be invaluable as an administrator. --
'''Support''' - per my support for recent RFAs of editors who I could see had learned their lesson. There are editors I respect on both sides of this, but in the spirit of [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]... we're content creators looking for functional ''administrators'', not Cardinals electing a Pope. I can't see anything recent that suggests he'll break the project and if it turns out we're wrong, de-sysop him FFS. People have seemed especially keen for that of late and I'd suggest all admins (old and new) are on a short leash at the moment. Might as well let another poor mutt volunteer himself.
'''Support'''. The fact that his record is not squeaky-clean just means that he was actually involved in content creation, instead of just gnoming around in admin areas.
'''Strong Support''' I have bumped into Binksternet many times while working on some of the most contentious articles on wikipedia (some of our interactions [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/editorinteract.cgi?user1=IRWolfie-&user2=Binksternet&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10=&ns=none&startdate=&enddate=]). He has consistently made good decisions in the toughest articles, and has exhibited patience all the times I have interacted with him.
'''Support''' Willing to face those against the march of time, we should strive to have those on the right side of history!
'''Support''' with long rationale coming early tomorrow.
'''Support'''  he is solid, thoughtful and enthusiastic about Wikipedia. He has a broad range of interests and is deeply interested in improving the substance of articles.
Moral '''support''' as this is currently running at about 60%. I normally only vote in borderline cases but this is an exception. The opposes are serious and well made, but my own view is that over a year with a clean block log and a good record of constructive contributions is sufficient. Moreover I'd like to demonstrate that the WP community really can let bygones be bygones and that people's early mistakes can be recovered from. However I may be too much of a softy and some folks need a bit longerbefore they'll agree that the change is permanent - so my advice to Binksternet is to take those opposes at face value, keep up the good work and reapply at the end of this calendar year when your two-year probation is up.

'''Support''' I find Orlady's responses to the oppose !votes persuasive. --
'''Support''' If you seek perfection, you're in the wrong place. If you weigh the positives against the negatives, this candidate's positives outweigh the negatives.
'''Support''' Initially, I thought I would oppose Binksternet because of the past history of blocks, but he appears to be acceptably civil and cooperative even when things get heated.  His problem has simply been hitting revert a few too many times, which should and has been simple enough to get over.  Otherwise, he has all the qualities needed.--
'''Support''' - I have had a large amount of interaction with Binksternet, and always found them to be cooperative and civil.  I trust Binksternet to have the ability to turn-off their argumentative side when doing Admin work; and it back on when trying to persuade irrational editors to change their ways.  We all have the ability to change our demeanor as the situation demands (boss, parent, child, co-worker, employee, etc).  --
'''Support''' I'm fine with the candidate's answers to the questions, and am unmoved by the oppose !votes. <b>
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. I understand some of the concerns below, but it's still better than not to let Binksternet to have the tools.
'''Support''' For mine, the thorough involvement of content creation trumps the loss of temper resulting in a block, which was nearly 18 months ago now. Bettern than even chance of being net positive
'''Support''' (was weak/moral support) I was initially leaning oppose, and some of the opposes have points. Especially the concerns brought up by Stfg. That said, I also see the value of having admins that do not have perfectly pristine history.  The answers to the questions seem good. My random spot of talk / contributions seems reasonable.
'''Support''' I like his style but can objectively appreciate the concerns. However, I trust him to exercise due caution with the tools - and this is a candidate who demonstrably 'needs' them. His impressive hard work and obvious effort at self-improvement benefits the wiki and if this RfA goesn't go through, I hope Binksternet will be back here, when his past has receded further.
I like the answers to the questions, the candidate clearly has the right ideas.
'''Strong Support''' I have met this editor on several occasions, and have found him to be a solid contributor, and willing to be persuaded on controversial issues. Opposes relating to his block history seem to me to have no relevance; the last block was sixteen months ago, and I believe that it is possible to learn from experince; I further believe he has done so. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  I am mindful of many of the concerns raised in the oppose section, in particular those concerned with edit warring.  I also see that the most egregious examples that I've seen are well in the past, as Anthony Bradbury notes.  I'd ask the editor to studiously honor (and perhaps leave a margin of safety around) WP:INVOLVED when taking administrative action should this RfA pass, but in the end, it comes down to the fact that I trust this editor to honor that.  --
'''Support'''. There ought to be far more admin candidates with decent block logs (although I consider only six blocks in six years to be a little on the marginal side personally, I'd prefer to see a bit more evidence of feistiness) so they have some idea of how humiliating being blocked can be and be a little more cautious when deciding to block on the basis of an editor using a word such as "sycophantic".
'''Support'''. Although i too have seen issues with Binks edits i think his positives outweigh his negatives and consider him competent. Its time to give this mothrfucker some tools.
'''Support'''. Per Malleus, plus only those who have been on both sides of an issue truly understand it.
'''Support'''. In the past Binksternet employed a rather vigorous editing style, but has since mellowed, showing a marked improvement over the past year. As a veteran content creator, he would bring a wealth of experience and clue to the admin ranks.
'''Support''', thoughtful editor that I think has matured a lot in recent history.
'''Support''' Knowledgeable about policy and procedures.  Also impressed by the degree of support from many administrators
'''Support''' -- Civility is of extreme importance on WP and editors and especially administrators need to realize that not everyone has the same "thick skin" as others.  But of even more importance is contribution to the development of the encyclopedia and, once someone has proved that they can achieve this main purpose, having the tools to make the encyclopedia better is important.  I hope that Binksternet recognizes that with the new position comes a renewed obligation to be courteous, welcoming, and step back from heated discussions when impartiality is difficult, but on the whole, the mop will improve the encyclopedia and look forward to editing with Binksternet in the future, regardless of the success of the AfD.  --
'''Support''' - Would have earlier had I known. A much improved demeanor but still  has his conviction of expressing his mind. Capped (with good intentions) canvassing wrangle is troubling. Does that mean opposition voting is tainted? From the looks of it, this may be a close "vote". Will the clerk take possible canvassing into consideration? ```
'''Support''' per Malleus; admins do not have to be perfect, and in a small effort to partially counteract the knuckledraggingly fatuous oppose vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet&diff=prev&oldid=544847621 here]. If you don't pass this time, please let me know the next time you try. --
'''Support'''  I've edited with Bink over several articles and we're usually always on the opposite side. He's always fair and reasonable. Like here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amelia_Earhart/Archive_13#suggested_TIGHAR_edit]. Also, I think he did a fine job explaining his block log. It shows he's worked hard to improve. Luck! Bink.
'''Support'''. Binksternet is a great contributor and I have faith in their judgment, in part because they know content. I'm sure they'll keep their their nose clean. Also, cool name.
'''Support''' Hard worker, valuable editor - per SV, Malleus, Pumpkin Sky, Casliber, and lots of others...
'''Support'''. Despite the lengthy block log, sometimes a passionate, tempestuous admin is just what the project needs. --
'''Support'''. I've been undecided on this for a while, because of the edit-warring and passionate editing that people have been talking about. But understanding how strongly content creators can feel about their work is a good thing, providing an admin knows where to draw the line when it comes to topics they are personally involved in - and I trust Binksternet to know where that line is and not to use admin tools when inappropriate. --
'''Support''' Binksternet is a long-term editor, avid participant, and a benefit to the project.  Being direct and matter-of-fact is not a detriment.  Disagreement or even criticism of one's work is not the same thing as harrassment or a personal attack, despite what the oversensitive may assert or feel.  And such disagreements on content do not mean the candidate would misuse administrative tools.
'''Weak Support:''' Despite the lengthy block log, the candidate is a net positive. -
'''Support'''. Six blocks? Ouch! Recent contributions have been good though.
'''Weak Support''' Malleus makes a valid point that being on the blunt end of a block makes one more cautious <small>(the somewhat relentless banging on about the sycophantic thing is getting a bit wearisome however)</small>. There seem to be some pretty well put concerns in oppose, so this is borderline for me. However the content commitment and tenure are persuasive as well. To be honest, and petty though it may seem, Keifer's [[WP:POINTY|pointy]] and pathetic oppose <small>(and this is the corerect use of WP:POINT, for once)</small> tipped me into support over neutral. The candidate does not deserve such disruption, and Keifer's, well to be honest attention seeking, reflects poorly on him and should not do so on Binksternet. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
There are some significant and well-stated concerns raised in the "Oppose" section. Per Scray's oppose, I'd definitely be more comfortable if Binksternet had fewer blocks, or had shown a greater ability to stay calm in tense editing situations. But in the end, I'll support this request, if only in the moral sense, because I think it's become almost impossible for people who edit in controversial areas to pass RfA. We end up with a lot of admins who know how to close XfDs but have no idea what it's like to deal with substantive editing disputes or challenges. I'm actually more comfortable supporting someone whom I've seen in action in the trenches, even if it hasn't always been pretty, than I am supporting the usual array of bland ciphers who pass through RfA. At the very least, I feel compelled to support to cancel out the handful of petty and unfair opposes (while recognizing that most of the opposes are substantive). '''
I've only been involved in a couple discussions where the candidate has also been engaged, but I only recall his being basically level headed and fact oriented. If the editor wants the tools and has even more time to burn, I say the crew could probably use some reinforcements. I've likely encountered admins that are less fact oriented, even when dealing with behavioral issues. When you edit articles related to controversial topics, it's better to be up front, as that helps people iron out differences and produce content that is balanced, or at least not biased against the current state of the truth.--
'''Support''' Having voted early and watched this play out, I've been swayed by the candidate's handling of Q&A, and some of the well-considered supports from editors whom I deeply respect.  I have also had time to look more thoroughly at the candidates contributions, and the balance of content-vs-drama.  As a meager contributor, I am humbled by the candidate's contributions, realize that high-volume editing in contentious areas has risks, and now believe that the candidate is maturing.  I also think that the candidate will benefit from this RFA, and hope that it will actually be successful - I think they'll use the tools to the project's benefit, and restrain the bit when they are in contention.  --
'''Support'''. Curious about Pedro's next action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per
'''Support''' An experienced, hard-working and policy oriented editor (and a grandfather, I believe) who has done a lot of good work around here for a long time. Editing on high conflict topics means inevitably that an editor is going to come into conflict with others: it is too bad to see among those opposing so many he has disagreed with over content. A good administrator knows that you cannot use the tools when you are involved in a dispute, and I certainly trust Binkernet to do that.
'''Support''' Another of the "I thought he already was" candidates - the best sort. ''
'''Strong Oppose''' Recalling my experience with this editor at the article on [[BP]] leaves me very discouraged. In that article, the editor made a point of repeatedly edit-warring with multiple editors to keep in negative coatrack material about a living person, unduly insinuating this corporate executive was solely responsible for that company's environmental troubles. Here are the reverts in question: ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&diff=511219607&oldid=511102060] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&diff=511481677&oldid=511470223] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&diff=511484400&oldid=511482535] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&diff=511746226&oldid=511745816]). Those edit also included efforts to undermine the company's pro-environmental activities on other fronts such as climate change, which had already been edit-warred over a bit earlier ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&diff=511089948&oldid=510789744] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&diff=511092644&oldid=511090488]).--
'''Oppose''' far less than courteous when I was being attacked over the Nixon TFA and this editor, shall we just say, was less than polite. We have enough trouble with rude admins, see no need to add to the club. Recent incident, January 2013, not disclosed under question 3.--
'''Oppose''' We actually have a good view into his/her mindset [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input|at the recent Tea Party article conflict]] where, in three separate instances, s/he called for topic bans on editors: two of which he then never supported with diffs on the issue (and never explained why) and once (in my case) calling for my topic ban for the bad faith accusation that I was acting "as a heavy" for many of the users in the conflict, even though my contributions were basically part of a discussion at the talk page (also known as "how we solve conflicts at Wikipedia").  Oh, and s/he proposed my topic ban without bothering to notify me about the discussion one way or the other, leaving it to Killerchihuahua to do so.  We all make mistakes, for sure, but especially given how recent this is, the complete lack of correction of the errors made, and the fact that he now wants a bit and could act on those misinformed and misguided beliefs about his/her fellow editors?  I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Ill-suited by both acts and temperament to be an admin. His accusations against ''many'' editors show a battleground personality, his statements above that it is always ''the other guy'' who was at fault when he got blocked shows an interesting Weltanschauung about Wikipedia, <small>'' but Kurdo777 and his sympathetic editors refused mediation and continued to edit war to remove cited text they did not like''</small>.   His proposal to "ban them all" without providing a ''scintilla'' of what is known as "evidence" on the Tea Party shows a remarkable desire to cause drama and not to properly reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines ab initio. He even proposed deleting a WikiProject on his own political grounds [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism]] which does not make me think he is remotely qualified to be an admin. <small>''WikiProject Conservatism is at its root undesirable because its scope is undefinable''</small>
'''Oppose'''.  The editor's block log, in combination with behavior noted above and elsewhere, leads me to think the editor does not have the temperament to be an uncontroversial administrator here.   This editor is clearly talented and a positive contributor here, but I think there are other better ways for him to contribute to Wikipedia than as being an administrator.
'''Oppose because of conflict of roles'''. Even assuming all the above can be countered (which I haven't sufficiently investigated), he says "'' I purposely step into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki.''" Protecting the wiki, for example from POV editing, is a noble cause, but you don't let a serving field officer be a judge at a war crimes tribunal. Binksternet will be less shackled in his attempts at countering POV if he remains ''not'' an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. Per concerns demonstrated above.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry. You seem like a (sometimes very) good editor, but you have a number of flaws, some of which are very unbecoming in a RFA candidate, and I cannot support for that reason. I suggest you continue to remain 'clean' and come back in 6-12 months, when I am sure I will be proud to lend my support.
'''Oppose'''. Binksternet, you are unquestionably a fine editor, and your contributions to the project are of great value. I admire your resolve to "''purposely step into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki''", I really do, and you appear to be a courageous editor here - the likes of which are sometimes in short supply. However, your passion for the project has occasionally spilled over, as has been noted above, and I am not convinced that an administrator role would play to your evident strengths.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry you seem like a good editor, but due to you're conflict and blocking history I don't think it's appopriate for you to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Per the concerns raised by TP above. Stfg also makes good points.
'''Oppose''' - Excessive blocks for edit warring. A year might be enough clean time for someone with an incident or two on the log, but I'd be looking for more like three to five years after that history.
'''Oppose'''. At first glance I was willing to forgive the previous edit warring blocks. I don't feel like someone's past should be held against them if they genuinely have changed. However, after reading through these preceding opposition arguments, I don't feel comfortable with Binksternet as a admin. In particular, I feel that even though he has gone a while without being blocked, he still seems to edit in a confrontational manner, even in his responses to those opposing his RFA. He may be a useful content editor, but I do not feel as though that his skills there would translate to an administrative role.
'''Oppose''' - after taking a look the user's conflict and blocking history, I don't think it would be appropriate for him to become an administrator at this time. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Oppose''' - Binksternet says ''"The complete lack of blocks in 2012 demonstrates the success of the effort."'' Well, there were no blocks in 2009, and then four in 2010. Ergo; no blocks in 2012 might be followed by several blocks in 2013...
'''Weak oppose''' - I was ready to oppose rather strongly until I read what Dennis said below. I then almost ended in the neutral column, but six blocks total one of which within the past two years and the concerns over temperament raised by TP are too much for me. Another year of block free, civil editing and I might be inclined to support, but for now, [[User:Go Phightins!/Admin criteria|my criteria]] are not met.
'''Oppose''' I've checked the first block from December 2008 and would come to a different summary than this candidate. But what really startles me are the edits on [[Maafa 21]], where his most recent block comes from and where it's obvious he dislikes the documentary and tried to make the documentary look bad in the lead section.--
I still have concerns about the history of edit-warring and POV-pushing. That he has learned where the lines are well enough to avoid being blocked doesn't mean he has the temperament I'd like to see in an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Binksternet is a good content creator as proved by a number of created/edited articles. However, adminship is not a promotion one may expect to get as a good editor—not all good content creators are good admins and ''vice versa'' as these roles require sometime quite different qualities. Some support votes mention Binksternet's passion—I would say that an admin should stay calm and control his/her passion which seems not to be a case here. Reading Binksternet's answer to the Q3 I wondered that beside of the detailed description of his/her past blocks s/he failed to mention any recent edit conflict. However, looking for the votes in this section, there seems to be several. The [[BP]] article and its talk page may be one example where this editor was involved in deep conflict in last December or just three months ago. S/he made also harsh comments about fellow editors (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABP&diff=513425352&oldid=513419297], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABP&diff=527715133&oldid=527664575]) but unlikely the case provided by Ritchie333, there was never apology although asked by another editor ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABP&diff=527835072&oldid=527818921]). I am sure that Binksternet knows policies but I am concerned how s/he will implement these policies. I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABP&diff=527977520&oldid=527977408 this comment] about copyright issues not encouraging to support nomination for adminship as this is quite fundamental issue for Wikipedia (it was previously described at the talk page in details why the text re-added by Binksternet violates [[WP:CV]] (copy-pasted direct quote without reference camouflaged by existing reference in the text which was not about the re-added text) but nevertheless this was ignored). I think that Binksternet has a potential to become a good admin and I will be happy to support him/her if s/he will re-apply next year and there are no similar behavioural problems but right now this is not the case.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Binksternet. I know even if I'm not oftentimes or really worked with you, I know you're a good editor. However, due to concerns raised and demonstrated, I should oppose this nomination.
'''Oppose''' with regret. Here, we have a good article contributor, with an impeccable contribution history. However, as has been continuously pointed out - the edit warring incidents which have culminated in multiple blocks, can't be ignored. 6 to 12 months of absolutely clean and positive editing will win my (and I'm sure others too, because your article contribution is perfect) support. But just not now. Whatever happens, Good Luck! —
'''Oppose''' Six blocks total one of which within the past two years with temperament issues concerns me here, although I am satisfied with your content work.
'''Oppose'''. I actually had no opinion before this RfA, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet&diff=543977533&oldid=543976231 challenging a neutral comment in this manner] only serves to emphasize the concerns raised here about battleground behavior. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' Mostly per Collect <s>and TParis</s>.  Too much edit warring and POV issues.
'''Oppose''' Agree with TParis and Collect.
'''Oppose''' Per TParis and Collect as well as my own experience with the editor on numerous venues. Perhaps after some time demonstrating more restraint I could support the nomination.--
'''Oppose''': Your history of edit warring is a bit concerning for me. If you go one more year edit-war free, I will consider supporting.
No, edit warring is a pet hate of mine. If you can't discuss your disagreements with others without resorting to reverting their edits, I worry what would happen if you had the mop and bucket. Sorry. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose.''' Who would want an administrator who would write something as snarky as "Fool yourself if you must, but the books include high quality scholarly texts from Cengage Learning, Macmillan and Princeton. Credible sources are all I've listed... there are no unbelievable or unlikely ones. A good effort, though, on your part, to undermine this extensive list. Better luck next time."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABP&diff=513425352&oldid=513419297]
Allow me to preface this by saying that you have made some tremendous contributions to this project (including the "[[We Can Do It!]]" article), but your not-so-distant history of edit-warring and temperament issues, including those brought up by GeorgeLouis and Beagel above me, is just too much to overlook at this point in time (Beagel's diffs were from under a year ago). I'd prefer at least another year of improving the way you deal with difficult situations. Also, I think it's terrific that we have editors "purposely step[ping] into many troublesome situations to help protect or improve the wiki." But it's important that editors who do so are exceptionally level-headed and impartial. I'm afraid these concerns don't reflect that. Work on your temperament and dispute resolution skills over the next year or so, and I'd certainly support a future RFA. Best wishes and good luck.
Still too soon since the issues. --'''
'''Oppose''' We don't need edit-warring admins. My experience with this user did not instill an admin-level of competence one little bit. Having to explain that [[WP:LEAD]] on his preferred change did not trump the [[WP:CONSENSUS]] policy was just sad.
'''Weak Oppose''', subjeft of the RfA has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and outside of the realm of politics is an outstanding editor. As someone whose hands aren't clean, even when my intentions were IMHO the highest (which I believe that many editors who end up in those situations are), I can understand how the subject of the RfA ended up with the blemishes on their block log. It takes good editors with those good intentions to work through politically controversial subjects in order to achieve neutrality (if it is ever possible, and depending on what one's view of neutrality is). Unfortunately, it are those times that bring out the best and the worst in the name of good intentions. This has lead me to weakly oppose this RfA. It's not that the subject of this RfA is a bad person, and I believe that he/she is a great contributor of content, however as an Administrator keeping yourself above the fray is sometimes the most important aspect of the position. The way I see it those who work hard and get dirty, it is difficult to keep clean under the microscope that one subjects themselves to when they seek public office. Keep up the good work, but the high offices are not ready for Binksternet yet. Take the remarks above, see them as constructive criticism, and if Binksternet wishes to seek public office again, take sometime, stay out of those difficult areas, build a reputation for being neutral, and some time later, try again.--
'''Oppose (for now)''' Much has been said about the candidate's temperament, and unfortunately I have to agree.  In this RfA Bink claims to have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Binksternet&diff=544442118&oldid=544435696 thick skin], but less than a month ago he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=539328636&oldid=539328197 accused another editor] of making the mother of all personal attacks by '''referring to Bink and editor Roscelese  using the abbreviation "R&B"'''.   This is clearly the polar opposite of having a thick skin.   While I have minor concerns about Bink's interpretation of some wikipedia norms (see my vandalism question above) I feel he is uncomfortable or unwilling in owning up to possible mistakes which is (to me) the hallmark of an excellent admin.  Given the feedback he has received here,  6-12 months might show a dramatic improvement and if demonstrated I would support measuring him for a mop.&nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I originally voted neutral here, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBinksternet&diff=543977615&oldid=543976231 this edit] made me reevaluate you as badgering is not the way to go about life.
'''Oppose''' I found my way here from Viriditas, who made a comment on my talk page a few days back. I am also in wikiproject conservatism although i have never even read the newsletters they post on my talk and only went to the site for the 1st time today. i am offended you attempted to delete the page, which i didnt know until coming here. i am also offended Viriditas is able to continue to suggest several members of this project have been canvased, and most offended you have done nothing to silence your supporters accusations. none of the above affected my decision. back in the day, i remember people dreading the responsibility of admin and only reluctantly accepting. you appear far too eager and address concerns not with a "you're right, i was a bit out of line", rather you continue to argue why you were actually right, in your opinion.
'''Oppose''' While I applaud the content contributions Binksternet has made, my experiences with him have uniformly negative. Aside from this, the concerns added above merely confirm my view that, based on his behavior and attitude towards those he disagrees with, he cannot be an impartial administrator at this point. I do not share concerns about edit warring insofar as it relates to blocks, however - the user hasn't been blocked in well over a year and I can [[WP:AGF|assume in good faith]] that he won't be blocked in the future for it. '''
'''Oppose''' per the [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] mentality referred to above. I experienced this myself just last September.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=510339536]
'''I'll consider it in a year''' - No matter what the guide for RfAs says, I see too many blocks to let it go so easily. In another year, if you show strong signs of reformation, I'll be willing to consider it, but now I have serous doubts. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Oppose''' I am impressed with this editor's large amount of editing, but I am concerned about his (as I see it) expressed disdain for [[WP:BRD]].  I am still puzzling over his suggestion to me that BRD could reasonably be BRRRRRR etc. It just struck me as 'off' and an unfortunate path toward edit warring. Sorry, lord knows I'm not perfect, I'm not hoping for perfect admins but I feel that this editor isn't ready yet.
'''Oppose'''. Many users pointed out that this user has arguments with many other users in talk pages. I looked over some of the contentious conversations in which Binksternet participated and I find this user to be direct but polite. However, I do not see this user doing something that I would expect an admin to do in a debate, and that is summarize the issue and call an uninvolved third party in to close the talk. A user even complained above that Binksternet called for a topic ban but then did not follow up with evidence; I think it would have been better not to call for anyone's ban at all. I would support Binksternet's adminship in the future but am opposing for now because if this user became admin then this user would have to exhibit new behavior in debates. Frankly, I want this user to keep having debates rather than closing them with administrative action, because I find this person's points more clear than others, but if this user wants to step out of debating and into administrative stuff then I would support in the next RfA.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Per significant concerns mentioned above. —
'''Oppose''' - Seems a bit too hot-headed for me, and the edit warring concerns me.  If the user goes another year or two with a clean record, I may reconsider.
'''Oppose''' - Battleground mentality, especially in regards to political areas.
'''Oppose''' - Too combative. POV-pushing and history of behavior that I would rather not see in an admin. I would like to see admins who are more prone to resolving conflicts than starting them.--
'''Oppose'''. Agree with the users above. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good editor, but I feel there are too many concerns raised to support. '''''<span style="text:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|<font color="dark blue">Automatic</font>]]
'''Moral support''' You look to be a prolific and valuable editor, so I hope you won't be discouraged by the oppose votes, whatever the outcome. But some of them have raised some good points about temperament. A "dirty" block log shouldn't [[Wikipedia:Mark of Cain|permanently disqualify]] you or anything, but recent edit warring suggests you haven't left those habits behind. Keep clean and I'll hope to give you full support next time. --
'''Neutral'''.  I like Binksternet, particularly when I'm on the other side of the debate, as it is always a sincere and lively exchange of ideas, but I'm concerned about temperament a bit.  From what I've seen, he serves an important role here, vigorously advocating his position on a variety of issues, but that vigor isn't always compatible with adminship.  Unquestionably a good editor and a tremendous asset to the project, and his sometimes rough edges often bring a smile to my face, but I'm just not convinced this is the right time or the right move.  However, I can't and won't oppose because I know he has the project's best interest at heart and I don't think he would never intentionally abuse the tools.
'''Neutral'''. I am impressed by the candidate's body of work, less so by the block log, and thus am neutral. But what decided me was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBinksternet&diff=543977615&oldid=543976231 this diff], seen above. I'm not comfortable supporting or opposing a candidate when I'm going to have previous RFA supports or opposes dug up and thrown in my face. Maybe it's just me, but I find that sort of thing very off-putting.
'''Neutral''' My concerns in the oppose section still stand.  However, Binksternet demonstrated back then a rational and communicative mind and a willingness to correct himself and even now in the face of all of this opposition he has remained calm and taken it in stride.  If Binksternet were given the tools, which I don't see happening but let's hypothesize, and he were to make a mistake along the lines I've described, I can see him doing the appropriate and rational thing by backing up and undoing his actions instead of causing the community drama trying to sort it out.  That's a positive trait.  So my !vote changes to "I still have concerns, but I am convinced Binksternet will fix anything he breaks."--v/r -
'''Moral support''' - edit warring and other related concerns are too much for me, despite having similar thoughts to TParis directly above. I do think the nominator could have done a much better job in tackling these concerns head-on (yes he has edit-warred, and it's not a great leap to assume that would play a large role in this RfA; so tell me "yes, he has edit-warred, but ''this'' is why my candidate deserves the tools") ... but it's a bit late now.
'''Moral support''' - Just utilize the information within the oppose section as a checklist for things to improve upon now and into the future. Also, thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Neutral'''.  I am highly impressed by Binksternet's obvious passion for content creation and, in general, the maintenance of quality articles.  His good work is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia successful; however, an admin needs to have a moderate temperament and a willingness to abide by Wikipedia policy even in difficult situations.  Although his last block was some time ago, I feel that further time is needed before Binksternet can be reevaluated.  Perhaps after several months to a year of clean, less combative editing, he would be a reasonable candidate.
'''Neutral''' While Binksternet is a great editor and one of Wikipedia's best contributors, I've noticed the occasional case of [[Dale Earnhardt|rattling cages]] here and there, and while I wouldn't oppose by any means, I'd like to see a bit more time pass with working in a non-admin capacity at the various technical boards in a drama-avoiding way before giving a thumbs-up. -
'''Neutral'''. I've found him to be a highly intelligent editor with a great variety of intellectual interests who obviously has created a vast amount of content for Wikipedia. However, he's something of a POV warrior, and on a couple of occasions when I have dealt with him he's had a tendency to insist that ''reliably sourced opinions'' which he finds convincing ''be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice'' with no in-line citation of the source. Examples can be found in the articles on [[Pro-life feminism]] where, until counter-evidence was demonstrated, he insisted that the article should retain a blanket statement saying that Irish pro-life feminists stayed out of the political issue of whether abortion should be legal; and in the article on [[Maafa 21]] where he wanted Wikipedia to flatly state that the film was factually "wrong."
'''Neutral''', largely per Dennis Brown. Dennis and I have both spent time looking closely at the discussions about the Conservatism WikiProject, and in most of those discussions, I actually agree on the substance with Binksternet's positions, and there's no question in my mind that they are the smart and productive editor described in so many of the other comments on this page. However, I find that I am able to discuss my concerns with the WikiProject participants without making it personal or unduly adversarial, whereas Binksternet is one of several editors whose discussion style does tend to lead to us-versus-them. I don't want to pile-on oppose, but those interactions leave me unable to support. --
'''Neutral''' I see no indication that this user would misuse the tools, however Binksternet's conduct concerns raised in the oppose section are concerning so I am unable to offer my support.
'''Neutral''', mostly per Dennis Brown. Binksternet is a great editor and clearly knows his stuff, and I think he would probably do a decent job as an admin if he were given the bit now. However, I too am a little concerned about temperament. I'd be willing to support another run in a year's time, if he refrains from edit warring and if no temperament-related issues crop up. — '''''
Ultimately, I just find many of the oppose rationales to be too concerning for me to feel comfortable giving my support at this time. There are issues with his temperament that I view as incompatible with adminship.
'''Neutral''' Reading through the supports and opposes, and looking at the various diffs, I can see arguments pro and con. On, balance, I'm inclined to think that the adage "Don't get in a mud-wrestling contest with a pig; you just get covered with mud, and the pig enjoys it" may explain at least some of the opposes. But, stepping into contentious articles with the intent to break logjams and help battling editors come to a resolution without wallowing in the mud yourself is a skill few have. When an editor has that skill, I enthusiastically support. I'm more lukewarm here. I'd lean toward support if the the mud was only up to Binksternet's knees instead of his waist.
'''Neutral''' I generally don't vote in RFA's that I am neutral on, but I feel compelled to leave a comment here. First off, I am sorry that you are experiencing so much drama here. Nobody should have to go through that. I have read much of the above, and there are many editors I respect in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral columns. I can tell you're a great editor, and that you consistently try to do the right thing. I was looking at your block log and I'm impressed by the way you would agree to 1RR on certain pages, and that you've kept it clean for over a year now. I don't want to be so flippant as to say "Come back in a year and I'll support". (Easily said, hard to do.) However, I don't think it would hurt if you did take some time to work on improving in some of the areas where people have concerns. If you want my advice, I would say to do this: Privately and voluntarily commit to a strict 1RR restriction on ''all'' articles. (You don't have to put the template on your userpage or anything.) Reverting obvious vandalism is of course an exception. Don't revert twice ''even if you know you're right''. Always try to edit from a neutral point of view, and don't just edit when NPOV and your views happen to coincide. (I'm not saying you don't already do this...I just don't know you very well, and I'm trying to take into account the concerns of some of the opposition.) Wait for what you feel is a sufficient amount of time (it looks like many have recommended a year, I'd say at least half that) and then come back. I can't guarantee a success, but I know that would put me in the support section. Good luck! <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
Recent edit warring. Edit warring just isn't something anyone should be doing. Cut that out and #2 will fly through. Other than that, the motley collection of grudge-holders, jealous onlookers desperate to find a way to oppose, and bloc-voters in the oppose section are not convincing in the slightest.
Overall, he has a pretty solid record, and some of the opposes are pretty flimsy. It's also a shame that this is turning into one of those contentious battles that have characterized Rfa. He would probably make an Ok admin, but I have a couple concerns stopping me from supporting.
'''Firm neutral''' This is a "lots of good stuff" and "lots of recent not so good stuff" situation.  The not so good is not bad enough to oppose...there's certainly some potential.  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
Would prefer to support, as this is a good editor who would almost certainly make a good admin, not breaking the place up; the blocks are not really a concern, not being too recent; edit warring, however, is a red line.  I also share Mark Arsten's opinion about the pattern of this RfA. Cheers, '''
Because I believe the candidate should be able to carry out the tasks he says he requires the admin bit for, and because I trust him regarding his expressed intentions regarding the end of his adminship tenure and his intended use of the admin bit. Not an endorsement of his position on the arbcom case, nor his views of Wikipedia as a whole to which he alludes in this RfA. --
A rather strange request, but sure, he's been around long enough that I trust him to only use the bit for the purpose he's outlined.
'''Support'''. It is a shame that this path is necessary for someone trying to help with an editor issue, but I certainly trust Carrite in what he's asking. --
'''Support''' - AfD record is good, spot check of edits reveals no problems. There's no requirement that admins do anything, so not intending to do much isn't a consideration (though promising not to do anything is pretty pointless, I think).
Seems reasonable. Trust user. -
'''Support''' Seems reasonable. Carrite can easily be desysopped if he doesn't keep his promises, but I don't think that will be necessary.
'''Support''', with surprise that he isn't already an administrator; I always assumed he was. I often see him at AfD, he has plenty of clue and a good attitude. I would not generally support a one-use-and-out request like this, but I am supporting in the hope that he will decide to stay on as an administrator once his current issue is over.  --
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with having a skeptic as a (temporary) member of the admin corps, in my view. Split toolsets would have made this request unnecessary, but it's the system we're stuck with (for now, at least).
'''Support''' Very unconventional request, but I'm willing to support since I don't foresee any great harm in his viewing of deleted content.
'''Support'''. What Mark said; and there's no reason to believe that he's lying in his statements above. Consider this also a support for the notion of an unbundled flag for viewing deleted revisions. —
'''Support''' to be a permanent admin, not just for the next month or however long the case will take; I've thought you should run for a while now.
'''Support'''. Carrite is one of the best editors on Wikipedia, and he's honest and direct. He certainly can be trusted to use the tools in a NPOV and polite fashion, representing the consensus of the community. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Yeah... okay''' - like others here, I would have liked to see a full RFA. I suppose my perception is that this looks like an attempt to get the mop to allow the wielding of the broomstick rather than the use of the squishy bit at the end. But I appreciate that it's being done to defend another, rather than the editor in question. Misguided or not, I have to give credit to a good-faith attempt to play the "defense lawyer". I don't think it would have been dishonest to request adminship on the basis that you wanted to help at arbcom cases, generally. If you wanted to resign the bit 6 months later (having done no other admin work) that would have been fine. But what happens when this case finishes and your excellent weighing-in on behalf of another prompts requests for you to do the same again? Will you resign the bit (as committed) but come back to RFA for another case-limited mop? Or will you retain the bit on the basis that ongoing arbcom work is within the confines of your original appointment? Anyway, I'd support you for adminship generally, so I can't oppose this. But I don't think it's particularly well thought through.
'''Support'''.  I would support Carrite for a full-blown RFA, so I see no reason not to support him for this limited purpose request.  I hope that he will reconsider his stance and keep his administrative powers, should he gain them, to use for the greater good of Wikipedia.  He is a constant voice of sanity at RFA, he is an outstanding, mature, and sensible participant at ANI (which I have not necessarily found myself able to be), and he is a valuable, tireless, talented contributor of content.&mdash;
'''Support''' No concerns, temporary or otherwise '''
'''Support''' I trust this user, and the nominator. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
Makes a good case for needing one admin tool for one particular use, and I trust him to resign when the case is over, and I trust him to not use any other admin tools besides looking at deleted edits. The fact that our rules are dysfunctional and there's no mechanism for him to request just what he needs is no reason to punish him by opposing.  I'm surprised at those who don't trust him to keep his word, but if it helps, rest assured that if he violates his promise, I will block him from editing, and undo every admin action he takes, until we're both desysopped for wheel warring, at which time the promise will be enforced, and I won't be an admin anymore, which for many of the opposers might be considered a win-win.  I'm disappointed in opposes "because he's anti-admin", and opposes from people who "would support if he made this a "real" RFA:, and would ask them to reconsider.  It isn't Carrite's fault that there's no other way for him to do this, and being "anti-admin" (if that's even true) would, if anything, make it less likely he'd abuse the tools, not more likely. --
'''Support''' An unusual request, but nowhere is the assumption of good faith more important than at RFA. The candidate will do fine.
'''Support''' Candidate can handle being an administrator, and serves as a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] to the project. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' I'd support him with the mop temporarily for this purpose, or as a regular admin.
'''Support''' Good candidate, no concerns.  Too bad he does not want the bit permanently, I would also support that. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Tim Davenport, who we call "Carrite" here, is an outstanding Wikipedia editor, and a person of great integrity. I treasure every opportunity that we've had to work together. He motivated me to abandon anonymity and reveal my real name, Jim Heaphy, as an editor here. We are all volunteers with the absolute right to decide when and where and how much we volunteer. Through his work on this wonderful project, Tim has earned the right to administrative powers, and it is his right as a volunteer to exercise those powers as narrowly or as broadly or as briefly as he sees fit. I trust Tim.
'''Support'''.  For me the hardest question was the temporary adminship, as I think it's a pity he'll resign the tools when this is done.  As I said in another RfA recently, when we broaden the base of trustable editors who have access to administrative tools, we take a step away from "editors vs. admins" and a step toward "editors with or without tools."  I think most of us prefer the latter model. Tim:  If this RfA fails, I hope you'll take a little time to reconsider the possibility of another run, and being a respected editor who just happens to have a few tools that get used now and again, when the need arises.  --
'''Support''' as I agree with the impressions in Dennis Brown's nomination; I also heartily agree with Joe Decker's comments immediately above. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' per nom, and because I don't find the ''ask another admin'' solution to be at all feasible.
'''Support'''. I don't see anything wrong with a trusted, responsible user making a reasonable request to gain access to the admin tools on a temporary basis for a specific purpose; especially since the alternative 'ask another admin' solution appears impractical in this case. I would've preferred to see a full blown run for the bit, and I'd've likely supported that too, but overall I think we can trust that Carrite's motives for this unusual request are well-intentioned.
'''Support''' - Can see no reason not to trust the user. I've got no problem with a single purpose RfA. -

'''Support''' This really just comes down to trust. I trust this user to do what he pledges in question one. In that case I can't see any harm in giving him the bit. To be honest I find many of the opposes based on versions of the slippery slope argument. I have never put much stock in such arguments.
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Salvidrim&diff=531985973&oldid=531975921 this].
'''Support''' moved from Neutral thanks to Dennis' timely reminder that we can [[WP:IAR|ignore the rules]] from time to time (something I really need to remember...).
'''Support''' Based solely on Nominators history of good choices. I trust Carrite will step down once his task is completed. ```
I'd prefer that this wasn't a temporary request, but I don't see the point in opposing over that, we are all volunteers and any admin could retire at any point. Viewing deleted edits is a very useful part of the admin toolkit, especially when evaluating RFA candidates. I have no problem with a candidate who sees that as the only part of the mop that they are likely to wield ''
'''Support''' Can't see any problem to not to give support.--'''
'''Support''' I hope you stick around after you get sysops, it would be a net positive even if you help out a little bit.—<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -
'''Support''' - unlikely to break anything if he's given access to the tools. But seriously, go for regular adminship...admin tools exist in part so that ''content creators'' can, for example, examine deleted pages, do certain sorts of page moves, and clean up after themselves when the create a malformed page (like "move without leaving redirect").
'''Support''', I'd support him for full adminship, but will also support this limited request.  For those who are concerned that his promise doesn't have teeth, I cannot conceive of the possibility of ArbCom not agreeing to desysop him if he used the bit in violation of his promise.&nbsp;
'''Support''' I really don't see the harm in letting him get adminship for a brief time when he doesn't even intend to use the tools.--
'''Support''' First, there is no reason at all to think he would misuse the bit while he has it. Second, it's a reasonable way to deal with the problem he has; when procedures interfere with fairness the solution is to work around them, either calling it explicitly IAR or finding some way to accommodate them within the existing rules. this is the latter, and it's a good and reasonable way to do it. (I do hope that subsequently he'll decide the bit on a regular basis would be worth it, but after the experience here with people opposing for highly speculative reasons what should have been the most straight-forward of requests, I would understand it if he did not want to come here again. I normally think that complaints about the way applicants are treated here are overreactions to mere noise, but this time, such complaints would be justified, though I expect the applicant will have enough sense not to bother making them.   '''
I'd probably support a 'proper' RFAR too.
'''Support''' Interesting to say the least.  Wizardman made a point that really stuck in my craw, and I almost declined support because of his very convincing post.  Yep - I do hate the politics around this joint; but they are a fact of life here on wiki, like it or not.  So in the end it comes down to "do I trust this editor to use any tools wisely, thoughtfully, and with the best interests of the wiki in mind"  The bottom line is that I do.  There's nothing in the admin toolset that I believe Carrite would use to ''ANY'' detriment to the project IMO, so here I sit.  Be it a day, a week, a year, or longer - I trust this user with the tools. Many of you in the "oppose" section are often ones that speak of that word ... '''trust'''.  Well I've seen nothing in this editor's history which betrays trust. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Not sure how I feel about the one-off RfA, but would support the user as admin in any case so have no problem supporting.
'''Support''' per his request (though I would be happy to see him as an admin for good).
'''Support''' If Adminship is no big deal, and it would be helpful for Carrite in doing what he wants to do, it should be no big deal to give it to him. Beyond that, Carrite has demonstrated good judgement and has my trust. In my view, Carrite would make a good admin (on a permanent basis).
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''', mostly. I don't like this nomination. I don't like the idea of checking out adminship like a library card. I also don't like the idea that the candidate, once an admin, seems to feel like he would have to "ADMIN ALL THE THINGS", and that being an admin would take away from article writing. I can see no other reason for wanting to be rid of the bit so quickly. On the merits, I trust Carrite to be a reasonable admin, not to abuse the tools, etc etc, and thus must support. But I wish he trusted himself, too.
'''Support''' because adminship is supposed to be no big deal, so a temporary admin should be no big deal.  The oppose votes below give evidence that the literal and figurative teen-agers who make up a seeming majority of WP's administrators think otherwise.
'''Support'''... this "temporary" stuff is silly, but he'd be a good addition to the meat grinder for as many days or moons as he is willing to offer. FFS people, this guy has been put through every sort of wringer on WR and WPO, and has proven himself a true believer in WP and its mission. WP needs 20 of him in the admin corps. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>
'''Support'''.  Yes, this is an unusual request, but I must say that I was surprised that Carrite wasn't already an administrator.  Anytime he wants to be a full-time admin, he has my support.
'''Support'''. I came close to going "neutral", and my support is somewhat ambivalent, but I ended up here, just barely. I think that Anthonyhcole's detailed list does a pretty good job of covering my reasons for supporting, with one exception: I'm not really sold on the argument that Carrite couldn't just ask an existing administrator to provide him the deleted material. I tend to think it would have been less of a hassle, for Carrite and for the community, than this RfA. On the oppose side, I feel that Fluffernutter and Coren have made particularly good points, and I take those points seriously. It's true, for example, that we have to take it on faith that he will only view what he says he is going to view. So I asked myself whether, in this case, this RfA (not some hypothetical future one about someone else), whether I trust Carrite enough to take that on faith. I decided that yes, I do. And I'm curious to see how it will play out, whether it will inform future thought about improving the RfA process, so I'm willing to invoke [[WP:IAR]]. --
'''Support''' - I don't see why not. I don't understand why so many people are so against temporary adminship. There's a first time for everything, isn't there? That being said, I'd support this editor's request for full adminship as well.
'''Support''' - One of Wikipedia's finest believers in our community's goals.  Absolutely no harm could come from his getting adminship.  I only hope one day that he'll realize the Spartans are better than the Beavers, Ducks, and Badgers (combined). --
'''Support''' - absent some other mechanism which would allow a party to an ArbCom proceeding to operate on a level playing field with arbs and admis who have access to deep-sixed posts relevant to the case, I am all in favor of this.  I've seen more than enough abuse of this over the years to know that it is a real issue. ArbCom is enough of a black box Star Chamber as it is.  Others have been granted the mop who have stated they intend to use it for very limited purposes, and many don't use them at all. I have far less concern about Carrite having tools than for many admins who already have them. There is zero risk that Carrite will abuse them.
'''Support''' {{tlx|Pro}}
'''Support''' - If you can't get this, ask the foundation for researcher instead.
'''Support''' - Capable, trusted, long-term contributor who would not abuse the tools.<font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support'''. I fully support Carrite's request: he is experienced and to be trusted. Also, per DGG, absolutely, and Dennis.
'''Support''' If Carrite had simply applied to become an Administrator, I would have seen it as appropriate based on his edit history and his participation in AFDs. If he says he will not use most of the tools. or that he plans to resign, that is a shame, but not a barrier to granting the bit. I note that we have occasionally had opposing views in AFDs, but I still value him as a fellow contributor. He is a capable long-term contributor and I trust him to not to abuse the tools. Perhaps in the future he will make  a standard application to become an admin.
'''Support''' - Carrite is (to me at least) a trusted user who should have access to the tools and advanced permissions. What I find objectionable is the arbitrary and, I believe, false division between admins and content contributors. I am admin, and I think I've contributed some good content to Wikipedia; other admins have contributed far more good content. Carrite is clearly a content contributor; now he can be an admin as well; that doesn't mean that he should or would abandon adding good content, even if he keeps the bit - something I'd prefer he did. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''. I see no likelihood that he will cause any damage with the tools, so he should have them. So what if he doesn't use them for other purposes? Neither do I, and probably many other admins.
'''Support''' I've not seen reason to distrust Carrite or to suspect that he'd misuse the tools if he were seeking to be a "normal" admin who keeps the tools indefinitely and performs blocks, deletions, etc.  If we can trust him long-term, we should trust him short-term as well.  I don't understand why people are objecting to the idea of him viewing deleted material as part of a dispute to which he's a party — let me quote WP:INVOLVED.  "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about."  A conflict of interest won't be a problem when he's viewing deleted revisions of pages; if he were the only party who could see them, he might be accusable of misrepresenting the deleted revisions, but the presence of several other admins in the Arbcom case means that things can easily be verified independently, and non-admins won't have a reason to see falsehood in Carrite's discussions of deleted content.
'''Support''' Why not? He seems a decent fellow and is someone I would trust.  What more?
'''Support''' Does a lot of respectable work on articles such as [[Farmers' Alliance]].  That he wants to use the toolset in a limited way is a good thing, not bad.  See [[Cincinnatus]].
'''Support''' For a short duration, single purpose use of the admin toolkit? Obvious support. Carrite, while we might have gotten into arguments at times, is a trustworthy user who really does seem to care about Wikipedia and its processes. I trust him for this. I would have also supported for a full RfA, but I know that's not something he wants. I'll be there to support you when you apply for the unbundled content creator toolkit that has a few, specific admin tools, an unbundling of adminship that I know will have to occur eventually. <font color="silver">
'''Support''' and also '''support''' the addition of technical flags for the individual sysop feats for precisely this kind of purpose. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #333333;padding:1px;">
--
'''Support''' Regardless of time served, clearly dedicated to the project and while I may not agree with his stance on lots of things, I have no doubt he will perform well as an Admin.
'''Support''' This is a simple request. Carrite is trustworthy; if he says he will only use the tools for an Rfar, that's what he's going to do with them.  For the record, I would also support a traditional RfA. '''
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Super strong fucking support!!!''' Honestly Carrite is exactly the kind of admin/editor that Wikipedia needs if it's ever going to get out of the RfA hole/fiasco it has self created. I would prefer if Carrite stayed on for the full bit - but the fact that he wishes it to be temporary is neither nefarious, "dangerous", or a sign of weakness - in fact it's admirable. Basically a lot of the oppose votes seem to boil down to some kind of weird "he's not power hungry enough" sentiment (maybe not that weird, if you think of it in terms of projection). Note that he could've asked for the whole thing, skipped mentioning the temporary part then just laid down the tools in a few months time when done. Instead he was upfront and honest about his intention. Note that we've had numerous discussions about how broken RfA is and how some of the admin tools should be debundled. Of course given the inertia and dysfunction at this page (and others) that's not going to happen in any foreseeable future. Still the motivation and reasoning behind the nature of the request simply reflects what a lot of smart and insightful people have been saying for awhile. I'd say Tim is probably the best candidate I've seen pop up on this page in a couple of years.<span style="color:Blue">
'''Support''' It's a reasonable, coherent request. As I'd be happy to support their request for full administrative rights and tools and the preeminent requirement for a successful RFA would appear to be community trust, there's no cogent reason to object if they choose to limit their use of rights and tools. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''.  It is a reasonable request made by a trusted and respected user.
'''He's an honest man.'''  The kind of person who would do the right thing even if it helped someone with a political slant opposite him and visa versa.  He's exactly what is needed and very rare.  Even is a critic, but one who is not slavish to every critic meme.  You really could not do much better than him.  If not approved, it will be this site's loss.
'''Support'''. Honest, forthright, will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I might support a full admin run as well, but I'd need to evaluate that a bit more closely. No reason to think he will abuse the mop in the limited time he wants it for. --
'''Support''': This is a good user who obviously deserves to be administrated. --'''
'''Frustrated Support''' - I strongly wish there was a better solution, but otherwise find no concerns of potential misuse by the candidate. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·
Would also support as a full time admin.
'''Support''' - on the condition that he steps down as soon as the ArbCom decision has been made.  I don't think he'll abuse anything in the mean time.
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. It is a shame that Carrite will not continue to use the administrative tools. He has the skills and experience to be a good admin.
'''Support''' - per many above but particularly Floquenbeam, Ched, and TCO.
'''Oppose''' Sorry to be the first buzz kill. You intentions are indeed good and so is your history; But RfA for a single purpose event is not one thing I would take likely. Concerns raised by others and my own gathers has concluded me to go for a genuine oppose now. Raised concerns of anti Adminship and Arbitration is a concern for someone request adminship. In addition expanding onto the ArbCom case, others see it as a way of equalising against the initiator of the ArbCom request. I do not see it as an equalise but rather an attempt to gain temporary control. No party needs to have access to the history, only ArbCom would and if the feel the parties need it then they would provide it. This would be a starting point for everyone involved in an ArbCom case to come and request adminship and only saying 'I only need it to get the history' when there are valid administrators who are more than willing to provide article history. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) <small>Comment has been refactored at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carrite&diff=536971450&oldid=536970392 00:49, 7 February 2013]. Original comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carrite&diff=536905130&oldid=536904755 here]
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but I'm not convinced with the 'temporary' nature of your request, and feel that it sets a bad precedent for future. Why do ''you'' need access to the non-visible pages/contribs if it's already at ArbCom? Surely it opens the floodgates for every editor to request such access when an ArbCom case they might have an interest in appears?
'''Oppose''' You've got my support if you go for the full deal, don't make it temporary and I'll switch to support.  GO DUCKS!--v/r -
'''Oppose''' the concept of temporary adminship is completely unenforceable on the English Wikipedia, as opposed to other projects. In my recollection, I've also seen this editor on the anti-admin bandwagon a little bit too much and am not comfortable with this editor holding adminship. --'''
'''Oppose''' I have reviewed Carrite's previous comments on the CCI case which resulted in this request (slightly surprised no-one has linked to it yet - [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108]]), and I have to say I'm not very impressed. On three occasions Carrite looked at one of the pages tagged as copyvio there, couldn't see anything remotely like copyvio, and jumped to the conclusion that the editor who tagged it must have been downright incompetent, even though what really happened was that he was looking at the wrong page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AContributor_copyright_investigations%2F20111108&diff=536483865&oldid=536445918] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20111108&diff=next&oldid=536483865] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20111108&diff=next&oldid=536484967] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARichard_Arthur_Norton_%281958-_%29&diff=536327219&oldid=536317547] He has also demonstrated a rather strange understanding of our copyright rules, including statements that including chunks of copyrighted text  in hidden comments is not a copyright violation, transwiking content without acknowledging the source is merely “impolite” because we're not going to get sued over it, copying text from public domain or copyleft sources without acknowledging the fact is “very light”, or merely “bad editing”, and generally that anything other than more or less verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is “minor”, “technical” or “subjective”. Carrite has indicated elsewhere that he is seeking adminship in order to “defend” the subject of the CCI case at ArbCom, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram&diff=prev&oldid=536561744] an attitude reinforced by the acceptance statement above. I am not persuaded that the tools are being sought for the right reasons, and if ArbCom do need someone other than themselves to review deleted edits I'm sure there are plenty of administrators who would be prepared to do it for them. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose'''. While I have no issues with temporary adminship when it's dictated by personal beliefs (see Kim Bruning), I do not think the English Wikipedia has particular need to introduce temporary admins at this stage. Perhaps I could have supported somebody asking for adminship for one specific purpose (that is, "I shall help clear backlog X and then when that is done, resign"), but to ask for the admin tools for the purposes of partecipating in an Arbitration Committee case is unheard of and frankly, outside of the purpose of adminship. Tools are given to janitors to help clean up and run the site. Partecipating in an arbitration committee case is not part of that. I should also note that we have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever enforced as a mandate and limitation one's statements on a Request for Adminship, and so nothing would stop this user from: a) keeping the bit after the Arbitration Committee case has ended b) using the bit during the time he has it or c) resigning after the Arbitration Committee case and requesting the bit back on [[WP:BN]] in the future. As such, I do not believe this is a valid request that should be fulfilled, and if this would be done, it would set dangerous precedents. We do not have an [[imperative mandate]] system for administrators and we do not wish one, nor should we set the precedent that when one is brought before the Arbitration Committee or otherwise party to an Arbitration case they should or can request sysop rights for purposes related to that. I'm sorry, but this is just silly. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' - I don't support even absent the temporary part. But, the temporary piece should weigh heavily on the basic question of if the tools are needed. Carrite doesn't need the bit, or want it, apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=536642308&oldid=536641993], outside of the ability to see removed content. There is no temporary or even recallable admin process at the moment, so while I wih every RfA candidate was open to recall, there's no teeth behind those commitments. If you need access to something that's hidden, you can ask someone, who I'm sure would be more than willing to help you.<br />There's a lot of little things that bother me in addition. None are damning alone, but they influence my perspective so I'll include a few examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carrite&diff=386209221&oldid=386208816 this] unsettling diff that lead to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Carrite|this]] ani discussion, especially in light of criticizing the same thing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carrite&diff=prev&oldid=476524984] (I have 0 opinion about the underlying issue in the previous link); similarly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carrite&diff=prev&oldid=450874353 here]; [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive686|an]] old discussion about canvassing concerns; a few worries about tossing around "defamatory" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive749 here] (which has more issues that are discussed in the thread), the mentality in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil' Kim's fifth studio album|this]] deletion discussion, as well as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atop the Fourth Wall]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_24 this]. I think Carrite's a fine editor, but his motivation for wanting the tools seems to be (and has been since at least July it appears) to have access to some of the removed content; nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's a strong motivation to have the tools, and I have concerns about his opinions on some of these deletion discussions, etc., as I indicated above.
'''Oppose'''. Given that there's no way I know of to verify that Carrite would only be looking at particular deleted pages and not others, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting bits in a situation where we have no way to enforce, or even check up on, the strict limitations on tool use that are being proposed. If Carrite needs access to deleted pages in order to participate in the Arbcom case, I assume Arbcom or the clerks (or Dennis, or another admin) can arrange to give him access to copies of any relevant documents; it's not something someone should be granted single-purpose adminship for.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]. Someone without a good understanding of copyright or a strange interpretation of copyright I don't completely trust having the ability to look at deleted content. Plus he also would have access to all the other admin tools.
'''Oppose''' regretfully. Carrite has earned my respect as a solid and often clueful contributor, but this unorthodox request falls outside of the intent and practice of RfA. If the inability of non-admins to see deleted material pertaining to ArbCom cases they are involved in is recognized as a problem, I would like to see solutions that would help all future editors who find themselves in this situation rather than controverting process for a one-off fix. Dennis Brown indicated that he would not have nominated Carrite for adminship if he was not qualified in his own right, meaning that this work-around would not be an option for other editors who find themselves in a similar situation. It also sets a precedent for future similar RfAs. I feel that the question of temporary adminship warrants a larger arena than this. Please note that my take on this is entirely based on the temporary nature of the request and has no bearing on Carrite as an editor or potential admin.
Oppose mostly per Hut. I think Carrite would make a good admin, but this request reeks of politics. As Fluff says, if a deleted revision needs to be accessed, any arb could do it, most clerks could do it, I could do it. That being said, I don't see why that would be necessary anyway, since if it were going to arbcom it would be due to recent troubles, certainly more recent than both CCIs. Besides, saying that he needs to see deleted contribs is a strong sign of bad faith on those that deleted the foundational copyvios; they're deleted for a reason. (FWIW, my oppose isn't based on the temporary nature of the adminship)
'''Oppose'''. Inappropriate really. Satisfying individual needs in what amounts to some sort of dispute is not what access to the Admin. toolset is granted for.
'''Oppose''' - An admin that says they won't do any admin related work? No.--
'''Oppose''' per concerns cited by Shadowjams and GiantSnowman. Also, the drama around this need for "temporary" adminship seems disruptive per [[WP:POINT]], in my view. Something wrong here.
'''Oppose''' per JohnFLewis.  Your own statement makes it clear this is a single purpose RFA - you want admin for one thing and one thing only. "To participate effectively in the case, I find myself needing to be able to read pages and page histories deleted during an ongoing CCI text investigation. The only way to do that is to be vetted for the full administrative toolbox here. I wish there were some other way, but there isn't" - '''yes, there is.''' - it's called ''ask an admin for help.'' '''Use it.''' '''
Per answer to Q1 there is not really a legitimate reason for you to have sysop tools. Looking at your contributions you seem qualified to be an admin, but adminship is for people who are planning to use the tools to help the project. <font color="00ff00">
'''Oppose''' largely per Wizardman. I'm not concerned about the "temporary" nature of the request, rather the reasons behind it. I think Wizardman and Hut are persuasive on ''that'' point. --'''
'''Oppose'''  As per Leaky Caldron <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Hut 8.5]] and [[User:Wizardman]]. There are other ways to access this content (if needful) and moreover ways that would allow review by others who are not involved. --
'''Oppose''' per Hut 8.5 and Rschen7754.
'''Oppose'''; with no prejudice on whether Carrite should get the bit for the "normal" reasons.  If there is a reasonable reason to access the contents of a deleted page during the course of arbitration, a simple request to ArbCom to temporarily undelete the page will do the trick.  Getting the bit allows viewing of ''any'' deleted page, an action that isn't logged, and which Foundation Legal demands be restricted to people who have been made administrators through the usual process.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' largely per Wizardman. Coren, Moonriddengirl, Fluffernutter, and Leaky Cauldron also bring up good points.
'''Oppose''' After reviewing this RFA earlier this afternoon I was (marginly) leaning support. However some good points made just above (in the thread arround Coren's oppose) and more importantly the "cantankerous" (to use the candidate's turn of phrase) response to Leaky at Q8 move me here. There is, IMHO, no benefit to wikipedia whatsoever with you getting the bits. I'm willing to support candidates who will bring a smidge of benefit (specilists who want to do edit filters, those who declare likely to be fairly inactive) but not those who bring none. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Although I am all for temporary sysop status (mainly to do a particular task), I cannot see how this is not [[WP:TOOLMISUSE|a misuse of the tools]] when the tools (or advanced right, or any other term for what is effectively the same thing) are going to be sued only for a personal reason. Sysops should be there for to better the project.
'''Oppose''' largely per Wizardman (a username I thoroughly enjoyed typing). This doesn't seem to be a request that is a benefit to the project.
'''Oppose''' This seems to me to be an inappropriate request. The lack of specificity concerns me too. It seems that there may be other ways of accessing the materials with the help of arbcom, clerks, uninvolved admins, which will open these to view for the duration of the case. --
'''Regretfully oppose'''. I would 100% support on other circumstances, but I do not feel comfortable with the idea of a "temporary" adminship. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''': I'm sorry, but the idea of a "temporary adminship" seems very strange to me. Don't get me wrong, you are a great editor, but I am not comfortable with the idea of temporary adminship.
'''Oppose''', I'd be happy to support if this were an RfA, but it isn't. Feel free to ask an admin to get deleted material for you, I'm sure they would be happy to send it your way.
'''Oppose'''. To ask for the admin tools in order to lawyer for another user in a dispute is a total nonstarter. Administrators are to assist the project in an unbiased way.
'''Oppose'''. Per candidate's reply to question 1. --
'''Oppose:''' Per Wizardman, Coren and Fluffernut.  If the user wants admin tools, he should go through a full and rigorous RfA process. If the community supports the idea of unbundling certain admin tools for specific use, then a proposal should be made on the village pump for an alternative usergroup to be created that would allow such access on a temporary basis. Perhaps, the better privilege for this user to seek would be the one for scholars that allows the viewing of deleted contributions, conditional the submission of an academic paper on the topic. --
"I need the admin bit to prove that everyone is lying about RAN's copyvios" is weak sauce indeed. The precedent this would set is almost as ghastly as this absurd false dichotomy between "content contributors" and Others that Carrite harps on about at every opportunity.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' - So the cat is out of the bag now: See this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 link to the Arbitration Request]. Chris Cunningham sums it up fairly well. RAN's copyvios are notorious, not to say legendary...
'''Oppose'''. While I see your good intention of helping RAN clear this case, I'm absolutely not comfortable with the way you're planning to do it. If RAN really needs a solicitor, it should be a) someone who has not already been involved in the case, and b) it should be someone who is already holding adminitrator rights. And I agree that creating a short-term, lightweight adminship for whatever cause would set a dangerous precedent. Carrite, if you were to run for a full administrator job without this Arbcom case pending, I would possibly support you. But under the given circumstances I can only voice my opposition.
'''Oppose''' I have intentionally not gone to the ArbCom case, as I see this as beside the point here. I am not happy at giving the tool set to an editor, wowever trustworthy (which I accept he is) solely for the purpose, as stated, of undertaking activity which is not of benefit to the project. I apologise to the nominator, whom I respect enormously, but I believe that this is not an appropriate use to which the admin tools should be put. I have not, deliberately, been to the Arbcom site to look at the controversy in question. But I have a question; if this editor had already been an admin, and had used the tools to access information not available to other parties in a dispute, would that have been seen as a fair use of the admin skills? If the data in question are already available to other parties in the Arbcom case, then why not to all?--<font color="Red">
'''No. Fucking. Way'''. Carrite is unfit to be an editor, let alone an administrator. He is a regular and prominent contributor to Wikipediocracy, where he posts as "Randy from Boise". He has an ugly history of aggressive conduct and assuming bad faith. Without any provocation or justification, he has lied, trolled and attacked other contributors to the project. I have myself been on the receiving end. Carrite has repeatedly accused me of financial corruption on the basis of absolutely nothing whatsoever and has harassed me. Last March he accused me of non-existent financial links with Wikimedia UK.[http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13914#p13914] A few months later I visited Gibraltar, at my own expense, as my last stop in a holiday in northern Morocco (as it was the nearest airport with direct cheap flights to the UK). Carrite accused me, out of the blue, of having financial links with the government of Gibraltar.[http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17954#p17954] He then harassed me on Wikipedia by repeatedly demanding "who paid for your trip to Gibraltar".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=519874595][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=519830390] There was absolutely no reason for him to assume that I had any financial dealings whatsoever with the government of Gibraltar, and there had never been any suggestion anywhere, at any time, by anyone, that anyone other than myself was funding my trip or that I had any connection or contact whatsoever with the government of Gibraltar (I do not). He had no basis whatsoever for his claim; he simply made it up. I was not the only one he hassled - he also went after [[User:Pigsonthewing]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=519830899] Nobody with any personal integrity or honesty would behave in such a dishonest and vindictive way. He is utterly unsuited to exercising the responsibility that goes with having a sysop bit.
'''Oppose''' - I have reservations about the editor, but my primary concern is that running for admin for such a narrow purposes is just generally a bad idea, and a particularly dangerous precedent.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but viewdeleted is probably the most sensitive permission in the admin toolkit.  It has been said that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29%2FPersistent_proposals%2FStraw_poll_for_view-deleted&diff=242245446&oldid=242205474 "allowing non-administrator users to have access to deleted pages ... would create an actual emergency that would likely require Board intervention"].  I don't think it's a good idea to have an RfA framed as 'just for one permission, and only for a limited time', when it's apparently considered one of the most destructive permissions in the kit, if not the most, and especially since use of the viewdeleted right isn't logged. I would think that, if it involves viewdeleted, it's all or nothing.
'''Strong oppose'''. If this is needed for an ArbCom case, the user should contact ArbCom to get their opinion on it. The community doesn't, through current policy, approve adminship on a temporary basis. Therefore, we cannot be sure the user will resign after the case is over. Also, the user explicitly says they need this for ~20 at the most views. I don't agree on promoting someone if they admit they're going to only use it 20 times before they either give it up or stop using it. Also again, the content of the copyvioed pages shouldn't be relavent, only that they were copyvioed, which has already been understood and affirmed by many who already have the right. Also, I have concerns about the user's civility and off-wiki actions (mainly the Prioryman question and others on similar sites). Fourthly, the Foundation has already expressed the lack of a legal ability for non-admins to view deleted pages, and this is the same thing. My suggestion to Carrite would be to contact a member of the Arbitration Committee privately and receive any text deemed necessary through that method, or otherwise recieve infromation from an arbitrator directly. This RfA should also be immediately closed as a request for the community to override the Foundation/Board decision that a non-admin should not have access to all deleted text for any reason at any time, without prejudice against a re-nomination for permanent adminship to include the tool in question.
'''Oppose'''. This was a tough call on which I have reflected for a few days. In the end, I cannot support for reasons as put forth by Beyond My Ken above.
'''Oppose'''. On the basis that the only intentions of this user would like to be a administrator just for a Arbitration Case.
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALegolas2186&diff=533795025&oldid=533495034 This section] a few weeks ago, on blocked user, {{U|Legolas2186}}'s talk page, was uncivil. Legolas had been blocked for disruptive editing, and then Carrite proceeded with grave-dancing - and regardless of their intentions, I don't believe that is appropriate for ''anyone'' to engage in. Legolas was blocked, and Carrite should have left it at that. On the note of temporary adminship, nicely asking an administrator to to assist you in reviewing those articles you mention, is sufficient. — [[User:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Oppose''' because I'm not comfortable with people requesting adminship to view deleted content for an arbitration case. That the candidate is here for this reason shows that his view of adminship differs from mine, to the extent that I don't think he would make a suitable admin.
'''Oppose''' I've seen Carrite around the traps and his editing is impressive. If he was applying for the admin tools in normal circumstances I'd probably support his nomination. However, I'm not comfortable with handing out the tools because he has a need to look at deleted pages - as other editors have noted above, there are others ways to do this, and it would set a terrible precedent (eg, editors who aren't in such good standing would also have a case to apply for the tools on these grounds).
'''Of course not''' per Writ Keeper, Fluffernutter, Moonriddengirl, and Coren.  The viewdeleted tool is provided to assist with admin tasks and should never be given on its own.  Since the sole purpose of this RfA is to gain (temporary) access to it, this is essentially a "can I see deleted edits" request and ''must'' be denied. &ndash;&nbsp;''
'''Oppose''' this user is a viewdeleted tool user wannabe... Anyway, I chose to oppose this RfA per those opposing statements above because of this user's only purpose is to view deleted pages which is not the sole responsibility of an admin. This RfA existed for an Arbitration Case only and that's nonsense I think.
'''Oppose''' giving adminship to members of attack forum/blog. Nothing personal.--<font face="bold">
'''Oppose''' All the opposes are convincing enough to prevent me from supporting Carrite, and the further comments by Prioryman lead me to believe I cannot trust a man who edits like that with the tools. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Oppose'''. The nomination acceptance statement alone already shows that in terms of judgement and temperament the candidate is not suited for adminship, whether temporary or permanent.  An admin needs to be patient, level-headed, even with some ice in their veins, and Carrite is the opposite of that. He is too much of a drama magnet, and tends to shoot from the hip,  without thinking things through. Also, as the RAN affair shows, Carrite really does not know how to drop a [[WP:STICK]], which, in my book, is a required skill for any admin. Note that, as explained in this post by Hersfold~[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=537072924&oldid=537069399], Arbcom is working on finding a way to let the parties involved in the RAN abritration case see the deleted content relevant to the case. I am sure that they will work out something reasonable in this regard. If Carrite simply had the patience to wait and to work with the arbitrators on this issue, instead of plunging head-on in this ill-advised RfA, the huge amount of drama that we see on display here would have been avoided. There are other things in the nomination acceptance statement that I find disturbing. The entire tone about "good hard-working content creators vs the evil admin caste" is highly problematic.  The first part of the nomination acceptance statement, with all sorts of extraneous and irrelevant detailed personal information included there, also looks pretty bizarre. What on earth does that fact that he is a "married straight male" have to do with the candidate's qualifications for adminship?
'''Oppose''' granting adminship for a specific purpose. I have tried to set aside my own views about the RAN case (where I think that such a long history of copyvio is a big big problem), and look at this in terms of ''any'' arbcom case, or any other community dispute (whether procedural of content-based). The result is that I just cannot see any way in which it is appropriate to seek adminship purely to help one side in a particular dispute, regardless of the nature of that dispute. That seems to me to be an inversion of the general purpose of adminship, which is to have access to a set of tools in order to impartially uphold the principles and procedures set by the community.<br />I have not considered whether Carrite is in any other respect a suitable candidate for adminship; the discussion here has focused so heavily on other points that I don't feel I have enough info to make a judgement on the concerns raised. So if Carrite were to reapply without the request for "temporary" use of the mop, I'd reconsider ... tho if that happened, I would not count this ill-judged application as a mark in hir favour. --
'''Reluctant oppose''' My god, this has become  another one of those toxic Rfas. I feel I must reluctantly add myself to this column based on the troubling diffs and accusations raised by Prioryman, and the candidate's answer to q12. Whatever Pman and his Gibraltar trip (are you kidding me?) represent, he is more than a mere troll and I would have liked to have seen an answer from the candidate, who I've come to respect at Xfd. And please, for his supporters, badgering and attacking the opposes is not helping your case, it is hurting it, imo.
'''Neutral''' I'd sit here until I can revisit this. Usually, deleted material needs to be reviewed by the arbitrators, not the parties involved, and all arbs currently sitting at the Committee are administrators. Notwithstanding, I may consider this and give a proper comment later. Also, if you can ask another admin (or an arbitrator) to email you the deleted material, why ask for the bit. I'd be willing to support if you make this RfA a standard one. —
In normal circumstances I'd support giving Carrite the tools, but the somewhat pointy nature of this request bothers me. I'm neutral for now, but I may change my mind. —&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Really is quite a strange request. If you were running for a mop that you were going to use and keep I would support. Wouldn't it be great if the permissions were split up a little bit more..... I'll come back to this just before the RFA closes. '''
'''Neutral''' While I have no doubt about your trustworthiness, and you're here because we unfortunately don't have a way to grant granular subpowers of the admin userright, I feel this request is a misuse of the RfA process.  If you are accepted, I would hope that you keep the bit, even if you don't use it often, because there may well come a time when you need those abilities again and I don't think it's appropriate to return here each time and request the abilities.  Having admin powers does not make you 'not a Wikipedian' or 'not a content contributor'; it just gives you some extra tools.  If you think those tools might be of any continued use to you then I'd encourage you to remove the limitations on your RfA and continue with an open-ended possibility that you retain the userright.
'''Moral support''' For someone who wanted this RFA to be "as uncontroversial as possible"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&curid=7020248&diff=536651748&oldid=536601689], I think you shouldn't have brought up the temporary use thing. In politics/elections, you could get burned out for doing so, and RFA is almost the same. I don't think you'll be a bad admin or abuse the tools at all, but that's why I'm not opposing. <b>
'''Neutral'''.  For me, the temporary thing is irrelevant.  Do I trust him/her to be an administrator?  If so, it doesn't matter to me how long the administrative tenure is.  If not, then I would oppose adminstratorship of any tenure.  Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to thoroughly vet the candidate and I intend to come back to it.  That being said, from the ''very little'' I've seen, it's looking good.
'''Neutral''' Not a position I'm usually found in. Like some others in this section, I think Carrite would make a good administrator, even if, like Jason Quinn, he only made occasional use of the mop. He doesn't need to block people - he could continue at AfD but close ones that come down on the delete side of the scales (obviously, ones where he hasn't taken part...).
I guess this neutral vote could be considered a "support" for the ''temporary'' granting of sysop tools for the purposes specified in the nomination statement; I can certainly trust Carrite with that. I would be opposed to granting him full adminship, so my hope is that he remains true to his word and resigns after the ArbCom case has ended.
'''Neutral'''. Looks like you mean well and are experienced, but your message to Jimbo saying you weren't interested in being an administrator leaves me stumped. Were you lying, or did you just suddenly change your mind? Either way, that puts me here; I'm not concerned enough to oppose, but I'm not convinced enough to support. Regards,
'''Neutral''' Awaiting an answer to #9 for us not sure how the tools would advance the ArbCom case.
'''Neutral'''. I see no solid reason to oppose (I dislike the candidate's attitude on his own edit summaries, but it is not enough), but a [[#Incnis Mrsi|burst of irrelevant gibberish in reply to a fairly concrete question]] is concerning. One could realize that if I ask something, then there is a reason to ask namely this candidate about it.
'''Neutral'''. I believe this can be resolved by providing, for example, the Researcher right and should be determined by the ArbCom in assessing the needs of all participants in the case rather than here. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Neutral''' This RfA looks more like a request for temporary sysop status for a specific need instead of a full-blown, regular RfA. Echoing another user's statement, maybe if the permissions were split up a bit more (e.g. rollback, autopatrolled) instead of one big admin package, things would be more convenient. —
'''Support''' Yes, DCI has a relatively small number of edits and has been a bit inactive compared to other candidates over the three years he/she has been actively editing. However, as always, quality over quantity. I have reviewed their edits and decided to support. Their article creation is quite remarkable, along with the significant amount of vandal fighting. I think this user would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] and positively contribute to the project.
I trust him. I don't think edit count really means much there are users that have 250,000+ edits that I would oppose if they were to run for adminship. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Who cares if he has a few thousand edits, because at least he wants to help out and seems to be competent enough to not be blocked. There really is no reason to oppose him unless something huge comes up, so I am going to support him unless something Earth-shattering comes up.
Looks good.  &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Content contributor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Q2. -
'''Oppose''' The candidate is relatively inexperienced and fails to make a compelling case for why he needs the mop.
'''Oppose''' I think the minimal involvement in noticeboard discussions and other policy-related pages makes adminship a bit hasty. More experience in the areas relevant to administrative duties would be desirable for a prospective admin. Article contributions are impressive, but as so few of them are audited it is difficult to use that as a basis. I am not seeing much involvement in dispute resolution processes either and article talk page discussions mostly concern GA reviews being done by dci.--
'''Commend but Oppose'''. Generally, I want to see 3K article+talk edits because that is a good experience mark; candidate has 1.8K. I'll bend on the 3K if the Qs are strong (they aren't) or some other strong point is made (I don't see one). If somebody wants to work on deletions, then CSD/AfD entries are important. AfD main diagonal is weak (report at 73%). Some AfD comments appeal to policy, but it's not consistent; citing evidence would be good. Q3 comments about not being concise; 17 edits to an AfD raise an eyebrow. If a candidate wants to work on vandalism, then AIV reports are important; candidate claims one or two. There's a good start here, but I need to see more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Unexperienced. I suggest DCI get more involved in the areas he wants to admin in, like vote at AfD, and then come back next year with a track record.
'''Oppose''' - During a recent dispute, I (and some others) were approached by the candidate. While at first my impression was that he was proactively trying to negotiate a fair solution, later it seemed more as if he was just trying to push one side into "voluntarily" quitting, without really understanding the issues on both sides, (and without really understanding that I was relatively uninvolved in the dispute). I get the impression that the candidate is primarily after the block button, but of course I'd be open to seeing facts that prove me wrong.
The general lack of experience is really what concerns me. I appreciate your willingness to help out and all the great work you do around here, but I don't think giving you a mop at this time is necessary or appropriate. You're a task-oriented editor with generally diverse involvement around the project. But, while diverse and spread about the project, I don't believe your experience in any one area is sufficient to become a sysop. I'd be happy to support an RFA in six months or so, after you've deepened your involvement in some of your favorite admin-related areas and have a need for the tools in those areas. If this RFA doesn't pass, you'll pass a future RFA with flying colors after a bit of time and increased involvement. So, while I think you're generally a good editor and a friendly guy, '''I cannot support''' at this time.
'''Oppose''' - per Tyrol5. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Oppose''' As per Tyrol5, I'm concerned about the lack of experience this user has in admin related areas. DCI has only 7 edits to RPP and 5 edits to AIV and the user said he or she would like to be active in those areas. This makes me feel uncomfortable to the point that I must oppose this user getting admin rights. However, I would happily support this user in their next RFA, only if the user has more edits to those admin related areas.
'''Oppose''': You say you would like to participate in [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]], yet you have only edited each of those pages a few times. Try to get some experience in those areas.
Not yet. This editor does some great things, and I'm sure s/he will make a great admin one day. I'm particularly impressed by [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Venturism]] where he has done good background digging and stuck to his guns while keeping calm. And I believe he was the first to get it right regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#NPOV_not_being_complied_with.3B_and_unfair_treatment_of_IP_address_user this incident at ANI]. However, the lack of experience is clear, and recent activity has majored heavily on putting templates (welcome and vandalism) on user talk pages, which anyone can do. I'm also concerned at the habit of popping up at users' talk pages with unsolicited advice. The one linked above, at [[User talk:LittleBenW#WP:AN notice]], was a significant misjudgement, in my view. The inital posting of the new ''Recent activity'' section, before LittleBen had replied to the AN notification, could have been an oversight, but the follow-up just ten minutes after LittleBen's reply (indicating that he considered that he was being got at) was less likely to pour oil on troubled waters than to add fuel to the fire. It's very unwise to try to tell people how to feel, and unsolicited advice in emotionally fraught situations can easily come across as interfering. This and the early self-nom [[User talk:Worm That Turned/Archive 23#Possible RfA in future?|against advice]] lead me to think the candidate needs more experience and maturity. '''But''', a very good editor, so please keep going and try again when ready. --
I'm mixed feelings.  The user appropriately caught the [[WP:RS]] issue but didn't mention the [[WP:BLP]] issue.  As an administrator, I would amend the answer that DCI would be required to remove the negative material until a better [[WP:RS]] is found.  I won't oppose because it is half right and he caught, what I feel, is the harder of the two issues involved in my question.  Good luck.--v/r -
'''Neutral''' - Well, this is a tough one. I appreciate the user's solid content work; he has an FA to his name and that's quite an achievement. He's been pretty forthcoming in his answers to the questions. He has edited since 2008. The problem is the fact that he has under 4000 edits. I was just checking my [[User:Go Phightins!/Admin criteria|criteria]] and realized there was a typo...I would like to see a minimum of 5000 edits prior to supporting. The answers to the questions are satisfactory and barring one that knocks my socks off, I'll probably remain here. As Worm suggested when you asked him two months ago, wait six months, and you'll probably pass with flying colors.
'''Support''' In my opinion, Dirtlawyer1 is very qualified to serve his fellow Wikipedians as an administrator. To start with, he has the experience necessary. He has done quite a bit of work on articles related to the University of Florida, getting four promoted to GA status. I've personally seen Dirtlawyer1 around at AfD and his !vote will match the consensus the vast majority of the time. Dirtlawyer1 is not a controversial editor and he would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net benefit]] to the community as an admin. In short, I trust him with the tools.
'''Support without reservation''' - I've long admired Dirtlawyer and have been looking forward to the day he ran for adminship for some time. His tact, knowledge of policies, and helpfulness more than qualify him for administrator tools. I think he will clearly be a net positive closing AFDs, protecting sports articles, and whatever else he may decide to do.
'''Support without reservation''' Dirtlawyer and I have collaborated a great deal over the past three years within the realm of [[WikiProject College football]] and related projects.  He has been a great resource, sounding board, and partner in establishing and modifying a great number of standards for policy and formatting in the college sports world on Wikipedia.  I regard him as something of an adviser as his pragmatism and diplomacy have offered valuable counterpoints to my at times brash idealism.  His discussion comments are consistently well thought-out, well stated, and comprehensive yet succinct.  He will serve well as an administrator.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support:'''  Good move <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]]
'''Support''' Great candidate, glad to support.
'''Support''' This editor appears to be trustworthy and will obviously be a [[Wikipedia:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] to the encyclopedia. I admire their work in the areas of [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]], [[WP:VAND|vandalism cleanup]], [[WP:RFPP|page protection]] and content work at the [[English Wikipedia]]. They appear to discuss matters often in an always [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] manner as well, so I certainly trust him. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' on the basis of his excellent AfD contributions, and especially his Redirect that dealt with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Career Resource Center]]. It shows the right approach to AfD. '''
'''Support''' Have seen this editor's work at AfD before, and have been impressed.  Now I've looked at some of his content work, and have been, again, impressed.  --
'''Support''' Everything seems good, and the recommendations by those familiar with his AFD work resolve any issues that might have arisen because of my unfamiliarity with his AFD work.
'''Support''' I like the candidate's honest, modest and thoughtful answers to questions. I also like their content and AfD contributions. Good luck lawyer. --
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.  Good contributions and good work at AFD.
Dirtlawyer1 has all the experience needed to be an administrator, and I don't see him doing anything crazy with the added toolset. I think he'll be a great asset over at [[WP:AFD|AFD]] and anywhere else he wants to chip in.
'''Support''' - The more I look at this editor's contributions, the more I want to support.
'''Support''' Intelligent; clearly expressed; cool. --
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''support'''. A constructive editor who would benefit from administrative tools. Sometimes he gives wake-up calls to dopey editors, which helps turn time-wasting discussions into consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - great candiate for admin. No concerns at all.
[[User:Filelakeshoe/RFA standards|Support]] <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' per the nom and many others who have already voted and whom I trust the judgement of.  A cursory look at contribs shows good judgement and plenty of experience.  I'm sure they will put the tools to good use.

'''Support''' Experienced Editor and good content creator has been editing regularly since July 2009 with 54K edits of which 88% 48K edits go to Article Space.He has created over 98 articles. Fully  trust DGG's opinion of his excellent AfD contributions.
'''Support''' Why not when user has good contributions.--'''
'''Support''' - I remember working with Dirtlawyer1 on some MOS issues regarding sports seasons, he left a good impression.
'''Support'''. I have had excellent interactions with the candidate where I found he was eminently clueful. No concerns, even after reading the neutrals below. -- '''
'''Support''' I see no reason why I shouldn't.
'''Support''' Great candidate. --
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' Seems like a net positive, and I trust that any tendencies toward over-legalism will be held in check.
'''Support''' Review of contributions shows nothing odd.  The interactions in the first oppose actually seem very professional. I don't interpret the text of the message as a threat; simply that there would be many concerned editors when a high interest template is modified, which seems to be true. As noted, seems like a net positive.
'''Support''' Solid, trustworthy user. Would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. '''
'''Support''' - Good candidate.  {{font|font= Trebuchet MS|
'''Support''' - Have had the pleasure of working with Dirtlawyer1 as part of the [[WP:CFB]] and is a fantastic candidate for an admin.
'''Support''' I'm familiar with his work, and I think he has a good head on his shoulders. In truth, I see a lot to like in those template discussions mentioned below. He is forceful and passionate, but never uncivil. Plus, he knows that "free agent" is not a proper noun! I thought that was a losing battle on Wikipedia. :)

'''Support''' My fellow Wikipedians sing your praises, therefor it is imperative that I support this Dirtlawyer! {{smiley|wink}} —<span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.5em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -
'''Support''' - One of those cases in which I'm not entirely sure why tools are needed, but beaucoup contributions to mainspace, sufficient tenure, and a clean block log, so this is a NOBIGDEAL situation, I reckon.
'''Support'''. Highly experienced, clueful user with a very strong background at AfD. Clearly a disproportionately net positive. ''
'''Support''' I like his measured responses - give him a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#194D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - AfD track record looks fine, a random sampling of their edit history looks fine (if a bit of a habit of making unnecessarily long "see also" sections, but we all have our vices), opposes don't strike me as significant enough concerns to not support.
'''Support'''; my only objection to this is that I didn't nominate ;p. I've known Dirtlawyer for years, and see him go from strength to strength - of all the non-admins I know, there are none I'd rather see get the tools.
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''', as above.
'''Support''' - I like what I see, and I don't anticipate any issues. Good addition.
'''Support''' - I have worked with Dirtlawyer extensively on matters relating to American football.  He is level-headed, smart and a good peacemaker when disputes have arisen.  He has the temperament and Wikipedia knowledge to be a fine administrator.

'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''': I think I have seen you around a few times. I don't see any reason to not support.
'''Support''' - Based on review of work and having no real issues of concern.
'''Support'''. Can't see any reason to !vote otherwise, since we are talking about an excellent contributor to the project and adminship is NOBIGDEAL.
'''Support''' I have had extensive interaction with him on sports related work. He is quite logical and would be a fine admin.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/
'''Support''' I don't remember any problematic interactions in the past, and answers to first few questions (other than 6) appear clueful. (6 omitted because I'm too close to the subject to weigh it objectively) --
'''Support''' - I was just wondering why Dirtlawyer1 had not yet submitted to RfA. In our interactions, he has shown diligence in his approach to the application of Wikipedia's policies and a willingness to ask for assistance when needed. I have no doubts that he will have a positive impact on the project if granted the admin tools. --
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' per my [[User:Mkdw/RfA Standards|RfA Standards]].
No concerns <font color="00ff00">
'''Support'''.  Would be even more enthusiastic if his name were "copyviolawyer", as I expect we will not run into too many real estate law issues.  But we take what good assistance we can get.  Looks like a good add.--
'''Support''' - Does not appear problematic, and has also been a great user over at [[WP:NFL|WikiProject NFL]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' With all due respect to opposers, Dirtlawyer1's response to my questions No. 8 & 9 make it clear to me that he is not looking to use his admin position to apply personal bias in reading consensus.  Nobody is perfect, but his willingness to communicate based on my past interactions with him will be invaluable in those rare hiccups. Use the opposes as points for improvement; the list of haters can only grow as an admin, warranted or not :-) —
'''Support''' - The candidate has the requisite experience and has provided thoughtful answers to the questions. He certainly seems like someone we can trust to wield the mop with due care. -
'''Support'''. Trusted and experienced editor.
'''Suppport'''. Long-term editor with solid content contributions & strong answers to questions.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate and should do quite well as an admin. I did particularly enjoy his response to my question. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers.
Seems trustworthy; good answers overall.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' trusted user
'''Support''' His feistiness seems well-tempered by consideration.
'''Liked the comments about MOS talk'''.  That place is really one of the more iconic examples of the Wiki tendancy to emphasize edit wars over trivia versus real content creation.  And to want to fight for control.  P.s.  I like [http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ Grammar girl] better--she hawt and helpful.
'''Support''' In our many interactions over the years, I have found Dirtlawyer to be consistently reasonable, intelligent, and honest, with much respect shown to Wikipedia's procedures and guidelines.  Most importantly, he has always demonstrated a unwavering dedication to the project's main goal: creating well-sourced, quality content by starting or improving MANY articles, templates, infoboxes, and anything else that will help get info across to wiki-readers. Because he is willing to defend his understanding of wiki-guidelines, apparently Dirtlawyer has unwittingly made some enemies among editors who came up on the losing end of various debates. Many of these folks can be found n the "oppose" section below. However, I'd much rather that Wikipedia appoint administrators who have been prolific contributors to articles and have extensive experience in procedural discussions than users who have semi-anonymously slid along without making any waves.
'''Support''' Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. --
'''Support''', great editor. →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' per nom.--<span style="">
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' I looked through some of the cherry picked links in the oppose section, and didn't see anything worth justifying an oppose.  Editor has made a tremendous amounts of edits to Wikipedia, so seems well dedicated to the project.
I've looked this user over and would have to say '''Support'''. --'''
'''Support''' - At this point I really don't care what goes on at the Manual of Style. I really don't. Beyond that the candidate looks fine. I'm not too worried about the low number of wp:talkspace edits. (I have a grand total of 50.)

'''Support''' strong user in content creation and expansion, good experience in admin-related areas. --
'''Support''' he seems like he will do well as an admin.
'''Support''' I'm especially interested in this MoS plan.  There is too much cliquishness there now.  Too much of the MoS is there because of the personal preferences of a small group of editors, sometimes in direct contradiction with established sources on correct English practice.  Some discussions are civil, but things can get ugly.  DirtL's plan might be another failure, but it sounds worth a try. I can see why the term "adult supervision" offended Tony1, though.
'''Support''' Dirtlawyer is a personal friend of mine, but taking that away from consideration, he is fully qualified for the duties of adminship. He's highly intelligent with regards to policy involving Wikipedia, has a cool head when interacting with others, and always willing to help others. When I have any questions or concerns, I feel confident going to Dirtlawyer for answers and solutions.
'''Support'''...its highly doubtful they are going to misuse the tools or position. (Switched from neutral)...--
As long as he calms himself down a bit and does this more by-the-book when he has the mop, I think he could do a pretty good job with it. —
'''Support''' Seems qualified, and I've had no interaction with him to my recollection. Have carefully read the opposes, and I do not find them convincing.  I'm not saying they are totally out of line, but I don't see anything to cause me to withhold my support.  We need more lawyer admins anyway. :)--
'''Support''' I find the opposes not sufficiently weighty to withhold my support, although the candidate may need to grow a thicker skin over being attacked. A lot of the time, the best thing to do with certain types of criticism is not to respond, especially in an RfA setting. Nobody likes the person who absolutely ''has'' to have the last word in a discussion. <strong>
'''Support''' I wasn't really planning on saying anything here, but I think Dirtlawyer1 will make a fine admin and I don't want to see his RfA torpedoed.  It's just a few extra tools, and I see no evidence he'll have any trouble staying within his limitations.
'''Support'''. Generally, the opposers are saying ''unsuitable'', not ''incompetent'', (ad hom anyone?). He has skills, and this RfA is a big wakeup call for him. And, ok, if he turns out to be a rebel, then we just deal with it as we [[Wikipedia:Former administrators#For cause|'''have in the past''']]. No big deal. Come to think of it, someone once famously said adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' Dirtlawyer1 is an excellent editor, and I appreciate his willingness to give well reasoned answers to explain his decision making process.
'''Strong Support''' To be honest, this user is really respected and has no problems.
'''Support''' Dirtlawyer1 and I have worked together on various articles in the past and I have also observed his wide array of contributions to Wikipedia. He has made countless improvements to articles related to the [[Florida Gators]]. From my experience he always edits with the utmost professionalism. Whenever I want to see how something should be done the right way, I look to Dirtlawyer1. I would absolutely trust him to be an admin. '''~
'''Support''' I respect this editor's level-headed responses to the questions and I don't think this user would abuse the tools. - <b>
'''regretfully oppose''', my interactions with this editor have not been pleasant (in particular the continued filibuster surrounding the [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 30#Template:Infobox NFL coach|Infobox NFL coach]] merger).
'''<del>Weak</del> Oppose''', per concerns regarding [[WP:ownership of articles|ownership of articles]] expressed by others during an edit war.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cooper_Carlisle&diff=481897636&oldid=481897377][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giants27&diff=prev&oldid=482205971] (I accept that this occurred almost one year ago, and may change this !vote if satisfied that I've misunderstood events and/or that such accusations have been rare and are<ins> related to</ins> uncharacteristic<ins> behaviour </ins >.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
Yeah, that encounter Frietjes  describes rings true, as does the response. Too concerned that in the limited fields that Dirtlawyer1 describes himself as wanting to work in an admin capacity, it's going to be primarily to help out his affiliated WikiProjects, especially in terms of defending them from outsiders who might want to do things without begging permission first. There's plenty of support here from folk I pay attention to, but little that specifically addresses the potential problems.
'''Oppose''': Much as I agree that the atmosphere around MOS is awful, the response to Q6 is quite alarming: (a) "effectively suspending the BRD cycle for MOS changes" is not at all "consistent with what [[WP:CONSENSUS]] already suggests with regard to Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines"; all WP:CONSENSUS says is that "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles." (b) a pool of elected admins who "would be responsible for striking any incivilities, comments that personalize disputes, and, as a last resort, temporarily block anyone who transgresses a strict code of conduct" looks like a censorship arm to me; a civility police is the last thing we need; warning and even blocking for incivility is one thing, but deleting what was said is quite another. There is a flavour of a model of the admins supervising the rest of us in all this. I am also concerned by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Florida_Career_Resource_Center&diff=534726226&oldid=534431477 this item] (mentioned by Mr Stradivarius below). Not being aware of the guideline is a small enough matter -- we all need to learn stuff -- but when an article is at AFD ''with its notability contested'', to take material from it and place it elsewhere is to pre-empt the consensus. It is obvious that this is high-handed, and it shouldn't need any guideline to say so. (Most of that material had primary sources only, by the way, and the remainder is promotional). I am not convinced that the candidate understands the difference between administration and governanace, and that he would confine himself to the former. --
'''Oppose'''—Unless there's something I'm missing that would convince me that Dirtlawyer is not one of the most unsuitable candidates ever to seek adminship on en.WP. In-principle agreement with Thumperward's comments above. Concern that the implied claims that 15 years of legal practice is a benefit are not reflected by the legal thinking I've seen from the candidate when he's in disputes with other editors (I should find diffs, so disregard the last comment if you feel it's improper of me to make an unsupported comment ... I have little time at the moment).
'''Oppose''': The editor's poorly disguised [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality about and insulting approach to his/her disagreements with other editors at [[WT:Manual of Style]] is completely inappropriate from any editor, much less a candidate for tools that can be used to protect pages from editing and block editors personally from editing. This editor has been heavily involved in disputation on MOS-related topics (which can be okay, within bounds), but is seeking administrative power for the specific intent (perhaps among other more legitimate intents) of shutting up opponents of his/her MOS views, in ways that thwart [[WP:CONSENSUS]] policy. Note the blatant but unsupported accusation of bad faith on the part of MOS "regulars", in Dirtlawyer1's second MOS-related rant in the questions section above, where he/she accuses other MOS editors of [[WP:OWN]] without evidence, in the same breath as criticizing them for what turned into [[WP:ARBATC]], yet not realizing that casting such a vague and broad aspersion is itself a {{em|personalization of style disputes}} and thus a violation of the discretionary sanctions at ARBATC!  This, from the candidate who wants tools to enforce ARBATC, and further fantasizes that MOS should have thought-policing by some new kind of "super-admin" called a "moderator", and that this would be an "adult" way to handle it, a suggestion that is alarming, absurd and grossly incivil. The candidate's response to the original question No. 3, his/her first rant above about MOS, makes it clear this editor does not understand WP:CONSENSUS properly, as that policy notes clearly that silence is generally taken to equate to assent and that language surviving for a protracted period of time is evidence of its consensus. It simply does not require that every single nit-picky detail at MOS or any other page be subject to some massive RfC process, or any other protracted, distracting procedure intended to make it seem terribly important. The majority of MOS predates the current fad of becoming an anti-MOS [[WP:SOAPBOX|warrior]], a [[WP:NOTHERE|disruptive pastime]] that has arisen mostly in the last couple of years. While [[WP:CCC|consensus {{em|can}} change]], one or a handful of editors [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|failing to gain widespread traction]] about some [[WP:TE|pet peeve]], does not make it change.<p>MOS operates like all other pages anyone pays attention to here; it has a pool of editors, changing slowly over time, who care about it and who form the bulk of those one works with to establish a consensus to change something there. Attacking MOS for operating the way Wikipedia operates is senseless.  Attacking MOS and all of it's non-drive-by editors, just because the candidate has had some disputes with particular editors on its talk page, is beyond senseless, and is just completely fallacious reasoning.  Yes, it is hard to change things at MOS.  This is a {{em|good thing}}, because what MOS says impacts millions of articles.  This candidate came to MOS to change things, and now complains about an imagined lack of consensus for things he/she didn't get to change, yet goes on at length about how MOS supposedly needs a censor who ensures that everything in it has consensus and can't be changed without it.  I can have nothing but a "What the hell...?" response to such a position, that is either a) that confused or (more likely) b) designed to mask the fact that the candidate has an MOS-changing agenda.  It's all backasswards, and consensus is working fine at MOS, despite the fact that some parties there, "regular" and otherwise, get testy or insistent from time to time, including this candidate.  Look, every single thing in MOS, like every single thing in every style guide ever written, has people that disagree with it.  MOS could not function if everyone with a pet peeve got their way and was able to change whatever they didn't like at MOS without going through normal consensus processes.  Basing one's campaign for adminship on an intent to do exactly that, to in {{em|suspend the normal operation of [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS]] at MOS}} (I couldn't make this up!), and to belittle, besmirch and punish debate opponents, after exhibiting a self-admitted pattern of vitriolic argumentation at MOS, strikes me as wikipolitical suicide. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[User talk:SMcCandlish|Talk⇒]] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|Contrib.]]</small></font>  16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)</p><p>PS: The candidate's own posts at [[WT:MOS]], [[WT:MOSABBR]], [[User talk:Dirtlawyer1]] and archives thereof, etc., indicate a general pattern of "sport debate" or argument for argument's sake, a common habitual pitfall of attorneys in online communities, and one that greatly impedes collegiality; in an admin it is a very negative trait. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''.  Candidate can not identify WP:3RR violations, candidate does not notify parties he is reporting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive189#User:.E2.80.8ENoetica_and_User:.E2.80.8ETony1_reported_by_User:Dirtlawyer1_.28Result:_no_violation.29]—
'''Strong oppose'''. On answers to 4 & 6. "cast of MOS regular contributors...bla." Per SMcCandlish except for the "poorly disguised" bit. Its not disguised, its right there and ominous. I dont see a person willing to judge concensus, I see a person with his mind made up and asking for bits to enforce. This will end in tears.
Whilst it's true that everybody will inevitably get caught up in a dispute in a long WP career, the true mark of character is not that they existed but ''how'' they are resolved. There's enough in the 'oppose' section above, particularly raised by Stfg to warrant me not wholeheartedly supporting the candidature. Also, Trevj provides some evidence that instances that same resolution may not have been the case. The candidate's admittedly "pie-in-the-sky, idealistic thoughts" about policing the MOS strike me as a bit authoritarian. Sure, I agree that civility and the MOS are both very important. The ideas ''may'' warrant a lot more discussion &ndash; not here nor within a cosy club of admins self-appointed to guardianship &ndash; but properly in the purview of Arbcom. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' – I believe SMcCandlish has described the problem well.  To give admin powers to a user who has been anti-consensus and hard to reason with in disputes over the MOS is asking for increasing troubles there.  In my own dealings with dirtlawyer, his lawyering was out of control, though it characterized it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2012/July#3RR_warning here] amusingly as ''I am not engaged in "wikilawyering." I am simply pointing a procedural finger, pursuant to Wikipedia policy...''  We don't need more of that kind of pointing of procedural finger.
'''Oppose.''' I have chosen to leave Wikipedia because of abuse of process by three or four admins. I will only return for a full ArbCom case to resolve the serious issues arising.<br>I note that Dirtlawyer's RFA commenced immediately after I announced my retirement. While the prospect of his success can have no effect on me, I owe it to the Project to oppose&nbsp;– and to draw attention to this editor's polemical attitude, refusal to retract misrepresentations, and careless approach to procedure in RFCs and the like.<br>[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_118#RfC:_endashes_and_set-off_spaces|This matter at WT:MOS]] drew me out of a long wikibreak in 2010, when Dirtlawyer started an RFC that failed to meet the requirements for neutrality, among other shortcomings (see [[WP:RFC]]). What he suggested was eventually adopted, curiously, in the arduous 2011 consultation on dashes to resolve disputes over hyphens and dashes in article titles. (I drafted the draft that was adopted as consensual after consultation involving 60 editors, under ArbCom supervision.) The content is not at issue; the process is.<br>[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Misrepresentations_and_incivilities|This matter regarding WP:ABBR]] (see sections preceding that one also) shows his abusive style and lack of truthfulness concerning fellow editors with specialised professional knowledge that he obviously lacks.<br>(Calm, please.&nbsp;☺ I am not applying for adminship. He is.)<br>There are other matters in which Dirtlawyer has conducted himself in the "righteous indignation" money-changers-in-the-temple mode. (See [[WT:MOSNUM]] for a recent case, where he plays quick and dirty with consensually established recommendations in MOS; and he took the result of that "discussion" and imposed it at WP:MOS also, at the heart of recommendations about slashes, hyphens, and dashes&nbsp;– a core concern of WP:MOS guidelines for high-quality style on the Project.) He shows no familiarity with the special relation that a manual of style has with its "reliable sources" (among which [[Strunk_%26_White#Criticism|Strunk & White]] is ''not'' included, though from the evidence at his talkpage he treats that laughing-stock as gospel). Frankly, if Dirtlawyer becomes an admin I am even more pleased to be out of this game, devoting myself to other projects instead. I am equally confident that he is pleased that I will be out of his way.<br>Let anyone here challenge what I say. I don't care, and I will not respond.&nbsp;☺<br><font color="red"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>
'''Oppose''' - A goodly number of the opposes above are convincing, and the diffs provide a picture that give me grave concerns regarding the temperament and motivation of this editor.  Frankly, what I see is someone in love with battle for battle's sake, who is willing to ride over consensus and who is arrogant in their beliefs and comments. I do thank the candidate for time spent here, and from what I am reading above, this is not someone I trust with a lifetime appointment to use the admin tools. ''I go so far as to ask those in support who are reading these words to reconsider their !vote.''
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' - mostly per concerns raised by Stfg and Chris Cunningham. Whole MOS affair and the way it has got drawn into this RFA is somewhat unsettling too. I probably would not have opposed over any single one of these, but all together it is a bit worrying to me.--
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive189#User:.E2.80.8ENoetica_and_User:.E2.80.8ETony1_reported_by_User:Dirtlawyer1_.28Result:_no_violation.29 This] was less than a year ago, and does not give me the impression of someone who I'd want wielding the block button.
'''Oppose''' Per BK above.
'''Oppose''' Unable to offer an opinion in a situation relating to a key judgement policy (Q16). The answer provided is fair enough, politically correct and in an ideal world would make the question irrelevant. Policy is not always clear, simple or fair to everyone and refusing to offer a direct view on a specific policy based question is simply not good enough.
'''Oppose''' per Stfg, Tony1, Noetica, and Leaky Cauldren. Moreover, a few other red flags here: 1., looking at the candidate's contribs shows a 88 percent of the edits are to mainspace - which quite honestly is a bit amazing. (I'd be happy to reach 62 percent.) However this is problematic because the candidate has less than 1 percent edits to WP talk space, barely above 1 percent to WP project space, and only 2.19 percent to user talk. All in all, as far as I'm concerned, these numbers show a lack of project engagement that I'd want to see in an administrator. Also, I'm not really impressed by some of the comments during the RfA, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony1&diff=537353367&oldid=537320087 this] asking Tony to reformat questions, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDirtlawyer1&diff=537592641&oldid=537589771 this] on the talk.
'''Oppose''' - Lacks the perspective needed by an admin, to determine what's important and what isn't. ←
'''Oppose''', concerns over temperament, per many of the diffs provided above.
'''Regretful Oppose'''.  Reading through some of the diffs in this oppose section give me pause in the "temperament", "battleground" and "ownership" areas.  While Dirtlawyer appears to interact well with those who agree with him, his approach to those who disagree with him indicates (to me) a problematic future with the extra bits.  While there are many I respect in the support section, I'm afraid I'm going to have to register my concerns here.  But best of luck no matter how this concludes. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' per Staberinde and Ched. '''
'''Oppose'''.  The nominee's taking a canvassing complaint concerning this RfA to AN/I while in the midst of the ongoing discussion shows a lack of judgment that I do not care to see in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per many, many above. While I do see a strong knowledge of the project, I also see a terrible battleground mentality and a general temperament that I feel is incompatible with adminship.
'''Oppose''' per BlackKite, Ched and Beyond My Ken.
'''Oppose''' I noticed this a couple of days ago and decided not to be negative because I thought the candidate's comments with the very unusual proposal about MOS were interesting and reasonable. However, the current commentary from the candidate regarding "canvassing" on the talk page of this RfA, and at [[WP:ANI#Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA]], show a strongly inappropriate style for an admin. The encyclopedia needs TLC, not the combative approach shown concerning the very minor issue of whether a particular notification violated [[WP:CANVASS]]. Also, there is perhaps a lack of understanding about what ANI can/will achieve: what if it were agreed that canvassing had occurred? How does the candidate think that would assist?
'''Oppose''' Like Johnuniq I first came across this a few days and have been mulling it, but the last trip to ANI has pushed me over the edge. BlackKite makes a very good point, and some of the answers to questions also give me cause.
I believe that your attitude, confrontational and wikilawyerish, makes you unsuitable to wield the mop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
(moved from support) With regret. I did like your initial answers to the questions but, like johnuniq above, have concerns about your approach to this RfA which has been unnecessarily confrontational. Some degree of circumspection is important in an admin and you haven't shown that with the canvassing ANI report, the lengthy responses to opposes, Ceoil's comment about your style, and more. Any one would be concerning by itself but, taken together, it's not at all good. Add BlackKite's example and your response to leaky's question (I think you missed the point completely), and I must, in good conscience, oppose. --
'''Oppose'''. I couldn't care less about which side of the MOS wars a given person is on, but what I see in this RFA is an unpleasant tendency toward drama and trench-digging by not only some naysayers, but the candidate himself. A candidate can't control the people who don't like them, but I certainly expect them to comport ''themselves'' in a non-escalating, non-dramatic manner. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)  '''ETA clarification:''' To be more specific, I was willing to stay on the fence about whether to support, oppose, or not comment until I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&curid=8196104&diff=537663206&oldid=521497119 this] (mentioned under Discussion above), which is apparently what Dirtlawyer felt he needed to do to respond to what he believed was people canvassing against him. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a candidate using judgment that poor isn't cancelled out just because he feels his opponents did something similar.
I think it's too risky giving the block button to someone frequently involved in bitter disputes.
You seem to have a tendency to panic and make hasty decisions at the very times when you need to be calm and think things through patiently.
'''Oppose''' I have some concerns with regard to whether the candidate has the necessary temperament to remain calm and neutral when taking the flak admins deal with on a regular basis. I also find the appearance of canvassing in [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]]'s oppose concerning. Not every good editor is meant to be an admin, and I believe that is the case here.--
'''Oppose''' My concern is mainly outlined by Epbr123, and fluffernutter brings up some good points regarding the candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Per most of the opposes above. I actually had decided to be neutral on this one. I thought Dirtlawyer's votes at AfD, cited in the nomination, were quite sound, and showed common sense, and understanding of the guidelines. The early opposes (i.e. Frietjes) didn't concern me, apparently Dirtlawyer had some reason to re-open the "Case of the Infernal Infobox" (:D). At that time Dirtlawyer's score of support was 93%. And then it came to light that Dirtlawyer is a regular at MoS, haggling over punctuation in a not so nice manner. I still thaught, well, somebody has to tackle the backlog at AfD, and maybe the MoS issues have been settled in the meantime. But then we get during this RfA an accusation of improper canvassing, questions about whether "ARBATC sanctions apply to this RfA", and a run to ANI by the candidate himself. Holy smokes! Adminship is '''not''' about content, Dirtlawyer. No harm is done if an article on some non-notable subject lingers on for a few months more, awaiting discussion at AfD. Changing the policies and guideline at MoS is already more problematic. The other day I had a little dispute over a minor point of punctuation, and was corrected by another user who gave a link to the pertinent guideline. I thaaught this guy is nuts, but when I checked it out, I saw that the guideline had been reversed since I had last seen it, and acknowledged the current version. Imagine editors with a different mentality, they might get into each other hair, each one insisting he's right under the guidelines (these are not easy to find for less experienced editors). So, you see, reversing and re-reversing longstanding MoS guidelines increases the drama-rate exponentially. Anyway, as I said, adminship is not about content, it's about tone, style and behavior. At 93 % support, a level-headed admin candidate would just have let it roll. Even with improperly (? - open to debate) canvassed ten opposers, a serene candidate could have shown that he can keep drama at a reasonable level. But the run to ANI, but also a lack of comment like "please don't worry about canvassing, anybody could vote here, the more the better, so to get really balanced input" show that, for Dirtlayer, escalating drama is a legitimate proceeding to win a case, or make a point. That has been called "battleground" mentality, and is IMO an occupational hazard for lawyers, whose one and only aim is to win a court battle regardless of the merits of the case (for historical examples see [[Linda Fairstein]] and the [[Central Park Jogger case]]; or [[Earl Rogers]] and the Mootry case). However, here at Wikipedia, there actually are several guidelines, cited by the various opposers above, that ask editors to avoid such behavior. So, I'm really sorry to voice an opinion here. I suggest Dirtlawyer calm down a bit, and whether this RfA be successful or not, show in the future more patience, and the ability to look farther than the end of his own nose.
The ANI post ([[WP:ANI#Procedural/canvassing issue in ongoing RfA]]) and the way this editor is talking about others ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&curid=8196104&diff=537663206&oldid=521497119]) doesn't sit right.
'''Oppose'''.  Moving from support because of some of the same concerns shared by others re: attitude and an apparent battlefield mentality.  &ndash;&nbsp;''
'''Oppose''': Per Chris Cunningham and Ceoil and SMcCandlish. Kraxler also posted an excellent summary. The candidate does not seem to have the temperament to detach himself and behave impartially during debates. I am concerned that this characteristic is not something that can be easily changed or re-learned. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and the candidate's past behaviour has not been of the kind I look for in admin candidates. --
'''Oppose'''. Moving from neutral. The answer evasiveness in the answer to 16 doesn't look good to me. I also agree with a lot of Kraxler's concerns above.  The canvasing issue and the ANI thread is troubling on all sides. I've seen other recent admin hopefuls throw curveballs in their RfA and handle them much more openly and less confrontationally. If handled differently I could have seen supporting this, but not now.
Moved from Support. This pretty much ruins my day; I feel awful about it. Frankly, I think that, in all of the garbage over MOS, ANI, and AE, there's a lot of blame to go around, and rather little of the blame belongs to Dirtlawyer1. But, within exactly the kind of drama in which an administrator must expect to find themself, Dirtlawyer1's choices made the drama worse. Basically, it comes down to what Soap said above. --
A lot of little things, perhaps none of which individually would matter.  I've had my eye on this RFA since pretty much the beginning, and I'm left with an unease about this candidate having the buttons; too much battlefield mentality, even while this RFA ran.
'''Oppose'''. I've been torn on this one from pretty early, when I was very unimpressed by the comment "''I believe that the MOS governance process is ripe for reform and is sorely in need of adult supervision''" - that kind of condescension is a bad sign in an admin candidate. And since then, I've seen more and more of an entrenched battlefield approach with a determination to "win". So I'm sorry, but I really can't support. --
'''Oppose:'''  As someone who rarely comments on RFAs, I came across the candidate's [[Wikipedia:Ani#Procedural.2Fcanvassing_issue_in_ongoing_RfA|recent post on ANI]] about alleged canvassing.  I think  Courcelles and others nailed it: [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]].
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has strong contributions. Q1-Q3 are good. Appropriate comments about being reserved and circumspect. It's clear that he can dissect and understand issues and that he understands what the bit is about. He's not afraid to engage in difficult argument. The candidate gives some welcome mea culpas about past conflict/behavior. Those are all strong reasons to grant the bit. However, Q6 has a chilling undertone. The rebuttal is good on an intellectual level, but I'm not persuaded the implications are wrong. Other events give further pause. I need to see evidence of moderation.
'''Weak oppose''' - I'm sorry, but too many issues with battleground behavior have been demonstrated.
'''Oppose''' for unfortunate [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and [[WP:OWN]] tendencies, coupled with RfA answers indicating [[WP:INVOLVED]] problems, largely in regards to MOS issues.
I have checked the candidate's deleted contributions, and I don't see anything out of place there. I have also looked through his comments at AfD, and I see impressively reasoned arguments and a good knowledge of our notability guidelines and precedents. However, I am worried that these two AfD comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Quebec&diff=522634599&oldid=522552667][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Florida_Career_Resource_Center&diff=534726226&oldid=534431477] may indicate a less-than-full understanding of the [[WP:RUD|guidelines on reusing deleted material]], and that this might lead the candidate to making bad calls on AfD discussions with comments that call for "[[WP:MAD|merge and delete]]". So I am reluctant to support at this time. — '''''
'''Neutral''' I have known Dirtlawyer1 for several years now since we both work so closely on American college sports' WikiProjects (he prefers football, I prefer basketball, but we still overlap quite a bit). He has always tried to help me whenever I leave questions at [[WT:CFB]] and his edit summaries are always crystal clear. Whenever he offers rationale at XfD, his arguments are always based on policy, not arbitrary opinion. The reason I'm neutral, however, is because I'm wary of the [[WP:LAWYER|lawyering]] at which he is so adept. On numerous occasions I have seen rebuttals in XfD's or talk page discussions where it appears as though he thinks by adding longer responses and/or driving home more secondary points, the opposing viewpoint editors will either give up out of exhaustion trying to answer every detail he demands or become too confused by the long-winded responses to adequately rebut. For him as an admin, I just fear that too many discussions would be bogged down by expansive paragraphs of Wiki-jargon; 99.9% of us editors don't have juris doctors, so debating with Dirtlawyer1 already puts the rest of us behind the 8-ball to begin with. This neutral !vote isn't personal, obviously, but I cannot fully oppose nor fully support this RfA.
'''Neutral''' - leaning towards oppose, but I don't very familiar with RfA's, so I'm not voting. I was made aware of this RfA as I'm one of those 122 watchers of [[User talk:GiantSnowman]], and I'm a little worried that those "thank you" messages can be a clever way of canvassing to make more people who support him aware of this RfA (especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&curid=8196104&diff=537663206&oldid=521497119 this]).
'''Support'''. <tt><font style="text-shadow:#BBB 0px 2px 5px;">[[Special:Contributions/Status|<span title="Contributions" style="color:#0F0F0A;">St</span>]][[User talk:Status|<span title="Talk page" style="color:#252923;">at</span>]]
'''Support''' I would be a pretty bad nom if I didn't
'''Support''' - Obvious. --
'''Support''' I find the oppose rationales unconvincing.  Had he said he was going to jump into AfD, then I would oppose.  He promised he would stay away and very slowly ease into the process with the 2 admins assisting him through it.  I am AGFing on his word and supporting because of this.  I am well aware that I am in the minority but this how I feel and I stand by it.—
'''Support''' Since ''as nom'' is no longer convincing, I shall address the opposes. I have to agree with Cyberpower the AfD one. Hahc21 has not said he will ''cease'' his work at AfD or that he is requesting adminship to go up and over the NACs (as proposed by the opposes). Hahc21 is a genuine content creator and has sufficient knowledge policies. Granted his recent lift of the restriction can be viewed as troubling but I prefer to view it as a way for him to positively contribute. There is a rise in the concern of the nominators (more specifically me) communications and position on Hahc21's nomination but from myself, I nominated Hahc21 purely for his contributions and this was done in my best judgement and I see no reason to put Hahc21 down due to a restriction ''regardless'' of his past or nominators.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''. If this had been a self-nom, I likely would have opposed it, as that would be prima facie evidence of the trophy seeking behavior noted in the oppose section, below. But the fact that this candidate was nominated by multiple trusted editors? Honestly, I'm sold. Obviously, be careful around AFDs until you get the hang of things, but every admin has areas where they are weak. That's not a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Per the comments above. — <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS;font-size: 10pt">
'''Not-now Oppose'''. From where I sit now, I'm not comfortable handing the bits to someone who has literally [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_to_lift_restriction|only just]] had a restriction lifted that had been imposed due to their poor judgment in admin-related areas. It may well be that Hahc21 is, post-restriction, competent to be an admin, but given that we've not even had any time to evaluate that before he jumped into an RFA, I'm not confident in making that leap of faith.
'''Oppose for now''' per Fluffernutter. I have to wonder, what's the rush?
Bit hasty. Given your history of NACs, it would be better had you waited and demonstrated that you can do a good job of judging consensus. Looking over the AN discussion, I can't help but note that you "don't plan to to be very active with non-admin closures" and here you're seeking the ability to do admin closes! That doesn't sit right with me. Like Fluffernutter, I'm not confident I can make the necessary leap of faith. --
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Recently-lifted (not unanimously) restriction, argued based on "I promise not to close ANY AFD's" - which is actually a key role for administrators.  The whole reason the restriction was put in place a very short time ago was because of overall ''attitude'' and ''knowledge''.  I'll concur that Hahc has grown, but for crying out loud this is at least a year too early considering the recent attitudinal problems.  Combined with Hahc's absolutely '''surprising''' recent appointment as clerk on a major board, this now appears to be nothing but trophy collection.  This RFA is horribly misguided at this time ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose''' - the recent NAC issue is ''too'' recent for me, sorry. If you could not be trusted without the tools, then you cannot be trusted ''with'' the tools.
I don't know how to say this publicly without sounding mean.  But I've seen at least two episodes of poor judgement in the last few months, and in my experience, people don't mature that quickly.  One of them was the problem with NAC closings of AFDs; it wasn't just the closes, it was the approach to criticism and lack of judgement shown in his responses.  I'm not actually thrilled about the lifting of his topic ban there, and only stayed silent because Elen and Mark are going to be looking over his shoulder.  But I'm not comfortable with such monitoring for adminship.  Seems to be headed in the right direction, but this seems way too early, on the scale of one to two years early. --
'''Yes but no but yes but no but yes but no...''' I've seen Hahc21 around at AfD. He seems reasonable. I've had a look at his user page and statements above and there's nothing that screams out to me as being problematic. Indeed, there is much to praise about his work: eliminating the Good Article review backlog, positive work in the article namespace (FAs, GAs, FLs) etc. But such a rapid progression from having one's restrictions lifted to turning up at RfA is concerning as it puts the statements made at AN into sharp relief. "I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures"... indeed, if you become an admin a week after your restrictions are lifted, you can merrily get on with closing things without having to deal with [[WP:NAC]] anymore. Three of the fifteen people participating in the AN thread happen to be your nominators less than twenty-four hours later. With turnaround times that quick, you should be running an airline... —
Eek. The restriction that has only just been lifted (''today'', I would note) I personally think has much the same weight as a block would - the candidate needs to give it some time before subjecting himself to an RfA. It beggars belief that he would imagine himself passing so soon after something so major. —
No. Promising to cease non-admin closure because of problems your closures caused and then promptly accepting a nom at Rfa shows poor judgment. Maybe later, but now? No.
'''Moral support''', but not now. I like the candidate and believe he's made of the right stuff to serve the community well as an administrator, ''eventually''. However, I feel that this nomination simply comes too soon after the editing restriction at AfD. Promising not to engage in AfD closures and then immediately filing an RfA doesn't make much sense to me, and it's impossible to evaluate what Hahc21 has learned from experience as he has had no time to show us. A few months to learn, and I'm sure I'll be ready to support.
'''Strong oppose''' per Fluffernutter and Bwilkins. Far too early considering recently lifted sanctions.--
'''oppose'''  Not because of the recent restriction, maybe because of the haste in running to RfA so soon afterwards, but mainly because of not mentioning it in the nomination. Were we expected to not notice it?
'''Oppose''' Poor judgment skills.  You seem desperate to get admin access by running so soon after having the NAC restriction lifted, and it almost seems that you thought that the NAC restrictions was the ''only'' thing keeping you from getting in.
'''Fucking meh'''.  Think the opposers are beating the kid up too fast.  This place can really get into chewing people up and going after them if they've had some sanction (maybe the kid had grace to take it, unlike the typical dead ender arguers around here).  That said, the 3 month end thing seems a little fast.  See you in a year, Hahc.
'''Beat the nom support''' Jasper will be a huge asset to the project as an administrator.
Good countervandalism experience crosswiki, admin on Wikidata and MediaWiki so knows how to use the tools, global rollbacker. Also knows more about IPv6 than some of the CUs. --'''
'''Oppose''' because Legoktm beat my support.  Kidding, support as nom.--v/r -
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''What a bunch of brittle drama queens at that MSE FA'''.  Gawd.  Some time away really gives perspective.
'''Support''' Oh, yes. Clueful editor who will make a great admin. --
Clear '''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Spot random check of contributions looks good. Trust the judgement of the nominators. [[User:PaleAqua|PaleAqua]] ([[User talk:PaleAqua|talk]]) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I had a little doubts based on some of the opposes below, but like the most recent answers and agree with Secret's and Dennis Brown's assessment below.
'''Support''' - Definitely. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' About time. —
'''Support''' - When Dennis and TP agree on something, it's probably the right thing to do. (Secret doesn't hurt either)
'''Support''' Of course. <font face="Impact">
Seems fine. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Whaddaya mean he's not an admin already?
'''Support''' Jasper would definitely be a net asset to the project. With IPv6 seeing more use, I have no doubt that he will be extremely helpful in this area. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Strongest support possible''' - I was considering doing a co-nom, but saw that there were three already and I have nothing left to say about him. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
{{agree|Pro}}
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' No cons for me, and many pros. A positive to Wikipedia already, and would do great with some extra tools.
'''Support''' While I am very mindful of the opposes, and do not dismiss them, I was struck by a number of clueful comments made by the candidate over the past year while researching his contributions.--
'''Support''' A great editor who deserves the mop.
As co-nom and someone who is familiar with JD background, I do understand where the opposition comes from, and gave me a slight pause from supporting this more enthusiastically instead of a regular "nom-support". I gave it some thought however, and I still believe Jasper is a huge positive with the tools and I behind my decision of nominating him. Reaper Eternal oppose vote is partly correct, and like he said there is stuff I won't mention here being an off-wiki issue. It mostly regard this RFA however, which can prove this is not an OMG, I must get tools RFA. My experience with JD is a user who made a number of mistakes early on, but mainly because he was a rather enthusiastic newbie, which is quite common with vandal fighters, new page patrol, and so forth. But while most of those editors either burn out quick, or won't admit their mistakes, a select few starts to learn from their mistakes, learns how to have more patience and maturity, go and eventually they end up as some of our most respected editors in this project. Jasper Deng early actions reeks of the 2007 era in which that sort of crap was ignored by the community and most likely his first taste of administrative actions, vandal and new page patrolling and so forth comes from that era. Our discussion about this RFA convinced me that Jasper Deng is one of those editors, a person who matured drastically as he aged and got accustomed to the attitude changes throughout that time period. His technical ability shows someone who would further enhance the project if he gets the tool set, especially with IPv6, a subject that not many administrators are familiar with. His willingness to learn from his mistakes is something truly exceptional and if this doesn't succeed I know he would simply shrug this RFA and continue editing. I did saw the link RE gave about his "aim" of these tools, but that is a user subpage was formed rather early in his wikicareer (2011). One thing I do want to see is Jasper Deng to open up more about the background of this RFA to alleviate these concerns.
'''Support''' as I do not hold the apparently prevailing belief that one must be perfect to be an admin.
'''Support''' Experienced, constructive, civil and clueful. The fact that the he wishes to work at AIV and RFPP is definitely a plus. '''''<span style="color:#00FFFF;background:#000000;border:2px solid#000000;">~
--
'''Support''', despite a few reservations (possible trigger-happiness being the most significant); what swung me this way is their thoughtful answers to the additional questions, which indicate maturity after earlier slips.
'''Support''' per Secret and Dennis Brown. No one is perfect, but their arguments for supporting him are enough to convince me to  support.
'''Support''' You're doing more than your share of work on the edit filter, especially the false positives page, where you have 551 edits as of today.  Getting admin access would make your work there a lot more efficient, and if this RfA fails I sincerely hope you don't give up, and that come back to try again soon.
'''Support''' - my only concerns related to some 2011 AFD stuff that didn't sit well with me. So I asked about it and Jasper seems to now have a good understanding of where he went wrong and how he might continue to improve moving forward. That's enough for me.

above is concerning especially MMORRGing. also "good" article at [[Levitsky versus Marshall]] is reason enough for me to oppose. There is zero way that article can honestly and accurately be described as "good". -
'''OPPOSE''', Jasper has been quite difficult and uncompromising in his interactions with myself. While conducting a GA review of one of his articles which contained plaigirism, he denied that it was present, thus delaying the review. If an editor cannot be bothered to check an article for plaigirism before nominating it for GA review, thus wasting the reviewers time, then I don't see how they can become an admin. Also, the concerns raised above are quite worrying. For those interested, [[Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA3]] and [[Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA2]] are the reviews in question. '''<font color="gold">★[[User:Retrolord|★]]</font>[[User:Retrolord|Retro]][[User talk:Retrolord|Lord]]
'''Oppose'''. Per concerns raised by Reaper Eternal.
oppose. Nice but too much time at IRC and maturity concerns. Reaper Eternal raised serious concerns.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', per review.
'''Oppose''' per Reaper Eternal and Nathan Johnson.
'''Oppose''' Jasper Deng seems too eager to get people banned, rather than taking the time to work with people to try to grow our editor base. Here's a few diffs from ANI: {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|474526593|"I want to be the one who adds the Banned tag"}} (Feb 2012); {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|493532324|"There's no ban, but we can create one right now"}} (May 2012 - this was in response to a <s>stunningly inappropriate unilateral</s> inappropriate undiscussed ban placed on a user by admin Raul654; Jasper failed to investigate very thoroughly or he would have seen that. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#Long-time user blocked with no discussion|Here]] is a link to the full thread; he then switches horses and proposes that Raul be desysopped); {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|493441745|proposes yet another community ban}} (May 2012). These are from last year, but I still find them deeply concerning, and will not support for adminship. --
'''Oppose'''. Reaper Eternal raised some valid concerns so also Diana. Sorry. <span style="">
'''Oppose''' After looking of the candidate I wanted to support however the concerns raised by Reaper Eternal made my reconsider and Diannaa swung me into an oppose.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Reaper Eternal.
'''Oppose''' Jasper has been clearly positioning themselves for a run at RFA for a long time and would therefore have been editing with that in mind. Despite that, I'm generally still left with the impression that they are not quite mature enough for the tools. Blocking and deletion requires a more thoughtful approach.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately the plagiarism concerns from Retrolord and your position on banning from Dianna makes me uncertain about your readiness of having the tools. In addition the concerns brought up by Reaper Eternal makes me think that you are requesting adminship for the wrong reasons. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Oppose'''  Reaper Eternal's comments give me no small amount of pause.  --
'''Oppose''' please '''ask''' me to do sysop actions for you instead of commanding me to do them. --
'''Oppose''' - I don't think Jasper has the necessary mentality or level of maturity for the bit.
'''Oppose''' due to the issues that Reaper Eternal brought up above. '''
'''Regretful oppose''' - There is no doubt that Jasper Deng has done an abundant amount of good work here and has exhibited a capacity for improvement over time, but Reaper Eternal has raised some serious concerns, prompting me to sample some of Jasper Deng's talk page interactions. There does seem to be a MMORPG theme to some of his interactions, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJasper_Deng&diff=460241152&oldid=460240788 here]. I'm also concerned about what seems to be a lack of restraint in some cases, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jasper_Deng&diff=next&oldid=432281229 "It is typical for me to go to the brink of 3RR often. I never go beyond that."]. After reviewing several pages of talk page comments and ANI posts, I'm left with the impression that Jasper Deng is knowledgeable about our policies and the culture, but may not yet quite have the wisdom to uphold the "spirit of the law" in challenging situations. There also seems to be a slight over eagerness to become an admin and use the ban hammer, as mentioned above and supported by a review of the history. I would certainly be open to support his future run at the bit, but I would like to see more content creation and less involvement in the day-to-day drama. -
'''Regretful oppose''' - Jasper is a good user, but I strongly agree with Reaper Eternal. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- <span class=plainlinks><font color="#000000">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers,]</font><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Regretful oppose''' &mdash; I have seen Jasper Deng's name around plenty of times, and to the best of my recollection, there was nothing in my observations that had caused me to distrust his judgment or doubt that he is in fact here to help out. I personally have no issues with anyone who actively aspires to be an administrator, and would be more than willing to support a candidate even if most of their credentials were acquired for the purposes of passing an RfA. I see no shame in wanting to be a sysop. But the concern that precludes my support at this time is Jasper Deng's apparent over-zealousness in supporting blocks or bans being enacted against other editors, as per [[User:Dianna|Dianna]]'s links above ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=474526593 for] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#Long-time_user_blocked_with_no_discussion quick] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#Attack_account reference]). Yes, if someone's activities remain problematic after being given enough chances, there comes a time when we must accept that they are simply not suited to edit Wikipedia. [[WP:CIR|Some people just don't have the skillsets necessary to become productive contributors]]. But blocks and bans are ''never'' something to be excited about; barring obvious vandalism-only accounts where a block is like saying "haha, you've had your fun, now it's time to go find something else to do", a block on a good-faith contributor is something that will stay with them for long after it has been lifted or expired. A block, as well as a ban, leaves a permanent mark on someone's Wikipedia experience. It's like a weight on every positive contribution that they make afterwards, where their present activities are contrasted with whatever issues they have had in the past, rather than by their own merits. It's also an effective refutation of all the positive contributions that came beforehand. In other words, having a block or a ban in their record can carry a stigma forever. If not done with care, a block has the potential to leave valuable editors dispirited with the community, with its administrators, and with the climate of the site as a whole; even editors who have never been subjected to any sanctions can feel the chill effect, for it is palpable. It is easy, within the emotional limbo that is the internet, to forget that behind every signature, every logged edit, every misunderstanding is a ''human being'' with genuine feelings. A block or a ban against someone is not something to be happy about, it's something to accept as an inevitable aspect of maintaining the integrity of this site. It does not reflect well on our administrators when we have people amidst their ranks who cast aside even the perception of a nuanced approach for the sake of jeering alongside the crowd when someone is no longer welcome here. That, coupled with the links [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_18#User_HumphreyW.27s_activities_on_the_Intel_Atom_page provided] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_18#Throwing_the_baby_out_with_bathwater above] by [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] which demonstrate a terse approach to inexperienced users (another example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jasper_Deng/Archive_17#Edit_fiter_manager here]), leaves me unable to support Jasper Deng at this time.
Another regretful '''Oppose'''. I'm very much opposed to authoritarianism here at Wikipedia, and I'm seeing a bit too much of it from Jasper Deng. People have already provided links to cases of his being too keen to ban people, and appearing to relish it. I'm also seeing too much of a confrontational approach to discussion with editors who make mistakes, and a tendency to take things personally sometimes. A number of the examples people have given appear to show a bit of an attitude of "The rules come first, and Wikipedia and its editors are here to serve them", when exactly the opposite is the truth. Having said all that, I'm impressed to see so much great work done here, and I accept that Jasper has improved dramatically since earlier days - but some of these worrying examples are within the past year, and even the past few months. So, to Jasper, I'd say carry on with the progress you are making, try to further curb your slightly excessive authoritarian zeal, and work on improving the way you interact with new editors (and remember that admins are here to serve them). I hope these words provide some constructive feedback, and if you run again when you can demonstrate that you have rectified the problems that have been raised, I expect I'll be able to support you. --
'''Oppose''': Seems too eager for the tools, and being excited to add banned tags to a talk page is not a quality I want to see in an admin
000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Regretful '''Oppose''' as per comments raised above and also emphasizing {{U|Reaper Eternal}}'s comments. I do agree with RE's reasons on why this RfA should be opposed. Sorry Jasper.
Per Retrolord. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Oppose''' - concerns raised by Reaper Eternal are depply...well, concerning. I do not feel I can trust this user with the tools.
'''Oppose''' because of the concerns raised by Reaper Eternal,
'''Oppose''' Inspite of the high esteem that I hold the co-noms and many of the supports, I must oppose based on the harsh and elitest tone in some of the exampled discussions above. Just not diplomatic enough. ```
'''Oppose'''. Well, I was going to vote "Neutral" since I base my votes on interaction with the editor/user; however, after reading [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]]'s opposition statement, I can definitely agree that I do not want an administrator who possesses such qualities. Wikipedia is not an MMORPG; if one wants to play an MMORPG, subscribe to one and play it. I'd rather there not be a risk of the integrity of Wikipedia being disrupted by a administrator who wants who has a risk of using the tools for the wrong purposes.
Waiting here for the moment. I have many of the same concerns Reaper Eternal brings up about Jasper's tendency to snap-judgment and his apparent feeling that sanctions as a first step fix most everything. At the same time, I don't think Jasper is likely to go on a rampage, and otherwise his temperament mostly seems suitable to the job. The constant talking about an upcoming RFA got tiring, but I think that represents a fairly typical case of pre-RFA nerves, and a little bit of tone-deafness, more than it represents any unusually great power hunger. I'm going to be keeping my eye on this RFA in the next few days, hoping some questions or interactions give me a bit more evidence to work with to make a decision.
Placeholder more than neutral.  I have a great deal of faith in the noms, but I do admit that much of the RE oppose is concerning.  I wonder about the ticking off of boxes, and I'm not anxious to turn loose another cowboy admin. who's a bit trigger happy. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
I usually don't find myself down here. The opposes are strong indeed, but Jasper has also made huge benefits to the project. I don't want to take my stance until I see a few Q&A's (even then, I might stay down here for the rest of the RfA).
I've noticed the candidate around and generally have a good but aggressive impression. Q1 and Q3 leave me wanting details. (Compare TP's nomination.) [[WP:BITE]] is disturbing. Discussion with 28Bytes is a little troubling but was 2 years ago. The edit distribution is not what I want to see (talk+article is only 35 percent), but skewed can be OK for Q1-stated anti-vandal work. Candidate's AIV reports are through the roof at 784 (I'd be satisfied with just 50). AfD is delete heavy, main diagonal is weak, but info is too sparse/stale for a current read. In a year-old RfA, a clueless candidate is going down in flames (5 support/29 oppose/3 neutral), and Jasper Deng adds a question with six subparts.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GabeMc&diff=489572414&oldid=489569552] What was he thinking? Where is the common sense? An additional question in the same diff asks the hopeless candidate to "Quantitatively describe 'ad nauseum'." Huh?
Neutral leaning toward oppose based on Ched's points above. The points raised by RE are very concerning to me.
While work in wiki is fairly good, first oppose by Reaper Eternal is a bit concerning, however not enough to warrant an oppose. Might reconsider pending your response to Oppose 1, should you choose to respond.
Neutral, weakly leaning support. I'm actually not all ''that'' concerned about what Reaper Eternal brings up...who doesn't shine up their performance a little before a possible promotion? On the other hand, it does cause me hesitation, and the other concerns in the oppose section even more so. In the end, this will boil down for me to whether or not I think they will affect performance as an admin, which I rather doubt right now. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Neutral''' Jasper Deng has been a perfectly acceptable admin over at Wikidata, but Wikidata has (I believe intentionally) set it's standards for RfA candidates at a lower bar than this project has. The behavioral traits that Reaper Eternal brought up -- the desire to grab onto more and more userrights and the over-importance of those userrights to the candidate -- are very real, and have led to what I would not call deeply troubling, but would still call questionable behavior over at Wikidata. While Jasper Deng is a nice person, and has proven to be capable, I still find him slightly impulsive, and think that some good would be done by his spacing out his acquisition of advanced permissions.
'''Ugh.''' We '''need''' more enthusiastic admins here. A user who says "GIMME ADMINBIT" but is perfect in every other way will always have my support, at least morally. However, I have concerns about this user still putting me here for now. Jasper would make a ''great'' admin, and all opposes seem based on his prep for adminship. So? I'd rather have someone who's been prepping for adminship than someone who just does a ton of content work and a little vandal fighting, wouldn't you? I'm torn, however, as I think Jasper may have gone too far... <small>I'll probably move this like 100 times before we're done, so bear with me</small>. In conclusion, Jasper=Great admin. Jasper=A bit too eager possibly. Eager=good most of the time in an admin. :)
'''Support'''. I've seen Kumioko around here and there and I think he's a good sort. If he behaves badly, he can be subject to the same sanctions as any other user. And if he abuses the tools (including unblocking himself, if that were to happen), ArbCom can perform an emergency desysop. If neither of these are the case, then his access to the toolkit will be a positive for the project. [[WP:No big deal|No big deal]]. —
'''Support''' no, you won't get the bit. However, you don't need to get buried. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">'''
'''Support''' - Not a chance in hell of this nomination going through; not quite sure why the effort was even made... That said, this is a person of committed principles and strong opinions who has the best interests of The Project at heart. I am happy to provide this gesture of solidarity.
'''Support'''. Doesn't seem so far that it's likely this nomination will succeed, but in the absence of any real will to unbundle the ridiculously conflated admin user rights this is the second-best choice.
'''Support'''. I foresee that KumiokoCleanStart will be judicious with his toolkit, setting a good example for others admins, and being committed to positive adminship reform.  Given the extent of his editing experience, I take him at his word that the toolkit will facilitate his edits and housekeeping of articles.
'''Support''',Kumioko makes good points.  There ''are'' issues with a couple of admin/experienced editors (Who shall remain nameless) acting like they own the place.  While Kumioko's [[WP:Battleground]] mentality is concerning, I still feel that Kumioko would be a true [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] for the encyclopedia with admin tools.  I would also urge the candidate to see reason, and realize that we are both going to wind up on the opposite side of consensus on this one, and withdraw the RfA.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, my support is probably irrelevant at this point but a clearly experienced user, who has the improvement of WP as his first goal, and to be honest I'm not surprised he replies how he does after such provocation by BMK. I don't see why he would mis-use the tools and if he did, I'm sure they would be summarily removed.--<span style="">
'''Support''' I do not believe that giving Kumioko the tools would adversely impact the website.--
'''Support'''  Easy support. Experienced editor who is very capable. I encourage everyone to look objectively at this candidate. Regards,
'''Support'''  Kumioko is 'bad boy' but he's not [[evil]] or corrupt. Just a self-confessed WP junkie who has the best interests of the project at heart. He moans a lot in the hops that it can improve under some much needed criticism. I agree it's sometimes quite negative, but I understand where he comes from. We're too conservative in appointing our admins, and we should make some of the 'bad boys' admins like teachers often make 'bad boys' monitors in the hopes that they can improve, and strangely enough it often works. For those who are truly concerned with the health of the Good Ship Sysop on WP, they should work harder to reform this 'job-for-life' culture that encourages and breeds abusive and corrupt admins. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">
'''Support'''. The candidate has been [[Heat treating|hardened through]] [[WP:INDEF|fire]]; is [[The Emperor's New Clothes|unafraid to speak out]] about a [[Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great|culture gone wrong]]; nothing will ever change without many more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KumiokoCleanStart voices like his]; a meal of a thousand donuts starts with [[User:Penyulap/The_Donut_of_DOOM|a single bite]].
'''Support''' per [[User:Scott Martin|Scot]] and [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]].  Highlights the need for tool reform.  More admin that may be critical of the management process are needed. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OnZLxKfFewEC&dq=complaining+moaning++employees+helps+in+business&source=gbs_navlinks_s "A complaint is a gift."]
'''Support''', first let me say thanks for answering my questions, even if others do not believe them appropriate. The subject of this <s>AfD</s>RfA is a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] to the community and the content within their field of interest. Although I understand that the subject of this <s>AfD</s>RfA may rub other editors the wrong way sometimes, I believe that it is done often with the best of intentions. If the subject of this <s>AfD</s>RfA runs afowl of policy then the subject is subject to the same processes we all are; furthermore, the subject has stated that they do not want to receive special treatment because they may receive the admin tools, which is humbling.--
'''Support''' on the grounds of his willingness to respond to that totally ignorant and unnecessary question (guess which one...) and the fact that, frankly, to call him ''confrontational'' here of all places- and by some of the people doing it- is abject hypocrisy. <font face="Georgia">
Candidate was blocked just 3 weeks ago for less-than-optimal behavior, which question 3 does not adequately address.--
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kumioko] and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=&page=User%3AKumioko%40global&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=] are just the icing on the cake. --'''
I'm sorry, but the chip on the shoulder and the "us and them" mindset make me unwilling to trust this user with adminship. I appreciate the→ good intentions behind the USA WikiProject and do not doubt that the candidate cares about the project, but I saw the extension of that project to absorb state projects leave a lot of sour feelings, which the candidate still seems unwilling to recognize. I fear I cannot give even moral support here.
'''Oppose''' Per the general disruptive and incivil nature mentioned above. <span class="nowrap"><font color="green">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="blue">89</font>
'''Oppose'''. Initial edit comment is a misstep.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=555164771&oldid=554269661] Q1 is OK but thin; it lists benefits of privs but doesn't justify them. Q2 is weak and has odd points ("Although I don't actively govern the WikiProject United States project as I once did"). Q3 is just... I don't know what to say... it does not suggest grace under pressure. Admins should be civil even when the other guy is not. I don't see the appropriate perspective here.
'''Oppose''' per above discussion and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=554269661&diff=next this]. Also, I don't think anyone who got blocked as recently as that can be trusted with the mop. If a user does that ''when'' he/she is an admin, they'd immediately get desysopped. '''''
'''Oppose''' - attitude is wrong for an Admin, unhealthy block log and too much enjoyment in making POINTs.
'''Oppose''' - This editor has become a free-loader, a dead weight on the project. His recent article edits are practically non-existant, instead he spends all his time bitching and moaning in every corner of Wikipedia and sticking his nose in where he's not wanted, muddying waters and stirring the pot.  He's become the poster-boy for the non-productive editor who thinks his opinions are more valuable to the project then improving articles.  That he would put himself forward as a potential admin speaks volumes about his fundamental misunderstanding about what the role of an admin is.  I can't think of anyone (myself excluded) who is '''''less''''' qualified to be an admin. It is my sincere hope that this failed attempt to become an admin will be a sufficient slap in the face that this editor will come to his senses and realize that he is '''''not''''' destined to be the conscience of Wikipedia, that his self-imposed role as an ombudsmen is a total farce, and that he would best serve the project by actually '''''editing and improving articles'''''.
'''Oppose''' While [[WP:DEAL|adminiship isn't a big deal]], and the candidate clearly has dedication to the Foundation's projects, Kumioko's approach to the RfA process makes me concerned. Common sense dictates that people trying to make a case for their trustworthiness will put their best foot forward. Thus, someone's demeanor in a RfA should be considered putting his best foot forward, and that person's demeanor will by definition never be any better than it is during a RfA. I'm not saying that Kumioko's behavior here is poor, but the opening statement seems to indicate that Kumioko doesn't take this process seriously. Additionally, I find Kumioko's response to Q3 to be particularly concerning as it gives the appearance of dissembling and minimizing rather than taking responsibility of past problems. An administrator must be willing to admit to his or her mistakes openly and prominently, and be his or her own worst critic. I just don't see that in this RfA. I originally intended to be Neutral, but these issues combined with the past issues pushed me to oppose. —/
'''Oppose''' per most of the above and the personal attack he was blocked for. --
'''Oppose''' This user has become a complete negative for the project, with misguided rants on multiple pages—see [[WT:ACN]] for example.
'''Oppose''' He/she has an aggressive, battleground approach to editors he/she disagrees with, and he/she goes round with grudges and resentments (or, as he/she prefers to call them, "pet peeves"). He believes that Wikipedia is full of evil conspiracies of groups of evil people such as ArbCom and Administrators: we can do without paranoid conspiracy-theorists being given administrative tools. Right from reading the self-nomination statement I thought "no", and everything I have seen in my further checking has changed that to "NO". Anyone who ''in their application to be an adminstrator'' will say things which amount to "I have no intention of stopping being rude and aggressive to editors I disagree with" is '''''never''''' going to make an acceptable administrator, quite apart from numerous other issues, and, looking at Kumioko's I do see numerous other issues.
'''Oppose''' Either this account name is a misunderstanding of [[WP:CLEANSTART]] or it's [[WP:POINT]]Y ... either way, an admin candidate should know better.  His aggressiveness towards admins as a whole since their last failed RFA shows that there's no way that they have the personal suitability to be given the tools ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">
'''Oppose'''. None of the oppose reasons above can come as a genuine surprise to the candidate and they must have the skin of a Rhinoceros to submit themselves to RfA given their activity since the last attempt. #8 above is a harsh but accurate assessment. Please get back to productive editing which you are good at and leave all the controversial topics alone.
'''Oppose''' as per the above, primarily Leaky Caldron. The candidate is indeed a good content contributor - it's just the other bits that disqualify him.
'''Oppose'''. You don't need the tools to bitch and moan about perceived injustices or to obsess about how evil Beyond my Ken is, which is all the candidate seems to be doing these days.--
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but this user's behavior and attitude does not instill confidence, I just wouldn't trust him with the additional toolset.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. You've undoubtedly made some very positive contributions to the project, but there's no way I could support ''anyone'' at RfA less than a month after a block. Be on your best behavior for as long as possible, and hopefully all of us can put this nastiness behind us someday. --
'''Oppose, at least for now''' (As BDD says,) sorry, Kumioko.  The temperament thing is whatever, but what brings me to oppose is the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive247#Another_thread_added_after_the_discussion_closed|somewhat cavalier attitude towards deletion]]. I know that the CSD criteria are subjective, but they're not ''that'' subjective. I understand all too well the frustration when you can't just CSD (or delete outright) an article whose deletion seems perfectly obvious, but "absolutely shitty article" isn't a CSD criterion for a reason, even when it's true. I know you said that you would refrain from CSD as a result of that conversation, which was all right, and I don't want to sound too "YOU MUST CONFORM" about this, but I do worry a little bit about giving the deletion tools because of that. After all, slapping a PROD tag on an article is just as easy as slapping a CSD tag on it, and Wikipedia is big enough and has enough crappy articles that keeping one more around for seven days on the off-chance that it could become okay isn't going to break anything. Maybe you were just fed up with that conversation, though, and it wasn't representative of your actual views; I'll admit that I haven't gone through your CSD record myself, so maybe even if it is your opinion, you don't let it influence your actual behavior much. If so, I'd be willing to strike my oppose (though that seems an empty gesture at this point...), though I think the temperament issues would still prevent me from supporting outright. Again, sorry; I don't take pleasure in bringing up what may be a sore point for you, but it's the salient point in my mind with regard to adminship. (And yes, it's another excellent reason to unbundle the tools.)
'''Oppose''' - This Rfa appears to me to be a violation of [[WP:POINT]] and should be closed asap via [[WP:SNOW]].
'''No''' Based on moltov coctail throwing behavior at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796#deletion of my remarks]], the subsequent pestering on my talk page, the WPUS dustup, trying to stir up trouble for annother editor at [[Wikipedia talk:AFC#I hope someone steps up about this]], retiring and attempting to clean start away from the stigma of their name, it is clear in my mind that this user is not prepared to take the keys and use them responsibly and with temperance.
'''Oppose'''—the nominee and I have not always had the smoothest of relationships, and while I believe he feels he has the best interests of the project at heart, his actions do not demonstrate them. All too often he has taken a battleground mentality towards areas of disagreement, he's taken POINT-y actions, and he's failed to demonstrate both a need for the tools and mentality requisite of an administrator on what is one of the top 10 websites on the Internet. The sockpuppetry, block evasion, and ragequit this year alone bode ill for this candidacy. Other comments above about the nominee's understanding of policies and procedures also give me great pause, and this nomination should be closed WP:SNOW forthwith. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''
'''Oppose''' per BWilkins and all above.
'''Oppose''' A sockpuppet made in evasion of a global lock placed for cross-wiki vandalism. Need I say more? <i><b>
'''Oppose''' The user seems to misunderstand how [[WP:CLEANSTART]] is supposed to work.  The previous actions from the user (a bit of a temper and impulsiveness) would be enough for me to oppose, most likely.  But even his actions here at the RFA are concerning.  This is an RFA that the user likely knows was going to fail, and there's nothing wrong with trying to pass anyway, but he seems very defensive and argumentative in a situation where the user really needs to be doing everything opposite of what he's actually doing.
'''Oppose''': The editor's major activity on the project appears to be sniping at admins.  Somehow, I doubt that promoting Kumioko to admin would change this. --
Sorry, thought I'd already participated. Last time I supported because I thought this user was already an administrator. Now, I'm opposing because I subsequently realized why his last RfA failed. Kumioko is way too divisive to be granted the added toolset.
'''Oppose''' In my opinion going for adminship after a recent block is just poor timing and a lack of patience.
'''Strong oppose''' per Oppose 1. It seems ridiculous to do an RfA when you were blocked just 3 weeks ago, moreover for your behaviour on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Jasper Deng. A recent block is a major red flag for a admin candidate. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but you built this box, and I don't see a way out. First, I do agree with you that, as a project, we must not allow a class distinction between admins and non-admins other than the trivial, factual distinction. I share your concern (though with not the fervency), that the rules are not always applied the same way. However, on the narrow issue of whether you should be an admin, you cannot use a name such as KumiokoCleanStart, which appears to be an implicit request to ignore some prior behavior, yet expect us to include consideration of prior constructive behavior. I count myself on an extreme in believing that people can improve, that people ought to have second, and third chances, but I'm presented with a candidate who has three months of experience and only 129 edits to article space. Of course you have more, but again, it is unfair of you to want me to count the past experience in terms of knowledge of policies, yet ignore that experience when it comes to interactions. Frankly, I think you would be better off asking for special exceptions to gain access to the tools you really need.--
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AKumiokoCleanStart User was recently blocked for harassment]. Recent blocks are red-flags. I understand that your character can change with time so you can try again for adminship another time. On a side note to all, the opposes are supposed to have constructive criticism, not a place for trolling and incivility.
'''Oppose''' You have to be kidding me. Fast becoming one of the people I would list as an example of someone who shouldn't be an admin. Trolls around just looking to cause trouble. Has gotten himself blocked a number of times. Abused his bot flag. Can't handle criticism. Personally some days I question his ability to even edit here, nevermind be an admin. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. I'd like to quote your edit summary here: " let's have some fun and give everyone an opportunity to tell me how much they hate me.....again :-))" With you being an editor with scores of edits and lots of experience, I consider your edit summary and by extension this nomination to be an insult to other well meaning editors. If you wanted to entertain yourself by engaging your "haters", RFA isn't the place for it. I am appalled that you would even let this play out just for listening to what your "haters" would say here, at the expense of other editors who genuinely spend time going through a candidate's contribs to state their opinion. And if you happen to rebuke by stating that you thought your edit summary was sarcasm or even a bad attempt at being funny, then still no, it was no good. To be frank, I haven't gone through your contributions and I have based this vote on your edit summary alone. Withdrawing this nom to prevent wasting other editors' time would be my suggestion. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' I dislike pile on opposes, but this case warrants one. Kumioko is volatile, handles criticism worse than almost anyone else I know of, and has a spite complex that causes him to troll certain areas of the Wikipedia namespace. Kumioko was a respectable user once, but has gone so far downhill over the past year that I could see myself supporting a siteban for him before I could see myself supporting adminship for him.
'''Oppose''' - I supported in the first RFA, but have to oppose now. See also the immediate assuming bad faith regarding [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aawerffa123]] in this RFA, there was no insinuation there. And per the waste of time in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard_Frederich]]
'''Oppose'''. Kumioko's own nomination statement sums it up: ''"I admit in advance I don't hold much hope of this RFA passing but '''I'm going to submit it anyway in the hopes that editors realize I am not going away''' and am trying to help build an encyclopedia."'' The organization of this sentence tells me that this nomination is more to make a [[WP:POINT]] than it is to improve the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose'''. Generally a good content contributor but far too confrontational.
'''Oppose''' strongest possible, even. First encountered Kumioko in the middle of his "I'm leaving but blatantly editing as an IP and pretending it's not me" tantrum. I thought it was a teenage kid. No, I find he's an adult with the temperament of a petulant teen, which is worse than being a petulant teen. Doesn't have the temperament to deal with admin issues here and cannot communicate clearly with the community, a key part of being an admin. ''Banning me from the project still will not stop me from working my based to change the toxic culture and us and them mentality'' This is a point in Wikipedia where you should be communicating at your highest level to show the others why you should be an admin--- and I don't even know what that sentence means. I apologize if it's a question of your not being a native speaker, but I don't think that's the case. <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">
Sorry. Fantastic contributor but I don't feel the attitude would do any favours. —
'''Oppose''' got blocked for harassment, sure, but hey, they came right back, apologised, made amends, and moved on with no further problems, right?  Right?  No, of course not.  Within days Kumioko was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=554440096 at it again], whining about the very same user, this time off-topic in an unrelated ANI thread.  This looks like a "clean start" that's anything but.
'''Oppose''' His first opening statement was "I've been around for a long time and know the rules pretty well", if you know the rules why have you been blocked so many times.
'''Oppose''' Previous dramas at meta and 3 previous accounts just remove the trust here. <sup>
'''Oppose''' [[User talk:ThePhoenixReborn|You forgot an account]] --
'''Hell no''' per Q11. I was going to stay out of this until I got to that one... --
'''Neutral'''.  I've met  Kumioko and know him  to  be a dedicated Wikipedian with  the best  interests of the project  at  heart. I  generally  agree with  most  of what  he has to  say  around the 'pedia, but  I'm  really  just  popping  in  here to  put  in  an appearance and I will  be staying  in  this section.
'''Neutral''' I think that the candidate is fine as far as contributions are concerned, but his behaviour and blocklog is never going to be like that of an admin.
'''Neutral''' Yesterday I declined a whole heap of speedy delete nominations for AFC redirects.  KumiokoCleanStart responded well and seems to have an appropriate attitude to a difference of ideas with me.  I suppose my suggestion may be to see what the consensus is before engaging in a mass change (eg nominating for deletion). ALso if the candidate is interested in unwatched pages, I am willing to hand out the list out of public view.  So just ask!  Or if there is a desire to know how many watchers there are, non-vandals can ask too.
'''Neutral'''. I'm going to stay neutral, because a lot of this stems from the way we won't trust experienced template experts to edit protected vulnerable templates without running for admin - I think it is absurd that such an ability is admin-only. --
Per Kudpung.  A history of conflict should be overlookable for the right candidate----we need sysops who're active in the more fraught areas of the encyclopaedia, but the facts that (1) people oppose candidates they've argued with and (2) any oppose cancels three supports make RFA an extremely conflict-averse venue.  It means that we only elect sysops wtih no experience in participating in the real on-wiki arguments, and that's suboptimal.<p>I applaud the candidate's willingness to be frank about problems he sees with the encyclopaedia.  We need more of that.  There are block-happy sysops, and it should be okay to discuss that issue in your RFA.  Unfortunately, he's torpedoed his own application by being too open and honest.  Successful candidates make nomination statements full of starry-eyed optimism, and if there's an acknowledgement that things aren't always ideal, then it's only made in vague terms.  Mention specific issues and problems, be cynical or realistic about how this encyclopaedia is run, and you sink your own RFA.—
Good lord, I've met Kumioko too and you're a great guy in person. Why would you subject yourself to this again, knowing that the post-second-RfA meltdown, sockpuppeting, and global block occurred only a few months ago? Plus, you were blocked for "trolling" only a few weeks ago. You had to know this would go down in flames, so why? :-/
'''Moral Support''' Per Kudpung, Boing! and my previous neutral at the last RfA.  There is no doubt that Kumioko is dedicated to improving Wikipedia, but that isn't the only consideration when handing out toolkits.  This does show why the tools need to be broken up a bit, which is becoming clearer by the day.
'''Neutral''' I like you, and I admit that I share some of the ideals you bear with you when you edit Wikipedia. Notwithstanding, your attitude towards some specific topics, and some actions you've done in the past, make me think that although you have the best intentions, you can't be an admin. As an admin myself, I have seen the high levels of pressure we sysops have to go through, and I just think you won't be able to handle the heat. Stick up to editing, and forget about the tools. They are not a big deal, and all the aura of mystery that is set by people who believe that adminship is a magical wand, doesn't exist. —
'''Neutral''' and echoing Dennis Brown's comment about this being another great illustration of why the tools need to be broken up.
'''Neutral''' Primarily because of the big "chip" cited above. Conflict-seeking behavior is not what we need in an admin. With great knowledge and potential to contribute, different choices could result in a much different situation.  --
'''Neutral''' - Kumioko has good intentions and seeks to improve the wiki at nearly every chance; however, as mentioned above, he has also been blocked and he has engaged into sometimes-<strike>violent</strike> pretty bad conflicts.
'''Neutral''' - If this were four months ago prior to the initial block, I would have supported without reservation, but the blocking and the socking and the temperament since, though I value what he does here and truly respect his opinions just about everywhere, I just can't justify giving him the tools. I agree with [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] and [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] as well.
I'm going to be blunt: Kumioko, the only thing I know about you is that you perpetually point out how you aren't popular and people don't like your past. If you want people to get over your past, perhaps you should stop bringing it up at every turn. I've got a goldfish's memory for names, and the fact that I totally called your nominating statement before reading it is pretty indicative that perhaps your attitude is getting in your own way (seriously, I saw your name on the RfA chart, went "hmm, I wonder how far into the nom statement his 'people don't like me' comment will be," and bam, second sentence). You simply can't turn over a new leaf while waving the old leaf in peoples' faces. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''' - Kumioko has the experience, but the recent issues and battleground behavior are certainly troublesome. I can see where this is heading.
'''Neutral''' My oppose rationale stands ''but'' I am horrified by some of the malicious oppose comments and I do not want to even remotely be associated in those sentiments.
'''Neutral'''  I've never met Kumioko before but I think he is a good editor; however, there are some conflicts regarding his behavior and got blocked to it.
'''Neutral''' I had a look at some RFA's from 2005 and 2006, and am kind of appalled in what way the tone at RfA has changed over the years (especially when directly comparing the old ones to recent ones, without looking at the years in between). I can not support because your battleground mentality is too strong now, but I think I just might understand what you are trying to convey by it. I am kind of tempted to trout-whack some of the opposers, this seems just spiteful.
After fence-sitting and wavering in both directions, i have to come down here and say, '''Neutral'''.  I have no real issues with Kumioko's contributions, and i believe that he could contribute more if we could give him the tools he needs, which i would if i could; they are bundled, however, and we can't.  (And, unlike others, i don't see this as a reason to unbundle them ~ contradiction?  I am large, i contain multitudes ~ but as a reason to watch to whom we give them.)  In the end, i am worried by this quote from above '' I got frustrated at the system and some individuals'' and others like it, and the results that frustration leads to.  Honestly, i think Kumioko would be a great benefit to the project with the toolset...until something happened to frustrate him, and then we'd regret it.  I am sorry. Cheers, '''
'''Neutral''' supported last time, neutral as a result of the recent block, my apologies that this RFA does not appear that it will succeed. ''<B>--
'''Neutral'''; more of a '''Moral support''' really. Kumiko's a great content contributor and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty in the more fraught areas of the project; he's also totally upfront and honest about his opinions, and that earns my respect (even though we disagree on quite a bit). I'm also confident that he wouldn't abuse the tools. Unfortunately there's just too much combative behaviour in his recent history for me to find my way into the support column, which is a bit of a shame; this RFA doesn't deserve to be the landslide failure that it's turning into.
'''Neutral''' I don't know what to do after watching user's contribution and support-oppose comments. So I'm going neutral--'''
'''Neutral''' - based on his response to my question. I was probably leaning oppose; concerned about giving the mop to someone who thought the whole project was too much of a mess to bother doing any mopping. His response didn't alleviate those concerns much, but he does have a valid claim (I think) to respect as a contributor given his extensive edits. Strangely, for an editor with 400k+ edits, I almost feel like citing [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'd like to see an editor more at peace with the project's goals in general and less concerned with the back-room drama.
'''Neutral'''. Kumioko clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, but his various rants and POINTy behaviour is often misguided, and I cannot support his admin candidacy. That said, I value his content contributions too much to pile on in the oppose section.
'''Neutral''' - I haven't known this user for long but from what I have seen, I can deduce that he has textbook us-versus-them mentality, behaves imperiously and doesn't play well with others. Not great traits for admins.
'''Strong support''', but let me get the following question out of the way first. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the EEML Partey?" Yes, four years ago. "Why?" Because like Piotrus, I take Wikipedia very seriously. And... by the way, four years is a lifetime in Wikipedia. Many things have improved, including communication and 'people skills' of many long-term users. Many of our fears never materialized. Now, more than ever, we need to maximize our effectiveness and (if possible) upgrade the status of our most valued editors such as Piotrus to increase student engagement. Thanks,
'''Enthusiastic support'''. First I should mention that I became aware of this draft RfA because, as I mention below to Giano, I saw his insulting (I felt) commentary on Piotrus' talk page, which is on my watchlist.<p>Regarding EEML, feeling beset by editors pushing an anti-Eastern European agenda was not a good excuse for starting to discuss Eastern European topics, or WP, off-WP. All involved have long since apologized. All have moved on except, it appears, for a predictable minority of detractors involved in a continuum of content contentiousness before, during, and after the case, and still unwilling to move on from their version of the past of years ago.<p>If some wish to see this as rehabilitation, so be it. If some wish to lobby that Piotrus is an intractable evil incapable of rehabilitation, then after such a long time having passed, that is solely a reflection on the individual making the accusation.<p>I have complete and total confidence that Piotrus will exceed the community's expectations in every way; I have this confidence because Piotrus knows the magnifying glasses and the nay-sayers will be out in force, yet has made this personal&mdash;and courageous, likely knowing some would not wish to let go of their personal investment in past conflict&mdash;commitment to Wikipedia to take this important and symbolic step.<p>Piotrus' WP activities including its use in higher education are an exemplary model of the best WP has to offer. Who should the WP community empower to represent the best of WP? Those who have leveraged and demonstrated our pedagogic value in the real world, or those who show up only to toss barbs? [[User:Vecrumba|VєсrumЬа]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 21:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)<p>P.S. I hope that a fresh crop of participants will look at the work Piotrus has been doing on/with WP and ignore the unfortunate rehash of personal accounts of history by prior content combatants. If someone is looking for "truth", examine who has advocated for what WP content as encyclopedic.
You have my full trust and support. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
If you've been editing wikipedia for 9 years, then why not?
support him--
Weak support, per NintendoFan.--
'''Support''', per above.
'''Strong support'''. Cool, constructive, knowledgeable about scholarship and WP policy. A good man. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support'''.  If we aren't prepared to forgive and forget the EEML stuff, then we're creating yet another incentive to sockpuppetry.  This user shows a strong attachment to Wikipedia and a will to create content.  I should admit to certain concerns about Piotrus' temperament, but if promoted, he would certainly not be the worst sysop we have in that regard.—
'''Support'''. I've known Piotrus for a while and worked with him in person as well as on-wiki, and I would not hesitate to trust him with the admin tools. I'm sure he has the wisdom to separate admin duties from the occasionally-contentious political topics that he sometimes works on, and frankly, he's got a worse reputation than he deserves from that EEML controversy. In my experience he's clueful, easy to work with, and puts the good of the encyclopedia first.--
'''Support'''. Essentially agree with comments by {{user|Ragesoss}}, above. Also, [[WP:WBFAN|contributor of twenty-six (26) Featured Articles to Wikipedia]]. Cheers, &mdash; '''
'''Support''', experienced and clueful.
'''Very strong Support''' even if I have no edit, as I just created an account to support him, I am a constant reader, I know Piotrus since 2007, he doesn't know me, I am from Italy. But I like the was he oppose the soviets. He must be a sysop. I like him. He needs to be admin.
'''Support''' I tried to wade through the EEML stuff and make sense of it but have given up. So what I'm left with is this. A very useful content editor and former admin is asking for the bits back. The unintelligible mess was three years ago. Several of the stronger opposes below were on the opposite side of that case which is perhaps leading to battleground below. Ignoring the battleground below, this seems like a reasonable request for adminship. Blade and Salvio strongly support this editor. Good enough for me. --
'''Support''' The bottom line is that Wikipedia is about content.  To produce and maintain content requires a large range of other activities as well.  But, somebody who is as dedicated to producing content as Piotrus has been must also dedicated to Wikipedia, which makes me more comfortable allowing him to become an admin again.  It is clear he has made mistakes in the past, but 3 years seems long enough to give him another chance.  I believe that the experience he has together with the time since his previous mistakes greatly out weigh the possible risks.--
'''Support''' per S Marshall and others. My limited interactions with him have not always left the best impression, but he is a phenomenal worker who does lots of good stuff, & knows he will have lots of eyes on him in admin actions. The stuff he plans to concentrate on seems unlikely to raise issues.
'''Support''' A solid content contributor. Learned a lot from reviewing his articles.
'''Support''' as nom. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Brilliant user. The whole [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] affair is ancient history. Can now be re-trusted with the tools. That said, It's obvious that this RfA will not pass. [[wikt:hadaway and shite|Hadaway and shite]], Giano.--
'''Moral support''': valuable contributor, whom I believe has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. ~
'''Support''' - I was originally going to !vote oppose, but three years is more than enough to forgive and forget, and his content work is outstanding; WP must be first and foremost a content-driven project, and I see nothing that suggests that Piotrus is anything but dedicated to this one goal.--<span style="">
'''Support''' As an editor who was involved since 2005, I think I should comment here. Piotrus was a much better administrator than many people think. He was among the few administrators who handled these Eastern European conflicts in a state of neutrality when at the time, that subject matter was arguably the most hectic in the project. His tone has always been on the more aggressive side, as sadly shown in this RFA, but the type of editors he dealt with over the years made him a no-nonsense kind of editor, which isn't a bad trait for an admin per. He does outstanding work with the education program as well. Three years is more than enough time to forgive and forget.
'''Support''' Strong content contributor, was previously an admin, wrongdoing was three years ago. I have no problems with this.<font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support''' for the following reasons: we ''cannot'' in RfAs on the one hand say "no, too little content" and on another hand say "nope, too much content and dirty hands too." The problem is that it's impossible to edit here for a long period, writing consistently high quality content, without getting dirty hands - somehow or another. Some candidates are good at following a cookie cutter approach to RfA, doing only enough of one thing and enough of another to pass in a very clean vanilla sort of way that's frankly uninspiring for the "class" of admins we've created. I have respect for Giano and his oppose, but Piotrus' work and knowledge have put me here.
'''Support'''. This is for several reasons. First, I think Piotrus deserves a serious credit because he did not stop editing after receiving sanctions, he contributed ''a lot'', and he still wants to be an administrator. That kind of dedication to the project is commendable. Second, he never misused his administrative tools (whatever happened, that was not related to his administrative privileges). Hence I do not see any problem with giving him tools back. Finally, we have a serious problem with insufficient number of participants and admins, compare to the numbers of pages. This is because the plank for appointing someone an administrator is very high: we expect she/he be perfectly neutral and a good negotiator (few people have these qualities). However, very few administrators ''actually'' do negotiations or very active and decide important matters (e.g. on ANI or AE). I am sure that Piotrus will not be making any important decisions in EE area.
'''Support''' people can definitely change. Piotrus looks like an amazing contributor who would not be a bad addition to the admin team. There can always be more eyes on the admin backlogs. Everybody deserbves a second chance.
'''Support'''. Without meaning to show any disrespect here to the opposers who I'm sure have their reasons, above all this RFA is illustrating that we don't value experienced editors as administrators and give those which have contributed far more to the project a harsher time than those relative newbies who've done next to bugger all to improve wikipedia but have enough "brownie points" to be made an admin. The more experience you have on wikipedia the more likelihood you're going to encounter trouble, arguments and attract those who dislike you, which equates to more fodder for opposing, even if 99% of what they've done and said is great. It's become a battle ground for old grudges and disputes to resurface and a chance to make good editors feel dreadful for anything they've ever done on wikipedia less than perfect. RFA has become a sorry process, badly in need of reform, I dislike the way that genuinely good and experienced editors get trodden on here in favour of boy scouts. ♦
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a good candidate, and I trust that he will use the admin tools correctly. It's a
'''Support'''.  Piotrus is not only a prolific contributor of quality content, but I've also found him to be professional and judicious in dealing with disputes and offering counsel.  I have no doubt that he will be aboveboard in the application of admin tools in the future.
Support. I've "known" Piotrus for a long time, largely from interactions at DYK. He's not perfect (none of us is!), but he's smart and insightful -- and someone I trust to do his best to the right thing. --
'''Support''' I'm a little hesitant as it's unlikely I'll have time for a thorough check of your contribs before the RfA closes, I don't know much about EE,  and it may be that many of the opposess are well founded. On the other hand, I've seen a recent RfA where one of our most prolific and collegial editors was rejected with a similar %, and in that case I had sufficient knowledge of some of the issues opposers raised to be 100% confident they were spouting nonsense. Anyways, support per your impressive content building, and as from what little I've seen of you, you appear to be reasonable, honorable, and have good strength of character.
Thanks for continuing under your current account after EEML rather than invoking cleanstart and having an uncontentious RFA after two or three years under a new account. ''
'''Support'''...giving candidate the benefit of the doubt.--
'''Moral Support'''. I'm undecided on anything other than that, but I want to acknowledge the terrific contributions that Piotrus has made - especially his support for new editors. --
I trust you. You'll be fine. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Weak support''' Piotrus's positive contributions to the project are tremendous, and the EEML business is far enough in the past that I believe he has learned from his mistakes. I was very put off by his combative responses to some editors on this page, such that I wasn't sure he had the demeanor of a good administrator. It looks like he's cooled down, but presumably anyone can wear a smiley mask for a few days at RfA. Keep a cool head and try again in a few months. --
'''Support''' on the same rational  as Ragesoss and S Marshall and  Johnbod. I've known Piotrus since I came here. Some of our interactions have been very good, some less so.   But he's an excellent editor, the admin tools are useful for anyone working extensively with classes, and I do not think he'd use them wrongly again. It's unfortunate  that he's responded   to the  personal attacks on him by Giano, but it's clear where the fault lies on that, & perhaps its too much to expect anyone to remain quiet under such abuse. Had I not known Piotrus, I would still have supported, because I would have been very inclined to support anyone on the receiving end of such comments. '''
'''Support''' Piotrus is one of the pillars of this project, it's as simple as that. He has his views, he used to be a tad trigger-happy every now and then back in my wikiaddiction days, but still. I can't think of many people who would deserve the broom and bucket more than him. And yes, I know of EEML, his content-related disputes with plenty of people and so on. The bottom line is: every decent editor who specialises in anything but hard science, is going to make more enemies than friends. It's as simple as that, been there, done that. In history or social sciences (which seem to be the two main focuses of Piotrus' work here) there is no God-given truth. What one person writes about, say, WWII, another will question and yet another will call the original author names because of that. That's how things are, people are and will disagree about what this or that articles look like. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't be given access to useful tools. Those are two completely different things. ''<font color="#901">//</font>''
'''Strong Support''' -- I don't think any but the young and foolish think no one ever makes a mistake. People also grow and change, and that too the young are blind too. Alas, aging will cure that all too soon. By shear numbers of quality edits alone this is the kind of editor which makes a great Admin. For years he's been helpful and supportive of others, and is far more valuable than the drones that run around mindlessly tagging stuff, running up edit counts without actually thinking about the implications of their so called contributions. I've disagreed with him a number of times, but he's always been ready to listen and consider the alternative viewpoint, discuss the differences and split the difference in a way leaving the matter... tasteworthy. No one ever is perfectly satisfied with a compromise, after all. Compromising with Piotr has been much better to swallow than most. His time investment in the project has been massive, he's been constant and always done his best for quality, however biased some may feel some things were twisted. Everyone has their politics, most are indoctrinated and puppets unaware of whose controlling their string. Piotr is not someone who could be duped that way. Wikipedia without people like Piotr would be a pale shadow of itself, not the reference of first resort it's become. It's become that because people like Piotr have set the bar, the challenge for others to meet and raised the average, the standard by which all are measured. Why is there the least doubt? // <b>
'''Support''' as co-nominator, for the reasons detailed there.
'''Support''' net-positive.
'''Support''' Per DGG, MONGO, Secret and WereSpielChequers. While I think that the candidate's behavior in this RfA, especially the idiocy surrounding playing the "Jew card", did far more to hurt him than just shutting up and sitting down would have, he would STILL make an excellent admin. Everyone makes mistakes. The biggest flaw in the RfA system is the tendency for oatmeal brained editors to see the oppose of someone they peripherally know and automatically jump on the bandwagon. I'm not saying that everyone does this, but it's amusing to look at people's histories and see that the time between their last edit and their oppose of an RfA is often no more than a few minutes. Really? You totally vetted out an RfA candidate, went over a significant sampling of their edits, read all the oppose and support rationales and did the homework to draw your own conclusions in a few minutes? There are obviously people far more talented than I am here, because it takes me about an hour for even the most uncontroversial candidate. Piotrus has his flaws, but after reading over everything that has been said in the last couple days, I don't feel that he would abuse the tools, and that his having them could only be a net positive. Everything else is just political posturing and schoolyard grudges.
'''Support''' moved from neutral.  Although my thoughts "down there" remain unchanged, I am convinced by the arguments of a number of editors I highly respect, and agree strongly with DGG's reasoning.
'''Strong Support''' -- Piotrus' great time, efforts, '''''monumental contributions''''' and numerous awards speak for themselves. Any 'faults' he may have pale in significance -- esp since most of his opponents here are no less 'guilty' of being human than he. Any other 'faults' he may have seem academic and highly opinionated and are obviously cited for personal reasons. I don't see anything done by Piotrus that has brought harm to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Again, his many contributions reveal him to be a friend to Wikipedia regardless of the confrontations he was involved with regarding a few other editors. --
'''Support''' - per Giano.  --
'''Support''' - The user made mistakes in the past but prior to that was a decent and generally well respected admin. We need to give the user a chance and if they screw up again we can just remove the tools again. No big deal.
'''Vehement oppose''' Piotrus has proven that in order to achieve his goals, he will breach trust and break the most fundamental, honest and basic of Wikipedia's rules. Previously he has controlled a ring of socks and politically motivated editors to sway the balance of the project. Such behaviour taints the encyclopaedia and by association all our work. This deceit and corruption must never be allowed to happen again. I have seen no evidence of reform, and neither in Piotrus' case am I prepared to accept that a leopard has changed his spots. I rarely comment on an RFA, but I strongly feel this candidature is wrong. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong oppose''' This April's fool joke comes three weeks late. Anyone with superficial knowledge of the current topic area knows that Piotrus has remained as close to other EEML members as before (just two examples with the most recent month  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive247#Request_to_lift_restrictions] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advice_Polack]). I also see he hasn't lost his infamous language, including his "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Archive_2#Statement_by_Charles_Matthews wheedling tone]". Unfortunately, the EEML arbitration was poorly researched, weakly ruled and only a small part of its evidence page and Wikileaks summary of quotes on Piotrus were used. In reality, as Thatcher wrote, Piotrus should have got permanently banned there.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=316444254] Even a second leak later Arbcom stopped short of a permanent ban.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Piotrus_banned_3]. Piotrus was never interested in admin work and confided on the EEML his own uselessness as an admin but argued that it helped in disputes. He, furthermore, engaged in widespread misuse of his rights and status.[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=a5576b6cbf620f2920c6ce9c0abb0515&showtopic=26604&st=160&p=206795&#entry206795]
'''Oppose''' I know that he's an important editor, but some of this negative stuff (i.e. unplaeasant experiences, bans, edit conflicts) shouldn't even be mentioned in the nomination statement. It gives me the indication that his behaviour has been disruptive in the past, and it makes me worry that he would use the tools improperly. It's interesting about what he wants to do for his primary objective, as these requested moves can be indisputable, but still I think he's more prolific in the encyclopaedia department than in the admin department.
'''Oppose'''. While I recognize he's been doing some good stuff and the EEML debacle was some time ago, encounters like this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Serafin&diff=prev&oldid=549625333][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Serafin&diff=prev&oldid=549846223] still make me think he's easily tempted to sacrifice logic and reason in favour of some kneejerk reaction in defense of editors he perceives as political allies. The fact that the first two enthusiastic support votes here are from exactly two of these allies (part of the most faithful core group ever since the EEML days) doesn't help to overcome these concerns. On an entirely different matter, I was also not too impressed with his actions in a recent deletion case ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Improper use of speedy deletion, asking for article restoration and review of admin's use of deletion tools|AN]], [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 21#Beautiful Store|DRV]]), where his behaviour came across to me as pushy and wikilawyerish.
'''Oppose'''. While three years may be enough to forgive the EEML incident, he has continued to show a temperament unsuitable for an admin. I am also not sufficiently convinced that he will not use admin tools while [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' per his comments at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive248#Improper_use_of_speedy_deletion.2C_asking_for_article_restoration_and_review_of_admin.27s_use_of_deletion_tools this] dubious AN report and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV#Beautiful_Store this] subsequent DRV, plus general concerns about temperament and judgement. I do not think this candidate is suited to the role.
'''Oppose''' (moving from neutral). The fact  that  he rarely  responds on  his own talk  page (ca. 700 posts in  all  this time) is probably  not  an issue, but  it  does not  make it easy  to  follow and evaluate his interaction  with  others. Piotrus is an excellent content  contributor but appears to  like too  much  getting involved in  politik so there must  be some reason  why  he attracts polemic. We have Wikiholics enough, we have Wikilawyers enough, and Piotrus has hats enough and enough to  do without needing  another one.  A mature and highly  qualified individual who  is occasionally  a tad too  rash and garrulous, hence I  am  not  wholly  convinced of his ability  to adopt  and maintain the essential  neutrality and coolness that  is required of sysops. I  never use qualifiers such  as ''strong'' or ''weak'' in  my  RfA comments, but  FWIW, this is borderline but  sufficient for me to  move from  neutral.
'''Weak oppose'''. (I should mention that Giano is an old friend of mine. We don't agree about everything, and he didn't canvas me about this RFA. I don't know any of the other opposers.) I started to type up a Neutral comment, because, while I thought there were some concerns about battleground with Piotrus, I wasn't opposed to adminship. We need more strong content contributors in the admin ranks. I also think he was mainly a good and useful admin in the past, and thought he would be useful now, and surely mindful of all the eyes that would be on his admin actions. I wish as many people watched ''all'' admin actions as would be watching Piotrus'! I still think this would be a protection against misuse, so this is not a strong oppose. But the way he threw himself gleefully into battling with the opposers on this page was too much for me. Piotrus, you're on display here, this is I presume your "best behaviour" that you're showing? Replying sarcastically to Giano isn't objectionable as such in my book—I'm not sensitive to that the way many people here are—but your tone and manner are. It's simply bad judgment to respond so aggressively (and at such ''length''!), no matter how he framed his oppose. As far as that goes, the oppose was strong but matter-of-fact and not rude. Anyway, Giano isn't requesting adminship here, you are. Your broad hint that ''he'' had something to do with a racist attack and call for assassination is just utterly unseemly: {{tq|"Btw, I wonder, is the attack page with my old address, calling me a Jew and asking for somebody to assassinate me still up at ED? Haven't checked it for years, but somehow I am reminded of it... can't think of the reason why."}} I couldn't believe it when I saw it. You could certainly help with many admin tasks, you're highly competent; but you've shot yourself in the foot with your demanour on this very page, as far as I'm concerned, sorry.
'''Oppose''' I agree with King of Hearts' comments. I'm also about the neutrality of Piotrus' editing, and feel that at times he still edits to advance a Polish nationalist viewpoint at the expense of article quality. As examples of my concerns, please see my comments at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish Underground State]] (particularly in relation to the neutrality of the article) and [[Talk:Polish mine detector#Requested move]] (without wanting to denigrate this Polish innovation from World War II, it's pretty obvious that the Poles aren't the only people to have designed mine-detecting technology, as the [[Demining#Detection methods]] link Piotrus wants to move the 'mine detector' redirect away from makes perfectly clear). I also note [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Polish–Soviet War/archive1]] from late 2011 in which Piotrus initially argued in favour of keeping this FA despite it suffering from some major, and fairly obvious, problems (though I note that he agreed with me when I pointed these out towards the end of the FAR in February 2012). All up, while I wish him well in his editing work, I'm afraid don't believe that Piotrus is a suitable person to hold the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. While I'm all for giving people second chances and can very well imagine Piotrus getting back the bit in some undetermined future, I cannot support at this time. The EEML fiasco alone was too big to forget easily; even four years later I keep seeing references to it every other week, if not more often. It is obviously fresh in many people's minds, and Piotrus has a strong association with it. I wasn't following Piotrus' activities closely in the past few years, but from what little I can see, he is on the right track. I wish him the best of luck. Time heals all, but in some cases a higher dosage is required.—
'''Oppose''' Having taken the time to look at bit more closely at the EEML matter and the user's role in it, it seems clear to me that Piotrus is not a good match for the sysop role. His interactions on this page likewise don't help his cause. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' - his comments/attitude at AN/ANI have left an ill feeling, I do not think he is suitable for the mop.
'''Oppose''' - I think the editor is overall fine, but he sometimes makes non-personal issues personal. For example, he appears to frequently poison the well as he did in his first response to Giano above. I don't think that is a good quality in an Admin. My own interactions with the editor, about an individual he appears to know professionally: [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Laurence_Cox]], also give me significant concern about his ability to detach private interests from wikipedia issues.
'''Oppose'''. Like some of the other opposers, my impression of his behavior here and on AN/ANI is that his temperament isn't such that a mop is a good idea right now. "Giving as good as you get" in heated situations is not a valid solution to any problem, whether technical or social. I was also distinctly unimpressed to see him castigating Deb in multiple venues for Deb's speedy of a textbook G11 article, and my confidence is thus low that Piotrus could handle deletions well and according to policy, especially when they relate to his work in the Education Program. I would also note that while Piotrus acknowledges one of his EEML-related problems to have been canvassing, he seems to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAmbassadors&diff=551446412&oldid=532911601 not have grokked] how to avoid the issue even this week.
'''Oppose''' . Thanks for offering to do all those tedious tasks you listed in Q1. For that, I'd like to have supported. But the confrontational reply to Giano is unacceptable, and that whole business of ''Beautiful Store'', wasting countless hours of editor time and trying to get Deb reviewed and cautioned, make my support impossible, I'm afraid. --
'''Oppose''' The first sentence of the candidate's answer to Q7 troubles me; adminship is about trust, and I'm not sure how well lessons have been learned.
'''Oppose''' a great content contributor at WikiProject Poland, but unsuitable as an admin. Too divisisve and partisan. Also still indulges in nationalist tag-team editing along the old battlelines.
'''Oppose''' per Giano and the subsequent virulant badgering by the candidate and his aide.
'''Oppose''', what Piotrus did is one of the few things I would consider a potential candidate for WP:NOTEVER. EEML may be over three years in the past, but for this sort of offence, three years is not enough, and I'm far from certain I will ever be ready to trust at the level of adminship again. Nor is good content contribution enough. Even without the comments to Giano, this would be a solid oppose for me.
'''Oppose'''. As Peridon notes below, this RfA is rapidly turning into a circus, and I can't help but think that the tone of some of the candidate's responses on this very page has helped to propagate at least some of that. That's not a characteristic that sits well in an administrator, so I must oppose. Excellent content contributions, mind.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' I came here to oppose due to the Beautiful Store DRV, where Piotrus fights tooth and nail to get a very spammy page written by one of his own students undeleted for some reason.  He does admit this in his statement so it isn't a disclosure issue, but it's still abysmal judgement that suggests to me Piotrus is absolutely unfit for any position of power and needs to be kept well away from deletion tools.  Then I read the discussion and Piotrus' badgering of oppose voters (and the neautral voters too!) turned my oppose into a very strong oppose.  In my opnion this is one of a very small number of editors I would ''never'' trust with admin tools.
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above. <span class="nowrap"><font color="red">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="maroon">89</font>
'''Oppose''' [[WP:ROPE]] is something to be applied to spammers and vandals, not admins. I see no benefit from giving Piotrus any more rope; he's hanged himself quite well enough with his responses on this page. I neither trust him to be able to resolve controversy, nor to stay away from it. If he wants to work on maintenance backlogs, I'm sure he can find plenty that don't require any special buttons.
'''Oppose''' I can't trust someone with the tools that is already being uncivil to editors that have a different opinion than him (e.g. the opposers). It is completely inappropriate. I haven't looked over the case (which is my next click), but its obvious to me that Piotrus still has conduct problems.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) per badgering.
'''Oppose''' - Piotrus is a great content contributor, but his attitude, level of civility, and previous issues truly worry me about giving him a new chance with the tools. That, combined with the compelling arguments presented above, makes me feel that I must oppose at this time.
'''Oppose''' - I do not like his conduct on this page. It is unnecessary to respond to every oppose and I don't like the tone of these replies.--
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) per [[WP:BLUDGEON]] and my points below.
'''Oppose''' - I am all for forgiving past mistakes, however even looking past the whole EEML affair I still am uncomfortable supporting given the conduct I have observed, especially here. Administrators bear the brunt of a lot on Wikipedia, and they need to be cool, calm and collected, even in the face of difficult situations. It does not seem like the candidate possesses these qualities, which gives me concerns about his suitability to be an administrator and I must oppose as a result. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Interpersonal style seems highly problematic; admins should be resolving conflicts, not participating in them. And if he can't or won't even put a good face on during the RFA, it seems he either can't or won't "get" what the problem is.
'''Oppose''' - per behavior here, and the rather devious behavior before the RfA was officially listed.  Those who have been desysoped  must have even cleaner hands than normal, and that doesn't seem to the case here.
'''Oppose''' - useful editor, yes, but he doesn't have the right temperament needed to execute the duties of an administrator properly.
I think you've made the same fatal mistake I have made, and to be honest, the verbosity isn't an attractive trait when considering admin suitability. Trust me on that!
'''Oppose''' Let's pretend for a moment that EEML was ''not'' a recent, massive and serious breach of the community's trust.  The candidate make some good edits, many of them in hotspots of the project.  I'm not sure if it's linguistic, but their "conversations" often come across as unnecessarily brusque and hostile, often "tempered" with badgering - I don't think I need to provide wikilinks as it's incredibly evident in this very RFA.  I have also seen some actions on AN/ANI just this past week involving Piotrus that a ''past'' admin or a ''wannabe'' admin should '''''already know the answer/correct process for'''''.  So, even if EEML didn't exist, there are too many reasons to say "no" ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">
'''Oppose''' per above. Some comments that were raised concerns this user's behavior and 'uncivility'. Although he's good and useful in some areas like his contributions in Poland related articles or so. Still, I oppose per all above.
'''Oppose''' - Per above.
'''Oppose''' Echoing those above - there's some concerning behaviour here. Even just the many oppose responses above give me pause.
'''Oppose''' No thanks. Evidence presented above shows me that giving the candidate the tools would not be a net gain for Wikipedia in 2023, let alone 2013. '''
'''Oppose'''  The candidate was the coordinator of the [[WP:EEML]] incident.  As such, it is too egregious for me to trust the candidate in a professional capacity with [[WP:ADMIN|administrative]] tools.
I'm sorry Piotrus, but as great a content contributor as you are, there is absolutely no way I could ever even ''conceive'' of supporting you for adminship after [[WP:EEML|the mailing list debacle]] in 2009. That was such a systematic gaming of the system, in which you yourself presided over, that it permanently cost you my trust.
'''Oppose''' One need not hold a grudge based on your past mistakes, your behavior at this RFA is more than enough to firmly convince me you should not be an administrator.
'''Oppose''''. I was going to support based on my own interactions with Piotrus even after I saw that the count was going nowhere, but the persistent badgering in an RfA is just too much. Frankly, I don't get it at all. If this were a serious effort one would have expected a much less belligerent way to answer (some of) them--I can only conclude that this was not a serious effort. That's OR on my part, I suppose, but whatever his other merits are, this is not what one should expect from an admin.
'''Oppose''' basically per Drmies - the badgering is concerning. Making mistakes in the past is one thing, but badgering the opposers ''now'' doesn't encourage me to overlook those mistakes. --'''
'''Strong Oppose''' I was initially leaning toward neutral or a light oppose, because while I believe that people can change, when someone breaches the trust as severely as was done with the EEML incident, I have a hard time wanting to give that person a position of power again.  But upon reading the responses to the first dozen-or-so opposes, it's absolutely clear that Piotrus should not be trusted with the admin tools again.  He is far too antagonistic.  Considering his past, he should be approaching this RFA in the nicest attitude possible, and he did the complete opposite.  I understand some people get defensive, but his responses (and the seeming need to keep replying and digging a deeper hole) show that there is a severe lack of judgment.  In no way could I ever support Piotrus being an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Piotrus is an excellent editor. He made mistakes in 2009. However he has admitted his mistakes and learnt from the process. He edits Wikipedia in good faith and I believe that he is open about collaboration with other editors. Initially I was about to support. However his extended retort to Giano worries me, especially the sarcasm. The fact that Piotrus seems to have been riled so easily shows that he is unsuitable as an administrator, where discussions about admin actions can become heated.
'''Big oppose''' - I have great concern over this person's lack of apparent maturity in dealing with other users. That said, best of luck to him in his RfA. -
'''Oppose''' Leaving aside the EEML problem which I am admittedly not happy with, this user's interractions with other editors, as demonstrated for example in this RfA, cause me to doubt that he has the temperament to deal impartially with the admin tasks which he will, if promoted, inevitably be faced with.--<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Some very valid concerns have been pointed out above.
'''Oppose''' Candidate seems to feel some sort of need to respond to nearly every comment. That sort of behavior creates drama (the kind we are seeing in this RfA) --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Oppose''' Probably best for the candidate to continue their fantastic contributions to the project without the admin flag '''
'''Oppose''' - Candidate's behavior during this Rfa speaks for itself. Suggest the fiasco be mercifully closed via [[WP:SNOW]] as soon as possible.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Jusdafax. -
'''Oppose''' I've met Piotr in real life and I really cannot say that I have any issue with him. That being said, I would have to agree with Drmies here in that I was willing to support this, or at least be neutral after reading the opposes. Disagreeing over something is one thing, but badgering each and every vote until it is pointed out is not something that makes sense at the end of the day.
'''Oppose''', due to his involvement in the EEML case, and his penchant for badgering, as shown at the top of this oppose section.  That said, you don't need the admin tools to make useful contributions and I hope that Piotrus continues to make useful contributions regardless of the outcome of this RFA.
'''Oppose''' per Jusdafax, Lankiveil etc. Furthermore, the EEML affair may seem like 'ancient history' to some but it involved a staggering failure of judgement. I hope the candidate will continue to contribute quality content but this nomination is, quite apart from the particulars, too early for me.
'''Oppose''' - per [[Wikipedia:AN#Best_practices_in_advertising_an_RfA_.28.22don.27t.22.3F.29|disingenuous advertising of this RFA while asking about whether advertising an RFA is okay]]. (Yes, this is my first edit; crats feel free to disregard this !vote if you find it inappropriate). Anyone wanting to be an admin, particularly someone who ''has already been an admin'' (and desysopped...), should know this. Plus EEML obvs.
'''Oppose''' - per Dennis and Drmies; I respect the content creation, but the behavior in this RFA concerns me...a lot.
'''Pile on oppose''' I was going to refrain from making a comment, but if the candidate chooses to finish out the week despite strong opposition, then he apparently wants to see how bad it can get, so here I am.  Drmies describes my position the best.  Despite the candidate's controversial background which can on the one hand be forgiven and on the other condemned, the candidate's reactions to the initial opposes is enough to oppose on it's own.  I see in GiantSnoman's oppose that the candidate suggested that responding is some show of respect for the oppose.  I would hope that a prior admin would recognize it for what it is: badgering.  Then the repeated insistence that the first dozen opposes support their rationals with diffs or examples, despite that each previous one was able to successfully support their position, gives me the idea that the candidate is just not aware of their own shortcomings even after it's pointed out.  Despite positive interactions with this editor, they need an entirely different approach and attitude if they ever plan to be an administrator again.  And that's if EEML were entirely to be ignored.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' - I appreciate his contributions to content.  But the issues described amply above concern me.  Especially the behavioral ones.--
'''Oppose''' - Good editor, but the concerns raised above, along with his behavior here is quite a bother. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' - I haven't read much on this RfA page, but (as usual) I stumbled upon it from [[Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Where.27s_the_line_of_being_attentive_to_one.27s_students.27_contributions.3F|the Education noticeboard]] and the DRV of Piotrus's student's page (linked to from there). The behavior there and here - badgering and sarcastic - don't bode well.
'''Oppose'''. Piotrus has been known to push his anti-Russian POV by hook or by crook, ousting from the English Wikipedia all prolific Russophone contributors. --
'''Oppose''' Behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. -
I have a great deal of respect for Piotrus as an article writer. Beyond that, everyone keeps talking about article people being admins, and why we don't just give them the bit. This is why. Yes, he's a great writer, but he's also confrontational and has a lot of baggage that I'm unconvinced is fully in the past, especially after reading through the RfA. Almost went neutral here, but since I'm not in the "admins must be article writers" camp, that pro isn't a big deal to me anyway.
'''Strong oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose'''. Piotrus is, as a matter of fact, regularly involved in wikidramu. It is the mark of a skilled wikidramist not to escalate such wikidramu to Arvcom. Nonetheless, Piotrus is a reliable ally of tendentious editors in the EEML field and related Russophobic, anti-Communist, nationalistic projects. See also: Fut.perf's oppose.
'''Neutral''' - Though I respect Piotr's contributions from the very beginning (I worked on [[Tadeusz Kosciuszko]] with him and am currently working on [[Frederic Chopin]] with him), I am a little concerned that he would get involved in some issues again if he becomes an administrator like asking others to be involved in some major content dispute or get involved in EEML where I fear that I would be topic banned from it and I don't want that to happen to me. Other than that, I am mostly comfortable with Piotrus returning as an administrator. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Neutral''' for the moment at least. Never heard of EEML or listervs before, so I've learned something today. Otherwise, trying to decide if this is an RfA, a circus, or a gladiatorial arena.
'''Neutral'''. I think EEML was badly argued and poorly decided, but the background in that case clearly informs how Piotrus would conduct himself as an admin - and, from that standpoint, EEML is obviously a concern, and perhaps one that will ultimately sink this RFA. But look, <s>you assholes</s> editors complain and complain that we don't get candidates who contribute content. Well here you go, here's an editor who has edited prolifically in the article space - 20+ FAs, 50+ GAs, 500+ DYKs, more than 73,000 articlespace edits, etc etc etc. If content is king, then Piotrus will be an admin in 7 days. Obviously, it is more complex than that, but I thought it worth commenting on the issue.
Editors can change, the reasons to grant Piotrus the mop are solid, and I'm strongly inclined to discount some of the opposes. But this still doesn't sit easy with me. After pretty much self-torpedoing his own RfA with his early responses to the watchlist opposes, Piotrus has done very well to keep cool and has hopefully onboarded what the community outside of the old drama has made of it. Continue to demonstrate that and the non-historical reasons to oppose a mopping will dry up.
'''Neutral''': Three years is a long time, more than a term in the United States House of Representatives. Content contribution is important, and not having any interaction (that I am aware of) with the subject of this RfA, I am unaware of any negative actions from the subject of this AfD since his/her return after the block. That being said I have to agree with some of what has been said above, due to the nature of some of the responses to the initial opposes I am now hesitant to support elevation of the former administrator back to administrator status. Perhaps this should be tried in another year, see if this improves.--
'''Neutral''' For some reason I cannot figure out why I had this RFA on my watchlist when it was a red-link. I've very rarely done so with out a strong (usually oppose) reason and so I will spend a bit of time tomorrow uncovering this mystery.
'''Neutral''' I was leaning towards support but the responses to some of your opposition raised a few concerns, not enough to outright oppose your nomination but enough that I am a little wary of supporting the nomination. --
To avoid piling on. The responses to the opposes above are deeply concerning.
'''Neutral''' I appreciate the candidate's content creation but I'm really concerned with the way the Opposers are questioned. Admins regularly take flak, whether undeserved or deserved, and has to really be cool about the whole thing. I think the editor has still much to learn about handling criticisms.--
'''Neutral''' from Oppose, unnecessary to have piled on.
'''Neutral'''  I moved here from oppose, after spending some time reading the user's talk page archives and other contributions.   I retain concerns about some of the responses above, but I don't see them as so common a pattern as to warrant an oppose.  --
'''Neutral''' after having opposed, mostly on the basis of the candidate's responses to the earlier opposes.  He has now stopped doing that ~ as i read the history he hasn't commented a vote for five days ~ and a closer reading of the comments he did make (other than those to Giano's oppose, which was probably designed to provoke such a response) leads me to think that he was not so much badgering as showing interest in the voters' concerns and attempting to improve his understanding of his own weaknesses.  Not reasons for me to oppose any longer. Cheers, '''
'''Neutral''' I don't know what to do.--'''
I'll preface my comments by saying that you've done some considerable work here valuable to the advancement of the project. Unfortunately, as is immediately evident from this RFA, it seems this editor is especially prone to controversy. I don't tend to hold previous mistakes against candidates after a significant amount of time has passed (else nobody would be able to pass RFA), but the combination of the concerns expressed in the oppose section are too much to overlook. Because of this, I find myself in the '''neutral''' section. Take care, Piotrus, and good luck.
<span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. When you see an editor with almost 10,000 Wikipedia space edits - none of them (that I could find) involved at AN or ANI, you notice. The fact that the candidate had to go all the way back to 2008 to find drama in their history is also telling. But the flipside to that coin is that this candidate does not appear to have a great deal of experience with processes such as ANI, AIV, XFD, and CSD. I don't think a lack of experience with drama will damage Pjoef's ability to deal with drama, but it's a point of data to consider. It is balanced by what appears to be a high level of clue and equally high level of reasonableness - both of which will serve this candidate well. If appointed, do tread lightly and slowly - and you should have no problems. Good luck!
'''Support''' per experiance and number of edits.
'''Support'''. I have interacted with Pjoef on various occasions during my time on Wikipedia (particularly over [[Garageland (song)]]), and he has demonstrated a good grasp of policy and a large amount of experience. I feel he can be trusted to serve Wikipedia responsibly.
Just trying to do my part to counteract 1/3 of one of the many stupid "temperment" opposes below; because he used ALLCAPS once, he has "temperment issues"?  Morons. AFD experience may or may not be a legitimate issue, I haven't looked, but demanding AIV "experience" is dumb.  AIV is not rocket science, people can pick it up on the fly.  And why do people feel the need to pile-on oppose an RFA from a good-faith long-term contributor that's already not going well?  Those of you who spent less than 3 minutes looking at this candidate (you know who you are, and I can guess pretty well) suck. Thanks for volunteering, Pjoef, sorry it isn't working out. --
'''Support''' Completely per [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #6698FF;">
'''Support''' per Ultraexactzz. I do not think the points mentioned in oppose would prevent his positive contribution as an Admin. Given his experience and record, i doubt he would wander into areas before having the proper information. the oppose seem to be unsatisfied with his knowledge of the admin role, which may be setting the bar too high. many of the best admins in wp are the janitors, those tirelessly doing the dull repetitive housecleaning, so do we really need to verify someone is versed in every area of the admin role? a large percentage of admins never contribute to a large portion of admin duties, rather tend to focus on a specific area.
'''Weak Support:''' The comments below are a bit harsh. Do not give up. Some of our best admins have have been smacked down hard before they were successful. -
'''Moral support''' - you're not going to get through, and to be honest I think that's the right decision. Work at what people have said and come back in 12 months. The reason placing my !vote here is largely because the question was Vejvančický was fucking atrocious and patently unfair; some of the opposes which explore a similar vein are equally disgraceful. They should all be ashamed.
'''Moral support''' Can the opposers stop [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|beating the dead horse]], cases like this is why people are afraid to try RFA because of a huge pile-on of opposes near the end of the oppose sections that sounds opposing the candidate just for the sake of it, with the exception of Beeblebrox when the first 15 or so oppose votes already explains what the editor needs to work on.
'''Support''' per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. If we're condemning someone for their political views then our chances of upholding that policy in article space (where it matters) are tenuous at best. --
'''support''' i like the user's suggestion that admin stuff happens, "time permitting." i am unconcerned about their edits or style, etc., because with 20k edits, if they were a problem, we'd not be having this conversation. i am not fussy about pov or ideology in editors as long as they play nice and remember this is about the articles, not the red tape. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Weak Support''' I think that he is a fine candidate for adminship, but I expected better answers of the questions especially Q1.
'''Moral support''' - Candidate is clueful, mature and experienced in many areas. Yes this RFA is unlikely to pass, but rather than be defeated by this experience, take the positive suggestions, broaden your exposure the other facets of WP and come back in 6-12 months. You've got all the right qualities. Regards
'''Support''' as nom (I didn't know earlier that nominators could also vote; yeah yeah, another indication of my lack of knowledge about RfA discussions). Of course my vote can't prevent this one from failing, but I'm sure that if a second nomination after a few months' time takes place when Pjoef has gained enough experience in admin-related fields, he will likely get the mop. That Pjoef does not have much experience in these fields is the only valid reason I could draw from the discussion why anyone should oppose him. Opposing him for being a communist is quite unjustified. I wonder why a discussion was needed to conclude that it's not a valid reason. I'm sure that many of us spend our [[real life|real-lives]] in a different way than we do here on Wikipedia or even anywhere online. Any Wikipedian (including admins) can hold any views in real life, as long as these views don't affect his/her behaviour on Wikipedia. '''''

'''Moral support''', keep up the hard work, and the bit will come
'''Support''' I think the candidate would do adequately, despite the admitted inexperience with most of the administrator functions. I would strongly urge another try in a year or so, even if it had not previously been considered before the nomination here. I would normally word this as "Neutral" or at best "moral support" -- I am wording this as a straight "Support" because i wish  very emphatically to deny  the proposition raised here that political opinions make one inherently unsuitable for the position. Some of the people I respect most around here I know privately to have positions very different from mine; some I know privately to have similar.I have not observed it making a difference in their work. It could of course make a difference, regardless of the specific opinions, but any good editor here does edit in such a way as to not show their bias, and I think this candidate is included among them. (Do I know of some people whose bias on a particular issue -- political or otherwise -- interferes? Yes, and a few of them are even good editors otherwise, but if they do let it interfere I would not support them for adminship.) '''
'''Support''' I completely agree with DDG.--
'''Reluctant oppose''' I was hoping to support this one, but Pjoef says he wants to work in all Admin areas and with only two edits to AIV and 11 to unique pages at AfD (that I could find). I don't there is enough evidence that Pjoef would know how to handle himself properly in these areas. Sorry.
'''Weak oppose''' - I'll go with Pol430 for now. I'm not trying to make myself sound a ton better than Pjoef, but I have more edits to AIV and related reporting venues than he does. If I see him answer a few good questions and refactor what admin work he would like to take place in, I'm willing to move to support.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APjoef&diff=424926587&oldid=414412222 wasted time of serious editors], and has failed to convey the breadth and depth of his damage in the above statement. I suggest a withdrawal before the mathematicians learn about this candidacy. Displaying a Communist userbox disqualifies the candidate, also, since honesty and intelligence are expected of administrators. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Has made 40,000 edits and can't say what his best contributions are? How about [[Demetrio Stratos]], with a whopping 543 edits? The section on [[Demetrio_Stratos#Phonetics_research_studies|Phonetics research studies]] is a mixture of puffery, gibberish, and odd formatting (why are the subsections in columns?). There is even an unattributed quote that is itself gibberish: “By this way the subversive sovereignty of the voice as an event, pharmakon communication challenge leaves the subject in an ingenuous anthropolatry somewhere between unconditioned enjoyment and consumption.” Also, the very short [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Pjoef AfD voting record] has only 20% matching the result.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience in most every admin area is worrisome.  The lack of experience in AFD is very troublesome.  Looking at your rationales during the few AFDs you have participated makes it more so, although most are old enough I could overlook if there were some recent ones to offset them.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of you having the delete and block buttons with virtually no experience in those areas.
'''Oppose''', regardless of the subject of this RfA's political position(s), the subject says that he/she wants to be active in all admin areas. Although the subject has a large number of content edits, the individual does not appear to have the experience in areas which regularly involve admins, including [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Pjoef AfDs]. Therefore, at this time I am not going to support handing Admin tools to this good content creator.--
'''Oppose''' Candidate's answer to what admin work they want to take part in and what experience they have appears to be that he wants to receive admin tools and then test them out. This is not how to use admin tools. Admin tools are not a sandbox. User appears to be great at content creation and editing. However, has no experience in the admin area. Also, half of what the user said he wants to do with admin tools in Q6 can be already done without admin tools.
'''Unfortunate oppose''' I don't think the editor even understands what the role of an admin is.  I'm all in favour of gnomes being admins, but they need to know what the extra bit entails.  I've never seen this editor at any of the areas that require Admin attention, and answer to Q1 is a "umm...this is a the time to be specific here, just in case you didn't notice" ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I'm really not confident in the candidate's answers to questions. You can't just have a go at admin and see what suits you - you need to understand what you want to do, have done some preparation, and be able to show why you are to be trusted with the admin tasks you want to perform. I'm also seeing a problem with communication, and I'm really not sure what Pjoef is actually trying to say - clarity of communication is essential for an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry, but I don't believe yo have enough experience in admin-related areas to be given the mop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''. The point of being given admin tools is to be able to contribute to improving Wikipedia in a more specialized, high-level way. It isn't to be able to log on to Wikipedia and see all the neat things you can do to the site. This user's area of expertise and experience is in content creation; an area that requires no admin tools to contribute better in. The highest permission this user would need would be the autopatrolled right, which I would definitely support. However, this user seems to want admin tools simply to have them. That, combined with not being able to say what the user would use the tools for, combined with a lack of demonstrated knowledge of the policies in the fields that admins need to be extremely fluent in, constitutes my opposition. <span style="border:3px solid #000;background:#000">
'''Oppose'''. Pjoef is enthusiastic but lacks experience in admin-related areas. A basic level of experience is required before we should entrust editors with the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - the candidate evidently has no clue about adminship...
'''Oppose''' Based on his answers to the above questions, I would not trust him with the admin tools. -
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. While there are generally no "right" or "wrong" answers to the standard RfA questions, the responses to Q1 & Q2 have not been given enough thought and that makes this RfA seem like a hat-collecting exercise. Coupled with your limited admin-type experience at AfD etc, you simply haven't given us a strong enough reason to have confidence in bestowing the tools upon you at this time. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' While enthusiastic, it appears he lacks the skills required to be an admin. <span class="nowrap"><font color="red">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="maroon">89</font>
I know the questions are optional, but such non-answers to Q1 and 2 disguised as answers don't sit well with me. Also, "not done" is not a decline rationale. -
'''Oppose''': To be fair to the candidate, I don't think he was actively seeking the tools; rather, he unwisely accepted a premature nomination. He seems like a nice guy and I see no reason to imagine he would abuse the tools, but he clearly doesn't know what he wants them for, and he isn't ready yet. <small>(Some friendly advice: RfA is no time to be coy, you need to have convincing answers to Q1 and Q2; your signature is so constructed that searching a page for your username (with ctrl-F) doesn't locate your signature, making it much harder to locate your comments when reviewing AfDs and the like; that bouncing ball on your talk page is unpleasantly distracting; your userpage is 579kB and takes ages to render.)</small> --
'''Oppose'''' I am not satisfied with any of the answers to the questions. In my opinion, some of them do not demonstrate the necessary maturity and/or clue required for adminship. This in particular concerns your answer to question 8.--
'''Oppose''' lack of maturity, skills, and experience in admin related areas.
'''Oppose''' for now. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' His use of capital letters and bold in response to Kiefer makes this a quick fail.♦
'''Oppose''' While the particular manner of Kiefer Wolfowitz's objection was less than civil, it did serve to shed interesting light on the temperament of this candidate. <strong>
'''Strong oppose''' - Just looking at opinions 1 and 3 as well as see him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pjoef&diff=prev&oldid=552863821 shout in bold] is enough.
'''Oppose'''. Not mature enough, and does not show an appropriate understanding of the role of an admin. On the other hand, the comments about him being a Communist are utterly and completely irrelevant. <span style="background-color:yellow;color:;">
'''Oppose'''. Does not have the experience (in relevant areas, that he hopes to take part in) of -- from what I can see -- the attitude I would hope for in an admin.--
'''Oppose'''. Lacks experience and temperament from what I can see.
'''Oppose'''. Q1 and Q2 are null answers. That's a poor start. Q3 has some detail but isn't satisfying with respect to understanding and dealing with conflict. With 42K edits, I'd expect many incidents and some perspective about dealing with them. Other places to look are sparse, so I cannot get a sense of judgment or reserve. Consequently, the application leaves me in the dark, and I'm just not comfortable there. RockMagnetist's (4) quotation is troubling, and I don't know what the response "needed a large number of edits" means. The reply to DeadBeef (11) is also odd. Pjoef may be a good candidate, but I need more evidence of perspective.
'''Oppose''' Per answers to the standard questions and ongoing communication issues. It's impressive that you're an expert in so many programming languages though, especially assembly—there's something you don't see every day '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience with administrative tasks.
'''Oppose'''. The answers to questions 4 and 9 demonstrate a lack of competence on rather basic administrative issues.
'''Oppose'''. Not satisfied with the candidate's answer's to many of the questions (Q1, Q2, Q6, Q7, Q10) — a RfA candidate should explain these sorts of things clearly. Perhaps the candidate should request [[Wikipedia:User_access_levels|other permissions]], like [[WP:Rollback]], [[WP:Reviewing]], or [[WP:File mover]]. Using these permissions wisely might show other editors that the candidate is able to handle the trust given to an administrator. I agree with [[User:Stfg|Stfg]], that this nomination might have been premature. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Salvio's comment under Pol430's oppose sums it up for me, I believe the editor is well-intentioned, but answers to questions like #4 leave me concerned about inadvertent damage. --
'''Oppose''' - On the surface I think this is a good candidate, but the answers to questions demonstrate a lack of genuine understanding and desire to take on the admin role. Perhaps think this over and seek nomination in 3-6 months.
'''Oppose''', with advice for next time: RFA is when you are expected to demonstrate that you can handle the responsibilities of an administrator. If you can't even say what areas you ''might'' do admin work in, you are not going to pass. Period. You need to demonstrate that you are able to actually ''help'' with admin tasks, not just say "I've been here a while so I must be qualified, give me the tools and I'll figure out why later".  Work with [[WP:CSD]], clerking at [[WP:RFPP]], helping clear out bad bot reports at [[WP:UAA]], participation at [[WP:AFD]] that shows some understanding of consensus and deletion policy, these are the type of things non-admins can do to demonstrate they can handle the mop. If you don't want to do any of those things, you are not going to be good admin material. We don't just ride around on horses shooting bad guys, a lot of admin work is very routine and boring. If you don't want to help with that work there is no reason you should be an admin and you should just stick to content work, which is where your focus seems to be already anyway. So, you have a choice to make about where you want your wiki-career to go. Keep focusing on content and maybe one day you will be churning out featured articles, or focus on admin work and maybe you can pass RFA at a future date and become a member of the administrative corps. A few manage to do both at the same time, but they are the exception, not the rule.
'''Oppose''' Per above, although I do give this user a lot of credit for sticking through this RFA, and I look forward to seeing you around in the future because I think that you have a lot of valid critiques above and I hope that you will take them to heart for your next run.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' The initial reply to the first oppose raised concerns with me. Arguably, I think anyone will agree that everyone started Wikipedia at some point and may have gone on to make valuable contributions, but that has been after a fair length of time, having made many mistakes, and having done a lot of learning in the process. Adminship is access to a set of tools where you have knowledge of how to appropriately apply them. The second concern for me was that this editor wanted to 'try' the tools before deciding where their interests lie. I would feel more comfortable if the editor learned more about the areas where the tools are used before asking for the ability to administer them. The answers to questions 1, 2 and 6 were troubling. On another note, I am somewhat horrified that this editor is being persecuted for accusations regarding their beliefs!
'''Oppose''' Sorry to pile on to this already long list of opposes, but the candidate's attitude isn't good enough, and I would certainly be worried if he decides to work on all areas as a newcoming admin. I'm also disappointed by some of the answers to the questions, particularly 4, 6, and 9.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience. Plus, I worry about his ideology of Communism (or Marxism-Leninism). He saved the suspense for Q#1 and possibly Q#5. However, the edit count is fine with me, as he edits in multiple areas. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#de0100;">Pits</font>]][[User talk:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#1404bd;">Confer</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Requires further experience, concerned about the answer to question one. Furthermore, there are some very valid arguments provided above.
'''Oppose'''. Boing, Beeblebrox, Wikins, and Dennis Brown have already  said what  I  would have added, so  this is not  a pile-on.
'''Strong Oppose''' The manner in which the candidate answered the questions disqualify him.  I'm sad to vote against the candidate's nomination because that's the outcome it seems he is looking for. <font face="copperplate gothic light">
'''Neutral''' I don't feel like supporting  or opposing, but the answers to the questions give the impression of checkbox filling.  --
'''Neutral''' Waiting to see more. Mind you, the 'communist' box makes no difference to me any more than an atheist, Christian, Democrat or Republican one would. Everyone has some fault somewhere....
'''Neutral'''. Long story short, per Rocksanddirt. Mop and bucket are not a big issue, but I'd like to hear the candidate discuss at least one specific example/area where they'd want to use them. Feel free to ping me if this is done and I may revise my vote. Good luck otherwise, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. Nice amounts of edits. Content creation and wiki maintenance is always nice. However, I'm concerned that the candidate is not focused on a specific set of admin work and lack the experience needed in any. I suggest that the candidate apply for [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]]. It won't guarantee getting the mop but at least you can safely learn the ropes of adminship from there. I also don't think it is wise to judge the candidate based on his beliefs but rather on his actions. --
'''Neutral''' pending any (apparently unlikely) further explanation of why the candidate wants the mop and what he plans to do with it.  Cheers, '''
Candidate is clearly not ready for adminship. Refuse to oppose due to Keifer's "statement".
'''Neutral''' I will not pile on; some of the comments above are bear-baiting, pure and simple, but I think the candidate (with whom I've worked on WikiProject Wikify} will take from this a better sense of what having the mop entails and begin to think about where they want to work when the day comes.
'''Neutral''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. At this time, I can't bring myself to support this nomination (see [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale]]) but I also feel no desire to add on another oppose.
'''Neutral''' I am basically unsure. This user, pjoef has been working so hard on this project but then some people do have very agreeable points for opposing. --
'''Neutral''' I know this user like Ankit and saw working hard. But Seeing the opposing and supporting reason I don't know what to do.--'''
'''Neutral''' - I am rather worried about the oppose rationales, even though this user is a great editor. So I'm staying neutral for now. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. [[WP:ADMINPEOPLE|Admin candidates are people too]].
'''Neutral''' - Pretty clear temperament issues — not that there's anything wrong with that, the same could be said about me or 999 other regulars at WP.... More than adequate tenure and edits, probably should be a NO BIG DEAL situation. Not sure why the pitch for the toolbox was even made, you don't need validation here, my friend. Continued success to you writing content. Best Clash album: ''Give 'Em Enough Rope.'' <small>Really, K-Wolf, you of all people should know better than to come within 20 miles of an approach that can be construed as redbaiting...</small>
'''Neutral''' - I think the candidate is fine but I tend to agree with most of the opposes that the user should really have some more admin related experience. At least more edits in the admin related boards to show they understand what adminship is and what the tools are for. I would recommend trying again in a few months after working on some admin type stuff.
'''Switzerland''' - I just wanted to chime in on the allegations of bias. People forget that bias works both ways. If you are a capitalist you would be biased against communism. You need class struggle (sorry) between both sides to write a neutral article. If bias is a threat to Wikipedia, it's as [[WP:BIAS|systemic]] bias, not a few lone contributors .
Ah, what the hell? I think I'll go '''Ireland''' on this one. He's obviously lacking experience and seems to be lacking in maturity from what I have seen thus far, but that's probably more from his lack of participation in Wikipedia space than anything. It's almost a professional environment, so his nonchalance is based on inexperience rather than a genuinely frivolous approach to editing the site. I'm also aghast at the oppose rationales that take his support for [[communism]] into consideration &mdash; and I say this as a frequent editor of articles pertaining to the [[Cold War]] ([[Mass killings under communist regimes]], [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], etc).
There comes a time when it is prudent to acknowledge the overwhelming emergence of a consensus, even if it doesn't align with your opinion. Regarding this RFA, that time came days ago. The candidate would elevate his stature, in my opinion, by withdrawing from this RFA, further increasing the likelihood of success when RFA2 transpires (in about 6 months).
'''Weak support''' - the answers to the questions are rather brief, and although I personally disagree with it, other editors are going to look for substantial content work.--
Why not? <font color="00ff00">
'''Weak support''' - You've got the idea right, but I'd rather you really have more experience with actually handling it. <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Weak support''' Per the answers to my questions, the user seems competent and has experience in the areas he/she would like to work in. Article content is okay as well, but a bit more experience would be nice. <s>The user also seems to have confused banning with blocking in the answers to my questions.</s>
'''Strong support''' --
Seems a great person and editor, but not enough administrative experience. Maybe in five months or so. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Very gentle oppose'''.  I want to cushion the blow since the fellow is young and well meaning and pleasant.  Some decent content contributions (the manga and games is fine, we don't all have to be Linus Pauling).  Just give it another year please at least (none of this 6 month stuff).  Concentrate on school and get some sports in too.  Not just slaving for the mop.  Main issues is the speedy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Satellizer#please_hold_on_speedy_deletion] along with a sense of him being very young.  I'm also not crazy about the citing lots of linked Wiki-alphabet soup policies.  [[WP:OPP]] and all that.  Remember you will be dealing with some 40 year old that starts an article on his company and you need to be able to connect with the guy and cushion the blow when you delete his article (like Floq would).  Not make him wonder what strange world he has stepped into.
'''Oppose''', not now; should gain further experience as noted above.
Contribs do show a dedicated vandal fighter; I'm a little concerned that this editor has only 281 edits to admin areas (AIV/RPP/AfD). It's really hard to judge CLUE with so little to examine. I'm not going to ask a question, but will watch the answers given to other questions with interest.
'''Support''' Theopolisme is a great contributor who would definitely be a positive to the project. No issues here, and a great amount of experience.
no issues <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' - I see no problems here.
'''Support''' - Friendly, helpful user who will be a net positive to the project. --
'''Support''' - Is this even a serious question? <font face="webdings"><font color="#007FFF">ö</font></font><font face="segoe script">
'''Support''' I had this RfA watchlisted and I don't remember why.  I'm going to assume it was to support the candidate unless I remember something bad.  Went through the interactions I had with the user and they don't seem negative.
'''Support''' He is ready. —
'''Support''' Q5 was mostly right. The user implies the correct answer. By saying "assuming other major news organizations picked up the story" that it should be includes infers the opposite: that if not sourced better it should be removed. I'll accept the answer. He correctly identified E! as a gossip site and not reputable enough for such a negative claim and identified the BLP concern. The answer lacks an explanation to User A about why E! can't support the material and it lacks the BLP exemption under [[WP:EW]] but I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for someone who is aware of the facets of a situation and will seek additional guidance in policy. Theopolisme did identify the appropriate issues and that means he knows which policies to reference. Support.--v/r -
'''Strong support''' - There are few times when I don't even bother to look through recent contributions for an editor because I've seen them do excellent work and they've already gained my trust. TP and DB stamping their seal of approval doesn't hurt either. --
'''Support''' he served as a temporary admin on Wikidata before he resigned the tools due to inactivity, and is the WP 1.0 bot operator. So far nothing's broken so I have no concerns. --'''
'''Support''' - I like what I see in him. No concerns at all. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Obvious Support''' as very busy nominator who is gladly taking a little time off to present this excellent candidate.
I've gone through your previous RFA, where the most prominent concern was the general haste of your first nomination and your general lack of experience then, but the !voters there largely were impressed by your experience up to that point (notwithstanding the fact that you had too little of it). Having looked through your last several hundred contribs, I'm confident you are now experienced and well-seasoned. A look through your talk page archives since your first RFA reveals an editor who's willing to learn from mistakes, is cordial in his interactions with others, and overall has the right mindset and temperament to be a productive administrator. You'll be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] and I think you'll do just fine. I'm happy to offer my '''support'''. Best of luck.
I do not find the script issue very troubling at all, especially given the time that has passed, and have found Theo to be pretty amicable in genera.--
'''Support''': You responded to the questions well and you have good experience in certain areas of Wikipedia. You have my support.
'''Support''' already does admin tasks, won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. I was neutral last time, for the reason Dennis outlines in his nomination statement - I was impressed by Theopolisme, but just didn't see a long enough tenure. Six months on, and having had a look at Theopolisme's recent work here and examined the questions and answers above, I'm confident we have good admin material here. --
'''Support''' I see no evidence that he'll break the wiki with admin tools, and everyone trustworthy should have the tools if they want them.
'''Support''' Don't know why I didn't !vote last time - I've seen this candidate around a lot and liked what I've seen. Willing to admit mistakes - and most things are fixable anyway. Willing to learn, too. I'm not so sure about all those raspberries, though. I'm a strawberry man myself...
'''Strong Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=539765681 Superb timing], thanks for making me look like a genius! {{wink}}
Glad to see Theopolisme is back for another round on the chopping block. I personally thought he was ready last time, and he's only improved since then. He has my full support.
Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' I already thought you were one.
'''Support''' a simple support for a simple contributor.
'''Strongly support''', unless it draws opposes from people who don't like me, in which case strongly oppose, unless that draws opposes from people who ''do'' like me, in which case I'll be hiding under a box for the rest of the week. That seems to cover everything.
'''Support''' - I appreciate the work he does re-listing and [[WP:NAC|NAC]]'ing AFDs and I've never had a concern about his judgement in either regard. I'd be happy to see him do either of those things as an admin.
'''Support'''. I trust Theo, and six months is more than enough time to run again after a previous RfA. He does very good work in new page patrol and AfD, and he will be a very welcome addition to the admin corps in these areas. He doesn't plan to work at ANEW initially, so I don't think we should put too much weight on his experience there when we make a decision about whether to give him the tools or not. As long as he has experience in the areas that he ''does'' intend to contribute to, and he knows his limitations enough that he won't jump in to areas that he isn't experienced in, I don't see a problem. Also, the issues regarding the CVUA and scripts happened six months ago, and Theo has developed a lot since then. — '''''
'''Support''': Congenial; calm; puts himself out to help people; answered questions based on the book. The italic titles incident was a bit of a traffic accident, but he owned up straight away. I trust him. --
'''Support''' Seems to have learned a lot from their last RfA; will be a good addition to the admin ranks.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Concerns about maturity have not convinced me.  It looks like you have plenty of experience here anyway.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Experienced editor, seen their fine work at articles for deletion, articles for creation, etc., happy to support. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' - Copyright lesson was successfully learned. :-) <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' - I believe he will a good admin.
'''Support''' - I have watched and worked with this user since he first became active and I see no maturity issues. There may have been some months and months ago when he was starting out but weren't we all that way at first? He may not have been ready six months ago but he definitely is now. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- <span class=plainlinks><font color="#000000">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers,]</font><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support''' per Mr. Stradivarius. It's a
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown, Mr. Stradivarius and others.  I think he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' - I'm familiar with some of Theopolisme's contributions in the antivandalism, new page patrol and AfD areas. In my estimation, they exhibit excellent judgement and knowledge of our policies and guidelines. Most of the opposes seem to to focus on maturity and judgement, and I simply don't see nearly enough evidence to convince me that Theopolisme would not make a good admin. Given some of the admin backlogs that I've seen recently, we seem to need all the help we can get. -
'''Support''' Theo's activity as a [[WP:Teahouse/Hosts|Teahouse Host]] was enough to earn my support.  After reviewing his overall contributions, I was more convinced.  "I’ll try to help out where I’m needed most" adds another reason to support; egad, a sysop who checks the [[WP:ABL|admin's backlog]] and helps where an admin is most needed!  Yep, support.
'''Support''' Why not??!!--'''
'''Support''' (moving from neutral.) After reading many of the supports and opposes I think I agree more with support. I still have concerns about the answer to 5, but that is something that can be improved with experience. The candidate has expressed that they will be taking some of this slow which seems good enough to me.
'''Support''' per Ironholds. Also, more seriously, for the excellent answers many of which I could not have answered at my own RfA and some I still couldn't.
'''Support''' Last time around - not so much. But in the last six months, Theo's impressed me with his continued enthusiasm and increased competence; he's got the makings of a capable admin.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools--
'''Support'''.  Any time I see the concept of "maturity" brought up in RfA discussions I tend to become immediately a bit hesitant.  (one bad apple and all that).  So, I went back and reviewed much of their January 2013 and December 2012 conribs.  Then looked through their Oct. and Nov. 2012 talk page archives.  While I get the impression of an editor who is quick to go about "fixing" things, I also see an editor that is (very) quick to revisit their own edits and admit to mistakes when called on.  The only real concern I noticed was a few discussions with Kudpung, and even there I perceived a "due respect" and willingness to listen.  While Theopolisme may not have the circumspection of a NYB (few do, myself included), they do remain calm and discuss things when asked.  In the end, while I may often want oppose due to "maturity" issues, I simply can't see this editor breaking anything that he wouldn't be immediately willing to fix if it was pointed out to him/her.  I see some good template work, consistent notification to other users when applying any editing that may concern them, and a lot of attention to minor fixes and improvements to references.   Mistakes and trouts perhaps - but I don't see any drama magnetism, egotism, or confrontational concerns. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - And very happy to do so.--
'''Support''' - per the opposes below, which I strongly disagree with.
'''Support''' I understand some of the reluctance below but overall Theopolisme is a capable candidate and sysoping him is very likely to be a net positive for the project.
'''Support''' - in all my past interactions with him Theopolisme has shown himself knowledgeable and helpful.
'''Support''' - I see an experienced user with a level head.
'''Support''' -Would be happy to see Theopolisme as syspo.He is experienced,committed and always be on positive note.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and competent. When this editor makes a mistake (and we all do) he will cheerfully fix it. This is a much better quality than being perfect (examples of which are thin on the ground).
'''Support''' Clear net positive — '''[[User:Nerdfighter|<font color=#088A08>nerd</font color=#088A08>]][[User_Talk:Nerdfighter|<font color=#0489B1>fighter</font color=#0489B1>]]'''<sup><small>(
'''Support'''. I was neutral but encouraging last time, and I'm comfortable supporting now. I've read all the oppose and neutral comments, and I don't see anything that I would consider to be disqualifying. --
'''Support''' - I had opposed your first RfA citing experience issues; six months later, here you are again - with a more longer, constructive, experienced history on the project. All the best, —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will be a net positive to the project; seems friendly and has clue. '''
'''Support''' I trust Theo to make the right administrative calls, and can't think of anything he'd be likely to break. Read up on the concept of "gaming autoconfirmed", though (re Gwick's question). :-P''' —&nbsp;<u>[[User:PinkAmpersand|<font color="000">PinkAmpers</font>]]
'''Support''' The thoughtfulness of the opposes have really picked up over the past several RfAs, and these in particular warranted careful reading and rereading.  Having done so, I'm of the opinion that the bit will be a net positive here.  <small><span style="color:gray"><tt>
'''Support''' This is clear evidence that a bit more time and hardwork can pay off. A good example of a candidate and deserves the mop! ''
'''Support''' Looks like the candidate has seriously taken on board past concerns.  Yes, a couple of the answers could be better, but Wikipedia's the world's largest open-book test.  Seems to have sufficient clue, and that's what I'm looking for rather than never blotting the copybook or perfect RfA answers.--
'''Support.''' An excellent candidate who has deserved the mop for quite some time. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">
Opposes aren't really convincing, though I did give the maturity issues some thought before deciding to support.
'''Support''' Good candidate for admin and deserves to be one.
'''Support''' My interactions with him have been very positive, and his work is excellent. I see a good grasp of policy. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§
'''Support''' -- haven't interacted with him, but great answers above. --
'''Support''' Seen him around, seems clueful. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Content creation could be better, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I've seen good work from this editor, and look forward to their work as an admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' per Ched (#47). Be careful with deletions and don't take on anything you're unsure about, even if it makes you look like you're avoiding tough decisions.
'''Support''' Seems to be well suited to becoming an admin.
'''Support''' And repeating Soap, just dont do anything your unsure of :) If you are unsure ask someone or read a page first! '''
'''Support''' Seen a lot of his work around, he will make a great admin. '''''
'''Support''' {{smiley}} —<font face=Verdana><span style="border:1px solid;border-radius:1.7em 0"><span style="background:#000;border-radius:1.5em 0 0"> -[[User:Dainomite|<font color=#FFF>dain</font>]]</span>
'''Support''' The opposes make good points but, as Ched above says, nobody's perfect and Theopolisme seems willing to listen and rethink. Can't ask for much more than that. --
'''Support''' per Ched.--<span style="">
I'm simply not convinced that things have changed significantly since the last attempt, barely 6 months ago.
'''Oppose'''. Maturity. Wait 3 years or until you are 18, whichever is longer. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Q2. Maturity issues. Q5 is wrong too. -
'''Oppose''' per above <s>and [[User talk:Theopolisme/Archive 8#STOP]] - I believe that Theopolisme ''was'' the one who wrote that specific script.</s> Forget that, I just don't think that he's ready for the extra tools right now.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I say weak oppose because in the spirt of [[WP:BIGDEAL|"no big deal"]], I have a hard time opposing someone who has a generally good and prolific editing record. The candidate, however, is among the most bland and unimpressive admin hopefuls I have seen in a while. He spends too much time devoting himself to bureaucratic tasks that have no benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. He does decent CSD and PROD works and a very good job of AfD clerking, but I notice that I have not seen him make a single contribution to a deletion discussion that has anything even resembling an original thought behind it. In CSD, policy discussion, whatever... he unfailingly sides with the majority opinion and avoids any contentious discussion. I'm sorry, but I look for admin candidates that have some degree of backbone, and not ones that avoid any kind of action which might get them criticized later. I want to see admin candidates that say "this is what I think, and I will stand by my convictions" rather than candidates that keep their heads down and just agree with the majority opinion in the hopes it will keep them politically palatable with the majority of users. I would be willing to seriously reconsider this a year or so from now, but his age combined with the "I wanna be an admin!" smell that seems to cling to every action and edit he makes prevents me from being able to support him at this time.
'''Maturity concerns'''.  ('''1''') 6 months is awful fast to come back to RFA especially given maturity was the concern before.  More time is needed to grow up and a year from now would be good (and do some outside Wiki things and grow up as well).  ('''2''')Seems like there is an interest in leveling up rather than ecyclopedia improvement (building Britanica quality at Wiki scale).  ('''3''')The vandal-fighter acadamy is first sort of just questionable on its own and then that it was made a hash of.  ('''4''')The recent project on article improvement is extremely new and does not show any signs of traction yet...if he really wants that to go somewhere push it hard for a while and make it succeed (or do enough to say a good try was given).  The project page does not show any evidence of article improvement though and I think it is naive (and just not understanding content work) to think that single day flash mobs on important articles are going to be how to improve substantive topics.  ('''5''')While the fellow has a large "orange" (article) section of his pie chart...his EPP is very low (1.54) so that it is extremely likely that his edits are not substantial content contributions.  ('''6''')Also the articles he has contributed to most (Sandy Hook shooting and Amanda Todd suicide) give me pause.  Seems a little too much moth to flame.  ('''7''')  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=speedy&prefix=User+talk%3ATheopolisme%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search Quite a few declined speedy tags.] And the emphasis on that as his first area to contribute is concerning.  ''On the good side, he seems very upbeat and the user page is very fun.''  (although what up with the protection?)  I would be glad to re-look in a year as this would put more distance behind things (the CV academy, the bad speedies, the new project taking off).  But please not one of those "to the day" years...that sends a bad message.
'''Reluctant oppose''' - Though I'm sure that this applicant may succeed, I've always found a maturity issue with Theopolisme, especially with in The borderline-defunct [[WP:CVUA]]. I say reluctant because I get on well with Theo, but I can't see him using the mop just yet.--
'''Oppose''' Seems to equate the real world of business and commerce with vandalism and Wikipedia with a shooting gallery. For example, he wanted to speedy delete an article about one of the oldest [[Brierley Groom|architectural practices]] in the world.  The article still doesn't amount to much and this guy ain't helping.
'''Oppose''' Clearly, improved over last time. Friendly, courteous, receptive to feedback. Good with people. Will make a really good admin, but not ready yet. I do not believe one should tag as A3 articles that are about ten minutes or less old.  It would be better to slow down, and give articles a chance. It is always better to spend a few moments, as Colonel Warden recommends, searching for ways to source/expand the article.
'''Oppose''' - Various maturity concerns per above, and I am also not inclined to hand a lifetime adminship to someone who seems to want it too much. In this case, I get a strong sense that the candidate's edits are largely motivated by a desire for extra buttons, reinforced by the too-fast first Rfa and this too-soon followup Rfa. I do thank this candidate for their service, whatever the motivation, but I'd like to see this nomination sometime next year, not now.
'''Oppose''' - not yet. Should revist this again in a year.
'''Oppose''' I would not oppose on the basis of errors made 4 months ago, but the most recent AfD he proposed was at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Abdullah Ahmed]].  Moving the article at Product tour to the users sandbox was a good idea, but redirecting to [[marketing]] was not, when it isn't currently mentioned in the article.However, I see the advice the candidate is giving to users, and it's good advice. Another few months should do it.   '''
'''Oppose'''. I do not believe that the deletion tool can be entrusted to an editor who just last week placed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Abdullah_Ahmed&diff=539534371&oldid=539534017 this speedy deletion tag], with its totally unfounded suggestion of hoaxing, on an article that contained such strong indications of importance.
'''Oppose''' - Theopolisme is a great editor and a valuable asset to the project; however, I'm concerned that he has a tendency to act a little too hastily (there are examples above). I think more experience would allow him to make better decisions, slow down a little, and develop a bit more self-awareness.
'''Oppose''' - I spent a long time on the fence on this one. I've run into Theopolisme a few times and had a general positive impression that was enforced by Dennis Brown's strong nomination statement. The user is an asset to the project as a vandalism fighter and would become more of an asset with access to the sysop tools. He is consistently pleasant in his communications with other users. Delving into his contributions, I formed an overall impression of an earnest and sincere young man who has put a lot of effort into building his Wikipedia resume in order to qualify for adminship. Therein lies a concern -- in his article creations and his participation on nomination discussions for his DYKs, he shows a very limited acquaintance with content-related policies/guidelines and the principles behind them. While an administrator can elect to stay away from matters they don't understand very well -- and I fully expect that he would elect to stay away from most matters related to topics like notability, verifiability, etc., there's a general expectation that administrators understand policy and can make good judgements about policies they aren't thoroughly familiar with. Due to this user's apparent youth -- and lack of life experience -- he falls short of that general expectation. Still, I was in the neutral column but leaning toward support until seeing relatively recent instances of what I consider to be too-hasty and/or ill-conceived new-page patroller taggings: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Methodist_churches&oldid=523928013 this prod notice added one minute after the article was created], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Abdullah_Ahmed&diff=539534371&oldid=539534017 this speedy-delete-as-hoax tag] cited earlier in this discussion. If this user intends to specialize in areas like new-page patrol support, he needs to be less eager to tag new pages and should do a better job in judging new content like that page he called a hoax. I'm disappointed to have come to this "oppose" decision, but there it is. --
'''Oppose''' I have concerns about maturity issues, and I think more time should have been given in between RfAs (at least a year).  Furthermore, this CSD tag concerns me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Abdullah_Ahmed&diff=539534371&oldid=539534017] - article tagged as A7/possible hoax when there was no evidence of a hoax, and the subject was clearly alleged to be important.  I'd say give it another year before trying an RfA, and then maybe I'll change my mind, but there are still too many concerns for me to support the user at this time.
'''Strong oppose'''. Lack of maturity, lack of precision,  poor accuracy of judgment, and over eagerness to become an admin. That all sounds harsh, I know, but I have followed Theo's work since his participation on the ill fated [[WP:CVUA|counter vandalism academy]] which had to be completely restructured due to its having become little more than a social gathering of over enthusiastic high schoolers, and his first run for adminship. Rightly or wrongly I conclude that this a case of a user who has joined Wikipedia with the determination to become an admin - he may well make a good admin one of the days but he still needs to be pulled up regularly, and while he may feel that I've been stalking him, it is nothing more than the fact that he keeps turning up in thet places that I have on my watchlist, such at those that are basically strictly admin areas. Sorry Theo, but like much advice I have offered you on various things,  IMHO, you are definitely not ready for the bit yet and  as I said when you asked me offline recently for advice, this application comes too hard on the heels of your previous attempt. --
'''Oppose''' Answer for Q5, speedy deletion tagging case mentioned by Phil Badger, overall maturity concerns.--
'''Oppose''' Kudpung sums it up perfectly. Tough love.
'''Oppose''' Well summed up by #17 Kudpung. Give it another 12 months.
'''Oppose''' per Kudpung. I disagree with the rationales behind other opposes (including the Q5 complaint), and would not use the word "maturity" in the way that other editors including Kudpung have done, but I oppose based on most of what Kudpung is saying.
'''Oppose''' Essentially per TCO and Phil Bridger. Its a bit of a heartsink to see Theo take the routine "give it six months' or so" salve so literally but it's not surprising. I took a rather harsh view of his 1st RfA and whilst there has been an admirable amount of laudable work and effort since, I don't see that he's acquired the necessary to be safe and effective with the tools. Which is not surprising. Maturity (for want for a better term) doesn't obtain in proportion to wiki-activity; whilst it is an idiosyncratic process that develops according to many factors and experiences and influences, the understanding of how those relate and effect one's judgment and understanding and attitudes always takes a goodly while, and can't be rushed. There's no short-cut, and no substitute either. I'm sure that when Theo IS ready he'll look back on these two RfA's and understand that he wasn't then.
'''Oppose'''. Limited content contributions and several recent mistakes regarding deletions pointed out by previous participants.
Whilst there's a lot to commend this candidate for, the deletion errors listed above leave me uncomfortable with the idea of theopolisme having the deletion button. Happy to see you here again in a few months, provided you improve your CSD tagging. ''
No trust to users whose contributions to the main space, essentially, are limited to pushing buttons of various scripts. The [{{canonicalurl:Aziz Abdullah Ahmed|action=history}} recent attempt to exterminate a Kurd] is a solid reason to deny extra privileges to this user. Maybe, these privileges will be granted in the future when they became more tidy.
'''Oppose''' I opposed last time because of concerns about making hasty decisions, but unfortunately, per the opposes stated above, even after over 6 months, I haven't seen any improvements in terms of the candidate's attitude. I'm impressed that you've managed to co-ordinate the [[Wikipedia:United States Education Program]] though, so keep up the good work.
'''Oppose'''. I've looked over the candidates contributions to mainspace to see what there is in terms of addition of actual sourced content. There's very, very little, and what there is gives me pause for thought. The candidate's edits to his most-edited article are almost entirely formatting changes and similar tweaks. Of what he lists as his article creations, the highest "rated" is [[David Segal (reporter)]]. Apart from its creation 241 words long and just exactly long enough for DYK, the candidate's other major edits to it are things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Segal_%28reporter%29&diff=519740659&oldid=519725538 this edit] where he adds a typepad.com blog and a piece by tabloid the ''Daily Mail'' as the sole sources for claims that a named living person "bullied and threatened his customers" and was convicted of fraud and jailed. (Those claims are still in the article now, the only additional source being one written by Segal himself.) These claims may well be true, but this is '''not''' how [[WP:BLP]] tells us to write about living persons. Aside from that, there may occasionally be times where a candidate lacking in content contributions clearly still has the thoughtful approach to content (and respect for others' contributions to the encyclopedia) that we expect serious long-term content contribution to develop. However, this is ''not'' one of those times, as the examples of careless and hasty tagging cited by others above have indicated. Someone with these issues should not be wielding the delete button. Finally, the script incident, from only around six months ago, still causes me serious concern. De-escalating the situation, Kudpung jokingly said to Theopolisme and Riley that running scripts against mainspace should be left to "geniuses". The candidate's response here - after plenty of time to consider the situation - is not that he's going to avoid running scripts, not that he's going to stop accepting scripts from other people over IRC to run himself in order to be "helpful", not that he won't run scripts with his admin account. Instead, all he says is that in future he's going to always know "''exactly''" what he's running. I'm sure that's more cautious than the approach he's taken before, but I'm really not sure it's enough. --
'''Neutral''' I have much respect for Dennis' nominations and opposing such candidates is always a tough task. In this case, my neutrality comes because the answer to Question 5 is critically wrong. Theo writes, ''If User B continued to remove the content (after I had added the "alleged"), I would have no choice but to block them per WP:EW.'' Unfortunately, although TParis is being quite lenient, this answer and orientation is not acceptable at all. The first and foremost step is to engage the user in discussions. If a 3RR has been breached, even then extreme care has to be taken to engage the editor first or to confirm whether the editor has been substantially warned. Additionally, if Theo himself has initiated editing the said article and has started reverting deleted content, there is no definite guarantee that Theo is not seen as being involved by outside parties. In other words; consequently, his act of blocking the editor ''might'' be seen as being an involved act. Despite my strong wordings here, the fact is that I am neutral and not at all negative to his adminship, with due respect to Theo for standing up to the RfA again. Thanks.
'''Neutral''' While I believe this editor is more than qualified for using the tools in a patrolling capacity, I am concerned that many of the articles this editor has created may not satisfy the notability criteria and this would not make involvement in the deletion process desirable.--
'''Neutral''' I share some of the oppose concerns about being a career Wikipedian (the candidate references his Wikicareer even), if meant in the context of FAs and creating great content it's not an objectionable mindset but it becomes slightly moreso if instead an editor is just looking to pass an RfA. Additionally the script situation is cause for concern, you shouldn't be editing via scripts you don't understand and of course this could be a lot more damaging with extra permissions. Having said this, a lot of boxes have been ticked by the candidate which prevent me from opposing '''
'''Neutral''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dermot_Gascoyne&diff=538880582&oldid=538876629 this recent tagging of an article for BLPPROD], despite there bieng plenty of sources from a quick Google search, shows a lack of [[WP:BEFORE]] and is slightly troubling - but I need to dig deeper before deciding properly. I shall return.
'''Neutral''' - I was about to add my support but Phil Bridger pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Abdullah_Ahmed&diff=539534371&oldid=539534017 this speedy nomination] which is way too recent for my tastes.
See oppose number 14; not opposing because it might be an isolated mistake.
I wish you'd waited a few months. I also wish you'd spent some more time writing the encyclopaedia; not because featured content starts are pretty, but because writing a serious article requires patience and dedication (if I were being harsh I would say it shows you can do something other than mash buttons). What I see in the oppose section is a pattern of zeal and haste where you should have taken things a bit slower and used your judgement. Adminship is much more about judgement than it is about mashing buttons (I think I went into more detail on this on your last RfA so I won't repeat myself). However, I think you have generally good judgement. I think you would be better prepared for adminship in another six months or a year, but this request is probably going to pass and I can live with that. You'll have a steep learning curve, but your your obvious enthusiasm will help you there and your heart's in the right place. As long as you remember to take your time, think things through, and do your due diligence, you'll probably turn out to be a bloody good admin.
'''Neutral''' - Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Six months ago I sat in Neutral and suggested another try after a year. Now I suggest waiting another six months. Still has not been an active Wikipedian for a full year; it does take time to absorb the culture.
'''Neutral''': Why rush to become an admin? I expect he will keep improving.  ~
'''Neutral''' I expected this RFA to come in about 6 months because I felt that the editr would likely be ready then.  The opposes above show I was right.  I do hope you have not shot yourself in the foot my running too soon - this one was really mistimed ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Moral Support''', while this is probably about to get closed per [[WP:SNOW]] and/or [[WP:NOTNOW]], I would like to encourage tortoise to keep it up, and not be discouraged by this.  Wikignomes are people too.  If you keep your nose clean and rack up a few thousand edits, then we'll see.  Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - Major lack of experience with less than 500 edits between the two accounts...I'm not one for editcountitis, but this is excessively low, plus there are contributions that aren't all that constructive.
'''Oppose''' Not ready. Maybe in a year or so, if the correct steps are followed. —
'''Oppose''' You clearly have good intentions here, however your low edit count in the admin areas you expressed interest in is a little concerning. Come back in a year with more experience and I'll support. --  '''
'''Oppose'''. Too inexperienced. <span style="">
'''Oppose''': Gain some experience and reapply in at least one to one and a half years. A few hundred edits isn't really enough. All I see is a bunch of [[WP:SNOW|snow]].
As nom, of course. —
As nom '''
I thought transclusion wasn't until next week!
'''Weak Support''', Vacation looks like he will be a net positive as an admin, althugh the oppose section is already concerning.
'''moral support''' I don't believe this RfA is going to pass at this time, and I agree with several users below in just not being totally comfortable with your level of maturity at this time. I feel that perhaps you need to wait six months or a year, work on your knowledge of the project (which is already significant) and get a better grip on cooperation, and I think next time this will sail through. I actually like your [[WP:BOLD|bold]] behavior. I think that the project NEEDS more people willing to dive into things. We have far too many wannabe politicians that try their hardest to make themselves as unremarkable as possible in the hopes that the virtue of never having given a real opinion on anything will help them slip through RfA. If nothing else, you impress me by this quality alone. Also... just some food for thought, IRC is the [[third rail]]. I have never seen anyone benefit in an RfA by their presence on IRC, it only hurts. Keep that in mind for next time.
'''Support'''.  After reading Rschen's oppose I was initially on the fence, but after reviewing Vacation9's contributions, I find myself in favor of approving this request for adminship.  Most striking to me was the editor's [[User:Vacation9/CSD log|CSD log]], documenting a superb record when dealing with new page deletion.  Furthermore, I found the editor's comments to exhibit a high level of knowledge about Wikipedia as well as maturity.  It is difficult for me to believe that Vacation9 would somehow be too immature to handle the tools, especially without hard evidence to the contrary.  Lastly, there is no reason to oppose this editor for having 6 months of experience on Wikipedia--I was given adminship with 7 months of experience and I never broke the encyclopedia. '''
'''Support''' Definitely a net positive. — '''
'''Support''' - He won't misuse the tools. [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. --
'''Oppose''' this candidate has shown immaturity as evidenced by the recent argument in #wikimedia-otrs; this evidenced a failure to understand privacy-related issues and what OTRS is / how the WMF operates, and overall being disagreeable while trumpeting the horn of "maturity". Furthermore, this user has taken actions that are similar to those of a hat collector, as evidenced by the user's request for [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2013-02#Global_rollback_for_Vacation9 global rollback] while not meeting the qualification of having several crosswiki reverts (having joined the Small Wiki Monitoring Team [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASWMT-Members&diff=5233394&oldid=5223885 20 hours before]). --'''
'''Oppose''' I believe Vacation9 has the best of intentions, but tends to "jump the gun" and rush things like [[User_talk:Vacation9/Archives/2013/February#Edit_requests_on_caste_pages|1]], [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot|2]], [[m:Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2013-02#Global_rollback_for_Vacation9|3]] as well as other requests that I've seen on IRC.
'''Oppose''' per Rschen7754.
'''Oppose''' - I really hate to do this, sorry. As stated by Legoktm, you have good intentions but I don't get the right feeling about you ''yet''. As said, keep up the good work and come back once you have more experience and some more maturity. (I'm not saying you are immature, I just think you need to get the skills to not "jump the gun") '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- <span class=plainlinks><font color="#000000">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers,]</font><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Oppose''' Only been editing for 6 months? I'd really have to see something incredible to convince me to !vote "support".  Too much too fast I think.
I have seen several instances demonstrating a lack of seasoned judgement recently. --
'''Oppose''' per Rschen7754 and Legoktm.  Furthermore, the user says that he wants to work with CSD, but some of his speedy deletion tags look problematic to me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Cripps_Vernon&diff=524740003&oldid=524739901] - this one was tagged only a minute after creation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernand_Ansseau&diff=524738161&oldid=524737948] - this one was tagged as [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] when the article talked about the subject being on the verge of an international career, so A7 didn't apply; furthermore, close to the end of the page was a copyright notice, which should have clued Vacation9 into the fact that it should be tagged as G12.  While the tagging has improved over the last couple months, I think this RfA is rushing into things, and I think the user needs time to further prove himself before being given the tools.  So I am opposed for now.  If the user matures a little and shows consistently better CSD tagging, I'd probably reconsider in a year or so.
'''Oppose''' #1, #2, #7. Too eager to jump in. Not ready.
'''Oppose''' Though you are a good editor and the global rollbacker case stated by Rschen does not cause any concern, I must oppose based on the other concerns of Rschen and Legoktm. Maybe once you reach 8 months minimum, though 6 more months without any repeats of the above cases should make a more positive view.
'''Oppose''' Per all above, and the fact he has been editing for only about 6 months and that 37% of his edits are [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Vacation9&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia User-talk] related
I really, really hate to seem like piling on, but feel I must chime in to give some advice. Although you registered back in 2010, you didn't begin editing in earnest until last September. Generally, editors who've only been here half a year don't pass RFA. I'm not writing off what you ''have'' done over the past six months, but the general haste of this request is enough to give me pause. You're going to be an impeccable candidate after a year or so's editing and honing your communication skills. You've got great potential as an editor and I wish you all the best for whatever your future here may bring.
'''Oppose''' per [[m:Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2013-02#Global_rollback_for_Vacation9]]. In that respect, the amount of experience you have is not adequate, and Rschen7754's concerns are not good either.--
'''Oppose''' Based on lack of time on Wikipedia. While (s)he's edited quite a bit in the six month's (s)he has been active here, six months of active editing just isn't enough to convince me that (s)he's experienced enough to take on the mop. I'm sorry, Vacation9, and I hope that, if/when you try again later, you succeed.
Since they were linked above I looked at some of your non-admin closures. I consider them a poisoned chalice when it comes to RFA, but they do give an indication of an editors ability to read consensus and their understanding of policy. I am afraid that the your closures displayed a tendency to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audubon Avenue (Manhattan)|!vote]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starch (game)|count]] more than to dissect individual arguments. Some were also a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Civil War bibliography|little careless]] (it was moved during the discussion) or had [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Kehoskie|unclear reasoning]].
'''Oppose''' Competence and maturity concerns.
'''Oppose''' per all above and also emphasizing the comment of {{U|JayJay}} and {{U|Fluffernutter}}.
'''Oppose''' Per Rschen7754.
'''Oppose''' More edits to AN/I than any mainspace article is unusual for a new editor, it adds to the impression the last few months have been a concerted effort to make the right friends and pass an RfA '''
'''Strong moral support, but neutral'''.  In my singular opinion, I think you are a year away from being ready.  There are so many nuances in policy that simply take time and experience to fully comprehend. I waited 5 years, but I'm a slow learner ;-).  While I am totally comfortable with trusting you to not abuse the tools and know you wouldn't intentionally do any evil, I don't think you are quite ready to deal with the ugly problems that crop up regularly.  Your heart is in the right place, and I respect and admire your willingness to serve.  I look forward to supporting in the future.
I've seen Vacation9 before. He has strong editing capabilities, but I have observed issues with CSD and a few other admin-involved areas. I don't want to support, but I feel that opposing would be too much here.
Answers to the questions leave something to be desired...may change to support after a closer look.
'''Moral support''' for a future RfA run. I feel confident that I could support a run in 6-12 months time, and I think that withdrawing at this stage would show good judgment. --
'''Moral Support''', per [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]].  I'm usually generous with my support on [[WP:Requests for adminship|RFA]], but I would advise the candidate to withdraw and try again in a few months.  &ndash;
'''Neutral''', At this time, the candidate does not seem mature enough to become admin, but has demonstrated a solid understanding of policy in some areas. Perhaps in another year or so's time I would support. '''<font color="gold">★[[User:Retrolord|★]]</font>[[User:Retrolord|Retro]][[User talk:Retrolord|Lord]]
'''Neutral''' because I don't know the candidate well enough yet for a Support. What I saw recently impressed me! The user tackled a problem that was [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 106#user:GimmeBot and template:article history|described as difficult]] (moving forward from ArticleHistory to {{tl|article history}}), listened to the input of others but made decisions about what to take, and arrived fast at a seemingly simple [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot 3|solution]], --
As nom.
I haven't seen this user around, but a cursory review of his talk page, some of his comments at AfD, and the answers he gave to the standard RfA questions left me with the impression that he can be trusted with the added toolset. I agree with the nominator, we need more administrators, especially ones that help to protect our [[WP:BLP|BLPs]]. There's no reason to believe Bagumba would do anything crazy with +sysop.
Level-headed, tactful, and a good communicator. I've always been impressed with his ability to handle disagreements. He doesn't make things personal, but keeps a cool head and focuses on the arguments.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Opport/Suppose''' - editor needs to spend more time on [[NASCAR]] and less on baseball and basketball if he's to be well rounded in sport related material. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Can not find any general reason to oppose or go neutral. If I find any possible opinion changes, I question them first. Great Nomination too AutomaticStrikeout.
'''Weak support'''. [[WP:RFPP]] requests this year: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=506664829 10th August] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Bynum&diff=506665038&oldid=506664318 protected]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=501923009 12th July] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=501985129&oldid=501984614 declined] a few hours later), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=501002463 6th July] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyle_Lowry&diff=501010233&oldid=501009984 protected]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=493372848 19th May] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=493406841&oldid=493406320 declined]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=492118299 12th May] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011%E2%80%9312_NBA_season&diff=492211983&oldid=492207850 protected]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=476191374 10th February] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metta_World_Peace&diff=476194471&oldid=476186233 protected]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=475352984 6th February] (initially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Lin&diff=475405975&oldid=475400269 full protection], later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Lin&diff=476236037&oldid=476220298 semi-protection]). [[WP:AIV]] reports this year: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=507758592 17th August] (blocked), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=475598014 7th February] (blocked), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=473389078 26th January] (blocked). Of concern, Bagumba sometimes characterizes misguided good faith edits by IP editors as "vandalism": [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=492118299 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=465926963 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=465926544 here].
'''Support''' looked over some AfDs he was involved in and he seems really reasonable.  Axl's point about mislabeling vandalism a a bit scary, but fixable.
'''Support''' Based on his terrible answer to my question, he proved that he is far enough removed from the sport (and reality) to properly admin in this area without any threat of bias.  The correct answer was of course, [[Roger Staubach]].  His AFD performance is solid and he seems to have plenty of clue.   The other stuff is important and noted, but fixable with a little effort.
'''Support''' - Trustable and experienced. I checked his GA out, and it is impressive in terms of the shear volume of content and the number of sources he churned through to create it. Copyvio spotchecks were clean (as I expected from an article citing a very wide variety of sources), and the article read reasonably well. The only concern I had with it was in the tone&mdash;the article has a slight POV in favor of the subject, particularly in the "Character" section. The "vandalism" concerns don't bother me, as those were just [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] blunders and his real reason was after it.
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around quite a bit, and they're almost always calm, collected, and evenhanded. I believe they will make an excellent admin. -
'''Support''', based on my review; seems to be a "stand up guy".
'''Support''' - I think he would make a good administrator due to his trust towards the community. I also agree with the concerns by AutomaticStrikeout, we need more administrators to help out. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Support''' - He's show that he clearly knows what to do with the tools, as well as shown that giving him access will clearly be a '''net benefit''' to the project... so why not? '''
'''Support''' - Remains calm, content-focused, timely and helpful.

'''Oppose''' the correct answer to Q6, of course, is "neither; Dallas sucks" (the Green Bay fan in me can't let that one slide) ;) (read the commented out section...)<!--Note to the humor-impaired; this is what's known as a joke.  If you're having trouble understanding that, look it up; we even have an article on it.  In all seriousness, I fully support Bagumba for the excellent work I've seen from him. -->
'''Support'''--
I have the baseball project on my watchlist (can't recall why) and occasionally look in on discussions there. I also read over plenty of sports AfDs and have seen Bagumba participate in quite a few. In both cases, he has come across as a very capable editor who knows his stuff and can discuss things rationally. I'm sure he'll do good work as an admin.
'''Support''' Can't see any reason why not <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' trusted user, no reason to think he will abuse the bit. ''<B>--
Easy. Loads of clue.
'''Support'''. Civil, clueful, and will make a great admin. — '''''
I reviewed a sampling of contributions over the past six months, and did not see any red flags. Appears to be sensible and communicative. Happy to support. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - Looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - good answer to my question; good answer to other questions; good candidate.
'''Support'''. '''''
Looks good.
'''Support'''. Has good content work, seems like his behavior is good enough, and I like to see an admin hopeful who will do more than combat vandalism. I know that's the most important thing, but there are very few who intend to do more than that. <sup><font face="verdana">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Answers to questions show policy knowledge.  If not removing backlogs, at least won't be adding to them.
'''support''' Everything seems in order here.
'''Support'''. Q1 is strong, but Q3 lacks details of actual conflict. Pleasing edit distribution. Good recovery on vandalism issue at S7. Strong main diagonal on AfD confusion matrix (... but thirty-six edits to a single AfD?).
'''Support'''. For me, this is an easy support, having crossed paths with the candidate numerous times at [[WP:NSPORT]]. Trustworthy, clueful, no worries. --
'''Support'''. For me, everything is perfect.
'''Support'''. Despite [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]]'s provocation, and the nominee's clear inability to discern great quarterbacks when he sees them (see Q6), I think he'll do a splendid job as an admin!  I'm happy to hand him a mop bucket with a big ol' Dallas Star on the side. <!--This is also humor, in case you couldn't tell. -->
Answers to the questions are fine. - Dank (
'''Support''' Can't see anything wrong.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per Oppose 17 by Northern Lights. I simply can't support someone that's a Dallas Cowboys fan (AKA America's Embarrassment). Go PACK! Go VIKES! Go REDSKINS! Anyone but Dallas.
'''Support''' Civil and competent. No problem supporting at all.—<font face="Cambria" size="3">
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. Let's go Mets!
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~
'''Support'''- I apologize. I didn't realize my comment would be viewed as detrimental to the RFA. '''
'''support''' The great thing about waiting till an RFA is well under way is all the homework is already done. Support by way of arguments already made.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, sufficient tenure and edit count. Admin buttons really should be No Big Deal.
'''Support''' - Yep --'''
'''Support''' From the questions, I would like to show support for Bagumba becoming an administrator.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Seems quite pragmatic and productive in cases such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Long Island Blackbirds men's basketball team|this]].
'''Support'''. I'm seeing plenty of knowledge of the way things are supposed to work, good answers to questions, a very practical and sensible approach to AfDs etc, and a collegial approach to discussions. --
'''Support''' Trusted user; good answers to questions.
'''Support''' Everything checks out with this user!
'''Support''' - Pretty decent user! '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support'''. Though I've not encountered this editor before, his set of answers is impressive enough that I haven't any qualms.
'''Support''' Me and Bagumba edit the same topic areas so I'm extremely familiar with his work and we constantly interact with each other, especially in AFD and he usually comes as level-headed. I've seen an overemphasis of GNG from the candidate at times, defending it like it's policy and not a guideline in several debates. But question 13 satisfies my concerns.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Fulfills my [[User:Trusilver/RFA|RfA criteria.]] This user is involved with administrative activities but stays out of drama. His areas of participation are varied, and the work he does seems to be excellent. Read through a good number of his AfD comments and I find them very thoughtful and well reasoned.
'''Support''' Aside from the usual work, I am impressed by the logic <s>displaced</s> displayed by the user in response to comments, it shows the nature of the individual. Seems like a good choice for the mop.
Net positive. ''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse tools or position.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' Nice and experienced user.--
'''Support''' – Bagumba and I edit in the topic area of baseball.  Based on my encounters with him, I find him extremely well-versed in WP policy, helpful, friendly and able to be diplomatic and cool when solving any disputes. —
'''Support.''' Candidate will probably be a good administrator.
'''Support'''. With respect to Q13 (my question following up Q12), I asked Baguma to elaborate and they (sorry about all the theys but I don't know Bagumba's gender) complied thoroughly. Despite the length of the elaboration, I found it a good read. I liked Bagumba's response to Q14 as I believe in transparency and that being a bit of a pest at times for the greater good can be helpful, particularly in clearing up any misunderstandings. With respect to the Twinkle issue, I don't believe Bagumba is blaming Twinkle; rather, they are saying they were unaware of a feature of Twinkle. The fault is imputed to Bagumba, not to Twinkle. There's a refreshing articulate honesty about Bagumba. I also think it's generally helpful to have admin spcialists, especially in areas I know next to nothing about. That way, in addition to bothering GiantSnowman, I can bother Bagumba if I have a sports question.--
'''Support''' -- -- Cheers,
'''Support''' - Solid looking contributions, 354 edits to [[Jeremy Lin]] alone (that article may be ready for GAN), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page/questions&diff=prev&oldid=507754995 seems polite and helpful]. Opposes are unconvincing, and I think emigrate/immigrate may be a BrE/AmE difference.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' The candidate's name resonates with "''[[Ummagumma]]''". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Can't remember crossing your path before, and if you stick to sport I may never do so again. But you have a clean blocklog and your deleted edits are unconcerning. The attitude of casting a !vote rather than a supervote and leaving closure to another admin where he has an opinion is very commendable. As for the oppose section, I share Malleus's disdain for immigrated as opposed to "emigrated from x to y", but tolerating such Americanisms is part of the process of sharing this site with a bunch of colonials. Once we've finished teaching you not to make tea with harbours full of cold salty water perhaps we can move on to putting the z key where it doesn't get so overused and other important lessons. But for the moment I'm happy to park such concerns until after we get round to revoking the declaration of Independence. ''
'''Support''' No concerns. Good range of contributions, and a solid, careful attitude displayed. '''
'''Support''' Experienced user. --
'''Support''' - Good AfDs, civil, no reason to not support. ~
'''Support''' - Great candidate for adminship! God bless! --<font style="background:lightgrey">
'''Support''' Seems reasonable and competent.  No problems here!
'''Support''' per Michael. Candidate appears reasonable and competent. Opposes make sense, but are generally unpersuasive.
'''Support''' the kind of administrator Wikipedia needs...civil, intelligent, tactful, and most importantly LIKES SPORTS!!!, just kidding, in all seriousness though there is absolutely no reason the editor can't be trusted with the few extra tools being an administrator gives you. Hand him the keys! (or in this case buttons)
'''Support'''. No concerns. Plenty of experience. Meets my criteria.
'''Support''' keep swinging your bat...
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Good answers to most of the questions above. User knows which areas to work in and has the clear idea on when and how to use the Admin tools when appropriate given their knowledge of Wikipedia policies and experience. Bagumba meets the basic requirements as required and expected by the community for being appointed as an admin. Clearly a net positive and benefit to the project.
'''SUpport''' Why not. —
'''Oppose'''. Many disagree, but I consider that significant content contributions are a prerequisite for an administrator. The candidate has an average number of edits per page of just 3.6, which suggests a lack of staying power, and the article drawn attention to in Q2 as one of his best contributions is riddled with errors; you don't, for instance, "immigrate to". I also disapprove of Newyorkbrad's bully-boy tactics.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABzweebl&diff=508546116&oldid=508419797]
I oppose this until I see testimonials and diffs supporting an ability to change their mind on something, with grace, in the face of reasonable argument or evidence. --
'''Oppose''' – I don't come here that often, and acknowledge that this is likely to pass anyway, but I have concerns over the very issue that Bagumba concedes is a weakness for him—repeated comments in discussions that border on badgering. At [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/20–20–20 club/archive1]], Bagumba responds to every editor who questioned/opposed the list's promotion, sometimes on multiple occasions, and wasn't even the nominator. If this was done at an RFA, it would be called badgering by many. Knowing when to back off during a discussion can be just as important as knowing when to speak up, as it can prevent further tension, and I don't believe that Bagumba has found an ideal balance. Since this will probably pass anyway, I hope this is taken as constructive criticism and considered while in the middle of the kinds of heated discussions that take place at ANI.
'''Neutral'''- Answer to Q6 lands me here. Good luck. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Support''' as nominator.
Never talked to them, but it's a good candidate. —
'''Support''' looks like a good speciality to have to broaden administrative depth. Trust the judgement of the nominator. <s>Would like to see answers to some of the other questions that recently got added though.</s> [[User:PaleAqua|PaleAqua]] ([[User talk:PaleAqua|talk]]) 21:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Like the answers I've seen.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Trusted user working at CSD? Sounds good.
'''Support''' as Co-nominator. He will make an excellent admin. (Sorry for delay - had to go out)--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' as I believe that the candidate is well-suited for the job and haven't found anything objectionable. His answer to my question is satisfactory although the optimal response is that you wouldn't reverse the checkuser block per [[WP:CUBL]]. This is not a problem as I'm sure that the candidate will never make this mistake now that he is aware.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' per AutomaticStrikeout and Dennis, let me put it this way: if Dennis Brown think it's a good idea to grant someone the bit, I'm not going to argue. I seem to remember one encounter I had with this user, and it was positive, if I'm recollecting correctly. In any case, I have no objections, so barring any catastrophic answers to questions, I'm inclined to support.
I've seen Basalisk's name around and I think he'll do good work as an administrator, all things considered. I also trust the judgment of both the nominators.
I think this user's experiance and will to improve content will do just fine. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Good contributions. <sub>Although I would like to see a lot more activity in Wikiproject Medicine.</sub>
'''Support''' and not because one of the nominators is responsible for me having a mop... I've seen the candidate in CSD and other places and can't remember having to correct their tagging. (But someone will now go rooting around and find something from when he'd just started.) Edit count? If someone stays out of trouble for 6000 edits, they should have an idea of what's what and where. I had 12,000 edits or more then, and I'm still finding new bits of Wikipedia. Frequency? It's not a full time job we're interviewing for. It's OK to have people popping in and out. Two part-timers can be better than one full timer. If one goes off sick, you've got the other still for some of the time. If both go off together, you're no worse off than with a sick full timer.
'''Support''' - Satisfies [[User:Swarm/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. Has substantial CSD experience despite a lower edit count (standing out to a nominator early in your career is not a bad thing). Good answers to the questions. Resounding endorsements from the nominators. Nothing that raises any red flags. Happy to support. If occasionally getting the slightest bit snippy with troublesome users who are frustrating the hell out of you means you're unfit to be an admin, then someone better start my recall process. ''
'''Support''' - Satisfies [[WP:NETPOS|my criteria]], too. He wants to improve content, and his contributions show he has enough experience. He handles himself well under pressure and is prepared to explain his actions without knee-jerk self defence. These are all good things for an admin. The nominations both come from editors I have seen and respect, and I have found nothing to make me doubt their faith in Basalisk. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' Good candidate (thought he had the mop already), good nominators. Love that signature! :-)
6000 edits is not enough? Yer kidding, I was elected with 2.5K.
'''Support''' No concerns. A few more admins with a level head on their shoulders would do Wikipedia good.
'''Support''' - happy with his answers, especially the ones that answered my only concern - particular cases with other editors. If nothing else, it would be good to have another medico-admin - we could have used one at a couple of recent AFDs. Cheers,
'''Support''' I had a look through your contribution history plus a quick look at your Facebook page. I saw a competent, intelligent and well-rounded individual. <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''[[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets|Yup]]''' and I don't see any use of [[WP:SOCK|Polyjuice Potion]]. [[WP:DDMP|No evidence of future chaos found]]. On a serious note, intelligent user, and no concerns.
Opposers' posts are not so insignificant to be casually brushed aside, but not so significant that I feel any great desire to join them. At some point we must come to the acceptance that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Everyone has slip ups and everyone makes mistakes. To me, if what's been brought up already is the worst that can be found, the candidate is sufficiently good to be given the mop.
'''Support''' - I'm impressed with their CSD work and the long red list in their log. I've read through the Oppose section, and I can't see any reason they shouldn't be an admin. I'm also quite impressed with their calm, rational, and well-thought out responses in this RfA. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' The candidate may not be perfect, but if we look for perfect candidates then we would have no admins at all, myself included! I would advise the candidate to take note of the concerns in the oppose and neutral sections, and allow them to give guidance on self-improvement. '''''
'''Support'''  I read the opposes, checked contributions and choose to support Basalisk for adminship.  Never let perfection get in the way of very good.
'''Support''' after review of opposes, selected contributions, AfD contributions and CSD log.   --
'''Support''' – Great CSD, good AfD, and plenty of talk page discussion. Involvement in many admin places is very good, such as AIV, ANI, and obviously CSD and AfD. The user has also made many small edits to articles, and I am not really that concerned about the edit count (it's quality, not quantity, that matters).
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support''' - Good contributions, admirable judgment and solid knowledge of the policies and norms of the project. He will surely benefit Wikipedia as an admin as well. -
'''Support'''.  Don't remember interacting with you before, but I'm willing to trust Dennis Brown's judgement in the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary.  What Bbb23 says in question #14 is important — lots of contributions in the talk namespace shows that you're collaborative.  What's more, your WP:IAR response is significant, and with 6000 edits you definitely have enough experience to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate in my opinion, although whether this RfA passes or he has to wait for the next one in a few months, I expect he will benefit from the more thoughtful ocmments on this page.
'''Support''' - Nihil obstat.
'''Support''' - Seems to be qualified, fine demeanor and I think will be an asset as an admin.  The issues raised in the oppose section don't concern me (the issue raised in #1 would concern me, but the candidate seems to have learned from it).
'''Support''' - suitably qualified. We need to move away from the attitude that you need 10k edits to be an admin.
'''Support '''- I feel I have to support a candidate whose markup has a chance of being as bad as mine :)
'''Support''' - Many good qualities. Fervent. Can adjust style of engagement to fit the situation. Looked at opposes. Meh. Seen them all before.<font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support'''. - If DB nomed you then you are alright in my book. Good luck and serve the community well! ~
'''Support'''' While some levels of experience are are a bit on the weaker side, there's no evidence he will abuse the tools, and I'm sure he would learn from this RFA whether it passes or fails like NYB said. I'm not concerned about inclusionism/deletionism tendencies unless it shows evidence that he's out of touch with the community, which the oppose votes don't really have much. We also need more subject area experts as administrators.
'''Support''' No issues from me, looks to have a clue about the area they want to work in as well as more generally. '''
'''Support'''. Solid contributions, good temperament, reliable nominator, willing to learn, no signs of impulsivity and plenty of clue.
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support''': I trust Dennis' judgement, but outside of that, I strongly approve of the highly literate style of communication, and the answer to Q13 eased my lingering concerns about the MarkMysoe situation. —<B>
'''Support''' - Candidates don't need to be super-human. —
'''Support''': Answers to questions convince me.
The opposes actually convinced me to support. Nothing remotely major there.
'''Support''' the opposes are not convincing, no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - Best of luck,
per NYB (minus the tiepoes) -
'''Support''' Satisfies my criteria.  Becoming an editor is a learning experience.  Becoming an admin makes it a learning experience all over again.  One of the core issues I see in RfAs is the nitpicking opposes.  One doesn't really have admin experience until they've been an admin.  The deletionist attitude can be fixed once he begins to evaluate XfDs.  Incorrect closes he makes can be pointed out and fixed.  Other issues are fixed once you really have the ability to be bold.—
'''Support'''. All oppose rationales are trivial, as some opposers have conceded by appending "weak" to their oppose (which has no real meaning at RFA, given its basic percentage model).
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I once had a<s>n</s> <s>un</s>pleasant experience with this user in which they insisted on <s>redirecting a notable song to an album, citing WP:NSONG</s> being rather reasonable, and also knowledgeable of WP policy.  In all seriousness, s/he is the exact kind of person WP needs as an admin and exactly the kind of editor whose failed RFA would demonstrate how broken our system is.
'''Suppprt''' Seems to be clueful and sufficiently experienced. I'm not convinced by the deletion-related opposes, and I don't think having the candidate come back in 6 months helps the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - I think he can be trusted with a mop <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - Basalisk is one of the few editors whom I came across when I was new to this site and from what I recall, I was pretty satisfied by their responses. I can at least recall one sloppy CSD they made, however, it is too minor to take in account for building up an oppose. I trust Basalisk's judgement and I don't have any concerns which can possibly make me oppose this run. '''''
'''Support''' Opposition noted, but "6000 edits is too few" is a woefully poor reason, and the other more sensible opposes don't disuade me. Seems more than capable of using the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I've had to weigh a number of issues carefully before deciding to support, because there are some valid reasons given by opposers. In some ways, what bothers me the most is the sourcing pointed out by Dank. I also find that talk page discussion about the athlete a little blunt. But I'm weighing those things against the clear positives of a thoughtful and intelligent editor, and trying to get a complete picture, not a gotcha. I was struck by how the candidate's answers point to starting out in CSD while moving slowly to AfD. The picture I get is someone who is careful not to overreach. On balance, I trust the candidate, and see the tools as a net positive. --
'''Support'''. His answer to #13 is excellent and bodes well for how he would deal with tough interactions as an admin. The statements in the opposes aren't complete arguments -- they're a claim ("Too few edits") without a warrant ("No experience in admin areas makes his skill level uncertain"). His great work in places like CSD demonstrate that we should not have doubts about whether he could do the job. Best of luck,
'''Support''' per the candidate's useful CSD work. I've been hesitant in supporting because of concerns raised about mistagging. I think that, as long as the candidate proceeds with caution as an admin, the end result should be a net positive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' - I am going to be very honest here, and say that Basalisk isn't perfect. Several of the issues brought up in Oppose are troubling. I'll address them all here to justify my decision: '''6,000 contributions is low for an administrator''' - I strongly disagree. A base of ~5000 positive contributions is enough for me to support. Why should a user need >10,000 edits? Adminship is ''Not a Big Deal''. '''...I'm not impressed by the user's condescending attitude in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Basalisk#Advice this person on their talk page]''' - I feel the Basalisk was being reasonably polite. Besides, who's to say admins can't have a bit of temper anyway? What is [[WP:ARBCOM|the Arbitration Committee]] for?  '''...they insisted on redirecting a notable song to an album, citing WP:NSONG and completely ignoring the existence of WP:GNG''' - this is a single incident and quite a long time ago. Per their recent knowledge gain and their useful CSD tagging I think this has gotten better. I agree this wasn't the best, but it's an old isolated incident.  '''I'm uncomfortable by the deletionist tendencies of the candidate, as shown by 88% of his AfD !votes being delete or speedy delete.''' - most AfD's close as Delete - it's just a fact. I think Basalisk is doing his job here.  '''There's an example of off-base speedy deletion tagging...''' - This has been addressed by Basalisk and his recent excellent CSD tagging has shown he has gained massive knowledge in this front.  '''the candidate has really only been active for the past year''' - I feel this is long enough. What really matters is the knowledge of the policies, not editing time.  '''No one should become an admini[s]trator, unless they have experience writing a substantial article.''' - Why not? Administrators mostly deal with technical stuff, such as deletions, blocks, protection, etc. In no case should article writing be neccesary.
'''Support''', reasonable candidate. 2000 edits are more than enough to judge a candidate, and he has three times that. —'''
'''Support'''. Basalisk's CSD log looks good, and he seems to have learned the lessons from his mistaggings in June. I admit to being a little concerned about the MarkMysoe exchange and the sourcing of the articles he has created, but not enough to stop me from supporting. He seems trustworty, and handing him the tools would be a net benefit for the 'pedia. — '''''
'''Support''' No concerns over experience.  Smart and intelligent editor who will do fine with the tools.--v/r -
'''Support''' Having reviewed answers, edits, and opposes, I see nothing of substantial concern. The editor has demonstrated maturity (which edit counts don't measure) and will use the mop responsibly.  --
'''Support'''; clearly a competent user, and the answers to the questions are just fine.  I do have a question, though; can you confirm whether you  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ushakov_Island&diff=523257128&oldid=520264797 do] live here or not so we can put that rumor to rest?
'''Oppose'''. I once had an unpleasant experience with this user in which they insisted on redirecting a notable song to an album, citing [[WP:NSONG]] and completely ignoring the existence of [[WP:GNG]]. 6,000 contributions is unusually low for a potential administrator. And quite frankly I'm not impressed by the user's condescending attitude in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Basalisk#Advice this person on their talk page].
The temperament displayed during the Mysoe exchange on candidate's talk page does not inspire confidence.
'''Oppose'''. I'm uncomfortable by the deletionist tendencies of the candidate, as shown by 88% of his AfD !votes being delete or speedy delete. Some of his AfD nominations strike me as incredibly hasty and confirm my earlier fear, as seen in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugbara proverbs|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open terrain|this]]- which strike me as having a desire to delete rather than improve our encyclopedia. There's an example of off-base speedy deletion tagging at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greycaps_India&oldid=498187780], a desire to delete rather than prune at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SkillPages&oldid=498481594] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ATOL_495&oldid=496422130], and a completely wrong understanding of A7 at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Ryan_%28author%29&oldid=496453872]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyanogen_fluoride&oldid=496060129] is a very clear example of hastiness, which I feel is an underlying trait in many of his actions, although waiting 10-30 minutes before speedy deleting may be within policy, I feel it still carries BITE-y qualities. These examples are just from one month- June. What tipped me over the edge was the unprofessional and aggressive attitude displayed by the candidate during the Mysoe exchange, seen on his talk page and pointed out by Townlake. Admins need to be professional and courteous at all times when interacting with other editors- this is something that I cannot compromise on.--
'''Oppose''' - While I thank the candidate for willingness to serve as an administrator, I feel temperament concerns pointed out by Townlake and hasty deletions combined with relative lack of experience (the candidate has really only been active for the past year) sway me into the oppose category. I would urge the candidate to work hard and try again, if still interested, sometime in the middle of next year. Thanks again, and best wishes,
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Based on your comments on this page, I think you're the kind of editor that should be an admin. Based on some of the issues pointed out in the opposes above me, I'm not sure you're ready. Another six months of what I see in you today and I would be happy to support.
'''Oppose'''- Quick to action is exactly what I don't want in an admin, and that has been proven above to be a quality of this candidate. '''
No one should become an adminitrator, unless they have experience writing a substantial article.
Opposing per Reaper <s>(who's neutral)</s>. You've learned a lot, Basalisk, and there are lots of reasons to support you in the admin role ... but some of the things you've learned are the wrong things, as evidenced by your citing [[Elective (medical)]] as an example of what we should judge you by. The sourcing is terrible, and there are other problems. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - Something of a Not Yet situation for me — barely over a year of continuous, active WP participation according to the  contributions bar graphs; nor is the total count of edits really sufficient for me to set aside experience concerns and support the de facto lifetime appointment to WP adminship. Neither is the candidate a committed vandal fighter needing fast access to the big hammer. Not Yet.
'''Oppose''' - the judgement "At some point, but not yet" is probably correct - that they've argued deleted at two thirds of the AfDs they've commented in where the result was "keep" is a very bad sign; that a lot of them where nominated by the candidate and subsequently withdrawn shows promise.  Ditto the self-reverting of CSD tag(s) - they're simply too eager to delete, even if in sober second judgement their judgement is sound.  While that remains the case, they shouldn't be using the delete button.
'''Weak oppose''' - Per my reasons in the neutral section. After thinking more about it, following [[WP:RS]] is more important than getting CSD minutia correct. I'd be happy to support after you write some well-sourced content (a single GA is relatively easy and demonstrates a good grasp of the content policies). I'm sorry, but I have to oppose this time around.
'''Oppose''' per Dank and Reaper; the reasons are already stated above so no need for redundancy. And even though others disagree, I concur with not now.
'''Very Weak Oppose''' - Good deletion policies, edit count is acceptable too, but still rough around the edges. I will probably support in six months. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Weak-ish Oppose''' 6,000 edits are relatively low to be a sysop. Also, why were there a lot of edit shutdown that caused his low edit count. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#de0100;">Pits</font>]][[User talk:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#1404bd;">Confer</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Too many negative points.
'''Oppose'''. I don't want admins who are so eager to delete content and shrink the scope of our project.
'''Unfortunate oppose''' Although I am very able to forgive lengths of time away due to real life, some of the answers and responses show a slight - but significant - disconnect.  I believe normally that Basalisk ''can'' be an admin and ''will'' be an admin, but I think that it's been shown that there's a few areas to work on first, so I won't rehash them ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Neutral leaning Support''' I think 6,000 edits is slightly too low to become and administrator. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral leaning Support''' - 6,000 edits is kinda low. I feel like citing [[WP:NOTNOW]] for some reason, even though this user's a good editor. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a good editor, but I feel that only 6,000 contributions isn't enough yet for administrator promotion. But I also, regardless, have concerns about the user's understanding of some administrative topics on the English Wikipedia. In question 1, the user said "though with a little more experience" but for adminship, I feel you already need that experience. In a nutshell, you are a good editor, but I feel you may have not made enough edits yet, but I am not sure, so I will leave this up to other reviewers here. <font face="Impact">
'''Neutral''', I agree with Intoronto1125. --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''<s>Procedurally</s> Neutral''' <s>Until I can better evaluate the candidate.</s> Opposition doesn't convince me of potential abuse, but it's significant enough not to support at this time. Regards, —
'''Neutral''' - Quite hard to judge whether to support or oppose. I agree with Intoronto1125 that 6000 edits is quite low.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' as co-nom. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - Investigation reveals plenty of well-thought-out posts written in plain easy-to-understand English. They seem to have an understanding of Wiki policies and have a good feel for the culture here. A nice mix of article, Wikipedia space, and talk page edits; their user talk page edits consist of custom-written prose, not templates, which is good. <small>By the way, I also '''support''' more use of the word ''sprezzatura'' on this wiki.</small> --
'''Support''' - I think Diannaa put it nicely. I don't see anything immediately standing out as a problem. Additionally, I think the words of the nomination statements are very persuasive. That puts it over the top if my general impression of Bbb23 didn't already. Best of luck,
'''Support''' per nominators and opinion of this editor.&nbsp;
'''Support''' for all of the reasons previously noted. I don't recall ever commenting on an RfA, but I enthusiastically support this candidate. Bbb23's fair-mindedness, even temper, and knowledge of the intricacies of Wikipedia's policies and procedures have long impressed me. Bbb23 has been a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, and can be an even greater asset with admin tools.
'''Support'''; I've worked with Bbb23 fairly often, on a variety of things.  This editor is strong on BLP, on common sense, and on seeing right into the heart of an issue, which in particular is a talent an admin needs.  One of the strongest candidates I've seen on RfA for a while.
'''Support'''; clearly a competent editor, and has the ability to cut through invective to the heart of an issue.  Both of those, especially the latter, are the most important skills of an administrator.
'''Support''' - per noms. Competent editor who will be a great help to the admin corps. Great BLP work too which for me makes up for shallow content. –
One of our best in BLPs
Assuming of course he can restrain himself, I cannot see anything worrying enough not to support. —
'''Support''' I've seen the user around a lot and often mistaken the user for an admin.  Number of articles created is lacking, but quality of the two articles created is good.  I see a lot of vandalism fighting and lots of experience on [[WP:BLPN]].--v/r -
'''Support''' - Opposes below don't shed any light on anything that could be remotely perceived as a net negative. Therefore, net positive.
'''Support''' - Although there doesn't seem to be any massive number of articles created, there does appear to be a lot of article space editing and content addition.  Article creation is a good thing, but you don't need administrative privileges for that; looking over the contribs there seems to be plenty of experience in the areas where administrative tools ''are'' used. -
'''Support''' IMO, content creation is very valuable to Wikipedia but it's not as important as how admin button will be used by candidates for adminship. Not all of them must be expected to write GAs or FAs because it seems difficult for some people. However, first-hand experience is needed to deal with content disputes and Bbb23 is absolutely qualified enough for that--
Oh, yes, '''support''', if that wasn't clear.
'''Support''' - Intelligent, thoughtful, courteous and well-spoken. All my interactions with this user, and there have been several, were positive and pleasant. I also think the work he does is very valuable to the encyclopaedia. More specifically, his BLPN-related work has been exceptional IMO. Also his approach to other users, from what I have observed, is even-handed and based on the assumption of good faith. This is a sine-qua-non trait for an admin. It doesn't get any better than that in this environment.
'''Support''' - Zero reason not to. ''
Seen him around a fair bit, always come across as sensible and knowledgeable. I also have ''[[Friends]]'', which Bbb has made over 200 edits to, on my watchlist and his edits to that article demonstrate a good knowledge of content policies and guidelines. I actually thought he was an admin for quite a while. Only negative I could find was that he has spent more time than I like to see at ANI, but no one's perfect.
'''Support''' with real pleasure -- Bbb23 is a very sensible editor with a very even temperament.  We have sometimes disagreed, but I've never found reason to lose respect for the ''way'' he has expressed any disagreement with me.
'''Support''' This user has proof of fully understanding certain situations, a key aspect for an administrator, especially with that professionally written answer to Q4.
'''Support''' Per previous users' comments and the answer to my question. I don't have any problem with the seeming lack of content creation, the two articles look very good and the user has experience with admin areas (which I believe are more important than content creation). Thanks very much (and I hope you have a good night's sleep). '''
'''Support''' I have seen Bbb23 for some time on ANI and he has always been incredibly helpful. Also, looking at his contributions, i have no doubt he has what is needed for the mop. —
'''Support''' Great person to work with.  He is knowledgeable, thoughtful and courteous.
'''Support''' answers to questions show the candidate is clued up on policy, while he hasn't created many articles, the ones he has done show sufficient awareness.
'''Support''' Seems like a great user who will use his skills to serve towards the betterment of the project as an admin.
I do not see any problems with the candidate.--
'''Support''' - Good editor to hand the mop to. Very impressed by the nominators/co-nominators statements and the quality of the support. The single oppose as of this writing is unconvincing, to say the least.
'''Support''' Bbb23 is the kind of editor where you forget they're not already an admin. I've greatly enjoyed our (too few) interactions. They are hard-working, helpful and definitely have a clue. I couldn't be more happy to support. :)
'''Support''' per excellent nominations from respected colleagues, have seen valuable contributions at WP:ANI. I can trust Bbb23 with the mop.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, particularly question 4. I've come across this editor before and have seen no reason not to support, appears trustworthy.
'''Support.''' No concerns at the moment. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' - Evenhanded, fairminded and knowledgeable about policy and how to apply it, in particular WP:BLP. Re: content creation, it isn't the only way to demonstrate knowledge and skill in handling content and content policies. And if anything, at this time it's at least as useful to preserve the integrity and improve on the content already on Wikipedia, in particular BLPs, and Bbb23 has been extraordinarily prolific and competent at that.
'''Oppose''' User is too popular and has way too many co-noms. ;)—
'''Support''' No concerns--demonstrates understanding and competence. --
'''Support''' Seems capable and strong nominations.
'''Support'''Work on BLPN is as good a preparation (and indeed may be better than article creation) as any for the trials and travails of being an admin. It looks as though the tools will be in good hands.
'''Support''' - yes please! Fully trust the competence of the candidate as well as the sound judgement of all three nominators.--
'''Support''' good answers and contribs.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' largely through past observations of this editor demonstrating clue. --
'''Support''' Would be a net positive to the project. [[Aleksandr_Orlov_(advertising)|Simples]].--<span style="">
Impressed as hell by the noms and their support. - Dank (
Don't see why not.
'''Support'''.  Bbb is one of the most consistently good BLP editors I've ever run in to.  His blp work, even if not directly involving normal admin tools, is consistently solid enough as to remove any doubt about his judgment. <small>He's so good, that I'm supporting him even though drmies nommed him...</small>
'''Support'''.   Appears competent, understanding, and definitely capable.
Pile-on support for a competent candidate.
'''Support'''. I normally view 90% of the dialogue concerning [[WP:BLP]] to be self-important intellectual masturbation. This editor is one of the exceptions, in my opinion. Much of what I read from him is interesting, and often undiscussed viewpoints on a subject that has consumed thousands and thousands of hours of time for the project. There are areas I would like to see a little more experience, but nothing at all that would shake my complete suppport.
'''Weak support'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship, but generally good contributions.
'''Support''' Seen this username pop up here and there. They seem to be clueful and frinedly. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Experienced editor. I don't see any reason to oppose this nomination.
'''Support''' — No concerns. This is an easy choice.
'''Support''' - Support. Obviously strong candidate.
'''Support''' I know there is [[WP:SNOW]] for RfA's that will obviously fail. Is there something similar for RfA's that will clearly succeed? If so, it's time to use it.
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' - If I had criteria, he would meet them.
'''Support'''.  Very impressed by this user: honest, conscientious, logical, practical, civil. Communicates exceptionally clearly.
'''Support'''  User has been editing regularly since April 2010 .Feel l the project will only gain with the user having tools and see no concerns.
'''Support'''...my questions above didn't annoy you in any perceptible manner, so here you go.--
'''Support''' - Wow! A triple nomination. Is that what it takes to pass an RfA these days? :-)  Seriously though, I am impressed with Bbb23's responses to the questions, and I don't have any reason to oppose this nomination. While perusing his talk page archives I turned up an old, unsigned, undated 3RR warning from a couple years ago, but when I looked up the article in question I didn't see any clear 3RR violation, unless you call [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Seacrest&diff=399175005&oldid=399173483 adding a reference] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Seacrest&diff=399175005&oldid=399173483 repairing a broken header] a revert. I'm sure Bbb will be a great administrator. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~
'''Oppose'''.  Candidate looks well-qualified but I can't really approve until the nomination statement is purged of its unnecessary Italian.—
'''Support''' Decent enough editor. No major concerns. '''
'''Support'''. Answers to Q1-3 show Bbb23 understands the purpose of the questions. I'm troubled with "I don't go beyond 3 reverts and will often stop at 2. I then open a discussion...." [[WP:3RR]] is not a right. Q4 shows B understands restraint is desirable. I've noticed him around. I hope he will not lose too much sleep this week.
'''Support''', but it should have happened sooner. :) '''''
'''Support'''. I recall arguing with this editor about the structure of a political article a couple of years ago, and it was one of the most pleasant arguments I've had. We need more admins who can disagree with someone without being a giant {{redacted|pain}} about it.
'''Support'''. Swayed by the co-noms and some of the answers to the questions. --
'''Support'''. Great editor. I'd trust him with the mop. — '''''
'''Support''' Trusted and good answers. Also opposes' aren't convincing.
'''Strong Support''' I've had the pleasure of dealing with this user at AN/I, and he is very helpful and acts like an Admin there.
'''Support''' I am not familiar with Bbb23, but his co-nomination by three of Wikipedia's most respected and active administrators is more than enough for me. --
'''Support''' I am familiar with Bbb23 from his work at different noticeboards. I would trust him with the tools and I believe he will serve the community well as an admin. <br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' He's given superb answers to most of the questions, and the oppose !votes have failed to move me in any significant direction. Looking through his history, it feels like he almost acts like an admin already (in a good way). Full support.
'''Support''' Have been waiting for this request. Since I've had BLPN watchlisted, I've observed this user do the heavy lifting on complicated cases that lazyboneses like me usually walk away from. Demonstrates a high level of competency on a daily basis. Despite their receiving some significant abuse from BLP belligerents, I have yet to see this user lose their composure (and they often inject a much-needed dose of humour into debates that have become unnecessarily serious). I trust this user's judgement. Excellent candidate. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support''' - 31K edits, over 19K to mainspace, tenure <s>a bit borderline at about 18 active months</s> fully adequate at 24 months, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Seems to be a quality control worker rather than a content creator and a bit of a deletionist at AfD. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 16:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC) <small>Last edit:
'''Support''' - Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. --
'''Support''' - I see no problems here--
'''Support'''. Candidate shows ample ability.
'''Support''' I keep forgetting he's not already an admin and this must be fixed for the sake of my ego. <code>
Whenever I see this user around, I've only seem good things. Certainly trustworthy enough, and I think someone who has the ability to avoid unnecessary drama, which is always nice in an admin.
'''Support'''. I have to be honest, I really don't think I've ever come across any of Bbb23's work prior to this RFA. Since transclusion, I've spent some time doing some research and looking over his/her contributions. The well-thought out answers to the questions above reveal an impressive ability to reason and apply community policies and guidelines. While I generally look for a significant number of articles created, I am confident that this editor will add value to the project as an administrator. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - I've never heard of this user nor I have I seen his edits. However, I am very pleased by the level-headed answers he gave. His willingness to admit a mistake in an area of this site known for being very harsh is commendable and I think if he were to act as he has said he will he should be a fine admin. '''
I just wanted to cancel out the stupidest oppose vote I've ever seen. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - I am happy with what I see reviewing contributions, I like the answers to the questions, I like ability to own up to a mistake.  A  rational user will make a rational admin (in theory), I see no reason for Bbb23 to be the exception. --
'''Strong support''' Many reasons, but mainly Wikipedia can well use him as an admin.

'''Support''' - everyone else stole my reasons! Excellent editor, wonderfully communicative, has a clue, and gave great answers that show his thoroughness and thoughtfulness.
'''Support''' Good editing history, plenty of clue, some great answers to questions. I see no reason why adminship should be a problem. Good luck!
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the mop ... <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Ma sì, dài'''. I trust you'll be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]], if mopped. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' I can't remember coming across this candidate, but with two beautiful nominators (plus Dennis), some good answers to questions, and being able to admit to a mistake, I can't see any problems.
'''Support''' per Peridon, minus the bit about Drmies being beautiful (Mrs. Drmies would have questions...). I am not concerned by the diffs shown below, as Bbb23 was bringing [[Sean Parker]] back in line with proper grammar and wikilinking policy.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''', good guy for the job methinks.
(e/c)'''Support''', seems to be a very fine user. Mind you, I prefer to support selfnoms rather than candidates appearing under that silly "co-nom" banner. I have a high opinion of all three nominators in this case (and am disillusioned to learn in the Support comment just above that Drmies isn't beautiful), but why not simply record your support under "support" like everybody else? Adminship isn't a snobbish country club where supplicants need high-ranking "sponsors" to get in.) All selfnoms get brownie points from me as showing proper independence, which I love to see in an admin. However… the gaudiness of an RFA with co-noms is hardly a big deal, when put in the scale against the good things I've seen from this candidate on ANI and other places.
'''Support''' Haven't had much interaction with the candidate, but a reasonably exhaustive search yields no reason to oppose.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, appreciate ability to admit mistake and (hopefully) learn from them. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
I'm late to the party, but at the risk of piling on I wanted to express my strong support. I've been very impressed with Bbb23's maturity, level-headedness, and cluefulness and I've seen him deal constructively and scrupulously with a range of controversial topics. In fact, I'd have nominated him myself if I wasn't so lazy. He'll be an excellent admin; we need more like this. '''
'''<s>Tentative</s> Strong Support''' <s>while I await answer to my question above</s>. -
'''Support'''. I trust this user with additional tools.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to most of the questions -
'''Support''' and horribly pissed-off that I'm not #100.  Feck.  I spent too much time reading the damned answers.  Feck.  Feck, feck, feckity, feck. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Support''' - I'll join the dogpile! This editor gives solid services and is always clear and civil. Excellent admin material.
'''Support''' for three reasons.  First (and most importantly), he's qualified.  Where I've run into this editor, I've found his comments and edits helpful.  Second, I believe we need as many admins as possible - hundreds more (as per Jimbo Wales' suggestion) and whenever any capable editor is nominated and has no clear reason for opposition, xhe should be given the chance.  Third, because I'm growing weary of the opposers who say, "we shouldn't give admin privileges unless they've done more".  In many cases, they're doing all they can with the permissions they've got.  They may not be creating a bunch of new articles, but at some point, we actually need to realize that with nearly 4 million articles, there are going to be fewer new articles to create than there were five or six years ago.  So, unless a) there's a genuine need and b) an individual has some degree of subject matter expertise in that topic, we shouldn't expect them to create articles as a condition for adminship.  If they have shown experience in ''editing'' or ''contributing to'' articles beneficially, then   lack of article creation is not, IMHO, a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. One of the first candidates in a long time that I can say something about, and I've been impressed.
'''Support''' - Never came across the user before but took a look at contribs and happy to support. <small>
'''Support''' Has my support. No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Well-qualified candidate, good answers, seen them around and was impressed. --
I'm surprised I managed to even click 'edit', given the sudden case of the giggles I am still suffering from after reading Tamsier's oppose rationale. Support, good editor who I've only seen bits and pieces of but all of what I've seen has been positive.
'''Support''' I've seen good things from this user. No reason to believe he would abuse the tools, as they used to say.
'''Support''' the identity of some of the opposers speaks as well for the candidate as the wall of supports.  If these are the people who don't like you, then you're doing quite a lot right.
'''Strong Support''' Although technically I authored [[WP:BLPCRIME|BLPCRIME]] and placed it in our [[WP:BLP|BLP]] policy, I actually consider Bbb23 the true author of this policy as his critical assessment and follow-up were the main reasons for this policy's inclusion; I really think he's being terribly modest above by mentioning that he ''tightened'' the policy. An empathetic and most wonderful human being with an outstanding character.
'''Support''' - No concerns from me; so I support.
'''Support''' nominated by three people good people, one of whom (LadyofShalott) I have a great deal of respect for means I can only support this nominee.

'''Support''', the user answers the questions well enough to be an administrator, so why not? Cheers,
'''Support''' <small>[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro 2|Probably not enough nominators]] but I suppose if you can't muster six then three will do :)</small> In seriousness, I do understand that too many nominators is contentious (obviously!), and I also think some in opposition make some perfectly valid comments that are worthy of consideration. I do disagree with them however. Good answers to the questions, gnomish activity is always welcomed and an [[WP:NETPOS]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - solid, competent editor with no serious strikes against them. We need more like this one on the Mop-and-Bucket Squad. --
'''Support''' - he's qualified and I'd rather not give any other feedback so I can avoid an argument. -—
'''Support''' excellent contributor, even-tempered
'''Support''' A very good choice to become an administrator.
'''Support''' My general impression of Bbb23 is very good, and that, along with the quality of the three co-nominators, is sufficient for me to support his candidacy.
No red flags. Plenty of competence-vouching from trustworthy editors. The usual grab-bag of garbage opposes (half of which are purely ideological and have nothing to do with this specific candidate, and most of the rest of which are simply petty retaliation for some previous interaction) that any itinerant editor attracts over time. If the worst that nearly 150 of his peers can come up with is that he's more prone to removing unsourced material than most (a purely editorial decision which has nothing to do with tool use) then I doubt he's going to burn the place down.
'''Support''' This user gave thorough explanations of their intentions to contribute to Wikipedia and no one has raised any concerns which I evaluate to merit opposition. Thanks for supporting Wikipedia, Bbb23.
'''Support:''' A net positive. -
'''Weak support'''. I admit to being very conflicted on this, and I think a lot of the more recent opposers have raised valid issues about the candidate's propensity to delete content. I'm making a judgment call that I think the candidate is smart enough and has enough good will that they are learning from the feedback in this RfA and will not use the tools to enforce their personal editing preferences. Please prove me right. --
'''Support'''. Qualified editor. We definitely need more such editors as admins.--
''' Support'''. Really good with the administrators noticeboard.--
''' Support'''. Has the right temperament for admin work, and has contributed very well to a number of admin-related areas. Possible over-enthusiasm with respect to removing unsourced content needs to be noted, but it's certainly not a deal breaker, and I expect Bbb23 will act on what people have been saying below. --
''' Support ''' Very reasonable to work with, and will use the tools approtiately.
<small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' #'''Support''' I'm conflicted about this. On first glance, the idea that material should be deleted merely because it has been unsourced and tagged as unsourced for a long time seems a bit extreme and I was planning to stay out of this (I'm not going to oppose a candidate nominated by drmies now, am I!). But, on looking at the examples on this page, I see some method in this madness. The [[Simple precedence parser]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_precedence_parser&diff=501279657&oldid=467308135]) text that was deleted was technical and, since we have a responsibility to ensure that any material included in Wikipedia is correct, it does seem rational to remove any material that is abstruse and unverified. Better, I think to err on the side of less and verified than on more and unverified. Still, I don't know enough about the candidate to know clearly his thinking behind these deletions so I'm a weak supporter. --
Best of luck with the admin tools - just be careful :-) <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I have watched Bbb23 on the noticeboards and I feel he is a net positive influence to the project. Most of the behavior brought up in the oppose section actually made me even more supportive of this RfA.
kinda assumed you were one!
'''Support'''. Active, thoughtful, experienced editor. I disagree with him on many things, in fact the main issue raised by the opposers is probably another area where we would disagree, but what I do know from interacting with Bbb23, is that when discussing disagreements, he keeps his cool and is open to discussion and to others' views, rather than jumping in with both feet. We need more administrators like that. --
'''Support''' Always happy to support potential candidates. Every good faith and capable contributor/editor who has demonstrated and showed that they are trustworthy and knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be made an administrator provided fair and genuine reasons are given. Bbb23 has given fine answers to most of the questions above. They also have a quite satisfactory history of contributions. Just because if a user makes a few mistakes does not mean that they are not eligible for becoming an Administrator. Every one is a human here and no one is perfect in everything, even in those areas where one is knowledgeable and experienced as people can still make mistakes unknowingly. The user will make great use of the community's Administrative tools to further improve the project and there isn't any strong valid reason as to why that won't happen. Best Regards Bbb23.
<s>User personally comments regarding other users - and doesn't create any content  - going to add more detail as this progresses - <font color="purple">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Youreallycan|can]]</font> 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)</s> I will strike and add a clarification as to why I oppose this user at this time as I am being nudged about it - I posted it whilst a little heated after a discussion - Bbb23 does not make unduly personal comments - To clarify, my oppose - I have been closer to Bbb23 and his contributions than any other user, I know him and his contributions better than anyone - for well over a year - he has some good aspects and some not so good ones - edit warring to 3rr is one of the not so good - he won't need to do that when he is an administrator , he will be able to just protect the article or block his opposer. He has none of the usual experience we usually expect/require of candidates - if he was to move to get some experience of those tasks for a few months I would be much more willing to support - we can see only yesterday he did not understand [[WP:Prod]] - and the user has little to no experience in [[Wikipedia:CSD]]  As there is little to nothing of [[WP:NAC]] there is nothing to show he has a grasp of [[WP:consensus]] closing either  - that is what my oppose is based on. - <font color="purple">
'''Strong oppose''' - I cannot support any nomination instigated by [[user:Drmies|Drmies]] because this editor has shown to lack civility and tact when it concerns issues relating to [[Sub-Saharan Africa]]. Their [[Wikipedia:Systematic bias|systematic bias]] is especially when it relates to African issues, and their dismissiveness as if they are above every body else as you can see above is self evident.  I was going to ask Bbb23 some questions but there is not point wasting my time or his. In English Wiki, there also appears to be a lot of nominations by other administrators rather than by the old simple non-admin Wikipedian (the people who actually write most of the articles and make Wiki what it is). This is a concern, and it does not help with the admin clique perception some people have of English Wiki. This is a big concern. Something I have never come across in French Wiki. I wish Bbb23 all the best but I strongly oppose this nomination because I certainly do not want a clone of Drmies. I actually deal with African articles and some of which are senstive articles where everyone  (figuratively) appears to have an opinion but cannot point to Africa even if you give them a globe. No offense to Bbb23. Strong oppose.
'''Oppose''' Bbb23 has a severe case of ''[[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|owning]]'' articles.
'''Oppose''' I'm not liking the drive-by disruption such as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_precedence_grammar&diff=prev&oldid=501279784 recent example].
<s>'''Oppose''' - Editors stance on BLPCRIME would prevent us from mentioning that [[OJ Simpson]] was accused of murder. I have asked clarifying questions above and am willing to be persuaded. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)</s>'''Strong Oppose''' part of the white-washing, PoV support problem at [[WP:BLPN]].
'''Oppose''' I'm very sick of Northern Lights' self-important schitck.
'''Oppose''' The prod tag removal and warning is not good.  The bigger thing for me however, where is the apology to the person you improperly reverted and warned?  You didn't even go back and at minimum srike out your warning and explain yourself.  (I will move to neutral if you can show me that I missed the diff, but I'm not seeing it.)--
'''Oppose''' Generally a good editor and human being, who should come back after 6 months and try again. The content-side seems <s>limited </s> overwhelmingly to consist to ''very'' short edits (not all "minor") on popular culture, rather than on conventional encyclopedia content. The razing of a stub on automata theory without notifying the author and similar edits (documented by others) raise concerns about impulsivity or deletionism. Reflect on the official opposes and the unofficial opposes ("neutrals"), learn what you can and ignore the rest, and come back in 6 months, please. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''oppose''' I've seen him around a lot and find him to be generally reasonable and I came here expecting to support.  But answers to 17 and 21 show what I view as a fundamental misunderstanding.  There is _massive_ amount of uncited work on Wikipedia.  We don't delete it unless we believe it is likely to be challenged (or known to be wrong). We certainly don't pat ourselves on the back because by stubbing something we strong-armed someone to come in and add sources.  That person would likely have fixed something else but instead had to put out the fire you created.  Not conducive to getting or keeping editors.  And if the sources matter that much, ''add them yourself''.  I do think this will cause him to create problems as an admin if he thinks this is a good way forward so I must oppose.  Errors in policy (like the misunderstanding of prodding) can be fixed.  Opinions like this are significantly more problematic in an editor and more so in an admin.  Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Not because I have any particular grudge against the candidate, but because I am fundamentally opposed to the idea that "we need as many admins as possible", and the clear implication in many of the support votes that this promotion would be some kind of reward for good service. Many of us have done good service, with no reward.
'''Weak Oppose''' the candidate has the tenure and experience and many other positive aspects including a commendable focus on BLP issues. But as we saw from Q17 there is a pattern of treating unsourced uncontentious non-BLP content with almost the same intolerance as unsourced contentious BLP content. I checked a lot of the candidate's edits and never once saw the addition of a {{tl|fact}} tag as opposed to removal of unsourced content. Of course its possible that at some point in the future we will shift from a policy of verifiable to a policy of verified and require each addition of fact to be sourced. But if we and when we do that I'd expect to see the user interface changed to inform editors of that and prompt them for a source. In the meantime there is a huge difference between reverting from unsourced to sourced versions or removing unsourced contentious content. So to a large extent I share Hobit's concern and partially Kiefer and Colonel Warden's concerns, and I also agree with Cube Lurker. There are some other opposes that I would wish to disassociate myself from and Malleus' one which I would respectfully disagree with. We do need more admins, if I thought this was just a reward for good service I'd not be commenting. But this involves entrusting the deletion button to someone who shows signs that they might be heavyhanded with it. Weak because you've got the smarts and the experience and have shown you can be diplomatic in communicating with others, if this succeeds please prove my fears misjudged. If it fails please come back later this year having taken some of this on board. ''
'''Oppose''' per Hobit. I never thought I'd find myself in this oppose section for this candidate but I too have a problem with these deletions of unsourced non-controversial non-BLP material. What is in the best interests of building an encyclopedia, as opposed to blindly (imo) enforcing [[WP:V]] in the strictest sense? We have Fact-tags for a reason. I try to source everything that I add and also enjoy adding references to unsourced material that I find in articles, from time to time. It's how we build things. I'm really opposed to this content blanking.
'''Oppose''' - I am uncomfortable giving deletion tools to anyone who essentially feels that all unsourced content should be removed (which is what the answers to 17+21 tell me).  Policy does not require referencing for every fact, and in practice many many clearly correct things are unreferenced at current.  Wholesale removal of uncontentious material is not helpful - we have {{tl|unreferenced}} and {{tl|fact}} tags for a reason. --
I agree with WereSpielChequers' comments. There seems to be a somewhat aggressive editing approach to removing content, which could be an indication of the potential for aggressive admin actions that push the limits of policy. <font face="Comic sans MS">
We all agree WP content must have sources.  The proper approach to dealing with unsourced content in general is to try to source it,  if it appears reasonable. If its a field one can't work on, there are thousands of other   editors. Content should be removed if it is unsourceable, but one can only tell that after making an adequate effort. This is much harder to do that one would imagine if one does not have experience actually looking.  It's necessary to remove content  that is unsourced negative allegations about living persons, but even here if it quickly sourceable, that's even better. The difference is that if it is not quickly sourceable, instead of leaving it for someone else to source, we remove it. We need admins who know the difference, and it's a matter of practice as much as policy.The over-rigid application of BLP policy is frequent a cause of biased writing as the over-lax interpretation of it.  The need for sourcing is one of the reasons we should require significant article writing experience in admins--so they will know in practice how to find sources.  The justifications given here for removing content  leave me with the feeling that the candidate is coming here with a cause to bring about his own interpretation of policy, and  intends to try to shift consensus. The way to shift consensus is not by admin actions: admins need to act according to the ordinary consensus, and if there need be a change, let the community decide it, either explicitly, or by a shift in the result of decisions.  We need more good administrators. We do not need more administrators we are unsure of and will have to watch--we have all to many of them already.'''
'''Weak Oppose''' First of all, I would like to say that I am really conflicted by this vote, but I feel that this area is the best place to place it. Per the sentiments of ϢereSpielChequers, and DGG (who actually took my unintentionally took some of my argument), I have to oppose. A lot of our articles contain unsourced content. The fact that we allow for it to exist is because we assume that someday some editor will come along and magically source the content, or the information being there is something which will help the average Joe discover something about something, and make a great discovery as a result (okay, maybe not this far, but I hope my point is being made). Some of the many edits that are made here add some very valuable material, for which there is literally no source that is acceptable, because it could be an oral history that is backed up by photographs, but not a book. I really feel uneasy about giving you the tools only because you have indicated that you might be more inclined to delete unsourced material than others, but that does not mean that I find fault in the rest of you. I look forward to working with you in the future, regardless of where you end up. At this point, I know that my vote won't change anything, but I do trust that you will take every vote to heart once you get the tools.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per WSC & DGG on sourcing. Unfortunately, mainly because of lack of editors, our tagging of sourcing has long been out of control, and is as likely to reflect the prejudices of some other editor as any actual issue with the statement.  Many tagged statements are in fact covered by references, which sometimes can be easily established.  Equally, actually dubious or plain wrong statements in articles are usually not tagged.  Not a good situation, but not one improved by the regular removal of tagged statements.
'''Neutral''' - Moved from oppose as this candidate looks much bettter now in light of the strength of the support statements.. ~
'''Neutral''' moved from support - Despite excellent record in area of major contributions and good answers to questions here, I can no longer support given Bbb23 apparent failure to hold a basic understanding of the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaron_Gwyn&diff=502131211&oldid=502125090][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAarongwyn&diff=502131824&oldid=501793712] Even though we are talking about an area where the candidate is acknowledged not to be experienced in, I would expect an administrator to have a grasp of [[WP:CONTESTED]]. I'll refrain from opposing what appears to be an otherwise qualified candidate on the basis of one mistake though. --
I have interacted with and observed Bbb23's conduct several times; and was impressed with his eloquence, tact, and clue. However, I am concerned from aspects apparent after close scrutiny of contributions. I am therefore, '''neutral'''. I wish Bbb23 the best. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Neutral''' No actual reason to oppose yet, but I feel uncomfortable about the nomination.  Will monitor.--
There is a lot to like about Bbb23, however I am concerned at his tendency to use the revert tool rather than discussion as a means of resolving issues. I am particularly concerned that he comes in as second reverter in disputed situations - as in the Prod case already mentioned, and in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Swan_%28film%29&offset=&limit=500&action=history Black Swan]. The revert method of dealing with potential errors in others has led to a number of complaints on his talkpage, and for him to be brought to dispute resolution. While I accept that he sometimes is dealing with awkward and argumentative editors who are in the wrong - there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of dealing with these matters. One way educates the user, leaves them with their dignity intact, an understanding of the issues, and they may become a useful contributor in future. The other way antagonises the situation, creates heat and drama, wastes other people's time, and will often lead to an editor leaving Wikipedia. Indications in comments above are that Bbb23 is understanding this, and that is a good sign, so I will not oppose. But I feel it's worth highlighting this issue for Bbb23 to take forward. '''
'''neutral''' The speedy delete nominations were not so bad, (posted at discussion) even the declined ones were later deleted for different reasons to the original speedy nomination.  However on the logs side I see no image uploading, and only a few moves.  There are a reasonable number of patrols however.
'''Neutral''' Candidate seems competent, but I'm not impressed by the badgering and defense by proxy that his supporters/nominators are carrying out above. A weak oppose will be evident to any closing 'crat without an unnecessary pile-on by supporters.

Ain't gonna be nobody doing a beat-the-nom support on ''my'' watch!  &mdash;&nbsp;
Yes, definitely. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I've been impressed with Berean Hunter's work at SPI, where his insights and conclusions are typically spot-on, and it would be very useful for him to be able to push the buttons himself. Also, per nom.  —
'''Support''' - A lot of good work at SPI.--
'''Support''' bumped in to this user a few times, SPI seems to need a few extra admins. Obviously knows his way around Wikipedia, so why not.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' - per nom, and personal observation. Good editor.
'''Support''' - While I haven't bumped into Berean myself, based on my review of their contributions and examining the nomination, I vote yes!
Could have sworn you were already one; you will make a more-than-welcome addition to the team, and it's always nice to see somebody wanting to get more involved with SPI.
'''Support''' as trustworthy, safe, reliable and if Coren is the nom, who could say  no? <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Support''' Amazing work work with [[WP:SPI]], which is an often overlooked, yet incredibly necessary cog in the machine. Giving this user the mop would be a net positive. That would be enough for me, but I also note that he is unfailingly civil, knowledgeable and helpful. I can't find anything not to like here. If anything, I'm amazed this nomination is this long in coming.
'''Support''' as of writing, opposes are unconvincing.
My general rule per the "no big deal" criterion that almost everyone else ignores is that anyone with experience who isn't a prick who wants to be an admin should be allowed to be an admin. But in this case I want to go further - it's not just that BH ain't a prick; he's an ANTI-prick and therefore '''Strong Support''' <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Support''' I would prefer a wee bit more article creation, but strong edit count, civility and work at SPI make Berean an excellent candidate and a strong support.
Great work, for years. Great to see you here. - Dank (
'''Support''' . About time.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]]
'''Support'''. If we're going to have admins, might as well have decent ones.
'''Support''' Trusilver said it real nice.  It would ''definitely'' be a net positive and this user seems reliable enough to be entrusted with this.
I've always found Berean Hunter to be a net positive. See no reason why not.
'''Support''' Good luck in advance--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' yes.
'''Support'''. Easy one - I've seen Berean Hunter around the place a lot, doing lots of good stuff. --
'''Support'''. Seen him around. Everything seems fine. Thought he was.  --
'''Support'''. His contributions to [[yogurt]] rival lactobacillus acidophilus's contributions to yogurt. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I expect there's a lot of furious digging into the past going on, to show that someone was slightly less than civil to a CU proven sockpuppet back in 2008. (No, I'm just giving an example of what might be found by someone with too much time to spare...) I've seen Berean Hunter around for a long time and for most of this thought that a mop was already in their possession - and that it belonged there.
'''Support''' yes please
'''Support''' Has been doing valuable work for Wikipedia, mostly behind the scenes; could do even better if they had tools. Up to now, they have been working like a janitor, but without a mop. I have been impressed by their calm, rational demeanor when I have encountered them. --
Oh yes.
'''Support''' A patient and thoughtful user who's done demanding work at SPI. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I've seen this editor being sensible at ANI; I, too, thought they were already an admin.
'''Support''' – Unusually well qualified for admin tasks due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&search=Berean+prefix%3AWikipedia%3ASockpuppet+investigations his experience in SPI] which requires good judgment and where the work is both stressful and confusing.
'''Support'''  largely based on previous interactions at AfD, fine nominations, and a review of previous contributions. --
'''Support''' - Arggggh, how did I not notice this yesterday?!? Berean's doing great work at SPI and the noticeboards, and will only be a greater asset with the tools.
'''Support'''. In all of my interaction with Berean (mostly on noticeboards), I've been impressed by his civility, incisiveness, and analytical skills. He communicates well, he's interested in expanding his skillset, and he likes helping people. Pretty good traits for an admin.--
Qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Good candidate, nice to see one with content work.
'''Support''' qualified, lots of good things.&nbsp;—
Thought you already had the bits. As per your nominators (both well respected) and the edits speak for themselves. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' a great candidate. --
'''Support''' He'll do great.
'''Support''' - I've  actually  never seen Berean Hunter around, but his answers to the questions and a few random spotchecks assure me that he is a high quality editor, and his most-edited articles suggest he doesn't shy away from high traffic work.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]]'''Good enough.''' I've had a few interactions with the fellow and they were positive.  Seems non-dramatic and not an egotist.  Go images, too...
'''Support''' Many positive observations of him at work. Good head on his shoulders. Looks good in a suit. ```
'''Support''' trusted --
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Yes please.
'''Support''' Opposes continue to be unconvincing!
'''Support''' Yes, please.
'''Support''' — 31K edits, nearly 16K to mainspace, ample tenure. One 3RR block from 2008 not concerning to me. No indications of assholery.
'''Support''' - Cheers,
'''Suppport'''.  I legitimately did think this user was already an admin. Works well in admin areas now, so clearly would be an asset with the tools.
'''Support''' I thought that you were already an admin!
Obviously competent and trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Looks good; I also like their well-thought out answers to the additional questions. --
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''
''' Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' Good luck.--
'''Support''' It seems clear to me that a solid, reliable, experienced editor deeply involved in sockpuppet investigations would be more effective if granted the administrative toolkit. Thanks for the work you do, Bearean Hunter.
Knows what he's doing. Unusually calm under drama. Serif font in sig is a grave sin, but RfA is for candidates to learn from. {{tl|Archery}} is still the wrong colour, but when the worst you can come up with in an RfA is a two-year-old bikeshedding argument the candidate will be fine.

'''Support''': all said.
'''Support''' --
This site will only benefit if he is given adminship. <span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur; background:white;">→
'''Support'''. Of course. --
'''Yep''' - looks all good, best of luck! –
'''Support''' does well, and will continue to.
'''Support''' - I've seen BH around and his contributions have always been clueful.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' We need more people at SPI, and Berean is undoubtedly an excellent candidate. Good answers to the questions as well. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~
'''Support''' Already thought candidate was an admin. --
'''Absolutely''' &mdash; Experienced and thoughtful. Will do good work as an administrator.
'''Support'''. Confident that Berean Hunter will make a fine administrator. No worries here. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
Absolutely. I've only seen good things from this user.
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Yes'''. Good candidate. '''
'''Support''' Experienced user.
'''Support'''. No concerns here. — '''''
'''Support''' Well-qualified candidate, good answers. --
'''Support''' User can be trusted with the tools.—
'''Support''' Handing him the tools will help the project.&nbsp;

'''Strong support'''. Very well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Good candidate with a great editing history. Good answers and well-trusted. —
'''Support'''...I see no evidence they will abuse tools or position.
'''Support''' As per Dennis Brown(co-nom) '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
'''Support''', do not see any problems, competent in the prospective admin activity area.--
'''Support''' I get to support two great admin candidates in one day!  It's been a while since I've done that! --''
'''Support''' - a sensible request and I don't see any likely harm from it. -—
'''Support''' - a sensible and reliable candidate.
'''Support'''. Today is just a very good day for RFAs.
'''Support''' could use tools at SPI. --'''
'''Support''' — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Great work all-around, clearly has a need for the tools and I trust he'll use them responsibly. --
'''Support''' More than deserving!--

'''Support''', very thoughtful and knowledgable editor, great attitude, will make a fine admin.
'''Support:''' Of course! <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' Eminently trustworthy and experienced. About time. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">
'''Support''' Always been impressed with BH's contributions. As others have said - about time.
'''Support''' Thought he was an admin. I won't be able to close this RfA, so very happy to support it for such a clueful editor. And welcome to [[WP:100]]. --
'''Support''' for his experience and stats, I have seen his work at SPI (mistook him to be an admin already). --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">
'''Support''' - Impressive work. <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' Trusted user who will be a fine admin. ''<B>--
Late pile-on support. I know it's a cliche, but I thought s/he was already an admin. You do great work and will be an excellent admin. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' <s>So he can stop bugging me about deleted contribs and blocks for SPI.</s> jk, Berean is a great admin-to-be, and frankly he needs the tools to do a solid job, which he is doing without the tools right now. Full support from me. --
'''Support''' Great candidate, no worries.
'''Support''' Never interacted with the editor, but good answers to questions and no apparent issues.
'''Support''' - While I am not personally familiar with the nom, the community's overwhelming support makes a bandwagon !vote here academic. Also, anyone this skilled at SPI is an important asset to the project. ~
'''Support''' per "but I thought you were an admin already." Although awaiting answer to question, it'd take a lot to make me overturn this one. -
'''Support''' I thought they were one already.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A little while back, I looked at Berean Hunter's profile and was surprised not to find the admin bit there. The candidate's SPI work and policy awareness both are more than ample justification for the admin tools. --
'''Support''' - Its extremely rare for me to vote on an RFA and even less likely I would support 2 in the same 10 minute span but absolutely I support this.
'''Support'''. No questions here. I've been working with this editor for many years in the ACW content area and have strong trust based on lengthy experience with this candidate. Like Kumioko above, I find it a great and rare pleasure to vote support on more than one admin candidate in an evening. A very good night on en.wikipedia.org.
'''Support'''  Might as well pile on... my look at his work has me convinced.  Best of luck with the mop.
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support''' -  I've noticed you around. ''
'''Support''' - I'll pile on too. I've noticed this editor's work here for years and always felt this was a positive influence. Overwhelming community support. SPI is one of our most crucial areas of expertise, and having the tools is a huge plus. A big win for all!
'''Support''' - Easily meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]], so why not join the pile? <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose. His work at [[WP:SPI]] has been fabulous.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Solid work, no problems here.
'''Support'''. I was a little unhappy that Q3 answer avoided specifics, but I've seen this editor perform in a contentious article with strong PoV issues, socks, and blocks. The article came under control and progressed.
'''Support''' Having looked over their contributions, I see no cause for concern '''''
'''Support''' Seems like a solid user who will continue to serve as an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' Falls into the cat "I thought s/he already was an admin. Solid record in many areas so this is an easy one for me.
'''Support''' - I kept asking him, why wasn't he an admin already, on IRC. Long overdue.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks like a very convincing candidate to me. Berean Hunter I hope you serve the community well. '''
'''Support'''' Joining in the pile-on for support - very solid candidate!
'''Support''' - Absolutely.  Not only because of the editor, but because of a need (I think) for more SPI clerks that have administrative tools.  I see a need there, and [[User:Berean Hunter|Berean Hunter]] will fill that need well, I think. -
'''Support''' - Seems to be a reasonable, rational editor with solid history on Wikipedia.  --
'''Support''' Berean Hunter is experienced in investigation, is a respected member of the Wikipedia community in good communication with any others, and is an excellent coordinator of the addition of images to articles. I expect this user to be a good admin.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support''' Berean Hunter appears to be an experienced and competent contributor who can be trusted with and would clearly benefit from admin tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable editor with a high level of clue.
'''Support''' per the above. I would have been neutral but for the singular achievement of collecting a full set of Clues. They will serve the candidate well.
'''Support'''. Intelligent and willing editor, long overdue for the mop.
'''Support''' effectively clean block log, very longterm trusted user. I'll trust others re your major locus of activity as it isn't an area that I'm active in. Deleted contributions look pretty good, but when this ends you might want to have a look at [[Skarken Syndrome|this one]] - you prodded it, but I'd have preferred to see you add a hoax tag, maybe even a G3. ''
'''Support''' - specific plans for using the tools, votes of confidence from many respected editors, and a deleted contributions vetting from WSC are reasons enough for me to support.
'''Support''' - I'm confident that this user has a need for the tools, and will use them well.--
'''Support''' - Have noticed the high quality of the candidate's work, and am confident they'll use the bit judiciously.  --
'''Support''' Born to be an admin who will serve the Wikipedia community. I'm sure that when he handles the tools properly, he'll gain community trust. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - After a close look at their edits, found nothing wrong. I'm a bit late to the party but yes they deserve the rights. '''''
'''Support''' Has been around since Dec 2007  experienced , well versed in policy and see no concerns as per track.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support'''- ...and good luck. :D
'''Support''', wait, Berean isn't an admin? That needs to be fixed immediately--
'''Support''' Always happy to support potential candidates. Fine answers given to most of the questions above. I've seen Berean Hunter's good work at the SPI and given their experience and knowledge and understanding of various Wikipedia policies, they will make a good administrator as they already are an asset to the project. Have also randomly checked some of the contributions and everything seems good. All the best Berean!
'''Support''' I haven't had the chance to look into this candidate as much as I wanted to, but I trust Dennis' judgement and 157 other supporters.
'''Support''' with no concern.
Add me to the list of people who thought you were already an admin. I frequently see your name pop up in my watchlist, and as you're always doing good work I'm happy to support.
'''Support'''. I've seen the candidate's work numerous times, so add me to the list. --
'''Support'''. No concerns, and good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Votes for Romney are unconvincing. --
'''support''' - checking deleted content, and logs looks like speedy delete and prod nominations are suitable.  Heaps of gnome type work is evident.
'''Support''' - as co-nominator. --
'''Support''' - Seems like just the sort of good egg to deserve a mop  <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
I've seen Bgwhite's name pop up frequently enough at AfD, and he seems sensible. He'll do good work as an administrator.
'''Support''' - I dislike to support '''as nom'''. In [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ekabhishek|another RFA]] too I mentioned this. Noms' and con-noms' votes should be automatically counted (unless otherwise indicated by them). My nomination comment clearly indicates that I am supporting the candidate. So, writing a support statement again is unnecessary. But, I need to keep doing this until the rule is changed.. and as those TParis etc counters count supports in this section only). --
'''Support''' - he and I have had some interaction in the past and I've always found him pleasant and easy to work with. I've participated in a few of his AFDs and they have always seemed well-explained and well considered. Happy to support.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support'''. I concur with Brookie, Bgwhite looks like a good egg. &mdash;
'''Support''' What?  You weren't an admin years ago?  Bgwhite is trustworthy and unlikely to break the wiki.
'''Support''' Great editor and also believe that he will a great admin as well.
'''Support''' I see massive amounts of good maintenance work, good experience, support from users who I respect (and who can see the deleted stuff), and signs of a good sense of humour (which is always a plus for me). If he was going to wreak havoc, I think that would be apparent after 216,000 edits, so I have to, and am very happy to, support. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' top notch candidate with [[Doctor Who|fine taste]] in [[Torchwood|television]]. --
You've got a really impressive collection of barnstars on your userpage. - Dank (
Another editor that fits my criteria.  &ndash;
'''Support''' It's about time.
'''Support''' Understands the nuts n' bolts of the wiki, is pleasant to work with, and has a good grasp of policy. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Weak support''' I have worked with Bgwhite before and while this was a little frustrating occasionally, I have no reason to believe they won't make a fine administrator. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' no reason why not. --
'''Support''' - nothing screams problem to me at this time.  --
'''Support''' A constructive editor, should be a constructive admin. --&ndash;&nbsp;''
'''Oh hell yes'''
'''Support''' well clued up editor with no red flags, very surprised that they are not already an admin.
'''Support''' - Thought he was already an admin. {{;)}}
Yes, Bgwhite "gets it" and will be an asset as an admin. <span style="font-family: Lucida Calligraphy">
<font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Absolutely Yes''', nothing but collegial, clueful and constructive contributions in my experience. I run into this editor everywhere, and it's left a very positive impression. (I found this RfA by accident, I was recommending him elsewiki and wondered why he wasn't already an admin, pulled up an RfA page, briefly thought it might be very old (only 25 votes on an RfA?  That must be ancient!), and only a few moments later realized the RfA was live.) --
'''Support'''. Bgwhite is a very helpful geek with enough content knowledge to know what it's like to create. I have no reason to believe they'll abuse the tools--not everyone always gets his sense of humor (I'm sure Mrs. Bgwhite doesn't) and he can be a bit rough around the edges, so I assume he'll polish it up some when acting as an admin. And while adminship is not a reward, maybe this will help him overcome...[[Amy Pond|well, let her rest in peace]].
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''- I've seen this user quite a bit and have never noticed anything untoward.
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support''' - Definately deserves the tools and will use them wisely.
'''Support''' He obviously has a need for the tools, and I trust him not to misuse them, therefore I would support giving said tools to said editor.
'''Support''' no significant reason to oppose at this point. Regards, —
'''Support''' - my interactions with this editor have been nothing but positive, and he does a loot of good work here. The mop will allow him to do more.
'''Support''' - agree with what is stated above, a "top notch candidate".
'''Support''' seems well qualified. <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate. Answers seems okay. I tried to skim the contributions as well but with the number of them was a bit hard to get a good feel. Is there a way to look at only non-AWB edits?
'''Support''' How many different ways can "thought he already was" be said? (And because he meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]). <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' Seen him around for a while, left a positive impression on me. '''
'''Support'''. His edits are done thoughtfully, carefully, and knowledgeably. He makes very few errors, but when he's informed of a mistake, he readily admits it and fixes it and/or takes steps to prevent it from happening again. Giving Bgwhite the tools may allow Drmies to be more productive in content creation, as he will no longer have to spend so much time processing Bgwhite's administrative requests.
'''Support'''. I have some slight concerns about a few of his CSD nominations, but overall his work seems to be good enough for me to feel confident in his abilities.--

'''Support'''. - Looks good to me. We need all the help we can get. Good luck! ~
'''Support''' Yup. —
'''Support''' Definetely deserves the mop. A great editor and the opposes aren't convincing.
'''Support''' Very good. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' A sense of humor is a good indicator of perspective.
'''Support''' for many reasons. First (but in no particular order), almost any friend of Drmies's is a friend of mine. Second, I don't see the Lady too often at RfAs; her support is telling. Third, I like the way Bgwhite expresses himself and answers the questions (although he didn't answer ''all'' of Dennis's). Fourth, I like his understated sense of humor. Fifth, every interaction I've had with him has been positive. Sixth, he's smart. Finally, anyone who wants to stay away from ANI clearly has good judgment (yeah, yeah, I understand the converse).--
'''Support''' No problems here. --
'''Support''' Absolutely no issues. I, like Scottywong, thought you already were an admin. And share the same sentiment as AutomaticStrikeout. '''
'''Support''', great user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I think yes. ''
'''Support''' I was going to support anyway, but I'm satisfied with the answer to my question as well.--v/r -
'''Support''' No problems for me.
'''Support''' Time for some more admins! <tt>;)</tt> —
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support'''. User has lots of experience. --
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' My interractions with this candidate have shown that he is not afraid to delete questionable content. We need more wikipedians like this. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Helpful in AfD.
Solid article contributions, shows good experience with administrative related tasks as well.
'''Support''' User has made substantial contributions, and based on my limited interaction with them as well as the above answers, is both knowledgeable and helpful, especially in the BLP arena. -
'''Support''' - No qualms here.
'''Support''' This is a bit of a no-brainer. Bgwhite's contributions are excellent, and their answers to the above questions are good.
'''Support''' Seems trusty, would be helpful with the mop. '''
'''Support'''.  Right temperament, many, many gnomish clean-up edits, strong command of Wikipedia technical policies.  I have a very high degree of confidence that he won't break the wiki.
'''Support''' Great editor. →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''. Great contributor to the project, can't see any reason why the candidate will make anything other than a sensible addition to the admin corps. Good luck!
'''Support''', great work in the area of the [[WP:Persondata]]. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bgwhite/Archive_11#please_provide_diffs_or_retract This is a good sign] - we all make mistakes; what matters is how we deal with them. Some people cover up, some people ignore, and others correct the mistake. I have faith in people who correct <s>there</s> their mistakes. '''
'''Support''' Trusted user.  No concerns. We need more admins like this this user. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Would make a great addition to the admin corps. --
'''Support''' – Everything seems OK.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Seems to be a backstage worker. No concerns.
'''Support''' - looks good. &nbsp;
'''Support''' and add me to the "thought he already was an admin" category. Since he isn't it is high time to correct that.
Good experience, and I like the spirit embodied in candidate's user talk page instructions, which seem well-designed to avoid pointless drama.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per the users [sic] longstanding <s>opposition to country wikiprojects and underhanded way of removing project tags</s> contributions, loyalty, and dedication to the project.
'''Support''' - Either Bgwhite was lying through their teeth {{diff|User talk:Doc9871|437195164| in this post to me}} (2nd paragraph), or they are honest enough to be a good admin. I'll AGF.
'''Support''' definitely--
'''Support''', not yet? --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''Support''' Trustworthy, clueful, and will make a find admin.--
'''Support''' Great user, and interested in administrative tasks. What better? --
'''Support''' I see no reason why you shouldn't be one.
'''Support''' - I could've sworn this guy was an admin. [[User:NFLisAwesome|NFLisAwesome]] <sup>(
Opposes very far from convincing.
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Should have been an admin ages ago. — '''''
'''Support''' I've always been impressed. '''<font color="#000000">
Lots of great work, and I liked our interaction on a sockpuppet issue: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusma/Archive_23#Sheynhertz-Unbayg_sockpuppets]. —'''
'''Support''' - I'm not the biggest fan of users who use AWB for most of their content edits (well at least recently, 4.5k out of 5k edits are with AWB) but I am going to hold my peace on that one. Good user. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Support''' - I think Bgwhite would be a good, effective admin. <span style="background-color:lightpink;">
'''Support''' - you are not admin yet! --&nbsp;
'''Support'''- Made some mistakes, but an overall positive editor and will be a net gain as an admin. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--
'''Support''' Trusted user has been around for a while  .The Project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' A great, trusted, tireless contributor, well competent and a nice user. Gosh! :)
'''Support''' no problems, looks good.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support''' . It's about time.
'''Support:''' Looks good! -
'''Support'''. I thought the answers to questions were excellent and all the previous comments in this RfA were pointing me to support, when I crashed up against Were's oppose. I have a lot of respect for Were, and that brought me up short, so I spent some time looking at the candidate's talk page, and deciding for myself how well they communicate with other users. Long story short, I end up here in support. Yes, I agree that one should try to work with another editor asking for advice about how to avoid deletion, so I hope the candidate takes that advice on board, but the overall pattern is one that I can trust. --
'''Support''' Satisfactory answers to my questions and passes the remainder of my criteria.—
'''Support''' per Mandarax --
'''Support''' - No problems here!
'''Support''' - A dedicated and trusted user who would be an asset to project. <span style="">
'''Support''' - Trusted and experienced editor.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' See no real reason not to. Good candidate.
'''Support''' - I see him on new patrol a lot, his prods/csd's are mostly accurate and he would be a fair and valuable addition to the project.
'''Oppose''' per the users longstanding opposition to country wikiprojects and underhanded way of removing project tags.
'''Oppose''' Like Ottawahitech, I would be concerned about an editor who, as the nominator states, does a lot of prodding, including the nominator's own articles. A lot of WP content disappears simply because people aren't around to contest the PRODs. Giving this person deletion rights would mean that one less pair of eyes sees these articles before they go "poof". So a "no" from me unless more details can be provided of these PRODs - what were they, and how many were successfully contested? [[User talk:Samsara|Samsara]]&nbsp;([[User:Samsara/Animal FA requirements|FA]]&nbsp;<small>•</small>&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Literally half the time at AfD, when confronted with an article where the consensus will be it should be kept, they've argued for deletion.  My last interactions with this user where to have to decline [[Armaan Kohli|this invalid G4]], which they took to AfD - where it was kept, and to decline [[Ted Nash (entrepreneur)|this invalid G4]] (both from the last month).  They don't have good judgement with respect to deletion, but are clearly enthusiastic about it;  I fear given a hammer they will see everything as a nail. We don't need admins who'll delete first and not ask whether or not it should be deleted.
'''Oppose''' I don't like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surapong_Tovichakchaikul&oldid=500083383 this prod].
There are lots of positives about this candidate, a huge number of contributions to this project and I believe they have the potential to be a good admin. But I believe they need to work on some issues first. There have been a number of threads above which highlight a potential over-enthusiasm for deletion. But this thread [[User_talk:Bgwhite#Deleting_James_Bate.2C_Grant_Boone.2C_and_Adam_Zucker]] gives me pause for concern. Bgwhite prodded a number of articles, the editor who'd written them then came to his talkpage for advice on how to save those articles and I don't see any subsequent interaction on either of their talkpages. We need admins, but we need admins who communicate, and that is especially true when you get rid of goodfaith contributions (apologies if that communication took place on some other page) ''
'''Oppose''' per WereSpielChequers. --
'''Oppose''' also per WereSpielChequers, who makes a convincing argument.
'''Oppose''' as per WereSpielChequers.
'''Oppose''' BGWhite, you can't ignore requests like that - this sort of behaviour could drive away potential editors
'''Oppose:'''  I find that the points raised by WereSpielChequers and WilyD are sufficient cause for concern.
'''Oppose'''. I can find nothing in the candidates contributions that demonstrates the application of any thought about how to develop an encyclopedia, rather than a robotic application of rules. The edit linked in Colonel Warden's first comment seems typical. Yes, the rules allow the application of a [[WP:BLPPROD|BLPPROD]] tag to an article about a government minister, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Anyone who was here to build an encyclopedia rather than to enforce rules would take a few seconds to find and add a source to such an article rather than propose it for deletion.
'''Oppose'''. WereSpielChequers and Casliber make a lot of good points that can't be easily overlooked. While I have far more deletionist tendencies than I do inclusionist, I feel that an administrator needs to be a light hand rather than a blunt weapon. Though this candidate will probably succeed in his bid, I strongly suggest he take the above comments to heart.
Regretful '''oppose''', per WereSpielChequers - that incident is just too recent for me to ignore. Great contributor though, good luck! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Moved from Support''' Based on WereSpielChequers's observations.  I really hate to do this, but I believe that helping someone keep an article that you have nominated to AFD is more important that any other use of the tools.  Whether we want it or not, we admin are looked upon as the first source for help.  We are willing '''servants''' of the community.  This means we must help others before working on our own projects, particularly when it is time sensitive and affects the content of the encyclopedia, as well as the morale of fellow editors.  I won't stand in the way of your RfA, but [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention|I am obligated]] to not support either.  I'm very sorry and still think very highly of you, but I have no choice here.
I've had a difficult time deciding. I do appreciate your comprehensive answer to Q10. Concerns I had about being overly focused on deletion are balanced with an impression of you generally being sensible, including with regard to not acting outside of consensus. In the end, though, I can't quite put myself in the support column, as I agree with Dennis Brown's comments. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Strong Support''' &ndash;- as nominator. --
'''Support'''. Normally I would be the first to say that creating great content is not really the most important skill we need from admins, so this can be a distraction at RfA; but outside of content creation I've had nothing but good encounters with Crisco1492. I think they're competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' As someone who's "just getting in" to DYK, I have seen nothing but good from this user, and "[[User:Cyberpower678|we need the extra hell]]".--<span style="">
'''Support''' Clearly an outstanding record of contributions, and Crisco is already performing administrator-like tasks well in the areas they've identified as being their focus. I see no risk that he or she would miss-use the tools, and their excellent contributions should provide a good grounding in handling the various issues admins are asked to manage.
'''Support''' - This user's contributions to [[Belenggu]] show that he knows how to contribute to content. Additionally, a read over several of his DYKs showed no evidence of copyright violations or plagiarism that occasionally plague them. (Most of the sources are in Indonesian, so I was only able to read and check for continuity/style changes.) His GA reviews, such as [[Talk:X (The X-Files)/GA1]], show a careful eye for detail. Contributing to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chrisye/archive1|featured content]] is an excellent plus. Finally, a review of his deleted edits show good understanding of the speedy deletion and PROD policies. About the only mistake I found was when he accidentally moved a userspace draft to [[User:Surabaya (fictional work)]], and tagged it as U1 (user request to delete page in ''his own'' userspace) rather than U2 (no such user) or G7 (author request to delete).
'''Support''' Long standing, experienced editor. fantastic contributions and appears to be sufficiently familiar with policy. No concerns.
'''Support''' a reliable contributor, and very faithful at DYK.
→<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - Dedicated editor who consistently works for the sites betterment. If he wants the tools then past history shows he's going to use them well -
'''Support''' - impresses as sensible, level-headed and fair, and has churned out a chunk of audited content. Fairly confident will be a net positive.
'''Support''' Good Content creator in particular to those related to Indonesia  and see no concerns .He/She has been editing regularly since April 2011.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' Always helpful and outstanding (extensive and very nearly flawless) performance as an editor. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Often see around. They sure can have the mop if it was up to me ;) <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' Very good editor, see him at dyks often, I guess those template space edits are mostly from dyks. :-) --&nbsp;
'''Support''' Does good work in many areas, including FAC, DYK, GA, (has two featured articles, multiple GAs) writes many articles from scratch. Extremely pleasant to work with. Diplomatic and helpful.
'''Support''' Clueful editor who I trust to use the tools well.
'''Support''' I have been expecting this, good candidate--
'''Support''' &mdash; All looks good.
'''Support''' 1492 is a great vintage. ''
'''Support''' Crisco's history of quality content production is astounding, and in a year of being his enthusiastic talk page stalker, I've never seen him react to conflict with anything but diplomacy and kindness.
'''Weak support'''. Not the most convincing reasons, but good contributions.
'''Strong Support''' We need admins with high-quality content contributions, he could really use the mop for DYK work too.
Knows how to build an encyclopedia.
Full '''Support''' for a good content creator.
No red flags.
Aye.—

'''Yuuuuup'''  All my interactions with the nominee have been positive. '''
&ndash;
'''Support''' This user has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia, so he is now ready to handle the tools. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Per nominator, outstanding content creation. Barring any unforeseen issues others may dig up, seems like a perfect candidate for mop privs.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' - I was surprised to see Crisco's nomination.  He's being doing so much work at DYK, I had assumed he was already an administrator.  Great writer, and always courteous in his interactions with other users. -
'''Support''' &ndash; I always wondered why he's not an admin.
'''Support''' Worked with Crisco at FPC dozens of time, where he is always seeking to enhance the encyclopedia. No doubt he will use admin tools to do the same. —'''''
'''Support''' Absolutely!! Great user to work with.
'''Support'''—Excellent work.
'''Support''' I trust other's judgements on his editing on the whole, but in particular I notice his AFD performance and willingness to do more than count the votes when closing, showing he can use judgement in determining consensus, not just a calculator.  His record voting in AFDs (around 80%ish over time) I find reasonable as he doesn't seem to just tack on "me too" votes.  I don't know him personally, but a look seems to indicate he can disagree without being disagreeable, willing to take criticism on board, and be independent without ignoring consensus.  Being humble enough to recognize and address your own mistakes is a trait I find too all too rare at Wikipedia, and Crisco 1492 seems to have it in abundance.  Glad to offer my support.
'''Support''' - From the looks of it, you should have become an admin a long time ago.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' I've paid attention to this editor for awhile, and worked with him once. He's as good as they get.
'''Support''' I have had dealings with this editor at FAC and PR, and found him to be scrupulous about following WP policies, not a bluffer (he will say when he doesn't know about a subject), and above all thorough and helpful beyond the call of duty.
'''Support''' User has a lot of maturity and has a lot of clue. Keep up the good work.
I can only echo Tim Riley. The "not a bluffer" part in particular is a relevant quality when it comes to admin decisions. —
'''Strong support''' I was suggesting that he run for adminship [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHJ_Mitchell&action=historysubmit&diff=444542401&oldid=444529130 back in August].<tt>  </tt>
'''Support''' His work here is almost flawless.—
'''Support''' Per everybody.--
'''Support''' User has a good eye for detail and sound judgement.  Has the necessary experience with a wide range of WP processes, and has a pleasant demeanour when interacting with other users. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support''' User has great contributions, (DYK, GA, FA, etc.) and would make a great admin. —
'''Yup''' per above.
'''Support'''. Crisco seems to be model sysop; polite, knowledgeable, and well-versed in content creation and expansion at all levels. He'll be a great role model to users and has already he's more than capable of handling administrative tasks.
As long as he helps with copyvios. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' per nominator.
--
'''Yes'''. Positive asset - good quality contributions and a good attitude. '''
'''Support''' - I honestly think that the obvious rubbish that fills up  some ofthe questions above, and some of the absurdities below, make RFA what it is a ''smelly suspect circus'' and something that has needed overhaul for a long time (which is why I havent been see voting here at RFA for years) - but that aside - Crisco has a capacity to do things within a subject/field (Indonesia) that has very limited admin presence - and that alone should be a consideration as there is always a need for a balanced, level headed, involved editor in that subject area - and he is that
First time I saw him was at the WT:DYK discussion that is mentioned in Q3, so my first impressions weren't incredibly favourable. Since then every time I come across Crisco he seems to be knowledgeable and and level-headed, so I'm willing to accept that he has learned from it. Also has a relatively large amount of audited content, which is obviously a plus. Looked at the opposes and they don't concern me. Lastly, I have a lot of respect for SatuSuro, who works in the same area as Crisco, and if he trusts him then I can't see why I shouldn't.
'''Support''' Excellent content edits in my view, shows a good understanding of policies. I don't see AfDs and CSDs as reasons to oppose. --
'''Strong Support''' - Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''...No evidence that this candidate will abuse tools or position...
'''Support''' Can't  find any  compelling  reasons not  to trust  this candidate with the responsibility and the tools. The opposition  is unconvincing, and if Tim Riley is supporting,  I'm  most  happy to pile on and follow suit.
'''Support''': (1) Fine content editor; (2) I ask myself if I think Crisco has the right attitude: willing to learn what he doesn't know & willing to acknowledge when he's made a mistake. The answers are "Yes" and "Yes". No need to look any further for what an admin should be. --
'''Support''' experienced excellent collaboration and good questions, --
'''Support''' I have no suspicion that this user will abuse the Administrative tools.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Seems like a fine choice, I hope everything goes well for you...
'''Support''' Good candidate & good answers above.
'''Support''' - Clueful user with a good mix of contributions. His experience puts him in a good position to help out with admin tools. --
'''Support''': Excellent work on Wikipedia. Crisco would be a perfect admin in my opinion. Oh yeah, the editor definitely isn't shit.
'''Support'''. Upon review, he does good edit work and is not quick to judge.
'''Support''', fine candidate.--'''
'''Support''' - Exceptional content contribution, seems very competent, reasonable and serious. Seems like an ideal candidate for the mop. :) <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">
'''Support''' per all above. A competent, clueful editor who among other things has done great work in Indonesia-related articles, an under-represented subject area in Wikipedia. '''
'''Support''': I think that he will be excellent admin.--
'''Support''' - A fine editor. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
Per Kudpung. Candidate has done good work, good answers to questions and I see nothing untoward in his contributions. Best of luck. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - No concerns. A very good editor.
'''Support''' No Concerns ''<B>--
Have met this user offwiki and they're just as clueful there as they are on here. No reason to believe he'd misbehave with his tools. —
'''Support'''Brilliant user. Should get sysop rights. '''
'''Support''' It's a privilege to receive admin rights, and with that much decent content work, s/he thoroughly deserves to have them!
'''Support''' Despite another admin suggesting your primary area of interest would be deleting articles, your large body of work and contributions up until now would suggest that adminship would serve you well among a multitude of tasks such as DYK, anti-vandalism, and backlogs.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' Great Editor --
'''Support''' - per above. Had a look through his contribs etc. and happy to support. <small>
'''Support''' I have seen Crisco many times at DYK, and his contributions are immensely good. He will be a good administrator, for sure.
'''Support'''—Seen him around various areas of the project, and he always seems clueful, happy, and collaborative.  More admins interested in DYK is a good thing, and I'm sure he learned from the kerfluffle there.  I trust this user will ease into admin activities and will be a net-positive to the admin corps.
'''Support''', good contributor, sufficient experience, do not see any problems.--
'''Weak Support''' - I've been following this RfA for awhile, and I've been on the fence the whole time. I think that his grasp of deletion policy is not as strong as it could be, but I also think that the absolute terror of using the tools your first few months will ensure that Crisco doesn't perform any controversial deletions for awhile. He's done some good anti-vandal work and excellent work at DYK, and I have no qualms about him using the tools in those arenas. Therefore, though my support is weak, I feel that Crisco will be a net positive to Wikipedia as an administrator.
'''Weak Support''': Based on personal review and that of others here, a great editor I would trust with a mop. A little concerned about points drawn against in oppose, but he has shown a history of self betterment - there is no reason to doubt he will grow into a well to be admin.
'''Support'''. Be careful with them CSDs. Don't feel the need to thank people for their feedback (except for me)--that's running with the pack. ;) I'm not familiar with the GA issue (though whatever MF says is usually true), but from what I've seen from Crisco they will not abuse the tools and, on the contrary, will use them to the project's benefit.
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' - This is [[WP:NETPOS]] territory. I am happy to support you with so much content experience. Good luck in DYK. Now, your application of deletion policy may be less than exemplary, but my big-picture look at your DEL work does not make me oppose. My advice is to stay rational and stay conservative. Thank you for looking out for copyvios. I do not foresee cataclysmic destruction upon granting the tools. <small><font face="Tahoma">
'''Yup''', will be a tremendous asset to the 'pedia with the tools. Just wish I'd thought to nominate him.
'''Support''' - Seems like a reasonable, dedicated contributor.  No problems here.
'''Support'''. I admit to being a little concerned about Phil Bridger's diff, and I urge Crisco to go slowly in AFD and CSD where other editors have pointed out issues. However, he has shown that he is willing to listen to criticism and act on it, which I regard as one of the most important qualities in an admin. I am confident that any issues that may crop up can be dealt with via discussion, and that Crisco won't be the cause of any unnecessary drama. Also, I shouldn't neglect to mention his very impressive content contributions and his expertise in DYK. In my opinion it would be worth promoting him even if he only wanted the admin tools to work with the DYK queues. I think the project would definitely benefit from giving him a mop. — '''''
'''Support''' I have no reason to oppose. <span style="color:red"> '''The Determinator'''</span>  <span style="color:green"> '''
'''Support''': Everything convinces me. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' Yes, DYK could use another admin (several instances since I got the tools). And Crisco 1492 works so hard, I admit to having thought he already was one. The nominations for deletion worry me, and so does the BLP angle that came up in the extra questions. I was also a bit disappointed in the response regarding underage admins. But the candidate has demonstrated here and elsewhere a readiness to re-think and discuss things, is collegial and far more adminny in his breadth of work here than me, and I see more net positives than negatives.
On balance, I am confident in the candidates abilities. My only concern, and it has been addressed, is the lamentable possibility that you could be overly aggressive deleting articles at AfD. I accept your stated intention to move cautiously in that arena. Overall, good answers to questions, and exemplary conduct here have earned my trust. Good luck moving forward.
''''Support''' As good a candidate as any, and a dedicated contributor. So long as having admin tools doesn't distract him from what is important (Indonesian novels)!♦
I'm
'''Support''' excellent editor who deserves the mop. Great answer and attitude on Q3 which was an extremely heated fiasco for DYK. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Experienced editor with great answers to the questions.
'''Support'''. I'm influenced by what I think is a very thoughtful pattern of the answers to questions. It seems to me that this candidate has had experience in discussions about disagreements about content, and knows what he is doing, and is willing and able to learn from his mistakes. Although Phil Bridger's diff pushes my buttons, I see it as an example of where the candidate is willing to learn, and all the other examples given throughout the RfA, as well as the DYK-related dramas, really do not bother me at all. --
'''Support''' because of this user's commitment to creating good content, participating in GA and FA processes, and for contributing to the DYK project. I support in spite of other users' concerns about this editor's understanding of the CSD criteria, because I think this editor has demonstrated competency in the CSD process and interest in learning more about it. I trust that this user will not doing anything wrong even if this user does not do everything optimally right, and I think in time this user will do everything as well as anyone else.
'''Support''' per [[User:Tryptofish]] -
'''Support''' - nothing in the oppose comments is compelling.
Would be a great addition to the admin corps. –
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate for becoming an Sysop. Has good mainspace edits to articles. However an important point here needs to be noted that just because an editor (any user) that has many mainspace edits to articles does not mean that said user will become a potential administrator too, no it's not like that. For that the said user definitely needs to have prior experience in at least some administrative areas where he/she intends to work in and must have done satisfactory work in those specified areas, and Crisco1492 has that experience which they have shown that they can be trusted to use the tools responsibly and properly for the betterment and development of Wikipedia. No major reason to oppose this hardworking candidate, ready to work with the Admin tools.
I don't think the candidate is ready to make speedy deletion decisions in article space. Looking through [[User:Crisco 1492/CSD log]] I see only 2 A criteria speedy deletion nominations. Then, in response to question 7, the candidate seems to be confusing the notability guidelines with the criteria for speedy deletion under A7. Clearly an article should not be deleted if the subject is in fact notable, but the standard for deletion under criteria A7 is "claim of importance" not "claim of notability", a much lower threshold that an article must pass to survive. Response 7-3 highlights this problem, [[Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill]] and [[WP:CRIME]] are fine arguments to make at the [[WP:AFD]] stage, but they really have no place in the consideration of a [[WP:CSD A7]]. A national news outlet providing coverage of a subject, with a reference to that coverage in the article, should always foreclose deletion under A7.

'''Oppose'''. The two incidents referred to in Q3 suggest to me that the candidate has an unfortunate tendency to run with the pack when it comes to hounding those who express unpopular opinions. Does one's personality really change so quickly?
'''Weak oppose''' – Crisco 1492, you have done so much good work here, seem generally friendly and sensible, and I likely would have supported if you had not expressed an intention to use administrator tools in AfD and CSD work. I agree with my fellow editors above that prior to this RfA we have not seen enough A-category CSD tags to really get a good sense of your understanding of the criteria. In one of your responses above, you noted the importance of following WP:BEFORE in any deletion work. Then, declaring you were heading into New Page Patrolling, you went ahead and tagged [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siliana_Gaspard&diff=494936232&oldid=494845536 this] (which I believe did not follow WP:BEFORE for at least two reasons), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockstar_Consortium_Inc.&diff=494963178&oldid=494901995 this], at a time when your contributions are under the most scrutiny, so that's not especially reassuring. Your AfD contributions also raise some red flags for me. I'm all for concise communication when appropriate, but your rationales are so brief that we do not get an understanding of your thinking process or if you have done any research prior to making a !vote or nomination. Nominations like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotta Lotta Love|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasts in Nairobi|this]] appear to be typical of your AfD work, where you cite a policy or guideline without explaining the reasons the article violates them, and not actually saying if you have searched for sources when you declare that something has "no indication of notability" (which is a quote from your Prod work, which is similar). Even if you have searched for sources, I think it's important to be explicit about what you have done, in order to set an example to new contributors to deletion discussions, and also to reassure non-Wikipedians that we are not just making deletion decisions on a whim. Too many of your contributions become [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions|Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] due to their brevity. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair trade coffee]] is particularly concerning to me. Did you look at the article history? Why have you not revisited the discussion? When you do not revisit AfD discussions when new information comes to light, it gives the impression of drive-by voting. ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Long]] is another example.) Sorry for the long rationale here, but I think it's needed in order to explain how i came to an overall impression. Any of the single things I mentioned above, taken in isolation, would certainly be unfair nitpicking, but as a whole it paints a concerning picture about your approach to deletions—to me at least. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Weak oppose''' I'd like to think that RfA candidates would spend a few minutes researching the background of the nominator before accepting an RfA nomination. If they had done so, they would have found a user who is a [[WP:HATSHOP|hat collector]] of the highest order, with [[meta:User:Snowolf/Tomtomn00|34 requests for rights]] across eleven different wikis, a whole string of problematic behaviour and so on. Accepting such a nomination makes me question the user's judgment, which is something I consider quite important given that admins frequently have to make judgments about user behaviour (for blocking and unblocking, for instance). —
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bisa_Williams&curid=35958340&diff=495145637&oldid=495145024 This edit], made today, displays a severe lack of knowledge about how notability-based AfDs are decided, dismissing the [[WP:general notability guideline|general notability guideline]] as irrelevant because it contains the word "presumed", and also demonstrates an inability to answer a simple question in a meaningful way. Admins should have much better procedural knowledge and communication skills.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry Crisco 1492. While I sincerely believe you have done and is doing excellent work in terms of content contribution, the edits linked to by Phil Bridger and Paul Erik clearly demonstrate to me you are not yet ready to deal with deletion nominations and discussions, which is one of the area you state in your response to Q1 that you intend to work in. --
'''Oppose''' I don't think you should be doing article deletions at this time, and since that is one of your main areas of interest I'm afraid I have to oppose. The answer to Q7 is a pretty serious mistake: A7 is not about evaluating notability, it is meant to be a very low bar and if an article has anything in it which indicates that the subject may be notable (such as national press coverage) then it should be evaluated through the AfD or PROD mechanisms. Some of the links presented by Paul Erik and Phil Bridger above are also concerning. I suspect this may be just down to lack of experience, and you should be fine with some more work in these areas, but I don't think you're there yet. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose'''. I'm not happy to oppose, because I don't feel that Crisco can do much about it. Question 7 is a difficult question, yet I value it a lot. The rules-based approach from Crisco is understandble, yet insufficient. There is simply more than the letter of policy to go by. Judging a candidate on RfA is hard, and pretty much the only question I ask myself at an RfA is "does this editor [[grok]] Wikipedia, and does he grok [[WP:IAR|the prime directive]]. The answer here, I think, is almost, but not quite, which is a minus. Then to me the candidate made a mistake on Q12/13. Editors make mistakes, administrators make mistakes, god knows I made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes in the future, and I certainly hope that we don't think there is any chance in hell that we will ever have an administrator or editor for that matter that won't make mistakes. So the candidate makes a mistake in tagging an article for speedy deletion. That's bad, don't do that again, carry on, and go be an administrator. The problem to me here is that the answer to Q12/13 wasn't: I was lazy, I didn't check, shame on me. The problem is that the answers give the impression of trying to find justification in a bad action by bringing in the rules, demonstrating that it's not such a bad action. Potentially the atmosphere we have created at RfA is to blame, where one can't make a mistake (I could be judged to be doing the same here, in my defence, I intentionally left the door back open with Q13 to fix the IMO insatisfactory response to Q12). Potentially we treat our editors to such a harsh introduction to the rules that their importance gets inflated. Likely this is more the fault of the community shaping our editors in the wrong direction than it is Crisco's getting shaped by it. But in the end, I can't claim I would like this candidate to be an administrator without this natural feel for how rules should work here.
'''Oppose''' Poor judgement.  As a different sort of example, see [[Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Asian woman tan line]].
'''Oppose''' per Phil Bridger's diff. Why don't you address the concern here or at the AfD? A really good admin/admin candidate should respond in a honest way. Do you think the comment is unjust or unworthy of your response? --
I have been sitting on the fence until now, because, to be honest, I'd really want to support you, because I consider you a capable wikipedian; however, I have reservations regarding how you would use the delete button if you were made an admin, which force me to end up in this section. I'm aware that your RFA is very likely to succeed nonetheless, so let me ask you to please be extra-careful before deleting something {{emdash}} or declining to do it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
Not really feeling strongly supportive, yet no opposition from me at this point, either. <span class="nowrap"><font color="blue">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="green">89</font>
Given the hubbub that occured concerning DYK's about ''Politics in the United States'', per my [[User:Achowat/COI|Disclosure of COI]], I will '''recuse''' myself from consideration of the candidate.
I will '''recuse''' also due to the fact that I am not having the decision to support nor to oppose because of the responses in Q#8 and Q#11 and since some good editors are not SysOp.
'''Support''' as nom --
'''Support''', good recent interactions with this user, giving him the tools will be constructive <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' - you'd have to be an utter cretin not to support this. Not only has De72831 not signified any intention to replace the main page with goatse, he's actually come up with some constructive suggestions! <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Support''' Seems like a dedicated user whose contributions are bound to be constructive.
'''Support''' This user is born to be an admin. He will be able to handle the tools properly. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - I see no problems here.
'''Support''' - No, I don't think that was me. What few content creations there are look solid, good work with translation, and (surprisingly, at least to me) fairly diligent on providing attribution for his translations (you missed one at [[Ernst von Prittwitz und Gaffron]] though <small>and ''The Hobbit'' has a broken ISBN</small>). Behaviour looks good as well.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - In particular, for having the wisdom to admit he doesn't know something and to instead ask someone else. Solid answer to the hardest question I've ever asked at RfA.
So far I'm not seeing anything not to love: writes solid military history articles, very experienced and committed. - Dank (
'''Support''' I too can't see any reason not to support: he's been acting like he is an admin, in the best possible sense, for some time. Does a lot of work at articles for translation. His AfD work seems solid. Very considerate and thoughtful in his interactions. Great.
'''Support''' I excuse myself for the confusion on the question, but anyways he got my point and gave a good response. Regards. —
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. And I continue to be impressed, after six years of editing, with how many corners of the project exist that I have never heard of or interacted with, and how many excellent editors are part of them.
'''Support'''.  User creates articles, uploads files, should know what it feels like to have articles they created tagged with whathaveyou.
'''Support''' - I was floored by his answer to Dennis's question. We need more new admins like that!
'''Support'''. Kudos, in particular, for your response to question #5.
'''Support'''. Definitely clueful and with the right attitude for the job. --
'''Support'''.  I've reviewed a variety of contributions, including AfD participation, and saw CLUE and no reason to oppose.  I was specifically impressed by the translation work and by the response to Dennis Brown's question. Finally, I share Newyorkbard's reaction.  --
'''Support''' I've been trying to think of things I can say about you, but I really think the people above me have everything covered. Fantastic job.
'''Support'''; your collected response to the very... ''marginal'' questions 10-13 demonstrate clearly that you have the proper temperament for the mop.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Dieser Benutzer wird ein ausgezeichneter Administrator sein. --
'''Support''' Seen around - like what I see. Excellent answers and manner.  Not afraid to ask.
—'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions. However the username, which contains a string of digits, is not intuitive. Ironically, the nominator (Jac16888) made a mistake in his nomination statement. Egg Centric (support number 3) also made a mistake.
'''Support''' He might be a "Preiß" (as they say where I live) but he seems to be a good candidate for adminship nonetheless ;-) Regards '''
'''Support''' No reason not to support.
I find it surprising that even after four years of editing, I still find areas and people I've never come across. De seems to be perfectly qualified for the tools.
'''Support''' Like Ed17, I never heard of this user but I love the thought put into his answers.
'''Support''' - Good answers above, strong support from respected admins. I am loving this new batch of noms, keep them coming! ~
'''Support''' – experienced, and seems sensible enough. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support'''. Natürlich! ~~
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support'''. A look over De728631's contributions and a read of the answers to questions above is enough to convince me we have a great admin-to-be here. --
'''Support''' Went through the answers and they we convincing.
'''Support''' Definitely. And could this RfA be the 5th to have 100% support? --
While he seems a good editor and gave good answers, the answer to question 1 suggests that the editor doesn't actually plan to do anything that uses administrator tools.
'''Support''' Does not appear to be in the pay of [[Stephen Colbert]].
'''Support''' - Decent answers, no reason to oppose.
'''Support.''' Experienced, competent candidate. Sound answers to questions (of which he was given rather a lot!) and no obvious issues.
'''Support''' A solid candidate. I see no reason to not trust him with the mop.

Save the name, no concerns.--<span style="">
'''Support''' no concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' Good answers, especially to #4.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' Good contributor to the project. Nice answers to the RfA Qs, I see no reason we can't trust this user with admin duties.
I'm
'''Support''' Seems ok, good luck, work hard...
'''Support''' - I see nothing in this candidate's background that implies to me that there would be challenges.  Further, I'm impressed with the answer to Q1 above.  In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action.
'''Support''' Hard worker, good contributor.
'''Support'''  Has been editing regularly since July 2008 and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' If I opposed you could hit my head and call me a Took. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' 30k edits, 3 years + and no clangers thus far suggests will likely be a net positive. Hence worth a trial with the mop.
'''Support''' Good answers to all of those questions, good record and experience; I have not issues supporting. '''
'''Support''' - nothing new to add to the above comments, but looks like a solid candidate.
'''Support''' - I  have never come across De728631, and I haven't been able to come across any reasons why I should not support. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I haven't had much contact with the candidate, and I have to admit to a little discomfort with the overall feel that I get from the incident in which the rollback permission was temporarily removed. On the other hand, I appreciate how complicated file licensing can be, I think the answers to questions about it are fine, and I see the candidate as filling a need in administrative work in that area. I looked at the mushroom page the candidate started, and the content work there is fine with me. --
'''Support''' Everything I see here supports my choice to support. I like an occasional BMF (be [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]], make a [[WP:MISTAKE|mistake]],  fix [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM|it]] and move on. I expect [[User:De728631|De728631]] to be a competent sysop, maybe great or even exceptional, but not perfect.
'''Support''' - The user seems qualified enough and I don't have any reason to oppose.--
&ndash;
'''Support''' No issues here.—
'''Support'''. Seems great!
'''Weak support'''. Good candidate for the job, but not exceptionally so. -
'''Support''' - as far as I recall, I've never encountered this editor before (not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing!) but they seem well-suited.
'''Support''' No problems here.&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I can't see any reason to oppose. — '''''
'''Support''' - Good answers to some very hard questions. Impressive community backing. I wish the candidate all the best and trust the tools will come in handy to help improve and maintain the project.
'''Support''': no issues. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Nice Answers! '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
'''Support''' Not paranoia-inducing. -—
'''Support'''; seems to be a good candidate.
'''Support''' Always happy to support potential candidates. De728631 is a good faith and trusted member of the community for a long time now. Good answers given to most questions above. User has sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has a good experience by having a variety of contributions in many areas of the project. Will be net asset and benefit to Wikipedia in an Administrator role. All the best De738631!
'''Support''' with no concern.
'''Support''' per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''', happily.
'''Support''' As per my nomination statement. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong, edit-conflicted Support''' - I've had this watchlisted for several days now. Dennis is a clueful, humble, hardworking editor who will only become more valuable if given the tools. He's had a [[ordeal by fire|trial by fire]] in the mess that was the MMA discussions and came out unscathed, with a head just as cool as ever. From what I've seen, he's not afraid to admit to his mistakes (the few that he makes), and has worked tirelessly to improve his knowledge and application of policy. Dennis is also often a voice of reason on the [[WP:AN|drama]] [[WP:ANI|boards]] and will be able to do even more in defusing drama/conflict there given a mop and bucket. No reservations here.
'''Support'''Total Support, and beat the co-nom!--<span style="">
'''Support'''. Easy decision. Dennis Brown has been popping up in all sorts of discussions offering thoughtful and valuable opinions in a clear and calm way, and I've kept thinking he'd make a great admin. We won't get any drama here, just calm and rational mopping up. --
Clued in. —
'''Support:''' An arb thinks he's good. That must be something. Good contribs. Good work in the community.
'''Support''' Significant contributions, good balance across all areas. Quick learner, accepts behavioral feedback, can pick up things fast. --
'''Support''' - Clueful, level-headed user who I would have no problem supporting in adminship. I am also impressed by his seeking additional opinions on adminship - he seems like he'll respond well to criticism, which is always an important trait to have in an administrator.
'''Support''' I've only seen good things from this editor.
'''Support''' Great (and plenty of) contributions from him, and works hard against vandalism. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' I greatly admire someone who can step back and objectively repair mistakes they've made.  You have my full support Dennis; I have little doubt you will make great use of your mop. --
'''Support''' based on noms and spot review of CSD tags. No concerns here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' – Dennis' history shows that he can use good judgment in messy disputes of the kind that admins often face. This gives us some assurance he will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Not just somebody to whom it is safe to entrust the tools, but a person who we can anticipate will do useful things with them.

'''Support''' A review of his input to AFDs shows he is thoughtful and level headed in general. His pattern of edits shows a good percentage to articles and their talk pages rather than a high percentage on dramah boards. I expect good things from his use of the mop.
'''Support''' I had participated in the the MMA discussions for a while, and the work Dennis did there was commendable.  He is quite helpful at ANI from what I have seen, and can easily be trusted with the tools.  Much deserved, and overdue on this one. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've found this editor to be very reasoned and professional in my interactions with him. I've also noticed his attempts to be a voice of reason at ANI. I think he exhibits sound judgement and I believe he'd make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I've briefly examined this users' history, and I see the user's been here since 2006, has a clean block log, has demonstrated, in my opinion, good judgement in recent history, and has not engaged in any questionable activities in recent history.
'''Support''' Why not? --
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' Why not?  Editor appears familiar with the policies and sounds as if he's getting more knowledgeable about the A7 speedies.  I'm particularly impressed by the answers to question #7.  Moreover, we need more gnomish admins; people say that it's important that an admin be familiar with writing substantial content, but if that be true, it's also true that it's important that an admin be familiar with small thankless tasks.
'''Support'''. And my response to the opposes? The ItsZippy RfA should set a precedent, some CSD mistakes is by no means a reason to reject a nomination. Noms give strong basis on which to support, and answers to questions support my thinking that Dennis is clueful. Best of luck,
Per Lord Roem. I trust that the candidate will take the concerns on board by those in opposition, and tread carefully around CSD. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. While a couple of Scotty Wong's problematic speedies are troubling, others are less so. To me the open and self-critical tone outweighs the fact that the candidate is not perfect at the task he seeks to do. And really, who is?  I have good confidence that this is a level head who will learn on the job.
'''Support''' - No concerns. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support'''. Moved from oppose. Was tired earlier. Sorry. CSD concerns seem relatively minor. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - Highly confident that candidate will be a credit to the project as an admin. '''''
'''Support'''; like Vensatry and others no concerns.
'''Support'''; I was waiting for this to go live yesterday so I could support it. Dennis is an outstanding editor with plenty of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. So what if he has made mistakes in the past with CFD's. It's all in the learning curve. We're only human. Not only that, but I like his answer at the bottom of the page. I wish Dennis well, no matter what, but he's going to be great with the tools. <span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' - I see no problem here.
'''Support''' Should be able to handle the mop <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' User has agreed to not perform CSD deletions.  This editor will make a great admin.—
'''Support'''. There are some legitimate concerns, but his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dennis_Brown&diff=488088734&oldid=488084377 response] convinced me to support this nomination.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support'''. Rock-solid attitude. Has the invaluable ability to cut through drama and end disputes. Trustworthy, no reason to withhold the mop.
'''Support''' A pretty good history of editing and behaviour, and some great responses to some of the concerns raised. Handing the mop to an experienced, trustworthy and mature editor who is still willing to improve seems like a sensible choice to me. --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here.
'''Strong support''' Very good call over at [[Talk:Major depressive disorder]] on [[Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Lead_image|Leah Hirsig's RfC]].
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, and I think the community will benefit greatly if he becomes an admin. Well ''everyone'' makes some CSD mistakes, so according to me, the ratio is quite not striking me.
'''Support'''.  I see nothing unduly worrying.  There is a slight issue with some speedy tagging but they seem to be aware of this and I have confidence they will act according.  I also don't think it's a big a problem as some have made out.  It seems that same require near perfection with speedy tagging but this ignores the fact that there is reasonably wide variation in how the speedy criteria is interpreted.  By requiring near perfection in candidates we would only get admins at the stricter end of the scale and I don't think this is a good thing.  I know that I personally agree with many of the rejected taggings given by the opposes.  Yes there are one or two that are plain wrong but this is a small proportion and not a show stopper to me given their assurances.
'''Support''' - User shows excellent editing patterns and excellent understanding of policies. --
'''Support''' -- ''Good luck.''
'''Support''' - Answers to Q5 and Q8 settle the CSD issue, as far as I'm concerned. As long as he stays away from any speedies that aren't perfectly clear, he'll be fine. ​—
'''Support''' - He would make a great admin. Dennis has been fair, dedicated, open-minded and displays a willingness to help others.
'''Support''' Seems like a level headed person well verified by other level headed people. I'm not concerned about CSD issues (the world keeps turning even when an occasional article is mistagged or deleted or not deleted) and the "not seeing examples where this users benefit to the program will be increased by additional user rights" makes little sense to me. Hopefully, we'll see some examples down the road. If we don't, I don't think we'll see any costs either? --
'''Support''' - good amount of Clue, good editor. I have some concerns about CSD tagging, however, I do believe that CSD is a two-part process: Non-admin tagging and admin deleting. Because it requires two editors, I'm ok with a tagger tagging some borderline pages with hopes that the closing Admin will make the final judgment call. The Opposition being exclusively concerning CSD tagging, I am sure that Dennis will be especially careful of using that tool.
'''Support''' I've seen him around quite a bit and have always felt he is a level-headed, knowledgeable editor with a solid grasp of policy. Since he's given assurances of starting slow with CSDs, I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' Per very impressive responses to the questions.  Every mistake that he made was a learning experience and he shows that he is a more knowledgeable editor as a result.<tt>  </tt>
'''Support'''. Seems sensible and trustworthy.
'''Support''' No concerns, seems to be able to be trusted. '''''
'''Support''' My concerns have been addressed.  I think the candidate has taken the concern about CSD seriously and they can be trusted to move cautiously through CSD with an admin mentor.--v/r -
'''Support''' Capable, and willing; a good choice...
'''Support''' Impressive responses, has the potential. <b><span style="border:2px solid;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' per the noms, many other support votes, and those who have had their concerns addressed and have reconsidered their opposition.
'''Support''' despite being a little too quick on the trigger sometimes. At speedy, it is not as much the error rate as the nature of the errors, and some of those pointed out are quite careless,  rather than just misjudgments. With experience , one learns to immediately spot what isn't in one of the A7 categories, but until then, one has to go slowly and check the wording every time.  I normally would not support an admin candidate on the basis that they'll learn on the job, suggesting instead that they reapply once they have finished learning. This time I'm supporting; I think it's clear that he will not be one of the admins who doesn't actually care whether a speedy meets the conditions, but is surely willing to learn--especially as I too will be watching. I wouldn't say he should wait, just   go slowly and pay attention to the feedback he will certainly get, from several of us.    I think he can play a very useful role in dispute resolution. I worked with him on the MMA problem a little--for the same reason, that having no personal interest at all would make it possible for me to be objective , and I was quite impressed. The buttons are not strictly necessary for most dispute resolution, but they provide a backup authority which is very helpful; making clear one has the authority to block usually makes it unnecessary to actually do so. '''
'''Support''' Solid answer to my Q, contribs seen fine, and editor is showing a clear intention of responsibility of using the tools.
'''Strong support''' looks like an ideal candidate from my point of view, and the proven level-headed approach to dispute is a strong asset for the admin team.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' I've seen them around, always seems clueful and respectful to others.  Appears to show a mature attitude, and trust the noms.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' This user is now ready to handle the tools and take the mop simply because of hardwork, experience and civility. '''''
'''Support'''. Dennis has many qualities that would be an asset to an administrator. His approach to editing is thoughtful, conscientious, and intelligent. He is patient and civil to other editors, even when he clearly doesn't like what they are doing: I wish I could say the same of all admins. He frequently consults others, rather than jumping in unilaterally, and is ready to listen to and learn from other editors' advice. He has extensive experience of a number of admin-related areas. I do have some reservations about Dennis's speedy deletion record, but the problems have been greatly exaggerated. Some of the examples on Scottywong's list are debatable, rather than clearly wrong, and in at least one case I think Scottywong is unambiguously wrong. However, there are some genuine problems in that area: particularly at least twice nominating for speedy deletion as "as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" where the article is not about a company, organisation, etc. Also, I have seen Dennis report to [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] where the edits were misguided but made in good faith. For many editors, these problems would be enough to push me into the "oppose" camp. However, there is one fact which, in Dennis's case, persuades me that this is not necessary: he has agreed to accept a kind of "CSD-mentoring" from Boing! said Zebedee, and ''my experience of Dennis leads me to believe that he will stick to his promise, and will learn from the help''. I also regard Boing! said Zebedee as a very good admin, who will do a good job of helping Dennis. Under these circumstances, I think the few small negatives are far outweighed by the many large positives. (And, as far as my description as "few small negatives" is concerned, even if we were to accept all of Scottywong's list, that would be nine doubtful CSD nominations in a period in which Dennis made a total of 216 CSD nominations, the vast majority of which were fine.)
'''Support'''. Smart, mature, personable, modest. I think the CSD issue has been addressed sufficiently, and to reject him on that basis alone seems to deny his capacity for growth and to accept some sort of illusory model of perfection. I also think the CSD issue is overblown.--
'''Support''' Really helpful edits, no serious concerns.--'''
'''Support''' - per dozens of thoughtful supports from respected editors above. As a dabbler in CSD noms in the past, I don't think a few bad ones are a major concern, and JamesBWatson puts that issue in perspective brilliantly in his support. Opposers fail to convince, and I thank the candidate for willingness to run this Rfa gamut and their overall service to the project.
'''Support'''. I agree with DGG's statements. I would like to add that I've seen Dennis Brown a lot when they're on patrol, and would like to urge them to be even nicer to IP editors. Brown is not bad compared to the other patrollers, but should keep firmly in mind that IP editors are innocent of vandalism until proven guilty. Good luck with the tools: it seems they are coming your way.
'''Support'''. Spot on with the answers. Well versed in policies IMO. Would be a great addition to the admin corps. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''', total support, no concerns.
'''Support''' I'm not familiar with Dennis' editing, but his answers to the questions above are very good and give me confidence that he'll use the admin tools wisely. I note in particular that these indicate that he has a good sense for where the grey areas in policies and guidelines are and where admins should use their discretion when deciding on a course of action.
'''Support''' Although I originally opposed this RfA and then said I was going to !vote neutral, I've decided that my concerns about any perceived adminship eagerness are insignificant, and that the CSD tagging issues are something that, although still a serious doubt, can be dealt with. I believe that the candidate will hold true to his promises regarding CSD work as an admin, and believe that he will be a net positive.--
I am prepared to '''support''' based on cluefulness and willingness to learn. --
'''Support''' He is certainly qualified, but more than that, is level-headed, thoughtful, and trustworthy.
'''Support''' I watched how Dennis stepped in and tried to help out with the MMA meltdown a few weeks ago. He wasn't pushy, he wasn't rude; he tried working things out between the two sides of the issue, and he handled it beautifully. Dennis has always been level-headed and more than willing to listen to both sides of an issue. Personally, I think the CSD issues are small potatoes. If he makes some bad calls, yes he's going to get ass-blasted by some editors, but I fully believe Dennis is the type of person to learn from his mistakes. Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' - Nothing more to add to what's already been said above.
'''Support''' - Delighted to offer my support, as I think Dennis has one of the traits I most like to see in an admin: clue. :) Several others have mentioned his ability to learn from his experiences, and I believe based on my observations of him and our interactions that he does not venture heedlessly into areas where he's uncertain but will take time to learn his way and moderate his approach as necessary. I think we will benefit from giving him the tools. (I should add that I'm not intending to minimize the concerns of opposers - in fact, I think hasty and out-of-process speedy deletions have a tremendous potential to discourage good faith contributors. I am persuaded, however, that his basic disposition will allow him to benefit from Boing's mentorship there. I would encourage him to act conservatively in that area in general and refrain from action unless 100% sure the article qualifies for the criterion.)  --
'''Support''', candidate seems able to learn from mistakes. Great work here, and I'm sure that they will be able to contribute more with the sysop bit.
'''Strongest possible support''': Edit-history confirms much user-talk activity as well as articles and photos, and the answers above seem grounded. I like his instructional photo [[:File:Propane_smoker.jpg]] (2008), and he shows a well-rounded attitude with his article "[[Pigs in the City]]" ('needs update') for statues in [[Lexington, NC]], just as [[Houston]] has its cattle statues, and [[Pensacola]] has its pelicans. When do we hold the barbeque to celebrate his adminship? -
'''Support''' Seems willing to learn both from mistakes and advice - one learns one heck of a lot AFTER getting the mop (like which end goes in the bucket for a start). Good nominators, and some well respected supporters too. I like the way questions have been answered, especially the caution used in approaching KC's questiion, and can't see him deleting the CSD page...
'''Support''' - While I agree with those opposing where there are CSD concerns, I do not agree with them that this justifies an oppose !vote all by itself. RFA candidates are people, as is any user. This means they are not perfect and in my opinion expecting perfection in an RFA candidate harms wiki overall. In my view this CSD concern can be worked through. Therefore, I ''strongly suggest'' to the candidate that he go slow in the CSD area for several months until he learns more about the area.
'''Support'''; clueful and competent.  It's brave to go through RFA in the current climate, where if you make one mistake a horde of angry people will likely be baying for blood.  I remember a time when adminship "wasn't a big deal" but that's long ago.  Anyhow, I recommend being more careful with CSD tagging.
'''Support''' CSD is a very complicated area with a lot of technicalities, I'm sure someone as calm and reasonable as Dennis will take the time to learn the ins and outs before delving into actually deleting csd nommed pages. We need more admins lime Dennis, happy to support.
'''Support''' I find the CSD issues worrying, but if DGG feels it's not a dealbreaker, then I don't see how it can be for me. <i><b>
In accordance with my faith in Pedro to filer out all but the best candidates, and in spite of the answer to Keepscases's question. "Putting too much emphasis on patting our own backs is not likely to improve the quality of contributions" — this is simply not true. Everybody is more likely to contribute and improve their skills when regularly applauded and praised for their actions. Even my dog does tricks better when he gets treats and pats on the head. In order to retain and recruit editors, we need to fully embrace the truth that barnstars, showcases, and other shiny things are necessary to the project's health.
'''Support''' I had my concerns regarding CSD tagging, but Dennis Brown's responses so far, including promising a very cautious approach to deletions have mitigated my concerns. As I think he is an otherwise well qualified candidate, I have moved to support.
Per Pedro nom and Julian above.
'''Support'''. I'm sure Dennis will be a fine admin. I'm not overly concerned about the CSD tagging, as he has agreed to go slowly with speedy deletions. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Support''' per above. --&nbsp;
'''Support''' I have some reservations in regards to the CSD issue raised below, and in particular the A7 tags. However the rest of the contributions and the answers in general are more then enough to offset that worry. Just be careful when pressing that delete button, and you will be more then fine with the extra tools.
'''Support''' Before finding out that Dennis wasn't already an Admin I thought to myself, "What a good Admin!" —
'''Support''' I don't know the guy but going off his contributions and manner I'd say yes, good admins are always needed.
Seeing the two nominators in agreement is enough for me.
'''Support''' Nothing to blabber about.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', thought he already was one. I see no problems here. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(
'''Support''' [[WP:100]].
I say, OK. God speed, Dennis.
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' - I had concerns in the past, but the defusing of conflict I've seen (some of which referenced in the above comments), has been a model example of how an admin should be, and the CSD pile-on below isn't persuasive in the slightest. Less than 5 of the less than dozen or so cited examples seem technically wrong out of the over 250+ (I think that's the # cited above) recent CSD tags. That's hardly cause for concern.
'''Support''' When I've encountered him, I've always found Dennis to be a very reasonable and level-headed editor. The only possible issue is the CSD thing, and frankly, it's been blown out of all proportion - Dennis has already demonstrated both his ability to improve in unfamiliar areas, and his willingness to be subject to mentorship in CSDs. He'd be an excellent admin; give the man a mop.
'''Support''' I believe the A7 problem has been made sufficiently clear to Dennis that he will take the advice offered and tread cautiously. In all other respects he's been diplomatic and moderate, and I see no reason why he wouldn't make adjustments in the single area for which he's been criticized. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' with the expectation Dennis will carefully consider any CSD actions. --
'''Support'''. I was unaware of this RfA until I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&curid=5039689&diff=488860181&oldid=488817933 this quasi-canvassing post] from an editor opposed to Dennis receiving the mop. As by coincidence I had been wondering whether Dennis was an administrator, and if not why not, it seemed an opportune moment to add my voice in support. Just to be clear; my support is based on my view of Dennis's editing, not a reaction against Kiefer's message. The latter was just the happy accident that drew my attention here.
'''Support''' per work with people at ANI and dispute resolution skills.  His CSD problems are, however, quite large (per SW and others).  I'm trusting he will work on the identified problems while mostly spending time on things that play to his strengths.
'''Support''' as DB will surely not repeat the very specific blunders at CSD highlighted below.
'''Support''' I was also made aware of this through the canvassing of the oppose voter, although that had no effect on my vote.  I've also seen him around the joint, and per Kim, had thought he was one of those good new admins who sometimes sneak through this process.--
'''Support''' per recent comments at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=488837837 WP:ANI]. We need to recognise good contributors. We also need to trout those who think it's a free pass against [[WP:CIVIL]]. I'm in favour of an admin who's not afraid to say so.
'''Support''' I'd trust him with the tools.  --
'''Support''' level-headed user who will do a lot of good.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - While I have a few minor reservations about CSD, as those in the opposes have mentioned, it's not something that is enough to cause me to oppose (especially since I've seen admins with mops so old, they mopped the floor uphill, both ways, and they liked it! ;) doing the same thing sometimes). Overall the editor here has a good grasp of [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] and [[WP:CIVIL]], both of which are something sorely and lacking these days at times, and I believe he can be trusted not to run rampant with the tools, rather to use them in a manner that will lead to the betterment of Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' - good candidate ....civility is paramount with me. No qualms about this candidate at all. '''''<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support'''. My only concerns are really pretty minor and look likely to be resolved with the staying away from CSD/ getting mentoring on it before moving in.  Other concerns: I'm uneasy about the sudden increase in stuff at AN/I, and I'd particularly like a personal resolve (not necessarily a formal commitment) to make sure that background research for any non-emergency, non-vandalism (etc.) blocks is ''really thorough'', as things can look very different when one researches previous interactions between people, and takes into account basic personality clashes, and so on.  I'm relatively confident that, having read this, he may well make such a personal resolve to do really, really good background research, or stay away from possibly-contentious blocks.  So, on the whole, support.
Scottywong's gave me serious pause (enough almost to oppose) but a deeper look around Dennis's edits ove rthe last few days has convinced me otherwise. A remarkably clueful editor (albeit one who has learned a lot about CSD this week which wouldn't have otherwise come out: remember, kids, it's extremely important never to give a candidate constructive criticism until his RfA) whose insight would be a significant benefit to the admin corps. The less said about those opposes not derived in good faith from Scottywong's the better.
'''Support'''. I'm not particularly familiar with the candidate, so I looked rather carefully at the other comments here, including the opposes. I'm very satisfied that the candidate has clue, and is not going to overestimate his own abilities. For me, that's a big part of RfA: a good candidate must not be inclined to abuse the tools. The candidate's responses during the RfA process, along with Elen's support, have satisfied me that I can trust this candidate. --
'''Support''' Dennis will make a fine admin. No single admin needs to jump in to any specific area right from the get-go and there are many areas where I trust him completely with the mop. He has already expressed his understanding of the concerns raised here and I am confident he will stand by his word.
'''Support''' Not a big deal.
'''Support:''' An active, able editor.  I'm unimpressed with Scottywong's assertion that a promise not to be involved in particular areas is non-binding, with the implication that a prospective admin must be expert in every conceivable aspect of the job to merit promotion.  Really?  So, Scottywong, could you pass a similar test?
'''Support'''.  The candidate's answers demonstrate a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy; his work has been of good quality and the issues raised really shouldn't disqualify him from adminship.
'''Support''' · I see a healthy dose of respect and rationality from this volunteer—and in areas in which there is administrative need. The speedy deletion concerns, while admissible, should not cast the candidate in darkness. It is clear that he is prepared to be scrupulous in his dealings with WP:CSD, the criteria of which appear to be inscrutable when we count the number of times their meaning has had to be explained over the years. His promotion will supply [[WP:NETPOS|net dividends]]. <small><font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' with reservations - There's something not quite right here, I've been looking over Dennis' contributions and I do feel uneasy, though I can't put my finger on why. Having said that, based on the comments above (and below), I cannot see any reason why he should not be an admin. Very much a case of "why not"?
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - No concerns. This user seems clueful.
'''Support'''...tread lightly on CSD's...no brownie points are awarded to those who act with haste...better to be cautious and methodical....
'''Support'''. Even 91% hit rate for CSD would be high enough - and considering the metric is actually a vast underestimate, he certainly deserves to become an admin handling CSDs. I don't see the 9% or less being a problem: speedy-ing a page takes at least 2 people.
'''Support'''. Seems a thoroughly sound candidate. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">
'''Support''' I know that there were some incorrect csd tags that he made, with the most recent one being actually this month, but as MisterGugaruz mentioned that he is a quick learner, I believe that he will learn from those mistakes and not get caught deleting the wrong page.
'''Support'''. No candidates are perfect, and I don't see any significant behavioral problems here. I can trust this user with tools.
'''Support'''. The CSD issues aside, this is a strong candidate. I have no doubt that he will manage his involvement in that area and I do not share Yasht101's concerns. Bearing in mind that Yasht was an unequivocal, "strong" supporter who had "no doubts" about the candidate a few days ago, their sudden change of heart because of CSD issues should not be taken too seriously (although I appreciate the concerns of those editors who have actually carried out some diligent research rather than jumping on a bandwagon).
'''Support''' Yes, there are some legitimate concerns about past CSD tags. I don't think he will destroy Wikipedia, turn into a sabre-toothed vandal or become disruptive. Honestly, RfA is not ''[[The Apprentice (UK TV series)|The Apprentice]]''.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful and committed candidate, with good experience; sensible responses to the rather large number of questions in this RfA. Candidate has indicated they will take on board the concerns about their CSD tagging, and based on my evaluation of the rest of their candidacy, there is no reason not to take them at their word. The attempts to canvass against this RfA, based purely on a single carefully-considered comment that the candidate made at ANI, are particularly loathesome. --
'''Support'''- Despite CSD concerns, fully qualified. Expect you'll take more care there.
'''Support''' Good answers to most of the questions above. Has the support of many well respected users and administrators. CSD tagging and some issues at administrator's noticeboard seems to be the main concern of the opposition. But the very fact is overlooked that Dennis Brown is a trusted user who  has been here for a long time (since Semptember 2006), has a clean block log, multiple edits in various areas which makes them a sensible and suitable user for the Adminship. I agree to many CSD links provided here were not correct tagging, but the user has always assumed good faith and tries to improve Wikipedia like all of us and mistakes do happen which every user has done at one point of time or the other as we all are human beings. For a few negative points it's not right to ignore so many positive points of this user. But nonetheless this user will make a good admin as they promise to learn from their mistakes, take advice from other experienced users and strive to improve our home Wikipedia as best as they can which we all came here for. New potential Admins are always needed on the fast growing Wikipedia.

'''Oppose''' - I am not seeing examples where this users benefit to the program will be increased by additional user rights. - <font color="purple">
Per Scottywong. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose''' Snottywong's list is really problematic, for me. I can't recall the last time I've seen an otherwise credible (so far) candidate at Rfa with such a trigger happy and frankly ''clueless'' approach to speedy tagging. These are recent edits, too. I'm sure there have been some solid speedy tags, but SW's list makes it difficult for me to trust this editor at closing deletions, which is a pretty important part of the job, I'd say. And in response to Dennis' comment below, I'm sorry but I don't see adminship as the place to learn the basics of speedy deletion criteria. sorry,
'''Oppose''' per the CSD tagging, which also suggest judgement issues. Rather than promise to stay away from CSD for ever, I'd rather he improved his tagging and then retake an RfA.
'''Oppose''' Another example of over-reaching: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dehaene-Changeux Model]].
'''Oppose'''. I want to support, but.... I had previously noticed some of the candidate's postings and found them good. The answers to questions show he understands what is going on (BTW, Q10 BLP is an explicit exception at [[WP:NOT3RR]]). He is a solid candidate. I looked at the challenged CSD tags above, and his tagging is a cause for concern. His answer to question 4 was reassuring on that matter and showed self reflection and a willingness to change. The offer to abstain from CSD for a time shows both sophistication and judgment -- characteristics admins should have. His responses are strong enough to waive the CSD issue. I'm all set to support, but I took another look at his contributions and found today's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WireDoo&diff=488100957&oldid=488097709 keep vote] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WireDoo AfD/WireDoo]. This AfD vote was made after the CSD discussion here. "I agree that it is weak, in alpha stage, not open to the public, and may never come to fruition, but when CNN and the LA Times cover it and do so in a significant way, it seems to be notable." I have trouble with the premise that something that is still under wraps is notable. It can happen, but it would be unusual. Furthermore, I don't see CNN's spare 5 paragraphs being significant coverage.[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-20/tech/tech_web_mc-hammer-search-engine_1_search-engine-mc-hammer-google?_s=PM:TECH] The LA Times blog is an interview that mostly quotes WireDoo's MC Hammer.[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/mc-hammer-wiredoo-deep-search-engine.html] Consequently, the source is not independent; it is essentially a live press release. Where the LA times strays from quoting MC Hammer, it is skeptical of WireDoo's chances -- suggesting that WireDoo will crash and burn rather than be significant. The articles exist because MC Hammer is famous. Products and services don't acquire notability by association. That one AfD vote spins me around. I'm now reluctant to waive the CSD tagging issue and am left wondering about his [[WP:N]] judgment. The metric is not abusing the tools, and that requires good judgment. I think the proper action is to wait.
'''Oppose'''. Sloppy CSD-tagging. Another example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imam_khatib&diff=457713949&oldid=457702655 this], where Dennis Brown obviously didn't even read the article before slapping several inapplicable tags on it, including an db-person tag. (Clue: it is not about a person, which is obvious when you read beyond the first five or six words.) --
'''Oppose'''. Scottywong points out many problems with CSD tagging.
'''Oppose''' - Per Scottywong.
'''Oppose'''. Too many problems with CSD tagging for now. I am very impressed with Dennis's civility, reflectiveness, and wilingness to learn, but I think that adminship at this stage would be premature.  I look forward to supporting a further nomination when he has demonstrated improved judgement at CSD. --
Q2 -
'''Oppose'''.  Speedy deletion tagging of [[Tanya Ling]] two minutes after the article was created strikes me as an example of very poor judgment.  [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|It also came across as biting a newcomer]] - ([[Andy Gustafson |the creator]] had only edited one article before creating this article).  I know we all make mistakes - so please let us give Dennis Brown time to learn from his mistakes, instead of giving him tools to make bigger mistakes.--
'''Oppose''' Candidate shoots first, figures out situations later. Not what we need.
'''Oppose''' We don't need [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=488857662&oldid=488845014  another junior-high school vice-principal reciting cliches and apologizing for administrators violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF, as in BrownEyedGirl's thread at ANI]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose''' - Partly per Kiefer.Wolfowitz and partly per Scottywong. If the candidate had not planned on getting involved in CSD, I would probably be supporting. However, he had thought that he was good enough at CSD to start deleting pages as an admin (see A1), which raises doubts as to his judgment. His intent to be an ANI admin is not really a positive, but given that Pedro is nominating him, I doubt he will be too much of a drama-maker.
'''Oppose'''. It's ridiculous to promote someone on the basis of an unenforceable promise to stay away from one area or another for some vague period of time.
'''Oppose''' Per Shawn in Montreal and Brown Haired Girl.♦
'''Oppose''' Recent activity at AN/I concerns me.  Many of his comments - which have voluminously increased during this RFA - consist of generic platitudes and seem to be aimed at scoring wikipolitical points.
'''Oppose'''. The examples presented by Scottywong and Hegvald of CSD being misapplied are extremely concerning to me. Not just because they demonstrate poor knowledge of the criteria, which anyone working in that area really should be certain of, but they also present evidence of a cavalier attitude to deletion. Hegvald's diff in particular makes it clear that Dennis didn't even read the article beyond its first few words.
'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite.
'''Oppose''' per Malleus. We turn away candidates who could put ''some'' of the tools to excellent use, on the basis that they are not knowledgeable in ''all'' the necessary areas. This process is in place to ensure that candidates meet the competency level required to use the ''bundled'' tools, is it not?
Examples of delete-happiness are too worrying. Not now. <font face="trebuchet MS">-

'''Oppose''' - does not seem ready.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Scotty and Mabdul. These diffs are too recent and too egregious for me to support at this time. I was also a little turned off by the volume and nature of recent contributions to AN/I. Shame as otherwise seemed a great candidate. --
'''Oppose''' I would like to support this, but I can't ignore the poor speedy deletion tagging identified by Scottywong and others. It's clear the examples are not isolated cases or occasional mistakes. Though a 90% record sounds good it could translate into a lot of mistakes for an admin who does a lot of CSD work (if such a person were to review 500 articles that's 50 erroneous deletions). If this doesn't pass I suggest that the candidate spends a few months improving their CSD work and reapply in a few months. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose''' – Many of those supporting believe that the candidate has taken the CSD concerns on board, but Pedro rightly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=461337109#RFA pointed out in November 2011] concerns both about incorrect tagging and biting newbies. He said he would work on it, but he continued to place incorrect speedy tags and hasty tags (within minutes of article creation) well into 2012. Then he presented himself in RfA as eager to work in CSD. (This brings up concerns about self-awareness about one's limitations which I think is important for an admin.) He responded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dennis_Brown&diff=488088734&oldid=488084377 in this RfA] saying that he was a "quick study" and would accept mentoring. Okay, but I'm not sure why his speedy tagging did not change earlier, such as when he continued to have multiple tags declined in 2012. (...again, self-awareness about one's limitations.) I'm also concerned in that comment he said that previously when he tagged articles for deletion there were "virtually no consequences for being wrong" which seems to completely ignore the bitey effect upon new editors. The increased participation at ANI this week in and of itself does not bother me much, but it fits with my impression of him not being particularly aware of how his behaviour may come across to other editors. Too many concerns; sorry. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''' I tend to see CSD tagging as a reasonable indicator of how admins will act 'when on their own' and what impact they may have. His posts in the lime light ANI might tell me something different yet, but i can't really figure it out. So while I echo WormTT's feeling in general, I nevertheless come to a different conclusion and see this request as a case of "Rather not".--
'''Oppose''' I can't support this candidate in good faith due to the CSD tagging concerns.
'''Oppose''' - I was previously supporting, but per Toddy1 and Hipocrite. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">
'''Neutral''' as per [[Observer effect (physics)|the Observer effect]]. I do see a lot of good work from this candidate, and I place a great deal of faith in the wisdom of the co-nominators. But I also see that the user's involvement at ANI has spiked since early March. Now, ANI is quite busy, and it's likely that an editor working his way toward adminship would get involved in areas that involve admins - like ANI. ANI is also the candidate's most edited Wikipedia-space page, with routine edits dating back to early 2011. So involvement there isn't a recent thing, but it feels like all of a sudden I'm seeing a lot of comments from this editor at ANI - and, indeed, 170 of the candidate's last 250 Wikipedia-space edits are to ANI, all in the last 15 days. That's not good, that's not bad - but it gives me pause. I want to support, but I also want to take the time to look into the candidate a bit more. I cite the observer effect because of the impression that the candidate's behavior changed when his RFA was imminent and ongoing - in other words, when the world was watching. And that bothers me for reasons that I can't quite articulate. Dennis, don't take this as criticism - RFA does change everything. But, I dunno, I gotta call it as I see it.
'''Neutral''', but leaning oppose much more than support; Ultra above me and Paul Erik both make very good points. I had seen his pre-RfA review requests on a couple of the pages I stalk, and was indeed favorably impressed with him, his friends (don't let anyone say that doesn't matter) and Pedro's confidence in him. That said, Dennis reminds me a lot of another RfA candidate whose behavior was similar, but more extreme. Lots of stuff at ANI, lots of admin-y edits in a variety of areas despite often missing some basic knowledge about them (<-- the other user, not DB). S/he would never pass, and I feel like I'm looking at the same person in DB, just later in their wiki-life. I don't feel like I can outright oppose, since I don't think that DB would be a negative as an admin. However, comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dennis_Brown&diff=488088734&oldid=488084377 this] really don't help him (why aren't you "mindful" ''now''?) really don't help. DB is a great editor, but I'm not sure that he's honestly admin material. That's not a dig at him - some people just don't have the mindset - but I do think it's shown this last week.
'''Support''' Not withstanding the opinions in oppose, I am satisfied to support this candidate.
'''Support''' - Regarding IAR, it's certainly a position not many editors take, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Dpmuk may not invoke it himself or approve of its wide useage, but that he will "recognise and respect the consensus on it's use" is enough for me. Will put the tools do good, if sparing, use in the copyright field.
'''Support'''{{spaced ndash}}of course. Lowish edit count, but I don't see why xe shouldn't have the tools. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' - I like that you're self-noming because you've given a clear picture of what you would do with the tools. Your edit count's a little low but you have demonstrated content competence and most of your edits are to mainspace or mainspace talk.  I'm also impressed by the tone in which you approached this, I definitely think you can be trusted.  --'''
'''Support''' Given your good reason for wanting the admin tools, thoughtful and sensible responses to the questions and good track record as an editor, I think that you'd use the admin tools responsibly.
'''Support''' Self-noms are hard to support but this user knows what he's doing.<font color="pink">—
'''Support''', not my understanding of IAR, but the nominee's position is logically thought out and not that horrifying.  Willing to take a chance here!
'''Support''' - adminship is [[WP:DEAL|no big deal]], user has demonstrated sufficient competence in a specialized area where giving the user tools will be useful. --
'''Support''' - My initial neutral vote was heavily based on a specific incident which I had failed to realised was 18 months ago. As my neutral vote rested heavily on that issue, and as I can hardly now hold it against him 18 months later, I support. There are still some minor issues, but nothing that outweighs the good work he has done, and can continue to do as an admin. Also, the civil & polite way in which Dpmuk conducted himself when [[User talk:ItsZippy#Your neutral !vote at my RfA| contacting me]] about it gives all the more reason to support.
'''Support'''
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' (e/c) Dpmuk has done a lot of work. He's stated a reason for the bit. Given the above (conditioned) answers through 6, I don't see him abusing the privilege. He's cautious and tentative outside his comfort zone, but that's OK. He also seeks advice when unsure. I've crawled through some of his contribs and did not see anything untoward. I crossed paths with him on an RM; it's clear there's depth and focus. He's picked up some useful copyright bot work. It would be better if the article edit count were above 3,000 (currently 2,375), but there's no bright line. There is a small concern that he wants perfect information.
'''Support''' - Per nom.
'''Support''' - I am very impressed by your answers to questions.  I skimmed your user page on Slovaks in Hungary, etc.  I think that users who have had experiences like that will make the best administrators - it gives you a complete view of the upsides and downsides of treating process as holy. -- <font color="#668353">
'''Support''' - After a look through their contributions, I don't see anything too concerning. I think this user would do fine with the mop. --  '''
'''Support''' it's about time; very sane editor, extremely helpful nailing socks of a particular banned user, only positives can come.
'''Support''' - User wants to work in an important area and nothing makes me think he would abuse the tools. --[[User:90|Andrew]] <small>

'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. Impressed with answers above.
An enthusiastic '''support''', and I'm delighted that [[User:Dpmuk]] is considering this. I have worked with him many times on copyright issues, and I find him to be diligent, level-headed and able there. I am particularly impressed that he looks beyond the obvious for work that needs doing, for instance undertaking review of articles tagged for {{tl|copypaste}}, as these often sit for long periods of time without attention. I believe he would make excellent use of the tools. --

'''Support''' Good Work in copyright areas and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
Yes
'''Support''' Good contributions, good answers, and intends to work in an area where help is needed. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' - Not a plethora of edits and not the colors I usually like to see in the pie chart. I was hoping Moonriddengirl would say yay or nay since this seems to be someone that's spending time in the copyvio department. Begging her pardon for stealing her prose, here's a comment about the nominee from her talk page: ''"That he's running is cause for celebration for me; I trust Dpmuk in copyright work, and he is sorely needed. I find him diligent and capable. His desire not to get heavily involved in BLP work is okay with me; we have plenty of specialist areas for admins, and one of the mark of a wise admin is the ability to know his strengths."'' Good enough for me.
'''Support''' - I'm happy that I ran across this RFA. As I wrote on a recent barnstar to [[User:Dpmuk]]: his hard work and diligence in solving copyright problems has been greatly appreciated. I trust his work as an admin will be the same. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' Per Moonriddengirl - any deficiencies in other areas are more than made up by his copyright work and our need for more Admins here.
'''Support''' user has a need for the tools, don't see any problems here. --'''
'''Support''' per Moonriddengirl and Carrite. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why not? Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - per my discussion with the candidate below and on the talk page. - <b>
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' I've encountered nom in the copyright area, and see level-headed actions. I'm convinced that the desire for the tools is to help out there, and venturing into newish areas like BLP will be rare, and undertaken carefully.--
The candidate has provided reasonable answers to the questions that have been presented to them, and from their contributions I think the admin toolset would help them assist in copyright cleanup areas. I am unconvinced by the rationales presented by those in opposition. Good luck, <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', sure.
'''Support''' I think en.wiki underestimates how many copyright violations there are on en.wiki and how much work it takes to investigate them, while editors who create them are essentially told to go forth and propagate more copyright violations. If it makes your job easier, and Moonriddengirl supports you, then you've got my support.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' I don't see why not, has 4+ years of editing history.  &ndash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I'm happy to see that -- whether one might agree with his rationales or not -- candidate is given to thinking carefully about his positions, and explaining his rationales well.--
'''Support''' Willing to tackle copyright, and has a good understanding of the CSD process.  More importantly, will not wade in when he is unsure (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDpmuk&action=historysubmit&diff=477044457&oldid=476965989 answer 7]. '''
'''Support''' - good understanding of [[WP:CON]] demonstrated; I trust hir with the tools.
'''Support''' No concerns, and I think you'll make a good administrator.
Indeed. ''
'''Support'''-Well-deserving position.--
'''Support'''. Good experience, good answers, good interpersonal interactions. More admin hands on copyright work always welcome. I'm not bothered by the IAR opinion - I doubt there's an admin here who agrees 100% with all policies and guidelines - and I'm convinced that Dpmuk will follow consensus rather than personal opinion. --
'''Support'''. Moonriddengirl's endorsement carries a lot of weight for me, and neither the answers to the questions nor a brief sample of contributions show anything of concern. Good luck!
'''Support'''. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - it seems like Dpmuk would make an awesome admin. Seen him around a few times, always putting good work in. Excellent answers to the above questions too. Good luck! --
'''Support''' &ndash; Adminship is no big deal, I'm not particularly concerned by any of Dpmuk's answers, and I ''am'' convinced that he has both an excellent work ethic and a genuine need for the mop. &mdash; <strong><tt>
'''Support''' Why not? I don't see any reason to oppose.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support''' While I'd like to see more article creation, dispute resolution, consensus building, etc, I am not seeing any reasons to oppose, and the willingness to deal with copyright concerns is a big plus. It's good to have admins who are well rounded, but it's also good to have admins who are comfortable and competent enough to work in one area. '''
'''Support''' Per Kumioko's opposition.  No further explanation shall be given.
'''Support'''. Don't see much reason not to. '''
No qualms.—
'''Support''' - Seems to be a good candidate and, given the interest in copyright issues, Moonriddengirl's endorsement is particularly convincing.
'''Support''' - long-time Wikipedian, ample experience in Admin areas (e.g. ANI, CSD), answers to questions show a solid understanding of policy & procedures--
'''STRONG SUPPORT!!!''' - enough experiences to gain adminship, so you could be a great admin!!! --

'''Support''' <big>
'''Support'''--<span style="">
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' The endorsement from [[user:Moonriddengirl]] means a lot to me and I support your candidacy on her recommendation. I also am personally grateful for the help you have given me in the [[Sexually transmitted disease]] article - thank you so much for your input. However, I overall must oppose your adminship at this time. I feel that admins are public figures and they need to have the ability to explain Wikipedia especially to new users. I recommend filling out your userpage. If you are an admin then people, especially new users having their first contact with Wikipedia, will look to you as a model. Your userpage is almost blank and I feel that this indicates a lack of participation in the Wikipedia community, regardless of whether that is true. Please make a userpage so that if you posted on a new user's talk page informing them about copyright violations as you said you intend to continue doing (and new users are the mostly likely targets), then when they come to your userpage to see who you are they learn more about the lesson you are trying to teach and the work you are doing on Wikipedia.<br/>Because of your limited experience and your heavy editing in one area, I feel that you are not going to be able to give sysop-level input on the majority of issues which arise. Edit count does not matter but it does take some amount of editing to get exposure to community interaction. You have not made 2500 article edits and your most extensive edits have been to bring two articles ([[Engkanto]] from 2008 and [[Carl Jackson (caddie)]] from 2010) from stub class to start class, and very little of what you do actually involves conversations with other users. I do not know what threshold of experience I am expecting from sysops but you have not met it. <br/>It was in October 2011 that you participated in this tiring discussion on [[talk:Contact fuze]]; you did nothing wrong except that I think you could have been a lot more efficient and done more to de-escalate invalid arguments if you had been more experienced. I would love to support you next year after which time surely you will have more experience.  In the meantime please consider devoting time to take a tour of Wikipedia and become familiar with multiple areas of the project. Thank you so much for submitting your RfA. I look forward to continually working with you in the future.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. I do not believe that revdeletion is an important aspect of copyright investigation. I am also concerned by Dpmuk's intention to undertake speedy deletions. Apart from a spate of deletion tags on 17th June 2011, Dpmuk has not participated in many XfD discussions.
'''Neutral pro tem''' I don't often find myself in this box, but while I've seen this user around and never had problems, and applaud their taking on work in the area of copyright, I have reservations. ''(Makes me sound like the USA, that...)'' I work a lot in CSD and see a lot of copyright stuff - and a lot of it is also BLP. I'd be interested to hear how Dpmuk plans to cope with this if given a mop, and would suggest getting involved a bit more with BLP. It's not quite as bad as it looks.
'''Support''' - per co-nom. '''''
'''Support''' Excellent editor,experienced.Has been around since  2007 and with 280 articles.Feel the project will gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' I can see a general need of the tools. Admin tools are not only to help in admin-related fields, but also to help newbies, and this user will do that nicely.
'''Support''' Experienced editor, can't find any problems in their history.  Opposes are fundamentally bizarre; "Spends all their time creating and improving content", "Doesn't try to find drama" are reasons to support, not oppose.
'''Support''' Cannot see this experienced editor misusing the tools and another pair of hands to help with admin backlogs would be welcome. I would say that top content creators are likely to be ''more'' conversant with policy than others.
91,000 articlespace contributions and a candidate is getting NOTNOWs. Wow. Unless there is actual evidence to suggest that Ekabhishek will misuse the tools then five years of service, 100k edits and a clean block log should be more than enough proof that he knows what he's doing, and the tools he's suggested he needs access to are basic aids to keeping articles kicking along.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with WilyD and Black Kite about the opposes.
Per WilyD, Black Kite and Chris Cunningham.
'''Oppose''' Not a single sysop among the co-noms.  This is an attempt by the non-sysop cabal to overtake the admin corps by force.--v/r -
'''Support''' user's adminship for his huge experience in creation. He could be of good help in redefining [[Wikipedia:The_Devil%27s_Wiktionary#A|Administrator]]. §§
'''Strong Support''' A trustworthy editor with a long history of content contributions. I suspect he'll use his admin tools wisely but sparingly and am not concerned about the lack of Wikispace contributions. A bit of a plus actually. --
'''Support''' A content contributor is quite a rarity these days and Black Kite, WilyD, Chris Cunningham speak for me on this. &mdash;
'''Support'''. An excellent content-contributor. No problems in edit history. Clean, very helping, has huge experience in the project, and trustworthy.--
'''Support'''. 100K edits, almost all to namespace, and no trail of dead bodies or maimings. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' An experienced, trustworthy and helpful editor. Agree with WilyD, Black Kite, Chris Cunningham and regentspark about the opposes.
'''Support''' no concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' Everything looks good.
'''Support'''. To the opposers, he's been here long enough that he can be presumed to have some knowledge of every major policy. Vandalism and page protection are not areas that require getting really nitty-gritty with policies and guidelines. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' per Chris Cunningham.
Per noms. Best of luck. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Per nom and because most people competent enough to write featured articles are competent enough to read [[WP:PROTECT]], [[WP:BLOCK]], [[WP:DELETE]], [[WP:REVDEL]], [[WP:ADMIN]], and whatever other admin policy pages are applicable to the scenario. (By the way, if you haven't read these core policies, go read them now. ;)
You don't have to be know it all type editor to become an admin. I really don't think that Ekabhishek would use the tools that often, and if he does its a clear necessary. I strongly support giving the tools to experts in their fields as they can see if a certain user is doing constructive editors in the area they work with and join the discussion when necessary.
'''Support'''. Good luck!
'''Support''' because all I really want to see is a good level of competence; I see it here.
'''Support''' Clueful and trustworthy. More experience in admin areas would be nice but it's not like our policies are that hard to comprehend. I'm sure Ekabhishek will do just fine.
Those are terrific answers to my questions, and demonstrate to me that Ekabhishek has the judgement and the policy knowledge to do good work with the admin toolset.
I frankly think that, despite not much project-space experience, Ekabhishek has plenty of clue.
'''Support''' moved from oppose. It doesn't matter if this editor has no experience in projectspace. He's obviously trustworthy and clueful. I can't think of any scenario where giving him the bit wouldn't be a net positive.
'''Support''' Repear Eternal, King of Hearts, Vaibhav Jain, and Black Kite sum it up pretty well. --<span style="white"><small><span style="border:2px solid #00BFFF"><span style="background:#00BFFF">
'''Support''' Excellent answers to all the questions above. '''
'''Support''' Highly experienced and trustworthy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' The candidate is generally clueful, very experienced and above all trustworthy. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' Fine with me - Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' <small>(moved from neutral.)</small> User is clueful, sympathetic, and is willing to seek assistance to learn what they don't already know. All ''excellent'' qualities in an admin. -
'''Support''' - superb candidate. Clean block log, deleted edits look OK and a commendable concentration on article space. I don't agree with the concerns of the Oppose section, especially the bit about admins needing 1000 WP space edits ''
'''Support'''   Clue, temperament, and experienced enough at building an encyclopedia that any remaining knowledge gaps will, I'm sure, be smoothly and quickly filled. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' prolific and clueful content contributors per "we are writing an encyclopedia after all." Combining that with the right temperament makes this even more obvious.
'''Support''' Obviously. —
'''Support''' - Experienced and knowledgeable, looks like another great nom. ~
'''Support'''. Per BlackKite above.
'''Support''' He is such a gem. Will make a brilliant administrator .
'''Support''' His contributions are good enough for me. --'''
'''Support''' I acknowledge that you did make mistakes here, but I trust that you will learn from those mistakes and thus support you today.
'''Weak Support''' I would definitely like to see more Wikipedia space edits; these would indicate a stronger desire to serve as an admin and would evidence this user has the knowledge necessary to handle the tools.  Nonetheless, this user's contributions are impressive, and I see no way in which serving as an admin would necessarily cause this user to harm the project if the tools are used with care.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Well over the bar in time and editorial contributions. Wants to work on anti-vandalism and thus can use tools. Admin buttons should be no big deal.
'''Support''' &ndash; A good editor. Can be trusted with the tools. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Per nom (finally) --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">
I really want to see some hands on experience in admin areas (especially when that candidate has said it's an area they want to work in) so I decided to hang back and see how the candidate answered policy questions. Considering the nomination statements and the great answers to questions I have no issue with a '''support''' vote. '''
<small>Obvious</small> '''Support''' as nom! ;) I was away from wiki due to lack of internet hence couldn't vote '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
No concerns
'''Support''' - no major issues.
'''Support''' No issues, opposes unconvincing.  Giving a clueful editor the mop means we trust him with it, not a concern that he hasn't worked heavily in AIV.  Are we short on mops?--
'''Support''', there's absolutely nothing in the Oppose section that makes me think even for a second that this user would abuse the tools.  We need more content-focused admins like Ekabhishek.
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown's response to TruPepitoM.  I'm uncomfortable with some things, such as the comparative lack of projectspace edits and the candidate's requirement that a page be high-profile before semiprotecting.  However, what I'm seeing here suggests that the candidate might be a little hesitant to act in such situations, which is '''far better''' than acting the wrong way.
'''Support'''. I've been torn here. On the one hand, I see an editor who has made great contributions to content, who clearly has plenty of clue about the project and the way it works, and is calm, compassionate, and very collegial in interactions with others. On the other hand, I don't see the contributions to admin-related areas that I would normally require in order to support a candidate. So I have been wavering around "Neutral" for the past few days. But I've decided to support, because further examination of Ekabhishek's contributions to discussion and of the questions and answers above convince me that this is not someone who would act rashly in incidents they did not fully understand, and I'm convinced that Ekabhishek will seek appropriate guidance in unfamiliar admin areas. --
'''Support''' - Looks like a good candidate. Plenty of edits, clean history, non contentious. I do wonder if the user has kept such a low profile if they really need the tools but that's not a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Callanec is pretty convincing, as is Black Kite (and others, don't feel bad if I didn't mention you). I don't see any downside to this and a definite bonus for Wikipedia Ekabhishek becomes an Administrator.
'''Support''' -- great contributor and wonderfully thoughtful answers to the questions.  The editor's careful work on WP in general leads me to believe that adding the admin tools is No Big Deal.  --
'''Support''' Seems thoughtful and trustworthy to me.  Content editors are well suited to dealing with vandalism and page protection sensitively.  --
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' I appreciate your friendly userspace. I have no concerns about your relative lack of experience in Wikipedia space because I think you have demonstrated an understanding of community norms. I have encountered you enough in India-related articles to know how you treat other users. Thank you for doing what you do.
—
'''Support''' - Wonderful candidate (appears to be a [[WP:Content admin|content admin]]). <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - A slight sparseness of Wikipedia-space work can be entirely forgiven when a user has sufficient contributions and general experience with the encyclopedia. I'm confident that you won't go wading into any admin areas you aren't familiar with without some research. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support:''' Just what we need! -
'''Support''' Why not.

'''Support''' If Ekabhishek doesn't get the mop than I have no idea how any of us ever will. Most important thing in an admin is common sense combined with civility, and he certainly has those. Doesn't bother me he hasn't done much [[WP:AIV|AIV]] stuff etc. because it is really not that complicated and when he makes a mistake, based on his history I'm confident he will handle it with professionalism. <b><font color="navy">
'''Support''' per Mr. Cuthbert. <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' &ndash; Ekabhishek may not be a star candidate of this "not a big deal" process but I don't see any harm if he gets the tools. He is mature and have shown a keen interest to learn new things or consulting others. And, Happy Independence Day to Ekabhishek and other fellow Indian Wikipidians!
'''Support''' breadth of content-work and experience will put Ekabhishek in good stead when considering tool use. Highly likely to be net positive.
'''Support'''. The basic premise of most of the opposition – that the candidate is new to the kinds of issues with which administrators deal, in spite of the strong experience in content building – seems to me to be reasonable. What leaves me, however, in the support column is my sense that someone who is smart enough to have done this much content editing without blowing the place up is smart enough to learn what they need to do if and when they use the administrator tools, and sensible enough not to misuse the tools. Worst case scenario: they end up only occasionally venturing into administrative work, and continue to do good content work, and that's good enough for me. --
'''+''' <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Weak support'''. I'm not happy with Q1 and Q3. I want at least one story about actual conflict; without one, I'm unsure about how a candidate will react under pressure. I'm mindful of the opposes and even sympathetic. Significantly, I don't understand why this editor seeks the privilege. The editor avoids controversy. That means little personal experience with a significant content dispute or edit war. The editor wants to help out with vandalism, but has little presence in that effort (e.g., AIV). My sense is the bit will see little use. Some answers need improvement, but the editor appears cautious, so the bit should not be abused. I'm here under the no big deal banner.
'''Support'''.  A fine candidate.  Hopefully admin tasks won't detract too much from the work he does in other areas, as anyone who has spent much time in India-related articles would know.--'''
'''Support''' The ability to good far outweighs the concerns of abuse, admin powers are easier to remove then they are to acquire and the editor's 'faults' sound pretty weak and concern an unproven experience simply because they haven't yet had the tools. 'Good judgement' is one thing, but I don't expect the editor to go on a banning spree or act out of line, the good for the article space and general AIV care would be more then enough to warrant giving the tools. After all, adminship is not a big deal.
'''Support''' Likely to use the tool box well.
'''Oppose'''. I have no doubt you are an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, but I cannot see anything that tells me your understanding of policy, with the exception of how to write a featured article. You have very few contributions to XFD, no work on new page patrol, no edits to AIV/RFPP/UAA or to the conduct noticeboards. Don't get me wrong - I think the editor who can ''avoid'' all of those places is probably more valuable to Wikipedia than some schmuck admin like myself. But being a great editor doesn't mean you'll make a great admin, and I'm not convinced of the latter.
'''Oppose''' (on Floating Boat's vote) It's going down to eighty-eight and a half, rounded to the nearest tenths. It's purely on articles (not really), with 5.64 average edits per page. Ever been friendly around here? I'd love it if you are, but I'm sticking to my comment.
'''Regretful oppose''' due to the lack of admin-like tasks. We need more admins that will patrol AIV, but as worm says, there's not a lot of activity therefrom you. Maybe if there was more experience in admin related areas I could support in the future.
'''Oppose''', I'm sorry, but such few WP namespace edits are clearly not enough. Even on Chinese wikipedia (with much fewer active editors and only ~80 admins), people would generally oppose the RFA if the user has less than 1000 WP name space edits.--
'''Oppose''' The candidate has basically zero experience in the key Admin areas - never once having seen their input/judgement, it's impossible to see their composure, or reactions as a whole.  A candidate who wants to ''enforce'' policy needs to both understand them AND prove their understanding <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' potential administrators need to have substantial experience in areas which involve the use of administrative tools. This ensures that the candidate knows how to use such tools properly and that RfA commenters can verify this. This candidate seems to have concentrated almost entirely on content creation. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not enough by itself to demonstrate that they would make a good administrator. I find it difficult to entrust someone with handling requests at [[WP:AIV]] or [[WP:RFPP]] when they have no experience at all with either. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
Per lack of Wikipedia-space experience required for an admin. —
I was not convinced by the candidate’s answer to Q5 which is incomplete. Q14 was intended to reveal relevant experience in their chosen area of Admin work. I was looking for evidence that they have used escalating vandalism messages in an appropriate way, referred cases to [[WP:RPP]] correctly and reported accurately formatted cases for Admin action at [[WP:AIV]]. As far as I can see the candidate has done no such work. If the candidate has no experience he is unsuitable at this stage. Although the downside risk might be low, I see no reason to risk pages being protected (or not) and editors being blocked (or not) because the candidate does not have sufficient grasp of relevant policy. They have no experience gained through performing a few simple but important janitorial tasks during the many years they have been here and especially in the period prior to RFA. A request for tools in an area where they can demonstrate no aptitude makes no sense. Tools are for life and RFA candidates should demonstrate respect for the rest of us by coming here with evidence of their competence in their chosen areas. This RFA is at best premature.
'''Oppose''' The editor is a prolific contributor. While some of the editor's [[Shanta Gokhale|article creations]] could use secondary sources, the reason this oppose comes is to encourage the editor to indulge in vandalism related areas for a few months, perhaps three, before applying again. In the last six months that I checked, the editor has had just one edit that identified vandalism; and there too I did not view any particular warning message left on the IP's page by this editor. It could be possible that I might be missing reverts/undos exercised by this editor while reverting vandalism, but given my current review, I cannot trust the editor's command with the tools, especially given his (quite valid) intent to use the tools in vandalism related areas, unless I am sure the editor has a good experiential understanding of identifying vandalism. I would be uncomfortable granting rollback to editors who do not display at least cursory experience of identifying vandalism; more so if the question is about admin tools. Three months, even less perhaps, of experience and I can support the editor without any qualms given his brilliant commitment otherwise to the project.
'''Oppose''' - Ekabhishek is a very active editor, a large credit to the encyclopedia, and arguably of greater overall benefit as an editor than most administrators (including myself), so my criticisms are purely directed at the merits of this candidacy, not this editor's net positive to the project. Like many opposers, I see little work in admin-related areas to judge how he would act with the tools. I did a cursory review of contributions to AfD (one of the few Wikipedia-space areas where I saw participation) and I saw an alarming Inclusionist trend, where he has only ever participated in deletion discussion to argue to keep an article. In his own words, his participation in deletion discussions has been limited to "the last chance XFD, wherever I find an article I can rescue, I pitch in". I'm uncomfortable giving the right to determine deletion discussions to an editor with an unbalanced view of article inclusion criteria, whether they are too eager to either keep or delete articles. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - Switched from neutral (see comments there). Atama's reasoning pushed me off the fence, as the concerns are selective participation echoed some of my concerns. --
'''Regretful oppose''' due to not meeting [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. Get some more experience in admin-like areas and come back in a few months, please. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Neutral''' Your editcount and content work really impress me but your lack of admin-related work and edits on project namespace makes me unable to support--
'''Neutral''' with a lot of respect.  In some ways, you are the polar opposite of me.  I have worked the policy side of Wikipedia for years and have a good grasp, but will likely never be an exceptional editor in creating GA and featured articles.  Not everyone has those skills.  To your benefit, your lack of experience can be overcome with some time spent working in admin related areas, allowing others to see your demeanor and handling, as well as your understanding of the nuances of policy.  So this isn't a NOTNOW as you are clearly experienced in the most important aspect of Wikipedia, '''writing articles'''.  It is more of a "are you sure you want to be an admin?" since you haven't shown any inclination to mopping up before.  Try it out by working a little in Wikispace and I am confident that everyone would be very open minded to reconsidering you at a later date.
'''Neutral''' You've got great contributions to articles but there are only 175 edits to Wikipedia space pages. If you're best at articles, by all means continue at them. If you do want to administrate, get more experience in the administration areas and try again later.
'''Neutral''' Amazing content work, but there just isn't enough edits in areas admins deal with for me to be able to judge upon. -
'''Neutral''', mostly based on questions. I never had concerns that the editors would maliciously blow up the encyclopedia, he's been round long enough and done enough good work that it was clearly not a problem. My concerns stemmed from two things - I had no idea if he would be able to handle the tools and his lack of edit summaries. His questions prove to me that he will be cautious with use of the tools and has a good knowledge of how things work around here, so that leaves the edit summaries. Edit summaries usage is a really stupid reason to base your vote, I've always believed that. I can't support this user, because I believe actions are more important than words, and there's just not enough for me to judge his actions, but at the same time, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Neutral''' - Although the candidate has a decent answer to my question, hir answer was not based on any relevant policies, mentioned no attempt to rectify the situation through, for instance, engaging the user. There are also [[WP:CHILDPROTECT]] issues that seem glossed over. Great editor, but hir answer suggests what we all feared, a misunderstanding of policy.
'''Neutral'''. While I have no reason to believe Ekabhishek would misuse the tools, I need to see some significant  work in  meta areas where admins are expected to do plenty of research and use their judgement, especially  on  deletions.  There are some valid comments in the oppose section, but I have no evidence on which I could oppose the candidate.
'''Neutral''' <small>(again)</small> I find myself back in the neutral section because it is now clear that Ekabhishek will take their time and work very carefully. I still remain concerned by the lack of contribution to discussions, particularly regarding the administrative areas they wish to help out with, and therefore am unable to give my full support. I cannot continue to oppose without assuming that this editor will deliberately abuse the tools (unlikely), because they have stated that they will only work in specific administrative areas and will take advice from others in situations where they aren't sure. I expect those administrators placing themselves in the support section, particularly those who have made statements in other sections of this RFA, to provide significantly more assistance to Ekabhishek than they would to most other successful candidates. --
'''Neutral'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Limited experience in admin-related areas. Ekabhishek is a great editor with many valuable contributions, but not heading towards admin-related activity. Incidentally, the nomination statement by Titodutta is particularly poor. Strike Eagle's nomination statement is mediocre. TheSpecialUser's statement is better, but fails to mention how Wikipedia would benefit if Ekabhishek becomes an administrator.
'''Neutral''' Moved from oppose.
'''Support''' - Looks good! ''
'''Support''' - good noms - good contribution history. -
'''Support''' I am impressed with all things indicative of this candidate. I have no concerns and the net positive effects from this user are clear in their contributions.

'''Support''' - looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. My interactions with this user have been extremely positive. I feel confident Fayenatic will make a great admin.
'''Support'''  Impressive number of edits and edit count.  Clean block log, great contributions.  I don't see a reason yet to oppose.<font color="pink">—
'''Support''' - I'm impressed by the way this user conducts themselves on Wikipedia, their understanding of policy, and their good judgement.
'''Support''' Fayenatic has long demonstrated both the good judgement and the willingness to help mop up messes that is required of admins.
'''Strong Support''' Great candidate! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' I have no concerns about the candidates temperament, despite the oppose below. [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|Why not]]?
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' The exchange with Cusop Dingle should have attempted to de-escalate the situation rather than make it more tense. I was able to find no similar situations to this in making a quick run through this user's history. This user has consistently made excellent article contributions since 2006 and is a huge benefit to Wikipedia. I appreciate the commitment made to defuse debate in the future, and I see nothing wrong with an RfA being part of the continual learning process of improving oneself as a Wikipedian. If Fayenatic wants admin tools then I want this user to have them.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per responses talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Fayenatic_london#Recent_dispute responses] to my oppose below.
'''Support'''. Fayenatic is a high quality editor. I haven't always agreed with him/her, but I respect Fayenatic greatly and think he would do a good job as an administrator.
'''Support''' - Good Luck!
'''Support''' Have come across him before - polite and sensible - Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - Per nom.
'''Reasonably strong support'''
CFD can always use more help.  --

'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor. I've read the diffs pointed out below, and the comments seem fairly mild. If that's what they were saying to every editor, then that might be cause for concern, but others have indicated that that isn't the case. --'''

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good track and see no concerns.
'''Support''' - I look for four characteristics in a candidate – a solid history of positive contributions (preferably to mainspace); demonstrated knowledge of and experience with policies, guidelines and administrative processes; evidence of willingness and ability to conduct constructive discussion; and general helpfulness – and Fayenatic has them all. He seems to have experience with the full range of article editing: from minor fixes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manufacture_d%27horlogerie&diff=prev&oldid=471186225][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_buy_scheme&diff=prev&oldid=471179168]) to content control ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surti_Muslims&diff=prev&oldid=468674742][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surti_Muslims&diff=prev&oldid=468675432]) and content creation ([[User:Fayenatic london#Portfolio]]... I especially liked [[Suicide bidding]]). He also has a history of constructive participation in discussions, including at various deletion venues where he has offered well-reasoned comments. -- '''
'''Support''' per noms. Contributions in relevant areas show attention to detail, something I admire in an admin. Candidate seems to display good judgement, and has answered the questions well. This says to me we'd be better off if this user had the tools. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Strong Support''' first, for having the sense to take time to think  before dealing with my admittedly tricky q.9--regardless of how it will be answered. And especially for being able, at q.10,  to convince an established person here that they might need to rethink a position, and most of all for being WP:Bold enough to do it at their own RfA, a place where most candidates are excessively cautious.   '''

'''Support'''.  I'm convinced that F is a thoughtful editor, who takes the time to think through a complex issue and seek the best result (e.g., the difficult issue I raised for him in question 10 above).--
'''Support''' - 41K edits, 2/3 of which are to mainspace, well over 100 starts (I didn't want to wait around for the whole list to load). I looked at a couple, good content contributor. No indications of assholery.
'''Support'''. Articles seem competent-good, although I didn't check any sources. Intelligent answers above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I was interested in nominating this user for adminship [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive03#NN nearly 4 years ago]. Seems genuine and hardworking. --
'''Support''' per the above - particularly Carrite, who pretty well says what I would've said. I see lots of really good work from this candidate, and the interactions I've seen indicate that they have a cool head about them. No question that adminship here would be a net positive for the project.
Haven't seen this user but I'll trust everyone else. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''', sure.
'''Support''' Qualified user, and on-the-job is really the only way to learn adminship.  Good admins have to be created through experience.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Particularly impressed by the thoughtful and creative administrative goals the candidate intends to accomplish as stated in the answer to question 8--
'''Support''' - has clue. And a great name.
'''Support''' User has a very positive attitude.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' Yes!
'''Support''' Does look good.--
'''Support'''. Everything looks good - contributions, knowledge, answers to questions, interaction with others --
'''Support''' - Great [[WP:IAR]]-style answer to my MFD question. You'll do well with the mop.
'''Support''' Per Kumioko's opposition.  No further explanation shall be given.
'''Support''' per many persuasive arguments at cfd and also on this page.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' (Moved from Neutral).  From the chatter on the talkpage of this RFA (most of which should be here on this discussion page) I'm not sure that the editor has enough visibility into administrative functions to hit the ground running - or even at a slow crawl.  As much as I know from personal experience how much of a learning curve there is and always will be, the fact that discussions that are germane to this RFA are being held off this page, and they aren't satisfactory IMHO has made me move to oppose ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, its nothing personal but we have too many admins as it is. We don't need any more. Just my opinion. --
Personally I couldn't care less whether this editor is appointed an administrator.  However, since I am the editor referred to in answer 3(i), and have been specifically invited to comment, I will say just this: others may wish to decide whether the exchanges on his talk page, and at an SPI, of which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fayenatic_london&diff=next&oldid=474457531 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cusop_Dingle&diff=prev&oldid=474453972 this] are the last comments respectively, demonstrate the level of sound judgement required.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' per nom one of the best editors with wide knowledge of processes i have come across. Is great at dispute resolution and will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - Looks like a good editor, and will be a great asset to the project.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; the various times I've encountered GiantSnowman, they seem to have been competent and undramatic; I think they'd put the tools to good use. I looked at a random sample of past edits and didn't see anything worrying.
Sure
[http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/GiantSnowman Per this], user who was a senior ''(6 years joined together with more than 69,000 contributions)''. --
Per last time, works in an area that needs more administrators (football)
'''Support''' Sure. '''
'''Support'''. Good clueful editor. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the admin tools.--
This has got to be the first time I vote for a socialist... :/ Kidding aside, nothing to worry about : clean block log, loads of experience, demonstrated competence, good answer to questions, a strong focus on article work, etc. '''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seems competent enough.—
'''Support''' Great editor. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support'''. I supported last time and I still do, basically for the reasons CharlieEchoTango gives above. It's also good to see that most of the valid reasons given by the oppose !voters at the last RfA seem to have been addressed.
Vote yes for a giant snowman holding a mop. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Frosty will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.
'''Support''' as per answers to questions, which show a decent amount of [[WP:CLUE]] that was unfortunately missing first time round. '''
'''Support''' Why not?
I still have nagging concerns about the idea of GiantSnowman closing AfDs, but can attest to the efforts he has made to address issues from the previous RfA, particularly in communicating his reasoning. Combining that with my belief that GS is wise enough not to close a ''contentious'' football notability AfD, I'm confident that the benefit to him holding the tools outweighs any risk. —
'''Support''' - supported last time, happy to support again.
'''Support''' – Looks fine for me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - Thumpety thump thump.
'''Support'''. Unconvincing reasons for requesting adminship, but good contributions and good answers to other questions.
I supported this user last time and since then, my confidence in him has not decreased.—
'''Support''' Solid candidate. '''

'''Support''' See no concerns.Good track and has been here since Feb 2006.Has improved and overcame the concerns raised in previous RFA.
'''Support'''. The thoughtful answers to the questions and the work I've seen GiantSnowman do since his last RfA persuade me that he'll put the tools to good use.
'''Weak support''' mainly on the recommendation of the co-nominator who I respect. However, for someone wanting to do BLPPRODs I would like to see a higher standard of an article [[WP:Citing sources|citation]] then one basic external link, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmane_Gnegne&action=historysubmit&diff=448444748&oldid=448307373 this]. Regards,
'''Support''' - great contributions, know his way around with the answers provided. He'll be a net plus with the admin workload. --
'''Support'''; great content editor, very level-headed, and frankly it's hard to disagree with DGG.
'''Support''' - great contributor and very level-headed. ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - supported last time, even more convinced this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - this editor has a great chance in becoming an administrator.  <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' - more than meets my expectations.
'''Support''' - user is truly enlightened, knowing who should own the means of production. Also, the opposers are unconvincing. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
Should have passed last time. Has only improved since. We need more admins active in the intensely BLP-heavy realm of [[WP:FOOTY]] and GiantSnowman more than fits the bill.
'''Support''' Pretty happy with this nomination - mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''--Totally. Thoroughly deseres to pass.--<span style="">
Per last time.
'''Support''' - I'm just gonna recycle my comment last time around: '' Dude has been around since 2006 and racked 40,000 edits. If he wants a bigger tool box, why the hell not? Hypothetical questions generating hypothetical answers which result in hysterical objections to same as a pretext to block membership in the "cool kids club" strikes me as pretty ridiculous.'' The edit count is much higher now, with a big majority of edits in article space, indicating this is a content creator. I do have misgivings about "ruining" content creators by moving them to mundane or drama-filled quality control tasks; on the other hand a little diversity in the administrative corps would be a boon. Clean block log, no indications of assholery, should have been given the tool box a year ago.
'''Support''' Deserves, after 45 supports there is no oppose! --'''[[User:Extra999|<font color="black">Extra</font>]]
'''Support'''. I opposed last time, over the relationship between GNG and the SNGs. I'm supporting now, because it is very clear to me from the candidate's thoughtful and articulate answers here, and more importantly from the time taken since the previous RfA, with a solid record of being an asset to Wikipedia, that I can confidently trust them to handle notability issues with a good understanding of the norms, and with a dependable commitment to serving the community. My very best wishes for a happy administratorship! --
'''Support'''. Good candidate. The acknowledgment about "cocky" above shows a big change from previous RfA's quick to pounce attitude. I also appreciate the side-stepping of the image issue. Even last time out, GS had reasonable support.
'''Support''' - I don't see anything too concerning. Looks fine to me. --  '''
'''Support''' - Me neither. <font color="#7026DF">'''
'''Support''' - y! <!-- why not?, for the non-geeks -->--
'''Support'''. --

Per the Noms and my support in the first RFA. ''
'''Support''' - per our interactions vis a vis - keep an open mind and you'll do well...
'''Support''' I don't want to be banned from Wikipedia or RfA because an RfA Deformer cites statistics that I have opposed candidates. It was a pity that nobody from RfA Deform warned Malleus of his peril in not supporting landslides. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Appears to have learned a lot since their first Rfa. Quite impressive numbers as an article creator. Seeing not one objection as of this post, I'm happy to add a 'pile on' support. My best wishes on your adminship, GS!
'''Support''' The candidate has taken the past year to shore-up and solidify credentials since the previous RfA, and to address the concerns of the opposers and neutrals. (I voted neutral last time)--
'''Support''' - I see a multitude of positive contributions and no particular reason to oppose. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Strong support'''. Thought he was an admin already. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - I read his above answers, in addition to his creative edits, absolutely he'll be an industrious admin. ●
'''Support''' Great editor and should make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Absolutely --
'''Support''' yes, please ~~
I don't see why not.  Good luck. &ndash;
'''Support''' Can't find any reason to suspect he/she will be anything other than a credit to the project. '''''
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' looks like a perfect admin candidate.
'''Support''', why not? <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' very clueful and extremely reasonable candidate. --
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - high-quality article work, copious number of edits.  Registered as a user for 5 years, and has plenty of barnstars.
'''Support''' It is disappointing that we lost a few months of this candidate being an admin because of (some) people opposing based on their ''own beliefs'' on the highly contentious topic of GNGs vs SNGs (as opposed to ''settled policy'', which doesn't exist). I supported then and support now. --
'''Support''' Clear improvement since last year, will be an asset to AfD.
'''Support''' No concerns at all.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' A good example of an editor who has developed over the years, has taken an unsuccessful RFA to heart, and has improved even more.
'''Support''' - Upstanding citizen of the wiki community who I believe can be well trusted with the mop. &nbsp;-- [[Special:Contributions/WikHead|WikHead]] (
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''. Strong understanding of processes and policies with enough creativity and nuance to use them effectively.
'''Support''' - Great editor, substantial knowledge of policies, always willing to help other users & good at defusing situations. Definitely Support. &#9733;&#9734;
'''Support''' - I wasn't going to bother participating in an RfA where my vote would be redundant, but what the heck I'll do it anyway. GiantSnowman is a fantastic editor, but the last RfA showed some gaps in knowledge an admin should have (which is why it was unsuccessful) but I see much improvement now, and feel confident supporting. -- '''
'''Support''' I think GiantSnowman is ready now. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' – I supported last time, and in reviewing some recent contributions I'm not seeing anything to suggest the potential for problematic behaviour with the tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' You should have passed last time IMO.
'''Support'''. Very qualified candidate.(
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I see no reasons to oppose this candidate given the answers they've given. —
'''Support''' I read through your previous [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GiantSnowman#Oppose|RfA's reasons for opposition]] and when I checked your current behavior I could only see serious changes in editing philosophy which you made for the better. Thanks for working so hard on this project. I do have a criticism. Could you please consider putting more content on your userpage so that a new user who found you would understand more about who you are and what you can do for them? You obviously treat posters on your talkpage very well, but I have a lot of concern for new users who come into contact with an admin, go to their userpages, then are unsure about what to do next.
'''Support''' Qualified candidate.
'''Support''' No concerns that I have found.
'''Support''' - Piling on with zero thought whatsoever. ''
'''Support''' - Good candidate. Good answers. I can see no concerns. Q15 answer demonstrates good judgement. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' - Very qualified candidate. -
'''Support''' - Especially per the answer to questions #1 and 15. -
'''Support''' - Qualified candidate. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Per interactions.--v/r -
'''Support''' I opposed the previous RfA for what seemed good reasons at the time. I am now happy to support. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''- Has addressed concerns since previous RfA; fully qualifed.
'''Support''' - Fully qualified in my opinion.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I do not see any problems with this candidate. --
'''Neutral''' I'm concerned with the editor's aggressive votes and nominations for deletion of football players in some apparently well-referenced articles ([[Godfrey Poku]], vote). I don't have enough time to carefully check, and the editor has substantial community support so far in this RfA, so I won't vote oppose. But I can't support. Also, this RfD seems to be mostly about quantity. I think that there are plenty of valuable en.wiki editors who aren't solely here for an edit count, not to say GiantSnowman 2 is, but I would have liked a nomination with more emphasis on quality rather than a shout out of numbers.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' seems to meet my criteria.  --
'''Support''' experienced user. Don't see any reason to oppose.
Highly experienced and the article work is impressive.
'''Support''' Seems good to me. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Looking through the contributions, I see a calm and courteous editor with excellent content contributions. Outside of DYK, Administration-related edits are sparse but accurate. I don't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - One of the finest content contributors around. I have always admired Harrias' work and I'm sure that he'll be a great benefit to the project if given extra tools. Harrais is always civil, calm and open to suggestions which is what an admin should have. I have no doubt in my mind about his abilities. '''''
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. I'm very impressed with his content contributions, and everything else looks good. Harrias is remarkably drama-free - in almost seven years he has not once made an edit to [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:AN3]], and his example of conflict in question one actually made me chuckle it was so far from any actual drama. I am sure we would do well to hand him the tools. — '''''
'''Support'''. I am also very impressed with both his technical work and his content creation. He definetely deserves the mop.
{{EC}} '''Support''' - No red flags and the candidate's record speaks for itself.
'''Support''' - Almost the exact oppose of some recent candidates, with lots of article content and virtually no admin area experience.  This is fine as we should support diversity and this editor has shown they can work with others cooperatively in other areas and isn't likely to jump carelessly into unfamiliar waters.  Diversity in the admin corp is just as important as diversity in our editors, as it makes us stronger and more balanced.  My primary criteria of a good demeanor and attitude are easily met here, so I'm happy to support.
'''Support''' --
'''Total support''' - candidate has shown he is highly responsible, and I can't see any problems with them getting the admin flag.
'''Support''' Harrias' willingness to admit a lapse in judgment (which looked more like understandable exasperation to me :-)) is a plus. Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Use of tools can be learned.
'''Support''' While I generally think candidates should have more experience with areas where admins are active, the candidate has identified a specific admin area of interest, in that area there is the need for more admins, and the candidate is very well qualified for work there. Good enough for me.
'''Support''' I don't really mind a lack of admin-area experience, content creating admins are useful too!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' – Excellent content contributions, great civility, good AfD work, and nothing that would cause an oppose. We do need a variety of admins, and the lack of admin-related work is not too concerning considering the amount of content work that Harrias does.
'''Support''' - Calm, level-headed, considerate, immense body of content work, extensive experience. A fantastic candidate. Lack of admin-related work is not concerning, seeing as this editor has demonstrated an ability to learn and act carefully. Content knowledge will add important skills to the admin corps.
'''Support''', not least because two successful FACs will instil one with more valuable experience than many hundreds of posts elsewhere in the projectspace.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' I've ran into this user at featured list and article nominations, and I must say Harris' main-space article and list contributions are simply excellent. Further, the editor is extremely mature, even in horrible situations, is [[WP:BOLD|bold]] often, and his/her does amazing work at [[WP:DYK|Did you know?]], which is why this user should have the mop. Great work! <font face="Impact">
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a very good editor, that could use the tools well in specific areas that are his bailey-wick (and there's nothing wrong with that).
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - based on review of history.
'''Support''' - solid editor, no issues trusting them with the mop.
'''STRONG Support''' A good wikipedian, give him the mop. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' Looks good; would be a valuable asset to DYK as an admin. '''
'''Support''' - per Dennis.
'''Support''' -- a great example of a huge content contributor whose promotion will not change his(?) position towards pure admin work, but any help on DYK or other places will be an asset and be a sparkling light to others that WP runs on contributors to both content and civility. --
'''Support''' after a review of contributions.  Enviable content work. While I didn't see many admin-related contributions, those I did see demonstrated knowledge, tone, and clue. --
'''Very strong support''' &mdash; Absolutely! Harrias is a very well rounded editor who will put the tools to good use. Besides, we need more content-oriented administrators.
'''Support -''' I can see no major issues with the candidate, and more help at [[WP:DYK|DYK]] is always appreciated :).  Best of luck,
Absolutely.
'''Support -''' no issues, no reason to oppose.--<font face="bold">
'''Support''' - Solid contributor with a good attitude. Someone we can trust with the tools. -
'''Support''' - per nom. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' - A great contributor with a number of Featured list and Featured articles on credit, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Great candidate.
'''Support'''. Qualified candidate. Best of luck,
'''Support''' - Responsible for one of the easiest GA reviews I have ever conducted. Great content contributor if just a little obsessed by cricket. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' excellent choice --
'''Support''' – Why not? Excellent and trustworthy editor! <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
Another editor that is geared toward content related issues makes me '''support'''.   Good luck.  &ndash;
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support''' - think a mop is in order here! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - Per nomination.
'''Support''' Harrias would be a helpful admin. <span style="background-color:lightpink;">
'''Oppose''' A perfect record is not allowed in an RfA.—
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.
'''Support''' trusted user no reason to think they would abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Solid contributor, no reason to suppose this editor will be anything other than a solid admin.
'''Support'''. Trusted long time contributor with a long history, no valid reason to distrust his responsibility with the mop.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Not a lot of admin-related work going on in past contributions, but nothing to make me think they would abuse the tools, delete the mainpage or block Jimbo, either through accident or design.
'''Support''' per nom. Glancing through contribs stuff looked okay, don't see any reason to oppose. While I don't think that a strong content contributor focus is a requisite for a good admin, it is good to have administrators that are strong in that area and can push articles through to GA and FA.
'''Support''' I like this straight-faced [[Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bon_Ton_(brothel)|review]].
'''Support''' I've bumped into Harrias on numerous occasions, a really dedicated Wikipedian who has nothing but the best intentions for the project.  An editor I have yet to see lose perspective, and hence a very good candidate for admin, particularly in light of the interactions I've seen at [[WP:FLC]] for instance.  An excellent editor who will do nothing but '''improve''' Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I have seen absolutely nothing to cause me concern. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' More oversight of the DYK queues would be desirable.  Harrias looks to have the experience required to have this userright. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support''' - Looks good to me!
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, adequate tenure and edit count. Orientation towards content is an added plus, in my book.
'''Support''' Will be a net benefit.
'''Support''' No evidence of Chuck Woolery. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">

'''Support'''. - Thanks for being willing to serve the community. ~
'''Support''' - can't say I remember any specific interactions with [[User:Harrias|Harrias]] but I do like his answers above. No concerns at all that he would make a good and helpful admin.
'''Support''', though the lack of any opposes makes me suspicious. I thought this was RfA.
'''Support''' Neutral, oppose, and support in the same RfA. There's a first for me.
'''Support'''seems like a voluntary and upstanding Wikidenizen.
'''Support''' Glad such a productive editor is willing to accept this responsibility; editing history and answers above show awareness of the requirements and maturity in engagement.  --
→<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' The opinion about protecting over blocking is exactly what I was hoping the candidate would say, and the rest of the answer sounds great to me. There is no other reason I can find that would convince me of any reason not to support. '''
'''Support''', good temperament and judgement —
'''Support''', an excellent content contributor who consistently exhibits sound judgment. I've worked with him on a few articles and lists in the past and can say with conviction that he would be a net positive as an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' I see [[WP:clue|clue]]ful actions, e.g. [[Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roth (baseball), Jason Krizan, Cody Martin (baseball)|extending this DYK nomination to AfD]], and have no reason to believe the candidate's use of the tools would harm the project. It looks to me as if he'd make a reasonable and sensible administrator. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' With his impressive content contributions and length of tenure, if he doesn't know what adminship is all about by now, he never will.
'''Support''' per my experience of interacting with this hard-working and experienced editor.

'''Support''' Looks like an excellent choice. I particularly like the combined edits on articles as well as article talk pages. Response to question 5 is particularly good and shows an approach that all admins would do well to emulate. --
'''Support''' Inspires trust, obviously totally committed to the production of a quality encyclopaedia, zero evidence of objectionable attitudes or behaviours. <font color="#E66C2C">
I particularly like the answer to (the current) question 6. - Dank (
'''Support''', though consistently low activity is worrisome.--
Yes. —
'''Support'''.  Qualified, would be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good track has been long enough in the project.See no concerns.
'''Support''' Calm, experienced and drama-free. Plays with a straight bat and knows when to let them go through to the keeper. He deserves the umpires hat.
'''Support''' should be fine.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' – No concerns. This editor appears to be a safe choice.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Not concerned at all. --
Yeah, good answers, but even ignoring that superb content-based candidate. ''
'''Support''' seems not going to abuse the tools, good editor
'''Support''' - Sounds like a model admin candidate. Give the man a mop!--
'''Support''' Everything checks out!
Good luck. Regards, —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very qualified candidate. --  '''
Strong candidate, pleased to pile-on support. Thank you for volunteering.
'''Support''' Answers to the questions reflect solid Judgment. I especially liked the answers to the questions 4 and 8. --
'''Support''' Impressive candiate. Good luck to you.
'''Support''' Qualified candidate. The long answers definitely show the user is calm, experienced and drama-free. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Support''' Superlative qualification and history.
You mean he's not yet? We have to remedy this.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Obvious support from me, candidate is a good asset to the community.
'''Support''' - <s>I</s> My opinion tends to lie on the neutral - oppose quadrants in discussions such as these, but somehow I couldn't find a reason to ''not'' support. Good luck.
'''Support''' Excellent editor. No problem.--
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''', [[WP:why not?|why not?]]
Yes. There are few editors who have achieved the [[Wikipedia:Triple_Crown#Alexander_the_Great_edition_triple_laurel_crown|Alexander Crown]] - which is a healthy indicator of commitment to the project. '''
'''Support.''' Experienced contributor with no obvious issues. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]
'''Support''', in addition to stellar contribution history, the handling of the situation that unfolded right here was calm, rational, and I think helped in putting a lid on the blowup.
'''Support''' - Without a doubt. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' Harrias will make a fine addition to the motley group of mop-wielders. --
'''Support'''. Honestly, I almost opposed this candidate - he's obviously a sleeper sock. Editing since 2005 without incident? Reasonable answers to questions? My god, does he truly expect us to believe that he's ''that'' qualified to be an admin?
'''Support:''' @ Ultra - I think the answer is yes -
'''Support''' - fine editor, meets all my usual standards.
'''Support''' Had a brief check through their contributions: no concerns about their excellent contribution history. The only very slight concern I have is the answer to the question about [[WP:ARS]] and [[WP:DELSORT]]. If this user is interested in closing AfDs, they may need to understand a bit more about it. But that's a pretty minor concern given they said they aren't interested in that kind of thing. From what I see, a good, hard-working editor who is sane and sensible and won't misuse the tools. —
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Clear experience dealing with content, and if the link in the answer to Q3 is the closest thing to a skeleton in the closet (and no other skeletons have emerged over the course of this RfA), I'd say there is absolutely nothing to worry about. --
'''Support.''' No issues that I can see. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">
'''Support''' Been here since 2005 (which is longer than I), squeaky clean block log, and an overwhelming support from other contributors (only one oppose and one neutral), call me easy if you wish, but this user seems qualified to me.
Seems trustworthy and sane. --
'''Oppose'''- Too deletionist. In all seven of the AfDs where he didn't vote with consensus he voted delete, and he stated that he has a problem with ARS saving articles that are not notable, which would be completely against their stated mission. '''
'''Neutral''' Waiting to see if the answer to Question 4 is me, or someone else...this could sway things :-) ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''': I've seen this user around a lot, particularly at [[WP:Teahouse|the Teahouse]], but also in some of the DR venues; I've seen him in action in a few places, and overall, I'm quite impressed.  Civil, reasoned, friendly, patient, and clueful (as befits a philosopher!)
'''Support''' - passes [[User:Achowat/RfA Process|my requirements]] with flying colors.
'''Support''' I've seen Zippy (I hope you like being called that) doing anti-vandalism work, like CSD, AIV, RFPP, etc. I also see this user around the Teahouse, as Writ Keeper stated before, helping out newcomers. I think he will make a fine admin. --  '''
'''Support'''. The lack of experience is a slight concern, as is the way too soon first RfA from last October, but I see no serious concerns and ItsZippy has made good, well-rounded contributions to the project. I see no reason why not. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' How can I oppose if Keepscases supports? (kidding...)--v/r -
'''<s>Strong</s> Weak support''' - Strong content contributions, good policy knowledge, etc.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Experience creating high-quality content, helping new users, clueful input on policy, I don't see much more that we could ask for from him! Also, I think he's being a bit modest when he says he "worked with other users to improve" [[Prosperity theology]] to featured status, he's the one who came up with the idea of progressing past Good article with it.
'''Support''' as co-nominator. Good luck. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Have seen their name many times and are a very good editor. '''''
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
Obviously, as co-nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No reason not to support this.
'''Support'''. AfD work looks good. <sub>Although he sounds like a [[Zippy (Rainbow)|sockpuppet]].</sub>
'''Support''' Other than the fact he appears to be seeking the role of adminship I don't see any issues with this user.  I have seen this user around every once and a while and I thought this user was already an admin. O.o—
'''Strong Support''' - as I am adopted by this user, and I know he will be a '''brilliant''' administrator, and will always be a brilliant user. '''~
I've bumped into the candidate a few times on wiki and been reasonably impressed. Deleted contributions look pretty good, I even saw an A1 tag - but then saw that the time gap was long enough to be OK (over hasty A1s are one of the most common tagging errors). One of the question answers is a smidgen off, BLPprod is ten days not a week. But perfection isn't required, and I'm confident that ItsZippy will do well. ''
A bit on the newer side, but a reasonable editor.
'''Support'''. He does seem like he's seeking the mop out - but from what I see in his history, he's looking to be a sysop for entirely selfless purposes (e.g. being able to handle deletions himself, instead of waiting around for someone else to actually perform them), which is something I can totally get behind. I've not had any interactions with him, but I've snooped a bit and his levelheadedness jumps off the page, which just gives me one more reason to support this all-around clueful user.
'''Support''' ​—
'''Support''' Head firmly screwed on, good answers to questions, enough experience in admin areas. Also, I have always found ItsZippy to have phenomenal patience&mdash;a trait that, in my opinion, makes them especially well suited to adminship.
'''Support''' -
Seems decently clueful. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Nom statements from trustworthy editors :P and everything else looks good! {{smiley}}
'''Strong support''' Zippy is a good editor; he has done something to improve Wikipedia. He's now ready to take the challenges of adminship. '''''
Certainly.
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience at AfD, clearly understands all areas of deletion.  Happily support.
'''Support''' Great editor, great work at [[WP:AFD]]. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' No problems with this - mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' You'll be a great admin.
'''Support''' per {{U|Keepscases}} ;-) '''
'''Support'''. Seen this user around a fair bit, no evidence they would misuse the tools. <font color="#C4112F">'''
[[User:Hurricanefan25/c|Been coming on for a while]]. '''
'''Support'''. I see no problems. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support'''. Good nomination. Admins should be not only be good writers, but also possess a character that exudes leadership. This seems the case to me here.
'''Support''' looks good to me. Also lol @ Q5.
ItsZippy seems to be clueful. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' I've seen a good bit of Zip's work around the dispute resolution forums and think very highly of him. My only reluctance to support him is selfish: folks who do DR tend to slow down once they get the mop because of their additional janitorial obligations and I hate to lose a good 'un like ItsZippy, but good ones are needed as just as much there as they are in DR. Regards,
Fairly decent answer to my questions.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' per all above--
'''Support''' No concerns for me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Good track record; reliable and sensible. It's no big deal so yes. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Strong support''' I've seen this user around; he's also a mentor - and I'm amazed by his answers. I think that he's one of the users who can be trusted with the sysop bit.
'''Support'''. Definitely. I've had the pleasure of working with ItsZippy on the [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]], and I have seen him around at [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]]. He is knowledgeable, has a good temperament, and is skilled at resolving disputes. I would definitely trust him with the mop. (By the way, [[User:Steven Zhang|Steve]], "weird the mop"? Surely not. ;) — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Support'''. Good candidate; reasonable answers; no concerns.
'''Support''' based on review of AfD participation, AfD NAC closures, and answers to questions. --
'''Support''' per nom.  Normally I'd lean toward the oppose end of things due to the age; but having seen a fair amount of the users work and their approach to our project, I feel that Zippy is another of those rare situations where their actions are more mature than a mere counting of years would indicate.  (Perhaps it's the interest in Philosophy that's shaped his efforts?).  Note to Zippy - once your RfA is concluded, please feel free to ping me.  I'd really like to get [[Plato]], [[Socrates]], and a few others up to [[WP:GA|GA]] level or higher if possible.  Best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' A few months back, we had a discussion about what the name of [[Methodist College Belfast]], despite me pulling [[Wikipedia:Common Name]] as the school is better known locally as "Methody", there was enough evidence all proven by [[User: ItsZippy]] to keep the page name as it was. Very fair and civil discussion.
'''No problem''' ---
'''Support''' Clueful, communicative, responds well to criticism/collaboration, and has far more patience with newbies than perhaps is healthy. Can't see him causing any problems with the mop. —
'''Support'''. Looking good to me - has come on well since last time. --
'''Strong Support''' ItsZippy is trusted user who has worked in many areas of the project as can be seen from their contributions. Good answers to the questions above. Has a brief knowledge and understanding on most policies and guidelines related to administration (particularly where they are more experienced and intend to work). Pretty much a potential candidate for Adminship.
'''Support'''. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', per myself in the previous RfA. ''
'''Support'''. A cheerful, polite, intelligent user who has a track record of good work in mediation, and therefore should be able to function well in disputes where administrators have to act. --
Little concerned about CSD, but otherwise excellent. Take it slowly for the first few months :-) --<span style="">
'''Support''' Trusted user, knowledgeable, works hard, etc. Pretty much already an admin.
'''Support''' Excellent AfD work, very good answers to the questions above: looks good enough for me. A candidate doesn't need to be perfect, I'm sure he will be extremely careful in CSDs once he gets sysop tools. --
Great to see Pedro and Steve nomming ItsZippy. Checked the contributions trailing quite some time back and the editor is definitely worth being pushed into administration. Hope Pedro gets working and noms more editors like Zippy at RfA.
'''Support'''.'''
Everything is in order.
'''Support'''. There are no perfect candidates. This user falls well within behavior norms and while the CSD record isn't ideal, learning is a large part of the process. I see no reason to distrust the user with tools.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - high-quality article work  and rollbacker.  Long enough service.  Some concern about speedy deletion tagging.
'''Support''', no evidence that user would misuse the tools, but ''please'' be careful while working on CSD.
I'm not happy with a CSD success ratio of 90.5%, and from the answer to Q10 I think the candidate is unaware of this ratio. They trip a couple of
I did forewarn the candidate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&diff=prev&oldid=484598482 here] that I would oppose this candidacy, and I explained why: "''You haven't actually made that many edits really, just over 8000, almost all of which are in the last 6 months. Added to which less than half of your edits (44%) have been to articles, and your activity appears to have been in decline since it peaked in September 2011.''" I advised the candidate not to rush to RfA, as did one of the nominators. Had he heeded that advice I would probably not have found myself in the oppose column, but here I am.
'''Oppose:''' Per above. I agree that this candidate has made good quality edits, however, if he can't listen to simple advice like Malleus Fatuorum gave, how will we expect him to be able to perform edits with powerful sysop tools where editors may ask him to change what he did? To me, it seems this candidate is rushing to get sysop tools and it seems he only wants the power associated with it. As a young editor, there is reasonable doubt what happens when you provide power to youngsters. I originally supported this candidate because of outstanding work, unfortunately, valid concerns have been brought up by Malleus Fatuorum and Josh Parris. Regardless of what happens at this candidacy, I wish the best of luck to you, ItsZippy and keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' Getting 10% of the CSD tags declined is not good enough. If they intend on doing their own deletions, that represents a lot of content deleted and no doubt some new users confused or discouraged from editing.
'''Oppose''' I followed most of the discussion regarding this potentially forthcoming RFA on Pedro's talk page and I found myself very much aligned regarding the advice that Malleus provided. The fact that he dove in anyway despite the reservations makes me think that this user already made the decision to go forward and feigned thoughtful hesitation. That doesn't sit well with me at all. It's been a while since I visited RFA, but I felt compelled to voice my concern and echo the above. Cheers.
'''Oppose''': ItsZippy wants to work with CSD, but the editor hasn't done much of it. From what I can see, ItsZippy has under 100 CSD tags since July 28, 2011. That is not enough to show that this editor knows what he is doing with CSD even with the rejection rate.
'''Oppose''' - After considerable study, this Rfa makes me uneasy. The opposers raise a number of points that raise concerns, and in the end I find myself swayed. Deadminning is a lengthy, difficult process at this point and a "promotion" lifetime adminship requires a lot of trust, so I feel that the relative brevity of the edit data base is a stopper. I thank the candidate for willingness to serve but suggest another six months of experience is not a bad idea. Either way, best wishes.
Sorry, but CSD A7 is about significance and importance, which is a lower standard than notability. So, per my neutral, question 16, and Jusdafax, '''oppose'''. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose''' Less than a year's tenure as a regular editor, less than 9000 edits, 52% of which are automated, 2nd RfA. I don't feel comfortable supporting an RfA that seems so rushed. '''''
'''Oppose''' Pledges to be open to recall are made ''ad captandum vulgus'', and are unenforceable.
'''Oppose''' Any editor who badly wants admin tools within only a few months at the project clearly doesn't want them for the right reasons.♦
'''Neutral''' Although this user is experienced, I have a feeling (please, I have my own logic, but don't ask me about it) that I can't trust him with the mop.--
'''Neutral''' While some have offered their concerns over ''only'' a 90% acurracy rate with CSD, even a speedy can be undone and so we have no permanent harm. I've crossed his path many times at AFd and found him polite, reasonable, and open to discussion. My only true concern is that his contribution history was pretty minimal until last August. While it does seem this will pass as one of few recent successful RFA with with less than 9,000 life edits, I'd really like to encourage a [[WP:NOTYET|bit more]] seasononing and content creation. '''
'''Neutral''' I can't Support or Oppose, but I can wish the candidate good luck in the future. <span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' per my nomination.--
'''Support'''. Been waiting for this one. Jenks24 would be a real asset at [[WP:RM]].
'''Support'''. I've had a few interactions with the candidate, and in all cases he's been sensible, reasonable and easy to talk to, all good things for an administrator to be.
'''Support'''. I think we have too many admins, but better more potentially good ones than bad ones.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate, seems to respond to disputes positively, has reasonable experience in a quasi-administrative areas where the tools would be useful.
'''Support''' AFD !votes agree with the result or are found as no consensus [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Jenks24 92.8% of the time].  100% edit summary usage.  Active in content creation, with over 100 edits to four separate articles.  Has created [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Jenks24&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects 36 articles] (including DAB pages, excluding redirects). Understands when to revert things as a good faith edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Miller&diff=prev&oldid=493623410] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Painted_bat&diff=prev&oldid=493597632] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Hird&diff=prev&oldid=493157633].  Evidence of correct procedural closure [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Open_methodologies&diff=prev&oldid=493627483].  Finally, support due to the glowing nomination by [[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]].<tt>  </tt>
'''Support''' Good solid content contributions coupled with a calm rational demeanor indicate the presence of an adult to me, and someone I'd like to see with a few extra tools to work with. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Umm, wait, what? Jenks24 isn't an admin? '''Support''', obviously. He does good work in RM, which is occasionally backlogged and could use another active admin. Plenty of experience, and clear evidence of possessing the necessary clue. Good luck.
'''Support.''' It's about time.
'''Support''' - seen this user around doing a good job.
'''Support'''. I also have seen this user over the past year and a half (I used to see them a lot more; maybe we're in different areas now?) and saw good work. RM is an area that heeds help, certainly.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Looks like a content creator rather than a vandal figher, so I'm not exactly sure why a plunger and a snake and a pipe wrench are really necessary...
'''Support''' - No doubt at all. Great record of contributions... '''→
'''Support''' Why not?--

When I saw your edit on my watchlist, I assumed it was for a RfB! You seem to be a great fit and really should already be an admin. —
You mean to say he's not already?
I thought you were an admin already! →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per nominator. --
'''Support''' Like many of the editors above, I thought that Jenks24 was already an admin. He or she will use the tools sensibly.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. Highly competent user. I wanted to find a question to ask him, but I couldn't come up with one that wouldn't be an insult to his intelligence. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong support''' Per above, and a thoroughly decent chap to boot.♦
Good luck.  &ndash;
Unlikely to abuse tools.
Absolutely. <font face="trebuchet MS">-
'''Support'''. Yep, looks like the kind of person we want as an admin. --
'''Support''' because of this user's long and varied edit history, his experience with admin-related tasks, and because of Fuhghettaboutit's personal opinion that this user is unlikely to delete the main page. However, I am going to request that Jenks24 consider his userpage. I continually think of new users who look at the pages of admins and expect them to be welcoming role models. While Jenks24 has a friendly userpage, I think that if a new user were to go there then that user would not get information from that page on how they should interact with Jenks24. I appreciate all Wikipedia contributors, but I especially appreciate those who invite visitors to their page to get involved in something or anything. Thanks.
'''Support'''.  Sold on the nomination.  An intention to work in the backlogged area of WP:RM is admirable.  Good answer to Q5.  --
'''Support'''. Might as well join the rush.
Qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - Can't find any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' per [[User:Achowat/RfA Process|my guidelines]].
'''Support'''. Jenks24 makes a solid candidate for adminship. He's spot on :) <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Support'''. I've had a few interactions with Jenks24 and they've all been positive. His contribution history is great, and a good admin he'll make. &mdash;
'''Support ''' I've found him to be a sound chap in my interactions with him.
'''Support''' We need extra hell! :) <small>(Stolen from Cyberpower)</small>--
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate. Fuhghettaboutit seems to have done a pretty thorough contribs check and I trust his judgement.
'''Support''' - No concerns. The candidate seems level-headed and well-versed in our policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' Impressed me with his knowledge in all of our encounters. '''
'''Yes'''. Good attitude. Explains things clearly, calmly and politely when challenged. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason why not.
'''Support''', looks good! {{smiley}} --
'''Support''', I found this editor to be collegiate in my recent interaction with him. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' no apparent downside, no reason to oppose = a reason to support! <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' Per Fluffernutter, who is to Wikipedia discussions what the Harvard Law Faculty is to American elections. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No reason the think this user would abuse the tools --

'''Support''' for the following reasons: (1) I like his answers to the questions above, in particular to q3. His responses are well-written, well-reasoned, and honest. They also reflect well on his temperament. We could do with some less temperamental admins. (2) I looked at his early contributions, and he started gingerly changing succession boxes in many articles. I like the fact that he wasn't bold and that he concentrated in a certain area. Too many editors' initial contributions go overboard before they've really had a chance to get their feet wet. I also noticed that he didn't use edit summaries in the beginning, but in the following month he was using them, although it took him a while longer to use them more consistently (I believe EVERY edit should have an edit summary, no matter how brief, and even for a minor edit). Somewhere along the line, he figured that out, which shows the ability to learn and to adapt. (3) his later contributions show a continuing evolution in his familiarity with Wikipedia and in his branching into new things (creating articles and categories, improving templates). He seems to be a very well-rounded fellow with a fair amount of insight as to what he's good at and when to tackle new things.--
'''Support'''. Usefully clueful. -—
'''Support''' per all the above. '''''
'''Support''' per nom; well-rounded editor. '''
'''Support'''. As the nom says, he's clearly not a potted plant. Jenks is a fine editor who exhibits pretty sound judgement; also can be relied on from time to time to calm rough waters. I have found him pleasant and helpful generally, and specifically at [[2011 Nobel Peace Prize]], where he has provided sterling service. I'm not sure why he would want the mop, but I believe he merits it at his own choosing. --<small>
'''Support''' Trustworthy, compelling use for tools.
'''Support'''. The contribution is good, and the answers are reasonable, I do not see any problems.--
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' per nom and pretty much everybody else.
'''Support''' - Don't see any issues.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Weak support''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my usual standards]].  My only concerns are (a) per BlueRasberry -- the user page "issue", and (b) I don't see any rollbacker or similar experience.
'''Support''' - Good answers, good contributions, I don't see any issues up front to be concerned about.
'''Support''' excellent contributions especially in [[WP:RM]] and CSD tagging.--
'''Support.''' I have been impressed with Jenks at RMs. Very knowledgeable, and ready to consider all sides fairly. Without getting too political here, I'd say that's desperately needed. Looking forward to him assuming the greater responsibility that comes with the tools. A quiver of hesitation over apparent failure to consider less obvious implications of Buddy's 2011 knee incident (see question 5); but on balance, not a problem. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>
'''Support''' Will be a great addition to the current number of admins. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Seems clueful, appropriately cautious and level headed, which I think are excellent qualities for someone seeking the bit.
'''Support''' Allround suitability, especially seeing the fair, level answer to resolved <s>concern</s> below, the particularly thorny issue in the area Jenks24 proposes to be primarily active.
'''Support''' - No concerns. Happy to see his well-balanced answer about diacritics below. [[WP:Requested moves]] could benefit from an additional admin who could be expected to close contentious debates in a diplomatic manner.
'''Support''' because of his experience and answers above--'' '''
'''Support'''.  Looks to have a great deal of experience and the oppose brought up did not bother me.  Best of luck! '''
'''Strong support'''- After looking at your consistently high-quality contributions, and reading over some of your talk page comments, I believe that you would make a very fine administrator. You're very well-rounded, and you seem to be both technically savvy and very civil, so I couldn't imagine you abusing the rights given to you.--
Easy. There are some candidates who make you honestly wonder what's so difficult about RfA. Bags of clue and will be of a great help with the mop.
Sure. Seems like a reasonably thoughtful chappie. Can't ask for much more than that. --
'''Support''' - I don't know him a lot, but it seems that he's agreeable enough to be an admin for Wikipedia. Best wishes ●
Always glad to see Jenks24's comments. He's thoughtful and even-keeled.
'''Strong support''' This user has experienced a lot in editing Wikipedia and has been able to mingle with other editors, so he is now ready to handle the tools. good luck! <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. He knows what he's doing and is unlikely to perform as an admin as bad as his favourite footy team is performing this year.  Very useful and valued member of WP:AFL & WP:Australia.
'''Support''' per the professionally written nomination.
'''Support''' All-round good stuff.
'''Support''' for the all-round great standard of work to the project already.
'''Support''' For oodles of common sense. ''
'''Support''' -- Good candidate.
'''Support'''. In addition to the comments above indicating general cluefulness, the random contribs that I checked all looked very good. No concerns here. — '''''
'''Support''' Basically everything has been said so its hard to be unique now, no abuse history and always trying to improve Wikipedia is the most important thing. Working in undesirable areas but decidedly important and unglorious work is a good thing. Wikipedia needs more admins that do these tasks. Jenks24 seems like a good addition.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support'''...No evidence this candidate will abuse the tools or position.
'''Support''' Has been around since April 2010 and see no concerns.
'''Support''' He isn't an admin already?--<span style="">
'''Support''' I see no reason why Jenks24 wouldn't make a good Admin.
'''Support''' Of course.  Add me to the list of those who thought he was one already.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &ndash; Can't find any reason to oppose. I think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' without equivocation.
'''Support''' Seems like a good move...
Me and him have butted heads in the past, and he's always been cordial and willing to talk things through; he's ended up looking better than I did at times. As a former arb I'm not used to that kind of demeanor; will make a great admin. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Knows what he's doing, seems to handle himself well and has obviously good intentions.
No red flags here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' per review of randomly-selected contributions, answers to questions, and previous interactions. No concerns. Also, I think, [[WP:100]].  --
'''Support''' Well-rounded experience, demeanor, answers to questions all point to a top-drawer candidate. Easy call.--
'''Support'''. I can't see any reason to oppose, but it's clear that he's qualified for the tools.--
'''Support''' A fully qualified candidate that I'm happy to support. --
I'm
'''Support''' Happy to weclome him to the broom closet, and can only advise thet he use the mop carefully. '''
Sure. Good luck. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' This looks like a great candidate - I fully endorse <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">
'''Support''' - Very professional editor, should make a great Admin.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - likely to be net positive.
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' -  for more reasons than I can be bothered to  list. I've done my  research and all  the other supporters and the nominator have posted everything  I  would have said. --
'''Support'''. I have a lot of respect for Fluffernutter, and I looked carefully at the reasons for her oppose. Her first diff (not so much the rest) does indeed give me pause. But when I look at the totality of the picture, this seems more like a one-off than a pattern, and I'm certainly not looking for perfection. Therefore, I conclude that this is a clear net positive. --
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this user around; and this editor won't go wrong with the buttons. So a +1 from me. (Not a [[Google+]] +1, remember) :P
'''Support'''- Here for the right reasons.
'''Oppose''' This user just has way too many supports and it's freaking me out. ;)—
'''Strong Support''' Jenks24 has provided good answers to most of the questions above. They know in which areas they are experienced and will be using the administrator tools in those areas correctly and responsibly. Their fine contributions to the project, knowledge of all the basic policies and guidelines, good article creation and content work, and also excelling in their relevant admin areas proves it and makes them a unique user which are be valuable asset to the community and the project as a whole. Huge amount of faith shown by many of the most experienced and trusted users of the project make no doubt that they are a great candidate for becoming an Administrator.
'''Weak oppose'''. Pretty much the only place I'd come across Jenks prior to this RFA was reading the pages related to the recent [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough Arbcom case]] , and I was distinctly unimpressed by his behavior there. Though there's no single diff I can point to and say "there, see?", and Jenks's presence hardly registered on the scale of "things that made that case angsty and generally unpleasant for all parties", commentary like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=491177457 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=490982386 this] give me the impression that in tense situations, Jenks might be more prone to poking people with a sharp stick than to attempting to defuse the situation, and to my mind, one of the biggest failures of our admin corps is that too many of its members seem to have been absent on the day they taught the class on "How not to inflame a situation". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=490611517 This comment] also gives me slight pause with regard to Jenks's apparent position on editing through full protection (though it may well be that I'm more conservative than the community in this, to me it reads as "editing through full protection is ok unless you have specific reason to think it will upset someone", which—again, ''to me'', perhaps I'm weird in this—indicates a possible tendency to wield admin powers in an unbecoming manner).<p>Those things said, however, everything else I'm seeing in my research about Jenks now checks out well, so though I'm opposing because my concerns about temperament are most important to me, I think Jenks would do a more than adequate job as an admin in other areas. Jenks, if this RFA passes, as it looks likely to do at the moment, I would suggest that you pay particular attention to your comments in heated situations. Be aware that what you say (and what I say, and what that other guy says...) has the power to affect a situation, and that what feels like blowing off steam or snarking a little bit to you/me/other dude can actually have a significant negative effect on the trajectory of a dispute.
'''Oppose''' Seems to have been one of the main players in the [[WP:LAME#Yoghurt or Yogurt|yogurt/yoghurt]] war.  He may be too involved to be administering article moves, in which the issue is often a fight over the nominal title for an article.
'''Support''' - will not [[WP:DDMP|mess up]] the wiki and has a good history.
'''Support''' Glad to support a good candidate. I was impressed by the nominations and the answers so far have been very good.
'''Support'''. Great contributions and very experienced user. I don't think that this user will mess with the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. I checked out a few of the more recent bluelinks in the CSD log. Two were redirects, one had been recreated after it was deleted (by the author's request), and one was deleted to make place for a move, so no problems there. 100% edit summaries, good work with new users, mild temperament, and excellent answers to the questions so far. I chuckled a little when I saw how many articles she had created (and she calls herself a gnome). <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support'''. A perusal of contribs only turned up good stuff.  Although I must say that I am now disappointed that there is no [[List of male Fellows of the Royal Society]].
'''Support''' - I am surprised; I thought she already was an admin, but I suppose I was wrong. The answers to the questions, particularly number three show characteristics that few Wikipedians achieve, but we all should strive for. Based on a cursory review of her contributions, I think she definitely embodies those characteristics. Adminship is about judgment, and all I've seen from her is excellent judgment.
'''Support''' logs show use of several tools and good work in recent years.
'''Support'''ing on the strength of HJ's recommendation.
'''Support''' balanced contributor showing good judgement.
'''Support''' I'm a little unclear how the candidate will handle borderline CSD nominations, as their CSD log is full of really black and white cases, (which were correct) but otherwise seems like a strong candidate, and I can't really withhold support for having an uncontroversial CSD log.
'''Support''' - seems to fit my criteria.  --
'''Support''', solid contributions including at AfC and AfD, good answers, and per the Worm's endorsement.
'''Support''' - Would make a solid addition to the admin team. <small>(
Yes. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' - after a review of contributions. Normally I make a point of going through ScottyWong's AfD tool to review those contributions, for some reason that's not pulling up some AfDs I know the candidate participated in.  Tool flailage aside, I was impressed by the breadth in types of participation. Not only do I support, but I suspect that giving this editor the tools is long overdue.  --
'''Support'''. I've often witnessed this user making herself useful. Spot checks turned up nothing alarming.
'''Support'''. Seeing thoughtful and conscientious interactions with new editors; a demonstrable amount of clue.
'''Support''' – good AfD/CSD, good edit history, great content work – I see no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' - About time. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Unquestionably a net plus for the admin corps.

'''Support''' especially for answer to 3.  Good luck!
'''Support''' - She has done a lot of gnome-work, and I appreciate that.--<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
Without hesitation.
'''Support''' Seems to be a trustworthy editor. <font face="Impact">
I would prefer to see more than 14K edits since 2004, but otherwise I do not see any problems.--
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
You know those RfAs that pop up every now and then where you find yourself scratching your head, wondering to yourself &mdash; "Wait, wasn't this person already an administrator?" It's been sort of a cliché thrown around here for a long time, but does anyone really mean it when they say it? Or is it usually just a way of conveying appraisal for the candidate? Speaking as someone who has generally followed RfA closely since late 2008, it is very rare for me to mistakenly believe that someone is already an administrator. But here we are, with KTC taking the plunge for the very first time, and believe me when I say that I am nothing if not ''flabbergasted''. You see, I had been under the impression that she was granted the sysop bit several years ago in a more lenient era, and in fact I came to regard her as among the most insightful Wikipedians I have ever encountered. While I'm not sure how she's managed to evade this process for so long, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support her today. She is a proven commodity and an absolutely indispensible asset to our cause.
'''Support''' - Not going to say it any better than Kurtis just did.
'''Support''' - Absolutely. — '''''
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributor, would make a great admin.
'''Support''' Good, if not amazing, answers. Now, I am more than happy to support. Regards. —
'''Support''' - I've had the pleasure of working with KTC on WikiProject Women Scientists and after a review of her contribs I think she'd make a great admin.
Per solid nom statements, and answers to the questions look good. I don't follow WMUK goings-on, and anyway, as Ed notes, her time on the board predates the more recent kerfuffles. - Dank (
Again been participating in RFA forever, and this is one of these rare moments I thought she was an admin.
'''Support'''. Solid candidate, fully qualified. --
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, good luck.
'''Support''' I have no doubts that this candidate will make a fine administrator.  Best of luck,
'''Support''' I see no reason not to, and the first oppose below actually is giving me even more of a reson to support you.
'''Support''' Absolutely - with no hesitation. '''
'''Support'''' as co-nominator. I was as surprised as you all were when I discovered KTC was not an admin, which is why I contacted her about a possible nomination. Good luck KTC!
'''Support''' - how could I fail to support a fellow Limey? But seriously, KTC is a solid candidate and all my interactions with her in the past have left a good impression, will be a welcome addition.
'''Support'''.  I've checked a random sample of this user's contributions, and gone through [[User:KTC/Contents]] taking a quick look at the BLPs.  I'm happy.—
'''Support''', has been sensible and level headed in all my interactions with her.  Will be a great asset to the project with the tools.
'''Support'''; a competent and valuable used. KTC's contributions to the Wikimedia movement, both on and off wiki, have been exemplary and she can easily be trusted with the tools. --'''
'''Support'''.  As an editor with 8 years of experiance and answer to the first question, I don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
I'm
'''Support'''. Slightly baffled that KTC wasn't already an admin, but she's a great contributor and will make a sane and reasonable admin. <small>(Also, just to be clear, I'm not a big fan of [[guilt by association]] as some !voters seem to be.)</small> —
'''Support''' because of of KTC's thoughtful, forthright answers to questions. The gaps in editing history don't concern me; I'd rather see a long-term editor with a hiatus or two than an editor who comes in like a house afire, because the latter can also disappear just as fast. Should do a good job with the tools.
'''Heck yes'''. Great editor.
'''Support'''. No concerns, and pretty solid answers —
Sane, sensible and useful candidate with a clean blocklog. We've met a couple of times at Wikimedia UK events, including on a training session; So as well as the need for the tools mentioned above there is the added bonus that an admin doing outreach work can avoid the throttling problem by setting course attendees as Autoconfirmed. As for the Oppose section and the criticism of her [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Call_for_EGM_2012&diff=26565&oldid=26564 involvement in the UK chapter]. I can't say I've always agreed with her, but I'm not a believer in opposing people just because you've been on different sides in a particular dispute. ''
No major reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Seems to have a somewhat different background than most candidates going through here, and I see no reason to think she cannot be trusted with the mop. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''' Experienced, reliable... ok for me.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''''Support''''' - Very good answers to my and other questions. Fabulous work done both on and off Wikipedia. Trusted editor with a serious commitment to the project. They will surely make a great admin and we truly need more users like her. ''
'''Support'''. User answered my two questions satisfactorily for me, and I see no reason he would abuse the tools, or be untrustworthy.. Basically, [[WP:WND|why not]]?
'''Support''' - Pretty much everything has already been said.
'''Support''' - Looks great!
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' a great contributor. No major reason for this candidate to oppose in his RfA.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and experienced user.
'''Support''' - She seems to possess the experience and wisdom necessary to serve in the role of admin. -
'''Support''' - No issues from looking at her edits; user seems qualified and wouldn't abuse tools.
'''Support''' - contribs look good. --
'''Support''' No alarms here.
As nom.
'''Support''' per [[user:Kurtis|Kurtis]].
'''Support''' I love gnomes- I was one when I was given the mop, and I still am. KTC's contributions and experience are strong, and I see no reason not to make her a sysop. --
'''Support'''...no evidence that they will abuse the tools or position...
'''Support''' - a candidate I know and trust not to do anything foolish, and to be calm and polite while not doing it. There are some concerns below that the relatively low edit-count (by RFA standards) implies a lack of experience; for what it's worth, I've had the opportunity to work with KTC in a number of outreach workshops, and I feel confident that her experience and understanding of the way the project works is at a suitable level for adminship.
'''Support'''. Easy decision - I see no reasons at all to doubt KTC's admin suitability. --
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate. Didn't see anything in scanning contribs that stuck out as bad. Personally I think that gnomes make good admins.
'''Support''' - Obvious. Qualified and very hard-working and experienced user. --
'''Support''', have reviewed both the opposes and a random sampling of edits, and find nothing that scares me off.
'''Support''' - answers to questions show maturity and discretion, and her outreach and training experience is desirable.
'''Support''', contributions withstand the valid oppose rationale enough to make me neutral. This one absolutely tilts on the consistent strengths of the nominators. The fact that I also have observed and interacted with KTC make me that much more confident. {{User:My76Strat/OLS}}&nbsp;--
'''Support''' opposes unconvincing; seems unlikely to misuse the tools.  Wish there was more content contributed, but that's not the question.  Vouching for by the nominators went a long way.--
'''Support''', 8 years experience, 14k edits, and an understanding of relevant policies and guidelines, is well enough for me. Answers to questions like, "In addition, my personality are such that I like to think things through all angles before making a (hopefully) well thought out statement," is absolutely sufficient. Whilst, it's as if some people want to see poetry coming out of this candidates' answers, I'm one to accept clear cut answers from a candidate who has indicated they will ''think'' before ''doing''. Good luck Katie, and Merry Christmas! -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#FF0000">MST</font>]]<font color="#964B00">☆</font>
'''Support'''. - Thanks for being willing to help out. Good luck!
'''Support'''. A strong candidate with wide involvement in the community. I just do not understand the opposes. If those views prevailed, we have no active admins. --
'''Support''' Despite the claims of the nay sayers, I seen no reason why KTC should not be confirmed as admin.
'''Support''' While I understand the opposes, I don't agree with them. Partly because many would place me in the same 'WMF lackey' category as they've placed KTC, but mostly because of content. I don't believe that lots of content work is needed to become an admin (I didn't even have DYKs to my name when I was nominated, if I recall). I think that KTC is keen, intelligent, experienced and cares deeply for the movement - for me, those are what matters. Everything else can be picked up along the way.
'''Support''' I don't see any evidence, in her contributions or in the opposes, that KTC would be anything other than a net benefit to the admin team. --
'''Support'''. I believe the standards at RfA have become ridiculously inflated in my absence. KTC is a long-term user with wide experience. Her content experience is adequate to assess notability, and I'm certain she will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''; for a one-off, I'll come out of my temporary exile to one article and put in a good word for a great editor.  In all honesty, I think we could use ''more'' admins familiar with the inner workings of WMF issues to keep people like me from going off on them all the time.
'''Support'''. More mainspace experience would be nice but still a competent editor who can be trusted to act for the good of the project. Highly likely to be a net positive.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good user and good knowledge and history.
'''Support''' with pleasure. Seems trustworthy and committed.
'''Support''' Why not. I see no good reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''': Oppose votes are unconvincing, and what "snark" noted below is well within [[WP:CIVIL]] (moreso than some comments by admins and !voters here, dare I say). I must say I disapprove of universally hating anyone who works with / for the WMF, as some (many?) of them remain dedicated editors. Sarah Stierch and MRG, for example, have dedicated years to this project even before working with / for the WMF, and their contributions are invaluable. KTC should not be tainted by the Gibraltarpedia/pornography scandals which hit WM UK after her departure (what is this? ''[[Minority Report (film)|Minority Report]]''?)&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I am satisfied that she will use the tools appropriately.
Looks good to me.
I think the snarky comment was justified.  As far as I've read, this editor has not been involved at all in the controversy surrounding WMF UK and her association with it predates much (or all) of it.  No  concerns, give her the bit.--v/r -
'''Support''' per Pichpich; I wish the candidate did more in mainspace, but there's no reason to expect that she'll cause chaos.
'''Support''' Length and breadth of experience seems fine to me. No major concerns about temperament. Why not?
'''Support''' The WMF and non-snarky snark attack are non-issues for me.  I respect the manner in which the candidate argues their point with assurance.
'''Support'''. What I can see looks very good to me. I've pondered the comments in the oppose section, and I'm afraid that I not only find them unconvincing, but actually rather strange. --
'''Support''' Comfortable enough with experience and competence to support.--
'''Support''', good answers to the questions, seems level-headed and fair.  Nothing convincing in the oppose rationales.  Will make a fine admin.
'''+''' "I thought the user already was one" cliché.
'''Support''' - I am won over by the quality of the nominators and supporters, by the candidates established record of service to Wikipedia, and by the marginality of the opposes. No reason to suspect misuse of the tools will be a future problem.
'''Support'''. Very respected nominators, and I don't have a problem with the candidate's contributions either. The WMF connection is a non-issue for me, nor is the WMUK affiliation (I don't think she was involved in the recent issues in WMUK).
'''Support''' No reason to think you'll misuse the tools.  Im surprised to see comments about your writing, as to me it looks well above average. The thought and energy you put into considering situations rather than giving pat answers is attractive. Flawless grammar and a slightly more flowing style will come with time.
'''Support''', per FeydHuxtable that was exactly what I thought. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I'm satisfied.—
'''Support''' History looks pretty solid/no concerns.
'''Support''' After reading all comments, I don't see any reason to oppose.--<font face="bold">
'''Support''' I've long known of KTC's work on Wikipedia and the fact that she's been involved in Wikipedia for 8 years speaks volumes for her love for this place. After reading through the pros and cons I also feel that the facts raised against her don't justify keeping her from becoming an admin.--
'''Support''' Good Luck.--
'''Support'''. Appears intelligent, mature and balanced. The last seven months show dedication to the project. I found no problems with mainspace editing. An allegedly snarky comment below seems overblown. --
'''Support''', experienced. --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''Support''' - I can understand the concerns brought up. Lack of extensive article contributions and the time lapse admited as being due to being an inconsistant editor...but we all have real lives and the length of service and contributions in other areas (especially WP:AFC) here seems to balance that out. As a registered account that stopped editing for so long....I am glad they came back. No concern with WMFUK. <sub>Love the pic of the Mad Scientist on the page.</sub> --
'''Support''' - I echo what has been said above and would like to add that whilst I don't believe KTC is in the "wider movement to one of our number" clan, this should not be used against someone as I've dabbled in the "wider movement", and it's not as sinister as it has been made out to be below!
'''Support''', as seems willing to move carefully. Among KTC's 80 created articles (many for AFC), I noted ship "[[MV Kowloon Bridge|MV ''Kowloon Bridge'']]" (with multi-level infoboxes) as the largest European shipwreck before 2012 ''[[Costa Concordia]]'', created in 2008 after years of neglect by the rest of us. Well done. -
'''Support''' I have seen this users contributions and they will make a good addition.  No concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' per Keilana who worked with her, my voice for capable women, --
'''Support''', I feel she can be trusted with the tools.
I have seen KTC around a lot and have generally been pleased with her work. I do know she isn't an admin, but when I saw her name the other day and clicked on her userpage I was surprised to learn ''then'' that she isn't. I think she'll be fine.
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' - Experienced editor with a lot of contributions. I think she should be given the adminship.--'''
Yes
'''Support''' because she has shown no reason not to be trusted, because of the trust of the nominators, and because she is unlikely to permanently break anything. Cheers, '''
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate. For the record, I'm disgusted by much of what I'm reading below in the opposition section. —
'''Support'''. A candidate with  more than enough experience and maturity. I'm  often skeptical  about  what  the WMF does, but  I'm  not  in  the slightest  concerned about  her involvement  in  the Foundation  or WMUK and find that  the claims relating  to  them  in  the question and oppose sections seem to  be looking  for reasons to  oppose rather than state any  concrete valid claims.
'''Support''' Thank you for volunteering to do more work :-). She has more than adequate experience to be trusted with admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - Ya lost me at former Chair of Wikimedia UK plus sat on Grant Advisory Committee...
Anybody close to the WMF who does not regularly edit articles needs to spend time editing before applying to be be a hall monitor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. KTC is a good editor, with many valuable contributions. While she has made many (uncontroversial) non-admin closures of AfDs, these have required minimal effort and don't show KTC's ability to judge an article's worthiness. She has few actual !votes in AfD. She does not have appropriate experience to be entrusted with deletion.
'''Oppose''' (moved from ''neutral'') <del>per [[WP:NOTNOW]]</del>. Thanks to Axl for summarising the research I'm almost certainly not going to find the time to complete in time for Boxing Day. My initial feelings were along those lines, and now seem to have been confirmed. I expect that the candidate is a good editor and I'm not aware of evidence that the tools would be deliberately abused. However, I agree that more experience is desirable. In the event of this nomination being unsuccessful, I'd look to support next time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong oppose''' after a great deal of thought. Positives; I like and respect both nominators very much, <s>and the candidate seems sane</s>. But the negatives seem stronger; no real pedigree either in article-writing (that list is ok but I need to see more than that in a prospective admin) or in admin-type areas. So, no offence intended, but I don't have enough data available to support and I default in cases like this to oppose. And, it's a minor point, but seeing sentences like {{red|In addition, my personality are such that I like to think things through all angles before making a (hopefully) well thought out statement.}} in answers to questions is not a turn-on for me. I like to see people who can write fluently, even beautifully, and this nomination doesn't provide sufficient evidence of that. Please come back once you have built up a portfolio of relevant experience and developed your writing skills some more. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Now strong oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKTC&diff=529152163&oldid=529148648 this]; as Sandy says, this is not the temperament we need in an admin. --
'''Oppose''' per John (above) and Sandy (below). Like John, I see a bunch of (usually!) sane nominators and was planning on just staying out of this but two things give me pause. First, of course, is the lack of mainspace edits. I'm not a content only purist but I think this is below the threshold. Second, I'm not a fan of the two hat model because the agendas of the foundation and that of the community are not likely to be in total sync and I'd prefer to see the two kept at arms length from each other. I'd probably just stay out of this if she were a good content editor with a foundation hat but that doesn't seem to be the case, not as yet anyway. --
'''Oppose'''.  Moving to oppose per my initial reservations expressed below in neutral, per the info on AFDs, but more significantly because I feel the candidate's response just above this to RegentsPark is pure uncalled for snark.
I'm sorry, but I agree with John and Sandy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
Candidate's response to regentspark's oppose rationale (a rationale I agree with) is snotty and completely nonconstructive. As an editor, I wouldn't want to work with this person.
'''Oppose''' - not enough close experience of Wikipedia to judge competence. I would feel more comfortable with either six more months of consistent contributions, or more evidence of high level contributions or clearer understanding of Wikipedia. <s>The chairmanship of WMUK is neither here nor there as regards this admin request, though it is interesting to note that the applicant's Wikipedia activity was at its highest in two periods - around Sept 08 when she became WMUK chair, and in the past few months leading up to this adminship application. Given that, for me, the applicant's nomination of the rather dubious [[List of female Fellows of the Royal Society]] for Featured List feels more political than encyclopedic, I feel uncomfortable in more than one area.</s>  '''
'''Oppose''' - per reasons of John and Trevj, noted above.
'''Oppose''' - Agree in general with RegentsPark. I feel the WMF people  have a different agenda than wikipedians and the [[meta:Grant_Advisory_Committee|WMF Grant Advisory Committee]] membership seems to me like a reward WMF gives out to editors who follow the WMF path. Saying the there aren't problems in retaining editors by referring to a 2009 wikimedia charts doesn't persuade me that KTC understands the problem. Plus English skills seem poor, e.g. {{red|there can be legitimate reason why SW haven't edited for a couple of weeks}}, as John notes. Just my opinion.
Per Kiefer. Not comfortable with this kind of attempted parachute.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't feel right to me, per Kiefer and Sandy...
'''Oppose''' I'm not liking the 4 year layoff from 2008–2012 which means that there's less than a year of recent editing.  Also the candidate's English seems quite weak.
'''Oppose''' - Per John and Sandy. I find the regent's park response telling too.
'''Oppose''' per Salvio.
'''Oppose''' The response to Regentspark, particularly in the context of an RfA where one would presumably be careful to put one's best foot forward, absolutely raises red flags. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>
'''Oppose''' Per John, Sandy, RegentsPark, and Kiefer. I'm also not a fan of the timing of this RfA during what I understand is one of the least active periods of editing of each year. I'm even less impressed by the increasing force of the responses to oppose opinions over the past couple of days. -
'''Oppose''', per Sandy and Salvio.  I highly respect both of these editors and find their reasoning compelling.  Although I have not have much interaction with RegentsPark or Trevj, their arguments are also valid.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">
'''Oppose''' Mainly per Sandy but also Kiefer and others. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' Impressive track record, as well as trusted nominators.
'''Support''' Candidate has clearly improved the project.  The nomination is supported by some editors I respect.  We shouldn't ask for more.&nbsp;
'''Support''' as co-nom.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Mark is a rare breed of amazing Wikipedian: calm, considerate, tirelessly hardworking and yet always willing to lend a hand when asked. I couldn't think of a better person to entrust with ye olde mop & bucket.
'''Support''' Surprised at ability to keep NPOV on [[Voluntary Human Extinction Movement]].  Shows likelyhood to remain neutral in administrative decisions.
'''Support''' candidate has all qualities a good admin should have...calm, sound and mature reasoning, helpful, policy knowledeable, etc.
[no comment necessary]
'''Support'''. The candidate is very productive, helpful, experienced and trustworthy.
What Ed says, or doesn't. Also, I've seen Mark's content and other contributions, and I think they are fine. I don't know if we're really lacking admins in his chosen areas, but adding him wouldn't be a bad idea.
'''Support''' per Mysterytrey.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' candidate has excellent judgment (but willingly admits error), unfailingly helpful and polite, does much background work for no credit, mature (as PumpkinSky says above), knows the rules and procedures, never rude or sarcastic. (I'll stop now but I could go on!) Oh, and writes great articles.
'''Support''' strongly.  I like candidates like Mark, whom I would have gladly nom'ed myself.  As for chosen areas, it doesn't matter. I've work in places after becoming admin that I never did before.  There is no doubt that Mark will find plenty of ways to be useful, as he always has.
'''Support''' .... obviously. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
<b>Support</b> solid well rounded candidate. No concerns at all. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Support''' - great attitude and temperament, and outstanding content contributions as well. --
'''Support''' Solid, well-rounded candidate --
'''Support'''. I have seen his contributions for some time which are excellent and his well-thought answers to the above questions lead me to believe that he will do well.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' – an excellent candidate. No concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' Per excellent track record here.
'''Oppose''' because you are the fourth RfA to run simultaneously and have 100% support along with the others.  This has got to stop NOW. <Me ripping out my hair>—
'''Support''' Excellent editor with very good knowledge, fair-minded with an even temperament.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good for me--
'''Support'''. I like the answer to my question-- it gives me more insight into how the candidate thinks and how he's grown as an editor. From that, I see a substantial amount of clue. I'm glad to support and wish him the best of luck. --
'''Support''' ..pretty clear-cut support for someone who should do fine with the mop.
'''Support''' Will do great work.
'''Support'''  Solid, editor, good at avoiding dramahz.

'''Support''' Exceedingly good contributor to the encyclopedia. Mark's collaborative abilities on controversial articles like [[Voluntary Human Extinction Movement]] shows a great deal of skill and poise. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Mark Arsten is handsome, and the administrator corps needs more handsome men. Therefore, Mark is needed as an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Mark is an excellent editor, and his reviews of FA nominations are consistently polite and helpful. I'm sure that he'll use the tools well.
'''Support''' everything the nominators said about this [[User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive|awesome Wikipedian]], --
'''Support''' <small>Excellent co—nom!</small> '''⇒
'''Support''' - seems a strong, able candidate.
'''Support''' logs and deleted content look OK.
'''Support''' yes please
'''Support''' we need more sensible admins.  Good candidate to me.--
'''Support''' Very good contributions; warm and friendly with a sense of humour; good candidate. '''
Outstanding article reviewer skills, one of the best of the newer reviewers I've seen in a long time. Don't get too excited about your new mop, we need you at A-class and FAC! - Dank (
Too many co-noms, but otherwise seems acceptable.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user will abuse the bit. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - met you at VHEMT, where I was very much taken with how calmly and rationally you were able to discuss and work with an editor that had to be blocked for competency concerns soon after. You are extremely level-headed and smart, and I think you will make a great admin. --'''
'''Strong support''' - Mark is one of the editors who I profoundly trust, and whose opinions and ideas I really respect. I have worked with him on articles and he has also provided many appreciated opinions and reviews; I know his attitude is rights. I can't think of many better candidates.
'''Support''' User unlikely to block Jimbo Wales. <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' While we haven't interacted, I'm aware of Mark's contributions as a valued member of the community.
'''Support''' - Seemingly a content-creator's footprint with some anti-vandalism work. Both usernames have clean block logs and no evidence of assholery. Greatly ample edits and ample time in the harness. No worries.
'''Support''' per general community trust and lack of opposition.
'''Support''' - Mark Arsten is exactly the kind of editor who should be a sysop. He is helpful, patient and knowledgeable. I am very pleased that he should run for adminship and I can support him without ''any'' reservations. ~
'''Support''' - Mark has done a great job so far while staying out of trouble. Trust me, in this battlefield called Wikipedia that means a lot. --
'''Support''' Well rounded editor. '''
'''Support''' and now I am going to go back to reading about the human extinction group.
'''Support''' - I've worked with Mark on a couple of articles and I have found him to be knowledgable about Wikipedia, conscientious, and hard working. I absolutely support Mark for admin. '''''<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' - Impartiality is proven by skill in creating high-quality works on extremely controversial topics. '''
'''Support''' - after a review of contributions, AfD participation.  --
'''Support''' - hmm, well this is a welcome development; that after years and years of getting noms of mindless vandal patrollers we are finally getting noms of people who are actually writing an encyclopedia. In addition to the high % count in article space, I like these early  edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=441619085] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diboll_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=441619461] and the edit summaries. Seems to have a clue.
'''Support''' - Anyone that gets support !votes on their looks can not be too bad :P Someone needs to order another mop.
'''Support'''. Candidacy looks good.
'''Support'''. Strong page work. I watched this candidate shepherd Bill Anderson from B-class to FA-class. In my view, he did this mostly by asking others for (and then being responsive to) their opinions. His work on [[Lynching of Jesse Washington]] represents the best kind of work Wikieditors do in mainspace. I feel some confidence this editor will handle tools responsibly. As I mentioned earlier in another RfA, it's a rare and special pleasure to use four consecutive edits to support four strong candidates for adminship. A good night for all of us, and a good night for the pedia.
'''Support''' he can have my mop. ''
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' nice to see such an outstanding mixture of fine content creation and collaborative spirit.
'''Support''' -- Cheers,
'''Support''' Although I have very little knowledge of this candidate, an examination of his history, along with his answers to questions, lead me to support him. -
'''Support''' 8 featured articles? Unbelievable. He really is a solid contributor.
'''Support''' Impressive content work, plenty of clue and community-driven spirit, great stuff.
'''Support''' Perfect mixture of content improvement and janitor work. I can't ask for more.
'''Support'''. Well experienced, good understanding of policies, communicates well, has the right temperament to deal with admin work. --
'''Support''': An extremely well-behaved editor who knows what he is doing. Will make an extremely good admin.
'''Support''', excellent editor. My best,
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A strong candidate.
'''Support''', he's contributed an immense amount to the encyclopedia and there's no reason not to support him.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good contributions, a good candidate. '''''
'''Support'''. A classic example of what we need as admins. --
'''Support'''. Impressive effort on vandal fighting. Keep it up Mark.--
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support''' Per Ched.
'''Support''' Per answers to questions (particularly the good answer to my question) and the user's record. Mark I hope you serve the community well with your new mop. '''
'''Support'''. Good Q1-Q3 answers. Clarity all around. Lynching was graphic; reminded me of 1933 [[Brooke Hart|lynching of Thurmond and Holmes]]; civilization is pretty fragile. Solid candidate.
'''Support''' Good record, trust and answers. Regards. —
'''Support''' Excellent past record and expectation of future excellence.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. — '''''
'''Support''' I am especially happy to support a supporter. This user spends time making the experience of other Wikipedia contributors better. His excellent contributions to articles and his ability to even respectfully develop controversial topics demonstrates his merit for becoming an admin, but even more impressively this user contributes to review processes which encourage other users in their engagement of Wikipedia. I appreciate the sensitivity this user shows in conflicts with other users and am glad to support his confirmation as an admin.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' – I've seen Mark's work at FAC, both as a nominator and reviewer, and have been impressed by his contributions. He always displays patience, a helpful attitude, and strong attention to detail. All of these qualities are desirable in admins, and I think he will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' – I have had the pleasure of working with Mark a few times now which have included a like for like peer review. He has also offered me some great advice in the past when I have needed it the most and his responses have picked me up when I have been at my lowest ebb.  Well deserved! -- <span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">
'''Support'''. Excellent editor with a cool head for conflict.
'''Support''' Many people believe that this candidate is ready for adminship. I, too, agree. Good experience, good community approval, he is ready to be an admin.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''', solid answers, candidate looks good to me--
'''Support''' <small>Excellent co-nom TAP ;)</small> I see no problem in trusting this user. Having 8 FAs is amazing and I always love to see content creators getting admin rights. Also their answers to the questions have been pretty good. '''''
'''Support''' - doesn't make me paranoid. -—
'''Support''' - Impressive contributor, unlikely to go nuts.
'''Support''' - Nothing but positive interactions with this editor.
'''Support''' - Experienced user and also great answers to the questions.
'''Support''' with no concern.
<u>'''strong support''' (per opposes;)</u> <small><span style="border-style:solid;margin-left:1px;border-color:#18a0ec #18a0ec #18a0ec transparent;margin-right:-4px;border-width:7px;color:transparent;font-size:0">&nbsp;</span><span style="border-top:1px solid #18a0ec;border-left:1px solid #18a0ec;border-bottom:1px solid #18a0ec;color:#18a0ec;background-color:#d7e7f4;padding:1px 4px">[[user:Br'er Rabbit|'''Br'er''']]</span><span style="background-color:#18a0ec;padding:2px 4px">[[user talk:Br'er Rabbit|{{color|white|'''Rabbit'''}}]]</span><span style="border-style:solid;margin-left:-4px;border-color:#18a0ec transparent #18a0ec #18a0ec;border-width:7px;color:transparent;font-size:0">&nbsp;</span></small> <u>19:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)&nbsp;←&nbsp;<small>[[Street-legal vehicle|Street-Legal]] [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sockpuppet]]. — <b>
'''Support''' A good candidate. I trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support''' Always cleaning my mess, I mean typos, etc. Give him the mop.
'''Support''' A well rounded user who deserves the mop. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Support''' for a dependable, mature, intelligent editor.
'''Support''' User has been around since July 2011 and after reviewing track see no concerns.
'''Support''' This editor's ability and willingness to create outstanding NPOV content on highly controversial and even bizarre topics shows a deep understanding of Wikipedia is all about at its best. We need administrators who are solid content creators.
'''Support''' per nominators. (David1217, I double and triple checked that I haven't already voted!)
'''Support''' There's currently 3 RFAs in progress; all three have 100% support. Why is everyone so fantastic?
'''Support'''. Someone I've seen around, and someone who knows his way around content, and around content disputes without escalating the drama. All positives, no negatives. <small>By the way, it is becoming clear that RfA is broken, because we just can't seem to recruit any bad candidates.</small> --
'''Support''' (No rationale) --<span style="">

Of course. ;-)
'''Support''' Hopefully this will be a successful choice for you...
'''Support''' – No concerns.
'''Support''' - Has a clue, no issues here.
I'm
'''Support'''. Seems like a solid candidate, so why not? --
'''Support''' Always happy to support potential candidates. Mark has given fine answers to almost every question above. He also has some great contributions and a good grasp and knowledge of many Wikipedia policies and guidelines which can be seen from the answers. Giving Mark Arsten the administrator tools will be a net benefit and a plus point for the Wikipedia community. All the Best Mark!
'''Support''' Joining in the pile on, per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' - I'm particularly impressed with the lynching article mentioned above.  The candidate displayed admirable restraint and exceptional judgment in handling that.  I have no reason to believe that this would not continue as an administrator.  In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action.
'''Strong Support'''. A hard-working and trustworthy editor who deserves adminship. Being an admin (and bureaucrat) at the Sanskrit Wikipedia, he deserves the tools on en-wiki as well. '''Opposes are extremely unconvincing'''. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' - seems a reliable choice.
'''Strong Support'''. Why not? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I can't see why not.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --  '''
'''Strong Support''' – Very rare to see an editor like him. Truly deserves adminship. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - Looks like a very storng, trustworthy and dedicated editor; would be a great asset as an admin.
'''Support''' Most definitely!
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Strong Support''' Outstanding track and good knowledge of policy.Great commitment and total dedication to Wikipedia both onsite and also as [http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Online_Ambassador Online Ambassador] He is also a ORTS volunteer in addition to being a crat in Sanskrit Wikipedia .
'''Support''' Clearly good enough. '''
This is an easy one. I've seen him around, and never had reason to associate anything remotely negative to the name. Seems he's doing a sterling job in real life as well, and experience of outreach work has taught me that it's often handy to have an admin around.
'''Support'''. Mike and I both participated in the Ambassador Steering Committee election. While I refrained from voting myself, my support was then and continues to be firmly in his corner. He presents extensive knowledge and balance in his interaction with others, as well as interpretation and application of policies and guidelines. I value his work. Bringing Mike on board as an administrator is value added to en.wiki. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' Good understanding on policy, and willing to tackle the tougher areas of Wikipedia. '''
'''Support'''. Good, clueful user. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Looked over a few edits and scanned trough the talk page history, and i cannot see anything that concerns me. Unless someone manages to dredge up something serious, i have no reason not to support.
'''Support''' Good to see a candidate doing something other than deletions ;). --
Seems clueful and trusted. Stated uses for the tools tie in with what he already does, and I've seen no reason to think that he would be controversial if he ever acted as an admin outside of those areas. —
'''Support.''' I see no problems.
Clueful and trustworthy. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Oppose'''. Competence is required, sorry.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Flower_Public_School&diff=prev&oldid=159386720] --
'''Support'''. Mike will  be a huge asset to  the corps of sysops, most  especially on India related topics, projects, and education  programmes.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Will definitely be a net positive in an administrative role here.
'''Support''' - I am aware of this candidates quality of contributions to the project and have observed his clue in actions and applications. I cast this !vote without awaiting answer to my question because I do not wish for an extrapolation that I first needed to see the answer.
Looks to be a trustworthy user. ~~
'''Support''' - Already contributes to Wikipedia in a number of ways, including as Administrator and Bureaucrat for Sanskrit Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Intends to go in to some of the most helpful areas of adminship.
Longterm user with a clean blocklog and a record of civil communication. Plus points for being highly trusted on one of our sister projects. Looking at the deleted edits I saw nothing that concerned me, the only CSD tag of another's article was a correct G10. Too small a sample if he was planning to be a CSD specialist, but as he isn't it is a reassurance that he show's clue when outside his main area of activity.  I'm sure he'll make a fine admin here. ''
'''Support''' Can't see any reason why not.
'''Support''' — Yes, why not? A knowledgeable user, has a lot of experience here, follows [[WP:EQ|etiquette]] at all times, and most importantly, is confident of what he does. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Actions as an Admin on another project are a model of what we should be looking for
'''Support''' thought he was already an admin. --
'''Support''' Congrats, will make a fine Admin.
'''Support''' Failing to vote for landslides hurts the bean-counting at RfCs and ArbCom cases. I don't want to join Malleus in being gagged at RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' The fact that he is already an admin and bureaucrat of another Wikipedia, I don't see a reason why this user would misuse the tools here.  This is a no brainer.—
'''Support''' Looks good. As a tiny thing, you might want to be careful about calling admins (or anyone, really) 'he' by default, as it can be seen as a little old-fashioned. '''

'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=MikeLynch| Per this], good candidate with good contribution. --
'''Support''' - I trust MikeLynch with the mop, this is definitely a net +
'''Support'''. Appears to be a fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - Proficient editor, and a very responsible one at that. -
'''Strong Support''' . Period --
From my work on the Ambassador Steering Committee, I know that he is admin material --
'''Support''' - 13K edits, clean block log, no indications of assholery.
'''Support''' - A polite, hardworking, level headed and knowledgeable editor. Giving him the mop will definitely be a great plus for the project.--
I support granting this user a <strike>torch and pitchfork</strike> mop and bucket.
'''Strong Support''' Give the man a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent choice...
'''Confused support''' - I have some strong concerns about MikeLynch becoming an admin, but after checking his contributions for awhile, I can't find anything that substantiates my concerns. Maybe I was thinking of another user with a similar name. So I am supporting, unless further evidence turns up.
'''Support''' - Seems good. No vandalism, no troubles. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Strong Support''' - Found him very deserving personality. Best of Luck and Regards :) --
'''Support''' Thanks for your work on India-related articles. It is always nice to see you around. I feel more comfortable supporting editors whose work I have already seen.

'''Support'''. User doesn't look like they're about to break anything with the tools, so I say hand them over. &spades;

'''Support''' - A potentially fantastic admin, in my opinion. MikeLynch is proposing to work in areas that often need more attention than they get (like RM and RFPP), has impressive content creation (including a GA and 3 DYKs), has a lot of dispute resolution experience, is obviously well-versed in policy and communicates very well. -- '''
'''Support'''.  He will be a welcome addition.--
'''Support''' Saw him around AbRep and certainly should get the mop.  ~~
'''Support''' --
Definitely - 6 years with a clean block log, DYK, GA and OTRS activity.
'''Support''' Seems a fine, experienced, clueful candidate. Lots of evidence of good, relevant work, and nothing I can see gives me cause for concern. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' ~ Administrator and Bureaucrat at Sanskrit Wikipedia, says enough for me. Good Luck! -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Support'''. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support'''- Has promised to [[Wikipedia:SOPA initiative|shut us all down]] and [[Joke|block]] Jimbo. Should be fun.
Easy '''Support''' for an editor who knows what he's doing and has contributed greatly to Wikimedia projects. --
'''Support''' - Can't find a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - 12 month history of ~500 edits/month is great, experience with ORTS and sysop bit on other projects is another major plus.  Spot check shows good edits.  Slightly robotic answers to RfA questions is probably to be expected—he'll learn flexibility as he grows as an admin.
'''Support''' Trustworthy, clueful, experienced, credentials as a sysop and 'crat in other areas of Wikipedia bespeaks a well-qualified candidate.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No question. I've seen ML's interactions with fellow editors on various India pages and on the India noticeboard and he is a sensible, no-nonsense individual who well understands article writing. A dearth of sources, online as well as offline, make India related articles particularly prone to reliability and pov issues and ML navigates all that with care and competence. He will make an excellent admin. About some of the opposes below. It is a tad unfair to penalize the candidate for a mistake made by someone else and I'm surprised that one year of active editing is considered (with an average of over 500 edits a month even if you ignore the first two months as outliers) insufficient to make a judgement on the candidate. Just a thought, that. --
'''Support''' I Like Mike! I've seen him around because of my sometimes fractious involvement with India-related material and the two things that he has clearly displayed in that sphere are level-headedness and knowledge of policy/guidelines. I do not always ''agree'' with him but, hey, that throws up another big plus, which is that in my experience he knows how to phrase things so as to keep things on a level even amongst disagreements. I am unsure how many are really aware of just how messy India-related stuff gets but, believe me, it is up there with a lot of subjects that are at or close to a 1RR community decision etc ... and he does a good job of bringing some of those hassles down to a more reasonable level. -
'''Support''' I think Mike is a hardworking, responsible editor who has participated sensibly in WikiProject India debates. Since aspersion has been cast on Indian voters due to a Twitter campaign mentioned, I would like to say I am here after reading [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2012-January/006520.html this post] on an email group which led to this [[User:FayssalF|userpage]] where his RFA is mentioned.
'''Support'''...see no evidence the tools or position will be misused.--
'''Support''', looks like a great candidate and see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. He seems like a good candidate for the mop. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Support''' Being a crat/admin on other projects is very helpful. I reviewed some of Mike's edits and saw plenty of clue in several different areas that admins should understand plus ability to work well with others. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' <strong>
'''Support''' - Lynch does too much for Wikipedia.--
—
'''Support''' No concerns on my end; I believe Mike will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. I don't think I've interacted much with the candidate, so I looked carefully at all of the reasons that have been raised for opposing. Ideally, I'd like to see more content experience, but that concern is very much outweighed by the combination of a GA, a history of working in contentious subjects, with editors I trust vouching for Mike's cluefullness and civility in those areas, and the commendable ambassador work. I see what Salvio means about "literalness" in the discussion section above, but I don't see it as getting in the way of being a successful admin in this case. As for the Twitter canvassing, trout the nominator and ask the crat to discount some !votes, but I see no reason to blame the candidate. In fact, I think the self-possessed way in which Mike has responded to the canvassing complaints is a good sign. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a net positive, and I don't have any convincing reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Decent editor. One mistake does not make one an unreliable editor overnight. Oh yeah, let the spotless editors cast the first stone.--
'''Support''' -<font style="color:white;background:aqua;" size="font-weight:normal" face="Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''. Full support from me --
'''Support''' I do not consider the canvassing a problem, in view of the very high amount of support from regulars here. '''
'''Support''' I've had some interaction with Mike Lynch on India related topics, generally found him to be a fairly good editor and a net positive. For the record, I'm Indian, but I found out about the canvassing only after coming to this page, and since it's the nominator who did that, unless there's something to show that Mike was involved, I don't think we should hold it against him. &mdash;
'''Very strong support''' I believe that this admin-to-be had done a lot for improving this wiki, so I believe it's time for him to be a sysop.
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; Adminship is no big deal and Mike is ''more'' than qualified. &mdash; <strong><tt>
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - No reason not to, two adminships elsewhere shows that we can trust this editor.
'''Support'''Come on guys, he totally desrves it.--<span style="">
'''Support''' A solid contributor who is likely to grow in the administrator role, and a valuable asset to the encyclopedia because of his expertise on matters related to India.  The canvassing incident is unfortunate, but nowhere near significant enough for me to withhold my support.  Best wishes to you, MikeLynch.
'''Support''' He seems to fit the bill of being able to handle Adminship. -
'''Support''' for all the reasons above. Gonna be a fine admin. '''
'''Support''' Why not? <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose''' -  Sorry 13.7K total edits and 6K (or half) of them in a 6-8 week period does not bestow confidence in experience. <font face="Times New Roman">
The Twitter canvassing is unforgivable. I was slated for far less at my first RfA.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Shoessss, He has a 6 years clean backlog yes, but he vanished for a little over a year. He then came back and ''started'' editing, because there was no real edits made before his period of absense. His edits seems to be getting fewer and fewer as he goes along. I am willing to discuss anything on my talk page. <span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' Twitter canvasing.
'''Weak oppose'''. The main reason I'm opposing this candidacy is the IAR thing I've already pointed out; however, the canvassing incident was the deciding factor which led me to land in this section. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Several concerns just for the questions answered. Answer to #4, although a relatively good one, seems to be just a BLP argument, and not looking at the whole scope of [[WP:CSD#G10]]. Answer to #6 doesn't work in my line of duty, and it raises concerns about uses of IAR that Salvio mentions. Answer to #7 leads me to concern that escalation that happens way too fast. From what i'm reading I could have ended up at ANI or RCFU for a mistake I made recently when it was solved via talkpage. --
'''Oppose''' primarily because of the canvassing thing.  That is no reflection on the candidate but the RfA process must be fair, transparent and seen to be as such.  If there are any question marks regarding the process or appointment of an admin that is simply ammunition to disaffected parties in contentious disputes where admins really prove there worth.  That undermines the authority of the new admin.  I would rather see this candidate go away and come back in a few months rather than lack the complete confidence of the community.
Weak oppose per Salvio --

'''Oppose''' Twitter canvassing? What next? Candidate should withdraw as a mark of respect to those who absolutely despise off-wiki activity relating to Admin. applicants.
'''Neutral''' - Someone here six to eight weeks does not deserve adminship. But I can't see why I should vote oppose. --'''
'''Support''' as nominator.  Some of the stats (NAC and others) are wrong, as I noted in my review of Monty back in Sept.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dennis_Brown/RfA/Monty845]
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this.
'''Support'''. Hooray for gnomes and article development. &mdash;
'''Support''': I've seen Monty around a fair bit and have found them to be knowledgeable, professional, and agreeable. I don't think they'll have any problems transitioning into a more administrative role. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' - I've seen you around, and I like that you are someone who likes to start and/or engage in discussions, which at the very least shows you understand that this is a collaborative project as much as a [[WP:BOLD|bold]] undertaking. - <b>
'''I agree with the nom; thought he already was.'''
'''Support''' Everything looks good.
'''Support'''. Calm, responsible, civil, clear, and no hint of Chuck Woolery. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' no issues. --'''
I've seen the candidate around a lot and they will make a fine admin. <span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur; background:white;">->[[User:S|<font color="#BA0000">S</font>]][[User talk:S|<font color="#036">s</font>]][[Special:Contributions/S|<font color="#036">*s</font>]].&nbsp;<small>(
'''Support''' as there is no real reason not to. Diesel's oppose is unconvincing &ndash; administrators police behavioral issues, not content disputes.
'''Support'''. Editor has a good head on his shoulders as evidenced by the way he interacts with others, even in contentious discussions. Best of luck,
"Monty845 is one of those editors that everyone thinks is already an admin" &mdash; Indeed! This is a no-brainer.
'''Support''' Another one to which I say "about time", this is one I was hoping would come soon. I have no issues with handing Monty the mop. '''
'''Support'''. - Looks like a fine candidate by a fine nominator. Good luck, and remember to serve the community well. ~
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. What's not to like? As others have said, Monty is calm, knowledgeable, careful, and pretty much devoid of controversy. In my interaction with him, he's always been helpful and courteous. I also like his answers to the questions.--
'''Support''' Good interaction style, and clueful answers to the questions. Q4 shows he knows when to step away - that's invaluable. Support, per nom and above comments. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' - Solid contribution history, mature answers to the questions and respectful of other users. He will no doubt make a fine admin. -
'''Support''' - Excellent user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I respect Dennis' judgement, and we can't have too many level-headed admins.
Came here to support since I've seen you all over the place and your work has always been good ... and now I see everyone else has seen you around too, so you must really be working hard. - Dank (
'''Support''' - sounds good. ''
'''Yes, please'''. A rational, articulate editor who I'm sure would be a trustworthy admin. Glad to support.
'''Support''' - note that bad AfD results in the tool are mostly the result of completing AfD noms for IP and new users.  A spot check of the AfDs show they understand it very well, and a random check of other edits show no problems.  Monty is more of an editor than an author, to be sure, but such is life.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''', I had many interactions with him at the AfC space and know that he is net positive. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' - administration (in the traditional sense) can be just as valuable as content creation. Not everyone can be Shakespearian, but everyone can be Wikipedian. I could be cheeky and suggest that especially applies to lawyers. Ha ha. Seriously, though, no concerns and he should make for a good admin.
'''Support''' - no serious concerns, he seems highly suitable. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - seems like a solid candidate.
'''Support''' No concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''', based on review of history.
'''Support''', seems to meet my criteria at this time.  --
-
'''Support''' Looks OK to me. There is a need for talk page work (''referring to the oppose on this ground'') - the main part of my visible editing work seems to be on talk pages. Explaining why things were deleted, encouraging them to try again after reading the policies, explaining the policies, or telling people that if they go on doing THAT they WILL be blocked, and explaining later why they WERE blocked. All part of an admin's day ''(and night)''.
'''Support''' <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Very Active Wikipedian tenure is borderline at right around 18 months once you strike the wikibreaks. Edit count is sufficient and a Dennis Brown nomination as temperamentally suited to the task is worth its weight in Faberge Eggs...

'''Support''' —
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
Yes please.
'''Support''' If s/he's smart enough to have gotten a JD then s/he's good enough to be an admin here.
'''Support''' --
Eh, why not? <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Strong Support'''  The candidate is already cleaning the floor, might as well give the mop. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' Good candidate; I have no concerns. '''
I see no reasons not to support. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Content creation is definitely important yet is not this editor's strength; that said, they've done enough to establish competency and their administrative contributions are valuable+extensive but currently limited by lacking the admin bit.  Maturity is clearly established.  I see no solid reason to oppose.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' There are valuable tasks on this project that aren't article writing. This candidate does those tasks, and does them well. Therefore the lack of activity in article writing is not a concern.
'''Support''' He's a mature, sensible editor.  Definitely support.  --<span>
'''Support'''...I'd like to see more content work, but since I don't see any evidence that they will misuse tools or position I'm supporting.--
Long term Wikipedian with plenty of contributions and a clean block log. Thanks for your answers to my question, in light of them the censorship userbox doesn't concern me. We will be on opposite sides of some debates but I'm happy with most of your answers and reassurances; Though I will take the opportunity to point out that the community has long ago set precedents that even if certain porn stars are notable as porn stars we have usually respected the privacy of those who have left the industry and started new lives. As for the opposes, I agree that content is important. I consider that adding reliably sourced content to the pedia is a basic competency that all new admins should display, and I wouldn't have supported the candidate if I hadn't an example of them doing just that (hint to anyone considering running - make it easy for us to find that sort of stuff). ''
'''Support''' I don't think that "content creation" is a requirement for adminship. Good judgment is the most important.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support''' Would like to have seen a lot more content creation but [[WP:GNOME|gnomes]] and [[WP:FAIRY|fairies]]  deserve a place among the sysops.  Definite plus for the encyclopedia.
'''Support:''' Looks good! -
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose just because a candidate has different project-related interests.  All of what we do comes together in the end.
'''Support''' This editor has worked primarily in admin-related areas, and has done so very efficiently. Comments in respect of his lack of content-building seem to ignore tha fact that working in admin-related areas is what it is hoped admins will do. There are absolutely no concerns here; he clearly knows what to do. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Trust Dennis Brown's judgement. Most of the answers look good. answer the answer given to question 5 is a bit of a dodge, but still covers the issue as it would relate to RfA. While the edits don't show much in the way of content creation, I'm not sure that I agree opposes that say it is necessary to make good decisions. The sampling of some of the contributions seem to be good to me.
'''Support'''. This one's got it together. Answers to questions are sensible and clear, nom's statement is consistent with what I've observed, no serious concerns.
'''Support'''. In this, and any, RfA, I don't come here with a checklist of criteria to tick off, but instead I ask myself whether or not I would trust the candidate with the tools, and this time, yes I do. As for the censorship userbox, it's a non-issue for me, because it's clear that the candidate is fully capable of respecting consensus when it differs from his individual beliefs. As for the lesser amount of basic content work, that's something I consider carefully, but in this case I'm satisfied from my own experiences seeing the candidate's comments, that this is someone who is clueful, not given to fits of emotion, and able to listen to and respect differing points of view. A clear "support" from me. --
'''Support''' - Some of our best admins are content contributors, but it's not for everyone and sysops should not need this particular feather in their cap.--<span style="">
'''Support''' Why not? The user seems to be a good candidate hence I refer to my original statement: Why not?
'''Support''' I see nothing that indicates he would not make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose, answers are clear and outstandingly elaborate.
'''Support''' - I normally oppose people who seem like they are only on the project to shovel more bureaucracy in... and that's the first thing I look for when I see someone that seems unusually predisposed to administrative tasks. I'm not seeing it in this case, however. The candidate seems to be level-headed and doesn't spend an unusual amount of time at noticeboards for no apparent reason other than to offer their OPINION! Aside from that, I would like to see some more content work, but it's nothing that I'm going to oppose over.
'''Support''' (moved from neutral) – Even though the user hasn't really done much content work, I think Monty845, with his experience in admin-related areas, would be a great admin. After all, maintenance stuff is what admins are supposed to do (content editing is recommended but should not required of an admin, in my opinion).
'''Support''' - Great editor that wouldn't harm Wikipedia. Definitely deserves the mop.
'''Support'''. I think Monty845 will make a fine admin, despite the lack of content contributions. S/he is smart, experienced, and a good communicator. I expect we will be rewarded with a lot of good admin work if this RfA passes. — '''''
'''Support.''' I can see no reason not to. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">
'''Support''' - I'd like to see more article work, but seems reasonable enough.
'''Support''' after a review of contributions.  Gnomes are an essential part of the WIkipedia infrastructure, and many gnomish tasks require tools. --
'''Support''' Nothing in the Q&A nor in the "oppose" section convinces me that Monty845 will not make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Enough [[WP:ABL]]s as it is, and don't see any disqualifiers --
'''Support''' - Some of the opposers seem to be taking up the "serial oppose" batton, sadly on occasion with valueless comments. Of the more thoughtful oposition, yes more article work would have been nice but nothing to indicate tool misuse hence [[WP:NETPOS]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' See him around, good work, although the userbox gives me pause.  Not the censorship one, but the "alot" one.  Have we really fallen so low?  <small>that's ''mostly'' sarcasm</small>.
'''Weak Support'''. The candidate is helpful, bright and experienced. However, the dearth of content-building experience is a weakness. That said, I suspect that Monty will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Solid contributor, long history of being reasonable and trustworthy. Good luck mate! Cheers!
'''Support''' The project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
'''Support''' - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYDLVDr8564 80!] - Yes, I trust this user. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I've always found Monty to be logical and calm, offering up clueful insight and being helpful in general. He will serve the community well.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''', per above and my personal observations of candidate.
'''Support'''.  Appears to be a good addition to the corps.  To the opposer that said the editor's userboxes formed part of his decision, I say, get a life.
'''Weak support''' - Originally, I typed out an oppose rationale, then discarded it. Then I typed out a support rationale, then discarded it. Then I typed out a weak oppose, then rejected that too. I finally decided to end up here at the last minute given the clarity of your answers and that you aren't likely to cause issues. (Not that the outcome is affected. ;)
I have been looking through the candidate's contributions to articles in the last six months, and there is not one single edit in there that isn't administrative.  This is not a good sign.  Also, as far as I can see, until at least May this year there is not one single edit to article talk that isn't administrative.  At some point the candidate will take it on himself to arbitrate a dispute, and we have no clue how this is going to work out.
'''Oppose''' I have had a bit of a look at this user's contributions and do not see any non-administrative edits, all of his work is wonderful, but more content contributions need to be proven for further knowledge. I agree with {{User|Diesel-50}}. Sorry. <font face="Impact">
'''Oppose''' Yup, not much edits that looks good to me. Just mainly in talk pages, user pages and project pages. Hey Monty, may I ask why was there an edit shutdown during 2007/07 - 2011/01 and 2012/01-03? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#de0100;">Pits</font>]][[User talk:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#1404bd;">Confer</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Too little work upon content.
Virtually no content work in the last two months, not much evidence on candidate's talk page of recent collaboration work, the censorship user box is a red flag and the related Q5 answer is, candidly, nonsense. Too many unknowns here.
'''Oppose'''- Similar problems as Diesel and Townlake. Content contributions are a must, and Monty's has only been doing stuff on the other side of WP in the buildup to this RfA. '''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong oppose''' I cannot see ''any'' non-administrative edits to articles in the last several months (I looked back as far as July). Admins should have ''some'' experience of content-building as otherwise it is hard for them to identify with the concerns of those who write the content. I also don't like the user boxes. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 11:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC) and see also my response to support number 84. --
'''Oppose''' A nice guy, but the near-complete lack of content work is a deal killer. Admins need to have some experience with what it's like for those in the trenches. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Little to no substantive contribution to article space. In my opinion, this is a deal-breaker for anyone looking to administer an encyclopedia. We have too many admins who have absolutely no idea about the content they are administering. The only way to show that you do is to contribute to article space. My suggestion, whether this RfA passes or fails, is to spend a reasonable amount of time actually editing articles in an area that you have some knowledge --
'''Fruitless Oppose''' Lack of content creation, but as always, it will be ignored by the closing bureaucrat and likely the candidate, even if this dropped to sub-70% approval. Pre-congrats to your promotion. '''
As co-nominator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support.''' Exceptional work on the [[WP:V]] policy revision demonstrating exceptional patience and ability to get the best from widely differing ranges of community opinion.
Obvious.
'''Support'''; this transparent attempt to wilfully cause another unanimous promotion!  His impressive work at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability]] alone would have convinced me to support.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' In the often-fraught world of Wikipedia editing, admins who can smoothly handle complex disputes are an absolute necessity. Mr Stradivarius fits the bill; handing him the toolset would be to everyone's advantage.
'''Support'''; previous encounters with Mr Stadivarius (usually around DR) have left me with the imrpession that they'd be a net positive as an admin. The editors above say just what I wanted to say, but more eloquently.
'''Support'''. Content creation isn't great, but otherwise, Mr. Stradivarius is a fine candidate.
'''Support''' Obvious  The ultimate diplomat, civil person, careful person, strong credentials and track record dealing with disputes. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (
Looks sound to me.
'''Support''' per Leaky's comments about [[WP:V]], per Yunshui's observations,  Coren's faith, and my own experience and confidence that Mr. Stradivarius will use the tools wisely and with the full trust of the community.  This appears to be Wikipedia's "Summer of Love" at RfA, and I am quite pleased that so many truly exceptional candidates have offered to serve the community.
'''Support''' We've crossed paths and in a good way. Excellent demeanor. Also, he talked about some template work he'd done but didn't mention how ''good he is at it''. I fulfilled a bunch of complicated requests for him, that he could have used the tools to do himself.--
'''Support''' - Has done great work at [[Wikipedia:V]]. On the other hand, I have seen him work and was pretty impressed myself thus I see no reason why not to support. Another example of a candidate for adminship who is so close to be perfect. '''''
'''Support''', with the very, very highest of enthusiasm. I've just spent a few months working with the candidate at the WP:V discussions, and I've seen his work first-hand. This is a truly great member of the Wikipedia community – intelligent, articulate, clueful, careful with people's feelings. I cannot imagine anyone whom I would trust more with the tools. --
'''Support''' per many of the above. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''  Per all of the above.
'''Support''' I've seen him around and always found him to be a good editor.  He has great strength in his nominators and his strength at mediating is exactly what is needed for an administrator.&nbsp;
Easy. Another thought-he-was-already in a pleasingly long list of late.
Trustworthy and competent. Unreserved '''support'''.
<span style="text-decoration: overline;">'''Support''' (for Brad;). I've seen useful and clueful comments from this user, so no worries.</span> <small style="display: inline-block; -webkit-transform: rotate(-5deg); -moz-transform: rotate(-5deg); -o-transform: rotate(-5deg); transform: rotate(-5deg);"><span style="border-style:solid;margin-left:1px;border-color:#18a0ec #18a0ec #18a0ec transparent;margin-right:-4px;border-width:7px;color:transparent;font-size:0">&nbsp;</span><span style="border-top:1px solid #18a0ec;border-left:1px solid #18a0ec;border-bottom:1px solid #18a0ec;color:#18a0ec;background-color:#d7e7f4;padding:1px 4px">[[user:Br'er Rabbit|'''Br'er''']]</span><span style="background-color:#18a0ec;padding:2px 4px">[[user talk:Br'er Rabbit|{{color|white|'''Rabbit'''}}]]</span><span style="border-style:solid;margin-left:-4px;border-color:#18a0ec transparent #18a0ec #18a0ec;border-width:7px;color:transparent;font-size:0">&nbsp;</span></small> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)&nbsp;←&nbsp;<small>[[Street-legal vehicle|Street-Legal]] [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sockpuppet]]. — <b>
No reason to oppose this candidate, and every reason to support him. His fantastic work with dispute resolution and mediation shows he has exactly the right attitude and temperament to deal with the more challenging areas of adminship, and I have no doubts that he will use the tools well.
I had seen Mr. Stradivarius around AfD in the past, so I specifically took a longer look at his AfD work. I saw familiarity with our our policies and precedents, even-handed application, common sense, a willingness to actually dig into sourcing questions in depth, and a  willingness to turn around his opinion based on new evidence when appropriate. I imagine that many of these qualities are present in the other areas he chooses to work in, and they will serve him well as an admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', seems level-headed and clueful.
'''Support''' - I admit to a bit of bias here but I always consider experience at MEDCAB to be very useful for prospective admins, as dispute resolution is a core part of what we're asked to do. There's plenty of experience in other admin-related areas as well, and I'm familiar with Mr. Stradivarius from places on the project and happily support his candidacy. -- '''
'''Support''' - Always a pleasure to work with on wiki! Yes, please! :)
At some point, we need to figure out why this long string of excellent editors didn't choose to run for RfA before now. Strad's mediation work looks very good, and a mop might (or might not) have been useful. - Dank (
'''Support''' per Atama. Based on the candidates involvement with MedCab, I'm sure they'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' As per Yunshui ,the user is experienced and has been active since November 2010.Feel the project will gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
'''Support''' - I saw this nomination and couldn't resist adding my vote. I've seen Mr. Stradivarius's work in mediation, and his temperament is exactly what I would hope for in an administrator. (And I know this has been said a lot, but I too thought he was already an admin.) <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~
'''Support''' good work at DRN. --'''
'''Support''' I don't see any reason why this user shouldn't have the mop. Great work!
'''Support''' Excellent work, on WP:V and elsewhere.
'''Support''' On balance of probabilities will not delete main page or ban Jimbo Wales <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Strong Support''' Per excellent work at both MEDCOM, as well as [[WT: UTM]].
Dispute resolution is one of the most difficult areas in which to work, and Mr. Stradivarius appears to do it well. Bonus points for that. '''
'''Support''' He shows judgment, patience and thoughtfulness.
'''Support'''. Very qualified.
'''Support'''.  Would enable Mr to take care of more things himself, which is not a worry as he seems to not take sides.
'''Support''' - Pretty good quality articles, pleased with what I've seen in his contributions.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' I just spent 10 minutes trying to think of a better candidate. I can't.
'''Support''' We need more admins willing and able to help out with template development and maintenance, and his proposal to help with admin closure backlogs will lend support in an area where we are always short-handed. A superior candidate. --
'''Support''' - I said once that I felt you could charm the wool off sheep - I still have that opinion : ) - And I'm not bothering to check your contribs. If you're a sleeper vandal, you've got quite a lot of us fooled : ) - <b>
Per SilkTork
Per using tools for article work, and pledging to have patience.  &ndash;
'''Support''', experienced user as is shown above. --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''Support''' Per Worm That Turned. '''
'''Support''' -- Cheers,
'''Support''' Everything I've seen of this editor's contributions has been positive, and his responses to the questions are very good.
'''Support''' - no brainer. Highly mopworthy.
'''Support''' Good articles.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' after reviewing his work on [[Lars von Trier]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yeah, yeah, yeah! We need admins like him.
'''Support'''; excellent user.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful, even-tempered, and clueful. Mop is long overdue. ~~
'''Support''' - Does his best to help out newcomers and inexperienced users.
'''Support''' .. Worm<sup>TT</sup> and Steve say it well. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' &mdash; Mr. Stradivarius and I are currently co-mediating a case at MedCom. He has been a pleasure to work with, and I have every confidence he will make an outstanding administrator. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">
'''Support'''. I have seen his work and believe he will do a good job.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' No Concerns ''<B>--
'''Strong Support''' One of the finest, most considered (and considerate), and smartest editors I've encountered here. No qualms of any kind, whatsoever. Best regards,
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Strong Support''' per Yunshui. -
'''Support''' Per many things and (obviously) because of Q7. This users shows a great skill of tought-before-acted attitude that any admin ''must'' have, and an additional reliability on sincerity that is—and will still be—a great asset for him as an admin. Regards. —
I've been particularly impressed with his work setting up the recent successful RfC concerning the lead of [[WP:V]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - a well rounded and strong candidate. Agree with Atama above also--
'''Strong Support''' - Honest, trustworthy editor. I don't think we have any problem's here.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' with no concern.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No concerns. --<span style="white"><small><span style="border:2px solid #00BFFF"><span style="background:#00BFFF">
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Adequate mainspace edits and tenure. Excellent answers to my questions above.
'''Support''' - The nom is great admin material, I can support fully with no reservations. ~

'''Aye'''.—
'''Support'''  - Seems a good choice, good answers...
'''Strong support''' This candidate has a good experience editing Wikipedia. He doesn't lack an admin's requirements: Good experience, goals as an admin, responsibility over Wikipedia,... He'll be a good admin who'll use the tools properly. <font face="Arial">
'''Support:''' No concerns. Thanks for making yourself available. -
'''Support''' This user's work on [[wp:DRN]] is invaluable.
'''Support'''. Clear answers. Deliberate. Good logs. I've noticed him around. Good candidate.
I've seen you around and wondered when you'd get here. Perfect temperament for the job.
Per nom(s) and my usual philosophy (ping for details)--<span style="">
'''Support''' good article and AFD work.
'''Support''' with no doubt at all. Work on [[WP:V]] alone would be enough. Answer to last question above shows superior diplomacy and good tech knowledge.
'''Support''' - he is a well trusted user, and would obviously make an excellent administrator. [[Darth]] [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Support'''. An awesome trusted user, also, per the above. <font face="Impact">
'''Support.''' Looks like a great candidate to me. '''
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Absolutely. We need more admins with a background in [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. Another plus is his experience in the [[WP:DP|deletion process]]; he'll be an asset in clearing out CSD backlogs and closing AfD debates.
'''Support.''' Not enough admins currently; doesnt seem to have bad habits. Good luck to him or.....her?
'''Strong support''' All Stradivarii are in administrative positions <!-- No, not even I am sure what that means. -->- why, here's a chance for Mr. Stradivarius to join them. Good contribs and record. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''', good impressions from interactions with the candidate, do not expect any problems.--
'''Oppose''', as sysop buttons should have been given to candidate a lot earlier than this. Can they be back-dated?  Brilliant dispute resolution plus impeccable content work. Unambiguous support.--
'''Support'''. Great work on the project, and a very constructive and collegial approach. --
'''Support'''.  Outstanding mediation skills and process-orientation.  Really easy to support this nomination!
'''Support'''- Sound judgement.
'''Support'''. I have been watching  this since it  started and I thought I had already  !voted (sooo many RfAs to watch recently). Shame on me for not doing so earlier. No concerns - again, the early Worm is catching the good candidates.
'''Support''' Unusually sensible and constructive.
'''Support''' Met him frequently at DRN. Excellent editor and mediator. My fullest support.
'''Support''', every time I've seen Mr. Stradivarius around, he's clear, patient, and civil. I think the tools will be in very good hands here.
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' - Basically due to his answer to Q1 ''The extra buttons that admins get have the potential to cause some serious grief if used badly, so I plan on taking my time.'' It shows he is concerned about his fellow editors and will build his adminship upon that foundation. ```
'''Support''' Have seen him working....... no probs! '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
'''Support''' Yes please. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Reasonable bloke, good answers, and the large chicken found in his bathroom was a nice touch. -—
'''Support''' per noms.  We can always use more civility.  Mr. Stradivarius is able to inject more light, instead of heat, into disputes.
'''Support''' Absolutely no concerns. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - Delighted to pile on in support. This is an editor I trust with the tools for a lifetime!
'''Support''' - Me too, really no surprise at this point. Has a good use for the tools.

'''Support''' - strikes the perfect balance between content work and administration. Answers to questions are sound. <small> Is this going to be the 6th RfA with no opposes? </small>
'''Support''' - WP:DRN work has been spot on. <small>
'''Support'''. Very qualified. --
'''Support'''  Impressive work at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. I feel he can be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support'''. Welcome aboard. --
'''Support''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. :D <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(
'''Support'''. Piling on, as he meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' Happy to support this potential candidate. Mr. Stradivarius has a large number of contributions to different areas of the project which shows they have experience and are also knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A totally trusted and qualified candidate for adminship. They also have the trust and confidence of so many people which makes them perfect for the job. All the Best Mr. Stradivarius!
'''Suppport''' Of course - Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' for his work on DRN. We need more of these admins at the ANI and other noticeboards.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">
'''Support''' - looks a good candidate.
As co-nom.
'''Support''' As nominator. —
'''Support'''. Everything I've seen of Sarah has all added up to tell me that she'll be a solid addition to our corps of admins. Smart, helpful, and expends more energy in one day to work for the good of the project and the movement than most of us have mustered in the past week. My one concern is that Sarah's sometimes-forceful personality might get her into some clashes, but there's also plenty of evidence through her work in places like the Teahouse (and her answer to Q3) that she recognizes that everyone can't know everything and that there's value to be found in consulting other people or having a cup of tea before acting or speaking in a contentious situation. So there's my advice to you, Sarah: when this RFA passes, as I hope it will, don't forget that you don't have to do everything that needs doing, and don't forget to make use of the brains (mmm, braiiiins...) of your fellow editors when you hit something new.<p>P.S. Curiosity drives me to ask - have we ever had a WMF fellow run for adminship during the period of their fellowship before? I know we've had admins who then became fellows, but the reverse doesn't ring any bells in my memory.
'''Support''' Everything I've seen about Sarah's contributions has been very impressive, and I'm sure that she'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' Great work on content and with outreach endeavors. No concerns. --
'''Support'''. OTRS contributions look solid; AFC contributions look solid; Wikipedia- and talk-space posts are calm and well reasoned. Why not?
Yup.
'''Support''' I've worked with Sarah at the [[WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]] and she's a hard worker and very approachable to both new and experienced editors alike. I see no reason to oppose. --  '''
'''Support''' Of course. It will be great to see you continue your work with the extra tools.
Yes, definitely. Words can't describe the level of my support. <font face="Verdana">
'''<s>Oppose''' Has poor choices of bars.</s> '''Strong support''' &ndash; I don't need to explain why she wouldn't pass,. She is the queen of outreach and a fun character. <span style="font-family:Poor Richard;color:red;">Mitch<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:black;"><big>'''32'''</big><sup>(
'''Support''' AGF the noms and I've seen Sarah around and never had any concerns.--v/r -
Great to see you here, Sarah. Thanks for your work at the Smithsonian. - Dank (
'''Support''', a valuable contributor with a strong presence on a number of different projects. -
'''Oh my goodness yes'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. At Wikimania, I asked Sarah what things we could learn about approaching new editors, general principles she had put together after months on the Teahouse project. She spoke with a great passion, an inspiring message to everyone in the room. That personal interaction, combined with my general sense of her from the answers above, move me to support. She has the clue for the job and the independent thinking needed of all admins. Best of luck,
'''Support''' great person, can't possibly do any harm with any administrator tools.  Looking forward to seeing you on the far side.
'''Support''' Great contributor in so many ways. More like her are needed.
'''Support''' I only "discovered" Sarah through her work at the Teahouse, but since that time I keep seeing her work as a normal editor--and a good one at that. She certainly has personality, as Fluffernutter says, but Sarah would be a great addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' I first became familiar with Sarah's work in the OTRS photosubmission queue; it wasn't hard to miss, being that she was the only one working there at the time. What little I've seen since then, coupled with Tom Morris being a nominator (sorry Courcelles, it's nothing against you) leads me to support.
'''Support''' I have not communicated with Sarah before, but I have seen the great work she has done over the years. We need well rounded admins and I think she got what it takes. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Mad props. Sarah's a rock star. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' She seems to be genuinely trying to help and is never afraid to outreach -- just what should never be turned down in admins today.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions in the article space. A couple of extra tools should be helpful here. '''
'''Support''' - I seriously thought that she was an admin already. She has done remarkable work at teahouse and I see no reason to oppose such a beautiful candidate. '''—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Sarah will be an excellent administrator.--
'''Support''' – No concerns.
'''Support''' - Teahouse work alone clears the bar for me.
'''Support'''. forsooth.
'''Support'''. She must have very cool and proud parents. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Yes please - for all the reasons above. --
'''Strong Support'''; great [[WP:TH|teahouse]] work. '''⇒
'''Strong obvious support'''.  Knocked out 200 OTRS requests in a two day period? Started the Teahouse for promoting editor retention? 50,000+ edits? Engaged museums like Smithsonian in the GLAM initiative? If there ever was a slam dunk, this is it. --
'''Aye'''.  I don't know this user, so I reviewed a random sample of her contributions (impression: personable and chatty) and then randomly selected one article of hers ([[Helena M. Weiss]]) to review for copyvios or close paraphrases (impression: follows Smithsonian Institute sources rather closely, but not so closely as to raise close paraphrase concerns).  Support's a no-brainer.—
'''Support''' While I, unlike Tamsier above, can give no opinion as to her shape, and have h   ad no interaction with her that I can remember, I've seen her name around and been impressed. I'm still more impressed by the info given here, and wonder why this RfA took so long to arrive.
Well, of course. Sarah is one of the most suitable people for the job.
'''Support''' for the remarkable work done on Teahouse --
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' It is evident that Sarah has spirit, drive and dedication to the project and has already been serving well in roles that have helped groom her for adminship. She will do very well.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' - I've had previous interaction with Sarah during a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-04/Special report|write-up for the ''Signpost'']] and found her really personable and agreeable. She's done great work both on-Wiki and with the Foundation, and to be honest I thought she was an admin. Content work looks good, and Teahouse - though I've never participated - was a brilliant idea.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I believe she would be an excellent admin. '''''<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' - My interactions with Sarah from my time as a Teahouse host have never left me in any doubt about her ability to work well with other people, assume good faith, and act appropriately in all situations. I can only see her being a benefit to the project as an admin.
'''Support'''. No worries.
'''Support''' - Strong candidate based on OTRS and Teahouse alone. However has also made over 50,000 edits, and created 324 articles. Great editor will be good admin.
'''Support''' Lot's of article space work + great ''service'' in Teahouse. '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
'''Strong Support''' I finally got to meet Sarah at Wikimania, after watching what she did at the Tea House and other places. I recently urged a non-admin to apply for OTRS, and argued it wasn't necessary to be an admin to process OTRS requests. Which is technically true, but I watched my own activity through those eyes for the next few days, and realized how limiting that would be.--
'''Support''' She has not only been an important creator and improver of Wikipedia articles - she has actually helped to improve the Wiki project itself, via the Teahouse. Sounds like she will be an outstanding administrator. --
Per my [[User:Timotheus Canens/RfA-8-ball|8-ball]].
Sarah works hard for the wiki, knows the policies, and knows how to work well with others. We are lucky to have her as an editor, and will be lucky to have her as an administrator as well. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' Sarah's done a great job at the Teahouse and will be a fine administrator. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Yah, she got a job at the Teahouse (maybe the owner <small>or a waiter</small>) --
'''Support''' Well-committed to the project and I admire her efforts in improving the quality and quantity of art-related articles. --
'''Support''' - Very tolerant of other users. Would be an all-knowing admin.
'''Support''' - Squeaky-clean candidate with no block record in 6 years of editing. '''
'''Support''' I first interacted with Sarah a few weeks ago when she asked me to work with the Teahouse. I poked around a bit and found her to be incredibly knowledgeable about a wide range of policy, a great content contributor, and one of the most level-headed, hardworking Wikipedians I know. She'd make a wonderful admin - especially in explaining to newbies why their article got deleted.
I've actually not seen her around (or otherwise I might have confused her with [[User:Sarah|this long term editor (and administrator)]]), but everything looks good from what I've read so far. Her answers are well reasoned and I trust the judgement of both the nominators.
Great editor. Two words suffice.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support'''. She's already doing a wonderful job. Anything to help make it easier for her. --
'''Support''' Can't say it any better than above.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' - wonderful candidate. --
'''Ayup''' - Good candidate, good work done in the past.
'''Support'''. Her contributions to the encyclopedia and the community just get stronger and stronger. I'm confident she'll be an asset to the cadre of admins. --
'''Support!''' Long overdue. Sarah should be an admin. (can't say thanks enough for your help and inspiration in your work with the Smithsonian, gender gap outreach, teahouse, and more.) --
'''Support'''. But of course -
'''Support''' About as qualified as a candidate can be.
'''Support'''. Outstanding editor. Sarah's work with the Teahouse and the Smithsonian have been inspirational.
Helpful and knowledgeable. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Sarah's by far the most passionate and hard-working person I know, both on Wikipedia and off.
'''Support''' - a great candidate who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. --
Fantastic editor. —
'''Support''' No concerns, great user.
'''Support''' Oppose is convincingly unconvincing.
'''Support''' Per her founding of the Teahouse project.
'''Support''' Courcelles says it all. I look forward to her having the tools, and cannot wait to see what good will come out of this.
'''Support''' Very impressed by her work at the Teahouse, and between that and OTRS could put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' Nice, responsible user. Cheers,
'''Hex Yes''' One of the best editors I know on the 'pedia --
'''Support''' per the answer to my question, on my talk page and the question 6 follow up. Thank you and good luck with the RFA. '''
'''Strong support''' Sarah has done magnificent work in many areas, including with the Foundation and starting the Teahouse. As Wikipedian in Residence good work has been done too. Incidentally, I'm surprised Sarah wasn't nominated years ago. <font color="#151B8D">'''
I added Sarah Stierch to my watchlist a long time ago; I'm glad I did...she seems like an awesome person, always willing to help and be friendly. Happy to support.
'''Support''' Good editor. Good luck :)--
'''Support''' Candidate would like to be an admin. <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Support''' - would be a real asset to the whole community
Great contributor, and an impressive candidate.
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Sarah exemplifies the very best qualities of a Wikipedia editor, both in terms of content creation and in a welcoming, collaborative attitude. It has been a delight for me to assist at the Teahouse and observe the wonderful things she does there.
'''Support''' More such candidates please!
'''Support''' Seen her contributions, would be a good use of the tool. Thanks Sarah :-) --&nbsp;
'''Support''' The user seems to do lots of good work. --
'''Obvious support''' She has a good head on her shoulders.  Her work at the Teahouse has been pretty solidly amazing.
'''Support''': I had the pleasure to meet Sarah at Wikimania. I fully support RfA based on her contributions to the community. --<font color="navy">
Oh good lord yes, one of the strongest RFA candidates I've seen in a long time.
'''Support''' Does good work and will continue to do so, as an Admin.
'''Support''': a very good candidate, doing exemplary work with welcoming and guiding new users.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Sensible, level-headed, friendly, communicative, good contributions, easy to support.  <code>
She's already a superb teahouse host. Communicative, helpful, great attitude - no reason to doubt she'd be a trustworthy admin if given the chance.

[[WP:100]], review of contributions, Teahouse work, nominations. --
Absolutely. Should have been an admin years ago.
'''Support'''. Sarah seems like she would make a great administrator. I probably would have answered Q5 differently, but she also showed a good deal of caution, indicating that she would study up before undertaking complicated situations like that one. I'm also happy that she works so well with new editors. We definitely need admins like that, and I hope she'll consider working with new users who got off to a bad start and are requesting to be [[WP:UNBLOCK|unblocked]]. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~
'''Support''' Great candidate. I particularly like the new user/outreach/teahouse stuff. Good luck!
'''Support''' Never interacted with the editor before, but good answers to questions, with an impressive resume. Looked through contributions, no recent issues apparent.
'''Yes'''. Obvious candidate. '''
'''Certainly''' Never even considered Sarah as an admin because of the areas I've known her to work, but I've worked with her a lot and she exemplifies all the qualities I want in one. Plus, she gave me a kitten on Friday for being wonderful, she's obviously got good taste.
'''Support''' Looks like you've got this one in the bag, Sarah!
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. — '''''
'''Support''' No issues here.—

'''Strong support'''. Very well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Great contributions and history, so why not? Extra tools would fit well on their hands. Cheers! —
'''Support''' of course! Doing an awesome job.
'''Support''' I can't immediately think of anyone who would be a better admin.
'''Support''' She's a great GLAM advocate. My only concern is that she won't get enough sleep because she already does a lot of great work :p but there's plenty of coffee for that --
'''Support''' – She is communicative and appears to have a good attitude. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - while her abuse of exclamation points frankly horrifies me, she has been a lovely asset to the community already and I see no reason why her having a batch of extra tools would do anything but help the project (at least so long as she doesn't try to overextend herself, but I'm not too worried about that). -—
'''Support'''. Surely an excellent addition to admin ranks.
'''Support'''. no-brainer.
'''Strongest possible support''' I cannot think of a better candidate. Produces new articles, is exceptionally kind to newbies and us. Not to mention that she is a wonderful human being too!! I abuse exclamation points too! Sarah for President anybody? ♦
'''Support''' I get to support two great admin candidates in one day!  It's been a while since I've done that! --''
'''Support''' per nom. --
''Support'' - Sarah has my trust and confidence.  In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action.
'''Support'''. As often happens, Tom says everything that's needed.
'''Support'''. Her work at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]] shows that not only is she kind to newbies, but she is also a hard, dedicated worker who can accomplish large projects. '''<font color="titanic" face="segoe script">
No big deal.
'''Support''' I haven't seen her do anything except make positive contributions to the project on a number of different levels. <B>—
'''Support''' - This is an easy bandwagon support. Nom has a clean record and and excellent history of productive edits. I look forward to seeing you with the bit! ~
'''Support''' good work with new users. --'''
'''Support''' because I think she's great, and given where we are with this RfA there's really no need to say more. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' See the [[special:contributions/SarahStierch|user contributions]] as well. Thats all the rationale needed in this case.
I somehow missed Sarah at Wikimania, but her reputation precedes her.
'''Support''' I've seen some great work and comments by Sarah, knowledgable and fairminded, will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' She's not an admin already? She has so much experience with Wikpedians "In real life," my guess is she has a wider knowledge than most about how the community works things out regarding civility and reasonable behavior online. Just hope she'll still get to partake of food, sleep, and that big room with the blue roof called "sky..."
'''Support'''. Looks like an ideal candidate. She's helpful, articulate, reasonably bright and thoughtful. She's experienced and seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' One of my favorite [[WP:GLAM|GLAMourous]] editors. Sarah is the kind of person who will never become a bull in a china shop when it comes to using administrative tools, and is exactly the kind of person we should be giving the mop to. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">
'''Support''' - Sarah is crazy committed to Wikipedia and will do everything in her power to make it better. Nuff said!
'''Support''' Looks a goody. I won't be able to close this RfA, so very happy to support it. And welcome to [[WP:100]]. --
'''Support''' I like what I've seen.
'''Sure''' I think we can trust Sarah to do good work.
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support''' - even if the Teahouse was ignored. This isn't a discussion about how great the Teahouse is (really, really great; by the way) but more on this particular editor, who is, more or less, everything we want in an Admin.
'''Extremely strong support''' - talk about your easy choices!!!! Sarah's one of the very best. --
'''Support''', as trite as it is to say, I thought she was already. If not, by all means, let's fix that.
'''Support''' - Of course. <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' no reason to think this user will abuse the bit. ''<B>--
Late pile-on support. I have no concerns, and I think you'll be a great admin. Keep up the good work! '''
'''Strong Support'''. I don't recall ever interacting with SarahStierch before this RfA, but from what I've seen reviewing her contributions and her responses to questions, I think she'll be an absolutely amazing admin, and I wish we had twenty more just like her. <small>Also, I love the Drama Llama on your talk page.</small> -
<s>'''Support''' [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 22:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose.  [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 16:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)</s> '''Support'''
'''Support''' - I hate the RFA process but I think Sarah has done an outstanding job and want to add to the [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support'''. I don't know this candidate well, but answers to questions look good, and the strong work at Teahouse, GLAM and OTRS weigh heavily in her favor. I believe I can trust this candidate with tools.
'''Support''' with the greatest of pleasure.
'''Support''' In every dealing I've had with Sarah I've been left impressed. I have no doubt at all that she'll be a great admin. -
'''Support''' While Sarah may be too busy to do lots of adminny stuff, the tools may be useful, and I have no qualms supporting her. ''
'''Support''' I don't know that I've ever cast a support vote in any RfA discussion in eight years, but I'll definitely say yes to this&mdash;of course she can be trusted and she's an asset to the project. —
'''Support'''. I've worked with Sarah at the Teahouse; she's an amazing leader.  She produces lots of content.  She's level-headed when problems arise.  She's nice to people. She'll be a great sysop. --
'''Support''' - I have no problems here.
'''Strong support''' per above. '''
'''Strong support''' I see absolutely no reason why Sarah shouldn't become an admin.  I'm pleased with her answers, she's awesome if you meet her offline, and her work both on- and off-wiki is commendable.  I can only support this nomination in the strongest terms. :) --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - An approachable user, more vibrant by helping editors, see ''[[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]''. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#1589FF 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#1589FF -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#800080">
'''Support''' Looks like a popular nomination with the overwhelming amounts of support! But still, I appreciate a user who has a heart of gold and a willingness to help.
'''Support''' We need a little more administrators who can work with newbies and help them, and SarahStierch would certainly be a good choice for that.
'''Support''' Of course - "Mop please" <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''', absolutely; Sarah's work has been and will be invaluable.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Her reputation may lag by 16 hours, but she gets my support.
'''Support''' No problems that I can see, a good editor and I suspect she will make a very good admin '''''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Another no-brainer. The comments in the neutral section, although they  express relevant  concerns, are unconvincing - when they get the bit, users with Sarah's editing history will probably do more admin actions on-the-fly than many other 'active' admins.
'''Support''' One of the new breed. Understands the common editor. ```
'''Support''' Per candidate, per nom & co-nom.
'''Support''' Joining in the pile-on in support - solid candidate
'''Support'''. It's about time! Too bad about the reputation lag though ;)
'''Support''' Already amazing, sysop empowers more service to the community and many projects.
'''Support  '''Don't know this editor well, but seems a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Sarah is a Wikimedia Foundation employee and staff community coordinator with suitable editing history.
'''Support'''. We need more admins. Sarah is nice and trustworthy both in person and on wiki. So give her the mop and get moving!
'''Support''' - a very late pile on support. Sarah being a sysop will be of net benefit to WP. She has shown good judgement in every interaction I am aware of and is a great ambassador for this site. I do echo a number of comments above, in that I hope she wont spread herself too thin, but as far as I'm concerned there's no reason to doubt her capacity for admin duties--
'''Support''' - I am a newbie editor who had the pleasure of meeting Sarah at a recent Women's Edit-a-Thon in San Francisco.  I found Sarah to be kind, compassionate and encouraging to newcomers such as myself.  I consider her to be an asset to Wikipedia as an Administrator.  Thank you very much.
'''Support''' - Seen her around here and there. No concerns.
'''Support''' - Sarah is committed, honest, trustworthy, and kind and welcoming to newcomers (including myself, in volunteer capacity).
'''Support''' - pleasantly shocked you decided to go through RFA :)
'''Support''' SarahStierch appears to do an excellent job of welcoming new users and a huge amount of work elsewhere. She could be an extremely productive and helpful admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Absolutely - Sarah will make a fine admin. Honestly, I was surprised to see that she was not one already. Good luck!
'''Support'''. This editor is self-motivated and creative, taking the initiative to fill holes and find solutions. Adminship is just one step for Sarah... at some point there will likely be an RfB.
Useful editor, I've enjoyed reading several of her articles. ''
'''Support''' Excellent editor, no concerns whatsoever. Oh, and tea is far superior to that other alternative! ;-)
'''Support''' - hard-working, respected editor; happy to support.
'''Support''' - I have no concerns with giving this user the tools. She's convinced me that she could use the tools, and that she'll use them well, and that's what matters.--
'''Support''' I'm convinced she'll be a good admin.  Obviously very keen and supportive of others. --
'''Support'''  I've been working with Sarah in real life and on-wiki for years, having first come across here with the Public Art project. Sarah is one of the Wikimedians I most trust and work with most frequently.
'''Support''' &ndash; Very good interpersonal skills, supportive, innovative, and collaborative. Boon for us that we are getting such a person for an admin.
'''Strong support''' Her contributions for the [[WP:TH|Teahouse]] were of great help to many new editors. I agree that she's willing to be an admin. Good experience, good community approval, excellent work at the Teahouse, ... you're born to be an admin. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' As per Courcelles and the user is a [[meta:Wikimedia Fellowships|Wikimedia Fellow]] and has been editing regularly since 2010.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''VERY STRONG SUPPORT''' From both on-wiki and personal experience ... what are we ''waiting'' for?
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- Qualified, has the community's support.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate. No concerns. --
'''Support''', Curses, edit conflicted with my [[WP:199]] support and surprise surprise someone already jumped on the 200 (Also, you know, excellent candidate for adminship, fantastic people skills etc etc blah blah)--
'''Support''' The only comment would be, why has this taken so long? ;) <3
'''support''' —
'''Support'''. Excellent work at the Teahouse. No concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' with no concern.
'''Support''' Amazing amount of work at Teahouse. Deserves the right. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Have often come across her wonderful work with new editors, tools will be safe in her hands--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">
'''Support''' - I've seen Sarah in action many times. She works hard, knows what she's doing, and shows sound judgement. Wikipedia needs her.  - '''
'''Support''', but with a nod to the comments in the neutral section, so please do think about them. I'm surprised at myself for not having crossed paths with the candidate more than I have, outside of seeing welcoming messages to new editors. But having more admins who are smart and will also be kind to newbies can only be a good thing. --
'''Support''' This can only be a positive for the project in my view, given my observations of her. Adminship is about trust with and need for the tools rather than whether they would necessarily use them at any and every opportunity.
'''Support''' I'm always happy to support potential candidates particularly this special highly qualified candidate! Great answers to all the questions given above. Sarah is a highly trusted and good faith member of the community and i too trust and respect her a lot. She has good knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and vast amount of experience in different areas of he project, specially [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]]. As RfA is the place editor's can express their views for the candidate which i too have given, but i also need to give some light on a pretty small but important issue for me. Sarah in April i was asking some highly experienced users i trust and respect including you for their review for my [[Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser]] and had also asked you too ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarahStierch&diff=487217745&oldid=487185219]) after which i got response from mostly everyone. It can be found in [[User talk:SarahStierch/Archive 14]]. Please don't get me wrong Sarah or anyone else for this matter but i was expecting for a reply and not necessarily a review for that as it was (at least for me) quite important because it was about what i do at Wikipedia which i am here to always improve and make it better. As many people say and expect that highly experienced users, admins and other functionaries give help and support to other users when asked/needed, I'm very sorry to say, but i was ignored. This is just a point i had to give which doesn't in any way affect that fact that you have all it takes to be an Admin with all the required experience and great track record at Wikipedia. You have my full support and i know you are and will always continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia community and the development of the project as a whole. All the best Sarah, i'm sure you'll do great both as an administrator and volunteer!
'''Support''' I've observed and learnt from SarahStierch's interactions in recent months at the Teahouse. I think that her article space edits are what one would expect of an editor with such experience. I'm sure she'll be willing to help out as neccesary in any mopping up, while not being afraid to ask for advice if needed in some areas. Thumbs up. Congratulations on your [[WP:200]]! <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' This support is obviously wholly unnecessary, but it is well deserved.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Couldn't let a unanimous RfA go through without contributing!   I'm very impressed with what I've read here and in Sarah's work.
'''Support''' An impressive candidate.
'''Support''' Good user.'''
'''Neutral''' Normally, this would be a knee-jerk support from me, so I'm a little annoyed to find myself here. Having seen Sarah in action, I think that she's got a great attitude and adds a tremendous amount to the project. However, I feel like she's already stretched too thin. Small things [[User talk:SarahStierch/Archive 15#File:F.C3.A9s .28MA.29.JPG|like this]] already aren't getting the follow-through they need, and adding in admin tasks would (imo) just make things worse. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
I have actually the same impression as Dori. If the vote would be any close to contentious, I would definitely support. However, it is running smoothly, and I think my remark will be better visible in this section. Sarah, I think you are a great editor, I appreciate your GLAM work and I admire the way you interact with other users. I have an impression however that you are already overloaded and do not have any further capacities. This means if you sign up for some new work, either this work will not be accomplished and will have to be restructured in the middle (example: WLM US 2012), or you will have to stop doing smth else to accomplish the work. Even if this smth else is important and other people generally expect that you would be continuing doing it. Please take this seriously and I am sure you will be a great admin.--
One of our more experienced and hard-working editors, happy to '''support'''.
'''Support''' I agree with 28bytes, and I think that the concerns from the earlier RfA have been addressed. ​—
'''Support''' I have seen this user around quite a few times and am surprised his first RfA was a bust.  Plus this user likes fruit so, I hope it goes better this time.—
'''Support''' Great editor, no significant issues, great work at [[WP:XFD]]. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''': This user is technically savvy and will be a welcome addition to the admin-corps.  He has addressed the concerns raised in his last bid for adminship. I am happy to support. --
'''Absolute, 100%, full support'''.  Scottywong, Kudpung, and I did a huge amount of work together to prepare [[WP:ACTRIAL]], and while we know what happened there he ''really'' proved his worth.  He's done a tremendous amount of good, and he's fully suited for adminship.  I look forward to seeing him in our admin corps.
'''Support''' I have been watching over his edits since i saw this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=480917110#What_this_page_has_become pettish comments in RfA talkpage]. I was surprised to see that acctually this user is a genuine editor and has done good edits since i have seen them atleast. I dont find anything wrong about them. '''<big>''
'''Strong Support'''. Useful editor with clue. That's what matters.
'''Support''' – I think Scottywong has done a very good job at allaying the concerns expressed by the community at the previous RfA. <font face="Comic sans MS">
Seen him about the place, seems to know what's up. &mdash;
'''Support''' I too have seen him around quite a bit, and have no doubt he'll serve the project well as an admin.
While I think he's a bit blunt at times, I think he will make an excellent administrator.
I don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' While I did indeed oppose Scotty's last RfA, his work since then has been exemplary. I have no concerns.
Sure. An active and thoughtful editor who will make a good admin. A little bluntness is actually quite a useful thing. --
'''Strong Support''' Yes, definitely. One of the most active and famous users of Wikipedia, who can be trusted with the tool.
'''Support''' Have encountered Scotty across AfDs, where, for a change, he's the one who's pointed out corrections to me. His contribution in AfCs is also quite sincere. Scotty should necessarily take into account the points that Keifer mentions. Unfortunately, as an admin, there is no leeway for quid pro quos in encomiums, and Scotty has to accept that without qualifications if he wishes to be an admin. I've come across Keifer and my personal opinion of him is quite positive. And I'm sure Keifer would reconsider his opposition to Scotty considering the work he's done for the project.
'''Strong Support''' Seems unually honest and honourable.  Doesn't seem to bear grudges; Ive seen them defend rescue squad members with whom they've previously had extended disputes.  Also technically competent and seems happy to help out any editor regardless of standing – think they'll make an excellent addition to the admin core.
'''Support''' - Fit enough to be a admin.--
'''Support''' Experienced in the right areas, and in general. Forthright, but not uncivil. Technically competent. High level communication skills. Helpful. Analytical. Trustworthy. These are all ticks. No big red crosses I can see, so easy to support. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support'''. I am old fashioned and still believe that if you are trusted and technically competent to have the tools then why not... I see no reason to say no, so yes. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' - Keifer's issues are long in the past, and while I am diametrically opposed to ScottyWong both politically and theologically, that doesn't really matter.
'''Support''' - issues in the Oppose seem non-convincing. Relative lack of content creation is a small concern, but having a process-heavy Admin isn't the worst thing in the world.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' as no concerns. This editor has made invaluable contributions not only to the Wiki but toolserver as well, with multiple useful tools being available created by Scottywong. I also think the opposes are just exaggerated paragraphs of old grievances and not terribly convincing. I see nothing to make me not vote 'support'. <font color="#A20846">'''
'''Support''' I think Scotty has come a long way since his last RfA. He is a skilled and hardworking editor. He clearly has the technical know-how to be given the tools and any previous concerns I may have had about his temperament, have been overcome.
'''Support''' Don't see any reason not to. Head is sufficiently screwed on, won't get into anything stupid. AfD always needs more admins. —
'''Support'''. I'm convinced that SW has sincerely looked in the mirror since the previous RfA, and that he has the best interests of the project at heart. This is someone I trust not to overreach. --
'''Support:''' Even though this candidate has made mistakes in the past, he has significantly adjusted his attitude that I am confident enough to support this candidate. The actions that he has undertaken since his previous RfA have shown high levels of maturity and effectively counteracts the actions of his past. At the start of the RfA, I was hesitant to support this candidate because of reasons mentioned in the Oppose and Neutral sections of this RfA as well as his previous attitude up until his previous RfA, however, now I am comfortable with vesting powerful admin tools to this candidate without a doubt in my mind. I would like to see this candidate expand further into other administrator actions that he is not so familiar with such as request for page protection and responding to the administrator's noticeboard upon the closure of this adminship. Regards,
'''Support''' - Overall seems to be a good editor. There have been issues with conduct in the past, but most of what has been raised is not recent, suggesting that Scottywong has moved on and matured since any problems. Unless and until evidence of harassment and incivility from recent discussions is provided, I am happy to support this candidate.
'''Support''' despite the change in the name. Seen SW around a lot, never had a problem with them. Probably knows a damn sight more than I do about how things work in this place. If there have been issues about civility, I feel sure there won't be more than from others currently wielding mops.
I don't see why not. I've seen his signature around plenty of times and I think he'd make a great administrator.
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to oppose.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support''' – someone who I know will handle the tools brilliantly.
'''Support''' I've WikiKnown SW for around a year now, and (having done my usual thing of stalking around someone's communications contributions) I can certainly say that I've noticed a significant improvement in terms of "bluntness".  SW is hugely ''clueful'' and I don't foresee any risk of the tools being abused whatsoever, which is why I'm happy to support.  Just a word of advice - the "blunt instrument" is still just a tad heavy-handed occasionally, usually in situations where SW has had previous history with another user, and in those cases it seems very often six of one and half a dozen of the other, but worth considering ''continuing'' to improve in this area.  It's ''certainly'' not a major problem, at all, and I'm sure SW won't mind me saying this; there's just room for a bit more polishing on this front. :o)
'''Support''' Every editor makes mistakes at some point of time and Scottywong is no different. The user had been in some conflicts and disputes in the past and most of them seem to have been solved. User intends to work in some of the administrative areas of the project and should be given a chance to use these tools wisely.
'''Support''' - whenever I have encountered SW on noticebiards or elsewhere I have found then to be helpful & informative, and see nothing of great concern.
'''support''' I still worry about maturity issues, but on the whole find SW to have become a much more reasonable editor.  The name change helped too.  He's always been helpful, just occasionally very difficult.  I'm seeing the helpful continue and the difficult largely fall away.
'''Support'''. Has shown a lot of improvement since his last RfA. We all learn from experience, and I believe Scottywong, having gone through many trials and tribulations, has learned many lessons along the way on what it means to be an outstanding Wikipedian. We can confidently give him the keys to the janitor's closet. --
'''Support'''. Will make a fine admin. No real concerns. ~~
'''Support'''. After a sampling of about 200 edits throughout his career, and paying special attention to the editors bringing forward concerns in the oppose category, I agree Scotty has leveled off from where he once was. He certainly does not sugarcoat his stance on content, but plain honesty is hard to come by these days. His earlier actions aside, a proficient and active contributor. I fully support his candidacy.
Sure. I do note the comments by Kiefer below, but they don't concern me to a degree that would lead to me opposing. It's a net positive thing. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' You have matured so much in the past year that I am more than willing to support.
'''Support''', and gladly.
'''Support''' While I don't know this editor very well, I've seen him making decent comments at ANI before.
'''Support''' - I've never found SW to be an unreasonable person bumping into his comments here and there and I've got confidence that he'll be a reliable administrator.
'''Support''' I opposed the RfA of 13 months ago, and said then that I hoped to support in the future. I have seen significant improvement in this editor's behavior since then. I, too, like to be an early participant in AfD debates when possible, so that my opinion is not unduly influenced by those of others. His work with bots is impressive and using one of them has helped me develop useful insights into my own participation at AfD, and of the participation of others. My interactions with him have been cordial since then. Kiefer Wolfowitz raises some legitimate concerns, but given that the incident happened nearly a year ago, I will offer ScottyWong the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and I see no reason not to do the same now --
'''Support'''. While issues of civility often concern me, it is rare to a significant pattern of incivility by SW that would cause me to oppose. Great improvements since last RFA. Full support. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - Good editor and one who definitely has the experience needed. I'm very familiar with his work and he'll be a great addition to the admin corps.
'''Support'''. Good candidate with experience in lots of areas. Happy to support an editor with whom I have agreed and disagreed so pleasantly.
'''Support''' Familiar with SW's work, he clearly knows his way around WP. No problems expected. '''''
'''Support''' A very useful contributor.
I'm
'''Support''' User has overcome concerns raised in previous RFA which was in Feb 2011 and has waited for an year before coming back to RFA again.Feel the project will only gain with user having tools.

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''; I think SW is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Strongly oppose the username change''' <small> equally strongly support the RFA</s>
'''Support'''. A thoroughly competent editor. No reason to fear handing him the mop.
'''Support''' Has always seemed like an intelligent and adept editor to me.--
'''Support'''  per previous interactions, through the work I observed attempting to put together ACTRIAL, and per a review of random contributions.  I am confident that allowing SW access to the tools will prove beneficial to the encyclopedia.  --
'''Support''' - "Scotty" has addressed everything that gave me pause in the last RfA (when I was neutral). --
'''Support''' - Will be a positive addition to the Admin Corps, although I prefer his old username.--
'''Support''' - See no concerns.
'''Support''' - use your powers for good, sir.  I'll miss our old fights as you have become all too respectable. cheers.--'''
'''Support''' - no more concerns.
This is an interesting one. I didn't really have a problem with the previous username, but I think it was one symptom of what could be called immaturity. It's not very often that an editor completely takes to heart the words of their critics and becomes not just a ''better'' editor, but even an editor almost unrecognisable from their former self. It's obvious that Scotty has matured (and perhaps mellowed) considerably since, and partly as a result of, his previous RfA, and so I think he is such an editor. He's come a long way in a year, and I think he's ready to realise the potential he always had to be a damn good admin.
'''Support'''. I'm taking it on trust that <s>Snotty</s>Scottywong hasn't just changed temporarily to get this promotion.
'''Support'''. Great user, seen a lot at AfD. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Whenever I've seen him, he's done well.
'''Support''' Seems to be able to be trusted with the tools. <span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' - a good user from what I've seen.
'''Support''' -Great responses to all the questions above, appears to have the right stuff to be an admin.--
'''Support'''- Supported last time. No reason whatsoever to change my opinion.
'''Support''' Scottywong has worked hard to address and overcome earlier concerns. I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and will do a great job helping the admin crew keep the backlogs clear.
'''Support''' (tentatively). Is dedicated? yes. Has technical knowhow and familiarity with the project to be of benefit? Yes. Deletion-minded mindset should not be ''too'' much of an issue as long as not closing too many AfDs in one direction. Will be barraged by DRVs if this occurs anyway. Ultimately worth a trial with the mop.
'''Support''' Should be fine.
'''Support''' Since his last rfa, candidate has improved. Good answers to the above information. Time to give him a shot at some janitor duties. --
'''Support''' Though I have not interacted closely with him, I have seen Scotty doing good things here and there over the years. He strikes me as someone who would do good things with the buttons. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
There has definitely been an improvement since the last RfA, and I'm hoping we'll see Scottywong continue to improve. I think Scottywong does good work, and I am happy to support his RfA.
'''Support''' Seems reasonable. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Good luck, hopefully you'll do well...
'''Support''' lots of good work, and frankly the who the folks are in the "oppose" column speaks almost as well for this candidate as the "support" column does. :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Why not? <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
I appreciate that Scottywong has read comments at his last RfA and made some improvements. However, his statement that he has avoided conflicts since his last RfA omits his conflicts with myself, e.g. about [[User_talk:Keepscases/Archive_3#Personal_attack_by_Snottywong|"No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in"]]: Other statements  that suggest that approving his RfA would be premature: (a) "But while WikiProject Atheism is still active, shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself."  (b) "Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scottywong&diff=430281723&oldid=416398537  ScottyWong had added 4 anti-religious boxes]. (c) "If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block)." Perhaps in 6-12 months if severe personal-attacks or personal attacks with the appearance of hostility towards groups have stopped.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per "In AfD's [typo] in the last year, my !vote matched the eventual consensus about 85% of the time, and many of my votes were among the first votes for each AfD (in other words, I wasn't just adding pile-on votes to AfD's that already had strong consensus). Additionally, I voted "Keep" at about 18% of AfD's during this period."  It seems like you are just doing what others want you to do and "among the first votes,"  I do not think that it's that good.  We could just see your AfD edits easily.  You are pointing out the obvious and it's facts that are not that helpful to know.  Don't go with the flow, but be more independant (only bound to the policies).  ~~
'''Oppose''' He does some interesting technical work and seems to have mellowed a bit but his experience of the actual business of content creation still seems too small.  And as he still seems to be a dogged deletionist, I don't think he can be trusted in that department.  For example, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paraguayans]].  That seems to be a fairly plain and simple list but his opinion is "''This list is not maintainable and serves no useful purpose.''"  As we have [[:Category:Lists of people by nationality|lists of people]] for just about every nationality which are clearly being maintained and finding some usage, this seems too disruptively destructive to be trusted with the delete function.  And on the other side, I've observed his actions at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] from time to time where his standard response seems to be "''Declining submission''".  If he created some content himself, this negativity might be ok but it just seems to be one-way traffic.
'''Opppose''' - Getting called a "raging dick" by this user for fulfilling his request in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro)|his AfD]] didn't leave the best impression.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLine_1_%28Rio_de_Janeiro%29&diff=377425365&oldid=377419408]  His quote was "If you weren't such a raging dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination", thereby belaboring the project's time continuing an AfD that he himself felt should've been withdrawn.  Not comfortable with this person being an admin.--
'''Neutral'''. Scottywong has a good understanding of AfD. However his signature does not actually include his username, which can make it difficult to find his comment in a page. "SW" is not sufficiently distinctive to ease searching. I am also disappointed by the "[[non-apology apology]]" in response to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's !vote.
Appears to have improved his attitude and behaviour in recent months, but this RfA may be too soon, and the lack of mainspace contributions is a concern. --
I would like to see any admin working in deletions to have more article-writing experience; however, Scottywong has taken steps to alleviate many of the problems perceived by voters in the last RfA, and I applaud him for doing so. I may change my mind, depending on how this RfA plays out ... <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral for now'''. The talk page shows 20+ edits on only 4 articles, and only 2K article edits, which is less than I'd look for. Average total edits for Jan-March 2012 fewer than 200 per month, much less than 2011 average. Have seen him around being fairly abrasive.
'''Neutral'''  There was something that SW did in just the past week or two that I remember thinking, "Wow, that won't help him if he decides to run for admin."  It was something that bothered me and if I could remember what it was, would probably move me to the oppose column.  But since I can't recall what it was or what it was about, I'll simply go neutral with the caveat that I have some concerns about his passing.---'''
Not having had any significant interactions (or any interactions at all) with the user, I was rather puzzled by the heavy emphasis on what I think are meaningless AfD vote statistics in the nomination statement. AfD is not a vote, and what should matter and be valued there are the user's comments and arguments, not what % of the time they come on one or the other side of the argument. It is rather worrying to see a (likely) future admin placing so much emphasis on this, especially given it's clear that AfD is not a vote but an occasion for consensus determination. However, the lengthy list of supports above and the lack of any mention of this issue seems to suggest that so many others did not found this reason to be worried, and likely they have had more chances to personally notice if that is indeed the approach of the user or a misplaced emphasis issue, as such I will stay neutral while voicing my concern. <i><b>
'''Neutral'''. I've worked with Scottywong a number of times, and I think he's one of the best editors we have out there, technically minded, hardworking and overall a great asset to the community. However, he just doesn't meet what I'm looking for in an admin - who not only has the ability (which Scotty undoubtably has) but also the temperment which would allow him or her to deal with problematic editors or difficult situations. I'm not certain that Scotty does have that temperment, and as such I cannot offer my full support. At the same time, I'm not willing to oppose this hard working editor.
For now. Can't remember any recent cases where SW's behaviour has left a bad taste in my mouth, and in general he's a clueful editor who has done a great deal of bridge-building in the inclusionism wars, but I'm still apprehensive of supporting a candidate who definitely wasn't suitable this time last year due to temperament and attitude concerns. And I ''know'' it's a trivial thing, and I ''know'' it shouldn't impact on someone's suitability for the mop, but I didn't even realise he'd changed his username on accounts of using a daft custom sig that hides most of it. Looking for positive reasons to support other than the mitigation of previous negatives. Not that it looks like it's going to matter at this juncture.
Others seem to have a better recent experience with the candidate than what I'm seeing looking through their contribution history. That said, we all have our off days, and I'll defer to those above who suggest that it's probably not enough to oppose - but as adminship is given indefinitely, and admins should be able to civilly communicate with others, it's definitely a concern. I hope the candidate keeps these concerns in mind for the future when they are granted the tools and responsibilities of adminship. (As it looks like they will be.) - <b>

'''Neutral''', not because I have any blocking concerns about this candidate, but because community norms seem to demand it.  I see no participation in speedies, yet this is one of the areas in which the editor is proposing to wield the mop; this concern is partially ameliorated by a very good AfD success rate of 84.9% so judgement ought to be okay.  However, this editor has in the past objected to RfAs where experience didn't match desired admin areas; by his own petard he must be hoisted.  Editors in past RfAs have rejected applicants due to lack of content work, yet this editor has created four-ish non-stub articles, and none are GA or FA; there was no mention of DYK work.  The lack of substantial content work is of no major concern to me; being an administrator is about administrating, but others might complain that this is an encyclopedia first, and a bureaucracy (close) second.  The candidate has a clean block log, 12K edits, five years of service.  I will have no complaints when this RfA succeeds, but I encourage scottywong to address concerns raised during this RfA during xis first months of adminstratorship.
'''Support''' as nominator. —
'''Support''' after review of his history and past work herein.
Good candidate. —
'''Support''' While more content contributions would be nice, but the note on the candidate's userpage (that he likes to take articles only up to B-class), combined with the several hundred edits on 4-5 articles replace that little void I have in my support nicely. Great success rate at AfD, as well as a decent amount of them. I also like that the user has several AfD's in the Most edited project-space list on X!s edit counter, which shows that he is not afraid to dive into a controversial AfD and <s>cause more drama</s> provide a logical solution. Would like to caution the candidate about doing some non-admin work in the realm of AIV and RFPP, as he has no edits to either of those pages. But still, the only possible way I'll be able to oppose this candidate is if it turns out he worships Rex Ryan by sacrificing Tom Brady jerseys to a large, green and white trash can five times a day. Good luck.
'''Support'''; user appears solid and won't be likely to start causing havoc after four years of consistent and generally problem-free editing.  Your comments on WP:IAR are particularly strong.
'''Support''' Was already inclined to support and the answers reaffirmed that.
I've seen him around and I've found him to be a communicative and sensible editor, and I think it likely that he will be appropriately careful with the admin tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' I think that there are a ton of pros and very few cons. A few highlights: pros- great content work, experience in areas he wants to contribute (he?), steady edit count over last several months, neat userspace, solid communication skills, legible signature and username; cons- well, I suppose that experience in [[WP:NAC|non-admin closures]] would be nice, but I think he's participated in enough to know how to gauge consensus. Passes the "would this help or hurt the encyclopedia as a whole" test, so I see no reason to oppose, and lots of reasons to support.
'''Support''' The user seems to have the experience and maturity to handle the extra tools in a responsible fashion. -
'''Support''' excellent editor, long experience.
'''Support''' Great editor and excellent answers to the questions. I don't see any negative sides of the editor which could have forced me to oppose.
'''Support''' I often work on the same articles as this editor and I believe he definitely has the required experience and maturity for adminship. <span style="border:2px solid #00FFFF;background:purple;">
'''Support''' - Absolutely. Great answers to the questions, and a review of their AfD participation and other interactions serves to inspire even more confidence in this user. ''
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' - their AfD history looks on the money (both from correlations between !votes and results, and from inspecting a random sample); a random selection of their edits shows nothing of concern.
'''Support'''. Sensible editor with a good head on their shoulders, easy to work with. A good and clear record, many great contributions to articles and behind the scenes. Sergecross73 gets my wholehearted support. '''<FONT COLOR="red">Я</FONT>ehevkor''' <big>
'''Support''' based on lots of positive interaction at [[WP:VG]].  Everything I've seen indicates general cluefulness. —<B>
'''Support'''.  Nothing screams problem-in-the-making to me at this time.  --
'''Strong Support''' - I have closely collaborated with the user on numerous occasions, and he has shown a high level of dedication and competence, coupled with the level-headedness needed to deal with eventual disputes and/or unhelpful editors.  Excellent edit history, flawless record, great AfD experience, impressive content contributions -- I cannot think of a single reason not to support this nomination. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">
'''Strong Support''' Seems like a good choice. Answers look good and skimmed edit history and looked reasonable to me.
'''Support'''  Q13 had no wrong or right answers, and yes, you gave the right answer.  It shows you have common sense, an understanding of nuance, a balanced outlook, an understanding of your own limitations, good clue, and a calm perspective.  And it was an honest and frank answer, not a pandering response.  As your metrics look fine, I'm happy to give my support.
'''Support''' - looks to be a good editor, and answers to questions are pleasing.
'''Support''' After review of his history and past work herein. -

'''Support''' Seems reasonable enough to handle the mop. Figuring out when to block an persistent vandal should indeed be easier than some  FUR questions and he has the right attitude to address or pass on the more difficult cases. --
'''Support''' Came across him during an AfD and from there, all of his work that I have seen it positive and he seems to be quite a good aspiring janitor.
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support''' - He is certainly better in the AfD arena than I am. I make my share of mistakes, this candidate does not. A seriously good editor and role model for all wikipedians. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support''' I see no reason why not to.
'''Support'''. I am thrilled with the cogent Q1-Q3. The give back comment is also a winner. The "image policy is kind of ... complicated" shows restraint and appreciation of depth. The edit distribution with content at 72+11 percent is appreciated. A strong AfD main diagonal with keeps and deletes. A clear understanding of what is needed, and that goes a long way. I'm a bit troubled with pointing to [[WP:AIV]] in Q1 but minimal/no edits there; that was an issue in the other RfA, so I'll explain my logic here. I can support candidates with good answers or good experience, but I will lean oppose with weak answers and little experience. With either prong, I can find trust; with neither prong, it is hard. In addition, the Q3 story displays the advantage of reporting trouble. It's not all roses. I am concerned when there are many edits to an AfD page. That suggests lobbying, badgering, or repetition. It's better to state a position completely and then get out. AfD is a debate; it should not be endless discussion. Yes, answer some questions or concerns, but also draw a line and trust the closer to be a smart guy. The AfD comments I saw are toward policy, and that is good.
FA Encyclopedia builder that participates in AFD, sure
'''Support''' Experienced, thoughtful, civil.
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' - Very good user over at [[WP:VG]]. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' – He seems to have a good balance between maintenance tasks and article editing.
'''Support''' - Like his answers - mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - I liked the answers to Qs 1-3. As always, I would encourage double-checks of grammar but only because you'll find people have less to nit-pick during contentious discussions. I have seen a couple of Serge's AfD contributions get taken out of context / get misinterpreted becuase they were missing links or fully-thought-out thoughts. Just meant they had to be explained further later. Not entirely his fault but he might find editors will expect "right-the-first-time" contributions from Admins, especially for closes and things. I have zero concern about Serge's ability to get better and better as he goes along. Adminship is no big deal and Serge seems to understand that. Looking forward to working with him.
'''Support''' I think Sergecross73 would be helpful in areas which really need careful admin attention. <span style="background-color:lightpink;">
'''Support''' I have confidence in his nominator's judgement, and the candidate's knowledge of policy convinces me he will make good use of the mop.
Exceptionally strong candidate. There are mountains of evidence suggesting this candidate would succeed in this role and be a tremendous asset to the project if/when he chooses to use the tools. Thank you for volunteering.
'''Support''' OK for me--
'''Support''' - The nomination statement and everybody else's comments already contain anything I might say.
'''Doesn't seem like they'll [[WP:DDMP|cause chaos]].'''
'''Support''' - I trust both the nominator's good judgement as well as the nominee's ability to wield the mop constructively and cluefully. --
Per nom, and I like Q13 and Q8 too. - Dank (
'''Support''' Clear responses that explain his intent without merely spewing policy and guideline acronyms. Same behavior in AfDs, and I like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Doherty|ones like this]] where he is open to [[WP:PRESERVE|preserving]] via merge/redirect. Q15 shows ability to guage consensus in IAR-like situations where policy is not being violated but use of guidelines is not overwhelming.  I also like his restraint in using a [[WP:SUPERVOTE|supervote]] (though I would have given bonus points if he had mentioned the option to just !vote himself and build consensus and and leave for another admin to determine consensus). The composure he showed in the ANI case he mentioned in Q3 is about as cool as I would hope to be when the other party is being difficult. I'm with Glrx above that this is the type of candidate—one who clearly shows clue in other areas—that I can be confident that they will be prudent when entering areas where he has minimal experience (e.g. [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]]).—
'''Support''' - great to see an experienced and knowledgeable editor with his interests applying for admin. Need more mature over-site in these areas anyways.  Good luck - got my support!
'''Support''' - can't see any problems here.
'''Support''' - I believe that Serge will do a fine job with the mop and I see nothing which would raise a red flag.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - excellent answer to the questions above and good activity in various areas where he can make good use of the extra tools (AfDs etc.), as far as I can see from his contributions.--
'''Support''' Good candidate that will do a fine job with administrator tools. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' &mdash; Should do fine.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to the questions, competent, experienced contributor who seems to have the right qualities for the job. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' Solid candidate, has clue, will use the tools well. '''
'''Support'''. I have seen the good work Sergecross73 has done at AfD, and I think s/he would do well with the tools. — '''''
'''Support''', enough experience and satisfying answers. --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''Support''' Yep. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Don't see any issues.
'''Support''' great contribution history. Trust them with the mop! Good luck.
'''Support''' Deserves the mop.
'''Support''' - I like the answer to Q17 quite a lot.
'''Strong support'''- A rare RfA support from me, and definitely a first for a strong one. This editor has excellent integrity and a history of excellent contributions to the project. I'm particularly impressed by the way he really nailed all the questions, particularly Q17, a horrible question with a brilliant answer. '''
Should work well enough.
'''Support''' I like what I see, and can see no reason not to believe that the candidate will be beneficial to the project with the bit. Q17 is a very good answer, very impressive! '''''
'''Support''' in view of answers to questions, selected contributions, and in particular selected AfD contributions.  --
'''Support''' - I am familiar with this editor from his good work at AfD. His cluefulness there, and his answers here, indicate he will make a solid admin. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">
I'm still expecting a slew of opposes to find something super trivial to attack, but hopefully that won't happen finally.
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support'''. Great contributor, and the excellent response to Q17 demonstrates the kind of level-headed approach required by a prospective admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. The music/videogame side of Wikipedia could definitely use the help :-) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
Good candidate, no concerns apparent. Good luck,
'''Support'''. No concerns —
'''Support''' No significant concerns to warrant an oppose. Regards, —

'''Support'''.  A contributor of quality; would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Per nomination and answer to Q13. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Support'''. - Looks good to me and we could use more help with administration overall. Good luck and remember to ''serve'' the community well! ~
'''Support''' The contribs I checked looked good, answers fill me with confidence plus the only contact I've had with them has been positive. '''
'''Support'''. Glad to have you on board. --
'''Support''' checking out logs shows that candidate has tried out the tools.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' From what I've seen, the candidate is level-headed and has a sound understanding of policies and how to conduct oneself around Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe that granting use of the tools would do anything other than benefit the encyclopedia. (To further substantiate my support, I'll add [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon J. Key|the courteous participation in a deletion discussion of an undeleted expired PROD]], some common subject areas of interest between us, and of course the rumour that the candidate likes bacon!) <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' Candidate seems to have a very level head on his shoulders, and seems to have a genuine commitment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I have no doubt he will use the tools in a mature and constructive way.
'''Support'''. Great answers to questions. {{smiley}} Best,
'''Support'''. likely net positive.
'''Support''' - seems solid and calm. Active editor with knowledge of video games and good participant in the WikiProject Video games. '''
'''Support''' I am extremely impressed with the answer to question 17.  It is well thought out.  To be able to answer a question that puts the candidate in a difficult position like that definitely proves that they are admin material.—
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Has been around since 2008 and has created 26 articles .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
'''Support''' I reviewed this user's userpage and talk page and find that this person presents their self appropriately and seems friendly and open like an administrator should be. I further read this user's response to questions and feel comfortable supporting this adminship.
'''Support'''. In a process with too many questions to the candidates, ''this'' candidate's answer to Q17 is exactly the way that a clueful person thinks. --
'''Support''' user history and answers suggest the editor will use the bit effectively and responsibly.  --
'''Support''' per Dianna.--<span style="">
'''Support''' Meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
Qualified candidate.
'''Support''', Sergecross has a great percentage on main space edits and didn't loose the "the big goal": building up a free encyclopedia. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Oppose leaning neutral'''. I'm satisfied by AfD participation and accuracy, as well as his content creation work. His question answers also leave me content. However, I am forced to oppose here because of his desire to work in AIV and RfPP, and his limited participation in both areas. He has only submitted 3 reports to RfPP, and has no record of any reports to AIV. I can't support a candidate without experience in areas that he plans to work in.--
'''Oppose''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
As nominator.
Ticks my boxes. <font color="#151B8D">'''
Very much ready for mop. Steady character, objective.
Looks good to me, the more the merrier! ~
'''Support'''--v/r -
'''Support''' Appears to be a solid candidate for the job.
<s>'''Tentative</s> support''' <s>pending answers to additional questions.</s> Yup, as I expected, I'm supporting this one.
Can't see any valid rationale for me not to support at this time.  --
'''Support''' No concerns at all.
Aye, goan. —
'''Support'''. After eight years with the project, TommyBoy should obviously be trusted with tool access. Good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' as he's clearly a competent user and will do just fine.  Even the most exclusive content admins benefit from being able to RevDel something or block the penis vandal that invariably pops up on everyone's watchlist from time to time, so it's completely worth it.
'''Support''' Will be a [[Wikipedia:Net positive|net positive]] to the project.
'''Support:''' He an editor who has been here for 8 years. Solid net positive. (What took you so long?) -
'''Support''' Completely agree with Blade here.  There is something to be said for editors who have been here a very long time with no hassles or problems.  No automated edits, uses the talk page plenty, shows good judgement in editing.  Not every admin is going to be an ANI warrior or AfD closer (I never close AfDs or work AIV, or grant rights, for example).  The basic test "Will Wikipedia be better off if this person has the tools?" is clearly passed here.  If he hasn't shown he is worthy of the bit after 8 trouble free years, then asking 100 questions or counting AfD votes certainly isn't going to prove anything.  He has shown he has clue and can get along, the best traits an admin can have.  Everything else is learned on the job.
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse tools or position.
'''Support''' He does deserve his mop and bucket.--
'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' no issues. --'''
'''Support''' no concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' I see no problems when looking through all that he has done.  He created 151 articles. [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=TommyBoy&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1] Seems to contribute to Wikipedia.  No problems stand out in the few AFDs he has participated in.
'''Support''' per [[WP:DEAL]].  If Jimbo could go around and "make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops", why can't we do that?  Someone with no major problems in eight years is ridiculously unlikely to get himself involved in major problems after becoming an admin.  You can't be active here for eight years without getting into substantial problems if you're not admin material.
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown, <attempt to be funny>though I might like to see a little more content work</failed attempt to be funny>.
Here we have a user of some eight years standing, happily creating articles in a specific area with little drama (evidenced by an unarchived talk page of some 20 or so headings.)  '''Support''' so that he can use the tools to keep his back yard clean.  --
'''Support''' per my comment <s>buried somewhere far below here on the page</s> that moved to the talk page.
'''Support''' - Congratulations for eight years without drama.
'''Support''' - Questions answered. Looks really good to me. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''', no problems, and agree with Dennis Brown and Blade.
'''Strong Support''' - All of the negative reactions to this candidate seem quite feeble to me at best. This editor has a solid 8 year record of beneficial edits, lack of drama, and good judgement. The mop really should have been extended to him a long time ago, but the candidate never sought it. Just the person we need if you ask me. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this candidate will misuse his priveleges or will do anything untoward whatsoever, in fact everything seems to indicate the exact opposite. Wikipedia needs all of the TommyBoys it can get. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Support'''. No qualms here - certainly has much more experience and a longer timeframe on WP than other candidates I've crossed in the past - definitely ready for the mop. '''
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown and others. I can't put it any better; TB's lack of drama is a real plus. Best of luck with the mop.
'''Support''' Appears to meet [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' I completely disagree with Swarm here, maybe because I'm a oldtimer (though hardly active now). Adminship should be granted to editors who gained our trust for a significant period of time and with no serious redflags coming up that might hinder the candidate ability to use the tools wisely. Despite some vague answers to the questions, I don't anything in TommyBoy contributions that would indicate he would be a bad administrator. I A person shouldn't fail an RFA just because they prefer to avoid the wikidrama that goes around in AFD/ANI and other admin areas. We promoted tons of these candidates in the past, and many of them became excellent administrators. Why this should be different now? Even if TommyBoy only occasionally uses the tools, one new administrator is much more significant to the project than many who slowly starts becoming inactive and stop editing all together.
'''Support'''. Old-timer with no drama issues. Ready for additional duties. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - although I wish the answers to Q5 and Q6 were better. I see nothing to indicate this experienced user would do anything with the tools other than improve the encyclopedia. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''', no qualms about this user. If he had run in 2005, he would have been a shoo-in with 3000+ edits, and there would be no reason to desysop him from then to now, so we really shouldn't be penalizing him for not running earlier. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. We need more, and more like this. {{u|Secret}} pretty much hits the nail on the head and while I can understand the arguments of those who are concerned about AfD etc I rather suspect that TommyBoy will take on board the comments here and feel their way into it rather than rush. -
'''Support''' The Oppose rationales are unconvincing. No reason to believe that this user will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''', As per Anbu121 - give the man a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - a random perusal of their edit history reveals they are perhaps a bit too quick to label test edits "vandalism", but it's not a significant concern.  Opposes are wholly unconvincing.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy long term editor who clearly has clue. No long track record of involvement in admin-type activity, which may be seen as a drawback by some but could be seen as an advantage by others (eg no long history of kibbitzing at AN/I). I trust he will develop slowly into admin areas as he gains experience with the buttons.
I've been mulling this over for some time now, have genuinely considering !voting in all three spaces at one point or another - but I realise I now must '''support'''. While some of the answers to questions ''are'' weak, this editor is highly-trusted and will not abuse the tools. I do not expect them to jump head-first into admin areas they have previously little experience in, and to be honest, some of the opposes make me a sad panda - partly because they are feeble excuses, partly because of the lack of respect shown to this long-standing editor.
Adminship is not rocket science. Editors who have shown that they're clueful and understand how the project works typically become fine admins. TommyBoy has shown that he can read so I'm not concerned with the occasional gap in his knowledge of this or that policy. Will his sysoping will be a net positive? We can never have a 100% guarantee but I do like the odds.
'''Support''' I don't see any indication that he will be a bad admin. I can say from experience that being an admin is not exactly hard if you have any common sense at all. Obviously you can't know for sure if anyone will end up being a bad admin, but I say give him a shot. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' trustworthy and no more unlikely to cause problems using the tools than the rest of the admins are.
'''Support''' unless anything contrary turns up, Tommy is almost an ideal candidate. Why? Firstly I've never heard of him which means he doesn't have a track record of unnecessary interjections on problem boards and other popular talk pages often frequented by editors hoping to get noticed, nominated or supported. Second, I just like his background. Initial lack of experience in Admin areas will likely act as a brake on over-enthusiastic interventions and fewer rash decisions.
Long term uncontentious useful editor with a clean block log. The deleted contribs look fine and the nomination idea is great - hopefully we can find a few more this way. I've read the opposes but find them unconvincing, perhaps if this was a self nomination one would expect more admin like activities. But if we are going to recruit admins from amongst our established longterm editors we may not have the sort of edits we expect from traditional admin wannabes, so I'm glad to see that most of the RFA crowd are looking at other aspects of the editor rather than AFD or or page protection edits. Well done Kaldari. ''
'''Support''' based on his "track record"; seems he would be a fine admin. Agree with Dennis Brown's comments listed above and below.
{{EC}} '''Support''' per pretty much everybody else above me. There are no red flags, and it is relatively easy to read [[WP:BLOCK]], [[WP:DELETE]], [[WP:PROTECT]], [[WP:REVDEL]], and [[WP:ADMIN]]. (Hint: If you haven't, go read them now.)
'''Support''' - <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' experienced editor, absolutely no reason to believe they will abuse the tools given to them. The editor will surely have the commonsense to tread carefully in their early stages.
'''Support''' I see evidence of a genuine user, whose edits and interactions exhibit maturity. Concerns over lack of experience aren't overwhelming: we're referring to someone who can communicate in a more than acceptable manner with others, and I believe would observe others and seek advice as necessary. Providing the candidate with the mop is highly likely to be a net positive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' Long experience, and knows what Wikipedia is about. Regarding the opposes due to a shortage of edits to certain project-space pages (xFD, RFPP) and so on, I used to think that way too, but I have seen no evidence that editors who focus on other areas than those discussions turn out to be bad administrators. The candidate has initially stated his intention to combat vandalism, and we certainly need to keep recruiting people who are willing to maintain a watch in that area.
'''Support''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]].  Work at AfD is a big plus, but not doing much work there is not a minus, for me anyway.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The opposition appears to be filled up with a lot of [[WP:NONEED]] type comments, whilst generally agreeing the editor is calm, cautious and drama free. I note concerns on "experience" but anyone whose been here for years calmly editing probably has that in spades.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No concerns here, candidate looks solid. '''
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown. — '''''
Maintenance users get torpedoed at RFA because they don't write articles. Article writers get torpedoed at RFA because they don't do enough maintenance stuff. This is precisely why RFA is beyond useless at this point.
'''Support''' Good candidate. —
'''Strong support'''.  Experience and content creation record are great.  It's ridiculous to claim he isn't qualified for adminship due to lack of experience in admin areas.  When someone has demonstrated excellence as a contributor, he should be able to apply that excellence to much broader areas.
'''Support'''; the user seems clueful and intelligent, and has the right temperament. --
'''Support''': Eight years of drama-free article writing plus a desire for the admin tools strikes me as a good reason to provide them. --
'''Support''' – His long length of time here, large amount of article editing, and lack of any major disputes have convinced me that he won't misuse "the tools".
'''Support'''. Dennis above is absolutely right. I'm more than comfortable with TommyBoy's experience. --
'''Support''' - per those taking note of this editor's quality work and lengthy period of drama-free participation in the project. Opposers are unconvincing.
'''Support''' - The method of locating this candidate mentioned by the nominator makes good sense; and that makes this an "Adminship is No Big Deal" situation for me.
'''Support''' - Looks fine to me.
Opposes are unconvincing, in my view.
'''Support''' per Carrite and because I don't see any risk that he's going to break the wiki. --''
'''Support''':  Editors edit articles, we are all editors, I thought.  Has suitable experience.--'''
Seems fine. -
'''Weak Support''': See no problems, looks fine.
'''Support''' A good candidate for the mop. Long history of productive editing, little drama.
'''Support''' Experienced and uncontroversial, so I doubt he'd cause any harm as an admin.
Fantastic choice --
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' Experienced editor who will benefit the project even more as an admin.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' I agree with Mr. Brown. <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I don't have any doubt of abuse being a non-factor. You generally don't meet my personal requirements of activity in some of the areas below mentioned, so you need to be more active in these areas once you get the tools. Regardless, I don't think you'll have an issue in these areas; you just need to participate more. Regards, —
'''Support''' <b>
'''Support''' The candidate has been very invested in the project for eight years, has provided thoughtful answers in this RfA and will likely be a valuable admin in the areas in which he chooses to be involved. -
'''Support''' given he's never run but wouldn't mind, I highly doubt we'll see a stampede to use the tools. If he watches as he goes and takes his time, it will be a decent enough likelihood of a net positive that I think we're ok.
'''Strong support''', this is precisely the kind of admin we need, and we've usually had no issues with them. I used to look for and nominate these kind of editors, and in my limited experience they turned out to be good admins. We shouldn't want to turn our content contributors into XfD people. Our content contributors should remain content contributors, that's where they're most needed. Adding the sysop flag to them is merely a way to let them help out in other parts of the wiki, should they desire to do so. This is a very good candidate and requirements of activity on admin areas are silly. Best of luck TommyBoy, and keep doing what you've been doing. <i><b>
'''Support''', exactly what Snowolf said: We need "fresh blood" in the cabal and this is exactly how we get them in! <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support'''- sure, why not? The tools are not particularly difficult to understand; some of the opposes sound like every candidate's a window-licker until proven otherwise. This candidate has demonstrated dedication to the project, maturity, and an ability to listen to people. That's enough.
'''Support''' Everything checks out with me.
'''Support''' Some of these opposes just make me shake my head; user is obviously qualified for the job if he's crazy enough to want it, but a huge trout to Kaldari for actually seeking out a user on which to bestow this horror.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- TommyBoy is not actively seeking adminship and therefore did not prepare for this nomination. In my oppinion this is a good thing! He is trustworthy and would be a net-positive on the admin team.
'''Support''' - Just because the use doesn't have a lot of experience with certain admin areas doesn't mean he's going to run off and delete the main page (I certainly didn't!). His statement above to use a "watch and learn" approach to areas where he doesn't have much experience works for me, and calm, mature users with no history of poor decisions, flame wars or other bad behavior is exactly who we should be handing the tools to.
'''Support'''. I looked through the contributions and was happy with what i saw.
'''Support''' I'm pretty sure he's not going to do anything problematic. Now, if he's been around here for eight years, he'll know that before you jump headlong into some kind of action administrative or otherwise, you do your homework. So if he starts wanting to close AfDs or handle requests at RFPP or whatnot, he will have to go and read up on the relevant policy. But so long as he does that, I'm okay with him becoming an admin. In general, I reject the idea that we can neatly categorise RfA candidates into "content creator" or whatever. Everyone contributes to Wikipedia in their own way, whether that's writing Featured Articles, closing XfDs, patrolling, WikiGnome work, whatever. I try not to make judgments: I certainly don't think that being involved in content disqualifies one from being an admin, nor do I think it makes you uniquely qualified to be one. Content work is just one aspect of making Wikipedia work. We should neither insist on it nor see it as a reason to disqualify a candidate. —
'''Support''' - Previously, I was running out of time so didn't got any time to go through your contributions. Anyways, after looking at your work, I don't find any issue which can possibly make me oppose this stand and you have my trust. '''''
'''Support''' &mdash; Obviously a very dedicated user who will do good work as an administrator.
'''Support''' where No Big Deal is concerned, a long term trusted editor who can be trusted not to break the Encyclopedia. Good luck mate!
'''Support''' – I was initially concerned that he only has one edit in the MediaWiki namespace (and more shocking NONE AT ALL in the Book namespace) – but then I decided to take my head out of my ass. Nothing in his history indicates, given the tools, he would suddenly go rogue and start tearing up the place. Honestly, if we can't trust an editor such as this with the tools, then the RfA process is truly broken. If the community is expecting every candidate to be experienced in every possible facet of Wikipedia – even areas where they have no interest or inclination of participating, past or future – then it's high time to unbundle the tools.
'''Support''' for 2 very specific, yet different reasons.  Firstly, in looking at his edits, I see no drama, no obvious misuse of the tools available to an editor and given that, and an individuals desire to wield the mop, I say "go for it"!   Secondly, the majority of the "oppose" arguments are that he has insufficient experience in the admin tools and areas, which I take (as suggested by one) with a grain of salt.  We are too focused in this process about someone's lack of stuff instead of focusing their actions and behavior.  It's a huge problem in the entire RfA process and I will always support someone who wants to be an admin if they've behaved and contributed well to the project.  Everyone goes on and on about how being an admin not being a superior class of user, but then there's a lot of argument by some to keep those ranks closed.  Rant concluded.  Support !vote cast. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' because there's no reason not to. While there's little to no evidence of the sorts of things I'd like to see in a prospective candidate, there's also nothing to object to. He's been around for a long time and made enough contributions without giving any cause for concern that I can't see a reason to oppose. The oppose concerns appear to be based on the notion that TommyBoy will do something wrong with the extra tools, but as there is no evidence of him doing something wrong with the tools he already has, I'm not convinced of that. A careful user doesn't usually become careless when they are given extra responsibility. It's also worth bearing in mind that everything an admin can do can be undone by another admin. Problems with admins tend to occur more with poor temperament than with making mistakes that can be quickly undone. '''
'''Support''' He seems temperamentally suitable and has no black marks against him. Some of the Oppose comments below relate to the fact that he hasn't been all over the wiki doing everything; I don't see this as a drawback. This is clearly someone who sticks to what he knows and will not abuse the tools, or even use them in areas he is less familiar with. --
'''Support''' As SilkTork noted above, it is the behavioral pattern like poor temperament which is more problematic for an admin than not knowing all the aspects of adminship. <span style="">
Fundamentally, RfA comes down to trust. Reading over everything, I trust that TommyBoy will use the admin tools appropriately. Yes, he is inexperienced in "admin areas" and he may make mistakes, but he comes across as a very reasonable person who will be willing to discuss his decisions and reverse them if need be.
'''Support'''.  Content creators can use the tools, and any incremental uses of them by calm, competent, and experienced editors such as this candidate are benefits to the project.
'''Support''' I do think that admin area experience is a little weak, but longevity and demeanor inspire confidence.
'''Support''' I don't see anything that makes me think you are going to misuse the tools and you have plenty of experience as an editor. I am not concerned about the opposition for lack of experience in admin areas as I think you can pick this up as you go along.
'''Support''' Should make a great admin. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' after a review of randomly selected contributions. --
'''Oppose''' (moved from Netural) Too few AIV or XfD contribs for my liking (7 and 21, respectively). Not that much vandalism work is visible, either, only 137 edit summaries with the word "vandalism" since 2005. For seven years, even accounting for any long wikibreaks throughout that period, 137 isn't even close to enough. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Buggie111|Buggie]]. For a user who has been for 8 years (Belated Happy First Edit Day!), he only got a handful amount of XfD, AIV and RFPP which I expect it to be higher. I'm not sounding harsh either. Too bad that he is an edit shy of a thousand edits for a month, yet it's on my own interest and got nothing to do with this oppose. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#de0100;">Pits</font>]][[User talk:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#1404bd;">Confer</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient number of admin-related edits on which to evaluate the candidacy. Particularly, way too little AfD participation for someone who wants to close such discussions.
'''Oppose''' Concerned with communication skills. Q5 response is a circular definition of "involved", Q6 only vaguely answers to "be responsible" when using IAR, Q7 alarmingly does not mention the weighing of participants' !votes when determining consensus, and Q8 wanders off to mentioning IPs when the question involved registered users. I agree with Townlake in Q10 that the instructions are complicated, and a response of them being "actually quite simple" ignores the concern. I understand followups are needed from time to time, but the multiple instances already here concern me.—
'''Oppose''' per insufficient experience in admin-related areas. The answers to questions 5 and up do not inspire confidence.
'''Oppose'''- Any good admin should have a reasonable amount of experience at AfD. '''
'''Oppose''' - User fails to fulfill my [[User:Swarm/RfA criteria|criteria]] and clearly lacks experience. While selecting the most longterm, uncontroversial editors we can find might ''sound'' nice, adminship is not merely a game of how long you've been around. Admin candidates should still have experience in administrative-related areas, particularly the ones where they intend to work. And if they've been here a very long time, it should be ''more'' reasonable to expect that from them, not less. TommyBoy wants to administratively fight vandalism, yet they've only filed 6 AIV reports? In eight years? They want to work page protection but they only have 11 edits to RfPP (in ''eight years'')? They want to work AfD but in the past 2 years plus have only participated in ''two'' AfDs? Come on, the lack of experience is so blatantly evident in my eyes that I'm astounded by the support bandwagon this user's garnering. Now I'm not trying to be brutal or put this user down. I have no doubt that this is a great editor who's deserving of ''heaps'' of recognition and praise that they probably haven't ever received. But as an ''RfA candidate'', TommyBoy regrettably falls far short. ''
'''Oppose''' per Someguy and Swarm. Also, a random sampling of articles the candidate claims to have improved revealed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hisashi_Owada&diff=44178777&oldid=8140072 this]; if I had made these minor changes of formatting and categorisation, I definitely wouldn't claim to be a major contributor. Why has the candidate? --
'''Oppose''' admin tools aren't really needed for content writers.  A combined 8.41 percent of his edits are to WP/WT/UT namespaces.  '''
Candidate seems like an excellent contributor, and I'm grateful he's volunteered for this role. However, the main support argument seems to be "8 years of drama-free service," which to me sounds a bit like we're giving candidate a longevity-of-service trophy instead of analyzing his readiness to be an admin. And to me, there's not enough evidence available to determine whether or not the candidate would be trustworthy in this role.
'''Oppose'''. Townlake and Swarm have said it much the way I would sum up my own findings. Doesn't meet my criteria for lack of metrics, but I'm sure if he did he would be trusted not to abuse the tools or the responsibility.
'''Oppose''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong Oppose''' - I don't see a need for the tools, as Buggie explains well. And it doesn't really seem like this was the nominee's idea either, but rather picked out of a hat. There's simply not enough admin-esque experience, and so while 8 years of trust is good, and probably indicative of how they'll do, admin tasks are different, and there's simply not enough of a track record in something close to that.
'''Oppose''' — per Swarm and general lack of activity (in admin areas) given the eight years. —'''<font color=#232323>
'''Oppose'''. Admins are the arbiters of consensus on protected pages, and de facto preferred arbiters for RFC closures on editorial disputes. They need to know what quality editing is. This candidate's article-edit history is weak—I checked all articles to which this user has contributed 30 or more edits, and find none beyond class B. The nature of the subjects does not explain the ratings; in the case of [[John Y. Brown Jr.]], another user, now an admin, took the article to GA.

'''Oppose''' Responses to #7 with respect to RfCs and AfDs are not encouraging, and I think a little more could be said about how consensus can be considered with responses more substantial than "it depends" and "I'll remind participants that it's [[WP:NOTAVOTE|not a vote]].  I also think that the response to #12, while honest and probably what I would say in the same situation, is also suggestive that the editor could simply spend time working in those areas first.  I'm not expecting participation at ANI or anything like that.  I am also unconvinced that experience in the mainspace like TommyBoy has (though {{User|Churn and change}} has brought up that even this might be questionable) is sufficient preparation in itself for mopping, despite it being a main focus of this project.
'''Oppose''' candidates for adminship should have substantial experience in doing administrator-related tasks. This isn't an issue of whether the candidate has any need for the tools - such experience ensures that the candidate knows how to use the tools appropriately and that we can verify this by inspecting their contributions. I'm sure this particular candidate isn't going to delete the main page or anything stupid, but that's not the main potential problem with prospective administrators. More concerning is the possibility that they might use the tools inappropriately in good faith. I'm not expecting candidates to get involved in "drama" or become "ANI warriors", as was suggested above, but for them to get involved in some area where admin tools are helpful. We have many, many such areas and ANI is only one of them. This particular candidate occasionally submits a request to AIV or RFPP, or participates in an AfD, but they've only done to on a few occasions over a long editing career and that is not, in my opinion, enough to show that they can be trusted to handle requests at these venues. The answers to jc37's questions are somewhat shaky as well. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose'''. TommyBoy appears to be a good editor, he wants to help, and I commend him. The circumstances of this nomination give me pause. Kaldari went looking for a long-term editor to nominate based on some arbitrary criteria and found TommyBoy. I'd use different criteria that looked for some experience under fire (I want to see good behavior in bad conditions) and actually bumping into situations that could use the bit. For example, an editor who keeps her head and is helpful in an awkward situation; an editor who must refer undelete requests to admins because she doesn't have the tools to restore an article. TommyBoy says he wants to fight vandalism. Fine. That means I look at the edit count at [[WP:AIV]] -- and find a total of 7 edits. TommyBoy may be coming across a lot of vandals, but he's not reporting many to AIV. (And Bagumba points out that a May 2012 report really sought advice about warning vandals.) It's one thing to revert vandalism, but there's a benefit to leaving talk page messages and making AIV reports. Reverting only fixes one act of vandalism; blocking a vandal can prevent dozens of acts. AIV reports show an editor understands that benefit, and you don't need a bit to make a report. The candidate also has a low AfD edit count: 4 AfD votes in the last 3 years; none this year. I'm not seeing reasonable experience in the areas TommyBoy wants to work. We turn down long time editors when we see limited activity. With so few reports, it is also difficult to be sure about the candidate's understanding of the appropriate issues. A candidate does not have to be a gung-ho vandal fighter or engage in lots of AfD debates. I'd be happy with a candidate who did those tasks every so often &ndash; but often enough to keep an iron in the fire and demonstrate the required skill and understanding. Yes, Pedro is right about [[WP:NONEED]]. I think TommyBoy is safe: I would not expect him to abuse the tools. At the same time, I don't think a sense of safety is enough to grant the bit. If an admin says he will work in a particular area, then I want to see some basic skills and understanding in that area. I'm not asking for skill everywhere -- just where the candidate points in Q1. I'm not asking for CSD or copyright skills. Overall, I did not like Q1 or Q2; Q3 was reasonable. I'm not happy with other Qs (especially the jc37 set): the answers are not atrocious, but they tend to wander off topic (making me question focus) and don't seem that sophisticated. In an edit war with two named users, it's more appropriate to block one or two offending users than protect the page. (Yes, the candidate did not say he'd focus on edit wars, but he did mention page protection.) Edit count is fine; good distribution; good (but sparse) AfD main diagonal. I'd have a much different view of this application if there were 30 recent AIV reports or 30 recent AfDs. Or even 20.
Moved to '''oppose'''. A number of admins in this discussion have persuasively raised legitimate and serious concerns about a lack of basic, key skills in areas where the candidate has expressly stated he wishes to become involved.  sorry,
'''Oppose''' I'm sure TommyBoy is a good editor, but I don't see enough activity where it matters for someone to be an admin. The user says "...continue my efforts to combat vandalism on Wikipedia" - but a look at the automated edits shows '''zero''' for all the tools. Trying to fight vandals and not use the tools available, does not seem like a good idea. '''
'''Oppose''' I'm don't think that what this wiki needs is yet another Vandal fighting Admin. It is possible to do this work effectively with just rollback rights. IMHO it is better for the community that more Vandal fighters to be non admin and therefore acting as peers rather than ''Defenders of the Wiki''. Besides the above dissenting voices have made a significant number of valid point.
'''Oppose''' per Swarm. The almost complete lack of experience in AfD, AIV, and RfPP is a deal-breaker for me, for a candidate who wants to be active in those areas as an admin. I'll also point out that he has had no activity in AfD this year, and that before he has averaged roughly 2 or 3 a year- definitely not what I would call active. He has made only one report to RfPP this year. In addition, the report was unnecessary and improper (and the page was not protected), which leads me to question his judgment further. The only report he made to AIV this year was also completely improper as well, to an [[User talk:216.124.255.23|IP]] who had only made two edits and was not warned for either of them before the candidate filed a report to block. During the block report, he also said that he was not certain if there should be a blanket warning for both edits, or one warning per page vandalized. It's clear that this candidate is completely unprepared for adminship, especially in the areas that he intends to work with. He has incomplete knowledge of policy, and almost no experience, and I have no confidence in giving him the tools.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - Seems like a good editor, but I'd like to see more experience in admin-related fields.
'''Oppose''' albeit a week oppose per Swarm's comments.  I see a good editor who doesn't have any experience in admin-related tasks.  It is hard to give support when there is no track record.  I think if TommyBoy works in AfD, AIV, and RfPP over the next 6 months, they would gain over 90% support during the next AfD.
'''Oppose'''. I have to agree with Townlake, Bgwhite, Buggie111, Slon02, and Swarm. I'm concerned with the low AFD participation. And with the number of years that candidate has been editing on Wikipedia, I find it very puzzling that he didn't understand how to opt in. Even after several attempts to explain it, there remained confusion. Seems like such a shot in the dark for this candidate, i.e., has a desire to take aim, but has no idea what he's shooting at. I think he needs to take a step back, review the tools that he has available to him, and learn how to accurately utilize them in administrative areas to the benefit of the community. He needs to see the full picture and be able to fully grasp how the community functions before he can dive into the areas in which he has expressed interest. It is important to have the knowledge and understanding necessary to carry out the responsibilities with confidence. In my opinion, we already have too many admins that lack a basic understanding of the project's policies and guidelines from the Manual of Style to the deletion policy. Other than that, answers to Qs #5, #6, #10, and #11 raise an eyebrow. I think we need to see a bit more experience here. I don't think it will take much time for this candidate to gain this knowledge, but until then, I have to regretfully oppose. <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' The mop isn't a prize you get for being here x number of years. I would happily support in the near future if the user has SOME experience with admin-related tasks.
'''Oppose'''. I don't see this editor as admin material. I appreciate the polite demeanor and the no doubt sincere attempts at creating articles, but there is no indication that Tommy will be able to handle most of the duties of an admin, and I don't believe his article content skills are very good. I took an article at random ([[Kay A. Orr]]) from Tommy's list. Tommy indeed started the article, but his efforts were meager and subpar. Two other editors ([[User:Zigzig20s]] and [[User:SWMNPoliSciProject]]) actually improved the article, including sourcing it and creating a reasonable layout. I'm not impressed with the content Tommy added (the article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kay_A._Orr&oldid=101136307 still unsourced many edits and two years after creation]) or the credit he's taken for doing so.--
'''Oppose''' According to the bio Tommy has been growing up whilst being a Wikipedia editor and that is a great thing. But the long tenure of quite and productive editing notwithstanding there is little to work with when trying to evaluate how he'd do when equipped with the tools, from the little on his talk page to his answerers to the questions that I perceive at somewhat missing the point. So whilst certanly not mistrusting his intentions, I'm just non confident enough. --
Due to lack of experience in admin-related areas. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' no doubt he won't wilfully misuse the tools, but new editors can be put off from continuing to contribute, and general disruption to the project can result, from inappropriate use of the tools (even if reversed quickly). In addition, administrators are looked on as being arbiters of consensus and policy - how can you do that if you aren't familiar with them? I'm not asking for anything much - just a few weeks of actively contributing to the relevant areas.  <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Neutral'''. Looking back to May 2012, TommyBoy has no XfD comments. He certainly should not be closing AfDs. I am unconvinced that he will spend time blocking vandals. I do not believe that TommyBoy will make any significant impact with the tools. On the other hand, I don't think that he will misuse them either.
'''Neutral for now''', perhaps even moral support, I will wait till see the answers to the questions (especially the ones from jc37), however I must say that the fact that this page is listed in the top 10 most edited pages in the WP namespace is cause for concern, and will need some good answers to over come that .
TommyBoy is a solid content contributor, for sure, and they are more valuable to us than admins; however, there is next to no evidence of actual work in admin-type areas (7 edits to AIV and 11 to RFPP are the sum total of his contributions to admin areas of projectspace). I'm somewhat concerned with the relatively high level of support already evident here given this situation, and would appreciate some clarification from those presently supporting (of the nine at the moment, only Kaldari has offered any proper rationale in the form of the nomination itself, and even that is unconvincing).
'''Neutral'''. I was going to oppose, based largely on the candidate's lack of experience in the pseudo-admin areas (for example, the relatively sparse participation at XfD for a prospective admin with ''eight years'' service). On the other hand, I don't really see anything that indicates that TommyBoy would make a mess of anything were he to be given the mop, and I find Dennis Brown's argument pretty persuasive, so that leaves me here.
'''Neutral''' - I've been going back and forth between support and oppose, and can't make a decision.  So, I guess that means I end up here.  I lean to oppose because of the lack of experience in admin areas and lukewarm answers to questions.  I lean to support because the candidate has been here for such a long time and hasn't screwed anything up yet, so it's likely he won't screw anything up as an admin.
'''Neutral''' - I'm leaning support, mostly for the same reasons as Dennis Brown states.  I'm not too concerned with the lack of experience in AIV, AfD, etc. per se, but I am concerned that some of the answers to the questions, especially 6 & 7 (but really 5-8) don't tell me much, and while I think TommyBoy has clue and would be a net positive with the mop, I would like to see a little more evidence of that with more explicit and detailed answers to jc37's questions before I commit to support.
'''Neutral''' - an excellent editor who has done some really fantastic work in the past years but I agree with the above in saying I do not see much experience or reasons to grant him the sysop status. Don't think it will be a tragedy if he is given the extra tools though. Keep up the good work! --
'''Neutral''' I find no evidence that the candidate would be definitely inappropriate to be given the bit (if I did, this would be a comment in the ''oppose'' section), but I also do not see enough evidence in admin-areas to be able to judge how well the candidate would be able to act there. If the candidate seriously wants to work in admin areas (and I hope the experience here doesn't put them off!), then perhaps such experience would help in a future RfA. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia '''''
'''Support''' happy to be first!
'''Support''' this user seems like they won't [[WP:DDMP|cause chaos]] and seems to make themself useful.
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this for a while.&nbsp;
'''Yep!''' I've only seen good things from Writ -- as Thine says, "seems like they won't [[WP:DDMP|cause chaos]]". <sarcasm> And that's all that matters, isn't it? </sarcasm>  '''<font color=#232323>
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support'''; sorry I couldn't beat the people trying to beat us noms, got hung up at work a bit longer than I thought.
'''Support'''. - Looks good to me! We need all the ''fresh'' help we can get! ~
'''Support'''  {{ec}} Writ is a good all round Wikipedian and an excellent admin candidate.--<span style="">
'''Support''' - Actually, when I blocked SA, you handled it very well.  You were likely frustrated by your last post, but you weren't rude in the least and focused on still trying to help him.  If anything, that proves to me you can stay calm under pressure.  You tried to help him multiple times, kept your cool, you explained it well, you said all the things I try to say, the way I try to say them, so I'm glad to support and looking forward to working with you at [[WP:SPI]].
'''Support''': The co-nomination by The Blade of The Northern Lights is an immediate indication of trust. Knowing BNL as a Bureaucrat, if an editor that long standing and that well read & respected is convinced he will make a good admin, I have an immediate inclination to trust this editor. I agree with the nominators point, more competent technically focused Admins would be a great assistance to editors like myself working to clear all manner of procedural backlogs.
Per noms. Btw, I don't know complete answers to many of the questions you've been asked so far, and I've been here a while. - Dank (
'''Support''' &mdash; I don't think I've ever interacted with [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] directly, but I've definitely seen him around, and I have been given no reason to doubt that he'll do good work with the sysop bit.
'''Support'''--thought you already were!
'''Support'''. CSD work looks good. AfD work looks good. Didn't find any copyright violations or even close paraphrasing in your content contributions. A random survey of your talk page comments shows a calm, composed editor. No reason not to support.
'''Support''' A great editor; will be a great admin.
Since when hasn't s/he been an admin?
'''Support''' The few interactions I've had were positive and I appreciate Writ's work at the [[WP:Teahouse|teahouse]].  Should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. I've seen Writ Keeper around, and have been impressed with his/her CSD work, policy knowledge, and temperament. No problems here. — '''''
'''Support''' Given the answers to the questions and their history, the candidate shows that they have a good grasp of policy knowledge and how to apply policy to actual work around the project. While the candidate's edit count is reasonably low I feel that they will make a good admin in the long run. Good luck, and I hope you get a new mop in around 7 days. '''
Looks good, its nice to have fresh blood. ''
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Answers to questions suggest to me that while they are not the most experienced candidate we've had here, they will refer to guidance and ask questions before using tools in areas in which they are not familiar. More mainspace contributions would be good, but I see no reason to oppose here. --
'''Support''' Working here for over 1 year is totally fine for adminship. Good luck--
'''Support''' No reason not to. I've seen them around and they seem mature and reasonable, and the nominations are good. —
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' per nomination. '''
'''Support''' <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' Thought he'd been around much longer than that. Don't think I've had any direct interaction, but that can be a good sign, considering my areas of operation... Seen him around a lot in many places - never seen a problem.
Good work at the Teahouse, and has done some DR work - huge plus in my books. I'm sure you'll do fine. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Friendly, helpful, and has a level head. He'll do fine.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - "I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things." This candidate sees his role as "trying to refine the dispute back to the essentials, try to broker an agreement on those essentials based on policy and common sense as much as possible, and then suggest overall solutions that match the core agreements. Really, it's just common sense....". A nutshell answer to what is an admin. ```
'''Support''' Will benefit the project.
'''Support''' Writ has a good head on his shoulders, makes good decisions and has been nothing short of helpful in projects I have been involved in and in helping me out on my talk page (and ''I'm'' an admin!). I think he'd respect the mop for sure!
'''Support''' - Acknowledging support of Dennis Brown, Steven Zhang, Sarah Stierch, etc. above.
'''Support''' - He'll be great in deletion work and quite helpful and kind to the newbies. Great choice.
'''Support''' - no concerns and a good pedigree of supporters.
'''Support''' nice CSD log in various areas, would be a net benefit imo.
'''Support'''. Hell yes.
'''Support.''' Not only does he have clue, but I've seen him do great work at the [[WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]], interacting with new editors. That's an excellent skill to have as an admin; with that, I'm happy to support. --
'''Support''' User has clue, Have seen their CSD work and don't recall any serious issues there, good answers to the questions, including the civility block one.
I am pleased to support this nomination. I am particularly pleased with the answers provided to all of the questions, while being impressed by the answer to my own question; very impressed! <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
Oh, yeah, I guess I support this editor too. <small>WK, please have the courtesy to not do something drastic again when I'm out camping! </small>
'''Support''' I like the candidate's maturity and readiness to discuss perceived shortcomings; their Teahouse work is a plus. Should do a good job with the tools.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive.
'''Support''', as I see no reason not to. The opposes and neutrals are quite unconvincing to me at the moment; the only one of them that gives me any pause whatsoever is Amadscientist's, and even then barely any cause I probably would have had the same general reaction to the question in question. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''', good user, long enough experience, good CSD log. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Support''' Well-rounded editor. '''
'''Support''' No concerns at all. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' I think that this is the proper section.
'''Support'''; looks a good candidate.
'''Support''' - I see no particularly serious problems, and oppose #1 is completely laughable.
'''Sure''' Unlikely to break the wiki, and neither oppose is convincing.  --''
'''Support''' Really thoughtful answers to the questions above, including my own (unrelatedly, a humorous edit summary based on statement in #18: '' *gasp* a singular "they" OPPOSE OPPOSE ABANDON SHIP'')  I have also watched Writ's participation at [[WP:TEAHOUSE|The Teahouse]], and know that even as an admin, he will continue to be inviting and respectful towards new users who are unfamiliar with policies and guidelines.  As a side note, I think the amount of time concerns here are way off-base.  Sheer "amount of time" is far less important than how that time is spent, and Writ has had a very industrious first year.  That Writ is responsible is apparent, and I trust that the mop will be a good fit with this editor.
'''Support''' No major concerns, if he was to help good luck to him.
'''Support'''. Lacking in content creation, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support''' Wow, excellent answers to the questions. I don't have any concerns here. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support'''. I do believe they should work towards greater content creation; with that said, appears to be a good candidate.

Sufficient experience. i usually am less than happy about candidates with little experience in article writing, but his excellent  work in advising users shows his understanding of the process. And his patience here with some over-persistent   questioning  is very commendable. When pressed for full explanations of what I saw as perfectly clear from his first responses, he gave  excellent well-thought out further discussions of the problems. '''
Good luck on your admin career. Regards. —
'''Support''' - Highly competent and respectful candidate. I can find no reason to oppose.
'''Support''': What Jschnur said above. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Distinctly unimpressed''' with a candidate who eschews [[User_talk:Worm_That_Turned/Archive_18#Who is next...|my nomination]]. Writ will make an excellent admin, I knew that then and I know that now.
'''Support''' is joseki. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Users can help in many different ways.  We should be easygoing about handing out access, and equally easygoing about revoking it.  This user seems to have a pleasant disposition and be clueful.  It doesn't take more than a year to demonstrate those characteristics.
'''Support'''. Polite, helpful editor, evidently understands policy, helps new users (with correct advice, from what I've seen); basically, candidate is made of [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]]. Give him a mop and let him get on with it.
Writ is a great example of everything right with Wikipedia: helpful, coherent and heck, even smart(!) His work at the Teahouse, both technical and question wise, has been fantastic. No concerns. '''Strong support''' --
No issues; I agree with the concerns expressed by SkepticalRaptor, but not sufficient for me to not support.
'''Support'''. Lots of clue, great noms, no big deal etc etc.... I don't normally !vote on RfAs which are obviously going either to succeed or fail. But there are one or two tendentious statements among the opposes and I wanted to weigh in to express my pleasure at the candidate's coolness in the face of these.
'''Support''' As per Drmies and Yunshui the user has been around since Sept 2011 and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' - Oppose rationales are entirely unconvincing. "S/He spends too much time helping new users", "S/He focus too much on the back end of the project" (where we expect admins to be active). No significant issues brought up.
'''Support''' As with the support !vote directly above, I can't see how a dedication to helping newbies at Teahouse can be considered a negative, even if it does subtract from article space work. And I continue to believe that not all admins need be outstanding content creators themselves in order to wield the mop effectively.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
Opposes are patently unconvincing.
No issues. --'''
'''Support''' - I almost voted weak oppose, because of some legitimate concerns raised by Amadscientist, but I respect the judgement of the nominators and I think it's OK to have admins who operate behind the scenes, keeping the machinery well-oiled. Writ Keeper seems to be very thoughtful in his approach and would undoubtedly exercise good judgment as an admin. -
The first opposer has this on his userpage: "Things I Hate 2. Judgementality on users" Then he goes and opposes someone not based on their contributions, but what he perceives as a lack of time on Wikipedia. lol.
I've been thinking of this for a couple days and I think this user would be a net benefit as an admin
'''Support'''  That Drmies puts this forth catches my attention, so I did have a look. I like what I see, and trust this editor to use commonsense in their efforts here. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' per Drmies.
'''Support''' here's a candidate who really has a good reason for getting the bit, has demonstrated knowledge of the areas for its intended use, and nothing to justify strong opposition.  --
'''Support''' Writ Keeper has good experience and would be a competent and helpful admin. <span style="background-color:lightpink;">
'''Oppose''' per Q21.  Writ Keeper failed to recognize that 398 is a birthdate (March 9, 2008) which would make this user 4.  His answer flies in the face of our [[Wikipedia:Child_protection]] policy.  Besides, a 4 year old is not a "Sexy girl" despite the mom's on [[Toddlers %26 Tiaras]].--v/r -
'''Support''' as ''[[Mostly Harmless]]''; which is a compliment meaning you won't break anything, so why not? <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' Trusted user, no reason to think this user would abuse the bit. ''<B>--
'''Support''' No problems here.—
'''Support''' – Moving from neutral: After further reviewing, I believe that despite Writ Keeper's short Wikipedia career, the user will be able to manage the tools efficiently. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' no reason to oppose.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like he'll be a good janitor.
'''Support''' I see no reasons to oppose. I do like that the candidate helps out the Teahouse with new users and I am impressed by the CSD log.
'''Support'''. At first, I was going to support based only on the strength of the nominators, but some appear to object to that quasi-lazy rationale. Then, I resisted supporting based on the number of contributions/length of time thing, but some don't like counting rationales. Finally, today, I read a comment Writ Keeper (gee, and I thought it was a legal reference) made at DRV, and that tipped the scales for me. Anyone who has the guts or stupidity to wade into the ArbCom debacle during his RfA deserves to become an admin. Also, for the most part I like his answers to questions (note about unblock request - a blocking admin can ''accept'' a request).--
'''Support'''. Someone we can trust with the mop.
'''Support''' I see no red flags that Writ Keeper would misuse the tools in any way. They are helpful, clueful, and will make a good addition to the clean-up crew.--
'''Support''' per Bzweebl's rationale for opposing.  Admins will encounter lots of new users, so someone who helps a lot at the Teahouse will better be able to help them, and someone who uses talk pages extensively is likely to be more collaborative.
'''Strong Support''' Writ's Teahouse work is extraordinary, showing not only politeness with new users, but in addition a great understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. In addition, the amount of Teahouse requests that he answers quickly show that he can swiftly respond to things. <sup><font face="verdana"><font color="periwinkle">'''
'''Support'''. I regret that I haven't crossed paths with the candidate before now. I've read all of the opposing and neutral comments here, and I poked around in the candidate's early edits and discussions, looking for the proverbial skeleton in the closet, and I didn't find one. I think the Teahouse work is a positive, not a negative. I'm not worried about length of time here, or quantity of content writing, because I can see that the candidate can take part in discussions with editors who disagree, and remain courteous and clueful. I'm satisfied that the candidate will not overreach, and I trust them with the tools. --
'''Support'''. I rarely weigh in on these but this nomination is frankly overdue. -
'''Support'''.  Haven't had the pleasure of conversation with this editor, but based on my review of his answers above and the support of many in whom I have great trust, I believe that Writ will do quite well in this role.  Always nice to have a level headed editor join the ranks of admin. I'm not the least bit worried about tenure or edit count.  I believe that one can become proficient without having to pass some arbitrary length of time or activity.  (Besides, as Beebs mentions below, 10k edits in a year is hardly inexperienced).  Best of luck to you Writ!
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this candiate. --
'''Support''' Seems competent and unlikely to abuse the tools. Opposes mostly bring up lack of experience, not lack of clue, so I can live with that.
'''Support''' as I believe that this editor will do a fine job with the mop in hand. I look forward to having him in the admin corps and would remind him of ''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerk_and_checkuser_procedures#Patrolling|these instructions]]'' which are <u>tantamount</u> to his success...<small>well okay, not really...just a shameless plug for recruiting him towards more active participation in patrolling at SPI. {{smiley|evil}}</small><br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Excellent answer to Q6; you should always decide consensus based on overwhelming policy vs one small group of editors who happen to be more active in one area, article or mindset. You're trusted with your tools by the whole community, to enforce the whole editorial community's (and Wikimedia Foundation's) standards. Therefore, I'm countering Townlake's oppose. I also see a swath of support from fellow editors/admins whose judgement I trust, so I see no risk in giving you the tools. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. I'm  a little concerned about the answer to  Q.14 and I  thought  offering  the opportunity  to  demonstrate more knowledge of CSD, PROD, and AfD would have cleared this up  (I  was give an hard time over this very issue on  my  own RfA). Anyway, I  see no reason  not  to  trust  Writ Keeper with  the tools, and when he has been given them I  hope he'll  come to  me or another admin for some help over some exceptions that  we practice. I also hope that  he ''will'' take an interest  in  ANI, because too  many cases get archived after 24 hours without being resolved.
'''Support''' - no problems with this - Mop Please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''. I like WK's approach, no concerns at all.
'''Support:'''   Will make a great Admin! -
Would be good and stuff, sensible, clueful, and helpful such that the zombie in me thinks he has a brain well worth eating. -—
'''Support''' - Seems like he would do a good job as an admin.
'''Support''' I see what looks to me like useful anti-vandalism work. The concerns raised do not lead me to suspect that the candidate's use of admin tools would disbenefit the project, and the answers are genuine and indicate a trustworthy user. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' - The Teahouse and CSD work is reason to support not oppose. If admin bit is the mop, then let's support people who work administratively and gnome-ish work.
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Likely Oppose''' He's much of a newbie (1 year, 21 days) and not-so-low edit count (9,858 to date). I know it's risky to oppose, but we have to examine the flaws. Might change my mind because of this, but it's now on paper. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' at this time. First answer to question I posed was "Off putting" and many might be offended by the term "weird" in the sentence when referring to a direct question to them. Social skills are important for admin and while the editor is not horrible at it, they still lack some tact in responding to direct questions. The entire first question asked by this editor was completely blown off and answered in a manner that gives me pause to support, as the nom has point blanck stated they still require help with major issues and I am not satisfied with the "Conduct patrol" comment. I may change my opinion when my follow up questions are answered but the first reply was enough to understand the nomination appears to be a "status quo" candidate.--
This fellow spends most of his time in the Teahouse, where he professes to advise to help people to write articles, but he doesn't seem to have experience writing any article himself.
'''Oppose''' I've looked through [[Adab al-Tabib]] and it seems too weak.  For example, some works state that the author may have been Jewish - see ''[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q0IIpnov0BsC&pg=PA394 A History of Medicine]'' - but this is not mentioned.  As the religion of the author seems to be controversial and the article currently gives weight to a writer who pushes the Moslem faith of the author, this seems too sloppy or tendentious.  As this is supposed to be the candidate's best work, it seems insufficient to grant the candidate power to adjudicate in disputes between other editors.
'''Oppose'''- Too many edits in places like Teahouse and talk page, not enough contributions to articles. However, I am impressed by your CSD log. Keep it up! '''
'''Oppose''' - Weak candidate.
'''Oppose''' - I suppose people focus on things like deleting articles and such, but if an admin is supposed to spend some amount of time getting involved with disputes, and that admin has almost no experience in editing issues especially with controversial articles, it's hard for me to see how useful they'll be as real admins. I see that few seem to care about the need for broad background experienced admins, but I just want to make that point, as this is my first vote on admins.
'''Oppose''' and rather strongly. He hasn't made more than 13 edits to any one article. He has done good work in speedy deletions but the goal of Wikipedia isn't just deleting the bad stuff, its about content creation as well. An administrator needs experience in content creation to really understand how things work here, and I can't support a candidate with so few contributions. Should this not pass, I'd urge the candidate to spend less time in the Teahouse and to turn off the CSD log in Twinkle that is inflating his edit count.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' (Hopefully this will pass anyway.) Per the combination of short tenure and way too few article space edits. --
'''Oppose'''Writ Keeper does not need the admin tools to do his techno magic, as he has already thoroughly proven. Promises to stay away from areas where he has no experience are better than no promises, but are neither enforceable nor, in the heat of the moment, realistic, no matter how honestly meant. And lastly, WK has limited experience in two significant aspects of admin work: content creation and dispute resolution. Keep on your current general track, write some more articles and get more visible experience in dispute resolution, then come back in 6 months or a year.
'''Oppose''' per RegentsPark and Bielle. --
'''Symbolic/Maine driver's license theorem oppose'''. WK is headed for promotion. Q1 starts out fine (work at UAA and AIV; has 105 edits to UAA and 47 edits to AIV; later edit filters), but then gets a small bit unfocused (help where can). I like the reserved stance. Tenure is fine. Edit count has 1100 article space edits that stuck, and that raises a concern about editing experience. The article space edit distribution is skewed from what I expect -- 14 percent article + 4 percent talk. (CSD edits would be multiplied by 3: 1 for article tag, one for user talk, and one for CSD log; successful CSD tag would delete article edit.) I don't have hard limits for edit counts, but edit counts can suggest issues. Article space tags require reading and understanding the article, but good CSD tags would not give rise to much debate. That explains Q3 revealing no significant conflict. I want to see admins have significant conflict and be on both sides: stepping and stepped. I want to see balance and exposure. High article edits also imply exposure to consensus building in difficult situations. CSD tagging skills are fine. AfD main diagonal shows accuracy, but keep votes nearly absent (the confusion matrix has errors). Not only is the candidate weak on content creation, but also primary effort is deletion (many AfD noms). Candidate is missing some valuable perspective. At [[User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/1#Firearm Cartridges]], WK minimizes newbie Fundamental Motivation's complaint about WK's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartridge_(firearms)&diff=480877552&oldid=480876636 10K character revert] as "you spent just above one hour on this, not many". See also [[User talk:Fundamental Motivation]]. WK reverted FM's first eight edits ever; FM rallied to fix problems over the next few days, but FM stopped editing within a month. There were problems with FM's edits, but I wonder if a content editor might be a little more sensitive. WK's answer to my Q14 was fine; GNG is the issue for elementary schools. WK will be a fine admin, but I want to see broader exposure/experience. Content work has significant benefits.
Answer to Q6 is wrong -- admins don't get to close consensus discussions based on which policy argument they like best. That's called "supervoting" and it's been a problem for some admins in the past. In addition, the mainspace edit activity is not exactly impressive. That said, this looks like it'll pass, and I congratulate you on being the first candidate in two months to pass RFA, but please be careful with the tools when you get started.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience in main article space editing. Until we have specific sets of admin tools for specific jobs I can't support any candidate with the full range of admin tools / responsibilities
I've been giving this candidacy a lot of thought, because I'd like to support you; however, there are some issues which prevent me from doing so. Mainly it's your lack of experience dealing with content disputes that gives me pause {{emdash}} trust me, when you are an admin, disputes have a way of finding you {{emdash}}, but I also think some of your answers are off the mark. That said, it looks like this RfA is going to pass, so I'd like to echo what Townlake said: congratulations, but please be careful. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Q10 response nudges my concerns that you spend a lot of time in social areas without having gained cue on dealing with tricky situations, something you should be comfortable with before becoming an admin. Maybe you won't be a bad admin, but I would like to see that your number to the tally would be a benefit. I don't see that, so I see no reason you should get this hat. -
'''Oppose''' I'm satisfied by the quality of his CSD log. However, I've noticed a remarkable total of 4 edits to RFPP. Slightly concerned about deletionist tendencies in the AfD !votes (91% delete, and 5.5 speedy delete). I understand that this is a result of most of his contributions to AfD being his own nominations, but I'd prefer to see some participation in discussions. Mild objections about the 46 reports to AIV, but concerns about sparse participation there (none in October, 4 in September, 1 in August, 4 in July, 2 in June). No concerns about experience at UAA. Stronger concerns about a lack of content creation, and what I see as limited contribution to content. I think it's important for admins to have some experience creating content and collaborating with other editors to know what the point of Wikipedia is. Basically, although I appreciate the candidate's experience and willingness to help, I'd feel more comfortable if he had more experience. He's ready for UAA, but I feel that article work and creation is a must for admins involved in CSD, even though he has good enough experience in CSD tagging. Not enough confidence for RfPP or AIV, and adminship is a package deal, so I oppose this nomination.--
I don't want to oppose, but I can't support you in good faith. Not that I think you'd misuse the tools for any particular reason or anything, but a dichotomy of your contributions show me something: your total number of edits are, roughly, 9,900. Of those edits, the article namespace is the third most edited namespace behind the user and user talk namespaces. Non-essential areas of Wikipedia where you have the most edits are: [[User:Writ Keeper/CSD log]] (1,300 edits), [[Wikipedia: Teahouse/Questions]] (325), [[Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge]] (100), [[Wikipedia talk:Teahouse]] (100), your own talk page (250) and [[User talk:Drmies]] (100). I think my point is these are your most frequented pages, and I think if you cut them out, a fourth of your edits no longer being there is significant, to me at least. I think if you expand your horizons beyond these few pages, you'd make a fine administrator. Regards, —
On the one hand, it's absolutely absurd to see opposes for spending too much time helping new editors - probably the worst reason I've seen since my AfD was opposed because I walked away from a conflict rather than escalated it.  On the other hand [[The Dyon Skull|this CSD tagging was bad - tagging something as a hoax that was almost certainly true]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Instagram+marketing&timestamp=20120921071311&diff=prev this CSD tagging was bad - tagging as promotional a page that didn't promote anything (although it had a bit of a how-to to it)], and ''every'' arguement they've ''ever'' made at AfD is delete, or some version thereof.  I am concerned that this user would be way too fast to pull the trigger and delete articles that should be deleted (ironically enough, driving away new users and undoing all the good work at the teahouse.)
'''Neutral'''  I asked myself "Would I have a problem if you got the bit now", and I think the answer is no.  I think you are a reasonable person who will listen to feedback if you make mistakes.  That said, I don't think I can support you right now because I think you blew it on some of the username questions.  Downwithwebclient101 could be a classroom account that needs guidance on setting up proper acedemic accounts.  Or it could just be a regular user with a strange name.  The fact that we have a user named webclient101 doesn't necessarily mean that the new account is related.  Now if user:webclient101 came to me and said, "I'm pretty sure this is about me", then by all means, block it.  The User:WikiReviewBot account is more of a "softblock on sight" type of thing, with a note that we don't allow accounts with bot in the name and an invitation to create a new account.  We don't need to look for bot-like editing patterns, the name that implies bot is a violation in itself.  You seem to be able to read policy and generally get what the idea behind it was, but I'd prefer to see a little more experience in the real-world application of it before throwing full support.  I think if you do get the bit now you will operate in a cautious enough fashion to not cause serious problems, so that is why I will not oppose.
At present the opposes range from weak to ridiculous, but I'm wary of the low articlespace count (given that it's over a relatively short period of time) and especially the ratio of edits to the encyclopedia and its direct infrastructure compared to edits to the social stuff (WK has nearly half as many edits to user talk as I have, for instance, and three times as many edits to user talk as to articles). "I will avoid ANI" is also a bit of a shame: we need more clueful admins at ANI, which is supposed to be a quick way of getting admin action and not a clubhouse.
'''Neutral''' I'm a bit concerned about the low activity in article creation that others have mentioned. Not enough to outright oppose, but it's still a concern.
The opposes above are fairly weak in isolation, but many share a common theme. Candidates do not have to abide by anything said in the nomination statements or answers to questions.<p>I'm reasonably confident that Writ Keeper would gain non-admin experience of new areas before helping out with the tools. However, under the current RfA system there is virtually nothing that can be done if I'm wrong (in this case in relation to using the block button for content-related problems). I normally oppose candidates on this basis, but am neutral in this instance because of how well suited Writ Keeper is for the tasks listed in question one, and because of the Writ Keeper's clear statement that "I have no desire to go near ANI".<p>Give candidates the option to say what they have no desire to ever do, and to be held to such statements, and non-supports on these grounds would largely disappear. —[[User talk:WaitingForConnection|WFC]]— <sub>'''
'''Support''' - Although one has to question the professionalism of anyone that starts the answer to a question on an RfA with "OMGs", this is a contributor in good standing since 2008 with a clean block log, and no negatives in recent history that I can see on a quick glance at the contribution history.
'''Support'''; you've addressed my concerns well. You've got my support.
'''Support''' - This editor has a long history of significant article contributions (which led me to grant her autopatrolled last year), a clean block log, a good understanding of policies around deletion (at least as demonstrated by AfD participation), a civil manner, and a plausible use for the delete/view delete/undelete tools.  I've made an additional review of contributions again today, and believe that the encyclopedia would benefit from her having access to the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' - I nominated her.
'''Support''' Like PCHS, I'm not impressed with the answers to question one and two. Otherwise, the editor seems to be a good candidate.
This is a rather unusual RfA, in several ways. I share Anthony's view that she lacks experience in the traditional admin areas. However, from what I can see on her talk page, I expect her use of the tools to be very much uncontroversial. After looking at the candidate for a short while, I gladly support: Use for tools was shown, and since I believe adminship truly is "no big deal" for her, it's in my opinion also no big deal to grant it.
[[WP:NOBIGDEAL|Adminship is no big deal]]. <font color="#FFB911">'''
'''Support''' Why not? Also, props for doing this on April 1st.
'''Support''' -- Fantastic editor who's done much work for the project.
Lowish edit count but great editor. Happy to support. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
Though the answers to the first 3 questions sound amaturish, they show the sense of humour that would go a long way in helping this editor cope with any future conficts he or she might have.  &ndash;
No concerns from me.
'''Support'''. This is definitely an unusual RfA, with a slightly unusual candidate. But I kind of like that. We need lots of different kinds of people to be admins. I like her question answers too. At this stage in the game the answers to the typical questions are almost "canned" in a sense, we've all seen it before. I find her relaxed, honest answers quite refreshing. The candidate knows the policies of the areas she works in, she's certainly not a drama magnet, clean record, hard working so why not?
'''Support''' longterm sensible editor with her heart in the right place. The dif showing that she has a low opinion of some admins does not seem to me to be a good reason to oppose, even if like me you don't agree with the particular solution that she supported. If anything a candidate who is offering to be an admin but does not intend to be part of some power hungry clique is a good thing, whether or not you believe that such a clique exists. ''
'''Support''':  For creating actual researched articles of value, e.g., recently [[Theodor Rowehl]] and [[Bernhard Kummer]], this is why the project exists.  Seems level headed enough to handle the ministerial tasks of having admin tools.--'''
'''Support''' -- opposes are simply ''unconvincing'' and candidate's contributions look great.
'''Support''' per WereSpielChequers and Amalthea.
'''Support''' Sensible user, good knowledge of content creation, and a demonstrated need for tools in area she works (DYK queue maintenance).  No red flags. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - high-quality article work, and three-plus years' safe editing.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''', seen this editor around. No reason not to support, am confident that she will take things steady to start with.
'''Support''' - Clearly knows her limits, and as such I'm unconcerned by lack of broad admin practice; low probability of going rouge.  Trips none of the [[User:Josh Parris/RfA critera|criteria indicative of failure]], trips one of the
'''Support''' - Not swayed by the opposes. At the end of the day, you're a knowledgeable and dedicated user. You'd put the tools to good use, I have no doubt. You never know, access to these tools may open doors to other areas of Wikipedia you may like to branch into.
'''Support'''.  While you're not the most knowledgeable in some fields, you know what you're doing in many other places, and you seem to know your limits like [http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/characters/socrates_p4.html Socrates is said to have done].  Confident that you'll use the tools responsibly and capably.
'''Support''' per Amalthea. --
'''Support -''' I was watching this RfA since April 1, when I thought it was just another hoax for a while, but Yngvadottir's additional answers have won me over completely. She not only seems to be passionate about what she does, looking through her history, but she is unique and has a real sense of humor which is lacking these days. I like her humility and the fact she isn't shy to say, "Hey, this looks like a challenge for me," but still promises to give it her best. It's important for an admin to be able to admit his/her mistakes, if and when a mistake is made, and I feel this editor is more than willing to do that. She is mature, her English is excellent (she has a real flair with words), and I am looking forward to seeing her promoted.
'''Support'''. It's not a strong support, but much more of a "why not". The candidate managed to get through the [[WP:LAME]] fights at [[Yoghurt]] by actually making reasoned responses, has done a lot of good at DYK and is generally clueful. Something's not sitting quite right with me, and I think it's that the candidate doesn't actually appear to want to be an admin. Still, I think they will do a decent job with the tools, even if infrequently, and am willing to support here.
'''Support''' Great content work, sufficient competence, creative attitude. I see someone who contributes to and has sufficient experience with the actual encyclopedic content, and that's what counts. I don't think this candidate will damage encyclopedia as an admin. Yngvadottir wants to help with DYK and protection ... Why not? I'm an admin and I know almost nothing about the article protection, which means that I don't work in that area. Yngvadottir could help there and improve the encyclopedia :) I admit that some of the answers are a bit strange (sometimes it is difficult to find an old AfD discussion, but the admin tool can't help in searching, as far as I know). Another thing is the "anti-admin" link by Nikkimaria. You should not speak like that about any group of people, Yngvadottir. It might be unfair to some honest individuals among them. Be specific, do not generalize. ...But I understand that we all have weak moments and sometimes we don't realize that our rhetoric may be offensive and unjust. I wish you good luck.
'''Support'''. I see someone who thinks carefully, doesn't get into drama, and is going to limit herself to the things she feels confident about. And that's all good with me. --
'''Support''' Looks to be an exceptionally skilled, perceptive and collegial editor, almost too perfect.
'''Support''' - why not? Plus, she seems to be too scared to do any real damage. ;)
'''Support''' Good content creation and seems to know her own limits. Having more DYK savvy admins is a good thing and the reluctance to become an admin is in my opinion a bonus.
'''Support''', more than enough experience (a lot more edits and a lot more content creation than I had when I became an admin). Also per Achowat (who is in the oppose section): we need admins that have clue, not admins that quote policy. —'''
'''Support''' As per WTT, I see no reason why adminship should not be given here. In the hands of an experienced, mature editor, adminship really is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] and I can only see Yngvadottir as a net positive to the project. My sole misgiving, that of talk page archiving, has been addressed. '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Net positive. Yngvadottir definitely has a clue and appears to have the right temperament.
'''Support''' Definite net positive. Has been here long enough to know what's going on. Her [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Yngvadottir&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia edit count pie chart] looks great, 76% article space edits and the other 24% split up among other name spaces! She will tread lightly until she understands how to use the admin tools.
'''Support''' Good content editor, and a reluctant admin is more likely to make wise use of the tools. Plus, we need more female admins and here we have someone who seems to fit the bill. Add worm's yoghurt rationale and the erudite response to keepscases question and this should be a no-brainer. For once I'm flummoxed by the opposes. :) --
'''Support''' per Nikkimaria's diff: Yngesdottir wrote "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=prev&oldid=479517372 Admins do indeed band together to defend each other, especially at AN/I" and "we see in the Wikipedia admin corps a nasty demonstration both of power corrupting and of the attraction of "cop" positions for people who like bossing others around."] Honesty, intelligence, and self-criticism are needed in administrators. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Based on recent answers.
'''Support'''. I was leaning towards neutral - more thought about what being an admin will involve and why they want to be one, and a bit of reading round the relevant guidance pages would probably have resulted in answers to questions that would have satisfied a greater number of people - but I like the honesty in the answers (particularly Q2 - too many forget why the project exists), and don't feel that Yngvadottir is likely to abuse the tools. I don't find the diff criticising (some) admins troubling - this is how many admins are perceived, sometimes accurately, and an admin who knows how not to come across to other editors is likely to be a benefit to the project. --
'''Support'''. Strong content contributions, good policy knowledge, multilingual bonus. --
While some of the opposes make valid concerns, she won't abuse the tools and per Kiefer
I doubt this user will break Wikipedia if given the tools. Seriously, this seems like a great candidate.
'''Support''' I'll take ambivalence over over-eagerness anyday....net chance of being net positive.
I've finally decided to go here and '''support'''. I think that most of the issues concerning Yngvadottir appearing to not be taking this seriously simply stem from a lack of a strong desire. And that's a good thing, since he will be ''far'' less likely to jump into with things he doesn't understand. I also do not care about having "only" 9000 edits, or the comment that Nikkimaria pointed out.
While there are other things we can do with them, fundamentally admin tools are editing tools, and her activity at DYK alone seems to justify a need for the tools. As for the rest - I've seen no evidence to suggest that she would misuse the tools, and a fair bit to suggest that should wouldn't. So '''support'''.
'''Support''' - I examined this RFA nominee and found: a long history of nothing but constructive contributions, an openness to discuss answers and ideas, a mature ability to self-evaluate and to understand their limitations, and a lack of desire to use admin tools outside of their expertise -- all of these are positives. And I find nothing to lead me to distrust Yngvadottir with administrator tools. Their sense of humor -- an often necessary attribute here-- is also appreciated. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' Been waiting to see how things were going (and to let people do the digging...). I also waited for an answer to Keepscases' question. I know some people don't like his questions, but I do. All in all, there's some room for expansion of YD's knowledge of admin stuff. (Hell's teeth, there's room for expansion in mine...) Doesn't worry me - she'll be cautious and learn (as I'm trying to). I see no cause for worry that she'll wreck the place, and feel that her refreshingly humorous attitude covers serious depths. To those that think she didn't accept the nomination, she did. Said "!", which covers the way I felt at the start of my week hanging on the tree pretty well. Otherwise per Ooh Bunnies and WSC.
'''Support''': Per Guettarda and CactusWriter. Additionally, we criticise editors for been too keen to become an admin, but to oppose them for not coming across as keen ''enough'' is ridiculous. I see a long term content writer with a clean block log who I don't think will do anything daft with the tools on the fewer (in comparison to other admins) occasions she will use them, and therefore it is the quintessence of [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] that this editor should be granted +sysop.
Per Casliber. <font face="Comic sans MS">
I'm supporting on the basis that Yngvadottir doesn't really seem to be bothered whether she's an administrator or not.
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' - Long-term, trusted editor who has given no indication that she would use the tools inappropriately.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' - We have worked together on a few small things, and I remember Yngvadottir as clueful and levelheaded. I think this is the kind of editor who will, as administrator, first ask, and only then shoot. --
'''Support'''. I have worked with this editor and think they're fine. Also, per Malleus, item 2.
'''Support''' – level-headed, experienced, and intelligent; the mop will only help.
'''Support''' no real reason to object. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support'''. This is possibly the most unconventional RfA I have ever seen. For me, something that I care about very much in administrator candidates is "first, do no harm". It seems to me that this is a candidate who well understands what goes into content creation, and who is very much not hungering to grab power. We have enough of a track record to know that she isn't a trouble-maker. In large part, she will probably end up being able simply to be more helpful at DYK, and she is unlikely to break RFPP. I could agree with opposition on the basis of a lack of dedication to the intricacies of admin policies and procedures, if a candidate were planning to use those procedures the ways most admins do. But I don't see opposing a candidate simply because they haven't supplicated sufficiently. Anyone who freely admits to their lack of self-confidence in using computer technology is unlikely to go on a power rampage. --
'''Support'''- [[:File:Leapoffaith.jpg|Leap of Faith]]; prolific user working an area where the tools would alleviate unproductive waiting. Unlikely to misuse the tools deliberately. Even computers can have personality, per [[Tomorrow Is Yesterday|Signet 14]].
'''Support''' per PCHS-NJROTC, Worm That Turned, Malleus, Rcsprinter and others. (basically I'm too lazy to write all my reasons out) --<span style="">
'''Support'''; adminship should be no big deal. Can't see any reason to say no, and anyone getting a support vote from Malleus deserves a chance. A new admin with a healthy scepticism about the powers and role of the corps would be a good thing.
'''Support''' I dont think we should oppose her simply because it was a "surprise" nomination.   <b>
'''Support''' - Knowledgeable, hard working and valued Wikipedian.  Opposers are unconvincing.  Net plus for community to grant extra buttons.
'''Support'''. Wow, an actual content contributor! Love your answer to question number 2. Your quote in Oppose vote number 2 cinched it for me. PMA all the way!
I think that Yngvadottir will make a fine admin. I really don't see her being an abusive administrator, and I have been impressed with her conduct throughout this nomination. I don't consider her edit count or the fact she hasn't sought adminship to be important: 9000 edits is ''more'' than enough to help judge someone's experience for adminship, and that she isn't bothered if she is an admin or not is a plus to me.
'''Support''' - Looks fine overall. Many of those opposing are focusing on some of the more unorthodox aspects of this RfA. Those don't concern me at all.
'''Support''' − A seemingly nice and knowledgeable editor who has spent a lot of time at the coal face making Wikipedia a better place. Good luck. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Support'''. Excellent article contributions. Most of the things said by the opposers seem to me like endorsements of the candidate. Wikipedia needs friendly and helpful administrators who see research and writing as their main calling here, not people who see administratorship as something particularly desirable or as a vocation in itself apart from writing. --
'''Support''' Trawled through quite some of the editor's contributions and have pleasantly found troves of impressive and classy edits. Helpful, trustworthy, and diligently committed to the project, Yngvadottir is an editor who simply is more used to communicating informally than push a serious image to the people around. The fantastic part is the honesty involved in her communication and actions. Especially within an RfA, unfortunately, this may give off a flippant image - which clearly is neither her intention nor what must be construed. I can imagine her using her now trademarked OMGs and smileys with newbies and can vouch that perhaps that may be more effective in creating a sparkling and welcoming dialogue for new editors than do some of our inveterate welcome/warning tags. There is of course the question of the opposes below. In summary, these widely touch the following areas: her RfA answers are non-serious (too short/too long/too delayed/informal), she has once left a partly negative statement of her view on administration, her talk page is not archived, she took long to sign the RfA and that her experience is lacking in admin-related areas. Leave the last reasoning (which is a credible and perfectly competent reason the community holds), the other reasons provided in the opposes can be improved by the editor in perhaps just a day. Yngvadottir has also already committed to initially not close discussions where consensus has to be fathomed. Given all that, I'm sure the closing bureaucrat would consider it proper to convey a guiding advice to the editor while closing this RfA, which I do expect to be closed as successful. It'll be good to have Yngvadottir with us handling administration.
'''Support'''. Converting my initial "O" to "S" in light of responses throughout RFA.
'''Strong support'''. A deserving candidate.--
'''Oppose''' This editor has a very acceptable total edit count of nearly 9000 edits, but there is in my view a deficit of edits in admin-related activities. I am, however, prepared to be convinced by reasoned argument. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - I think Yngvadottir is a good editor, particularly around DYK, but there are some issues here. The answers to questions (as of now) are not great. The lack of talk-page archiving I would actually see as a negative: at a whopping 357kB the talk page is absolutely ''huge'', and so both daunting for newer editors and potentially problematic for those with slower computers or poor internet connections. Also, while I would have no problem with Yngvadottir being able to edit through protection on queues, adminship grants a whole host of other abilities that I'm not sure would be appropriate to this editor, particularly around blocking or deletion. Perhaps most importantly: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=prev&oldid=479517372 "we see in the Wikipedia admin corps a nasty demonstration both of power corrupting and of the attraction of "cop" positions for people who like bossing others around"].
'''Oppose''' per Nikki.  That linked diff was particularly serious, and it's disturbing to see such contempt of adminship and administrators from someone who just a month later claims to want to be one.
'''Regretful and Weak Oppose''' - User's content creation is great, a real asset to the project. But going through her contributions to the WP and WT namespaces, there seems to be a much stronger reliance on what feels like the correct course of action than what policy says. In an arbitrary sampling of her contributions to the various noticeboards and a few AFDs, I saw no instance of the user referring explictly to a policy, guideline, or essay. As such, it's very hard to demonstrate an understanding of the policies and procedures that need to guide an Admin's actions. Particularly spectacular answers to questions may sway me though. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' Per BuickCentury <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I applaud the candidate's content creation and wholeheartedly endorse the viewpoint that they are an asset to Wikipedia. I am slightly concerned about their apparent lack of experience in the core admin areas (AIV, RPP, XfD etc.), though I may have been prepared to overlook this, due to the candidates stated desire to mostly use the mop for DYK work. What is more concerning to me, is the lack of response to the additional questions asked by Beeblebrox and Jc37. Whilst I appreciate that the questions are 'optional' the apparent lack of interest in answering them strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. The candidate has had plenty of time to answer those questions and has responded to other points at this RfA since then. I am also concerned about the response to Starblind, when the candidate said: "In any case, there will always be ambitious and authoritarian people around. In a project of this size and scope, I'd better be able to deal with 'em, though I don't understand 'em.". Deal with them how?
'''Oppose''' I think this is going to be one of those RFAs where nearly every person who opposes you prefaces it with an apology or remarks that you seem like a great editor. You do, by the way, seem like a great editor. But "great editor" and "decent administrator" do not require the exact same set of skills. The minute you have the tools, you have them all. The reason for that is that generally you ''need'' them all, or at least most of them, to be effective as an admin. When confronted with a situation where protection is requested, the admin needs to be able to decide if semi protection, full protection, blocking some users, or no action at all is the correct response. (FYI getting involved in the dispute yourself is ''not'' an administrative action, and once you've done so you can't act as an admin in that situation per [[WP:INVOLVED]]) I don't think you have much experience in admin related areas, and I think part of the reason for that is that you don't want to. That's fine, not everyone needs to be an admin, we can use all the good content editors we can get. If you decide you actually want to do this, I'm sure you could acquire the needed experience in admin-related areas over the next few months. I'm not entirely opposed to specialist admins but handing out a mop to a user with little experience in policy matters so that they can correct grammar on one particular protected page is asking a bit much.
'''Oppose'''. Yngvadottir has not formally accepted the nomination. Also, the reasons for adminship are unconvincing.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of not really wanting it. This I feel means there is a lack of interest in understanding the relevant policies but, more importantly, learning what the buttons are for and how to use them properly. It is possible to do damage with the admin tools and all admins must therefore have a desire to learn how to use them. I don't believe the candidate has this interest and there is a risk of clicking the wrong button. Yes, I know all actions can be reversed but knowing how to reverse them yourself is vital. In summary I don't believe the candidate can be trusted with the tools not because they will wilfully misuse them but because they don't know and don't want to know how to. <font color="#E66C2C">
From the answer to Q7, I don't think this candidate quite understands how to close contentious discussions.
'''Oppose''' (and as Beeblebrox suggests, somewhat unfortunately).  You appear to be a good ''contributor''.  Your knowledge of the admin-ish aspects of the project are extremely weak.  Deletion discussions, determining consensus...wow, if you don't have an idea long before now, then becoming an admin should not be your next step.  The most important thing for me, however, is to NOT lose you as a contributor!  You have much to give to the project, yet much to learn ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. A valuable contributor, but your answers to some of the questions above clearly show that you probably should keep your focus on the editorial side of things. I don't think, as Bwilkins and ErikHaugen and others have said, you should be closing certain discussions, based on your answers. —
'''Oppose''' - I was okay with support after going through your contributions, but your answers to questions were not satisfying. I don't think that you are taking this RfA seriously as in the start, you used ''!'' as accepting the nomination. About answers, like you used 'OMGs' in your ans 1. Even I would like to use it but still it is not at all a good thing for a RfA candidate as it creates a doubt about your working abilities. And your answer to question 2 cleared my doubts. This kind of behavior is not a thing that I look in an admin. I don't want to sound rude, but I think you are not eligible for Adminship right now. Sorry, but have to oppose. '''''
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but this seems pretty clear to me. As great as your work has been, your answer to Q1 ''seriously'' sounds like something you just breezed out without actually thinking about all that an admin can do ... I'm just concerned that you, if given the tools, would be using some of them with little to no prior knowledge (and ''almost'' a lack of interest). Now, nothing against Keepscases, but when your answer to him is the longest by ''far'', I feel a little odd. The fact that other answers appear a bit neglected only exacerbates the issue.
'''Oppose''' - per Yasht101's comment. '''~
'''Oppose''' - I feel strongly that adminship is [[WP:DEAL|no big deal]] and with that said, I think Yngvadottir is a great editor who has made greatly appreciated contributions to the project; but, in reducing this matter to basic simplicity, I believe that based on her interactions on this page, I'm skeptical about the type of attitude she would have with the tools. The best admins are those who make no "splash" and don't turn anybody off to Wikipedia. After all, new users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia--and, given the data about new users, I'm cautious about this RFA having the needed humility for treating the next generation of potential great editors. Skimming this page, it appears that Yngvadottir would be a toss-up outcome--on one hand, she might continue producing great article content... yet, I'm fearful she might belong to the "go along to get along" type of admins who feel vetted/confirmed/credentialed to treat others with impatience, indifference, or arrogance. Admin personality is of second importance (behind admin competence, which goes without saying) which is why I reluctantly oppose; and, I generally agree with the overall argument behind most of my fellow !oppose voters. Lastly, I hope to be proven wrong if this RFA passes.
'''Oppose''' - dragging someone into adminship who really doesn't want to, but will if the community will choose.... No. Either they want to be an admin or not. I don't think this is a gaming of the system with a faux "I don't want to serve - wink wink - but if you ask...". So then taking this at face value, I don't like the idea of pressuring someone into being an admin '''''by starting an RfA'''''. The place for this discussion is a talk page, and an RfA shouldn't start til they do agree. I will admit I have aggressively asked several editors to take on adminship. But I'd like to hope I would never do this, well meant though this seems to be. - <b>
'''Oppose'''.  Jc37 expresses my own thoughts very well.  Seems to be a good editor from what little I've looked at, and I can even understand (and agree in some instances) with their views about adminship linked to by Nikkimaria; but I'm not sure about the timing of the remark and this RfA.  Adminship ''can'' carry a heavy weight for those who take it seriously, and depending upon the areas they are active in.  If the users feels "dragged" then I'd worry about burnout in the future. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' per ched --
Per ched and Beeblebrox, as well as the OMG response and the diff. The diff bothers me not because of criticism of admins - there is certainly plenty of room for that - but because the belief expressed that Admins "band together" for political reasons betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how ANI works. When there is a dispute, you will often see admins arguing vociferously - if you see them agreeing and supporting one another, it is because ''they agree''. And they often agree because of the simple fact that they, as experienced admins, understand policy and editor behavior patterns better than the average user. If we did not work towards agreement and consensus, we would never get anything done. To call consensus among Admins some sort of cabal like behavior is to insult every admin who has ever piled on and agreed with a difficult decision. I must oppose.
I question whether the candidate is taking this seriously.  "OMGs"?  What is that?  Is this person 14 years old?  Answers to Q1-3 are severely lacking, as is experience in admin areas.
'''Oppose''' basically per Ched and Beeblebrox. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
An intelligent user who I'd rather not distract from content creation work, and although helping at DYK seems like a relevant task for her, I would like to see more depth/breadth of admin-related activities rather than promoting "specialized" admins. Although, I think in this case that wouldn't hurt. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral:''' Not confident to support or oppose at this time.
'''Neutral:''' <s>I don't know whether I can vote. </s>I think less than 9000 edits isn't enough to be a sysop on such a big wikipedia, maybe a bit strict? --<span style="font: 18px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
I am unhappy with the discussions around.--
- I very much like the shape of her CONTRIBS pie chart — apparently a content creator all the way. I'm utterly at a loss as to why this candidate seeks the mop, however. Nothing to suggest a reason to oppose, but what's the point here? Keep writing content, that's what the project needs, leave the janitorial tasks for the janitors...
'''Neutral''' - I have put off commenting on this RfA for a few days now because I really don't know. Cntent contributions look very good and the candidate has a steady record - I doubt they'll cause any problems. Having said that, the lack of experience with admin related tasks (coupled with the strange reluctance to be an admin) are cause for concern. Although admins need solid content contributions, they also need understanding & experience of admin areas; I am not convinced of that here. Having said ''that'', this user does seem sensible enough not to fiddle with things they don't understand; however, I cannot support a candidate who has little experience, however trustworthy they seem to be.
'''Neutral''' I decided to wait on this one based off of the first three answers I saw.  I would vote support based off of your contributions however would vote oppose based on your answers.  What is up with those answers.  So this leaves me dead in the middle.—
'''Neutral''' A nice and hard working editor for over 3 years with more than 9000 edits. Knows how to work in those areas where they are experienced. No doubt that they have many great contributions in the article mainspace. But as many users and they themselves have said that they do not have much experience in many of the administrative areas of the project where an administrator at least needs to have a basic know how and experience before being given Adminship. Wikipedia and the whole community is really proud to have such users working here for the main objective which is building the best free content knowledge online encyclopedia for the world. And even if you succeed or do not succeed this RfA, remember that you are a great user and will always be :) Best wishes from me and all the best for the future!
'''Strong support''' - One of the best editors I have seen around. An editor who fights vandalism, makes accurate CSD tagging, loves content creation, helps newcomers by giving feedback, gives the right advise and is always ready to help along is nothing but a "perfect candidate" to me. I just opened this and quickly gave out my !vote. No doubt whatsoever in his ability. '''—&nbsp;
'''Support''' <small>Excellent nominator.</small> I can't say much more than I did in the nomination, I've had my eye on Yunshui as a candidate for a while, and I hope he's what people are looking for.
'''Strong support''' TSU has said what I want to said. I'm about to nominate Yunshui but he has been done now--
'''Strong support''' Yunshui is a wonderful editor who's helped out numerous people. I have no doubts that he'd be a wonderful, effective administrator. --
'''Strong Support''' As co-nominator.
'''Strong Support''' <small>Excellent nominator.</small> Grand editor, no issues. '''⇒
'''Support''' No problems, and keep up the good work at Wikiproject Japan!
'''Support''' We've only interacted once, but he dealt with the case like an admin would and he can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - level-headed editor, seems focused & committed, and will use the tools well.
'''Support''' The strengths of the nom is obvious, but I was glad to see a practical and relaxed attitude in answering my questions, which had no right or wrong answers, but did give me some insight as to his attitude.  "Rules" can be learned, but either you have the right demeanor or you don't, and it appears he does.
'''Support''' This user has a 96% in CSD tagging.  I trust the nomination of Worm and see no problems with this candidate.  I'm sure they will be an excellent admin.—
'''Support''' good answers to the questions, which is important as RfA questions have been getting tougher lately.  <b>
'''Support'''. I personally haven't seen this user around, but my general impression of Yunshui from looking through recent contributions and the ''awesome'' answer to question 7 move me to support. Best of luck! --
'''Strong Support''' I have worked with this editor at the CVUA and my experiences with him have been nothing but positive. I sincerely doubt that this user would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a good guy.&nbsp;
'''Support'''; clearly a great editor, and we need more NPP admins. I can't ever remember having to decline one of his tags.　　アドミンのラウンジに、一杯パイントゑびすと一杯瓶山崎を分けるをお待ちにおります。

'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Great editor. Seen it for a while but never talked. Seems to be trusted so the tools could lay well on their hands. —
'''Support''' - I am certain that Yunshui would make a great admin. His contributions and fantastic answers to questions thus far shows a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I trust him to act appropriately.
'''Strong Support''' A very friendly and hard-working editor.Can be surely trusted with the <strike>mob</strike> mop. '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
I wasn't familiar with your work before seeing this RfA ... which is a good reason to watch RfAs!  I'm impressed by the answers to the questions, and I really like the fact that you like to write up your understanding of policy and teach it to others. - Dank (
'''Strong Support'''. An excellent candidate, whom I've come across doing good work more than once.
'''Support''' When a trusted editor asks for the mop (or is nominated for it), he/she should get it. This sounds like such a case, especially since Yunshui appears to have plenty of experience in admin areas.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. Editor is unlikely to vandalise the main page. <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Support''' based on what I've seen of him (or her...). Usually being politely helpful to someone who who hasn't even read the plot yet, or tagging things correctly. First time I came across Yunshui advising someone, the advice was given so well I just assumed they had a mop.
'''Support''' new blood.
'''Support''' - Sufficient tenure; a tad shy in the raw count of mainspace edits at just over 5K. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Mildly deletionist at AfD but usually with consensus. Bonus points for the withdrawal and goodnatured self-criticism of a bad AfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Nozik]]. Needs the tools as a vandal fighter. There ya go.
'''Support''' Good stuff at AfD and CSD.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' mostly red CSD log. --'''
'''Support''' Competent, great tenure, accurate CSD tagging.  Anything he would tag could just as well be deleted be him and just reduce any backlog they would be created.
'''Support''' Everything checks out!
'''Support''' Trusted wikipedian. --

'''Support''' - hmmm, can't believe I've never come across this editor before....all looks in order and likely to be a net positive with the tools.
'''Support''' Has clue. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Lots of good work in admin-related areas, good answers to questions, obviously strong knowledge of policy, and an excellent temperament. --
'''Support'''. Support is joseki. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per the answer to my question and my previous contact with Yunshui. '''
'''Support'''. Always have a lot of respect whenever I see 'Yunshui' username at board game articles. Civil, thoughtful, knowlegable, community-minded.
'''Support''' - For some reason I can open the page now and agree that it's possible Yellow Mountain copied us... The AncientChess source is quite different and, as the probable source, I think it is okay. Yunshui ''could'' get dinged on [[WP:Close paraphrasing|Close paraphrasing]] for the structure/layout, but such a thing can happen on accident to even the most experienced editors. My other spotchecks (I checked four articles at random, both early and recent) show no concerns.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' To be honest I didn't look this over as well as some others in the past; mainly because I've know Worm for a long time - and I know he doesn't take this lightly.  If he's nom'ed you, then there's good reason for it.
'''Support''' - I've had the pleasure of working with this editor and (despite the fact that s/he passes [[User:Achowat/RfA Process|my criteria]]) I will be supporting based on trust and personal relations, as well.
'''Support''' yes please
'''Yes'''. Willing and helpful. In my look though I saw lots of positives and only two minor quibbles: Yunshui has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards#Veteran_Editor_II_.28or_Grand_Tutnum.29 Grand Tutnam] award for 2{{1/2}} years of service, though actual months of contributing add up to little more than one year; and there's an unwillingness in [[Talk:Chikaraishi/GA1|this GA review]] to fully address concerns with the  [[WP:Lead]]. I found nothing else. Good candidate. '''
'''Support''' From my experience with this editor, Yunshui had been a good vandal fighter and lends a helping hand to editors. The answers above, also confirm my support. I hope he will make a good admin--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">
Still not sure I agree with the G3, but the response to the question was totally reasonable, so no reason not to support.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user will abuse the bit. ''<B>--
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' From my own small interactions with the editor he appears to make good calls. I am also surprised the speed delete was denied in question 9. It's clear that "[[Fluffyowled]]" is a term that some editor invented and thought would be funny to throw on wikipedia.
'''Support''' after review of contributions, etc.  There were one or two places where I felt an AfD nomination might have been hasty, but overall contributions are excellent, CSD work looks very good, and the editor graciously withdrew when a good keep argument is made.  I've no concerns.  --
'''Support''' Selected one of the few atheist userboxes that is not nasty and confrontational.
'''Support'''. No distrust of this candidate getting tools. Exceeds basic qualifications and seems level headed.
'''Support''' - Good nom's, good answers, no problems here.
'''Support'''...I see no evidence they will abuse tools or position.--
'''Support''' dare I be the first to congratulate a new admin? ''
'''Support''' -- Cheers,
'''Support''' - Absolutely. This user has been active and constructive for quite some time.
'''Support''' Seems quite constructive and helpful.
<font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' I've had a few good interactions with this editor, and they've always seemed to me to be able to keep the level-headedness they mentioned in answering my question. Answers to other questions are good, too. -
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Seem's very trustworthy, great contributions.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Candidate seems qualified based on contribs, helpfulness and responses.<br />&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' A good candidate, with no concerns that I could see. '''''
'''Support''' Seems like a solid, experienced editor.
'''Support'''. Yunshui has been on my secret list of possible potential admins, and Worm - whose work on RfA issues is exemplary - has beaten me to it. Vandal-fighting is essential and I hope that as an admin Yunshui will continue to serve (perhaps even more so) at CVU and its associated projects, especially in order to [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal|keep them on a mature track]]. --

Should help clear [[C:CSD]] instead of just filling it. —'''
Don't know this editor well, but his answers are good, and the nomination from Worm gives me great confidence.
'''Support'''. Our interactions at WikiProject Japan have always been pleasant, and I don't see any causes for concern. — '''''
'''Support''' I share interest with this user in developing content related to India and Japan so I am especially happy to support this user. In any case, Yunshui is a community player and a benefit wherever he is active. He participates in the new user adoption program. He uses the Igloo tool to fight vandalism. He is an active participant on the talk page of WikiProject Japan. He has developed articles to good peer-reviewed status. His talk page is extremely friendly to all users, including new users, and he participates broadly in many areas of Wikipedia. This user would be a model admin.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' gladly, and happy to see the nomination.
'''Support''' He's the kind of user who is willing to serve Wikipedia for as long as he's an admin. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''', have seen Yunshui around and about and I'm sure he will make a great admin--
'''Support'''. Good Q1-Q3. Woodleigh is the sort of exposure/experience I want to see. Use a little more restraint even when the other side is foolish/wrong.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' with no concern.
'''Support''' Lots of good experience in administrative areas. Can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' Yunshui appears to be a reliable editor who can competently remove vandalism and could use admin tools well.
'''Support''', do not see any problems.--
Seems like a great editor, and I trust Worm's judgement. '''support'''.
'''Support''' Not enough admins currently. Candidate seems fine, and as above, Worm's judgement is good.
'''Support''' Good editor and can be trusted fully with the tools.
'''Support.''' Seems nice and I like the answers given. -—
'''Support''' A good, solid, reliable editor willing to do administrative work should be granted the administrator's toolkit.
'''Support'''. Shame on ''me'' for never having seen this editor before! Wow, what an intelligent and clueful person! Candidate behaved admirably in those AfDs linked in Q3. Excellent answer to Q4. Impressive work with new users. I have every reason to trust this candidate. --
'''Support''' Sure.<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #4698FF;">
'''Support''' - Nice guy, has a clue, dedicated to the project, unanimous community support as of this posting, so let's hand him a mop. Thanks for being willing to serve!
'''Support''' &mdash; Why not? Always respectful. --'''
'''Support''' I'm always happy to support potential candidates. Yunshui has given good answers to most of the questions above and has knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough and has the required experience. Yunshui is also a long time trusted editor and member of the Wikipedia community. Most other users have already said all the positive points so there isn't anything much left to say now. All the best Yunshui!
'''Support''' as nom
It's no secret for me to support, too.  &ndash;
'''Support''' An unusual candidate in many ways, but in the right ways.  There are some holes in his experiences, but I get a strong feeling that he won't bite off more than he can chew, and it looks like he is quite good at what he does focus on.  In short, it is likely he would be an even better asset to Wikipedia with the extra tools.
It's a cliche, but I really thought he was an admin. I have a passing interest in the NBA, so I've run into him occasionally and I've always been impressed by his level headedness, understanding of policies and guidelines, and all-round common sense. Added to that are his many years of service, contributions to recognised content, and focus on article space, all of which are big positives in my book.
Reading through Secret's nomination statement made me go from "zOMG he's not one already?! O_O", to "this guy is the ''perfect'' candidate for the role!" Glad to support. =)
Wow.&nbsp;
'''Support''' Look good --
→<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' Trustworthy? I think so. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy and capable of helping and enhancing the project in unique ways.
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I agree with Dennis Brown's comments.
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with tools. I see no big problems here.
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown.
'''Support''' Looking at his contribs, he looks great. No reason not to support.
'''Support''' A lot of edits updating articles, doing the steady work (c.f. Irving Howe). An editor with good character and manners. We need 1000 more editor-administrators like him. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. With a good steady contribution history, over 80% of which is to article space, and no recent spikes in preparation for this RfA, there doesn't seem to be anything not to like.
Should make an effective, trustworthy administrator.
Definitely. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Support''' We have several pages on our watchlists in common, most notably [[Kobe Bryant]] and [[WT:CHICAGO]]. We cross paths often and he is quite helpful in making WP a better place.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/
'''Support''' The example in the nomination where Zagalejo addressed Forbes' criticism of WP (i.e. link #9) recalled [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_17#Historical_playerfiles_in_infobox|his addressing criticism from Yahoo! News]] regarding another BLP.  I have no doubt he will continue to look out for WP's best interest as an admin.  I've also found that he/she is the rare editor who integrates the best parts of others' sometimes questionable edits—sometimes even adding his own citations—when most editors would simply do a full revert.—
'''Support''' Has been pretty level headed in my interactions with him. Can always use more like him. -
'''Support''' Zagalejo has helped me on a few articles in the past and I think he'd make a great admin.
'''Support; Strong''' &mdash; awe-inspiring contributor, no of issues. '''⇒
'''Support''' Looks to be active in all the right areas.
'''Support''' - Nice content work (FA, DYK), seems trustworthy. I appreciate their willingness to attempt to salvage stray edits when possible, versus reverting any and everything out-of-hand. Good answers to 7,8 and 9. An experienced and active editor, with a good sense of policy, without being slavish to it. I see no reason to worry about mop privs for this candidate. ~
'''Support''' after a review of random contributions and a selection of AfD participations. With respect to AfD I saw a fine balance between policy knowledge, willingness to engage in the process of finding sources, and clue. I did have a twitch around the WP:PP issue raised in the oppose column, but have concluded (barring further evidence) that I was reflexively jumping on what was very likely an imprecise wording. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy and lots of edits! A great candidate.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' Besides Zagalejo being a good admin candidate per above, we definitely need an admin who specializes in basketball-related articles.—<font face="Cambria" size="3">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Appropriate RFPP requests.
'''Support'''. It makes a welcome change to see a nomination for someone who is clearly here to help build this encyclopedia rather than to heckle from the gallery about others' efforts to do so.
'''Support''' - good to see a candidate for adminship that I can support with few or no reservations.
'''Support''' It would be great to have an admin that focuses on sports.
'''Support''' although I would suggest that the user be careful in AFD discussions (should s/he begin closing them). [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My December (song)|Some votes]] do not look entirely based on policy.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Excellent contribution to the project, and great experience.--
'''Support''' Per nom, [[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]], and others above. I would also advise the candidate to pay attention to the concerns expressed by [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] above. -
'''Support''' Looks good, mate!
'''Support''' - 7 years in the harness, 61K edits, clean block log, no indications of assholery. This should be automatic, as in, yes, really, it should be AUTOMATIC. I liked the IAR answer.
'''Support''' Zagalejo's reasons for wanting the tools are sound, and their sensible answers to the questions reflect their experience (which includes an obvious appreciation of the 'grey areas' admins need to address from time to time).
'''Support''' without question - great contributor to the project. Good luck!
'''Support'''. The answers to the questions are concise and to-the-point, and they also demonstrate that the candidate has a mature attitude and is a great asset to Wikipedia. I think they would make a good admin.
'''Support''' - I loved the answers to questions 7 & 8; that combined with what I've seen of him means I'll gladly support.
'''Support'''--v/r -
'''Support''' Has been around since 2005, track is good  with over 61k edits and over 700 articles created and see no concerns.
'''Support''' - A very experianced and helpful user, a class act all around.
'''Support''' — No concerns now that I've seen his answers to Q7 Q8 & Q9. He seems to have a lot of experience and he understands consensus.
'''Support'''. I have mild reservations about his sports focus and his answer to Q6 (my question). Unlike some, I don't think admins have to be knowledgeable in all areas, but to stick to just one area of Wikipedia seems a bit over-specialized. That said, I looked at administrative forums, and although he hasn't been there a lot, he handles himself, as he's done here, almost beautifully. His ability to express himself in an effective, deft, low-key manner is impressive. He says he's gotten "snippy" at times. I'd love to see some examples as I suspect his idea of "snippy" is different from mine. His answers to other questions have been great, a mixture of honesty, intelligence, understanding of the rules, and yet common sense. Besides, I want to be on record as having supported him so I can go to him with sports issues.--
- Dank (
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' - [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Candidate is qualified and trustworthy. -
I'm
'''Support''' I find Zagalejo's replies refreshing and honest; they hold a depth of knowledge and understanding of how Wikipedia works that is far removed from what I often find in RfAs (namely - read question, consult policy page, rote but acceptable reply). It takes a wide breadth of knowledge and interests to build a strong group of admins that can support our varied community and it appears to me that Zagalejo would be a great addition to the mopping crew.
'''Support''' A good and interesting candidate that shows without looking too much the benefits they will bring to the 'pedia. Congrats. —
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy, good answers to questions, no red flags that I saw.
'''Support''' - likely to be net positive.
'''Support'''. Experienced editor with strong answers to the (sometimes difficult) questions. To put it better: per Ponyo.

'''Support''' -
—'''
'''Support''' I like his position in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV's Oddities|this discussion]], as it seems constructive in a sensible, common-sense way.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Seems sensible. No concerns. --
Yes. Valued contributor. '''
'''Support'''.  An experienced editor with a good attitude.
--<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Why not? Seems trustworthy. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Ditto to ^
'''Support''' Honesty wins it for me. Good luck, --
'''Support''' with others.'''
'''Support'''.  Solid content editor who won't break the wiki.  Look forward to working with you as one of our go-to administrators for NBA and CBB bios.
'''Support''' Good candidate, well-rounded. '''
'''Support'''. Long overdue. --
'''Support''' - seems like a good egg and can be trusted with the mop <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' I share GimliDotNet's concern, but this is offset by a review of your quality contributions, and your sound reasoning per the AfD diffs from the Colonel and  Crisco 1492.  So defaulting to support.
'''Support''' This user could handle the tools properly because he already knows the responsibilities of being an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]]. Good luck! <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Clearly trustworthy; good, thorough answers to questions. Why not?
Your judgement appears to be sound. And I really liked your reply to question 7. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Good answers, especially dealing with the potential problem of protecting articles where xhe is one of the few editors of the article. Minor misstep on the "anyone can edit issue, but I read the response as accepting ''anyone CAN edit'' while noting this does not imply ''everyone SHOULD edit''. <small><span class="autosigned">--
'''Support''' - While I do have a little concern, I believe the benefit outweigh those potential concerns.
'''Support''' – From my experiences with Zag, he's been one of the most steadfast editors of keeping basketball players' biographies from becoming trainwrecks due to vandalism. There have been a couple of times where he's come across as snippy, but I'm not one to talk because I know ''I'' have zero patience for the aforementioned "people who shouldn't be editing Wikipedia." I trust that he would use the tools well.
'''Support''' -- would be a perfect admin at 1/10th the edit count.  We need more subject-expert/interest admins.  --
'''Support'''. Lots of the right experience, and I like the honest answers to questions - including Q7, which is simply reflecting the facts of the real world. --
'''Support''' because we need more admins familiar with the way the project works and willing to pull the trigger when it's necessary.
'''Support''' per Michael Scott Cuthbert. Also, I respect the honesty shone in the answer to Q7.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've not seen any persuasive reason to oppose (and thank goodness for that answer to q7. Yes. Indeed. And [[WP:SPADE]].)
'''Support''' Opposes below (Even though there are just a few) are unconvincing. I think this editor would do a nice job as an administrator.
'''Support''' Looks good. Refreshing candor.
'''Support''' Level-headed, would be a good admin.
'''Support''' qualified and clever.
'''Support''' like the answers. wiki needs to rethink how it does business.
'''Support'''. Experience with content writing as evidenced by dyk contributions. I like the response about wanting to use sysop tools in a very specific area where you have some degree of expertise. I know you may move on to others areas in the future, but your candor is pleasing. --
'''Support'''. A well-rounded candidate whose interest in basketball well supports the intended use of the tools, and I don't see any red flags. The answers to questions make me confident that the candidate has plenty of clue, and has high standards. --
'''Support'''. A versatile editor and active contribs. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#808000 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#F660AB -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#800080">
'''Support''' per Dennis Brown and answers to questions.  It's my position that more Admins are a good thing, even if they will not try to be everywhere at all times.  Focus is '''not''' a bad thing and though I agree that most Admins end up helping in ways they never imagined, I appreciate the candor and focus that this candidate brings.
'''Support''' I have no reason to think they'll misuse the mop. As a proud member of [[:Category:Cynical Wikipedians]], I think cynicism is healthy in administrators. One should assume good faith, but that doesn't mean that you are blind to the fact that people may in fact be acting in bad faith. When we say that "anyone can edit", we're saying basically the same as "anyone can come to our nightclub"—there's no barrier on some arbitrary matter like race or sex or age. But that doesn't mean if someone behaves problematically, we can't boot them out of our nightclub/encyclopedia. —
'''Support''' Willingness to investigate before pulling the trigger in possible 3rr situations is much needed. Also like answer to 7 as AGF is not a suicide pact. Actually this is one of those "I thought they already were an admin" based on their good work.
'''Support''' You definitely have what it takes to be a good administrator.
'''Support''' as per his answers to Qs. :) --&nbsp;
'''Support''' - No doubt about the editor's abilities after looking at the answers to the questions. Looks good to me '''''
I don't recall coming across this editor before, but it was a pleasant surprise to review them. Civil, clueful and experienced, just a shame they didn't run for admin after 6,100 edits rather than 61,000.  ''
'''Support''' Honest and straight up.  The oppose votes are ridiculous.—
'''Support''' {{editconflict}}Lets call him extraordinarily naἵve. --
'''Support''' no real problems <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>
'''Support''' – An experienced editor who appears generally sensible. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' Zagalejo is a long term trusted user who has great intentions on expanding and improving Wikipedia. Good and correct answers to almost all of the questions above. They have most of the necessary experience typically required for a starting Administrator and they are surely going to help and serve the project using administrative tools quite well. All the best Zagalejo!
'''Support''' Meets [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' No reason to believe candidate will misuse tools or position.--
'''Support''' - Never had contact with him, but I can believe that he won't misuse the tools. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' - Wikipedia is neutral. Admin's should not pick and choose what opinions users are allowed to hold.
'''Oppose''' - I cannot support a candidate who confesses to cynicism as this negates [[WP:AGF]] which is the basis of our social contract with our community.
'''Oppose''' I don't approve the belittling of an oppose rationale.
'''Oppose''' I am pleased with his work, but am greatly concerned that he disagrees with "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is a central aspect of Wikipedia, and I don't agree that good-faith editors should be rejected because they are "horrible writers" or have extremist opinions. '''
'''Moved from Oppose''' - User did well resolving my qualms with his opinions on protection, but being "cynical" about Everyone editing is too much for me to fully support.
There's a lot of positive here. And I like that the candidate answers from a perspective of having lived the Wikipedia experience rather than just having read about it (if that makes any sense). But I just feel a sense of "heavy-handed-ness" (both against others and to promote their personal perspective) that if my feeling come to fruition, is not something we would want in an admin. <small>Example from question 10, which, ironically, was asking how he'd determine if he was [[WP:INVOLVED]]:'''''"Thus, I would be willing to semiprotect articles if it seems that too many users simply don't understand the facts, or are too willing to report rumors as truth. But also understand this: I don't want the article to stagnate or go out of date. When a transaction is being rumored, I'm obsessively checking the team websites and other sources, waiting to see if there is an announcement. The semiprotection shouldn't be seen as a punishment, but rather as an attempt to bring order out of chaos."'''''</small>  However, as I don't recall ever personally interacting with the candidate, and those above who have, have un-equivically supported, I'll not oppose on these grounds but instead just sit over here. I wish the candidate well. - <b>
'''Neutral''' I cannot support him even if he answered my question frankly.
'''Support''' as co-nom. <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Strong support:''' Sigma easy to work with, he has a high knowledge of policies, guidelines and how things work around here. Sigma also has experience with AfD closure's, low use of automated tools, 99 major and minor edit summary usage, and everything that is also mentioned above. This user can definitely be trusted with the mop! '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Support''' - Anyone who is willing to take an article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coal_ball&oldid=438359871 as it was when they started it] to GA and is still willing to get it to FA obvously has the patience to deal with the tasks they said that they would do!
'''Support''' - yes, finally. Trustworthy, competent, efficient. —
'''Support''' About fucking time.  I told you I'd co-nom you.  Apparently I wasn't good enough.--v/r -
'''Support''' don't see any issues. --'''
'''Support''' I'm glad to see this RfA! I think you'll make a great administrator. <b>
'''Support''' - Good sound editor, net positive. <small><small>Off to see what the hell is Coal balls</small></small>
'''Support'''. The technical expertise is definitely helpful, even if not using automated tools.--
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around a lot and they will make a fine admin.
Much needed for NP Patrol.
'''Support''' As far as I'm aware, I've had no contact with this user. However, I'm impressed with what I read above, and I'll trust WTT any day of the week. Go to the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship|main RfA talk page]], and you can see all the discussion about the slowed pace of RfA noms. I'm glad to see something is finally happening.
'''Support'''; I gotta be honest, for a while I got an odd feeling about Σ when I first saw him around with some frequency. It took me a while to pinpoint it, but I eventually figured out that it had to do with the hanging around RfA (which Br'er Rabbit has covered below) and rehashing of stuff on [[WT:CSD]] that initially struck me as an attempt at point-scoring.  If it were 6-8 months ago, I'd probably oppose based on those.  However, upon thinking about it more I realized that the RfA joke comments weren't doing anything actively harmful and not everyone has the inclination to go back and check ''every single'' rejected criterion, and then upon looking further I found no other serious issues. Great user, no worries from me.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. '''
'''Support''' - In my experience with Sigma on the world of IRC, he has proven himself to have the desire of the encyclopedia at heart and will be a valuable asset.
'''Support''' Σ, I thought you were an admin already. No issues, good luck. —
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''. Yep, I've seen Σ around the place quite a bit, and I echo the con-nominators' statements. --
'''Support''' looks good to me!
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support''' as co-nom. A year ago, I would have opposed due to his attitude and maturity. Today, I'm nominating him. There are very few people who can turn things around as much as Σ has. My biggest hope is that he'll get so involved in admin activities that I won't have to hear about [[coal ball]]s again! Having said that, I'm just as bad - pint of [[Doom Bar]] anyone?
'''Support''' ~ A big fan of Σ's work, obviously support is granted. Good luck! -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Support''' - Fantastic editor who will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Barely had to look at the stuff above to see that he'll make a good admin. Nice one, good luck. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I've seen Σ's work in new-page patrolling, and I have no concerns at all. — '''''
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support'''. —
'''Obvious support is obvious'''. Absolutely no reason to think Sigma will abuse the tools. Give him the damn mop already. —
'''Support'''. He is definitely ready to use mop.
'''No alarm bells here. I declined one speedy nomination, but it was borderline, and later deleted at AfD, so no problem there.
'''Strongest Support''' with this many nominations from users I know, I'm not even going to bother looking for faults that may drive me to oppose.—
'''Support''' - net positive. Plus, when the [[User:Kudpung|author of one of the definitive essays on RfA]] nominates, you know it's something special. '''<font color=#232323>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No problems for me. Seen around a lot, doing good work. Good knowledge.
'''Support''' Looks like Sigma will be helpful in the protecting, deleting and vandal-fighting side.
Assumed this would be coming for a while, pleasantly surprised to see how well it's going at the moment (thought there might be more opposes along the lines of Jack's). When I first saw this guy I thought he'd be one who rushes to RfA far too quickly and he displayed a fair bit of immaturity. Nice to see how he's grown since then and I think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' per Kudpung. This user also has an excellent user and talk page.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Σ will clearly make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''  This is an easy one.  All the best in your mopping activities.
'''Strongest Possible Support''': Σ will clearly be an excellent admin. With thousands of edits to their CSD log, along with over 600 to AIV, they are clearly ready for the tools. I've seen him around a lot, and he does excellent work. No problems what-so-ever. I also concur with all of the nominators. Again, Σ will be an excellent administrator. :)
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''': both their article and vandal-fighting work is encouraging, and I do not see any arguments presented in the Oppose section that would make me oppose. '''
'''Support''' - Everything I've seen from this account has been good (though we haven't interacted directly yet). I'm surprised by the answer to Q3 (no stressful conflicts) but going for a second opinion is definitely a "right" answer if you ever do get into a conflict that causes you stress. This is a very strong nomination (although I hope 4 nominators doesn't become the new norm) and I can't see any reason to oppose. And how the heck did you hide your user page so well? It took me 10 minutes to find the sub-sub page, and I cheated. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' - Should do fine
Yup.
'''Support''' great new page and vandalism patroller. --  '''
<s>'''Slightly weaker than normal support''' per question 4, but I still don't question Σ's judgment. I'd just like to see more willingness to keep those processes moving along.</s> Great CSD work though! <s>We need more administrators, and I have no doubt he'll be a good one</s>--
For some odd reason I thought you'd run before? Obviously not. Anyway I had a shufty at work earlier and all looked fine. Active on NPP and main space and clued up nominators looks a good mix to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Trusted user, no reason to think he would abuse the bit. ''<B>--
'''Support''' &mdash; Up until recently, I thought "Sigma" had already been granted adminship several years ago (although I suspect I may have confused him with [[User:Explicit|this highly active administrator]]). This is exactly the sort of class act we ought to be nominating as a means of ending the longest RfA drought in the project's history. The only negative I can see is that his name is difficult to enter into the Wikipedia search bar, so people might have a harder time getting in touch with him than they should. Nevertheless, an excellent candidate. Let's hope we can find more prospective administrators of this user's calibre. =)
'''Support''' Well-rounded user with significant content creation, anti-vandalism efforts/new page patrolling (his CSD log is certainly one of the cleanest I've ever seen), and bot work.&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Thanks for stepping forward. Your work is appreciated. Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support'''. Every time I've seen this user, he/she has been very helpful.
Yeah. Typical "per above".
'''Support''' As per everybody who came before me. But, at the risk of sounding dumb, how do you pronounce your name?
'''Support:''' Thoughtful editor who does good content work which provides a perspective on how to deal with editors during content disputes because they can relate to content editing issues. --
It's about time.
Satisfied with what I see. Concerns raised by the opposers do not sway me. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' wholeheartedly.
'''Support:''' I too had concern re speedy deletions. More effort to welcome or assist new editors is needed. Also the creation of bananaa is weird but this editor is a net positive. -
'''Why aren't they already!''' I have "run into" this edior a few times, and I feel he is a perfect admin candidate.
'''Support''' A sensible editor who will do well as an administrator. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', you're one of those "I thought you were already" people.  Username shouldn't be an issue; people who know what a sigma is won't have problems, and people who don't will think that it's a form of "E".
'''Support''' to offset the ridiculousness of most of the oppose comments.
'''Support''', can't find anything wrong. --
'''Support''' - Just getting a nom from [[User:Worm That Turned | this respected admin]] is enough ! <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">
'''Support'''  If the best reason to oppose is a foreign character in his/her user name and they have an otherwise positive history then I'm more than comfortable.
'''Support''' Vowed that I'd stay off the RfA band-wagon but I have to support here. Shocked and appalled at the opposes, get some perspective, RfA is a daunting enough process as it is. Good luck Σ, you'll do well. God knows we need more active admins!
'''Support''' great person, knows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines really well, will make a helpful admin. Nuff said. --
'''Support''' Although I haven't encountered them personally, Sigma seems to have matured and I'm impressed with the contributions.
'''Support''' Sigma is always helpful, always knows, is always around, and is always level-headed. A bit obsessed with the whole [[coal ball]] thing, but that's an idiosyncracy, so we can overlook that.
'''Support''' Seems reliable.  I would also note that the username opposes are in violation of the spirits of both the local username policy and of the global unified accounts system.  (I can just imagine the trouble a user who was also active on the Greek Wikipedia would have here!) --''
'''Support''' I'm surprised the Sigma wasn't an admin already and the username isn't a problem at all. Besides, Σ is an excellent mathematical symbol! '''<font color="#000000">
I was going to make a joke oppose against the username, but then I saw that people were actually opposing for that. Sigh.
'''Support''' About time. --
'''Support''' - Σ's contributions to this project could be better improved with the sysop tools. All the best, &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, good nominators, sound behaviour during this RfA, entirely legible username.
'''Support'''. I don't understand the fuss below - I've looked at this candidate's work and see no issues.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason why not to because of the answers to the questions.
'''Weak support'''- Good contributions, but username is a concern for me. '''
'''Strong Support''' Assistive, came across several times. --&nbsp;
'''Support''' Knowledgeable, capable, and willing. --
'''Support'''' He's a great guy and a highly capable editor.  Noms are great.&nbsp;
'''Support''' He should be an admin. He's a great editor.--
'''Support'''. Good contributions. The username is irritating, but not enough for me to oppose.
'''Support''' --<font face="Kristen ITC">'''
Don't delete the main page for lacking some paperwork. Other than that, we should be fine.
'''Support'''
'''Wait, he wasn't an admin already? Support''' -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Hell yes''', in fact I'm disappointed that I'm here so late in the game. While the nominators are top notch, the four co-noms are not necessary&mdash;Σ is such an obvious choice for adminship that a stripped-down self nom would be sufficient. The grasping at straws I see in the oppose section only serve to validate this in my mind. The simple fact is that the user name violates no policy or ''de facto'' standards. This isn't a children's website, it's an ''encyclopedia''. I should hope our contributors are capable of dealing with an obstacle so miniscule as a ''sigma''. ''
'''Support''', because of Roland. :-/ <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Fuck yes'''! It's about time... [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
'''Support''' While I'm not a fan of admins having hard-to-type user names, Σ appears well qualified to be an admin and can be expected to use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' While I wouldn't necessarily go with the same options myself, his answer to Q14 was particularly impressive, showing a perceptive awareness of the need for flexibility for different variations in what is superficially the same circumstance. --
Another thought-he-was-already for me. I personally prefer for editors to stick to Basic Latin when it comes to usernames unless there is a genuine cultural reason not to, but it's not a deal-breaker on a good candidate (especially where the candidate is happy to respond to a Latinised title and includes one in his sig for quick in-page search). The other opposes vary from "lame enough to ignore" to "lame enough to support". Nothing there to counteract a candidate who simply ''oozes'' clue. (FWIW, shouldn't the first sentence in [[coal ball]] use the singular form preferably?)
'''Support''', although he needs to brush up on copyright issues and as many, many others have said, the user name is a problem (but doesn't rise to the level of a negative vote).
'''Support''' - I don't see any issues.
'''Support''' - What they said. Futhermore, how come he isn't an admin already?--<span style="">
'''Support''' <s>(changed to neutral)</s> While I've learned a few things about the candidate in the opposes that I wouldn't have guessed, nothing that would make me reverse an already positive view based on contributions I've seen to date. Username not an issue for me (and I love his eloquent bang-on-the-money response to Q13, too).
'''weak support''' The username thing is a definite inconvenience (and I like the suggestion of making User:E a dab page). But that's minor. The Conservapedia thing is also pretty minor- yes, vandalizing another website is generally immature, but it doesn't really say much at all about what we expect Σ to do here. The other oppose issues are similarly unconvincing.
'''Support''' sysoping Sigma will almost certainly be a net positive. The name issue shouldn't be enough to oppose but I too see it as an annoyance, especially for newbies and the many people who are not tech-savvy and wouldn't think about the cut-and-paste trick. And there are quite a few people who wouldn't know that the sentence "I agree with Sigma" is synonymous with "I agree with Σ".
'''Support'''- Per above rationales. The more the merrier. ~
'''Support''' Recent positive activity trumps past indiscretions.  Everything I see leads me to believe  [[User:Σ|Σ]] will be an excellent sysop who will continue to improve WP.

<small>(moved back from neutral)</small> This guy has done plenty of stupid crap, but he seems to have learned and meantime also makes himself useful. As he would have use for the tools and seems unlikely at this point to detriment the project with them, that's a yup. -—
'''Support''' after some ambivalence. I think that some of the opposes and neutrals are actually quite thoughtful, and I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about everything on this RfA page. In a way, I get two diametrically opposed images of the candidate from those who support and those who oppose. I'm convinced that there has been a past history of immature conduct, and that isn't helped by some mediocre answers to questions, particularly Q3. On the other hand, there is a lot of support from people I trust, who make a believable case that the candidate has matured, and learned from past mistakes, and that's a commendable trait. Ultimately, I decided that this is a gnomish editor who will be a net positive in moppish work, so please prove me correct. --
'''Support''' trustworthy editor. Overall, I consider the opposes to be unconvincing. Agree with Kierzek and JoshuaZ about the name.
'''Support''' <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' I'm impressed with Σ's answers to the above questions, particularly in regard to his reflections on past RfB comments and about image and article policy.  Personally, I have been very pleased with Σ's demeanor and treatment of other editors in a variety of high-tension circumstances, and knows to avoid escalating wikidrama.  I believe he will be a more effective editor here with a mop in hand.
'''Support''' First, let me state that I don't recall ever hearing of this user before the RFA. I agree that a year ago this RFA wouldn't have had a chance, and I see merit to many of the issues in the opposes. Yet, I also agree there is merit to many of the support arguments. So we are left with the decision that may not be obvious to any particular RFA participant: support or oppose? For me, I see much improvement in the last year in this candidate and feel he will be an asset as an admin as he will take the feedback from this RFA to heart.
'''Strong Support''' Coalballs notwithstanding.
'''Support''' as qualified and competent candidate. Username "accessibility" complaints are completely and utterly stupid (not going to beat around the bush here), and off-wiki behaviour is not necessarily reflective of on-wiki maturity. ~~
'''Support''' skilled and maturing, clearly demonstrates energy and justification for use of the bit.  There's evidence of imperfection (yes, I've read through this), but the candidate has shown receptiveness to feedback and incorporation of same into future behavior.  --
'''Support''' seems perfectly qualified and the oppose rationales are, frankly, ridiculous and an excellent illustration of why this process is so dysfunctional. To address specific concerns: the username doesn't really bother me, as I don't think people regularly type usernames into search boxes and the candidate has taken steps to help anyone who does, the candidate's off-wiki behaviour shouldn't be relevant unless it impacts their on-wiki behaviour (and nobody is suggesting they are going to start vandalising here), and Cunard seems to be expecting the candidate to be positively superhuman, never make any mistakes, and follow up things no reasonable editor would bother to follow up. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - I am kind of amazed that squiggly line isn't already an admin, looking over the contribs, the answers, and the comments from other editors, I believe making squiggly line an admin would be a benefit to Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' I can't see real reasons to oppose.--''<font face="bold">
'''Support''' I was neutral until I sat down and read through most of the opposes.  I think I should probably leave it at that.
'''Support''' - Per some of the ridiculous opposes and to counter the obvious pile on that is ensuing based on sheer laziness. Also, for vandalizing Conservapedia.
'''Support''' Read all the questions. Read all the oppose votes. I like the response to the rollback question particularly, whether someone agrees or not shouldn't be the basis of a vote though; it's a legitimate issue that divides opinion. I don't agree with the TLDR to Cunards large note, it is worth reading and he makes a good argument, but to me it is fundamentally unconvincing. It's a collection of random disparate events. Not particularly happy about the vandalism of Conservapedia, but it was last year and off wiki. Non-ascii character in name is a trivial pain, but I think rejecting someone for admin for that reason would be extreme, he changed his signature, issue addressed. Σ did the april fools joke nominations; yes they annoyed me (not specifically his, but those by others) as well as they were changes to article space, but some admins did as well. It's annoying, but not something to consider at RfA. I don't like the lack of replies to votes or engagement, it's not something that I would do, but Σ's not me. If the candidate doesn't want to make corrections, it is his prerogative. The candidate hasn't been involved in a serious dispute but when it does occur, the candidate will have to deal with it. It will be a trial by fire I guess. More communication is required. This sort of learning can be done "on the job"; Although I've focussed on the issues, and not mentioned the good, all in all, the good far outweighs the bad. <small>as a small further comment, It took an hour to read the RfA alone. An interesting RfA.</small>
'''Support''' Sigma looks like a well qualified candidate, nominated by three well-respected admins (I'm not familiar with the other nominator). The username is a little strange but not an insurmountable problem, and the nominee's off-wiki behavior is none of our business IMO. S/he already spends a great deal of time doing unglamorous, mop-and-bucket type chores; seems ideally suited for the unglamorous, mop-and-bucket type work of an admin. --
Per NYB. -
'''Support'''. Excellent and productive record of maintinence and clearing backlogs on Wikipedia. Whatever he does on other websites is his own business.
'''Support''' primarily to nullify, if only a tiny bit, opposes based on subject's username.--'''
'''Support'''; see above.
'''Support''': net positive. Some of the oppose concerns look reasonable, especially the Colonel's point that you're not always friendly and helpful to newbies.  Sometimes it might be better to slow down your output a little to give you more time to communicate sympathetically with the different audiences you're interacting with. Brevity is a great virtue, but it can be overdone. When talking to someone who differs sharply in worldview or relevant experience, making short concise comments can be unhelpful even if you're perfectly correct.  You need to make the effort to understand where they are coming from, and then talk in a way they'll understand. Its something you'll get better at with time.   IMO, attacking Conservapedia would be a negative for someone over 30s. As I guess you were fairly young at the time, and as there seems no risk of a repeat, I see it as a good thing, suggesting you have good drive and idealism. (<small> I find it amusing that the only group where I'd hope the majority might agree with me on this (at least on this side of the pond) would be public school educated conservatives.  </small>) Overall, supporting per your impressive volume of useful and competent edits, and as you have the trust of several excellent nominators.
'''Support''' all round good
'''Support''' per WormTT and Kudpung.  In spite of a grossly undignified proceeding, and some accusations that have turned out to be unsupported assertions, they have taken the high road and not allowed themselves to become provoked. I'm annoyed by the sig, but don't see a less superficial reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' I've vacillated between support, oppose, and do nothing but, on reflection, I think this is the right !vote. Off wiki activities should stay off wiki and, on the ''very unlikely'' chance that the candidate decides to vandalize Wikipedia in the future, it's not as if it can't be handled (and, of course, you don't have to be an admin to orchestrate a coordinated vandalism attack!). The user name is a problem for technically challenged folks like moi but personal choice is more important. Misuse of rollback is a mild concern but mild concerns always exist. Better to focus on the many positives described by the nominators and so support it is. --
'''Support''', why not?--
'''Support''' - Don't see any reason not to. '''
'''Support'''. I am proud to support such an outstanding candidate, and have always questioned why he wasn't already an admin! When I became an admin, I remember that I could always count on Sigma to provide quality requests for speed deletion. He is an asset to Wikipedia, and he's proven time after time that he has an in-depth knowledge of policy and a need to use the tools that come with adminship. I know that he'll use them well, and I support him 100%.--

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' — <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS;font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' I don't know him too much but seems to fit well with the tools. His CSD log is very good. ''
'''Support''': The coal balls thing is rather charming, and frankly he seems to have a better head on his shoulders than some of the other "active admins" that are carrying the water these days. He clearly wants to do the work, so there's no reason not to let him be the latest bit of meat for the grinder. I just hope he'll keep in mind that this is just a spare time volunteer gig, and will take time away when it starts to feel like a chore. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>
'''Support'''.  Valuable user who does lots of good work for Wikipedia and will make an effective admin.  Has shown to be willing to listen to other viewpoints and make adjustments when necessary (the signature for example).
'''Immaturity''': {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies|430384702|430381532|diff of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies}}. It was stricken, but was never funny.
'''Oppose''' I went through his contributions for June.  These were mostly speedy deletions which I suppose arose from new page patrol.  My impression is that this was one-way traffic as all I saw were nominations for deletion.  I didn't notice any attempts to welcome or assist new editors and consider this attitude to be too hostile and unfriendly.  In amongst the NPP were a few constructive edits like the work on coal ball but I worry that this work may have been tailored to the requirements of RfA.  And finally, I notice the creation of [[bananaa]] which seems quite weird.  So, altogether, while there's nothing especially bad there, I'm not comfortable supporting this candidate yet.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Leaky_caldron|Leaky_caldron]]. I have a bad feeling his username won't make much sense. Why would he choose the symbol for a summation in statistics named for [[Leonhard Euler]]? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. That username impedes accessibility. This is particularly important for an editor who wants admin tools for use in an area where there are many new editors. Change the username to something which can be typed on a standard keyboard without using obscure multi-key combinations. --
'''Oppose''' for recent vandalism of another website; never heard of Conservapedia, until learning you ''organized'' vandalism of it. No. <s>per user name issue</s>, and no thanks to users without accessibilty issues scolding those with for failing to rise to the occassion; and per Sigma's failure to respond to or engage those opposing. As an admin you should be able to answer concerns about your engagement with the community; after all, the commiunity is trying to decide whether to grant ''you'' admin powers, not your buddies. Maybe I am missing your responses here, or you have not gotten to them yet. I would rather start participating with a support....
'''Oppose''' Personal intuition. —

'''Strong oppose:''' Multiple times, in late 2011 (last admitted attack was in November 2011), Sigma has organized vandalism of ConservaPedia in #wikipedia-en, and continued despite warnings not to. Absolutely not.

'''Oppose<s>Neutral</s>'''. <s>Just change</s> Thanks for changing the signature. (12:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)) I considered supporting based on Reaper Eternal's and (the almost always reliable) Kudpung's nominations, but the maturity concerns raised by other editors suggest that you try again in 6 months.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
{{anchor|Cunard's oppose rationale}} Summary of oppose: [[#Summary of demerits|uncommunicativeness and immaturity]].
'''Oppose''' I share the above mentioned concerns: 1) transparency. User:TParis says above (Q#15) that "we have historically discouraged use of off-wiki behavior on-wiki", however, this RfA is undoubtedly influenced by the candidate's behavior off-wiki. I don't like organized efforts related to this project that are discussed in private channels among a group of friends. I may be naive as this happens everyday, however, I value openness and I miss it here. 2) attitude towards inexperienced editors and IPs mentioned in Cunard's oppose. 3) uncommunicativeness and immaturity.
'''Oppose''' ugh, far too many issues. Mostly per Cunard who added an extensive oppose rationale. Regards.--
'''Oppose''' per Cunard. --
'''Oppose'''. I believe Sigma is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin because of poor judgment and immaturity. Sigma is clearly an intelligent, capable, technically-savvy editor. I also think xe is honest. However, Sigma has behaved poorly in too many incidents. Sigma is to be commended for their candor in owning up (mostly) to past errors, but the time period in which xe has been editing is too compressed for me to have confidence that xe's reformed. Also, the problems are not related to misunderstood or misapplied policies or guidelines. That's just knowledge; it can be acquired and fixed. Temperament is not something so easily learned.<br>Two contentious areas that have been discussed here. First, the user name. Frankly, I don't understand the level of hostility toward Sigma's user name. Sure, it may be mildly irritating, but it shouldn't be enough to oppose. That said, I also don't understand why Sigma was so reluctant to accommodate the complainers. Even now, I don't completely understand what Sigma has done to "correct" the problem, but Sigma's reaction was a bit grudging and I-shouldn’t-have-to. Second, the Conservapedia issue. I agree with TP that we shouldn't go on a witch hunt about off-wiki behavior, but Sigma used a Wikipedia channel. These channels are not official, but they are related to Wikipedia and attract Wikipedians. If Sigma had used some other forum, I would feel differently, but I don't approve of vandalizing websites, no matter how much you disagree with what they stand for. And I didn't appreciate Sigma's quibble on what constitutes vandalism. Just to be clear, I am not opposing just because of these two problems, but because of these ''and'' the other problems highlighted by editors, some of which have been admitted by Sigma .<br>I'll close by saying that I have an enormous amount of respect for many of Sigma's supporters, and I was very tempted not to vote, but I felt it would be cowardly of me to stand in the wings. It looks likely to me that Sigma will be nominated. If so, I wish them nothing but the best. Sometimes, the acquisition of administrative responsibility gives a person a new perspective. Hopefully, Sigma will pause before acting and deliberate more about what xe does.--
- Moving to '''oppose''' owing to serious concerns about maturity issues. Fucking with Conservapedia is not okay, even if they are a pack of mean-spirited and thoroughly reactionary political drones.
Reviewing the candidate's editing history and reading this RFA leads me to conclude that Sigma lacks the maturity the community expects from a sysop. Vandalizing other sites erodes my confidence in Sigma. I '''oppose''' this RFA.
This may (will) have little effect, but I should point out that although Conservapedia's contents are off the deep end, we should not vandalise what is considered by its editors as a serious Wiki. On a Wiki meant to be vandalised, fine, but on something conceived as a serious Wiki such vandalism shows signs of immaturity.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
I '''oppose''' this nomination because I will not support an admin candidate who vandalizes other wiki's. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Oppose'''. The Conservatopedia business signals immaturity and hypocrisy. You don't like Conservatopedia, then don't read it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Cunard's tldr, Crisco, Majoreditor, VM, Carrite etc. The vandalism to Conservapedia may have been last year and it is a site that verges on self-parody but a serious encyclopedia should not be run by people who disrupt its rivals. There is still evidence that a lack of maturity remains an issue. Do not feed trolls by making them admins.--
'''Strong oppose''' Support for wholly unjustified actions by TParis in revoking rollback as punitive punishment, despite being guilty of exactly the same '''offence''', the immaturity of organising an attack against another site all point to this being a case of someone wanting a nice new hat.
'''Oppose''' Vandalising other wikis is a bright line for me and if Blade of the Northern Lights has been doing it as well he should hand in his mop.
'''Oppose''' for vandalising another wiki; immaturity; lack of depth in knowledge of policies; lack of demonstration of good communication skills (most of his communications are via template, and thus it's difficult to assess his communication skills). —
Sorry, but the maturity level just isn't there.  There are a few things down here I don't think hold water (your username chief among them) but the general maturity required of an admin is something I don't see.
'''Oppose''' - Maturity concerns are important to me in a Rfa. I agree with those opposes above that point out serious issues which I feel illustrate considerable problems with this candidate. I would go so far as to urge those supporting this candidate early on to reconsider their !votes. ''Admins must be much better than this.''
'''Oppose''' - Though he's improved a lot in the past few months, I don't think Sigma has been consistently mature enough to have the bit. I'm not concerned about the vandalism on Conservapedia (I have to admit, I've done that too) or any other off-wiki action. My objection is strictly because of the lack of maturity he has shown at times on-wiki. I think if he continues to have a consistent track record of maturity, he would make a great admin in a few months.
'''Regretful Oppose''' I've seen nothing but superb work from Simga here, but based on some of the oppose rationales, I can't support. Vandalizing Conservapedia was inappropriate and so was canvassing on IRC. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism cost another superb editor his RFA recently, and he used [[WP: TW|Twinkle]], not [[WP: RBK|rollback]]. While making a few incorrect AIV reports should not be a source of opposition at an RFA (in my opinion), they were a bit [[WP: BITE|bitey]] and probably discouraged those editors. I don't find April Fool's Day AFD nominations to be funny, but rather [[WP: DE|disruptive]] to the normal community process. While the AFD votes/nominations are a bit problematic, Sigma didn't express interest in working at AFD, so I'm not concerned. Good luck. --v/r
'''Oppose''' - I'm glad it was admitted, but I have difficulty supporting someone with a known history of supporting, organizing, or committing vandalism. Even at conservapedia.  --
'''Oppose''' due to maturity concerns, but also, the admission to "obviously inappropriate" behavior and evasiveness about the details of it.  I'm not expecting actual diffs, but I'd at least expect enough of a summary for us to decide whether or not it should disqualify you.
'''Oppose''' Maturity issues.  I don't mind the joke AfDs so much, but the vandalism issues appear serious even if they aren't ''here''.  I couldn't support with that but given the rest I'm stuck in the oppose category.
'''Oppose''' per Cunard, and it does not speak well of a candidate when supporters feel the need to hold his hand for a question.
'''Oppose''' No moar IRCAdmins.
'''Strongest Oppose'''. Far too much not right here, as many have pointed out above.
'''Oppose''' per numerous concerns raised by Cunard and others. —<B>
''''Oppose''' Vandalism displays immaturity. Here or elswhere. ```
'''Oppose''' per the improper rollbacks done just few months ago. I have seen some people doing improper rollbacks by mistake due to automated tools like Stiki, Huggle. But these three edits are non-automated and are totally unacceptable. --
'''Oppose''' - The username don't concern me. The world write with more than latin script, when did we become a tyranny that says only latin script is acceptable? The April Fool don't concern me by its intention. I wouldn't had done it, but a little humour does no harm though what actually ended up happening was unfortunate and not what we want. IRC incident don't concern me. Some on here need to lighten up a little. Conservapedia however does concern me. If it's okay for wp editors to vandalise Conservapedia because we disagree with it, then it's equally okay for people to vandalise wp because they disagree with it. Even if all this had cease, better answers re this and other opposes concerns is needed. Then there are the raised concerns each on its own is nothing to oppose over, but combined raise enough question to push it over the line as of this time.
'''Oppose''', moved from support. I was happy to give my support, but the Conservapedia issue leads me to question the candidate's maturity and ability to treat different points of view with respect and detachment. ''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Oppose'''. I have a hard time opposing a candidate that Kudpung and Worm That Turned brings forward, because they are always excellent, and I have nothing but respect for both of them. I can overlook the acute attack of idiocy it took to go over and vandalize Conservepedia. What I CAN'T overlook is question 15, and how the candidate attempted to justify said idiocy and pretend it was something other than vandalism. Someone who destroys the creative works of others because they don't agree with them has no place as an administrator on this project. Period. Ever.
'''Oppose''' - Even though I dislike the conservatives. Your attempt to stir the pot at Conservapedia worries me because your unintended consequences could draw more vandalisms and POV-pushers (which are not as blatant as high school kids and thus much harder to catch) to Wikipedia. We have more than enough drama going around already and we don't need more. Plus it's relative recent, not like it took place years ago.
'''Oppose''' per maturity concerns noted above. '''
'''Oppose''' vandalising a page or another wiki that you disagree with is totally unacceptable.
'''Oppose'''. Too controversial. There are issues which can be resolved by waiting for six months and applying again. And in the meantime, taking notice of some of the concerns raised, such as quality of communication, and maturity attitudes. There is potentially a good admin here who if appointed now might face too close a scrutiny which could lead to drama. If appointed with a clearer consensus in six months time, they would have the support of the community as a whole, and their life, and that of Wikipedia, would be happier and healthier. '''
'''Oppose''' - For a conglomeration of lots of reasons stated above. I'd say I don't think the rollback issues are dire, nor is the username a problem. We make too big a deal out of relatively minor technical infractions. What is a problem is the overall attitude. While off-wiki activity ought not be especially relevant to an admin's work, this activity has a connection to the wiki. And perhaps most of all, concerns about transparency with much of the RfA process being a club (as someone said above, I'm being naive, cause this happens all the time, but this example's especially out there).
Per [[user:Cunard|Cunard]]. --
'''Oppose''' due to serious concerns about Σ's maturity. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''&mdash;per Skinwalker and because of the Conservapedia thing.  Others have explained as well or better than I can why the Conservapedia vandalism is a problem.  Regarding the IRC business,  I'm actually shocked to find out that not only are IRC conversations not logged, logging is not allowed, that admins and admin wannabes discuss Wikipedia business there when it's not logged, and that others would criticize those who make IRC conversations public when those discussions are relevant to Wikipedia business.  I know this particular issue isn't strictly the candidates fault, but I don't want to see admins who think this is OK.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - misusing the ability to freely edit a website shows a serious lack of judgment, as does using IRC to coordinate attacks. I don't feel that the user can be trusted with the tools.

'''Oppose''', based on my understanding at present of the Conservapedia-events and response to Q15.  As I understand the matter, this came too close to putting Wikipedia riding shotgun in said vandalism/trolling/whatever for my taste.  This isn't a permanent oppose, there is a great deal I respect about this editor, but a complete acknowledgement of what happened, and enough time, would be prerequisite to my future support.  --
'''Oppose''' — It is not necessarily the Conservapedia vandalizing that is hindering me from supporting, because it was in the past, and I believe editors can change. The problem for me is that Σ did not acknowledge that he was in fact vandalizing, and he refused to elaborate on the edits. While supporters are correct in saying that Σ is not required to answer that or any questions at the RfA, the community is not required to support if the questions aren't answered. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' - I would have given full support, Σ is a great editor and CSD tagger, far better than I will ever be. He's helped me out before on tough decisions. However the concerns raised about immaturity are valid. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Not now; there are too many issues.  To those who question why the Conservapedia thing is relevant, one reason is that it exposes Wikipedia to some small chance of retaliation.  Also, it is not a good idea to turn an IRC channel associated with Wikipedia into 4chan.
'''Oppose''' I have comparatively few edits here, but I am an admin on WQ and WV, and do not regsrd Σ's conduct as appropriate for a WMF admin.--
'''Oppose''' - While the editor has a good amount of edits and has been very effective in producing good articles, I have to oppose, mainly due to the Conservapedia issue. While it is a while ago and Conservapedia isn't great, being based on the author's version of Christianity or conservatism, it is not a good sign towards other 'pedias if we give people who vandalize them more user rights. '''
Although I'm not comfortable jumping into bed with some of the other arguments expressed in this section, the issues with Conservapedia appear serious to me - admins generally should have a strong respect for others' efforts to be productive, and beyond the actual incident in question, the candidate's response here was not satisfactory.
'''Oppose'''. Wikipedia is not an island. Behaviour on other projects is relevant: (a) insofar as it shows problematic behaviour or attitudes that lead one to doubt (for instance) a candidate's maturity and (b) where it demonstrates a real potential to embarrass the project. Admins have a more prominent role than other editors and need to comport themselves accordingly. The Conservapedia incident was a while ago and if truly regretted would not have caused me to oppose. However, the answer to the question regarding it (including the failure to link to the edits made to that projection - which whilst not compulsory would have helped other users put the issue in context) strongly suggests that Σ still sees their behaviour as justifiable. It was not. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
Per Cunard and most of the above. The answer to Q15 is quite cringeworthy IMO. Extremely uncomfortable at this point with this user getting the tools. Sorry. –
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' - I've never been a fan of the "...but I would likely support next time" comments at RfA. Always felt to me like the commenter was using it a faux-polite way to surface-ly account for previously bludgeoning a candidate and then saying: "...but here's a [[Carrot and stick|carrot]]...". That said, there are times where sometimes it's necessary to say "not ready yet". And after going through the candidate's contributions, while there is some good there, on overall balance I think that this is one of those times. At this time, I don't feel comfortable that the candidate meets [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. As for the comments on this page, in my estimation, there have been some good points, and some not-so-good. But in the interests of not feeding the drama beast that seems to have been let loose on this page, I think I'll decline to say "per so-n-so", or "disagreeing with so-n-so". The candidate ''does'' do some good work. And I hope that - regardless of this page, and regardless of whether this request is successful or not - that the candidate continues that good work. As bad as some may potentially see this page to be, I see it as an opportunity for the candidate to now leave all of this past behind them, hopefully learn from the comments, and move forward. I sincerely wish the candidate well. - <b>
'''Oppose''' A person who appears to think vandalism within the past year on ''any'' Internet site is not a major red flag issue has not been around the online world nearly enough.  Cunard is right on this one for sure.
'''Oppose''' WJBscribe's rationale is persuasive.--
'''Oppose''' per a bunch of people, but more broadly concerns about maturity and answers to questions/concerns.
'''Oppose''' The intransigence over a character for a name when, clearly, it was causing some of us difficulty who are not techies and won't recall from one interaction to the next how to find a "work around" (and the others who don't know what it means) is one element of a general immaturity. Sigma is right that there is no rule against it, but being right is often the wrong answer for an admin dealing with drama - and drama comes to them all sometime. Maybe next year.
'''Reluctant neutral''' I was hoping to be able to support on this RfA, as Σ is an excellent Wikipedian with the best CSD log I've seen in a long time. However, this was not possible as when I was chatting to Σ recently on IRC, he produced two comments which one could classify as "canvassing". Now, this was not a blatantly obvious "hey, come and support me" type of comment, but I still feel this behaviour is not suitable for an administrator-to-be. It isn't so bad I should outright oppose, but it raises some little concerns. I know my !vote won't make any difference to the outcome of this RfA, but I want to note it down for others to see and judge their opinions on. If for some reason this request is not successful, I certainly will support Σ next time for they thoroughly deserve the buttons. Good luck.<font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Neutral''' I can't muster the enthusiasm to get into the support column, although my recent conversation with Lowercase Sigma have taken me out of the oppose column.
'''Neutral'''. Looks a good candidate apart from those 'hilarious' April 1st AfD nominations. Avoid that sort of thing in future and I would have no problem supporting. --
Don't feel comfortable supporting nor opposing. Knows what he's doing but carries far too much immaturity as evidenced various times offwiki. —
'''Neutral''' – I have no concerns regarding the username, and do appreciate all of the efforts Σ has made to alleviate the issue. However, my off-wiki interactions with Σ (IRC, specifically) give me cause for concern regarding Σ's maturity level. I deliberated for a while over whether it was appropriate to !oppose based on IRC conversations (not officially WMF-related, a more casual environment, etc.), but I worry that this immaturity will appear elsewhere. {{small|Last-minute change to neutral. Oppose doesn't feel right either, due to all of Σ's positive contributions to Wikipedia.}} <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Neutral''' I believe that sensible, considered use of the tools would be made, and judge that a successful outcome will result in a net positive to en-wp. However, the April Fools referred to by Michig and the username script and brevity are of enough concern to dissuade me from fully supporting the candidature. Congratulations on [[WP:100]] anyway. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Neutral''' per foxj and GW. The fact that he demands, not asks politely, for admin tasks to be done in #wikipedia-en and that I have fears that sig may approach CSD in much of the same way that caused {{User|Fastily}} issues places me here. He has done so much good work that I do not feel right to oppose. --
<s>'''Support'''.</s> moved to '''neutral'''. [earlier supportive comments: I'm confused now by the user name--now that it's apparently not Sigma but Esh. Well, Esh seems to listen to the name Sigma, so I guess that's not much of a problem. I will say (''pace'' Beeblebrox) that there are moments when one needs to type in a user name--for instance, when one doesn't have a link at hand to click on and wants to visit that user's space; esp. on netbooks that can be problematic. But Sigma has done good work and I see no reason to oppose.
From Sigma's response, something happened on Conservapedia that was not vandalism but was "obviously inappropriate" (his words). I think it reflects badly on Wikipedia when our contributors use knowledge they gathered here about wiki-syntax, wikis' ethos, etc. to inappropriately subvert whatever other wikis are doing. It creates unnecessary resentment towards our projects and may lead to retaliation in kind against Wikipedia. Giving someone that does this stuff additional authority and power sends the wrong message. I don't know enough to oppose, but I'm not comfortable supporting.--
'''Neutral''' Definitely a good contributor, very likely will be a net positive as an admin. My concern is that admins should ideally have the ability to diplomatically discuss things with other users, and I'm not sure that I've seen the candidate do that. (Admittedly, this has been a failing of mine recently.)
'''Moved from support to neutral''' - While Cunard's evidence was presented in a disruptive and unacceptable manner, there is still merit to it, enough for me to move from supporting to currently neutral.  Extended content should have gone on the talk page as to not bludgeon the RfA.  To not consider the evidence, however, would have been just as [[WP:POINT]]ed as the way he presented it.
'''Also moved from support''' - too many issues have now been raised, but not enough for me to out-and-out oppose.
A username that doesn't help communications. As an admin you'll be communicating - or at least in some tasks, so I can't support. Regards,
'''Neutral''' Good contributor, but the Conservapedia issue led me to neutral. <span class="nowrap"><font color="purple">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="red">89</font>
'''Neutral'''  Although IRC is certainly separate from Wikipedia, I find that his actions unnecessarily link Wikipedia to trolling of Conservapedia, which could be of detriment to the community as a whole. This would be amplified should he become an admin. I'll look past that issue, and just say that those actions demonstrated a lack of foresight. His editing however has been reasonably mature as of late, and looking past these IRC issues I would support. However the fact he didn't think through the potential repercussions of those actions is somewhat troubling. Hence I am neutral. ''
'''Neutral''' - My previous '''support''' was based on my interactions with the editor and the contribution through which I went through. However, I see some serious allegations of vandalising other Wiki. Few answers to questions were not what I'd have looked for. This generates some doubt in my mind about the editor's maturity. I was inclined to actually '''oppose''' this stand, however, the attempts of so called vandalising were performed some time back and there may have been some changes in the attitude. On the positive note, they have done amazing job on Wikipedia; awesome work at Coal Balls and apparently the best NPPer I've seen till now, which creates some sort of hope in the candidate. But still this is not enough for me to support the candidate anymore. You'd make a wonderful admin one day but not now in my eye. Best of luck and hope you'll stay (I'd love to support you in your next run few months later). '''''
'''Neutral''' I can't oppose, but I can't support here. Regards, —
I don't see what the big deal about Conservapedia is; it was nearly a year ago. No, it's the candidate's maturity that concerns me more, but not near enough to oppose. Just keep your head up and edit with your head on straight. Keep up the damn dine NPP work. You'll pass in a couple extra months.
'''Moral Support''' You have great intentions, but your timing is premature. <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2F987li&diff=488974990&oldid=488974819 edit]:</small> Although you have only made [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=987li&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 600 edits] to the encyclopedia and only created [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=987li&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects four pages], you ''can'' and ''will'' gain the necessary experience required of an admin, and after months/years of decent work in administrator-related areas such as [[WP:AFD]], you will be ready to be an admin! Best of luck, <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Moral Support''' per the above. This clearly isn't going to be a successful RFA, but I think the candidate is smart enough to read through the comments in the oppose section and find recommendations on how to become a better editor. Familiarize yourself with the role of admins (and bureaucrats) in the operation of the Wiki, involve yourself in managing some of the perpetual backlogs, establish a body of work in the article space, etc. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/987li 2]] will be successful if you take the constructive criticism on board and get involved. But if you don't end up as an admin, no worries - you don't get kicked out for lack of a promotion around here. Indeed, many would argue that Adminship is no promotion at all. Good luck to you.
Sorry, at just under 600 edits it's ''way'' too early to be requesting adminship. Also, the answer to question 1 suggests you don't quite understand the point of the question.
On grounds of overall lack of experience, no edits in Wikipedia namespace (so no administrative experience) and a way to go on understanding what makes a good article (noting all the deleted articles and the number of new strange redirects created). <font color="#E66C2C">
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. --'''
[[WP:NOTNOW]] also. Best of luck in the future. <span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' Currently clueless.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - '''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">
'''Oppose''' Too few edits. Good luck for the future, but [[WP:NOTNOW]]. --'''sparkl<sub>
Another '''Not now'''. Your answer to Q1 shows no need for the tools. You don't seem to be working in areas where admins work - CSD, AfD, the notice boards, SPI, etc. Get some experience in those places (at first just watching...), and in RfAs too.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - Your heart and your passion are in the right place. I applaud your inclusionist perspective. Stick with us. Keep the faith. Lasting contributions to human knowledge should never go unacknowledged. ;-)
The answer to question 1 doesn't show any understanding of what an administrator's role is, or why zie would need the tools. I'm not even going to say NOTNOW, because at this stage there is too little editing history to give me anything on which to base a future decision. --
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid you don't have anywhere near enough experience, and you don't seem to have a clear idea of what being an administrator means. "I really want to take a next step to Wikipedia" is not a good reason for becoming an administrator: being an administrator is not a sort of badge to show that you are progressing in a Wikipedia career. Your answer to question 1 does not mention any administrative work at all, suggesting that you are not aware of what admin work is. I can see no evidence of any experience of admin-related work in your editing history: anyone undertaking the job of an administrator has to have relevant experience. Finally, I have found some cases where you have shown a lack of the understanding that is required for an administrator. Maybe you will make a good adminitrator one day, but not for quite a while. At present you are nowhere near ready.
'''Oppose'''. 987li is lacking experience and doesn't seem to understand the role of administrators. On the other hand, I believe that he is genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia. I recommend more editing and also find a mentor who will guide him. If 987li still wants to be an admin after, say, a few thousand edits, he should discuss this with his mentor (or another experienced editor who knows him well) and then be nominated by the mentor.
'''Oppose'''. Will support you may be after a after or after few months, with few thousands of article space edit count. --
'''Oppose''' - 450 edit in mainspace is not enough. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Moral Support''' I can only offer moral support.  You have good intentions here and no doubt if you work hard in a vareity of places here that you will no doubt be an admin in a year or 2.—
Oppose [[WP:NOTNOW]] per '''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">[[User:Yasht101|<span style="color:black">Yash</span>]][[User talk:Yasht101|<span style="color:red">t</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Yasht101|<span style="color:blue">101</span>]]</span>''''' and others here.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - It seems that everyone likes the work you're doing, but we just need a larger record of your actions before we can trust you with some powerful tools. Keep working at it, you'll get there.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - keep at it and come back later <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Oppose because of [[WP:NOTNOW]]''' - It would be better to make more edits and gain more experience - I'm far from perfect when it comes to policies!  Admins generally work with maintaining Wikipedia (that's why adminship is sometimes called "the mop"). Most adminship candidates fight vandalism, participate in AfDs and stuff like that.  If you mostly edit articles, continue with that. If you ever are interested in admin duties, make some more edits in those fields and renominate (if someone else doesn't first!) and it'll most likely be successful. Just trying to give you constructive criticism.
I like your edits. I really do. It's just that there a re so few of them! Make a few more edits, [by few I mean a lot], and then come back. You're sure to get everyone's votes. Till then, I don't think you'd succeed. Cheers, --
'''Support'''; you look like a solid character who's ready to have the tools.
'''Support''' - per nom. '''''
'''Support''' – Excellent CSD and AfD, good content work, and great vandalism fighting. My interactions with this user (what little I have had) have been good. The user has also been very helpful at the [[WP:Help desk|Help desk]] and [[WP:Teahouse|Teahouse]]. '''
'''Support''' – Anbu121 initiated Chennai Collaborations and has lots of respect among fellow editors.--
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate for the mop. From their history, despite a few mistakes, there is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - One who works very hard against vandalism and does a lot of Wiki-policing work meticulously. Many a times, he is the one who bears the brunt of edit wars (chiefly by vandals and other similar mischievous users), for which we are really grateful. The initiator and leader of Chennai Collaboration.
'''Support''' Per John F. Lewis.
'''Support''' I feel that he is sufficiently qualified in the areas he intends to work in, particularly CSD, AfD, and AIV, for me to be comfortable in supporting him.--
'''Support''' - have seen him around and his contributions are good. I think he will be good admin.
'''Support''' - meets my criteria.
'''Support''' - I think he's well qualified for the adminship. Saw him at the [[WP:Help desk|Help desk]] and he was very helpful. His contributions are also good. So he should be given the adminship.--'''
'''Support''' - I've been constantly  working with Anbu over the past three months at the Chennai COTM and he has shown tremendous knowledge of policies and guidelines. --
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I have personally found this user to be helpful and courteous. I see nothing here to suggest that he would misuse the tools. The "oppose" comments below seem to be based on the notion that an admin candidate must be PERFECT, and that any trivial one-time deviation from perfection is a reason to reject. Seriously, what is he accused of? Occasionally taking the wrong side in an AfD debate? Using Twinkle?? Posting his nomination in December??? These are not good reasons to deny tools to someone who is clearly hardworking, well meaning, and from an area that needs more admins. --
'''Support''' Anbu is a helpful editor with a keen eye for cant who will make a fine admin. I've been thinking of nominating him myself but have hesitated because he is brusque and that's something that doesn't go down well in this age of niceness that we seem to be getting into on Wikipedia in general and at RfA in particular. But, his brand of brusqueness is very useful on the India pages which is plagued by POV warriors, sock puppets, agenda pushers, vandals, and well meaning but completely incompetent editors. It is good to be nice but that's not a useful trait when dealing with these sorts of editors so I'm willing to take the occasional rudeness for the overall good of the project. I must also add that I'm extremely disappointed to see editors I respect treat an RfA of a well meaning and competent editor in a less than serious way. I worry that we'll lose an excellent editor because of our inability to see that not everyone can time things perfectly. --
'''Support''' Doesn't look like this one is passing, but I encourage the nominator to continue editing and not be discouraged.
'''Support''' Agree with Regents park here. A couple of rants and a careless miss (I haven't seen people often using the d-word to mean it in India and I can understand why Anbu missed it with a glance) doesn't overshadow the good work done by the candidate. Also I beleive Anbu is willing to learn from his mistakes. I request the candidate to continue with his good work regardless of the outcome of this RFA. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' - Anbu seems like a good person, and I applaud his intentions in reverting vandalism and so forth. However, most of his actions in that area are entirely reliant on [[WP:Huggle|Huggle]] and [[WP:Twinkle|Twinkle]]. For example, {{diff|User talk:Fsimeski|diff=504601788|oldid=474925857|label=this notification}} to a user of an AfD is unintentionally [[WP:BITE|bitey]], and suggests to me that he didn't stop and assess the situation. What he should have also done was tell the user in a nice way where they were going wrong ([[User talk:Fsimeski#Article on you|someone else later did that]]). In a similar vein, he left {{oldid|User talk:Twehringer thesociety|oldid=528036814|label=this welcome message}} for a user, but didn't advise them that their username was promotional/organizational and thus in violation of [[WP:username policy|username policy]], or report it at [[WP:UFAA]]. Likewise {{oldid|User talk:Dick slap the bringled 757|oldid=526360132|title=this welcome}} left for a user with an obviously offensive name and whose only edit was the creation of a page that was clearly messing around. If you intend to specialize in "vandal fighting" - I must admit that that is a term I dislike - then you need to be more individually involved on a case by case basis, not just using scripts to revert edits and leave messages.{{paragraph break}}I generally believe in the principle of giving people tool access (to do whatever admin tasks they feel like) once they've been around long enough to demonstrate that they're clearly not going to harm the project, but Anbu's only been here a year, and that doesn't feel long enough for me to be able to say that with certainty. Sorry Anbu, please get more involved for a while and then try again later on. —
'''Oppose''' I don't like the spiking of RfAs when adult editors are busy with their families, AA, and ALANON meetings. Try again during a normal time of year. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry Anbu, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Devraha_Baba this] AfD !vote and the subsequent discussion do not instill confidence in me. <span style="">
'''Oppose'''. Per the AfD above and also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakshatra MCA meet@NIT Calicut]] -  voting to Keep a piece of obvious spam which was equally obviously copied from a primary source and therefore almost certainly a copyvio.  Sorry, no.
'''Oppose''' per the AfD concerns mentioned above -- shows poor judgment, use of evidence, and analysis skills. More experience required.
Per Salih. That trolling personal attack on a recently deceased individual tells me this candidate is not ready for adminship.
'''Regretful oppose''' The AfD discussion cited by Salih above (which was only a few days ago) indicates the candidate may not have the judgment quite yet for judicious use of the tools.
'''Oppose'''. I  do  not  doubt  for an instant  that  Anbu's contributions are sincere and with  the best  intentions - we ''do'' need editors to  look after the quality  of articles from  the Indian subcontinent. However, I  concur with  several  of the concerns voiced here, and a thorough review of his talk  page suggests that  his communication may sometimes be a tad too bitey. From  my  own experience from  working  in  India, this may not  be so  much  of an issue, but  the cultural  dichotomy needs to  be understood if/when interacting as an admin  with  users from  other regions, especially Western ones where sensibilities often run high. I  think  if he can address these points and his misjudgements at  CSD  and AfD over the next  few months, I  would be ready  to  support a new RfA.
I'm sorry I feel inclined to oppose, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dick_slap_the_bringled_757&oldid=526360132 this] is just too egregious an oversight to ignore; that username was blatantly unsuitable for editing Wikipedia. Also, the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devraha Baba|AfD]] being cited above demonstrates that Anbu121 likely does not have a sufficient grasp of [[WP:N|notability policies]], which are crucial in deletion discussions. With a few more months experience and an effort to rely less extensively on tools for communication with other editors, I'd be very happy to support.
Without sorrow, I '''oppose''' this RfA for obvious reasons. With joy I wish the best for the candidate. {{User:My76Strat/OLS}}&nbsp;--
'''Oppose''' per AFD concerns; come back after brushing up on notability.
'''Oppose''' - Devraha Baba was ten days ago.  So ... no.
'''Oppose''' I think Anbu121 need another year to mature and gain more experience in understanding the nuances of policy.  I'm also concerned about judgement and demeanor at this time.
Unfortunate '''oppose''', based on recent AfD issue pointed out by Black Kite above.  I'm convinced that more time is needed.  --
'''Oppose''' More than 9000 edits out of total 17000 edits are automated edits. As per AfD issues raised by editors and automated edits, I vote oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Black Kite.--<font face="bold">
'''Oppose'''. The candidate doesn't have a firm grasp of WP core policies and is a bit too error-prone; just see the problems with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Devraha_Baba Devraha Baba AfD] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dick_slap_the_bringled_757&oldid=526360132 the miss that Kurtis pointed out ]. That said - Anbu is a hard-working editor who could make a fine admin one of these days.
'''Oppose''' I am sure that this editor is on the threshold of adminship, and oppose with reluctance. We all make mistakes, and I have made my share, but the mistakes variously highlighted here should not have happened, and as of now I do not feel cofident that similar errors could occur in the future. If we are to blame automated edits (which I do not use) this only highlights the need for them to be scrutinised before posting. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - per temperament concerns as well as AfD issues.
'''Oppose''' - (moved from support) Per concerns raised regarding AfD issues. --
'''Neutral''' Right now, I am leaning towards support, although the personal attacks are a tad concerning for me, so I am going to remain neutral for now.
'''Neutral''' - We need more vandal fighting editors, and I'm bothered by such detailed analysis and hindsight of anyone who's doing regular vandal fighting. I don't find Hex's objections very persuasive for that reason. However the short tenure (just over 1 year) combined with some of the missteps (some mentioned above, a few other small things I see; mostly little "misses" of issues that probably should have been addressed at the time, but were passed over), many recent, make me neutral. I think with a little diligence and more breadth, I could support in the future.
I don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Moral Support''' I am sure you've realized this RFA is far from successful, but it'll give you the path to improve as a user. I am sure that, with more experience and work, you may become an administrator in the future, but not now. You said you are willing to work on RPP and AFD, but I see no substantial work there. To be an admin willing to work on such areas, you need to put yourself through those processes first to fully understand how they work, and what will you do there as an admin. As I have hear before, we don't need admins learning on the job, but before. I hope this little feedback from me helps you on your wikicareer. —
'''Oppose''' - Concerns about both insufficient experience and maturity.  Candidate expresses an interest in working at [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]] in an admin capacity, but so far has only participated in 4 AfD's total (all of which were from 2009), and has only made a single edit to RFPP.  Recent threads on the candidate's user talk page regarding their activity at [[WP:RM]] also do not inspire confidence.
'''Oppose''' [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ticker_symbols_in_article_leads&diff=prev&oldid=522735891 Considers] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem&diff=prev&oldid=522654403 this] to be harassment. Also [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ticker symbols in article leads|this]] doesn't inspire confidence.
'''Strong oppose''' no evidence of understanding policy (see 'crat request), sketchy sock account use, etc. --'''
'''Oppose''' Based on my recent interactions with this candidate in various move reviews and move requests, I am sorry but can not support this candidate, I can not see how a candidate that has trouble dealing with/understanding opposing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24&diff=prev&oldid=520121634 consensus] can be a good admin. See also the discussion at [[WT:Manual of Style#Ending the endash/hyphen warring]].
'''Oppose''' With the account as old as it is, and with 6,000 live edits, 2/3 of them being very recent isn't encouraging for the experience and maturity needed to be an administrator to work in the desired areas. Regards, —
This candidate has been trying to make a small change to the style guide regarding dashes in proper names. This has been met with very little support, but this editor has dragged it on for months almost singlehandedly in many forums, starting multiple move requests on the same articles in close succession, dragging those to [[Wikipedia:Move review]] when they were closed early despite overwhelming rejection, etc. The candidate should have realized that consensus was overwhelmingly in opposition to the proposed changes, but instead chose to continue a disruptive campaign. The candidate lacks the judgment required of an administrator to work in the intended areas.
'''Oppose''' – Per Scottywong, Legoktm, and Rschen7754.
'''Oppose''' - lacks experience & knowledge. Both can be easily changed though - I suggest you seek a mentor.
'''Oppose'''. Seems to think that "lighting up the annoying message bar" is harassment, and that when consensus disagrees with Apteva, it is consensus that has to be made to change. Also  agrees that mentorship is needed, which seems like a self-oppose to me - I'd suggest withdrawal at this point. --
'''Oppose'''.  Some of Apteva's comments about consensus in a recent discussion were rather concerning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=520478356 "What is appropriate, is to propose here, should we change that, and if even one editor objects, drop it."] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=next&oldid=520478356 "Run the proposal up the flag pole, if it meets with an objection, drop it."] —
'''Oppose''': Does not "lack experience or knowledge" as GiantSnowman put it (he's been editing for a long time as an anon IP), but rather &ndash; and much worse &ndash; he ignores what he does not agree with, and [[WP:GAMING|games the system]] with excessively [[WP:TE|tendentious]] and [[WP:PARENT|"parent-shopping"]] exercises in his incessant [[WP:SOAPBOX|campaigning]] against [[WP:Nobody cares|style nitpicks]], to such a level that it's looking [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|fanatical]] and self-appointedly [[WP:GREATWRONGS|righteous]]. Apteva is about to be subject to [[WP:RFC/U]] over this issue, within the next day or so. The candidate has demonstrated a consistent pattern of process abuse, at [[WP:RM]] and elsewhere, that would be a serious problem if he had admin bits that enabled him to rename protected article titles at will. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about understanding community consensus, soapboxing and some of the comments listed above. That [[User:Dicklyon/Apteva|this]] page even exists is a concern for a prospective RfA candidate at this point.
'''Oppose''' based on Apteva's own comments in this RFA. I don't know if it's inexperience or something else, but xe has definitely demonstrated an insufficient understanding of, well, take your pick.
'''Oppose''' - seems rather confrontational. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Oppose''' (moved from ''neutral'') per concerns raised here by others regarding user interactions. Additionally, while [[:File:Size of English Wikipedia satire.svg|a satirical view of Wikipedia]] may be appreciated by some from time to time, I think its inclusion within a userbox is questionable at best... especially so when displayed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Apteva&diff=prev&oldid=518322661] by someone (and coupled with the wording {{tq|This user is '''not''' a Wikipedian, and works on the 1% of Wikipedia that is useful}}) who expects to interact with numerous other editors in the course of performing admin duties. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Oppose'''. Totally unsuited to adminship, in terms of temperament and technical knowledge. Sorry Apteva. And your mind would be a great asset to the project if you could be less obsessive. I look forward to working with you.
'''Oppose''', per the candidate's comments above. If the "You have a new message" bar lighting up is considered harassment.... well, I hate to break the news, but as an admin? You're gonna get messages. You will delete something that someone liked, you will protect the wrong version of something, you will do something that someone questions. Being available and willing to discuss your actions is one of the most important roles of an admin. So, yeah. Sorry. Good luck to you.
'''Oppose''' Too many reasons to list, but the confusion about harassment, and edit-warring over en-dashes are sufficient.--
'''Oppose''' Misunderstanding of policy, cognitive dissonance, lack of maturity - reflected in comments/answers and reinforced by review of edits.  Not a stronger candidate than they were in 2009, really.  --
'''Oppose''' Likely to misuse the tools in unpredictable  ways, thereby unlikely to inspire the sense of dread and inevitable doom of systematically defective administrators. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">

'''Oppose''', is not willing to respect consensus. --
'''Oppose''' Doesn't understand policy, lack of maturity
'''Oppose''' Hate to pile on, but two self-noms is revealing. Apteva seems to have an insufficient grasp of policy (and is too contentious) for the tools at this time.
'''Oppose''' Per virtually every other oppose above.
'''Oppose''' Same as above. <font face="Arial" size="2em">
If normal admin openness to random queries is not your cup of tea then adminship is not really something you'd enjoy. Also [[User_talk:Delphi234#Global_warming_and_glacial.2Finterglacial_cycles|your alt account's comment]] shows a divergence from the academic mainstream that I find troubling for a position in an Academic project. ''
'''Neutral''' Seems to have improved since last time. But the answer to Q5 is rather dodgy and does not inspire confidence. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' As nom--
'''Support''' - I hope my support vote doesn't torpedo your RFA but I'm glad to be the first one.
'''Support''' - Seemingly no issues here. Regards, —
'''Support''' - Despite some of the concerns about the user's amount of time on Wikipedia, I'm still of the old guard in having a general 6-month policy with which I'm willing to be slightly flexible if a user has a wide-range of edits and contributions.  I think this is a case that warrants such exception.
'''Support'''. User has clue, and has a wide variety of contributions.
'''Support''' - Yes, ideally a longer tenure would be preferred, but there's no reason to suppose he is not as familiar with the guidelines as the rest of us. It would take a superhuman to remember them all.
Sufficient experience (more than 6 months total, more than 3 months dedicated to administrative things), very nice CSD log. Not very thrilled by the candidate's proposals, but I haven't seen an example of poorly thought out actions that would lead me to oppose. —'''
'''Support''' -- I spent about 30 minutes going through his history, given how new he (or she) is. I am enthusiastically supporting him based on what I saw and my own observations of RfAs over the last 6 years. Two things I liked in particular -- always civil and always careful to ask questions before trying something new or when trying to figure out some murky policy question. He has good instincts. As an admin for almost 5 years, there's still much I don't know so I'm always careful to check out policies and guidelines before I venture out of my experience. That and civility will take an admin far. I prefer him over some much more experienced candidates I've seen that still just didn't "get it". Editors serve our readers and admins serve our editors; AutomaticStrikeout appears to understand this dynamic and will do a good job taking care of our editors and our content. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' While the short duration is always a concern (heaven forbid we get another PastorTheo or John254!), on the balance this looks like a worthwhile shot. We complain that there are not enough admins, that the RfA process is broken, that adminship should not be a big deal, then shouldn't we be defaulting to support rather than oppose? --
'''Support'''. User means well, has a moderate amount of experience, and always pauses to be sure actions will meet the standards of the community. On that basis alone, I think he can be trusted with the tools. [[User:The Illusive Man|The Illusive Man]]<sup>([[User talk:An Illusive Man|Contact]])</sup> 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)<small>(I copied this from below so the tool could count it
'''Support''' It's my belief that people (remember; there is a person behind the user name) who strive to be admins, work towards it as a a goal, are obviously learning quickly, and are sincere — should be promoted, with advice, and trusted to improve. The rules have become dizzyingly complex. You're not going to get good admins if you don't let them do some OJT.<font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support''' Opposes seem to be about length of time editing, and six months seems like forever to me. As to your weird proposal, the sort of whatever that goes with relative youth, which I don't consider a deficit.
'''Support'''. I think AutomaticStrikeout has more than enough experience to assume adminship, on the understanding that part of what makes a good administrator is knowing which admin tasks one is ready for and which one is not, and I trust the candidate on that. (Although it is true that the tools only come in a bundle, ''no'' administrator performs all the different functions that admins are capable of.) Six months of well-rounded experience on the project, to my mind, is sufficient, and my interactions with the candidate have all been positive. All that being said, for better or worse it has become apparent that the current RfA isn't going to pass, so it might make sense for the candidate to consider withdrawing at this time and trying again a few months down the trial.
'''Support''' Because it is my belief that "lack of time" is a completely unfair reason to vote against. If they show the required qualities then that is plenty enough in my view. "You are good, but come back in 6 months" seems pointless to me. --'''
'''Support''' &mdash; I may not always agree with his views, but I certainly do trust him with the added bit. I'm not concerned with the experience issues; 6 months is ''plenty'' enough time. Some of our best administrators got promoted in less than that.
'''Support''' You look like a quality editor and I see no reason to think you'd misuse the tools. But have to agree a tactical withdrawal might be wise at this point.
'''Support''' I wish you the best of luck on your next RFA. —
'''Support''' as I see insufficient evidence that they will abuse tools or position.
'''Oppose''' - I really hate to oppose a good candidate but unfortunately I'll have to. I've seen AutomaticStrikeout around and at the first sight, I don't see any major flaws by just few quick checks (which is certainly insufficient). However, they have been around for merely 7 months which according to me is just a touch-too-rushed nomination. 7 months is a good sum but just little bit lower then what I'd like to see in a candidate at RFA. They tend to work at CSDs, but their [[User:AutomaticStrikeout/CSD_log|log]] suggests that they are doing this just from August 2012 which generates experience of hardly 3 months and this is way too low if you are aiming for adminship according to me (despite of accuracy in tagging). Sorry to oppose but I can't support a candidate with just 7 months experience overall and 3 months for the work they want to do. I'll be happy to support you at your next run after waiting for good 6 or 8 months without getting controversial (if this RFA fails) '''''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. Less than six months just isn't (imo) enough time to understand WP the way an admin needs to (among other reasons). <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose'''—Whatever the age of the account, AutomaticStrikeout appears inexperienced in handling anti-vandalism reports (AIV), copyright violations (SCV), inappropriate usernames (UAA), patrols (NPP), deletion (AFD/CSD/XFD), and developing content beyond their immediate preferences. Although the proportion of their CSD nominations rejected lately is reasonable (6.8%), the user has nonetheless contributed only 146 deleted edits across the entire project, and certainly 102 since August 2012. Attempting this RFA is commendable, however, considering the recent controversies and dearth of successful applications, and I hope that the editor contemplates another application after accumulating further experience. Kind regards, <span>
'''Oppose''' The amount of edit count doesn't equate to more experience, especially if the user only has a little more than 6 months of experience. I would suggest that the nominee gain more experience on the administrative aspect of the encyclopedia before running for the election again. Cheers! --
'''Oppose''' Keen, honest, civil, and reliable, but still far too unsure of many policies and guidelines.  These proposals [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=517471243&oldid=517469857 here] and [[Wikipedia talk:Emailing users|here]] appear to  demonstrate that  he is not yet  sure of how Wikipedia works. His 52 AfD votes matched the result in  76.2% of the time  but  the number of AfDs is probably  to  low to  attach any  substantial  metrics to. However, his answer to Q4 doesn't  convince of sufficient  knowledge of deletion, his page patrolling  gives me pause with  around 20% of his recent deletions being  tagged with  the wrong  criteria,  and this is well below par for a reasonably  practiced non-admin patroller. It's important  to  get  these criteria right,  not  only  to  avoid wrongly  deleting  articles as an admin, but  wrong tags also send the wrong message to  the creators. On some admin areas that  require knowledge he is still  unsure of the procedures as demonstrated by his comment at  one AfD nomination on  4 October: "I'd speedy this, but I don't know what, if anything, is the proper criterion for that"  and only  seven  weeks ago  states "I don't entirely understand how sockpuppet investigations work." He was given some good advice at his recent  editor  review but  has still  chosen to  run for admin when probably he should have waited longer. If  he keeps up  his current  rate of work however, he will  increase his knowledge exponentially, and in  another six months or so I'm almost  sure I would support a re-run.
'''Oppose''' Keep doing what you're doing, come back in 6 months or so, and you'll pass with no problem.  If you're interested in closing deletion discussions, I would suggest participating in more AfD's (you've only voted in about 50 of them) and also perform some [[WP:NAC|non-admin closures]] before the next time you run.  [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/adminscore.html This tool] might also help you identify things to work on.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Response to Q2 is sparse. Articles cited in nom are brief. Need evidence that user knows how to judge encyclopedic content, and, while they may, this has not been demonstrated as of yet. My suggestion prior to running again, if this is unsuccessful, would be more substantive contribution to articlespace --
'''Sigh'''. Edit count (11,500) is fine; distribution fine. Six months is enough in my book as long as there is a clear picture. Q1 is weak: "dealing with persistent vandals", but only 14 [[WP:AIV]] edits. Q3 lacks detail: Mea culpas are OK, but I'm at a loss for what happened and what was learned. (Q6 was answered while I was writing this oppose; it does not explain what was wrong.) Q1&ndash;Q3 put me on the fence. Sampling some AfD votes gives me some trouble; I want to see some reasoning displayed -- more than voting "per nom". When anybody writes an article, they invest some significant effort, and I think some effort should be spent explaining why an article should be deleted. (See A4, "the best way to try to prevent someone from walking away is to politely explain to them why their article was deleted".) Some tentative AfD nominations give me more trouble: "I don't think this is notable";[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BananaMan] "The subject of this article may not meet our notability guidelines";[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ed_Buckner] "This article may or may not be notable...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bibiyapur] An AfD asks other editors to weigh in and spend some effort on the article; that request should not be made lightly. "May not" isn't satisfying. I'm off the fence. I need evidence of a clear understanding of WP pillars.
maturity and experience. -
'''Oppose'''- I actually have no problems with experience. It's just this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=517471243&oldid=517469857 weird proposal] that Trusilver brought up that is keeping me from supporting. '''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience for me to support.
'''Oppose''' Seems like a good candidate, but not enough experience. I would say come back in another six months. <span class="nowrap"><font color="green">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="blue">89</font>
'''Oppose''' - I'd be more comfortable with at least 6 more months of tenure, and 14 edits to AIV is a little low for me to be comfortable (not that I question his ability to see what's vandalism/not (that's easy), but there are things like block evasion and LTAs that I feel he should get more familiar with).--
Good candidate, not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' - I hate opposing a good candidate, but Mephistophelian and Jasper have a point. Your AIV reports are very little. When you have about 30 or more reports, I will support you without any hesitation.  --
'''Oppose''' though I like the admin of the day idea--if the editor was ever thinking of me, of course. Yeah, not enough experience. To build up a portfolio of decent CSD nominations or AfD contributions is one thing, and correctly identifying vandalism is pretty much the same thing. But there's a lot of things here that simply take time to learn; I'm learning them still. I'm not convinced that the candidate has learned some of the more difficult things, and the reason they want to be admin--well, that's really the area where we need people least. Sorry Strikeout, I've seen your contributions come by and I have no problem with them, but a good editor does not yet make a good admin.
'''Oppose''', mainly per the answers to Q9 (CSD exercise).  I realise that these are somewhat tricky and some of the points are somewhat subtle but the candidate missed enough that I don't feel I can support.  My concerns are: Exercise 1 - No mention that R3s need to be recently created (I also don't think it's a misnomer but that's less of an issue), Exercise 5 - in my opinion this easily meets the low standard needed to avoid A7 and Exercise 6 - Seems to miss that the editor seems to be a minor revealing identifying information and so follow up action will be needed.  These suggest a lack of experience and a lack of knowledge of our guidelines and policies and I fear therefore that this may be more widespread than just lack of knowledge of CSD.  However there doesn't seem to be anything more concerning there (such as vandalism etc) so I would expect to support once the candidate has more experience.
Forget about being an administrator Just write some well-documented paragraphs in articles, discuss articles on talk pages, and you'll be an even more valuable member of the community. Your suggestion of "an administrator of the day" "since I wanted to do something" suggests that, like many future hall of fame baseball players, you need a few years to mature. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' too soon by any sensible measure. Even if you had been a fully endorsed, competent, Admin-ready candidate you would have received a flat oppose from me for your bizarre proposal to elevate an Admin a day for some sort of ultimate community recognition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=517471243&oldid=517469857]. Admins should be neither seen or heard but should go about their work in a level, non-ostentatious manner. Blandness is better than brio. There is enough drama without creating a badge for the most dramatic intervention each day or whatever you proposal would achieve. It really is a silly idea I'm afraid and indicates a lack of maturity, sound judgement and awareness.
'''Oppose''' Per KW. Not enough experience yet.
'''Oppose'''. I generally hate to pile on, but I have to oppose due to the inaccurate answers to question #9, which indicate a poor understanding of the deletion policy regarding speedy deletions, along with the necessary and/or helpful follow-up communication with editors. Best wishes in the future. <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I'd like to see more breadth of experience in topic areas and AfD. While I've seen nothing that makes me suspect the candidate would abuse the tools, a further period of wider experience would be beneficial and will hopefully demonstrate that the suggestions for development raised here by others have been considered. Would like to support you next time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Oppose''' Sparse answers do not allow me to judge that this user has sufficient experience. --
Not yet. Seen some good work but not enough in the admin related areas for me to support this person as a sysop. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Oppose''' given the lack of experience at this time.
'''Neutral'''. Good user, but has been here less than six months. I remember even back in 2006, six months was the general guideline. I think six months to a year is the minimum amount of time for a user to actually be able to absorb all the policies, guidelines, and even the dynamics of Wikipedia that aren't written down. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I'm not comfortable supporting at this time. Mainly I prefer longer tenure for admin candidates. I will not oppose on that basis alone. Good luck. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
Nice candidate but I wanted to see some more contributions from this user. --
This[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=517471243&oldid=517469857] tells me that the candidate isn't quite there yet. I'm not comfortable with an administrator candidate that feels that administrators somehow ''require'' some type of special recognition.
Moral support for an editor who I'm sure will make a good admin in the not too distant future. --
Great editor with impressive contributions, and the simple answer is "premature" but there are other issues raised above.  My advice would be to withdraw before harsher opposes come along, and come back in a while.  There's a lot you can do without the bit.  --
You're doing a great job AutomaticStrikeout and I'm sure you'll be a great admin one day, but that day is not today I'm afraid. Keep doing what you're doing and come have a chat with me in a few months, I might even nominate you.
You need longer here to become fully familiar with guidelines/policies, but see no other major concerns than that. I strong advise you to try again in 6-12 months time.
'''Excellent candidate''' in a few more months.  I've seen enough of you to know you have a pretty level head and common sense, but I can't support yet because I think you need to work on the nuances of policy a bit more.  I'm with Worm and Kudpung, and would echo their sentiments. I think it takes a year just to learn the basics, and I see you have very little experience in the Wikipedia space.  The tools come as a kit, and you need to understand ''most'' of them before using any of them.  But you are definitely pointed in the right direction and I'm sure I will support a future run.
Just under 6 months - not a major worry to me. I tend to agree with Mephistophelian (oppose #3) on this, and I do believe Automatic needs to review relevant policies, and engage more in the specific area he wishes to work in (Answer to question #2) - however, I don't believe that this is enough to to oppose on. I wish Automatic good luck with this RfA - If unsuccessful, I'd encourage that they take onboard the opposes' comments as constructive critism/advice, and all the supports as praise {{=)}}, and barring that, In six months time, I'm sure Automatic will find himself here again, however, with a polar opposite outcome. -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
I can't support this. Saying that, I can't oppose this. So, I'll go [[Malcolm in the Middle|neutral]]. The user has good intentions, but not a high enough edit count in current times, or enough time served. Come back after six months, and you'll probably get my support.
'''Next time''' (so long as he/she doesn't go berserk in the meantime...). A good editor, with a lot of edits. However, I'm not sure that some more experience wouldn't go amiss. I'll be interested to see the answers to the newest questions.
I have some reservations with the responses from the candidate on my questions (#7 and #8).  In #7, I am happy that AutomaticStrikeout said he would need to see translated text himself and noted that Google Translate is not always reliable, but there are alternatives to PRODing or AfDing the article.  For instance, there is an entire [[WP:JA|WikiProject]] dedicated to Japan-related topics, and many users there would be a better judge of whether the article's content was meaningful or not, which could be translated into English.  It's possible that AfD would also have this same effect by it being posted on relevant noticeboards, but AfD is not for cleanup.  As for #8, I am glad to see that AutomaticStrikeout knew it would be incorrect as the issuing admin to respond to an unblock request.  However, were he not the issuing admin, he stated that he would probably unblock them if it was a "trusted user."  However, the unblock request takes the form of a classic [[non-apology apology]], where the blocked user doesn't actually own up or acknowledge their problematic behavior.  If anything, a trusted user should have the wherewithal to make a proper apology.  I am also left a bit wanting at the responses to the opening questions, and I would like to see more visibility of the editor in the WP namespace, such as in AfD or ANI (though there are many other venues that could use attention).   AutomaticStrikeout seems like a strong and fair-minded editor here, and I personally have no reservations with the age of his account or # of edits he has contributed, and I would be happy to support him at his next RfA given that at least some of above concerns have been addressed.
'''See you soon''' per Dennis Brown. You'll make an excellent candidate with a bit of time.
Keep up the good work, and I'd be happy to support in a few months! :) –
He consistently acts with good intentions, is civil, and always receptive to pointers for improvements. If there was a dire need for more admins, I'd have no problem with AutomaticStrikeout learning on the job.  That said, I'll remain neutral. Aside from those others have mentioned, some areas for refinement include [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Holbrook&diff=516573794&oldid=516573417 distinguishing vandalism versus possible good faith original research].  Arguably a bit hasty to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.91.120.250&diff=516573865&oldid=512687791 give the same IP editor a final warning] when the same dynamic IP had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.91.120.250 constructive edits a few hours earlier]. There is an opportunity (no matter how small) to retain and educate some of these "problem" editors. These are minor and easily corrected, hence my neutral stance. His "weird" proposals don't bother me; innovators need to think outside the box and sometimes (if not often) fail. I see no reason to believe AutomaticStrikeout would not follow consensus as an admin, even as he strives to improve on the status quo as an editor.—
'''Neutral''' - You are a great editor but in my opinion its quite early.
'''Neutral''' - [[WP:TAFI|TAFI]]? Great. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=517471243&oldid=517469857 This?] A bit troubling. Can't support at the moment. '''<font color=#232323>
'''Avoiding pile-on [[WP:NOTNOW]] Neutral''' If I'd posted yesterday, I would have said "oppose", but right now this is more of a moral support.  Adminship is not a trophy, and as such, it's not something you should be asking for so early on the project.  When a handful of trusted admins approach you in the future and say "are you ready to try again", then it's probably time.  At that point, get them to nom/co-nom.  This nomination was far too early in your "career" to succeed.  Keep up the good work, improve in the areas as suggested, work carefully in the admin-ish areas, and at some point after your 1-year mark some admins will likely come a-callin' <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - Clean block log and no indications of assholery. The contributions pie chart is that of a content creator. Unfortunately, seven months is not enough time in the harness for the full toolbox, in my opinion. Try back in six months for a resounding confirmation process.
'''Support'''-Why not?--'''''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy long-time active user. Avicennasis does good work on a variety of projects and I'm sure they'd be a net benefit for the project with admin tools.
'''Support'''. A long-time contributor who has been active in the category space and indicated category discussion as their main prospective activity as administrator. We have an acute lack of administrators, and this is somebody who very well matches the profile.--
Happy to '''support'''.  Long term editor with good contributions to the encyclopedia.  This user has created well over 100 pages (mostly stubs/excluding redirects).  I am slightly concerned by the lack of experience in many admin related areas, but the 2 years of active editing and the response to question 5 reduce my concern.  In addition, of the AFD discussions, Avicennasis !voted in line with the result or in a discussion closed as no consensus 100% of the time.  The trust placed in this editor by other projects and the massive list of userrights leads me to believe that we can trust Avicennasis with the mop here.<tt>  </tt>
'''Support''' The low AFD-participation rate was slightly concerning; however, the answer to Question 5 along with the user's technical interest and vast number of good contributions lead me to believe that they would be a good admin. <span class="nowrap"><font color="blue">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="red">89</font>
'''Support'''. Safe, trustworthy... actually had assumed they were a sysop already. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' experienced user. --'''
'''Support''' as nominator '''
'''Support''' - Really no reason to oppose and editor looks like an experienced, trustworthy and responsible candidate. '''→
'''Support''', yes, heck yeah, absolutely!
'''Support''' because this user is not yet blocked for a five-year period.
For someone that's worked (albeit not as frequently) as me, I'd say this editor is more than ready.  &ndash;
'''Support''' It's difficult to evaluate Avicennasis' contributions given their frequent use of bots, but the glowing nomination and sensible answers to the above questions indicate that he or she will use the admin tools wisely.
→<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - per nom. He has done a lot of excellent work in various areas, but the statement in the nomination concerning when he began editing is somewhat disingenuous considering that one of his edits in 2007 was simply vandalism. I won't hold that against him, since it (obviously) hasn't been repeated and he has clearly matured in the past five years.
'''Support''' '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999;">
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
In the words of [[Dead Celebrities|a great parody]] of the great Walter Cronkite, "Well it's about fucking time!!!!". Avicennasis was the person who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights&oldid=347998026 welcomed me] on March 5th, 2010, and though my userpage hasn't changed a bit since then I've had one hell of a time. I have to admit, it does feel a bit strange to be an admin and now see the person who helped get me into Wikipedia run for adminship.
Seems active in the areas of interest where they intend to start out, no reason why not.
'''Support''' - No major concern over contributions from when user got seriously into editing. Answers to questions looks good to me.
'''Support''' Per Skater.
'''Strongly support''' - clearly and convicingly passes [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my usual standards]].
'''Support''' Seems fully qualified
Its a pleasure to '''support'''
'''Support'''  Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools see no concerns.
<font color="#7026DF">'''
'''Support''' Concerns about them using an emoticon in the answer to question #6 not enough to overcome a very positive record.  Seems trustworthy as they come.  Pity not more content creation, but there's time for that, if they cares to.--
'''Support''' No concerns, solid candidate overall.
'''Support''' - Passes [[User:Achowat/RfA Process|My Guidelines]] without worry.
'''Support''' - Found no reasonable reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I have seen no evidence that this candidate will abuse admin tools or position.--
'''Support''' No red marks and competence in areas sorely needing additional admin attention makes this an easy vote.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Weirdest contributions pie chart I've seen in a while, never knew there even was a CATEGORIES section and here's someone with 13,000+ edits there. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 02:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC) <small>Last edit:
'''Support''' Look fine to me--
'''Support''' per [[User:Adjkasi|Adjkasi]], and the fact that this user has yet to be the subject of a [[WP:RFAR|request for arbitration]].
'''Support''' Avicennasis seems like a net gain for the project overall, and I see no compelling reason why bestowing the admin buttons upon this user would be anything other than a positive step. --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Support''' I think he could use the tools.♦
Familiar ith this user as a global rollbacker and on Commons.  Highly competent.
'''Support''' because RfAs are a rare event nowadays and IMO we need to accept all the help that's offered unless there is a clear reason to reject it. I realise that others' mileage varies on this but I see absolutely no such reason in this case - quite the contrary.
'''Support''':  Seems like an acceptable candidate with a drama-free temperament.--'''
'''Support''' User self describes as suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder, his contributions seem to be the various fiddlings/automated actions of such categories of ''editors'', and he has no track record whatsoever of content creation or involvement in disputes/dispute resolutions. Not too long ago showed serious signs of immaturity. Also per ''My best work, I think, has been done on IRC.'' Appoint him to arbcom already!
'''Support''' I'm one of those who was quite surprised to learn that Avicennasis was not an admin.  You don't need to write DYKs or GAs or FAs to be a good admin; technical skills and people skills are really the important things, and it seems to me that this user has them and will use them productively.
'''Support''' - I would like to see more in-depth content creation, but the candidate's other qualities win me over. The candidate seems knowledgeable and level-headed.
'''Support''', largely per Ryan Vesey. --
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' While I think a good understanding in content creation is needed to pass a RFA unless there's special circumstances, and I see Avicennasis qualifying as an exception because of his bot work.
'''Support''' of course - reliable established trustworthy editor. What more is needed? Answer: nothing. ''
'''Support''' You'll make a great admin. <b>
'''Support''' candidate seems to be experienced, qualified and sensible, and I'm not impressed with the oppose rationales. Lack of participation in AfDs is not an issue, since the candidate doesn't intend to close AfDs, the answer to Q5 shows they have the good sense not to try, and we don't require potential admins to have experience in every admin-related area. Content contributions are essentially irrelevant for the vast majority of admin tasks, including all the ones the candidate has expressed interest in. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' experienced user.
'''Strong Support''' - I have had nothing but outstanding dealings with this editor. Avicennasis has shown nothing but an abundance of clue and care for this project. This is a noBrainer and a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' plenty of experience especially in admin areas. We need admins of all types. I am unconvinced by the opposes. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Strong Support''' <font color="#990000"><strong><em>
'''Support''' unconvinced about the opposes as well. If we can't trust an user with such background, expertise and global flags who is doing a great job here as well, who should deserve our support then? --
I don't agree that significant content creation is necessary for admins. There doesn't seem to be much question here about this candidate's trustworthiness, and there is a compelling use for the tools.
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' -- Good candidate.
'''Support''' no concerns, I trust this user to not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' This user seems exceptionally trustworthy and has a long history of vandal-fighting. This user also has rollback, reviewer, and autopatrolled rights.
'''Support''' After reviewing this editor's contributions I think it highly unlikely that he/she will go around destroying the encyclopedia and reasonably likely that they will use the tools for the betterment of this project. While I agree that dealing with content in controversial areas is a useful learning ground for admins, and respect opposition on those grounds, I also think we should not be overly hide bound about that sort of thing. In this case, we have an editor who is unlikely to act hastily, a useful trait in an admin, and I have little hesitation in supporting the request. --
'''Support''' Qualified, in my opinion. --
'''Support''' candidate has a clean blocklog and varied contributions, has been active and useful for well over a year, and would make a useful admin. Kudos for sticking with the same account and earning a good reputation despite that edit in 2007. Of the various oppose reasons the one that would have convinced me was over content contributions, but the candidate has more than enough content contributions to demonstrate an ability to add reliably sourced material to the pedia. An FA is not required for adminship. ''
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' per review of a random selection of contributions, questions/answers, and some time pondering some of the well-considered opposes here. --
'''Support''' I don't see any major concerns being raised here. Adminship is no big deal, remember. <i><b>
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''- Despite the issues raised, overwhelmingly net positive.
'''Oppose'''. Although Avicennasis has created many categories, I don't see evidence of contribution in CfD discussions themselves. At the beginning of February, Avicennasis spam-tagged thousands of stub articles about asteroids. He tagged the changes as "minor". He made no attempt to discuss the matter with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy|WikiProject Astronomy]].
'''Oppose''' Promises to be open to recall are made ''ad captandum vulgus'', and are unenforceable.
'''Oppose'''. Only seven edits before February 2007 is not "active since 2006". The single GA review referred to was more than a year ago now, was pretty poor, and the article remains in a pretty poor state. Those seeking to be placed in positions of authority over content creators ought to have experience of the trials and tribulations of content creation here, which are considerable.
'''Oppose''' I appreciate all users with technical expertise to operate bots and I think this user has made good contributions otherwise, although as Malleus Fatuorum says I would like to see at least a little bit of substantial article development before voting support. I also did not like the nominator's portrayal of Avicennasis as having edited since 2006 when Avicennasis had only made 5 edits before February of 2010. This editor has made few comments at AfD and I would like to see admins participate a little more in the process by means of which admins are created. If this user does not pass adminship this time I expect that I would vote to support after this user reviewed the criticism and then made or accepted a future nomination, because I trust that this user means well and is highly competent. I am just not sure that at this time Avicennasis has enough experience to be a role model as a Wikipedian because I cannot find evidence of participation in most of the typical experiences that Wikipedians have on the site, such as content creation and participation in community article development projects. Again, I really appreciate the technical expertise Avicennasis brings to the Wikipedia project.
'''Oppose''' <s>Quite a weak oppose</s> mainly based on Silktork's comments in the neutral section. --
'''Oppose''' - I don't think there's a reason for the mop, and there isn't enough suggestion of a reason given, at least. All these duties have been going `on just fine without special permissions, and I don't see any reason why this needs it.
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork's discussion (maturity), the lack of content contributions, and prolix prose. Come back after writing B-class articles or writing substantively and informatively on the dark side of Wikipedia (e.g. RFAs).  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' An admin needs to demonstrate people skills and an appreciation for the creation and maintenance of content. The sole example of a conflict linked in the introductory text above, where the candidate responds to a query about a list of sockpuppets he created with first a "not my fault; I was just following orders" and then a "talk to someone else", is not comforting. I am hard pressed to find any content or editor interaction. (Thousands of bot edits is not content, in my view, however useful the wok may be.)  Most of the tools are about people and content, where he has no real experience. Get involved; come back in another year.
'''Oppose''' - no content contributions of note.  We need admins who are familiar with the problems editors face writing articles, not admins who play with bots. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' Per BR and ST's points.
'''Oppose''' Your technical contributions appear to be of high value.  However you do seem to be lacking a history in content & some other areas.  There's no partial adminship, and no limits on what areas you'd go into once you have the bit.  Combine that with the fact that it bothers me a bit that you signed off on that nomination statement with the 2006 date in there (now revised to 2010) I must oppose.--
'''Oppose''' per Malleus...
'''Oppose'''. Lack of significant content contribution. --
I can't support at this time --
I'm sorry - I believe this editor means well and does good work, but I need to see some evidence of how an editor will handle conflict before I feel comfortable trusting them with adminship. I don't see much meaningful interaction with other editors, and certainly no indication of how this editor will behave in an actual on-wiki conflict. Absent that, I can't support this request. '''
'''Oppose''' - Per Malleus Fatuorum, SilkTork and Bielle's comments, lack of content creation/dispute resolution, signed off on incorrect activity date. Try again after bring an article to FA.
'''Oppose''' - lack of content contributions, little evidence of dispute-resolution or other relevant activities, and an unfortunate lack of collaboration indicators, all of which are essential to the admin portfolio. If there was a way to grant access to admin tools only for the very technical tasks, I'd consider it - but there isn't.
A statement like "my best work has been done on IRC" shows complete unfitness to be an admin on a project that values transparent decision making.
'''Oppose''', per Skinwalker. --
'''Oppose''' Lacks relevant experience.
'''oppose''' per Colonel Warden: The candidate lacks experience edting Wikipedia, so he doesn't need the tools for now. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' I feel that I have to fall into this section I'm afraid. He does tend to work in the 'backstage' area of Wikipedia, which is fine; but what I want to see is enough substantial article contributions to make me trust the candidate for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Something's really not sitting right with me. For an editor who has over 140k edits across multiple accounts, I'd expect to see more discussion on his talk page, but going through the talk page archives, there's almost nothing there. That's probably because such a vast majority of the edits are automated. Now, I don't have a problem with automated edits - but I'd like some sort of evidence of discussion, some thing that shows that this editor would have the right temperment to de-escalate problems they may get into as an administrator. On the IRC front, I used to use IRC, but have no recollection of interacting with the editor, so cannot say one way or another whether he helps new users. I'd like to see some evidence that he's been helping editors on wiki too at the many different help venues. I'm leaning neutral, because I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic, but at the moment this is where I sit.
'''Oppose'''. I would have supported this, only I can't find any way to judge Avicennasis's people skills. In addition to WormTT's point above about the user talk archives (which I also looked through), I didn't find many messages to other users in other namespaces. Taking the period from January 1 this year until the start of this RfC, I only found one substantial comment in the Talk namespace, and less than twenty comments to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces (combined). Not that there's anything wrong with that, and you could turn these statistics around and say that they show that Avicennasis gets on with making edits that benefit the project without getting involved in any drama. Indeed, his edits seem a great benefit to the project, and he shows a great amount of clue in his main editing activities. I wouldn't feel comfortable with supporting a candidate for adminship without being able to judge whether they are good at getting along with other editors though, as these skills become more important when one wields a mop. — '''''
'''Regretful oppose''' I really need to see some evidence of conflict resolution before entrusting someone with the tools. Great editor, and I have no reason to doubt they are anything but cordial and helpful, but I've been wrong before. -<b>
I think {{u|Bluerasberry}} expressed the concerns I have regarding your fitness to serve as a sysop much better than I could, so I'll just say "per BR". <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I don't expect a nominee to be ''exceptionally'' good in content-building, but an admin must show that s/he can actually work in article namespace. And, what I see here is only hundreds of minor edits.
There are some content contributions, but not very significant ones. There's a real lack of evidence of thoughtful discussion with other editors, evidence of the ability to see both sides of a complex issue or to defuse disputes. The candidate cites IRC help as his best work, but I've not noticed him helping there, and a few queries to people who keep opposite hours to me suggest they haven't seen much either. Not right now, I'm afraid. --
'''Oppose''', after some thought. There are many supports with decent rationales from well-respected users above, so this was one I had to carefully consider. My oppose is solely due to minimal involvement with content - namely content creation or dispute resolution. Both of these are desirable qualities in an administrator - content creation allows the candidate to put themselves in the shoes of the editor whose article they are about to delete, dispute resolution requires the candidate to have limitless patience, sound negotiating skills and an excellent knowledge of policy. I appreciate the hard work the candidate has done in maintenance areas, and acknowledge that they would do a decent job in the areas they intend to work in, however I worry how they would act in areas where familiarity with content is required. My suggestion for the candidate would be to work on a few articles, have a go at resolving a few disputes, and reapply in six months. Do that and you'll pass easily. Regards, <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Primarily as per WormTT ... on-wiki assistance, and working around the areas that admins work is a key task.  IRC is, um, well ... let's not go there.  Suffice it to say that IRC work should ''never'' be used as your example of the "best work on Wikipedia" - not only because it's not on Wikipedia, but for many other reasons ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose'''  I would like to support but something just doesn't seem right.  For one, the talk page archives doesn't really have a lot in them.  Other than [[WP:UAA]] which is minor, I really don't see how this user needs the tools.  Feel free to argue with me about this.—
'''Oppose''' per Malleus and, to rip a page out of
'''Oppose''' per all the reasons above.--<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', with regret. I've found this one really tough. I started out wanting to support, and was minded to do so. I don't insist on seeing masses of content work before I support a candidate, but what I do want to see is content-related interaction and I want to be able to judge a candidate's interaction skills in content-related areas. I fully expected to be able to find plenty of examples, but I was surprised that I really couldn't - I'd expect an admin candidate's Talk page to be full of content-related discussion, but as others have pointed out, it isn't. After looking quite hard, I found very little content work, I haven't really found much content-related discussion, and I haven't found enough personal interaction to really have any idea how the candidate would handle disputes. Sure, it might all be on IRC, but given that that's all out of sight to me, it might as well be on Mars. I'm not saying I think Avicennasis will make a bad admin - not at all. Avicennasis might make a great admin - but I just can't tell. If this RfA doesn't pass, then I could certainly see myself supporting a future run if I see more involvement in content-related work and more personal interaction - things like helping with content disputes might be a good way to go. --
I'm still looking through contributions so I haven't made a decision yet, but thought it worth pointing out that Avicennasis has been contributing since 2010 rather than 2006. There were only five edits from 2006 to 2010, and one of those was to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avicennasis&diff=prev&oldid=236770706 remove a warning] for creating an article about Shane: "There is an indivual, know only as "Shane" that has managed to anger every goverment office that exists. He is a highly-watched person, and at any given time has around 10 FBI Special Agents watching his every move. He is capable of great destruction in the right conditions and with the right knowledge. Therefore, as the highest matter of National Security, many things must be Kept From Shane. Many of these things, like the building of Atomic Bombs, would lead to great destruction if they were ever learned by Shane." People do mature, and that was a while ago; however, it is relevant for people to know that the positive contributions date from the start of 2010 not from 2006. '''
'''Neutral''' Just because this user had been working behind the stage, that's not a correct reason to oppose. But per SilkTork's quote and all, I am pretty neutral about it.--
'''Neutral''' - There is, really, no reason to object to this nomination, neither support it.
'''Neutral lean support'''. The lack of content creation and concerns about depth of communication with other users is enough to keep me from supporting, but not enough to lead me to oppose.--
'''Neutral''', largely per SilkTork. Although I definitely care about content creation, I am inclined to reject some of the oppose arguments as being too dogmatic about that requirement. But I find arguments about experience in discussions of disagreements about content, such as those made by MastCell, Worm That Turned, Mr. Stradivarius, Steven Zhang, and Boing! said Zebedee, compelling enough that I cannot support. Because I find some (not all!) of the other oppose arguments obnoxious, I do not oppose either, and I want to offer moral support in the spirit of learning from this experience, addressing the concerns, and trying again. --
'''Neutal''' There are some issues raised in the opposing section and one of them being dispute resolution is quite important for an admininstrator. Futhermore user says that they want to work in [[WP:UAA]] but have not answered Question 8 above. I agree that the user is experienced with bots and other types of technical work but all the responses made by everyone in both support and oppose section give me a mixed result. Anyways Avicennasis all the best.
'''Strongest Oppose''' This user clearly does not understand policy and failed to fill out this RfA.—
'''Oppose''' per warnings on user's talk page. '''
Sorry, but [[WP:NOTYET]]. You need a lot more than 158 edits before we can properly evaluate you for adminship. --
'''Oppose''', the user even didn't stated '''why''' s/he wants to be an admin. No need for the tools in the nom. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Oppose''' user only has 17 edits.  Suggest someone SNOW-close this one.
'''Oppose''' - especially the answer to Q1 does not convince me that this user needs admin tools (also per The Blade of the Northern Lights, too few edits) - <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but you only have 17 edits, and 7 of them are to this RfA. It looks like you have good intentions, but please gain more experience and try again in about a year or so. --  '''
[[WP:NOTNOW]]
Nominator support.
I'm OK for sure, but if this request is granted I'd advise the candidate to stick to routine maintenance, and let threads about experienced editors' conduct at ANI alone for other admins. I do not see how content work is relevant to a candidate's qualification for this job if he/she stays out of such situations.--
'''Support''' - I've been stalking this user's talk page for some while, and I can certainly see his passion about vandalism-fighting. He has also shown that he is competent at doing so. As his earlier experiences with removal & reinstatement of the Rollback privilege demonstrate, this editor is able to take criticism, admit mistakes, and grow from it, which is a surprisingly rare and highly valued quality. <span style="13px Sylfaen;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">
'''Support''' - More admins willing to handle anti-vandal tasks is always welcome. I find it depressing how people who are perfectly capable and willing to take these roles are rejected because they haven't met the enormously demanding standards of having written dozens of articles and never made a mistake. Would like to see this nomination succeed. --
'''Support''' - Calabe1992 is a great editor and I've had good experience with him when at [[WP:UAA]]. I believe that granting him adminship will help step up his efforts into getting rid of the vandalism that plagues the project. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
One of the best non-admins here on the project: adminship to Calabe is long overdue. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
Knows what they're doing.
'''Support''' Maybe more experience creating content would be desirable, but in my experience there aren't enough admins on Wikipedia tackling vandals and other problem editors. Calabe is clearly very good at this, appears to be an excellent editor and therefore deserves to have the appropriate tools at his disposal.--
'''Support''' Shows good judgement, doing an excellent job in the CVU, which is the most important in my opinion. Improved a lot since last RfA. [Also has a 1992 in their username.] --
'''Weak support''' I'm concerned about Calabe's willingness to go to WP:ANI; however, one doesn't need admin rights to go there, and I don't see any reason to suspect that Calabe would misuse admin tools if granted them.
'''Support''' because I see, as someone active on recent changes, a slow and sometimes very slow response to AIV reports, mass IP attacks on BLPs and general editor harassment from vandal-only-four-times-warned-already. More admins willing to operate in the RC arena is good and the candidate is qualified. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' Lack of content creation in a potential vandal fighter doesn't bother me. Given the areas in which Calabe1992 intends to work, I think he's eminenently capable of using the tools correctly; his CSD tagging seems sound, and a sampling of his anti-vandalism edits convinces me that he can do good work in this arena. More importantly, he's shown willingness to take criticism on board and improve accordingly; that's a big plus in my book.
'''Weak support'''. Lacking content creation, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support'''  Can't see any reason to oppose <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''', this is an RfA, not an FAC, so content work is essentially irrelevant. Candidate's edits show a good understanding of policy, a use for the tools, and a strong likelihood that they will be used properly.
'''Support''' Let's see how he does. Anti-Vandalism is underappreciated on this project. <span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' The concerns regarding the empathy an admin candidate should have toward content editors are very important. Content editors are the ones who make Wikipedia better, as opposed to fighting decay, and deserve everyone's respect and thanks. Where I disagree with the oppose !voters is that I think an admin candidate can have a proper amount of respect, deference, and empathy towards content creators without having actually done heavy content creation work themselves. Absent evidence that the candidate has a lack of respect for content editors, as opposed to having chosen to do other work, I don't see this as a reason not to support.
Hmm '''support'''. Calabe has clue and knows policies and guidelines. I had hoped they would produce some articles and make some substantial content edits before running. I understand they're involved with AfC a bit and that's a good thing; it helps make for a more well-rounded editor. Still, I've suggested Calabe run and I'm not backing down, though I hope that they will do their best to make themselves more aware of the importance of content production and of an admin's possible roles in enabling that production. Also, I'm a huge fan of [[singular they]], and while Calabe may claim to be male, I have [[On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog|no evidence of that]]--nor do I wish to see any. Good luck.
'''Support:''' Very dedicated. Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' - <s>Tentatively, pending a satisfactory answer to my question 17 above.</s> Based on what I see, this is a dedicated vandal fighter almost from the egg. That's what the tools are for. Clean block log, no indications of assholery. I'm a little........... stunned...... that an editor with such a lite content creation history was accorded Auto-Reviewed status, but since all Administrators have that by default, that's nothing other than a minor head-scratcher. To repeat myself: the administrative tools are primarily anti-vandalism devices and this is a dedicated vandal fighter. Concern about content creation shortcomings seem to me to be misplaced.
'''Support''' clearly a competent user who's familiar with his limits; my god, this isn't access to the nuclear football, people.
'''Strong Support''': Editor in good standing, good history of anti-vandalism work. --
'''Support'''
A lot more vandalism slips by recent changes nowadays because people like the oppose voters are scaring the vandal fighters all off the site. Consider this a protest support. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support.'''  I understand the opposition to Calabe1992's candidacy due largely to the fact that he is not a prolific content editor.  However, content editing is not the only skill one needs on Wikipedia, and is not the only skill one must have to become an administrator.  Yes, it would be preferable that a candidate be more well-versed in article editing, but this project could not remain afloat without the contributions of editors like Calabe1992, who spend their time on ensuring that Wikipedia functions smoothly and properly.  This editor clearly demonstrates (both through answers to questions and via his track record) a great understanding of policies, and granting him access to administrative functions would give him the ability to continue his outstanding work and to apply it to even broader areas of this project.
'''Support.''' I have seen Calabe1992 effectively reverting vandals in many articles. AIV needs this user's well-honed vandalism-fighting skills. I also don't subscribe to the notion that someone has to be an article creator before they can use the tools. Being an admin is like being a trade apprentice. Assuming few are born to be admins, the rest learn on the job. The idea here is to avoid making big mistakes, no matter if you are an admin or not. Calabe's record is good to excellent in that regard.
'''Support''' - We always need more clueful admins working on vandalism. Contributions on the content level are immaterial to one's fitness for adminship, in my view. (
'''Support''' Not really concerned about the lack of content creation. I think the candidate's competence is sufficiently evidenced in other areas and I have no issues with their communications or temperament.
'''Support''' - One of the Best counter vandals out there, would make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' - Some of us are generalists, some of us are specialists.  Calabe1992 has shown he is trustworthy and competent in fighting vandals, and I believe that having a few specialists in this area is a good thing.  He ''is'' lacking in editing experience, and should devote one day a week outside of AIV to improve his overall skills, but his history shows that he can be trusted with the tools and won't use them outside of his comfort zone.  Many great writers wouldn't make great admins anyway.  He will be a genuine asset to Wikipedia when given the tools, and in my opinion, this is the best measuring stick to judge by.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<span style="font-weight:900;color:#0044aa;">Dennis Brown</span>]]  [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<small>2&cent;</small>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dennis_Brown|<small>&copy;</small>]] 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC) - <small>After reviewing total circumstances of Cain debacle, reinstating support.
'''Support''' per Dennis. I don't think content creation is necessary for an admin who has a clear use for the tools and will do quite a bit of good with them.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - is a Yeoman Editor, and has rollback and reviewer rights.
Adminship is no big deal. We need to grant the tools to people who can be trusted to use them responsibly, so that we'll have rexperienced editors with the capability to perform some maintenance work. Calabe1992 would make good use of the sysop flag.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs content creators. It also needs gnomes, educators and bouncers. If the content creators have to spend time fighting vandals and deleting rubbish, that's fewer articles being made. As an analogy, how many music or literary critics have anything other than minor achievements in their field of interest? Here, we have periodic spells of deleting articles created by sockpuppets of someone or other who's banned. If content creation is the be-all and end-all, why don't we welcome them? Calabe has, from what I've seen, enough nous to use the tools wisely. The tools come as a set, as do barbecue tools and the functions on a digital watch. I've never needed a lap timer (except once when I found I couldn't work it anyway...) or that thing with the two triangular spikes. Calabe will use the admin tools in his/her area of expertise, and learn to use them in other areas. We do tend to specialise.
'''Support'''. OK, I've thought more about the things I was saying in the Neutral section, and I've been looking more over the candidate's contributions. What it comes down to is whether I trust Calabe1992 to use the tools wisely in carrying out anti-vandalism work and not use them to venture into unknown areas, and my answer is yes. --
'''Support'''. Per the comment made here: "Dennis Brown 2¢ © 14:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)" below and Zebedee just above. A ship does not complete its mission simply because of the operations department, even though they're the ones that get all the glory.
'''Support'''.  You have good answers to the unusually large number of questions people have asked you.  I trust you know your own strengths and weaknesses, or you wouldn't have made it this far as an editor. I would say the same about my support votes in every other RfA, but wanted to make it explicit this time because this RfA is right on the very edge.  <b>
'''Support'''.  Per PumpkinSky.--
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.   --
'''Support''' based on a review some of the candidate's numerous AIV reports I am prepared to trust him with a block button. Content creation is simply irrelevant for the vast majority of admin work, especially countervandalism stuff. Not only do you not need an extensive history of content creation in order to block vandals properly, but even if you do have an extensive history of content creation it won't make you any better at blocking vandals. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of asking politicians for the price of a pint of milk. Obviously the candidate will have to be careful not to do admin work in areas they don't understand, but that's common sense and is required of all admin candidates since no-one is an expert in everything. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''. I have only ever created [[Fluffer (London Underground)|one article]] in my entire career - it is six sentences long and I created it only a few months ago. That [[St Paul]] chappie had something to say about needing a whole set of different functions to keep the organization working. We need to recognise that.
'''Support''' great vandalism fighter. I would trust him with the extra admin tools, especially the block button. --  '''
'''Support'''. <font color="#A20846">'''
'''Oppose''' I'm not impressed with question 2/5, the main article he mentioned [[Skillet (band)]] was almost all consisted of reverts and very minor fixes, not to mention that article is a massive unreliable source and broken link mess (not really his fault), but should have been maintained in their watchlist, being considered as a BLP. The articles he created are mainly one sentence nanostubs. I really want to see much more content writing here, as I don't think you fully understand some of our main policies, especially with our guideline using [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]], which always leads to [[WP:V]] issues. Promising candidate, but not ready for adminship.
Oppose <font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Intoronto1125|Intoronto1125]]</font><b><font color="red">[[User talk:Intoronto1125|Talk]]</font></b><font color="orange">[[Special:Contributions/Intoronto1125|Contributions]]</font>  03:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC) this user is indef-blocked
In Q5, where you stated that most of your content work lay in music articles, I picked the one you had most edits to and examined your edits.[https://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Calabe1992&page=Skillet+%28band%29&server=enwiki&max=100] If that is "most of your content work", then it, even when put together with the microstubs you created, is insufficient. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose'''. While content creation is not an absolute for me, it becomes a great concern when it seems to be lacking ''entirely''. Calabe1992 says "I've never been heavy into article/content creation, and it's really not a big goal", a concerning comment in terms of how he would operate as an admin. While I'm not one to require a GA or FA to get the mop, you should at least have ''some'' experience in the research, writing, and revising process. The fact that he doesn't see that as important makes it very unclear how he would interact with other editors in intense disputes, where he may have to make a discretionary decision. Yes, he has some minimal article creation, and some reverts on a few particular favorite articles, but the lack of focus in this area, in literally any degree, does not make me feel comfortable supporting. Essentially, without involvement in a content-creation process, I have little direct evidence of how the user collaborates with others. For that reason, I will oppose.
<s>The project is about content, not vandalism fighting. —[[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)</s> Now '''strong oppose''', content concerns aside, the BLP violation "jokey" AfD brought up in oppose #15 below is very, very concerning. —
I applaud this candidate's excellent track record on fighting vandalism.  If it were possible to give this candidate restricted access to the tools, so he could use them purely to address vandalism, then I'd be supporting.  It's not: admins have broad powers to do lots of things and they also have tenure, in that it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a bad one.  Therefore, before I can support, I need to see evidence of the candidate's experience in a broader range of situations: I need to see either discussion-evaluation skills or dispute resolution skills used in practice, in discussion areas when dealing with good faith editors rather than on vandals' talk pages, and I also need evidence of one serious attempt at building content just so I can be confident that the candidate understands/sympathises with the various problems facing content contributors.<p>That last remark from the candidate appeared while I was composing my !vote and it strengthens my position on this, because the candidate focuses on speedy deletion.  I'm someone who's tangled with patrollers in the past while trying to create content, and I'm definitely '''not''' going to support access to any kind of speedy deletion tool for someone who's never been on the receiving end of it.—
'''Oppose''' 35 edits =/= major content work.  Come back once you have at least one DYK, GA or B-class article --
'''Oppose''' - Calabe's vandal fighting is incredibly good and should be commended. I get the feeling that, if he could block some users in certain cases, he would do it well. I have, however, two concerns. Firstly, as has been mentioned, he has incredibly little experience in content creation. If Calabe were to stick completely to anti-vandalism and nothing else, this would be less of a problem; however, adminship is universal and such a promise at an RfA is essentially meaningless. Some experience in article creation is necessary for a large amount, if not all, of admin work. Lack of article creation would have been less of a problem if there was evidence of very good communication and dispute resolution, but that seems to be lacking too. Indeed, when working with anti-vandalism, especially when deciding whether or not to block a user, the ability to discuss things with other people is of the utmost importance. Dealing with AIV reports and RPP, an admin will often have to discuss things with other editors and an admin needs to be able to both communicate why they have taken certain action and to help other users work collaboratively. Good experience in dispute resolution or other areas of communication would have nullified the content creation issue. However, with little experience in content creation or active communication, I cannot support.
'''A regretful Oppose''' I have seen some of your work and some of it has been great. Unfortunately, I am not very impressed with your answers as they are a bit vague. I also think that you are not quite ready for being an admin after looking at your stats.
'''Oppose'''. Per ItsZippy. Blocking can be a contentious action and some experience with the interaction processes here would be desirable first, IMO.
'''Weak oppose''', largely per S Marshall and ItsZippy. I'm not much of a content creator myself, but in my personal opinion, if one has few content contributions, it should be made up for in another way, such as participation in dispute resolution - generally because doing either helps the potential admin understand the perspective of editors who write and expand articles. WIthout this, a potential candidate would potentially be unable to put themselves in the shoes of another editor before deleting their article. I don't have a sense that the candidate would necessarily do a bad job as an admin, but on this occasion I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Sorry. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - To function as an administrator you should at least have ''some'' experience in the research, writing, and revising process. Also a protest oppose to balance out [[User:Wizardman]]'s protest support [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Calabe1992_2&diff=489393243&oldid=489386500 diff] - <font color="purple">
'''Oppose''' ~ Calabe is almost completely lacking in content creation and inexperienced in the research, writing, and revising process. Admins need to first learn the process of consensus building, source checking, and editing a page, ideally to FA status. Also, per Secret's oppose above, the [[Skillet (band)]] article he mentioned as being proud of is an awful mess, which shows me that he cannot tell the difference between a high quality article and a low quality one. How will be be able to make proper determinations on deletions, based on his idea of an article to be proud of? From S Marshall's oppose above, "I need to see either discussion-evaluation skills or dispute resolution skills used in practice, in discussion areas when dealing with good faith editors", ditto. Calabe1992: "''I've never been heavy into article/content creation, and it's really not a big goal.''"

'''Strong Oppose''' Attack pages '''[[WP:Articles for deletion/Herman Cain|aren't cool]]'''. Period. (Plus all of the other aforementioned concerns.)
I endorse S Marshall's points, but would nonetheless like to try to explain it in my own way.<p>A good admin not only knows our policies and guidelines, but has a good feel for the potential implications to the project of applying them. It doesn't bother me that you have little interest in working on content in the long run, but having spent such little time giving it a go, you cannot fully appreciate the impact that applying the letter of a policy or guideline can have. While the spirit should and often does prevail, I have seen a lot of admins going astray by doggedly sticking to the letter to defend their position. It is ''literally'' impossible to remove the tools from such people for repeatedly doing this, regardless of how obviously poor a decision or series of decisions are. Without enough of a content record to be satisfied that you understand the potential impact of your actions, and without absolutely no relevant checks and balances in the system, I have no option but to oppose. —
'''Regretfully oppose''' - I really hate to oppose a vandal fighter, because that's some of the most critical admin work and there is a withering number of admins that are comfortable doing vandal blocks. And I think that vandal fighters don't receive the credit they should. But I'm just worried about the amount of experience with policies, the lack of content work, and lack of handling admin-like tasks. At some point Calabe will be a good admin, but I don't think it's time yet. Some of the reasons people above are opposing reinforces this idea, and as does the quick second RfA. I just don't think there's a broad enough foundation yet.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your CSD tagging is not yet good enough. Looking at the candidates CSD log the very first example is for a company that produced multiple well known computer games - tagged as A7 despite an unambiguous assertion of importance. Admittedly that was in December but looking at the April tags I checked the first two A3s - both tagged after exactly one minute. We don't need that sort of biteyness at NPP. I only checked three - hopefully some of the others were better. As for the content contributions, I'd be OK with some evidence that you'd added referenced reliably sourced material, as I do think that is a basic skill that all admins need to master. I don't think that admins need to have or be involved in our audited content, feel free to give an example of that as I didn't find it among you most recent edits to Skillet. The April Fools joke is troubling, there are fine lines in such matters, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_%282nd_nomination%29&oldid=280984840 proffering my own efforts as an example] it is possible to have an April Fools joke without impacting mainspace or breaching BLP. ''
I have concerns regarding your maturity as evidenced by the Herman Cain AFD. Any user considering that acceptable should not be granted the tools, in my opinion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - Salvio sums it up well with respect to my own thoughts. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' Seems to routinely violate [[WP:AGF]] and act without any understanding of the topic in question.  Apart from other examples found above, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amisom&oldid=474109160 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Property_management&diff=458253589&oldid=458253578 that].
I've got some nitpicks with the answers to questions 6 and 7 but not enough to oppose over yet. Then again, on the other hand, I don't see enough to move me to support at this time either. I could be convinced either way as this progresses along. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•
To note that I do not reflexively oppose all candidates.
'''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">
'''Neutral'''. I've been on the fence on this one, and I think I'll stay there. There's lots to like about this candidate, including his valuable anti-vandalism work, and the prompt and courteous answers to the optional questions that display a decent if not in-depth familiarity with many of our policies. But I feel a little more time learning our core ''content'' policies and guidelines such as [[WP:RS]] is needed before giving him the keys to the janitorial washroom. Specifically, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Remix_EP&diff=489371924&oldid=481739103 this response] to an editor PRODding an article creation disappoints me, as it suggests little discernment between "sources" in the sense of a link to a webpage and ''reliable'' sources that can and should be used to build an encyclopedia article. This would have been the perfect opportunity to show the naysayers that despite modest content contributions, there's a core understanding of WP:RS there, and that opportunity was missed. Nonetheless, I think the candidate's done great work in other areas, and look forward to supporting once his editing experience is a little more broad.
'''Neutral'''. This is a tough one. The user should be highly commended for his anti-vandal work; I think anti-vandal work in general is under-appreciated on Wikipedia, and Calabe does it very well indeed. I am not the type to absolutely require content creation from an admin, although it would be nice. The thing that most concerns me is that the candidate does not appear to have engaged in that much collaborative discussion, as could be shown by content creation, dispute resolution or similar areas. My reasons for this are similar to ItsZippy's in the oppose section above. This is not enough for me to oppose outright, as I think the project would undoubtedly benefit from more vandal-fighter admins, and I am sure Calabe would continue to work at the high standard that he has been doing. Adminship is not just limited to one area, though, and I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting someone without a good track record of collaboration with other editors. If I could find any evidence of this kind of interaction then I might be persuaded to support, but for now I will remain neutral. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Neutral''' I don't know enough about the candidate to support (and don't have the energy to dig through all his contribs), but I want to register my disagreement with the idea that he shouldn't get the mop owing to a lack of content creation. Looking at our current admin corps, there are some pretty good admins who haven't created much content, and some people who are great at writing content, but not so good at using the mop wisely. So count this a "protest neutral", I guess.
'''Neutral''' - parking here until I have time to fully investigate. At the moment I'm concerned by DGG's example above - a new user with a little over 100 edits was given a warning template when, in my view, the proper thing to do would be to add a welcome template. No one can possibly know anything until they've been welcomed and are given the relevant links to policy.
'''Neutral''' Per discussions above (I have been voting Neutral for years, man.)--
'''Neutral, leaning toward Oppose''' — While I like this user's anti-vandalism experience, I'm troubled by his lack of experience collaborating with other editors (through content creation and/or dispute resolution).  I am '''''not''''' one who thinks every would-be admin needs to meet a FA/GA quota, but I've come to see the value of having '''''at least some''''' content experience in order to have a well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia as a whole.  I'm also disturbed by the "April Fool's joke" BLP; in a written medium like this, we all need to be particularly careful not to say or do things that may have been meant in jest but which some other people could honestly misinterpret as being offensive or in bad taste.  I may find this candidate more attractive a few months from now, after the BLP thing has had time to blow over (assuming no new missteps take its place), and assuming the candidate can show us some more effort at becoming well-rounded.  —
'''Neutral''' While the candidate has assisted me before with removing vandalism, the concerns raised are not entirely dismissible. I do not doubt he would make good use of the tools, but additional care is required when wielding such tools. I'd like to see a bit of a more nurturing stance with newer editors, but the candidate's judgement may make a rare slip, but the candidate's actions are good and serve a purpose to keep Wikipedia running.
'''Kind oppose''' You're certainly on a good start to adminship, but you're still a bit of a novice to be given the tools.  Continue to work in the areas you like, such as railroads, and also try taking part in admin related areas such as [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AFD]], ect.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Most of your recent page moves do not provide a reason, which is quite confusing if you want to find out why the page was moved and administrators need to explain why they did something to prevent confusion. Also, your edit summary usage is quite low which is also a concern. You have just under 3,500 edits, which is also a bit low, considering you have been here for around 5 years. There is also a lack of work in admin related areas such as [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:XFD]] ''et cetera...'' Reviewing your contributions and your answer to question 1, it doesn't seem like you have a need for the tools yet. I'm sure that one day you will make a great administrator, but just not now. '''
'''Oppose''' Agree with what Puffin says.  I'd suggest returning again in about 6 months time.--
'''Oppose''' - you have way too many (actual) warnings and deletion notices on your talk page about copyright problems (with images). An administrator should know at least the basics of the copyright laws. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Oppose''' − Echoing Puffin's remarks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with everyone else here, you're on a good start but just not there yet. <span style="background:#3BB9FF; padding:2px;" >'''
'''Oppose''' - As has been said above, you're not quite ready. You do have a few recent warnings about deleted articles, you have made a large number of moves without giving reasons. You have 6 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, 5 of which were from suibmutting this RfA, and no edits to the Wikipedia talk namespace. If you are interested in adminship, I'd suggesting looking at areas of adminship (as TP and Puffin suggested) and get experience there first. Your attitude is great; I suggest spending a little more time around administration areas learning how things work and come back in 6-8 months.
'''Oppose''' You haven't archived your talk page in a while (we can see stuff back to 2008). Also, there are too many warnings on your tp too. Reapply in a few months time :)
'''Oppose''' While you are a great editor and are on track to start your time as an administrator, I will agree with TParis that you are still a bit of a novice to be given the tools. From observing your contributions (don't mean to be a stalker :) ), you have edits within the 3,000 - 4,000 range. My advice to you is that just come back and re-apply in a few months. You are on the track for a perfect adminship in the future :)
'''Oppose''' Largely per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'm sorry, but a review of your contributions and your Talk page seem to indicate you haven't a lot of experience here, and that you're still learning the ropes.  I do applaud you for your boldness in running for Adminship, and your apparent desire to help the Encyclopedia, and I hope you will feel free to call on me as you continue to gain experience and knowledge here at Wikipedia.  --
'''Oppose''' <s>[[WP:NOTNOW]]</s>, strongly suggest withdrawal. You only have 232 edits, of which about half are to your user page. For an RfA to be taken at all seriously you would need at least several thousand. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Theleftorium&diff=prev&oldid=484231796 This] isn't exactly admin-type behaviour either. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
Per nomination statement, lack of experience, edit warring, edit summaries and this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Theleftorium&diff=prev&oldid=484231796] --
'''Strong oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]] doesn't cut it when you issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recurring_jokes_in_The_Simpsons&diff=484231658&oldid=483397025 death threats]. Closer to indefblock than adminship.
'''Oppose''' - While it is admirable to want to assist with administrator tools, there is not nearly enough experience shown by the edit count, or edits in areas relevant to adminship (such as AfD) to support this nomination at this time.   Statements on your user page claiming copyright protection for your user page and sandbox [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADannyboy1209&diff=492560366&oldid=472100502] are also concerning.
'''Oppose''' Per everyone above.
'''Oppose''' per the hosting of non-free images on your Sandbox and the false "copyright" declaration on your userpage. An admin needs to understand the licenses the site operates off of.
'''Oppose''' per Reaper Eternal, and [[WP:NOTNOW]].--<span style="">
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] &mdash; the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recurring_jokes_in_The_Simpsons&diff=484231658&oldid=483397025 death threats] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Theleftorium&diff=prev&oldid=484231796 this]. Also, [[WP:NOTNOW]]. --
'''Oppose''' - Nowhere near enough experience, and I have strong concerns regarding maturity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Theleftorium&diff=prev&oldid=484231796 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recurring_jokes_in_The_Simpsons&diff=484231658&oldid=483397025 this] are certainly concerning (the edit warring in the latter is more problematic than the actual comment, which might be excused as poor judgement).
'''Strong Oppose''' With a total of 240 edits (including deleted), no experience in administration related areas of the project, answer to question number 2 and also due to serious concerns shown by users above shows that the user is clearly not ready and maybe does not even know what being an Administrator is all about. They need to read the policy [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] and understand what administrators do and what are the requirements of becoming one. This RfA needs to be closed early as per [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause]].
'''Oppose''' - Failed test #1 (correctly transcluding his own RfA).
'''Oppose'''  log(edit_count)>3.5=false.--
'''Oppose''' per death threat.<tt>  </tt>
'''Oppose''' per closed RfA 9 days ago. When we said "Not Now" we meant "Not for a few months, at least".
'''Oppose''' per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADannyboy1209&diff=493395244&oldid=493395125 this block] only 4 days ago. I suggest waiting 6 months to a year before requesting adminship again. --  '''
'''Oppose''' - the fact that you view the compulsory questions as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDarkness_Shines&diff=530505220&oldid=530504555 "silly querys"] [sic] shows you do not have the correct attitude. The answers themselves are also poor, as is the reason for self-nominating.
'''Vehemently oppose''' - based on the nomination statement.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but I must oppose this nomination. It appears to be premature at this point and "expecting to fail" is not really the best attitude to have; as well as the "silly queries" above; this is a big concern. In addition, you have only made about 3,000 contributions to the article namespace, which I do not feel is enough yet. However, I would strongly advise to obtain some more edits to Wikipedia and then nominate yourself again perhaps. On the plus side, your recent contributions are generally good. Happy new year, <font face="Impact">
'''Oppose''' per nomination. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Lacking experience in admin-related areas. Answers do not suggest a good understanding of policies. (Perhaps some form of mentoring may be helpful prior to another RfA in the future?)
'''Strong oppose''' per nomination.
'''Oppose''' per nomination.
'''Strong oppose''' per nomination (now that's ironic).  And if possible, this should just be closed as a joke nomination and a waste of the community's time.
'''Oppose''' per nomination and answers. I am particularly skeptical about Darkness Shines' stance towards "those who wish to rewrite history"; he has strong points of view on contetious historical and political topics himself, and for edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APakistan&diff=472279261&oldid=471970897 this one] (full discussion by now [[Talk:Pakistan/Archive 13#Two women abused every hour in Pakistan|archived here]]) he'd have to start by blocking himself as a POV-pusher.
'''Oppose''' and '''speeedy close''' this as [[WP:SNOW]], as it's clearly not a genuine request. I find this insulting to everyone who's had to go through the pain of RfA with the best of intentions, whether successful or not. [[WP:POINT|RfA is not the place to make a point]].
'''Oppose''' as per nomination and answers. --  '''
'''Oppose'''. This joke really isn't funny, not even if you've been drinking - we have enough things wasting our time as it is without this. --
—
DS, you have your moments. This isn't one of them.  Using the RfA system to make a [[WP:POINT|point]] isn't constructive.
'''Oppose''' For being a user on Wikipedia for 6 years and only accumulating <3000 edits, tells me this user is not very active.  I can trace back contributions to the 8th of August of 2010 in just 500 edits.  Question 1 leaves me concern that the user does not know what the admin tools are for.  This isn't part of my oppose but, it would help to know what the alternate account is for and why it was created.  Please do not accept this as a put down but as constructive criticism.—
A mature editor and and excellent  contributor of over 50 articles, however many are still  tagged mainly  for sourcing. While some editors may maintain that  content work  is not  necessary  for adminship, any  creations should demonstrate a knowledge of the quality  that  they are going  to  expect  from  others, especially  when involved in  deletions. With only 1,532 edits to  mainspace out  of a total  of 2,504 in  6 years (an average of 32 edits per month), very  little vandal fighting or new page patrolling (deleted edits don't  show any CSD or PROD activity), only  11 edits to  AfD (37.5% matched the result), and <s>77</s> 21 to  his talk  page,  there is too  little to  be able to  assess how he would perform  if accorded the tools. At the moment  I  cannot  see how the tools will  help him in his work, but  some concentration  on meta areas over the next  six months or so  that  clearly  demonstrate familiarity  with  policies and admin related operations may  well prove that  Deathlibrarian has the qualities to be a fine sysop.
I see some good contributions, but would like to see some evidence of understanding of Policy before supporting an RfA. Suggest candidate does a few months' work on NPP and AfD before resubmitting. Also, he/she should opt in to monthly counts on the edit count app and check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in the editing tab of "My preferences". '''''
I don't usually put much stock in Q1, but it looks like you are mainly a gnome-ish content contributor. Now, that isn't a plus or minus against you, but you've given no indication either here or in the past that you need, or really have any use at all for, the bit. In your last 500 edits (going back the better part of a year, I might add) you've made exactly 11 edits to the Wikipedia or WT namespace, and all but one are to this page. I realize that an admin's work isn't all in those two, but I'd like to see at least a ''little'' bit of work in the admin-y areas before supporting. Another note of concern: in ''all three'' of your opening answers, you reference your work in dispute resolution. Great, but being an admin isn't going to make that job that much easier. In all honesty, I really think you could have worded A1 better...you come off (to me anyway) as implying that being an admin will somehow make you more neutral, or give you extra powers in discussion (which I highly doubt you meant). Kudpung and Catfish Jim have some excellent pointers, and I hope to be able to support next time.
'''Moral support'''. You are a very valuable contributor, but, in my opinion, you are not really experienced in admin-related areas. Please do not let this RfA get you down and keep up the good work. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
I think everyone appreciates your contributions to the project. However, you're asking for adminship, which is not (just) granted to users whose work is appreciated. They need to demonstrate a need for the tools and the experience and judgment to assure the community they'll use them wisely. If this is really what you want, spend some more time reverting vandalism, participating at [[WP:AFD|AFD]], contributing to policy discussions, and other stuff that admins do. If this isn't really what you want, keep on doing what you're doing, as you are doing that very well and benefiting the project. I'd also like to second [[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]]'s [[User talk:Deathlibrarian#Moral support|post to your talk]].
'''Oppose, for now'''. Per above, good work on content-creation (particularly in an underserved area) but no indication of how the tools would be useful to the applicant. Question 4 might change my mind, but I'd need strongly compelling reasoning.
'''Support'''  This is actually one of the better RFAs lately (the best if you consider the not a chance ones).  One of the opposes said it's not a race to adminship.  I'd like to remind all the opposers that it's not a race to oppose either.  Those are some of the cheapest reasons I've seen.  This editor has over 4500 edits; 3000 of them are manual edits.  They have well over 6 months experience, experience in AIV and RFPP (both with backlogs lately) and they have no blocks.  100% support adminship and I implore the opposers to reconsider or strengthen their rationale.  Who cares when an editor review happened?  It's a voluntary process; nothing like an RFC/U.   40-50 article creations knocks me out of the running as well (maybe I should give up my bit).  Then the 3rd oppose invokes the SNOWball clause?  Obvious not the case here given the supporters.--v/r -
per Reaper Eternal. This new "race to oppose" makes me sick. I should return my mop I guess if I am to be judged by some of your standards.......Now for the reason we are here give the man a mop. Xe has created 28 articles all from under represented areas. I have been in an editorial dispute with xem and they acted very calm, cool and collect. So as fasily would say, why not?--
'''Support''' &mdash; change of heart. [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]]. --
'''Support''' per unrealistic standards. Adminship is "no big deal".--<span style="">
'''Weak support'''. Generally good contributions. Enough experience in admin-related areas. Ideally, I would like to see more content creation.
'''Support''' You have enough experience on Wikipedia to qualify to be an administrator. You have very good contributions and you have rollback rights, which is an Administrative-Related area. Good Luck!
'''Support''' We need to lower our standards.  This user appears trustworthy and knowledgeable in the areas he wants to work in.  He may be inexperienced in some areas but he can learn from his mistakes and other admins can help him.  We need to restore our mentality that adminship is no big deal.—

'''Support''' per Cyberpower. We really need to lower our standards as he is trustworthy enough. Always wants to do the right thing. 1st Oppose now is a SNOWBALL, which is not at all the case here. '''→
'''Support''' Good Contributions and as per Cyberpower '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999;">
'''Support''' He has been one of my best wiki-friends. One of his best things are that he learn from his mistakes. He is enthusiastic and I can say that he will not use the admin tools indiscriminately. Although Adminship is not a big deal, it requires great deal of maturity and experience, and Dipankan has it. :)
'''Weak support''' per Axl. This user has fine contributions, however a little more content creation would be ideal. --  '''
'''Support'''. Per Reaper Eternal. It's okay not to be perfect, because “being perfect” is not real. --
'''Snowball Oppose''' [[WP:NotNow]].--<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Looks to have strong work against vandals, but not enough other activity to justify tools at this time. Sorry.
Simply not enough time between Editor Review and RfA, it's not a race.
Some of the opposes were ridiculous when it was first posted, but Dipankan conduct in this RFA is literally certifying these concerns, maybe later.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]] certainly applies here, so we wouldn't want to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obama_Eats_Dogs&diff=next&oldid=489914359 close this discussion before it gets heated].  The link I provided, which was a terrible non-admin closure is recent enough that I don't believe the user is ready.  He may have learned from the experience, but after a mistake like that, I don't believe that the editor has the knowledge of policy necessary.  If this was even two months afterwards, I could see a possibility, but there is no way that he became ready for the mop in the past 17 days.<tt>  </tt>
'''Oppose'''. A keen, cheerful, polite, and enthusiastic editor but  a clear case of [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]] and needs some way  to  go  before meeting my  criteria. Recent blunders such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=prev&oldid=489937906 this] also  demonstrate a lack  of knowledge of the scope of admin  work.
'''Oppose''' The candidate has performed non-admin closures of roughly a dozen AfD's, and voted in about 25 more. I interpret the non-admin closures as a sign that the candidate might potentially be interested in closing AfD's should the RfA succeed, even though that was not part of the answer to Q1. I'm opposing because the candidate has far too little experience at AfD to be closing them as an admin (perhaps even as a non-admin). He seems to be a bit low on experience overall, and could benefit from participating in these areas more.
'''Oppose'''. Although you registered in August last year you've really only been active since October, seven months ago. And you only have 32 edits to the article you've contributed most to, [[The Telegraph in Schools]], which is still in a frankly dreadful state. It is against all natural justice to promote someone with no real experience of content creation to be judge and jury of those who do. ''Every'' editor fights vandals every day, but they don't expect a medal for it, which is what this application seems to be to me.
'''Oppose''' Created userbox stating "This user destroys vandals with an AK-47 rifle".  Vandalism is unfortunate, but the idea of murdering vandals is not something that should even be joked about.
'''Very Weak Oppose''' While I'd really like to support your RfA, recent issues (such as the Obama deletion) just don't sit well with me. I do, however, wish you the best of luck. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. After checking your contributions, I am left with the feeling that you have been trying to tick all the right boxes to be granted the mop, which has sometimes led you to get involved, through overeagerness, in situations where your intervention was actually quite inappropriate (the AfD closure referenced in question #6 springs to mind). This, coupled with your '''very''' limited content creation experience forces me to oppose your candidacy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - I would like to see more experience with AfD and a few other areas. Overall I think you'll make a fine admin some day, but I think this is a [[WP:NOTNOW]] case. Just gain a little more experience and try again in 6 months. Best regards,
'''Oppose'''. Original concerns are merged with some discomfort about candidate's answer to question #5. Seems very surface-level, obvious, not really demonstrating to me a true ''learning'' experience that changed the methods and mindset of the editor. With that in mind, which is I think a substantive basis, I will oppose. --
'''Reluctant oppose'''. The candidate will most likely prove a good admin in a few months. Keepscases, ConinueWithCaution and Kudpung raise valid concerns which I can't overlook. Keep up the good work and don't be discouraged by the RfA - rather, think of it as a learning experience.
'''Oppose'''  based on Malleus' content contribution comment, Ryan Vesey's AfD close comment (which was only a few weeks ago), and while I don't have firm standards of time and edits for supporting an RfA, if I did they would be more than 9 months and 4,300 edits.--
'''Weak oppose'''. A fine and enthusiastic editor but still has a long way to go. Recent edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=List_of_international_cricket_centuries_by_Ross_Taylor 1] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShahrukh_Khan&diff=489306005&oldid=488723218 2] are a clear case of blunder. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral), per badgering of opposes. Also agree with Malleus re. article space contributions. Overall, not ready for the mop, although not quite at the "not now" state. —
'''Oppose''' Keep protecting [[Doritos]], improve some articles to C/B status, and come back in 6 months. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' doesn't understand non-free images as demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dipankan001/Archive_10#File:DLF_IPL_Logo.svg_and_copyright_issues here] (it was disappointing there was no reply) and doesn't understand article requirements as shown by two premature GA nominations [[Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup/GA1]] [[Talk:Kolkata Knight Riders/GA1]]. One of the speedily failed GA nominations might be excusable, but the second suggests that Dipankan001 didn't learn.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure the candidate's heart is in the right place but their judgement and [[WP:PAG]] knowledge is not quite up to having access to the admin bits. Additionally, the fact they managed to add double signatures into the nom statement reflects poorly on their technical ability or represents carelessness. The closure of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs]] was sufficiently recent and shows sufficiently poor judgement to be an oppose rationale in its own right. I might be prepared to overlook that if there was nothing else, but their editing experience and inappropriate A class assessment, combined with earlier concerns I had about the candidate&mdash;when they [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FRollback&diff=458287929&oldid=458273424 requested rollback four times in one month] and had file moved rights removed&mdash;conspire to create an impression of someone who generally lacks the judgement and experience required of an admin and is perhaps too eager to acquire [[WP:USERRIGHTS|hats]]. The badgering of oppose !votes on this page did not bode well either. These concerns notwithstanding, I would probably support the candidate 6-12 months down the line.
'''Regretful oppose''' because I just can't overlook the inappropriate (and recent) [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs]] NAC, the poorly-judged GA nominations, slight lack of content work and the badgering of oppose voters in this RfA. That said, this editor's history shows that he may well be up to the job, I just think he needs a little more experience around the project before he is handed the mop. I hope I can support a second RfA from this candidate in the future. --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Strong Oppose''': I wanted support, he/she qualifies all stuff, but after investigating a bit and Pol gave me the hint (and
'''Oppose''' was on the fence before seeing mabdul's list. Now I'm here. Sorry, but asking for a bunch of rights and asking for rights over and over again throws up all kinds of red flags.
'''Oppose''' It's not going to happen this time per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Keep arguing the toss on sensible oppose comments and it might not happen per NOTEVER.
'''Oppose''': Misuse of rollback, lack of experience at AfD, low edit count, lack of content work, and is just plain too green.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I didn't even get past your answer (specifically ''your answer'', not the question or diff) to Q5. Best of luck in the future.
'''Oppose'''. There are quite a few rude and ridiculous opposes here. But after reading Pol430's and mabdul's oppose rationales, I am very sorry to say that I must also oppose. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FObama_Eats_Dogs&diff=489937604&oldid=489914359 non-administrator closure of an AFD] was entirely inappropriate - and shows a clear misunderstanding of [[WP:NAC|the essay on non-admin closures]] and [[WP:CON|the policy on consensus]]. The hat collecting noted by mabdul is also extremely worrying, and can make others doubt your maturity and judgement. The badgering of the opposes is also not what I'd like to see from an admin. Again, I'm really sorry to oppose, and I wish you the best in the future. After you've taken the criticism here seriously and go on for 6-12 months with no serious mistakes, I won't hesitate to support. →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Neutral''' - like I said on your [[WP:Editor review/Dipankan001|Editor Review]], there are a lot of pluses here. The big downside (and the only reason I'm not supporting) is that there seems to be no real collaboration on either User Talk pages or in the Talk: namespace. Administrators need to be able to communicate and work well with others. I'm not saying that you can't, just that there's no record of you doing so. The lack of "hard" Content work (only 6 Articles that you've touched more than 10 times), as well, is a minus, but not a damning one.
I appreciate your confidence. You are always in a hurry, I would suggest you to discuss about this with couple of senior editors/admins who you are familiar with before you take such steps. All the best :-) --&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''-Just really nothing to sway me one way or the other on this one. Has some decent article work, and some good article work. However, the copyright notices on your talk page make me lean towards oppose though.'''''
'''Neutral''' I never planned a thing for my RfA -  it just seem to happen... Planning for a few days? Does sound a little like a snap decision. One problem with RfA is that a lot of good potential editors/admins are lost by ambitiously coming to it too soon, and then taking umbrage at the comments. I've not had a chance to look through the contribs etc yet (I'm away and with an erratic connection), but in case this finishes quickly, I'd say to the candidate "Don't be down-hearted. Most seem to be saying TOO SOON. Keep on editing - get more experience - study the policies - etc etc." I'll look further if things keep going, but if it doesn't, talk with people and don't retire in despair. They're not saying you're incompetent and not fit to be here. They're saying keep going and learn a bit more.
'''Neutral''' First of all, [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]] applies here. And then the discussions around.--
'''Neutral''': --
'''Neutral''' With little contribution to article space (and in general also) and this much experience I am not completely sure about the understanding of the policies and judgement skills of the editor required for the tools. Some other editors have also shown concern about the few contributions in article space, so I must make clear that why this issue concerns me is that when you don't make much contributions to article space you cannot completely understand some important policies and guidelines. Another issue is CSD tagging which I find to be only about <small>80%</small> correct (''This may be erroneous so please don't quote/consider it for commenting about the user'') which again makes me think about the lack of understanding about CSD. While I don't support Dipankan001, I also don't want to discourage him/her by opposing. I wish you good luck. --
'''Neutral''' I'm going to put this here in the neutral unless there's a major number change, but I hope I can constructively express my concern/suggestion.  It's regarding the previously mentioned 'dog afd'.  Good judgement can be shown in a couple ways.  One of these is knowing when to step back and say, I'm going to let someone a little more experienced take this one.  When you jump in to things that complex as an non-admin, it makes some people (or at least me) worry, if you were given the bit, would you right away rush into areas that not only need admins, but ones with a bit of seasoning.  I'd just recomend thinking carefully about not being too eager and jumping in over your head.--
'''Neutral''' - I can see supporting you in the future, say 3 to 6 months.  The only reason I can't support yet is I think you need a little more experience with policy issues.  This is based on the answers above, which tell me you haven't worked with them enough to get all the nuances in them.  I would also say that working with disputes would be helpful as they can happen anywhere on Wikipedia and to me, that is an area that an editor must show he can deal with before getting the mop.  As for article ''creation'', you have created 2 more than I did before getting the admin bit, so that isn't an issue to me.  To me, you look like a good and worthwhile contributor who is almost, but not quite ready for the mop.  I think you are pointed in the right direction and I sincerely hope you stick around and try again.  Don't let any of the pokes and jabs at RfA get you down, the place is famous for it, unfortunately.  Just take the advice you find useful and move forward with it.
'''Neutral'''- a good editor but the list of rights collection as shown by mabdul and copyright notices, deter me from supporting. I guess these issues and concerns will be addressed  with some more experience in editing  here --'' '''
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Under 500 Mainspace edits is not enough of a public record to give us a guide as to how you'd handle "the tools". 0 "Wikipeida talk" namespace edits hurts, too. It looks like your Sri Lankan work is good, keep that up, but it's a little too early to consider adminship.
'''Oppose'''. The contents of your talk page (mostly warnings, deletion notifications and block notices) suggest you do not yet understand our policies and guidelines to the degree you'd be able to help other editors understand them. You have a lot of work to do before you get to that point, but if you are patient and dedicated and willing to take advice you may get there at some point.
Per apparent wanting an upper hand in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sri_Lanka_Demographics|this arb request]]. —
'''Oppose''' per Arbcom case.  I suspect this project is not really the venue that Distributor is looking for. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose'''. I don't think you understand policy to the necessary degree for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  You haven't shown that you necessarily understand what adminship is for and you don't currently have enough experience and knowledge of policy.  Research some policy and take a look at [[Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates]] then come back in a couple of months.<tt>  </tt>
Edit warring, blocked few times, work only on 1 specific topic of wikipedia, doesn't even seem to need the tools, RfA wasn't properly filled in and so on... Anyway thank you for volunteering, I hope that once you understand all the issues, you would become more suitable for this. So maybe later :-)
'''Opose''' needs a lot more experience.—
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Doesnt seem any real need for tools at the moment, not a great deal of history to create a picture as to how the tools may be used/trusted to the cadidate. Also not impressed by the answers to questions for candidate. '''''
'''Oppose''' I'm obviously not as forgiving as Sven. No nomination statement (I'd at least like to see something), very short answers to questions, botched transclusion, and botched start to the RFA. My advice to the candidate is start all over again after reading through all of the mountains of advice and guidelines to users requesting adminship, plus I would have at least expected the candidate to look at the other two RFAs at the moment to see the sort of thing which is expected. '''
92% of your edits being made to article space is great. However adminship responsibilities often take place out of article space. You have made no contributions to Wikipedia talk space and very few contributions to Wikipedia space. I simply don't see experience of vandalism fighting, dispute resolution, etc., which you claim are areas you where you want to contribute as an admin. Additionally, you were recently warned for personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFarrtj&diff=502696037&oldid=502307575 here] for your conduct at [[Talk:ENFP]] in the Alicia Silverstone section. That doesn't inspire much confidence for me in your dispute resolution or communication skills, two important qualities for an admin. I could go on, however I think it's clear that, though you're a very productive editor in mainspace and have made numerous valuable contributions (>1000 on one article, and not just a bunch of little grammar fixes!), I don't think you're ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose''' - simply not enough non-mainspace edits for one to be able to judge knowledge and understanding of admin work areas. Maybe when you have wider experience.
'''Oppose''' Per Callanecc and Go Phightins! --
'''Oppose''' - you should know very well that it's called [[WP:Blocking policy|the ''blocking'' tool]] and not "banning" tool, which is [[WP:Banning policy|something else]]. <s>Also, you shouldn't be requesting adminship just to operate on your own articles (which, by the way, even if you created them, [[WP:OWN|don't belong to you]]), you should be able to operate on other articles too.</s> No vandalism-fighting experience, per above.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough reasons to not to. Mostly, per opposes above. —
My first instinct was to oppose because the candidate transcluded before answering all three starter questions, gave throwaway, one line answers to the ones he did fill out, and botched the transclusion. However RfA is unforgiving enough already, so if the candidate fixes all these things, I will "forget" any of it ever happened.
'''Neutral''' I botched the transclusion on my own RfA, it seems unnecessarily confusing to me as well.  Fortunately, [[User:Pedro]] caught it in time and fixed it.  One more reason is really helps to have an experienced user nominate you, to help you along with the process.  What I see here is a very experienced content creator, and an obvious asset to Wikipedia.  I haven't looked at the normal "adminy" stuff yet, but wanted to make sure that no one foolishly opposed only because of a transclusion error, as that isn't fair.  Many admin did the same, just as I did.  Will look at the contribs and such tomorrow, as I don't want to prejudge someone just because they are a person of few words.  Even if it isn't time to be an admin, it is '''our''' duty to kindly offer helpful suggestions.
Based on the nomination statement, I do not see a compelling reason to support this request. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
Farrtj, if you intend to try for RfA again the the future, note that you will also probably garner criticism from your lack of use of edit summaries.
'''Support''' I like the cut of your jib. Anyone willing to volunteer for a thankless task with honest opinions is fine by me.
Looking at your Wikipedia: space contributions, there isn't enough participation there to give me a good idea how you would use the tools: I see only 17 edits total to that namespace. That's simply not enough "behind the scenes" experience for the admin toolkit. And it's not really clear from your answer to question 1 what you'd do with the tools if you had them.
I concur with [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] and would add that immediately throwing the inclusionist-deletionist lingo into the mix makes me just a little uneasy.  I'm glad you're upfront about your beliefs, but at the same time I hesitate to support someone who feels that strongly about it one way or the other.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but anyone who states from the outset that they intend to push an inclusionist (or, for that matter, deletionist or any other) agenda at their RfA rings immediate alarm bells. I simply would not trust an admin with such strong views to be unbiased in closing AfDs and CSDs.
'''Oppose''' - Per Yunshui. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but anyone with a strong inclusionist or deletionist position should not do admin work related to article deletion - admin actions should be carried out from a neutral position, ignoring one's personal view, from the approach solely of going with consensus. I also agree that the lack of namespace edits would make it harder to judge anyway --
'''Oppose''' I took a look at your file upload log. Out of the latest 10 uploads, 8 have been deleted as [[WP:CSD#F9|F9]], 1 has been deleted as [[WP:CSD#F8|F8]] (although the rest of the deletion reason suggests that there was a typo and that this really was supposed to be F9) and 1 has been kept. The deleted files are all from last year, but I'm not confident that you know enough about the image use policy. Also very few edits outside mainspace (Talk: 95 edits, User talk: 30 edits, Wikipedia: 21 edits, Wikipedia talk: 3 edits, Template talk: 3 edits), suggesting little discussion with other editors. You suggested that you want to participate in deletion processes, but with only 21 edits to the Wikipedia namespace where deletion discussions normally take place, you seem to have too little experience of that. Sorry, but this looks like [[WP:NOTNOW]]. --
I cannot support giving you authority in deletion-related matters, if you make it clear (and in the first sentence of the first answer too) that any of your AfD closures will be strongly impacted by your "inclusionist perspective". →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''<s>Just</s>Hell no'''. <s>I'm sorry, there are so many things you just don't meet. Take a look at some previous RfA's, or Denis Brown's that is on going at the minute. You will understand what Wikipedia are looking for in an Administrator. Good luck in the future but I can't support at this time.</s> ''Childlike responses do not make for a good admin.'' Try to respect those who offer you critism and those who wish you well in the future. You should have read the article on running for RfA before coming here. <span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' as not active enough (three years, five hundred edits, give or take). Low activity means lack of exposure to the workings of Wikipedia. Only 30 user talk page edits in six years means no experience of interacting with other users. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' per lack of experience, the second part of my neutral, and the way you react to criticism during this RfA. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' the answers to your questions are poor. --'''
'''Oppose''': While it is great to see a valuable contributor of article content running for adminship, there are too few edits outside of article space to support at the present time. --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Oppose'''.  No compelling  nomination statement, and very short  answers to the questions, the candidate has obviously not read any of the vast amount of advice that is available to RfA candidates, and incusion/demletion  issues apart,  is possibly  not  fully aware of what  being an admin  actually  entails. Reading advice pages, how-tos, essays, and policy, is part of being  an active Wikipedian before attempting to  convince the community  that one is ready for the admin tools.  Taking part in  collaborative and semi administrative areas is  essential  for demonstrating the interpersonal  skills and knowledge of policy needed for adminship.  This candidate has done practically neither at  any  level  that  permits an evaluation of  how the tools would be used..
'''Oppose''' From the badgering of oppose voters it is obvious the candidate is lacking the level of maturity expected in an admin. '''Yoenit''' (
'''Oppose''' I don't like your aggressive replies to people who participated on voting (for example "Yeah? Your answer sucks too." doesn't sound friendly), I can't imagine how you would deal with all people who disagree with you if you passed. Administrators should be neutral and it seems that you can't stay calm and neutral even on your own RfA.
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:Petrb|Petrb]] and [[User:Yoenit|Yoenit]].  As an admin you'll have to think with a level head.  You have demonstrated the inability to do that. <span style="color:red"> '''The Determinator'''</span>  <span style="color:green"> '''
'''Oppose''' I don't think the replies here by the candidate show the attitude needed to be an admin. There are times when it's hard to remain polite, and times when being somewhat rude is the only course. RfA is definitely the place to keep polite even if you are being slagged off - and I wouldn't use that term to describe Rschen's post. Blunt, yes, but not rude. I'm also not sure that you aren't seeking the tools without there being rather a lot of PoV involved, from your answer to Q1.
'''Very strong oppose''', for several reasons. I have managed to find no evidence at all of any participation in any admin-related work, apart from a very small number of AfD contributions, the last one being in July 2008. Such experience is necessary before anyone becomes an administrator, both as an indication of how they will handle such work, and so that they have had relevant experience. You have taken almost no part in discussions of any sort. You have made all of one talk page post (plus a second edit to add your signature) since August 2011. How can someone who virtually never interacts with other users be an administrator? However, we do now finally have an indication of how you may be expected to participate in discussions, as you have made several posts to this page, and we see a negative and unconstructive approach to other editors. Finally, there is no question of supporting someone who intends to use adminship to pursue a particular point of view, no matter what that point of view is. All in all, you appear to have very little idea what being an administrator entails.
'''Very strong oppose'''. Very poor answers to the questions, too little evidence of interaction, and nothing to suggest that you bring even the communication skills needed in an admin. Your reply to Rschen7754 is unacceptably aggressive in any dialogue, and as an admin you would encounter far more difficult situations. If you can't even remain civil at that stage of a dialogue, ''especially when under scrutiny at RFA'', then I don't want you anywhere near the admin tools.  NOTNOW, NOTNEVER. --
'''Oppose''' per ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFaustus37&diff=488959140&oldid=488958772 Your answer sucks too]''. Not what I want to see in an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Limited collaboration with other users. Inappropriately aggressive.
'''Oppose''' [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/editsummary/index.php?name=Faustus37&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 178 edits] within a year? You don't need the rights! Use {{tl|editprotected}}... <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">

'''Oppose''' as per [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] and especially with regard to his agressive responses.
'''Opppose''' - stating an agenda (any agenda, even if I agree with it) as the primary reason you want to be entrusted with Tools that require a neutral hand (and defending that with self-serving aphorisms) is a poor way to start and RfA, but it wouldn't have led me to oppose. Lack of Talk Page work and the incivility during this RfA, however, have. We need Admins who are capable of working with new editors; in fact, when a new editor royally bollacks something up, [[Hanlon's razor|based on incompetence, not malice]], it's usually only an admin (usually only a potential blocking admin) who makes the actions that decide if that new editor is [[WP:BITE|bitten]] away from the project, or will seek ways to be productive. That admin can make all the difference, and unfortunately, given your responses above, I don't feel comfortable with you being that admin.
'''Oppose''' - since it seems that he intends to pursue an inclusionist viewpoint and his replies to challenges are quite incivil in my view, I have no choice but to vote Oppose.
'''Support''' - Per nom.
'''Support'''. Excellent work on [[Sesame Street]], with over 1000 revisions to her credit. Not sure if the "Wiggles Controversy" qualifies as a major conflict, though it was handled well. I see a lot of clue here, and what appears to be an editor who stays calm and works with other editors - not something you see every day round here, more's the pity. Not all that many edits to AIV, which could be a concern - so do tread lightly when it comes to blocking and such, at least initially. I don't see any reason to conclude that Figureskatingfan/Christine will be anything but a net positive as an administrator. Good luck.
'''Support''' - seems like a capable candidate. Don't see the username as an issue clearly linked to her account no evidence of using it to hide identity.
Per nom.
'''Support''' - 15K edits, more than half to mainspace, no indications of assholery. I'm one of those who thinks content creation and quality control are two separate branches of Wikipedia, but I'm slowly coming to appreciate that there needs to be a pool of content creators like this with a toolbox they don't necessarily need very often to provide a pool of potential candidates for ArbCom. So, yeah, there's no reason to oppose here.
'''Support''' Christine works and learns. We all start at buttkiss nothing and many editors like to stay there. Christine does not. I respect her, although...heh...you want to be an admin? You don't get yelled at enough for writing FAs? Also, no spam please. --
'''Support''' <small>(supported initially, withdrew support pending consideration of oppose !votes, reconsidered carefully, and concluded with support)</small>. Christine needs to remember that [[WP:V|vandalism]] is only defined as ''malicious''; some diffs brought below in the oppose section are concerning, but I now trust it will not happen again. Best of luck.
Per my comment [[User_talk:Figureskatingfan/archive_8#Whenever_you_are_ready...|here]]. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' Solid history of high-quality contributions to the project and seems quite capable of working well with others. Certainly appears to be capable of handling the admin tools.

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a dedicated user who has worked hard in both the main and Wikipedia namespaces to improve our encyclopedia, and I believe her dedication would continue if she's approved.
'''D-O-R-O-T-H-Y''' I worked with Figureskatingfan back in 2008 when she pushed to have some dumb article that I was working on to be FA quality.  I didn't think it would ever happen, but we worked on it (with her doing more than the lions share) until it passed FAC.  I worked on it, but never thought it would actually get there.  Still, I remember thinking at the time that she would make a great admin.  SO I took a look at her edits and I was disappointed that she had very little exposure outside of The Wiggles.  That was the only down side that I saw to her then.  Now that she's had 4 years to grow and expand, so I will be brewing some Rosy Tea for her.---'''
'''Support''' Good writer who shall be even more helpful having access to deleted articles and ability to fix broken DYKs on main page. Intelligent person who shall avoid stupid blocks for "incivility" and "disruption", e.g. provoking a discussion. Today 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I'll suggest that, if this does not succeed, then you should just be careful with Twinkle for 6 months and then reapply. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. What Mark Arsten said. Also, answers to the questions are impressive and I find the oppose rationales unconvincing.
'''Support''' As per User:Mark Arsten <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''. A few revert mistakes don't outweigh the positive contributions and ''cluefullness'' of this editor. Also, comments above strengthen my feeling here.
'''Support'''. Christine has been very Supportive to me when I first started on Wikipedia she is a wonderful Friend and I know she will make a wonderful Admin!!
'''Support'''.  Despite the concerns of the opposers, I don't see anything that would preclude becoming as much of a productive administrator as she is an editor.
'''Support''' My review of Christine's history on Wikipedia shows me that she is an intelligent, experienced Wikipedian and a talented writer and editor. The reverts cited by the opposition are a very minor aspect of the bigger picture here. And to the extent that they are problematic, I'm confident that Christine will take the opposition's concerns under advisement and modify her practices accordingly. Are you wondering how can I be confident of that? If so, please refer to the first sentence of this vote.
'''Support''', sounds good.
'''Support''' a few mistaken vandalism reversions does not an unfit candidate make.  Especially on those kinds of articles, where there are real issues with OR and vandalism.
'''Support''' Christine's mistakes are there, sure, but admins are not expected to be perfect, just to listen and learn.  That said, more attention to not mislabeling things as vandalism would be highly appreciated.
'''Support''' Having read the opposes, I think you will learn from this experience.
'''Support''' - though the reverts are concerning, this user is here for the right reasons.
'''Support''' - {{small|1=[moved from neutral]}} I'm certain Christine has heard the concerns about accuracy in assessing edits as vandalism. I don't have any doubts about her sincerity or ability to address the concerns. And she used humour in a very difficult situation - "I thought I was supposed to defend myself". That's impressive. I never had any reason not to support, other than the stated one, and I am happy to support a very promising candidate. I hope she understands why I felt I had to ask. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' I agree that greater care is needed with labeling reverts, but I'm confident that Christine will do so now that it's been highlighted in this way. Given that her reasons for wanting the admin tools are sound and her answers to the above questions are sensible (and good humoured - which is an important virtue for admins) I see no reason why she shouldn't get the tools.
'''Support''' No doubt this editor will use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' Per Kumioko's opposition.  No further explanation shall be given.
'''Oppose''' I do not believe administrators should have signatures unrelated to their usernames.  I may change this vote if the candidate changes her signature.
'''Oppose''' Surprising that this is my second oppose this week. And I hope I'm able to strike this off too pending the candidate's clarification. For a prospective administrator, it's quite disappointing that Figureskatingfan is classifying edits as vandalism when they are not. I just rushed through a few reverts and was quite surprised to find many mistaken reverts; I didn't go through edits beyond the last, I think, 3-4 months, and I hope we don't have similar examples; someone could check, if they wish.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&oldid=457993643][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muppets&diff=prev&oldid=468440004][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Paddick&diff=prev&oldid=469586040]. I'll request the candidate to kindly give her viewpoint on these, and many other reverts that I don't consider vandalism. I would surely take the clarification in good faith and reconsider my !vote. But currently, I can't have an administrator who cannot identify vandalism from what is not vandalism. Kind regards.
'''Oppose''' Per Wifione. Another problematic revert: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sesame_Street_Muppets&diff=prev&oldid=473038709]. If it was just a few accidental button clicks back in the day that would be bad enough, but this candidate seems to think these were actually vandalism. Accusing editors, especially new ones, of vandalism is extremely antagonizing and downputting. Coming from an administrator, it is especially demoralizing.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I do have concerns regarding the judgement of Christine. The diffs Wifione provided are indeed problematic, and the explanation given presents even greater concern. I was disappointed to read "I think that strictly speaking, introducing content with unreliable sources can be interpreted as vandalism", "Ref 4 is obviously vandalism; the editor introduced clear typos and grammar errors", "The Wiggles tend to have OR-type edits... I tend to crack down on them because it's easy for these articles to degenerate into hearsay and rumors", and "I reverted that because it's unclear if the new content was correct, and again, there was no reliable source for it". Grammatical errors, original research, and poor sourcing do not constitute vandalism; a potential admin should know this. I also worry about the reference to "my pet articles" and "articles that aren't mine own" and the admission that " I tend to be protective of Angelou's article because there has been some nasty, rude, and inappropriate vandalism there in the past". This worrying interpretation of vandalism, coupled with what seems to be a tendency towards article ownership, makes it impossible to support this candidate.
'''Oppose''' - I agree that there is a tendency to rush to revert without looking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muppets&diff=prev&oldid=468440004 Diff 4], for example '''reintroduced''' a spelling error that had been fixed (it's [[self-deprecating]] not [[self-depreciating]]). I'd like to see a little less knee-jerkiness. <font style="bold italic" color="7C0500">Harry the Dog </font>
'''Oppose''' The mismarking of edits as vandalism and then blaming it on Twinkle is to much. I found another example of the problem, first there is a twinkle [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Greene&diff=prev&oldid=475498267 good faith reversion] with an additional comment of "Sources say Harlem."  Then 3 days later an IP comes back and makes the edit again but this time adds a source for the change, an interview with Stanley Greene.  This [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Greene&diff=prev&oldid=476037765 edit] is reverted as vandalism.  How is the first one with no source good faith and the second one with a source vandalism?
'''Oppose''' - I think it is very important that administrators do not [[WP:BITE|discourage]] new editors. The reverting of productive or good faith edits as "vandalism" suggests a lack of scrutiny unbecoming for an administrator. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' with regret, because you are obviously an enthusiastic editor who cares about content. However, I don't see sufficient demonstrated understanding of site policy and guideline, and do see several misunderstandings and errors. I ran a uContribs report ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Franamax/Test15 here], the toolserver links don't work) and while the mainspace part is typical of a content-focussed editor, I see very little on the project side to indicate your involvement with policy and operations, so I have no way to evaluate your understanding. Your AIV reports look mostly good, but for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=448431067 here] you say "multiple previous blocks" whereas I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A173.212.77.16 only one] previous block. Were multiple IPs involved, or were you tilting the playing field to get your desired outcome? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=453729332 Here] you say "blanks her talk page to remove evidence of it" but an admin should know that blanking a talk page is perfectly acceptable and removes no evidence at all - and any admin working at AIV should already know how to check talk page history to see what's been removed. And related to the same case, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Figureskatingfan/Adoption/ANTONIOROCKS here] you file an MFD, apparently unaware of the {{tl|db-user}} tag - and yet you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3AFigureskatingfan%2FSesame+Street+history&timestamp=20090711181229&diff=prev are aware] (admin-only link, adding {{tl|db-u1}}) of that tag. I see 11 total deletion discussions in which you participated, and no project-governance (policy) page where you have more than 4 edits. Your audited-content project  participation looks to be almost only oriented to your own articles as opposed to also reviewing other people's work (though I could be completely wrong on that, I wish Thebainer had kept his TS account active). The several examples above of your mistaken reverting of edits as vandalism lead me to question your understanding of policy in this area, and an admin unquestionably must be able to correctly identify vandalism, and never ever apply the label wrongly, I can think of no better way to drive away new editors than to revert their first halting efforts at contributing here as vandalistic. If your Twinkle edits are using the actual rollback mechanism, I would consider removing that user right from your account. I'm also not comfortable with your position on "support the content editors" (I've seen no evidence where you stepped in to help a content editor, both dialing them back from a confrontation and explaining things to the "non-content" editor on the other side) and "support the women" (there are far more males here than females, but the really top article "girls" here kinda scoff at the notion that they need special help, and my own chivalric instincts would have me already out punching the other guy in the face anyway). And your language above just feels like you have excessive zeal, and not enough actual project knowledge and participation to apply that zeal correctly. So I'm just not comfortable here, though I'll keep watching for a reason to change my indication. Please don't take this as criticism of you as a person, or dismissal of your very diligent article work, because I very much do support your idea that the article-focussed people are the only reason the rest of us even log in here. Lastly, I will add my personal suggestion that you try editing ''without'' Twinkle for a while and do like me - write it all out by hand, in your own words. I've always found that my own decisions on what to write and what project pages to link force me to consider what I actually want to say to that particular editor, and what policies and guidelines I'm using to back up my words. Sorry to oppose you, but hope that helps!
'''Oppose''' I think you are abusing TW according to its policy page, when you use it for edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sesame_Street&diff=next&oldid=456782394 this.] "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." The appropriate edit summary in this case would have been to not call it vandalism. If Twinkle requires you to label it vandalism, don't use Twinkle when the edit isn't vandalism. Also, you appear to have ownership issues.
'''Oppose''' per the repeated mistaken reverts. I don't think solid anti-vandalism work isn't a particularly demanding requirement to have. In fact, it's pretty much the most basic measure of competency there is for potential administrators. If you were strong or experienced in another "pseudo-administrative" area of some sort, I could probably overlook this, but from what I can tell, you're really not; you're mainly a content-focused editor. And don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect all the great work you ''have'' done, and that includes anti-vandalism work. I'm just not comfortable supporting at this time. Sorry. ''
'''Oppose''' It is hard to see how the various edits can be seen as vandalism; if it is a problem with using Twinkle, then you should stop using Twinkle.  Whether it is a case of not assuming good faith with someone's edits or failing to use a tool correctly, I don't know.  Both situations are unacceptable for administrators, so I will have to oppose. '''
'''Oppose''' per ErikHaugen.  Whilst I find the vandalism-related opposes concerning, it is the candidate's responses to these opposes that give me greater concern. None of the diffs provided by Wifione are vandalism, yet the candidate defends each one, saying that "Ref 4 is obviously vandalism", when the first two edits by that user are spelling corrections and the third one could assume was an accidental reversion of the second. In ErikHaugen's oppose, the candidate defends categorising the diff as vandalism when it is clearly not. Later in that oppose, the candidate appears to provide three diffs by a user which clearly aren't vandalism and basically says "I didn't accuse her of vandalism". GB fan's concern also appears to be completely misunderstood - the candidate seems to think that the reliability of the source has an effect on whether or not it is vandalism, which in the vast majority of cases it doesn't. I'm sorry but this all shows a severe lack of understanding of the Vandalism policy, so I can't possibly support a candidate who wants to use the tools to deal with vandalism, but very clearly doesn't understand the policy fully.
'''Oppose''' I am seeing issues with this candidate that weakened my support.  I usually don't change my decision from support to oppose that easily but as soon as I saw how this user bites IPs and Redusers, it was enough to cause such a change.—
'''Oppose''', unfortunately.  Vandalism is a word that should be used as little as possible, because it denies good faith. Vandalism is editing with an  ''intent'' to harm the encyclopedia, and even a serious  policy violation, if done in good faith, is not vandalism--even if it shows such a gree of misunderstanding as to call for a block to prevent further such edits. There is true vandalism. We see less than we used to, becausere the edit filters catch seem to catch at least half of it.  Unless it is really obvious otherwise, the assumption is that anyone who has made an edit is at least trying to help; low quality contributors who actually are not helpting but want to help can learn to do so. The job of an admin is to teach them, not drive them away. (obviously, someone who refuses to lean is in another category, but even then its usually not vandalism, just pidheadedness. We must get them stopped, but we don't have to be nasty about it.) '''
'''Very ''very'' reluctant Oppose''' (On a scale from 1-100, I'm like only 51% in the "Oppose" column) - Content creation is good, as is the understanding of some underlying issues plaguing Wikipedia, but the swing-and-miss on the [[WP:NLT]] question gives me pause. RfA is an open-book test (as is the actual using of the tools). [[WP:NLT]] is a huge policy, and its proper application is important for all Admins.
'''Oppose''', Sorry, but I will have to oppose. I was wanting to support, and I agree with you that it appears to be a gender gap in both female editors and female artist coverage on the site. However, with the biting & the refusal to answer questions by jc37 because you had a negative experience with him (as hinted in his neutral comments below) shows attitude issues and I must oppose at this time. Regards.
'''Oppose'''. Figureskatingfan has a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of "vandalism". This is particularly worrying when she declares her intention to use the tools for blocking and page protection.
'''Oppose'''. The editor misunderstands "vandalism", and even setting aside the "ownership" issue (which I don't think is really a problem here) and the bitiness toward the editors she warns, this begs the question of how well she understands policy. There are tricky things here--when disruption becomes blockable, what's vandalism and what's boneheaded--and it makes me wonder if the editor knows how to adequately judge AIV requests or, for instance, speedy deletion nominations.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Concerns with policy knowledge and experience.  Sorry, '''
Sad '''oppose''' due to what I perceive as trigger-happiness {{endash}} and, furthermore, your replies to my questions were rather unimpressive... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' trigger issues which can potentially drive away wikipedians by 'mistakenly' labeling edits as vandalism.
'''Sad oppose'''  I strongly agree with Salvio and Drmies but I also agree with the trigger issues.  I just hate to see an editor like Figureskatingfan come here as a good faith editor with this much experience and get turned away like this over a simple-to-fix issue and unfortunately, that's the nature of RfA.  I am sure Figureskatingfan knows what real vandalism is, but he/she needs to spend some time demonstrating their intent to identify vandalism correctly.  I agree with Drmies concerns about the answer to Salvio's BLP question and the other question about legal threats also concerns me.  Besides [[WP:DOLT]] that came up when I went through an RfA (by Salvio I think), Figureskatingfan also didn't cover at all the chilling effect that legal threats have and the disruption to a collaborative editing environment.  It's not just that we lack the expertise to respond to a legal threat, it's that we cannot work together when an editor is threatening legal action unless I comply with exactly what they say.  That's not collaboration.  So, sad oppose, and I hope to support the candidate next time.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' The edits in question are unfortunate, lacking fine judgement and giving an impression of thoughtlessness and aggression that is inclined to put people off editing; however, Christine could be forgiven as we all make mistakes, and working on Wikipedia is an ongoing learning curve - but, after they were pointed out, Christine defended them. The mind set that she was right, even when mistakes are pointed out in the intensive glare of an AfD, is disturbing. Under this level of scrutiny one would expect a candidate to carefully revisit those edits to check what the concerns are. That Christine was not willing or able to check the alternative spelling of self-deprecating, and then go - "Oops, my bad. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll rectify that immediately and apologise to the people concerned" is a matter of concern. To date, [[User talk:Bolivianewtonjohn]] still has Christine's warning, that editor has not edited Wikipedia again, and mistakes that Christine's reverts put into the article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Muppets&diff=476834827&oldid=476757560 such as this italic formatting], are still there. I hear Christine saying she is willing to learn, but I see no actual evidence of it, even when under the spotlight. I think, otherwise, that Christine has shown that she is a good contributor, and is clearly interested in helping out on the project, so with a period of more care in the use of the reversion tool, in checking her edits, in reflecting adequately on concerns raised, and in being less hostile to beginner editors would mean that a RfA in six months time should pass. '''
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork. Making mistakes is one thing. Not owning up to them and correcting them is another. I see more lip service to learning from mistakes than evidence that this is happening. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''<s>Reluctant</s> oppose''' The answer to question 3 is (to me) not the type of answer I lok for in how someone resolves conflict.  Most distressingly, however, is the jusitification of MULTIPLE instances of improperly labelling something as "vandalism" because they are "protective of their pet projects".  Really, really, really, really cannot support with the tools based on either the misunderstanding of [[WP:VAND]] or the outright reasoning behind it.  Based on some many other contributions, this should have been a wash of support ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, its just my opinion but we haev too many admins now. We just don't need more. --
I was on the fence on this, because in the greater scheme of things, the mistakes weren't that bad, and because I'd certainly hope that anyone who gets called out on a specific issue during an RfA would be careful in regards to that issue in the future. What ultimately swayed me was SilkTork's comment. Making mistakes is okay, it happens to everyone. Mistakes, however, need to be treated as learning experiences, it isn't okay to pretend that mistakes were never made, and make no effort to remedy the situation.
Also awaiting answers per Begoon. I agree we all, including myself, are guilty of rollbacking non-vandalism potentially good-faith edits, but those usually involve badly unsourced BLP issues, NPOV, misinformation, very terrible and confusing writing and so forth, literally edits that hurt the encyclopedia more than it helps. But Wifione second and third links are a bit worrisome, reverting copyediting changes as vandalism, including one which left a warning on the user talk page? That seems completely strange to me. We need more article writers as administrators, and I highly trust the nominators. But rollbacking these two edits (the last rollback was the addition of a non-notable award that was deleted in AFD and the editor was warned against it, not-vandalism but not blatant  use of rollback, a edit summary would have clearly been helpful though) is a red flag, and a source of potencial drama in the future, like what happened to YellowMonkey a bit over a year ago, and more recently [[User:Icairns|Icairns]]. Will probably move to support with a valid explanation and a reassurance that it won't happen again. Thanks
I'm not quite happy about the response to Q5. While I share the opinion of the WBC, I'm a little concerned about the wish to edit the article which seems to indicate a desire to attack them rather than to neutrally report. I could be misreading this. I'm afraid that I might also be misreading the latter part of the response, as I find it hard to understand. Might just need a proofread, might just be me...
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> My experience with the editor during that forced split of Sesame Street, was a less than positive experience to my memory. Well- meaning and a good content editor in several ways, but I would not trust them with the tools. Sorry. - <b>
From support; there is still lots to like about this candidate, but a statement like "I think that strictly speaking, introducing content with unreliable sources can be interpreted as vandalism" suggests that more experience at AIV and a better understanding of the vandalism policy is needed.
'''Neutral, lean oppose''' Christine clearly has a lot of high quality contributions to Wikipedia articles, but reverting edits that are not vandalism as vandalism is a pet hate of mine. I'm going to take a closer look at these edits and make up my mind. Part of me would think that their contributions to featured articles would make one understand the importance of accuracy in things as mundane as recent changes patrol, but from their explanations I'm not quite sure that is the case. So yeah...at this point I am undecided. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral'''. Seems to be a good user. though the vandalism reverts are a bit worrying. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral towards oppose''' because, like Steven Zhang, above, I really don't like edits being identified as vandalism when they're not. Coupled with the slightly 'ill-informed' reports at AIV, I'm not sure the extra buttons would be a good idea. However, other edits and the level of dedication appear to be brilliant, so I can't make up my mind... -
Your intentions are marvelous, but per the repeated mistakes while on anti-vandalism patrol, I am not fully convinced that I can support. I cannot oppose either. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
Per Steven and the vandal taggings. The great content work is a plus. You sit at a net 0 right now in my book; true neutral --
Per 28bytes. --
Take the copious advice on this page to heart, come back in 6 months, and you'll be a no-brainer to support.
'''Neutral''' per 28bytes--though it is sometimes a fine line, well-meaning-but-misguided (or unskilled) edits are not vandalism. It is sometimes too easy when in a hurry to use tools that mark edits as vandalism, I'm sure we've all done it, but the candidate's explanations worry me. I love content editors (I am one) and I think more of them should have tools but per SW, above, please take the advice here and come back when you are ready.
'''Neutral'''.  Well intentioned, and I expect with a bit more experience will be accepted as a sysop.  But it may well be premature; I'm putting myself in the neutral corner for the moment.--
'''Neutral'''. There's a lot to like about this candidate - great content work and commitment to the goals of the project, and plenty of good interactions with others. The only thing that prevents me supporting is the "vandalism" reverts - but if we have another run in 6 months time, after no further similar mistakes, I can see an easy support. --
'''Neutral'''Seriously per the consensus above.--
'''Neutral''' - But I think there are way too many pile on !votes here that don't really address some core issues. The criticisms about vandalism patrolling issues I think lack perspective. It's way too easy to pick out a few examples and hang onto them. That's not just unfair, but it's also bad for the encyclopedia. We ''must'' have editors that vandal patrol, and these sorts of tasks make up a good portion of the admin workload.<br /><br>In my experience, which has a lot to do with vandalism patrolling, a small set of admins provide the majority of blocks for vandals. I would love to have more good admins in this task.<br />That said, the reason I'm neutral is because I don't think the breadth of experience is there yet. I take exception at the pile ons about one particular edit, but I do think some more experience is necessary. Interestingly enough there are quite a few vandalism patrol editors that are commenting that I think generally reflect my position. This is a good editor, but there needs to be a longer track record of vandalism patrolling.
As nom. --'''
'''Strong support'''. But don't give up your major contributions to roads and highways.
'''Weak Support''' - but only weak because it would be a shame to burden such a prolific content creator with [[WP:MOP|janitorial duties]].
'''Strong support''' - This editor exceeds [[User:Trusilver/RFA|my RfA criteria.]] I like that he balances his contributions between mainspace and projectspace. He doesn't involve himself in drama or bureaucracy more than is absolutely necessary to get things done. His content contributions are also excellent, and if there's anything I truly worry about, it's just that those contributions might suffer if he is drawn too far into administrative tasks.
'''Support''' - Floydian is a great and productive editor who I feel can be trusted with the admin tools and put them to good use. <span style="background:#604007; padding:2px">'''
Looks all good to me. –
'''Support'''—wasn't a perfect editor, still isn't, but neither are the rest of us. He's learned and grown and matured, and I think the tools would benefit him and his editing. I'm happy to see him add another avenue to the balance of his editing. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''
'''Support''' - We haven't always agreed but for the most part my interactions with this user have always been pretty positive.
'''Support''' clean block log, very longterm user. Seems a fair bit more mature than he was in 2003/4, but if his age is as per his userpage that is only to be expected. I'm staying out of the infobox/co-ords wars, but all the evidence that I've seen so far is that he was a participant but not one doing things unbecoming of an admin. I vaguely remember the primary topic arguments, but though I'm almost far enough on the other side to support the [[Dallas, Scotland|''ignore the last two centuries'' rule]] for determining primary topics, I'm happy to treat that incident as past. ''
'''Support''' Writing 2 FAs shows that he knows the Wikipedia guidelines.
'''Support''' I believe that Floydian has established through his behavior that would do the job well. --
'''Weak Support:''' True, there are some rough edges to be worked on... but will eventually be a good admin. -
'''Strong Support''' Floydian is one of Wikipedia's most hard-working contributors, he really deserves the job and would do it well. Support.
'''Support''' not perfect (who is though?) but in my opinion will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. While I respect the opposes' concerns regarding civility, I believe that Floydian will do the job well enough. I do ask that Floydian be responsive to criticism if they are called on civility issues in the future. -
'''Support'''.  Nobody is perfect.  He'll do just fine with the bit. &ndash;
'''Support''' Trusted user.
'''Support''' Good edits, clearly dedicated. Quite enough for me. --'''
'''Support''' Move over to support. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' I've found Floydian to be helpful and mature and his answers cause me no concern, and he's a good content writer (and that's what's important here).  But more importantly, anyone whose opposers cite "civility" concerns tends to get my support.  I'd rather deal with honest and abrasive people than smooth-tongued liars who whinge about the odd rude word. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' - Good content editor. I see no reason to oppose. We need new admins and we should embrace as many noms as possible. ~
'''Support''' - Why not ? :)
Support, to balance out the ridiculous opposing argument based on his signature.
'''support w/ advice''' Most of the problems are distant enough that if candidate makes a sincere effort to accept the criticism offered and work on some personal growth should be alright for the next try. I recommend not being so quick to anger and to refrain from heaping coals of criticism on heads of others, even when they richly deserve it. Needs NOT to give the appearance of bludgeoning others. Sometimes less is more. Every long term user here has put their heart into the project and candidate has tendency to rip out hearts and grind them under foot. More work at AFD and DRV and evidence of more nuanced understanding will alleviate some concerns there. And give an opportunity to NOT bludgeon. We are all operating on a professional level-- respectful disagreement is a better tone to take than haranguing and hectoring.  I would recommend avoiding entirely subjects or editors where [[WP:stalk]] has come into play. Avoid people who aggravate. This is a big project. The only way we can all get along is to work on getting along-- and avoiding those with whom we cannot. The best way to avoid an accusation of impropriety is to avoid the appearance thereof. We all feel passion for this project or we would not be here. If the actions of another cause anger, that is just a sign of passionate caring. However, one must never edit in anger as it destroys the collegiality that building an encyclopedia requires. I will close by recommending mending fences with those with whom candidate has fought in the past. Even if it's a simple and sincere, "sorry that in my zeal I failed to appreciate your finer qualities.
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Floydian indicates an intention to close deletion discussions. However he has relatively few contributions to XfDs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Banks_of_Eden This AfD] is worrying. (Disclosure: I am not able to view the deleted material.) Also, the bizarre signature makes it awkward to search for his comments in a page of text.
'''Oppose'''. Even more worrisome than the AfDs listed by Axl is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_homo&diff=prev&oldid=307165599 this AfD], where Floydian attempted to carry out a non-admin closure after taking a side in the discussion itself. Beyond the obvious ignorance of the procedure (which I'm sure he has since rectified), this shows a patent disregard for basic principles of fairness and neutrality. No, I am not ready to let someone like him close XfDs.
'''Oppose'''. Floydian is a good writer and has obviously done some good work elsewhere on the wiki, such as with templates. However, his reasons for requesting adminship are wishy-washy and vague and do little to address how the project would benefit from him being an admin. More importantly though, he seems to have carried a grudge from [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2|this FAC]] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=507645308#User:Pigsonthewing.2FAndy_Mabbett_and_featured_article_of_the_day this current ANI thread]. Bearing grudges does not become an administrator, especially when it gets to the level of weighing in (repeatedly, and with strong views) on an ANI thread tangentially related to an argument from some six months previous. This and the two discussions themselves seem to demonstrate a degree of bloody-mindedness on the part of the candidate, which is a trait we need in ''fewer'' admin, not more. They also speak poorly of the candidate's ability to deal with editors who disagree with him, which, if those two discussions are anything to go by, seems to consist of throwing a tantrum and starting a row which takes up a ridiculous amount of space. Finally, the sneakiness and disingenuousness of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_Highway_401&diff=480078361&oldid=480074857 this edit] (in which the candidate removed two sets of coordinates after the article was promoted to FA, having added them days earlier to ensure the success of the FAC, and did so under a misleading edit summary) and participation in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_Highway_401&offset=20120312020734&limit=20&action=history ensuing edit war] is just about the farthest thing from what I expect of potential admins. For the purposes of this RfA, I don't give a flying fuck about whether or not the articles should contain coordinates; what concerns me is the candidate's deceitful, sneaky and dishonest conduct throughout the whole thing, and his belligerence in holding a grudge for an extended period. I can't support giving admin tools to somebody with any one of those character traits. That said, Floydian's work on Canadian highways seems to be otherwise stellar, and I hope he continues to focus his efforts on this instead of adminship or rows over metadata.
'''Oppose''' - per HJM. '''''
'''Oppose''' (strongly). His answers to Q3 give me pause; now is not the time for him to ''start'' addressing his civility issues. 'Abrasiveness' is putting  it  mildly - Floydian  is from  nature  combative, sarcastic, and at  times,  insulting. His  spate of disambiguation attempts (all  failed) in  late 2010 could be interpreted as  POV pushing, or at the very  least, time wasting - Floydian created a series of move/disambiguation  discussions claiming  primacy  of North  American cities (especially Canadian) over famous major UK locations. None of his proposals were met  with  consensus in favour of them, and many comments were clearly derogatory towards UK users. He sometimes deletes rather than archiving his gross incivility in  his talk  page.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floydian&diff=prev&oldid=500656155], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFloydian&diff=493968900&oldid=493910049]. Multiple snide and argumentative remarks in  his FA discussions [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2]] also  do  not  impress. With  only  just  over 60% accuracy  in  his AfD comments, sufficient  knowledge is not  demonstrated for use of the deletion tool, and/or closures and evaluating  consensus.  Wikipedia's principles, and policies can be learned and knowledge improved, but  generally  a person's character traits won't, and his ability to  get  along  with  his fellow editors still  leaves much  room  for improvement. He has not  taken on  board [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFloydian&diff=427538023&oldid=427537823|this comment] in  his first RfA],  and   I  would like to see at least another year of trouble-free editing  before he presents again  for RfA. (Assorted diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASydenham&diff=391700034&oldid=391689122], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth&diff=392208011&oldid=392206716],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth&diff=393536096&oldid=393535440], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth&diff=393547145&oldid=393546946], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlymouth&diff=393623439&oldid=393620347],[[Talk:Cambridge#Requested move2010]], [[Talk:York#Disambiguation required]], [[Talk:Cornwall/Archive 10]], [[Talk:Peterborough#Disambiguation required]], [[Talk:Sydenham#Disambiguation required]]).
'''Oppose''' - I hate to find myself here, but I have no choice.  There is no doubt that Floydian is a good contributor who has been here a long time and has a great deal of experience, but admin need to be more than an editor with new tools.  I started out thinking I would support, but then wrote out a Neutral response due to HJ Mitchell's concerns, and after a great deal of digging into past ANI, talk, etc, I find myself here.  My criteria, the most important thing that matters to me, is the demeanor of the candidate.  Period.  Everything else can be learned, so past minor mistakes don't bother me, but we seldom change our stripes, our style of communication.  While Floydian's style makes him a formidable editor in a debate, I fear it would be problematic when dealing with the vast array of problems forced upon him if he had the admin bit.  An admin that is too gruff, rigid or blunt at times can cost us good editors, something I'm already having to spend time dealing with.  Looking at the totality of edits, rather than any singular examples, I find an overall good editor, but not a good admin.  In short, I fear it would not be a [[WP:Net positive]] for Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' The candidate's personality is incompatible with proper administrator work.
HKM and Kudpung's comments ring true with me, as do another few of the comments made thus far. An examination of other edits brought up things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&diff=prev&oldid=495777077 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=496269858 this] from the not-too-distant past], both indicative of temperamental issues when things don't do Floydian's way. I can't remember having specifically interacted with Floydian before, but those seem to ring bells regarding other interactions I've seen. I'm also somewhat unimpressed with Floydian's responses thus far in this RfA, particularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floydian_2&diff=507689746&oldid=507689313 this one]: administrators are required to have a good understanding of our notability guidelines when working at AfD because it's the only way that they can accurately assign weight to the comments presented therein, and the implied difference between a "guidelines-based vote" and "opinion-based vote" does not actually exist in the given context. Lastly, while those supporting clearly think Floydian is a good (or even an excellent) candidate, I'm not especially convinced by the reasons given so far: Floydian is certainly a better candidate now than last May, but that's not really enough to sway me.
'''Oppose''', sorry. I had wanted to support, but I'm just seeing too many "fuck"s in talk comments and edit summaries and too much of an aggressive approach to discourse. I'm not one who decries the occasional use of swear words (and I don't pretend I've never used any myself) or a robust approach (in fact, some of my favourite content creators are pretty robust), but I just don't think it's a suitable general approach for an admin - I think admins should aim to "talk softly, and carry a big mop". You do a lot of good work here, though, so this Oppose comes with a big helping of moral support for that - good content creators are worth far more than good admins. --
'''Oppose''' - We are all, from the very beginning, collaborators. At all times we need to treat each other with respect. Aggression feeds itself and once it begins it kills discussion. Admins should have have "Peace-making' as the handiest among their tools. I believe this editor would have a problem finding it in their toolbox. ```
Enough evidence has surfaced in the oppose section to convince me that concerns regarding this user's temperament remain. I couldn't envision myself supporting until Floydian demonstrates that he can be civil on a more consistent basis.
'''Oppose''' Looking at the evolution of your comments over the years, I agree with you that at least some of the abrasiveness has been shaken, but I don't think all of it. Looking at some of the AfDs that have been pointed out, I do get the feeling you get more worked in disagreements than someone with the block and delete buttons ought to.
'''Oppose''' per HJ, Simon and Chris; and in particular for the repeated assertions regarding the closure of the contentious roads coordinates RFC, where 10 of 11 proposals found no consensus, and the only one that did was a side-issue to the matter in hand, and had no bearing on the use or not of coordinates (by analogy, there was disagreement over whether the curtains should be red or blue, but there was agreement on a new suggestion that we should also have a table-lamp). Despite this repeatedly having been pointed out to him, by me among others, Floydian still cites the RfC as justification for pushing his PoV. It's not his PoV that's the issue here, but his inability or refusal to grasp the nature of consensus, and accept that his PoV does not prevail, to the point of being disruptive. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">
'''Oppose'''- Much too aggressive to be an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' This is a case that reminds me of band. In my band, there are four levels. You start out in the first, after a year you move to the second, and after another year you move to the third. But to get to the fourth, you have to play something for the director to indicate that you are good enough. But even if you're good enough, you don't always move up if your behavior isn't the greatest. 24K edits, 28 GAs, and 2 FAs mean that he plays well enough (in metaphor terms), but his behavior, as mentioned by the other opposers, just isn't suitable for a higher level quite yet. But in band, wih RfAs, you can learn and improve, and maybe next time your behavior will be good enough. <sup><font face="verdana">'''
'''Oppose''': [[User:Brambleberry of RiverClan|Brambleberry of RiverClan]] basically sums it up. Great content work, but his behaviour isn't suitable. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose'''  The Highway 401 article is beautifully written, and lacks only one essential ingredient. It is totally invisible to google maps- it lacks a single co-ordinate for any of the interchanges. All offers by other editors to assist in providing them (offers still open) have been stoutly refused and rebutted in an astonishing display of [[WP:OWN]]- to the point of creating an edit war.  I see from comments above that [[User:Floydian]] still persists in ownership, perceiving anyone with an alternative view as part of a 'cabal'. I'd love to stand Floydian a coffee and learn from him some of his editing tricks but until we see Highway 401 visible on Google maps I can't support this application.  --
'''Oppose''' I was initially going to support, but after reading HJ's and Kudpung's reasons, I have to oppose. I think Brambleberry of RiverClan summed it up best with the band metaphor, as that is something that should be true in all aspects of life. Sorry, but better luck next time.
'''Oppose''' per HJ Mitchell.
'''Very strong oppose'''. Didn't anyone see Floydian's response to Andy ''on this very RfA page???'' '''Floydian: Numerous editors... far more than you could offer up against (because then you'd have consensus, but instead you'll claim there is a cabal or project ownership, because you can't find more of the community to support your opinion)''' -- That, to me, does not bespeak someone intent on bringing consensus, but rather of someone who [[WP:Assume bad faith|assumes bad faith]] of other editors. Not to mention the edit wars, prolific use of f*** and other words in discussion, the 2nd RfA... I'm sorry, Floydian, but that's not the sort of behavior we need in our admins.
'''Oppose''' per HJ Mitchell and others - namely, the vague reason(s) for wanting access to the additional tools. '''[[User:Theopolisme|<font color=#00B74A>Theo]][[User_Talk:Theopolisme|<font color=#37DB79>polisme]] '''</font><sub>
'''Oppose''' In the past this candidate has shown poor judgement regarding fringe topics.
'''Strong Oppose''' That's my comment about it. By the way, it's per [[User:Theopolisme|Theopolisme]], [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]], [[User:Jsharpminor|Jsharpminor]], [[User:Bzweebl|Bzweebl]] and [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]]. If bad words aren't and shouldn't be in my vocabulary, so should he. No offense, just dug deep.
For me, civility is a bare minimum I expect from a potential admin candidate and the examples given by those above are too much for me to overlook. Sorry. <font face="Verdana">
At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huron County Road 83|this AfD]] the candidate wishes he/she could be an admin so that redirects would instead be red links.&nbsp; This theme reappears at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birchmount Road (2nd nomination)]], which starts with an AfD nomination which names an editor, and that seeks delete and salt.&nbsp; Note the [[WP:BLUDGEON]] style in the discussion.&nbsp; After the deletion went to DRV, it was revealed that the candidate had merged content from the article before trying to get the article deleted and salted, contrary to [[WP:MAD]].&nbsp; At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwin Avenue]], the candidate showed that he/she did not have novice-level understanding of WP:TPG, and Wikilawyers that an AfD page is not a talk page.&nbsp; He/she modified his/her nomination text so that Geo Swan's following comment was taken out of context ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unwin_Avenue&diff=prev&oldid=481806618 diff]), and then even after being shown the applicable WP:TPG, lacked the skills to apply proper talk page etiquette.&nbsp; The candidate's use of edit comments at the Unwin AfD is also inadequate.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' after review.
'''Oppose''' - after taking a look, I don't think Floydian is ready to be an administrator yet. I'm not as bothered by his temperament as others, but I'm very concerned about his approach to AfDs and don't think he should have the tools in that area right now. I'd definitely support if I saw marked improvement in AfD in, say, 3-6 months.
'''Oppose'''. I had forgotten, but I am very forgetful, about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=500652716&oldid=500652298 this edit] here. Ah, it's all coming back now--the beauty of ANI where everyone can take a crap on everyone else, especially if one is not an admin and thus feels free to let it all hang out. The person who made that comment is not a person who should be an administrator. That Floydian would tell me I am not fit to be an admin is fine, I can accept that in the spirit in which it was offered, but I do not want someone with a personal grudge and a short fuse to be equipped with a block button as well. "Not ready yet" doesn't even come into play (yet)--we don't need trigger-happy admins. Blocking (unless it's a case of clear-cut vandalism etc) is something that should be considered judiciously and calmly, not done (or proposed) hastily. I could comment on Floydian's good work in various areas and all that, but that's beside the point of an RfA.
'''Oppose''' for extreme incivility and stalking, the former of which has occurred on multiple users.  Have a long look at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#User:Floydian.27s_continued_proud_violations_of_WP:INCIVIL_and_WP:STALK|this ANI:User:Floydian's continued proud violations of WP:INCIVIL and WP:STALK]] that I had no choice to start due to continued stalking and incivility,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeorge_Hicks_%28broadcast_journalist%29&action=historysubmit&diff=452891932&oldid=452882862] this despite being put on notice by at least two administrators to stay away from me.  His embarrassing attempt to explain away his more recent stalking behavior is [[User talk:Oakshade#You_need_to_drop_it|in this discussion]], not surprisingly on my talk page.  This user has contributed a great amount of work on Canadian road articles but does not have the proper temperance or judgement to be an administrator.--
'''Weak oppose''' The candidate's handling of oppose votes here is disturbing to me. Admins need to be able to roll with the punches; if the user becomes this defensive this quickly, it doesn't bode well for how they'd handle criticism of admin actions later.
'''Neutral''' for now.
'''Neutral''' I don't have a problem with the arguments Floydian 2 was making in regards to the demands for coordinates to be added in [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2]]; the editors calling for the coordinates were, to be blunt, attempting to impose their personal preferences in a field where there is no consensus that the coordinates were required and went over the top with this, and Floydian was entirely correct to stand his ground (which can be a very good thing in an admin). However, this could have been done much more politely, and in light of the other concerns raised above I can't support this nomination at present, though I'm not seeing grounds for an oppose based on my positive experiences with Floydian's editing.
'''Neutral''' (from oppose). [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' to avoid piling on.
'''Neutral''' I'm really not sure about the answer to q.4. Firstly, whether or not there is an appropriate FUR, it's still not free content because of the -ND (No Derivative Works) condition - a FUR doesn't make it free content. [[foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy]] doesn't "establish" that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content, it ''requires'' it, but provides for exceptions, in the shape of the EDP; note that files uploaded under those exemptions do not become free content by virtue of being hosted on Wikipedia.<br />Secondly, there is no such license as CC-BY-ND-SA - there is CC-BY-SA, and there is CC-BY-ND but the -ND and -SA cannot coexist, see [[Creative Commons license#Combinations]]. It therefore qualifies for [[WP:CSD#F3]] as an improper license, and there is no seven-day grace. --
The opposers convince me not to support. Quite a few concerns. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I respect the candidate's talent as a writer but I'm concerned about the temperament issues raised by multiple reasonable opposes. In the end, I just don't want to pile on. --
'''Non-pile'''. I am concerned not only with temperament, but also perspective on debate and closings. The civility improvement since the last RfA is commendable. A huge improvement.
'''Neutral'''.   I have often said that I don't need to be persuaded that someone ''would'' be a good admin, my only concern is if I am persuaded that they would ''not''.  I don't see a clear persuasive argument to oppose.  I also wonder, whether there's some period of time after which those who oppose will no longer bring up the sins of one's past.  I know that when I'm asked if editing WP ever causes me stress, my response is limited to my witness of the ordeal one must submit themselves in order to pass this process.  It is completely backwards (my opinion - no need to try and refute it, this is not something for which I am seeking consensus).
'''Support''' Good content work, mature attitude, level headed. Would be a net positive as an admin, given areas candidate intends to work in. '''''
'''Support''' - can't see any reason not to.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - As others have said, there's no grossly inappropriate behaviour on Gabe's part that would lead me to an oppose. I've been working with Gabe off and on for a little over a year, and he's always shown restraint and respect for consensus and guidelines during heated debates. I'm confident he can handle it.
'''Moral Support''' as it appears this RFA is headed south. A general problem with saying "This candidate has no experience in Administrator-related matters" is that ''it's hard to participate in Administrator-related matters when you don't have the same tools as an Administrator''! Lord knows if people had brought this up strongly at [[WP:Requests_for_adminship/Runningonbrains|my own RFA]] I would have been SOL, because I really didn't have any experience except for some vandal-fighting. I made a pretty weak argument that being able to delete pages was useful, so I guess that appeased enough voters, but I was mainly a content contributor: I really didn't have any pressing need for the tools. Yet now I find myself regularly clearing backlogs, weighing in at [[WP:ANI]], and responding to [[WP:AIV]] reports. I really didn't have any interest in these things before I was able to participate there, and I had ''no way of knowing'' if I would even ''want'' to participate in those activities, until I actually tried them out. In my humble opinion, this user has absolutely no history of bad interactions with other users, bad faith contributions, or any activities that are detrimental to Wikipedia. He responds well to criticsm (in my opinion, ''the most important'' quality for a candidate can have), and has shown exemplary consensus-building skills. TLDR: The only thing that should count against potential admins are untrustworthiness, uncooperativeness or incompetence, and I see no evidence of any of these in this candidate. -<b>
'''Support''' (strongly, if that makes a difference) Although the term in the original application may be preferred by many as consensus as opposed to compromise.--
'''Support'''  no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
Moving to '''weak support''' since the candidate has explained the tyrannical comment to my satisfaction, the outburst against rschen seems to be a mild, isolated blow-up, and he has generally displayed a commendable attitude. Obviously, this support is pointless since the candidate needs 100 more to even get into the realm of possibly passing, but some support is needed.
'''Support''' experienced candidate with good content work and a clean block log. I also didn't see anything troubling in the deleted contributions. I completely disagree with the no need for the tools opposes as the tools are useful for any editor. I have no great concern supporting someone who hasn't got involved in vandalfighting or deletion tagging provided they show clue in the areas where they do work. ''
While this has no chance of passing and Gabe's attitude wasn't the best in the RFA, I always liked what I see from him and thought of him as a potential RFA candidate. Sucks it went this way, but with the proper mentoring, I think he would make an excellent admin in 6-12 months. This is a not now moral support, but don't let your spirits down in this RFA, remember it's called hell week for a reason.
Support—he's scrappy and wants to clean house. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
RfA wasn't transcluded properly. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
To help at ANI, I don't think that admin rights are needed. I see that your work has mainly focused to user talk pages and articles lately. You have got a good amount article space edits which is a great thing. Not many are good at it. But the problem is that I don't see you fighting vandalism or doing any work in which admins can specifically contribute in your last 1000 edits. Not doing work in places where admin tools can be useful (CSDs, AfDs, anti-vandal, etc.,) is my concern. Sorry, but have to oppose. If you show improvement by working in those areas mentioned, then I'd love to support in your next RfA. Sorry for now. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">
In general, I support admins if they have both or either extensive content work and vandal-fighting experience, and I feel that you have neither. Trust me, ANI is a place you ''don't'' want to work in. It causes huge amounts of stress. I'd say for you to <s>do at least a [[WP:DYK|DYK]] or two and perhaps a few more articles (especially full biographies instead of discographies or other "list-like" articles), and for you to</s> work in places like CSD and recent changes patrolling.--
You haven't made a single edit to AIV, UAA, SPI, etc. I don't really see where the admin tools can be useful for you, and as Jasper said, ANI is a place you should probably stay away from if you can. Maybe try to work on some of the less drama-y areas where admins do, like AIV/UAA, reverting vandalism, CSD, NPP, etc. and come back in 6 months or so.
'''Oppose''' per your actions regarding [[The Beatles]], specifically striking another's comments twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles&diff=prev&oldid=489207340] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles&diff=prev&oldid=489219641] shows poor form, as does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles&diff=489219908&oldid=489219641 unstriking] someone else's that they struck.  <span style="background:#66EE88">'''
'''Oppose''', because of the canvassing issue.
<s>'''Oppose'''for lack of need and a concern re. why the tools are being requested. You need familiarity with the areas in which the tools are used before asking for the tools - you seem to have none (no AIV, CSD, etc.) The tools are there to, amongst others, protect pages, block vandals and delete pages. Your comments imply that rather than wanting to do these things you are seeking the "status" of an administrator so that you can do things that are you think are reserved to people called administrators (e.g., your comment on not seeing the point of working at ANI if you aren't an administrator). Being an administrator does not confer status in this way. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Regretful oppose''' Candidate's content work is sound; 8000+ edits, and 70% of those to article-space is a good start. I just don't think the candidate's familiarity in the core admin areas is sufficient. Also, the responses to the canvasing issue in the neutral section highlight a lack of familiarity with processes and [[WP:PAG]].
'''Oppose''', with regret. Clearly a good contributor, and I'm seeing <s>good interactive skills and</s> an aptitude for helping resolve discussions. But I don't really see enough experience in the specific areas in which the admin tools are used. For someone to be given access to tools for blocking, deleting, protecting, I'd really need to see some involvement in reporting issues to AIV, UAA, RFPP, SPI, taking part in AfD discussions, etc. In Q1, the candidate says "''I would start slow, and do more as I learn the tools, responsibilites, and protocols''", and such caution is admirable. But with the handing over of the tools being pretty much irreversible, I'd really need to see evidence that a lot of learning of responsibilities and protocols had already been done. If I were to see some contributions to the admin areas I mentioned, then I could well support a new run a few months down the line. --
I'm not so much opposing as trying to move this on toward what is probably the inevitable resolution.  You say below, "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor who can't source or abide by consensus, or MoS". To my ear, the "minor editor" bit implies a certain disdain for people who sometimes don't want to abide by consensus or edit per MoS ... which is everyone.  It could be you're just stressed because you're getting some resistance during an RFA ... anyone would be ... but maybe the most important duty of admins is to learn how not to say anything that might make things worse when they're stressed. "I never really saw the point of doing those things before, as I thought those duties were for admins" almost sounds like you want to skip the whole learning phase and move right on to the banhammer phase. You're a good editor who's put a lot of time and love into the project, and I'll be happy to look at a future RFA with fresh eyes. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' Canvasing.  More than the actual effect of the canvasing is a lack of understanding of how such canvasing would be viewed.  If you're going to have the tools you need to be in tune with the community.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - you've kept your nose clean, and it looks like you're doing good work, but there seems to be a real lack of Admin Area experience. Aside from this RFA, and content-related areas (like FAC) I see a number that is effectively 0 for edits in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces in the last two years. I don't feel that we should only give the tools to those who "need" them, but the WP and WT namespaces are places where the conversation generally revolve around policy, and that makes it easier for us to know how you'd act as an admin.
<s>'''Oppose''' — canvassing, badgering of opposes, and recent remarks about how he will (mis)use the tools. —[[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)<s> Now a '''strong oppose''', canvassing and likely misuse of tools aside, the constant badgering of other opposers leaves a ''really'' sour taste. —
I must also '''Oppose''' due to the remark regarding IPs and other concerns above. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' The canvassing issue isn't great, and hints at a lack of understanding of what the community would deem appropriate behaviour. More than that though, the remark about "minor editors" just does not sit that comfortably with me. --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Regretful oppose''' - nothing on his user page, no admin-style work yet.  Try again in six months' time.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Little activity in admin-related areas.
Per QuiteUnusual and after seeing [[User_talk:DCGeist#Rollback_2|this]] where the user said they do not consider editors discussing an article to have good faith.  Good faith is the idea that someone wants to improve the encyclopedia.  If the candidate thinks those two editors are intending to hurt the encyclopedia ''on purpose'' then the topic should be brought up at a relevant noticeboard.  Disagreement is not the same as intending to hurt the encyclopedia.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Per comments on "minor editors," IPs, and other issues expressed by others above.
'''Oppose''', blanking the talk page and not providing any adequate possibility to check what you have written is a '''no go''', moreover having made ~30% of all edits at one article ([http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Roger_Waters&since=&until=&grouped=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html]), not opting monthly stats in; no CSD log, no edits in the file/file talk space and only one upload at enwp (but wanting to work with/against copyvios), the only WP/WT edit I saw (back to 2010) were at PR and FA related pages. So why do you need that rights? <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Strong Oppose''' - per [[User:Mabdul|Mabdul]] and the fact the user does not have edits spread across different namespaces (user has 7/8). Thanks,
'''Strong Oppose''' To make someone into an admin when they have virtually no experience of admin-related work would be absurd. However, what is worse is the fact that, from comments on this page, it seems that GabeMc cannot see why that is a problem. Add to that comments which suggest that GabeMc wishes to use adminship for dubious purposes E.g. "have some actual authority over a new ip" and "I am getting to the point of not wanting to argue with every minor editor". Adminship '''''is not''''' a tool to give you "authority" over other editors who do things you dislike, nor to avoid having to discuss things with people you disagree with, and nobody who thinks they are should be let loose on the admin tools. Also "a new ip" and "minor editor" suggest a contemptuous attitude towards some classes of editors, and a belief taht some editors deserve less respect than others. And all this ''in this RfA page'', suggesting that the editor has no idea that these things are contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
'''Strong Oppose'''
I don't care about the lack of DYKs or the transclusion error, but I'm concerned by a combination of a few other factors.  As noted above, you're almost entirely without contributions to WP: space pages, except content-related pages (e.g. FA/GA/peer review); while that's good, it would help if you'd participated more in trying to get pages deleted and/or trying to save them from being deleted, as well as working to help or to stop other users in community pages, whether AFD or RD or VP or AIV.  That by itself isn't a sufficient reason to oppose, but it is when combined with other issues.  Almost all of your deleted edits are to another user's sandbox, which shows that you've either done almost nothing with speedy deletion or that your work with speedy deletion hasn't been correct.  Moreover, what I guess your opinion of adminship to be ("earning adminship" and authority over IPs) is problematic, and I'm also troubled by the many disputes that appear at your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=391714549 more recent talk archive].
'''Oppose''' per Hot Stop.
'''Oppose''' I see no need for the tools. As far as I can see, you have little experience in admin zones such as anti-vandal work etc.
'''Oppose''' While blanking one's own talk page is allowed, I've always found it to be a bad indicator among those who do it repeatedly.
'''Oppose''' The editor's content contributions are good, and I have no other substantive objections to what they ''have'' done so far at Wikipedia, but it is what they ''haven't'' done that raises some concerns.  There is a lack of experience in working in any of the areas that administrators work in.  As noted above, ANI is a suckhole that is less than worthless, and if that is where you think you are needed, then you aren't needed.  Get some experience in nominating articles for speedy deletion, in warning vandals and reporting them at AIV and UAA, and especially in dispute resolution processes.  Learning how to assess conflict situations and diffuse tensions is a good skill for admins.  Take all this as advice, and if you get some serious experience in doing administrator-like tasks before you get the tools, you'll be ready to use the tools in a few months.  Just not ready yet.  --
'''Oppose'''. I am extremely sorry to oppose, but I have no other options available. This user's constant badgering of the opposers is ''extremely'' worrying{{ndash}} also the remark about "minor editors" and "new ip's", and the canvassing, are unacceptable. You also don't seem to feature much experience in admin-related areas: you've only !voted on one AFD debate, and the lack of reports to AIV/UAA/SPI is not decent at all. Again, I'm sorry to oppose. Perhaps after you've gained more experience in admin-related areas and have addressed all of the concerns by the opposers, you would be ready. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' - [[User:Bmusician|Bmusician]] sums it up nicely.  Authoring skills are not the same as admin skills, and the candidate's handling of the pressures during this RfA make it clear they aren't ready to dive into messy situations that admins and even non-admins have to deal with daily.  They lack the restraint and basic communication skills that we would expect of any admin, and a lack of clue when it comes to policy and guidelines in general.   Maybe someday, but not today.
'''Oppose''' - A good content contributor, certainly. However, the combative attitude taken to this RfA, the comments about "minor editors" and the lack of experience in any admin related areas worry me.
'''Oppose''' - The comments by the candidate on this very page are more then enough to prove that serious concerns of judgement and temperament are on going issues of a very serious nature. This diff is particularly concerning, including the edit summary. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GabeMc&diff=prev&oldid=489560613] If this argumentative, overly defensive and consistent badgering of those opposed; regardless of the weight of their arguments; is likely indicative of future actions if approved.
'''Oppose''' - Clearly unsuited per candidate statements. Strongly suggest we not prolong this pile-on and close asap via [[WP:SNOW]], thanks.
'''Oppose''' I'm not seeing any particular reason for Gabe to need the mop. I'm sure he means well, but outside of his work on Malcom X, and articles related to the Beatles and Pink Floyd, there isn't much of anything. Not too much work with antivandalism either. He wants to help at ANI, but hasn't touched it since July 2010. I'd suggest taking some time to familiarized in more areas of Wikipedia before saying you want to work in them. '''''
'''Oppose''' I'm just not seeing enough experience, or knowledge, of admin, or indeed any non-content related, tasks.  There is no one thing that raises enough of a red flag to oppose but across all the questions the lack of references to policies, the various noticeboards and similar makes me wonder if they have enough knowledge of these areas.  I am also somewhat concerned by their oppose to Calabe1992 RfA.  Not because I think it's in retaliation or anything but rather because of the comments like "But he has done a total of only 34 edits to this page, 34!" which seems to show that they do not have enough experience of how different editors work - 34 edits to an article for some contributors would be a lot and could represent a lot of good content work if they used preview a lot and only saved at the end of a major edit.
'''Oppose''' I'm not happy with the responses to !votes and other comments here. There are times when being down-to-earth (shall we say) is needed. I've been downright rude on occasions, and ended up with successful ends to disputes. In one's RfA, no, that's not the place or time. (On the other hand, I get put off by candidates who seem to crawl...) The candidate has done some quite good work for the encyclopaedia, and I hope that goes on. I applaud the courage shown in sticking it out here, and hope that the advice given isn't rejected per the old saying about free advice, namely that it's only worth what you paid for it. The admin here should bear in mind the other saying - 'speak softly but carry a big stick'. A mop is a big stick, despite the soggy bit at one end. Speaking softly most often saves the need to use the big stick. I've moved from neutral reluctantly, and have left my advice down there. Take it or leave it. I would hope to support the next time.
Without evaluating the candidates contributions in depth, the way they have conducted themselves at this RFA concerns me. I worry how the candidate will respond to good faith questions brought up by other editors if the candidate deletes an article, closes a discussion or blocks a user. I'd recommend the candidate withdraw the RFA, work on the concerns brought up by those in opposition, and try again in six months to a year. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''; deliberately disrupting another RfA, especially when this one was in progress, was a bad idea; specifically, asking deliberately well-poisoning questions to [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] people with your opinion about policy doesn't indicate you're ready for adminship.  You're going to have to deal with people who disagree on policy matters, and you need a better tactic than repeatedly presenting your personal opinion as fact and refusing to work with any disagreement.

'''Oppose''' - I think this user has good intentions and will likely make a good admin some day, but I don't see enough experience and familiarity with the nuts and bolts of this project. My advice is to continue gaining experience with article building and admin-related areas and try back in 6-12 months. Best regards,
'''Oppose'''. Seems a bit of a bully, to be honest. Arguing with Calabe1992 at Calabe1992's RfA is one thing, getting a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Calabe1992_2&diff=prev&oldid=489872501 final kick in] after Calabe1992 withdrew is [[WP:STICK|quite another]].
'''Oppose'''. No  compelling  reasons for according  this user the tools; no convincing  arguments that  they  would be used wisely; insufficient  demonstration of required interpersonal skills; general lack of experience in admin  related areas.
'''Oppose''' - partly because he fails [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]], and partly because he requested adminship without first making an attempt to learn what adminship ''is''. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose''' I don't want to pile on, but the answers to the questions posted to test the nominator's knowledge of common admin tasks leave a lot to be desired.
'''Strong Oppose''' Candidate has only 6% of his edits to the Wikipedia: namespace. Atleast he should have had a bit more.
'''Oppose''' per 28bytes.
'''Oppose''' for not taking advice from several users to withdraw the nomination. Poor judgement which is likely to impact negatively on a future RfA if held too soon. Candidate probably has a deal of work to do now to gain the community's respect. But it's all part of the learning experience, and hopefully he'll bounce back. '''
'''Oppose''' - Primarily per 28bytes.  The candidate's conduct at that RfA would probably be enough for me to oppose outright. Their responses at that RfA and at this RfA come across (to me and to others here) as intimidating, combative, blunt and with a lack of good faith.  As well as this, answers to the additional questions (and some rebuttals) demonstrate a lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia works including Q4 and Q8 - the response to Q5 does not answer the question fully. Knowledge of Wikipedia's processes and etiquette is gained through experience, and in order to know all the things that people expect you to know, more experience is required.
Sorry, have to add myself here as well. You have good intentions and all, but your conduct as of late really makes me cringe, plus there are valid concerns over lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. Sorry. –
User seems to be misunderstanding the role and purpose of the sysop flag greatly. <i><b>
'''Very very strong oppose''' per [[User:Yasht101|Yasht101]]. '''''
'''Oppose'''. I'm not convinced that this user needs admin tools, and if he does he doesn't have the necessary experience for them.--
'''Oppose''' candidate does not have the necessary experience for admin tools. Almost all their Wikipedia-space edits are to content related pages such as FAC/GAR or relate to content disputes they were involved in. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this participation - I haven't checked - only that it has nothing to do with adminship. If a candidate intends to use their admin tools to block vandals then I would expect a good record of reports to [[WP:AIV]] to indicate they can be trusted with the block button, this one has no reports at all. If a candidate wants to do copyright work then I would expect evidence of participation at [[WP:SCV]], [[WP:CP]], [[WP:CCI]] etc or evidence that they have a good record of tagging copyright violations for speedy deletion. This candidate has no such participation and hasn't tagged any copyright violations for deletion (or any pages at all, for that matter), and the answer to Q5 isn't encouraging. Obviously RfA candidates can't be experienced in every area of admin work, but they should certainly be experienced in ''some'' area of admin work. In addition I share the concerns of others above that the responses on this page indicate the candidate does not have the necessary judgement for adminship. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
Neutral, as I don't feel qualified to decide. I have been invited to a few votes and discussions (mainly over The Beatles) which seem to have been resolved sensibly, but that's about it. And my time commitments are currently such that I can't spend ages researching. --
I generally would like to see admin candidates have some experience in the areas they profess an interest in working, and I don't see that here. While I have no basis for thinking the candidate is anything but a good faith contributor, and thus wont oppose, I just don't see much of any experience in quasi-administrative areas. Also, whats with the notifications on user talk pages regarding this RFA?
Contributions pattern indicates that this is a content creator or a copy editor, not a vandal fighter. I'm not sure why the administrative toolbox would be useful — be proud of what you do at WP and do it well and leave the janitorial tasks to the janitors. Why would you venture to put yourself through this dysfunctional process in the first place? You have one oppose vote (worth 3 favorable ballots) because you transcluded a page improperly. I've been here since the end of 2008 and I don't even know what that means, but obviously THAT'S a terminal offense. Another vote against you (=3 positive votes) because you tend your talk page the rational way, by blanking it periodically (all the information is preserved in the edit history and the "archives" can be easily spotted with the large negative numbers for size change). So you've waded into the shit pit for no good reason, other than to illustrate to other content creators why they should NEVER venture into these fetid waters.
I'm going to be neutral. I like the editing pattern, it's quite good, answers to questions are satisfactory, but I don't like the Getting admin tools to control content part. --
Though I do not oppose this candidacy, and have absolutely no reason to think that this person would be a ''bad'' admin, I do not feel comfortable with an outright support at this time.  If the editor works even more in some areas he'd be interested in doing administrative tasks in, I would support a later candidacy.
'''Neutral''' Per discussions above.--
'''Neutral''' ~ No reason for this user to ''abuse'' administrator tools - however would they even ''use'' them? that question poses somewhat of a concern to me at this stage. Other than that, a wonderful user, and if current RfA does not have a desired outcome, I suggest Gabe run at the end of the year - by then they should have all their ducks lined up in a row {{=)}} -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. A fine user, I see no evidence of irresponsibility with accounts and I can easily get over an imbalance of edit count. While (s)he may not always be politically correct with their language towards other users, has never crossed the line and become uncivil for a good chunk of their edits going back a bit. No reason to suspect (s)he isn't the real deal and could not be trusted with the bit.
'''Support''' until provided with a satisfactory reason not to.
'''Support''', great user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Qualified and competent.  I don't know if it's just because it's the same option I chose to use at my RfA, but I think I prefer when experienced candidates go with the self-nomination.  It simplifies things and reduces the political nature of RfA.  Kudos and good luck.
'''Support''' I'm uncomfortable with your position on GLAMs, but that's not a reason to oppose a candidate who is likely to be a good admin.
'''Support'''. The edits I see are good and fine and thoughtful. I don't need to see more zeroes at the end of that number to appreciate their quality. Good luck.
'''Support''' despite the position on Glams, which I entirely disagree with. But I see the argument Gigs makes more as a rhetorical position; I don't expect it would lead to a rash of blocks for museum staff and deletions of their work by this editor.
Longterm editor with a clean blocklog and mostly quite sensible edits. The comment on the GLAM sector is troubling, but like Nyttend and Kim Dent-Brown I'm inclined to support despite that as a net positive. ''
'''Support''' Like others, I don't entirely agree with your position on GLAMs but I can see where you are coming from and you can support your position, which (I believe) is important for an admin, and an editor in general. I also understand what Dennis (among others) are saying regarding your frequency of editing, and one of my bug bears is users with tools who don't use them. However given that you have gone for an RFA I am comfortable (and I hope) that you plan to use the tools the community is trusting you with. I hope this RFA succeeds and you start using your new mop well in a week. '''
Reasonable and dedicated, and has been for years. - Dank (
'''Support''' Really good answers to questions (I don't agree with them all, but they are reasonable and well explained) and I've had good experiences with this editor.
'''Support''' I asked a question above and the candidate answered brilliantly!--
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Strong, competent, informed, great reasoning Why he/she wants to be administrator.  In back-and-forth Q&As above, I think one or two questioners are not capable of understanding that Gigs really did answer their questions completely and reasonably.  I assume those questioners will vote oppose, but IMO their views should be discounted. --
'''Support''' &mdash; On balance, I am not convinced that granting [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] adminship would be to the detriment of Wikipedia, which is what RfA is supposed to gauge. Certainly I do disagree with some of his positions pertaining to sourcing and [[WP:BLP|our coverage of biographical articles]], but simply holding radically different views than the norm is not enough in itself to convince me that somebody would abuse the sysop bit for the purposes of advancing their position. [[User:Dominic|Dominic's]] oppose is not concerning to me, for the same reason as I've outlined already with regards to sourcing and BLPs; however, there is the added caveat that it ''does'' show a willingness on Gigs's part to ''stir the pot'' a bit, which I have no problem with so long as it's not taken to such an extreme that it belittles the opinions of others. I am reasonably convinced that it does not, and so this is a non-issue insofar as it pertains to this user's suitability for adminship. The only oppose rationale that actually holds any water for me is that of [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], who I think shares the same gut reaction that I myself had gotten while reading his answers to the questions. Admittedly, something rubs me the wrong way. I don't think Gigs intended for anything he said to come across as ''pretentious'', nor do I think he is even in possession of an inflated ego by any stretch of the imagination, but comments such as "I already am [an administrator], really" or " I am happy to entertain any number of questions at this RfA...but I reserve the right to not answer them" do give me pause as to whether or not he can adequately assess the perception that his words might give off to others. Nevertheless, when all is considered, I believe we can trust Gigs with the added bit.
'''Support''' Was expecting to cast my 4th oppose vote when I saw you up for nomination, as Ive seen you about and havent liked your strongly worded contributions to discussions, especially concerning outreach and COI.  But having sampled your other contribs, you generally seem reasonable, constructive and of good temperment, so no real reason to think you'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - We need more help and we need to give more candidates an opportunity to help. ~
'''Support''' No problems here, and the help is needed!
'''Support, from neutral''' Thanks to the clarification of question 17's answer, I now support this RFA. Solid user, solid contributions, and due to the elaboration on answer 17, he hits the nail on the head of "no big deal".
'''Support''' I was planning on voting neutral, but your answer to Question 17 convinced me to support you. Good luck!
'''Support''' - some minor concerns, but overall a good candidate who will benefit Wikipedia with the extra tools.
'''Support''' - we need admins who are ready, willing and able to wade in to a contentious and hot-headed situation without making it worse.  Gigs has demonstrated this ability.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong Support''' From someone who has crossed paths with Gigs multiple times, including disagreeing heavily at times; I know Gigs has the experience and knowledge of policy required for adminship. His participation in the areas he wishes to work is stellar, and his policy knowledge is fine-tuned. None of his opinions lead me to believe that he would cause disruption to the project.  It is good to be wary of COI editing and question a specific outreach that promoted it. This shows that Gigs has ethical character, which is important as admins are representative of Wikipedia as a whole. '''
'''Support'''. Gigs is an experienced and thoughtful editor who is familiar with the policies, and who I believe would be an asset as an admin.
'''Weak support'''. Lacking content creation, but there is evidence of productive interactions with other editors. Generally sensible.
I don't have any problems with an admin whose opinions are inconvenient or, more generally, do not match the current consensus of the community, provided he can be trusted not to try and subvert said consensus using his mop. I see nothing that suggests Gigs should not be afforded that trust. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified. I trust this user to not abuse the tools and respect the responsibility that comes with the position. --
'''Support''' Good understanding of policies, good contributions to them over the years. '''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''', of course.  As a side note, what on earth does the definition of "plagarism" have to do with being an admin?  Irrelevant questions are irrelevant. --''
'''Weak Support''' Strong concerns regarding his response to question about [[Julian Assange]] and per his editing in 2011. Please review Wikipedia policies regarding [[WP:Biographies of living persons]]: [[Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE#Avoid_victimization|Avoid victimization]], [[Wikipedia:BLPNAME#Privacy_of_names|Privacy of names]], [[Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy|Presumption in favor of privacy]]. (Otherwise, a reasonable, independent, highly capable editor with back-bone, who could become a useful future administrator.15:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)) You accepted talk-page consensus, so this disagreement need not disqualify you even today. I updated my oppose to "weak" support, in this RfA.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
An extremely clueful editor that, per his own statement, is essentially an administrator in standing already. Those few opposes that have any point to them at all seem to chastise him for having an opinion, even though he's quite plainly in deference to the project's consensus as a whole even when he strongly disagrees with it. As for the lack of articlespace contributions, the reason to care about raw editing figures (unless you're one of those dreadful types who believe that the project should be run by whoever has the most FAs) is because edit count is usually closely aligned with clue: it is, however, possible to develop clue through means other than pounding away on articles, and there is no doubt Gigs has managed it.
I only just noticed recently that this editor wasn't an administrator. Some concerns, but agree a net positive. On a slight tangent, having ~25% article space contributions is fine. Some article editing patterns don't fit the pattern of obtaining DYKs. If someone arrives, and improves a section of a large article, there are no awards (or at least none that I am aware of). Or, if an article is skewed towards a POV, there is no award for cleaning up the issues. We want admins that deal with issues, not spend all their time writing articles; Admins are there to support editors, we want them to act in a non-editing capacity and if they can't then they should remain editors.
'Support': Understands why rational policies are important, doesn't F.A. around with irrelevant guff.
Long-term contributor who is communicative, knowledgeable, and generally sensible. Yes he has some strong opinions but I don't see anything to suggest that he might use admin tools contrary to consensus. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose:''' [[User:Gigs#One_line_rants]] this section makes me nervous.  Beyond that, [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Gigs&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia low volume of main space edits] to me is troublesome and indicates may not have a complete understanding of core content issues that content editors face.  We're hear to build an encyclopedia. We can't do that with content.  See no GAs, no DYKs, no FAs, no claim of credit for elevating articles to B that indicate familiarity with content issues.  No comment on non-content work in oppose. --
Based on admittedly limited observation, Gigs seems to be too much of a provocateur. His responses above do not inspire confidence in his judgment, and it was only a couple of weeks ago that he was flippantly [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA|suggesting we delete all GLAM projects]]. I fear the positive contributors he could alienate with the block or delete button and that attitude. In the interest of not letting that discussion thread above dominate this page, I am going to leave it be and just make this my final opinion down here.
'''Oppose''' per Dominic and the answers and discussion above.
'''Oppose''' Not much of a consistent editor. Based on my observation, edits boomed on 2009 and shrank this year. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Dominic pretty much sums up a good chunk of my feelings. He is too much of a provocateur. And not really a fan of his answers to the questions. -
'''Oppose''' Relatively low IMHO article space edits and content creation to effective evaluate editors behavior and discussions on article content.  Plus, the comments alluded to by Dominic-t above about GLAM were indeed flipant and reflect a complete lack of understanding of the importance of outreach for the future of the project.  Of course the comments can be explained after the fact, but they were made and one must assume they were made with sincerity.  This is not an editor I would trust with the tools. --
'''Oppose''' (previously neutral) after seeing answers and looking closer.  I do not think candidate has the right temperament needed to be an admin, plus concerns expressed in my neutral comments.
'''Oppose'''—In requesting the promotion, it seems reasonable to expect that they should demonstrate that the inability to perform specific functions crucially diminishes their long-term contributions to Wikipedia. Given the scarcity of the editor's contributions since December 2010, their justification for requiring additional tools presently in October 2012 is casual, indefinite, and unconvincing. Without a significant increase in activity, or an elaboration on their rationale, the encyclopedia would not benefit substantially from presenting additional controls to the user. <span>
'''Oppose'''. The candidate's understanding of COI is frankly ridiculous, and he ought not to be given the power to police it.
'''Oppose'''—As much as this user seems like a good user, I don't see enough activity to prove the need for these tools. I am usually very picky with things, but I see I am not the only one who sees this. I see that you also mention you had a major illness from September 2011 to mid January 2012. I understand that you were dealing with a lot but you still don't see much activity leading up to this RfA. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers, </span><font color=#0E0E42>
'''Oppose''', specifically due to the concerns expressed by Dominic, which I share, and explicitly ''not'' on the rationales of "need for the tools" or "edit count", both of which are bogus. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - While I don't think numerous GAs or 10,000 edits a month are required to become an administator, I do agree with Dominic's assessment. -
'''Oppose'''. I have found this user unwilling to accept consensus on BLPs in [[WP:Prof]] and repeatedly pushing his POV there. I do not trust him not to misuse administrative powers to promote his own views. I think he is temperamentally unsuitable to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' mostly in agreement with Dominic and Mike Cline. I really don't see the level of activity that would indicate a need for the tools. That and concerns with COI/GLAM lead to opposing. Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' per Dominic. I wasn't committed either way, but then I saw your comments at [[Wikipedia_talk:PC2012/RfC_2#Cancel_RfC_3|the talk page of the second PC RfC]] and Dominic's point began to be very persuasive.
'''Oppose'''- Has made too many judgement mistakes to be a reliable admin. '''
'''Oppose''' mostly per KW above. Not enough experience for me.
'''Oppose'''. What Dominic said, what Mike Cline said, what Kiefer said, what Malleus said. I'm not impressed with A.5, nor with the claim in A.15, "I already answered the first part of this in question 5". Moreover, I detect a note of arrogance that the editor has not, in my opinion, earned.
'''Oppose'''. What Drmies said.
'''Oppose'''. Re: Drmies & MF.
'''Oppose''' per LauraHale, Dominic·t and Malleus Fatuorum.
'''Oppose''' Non contributor. Only 25% article space edits. No record of producing quality content. No understanding of BLP or COI policies.
'''Oppose''' – Arrogance, misunderstanding of key policies, and lack of article contributions. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' per above, lack of experience, misunderstanding of policies, etc. <font face="Impact">
'''Oppose''' per MF, Dennis Brown, and Dominic.--<span style="">
'''Oppose'''. For the record, I couldn't care less about Gigs's lack of featured content or the distribution of his edits. But his attitude doesn't seem right to me for an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Per Dennis, similar concerns.
'''Oppose''' per poor understanding on copyright.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FQuiteUnusual&diff=518524076&oldid=518523304]
'''oppose''' - the las diff is enough for me to oppose. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
Per the nomination statement, the candidate has an stated interest in Afd, hence his track record in making good CSD calls (potentially misleading link removed) is relevant.
After considering relevant factors, I land neutral. It is as much a deficient process as what becomes a concern regarding the candidate. If adminship truly was "no big deal" and "easy in, easy out" was the order of march, Gigs is a good prospective admin and I'd gladly support. Considering how things are done, I understand the reluctance that has moved so many to oppose. Because the largest deficit lies with the process, I will not oppose. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
I don't mind that the editor wades into contentious discussions voicing an opinion. There are very few topics which shouldn't be open to discussing. But therein leads to my trouble. I find I have a LOT of questions for the editor that I'd like clarified and/or expanded. And every question I've asked (and others have asked) so far, has me wanting to ask continued follow-up questions. But I think that such discussion would be much longer than the timeline of an RfA : ) - However, without that, I don't feel I can support based solely on the candidate's contributions to date. There are more than a few things I've read that I think were a quick, seemingly truncated comments, which I think may have been helped with a much more full comment for clarity. (Though of course, despairing of falling into the zone of [[Wikipedia:Bradspeak|Bradspeak]] : ) - The GLAM situation being one example that others have brought up. But neither can I oppose. I see a fair amount of "clue" in their comments above and elsewhere. Which I guess plants me squarely in neutral. - <b>
'''Neutral''' - I have seen Gigs around for a while, and while I've disagreed in the past with some of the positions, in my review I was impressed by the amount of good work. I think the "controversial" label is misleading. I've seen a lot of really good, nuanced interaction from Gigs, much of which impressed me. I'm neutral because of the rather low workload as of late, and because, despite the above, there are some occasional concerns. I think that some of the opposes are piling on, which is why I bother to even !vote.
'''Neutral''' I note what seems to be level-headed discussion (e.g. [[Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy]]), your various reasoned work against vandalism and the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/draft|new COI draft]], but am currently undecided. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Neutral, from Support''' There are a few concerns now where I don't feel comfortable supporting. Regards, —
'''Neutral''' While I've had no firsthand dealings with Gigs and they seem to be a capable editor, I see too many differences from community consensus to feel comfortable with additional tools at this time.
'''Neutral''' -  to  avoid a pile-on. With  the exception  of this month, possible due to  the participation  in  this RfA, Gigs' edits have averaged 49 in  the last  12 months. While some RfA candidates in  the past  have have successfully  claimed that  the course of their editing  could involve many  uses of the admins tools, I  don't  see this as being  the case here.
'''Strong neutral''' I'll suggest that perhaps they made this RFA request at a bad time - i.e. so close to having been away for very valid reasons.  Valid or not, not all editors pay attention to such reasons.  That was probably, on hindsight, a poor judgement call.  I have typically seen reasonably positive interactions with Gigs, at least from memory.  There are a few issues raised her that make me say "hmmm", but I don't see enough to make me believe they would be anything but a net-positive. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Moral Support''' Your heart is in the right place, but unfortunately you do not have the experience. Better luck next time!
'''Moral Support''' Please continue to edit Wikipedia and take the feedback given in the opposes to heart. Who knows, you'll be an admin before you know it! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
Going through 2012 edits I actually see few AIV reports or notes to administrators. Most of your reverts are also not accompanied by notes to the other editors so they aren't instructive and not all removal of "irrelevant information" or restoring a redlink qualifies for [[WP:Rollback|rollback]]. Whilst you might be doing something useful with mop, I'm actually concerned you'd use stuff like semiprotection in your own area of interest which on the other hand seems rather limited. I'm also unhappy with [[User:GSorby/George_Sorby|this]] not even no-indexed although AnemoneProjectors told you how-to.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MayhemMario&diff=prev&oldid=472255196] --
'''Oppose''' with regret. I see only 90 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and a significant portion of that is to your own RFAs. I would suggest participating more in the Wikipedia namespace (including issues that aren't related to you or your topic). --'''
'''Oppose''' The contributions are OK and edit count is sufficient.  This user has the Rollback, File Mover, and Reviewer rights.  On the hand, this is the fourth RfA in less than 2 years.  User seems a bit anxious to be an admin.  This potentially tells me that he wants the tools so bad that when he uses them, might abuse them.  Seeing those AIV reports does push me to oppose this RfA.  Do not believe that this was the doing of Tikiwont that pushed me to this.  The description of user is not convincing and does not explain why this user would like to be an admin.—
'''Oppose''' per above. I'll ask you about AfD and other things.
I've reviewed a sizeable chunk of your contributions to get an overall picture, and I'm satisfied that you are a level-headed and clueful editor. However, and keeping in mind that you said you wanted to focus on a specific area of the wiki, and that this area may very well be in need of a sysop, I feel your experience so far has been too narrow. I see virtually no contributions to administrative areas of the wiki : no edit to the help desk (except to ask a question), no edits to the administrator noticeboards (besides a specific SPI case), only one report to AIV and little anti-vandalism experience, and very little CSD tagging or involvement with the deletion process as a whole. And then three small things (I wouldn't oppose over them, but they are important to mention) : <br />{{*}} your marking of some edits as minor is not always accurate, here is one of many [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Branning&diff=prev&oldid=474275906 examples]<br />{{*}} you did not appear to know about tagging fair use old revisions as orphans<br />{{*}} I'm a little puzzled by your very liberal use of the filemove tool; did [[:File:Simonwicks88.jpg]] really need to be moved to [[:File:Simon Wicks.jpg]], [[:File:Jamie mitchell11.jpg]] to [[:File:Jamie Mitchell.jpg]], etc?<br />Long story short, this oppose is based on your narrow focus of editing; there is nothing wrong with that per se, but admin candidates need to have demonstrated experience elsewhere than in their primary area of interest. Diversify your work, and I'm sure you would make a good admin candidate. Best regards,
'''Oppose'''.  Not yet.  I've not yet seen sufficient contributions, and as noted above by some sufficient contributions across a broad swathe, to lead me to support.  At the same time, I encourage the editor to keep at it, as in time I hope he may have sufficient experience.--
'''Oppose'''. As well as the above, poor understanding of [[WP:SOCK]] makes it hard to give the editor the Mop.
'''Oppose''' candidates creating "draft" vanity articles such as [[User:GSorby/George Sorby]]. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Opppose'''.  I suggest you (1) don't nominate yourself again, and (2) enjoy being an editor on wikipedia, its really the best job around here.--'''
'''Oppose'''. There's a lot of really good advice in this section, and I urge you to take it on board. The most critical point I can make is this - don't reapply for RFA. Not yet, anyway. Give it a year, edit some articles, and - perhaps most importantly - help out at AIV and AFD and elsewhere. Comment on debates, show that you know your policies and your precedents and whatnot. Then find a mentor and follow their lead. I think you've got it in you to be a good admin, but you need to show that you can handle the job. Participating in the wikipedia space is a really good first step. This is your fourth RFA, and that gives the appearance that you're in it to win it, so to speak. If you take a step back and edit normally, helping out in the project space, you'll have no trouble passing RFA 5. But you need to put that time in first. Good luck.
'''Support''' – Outstanding editor who is qualified and trustworthy. <font face="Arial" size="2em">
'''Support''' - Great editor with wide understandings and knowledge of the Wikipedian policies and also a problem resolver. His attitude is also one of his main qualities. —
'''Support''' Great editor, I don't see why I should oppose →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' I think Hahc has been here long enough, is qualified, and has an even better attitude about editing on Wikipedia (unlike some).
'''Strongest Support Ever''' I cannot say enough about Hahc21. First of all, he is involved in just about everything here, from anti-vandalism, to GA reviews, to content creation, to AfDs, you name it. Second of all, he has been extremely helpful to me as my content creation coach and I see no reason why he wouldn't make a great admin.
'''Support, moved from neutral''' Hahc is obviously fit for this role and extra tools. Admins need to be able to distinguish between good faith edits and actual 3RR violations. Good egg from my perspective. <span style="border: 1px solid #CC3333">
'''Support''' I have not seen him much, but seeing his contribs, he can be trusted.
It's hard to believe that I'm opposing someone on the basis of relative inexperience, but it seems as if this RfA may have been a bit rushed. Hahc21, I think you have the potential to be a great admin someday. My advice is to wait a few months time and continue to be active in places like [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], so that you'll be more experienced and have developed a better understanding of those processes and their associated policies. After that, I have no doubt I'll support you. Good luck! =)
'''Oppose:'''Hahc21 is a solid editor and seems to be a very thoughtful and mature individual.  However, I'm concerned about his/her overall understanding of the nuances of policy.  In [[User_talk:Hahc21#Misunderstanding_edit_warring|a recent discussion]], I pointed some of this out to Hahc21. S/He quickly got it and was clearly receptive to my bringing it up.  The problem is we don't want folks learning things like this with a mop in their hand.  I think after a few months of active editing and involvement in many more nuanced discussions, this individual would make a great admin, but not quite yet.
'''Oppose'''. While I see a lot of quality work, I only see consistent activity since March. I'm concerned with the apparent lack of understanding or misinterpretation of policies and guidelines that are needed in order to accurately perform administrative tasks. The AFD started for [[Savan Kotecha]] is a bit alarming and shows a lack of knowledge about the notability guidelines and AFD procedures. While the article lacks significant sources in the article, sources are readily available. As an award-winning composer with several chart-topping songs throughout the world, the subject clearly meets the notability guidelines. There are just so many concerns here. Not to mention the failure to provide edit summaries. I'm also puzzled with the variance between the answers provided here and the ones provided in the editor review, completed less than a month ago. I would recommend waiting six months and spending time learning and participating in the processes that you wish to be involved as an administrator. Spend some time in CSD, AFD, and NPP, so we can see how you interact with new editors, and interpret and apply the deletion policy. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Regretful Oppose''' I've seen him around lately doing some pretty good work. However, I think he needs a few months' more experience before becoming an admin. To be sure, he will do a great job when sysopped, just needs more time to  really make sure he knows policy, which I have confidence he will do in the next few months. I will be very very pleased to support when I see his name up again in a few months. Don't take this to heart - you are a great editor and will be a great admin in time. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' - You have done just amazing with GA reviews but, I m sorry, I have to oppose merely due to inexperience and due to few problems at AfDs of late. You have got 10K edits which is great but 8K of it came in the last 3 months which is too low and too soon for me with RfA's point of view. I'd still support if it were good 6 months but not 3 months. On the other hand, voting at AfD makes me little uneasy. You have got only 63% votes matching the real consensus and this has occurred recently. This gives me a slight view of lack of judgement which is a must in an admin. I'd love to support you after 8-10 more months of continued editing and showing good judgement skills (taking care for noms, votes, etc.). All the best! '''''
'''Oppose''' &ndash; While I disagree with the above user's description of the nominated's GA work, I agree this is a bit rushed, not just because of inexperience, but because of rushness back after 3 months. While I won't comment on the AFD stuff brought up above, I wasn't really appealed in the situation with [[User:Status]]. I would love to support you in the future, but there is still some holes I'd like to see cleared. Nothing says I won't not support in the future. ;) <span style="font-family:Poor Richard;color:red;">Mitch<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:black;"><big>'''32'''</big><sup>(
'''Oppose'''- Relatively inexperienced until recently and has some problematic AfDs. To repeat what Toddst1 said, we don't want an admin learning on the job. '''
'''Oppose''' While you do good work, I will have to agree with most people here; There are some concerns with experience and AfDs going through your contributions. Tell you what, get a few more months of experience, and I will support you if you ever decide to run for adminship. And just like Bzweebl quotes from Todds1, we don't want an admin learning on the job. '''
'''Oppose''' with regret, largely based on a review of his past 50 AfD nominations.  I've made bad nominations, it happens to anyone, but when I see a number of AfDs where the nominator is poked about WP:BEFORE, that is worrysome to me, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citi_Bike],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Life_Within_A_Day]. etc. The candidate is doing a lot of great work, and hope that I'll a chance to support at some point in the future. --
'''Oppose''' for inexperience and unfamiliarity with notability guidelines and conflict resolution. The user in question identifies AfD as an area in which he or she would work if an admin. However, some of his nominations indicate a gross lack of understanding of [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline]] and [[WP:BEFORE]], as demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Savan_Kotecha here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citi_Bike here]. In response to Question 4, he states that he is unfamiliar with CSD criterion and counter-vandalism procedures relating to disruptive users. To echo other opposes here, I believe this is a situation in which way too much learning-as-you-go would occur. I also find the responses to Q3, Q5, and Q7 worrisome per ambiguity, and thus cannot trust that the user fully understands appropriate conflict resolution. Awesome content work, but not cut out for the mop (yet). --
'''Oppose''' I first encountered you fairly recently and I must say it did not leave me with a good impression at all. Comments like, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=500716108 "The fact thet AfD is not a vote doesn't give you open doors to double-vote on every AfD you start."] just made me think...what? Communication is a key element in being an admin. The problematic AfDs others have mentioned are also part of my oppose. And the answer to Q7 is not very satisfactory. Sorry, better luck next time.
'''Oppose''' Hahc21 doesn't seem to deal well with confrontation. In response to SplashScreen's concerns, Hahc21 repeatedly stated that he was saddened by the accusations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hahc21&diff=501183241&oldid=501183046] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Till_I_Go_Home&diff=501181974&oldid=501181581]. There was little to no attempt to discuss the specific concerns. I understand that the comments by SplashScreen has since been retracted, but I would expect a more mature response in this given situation. -
'''Oppose''' due to the AfD issues that have arisen and the need of admins to be knowledgeable about the many spheres in which they'll be working if approved.
'''Oppose''' Alarming response to question 7 was enough for me to conclude that there's still some policy to learn and some seasoning regarding communication that need to happen first. <code>
'''Oppose''' reluctantly. I know you mean well, and I think you would make a good admin in the near future, but I'm a bit concerned because it seems like you don't have the fullest grasp on relevant policies / guidelines. I would suggest waiting a few months, and putting some work in admin-related areas, before renom-ing. --'''
'''Oppose''' I also you realise you mean well and agree that you will make a good admin in the future. But I am concerned over the seeming lack of experience in admin related areas. As with [[User:Rschen7754]] I suggest you get some experience in these areas, and re-nom in a few months. '''
'''Oppose''' - Q7 was a trick, but it was a damn good trick. And one I think this user needs to think about before their next RFA. I have seen too many new admins, not to mention overzealous "pre-admins" that start dropping warnings on anti-vandals for edit warring. Not only is this annoying, but shows a very disturbing lack of situational awareness from someone who wants community trust. I hope that you consider the criticism you have heard here today, and I very much hope to see you back in a few months.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' The combination of the editor's general cluelessness [[User_talk:Calvin999|here]], and (whether you agree or not with the original decision) their unfathomable continued escalation of the situation through their actions shows a) a lack of policy knowledge, b) a lack of judgement, and c) a lack of the diffusion skills needed to be an admin, or some combination thereof.  Whipping an editor into a frenzy is '''never''' the actions we need on this project ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose'''&nbsp;- answer to Question 7 is problematic. I would like the "instant block" method not to be used on any editor, and would also like the user to attempt to discuss this on the talk page of the article AND the users talk page. Also, not many edits and only becoming active in April. '''⇒
'''Oppose''' You've mentioned that you want to work in AFD related areas but I see no non admin closures from you. I suggest you getting a bit more experience in that area.
'''Oppose''' Based on the responses to some of the questions the user appears too inexperienced.
I lean too early.  I think they do excellent work from what I've seen... but major edit history began only in April. They do great content work and have been very helpful at GAN which are points in their favour. --
'''Neutral''' I'm a little worried about being out of consensus 32% of the time at AFD, and that you didn't even participate at AFD until recently so this is pretty recent stuff.  What worries me most is that fully half of your total English contributions came last month, 5,152 out of your total 10,191, and literally 95% of your edit total is since March.  This gives me pause, so having to stay neutral until I can look deeper at your contribs, and the contribs on the other wikis.
I agree with Dennis Brown on the basis of being too early. But give it time and I'm sure you'll be accepted with no problems. :)
Pretty much per Laura's comments above. I actually think that Hahc21's answers to the questions are good. While I think that Q7 was asked in good faith, asking RfA candidates 'trick' questions such this is a poor practice in my view: I presume that Hahc21 would have reviewed what the edits in question were, and not blocked if it was clear that it was vandalism. We don't - or at least we shouldn't - expect candidates to be perfect, and angling for 'gotcha' moments like this is not helpful.
'''Neutral'''. Generally good contributions, but AfD work needs to be stronger. The answer to question 7 isn't great either.
'''Neutral''' Although I think he would make a good admin in time, the answer to Q7 wasn't well answered. I also agree with Toddst1 in the oppose. On a lighter note, the editor has good anti-vandalism work and a reasonable content creation record. I can see myself supporting in 4-12 months, when more experience is gained.--
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]], 17% of edits in article namespace.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - 260 Mainspace edits is not enough of a record to indicate your expertise in countering Vandalism. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 18:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC) <small> moved from support because I edited far too quickly
'''Oppose''' -  - Not enough experience yet.
'''Oppose''' - You need much more experience in wider areas of the project before anyone will consider your admin request. You have good intentions, so keep up the good work you're doing.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]].  I've seen some good anti-vandal work; however, you haven't shown enough work in various areas to prove that you have the experience required of an administrator.  While this is about a month old, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=483764798 this] on Malleus Fatuorum's page.  It occurred during the middle of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=483763389 ANI discussion].  This is an example where an administrator would have understood [[Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars|not to template the regulars]] as it can only escalate the issue.<tt>  </tt>
'''Oppose''' - not ready. In addition to relatively little work in article space, just a few days ago we saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hghyux&diff=487585203&oldid=487451824 "My belief is that trucing is in fact an ''immature'' act because it shows that you do not have the developmental ability to continue to stand your ground. Even if your wrong"]. User's participation in disputes raises questions of maturity. Then there was [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Lenar328|this]], which was [[WP:BITE|biting]] a newbie, generally badly handled. Needs some serious encyclopedia-building time before trying to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan Vesey. --
'''Oppose''' Editor for 3 months!? Rollback granted 15 minutes ago. Joke. Stop wasting people's time.
'''Oppose''' Besides the absolutely low edit count, and zero experience in admin-ish areas, the improper MFD of someone's userpage recently (and then they CSD'd the MFD page?!), plus the entire way they mishandled the MF's situation noted by Ryan Vesey (including the appeal to Jimbo) shows that there's a long, long way to go to have both the skills, maturity, and policy knowledge required to be an admin. I'm not saying it will never happen - but very very recent issues have shown it ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' as per recent interaction with this candidate, mentioned above.
'''Oppose'''. The Malleus interaction shows serious lack of judgment. I do hope you have learned from it; time will tell (one month is not a lot of time). Then, there seems to be a tendency to be quick on the trigger (CSD, vandalism), and a very, very, very low percentage of article edits. I am not convinced of the editor's thorough knowledge of policy either. But all of that is probably needless: this will most likely be closed by someone citing NOTNOW. Good luck; I wish you the best.
'''Oppose'''. I read the Obama talk exchange and, <s>um, no thank you</s> not now. --
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Very low edit count and little to no evidence of actually adding to Wikipedia beyond simply maintaining it. Concerns about judgment and knowledge of Wikipedia. Also very little experience in adminship areas.--
No. The user can't seem to take the hint that this RFA should be closed now, and seems to view adminship as a goal. I'm also sorry to assume bad faith, but userboxes stating that you "attend or attended Harvard" and "own a Lamborghini" seem at total odds with some rather immature edits and language structure. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' - respectfully, [[Talk:Barack_Obama#Proposal|this discussion]] does not indicate "an understanding of policy". It also does not demonstrate good communication skills in general, nor great [[wp:agf|collegiality]]. I would want to see significant growth and improvement before this editor applied to be an Admin again, vice 2 months from now: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hghyux&diff=488384638&oldid=488384295].
I had pleasant interactions with the candidate and have seen how they handle conflicts. I have at this point no problem giving them admin tools.--
He's not an admin yet?
Seems like a good guy. Cheers,<br />
Good contributions.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' User has lots of experience and seems to have contributed a lot to the project as can be seen from his work in DYKs and WikiProject Verifiability. I am sure he will use the admin tools well. Cheers. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000">
'''Support''' Thoughtful, intelligent and respectful editor who is easy to work with.
Has bucketloads of experience and the times I've seen him around he's seemed very level-headed. Can't see a reason to oppose. One thing I would suggest is that he answer the questions in a bit more depth than his first three. I don't see it as a problem, but others might and perceptions matter at RfA.
'''Support''' but I'm a bit disappointed; I was thinking about asking to nominate him myself in a few weeks!
This editor has displayed his competency in all matters, his civility no matter what, and his willingness to pick up the mop and get down to tasks that need doing. I am very glad to see him here at RfA.
'''Support''' - Smart, determined, very independent, trustworthy, civil, dedicated, experienced and focused.  There are exactly the qualities I look for in a candidate.  Everything else can be worked out over time.  I am completely confident he will make an excellent admin in every area he applies himself.  Like Blade, had I known he was interested in seeking the admin bit, I might have been persuaded to co-nominate him.
'''Support''' - I never vote here but I've noticed this guy around and when I saw this on my watchlist, I couldn't resist ;-). --<font face="Kristen ITC">'''
→<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - Seems competent and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - A fine editor. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Nice editor. He will make a good use of the tools.
'''Weak support'''. Not the most convincing reasons, but good contributions.
'''Support''' This candidate satisfies my criteria and I believe they will be excellent as an admin.—
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Smart, methodical, fair, and trustworthy.  All things an administrator needs to be a good leader for the community. <3
No real reason to oppose <s>as I'm assuming that the answer to Q14 is a brain fart&mdash;SPIs can conclude that no puppetry has occurred</s>. The disruptive sockpuppet accusation in the oppose has no substantiation right now, so I am ignoring it unless further evidence turns up.
'''Strong support'''
Ja, gut. <font color="#151B8D">'''
Reviewing the concerns of the opposition, I find no problem. In particular, the first opposer's suggestion is laughable.
'''Support''' I respect one or two of the editors opposed, although I do not believe that this candidate is [[user:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]. But i feel that this candidate will be a good admin. I like his answers to questions, and i like his independent attitude.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. I find his honesty and treatment of RfA as "no big deal" refreshing. It really isn't as big of a deal as we make it out to be - so give a good editor the tools.
'''Support'''. User:History2007 is an amiable user who is dedicated to improving the project and is a good candidate for becoming a sysop. I hope this helps. With regards,
'''Weak Support'''. Yes, I don't like the lack of depth on the questions. ''But'', I'll take the word of the editors above who have interacted with the candidate that he's trustworthy. I respect and value their opinions, which are a strong indicator to me of the character of History2007. --
'''Support'''. I find the user's edit history more important than the short answers to the questions. /
'''Support''' appears trustworthy, calm and clueful. That's enough for me and I'm baffled by some opposers' indignation at shortish answers to optional questions. Let us please return to judging "net positive" rather than ability to jump through arbitrary hoops.
'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already!
I'm
'''Support'''. Competent, civil and a long-term content contributor. Don't be surprised at short answers to questions if you're going to ask '''''nineteen''''' of them. —
Per AGK. At the rate things are going, this RFA will likely fail (if history is an indicator of anything) but it just shows just how broken RFA is. Answer questions with an answer that is too short, and you're opposed for rushing through them. Answer too long, and you're opposed for preparing answers. It's a no-win situation. I'll be delighted if this passes though. Best of luck mate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. i don't see any problems here. Agreed that the answers to questions are brief, but they do make sense (except for the conflict question - and the excessive use of 'anyway'!). And, the editor's opinions, the ones I've seen, are usually reasonably nuanced. The dogmatism on opt-in is, of course, odd but everyone is entitled to at least one foible (imo). --
'''Support'''. Strong editing-history, intelligence, academic knowledge, maturity, etc. It is not "disdain for voters" not to "opt-in" to edit counters, since such opting-in is optional, of course. "RfA is no big deal." Apart from his editing and administrative duties, the editor is a needed voice on policy discussions in the community. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I don't see any convincing reason to oppose. Answering questions capably if briefly is not a negative, and question 17, "why aren't you taking this seriously?" is along the lines of [[When did you stop beating your wife?]]  as a question, imo. I certainly hope History's experience here will not deter him from further volunteering to work in Wikipedia. As for this being a "job interview," well, I've taken and given quite a few over the years and I'd say that that is a rather poor analogy for the process we put people through at RFA.
'''Support''' - Historically trusted user and quality content creator, no reason to think that after all this time of contributing that they will make any wheels drop off if they get a couple of extra buttons - <font color="purple">
I suspect that this account History2007 has been sometimes used at [[WT:V]] by the the same person that has formerly used the account SlimVirgin there and who hasn't been posting messages there anymore with the account SlimVirgin. In other words, the account may be used by at least two people. --
'''Oppose''' I am one of the users who has not heard this name around much, so please excuse my reservations. The answers I read above, even if it's not being done this way, come across as rushed and not fully answered. Question 8 felt like a writeoff when it should have been answered (part of it wasn't even attempted to be answered). Question 11 was a very basic answer, and far less quality that I would expect from an administrator. Q14 is incomplete, Q15...was just not answered. As the user is applying for tools, it scares me to think what kind of response we'll get when we have an improper block issued (we all have issued an improper block), and especially if were dealing with a new user. Also, with no explanation of the [[WP:COI|use of tools in COI]], an area I am not familiar with on how the tools can be used there, I can only guess how the user could use the tools. Finally, I see no real explanation of how to solve a dispute or an example of a solved dispute. Without any of this, I can't support this user for the tools. --
'''Oppose'''. The last comment by History (just above) cinched it for me. Apparently, History doesn't really want to be an admin. Xe believes there is an area of Wikipedia ("technical fields") requiring more attention, and it'd be nice to have more admins in that area. Naturally, admins may focus more on some things than on others, but History's idea of an admin's responsibilities is way too narrow. Also, to some extent if xe wants to administer that area of Wikipedia, xe may find xe is stymied by being too involved and would be better off sticking to pure content issues. I also agree with Glrx that History is not taking this seriously and doesn't really care whether xe is successful here - it's "no big deal". Not a great start for a new admin.--
'''Oppose''' So much of the answers seem incomplete, and even when prompted for more are still  poorly answered.  Otherwise contributions themselves look basically ok.  That said, the absolute disdain for !voters by choosing to not "opt in" to the standard edit-counter, and the fact that they have not yet enabled e-mail show me that they either a) don't get it, or b) don't really want to be an admin (and based on their contributions, I really don't think their strong point on this project would be admin-type tasks) ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. It is unfortunate that the first oppose in this section is so ludicrous (and despite being in the same section, I strongly urge the crats to ignore it), as I think there are genuine reasons for concern here. I'm not at all impressed by the candidate's answers to the questions&mdash;they seem evasive and an attempt to say as little as possible. Clear and detailed communication, not evasion and redirection, are what we should expect from administrators. I'm singularly unimpressed by the answer to my question 11, where the candidate apparently thinks that any debate without an immediately obvious outcome is a no consensus, and no mention whatsoever is made in the answer of carefully reading the discussion and evaluating the arguments, checking for [[WP:SPA|single purpose accounts]], or any other normal process when closing a discussion. Also, question 8 (asking the candidate about content disputes) refers the reader back to question 7, but question 7 has nothing in its answer about content disputes, just content ''writing''. This leads me to believe that the candidate is not reading carefully or paying close attention, in effect is shooting from the hip, and that's another cause for significant concern. This is one I could see perhaps being successful at a later date, but not yet.
'''Oppose'''. I feel badly about this, because I've had many very good interactions with the candidate (and I'd rather not be in company with the first oppose). But I think that there is a deeper problem going along with the seemingly light answers to questions and the unusual resistance to letting the user contributions tool display. A long time ago, the candidate made a snarky series of edits that included a rather nasty comment to me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrucifixion_in_the_arts&diff=338994658&oldid=338985175]. I realize, of course, that this was a long time ago. But I decided to ask about it quietly on the candidate's talk today: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHistory2007&diff=497919507&oldid=497843592]. All the candidate had to do was give a simple explanation or the equivalent of a facepalm. Instead, the response was this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:History2007&diff=next&oldid=497919507]. It was basically to blow me off, to act like it wasn't worth the effort of replying seriously. Administrators need to be able to do better than that. I think the answer, above, to the standard question about disputes, is disingenuous in its claim that there have been no disputes worth bringing up. The candidate does have a prickly side. That, by itself, would not make me oppose. But part of being trusted with the tools is knowing one's limitations, and trying to pretend that those limitations don't exist just isn't good enough. Sincerely, I'm sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. I would like to start by saying that you appear to be a great editor. However, I think it should stay that way. A major part of being an administrator is being able to justify your actions in detail. From the looks of your responses to the questions above, I fear that you will not be able to explain your actions very well to those that object to them, especially blocks. Since the majority of the concerns expressed by those who oppose you are due to your short responses to the questions above, I think it may be worth your while to go back and improve them or re-answer them entirely with more detail. If you did so in the first place, we may not have asked so many. If you improve your responses before this RfA closes, I will be happy to change my !vote. Again, you're a great editor, but given the circumstances, I think that's the way it should stay.
'''Oppose'''&nbsp; The poll at [[WT:Verifiability/Archive 58#"The Verifiability policy is silent regarding errors in reliable sources".]] was IMO one of the more dramatic moments in the history of WT:V.&nbsp; We had been having trouble getting focused in earlier closely related discussions, in no small part due to History2007's contributions.&nbsp; The poll here explained a part of our difficulty, History2007 was not participating in consensus building.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Per: incomplete and/or poor responses to questions, 1-3, 8, 12, 15 and others. <s>Recent snarky interaction with Tryptofish and</s> Unscintillating's comments above. Also the noms comments: ''"The Rfa was initially John Carter's idea in any case, many months ago and I said I did not want to do it, for I saw no reason for it, and no advantage to me except more work ... I do not see a big deal here. If I get approved I will do that type of admin activity. Else it is no major issue for me"'' Does not instill confidence they would be proud to be an admin. Also a general attitude that borders on aloof, with badgering of opposes. Also, by choosing to not "opt in" to the standard edit-counter, it sends up a big red flag for me.
'''Oppose''' Per the poor answers to the questions above.
'''Oppose''' due to evasive, poor, and incomplete answers to the above questions. Apparently History doesn't take this seriously, so why should we? The responses to questions and concerns have come across rather flippant. If xe doesn't care to serve as an admin, I certainly would rather that the nomination fail. As you wish. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' I've had some good experiences with the editor in the past actually; however, I find the editor's reasons for not opting in as obstinate and difficult.  Opting in allows editors an easier method of beginning their search of your edits.  It is totally acceptable for you to choose not to do so as an editor, but I'm not going to support at this time.&nbsp;
'''Please don't'''. His disinclination to communicate answers is "refreshing" to some during this RfA, but will it seem so cute in future, as Admin, if asked to explain his actions? (It's like hearing scratching noises, inside an unopened cereal box. Don't say the warning wasn't right there in front of you.)
I am concerned over several issues here, especially the curtness of some of the answers. Question number 3 (and the related number 8) look like brushing away the issue. Others basically just point to a three letter code; we should remember that [[WP:IAR|rules are open to interpretation]] and that one's reasoning is just as important as the truth / accurateness of one's answers.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - the answer are certainly short and sweet, which I have no problem with, but there need to be enough there for a satisfactory answer which to me isn't the case here. Maybe another time. --
'''Oppose''' per ''e''.''g''. Seraphimblade, Rotorcowboy. '''
'''Oppose''' per evasiveness that will be massively frustrating to anyone interacting with him/her in the event of a dispute. This is demonstrated in both the answers here but more clearly in the interactions identified by Unscintillating above. Seems to be unable to give a straight answer but more interested in wasting everyone's time being evasive and arguing about semantics. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Oppose''' I agree with BWilkins on this one. This candidate does not have email enabled, and failing to opt in shows an unwillingness to cooperate, when in fact no extra information is given away by opting in.  There is a right to privacy, but to avoid public notice it is best not to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' I dislike opposing RfAs for editors who are experienced enough to handle the tools. Unfortunately, whilst I am not overly concerned with the shortness of the candidates answers to the original questions, I am much more concerned about the way in which they have responded to editors who have opposed or asked for clarification. The responses the candidate has given leave me with the impression they would rather ignore challenges, or resort to filibustering, than attempt to explain their actions in a concise, collegial fashion.
'''Oppose''' - Answers to the questions and the way of response to opposes will be my main reason to oppose. The answers have not been completely satisfactory and the response to opposes were not quite good. I have a doubt in my mind that how will they handle disputes properly. Sorry, but I have to oppose. '''''
'''Oppose'''. Anyone who seriously believes that being an administrator is "no big deal" is either hopelessly out of touch with reality or hopelessly naive. In addition, the rather perfunctory answers to some of the questions lead me to believe that the candidate may be inclined to use the tools inappropriately in defence of what he considers to be "the truth" about supercomputers or whatever.
'''Oppose''' Although I initially supported, the user's behavior is a bit too concerning to me. I look forward to the next time you run, as I am sure you'll be a great asset at that time.
Great article writing; I loved [[History of randomness]]. But the lacklustre answers to questions, poor edit summary use, failure to enable email or opt in to the edit counter and general impression given that they do not want or need the tools, all lead me to '''oppose'''. Sorry. --
This RfA contains examples that in isolation would not concern me enough to oppose. However their collective weight and close proximity overwhelmingly require that I oppose this nomination. I do believe that some good editors, like me, are not well suited for the admin bit. I now know this applies also to great editors like you, and MF too.
'''Oppose''' The candidate clearly is not willing to address concerns raised by the community against them as seen in the reply to oppose no. 22. As a side note, though the points made by the candidate in the discussions above seem to be good in the ideal case, they fail to realize RFA is not ideal.  <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
Sorry, but '''oppose'''. If you want to come into RFA blind, bluntly showing us your off-the-cuff self, that's indeed refreshing, and you get points for not putting on a fake mask of perfection - but you must be prepared for the fact that your off-the-cuff self is what's going to be considered, and your off-the-cuff self appears to be someone who doesn't quite understand adminship, its purpose, or its dictates. Responding to questions about how you would act in admin-related topics with sentiments of "Why are you asking me about this rather than my article work? Perhaps I don't want to do any article work anymore, either!" is just completely missing the point of why we're here. We're asking questions because we want you to show us what you can do and what you know, not because we're bored on a weekend afternoon and felt like chatting a bit.
'''Oppose''' I am unimpressed by the poor answers to some of the questions, particularly Q2, Q3, Q8, Q15 and perhaps Q14 as well. This editor has been impressive in terms of encyclopaedia work, and I hope that s/he carries on with that but I think it's likely that s/he'll make some bad mistakes if s/he does get the mop.
Since I'm still questioning the [[User:History2007|hopeful]], I'll stay to be neutral.
It's cases like this where I really question RfA. This user is clearly a ''good user'', no one really disputes that. This user is clearly a ''trustable user'', again, no real disputes. And yet because of a few 'meh' answers, the RfA is going down the tubes. Instead of looking for reasons why users aren't worthy of the tools, we should instead look for users that are good, trustworthy, long term contributors and give them the goddamned tools. Really, what harm could that do (yes, I know a small but vocal subset of users has a response to that). That being said, the whole jumping into SPI admin actions with little SPI experience thing is troubling.
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Just over 600 edits, only 20 in Article Space. Simply not enough information to judge this User on. I would suggest he apply for [[WP:ROLLBACK]], instead.
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Sorry, James, but if you think you need the admin tools to stop vandals, you don't know enough about this place yet. --
Lacking....a lot. Not too sure about rollback either, looking at the candidate's talk page.
Not nearly enough edits, and your answers to the questions don't inspire any confidence I'm afraid.
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Cryptic answers to questions do not show perspective.
For reasons listed above. I don't think even a "rollback" right would be made available at this stage. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Stud. -'''
I hate to start a RfA like this, and let me first say that I've seen you around and it has always been positive. That said, it doesn't reflect too good on you to say your best contribution was [[Daniel Terdiman]], considering it is {{User|Kevin Murray}} who brought it from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Terdiman&oldid=99072675 this spam-ish stub] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Terdiman&oldid=99762353 this acceptable short article]. The nomination (and your following statement and userpage) is also a bit too focused on your collection of flags and "achievements", and I'm a bit puzzled that you created this RfA page a year ago. More impotantly though, going through your contributions, I see that the ''only'' thing you did in the article space last year was huggling. Anti-vandalism is valued, but I'm looking for at least a basic level of substantive article editing in an administrator, and I don't see that here. Sorry -
&nbsp;
This is a very ill-considered nomination of someone who appears to be a badge collector.
'''Oppose'''. Jeff has always seemed like a nice bloke when I've come across him, but he seems far too focused on attaining every hat under the sun, and he seems to see his various user rights (and adminship) as a status symbol. The umpteen million hats he wears across various wikis shows that he probably knows how to mash the buttons, but adminship on what I would call a "real" WMF wiki (ie one that hosts educational content rather than those that exist mostly for editors) is much more about judgement than button-mashing. Jeff, I'm not convinced that you have that judgement, at least not yet. I've declined an extraordinary number of your AIV reports in the past (and found your responses to concerns about your accuracy with Huggle and AIV reports to be less than encouraging), to trust you with the block button just yet. Your accuracy rate seems to have improved of late, to give credit where it's due, but I've also seen less of you at AIV. Finally, you seem to have a bit of a problem admitting when you're wrong (or at least dealing with good-faith disputes), as seems to be evidenced by your edits at [[Navy Mutual Aid Association]] recently—you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navy_Mutual_Aid_Association&diff=472991625&oldid=470742178 tagged] a long-standing article for speedy deletion under A7, which was declined by an admin because it had an obvious assertion of significance, so you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navy_Mutual_Aid_Association&diff=473455380&oldid=prev slapped] a load of maintenance tags on (without nay real effort to fix the problems yourself), then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navy_Mutual_Aid_Association&diff=474331219&oldid=473601603 PROD] it (and if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navy_Mutual_Aid_Association&diff=next&oldid=474331219 the other editors' summary] is anything to go by, you clearly didn't look for any coverage to help establish notability). After the PROD was declined, you [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Mutual Aid Association|sent it to AfD]] with a rationale that seemed to suggest it had had some arbitrary time limit in which to improve, and made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Navy_Mutual_Aid_Association&diff=474686634&oldid=474615713 this reply] to another editor, ''completely'' overlooking the substance of their argument. That gives me great concern about how you would use the delete button, and is fairly typical of your haste, excessive zeal, and your determination that you are right and refusal to back down when you might not be. Sorry Jeff, I would like to support some day, but right now you're displaying too many traits that the admin corps could do without.
'''Oppose''' As Hj said some of the answers are plainly wrong and i don't see enough knowledge here that would demonstrate the ability to use admin powers fairly. The fact that this may just be another trophy also concerns me why would you create a Rfa a year before you use it.
'''Oppose''' Per HJ above. Concerns about answers + hat collecting.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I have to agree with Harry here.<font color="pink">—
'''Oppose''' I had the candidate's talk page on my watchlist for a while, and it was clear that he was screwing up again and again.
(e/c 2) Not now. I'm impressed with the amount of work you've done, and I want to support the nom, but I'm troubled by the answers. Some answers are on point; number 1, for example, is clear. Others seem to miss the question or are too terse to evaluate. Number 2 asked for "best", but the answer seems to be "all". Number 5B doesn't say why. Number 7 is slightly off; the follow on didn't help. (And snaps to 28bytes for the Q.) The nom acceptance is long and anticipatory and almost argumentative. I think an admin's interests can be narrow; breath and quantity are commendable, but I'd like to see some depth and understanding. I poked around some contribs; I didn't see anything bad, but a deletion discussion made me wonder if you want to debate everyone who disagrees with you. My problem is the answers to the questions. Come back in six months.
'''Oppose''', sorry, but per HJ, answer to question 7 and [[User:Jeff_G.#Introduction|this section on their userpage]], which basically just details all the flags they hold. Hat collecting concerns, etc. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. Basically per {{u|HJ Mitchell}}'s very thorough comment. Jeff, I'd also suggest you withdraw... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I was going to support, but your answer to question 7 is just...totally incorrect. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' HJ Mitchell's candid assessment is right on the mark.--
'''Oppose''', I wish I could support, but per my experiences with the user he is very [[User:Thorncrag/Hats|permission grabby]], and sometimes immature. His userpage on other non-WMF wikis consist mainly of "I am (admin|rollbacker|reviewer|other permissions) on xyz wiki", which seems to me that he is wanting to get as many different flags in as many places as possible, and some of his actions on-wiki and on IRC are questionable, at the least. I'm not trying to sound like a [[WP:DICK|dick]], but an admin who does it just for the title isn't something we need.
'''Neutral''' - I've run into Jeff in a number of places and my personal interactions have always left a good impression. And the way this RfA seems to be going, another oppose will be redundant and unnecessary. So I'm putting this in the neutral section. But honestly, the answer to number 7 above is worrisome, and I do see too much of an emphasis on wanting the title of admin, yet no real focus on what you'd actually do with the bit. You've done well as an editor and I hope you continue to do well as one. -- '''
'''Support''' You can be pretty good at making templates, but you can still be good at editing.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. 102 Edits is far from what is necessary to get a firm grasp on how the editor will do with the tools.
I applaud your enthusiasm, but you need much, much more experience here.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] keep working hard and come back in the future - it's too soon for now, I'm afraid.
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not right now]], sorry. I should add that the apparent [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppet]] — I'm assuming it's a family member — does not reflect well on the candidate. —
[[WP:NOTNOW]] , keep working and try again later.--
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. --
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Far too few edits to gain an understanding of User's patterns.
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Two hundred edits is not enough. Terse answers to questions. Talk page.
Very few edits show lack of experience. I don't think even a "rollback" right would be made available at this stage. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
Not being able to correctly copy the list of extra tools available to an admin = no real understanding (i.e., including ''Rename User'' and ''Check User'' in the answer above). <font color="#E66C2C">
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - This RfA has been transcluded for nearly two hours, and the candidate has still not figured out how to fix the bright red template errors above.  Less than 250 edits.
[[WP:NOTNOW]].  This user clearly doesn't understand what being an admin is about.  Not to mention that the ability to CheckUser and Rename Users require the Check User and Bureaucrat flags something that is usually handed out to experienced admins.—
'''Support''' - per co-nom. '''''
'''Support''' - seems to meet my requirements --
'''Strong Support''' A hardworking and tireless user.Could make a great admin. '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #6698FF;">
'''Support''' A very hardworking and helpful user. Have seen his contributions and everything looks fine. He will surely be an good admin.
'''Support'''
Clean blocklog and deleted edits look OK, otherwise per nom. ''
'''Support''' - I have already co-nominated --
'''Support''' - User has grown over the last year and seems fit for further responsibility. <strong>
'''Support''' – Great work on-wiki and off-wiki. Keep up the good work, Good luck! --&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Highly enthusiastic user, a quick learner as well. User might want to spent more time learning policies regarding images and copyrights if he ever wants to do administrative tasks in that area. --
Sorry, strong '''oppose'''. Doesn't understand image policy. Several bad non-free image uploads during the last few months ([[:File:Outlook.com sign-in page.jpg]], [[:File:Spain winning EURO 2012 title.jpg]], [[:File:Kolkata Knight Riders team holding the 2012 IPL's trophy.jpg]]; [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vintage_Postcard_of_Gateway_of_India.jpg&oldid=489128531]), and apparent downright copyvio attempts earlier ([[:File:ST Andrews College.jpg]], [[:File:SIES College of Commerce and Economics.jpg]]; had to warn him about it back in February 2011 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karthikndr&diff=411983407&oldid=411983129]; admittedly he was newbie'ish back then). Has also defended copyright-infringing close paraphrasing in DYK's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=498780908] I also have doubts whether this editor's command of international Standard English is sufficient for the complex communicative needs that come with admin tasks. I find very few edits in project space where he has said much that rises above set Wikipedian phrases (such as "keep as per XYZ"), and when he does engage in more substantial discussion, there are frequently obvious grammar errors [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Spain_winning_EURO_2012_title.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=500507550][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rsrikanth05&diff=prev&oldid=521978400][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=498780908], of a kind that could seriously hamper his efficiency in fulfilling admin duties.
'''Holy crap oppose''' - extremely concerned about such recent copyvios noted above by FPAS.  More than anything else, the knowledge surrounding this issue would need to be be improved long before ever granting tools.  I'm a bit surprised that the candidate has not addressed this issue in their nomination statements and the fact they did not disclose issues and at least ''attempt'' to over-ride potential concerns does not give me the warm fuzzies ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Strong oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=498780908 Supports close paraphrasing] and violates image copyrights himself, as demonstrated by FPaS.
'''Moved from Support to here''' based largely on this [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:St_Andrew%27s_College_Building.jpg&oldid=84855166], even though I have other concerns now that they have been pointed out.  I'm quick to assume the best of faith, and take a little risk hoping someone will learn on the job, but this is ''today'', not a year ago.  I can forgive a few mistakes with copyright, or English skills that need a little polish, but if this is how you will handle a situation knowing the whole world is watching you via RfA, it doesn't fill me with hope that you will be able to deal with real drama or contentious issues.  I'm not going to assume you misled us with your rational when uploading the image, but that does look likely based on your own comments.  It is a shame.
'''Oppose''' Copyright is a big deal. Admins need to understand it and abide by it (even if they don't agree with the policies).

'''Oppose''', moved from support; largely for the same reasons as Dennis.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but some of the copyright concerns are too big for me. Come back again in a year and I'll be glad to support.
Nope, at a time when accusations of "stalking" are getting dangerously common, we really don't need [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:St_Andrew%27s_College_Building.jpg&oldid=84855166 this]. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'm torn because I feel like we really need good admins who can understand and close Indian cinema AfDs, but at the same time I am very concerned with the evasiveness surrounding the college picture upload. I recommend the candidate withdraw the nomination because it's turning into one of our famous pile-ons. I would support if the candidate came back after having fixed all problems with copyright, etc., but I would recommend they wait at least a year. (As a side note, the English skills that other opposers have commented on don't concern me. He communicates well enough IMO, and we can't expect everyone to have perfect English.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
Per nom and answers to questions.
I trust him, and the nominator. --
'''Support'''. I can't imagine Keegan's nominating an unqualified candidate, and I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' - great contributions and also great answers to the questions.
'''Support''', why not? --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
Keegan's nomination is more than enough for me to '''support''', per Someguy1221.
Good answer to Q4. I'm convinced. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
Actually, why not? (moved from oppose.)
Answer to Q4 is acceptable at addressing RE's concern and so I support based on past experience with this user.--v/r -
'''Support''' per Filelakeshoe.
Per convincing answers. --
Enthusiastic support. - Dank (
Yup, maturity has definitely increased exponentially since prior RfAs. I have a hard time holding someone responsible for a lack of understanding of processes over three years ago.
Always been a good chap who I guided in the past, the oppose votes scared me for a second but question 4 satisfied that concern. Most new editors makes mistakes with copyrights, especially in older times.
Experienced, clueful, and more mature. '''
'''Support'''. Kevin does great work! My personal interactions with him have only been positive; he has the maturity and clue to be a great admin. Best of luck, '''
'''Support''', I think you've got it this time around. –
Longterm editor, I've noticed him a few times and generally found him clueful and helpful. Unless anyone can show a recent copyvio from the last year or so then I'm OK with treating his 2007 blocks for copyvio as a lesson learned. ''
'''Support'''. Seems helpful and responsible.
I don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' I have some concerns, but I think they are overcome by the standard that they would be a net positive with the tools. While it would have been better if the nom mentioned the CCI, I don't believe I should hold that against the candidate, who is not responsible for the nomination itself, particularly since there was no pattern of ''misconduct'' shown. I also found Drmies comments above very helpful.
I don't see why not; the answer to #4 is good enough for me to view the user as a net positive.
Yes. Good answers Ktr101. Good luck. —
'''Support''' The editor is experienced and knowledgeable.  The CCI appears to be related to earlier edits rather than recent ones.  I am pleased with his answers to questions 13 and 14.  The answer to 13 being exactly what Wikipedia is about.&nbsp;
'''Support''' I think Ktr101 is a good candidate, and have personally reviewed some of the more recent entries at the CCI and found nothing.
'''Support''', people change, and this user has very much changed for the better since their last RFA.
'''Support''' – no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' I've worked with Kevin at AfC and found him to be competent, hard working and approachable. He has a good grasp of PAG and I trust him with the tools. Opposes do not concern me -- the CCI has been open for over two years and no minefield has been unearthed.
'''Support''' - no logical reasons for opposing provided and seems to meet my requirements.  --
'''Support''', coming out of college-induced semi-retirement because I'd overheard Kevin's running for adminship. The guy cares about the project (seriously), spends a huge portion of his time here (enough evidence for the former?), and has stood through this inane process now 5 times. Just give him the damn tools; what's the worst that could possibly happen? We all freak out over one bad AfD closure? This project takes itself too seriously and doesn't have enough volunteers to handle the sheer amount of content anyway. He's been here long enough; he [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|deserves the bit]]. Sincerely,
'''Support''' I was on the fence, and RfA seems to be getting nutty again, but an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ktr101_5&oldid=529488733 unsubstantiated personal attack] is just too much.
'''Support'''. Met him in in real life. Great guy and knowledgeable, no reason not to support.
I've actually been looking forward to supporting this RfA at some point or another. I think Kevin has learned plenty from the COI issues of the past and is now more than ready to assume the role of an administrator. I remain unconvinced by any of the opposing points, specifically that he is temperamentally unsuited and has to finish off the entirety of [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101|his COI page]] before being granted the sysop bit (although I would definitely advise getting that out of the way ASAP).
'''Weak support''' - I've met Kevin in real life, and he seems like a decent bloke. I can see that he's improved on past mistakes, and appreciate that, but I remain a bit concerned about his maturity. Please don't take this personally, it's just a gut feeling from what I've seen. What makes this a weak support and not a weak oppose is the nominator. I trust that he would nominate Kevin if he did not consider him suitable and ready. Best of luck. <font face="Verdana">
Wasn't going to vote, but the copyright issues uncovered so far have been quite minor. Unless I find something egregious (very possible since many of the big changes are still there to look over), I can't think of a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Always been a great user. It seems the copyright problems are a thing of the past. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - per nom and answers to questions. The guy has been here a while and I doubt he's going to delete the Main page, and has learned a lot since his last Rfa two years ago. Net positive for him to have the extra buttons. Opposers fail to convince.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. The first interaction with him was when he started again editing and helped us out at the [[WP:AFC]] backlog. He does a very good job there and I had some lengthy talks in IRC and I know that he is net positive. As long as there aren't any newer copyright issues (and the old ones get cleaned up) I'm supporting him. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' Excellent answers show the right temperament and having the patience required at AFC is a big plus too. The opposition issues brought up are dated and I think that he has matured quite a bit in the past few years. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - I'm very leery of this candidacy since it is the 5th grab at the brass ring and I feel that there is something to be said for the idea that those people wanting power too much are the same people to whom it should be denied. I've spent about a half hour digging around in contribution history and glancing at the debates related to the previous four attempts at RfA and feel somewhat better now. Heavy contributions related to the US military and secondarily to the New England region of the USA, seems to understand copyright problems <s>that scuttled previous candidacies</s>, active work with the Articles For Creation program. Lengthy tenure and extensive contribution history. I actually found the candidate's oppose rationale in a previous RfA to be the most reassuring thing. Still a little leery of the need for power or awards dynamic, but I've seen enough to land in the support column here.
'''Support''' - I'm a believer that people can change, and while acknowledging that the candidate had problems in the past, I believe they have fixed those problems, since all the issues I've seen being raised here are over 2 years old. I am also impressed with the candidate's response to the personal attacks and mudslinging that has gone on in this RfA. I only have one small piece of advice, and it's more personal preference than anything. I suggest Kevin changes his signature to something along the lines of "[[User:Ktr101|Kevin Rutherford <small>(Ktr101)</small>]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]])". Good luck and happy Christmas. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #e55">~
'''Support''' CCI is turning up almost nothing.  I am quite satisfied with this candidate.—
'''Support''' After conversing with the candidate over email, my original concerns have been alleviated. I consider the matter resolved. If anyone else "in the know" is opposing this candidate over the issue, and is open to pulling their oppose votes, they should feel free to contact me by email.
'''Support''' Met him in real life. Trust him, his extensive experience, and improvement over past RfAs. Was really helpful when he introduced me to AfC (which I had time to work on over the summer) and I wasn't sure exactly what I was doing.
'''Support''' per Cyberpower.  We shouldn't be surprised that CCI will find ''something'' in the edits of someone with a couple of copyright blocks in the past.  However, the low level of findings, coupled with how old they are, makes me willing to discount them.  I don't believe that the candidate will cause problems (and his signature definitely shouldn't) and will be a net positive as an admin.
'''No''' - Please clean [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101]] up first.
'''No''' - We don't need admins with open CCIs. That's going to sink ''anybody''{{'s}} RFA.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''oppose''' per a few issues including RE's reason above, the fact that you were particularly enamored by otava at wikimania and personal reasons.
'''Oppose''' The article [[sexual anhedonia]] seems close to the one source. More later.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per RE and Kiefer. I hate bringing the nominator into this, but I'm a bit disturbed that the CCI wasn't even mentioned in the nomination statement. --'''
'''Oppose''' Signature doesn't match username; automatic oppose.  That's simply unacceptable for an admin.
Candidate's career has been too focused on adminship, and there are other red flags here that I'd post but I'm not really interested in bickering about. The tit-for-tat going on in the oppose section indicates there are supporters who don't feel the candidate's record is strong enough to withstand even the weakest brand of criticism, such as everyone's favorite old chestnut, the "creative signature" oppose.
There are too many problems here to support.
'''Oppose''' First of all, there's still the copyright violations, but I could have looked past that if I felt he was sufficiently experienced, which I do not. I don't see a lot of good CSD nominations in his CSD log- I see G6, C1, and AfC nominations. Although those are all important, I'd prefer to see a person intending to work in CSD with experience in a broader range of SD criteria in article space. Looking at 201 AfD pages he commented on, only 46.8% matched the result, while 38.7% did not. I don't think that having 5 RfA's is sufficient reason to oppose, especially when the last one is two years ago. Nonetheless, I oppose because of concerns about sufficient experience in admin areas.--
'''Oppose'''. Too many issues regarding ability and suitability, including recently updated Specific Points in [[WP:RFAADVICE]].
'''Oppose''' The copyright issues, plus I do not find him temperamentally sited to adminship.
'''Sorry, But No''' The candidate's carelessness in regard to copyright issues is the deal killer.
'''Oppose''' - problematic history w/r/t copyright, poor track record at AfD (including their most recent participation).  That other editors are resorting to threatening behaviour to try and push this through also raises a number of alarms for me.
I feel compelled to oppose a candidate with an open CCI.—
'''Oppose''' I think he lacks experience.--
'''Oppose'''. The copyright violation issue is too significant. The unhelpful signature isn't good either.
'''Oppose''' The open CCI is a problem but I'm more concerned with the sloppy AfD nominations. In at least five cases this year (out of 8 nominations), Kevin used the "subject X isn't notable" but apparently failed to check for sources thoroughly: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Rutherford Turnbull]] (kept by WP:SNOW), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Swamp Watershed Association]] (speedy kept), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abercrombie & Kent]] (kept without a single delete !vote), <s>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Shore]]</s>, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Colby-Cushman]].
The candidate failed to disclose that he had an open CCI at [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101]]. This should have been disclosed in either this RfA's comments section or in the candidate's answer to question 3. His non-disclosure demonstrates either carelessness or a lack of openness. The careless AfD nominations mentioned by Pichpich also indicate the candidate is not prepared to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' the copyright issue, five shots at admin, the last time in 2010 preceded the copyvio problem of 2011, makes no sense, sorry...
'''Oppose''' Seeing too many concerns here. No one is perfect, but the concerns are recent and numerous.
'''Oppose''' - Copyright issues seem like an obvious enough reason, and I opposed on that alone, but looking into it a bit more, I see some worrying things from further back too. For example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahrain at the Asian Games|this]] close, which was a non admin closure and wasn't indicated as such. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WinEuro&diff=prev&oldid=500137229 This] is a more recent example of a similar NAC of something that, bluntly, non admins shouldn't be closing. As I said, the copyright concerns alone are enough, but these examples add to my oppose reasons.
'''Neutral''' Ok, I'm hanging my hat here.  I personally beleive that the editor started out with some issues (copyright-related), but has indeed learned their lesson.  We don't hang people for learning/changing - indeed, that's what we WANT out of all of our editors.  IMHO, the copyright issues themselves are far enough back in their editing career, that they're almost a non-issue.  I said almost - they should have worked their tucchus off to '''eliminate''' what was left of their CCI ''before'' coming to RfA.  Wow, what an image that would have created: "former copyright-infringing editor comes clean and cleans up their mess" - this RfA would have almost been a shoe-in!  So, Kevin - your timing blows; totally.  There are some other issues being bandied about that I'm not going deeply into the details - but it appears that some "attitude" issues will need to be worked on - do that. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Neutral'''. As I mentioned in my Provisional Support, ''"he's matured in the past two years since the last RfA and has been a helpful, constructive editor. While he's not fully matured to his full potential, he's trustworthy, more or less clued in, and has learned from past screw-ups."'' All true. Unfortunately, Kevin's track record at AfD this year has been spotty. Pichpich has offered enough diffs to suggest that Kevin's track record is spotty. I still think that Kevin will make a fine admin, but he could benefit from honing certain admin-related skills such as nomination rationale/research. The CCI matter doesn't bother me much; he learned from his mistakes and it's hardly his fault that CCI is backed up.
He's right ... he's had a huge impact, and that more than compensates IMO for the occasional rough sailing. I've always been a fan of his work. - Dank (
'''Strong Support'''. I don't see this passing in the slightest, but Kumi's someone who has had to fight uphill to get basic respect for a good chunk of his wiki-career, and the fact that he's still here after what he's been through says a lot. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Completely agree with Dank and Wizardman.
I thought this was a reconfirmation when I first saw it listed. Since when are you not an admin?
In the last few days many editors have placed their trust with me even with my rocky boat. Per Dank and the hope Wizardman is wrong, this is my "pat it forward" and it seems we have similar interest [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mlpearc/Sandbox_5.0#MOH_pages_I.27ve_worked_on]. Good luck,
Love the answers to questions from Atama, Dennis, and myself.
'''Support'''. Clueful and useful comments by this user, such as above, so no worries.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] Have encountered him on the Wiki.  Nice guy, a grownup and does a lot.  Hope he makes it.  Will be good for the Wiki and for him.
'''Support''': This user has been a great contributor, and seems to have learned from their mistakes. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Moral Support''' - Just because.
'''Support'''. I had already typed out my oppose statement based on previous knowledge of this editor's behavior when I decided to hold off and spend some time digging through his history. It's easy to have knee-jerk reactions to people who you have had poor experiences with in the past, but looking at this user's history since "dramageddon", as he so put it, I find that he has made a commendable effort to change his past behaviors. I'm not jumping into blindly trusting him, but I'm willing to assume good faith here. It's always important to keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and nobody would put themselves through the amount of crap that any long-time editor has without either being a masochist or because they truly believe in what Wikipedia represents. In the spirit of adminship being [[WP:BIGDEAL|no big deal]], I feel that this user's contributions and knowledge are more than sufficient to be trusted with the bit. Remember, the mop is a few tools to aid in the administration of the project, it is not the [[nuclear football]].
'''Support''' Kumioko has done an enormous amount of work and used the tools well and wisely.  What more is there to say? ''
'''Support''':  Plenty of hot-tempered people make fine admins when they finally are able to be effective instead of being hamstrung.  And an edit war survivor who knows about the emotion that hits in the midst of a dispute has a better handle on what needs to happen when they are a non-involved admin than someone who has not made any mistakes and thus has nothing from which to learn.  I say give Kumioko a chance; all long-term editors will have some baggage - in RFA land, anything you've ever said or done WILL be used against you.
'''Support''' I accept the explanation of the block in February and feel that the candidate will not abuse the bit if granted it. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Leopards can change their shorts, especially after they've been commented on rather publicly. Keep going, and see you in six months.
'''Moral Support:''' You do a lot of good work, but it's still too soon since the blow up.  Keep going, and see you in six months. -
'''Support'''. On WP, the more edits you do, the more enemies you make. Using a bot account to explain why you can't help someone seems a good aplication of IAR to me. And seeing as this does not look to be successful, see you in 6 months.--<span style="">
'''Moral Support''' You've done a lot of good work around here and have been a great help to me in the past.--<span style="border: 2px #8B0000 solid;background:#ffffff;font-family:sans-serif">
'''Support''' I read most the discussion and I am aware of most of the things discussed. It's true Kumioko needs to read [[Wikipedia:KEEPCOOL]] carefully. From the discussion I got that he needs the tools to make his life easier with moving pages, etc. I also think he should have applied for the [[Wikipedia:Rollback|rollback tool]] first and we could see him tested there first. It is also clear he won't close any XfD in the short future and I think he first has to participate in XfDs before closing some. The time that a huge drama was caused is not far ago and at first I thought it was [[Wikipedia:TOOSOON]]. Then I thought that is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] as soon as he follows these instructions and judging by the discussions we had I think he 'll follow them. So I support now and I ask Kumioko to use the tools only to help him in his current tasks, really be careful with rollback, block, read [[Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION]] and [[WP:3RR]]. Gibe the community the time it asks from you before fully trusting you with the tools. --
'''Support'''; if you don't get into some conflicts after this many edits, you're probably not doing anything useful.  Kumioko really deserves it.
'''Support''' - "We know that for two years now, the number of people being made admins is too low. And yet we have valid concerns that admins are overstressed, and that they don't always live up to what we hope in terms of thoughtful, kind, and welcoming conduct.  I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems." --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Quoted by: ~
<b>Support</b> - per Malleus Fatuorum; "for all the obvious reasons." <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Support''' Adminship is really not a big deal.
'''Support''' Heart is in the right place. Regards,
'''Support''' I understand you have a colorful past. You have contributed for years, and I feel you deserve a second chance.--
'''Support''' Komioko certainly ran into issues before which makes it usually difficult to support. But over the last few month (after all the troubles) I have gotten to know him in the course of working togther on WPUS. With that I have come to understand a few things: Komioko works hard for a better Wikipedia. The issues that have arisen are due to article ownership by certain people on the most lame level possible. The reason why Komioko should be admin because of what he is best at - template work. Not being able to edit in that field is to the detriment of us all and leads to extra work for other admins. Also I cannot see the user misusing the tools. WP:NETBENEFIT
cautious '''Support'''  - been thinking about this one a bit. Ultimately Kumioko's zeal, enthusiasm and devotion to the project I think render him more likely than not to be a net benefit. I share concerns raised by opposes, but a ragequit after six months of constructive admin work is still a net positive for mine. Admin behaviour is scrutinised, so we do have safety valves, hence I think this is worth a whirl (though not likely to gain consensus)
'''Support'''; having interacted with the former Administrator in the past, I have found the majority of the interaction to be positive and keeping with the highest attempts to contribute positively towards Wikipedia as a whole. Though there has been drama in the past, that is minor compared to the majority positives that have been done.--
'''Moral support'''. Sigh.
'''Oppose''', for all the obvious reasons.
'''Regretful oppose'''. I do appreciate your answer to my question, but I don't feel I can support this RfA, due to the way you reacted to frustration in the incident that lead you to create the new account. It's obviously not the way an administrator would be expected to react, and even though you may have learned from that experience, 6 months ago is too close for me.
'''Oppose'''. Kumioko, based on your past behavior under stress, I do not think you are even-tempered enough to remain calm in a hot dispute.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I can't support someone who has this sort of "ragequit" in their recent history. Admins need to be able to cope with (what may feel like, or what may actually be) attacks, with having their judgment questioned repeatedly and loudly, and frankly, with realizing they're wrong sometimes rather than doubling down on a dispute. I do think you're full of good intentions here, but I just don't think that your temperament is suited to the job at this point in time.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Kumioko is clearly unfit for adminship. When he flipped out because of the {{tl|WP US}} banner brouhaha, which ended up with him losing all bot priviledges, despite my warnings, he went on to create some IP troll posing as some newcomer at [[WP:BIOPHYS]] and (successfully and purposefully) suckered me into spending countless hours giving advice to this IP (for example, [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biophysics#Advice_for_new_project|here, where he feigned ignorance on what bots were]], or [[User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2012/February#Thanks_for_the_help|here]], and a couple of other places), who I thought was some biophysics expert. And that's on top of generally wasting [[WP:BAG]]'s time by refusing to drop the issue for months. I can accept people losing their cool and being burned out. But I cannot accept people who purposefully waste other volunteer's time. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">
'''Strong oppose''' ragequitting, had AWB and bot privileges removed at some point, using an IP address to evade scrutiny, concerns that he will edit protected pages without consensus, refusal to AGF, seems like he has an axe to grind with ArbCom. Recommend withdrawl and/or SNOW close. --'''
'''Regretful oppose''' You do a lot of good work, but it's still too soon since the blow up. I do believe that the community will forgive and forget eventually, but not for year or two.
With regret per Malleus, Sven (edit conflicted with) and some extent Wizardman support. I know you been though so much BS many of which wasn't your fault and the work you do here is wonderful. I still believe the admin who caused one of the incidents should have been desysopped in that case. Honestly I don't know how anyone else would have handled these situations. But it's way too soon after all this drama however. The nomination is very mistimed at best, especially that it's a self-nomination. Would obviously support a future RFA, but I recommend to withdraw please as I don't want all the past grudges to appear for the RFA to become a bloodbath. I have a really bad feeling this would end bad for some parties
'''Simple Oppose''' When I think calm editors are good for admins, I sigh hard and slow. There'd be something going wrong for a stressed out guy. Won't withdraw, but it's for my own good expressing. Also, "blowing up" and "ragequitting" isn't in this guy's vocabulary (and dictionary for the latter) <s>plus I won't forgive somebody for the next four years or so(same old routine as this year)</s><sub>Not really</sub>.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' This user is a very argumentative and hot headed editor. When he doesn't get his way he very often freaks out causing much drama. He is not good in situations that are controversial which an admin needs to be. He also abused the bot flag he had by editing with it to get around a block on his main account. If you could list someone in the dictionary next to not admin material, his would be the picture. -
'''Oppose''' Your block log scares me, clearly unfit for an admin.
'''Oppose''' - seems to have learned nothing from the Block as he still holds that "removing Talk tags" is a valid reason for 3RR violations. Calling it "Vandalism" also leads me to believe he would misuse the Rollback tool, if given to hir. I also noticed a request for File Mover at PERM (that was granted) that (unless I'm not looking at the right logs) has never been used. Great content editor, but I'm in a place where I can't trust hir with the Tools.
'''Oppose''' Based on the drama past associated with this. However, this does show, to me at least, that the current suite of admin tools is more of a problem than RfA.
'''Regretful Oppose''' this time. Basically, I feel that it's not been long enough since the February debacle, and you haven't really had enough time to demonstrate that you're consistently past that kind of behavior. I think you should wait until it's been at least a year. You are overall a good editor, and I have faith that given that kind of time you ''can'' get past that incident, but you haven't yet. I'm open to changing this depending on further answers to questions, but barring that, ask again in February. -
'''Oppose''' per block evasion, among other things.
'''Moral Support''' I'm sorry, but in the time frame that I've been trolling the AN boards and DR I've come across Kumioko's name a few times.  I've swung back and forth from opposition to support on projects.  Recalling tempermental actions and recent revocation of positions of trust I do not think that ''mop''-hood is appropriate at this time.
'''Oppose''' per socking, the drama mentioned above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kumioko&oldid=481323510 this]
'''Oppose'''.  Per [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Kumioko block|AN/I/Archive 742#Kumioko block]].  Not sure user should get the right.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but its too soon since the incident, while I was not familiar with the events, it is certainly a concern that appears justified by the community.
'''Oppose''' There is just too much controversy surrounding this candidate - much of it appearing to be well warranted - from being blocked and trying to circumvent it to numerous instances of non-neutrality and calmness, among several other issues. If the candidate can go another six months to a year without incident, while continuing to contribute, I would likely be more willing to support their candidacy, however. I do recognize some of the valuable contributions of the candidate thus far; thank you for those. --<span style="white"><small><span style="border:2px solid #00BFFF"><span style="background:#00BFFF">
'''Oppose''' per Headbomb and the recent block log shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Kumioko+%28renamed%29 here]. Unfortunately with these concerns piled together I can tell that this editor isn't mature enough for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per above. I believe Kumioko does not fit to be an admin. '''
A quick look at your block log shows you don't pass [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|number four]].
'''Oppose''' Sorry man, but the incidents provided above are too concerning for me. Better luck next time!
'''Oppose''' per this user's block log and other concerns expressed above.
'''Oppose''' - I can live with one block by a well-known block-happy admin, but the log is too muddy too recently for my taste.  Clean for two years  might seem a high bar, but that would be about what I would like to see... Don't let this shitty process get you down, keep working hard.
'''Oppose''' There is edit warring, abusing multiple accounts and block evasion all in the last 6 months. I also have an issue with the nomination, while I have absolutely no issue with self-nominations, however any nomination (whether self or not) has to say something about the candidate and what the things about them which make them suited be being an admin. This nomination focuses on the edit count and how long they've been editing. Given what happened in January/February I would have expected there to be an explaination about what happened and what they have learnt from it. While you have made progress, I expect at least 12 months with a clean block and showing that you can be a constructive and calm member of the community. I suggest you look at everything which has been written in this RFA and consider coming back in 6-12 months, because I think could be a great admin in the future. '''
'''Oppose''' Among other reasons for the apparent sense of entitlement. Per your nom statement, "I believe I have been here long enough and have enough experience that at this point there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to edit a protected article or block a persistent vandal." Being an admin is not about how long you have been here and how much experience you have. Being an admin is about you having sufficiently good judgment to know when to use the tools and when not to. If overreacting can lead you to socking, I am concerned what a similar overreaction may lead to if you have a mop.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate does not possess a temperament suitable for adminship. Binksternet, Headbomb and DJSasso have the most cogent statements congruent with my views. '''
'''Oppose''' Candidate does not meet [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]; in particular (but not limited to) my impression of his temprament. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose with [[Napalm]]''' In no way shape or form should Kumioko have access to any admin tools. He shouldn't even be allowed to make any edits at all. The reasons have already been given here; sockpuppetry, rage quitting, disruptive editing, bans, a loose cannon with AWB and an AWB bot, wasting US Taxpayer dollars by editing from work, wasting other editors time and on and on and on. Unbelievable that this RfA is even here.
'''Regretful Oppose''' -- -- Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. We met at Wikimania, and you struck me as a genuine, decent bloke. However, I get the impression that you are more than a little hot-headed, and I suspect this is what has led to much of the controversy. You have what you think are good ideas, and like everyone's brilliant ideas, some are brilliant and other are total bollocks. The problems arise when you try to implement these brilliant ideas, especially the ones that are (or which other people think are) total bollocks and you encounter resistance. With the greatest respect, I don't think you handle criticism or questions of your actions very well (which is perhaps unfair to say here, because you can't respond to it without appearing to prove my point, so I apologise), and you, perhaps inadvertently, escalate the situation. This leads to things like the socking, and the so-called "ragequitting" and to many of the other issues that have got you into trouble. I could support a candidate with that in his history (although with you it's rather too recent history right now), if that underlying hot-headeness had been resolved, but it isn't something that's going to go away overnight. Thus, it's with regret that I have to say that you're not suited to adminship, at least not for the foreseeable future. However, I am familiar with your work at MILHIST, and I have always respected you for that, and I hope you'll continue the good work you do after this RfA.
'''Oppose''' per HJ Mitchell's comments above, and the answers to questions 3 and 6. I've got nothing at all in principle against supporting candidates who have been blocked, but these answers basically boil down to arguments that everyone was wrong, and you found the situation difficult to deal with. Admins need to make judgement calls in situations such as that which lead to your block (including a decision to let a more experienced admin handle the matter if you don't feel confident about the situation), and I'm not confident that you're well positioned to do so at present.
'''Strong Oppose''' I was going to say "neutral" because the whole ragequit is horrific poor judgement, and extremely dramaesque.  Indeed, I'd say that's something you need to work hard to put behind you over a MINIMUM of a year, showing clearly that such crap is no longer occurring.  However, the whole issue around the Bot problems, especially your comments around that situation are the obverse of what we need.  You're clearly stating that you '''intentionally''' broke the rules because nobody would help you - indeed, you accuse the BAG-group as being anti-Wikiproject USA.  Unbelievable, really.  Barring some major change in this kind of behaviour, I see no chance of future RFA's being successful either - which is unfortunate, as there ''are'' many positive contributions <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
I'm glad that the incident earlier this year was eventually resolved in such a way that you are still with us. But with such a fairly recent block I would really need more reassurance that it won't recur. Happy to reconsider if at some point you return here with 12 months clean blocklog. In the meantime please try to remember that just because you disagree with someone it doesn't mean they are a vandal. ''
'''Strong Oppose''' I came here looking for a way to support in spite of the drama that surrounded WP:US but the first thing I read is ''After a while of fighting to redeem my honor'' Wikipedia has nothing to do with honor, redeeming or otherwise. I've seen too many instances where Kumi sees the world as an all or nothing battleground, specifically in BRFAs following his "retirement". He should have been blocked then for blatant socking as an IP, but wasn't for whatever reason. That's not conduct becoming of an admin nor do I have faith he wouldn't drama out again - not someone I want to see with admin tools. <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">
'''Oppose'''. Just after reading the answers to the questions I was ready to oppose. The answers did not inspire any confidence to me, and also made me question whether you really 1) need the admin tools and 2) know what adminship is really about. Then there's all of the things mentioned in the opposes, but I won't restate those.--
'''Oppose''' Please address the concerns which others have raised.
'''Oppose''' The disdain and mockery of process on display [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penyulap&curid=31100394&diff=507313389&oldid=507271241 here] does not bode well for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Wrong attitude and temperament demonstrated both in the WikiProject US affair and in the answers in this RFA. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Per headbomb.
'''Oppose''' I've sat trying to figure out which side of the fence I was on, and unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that if I have to think this hard as to whether I support a candidate or not, I need to oppose because the unconditional support isn't there. It's not that I don't ''trust'' Kumioko, it's that I'm bothered by the lack of control that has been displayed and the blocks that were a result of that lack of control. While I do believe that in the future Kumioko will make a good administrator some day, I don't believe that is now. I think the community, like I, want to see that maturity has happened and Kumioko can have the ability to remain subjective and neutral and make the sound decisions that are required. As of now, unfortunately, we don't believe that Kumioko can make those decisions, as in the quite recent past, the decisions that were made by a non-admin resulted in a block - being under much more scrutiny isn't going to help.  <font face="Segoe script">
'''Oppose''': even though I'm a huge believer in adminship being no big deal, I believe you you have an unsuitable temperament for the job and that sockpuppetry incident was a big no-no.
'''Moral support.''' Kumioko obviously cares a great deal about this project. I hope that whatever happens in this RfA, he will stick around and keep contributing productively, because Wikipedia needs people with his passion.
'''Moral support''' as I think you have good intentions but not the proper temperament for the mop.  I don't think you would delete the front page, but it is easy to cause subtle damage in your interactions with other editors and that is a concern.  And if we learned anything this summer, we learned that the real problem with RfA is us, not the process.  Even now, I am hopeful that the process here will be fair and constructive, regardless off the outcome.
'''Moral Support''' - agree with the [[User:Pedro/RFA|Pedro cabal]] above. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral With Moral Support''' I think that you are a great asset to Wikipedia and we need people like you here, but I'm going to stay neutral for the temperament concerns.
'''Neutral''' - Personally I'd like to support your candidacy. I remember the template controversy and I admit I sided with your basic point. You have a lot of commendable contributions and [[WP:CLUE|know what you're doing]] with the project. But while I'd like to support you, I feel like I'd be a hypocrite because I've opposed people for much less than what others are opposing you for. Something I always look for is the ability to keep a cool head, I think that's essential for an admin. Adminship is usually stated to be "not a big deal" and I don't think it is as long as you use the tools with restraint. I'm not convinced at this time that you would. -- '''
'''Neutral''' - I'm concerned this nomination is too soon after the above mentioned drama. After looking into the dust-up back in February a little more, I'm dismayed by all sides really. Ultra seemed very eager to block for what were trivial reasons (31 hours for minor EW violation of an experienced editor) but Kumioko seemed equally eager to keep edit warring over an equally trivial issue. And there were problems there. Reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#3RR_Violation_and_edit_warring_by_Markvs88 this] thread is depressing in general. With that context, it's too soon for adminship.
Basically per Sven in the oppose section. You do great work and I'd love top support, but I think it's too soon as well. I really hope this RfA doesn't get you down and you continue to contribute positively no matter what happens here. –
'''Moral support''' for a great contributor whose work is much appreciated. --
'''Neutral'''. Even though your rage quit was six months ago, something that big takes more time to clear up, and I think it would have been better if you chose to run for adminship a year after this occured, not six months. I can't bring myself to oppose, though, as you are a very valuable contributor and you were certainly helpful when I worked with you to merge WikiProject American Old West with WikiProject United States. Don't be disheartened by this RfA; keep contributing positively and give RfA another go in six months, maybe a year.
'''Neutral''' - Edits seems fine to me, but from I've read this user has a concerning history. I won't vote against because I'd like to think they have improved. --'''
'''Moral Support''' - Your a good guy and help out a lot; that we could have two of you. Your certainly on the right track now. In other words per Connormah.
'''Neutral'''. Candidate knows I feel wikifriendship; we have both agreed and disagreed strongly in past situations. That said, page work is strong and I have over time developed much trust in this user. Despite this, I feel the recent socking and drama prevent me from fully supporting at this time. I'd like to think this candidate could re-apply at some point and earn community trust.
Damn fine editor and good guy, but I can't support. Kumioko, an RfA isn't a measure of how much a community 'wants' you; it's a measure of your suitability for additional permissions on the site. I, along with many other people, think you are doing great work here. Hell, you revived [[WP:USA]] literally by yourself. There's no reason to stop that just because people aren't enamored with the idea of you being able to delete things. :-)
'''Neutral'''. Although there has been a significant time lapse since the serious problems, I'm not willing to support yet. After another six months of good quality contributions, I would support.
'''Moral support.''' Later perhaps ... <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
I don't want to pile on. --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' — Lord Roem may not have many edits, but is overall a great editor! '''⇒
Of course
'''Support''' Seems like a good guy.
Roem is trustworthy, sensible, competent, and hard-working. An excellent candidate who I am pleased to '''support'''.
Since he's not around anymore to say it, I'm stealing the line. "Why not?"
Qualified candidate
Why n...darn you, Sven.
Exemplary candidate, with excellent skills in dispute resolution. Best of luck mate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Seems ready.—
'''Support''' per Cyberpower678
'''Strongest possible Support''' LR has a great head on his shoulders and does wonderful work with the clerks --
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor around the Wiki several times, never fails to lend a helping hand... seems like a great admin candidate. :) <big>'''
'''Support''' Nice range of solid contributions. Deserves the mop for that along with four barnstars.
'''Support''' Obviously a valuable contributor. Low edit count is not a concern for me: the fact that edit count is a concern says more about RfA hoop-jumping requirements than it says about the qualities of the candidate who seems to be trustworthy at meta matters and experienced at content creation. —

'''Strong Support''' Experienced editor, knows was he is doing, as per [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]].
'''Support''', per everyone above and the skill as an ArbClerk shown.--<span style="">
'''Support''' I've seen Lord Roem about and always thought them to be clueful, intelligent, and sensible. Having looked at their contribs, I find nothing of concern. Slightly low edit count is easily accounted for by the fact this editor has made zero automated edits. LR has relevant experience in the admin areas they wish to work in and I have no reason to believe they are incapable of using the tools in other admin areas.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
→<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Strong support'''. Fully qualified candidate who has done good work in several areas.
Seems fine, good article work. - Dank (
'''Support''' Good work, I see nothing that might give me a reason not to support. <span style="color:red"> '''The Determinator'''</span>  <span style="color:magenta"> '''
Solid work in several key administrative areas plus some good content work plus a collegial approach and willingness to discuss and not get hot-headed. I don't normally support users with less than a year's experience, but I do support those who have shown exceptional willingness to help out, and exceptional understanding of how Wikipedia operates. Yes, there will be mistakes, but I'd rather have someone who is willing to get stuck in and learn from their mistakes, than someone too timid to be bold, or who don't learn from their mistakes. '''
What I have seen of him has been nothing but positive. —
'''Support''' Look fine, good luck in advance--

'''Support'''. Has clue, will travel. Needs the tools, will use the tools wisely. Not much more I can say. --
'''Support''' - Eh, I though he already was an admin. More than qualified and an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' – their DR work is impressive. '''
'''Support''' - Candidate does a lot of good and I believe will perform well as an admin.
'''Support''' - looks like someone who can be trusted with the tools. While the Reuters issue is concerning, we all make mistakes, and LR appears to have learned from this one, which is about all we can ask.
'''Support''' - thought he was already an admin, to be honest...
'''Support''' Lord Roem is an excellent editor, whose work here gives ample evidence that this editor will make a good administrator as well. While experience is important, an overemphasis on raw edit count is a mistake, in my opinion. One whose work here is devoted mostly to content creation and mediation will rack up edit counts at a much slower place than an ardent vandal fighter or typo corrector using automated tools. We need a wide range of productive editors, and any moderately experienced, productive editor with a clue ought to be eligible to become an administrator. Despite my deep respect for Jayen466 and Fetchcomms, I do not believe that a single copyright related image upload problem is disqualifying. Fetchcomms wrote that "I care that everyone understands copyright, admin or not". I would rephrase that to say that I care that everyone is committed to copyright compliance. It takes a specialist to understand image copyright deeply, and I said and did some foolish things in good faith regarding images in my early days as an editor. What is important here is that this editor immediately conceded the error, and has pledged not to get involved again in image copyright matters until developing a much deeper understanding. That is the mark of a mature editor and a good candidate for administrator.
'''Support'''. Trusted and respected by the most trusted and respected Wikipedians (i.e., the Arbs) - that's good enough for me. Solid contributions, sufficient tenure. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' Great work on law and DYK.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' - I'd prefer a higher edit count and not have such a recent, long editing gap, but his assets (such as his article creation) seem to make him an appropriate admin candidate nonetheless.
'''Support''' - '''Yes''', '''Yes''', and for the last time '''YES!''' This candidate demonstrates exactly what Wikipedia needs in an administrator. '''
'''Support''' - Though completely unfamiliar with this nominee until now, I have complete trust in the nominator and was very impressed with answers provided by Lord Roem in the opening segment of this RfA. He possesses very good communication skills, good logic, and an attitude worthy of being trusted with the tools. &nbsp;-- [[Special:Contributions/WikHead|WikHead]] (
'''Support''' I {{like}} this candidate's answer to my questions.
Seems to have good judgement from what I've seen. Can't see any glaring problems. Good luck.
'''Support''' The (relatively) low edit count is easily outweighed by the quality of LR's contributions to the project overall. Great candidate, and I really like the answers given to Q3 and Q6.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor, and I doubt that ArbCom would trust someone enough to make him a clerk if he were untrustworthy enough that he wouldn't be a good admin.
'''Support''' Good editor and good responses to questions. I say give him a shot at the mop.
'''Support''' as per reasons stated above.
'''Support''' No concerns here.
'''Support'''. I think the answers to questions have been fine so far, and the reasons for opposing have been unconvincing so far. For me, a very critical question that I ask myself is whether or not I trust the candidate, and here the answer is a clear yes, I do have that trust. I pretty much wrote [[WP:AAFFD]], and I'm not going to hold it against anyone if they made an isolated mistake about file copyright policy. I've been observing the Arb clerking, and seeing that the candidate also has experience both with DYK and MEDCAB, I'm satisfied that they have good judgment and experience with Wiki-disagreements. --
--
'''Support'''. Could use them well, no concerns about the user. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' - Lord Roem does have clue, he just joined the Arbcom clerk trainee program and fell right into place as if they have been there forever, not an easy thing to do.
'''Support''' - I was neutral leaning towards oppose and was close to a !vote on either of those two options. However on seeing some of reasons given for opposing, I can't help but needing to give a little counter weight. RFA !voters place way too much emphasis on arbitrary requirements and yet at the same time criticises any candidate who's history they feel is a little too perfect when compared to such requirements matrix. There's not enough mainspace edits, there's not enough Wikipedia space edits, the proportion of different namespace edits are too high, too low, the number of XfDs !votes which matched closes are too high, it's too low, the answers to the questions are too perfect, they don't get into enough conflict, they get into edit wars, .... Can we please focus on what actually matters? Does the candidate understand the project policies and guidelines to a good enough standard, is the candidate generally going to make the right decisions when using any additional rights they are given, and are the candidate sensible enough to know if and when they are not yet familiar enough with a particular admin area so as to not take administrative actions & decisions there? --
'''Support''' - Seems a fine and level-headed candidate.  Its not like many editors are clamoring to be administrators anymore, and he seems committed to it at least.--'''
'''Support''' after a review of random contributions.   The general sense of what I saw left me with an impression of policy knowledge and clue to a degree that exceeded any expectations I might have had based on a pure edit count and tenure. Clue trumps.  --
'''Support:''' Impressed with work as a clerk given the contentious issues involved of doing that well. --
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. I like the tone of the answer about the copyright file uploading boo boo. Hey, every one of us here has fucked up a time or ten, being able to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them is the key thing. Good case made for having use for the tool box. There is one (1) problem though and that is an extremely low edit count and short duration at WP. I truly think it takes a couple years to learn the ins and outs of the culture. Ordinarily this is the sort of think that would put me in the NOTNOW camp. But I figure having Ironholds vouch is worth 10,000 edits and a year in itself, in round numbers. There ya go.
'''Support''', though I would strongly recommend that the candidate stay away from copyright issues per Q5. Seems qualified and sensible and I have no reason to think they'd use the admin tools inappropriately. There's nothing wrong with the candidate's edit count and tenure, 5,000 edits is sufficient for an admin candidate. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' I actually thought that Lord Roem was an admin, and am comfortable with him gaining the tools based on what I've seen of his edits and comments in various locations. The reasons for asking for the tools are sound, and the answers to the above questions are sensible.
'''Support''' as per NewYorkBrad, above and below. I see good, clueful edits from this candidate, and I don't see anything that would indicate likely problems from him as an admin.
'''Support''', if the worst thing he's done is made an isolated mistake uploading an image (and image policy and copyright is a very tough area), I don't think I'm too worried that he's going to misuse the tools. Seems to have a very level head and a gentle way of dealing with people, from review of his edits and discussions.
'''Support'''...I originally opposed. I've thought about this candidate a lot and my review of their contributions indicates that they would be a net asset as an admin.
I see no evidence to suggest that he would misuse the tools, so '''support'''.
Holding his own clerking the complicated and messy Fae ArbCom case, and not easily swayed by simplistic source bean-counting that is used to justify articles these days.
'''Support''' - After failing to !vote in several recent RFAs for other valuable contributors to DYK, at least I can weigh in on this one. Lord Roem rolls up the sleeves to help in a variety of areas, understands procedure and protocol better than most, and demonstrates consistent good judgment everywhere I've observed his work. --
'''Support''' - (1) we desperately need more admins who have worked on [[caselaw]] articles, and (2) he passes [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my usual standards]].
'''Support''' - I think there is a good chance the user will be a net positive, despite concerns raised below.
'''Support''' per Cullen368.  Copyright understanding is important if you're going to be working with copyright issues.  A commitment not to work in the area until/unless he has gained such an understanding is sufficient for me. --''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Imperfect, but seems to have clue. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Sure. His mediation efforts reveal a serious editor who is willing to listen and I doubt if he's going to go off and mess things up. Not much point in waiting either. While I do take this whole RfA process seriously, we should recognize that generally good people can get turned off by the process and, quite easily, move on to other things in life. As someone recently said "it's only a f*****g web site" so, when a halfway decent person is willing to help out in a larger way, I say "give em a shot"! --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - The candidate's work on legal articles, while limited, seems to be of good quality. I've watched Lord Roem's clerking from a distance and did not see any of his statements as being unusual or over the top. If we are wondering if someone really understands the issues that admins have to deal with, watching them clerk a difficult AC case is good stress test. Those who are not happy with his work there should be able to point to diffs from the history of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence]] that they disagree with.  One oppose voter criticized [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADelicious_carbuncle&diff=497408343&oldid=497405754 this diff] from LR's clerking as being snarky, but it seems harmless to me. Perhaps the wrong diff was picked.
'''Support''' - Seems to have a good grasp of the fundamentals needed for the job. While length of time on Wikipedia may be a valid concern, simple edit count is not. "Quality, not quantity" applies here.  One should not be expected to spend every waking moment working on Wikipedia in order to be considered qualified for adminship.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I believe that this user will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' I had trouble supporting this editor because of the low edit count and concerns about experience.  However, I designed my question to specifically target different aspects of Wikipedia that would each need to be addressed.  I didn't really care about the answer itself, but that the answer displayed evidence that the candidate did their research and addressed each particular component.  In this case, they appropriately addressed misuse of rollback, arbcom sanctions, edit warring, misuse of edit summaries in place of discussion, and dispute resolution.  I'm satisfied that this editor has clue.  I may have done things a little differently, but in all honestly I'm not the more experience admin myself.  I think this editor can be trusted and is competent.  I also think this editor is surrounded by other very capable sysops whom I trust.--v/r -
'''Support''' A good candidate.
'''Support''' Nothing against.'''

'''Support'''  I'm sure his Lordship can be trusted with the mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
Says all the right things. – I'd like to see a little more individuality, rather than a weave of calculated soundbites. Disagree with the response to the age question. Reuters upload shows lack of clue. Sorry – perhaps next time. '''<font color="#0000FF">
I acknowledge that [[:File:UK Supreme Court, in session.jpeg]] was an isolated error. But I have always held that ''all'' admins should have a good knowledge of how copyright laws and Wikipedia are related. From an ideological standpoint, I don't think [[m:Mission]] cannot be properly upheld by any user without a proper understanding of copyright on Wikipedia. This includes knowing why we use free content, how we define free content, and when we use non-free content. I don't care how many images the candidate uploads or doesn't upload. I care that everyone understands copyright, admin or not, and it doesn't set a good precedent in my book to grant admin tools to someone without this understanding. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' - Concerns with lack of experience.  Candidate plans on working in AfD, but has participated in less than 100 AfD's (with no NAC's).  He also has less than 5000 edits, and has had less than 12 months of active editing.  Overall, a good content contributor, but I don't see what the rush is.  I'd rather see another 6-12 months of activity.
'''Oppose'''. The reasons for supporting are unconvincing. It's ridiculous to consider someone with just a little over 2000 edits to the mainspace to be a suitable admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' - My only contact with Lord Roem was when I reviewed his FAC nomination, the archive is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Legal_Services_Corp._v._Velazquez/archive1 here].  My impression was "this editor doesn't know that he doesn't know".  It is admirable that he wants to work in such a difficult area (US Supreme Court decisions) but I don't think his contributions (in that particular article - I haven't looked at other contribs) were of particularly high quality. I don't agree with what another editor said, that he has an "obvious grasp of legal concepts." It also concerns me that after I made the strong opposing comments he pretty much abandoned the FAC.  He engaged in a little bit of discussion - but not much and most of the problems I identified with the article are still there. So not confident with his ability to judge quality content and per Scottywong - not that many active months editing.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I can't support yet.  There is a disturbing trend here with the candidate simply agreeing too readily without any independent thought.  A great many of his AFD votes are simply "me too" votes tacked on at the last moment or "per $editor" or "agree with above", leading to almost 100% in agreement with AFDs as of late and over 90% overall, which is unusually high.  Their answers to the questions posted, including my own, seem to be what the candidate thinks we want to hear, offering no real opinions or insight. Admins must be independent and think for themselves, rather than parrot their compatriots in a "me too" fashion.  An administrators that will blindly agree with the majority, without a willingness to express an opinion or take a stand is unhealthy for our self-governing system.  Perhaps is is due to a lack of experience or confidence, but we need our administrators to be more independent than this candidate appears to be at this time.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry...not enough experience for me.
'''Oppose''' per JN466 and Dennis Brown, and lack of experience. Nothing personal to Lord Roem, but I'm squeamish about people who I feel have tailored their activities towards gunning for admin and clearly know what to say and do to accomplish it. One can treat RfA as a political venue (the argument could be made that it is that way no matter how we try to treat it), but I'm uncomfortable with people who do play into that. I was involved in a mediation where Lord Roem presided and felt similarly there, that he would've been more effective had he taken more risks rather than played to what the maximum audience would like to hear. I try not to judge since RfA fosters this kind of thing, but nevertheless, I don't think it's time for this editor. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">
'''Oppose''' Seems like a nice editor who should write more and try again in 6 months. At the next RfA, use a grammar-checker and otherwise copy-edit your responses, e.g. to question 7. Again, generally good but not qualified yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per Equazcion. --
'''Oppose'''. Kiefer and Equazcion raise valid points. That said, the candidate simply does not meet my [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my criteria]].  When these, or an aggregate of them  are reached, I would be happy to support a future attempt.
'''Oppose''' I think candidate will benefit from another shot down the road after accumulating more experience...
'''Oppose''' My vote is based on observation of LR's performance as a clerk on the recent Fae arbitration case. It's been amateurish, immature, and possibly biased. Under the best interpretation, a clerk, just like an admin, needs to know not just how to apply the tools but also be capable of engaging in skillful diplomacy, ESPECIALLY in difficult situations, and that just has not happened here. Previous clerks have not had this problem. LR's actions have only inflamed existing difficult situations and I'm concerned that their admin actions would entail the same kind of pitfalls. Also, someone should add "Not a place to practice being a lawyer" to [[WP:NOT]] (the inability to communicate in "human" rather than "faux-legalese" has been part of the problem here).
'''Oppose''' per Malleus.  Needs more experience
'''Oppose''' Failed to master his brief in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orville (cat)|this case]] recently.  There's a big gap in his contributions last year which confirms the general impression that the candidate lacks experience.

'''Oppose''' There is no question that Lord Roem is an excellent editor and will make an excellent admin. He has the right temperment, the right thought process and a great set of knowledge. However, I am seeing enough small errors that I'd like the editor to have a bit more time on wikipedia before being given the bit. This isn't a numerical thing, it's a gut instinct thing <s>- and I'd be open to changing my mind</s>. It's a shame, because I don't see the need for the bit, this premature nomination seems a little over eager. If I'd seen more experience, I'd have seen more need for the tools and I'd have supported.
'''Oppose'''; unfortunately. I've seen this editor around recently and he seems a decent enough guy. However there are quite a few red flags that suggest he is not quite ready for the tools. --'''
'''Oppose'''. Please forgive me if this sounds big-headed, it's meant as a (sort-of) compliment. This RfA reminds me a lot of my first RfA—I had a bit of experience under my belt, a few thousand edits, I was enthusiastic, and when I was approached by an admin I knew and held in high esteem and asked if I would accept an RfA nomination, I thought I was ready for anything adminship could throw at me. I was certainly competent enough to mash the buttons, but I had no idea of the subtleties of adminship, and those subtleties are the reason we don't have monkeys to mash the buttons so we can focus on the encyclopaedia. Adminship is much more about tact, diplomacy, and judgement, and in this context, those things only come from well-rounded experience. My best advice would be to do what you enjoy doing, not do anything solely because it would look good in an RfA, and try to gain an understanding of as many areas of the project as possible (particularly images and copyright more generally, as that is an area of particular importance in which it seems you lack experience). After six months or a year doing that (and there really is no rush), if you still want to be an administrator, that would be a good time to think about running again. But don't be too disheartened—I don't think anybody doubts your commitment to the project or the sincerity of your offer to take on additional responsibility.
I agree with Fetchcomms that understanding copyright is pretty important for any admin candidate, and working with DYK and AFD requires an understanding of it. Furthermore, the response to question 5 doesn't assuage my concerns, acknowledging the mistake is good, but what I would really hope to see is an explanation of a better approach to image uploading that would have avoided the problem in the first place. Both text and images should be assumed to be copyrighted unless there is a clear exception that applies, or licensing can be found and the answer doesn't adequately address that.
Not yet. Appears to be a good editor, but lacks experience at this time. Solid contributions for a few more months and more to convince that the admin tools are needed and I would likely support in the future.--
'''Oppose'''.  The copyright concerns raised by others are worrying as I would expect admins to have knowledge of this area, but given the promise to stay out of this area until they know more, this on it's own would not be enough for me to oppose.  What I do find significantly worrying, however, is their explanation for this error.  The example given in Q15 that they thought could also be applied to the UK supreme court photo shows a lack of care in an important area - the tag on [[:File:111th_US_Senate_class_photo.jpg]] clearly says it's PD because it's a work of the '''US''' federal government and so could not be generalised to the UK photo.  I'd expect an admin to research important areas such as copyright rather than make, possibly incorrect, assumptions.  As such I oppose at this time but strongly suspect I'll support in future.
'''Oppose''' - To few edits/experience (5000, 12 months), copyright concerns, badgering of opposes, <s>lack of dispute resolution skills</s>.
'''Oppose''' No.  Not yet, not under 2012 standards.  I'd like to see more contributions that are, well, in depth.  I could see another result if he ran again in six months, but I'd also have to see what he did in the interim.--
'''Oppose''' due to a lack of deep experience.
'''Oppose''' Not impressed.
'''Oppose''' - I see a fair bit of good work here, but with under a year's worth of cumulative editing, I'd like to see a bit more experience first.
'''Oppose''' per experience concerns mentioned above and a few intangibles that leave me with a 'gut feeling'.
'''Oppose''' The timing of this is unfortunate.  It seems like a rush to a glorious finish. Lord Roem has only about a year as an editor, has only recently been appointed an Arbitration Clerk, and is now, in the midst of his first arbitration, looking for adminship. I think he needs to slow down. There was nothing in his mediation experiences that struck me as showing particular talent unless (and there are those reading this who might agree) merely getting through one without an RFC/U is considered remarkable. Now the Fae arbitration is gathering steam, and it is leaking in places that need patchwork. Only some of this falls under a Clerk's remit, but what does is not, in my view, always being handled smoothly. So, "not now, maybe later".
'''Oppose'''Per Scottywong and Dennis Brown. I also believe the answer to Q17 misinterprets [[wp:3rr|the 3 revert rule]]. <small>Note:I added a <nowiki>#</nowiki> to Bielle's above to fix counting</small>- [[User:UnbelievableError|UnbelievableError]] ([[User talk:UnbelievableError|talk]]) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) <small>Thank you.
I have to agree with Equazcion's points. <span class="nowrap"><font color="maroon">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="blue">89</font>
The oppose reasons are more persuasive than those of the supporters. The discussion around #O30 (3RR in relation to Q17) clinches it for me. Giving an incorrect interpretation of a rule that could lead to an editor being blocked is bad enough, although I have no doubt that the candidate would not make such an Administrator error now. However, the element of trying to cover up the palpable error by referring to another part of their answer demonstrates a characteristic of defending the initial mistake by obfuscation. Unacceptable but frequently encountered in human nature, but not acceptable when applying for a permanent role of authority and trust.
'''Oppose''' - I hold iron in the highest of regards, but I have to oppose echoing HJ's points mainly. It's simply not enough experience, and not enough chances for people to "get ya", which is what happens around here if you hang around enough.  No problems I know of with this editor, but its not time for adminship.
'''Oppose''': I saw no reason to weigh in on this RfA, not having extensive knowledge of Lord Roem's work, though I thought the content contributions were on the slim side, but after reading the eyebrow-raising answer to Q17 I have no choice but to say that I don't think this user should have a "block" button right now. Sorry.
Leaky caldron has summed up my view too (but I would replace the words 'such an' to 'that'). Making mistakes is one thing, but defending the intial mistake by obfuscation is another - in response to this, certain users' votes on a motion (concerning the candidate's tools) would be cast differently to how they were cast here...to the point that I suspect some people have noticed a glaring sense of unconstructive (if not inappropriate) partiality by those users. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but the answers to Questions 12 and 17 are a bit concerning. Better luck next time!
'''Oppose''' Per Scottywong. I think a little more time in those areas are needed first.
Okay, agendum's done. I will vote for neutral with leaning oppose.
Interested in responses to the further questions. I have had contact with the candidate before, in a rather stressful weeks (months?) - long encounter that required considerable judgement, so am tempted to Support based on how he handled that, and on more brief observations elsewhere. Would need some persuading otherwise, and the Oppose votes are certainly not doing it (especially given the usual suspects there). --
'''Neutral''' Can't support an Ironholds nomination.  Don't see any reason to oppose at first glance, though.
'''Neutral''' - Does pass [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|my criteria]] for the most part, but under criterion nine administrators do need a good basic understanding of copyright matters and the recent incident with the image does concern me. While I acknowledge the candidates' statement that they will stay away from images and that they have learnt from this, bumping into copyright issues is easy to do in many admin areas, and as a result admins should still be familiar with image copyright matters even if they don't specialize in them. However, since this is just one issue and I was close to supporting, I won't oppose.
'''Neutral''' - (Moved from support.) I have to agree with Fetchcomms, HJ Mitchell, and BlueBonnet.
'''Neutral''' (also moved from support). Sorry Lord Roem, nothing personal, but per Fetchcomms, HJ Mitchell, and the Q17 answer. — '''''
'''Support''' as nominator.
As co-nominator!
'''Support'''.  We need more admins, and it looks like he will not abuse the mop.
'''Support''' About time. --
'''Support''' trust the judgement of the nominators. Answers seem good and like what I saw when spot checking random contributions.
'''Support''' Any candidate with answers as thoughtful as those and who already has the Dennis Brown seal of approval is almost an automatic support for me.
'''Support''' – Excellent RfPP, AfD, and CSD work. Absolutely nothing to oppose about.
'''Support''' - LuK3 seems like an excellent admin candidate. He is very thorough and we could use more good administrators.--
'''Support''' per Go Phightins!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I trust the nominators' judgement. Seems like he would make an excellent admin. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Everything checks out!
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support''' About time.
High-quality candidate, and excellent jobs on the nomination statements, guys. - Dank (
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' I trust the nominators' judgment, and answers to questions are good. Should do a fine job with the tools.
'''Support'''. Have seen him around and his contributions are good.
'''Support''' - seems to meet my requirements. --
'''Support''' - Good anti-vandalism work, low drama and a solid contributor. Hand him a mop! -
'''Weak support'''.  I'm somewhat concerned by the statement on blocks (Q5), which seems to be somewhat hasty, and by the statement on speedy deletions (Q8), which appears to see too much importance in these examples, especially the second.  However, I'm inclined to trust a nomination by Dennis, so I expect that LuK will edit in good faith and won't misuse the tools.  Before long, he'll probably learn how better to use the tools, and I doubt he'll make substantial errors before then.  We need more admins, and someone working in good faith and willing to learn should be capable.
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions.
'''Weak support''', based on several answers which show a few areas the nominated user needs to work on; but nothing which causes me not to support the user in the end.
'''Support''' Answer to Q5 made me sit and think for a bit, as it reads initially as if you would be over-zealous with the block button. But on re-reading I realize that you are talking in terms of applying blocks to proven vandals, which is generally wholly acceptable. Please be careful with your phraseology in your warnings, assuming this RfA is successful.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. Because he is humble, will ask for help, and honestly admits to wanting to avoid AN/I. We could use more admins who are here to do just the non contentious work, with no trigger happy finger,  and no apparent desire for power. Further I think a lot of Dennis Brown and his support and nomination are meaningful.(
'''Support''' (moved from ''neutral'') There are a number of learning points for the candidate which have arisen from comments here. I've still seen no evidence that the tools are likely to be used in unconstructive ways, and am of the impression that the candidate would proceed with caution if this RfA is successful: therefore offering support. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support''' Good contributions so far, and I'm satisfied with his answers.
'''Support''', excellent editor
'''Weak support:''' A great editor, but there are some legitimate concerns. Needs a bit more time. -
I am sorry to be the first one to oppose, but your answer to my question was pretty much wrong; furthermore, if, as an admin, you were to actually act as you say you would in your reply to My76Strat's question, then you'd probably end up making things worse. To remind established users to assume good faith of each other during a heated discussion is, in my opinion, not the best of ideas {{emdash}} it sounds awfully condescending, even though that may not have been your intention. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
I regret opposing this nomination as well. I do feel that your answer to Q7 is cause for concern. The concern is that you are still learning some of the basic tenets of this site's operation, and appear too likely to offend established users who will intersect with your learning curve. Reminding someone to AGF is a mild form of ABF, for it assumes they did not. Linking the term assumes they don't even know of its existence. And linking it here, in your answer, assumes the users who have come to evaluate your nomination need the link for understanding as well. Normally I would not oppose on these grounds alone, but I was already reluctant based on your level of content creation. I am uncomfortable supporting a user for administrator when it bundles so many user rights that the candidate would be unlikely to obtain if they were requested individually. I do not believe you would be granted autopatrolled if a request was weighed against your contributions. In total, the sum is inadequate for me to believe you are an example of editor that ought to be fast-tracked to administrator, with normal requisites for permissions waived, because of your demonstrated potential. I think you have more demonstrating to do, plenty of time and opportunity ahead of you for demonstrating, and a general need for more experience.
No content contributions in the last 6 months, just reverts of vandalism.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Per Salvio and 76Strat. Also, the "Walking Dead" page is cited as representative of the candidate's best content work with a GA nom mentioned, yet I see only 15 edits to the page between 19-23 dec 11, all relatively minor, and nothing since.[http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)] To clarify, I believe the editor is a great asset to the project and seems to be a very hard worker, I'm thinking that its maybe too soon yet, given the answers and lack of audited content work.
Like Ceoil, I believe Luk3 is a good, hard working editor who is likely an asset to the project but think he/she is not ready yet. In particular, what concerns me is the paucity of examples of sustained interactions with other editors and the relatively small number of edits to article talk pages (219 edits or 1.34% of total edits). Admins should have demonstrated experience in handling contentious issues and I see little of that here. --
Block happy, prot happy. Answers to questions are extremely poor. Lack of content contributions. -
I'm sorry to have to say this but I have to '''weak oppose'''. This candidate specifically states that he doesn't want to participate in AN/I, and will avoid it if possible, which just doesn't meet my personal taste. I think an administrator should be willing, if not eager, to help wherever is needed. This means monitoring everything, including helping in AN/I. Also, he states he only wants to do "snow keeps and closes according to consensus" on AfDs, which in my opinion, snow keeps can be left to non-admins very well, and the easy consensus ones too, whereas he doesn't seem ready to make hard decisions that are needed of an administrator. His replies in terms of involvment also cause some concern from me. I have no doubt that if he is obviously involved he would recuse himself, but he states "If another administrator would think I was involved" which leads me to believe he isn't able to make the decision himself, which I feel is needed in an administrator. Pending any answer to the question I ask above, I have to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. An admin candidate who wants to stay the hell away from [[WP:PITCHFORKS]]? We could use more of those around here. However, I find the candidate's answers to many of the questions to be two-dimensional. His answers suggest that he can parrot policy fairly well, but I'm not seeing much in the way of critical thinking. I am in agreement with gwickwire above in the way that I don't feel that this candidate can be counted on to make decisions for himself. Q7 in particular is exceptionally poor. I don't think that he is intentionally trying to be condescending, but that is exactly how the answer comes off... and this is not a good quality for an admin.
'''Oppose''' - The statements concerning AfD from someone who intends to be involved in assessing CSDs would indicate to me that this is someone who is simply not ready to be assessing CSDs. - <b>
'''Support''' Much as ANI needs an expert on zombies, this writer of the article [[The Walking Dead (tv series)|zombies]] needs time to review policies and to try some informal mediation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Q8 by Salvio.  Article #1 is not a: real person, company, animal, organization, or web content.  So CSD A7 doesn't apply at all.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Poor question answers, as well as the concerns regarding CSD (Q8, mainly).
'''Oppose'''.  A great editor, but I am concerned by the answer to Question 9.  It would be preferable if the candidate gains a bit more experience in consensus-finding, particularly by participating in more deletion discussions.  Given a few months of more experience, I would think Luk3 will be ready for adminship, but I don't thin he's quite there yet.

'''Oppose''' per answer to Q9. AFD and AN/I are important areas of admin activity that all potential admins should be able and willing to participate in.
The candidate's answers to RFA questions such as  #7 and #8 show that he needs a bit more experience before he's ready for the sysop gig. Weak answers coupled with minimal content-building experience result in my '''oppose'''. That said, I think he's doing some good work and could make a fine admin one of these days.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question nine.
I hate to do this because I ''have'' seen [[User:LuK3|LuK3]]'s name around and he's definitely a productive contributor, probably someone who would make a pretty good administrator with time and experience. That said, I have to agree with [[User:Salvio  giuliano|Salvio giuliano]]'s sentiments above; telling two established contributors who have otherwise been very polite and friendly to "AGF" as if they were a couple of immature, inexperienced editors with axes to grind would come across as patronizing. It may also be an ineffective approach to diffusing the situation. My advice to LuK3? If this fails, don't be too disheartened. Let this RfA act as a learning experience (actually, even if it ''is'' successful, there's plenty of growth that can be achieved from this point), come back within five or six months, and I can almost guarantee my support at a future date.
'''Oppose''' due to poor question answers. <span class="nowrap"><font color="red">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="red">89</font>
'''Oppose''' Concerns to his answers to questions regarding AFD and CSD. Not ready at this time. '''
'''Oppose''' Hate to do this, but after looking at a few of your contributes in areas you wish to work and the ways in which you answered the questions, you are not ready for the tools yet. This is going to be a wall-o-text. From your CSD log, you make good judgements, yet the question to the example CSDs above is sorta like a 'trained' answer and lacks perspective from the aspect of a reviewer. For someone with such experience you do not seem able to understand the flip side of the coin. For vandalism patrol, I pulled a very recent one, from December 3 which shows 5 edits (and more from other patrollers) yet you did not take the simple action of requesting semi page protection. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinsdale_Central_High_School&action=history] If I have to revert the same garbage 5x within 2 hours or even a day, I'm requesting a semi. As for content contributions, they are lacking. 33 edits are in a row on the Yankees-Red sox rivalry. It looks like you spent 3 active days total on it. And while the article is a GA, it doesn't seem to be your 'baby' as the GA started back in late June and your edits came from July on. [[April 2012 Afghanistan attacks]] is good, but since April, almost nothing has been added, and your interest was only 4 days long. The work itself is not bad, its just that you do not seem to retain an interest and bring an article to GA or FA. Even though you have been here since 2008, the only measure of your ability is from the last six months where you have been active. So its not like a tenure matter, I just don't see the level of experience or a great justification for the tools. Lastly, the responses to the other answers sealed it for me, "My best contributions are my vandalism reverts and reports." One does not need to be an admin to do this, as of this day you show you did not take reasonable action even after reverting the same garbage 5x. Question 3's "I have not been in any conflicts that gave me stress", is a stand out. We haven't seen a conflict in which you had to show restraint, leadership and civility. I want admins to at least be active in discussions, heated and otherwise. These people skills are increasingly more required, and you have not yet demonstrated experience in discussions, concensus and the more troublesome aspects of Wikipedia which you will surely encounter as an active admin. A vanilla response to #4 is probably a sign that you haven't developed your own foundations for 'deletionist' and 'inclusionist' ideologies as both of those projects are important to their own groups for a great many reasons, just saying they are valuable and what they do shows a minimal understanding of their histories and aims. Question 5 was fine until I read, "blocking will a main pillar in my administrative work, so I would be using it frequently." and when asked to clarify you don't banish the thought that blocking people isn't your primary work, but that you won't be trigger happy about it. A poor choice of words or a judgement matter, either way, I cannot agree on that either. Question six is wrong. If you are involved in something, blocking someone who is making a personal attack on your page in response is very poor judgement. Like it or not, you should let someone else deal with that, as you are involved and it is a personal matter. Its just too much to work on and its littered with signs of inexperience and judgement issues. I am not willing to let there  be this much 'on the job' training of an admin, one or two issues is fine, but on the whole, you are not ready to be an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per [[User:TParis|TParis]] above. The candidate simply does not seem to have the experience to be an admin (At This Time), his answers, particularly to Q8 were rather telling. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">
'''Oppose''' per previously stated problems with answer to Q8. '''
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience at AN/ANI/AFD which I would expect in any hopeful admin,
'''Oppose''' per problems above regarding Q8. <span style="text-shadow: 6px 6px 15px #AAAAFF, -4px -4px 15px #B7C3D0;">
'''Neutral''' I agree with Trevj. I need to look into this further before I vote for or against the user. The opposes raise some concerns.
'''Neutral''' Per Ceoil, and Trevj. I feel more experience is needed for this candidate, but I want to do a wait and see approach here. I disagree that the answer for "Salvio" question is completely wrong. I would have speedied example number two as G11, and example one should have been declined because it's not a company/person/band/organization that A7 supposed to be use for and that was clearly a proper misuse of the tag, but he played the safe approach to these questions, which is fine. If he said he would have speedied example one as A7, then there is cause for concern with his question.
'''Neutral''' I wanted to support this candidate, not least because I respect both nominators, and in particular, Dennis Brown says that he has done much reviewing of the candidate prior to nominating. However, the lack of quality and clarity in the answers to the questions gives me pause. I think it's probably "stage fright", but then, as an admin the spotlight is likely to be upon him more often than it is now, and he will often be placed in situations where he needs to assess questions like this quickly, and explain his actions clearly. I'm also concerned from his answers that he may tend to lean towards a block as a solution more often than is necessary, but, given that much of his work is in anti-vandalism, where he would have encountered many purely disruptive accounts, this may be a somewhat unfair assessment. I will look at more of his contributions, and may revisit this vote if I find enough evidence to push me off the fence in either direction. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Neutral''' - good intentions, but more experience needed in my opinion to make a good admin. --
I see no real concern in contributions, but the most important quality in a candidate is clue, and an ability to think critically. While the contributions look fine, I couldn't quite bring myself to support, based upon some mediocre answers to questions. May move to support, and I certainly won't oppose, but I don't have enough confidence to support. ''
'''Neutral''' pending answer to TParis questions.
'''Neutral'''. I've been swaying back and forth on this one, but I feel that some of the concerns raised in the oppose section (particularly the answer to Q8) are compelling. I'm sure this great editor will make a fine admin one day, but I can't support at this time. Good luck!
'''Neutral, but really an "oppose with moral support"''' My thinking as I read the responses to the questions was one word: "TENTATIVE"; the responses are bit like a 5 year old at the end of the diving board.  I believe that given more time, further experience, and a lot of work in "admin-ish" areas, this editor ''could'' be a reasonable admin candidate someday.  You have been provided a lot of things to work on, both in terms of article work and policy knowledge.  Take the opportunity to reflect ''positively'' on this experience, and probably see you back here around the end of 2013. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Support''' Very helpful and technically knowledgeable editor with good judgment. No concerns he would abuse the tools.
{{confirmed}}....err wait, wrong button. Yep, obvious '''support''' as nominator. Helpful, trustworthy, knowledgeable, clueful editor who gives me no impression he would abuse the tools.
'''Support.''' Lovely bloke, sensible, and helpful. Very good with new users, which is good, because he works with them a lot (which is good because they tend to need it). Oh, and he's sensible. Did I mention that? Understands what's going on and how things work, and as such how to deal with them, when to deal with them and when instead to simply step away. Sense is good. ''' —
'''Support''' -- Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=1000&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Mabdul&namespace=0| this] and  [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] commented above.
'''Support''' Wait, you weren't one already?
I trust the nominator, been helpful in #wikipedia-en-help and it's an area that needs more administrators.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' An immensely helpful Wikipedian, I trust Mabdul to be an effective and fair admin. --
What the fuck? Since when is Mabdul not an administrator?
Duh, obviously. Mabdul knows his shit. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Have seen him at AFC doing great job. Certainly Mabdul has the temperament to deal with editors specially newbies and the [[WP:PG|knowledge of Wikipedia]] as well. --
'''Support''' - What? Mabdul isn't an admin?
'''Support''' {{endash}} definitely!  Mabdul is loaded with cluefulness, extraordinarily helpful, and I particularly like the way he will go the extra mile for newbies.  Giving him the tools will be an excellent move.
I thought you were an admin already! (lol) Good work at [[WP:AFC]]. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' per all the above and I am sure the user will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' no questions, he deserves it -
'''Support'''. Seen him around a lot, and have seen nothing at all that concerns me. '''
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. I wish all RfA decisions were this easy. --
'''Support''' I have mainly seen his contributions to the ''possibly unfree files'' and ''files for deletion'' discussions and he seems to be a competent user. --
'''Support'''. The reasons for adminship (answer to question 1) initially looked a little weak. However I have looked through Mabdul's contributions, and he makes many good quality CSD tags. This is a more compelling reason than the "view deletion" argument.
'''Support''' - seems to be both willing and able. Good luck.
'''Support''' Had nothing but good interactions with Mabdul. Have no doubt he will use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''' No concerns. From my dealings with Mabdul, I have no doubt that he will be one of those admins that chips away at all the backlogs no one else wants to do.
{{like}}. <small>Whenever I've seen Mabdul around they've been pleasant, competent, and helpful. Am confident that Mabdul-with-a-mop would be a net positive.</small>
'''Support''' I don't know this user but, if WilliamH see's him fit, then so do I.  I trust nominator.—
'''Support''' Candidate has done a lot of work and won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason to think candidate will abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I've worked with Mabdul at the account creation interface and I can tell that he is a trustworthy editor. I have no doubt he will abuse the tools. --  '''
'''Support''' - Seems to know what he's doing! {{=)}} -
I've had many positive interactions with this user over the past year, and he's definitely trustworthy and qualified for the mop. There have been times when he's asked for admin help while accepting AfCs when there's a history conflict, so the need for the tools is clearly there as well. &mdash;&nbsp;

Absolutely...my goodness, there have been a pretty good crop of RfA candidates lately...
'''Support''' - Never afraid to get his hands dirty if necessary to get the job done.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, 24K edits, no indication of assholery.
'''Support''' - Don't see why not, plenty experienced. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Looks good!
No issues, helpful, whatever "irc canvassing" stands for, someone said irc != wikipedia, so I don't really care what happened there. On wiki actions are ok.
--
'''Support''' When I was new he helped me along even as I pestered him on IRC about various policies and editing actions. He is the reason why I started at AfC and STiki which have been my primary joys in editing wikipedia. He shows courtesy and patience when confronted with users who cannot figure out some of the more technical aspects of wikipedia. He has good judgement, it would be a shame to refuse him solely for his IRC quit message.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' — The editor has done useful work and I wouldn't reject him just because of the IRC message. I came here because I saw the list of open RfAs and I recognized his name due to his work with account creation. No concerns about his judgment in admin matters.
'''Support''' - We need more admins. No concerns about the IRC message; posting a single link to this page with no further commentary to open channels with wide audiences was at worst a very minor lapse. <strong>
'''Support''' great editor, does a lot at AfC, and what the hell is the big deal with having a link to your RfA in a signoff message?  Were people who had "Flagged revisions now!"  or the equivalent in their signatures a year ago somehow canvassing ''then''?  I don't remember that ever being a problem, and it shouldn't be now.
'''Support''' The drama raised at IRC with the use a link to RFA does not override the fact that there's no sign that Mabdul would abuse the tools, or have poor judgement in admin matters. Technically competent and pleasant interactions on several early internet articles.
'''Support''' My only concern was addressed.  Happily support.--v/r -
'''Support''' There doesn't seem to be any real canvassing violation here, and it seems that this editor would make for a good administrator.--
'''
'''Support''' looks OK.
'''Support''' - The IRC message, while probably not wholly thought out, is really not much more canvassing than adding the "I'm undergoing an RFA!" banner to your userpage. Both have the effect of drawing your stalkers (both friends and enemies) to your RFA to vote. The main issue with the IRC notification is that not many people use IRC whereas everybody can see your userpage.
'''Support''' The whole "canvassing" situation isn't a huge issue and you are a great editor. --

'''Support''' – I know that my thought process is influenced by my culture, yes, I live here in the United States of America, where [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|Canvassing]] is done for any individual looking to move to a position that involves the community at large to assent  the additional responsibilities that are provided by a Vote.  Be it either a !vote or an actual counting of the individual votes.  As of right now I see an editor with over 24,000 edits, Involved member of Wikipedia for just over 4 years, no blocks to their name, no civility complaints, that I can find, and has answered over 10 questions (counting subdivisions of the questions) with honesty, understanding, other than one complaint below, and clarity.  Is there more we ask?  Likewise, I looked at the Oppose votes and found that of the 18 Opposes only two (2) were for other reasons than  [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|Canvassing]], To fully understand this majority of Opposes I first went to [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|Canvassing]] to see what the policy may say and the first thing I read is; “…In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.”  Have I misread the statement, or does it say; “well canvassing is OK except for RFA’s”, if it did I missed it.  Also I reviewed the statements with regards to using the [[Wikipedia:IRC|IRC]] as Canvassing sight that may only include individuals that would be sympathy to the candidate position and hence unfairly weight the outcome of an !vote and found this statement; “…Wikipedia IRC is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a project run by volunteers of their own accord. The Wikipedia channels on freenode were designed by users of Wikipedia as places for Wikipedians to chat using IRC. They are casual and not logged publicly. As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to a conversation in a pub – the discussion may be conducted between a small numbers of people but may be overheard by hundreds, or more if the logs are published.”  To my reading this is not a [[WP:Cabal|Cabal]] that may drastically change the outcome of any !Vote situation.  So all in all Good Candidate that has experience, the time and the willingness to put up with this.  Yes, they have my support (Yes long winded, but words a free to use :-).  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I have no idea what IRC is really like (it's a series of tubes, right?) but after reading all the arguments for and against the notion that the quit message posted above is worse, better or the same than the other ways RFAs are posted, it's a wash, for me. I don't care. I'm just unmoved by the whole mini-drama. mabdul's a great editor, I'm sure he'll make a fine admin, and if we oppose him this time because of this quit-message-whatever-thing, we'll just have to pass him at the ''next'' RFA, when he ''hasn't'' posted the thing, so let's give him the tools now.
'''Support'''.   Because I was canvassed in IRC.  '''NOT.'''   A quit message in IRC is the primary reason to oppose this editor being an admin?  IRC is a place for people to become aware of things who don't stalk all the various overflowing incident/noticeboard around here.  Any communication source can be abused, of course, but he didn't ask for people's support, and trust me, the quit message would notify any IRC enemies/opponents too.  If that's the basis for the oppose votes, I add my support just to counter one of them.  In addition, he appears to be a fine reasonable editor doing valuable work.--'''
'''Support''' in spite of my intention to oppose.  The IRC opposes are misguided; #wikipedia-en-help is a long-established mechanism for talking users through the editing process and a great way of getting notification of {{tl|helpme}} requests; the quit message was not canvassing in my opinion.  I was going to oppose on the basis of the candidate's AFD "vote didn't match result" rate of 24.4%; but my hand was stayed with a CSD success rate of better than 95% (it might even be better than 97%) and the fact that the AFD failures are heavily weighted towards keeps - so we have an editor who's tendencies fall towards keeping articles, but isn't a rabid inclusionist.  CSD success indicates extremely good judgement, better than mine.  Edit summary usage is 100%, with meaningful edit summaries used - signs of a good communicator.  A clean block log. 23k edits, four years of service.  What's not to love?
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Mabdul is human and as humans, we all make mistakes. I genuinely don't feel that the IRC incident somehow proves that he'll do a poor job as an admin, like some other editors are indicating, for I don't feel it's an issue at all. Perhaps he shouldn't have linked to his RfA, but it's not as though he blatantly asked people to support him.
'''Support''' 100% support. So what if they have canvassed? <font face="Comic Sans MS">
Really, I could care less of what goes on in the IRC chatrooms, as what most of this <s>editor's opponents</s> RFA's opposers claim.  I support based on what this editor brings to [[Wikipedia]]. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Can't see any real problem.
'''Support''' - Absolutely ridiculous to bring up this IRC "canvassing" issue - if you can even call it that, good luck. This editor has been on Wikipedia now for 4 years; has a crystal clear block log; 24k edits. A small bump along the way, does not need to be magnified into something it isn't, and should not be used as means of tarnishing this editors impeccable reputation towards the encyclopedia. -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Support'''. I think the message on IRC was a borderline call as far as canvassing goes. The problem with the make up of IRC is that it makes it (or at the very least makes it ''perceived to be'') a non-neutral audience. I think Mabdul made the wrong call, but I note that he accepts this in his answer to question eight. I don't think we should recruit admins solely from users with "error free" histories on this project. Indeed, I think it's useful to see how prepared a candidate is to recognise a mistake and evaluate the decision making process that led to it. I am happy with the way Mabdul has done so and, on balance, believe him to be a good candidate for the extra tools. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
Competent user, willing to correct mistakes, and who wants to help the English Wikipedia.
'''Support''' (moved from neutral). I don't think the canvassing issue is really such a big deal. Mabdul is a good newbie helper, a somewhat thankless task at times, and I think given the admin bits he would only use them to do more good work in this area.
'''Support''' The more admins in IRC the better.  He seems like he has the temperment for the tools.
'''Support''' - I have worked with Mabdul since he joined the ACC team. I have found him to be very helpful, professional and clue-full. I am having problems distinguishing the difference between having a mention of one's RfA in a quit message and having a link to "My editor review" in a signature. Yes I agree an RfA is more ''formal'' than an editor review but, [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassing]] does not distinguish between a question, editor review or RfA. It seems this issue is just being used as something of convenience rather a problem of issue.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia will benefit greatly if he's given the tools. --
'''Support''' No problem if this user gets admin rights. '''''
'''Support''' per incomprehension I haven't !voted already.--<span style="">
'''Support''' purely to offset some of the idiocy in the oppose section. <small>''Note: I neither indicated that all opposes are pointless, nor did I indicate who I refer to, and I am leaving it at that.''</small> --
'''Support''' I like the positive, helpful attitude displayed at AfC and edit requests.
'''Support''' because I see the exit message more as exuberance than malice, and because after this community flogging I seriously doubt that you'll do anything like this ever again.
'''Support''' logs show use of account creation, renames and uploads with correct FURs demonstrating wide experience.
'''Support''' no concerns here. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Real one on April Fools Day !! Make it count :-) --&nbsp;
'''Support''' Per Graeme Bartlett.
'''Support'''. Mabdul is an experienced, clueful and reliable editor, who has demonstrated a need for the admin tools in his day to day editing. The overwhelming majority of editors in the "Oppose" column indicate that their opposition is based on a neutrally-worded link to this RfA that Mabdul gave as his quit message in IRC. The message was unwise. But it is widely accepted that it has ''not'' had an unduly positive impact on the !voting (since few people on IRC would be unaware of an ongoing RfA anyway, & since the channels involved were sufficiently widely occupied to make the message seen by just as many potential opposers as supporters). Also, although posting the link was an error of judgement, it does not even come close to being serious enough to call into question the reliability of an editor who's widely acknowledged to be thoughtful, constructive, and calm-spirited. A significant subset of the opposers are driven by the rationale that IRC is a bad thing and therefore an Oppose helps to fight against a bad thing. IRC may or may not be a bad thing, but we should look to appoint administrators whose adminship benefits Wikipedia without being a risk to Wikipedia. The IRC storm-in-a-teacup does not change the fact Mabdul has met those criteria, and the closing bureaucrat should look dimly on shallow Oppose rationales such as "canvassing" and "per Logan". RfA does not exist as a means to indicate disapproval of IRC. --
'''Support''' For me, the IRC issue is of no matter - it could have attracted people wishing to oppose as readily as those wishing to support. I am not an IRC user (still don't know what it is, even, but class it with social networking and instant messaging until I find out different), so I am not here as a result of that link. I've waited until now to !vote. I nearly went neutral because of slight concerns about mabdul's command of English, but those are now resolved for me. I've found out that he combines a sense of humour with a sense of responsibility, and I see little to worry about. (As a natural worrier, if I can't see something to worry about, I worry about what I am missing...) May not be this time, but should be next, barring disasters in between times.
'''Support.''' When a candidate who is taking part in the RfA process is supported, the phrase "net positive" (or similar) may be used to describe them. That's how I'd look at this candidate, take all the good things that he's shown (his article work, helping new users in #wikipedia-en-help, OTRS access are some) and taking away the "bad" things, such the April Fools Day participation, and you get that Mabdul would be, in my opinion, a good addition to the team. There are users that I highly trust and whose opinion I respect that are opposing this candidate, mainly with regards to the lapse of judgement with respect to the posting of the link on the IRC quit message. I'm willing to give Mabdul the [[WP:AGF|benefit of the doubt]] in this instance, as I don't strictly think that it classes as canvassing and from Mabdul's answers to the various questions on the matter, this does not appear to be his intention. We've all made mistakes before, although probably not at a time when we were under such a high level of scrutiny!
'''Support''' Per THO :-) --[[User:ADH10|<span style="color:teal">Addi</span>]]
'''Support''' The IRC issue was one minor mistake.
'''Support''' Mabdul was a very silly for posting that in his /quit message. Otherwise, they strike me as a mostly sensible user (he has his faults, and the /quit message is one of them) who works very hard to improve Wikipedia. I believe he will be duly chastened by the opposes. He's a safe pair of hands to wield a mop, and if he gets granted a mop, I see no reason to think he'll make a mess of actually being an admin, even though he's made a right cockup of this RfA. {{Smiley}} —
I want to be an admin so I can help out on IRC? I am strongly concerned that this user isn't aware that IRC has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise per my question.
'''Strong oppose''' per blatant canvassing on IRC in the quit message (including the full link to the RfA). This is unacceptable to me.
'''Oppose''' per Logan.  Also, I've found this user to be abrasive at times in interactions I've had with him.~
'''Oppose''' regrettably per Logan. Unless Mabdul can provide valid justifications, I'm going to have to oppose at this time. Regards,
Per Logan. Personally, I don't think IRC is worth its trouble to me anymore, but I hold nothing against users who try to help users off the wiki. But being an admin requires a special kind of judgment that I think should ask, "Hm, could this be construed as canvassing?" and answer, "Maybe and maybe not, but it would be wise just not to modify my quit message". In this case, I'm disappointed that the candidate did not maneuver wisely. Sometimes, being an admin is about ''not'' taking risks and manipulating one's circumstances correctly. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' - I think that a prospective admin should know better than to stick a link to his/her rfa in an irc quit message.--
'''Strong''' '''Oppose''' Not only blatant [[WP:CANVASS]] in the IRC messaging, but a have to seriously doubt the mindset of someone who even THINKS doing that was a good idea - clearly does not yet have the clear judgement required to be an admin ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per Logan. If you're good enough, you don't need to canvas for support. <span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' due to the canvassing incident. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''.While I understand the desire to canvass, I understand canvassing subverts the process. The fact that it was hidden at IRC is troubling. I'd like more transparent out-in-the-open Admins. ```
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, Mabdul. I don't believe your intent was to canvass, and I think you're a promising admin candidate, but the ability to think through actions and identify what might be contentious or damaging ''before'' taking the action is an important tool for an administrator, and your IRC quit message (though apparently neutral) was one of those things that ought to have been thought through, identified as "this will probably cause drama", and avoided. I think you need to work some more on internalizing that sense of how the community views actions of various types. If you can do that, I think you'll sail through a future RFA with few problems.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, what Fluffernutter mentions holds quite true. It's not just about the intent (or lack of the same) to canvass, but about being able to judge good form from bad form. And Mabdul's quit-message publicizing the RfA is perhaps a momentary lack of judgment that should not have been committed, especially when the matter is about one's RfA. Twice this year, I've seen RfAs being troubled by issues of canvassing. In the previous incident, the canvasser was the nominator himself. This time, it's unfortunately Mabdul. I personally feel the community needs to adjudicate strongly on canvassing - either accept all kinds of canvassing or prohibit it completely... Apart from the canvassing issue, going through [[Arena (web browser)]], which Mabdul says is his best article, I perceive a preponderance of material based purely on primary sources, sps, questionable sources and some evidently unreliable sources (I think I also viewed somewhere within the article material based on 'Letters to the editor'; I may be wrong on this though). There are of course some definite reliable sources too; but my interest is waylaid by the emphasis on primary sources. As it stands currently overall, I have to oppose this candidacy. My apologies to Mabdul.
'''Oppose''' The canvassing issue really makes me feel uncomfortable for a potential admin. I seldom get involved in RFAs, but I really don't like that kind of behaviour when applying for adminship. I think it was a poor decision and not reflective on the candidate as a whole but it is strong enough to make me oppose this request for adminship. Apologies.--
'''Oppose''' The main complaint against IRC is that it tends to favour off-wiki coordination, thereby reducing transparency. Any editor who's been around as long as Mabdul should be well aware of this and act accordingly.
'''Oppose''' the irc issues brings Mabdul's decision making skills into question. Sorry --
'''Oppose''' - I have some concerns with the level of English, for example the candidate does not appear to have understood question 10; as well as this the candidate has expressed a desire to avoid controversial situations as a result of the language barrier, and in my opinion it is essential that admins are able to deal with controversial situations with clarity. As well as this, per Logan.  There is a big difference between placing an RfA notice on one's userpage (where one has to visit the candidate's userpage hence showing an interest in the candidate's wikipedia activites) and a public notice appearing to IRC users (a specific group of users are  notified of the RfA regardless of whether they have actively sought information about the candidate).
'''Oppose''' IRC? Canvassing? Either of those is enough for me. We are not desperate for new Admins, certainly not candidates so desperate to be one.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately the canvassing made me oppose. In particular it might be that they did not fully read the recommended material - [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_not_to_see|"Advertising" your RfA]] They should note that it is placed between "edit wars" and "blocks" in order of severity.
'''Oppose''' per Logan.
'''Oppose''' candidate has the tenure and experience, the IRC thing on its own wouldn't have put me in the oppose column, I might have even gone as far as a weak support - admins should know and comply with unwritten rules, but I can see that IRC could be considered a neutral audience, and there is an argument that a neutral message to a neutral audience isn't itself canvassing. I'm not bothered whether a candidate has created zero articles and only improves those started by others or has started hundreds validly. But having looked through some of the editors AFC comments I'm not sure I share the impression others have of such a helpful editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kenny_Cordray&diff=prev&oldid=483758095 "submission lacks inline citations"] as a decline reason at AFC? At GA or FA of course, but at AFC? By all means show someone how to make their refs inline, but I'd be uncomfortable giving the deletion button to someone who would reject a new article because the citations are not inline. ''
'''Oppose''' per Logan and LC.
'''Oppose''' Candidate's IRC activities are unacceptable. Wikipedia IRC is unacceptable. All Wikipedia-related communications should be on Wikipedia, accessible to all editors. IRC is the shadowy, clique-ridden, kiddychat-oriented antithesis of the essential need for openness and access.
'''Oppose''', canvassing.
'''Oppose''' per Logan.--''<font face="bold">
'''Oppose'''. (Trying to avoid repeating what everyone else have said) Well, once again IRC is demonstrated to be the source of many wiki problems.
'''Oppose'''.  Unlogged IRC is the antithesis of transparency, and soliciting votes through it shows questionable judgement.
'''Oppose''' A dubious '[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FAccount_creator&diff=484970919&oldid=483827348 joke]' whilst mid RFA shows little judgement.
'''Oppose''' - I am regretful about this !vote, but the IRC/canvassing issue and April Foolery while running for admin concern me. To be an admin, as I see it, you must not only avoid wrongdoing but the ''appearance'' of wrongdoing. Maturity is in the eye of the beholder; in my view, a bit more experience is called for before I approve a lifetime adminship on Wikipedia. I do thank the candidate for offering to serve and suggest another try later this year.
'''Oppose''' The canvassing issue, the joke, and the many unclear responses to questions. Not comfortable supporting this candidate at this time. Perhaps in the future. --
'''Oppose''' I can't support someone getting the tools when they disrupt WP during their RFA. April Fool's should be kept to the main page.
'''Oppose''' – I can't support in light of the canvassing concerns Logan brings up. Sorry. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Oppose''' - unclear responses to questions, issues with IRC (and yes, I'm aware that IRC is not Wikipedia, but the candidate himself linked the two), and the recent proposal on WT:RFA all suggest that this candidate is not yet ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per the above.  Mis-use of IRC is a bog problem.
'''Oppose''' for a number of reasons: the IRC incident shows poor judgment, as does the April foolishness. Additionally, while you might say, "I generally don't want to handle controversial problems" (7A), I don't believe that it's possible for an admin to completely avoid controversy—few actions will have a unanimous consensus. Also, while your grasp of the English language is good, I'm not seeing that it's strong enough to always make yourself clear. For example, several of your answers above required multiple re-readings in order to guess what you might be trying to say. And lastly, you say that you were very busy this week (which happens to us all), but then, you had plenty of time to work on April Fool's jokes—should those really have been higher priority than answering questions about your RFA? <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
Making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FAccount_creator&diff=484970919&oldid=483827348 April Fools' jokes] with other people's accounts does not reflect the maturity and judgment required of an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I was willing to overlook the IRC canvassing, but April Fools jokes during an RFA? Good way to demonstrate a lack of judgement and maturity. '''''
The IRC message was ill-advised, but I do not believe that Mabdul was only seeking support votes with it, and it was not something serious enough (for me) to oppose outright. However, I think that performing April Fool's japes while going through an RfA shows unwise judgment (and that post on permissions would have been inappropriate even when someone is not up for RfA), and that combined with the aforementioned error convinces me to oppose this candidacy. I do find this a disappointment, as I do see Mabdul's name around and I think he does good work: I hope I can support him at a later date.
'''Oppose!''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FAccount_creator&diff=484970919&oldid=483827348 Making an April Fools joke] like that shows lack of maturity, an administrator needs to be mature. '''
'''Oppose''' per a great many things above. -
'''Neutral''' I really wish I could support, but I don't feel right supporting, per Logan.
Bah, came here to support but the incredible lack of judgement in advertising this page over IRC has forced me to go here. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''<small>(Moved from Support till canvassing incident calms down)</small> due to issues put in the Oppose section.--
'''Neutral'''  Though I would recommend any closer review the ArbCom positions gathered at [[WP:False consensus]].  I would likely support this person otherwise.
'''Neutral''' - The IRC incident probably didn't bring any voters here who wouldn't have already come, but to post off-wiki announcements of an RfA (no matter how neutrally worded) is a lapse of judgment.  And yes, IRC is most definitely off-wiki, equivalent to posting an announcement on twitter.  Also, I'm a stickler for enwiki admins having a near perfect grasp of the english language, and while I understand the candidate is not a native english speaker (and I'm willing to be somewhat more lenient for that), there are still a few too many spelling and grammatical issues for me.  Admins need to be able to explain things in a crystal clear fashion in the native language of the wiki.  However, both the temporary lapse of judgment and the spelling/grammar issues are too minor for me to oppose.  If this RfA doesn't pass successfully, I have no doubt that trying again in a few months (and being more careful on IRC) will result in a successful RfA.
'''Neutral''' - The IRC incident does affect my position, but I do not feel that I can oppose this user. I have not seen the incident myself, which is one reason I would not be comfortable opposing. Also, I gather that the quit message posted was just a link - if it is deemed canvassing, it must be on the weak end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, with on-wiki opinion of IRC as it is, I would have expected a potential admin to realise to the problems this would have caused. This is a lack of judgement rather than a malicious attempt to canvass; a lack of judgement is enough to prompt my withdrawal of support, if not enough for an oppose.
'''Neutral'''.  I have no concerns that this user will deliberately misuse the mop.  However, the response to this IRC incident has been underwhelming.  I don't think the user violated [[WP:CANVASS]], or at least not knowingly or  purposefully.  That said, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMabdul&action=historysubmit&diff=484286889&oldid=484284836 his response to Q9] (about the IRC thing) gives me pause: the response contains a broken link to what I think was supposed to be [[wiktionary:legere]].  I'm not objecting to the probably-a-misspelling of Wiktionary as Wictinoary - I can't spell it either - but the carelessness of leaving the mistake in the message instead of proofing it concerns me.  Furthermore, the actual legere page doesn't do any of the explaining he hopes it will, so it seems likely it wasn't checked either.  Proofreading personal messages like this, especially when under stress, is the MOST important time to take care with what you type - it's frowned upon to go changing your comments later.  Errors in articles are correctable, but errors in communication - at which an admin must excel - are sometimes irreversible.  I'd prefer that an admin take more care with their messages when under stress.  I won't oppose over a single instance, but I hope Mabdul may find this advice useful if this (or a later) RFA passes.  (Also, I'm aware that by drawing attention to a typo, I've almost guarunteed there's one somewhere in this post...) -- <font color="#668353">
'''Neutral'''. I'm not concerned by the canvassing issue. I am, however, concerned with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=484463156 this recent request] for indefinite full protection of an article over a short-term content dispute. I would expect an admin candidate to know when to apply indefinite full vs. temporary full protection. Keeping neutral since I cannot tell if this was an unfortunate blip or something more worrying. Regards, <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral'''. I think that Fetchcomms, Fluffernutter, and Wifione in the oppose section, and SW here in the neutral section, have done a good job of articulating what gives me pause. At the same time, I really do recognize that the candidate is someone with good intentions, who wishes the best for the project, and who has a good track record. I guess I come down, on balance, towards feeling somewhat like "not ready yet". I'd like to see the candidate take a few more months to work on communication and on really having mature judgment about community expectations. Do that, and I would expect a future RfA to sail through. --
'''Neutral'''. I'm torn. The IRC quit message leaves me a little unsettled but not enough to oppose. However the idea that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mabdul&diff=484286889&oldid=484284836 "I see the IRC as an improvement (of time) in relationship to the onwiki-discussions"] bothers me more as I see it as a slippery slope that doesn't lead anywhere good. (I do agree that things like oversighting should be discussed off wiki for reasons of privacy.) On the positive side I admire the work and time that Mabdul puts into the help channel and I understand why the tools would be useful there. I'm also glad to hear Mabdul say he would be comfortable with a logged help channel.
'''Borderline Support''' Sadly I just can't move myself enough to support Mabdul right now. Per Fluffernutter, I don't think the intent was to canvass, and I don't agree with it being canvassing, but admins need to be able to show discretion when it comes to boderlines. I see this as a one time, never will happen again thing, so all best of wishes to Mabdul, but not today. --
I hope that you will consider withdrawing this RfA.  You are clearly being deceptive either here or in the rest of your edits.  In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=514207144 this edit], you pointed out that you were new here and you didn't know what administrators were.  On your user talk page, you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mapalazoo&diff=prev&oldid=514208844 this edit] which was either one of a new editor who happened to know quite a bit, or someone who had edited before attempting to pass himself off as a new editor.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per the diffs provided by Ryan Vesey, this user is not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan. If you want clean start (assuming it's true), then it's a clean start, i.e. you can't rely on any previous reputation.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan. Taking this at face value, suggest speedy closure via [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' because you've not disclosed your previous account, as far as I can see.  Unless you do that, we can't even be sure that you're following [[WP:ADMINSOCK]].  I would be willing to reconsider if you disclosed the old account name.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan's diffs and the whole 2-accounts thing. Not good.
'''Oppose''' I am not going to reconsider even if you disclose your previous account and even if it proves good. You have misjudged that people could assess you with just your answers here. --
'''Oppose''' per Ryan.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support'''. One or two good points are raised in the oppose section, but I think Marcus has come a long way since his last RfA (almost two yeas ago). He has done some excellent work dealing with sockpuppets of a particularly prolific, copyright-violating sockpuppeteer, and he wants to work in possibly the most visible area of admin work on the project (the Main Page and surrounding templates and process pages)—an area which is chronically short of admins. I think the biggest risk is that his zeal will get the better of him, resulting in hasty and ill-considered actions (which I suspect is at least part of the reason behind the CSD tags mentioned below). However, that same zeal, properly channelled, is what gives him the potential to be a great admin.
'''Support''' I think we are being too strict at RFA, the candidate is an established editor and the areas he wants to work in need more admins. While the CSD concerns below give me pause, in light of his declared commitment to a specific recall process, and the one he has chosen, I don't see why we shouldn't give him a chance. (Not to say that I think recall related questions are generally helpful at RFA, particularly when they ask for a commitment to some vague and undefined recall process)

'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support''' - Worked with Marcus in the past, and can find no reason to not support.
I '''support''' this candidate for allegiance to things known. While the Q&A paints a distorted picture, I am resolved to rely on what I have observed in real time.
'''Moral support''' Marcus is a good editor.  Despite some legitimate reasons to oppose, I feel like some editors pile into the 'oppose' or 'support' section based on how they see the RfA going (following the crowd) instead of on the merits of the candidate.  Marcus deserves way more support than this even if the RfA doesn't pass.  I'm disappointed we could drag someone through the mud like this.--v/r -
'''Support''' I was planning on staying away from this RfA but, like TP, I hate the idea of a long term and prolific editor being blasted to bits :) in an RfA. But, MQ, if you're planning to work in the RM area, you really need to rethink your response to Q6! --
'''Moral support''' - I concur with TParis and RegentsPark; if you want some admin-related mentoring, I'd love to take you on. In either case, please don't let this get you down!
'''Support''' because Marcus Qwertyus is clearly a competent user; that this RfA looks headed into the tank is a fault of ridiculously stringent standards, not him.
'''Support''' Marcus has now addressed some of the concerns I raised in neutral. While the opposers raise some legitimate concerns, I'm impressed with his tenacity in dealing with long-term vandals and disruptive users. I believe Marcus is sufficiently competent to use the tools responsibly and per Blade's point about stringent standards.
Moral '''Support''', despite sub-optimal answers to questions 6 and 7. Nevertheless, both of these questions were philosophical, rather than practical in nature. They don't give us any evidence of what this candidate would actually ''do'' in any specific situation. Yes, the responbses are wooly and poorly thought out; my hunch is that if faced with a task that was relevant to these domains the candidate would say (as I do in such a case...) "this is beyond me, I'm going to leave this to someone who has more of a clue". There is nothing significant in this candidate's previous ''actions'' that gives me major concern.
'''Support'''. The CSD tagging isn't the best, and this RFA won't succeed, but I think the candidate is serious, intelligent and helpful. Best of luck. - Dank (
'''Support''' - per [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]] - especially as he seems to have learned from his mistakes at CSD.
'''Support''' - "I have the enthusiasm and maturity to serve this project for many years." That's the most I could ask for in an admin and feel confident in taking his word on it. --
'''Moral support''' (Has anyone ever offered ''Immoral'' Support at an RfA?) Has the enthusiasm and maturity, but needs to improve the understanding of certain areas. Fairly certainly will do. Or else it's the 'scenario' problem - one's reactions to real situations are often better than the reactions to a faked up scenario. I've struggled with first-aid scenarios, but have gone into an real emergency situation with a cool head and correct actions. When one actually has the buttons here, one thinks differently...
'''Support''' Good personal interactions with the candidate at [[WP:ITN/C]]. '''
'''Support''' - After reviewing his history, the candidate seems to be a great user to receive the mop.
'''Support''' - Looks like a good and hard working contributor to me.
'''Support''' both moral and immoral. Moral, since Marcus has been a helpful editor with a pretty cool user name. Immoral (well, that's pushing it) since Peridon asked, and since this is a horrendous RfA that should probably be closed early: unfortunately, Marcus did not think this out carefully with his nomination, and came up with some pretty bad answers. MF might say he also failed to make the proper friends, given the opposes below--I can't speak to that, but some of the answers above will not make him anymore. Let's consider this a learning moment and move on. Sorry Marcus.
'''Support''' Good Candidate. '''
'''Oppose'''. CSD tagging is poor. A high proportion of tagged pages/files were not appropriate.
'''Oppose''' While a lot of the blue links on [[User:Marcus Qwertyus/CSD log]] is a result of it being <nowiki>{{db-move}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{db-histmerge}}</nowiki> etc. so care needs to be taken when analysing that page, there has been a few worrying images CSD nomination only recently. While the license listed at the time of the nominations are obviously incorrect, they are not "'''Unambiguous''' copyright infringement" for the purposes of CSD. The nomination statement and answers to question at the moment does not provide me with enough to overcome this concern. I would be willing to change my !vote if the nomination statement and answers are expanded satisfactorily. --
'''Oppose'''. I've seen the candidate act imperiously in the past, and the way the self-nom is presented here, sort of as a series of rebuttals, does not make me believe that things have really improved. --
'''Oppose'''  [[User:Cyberpower678/RfA_Criteria#What_will_get_me_to_support|Fails criteria 4]].—
'''Oppose''' User's answers have an unbecoming and worrying defensive tone to them. Moreover, they are lacking in substance and essentially have no explanatory power whatsoever.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Per CSD tagging history. Admins have the delete button, and are expected to know when to delete a page, and you seem to lack these skills.
'''Oppose''' - Due to the lack of feedback to the questions asked and CSD problems.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per the aforementioned CSD tagging issues.
'''Oppose''' Two reasons. 1) CSD may be a problem. 2) Unconvincing answers that could lead to ambiguous interpretations not permitted on a future admin. We need concise response. Maybe a month or so with CSD will do the trick. —
'''Oppose''' - I don't like doing this but the answers to the questions seem rushed, not thought out at all - an error I myself made in my first RfA. Take your time, think about what you are trying to say.
'''Oppose''' Question seven's answer really unnerved me, so I asked you Question 10 to see what you would say it is about. Unfortunately, you didn't really give a good answer, but did answer to virtually the same question on Question 11 with a bit more detaill, which confirmed my suspicions. Ryan echos my sentiments entirely, in that you completely show a lack of understanding for CSD G5 and IAR, through your answers. A lot of those articles were expanded quite well by other users, even if they once had the kiss of death on them. The IAR scenario provided earlier actually almost had me opposing you outright (reasons echoed above, by Ryan), but I decided against it at the time being, because I wanted to see what the rest of your answers would be. Better luck next time, Marcus.
While I'm very lenient and mainly support all non NOTNOW candidates, I can't support because of question 7 which is probably one of the worst answers I've seen to the question. Maybe in another six months with more experience.
'''Oppose''' Mainly due to the very poor answers to questions 6 and 7 (assuming that other admins are editing 'under the influence' is extraordinary - any solid evidence that this is occurring should be taken to ArbCom immediately as it may be grounds for an emergency removal of the tools). I'm also concerned that Marcus Qwertyus wants to start his admin career by working in areas in which single admins have considerable discretion over the fate of articles - these aren't suitable areas for new admins to work in.
'''Oppose''' Per CSD log. Cheers,<br />
'''Oppose''' - Poor CSD log, AfD opinion (65%), rebuttals/badgering of opposes, <s>threatening to stop editing should this RfA fail</s>, very poor answer to questions 6 and 7, a lack of understanding of G5 and IAR per Ryan, per Wisdom89: ''"unbecoming and worrying defensive tone to [answers]"''.
I'm usually lenient on supporting, but the answer to question seven is horrendous. Good lord, poor might be putting it lightly. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Ack, the CSD questions and #7 made me cringe, bigtime. Sorry, I'm not comfortable with entrusting you with the delete buttons. –
Oppose for now. I suggest looking over your answer to question 7 and your CSD log. After months of improvement you should be good to re-apply and I may support.
'''Oppose''', sorry, I have to. You are a very good editor and you're civil, which is what we want here. But one thing that concerns me is that though you've participated in a number of AFD's, your votes match with the consensus only 64.1% times, which is a poor thing I'd not like to see from an admin. Your CSD work is also hasty. I'd suggest you wait for another year and withdraw this nomination.
Such a misunderstanding of IAR and the shaky CSD history are putting me off here. I realise that the image CSD are harder to get used to than the rest, but I personally choose not to work with files, as do many admins, and I think you might be wiser to follow suit. <font face="trebuchet MS">-
'''Oppose''', sorry, I have to too; normally am happy to vote in favour, but in this case NOT NOW! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Oppose''' - I've read neither your supports, opposes, neutrals, or your answers to any questions below #1. Frankly put, your CSD failure rate is simply far, far too high for someone who wants to be actively involved in that process.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly - I came to this RFA intending to support, because Marcus is a wonderful editor who has done a lot of great work; but his answers to questions 6 and 7, and the severely high CSD failure rate, are more than worrying! →<font face="Segoe Script">
Candidate has said: "I don’t see myself ever quitting Wikipedia. If I don’t get that time, then I get the jitters." I generally do not support candidates who admit that they are very attached to Wikipedia. A good admin should be able to disengage when necessary. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/

'''Oppose''' I believe I came here expecting to support.  Although I have supported some self-nom's, there are some key benefits to actually being nominated: it means that someone ''trusted'' by the community trusts you and thinks you're ready, and their support adds a lot of weight to your nomination - indeed, it can turn some neutrals into supporters.  The problem with this being your third nom is that each failed RFA basically doubles the amount of time you need between them (i.e. 6 months minimum between first and second, 12 between second and third, 18-24 between third and fourth).  Although you wish to work in deletions, your grasp of them is tenuous ... and that is, indeed, the biggest challenge.  I have not gone back to look at your previous RFAs to see if that was noted before, or even if you have ''fixed'' the things you were suggested to because this issue is big-and-bad enough on its own.  I also find your IAR answer to be ... well ... an unbelievable choice.  Not sure what you were thinking there ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' user knows how things work around here, but doesn't understand them fully, try again in a few months and get more experience too. Also I oppose because of CSD concerns. Wish you best of luck when you try again. Work on your deletions.
I'm sorry if this comes across negatively, but I have to be completely honest in saying this &mdash; your answer to question 7 made me feel ''very'' uncomfortable. If someone just ''died'', the last thing that'd be on anyone's mind is whether an action they undertook was appropriate or not. Even so, there's no need to "wheel war" when misunderstandings can be resolved through communication with others. Everyone makes stupid mistakes sometimes, and I speak as someone who is prone to saying things on impulse when I'm at my worst, but an admin should generally have the ability to think things through before saying them. This is especially true in a venue like this where your every action is heavily scrutinized by members of the Wikipedian community who invest most of their spare time skulking around RfA. And besides, [[WP:IAR|IAR]] is actually quite simple: you don't have to follow every single rule right down to the letter. They're really more like general guidelines for how to do things around here. Nothing is set in stone. I'd say come back in a few months time and submit another request. Make sure you take the time to give thorough and insightful answers to the questions asked at your next RfA. You're definitely capable of intelligent commentary, I've seen it from you many times before. Good luck! :)
'''Oppose''' A wonderful editor with many contributions to the project, but the CSD log does seem worrisome.
'''Neutral''' Q7 is definitely off, as [[WP:IAR]] is an actual policy.  Myself and others could legitimately argue it is the most important policy on Wikipedia.  Understanding it is paramount, as it is typically the most incorrectly used rationale at AFD and other venues.  Q6 seems off as well.  [[Wikipedia:Move review]] is new and not fully operational but close enough.  Review of some kind is the preferred answer, not dispute resolution or a new discussion, particularly since the first one in this example was already controversial.  I get the feeling you have good intentions but are not quite ready to assume an admin role yet.
'''Neutral''' I'm not leaning one way or the other on this, but if this RfA is successful (which unfortunately, doesn't look like it will be), I want to ask you to please stay away from the admin area of the CSD process until the community thinks you have a better understanding of it. This is not to say to stop doing it completely, as you can still very well perform an editor's role in the CSD process to practice even more. Trust me, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARotorcowboy&diff=461390676&oldid=461351576 I used to be a trigger-happy CSD-er], but a few people got angry with me, so I stopped for a while. I still plan to redeem myself by showing I can perform CSD nominations correctly, so I would like you to join me by doing the same, whether or not this RfA succeeds. :) Happy hunting!
'''Neutral''' Experienced editor but  I'm concerned with your CSD tagging work so I can't support this RfA--
'''Neutral''' - No need to pile on with another Oppose, but the lack of understanding of and appreciation for the ''policy'' of Ignore All Rules is deeply troubling.
'''Neutral'''  my apologies but I expect an admin to use edit summaries 100% of the time and while you are close I cannot support. [[http://toolserver.org/~tparis/editsummary/index.php?name=Marcus+Qwertyus&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]], after a few months of 100% I could possibly support. ''<B>--
'''Neutral'''. I think you're a good editor, but I see too many concerns here to support. As for edit summaries, above, the two letter summary "re" says to me that you were replying to something someone else said. If it shows up in the watchlist, I know there's discussion taking place. I'll be honest, I'm also a little uneasy about your edits here - 37 at present. Call it personal preference, but I like to see a candidate who can stand on his record, and my inclination to support goes down with every subsequent response from the candidate. Maybe that's just me, though. Like I said, you do good work - and more than half of your edits are to the article space, which is as it should be. Keep at it, avoid CSD for a while, and we'll see what happens. Good luck,
'''Neutral''' <small>(Moved from Oppose)</small> The issues with IAR and G5 are enough for me to continue to withhold my support for the present; however, upon review of the rest of the contributions of the editor and the passion the editor has for the project, I am unwilling to oppose.&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. I  almost made an oppose vote very early in this RfA and the rationale would have been very much on the lines of what many other opposers have since voiced. There's no need for me to  pile on now, but I would just  like to record my presence here.
'''Neutral''' The discussions around seem to strangle me.--
'''Neutral'''- Capable editor, dedicated to the project; will be looking for your return.
'''Neutral''' - considered about spelling issues on a nominal basis. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' - I always abstain on further basis. Sorry! Next time, Marcus....
'''Neutral''' I have no doubt that you are a good faith editor who is here to improve Wikipedia as much as possible, but a large number of concerns expressed in the oppose section are convincing and quite serious. You have made many good contributions to the project and i hope you continue to do so. Unfortunately due to many points raised on different issues specially on the CSD tagging leave me with no other choice but to vote Neutral. All the best for your future work Marcus Qwertyus.
'''Moral support''' I think the experience issues are valid, but I've seen this user around a lot and I've found their input fair, balanced and useful.  May not be ready yet, but has great potential.
'''Moral Support''' Moved from Oppose.
'''Support''' - though unlikely to have an impact at this stage. Edit count is on the low side, but from what I've seen he wouldn't do a bad job as a sysop. Learn a lot on the job maybe, but he wouldn't destroy the wiki. Better luck next time mate. <font face="Verdana">
'''BEING AN ADMIN IS JUST NOT A BIG DEAL''' - M&E - sorry, you have very little chance. You are going to be opposed for all sorts of petty reasons. But be aware that there is absolutely no proper reason you couldn't be an admin. You won't ban Jimbo Wales, you won't have the main page raining penises. If RFA was working then the oppose !votes would disappear. So good luck, and frankly I wouldn't even worry that much about doing whatever the opposers (who will be of great number if this is run to its end) say - the adminship rules will fairly shortly be sorted and consequently their pedantic opposes will be of no relevance. Just carry on the good work, and shortly you shall have the tools {{=)}} <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
'''Support''' - While M&E's edit count is low, I've seen him around for a long time. The thought, concern for others, and analysis I typical see from him would make him a great admin. The edit from April is the only such edit I've ever seen from him like that, so I'm chalking it up to an off day, we all have them.
'''Support''' I don't see the harm in a WikiGnome/WikiElf becoming an admin. It's ok to have more admins with experience in those areas.
'''Support''' despite MisteryTrey's troubling dif, but that edit summary was by far the most snarky I saw in your contributions and I'm prepared to overlook it as an isolated incident. The author of [[User:Master&Expert/ArbCom Elections 2011]] clearly has the smarts and the understanding of the community to make an admin. Deleted contribs look OK too. Article involvement is a little on the low side for current community standards at RFA (I wouldn't nominate some with your edit count, even if I thought they were like you ready for adminship). Suggest you try your hand at reviewing at FAC. Somebody on this page suggested that you consider a username change, I nearly did a few weeks ago, but held back partly because some people put too much weight on suggestions from admins. So as a fellow editor I'll just point out that to me as a Brit "Master&Expert" made me assume power hungry teenager. Judging from your edits if that username ever fitted you you've long outgrown it.  ''
'''Support''' One of the first steps to truly making adminship no big deal is allowing more people to be admins.  I find this user's attitude and prose sincere and believe he would make a good admin.  Unlike some of my fellow editors I'm less concerned with the experience than I am with the willingness to help and learn, and I've heard many times before that admins learn most of their role after being promoted.  While the low edit count does concern me, it appears to me that he will be proficient in the areas in which he wants to help.  Worst comes to worst and he does something egregiously wrong it will go to ARBCOM and he will be desysoped.  On the other hand he may just end up being a great admin who demonstrates that RFA standards are much too high.
'''Support''' He's been nothing but helpful when I've encountered him, and I think editcountitis is too much of a barrier to RfA.--
Too candid for his own good; a common enough mistake in first RfAs. M&E should hopefully learn a lot from this, and with any luck it won't turn into a nasty pile-on (see oppose #6 for an example of the usual disease). From what I've seen of M&E, he's the sort of editor that wouldn't abuse the bit, and that's what really matters. To pass, he's likely going to need to dig into articlespace for a while and show his detractors that he can apply what he knows of dispute resolution directly to working with others on building articles. The answer to 8.0 is wrong, FWIW (if a file isn't free by our standards, we can only use it under fair use terms, and so we'd need an FUR for a noncommercial image) And yeah, even if an edit is not useful, it's best not to be too scornful in the summary when reverting it.
'''Weak support''' Generally a good editor who would probably make a good administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak/Morale Support''' The candidate's ability to reflect on themselves honestly shows character.  I am concerned about the lack of knowledge about files, particularly that "NC" is not compatible with our license, but that's something that will be gained with experience.  The edit count is low, and the article edits even lower, and the (paraphrased) "vandalism fighting is boring" is bothersome.  However, my support comes down to trust.  I trust this candidate not to fuck up either intentionally or by mistake.  We have enough edits to know that much.--v/r -
'''Support''' The copyright knowledge do concerns me, but or me the important thing is "trust", and this use has that.
'''Moral Support''' and I hope to support a future RfA.  Honesty and kindness are often hard to find. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''  while you have already indicated that you will be withdrawing your candidacy in several hours I think it important to note that '''I''' think you would be a trusted admin, please take the comments below to heart and come back in a few months I will happily support then again. ''<B>--
'''Strong Support''' We need your attitude in the admin ranks. Let's have you learn the rest on the job.<font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
Slightly moral at this stage but '''support'''. As per [[User:Ched Davis|Ched]] - honest and forthright in his opinion. Somewhat self-effacing attitude is a big plus in my book. Edit count is not a reasonable opposition reason unless it is clearly also demonstrates inexperience - which in this candidates case I do not think it does. [[WP:NETPOS]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', though I recommend M&E read up on the image policies.  Hahc21's question 8 has a clear-cut answer (and a more detailed, not-so-obvious answer) that shows up both there and in the speedy-deletion criteria. --
'''Support''' Moral again, dont take this though or too much heart, its a bear pit here, just the way it is:) The traits highlighted by Perdo would certainly be admirable and desirable in a future admin. Keep on going.
Excellent attitude and quite accurate views. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that this is heading so far into the pit.
Juliancolton is quite right.
'''Moral support'''. Experience can be gained over time, and hopefully your next RfA will be successful. -
'''Support''' I agree with The Moose.
'''Support''' I don't see m&e going off half-cocked with the tools. Rather, I think he/she will be a reflective admin. Definitely a desirable attribute. --
'''Support''' I find the opposes, despite their number, to be absolutely unconvincing. I see an excellent editor who will make an excellent administrator. He lacks experience in some areas, but nothing that can't be easily fixed.
'''Moral support:''' Not ready yet, but has great potential. The experience issues are valid.
'''Moral support''', trying to be a bit more positive than a "neutral". I'm convinced that the candidate is a genuinely nice person who cares about Wikipedia and wants to help. I'm also pretty confident from what they've said that they won't be unduly discouraged by this RfA, but just in case, I want to say: please don't be discouraged. My advice is to spend some time seriously studying what administrators do, and next time don't do a self-nomination. If you ask an experienced administrator to nominate you, they can make sure that you don't try the next RfA until you are ready, and that you will have thought everything through in advance. --
'''Clone him''': while I find his username a bit off-putting (no offense), he's clearly the sort of person that would help fill and improve the admin ranks, at least from what I've seen. Those opposing because of their personal "criteria" should be ignored, IMO. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>
'''Moral Support'''. Or for that matter clone him per SB Johnny above. Agree with Mailer diablo - I hope your next RfA will be successful.
'''Support''' - per Wehwalt/Julian - M&E has always been helpful whenever encountered and will be only be a net positive with the tools. –
'''Support'''. A great and helpful that will be good with the tools. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' - I think that even being brave enough for an RfA with "only" 3,000 edits says a lot. Edit count doesn't really matter a whole lot, sometimes people want to have a life outside Wikipedia. Per Julian. The opposes all seem like weak reasons. The answer to Q8 looks correct to me, and believe it or not, some people like to have a life outside of Wikipedia. 3,000 changes is, in reality, a lot. Anybody who makes 3,000 changes to a "normal" encyclopedia would surely be able to do things that the administrators here can do. The fact that nowadays you have to have 10k+ edits to even be ''considered'' for adminship bothers me. Quantity < Quality.
'''Strong support''' - anyone who has the guts to put themselve forward certainly has confidence. However, I am particularly impressed by your answer to question 9. I have rarely seen many candidates on RfA answer that question so candidly rather than "beating around the bush." From my experience, some try to answer that question in a coy manner so not to offend the established admin corp. Your answer was rather frank and to the point, so I am not surprised at all to see some of the established members of the admin corp (i.e. JamesBWatson) oppose your nomination. Also, your comment on that edit summary was rather humourus, not offensive at all, nor is it biting. I have seen worst. `That's exactly my understanding of those policies (above). I hope you let this RfA takes it natural course, and not to close it too soon. Whatever happens, happens. Admin work can be learned. We need more people like you for the role, who do not necessarily fit the admin clique corp. I wish you all the best whatever happens. Good luck!
Why not? A low edit count is not an issue in my book. --
Some of the opposes concern me, specifically Atama's, but I feel he's a net positive in the end of the day. With more experience this should pass within six moths easily
'''Support''' I feel confident he won't break the wiki and will use the mop sensibly.
'''Support'''  Has common sense and humility, and is unikely to share the extraordinary attitude that administrators are the "face of Wikipedia".
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash; What harm can it do? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose''': For someone who insists that they are planning to help wherever they can, I must admit Mysterytrey's link is disquieting. It's very [[WP:BITE|bitey]]. Also not impressed with content contributions.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Concerns with experience and activity levels.  Only 671 edits to article space, about 3300 edits total is squarely on the low side.  In the first 6 months of this year, he had a total of 139 edits, which is less than one edit per day.  This is a far lower than average activity level for a typical admin candidate.  Additionally, an interest in closing AfD's has been expressed, but the candidate has participated in less than 100 AfD's, which in my opinion is not enough to grasp the intricacies of AfD required to make an effective closer (user also has no non-admin closures).  In closing, the candidate has been around for a long time and clearly is familiar with Wikipedia, and I think I would be more apt to support if the candidate showed more interest in Wikipedia by contributing regularly to areas of interest.
'''Oppose''' - Now, usually I'm the last person to oppose based on something relating to edit counts etc., but there's just not enough recent edits to show that the candidate have a sufficiently wide and depth level of experience. With edits often in the tens per month, are you even going to be using the extra tools?
'''Not yet''' I have never interacted with this user but I believe I've seen them editing a few times. Unfortunately, I believe this user has a small amount of edits specifically with article space. I may reconsider if you wait 6 months. Additionally, echoing what Scotty is mentioning above, you only have 671 edits to the article space. While I think several of your answers are pleasable, I strongly recommend editing more articles. I'm surprised that you've been a user for 4 years and only have 3,349 edits. The monthly edit counts also show you nearly always have fewer than 50 edits. The most recent significant activity you had was this past December, nearly a year ago. I wouldn't oppose simply because of edit count, but I feel you need more work. You shouldn't be discouraged with this oppose comments, rather take several of these comments as advice.
'''Oppose''' An editor review in all but name. FWIW I'd recommend seriously considering a change of username; as I can't express this with subtlety, I'll come right out with it: Master&Expert sounds like the name of a wannabe mod from some AOL BDSM forum. Circa 1997. Even the vanilla interpretation seems somewhat boastful and rather asking for trouble if you're unable to always live up to it. Anyway, I hope you've found this experience useful.
'''Oppose''' Not even close to the amount of experience I want to see in a candidate- especially in the areas where you intend to work. Although I'm not really one to oppose a candidate just because of content creation-related reasons, we are still a Wikipedia, and I'd like to see some time spent on contributing to it so that I can see that you understand what Wikipedia is about. Not supporting until and unless there is enough evidence, through contributions and actions, to show thorough knowledge of policy.--
'''Oppose'''  - Master&Expert, I think you do have the makings of a good admin. I really do! I just don't think you're there yet. I think it would do you a lot of good to do some really extensive content work, because so much of what admins do is based on knowing how content writing works. I don't really care how much you edit per month, but more content work would really help you understand some of the most important admin jobs. You could "check some boxes" and go participate at some number of AfDs, report X vandals, etc., but I don't recommend it. Find some articles you're really interested in and push them to be the best they can be. If you want to help out by leaving thoughtful comments at AfD, do it! If you want to help out by whacking vandals, do it! If you really like helping newbies, check out the [[WP:TEAHOUSE|Teahouse]], the [[WP:HELPDESK|help desk]], and places like that. That's how you'll get the experience commenters want to see, and you'll be a lot happier than by checking boxes. So, tl;dr, work really hard on a couple articles you're passionate about and find an administrative area that is fun and that you enjoy. If you want help with any of this, please ask me! I would love to help you. Happy editing and best wishes,
'''Oppose''' - [[Wikipedia:Not now|NOT NOW]].
'''Oppose''' per all above--
'''Oppose''', more experience needed. --<span style="font: 14px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">
'''Oppose''' - 671 mainspace edits is not going to cut it for me and per all above Cheers,
'''Oppose''' No one big "WHAT! This candidate doesn't know what he/she is doing!" issue anywhere, but a number of little details, each of which contributes to the feeling that the candidate is not clear in various areas. For example, doubts are created in my mind by vague "I like to help where I can" type remarks, which don't give me the impression that the candidate has any clear idea what being an admin involves. Comments such as "reaching out to somebody ... asking for ... an unblock" and "I would definitely be a pretty lenient administrator" lead to doubts as to whether the candidate intends to attempt to administer policy impartially, or to use the admin position to increase the influence of his/her own "lenient" views. There are various other reasons for not being happy too. <s>For example, I find it surprising that in answering question 6 the candidate did not notice that the question, at least on the face of it, seems to suggest that maybe he/she has been involved in an edit war. (It is possible that there are 7 reverts of 7 different edits that he/she made, but the more obvious reading cannot simply be ignored and not addressed.)</s>
'''Oppose''' - I stopped reading at "I find reverting vandalism to be boring" <small>not really, but you know what I mean</small>.
'''Oppose'''. Enthusiastic and with  good intentions, but unfortunately, the candidate does not  meet my  [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]] - even on  aggregate which  I'm  usually  happy  to  take into  consideration. The number of mainspace edits is far too  low, and although  my  vote is not  guided by  the votes of others, I  find that  JamesBWatson and Scottywong  have said anything  else I  would have mentioned. I  would suggest  the candidate take a good read of [[WP:Advice for RfA candidates]], and tries again  in not less than 6 months.
'''Reluctant weak oppose''' for now. M&E, I've seen you around quite a few times, and I really do think you'd make a fine administrator. But as has been expressed by others in this section, now's not exactly the right time. Take some time to address the concerns of those who have opposed your RfA, and hopefully we'll see you here again in the future. Best regards,
'''Oppose''' - Yes, adminship is no big deal, but that does not mean we reject any need for experience. I am more than happy to support less experienced admins, but this really isn't enough. Mysterytrey's link is also a problem. I sense a good attitude and a real desire to help; I'd suggest that the candidate find ways to help as a non-admin first (and, as an aside, it might be worth clerking at a few places to get a feel for it - if they find anti-vandalism boring, they won't get much more excitement from dreary admin tasks).
'''Oppose'''. Per answer to Q8, wouldn't pass [[User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Lessons|this]], which is a guide to editing, not a guide to all that an administrator would need to know. --
'''Oppose''' - Might be willing to make an exception based on the low edit count, but the misunderstanding of Free image rules is damning enough to keep me in the "Oppose" category.
'''Oppose''' - I don't expect a copyright expert, but the most fluent licenses (like the [[Creative Commons]] licenses) should be well known. We already have enough problems related to the license stuff. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Oppose''' - I'm very familiar with M&E and think he's a good editor. I think he might be a good admin some day as well. I think he has good sense and some of the core qualities an admin needs. I believe he needs to take care not to interact with people as he did in the diff MisterTrey provided, though I think that was just a mistake rather than an indication of overall bad judgement. Some more familiarity with policies and guidelines and more experience both in article space and in Wikipedia project space would prepare him better for the admin role. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. I'll say first that Mysterytrey's link actually doesn't concern me. But I don't think the level of activity from Master in the last four years is enough to really gauge whether his being an administrator is appropriate.
I'm a stickler on the activity front, and failing to even hit 100 edits in a month most of the time is concerning. Couldn't care less about the above diff. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' - don't care about the diff at all, just opposing based on candidate's nom statement which betrays a lack of seriousness concerning what an encyclopedia's about.
'''Oppose''' - While Mysterytrey's link does not worry me much, I don't think the level of activity from Master is enough for his intentions to become an administrator. [[Darth]] [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Oppose''' - Master&Expert appears to be a well-intended editor, however, his level of activity on Wikipedia is somewhat limited and concerning. 40 out of the 50 or so months on the project, Master&Expert has had an edit count less than 100 - and although an edit count isn’t everything - ''experience'' is. I hope Master does not take to heart any of the opposes, rather takes their comments as constructive criticism. I also hope that this editor considers running again in 6-12 month’s time - by then, I'm sure they would have taken on board the advice offered by their peers, and I will obviously move to a support on those grounds. Good luck! -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Oppose''' answer to question eight is incorrect. Per Demiurge.<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I'm regretfully going to oppose this nomination. Master&Expert is a good Wikipedian with honest intentions. However, this is not enough for being a successful admin in future. I don't think anyone can be perfect, but there are a few things I'd like to see in a prospective admin, and one of them is substantial content work, which unfortunately is not enough in Master&Expert's account.
'''Not yet'''. Due to the low number of edit experience at this point in time.
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Come back in 6 months to a year after having brushed up on the admin related areas which you intend to participate. I also strongly suggest you do some content work in the mean time, ideally you will bring an article or two to GA at least, and it would be even better if you have brought an article to FA promotion. ~
'''Regretful oppose''' There's no reason for me to vote for support. Very few edits are on articles. Not enough experience editing Wikipedia. I think this RfA is not for you. Hopefully you can succeed next time. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' I would be delighted to support this user in six months if he responded to the criticisms in this RfA. I think the criticisms are light and worth addressing, and it is better to get admin rights with more community support and less controversy.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Honest motives, wants to help, but distinct lack of article space edits and generally, 3000 edits is not really enough. Also, as highlighted by others, problems with Q8.--<span style="">
'''Oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&diff=prev&oldid=505382083]. I did not like the example:Let's say you are engaged in an edit war with an IP.--Kindly,
'''Oppose''' While I have no doubt that you (M&E) would act, given the tools, with all the right intentions, an sound understanding of the basics of copyright policy is critical. I will say that I like you, I like your attitude and your nomination statement, and I hope to see you here in the future.
'''Oppose''' Very little experience.
'''Oppose''' Sorry to have to pile on but we as a community have been challenged to participate here whether we like it or not. I'm sure if you persist, in the future (with more experience), you will win the mop. Right now I don't sense the dedication of <strike>daily</strike> participation to the encyclopedia. The mop correlates to cleaning and cleaning is constantly necessary. <strike>every day</strike>. ```
'''Oppose''' Seems to focus on sensitive articles about the Middle East such as [[History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule]] but seems too inexperienced to be given admin powers over them.
'''Oppose''' - Activity is debatable, but I just see activity too low and experience in desired areas to be insufficient for adminship. I can see no strong argument that the candidate has a valid and justified need for the tools other than a status symbol.
'''Oppose''' I would like to applaud you for taking your first step out and giving it a swing, but I don't feel your ready for the tools yet. Your answers to the questions are not evasive, but lacking the fundamental understanding of why such policies exist. Not knowing the basic ins and outs can get you into a big mess with the tools, even for someone who knows policy, I sometimes pour back over it before taking an action. Further more, your 15th deleted edit dates back to January 30, 2011 and a few more deleted edits later, it's August 2009. That's not showing me that you have been keeping up with CSD, and area you want to be involved in. I also look at your last 500 wikipedia space contribs and find no edits to UAA and AIV. Also question 7, vandalism is not the only reason to protect, there are quite a few more important ones. I'm sorry, but I can't support at this time. --
'''Oppose''' I am sure that you have the best interests of the project at heart, but your nomination leaves the impression that you do not plan on fulfilling the normal admin role. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose'''. As per Anthony.bradbury above, the nomination statement leaves me with the impression that you know that adminship is not something that would be a good fit for you, but you want it anyway because it will give you more of that sense of "empowerment". It's hard for me to tell if you're sincerely not very confident in your skills at being a potential admin, or if you're deliberately trying to sound humble in an attempt to cover up the fact that you're quite egotistical! --
'''Oppose''' Per Snottywong. Suggest reapplying at a later date.
'''Oppose''', the level of activity far below what I would expect from someone asking for adminship. Also, was there a good reason to keep this RfA open for this long? It was clear days ago what the outcome was going to be. If you wanted to get some feedback, then everything that could be said was already said, again, days ago, and several times over since. Dragging this RfA out to the last indicates a disconcerting degree of stubbornness and lack of clue that do not bode well for the future RfA attempts.
'''Strong neutral'''.  Probably be a admin with a good-decision-making skill, but I can't be sure.  The diff Master&Expert's mentioned in Q3, <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bingu_wa_Mutharika&diff=prev&oldid=486025839 edit], on April 7th 2012, may not have been vandalism, yet he failed to [[WP:AGF|agf]] that it may have been a clarification after seeing it twice <sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Master%26Expert&diff=prev&oldid=505172218 1]</sup></span>, for anyone who doesn't enable pictures to be shown, just short of "...was a male [[Malawi]]an politician...", and it may have been [[WP:BITE|bitey]] to the user.  Not falling in line with "''I love helping people wherever I can...''".
'''Neutral''' and may likely vote to support in the next one.  I haven't been around you a lot, but I have seen some very good work from you, enough to think you likely have the skills, but maybe not yet the discipline.  I might *think* what you said above once in a great while, but it would be a pretty serious error if I said that as an admin.  Give it 6 months, listen to the other items you will hear this week, and prepare yourself mentally for the job.  I can't oppose, as I think you would likely curtail the incivility and wouldn't delete the main page, but I can't support yet either.
'''Neutral''' I can't oppose Master&Expert (and i think that some user's above comment over changing username is completely ridiculous) but not ready to support either, so i'll end up here by now. I have seen him a while (even at my RFA) and he has a good track history although too few edits i could say. Nevertheless, he is a good user after all, so i'm leaning to support, probably on his next RFA. —
'''Neutral''' - I wish I could support, but really, if you're not planning to contribute, there's not much point.
'''Neutral''' I think the candidate has the right attitude to helping people.  However he does need to read more of the policies guides and essays, and try out more things.  A4 is not what I expected, and I think you should have read up on the topic.  There was enough time to do this.  The image file in question just had no information or copyright license at all, although it looked to be some kind of derivative map, probably something off commons.
'''Neutral''' - right attitude, good potential, so just put a few more runs on the board and I'll be a comfortable support.
'''Neutral'''; I'm not worried about the (relative) inactivity, but like it or not being an admin nowadays ''is'' a big deal and needs a good handle on policy: not because it makes one important, but because they are the "face" of Wikipedia.  I think all you need is a bit more familiarity with the "bureaucracy" (by reading and practice), and you'll be ready.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' I am torn on whether to support or oppose.  The experience is a little short off and 3000 edits over 4 years is extremely low.—
'''Neutral''' of the "not ''quite'' yet" variety. I think you'll be a good admin eventually, and I'd be fine with it if you end up becoming one this week, but I'd be happier if you took six months to work on the issues others have brought up above and ''then'' became one. That said, I'm watching answers to questions, and I am open to changing my position either way. -
'''Neutral''' The principal problem I'm seeing is the low edit count, but I think this user has the means to be a good administrator down the road.
'''Neutral''' - Adminship is not a big deal. The candidate has a great attitude and is applying with the best of intentions. The comment that some are concerned about comes off as a more snide, sarcastic remark - I found it to be rather funny, honestly. For those reasons I cannot oppose the candidate. On the other hand, the candidate's level of activity (one edit a day) is very low for an admin and admins should generally be active. For this reason, I cannot support. I have no qualms supporting if the candidate gets more experience and has a couple thousand moer edits go without issue. Best of luck. :) '''
'''Neutral''' I was going to oppose, based on the (relatively) low edit count, but there's no need for me to pile on up there. I don't really care about the diff noted above, as it seems to be an isolated blot on an otherwise decent enough editing history. M&E seems like an editor with a fair degree of clue, and I hope s/he takes the learnings away from this and returns here in the future.
'''Neutral, with strong moral suppport'''. I'm going to stay neutral here, because I'm convinced I'm seeing a good admin candidate - but I'm not convinced the time is yet ripe. A bit more experience, some more content work, and a bit of brushing up on some of the concerns voiced above, and I expect I'll be supporting next time. --
'''Neutral, with strongest moral support'''.  I have commented on other RfAs that we need more admins to alleviate the backlogs and distribute the tools to as wide a base of qualified individuals as possible, and M&E's attitude is clearly in the right place.  I am a little concerned about number of edits and the answer to the CC license question.  I think that the entire RfA process is abysmal in its approach to 'consensus' and that adminship should be granted much more easily on an provisional basis (as per Jimbo Wales' recent suggestion) rather then the virtual body-cavity search that the current process represents.  I hope this RfA should serve as an example to other candidates to go find the "right" answer to some of the questions (such as the question on the CC BY-NC 2.0 license) before responding - it would have reduced a good deal of the anxiety expressed.  I appreciate M&E's willingness to raise his hand for the mop and hope that if not now, soon.
'''Neutral''' with moral support.  I've run into this editor before and had good impressions. After reviewing AfD participation, I think more participation at the discussion level would probably put the editor on a stronger footing with respect to closure discussions, something the editor has indicated an interest in doing. AfD requires a fairly balance of not only policies but a variety of precedents and so forth. as a result l feel that more experience would, as Dennis Brown suggested, lay a firmer foundation for that particular flavor of admin work. I won't oppose, I really think this editor has their heart in the right place and I've no trust issues at all, but I do think I'd rather see a little more experience before giving my full support. Which I look forward to doing.--
'''Neutral''' - No need for blocking buttons to help people out, eh? There are plenty of places on WP to do that without an expanded button set. Kudos for not withdrawing the nomination. Sort of a NOTYET situation, in my opinion, if not a WHATFOR situation. Don't put yourself in the place of looking for validation from <s>AfD</s>'''RfA'''; it's a nasty process surrounding the granting of powerful vandal fighting tools, not a plebiscite on one's personal worth. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC) <small>Alphabet soup fix:
'''Neutral''', I think the inexperience shows in some of the issues that have been pointed out here (and I won't belabor them). I certainly don't see anything unfixable here, though, and I'd look forward to being a couple sections up in a future RfA, since it seems the candidate is willing to carefully consider and take on board the criticism offered here.
'''Neutral''' per Dennis Brown. --
'''Neutral''' I came here intending to support, but the answer to Q8 and the recent inactivity are enough to push me to this section, particularly since Q8 can be relevant to article text, not just to images - and M&E indicated interest in deletions work.  Just FYI - the correct answer to Q8 is "A NC-licensed image is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia, so would have to be used under the NFCC."  This is similar to the rule that a "you can use this on Wikipedia"-licensed image is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia.  I'm watchlisting [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert 2]], so don't be a stranger! --''
'''Neutral'''. Looks like a trustworthy user who would make a good administrator in the future. If this candidate gets more experience I will probably end up in the support column the next time around. Deleted contribs look good (love how I can check those now!), and judgement at AfD seems sound. The only gripe I have is that I would have liked to see more specifically policy-based arguments at AfD rather than assertions like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Foltz&diff=465114703&oldid=465098504 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Virginia_Tech_shooting&diff=464961571&oldid=464949637 this]. It's not that you were wrong with these arguments, it's just that you need to show how they relate to our deletion policy as well. Best — '''''
No one beats the nom support :) --
no concerns.
Yes! Mlpearc is an editor I certainly have a lot of respect for. To start with, for the past several months I've observed Mlpearc's work at the various [[WP:PERM|permissions pages]]: his judgment there is always sound, whether it's his comments on certain requests or comments on the overall process there (I agree that he should be able to handle all requests there by himself). Elsewhere, he's always been polite in my observations of him, kind, great to work with, and willing to help out in any way he can. I have never seen anything wrong from Mlpearc, and so combining that with all the good I have seen, I am happy to support his candidacy. My only "criticism" is that I wish he had run earlier.
'''support'''; great candidate.
'''Support''' We seem to have much in common family and education wise and I think Wikipedia greatly benefits from mature editors who have worked their way through a few decades, as it adds balance and real life experience, and of course, the ability to recognize and correct your own mistakes.  It gives a certain mellowness and thoughtfulness, which is evident from your work here.  It is also difficult to question the judgement of your noms, whom I respect.  I can support without any reservations.
'''Support''' I had some run-ins with Mlpearc around the ACC interface and I can say he is very civil and friendly. I have no reason to oppose. --  '''
'''Support''' as nom. Regards '''
Per Acalamari, Dennis Brown, Ironholds, and the noms, all of whom I respect ... the odds are small that you've all taken leave of your senses simultaneously. And of course, I have to applaud the candidate's good sense in running this week, we seem to be on a roll. - Dank (
'''Support''' Looks OK to me. Seen around a lot doing sensible things. That mightn't sound much, but the others have said the best bits already...
'''Support'''. I've seen Mlpearc around the place a lot, doing all sorts of good work, showing obvious understanding and expertise, and exhibiting a very collegial approach to the project - easy decision. --
An overall solid candidate, should do good work as an administrator.
'''Strong support'''. I recently reviewed Mlpearc's work for other reasons and was very impressed with what I found.
'''Support''' - I've worked with Mlpearc on IRC and on-wiki.  He's very knowledgeable and I'd trust him with the mop. ~
'''Support'''. Per nom. --
'''Support'''.  Just with those noms, I'd be tempted to support.  ;-)  But I'm pretty sure I thought you were an admin already. --''
'''Support''' - I have personally observed this user's great decorum over the past couple of years and I can fully support without reservations. ~
'''Support''' Excellent candidate  experienced ,knowledgeable and see no concerns and the project will only gain with the user having tools.
Of course...
Yes, you have my unreserved support. <font face="Verdana">
Should have been an admin ages ago. --

'''Support''' definitely trustworthy.
'''Support''', figured you already were one.  No complaints with your actions; I trust them heartily.
'''Support'''; long-term user with clue; good mix of on-wiki activities. --
I've been watching this RfA even before it was "official." I was so looking forward to a "beat the nom" support. Ugh. In other news, until a week ago I thought you already were one.
'''Strong Support'''. Great editor, my personal interactions with him have been nothing but positive. Will make a strong addition to the admin corps. --
'''Support'''. I constantly see Mlpearc around everywhere, have interacted with him many, many times in a most positive and pleasant manner. His work  on  files, where we have backlogs, is indispensable and the tools are almost a prerequisite for his work there. He checks [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|all my boxes]], is an experienced, mature, and level-headed member of the community, and all I can say is that it's about time he was given the tools.
'''Support''' based on a review of his work.
'''Support''' why not?--
'''Support''' Looks like all round good editor
'''Support''' I respect Keepscases oppose. I understand expecting high standards from those in leadership positions. Ironically, the userbox belies the Mlpearc that I have closely known for a wiki significant amount of time. I am aware of nothing less than respectful discourse in every interaction I've been a part. He is within the highest echelon of candidates that I would recommend and he is an exponentially positive net. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Support'''. Per nom. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' - excellent all-round contributions.
'''Support'''. Capable and deserving of the position. --
'''Support''' - Anthony Bourdaine was asked , "Who are the best chefs". Without pause he replied, "All the guys in the back doing the REAL cooking'. Noms say it well. This guy is a worker...give him a mop! ```
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor who has a clean block log and has shown a diversity in their contributions. [[Darth]] [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Support''' - Trust the noms and the candidate's ability to wield the mop. --
'''Support''' - good candidate. Opposes seem too nitpicky. –
'''Perfect candidate''' --v/r -
'''Support'''. The candidate is a very good match for the job. Even without a lot of hardcore content creation, I can see plenty of evidence of successfully navigating disagreements, and that's all I need to see evidence of cluefulness. Lots of experience, clean block log, and plenty of strong recommendations from users I trust. (There are good-faith differences of opinion about reverting unsourced material, but I don't see anything that would be disqualifying.) --
'''Strong Support''' Great editor who would be a tremendous asset to the project as an admin.
'''Support''' While it does somewhat worry me that the candidate reverts unsourced edits on the spot instead of putting a "citation needed" mark or asking the editor if he or she can cite the edit provided, outside of that, the candidate is excellent. --<span style="white"><small><span style="border:2px solid #00BFFF"><span style="background:#00BFFF">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I thought Mlpearc was already an administrator.. Guess not! -- Cheers,
'''Support''' per nominators, most of the above, and my own experience with working with Mlpearc. I've considered the opposition but do not consider the issues raised to be serious enough to at all worry me.
'''Support''' Has been one of my mentors at ACC. He is clueful and has remarkable judgement skills therefore I find him competent enough to have the mop tools. --
'''Support'''.  Opposes are unconvincing, answer to question 10 is reasonable.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure and raw number of edits. The pie chart shows a bit more user talk page activity and a bit less mainpage editing than optimal, but that's a fairly minor party foul in the big scheme of the universe. Excellent answer on IAR, which is a matter near and dear to my heart. That someone objects to the nominee's ostensible endorsement of naughty words pushes me exactly the other direction, for what it's worth.
'''Support''' clearly a competent user, and has done a ton of great work.
'''support'''. Good noms, good work, seems sane.
'''support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
I gave him my trust [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/2012_CUOS_appointments#Mlpearc|there]], so why not here too? <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. As a nod to the opposers, I agree that we should all be careful to avoid labelling good-faith contributions as "vandalism," which is defined (both by Wikipedia policy and by common usage) as an edit that is ''intended'' to degrade the encyclopedia, rather than merely one that is suboptimal or might violate a sourcing guideline. Editor retention is everyone's job. But this isolated issue does not outweigh the candidate's many other positive contributions.
'''Support''' Aside from my belief that adminship is [[WP:BIGDEAL|no big deal]], I would like to specifically address the candidate's handling of Q9. The first sentence of [[WP:V]] reads ''In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.'' Somehow along the way, we have added the caveat "unless you don't feel like it" to the end of that extremely important line. Nowhere in the policy do I read that it's okay to ignore verifiability if you are new. Nowhere do I read that it's okay to let verifiability slide because we wouldn't want to scare a new user away from the project. The candidate did not make this revert in a bitey manner. He did it with a template which very clearly explained what the issue was and how to resolve it. I have seen established administrators handle similar situations with far less tact and understanding that this individual did. If promoting adherence to such a crucial policy as [[WP:V]] is now grounds for rejection, then RfA has become an even bigger sham than I thought.
'''Support''' no concerns. --'''
'''Support''', roughly following the view of Newyorkbrad.  --
'''Support''' opposes not convincing.  Many unsourced additions are woefully lacking, thoughtfully reverting them is a routine part of article maintenance.  Of course always look to see if there's a kernel of worth there, but often there isn't.  I wouldn't call it vandalism, but such changes are a part of the process whereby polished articles degenerate into crap.--
'''Support''' no concerns, honestly thought he was an admin already.  ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Experienced user and also great answers to questions.
'''Support''' &mdash; I can't see a reason to oppose and we need more admins. I wish you all the best. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Support''' I have had some experience with this user over at [[WP:ACC]] and have seen his work there. I have no reason believe he would be anything but responsible with the mop.
Actually per Q9 I'm jumping to support, surprised people are opposing it; he clearly labeled it as a good faith edit in the reversion. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Lack of content creation is a bit concerning, but in the end administrators administrate. I doubt he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' You would be a great administrator! --
'''Support'''. While I'm worried a little bit about the incident brought up in the opposes, this editor is clearly thoughtful, and I'm going to trust them to read the concerns in this RfA and avoid any future repeat. Their answers to all other questions were good, in my opinion. -
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' I've thought about this one for a while and decided to move into support.  My grounds for earlier opposition were valid and were related to Mlpearc's initial strong support for his actions raised in question 9 and 10.  That said, after it was explained, Mlpearc has stated that he has re-evaluated his way of treating these.  I firmly believe this is not politicking but is Mlpearc speaking the truth.  It only takes 3 days to learn this, not another 6 months, so I don't see why to make Mlpearc wait.  I hope that he will keep Worm's comments below in mind and my support also comes with the caveat that he will review the non-free content critiria before uploading any more non-free images.&nbsp;
'''Support''' ultimately I think Mlpearc is more likely than not to be a net positive, based on what I've seen
'''Support''' No problem with this <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' Aside from questions 9 and 10, I see nothing wrong.  My recent interactions with him reinforce this support.—
'''Support'''...no reason to believe they will abuse tools or position...
'''Moral Support:''' A few rough edges need polishing. See you in six months.
'''Support'''. Experienced user, I see no problems.--
'''Support''' - The opposes have really latched onto a trivial issue. Unproductive edits are unproductive, whether it's edit warring or vandalism. That the term "vandalism" wasn't used in precisely the way the policy spells it out is hardly a damning indictment.
'''Support''' While I understand that calling an good-faith edit vandalism is bad for the project (I often work with new editors, some of who are scared off by bad interactions), I think Mlpearc will be a net positive to the project as a sysop.
'''Support''' - I have seen this user around quite a bit and have never seen anything that would make me think they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Know what? Opposes are strong, but nothing that could not be easily fixed. I liked the questions to my answers and, thus, i will support your nomination. Congratulations and Regards. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per Oppose #1... after all, every on this project knows that "cussing" in and of itself has been held by the community to be non-problematic - it's cussing ''at'' someone that is :-)  Now, seriously, the editor's contributions are far more than generally what we desire on this project.  Their attitude is far more than generally what we desire - with a little smartarsedness/self-mockery when and where required.  I'm convinced that they understand NOW how seriously we take the word "vandalism", and we'll see no more such issues.  Simply being a net-positive is never enough for me to support: this editor is well-beyond such, and appears to have learned significantly in this RFA as it is <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Despite any concerns expressed below, I think this user would serve as more of a help than a hindrance as an admin.
'''Support''' per SoWhy, Courcelles & DeltaQuad. '''
'''Support''' per the nominators and the answer to my and Master&Expert's questions. Regarding the concerns below I agree with Mike 7, in that I think the good this user will do as an admin will way out way the possible bad that they may do. '''
'''Oppose''' Userbox is clear:  "This user uses profanity, swearing, cussing, cursing, and expletives often."  No thank you.
'''Oppose''' I'm not liking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Monkees&diff=prev&oldid=485434938 this incident].  The edit seems to have been factually correct; it just lacked a citation such as [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1490362_family-of-davy-jones-are-guests-of-honour-at-premiere-of-monkees-musical-in-manchester this].  The good faith editor repeated the edit and the candidate then continued to edit war by reverting again.  He placed a template on that editor's talk page and they haven't edited Wikipedia since. It would have been better to have placed a {{tl|citation needed}} tag or better still to have shown that editor how to find and cite a source.  Other candidates currently at RfA seem to know how to go that extra mile.
'''Oppose''' per concerns below about lack of content contributions and candidate's answer to question 9: "It was an unsourced addition and therefore an appropriate revert".  Candidate probably needs to do some more thinking about why people contribute to Wikipedia—and why so many people ''stop'' contributing to Wikipedia.  I think a serious effort to build some content on the candidate's part would give him that insight, enabling me to support a future RfA.—
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q9. That is not an acceptable view on content building for an admin. —'''
'''weak Oppose''' This ones tricky, I share Marshalls concern(s) as above. Having known other edtors ive talked in day to day life who stopped editing for this (acqusation of vandalism when good faith) reason, Im inclined to voice a weak oppose here
'''Oppose'''. Not much article development. Seems to bite newcomers, rather than to explain policy and encourage improvement, and defend bitey behavior or misuse of "vandalism" (as in above responses to softball questions). Not ready to be an administrator now. Perhaps in 6 months. Otherwise, seems like a good editor who should gain experience in developing an article to B- or GA status. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. I recognized the username as a good guy and thought this would be an easy support. Q1-Q3 were good. I read the incident in A3. It was good that the candidate pointed it out, but the emphasized part that further (good-faith) edits would be considered vandalism troubled me as both misunderstanding the definition and intimidation. Both issues seemed redeemable (candidate would "tread lightly" at AIV), so I asked Q6. The answer is not satisfactory. The answer skipped the general definition, it didn't catch the threat part, and it reiterated details. The candidate either did not research the definition of vandalism before answering or did not understand the definition. Admins should do both. The implication that the editor made "a claim that is known to be incorrect" is troubling in light of the claim was later shown to be correct. (Google(Joe Martinez resident Barstow).) There are technical distinctions about the intention of the editor that are missed. The candidate should be getting a lot more out the incident. It's not that everything turned out OK in the end or that some "known" facts are to blame.
'''Oppose''' I also thought this would be an easy support, as I've seen good things from Mlpearc personally, but the overzealous reversion of good faith edits as opposed to more helpful guidance or simple citation needed tags, combined with inappropriately calling good faith edits vandalism as shown by Colonel Warden's diff and the answers to Q9 and Q10, put me down here. <B>—
'''Oppose''' due to the answer to question 10. I don't see anything wrong with reverting the addition of unsourced content, but calling a single revert of that revert "vandalism" is simply wrong in my opinion, but I'm most distressed by Mlpearc's defense of that position. Two additions of unsourced content is not enough to declare that an editor is acting in bad faith, and I would rather there not be an administrator who jumps to such conclusions this quickly.
'''Oppose''' Per Q9 and especially Q10. Admins need to know when an edit is sufficiently contentious that it needs immediate reversion, and when it just needs to marked [citation needed], and they really must understand the difference between vandalism and goodfaith editing, ''
'''Oppose''' Admins must have grasp on policy. The [[WP:VANDALISM]] policy is one of the easier chunks of policy to understand. Q10 demonstrates failure to recognise good faith content and describing the re-addition of such as vandalism and maintaining that line here, as well as obfuscation around their answer to Q10, is plain wrong and unacceptable. FWIW there are 5000+ hits on "Stephen Kirwan, Ben Evans, Tom Parsons", named in that disputed content. An easy check to have carried out before starting an edit war.
I find myself in strange company down here, especially considering the number of clueful editors supporting, but I'm just generally not comfortable with this nom. I am surprised to see no reference so far to his [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2012 CUOS appointments/OS/Mlpearc|running for <s>CheckUser and</s> Oversight]] this year; this rings slightly of hat collection. After looking through his last 1500 edits, going back to April, almost all of his content work seems to consist of reverting genre-taggers, which is useful work but not demonstrative of anything much in the way of dispute resolution or broader knowledge of policy: #10 shows edit warring with Twinkle's vandalism flag set, which is completely inappropriate.<br />Moreover, I find myself just not generally comfortable with Mlpearc's communication style: I feel strongly that admins should be excellent communicators, and Mlpearc's comments are frequently difficult for me to follow due to the basic and persistent spelling and grammar problems. Clerk-type admins have closer contact with inexperienced users than most, and weaker English skills will act against that.<br />Lastly (and I would not otherwise consider this, but it's definitely a factor when it comes to borderline cases) I've little confidence in the nominating admin's record at RfA, both in terms of voting record and in some previous poor nominations. I can't trust that assigning the bit to a niche editor who hasn't really demonstrated firm understanding of the project's goals is going to work out for the best.
'''Oppose''' because of the answer to question 10. Unless it's obviously being added in bad faith, such as blatant and serious BLP violations, there's no reason whatsoever to call any such revert "vandalism" per [[WP:NOTVAND]].--
'''Oppose'''. Demonstrated in this RfA does not understand [[WP:VANDALISM]]. Seems to remember about the incident enough to justify labelling vandalism, yet couldn't recollect specifics enough to know why he didn't consider tagging instead!? (Tagging <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> to give the editor chance to meet burden to source content is hugely logical and therefore shouldn't have escaped his thinking. Why did it? What was hurry to re-revert? It's clear he acted impulsively.) But given plenty of time in this Q&A to research & reflect, candidate stands by actions of original incident. (How can the closer of this RfA possibly grant ''Administrator'' considering the importance to know what vandalism is and isn't? Is there a hurry to add new admins? The nom needs some time to understand [[WP:VANDALISM]]. At this point the nom is promising to do RS research for the editor next time, that might be ideal but I don't think it's realistic. What's the  difficulty of simply typing in <code><nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki></code>?!)
'''Oppose''' - This pains me, but this misunderstanding concerning Vandalism in Q10, and also the response "People who disagree with ''my'' good faith edits and don't go out of their way to explain why clearly have made a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (quote per [[WP:Vandalism]]) shows a failing of AGF that I'm uncomfortable with.
'''Oppose''' as per KW above. There are already far too many administrators without the first idea of what it takes to produce and maintain decent content.
'''Oppose''' with regret. This editor is an asset to the encyclopdia. My opposition is based to a large extent (but not only) on a [[WP:BLP|biography of a living person]] that Mlpearc created almost 2-1/2 years ago, [[Don Branker]]. This is an article about a rock concert promoter that relies after all this time on just three sources: an online posting of a press release (not independent), a YouTube video uploaded by Branker himself of an interview with Branker and some rock stars (not independent and possibly problematic in terms of copyright), and an online preview chapter from Branker's possible upcoming book (not independent and promotional). If this was the state that the article was in shortly after creation, and if Mlpearc had subsequently added higher quality sources, then I would not raise the point. I do believe that Don Branker is notable, but when I look at the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] cited to show notability and verify claims in this BLP, I conclude that they are very poor at best. I do not expect that every candidate for administrator must be an outstanding creator of new content. The encyclopedia needs work in many areas. However, speaking as a new content creator myself, I do expect that the new articles written by a candidate come much closer to our standards of excellence than this particular article does at this time. I wish the candidate well and encourage this editor to spend a few months improving the sourcing of the editor's current articles, and also to create a couple of outstanding, well-referenced new articles. I look forward to supporting another RfA after that has been done.
'''Oppose''' - bitey behaviour towards new users is something we already have an excess among admins (pot & kettle, I know).  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday World & Splashin' Safari]] is troubling - treating AfD like cleanup, comments like ''I await comments from editors who do not regularly edit amusement park articles'' are incivil, etc.
'''Oppose''' Per WilyD, and Q9/10. Saying just "NOT NOW" with a link to [[WP:NOTNOW]] in an RfA seems very immature, as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Master%26Expert&diff=505204866&oldid=505203417 here].
'''Oppose''' Some answers to questions give me concern. -
'''Oppose''' I've found this user to be very bitey, and he jumps to conclusions very often.
'''Oppose'''. A candidate for adminship should know that [[WP:EW|edit warring]] is not [[WP:VAND|vandalism]]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' – The link pointed out by WilyD and the answers to questions 9 and 10 concern me. I cannot support at this time. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
I have the same concerns as Gfoley4, while at the same time recognizing the very good work at ACC and WP:PERM. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''' though I'll admit that I been on the fence with this one, <s>and might change my vote to neutral if this becomes a close call</s>. On the positive side if ArbCom bothered to consider Mlpearc for a checkuser/oversight position as a non administrator it tells a lot about the trustworthiness of the editor. And I'm not that bothered with WilyD link as I've seen much worse in my observations in AFD debates from many of the people participating in this RFA, both supporters and opposers (though the double voting is bad). But his answers to questions 9 and 10 and standing by his responses until this RFA started to sink shows, both confusion between what is vandalism and what is typical unsourced but good faith editing and shows some stubbornness on the part of the user, which is a bad quality for a future administrator. But what made me oppose this RFA instead of going neutral/not participating was the article that Cullen328 linked in his oppose vote. To be fair, that article is simply crap for a BLP, horribly sourced without even a lead section without much of an attempt to fix it. While I understand you created the article early in your wikicareer, the way you continued to edit that article even recently without fixing the concerns shows a poor grasp of general policy knowledge. I do however, want to see what Logan is talking about "bitey" and "jumping to conclusions" as those are serious allegations against an editor in a RFA.
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday World & Splashin' Safari]] was just two months ago. It seems to display such a lack of understanding of why we delete articles (or not) and how Afd is to be used that I cannot support this Rfa. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I am not comfortable with the thoughtless reverting. The appropriate approach is to do the research, or leave the content alone. Tag it, question the editor, or do some reading/research, but don't simply, unthinkingly, press the revert button. Removing [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|valid content]] is closer to vandalism than adding it. '''
'''Oppose''' From the incident referred to by Colonel Warden above and the incorrect labelling of goodfaith edits as vandalism gives the impression that the candidate is "bitey". I have to oppose as I consider the candidate to not possess the "temperament required for an admin". <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose'''. Damn, there I was almost making a "net positive" support and you go and do [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMlpearc&diff=506744948&oldid=506744750 this]. Admins need to keep a cool head and this wasn't a good omen. RfA is tough for a reason and this is it.
'''Oppose''' - Basically per {{user|Shawn in Montreal}}, {{user|Kim Dent-Brown}}, {{user|Secret}}, and {{user|Kiefer.Wolfowitz}}. The answers to Q9 and especially Q10 are worrisome and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what is vandalism, the AFD does not demonstrate knowledge of the deletion policy, and I am concerned about his ability to hold up under pressure from the edits during this RFA. I don't consider applying for OS to be a sign of "hat collecting" contrary to what {{user|Thumperward}} says&mdash;he doesn't even have most of the non-admin user rights. Frankly, given some of the stuff I've deleted and submitted to the oversight team, oversighting must be a very unpleasant job. I also disagree strongly with {{user|Keepscases}} oppose.
'''Neutral''' as I don't plan to go through the candidate's contributions. However, while I don't think one (or a few) incident should disqualify an otherwise good candidate, I think Mlpearc should seriously reconsider his view on vandalism, given the answer to Q10. It's entirely possible that as an infrequent editor, the person didn't think of checking the revision history and simply reinstated their edit assuming that it didn't get through due to a technical fault. And even if they did it deliberately, at worst it was a poor response to a content dispute--hardly a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (from [[WP:VAND]]). Good luck.
Difficult. I've seen MIpearc around, and like others, I've only seen positive things. The edit brought up by Warden doesn't concern me in the least &ndash; it's the idea that it's okay to call that vandalism. 'Vandalism' is a frightening word to a new user. How do they know what it is, or what they did wrong? Did they even know it was against policy to re-add their good-faith contribution? Sometimes we get so caught up in our own jargon that we forget that 'vandalism' is quite a serious thing in the real world, and it can never be fixed or 'reverted' with a simple mouse click. I'm on the fence (hence the neutral) and will probably return later to either stay here or support; regardless of the outcome, I'm confident that MIpearc will take the opposers' constructive criticism to heart in his/her future editing.
Neutral. I was intending to support, but I can't ignore your answer to Q10. The fact that you made an isolated mistake doesn't bother me, however you should be willing to acknowledge that your edit summary was incorrect as the edit you were reverting wasn't vandalism.
'''Neutral''' Q9 and 10 can certainly be improved, but I think this is just one mistake that this editor made. He is a trusted editor though, but still, I'm going neutral.
'''Regretful Neutral''' The weight of strong stuff I've seen from Mlpearc kept me from opposing until now. I'm not keen on good faith edits being labelled as vandalism, and I've told editors off for it many many times. There's a very narrow definition, and that is an ''intent'' to harm the encyclopedia. When combined with [[WP:AGF]], vandalism should only be labelled as such when there is no obvious way it could be aimed at helping the encyclopedia. <br>So, based on the opposes, I looked into Mlpearc's labelling of vandalism in the past 3 months and I found about 20 of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC/DC&diff=prev&oldid=494016202 these] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychedelic_Shack_%28song%29&diff=prev&oldid=493595312 another, lower quality article]), where he labelled changing a music genre as vandalism. I also found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AC/DC&diff=prev&oldid=496054468 this] putting correct (but undue) information into a featured article and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_dirty_words&diff=prev&oldid=502529931 another undue] but correct item on seven dirty words. Based on his answer to question 10, and the diffs I've found, I'm just not happy that Mlpearc understands how much damage the word "vandalism" can do. I don't believe he'd make a bad admin because of this, but I do have to withdraw my support.
'''Neutral''' Unfortunately, Thumper sums it up best for me (less the hat collecting, as I do not see that being the case). I can see an isolated incident or two where you might misinterpret an edit as vandalism and revert it, but showing a systematic history of reverting users who may have been acting in good faith is a great way to dissuade future editors from joining the project. I do note that you have followed some of these reverts by leaving a note on the talk page of the editor, so I'll give you that. Still, I have seen you around doing productive work, and I have faith in you enough that I'll keep my vote here unless something huge is discovered.
'''Neutral''' - The positive contributions I have seen from this user means that I cannot oppose, and even a lone incident would probably keep me in the top section. However, multiple incident, neither with an expression of regret or an acknowledgement that a mistake was made, leaves me unable to support this user.
'''Neutral''' Though any infringements have been almost negligible in effect, it has affected my vote, which would almost certainly have been positive. Unfortunately that was a whole section that was deleted as vandalism, and yet here the article stands today with that section in it, and indeed expanded upon. I think that such actions taken using automatic systems may be your problem there, and that the appropriate response would perhaps have been reinstatement/rollback and an apology to the editor concerned (and probably more thought and care taken when pulling such large chunks of text); after all it can not have been that difficult to find a ref ([http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15591897 BBC] [http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Entertainment/Theatre-and-Comedy/Monkee-Business-Review Manchester Confidential] [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/tv_and_showbiz/s/1471706_new-take-on-the-monkees-musical-magic-will-premiere-in-manchester Manchester Evening News] all existed at that time) and surely making a valid edit viable is ''much'' better than deleting it - help rather than hinder. Can you add anything that would sway me to a support vote?
'''Support''' I don't have any qualms about you potentially abusing admin powers because I'm certain you'll be under intense scrutiny from a sizeable number of other admins/users. <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - it's been long enough, I'm willing to give him another chance. I would expect him to avoid using the admin tools in any area he may be personally involved, of course.
'''Support''' - Mongo has the experience to know when not to use the tools; his actions will be under scrutiny; he's open to recall. Can't see this being anything but a net benefit to the project.
'''Support''' I dont know you very well, but I trust if you've been editing peacefully for 7 years after the desysop you aren't just doing it all just to get adminship and then cause us all a bunch of problems.  Everything else I can see about you looks trustworthy, so I'll support this RfA.  <b>
'''Oppose''' Absolutely not. No way is this editor suitable administrator material, as even a cursory examination of his history would reveal.
'''Oppose'''. Mongo has all the contributions etc., but there is no way such an inflammable editor should be an administrator. The very notion of this going live is mindboggling.
I hate doing this to one of the most dedicated editors Wikipedia has ever seen, but MONGO is far too divisive to be an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. Nope, not even close, sorry. This editor is way too inflammable, agree with Malleus and Drmies. <font face="Impact">
'''Oppose''' Ludicrous given their divisiveness and antipathy to those whom they seem personally to dislike, including infantile desires to "claim" that they should be given credit for putative bans of other contributors. Simply does not have the maturity for adminship now, although they could always try working on it. Thankfully, I was sat down with a laptop when I saw this, rather than stood somewhere fiddling with an Android: I could have done myself an injury. I can try to find some diffs if anyone really needs to see them. -
'''Oppose''' I do not believe this editor has the necessary temperament to be a responsible administrator.--
'''Oppose''' Per all above comments, too inflammable to handle any stress that comes with the bit.
'''Oppose''' As has been stated in the nomination, there's no intent to use the tools in the most basic of areas where their use is required.  There's nothing that the editor does now, or plans to do that require any additional buttons on the regular basis that is required ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose''' For reasons and examples provided above. This user's contributions are best made outside of the realm of admin. -
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns - Based on his history and temperament, I feel that Mongo is an unsuitable candidate for an administrator. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
This is a very regretful '''oppose''', but not a "never" oppose, as he was a good administrator before his unfortunate desysopping, always been a strong supporter of him for standing his ground in what used to be a highly controversial area with 9-11 (it gotten much more stabilized in recent years), and he is one of the most dedicated editors in this project considering the bs he been though. But those remarks he made, while I'm sure he now regrets it, MONGO should have never gotten into this Malleus mess, some of the statements are just beyond shocking and very recent. I been avoiding these drama noticeboards, but I'm sure his comments helped made the Malleus mess way worse than it was. I don't think giving him the tools back is a wise idea yet, I suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' {{diff|User talk:It Is Me Here|493949183|493898306|If Malleus has left ... I want the credit}} ??? strongest possible oppose. Temperamentally unsuited. --
'''Oppose'''. I guess I haven't been lurking hard enough if I thought MONGO had changed. The relatively recent diffs posted in this RfA make it pretty clear MONGO doesn't have the temperament to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Drmies, Diannaa, and Sjones. He doesn't (at the present time) have the proper temperament to be an admin. As an aside, I really don't see a need for the tools anyway.
'''Oppose''' per Malleus. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Oppose''' - per Drmies. Too inflammable to give the admin rights. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:It_Is_Me_Here&diff=493949183&oldid=493898306 An editor who wants the credit of another editor's leaving Wikipedia] is certainly not a thing I want to see in an admin. I also don't see any need of tools; there is nothing that they have been doing or plan to do which would require extra tools. Sorry to say, but according to me, MONGO is nowhere near being a good candidate for adminship. '''''
I'm not impressed by the candidate's insistence that this RFA stay open after its purpose has been served.
'''Oppose''' Earnest, well-intentioned editor, but doesn't seem to have learned enough from his sabbatical yet and has expressed no real need for the tools.
Sorry, but TheSpecialUser's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:It_Is_Me_Here&diff=493949183&oldid=493898306 diff] kills it.
'''Oppose''' The candidate was desysopped by ArbCom in 2006 after [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan]]. Regranting sysop tools to those who have had them forcibly stripped is not a recipe for success. As for "he will be under scrutiny by many" and "he is open for recall", I believe we've successfully desysopped a SINGLE person via the latter since its inception, and the former has absolutely NO teeth whatsoever. Once someone is an admin, they are more than likely one for life.
Very clearly does not have the temperament we typically expect in an admin candidate, per many of the diffs mentioned above. <font face="Comic sans MS">
Never.
'''Oppose''' per Malleus, Drmies, and TheSpecialUser. '''''
'''Oppose''' largely per Drmies, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:It_Is_Me_Here&diff=493949183&oldid=493898306 'gem'] of a diff (and others, above). These indicate to me that the candidate does not possess the right temperament for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per the civility issues raised above.
'''Oppose'''. Just No. MONGO is far too confrontational, far too aggressive, and just too uncivil (while ironically championing incivility bans on others and arguing that admins who disagree should be emergency desysopped [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=518258147]). MONGO doesn't possess anything like the temperament or judgment needed to be an admin. (I feel so strongly on this one that I've come out of provisional retirement to !vote) --
'''Oppose''' I know that he dresses his edits nicely, but per the first three opposers,  BWIlkins and The Master, he has no intent to use the tools, he's inflammable, and he was desysopped before. Once recalled, never agreeable to me. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#de0100;">Pits</font>]][[User talk:TruPepitoM|<font style="color:#fff;background:#1404bd;">Confer</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Why? Where do I start? Well, how about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=518258147 this edit], where MONGO said, amongst other things, "I suggest Malleus be site banned for not less than 30 days, and any of the usual cadre of aiding and abetting admins that might excessively protest such a ban be emergency desysopped." We are to have an administrator who takes that attitude to any other administrator who disagrees with him?? If this were a one-off remark, I might put it down to an exaggerated expression of his frustration, not to be taken literally. However, this is '''''far from''''' a one-off remark: it is typical of the attitude that he has expressed over and over again, over the course of several years, when has found that he has been confronted with other editors who have the effrontery to take a view different from his own. I could spend more time giving more reasons why this person should never be an administrator, but that alone is enough.
'''Oppose'''' - extremely poor attitude - I wouldn't expect any editor to behave in this way, let alone an admin. Entirely unsuitable.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry - way too volatile. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Oppose''' MONGO serves the Wikipedia, the world, and himself best by writing quality articles. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Want to lean towards supporting, but then I remember reading about past kerfuffles. But really can't bring myself to strongly oppose for them either. So, planting right here. - <b>
I don't see any need to pile-on at this point. I think several users have demonstrated why supporting this would be a bad idea and quite frankly I'm surprised MONGO put himself in a position to take all this heat.
I've worked with MLI extensively over the past few months, and found him to be clueful and knowledgable of policy in a way that one would not expect from someone with an edit-count similiar to his. I've seen him take an apply policy in his edits, work to help new users out, and generally be an asset to the Encyclopedia. I am happy to be the first person to put my support behind him. Our project would be better for giving MLI the tools.
Support as being the sort of editor we would have promoted in 2005. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support''' The candidate is magically delicious.
'''Support''' <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support'''

I normally despise edit counting, but I can't support someone who contributes to mainspace so little. Sorry. <font face="trebuchet MS">-
'''Oppose''' Not seasoned enough.
Normally I'm not somebody looking on the edit count, but having made [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Mr+little+irish&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 only 11 mainspace edits] this year of your last 363 edits... Do ''you'' know why we are all here? <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
Based on your edit count, I'd advise you to try again in a year.--
'''Oppose''' 50% of your edits are in the user talk space. That is far far far too high. --
'''Oppose''' Too new yet, as mentioned by others.
'''Oppose''' but with moral support. This is pretty sure to be a [[WP:NOTNOW]] result, because with so few edits we simply don't have enough material to see how well the candidate understands all the issues that admins face. But I really just want to add that I've seen Mr little irish around the place in the past couple of weeks, and he comes across as a friendly and smart person, with good interaction skills and a positive attitude. I hope I'll be able to support a future run. --
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' While your contributions are all good, I do not feel that you have the necessary experience to be an admin.--<span style="">
'''Oppose''' - Nowhere near the experience required for a lifetime adminship. This is a foregone conclusion: Please close asap via [[WP:SNOW]], thanks.
'''Oppose''' If you don't think that your cleanup work is a good contribution, then you are not yet ready.
'''Oppose''' I have seen you around and I think you have [[WP:CLUE]] in abundance.  You are bright, reasonable, rationale, and you explain your thoughts well.  However, what you lack is experience.  You mention you havent been in any major conflicts.  One of the things that comes with edit count is the probability that you'll end up in a major conflict.  I would like to see that day come and see how you handle yourself before granting the tools.  So a higher editor count is a must.  ~4000+ is what I'd like to see but I'd support a strong candidate with your attitude and level of [[WP:CLUE]] with ~2000+.  Another thing that comes with edit count is dedication.  We need to see that your dedicated to the project.  Another inactive admin (like this [[User:TParis]] asshole) isn't really useful.  I feel 6 months of strong activity (300 edits per month/10 edits per day) would show dedication.  Is this a volunteer project?  Yes, and those who wish to volunteer for the admin bit need to really want to volunteer.  The last thing that comes with edit count is experience with a variety of policies.  As someone else mentioned, you haven't created an article.  I would like to see some article creations.  Nothing major, I'm not a content writer either, but I would like to see experience with the notability guidelines.  You don't have to show yourself to be lax or strict with them, just that you know them and how to interpret then reasonably.  Participation at AFD (if you don't already) would also show some of this.  I could go on, nothing I have to say is a demark on you but rather a lack of factors which would make me comfortable to support.  Try again in six months to a year.--v/r -
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Inexperienced. Little content contribution. Limited collaboration with other editors.
'''Oppose''' - not yet experienced enough. Good intentions, I'm sure, but it is not possible to gain the necessary experience with less than 200 edits to the article namespace, and as mabdul has pointed out, you have only made 11 mainspace edits in the last four months.
'''Oppose''' - as others have said, [[WP:Not now|now is not your time]]. Per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]], I'd like to see a lot more editing experience and a better idea of what you'd do with the tools. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose''' - as per [[WP:SNOW]]
Not enough activity and experience to properly form an opinion on the user's suitability as an admin. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' Per Yasht101.'''
'''Oppose''' Too few edits (you need a couple thousand at least), not nearly enough content work, no dispute resolution experience. Follow the advice given here and I am sure in about one year you will do better here. I suggest you create, or bring an existing article to FA, so I know you have dealt with consensus building and so you know what goes into our highest quality articles. Without content work, you are not suitable for handling content disputes, and there is no evidence that you know about sourcing and verifiability.
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Yasht101|Yasht101]]. '''''
'''Oppose''' due to concerns about [[WP:NOTNOW|experience]].--
'''Oppose''' due to insufficient talk-type edits, expecting over 1,000 user-talk (now 412+), and more than 100 Wikipedia-talk or template-talk (now 24 & 7), plus needs 50 detailed Help responses (currently: 0). -
'''Oppose''', with regret. A clueful, enthusiastic, cheerful and helpful editor, but sadly, just too few edits at present. I do, however, look forward to registering a support vote in, say, six months or so.
'''Oppose''' Not happy to do that, but the no. of edits force me to do that.
'''Oppose''' - I think you have good intentions, but I need to see more experience in a variety of areas. Continue working to build articles and get more involved with various maintenance-related tasks and come back in 6-12 months. Regards,
Even when I was starting out 1,000 edits was too few to get a real grasp of a candidate. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not just yet]]. You need a little more experience first.
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]. You have good intentions and will make a good admin one day, but you need more experience around Wikipedia first. Spend another 6-8 months as a normal editor, remain active and as positive as you have been so far, try to get a little more involved in working with articles, then come back.
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]], although I'm looking forward to when you are ready, as I know you will make an excellent admin.  Zippy's advice is good advice.
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]], per ItsZippy. --
Insufficient time with the project and insufficient edit count. Spend some time to learn your craft at WP, be that copy editing or vandal fighting or content writing. Then if you decide that the janitorial tools help you to advance the project, come back for them. It really does take a good long while to learn the ropes...
Per [[WP|NOTNOW]]. It's great that an editor of this quality wants to help out with the mop, and I look forward to supporting a future RfA. Keep up the good work, you just need more experience. Good luck! --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Neutral'''  Great that you want to help but not enough experience for the mop yet. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - I like their passion, and understanding that without human beings seeking knowledge, this 'pedia is all meaningless code and red tape. We need some philosophical admins for balance of perspective. ~
'''Support''' - My gut feeling for this RfA was that it was going to fail, based on the past two RfAs. But that was before I looked at how much hard work My76Strat has put in since his last RfA, almost a year ago. He's one of the 25 largest (non-bot) contributors at [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention UAA] and is a prolific contributor to AIV. These are two areas where we could do with more knowledgable admins. What else has he been up to? Pretty much single handedly running [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Production]], building articles, general wikignoming and offering helpful suggestions behind the scenes.<br>I do hold similar reservations to Ironholds, My76Strat's communication style can be difficult to read and I believe he could do with some work in using more consise terminology. However, overall, I believe he would be a positive addition to the administrator team.
'''Support'''. Last time, I supported you and I see no reason not to do so again; I believe you'd be a net positive, if granted the tools, but please remember to go slowly and to ask other more experienced admins when in doubt. {{small|And, if you can, to be a tad less... Magniloquent.}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' I'm unpersuaded by Ironholds rudeness.  From my observations, My76Strat has a level head and he is productive, and trustworthy.  I don't look for perfection in candidates, just common sense and a willingness to learn from past mistakes. My76Strat easily qualifies.
'''Support'''. Like Ironholds, I'm not a fan of the writing style in answering some of these questions, but I don't see that as a reason to oppose. I think that you could be trusted with the mop, and I think your viewpoint, as GabeMc said, would be a welcome addition. Besides, we need more admins.
'''Support'''. My76Strat does indeed have an interesting style of writing, but human languages are immensely creative and we should delight in their many forms. On a more serious note, I've seen My76Strat doing a lot of great work over the past year or more, including work in areas like UAA and AIV, and I'm confident he has a good understanding of policy and of practice, and can be trusted to use the admin tools well. --
'''Support''' - I have worked with Strat for a long time at ACC and has always shown clue, integrity and a willingness to help anyone who is in need. In my opinion My76Strat getting the mop would definitely be a net positive.
'''Support''' Like most Wikipedians, he is not perfect--but I vaticinate that he will use the tools correctly. I think he's been doing some pretty good work lately. I must object to the floccinaucinihilipilification occurring in the Oppose section--Rfa has become a brobdingnagian challenge of late.
'''Conditional support''' You're persistent, I'll give you that! Please tell me, though, that you will work on improving your communication skills. Perhaps it would help to reread what you write to other users before submitting it, or even have someone else read it to make sure you don't sound, well... asinine. In any case, I wish you the best!
'''Support''' and I sincerely hope you never change the way you write.
'''Support''' because My76Strat is clearly a competent user.  People who want to bitch about his writing style haven't had the misfortune of reading my academic writing, which has a tendency to exude copious quantities of hifalutin, sesquipadelian prose.  Hell, after you read James Joyce or William Faulkner you'll never complain about florid writing on the level of My76Strat's, and after reading Ernest Hemingway, you'll never complain about too many details, if you catch my drift.
'''Support''' Great editor and I love his writing style.
'''Support'''. My76Strat is thoughtful, considerate, and willing to consider opposing views with a rational demeanor.  His language skills are somewhat unique and different and are sometimes difficult to parse.  In my own experience, I've found that for some users, speaking aloud is easier than writing words, and My76Strat might benefit from using speech recognition software.
'''Support'''; My76Strat is honest and hardworking. I recognise that their communication style is not perfect, but it's relatively clear what they really mean and what they're thinking, which is not as common a trait as you might think. I believe that enmopment would be a net positive for enwiki, and that the extra tools would be in safe hands.
'''Support''' - I've been familiar with this user for nearly a year. From their contributions, they would seem to be an excellent candidate.
'''Support'''- [[Anecdote]]- A [[Trinidadian]] I went to class with told us 'I don't talk with an accent, you listen with one.' Deciding to enjoy the way someone else communicates can be a pleasure unto itself, and if MyStrat76 has posted somewhere I'm browsing, I'm unlikely to skip reading the section. Committed to the project and qualified, even if he's the only editor [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" |who can't be understood]], because they choose not to listen. e/r
'''Support''' Judging by the state of play, it's probably going to wind up being only moral support.  However, I think he'd make a fine admin, he's very thoughtful.--
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' Meh.  He likes to use big words.  Big deal.  We can't all be perfect; I'm sure we all have strange personality quirks.
'''oppose'''; holy Victorian prose, batman! Quite frankly, ''nobody'' is that florid in real life. You want to admit you've accepted your errors? Fine. Admit it. Because when I look at your nomination statement and answers at the moment, they come off as insincere, and I'm not at all convinced you get why the previous RfAs failed.
'''Oppose''' I had thought we had agreed that our efforts were better directed elsewhere, and that we would not have RfAs. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. The candidate's malevolent and misleading contributions to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Workshop#Proposals_by_My76Strat this ArbCom case] indicate to me that he is unable to communicate clearly, and is prone to fanciful invention when it suits his purpose.
Sorry, but my sense is that too often Strat's words leave people saying, "huh?" That's a problem. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
Style of communication is too problematic.
'''Oppose''' Seems like a good contributor, but communicating effectively and clearly is incredibly important as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - User comes across as pretentious. The nom statement and answers to the questions are eye-rolling. No thanks.
'''Oppose''' - Huh? {{smiley|confused}} I would love to say how the user write shouldn't come into it too much so long as the message and intention is clear enough. The problem is after reading the self-nomination statement and user talk comment linked to in Q10, I'm not so sure that I would be able to communicate with My76Strat at all if needed, never mind effectively. That style of writing is certainly perfectly valid, but it's not for me I'm afraid.
'''Oppose'''. At the time of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keisha_Buchanan%27s_debut_album this AfD], My76Strat's claim of CSD A7 was incorrect. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trendsetter_production_discography This AfD] was presented with inappropriate reasons. With [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diplo_remix_discography this AfD], My76Strat should have proposed [[WP:MERGE| a merge]], not deletion. Vague justification in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regain_Records this AfD]. (I commend My76Strat for actions during [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Landis this AfD].) Bad CSD tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Increasingly_Poor_Decisions_of_Todd_Margaret&oldid=476247857 here], although quickly corrected by My76Strat.
'''Oppose''' According to his nomination statement, My76Strat wants to improve his image/standing within the WP community and another RfA is the only way to purge a fool. At least I think that's what he says. Anyway, the non-answer to Q2 is a typical sample of My76Strat's Patented Treacly Fudge and that to Q6 seems to blame some imaginary clique rather than his lack of quality content contribs, and the absurdly florid prose [[WP:IDHT|persists]]. My76Strat either cannot or will not accept that his singular manner of communication - littered as it is with elementary mistakes, incomprehensible phraseology and pretentious word-salads - is inappropriate. Whether that is due to an inability to achieve basic self-awareness, or just stubborn awkwardness, either way is not compatible with adminship.
'''Oppose''' One of the many things admins have to do is clearly communicate with other editors. For almost all admin actions, making clear the reasons why you are acting both when doing so and if challenged afterwards is extremely important. The way to do this is to write plainly and clearly rather than in a forced and pretentious style. Such a style does you no favours: very intelligent people don't actually need to write like they've had an enema from a thesaurus. Read some [[s:Author:Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell]] or some [[s:Author:George Orwell|George Orwell]]. Simple, clean ordinary prose does the job: Wikipedia needs it in both articles and in the project and user talk namespaces. In addition, despite two previous trips on the RfA rollercoaster, the candidate seems not to understand the point of question 2. —
Sorry, I'm wary of a candidate that makes RFA into a battleground  with the response to Q6: "The FA clan is a tight group that have a manner that ensures you will know if you've entered their house uninvited". Also, "On the other hand I can practically guarantee some will arrive here to oppose" is either a lack of good faith or a harbinger of future personality clashes as an admin.—
'''Oppose''' I lost respect for this user after the whole retirement drama.
'''Oppose''' per train-wreck of a nomination statement and lacking responses to questions. Not only do I think you are incapable of writing a clear and comprehensible sentence, I don't even think you want to. That's a major concern, and leads me to believe that you are not currently competent enough nor mature enough for adminship. I'm also concerned you feel that adminship is some sort of redemptive test (trophy...) and this too is disconcerting. --
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with Logan, and IShadowed. Retiring and coming back 9 days later is very iffy, and even though very formal language is appropriate sometimes, it's generally not appropriate in Wikipedia, outside of policies where it must be clear and unambiguous.
Not competent to be an admin. —
'''Oppose''' - You are not a fool and don't need an RfA for validation. Just be a great Wikipedian and leave the janitorial tasks for others. Nice work on the Chemical Weapons piece. At the first nomination it was mentioned that this user's big interests are mathematics and guitar, which is a 2 out of 3 match for K-Wolf. His oppose above is thus a double red flag for me; ditto Malleus and Ironholds, who each have a good sense for RfA candidates, in my opinion. Planets have aligned.
'''Oppose''' Any serious contributor to the project needs to communicate clearly and effectively. As an admin, you may be expected to explain your actions to a frustrated user in a manner that is easily understood on a regular basis. Though you claim that your "style of writing considers first the audience", your style of writing feels out of place on Wikipedia (to me, at least). Your contributions are generally fabulous, as is your enthusiasm, but at this point I cannot support handing the mop to a user whose chosen method of communication is to engage in such a manner. Sorry.
Moving from Neutral to '''Oppose''' - his dig at, and dismissal of, the "FA clan" is not nearly appropriate for an admin.
'''Oppose''' - Has had two chances now (Questions 3 and 7) to explain a stressful situation and the lessons he has learned. The candidate has, twice, dodged the question and not provided  any real information. If I was a new user who's first contributions were CSD'd and I got a response similiar to the one I recieved on my question, I'd just be more confused and frustrated.
'''Oppose''' – not only is their written style confusing (''i''.''e''. detrimental to communication), as others have pointed out, but I also have concerns about their reasons for wanting to become an administrator. Their nomination paragraph suggests that they think of adminship as a [[:WP:TROPHY|TROPHY]], and Q1 especially is entirely generic ("I would perform uncontroversial deletions at [[C:SD]]" ''etc''.), suggesting that they do not really want to use tools so much as obtain a title. '''
'''Oppose'''. An administrator needs to demonstrate clarity of thought and ability to communicate.
'''Frustrated oppose'''. I was really, truly hoping to be able to move my vote from "neutral" to "support" when Strat answered the latest questions, because I thought he'd begun to understand the language concerns people have expressed previously. Instead, I'm facepalming and moving to oppose, because it seems to me that he just...doesn't...get it. It's not that your language is more creative than usual, Strat. That's not the problem. This is not about anyone trying to censor your creativity, or force you into a meaningless box, or make you toe the line. It's about ''meaning''. "I have just returned from labor" doesn't ''mean'' the same thing as "I've just returned from work" to most English speakers, and if you swap "labor" in there to mean "my job, but also toil and ass bustin' and tiredness and resignation and satisfaction and an ice cream sundae" and expect that your readers will be able to intuit all that subtext, rather than them just blinking in confusion and wondering if you've just had a baby or been put on a chain gang, you're misguided. Part of both the beauty and the frustration of English is that its vocabulary hosts far more shades of meaning - by virtue of it having begged, borrowed, and stolen words from so many places over so much time - than many other languages. Because there are these shades of meaning, you can't just...swap out words for bigger ones and think people will understand what you mean, because far too often for comfort what you mean and what you've ''said'' are two different things, when we can figure out what you've said at all (things like "could come across for that simply change" aren't just borked word meanings - they're not comprehensible English in the first place). It's one thing to write floridly, or to have a habit of nesting clauses to the point where eyes cross (mea culpa!). But it's another to be told multiple times, "Look, we can't ''understand you''. Please write more clearly!" and reply "This <s>style</s> tenor of <s>writing</s> formulation is perfectly <s>good</s> congenial, and I think you're just <s>trying</s> bidding to to <s>censor</s> bowdlerize my <s>creativity</s> perspicacity!" As I said, I'm sorry to be coming down in "oppose" over this, but as long as this doesn't seem to be getting through your head, I can't support giving you a job that's going to have you talking to people who mostly don't have degrees in historical English literature.<p>I'm also concerned that, as a few other commenters have pointed out, your nomination statement seems to say that you're here because you think this RFA is a way to shore up what you perceive as weaknesses in your reputation. The truth, Strat, is that your reputation is just fine. You've got tons of people in both the "support" and "oppose" camps here who are leading their votes with comments about how good your contributions are and how firmly they believe you're an asset to the encyclopedia. The only thing running an RFA to "fix" your reputation does is make those people, who think you're so sensible, wonder why you're so concerned about your reputation.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate's grating and [[Amanda_McKittrick_Ros|McKittrick]]-esque communication style - which appears to be intentional - is not appropriate for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Mostly per Fluffernutter. The communication issue held me back from supporting last time, and there does not seem to be have been much improvement on that front since then.  As he stated he would work to improve this last time around, I can only assume that this is something the candidate cannot change.  Similar to a talented pilot who fails an eye test, communication is just too important for this role. I like the editor and I hope he realizes he is no less an asset to the encyclopedia without this particular user right. With regrets, <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. This use of language is not creative, it's impaired and its application is stubborn. So many times here and elsewhere has it been pointed that this word choice and syntax are problematic, and while the candidate says they put their audience first, that's obviously not the case or I wouldn't be at the bottom of a long list of opposes. A recent comment in this very RfA, "It would be great if a few good faith mis-charactorizions were clarified true and set to your manner of extenuation", is indicative enough: it's not English, simple as that. Admins can't talk like that. Candidate also hasn't addressed their intentions and behavior at the above-mentioned ArbCom case (no one corrected me, so I assume they did indeed make a whopping 162 edits there).
'''Oppose'''. I don't really want to be here, not when you seem like a good-natured person and a really good editor. I certainly wish I wasn't here over something as seemingly inconsequential as writing style. However, being blunt, ''sometimes I can't understand what the hell you're trying to say''. Admins especially need the ability to tone it down, make it simple - like when explaining complicated situations or policies. I'm sorry for opposing, but you need to make your point and be easily understood by fellow editors, which includes people without English as a first language, younger people, dyslexic people, etc etc. Currently, I am not confident you could do that.
'''Oppose''', sorry. When even experienced Wikipedians have problems trying to figure out what you're saying, newbies and editors unfamiliar with the guidelines and policies admins are supposed to explain/enforce have little hope of doing so. --
'''Oppose''' Moved from neutral. Drmies' summary above works for me.
Christ, I thought the verbose answers were down to nerves, but if this is really how you communicate then I don't think admin work is right for you. —
Wow on the reply to Edison, this is probably a not for a long time oppose vote. It's a shame as this editor has potential to be a excellent administrator, and I was going to recuse myself because of that. I understand RFA is the most stressful, most horrific thing you have to go through in Wikipedia but that's not how to react. This isn't 2006 RFA.
'''Oppose''' per the answers to Q3, Q6, and Q7 in particular. There is a sore lack of communication skills present here. --
'''Oppose'''. The first time I came across My76Strat's writing style I thought that it must be some kind of experiment on the lines of the [[Sokal affair]], and nothing has since changed this opinion. I'm quite honestly amazed by some of the attempts by other editors above to dismiss this as a problem. There's no problem with using a wide vocabulary, including "big words", but the problem here is with the misuse of both vocabulary and grammar to the extent that most of what is written is either meaningless or ambiguous - the very opposite of academic writing, which some people seem to believe this is similar to. Obscurity and ambiguity may be fine for [[James Joyce|literary]] or [[Stanley Unwin (comedian)|comedic]] effect, but are totally inappropriate for communication with colleagues in this workplace.
'''Neutral''' for the time being. I've seen this editor around at AN and AN/I where the contributions have always seemed sensible. But I'd like a little more detail in the answers to the three questions currently noted above - agreed, its no big deal to be an admin but it would be good to see a bit more preparatory work going into the nomination.
Pulling my "tush" up next to Drmies' for the moment.  Similar reasons.  I like My76 a lot, but between the communication style and what I perceive as a tendency to post impulsively combined, I fear could lead to some mis-understandings which could be fuel to a drama fire that perhaps would be best avoided.  I have no doubt that My76 has a great heart - and a wonderful desire to improve the project; yet "admin" requires a bit more in my view.  Or at least a "good admin." does.  I've gotta think about this one; I'm not the easy touch for a "support" that I was years ago. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Posteriors and snacks notwithstanding, I, too, feel divided between concern about communication style, and my perception that the candidate is a very nice person who really cares about the 'pedia. Please think of this as "moral support". --
Waiting to see if the answer to my question demonstrates that the candidate has strategies for communicating successfully with a diversity of users. His worst ting in a twost episodes seem to be when he's talking about himself, so hopefully the question gives a chance to show how he talks to other folks.
The questions above need answering, preferably in clear, comprehensible English.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
Saw the results of the last one and wondered WTF happened. The user seems very tuned in to some areas but I can see where some of the opposes come from. Waiting for the answers to the rest of the questions. -
The communication style of this candidate at first made me think that he simply is not that fluent in English, but on further study, he seems to be trying for a whimsical prose style. If the purpose is purely entertainment, like writer  [[James Joyce]], or  "double talk"  comedian [[Irwin Corey]], then more power to him in an appropriate literary or comedic venue. But clear communication is important when one conducts administrative actions, and the habitual obfuscation seen in this candidate's writing gives me pause, and keeps me from supporting his candidacy at this time. I would not want him issuing warnings or explanations to other users with intentional malapropisms or obfuscations. Also, it is troubling that he says "To be very clear, I am not a fool!, yet this impression can not purge except through an RFA. I am determined to emerge this with slightly higher regard; sysop or not!" Wikipedians are all too ready to call a sysop a fool, a troll, and worse, when he gets in their way, and there are precious few instances where admin work leads to higher regard.  Otherwise he seems like he could be a good administrator. I hope he continues to work to improve the encyclopedia, and resists the temptation to play games with words. If he does this I might support his candidacy in the future.
'''Support''' Solid editor, and unlikely to abuse the bits.  Supported last time, this time too.--
'''Support''' for now. I've seen this editor around and don't recall getting a bad impression.
'''Support''' Great and clueful editor.  Seems to have taken the comments about his writing style seriously and shows improvement in this RFA.  My full support.--v/r -
'''Support''' for now.  Flowery language doesn't bother me, unless lack of clarity engenders more hostility (as it may in a blocking situation).  The nominee seems to be fully comprehending the need to be clear.  Personally, I like book-learnin'.
'''Support''' I like the cut of your jib, and we're desperately short of good editors willing to do the donkey work at AIV and CSD.
'''Support''' - I'm not convinced that the candidate's vocabulary idiosyncrasies {{;)}} are as big a problem as many are making them out to be.  Also, the candidate's stated areas of interest (in Q1) don't include any areas that rely heavily on communication (e.g. patrolling ANI, closing consensus discussions, etc.).  I feel that opposing because the candidate likes to use big words is a bit nit-picky.
'''Support''' – Let me get this right, the major reason in the '''Oppose''' section is that “…He's unnecessarily (and uncomfortably) verbose.”  Not that (s)he is Un-commutative –Abusive – or Uncivil.  Nor are there allegations of mis-tagging – vandalism – being blocked or untrustworthy with regards to the tools.  Just supposition that (s)he is longwinded.  I guess the requirements for the sysop tools go way beyond just doing a good job but now require the ability to “[[Glossolalia|speak in tongues]]”.  Good Luck. <font face="Times New Roman">
{{ec}} <small>Effectuating adminship responsibilities is paramount to furthering his capabilities in editing Wikipedia. Sorry had to try.</small> In all seriousness, I think that bestowing adminship responsibilities upon users who can use them effectively is a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] to the project, and for that reason and that reason alone, I am supporting this editor's candidacy.
'''Support''': Per Wehwalt. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I'm not strict when evaluating candidates, except when they intend to work with CSDs.—
'''Support''' - I appreciate that this editor has made a significant number of contributions, demonstrates a capacity for growth and has the courage to endure the RfA process again. I have little doubt that they will continue to improve in their ability to communicate clearly and will make productive contributions as an admin. -
'''Rather strong support'''.  A diligent and idealistic editor; answers to questions sound.  I particularly like the response to Questions 10, 11, and 13, which should give an idea of this candidate's potential as an admin.
'''Support''' - Yes, sometimes he uses too many words. Sometimes some of them are long ones. I see a huge improvement in communication style versus the previous RFAs, though, and I have no difficulty with his comments here (other than a couple of trypos). What I also see is a long term contributor, very keen to help. Helping is what admins are supposed to do. I'd rather have an admin with passion to do the right thing than another "head prefect" type wikilawyer. I think we have enough of those. After review I find absolutely no evidence this candidate would abuse any tools, and his commitment and experience demonstrate to me he wants to make things better, and can. Lastly - he's back here after his previous experiences, and has made great efforts to address perceived faults. That's a sign of commitment, right there. I offer him my respect for the way he has handled himself here. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' as per AutomaticStrikeout.  Am not persuaded that his communication is so poor as to make him incapable.  --
'''Support''' - I named him [[User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive|Awesome Wikipedian]] on [[User talk:My76Strat/Archive 7#Precious|10 June 2012]] for expressing something simply, --
'''Oppose'''. I hate to be the first person to do this or say this, but quite frankly I find it very difficult to understand what My76strat says. He's unnecessarily (and uncomfortably) verbose, which isn't a big problem in normal editing but is a substantial one when it comes to communicating to users why they are blocked, interpreting unblocks, so on and so forth - areas where he says he'd like to work. Now, I brought this issue up last time, and M76S says he's worked on the issues brought up, but I really don't think so. This RfA and his statements in it are certainly more easily parsable than his comments 5 months ago - but the same is not true of his recent statements anywhere else. Barely 3 weeks ago he opened with "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRWolfie-&diff=prev&oldid=522683210 Greetings IRWolfie-. I am interested in proffering a compromise that frankly, I would discard unless it is a matter you would be willing to support. An issue gave impetus to an epiphany that probably would have been a better choice in relaxing Iantresmen's topic ban than the 1RR ultimately enacted. Preliminary regards are apparent on his talk page]." Similarly florid prose can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=522582460 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=522564057 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=522293179 here]. I'm not seeing a permanent change in approach (or, if there is one, it's kicked in ''very'' recently) - I'm seeing a deliberate effort to tone it down for this RfA.
'''Oppose''' for temperament concerns.  While My76Strat does some good content work, he has tended to get extremely upset after each previous failed RfA, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fetchcomms&diff=prev&oldid=442555161 an aborted attempt at vanishing] after RfA #2, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My76Strat&diff=prev&oldid=499666112 this] after RfA #3.  Also, coming back so soon after the previous failed attempt, which was pretty solidly against the idea of adminship, gives me further concern about wanting the rights a little bit too much. —<B>
'''Regretful Oppose''', per Ironholds. This editor seems pleasant and helpful, but other than the toned-down prose here on this RFA, I see no proof that my communication concerns from the last RFA have been addressed. Reading My76Strat's comments elsewhere is far more difficult than it should be. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. I've seen far too much of the incomprehensible prose that Ironholds alludes to, some of it quite recently. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=520030181#A_challenging_proposal This] exchange, in which M76Strat expresses his contempt for what he sees as my lack of aspiration to improve the editing environment, because he'd failed to read an email reply I'd sent him, happened just over a month ago.
'''Oppose''' due to temperament concerns. <font face="Impact">
'''Oppose''' per above.  The candidate's obnoxious communication style is not compatible with adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Ironholds puts it so well - I'm far from convinced that the communication issues (i.e. the willfully over-florid writing style) are a thing of the past, despite the considerable improvements demonstrated in this RfA.
'''Oppose''' temperament concerns. Torchiest has presented some pretty hard evidence that you IMO will never be right for adminship. '''
'''Oppose''' per Ironholds. And it isn't a question of "dumbing-down"; Malleus points out an instance where his unclear communication style actually exacerbated a situation unnecessarily. As a language freak I wasn't charmed by the two glaring errors in the nomination statement either. Use language clearly and well; we know your intentions are good. Come back after a few months of talking clearly and simply to others and you may get a different result. --
'''Oppose'''. The communication style, whilst toned down for the purposes of this RFA, still defies comprehension [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=522829363#Statement_by_My76Strat (Your comment belies a tangential relation, actually elucidating the core of this request. Being aware of a potential for sanctions does not imply one would know they are encroaching the "event horizon".)]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=522550140 This] is a basic failure to understand policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=520010348#A_challenging_proposal This] is not the sort of thing I expect to see in an administrator attempting to resolve a situation. I could go on, but I do not wish this oppose to become a character assassination.
'''Oppose''' - weak answers to my questions meant I was going to 'Neutral', but the diffs presented by Torchiest show that Strat still does not yet have the temperment to be an admin. This RFA is far too soon after the last - what's the rush? The language thing also remain an issue, as always.
{{EC}} '''Oppose''' - I don't think that the candidate has the low-drama nature that an admin needs.
Communication still often hard to understand. Temper issues. The "IAR." thing was apparently meant to sabotage or confuse people looking for [[WP:IAR|IAR]]. Strat does a lot of good things around here, but making him an administrator would clearly be an unacceptable risk to the project and its volunteers' time.
'''Oppose''' - Whatever the merits of this editor's contributions, the fact remains that administrators are ''required'' to explain their actions when challenged and justify them if necessary, especially when using the contentious delete and block buttons in the areas that Strat intends to work. It is clear from the diffs above that Strat is simply incapable of effectively communicating with a large section of the editors on this project.
'''Oppose''' per communication issues brought up by Ironholds. Being able to communicate clearly and understandably to users is very important for Administrators. '''
'''Oppose''', unsurprisingly, since it's less than a month since [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5#Wikipedia:IAR.|this charming exchange]]. Pretty much the last person I'd want explaining the ropes to a new user who's made a basic mistake, or trying to calm a heated debate.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per the communication issues.  The answers to questions 7-10, especially 8 and 9, seem to be too short and don't really explain things.  [[WP:IAR.]] is also something which I don't think it's appropoiate for a potential admin to be doing.
'''Oppose''' My76Strat's pompous and ostentatious verbosity is amusing (at least to the mind of a particularly cynical person) but ill-fitting of a gentleman so desirous of the mop.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Unhappy to '''oppose''', but doing it anyway. While Strat's answers to my questions do a decent job of de-thesaurus-izing his usual writing, they fail to actually explain anything in a way that would be adequate for a new user. Communication doesn't only require using the right words; it also requires being able to use the right words to communicate full meaning. I'm very pleased to see that Strat has made progress on half of that, but I think the other half is still too lacking for an administrator. I am also concerned about his temperament - the post-RFA ragequit (which I was pleased to see didn't last long - RFA can be a bitch and a half and I don't begrudge anyone the right to take a breather afterward, but the less dramatic the better) looked like he wasn't in control of his emotions, and the behavior over the IAR essay (which wasn't half-bad as an essay concept, otherwise) didn't speak well for his impulse control. My impression is that Strat's emotions always dwell close to the surface, and that while he does his absolute best to be helpful and constructive, it just doesn't come out right sometimes, especially in confrontational or high-stress situations. I'm truly unhappy to have to oppose yet another RFA for him, because I continue to feel that his intentions and heart are absolutely in the right place and I had high hopes for his communication skills to catch up to those, but until they do, I guess here we are.
I hate opposing My76Strat. I've seen his name pop up a lot in recent times and he comes across as very sensible and productive. However, [[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]'s links are enough to convince me that he does not have the composure to be an administrator at this time. My advice to the candidate &mdash; think of an unsuccessful RfA ''not'' as a failure, but as a ''learning experience'', something in which to gather helpful feedback and an opportunity to reassess your approach. Be true to yourself, and have an open mind. You do that, and I will support you next time around (although I suggest applying no earlier than April-May 2013).
'''Oppose''' The IAR link was a) a horrid lapse in judgement and b) their comments related to its proposed deletion show a communication style incompatible with adminship.  The fact that we're here a mere 5 months after his previous RFA shows he's too power-hungry - besides, who in their right mind would run for RFA less than a month since the IAR fiasco? ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Oppose''' Problems with communication and poise make the candidate clearly unsuitable.  --
The user's recent remarks at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Wikipedia:IAR.]] show how the user is wholly unsuited to be a sysop as well as the user's stance on IAR, which is a valued and necessary policy. As a side-note, I don't find the examples provided by Ironholds to be very problematic and have no issues with verbose language. <i><b>
'''Oppose''', not to pile on, I just noticed this late. Verbosity doesn't bother me, as we all have different ways of communicating, and it's not easy to change that. It's MyStrat's temperament that greatly concerns me. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise in the future, but probably not sometime soon. Many apologies.
'''Oppose''' Normally I'd expect to do a little more of my own research before making a decision at RfA. But in this case the [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Wikipedia:IAR.|very recent deletion discussion for 'Wikipedia:IAR.']] is enough on its own to send me straight to oppose. Sorry, but this sort of discourse appears completely incompatible with the way admins ought to conduct their communications. I've not found obvious evidence of any prior provocation between the candidate and [[User:Mogism]], which leaves me flummoxed. I'm also amused by the irony of the statement {{tq|I will instead '''ignore''' the wisdom within the rules}} (etc.)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5&diff=prev&oldid=521585953] when compared with the essay [[WP:Incorporate all rules|'''Incorporate''' all rules]]. I'd like to see the candidate continue their good work here, while working to demonstrate tangible development within the suggested areas of improvement before considering reapplying. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Oppose''' His behaviour at the recent clarification request for Civility Enforcement was inexplicable. He should just accept that he is not going to be an administrator, just as I have accepted that I shall not be a Fields Medalist. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - sorry - but No! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Oppose'''. Concerns over communication style. Also some poor judgement issues.
'''Neutral for now'''. Leaning towards oppose, but I hope to convince myself otherwise after further review.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:My76Strat/Incorporate_all_rules&oldid=521435820 The "IAR." thing], from November 5th, make me wonder whether the language and/or temperament issues are really in the past. The essay, and especially its [[WP:IAR.]] redirect (note the period), were either [[WP:POINT|pointy]] or misguided and absurdly verbose, and either way, I don't think it bodes well. Could've been a a one-off thing, though, and this RfA itself is a ''lot'' better; more research needed.
'''Neutral'''. Waiting on answers to questions, but I still have concerns about this editor's prose style. Given the number of issues we've seen lately regarding poor communication on the part of admins, I think a clear writing style is now more important than ever.
As nom.
'''Support''' based on interaction at [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]], where we often seem to be on opposite sides of an issue, but civil, sane, source-based and policy-based.
'''Support''' Hard-working, level headed editor. I know this editor from many overlapping areas of content. In particular, on one controversial article we were both watchlisting, I didn't always agree with Northamerica1000, but they were invariably courteous and calm, and focused only on improving the article. I totally believe they can be trusted with the tools and will use them to improve the encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' Trusted user no reason not to give them the bit.  ''<B>--
'''Support''' I've seen this candidate around a fair amount and I have no concerns about his ability to <s>delete the main page and block me</s> share the admin backlog burden.
'''Support''' - Based on the answer to my question, in which Northamerica1000 actually says he doesn't deserve to be an admin, that's good enough for me to move to support - clearly not after power, and disagrees with his nominator. Sweet :) '''
'''Support'''. Well-rounded, solid candidate. '''
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Absolutely. An excellent article writer with experience in maintenance areas, demonstrates an in-depth understanding of policy, and is forthright in his responses to some pretty hefty accusations. I feel very confident that we would be making the right decision in trusting [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]] with the sysop bit.
'''Support'''.  A fine candidate. Good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' Seems competant, I've encountered them around and never had a problem, examination of their history shows nothing that alarms me.
'''Strong Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' He seems to specialise in food topics which can be surprisingly controversial ([[yogurt]], [[hummus]], [[pizza cheese]], &c.).  He seems to handle such work with good grace and little drama.
'''Support''' per satisfactory answers to my (and other) questions above. <small>I reserve my right to change answer if user answers some outstanding questions unsatisfactorily.</small>
'''Support''' per my relationship in respect to being involved with editing on Wikipedia with this editor on Tennis articles. This is one superb editor, even if the editor does not get to be an admin/sysops quite right yet at this time. I think we need to focus on getting admins from the editor base instead of the users that only deal with patrolling Wikipedia policy pages and discussions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Adminship is not a big deal, and even if it is, this user deserves it.
'''Support''' Seems level-headed enough.
'''Support''' - Significant content contributor with a strong track record and no evidence that he would misuse the admin tools.
'''Support''', substantially per Bencherlite and Polarscribe. Several of the opposers' rationales strike me as quite weak, though others have merit and I am glad to see that the candiate is already taking some of them into account, just as he has changed some of his approachers per other discussions in the past. By this point it is obvious, for better or worse, that this RfA is not going to pass; it might be best for the candidate to withdraw at this time and come back to RfA after a few more months.
'''Support''' per my own comments under the neutral section, NA1000's responses to those opposing the nomination, and the additions made to his RfA.  I would also suggest withdrawing at this point, as it does not appear participants will be changing their minds.
'''Support''' - we unblock, re-admit, [[WP:FRESHSTART|fresh-start]] and topic-ban (rather than block) on the basis of commitments to "do better", "work harder" or "play nicer" but oppose adminship on the basis that someone had a couple of minor indiscretions months or years ago. If adminship is really ''"[[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]]"'' (an anti-elitism attitude we seem to value so highly from nominees) and can be revoked at any time for conduct unbecoming, then that sort of attitude seems a bit counter-productive. Does he work hard now - yes. Is he generally civil - yes. Does he make ongoing productive contributions to the encyclopaedia - yes. Would his being an admin likely help other editors make a similarly productive contribution - I think so, yes. Why in every other instance do we [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] except for RFA? [[WP:ANOT#TROPHY|Admins aren't special]], [[WP:ANOT#IMMUNITY|admins aren't special]] and [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|admin's aren't special]] - but admin nominees are excepted to be uber-neutral, pure-as-the-driven-snow demi-gods?
'''Support''':  Having dealt with NA1000 a lot at ARS, I will tell you he is level-headed and very dedicated.  There is simply no way I see him abusing the rules in closing AfDs - he never gets heated when questioning whether an article at AfD might be rescued, and is a firm believer in consensus and good faith collaboration.  Opposes claiming that "something doesn't smell right" about some answer or other are really not convincing.  If this RfA doesn't pass, his great article work which is far more important than admin work will continue, but it will be the wrong result in terms of whether he is qualified.  BTW, no one even told me NA1000 was up for admin, ARS doesn't do canvassing like that like people like to think sometimes.--'''
'''Support''': Not sure how much it will help, but seems likely in my experience to be a net positive with or without the tools.  Might as well flip the bit.  --
'''Support''' useful editor who would make a good admin. Sometimes not spotting copyvio is not ideal, but not as serious an issue as a tendency to do copyvio would be. There are significant issues raised in the oppose section re the user talkpage and the possibility of a prior account. The first issue has been addressed by the candidate and the second by [[user:Fram]]. The only remaining oppose that I find to be of substance is the queston of whether the candidate is overly inclusionist, however I take reassurance from the hgh proportion of times that the editor !votes with consensus. It is perfectly OK for an editor to cherry pick by mainly participating in AFDs where there is a serious chance of saving the article. Inclusionism only becomes a problem when people try to save articles that longstanding consensus would delete, I don't see this problem being exhibited by the candidate. ''
'''Support''' because failing to attain perfection does not preclude being trusted and good enough to benefit the encyclopedia.  Our best and most experienced Admins make mistakes.  I'm certain enough that [[User:Northamerica1000|NA1K]] will err and then correct his errors to solidly support him.
'''Support''' You deserve adminship, you've done so much good work on helping article creations. '''☠'''
'''Support'''  - Admin is no big deal - User is well competent to use a mop - we need to support more users that are outside of the current cliques of admins and their ''approved/mentored friends that appear to be /are attempting to control the project. - <font color="purple">
'''Weak Support:''' The issues TParis brought up gave me some concern but you've done good work on helping article creations and you dont't support deletion unless it is needed. Don't get discouraged. -
'''Strong Support''' 100,000 edits in 18 months is such a fast edit count rate.
'''Support''' - Solid content creator. Dropping out of ARS to curry favor with deletionists here is lame, but less lame than some people who are opposing this ostensibly because of Question 12, which is the result of defective tool output; or upon a comparatively high number of deleted edits, which relates to very solid ARS work. But really: why the fuck are you running for the right to use delete buttons and to redact comments and to block people? You're an excellent content creator, be proud of that and leave the vandal fighting for the vandal fighters...
'''Support''' - I've seen enough from him to know that he's an ethical, well-rounded user. <span style="border:3px solid #620000;background:#ff7676;padding-left:5px;padding-top:1.5px;padding-right:5px;border-radius:15em 3em;">
I've been watching this RfA with interest. I was poised to sit this one out, but frankly, you've earned my '''support''' and shall have it therefor. I am genuinely confident that you would be a credit to the admin corps. Fret not being denied entry to the club. Fresh air is not welcome in the vacuum of repugnant stench; unfortunately. Be well.
'''Support''' Answered my questions good, and seems to be a good role for an admin.--
'''Support''' He does a tremendous amount of work, and really cares about helping Wikipedia.  I'm glad I noticed his name in the section name at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship‎ which I have on my watchlist.  I don't usually participate in these things.  He'll be a great administrator.
'''Support''' - I doubt it will matter at this point but. After reviewing the rather weak opposes and the neutral comments like (too many opposes). Also, per the comments of this or that a year ago. If they cannot find anything more recent than that then you are doing fine.
'''Support''' - Northamerica1000s willingness to work in the area of borderline notable topics is not a weakness but a desired quality in an admin. He consistently shows good judgment and no doubt would apply that same good judgment in using the admin tools. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]].
'''Oppose''' Something does not just feel right with the answers to my question 7 and Plutonium27's question 12. As it appears to me you open a WP account make 1,119 edits in less than 4 weeks, then stop editing open a new one 6 minutes later, and then wait 15 months to link the account and do so 6 weeks before starting a RfA. This coupled with the editing at [[Angolan cuisine]], the assertion that "'' it's likely that I simply moved on to other editing matters at the time and didn't consider the option of seeking collaboration for the article''" seams week when you look article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angolan_cuisine&action=history history] as you came back to the article 8 days later.
'''Oppose'''. Something just doesn't smell right about the answer to Q12.
'''Oppose''' per his stances in the myriad of AfDs we've both participated in.  He seems unwilling to acknowledge close criteria other than GNG, and willing to source-dump into an AfD content that belongs on the article's talk page or in the article itself.  I believe him to be too overly inclusionist to be level-headed in closing AfDs.  The change in accounts is also a concern, as is the fact that he hasn't been on Wikipedia with this account for two years yet <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - [[User:Northamerica1000]] suffers from [[WP:Editcountitis]], and thus is IMO unfit to be an admin. Just one example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_crop&action=history/w/index.php?title=Energy_crop&action=history] : Everything is added piecemeal, including self-reverts (contrary to his assertion that he checks facts and sources). An admin who does not understand the function, or is unwilling to use, the "Show preview" button, would be a farce. To compare, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=104th_New_York_State_Legislature&oldid=521597065 here] (an article I started) what can be added in '''one''' edit.
'''Oppose'''. Well-meaning and hardworking editor, but lacks the diligence needed to be a good admin IMO. Moving a page from userspace to AfC space, and editing it afterwards, without checking that it is a copyright violation ([[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc]]); [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chase Burns (possible Douche)]] was declined as being a joke, leaving "thank you" notes at the IP talk page that created it ([[User talk:165.95.53.203]]), when it was clearly a juvenile BLP violation which should get something a bit stronger than a "thank you"; in October, he moved [[Citizen Hearst]] from the AfC pages to the mainspace, only for the article to be then deleted as a copyright violation. His article creations are often very poorly sourced, only linking to e.g. Maplandia[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hjalteyri&oldid=434049728] or Wikimapia ([[Old Channal]], [[Baragi]], [[Uttur]], [[Vajjaramatti]], [[Jaliberi]], [[Jeeragal]], [[Kishori]], ...). His actions at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weight-Increase Phobia]] are also indicative of a lack of care. But the recurring missed copyright violations (not violations he created, but that he ignored when moving pages from e.g. AfC to the mainspace) are the most worrying to me, the article edits are a lesser problem.
Primarily per the candidate's response to Oppose #1. In an era where the community seems concerned about how we can hold administrators accountable for their actions after RFA, here we have a candidate who doesn't even want to be held accountable for requesting the tools. How accountable would an administrator like this really be?
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns about AFD, somewhat evasive answers to questions, and coyness about previous accounts all lead me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns about past accounts. I feel bad about opposing, since he's overall a fine user--hopefully he won't be discouraged if this doesn't succeed.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' This user doesn't understand deletion nor canvassing policy.  My concerns were outlined a year ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=451854160 here] as far as deletion policy.  While I admit this user has done great work in ARS and they are improving, they have a habit of wikilawyering and getting it wrong.  I've bashed my head against a desk over this user quite a few times because they just don't get it.  At one point I was going to create an RFC over competence.  Handing this user the tools would be a mistake.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' per MtK, MF, and TP.
'''Oppose'''. TParis' concerns worried me, so I did a bit of digging. The fact talk page archives are missing didn't concern me too much until I really started digging. Northamerica1000 blanks his page rather than archives it, which is not against policy, but does avoid scrutiny. It is especially annoying because he has an archive box, but no archived conversations in it. Looking further, it didn't take too much to find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Northamerica1000&oldid=513146699 this discussion] with Fram (in Sept 2012), which highlights issues with the speed of Northamerica's editing. Similarly with this discussion from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Northamerica1000&oldid=504577754 July 2012] where he was adding empty reference sections. On top of that, I'm not happy with his deleted edits. For example, he recently moved a userspace draft to AfC - despite it being a copyvio, I would expect an editor to be checking for this. ([[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc.|admins only]]) and removed a [[WP:CSD#G11|G11]] at [[Yew Chung Education Foundation]] another copyvio. Worse than that, he actually created [[Citizen Hearst]] in AfC - another copyvio. There's enough here to persuade me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by WTT and TParis.--<span style="">
'''Oppose''' per usual "allegiance", "fanclub" membership, and "enabling" (thanks for the civility, NPA, and AGF, administrators!) and per IntoThatDarkness, WTT, TP, etc. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per talk page (If users go directly to your talk page, they probably meant to do so, intending to use your talk page for its primary purpose. Serving up a bloated userpage anyway is hostile to those users.) and competence issues as documented by Fram and WTT above.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by Malleus, Fram, WTT and TParis. --
'''Oppose''' per WTT, TParis and Malleus.
'''Oppose''' (Moved from Support) - per concerns raised by WTT, TParis, and Malleus. I am sorry to oppose such an active and striving user, but edit count doesn't reflect accuracy. His AfD votes are not all that successful, and there has been concerns raised about copyvios. Solve these problems, and you have a support from me in your second nom.
'''Oppose'''.  For two reasons.  Firstly the copyright concerns have me worried.  As these concerns were mainly about not spotting copyright problems they may not have led me to oppose, although they may have stopped me from supporting, but their response to Oppose 5 (Fram's) was enough to make me oppose.  Missing a copyright problem like that is a major oversight.  I'm not so concerned about them missing it as that's relatively easily done but trying to down play the oversight like that is not something I like to see.   My second reason is somewhat related in that I fear they get too defensive when being criticised as is shown in their responses here and in not archiving critical talk page conversations and again this is something that I don't want to see in an admin.
'''Oppose''' Minor but numerous correctable concerns place me here. Q10 response struck me as [[WP:ONLYESSAY]]-esque, and concerning in light of TP's concerns of wikilawyering. The AfD would have been better !voted and left to an admin to close. The closing rationale was long-winded, and overstated GNG's impact, which was only specifically mentioned once by participants. Response to Oppose #9 of "I'm initially leery of immediately changing..." followed by "Please provide suggestions on my User talk page about improvements" seems disingenuous when suggestions were already given. In the response to Q13, I question how he concluded that "most users go directly to this page, rather than to the User page". Nonetheless, it seem poor judgement to burden users who are not interested, especially when he suppressed a table of contents on his talk page.—
'''Oppose'''. The answers to questions (the important ones&mdash;1, 2 & 3) contain excessive irrelevant waffle. More significantly, the copyright violations are a serious problem.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' Don't trust nominator, badgering candidate.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the ARS issues TParis brought up. --
'''Oppose''' Well-intentioned candidate, valuable contributor to the project, but I agree with WTT and others. I also have concerns about the candidate's ability to communicate clearly (an essential skill for admins, IMHO) - some answers here have required a deal of clarification, some have taken too long to make a simple point, and the talk page issue rasied earlier (though I appreciate that this has now been addressed).
Candidates need to demonstrate that they have that particular brand of clue that is required of administrators. I don't see evidence of that in the nomination statement, the answers to the questions, or in the supporting comments. Given that I barely visit AfD these days my most common place to cross paths with NA1K is on ANI, and I haven't been left with the same feeling of cluefulness from his contributions there that I did with, say, Dennis Brown. Ordinarily a mere lack of evidence to support would leave me neutral, but there are numerous troubling issues raised in opposition, specifically what seems to be an unfortunate tendency to attempt to rescue copvios and the blanking of his talk page (which is never not a red flag).
'''Oppose''' per Skinwalker, Dpmuk, and Yunshui <small>(Yes, that last one's a "neutral".  Still.)</small>.  Note, however, that I have '''no concerns''' about the use of multiple accounts here.  --''
'''Oppose''' - First, a person straight from [[WP:ARS]] becoming an admin and closing AfDs?  No, that would be a huge detriment to the project; the keep-everything-I-see mentality is bad enough in the user base, we do not need to see it with the power to close deletion discussions.  Second, I do <s>to</s> not believe the answer to Q7 is truthful.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral). The examples I found (like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Northamerica1000&oldid=460314872 this]  in the "Edit Warring" section forward) had me in the neutral camp as I was concerned with your method of interaction with other editors. Your badgering responses to the Opposes, especially Tarc, above, make me believe you would be ill equipped to deal with conflict as an administrator. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Oppose''' - past experience with you at AFDs leads me to question your knowledge of/respect for [[WP:N]]. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per WormTT and TParis, along with the notability concerns from past AfD nominations. 'Tis likely that there is more good than bad, but not enough good to transcend the bad. Hopefully, I will hopefully won't find reasons to oppose any later RfAs of this user. However, hopefully these things are now in the past, and will not be brought up again - [[The Raven|nevermore]].
'''Oppose'''- in my experience this user doesn't deal well with disagreements. He just talks over the top of people and doesn't listen to them. From links provided by other users in this discussion, I'm not the only one who gets this impression. Although the incidents I'm thinking of were about a year ago, the badgering responses to the opposes in this RfA indicate that the problem is ongoing.
'''Oppose''' While I've found NAK to be a courteous, capable editor and don't expect a candidate to be flawless (since much of the training is on-the-job anyway), I value transparency in an admin. Even I manage to auto-archive (rather than blanking) my talk page, and I see a regrettable tendency to overstate contributions here.
'''Oppose'''. I do not believe that NA is a proper reader of consensus. Tparis points out lawyering, canvassing, and not listening, and that is my experience also. In terms of article content, NA has a tendency to stuff articles with everything and the kitchen sink--good for article salvation, bad for the articles. That talk page deletion, that's bothered me ever since I ran into them, and I've commented on it more than once. I had hoped that when pondering running for admin one would realize that this is precisely one of those matters that are important for other editors: not archiving suggests lack of transparency. It certainly makes perusal an absolute bitch. Worse, given that admins are supposed to communicate, it suggests that NA doesn't care about communication. On that same topic, I have found it very, very difficult to communicate with them--and they spread their typical evasive verbosity on one AfD after another. If I remember correctly, they had a standard text, or what seemed like a standard text, that they copied into every AfD they ran into. No, NA should not be an admin and will not be an admin this time, given how this RfA is going; my oppose thus doesn't really matter, but I want to note it nonetheless. I've stayed away from AfD discussions the last few years, but it seems NA hasn't changed his ways: someone who is difficult, nearly impossible to deal with as an editor should ''never'' be an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. TParis and WTT bring up enough reason for me to oppose this candidate. Other opposes don't build up confidence.--
'''Oppose.'''  I agree with those who point out that the candidate has done some wonderful work while rescuing articles.  This has certainly been my experience with him.  However, the strong inclusionist tendencies that make him so good at article rescue would make him, in my opinion, a disaster as a closer of AfDs.  Those who close AfDs should be neither inclusionist nor deletionist, but middle-of-the-road.  I have been involved in a lot of AfDs over the years, and admit to deletionist leanings, but even so, I know that the closing admin must have a sure, unbiased hand, and must be able to read the AfD discussion in the light of policy and make the correct assessment.  With this candidate, I fear that a lot of non-notable persons and entities would be preserved on the project, meaning that they would only have to be returned to AfD weeks or months later, thus duplicating the work of countless editors.  For these reasons, with all due respect to the candidate for the good work he '''has''' done for the project, I must regrettably oppose giving him admin powers.
'''Oppose.''' Ok, I had to go and do a little real digging, and then stopped as I began to just remember many things as I read more from others. Yes, the Userpage deletion bothers me for someone wishing to be an admin. I do it myself once in a while but go back and archive it when I have time manually (still have some to finish up). NA does not even do this, and at this point it may be a duanting task to accomplish. TP brought up canvassing and I do remember now that is indeed how I first encountered NA last year when OWS became a sticky wicket for Drmies on the Admin board. I also have concerns with deletion. As some OWS articles should be merged and or deleted as part of a clean-up effort I began for the Occupy articles. This became an issue with them and I decided to back away instead of arguing. I think North is a decent editor, I do...but I also know he has some issues. The copyright issue is big, the blanking of the user page is unreasonable for an admin hopeful and the canvassing issue I have first hand experiance with this editor. I am concerned with the amount of AFD votes for keep as this has been an issue I also have seen first hand and with articles. The rescue squadron issue for me, always seemed to be a matter of bias. With OWS he seemed to want to keep all articles regardless of the promotional or copyright issues. I am also concerned about the use of another account brought up in comments. I don't know how many of these issues the editor has addressed and improved on but I feel this is not the right time for now.--
Although I like your work at the AfC project, the copyright stuff is a problem; this is a "no-go" for me. Although I don't think you have to be an expert, you should detect copyvios by reading the sources after the article (draft), for the case you don't use any tools. Keep in mind: these are only additional tools and we all want to build a free encyclopedia: improve your skills as mentioned at this RfA and request the tools in some months again! <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Oppose''' I am very sorry, but I also get the feeling that something "smells" off here. I almost get a feeling that this is an account that has been groomed for an adminship attempt. I apoligize if this comes off as offensive, I most humbly apoligize, I really do. That's just the feeling I get. I feel at the very least that this person should know that this is a vibe that comes out during a little research, and that this editor should know that. Perhaps if I knew this editor better, and perhaps if I knew this editor more personally, I might have a different opinion, but the merging of accounts seems, on the surface, to have been done to boost the edit count, and the edit count seems (again on the surface) to be the most important aspect of wikipedia to this user. Again, please accept my humble apologies if that was ungentle. The RfA is a terrible process, one that I loathe to ever have to do myself, and I do not wish it on anyone. be well. --
'''Oppose''' While Northamerica1000 is certainly incredibly dedicated, I don't believe that he or she is able to adequately judge whether or not a source can provide notability to a subject during an AfD. Additionally, Northamerica1000 demonstrated a troublingly incorrect view of when the use of the old Rescue Squad tag would be canvassing.--
'''Oppose''' due to the previous account issue. '''
'''Oppose''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Something's smells fishy with the user and with the Q7 and Q12. First, in my opinion (whether it is a fact or not a fact), one may not edit that high because new users have no special rights immediately and right away. Plus, the one [[User:Bzweebl|Bzweebl]] said about notability of a source.  <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Strongly. Railroaded a bad keep decision [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jannik_Olander] and showed extremely questionable judgement, with respect to [[WP:BIO]] and [[WP:NOT]], in rewriting [[Jannik Olander]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jannik_Olander&diff=503856945&oldid=499984813] Also, subsequently ignored the article while it got turned into a promo piece[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jannik_Olander&diff=515135867&oldid=503856945] by an editor who is now indefinitely blocked for numerous spam/promo/COI violations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACarlang&diff=522398887&oldid=522319433] Had NA1000 shown better judgement, the article would not have existed; it would not have degenerated into a platform for spammers/advocates; and WP resources (i.e., other editors' time) would not have been wasted. These examples demonstrate basic deficiencies in editing skill, understanding of guidelines, and stewardship glaring enough to preclude as admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' – Per Worm That Turned and TParis. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong Oppose'''.  I very, very rarely oppose any editor at RfA, but I must oppose your nomination.  On the plus side, I am sympathetic to your POV and I greatly admire your enthusiasm for the project.  The problem is that you don't seem to be able to separate your POV from your contributions, and this has had, IMO, a negative impact on the encyclopedia.  My experience with you on [[UC Davis pepper-spray incident]] and other Occupy topics led me to abandon them altogether in frustration due to your incessant spamming of "Occupy X has continued to engage in organized meetings, events and actions" when such a statement is often false and based on primary/unreliable sources.  Because of this editing behavior, I don't think you really have a grip on the policies and guidelines in a way that I would expect someone to have with access to additional tools so I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' Though I have great respect for the candidate's efforts to improve WP, a general sense of immaturity prompts me to oppose.  This is based on reviewing many of the candidate's edits, as well as the answers and comments on this page.  Ability to step back from issues is essential.  --
'''Oppose''' (moved from ''neutral'') per Viriditas. Editing to counter bias and ensure a neutral POV is one thing. But to read an oppose from someone who is {{tq|sympathetic to [the candidate's] POV}} has been enough to topple me over, when considered with the other oppose rationales. Sorry, but perhaps if such issues can be rectified/explained convincingly next time, then I'll end up supporting. Please keep up the good work anyway - see you round at AfD. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Oppose'''. Per your resignation from ARS during this RfA. "Pleasing the crowd" mentality is not what I expect from admins.
'''Oppose''' Starting with answers to question 1, replies felt very cookie-cutter. Prefer to err on the side of caution here. [[User talk:Samsara|Samsara]]&nbsp;([[User:Samsara/Animal FA requirements|FA]]&nbsp;<small>•</small>&nbsp;
'''Strong oppose'''. While I might consider administratorship if Northamerica had stated that he intended to stay away from XfD, which we know to be his hot-button area, that thought is moot because there's simply no way I'm willing to even consider granting adminship when he states that he fully intends to edit AfD with his admin hat on. I would expect any extreme deletionist ''or'' inclusionist admin to be wary of XfD or other deletion-related tasks, since strong emotion is the enemy of a good decision when it comes to keep/delete choices. Refusal to stay away from tasks where one is very prone to emotional/ideological involvement is a dealbreaker, and resigning from the ARS because people think your membership is evidence of poor judgment doesn't actually do anything to fix concerns about that judgment.
'''Oppose''' I have no problem supporting members of the ARS for adminship (see:MichaelQSchmidt) but IMO this editor does not belong to the tendency of the ARS that is purely interested in saving deserving articles from deletion, as can be seen from their !voting record at AfD, and the examples shown above.  And per Reyk, an editor who is pretty much ''always'' worth noting.
'''Oppose''': Tactics as a member of ARS were highly questionable, inluding canvassing and dumping long lists of useless sources which he clearly did not take the time to read or evaluate. Also have problems with his tendency to [[WP:IDHT]]. I'm convinced that he lacks the good judgement and impartiality to be entrusted with the responsibilities of being an administrator, in particlular as far as AfDs are concerned.
'''Oppose''', chiefly because of the candidate's argumentativeness despite the broader implications of his responses, and despite his own advice in Q3. Given that administrators may receive more pestering than the average editor, I'm concerned that the candidate won't resist diving into the fray when confronted with a differing opinion or a troll. (Make no mistake, I appreciate honest efforts to set the record straight—but preferably with substantial discretion.) As for other reasons, per Worm That Turned and Thumperward, I wonder about the lack of transparency on the user's talk page (why not fix that immediately as a show of good faith?), and I think the answer to Q16 (on his AfD pattern) shows a lack of understanding of his own biases. Similarly, the response to Q1 seems like a brain dump, rather than a deliberative synthesis of ideas. I'm conflicted about the candidate's edit rate to the extent that it represents content (which ought to be deliberate) rather than antivandalism (which ought to be responsive), but admittedly, edit volume is likely a good indicator of familiarity with the inner workings of the project. I'm having a hard time assessing the quality of the candidate's work, but I have no problem accepting the judgments of those more familiar than I that his content contributions are valuable. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">
'''Oppose''' I don't feel I could really trust this user with AFD closes or deletion tools.  This one's a never, I'm afraid.
Moved from oppose. As stated above, I can't oppose because of a "gut feeling" about answers to questions, but for the same reason I can't support, and I hate to strike a vote and "disappear" - so it looks like I end up here. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
Moved from Support per recent corcerns about copyvio --
'''Neutral''' <s>for now</s> – <s> I will be watching the questions and any further developments (particularly copyvio and talk page archives) to be brought up before I lean one way. [[User:The Anonymouse|Anonymouse321]] <small>(now The Anonymouse)</small> ([[User talk:The Anonymouse|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Anonymouse|contribs]]) 19:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC) </s>'' I will remain neutral. I think Northamerica1000 is a good editor, but there are a few problems (copyvio, for example) that might need some time to be addressed.''
<s>'''At the moment,</s> neutral''' <s>Something just doesn't feel right. I haven't done my typical digging as of yet, and I will, but at the moment, something just doesn't feel quite right, but I can't quite place my hand on it.</s> ''Addendum: While I don't think he would block Jimbo or delete the mainpage (praise the Lord for that), I tend to agree with Kudpung that he doesn't have enough '''quality''' experience in dispute resolution, making tactful statements in disagreements, etc. Therefore, I'm going to remain neutral.
'''Neutral''' May or may not move it based on answers, evidence, etc. Regards, —
I appreciate the candidate's work on the Gardening WikiProject, and would like to support, but there are some persuasive comments in the oppose section, so I cannot. --
'''Neutral''' moved from to support to here. This is because of the many convincing opposes. You are still a great editor, though. Sorry. <font face="Impact">
'''Neutral <s>for now.</s>''' based on concerns stated above.
From what I can see from article histories regarding Q12 and weight phobia, it looks like you did in fact create the article at one point, in some incarnation.  That makes me wonder why you didn't just say "Yeah I did create it, but the histories have been mangled up through merges and deletions", which appears to be the truth.  I don't know if you were trying to hide the criticism you got at the AfD for changing the article topic entirely by starting it as a completely new article mid-AfD or what.  It's OK to make mistakes, but you need to own them, not try to hide them.  The way you source dump in AfDs leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, since many times the sources don't contain much more than a passing mention.  I don't think you are a bad editor, but you need to consider that every time we keep a poor article based on AfD source dumping, that's basically assigning work to other editors that are going to have to maintain an article that will likely forever remain poorly sourced.
'''Neutral''' I am aware (as, I believe, are many other editors) of Northamerica1000 primarily for his (generally very constructive) work as part of the [[WP:ARS|Article Rescue Squadron]]. Whilst I appreciate that this discussion may only have been a partial influence on his decision to withdraw from ARS, it reads to me like a fairly direct response to the the fact that many !voters here disagree with the ARS's activities - I myself have never been a huge fan, although I appreciate the aims of the project and support it in theory at least. Maybe it's the badly-timed implementation of a long-considered intention, but to me, this smacks of an attempt to pander to the anti-ARS crowd - together with the alterations to his talkpage and the sudden interest in talkpage archiving, I get the feeling that Northamerica1000 really wants the bit, and is willing to make any changes necessary to convince the !voters. In itself, that's no bad thing - I appreciate an editor who is willing to adjust to the community - but equally, I appreciate an editor who sticks to his priorities and doesn't try to treat RFA as a popularity contest. Combined with some of the other issues raised (overly hasty editing being the main concern), I don't feel I can continue to support this nomination.
'''Neutral''' If anything, this RfA has hopefully given NA1k a good idea of what is expected in an admin.  I wouldn't be surprised to see NA1k back here in 6-18 months, and depending on what he does between now and then, I could see myself in either the support or oppose column.  Disassociating himself with the ARS is a good first move, becoming more neutral and unbiased (in terms of inclusionism/deletionism) would be a good next step.  Use the oppose votes as a checklist for what to improve upon.
'''Neutral''', unfortunately.  NorthAmerica 1000 is definitely an asset to WP, and would probably make a good administrator.  His dedication to content creation is, in my opinion, admirable.  On the other hand, the variety of concerns raised in the oppose section (copyvio, etc) are enough for me not to support his candidacy.  I hope he continues his work and will attempt this again in the future.
'''Neutral''' . Very generally as per Scottywong and without prejudice to a re-run in the not too distant future. Possibly an over enthusiastic nomination that was accepted in good faith by an ill-prepared candidate. There is no doubt that Northamerica1000's experience would put him  in  the league of admin 'possibles', but more in-depth examination by the nominator, and self examination by the candidate and reading  some of the the [[WP:Advice for RfA candidates|advice pages]] beforehand may have been more appropriate. The candidate has handled this RfA particularly  well, but  has responded to fairly obvious issues that could/should perhaps already have been identified and addressed before RfA.
'''Neutral''' as per Kudpung, TParis, etc. NA1K has definitely done good work for the project, and been a benefit to it as a whole...but issues such as the ones brought up at this RfA make it seem 'incorrect' to support at this time. —'''<font color=#232323>
First of all, I hate to change my !vote from the support section. I tend to agree with assessments of TParis and WormTT in particular and the issues raised do concern me. However, there is no doubt that I trust the user but I believe that a re-run after an year of awesomeness is all needed here and to re-gain my trust. Somehow, I always agree with what Yunshui says, so '''neutral''' per Yunshui, TP and WTT. '''''
'''Neutral'''. Of the comments here, I find myself agreeing with many more in the neutral section than the others. The candidate is generally a reasonable person, but that has not been in evidence on this page to the degree that I see it in other edits around the project. Put another way, you know an RFA has failed when the candidate has made 6 edits to the page for every 1 support <small>(120 edits for 21 supports, at the time of this writing)</small>. An admin's record and edits should stand on their own merits - and it's a red flag when they do not. I look forward to supporting in the future, if and when.
I've largely had good experiences with this editor, but others have pointed out significant issues.  As SW said, I can easily see the issues addressed over the next year or so and me being quite willing to support.
'''Neutral'''. Unfortunately due to the large number of opposes from other users. —
'''Neutral''' I have seen significant improvement over the time this user has been here and he is becoming more mainstream in his approach to deletion but, frankly, extreme inclusionists who intend to work at AFD are as inappropriate as extreme deletionists. I'll be interested in seeing how he continues to develop and the more mainstream his views become the more plausible a future RFA will become.
'''Neutral''' - I was considering support, but the oppose arguments are keeping me from wanting to support, so im staying neutral. '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Neutral'''. Moral support - while it looks like this RfA is not going to succeed, NA has certainly improved as a contributor to this project and his willingness to try to find sources to demonstrate a subject's validity for inclusion is commendable. I can understand the criticisms of being over-inclusionist and issues with copyvio, however, and perhaps working on these over the next 6-12 months would put him in a better position to get the tools. --
'''Neutral'''. While adminship is supposed to not be a big deal, I can't say in good faith that I put my confidence in the man who answered the questions above. They seem more like Wikilawyer-ed answers than intuitive answers indicative of understanding or experience. Edit count is a ridiculous metric to support or oppose on, but I for one don't approve of people who drive up edit count by not previewing. It wastes precious memory. I want to morally support, but even that might be a little too much. A good editor, may or may not be ready for the mop.
'''Neutral'''. It's rare that I find myself firmly in the neutral camp, but I'm in the same boat as most of the above users. NA1000 has always seemed alright to me, and when I saw this RfA I assumed I'd be comfortably supporting. I was surprised by the strong opposition, but I have to defer to it. I think you have potential though and I hope to support you in the future. ''
'''Support''' as nominator. The idiosyncratic response to the nomination by '''P''' very much shows that he can take on this task in his own unique way. There is no danger of group think here - he won't be just one more automaton with a broom! <span style="background-color:#C0C0C0">
Opposes not convincing. --
'''Support''' - opposes are unconvincing.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Penyulap/Archive|this SPI case]], in which the candidate, following several invitations to clarify whether he was being sarcastic or not, admitted in earnest that he uses socks incapable of being detected by CheckUser to vandalise Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' - that SPI is too close for comfort, and the answer to question 3 is not encouraging.--
'''Oppose'''. I haven't looked at ''any'' of the candidate's other contributions, and so I make no comment on them, but the SPI case raised above by WilliamH makes me extremely concerned, enough to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - This comment is a bit dodgy!:{{quote|1="So ? I vandalize wikipedia, I like it. I do it repeatedly, I've done it before and I'll do it again and I'm serious. Try to stop me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_88#The_real_problem_with_April_Fools here] is a diff, ban me. I even use sock puppets to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Moore&diff=prev&oldid=492218573 vandalize] and I'm getting bolder because nobody cares, I'm completely out of control."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=500399111&oldid=500398335]}} With a recent SPI case I think that this user should wait at least another 6 months as then we can see a recent history of incivility. The comment I quoted above sort of proves that the user can not be trusted with the role of admin especially after admitting to controlling sock puppets. Although this could be someone pretending to be the user we still can not be sure and can't take the risk. <span style="background:#FFF; text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue">
'''Bzzt'''. I stopped at "vandetta" (sic).
The TLDR "acceptance" of the nomination throws me off, and I'm sure will throw many others off too. Coupled with the candidate's past remarks highlighted above, I will not support. —
'''Oppose''' the sockpuppetry thing is a big no. Also there's three blocks on the account, one on 21 June and the other this month.
'''Oppose''' All I saw was "...I guess I edit mostly out of spite". Huh?
Didn't even get past the "statement". [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
This is a joke, right?
'''Oppose''' - What on earth... huh... what? The SPI case, recent blocks, ...
'''Oppose'''. What is this I can't even. RFA is a crappy enough place without lulzy RFAs which no one, including the nominee, can take seriously. Penyulap, I'm sure you have good intentions down there somewhere, but what the community sees of you, here and elsewhere, is way more poking of the beehive than any one person should be doing.
Let's put this one behind us, and think of better things to come. - Dank (
'''Oppose'''. Nominee's motivation is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penyulap&diff=prev&oldid=503836491 officially doing it just to shit my critics to tears...]
'''Oppose''' The SPI and block are too recent for me to support now. --  '''
'''Oppose''' - Pen, you're a good editor with a lot of potential, but I feel like this is premature.
'''Oppose''' - Not because of any of the above, but because I do not find Penyu's frequent noticeboard contributions to be of the helpful variety.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per SPI case and recent block. Also, 26% of edits to the article namespace is too low.
'''Strong Oppose''' More deserving of an indef block than tools. Uses undetectable sock puppets to vandalize. Makes a sport of defending other disruptive editors, either to prove a point, or just to tweak peoples noses. Not here to build an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' When an admin or wannabe admin sees an editor being grossly uncivil (even if they feel it justified in the circumstances), I generally expect something more than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&diff=prev&oldid=498693895 spelling and grammar advice]. —
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions miss the mark. The recent block coupled with A1 stop me in my tracks.
'''Oppose''' per recent block and the sock puppet investigation. User creates undetectable, pernicious sock puppets to vandalise the encyclopædia, which is not of administrator quality. User only has 26% of edits to the article namespace, which is low. Also, the nomination statement to this "entreaty for adminiship" is short, but Penyulap summed the statement up as "TL;DR" in my perception, given the size of their later obiter. User has been blocked three times, predominantly for unruly  editing habits and personal interventions. '''⇒
'''Strong oppose''' (ec) The statistic of 26% edits to articles is actually deceptive; most of those edits were at least six months ago. Their article-space edits in the last five months are only 8.3%, and are falling every month. They only had four edits to articles in July, up until Saturday, when they fixed some redirects after a page move. Some of the remarks above are quite, ahem, sketchy: {{green|"I try my best not to edit anything really, but I just get tricked into it sometimes, I guess I edit mostly out of spite";  "nobody likes Canadians"}} ( O really? I am Canadian, and can say for sure that your remark is untrue, and it hurts my feelings). Their extensive posting to the recent ANI thread about the Beatles thing got to be pretty over the top; not helpful posts, more the kind that stir up drama and hurt people and the wiki as a whole. Citing  [[Talk:Mother Teresa#Criticism?|this exchange]] as an {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|503668318|example of their mentorship skills}} seems disingenuous when the editor they were talking to never edited the encyclopedia again. There's more, but I'll stop there, as this has already sucked up enough of my time. YHBT : HAND. --
'''Oppose'''. Frankly I am on the verge of leaving Wikipedia because of the stress that this user has caused me. There can be little doubt that Penyulap ultimately means well, has a great sense of humour when not using it to try and avoid criticism, and has made some great contributions, but he remains unable to accept criticism or see when he is wrong (usually blaming other editors, and even going as far as recently opening [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelphin/Archive|a baseless SPI]] against one user who criticised him). His black-and-white view of policy is also problematic, as he adheres to the letter of the law sometimes at the expense of its spirit. He's made a couple of vague allegations in his response to question 3 which I feel warrant some response. I won't go into too much detail regarding his conduct on the ISS article - it's all there in the archives of [[Talk:International Space Station]], but he pretty much single-handedly got an FA delisted ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Penyulap_and_the_International_Space_Station|ANI discussion at the time]]), before embarking on a year-long campaign to change the article's dialect based solely on the grounds of a perceived procedural error in a discussion ''three years ago'' (see [[WP:NOTBURO]]). I've lost count of [[WP:FORUMSHOP|how many discussions he has started]] on the matter, and when he runs out of arguments he resorts to ''ad hominem'' comments, such as the ones seen under answer 3 accusing the other editors involved of bullying and acting as if they own the article. We were actually making some progress on the issue for the first time since his involvement, but his above tirade has pretty much thrown that out of the window. --'''''
While the sockpuppetry conundrum may be just a misunderstanding of caustic sarcasm, and the lengthy intro essay (which I admit I did not go through) indicates that the candidate is quite eloquent, I believe that admins should generally avoid controversy, and double-meanings. With current results I don't feel like adding to the beating through an "oppose" vote, so I'm going neutral
'''Oppose'''. With 266 edits, you don't have enough experience or a long enough track record to determine if you understand Wikipedia policies sufficiently to use the tools appropriately. The answers to the questions are too vague to work out why you want them. Finally, the "domestically and internationally" comment leads me to believe you don't really understand how Wikipedia works. Thanks. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Recommend withdrawing at this time. --'''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. ''<B>--
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough activeness or edits to show clear interpretition of policy.
'''Oppose''' per nomination, lack of editing experience and lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Someday, maybe. Definitely not for at least 12 more months and a lot more edits.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but with just 287 edits in total over a span of 2 years, there is nothing to evaluate you on in terms of being an Administrator. Also your answer to question 3 seems you would take administrative actions against users who undid your edits in good faith, this is clearly unacceptable and wrong. Please read and understand [[Wikipedia:Not now]], [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] and [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not]]. After considerable and satisfactory experience try again next year.
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and unclear understanding of policy. '''
'''Oppose''' In 2 years you have not even reached 300 edits. Your answer to #4 (as a follow up to 3) is not only wrong, it's '''scarey wrong''': you may not use admin tools to further a content dispute you're involved in. Based on the fact that 2 editors apparently disagreed your edit, yet you still think you need to take action shows you have little understanding of [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Let us know when you have a) read and understood the [[WP:5P|five pillars]], and b) have reached an absolute minimum of 5,000 edits.  Sadly, [[WP:NOTNOW]] doesn't even apply right now <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Pol's always seemed like a good editor to me; 12k edits, CSD, AfD and anti-vandalism experience, good policy knowledge, seems non-dramatic (stays away from ANI), content-focused, no concerns with the created articles, 100% edit summaries, no indications of assholery (to steal a line from Carrite), trustworthy, clean block log, etc. I'd have no problem seeing this user with a mop. ''
'''Support''' longterm member of the community with a clean blocklog, deleted contribs also look OK. 6 article creations is not in my view a problem, nor would zero be. There are plenty of articles already created that need improvement and I wouldn't insist that anyone create new ones. A self nomination means that it is worth checking that the editor knows how to communicate and has some diversity in their editing. In my view Pol430 passes those tests and so I don't share the concerns of the first 4 oppose !voters. ''
'''Support''', I trust Pol430 with the mop. Good work at AfC and all around.
'''Support''' {{ec}} I have seen this user around at [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]]. He is quite clueful and his work there has been commendable. Looking through his talk page, he is polite in his comments to other editors and new users. I don't see any issues with his work at [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]]. His comments there demonstrates a solid understanding of the [[WP:N|notability policies]]. I am not concerned by the low amount of content creation. While he has only created 4 stubs and two start class articles, he has done ~1,000 AfC reviews. The current opposes, in particular opposes 2 and 3, aren't convincing. The fact that he hasn't participated in a lot of AN/I work indicates that he ''avoids'' drama. The last thing we need is another user who spends all their time on the drama board. A low edit rate has absolutely nothing to do with the user's value to the project. Opposes 1 and 4 raise valid concerns, but the concerns aren't damning enough for me to be swayed.
I really don't see why not.  Has the experiance. &ndash;
The opposes are ridiculous at this time so I feel the need to be ridiculous and cancel them out. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
I only had a very brief look at your contributions, but I like what I am seeing. You are friendly and appear very knowledgeable with regards to policy and editing standards. You do a lot of constructive work at AfC. If you make a mistake you own up to it.<br>Normally I'm taking way more time to look at a candidate, but at this time I want to voice my early support. Keep doing what you're doing now and you'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' - I don't share the criteria that those who oppose this candidate (so far) have used in their decisions; if that's the worst that can be said of this candidate, then I'm adding my support. (Once upon a time, becoming an admin was reportedly "no big deal", as in, let's lean in the direction of approving if no obvious reason to oppose. But that was then, and this is now; still, I'm a bit nostalgic for the past.) -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
Per Fetchcomms, also seems unlikely to abuse the tools.
You're a long-term constructive editor who seems to get along well with others, and you have a good idea of what you'll be working on as admin.  I think you'll do very well. <b>
Exactly per Fetchcomms. Looks like a fine candidate.
'''Support''' I've seen Pol430 around [[WP:AfC|AfC]] and have been impressed by their careful approach. It is very easy to be [[WP:BITE|rude]] to those who have just written an unsourced article about their own company and are now demanding that it be accepted, yet Pol430 seems to go out of their way to help others improve submitted articles and shows a clear understanding of many core policies. The ability to explain these policies to new editors in a clear and polite manner seems to be a very important skill for an admin. While I'm a little concerned about the answer to the question that I asked, there have been only four "one warning" messages in the last two years and I wouldn't feel comfortable using one small issue as an oppose justification. I feel that Pol430 can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' ''Outstanding'' work at [[WP:AFC]] and many administrative areas. I disagree with the opposes, especially number two (Self-nominations are fine!!!) Pol would make a great administrator. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''', no problems that I can see here.  I note that some of the Oppose !votes are particularly weak this time around - there is absolutely nothing wrong with self-noms (indeed, it shows a certain sense of dedication to voluntarily jump into the RFA snakepit without being pushed!)
'''Support''' - the opposes are weak and the neutrals are pointless. This candidate looks like they will be a great addition.
'''Support'''. I think that Pol430 is competent, hardworking, undramatic, and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - As per Alpha Quadrant.--<span style="">
'''Support''' While there is some opposition due to lack of article creation, the articles this user has created seem pretty good. I looked at [[Aldershot Garrison]] and [[Ministry of Defence Police]] and they've obviously put a fair amount of work into them and I don't see anything particularly concerning about, say, sourcing or whatnot. There's some AfD participation, about the most egregious thing I can come up with is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Elizabeth Moore]], which isn't quite enough for me to not support. Might it be nice if they could write a few more articles? Sure. Are they going to screw things up if given adminship? Quite plainly and obviously ''no''. —
'''Support''' - Per my RfA process.
'''Support'''. I'm not judging grammar (though do be careful, yes?), but rather judging the amount of clue that a candidate demonstrates - and, in this case, I see a lot of reasonable discussion from this editor. Handling the objections raised below in a calm manner, taking the criticism on board, shows that reasonableness. I have no doubt that the candidate will serve ably as an admin, and that adminship here would be a positive for the project.
'''Support''' Whilst there are some fair points made by opposers they are not sufficent to disuade me. [[WP:NETPOS]]. I'd also note that self nominations are and always have been perfectly acceptable. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Experienced, competent, level-headed editor.  This is just the kind of person needed as an admin.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support'''...no evidence shown that this nominee will abuse tools or position
'''Support''' Good work in [[WP:AFC]] and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support'''. Seems dependable. <font color="black">
'''Support''' Can't see a reson why not - mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' -- He's ''seem'' good candidate...
'''Support'''.  He seems to be a dedicated user interested in improving Wikipedia, and as an admin he'd have even greater opportunities to do so.
'''Support''' ''<B>--
'''Support''' '''
Seems ready to go.  So often we hear about how admins need to be veterans of [[WP:GA]] and [[WP:FAC]]; Pol430 seems to me to be a good example of a well-qualified wikignome.
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around, and they are very skilled.
'''Support'''. He seems level-headed, and I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. I also don't understand the importance people put on article creation at RFAs; this was not the case in the past. Pol will make a fine admin. [[Jiayou|加油]]! --
'''Support''' Candidate seems reasonable, and ready. I'm not one of those editors of the opinion that an admin needs to be some Wikipedia god who must be perfect, never have made a mistake in editing, and have hundreds of thousands of edits with a perfect grasp of all points of policy. I like that the nominee wants to help in the more administrative tasks, like technical moves and fighting vandals. Doing that, I've also thought that I wish I could be an admin and help with those tasks, and I applaud the nominee for being brave enough to nominate himself and open himself for this scrutiny. --
'''Support'''. Most answers seem thorough. 12k edits, recently 24-125 per day, with 40% in talk namespaces, but still 47% article edits. I have no objection to some admins taking wikibreak during all summer months. Regarding Opposes: I think there are no real worries, and I have defused concerns about saying "vandalism" as investigated in my General-Comments section, above: [[#Suspected vandalism of article Writing]]. -
'''Support''' Except for the single incident cited by much of the opposition below, Pol430 appears to have developed a solid track record over the past few months. I'm not particularly alarmed by it because it was a one-time mistake which the candidate has acknowledged and from which he has learned. Malleus's worry &ndash; "what else doesn't he know?" &ndash; is reasonable. However, I think that Pol430's answers to the questions in this RfA show that he ''does'' know enough to begin work as an administrator; as with all other newly promoted admins, he would learn a lot on the job. And speaking of the questions, I think that DQ is holding the candidate's answer to Q5 to an unreasonably high standard. Pol430 wasn't being asked to write a treatise on consensus.
'''Support''' One mistake does not incompetence demonstrate.  I think all of us have made that mistake at least a couple of times; really, get over yourselves.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to, the arguments for opposing simply do not convince me.
'''Support''' Per Blade. --
'''Support'''. Although the candidate has made his share of mistakes and poor choices of words, on balance I think the good outweighs the bad, especially given the types of admin tasks he says he would likely specialize in. That being said, some of the opposes raise legitimate concerns (though others frankly do not), and there are enough of them that the likely outcome here is a candidate with a better understanding of the issues he needs to address before coming back to this page in a few months. We recently had a candidate pass his second RfA by a near-unanimous margin after showing that he'd taken stock of the input her received in his first, unsuccessful one, and I am confident Pol430 can do the same.
'''Support'''.  Even considering the vandalism incident on [[writing]], I trust this user to not abuse the tools, and the question responses display a familiarity with the stated areas of interest. --
'''Support''' Good interaction with other editors on his talkpage, no fear that he would misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Admin nominations ultimately boil down to whether the user seems they can be trusted with admin tools which this user does. There's a learning curve to adminship as there is for everything else, but gnomes are good at just tinkering around with stuff and making sure they know what their doing before they act, so I don't think he'll cause any problems as he's getting used to his admin powers.
'''Support''' – Here is an editor who has proven his competence and can be clearly trusted with the tools. Honestly, some of the opposes are utterly ridiculous.
'''Support'''. Overall he does much good, and while I appreciate concerns regarding this fellow and that he has indeed made mistakes, he has also shown a willingness to learn from such mistakes and to accept outside criticism when it is needed - a trait a few others could do to learn from themselves. His use for the tools would also be warranted, and in that area I see no reason to doubt his competence. Yes, he's less skilled in some of the other adminny realms, with responses somewhat less cheering, but whatever. If and when he gets dragged into the stuff, he'll learn. ''' —
The candidate needs to take RfA seriously enough to have a friend copy-edit the self nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Only six new article creations (four of which are one-line stubs), along with grammatical and syntactical errors in self-nom statement doesn't speak well for this nomination. Mentoring would be an ideal path to adminship in 6-9 months for this candidate.--
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience and the answer to question 9 about one-warning to vandals. About the vandalism thing - I do not think vandalism is a bad thing. A significant percentage of Wikipedia users and editors start their time here as vandals, and I think that a harsh response pushes people away from editing whereas a simple notice not to vandalize lets them know that people do in fact watch their activity and if they make good edits people would see those immediately also. About 40% of your edits are automated, which is fine, but being an admin means dealing personally with other Wikipedia users. Automated edits are not personal interactions. You have had almost no interaction with other users on talk pages; the count says fewer than 200 posts with 5 posts on one article being the largest conversation you have had. Also you have not been active on this account for 12 months. I recommend taking a tour of the site and experiencing more of the things which users do. An admin should have tried to do many things on the site, and in your history I just see you finding a few places you liked and staying there. I worry that if users asked you to explain something to them you would not be able to do it because you had not tried many things yourself.
'''Oppose'''. After reading the opposers' comments and glancing at Pol430's contributions, I see that he has made at least one edit to his nomination statement. I have not scrutinized his edits to see if more were made. It is borderline disingenuous to delete nomination text after opposition !votes were made. Such adjustments, if essential, should use <s>strikethrough</s>. Perhaps more importantly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/NNU_Class_Project/Winter_2012/Drafts/China_Disabled_Persons%27_Federation&diff=prev&oldid=479882026 this CSD tag] was incorrectly applied. Pol430 has nominated several other articles for speedy deletion that have since been deleted; however I am unable to check the validity of those CSD tags. (I am inclined to assume good faith: they were probably appropriate tags.) Also, content creation is rather limited.
'''Oppose''' In [[Talk:Writing#ethnic_slur_in_writing_history]], disclosed by the candidate in response to q3, they were not merely edit warring ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writing&diff=469888672&oldid=469887057 1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writing&diff=469890180&oldid=469889758 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writing&diff=469890758&oldid=469890396 3] reverts in less than 20 minutes), but also failing to understand [[WP:NOTVAND]], which is expressly clear that any good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, no matter how ham handed, is not vandalism. Beyond this, when two experienced users attempted to explain this to him, he walked off in a huff, writing "I am just a bit peeved that I have been accused of edit warring when I don't believe that to be the case, and it is situations like this that cause me to question why I bother trying to protect articles from vandalism." Thanks, but no thanks.
'''Oppose'''. The lack of content contributions is a concern, but a greater one is the diffs presented by Hipocrite above, in which the candidate edit warred to keep a section of text that had been flagged as in need of a citation for well over a year, labelling its removal vandalism. And to make matters worse, this happened only two months ago.
'''Oppose''' - The edit warring revealed in Q3 and noted by Hipocrite is very worrying. Two of those edits were incorrectly marked as vandalism, a concept which all admins should understand fully.
'''Oppose'''. Much as I'm tempted to support just to cancel out Jasper's unbelievably dumb opposition, the handling of the situation described by Hypocrite was too clearly wrong to let pass.
'''Oppose''' - I have concerns with the breadth of experience (the majority of edits are squeezed into a very short tenure) and the lack of wider exposure. Concerns about attention to detail raised in some of the opposes is worrisome but not fatal, however the mix of that plus the "why not" gist I'm getting from many supports (which suggests a lack of familiarity) lead me to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. I really don't like having to switch here, and I stand behind my positive comments in the Support section. But that edit-warring, labeling an opponent's edits as vandalism when they were not, and then arguing against wiser counsel on the Talk page, really leave me with no option. Having seen a good bit of Pol430's usual style of interaction, I'm sure it was out of character, and we certainly don't expect perfection. But it's the kind of mistake that an admin really should not make, and it was only in January and was just too recent - I think waiting until that episode was at least 6 months old before running would have shown better judgment. I look forward to being able to support a future run if this one is not successful. --
'''Oppose''' - Clean block log but despite the Dec. 2008 account launch, there are really about 8 months of solid activity showing. I fully understand how WMF's overturning of En-WP's very sensible restrictions on page creation would be demoralizing and frustrating to a NPP volunteer, but after shutting it down I feel there needs to be more time back in the harness in this specific case. I have nothing against the nominee at all, just a general sense of misgivings here. Sort of a "Not Yet" situation, in my view.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWriting&diff=469931704&oldid=469923690 this] and the lack of understanding it shows, just two months ago. I am sure the candidate will be fine in a few months, but knowing what is and isn't vandalism is paramount to be granted the blocking tool. --
'''Oppose''' largely per Boing! above.
'''Oppose''' (Moved from neutral) Answers to Q11 are unsatisfying, revealing inexperience issues with stated areas of interest.
'''Oppose''' - Per Boing!. As suggested waiting a few months and run again would be in good judgement. Good luck
'''Oppose''' Per Boing! and the lack of content work. At least get a DYK before you run again. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of content work seems concerning, agree with other users suggesting waiting a few months and running again. <font color="maroon">Canuck</font>
''' Regretful oppose''' I was looking through this RfA at first and was going to support it. Looking things over more closely, the answer to Q5 does not impress me, as I personally don't see anything about how talkpage consensus should be closed. I'm not seeing anything that really defines the evaluation of consensus, plus it's all in the limited scope of AFD and DRV vs. XFD (FFD would be a good example where it's hard to get a true consensus) and RfCs. Q6 also has the wrong order of administrative action. The route least amount of collateral damage should be taken. An edit war between two people is not reason for page protection, warnings and blocks are more appropriate. All this combined with the clear issue of vandalism identification, even if 2 months ago, is problematic. I would be willing to overlook the vandalism issue as two months ago, but the two other issues bring basic understandings of adminship into question with this editor. We do have a good contributor, and hope to look forward to supporting and RfA down the road. --
'''Oppose''' Per Boing <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' per DQ and Boing. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Oppose''' - also per Boing.  I had hoped to be able to support this one, but I can't get past Boing's reasoning. Perhaps late this year if you try again. Thanks for the offer of service.
'''Oppose''' - He tends to shoot first and ask questions later, and I can affirm other people's concerns on here.  However, related to my question he answered and how he does from here on out on the other concerns, I don't forsee opposing him if he submits another admin nomination at least several months down the road.
'''Mild oppose''' I think the candidate editing has been too spotty, time wise that is, to reasonably judge his/her ability to deal with problem situations. The vandalism thing is also an issue. Sorry - perhaps later. --
'''Oppose''' - Answers to q's 3, 9, and 12 reveal recent issues with [[WP:BITE]]--particularly problematic when the editor's primary admin interests are in AIV and CSD. —'''''
'''Oppose'''. I'm going to go with John's argument, above. Maturity and experience are issues here, yes--but also, as MF and Hokeman, beside others, pointed out, a lack of content writing.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with judgement and experience.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' - Considering the issues raised here, the users edit history is below my expectations for a level of experience and contribution level to need or grant additional authority and responsibility. [http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Pol430&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia - diff] - <font color="purple">
'''Oppose''' - Having reviewed what's here, and per the previous 4 users above me, I too have to go with an oppose to this nomination. There are clear issues with Biting, lack of content, and experience, and the level of maturity of this user leads me to believe they would not make a great admin at this time.  I'd go with [[WP:NOTNOW|not right now]]. <span style="border: 1px solid red;">
'''Oppose''' - You do not edit that fast, and miss out some days. You need a higher edit rate, and maybe even lots more edits. I managed over 500 edits today, you managed about 32. [[WP:NOTNOW|not right now]] '''~
'''Oppose''' - Many of the question answers seem like reciting a textbook rather than actual understanding of the reasons for the policies.  (This is perhaps partially the fault of the questioners, so in itself is not fatal.)  The candidates' CSD recent taggings are not bad, but the number is rather small for someone who wants to work in CSD.  These two things combined with the incorrect answer to Q6 and poor judgment in the [[writing]] "vandalism" case lead me to oppose.  However, keep up the good work and I suspect you'll pass rather easily some time down the road. --
'''Oppose''' You have expressed a desire to work in CSD. I am not assured that [https://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/commentsearch.cgi?name=Pol430&search=speedy&max=500&ns=none 235 CSD tags] (22 of which were declined) show that you have sufficient experience in the area, though. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose''' Lack of new material, history of conflict between users, not a very active member, can't spell properly or use proper grammar. Has no need for admin tools, should remain a normal user. As TomTom stated, 32 edits a day is not significant and not worthy of adminship. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral''' for now. This user has been significantly active on Wikipedia for less than a year (11 months of >22 edits per month), and only 4 months since having a flounce. Maybe if I find the extent and nature of their contributions during their active period makes up for this, I may be moved to support.--
'''Neutral''' <s>Not sure what to say.</s>This user has great contributions to Wikipedia and obviously in that manner demonstrates him being a good candidate for adminship however, there other issues I have discovered that brings me to some concern.  As I result I can't decide for oppose or support so I am sticking with neutral.—
As nom.
I rarely have supported RFAs in recent times because of the Archtransit effect, but I've known PS for many years, was happy to see this request pop up on my watchlist and am happy to support him. '''
As conom.--
Will not [[WP:DDMP|cause chaos]], no issues.
Yes.
Happy to support given my previous and my recent interactions with him.
Strongly. He's been a model editor since returning.
'''Support'''.  And if I haven't said so before - thank you for helping and walking me through the [[Noel F. Parrish]] GA. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''', unequivocally.
'''<font color=#232323>
'''Support''' Have seen him in many places, helping out, and could do more with the bit.--
Mistakes in 2010 as a reason to oppose? Give me a break. Support to balance out some incredible bad faith and unfounded accusations below.
'''Support''' - I'm well aware of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page|the issues behind this]] and [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232|the work]] that was done to take care of them. However, PSky has been working harder to avoid close paraphrasing and, in my opinion, is doing a peachy job at it. He's already presented several articles to FA since his return, the most recent of which is [[Kafka]]. He's clearly not afraid of taking on big tasks where the risk of sniping may be larger than the reward. We need Admins who are willing to step up for what they see is right, and PSky fits the bill. That he's generally polite and not [[WP:BITE|bitey]] is an added bonus.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
I think that a serious err of judgment was made some time ago, but since then PumpkinSky's hard work plus his expertise in his former roles are sufficient enough for me to support. One thing that I consider that will come up in the opposing section is trust issues. As someone who's erred severely in the past myself, all I can add is that when one is shunned or banned by the community, it's very unpleasant, and most would do everything they can to prevent that from happening again. You only stick a fork in an electric socket once. Best of luck. <font face="Verdana">
Appears to have shown great improvement.
'''Support''', one of the finest editors I've seen on the project; truly a fine individual that I think will make an excellent admin.  Yes, there was a bit of a stumble with the copyright issue, but what a magnificient comeback!  Great content contributor and collaborator.  P'sky has my absolute trust.
'''Support''' – Any run-throughs I've had with PS have been favorable, and he is clearly trustworthy of the tools. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' I don't think the copyright issue is a problem anymore, since there's so much scrutiny. The issues with the FAC director/delegates were bad, but after such a dramatic incident in October 2010, I suppose I might blame the FAC people too, even though they had no fault in this. In short, we're all human. He can't wear the scarlet letter forever, and I have no concerns with him having the flag. Also has tried to stay out of controversy as well. --'''
'''Support'''; I'm sufficiently confident that he'll make a good administrator that I won't torture him by asking the AE question I've been waiting to spring on someone.  He was fine then, he'll be fine now.
Unlikely to repeat past mistakes. ''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support''' - Even though I might be labeled as a "new" user, I still find PumpkinSky's contributions very helpful indeed. I think that wikipedia will benefit for sure if PumpkinSky is given sysop rights. <span style="border:3px solid #620000;background:#ff7676;padding-left:5px;padding-top:1.5px;padding-right:5px;border-radius:15em 3em;">
'''I'm
'''Support'''. I've watched and dealt with this editor since I first began editing on Wikipedia. I trusted him them and I trust him now. He had some issues with copyright, but these were clearly mistakes rather than deliberate acts to further himself at the risk of the encyclopedia. Sadly, some of those who went after him on his mistakes made mistakes even more serious than his. People make mistakes. The issue is not that they do but, what they are, why they made the mistakes, and what they do about it. PS has come back, if anything, a better editor than before.(
'''Support''' as a great editor. He will certainly understand the tools. <font face="Impact">

'''Support'''. I've had disagreements with PumpkinSky since his return to the project but have seen nothing to undermine my confidence in his ability to again be a good administrator. And he worked hard for the project then and has worked hard for it since his return. So, I think it's time we returned his mop.
'''Support'''. Rlevse "[[User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive|made my day]]" in 2010, for three years he singled out a user every day for merits. As you all know, we have collaborated on articles (see my user for the list), most memorable [[Great Dismal Swamp maroons]], found in his sandbox when he was blocked, completed with the help of many, featured pictured as DYK and promoted to GA (while he still was blocked), in Wikipedia spirit of collaboration. I [[User talk:PumpkinSky/Archive 2#Sanddunes Sunrise 2|trusted him to return]], I trust him now to use tools to help and to protect [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Observations by Dianna|what is left of the project]], --
'''Support'''. I don't believe you would get up to any mischief but even if you did because you will be watched by the hawks it would be spotted straight away - so the level of risk is zero. I read the whole Rlevse -> PS return drama in real time. If you can put up with that, continue to contribute and come back here for an RfA then you definitely have what it takes. Good luck <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Strong support''' [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I'm fine with this - what he may have done wrong as an editor is not necessarily an indication of his suitability to be an admin.
PumpkinSky made a huge error, there's no doubt about that; however, as far as I am aware he has owned up to his mistakes and attempted to rectify them. I am confident that PumpkinSky will be fine if he is re-granted adminship: I trusted PumpkinSky during his original time as an administrator and his use of the tools was stellar. Based on my past and current experience of him I do not believe he would be abusive; if that's not enough, it's clear that PumpkinSky will be heavily monitored - as QuiteUnusual says above - giving him little to no room for any "wrongdoing"; while I doubt he will need any sort of "babysitting" (sorry! Lack of a better term there.), I have confidence in all the nominators and believe that they will be willing to help him out if he needs any assistance. PumpkinSky has always been friendly to me, and I've never personally observed him to act any other way with other people. In all, PumpkinSky is a skilled editor and was a great admin; his errors were a blow to his reputation but he has taken great strides to restore himself and move on; I don't think there will be any major problems if PumpkinSky is given the tools back, and I wouldn't be surprised if he'd be a better admin than before.
'''Support'''. I'm effectively inactive right now, but I have to come out of that state briefly to offer my support for one of our most honourable contributors - PumpkinSky is without doubt easily fit to be an admin. --
'''Support'''.  I'm surprised your not already! A great editor and worthy of admin status. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">
'''Support'''. I wondered what happened to Rlevse. Recent contributions look fine. Previous admin & bureaucrat activity has generally been good.
'''Support'''. Per Steven Zhang, worked to improve issues to gain the trust of both him, as well as Dreadstar and community.--
'''Support''', no idea why he'd want the mop and bucket though, but if it helps make wikipedia a better place..♦
Strongly '''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support''' (Switched from oppose.) Thought about it some more. I remember rlevse as a generally good admin and bureaucrat and perhaps it makes more sense to focus on that. Clearly, despite the past issues, he is dedicated enough to come back and make positive contributions to the project, and that's something worth respecting. Hopefully older does equal wiser. --
I have been saddened to see so much fragmentation in the community lately. It's never easy for anyone, and it's actually quite hard for some, to rewrite stuff with different words while keeping exactly the same sense ... and the community as a whole dances around this issue. This would be a great time for education and healing and a lot of other psychobabblish words ... but RFA doesn't work that way. As I've said before, if RFA voters had a history of opposing when they had questions and then switching to support three months later after the candidates had a chance to prove themselves, I'd be willing to oppose more often ... but RFA doesn't work that way, and all I can do here is reject or accept candidates, warts and all. This is an exceptional candidate, and very much a part of the fabric of our community. (I like that metaphor; if you start tearing out threads that don't look quite right, you'll quickly destroy a fabric. That's the argument in favor of tolerance for any editor who's a part of the fabric, and this one definitely is.) - Dank (
'''Support''': The candidate's misunderstanding of copyright is now in the past; he helped (under supervision) to clean up the CCI case, which was closed in September. The experience has left him wiser. That's what we need: people who are prepared to learn and grow and change. He will make a fine administrator. --
'''Support''',
'''Support''' Almost exactly per Boing, to the letter. --
'''Support''', seems to have learned their lesson. Dank and Diannaa set out the argument well.
'''Support''' A mistake, even a serious one, made in good faith, admitted by the perpetrator and used as an educational experience does not preclude adminship. Was a good admin before and will, I believe, be a better one in the future.--<font color="Red">
'''Thoughtful support''' As a project we are absolutely awful in supporting our experienced users as they approach burn out and high profile users are particularly susceptible to being thrown off the edge by a baying crowd as soon as a chink in their armour appears. I wouldn't presume to analyse PS' state of mind when they exploded so spectacularly in 2010 but as a former admin who often found the stress and burn out hard to handle myself I wouldn't be too harsh in applying a loss of trust argument for that reason alone. I do personally feel that towards the end of his time as Rlevse this user was too rule bound and unforgiving themselves for my taste as an admin but not to the point where they were outside the acceptable range of behaviours and once we accept that this user has learned a hard lesson about close paraphrasing the remainder of their contributions are impressive and a credit to the project. Given the aforementioned baying mob I certainly can't blame them for trying to restart under a new identity and this really does bring this RFA to a single question - was this user deserving of deopping at the time they flamed out. The answer to that is quite clearly no so I am bound to support now. That said, I would strongly suggest to PS that they stay at admin and don't take on any further advanced permissions or roles as once you have flamed out once that baying mob is always there in the sidelines with unlit torches and pitchforks at the ready. If this user is susceptible to wikistress than I hope his friends will do a better job helping him manage it this time round.
'''Support''':  This individual is a highly experienced wikipedian with a solid track record of consistent improvement and significant content contributions to the project.  I was one of the people who worked on the CCI and reviewed dozens if not hundreds of this individual's edits, finding very few problems far outnumbered by wikignoming, vandal fighting, and solid content contributions.  To the extent where were a few problems, they had been made in good faith with no ill intent and were easily remedied.   I also worked in collaboration with this editor on an FA that was TFA a few months ago (Yogo Sapphire) and found him an excellent person to collaborate with on a project with good faith, an ability to work well with others, and an openness to any improvement for the good of the project.  It is well past time to welcome Psky back into the realm of admins.
'''Support'''. I'll join the club in the smoke-filled room. I wouldn't have showed up here were it not for the rather ridiculous suggestion that this is connected to Jack, now successfully banned, a decision I also didn't agree with. I guess that puts me in good company with these four nominators. FWIW, I've worked with PumpkinSky though initially I had little sympathy, but while helping out with the extensive COI cleanup (I'm sure that's linked here somewhere) I got a good feel for first, the extent, but also second, Pumpkin's good faith. The RLevse drama is in the past, as far as I can tell, and I have no problem giving the tools to this new and improved editor. Maybe they'll finally give me my boy scout badge now.
'''Support'''. Editors who do not exist cannot possibly misuse the tools, therefore granting them administrator privileges cannot have a negative impact on the project in any way. --
'''Strong Support''': Absoultely no reservations on PumpkinSky getting an admin bit...zero. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''  We are all human and [[WP:PERFECTION|perfection is not required]] but competence is.  Pumpkin has shown that he can be trusted again.
'''Weak support'''.  Saul became Paul.... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': Two years is sufficient time for anyone to have moved on from previous problems. My abiding memory of Rlevse is how he reacted when the Chzz RfA turned sour. Rlevse spent a lot of time in dialogue with Chzz and showed that he cared for another editor in distress. Of all the qualities that impress me, the ability to treat others in a humane manner is the most telling. --
'''Support''' I'm impressed with his dedication to the project.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I trusted this user before he resigned being an an admin and still do.  I have faith that this user will be a trusted and respected admin under this new account. ''<B>--
'''Support'''  As per noms whom I respect.Prolific editor whose commitment and dedication to the project cannot be questioned.
What a coincidence! Just earlier today I was thinking to myself, "I wonder if PumpkinSky will ever attempt to regain the sysop bit &mdash; that would be great for the project." In most RfAs, we are left with nothing but an editorial track record to gauge someone's suitability for the role of an administrator, but here we have the unusual benefit of already knowing whether or not promoting this user will be a net positive for the site. History bodes strongly in PumpkinSky/Rlevse's favour. He was an absolutely ''superlative'' administrator, and I am of the opinion that he should once again serve as a sysop. The close paraphrasing thing was a misunderstanding on his part (and a pretty common one at that), but he handled it quite well when all is considered. I haven't yet looked at the opposes, but my guess is that they're generally of the opinion that Rlevse has abused the trust of the community by socking around the issues with his prior account in attempting to have a clean start under a new username, and I understand their concerns, but I still don't feel as if anything he's done has reached the level where we should no longer have confidence in his abilities and his dedication to the project. Consider this a '''strongest possible support'''.
'''Oppose''' - I ''strongly'' favour second (third, etc.) chances. (Note, in the past [[User:Jc37/Userboxes/Rlevse4Arbcom|I strongly supported the candidate for arbcom]].) But I simply do not currently feel I would trust the candidate with the tools and responsibilities of adminship at this time, per [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. I'm really sorry about this, and I have a high opinion of the multitude of nominators, but I just cannot feel enough trust for the candidate in light of the copyviolations, and what appears to me to have been a grudge against some of the editors who work in the FA process, that manifested after the return under the new user name. --
All I can do is shake my head at the prospect that this RFA will pass easily (24-2 at the time I'm typing this) despite the candidate's colorful history, which the four lengthy nominations cheerfully shrug off. Anyone who wants to educate themselves about the candidate should take a trip through Rlevse's talk page history; I could dig up the links I remember about this candidate and post them here, but it seems pointless. It's fine for this editor to come back to edit, but returning the bit strikes me as insane.
'''Oppose''' Per the above comments. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' I opposed QuiteUnusual's nomination because of close paraphrasing issues, and to be consistent, I should do the same here. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism are serious problems around here, and we need to send a clear signal that such things are not OK. Does that mean PumpkinSky can never be an administrator? I don't know; I don't have a specific formula for redemption in mind. But I just feel that it's still too soon to give him the tools. (I'm not asking for a ban or anything; just that he isn't put into a position of authority.) Beyond that, there are other things that make be uncomfortable. Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=438652646 this] seem a little weird for someone who was (AFAICT) an administrator on Commons. I think I understand what you were trying to do, but there's a manipulative quality to it (and the subsequent edits to that page) that worries me.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Question 3.  I believe an administrator of the English Wikipedia should have thick skin.  Breaks are fine, burnout periods are expected, but on-wiki disputes that make one so passionate they have to walk away from the project's account shouldn't, IMO, get the buttons.  They are for dispassionate use, and PumpkinSky's history has failed to show this detachment.
'''Oppose''' per Jc37 above. If the copyvio issues truly were nothing more than an accident, it still shows a crisis-level degree of carelessness that is incompatible with being an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per the numerous instances of poor judgement. The plagiarism itself was forgiveable, but not the subsequent events. Someone with an admittedly weak understanding of copyvios shouldn't have returned to editing anonymously.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but the blip in February is too recent for me to have regained enough confidence. Keep up with your other good work and I'll happily support in the future.
'''Oppose''' I can't support any nomination like this in good faith based on the prior events which led to PumpkinSky leaving and returning under this account. It's simply too soon, for me. He has worked hard though, and I would support him in a future attempt, just not now. Regards, —
'''Oppose'''. Sorry I cannot trust him with the tools in light of all the history. He'll have to ask other admins for favors like the rest of us peons.
'''Oppose''' Not because of the history, but because this editor has just recently revealed their previous identity and just recently returned to editing (April 12) with community endorsement (Somewhat, but mostly 28bytes taking a risk and having greater faith than I) and I think it's extremely bad taste to put in an RFA at this time. The candidate should've given it a year of good editing with their history. There is not a single nominator up there that I would say is prone to mistakes, but it seems to me that the number of nominators reflects that this candidate knew the RFA would be controversial (or he just has a ton of love =D) and it almost seems to me to be more about testing the waters to see where the candidate stands in the community. I can't support at this time when the candidates return itself is controversial. I do support the candidates return and I think the issue of copyright violations is long, old and buried. The candidate knows better now. If it were still Feb 12 then I'd say it has to be shown they know better. But we're 5 months into their return from editing and I haven't seen a diff provided in 5 months that shows the problem still exists. My oppose is strictly not about copyright but about bad form.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' - still too soon after the great FA-copyvio problem of 2010 - especially considering that the candidate does not appear to have done much to fix the problems they left behind. If the candidate has really taken on board the problems with their copyright violations from before, I'd expect a lot more acknowledgement here of the problems and pointing out how they were fixed. I'm not seeing that. I'm not utterly opposed to ever granting this editor adminship, but not yet.
'''Oppose''' - No confidence will not crack under pressure and repeat the multiple mistakes of past.
'''Oppose''' - I've had it with this supposed "Right to Vanish." There may be such a "right" on WP, but it also has a correlated "Right to Never Again Be An Administrator" in my book. Four nominators coordinating the apologetics is another bad sign. 2010 was just two years ago — or less — not ancient history. Maybe my views will mellow on this........ in a decade.
'''Oppose''' I very much appreciate the forthright answer to my question.  However, there are several problems.  Plagiarism is one.   Though I believe the candidate has atoned for it I still think doing it in the first place disqualifies from a position of trust, especially since he had criticized others for doing it when he was an arbitrator.  Battleground behavior and sockpuppetry during his block are also very concerning.  Another observation I made as long-term Arbcom lurker was that Rlevse as an arbitrator usually voted his personal prejudices on cases without considering conflicting evidence, context, or nuance.  I could provide a raft of details, but the first transcendental meditation and climate change cases are prime examples.  As an admin he blocked editors who had content disputes with his friends.  I accept that PS does not intend to run for arbcom again, but a basic property of adminship is some sort of eventual involvement with dispute resolution, and I don't have much confidence in his fairness.  Finally, and this is little fault of the candidate, there has been a strong whiff of back-room dealing and off-wiki collusion in the events leading from his unblocking without consensus straight through to this RFA.  Carrite alludes to this above.  I cannot place any confidence in a process that emerges from a [[smoke-filled room]].  With regrets,
'''Oppose''' It is not often I find myself opposing a candidate. PumpkinSky has some outstanding contributions and is very well qualified in a majority of administrator related areas. However, I cannot support someone with this history, air of impatience and apparent copyvio stuff. With such a large amount of nominators, whom I respect, it would be hard to oppose such a candidate. But past mistakes will last a long time, and with me, I'm afraid right now is not the right time to endorse PumpkinSky for adminship. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Oppose'''. Seeing how {{user|Basement12}} was treated by PumpkinSky just three months ago when raising a simple concern on his talk page makes me believe that PS isn't ready to be an admin again yet.{{diff|User talk:PumpkinSky|503209582}}, {{diff|User talk:PumpkinSky|503210475}}, {{diff|User talk:PumpkinSky|503213448}}, {{diff|User talk:Basement12|503212959|503211889}} If an editor with no blocks and 23,000 edits since 2006 and gets treated this poorly, I don't see future disputes being handled any better with the added power to block people. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned that some of those commenting here are attempting to minimise the problems with Grace Sherwood's TFA. For one thing the copyright/plagiarism issues were ''not'' minor, they were quite significant, and for another Rlevse and others tried to divert the blame onto me, for not having checked the sources during a copyedit; I don't consider that to have been an honest thing to do. I'm also unhappy about the shenanigans surrounding the FAC director earlier this year, in which PumpkinSky was involved along with at least one of his nominators.
'''Oppose''' - Way too many problems in his past.  I would never trust him with the tools again.
'''Oppose''' per Keegan and Carrite. The copyright/plagiarism issue alone doesn't bother me, but responding to criticism from the community (whether or not the criticism is valid) by storming away and requesting an RTV shows a undesirable temperament for an admin. Personally I don't think anyone who has RTVed should be allowed back period (you know, kind of like the policy says), much less given a position of trust.
'''Strong oppose'''. The sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, abuse of RTV, and gross violation of copyright/plagiarism issues and misuse of DYK processes that have been noted above are each individually is more than sufficient to disqualify PumpkinSky/BarkingMoon/Vanished User/Rlevse from mop duties, and collectively overwhelming. But, beyond that, with most RFA's one can only speculate on how the candidate would handle admin tools. In this case we know without a doubt. In his prior incarnation as Rlevse, he displayed a stunning lack of judgment both as and administrator and especially as an ArbCom member, including repeatedly and chronically being either unable or unwilling to determine when he was an involved editor in a dispute. Frankly, he never should have been allowed to return as an editor, and handing him admin tools would be utterly irresponsible.  This is someone whose history at Wikipedia is crystal clear: "The rules don't apply to me"  You can't hand someone like that the mop.
'''Oppose''' - Per the repeated attacks on the FAC group and the sockpuppetry. Maybe in another six or nine months.
'''Firm oppose'''.  YOu still don't appear to grasp the difference between plagiarism and copyvio.  I also checked the [[Franz Kafka]] article and, while I didn't find any plagiarism, it seemed to me that you had gone so far to avoid it that it seemed like original research. For example "Kafka was rapidly promoted and his duties included processing and investigating compensation claims, writing reports, and handling appeals from businessmen who felt their firm had been placed in too high a risk category; which cost them more in insurance premiums.{{sfn|Stach|2005|pp=26-30}}  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Kafka&diff=516509058&oldid=prev].  I can't see where the source says that he directly handled appeals from businessman (which was the job of the department itself).  As I read it, Kafka's job was to asess workplace safety arrangements.  There is a para about him addressing a group of industry representatives, but this does not refer to 'risk category'.  Moreover, it was the job of the mathematicians in the department to assign a 'risk category', and so on.  Unless I am very mistaken (perhaps someone can check this), your work is now too liberal with the sources. The trick is to say no more than what the source tells you, without it being a closely worded copy.  While I may be wrong, the default position, given your history, is a firm oppose. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - pending resolution of the Basement issue. Simply the wrong temperment for an admin.
'''Oppose''' What a strange, convoluted, drama-filled Rfa. Yes, until such time as a good explanation for the User:Basement12 interaction can be provided, I'm off the fence and into the opposes.
'''Oppose''' per the links provided by Doc9871 re. Basement12, before even considering the other issues. If you consider that trolling, then I'm afraid I do not trust your judgement in dispute resolution.
'''Oppose'''- It's too hard for me to trust an administrator involved in dramatic situations and controversies. '''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry.  I'm usually an easy editor that you can get to support but anybody that socks is a no no to adminship.  There are also a lot of other trust concerns I am finding with this candidate.  Perhaps later whe n those issues have been alleviated.—
I'm fine with a correctly done [[WP:Cleanstart]], but when someone willingly violates [[WP:RTV]], they've lost my trust and have pretty much zero chance of getting it back. I don't know enough about his past to make an informed decision about it, but messing with RTV is more than enough for me to oppose this candidate for as long as I edit this project.
'''Oppose''' because of temperament concerns.  The conversations linked above by Doc9871 and Tijfo098 tickled my memory, and I realized PumpkinSky was the one who had gotten very upset at the mistaken early close of the Core Contest [[Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest/Entries#Pencils down!|here]]. PumpkinSky did apologize later, but losing one's temper with the admin tools available could be a lot more problematic, even if you say you're sorry afterward. —<B>
'''Oppose''' I'm disappointed to see this RfA because at time when the community has had enough of drama and factionalism, in my view, it's adding to it. Specific reasons to oppose: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Grace_Sherwood/archive1 Grace Sherwood FAR], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Sherwood&offset=20101019014355&limit=500&action=history Grace Sherwood edit history showing many edits rev-del'd], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles/2012_RfC_on_FA_leadership FAC RfC], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest/Entries#Pencils_down.21 this recent outburst at the Core contest], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APeer_review%2FFranz_Kafka%2Farchive1&diff=514412858&oldid=514243293 Franz Kafka Peer review closed 24 hours after sourcing issues raised with the justification the issues were addressed], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truthkeeper88#Kafka_PR a subsequent conversation regarding sourcing issues], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franz_Kafka#.22Metamorphosis.22_first_line and another], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFranz_Kafka&diff=517262712&oldid=517107475 yet another], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFranz_Kafka&diff=518919223&oldid=518918365 and more]. I'm particularly concerned about a referencing that's I've asked about at least three times because I can't find it in the source. The paragraph in the article mentions Erzählung and a friend named Pollak, but the source does not show this information [http://books.google.com/books?id=wVz2auyt81sC&pg=PA192&lpg Erzahlung], [http://books.google.com/books?id=wVz2auyt81sC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq Pollak]. My feeling is that by pushing to ask for adequate sourcing on this page, which went through FAC in only a few days and which I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GrahamColm#Question questioned], I've made myself extremely unpopular, but the choice seems to either let it go (which I strongly considered), or to speak out because in the end we are responsible for the content presented to the readers. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support Pumkinsky for adminship.
'''Neutral''' - There is a trust deficit here.  I fully believe that PSky is here to improve the project, and that he has the skills and experience to be an admin.  I admire his drive and his courage in owning up to past mistakes.  However, he misled myself and many other users.  That trust doesn't reappear quickly.  The admin position can cause stress (the trigger of problematic behaviour before), and I'm not sure I'm comfortable yet with him having these userrights. (I am very comfortable, nay, happy with the fact he is editing here again!)  <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">
'''Neutral'''. I can't get behind you 100%, and so I can't put myself in the support column. But I do think you've learned from your past mistakes, and so I'm not in the oppose column either. In my mind, what's stopping me from supporting is not precisely what you did, but how you reacted in the aftermath.
'''Neutral''' Having recently opposed for close paraphrasing, I can't in good conscience support. However, I have interacted with PSky on some articles and have always found it a positive, enjoyable experience. As for stress reactions...we have plenty of sitting Admins who seem to have stress management issues and they're still serving Admins.
'''Neutral''' I'm not convinced that he should be given another chance, nor am I convinced he should not be.
'''Neutral''' - waiting on response to questions 9 through 12. Will default to oppose if these aren't answered.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - While I have no problem with this users contributions, I feel that the RTV issue means  can't offer my full support.
'''Neutral''' - It is noted that the User has withdrawn, without answering the questions posed.  This seems similar to the action in the February discussion, linked in the questions and is a pattern to be noted and perhaps explored should there be future such discussions.
I can't say my interactions with Purplebackpack89 have been positive, and he is pretty blunt in his comments, but he's been around for quite a while and has contributed a lot to the project. Perhaps he shouldn't be an admin, but he doesn't deserve to be sitting at 0–18.
So, when I notice these RFA's, the question I read is Q3, and then do a bit of a dive to figure out if those are the most notable conflicts the user entered into, and if the behavior in the conflict is indicative of average behavior, or if it's an especially good response. In this case, the Q3 is insufficient for me to determine the trustworthiness of the user. If Q3 is answered, in depth, with links and explanations, I will revisit this !vote and comment here. If Q3 is revised and I fail to comment here, please disregard this !vote.
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Purplebackpack89|Nah]]. I do applaud you for creating lots of articles, but someone seeking the admin rights should know that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaferia,_Long_Beach&oldid=481814147 referencing them] is just as important as creating them.
According to to the [http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Purplebackpack89&showblocks=1 SUL tool], you are currently blocked on Simple English Wikipedia, and your [http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APurplebackpack89 block log there] appears to be quite extensive. While this is not highly relevant to the English Wikipedia, the fact that you have been blocked numerous times there is a bit concerning. There is no evidence suggesting that your attitude has changed. Nor is there evidence suggesting that you have addressed the issues that led to the blocks on SEWP.
'''Regretful oppose''' - I've worked with this user before and have always found him useful, competant, and courteous, however the SEWP ban gives me pause. The above comments make it clear that the editor does not consider the community decision at SEWP than he has misused the tools he's been entrusted with as serious when asking this community to trust him with even more tools. It's also important to note that the reasons for his ban (canvassing, incivility, disruptive editing) are simply offenses we can't suffer from Admins.
'''Oppose'''. I see a lot of good work from this editor, but their comments at question 3 and in this very section give me pause. We need admins who keep their cool, and I'm not entirely sure that's what we would get here. A few months without drama would certainly change my mind, however. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' - I think that being [[:simple:User_talk:Purplebackpack89|community banned]] on another project is directly relevant. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' editor has a poor attitude, especially when questioned about their edits. From the ANI thread that's been linked a few times... "And I'm sorry, but impoliteness isn't a crime." Also, the Simple ban concerns me. Simple is fairly lax on their sanctions; that speaks volumes in my book. --'''
'''Oppose''' Good edits, but your attitude does not appear to be that required of an admin on this project. The block at SEW while not directly connected with this Wikipedia, it raises sufficient concern in my mind to say that you should continue as a valuable contributor to this Wikipedia but not be granted adminship. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|alternative account]] of
'''Oppose''' I am seeing way too many issues that is really concerning.  Although, you contribute fairly well to the project, you seem to have attitude issues, not to mention blocks placed and a community enforced ban on another WikiMedia project.—
'''Oppose''' Too many issues relating to conduct, which have been brought up above, for me to be comfortable supporting this user getting admin tools. One of the most important jobs as an admin is communication, especially with new users, and for that conduct and civility is a must.--
'''Opppose'''.  The reply to oppose 3 above worries me and having looked at some of the past ANI discussion it seems indicative of the users response to criticism.  I am of the opinion that the user is too ready to find ways to justify things rather than realise that someone has a concern and discuss it with them.  Alpha Quadrant clearly has a valid concern yet this user has jumped on their statement "not highly relevant" and so appears to feel justified in ignoring Alpha's concerns.  Instead of asking Alpha if he had any evidence of him having the same attitude they just say their isn't any.  A response like that is not likely to be taken well by a new editor, who may be struggling to explain themselves, and as I feel an ability to discuss their actions is an important part of being an admin I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with judgement and maturity. -'''
'''Oppose''' But Noodynaady's actual ingrate tootle is of come into the garner mauve and thy nice are stores of morning and buy me a bunch of iodines.
'''Oppose''' This editor had a dispute with [[User:Luciferwildcat]] a while back, and the other editor certainly shared much (or perhaps a majority) of the blame. Several editors tried to mediate, including myself. In my opinion, Purplebackpack89 displayed a combative attitude, seemed to relish the fight, and sought out opportunities for negative interactions with the other editor. These are not the personality characteristics we want in an administrator. I hope that Purplebackpack89 will continue making useful contributions to the encyclopedia, while working on developing maturity and self-control.
'''Oppose''' - Purplebackpack's approach to the community seems to worry me. I am concerned that he is (or has recently been) topic banned from an area: even if it was voluntary, a potential admin should not be getting to the state where a topic ban is necessary. The community block at Simple English Wikipedia is relevant; although it is not here, it displays a worrying attitude towards the community. I would not be comfortable supporting an admin candidate who has had so many continuous problems with the community.
'''Oppose''' Whilst the answers to my questions demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the use of the tools, I simply cannot overlook the communication issues. A quick check of your talkpage, and other past discussions, brings up numerous examples of disputes with others and demonstrates a blunt, if not combative, style of communication.
'''Oppose''' The candidate wants the mop to help out with AfD; their AfD result-mismatch rate is 36.6%, and seems to lean heavily towards the delete side of the fence.  More than a third of the time this editor makes the wrong call.  A much better AfD result-match rate is required from a potential administrator, and so I haven't dug deeper into this editor's contributions.
'''Oppose''', <s>21</s>20 delete !votes at AFD (<s>17</s> 16d; 4sd) although the articles were kept is way too much. We don't need more deletionists! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
Has an incorrect and egoistic mentality. [http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purplebackpack89&diff=3311916&oldid=3311905 "WP needs me"] is false; no WP ''needs'' anyone. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
I think saying "You are '''banned''' from another WMF project" is enough explanation. A block is bad enough...
'''Neutral''' - [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#User:Purplebackpack89|This]] is not the temperament I really want to see in an admin. Nearly getting interaction-banned is not indicative of somebody who will be able to effectively communicate with angry or disruptive users. On the other hand, your content contributions are good and AFD votes tend to be based in policy, even if they have a deletionist leaning.
'''Neutral''' - Though it's been a few years, I had an unpleasant encounter with PB89 over a minor mistake I made about the name of a street--including assumptions of bad faith and borderline incivility. Though I was surprised recently that I agreed with his attempt to AfD [[Occupy Ashland]], I'm not seeing that his temperment has improved much over the years. Although I don't think he will abuse the tools, civility is as important in an admin as other skills and he needs to improve in this area.
In before.. oh. '''Nominator Support.'''
'''Support''' I was hoping this would come soon - no issues with a mop for you. I hope you get a chance to use it well. '''
'''Support''' with notes.  There are a couple of concerns such as very high automated edits and low-ish article creation considering the total contribs. Because most of your user talk edits are automated, I had to do some serious searching to find personal messages outside of templates, but I did find them and they show that you are capable of communicating concerns clearly and thoughtfully when you take the time.  You will need to use personalized messages '''much more''' than you have done in the past if you become an admin.  After weighing the concerns, you would still easily be a net positive as admin as you have a broad set of experience, and it looks like you have the right demeanor for admin, which is my primary criteria.
Clearly not a danger to the project. '''Support''', and good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' trusted and seems experienced in anti-vandalism. I think you would benefit Wikipedia as an administrator.
'''Support''' although this candidate is quite unusual. <small>Sorry, sometimes I can't help it (or don't want to)!</small>
'''Support:''' A net positive. -
'''Support''' Of course--
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, more than 5 years experience, and more than 10K edits to mainspace makes this a clear "Adminship is No Big Deal" situation for me. Thank you for your efforts for the project.
'''Support''' I know him because of his great work as a checkuser on Wikibooks, but I'm sure he'll do good as an admin here too.
'''Unusual Support'''. I trust the nom, and contributions are great in and off en-wiki. I'd like to see more monthly edits here but that's a personal opinion. Good luck. —
'''Support''' No problems with automated edit count. A very cool, collected editor and unquestionably trustworthy with CU access on another good sized Wiki. Make good use of the bit mate. Cheers!
'''Support''' Noticed the user around. Good Q1-Q3. Perspective seems right. Long edit history runs hot and cold, but that is not a big deal; edits declining but still at 200/month. 200 [[WP:AIV]] edits. 200 [[WP:UAA]] edits. I'll trust the claim of a good success rate. Strong AfD main diagonal; enough recent. While pawing through talk page archives, I came across the [[User talk:QuiteUnusual/Archive 9#Stop erasing my contributions]] with its [[Cote de Pablo]] zinger; I've seen enough.
'''Support''' Seen around with no problems for me that I can remember. As to the link in the post above - I like it...
'''Support'''.  Activity is good, and diligence in anti-vandalism and other automated areas is definitely a plus.  More personalized messages and editing, rather than automated editing, would be nice to see, but even so, the author's content creation certainly has been quality and of a reasonable amount.
'''Quite an unusual'''ly qualified candidate. Sorry had to do it. Anyway, support pending the answer to my question.
'''Support''' &mdash; I only just recently discovered that [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] has not yet been granted the sysop bit. He is a very sensible, intelligent editor who will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' no reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Yes''' - per nom - clue? Yes. Editing chops? Yes. Already knows what the admin tools do? Yes. Has written content? Yes. Can communicate? Yes. Have I said enough? {{wink}} '''<font color=#232323>
'''Support''' - The wide community support from several respected members is enough for me to support this candidate. Good luck and stay positive! ~

'''Support''' I checked this users contributions and he seems to be a great editor that will also make a great admin, and also per other support comments here. <font face="Impact">
The image of a trusted wiki editor.
Quite an unusual RfA...
'''Support''' I see no reason why not to.
''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''', looks great.
'''Support:''' Generally happy with answers to questions.  The people nominating also have good reputations, and their trust in this candidate makes me feel more comfortable. --
Net positive, for sure. But Worm, please don't say stuff like "I stand before you" when you're actually sitting behind a computer on the other side of the globe.
Long editing history with no dead bodies and no trace of Chuck Woolery. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Great editor. Everything looks great.
'''Support''' I prefer to see some evidence of admin type activity and interaction on Wikipedia, however QuiteUnusual does have admin experience on Wikibooks, and there's nothing alarming appearing on Wikipedia, which, coupled with an open attitude and a reasoned approach to matters, suggests that QuiteUnusual would make a decent admin. '''
'''Support'''. Pretty much "as per everyone else" - lots of good work here, trusted positions in other projects, plenty of evidence of understanding policies, etc --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. — '''''
'''Support''' - looks to be a good candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - can't see any problems.
'''Support'''...no evidence they will abuse the tools or their position.
'''Support''' Don't see a problem thus far. Regards, —
'''Support''' Trusted nom.—
'''Support''', although he needs to brush up on citing/copyright issues.
'''Support''' I don't think avoiding close paraphrasing is as difficult as the candidate makes out, but I think if his understanding of it is was lacking, this RfA has been educational enough.
'''Suppose''' - looks good to me; they [[WP:DDMP|don't seem like they'll abuse the tools]].
'''Support''' This user has a good solid record, and there seems to be no real good reason not to award the mop
'''Support''' if for no other reason than surviving the gauntlet of questions above. A good contributor all around and likely to be a solid admin. The concerns about copyright fall into misty gray area at best. Brief paraphrasing does not constitute copyright infringement, nor plagiarism. &ndash;
I support this refreshingly unique candidate with an apt user-name. I do find this candidates competence and skill to be quite unusual; uncommonly good. As an oft participant at wp:uaa, I am encouraged knowing the admin ranks will be strengthened upon the successful close of this RfA. <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. A little shaky on the copyright issue, but not enough to oppose.
'''Suppose'''. Good candidate. '''
'''Support''' The close paraphrasing issues have been acknowledged, and there seems no reason to believe that the candidate would not be less vigilant in future with regard to his own or others' contributions. Work in other areas (e.g. AfD, user talk) reflects understanding of policies, indiciating that the candidate would probably not stray into areas other than those specified without having a good understanding of them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Support'''. Plenty of clue, and if nothing else the manner of this editor's dealing with the concerns about copyright expressed here is persuasive. RfA is never the most stress-free environment but this editor can respond without badgering, take feedback, modify their position and demonstrate exemplary calmness, intelligence and flexibility. I sometimes think RfA doesn't work too badly as a crucible; only when you heat a sample can you see whether it cracks, melts or moulds. This sample is holding up to the heat well.
'''Support'''.(s)he has good contributions and for a long time he has been in Wikipedia
'''Support'''; with a admonition to go help at [[WP:SCV|SCV]] for a while.  More familiarity with copyright work can only improve what little weakness there may be there.  &mdash;&nbsp;
User might wish to work on copyright a bit and get a better understanding, but where he cited everything, and it is so rooted in fact it does not discourage me from supporting. It certainly wasn't good, but it wasn't in the least malicious. ''
'''Support'''.  I took a look at [[WP:Plagiarism]] and found that it spans the continuum from "Copying from an unacknowledged source" to "Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution".  Neither is a concern here.  [[WP:Close paraphrasing]] might or might not be an issue for someone who was going to focus on copyright, but I can't see it being a bar to adminship.  The answers to the questions are thoughtful and display more than enough clue.  QU's handling of the issues raised here has been exemplary.  This one is an easy call.
{{ec}}'''Support''' - we need some QuiteUnusual admins - variety is the spice of life.--<span style="">
'''Support''' pretty much per Coren.
'''Support'''. QU's handling of Oppose #1 shows clue and outweighs any other concerns I have. Would make a positive addition. --
'''Support'''. --'''
'''Support''' Whilst one shouldn't place too much store in advanced permissions on other projects it does add weight. <small>(indeed didn't we add +sysop to someone with very little tenure here but who required the bit for cross project work? - was probably a year or so ago)</small>. I note the opposes; there seems to be a valid concern over close paraphrasing but I still think this is an area that is not, and never will be, fully ironed out - and not just on Wikipedia. Bottom line is - abuse/misuse of the tools is minimal, and likely clueful use of them is high. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' He does seem proficient and trustworthy in the areas of adminship that he wishes to focus on, and his good standing as a sysop at Wikibooks is a further assurance that he will not misuse tools or trust here. I also believe that, as a result of this Rfa, he will be acutely aware of close paraphrasing concerns going forward, and so I cannot see myself opposing on those grounds.
'''Support''' . Although the edit count distribution and the few personal messages at  first  gave me pause, I'm  happy  to  take his work  on  Wikibooks - a Wikimedia project - into  consideration. He  doesn't  check  all  the boxes on  my  criteria either, but  again, quite unusually, I  feel  I  need to  make an exception  because I have rarely  seen such  excellent  answers to  the many  questions, and they  clearly  demonstrate to  me that  this is an editor who  can be trusted with the tools. While some opposers raise some interesting  points, any  bright line for copyvio/plagiarism is the subject  for another venue, and the concerns expressed do  not  reduce my  trust.
'''Support''' – Per the user's answers to the questions and the extensive discussion here. The editor appears to be cautious enough to be trusted with the tools and he listens to feedback.
'''Support''' - Been on the fence about this one for a while, but I think that this candidate will be a net positive, provided he be mindful of copyvios.
'''Support''' - User has good understanding of polices. I see no problems.
I don't believe there's any reason to expect the candidate would abuse or misuse the tools.
Seems sensible, a sort that would use the tools well. Attribution issues are a more concerning, but shouldn't have much bearing on its work as an admin. The willingness to fix that also bodes well for dealing well with issues that may come up in other areas, and for admins issues always do. -—
'''Support''' - Good answers and attitude. Ticks my most important boxes of trustworthiness and competence. The close-paraphrasing issue is not too concerning, admins cannot be experts in absolutely everything (I've heard they're human).
'''Support''' – Contributed well to the encyclopedic efforts.  Paraphrasing being a point of contention the only thing I can add; “…is the highest form of flattery” (sic Intentional ). <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' User understand's most things! GOOD LUCK! (: --
Have admittedly done no research on the candidate, only the oppose reasons below, and have found that they suck. Support to balance out the idiocy going on below.
'''Support'''; I've seen his work around here and there, and he'll be a great admin; no concerns.
'''Support'''—while the paraphrasing is a concern, I feel that QuiteUnusual has and will continue to learn from the concern it has raised. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">{&#123;
'''Support''', as I don't agree with oppose #2.--
'''Support''' - The paraphrase concerns that led to many opposes are valid, but I don't feel that they outweigh the numerous qualities that QuiteUnusual would bring to the adminship role. A reasonable amount of article experience, some solid contributions in UAA and AIV where QU plans to volunteer as an admin, and experience as an admin on a sister project, those allow me to overlook the other concerns. -- '''
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - I think you have a sufficient handle on the site. I'm happy you intend to work on the backlogs at UAA. All of your answers to Q16 were excellent, except that "CorenIncDavid" should not receive a block. This falls under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=420649604#Mark_at_Alcoa "Mark at Alcoa" Exception], which was a precedent created approx. two years ago for username allowance. It's been codified for awhile now at [[WP:ISU]], bullet point three. Continue your good work, and as always, re-review policies, guidelines, and consensus to stay afresh. If no one has pointed it out yet, [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]] (a guideline) is a good article. <small><font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - The only area of concern for me was the close paraphrasing, and I'm confident that of all the future mistakes this user will make, close paraphrasing will ''not'' be one of them. Not after this experience. :-) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~
'''Support''' I believe QU will not closely paraphrase again, and so denying him sysop rights on those grounds would be punitive.
'''Support'''  I believe that this entire process is too much like the litmus testing that a Supreme Court Justice must endure about hypotheticals and what one might do in some ''extremely'' specific circumstances.  Rather, I'd prefer to support this nomination based on historical activity and my expectation that an admin will act accordingly appropriate when given the mop.
'''Support''' is justified in this case as I am certain that the genuine concerns relating to close paraphrasing will not re-occur. Lessons learned, he should be effective as an Admin.
'''Support'''  Good answers to the questions. <b>
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. It is experienced and active, and is already administrator (and checkuser) in another project.
'''Support''' Close paraphrasing issues can be fixed with on the job (OJT) training.--v/r -
'''Support''' Seems like a level-headed person with a good record and obvious respect for the Five Pillars, particularly civility. Strong commitment to the project. Unusually good understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses, frank admission of limitations rather than pretending to be an expert in everything, and clear intention to work only in the area of their strengths.  --
'''Oppose''' I am concerned that QuiteUnusual does not understand copyright policy. Some examples from contributions showcased in Q2 and Q4:<br><br>{{tq|i=y|"'''knowledge of fresh shoots as a food source is minimal. In contrast, the engineered bamboo industry is expanding''' and there are '''plans to compete with China’s export of engineered products. Replacement of timber by bamboo in low-cost housing''' is reducing more expensive wood imports."}} ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engineered_bamboo&diff=485333070 article]) versus {{tq|i=y|"'''knowledge of fresh shoots as a food source is minimal'''; and canned (imported) produce provides a secure commodity supply. It is unlikely that this situation will change without a promotional campaign. ¶ '''In contrast, the engineered bamboo industry is expanding''', and demand for a culm dryer and tile-making machine (the latter described in these proceedings) is increasing to ensure a consistent, good-quality product. '''Plans to compete with China’s export of engineered products''' are afoot, but current production costs and lack of unique products are limiting. '''Replacement of timber by bamboo in low-cost''' Philippine '''housing''' would open wholesale markets and reduce costly imports of wood for the same purpose."}} ([http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/10532/PR129%20Part%201.pdf source]).<br><br>{{tq|i=y|"'''Panel composites made from bamboo have better strength''' and '''dimensional stability''' when '''compared to panels made from several fast growing timbers'''."}} ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engineered_bamboo&diff=485330441 article]) versus {{tq|i=y|"'''Panel composites made from bamboo have''' great potential due to their '''better strength, dimensional stability''' and other characteristics '''compared to panels made from several fast growing''' plantation '''timbers'''."}} ([http://www.inbar.int/bibliography/journal/v1n2p119.pdf source]).<br><br>{{tq|i=y|"Engineered bamboo '''was developed by a company working with the University of Illinois'''.... Engineered bamboo is '''appealing because''' it '''sequesters 35% more carbon, has stronger material properties, and is resistant to thermal expansion'''."}} ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engineered_bamboo&diff=485330937 article]) versus {{tq|i=y|"It was '''developed by a company working with the University of Illinois'''. This product is '''appealing because''' bamboo '''sequesters 35% more carbon''' carbon sequestration, grows much faster than trees, '''has stronger material properties, and is resistant to thermal expansion'''."}} ([http://www.solardecathlon.org/pdfs/2009_program_44p_45753.pdf source], which is now a dead link). QuiteUnusual removed the quotation marks from a direct quote and integrated it into the article with minimal changes as if it were original material.<br><br>{{tq|i=y|"'''There is little evidence of altitude''' decompression '''occurring among healthy individuals at altitudes below 18,000 feet''' (5,500 m)."}} ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decompression_%28altitude%29&diff=478094753 article]) versus {{tq|i=y|"However, '''there is''' very '''little evidence of altitude''' DCS '''occurring among healthy individuals at altitudes below 18,000 ft.''' who have not been SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) diving."}} ([http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/dcs.pdf source]).<br><br>{{tq|i=y|"The usefulness of recasts in second language learning are controversial with some research indicating that they '''do not lead to any repair''' by the student as '''the student can only repeat the teacher’s reformulation'''."}} ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recast_%28language_teaching%29&diff=487136057 article]) versus {{tq|i=y|"Recasts '''do not lead to any''' self- or peer-'''repair''': when there is repair, '''the student can only repeat the teacher’s reformulation'''"}} ([http://www.ijls.net/volumes/volume4issue4/baleghizadeh3.pdf source]).<br><br>{{tq|i=y|"• Establishing a clear understanding of the objectives and activities of business units and processes • Building the awareness of risk and controls and embedding responsibility for the controls amongst managers and staff • Providing a framework for improving controls throughout the organisation"}} ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Control_self-assessment&diff=481199447 article]) versus {{tq|i=y|"• Obtaining a clear and shared understanding of major activities and objectives of business units and processes • Fostering an improved awareness of risk and controls among management and staff • Providing a flexible but structured approach to improving the controls framework through the organisation"}} ([http://www.pwc.com/th/en/performance-improvement/control-self-assessment.jhtml source]). Syntactical similarities and identical phrasing are prevalent.<br><br>In light of these issues, I cannot support at this time.
Concerns about close paraphrasing.  Also, insufficient experience creating content.  An administrator should have at least one GA under his belt.  I'm saying this because at my university there is a conflict between the academic staff and the administration.  The administration is widely seen to be more interested in enforcing its rules than supporting the academic mission of the university.

'''Oppose''' as per Bilby. Plagiarism is a serious issue, as it's stealing the work of others by claiming it as your own. Dennis may well be right that the closing bureaucrat will discount any oppose votes based on plagiarism, but it would clearly be an abuse of power to do so, as we're talking about honesty here. And why has the candidate taken no steps to clear up this issue in the articles given as examples?
Yes I'm meant to be retired but reading crap like Dennis Brown's reply to Malleus makes me angry.  In the circumstances of an RFA, the ignorance of a candidate is just as bad as malice or deception.  Administrators, like first year tertiary students, should know what is right and wrong in this area, because we expect administrators to be able to act when circumstances demand.  The problems that infected DYK for so long were precisely due to ignorant and ineffective administrators.  We don't just want our admins to be 'good people', we need admins with a basic level of competence in applying core project matters.  Detecting improper writing is a core as things get on that front.  I'm sure QuiteUnusual will be able to attain that competence quite quickly after this RFA, but obviously not there yet, sorry.  On that note I'd endorse what Reaper Eternal says above -- start writing in summary style. --
'''Oppose''' - I really thought I was going to support this. I was going to wait make my final decision until there was more input concerning the paraphrasing concerns. And I was ''really'' liking your answers to my and others' questions. I had intended on merely asking for a follow-up clarification on #7 (admins simply act too much concerning consensus, and clear understanding of that is required, even if just merely commenting regardless of venue). But the answer to Q#6 makes me ''very'' uncomfortable. And the last paragraph seals it. Talking to the others (such as the blocking admin) BEFORE unblocking (especially if this means you would fall under questions of [[WP:WHEEL]]) shouldn't be ignored even in the case you noted. There is a rather big difference between IAR and taking unilateral action as if we operate in a vacuum. - <b>
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Plagiarism.Those phrases are disrinctive and not yours, and they require quotation marks. I wish wikipedia writers would get the hang of summarizing rather than plagiarizing. And it is again a problem on DYK articles. However, learn to stop plagiarizing, and I will support a future run, if you don't make it this time. Otherwise seem to do well in the community and you appear to like doing work related to admin work.
Oppose this time, per EauOo above. <font color="#0000FF">
Mmmph. I hate to do this, but the plagiarism issue concerns me, and we can't have a CCI on an admin. <s>Also, the fact that it took a question to get the candidate to directly address the issue also concerns me.</s> --'''
'''Oppose''' When there's plagiarism, there's trouble. And when it comes to the Philippines, I support the actions. Please comment on this question: "What is CCI?" At least he's a admin and a bureaucrat in Wikibooks, which is not much of a consolation prize. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' – you want to work at [[:WP:UAA|UAA]] but your answer to 13a especially leaves me thinking that you would not do a good job of it. I disagree that it would minimise the risk of disruption to contact [[:WP:RFO]] ''without blocking''. Notice that, if their username really is that offensive, you can block them, thus preveting them from going on to vandalize any number of articles, and then per [[:WP:RD2|RD2]] immediately RevDel their username out of the block log entry, pending OS. Now, if I am right in believing (a) that someone's creating such an account name is itself evidence that they will go on to try to cause disruption, and (b) that more people read the sorts of high-profile articles likely to be targeted by trolls than the number who read the block log, then letting this person edit just because someone might glimpse something offensive on [[:Special:Log]] is a bizarre strategy. '''
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per plagiarism concerns. --
'''Oppose''' per Goodvac, Malleus, John et al...
'''Oppose''' Both Dennis and Ryan make good points, however I have to agree that the concern with close paraphrasing (something even Jimbo Wales has spoken to directly) is enough of a concern to oppose this candidate at the moment.--
'''Oppose''' In light of copyright/paraphrasing issues I cannot support. ```
There are a curious number of supports above that have point-blank said there are no concerns with this candidate, and more that offer no rationale or joke rationales for supporting. I wouldn't bother to oppose here, but the close paraphrasing thing does at least merit consideration, and many supports seem to be entirely ignoring it. In my opinion, not every possible fact needs to be included in Wikipedia; if the options are to violate copyright or omit a trivial fact, omission may be the better part of valor. (Worth noting: This RFA was 25-0 before goodvac's oppose. So a majority of new voters are still supporting despite the close paraphrase issue.)
'''Oppose''' per above. His judgement in general seems below par relative to what I expect from admins. He seems to have very little admin-related experience outside of straight vandal reverting (per answers to Q6 & 7). Most his edits for the past year are semi-automated vandalism reverts and AWB-made style tweaks. I had difficulty finding any substantive content contribution of his in 2012. Also QU says [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=497621943 here] that we hardly need more admins anyway, and that other "thankless and unrecognized" tasks like adding references and so forth are much more important; yet he chose to spend most of his time on Wikipedia doing hardly any of those.
'''Oppose''' I looked through the candidate's contributions for June.  They seemed to be mostly mechanical patrolling and gnoming.  That's useful work done well but the only time I notice him breaking out of this rut is for a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brynn_Tyler&diff=prev&oldid=498635030 porn bio].  I'd like to see more content creation and participation in discussions.
'''Oppose''' – I wanted to support but the paraphrasing issues make me unable to do so. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose'''- Moved from support per plagiarism issues. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but close paraphrasing and plagiarism are major problems on Wikipedia (and arguably more difficult to fix than the BLP problems - or at least more time-consuming). We can't have authority figures with those kinds of contributions in their history. I know there's an admin shortage, but an admin is, in many ways, a role model, and we shouldn't do anything to suggest that the writing practices detailed above are acceptable.
'''Weak oppose''' due to the answer to my question 15.  I've been thinking about this a bit and think I'm going to have to oppose.  Ideally I'd like to ask another question and see the response but I can't think of a way to ask it without giving the answer away hence the 'weak'.  I have two concerns with their answer to Q15.  Firstly I think there's very few occasions where something can't be rewritten but as the candidate gives a reasonable example with a good explanation I'm not too concerned about that.  The second concern is their lack of mention of quoting the source.  If it is necessary to use the same phrase then I'd like to see it as a fair use quote.  This may well be what they mean by what they say in their answer but it's unclear.
'''Oppose''' Do some work eliminating the paraphrasing, spend a few months editing without repeating the same mistakes, and I'll be happy to support.
'''Oppose with regret''' I am familiar with the candidate's work on WB, which is outstanding.  However, the points raised by others convince me that he has a bit more work to do before he is ready to be an admin here.  No doubt I shall vote support next time.--
'''Oppose''' too much paraphrasing '''
'''Oppose''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
Before I landed in this column, I was in the edit window for the support column for about 10 minutes, but I just couldn't come up with a reason that would justify me supporting. You are definitely a trusted user on a sister project, that's not under dispute and no one is taking anything away from that, but this is another project altogether, with differences in policy and community standards. Now, I don't see any of the opposers alleging that you've copy-pasted dozens of articles directly from the sources, however there has been close paraphrasing issues, and n terms of legal liability, it's still an issue; one I just can't overlook I'm afraid. I don't doubt that wrongdoing was never intended, but demonstrating the ability to write content without close paraphrasing is important, as it may aid in detecting close paraphrasing or the use of copyrighted content in newly created articles, when patrolling CSD. Sorry. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - close paraphrasing issues and the impression I get that the candidate still doesn't quite get it. If you're going to be trusted with all the tools, you need to understand content creation and how NOT to do it, as well as how to do it.
'''Oppose''' at this time, mostly per Ealdgyth and others - might be willing to support in a few months once paraphrasing issues have been completely addressed.
'''Oppose''' per any problem connected with 'close wording', 'plagiarism' etc.
'''Oppose''' - First off, I thank the candidate for working hard at Wikipedia and for being willing to run the Rfa gamut. But as it stands, I cannot support a candidate with the type of issues this one has, largely the close wording objected to by multiple opposers. That and minor civility concerns give me pause. I feel the candidate needs to think things over and if still interested in using the admin tools, to try again next year.
'''Weak oppose''' The oppose reasoning mentioned above by various editors does carry weight for me. I'm sure that QuiteUnusual will take the opposes into consideration and reapply in three months or so... There's no harm in proving to the community that you can be trusted to follow our copyright issues to the tee. As said by Jusdafax, your contributions to our project are quite sincere and I too thank you for that. Will await your subsequent RfA.
'''Oppose''' Per the plagiarism concerns.
'''Oppose'''I prefer to see more content creation, showing the candidate knows how to use sources rather than copy them. Vandal-hunting is much easier than content creation, and while necessary, is not a sign that speaks "potential admin" to me.
Q6, sorry. but unilateral unblocks are pretty much a universally bad idea.
'''Undecided''' - Per the answer to my question, I cannot support this RFA because I believe that an administrator should have a good understanding of [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:RS]]. You state that you believe you went through the correct policy-based approach when creating the article, yet unreferenced content and original research that you added remains today.
[ec with Reaper:] '''Neutral''' for now. I was reading this and thought, hey, here's someone who understands that properly writing and sourcing articles can be difficult, and who took the time to do it right. They pointed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Collings&diff=391139501&oldid=390101184 this diff]. However, when you see what was done there, one wonders to which extent the editor has a proper understanding of RS, and what kind of search methods they used. A quick search in Google Books leads to [http://books.google.com/books?id=l6YcAQAAIAAJ&q=%22david+collings%22+legolas&dq=%22david+collings%22+legolas&source=bl&ots=st9i5hFevj&sig=i4GxKn1hysKBMj7x93MGUj9Mu7k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DRuAUNCSL4-m8QS4woHQBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ this], which is infinitely more reliable than [http://www.sf-worlds.com/lord-of-the-rings/the-lord-of-the-rings-bbc-1981.html this] for sourcing the subject as Legolas. The same applies to [http://www.kaldorcity.com/people/dcinterview.html this link], which is an interview with the subject on a dependent site. It may well be deemed reliable enough to "count", but does finding three links really take three hours? And do you really want to cite ''that'' diff as proving that editing can be hard? It can be, of course--[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adab_al-Tabib&diff=513444160&oldid=510164392 here's an example].
'''Neutral'''. I really wanted to support this RfA, but the paraphrasing pointed out in the oppose section is too close for comfort. I have no doubt that QU added that content in the best of faith, and I don't think they are bright-line violations. But I can't put myself in the support column nonetheless.
'''Neutral''' Good candidate, but I have concerns about lopsided editing history; an admin, I feel, should have more experience with mainspace content.
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' per SomeGuy1221.
Raghusri, I think it's admirable that you want the tools, but your recent block log, your high level of user page editing (which would be fine if it didn't seem to be such a big focus of your total editing), and your relatively light experience is going to make this not a viable nomination.  Don't get discouraged, and keep editing.
'''Oppose''' Five blocks in less than a year is a lot for a candidate for administrator.
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' per Erico and the fact that you've only been here since April. Please read [[WP:NOTNOW|this essay]].
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but you've not been here long enough and all that block activity as recently as May does not fill me with any confidence. Please keep working had and come back in the future.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARaghusri this].
'''Oppose''' my apologies but I cannot support a candidate with only 7 months experience.  Also there is not enough admin related experience in those 7 months to show that the candidate understands what is required of an admin. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' Recent block-evasion is a demerit. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebel_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=519189703 this edit summary] and various similar ones show a misunderstanding of what constitutes [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]] that would be troubling in an admin dedicated to fighting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' For someone that wants to be involved in antivandalism work, I do not see a lot of experience in this area from reverting a lot of vandalism, making reports at AIV, and such as I would expect. Also, how is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebel_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=519549631 this] vandalism? Because of this, I'm afraid that I am not comfortable supporting the candidate at this time.
'''Oppose''' Concerns about block log. It looks as if the latest block might have been a mistake, though. --
'''Oppose''' Fairly certain this will flunk [[WP:NOTNOW]] when a bold editor or admin chooses to close it. I think the request is uninformed, but not unwell intentioned. I have never seen an admin with a block log this long, or any with any history of block evaasion.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' <sub>Wow, my most serious oppose EVER.</sub> You've been around for 5 months, and 26 days. Plus, no AfD to count. Low edit count and 5 blocks in less than a year (according to Erico) adds up to a no (signal) for me and I don't know for others. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Block evasion is incompatible with being an administrator.--<span style="">
'''Oppose'''. I didn't !vote before this was [[WP:SNOW]] withdrawn very sensibly. But it was an ill-advised submission and an even more ill advised re-opening. No way, not now and not until a considerable time of trouble free constructive editing has elapsed.
'''Oppose''' per the other Mr. Brown's excellent rationale. (no relationship)

'''Support''' I am going to support because this is the first entry, we need something positive, and I have positive memories of my interactions with rcsprinter. Lookinbg at logs I can see that around 2011 Rcsprinter123 figured out that images needed sources and licenses.  But Moves and subsequent upload are OK. Patrol log shows activity. Area of inactivity that Rcsprinter123 could participate in is the article feedback activity log.
'''Support'''. Per Graeme Bartlett, mutatis mutandis. --
'''Moral Support:''' There are some concerns that need work. -
'''Moral Support''' before the snow falls. Hope to see RCS back here when the problems have been attended to. What I've seen at CSD has mostly been OK so far as I can remember (I don't make little lists). Not a name I dread seeing on a nomination, at least...
'''Moral Support''' You're a good guy, don't get discouraged.
'''''Strong'' Oppose''' Although I have appreciated a lot of RCS's work, there's an attitude issue that IMHO make them wholly unfit, at least until they're able to show massive improvement.  They ended up on my watchlist ages ago for an issue, and they eventually dropped off.  They then came to the forefront again on a bot-tagging issue in May of this year (which he falsely claims to have had approval for above).  Their attitude was one of "meh, I was only sorta wrong, so whatever" - that dismissive response led to a block (which, by the way, had mixed reviews).  They then eventually badgered the bot-owners board to try and get permission to continue the task, and were eventually limited to exactly the recommendation I had given them months before.  I have no doubt the RCS has the best interests of the project in mind, but they hold grudges, and refuse genuine attempts at assistance.  This is not the attitude we're looking for in admins <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' As Dangerouspanda has said, Rcsprinter has some attitude issues and as written below, his edits are mainly automatic. There also isn't much content creation, so that could provide problems with Rcsprinter not being able to judge several things well for example AfDs. The blocks Rcsprinter has had in the past also suggest future issues. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000">
'''Reluctant oppose'''. I was hoping to support this, as Rcsprinter looks like a decent editor and a nice bloke, and I've seen him around the place doing good things. It would also be a great help to have another editor answering protected edit requests. I had a look at Rcsprinter's CSD tagging, though, and I'm a bit concerned. (Note: I didn't look at any of the file tagging, only article tagging, as files aren't my strong point.) <p>The A7 tagging was fine, but Rcsprinter has a tendency to tag articles for A3 when they have been created but then blanked by their creator. This happened with [[Tor henrik larsen]] and [[Tor hagalid]], both on May 22, and again on August 1 with [[Shram Laboratories]]. (Shram Laboratories is a borderline case depending on what you count as "chat-like comments" per [[WP:A3|CSD A3]], however - the content was one sentence in the first person starting with "My name is ...".) Every revision of an article has to qualify for a CSD criterion for the article to be deletable under that criterion, and this isn't the case for the three articles here, particularly the two tagged on May 22. They were all acceptable [[WP:G7|G7]] candidates, however, and have been deleted as such.</p> <p>More concerning than those is a tag on July 27 of [[How to eat a coconut]], a short recipe for making coconut. This was PRODded by another editor, and after that Rcsprinter tagged it with {{tlx|db-g6}}, a technical deletion, with Twinkle's standard edit summary and no extra explanation. This page falls under [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], but being a how-to is not a speedy deletion criterion. I don't think this page qualifies under any of the speedy deletion criteria, and I would have declined the speedy altogether. (In the end it was deleted under A10.) It certainly didn't fall under [[WP:G6|G6]], which is only supposed to be for completely uncontroversial deletions. After seeing these tags, and seeing that Rcsprinter wants to work in CSD, unfortunately I must oppose. — '''''
'''Oppose''' for now. Candidate is clearly eager to get involved, and that enthusiasm is to be supported; however after reading through a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/13 recent talkpage archive], combined with the incidents which led to the blocks, my feeling is that Rcsprinter is making too many mistakes at the moment. There's an indication also of snappy attitude in the response to Hugo999 who made a neutral comment regarding article tagging: "Alright, whatever. It was nothing personal to the article. (You might want to read WP:OWN)." I'd like to see a period of calm and helpful responses to other users, and a period of not making mistakes. On the whole I feel that Rcsprinter has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and might one day make a decent admin - just not now. '''

'''Oppose''' per Mr. Stradivarius.
'''Regretful oppose''' I have too many concerns.  This user does great work but his block log does indicate he still needs to improve.  He is a bit hasty in his work and will at times presume things that aren't true.  The bot markings for one should be carefully done as not all the bots operate in a manner that don't show up in logs.  His attitude is another concern.  I expect administrators to be courteous even when being spat at.  The still ongoing BRFA for Cyberbot II is one example of where he could mildly improve.  He expressed his disagreement with the bot but expressed it in a manner where I felt useless.  Finally, anyone who states that they intend to work with CSD must have a 95% accuracy in CSD tagging in the latest year.  90% is too low for me.  There are only 62 entries this year which is also a bit low for anyone who intends to work in speedy deletions.  I am open to another RfA in 6 months though.—
'''Oppose''' Your answers to my questions 5 and 6 are likely fine for an editor, but not an admin.  Getting involved in the content portion is always wrong when you stumble across a page that simply needs a little mediation and a calm, rationale voice.  Ignoring it isn't a good option either.  Q6 in particular was bothersome since those comments weren't personal attacks, just incivility, which it is best to ignore the incivility and simply tell them you aren't getting involved in the ''content'' of the discussion, just the tone.  Getting defensive isn't helpful when you are coming in as an admin.  And no, if they ramped it up and it '''did''' became personal attacks against you, you shouldn't block them but instead ping another admin to review, to insure you aren't taking it too personally.  There is no doubt you do some good things for Wikipedia and I appreciate and respect that, but being an admin requires a little more objectivity and tolerance than I think you are prepared for.  Admins have to overlook a great deal of incivility directed towards themselves, and doing so requires a certain demeanor that many people don't have.
'''Oppose''', mostly per close paraphrasing concerns. Copyright and original text are important for any editor&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Copyvio issues are a definite no for me, costs me any free time I have fixing them. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''''Strong'' Oppose'''  Contrary to Graeme Bartlett RCSprinter's knowledge of copyright has been more recently scrutinised both in his upload of [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_January_11#File:Old_trafford_stadium.jpeg|File:Old_trafford_stadium.jpeg]] and subsequently in his application for OTRS permissions [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&diff=next&oldid=3620270]. This also led to a demonstration of a short temper and demonstration of an inability to take constructive criticism. Since they joined Wikipedia the user has sought to achieve higher levels of User Permissions including a previously aborted attempt at an RfA, this looks like it's more about gaining the badge/kudos than doing the actual work needed.
'''Oppose''' After the discussion of learning from the copyright block, I looked over the candidate's commons uploads, and found a couple of obvious copyvios from 27 December 2011 (well after the blocks).  e.g. [[:commons:File:Hawaii Christmas Tree.jpg]] claimed as CC-0, but not licensed like that at the source.  So I think the candidate still needs more experience.  (Sorry to pile on - enjoy contributing to Wikipedia as you have been!)--
'''Oppose''' per above, particularly Reaper Eternal.
'''Oppose''' - I thank the candidate for the offer of service and the good work on this project but the copyvio issues and blocks are concerns. Suggest this Rfa be closed asap per [[WP:SNOW]] to avoid a pile-on effect.
'''Opppse'''. Try again in 6 months and keep improving. The good work that you do is its own reward. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' "uses a sockpuppet to oppose" is not true (and let's be honest: holding what seems to be a grudge and revealing it like that in an RfA is just a bad idea), and the close paraphrasing pushes me over the edge. Learn from this experience, Rcsprinter, and you'll do fine in the future. :-)
'''Some ''Oppose'' this is''' per [[User:The ed17|Ed]], [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]], [[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous</font>]][[User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda</font>]], [[User:Cyberpower678|<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower]] and [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]]. Plus, he didn't answer Q#4 and his answer in Q#9 isn't what is supposed to be ONLY.
'''Oppose''' The knowledge (and <s>theory</s> demonstration of that knowledge) I think an admin requires just hasn't been demonstrated through Rcsprinter123's history and answers to questions. That Rcsprinter123 didn't know about [[WP:INVOLVED]], didn't know what the role of a third opinion is in a debate, didn't know that page protection isn't applied preemptively and current events don't need to indef protected, and to top it off the very close paraphrasing. I can't support with all of these concerns, the [[Wikipedia|Administrators' reading list]] might be worth working through. '''
'''Oppose''' - too many concerns, I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' Copyright concern--
'''Oppose''' - The block log contains some blocks that are too recent for my comfort. Although I'm glad that you take full responsibility for them, I'm not too strong on your judgement; you made an RfA nomination offer that I could not at all accept, and probably will not be able to accept for a long time.--
'''Oppose''' per multiple concerns detailed above.
I'm concerned with the answer to 2 and 3. It seems the nominee mostly makes automatic edits, so it's very difficult to get a good grasp of what Rcsprinter is like as an editor when not using the tools. If questions 2 and 3 are filled in with examples this might help to give a better idea.
I'd really like to support Rcsprinter, truly I would. He seems very enthusiastic and I doubt too much harm would come of his use of the tools in the areas he's expressed an interest toward helping out at. But there are a number of concerns that convince me he's not quite ready for the bit, at least not at the moment. First, and most prominent in my mind, is [[User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/13|this archived discussion on his talk page]], where [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] confronted him about his improper tagging of images for CSD. Now I myself am not an expert when it comes to licensing (it's part of the reason ''my'' [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert|recent RfA]] failed just a little over a month ago), but the concern isn't ''just'' the misunderstanding of policy where Rcsprinter is concerned, it's the lack of discretion he demonstrated in not familiarizing himself with [[WP:NFC|the relevant policies]] before acting &mdash; and, futher, his subsequent response (see the link above) which shows that he is unwilling to acknowledge his mistakes when he makes them. This trait is not compatible with the role given to administrators, who have enough influence through their technical privileges and perceived status within the community to drive of potentially valuable editors. [[User:EatsShootsAndLeaves|Bwilkins]], [[User:Mr. Stradivarius|Mr. Stradivarius]], and [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] have also brought up some past incidents which serve to solidify my opinion that this user is just not ready at this time. My advice to you, Rcsprinter, is to take this RfA as a learning experience and come back sometime within the next year (I'd recommend March 2013) after re-evaluating your approach to administrative areas and building a track record of responsible contributions. Once I feel confident that the concerns which were raised today have been alleviated, I would have absolutely no problem supporting you for adminship, as you are unquestionably a force for good on Wikipedia and I think you'd eventually do great work with the tools.
'''Moral Support, Realistic Oppose''' -  When Rcsprinter123 was blocked for the second time, I offered to adopt him. He was an exceptional student and has improved vastly over the past year or so. The amount of good work he's done for the encyclopedia is immeasurable. However, I believe this request for adminship is ill-advised. At the moment, I worry about a few things in his demeanor, including the fact that he does appear to hold grudges as Bwilkins suggests below. Labelling EatsShootsAndLeaves as a sockpuppet is inaccurate, as sock puppet specifically refers to ''abusive'' use of alternate account, yet above it's clear who Bwilkins is. <p> I also worry the blasé approach to the RfA - there were multiple mistakes in the nomination, some of which are still there despite my suggestions to proof-read. He did not transclude correctly, an error I fixed for him. Similarly, his answers to questions are insufficient, and he's made no effort to check over his older articles despite knowing he had an issue with close paraphrasing.
'''Moral support''' I've seen Rcsprinter123 around and ISTR forming the opinion that he was probably already an admin. I was going to do some research around his edits with a view to supporting his candidature. However, a number of points raised above now make me think that he should return here in a few months, after taking on board some suggestions and advice. I'm sure he's very well intentioned and has clearly made numerous valuable edits to the project. Keep it up! <span style="white-space:nowrap;">--
'''Moral support''', mostly per Worm That Turned. I find myself in agreement with most of the opposers (in particular, Dennis Brown's observations ring true for me), but the candidate does do helpful work and I don't want to pile on. It's never fun getting an "oppose", but the opposes here offer a lot of helpful guidance that should give the candidate a path towards an eventually successful request.
'''Neutral''' I'm a bit concerned about the lengthy block log, as well as labeling ESAL as a sockpuppet, as BMW pointed out. Also, the close paraphrasing concerns are also problematic. However, as 28bytes pointed out, the candidate does good work here and I have seen this user helping out newbies at the Teahouse. Additionally, the candidate says that he wants to work in CSD, but their CSD log only shows a CSD success rate of 87%, which is a bit too low.
'''Neutral''' Good edits and stuff, but the stuff listed above is sort of turning me off voting in favor. --'''
'''Avoiding pile-on oppose''' This user is far from ready and has a propensity to jump before they can walk.
'''Neutral''' - '''avoiding a pile on in the other section'''. Like many enthusiastic new and/or younger editors Sprinter seems to  believe that the path to recognition is by joining the project and jumping straight into maintenance areas with  both  feet.  With only 3 edits to  Wikipedia space he was transcluding his first RfA and he's been on my watchlist ever since.  Just  over a year ago  he was asked to  act with  more maturity, after which  he was indef banned from  the GA process (although this was later modified). I  was concerned over his unauthorised survey only 9 months ago, followed by the issues with his blocked alternative account. Problems with his use of AWB only 5 months ago followed by an application to be part of the RfBAG group gave me concern and only  3 months ago  he gets blocked for messing  about with bot business and appears to  blame the tools for his errors.  His 50 most recent AfD !votes match the closures only 33.3% of the time, and his NAC just 24 days ago, reverted by  an admin  and closed by  another with  a different  conclusion,  was far too  complex for ''any'' NAC.  Having  !voted on  45  RfAs (matched the end result only 54.5% of the time) and reading all  the advice pages, he should have been aware that this call  for office is very  much too soon. Although tutored by our [[User:Worm That Turned|most patient mentor]] I am  convinced that there is still a significant maturity issue that only time rather than Wikipedia experience can address, and I can't see myself supporting  another run for at  least another 12 months.
'''Moral support''' I know you have truly good intentions (which makes me place this in Neutral) and it's brilliant that you're considering yourself for a position I feel I'm unfit for, but unfortunately the opposes are rather worrying. I would certainly support you if the issues are dealt with and you run again.
Oppose adminship, support a block for this user. Has a complete disregard for our BLP policy, adds "citation needed" tags to "facts" he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoLa_Monroe&diff=482753147&oldid=482514761 inserts himself], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoLa_Monroe&offset=20120324000000&limit=9&action=history starts edit wars], logs out to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LoLa_Monroe&offset=20120324010000&limit=14&action=history continue the edit war anonymously], transcludes his RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Scottywong&diff=483768543&oldid=483767745 inside someone else's RfA] instead of following the directions, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=prev&oldid=483768979 isn't] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=483769820 interested] in listening to good-faith advice from people who tried to dissuade him from requesting adminship, and posts things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LoLa_Monroe&diff=prev&oldid=451495333 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LoLa_Monroe&diff=prev&oldid=483610097 repeatedly].
BLP issues aside, having under 2500 edits is basically an automatic fail. Candidate did not understand why it was not a good idea to run for adminship, even with BLP issues aside.
Strong oppose.  As well as the problems outlined above they've also introduced copyvios, e.g. [[Taxation in the Bahamas]] of [http://www.thebahamasguide.com/business/taxes.htm] (admins only as I've just G12'd it) and [[Cocaine Cowboys 2]] of [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176726/reviews] which I've just started to deal with.  I suspect there may be more and a CCI may turn out to be needed (although thankfully quite small if it is).
'''Oppose''' and support a competence block. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''', forget adminship, This user needs a block as far as I'm concerned. For starters there is edit warring and sockpuppeting going back over 3 years to restore a blp violation, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=483712978&oldid=483702884#User:Ronjohn_and_LoLa_Monroe], copyright violations, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronjohn#Copyright_violation_in_Taxation_in_the_Bahamas], then there are personal attacks:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timtrent&diff=prev&oldid=479331939], a complete misunderstanding of how sourcing works, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brookie&diff=prev&oldid=426103343], his inability to actually file this rfa [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Scottywong&diff=prev&oldid=483768543], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=484122817], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=484122997] and the fact he ignored the advice of multiple experienced editors in running, instead choosing to take that advice as an insult: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=prev&oldid=483768979], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagles247#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2Fronjohn], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jac16888&diff=prev&oldid=483617536].--
'''Oppose''' Not a chance. '''Yoenit''' (
'''Oppose''' and support a block per Jac16888
'''Oppose''' Oh god no.  I'm sorry, you don't have what it takes to be an admin yet.Please try again a year from now.—
'''Oppose''' Less than 1,000 edits over four years, inconsistent editing, two logged blocks (3RR and disruptive editing), incivility, lack of experience in administrative areas of WP... this would be enough to put me off. The interaction with those attempting to advise him about this RFA does not inspire confidence that Ron would be able to judge consensus.'''''
{{diff2|483769820|"Stop providing me your opinions please"}}. Not an attitude I want to see in an admin.
'''Strong oppose'''. I had previously closed this RfA per [[WP:NOTNOW]] but undid my closure per the user's request. This user is completely unqualified to be an administrator, per his overreactions to the helpful advice he has been getting. He also has a long history of disruption{{spaced ndash}}BLP violations, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and copyright violations. He has also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARonjohn been blocked twice] for edit-warring and for re-creating a spam page thrice. The immature overreactions with users trying to give him advice about this RfA clearly shows that he is nowhere near ready for the tools yet. To conclude, I strongly oppose adminship, but I '''strongly support''' an indefinite block for a long history of disruption. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' clearly unfit.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Besides no desire to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=prev&oldid=483768979 improve], a general [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=483769820 snotty attitude], an utter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=484122997 inability to follow simple directions for even submitting an RFA], not only is this candidate not even marginally qualified to be an administrator, based on their contributions I'm not even sure they are a net-positive to the project at this time. Both Wikipedia and Adminship have learning curves - but in order to learn, one has to actually have a ''desire'' to learn from others. Apparently however, this editor knows everything, and does not need/desire to listen to at least 3 respected (or respectable?) editors/admins when it comes to this RFA alone.  Being a "financial donor" does not give special privileges, and it's offensive to see that as a supposed "qualification" for the job. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' and annoyed at this waste of time. --
'''Oppose'''{{edit conflict|3}} Not fit enough to be a admin. Attitude, edit count and experience does matter. Question 5 Answer Point 3; is that an answer.--
'''Oppose'''. Serious issues regarding general competence, personal attacks, aggressive attitude, edit-warring, AGF failure, BLP violations, copyvio, IDHT... --
'''Oppose''' Clearly not ready yet. Everyone makes mistakes, but everyone should listen to good advice and make use of it. Edit count is not high, but I see no evidence of work in admin-related areas, and can see no sign of any actual need for the tools. When an understanding of the policies is shown, and evidence of work and/or participation in places like CSD, AfD, the noticeboards, RfA and such, then might be the time for a retry. As of right now, no.
'''Strong Oppose''' - User lists a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]] (and a [[WP:POV]] violation, as well) as his strongest contributions.
'''Oppose"'''Admins dole out Justice. Not sure this editor would be "across-the-board just" based on previous actions. ```
'''Oppose''' not enough experience with admin related portions of Wikipedia for me to consider a support, my apologies. ''<B>--

'''Oppose''' - Any number of reasons already listed. I was especially put out by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJasper_Deng&diff=483775034&oldid=483769902 this comment], which just goes to show how little he knows about how things work. Not ready to be an Admin at all.
'''Oppose''' not good enough as an editor, let alone an editor. I think this should be re-closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Strong support''' - No reason to oppose. He has pretty good [[User:Ryan_Vesey/CSD_log|CSD log]]. Also, his article space edits look nice, shows good understanding of policies and is hard working in a good way. '''''
Obvious support is obvious. See nom. Nom nom nom.
'''Support''' from the logs I can see he has tried patrolling, moving and uploading.
'''Support''' particularly regarding the answers of the question and wide types of edits.
'''Support''' - Ha, I wondered when this was going to happen! I've seen Ryan Vesey around since the days Worm first encountered him (and even before then, in fact!), and he's been terrific in every forum I've seen him - knows Wikipedia policy very well, is able to interpret it intelligently, and is very helpful all round. --
'''Support''' Hard-working, helpful user--
'''Support''' based on what I've seen of Ryan around various places.
'''Support''' I've grown to trust his opinions and objectivity in discussions.  We sometimes have different ideas, but he is always inquisitive rather than stubborn, open minded and wanting to understand the "why" of things.  Ryan will be an asset with the bit, this I'm sure of.
'''Support''' Everything I've seen about Ryan's editing has been good, so I've got no reason to think that he'd misuse the tools.
'''I thought you were an admin already'''! →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - I've seen him in far too many places to count and he certainly conducts himself like an admin.
'''Strong support''' – I've been waiting for this to happen. Ryan was extremely helpful to me personally recently and has been to many other people as well. He seems to understand how Wikipedia works and I see no real reason not to support him fully.
'''Support''' As per Bmusician! '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
'''Support''' – Seems like a levelheaded editor. --  '''
'''Support''' One of the most ideal candidates for these tools.
per nom. - Dank (
'''Support''' I have seen edits from this editor in admin-related areas on a large number of occasions, and am sure he will be a competent admin.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. CSD tagging has a good hit rate.
Thousands of good edits, lots of good administrative work, has been here for more than 6 months. —'''
'''Support''' He may have had an erratic history, but I keep seeing him around the admin areas - and find it hard to believe that he hasn't been here for years (and have to keep reminding myself that he isn't an dmin...). I can't recall any problems that I've come across, and reckon that he'll be a willing learner in areas he hasn't done much in yet. (If there are any...)
'''Strong Support''' I have seen Ryan around WP for many months and he frequently catches and reverts vandalism faster than I can.  His edits seem very constructive and I've seen him be helpful to other editors.  I find his nomination answers genuine and his explanations of historical challenges very satisfactory.  There is no need for someone to have been perfect to receive Admin privileges.  If that were the case, we'd have no admins at all.
I'm
'''Soutenir et fort'''! '''⇒
'''Support''', thought you were already an admin.. Cheers,
'''Support''', like what I've seen around wiki, a few kinks to work out, but he'll be fine.
'''Support''' - I am so impressed with his turnaround since May 2011. I keep seeing his name attached to reasonable comments all over the admin areas and think he will be an asset to the admin corps.
Per my [[User:Timotheus Canens/RfA-8-ball|8-ball]]. Also, opposes are unconvincing.
'''Support''' - I'll try to get a more extensive reasoning in, but on the off chance that I'm offline until the conclusion of this RfA, I want to express my faith in Ryan's actions as an editor and trust in his abilities as an admin.
'''Support''' I met Ryan on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC, and he's a joy to interact with - plus, his edits are strong, too! Start mopping, my friend. :D '''
'''Strong Support''' I've seen him around here wherever I go, and he certainly is fit for the mop.
'''Support'''. No concerns from what I've seen of the candidate. Glad to have him on board. --
'''Support''' – From everything I've seen of him, he seems conscientious and knowledgeable. <B>—
'''Support''' - He's been a dedicated host at WP:Teahouse. On top of his many other fine qualities, he's a good collaborator and works hard to support new editors.  - '''
I thought he already was a sysop, but if not certainly someone who is looking to do article related stuff will earn my support.  &ndash;
'''Support''' Great contributions and CSD noms.&nbsp;—
'''Support''' - I thought he had been here a lot longer.
'''Support'''. Good to see how things can improve over a year or so, if people are given a second chance and have the nous to seize it.
'''Support''' Per Kiefer, although I do have minor concerns about the paid editting stance.
'''Support''' I had initially came here to support and having read the current oppose rationals still find myself here. Ryan has shown a great many of the qualifications we should be looking for in a administrator. He has demonstrated his strong grasp of policies and guidelines and willingness to help others on many occasions at places such as the help desk and answering help requests where his answers are usually spot on. He has shown that he can communicate well with a variety of different editors, often going to lengths to help out an editor at the end of their rope. As far as the paid editing opinion, it is just an opinion. Most of us have one, but it is whether or not it effects how we contribute and adhere to policy. I have seen nothing to suggest it would effect the way he carries out policy, just as it doesn't for the rest of us with or without an opinion.
'''Support'''  Helped this elderly newcomer. I watched and admired his activity in many areas of WP. Hiatus for school and work are understandable.  No, he's not perfect but I'm confident that he'll perform well as a sysop and continue to improve with experience and maturity.
'''Support'''. I see in Ryan Vesey the beginnings of an excellent administrator. The May tantrum/block is over; the editor has learned his lesson. Ryan makes good judgments at ANI, AfD, and article talk pages. He is young but I think he will grow into the job.
<s>'''Mild Support'''</s> I have some reservations, but I agree with Binksternet here, he's worth the gamble because he shows the proper knowledge of our main policies and guidelines. Paid editing userbox doesn't worry me, people is allowed to say their views on that subject, neither is SilkTork link as it was acceptable rebuttal in this situation.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around and was surprised to see that he is not already an administrator.  Though I do have some reservations concerning the block last May, I am willing to believe that Ryan will continue to do good through his second chance and serve as an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' - so people are opposing/neutraling because the editor in question prioritised his college work over teh internet? To me that shows maturity and the ability to think hard about matters at hand - ideal for a prospective admin.
'''Support''' Give the man a mop! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' - why not, seems like a good editor.
'''Strong Support'''  No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Confident in this users dedication to the project, slightly concerned at the May 2011 incident but know that over a year has passed since then.--<span style="">
'''Support''' I'm very satisfied with this editor, and their contributions to Wikipedia. I simply, couldn't care less if they support paid-editing or not - I fully oppose it; but at the end of the day, what that has to do with becoming an administrator, I will never understand. The opposes arguments are ''very'' convincing, just like my sarcasm. Good luck, Ryan! -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Support''' I have always had a pleasant interaction with this user and I see nothing that proves he will abuse the bit.—
'''Support''' Wanna take my luck along?--
'''Support''' per Calmer Waters, Dennis Brown and others, --
'''Support''' From what I've seen will be an excellent admin. Disagree with concern raised on paid editing don't see a reason why this would interfere with the ability to be a good admin.
Aye.  The most serious issue in this candidate's history is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&action=historysubmit&diff=427915139&oldid=427890336 this one].  It's way past time we as a community got over it.  (If we refuse to forgive and forget then we create yet another incentive to sockpuppetry, and besides, people change).  More recently, all I can see is very solid and positive.—
'''Support'''...one moderate bump-in-the-road now seems well in the past. Subsequent and prior contributions suggest general trustworthiness.--
'''Support'''. My interactions - though limited - have only been positive. He'll do great!
'''Support''' Admirable user. He's ready for the tools. —
'''Strong support''' – Like many other users (I see), I already thought you were an admin. I don't see a reason for you not to be one! <font face="Arial" size="2em">
'''Support''' Particularly for his work at the [[Teahouse]].
'''Strongest possible support'''; a man of sense and discretion.
'''Support'''. His contributions are impressive, he seems to have learned from his block, and I can't see any reason that his opinions on paid editing would affect his ability to perform admin tasks. He thoroughly deserves a mop. — '''''
'''Support'''. While this is not an unqualified support, the candidate has addressed the possible issues well enough for me. -
'''Support''' I see no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. Appears to have learned from his newbie mistake. I am concerned that he might still believe in civility above all, but I have reason to believe he does not.
'''Support''' Quietly seen exemplary work from this user in the past, adminship will only be one more little thing to help them. <font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Strong support'''. Seen him everywhere, great candidate. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. I came here a few days ago expecting to offer an easy support based upon my frequent crossing of paths with the candidate. As I started looking over the RfA, I did a double-take when I read JamesBWatson's support statement, because I had previously been unaware of the block and the history accompanying it. Consequently, I decided to give this a couple of days more thought – and I find myself ending up with the same opinion as JamesBWatson. <small>(Noting that he has subsequently changed his mind. I have not. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC))</small> There are quite a few users whom I respect who have ended up opposing, and this RfA seems to me to contain much of what people debate, about whether or not RfA has become too difficult, so I want to explain my reasoning carefully. I've seen Ryan's editing repeatedly, and he has always been both courteous and clueful when I've interacted with him. The issues about userboxen are non-issues for me, because I've seen his editing style, and he just doesn't have editing problems in those areas. I've looked into the article that has now gone to AfD, and although it doesn't strike me as a particularly good or keep-worthy article, I'm just not seeing anything that would lead me to conclude that he would be an inept or insensitive administrator. Nor am I concerned about the parsing of the discussions here about AfD philosophy. And for that block, I've read all of the discussions that came with it, and what I see is a single dumb mistake, followed by a thoughtful learning process by someone who really wants to contribute positively. It's actually quite nice to see someone who made a mistake as a new editor, now reaching out to help new editors. We certainly have had many users who got themselves blocked, and then just said the hell with it. This is different – and you can see how it is different, by looking at how Ryan has been conducting himself in the face of criticism during this RfA. This is exactly why we should believe in second chances. --
'''Support'''. Per JBW, Tryptofish, and others. Also, I'm not impressed with some of the "pile on" activity I'm seeing at ANI. Being willing to raise tough questions is something I appreciate.
'''Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiefer.Wolfowitz&diff=500503424&oldid=500502454 Something I've just seen] – an all too rare expression of common sense – has fundamentally changed my opinion, so I'm ending up here.
'''Support''' I've seen Ryan around, probably have interacted with him, and generally have observed clued-up comments in front of his signature. I'm sure he'll take note of the opposition comments that have value, and heed them. I agree, too, with the diff Malleus has cited positively above. ''(addendum)'' I'm really impressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=500517200&oldid=500517020 this] as well, which I think is heartfelt and honest. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - There is one thing I respect and that's people who stick to their principles regardless of what may come. I think Ryan dealt with the IP's question above brilliantly when the issue of religion was raised. Although others think Ryan is trying to toe the party line, I disagree. I am satisfied with his honesty in answering the questions. As regards to the links, I would hold the same view in some of those discussions. I also admire the fact that he actually create articles rather than just participating in their deletion through PROD or AfD, etc. As an inclusionist, I believe we will lock horns at some point, but will cross that bridge when we get to it. Given the tools, I think Ryan would be a fair administrator and within a year or two, one of the best administrators on English Wikipedia. As stated above in the discussion, I care less about his block. The block shows that he is human and has passion which is what is needed here. Had he never been blocked, it would make me wonder. In the same breath, I am somewhat concerned about his age/maturity and hope that he does not use his powers as a badge of honour to the detriment of the project. However, I am willing to take a chance on him. If anything, English Wikipedia has taught me that age is irrelevant when it comes to the maturity of administrators. I wish him all the best.
Move to '''support'''. I thought [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=500517200&oldid=500517020 this] was genuine, heartfelt and wise. --
'''Support''' - Ryan has shown a commitment to Wikipedia by logging numerous edits and participating in the community. Although he was blocked over a dispute a while back, he appears to have learned a great deal from it. Mistakes like this (especially when done while the member is new) shouldn't haunt one's entire Wikipedia career.--
'''Support''' Inexperienced, eager for power (the "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday" userbox is always a red flag); also it's arguable that his proudly displayed irrational belief system "matters", as Martin Amis said about a presidential candidate's Mormonism, "to one's opinion of his IQ"; and I strongly disagree with his advocacy for commercialized production of WP content. That said, in the midst of this RfA the fellow has the integrity to stick his neck out and take issue with the excessive length of a block on another user, and the chutzpah to put the blocking admin right on several key points. Good enough for me. We need more like this.
'''Support''', moved from '''oppose'''. I still have concerns, but the fact that this <s>kid<s> young man had the balls to haul a rouge admin to ANI in the middle of his RfA was enough to sway me.
'''Support''' - not perfect, but has the essentials: integrity, honesty, and common sense.
'''Weak support''' - Concerned a bit about the AFD noted above and would like to see some more content creation, but Ryan's work has been pretty good and I think that he has shown that he learned from it. Regarding paid editing, I don't think that should be a grounds for opposition, and religion should ''definitely'' not be such.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' So far as I can judge in cases like this we simply cannot tell at RFA whether or not people will become adequate admins. However, I don't like it when people prepare for RFA by behaving in an obsequious way. Ryan has not done so.
'''Support''' The importance of using thought and weighing issues is essential; as is learning from your mistakes...
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''support''' I do see lots of concerns and suspect that waiting 3-6 months to rub off some of the rough edges would be ideal.  But he'd be a net positive at this point, so I'm here.
'''Support''' as a constructive and involved editor.  My initial reaction to this RFA was, "Ryan's not an admin already?!"  I see his comments and edits all over the place, and in general they seem well-considered.  If we only want admins who have never made a mistake and never expressed an unpopular opinion, I'd have to resign and I suspect many others would as well.  --
'''Support''' I've long noted his constructive work here. I was surprised by the block, but that does not appear likely to recur. Fwiw, I see nothing "inappropriate" in his defence of KW—one can legitimately disagree—and the fact that KW has now changed his position to oppose because the candidate didn't support him ''enough'' reinforces my positive view of Ryan's role here. There was quite a lot of heat and name calling at that ANI but Ryan kept his head, his dignity and acquitted himself very well, I think. Hope we can get a few more opposers and fence sitters over to support to get this done.
'''Support''' per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRyan_Vesey&diff=500675809&oldid=500672898 this] --
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support''': this editor has made an extremely positive impact on the pedia. They are conscientious, fair and a hard worker. This editor exemplifies the qualities we seek in an admin. I give Ryan my unqualified support. &ndash;
'''Support''' should be a net positive. I don't see anything wrong in the ANI discussion. Regardless of one's own opinion, Ryan explained his (fairly moderate) position and did so calmly and clearly. That's all we expect from administrators.
'''Support''' has a desire to do the right thing and is independently minded. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support'''.  Many positive points.  The incident with the block seems to be positively learned and recovered from, and the upfront declaration at Q3 counts positively.  Expressing opinions on difficult and contentious project issues, such as paid-editing, or what to do with apparently productive edits made in violation of WP:SOCK, BLOCK or BAN, should be encouraged and the mere expression of such opinions should not be sufficient reason to oppose.  He did not, I assume, perform paid editing, or violate SOCK, BLOCK or BAN, or attempt to unilaterally ovewrite policy against consensus.  --
'''Support''''  per review of random contributions, previous observations of the editor, and the diffs supplied by Malleus, Agathoclea, and John. --
'''Support''', while the circumstances surrounding the initial block highlights a serious lapse of judgment, it's clear that Ryan has redeemed himself. I see no other concerns. -
'''Support''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Vesey&diff=prev&oldid=500797215 doesn't give a fig about failing RFA] which is just the attitude imo. Otherwise I really have no idea if this person is suitable to be an admin as to do it justice would take hours of checks. Regards,
'''Support'''. Qualified candidate at this point, which isn't to say that he won't be ''more'' qualified with a few months of further experience&mdash;but since I trust the candidate to ease into adminship gradually and focus on tasks as he becomes comfortable with them, I don't see the need to vote him down now and have him return later on. Several of the opposers' concerns, such as with the incident that led to the block last year among others, are quite reasonable and I trust that the candidate has learned from those incidents, but some of the other rationales for opposing strike me as quite weak, and the amount of "quizzing" of the candidate in the questions section of this RfA is a bit overdone.
'''Support'''. If we turned down every admin candidate who has ever made an ass of him/herself, we would quickly be left with no one to run the encyclopedia. I had originally intended to oppose, but I find the many arguments in favor of support to be both logical and convincing. This candidate has, in my mind, CLEARLY redeemed himself for any past wrongdoing. And really... how much more can we expect from him? His current track record is exemplary, and I see no reason to think he will suddenly make a 180 degree turn when given the tools. But if it would make anyone feel better, I have a big backyard... we can lay out some hot coals and broken glass, then make him crawl over it. Anyone? Anyone?
'''Support'''. This guy has some very good content work and he has good understanding of the policies on wiki. But far more important to me is that he's got the very rare gift of communication which I find most admins lack. With just about every editor he's had contact with (check his talk page), Ryan is not only helpful but genuine. Having good communication skills is important for an admin and too many lack it but this guy has it. The fact that he's also genuine is a big plus. I like this dude.
'''Support''' - I admit I am less secure in this !vote than I'd like to be, and I don't, for example, agree with the candidate's handling of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz situation.  But I am impressed with other aspects, such as his response to what I consider inappropriate questioning in Q11, and I think he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. Positives far outweigh temporary weaknesses. Maturing & learning rapidly. Dedicated comeback since block. Helpful to newbies, hard worker. Rational, thoughtful, expresses self well. Trust will fit the tools into college life appropriately & end up one of the best. Mature enough to take the pressure now if wanting it.  Indef so far in relative past = non-issue. Paid editorship = non-issue (community-determined). Obama vetted *less* and given world's most powerful mop.
'''Support'''  He is a committed contributor, and has responded appropriately to valid concerns raised here.
'''Support''' Seems enthusiastic and genuine. And prepared to stick his neck out when he feels another editor has been mistreated. Also (apparently) has the major advantage of knowing how it feels to be blocked, a possible prerequesite for adminship in my book.
'''Support''' [[WP:100]] Appears to have considerable all-round knowledge. I see no reason not to have the mop. '''
'''Support'''. Is he capable of doing the job? ''Yes''.  Is he likely to turn into a rouge admin? ''Doubt it.'' But what happens if he does? ''Arbcom zaps him''. No big deal then? ''Right''.
'''Support''' I agree with the primary concerns in the oppose section. However, I think that this user has shown he will strive to use the tools according to community expectations, and had the ability to do so. More administrators are needed, and I decline to require perfection from a candidate.
'''Support''' - Recent work on copyvio issues indicates a need for the extra tools. Don't let the drama boards consume you, friend.
'''Support''' Comes across as capable and willing to listen.
'''Support''' A few days ago I was going to oppose, based on the relatively short length of service, the 2011 block and other reasons people have stated as their oppose votes. Like others, I would also have hoped to support a second RfA in a few months time. However, Ryan's willingness to address what he perceived to be the unfair treatment of a fellow editor by an admin ''while his own RfA was still ongoing'' was a tremendously courageous thing to do, and the sensible comments he made as part of that ANI process have shed a different light on his character. While he may still be on the learning curve, Ryan has demonstrated that he is a judicious and passionate editor who holds the best interests of both the encyclopedia AND the community close at heart, and I no longer see any reason to delay awarding him the admin tools, since he has so clearly demonstrated his commitment to the project.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad, and per the interactions I've had with the candidate, all of which showed a friendly and helpful demeanor.
'''Support''' I've seen Ryan around a lot, very helpful. While still should tread carefully in new areas, I'm convinced he will.--
'''Support'''. Is he perfect? No candidates are. Can he be trusted with tools? Yes. Too any good things about this candidate to oppose.
'''Support''' - On balance, I believe that RV can be trusted with the tools. Would ideally have preferred a clean block log, but I'm sure he's learned from the experience. Failure to learn from errors is much, much worse than making errors and learning from them.
'''Support''' Great candidate. :) <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">
'''Support'''. I've been hesitating, as I am indeed not very happy about [[Youth Energy Summit!]] and a few other things. But I understand YES was early work, and the candidate does seem to be developing as a writer and in other ways of handling himself (and even to be prepared to vote for the deletion of YES; good sign, that). His input in discussions is thoughtful and reasoned and often a breath of fresh air.  Perhaps he'll even see the light w r t paid editing one day (jk, Ryan, I don't mean to steamroll you out of your convictions), and in the meanwhile, I don't believe his opinion in that matter would sway him in the use of the mop and bucket. Watching from afar and without any personal interactions, I just get a good impression of him. Will make a good admin, I think. As for the old block, I say: bah. It's all experience. Nothing makes me more suspicious than a snowy clean block log (only half joking).
'''Support'''. Thoughtful, hard-working, genuinely believes in the project and is doing everything he can to improve it. --
'''Support''' - Enough experience and the interactions I've seen have been encouraging. A moldy block doesn't worry me too much.
guarded and cautious '''Support''' - really not impressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Chandila&diff=prev&oldid=492484439 this] or [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psg_public_schools|this]], but Ryan seems pretty up-front and honest. I very nearly opposed but sat and thought about it, and figured that Ryan's enthusiasm will on probability make him a net positive. Just please (a) don't get in notability debates, (b) understand that any material has had someone's hard-earned hours developing it, so don't be flippant about deleting material. Better would be to write some content but folks won't write stuff 'cos I tell 'em) and (c)...just be nice and thoughtful...remember it's your name and reputation....talk softly and carry big stick...;)
'''Support''' Argh, difficult one. My head says neutral, while my heart says support.  I'm not worried about the paid support as anybody can have their own opinion.  The block was awhile ago and he seems to have learned from it.  We all make mistakes, but the keys are do we admit them and do we learn or repeat.  I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with him.  He is enthusiastic with well thought answers.  My main concern was experience.  In the end, he positives I've witnessed overrules the experience issue.
'''Support'''- Per [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia|his ideals]].
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose...he can handle the mop without overusing it. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose'''. User has had less than 12 months total contributions and in that time managed to get blocked, and in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psg_public_schools the recent AfD] linked above the user is badgering other participants in the discussion in a moderately aggressive manner with personalised wording such as "There really isn't anything I can do though if nobody will engage with my argument and continue to rely on the mess that is Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)" and "Their interest is limited to keeping this slop in Wikipedia", displaying the same difficulty in remaining neutral and calm and assuming the worse of others that resulted in the block. I would like to see at least another six months of active, appropriate and trouble-free participation in order to feel more comfortable supporting. '''
Reluctant oppose. I don't see anything of major concern from the last 12 months, but I would like to more experience in a candidate in order to support. Being only intermittently active until a few months before an RfA is a concern. He was blocked in May 2011 - contributions since then look fine but given that he barely made any edits for three months before April this year, I would also like to see 6 months of solid contributions before supporting. --
'''Oppose''' As per Silktork and Michig and little editing between Sept'11 to April '12 the user joined the project in Feb 2011.The User was  indef blocked for May 2011 just over an year ago and for edits like these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instant-runoff_voting&diff=prev&oldid=427915139 edit 1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=427915024 edit 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Green&diff=prev&oldid=427914873 edit 3][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Qaeda&diff=prev&oldid=427915479 edit 4] under pressure and has done admiring well after being unblocked and I really appreciate his resilience commitment and dedication to the project  by the user for that.As a Admin the user will come under much greater pressure ,disputes and drama not sure whether the user will be able to handle it and we have seen some of the best admins quit after years due to pressure . The user  supports [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_who_support_paid_editing paid editing] as per userbox and I am disinclined to support functionaries who will do paid editing as users may come under pressure from the company/client to protect there interests or lose there jobs/Commission if they did not use tools to protect there interests rather than that of Wikipedia .My sincere apologies.
'''Oppose''' Per the absurdity and immaturity of setting out to get yourself blocked as a result of a dispute.
'''Oppose''' basically per concerns expressed by Pharaon and Silktork.
'''Oppose''' Q5 & Q7 have been answered fully. Thanks. These were designed to establish a couple of things; first to see if the candidate knows when to stop flogging a dead horse and second to determine what hastened their decision to present for RFA. The second point has been fully answered by the candidate and supported by their respected nominator. I expect an Admin candidate to have good content development experience, clear knowledge of policy, the support of editors who’s opinions I respect and a manner & style which demonstrates their ability to convince editors to modify their position when dealing with disputes. I encountered this candidate in a discussion relating to a proposition to introduce minimum edit thresholds for RFA candidates. He was a leading advocate. I challenged the proposal, as indicated in Q5. The ability to recognise when you are wrong is important for all of us. Entrenched views are at the heart of most disputes and the ability of an Admin to see all points of view and persuade intransigent editors towards an alternative is essential. That requires sound judgement. If the candidate cannot be convinced to drop their support of such a poor, intellectually deficient idea as minimum edit thresholds I do not consider their judgement to be yet adequate.
'''Oppose''' per concerns about civility, activity, and maturity as articulated by Pharoah and Silktork. Support of paid editing is also alarming.
'''Oppose''' due to paid editing userbox and an indef block over drama.
'''Oppose''' - Mr. Vesey has made useless comments about me archiving my talkpage. Unacceptable. --'''
'''Oppose''', candidate seems to routinely take a bit too aggressive of a tone, and doesn't seem quite able to tune it down. The incident SilkTork cites is of especial concern, given how recent it is and how far outside the line the candidate's behavior was&mdash;it takes a ''lot'' to get blocked for general misbehavior or incivility. I'm also very concerned by the userbox explicitly supporting shills, and while I normally figure to "take an opinion as an opinion," supporting a practice which by definition results in non-neutral editing is not something I can get behind.
'''Oppose''' You do do some good content work, but I believe that attitude is the most important aspect of an administrator. Having a bad attitude is one of the most common reasons why an admin will get desysopped. And there are certainly better ways to enforce a Wikibreak than to vandalise Wikipedia. That's an example of a rash decision, which is what we also don't want to see from administrators.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I can't support lifetime adminship for someone with the May 2011 incident in their history.--
'''Oppose'''.  Soft on paid editing.  I also didn't appreciate having my good-faith contributions to RfA referred to as "ridiculous".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACallanecc&diff=499393996&oldid=499393557]
'''Oppose''' Maybe in another 12 months. Too soon for now.
'''Oppose''' for now. From discussions linked above, I see some intemperate language and refusal to accept Wikipedia consensus on issues like [[WP:OUTCOMES]]. True, in his response to question 11 he was calm and respectful, but I'm sure he realized that this was a deliberately provocative question designed to see how he would react - similar to a stress interview. An administrator needs to demonstrate a "judicial temperament": the ability to remain calm and uninvolved, to avoid hyperbole and blanket statements, to accept and enforce the rules of the system as given. Based on his contributions as recently as a month or two ago (see question 4), I don't think he has that temperament at this point. (For that matter, I am troubled by that nomination itself, which made less than an hour after the article's creation, and was based on an incorrect belief that the school in question was a primary school, so that he clearly did not follow [[WP:BEFORE]].) I think this editor needs another year or so of seasoning before he is handed the admin tools. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. I am now trending more toward "neutral", although I will retain my "oppose for now" opinion. After some more review of his edits, the AfD I discussed above appears to have been an anomaly. He mostly spends his time at Articles for Creation, where he is a tireless worker, handling requests and requesters in a professional way. He sometimes shows unsolicited compassion and kindness to newbies, as shown by this reply to a newbie who was having trouble: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=495243934]. He is an important contributor to Wikipedia, which I hope he will continue. And if his RfA does not succeed this time, I hope he will reapply fairly soon. --
'''Oppose''' the block just over a year ago doesn't give me much comfort that he will be able to stay in control at all times, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Chandila&diff=prev&oldid=492484439  this] CSD#A7 nomination from May was placed 1 minute after the article was created and shows that he doesn't always follow the idea of [[WP:BEFORE]] (I know that that links to AFD but a similar sentiment is in the CSD instructions) and can be unduly hasty, especially as a ref was provided that proved notability.
'''Oppose'''. Ryan is a good-faith editor who shows promise, but like SilkTork, I'm concerned about the lack of experience, especially how it plays into how Ryan engages with other editors. Ryan seems to be shaky on things an admin should have a firm grasp on, like the uses of AfD, while also being unexpectedly firm, and sometimes aggressive, in defense of ideas and positions that are not as clear-cut as he seems to feel they are. My guess is that this is simply a symptom of being a user who's still getting their bearings in a lot of spots, and I suspect that in another RFA 6 months or a year from now, I will find it much easier to support.
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#How to best go about deleting good edits by a banned user]] convinced me that Vesey does not place sufficient priority on dealing with sockpuppets, which I believe to be the single largest problem facing Wikipedia.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Not thrilled about the block or his stance on paid editing. Am also not feeling enthusiastic with his positions at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive_block_of_Kiefer.Wolfowitz]].
'''Opppose''' - The block is far to recent, the words used and the lack of cool. Time might heal this wound, but it hasn't happened yet for me.
'''Oppose''' per AniMate.
Just not convinced that he is ready. Per [[User:AniMate]] & [[User:Fluffernutter]], both of whom have summarized my concerns well, as well as the existence [[Youth Energy Summit!]] (though I'm glad that he has voted to delete his own article in the AFD). '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' per Malleus and Kww. <font face="copperplate gothic bold"><font color="orange">
'''Oppose''' – This may sound contrite, but being an [[WP:Administrator|Administrator]] here at Wikipedia is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL| No Big Deal]].  It took me awhile to realize this, but once the light bulb went on, editing here became more of a joy, than a job or responsibility.  The common editor on Wikipedia has the privilege and right to be inconsistent with their opinions and voice those changeable opinions through [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump|The Village pump and etc….etc…]] or the many other discussion pages here on Wikipedia.  However, once confirmed as an [[WP:Administrator| Administrator]] that same editor now has a responsibility/duty to understand – disseminate and relay the policies of Wikipedia without opinion in a consistent, understandable manner.  After reading your answers to the questions proposed by [[User:DGG|DGG]] in question 13 above, I believe you still need more time here at Wikipedia to develop those needed skills to be an Administrator.  Good Luck.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per Silktork, Michig, Fluffernutter. '''
'''Oppose'''. See ANI and the inappropriate defending of KW. I've also seen these user over time and have not though them admin material. User is relatively inexperienced and should give it at least another year.
'''Oppose''' Per SilkTork, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Skinwalker, The-Pope, and ShoesssS. Thanks a lot for going through this process. I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I would be happy to support you again in the future if you demonstrate continued commitment to developing Wikipedia content.
'''Oppose''' - Less than 12 months experience is too little. Not now, perhaps later. Seems like a sensible user who be later be trusted with the mop, ''after'' more experience. ~
Candidate has done good work at [[WP:WPAFC]] but I worry that recent events suggest that he may be sympathetic to disruptive or uncivil editors &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' Not quite ready yet. <span class="nowrap"><font color="green">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="red">89</font>
'''Oppose''' per the block and his defence of uncivil users.
'''Oppose''' The candidate seems too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' (Moving Kiefer.Wolfowitz from support to oppose per {{diff|User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|500635912|500570943|Change my vote from support to oppose}} --
'''Oppose''' I agree with all of the above.
'''Oppose''' For the reasons Fluffernutter has given, plus I was rather unimpressed with the response to Q5 on RFA reform. I'm happy to reconsider in the future though. —
'''Oppose''' Q11
'''Oppose''' It is with great reluctance that I change my support to opposition, as I still have a great deal of admiration for Ryan's work, and he has many qualities which I think would be great assets to an administrator. However, as this discussion has continued, more and more concerns have been brought up, and I have gradually become less secure in my support for him. I will not list all the concerns I have had, as most of them are already documented on this page, but I will mention a few. Ryan's handling of the AN/I discussion on Kiefer.Wolfowitz showed, in my opinion, a fundamental failure to understand a number of points which are essential for an administrator to understand. For example, he did not seem to fully grasp the need to base decisions on the whole of the relevant history, not just the current issue. In the same discussion he showed a quite mistaken belief that, when an editor has had a string of short blocks for the same kind of thing, and shows no sign of intending to change his/her decision, another, even shorter block, will be effective in stopping the behaviour, and therefore there is no advantage in a longer one. An administrator with such mistaken views of how human beings work would not be an effective one. On another AN discussion concerning reverting of edits by banned users, he was completely dismissive of the views of those he disagreed with, calling them "ridiculous", and showing no willingness or no ability (I can't say which) to consider their point of view. This approach is not acceptable for an administrator, who must be able to consider all sides of an argument. <s>Then there is Ryan's statement on this page "it is highly inappropriate for you to attack a person's belief system, whether they be religious or otherwise, anywhere on Wikipedia and I respectfully ask for you to strike that section from your question". The remark he referred to was inappropriate because it was irrelevant, but it was not an attack. An administrator, who has the power to perform such actions as summarily deleting a page as an attack page, and indefinitely blocking users for personal attacks, ''must'' be able to distinguish an attack from an negative opinion which is not an attack.</s> Then we have tagging a new stub article for speedy deletion within a minute of creation instead of waiting a while to see if content would be added, which does not inspire faith that, as an admin, Ryan would not rush in and delete in such a situation. As I said above, these are not the only concerns that I have, but they are enough, I think, to indicate that I think there are various areas where Ryan either lacks an understanding of points which are central to administrative work or behaves in ways that would not be acceptable for an administrator. Consequently, with great reluctance, I feel I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Silktork said it better than I could. That combined with some of the other comments and things I have seen make me have to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' - There are a number of editors I respect who are supporting the candidate, but in the end my feelings of unease carry my vote to oppose. The block, the examples of ill-temperment, the paid-contributor box etc. are all strikes, and when you add in the fairly short period of activity on Wikipedia then it becomes easy for me to say that the candidate should not be asked by the community to serve as an admin at this time. My feelings well could change in a subsequent Rfa in 6-12 months, but for now I cannot support, even knowing that this close to the end of the Rfa and with the tally at the low end of the discretionary zone, that my vote is crucial. I do thank the candidate for his willingness to serve and his work on the project.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of candidate's support for paid editing and all the drama caused by the indef block.
'''Oppose''' My concerns have been adequately summarized by silktork.<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' - per [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. (And I think [[User:JamesBWatson]], among others, made some rather discerning observations as well.) <small>Signing here to resolve a bot issue. - <b>
I've been sitting on the fence until now, because I do believe you are a valuable contributor and I would like to support your candidacy; however, I have a couple of concerns which give me pause and so I have to end up in this section. Basically, I agree with SilkTork, Pharaoh and many others and think that you do not appear to be ready to be an admin just yet. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
Needs more seasoning, more - broader experience, and quite a bit more distance from that block before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose now''' Candidate will be a good admin in due course, but I have not seen sufficient acknowledgment that some issues ''are'' a problem, and that the other side has some good points. One minor issue is the use of the "I support paid editing" userbox, as if a slogan is appropriate to dismiss those who are concerned about the long term effects on a volunteer community of paid advocacy (there is no problem with anyone, paid or not, correcting a mistake in a company article—just do it—the problem is obviously something else). A more substantial issue was raised by Kww above. Long term abusers are a signficant and growing problem, and those who loudly assert their right to restore edits by a banned user are missing the point, and possibly are not sufficiently experienced in that area. Of course material is good regardless of its author, and an editor with experience editing the article concerned can ''later'' reflect on what should occur. However, combatively proposing that it is good to undo someone who has reverted a banned user is not satisfactory for an admin who needs to know how to encourage good editors and discourage bad. The best way to ensure a banned user returns to make more trouble is to loudly defend some of their edits—if a revert really bothers you, put it on your ''to do'' list, read about the topic, and return to improve the article in a couple of weeks. Encouraging banned users also drives away good editors who work in that area.
Indef block in his past; eight edits in Q1 of 2012, so really only three months of recent experience to go on; and fully engaged with obviously unproductive flamebait in Q11 of this RFA. I try to stay away from RFA nowadays, but I think there's a high probability that this candidate would do harm if given the bit.
For reasons similar to Fluffernutter, sorry, but thanks for all the good work you are doing as an editor. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''' - While I don't think there's any fundamental flaw in this editor, there's simply not enough experience (less than 2 years is fast under the best of circumstances) and given the relatively recent issues this nomination is premature.
'''Neutral leaning support''' The May '11 block doesn't bother me.  I am sure it was built out of frustration and lesson has been learned.  I trust Worm that Turned when he says this is a trustworthy editor who would make a great admin.  What holds me back from supporting is that the user has barely edited from Aug '11 to April '12 and only recently returned to major editing.  I'd like to see consistent contributions that show a bit of the dedication necessary to be a sysop.  I'd support in 3 months.--v/r -
'''Plain Neutral, Don't Ask''' I'd better ask then change my mind (or not, due to personal time conflict)
I like the paid editing userbox. While I am more of a traditionalist, I think Wikipedia needs progressive users. I'm quite concerned about the [[Youth Energy Summit!]] article. It's icky. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''', Ryan is enthusiastic, his intentions are in  the right place, and he generally makes intelligent  and generally well  reflected contributions to  various discussions - many  of which I appreciate  - although [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Vesey/Archive_4# this thread] strikes me as being very slightly presumptive; it is however a year  ago - I  would hope that Ryan would check more on  the background of users before engaging in such dialogue. However - and I may be completely wrong - his engagement in meta areas, especially on [[Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives/Pre-RfA Proposal|adminship issues]],  and the 'I would like to be an admin' userbox evokes a possible concern that he may have been working  towards adminship since joining the project. While he has a total about  nine months of truly solid, active editing, although the May  issue is about a year  old, it  gives me pause. Some of the opposers make valid points, especially MelanieN . I am also concerned about the [[Youth Energy Summit!]]. I'm not going to oppose, but I cannot support due to the failure to meet  points 16 & 20 of [[User:Kudpung/RfA_criteria|my criteria]]. With all due respect to the nominator, the fact that  is is a 'neutral' vote!  and neither an oppose nor a support, should not  be taken as discouraging,  and I hope that Ryan will  continue to do great work.  Should this RfA not meet the community's approval,  I  would nevertheless overlook those points in my criteria if there is an improvement over the next six months, when I would be happy to support a re-run.
'''Neutral''' I was thinking of opposing, but his good responses to my questions convinced me otherwise. I was also impressed by his calm response to what I regard as an outrageous personal attack on his religion, even by the relaxed standard of RfA debates. I agree with some of the other editors here who have said that a RfA in 6 months or so is likely to be successful. '''
'''Neutral for now''' I have to admit, having seen the editor in "the right way" at "the right places", I did expect to support.  As per DGG above, I was reasonably impressed with the handling of the ridiculous faith-based attack - that attitude will work well as an admin.  I'm not quite prepared to support based on length-of-time and overall contributions '''yet'''.  More similar work over a few months (including both automated an non-automated edits) will likely lead to a full-bore support ([[User talk:Bwilkins|✉→]]'''
'''Neutral''' The response to my question demonstrates a lack of understanding of [[WP:FRINGE]] guidelines, particularly this part: "''it shouldn't be mentioned too heavily in the main article if it isn't notable enough for its own''". In fact fringe theories should not necessarily be mentioned at all in the main articles if they aren't notable and even if they are notable that would most likely be undue promotion of a fringe theory: for example the [[Earth]] article does not mention modern fringe beliefs in a flat earth (while it does mention historical beliefs).
'''Neutral'''- I am satisfied with his work, but concerned that he lacks experience. I am willing to forgive the blocking incident, as it was over a year ago. '''
— <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
<font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>
I find myself echoing the opinions of Bzweebl.  Good contributions, but I'd prefer more experience. '''
I try not to oppose editors merely on the basis of edit count, but between the low edit count and low account age, this is just [[Wikipedia:Not now|too soon]]. I would urge you to learn more about NFCC as well, as you appear to have some issues in that regard. Also, note that your nomination is transcluded in the wrong place on the RFA page.
Sorry, but per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Not experienced enough in admin-related areas and the answer to Q1 doesn't really show willingness to work in any admin area. There are plenty of things you can already do to stop pages getting vandalised or help resolve disputes you get into. Also, wouldn't oppose for this alone, but the request was malformatted. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
&mdash;
Tentative support. I see some things I like (plenty of content created, generally sensible comments at AfD), a few pet peeves (e.g. an [[Hofplein|unreferenced article]] or two) and some odd things in their talk page archives (sending a CSD notice to oneself?) but no obvious red flags. As TParis does below, I will keep an eye on this RfA as it develops in case someone else finds something (good or bad) that I've missed.
'''[[WP:WTHN|Oppose]]''' Not active enough: user has less than 50 edits in 2012. --
I think this editor has good potential.  &ndash;
'''Weak oppose''' Unfortunately, I must oppose.  At first I looked at [[Road trip]].  The candidate has greatly overused images in that article.  <s>I didn't check the history to see if this editor added them, but they appear to be the main contributor to the article so I assume they were.</s>  Then I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_trip&diff=449763547&oldid=442245876 this edit].  There isn't anything particularly wrong with it, but I can't tell what exactly is trying to be conveyed.  This didn't bother me too much.  I moved on to [[Greup]], an unreferenced village.  Again, I wasn't bothered but I was wondering why the editor was creating unreferenced articles.  I finally came upon [[Paul_van_Herck]].  I expect editors seeking adminship to be familar with [[WP:V]] and when I see unreferenced new articles<s> and unreferenced BLPs</s>, that concerns me.  I'll keep an eye on this RFA.--v/r -
The self-nomination statement was unhelpful and undescriptive. One would presume that a serious admin candidate is requesting tools to help with administrative tasks. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Virginia Tech shooting]] was opened less than four hours after the creation of the article in question, which strikes me as hasty. In addition, I'm concerned that someone who wasn't familiar with the RfA process until only a few weeks ago is going to take the admin job poorly. RfAs, like adminship in general, can end up being very personal and I don't know if the candidate is prepared for the inevitable and unfortunate barrage of criticism that I suspect is coming soon. But I'm open to persuasion. Impress me. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Concerns with experience and judgement.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience with the deletion process before being given the actual delete button. Looking through his CSD nominations, I see a number of A7s that were applied within a couple of minutes of article creation... this is far too quick, and is likely to discourage new editors from contributing. '''''
'''Oppose''' - I have no idea how the candidate will act as an administrator, as he has told us next to nothing in his nomination. I feel that he is too inexperienced to ve given admin tools just now.
'''Oppose''' Based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SpeakFree&diff=prev&oldid=468890907 this response] to [[User:28bytes]]
'''Oppose'''. A clean block log, and an impressive number of creations and although  (I've only  reviewed a random 100 of  them) they  are mostly  stubs or very  short articles, you  have demonstrated that  you  know what  content  work  is all  about.  Only  31 votes to  AfD (according to SW's tool), and  of  your 317 deleted pages, if one deducts the U1 and the files, there is little left  to  demonstrate a knowledge of deletion policy, and there have only  been a handful of manual  page patrols in  the last  six months.   If you  believe  you  really  need the tools, you  would have made the effort to  produce a far more compelling  self-nomination  statement or perhaps even asked someone to  review your work  who  might  either  have proposed you or suggested  what you might still need to do to get up to scratch. On  15 December however, you  withdrew an RfA transclusion; I'm  assuming  that  you  felt  you  were not  ready  for adminship at  that  time, and I'm  curious why  you  have changed your mind only  two  weeks later,  because I  don't  think you  are quite ready  yet  to  take on  the challenges of adminship. That  said, I have no reason to think you would abuse the tools and if you  can do  more work  in  meta areas over the next  6 months, such as for example, AIV, and demonstrate your knowledge by helping others, and without  any  of your creations or files being  tagged or PRODed,   you  will  be in  with  a chance and I'll most  likely  support your next  RfA.
'''Oppose''' Issues concerning experience leaves me worried.  Furthermore, the answers to the questions are vaque and in my opinion silly in a way that the candidate doesn't seem to be taking this seriously.  Recommend [[WP:NOTNOW]].—
'''Oppose''':User needs more experience.--
'''Neutral''', for now. Candidate does not have many AfD votes. Godo answers to questions might persuade me to change my vote.  Nice edit count/content creation, though.
'''Neutral''', I do not think that the candidate is untrustworthy, however the creation of unreferenced articles (even if they're not BLPs) is a bit of a worry (albeit not enough to tip me into the oppose column).
Per my comments above.
'''Neutral''', this user doesn't have enough votes and I don't think the candidate is untrustworthy. --
'''Support''' As nom. -'''
'''Strong support''' - I've seen Sven around and he is clearly clueful and knows what he is doing. Also per nom.
Sven Manguard has been sensible and reasonable in my interactions with/observations of them. I think they would do well with the tools.
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' Overdue. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', thought he was an admin already!
''' Support''' Trust the judgement of Fastily and As per  Acalamari. User has been around since Sept 2010  and knows the project very well and see no concerns as per track .
'''Support''' I see a budding mop handler. <span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see great things from this editor and I trust Fastily's judgement.—
'''Support'''. I'm not going to go through this editor's good contributions - because there are too many. There's also no evidence to suggest that this candidate would be anything but a skillful and clueful admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' - no reason not to, with what I've seen from him around WP.
'''Support''' – Have seen a lot of his work, will be a fine admin.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">
'''Strong support''' - A lot of hard work. --
'''Support''' Don't see why not.
'''Support''' I have seen this user active in so many places, particularly on Wikipedia Talk pages where he participates in policy discussion. He knows what it means to admin and even has a great essay related to adminship [[User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice|here]]. I read the oppositional objections and I do not find them persuasive because in this account this user has demonstrated a long history of deep involvement in editing, conflict resolution, and policy discussion with no trouble. Even if he made mistakes in his previous account he has made enough contributions and been awesome enough to demonstrate a sound commitment to making the Wikipedia project better, but he said that he did nothing controversial in his previous account and I AGF.
'''Strong support'''. One of the most hard-working and knowledgeable editors we have. I've considered the points brought up in the oppose column, but in my view the sheer volume of positive contributions this editor has offered outweigh any reasonable concerns people might have. Hang in there, the week is young.
'''Support''' I have known Sven for over a year and we have talked about his past account before. I am confident that he is doing everything right and he is a valuable person or the project.
'''Strong support'''. I am well acquainted with Sven's work and know him to be a clueful editor with a working knowledge of wikipedia policy. The cleanstart issue doesn't bother me ''at all'', and I don't feel it falls into the category of sockpuppetry. I feel he will be a net benefit to the project as an admin. '''''
'''Strong support''' per discussion in Neutral section.
'''Oppose''' Sockpuppet admins not needed. Disclose the prior account. "No misbehavior blocks" does not equate to "never sanctioned." Interference with [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Borderline-obsessive_hounding.3B_continued_baiting_by_User:ThatPeskyCommoner]] was exactly what we need admins to not do.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:SOCK]] guidelines not followed.  Also, candidate has taken pride in being uncivil in IRC.
'''Oppose'''. I'm very sorry, because I really wanted to support you; however, after a recent case, I feel uncomfortable supporting an editor who has edited under a previous account and does not want to disclose it. I respect your privacy and will not ask any questions which might jeopardise it, but I cannot support this candidacy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I have to oppose Sven Manguard - User is not civil.There is a complain against the user for making personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover#User_Sven_Manguard_making_personal_attacks here].
'''Oppose'''. Sven has some temperament issues that I don't find to be consistent with non-dramatic adminship - he tends to be excessively strident when unhappy with something, occasionally edging from "strident" toward "abusive". His behavior on various Betacommand-related pages this year has been the most notable instances of this stridency (unfortunately, the way the Betacommand subpaging was set up on ANI, I'm finding it very difficult to pull out actual diff links, so I'm settling for a quote and thread link). "You should all be ashamed of your downright pathetic, bad faith, and at this point not at all concealed campaign to change policy by axing anyone that enforces it" (within [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand_2011#Propose_topic_ban]]) was simply the worst of the worst of his comments on that page, though to his credit Sven seems to have realized that he'd crossed a line and consciously backed off. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have completely worked. In more recent examples, I was quickly able to find  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-12-12/News_and_notes&diff=prev&oldid=465690414 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-12-19/In_the_news&diff=prev&oldid=466978185 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost&diff=prev&oldid=457959835 this], all comments which, while containing valid points, are phrased unacceptably aggressively and/or dramatically to my mind. Sven reads to me as just sort of an angry person, and I think that's a temperament we're better suited in avoiding in our admincorps.
The old account almost certainly has some issue that would influence opinions of the candidate's judgment; if it were only mildly embarrassing, there would be no reason to not disclose. And the suggestion that I need to expose my email address to him so I can respect his privacy is laughable. Getting into content, it looks like 19% of candidate's edits are to article space. 19%! And the talk page has some concerning entries from November; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sven_Manguard/2011_Q4#Insulting_remarks this exchange] and the note that sparked the exchange stood out.
'''Oppose''' Per recent history I oppose any candidate who can or will not identify past accounts.  Even if you have someone vouch for you there can be no assurance that they're not minimizing issues may affect fitness.  In addition some of the diffs cited show some temperment concerns.--
'''Moral support, but oppose this time''' - Sven is a motivated and passionate editor, and he is clearly here for the best interests of the project.  However, some of the diffs provided above (as well as the diff in Q7) are concerning, and show that Sven still needs a bit of time to mature and mellow; and essentially slow down and make better decisions rather than making snap judgments.  He's got the edit count and the experience for the mop, now he just needs to concentrate on quality over quantity and show us that he is capable of stepping back from a situation, analyzing it rationally, and dealing with it unemotionally.  I have no doubt that Sven will eventually be a useful admin, just some minor issues to clear up first.
In addition to the diff provided in Q7, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Snowtown_(film)&diff=464358324&oldid=464358094 this] isn't vandalism. I have been burned as an anonymous editor by an admin who didn't seem to know what ''vandalism'' means, and it is very frustrating. When it is an over-eager vandal fighter, that is bad enough, but it is ''very'' hard for an IP editor to get a fair hearing when an administrator is convinced the IP is a VOA. Why was there no response to [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.177.99.126&diff=464358267&oldid=464358009 24.177.99.126's reply to this candidate]? I would like to note that I don't understand the opposition here regarding the other account; I find that very surprising.
Unfortunate to have to rest in this section as I get on well with Sven, but it has to be done. Sven's personality is far too abrasive to be able to fall into line with what is expected of administrators - he has proven this on a number of occasions by diving into already-complex situations without fully thinking his reasonings through, and often the scenario winds up more complicated than it needs to be (or indeed the wrong conclusions are reached). I would advise Sven work on his conduct, avoiding involving himself in discussions which do not require his input, and instead focusing on areas which do. One can prove their worth as a potential admin in many, much better, ways. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' I think Sven does a fantastic job maintaining files, and we do desperately need people who are ''au fait'' with file policy to become admins and handle FFD/PUF and file-related CSD. I really do want to support because of this, but the diffs Fluffernutter has identified give me cause for concern. The CLEANSTART issues don't bother me too much (I've supported candidates before who have had a clean start), but the issues Fluffernutter raises do concern me quite considerably to the point where I can't wholeheartedly support. If the RfA doesn't succeed, I'd be happy to support in the future if that kind of activity stops. —
I will not oppose under any circumstances, because I know just how productive you could and would be in dealing with the black-and-white, knitty gritty element of the tools. That said, (and while I'm certainly no saint) what I've seen of your interactions with others has generally not been good, and would single out those with Adam as an example. Thus, I think there are considerable risks associated with you judging consensus or getting involved in disputes, but can't decide whether or not the positives that you will undoubtedly bring to the role will outweigh those concerns. —
'''Strong Oppose''' - [[WP:SNOW]] having only 1800 edits is not a thing that I look in an admin. I would '''support''' if there were 5000+ edits. But for now have to oppose. Sorry. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial Black">
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Simpson&action=history Edit warring in the last 24hrs].
<s>Barring a brilliant answer to 28bytes'question, a copyvio so egregious is simply unacceptable from an Admin. [[User:Achowat|Achowat]] ([[User talk:Achowat|talk]]) 14:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)</s></br>Just straight '''Oppose'''; candidate states he wants to help with Page Protection, but admitted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJessica_Simpson&diff=488067694&oldid=476526837 yesterday] that he couldn't even find the proper forum to request protection.
'''Oppose''' per Achowat dif which shows [[WP:NOTNOW]], and for Mato he wasn't really edit warring he was reverting unsourced BLP content from apparent sockpuppetry that was protected soon after.
'''Strong oppose''' Well per others, and a additional reason of mine I'd like to include is that though you've 1,800 edits, only 40 edits are in the Wikipedia: namespace, and about 5 in the File namespace. Sorry, but this makes me to oppose your RFA.
'''Oppose''' Please don't waste the time of volunteers. with 1800 edits, you needed a STRONG explanation why this should be an exception.--
'''Strong oppose''' as per Dipankan above.
'''Strong Oppose''' - You've made some great contributions, however your edit history is lacking evidence that you understand many of the important wikipedia policies and the tools available to you.  You don't have any CSD/AIV history despite wanting to to do countervandalism.
'''Oppose'''. Your enthusiasm and contributions are welcomed, but you do need quite a bit more experience and some reasonably detailed understanding of how to do admin type things before you'd be ready for a mop. Get some experience reporting vandalism at AIV, requesting page protection at RFPP, etc, but most of all more general experience of [[WP:Gnome]] type article work. I hope to be able to support a future run. --
'''Oppose''' Good contributions to the encyclopedia, but there are some valid concerns are raised above, and only 1800 edits shows a general lack of editing experience overall. Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW]]. --'''sparkl<sub>
'''Strong Oppose''' - per Edit Warring, [[WP:SNOW]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - you need to show some maturity as an editor, especially with respect to policies. Do take some time to familiarise yourself with them. If you need help, feel free to ask any editor. I don't mind helping. --
'''Oppose''' -- ''I'm sorry, it seems not at this time.''
As nominator, of course.
'''Support''', grand editor. '''⇒
'''Strong Support''' SwisterTwister is an excellent editor, friendly, always willing to help, and never loses his cool. These are traits required in an administrator. →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' Ok for me.'''
'''Support''' Per Bmusician.
'''Support''' I have been working with Swister in CSD and recent change patrolling, I see nothing but an excellent editor --
We need friendly, judicious administrators working the CSD backlogs. I have no doubt that SwisterTwister is capable and will do well. Also, although I'm not acquainted with The Blade of Northern Lights, I've seen him around and have grown to highly trust his judgment. I doubt he'd nominate someone who wasn't ready for the toolset. Good luck!
'''Support''' Very active new page patroller.  Your administrator interests work perfectly with your experience.&nbsp;
'''Support''' In addition to all the other outstanding work, I think it's a nice side note to point out that SwisterTwister is the [[Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiLove usage|number one user]] of WikiLove. :) <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">
'''Support''' per Bmusician.
'''Support''' Seems knowledgeable and level headed.
'''Support''' per Bmusician and Ryan Vesey. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' SwisterTwister has a clean, civil and good record and I can blindly trust that he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' What, SwisterTwister isn't an admin? I'd always assumed otherwise; his excellent conduct and contributions led me to assume he'd been handed the mop years ago. This oversight should definitely be rectified.
'''Frickin' A''''. If Blade hadn't nominated him I would've.
'''Support''' - looking okay to me.
'''Support'''- Is a brilliant editor.
'''Huge Support''' - kind, friendly, hilarious... Yet hard working! You go Swister! '''
'''Support''', I know this is the most cliched RFA comment, but why wasn't he an admin already?
'''Support''' I haven't crossed paths with SwisterTwister that often, but when I have it has always been a positive experience.  Seems to be a level headed individual with the proper amount of clue.  With the mop, I expect them to be even more of an asset to the project.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The answers to the questions could stand to be a little longer, per Secret's comment below, but they don't cause me to doubt the candidate's qualifications and RfA is not a writing contest.
'''Support''' - Why not? A civil and helpful editor who has good understanding of policies. Looks pretty good to me. '''''
'''Support''' - First time voting on RfA. Saw who was on the list and had to voice my support. Very familiar with his work, especially his welcoming of newer users and recognizing the contributions of others. Fully supportive of this nomination as he will be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia as an administrator.--
'''Support''', I've seen ST's CSD nominations many times while working on the CSD queue, and don't recall ever having seen a bad one. I also, while disagreeing occasionally, agree with the comment above that I'd generally trust the judgment of the other Blade around here. A spot check of ST's contributions doesn't reveal anything of concern.
'''Support''' Good user, civil. Although more non-ad closures at [[WP:AFD]] would be better, I am happy to give my support. Good luck!--
Qualified candidate. The matter discussed in DoriSmith's question concerns me, but seems to be an isolated incident—and one through which I hope the candidate will learn that retaining new content writers is unspeakably important.
'''Support'''Good user, appears overall to have a good edit record, and a good knowledge of the inner workings of [[WP]]. Seems to be a level headed individual with the proper amount of common sense.--'''
'''Support''' Good track.Feel the project only gains with the user having tools.
'''Support''' I have seen SwisterTwister around on Wikipedia many times before. I have on occasion made faulty nominations for [[CSD]]. SwisterTwister deleted the nom and then explained why the choice was bad. I believe this communication will only continue in Admin. Good luck!<span style="border: 1px solid #CC3333">
'''Support''' I've worked with SwisterTwister quite a bit. I have absolutely no negative thing to say.  I have had nothing but positive experiences.  Does have lack of conflict resolution, but uses common sense.
'''Support''' Great anti-vandal editor, and is a fellow instructor at the CVUA.
'''Support''' per excellent anti-vandalism work and significant efforts towards welcoming and resolving issues with newcomers. No concerns. --
'''Strong Support''' There were plenty of times where I'd be going through articles on new page patrol, only to find Swister beat me to it. Great anti-vandalism work. '''''
'''Support''' SwisterTwister appears well qualified to use the admin tools sensibly. More experience in creating content would be good, but there's nothing here which is raising red flags for me.
'''Support''' there has been no major evidence presented that would indicate this candidate will abuse the tools or position.
'''Support''' looks like a qualified candidate with plenty of experience in admin-related areas. Answers to questions are a bit short, but that would be a poor reason to oppose. The candidate is regularly asked questions by new or inexperienced editors about issues arising from their new page patrol work, and these seem to be dealt with competently. (The statement below that "You will come to conflict with the article creators who is unclear why their article was deleted" ignores the fact that non-admin NP patrollers are asked these sort of questions all the time.) Certainly I don't see how requiring more content creation would make much difference. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' A brilliant editor.
'''Strong Support''' One of the nicest editors out there. I was surprised to find out ST was not an admin already. Bring it on. We need more like this one. Regards, --
- Dank (
'''Support''' - good communication skills, plenty of evidence of helpful janitorial behaviour and no evidence of incivility, impulsivity or any other disqualifying -ivity. I don't regard the relative lack of content creation as critical; the WP community is a diverse one and different people occupy different parts of the eco-system. Content creators are the mighty mammals of the savannah, we admins are just the dung beetles who tidy up after them.
'''Strong Support''' - A lot of excellent Anti-Vandal work.--
I'm
Yes
'''Support''' and echoing the comments of Hut 8.5 and Kim Dent-Brown. --
—'''
<font color="#151B8D">'''
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' This editor appears to have a good understanding of admin-related activity. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' Great Editor!
'''Support''', come on, nobody is born as adminsitrator, there are people out there who are not perfect, similar to our admins pre 2009 - I mean, the community is crying that we are getting bigger backlogs and less active adminstrators, but the community is also unwilling to promote new ones. We are all humans and having 'special' (in sense that everybody has her/his own interest) interests and do of course making errors. I saw that often that somebody is moving a page incorrectly or giving wrong advices, but hey, it's a wiki and the crowd is doing the right at the end. Nobody is perfect and at the end at a RfA it's counting if ''we troust'' in a user and I do in ST! <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">
'''Support''' Helpful editor. '''
'''Support''' Very active on new pages project. This activity leads naturally to some interaction with unsatisfied contributors. If dramah was there to be found, it would have already been mentioned. While not everything the candidate has ever posted to a new user has been what I would have said, I can [[wp:agf|assume]] that differences were,at least, honest differences in opinion -
'''Support''' - Over 17,700 edits to mainspace, clean block log, no evidence of assholery, seems to have use for the expanded toolbox. Pretty much an open-and-shut case, from my perspective.
'''Support''' Of course <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Strong Support''' per Bmusician ,Theopolisme & LK.
'''Support''' -- I would prefer that admins write more articles to understand the complexities that go into the building of the encyclopedia.  But the admin shortage needs to be addressed and I think ST would do a good job helping those who want to write have more vandal-free/stress-free experiences. --
'''Support''' – dedicated to doing the things that are needed to keep content growing in mass and quality.
'''Support''' – Can be trusted with the tools and there is no real reason not to give them to him.
'''Strong Support''' - Cheers,
'''Support''' — I've been seeing SwisterTwister everywhere lately; it seems like it's impossible to go a day without seeing that name come up, and it's always in a positive light. While they may not have a lot of new articles under their belt, they have certainly made a great contribution though gnome-ish activities and have proven themself to be a great asset to the encyclopedia. —''<span style="background-color:#cfc;text-shadow:#67A -2px 2px 2px;">
'''Support''' – Trustworthy editor. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - Friendly supportive editor
'''Support''' - Seems both helpful to new editors and friendly in my experience.  --
'''Support''' - '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
'''Weak support''' To be honest, I agonized about whether to add support, to oppose or to be neutral about this RfA. So, lets get on with it. SwTw is accomplished [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol|New page patroller]], so support. SwTw has a good number of edits. So, support. Bad answers to questions 7, 8, 10 and 11 indicate lack of technical knowledge, so oppose. SwTw claims to have had very little conflicts: see especially SwTw's answer to questions 13 and 14, so I am neutral. As for the matter of content-building, [[User:Shirt58/Formula One Parable|here's]] my opinion.  OK, so SwTw isn't so great at writing RfA question responses? ''Facta non verba''. --
'''Support'''.  In the balance, I believe the candidate needs to strengthen several areas of competency, though I am also of the opinion that one not need to be accomplished in every area of the project in order to become an Admin.  The project needs admins if for no other reason than it dilutes the workload and unless there's a overwhelmingly compelling reason to deny an editor the Admin toolkit, they should be approved.  As feedback to the candidate, I'd like to see more robust answers to a editor query or advice on taking corrective action than simply the quoting of a WP guideline or help page.  Good faith editors respond better to an admin who gives counsel rather than simply scolds or simply point to a help page.  Will that take admins more time, yes... but that's the better way to run the Wiki.
'''Support''' - Friendly supportive editor. And we could use more admins
'''Support''' I've come across this editor's work quite a bit, happy to support <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>
Sorry for being the first '''Oppose''', but I'm sadly unimpressed with the answers given to questions 2 and 3. I feel that someone having some knowledge in article work is a must for every RFA candidate with a few exceptions, which I don't see one here. Article work (along with some AFD knowledge helps your skills with the proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be aware of how Wikipedia works as a whole. It can help show the difference between a sneaky vandal edit and a non vandalism newbie edit, or if the subject of a csd A7 (notability) tag technically meets the criteria to speedy delete or not. Question 3 shows your dispute resolution skills and the answer "I haven't had conflicts and hopefully never will" won't work as an administrator. Conflict is much of a given as a administrator of Wikipedia even if you only focus on CSDs, and vandal work. You will come to conflict with the article creators who is unclear why their article was deleted and be very persistent to find out, You will have administrators questioning some of your speedy deletions or borderline blocks, and so forth. You do some amazing work in CSD but I can't support based on those answers. Sorry :(
'''Oppose'''. Too much focus on the candidate's own user and user-talk pages, and too few contributions to articles or discussions on Wikipedia. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. No significant content-building experience, no evidence of having dealt with conflict resolution, therefore no way of knowing what kind of administrator this candidate would make.
'''Weak oppose''', have to agree with MF and Secret here. ''Anyone'' who has experience writing articles has been in conflicts and ''anyone'' who wants to be an admin, and be able to close discussions, delete pages etc, should have this experience. <font face="trebuchet MS">- [[User:Filelakeshoe|filelake]][[User talk:Filelakeshoe|<font color="#0B0">shoe</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Q9.  The candidate doesn't get why they err'd.  In the future, I would expect that when approaching an article the candidate has no prior experience with, that they will follow and advise others to follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Page_move#Before_moving_a_page]].  The candidate obviously had no background knowledge of the subject of the article and shouldn't have moved the page on the whim of a new editor.  A discussion should've taken place.--v/r -
'''Opppose'''. Indeed, as Malleus says, little content work (suggesting that nominee may not be able to judge what goes into content creation and how important it is) or conflict resolution (which is a large part of adminship). I am not so much bothered by Q6, though mistakes were clearly made there--but the half-correct answer at Q7 (they still have time to correct themselves) and the half-assed answer (sorry) at Q9, which sounds a lot like "content isn't that important) are quite damning. I don't think we need more people with fingers on buttons: we need more seasoned, experienced people with fingers on buttons. BTW, I think I've had some interactions with this editor and I think they were all good: I have no complaint about them as an editor.
'''Oppose'''. Poor, vague answer to question 6. Also lacking content contribution.
''' Oppose''' - Lack of content work, lack of talk page discussion/content disputes, too few edits to their top pages, averaging less than 2 edits per page means user has likely never stuck around a page long enough to make any significant lasting impact, i.e. candidate lacks experience developing articles, a sticking point for this particular nom. Also poor answers to questions 2,3, 6, 7 and 9. ~
'''Oppose''' I believe this editor can answer better (and with more detail as well) on questions 7-9. So far, those answers are not good enough.
'''Oppose''' -  Concerned with issues raised by Drmies. Also, unsatisfactory response to Q6. -
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Insufficient involvement in content development. Answers above don't communicate sufficient understanding of policy. -

Very brief and somewhat vague answers to questions, which is concerning for someone applying to a position where communication is meant to be key. That in combination with the lack of solid content contributions or evidence of strong dispute-resolution skills leads me to '''oppose'''. Adminship is more than button-mashing.
This is my first ever RFA !vote, so I feel bad that I will '''oppose'''. I have seen his contributions to [[WP:TFA/R]] and I believe that all or almost all have been: "Support - Interesting and sourced." Although this often is the case for the article and it is typical to be concise at TFA/R, his lack of explanations or clarity are also reflected in his answers to the above questions, particularly 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 14. '''
'''Oppose'''. Too many of the candidate's answers above are superficial, and some suggest a disquietingly cursory level of attention toward the issues involved. To pick an example that I don't think anyone else has commented on yet, in their response to Q4, they dismiss the possibility that "Bot" could be a legitimate surname, even though the relevant DAB page shows that it is one.
'''Oppose''': The answers to the questions posed above show only a sketchy knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures. You haven't demonstrated the depth of knowledge required to make accurate decisions on deletions or detection of copyright violations. There's tons of user page edits, but almost all of them are templates, so there's no way to assess how you would communicate with problematic users. Contributions show no substantial in-depth edits to articles. Article talk page edits are again virtually all templates, so there's no evidence of you cooperating with others in article development, so it's impossible to assess your communication skills at this time. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' This candidate has clearly made a positive impact on a number of respected users and Admins. If that had not been the case this RFA would have been closed or withdrawn by now. They have specialised in narrow, but nonetheless important areas, that may benefit from further Admin support and which the candidate would undoubtedly be able to provide at a reasonable level with further experience. However, Admin. responsibilities encompass the entire range of accountabilities and selected candidates must, in my opinion, demonstrate their competence across as wide a range as possible. That must, by the very nature of an encyclopaedia, include content work to a sufficient level to appreciate the issues arising in that field. That necessarily includes handling disputes where they have demonstrated thorough knowledge of [[WP:5P]]. This candidate shows almost no experience and no evidence of a willingness to participate in such work. Their parsimonious responses to legitimate questions here is especially troublesome. The candidate has still failed to fully answer Q7 despite ample opportunity to do so. As identified by many others, answers to some other questions are too high level. On the face of it, based on the editor's contribution distribution data, this was a premature nomination. This is reinforced by their performance in the RFA to date. It is surprising that this candidate is still within the discretion range and if successful will establish a new benchmark in mediocrity for our important functionary role. While this reduction in standards may satisfy those who insist that RFA is broken and that more Admins must be enlisted [[Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012]], it is impossible for me to support this RFA without significant improvements in those areas currently lacking.
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced.  For example, I go looking for something that isn't purely reactive.  There doesn't seem to be much so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_radio&diff=prev&oldid=457735896 this small edit] catches my eye.  This was constructive but what he doesn't do here is link to the relevant article, [[Porky Chedwick]].  That's quite basic content editing and so it seems the candidate has much to learn.
'''Oppose''' at this time, largely due to 1) lack of significant content development, and 2) DGG's in-depth analysis of the recent weaknesses shown at NPP, which the candidate identified as an area of 'best contributions,' and 3) answers to questions 4, 7 and 12 which should have focused on policy but didn't.  Admins need to have support of content development as their overriding goal, and so need to understand the challenges editors have in working with others and working within Wikipedia policy.  Admins need to know policy very well, and to be excellent, pro-active and even-handed communicators.  I think Swister is a good guy and a net benefit to the project but at this time his edit history hasn't shown what I'm looking for in an Admin.  <code>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I see a lot of positive contributions, but I think another six months getting broader experience, particularly on the content side, would be advisable. The answers to the questions could have been better, so perhaps some more experience in the areas where admin tools are likely to be used to become more familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines would also be good. --
'''Oppose''' for now due to DGG's analysis, with not in depth enough answers to questions to overcome said concern. Don't get dishearten if this RFA is not successful and keep up the good work. I hope you will take on board concerns raised whether you are sucessful or not.
'''Oppose''' Sadly, I must oppose because of a dearth of experience in content development and interaction with other contributors. SwisterTwister's contributions are valuable, but tagging pages, cleaning them up, and providing canned user-space comments alone are not going to give the experience necessary for adminship. This is borne out in his/her answers to the questions above that don't demonstrate a depth of understanding or appreciation of policy that are necessary IMO. Answers to the questions of DoriSmith and Salvio giuliano in particular trouble me.<br/>Like others have said, however, don't lose heart! If you really want it, I think you have the bones of a good admin in you. You just need more content development experience (and experience of user interaction will come with that, I can tell you!). If you really want to become and admin, turn you attention to that and come back in 12 months. You'll be a different person <tt>:-)</tt> --
'''Not yet'''. I'm prepared to support in the future, but not now. I've expressed a lot of my concerns in my earlier neutral comment and the epic discussion that followed it. I also think that the answer to question 8 is pure platitude. I've looked at several of the candidate's recent edits, and I see nothing really bad, but a lot of sort of easy superficial edits, consistent with what a lot of other editors have pointed out during this RfA. In the past, I've seen users rise to positions of trust on the basis of a lot of friendly messages, only to end up betraying that trust. On the other hand, I'm satisfied that the candidate is a kind person who cares about the project. I sincerely hope that you do not get discouraged by this process, because you have a lot of good to offer. I don't think you need to do a major article creation or expansion, or an FA/GA. Just take a few months and show that you can take part in discussions with other editors about a content disagreement, and show that you have clue about it, and that will be good enough for me. --
'''Weak oppose''' per weak answers to Q1-3 and per DGG. Would reassess if the answers were revised. --
In general, I don't expect admin candidates to have extensive experience with content creation {{emdash}} mainly, because it would be hypocritical of me to do so {{emdash}}, however I expect they have first-hand experience of what it means to deal with content disputes and with persistent or disruptive editors, because, even if you do not expect to get involved in dispute resolution, trust me, controversies will find you: people will come to your talk page asking for your help. You have never been involved in any dispute and that is problematic. On top of that, your answers to the various questions are really suboptimal. In short, I do think you may make a good admin, but that you're not ready yet. Take your time, get involved with content creation, try to be help at one of the various noticeboards (RSN, NPOVN etc., not AN or ANI) and do come back in a year. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Not yet'''. Firstly, I want to say I've seen SwisterTwister doing a lot of good stuff around here. I see a lot of welcoming people and giving them nice messages, which is all good, but what I'm not seeing is much in the way of the two things that I think are important - content work and dispute interaction. SwisterTwister has been doing some good gnomework on NPP, but, though I'm not looking for GAs or anything, I'd really like to see more content work. Considering dispute/interaction, reading over the answers to the questions, I get the feel they're from reading and knowing the policies, not from experience of being involved in those policies, and I really can't tell how SwisterTwister would actually handle difficult interactions, stress, etc. There isn't the depth of understanding that comes from experience, and I think experience is the only way to grok how people feel about their content, understand why disputes can get heated, and learn how to deal with them. With greater experience in these two areas, I can easily see myself supporting a future run. --
'''Oppose''' &ndash; User has created only eight articles, all are stubs with only one is above 100 words. Not even a single fully sourced article. I don't expect FA, but an admin must have appreciable content-building experience — this is an encyclopaedia after all.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; inadequate content work. I look for a potential admin to have created at least one, substantial, fully sourced article. The stubs the candidate has created are virtually unsourced and so show no evidence of understanding how an article should be sourced. Admins get involved in disputes affecting content editors so need to have sufficient background in this area to demonstrate that they understand the issues and the nature of the work.
'''Oppose'''. I gave SwisterTwister a second chance to identify some of his best work above, since the answer to question 2 was clearly much too general to be of any use in judging his credentials, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kodanad&oldid=495564787 one of the two articles identified as examples remains completely unreferenced], despite many reliable sources being readily available from standard searches. This gives the impression of an editor who is more interested in telling others what they are doing wrong than actually fixing what is wrong.
'''Oppose'''. Not yet. I've seen SwisterTwister's welcome templates all over the place and I am glad to see that he's so involved with welcoming newcomers. But I'm steadfast in believing that substantial content work should be a prerequisite to adminship. While I don't fear that this nominee would abuse the tools, I'm unclear if SwisterTwister has a full understanding of the when and how to use them judiciously as he hasn't added enough content. Like Crisco mentioned, I'd consider reversing myself if there were some dyk contributions. --
'''Oppose'''. The candidate is enthusiastic, friendly, and I have enjoyed the best level of interaction with him, even though I have had to pull him up several times on his NPP work. And there's the rub - NPP and deletions are the area where I work most and where I patrol the patrollers. With the greatest respect for the nominator who shares my concerns for the  state of NPP as a process, I find DGG and Boing sum it up well - I have the same concerns and there's no need for me to repeat the same diffs. His answers to the questions seem to have too little depth and reflection and where disputes would be concerned -  because all admins get involved in disputes as part of the job - this gives me pause. More content work, less superficial talk page interaction (one ''can'' go OTT on barnstars, welcomes, and WikiLove) and a longer period of solid, unproblematic NPP, CSD, and AfD, and more demonstration of knowledge of policy, and I'd really be happy to support a re-run in about 6 months. In the meantime, if he needs help on anything, he knows he can always call on me.
'''Oppose'''. Great contributor to Wikipedia but concerns over answer to question 2 and raised by other editors are enough to hold on adminship. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm not insisting that admins have FAs or GAs - that would be hypocritical of me. But I do think that admins need to have demonstrated that they know how to add material referenced to a reliable source. Especially if they are tagging articles as unsourced or even prodding them for deletion as unsourced. Otherwise we could wind up with an admin who'd delete unsourced articles on notable topics without even a cursory attempt to source them - we allow this on BLPs but BLPprod is an exception.  I'm not seeing any use of reliable sources in the nomination statement or questions, and whilst I haven't checked all of the candidate's contributions, I have looked at the articles they've listed at [[User:SwisterTwister#Content_I've_added]]. All but one of the articles there are either unsourced or only have a primary source. What sort of example does that send to people whose articles you tag as unsourced? I'd be very happy to reconsider if you furnish examples that I didn't spot, or if you come back later this year. Weak because we need admins and you are frustratingly close to being suitable and ready. ''
'''Oppose.''' Communication skills need developing, per weak answers to some questions (answer 8 is a mere tautology, which tells us nothing), and some more experience with content creation would be good.  But the real deal-breaker is lack of experience with conflicts. SwisterTwister is obviously a fine user in several ways, but answers 3 and 13 both suggest that s/he's quite pleased to have virtually no experience of conflict, and plans to try to keep it that way as an admin. Admins have to be prepared to get their hands dirty. I'm especially concerned about answer 13. IMO admins need some practice with, if not actual substantial content creation, then certainly talkpage discussions about content disputes, before they're ready to wield the mop, and before we can judge how well they'd function in an admin capacity.
'''Oppose''' I've had mixed feelings about this one since it started, because I believe that we're desperately low on admins. However, I have to come in against promoting SwisterTwister because, imo, he just doesn't appear to be particularly interested in adminship. I base this on his few to no edits at UAA, AN, ANI, and AIV (two of which he listed as places where he'd like work). Additionally, while he has a ton of edits in UT space, there's only a handful he's edited more than twice. The avoidance of conflict, as previously noted, makes it impossible to know what he would be like as an admin. He says he wants to work at CSD, but as he doesn't keep a CSD Log, there's no way of knowing what we could expect from him there. His answers to the questions are truly sad; he never fully answered my question (#6), and the answer to #8 is just plain worthless. When asked at #14 about his lack of experience with content disputes, his answer showed he doesn't even know what content disputes are. (I guess with all these negatives, it's really telling that I'm still torn—that's how badly I think we need admins). SwisterTwister, I know plenty of people have said to come back in 6-12 months; imo, you should consider re-running when 3-5% or so of your edits are to article talk space. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Neutral''' I am concerned about the level of content creation and some of the issues pointed out by the opposes, but remain on the fence overall.
'''Leaning support but still neutral'''. Agree with the oppose !voters above that content creation experience should be a prerequisite for the mop, but the sheer number of anti-vandal work this editor has done kinda quenches that. Should the editor show that s/he is capable of good content creation (perhaps with a DYK), I'd !vote support.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
I see nothing alarming in SwisterTwister's contributions, but on the other hand I see nothing especially positive. I see lots of welcome templates on user pages, and a standard delete comment on AfDs - "Looked for sources, found none", but I see little else. The account has really only been active just over a year, and hasn't shown the understanding of policy and procedures we expect of admins. The contributions SwisterTwister has made have not been in areas where one is able to make an assessment of their character, ability or judgement. It is possible that SwisterTwister would make a good admin, but as we have so little on which to make that assessment at the moment I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting. I'd rather see SwisterTwister working in dispute resolution for a while, and see some evidence of collaborative work and prolonged discussions with other users. '''
'''Neutral''' - Not getting the warm fuzzy enough to support, but not finding a reason to oppose either.  Answers to the questions are very brief and non-specific, which doesn't make me feel great about their communication skills.  And, I'm usually not concerned with a lack of content creation, but I think there needs to be a bare minimum; more than just stubs.  If this RfA fails, go create a few substantive articles (maybe get one to [[WP:GA|GA]]), and on your next RfA, be more forthcoming in the answers to your questions.  The questions are intended to give us an idea of who you are and how you operate.  Single-sentence answers don't give us much information, and without sufficient information, people tend to default to the oppose column.
'''Neutral, leaning support''': I have no reason to distrust SwisterTwister with the tools, and my observations of their behavior at NPP have overall been positive. However, I can't quite see supporting; I don't feel that SwisterTwister has quite enough variety of experience to use the tools in other areas when necessary (and yes, I recognize just how much more experience ST has than I do). If [[Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37|Jc37's "moderator" proposal]] goes through, SwisterTwister is the kind of editor I'd reccommend apply for that level instead. -
'''Outright Neutral''' It's my rule that ask first before lean to an answer for some extent.
On purely objective terms, I would have opposed (short duration and activity gaps, lacks content, not enough persuasive meat on the answers). I'm down here instead because despite those issues, I cannot see Swister doing any worse than the sample of admin behaviour that is his nominator's [[WP:FACEPALM|badger]] at Opp #30.
I've been watching this RfA and SwisterTwister the whole time, and I am still neutral as all get-out. I really do like to see some content creation from admins. I don't need 10 FAs, but I prefer that candidates have at least ''some'' audited content, just because of the nature of the tools. However, SwisterTwister has done some good gnome/maintenance-type work, and I don't think he'd be out of his depth in doing routine anti-vandal or CSD work. My concern lies with his ability to close AFDs and handle disputes - I think he needs more experience creating content to be ready for that part of adminship. So I'm on the fence and will happily jump off on the "support" side in a few months when I see his name on the main RfA page again.
'''Sympathetic Neutral''' SwisterTwister is very good at what he does, and all my interactions with him have been positive. I understand the desire for more experience in mainspace/article building. He has no reason to be discouraged by this vote. --
'''Neutral''' This user has good and bad traits.  Unfortunately, the good and bad weigh the same.—
'''Neutral''' I have no doubt that SwisterTwister has good faith intentions for the development of the project and wants to improve the encyclopedia. But after seeing the answers to all the questions, viewing and evaluating on various concerns and issues raised in both the support and oppose sections, and looking over many contributions, it leaves me with only one choice which is Neutral. Best of luck for the future SwisterTwister!
'''Moral Support'''- Per [[WP:GUTS]]. Self-nomination for critical evaluation by others. Please take the suggestions for improvement as constructive criticism rather than reading too much into them.
Intends to work AIV and UAA. As of this oppose, edits to AIV: 16. Edits to UAA: less than 3 (doesn't show up on the edit counter). You'll need to make a better argument for wanting the tools. —
With regret, I do not see enough general edits to feel confident in your ability to be an effective administrator, and as ''Strange Passerby'' says, there is specifically nowhere near a suitable level of interaction at the pages you have said that you want to work on. Keep up the good work, but alas you are not ready for adminship at the moment -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|alternative account]] of
Looking on your talk page, I see several declined speedy deletion requests from this week. That suggests to me that a little more time getting comfortable with the CSD criteria would be beneficial prior to getting the delete button.
Oppose. Per [[WP:NOTQUITEYET]] (and no, I don't care that such an essay doesn't exist yet). It seems like you're doing good work, but a lifetime appointment to Adminship requires a longer record of edits, so as to build trust. Lack of work in the WP and WT namespaces, specifically in areas you've stated you'd like to work in, is also concerning.
'''Oppose''' - I like boldness, and try to reward it when I can, as it shows independence and a willingness to take calculated risks, traits I approve of.  For that, I commend you.  However, I think you are not quite ready to play the role of janitor and you need to have more experience to benefit from the use of the tools.  I will be happy to reconsider your candidacy in the future.
'''Regretful oppose''' - There is no doubt that you are a great editor but there are many concerns. Like, your CSD success rate is pretty low compared to the normal standards and many declined requests are there lately. On the other hand, lack of experience is my major point in the oppose because showing only 5 months of proper editing and just over 1800+ edits doesn't give the true reflection of your understanding of policies. I'd love to support you after a good span of 8-10 months. Sorry for now. '''''
'''Oppose''' - Anti-vandalism is needed work, but you can do quite a bit of that without the admin bit. I agree with Dennis Brown's points about more experience in wider areas of Wiki being needed.
'''Oppose''' [[User:Cyberpower678/RfA Criteria|User currently fails to meet criteria 2, 3, and 4]] at this time.—
[[User:Cyberpower678/RfA Criteria#What will get me to support]].
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' I think that you need to be at least an editor with a full years service and at least 4,000 edits to apply. --
'''Oppose''' but please do come back when your answer to Q4 indicates that you ''do'' feel ready.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' Just piling on with a [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Get some more edits under your belt, get more experience with the relevant admin processes (reporting to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFPP]] and [[WP:UAA]], participating in deletion discussions at [[WP:AFD]] or one of the other XfD venues, etc.) and you'll be fine. —
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP: SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I believe that Wikipedia admins need to uphold an excellent level of professionalism, something you are failing to show with your typographical errors, such as "when I fee (sic) I'm ready" in A4, and frequent use of the "LOL" acronym. This can be easily fixed, so please do so and gain a little more experience, and I'll be happy to support you in the future.
'''Oppose''' and applause for your attitude in responses here. You're making a good impression. However, I have to agree with the comment that since adminship is an all or nothing deal . . . and you never know what you will wind up doing after you get the tools . . . it isn't really realistic to ask to be evaluated only on your intent to work in one specific area. Also, I'll add this: one thing admins have to do a lot of is communicate with other users, including new editors and people who are worked up about something. The ability to write clearly is rather important. Plus . . . this is a writing project. So, I'm concerned by the usage errors in your answers to the questions here, and I've found problems in the articles you've written, too. Plus, most of them badly need sources and/or expansion. I was pleasantly surprised to find so many articles, but I'd like to see you work on writing better - and making your articles better - before your next RfA. Which I will be looking for :-) [Edit conflict, so someone's already said this. Oops.]
'''Oppose''' Some candidates here will probably never be chosen; some are shoo-ins; and some have obvious potential but need a little more time and a little more experience. This last is you. Carry on as you are, but spend more time in the admin-related areas available to you, and apply again in a few months. If you show improvement then, as requested in these oppose comments, you will probably succeed.--<font color="Red">

'''Comment''' Adminship isn't granted (or do I mean 'imposed'?) just for one area. After the mop is in your hand, you can chose to sort out one area or wander through the lot. You show promise in what I've seen of you - but you do need to get more visible experience in as wide a field as possible (including content creation to keep the 'creationists' content). I've seen you in CSD - work on getting a good percentage there. In AIV and the other admin areas, you can make helpful comments and do some of the background work. (Is that really a username that violates policy, or is it an Indian, Thai or Japanese name? Is User:BloggsCo representing a company, or is there no outfit called BloggsCo out there in the real world? And so on...) So far, no-one's discovered the skeleton in your cupboard, or found out that you are only eight years old. Give it a bit more time of working widely, and try again. And don't get any skeletons...
'''Moral Support''' Definitely not ready, but your intentions are marvelous. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and best of luck for the future! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Oppose''' - Thank you for your offer of service. I can not support because I feel 1,500 edits is not enough to give you the administrator tools. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' - A quick glance at your contributions makes me think you are a valued content contributor but [[WP:NOTNOW|not ready to be an administrator]] just yet, especially with only 50 contributions since the beginning of the year and no involvement outside of the content space besides WikiProject Austin. No nomination statement also shows a lack of familiarity with what is expected of administrator candidates.
'''Oppose''' "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" is a bad sign for a RFA. Also, editor is 12 years old. I am not an ageist by any means; I became an administrator at 15. But for a user that young, I expect to see that they can function on the site as an adult; in that regard, seeing the above nomination statements does concern me. Please ''do not'' be discouraged from editing the site, and do not be discouraged from reapplying when you have more experience. --'''
'''Oppose''', in my mind 1500 edits is plenty, but failing to fill out the RFA form properly ("YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER") is a worrying sign for me because it seems to indicate carelessness, which we don't want to see in an admin.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''', You need little more experince and edit counts. And also I saw that your description about RfA is inappropriate and it makes me feel that it will be immature for you to be admin.
'''Oppose''' Children should be neither administrators nor state personal information (age) on user pages. Oversight should erase the page history and personal information.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns.—
'''Oppose''' but with thanks for contributing to the project. Well-meaning and positive contributor, but doesn't have the experience or maturity yet. And although age itself is not specifically a barrier, I think it will be a few years yet before a candidate of this age would have sufficient maturity --
Looking through contribs, they seem pretty good. Frankly, [[WP:DGAF|number of contributions shouldn't matter]], I would rather support a person with 3,000 really good edits than someone with 25,000 automated edits. I'm sure people will oppose because you only have 1,500 edits, but don't be discouraged. Even if you don't pass this time, you're on the right track.
I'm not worried about the stated age of this editor. However, while I see a lot of good work being done, it's in a limited range. I can't see anything in CSD or XfD, or in other admin-related areas. I would suggest getting into new edit patrolling (or my old area of edits by new accounts - I learned a great deal there). Also, get into AfD. Good work experience available there in checking things out and possibly rescuing articles. Admins do specialise somewhat, which is probably to the good, but they do need a grounding in other areas than content creation (which is an area not normally requiring the mop). Good luck for the future.
'''Support''' - Seems a bit green, but I don't see that as a reason to oppose or not support here. Decent spread of edits around the namespaces, their attitude is great, and I like their answers to the questions. Good luck! ~
'''Support''' - I've seen him around and I can trust him. The answers to questions are really good.
'''Friendly Support''' - I've been his protege (at the CVUA) and I surely can trust him. @GabeMc His color IS green! That's all.
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' User has demonstrated great vandal fighting experience.I believe trust is the key factor for the mop though the active period matters too.Hence this weak support. '''<span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #6698FF;">
I've been editing since about the same time as Theopolisme, and he is a great editor with a great attitude. Theopolisme, keep doing the work you're doing, and come back in a couple of months. Good luck!
'''Support''' Seems knowledgeable and trustworthy.  We could definitely use more admins.  Back in 2006/2007-ish, it was quite common for admins to be approved even if they hadn't met the 6-month requirement (that many users independently held) if the user had shown trustworthiness, diversity of experience, etc., and nothing truly horrific ever came of any such exceptions being made.
'''Support''' Being the co-coordinator with Theo at the [[WP:CVUA]] I can say with 100% confidence that he can be trusted with admin rights.
I think he'll do just fine as an administrator, and that's the important part. We need more users with +sysop. I'm not worried about the relative lack of experience.
- -- Cheers,

'''Support''' As Irondome says new blood is good. I've quite a bit of contact with the candidate and all has been positive. He is dedicated and will follow something (whether that be a suspicion or a certainty) through until he has an answer - exactly the sort of thing an admin should do. The answers to the questions are great and show an in depth understanding of policy and it's application. I have 100% confidence in Theo, both as an editor in general, and as an admin. '''
'''Support''' I like this users attitude, and we need more anti-vandalism admins.
'''Support'''.  Nothing wrong with a comparatively new person who doesn't seem ready to break things; after reading Vejvančický's comments down below, the link that HJ Mitchell gives bolsters my support instead of weakening it.  I don't understand Kudpung's oppose either; it seems that the candidate wants to be an admin in order to use the tools to strengthen this project, rather than in order to engage in hat collecting.
'''Support''' As with some of the other users I think this user has a lot to learn but they have a good history, they seem to be on the right track and the answers to the questions above looks promising. Also, I was going to sit this one out but I agree with Nyttends comments as well.
'''Support''' I've had the pleasure of working with Theo at [[WP: CVUA]] and he's been a major part of the success of the program. Besides serving as the co-coordinator, he is also a vandal-fighter, new page patroller, and AfC reviewer and he can be well-trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' I really like this editor's approach, both in his nomination and in his answers to questions. I am convinced that he will make a good admin, and seriously hope that the community will agree with me. --<font color="Red">
'''Moral Support''' Although i consider that Theopolisme still needs to polish some of his skills, he will be an amazing anti-vandal admin. I have worked with him a lot at the CVUA and it's always glad to read his comments. A very good user with somewhat low contribution level and a lack of experience in some areas, but his desire to work on counter-vandalism and the good job he does at it is enough for me to support. —
'''Support''' – I haven't interacted with the user previously, but from their answers I can tell that they would be a good admin! A support from me! <font face="Arial" size="2em">
'''Support''' Answers just seems great. Also I have seen him doing a lot of anti-vandalism work, and admin tools will be handy for him.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Weak Support:''' Probably needs a bit more experience. -
'''Support'''.  Though more experience might be helpful, what I see in the questions above and in the contribs convinces me that it is not strictly necessary.  Giving Theopolisme the mop would be a net benefit now, even if it would be a bigger benefit in 6 months or so.
'''Support''' Because I believe that a) he'll do a good job and b) in the absence of a reason to oppose, any editor who's dedicated significant time and effort to the project should get the tools if they are willing to do more.  The ongoing hoop-jumping that some people require is overly onerous and unnecessary.  People who do a good job should be able to do more if they have the time and willingness.
'''Semi-Support'''  The fact that I hear from many people that Theopolisme doesn't have much experience bothers me. But not the point that I would want to oppose him from being an admin. When I was a new user, I made some edit's that were not sourced. Which caused users to put 3  warnings on my talk page, I then understood what I was doing wrong and then removed the warnings. After I did that, Theopolisme reverted my move and said not to remove my warnings, because it helped users keep track. I was very furious when he did he not let me remove my old unsourced warnings on my talk page. Why would I want 3 warnings on my talk page, when I understood what I did wrong. After that, I read on Wikipedia that I had every right to remove those warnings. So I removed them once again. Theopolisme did not revert my move. I do not keep grudges and Theopolisme was very friendly to me, plus he worked hard fighting vandalism. So I support him! Good Luck! (: --
'''Support''' Sorry for late vote, I totally missed this nomination. I have talked and worked with this candidate. Very helpful and friendly and has been doing a great job. I like the way he assesses his own works. He is a good anti-vandal admin. I feel he will be a good job if he is selected as admin. --<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">
'''Oh c'mon'''. 7K edits is not enough?
'''Support''' Sorry for late vote, I totally missed it was 7K (hit "earliest" as opposed to "older 500".
'''Support''' This editor lacks a lot of the experience which I would expect of an administrator but does a lot to help new users, resolve problems, and clear up vandalism. I trust this user with the tools and believe that access to those tools would result in more efficiency and no problems through this user, but still I would want this user to explore more content development and other project areas just to become familiar with other processes.
'''Weak Support''' I support him for admitting he's not the ideal candidate, which is also why it's weak. While I appreciate seeing honesty in an RfA candidate and a lack of bragging about how many articles they've created, I would like to see a little more than 7K edits. 10K would usually be my minimum, with 15K being a nice safe zone. I do like, however, that he realizes that when you're a Wikipedia editor, it can be better to have many Wikipedia-space and user talk-space edits in addition to article-space. Welcoming users, the Teahouse, and the CVUA are all things to be proud of. <sup><font face="verdana">'''
'''Support'''- A lot of nice contributions all-around, particularly in clearing vandalism and being an overall good guy, to outweigh his lack of experience. '''
'''Support'''- I have seen some of his work and they seem quite productive plus vandalism work seems effective. In addition great indepth (some) questions, no problems in my words.
'''Regretful oppose''' - Sorry to oppose but this nomination was way too rushed. I've seen them around and was impressed but somehow, they do lack a lot of experience. I always feel bad to support a good candidate but will have to here. If considered your edits, you have been active for merely five months, and you've got a good number of edits. But majority of them have come in last three months which leads to the conclusion that most of the things you are experienced with, came in this time span which is little too low amount of experience for me to trust any user. Being active for only three months doesn't give me a complete opportunity to judge your judgement skills, understanding of policies or the way you behave at different situations, conflicts, etc. I'd like to see you active the way you are for good 9-10 more months and then probably would support but not now. Wish you all the best for your next RfA. '''''
'''Oppose''' - I'm having a difficult time quantifying my opinion here except to agree with the TheSpecialUser in saying that the nomination is too rushed. I look over your contributions and they look excellent. A sampling of your antivandalism work is equally good. I don't find any particular fault in your work on CSD, aside from one poorly labelled report, which everyone has done at least once. You are extremely civil and very easy to work with. I may be a little old school in the way that I feel pursuits like the CVU Academy and the Teahouse are colossal wastes of time and speak more of treating Wikipedia like a social networking site than an encyclopedia, but your mileage my vary there too. I think what I AM concerned with is someone who intends to be primarily working as a countervandalism admin who only has 20 reports to AIV, yet has extraordinarily devoted themselves to things such as the Counter Vandalism Academy, making more than 100 edits to those pages. I am always very wary of administrative candidates who seem more concerned with the bureaucracy surrounding the process, rather than the process itself. I am not ready to support yet, perhaps a few months down the road.
'''Oppose''' ~ Theopolisme appears to be a very passionate; good-faithed editor; who will likely be an Administrator ''one day'' - however, that one day, will have to be in the future. As has been pointed out by TheSpecialUser, Theopolisme has been active on the project for the past five months, which in my opinion, is little time. I would strongly encourage this editor to re-nominate in no little than 6-12 months - by then, they would have not only accumulated more edits - rather more ''knowledge'', and would have a better understanding of their surroundings on the project. Finally, Theopolisme, I urge you to take these comments made here, as constructive criticism - because at the end of the day, you may not make a great administrator (presently), but you are certainly made out to be a wonderful editor. All the best, -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Sorry''' - your work here is good - very good in some places - but I'm afraid there isn't enough of it to properly judge. Keep doing what you do, and come back in the future where I'm sure you'll whizz through.
I agree with above, while you seem like a very passionate editor, I think it's too soon, especially with today stricter RFA standards (you probably would have passed if it was 2005/2006 by looking at your edits). Keep up the good work, do some content writing and participate in areas within project space that might interest you and with enough time you will pass your next RFA without much issue. I'll be willing to mentor if needed. Thanks
'''Oppose'''. I  had a feeling  this RfA would be coming. While I heartily join with all those who  have praised Theopolism's enthusiasm and engagement  for Wikipedia, I am also 'old school' (''very'' old for some...) and must reiterate True Silver's concerns about the CVU Academy that it '' 'speaks more of treating Wikipedia like a social networking site than an encyclopedia' ''. I  have commented several times that I find the CVU project has become unnecessarily bureaucratised and has introduced pseudeo hierarchies and leaderships. Such pursuits appear (to me at least) often as stepping stones for hat-collecting where it should be clearly understood that user rights are not rewards for good work.  That said, I  encourage Theo  to  keep  up  his good work, but he does not yet meet all [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]], and I'm not sure he has read [[WP:Advice for RfA candidates|'''this''']]; its reading is of course not mandatory, but I feel it may have prevented what here is, IMHO, an RfA a tad too early.
'''Oppose''' for now, but willing to support a future RfA. You joined about a year and a half ago, but only started editing heavily in April of this year. Sorry, but I don't think you have enough experience just yet. You're definitely a valuable contributor, though, so keep on doing what you're doing (maybe do a little more contet work but that decision's up to you) and if you come back here in <s>six</s> eight months or so you will probably have my support. Regards,
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theopolisme&diff=506838060&oldid=506837843 this discussion].--
'''Oppose'''. As I've said before, amdinship is not merely about mashing button, and if it were the Foundation would simply hire a group of moderately intelligent monkeys. Adminship is about judgement, and Theo currently exhibits almost precisely the opposite of the judgement and maturity I expect of an administrator. His talk page would seem to suggest that he, or at least his friends, are more concerned with the social aspect of Wikipedia than with the business of building an encylcopaedia and he seems to make hasty decisions, which can result in sloppy work. This is evidenced perfectly by the nomination statement in this very RfA and by [[Special:Undelete/How_to_fix_a_broken_ignition_cylinder_lock_on_a_Ford_F150_pickup|this incident]] {{small|sorry, admins only}}. This combined with the relatively short tenure compels me to oppose. Theo, you have the potential to be a good admin, but I think you need another year or so's experience first.
'''Oppose''', a well-meaning and enthusiastic editor, but one with too little experience for now to be made an admin, and also, IMHO, with a need to shift his priorities. First, having only 4.5 months of active editing is too early for asking for an admin hat. Second, like several other opposers above, I am concerned about the current focus of the candidate on the part of the project (CVUA) that emphasizes the social networking aspect rather than actual encyclopedia building. To me that alone is already a significant negative. E.g., in the candidate's preferred area of admin-related activity (vandalism fighting), his contrib record shows only 20 edits to [[WP:AIV]] and 24 edits to [[WP:RPP]], with several hundred edits to CVU pages and subpages. Finally, while I do not necessarily expect  "50 GAs, 10 FAs, and 200 DYKs", I do want to see some substantive evidence of content-creating work from any RfA candidate. After all, this project is supposed to be mainly about building an encyclopedia. For now the highest number of edits that the candidate has to any individual article page is 9, to [[MetaLab, Ltd.]], an article that the candidate created. The article is rather stubby and its current quality strikes me as sub-par, maybe even AfD-able. The article has 4 references total: references 2 and 3 are primary refs to the MetaLab site itself. Ref no. 4 redirects here[http://pixelunion.net/] - not quite sure what that is, but does not strike me as [[WP:RS]] and again looks like a primary source based on "Meet the designers" note at the bottom of the page. The only third-party ref (ref no 1) is to this site[http://bestwebgallery.com/2009/07/14/metalab-design/], which again does not strike me as passing [[WP:V]]. Like I said, I don't expect 50GAs from an RfA candidate, but I do expect something significantly better and more substantive in terms of content creation than the above example demonstrates.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Nsk92 but also, I find this editor a little bit too emotional for the tools at the moment, which makes me worried in-case he makes a hasty decision. I think there's a likely chance that he will succeed the next time round, maybe in the next 6 months or so when not only he will gain more experience in editing but also maturity.
'''Oppose''' - Eh, I'm sorry I have to be here, but I cannot see your vandal fighting and work at the CVUA as enough to demonstrate the right experience and understanding to be an administrator. While I am certain that you could carry out the anti-vandalism parts of adminship with your eyes closed, there is too much that you have little experience in. I find it difficult to support an admin candidate if their primary contributions to Wikipedia consist of anti-vandalism unless they have significant experience in other areas as well. I can see myself supporting you in the future, but I'd like to see experience in other areas first (then again, if anti-vandalism and instructing others in anti-vandalism is what you are really enjoying, then enjoy that and don't worry about the toolkit).
'''Oppose'''. Mainly per HJ Mitchell, but I also have concerns about maturity level/clue from my reading of his answers.
'''Oppose''' my apologies for this oppose, I cannot support a user who has only actively edited for 4 months. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' per ItsZippy. I generally don't support specialist admins, especially on vandal fighting, an areas which is fairly straightforward and we're in no desperate need for the tools (AIV is rarely backlogged to my knowledge). I appreciate your work Theopolisme, but I think you need a bit more experience yet.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but more time is needed.
'''Oppose''', too soon and per HJ Mitchell.
'''Oppose''' - Too soon. Not a lot of content creation, not a lot of admin area experience, and almost all of the edits happened in the last 5 months. Simply too soon.
'''Oppose''' - Too Soon. Also per HJM's remarks and Kudpungs reply re:poor handling of a PROD. I'm of the opinion that this editor has potential but needs much more experience. Also, self-nominators, to get my support, need alot of positive history. ```
'''Oppose'''; I'm going to be honest here, the whole CVUA thing seems to me like yet another self-important bureaucracy where enthusiastic kids can exert pseudo-authority on newer kids (or as Trusilver puts it, a colossal waste of time). I mean no offence, it just looks that way to me; though certainly it speaks to your sense of initiative, and that can't be a bad thing. More experience and a slight change of priorities would certainly increase your chances of success at your next RfA. Best regards and keep up the good work, ''CharlieEchoTango''&nbsp;(
'''Oppose''' Sorry to be here, you're a great editor and I wanted to support despite your short tenure, but I still think you have a way to go before you have the knowledge.  Your A7 tagging brought me here specifically.  Remember that A7 is only for articles that have no credible claim of significance, not for articles that don't meet the notability requirements.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' You have the right attitude, which is a lot of what you need for the mop, but you are missing some of the basic understanding of policy essential to being an administrator.  Give it a few more months of work in areas where you'll be exposed to a lot of the major policies (such as [[WP:HD|help desk]] and  [[WP:XFD]]) and you will be more than ready. I'll post some feedback on your exercise page. '''
'''Oppose''' The casual self-regard and childish combativeness of the self-nom statement doesn't invite confidence; further examination reveals inexperience and a lack of comprehension of the realities of adminship and the necessary abilities to perform those duties effectively. Those can be corrected and improved by time and work but I am not certain that the necessary maturity of attitude can be developed simultaneously.
'''Oppose''' 7,000 is barely anything. Get more editing experience! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Tepid oppose''' - I concur with {{User|TheSpecialUser}} and with other editors above me (e.g. <small>{{User1|CharlieEchoTango}}, {{User1|StephenBuxton}}</small>). Maybe in the next few months or so he will be a suitable candidate for Adminship, but it really is too soon. BTW, there is no shortage of Admins in wikipedia. Most are worthy some are just not. I personally feel, the fewer admins, the better.
'''Neutral''' Although your account was created almost a year and a half ago, you barely had a handful of edits until 4 months ago.  As such, it's really only possible to consider you a 4-month old account.  What you have done since April '''looks''' good at first glance - the type of stuff we want/need to see, and the stuff the project needs.  Normally, I would have opposed based on the timeline, but consider this neutral a "moral support" for use at least 8 months from now (so, a year of consistent editing). <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support''' - [[WP:NOTNOW|Not right now]], I really think four months of active editing isn't a good enough time period to decide, even with as many edits as you have racked up in such a short period of time. I see nothing to make me oppose, however, so I hope you apply again when you have a year or so of experience - if you keep the same editing pattern, there wouldn't be any reason for me not to support. Best of luck to you. :) '''
'''Neutral''' per dangerouspanda/ES&L, who sums it up rather concisely.
'''Moral Support''' per Dennis Brown and ES&L, although I'd be comfortable with four more months (8 months total), not make you wait until you've hit the arbitrary 1-year mark. You're clearly a very good contributor, and you're a good candidate, but you'll be an even better one soon. To my colleagues with similar responses, I think that one year is a good rule of thumb, but it should be a very bendable one for extremely good candidates. This candidate is one of those, but not so much that four months is enough experience. -
'''Neutral''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Wants to work on anti-vandalism, which is mostly what the admin buttons are for, in my estimation. However less than a year of serious WP participation is inadequate, in my view — understanding Wikipedia's culture and policy norms and precedents takes time. A NOT YET situation. Don't let this horrible public assessment process sour you on the project, even those voting against you doubtlessly appreciate your efforts and wish you the best. Give it another year of hard work...
''''Netural''' per dangerouspanda, Jorgath, etc.  I reviewed a number of PROD/CSDs/AfDs and found them generally sound and in some ways generally conservative-in-a-good-way. Turns out I'd declined one of your A7s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ng_Chee_Peng&diff=505311419&oldid=505310279 here] but given how abbreviated the article text was (and the general quality of your tags), I'd like to be clear that that was ''not'' a reason for my lack of support.  I went looking for reasons to oppose in order to provide some constructive and specific feedback, but honestly, I've got no significant complaints except the "4 months is too soon".  Would you come back in 4-6 months and give this another go?  I'm looking forward to having a chance to support in the future. --
'''Neutral'''. I genuinely like what I see, and in 8 months if you simply produce another 8 months of the same, I'd be happy to support. But 4 months of activity is not enough for me to be comfortable supporting.
'''Moral Support''' I like what I see; I just do not see enough of it. In about six months, if you keep up with what you're doing now, you'd most likely have my support. --<span style="white"><small><span style="border:2px solid #00BFFF"><span style="background:#00BFFF">
I've worked with Theo a lot, and he has a real enthusiasm for the Project. Unfortunately, there are a lot of issues that he will need to consider of this passes or before his next RfA, that have either been brought up here or elsewhere, that I shall list in no particular order and with no commentary, simply for Theo's benefit: Maturity, and the demonstration of that maturity; the creation of content, and evidence of an understanding of the content-relevant policies; the use of Wikipedia as a social network; that desire for bureaucracy, as opposed to using sound judgment and a sense of IAR. Theo does good work, and when he comes back in 6-10 months, I envision a slew of "support"s if he can focus on those things moving forward.
'''Neutral''' I contact Theo on a regular basis, and we get on really well, so not supporting is quite hard for me to do :(. Whilst I do think what he does is great, I'd like to see a longer tenure from him, I agree that he hasn't been active since the past few months. I'd also like to see his edit percentage on articles reach a minimum of around 40%. Like Joe Decker, I can't find reasons to oppose (not that I want to), but then I can't find reasons to put my full support. I can't wait to strong support in around 4-12 months time!--
'''Moral support'''. Come back after 6 months, and I'm sure you'll get a much better reception. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Moral support'''. I like your enthusiasm, but I think we need more than 4 months of active editing - I suggest a year would be more like it. --
'''Neutral''' You have been a net benefit to the project, but I would like to see some more experience before I support in the future.
'''Moral support'''. Fine work so far and helpful.  <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. Somewhat lacking in experience. Also, little content creation.
'''Neutral''' - I'd like to support but some more experience prudent. Creating content makes an editor more appreciative when tagging content of others. I recommend this.
Not ready yet. Please do not feel discouraged by the RfA process. You remain a valued Wikipedian, with a good future very much possible. --
'''Neutral''' - In the answer to the question I asked: I would've hoped for the user to try and satisfy the fair use criteria before deleting/tagging the file. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''.  I'm dismayed that those in the section below are saying things like "very helpful", and at the same time seemingly opposing just because the user "only" has about two thousand edits.
Unfortunate to be here, but this is a stonewall [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. Helpful enough user in the time he's been here but nowhere near the level of experience needed to make the decisions a administrator must. &mdash;
I cannot say much more than foxj did. I have seen you around at AfC, and you have been very helpful, but you simply do not have the level of experience expected of an administrator, as is exemplified by the very weak self-nomination and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=481477209 the way you attempted to transclude] this RfA. Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW|you're not ready yet]]. Thanks for all your work, though.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience and policy knowledge. -'''
'''Support''' - A friendly and hardworking editor. Has did great job for GAs and FL and also DYKs. Their rollbacks are pretty good and the user is non-controversial who doesn't get into much conflicts. Lack of experience can be a reason to oppose (only 7 months activity on wiki is very low) but still I'll support as I cannot refrain that he is a superb editor with good understanding of policies and we need editor like him. '''→
'''Support'''; meets my strict requirements. --
'''Support''' What's more, this user has been civil, outstanding work at articles, and great work in File: namespace which very few people do. He is 3 in 1 type of editor who has all. We should really lower our standards a bi and support this extraordinary editor.
'''Support''' Although the opposers throw up legitimate concerns, I do not think those concerns show that you will abuse the tools. Your sysop flags on other projects encourage me that you have the technical ability to use the admin bits. After a careful examination of your contributions, you seem to be sufficiently cool headed to be trusted with the tools and your [[WP:PAG]] knowledge seems reasonable. You have reasonable experience in counter-vandalism and other admin areas and you have good article contributions. Your age does not concern me; I think your maturity shines through in your editing. I can find no evidence of '[[WP:DICK|dickishness]]'. My only remaining concern is that you have only been active for a fairly short time period, but that is not a reason for me to oppose. I wish you every success with this RfA.
'''Strong Support''' One of the best young editors on the project. Great content contributor in addition to having good experience in admin-related areas. →<font face="Segoe Script">
'''Strong Support''' as the nominator. '''<span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999;">
'''Support''' Opposes unconvincing.  Seems a very clueful editor, as evidenced by his userrights and proper use thereof on other Wikipedias.--
'''Support'''- Hasn't made a hash of other projects, here to help, and I find [[WP:Needs More Drama]] an insufficient reason to withhold support.
'''Support'''. Good editor here, and sysop on other wikis. V. good. <font color="#FFB911">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' SpacemanSpiff oppose is concerning, but I don't think he will abuse the tools, we want candidates who is willing to go though ''less drama''
'''Support'''. I think his answer to #3 was not phrased very well; "ignore" was the wrong word to use. What he really means, in my opinion, is that if he gets into a conflict, he will try to let it cool down by not fueling the flames. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - An Excellent editor who has handled themselves very well, throughout their duration here. Three different user rights; an ideal namespace; over a year's experience; thousands of edits - why no one else nominated this user, for the mop, earlier, is totally beyond me. What's a big concern for me, is that editor's are making candidate's age an issue - Age is just a number; and for the record, not everyone is an immature teenager, Vibhi and your's truly being included in that. Good Luck! {{=)}} -- [[User_talk:MelbourneStar|<font color="#000080">MST</font>]]<font color="#800080">☆</font>
'''Support''' - I think you will be a great admin. {{=)}} --
'''Support''' - Despite what the opposing users write, I don't think you'll be hampered by your age. I support your candidacy,
The opposing comments do not convince me that Vibhijain is unsuited for adminship. Therefore, I am supporting with the caveat that he makes an extra effort to paraphrase information from outside sources using his own words, rather than tweaking the already existing text.
'''Oppose'''. Although Vibhijain has closed uncontroversial AfD nominations, he does not seem to contribute in AfDs with reasoned "Keep" or "Delete" arguments. Without such participation, I cannot trust Vibhijain to apply the deletion criteria appropriately.
Not ready for adminship yet — claims to want to work with ITN but, speaking as an ITN regular, I've almost never seen this user there. We don't need admins just busting in pretending to know everything without having actually spent time at areas they want to work in. —
'''Oppose'''. Effective, unambiguous communication is the most vital competence for an Admin. Based on several of the answers on this page the candidate's standard of written English is not up to the mark or they have failed to proof read their contribution.
I fear I have to '''oppose''' your candidacy at this time due to your reply to question #3; a candidate who basically ignores conflicts will not be a very good admin, in my opinion, because, even if they'd wish to keep as far away from them as they could, admins often have to step in disputes {{emdash}} very heated ones, sometimes {{emdash}} to at least try to get them settled; to be able to do so in a way that improves the project {{emdash}} and one that's also mindful of Wikipedia content policies {{emdash}}, you must have had first-hand experience of content disputes. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' While we wouldn't want anyone to go and look for conflict or disputes, and that we certainly want civil and friendly admins, I fear someone who actively avoid heated discussions might disappear from a discussion of his action if a discussion becomes heated.
'''Oppose'''. Except in special cases I oppose in principle children as administrators due to their normal lack of maturity when dealing with conflict. I can be persuaded by evidence but in this case there's no track record of dealing with conflict I can examine. In addition language skills aren't good enough. Some of the responses here and on the talk pages I've examined suggest to me that he will struggle when involved in controversial decision making by being unable to handle very complex language. Finally the almost complete lack of edit summaries, which made it difficult for me to locate the material I would need to make a decision in this case, leads me to oppose for now. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Oppose''', with '''moral support'''. In my experience with Vibhijain, he's generally clueful and good at what he does, but I really can't support based on age and judgement. User:QuiteUnusual says it far better than I can. No, posting your age is not ''prohibited'', but when you do you better be able to take any opposes based on that.

'''Oppose''' SpacemanSpiff's comments make me think that it's probably better that the candidate get more experience before becoming an admin. Skillfully paraphrasing a source is not always easy, and a lot of editors have included text too close to the source in their articles. It takes time to learn how to do it well, and doesn't mean that the candidate is a bad editor. It is definitely better that he write some articles free from close paraphrasing before getting the mop though, since concerns have been raised on a couple occasions.
'''Oppose'''. Vibijain's strengths almost  certainly  lie best  in our en.Wiki articles on topics from the Indian sub-continent, and helping  non-native English speaking  editors from that region, and I  believe that he should concentrate his skill set  in that area where his local  knowledge and communication skills with  his fellow native editors would be a great  asset  to  en.Wikipedia. There is a huge amount  of work to  be done within the scope of the [[Wikipedia:India Education Program|India Education Program]], especially  as an ambassador for example,  without  the need for the use of admin tools - and it  is almost  certain  that  the local  chapter  in Delhi would welcome him on board. Vibhijain began an editor review only 10 days ago. I think he should have allowed time for more comments to  arrive before running for office. Has voted on  153 AfD but  71.9% where the vote matched the result is, IMO,  too low. Candidates also need to  demonstrate their handling of conflict, because any admin who uses the tools will  encounter delicate situations,  and I  would like to have more reassurance that the candidate would react appropriately in stressful situations.  Ca 10,000 edits and 9 months are not  alone sufficient grounds for adminship and  Vibijain still does not meet all  [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my criteria]].   I cannot therefore support at this time,  but he has already known for a long time that  that I am more than willing to help him develop his skills,  and I'm  sure this English  will  improve with  time,  especially  when he has completed his education -  I  have lived and taught  in  Delhi and I  know  that  very high  standards of language can be achieved.
'''Oppose''' per Q8. The GNG is not absolute. No one had discussed a merge, which is frequently a goog outcome for subject that people support keeping but technically fails the GNG. If he really feels the right outcome is a straight delete, he should !vote accordingly. Faulty arguments need to be rebutted in the discussion, not by supervote. --
'''Oppose''' &ndash; User doesn't have knowledge of copyright policies of Wikipedia. Most recently he copied content from [[Tonga at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games|one article]] to [[Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games|another]], without giving any attribution to original contributor(s). And, this article is one of his GAs. An admin without the understanding of such basic things would be the last thing I'd like to see on en Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' My concerns addressed in my earlier neutral argument remain.  The editor has made 19 edits since.  13 of those didn't have an automatic edit summary.  Of those 13, Vibhijain used an edit summary in one.  I was leaning towards oppose as I raised my concern with edit summary usage, the failure to improve confirms my worries.<tt>  </tt>
'''Opposer''' I find myself having to oppose in this one. The nominee does not use edit summaries near as much as I'd like to see (which alone wouldn't lead me to oppose), but the copyright issues lead me to opposed. Also, communication skills also leave me uneasy.--'''''
'''Oppose''' per Bill william compton. Besides I prefer people who's joined the project for a longer time, and I have concern of his age.--
'''Oppose''' per the copyright issues.
'''Oppose''' per Axl, SmokeyJoe, and copyright issues --
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns about AfD accuracy and experience, and the copyright issues don't help.--
'''Oppose''': (1) The candidate is 14 and so not an adult. (2) Close paraphrasing (e.g. "unique feel") concerns noted by an editor who seems to think that this is an encyclopedia---poor doomed soul.... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Per SpacemanSpiff's point on poor paraphrasing, and Strange Passerby points on lack of involvment at areas of interest, also, disregard for edit summaries is a sticking point. Try again in 6-12 months, after putting in some effort at [[WP:RFPP]] and [[WP:AIV]], and show us you can resolve conflicts, perhaps you will get a better result next time here.
'''Oppose''': Spiff's copyvio examples, the short active tenure, the lack of edit summaries, the avoidance of conflict are all signs that you're not ready for adminship yet. Focus on your content for a bit (your user talk to article space ratio is a bit on the high side) and work on content that is outside your comfort zone (your main article work appears to be in relatively uncontroversial areas) and you'll pick up the requisite admin 'skills' fairly quickly. --
'''Oppose'''. I've seen plenty around on noticeboards and elsewhere, and they've never done anything in particular that gives me cause for concern, but their answers to a number of the questions (especially Q5) hasn't quite sold me on their ability to work at AfD, which given that this is the first thing they list as wanting to do with the mop is slightly concerning. In addition, Q4 doesn't seem to adequately describe what is needed for handling RFPERMs: namely that admins need to make a judgment call about trustworthiness. In the case of IP block exemptions, exceptional care needs to be taken over granting them, and if appropriate to check with a CheckUser. I do think this user's heart is in the right place—they just need to keep their head up, improve and try again in six months. —
'''Oppose''', copyright issues are always a deal-breaker for me. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' per my [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|RFA criteria]]. <span style='font:1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose''' Vibhijain is to be commended on his admirable enthusiasm and I hope he will long continue to enhance the encyclopedia with his knowledge and contributions. However, his experience and tenure are slight and it shows; the incidents and examples (as described by ''inter alia'' Bill and Spiff, for eg.) that demonstrate policy knowledge and application, judgment, communication and decision-making abilities are concerning and do not show a satisfactory standard. Schoolchildren are IMHO generally unsuitable candidates for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Can't support someone for adminship if they don't understand copyright issues. <span class="nowrap"><font color="purple">Canuck</font><small><sup><font color="purple">89</font>
'''Oppose''', per SpacemanSpiff. Also concerns about judgment (including [[m:Requests for comment/Vibhijain and Mayur]]).
'''Neutral''' I can't oppose, because I don't think you would do harm to the project if given the tools.  Your contributions to mainspace are generally very good and noteworthy.  You are thoughtful, mature, and I believe you put the interests of Wikipedia above your own.  What I don't see, however, is working in contentious areas.  An admin must be able to deal with others who are out of control, without losing his cool and simply blocking everyone.  He has to be able to provide balance and neutrality in discussions at AFD, or just when questioned about his actions.  Even if you only work at AFD, you have to be able to draw the line between "spirited debate" "moderate incivility" and "personal attack", and know when to warn someone in the discussion, on their talk page, or take action.  This takes practice.  I think you should work a little at [[WP:DRN]] or [[WP:3RR]] and learn the basics, slowly at first.  This will help you hone your communications skills when dealing with others in less than ideal situations.  You don't have to be an expert in this area, but you need enough experience so that when a situation gets out of hand, you can be comfortable and confident in taking control and seeking resolution.  You are an excellent candidate who is clearly an asset to the project, and I hope I am able to reconsider your candidacy in a year.
'''Neutral''' - Time in the harness strikes me as insufficient, with most activity clustered into about a 4 month period. I'm also not seeing a lot of administrator-like tasks in the edit history. My advice would be that you keep creating content, that's what Wikipedia needs, and leave the janitorial tasks to the janitors.
'''Neutral (leaning towards Oppose)''' - he does make rather good contributions to articles, but most do not have edit summaries and because of that and the fact I didn't have time to sort everything out I could only analyse the previous day's edits, which were mostly adding WikiProject boxes to talk pages. I don't think age is a problem (being only ~4 months older than him) but seeing his answer to question 3 and hearing he might have included copyvios, I'm staying neutral for now.
'''Neutral''' I ignore age (except when the law says that it must be taken into account), but I do take into account experience. I am bothered that we get promising candidates who get put off by the response to them at AfD - when ideally they should have been deflected until ready. I don't recall seeing this candidate in my areas of operation ''(scissors! scalpel! axe!)'', but that's not a kiss of death. My advice is to follow Carrite's wise words - keep on creating content - and I would couple to it 'get into the admin areas'. Study RfAs. Learn when it pays to be polite and when it pays to be rude (but do it cautiously at first...). Stalk respectable and/or reputable editors ''(that lets me out...)''. Discuss things with on the one hand the more experienced and on the other hand the younger editors. At present, I can't see much need for you to have a mop. I can see someone with potential that I don't want to lose. Someone who, I hope, will learn from this hell hole and will come back prepared like [[Odysseus]] was when he faced the [[Sirens]]. And most of all, don't get despondent when this goes down the pan.
Hi WinEuro. I suggest you withdraw your RfA. You have no possibility whatsoever of becoming an admin at this time based on lack of experience, being a brand new user with 106 edits.  Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] to learn some of the [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for and hope to see|basics we expect in an admin candidate]] and things [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see|we hope not to find]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Not now]].--
And please also  read [[WP:Advice for RfA candidates]]. You do not need admin tools to move pages - see [[WP:MOVE]] instead.
Please participate in [[Talk:Windows_Phone#Move_to_Windows_Phone_7|the talk page discussion]], rather than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WinEuro&diff=prev&oldid=499862873 disregard warnings and plow forward with your wants]. And also, experience concerns. <span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur; background:white;">→
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Account is one month old with 204 edits. --
'''Oppose''' - your comment that "I have been in so many conflicts over editing that it is hard to remember all of them. That is actually why I am applying for Admin" does not fill me with any faith; neither does your constant referrals to "Admin abuse." Sounds to me like you're simply after revenge.
'''Oppose''' GiantSnowman's concerns are spot on and regardless the editor appears to have way too little experience.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:SNOW]] in my opinion. I've left a couple of notes on the candidate's talk page trying to explain and offering advice - including advising withdrawal. Some day, when they've learned the policies and got into the swing of the community, maybe. Not yet.
'''Oppose''' I don't want to discourage you, but, sorry,not now, you can re-apply in next one/two year(s)! --
'''Oppose''' not now.
'''Strong oppose''' - User seems to be seeking revenge for the results of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:XyphynX9/Misconceptions (Prague album)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapeshifter (EP)]].
'''Oppose''' because of almost no experience, and strong concerns about what GiantSnowman and Reaper Eternal pointed out.--
As co-nominator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Pedro lays out the facts well, and I largely agree with him. While it doesn't nowadays, it should come down to having use for the tools, and being a net positive with the tools. Everything looks good to me. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' no problems here, success!
'''Support''' Certainly.
{{ec}} '''Support''' Per last time. Regards '''
'''Support''', per solid reports at AIV and professional response to his last RFA. Seems to be a good contributor who is measured in his approach and responsive to feedback.
'''Support'''. Very easy decision. Opposes from last time were pretty much down to lack of experience based on relatively short recent tenure (though I was going to support based on the quality of work, but I was too late). Now, six months on, 28bytes has got a lot of very good experience, with high quality work in a number of areas - including helping with newcomers, which I think can be very difficult but is very much needed here. --
'''Support''' He is an editor with the knowledge and experience required of an administrator.  He clearly shows a knowledge of Wikipedia policy and a desire to improve Wikipedia.  This can be seen in his created and improved articles and also in his track record of CSD's.
'''Support''', I have no concerns.--
'''Support'''. I was looking at 28Bytes just a couple of days ago with the intention of asking him if he would like to run again. I found that not only one, but ''three'' nominators had beaten me to it! There's not much more that I can add to those, except that I fully endorse them.
'''Support''' - From what I've seen of his contributions, I have to agree that he'll make an excellent admin. —
'''Support'''. Has a tonne of clue; will use the mop well.
'''Support''' Best of luck to you in your future role as admin.<b>
Happy to add my support here. While agreeing with what the noms have already said, I would add that 28bytes has the valuable skill of being able to reduce drama levels when entering into a contentious discussion, bringing more "light" than "heat", as they say. 28bytes will make a fine admin. <font face="Comic sans MS">
Your input at [[WP:AN/I]] and similar venues seems sensible, reasonably mature, and aimed at resolving rather than escalating conflict. Those qualities are increasingly in short supply, so I'm happy to support. I also trust HJMitchell's judgment, and the fact that he swung from opposing your previous RfA to nominating you this time around makes me more confident about this. I think you'll be a credit to the project as an admin. Make us proud. :) '''
'''Support:''' As my mentor, 28bytes always knows the right thing to do.
'''Support''' Long overdue, should have passed last time.
'''Support''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' With that set of nominators, is there any real question? Add to that the work done on the edit filter alone, and we get an outstanding level of gorm. --
'''Support'''. High praise indeed, looking at both your nomination and your nominators. I see nothing to indicate that you'd be anything other than a fine admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate, see no reason why not.
'''Support''' From answers to questions above, a brief contributions review, and (rapidly-declining) memory, appears clueful. --
'''Support''' Proven asset with many great attributes, as mentioned above.
HJ, Pedro and Acalamari. wow. There is little that could be said to persuade me that 28bites would not be a net positive as an admin --
Well-rounded and trusted candidate. 28bytes is a quick learner and a clueful individual. His numerous DYK submissions are generally well-written and the decision to give him abusefilter rights several months ago only indicates that 28bytes is considered an asset to the project. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
{{ec}} '''Support''' – I've noticed some of 28bytes' work around here, and it has been exemplary. There is no reason why he shouldn't gain the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''. Easy one this. '''''
'''Support''' What, not an admin already???? --

'''Support'''. Rather limited content creation, but otherwise a good candidate.
'''Support''' though I disagree in part with answer to 6b.  Solid answers, great history and I've seen this editor in many places showing a solid clue.
'''Support''' Based on personal interactions, I am fully confident with this candidate and agree with the trident nomination.
'''Support.''' Experienced editor, with no obvious problems. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
Experienced, trustworthy, and a solid candidate. '''
'''Support'''  The candidate has spent the last 6 months addressing the concerns articulated in the oppose/neutral sections of the December 2010 RfA. He has gained the needed experience; in fact, he has truly distinguished himself in many ways.--
'''Support''' - Finally! 28bytes has the patience and knowledge of policy needed to be successful as an administrator. I can't think of a better candidate at this time. '''
'''Support''' - I have every confidence in 28bytes. I've seen his participation in a number of Wikipedia space areas and he has shown good reasoning and knowledge of policy. There has been enough article work that I feel he has competence in that area, and the answers to questions above are superb. -- '''
I would have supported last time.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
Yes, please. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''. A candidate with whom I'm very familiar, and who is outstandingly well qualified. As a variation on the "what, not one already?" cliché, I have to admit that I came here thinking "what, another reconfirmation RfA?". --
Yes of course. I should have supported the first time. --
'''Support'''.  Courteous, clueful editor.
'''Support'''. I often see this user's name on my watchlist, working hard and doing sensible things. --
'''Support'''. I see no problems.
'''Weak support''' - I previously was '''neutral''' when I wrote <blockquote>I applaud & enjoy the work on the band ''Yes'' but I would like this editor to gain more experience writing  expository paragraphs rather than stringing together citations  and adding blue links. It is prudent that the candidate has not declared an intention to herd content-editors, who spook easy and are prone to stampedes.</blockquote> which I hid upon switching to support. However, it was referenced by TCO (next), so now I redisplay it (15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)). Why my change? I happened upon intelligent, clear, and useful comments by this editor at a few pages, which merit even greater respect. ''Weak'': On the other hand, I find [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#A_reply|yesterday's gratuitous insult and its foot-dragging redaction]] disturbing, particularly coming from the candidate at this RfA.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''With advice'''.  I liked the research you did on the fellow who had the 10 un-reffed stubs.  I do urge you to continue developing your written work here, as KW advises.  It will give you a deeper feel for what the place is about (our readers, not our users).  Think about how Wiki compares to your averge newspaper, book, magazine, etc.  Not at all expecting you to turn into Malleus Wehwalt, but just keep developing basic writing.  This is somethink most people have to have in the work world and in school anyway, so not a strange activity.  Also even if moderation/mop activities are more "fun", I think it is good to have some closeness to what the project is really about.
'''Support''' Thought he was one already, he does a lot of good work around here and I have no doubt he'll do a good job as an admin.
'''Support''' Candidate does some fine work and would make a fine admin.  With all the admin support so far, what could go wrong?  ;)
As a nominator!
I actually thought 28Bytes had already been granted adminship, so my initial presumption was that this must be a reconfirmation RfA. In any case, I've seen his name around and I've generally approved of what I saw. Should do fine.
'''Strong support''' - Noms said it all. (How on earth did I end up as number 54?)
'''Support''' Absolutely support, particularly given the nominators.
'''Support''' Looks good.
Yep :)
'''Strong Support'''. I caught wind of your nomination this past week and spent some time reviewing your editing background and contributions to the project. I honestly don't think I've ever been more confident to support an editor for adminship. Thanks for coming back and throwing your hat in the ring a second time. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''', though I'd really like to see the user extend into at least megabytes. 28 is a very low number of bytes to work with. --
'''Support''' from this random editor.
'''Support''' This is headed for 200 yesses
'''Strong support''' He will do great with the tools.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Absolutely, especially with co-noms from Pedro and HJ.--v/r -
'''Support''' Definitely!
Good work at DYK; assembling sets is often a thankless task.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - 28bytes easily qualifies for the admin bit. He conducts himself with dignity and respect, is active in many operational areas of the project and has an excellent understanding of our policies and guidelines. He's also an outstanding content contributor and thoroughly understands our founding pillars and how they relate to article content. In addition, he's familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia's operations, understands regular expressions used in the operation of our edit filter and is in fact one of our few edit filter managers. He also runs a bot to clean up accidental edits made in article space. We are lucky to have such an experienced person willing to help with our operations. 28bytes will be a superb addition to our admin corps and I welcome his help in the administrative areas of the project. - '''''
'''Support''' Check of last month of talk/project space contribs confirms exactly what I've always known: a scholar and a gentleman!
'''Support''' yes please. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' I've seen 28bytes around, my interactions with him have been limited but he's always shown competence and he's got the experience and he'd certainly make a good admin. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate for the Mop
'''Support'''; I'm quite sure that 28bytes is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' I've always been impressed. Still has my support - plenty of clue. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - answers are highly clueful, attitude great. And, of course, that triple nom...can't beat that! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''
The only areas I have interacted with 28bytes in are the project talk space, and RfA. My impression has been that the user is civil and thoughtful, albeit I have found the user's persistence over-the-top on a few occasions (I freely admit that I'm no better mind!). A couple of the co-noms, while excellent editors themselves, set a relatively low bar for adminship &ndash; occasionally too low in my opinion, for a system that makes adminship nigh-on irrevocable. I definitely wouldn't have opposed over either of those things, but both caused me to have a good look. Through a combination of reviewing contributions in mainspace and project space, no concerns over tagging, the intention to work in areas well-suited to the user's editing habits, and in particular the insightful answers to the optional questions, I am in no doubt that 28bytes will be a net positive. —
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Any user who edits 200 + a month is highly active in my book. Full support this time

'''Support''' The nominators and several editors whom I highly respect (but will refrain from naming) make strong arguments that heavily outweigh anything I've seen in the opposition. <small><joke> Although I'm weary of bytes that come in quantities not in base 2 </joke></small>
(ec2)'''Support''' seen him around, and liked what I saw. And he has a competent nominator. Will be a good admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''Great candidate. [[User:Croisés Majestic/Guestbook|—]]<span style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Nominator and co-nominator's statement looks good. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazymonkey1123/guestbook&action=edit Sign]
'''Support'''. It's about time. ''
'''Support''': Answers to questions are sound.  Recent edits look good. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support'''-Editing Duran Duran should be a reason to refuse support, but I'll overlook it since some people I trust are in support.  Seems to be a good person around drama-central, aka ANI.
'''Strong support''' - frequently seen around, confident this user will make an excellent admin. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Has clue, good communicator, and will clearly be a net benefit. In fact, all other things being equal, I find an admin candidate with a yearlong burst of significant activity more reassuring when he has a "long thin tail" of contributions for several years beforehand, than if he came from nowhere and leapt into hundreds of edits per month right away. Lessens the likelihood that he's in a huge big hurry to become a Big WikiCheese - and will help him bring a longer-term perspective to the evolution of community expectations than deep involvement in the last 3 WP:AN scandals...
'''Support''' - absolutely without a doubt!
'''Support''' has some content work under his belt, which helps. Good chance of being a net positive.
'''Support''' No problems here for me.

Good CSD tagging, even some suitably unhasty A3s which are frequently the undoing of RFA candidates. ''
'''Support''' after a review of contributions, questions.  --
'''Support''' no major concerns '''
'''Support''' per Fastily.
'''Support''' Everything I can see fine. <span style="background-color:yellow;color:blue;">
'''Support''' a great admin candidate.
'''Support''' my interactions with this editor convince me that he is clueful, level-headed, and an ideal admin candidate.
'''Support'''. No problems, thought you already had the mop. -
'''Support''' <font color="blue" face="Tahoma">Cheers!</font>
'''Support''' -- I've seen 28bytes here and there, and I have no doubt that he'll be a net positive to the project.
Definitely.  &ndash;
'''Support''' again.--
'''Support''' - Too few admins currently.
'''Support''' 28bytes has always been pleasant to work with and shows a great deal of maturity.
'''Support''' great contributions to article space. varied experiences. won't mess up with the janitorial duties. --
'''Support''' competent, dedicated and calm editor. --
'''Support''' Per nom...
'''Support'''—polite, level-headed and clueful. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Support''' Why not? No red flags that I see.--
'''Strong Support''' I'm thoroughly impressed by your answers to all the questions.
'''Belatedly!''' I was waiting to be #100, but I see I was beaten to it. 14 times! That's what I get when I take a couple of days off! ;)

Late to the party I am, he'll be fine.
Yes
Go for it.
'''Support''' Great contributor, qualified editor. No problems here.--
'''Support''', questions 8 and 10 had good answers. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' Most definitely!
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.
'''Strong support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' 28bytes is a solid candidate, with a broad array of quality contributions to both the article improvement and the project maintenance arenas of Wikipedia. His answers to the questions all seem to be sensible, particularly the answers to Q5, Q6, and Q8. Having so many edits to ANI (over 200) can be suspect. However, 28bytes comments on that noticeboard appear to be generally constructive and helpful; I'm confident that he's not a drama-monger.
'''Support''' Normally for a support there is something to be said about previous bad actions by the user, here I can only say support. <span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
'''Support'''. <s>I'm a bit bothered by the answer to question 10, because an indef-block of an IP over a single bit of garden-variety vandalism is usually a very bad idea, but</s> the candidate's general approach is typically well thought out.
'''Support'''. Good contributor, see no issues.
'''Support'''. Very trustworthy.
'''Oppose''' - (updated) I've updated this oppose because after review it seems my earlier tone was harsher than I intended it to be. I only object on the grounds of the relatively short active tenure. If you discount the earlier edits that were summarily rejected before, this is largely a 1 year account, asking for adminship. I would like to see more, but this is not based on anything specific to 28bytes.
'''Neutral''' - I don't really know what to think here. 28bytes seems really good, with lots of good DYKs and content creation, his edits seem fine, with vandalism reversals and things, been here since 2006; but I think he would be a great admin if he came back in a bit after doing some broader content work. '''
'''Support'''. I have worked closely with 5 albert square on several articles and she is an absolutely top-class editor. Excellent answers as well. I have no doubt that 5 albert square will use the tools appropriately. –<font color="green" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' Really helpful editor, works hard against vandalism and would be a great use to the project if given admin tools.<font face="Vivaldi">
'''Support''' [[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] Long overdue, about time! --<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="blue">Perseus, Son]] [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/t|<font color="red">of Zeus]] [[Special:EmailUser/Perseus, Son of Zeus|✉]]
'''Support'''. Should be an admin already.
'''Support''' as nominator.
As co-nom.
'''Support''' Was surprised you were not an admin already. Good Luck.
Sure.
Another admin at RFPP and AIV would be a ''good'' thing. '''Support''' →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em">'''
'''Suppport''' Definitely.
Something strikes me as weird in this RfA&nbsp;... but that's never happened before when seeing this user's signature around. Regardless, happy to support. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
All looks good here!
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' Of course. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support'''. No problems whatsoever. Happy to have her come aboard. --
'''Support''': Glad to see 5 Albert Square up for adminship.  She would make a great admin. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I was a little concerned to see the candidate's most recent article creation was a BLP of a minor with no third party sources (just a bio from the actress's own agency), but the answer to question 5 suggests she recognizes the article needs better sourcing, so I won't complain too much about that. References on [[Captain Nigel Croker]] seem a little dodgy as well (one to a forum, the other to an unofficial fan site), but the candidate's other 11 article creations seem to be solidly referenced. Although some people might balk at 73% automated edits, I'm not particularly bothered by it, since that still leaves 8,800 "manual" edits, which is plenty to judge a candidate on, and I for one appreciate all the vandal-fighting work she's done. The talk-page interactions I've looked at seem helpful and positive as well, so overall I'm comfortable supporting.
'''Support'''.  I learned more here about the nominee than I'd previously known; before this, I've seen the username frequently from appropriate speedy deletion tagging which has shown good comprehension of the criteria.  –
I am doing no research on this candidate - I was familiar with her before today, and hold her in high regard... happy to support.
'''Support'''. Work looks great, answers to questions are fine --
'''Support''' Insert cliche "isn't an admin already?" comment here...  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Pretty much an admin-by-proxy as it stands.
'''Support''' - I  was going  to  go  'neutral' but I'm  not going to be the first one to break the magic spell. There is a high number (73.67%) of Huggle and other automated edits edits leaving only 8,837 'real' edits. This  meets however my  criteria. Neverthelss, although there is proportionately  little involvement  in  Wikipedia projects and policies, I cannot  see any salient reasons not  to  trust  this candidate with  the tools, (I  can't  do  my  research  to  the full  extent because X's tools are partly  down or disabled: creations, RfA !votes, etc).
'''Support''' - Good user, comprehensive answers to questions. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Weak support''' Content creation includes 14 new articles and 7 redirects; and I found the answers somewhat tentative. That said, however, the candidate has a solid body of work with respect to vandal fighting and speedy deletion tagging.--
'''Support'''. I have only crossed with the candidate at WP:AIV, and the experience was positive. Given the current situation with vandalism, a candidate being an experienced and reliable vandal fighter is enough for me to support.
'''Support'''. This clueful editor will be well suited for admin work. --
'''Support''' Happy to support. Will be a good addition to the admin team. – '''
'''Support''' Great contributor. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
I've been watching 5 Albert for a little while when I came across her at RfPP I think it was, and was thinking of nomming her myself after I saw the userbox. No alarms really, good vandal fighter and CSD nominator as I recall. Article work is good too.
'''Support''' - Delighted to see this nom, and delighted to support.--
[[WP:RIGHTNOW]]. Talk page history shows a communicative editor and dis-interested in drama. Sure, quite a bit of automated edits - but clearly knows her stuff. More admins at RFPP is good news. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''; relentlessly competent, undramatic, and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Intended AIV work, and track record there.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Another in a string of no-brainer easy supports. --
'''Support''' - No concerns. Overall net positive.
'''Support'''. Very good vandal fighter who could really use the tools and also good at creating content! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
[[Faye Daveney|Most recent article creation]] being a BLP of a minor, referenced only to the website of the subject's paid personal representatives, and with no evidence of passing [[WP:BIO]], is a worry. So I went through the last 2,000 contribs and checked other articles. Not perfect but sufficient for me to think that the candidate coming back for another shot in a few months time would be a waste of a few months. Seemingly good CSD work (no declines apparent) and experienced admins in RfPP are vouching for the candidate's work there. --
'''Support''' She's a great user and will be a great administrator with the tools.
'''Support''' Although I would have expected that [[Natalie Imbruglia]] and [[Holly Valance]] were notable ''Neighbours'' cast members.
'''Support''' Checked some user contributions and talk pages and seems like a force for good on the wiki. —
My interactions with 5 albert square have been positive, and for a long time I have thought she would make a good admin. I also gave her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Acalamari&page=User%3A5+albert+square&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 rollback] well over a year ago, and her use of that tool has been fine.
'''Support.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>

'''Support''' - Sufficiently experienced to avoid excessive accidental misuses of the tools, sufficiently level-headed to avoid using the tools to promote a personal cause or viewpoint, sufficiently humble to learn from mistakes and accept constructive criticism.  Has a clear reason to benefit from the tools.  Full support. -
'''Support''' I've run into this editor before, and was surprised that she wasn't an admin.  She knows what she's doing.  ~
'''Support''' Now where have I seen this editor before... Oh right! Everywhere! She does pretty good stuff too. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' I would like to see a bit more in projectspace but, bedsides from that it looks good. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' - Definitely an asset, needs the mop more than anybody else right now.
'''Support'''. Just went through her contributions and i got the impression of a  committed, devoted, enthusiastic, faithful, given over to, old faithful, purposeful, single-hearted, single-minded, sworn, true blue, true to the end, wholehearted, zealous person. This one's from me. Glad to see you on the spot

'''Support'''. Sure thing, no doubt. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - without a doubt.
'''Weak Support''' because of the insanely high automated edit count, but you deserve it. '''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124;
You strike me as an outstanding candidate for most of the areas you've expressed an interest in. But as I see AfD as the thing that makes adminship a big deal, I felt the need to ask Q7. You were very honest in your answer to my question, even though many AfD regulars would have been able to guess that I was looking for something else.Based on the lack of AfD participation that I've seen, I would prefer if you were to venture into closures very gradually. For me AfD is often the be-all-and-end all, but although Q7 worries me, I'm convinced that you would enter AfD to help ease the workload, rather than seeking to use admin discretion in any particular way. —
'''Support''' - I've seen this candidate doing things around here when I first signed up for Wikipedia and he seems to be in great shape for the mop :) -
'''Support''' Concerns have been dealt with (see below) and so I'm moving up to the support column.
'''Support''' I've had only positive interactions with 5as, and trust that she would use the tools wisely.
'''Support''', how'd I miss this one? Absolutely no reservations here.
'''Support'''. I looked over the two GAs and the FL and didn't see any glaring problems, good work. Your answer to #4 was fantastic. Either way, good luck with a mop and I'm glad to support.
Thought you were already.  Nothing but positive interactions with 5...
'''Support'''. <tt>
'''Support''' Awfully high number of automated-type edits, which is a no-no under my [[User:Strikerforce/RfA_Standards|standards]], but I can overlook based on the amount of edits once those edits are removed. Most certainly a clueful candidate and an asset to the encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' as per review of contributions.  --
'''Strong Support''' Been seen about often, I can see no issues here. The mop is well overdue. '''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - almost 36,000 edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good choice...
'''Support''' - Absolutely. --
'''Support''' Very good vandel fighter, was particularly impressed with the way she handled [[Talk:Bart Simpson]].
'''Support''' This guy is definitely cut out to be an admin. --
'''Support''' no issues. '''
'''Support''' - Easy call.
'''Support''' Excellent user, no questions asked. Have my support.
'''Support''' Based on what I've seen from this user, I have no concerns. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' - why not? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''. Would like to see significantly more participation in Talk: spaces, but other qualifications are reasonably strong.
'''Support''' Trust the nom of HJ Mitchell and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' Reasonable edits of articles related to her employer, civil tone and enough experience.
'''Support''' - No problems here and the old adage "I thought she was one"
'''Support'''. On the basis of the [[Samsung Group]] discussion history, I'm pretty confident that this user will do no harm. (But what's up with those "support" !votes from users who were so careless as to not get the candidate's gender right?) --
Length of time here and contributions suggest is more than likely to be a net positive, so worth a trial with the mop.
'''Support''' In all of my encounters has always been civil & on-track; no concerns
'''Support''' – Definitely. Why the hell not? <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' saw the candidate helping out with the people's princess article, they deserve WP100!
'''[[WP:100]]'''. Obvious support. -
'''Support:''' Will make a great Admin. -
'''Oppose''' In my experience as a wikipedia editor for a number of years, the bulk of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do more work than other editors, hence the comparison to a janitor with a [[WP:MOP]]. The community has decided that non-administrators are competent and allowed to close specific [[WP:AfD]] discussions. This admin candidate has added another policy of her own to the process: that "it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins."  The existing policy and an accompanying essay offer guidelines already that show that in many cases non-admin closures of AfDs are fine. This concerns me that the admin candidate intends to proceed in areas where she appears to have not read the policy/guidelines fully, leading to her establishing a bar for non-admin closures without full understanding that non-admin closures are for non-complex AfDs. She has taken a stance against non-admin closures, she raised the issue, she could have familiarized herself with the policy before answering the question. <blockquote>The only reason I've not closed one before is because I feel that it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins, simply because some cases can be quite complex.</blockquote> I am concerned that an admin candidates does not support community consensus and/or has not fully familiarized herself with the policies before answering the question, in addition to appearing to diminish the abilities of non-admins without reason (the policy and the accompanying essay already deal with complexity). Whether it arose that way or not, the complexity clause is a responsibility issue, not an IQ issue. --
'''Oppose''' Candidate has too many automated edits to me, so I asked her 2 questions. But the answers were no to my likening. The answer to Q11 is too close to the text of the policies and there's no real answer to Q12. The answer would only be right if the question was "What is [[WP:NAC]]?" <font color="#082567">
'''Neutral'''. From the answer to question 1: "''I would expect the use of my tools to be mainly dealing with vandalism (page protection, reversion of obvious vandalism, protection of articles when necessary etc).... I would also help with dealing with the backlogs at WP:RFPP''." Repeated declaration of her intention to protect pages is unnecessary. Reversion of vandalism does not require the tools. From the answer to question 7: "''I would be very likely to close AfD discussions.''" Why didn't she mention this in the answer to question 1? On the other hand, 5 albert square is a good contributor.
As nom. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - I don't normally support this early, but all of my assessment of the candidate's contributions and interactions with others is positive. He does unbelievable article work, interacts calmly, shows a willingness to talk about issues, and seems to respond well to suggestions/criticism. I was equally impressed with his answers to the questions. All in all, I can't find any problems. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - Seems like a good, level-headed and even-tempered candidate. The nomination statements are impressive. Overall a net positive.
'''Support''' per nom. --<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="blue">Perseus, Son]] [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/t|<font color="red">of Zeus]] [[Special:EmailUser/Perseus, Son of Zeus|✉]]
'''Strongest possible support''' - Great FA work and a great editor to work with.
Obviously. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''.  Good candidate who also has a track record of good article writing.
Per my long-standing nomination offer. Among Wikipedia's most productive editors; more than happy to add my support in lieu of a nom. statement.
'''Support''' --
{{edit conflict|2}} '''EC x2 Strong support''' - 50 Did You Knows, and 66 Good Articles, ''and'' 3 Featured Lists, '''and''' 17 Featured Articles, '''''and''''' 3 Featured Topics, '''''<big><span style="color:Maroon">AND</span></big>''''' 2 Four Awards!!! This is definitely one of the easiest supports I have ever made. Also, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/Governors_of_Kentucky/archive1 THIS IMPRESSIVE GOOD TOPIC]! Also has zero blocks, and appears to be courteous.
'''Support''' per nom. ~~
Despite an apparent lack of interest in the dark underbelly of Wikipedia, which is useful for an admin, I don't see any reason why not. Clearly knows his way around article editing, and not every admin candidate needs to be champing at the bit to wield the banhammer.
'''Support''' pending the candidate saying something truly wretched in response to one of the questions.  Clearly here to build an encyclopedia, even if a Kentucky-centric one; would that we had at least one of you for each state (or equivalent non-U.S. political subdivision).
'''Support''' per nom and very impressive FA work. ''
Admitedly the candidate kind of "hit the jackpot" in terms of people recommending the candidate running, which apparently is not in vogue these days..... Nevertheless that doesn't actually mean anything - trusted nominators ("urgers to run") are a good start but not the be all and end all. Solid main space work, a great level of talk page discussion and a hard review of the candidates talk and user pages seems to indicate no issues at all to me. The buttons aren't that big an issue, and here's someone that could (''should'') benefit from them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
One of our strongest article writers
I trust anyone these nominators trust. But after looking at the editing history, I am even more compelled to support. Oh, and [[Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Governors of Kentucky/archive1]] is, like, awesome. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. A terrific editor making a lot of great contributions, whose work would be eased by the ability to do some admin things. It's an approach that would help reduce the burden on other admins and the various backlogs that build up, and I can only see that as a good thing. --
'''Support'''. Excellent content work. There's not a lot of the consensus building, helping out, dispute resolution, general maintenance, speedy deletion (the deleted content is Acdixon's userpages), AfD stuff, etc, that one normally likes to see for admin candidates, and it's possible that someone will raise that later. I feel, however, that someone as literate, careful, intelligent, knowledgeable, responsive and polite during FA and GA discussions, and as clearly capable as Acdixon is, will make a very useful and excellent admin. Acdixon has demonstrated commitment to the project, and an understanding of what's needed. There's plenty of clue here. I am particularly impressed that Acdixon took on board the impact of being treated harshly when new, and has taken steps to ensure that he treats others with kindness, respect and tolerance. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' He deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' Great candidate. No red flags here.--
'''Support''' Per NuclearWarfare.
yes ''
Oh, no reservations whatsoever. A spectacular candidate. :) '''
'''Support'''  Looks like an ideal candidate to me. Best of luck! --
'''Lukewarm Support''' Strong content creation creds and the candidate has the backing of several distinguished Wikipedians; however, there are weaknesses in the collaborative part of this candidate's portfolio (eg AfD).--
Looks good.
'''Weak Support''' I've seen very few candidates who wrote at least 17 FAs (Another one I know being YellowMonkey), but Acdixon is one of them. This is clearly going to pass, but I really wish he/she could write more to our encyclopedia. He/she has been a very valuable contributor to the project.
Certainly. No alarms here, content work is outstanding, seems to know policy and their limits.
'''Support''' Great content editor that knows policy and how to communicate. I know they will use the tools well, regardless of experience in other project areas.--
'''Support''' I was tempted to oppose because the tools might make him write less, but then I took another sip of coffee and shook my head.
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support'''  - no brainer (the question of adminship, not the candidate, that is).
'''Support''' - ditto to all above. You're the type of editor that makes the rest of us mere mortals look bad (said tongue in cheek). --
'''Support'''
'''Strongest support possible'''. Thank you Acdixon for accepting the nomination. I asked him to do this RFA because I think he is one of the best editor that I've seen on Wikipedia. I fully agree with the comments in Wizardman nomination statement. His content work is superb and the way that he shepherds his work through content reviews is equally impressive. Giving him the tools will be a true benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Looks sound to me. --<font color="Red">
Per the esteem in which I hold both nominators and the very articulate and well-thought-out answers to the questions.
per SilkTork. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''', good judgement and quality content work. --
'''Support''' per Fences and Windows.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. Great contribution history.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Qualified, experienced candidate with a superb contribution history. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
No concerns. <font color="00ff00">
'''Weak Support''' A truly excellent editor who I have no issues with at all. Not certain as to the benefit of the mop in Acdixon's case, but certainly have no problem with him holding it.
'''Support''' in view of a review of contributions, both the incredible KY Governor work and elsewhere. I trust, based on that review, that this editor will use (or not use, as the situation dictates) the tools well.--<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Extremely impressive content work. Though Acdixon lacks experience in vandalism fighting he has demonstrated that he understands the process. Looking through Acdixon's talk page he has been civil with other editors. I don't have any concerns.
'''Support''' Everything looks fine to me, see nothing that makes me think the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' Acdixon's adminship would be a net positive to the project. His content skills are fantastic, but it is clear his people skills are the real asset that would make him valuable as an admin.
'''Support.''' Notwithstanding this editor's penchant for [[Kentucky Wildcats|blue]].
'''Support''' Lots of very good people think highly of this editor, and contributions are outstanding.  Looked a bit at their history of contributions over the years and they look solid. There is of course a worry about admin issues and a lack of experience in them, but I have a very strong sense this editor will use the tools carefully.
'''Support''' I think this candidate will perform well under the stresses of adminship. I can trust them with the tools, and they have sufficient experience.
'''Support'''. Clearly a strong content contributor, and the discussions he mentioned in Q3 show excellent civility.--
'''Support''' per nom. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Support''' Most impressive answers to RfA questions I've ever seen.
'''Strong support''' outstanding contributions. No reason to oppose. --
'''Strong support''' per nom.  As a tangential note, the opposition reasoning of "oppose doesn't create content" and "oppose only creates content" is growing [[WP:HORSE|quite tiresome]].  Judge a user on their merits, not focus.
'''Support''' - have seen no evidence at FAC that this user will abuse the tools. Remains calm and collected under pressure. Creates content and works well with others to do so.
'''Weak Support''' The opposes aren't convincing, but they do make me wonder.
'''Support''' - per nom.

'''Support''' No issues here. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' After looking at some early and recent contribs, I can see this user has the ability to take criticism well.  Appears to be a strong contributor, and although I assume the user might hold some beliefs that I don't agree with (basing this on his self-identification on this page, below), he seems to have the ability to look at issues from a neutral standpoint.  Like the Aristotle quote as well.
'''Support''' I was a bit concerned regarding some earlier commentary, but a review of the candidate's history and contributions overrides any remaining doubts. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy, opposes are unconvincing. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' in line with Off2riorob's opposing rationale:  To me, a new admin who is "''nervous'' in approaching" the new issues he'll encounter is a good thing.  I like a candidate who seems to think the way i do regarding RfA, that an approval is acknowledgement by the community that he is trusted to learn well, not that he already knows how to do everything, so may as well be given the bit. Cheers, '''
'''Weak support''' Those who know me will know that it is very rare for me to use anything other than plain "support" or "oppose" - in this case, while I see no specific reason to oppose the candidate, the opposes cause me enough pause to weaken my support, but not to the extent that I will go neutral, or oppose myself '''''
'''Support'''. Answers show more than enough self-doubt and mental acuity.
'''Big Blue Support'''  seems to be a good candidate, that can be trusted, and besides, he is a fellow Wildcat!! --
'''Support''' per Tide Rolls.
'''Support'''. Wow, an admin candidate who actually cares a lot about content creation! I edit a lot of pages where there are heated conflicts related to religion, and I imagine that if you were a POV-pusher, I would have seen evidence of that, but I see no such evidence. Plenty of opportunities to push POV, but a consistent refusal to do so, instead creating balanced content. I love the first sentence of your answer to Q1—and would advise every administrator to make it their own motto—and everything I see reassures me that you really meant it. --
'''Support''': Why not. --
'''Support:''' I looked at some of the oppose concerns and feel the candidate will rise above them. Will make a great Admin. -
'''+S''' You betcha.
'''Support''' - Good editor.
'''oppose'''' - user appears as yet inexperienced in the wide issues the admin will encounter.and ''nervous'' in approaching them.
'''Oppose''' - as per Off2riorob - user has limited experience in vandal fighting, and a good proportion of admin's time is dealing with vandals. Some more experience in this area would be desirable. '''
'''Oppose'''- I do not think that this nominee will perform well under the stresses of adminship.
'''Oppose''' I don't like that he claims he "...typically stay[s] away from controversial articles..." but a) goes on to create [[Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays]]. Funny how these inhibitions become atypical. And b) that with the [[Confederate Government of Kentucky]] article he "realized too late that topics about the Confederacy seem to draw the ire of some folks." Whereas for a) I would expect a serious candidate to have enough wiki-smarts and general self-awareness to come up with at least a halfway credible cover/excuse for pushing politico-religious bias, then b) (if the candidate is to be believed) shows seriously limited awareness. However, I find that ignorance claim laughably disingenuous and for an excuse, absurd. Plus points, though, for admitting that the agreed article content didn't contain the nomenclature he'd set his heart on.
'''Oppose''' - As per Off2riorob, you seem to be a bit hesitant about many of issues that admins deal with daily.  Saying that you would ask an admin for advice in almost every case of blocking a user does not inspire confidence in me.  Also, your answer to question 5 worries me, as there are multiple cases in which a user could be indef. blocked without prior warning, including in sockpuppet investigations.  I see that you're a great content creator, which is a definite plus, but I do not see that you fully understand all of the policies and backlogs that are usually associated with administrator activity.
User is a content creator, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for my support. Looking through the last 18 months of edits, I see nothing in particular that is problematic, however there is something that just doesn't seem right and as such I cannot support, but nothing that I can see that would cause me to oppose. Sorry. Anyway, some thoughts I had while reviewing. I see little to no attempts at dispute resolution. I'm concerned with the answer to question 3, particularly the second paragraph. While most administrative actions will be entirely boring, the ones that draw fire are those where there is some protracted dispute. I like administrators who have been involved in disputes instead of simply avoiding them. Reverting vandalism without warnings. If you're going to label an edit as vandalism, please warn the user on their talk page. Then if they continue the vandalism they can be blocked sooner. Uploading public domain images to en not commons. Since they are all used in articles, I don't have a big problem, but should another wikimedia project want to use them they would have to locally upload them again. Be more careful at xfds. You !voted twice at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls]]. If you ever close any xfds, watch for double voting. As it is highly likely this will pass, I leave you with the words of Alan Shepard, don't fuck up. :-) -
Cabal nominee in an era where the increasingly cabal-esque nature of Wikipedia administration is getting significant media attention. I imagine this will pass, but I have misgivings about all the name dropping in the questions. That said, I also have no reason to oppose.
'''Neutral'''.  I can't say I'm totally satisfied with the answer to question 5, but it's not nearly erroneous enough to warrant an oppose.  I think I'll !vote neutral for now, and reconsider at a later date.  -'''
'''Neutral''' While I see no reason not to support, something makes me feel deeply uneasy about doing so. I'm not sure what that is, and I don't remember having any interactions with this candidate, positive or negative, but something is just nagging me.
'''Neutral'''. I don't see anything of concern here regarding actions taken by Acdixon, but to support a candidate I would like to be able to get a good idea of how they would use the admin tools. I don't see much in Acdixon's edit history that gives such an indication - for example their approach to article deletion (an area where an admin with poor judgment or a bias against a particular subject area can do damage), their approach to vandals and disruptive editors, etc. Acdixon appears to be a fine editor, and I have nothing negative to say about their contributions, but good editors do not always make good admins. The nominee's stated intent to use the tools with caution is reassuring, but some of the answers to the questions (e.g. #5) could have been better. I hope Acdixon won't take this as crticism of their contributions as there's nothing that I see to criticise, I simply don't see enough to go on regarding how good they'll be as an admin.--
'''Neutral'''. While I was initially inclined to be worried by his ideological beliefs (especially as he has edited articles on some politico-religious topics), I can't see any real evidence of POV editing, and his reaction to controversy at [[Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays]] seemed reasonable and level-headed to me. He's clearly a hardworking editor who has contributed a great dal of high-quality material. So I don't have a justification for opposing.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
Well co-nominators don't come much better than those two highly esteemed editors, but that might be because candidates don't come much better! Best of luck, and thanks for all your bot does at [[WP:ITN/C]]!

Awesome nominators for an awesome candidate! I'm sure Anomie will find the admin tools useful in her bot and template work. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
At one time I thought that he was already an administrator.
As co-nom. –

'''Support'''. I can see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' for, err, touching my everyday editing life in ubiquitous and expansive ways '''
As nom.
'''Support''' No problems for him.
'''Support''' Anomie does a great job for the project, not only by his edits but also with his bots. I was disheartened when I heard some time ago that he didn't want to run for admin, thus I am more than happy to support him now that he finally runs. :-) Regards '''
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' Not seen much of Anomie him- or her- self, but seems to be an outstanding editor, with the support of some of the most trusted editors, plenty of experience and a good manner. Making such people admins will never be a bad thing. <span style="color:#3A3A3A">'''Grandiose''' </span><span style="color:gray">(
Happy to '''support''' this hard-working, knowledgeable and highly competent editor.
'''Support'''. Clueful, attentive, communicable individual doing a lot of useful work. Careful bot operator and great BAG member. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;
'''Support'''. per [[User:HJ Mitchell]]. Nominated by two admins who I trust and respect, combined with exceptional qualifications = an admin candidate that I don't even feel the need to spend an hour picking through edit histories on.
'''Support''' - Easy decision, even if it were a one-sentence self-nom! <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'''Support''' - About  time.
'''Support''' Por que no?
'''Support''' Anomie appears to have a great understanding of Wikipedia policies. I don't see any reasons why he wouldn't make a great admin.
'''Support''' No issues. --
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=%22per+Anomie%22&fulltext=Search&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search Adequate.]
An absolute no-brainer.
I have broken my wikibreak to support this. Thanks a lot. :/ <small>(
Over-qualified
'''Support''' <!-- While Administratorship is not a reward for services rendered to WP, --> Many have commented on the importance of AnomieBOT for WP. The candidate's user page shows the candidate helping others, including experts,  e.g. on technical issues. The candidate's <!-- focus on video games does not demonstrate an ability to mediate disputes among writers of traditional encyclopedia content, but  --> mediation abilities have been on display for years, e.g., at [[Talk:Feminists_for_Life/Archive_1]]. Good luck and congratulations! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Early Congrats!
'''Support''' He won't misuse the administrator tools.
'''
'''Support''' Anomie will make an excellent admin. --
'''support''' per Anomie. <!--Oh wait ;) -->--''
'''Support''' As if it were needed... No problems for me. (Some day I might understand how bots work. Then again, why bother when Anomie is around?)
Yes, solid editor, wants to contribute more, no compelling reason not to.--'''~
'''Weak support'''. Unconvincing reasons. However Anomie is a good editor.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose at this time. '''
'''Support''' without hesitation. '''
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''', great candidate.
'''Support''' huge plus.--v/r -
'''Support''' complete, total no brainer.
'''Support''' Well reasoned answers.
'''Support''' – I've waited for this RfA for quite a while. Excellent candidate, with excellent nominators. No reason to oppose. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - The only time I've thought that there should be a SNOW clause for RfA.  The complete package for an admin, I have no reservations. --<font color="green">
I think yes. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Long overdue. --
'''Strong support'''. I seriously thought he was an admin already! '''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor.
'''Strong support'''. Extremely well-qualified candidate, no concerns.
One of our most skilful template coders and bot programmers. Extremely responsible and conscientious; completely trustworthy. Would be a huge asset with extra tools. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' About time! --
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' - Do I even need to put a convincing support rational here? Actually, I'm just looking forward to seeing how high this thing climbs. {{=)|smile}} - '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Why not?  Give me a reason.  ~~
'''Support''', This editor is not one I've seen around much, but after looking through some of the things this user has done, such as creating Anomiebot, it's clear to me that this user seems to be highly knowledgeable in their field and is someone who's won the respect of their fellow editors.
'''Support''' Almost two years since I've supported an RFA candidate and couldn't pick someone better. All the best. <sup>
'''Support''' - Looks like he would make a great Administrator. --  '''
'''support''' I support you for the following reasons: Anomiebot is awesome, you have Xeno's nomination, I have seen you at the village pump repeatedly being helpful, you answered all the above questions in the best way, and you have consistently contributed to Wikipedia for years.
Quite right, I genuinely thought that you were already an admin. '''Support''' and good luck! <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' He definitely knows his policies, and he would make a great administrator.
'''Support''' – If it wasn't for
'''Support''' -- ''very'' sensible answers with regards to [[WP:IAR]] and admin recall questions; I believe that this user can be trusted not to abuse the tools entrusted to them.
'''Support''' - Outstanding record on Wikipedia - dedicated and will surely be an asset. Responds well to conflict or difficult users/situations and can keep cool.
'''Support''' Yes, Yes, Yes!
'''Support''' Hooray!
'''Support''' - Looks good to me.

<s>[[WP:RIGHTNOW]] as per nominators</s> Cautious support. You state above "I could write this up into some toothless recall procedure, but why waste the time?" I find this worrying (at best), implying that you would stack a recall procedure into making it unenforceable were you to create one (''n.b.'' that I'm not fussed if you do or don't create one and I understand that you won't). What it seems to me is that this is a statement that implies either you don't stand by your word, or that you will only stand by your word if you've deliberately made your word full of holes - not on the issue of recall but on other issues. Poliicians we don't need.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Yes, this excellent editor will make a fine admin. Also, that's the best answer to Q8 that I've seen. ​—
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Would make a good admin --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - There are times when users need upgrades.
'''Support''' - Candidate will not commit to term limit, reconfirmation or recall. A bit moot however, as the candidate is of such a quality that they will almost surely never need recalling :-) I also thought the response to Q6 was very good. Thanks Anomie for the candid response to my question and good luck with the mop. --
'''Support''' - Most definitely. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">

'''Support''' I have often seen Anomie's good work and welcome this candidacy.
I haven't participated in RfA for a while, but I saw this on someone's "Who's on RfA" widget and thought '''"It's about time!"'''. --''
'''Support''' seems very familiar with Wikipedia and knows what's going on. No reason for oppose. [[User:Sp33dyphil|'''<small><span style="background:HotPink;color:white">'''Sp33dyphil</span></small>''']] ''<sup>"[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ad]]
'''Support''' We need more admins who understand and can edit protected templates. --
'''Support''', absolutely, will make a fine admin!  A fine and thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' though I don't think you need it.  Qualified candidate, absolutely.
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' Not convinced by opposes.
'''Support''': About as trusted as they come. Sure, I'm sure Anomie could ''survive'' without the tools, but simply not to grant them on those grounds flies in the face of NOBIGDEAL. -
'''Oppose''' For wasting other editors' time with inane and irrelevant talk page guff.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knock-knock_joke&diff=prev&oldid=16231381] --
Support - Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
Support - <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
'''Support''' – No doubt for me that this candidate should get the adminsistrative tools. Anomie is a great user and will benefit greatly from having the tools.
'''Support'''.  We can always use more high quality admins.--
'''Support'''. '''
Go for it.  &ndash;
'''Support'''.  In my opinion, someone who has competently run an important bot for the past three years has clearly shown the level of capability, maturity, and trustworthiness that is required in an admin.
'''Support''' - per all the above! No reason not to really.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Frankly ''stunned'' you aren't one already. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
I'm
'''Support''' No problems here! '''
'''Support''' I can't see any compelling reason to oppose or remain neutral, and I'm confident the candidate will be a solid admin. As for the issues raised in Oppose 1, I appreciate the editor's POV but we all have our own ways of expressing ourselves, and I have don't believe the candidate's tone is a serious issue.
'''Support''' Wait, you aren't one already?
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Huh my first Rfa vote of the year. Good luck. --
'''Support''' Another mop to be dished out. '''
Duh.
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''': I thought they already were an admin. --
'''Strong Support''': I also thought Anomie was an admin.  Hand out the mops and t-shirts. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''  I don't usually pile on these things, but I've been very impressed with Anomie whenever I see his work.  Cheers.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">
'''Support'''. Really liked the answers to questions. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - The whole "I thought they were already an admin" thing is a bit cliché &mdash; this is the first time that it literally applies for me.
Sorry for the pile-on '''Support'''. '''
Yes. Straightforward, trustworthy, stable, intelligent, reflective, an asset to the project, and someone who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. '''
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Over qualified candidate. --
'''Support''' very longterm active user with a clean block log, near perfect answer to Q8, and deleted contributions look good too. I've read the oppose section but do not consider incidents from 2008 to be relevant at a 2011 RFA. Especially as said incidents didn't even merit a block. ''
'''Support''' He will be a good admin.
'''Support''', why not? --
'''Support''' - well known to me and others; good editor; passes all my usual standards.
'''Support''' - Yeah this is another one of those "I thought you were already an admin" votes. I honestly did. -- '''
'''Support'''. An extraordinarily strong candidate. I've looked carefully at the candidate's interaction and communication skills in the context of the one oppose, and I'm completely satisfied. --
'''Support''' May as well shovel some [[WP:SNOW|snow]] here too. --
For sure. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Fastily|Fastily]].
'''Support''' - First candidate in a while that I've had that "he isn't an admin already?" feeling about. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - experienced user running useful bot. Very funny MJ94.
Finally!
Absolutely.
Piling on. <font face="Comic sans MS">
Wow. Honestly? My first thought here was "why has such an excellent, friendly, knowledgeable admin stooped to the drama which is a reconfirmation RFA?". We're only four days in here: I suppose it's nice that we'll get to blow the dust off [[WP:200]] at the end of the week.
'''Support''' and about time too. Like so many others, I always assumed Anomie was already an admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', if only for their responses in this RFA. Their edits elsewhere, their bot work, and their contributions as a member of BAG are icing on the cake. Good luck,
'''Support''' - Absolutely, order another mop.
'''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per question 11 --
'''Support''' I have seen edits from this contributor, this contributor has made over 15,000 edits since 2005, Is very active in the community, doesn't seen to bring an agenda, doesn't raise [[COI]] concerns which in my opinion is something lacking with the few admins I have experience with. The community needs more active admins like this.
No Regrets. -
'''Support''' It's about time. Already trusted at this level by the community with the highly-utilized bot. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''', strongly.
'''Support''' - no concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
{{ok}} Sounds fine. --
Per the flawless answer to question 11. On that note, it's an inditement on our current admins and Arbcom that not one of them has had the backbone to deal with an issue which from what I can tell stretches back years. —
'''Support''' per AnomieBOT.
'''Support''' a prize for editor with 150th support !vote. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No issues. Already well-trusted.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, obvious janitorial temperament. Perfect candidate.
'''Suppport''' the obvious.--'''
'''Support'''. Shows clear wisdom and good judgment, for example by not responding to Keepscases question. —
'''Support''' after a modest review of contributions and having seen the editor's work before. No concerns.  --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Congratulations...
'''Strong support''' Extremely well-qualified, long-time veteran. A legend at hunting down wayward and wanton bots.--
'''Support''' Phew, good thing I made it here in time - love me some pile-on voting!
'''Support''' Long overdue! Sysop tools would greatly assist his work! —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
'''For'''. I see this one whizzing around a lot. :) ~'''
'''Support''' Anomie would do much better with the additional tools. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''': I was initially going to support, approving of the candidate's bravery in giving a negative response to Q8, content with their eventual answer to Q9, plus the fact that they are experienced with intricate templates and the like. However, what initially concerned me, oddly enough, was the one area I said would not influence my decision, which was a little question in the Discussion about linking to a maths article which seems to have got the candidate inexplicably upset, their answer implying that I was accusing them of/mocking them for being autistic. If such an innocent question  was prone to so upset the candidate, I thought, they may not cope well with the scrutiny they may come under for the administrative actions they take. A little more digging, and, what do you know: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval&diff=prev&oldid=298882042] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval&diff=prev&oldid=298889019] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace&diff=prev&oldid=250571574] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace&diff=prev&oldid=248802302] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=414184854]. '''
I don't know if I could vote for a candidate (I have only 67 edits) and I don't know this user. But the user's contribution is great and I believe it will be better if Anomie become an administrator. --
'''Neutral'''
Can't see any reason to oppose but some of the answers to questions seemed a bit abrupt and the language this user uses is too formal.  Not really good oppose reasons though.--
'''strong support''' As an editor, Bahamut showed great levels of competance and sofar is unlikely to betray our trust
'''Beat the nom support''' 'Nuff said.
'''Strong support'''.  As an editor, Bahamut has demonstrated unsurpassed diligence and dedication; I have no doubts he will do the same as an administrator. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;
Clueful & sensible. No issues that I can dig up :) That's all I need to see --'''
'''Support'''. Many positive qualities that I like to see in an admin. The two nominators' endorsements also carries weight with me. --
I trust the co-nom. - Dank (
'''support''' logs look OK, deleted content shows candidate has mainly tagged images for deletion, rather than articles, but what is there looks fine. The only dubious activity was all those secret pages that were found in November 2008!
Strange Dank, I trust the nom ;)
I trust both. More importantly, I trust the candidate - there's no indication whatsoever that their adminship will be anything but a net positive to the project.
No concerns. –
Had a long look at your contributions during the AUSC appointment process. My approval from then is still valid today.
'''Support''' I can't see anything wrong. &mdash;
'''Support''' (sigh) As much as it pains me to ruin the status of the only non-admin on the AUSC, I can find no reason not to support this candidate. '''
I think you should have done this before the AUSC appointments, because now the community is put in the strange position of either throwing sand in ArbCom's face and having a CU without a block button (among other strange things about a non-admin functionary) or making you an admin. However, I would have supported a month ago and you certainly haven't become less qualified in that time. The fact that you have two sitting and highly esteemed arbs in the first ten supports and that I can't think of two editors I respect more than Dank and Courcelles eliminates any doubts I might have had.
'''Strong Support''' If he's good enough for AUSC, he's good enough to be a sysop, in my opinion.  Contributions look great.
Duh.
In the nearly-week since I've had the pleasure of serving with him on the audit subcommittee, this user has displayed every bit of clue I would expect in an administrator; he's actually exceeded my expectations in his analysis of and commentary on the handful of matters that have required his comment.
Previous encounters at [[wp:OMT]] have given me confidence that Bahamut will be a good and responsible admin. I must admit I find the timing of this RFA somewhat akward, but this does not change my full support of the candidate. '''Yoenit''' (
'''Support''' - I don't need to add a comment here because anything  I could have/would have said has already been said, so the answer is most definitely YES!
Easiest decision to make all day. Bahamut has the perfect balance between experience and humor that is necessary for administrators. I very rarely participate in RfAs these days, but Bahamut is the sort of candidate that deserves an exception. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' - Recently reviewed in relation to AUSC, and was impressed with what I saw and the way he handled himself. I share Jclemens' opinion about Bahamut's AUSC work to date.
'''Support''' Definitely. 'Nuff said. --
'''Strong support''' - Most definitely he is a good candidate.
'''Strong support''' - Agree with Logan above. He's trusted enough to be on AUSC, he's trusted enough to have the bit. Regards, <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I was impressed when I had a look at AUSC nom time. And besides, a mop would look good next to the Armenian curse --
'''Support''' Essentially, what Kirill said. I have seen this editor around MILHIST pages and he is always diligent and dedicated to his task. He is not afraid to get stuck in when he needs to and that is a quality we need in admins these days. I have absolutely no doubt that he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''  Based on a review of contributions, as well as the co-nominations. Have run into the editor a few times around the pedia (AfD, at least one legal case article) and have always been impressed. --
'''Support''' I know we've had some interactions in the past and I'm having problems hunting them down.  But as I attempted to do so I read a fair bit of your contributions and find you very reasonable.
{{ok}} Go ahead... --
'''Support''' I've not had personal interaction with him, but the place is so big that's not surprising. I do have great respect for the two nominators, and the answers to the questions look good. Obviously a lot of people trust him already, and he looks to be busy. If you want a job doing, find someone who's busy. They don't have the time to think up excuses for not doing it...
If this fails, then there is something seriously wrong with the community's expectations vs. its trust. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
''nods'' [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' I've seen you around but have never interacted with you directly before that I know of. That being said, I've only seen you in the right places so I think you'll be a good administrator. Good luck!
'''Support''' Seen his work; always well-reasoned, follows up on feedback. Won't disappoint. (E/c & moved from below)
'''Support''' – I see no issues with bahamut gaining the sysop bit. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' I don't share WSQ's concerns. Best of luck
'''Support''' This editor appears to be a responsible contributor who can be trusted to use the mop. The minor user box issue does not detract from that in my opinion.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support:''' Why not?
'''Support''' For Sure! ''<B>--
'''Support''' — Great candidate. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support.'''
'''Strong Support''' I have worked with Bahamut0013 for a long time, and I have nothing but praise for the Sergent. As one who has observed Baha's work for the Majestic Titan project I have no reservation about strongly supporting him for the position of admin here on Wikipedia. He will be a good man in the storm, and a good admin for the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''  Go for it ...

'''Support''' - I don't see any problems here.
'''Support''': I see no issues holding this user back from being an admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''STRONG Support'''. Has helped me dozens of times and has always been fair in his re-edits of my work.  I have always valued his input. Semper Fi, Marine! from your Coast Guard shipmate on Wiki.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good luck!
'''+'''
'''Support'''. Agree with some of the neutrals' points on the userboxes. But not enough to keep me from supporting.
'''Support''' - From what I can see looks good to me, and as far as the userbox issues some have expressed...I don't have an issue with them.
'''Support''' 1) per a couple Noms I respect. 2) A brief look indicates a good edit history 3) "Enough" edit history  4) Seems to be pretty clueful in policy knowledge  5) Looks as though he could be quite helpful with a few extra tools.  OK, Now, in regards to the userboxes - yes, normally I think it's best for an Admin. not to put too much of their personal view right out there on their user page ... '''But''' first, the two boxes I saw, didn't seem to be pushing any type of POV.  Yep, I did see the userbox page, which I don't have a problem with because first, it's a sub-page in his space; and second, I don't have an issue with a user having their personal thoughts on-wiki.  I like the ability to go see what a person is all about, and how they think.  I believe it's actually a benefit to be able to assess a person so that I can formulate a way to communicate with them in the best means possible.  Not that I'm a huge "box" fan, but it's nice to see what a person is like w/out 101 questions sometimes. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' I trust the nominator's judgment and this user shows experience, knowledge and above all competence, would make a good admin and would do well with the tools. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' Bahamut is a good editor who can be trusted to use the admin tools wisely. That said, I do agree that political user boxes (and especially lots of them) are inappropriate for admins, and they should be removed. While I trust Bahamut to use the tools in a neutral way, the problem with admins having user boxes advertising their views on controversial topics is that it may cause some editors to feel that their actions as an administrator are motivated by personal views, which could lead to them feeling that they were treated unfairly (it's important to remember that admins will inevitably deal with troublesome editors and controversial articles).
'''Support'''. Limited content contribution, but otherwise looks good.
'''Support'''; the userboxes don't violate any written or unwritten rule or principle in existence. Indeed, the fact that they've essentially disclosed any possible conflict of interest is something the community should be supportive of. ''
'''Support''' Going through your edits, I've found nothing but good work, good temperment and good humour. I may not agree with your political ideology, and I share concerns over some userboxen - but without a doubt you'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' per the removal; neutral is neutral, and while each of us is entitled to our private positions and beliefs; here we are expected to be balanced and neutral. Best of luck...
'''Support''' - but don't forget to warn those vandals! ;) ;) ;) ;)
--
'''Support''' good candidate, userboxes could do with further trimming but nothing to warrant an oppose/neutral
'''Support''' An experienced and trusted user. Looking through his contributions, I see many good things and no red flags. ([[Portal:Battleships]] looks good!) As noted above, he's been appointed to AUSC by ArbCom; if he meets that higher bar of trust, then surely he is trustworthy enough for adminship.
'''Support''' Good track record at AfD, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I have no comments. They have already been used. He deserves the mop.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 12,000 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, rollbacker, and even checkuser (which I don't have and want right now, gosh darn it!). We registered as users in the same month (February 2007), so he's an old hand here and has proven his record.  I have never made it a habit of denying the mop to anyone who is ideologically on the other side of the aisle from me, and this is not a good time to change one of my few good habits.
'''Strong Support'''  A level headed editor who seems to do excellent work. Your answer to question 4 shows that you are clueful and can think your way out of tough situations. The fact that you are a CU and Oversighter only add to the reason why you should be an admin. I saw the userbox so here is an arrow:  <-W-W-W-<< --
(moved from neutral) thanks for culling the userboxes I was concerned about. I have no other strong concerns, warning of vandals is optional, the important thing is that you cleaned up the vandalism. ''
Contribs look pretty good here; certainly trustworthy. –
HJ basically says what I was thinking.
Trustworthy and well-rounded. '''
'''Support''' No red flags. --
Dank beat me to it :). '''Support.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Semper Fidelis''' - no problems here.--
'''Support'''. Sound candidate, &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Most of my interaction with the candidate has involved tag-teaming to revert vandalism on a couple of articles that we both have watchlisted. I've seen his work elsewhere, though. I have seldom seen any reason to question his actions. My one gripe with his work is with something he doesn't do: he seldom issues user-talk page warnings to vandals. This is a gripe because an absence of warnings (1) reduces the chance that various bots will notice subsequent vandalism and (2) makes it harder to justify blocking the vandals when the vandalism persists. Maybe some admin experience will help convince him that it's often worth the effort to issue warnings. --
'''Support''' In vetting him for AUSC I found no red flags, and subsequent reviews of his contributions have convinced me he will be a positive admin. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support'''. Impressive nominators, impressive answer to Q3, and valid rationale for using the tools. I looked back through your talk page, and at some early edits. (Very nice newbie comments at your first AfD discussion!) With respect to those user boxes, I take the position that I support candidates who have strong personal opinions so long as I trust them not to insert those opinions into their administrative or editing actions, and I'm satisfied there. Please do warn the vandals, though. I easily trust this user with the tools. --
No concerns whatsoever to any stretch of the imagination. Admins are not neutral, nor are they expected to be; we only ask they pretend to be to the end of a good cosmetic appearance.
'''Support'''.  While his now-deleted boxes may suggest it would be wise for him to tread lightly in using admin tools in those areas in which he may have a strong point of view, I see much reason to support and none to oppose.--
'''Support''' As best as I can tell he is a tremendous asset to the project. I sincerely doubt that he will go on a spree blocking pro-Obama editors or vandalize the main page with pro-Republican slogans.
'''Support'''. This candidate is obviously bright and talented, judging from their contributions; there is no valid reason why this user should not become admin. Everyone has different opinions on Politicians etc., I don't see you as a type of editor that'll force their opinions onto someone else. --
'''Support''' The user is a good candidate.  ~~
'''Support''' No concerns; candidate seems level-headed, knowledgable and experienced. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
Trusted user, no reasons to think that you wouldn't make a good admin.
'''Support''' already trusted with something more important it looks like. &nbsp;<small>
'''Support''' - I'm a fan. -
'''Support''' - Looks like he can be definitely trusted with the mop. '''
'''Support''' – Some concerns about main article building contributions not being more recent and answer to question 7 is a little iffy—deterrence I would think would be more associated with punitive actions—but am reasonably confident the candidate knows what it is to be a content contributor and has enough relevant experience to appropriately deal with their issues.
'''Support''' - Although I have been editing articles frequently from Feb 2011 I feel that his conributions to Wikipedia are excellent enough to give him the admin rights. And I am confident enough to tell he's trustable.
'''Support''' Looks fine. We're all biased. User A removes or tones down userboxes that others say are too partisan. User B throws a notcensored-first amendment-I will because I can shitfit. There's a difference.
'''Support''' My political point of view couldn't be more different from the nominee, but he looks to be fair in his edits. I trust him to be fair in the future. --
'''Support''' Bahamut0013 has been a solid editor and works well with others. -
'''Support''' fine editor. Glad to show my dues
'''Support''' He'll be a good admin.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' - I am not a citizen of the United States, I am British. But my goodness - the man cheerfully provides his '''real life identity as a member of the United States Marine Corps'''. There is absolutely no way that I cannot support him. There is no practicable way in which he can be more trustworthy, which is my sole criteria for administrators. Furthermore, and while it is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia, I wish to thank him for the service he has given to ''my'' country's interests as well. No man is an island... Great Britain is, but the United Kingdom isn't. Thank you, Sgt. Lemiszk <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' Clearly. '''
'''Support''' Responsible editor, civil when opposed here.
'''Support'''. The right man for a tough job. Top quality interactions and objectivity.
'''Support''' - So long as it's understood that the editor doesn't use administrative tools in controversies in which they're involved, directly or indirectly. It's ultimately a trust issue, but then again a single admin shouldn't be making content decisions unless it's clear anyway. The supports above indicate that level of trust and I don't see a place where that was violated. I'm a little bothered we're using politics to dq admin candidates now... irrespective of my own personal opinions. We already dq too many qualified candidates based on internal wiki politics... I can't imagine the RfA where we disqualify candidates based on their real world politics when there's no indication it has bearing on their judgment for admin purposes.
'''Support''' though after wading through the most massive collection of user boxes I have yet seen (to see what the mini-controversy was about, and see if there were any I could swipe), I must express some very mild concerns.  Still, I agree with those who say that this editor can be trusted, after looking over the impressive number of people who vouch for him. May your adminship be firm yet fair, and best wishes to you!
'''Support''' Think he can cope with a mop!
'''Support''' - I'm very disturbed that this individual's political views are being brought up, given that if they were more liberal or libertarian we would likely not even be discussing them (I'm not crying conspiracy here, just being realistic about the makeup of this community). It's not as if he's promoting offensive viewpoints such as Nazism. The real questions relate to whether he is a knowledgeable editor capable of unbiased editing and judicious use of the tools. I see the answer as a clear "yes".
'''Obvious support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' --''
'''Strong Support''' - Sorry I'm soo late Bahamut0013 but, doesn't seem you need much help :P. This is a "No Brainer"
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent, neater, trustworthy, happy wikipedian with big contributions in the wikipedia namespace and full understandings in wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also he is using the edit summary almost always. Easy support from me.--<span style="background-color:#FF7F24;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"><font color="black">
'''Support'''  May try for 200.  Sound in each area I have run across him.
'''Support''', no issues here. Though I'm fairly certain the last word of the nomination is not actually a word...
'''
Very sensible user, well cut out for the mop. --
'''Support''', this user seems capable of fulfilling administrator responses capably.  Opposing on the basis of the candidate's religious and political beliefs is absurd: please note that we political and religious conservatives aren't a fringe minority.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}'''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Fellow member of the cabal. <small>- TRANSMISSION ENDS -</small> <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support'''—all clear. Happy mopping,
'''Weak Oppose''' although I'm not concerned about the userboxes, I took a look at some rollback contributions and I've found a couple of mistakes. He was using rollback to remove some good-faith content [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M39_Enhanced_Marksman_Rifle&diff=prev&oldid=422212818] (and probably [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Marine_Corps_Recruit_Training&diff=prev&oldid=420314558 this]) but most importantly, he needs to warn the vandals which is also an essential part of the rollbacker's job which quite frankly, I see very little of that. I hope he respects this oppose, and steers clear of the rollback department when he does get the admin tools, because further rollback mistakes would lead to a desysop (I do know that the rollback button is included in the admin package) and a loss for rollback.
'''Strong Oppose''' The userboxes indicate a high level of bias.  We already have enough non-neutral admins, I wouldn't want this user trying to solve a problem in the Obama article.  Or George Bush.  Besides, a lot of the military articles are a total mess, and I've seen the nominee help clean a lot up (just scratching the surface, since every anonymous IP has to throw in some unsourced comment about their unnotable dad serving someplace).  Anyways, the nominee has all the tools necessary, and should just edit articles.
'''Oppose''' Per userboxes, even though removed, they still show your bias by attacking [[Nancy Pelosi]], [[Harry Reid]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Obama]]. Now, before someone points out my clear bias in support of all 4 of these people, you'll note since my anti-Bush ubx, I haven't had any negative BLP related userboxes on my page...I'm surprised more people aren't opposing because of this. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">
'''Oppose''' per question 8. I know a term limit is rarely done; but it ''ought'' to be done; recall is ineffective - especially since the admin is judge in his own case.
'''Oppose!''' This person seems bias towards certain topics. I know this from the userbox things on his user page. '''
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid this editor has such a strong bias that his possible involvement as an administrator in articles pertaining to right-wing politics, US military, and the like, would not be subject to an impartial evaluation. The candidate already has expanded editing powers, and at this point I don't really see any need for giving him even more.
Agree to a large extent with WSC's viewpoint.
This is likely to succeed due to the overwhelming support and I don't think that's a huge deal considering this user is already being granted many permissions, but [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=416575329 this diff] regarding AfD closures gave me some pause, considering this user indicated above a desire to get involved in AfD. I would caution this user to tread lightly in AfD given some of the points he stated in that link. Edit: I think I may have misunderstood said diff, could you explain? Did you mean RfA not AfD? '''
'''Neutral''', with regret.  What I've seen of this user's contributions is favourable, but I cannot endorse an editor with inflammatory fringe views being put in a position of authority.  Sorry, Bahamut.
'''Support'''. I've seen this editor around quite a bit, and have seen nothing but positive things.
'''Support'''. As 28bytes said: seen him around & seems suitable to wield the mop.
'''Support'''. I was actually shocked to discover that mop privileges have not already been handed over to this user.  Exemplifies well reasoned thinking is about.
'''Support''' of course, per above. --
'''Support''' I've seen his work quite a lot, and his willingness to help people (even those who don't actually deserve it...). I thought he was an admin for some time when I first encountered him, which probably means he's a natural for the job.
'''Support'''. What, you're not admin already? Trustworthy, insightful, helpful, and familiar with the ''intent'' of policy as well as the literal wording.
'''Support'''. The editor is committed to the ideals of Wikipedia and an ideal candidate for adminship imho
'''You're not an admin already support?''' haven't looked through his history, but when you thought somebody was already an admin and they aren't, that's a good sign.---'''
[[Revolution 9|Number nine... number nine... number nine...]] just wanted to get that in, I'll expand later.
Same as 28bytes, I've seen you around the place with no negative interactions. Good luck!
'''Support''' You are a marvelous editor and I see no reason why not to.
'''Support''' Sensible, friendly and diligent, he'd be the kind of admin whose interactions would draw new editors to the project, rather than putting them off.
'''Support''' – Has been behaving like an admin for a long time. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support'''. Have seen him around and been impressed. In all honesty, I thought he already was an admin! Plus he has a great username. '''
'''Support'''. My reaction is similar to Balloonman's. A major asset to Wikipedia.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' I offered to nom you; you'll do fine.
'''Support'''. Great editor with over 30,000 edits!--
Well duh. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Harrumph. This low in the support stack even if I say something witty no one will read it. Hence the basics: Knows his stuff, seen around and about the community, is not an ass to others, has clue, etc., etc..
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Strong support''' - Honestly, I've been expecting this for a while! <code>;)</code> More seriously, I have seen him many times, as he is one of only around 10 active new page patrollers.
{{ec}}'''Support.''' For the longest time, I had thought the candidate was already an admin. Time to make it official, or? ~~
'''Strong Support''' Just checked through the last 2000 edits and it's all good quality gnomish work, also meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my other criteria]], I have seen this editor around and am more than happy they be given the mop.
'''Support''' per Pol430's criteria. ''
'''Support''' Long overdue for the mop. --
one of the greatest people to work with on wikipedia. I truly thought he was a sysop already. --
'''Support''' Great editor. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' - Good candidate whom I have interacted with on more than one occasion. '''
Very strong candidate.
No problems. Good luck! →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
Lots of good [[WP:UAA]] work. - Dank (
No-brainer.
Long overdue, I even offered to nominate
<span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>(
'''Support''' Good choice.
'''Support''' A good candidate for the mop. '''
Aye, cannae see onythin' wirth opposin' ye fur.
FINALLY! I've been waiting and waiting for this one. Will be a tremendous asset.

<small>1 edit conflict with 4 supports</small> '''Wholehearted support'''; my first experience working with him was when he and I were reverting what we thought was vandalism on [[Earthcore]].  When we realized what was really going on, he did an exceptional job keeping his cool and sorting out the issue with someone who was (justifiably) very angry.  I was extremely impressed, and in looking through his contributions I see that this is the norm for him, hence my support.
'''Support''': About time. ~
'''Support''' - I /love/ your answer to Chzz's question. (The other ones are good too :P) - I see no problems.
'''Support''' It was very well done the RfA questions.  ~~'''Awsome'''
'''Support''' - I can help you right articles about spiders when yer up to it. I strongly recommend a bit of content contribution to see the WP processes from the inside out.
'''Strong support''' I was shocked when I saw this. I thought he was already a sysop.--
'''Support''' - great editor!

'''Easy support'''. A sensible, dedicated editor with a high level of clue and who would put the tools to good, albeit not necessarily prolific, use.
'''Absolutely support'''! In fact, I would have loved to have nominated him, had I known he was interested in making a run! --
'''Support''' - You weren't an admin already? o.O Clear support. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' - Like many others, I was absolutely certain the candidate was already an Admin. He has extensive knowledge of policies and guidelines and has worked in many areas all across the project. Has been courteous and helpful and obviously behaves as an Admin should. I'm very happy to support this candidate. - '''''
'''Support''' - I rarely support (or oppose) nominees. I like what you (and others) say. Do your best to remain uncontroversial and doing the janitorial duties that other administrators forego. I hear  [[Service Employees International Union|unions]] have good pensions.
'''Support''': Everything I have seen from this editor is great.  Hand the man a mop. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Thought he already was one. --
Only have good things to say, absolute no-brainer. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support.'''
Boing. Meet support. ''
'''Support.''' per the statements above. Especially Hydroxonium's point about courtesy and helpfulness.
'''Support''' No concerns about this candidate.
'''Strong Support''' I feel that you will be a good admin. And I would also like to thank you for all your help. '''[[Special:Contributions/Porchcrop|Lord]]
'''Support''' no concerns. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Very helpful and active editor that can be trusted. – '''
'''Support''' I don't need to run any of my usual checks - if I had known he had this escapade planned I would have nominated him without  hesitation.
'''Support''' Been time for this for a while now. Be careful not to spend too much time at ANI, that place is soul-crushing in large doses.
Definitely.
'''Support''' I've seen B!sZ around Wikipedia, and while I haven't always neccessarily agreed with him, I've found him to be competent and reasonable. Giving him the mop would be a net asset to the Project. -
'''Support''' He's been around for a while.
'''Support''' along the "can't believe is not one already" lines. As applications for RfA seem to be much slower these days, it's nice to see a strong one that looks to be snowed under!
'''Support''' This user is exactly the sort of person I look for in adminship. Diffusing issues, making rational, clear and concise comments on issues, I would be happy to support the user in holding the mop. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
User fails [[WP:NOTINAMILLIONYEARS]] criteria, appears helpful, useful, and civil. Definitely appears to have best interests of WP at heart and takes steps towards encouraging improvement in Wikipedia space. Shortish ''active'' period outweighed by the good work acheived, and as ADMIN is supposed to be about trust and experience I gice this user the nod.--<small><b><i>Club<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font></i></b><sup>
'''Strong Support''' - Definately. Without a doubt. (Please try and stop dreaming about Wikipedia though, that can't be good).
'''Support''' without a doubt. Having reviewed your contributions for the last few months, I'm struck by your high level of productivity, but also by your near-perfect accuracy. You have a very sound understanding of the principles behind CSD for example - something that too many current admins lack - and you are obviously active in the area. Long story short, you will be able to help people more with the tools, and I trust you to have them. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
'''Support''' Bravo! Seems like a reliable admin to me. – <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' Seeing this in my watchlist cheered me up greatly. I can see no problems with the candidate, and have had only positive interactions with them.--
'''Support''' [[WP:RIGHTNOW]]. <font color="#082567">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Ive always been impressed, trusted and respected Boings editing, Boing will make a fine aaddition. (The answer to 6 has swayed me completely of any doubts as well ;) )
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around quite a bit and have noticed that he has a good knowledge of policy and, when in doubt, asks for clarification. An essential quality for an admin, I think. —
'''"Wait, what?" support''' Thought this might be a reconfirmation RFA at first. :-) --
'''Support''' based on a review of randomly-selected contributions and positive interactions with the candidate in the past. --
'''Support''' I am delighted that Boing!... has at last decided to go for this. I tried to encourage him/her to do so several months ago. A very reliable and constructive editor, with a good grasp of policy, and very good at discussing and explaining, including to inexperienced editors who may lack understanding. I have frequently come across this editor's reports at AIV, and they are always reliable (which, unfortunately, is not true for a good many editors). Boing!... has also shown understanding of policies in other areas, including deletion. This really is one of the most certain and unambiguous "supports" I have ever given in an RfA: I am 100% sure that this candidate will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' You have no trouble changing your mind when an article is improved, or standing up to unreasonable people who rudely attack others.  You discuss things in a rational manner, and work through any concerns. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_vs_lion]]
'''Support''' You're not already one?
'''Strong support'''. Well-qualified candidate, good answers to questions.
'''Obviously'''. ••'''
'''Support'''. Definitely OK from everything I've seen in the past year. -
'''Support''' I like his willingness to be persuaded.
'''Support''' This user helped me numerous times when I was new and was always very nice and helpful.--
'''Boing!''' said <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' As others have stated, I too have seen him around the project and have never seen anything other than knowledgeable and helpful work. Very glad he's thrown his hat into the ring.
'''Support''' Yes! --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
Very familiar name. Boing is a prolific contributor, and although we've never interacted personally, I'm not given any reason to doubt that he'll do good work with the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Delighted to pile on.  My best wishes to this obvious admin-in-waiting!
'''Thought he already was an admin support''' Can definitely be trusted with the tools, a long history of dedication to the project, good judgement, no reason not too. :)
'''Support''', albeit slightly belated. I am one of the folk whom he mentions as having urged him in the past to apply for the mop and bucket, and am delighted that he now has done so. Would have nominated him had he agreed. He will make a fine admin. --<font color="Red">
'''YES, yes, yes! Support''' this user gave me the right advice when my RFA failed, and is friendly all over wikipedia give him the mop!--
'''Support''' - Why not? Seems like a trustworty editor, hand him the mop.
'''Support''' I've certainly disagreed with things said by this editor in the past (I recall some friction at the BLPPROD discussions) but that's fine.  I did honestly think he was already an admin...
'''Support'''.  I'm pleased to be the 100th editor to concur in the overwhelming support for this editor, despite his unusual name the thrust of which completely escapes me.  I had occasion to work with him during a dispute he was having at the Yehuda Amichai article and talk page, almost precisely a year ago.  I in that instance sought to arbitrate a dispute he and another editor were having.  In a situation that leads to raised passions more often than not, despite obvious keen annoyance he comported himself admirably and was civil and sensible throughout.  Having seen his performance under fire, I'm happy to support him.--
'''Support''' No concerns at this time. Having checked things over, and noting a nice response to my q - which was specifically aimed at the possible minor concern over limited experience in some areas admins might wander into...but I feel sure, now, that Z. knows eir own limitations, knows when to be bold and when to ask for help. I've seen lots of good examples of collegiate interaction. Best of luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Have seen this editor around for a long while and have no concerns about him being given the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Absolutely no concerns here.
'''Support''' - very knowledgeable and helpful; will make a fantastic admin. --
'''Support''', frequent reports at AIV are actionable, no doubt he would do fine without a second set of eyes. No concerns found in review of contributions.  Oppose/neutral concerns seem like they could be remedied through cursory communication.
'''Support '''Excellent chap in my experience
'''Support''' He'll be a great administrator.
'''Support''' - why not.
'''Support''' - Surprised you weren't an admin already.  In my imagination, you have been an exemplary admin for some time; I can't see that you'll start acting differently if we make it a reality. -
'''Support''' - As others had said, I thought you were a sysop already. Go get 'em.
Of course! Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Sure. Has been around since 2007, and seems like a pretty active, trustworthy user. '''''
'''Support''' - Why not
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Good understanding of policies & guidelines.
'''Support''' Seen this user around, generally helpful and clueful, so I'm convinced that they will handle any concerns that arise (or arose) during this discussion in the same manner. Regards '''
'''Support'''- I'm stunned that you aren't already an admin.
Pile-on '''support'''. I've been waiting for this. User is clearly clueful and level-headel and will be a great admin. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''SNOW''' I mean '''SUPPORT'''.  Good candidate.--v/r -
'''Support''' – All interactions with me have been constructive. —
I knew you wern't an admin, but assumed that you were one of several editors who just wasn't interested in the tools. Delighted to support per [[WP:RIGHTNOW]]. Get mopping Dougal! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - ''strong'' because I thought you were an admin already! Seen you around a lot making very valuable contributions. Would make a great admin.
'''Support''', good answers to the questions, excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Have noticed a lot of good work from this editor.
'''Support.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''' Done good work, no convincing oppose, easy one here.--
'''Support'''. (Gosh, this looks to be so close!) This is an easy support from me, based on seeing the candidate's work so many times. I promise, though, that I looked carefully at the oppose, and it didn't sway me—I think the candidate has answered it to my full satisfaction. --
'''Support''', this should have been done a ''long'' time ago=)[[User:Sumsum2010|<font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010</font>]]·[[User talk:Sumsum2010|<font color="#007AFF">T</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Sumsum2010|<font color="#7FFF00" >C</font>]]·
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seen this user around the site, only positive recollections. --
'''Support''' Nice to see experienced and clueful editors get the tools, even though they don't plan on being full time 'professional' admins.
'''Support''' said '''
'''Support''' I do not have any concerns.
'''Support'''. Gnomes come across just about everything.
'''Support''' I had always presumed that you are an admin! Glad to support; no editor is free from mistakes.
'''Support''' - I have seen you around at ANI and think your answers are generally well thought out. I also assumed you already were. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>
'''Support''' Everything I've seen has been positive, the issue highlighted in the oppose while valid is possibly an aberration, and IMO not too significant. &mdash;
'''Support''' - An editor who should have been an admin a good while ago. Excellent communication skills. I agree with JamesBWatson's reasoning below that even if you had made an appalling cockup on one spider article a year ago (and really, at worst you made a minor error of little consequence as far as I can tell), that's irrelevant to this proceeding. Let's just give him the tools and let him keep doing what he always has.
'''Support''' - I see nothing in this request or in my review if their edits to cause me any concern.  '''
'''Support'''. Great user. Great username. ;) --
Bonus points for self-nomination, solid experience, history suggests candidate will be responsible with the tools, I find no reason to oppose.
'''Support:''' Great candidate. Thanks for making yourself available. -
'''Support''' Every time I've encountered this editor, he has been doing productive work and doing it right.  I read the talk page of [[Yehuda Amichai]], where he had to deal with an editor who had an axe to grind, and that later blocked editor was persistent, paranoid, rude and confrontational.  He kept his grace under fire, and protected the integrity of the article from a sustained assault.  Well done!
'''Support''' Great candidate. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around quite a bit and think they can be trusted with the mop and bucket.  Great editor, good luck!--
Absolutely.
'''Support''' He's competent enough ;)--
'''Support'''. Everything seems to be fine with this editor. <span style="">
I wouldn't normally bother to comment in an RFA that is so close to 100%. But I've had good encounters with the candidate and he deserves my support ''
This is someone I've had a good impression about for quite a while. I'm sure they'll be a good addition as an admin. Boing!
'''Support''' My experiences with this user have been excellent; I've no reason to believe xe would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' - Long overdue, this user would make a fine admin. An absolute no-brainer. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Piling On''' Has the experience; will make a dandy admin. --
'''Yet more piling on.''' Good luck, Zebedee. Or Boing. Or both. If per anyone, then per WereSpielChequers, with whom I agree.
'''Support'''. Knows what he's doing and will make good use of the tools.--
'''Um... you're not an admin already?''' I've seen you around, mostly from a distance, but I've observed enough to know that you are kind and courteous and actually have enough matter between your ears to make the wise decisions needed to be an admin. --- <span style="white-space:nowrap;">
'''Support''' - looks just fine to me, and I was always a big fan of [[The Magic Roundabout]], tho' I did [[LSD|have my suspicions]] about that TV program :D -
'''Oppose'''. Candidate is way too reasonable and fair-minded to be an admin on the English Wikipedia, and their adminship would be enough of a net positive to the project that it would make the other admins look lackluster and feeble in comparison.
'''Pile on another support'''. Can't believe I almost missed this. Candidate will make an excellent admin. -
Sorry, now having had a deeper look I feel compelled to cast a lonely oppose. The issue with the Tarantula article isn't that the spider is dangerous or that you (the author) can vouch for the accuracy. It's that you've used content from an open-edit wiki as the sole source for critical article material. That you consider your own statement of expertise as being more important than correcting completely deficient sourcing is probably more concerning than the deficient sourcing itself. I don't see sufficient good content work to outweigh those concerns. The limited other articles that you've done any kind of substantive work on are far from impressive. On [[Kevin Foster (fraudster)]] there is close paraphrasing (second paragraph of the History section). It's got nothing to do with minimum levels of quality and quantity, but evidence that an admin has a practical understanding of core policies like [[WP:V]]. I'm sure you'd do fine at CSD and UAA but I can't !vote for giving the full range of admin tools and life tenure when the very limited content contributions that we can assess raise red flags about understanding of those core policies. But good luck. Please use the tools in a way that proves my concerns unfounded. --
'''Support'''. From a brief look through some of the candidate's 100+ article creations, it appears this editor knows what they're doing.
'''Support'''. User has made lots of good contributions, why hasn't someone given him the mop already?--
'''Support'''. Looking through his contributions, I see an editor who knows what he's doing and is clearly good at collaborating. Certainly happy to give him the mop.
'''Support'''. Great all around editor. Experienced and intelligent. No concerns at all. --
'''Support''' One of the best and most dedicated editors on the wiki. <b>
'''Support''' fully—everything I've seen about this editor in the past and present has proven to me that he will handle the mop just fine.
'''Support''' I had never heard of you before today, so I did a little bit more digging. An excellent candidate, 113 articles under your belt - that's impressive! Looking through your hundreds of deleted contributions, I can see many good CSD taggings, which is a great thing especially as you have said you will be working in that area. Also, looking through deleted contributions I can see that the candidate creates articles in his userspace, which is excellent, as articles such as [[Camus Cross]], a GA, were created (now with 29 deleted edits) at
'''Support''' Nicely balanced contribution history. Will make an excellent admin. <big>
'''Support''' Catfish Jim ''but'' '''Neutral''' on the soapdish - A solid record of article work, no glaring policy or guideline misunderstandings, a clear focus on a reason to use the tools, no problematic history, and (best of all to me) fantastic communication skills.  I have no reservations in supporting. -- '''
(ec)'''Weak support''' Nothing that jumps out at me as a definite no, but a few concerns. namely around the amount of participation in policy/admin related areas/discussions. What I see I like, but I could be pursuaded to change my stance.---'''
'''Support''' Excellent username.
'''Support''' - Firstly, I love his user-name, so sorry your band idea didn't go the way you planned. Secondly, I am most impressed with the users use of edit summaries and your last 100 content creations most particularly [[Battle of Barry]]. Thirdly, I am impressed with your answers to the questions. And I am going to stay at weak support until I put my question in the mix and you give an answer. Also, I love the answer to my question. Although it took some time. Hope you do great and make mama proud, Catfish. ''<font face="times new roman">
Why not? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. The editor wishes to continue focusing on writing articles, which is healthy for WP. New editors can ask for advice from an administrator with greater confidence than they can ask a random non-administrator editor, so granting the administrative status should help the community. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' - I'd like to see more activity in admin-related areas, but what I've seen looks promising. The answers to the questions reveal a clueful editor. Overall I think this person can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. I've seen Catfish Jim around the place a fair bit, and he seems to have a very good temperament for admin. Couple that with sound knowledge and great experience, and it's an easy decision --
'''Support'''. Content contributions look good (though the date formats at [[Battle of Barry]] were not quite consistent). Responses to questions look sensible. Q5 and Q7 demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
Support. - Dank (
'''Support''' - I like that the strong majority of your edits are in the main namespace.
I don't see why not.  Has over 12,000 edits across 3 years of experiance.  Good luck.  &ndash;
Seems clueful and friendly; more than qualified for the mop. ''
'''Support''' I agree with everyone else when they say he seems very qualified. He will make a great administrator.
'''Easy Support'''  Seems qualified.  ~~
'''Support''' He has answered the questions presented to him well, seems good-natured and his contributions to the encyclopedia are excellent. While concerns over his use of speedy tags have been raised below, I can see that he is not afraid to admit his mistakes and usually takes positive steps to rectify the situation. I would have no problem trusting this user, which is the most important thing.
'''Support''' I've come across him in various areas and find him well-balanced, calm and polite. I rarely disagree with his tagging. He's thoughtful at AfD. Yes, there have been mistakes - I hear. Pushing and trying boundaries are part of learning. When you get the power to actually do it, you pause more to think......
'''Support''' Does a great job, thoughtful, will not misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. You have one of those usernames that sticks in one's memory. It's a username I've seen on my watchlist at some of the topics that seem to get us Brits hot under the collar (like whether England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are countries and 101 other daft debates). I tend not to get too involved in some of these discussions, but I watch from a distance and I've often seen Catfish Jim's signature attached to very sensible and clueful opinions, even when the debate gets heated. That alone is enough for me to support. If you exercise the same level of clue and common sense as an admin that you do on some of the talk pages on my watchlist, you'll be a damn good admin.
Support, even though I think the username is stupid, IMHO.
'''Support''' Very clueful editor, knows what he's doing, is sensible and very level-headed in arguments. I trust him and have no doubt that he will use the tools for the betterment of the 'pedia. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
Appears to have depth. '''
- <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - I have concerns with your lack of experience in admin-related areas, but honestly, sysop isn't a big deal, and you seem to have a clue. Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' Having read the answers to the questions and gone through some of the edits I see no reason not to support. Yes, some mistakes, we all make mistakes, and I see no serious enough to not trust the user with the admin tools.
'''Weak support''' Take it very slow with speedy deletion, and when in doubt tag or do nothing, and I think you'll be fine. I see a couple rather poor taggings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tin_Pei_Ling&diff=423042931&oldid=423042831 example], but I'm not on balance convinced you'll be anything other than a net positive.
'''Support''' You gotta love a guy with a User name like that. Sounds like something Elton John, James Taylor and Lewis Grizzard would concoct. I like his humility and candor as well.--
'''Support'''. Candidate strikes me as cool and level-headed. A few hasty CSD tags, that's not great, but Catfish Jim isn't the only one guilty of that, and it does not worry me greatly. I've had a few interactions with them, I think, and they've been positive. Editor is a net positive for Wikipedia and I have faith in the job they'll do as an admin.
'''Support''' per no real apparent reason not to, at this point in the process. The tagging issues mentioned below are a bit of a cause for concern, but nowhere near enough to have me land anywhere other than this column. Good luck!
'''Support''' I'm reassured about WP when I encounter an effective and productive editor for the first time.  Nice work, nice answers.  Seems like you take feedback well.  --
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' - Been around the block with over 10K edits, clean block log, rollbacker, and knows that IAR means Use Common Sense.
'''Support''' -  I  come across this candidate's work regularly, and after having  rechecked I can support without  any  hesitation. What  he doesn't  know now, he can do  what  most  new admins do:  learn it  on  the job, and I know personally that  he won't  hesitate to  ask  if/when he gets stuck.
{{ok}}
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per discussion in oppose '''
'''Support''' solid content editor with no record of 'going off the rails'. --
'''Support''' - knowledgable and dedicated Wikipedian. Good work :)
'''Support''' Seems like a trustworthy editor who will exercise caution in using the mop, and learn from any mistakes.
'''Support''' Calm and conscientious user, good grasp of policy.
'''Support''' After my one concern detailed in "neutral" was answered satisfactorily.
I see no reason not. Particularly impressed with the user's temperament. '''
'''Support''' Quite competent and qualified and I believe that you'll learn over time from your mistakes and that's nothing
'''Support''' Catfish Jim is (a) prolific in content contribution and (b) experienced in our deletion processes, particularly CSD. Given the amount of time Jim's spent patrolling new pages, a few incorrect tags are not really a big deal; Jim seems to have learned from his mistakes and appears to operate based on common sense. I notice that several voters have advised you to be cautious in speedy deletion, at least at first. Well, being cautious is a good thing, but you shouldn't be too overcautious. Remember [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Money 5|this]]? That was a pretty clear-cut G3 and G4. Don't be afraid to pull the trigger on those.
'''Support'''. Excellent temperament,  dubious musical leanings notwithstanding... and yes, I [[User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish/userboxes/Picts|quite agree]].
'''Support''' - I certainly remember the username. No concerns, will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Appears to have plenty of gorm. --
'''Support''' Highly qualified and deserving editor.-
'''Support''' Certainly a dedicated editor. Has a kindly way of correcting mistakes by others- explaining the differences as to ''why'' something isn't correct in an non-aggressive manner. One of the first people to assist those of us (yes, me) who aren't quite computer-literate. Genial, careful in editing (so far as I've seen) - if a mistake is pointed out, no drama- he learns and moves on. Helpful to the newest editors. I can't count the small kindnesses that he has done in my behalf, tempered by serious attention to "What the Wikipedia is Not". --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Seems to be a fine candidate. ~~
'''Support''' Gives great answers to all the questions. Will make a thoughtful and moderate admin.
'''Support''' Seems to have a cult following and can be trusted.
'''Support''' - Good work, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' – No reason to oppose. You owe me, JK :). [[User:Sp33dyphil|<big>'''<span style="background:SaddleBrown;color:Gold">'''Sp33dyphil</span></big>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ready]] • [[Special:contributions/Sp33dyphil|to]] •
'''Support''', no problems that I can see.
'''Support''' - Excellent! ''
'''Support''' - Looks OK to me. --
'''Support''' - Seems a decent proposition - some very good answers.
'''Support''' After looking over this candidate, and seeing the answers to the questions, I feel comfortable with the amount of mainspace policy knowledge he has, and think he would make a fine admin.
Look like a good editor.
'''Support''', but still waiting for the other shoe to drop. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' per reasons stated.  Make that "strongest possible" while we're at it.  Everything I've ever seen from CJ has been top-notch.  This is unquestionably the type of person who should be given the privilege without delay.  --
'''Meh''' -
Many reasons to support, outlined above. No concerns to mitigate said support. FWIW, I think the Aspen best reflects Wikipedia, but the question was what you thought, therefore you are correct, this time.
'''Support''' per the answers to his questions, his article creations, and his mature attitude. --
'''Support''' – Why the hell not? <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' – Each interaction with him has been a pleasant experience. Every one of his contributions I've seen from afar seem to have been sensible. This guy knows what he's doing and I'm sure he will also be an asset to the project as an admin.
'''Support''' Generally clueful answers, and a solid contribution background, but most especially because of the answer to Q.4.
'''support'''- everything seems good about this user i can see, good answers to questions
'''Support''' per answer to Q15 and to counteract Colonel Warden's nonsensical oppose.
'''Support''' per answer given to Q16 (and all the other answers too) <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions, see no reason to think he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' a sound content contributor who has the right temperament for the role. I have no doubt that he can be trusted not to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' nice edits
'''Support''' : While I do not completely agree with the answer to Question 17, I do agree that [[WP:IGNORE]] and [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] need to be used when evaluating a subject against the [[WP:GNG]], I don't think that by default a lower standard should be written into the [[WP:SNG]]'s. That said anyone wishing the role of admin, and willing to do the job deserves support unless a compelling reason to oppose is obvious.
'''Support''' : Has a clue and seems mop-worthy.
'''Support''' A little surprised the user is not already an admin.  I see absolutely no issues - this user is clearly a very constructive editor of this wiki. - '''
'''Support''' - worth a trial with the mop.
'''Support'''. I was surprised when I had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thorbjorn_Patern%C3%B2_Castello&action=historysubmit&diff=423046529&oldid=423045412 decline] that CSD tag; usually the candidate shows excellent judgement.
'''Support''' He deserves the tools.
'''Support''' - Good luck!
'''Support''' - a clueful candidate. I have no concerns that they will misuse the extra buttons and believe they will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' - per a review of contributions, nice work.  --
'''Support''': 10 is wrong IMO, but is a very odd situation. Otherwise looks like a good admin. --
'''Spodi''' - reasonable answers to questions, recent edits to Wikipedia space look generally clueful. --
Clue alert. ''
I continue to just avoid triggering a [[WP:100]].
'''Support''' Clued up and level headed.--<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Support''' Great content work as well as great work in all areas. Can't see him abusing the tools. Level headed and will make a good admin. <span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
'''Support''' - Looks fine.
'''Support''' – Everything looks good here. I don't see any problems that stick out. –
An unforgettable username, and one I associate with good judgment, friendliness, knowledge of policy, and general positivity. I have no concerns here.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - Just piling on.  Granting a few extra buttons seems like "no big deal" in this case.  May they be used wisely!
'''Support''' - Give the man a mop! An excellent username too!
'''Support''' - After initally worrying that he hasn't even read the guide, and thus worried about his seriousness or dedidcation, that has since been discussed, and I realized that he should be given a mop!
'''Support''' - AfD activities demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of that area; every reason to believe any new areas entered into will be quickly become as well-developed.
'''Oppose''' At AFD, he seems to rely upon his own opinion or the work of others rather than doing any legwork himself.  For example, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuds]].
'''Regretful Oppose''', not because of the contributions, but primarily because of the user name. Admins are usually the first brush with authority that new users come across, and I don't think it will give a professional impression if that admin is named 'Catfish Jim and the soapdish'.
'''Neutral''' I'm impressed by your content edits but I've seen a number of problematic taggings when it comes to speedy deletion that prevent me from supporting the candidate receiving the ability to delete pages: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:SJKirbyJr&diff=prev&oldid=424656762 G7 on user page blanked by the user], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Ernie_Halter&diff=prev&oldid=423917162 A7 for artist signed to notable label], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Tin_Pei_Ling&diff=prev&oldid=423042931 A7 for major-party candidate with local newspaper coverage as a reference], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Thorbjorn_Patern%C3%B2_Castello&diff=423040655&oldid=423040370 A1 two minutes after creation], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Sadhu_Ram&diff=421309271&oldid=421309084 A7 one minute after creation with minor claims to importance], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Alabama_Moon_%28novel%29&diff=417582690&oldid=417582213 A1 when the user specifically clarified that the page is under construction] (to be fair though, the candidate did realize their mistake afterwards). The candidate does seem to be able to correct some of such mistakes which is laudable but since those examples are all recent, I'm unable to support this request. Regards '''
'''Support'''.  Anyone who can do that many AFCs without cracking shouldn't have too many problems with adminship.©
Sure. 10k edits, clean backlog, decent article work. We need admins. I don't think this user will go nuts with the tools. Net positive. You have my support. <font face="Forte">
'''Support.''' I see no problems.
'''Support''' No problems either.  ~~
'''Support''' Logs, deleted content look OK, plenty of help offered at AFC.
Don't see any reason to oppose.  10000 edit with a year of experiance looks just fine.  Happy Thanksgiving.  &ndash;
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong Support''' - Good to go. --
'''Support''' Mop here please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''. Clueful guy, been around a while, knows what he's doing, won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Strong candidate; I think he'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' experience is fine, helpful editor.
'''Support'''- Well-presented rationales at AfD, civil discourse with oppose; my subjective views are not reason enough to land anywhere else.
'''Support''' - Great work in [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]]. My interactions with this user have always been positive. CharlieEchoTango would make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' Per my reasons below.--v/r -
'''Support''' Per answers to questions so far. Confident that user will make a good administrator. '''''
'''Support''' - Great candidate for admin. Very civil and mature. I don't why not. --  '''
'''Support''', will be fine.
'''Support'''. Plenty of great work, sound knowledge of Wikistuff, and good answers to the questions - happy to trust with the tools --
'''Support''' per Steven Zhang.
'''Support''' - no real problems here; his answer to <s>#9</s> #8 stretches the notion of "obvious," just a bit - but that's more a function of the question than of the answer.  --''
'''Support''' - Doesn't appear there is anything wrong with this candidate. —
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' The sporadic edit count actually makes me more comfortable.  It shows someone who isn't completely addicted/obsessed with Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Working in AFC is definitely better with +sysop; sometimes editors' work grinds to halt because they can't see deleted contributions. In general: has written content, articulate/good answers to questions, sensible user page, e-mail enabled, clean block log, no red flags, basically: one big warm glow.
'''Support''' the fact that you know what A7 means, per your reply to Q6, brings me a ton of hope. Also you are one of the best guys to interact with. Keep up the good work --
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions - Cluefull user , no worries.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; His thoughtful answers to the questions and a demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia's more sensitive policies convinces me that he'll be an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' I've worked with this editor before, and CharlieEchoTango is a good candidate for the mop.  ~
'''Support''' - Looks fine.
'''Support''' Most definitely. I think you will be a superb administrator!
'''Support''', even though you support the Conservatives :p
I interacted with CET a lot via IRC when he was new-- he's not been around very long but from what I've seen has consistently been extremely level-headed and clueful, and has his priorities right. From experience, AfCing without +sysop is sometimes a bit of a pain; we definitely need more AfCers with mops. <small>(well, and more AfCers in general...)</small> I have to say this RfA was a surprise (wow, I feel like an old hand now!) but a very pleasant one at that. Fully qualified candidate, and a quick learner if there's anything he needs to pick up. All the best!
Reasonably impressed withe CET's contributions. I'm not sure a content section in a book article is entirely encyclopedic, but that's beside the point. ;) '''
I was pleasantly surprised with I saw this RFA. I have interacted with CET on [[WP:IRC|IRC]] and on AFC and there is no doubt in my mind that he should be an admin. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support'''. Excellent user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. The candidate is thoughtful, works well with others, and should be able to handle the mop.
Trustworthy.
'''Positive interaction in article space'''.  Helpful on the task and also pleasant to me when I was a newbie at [[Wilmer W. Tanner]].  Few other times I've seen him were positive as well.
'''Support''' – I see no reason why CET should not obtain the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. All the best. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' My gut feeling from recent interaction was positive and I reading Charlie's answers indicates strong knowledge with lots of clue. As others have indicated, AFC is greatly enhanced with the mop since you can see what had been deleted. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Had reviewed a bit ago for file mover, see no problems
'''Support''' - Why not? I agree that they went the wrong way with Q8, but obviously a net positive. ''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. <sup><small><font color="green">
'''Support''' - great content creation, solid professional, collegiate manner. -
'''Support''' - easy decision. '''
'''Support''' Looks good - active and editing all over the project. Love the response to Q1 from [[User:Surturz]];  although I think the Q2 and Q3 from that editor are out of line "trip" questions in the way they are phrased. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I also had some problems with your answer to number 8.  I think the safest thing to do in that situation is to take it to AFD, but that isn't something that is going to stop you from being a great administrator.  You have my support.<tt>  </tt>
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support''' - Not seeing any real reasons not to support.

'''Support''', for being a great helper in the IRC help channel and an AFC reviewer! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
Nothing frightening. Perhaps the odd slightly snipey response on occasion, (say diff 460914861) but if that is as bad as it gets then just do a penance of 2 extra AfC approvals and move on. Particularly like response (as of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlieEchoTango&oldid=462387590 now]) to Q15.  --<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Support''' - Trusted by the community (filemover, reviewer, rollbacker), thoughtful answers to questions, I am familiar with the candidate's high-quality content work at various military pages--
'''Support'''. Good contributions. (For what it's worth, I cannot tell that CharlieEchoTango is not a native English speaker. His comments are remarkably articulate, especially his nomination statement.)
'''Support''' Clueful, nice answer to my question. Reminded me it's not a policy.
'''Support''' No real concerns. Answers above indicate an understanding of the spirit of the guidelines and policies in question.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Weak support''' Although the answer to my question — Q8 — seems a bit off, what I've seen from CET tempts me to support. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Weak Support''' I understand that you wrote  Ethical_Oil:_The_Case_for_Canada's_Oil_Sands and made it good class but the fact that you spent twice as much time on other articles that have not reached that level makes me wonder if you care more about the articles you created rather than others.; This might seem unfair and I like your other contribs but if an admin class user spends over 250  non reverts on an article I'd expect it to be GA at the very least. --'''
'''Support''' - I'm not certain the editor ''needs'' the tools, but I don't see anything to concern me either so I feel comfortable supporting.
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''': impressed with his work so far and know that he will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. &ndash;
'''Support''': No  concerns. No  candidate can be 100% perfect. The competency  for the quality and volume of work this candidate does is sufficient  to convince me they need the tools and can be trusted with them.
'''Support''' Not seeing any issues.
'''Support''' - I see no reason why not.
'''Support'''. AfC work and content creation are major pluses. Your answer to Q6 assures me of his CSD competence, and your answer to Q2 shows me that you know what Wikipedia is really about. Even with only 73 AfD !votes, they are mostly accurate (86.7%) and he has shown knowledge of policy in those discussions. You have limited anti-vandalism experience, especially in RFPP, but I'm confident that you'll be a net positive.--
'''Support''' Thanks for answering my question and for good answers to all the other questions. If you enjoy AfC work then may adminship give more power to you.
'''Support''' Qualified candidate.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Already a great contributor to Wikipedia; I have no reason to doubt his capacity to use admin tools well and I can't see him causing any problems.
'''support''' GOOD! '''
'''Support''' (kinda redundant to be saying "support" in a section called support, but I digress) - Interacted with them on the ''[[Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands|Ethical Oil]]'' article, which has become a good article, and seen their edits in many other areas given we cross paths on various Canadian topics.  Would agree with the self-characterization that they are a "clueful editor".
'''Support''' CharlieEchoTango has made some great contributions to Wikipedia and looks like very good administrator material to me. --
'''Support''' Through past interactions with this user, I see no reason not to trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' C.E.T. appears to have decent grasp on policy and guideline, is willing to listen and moderate an opinion if new evidence is presented, and appears willing to ask for advichttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlieEchoTango&action=edit&section=T-6e when unsure of something. I feel he will not use the mop in any manner that harms the project. '''
'''Support''' —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
'''Support''' Working in AfC is not an easy task, there's much junk in there and the odd gem. The fact that the user is willing to help out new users in this way is major plus for me. Having reviewed his contributions I'm seeing a helpful editor who has a good understanding of policy. Definitely a great candidate.
'''Support''' After looking at the answers to the questions and some of the editing history, I believe Charlie will make an excelent admin, having a diversity of abilities not just vandal fighting, or article creation, along with the ability to write convincingly, CharliesEchoTango gets my support.
I'm
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems worthy to wield the mop.
'''Support''' Candidate's civility and maturity are exceptional. Amazed that English is not their native tongue. Thoughtful answers demonstrate that CET is such a quick learner and I'd expect that his use of the tools would be as careful and considered as he has shown in the past.


'''Not yet'''. Per [[Nova Scotia Barristers' Society]]. 28bytes pointed to this above, and I feel that the way the candidate reacted to the tags was not the kind of temperament I want to see in an administrator, and this incident was very recent. Given the candidate's relative newness as an editor, I'd like to see some more experience without any repeats of this. At the same time, I think the candidate was entirely clueful in fixing the canvassing problem that I raised just under "Discussion", above, and I fully realize that I'm an outlier in my assessment of this RfA. So please take my comment as advice to keep in mind after you get the mop, and please accept my best wishes for a productive administratorship. --
I expected more out of the answer of Q17. No candidate is almost perfect. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Absolutely. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''...as if there was any question remaining. --
'''Support''', with a clichéd "thought he was an admin already" tossed in. Happened to notice a typo on one of his bot's messages the other day and perused his talk page archives after leaving a message; the talk page contents showed a helpful, clueful and responsive editor.
'''Support''', with feelings similar to [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]]'.
'''Support''' As co-nom. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
I trust Courcelles's judgement. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support''' - Candidate seem knowledgeable, cluefull and intelligent of Wikipedia policies. Came across him once when he was archiving an SPI case. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''', absolutely great candidate. Mature, pleasant to interact with, experienced, knowledgable, etc - and all with an excellent track record. No problems here.
'''Support''' Though I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MWOAP&diff=335736003&oldid=335727012 opposed] your first RFA, I can find nothing that stands out in this one that would make me oppose a second time.
'''Support''' – It's about time :)
Was somewhat against the RfA second time around, but after working with them at SPI for quite a long time, I'm getting sick of having to clean up with blocks after tagging :). Highly clueful user. ''
'''Support''' Editor is helpful and mature and has common sense. --
Absolutely.
'''Support''' Work on SPI looks sound and I know from my experience on ACC that they are active with nearly 500 accounts created, with 11,000+ edits 2/3 of which are manual I see no reason why they can't have my support.
'''Support''' No concerns at all. Seems like an obvious support to me! <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' Seen the editor around, with intelligent comments placed before the signature. The nominators have done an excellent job here, explaining your technical skills; we all have our strengths and weaknesses and whilst maybe a smidge light on content for some (not me) this in no way prevents you getting the extra tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - No concerns at all. Seems like a very capable and knowledgable user.
'''Support''' swayed last time, only a better position this time
'''Support''' Think he can handle the mop and we can use the help!
'''Strong Support''' I have worked extensively with DQ through Abuse Response and he has been more than willing to teach me the basics of SPI on IRC. A great, helpful user, DQ would definitely benefit the project with the mop and bucket. Regards, <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' - great "menial worker", would really benefit from having the tools. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - I see absolutely nothing that would indicate that DQ would be anything other than a net positive.
'''Support''' Of course. <font color="darkorange">
I nominated the last time, and my opinion hasn't changed. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Strong Support''' - Absolutely. -
'''Support''' - Have seen the candidate's excellent work over at SPI and remember when I was shocked to discover he wasn't an admin yet.  Some concerns over inexperience with detecting open proxies, where the candidate has expressed a desire to work eventually, but nothing that can't be remedied....
'''Support''', per DQ's (and DQ's bot's) work at UAA. He seems a sensible chap to me and he has ample experience in the areas he wants to work in. If my word is not neough, I think it's telling that several SPI and UAA regular admins are above me in this column.
'''Support''' oustanding work
'''Support''' The candidate's work as an SPI clerk has gone a long way toward rectifying the concerns of inexperience cited by the opposers in the last RFA.--
'''Support'''  -  I  see DQ around a lot now which I didn't  before I  got  the mop  myself. Being nominated by a participant  whose oppose !vote last time caused a lot of pile-ons (including  mine), I'll  have to  follow Courcelles again  and this time pile on  with  support. The excellent work at SPI more than adequately compensates for any  claims of too  little content  work.
'''Support'''. I've not seen anything to worry about. --
'''Support''' Still no reason to think theyll misuse the tools. Very nice Q4 answer, restrained confidence and humility is the badge of true competence.
'''Support''' - Frankly, DQ rocks and I'd love to see them with the tools. DeltaQuadBot is invaluable at UAA, and DQ's efforts at SPI are much-needed. This is a total no-brainer for me. -- '''
'''Support''' I personally like content contributions for RFA candidates with the exception of vandal warriors. DQ works in the vital role of a SPI clerk, thus that role outweighs my concerns over lack of content.
'''Support''' I can find no reason why he shouldn't get the mop. Good luck. ''
'''Support''' - supported last time around, happy to support again.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I supported last time. I see no reason to alter that trend ;)--
'''Support''' – I trust DQ with the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - Can be useful to the project with the mop and I trust that he won't abuse it, so [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|whynot]]
Does a lot of good work. '''
'''Support''' He'd not abuse the tools and it'd help with his work at SPI and Abuse Response, he's definitely improved since his last RfA. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' - Absolutely! - <tt>
'''Support''' - Already a de facto Administrator, it would seem. What's to discuss?
How could I not? ~~
'''Support''' —
'''Support''', answers work for me. --
'''Support''' I have seen many good requests for administrator attention from this candidate.
'''Support''' An undeniable support as he has done so much for the project.
'''Support''', changed from "Reluctant oppose" – it's a pity that DeltaQuad does not participate much in the main namespace. However, trust from others is what an admin need, and here it is the case, particularly with more than 50 in support and (now) 0 opposes. [[User:Sp33dyphil|'''<span style="background:white;color:SaddleBrown">'''Sp33dyphil</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ready]] • [[Special:contributions/Sp33dyphil|to]] •
'''Weak support'''. Lacking content creation, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support''', great user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Fully agree with the nominators' statements. --
'''Support''' user does some very useful bot work and from my experience has the makings of a fine admin. ''
—'''
'''Support'''  User had my support last time and still has it.  Nothing wrong here. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - I almost supported last time and since then the candidate has had a good record. Yes article contributions are nice, but this editor has benefited the project elsewhere.
'''Support''' strong nomination statements (''"one of Wikipedia's finest editors"'' perhaps overly strong). No concerns '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Helpful, clueful, good knowledge of policy, has common sense. No concerns. Lack of major content does not bother me in this specific case, because I've seen considerable evidence that xe is a definite positive asset to the project. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Strong Support''' Should have been an admin a few months ago IMHO :D '''<font face="Verdana">&#91;
'''Support''', no reason to believe there will be problems with DQ using the tools. Just watch out for the dratted Borg... --
'''Support''', with another administrator nominating I believe it is the right time! <font color="blue">
'''Support'''. Absolutely, there would be no point in opposing. Simply an outsanding candidate, ready to recieve the mop. '''''
'''Weak support''' because of testimony from experienced, respected editors about maturity and capability and contributions. My concerns are about age, that we should require a pledge that administrators be 18 (which is not policy and probably opposed by the majority), and about the very few contributions of mostly short sentences to articles. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' I'm somewhat concerned about the points made by Skomorokh down below, but with the support the candidate has received from some very respected and thoughtful editors (including the noms) I don't think that is enough to not support this otherwise well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - Thanks for volunteering your further qualified support of Wikipedia. An absolute net positive to the project.
'''Support''', no evidence that user would abuse the tools.  Extensive mainspace contributions, while desirable, in my view should in no way be considered a prerequisite for the admin bit.
'''Support''' <small>moved from neutral</small> I was thinking about this for a bit, and I feel that DeltaQuad's SPI contributions outweigh his content work.  I will support this user's quest for adminship, as long as he takes the proper precautions as an administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems capable. ''
'''Support''' Solid candidate.
'''Support''' Fully qualified and technically capable contributor, has shown his dedication to the project and is unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' More work on SPI would be good, lots of gnome work is good, and I see no reason to suspect you'll use the tools improperly --
'''Support'''. Well-grounded and experienced user with nothing to indicate potential for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' He'll be fine.
Thought he was an admin already :P
'''Support''' WP needs to be a collection of "all the talents", administrators need to be drawn from from both content and non-content areas.
'''Support''' Don't feel entirely like dancing in the streets about the content situation but DeltaQuad has demonstrated enough of the other necessary admirable qualities to have outmuscled (geddit?) any whingeing I might have started on.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. I've worked with DQ for quite a few months now on SPI cases. He's intelligent, adept, and definitely a user that can be trusted with the mop. —
Would be a net positive to SPI, AIV, and UAA. I am concerned by the lack of content creation, after all, this is an encyclopedia. However, as it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we need to have people who can deal with the shite certain anybodys can dish out. DQ has shown strong skills in this area. I would caution DQ to exercise considerable care and gain experience in the content side should he decide to being doing administrative work there as well. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Support''' - SPI is one of our most important areas, and the candidate's work there is clearly of merit. I was convinced by the nom and co-nom.  A few of the opposes raise mild concern, but in the end my decision to support is firm.  DQ needs the tools, is already a trusted editor, and I thank DQ for making Wikipedia a better place to work in.  Best Wishes,
'''Support''' - Giving DQ admin tools would be a net positive to the project. --
'''Support''' - I would like to note that answering a long battery of questions in excruciating detail should not be considered a prerequisite for access to the tools.
Per NYB. If DQ isn't quite as stuffy as we'd like him to be, six months on the job will get him there without doubt.
'''Support''' - Always helpful, answers when 'called'.
'''Strong Support''' - I've known DQ for as long as I've been on WP, and have worked with him as an admin on other sites in both a technical and administrative capacity.  As long as I've known DQ, he's shown to be responsible, cool headed (mostly. XD), and trustworthy.  I feel DQ would make a great administrator on Wikipedia because he is active in many projects including WP:ABUSE, WP:SPI and more.  <font color="#990000"><strong><em>
'''Support''' Long and short of it, he does good work as an SPI clerk, SPI needs clerks with the mop, and I think giving DQ the tools will allow him to do his job there better. I have no problem with niche contributors, they serve a useful purpose.
Helpful user. Should do fine.
'''Support''' looks like they could make good use of the mop.--
'''Support''' - Has done alot of good work. Will be a good admin. -
'''Support''' looks good, I can't see any problems and I'm not impressed with any of the oppose rationales. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' There are no concerns raised in the oppose section that I believe would preclude DeltaQuad from making clueful and responsible decisions with the extra buttons. --
'''Support''' as nom, because I never remembered to actually !vote
'''Support''' I was not intending on !voting but I am familiar with his work and have not seen anything in the opposes to make me think he would not be a fine admin, and would like to nudge this closer to 100 in the support column. I addition, I do not see any basis at all to the argument that his answer to Q5 in any way manifested "immaturity."
'''Support'''. I'm balancing my concern that there might, indeed, not be enough of a basis to determine whether or not you would have enough experience and judgment to be given the tools, against my feeling, after reviewing your talk archives and your past RfAs, that you are now approaching this RfA with a thoughtful plan for a focused area of work, and with good answers to the questions. On balance, I think you will be a net positive. --
'''Support''' I was waiting to make [[WP:100]]! :)
'''Support'''- I see no major concerns. The user seems trustworthy and responsible.
'''Support'''- Clearly competent in involved areas, though Q5 answer does not articulate it well; no negatives other than minimal content contributions noted below. No worries.
'''Oui''' <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose'''. User appears to be very useful to the project as a gnome and is prepared to do (and has done) a lot of mechanical edits. I am quite comfortable with this user operating in a fixed area which requires little judgement, clue or knowledge of policies/guidelines, such as reverting obvious vandalism or archiving closed SPI cases. However I see little work in areas which do require judgement, and when there is such work, the evidence is that judgement is very poor, such as [[Talk:Minneapolis wireless internet network/GA1]], done within the past few days. I feel the user may make mistakes with the additional tools of an admin. I was alerted initially by [[User:DeltaQuad/Admin/altacc]], which the user has linked to from this RfA. The statement about IP accounts is not clear. And the information about [[Wikimedia Foundation|WHF]] accounts at the bottom of the page is either deceptive or simply wrong - either way, not impressive for an admin candidate. I feel there is not enough evidence in the recent edits of this user displaying sound judgement, intelligence, and knowledge of our guidelines to support, and what evidence I have found is negative. Ideally, I'd like to see a period of the user displaying sound judgement and independent knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. However, as this RfA stands there are over 50 supports, and just my oppose, so this user is going to become an admin. I wish them luck, and would ask them to move slowly, and ask for advice when initially using the tools. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork, & lack of content contributions. Only 3 articles with over 10 edits, & top article is just tidying up copyediting. It just isn't enough, imo. Sorry.
This oppose won't make a lot of difference, but I'd prefer a candidate who did not spend the majority of the time acting like a police officer. Admins should be part of the community, not above or separate from it. There unfortunately are too many admins that barely remember there's an encyclopedia here too.
'''Oppose'''.  Content contribution to articles just not up there.  Unfavorable experiences with admins I have had are not rooted from their lack of good intentions but rather their lack of experience working with articles.  I wouldn't be comfortable having the candidate judge a content dispute.
'''Oppose''', though it likely won't make a difference at this point. This candidate's almost complete lack of significant content contribution indicates an unbalanced Wikipedia experience that will be detrimental to making administrative decisions.
'''Oppose''' Although I think it's pretty clear that this RfA will pass, I substantially agree with the small group of opposers. DQ has proven that he is proficient in SPI and UAA clerking, but those activities all seem quite mechanical in nature. Like SilkTork, I think that DQ's activities may generally be characterized as beneficial but that they require little considered judgment on his part. The candidate may be well-suited for admin work at SPI, UAA, and AIV, but we have little evidence of how he might act in administrative areas where figuring out how to proceed is less than straightforward and more thoughtful judgment is necessary. (See Q3, where he says that he's never been an editing dispute.) Also (and this is a minor point), I noticed several misspellings and punctuation errors in DQ's responses to the questions, which did not improve my impression of him.
'''Oppose''' Q5 was in the candidate's specialist area of SPI but the answer seemed weak.  The candidate seems inexperienced in other areas and so lacks the good general experience of the project which is expected of an admin.
'''Oppose''' Content concerns -- very little work there (further explanation in struck neutral vote below). Agree with points brought up re: rote edits; nothing wrong with that intrinsically but meatier work should be required to give someone access to these tools. Also, I'm somewhat bothered by the "list of positions I hold on other Wikis" that was deleted. "Hat-chasing" is a real pet peeve of mine, even on a site like Wikipedia, and that's what that list screams to me regardless of whatever rationale is used to dismiss it now. Apologies. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Not that I would ever agree with Colonel Warden on anything, but on this point he's right.  That was a very lame response to Colonel Warden's Question #5, which is critical to SPI's.  Also the nominee completely dismissed Question 11.  It's not like these questions require 10 page essays, but ignoring them (essentially) is indicative of immaturity.  There are a limited number of admins, and I'd prefer one that is extraordinarily knowledgeable about a lot of policy around here.  I don't need them to know every arcane thing that pops up, but a good chunk of it.  This is a lot of evidence that leads me to conclude that the nominee is just too young/immature for admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - My oppose in the last RfA was one of a general lack of experience and failing several main points of my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria#Content_work_and_Audited_content|admin criteria]]. I think since last time, he has gained a lot more experience in a broader range of areas and this certainly is commendable. My main concern this time is the lack of content creation which, let's face it, is the reason why Wikipedia exists. Only 25% of his edits have been to the mainspace and related talkpages, and the most mainspace edits (looked at about 12 pages of contributions) were automated.  For these reasons, I sadly have to oppose this nomination for reasons I have detailed in my admin criteria.  --'''
'''Oppose''' - Ordinarily, I'd just not !vote when I see an editor with a low proportion of article space edits. However, the low edit count on individual articles is very concerning and I had hoped to see a better answer to Q11 from an editor who doesn't seem to have a significant interest in article building. The non-answer to Col Warden's question is the deal breaker here. Looks like the RfA will pass anyway, so good luck! --
'''Oppose''' for lack of significant content contributions. While there was a time for this to be something easily overlooked, I believe that the current emphasis on attracting and retaining new content creators makes content creation all the more important for admins. I would easily support if this wasn't a request for full adminship, but the tools needed for SPI work are still tied to the delete button. Having that button, to me, requires significant content contributions. '''
'''Oppose''', nope.
Leaning oppose at this point. Youthful editors who have shown themselves to be helpful and competent at straightforward clerking tasks in venues like AIV, SPI, UAA have in my experience shown a tendency to get themselves into trouble as admins when they try to intercede in thornier areas. Usually, I judge a candidate's attitude to be far more important than experience, but if there is little substantive experience on record, it becomes quite difficult to judge attitude under pressure. That the candidate cannot cite content disputes they have been involved in or any significant content creation is quite troubling in this light. Further research needed.
'''Strong support''' as nominator. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' absolutely. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' – willing and capable.
'''Support!''' - great editor with the personality to be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Hard-working, long-term contributor with an impressive portfolio of article creations and plenty of clue.
'''Support''' Generally clueful, no reason to expect abuse, and decent level of participation/agreement at [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=Drmies&max=250&startdate=&altname= AfD].--
'''Support''' - Absurdly over-qualified from a content perspective.  Never blocked, either.  I thank you for your outstanding service and wish you the best in this Rfa, and afterwards.
'''Support''' great editor with a patient and helpful attitude toward newbies--
'''Support''' I can't see any bad recent CSD nominations, which is great in my book.  Clean block log, great content contributions.  You'll do fine in this RfA :)  Good luck!
'''Support'''  - Fully  qualified. --
Hell yes. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. High quality contributor. Good experience, all round. ;) Cheers, -- '''
'''Support'''. Great content creator, fair when offering opinions, very collegial. Keeps things in perspective. <sup><small><font color="green">
'''Support'''. In accordance with prophecy: ''When the link turns blue / I voice support for you''. -
'''Support'''. My interactions with this user have been positive and straightforward; no reason to think they would misuse a mop.
'''Support''' – Yes indeed.
'''Strong support''' Drmies does it all. He's a prolific contributor of high quality content who's very comfortable working collaboratively with others, an active vandalism fighter, a referencer of unreferenced BLPs, and a thoughtful participant in various areas such as AfD. He's firm with vandals and POV-pushers where called for, but very supportive of constructive editors, and nurturing to newbies who might benefit from his assistance and encouragement. He's very helpful to others, and, conversely, when unsure of something himself, he's not afraid to admit it, and ask for help. I find him to be one of the nicest people I've encountered. He inspired me to write my first DYK as well as several other articles, so, in addition to writing over 390 articles, he's also indirectly responsible for even more. Presenting an exemplary image of a Wikipedian, he's an incredible asset and will be even more so as an admin.
Longterm contributor with a clean blocklog and shedloads of experience. I noticed one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=The+Red+Flower+%28fashion%29&timestamp=20110429201335&diff=prev overhasty A1] and I'd remind you that one should not be hasty with A1s and A3s - some unpromising first sentences have grown into useful articles if you wait for the second sentence to be added. But I saw more than enough good tagging and other work for me to support. ''
'''Support'''. Strong track record.
'''Support'''.  I have been collaborating with the good doctor for a little over two years, and am glad it has finally come to this.  Drmies is one of the best editors that we have around here, which will only improve after he <s>is able to abuse his admin privileges to my benefit</s> is given more tools to further help the encyclopedia.  I am happy to support in this long overdue RfA. --

Clueful and constructive. —
'''Support''' - No concerns. -
'''Support''' Why not? --
From my observations he's good at what he does. --
'''Support''' – Seems to be an excellent candidate. --
Intends to delete main page and block Jimbo.  Good man.  -'''
Per Fastily. <font face="Arial">
'''Bloodyminded support'''. I'm skeptical that GAs &c are necessarily what makes a good admin, so I'm not swayed much by the content arguments above. However, I ''am'' confident that Drmies has the policy knowledge and the temperament for adminship and that they'd be a net positive.
For the sake of what adminship used to be about - helping good editors contribute. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Very easy decision - this one is long overdue --
'''Support''' Exactly the sort of admin we need. Concur with Boing! said Zebedee... (good taste in music too) ''
'''Support''' Literally thought already was.
'''Support''' – Sensible and communicative. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' More than the nominator.  Is going to do good work as sysop.  ~~
'''Support''', excellent work in the trenches as well as in content creation.
Enthusiastic, tolerant, and has an excellent sense of humor. Wait, sorry, this is adminship you're applying for...
'''Support''' With half of the supporters being admins (so far), how is this a losing proposition?
Yup, totally. I agree with Werespeilchequers just to take a breath before CSD.
'''Support''' per WSC and Fastily :) —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' As someone said above, should have been an admin long ago. Wide editing experience. (Probably there in bits I haven't even found yet ...) Sensible and calm, good educator and explainer.
'''Support''' - terrific work, great sense of humor, lots of clue. Why not? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Strong support''' One of the best candidates for the job. '''
'''Support''' About time. Do try to resist the urge to block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff&diff=429250417&oldid=429201778 lazing admins] though. I can hear the bells toll! --
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support''' More than enough gorm. --
'''Support''' - Ubiquitous presence, very knowledgeable without coming across as a know-it-all, and a great sense of humor. A definite positive asset. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' Intelligent, helpful, well-meaning, pleasant demeanor. No reservations. --
'''Support''' - Seems like an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' – My interactions with Drmies has been excellent. Drmies can be trusted with the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Strong Support''' An excellent candidate, he does a great job around here. No doubt that he'll put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' I feel that this is an editor who will think things through before acting and I agree that this is long overdo.
Wheeeeeee. Please don't stop writing articles even after you become an admin. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' A good, solid editor.  I don't recall any negativity or drama from this editor.
'''Support''' A fully qualified editor, whom my own interactions with for the Ambassador program have been generally positive. Shows signs of being a mindful Wikipedian,
'''Support''' Said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1&action=historysubmit&diff=415352180&oldid=415349876 he would have asked for my child, If he was not carrying Moonriddengirl's child already] :-) I love administrators with the sence of humor. Sadly there are so very few of them around here.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Excellent admin material.  Somehow he has managed to maintain his sense of humor in this place, but I trust that this as well as his habit of writing contents will disappear once he gets the mop. <small>Learning from the recent [[Lars von Trier#Expulsion from Cannes|Lars von Trier debacle]], I better emphasize that I am being ironic.</small>
'''Support''' Honestly, what the people above have said mirrors my sentiments. Good luck!
'''Support''' - clueful, helpful, knowledgeable about policies, very valued contributor, virtually always maintains his composure, stops to assist new (and old) editors and admits if he makes a mistake (ummm, Dmries, not that you make any... )<span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>
'''Support''' based largely on previous experiences seeing this editor's work, as well as a brief review of contributions.  --
'''Support''' Yes, please.
'''Strong support''' Well-thought-out answers to the questions, solid credentials &mdash; in fact, close to an "ideal" candidate.--
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support'''. Should have been an admin years ago, but better late than never!
'''Support''' a great candidate with solid contributions and experience. --
'''Support''' - AfD record is pretty good, no nutball observations/votes that I can find.  Since Freakshownerd turned out to be a CoM sock, I don't begrudge anyone who tussled with him, so that angle's fine.
'''Support''' - This is one of those cases where I feel I know the candidate well enough from interactions and discussions I've participated in, and feel totally confident in them. Objectively speaking, content contribution is fantastic and I've seen many cases where Drmies shows plenty of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. -- '''
'''Support''' - Finally! '''
'''Support''' - Good answer to question and no reason to oppose. I definitely support this request. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' I'm going to be very excited by the outcome of this nomination, because I originally wanted to nominate him for adminship back in September. (and there was a lot of excitement back over there too! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies/Archive_13#Rfa_nomination]) He is in my opinion the best contributor in Wikipedia who plans to become an admin.
'''Support''' -  I've frequently come across Drmies' edits, and am always impressed with his communication skills and commitment to the project --
'''Support''' -  Happy to see this editor nominated for tools. A trusted user who cares about content.
'''Support'''. This person is clearly over-qualified. Definitely someone I've seen around numerous times, and not only are there no red flags, but there is no question in my mind that the candidate is an outstanding member of the community. --
'''Support''' I thought you already were an admin. --
Delighted to add my name to the list. Per nomination and above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Per Pedro
'''Support''' – I thought you already were an admin! You will handle the mop and bucket well.
'''Support''' - Absolutely - good luck...
[[WP:SNOW|'''Snow''' closure please]]!
Positive experiences that leave little doubt that this candidate couldn't be trusted.
'''Support''' – Add my name to the list of people who thought you already had the mop. Obvious support. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' - surprised you weren't one already. Mature, common-sense editor whose adminship would be a benefit to the project. --

Absolutely. '''
Support.  --
Support- As cliched as it sounds, I assumed you already were one.
'''Support''' He'll be a good administrator.
'''Support''' A strong candidate who knows lots. --
M'hm. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
This editor has style.  And policy knowledge as far as I have seen.
'''Support'''. Highly qualified candidate.
'''Support''', I've seen this editor around alot, always doing great work with excellent attitude and knowledge.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Will be a good admin, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. Seen the name around so often, you get the obligatory 'thought he already was one' vote from me. --
'''Strong support''' Drmies strengthens Wikipedia with every edit. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Positive impression of this user strengthened by so-far unanimous support from broad section of community leads me to first RfA vote in a long time.
'''Support'''' No concerns. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''', most certainly. Great editor, I have seen doing some good work. No problems here, they will do a good job.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I was honestly surprised Drmies wasn't an admin already; a review of our interactions over the years makes me glad we're correcting this oversight. Even when we disagreed, he was always reasonable and civil. <strong>
'''Support'''. Being nominated by an atheist is good, although being nominated by an antitheist would be even better, and if we have to have administrators then we might as well have administrators who understand how to build decent content.
Adding another hate-group vote: '''support'''
'''Support''' Are we sure he isn't an admin already? Oh well as a wise HJ Mitchell once said, "better late than never!" I don't see any problem with him being an admin he has done good work so I say we let him do more, <span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
'''Support'''. I can't find anything to oppose him with :-) [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support'''. A good editor, and such are what become good admins.
'''Support'''. For reasons already stated above by other users. /
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already.--
'''Support'''. A level-headed editor.
Absolutely

Drmies is a joy to work with, especially if you're a newbie. He'd be an asset to the admin community. --
'''Support'''. Friendly, great sense of humor, hard working, doesn't seem to get stressed at all. Will be an asset to the admin corps, though honestly I thought he (?) was already an admin!
'''Support'''. This is one like Boing Said Zebedee's RfA where one asks them self, "You mean he isn't already an admin?". Well...he should be. Full support.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">
'''Support'''. Naturally! I'd have thought he already was an admin.
'''support''' It is about time.
[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]]'''Support''' with the highest of regard for this editor and his tireless dedication to improving the project! '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - stunning editor! Good sense of humour... always fantastic!
'''Support''' I have noticed many positive contributions from this user.
'''Running up the score Support''' Good content contributor, no black marks, will be a credit to Wiki.--
'''Support''' against my tendency to not comment on process that has a clear outcome already.
'''Strong Support''' - Better late than never! Dr. M. is a great contributor and will make a superb admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - should be fine.
'''Support''' - This RfA should quiet the bellies of the content beasts. Damn good work, as per Fetchcomms, write with one hand while wielding the mop in the other.
Seems like a great candidate. ~~
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great editor. I'm offended I didn't know about this RFA sooner. Drmies [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tedder_%28machine%29&action=historysubmit&diff=314456988&oldid=313599815 rewrote the article about me] fantastically, among other things.
'''Support''' I know I've seen them around, and while I can't recall the circumstances exactly, something rings a bell in a good way for me.  However, in looking at the contribs and all, it appears they are quite qualified to click on a few extra buttons here and there. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
{{ec}}Support - No reason not to. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - all around excellent Wikipedian, no problem at all trusting him with the tools.
'''Support''' of course. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''  Drmies will make an excellent admin --
'''Strong support'''. Extremely qualified candidate.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I have seen nothing but sense from Drmies.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' More than qualified as an editor, quite helpful to other editors, and has the positive attitude that will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Another editor who should have gotten the tools a while back.
'''Support'''. Every interaction I have had with Drmies has been a positive encyclopedia-building experience.
'''Support because I want to join the bandwagon''' It seems that everyone believes he will handle the mop well, so... <small>This is my first time voting here</small>
'''Support'''. I rarely vote in these, but Drmies is a great candidate.
'''Support'''. Based solely on the fact that I have trusted his judgment at DYK for a very long time. --
'''Support'''.  I fully trust Drmies. He's a great contributor, and highly clueful.--
'''Support''' great editor, excellent judgement.  Will make an excellent admin; I'd say more, but other people have already said it.
'''Support''', a no-brainer.--'''
per the above. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
Late to the party, not a lot to add.  Congratulations. - Dank (
'''Support''' No reason not to support, and frankly the oppose below is baseless, should close as 100% if someone can't come up with a real reason.
Wasn't going to pile on but doing so to neutralize the baseless oppose. ''
'''Support'''. No obvious reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' - haven't seen anything wrong in a cursory review and from what I've seen of him around the wiki.
'''Support'''. Contributions look good.
'''Support'''. A strong candidate. <font color="black">
'''Support.''' The candidate is well-qualified, and I see no merit to the opposition below. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22per+Drmies%22 this] was particularly nice. <small>'''
'''Support''' I often see this editor doing good work and offering sensible input. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''', active, discerning, sensible editor. <font face="Cambria">
'''Support''' I've recently had the pleasure of speaking with the candidate on an issue concerning vandalism and reverting. He is certainly a very friendly and well-spoken individual, and very knowledgeable on policy. Contributions look sound and in order. Bring on the mop!
'''Support''' - Everything looks good.  You seem competent and well-adjusted.  --'''
'''Support''' May you wield your mop well. ;-) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
''' Support''' This is (I think) my first ever vote at RfA (I saw it in ''The Signpost''). My interactions with Drmies have unfailingly be pleasant and constructive. Excellent candidate! --
'''Support''' I know this candidate on wiki for quite some time .. he is a highly dedicated editor with a good judgment, and I believe his character and attitude fit very well into the administrator position. Thanks for agreeing to run and good luck.
'''Me too'''.—
'''Support'''. [[File:HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg |right|100px|thumb|<small>Note blindfold.<br />-[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]]</small>]] Experienced, active. Highly consistent editing-pattern 3 years: 50%-60% article, 8% WP-project pages, 30% talk-pages, so already prepared to talk to a lot of people. Re Opposes: I am concerned about Drmies vague answer at Question 11, about holding admins to a different standard, with the reminder that [[Lady Justice]] has worn the blindfold for a long time, for a good reason. However, I think everyone should be given a chance to learn. -
'''Support''' An editor whose opinion I value, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
'''Support''' Very experienced and trustworthy editor. <span style="color:white; background:black; border:2px solid black; font-weight: bold; padding: 2px 2px 0px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius::4px; -o-border-radius:4px; border-radius:4px;">
'''Support'''.  Certainly.--
'''Support'''. Eminently qualified; an asset to the project.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. ~~
Wait, u wuz not adminz allredee? --
'''"Content is king"''' Has written a lot of articles (which is our product here, and which requires and integrating knowledge of various aspects of Wiki) and is willing to serve as a moderator.
'''Strong Support''' seems like the right person for the tools, everything looks good to me. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Too many admins currently but I'll support.
I have seen his name everywhere and I am genuinely shocked to find that he isn't an administrator already. Full support per all the above.
'''Support''' You have my full support. '''
'''Support''' – why not? Especially after taking a while just to see the opposes? [[User:Sp33dyphil|'''<small><span style="background:HotPink;color:white">'''Sp33dyphil</span></small>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ready]] • [[Special:contributions/Sp33dyphil|to]] •
'''Support''' no brainer.
'''Support''' can't find any problems or concerns; well-rounded candidate. I think, and hope, that having SysOp will have very little affect on your contributions. And remember not to joke around with anything serious (e.g. in blocks and stuff). Q11, I'd rather see an answer that ''merely'' being Admin would make no difference at all, but that you'd consider them in the same manner as any other experienced editor. But then, I would say that. Best of luck with it, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support'''. Let's go for 200. <b>
'''Support''' - Not that more supoort is needed! <<MOP PLEASE>>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' With excellence in both content contributions and work in administrative areas, Drmies is a worthy, well-balanced candidate. It seems that he is sensible and able to communicate well, with a good sense of humor to boot. The points raised in the section below do not concern me.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Support''' Of course. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support'''. Yes.
'''Support''' I really like what I see in this user.
'''Support''' Helpful, common sense editor who diffuses conflict. Thank you, Drmies. --
'''Support''' Friendly, fun to work with, knows content.
'''Support'''. Well-qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - Of course I support - in fact I thought he was one already. '''
'''Support'''. Think we can get this dog and pony to [[WP:200]] before it closes? --
'''Support'''. Reviewed some of the user's contributions and they seem to exhibit considerable clue, and an ability to learn from mistakes. —
'''Support'''. Well qualified to handle a mop.
←.
you are now beyond the 200 wall  (Nice content work)--
'''Support''' - To put it simply, Drmies know what Wikipedia is about. This understanding means Drmies will be one of our best admins and I look forward to his contributions in the admin areas. Besides, I owe him for a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydroxonium&diff=391102007&oldid=prev fur massage] he gave me last year. {{=)|smile}}. - '''''
'''Support''' Looks good :) '''<font face="Verdana">&#91;
'''Support'''- Broad support from the community, and should represent the community well. :D
'''Support''' A candidate who knows when to be serious and when to be humorless, Drmies has shown clear aptitude for the tools through his knowledge of policy as evinced by his answers to the questions, his impressive content work, and his insightful participation at numerous AfDs.
'''Absolutely not.''' He is like most admins: unwilling to do the research to get facts straight on any case more complicated than obvious vandalism.  And lacking the self-awareness to avoid powertrips. We already have a 99% prevalence of such traits in the admin culture, we don't need more.
'''Oppose''' I disagree with the users position [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=430585357&oldid=430585301 here]  - a disruptive account requires restriction as soon as possible.
'''Neutral''' I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose.
'''Neutral''' The candidate states the value of edit summaries in Q4 but only uses them for 52% of their minor edits (although 99% of major edits). If you really believe that they are important for communication (as they are), then you should use them all the time. Especially with minor edits it's useful to know what you did since the definition of "minor" varies from editor to editor. As such, I'm unable to support this request although since you use them for major edits almost all the time, I will not oppose. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' Anyone callous enough to put boobies on their userpage, juxtaposed with their addiction to bacon, is just not acceptable. --
'''Support''' Allow me to be the first to add my support. I took a look over you last few hundred contributions, and I like what I see. You seem to have a decent amount of work on Speedy Deletions, by the looks of it the admins have agreed with you (860+ deleted contribs). You've only created eleven pages, eight or so being stubs, but your work in creating templates etc is good, and that's a plus. I've also seen appropriate warnings to vandals, not just reverts, which is key. Basically, I like what I see here and don't see that you would misuse the tools at all. Good Luck. <small><small>Ohh, and you don't have to worry about me asking any optional questions, your contribs show enough :)</small></small>
'''Support'''—having often seen you around the project doing good work, I can easily support.
'''Support'''. Anyone who actually ''wants'' to do histmerges gets an easy support from me. --
Bonus points for self-nom, no obvious red flags.

'''Support'''. I completely disagree with Hokeman's neutral– as someone who has been a member here since 2006, but really only became active a couple years later, I don't feel it's any bearing on what kind of administrator Erik would become. He's done great contributions in the past year, and he seems to be a great editor; that's more than enough for me. A quick glance through his contribs brought up nothing bad, but if someone digs up something less than savory, I'll reassess.
'''Weak support''' - You seem weak on the [[WP:RS|sourcing]] aspect of creating articles. However, you appear decent in most ways.
'''Support'''. I didn't see any red flags in the contribution history, and I'm happy with the answers to the questions. More folks helping out with backlogs is always welcome.
'''Support'''. No red flags. Your low edit count doesn't bother me, as your contribs show me that you can be trusted with the mop. --<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="blue">Perseus, Son]] [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/t|<font color="red">of Zeus]] [[Special:EmailUser/Perseus, Son of Zeus|✉]]
I've looked through contributions rather than arbitrary indicators of activity, and I'm happy to support. I'm impressed by involvement in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FastCode]] -- taking a policy compliant position, engaging constructively with other editors, and remaining alive to developments that affected his position. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Her_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=404851260 This] was a good A7 decline (although while not a G11 either, it could do with "advertisement" and refimprove templates). The candidate also knows what he's doing at [[WP:RM]] where he plans to work: making uncontroversial capitalisation moves himself and proposing more controversial moves with clear and compelling policy rationales ([[Talk:Fight Club (film)#Requested move]]). He is also demonstrably diligent in fixing redirects after a page move. So unless I see examples to the contrary that I've missed in my scan of contributions, I'm supporting. --
'''Support''' no reason not to.  Candidate has been around long enough to understand policies even though his edit count is low prior to last summer. ''<B>--
I guess this would be a "weak support"; a bit more experience might be good but I don't think this candidate's experience, although low compared to most successful RfA candidates, is lacking too much. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/

'''Support'''. Is this an absolutely perfectly safe candidate? Well no one is, and this one may be on the lower end of experience to be an admin, but I believe this editor has shown a capacity for levelheadedness and and ability to learn to use the tools appropriately. In short, I believe this editor can contribute more usefully with the tools and granting them is unlikely to result in harm to the encyclopedia, so it's a net win.
'''Support''' He'll definitely be a good administrator and he'll know what to do.
'''Support''' Net positive, you'll do just fine.
'''Support'''. A seasoned WikiGnome, who should do just find as an AdminGnome. No major problems, adequate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and project space.
Certainly competent, and not any sort of threat. ''
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions, and for me at least, 5000 edits is sufficient experience.
'''Support''' - nice templates. Always need people contributing to other namespaces and history merges. Editcount is on the low side but not everyone has huge amount of free time to spend. His quality edits is what matters. Nice all round candidate which will be a net benefit to the community. --
'''Support''' Per several above, and admins willing to get involved in such dirty work are valuable.
'''Support''' Seems to be in good-standing. I don't think I've seen any admins who have worked on history merges, so in my opinion he is a bit of a bonus here.
'''Support''' He obviosly knows his facts, he seems passionate about becoming an admin, he is perfectionate at his edits, he has shown us his wonderful editing skills which are beyond reproach. If anyone deserves to be admin, in my honest opinion it should be ErikHaugen.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me - people wanting to work in areas like history merges simply have to have to extra bits (and frankly we're always glad of competent people to do that kind of drudgery). The opposition at this time (though valid) seems more ideological rather than concerned about your ability to actually use the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' clean blocklog and various civil talkpage discussions give me the confidence that the candidate has the right temperament, has grasped why we are here and what needs to be done. Judgement seems OK as well. Candidate has been editing at mostly a very infrequent level for five years, though only a few months of that actively. I see long tenure as a rough and ready precaution against certain characters coming back yet again, and five years is way more than needed for that purpose, otherwise a few months activity is more than enough to assess a candidate - I didn't go through all their more than 5,000 edits and I doubt if anyone else will.   Not every candidate will be ready at this stage of their wiki career, but unless someone spots something I missed then I think this candidate is ready for the mop. I've read the Oppose section, over 5,000 contributions takes him well out of the [[wp:NOTNOW]] range; Candidate has contributed referenced material, a GA or FA would be a positive but is not essential, and I don't see anything else that troubles me. I agree that non-writers should not have access to the deletion button, but I don't agree that the author of articles such as [[Pterodon (mammal)]] is a "non-writer" ''
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. Looking at some random contributions I see good decisions, civility, and no reason not to trust the candidate. I don't agree with the concerns about low edit count; 6000-odd edits is more than enough opportunity for a bad candidate to incriminate themselves.
'''Support''' You probably do need more experience. However, although I usually disagree with your edits in my areas, close to 100%, you are one of the wikipedia editors who is always trying to make it work, meaning make the community work. Wikipedia needs administrators like you: people who can be wrong (or right) and move on without ever losing sense of being part of the community. --
'''Support'''. Looking over the user's contributions I see someone with a good head and who I'd trust not to misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I see no reason not to give you the tools.
'''Support''' -- Per Bobrayner: ''"6000-odd edits is more than enough opportunity for a bad candidate to incriminate themselves."'' I have reviewed many of ErikHaugen's contributions and they look sensible. He has shown the ability to write about [[Pterodon (mammal)|Pterodon]]s and create taxoboxes in proper format. If he follows through with his desire to work on history merges, that will certainly be useful. He has 800 deleted edits, mostly speedies, PRODs and new articles tagged for referencing. I checked ten of them and his judgment seemed correct.
'''Support''' Seems experienced and trustworthy to me. Not every admin needs to have a huge edit count. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Contributions history is clearly sufficient to demonstrate trustworthiness. That and he's willing to work in a thankless yet important area. "Net positive" is the key.
'''Support''' a gnome that wants to so more gnome work is easy to support. I see nothing bad about an admin who won't use their block tool or do vandal work. --
'''Support''' Checking user and article talk shows ability to deal amicably with editors of all levels of experience, reason about policy, explain decisions, and to admit when in the wrong. Precisely what I like to see in an administrator. Go forth and history merge! --
'''Support''', no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools.  I'm disappointed that 6000 edits is no longer good enough for the editcountitis brigade.
'''Support.''' Long-term editor, no reason to believe he'd misuse to tools. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Support.''' Motivated editor with no red flags for me. No indicators that this editor would run amok. Wants to be a janitor? Give them the mop. --
'''Support''' For the exact same reasons as Danger --
'''Support''' – Reviewing the candidate's contributions, my impression is that he appears to have enough good sense and seems appropriately cautious. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' No red flags, perfect answer to my question. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' Honestly, I'd prefer to see more article building, but the crats, in close RfA, have made it fairly clear they don't think much of that as a reason and I have to accept that.  If I didn't support, I'd probably neutral.  No negatives I see, and I think he meets the community's standards.  I'd really like to see an article or 2 built once he gets the bits though.  Or if he doesn't.--
Some of the opposes are understandable, yet some are ridiculous. We have a candidate who knows what he wants to do with the tools, and it's an area that we could use more admins in (requested moves has the worst backlog on the site right now). Who cares if he doesn't have anti-vandal experience, or hasn't written five FAs? [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Can't see any issues here and if he wants to work on history merges ..... masochists make good admins! --

His answers to the questions seem to generally be good. I presume in Q15, you mean ''a'' sandbox, not [[WP:SAND|''the'' sandbox]] though. Deleting and undeleting the sandbox wouldn't go over well. As someone who has had the pleasure of manually undoing a history merge, I'm glad that he's willing to practice. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
No problems.
'''Support'''. While I understand the opposers' and neutralists' view that the candidate could use a bit more experience, on balance I find him ready to take on the administrator role. I urge him to use the tools cautiously at first, and to use good judgment as to which administrator tasks he is or is not yet ready to perform&mdash;but that is advise I would give almost any new admin.
'''Support''' Not persuaded by the opposes, sufficient experience that I don't think the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' No Red Flags Did go through the opposes but found nothing that the candidate will abuse or misuse tools .The user has been around since 2005 which is long enough and he has clearly stated the area he/she wants work in and Admin tools are not a exhaustible resource if a user prefers to work within a given area  .Feel the Project only gains with the user having tools.
'''Support''' No red flags jump out at me, and I'm glad that someone wants to help do history merges. --
'''Support'''. We have a candidate who says explicitly that he wants to specialize in history merges, and we have administrators who say that this is an unmet need. No one has convinced me that there is reason to think that the candidate cannot be trusted to merge histories (so long as he takes it slow in the beginning). I think numerous users ''have'' made very reasonable arguments that there isn't enough proof that the candidate is ready to handle the whole range of administrative tools, and I fully acknowledge that. So, what to do? I'm a bit reassured by the candidate being open to recall, if need be. I've felt for a while that it's a problem that we haven't figured out how to unbundle the tools, so I'm making my !vote as a statement that we need to give that a try. --
'''Support''' --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em">'''
'''Support''' – A trustworthy user that I trust with the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
We've got a trusted member of the community here who's ready to do work we need him to do.  Until we get back to the point where we're replacing active admins as fast as we're losing them, I don't think we're in a position to be so choosy.  If promoting someone with less experience means that he'll push the wrong button at some point, it probably won't break the wiki. - Dank (
'''Support''' No concerns; I think his record here is pretty solid.
'''Support''' Further to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ErikHaugen#Deleted contributions|question on talk page]], I'm moving my vote here. Whilst I do still have concerns, this user has made more than enough edits to show himself untrustworthy and hasn't. He's answered his questions well and in every discussion I've looked at I've found him to be civil and reasonable. I see no reason to oppose and was only looking for a reason to support. Ronhjones has confirmed that a random sample of his deleted edits are CSD and PRODs, and it looks like he must have made 200-300 which were accepted by admins. As such, I would happily support this candidate to be given the tools.
I think that ErikHaugen will be fine with the tools: I have no problem in supporting candidates who want to specialize in a particular area.
'''Support''' - never mind the smaller-than-some edit count. It isn't ''that'' small. And the evidence is there that this peron can be trusted.
'''Support'''; no concerns that Erik will break the 'pedia/delete the main page/block Jimbo etc. Given trust that this user has good intentions and is reasonably competent, the rest will come with practice. --
'''Support''' No reason to think theyll misuse the tools.
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support'''. While I have no firsthand knowledge of the candidate, since this is currently in the discretionary zone I am adding my 2 cents based on weighing the support and oppose arguments raised. Nearly 6000 edits over 5 yrs, of which 1700+ are in mainspace, is more than enough to get a flavour of a user's interaction style and make sure he probably won't break the wiki (and if it does it can be fixed..) While it is true we have no enforced constraints that would prevent a specialist admin from behaving admin-like in other areas, perhaps we can increase our admin corps by trusting those who say they want to focus on one area to in general not do a Jekyll/Hyde flip once the mop is in their hands. A quick check of the candidate's talk page shows someone who is a better communicator than many of us, which is a bonus.
Unconvinced by opposers.
I trust you and that's all I need to give my support. '''
'''Support''' it seems unlikely that you'll break things and as such I believe removing obstacles that prevent you from doing work that helps the project (as little or specialized that might be) will result in a net positive. In any case, you already expressed willingness to undergo recall if needed, so the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the potential benefits, imo. --
'''Support''' after a review of random contributions in the past few months, many of which seemed to evidence to me the sort of intterest in precision and detail focus that I'd want to see applied to history merges.  --
'''Support''' - While Erik's edit count is somewhat lower than the average historical edit count of successful admin candidates, it is not so low that we should be concerned, and I think he has proven that he is clueful enough to use the tools carefully.
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Ive thought long about this one. My initial reservations were due to the fact that i was un easy about the on and off track record over the first few years, then the sudden massive edit sprees. But then I thought what if he didnt have that earlier history, would my analysis be different, if its based solely on the last 6 months. In those six months Erik has shown himself to be competent and a net benefit. Im going to give him my support here, and if the RFA passes I hope he lives up to the communities trust in him.
'''Support''' - Reasonably experienced, net positive to project. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
[[WP:WPHM|Massive]] [[WP:RM|backlog]] is over there, here's a mop, sort it out.
'''Support''' - A very precise and useful objective as an admin combined with clear evidence of high quality edits and a collaborative, level-headed attitude.
'''Support''' Have seen no indication of problems with this user, if he intends to work on a finicky and unpopular backlog, we should let him at it.
'''Support'''. I'm impressed by Erik's temperament and judgment, shown both on this page and elsewhere. There's nothing magical about the admin tools that cannot be learned by someone level-headed and sensible. There are plenty of people to point Erik in the right direction and he strikes me as the sort of person who will listen carefully to advice. Happy to support. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' The user wants to volunteer in an area that requires the bit to work in. Has the editor worked in all area that the bit may be used in? no. However, the candidate states that he does not wish to work in all areas yet. When I think of a users time and edit count (whether it be 2000 or 20000, 6 months or 5 years), I look at if they have demonstrated a dedication to the encyclopedia, an approachable, collaborative attitude, and whether they have been able to demonstrated these abilities at this point. Has he done this in my mind. Yes. I do not think he will abuse or miss-use the tools or lacks the ability to learn the processes he wishes to do or the mentality to ask for help with questions in this or any other area they may someday later encounter. Will do just fine.
'''Support''' An extensive review of the candidate's new-page patrolling shows no problems, their talkpage indicates a collegiate and sensible editor.  Perhaps, some more content work and bredth of experienced might have been preferable.  However, I cannot see any indication that there would be much to gain in asking the candidate to wait a few months, particularly given their desire to work on backlogs.&nbsp; -- '''''

'''support''' Adminship is quite obviously a big deal, at least potentially -- otherwise why we we be continually trying to reassure ourselves that it isn't . But most of it is potential -- the potential to do harm, especially to new  users.  I'm not worried about Erik  doing that. He knows what he's about, and he'll work on what he says he will. The two basic qualifications are trust, & ability to know one's own competence.   '''
Regretfully '''Oppose''' I admire the candidate's desire to better the project in an area that certainly do need attention, but I am not a fan of "specialty" administrators, which is what I would consider this request to be. Only 1780 edits to articles in a span of "five years" is entirely too low for me to consider as enough experience to be given the mop. I would encourage the candidate to broaden their skills a bit and try again in six months or so. With all due respect and still in appreciation of the candidate's desire to contribute, --
'''Oppose''' This person dosen't seem to be a dangerous individual, however there simply isn't a large enough track record for me to go off of. This RfA was perhaps 3 months too early, at least in my opinion. While I appreciate the willingness this user shows towards cleaning out the history merge backlog, [[Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs|there is a whole slew of other backlogs]] that do not require the mop. I'm all for specialty admins, but as I said below in the neutral section, my standards are higher for anyone anything less than a year of active editing.
'''Oppose''' per Sven Manguard and [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Kudos for being a long-term member and contributor to the project, but there's just not enough overall activity to adequately evaluate the candidate's experience level and judgment, recent activity notwithstanding. --
'''Oppose''' Too little experience so too little information to make an informed judgement. I'm quite happy that someone is willing to do a tedious and fiddly task (I hate doing history merges), so I'd like Erik to become an admin, but I can't give support to someone with so little genuine experience of Wikipedia. I'm quite comfortable with someone becoming an admin in order to deal with just a handful of tasks; it's a just a case of having complete confidence in that person's judgement. History merges are awkward when they go wrong, and I note from Erik's edit history that he is a hit and miss editor who works casually by trial and error - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acrophyseter&action=history] - which is fine for doing articles, but is not the sort of approach to take to doing history merges. I'd like to see an extended period of careful editing in order to feel confident. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
On [[WP:NOTNOW]] grounds. You're a good editor, but while I like most of what I see at the basic processes, with fewer than 400 edits I'm afraid that there isn't enough of a record to go on. While some would at a glance label me as a deletionist (which I only accept to be the case for marginally-notable BLPs), hitting the delete button will often be a big deal to an article's creator, and I think this is an important factor to bear in mind when judging a tight AfD (particularly when it ''isn't'' a low-profile BLP). For that reason, I think a reasonable article creation record is a must. In short, keep going, and in around 6 months (conceivably less if you are fairly active) I would be happy to support. —
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I have no problem with the recentism of major activity - some people take time to find their groove in the project. The nom seems to be reasonable and polite, but has little to no significant contributions. Non-writers should not be allowed access to the delete button. Looking at this editor's most edited articles shows stubs and articles in serious need of cleanup. While history merging is an area that could use help, I do not trust this user to close deletion discussions based upon WP space edits, writing experience, and overall demonstration of policy knowledge. Also, per [[User:SilkTork]] and [[User:WFCforLife|WFC]]. '''
'''Oppose''' − Sorry, but anyone that starts their RfA by saying "''I am nominating myself primarily because I would like to work on history merges''" and then goes on to say "''I don't really have any experience with history merges''" doesn't get my !vote. It might be an idea to reapply when you have some experience in the area that you want to work in. I wasn't convinced by the answer to Question 12 either. He doesn't seem to have anything but a superficial understanding of what tools he'll get and how he'll use them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose''' I see some good things with this application, and I'm sure that some areas could do with some more help at times. However, we don't have half a mop, just a full one, so I think it's necessary that applicants have '''some''' experience in all areas. In this case I see almost zero vandal fighting, and vandalism is a serious part of admins work (and the few warnings I have looked up have been warning1 when warning1 is already on the page) - I cannot even suggest some time with [[WP:HG|huggle]] as that requires a rollbacker attribute, and we haven't yet seen enough vandal fighting to be able to give you that - which you would gain if this application went through. '''
'''Oppose''' - I see no countervandalism work, or any other need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Ronhjones, SilkTork and others expressing reservations.  While I thank the candidate for service to the encyclopedia, there are too many areas of experience missing for me to cast a !vote in favor of adminship.  Should the mop not be granted, please consider looking into broader experience, and perhaps trying again later this year.  My best wishes.
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't meet my criteria. I don't see any real negatives here, just needs more experience.  I too am wary of specialist RfA's. --'''
Regretful '''oppose'''. Basically, I agree with Ronhjones; while you're a valuable contributor, in my opinion your experience is not broad enough yet. I'm sorry. Please keep up the good work and come back in a couple of months, should this RFA be closed as unsuccessful. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Self-nominating because one would like to work in a specific area (''I would like to work on history merges'') isn't appropriate because adminship is an all-or-nothing package deal. There's no way to hold an admin to such a commitment. Another red flag is that the candidate states they will be open to recall -- again, there's no way to hold someone to that commitment. Finally I can't see a serious dedication to content creation[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=ErikHaugen&namespace=0] (which ''supposedly'' is what Wikipedia is all about). None of this means that I think you're a bad person or anything like that, just that you shouldn't be a Wikipedia admin at this time.
'''Oppose''' I am quite certain that this editor would be wholly competent at performing history merges. But Admin permissions are not and cannot be limited to this function. And I see no evidence that this user could be trusted with the tools in other areas, which he would have available to him if given the mop and bucket.--<font color="Red">
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you simply don't have enough experience for me to be comfortable giving you the mop and history merges, especially the more complex cases, are not something one can pick up overnight or just by reading the instructions (which I actually found more complicated than doing the history merge itself). You seem like a decent person, but you're not ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per not enough experience
'''Oppose''' too green, not enough experience suggest revisiting in a couple of months
'''Oppose''' Erik specifically wants to  be able to do history  merges. Adminship is however a ticket for 'access all  areas' especially deletion  processes which are a core function and go hand-in-hand with  page patrolling. Messages on his talk page would appear to indicate an error rate at  [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrolling]] that may be inconsistent with  the level of knowledge of deletion policy required for using the tools with confidence and reasonable accuracy. He has demonstrated some knowledge of content building, which is of course fundamental to the learning  curve; however, his experience is limited to 11 short stubs, some only one line, one still  [[Phaennidae|tagged for references]] while another is little more than [[Phaennidae|a list of red links]]. Of the [[Sanajeh|longer creations]], it looks as if other editors have contributed the bulk  of the content. I'm !voting late(ish) because I wouldn't want these issues to contribute to any pile-on opposition, but after much reflection, and a look at the other !votes, I think I'm echoing the sentiments of others in this section, especially SilkTork, and HJ Mitchel.
'''Not yet''', but very probably '''support''' for a future RfA when the candidate has had more experience. A good editor, but there are numerous gaps which have been pointed out on this page.
'''Oppose:''' for the time being. When the candidate has more edits I will support. -
'''Oppose:''' After a thorough lookover of this candidate, the most concerning thing to me is the lack of Wikispace experience - there simply is not enough of it for me to trust you with the tools at this time.  I agree that becoming an admin is a package deal - you would be expected to help out with backlogs in various areas, and I don't see that experience yet.  9 edits to AIV, none to RPP, no participation in ANI, and only 11 to RM, which is a huge part of history merging IMO.  I would feel more comfortable in supporting you in the future if you had at least 1K edits in the Wikispace, especially in the areas I mentioned.
Regretfully '''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry but with the number of edits you have made and given that you've only been editing Wikipedia seriously for a year I just don't think you have the necessary experience yet.  I would suggest being re-nominated in a few months time.--
'''Oppose'''.  Unfortunately.  Per above.  Concerns with experience.  -'''
'''Oppose'''. Limited content contribution and collaboration with other editors.
'''Oppose''' per experience. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose'''.  I originally was supporting, but his answer to Question 9 makes me a bit leery about what he really can do as a sysop.
'''Oppose''' user requests admin privs to help out with the backlog. There are plenty of backlogs that do not require admin tools that the user has not helped with. Therefore, I do not trust this user is simply requesting the rights to help with the backlog. Lack of mainspace edits. Lack of projectspace edits. Only 6 months of active contribs. Probably more, but that's more than enough to oppose. -
'''Neutral''' The candidate has technically been a Wikipedian since 2005; however, during most of the first five years there were an average of 1 or 2 edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). Really only highly active since the summer of 2010. There are also weaknesses in important administrative areas (e.g. vandal fighting). I see your heart in the right place, and would suggest mentoring, solidifying your credentials and trying again in 3-6 months.--
'''Support''' - I was not at all familiar with ErrantX before this RfA but a review satisfies me that this is a good candidate. I reviewed deleted contributions and they look good. I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Hague&diff=382470129&oldid=382470009 this fix] of page-move vandalism, [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gel-Pak |three]] [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Information_forensics | AFD]] [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Palestinian_citizens | nominations]] that looked fine to me, and reasonable, calm [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=407639156 comments at AN/I]. That last was in January, but other work I looked at in-depth went well back to mid-2010, and early work from 2006 looks great too. I give more weight to longer-term contributions rather than "polishing" in preparation for RfA. Looks like the real deal to me. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - I am supporting this 100% as I have had the opportunity to work along with ErrantX. He is a really good candidate.--
'''Support''' A review indicates nothing concerning. The long pause in editing is a non issue, but thanks for explaining it. Also a quick flick of the {{user|Autoerrant}} account contributions indicates all is well. Good answers to the questions. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' One of those people I assumed was already an administrator from the calm, rational approach he has. I've run into him a number of times, have no issue with trusting him and am confident he will make good use of the tools. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. Based on the contributions I've looked at and the answers to the questions so far, ErrantX seems a reasonable and level-headed editor who's unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I have no concerns. --
'''Support'''. I've seen ErrantX around the place quite a lot, and he just struck me as one of those editors who's been contributing for years - so it was a surprise to learn he's only been back for about 9 months after a lengthy gap. The quality of his work, his clear understanding, his open and collegial attitude, and answers to the questions, all make this an easy support for me. --
'''Support''' Seems well versed in policy from the answers above.  Account(s) have plenty of time to judge character on.  No apparent issues that would make me question the integrity of the candidate.--v/r -
'''Support''' I really like the candidate's answers, and in particular #3. I'm sure the "gap" betweeen 2006 and 2010 will be the subject of much conversation during the pendency of this RfA, but for me is no big deal.--
'''Support'''. I trust this candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Per all the wonderful people above.
'''Support''' He helped out with the [[Murder of Joanna Yeates]] article. Clearly a trusted contributor.
'''Support''' Seen him around. Knows arse from elbow. --
Despite the fact that you're responsible for bringing back one of the most notorious

looks good. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Well done sir.''' - With only nine active months, my standards are higher than if you had run after a full year. Your numbers are not bad, but don't blow me away. Your content contributions are good, but still don't push me over the edge. In the end, the thing that caused me to come in favor of support was your attitude. In question 4 what you essentially say is "I goofed up, I admit I goofed up, I now recognize how I goofed up, and I will make sure that I do not goof up in that way again." That is, more than a clean block record or seventeen-and-a-half FAs, an indication that you have the mindset of an editor who can be trusted.
'''Support'''. Level-headed and knows his policy well. I had the pleasure of working with him on solving a problem that developed at [[Talk:All Day]] late last year and he proved that he's more than capable of taking on the role of an admin.
Hmm. Usually clueful and calm. Have fun with BLPs and images-already-on-Commons categories. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - No reason why not.

'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Seen him a few times. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''  We do change alot over 4 years, So i can believe your a different editor. I do however naturally have reservations with editors who have such long breaks, But ill assume the best. There is disclosure above, and i find you to be a net benefit, plus Im supporting due to a keen interest in the help desk, I hope youll continue involvement there if your adminship is successful
Usually I'm very sceptical of candidates who have spent a lot of time on ANI. But a review of contributions shows to me that this candidate is sensible and proficient in relevant policies and norms. --
'''Support''' Won't delete the main page.
'''Support.'''

A person who can accusaly produce content and post on the drama board seems good. Also, your answer to question 6 makes me lean this way. People who know that blocking others is a last resort get my !vote. --
RfA as lovely as ever, I see.
'''Support'''. Simply great candidate, with a lot of experience and the general trust of this community, I say. '''''
'''Support'''. Good for you for going to clear [[:Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons]]. It's the most overlooked, least controversial of all yet also the least amount of admin works on this part.
'''Support'''. Having seen quite a few of the candidate's contributions at AN/I, there is a clear impression they are there to contribute, not just to comment to no purpose. Candidate has positive content work, thoughtful opinions on policy, and no worrying issues. --
'''Support''' - Confident, experienced and knowledgable.
'''Support''' per Fastily. —
'''Support'''—knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' per everyone above. Wait- you actually ''failed'' an RfA in 2006? I didn't think that was possible. ''
'''Support''' adminship is no big deal. User clearly trustworthy :)
'''Support''' - A careful review of the candidate's contributions to ANI revealed nothing more than a couple comments that did nothing. Also, per Pedro, who I know feels about ANI about the same way I do, and per Mkativerata.
'''Support''' There is no reason not to support. Perfect answers for the questions. I think he will be a net positive admin. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' - good candidate, great answers=net positive. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support''' after further review of contributions and answers to Q10 and Q12. --
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you looks to be trustworthy.
Can't see a good reason why not.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Seems plenty trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' - Thought you were already. At any rate, I have checked talk page contributions and am satisfied that you are generally even headed and play well with others. I was particularly impressed with your intervention at [[Talk:Holodomor/Archive_15#Discussion|Holodomor]]. Your brusqueness, while it shocked me on rollover, seemed to be exactly what the situation warranted. Your previous period of inactivity are not at all concerning. I should hope that you understand that you will be expected to serve your [[indentured servitude|seven years]] if given the mop though. :) --
'''Support''' Good overall record and perfect measured response to Keepscases' oppose below.
'''Support'''. Looks like a classic, clueful editor. I like the evolutionary arc. --
'''Support''' I've seen this editor about Wikipedia, He answered the questions very well, and is clearly knowledgeable enough in policy areas. Mostly importantly though, seems to have the right attitude.
'''Support''' Plenty of clue, good answers to the questions, only positive interactions in the past. I was considering dropping you an email to see if you'd ever considered running for adminship, so was pleasantly surprised to see you here.
'''Support'''. I won't lie, I'm hoping you'll go rogue and I'll be able to tell tales about the day Errant turned errant. Jokes, of course. Solid editing, great grasp of policy, friendly and patient. What's not to like? I'll be sure to pass off as many administrative tasks on to you as I can. All the best,
'''Support'''. It appears from his comments and feedback from people familiar with him that he would be a good addition to the adminship of Wikipedia. Even reading his imaginary counter-argument to his appointment/election as an admin, he seems to have a reasonable assessment of himself and the temperament to facilitate the continuing success of Wikipedia and further contributions. I don't believe I have ever come across him in my Wikipedia-travels although I have worked on some of the same articles, but then again I did not check my Talk Page for potential exchange. As he has prior experience in combination with the experience gathered in his fairly recent return, it appears that he certainly has the experience to be a contributing administrator. Further, attitude and perspective seem to be much more important attributes than policy knowledge. One can always look up policy knowledge, it really is of greater importance that the potential-admin can manage their encounters and confrontations without losing their head and near-term temperament. While several administrators have a history of impulsive behavior it does not appear that this person, while (as he acknowledges) has strong opinions that he has displayed on Talk Pages, it seems that his ability to contain his impulses, and simply express those impulses as arguments on Talk Pages, makes him a viable addition to the "Wikipedia Ruling Class." I vote support.
'''Support''' On review, no issues found to cause trust concerns. --
'''Support''' Yes! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
I fully agree for Errant to be an administrator. Thats my vote.
'''Support''' - User has sufficient experience to use the tools productively and with a minimum of mistakes; I can find no evidence of the user having a notable temper or engaging in POV pushing such as to make him likely to deliberately misuse the tools; user appears open to self-improvement and constructive criticism; and user is engaged in work which could be done more efficiently and effectively with access to the tools. -
'''Support''' indeed.  <span style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 2px 0 2px;background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;
'''Support''' While I'm not personally familair with the candidate, his answers to the questions posed strike me as reasonable and demonstrate a level-headed approach. Not worried about the 4 year break as he's been active since he's been back. <big>
'''Support''' – I can see a good admin in this user. He has experience with [[WP:AFD|AfD]], has contributed to discussions at [[WP:ANI|ANI]], and seems to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia rules. – <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' I have no concerns that ErrantX will be anything but a helpful and clueful admin. --
'''Support''' without a doubt --
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. No red flags have come up in this RfA so far. I've gone back and looked at your early MedCab work, and at a selection of your comments, both early and recent, at other users' talk pages, and everything looks to me like someone who works hard, who can navigate tricky situations with a calm demeanor, and who is very well suited to being an administrator. --
'''Support''' a very tustworthy editor. [[User:Sumsum2010|<font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010</font>]]·[[User talk:Sumsum2010|<font color="#007AFF">T</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Sumsum2010|<font color="#7FFF00" >C</font>]]·
The userbox says: "This user is a Secular Humanist who thinks that religious belief is fine, but that religions can be harmful".  The question for me is whether editors will imagine that this candidate is on some kind of anti-religious campaign; I don't think they will. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Good luck. --
'''Support''' I thought he already was one. I don't think the userbox disqualifies him.--
'''Support'''. ErrantX is experienced and level-headed; I trust him with the tools. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor with more than sufficient experience. In regard to the oppose, I consider the current version of the userbox to be perfectly okay.
'''Support''' His measured and kind response to Keepcases oppose merits my support, and I can see no reasons to oppose. As for the oppose itself, are we going to start asking Christian admin candidates to remove their userboxes because they might advance some religious agenda or offend atheists? No. So why do we tolerate and enable this garbage? For goodness sake, we have to grow a spine and take a stand for freedom of conscience on Wikipedia that ''includes'' atheist admin candidates, once and for all.
'''Support:'''  When I look at his edits, they show a man of principle and integrity. -
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - long-time editor, lots of article work and sufficient WP edits, reviewer, rollbacker, etc.
'''Support''' - No major problems.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns.
'''Support'''. Welcome aboard :) --
'''Support'''. Has the right mindset. Nice, curt, and to-the-point with his comments. Doesn't "beat-around-the-bush" or have conflicts of interest.
'''Support''' after a review of a selection of (post-interregnum) contributions.  --
'''Support''' Goddammit, I hate one-line supports. Looks good, responsible, reliable. Please admin.(I seriously did read through and carefully consider this, I just can't think of anything meaningful to add, everything's been summed up well).
'''Oppose''' "Secular humanist" userbox, which appears to have been designed by the candidate himself, shows poor judgment.  There are many ways to describe oneself as a "secular humanist" without needing to state that "religions can be harmful", and the qualifier that "religious belief is fine" is nonsensical in such a context.  What are religions without religious belief?  Elitism is elitism, sugarcoated or not.  An administrator having this confrontational and divisive userbox would make Wikipedia a worse place.
'''Oppose'''.  Per concerns outlined in my original "neutral" entry below, which were heightened by candidate's responses there.--
'''Lean oppose''' I'm sorry, I see no reason why this user should be an admin so fast after a 4 year break.
Have seen him around, but not enough to warrant an opinion. [[User:WikiCopter|WikiCopter]] ([[User talk:WikiCopter|♠]] • [[Special:EmailUser/WikiCopter|♣]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/WikiCopter|♥]] • [[User:AirplanePro/Guestbook|♦]] &bull; [[w:simple:User:WikiCopter|simple]] • [[commons:User:WikiCopter|commons]] •
'''Neutral''' +--
'''Neutral'''.  You're proudest of having talked [[User:Daniel]] back to the Project?  While I was dismayed that his hot-headed intransigence chased off (temporarily) one of our very finest editors,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slp1&oldid=267465616] he never retracted or apologized, and I remember seeing him do equally unfortunate things elsewhere, although I can't recall where.  There must be something else you've done to be most proud of-- I support candidates whose judgment I know well and can trust.
'''Strong support'''—awesome editor, per below :).
'''Support''' - Clearly a devoted user, shows strong signs of having clue, can't find any reason to oppose.
'''Strong Oppose''' for giving me the impression that he was an admin and thereby preventing me from offering to nominate him. People these days. Otherwise, '''absolute support''' for being a fantastic user and an excellent human being <small> plus, if he fucks up, I know his favourite watering hole and when he plans to be there </small>
'''Strong Support'''{{ec}} All interactions with Fae have been positive. I don't have any issues with Fae becoming an administrator, I believe he would perform the task quite well.
'''Strong Support''' - {{ec}} Great contributor, would do the job to the best of his ability. He has my complete support and trust —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' I thought Fae already was an admin!
'''Yeah''' I also though Fæ was an admin. <tt>:)</tt> [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' I've met Fae a couple of times now in real life and think he has the right combination of commitment, temperament and clue. ''
'''Support'''. An easy decision. Both because of the esteem in which I hold the nominator and because everywhere I've seen the candidate, I've never had any qualms. A very clueful editor who would put thee tools to good use.
'''Support'''. I've seen Fæ all over the place, doing all sorts of great work - I have no concerns at all. --
'''Support''' Conscientious editor who works in many different areas.  Looks to be a well-rounded candidate.
'''Strong  Support''' Your not already an admin? <font color="00ff00">
'''Strong support''', excellent interactions/judgement at AIV and thick-skinned as well.  A quick review of edits outside of anti-vandalism indicate that this is a well-rounded candidate.  No concerns.
'''Support''' I have good experience with this person!
Fæ looks like a good editor to me.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' Eminently sensible and productive editor whose promotion will substantially reduce the workload for the rest of the admin corps.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' I can't see why not.
as nom. --
'''Support'''. A browse through the Fæ's contribution history shows nothing but positive work.
'''Weak support''' An exceptional vandal-fighter and a moderately well-rounded candidate otherwise. I really like the transparency shown in the nomination acceptance statement.--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy (yay OTRS) and a more than competent editor (Hoxne Hoard is a great article). An asset for sure. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
If this fails, I'll quit. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Sensible and patient. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' per above.  I thought you were already an administrator!
'''Support'''.  Broadly experienced.  Good demeanor. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' per the commentary already offered by several editors whose opinions I hold in high regard.

'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, great attitude, good common sense. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very good work at new pages, also per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Castellanos López]]. --
'''Support'''  Been impressed in the past with the candidate staying cool under conflict, thoughtful and constructive work in content/Talk and AfD discussions. And yes, I honestly thought you were already an admin. --
'''Support''' excellent candidate.
'''Support''' All around excellent candidate. Bonus points for me being petrified of Fetchcomms' threat.
'''Support'''. Hard-working, intelligent, trustworthy. Net benefit as admin. --
'''Support'''. Fæ has all the right skills and experience.
'''Support''' I did know Fæ wasn't an admin, and as soon as I had come out of New Admin School was planning to see if I could find some reason (other than Fæ not consenting) for not nominating him. I've never seen any problem in the time this account's been around (having had plenty of chance to see him at work). Calm, knowledgeable, polite, good content work - and nominated by someone whose opinion carries more weight than mine would.
'''Support'''. Hardworking, not a drama-phile, can be trusted with the tools, and I haven't seen any cause for concern in a random sample of edits. I like the GLAM work; this seems to be an area where we can really get top-quality sources and build high-quality coverage across swathes of wikipedia.
Although you might want to consider redirecting

Yet another '''Support'''. No one can be this appropriate for the admin tools, I thought. I'll look into his history. So I looked. And looked. And looked. Quite simply... support. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Support '''Good candidate.
'''Support''' No issues seen. --
'''Support''' Fæ is friendly, helpful, thoughtful, has good wiki-knowledge, is prepared - indeed keen - to admit to mistakes and learn from them (not that xe makes many), and shows superb judgement.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''No duh...''' -
'''Support''' Extremely helpful to newbies, has helped me a lot, great content contributor on both en-wiki and on Commons, low tolerance for drama, and keeps the vandals at bay (reverting vandalism on my user page and RPPing it, for instance). Trustworthy and wouldn't abuse the mop. —
[[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Strong support''' He deserves the tools.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Absolutely. ''
'''
'''Strong support''' – Absolutely. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' I kinda thought you were already an admin, have only seen good things and your answer to Q3 about walking away when things get tedious is something I like to see. I have every faity you'll use the tools well.
'''Support'''. I've worked with Fæ at [[Suicide of Tyler Clementi]], where I clearly remember another editor hurling abuse at Fæ, who handled it exactly the right way. The candidate has my trust. --
'''Strong Support''' - Great candidate and awesome editor. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Nice username by the way.
'''Support''' absolute unequivocal support.--
Based solely on the contributions I support. However I find the company of some supporters not the kind I wish to be in. In addition I'm afraid I distrust John Vandenberg a great deal (sorry to be personal - but he has signed the official "ARBCOM SEAL OF APPROVAL"), so his opinion, in commentary of the undisclosed previous account (rightly undisclosed and I ask for no information on it), prevents me from being quite so enthusiastic as others above. Good luck with the admin bits. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - most excellent!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great contributions and a patient, friendly attitude to others. Will be the kind of admin diffuses tension, acts as a role model and draws new users to the project.
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support''' - Fæ is a good editor, and I feel he'll make a fine admin. ~
'''Support''' Seems to do good work...
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Strong Support''' - Would make a great admin.
OTRS, vandal-fighting and judging XfDs are three very good reasons to have the tools, and I cannot refute anything in the excellent nomination statement. Besides, I felt obliged to do my bit to improve the company in which Pedro finds himself ;) —
'''Support''' I can't see any problems in the candidate's history, and no reason not to trust them! '''''
'''Support''' Only one question: are you a he, or a she? "Fae" sounds female-istic :P --
no reservations --
'''Support'''- Great contributor.
'''Support''' Good contributor and well deserving of the mop. I have no issues at all supporting. – '''
'''Support'''.  Undisclosed prior history a concern, but trust John Vandenberg's vouch.  --
'''Support'''. I remember nearly choking on my coffee when I first saw your moniker (''fæ'' means blockhead in Danish), but it has got to be one of the most misleading usernames around.  You are a consistently competent editor and should have been conscripted into the Corps of Administrators a long time ago.
'''Support''', also per Fævonian.
'''Strong Support''', the nomination states everything precisely. A very good editor. <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' -- I've encountered Fae a number of times and have always been impressed with their diligence and collaboration. I have wondered when Fae would add these tools. WP will benefit greatly from this. (I also had noted the oxymoronic username in Danish -- just passed it off as proper Danish modesty :) )<span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''', quality editor with a good attitude and temperment.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' excellent candidate, also thought you were already an admin. '''
'''Support''' No concerns
'''Support''' The nomination is convincing enough for me to support this RFA.
'''Stud!'''  Loved the work with Iowa legislature to get image donations.  I'm fine with both the clean start and the declaration of it.  Sometimes it is best to put the drama behind.
'''Support''' Regards,
'''Support'''  I come across Fæ regularly and have no qualms about  their eligibility to  adminship. They will  have provided their true identity  and details of their past to  become an OTRS assistant and I  feel  sure that any concerns about a previous existence are unnecessary.
'''Support''' Thought you were already one. --<font face="Calibri">
'''Support''' Great editor and no red flags. --
'''Support''' - No issues, particularly no CSD ones.
'''Support''' I've crossed with Fæ many times at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RCP]] and the experience was positive. AIV reports tell much about certain qualities of an editor.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 50,000 edits, [[Hoxne Hoard|high-quality article work]] and created some new articles with [[User:F%C3%A6/barnstars|the barnstars and DYKs to prove it]].
'''Support''' - No concerns. Good edits, seems to interact well with others.
'''Support''' - In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Support''' - A trusted editor. I see no reason why another good mop should not be handed out. '''
'''Support'''-Contributions show that he is capable, OTRS shows trust, and question answers show understanding of policy. The opposes given thus far aren't sufficient to prevent adminship.
'''Support''' Entirely trustworthy. Granting this user admin rights will be of considerable benefit to the project.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Looks like a great asset to the project.
'''Strong Support'''. Like many others, thought he was already an administrator. He has long served in a leadership capacity. In my opinion, outside of receiving access to additional tools, this is a mere formality. Major duh. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' per reducing the number of redlinks I have watchlisted. Twelve months of solid contributions and a properly disclosed [[WP:CLEANSTART]] are good enough for me. -
'''Support''' per much of the above —
'''Support''' - Competent, capable, no issues...no significant issues anyways, the ones raised by the oppose/neutral camps are negligible.
I wasn't persuaded by the opposition.  - Dank (
'''Support''' I always like to qoute the old saying "Do you trust this editor?" My answer is Yes, I feel anyone willing to go through RfA these days deserves support.
'''Support''' I have had some positive interactions with Fae, and in addition, I feel his responses and discussion in the present RfA reflect well on his judgment and demeanor. It appears there may be some legitimate concerns about xSD tags; but I trust he will glean any useful feedback surfaced here, and use it to inform his future tagging. -
'''Support''' Considering the errors in the context of the very large amount of excellent work being done, I think the problems about deletion tagging  have been responded to appropriately, and I expect very few  such errors in the future. changed from ''Weak oppose''  '''
'''Support'''- excellent editor, will be an excellent admin.
Definitely. Seems like exactly the type of person we want to be an admin: experienced and an excellent editor. '''
'''
'''Strong Support'''. I've worked with Fæ extensively over the last 12 months on [[WP:GLAM/BM]] and [[WP:GLAM/BL]] projects where he has done excellent work liaising with external institutes and working collaboratively and cool-headedly with other editors to produce quality content.  From his impressive edit history he seems to be active almost 24/7 on NP patrol and fighting vandalism, and it is clear that he needs the tools, and I am sure that he would use them effectively and judiciously.  Over-speedy CSD tagging is obviously a concern to some editors, but he has demonstrated (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWereSpielChequers&action=historysubmit&diff=419460300&oldid=419432278 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AF%C3%A6&action=historysubmit&diff=419479217&oldid=419475167 here]) a willingness to modify his tagging behaviour in line with community consensus, and so I do not think that this should be an impediment to adminship.
'''Support''' Initially had my doubts about this editor as a deletionist and intially peed me off with his persistance. But it turned out that he is generally correct about his articles nominations and does a damn good job cleaning the shite out of wikipedia. Exactly what we need and is hard working and dedicated to improving existing articles and getting shoddy content ousted or improved. Interaction with him was pleasant and I think he could do great things with the tools, providing he doesn't start deleting genuinely notable articles which can be improved!♦

'''Support''' I have noticed Fæ's good work and am confident that this will help Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Like most of the other people around here, I thought Fæ was already an admin. Though I don't think I've ever directly interacted with Fæ, I have seen him/her work from a distance, and I've seen enough to know that this user is knowledgeable, reliable and dedicated to the project. The clean start issue does not concern me, as Fæ has followed all the steps recommended at [[WP:CLEANSTART]], including divulging the name of the past account to ArbCom. S/he even went one step further and talked to one of the editors involved in the old RFC/U. I trust ArbCom's scrutiny. I would, however, like to see an answer to the question of whether or not Fæ has edited using the old account. <small>— Preceding <span style="color:#0645AD;">''signed''</span> comment added by
'''Support''' - This editor's participation in the OTRS program pretty much convinced me, because as a former volunteer there I gained great respect for the people and process.  It is not easy to get in as you are vetted carefully, and not easy to do that level of work.  However, I took the time to consider the Opposers thoughts, but have come away unconvinced by their arguments.  I understand the need some have for a fresh start.  I believe the user is trustworthy and has need of the tools, which will be used for the benefit of Wikipedia.  I wish the candidate all the best, and give my thanks for the service to date and in the future.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}'''
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. The process of getting there shouldn't be, either. You have my support.
'''Support''' Good canditate Had positive dealings in the past. <b>
'''Support''' per my comments below and assurances on recall. Consider my oppose vote (#19 below) struck (I don't know how to do it below without mucking up the auto-numbering) --
'''Support#'''. With the exception of a few relatively borderline speedy errors, I see nothing in Fae's history to make me think that they wouldn't be a good admin, and quite a lot that suggests they will be. Previous account stuff is not too concerning.
'''Support''', but I'm concerned about some of those speedy diffs below. Not concerned about CleanStart, per JvB's assertions. --
'''support''' Lets face it with his involvement in GLAM stuff if we can't trust him adminship would be the least of our worries.©
'''Support''' I do hope Fae'll take the criticism (of procedural mistakes; aka CSD, biting...) in good stride and improve the issues immediately. Beyond that, hats off to Fae for forwarding his services for adminship, especially given the solipsist legacy that has been apparently - and indiscriminately - bequeathed upon a candidate wishing to serve the project more credibly. It's a little sad to see that Fae's background, or rather Fae's unknown background, is being conclusively forwarded as an analogical crime. In no uncertain terms, assuming good faith is a ''fundamental principle'' of Wikipedia. Not assuming good faith, purely based on perspectives developed on negative allusions to Fae's background, goes against this fundamental principle. This project, its procedures, policies, guidelines, have been built under the philosophy of being forgiving; and especially for those who have moved the metaphorical step forward to repeal past issues. Perhaps the whole world would be a better place if they could learn our AGF principle... Guess I'll deal with that later. Right now, this RfA is go.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
'''Oppose''' When I entered here neutral, I did say I would gather. Fully anticipating to find the good credentials. It would seem impossible; For such as I find, to exist in the midst. But they are! Examples follow, which show the things and their notes, For an inspection is required: * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isiah_Hester&diff=next&oldid=419083907 This CSD] Is a BITE, and misidentified as SPAM. Notability assertions in the text: "National Champion", and "World Champion" * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lore_Jac-Rey&diff=next&oldid=419029692 This CSD] is a BITE, is questionably tagged A7. Notability assertions in the text: "nominated accessory designer of the year" "hort films like "HEART" by Patrick James Quinn" (BLPPROD or AfD) are better choices. * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tata_Power&diff=418813236&oldid=418812697 This CSD] first identifies as SPAM, 2 minutes later changes to G12 copyvio, Admin declines deletion as mirrored text. * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunday&diff=prev&oldid=418594296 This tag] starts as a bite, progresses through 10 minutes WTF, and ends with me felling like this user needs to slow down just a bit. Implications of a trigger finger are now a concern. Rational and judgment, fall into question. * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Courthouse_junior_school&diff=418485056&oldid=418484980 This CSD] is a BITE. After three hours, and numerous logged in users add their consensus, (buy collaboration) again comes the candidate with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Courthouse_junior_school&diff=prev&oldid=418502709 this CSD], mislabeled db-corp, which should exclude a school. The mistake was noticed and corrected within 1 minute to a PROD. This is a situation which gives greater cause than I can overcome. They '''are''' compounded by this extenuation: All edits are within the past three days; Edits by the same hand which had obligated, presence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/F%C3%A6&diff=418851025&oldid=418829035 here]. I have also been shown that simply the choosing, to multitask is viewed as a negative quality. In the presence of much support, and an open question; The qualities I imagined of you, were discredited by activity which reflected instead: Misjudgment, Aggressiveness against new members, A rushed sense of action, and a trigger happy notion of deletion. I did know these to be grave in consequence, and felt very badly. But, who is served that your first decision was shown above.  while colleagues await answer, and their chance to see your reply. So they could also have confidence in your communication skills, and concise manner. And while holding these examples back you were instead producing what have been call in the past, "egregious examples". To these; are my regards.
I can't see your whole history, and I'm suspicious about the answer to Q3 in light of the disclosure. I respect that redemption is a wonderful thing for the community to encourage, but adminship is much more than an award for good behavior, and not every capable editor should be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Following a tetchy AFD, I posted some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/F%C3%A6_(2)&diff=379035867&oldid=378332661 polite advice] in his editor review.  He subsequently removed this comment from his editor review, which seems improper.  I forgot all about the incident but it all came back when I found myself going through the same process several weeks later at the entertaining topic of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learned pigs & fireproof women|Learned pigs & fireproof women]].  The candidate seems too quick to bite and delete and won't take criticism.  In other words, he can dish it out but he can't take it.  His tendency to cover his tracks seems telling.
'''FIRM Oppose''' Barring a major reversal this RfA is going to pass, but I can't in good conscious support it right now. While the person might have a clean start and have a solid history as such, I can't help but wonder if there are people here who might go the other way if they knew who this was. Who might be upset if they realized who they were supporting? While I do believe in a clean start, that clean start only goes so far... while I generally will only look at the past years worth of edits, it does concern me that we are unable to assess prior history. Faes history was apparently disruptive enough to invoke an RfC and possible sanctions (possibly as recently as a year ago); yet we have to take it on faith that Fae addressed those concerns/issues. I appreciate that Fae others view him as admin material, but I can't help but think of others who have run (granted in secret) on new accounts. Sorry, but I can't support at this juncture.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)NOTE: I've moved to FIRM oppose.  The more I think about it, the more I do not like the secrecy surrounding this.  A clean start is fine and I would have no problems with somebody coming here with one, if it wasn't for the fact an RFC led to the clean start. Who does the "secrecy" protect?  This candidate.  He is free to reveal his prior accounts at anytime, but choses to run while hiding.  Sorry, can't support this and hope that the closing crat takes into consideration the trend regarding supports/opposes over the past 36 hours into consideration when closing this.---'''
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. <span style="">
'''Oppose'''.  While I have had a mixture of experience, some better than others, w/the candidate, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6/2011#speedy_vs_too_speedy this one] was negative and was quite recent.  In it the candidate reflected -- as pointed out by more than one editor -- some of the things I hope not to find in our sysop crew ... an overly quicky use of the speedy delete tag, a failure to use more than 1 of the 10 minutes one might alot for an article to be improved, a failure to do one's own wp:before search before applying a speedy tag, a failure perhaps to assume good faith, and a failure to realize the negative impact that one's actions might well have on new users.  All of this screams out to me "not now". Perhaps at a later time, but there were too many issues in this quite recent incident for me to ignore.--
'''Regretful oppose''' – You’ve done truly excellent work in a lot of areas of wikipedia and I was originally going to support this application. I’m also impressed by your actions in the AfD  mentioned in Vejvančický’s support. However, I’m concerned by your very quick CSD tagging. A month ago you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Caviar_%28horse%29&diff=prev&oldid=414881579 tagged this article] by a new editor as CSD A1 “no context” 1 minute after creation, which I think was pretty bitey. As the issue was [[User_talk:Fæ/2011#speedy_vs_too_speedy|raised on your talk page,]] I find it worrying that you did the same thing on Wednesday (see question 5). Whilst I acknowledge that the CSD guidelines only warn against rapid tagging for A1 and A3, I think it would also have been friendlier to wait longer than a minute on these A7 nominations: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Le_Sketch&diff=prev&oldid=412767069] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blair_Levin&diff=prev&oldid=411991861]. Remember that newbies can take a while to figure out the editing interface, and for all editors having your work instantly tagged for deletion makes article-writing a less enjoyable process. I hope you’ll take these concerns on board and make sure you give people time to finish writing before hitting the delete button. --
'''Oppose''' - CSD concerns. As shown by other commenters on this section, Fae seems to resort to speedy deletion a little ''too'' speedily; in many cases, nominating articles for CSD which have only just been created and barely had a chance to be improved. I agree that this creates concerns with [[WP:BITE]]: having articles nominated for speedy deletion within minutes of their creation is, I believe, one of the main issues that discourages new users from Wikipedia. Fae is currently on course to pass this RFA, but if he does, I hope he will bear these concerns in mind, and take the time to consider a CSD candidate carefully before deleting it, to make sure it really does fall within the criteria; and in particular, to make sure that new articles get at least a chance to be developed before being deleted.
'''Oppose''' - moved from neutral, please see my comments there.
'''Oppose''' Concerns raised above concerning the treatment of new users at CSD and mistakes with CSD taggings are far too recent and problematic to support this request, although it currently looks as if it's passing anyway. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' CSD concerns with new users as outlined above. Seems it will pass anyway at this point so i hope Fae addresses this.
'''Oppose'''.  The nominee's replies to queries about the RFC/U and related concerns which the nominee prefers to remain secret or hidden here are at best ungracious and at worst dismissive and disparaging, and the efforts by others to further neutralize such questions have a disturbing "you don't need to know" effect which controverts the apparent intention.    –
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry but I cannot support an RfA such as this one. From the statements made above, it seems that this isn't a situation where due to some unconnected reason, e.g. harassment, an editor has switched to a new account and is unhappy about disclosing their previous identity. If that is indeed the case case, the right course of action is to disclose the past account and let the community judge for themselves whether there has been a "fresh start" and whether past issues have been addessed. I note that a "respected editor" who was a "critic" is stated not be opposing this RfA - no doubt a statement from them here that past concerns had been addressed would impact upon potential opposition resulting from the past account being revealed.<br/>Nothing that has been said so far convinces me that there is a need for secrecy and I do not think the community is so unforgiving that conduct under a previous name more than a year ago (I am assuming no overlap between the accounts) will not be forgiven. I think an important element of reform is owning up to past mistakes. That isn't happening here. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose'''. I firmly believe that there has to be a greater level of transparency for anyone wanting to climb the power pole at WP. I urge the editor (with the unnecessarily difficult username to type) to withdraw the RFA, lay out all the previous cards on the table, and allow the community to make an ''informed'' decision during a reapplication (you will come out the stronger for it). <font style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;" size="2">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Anyone should be able to make a clean start of things under a new account. Admins, however, aren’t your basic ordinary “anyone”. It is just too difficult on Wikipedia for the regular rank & file to desysop an admin once he or she has been handed the scales of justice and the saber of enforcement.
'''Oppose'''. Whenever disputes and policy come come up the ones that are brought up 90% of the time are WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V or their extensions.  But there are 5 pillars and the three just mentioned are the ones that put the most burden on content contributors while the other two that should help contributors have been systematically neutered or perverted in the general Wikipedia mindset.  Further I do not get an indication that the candidate appreciates or has reflected upon the BITEY criticism others have given him from his long response to my question. The thought process therein didn't seem to take that dimension into account.  I fear Fae might be the kind of admin that disruptive wikilawyers and system gamers would take advantage of to prevent contributors from building an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' I am troubled by the lack of transparency about the candidate's previous account - as well as the apparent off-wiki discussions regarding this RFA.  Unless the discussion includes personally identifiable information it should be done in the open.
'''Oppose''', There seems to be a lack of contrition for the incidents of aggressive deletion and bitten newbies, and the evasiveness about the past account (especially the answer to question 12) is concerning.  It's clear that Fae has made great contributions as an editor and I'd love to see these continue, but I don't want to see Fae turn as aggressive with the tools as with the tags.  A couple more months, no more biting, and an attitude willing to admit mistakes would go a long way.  [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/
'''Oppose''' per WJB and Balloonman, above. Refusal to disclose past history and a clean start is great for an editor, but that sort of secrecy is undesirable in an admin. <strong>
'''Oppose''' the CSD problems and my general belief that because the bit is in practice hard to remove, we need a full history.  I worry we are getting a [[pig in a poke]].
'''Oppose''', moved from neutral, and thanks to B for providing a summary of the deleted edits on the talk page which have given me a clearer picture.  This user is hastier with the CSD tags than I thought.—
'''Oppose'''. After some consideration, I remain very unhappy about the secret previous identity here. I am, presumably, being told that even if I knew the candidates previous identity I would still support them. If so, why not reveal it, or at least some more information about the circumstances of the RfC, so that I can be the judge? If, on the other hand, I am being told that if I knew their previous identity, I would ''not'' support them, then clearly I must oppose.--
'''Neutral''' I am of the opinion that any and all edits to Wikipedia should be disclosed in an RfA.
'''Neutral'''<s>, leaning oppose</s> over the response to Balloonman. It is perfectly possible for you to answer such broad questions without making your past account obvious, and I find your response to these questions to be assuming bad faith on the part of the questioner. Calling the questions a "fishing expedition" is unfair given the connotations of that expression here - it's an honest request for information, and one that appears carefully worded to allow you to protect the identity of your old account while addressing potential concerns. Given that we can't judge your history for ourselves, I would encourage you to answer these questions, even if your answers are by necessity somewhat vague.
I hope I can make a comment here; please move it if it's in the wrong section. OK, disclosure first: someone emailed me concerned about the change of username and the non-disclosure of the previous name and track-record. Discount my comment here as you wish, under the canvassing policy. I just want to know why an RfA candidate is not compelled under the rules to disclose previous accounts. Sorry, I'm too busy in RL to research the threads above.
'''Neutral''' Good contributions but I can't get over the unrevealed past account. I probably wouldn't judge the candidate on year-old edits but the lack of transparency is improper for someone being chosen by consensus for the admin tools.--
'''Neutral''' for now while I review deletion concerns expressed by others; see material I just posted at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fæ#Recent deletion-related activity]] --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral''' - There is a lot to like about the candidate's lengthy contribution. I'm a tiddly bit concerned about some CSD tagging being bitey as mentioned above. But not a deal breaker anyway. The other thing, I respect is the candidate's privacy but in a RFA disclosing the past is probably better as its running for public office and people can make constructive comments from it. There are a few candidates who had changed their usernames and did not need to resort to cleanstart and gone on to become very successful admins e.g. Ironholds in the previous months. --
'''Support'''.  With 6 years and over 9000 edits (over 7000 active edits) to the site, I don't see why not.  Good luck. &ndash;
Longterm user with a clean block log, and from the batch I checked very accurate and fairly cautious CSD tagging. I haven't looked at the GA but the combination of you having one and also being active in an area that demonstrates a need for the tools makes you in my opinion a fully qualified candidate. The low activity levels in much of 2010 don't concern me in the slightest as I consider your activity in the last four months indicates that you are back up to speed with the community. ''
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --
Per Buick, WSC, and the self-nom statement. - Dank (
'''Support''' - This RfA is a bit premature, but I have no concerns that this user will abuse the tools. S/he will do a fine job. '''
'''Support''' After more than two years of inactivity, a few more months of editing before an RfA would be ideal. Still, if everything looks good I suppose there's no harm in it. ''
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' I really don't want to pile on the Neutral section, as I voted Neutral on a lot of RfAs in the past. I think you're in good standing, so this is the reason why I support this nomination. <s>I'd like to see a slightly longer answer to Q4 though...</s> I think your Q4 answer is good enough.
An editor who has done good work for a number of years decides to return to active editing and wants to help out by taking up the tools. Excellent. Contributions over the last few weeks alone demonstrate that the candidate is competent, proficient in the application of relevant policies, and has the right temperament for the job. I would point to the excellent record of speedy deletions, good AfD contributions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethocentric] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pancosmic_Justice_Jihad]), and [[User talk:Feezo#Article_deletion_discussion|seeking a third opinion]] to resolve conflict with another editor. --
'''Support''' per WereSpielChequers.
'''Support''' per most of the above, and the quite reasonable answer to question 5.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Lower levels of activity are not a convincing reason to oppose to me -- what counts is trustworthiness as measured by past experience on the project. Wikipedia is something we do in our spare time, and the amount of free time we all have naturally fluctuates. That's not a reason to consider someone untrustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''.  I would strongly suggest that the candidate slows down with their [[WP:A3|A3]] work, as a look through Feezo's deleted contributions reveals a number of A3 tags placed within 5 minutes of article creation.  Apart from this, though, I see a courteous user whose new page patrolling is quite accurate.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support'''. See no problems, though agree that slowing down on the A3 tags would be better conduct.  10 minutes minimum, I would suggest, in the absence of the article being disruptive.--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' No reason to think they would abuse the tools, meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]]
'''Support''' - Moved from 'oppose' because 1. I've been able now to see their content work. 2. Their highly concentrated work on page patrolling is going to be a huge asset that I hadn't considered before,  3. I'm satisfied with the expanation for the long absence, and 4. Because adminship is a matter of trust and while nobody is perfect (especially new admins), I have absolutely no reason to suspect that  he would abuse the power of the bit. I still maintain my comments below that broadening their sphere of activity would be a plus.
'''Support''' No issues seen. --
'''Support''' - Yes, I'm confident I can trust this person.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' He'll be fine.
'''Support''' per WereSpielChequers, trustworthy user. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support'''—I can trust you with the mop. You did say you wanted to work at [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], where nearly all of your requests are from within the past two months for [[WP:SALT|create-protections]]; however, page protection is relatively straightforward. Another thing to nitpick on: while reviewing some of your recent CSD nominations, I think it would have been a good idea for you to request the suppression of the content in [[Vvithurshan]] (which I have done). When a minor gives out personal info, it's best to render it inaccesible even to admins.
'''Weak Support'''. I looked at all of the aspects in my view that an admin would require (responsible user, no vandalism, no edit warring, etc.). You looked great until I saw huge gaping hole in your contributions where nothing had happened for long periods of time. I'd put my money on this guy being a decent semi-active administrator, but not on being the best person in the world. Good luck.
'''Support''' – I trust this user with the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - Four months of recent activity is enough activity for me.
'''Support'''. We certainly need more hands on page patrol, and these look like good hands. I'm not too bothered about the long-ish quiet spell, as there are more than enough edits over the past few months for me to check - and I see no problems --
'''Support'''. Give him a mop and carry on at new page patrol - we need the help!
'''Support''' Whilst I echo the comments above re: new page patrol, I'm very impressed with your handling of accusations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Time_Will_Say_Nothing&oldid=406151271 here], where you remained helpful in the face of a difficult editor. The fact you went on to ask if you could improve on how you handled it at your editor review ensures my support
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Feezo has good contributions and a good understanding of policies & guidelines.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Thoughtful answer to my question. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support'''. Experienced, trustworthy editor. --
'''Support'''. Top notch
'''Support'''. Sure thing, no problems with this candidate. '''''
'''Support.''' Good edits, good answers to questions.
'''Support'''' after a review of contributions.  Saw a great deal of level-headedness in the handful of Talk discussions I wandered through.  --
'''Support''' A good editor, another well deserved mop to be handed out. '''
'''Support''' All indications are positive and gain my confidence. I have good expectations which I suspect will be exceeded.
'''Support''' No red flags. --
'''Weak Support''' Nothing great, but nothing bad.  I wish the nominee didn't disappear, since we don't need admins leaving all the time.
'''Support'''. I went through the candidate's edit history pretty carefully, and I think that I see a net positive here. --
No concerns.
'''Support'''. Has good answers to questions and a great amount of edits.--
'''Support''' The user's contributions to New Page Patrol speak for themselves and he would be a valuable addition to Speedy Deletion as an admin :).  Best,
'''Support''': A "before the bell" support.  User is "go for mop". :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. <font color="#082567">
'''Not now'''.  I was actually weak support at first. And sorta feel "neutral".  So this is a pretty "weak" oppose.  Really, I think you could do fine, but would like to see a little more work from you.  Have done a little more research:  read talk page, read user page, looked at the editor review, looked at Perl article (relevant diff of month-long improvement [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perl&action=historysubmit&diff=411132163&oldid=405356426], read the spinout of the Perl article, looked at the ship article.  Basically, I would prefer a bit more content creation and participation in the project.  Pretty similar overall rationale to Kudpung although with some nuance differences.  The GA is decent work, but looking over it, it was a save, not one where you built the majority of it.  There were a few places where you added refs (that sorta tells me new content was coming in, not just a re-org).  The ship article had no sources (fine, I guess on the copyright, but not showing synthetic creation.)  Just a little more work in the "making something" mode would benefit you to understand what we are doing here.  Then back to cleaning away rubbish at NPP.  I don't care too much about the break in service.  We have people come and go all the time.  A better solution for the concern of inactive sysops would be term-limited adminship (would also make the moderators more a class of normal users, returning to normal citizenship after a term).  As far as spending time in admin-lite areas to merit the tools, I don't always see this as a need.  Someone like the two RFAs below(or say Sandy or Tony) where it is obvious the user is life-seasoned and capable of synthesizing and thinking, I don't need them to show some specific mop-handling skills...I would feel confident with them in the corporate work world in all kinds of staff assignments and some buttons on WP don't bug me.  They can figure out both mechanics and norms of usage.  For someone who is mostly a "janitor", perhaps it is a little more important to do some of the admin training work first.  Net, net:  '''actually pretty positive on you''' (liked the CSD linked essay from your page).  Just do some more contribution first.  Please.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Strikerforce/RfA Standards|my standards]], specifically the lengthy gap of activity prior to the most recent burst. I will investigate further and observe the discussion for some time, but my initial thoughts land me here. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' A veteran Wikipedian with a long-term near dormant period in 2009 & 2010. Since December 2010, while there has been some terrific work at NPP, there is little else to demonstrate that you are ready to be a sysop. I would suggest mentoring and strengthening your credentials. Based on what I see in your body of work, you will someday be a top-drawer administrator.--
'''Neutral''' per above neutrals, and gap in edits. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">
Q4's answer could be more comprehensive. Also, [[Flevans]] is not what I'd call "improved". Pretty solid candidate, but I find myself agreeing with Hokeman above. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' Per above. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' for now, leaning oppose.  Answer to my question is insufficient. One can argue [[WP:Consensus]] is neutral and [[WP:Burden]] gives clearer guidance raising a cloud over the whole rationale for default to keep.
'''Support''' Shows hard work and dedication to the community (OTRS volunteering, attending Wikimania, being an IRC op), great content work, would absolutely trust [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]] with the tools. —
'''Support''' Obviously. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Her résumé speaks for itself. Although the nom from {{u|Courcelles}} certainly doesn't hurt. --
'''Support''' Most definitely!
'''Strong support''' - (Default for OTRS agents. ;] )
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Suppport''' Happily. /
'''Support''' - Fluffernutters are tasty sandwiches. And Fluffernutter would make a great admin. Her experience is very diverse, she has great content contributions, fantastic communication skills, and I've seen her make reasoned policy decisions in noticeboard discussions. -- '''
'''Enthusiastic Support''' Not only is Fluffernutter the best gnome I've personally seen on Wikipedia, she has a rare knack for breaking down [[Special:LongPages]] into more manageable daughter articles, and has been a (much needed) calming voice of sanity in the en.wikipedia IRC channel for years. I couldn't think of a more qualified candidate for adminship than Fluffernutter! —
'''Support'''. Very well-qualified. Good luck!--
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Strong support''' - Having known Fluff for several months now, mostly off-wiki, I am confident that she will make a fine administrator. I trust her with a lot of my own personal information, as she is someone I feel comfortable confiding in about personal matters, so I have no doubt she can be trusted with both the tools and sensitive information (also shown by OTRS access) that comes with adminship. Also, she invested a great amount of money and time to travel from the US to Israel for Wikimania (for which she was a speaker), which indicates to me how seriously she views the project and her work within it. <big>
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - Fully qualified. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'''Support:''' I can think of no one more qualified for the tools.
'''Support''' per my observation of work at OTRS and per a short review of randomly selected contributions. I'm sure that both within and outside of OTRS requests, she will make constructive use of the tools.  --
'''Strong support''' no brainer.
'''Strong support''' - An excellent candidate for a mop.
'''Support'''. Hey! You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFluffernutter&action=historysubmit&diff=440658041&oldid=440654504 forgot to tell me] you were up for Admin! Harumph. Well, I'm crashing your party anyway to support. [[Image:Smiley_head_happy.svg|19px]] &ndash;
'''Support''' sure. '''
'''Support''' in January, Fluffernutter helped resolve a slightly heated (if extremely minor) conflict at [[St. Bernard (dog)]]; the assistance was hugely helpful, and looking through the last several months of contributions this seems to be a pattern.  Wholehearted support.
'''Om nom nom''' <font face="Georgia">
'''About bloody time!'''
'''Support'''. Fluffernutter has my support here, and I apologise for any problems my question may have caused. In hindsight, it was inappropriate, although I meant no harm from it.
'''Support''' Absolutely, get a new mop ready. '''
Sure, happy to support. <font face="Forte">
How could anyone not support? Pile on support {{=)|grin}} <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' well-rounded, well-qualified--
'''support '''in no wat dimmed by any query from my fellow <s>tool</s>...er Arb
'''Support'''.
Fluffernutter is one of those editors who quietly goes about making the encyclopedia better; we can never have too many admins of that variety. From what I've seen of her participation at AfD and other forums, and her excellent copyediting, she'll continue being a gentle voice of reason as a sysop. Best of luck.
'''Support''' Yes please! From my limited IRC interactions with Fluffernutter and the work I've seen, there's no reason for me to oppose! —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
This may be the only time when my comment includes the words "thought she was an admin already". I have had the pleasure of meeting her in person and discussing wiki-issues, and she has been as sensible off-line as she is on-wiki.
'''Support''' Overdue
'''Support'''. I've looked into her contributions and haven't found any reason to deny admin rights to this helpful, constructive editor.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs less shock-troops and more shepherds. --
'''Support'''. I've met her several times in person, and she's a damn fine editor. Well spoken, articulate, and passionate about Wikipedia. —
'''Support''' All interactions in the past have been very good; no reason to oppose.
I <3 flufflernutters! (And fluffernutter the user, of course.) <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Well suited for this role.
'''Support''' a good all-rounder.
'''Support''' Why not? --
'''Support''' No problems here. (I do like peanut butter and jam sandwiches, but we don't seem to have marshmallow creme over here so I can't sample a fluffermutter...)
'''<font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF4400>a</font><font color=#FF8800>i</font><font color=#FFBB00>n</font><font color=#FFFF00>b</font><font color=#BBFF00>o</font><font color=#88FF00>w</font> <font color=#44FF00>S</font><font color=#00FF00>u</font><font color=#00FF44>p</font><font color=#00FF88>p</font><font color=#00FFBB>o</font><font color=#00FFFF>r</font><font color=#00BBFF>t</font> ''' Gυяℓ ηєє∂ѕ ѕσмє αωєѕσмє яαιηвσω ѕυρρσят..., ѕσ ι gανє нєя α <font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF4400>a</font><font color=#FF8800>i</font><font color=#FFBB00>n</font><font color=#FFFF00>b</font><font color=#BBFF00>o</font><font color=#88FF00>w</font> <font color=#44FF00>S</font><font color=#00FF00>u</font><font color=#00FF44>p</font><font color=#00FF88>p</font><font color=#00FFBB>o</font><font color=#00FFFF>r</font><font color=#00BBFF>t</font>!! --
'''Of course''', intelligent, reasonable, able to remain calm in heated situations, knows her way around the 'pedia...I can only wonder why she never ran for adminship sooner!
'''Support'''. Without hesitation.  My main reasons may be somewhat different from other people's, in that I don;t particularly indulge in edit-counting, or numbers of GA's, FA's, and so on.  We need all sorts, and we need trustworthy allsorts, and the allsorts working in lower-profile areas need mops for those areas, too.  I particularly like the way FLuffernutter interacts with others; not afraid to tell it how it is, but in an inherently clueful, reasoned, rational and non-confrontational kind of way.  When I stalk contribs (watch out, y'all - I admitted to being a stalker!) I focus on people's interactions with each other.  It helps me know them better.  I've yet to see anything in this background which would give me any distrust in Fluffernutter's ability to wield the mop.
'''Support''', of course. No concerns here, simply why not? '''''
'''Support''' Thank you for the fine volunteer work that you are currently doing and for volunteering to take up the admin tools and do more.
'''Extremely strong support''' I vowed not to take part in an RfA again, but when I saw Fluffernutter was having one I had to come and show my support. Fluffernutter is kind, helpful, intelligent, mature, all the qualities required for adminship, and I'd be astonished if anyone opposed. --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]]
'''Strong support''' Sorry for the late support Fluffy. You'd make an excellent Admin.
'''Support''': Fluffernutter has a perfect understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support''' <small>I was concerned that the stats on this RfA's talk page showed so few pages extensively edited, and the [[Whoopi Goldberg]] edits seemed all to be reverts and two minor moves. However, the user page displays some serious content contributions. Why don't they appear on the page stats?</small> Good editor with good content contributions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' An extremely skilled editor, apply to deal with difficult editing problems, and will find good use for the tools. Should also be an exceptionally good aeven-handed and sensible administrator. I, like several of the others above, know her in person, and, like them,  it only adds to the strength of my recommendation. The more things she is able to do at Wikipedia, the better the encyclopedia  will be.  In fact, I've mentioned her work as an example of how much can be done here, in trying to recruit and encourage new editors.   '''
'''Support''' a sense of humour, a couple of GAs and good communication skills are a plus.
'''Support''' Seems well equipped...
'''Support'''. If Courcelles supports then I support.
Yes. ~'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes, please. I've seen her around a good bit on IRC, and her contributions are very good. Additionally, the sense of humor will probably work to her favor; it's good to be able to approach things with a humorous attitude. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' – Deserves for admin chair.
Thought you were already a sandwich...I mean an administrator. In all seriousness, great editor and will make a fine sysops.
'''Hired'''. Have fun with your new mop! Thanks for reviewing [[WP:AFC|articles for creation]], by the way. It's a thankless task.  —
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' SNOWFIGHT!!!--
'''Support''' without hesitation.  In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
This seems to be of the "Duh!" variety. Give her a mop and the t-shirt already!
Fluffernutter is great, though in disclaimer I've hung out with her a bit so maybe I'm biased... :-)
I think the number of people making jovial comments in their supporting - the vast majority of those in this section, I would wager - is a testament to her accessibility and her friendliness. Also quite telling is the lack of opposes thus far. Fluffernutter, to use an American cliché, covers all the bases here; by being both obviously competent and willing to work in challenging domains and, at the same time, retaining a lighthearted sense of humour in her work, she will undoubtedly be able to stem disputes, judge and explain her perception of consensus in certain scenarios, and, most importantly, not go stark raving insane when it comes to the less glamorous aspects of mop-wielding. I should also note the financial expense she has suffered for the project - her journey to Wikimania was, to my knowledge, done purely from her own pocket. If that is not a serious commitment to this project, I do not know what is. All the best. &mdash;
I am not at all sure that it is good for a candidate to be completely unopposed, but I can see nothing that warrants anything other than support. Bah, humbug etc.
Don't see why not. &ndash;
'''Support''' - I had the pleasure of watching Fluffernutter present at Wikimania. She has the sort of judgment I like seeing in administrators.
'''Support''' - Sensible editor. Giving her the admin tools will be a net positive to the project.--
'''Support''' Has my full support as someone with brains and common sense and will easily be a net gain for the community if she has the mop. Therefore meets the most important requirements to be an admin and should get it.
'''Support''', clueful enough! <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Definitely. <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to questions, clearly very intelligent, clearly an ideal temperament, clearly dedicated to the project, clearly an ideal candidate. --
'''Support''' Has no issues.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Sensible.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
I have nothing but good impressions of her and her work. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Strong support'''. Well-qualified candidate, well-rounded experience, good answers to questions, no concerns. (Plus she beat me at Wiki-Jeopardy at the last year's New York wikiconference.)
'''Support''' A name associated only with positive things here.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>

'''Strong support''' Level-headed, experienced, and would be a great asset to the community. '''
'''Support''' - Adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery.
'''Strong Support''' I'm still very new here, so I've mainly interacted with Fluffernutter on IRC, and while that "doesn't count" for the purposes of this vote, it has shown me a person echoed in the many comments of support here.  Fluffster is an excellent channel op; she's skilled at cooling down potential conflicts and has a good sense of humor while avoiding snark and personal disdain. What has strongly impressed me on-wiki is her handling of the Harold Covington controversy.  Here is a true BLP bucket of snakes: a clearly notable subject who has threatened legal action against Wikipedia.  An editor stubs his page.  Instead of merely trying to soothe the arguing parties (worthy enough in itself), Fluffster takes the more difficult step of carefully vetting all the sources point-by-point, while saving a re-write/revert for an editor at a later date to let the issue cool off. This shows someone willing to do the difficult, behind the scenes tasks, someone who leads with careful work instead of a desire to amp the drama or vindicate an opinion about a page's notability. Wikipedia couldn't do better.
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate and good answers above - give the lady a mop!
'''Support''' - Excellent.--
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions to the project. Deserves to be an admin --
'''Support''' bumped into this fine lady a few times, especially on IRC, and always found her knowledgable and good humoured. Besides the fact I've never eaten [[Marshmallow creme|Marshmallow fluff]], let alone a [[fluffernutter]], I am confident that a support vote here is the right one. (And who am I to complain about odd names, eh?)
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', has a good head on shoulders. And without that username, I'd never have known what a fluffernutter was. Not to mention anyone who has a doppelgänger account in IPA must be a good choice. [[WP:100]]!
'''Support''' - Has never yet deleted the Main Page, and is unlikely to do so in future.--
'''Support''': All contributions have improved Wikipedia in some way and any problems dealt with in a calm and careful manner. There is absolutely no reason not to give [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]] the remaining tools to make this easier. --
As long as I can eat her later.
'''Support''' No reason why not.
'''Support''' I've known this user for a long time, and all our interactions have been positive (even when our opinion has differed). I see nothing that concerns me in contribs, and I liked the answers to questions above. Fluffernutter, this RfA looks like a ringing endorsement; please be cautious with your new tools, and please continue being kind and friendly, especially to new users, as I know you have thus far. Best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' What can I say? The woman knows that a Fluffernutter is a sandwich, that's qualification enough for me!
'''Support''' Fantastic member of the community, no issues supporting this! - <tt>
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support'''. Sure, no concerns here. -
'''Support''' I'm not sure why I'm supporting a sandwich for adminship, but... <small>(just kidding, Fluffernutter is awesome and will be a great admin)</small>
About time.
'''Support''' Always nice to have friends with power tools. Also per my philosophy that if someone can be trusted with OTRS access they can be trusted with pretty much any other rights we've got.
'''Support''' A number of your supporters make me a touch hesitant, but your record looks good so I won't hold it against you.--
Let's go ahead and '''crush this user's soul under the burden of adminship'''.
'''Yah!''' <3
'''Strong Support''' – An excellent candidate. She would do well with the tools.
'''Support'''.  Outstanding candidate.  –
'''Support'''. I have seen nothing but fine work from this editor. May this RfA go down unanimously unopposed! --
'''Superman Strong Support'''. I know <s>Chaotic Butterfly</s> Flutternutter on IRC, and she is a very nice person. I would not be suprised if she created a page with a vandalism1 warning, while simultaneously also offering a plate of {{#ifexist: WikiCookies | [[WikiCookies]] | WikiCookies }} to that vandal, as a welcoming present.
'''Support'''. No concerns at all.
'''Support''' I have nothing but good things to say about this user. Worked with them for years and always a pleasure to work with.
'''Support'''. See no reason to think Fluffernutter will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Looks good!
'''Support''' ''<B>--
'''Support'''; competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Consistently demonstrates responsible virtues, good content, named after a sammich. <span id="sig" style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support'''. Sure! --
'''Support''' - no concerns here.--
One of the best candidates I have seen. --
I have looked for every reason in the wiki world to oppose this candidate (because I am bitter) and all I can find are reasons to '''support'''.

'''Support''' Worse disagreement I've had with her was that she hated veggies, while I loved meat. If that's the worse I have on someone... <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">
'''Support''' I knew Fluffernutter is a friendly person but wasn't familiar with her contributions until I did the research for this RfA, including a comprehensive review of her talk page contributions. My conclusions: She is consistently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chappaquiddick_incident&diff=prev&oldid=435688695 diplomatic], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_%28novel%29&diff=prev&oldid=250295735 invites feedback from others], provides good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Willamette_River/GA1 thorough] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tri-state_water_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=430515657 feedback], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LaVonne_Salle%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=404651900 admits mistakes]. She has civilly handled discussions about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_King&diff=prev&oldid=212382299 recentism] and [[WP:SPOILER]]. She has enormous [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dublin_Philharmonic_Orchestra&diff=prev&oldid=430126997 patience] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horacio_Guti%C3%A9rrez&diff=prev&oldid=436681348 newbies], and keeps cool in the face of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catfish_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=387978964 personal attacks] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vere_Bird,_Jr./GA1&diff=prev&oldid=437719465 unhelpful feedback]. She is skilled at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harold_Covington&diff=prev&oldid=442371102 finding] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=400133711 reliable] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watson_%28computer%29&diff=prev&oldid=403253127 sources]. She occasionally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mousetrap&diff=prev&oldid=389545951 makes] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Cain%27t_Say_No&diff=prev&oldid=283843215 errors] and gets [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mousetrap&diff=prev&oldid=325616680 frustrated], but that just shows she's human. I have only minor disagreements (e.g. she's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harold_Covington&diff=prev&oldid=440719424 more conservative] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFluffernutter&action=historysubmit&diff=444817162&oldid=444812180 with BLP] than I am, and I'd like to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pendragons&diff=prev&oldid=242516035 make sure she's familiar] with [[Wikipedia:Link rot]]).
Why not? -'''''
'''Support''' I haven't had any interaction with Fluffernutter before so I was waiting to !vote on this one.  The links pointed out by [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] really show that Fluffernutter is a perfect candidate for adminship.  Plus, I'm hungry.<tt>  </tt>
'''Support''' Looked around at this  users edits and could not find a reason not to.—<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Did a great GA review, for example: [[Talk:Willamette River/GA1]].
'''Support'''' With the unanimous support from the community, I'll make an absolute fool of myself if I do otherwise. [[User:Sp33dyphil|'''<small><span style="background:HotPink;color:white">'''Sp33dyphil</span></small>''']] ''<sup>"[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ad]]
'''Super strong support''' Thought you we're already an admin! --
'''Support''' er Pharos.
'''Support''' &mdash; I like sandwiches.
'''Support''' meets my admin requirements (I've heard of them and I believe them to be at least vaguely sensible).©
'''Support''' No opposition for 6 days. I'll keep the support going.--
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support'''- Rationale of opposes to date is unconvincing.
'''Support''' per deCoetzee and a hundred and something others. Great nom, great answers. --
Thoroughly impressed with your track record. I'm not particularly fond of [[Beefsteak (banquet)|tags on a good article]], but since the article's obscure, I guess it's understandable. '''
'''Support''' From the diffs that Dcoetzee has so kindly provided, and from the answers to the questions posed, I believe that Fluffernutter would make an excellent admin.  I am more than willing to add my support. <font face="Verdana" color="Burgundy">
'''Absolutely not'''...''obviously'' evading the world domination question. I give an F. Epic Fail.--
'''Support''' Damn you, peer pressure! Honestly though, looks like a good candidate and will serve the community well. Plus, you know, "OMG, a girl running for adminship!!!!!"  {{=)|wink}} Regards '''
'''Support'''. Most definitely. <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' as long as GB stands for great books and not ''Green Bay''. Just kidding. I trust GB and am confident the mop will be well used.
I don't see why not.  &ndash;
'''Support''' per below. <!--8)-->--
'''Support''' - After a look through his contributions, it looks like he is qualified for adminship. --  '''
'''Support'''. Candidate displays the maturity required for access to the sysop tools; why not?
'''Support''' Have not had any trouble from GB fan. Logs look OK, and has uploaded on commons:[[:commons:Special:Contributions/GB_fan]]
'''Support''' Although I would have supported this user in his previous RfA, I understand why many did not. However, looking over his edit history, his VERY significant contributions, and the changes in his attitude between this RfA and the previous one, I see a clear sign of growth and maturity in respect to the project. What I see now is a dedicated editor and a VERY talented vandal whacker who will also make a dedicated at talented admin.
'''Support''' - You definitively deserve it. <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
I disagree with the answer to the supplementary recall process, although I can see from where this candidate is coming. But that's not enough reason to oppose, and I have seen this candidate do good work around various areas of the project. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - I don't really see any issues.
'''Support''' - GB fan and I "clerk" at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|WP:PERM]] and I have never questioned any comments made there, I don't have any qualms and GB fan should be a fine Admin. Good luck.
'''Support'''. No concerns... GB fan will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' His work at the Help Desk has been quite nice too.
'''Support''' Seen this one around - no problems. I like their answers above.
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' Extremely well thought out answers to questions. Substantial contribution history. No concerns.
'''Support''' - Frankly your first RfA was just heart-breaking to me. It seemed to have been torpedoed by events out of your control. I had no concerns with supporting you then and I have even less of a concern now, as you have even more experience under your belt. -- '''
'''Support''' - Seen him around, very impressed with knowledge of policy (so much so that I assumed he was already an admin). Unopposed RfAs such as this one really say a lot about the qualification of candidates. '''
'''Support''' Sure. No problems, seems like just fine edit history. '''''
'''Support''' Not seeing any issues.
'''Support''' - You seem to have contributed to Wikipedia and look like a trustworthy person. No reason not to support you, and I think you'd do a good job.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' looked through his RM closures, and they look good.  But I expect to get a Donald Driver jersey in return for my support, which I know he'll be able to afford with his new admin salary ;)
'''Support''' Intelligent answers to the questions, seems transparent enough about the old account, and all in all I see no reason why not. I also like that the candidate states they will observe and learn the ropes in admin areas they are unfamiliar with and not dive in head first, which to me shows a strong desire to get things right the first time. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.
Per Surturz below.
'''Support''' I supported last time, and am more than happy to do so again. Very longterm committed editor who could use the tools and I see no reason not to trust with them. Deleted contributions look fine to me, and an excellent answer to Question 7. ''
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'''Oppose''' [[Green Bay Packers]] fan?
'''Lukewarm support''' Long-time veteran with almost 40,000 edits, trusted (ipblock exempt, rollbacker, reviewer) by the community, solid answers to questions; however, what prevents me from a "whole-hearted support" is the caginess and secrecy associated with the last RfA, and only 5 new page creations.--
'''Support''' Experienced user, has the skills to perform the duties.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. I regret the opposer's refusal to take my advice that all he is doing with his !votes, particularly if others were to emulate him with regard to their own pet issues, is damaging to the quality of the RfA process and potentially the willingness of qualified candidates to go through it.
'''Support''' Seems like an editor who can do the job...
'''Support''' &mdash; Although I didn't participate, I remember seeing his RfA from back in 2009 as well as the controversy that surrounded it. I was disappointed that it failed due to circumstances beyond his control (the person who verified his prior identity turned out to be... well, not somebody whose endorsement you'd want on the record). In any case, I think GB Fan's fully qualified for the role, and I can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Good contributions & good answers.
'''Support'''  No reason to think they'd missuse the tools.
'''Support''' per below. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' [[Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila|Gbaja-Biamila]] fan? I prefer good ol' [[Tedy Bruschi|Teddy]]. But anyway, he's a great admin none the less. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Give the fella a mop!
'''Support''' Answer to Q4 is technically wrong, in that a random collection of unconnected words also qualifies as nonsense. But that is, I would concede, nit-picking. Will be a good admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience, also per Aaron Rodgers.
'''Support''' - Good opening statement, clear and concise and clears up any discrepancies. Overall good answers to questions. Should make a great admin!
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' per Fastily. --
'''Support''' – I find that GB has improved on the concerns mentioned in his last RfA. He's qualified for the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''--v/r -
'''support''' near perfect answers (Q9 in particular) no one has raised any problems.
'''Support''' My selective review of contributions fails to reveal anything stupid.  The example used as the answer to question 2 is good, both in terms of improvements to an article and applying sensible arguments in an AfD. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' &ndash; certainly ready for the mop - and I guarantee it'll help Wikipedia! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' per Keifer, just to spite him :P--
Yes, I remember the previous RfA very well and everything that happened there, but I can't believe it's been about two years since then already! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FA_new_name_2008&action=historysubmit&diff=314160792&oldid=314160071 This] was my rationale from the first candidacy. With regards to now, GB fan often appears in my watchlist, and I thought he was already an admin (I was not aware A new name 2008 had been renamed); he has plenty of experience from what I have observed, and I have no problems whatsoever in supporting him again.
'''Support''' ​—
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' No valid reason to oppose at this time. '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - If there's a good reason not to issue the mop, I haven't spotted it. --
'''Support''' No Concerns ''<B>--
'''Support'''. The answers show plenty of clue, and no concerns elsewhere —
'''Support''' Excellent answer(s) to question #7.
'''Support''' (moved from neutral). The links given in the neutral section and the sensible answers to the questions make me think that GB fab will be fine closing RMs. If I could give any advice, it would be not to jump in to closing the really tough ones too quickly (maybe leave [[Talk:China]] to someone else :) Also, in regards to Q9, your answer was good, but there are times when the consensus is actually to ignore the guideline/policy ([[Talk:The Pentagon]] springs to mind). Anyway, this RfA looks to be a shoo-in, so good luck with your new tools.
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold">Support</span> - Opposer is unconvincing. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
Sure -'''''
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.
No issues here. Good luck.
'''Support''' I spot checked various edits by this user over the years; what I saw was consistently good editing, good responses on the talk pages, and good edit summaries.  This seems to be the norm for the 40000 edits from this user since late 2008.
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions. I am satisfied that the candidate will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''', well qualified candidate with a large enough body of work.  The oppose is unpersuasive, generously.
'''Support''' Experienced and clueful editor who will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Why not? — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
Seems like an easy '''Support''', to me.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor around and have no concerns. The fact that he is not an article creator should not be a bar to gaining the mop. We all contribute in our own way.
'''Support''' - solid candidate.--
'''Support''' Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've only had good interactions with the candidate and have no problems supporting. '''
Seems more than qualified. '''
'''Support''':  ~~
'''Support''': You're very good at adminship. No worries or complains --
'''Support'''. I'm entirely satisfied that the candidate is someone with the requisite thoughtfulness, honesty, and willingness to learn. Also, per My76Strat. --
'''Support''' - great user with good intentions and answers. <font color="#082567">
'''Support'''
Qualified candidate.
Good judgment, highly likely to succeed in this role.
'''Support'''.  We can always use more good sysops.  Good luck.--
'''Oppose''' (Sorry!) Candidate will not undertake a term limit, reconfirmation or recall. Also seems to have problems saying "No" :) No other concerns. --
'''Support'''.  I have known this user for a while now via IRC and [[WP:AfC|AfC]], and he would definitely be a great administrator.  No conflicts that I can see, and he seems to know all of the major policies.  Also, great content contributions.
'''Support''' - As nominator.
'''Support''' He is a very competent user and would be a good administrator in my eyes. Good luck!
Seen you around and not encountered anything that makes me think you wouldn't be a good admin.
No-Brainer.
'''Support''' - I reviewed Gfoley4's contribs (less Igloo edits :), and found that they all tend to be well done. I also think his AFC work is pretty well done. Opposition will need to dig up a serious issue to get me to oppose.
'''Support''' - I see no issue in this! - <tt>
'''Support''', see nothing wrong with candidate. Although I can't say for sure the anti-DYK brigade will be too happy that your favourite article contribution is a DYK, it doesn't really concern me given your wide range of work including with AFC which nullifies any content contribution issues for me.
'''Support''', known him for a bit, cool with others and I think he would be a good admin.--<font face="Calibri">
Fully meets my standards. <font color="00ff00">
Not sure why not. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Strong Support''' - Have known GFoley4 for a while now. Very calm and cool when the editing gets hot. Definitely a great editor to have here. Will be a GREAT addition to the admin corps!
'''Support''' - without a doubt.
'''Support'''  Why not?  -'''
'''Support''' - Helpful user in en-help, and has offered me advice many times in the past. Best of luck to you in your RfA. <small><font color="green">'''''I'm</font> </small>
'''Support'''. Great candidate. Looking forward to seeing you mop up the administrative backlogs. ;)
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - looks like a good candidate indeed.  The longer I work on Wikipedia, the more I value those willing to stay civil and help those new to the project or with questions.  This person with extra buttons will most likely be a significant plus, and regardless of the outcome has my thanks and best wishes.
'''Support''' Seen this user around a fair bit, they always seem competent, nothing concerning me in their contribs and more or less meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support'''. Not a difficult decision - well experienced editor with plenty of understanding and a collegial attitude. --
'''Support''' No reason not to. ''<B>--
'''Support''' I've interacted with Gfoley4 a bit in #wikipedia-en-help. This user is always very helpful and patient with new users, and knowledgeable about Wikipedia. Looks good to me. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
Absolutely! Best of luck, <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' That was easy! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Unless I was to be a hypocrite. Seriously, I've directly collaborated with Gfoley4 in ACC, en-help, and AfC. His positive contributions coupled with a positive attitude leave no concern related to trust. '''
'''Support''' Great candidate, looking forward to seeing you as a sysop.
great guy. Everything checks out. --
'''Support''' Been seen around, time to give out another mop. '''
'''Mega support''' He is a great editor and would make an even better admin! <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Oppose''' per the one rejected CSD tag. ;-) ''
'''Support''' Strong vandal fighting credentials and an exceptional newcomer helper &mdash; combine that with trustworthiness and adequate content creation tips the scales in favor. The only weakness I see is that the candidate has been highly active only since August.--
'''Support''' I have no reason not to anymore.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, I see no issues or concerns.
'''Support'''. Based on  some recent work in  the last  couple of hours that left me impressed, and on more research, I see no  reason to  remain  in  the 'neutral' section. I also like his civility and ability to deal with difficult 'customers'.
I didn't know that my little concoction has became popular...oh well, '''support'''.
'''Support'''. I've seen the candidate doing 'crat-like work closing RfAs and updating the monthly tallies, and had wondered why he wasn't an admin. After reviewing some of his article creations and recent contributions, I can't find any cause for concern. Looks like a solid candidate to me.
{{edit conflict}} '''Suppport''':  About time.  I've worked with Gfoley4 numberous times in #wikipedia-en-help.  He's proven to be a knowledgeable, experienced, willing editor.  ~
'''Support''' - Can't see any problems with this candidate, very good temperment in the discussions I've looked at. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Wow some amazing edits! <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' – Definitely; no issues here. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' No issues seen that would make me not trust the candidate with the mop. --
'''Support'''. No concerns, mop well deserved I say. Well qualified candidate, has some good experience and is active anyway. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Suport''' - I have worked with Gfoley4 at ACC. No problems here.
'''Support''' - I have worked with Gfoley4 at AfC and think he would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - Gfoley4 is one of the most patient, kind and good-humoured people I know and the time that he's been active he's gained a lot of knowledge and experience. Past interactions with him on IRC have been splendid, I and I'm sure no one else has ever witnessed a bout of undue comments from him. He possesses the qualities of a good admin, is well-deserving of the tools and trustworthy. The concerns raised are insubstantial, are we all not here to learn from experience and from each other? He's made a few mistakes, so have I and I'm sure we all have but what matters is that we acknowledge, fix and move on from those mistakes. Wikipedia is all about learning and contributing to that wealth of knowledge amassed and again is that not why we are here? —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support '''I do think Gfoley4 has the qualities needed. One of the necessary qualities in an admin is reasonableness and willingness to revisit their own actions if asked, and I'm seeing this here.
'''Support''' No valid reason to oppose. Surely this user can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' I ''trust'' this user from previous interactions <small>(I'm having a memory/searching fail - I'm sure I've already commented here, but I can't find it? Apologies if I have already.)</small> '''<font face="Verdana">&#91;

'''Sure'''.  All my interactions with Gfoley4 have been positive.  The extra help at TFD is most appreciated.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Certainly deserves the tools.
'''Support''' No valid reason to oppose, very helpful user who could expand his field of work usefully with administrator tools. --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]]
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' Net positive, and friendly in interactions; demonstrated cluefulness in our ACC interactions (willingness to listen, admit mistakes, and learn from them). Please do take careful note of the oppose views, and be extra-super-careful, GFoley. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Not perfect but still a net positive. I do agree with DGG below and I suggest that you either work NPP like any non-admin providing the initial CSD tag or work at [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] where you can be the second opinion and delete what needs to go.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
A university needs janitors as well as professors.
After following this for a few days, I'm landing here. Pichpich a few !votes above gives reasons that effectively summarise where I stand. --
'''Support:''' There are some legitimate concerns raised below, but on balance the candidate is a net positive. -
'''Support:'''No reason why not--
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I'm actually a bit ambivalent, but am coming down as a weak support. New page patrolling combined with welcoming new users is a good combination, but I'd like to see more of a track record of dealing with disputes. What I see instead is someone who has steered clear of disputes so far. Based on looking through your user talk archives, I see enough civility and constructiveness that I am willing to support. I'm taking it on good faith that when serious disputes come your way, and after becoming an administrator they will, you will continue to be low-drama. --
Well this is due to be closed in a couple of hours and the result isn't really in doubt, but, just in case, I thought I'd say that I think you'd be a net positive as an admin. We need more admins and I think you're clueful enough not to make a mess.
I've come across Gfoley4 in New Pages (or New Accounts as I come to it...), and in railway articles. Never had a problem. I agree with HJ Mitchell.
[[2010 National League Championship Series|<font color="#fd5a1e">'''The</font><font color="black"> Giants </font><font color="#fd5a1e">win the pennant!'''</font>]] I think Gfoley4 has taken well the instruction about haste. Sometimes you don't win but still [[1989 World Series|<font color="#003831">gain </font><font color="#FFD800">experience</font>]]. Having reviewed the issues raised i consider Gfoley4 to be a gross positive. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Seems suited for the mop.
'''Oppose'''. Not at all impressed by the candidate's content work and attention to detail. I reviewed one of the candidate's "best" contributions, which is [[Limon Railroad Depot]]. It appeared at DYK with a hook that is cited to refs with broken links (7 and 8). When I finally found the PDF for ref 8 by searching the parent web site, I found that Gfoley4 mis-cited the title and closely paraphrased information from the PDF. I'm sorry, but I would not entrust admin tools to this candidate. --
'''Oppose'''.  Insufficient content creation.  See Q6.  I do appreciate the candidate's forthrightness, though.
'''Oppose''' Deleting single-handed is too prone to error for routine use. Nobody is perfect; everyone has an error rate. For Speedy tagging , the error rate of a single individual probably is about 5%; if two people judge in succession,the number or errors a day goes down from 50  a day, which is unacceptably high, to 2, which is a low a rate as any operation like ours can realistically hope for. we can not afford to be turning away 50 new editors a day--we already have a problem attracting and keeping people, and a rate like that will destroy our ability to get new contributors who, although they might not be all that good when they come, learn. I've certainly deleted singlehanded when something comes up that make me really exasperated, or is simply an example of deliberate nonsense, but I try not to do so in most situations. When I start getting tempted to go quickly by myself, I've learned to take it as a signal that I'm getting tired or bored, and to stop.  I will certainly not accept any admin candidate as understanding the situation here who intends to do it routinely.    '''
'''Strong Oppose'''. The answer to question 4 worries me a lot. Gfoley4 does not understand the potential harm in deletion before allowing editors to properly develop articles. I am unconvinced that he attempts to look for sources before tagging potential CSD candidates. It is harmful to Wikipedia for him to have the tools. (Also, little content contribution.)
Sorry, per tagging issues raised in Q7. Three of these were ''bad'' tags made in too much of a hurry.  CSD tagging is not a race - by all means burn the nasties quickly, but take a moment to reflect for newborn articles doing no harm; '''No.1''' (2 mins) clearly had context with opening line and infobox, and obvious precedent with previous year articles. '''No.2''' (6 mins) Clearly referenced notability claim of being a chart-topper (despite NOT actually having an artist article yet! [[Xander (singer)]] is Dutch, this [[:da:Xander (sanger)|Xander]] is Danish). <small> did you pick up on the fact the article author removed your speedy tag?</small> '''No.3''' (1 min) possibly CSD#R2 implausible redirect as misnomer (who would type that exactly?), but good that you recognise A1 was inappropriate in hindsight. However, I question whether you even followed the redirect to assert it's validity. '''No.4''' (4 mins) was very poor. Your answer talks about it now having "content, references, and the chart". When tagged it already had content, references (albeit not showing due to cite error) and the album chart. A better option than tagging would have been to fix the {{T|Reflist}}  issue. The 100edit user who created the article would still have been trying to find out white the cite error meant while you were tagging it. I can forgive a few errors, even relatively recent ones as long as they are rare. The best I can do for the project is raise this here and hope that you (and other potential candidates) take this on board and improve new article review because of it. It may save a few new editors from becoming disillusioned before they get started. Best of luck.--<small><b><i>Club<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font></i></b><sup>
'''Oppose''' reluctantly. I generally don't have a problem with admins carrying out "solo" speedy deletion but it should only be in the most obvious and harmful cases - it should not be the default approach. Even then, it requires very good judgement and very high accuracy, and I don't think you have demonstrated that in your speedy tagging. For what it's worth, I would be supporting instead of opposing if you had said you would normally tag articles for deletion by a second admin. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
'''Oppose''' I'm comfortable neither with the stated intent to unilaterally speedy articles nor with the recent CSD tagging diffs in Q7. Gfoley4 states with regards to [[2011 in archaeology]], "[I]t was the start of the [[2001|new year]] and obviously didn't have much content." 1) Not sure how those two clauses are related 2) Gfoley4's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_archaeology&diff=407325138 CSD tag] was [[WP:A1|A1]] (no context), not [[WP:A3|A3]] (no content). The erroneous tags in Q7 would not concern me had they been ages ago, but having occurred in December and January, they indicate an outstanding lack of judgment and a trigger-happy mentality that greatly concern me. The little content creation also leads me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' even though you do plenty of good work here. From what I've seen with admins who get into trouble—in minor ways, in major ways—a common characteristic is not being appropriately cautious. The hasty taggings that have been identified, and your stated intent to have a general routine practice of deleting articles unilaterally without having another set of eyes look at the page: to me, these are some red flags. And DGG provides a good rationale as to why unilateral CSD deletions are generally not a good idea. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose'''. I share [[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]]'s concerns . I'm sorry, but I cannot support you this time around. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''', problematic on 4 and 7 above.--
'''Neutral''' I seem to be the first user to go neutral on this Rfa, but you've done so much to the project in a short space of time which is the reason I was going to support. I had a close look at your rollback contributions, and I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikes_Peak&diff=prev&oldid=416997857 this] a little bit iffy. I can see where you were going with that one, as there is no explanation on the removal of content, but that rollback had restored content which is unreferenced. This is only one small mistake I've found, so it's not bad enough for me to oppose. But anyway, good luck with the tools, and be a little more careful when reviewing content removal, because some of them may be copyvios or defamation.
The consistency of your CSD tagging looks very good, as does the variety of areas you have gotten involved in, and the variety of people who have already supported. I won't oppose in light of those things. What's keeping me here at the moment is that I've struggled to find examples of you getting heavily involved in content-related discussion (peer reviews, AfDs or the like). I'm uncomfortable supporting admins who are likely work in AfD (as your NAC closure record suggests) who haven't shown that they understand the difference between a vote and a discussion, which in turn can only really be shown by participating in discussions. —
I have some reservations. The format of the userpage and the editing style of the user cause slight concerns for maturity (at least for me, they remind me of a past myself). Still, I'm leaning towards support, pending more answers and my own time to look through contributions. '''
I'd like more content creation and more experience. [[User:Mono|Mono]] (
'''Support.'''  Looks to me like a fine candidate.  –
'''Support''' I like this editor, Danger is helpful, some involvement in adoption, good to know about the help desk involvement. I think im paticularily impressed with the way Danger handled the event when a new editor tried to scold him for adding a welcome template. Danger effectively calmed the user and with good and appropriate humour diffused the situation. I have no doubt that Danger will be a fine admin, good natured, experinced and helpful.
'''Support'''. Taking a browse through the contribution history shows helpful activity in a wide variety of areas, and no red flags that I could find. A clean block log and constructive comments on AfDs and talk pages suggests the good temperament required for the job.
Answers to questions four and five show an understanding of policy, so I '''support''' this nomination.
'''Support''' A fine candidate. No issues here.--
'''Support'''. Experienced user, hardworking, and helpful. No reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. I particularly liked his/her answers to the first 2 questions, which indicate a general proclivity towards repetitive janitorial work; the type of user that tirelessly clears entire backlogs with speed and efficiency, something Wikipedia definitely benefits from. --
'''Support'''. I checked the past thousand or so edits. Seems an honest and worthy admin candidate.
'''Support''' Fine with me. Good answers to the questions so far. '''
'''Support''' per the fine people above. I don't think that they could have said it any better.
'''Support''' longterm user with a cleanblock log and a nice mix of contributions. BrownHairedGirl makes a very valid point, but going through a fairly large sample of the users deletion tagging I feel comfortable with Gimme danger having the deletion button, though I'm sure they won't forget BHG's point. Danger is not currently a Rollbacker, but on the basis of the vandal reversion that I've seen them do I'm happy on that front as well. ''
'''Strong Support''' I would have offered to nomination Danger for adminship had we discussed it. I have encounter many of Danger's edits related to WikiProject Wisconsin over the past several years. I am very impressed with the quality of all of their edits. Danger has show a lot of dedication to the project and Wikipedia will benefit from another trustworthy person added to the admin corps. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' There aren't any problems with him.
'''Support''' Good overall user, I see no issues <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
Unlike DGG, I was very impressed with the answer to question 6; it showed that GD respects our verifiability policy and understands the underlying point behind the notability guidelines. A check of GD's contributions looks fine (I especially liked reading [[Jane S. Richardson]]!). Seems fine to me. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' – Years of great work. The mop would help. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' The candidate has shown a willingness to do grunt work (e.g. putting assessments on talk pages of Project Wisconsin articles); that &mdash; along with ample experience, trustworthiness and a sound understanding of Wikipedia's policies &mdash; should make him/her a fine sysop. I have to agree with the opposers, however, that s/he did fumble the ball on Question 6.--
'''Support'''  no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  Seems like this would be a fine candidate. --
'''Support'''- BHG's oppose gave me pause, but in the end I think the candidate will use the tools responsibly and correctly.
'''Support''' User has been around since 2006 feel the project only gains with the user having tools.
Per above.
Yup.  This support is based on assessing the candidate's contributions.  I see that it's possible to catch this candidate out by asking a series of increasingly technical questions that tie them in knots, but I also see that as a non-issue.  In the real world this candidate has sensitivity and clue.—
'''Support''' - No doubt that you'd do well with the mop.
'''Weak Support'''. I think there is more to suggest that this candidate is able to learn "on the job" and will not wreak havoc with the admin tools, thus meaning that it's more likely a net positive to grant them the tools than a net negative. I make this support "weak" because I do acknowledge BrownHairedGirl's and DGG's concerns in the oppose section and I urge the candidate to reflect on those concerns if this request is indeed successful. That said, I still think that in the end, it's more likely that the candidate will be a good admin than a bad one and as such I'm willing to give them a chance to prove it. Regards '''
'''Support''' Only positive points here, unless we really start nitpicking, which is unnecessary as it's only an admin, not the president.
'''Support''' Long term contributor, a net positive.
'''¡Dame Peligro!''' Seems to be a good editor, and that's groovy.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I see that the candidate is responding to the opposers' concerns (in the sense, not of badgering, but of acknowledging and engaging with them), but after considering those concerns I do not find them sufficiently troubling to affect my !vote.
'''Support''' - Candidate appears qualified, and bizarre distribution of edits does not appear to be an issue in my opinion.
'''Support''' Oppose concerns are marginal; any errors in policy knowledge can be corrected, he can learn.  His heart's in the right place, as far as I can see, and he appears qualified.--
'''Support''' I have no problem with the answer to Q6. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' I'm quite troubled by recent arguments that candidates need to be article writers in order to properly represent those who are. RFA is not about electing representatives... this site is not a parliament. Admins are not supposed to represent anybody. The question should simple be whether the candidate has demonstrated that he will use the tools responsibly. I believe he has.
'''Support'''.  Despite having made a whopping total of four edits to the file namespace, someone is clearly overqualified for media file work.  On a side note,  a better answer to 12 would have been "nothing", but the response you provided works too.  -'''
The opposes based on answers to questions are generally about minor issues. The notability subguideline issue in q6 is the only one that I think is anything close to "wrong". The rollback/revert conflation in q7 has been adequately explained by the candidate. DGG's identification of question 9 as a problem is puzzling for me. I think the answer is fine. I'm comfortable with giving the candidate a broad set of admin tools. Any concerns I'd have about narrow experience were hit out of the park by some of the answers to questions. Those answers include the answers to questions 12-15 which show unusual knowledge of, and likely competence in, an area in which the candidate doesn't appear to have been active at all. Other answers are also good. I accept the candidate's explanation for the sourcing of the Richardson article -- see the response to SandyGeorgia's oppose -- inconsistent with best practice as it is. The positives for me include a demonstrated willingness to work backlogs. Working backlogs generally involve the least controversial use of tools. I think the candidate is sufficiently experienced, qualified and capable, as demonstrated by the record and responses to questions and concerns in this RfA.--
'''Support''' Your head isn't up your arse, you have a solid A- understanding of policy, and you survived a trial by fire that proves, at the very least, that you can maintain sanity under pressure. Not the best I've ever supported, but adminship is "no big deal" so you'll be fine.
Per Mkativerata. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Hasn't broken anything in 4 years, answers show a good head on his shoulder, wants to help with gnomish tasks that need the admin bit, seems to know more than many about images - what's not to like? The 2 main oppose reasons listed thus far seem to be a) apparently took a wrong turn through the maze of policies in answering Q6, and b) not enough of a content creator. On a), I say "meh"; I will take clue and sensibleness over knowing the alphabet soup just right anytime. On b), I might be concerned if otherwise a lacklustre candidate; but clue wins.
'''Support''' His record convinced me that he is trustworthy enough for adminship.
'''Support'''. This is one I had to mull over a lot. Unlike some of the opposes who consider the explanations of a world view based on mathematics and mathematical terminology, I find that a particularly strong point. I believe this editor would bring a refreshingly different worldview as an administrator to the project. In the editing record I see a steady hand, an honest individual, and a motivated editor. Elitist perfection for adminship is not one of my requirements for support. This nomination should be absolutely no big deal. --
'''Support''' – no problems here. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="green">Perseus, Son]]
'''Support'''. I originally wondered if the candidate has misunderstood notability, based on Q6, but reading it again I'm satisfied that's not the case. I think the answer was really suggesting that someone who failed GNG or BASIC would be unlikely to verifiably satisfy any of the specific notability criteria either - and I think that's largely true. --
I have minor issues with the answers to some of the questions, but a review of the last 6 months edits show nothing that would make me oppose. -
'''Support''' Gimme Danger has down excellent work with WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you-
'''Support''' - I see no problem here.
'''Support''' - Some quality answers to the questions, needed a couple of nudges to get there in a couple but hypothetical queries can be vague, and- as per [[User:Fastily]]'s comments regarding the answers to his media questions and Dangers calm and intelligent responses throughout this process. Limited work in some areas but a very helpful and clue-full contributor, from what I see here and in his contributions, I trust him to take his time.
'''Support'''. Long length of service without problems that I can find, and I've seen this user around and find them to be intelligent and reasonable. I'm afraid the questions to the candidate here have become a textbook example of RfA overkill, and the candidate's answers strike me as level-headed and reasonable nonetheless. I've looked carefully at the opposes up to this time, and I'd like to try to explain in detail why I find them unconvincing. One substantive concern centers around supposedly "wrong" (or slow) answers to questions. It's been observed recently at [[WT:RFA]] that questions can become a sort of battleground for editors who have strong opinions about disputed areas of policy, with questions to which ''any'' answer the candidate can possibly give can be seized upon as evidence of being on the wrong side of something that, in fact, is still being debated elsewhere. That's what I see here. I've read all of the candidate's answers, and I find nothing that demonstrates wrong thinking about policy or a desire to subvert consensus, only things where some editors have pet views that weren't immediately parroted by the candidate, and are being construed as misunderstanding policy. The candidate's civility in the face of this is exactly what a good administrator would do. The other substantive issue concerns the lack of content experience. It seems to me that it ''can'' be a problem if a candidate is unable to demonstrate that they know how to navigate complex matters of disagreement over content, and I'm willing to oppose on that basis. But let's not overlook the fact that it is possible to demonstrate that ability in other ways. I've noted the long edit history without blocks and the calm demeanor during this RfA. At the risk of over-focusing on a single diff, let me point to this one from my watchlist: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marine_invertebrates&action=historysubmit&diff=397413465&oldid=397411134], which shows a good ability to get the information right. The opposes have shown me a lot of failures to jump through meaningless hoops, but nothing that would indicate misuse of the tools. (Parenthetically, I'd also like to compliment the candidate on not revealing their gender, a practice that I too attempt to follow. It's not a substantive reason to support or oppose an RfA, but I just wanted to say that.) --
'''Support''' Questions were largely answered well, a few minor issues, but certainly nothing to keep me from supporting.  Contributions show they they appear to be a sensible and rational person, and can handle adminship well.  With regards to Malleus Fatuorum's oppose, for in general I share his concerns, I think I can trust that the candidate will take the time to figure out what they're doing and act within reason when working in areas they aren't familiar with.
'''Support''' I have read the opposers' reason. They are valid. (Prefer to see specific details in areas <s>he</s> the candidate would work in Q1, not general comments about backlogs).  But after weighing up with the benefits of long consistent track record and varied experiences. <s>He's</s> The candidate is ripe for the mop (net positive) but will need to be on training wheels for a while to get up to speed in areas such as [[WP:AIV]] and other areas.--
'''Support'''. Appears to be knowledgeable, good answers to the interrogation, and a brief look at random bits of edit history reveals nothing bad. I think this candidate can be trusted with the tools and put them to good use. ''However'', I'm concerned that so many !voters have used the term "He" &c despite the candidate's earlier request concerning gendered pronouns...
'''Support''' Could not have been more impressed with the answers to fastily's questions. As Fastily rightly notes you are either totally on top of image related policy / copyright issues or you are a demon at researching the correct process; either of these is good enough for a thumbs up from me. I can only assume that your policy knowledge in all areas will be the same (you know it, or you know where to find it). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Deserves their own mop!
'''Support''' Good answers to a lot of tough questions that most RfA candidates don't have to deal with.  '''
'''support'''harmless with a useful degree of resistance to being prodded.©
'''Support''' a far better than average candidate, who fielded some tough questions very well. It is clear he understands the WP:N and WP:V. I absolutely cannot understand the objections -- everyone has a slightly different take on rules, policies and this candidate's views are very reasonable and logical.
'''Support'''. Per Newyorkbrad + my own review of the opposes not being strong enough. --
'''Support'''—since this RfA came to my attention, I have been leaning towards support. I have seen Danger's name during my time here from time to time for quite a while now, and they have clearly demonstrated that they know what they are doing and are here to help out. What motivated me to support even more was their commendable handling of this request. Best of luck,
'''Support''' Another RfA candidate who knows exactly where their strengths are and how best to apply those strengths to improving Wikipedia. Sidenote, I've had to make a more-than-casual study of copyright law, and I wouldn't have even attempted to answer Fastily's questions without a copyright-law text in front of me. Anyone with that much gorm deserves the mop. --
'''Support''' - I am rarely compelled to !vote in RfAs of people I have not seen around the wiki, but the poise shown by Danger in this RfA combined with excellent answers to Fastily's questions have swayed me to support.
'''Support'''  See no reasons not to trust user with a mop. --
'''Support''' if for no other reason for the remarkable equanimity (if that's the actual word i want) Danger has demonstrated in this RfA; i like his willingness to explain, to open up his editing philosophy, without either feeling badgered by or badgering opposers; in addition, i find the opposes insufficient in their reasons to convince me. I simply urge Danger to continue with this level-headed approach if/when he becomes an admin. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' While there are, as stated below, minor blemishes in this candidate's answers, they are overall among the best that I can recall seeing at an RfA. The answers to [[user:Fastily|Fastily]] are seriously compelling. As [[user:Newyorkbrad|NYB]] correctly points out, it is virtually impossible for an admin to have read, remembered and applied all of the range of policies and guidelines here. A good admin will therefore work in areas where s/he feels comfortable, and it is our job to decide, on the basis of answers given and on editing history, if a candidate can be trusted to do so. I feel that this candidate can be so trusted. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' for the many questions you had to answer, and that you did, well. '''
'''Support''' Seems to have the knowledge and experience required for the job.
--''
'''Support''' Looks like a fine candidate.
'''Support''' He looks good to me. The opposes aren't entirely convincing.
'''Support'''. Familiar name with all positive associations. Best of luck. -
'''Support''' - I'm pretty satisfied with the answers this candidate provided to the many questions asked. Overall a net positive.
Impressive answers to most questions, especially those regarding copyright.  Overall, a strong candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' - A top notch editor who I'm sure will make an excellent admin.
'''Stong support''' per NYB and Wifione.  The opposition is unconvincing.  The answers to the questions were fantastic for someone who has no experience administrating the project.  If you see flaws in logic, remember that we learn on the job.  I am interpreting several oppositions to read as though Danger should have already been through the new admin hazing by the community when doing the job.  This is ''requests for adminiship'', not ''administrator review''.
'''Support''' - Actually, the candidate only barely, if at all, passes my own criteria: too many auto edits, too little substantial own creations/major edits in  article  space, no  interest  in  the RfA system. The list goes on, but on  the basis of ''trust'',  the candidate has mine, and has adequately demonstrated more than sufficient patience and dedication in the onslaught of far too many pile-on subtle, and trick questions, and opposition diatribes. I wholly share Keegan's comments above, too.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - The opposes are very unconvincing. Unlike what everyone else seems to think, the user's answer to Q1 is perfectly satisfactory, in my opinion. Answers to Fastily's questions show obvious "clue"/knowledge. No problems. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - per Kudpung, it's a matter of trust, and this candidate's answers to questions has earned mine.
'''Support''' - great candidate. Knows the place well, and will make fine use of the tools.
'''Support''': Good luck. --
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 6, which suggest that the candidate did not read [[WP:BASIC#Additional_criteria]] before replying. That's particularly odd because in reply to question 6 GD wrote "I would work while rereading the appropriate policy, which is how I do pretty much everything except grammar editing".<br />I would not usually oppose a candidate on the basis of one misunderstanding of policy or guidelines, but this one is serious because it could lead to the wholesale deletion of stub- or start-class articles on people for whom notability per [[WP:GNG]] may be demonstrated only through research in specialist (possibly offline) sources which may not be accessible to general participants at AFD. --
'''Oppose''' on the basic of apparently unsatisfactory answers to qys. 6, 7,9. I've tried to clarify this by some supplemental questions there. My feeling is the candidate means well, but does not yet understand some key policies that govern administrative action.   '''
'''Oppose''' per BHG and DGG, and on checking your DYK, [[Jane S. Richardson]], I don't find any close paraphrasing concerns, but I do find several instances of text that you added that is not supported by the cited sources.  I've updated a dead link from the version you last updated at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_S._Richardson&oldid=264791432 January 2009,] compared the new source links to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_S._Richardson&oldid=216480407 June 2008 version you mostly created] for the June 7 2008 DYK, and cannot verify all of the text, some of which is still in the article.  I'm unable to determine the source for this text: "While attending high school in 1958, she won third place in the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, the most prestigious science fair in the United States, with calculations of the satellite Sputnik's orbit from her own observations." Neither of [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-order-jane-richardson&sc=rss these] [http://www.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletters/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=106135 sources (p.5)] seem to mention third place. This reinforces DGG and BHG's concerns that you may not understand key policies (certainly, we all learn and improve as we edit, and that DYK is two years old, but before putting forward an example of the work one is proudest of at RFA, one might check that work and make sure it's up to snuff).  I've also found this RFA hard to follow, since you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gimme_danger&diff=406819149&oldid=406817250 have failed to sign] some of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gimme_danger&diff=next&oldid=406850635 your posts here,] making it harder to know who said what; diligence, thoroughness and double checking your work are important qualities for an admin, and you really should put your best foot forward at RFA.  I do think you're a well-meaning and hard-working editor, and wish you the best!
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Warren Dew|Warren Dew]].  I wasn't too bothered by misundestandings of policy or any of the other opposes, but Warren Dew makes an excellent point of which this candidate has not demonstrated.  Administrators are regular editors too who need to be able to admit mistakes and not try digging themselves out.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' (+1 {{ec}})- Per Brown Haired Girl (#1) and Malleus Fatuorum (#6) - Per BHG, [[WP:BASIC]] was missed, and as my late Grandfather used to say - "Read everything before you do anything." - Also, re-reading policy while editing on the fly doesn't seem like a good idea. Per Malleus, I agree entirely that if you don't participate in a particular area of the project, you shouldn't be able to control those who do.  What you don't understand, and don't use, you don't work in. Sorry, no go. '''
'''Oppose''' [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=Gimme+danger&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= A third] of his edits are automated as well as insufficient quality content creation.
'''Oppose''' per BHG and DGG. There's some positive stuff, but the fact that he/she needed prompting on a few key questions before coming out with the full answer is a bit off-putting. Especially on question 6 where he/she continued to argue the point and, in my view, made things worse. Low involvement in project space is also a concern for an admin candidate.--
'''Oppose'''. I couldn't disagree more with opposing based on arbitrary criteria about "automated" edits. However, I have fundamental concerns about Q1. I can't trust someone who won't tell the community what they want to do with the bit{{mdash}}it would seem to suggest that either they don't know what administrators do or that they have something to hide. If you could tell us what you plan to do with the mop, I might reconsider.
'''Oppose'''.  I have clicked on the 11 articles he started and most are extremely tiny stubs or categories in sheeps clothing.  One was a really cool topic about seafoam and he had a great source, but still only got a sentence down.  One about a film with some length to it, had mostly been developed by others.  I think the fellow is capable of content creation.  He has the IQ.  He just needs to find it important, experience it, etc.  The project needs better writing and content.  What we have right now is not the right standard.  I'm not asking for a Ph.D. thesis from the fellow.  Maybe a Masters or a coupla B.S.s  ;-) (Still seems like a cool dude and liked his answers to questions, but he needs to WRITE AN ARTICLE!)
'''Oppose''', for now.  There's obviously a lot to like here: the volume and bredth of your experience, clean block log, effective use of edit summaries and a sense of humour. I feel like your answers to the questions are (by-and-large) pretty good, particularly your responses to Fastily's questions, and I also like the manner with which you have dealt with the above opposes.  However, I'm afraid have some queries about your speedy deletion work. I have reviewed a number of your taggings from the past year and found a couple that don't sit well with me.</br>As a general comment, I feel you have too great a preference for the [[WP:A7|A7]] criterion.  Usually, this leads to you using the A7 tag where [[WP:G2|G2]] (obvious test article) might be more appropriate (like [[Special:Undelete/Louise corrigan|Louise corrigan]] and [[Special:Undelete/Emery snow|Emery snow]]), but I accept that this can be a matter of personal preference, and for the most part, this doesn't do any damage.  More concerning, however, is your tagging of [[Special:Undelete/Abigail louthan|Abigail louthan]] (an obvious attack article) and [[Special:Undelete/Brick Line|Brick Line]] (which makes unreferenced allegations of criminal activity) as [[WP:A7|A7]] where they should clearly have been tagged as [[WP:G10|G10]].  I am also a little concerned by the speed of your taggings.  You have tagged a number of good-faith articles for deletion within minutes of creation, including the tagging of [[Special:Undelete/The life and times of Joanna Minter|The life and times of Joanna Minter]] and [[Special:Undelete/Koomochi|Koomochi]] as [[WP:A3|A3]] (no content) within 7 and 3 minutes of their creation, respectively.</br>Now granted, most of these problems are from mid-2010, but you haven't done much tagging since then, and so we have no indication of any improvement.  Seeing as you have indicated that you may work on [[WP:CSD|CSD]] backlogs, I'm afraid I'm not sufficently comfortable with your accuracy in this area to support.  I'm open to being convinced, though.&nbsp; -- '''''

'''Neutral''' You appear to get deletion right, you have been around for a while and you've edited steadily. I'm surprised that the majority of your edits are related to the article's talk page. Also, I'm curious as to what areas of the [[WP:BACKLOG]] you intend to take that requires administrative privileges. Otherwise, I see no reason to support.
'''Neutral''' Still looking.
Not really sure. A few minor issues on the questions raised above are not a big deal for me; still would like to see a bit more extended involvement in projectspace (only seems to have picked up in the last month and a half) and projecttalkspace. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
The quantity of content is unimpressive. Then again, [[Jane S. Richardson]] is well balanced, well illustrated, and is one of far-too-few female BLPs at DYK. Any user that can put up with myself and Malleus piling on in the same question clearly has enough patience for the role. The tipping point from support to neutral leaning oppose was the italicised part of Q6. To accept that our piecemeal approach to notability depending on field as the de-facto situation is one thing, to believe that this is a wonderful thing is quite another. I often oppose on those grounds, but have refrained because I see a lot of good things, and because you strike me as someone who will take the feedback from this RfA on board if it is successful. —
'''Neutral''' There's so much to like here, and I see evidence of a thoughtful, even-handed editor who would act calmly and be open to correction. But the answer to Q6 suggests a serious misunderstanding of notability (and its relationship to verifiability). Because I consider the notability concept among the most essential Wikipedia artifacts, I therefore don't feel comfortable voting support.
'''Neutral'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship (question 1). Mediocre content contribution.
Got my support. Been waiting for this. No real issues I'm aware of.
I'm pleased to see this nomination: Gonzonoir is a very valuable and civil editor with a great personality. I've come across quite a bit of the work that Amalthea has mentioned in his nomination statement, such as her help desk work, CSD work, and her article creations (the other day I was surprised to see that she did not already have autopatrolled). In addition, I was impressed with her comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gonzonoir&oldid=410032823#Finding_Dreams here on her talk page] to a new user, which I thought were helpful and kind: her talk page and archives show a good pattern of similar responses to other users; she also has a decent sense of humor, which, as I've stated for years, is an important quality for admins to have. I have complete confidence that Gonzonoir will make an excellent admin, and am happy to strongly support her nomination.
I have had a quick look through the contributions and everything looks okay to me - an experienced editor that seems to communicate well and I'm sure will do a good job as an admin.
[http://toolserver.org/~overlordq/scripts/articlecontribs.fcgi?lang=en&family=wikipedia&article=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&user=Gonzonoir&sub=1 UAA] work has been solid. - Dank (
Model Citizen and the kind we need more of
I [[User_talk:Gonzonoir/Archive_6#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FGonzonoir|offered to nominate]] back in October based on Gonzonoir's well-rounded and even-keeled Wikipedia contributions. This one's a no-brainer. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom. --<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="blue">Perseus, Son]] [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/t|<font color="red">of Zeus]] [[Special:EmailUser/Perseus, Son of Zeus|✉]]
'''Support''' A name with which I'm familiar and have seen do solid work. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Help desk work is admirable, will support.
{{edit conflict}} '''Support''' - Definitely a very qualified candidate. Please invoke... the... [[WP:RIGHTNOW|...snow close]]?
No obvious issues and seems competent and trustworthy. '''Support.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''' - a worthy candidate. Great nomination as well, and one that has me convinced on the face of it. I wish this candidate all the best.
'''Support''' She's only just recently got the autopatrolled right but still that's not enough for me to change my vote. I don't think she'll cause any concerns.
'''Support''' per nom. Also the deleted contributions looked good to me. ''
'''Support'''. Strong content contributions; positive, helpful attitude at the help desk and elsewhere; whenever I see a support or oppose from Gonzonoir in someone's RfA I can always count on it being thoughtful and well-reasoned, even if I don't agree with the conclusion. No worries at all here.
AfD contributions look good. No other red flags as I can see. —
'''Support''' - wonderful attitude, strong work=exactly what we need in a sysop. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' Spot on answers to my questions, obvious clue in other areas, and no history of mayhem.
'''Support''' -- I reviewed Gonzonoir's talk page history as well as their NPP patrol (the decision to tag for CSD, to PROD, or to improve) and was impressed. Their calm well-reasoned approach to editing is apparent. The modesty and humor is a bonus. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
More, please.
'''Strong support''' - excellent user. My only worry is why this hasn't already happened.
'''Support''' - No concerns. Net positive.
'''Support''' - Good contributions including balanced contributions at AFD that give me confidence that Gonzonoir can be trusted with the extra tools.--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. Great content creator, clearly with very good understanding of the project, and a very collegial and civil attitude. --
'''Support''' The GA created are good proving that this administrator is capable of writing so he/she is probably capable of managing a project which consists of writing.
'''Support.''' Top-notch admin material. ~~
'''Support'''. Great candidate. Fully qualified, enthusiastic, and helpful. I'm happy to support. --
'''Support''' Had this pre-watchlisted for a long time, will be a great admin. Regards '''
'''Support''', it was a while ago now, but I enjoyed working with Gonzonoir while [[Brad Pitt]] was going through FAC. Another helpful, clueful Wikipedian. It's been a while since I supported two RfAs in the space of one day (much less one hour), but I have no hesitations about doing so in this case.
'''Support'''. Seems like a pretty good candidate.
'''support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - calm, civil, thoughtful and willing to help out. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' -- Excellent Candidate, good content work.
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers, modest intentions, acknowledges his own limitations, and clearly here to build an encyclopedia.
'''Strong support''' - An excellent candidate: clueful, collaborative, trustworthy, strong content portfolio (includes 51 article creations and 198 redirects), always civil and collegial--
Why not? Oh, and the userpage is a nice touch, although personally, I'd have gone with class=plainlinks and color:black for the links :) <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/

'''Support''' She's a nice user since she assumes good faith according to what the nominator put.
'''Support''' No issues that I can see.--
'''Support''' No reason not to.
Of course. I had indicated in the past I would write the (co) nom, but I find there is nothing to add to Amalthea's statement. →&nbsp;
Yes ''
'''Support''' - Great candidate who is ready for the mop. --

'''Support''' - Good content contributions, clean block log, I can recall positive interactions somewhere, and if the example you cite is as hard as you can bite, then you should certainly have the mop.
'''Support''' - worth a go with the mop. Likely a net positive.
'''Support''' - edit record and experience speaks for itself (positively). Third easy '''support''' for a future admin today! --
'''Support'''. Solid record of constructive and thoughtful editing, and impressed by the commendably cautious answer to Q1.  There are so many policies and guidelines that it's hard for any admin to be fully-versed in all of them, and we'd avoid a lot of drama if more admins were willing to say "dunno about that area" rather than diving in headfirst. --
'''Support''' An excellent candidate. And a willingness to work in [[WP:CSD]], where I spend much of my time, is a bonus. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''.  Looks good.--
Excellent contributions in deletion areas. Lack of DRV experience leaves me wondering a bit about the candidate's approach to ''closing'' AfDs but the cluefulness in all other deletion forums makes me presume she'll do a good job.--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. FWIW, I really like your answer to question #4. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Indubitably, outstanding member of the community. Would be a fine addition to the admin corp. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''': persona grata. --
'''Support'''. Not someone I've come across, but reading the answers above, I'm happy with this candidate.
'''Support''' - Great candidate. I can trust her with the tools without a doubt.
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around a bit, and nothing that a quick look at her contributions and history would give me any reason to believe that she cannot be trusted with the tools '''''
'''Support''' In view of review of contributions, a couple created articles and AfD history. (While I did find a place we had weakly disagreed on an AfD !vote, I think, in retrospect, given the information available at the time, you made the stronger argument, which adds to my desire to support here.) --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' I see no problem with another mop being given out. '''
Seems fine. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' per nom. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' - see below, moved in from oppose. '''

'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I like constructive and calm editors working on articles and related content instead of focusing on the social side  of Wikipedia. Gonzonoir is one of them and has my full support. Good luck. --
'''Support''' Another candidate who knows their strengths and weaknesses and how best to apply themselves to improving Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Good answers to question, good content work, have seen extensively at help desk, which I view as a good way to learn about policies.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Trustworthy for sure. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''—I can trust her with the tools :).
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - almost 14,000 edits (including about 6,500 article edits), high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc.  Seems to be classy.
'''Support''' No issues that I can see. – '''
per nomination, obviously.
'''Support''' From what I have seen a good choice...
'''Support:''' A great choice for Admin. -
'''Support'''. Actually, I'd prefer to see more experience on article talk pages, but nonetheless nothing raises alarms for me, and I see a lot of good work. --
'''Support''' – looks good to me. –
'''Support''' Great track and see no concerns.
I've bumped into Guerillero in various venues and, on reflection, think they would be a net positive; I think the mop would be in safe (and mostly undramatic) hands. I expect that some will oppose on the basis of content contributions, and I respect that, but my personal feeling is that "''dealing with disputes and fractious editors''" is pretty much orthogonal to "''finessing large slabs of content''" - both may be essential to the project, and the latter is far more visible to end-users, but some editors may be better at one than the other. Getting involved in ambassadorial work is a positive too; I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
'''Support'''. A strong contributor who will use the tools well.
'''Support''', I doubt that he'll break anything. I don't see why him having an opinion about something is any reason why he would misuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' -- Qualified editor. --
'''Support''' - He does good work and is a helpful and generally friendly person. The two diffs below really don't scare me all that much.
'''An outstandingly nice editor and every inch a man.''' Strong support.  Have interacted at Featured Sounds and other venues.  He is calm and pleasant and will deal well with people new to Wikipedia.  Has empathy.  I can easily imagine him thoughtfully explaining to a 40 year old man why his page on his company was deleted...and not making it a rote policy cite.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Appears to be knowledgeable and well-qualified. While Jim's dif below shows a less-than-ideal interaction, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
'''Fair support''' I like the intentions and friendliness of the editor, and though I am concerned with the civility mishaps pointed below, I cannot in good faith oppose this RfA. I think you will do fine with the tools.
'''Support''' - I find the "civility" concerns more political than they are actual concerns. this editor has an opinion that's not obfuscated behind pedantic political correctness. I like that. If the comments in the oppose are the worst they can dig up, then I'm happy to support. If you want to fix RfA, looking past sound bite politicism like this is a good place to start.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' A great editor - definitely deserves a promotion for his contributions. --
Civility "concerns" are nitpicking at someone's bad day. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' – Every editor has their ups and downs; some slight civility concerns should not prevent the candidate from gaining adminship. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Civility "concerns" are nitpicking asides on somebody's good day. Remaining every-other inch a gentleman, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' Decisions, decisions '''
'''Support''' If the best the opposes can present is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_13&diff=prev&oldid=460519505 this] then strong support. Honestly, even looking at at the context I can't for the life of me think how this is a "civility concern". These, frankly, look like reasons to just make an oppose for the sake of it, and not a full consideration of the candidate's overall participation. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' after much consideration. Incivility leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and thus I was rather reluctant to support. That said, I also feel opposing would be hypocritical. I've done far worse things in my time. I also think that one incident shouldn't define a user. On reflection, I think that the candidate will take on board all the comments at this RFA and take more care in his interactions with others in future. Best of luck. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' -
No concerns that he'll abuse the tools. The civility concerns don't resonate with me; candidate strikes me as succinct and well-meaning.
Yes. Honestly with my interactions with this candidate, I was surprised to see one dif of incivility as he strikes me as a very kind editor, but we all make mistakes and that one edit shouldn't be judged against the candidate. If this RFA fails just because of that, then it strongly believes my faith that radical reform is needed.
'''Support''' Clueful answers to CSD question. '''''
'''Support''' I think he'll do ok - mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''': Civility shouldn't be a necessary.  Well, the mop.  Give it to him.  ~~
'''Support''' - Looks like Guerillero would do good as a admin, I'm not concerned at all. --  '''
Not concerned. Guerillero has done good work. '''
'''Support''' Only because I can find no reason not to.
The first of Guerillero's crimes was to effectively call something s/he regards as useless... well, useless. If that should be held against candidates, I suggest we block these candidates, and desysop and block anyone who has ever expressed an opinion which did not tally exactly with the wording of applicable policies, guidelines and processes at the time. An analogous approach seems to work for North Korea.<p>While I don't condone the tone of the comment on Fastily's page, the description of that user's behavior on that day was not innaccurate, and I note that nobody is suggesting that the admin guilty of biting on the same page be sanctioned, rightly so. Putting what can best be described as sledgehammer to crack a nut civility votes to one side, I think Guerillero is a good candidate. Non-article content contributions and FS work compensates for the lack of article work IMO. —
'''Support'''. Guerillero is an experienced user who know what he's doing; I'm not overly concerned with the civility issues highlighted by the opposers: the first diff just shows him expressing his personal opinion during a discussion, where people are encouraged to express personal opinions, and regarding the second one, well, we all have bad days... If that were a pattern, I'd be opposing, but I have not seen any indication of that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Can't see why not. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''': Guerillero has a great attitude and a developed understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Let's not let a minor incident at WQA deprive us of a great candidate.&ndash;
Guerillero is obviously very smart and has a positive attitude. Specialist administrators are great, but that doesn't mean general administrators are bad. I think he'll do great with the added toolset.
'''Support''' Several concerns, but none of them are enough for me to say "no" here. --''
The candidate is well equipped to accomplish what his request entails and nothing in the opposition below particularly strikes me. A one-off comment at a venue often marred by lack of good faith, and concern over his ability to write articles (seriously?) shouldn't be enough to disqualify Guerillero for the mop.
I'm only just supporting this idea. You really need to buck up your ideas on the civility front, but other than that there is nothing of note to fault. &mdash;
'''Support''' I agree with Fox that the candidate needs to step up on the civility.  However, I'm not convinced that the candidates civility is anything in excess of what we all feel from time to time and have expressed outself.  A [[List of sysops who have never had civility issues]] would consist of maybe 2 editors.  A [[List of editors who have never had civility issues]] would consist of editors with under 100 edits.  I have seen Guerillero around and I thought they already were an admin.  Sensible candidate w/ clue.--v/r -
'''Support'''. Candidate has many redeeming qualities. Not overly concerned with the offhand comment at RfD. We all say some bonehead things sometimes. Besides, it looks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_13&diff=460486213&oldid=460484861 Tarc made the comment first], and Guerillero, influenced, was just paraphrasing. --
'''Support'''. It doesn't feel right opposing a great candidate for a bunch of minor, and most inconsequential, reasons. I truly believe that the candidate will use the tools well and will not abuse nor misuse them. Net positive.--
'''Support''' per Salvio.
'''support''' i was going to put neutral but im not because i think you deserve to be an admin but please be civil '''
'''Support'''.  Oppose reasons seem rather trivial.  The candidate's comment about WQA is a general opinion (which has some merit in itself, though the redirect was over the line) and not a personal attack, so I see no reason for concern about it.
'''Support''' My numerous past interactions and encounters with him have been nothing but positive and as an FS Director he showed initiative and capability. I trust his judgment and ability and feel he will handle the responsibility of adminship without trouble. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
'''Support''' Based on personal interactions and observations of the candidate in several areas of the Admin fringe. Guerillero  has demonstrated competence and clue making this an easy choice as they are an obvious net positive for the project.
'''Support''' with caution. Remember that as an admin, you must try to set an example to the community, hold yourself to a higher standard etc. My views often clash with Guerillero, but when I looked through his contributions and I see a lot of positive contributions which demonstrate his knowledge. There is the odd civility issue and that's why I'm suggesting caution, and they are insufficient to take me to neutral, let alone oppose.
'''Support''' The way you talked to the distressed editor on Fastily's talk wasnt the best, but supporting per TParis and as you generally seem a very useful editor going by a random sample of your contributions.
'''Support''' Generally helpful and hard-working. The behavior at the talk page of Fastily doesn't concern me too much, but that obviously isn't your best. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Support'''. TParis does a good job of explaining what I think, too. Despite "board" in the self-nomination statement, I see the candidate as someone I trust to do moppish tasks. I've looked carefully at the diffs that have been provided as evidence of civility problems, and I'm not bothered by them. --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Support'''- Competent user, like answers to questions. --'''
'''Support''' There are legitimate concerns about Guerillero's choice of words on occasion which I hope he'll take on board. A moment spent considering "might this offend someone and so inflame the situation rather than calm it down", would be useful. However, on the whole what I see is someone who is keen to help, and while judgement at times lacks experience and knowledge, Guerillero has shown a willingness to reflect and learn which bodes well for the future. I looked at Guerillero's talkpage archive for [[User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2011/Febuary|February]] and found the reflection on the "Removal of Google Book links" to be positive, the careful consideration in "Request to mentor a student" to be mature, and while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thulani_Hlatshwayo&diff=413612549&oldid=413611798 this] was inappropriate, when challenged, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thulani_Hlatshwayo&action=historysubmit&diff=413617617&oldid=413612918 helped improve] the article, and acknowledged his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anneliese_Michel&oldid=416166515&diff=prev mistake] on [[Anneliese Michel]]. I didn't like his response to the Glitter Soundtrack edit - there was legitimate concern raised about his edit which he should have dealt with; and I admit that I did consider opposing on a "not now" basis, as I feel that Guerillero still has a bit to learn; however I was impressed by his willingness to reflect and learn, and feel that he will move forward and learn on the job. '''
Good answers to questions. Experience in relevant areas isn't vast, but it's good enough. As for concerns about your mouth, just keep on calling 'em as you see 'em. --
'''Support'''. I've been on the fence here over the civility lapses, but I've come down on the side of support after seeing how well Guerillero has handled this RfA and responded to feedback. Sure, there's more to learn, and I think a new RfA in, say, 6 months would fly through - but I've seen enough to think that's not necessary, and that the learning is going on as we speak. I think we have a good admin here. --
'''Support'''. Per above.
'''Support''' Don't see many concerns to this well-established editor. 2 years, 8,000 edits and 3 user rights are solid enough.
'''Support''' has some faults but i think hes ok.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support'''- Cursory review didn't find any other diffs comparable to Sarek's; qualified. People who have stopped learning concern me more.
'''Support''' Guerillero's answers to the questions reveal him to be reasonably competent, and the issues raised by those opposing this RfA are minor from my perspective.
'''Technical and moral support''' I know; this wordy support seems to have been used just for attracting attention. But perhaps that's why I've used it (apart from the fact that I hope this support would 'technically' ensure that Tom's RfA doesn't fall into the grey area). Irrespective, so that the closing crat considers this candidacy in the right perspective, I'll give my views on a few of the oppose !votes and comments. I'm actually in consonance with oppose comments like those left by Sarek and Jim (and those who've referred to them or mirrored their view to give their views; that is, Swarm, Itszippy, Skater, Tofut, Epbr,John Malleus, Alessandro, Snotty...); a prospective admin needs to have his civil sense pristine and crystal clear, and the diffs do provide quite some evidence to the contrary. I add to it Tom's view that "our civility policy is an extremely wordy extension of universal reciprocity: you should try to treat all editors in a way that that you would like to be treated." Viewed literally, this interpretation should be unacceptable to a prospective admin. I've seen some atypical 'tough nut' editors using this very concept of universal reciprocity to challenge other editors, commenting that as they themselves are perfectly alright receiving personal attacks from other editors, they find it alright to give it off to others in the same coin. I'd rather expect an editor to treat all others in a way "others would like to be treated" rather than in a way the editor himself should like to be treated. That's where our civility policy marches ahead. I do hope Tom understands these quite important requirements from an administrator. Or perhaps he already does and I've read too much into his reply. At the same time, Tom's acceptance of his mistake in his reply to Jim does give quite some credence to Tom's intent to improve, despite Malleus' valid 'best-behavior during RfA' point. ''I hope Tom stands up when this RfA closes and gives a strong closing statement to the community that he'll ensure that as an admin, he'll attempt to be a model editor on the civility front''. It'll go a long way in assuaging the worry that even some of us supporters might entertain. It'll also ensure that Tom has a benchmark statement that he'll personally feel motivated to stand up to. Of course, I leave it to him to decide on that. Before I end this tardily elongated and backhanded support, I have to mention that some of the opposes are not quite acceptable in my view. Samir's view of Tom's inexperience in content is mislaid - in as much as while on one hand Tom does have considerable content experience, on the other, heavy duty content experience is also not required of admins. Intoronto's "some concerns are raised" is quite open ended and indefinite. NWA Rep's oppose seems utterly illogical ("self nom implying power hunger"). So in all, this is my technical support for Tom.
Tentative oppose due to {{diff|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 13|prev|460519505|this comment}} -- I don't feel comfortable supporting people who belittle WQA participants. I could change my mind later, depending on what the Q&A looks like.--
'''Oppose''': I don't like your overall attitude towards other editors, one of which wouldn't look very good as an admin. Evident on your talkpage.
'''Oppose''' - I'm not happy to be here, as I want and did expect to support Guerillero. However, I can't bring myself to opine any other way after reading Sarek's diff. I can not support, or even remain neutral, regarding a candidate who would pretty much issue a slap in the face to those who would do no more than seek dispute resolution in good faith. ''
Nice guy. But not enough substantive mainspace contribution. The expansion to [[straight edge]] was impressive, but all of the Q8 answers were short articles. In my opinion you need to demonstrate ability to add content as an editor to be able to judge content as an admin --
'''Oppose''' Question 5 was ignored/incorrectly answered. Civility concerns, limited content creations, some grammar/writing issues the user hints at. I don't think the dyslexia is of much concern though, but constant health issues such as dyslexia & this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&diff=461859490&oldid=461840127 are worrying.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) - As I said earlier in this nomination, I have problems with the candidate's civility - examples of argumentative and unpleasant behaviour has been provided by other people. I asked the candidate to provide evidence of positive conflict resolution and, though I have nothing wrong with the example given, I feel that this is not enough. In the face of the civility problems, I would liked to have seen examples of positive discussion which helps to move an issue forward. Guerillero is a good editor and valuable to the project; I just feel his conduct makes him an inappropriate admin candidate.
'''Weak Oppose''' Some concerns are raised. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' per reasons articulated at great length above.
'''Oppose''' pending answer to my question. I'm concerned with the lack of experience with deletion work. The three articles I listed were almost the only three articles as contrasted to files or obvious mechanical deletions I could find--they're not cherry-picked. I'm not looking for an answer that agrees with me. but a reasoned answer of some sort.  '''
'''Strong Oppose'''self-nom implies overly power-hungry. assumption of bad faith on his arbcom guide.--
'''Oppose'''-Civility concerns are too much for me on this one. Sorry.--'''''
'''Oppose''' per civility concerns, lack of content creation, and weak admin-related experience.
'''Oppose'''. Learning on the job is one thing, but "learning" during an RfA is a fish of an entirely different colour. Any sensible candidate will be on best behaviour for the week, but the question is, what about when the week's over? Either civility is important or it isn't, but there needs to be some consistency here.
'''Oppose''' per Sarek, DGG and Malleus. Concerns over health, level of experience, and temperament. No prejudice against coming back in a few months. --
Per Sarek. I'd like to see Guerillo response to those diffs. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
Concerns about civility, maturity, little content creation, and a slew of spelling/grammar errors prevent me from supporting.  However, they are all somewhat minor problems so I don't want to oppose either.  The RfD diff (comments about WQA) doesn't concern me at all, but {{diff|User talk:Fastily|prev|456671928|this one}} reveals recent comments that are unbecoming of an admin.
(from oppose) Satisfied by answers to the questions. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Some reasons in the section above give me reason to want to oppose but I'm undecided - I'd also like to see an answer to Q5.
'''Neutral'''. Limited content contribution. Some issues with civility.
I came after closing the [[Roll a D6]] AfD, expecting to support, but the concerns of Sarek, DGG, and SnottyWong are too much, though not enough for an actual oppose given the evidence of good work.
'''Strongest Support Possible''': HJ is by far the best contributing admin (besides Wehwalt) we have around here (that I know of) and is one of the most helpful.  While I am confused by the reasoning behind this, I have no doubt in my mind that HJ should again rejoin the admin fold.  Give this guy another mop. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Beat the nom support''': Oh wait.. :P HJ is a great admin, helpful, and always beating me to [[WP:RFPP]].
Total support. As good an admin as we have.
'''Support''', blocked me for 7RR instead of trying to weasel out of it. :-) --
'''Support''' one of the good guys. I think the sv.wiki-style 1-year term is a bit short, myself, but I appreciate the motivation behind this RfA '''
'''Support'''. Absolutely has earned my support. Why is it that the administrators who ''should'' do this never do, and the ones who don't need to, by any stretch of the imagination, do. (That's a rhetorical question, so please nobody try to answer it!) --
'''Support''' {{ec}}{{ec}} Absolutely no question. --
'''Support''' {{ec}}{{ec}}{{ec}}While I'm sure there are a few out there, I can't think of any decisions I've seen from HJ Mitchell that I even disagree with. Great admin.
'''Support''', obviously.
I won't hold a grudge :)
'''Support''', easily.
{{ec}} I don't know whether this is incredibly idiotic or the most impressive showing of honor I've ever seen on Wikipedia, (that might come down to how this closes), but it's something that needs to happen a great deal more often. Damned good show son, damned good show.
'''Support, with objection.''' Your first RFA judged you well. Why demand the community's attention again for yet another one?This is completely unnecessary. You are already an admin, you have clearly been doing your best, and there's no reason for you to lose the bit just because you're doing more content editing. I recommend you recognize the fact that you've done a good job, that others think you've done a good job, and withdraw this nomination. ~
{{ec}}{{ec}}'''Support''' the ego trip (seriously, has anything made you think you shouldn't be an admin?) HJ, you are exactly what I look for in an admin and an editor. I know of a fair few editors that model themselves on you, don't get a big head or anything, but without a doubt, you have my support.
'''Support''' No reason not to. Although, shouldn't it be "put my mop where my bucket is?"
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Strong support'''—I not infrequently disagree with you, which suggests that you're sensible and level-headed! <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Support'''; we don't really move in the same circles but every time I see "''HJ Mitchell''" it's appended to the end of yet another level-headed reply or sensible action. I don't care if this is outside the usual processes; community support for admins is essential.
'''grudging Support''' - I've been critical of HJ M and some of his admin actions in the past. But this is indeed impressive and hopefully will set a standard that others will follow (I'll be honest, I almost went neutral here).
'''Support''' I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't be good. I full support.
'''Support''' While I do not support the idea of re-confirmation RFAs HJ has been a solid admin with a level head and has been responsive to concerns about his actions, a quality we see in fewer and fewer admins these days.
'''Support''' When I saw this, my first thought was that I thought he was already!. I'm glad to find he really was, for my own state of mind.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent admin as well as editor. HJ is a role model for me. =) [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' I do not entirely folloow the logic behind your request for re-accreditation, but you a clerly an excellent admin and should be encouraged to continue in the work you have been doing. --<font color="Red">
If you've given up your mop without incident, I don't see why you shouldn't get it back.  &ndash;
'''Super-Strong Support''' From what I've seen from this user, they're very helpful, very efficient as an editor and an admin, just the sort of person Wikipedia needs as an admin. I hope he gets the mop back, or I'll eat my own hat. And so considerate as an admin too, to make sure his status as an administrator only stays if it's supported by the community. --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]]
'''Support''' on the merits, as I've seen lots of good work from this admin (candidate?). Props also for [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&action=historysubmit&diff=2534818&oldid=2534619 actually pulling the trigger] and putting your money on the table. That said, what's the deal with your last-minute shopping spree of user rights as per the 2 May 2011 entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&user=HJ+Mitchell here]? Not worth a formal question, I'm just curious - hedging our bets, are we? Good luck!
'''Support''' (And to me, as an admin on Swedish-language Wikipedia, where we have one-year terms, this hardly seems like something that would necessarily have to be very dramatic.) /
'''Support''' - Obviously.
'''Support''' Yes, you have my continued trust and respect.  --
'''Support''' <s>Thought he was one already<s> I think you've done a good job as an admin and see no reason for de-adminning you. Also, the fact that you're willing to do this voluntarily definitely impresses me.
'''Support''' - Sure, the one-year RfA review/term limit/evaluation is a little eccentric, but it certainly demonstrates intellectual integrity.  I've bumped into HJ Mitchell on several occasions over the past year, and I've never found him to be anything but transparent and fair.  Kind of person we need as an admin: he's good now, and he's only going to get better.  As a sacrificial offering, I suggest we vote someone else off the admin island.  Nominees?
'''Support.''' The interactions I've had with HJ show to me that he is a good admin. I feel that running again is a little excessive, but I see the motivation behind it, and I expect you to pass with flying colors.
'''Support''' I've only got good memories about HJM.
'''Support''' HJ did jump in feet first and get in a bit deep to start with. That said, he's bobbed back to the surface and is a strong swimmer now. No reason to remove the tools.
'''Support''' HJ has been helpful in dealing with ongoing problems on various articles.
Definitely! I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHJ_Mitchell_2&action=historysubmit&diff=359289721&oldid=359289527 supported last time] on the basis that HJ Mitchell often appeared in my watchlist and came across as a decent user to me. I stand by that original rationale, but I'd like to add that I've seen more evidence of excellent work from him, and also that I've had the chance to work with him since that RfA (with userrights a couple of months ago). HJ Mitchell is, without a doubt, one of our best administrators.
Over time I think I've given HJ negative feedback personally, so none here (except to say I think this reconfirmation should be closed early as the outcome is now clear and there's not a whole lot of actual "feedback" likely to be given beyond what's already been said). I thought I would point out one really positive thing. In HJ's first RFA, he copped a lot of criticism for his advocacy of MisterWiki, a troubled user who HJ convinced the community to give a second chance. That was pretty much the main example brought up by the opposition. As far as I'm aware, MisterWiki (Diego Grez) is now a productive member of the community and all editing restrictions on him have been lifted. Just something I thought I should mention looking back over one year. HJ is prolific, policy fluent and dedicated to the project. I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be reconfirmed. --
Support, but with a wish that you would not waste (imo) community time with this in the future. We gave you our support and I don't think we need another RFA unless that trust has been dramatically lost. (Ie by the creation of RFDAs or the like.)--
'''Strong support.''' I've been following the contributions and admin actions of this user. I have found HJ Mitchell to be very professional, trustworthy and sensible. If he were to run for ArbCom, he would get my full support and I would regard him as one of the best candidates. This, I think, says it all.
'''Yerp'''.
'''Support''' HJ, I understand there is honor and merit in submitting yourself to this, but I personally don't see a need for you to do this. I have never known you to act irrationally or purposefully mess up on something. They are called mistakes for a reason, you make them do your best to fix them and learn from what you did. Everyone is going to make a few mistakes and I believe admins have way to much pressure on them to make sure that they do the right thing every single time on the first try. I fully support you here and if any more RfAs for you come up I will support you there too. Just because you make a few bad calls here and there doesnt mean you arent a good admin as you said you arent to proud of those mistakes which means you will be more careful next time. Anyway I'm rambling but you really are a great admin and I think you deserve the support of many if not all Wikipedians here. Hope you keep the mop,<span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
Duh.
'''Strong Support''' – Harry should be given the mop again.
'''Support''' Sensible, helpful admin.
'''Support'''—did so last time, will do so again. HJ, I really don't see the need for this, as you've been doing just fine as an admin :). Maybe you're looking for something more along the lines of an editor review on steroids? However, I disagree with those who think this is an RfA to "stroke the ego". HJ wants feedback, he asks for it.
'''Support''' I think currently admin rights are taken too seriously and are too difficult to remove and that means admin issues become more painful than they should be to sort out - which is definitely bad for the project. Re-going through an RfA seems like a reasonable way of avoiding that problem, and if it was widespread then not too much face would be lost if anyone needed to be persuaded into doing so. With regards to this specific case HJ Mitchell has always come across as a good admin to me and has generally used his powers well so I support. --
'''Support''' – Definitely. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' my only concern is the lack of judgment shown by wasting people's time like this.
'''Support''' --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - HJM has been willing to pick up the mop and try to put it to good use. He should be allowed to continue. (But I do agree with Pichpich.) --
Supporting because it's Harry and because he resigned the mop, but I'd be happier if I never saw another  reconfirmation RFA. - Dank (
'''Support''' Was very impressed with [[Mike Jackson]]. The only people who don't make mistakes are the ones who don't do anything.
'''Support''' But really don't think this is necessary.
'''Support''' You're doing fine work, HJ.
'''Support'''  - We don't have many admins of this calibre. If anything, we should be cloning him. --
'''Support''' Absolute support, without reservation, derived from personal observations, and interactions with HJ.
'''Support''' I see absolutely no reason that HJ Mitchell shouldn't continue as an admin.
'''Support''' No issues except this seems like a waste of time to me. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. Very useful. Can't think of any bad experiences. This should happen more often (though it's not needed in this case). --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''. Despite the ups and downs, HJ is a positive influence on Wikipedia. —
'''Support''' - One of the best admins I have encountered.  Clearly important to have HJ carry on.
'''Support''' per Royalbroil: we have no reason to say that you should have relinquished adminship, so since you appear to have resigned it, we have no reason to say that you shouldn't get it back.
'''Support''' Everyone makes mistakes. -'''
'''Support''' -- Obviously.
'''Strong support''' -- Hard working, always out in front, willing to take a chance when others operate in the realm of great caution. I was, at some point, considering nominating him for 'cratship.--
'''Support''' To be honest I thought this was a practical joke when I first saw it but I simply couldn't oppose. Also, and this a thought, have you thought about 'cratship. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - although in your case, at this point in time, I'm not convinced this was necessary.
'''Yes''' continue on as admin, I have appreciated your work.
That I think is rather funny you resigned as an admin just for another RFA. HJ Mitchell is an awesome person. He has been and will be a great admin IMHO. -
'''Support''': Wow, I really wasn't expecting too see this. One of the best admins we've got - very helpful and friendly, and very much a champion of collegiality. So stick that mop back where it belongs, dude, or we'll stick it there for you. --
'''Support''' When observed by me, the editor's actions have always been helpful, courteous, and correct. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Without a question. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' HJ is by far one of the most patient admins I've come across, he is also sensible, of good judgment and character and quite the humourous fellow. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' I trust HJ with my Wikilife.
'''Support''' per a very positive and helpful interaction with HJ in the past regarding a disruptive editor. I tried to find diffs, but it was too far back for me to find quickly. I agree that perhaps the mass protection of templates should have been better thought-through, but I still think HJ is unquestionably a net positive. Anyway, I'm willing to AGF on the ego-stroking. Even if this ''is'' ego-stroking, that's no reason to oppose. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' - Some of HJ Mitchell's views and resulting actions I've found a bit iffy, but his heart is in the right place and no doubt he contributes a great amount of energy to Wikipedia. I approve of the resubmitting of an RFA in concept and as such are likely to be supportive of such actions. Regards,
'''Support''' – I think he does a good job as an admin. Having said that, I really don't like the way he's put himself forward like this. It does feel a bit like attention seeking. But that doesn't take away from him doing a good job as an admin. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Support'''
No real reason for this in my opinion... so obvious support.
'''Strong Support''' HJ helps alot at WP:RFPP, ITN, and I often ask for help great admin and a role model for others
'''Support''' I have seen you do good work. However this is uncalled for, although maybe this should be an annual event for everyone...
'''Strong support''' - HJ Mitchell, you are a brilliant, BRILLIANT editor and I have so much respect for you in so many ways. Of course I have no problem with you returning to the caretaker's cupboard.
'''Support''' - Even if this is a ego-boost, so what? Being an admin is generally a thankless task, so it does help to know if you've got the support of the community. I've certainly not come across any problems with HJ's actions, and I and the other admins would have to do more work if he doesn't get the mop back.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
You're doing a good job as an admin, and I think you should continue. I don't have any problem with this reconfirmation RfA. Some of the entrenched thought patterns here are so strange: admins are reproached for being unaccountable, and then if they seek out accountability they're reproached for seeking an ego boost. It's hard to get honest, useful feedback on one's performance as an admin, and this is probably the best way to see if one still has the confidence of the community. So yeah, please keep the mop and keep up the good work. '''
'''Support''' [[Mostly_Harmless#Title|mostly harmless]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' I just cannot see elsewere a user that ''voluntarily'' re-applies for an Request for Adminship.  (I saw your request for dis-adminship at meta-wiki)  Also, has lots of good edits and admin things.  ~~
'''Support''' First of all, I think it's great that HJ has done a good deal of content work since passing RfA. Further kudos to him for his success mentoring Diego Grez. Issues have been raised about HJ's admin work below, and that's fair. I think he's had some problems in the past, but I also think that he has shaped up more recently. It's true that, among his numerous good blocks, there have been a few bad blocks. Far more dismaying, however, is that whole template-protection fiasco, which looks really, really bad. Although I'm sure he already knows this, HJ would do well to avoid repeats of such poor judgment, particularly on such a massive scale. On balance, though, HJ is a good and prolific administrator, and I believe the project would benefit from his re-sysop.
'''Support''' was a great admin, and is a nice guy too. --
'''Support''' This is the last thing I wanted to come back to after a break.
'''Support''' - I supported the first nomination in 2009 (which failed, unfortunately) and supported again the next year (which did succeed). HJ Mitchell has lived up to my expectations so I'll support again this year. (Is this going to be an annual event?) -- '''
'''Support''', as you've done nothing short of a great job as an admin.
'''Support''' "Candidate" has my full confidence. ;-) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' We've all made mistakes but you've demonstrated your commitment and overall competence as an admin. I can't imagine you being a non-admin for much longer, lest our backlogs grow even longer. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
I supported his first RfA in the strongest possible terms, and have never found myself regretting that decision. 100% right attitude and a true paradigm of what a Wikipedian admin should be. He has my strongest support yet again.
'''Weak support'''. I guess I'm biased by my only recollection of you being that I ran into templates I could not edit because of your protection spree. On the other hand, the opposes are completely unconvincing, so you're probably a net positive overall.
'''Support''' --
One of the best admins we've got. I trust HJ's word that he will take the concerns on board. --[[User:Dylan620|Dylan620]]
'''Support''' - a solid and honorable admin, no more perfect than the rest of us human types (and one of the few I've ever met in meatspace), although I consider the process a bit silly. --
'''Strong support.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>

'''Strong support.''' Great admin. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - Has done an excellent job.
'''Strong support.''' Per above.  IMO these reconfirmations should never be mandatory and if anything ought to be discouraged as timesinks – but if someones done as much excellent work as yourself they deserve a nice ego massage,  if thats any part of your motivation :-).
'''Support''' this candidate through and through (though I don't know why he didn't just ask for an editor's review). -
'''Support''', we all make mistakes, and you've admitted to yours and resolved to do better.  And to be honest, your record is pretty impressive and you're a massive net positive with the tools.
'''Support''' - Dropped the mop, seeks feedback, and acknowledges errors. Obviously still trusted by the community, and a benefit to the project. Pick it back up. :D
'''Support''' - nobody's perfect and I agree totally with Dru of Id. Although I think the whole template protection issue was a bad mistake the fact that HJM has recognized it as such ''should be enough''. More than that [[WP:DEAL|being an admin isn't a big deal]] and errors (ie unintentional, non-malicious, mistakes) that could be handled with [[WP:TROUT|a trout slapping]] should be handled that way. <br>With that in mind, IMHO there is already far too much drama about "admin abuse" and I don't think these reconfirmation RFAs are productive or helpful in reducing the unnecessary drama that surrounds sysop actions--
'''Come on''' - Out of all the administrators I know, there's few I can think of who are less in need of a reconfirmation hearing than HJ. While I respect admins who give the community a second chance to voice their opinion, this one is so unnecessary it's borderline patronizing. I wonder how HJ can possibly be ''that'' clueless as to whether the community wants him as an administrator. Of course we do! ''
'''Support''' -  excellent work at ITN/C--
Will you please return to UAA --
'''unenthusiastic Support'''  I feel that any user that has a few months experience and no indication of abuse can be an admin, so of course, this user should be an admin.  However, I agree with many of the opposes that say this is a waste of time.   If an admin abuses the tools, we can yank them away.   If you don't want to be an admin anymore, just resign.  But this is like this user is asking for a pat on the back from the community.  Can you imagine what a disruption there would be if all admins did this (or even 25%)?  --
'''Enthusiastic support'''.
'''Support''' - HJM is a very productive admin and does a lot of great work across many different areas of the project. As some have mentioned, he is quick to act and in the vast majority of the cases he is right. The few times that he is wrong, he admits it and learns from his mistakes, which makes him an extremely valuable admin. Many people appreciate the work he has done for the project. The work he and Diego Grez did together set a precedent for the project that others should follow. It was a shining moment for both of them. - '''''
'''Support''' I have no reason not to. I'm not sure why a reconfirmation was needed in the first place, but here's my support. – '''
'''Support''' Aside from his propensity to [[WP:Overlink|overlink]] his DYKs and other Main Page teasers/hooks &ndash; which incidentally have nothing to do with his adminship &ndash; I support Harry. He clearly takes his responsibility very seriously, reviews his actions and recognises where he's gone wrong. It would be a mistake not to reconfirm him. --
'''Support''' Should have actually stood for bureaucratship than this. Would have taken the same effort, with a better result.
'''Support'''. One of the most valuable admins we have. --
'''Support''' Why am I here?....slap the bit on him, tell him his vacation is over, and tell him to get back to work :P --
'''Support''' Not even close.
'''Support'''. You've been an enormous net positive as an admin and have done a large amount of thankless work that Wikipedia is better for. I would go on record as saying, though, that I don't think this re-RfA was a great idea: my primary complaint about your admin tenure would be that you are sometimes a little too quick to get embroiled in unnecessary drama (the mass template protecting being the best example, but there have been a few ANI incidents that I don't think were really necessary). Whatever the intention behind this RfA, however good, I do think it ends up inciting more drama, and generally wasting community time and not helping anybody. I remain very happy to support due to my aforementioned general approval of your admin actions; Wikipedia is undoubtedly better off with +sysop HJM than without - but I'd encourage you to think of more low-key ways of achieving your goals sometimes. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' All admins should have terms; a year may actually be too short. See you in two.
'''Support'''. I question the advisability of this RfA. However, I believe the admin in question is a good one, who has shown the ability to own up and learn from his mistakes. So support.
'''Support'''. Like what I see.
Net positive, very helpful admin.
'''Strong Support''' Great admin, was a great help to me in getting [[The Bill]] to GA status--
I see no convincing reason to oppose this candidacy by a veteran administrator. If the incidents cited in the "oppose" secion represent the sum total of his mistakes, his record is uncommonly good compared to that of most active admins, including mine. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. He does a lot of good work, including his work at AE.
'''Support'''. Good work ethic and handling. Personally have previously seen user work at [[WP:RPP]] competently and efficiently. See no reason to deprive someone with a good history and community standing of the tools necessary for them to continue to tirelessly contribute at the bar they have set over the time. <span style="border:1px solid;border-left:3px solid;border-right:3px solid;background:#D3D3D3">
'''Support''' Opposed in the past, candidate now has my support ''<B>--
'''Support'''.  HJ Mitchell has been an extremely valuable admin -- I always see him around making helpful contributions and responding quickly.  Doing a fine job.
'''Support''', HJ has been a very good admin and I'd like to see him continue in that role.
'''Support''', Sorry, we need to cut your vacation short :) -
'''Support''', of course; has a clue. [[Special:Contributions/125.162.150.88|125.162.150.88]] (
'''Support''' Obviously
'''Support''' I dont know what we would do without you.
'''Support''' Excellent work on keeping [[WP:RFPP]] and [[WP:RPE]] clear. Every interaction I've had with HJ has been positive. —
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support'''
Haven't done anything mind-blowingly stupid with the tools. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''', Good track record speaks for itself. <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' <font color="#082567">
'''Support'''. God knows why you want to go through RfA a third time (even thinking about going through it once makes me feel ill). Good luck, you're a great admin. -
'''Support''' - Never any problems.
'''Support''' - Wikipedia is better off with you having the tools restored as soon as possible.
'''Support''' One of the best admins we have. A couple hiccups, mistakes, and [[D'oh!]]s but that's gonna happen with anyone. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Strong support''' Great, capable admin who's dedicated to the project, doing an excellent job at the moment.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' = OK, already, you win!
'''Support''' - Good luck!
'''Super strong support'''. HJ Mitchell has done some outstanding work around the wiki, and he has been very helpful to me while I was actively editing. He deserves to keep his mop. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' – aren't you already one?! --[[User:Sp33dyphil|<big>'''<span style="background:DeepPink;color:White">'''Sp33dyphil</span></big>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ready]] • [[Special:contributions/Sp33dyphil|to]] •
'''Support'''.  I've spent some time trying to compose some sort of in-depth rationale for my support here, but I have nothing more to say than the obvious. Harry is an extremely competent and prolific administrator who is of great benefit to the project in that role.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support'''. I've been impressed with his positivity and willingness to assume good faith far more than most. That's refreshing these days when we often seem to assume the worst in people. He's been one of the best admins I've dealt with.
'''Support''' I've seen HJ Mitchell work diligently at RfPP, where he has proved he is more than competent as an admin. He's made a few questionable decisions, but has learned from them and held himself accountable. Active as he is as an admin, he still produces quality content, which is impressive.
Doesn't seem to have done anything worth taking it away; no big deal. '''
'''Support'''.  I'm highly skeptical in general of the current procedure for recalling / reconfirming admins, and I think an admin in this situation generally ought to be kept unless there is a clear consensus for taking away their mop.  I see no issues here of a magnitude that would justify desysopping this admin, so I'm going to support.
'''Support''' One of the best admins on Wikipedia, so I say yes to continuing adminship. <font color="maroon">Canuck</font>
'''Support'''. <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I went Neutral last time after supporting in the first place (On his second RfA). Now I'm absolutely confident that he won't abuse the buttons. He will be an active, useful and clueful administrator.
<big>'''+'''</big> Nothing but positive interactions with the user involving administrative/oversight requests.  I trust HJ Mitchell.
'''Support'''. Committed editor. -
'''Oppose''' all reconfirmation RFA. If the community wants reconfirmation RFA then it can demand them, until then admins should have enough judgement to decide whether they are able to function properly, and if they don't to resign. Wasting everyone's time with another needless distraction because egos need stroked is not helpful. If you can't judge for yourself whether you are a good admin, then you lack the judgement to be an admin.--
'''Oppose''' Too often it seems this admin is in the centre of a controversy caused by unnecessarily rushing without thinking things through. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#HJ_Mitchell_mass_fully_protecting_templates mass protecting templates for no apparent reason], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#HJ_Mitchell.27s_block_of_GTBacchus blocking established editors without consensus first], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#1967_NFL_Championship_Game misusing rollback] (okay, we all make mistakes, but he didn't offer any explanation or apology as far as I can see). HJ Mitchell is a regular at rights request pages where editors ask for things like rollback tools. If a newer editor made a rollback like that, they would have been denied the right. To sum up, HJ Mitchell tends to rush things through without thinking them through carefully, and gaining consensus for actions ''before'' he carries them out. These things alone probably wouldn't make me greatly question his continued adminship, but overall there's a negative picture here. He needs to slow down and not take on so much, as its clearly affecting his judgement. I probably won't be very popular for posting this oppose vote, but it seems likely this will pass anyway so good luck regardless.
'''Oppose''' If you really feel the need to ask, then here's my answer. No, you're just a bit too eager for the laurels of distinguished service. I recognize the large amount of work you do, but I share Aiken drum's qualms. I've often felt on seeing your actions that you are a little too quick off the mark. In particular, I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GTBacchus&oldid=405598108 this] was an overhasty and ill-thought block. ''Pace'' to MF's several bad blocks in the past, but either of attempting to even the scales or act as the knee-jerk civility police was just plain the wrong way to handle things. This entire request is ill-formed, so feel free to reply here or wherever else. Or not, since it seems you will "pass" with whatever flying colours you are seeking. I'm rather saddened by this "request", but perhaps you can redeem yourself: did you officially resign your sysop bit with the stewards and make clear at WP:BN that it was done under a cloud and could only be reinstated on new consensus? Or were you looking for fluffers? There you go, you asked, you got my opinion.
'''Oppose''' per the diffs offered by Aiken Drum. I don't care for the somewhat high handed manner this admin adopts in his dealings with others. Franamax is also persuasive here. In the interests of transparency I should note that my first account here on WP was blocked by HJ as a username violation.
'''Oppose''' Unnecessary RFA
The fuck is this?
'''Oppose''' Judgement concerns.  If you could be restriicted to working in the routine areas you're good at I could support, but too many times when you need to use judgement you create issues.  Some have already been mentioned, and this one comes immediately to mind[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Block_review:_Off2riorob].--
In the past I have voted neutral on these reconfirmation RFAs.  However, I feel, since they seem to be proliferating, that a stronger statement is necessary.  I regard them as an insult to me as an administrator; they suggest that by not submitting myself (again) to the nonsense at RFA, I am somehow less committed.
Oppose for wasting everyone's time with this charade.
concerns about judgement. -
So "''been making less use of my admin bit for the last couple of months''" you need an attention fix? There's a ton and some more of mash notes up there and you'll enjoy every one of them. No really, you say, you just fancied some "''genuine appraisal''".  In other words what you really want is to see who'd be in this column. Which isn't the same thing. Anyway, here we are.
'''Oppose on wheels!''' '''
(moved from "Waste of Time" (neutral)) This idiotic re-confirmation is a waste of everyone's time. You know as well as anyone that there is no reason to take adminship away from you, yet you go through with this anyways. What was your point, exactly? Was your judgement so skewed that you thought that the result would be anything different than the obvious one? If your judgement is that skewed, then you shouldn't be an admin. Or, if not that, was this just to help enlarge your ego, seeing all of the people that supported you? If so, I most certainly don't want to be a part of that. Up until this RfA, I thought you were a fantastic admin, and I would have thought anyone crazy that tried to get you de-sysopped. However, the fact that you really thought it necessary to waste everyone's time with this idiotic RfA, so that you couldenlarge your ego seeing over a hundred people support you, has led me to decide that you should not get the bit back. [[WP:ADREV]] would have been a much better option, and nobody would have thought less of you for it. ~~
'''Oppose'''. Admin who threatens to block a bot who has consensus to perform a task "if he had the block button" should not be an admin. POINT.  H J Mitchell has no idea what the blocking policy is about. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per this RFA's very existence, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=427834015&oldid=427825692 this immature tirade] from May 6. 90% may participate favorably in this ego-stroking exercise, but I will not. '''
'''Oppose''' - I doubt it will matter given the number of support votes but given what I have seen in the last few weeks I don't think so. --
Largely symbolic at this point. I expect you will continue to do a decent job on many routine tasks, like those you mentioned in your reply to me above. However, {{diff2|427834015|your outburst at AN/C}} (during your RfA, of all times) still forces me to oppose. I can relate to your frustration, but language and good manners matter, and I'm sure there would have been a professional way to express your feelings. I expect that from an administrator.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but as Vodello's diff illustrates, you don't backhand the Arbitration committee.  The fact that the entire case was contentious and that there were several intertwined threads in it leads me to believe that actions when H<strike>G</strike>'''J''' is emotional can be against the best practices of Wikipedia.
Tremendous waste of time if you ask me. I like you HJ but this was not really needed. RFA is not a place to boost one's self-esteem or ego. The better choice would have been to try RFB instead.--
I think the reconfirmation thing is a good idea and I respect that you have done so.  That said, I feel you've made some bad calls as an admin in the past (mainly at DrV), but I've also seen you as a very friendly and caring person.  I can't support due to the first thing, but I can't oppose for the second.
I'm torn.  I'm not thrilled with some of the things HJ Mitchell has done; Hobit puts it well.  I also agree with White Shadows that reconfirmations are fundamentally a waste of time, and your decision to put yourself up for one without any real need is a factor.  I'm leaning support as most of the admin actions I've seen have at least been well meaning, and I respect the continued content contributions.  I should note that it is a terrible waste of time for an admin to be writing a FA and I am shocked at that but will probably jump to support in due course. I felt motivated to post polite concerns.<small>waiting to see how many trolls I pick up!</small>--
'''Redirect''' to [[User talk:HJ Mitchell]]. —'''
'''Protest neutral''', I'm not going to say that this is an ego-trip but this is not the correct forum for this discussion, and these pointless reconfirmation RFAs do demonstrate questionable judgment IMHO. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
On core principle, I oppose the idea of reconfirmation RfA. I agree with those who have suggested that if the community wanted to reconfirm an administrator, that it would do so. However, in regard to HJM, I have no glaring issues with their conduct while an administrator, so I shall remain '''neutral''' in this discussion.
'''Neutral'''. HJMitchell is a fine, fine administrator, but this is a waste of time and electrons, given that there doesn't seem to be a direct reason for it.
'''Neutral''' Per Drmies. I still haven't forgiven you for your block of GTBacchus; established editors should not be blocked without a warning for a one-off breach of civility. On the other hand I am pretty sure you did more good than harm as an admin. --
(moved from oppose) This RFA isn't necessary, and a complete abundance of time. I do not believe this is even that necessary to see if the administrator still has trust in the WP community, which I continue to believe will, based on any of his contributions.
'''Neutral''' I regard this as a waste of time, to be honest. If there had been an RFC/U where people had expressed an option that you should not be an admin, I'd say fair enough - but I see no reason for this RfA. I was tempted to go for 'Oppose' for that reason, but despite some mistakes (and we all make them), I have no reason to believe that you should not be an admin. '''''
'''Meh'''. Time sink, etc., and per Wehwalt. —
These reconfirmation RFAs are incredibly silly. A fine administrator, but these are a waste of time.
'''Moved from Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=427834015&oldid=427825692] <small>Just not fond of big tempers</small>. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Waste of time.
'''Comment''': Ongoing/periodic review of admin performance is not unreasonable, but should there not be a different structure for it rather than an RFA? The two don't seem to be the same thing.
If there were consensus in favor of reconfirmation RFAs, then we would have them for everyone. Since there is not, I decline to participate in this end-run around community consensus to confirm a generally good administrator. That being said, it's unfair to say this has been pointless. Harry's doing this has led to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2|another reconfirmation RFA]] -- one in which the result, less than a day from close, is still close to the traditional discretionary range for regular RFAs. Certainly not the deluge that supporters or reconfirmation RFAs might hope for, but it tells us something about how this works in practice.--
'''Neutral''' I must admit to finding this rather self indulgent!
I think you do a fine job, and you aren't very controversial, so no point to this RFA. Agree with Drmies.
Administrator review is [[Wikipedia:Administrator review|Thataway]]. ''
I agree. I've seen a lot from HJ, and I held HJ in the highest esteem, but this is not a good move.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Full Support''' as Nominator, I feel this user is going to make an excellent administrator for the project.  The works should speak for themselves, and the actions should speak louder still.  If this doesn't pass, I'll eat my hat. '''
'''Yup''' Kickass content. <span id="sig" style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' solid contributor and will use the tools just fine. <s>Will expand support rationale later, but sleep now beckons.</s> Per my support last time and per much of what has now been said below.
'''Support''' Fantastic content work, hard working, knowledgeable, has a clue...what's not to like? Ironholds has gone from strength to strength and I believe he would make a great admin.

'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support'''- I've seen this editor around a lot. Always struck me as intelligent and responsible, so I have no problems supporting.
'''Support'''. I do ''not'' agree that FAs are an ideal barometer of admin potential; but I think that Ironholds can be trusted with the mop and would put it to good use.
'''Support'''. A better editor than me, and I'm confident that the civility issues have been sorted out. I've met Ironholds a few times in real life, and although he has strong feelings, he's learned how to articulate them in a constructive manner. This gentleman is a boon to the project, and I for one see no reason why he shouldn't be trusted with the tools.
I even offered to co-nom! <font face="Arial">
I note question 2 demonstrates a conflation of "claim to notability" with "claim to significance or importance". The latter is the A7 criterion, which is narrower than the former. However I'm not seeing any evidence that this common conflation is actually causing him to make incorrect tags. Ironholds doesn't make any more mistakes than any reasonable admin does patrolling CAT:CSD. And "mistakes" there are inevitable due to the high rate of articles that enter CAT:CSD and the low number of admins who have to trawl through it. The sad fact is that the easiest way to pass AfD as a "deletion" candidate is to play CSD-tagging very very conservatively for two-three months to make your stats look famous. Ironholds shouldn't be disadvantaged for his unwillingness to [[WP:GAME|game]] in that way. Overall, I'm satisfied that he is an appropriately qualified, capable and experienced candidate who should have passed some time ago. Also I've never opposed anyone's 7th RfA and I don't plan to start now ;) --
'''Support'''. You satisfy the content criteria for users who prefer content editing. You also satisfy the criteria for users who prefer participation in administrative areas. AfD work is top-notch, and I think I've seen you reverting vandalism in the past. You would definitely make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' I supported last time and will gladly do so again. His content contributions and dedication to the project speak for themselves, would be an excellent admin.
Doesn't take shit, has skin of steel and, obviously, has a good content record and all that good stuff.
Per past support. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' {{edit conflict}} Your willingness to throw open the gates and show the community, some of whom are bound not to have come across you before, a seemingly comprehensive and clearly written account of your previous failings and mistakes, well, really speaks to the kind of character I'd hope to see in an administrator. Six failed RfA's shows me that you really want the job, which might bother me more if not for the whole throwing open the gates thing. To be honest, I really could care less about your content work, other than that it's nice to see you have some. Far more applicable is that you seem to have a very good grasp of areas such as CSD, which do far more to show me you have a solid grasp of policy, and you seem well trafficked around Wikipedia as a whole, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside about your general knowledge and competence levels. All and all, I think you're a good candidate. Perhaps not an excellent candidate, but still one I can get behind easily enough.
'''Support''' Reviewing past RfA attempts shows positive development into someone who knows when the mop should and should not be employed. --
Didn't support last time, but <s>would</s> ''should'' have. Also, per Mkativerata's "I've never opposed anyone's 7th RfA and I don't plan to start now". Time to end this RfA nonsense. Just get adminship all ready! :) '''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124;
'''Support'''. From what I've seen from Ironholds at NPP, DYK and elsewhere, he seems to be intelligent and thoughtful, and the content contributions demonstrate an extreme dedication to building the project. Perusing the previous RfAs I see there have been some concerns in the past, but the answers to the questions above suggest the candidate understands the concerns and has worked to address them.
I don't think Ironhold's personality is particularly well suited to working with others in an administrative capacity, but he's a better candidate than I was, so I can't very much oppose for that.
'''Support''' My past opposition was weak at best. This time around, I cannot think of a reason to oppose. The content work among other things are truly impressive.--
'''Abso-bloody-lutely'''! I don't think this is the first time I've supported his RfA. Ironholds is that rarest of things: an editor with the skill and patience to write truly brilliant encyclopaedic content ''and'' a thorough understanding of what goes on "behind the scenes". If given the bit, he would ''be'' exactly what I ''try'' to be: the kind of admin who makes life easier for the writers and harder for those who seek to damage the project and the encyclopaedia while hopefully still finding time to write brilliant content. Good luck, my friend, you'll be a valuable addition to a stretched admin corps.
'''Support''' Why not!
'''Support''' per HJ Mitchell.  You're a strong editor with a lot of patience, and we need as much of you as we can get. '''
{{ec}} A fantastic editor. →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support.''' {{ec}}{{ec}}{{ec}} An all-around excellent candidate who has worked hard for this privilege. Lucky (RfA) #7, or? ~~
I'm a big supporter of the US government; it collects in one location all those citizens whom we most need to keep an eye on.  In the same spirit, I hope to welcome Ironholds to the admin corps this time around. - Dank (
'''Support''' Has clue, will travel. No really, he does - I know this user in real life. He can be trusted with the tools and his content has been described by a [[University of Cambridge]] Professor of English Law as "impressive". He is already unquestionably an asset to Wikipedia and as an administrator, would be so even more.
'''Support''' I'm getting a little tired of seeing your name on these RFA's, and because you just won't stop making them and accepting Nom's, this should put a stop to it. :P
'''Support''': Great content work and great overall contributions spanning a long period, and clearly a great understanding of how Wikipedia all works. The only possible problems aired last time look to be well sorted, and the openness and honesty in discussing it this time round is highly commendable. --
'''Support'''.   I vociferously support this nomination.  If an editor's overwhelmingly positive content contributions to the encyclopedia mean anything, this editor has earned the privilege of being an administrator several times over.  My first contact with Ironholds was in the aftermath of a rather unpleasant encounter with one of the WP image copyright police, and the whole affair had left me questioning why I was spending so much time working on Wikipedia.  I had attempted to use WP procedures as I understood them, and all I got was grief.  I was genuinely angry.  Ironholds, with nothing to gain and for no reason other than his instincts for peace-making and helping other editors, stopped by my talk page and started a two-way conversation that has never stopped over the past 18 months.  He has helped me substantively with my article work with both advice and sound writing.  I have never met the chap, but I consider him a friend.  He is smart, he is funny, he knows how to write, and he has demonstrated that he knows how to handle conflict when necessary.  If Ironholds is not qualified to be a WP administrator, then I have yet to meet the WP editor or current administrator who is.  Let's give this guy the mop, and put him to work.  Now, not later.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable, clueful, brilliant &ndash; definitely will be a great admin. &mdash;''
'''Support''' <font color="00ff00">
It's about time that he's given the tools. There were some problems before, but I've been confident that Ironholds would make a fantastic admin from the beginning. '''
'''Support''' Genuine positive to the project. Mop wisely. :-) '''[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa</font></font>]]
'''Support''' - It doesn't matter to me how many RFAs there are—when the candidate is ready, he is ready.

Did it last time, happy to do it again.
'''Support''' I had opposed last time round because of concerns over CSD tagging, and probably some temperament/tone issues, as well. While I appreciate BHG's neutral, I have no concerns this time around, and the nominator may not have to eat his hat.
'''Strong Support'''.  We do not suffer from a lack of editors or sysops who are willing to speak as though they are expert in an area -- even when they are not.  Iron, however, is a refreshing breath of fresh air in this regard -- when he takes a position on an issue, he has a basis for it.  We could use more of that.--
'''Support''' I must have missed the previous four.
'''Strong Support''' - I've met Ironholds in person and I've considered him a good friend for quite some time now. I can vouch for his claim that he's generally kind. He's also very intelligent, hardworking, and dedicated to this project. I've seen a gradual transformation in him over the months; not only as an editor, but as a person. I supported his last RFA believing he would make a good admin. I support this one believing he will make a good admin and knowing that if he doesn't I'm going to sucker punch him in the spine the next time I see him... and then run, because he hits back. And as far as temperament, he's still the same guy he's always been, but his ability to process and regulate his emotions has matured and he's also checked his sense of humor in many regards. Additionally, he has available to him many friends and editors who are all too eager to put things into perspective for him if he should so request (and perhaps even if he doesn't). He's been here a long time and has a great deal of experience across the project. He also has his priorities in a respectable order and is a qualified candidate for areas in need of further admin attention. If you have concerns about him, please take the time to look through his contributions, for he genuinely has put forth the effort to improve himself, as I said before, as an editor and a person. <big>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Good content contributor, appears to have addressed issues raised in previous RFAs.
'''Support'''. This candidate has taken to heart advice from prior RfAs and will most likely prove a solid admin. Ironholds is helpful to others and is a dedicated, experienced editor. He has my trust.
'''Strong support''' -
'''Strong Support''' NO concerns.
'''Support''' The candidate is clearly someone who has paid his dues. Hardworking, collegial, fabulous content contributor. Hopefully, now is the time--
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' I have had interaction with this user never had any porblems great content never seen any issues.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributer in virtually all aspects of the project.
'''Support''' No concerns at all, &nbsp;
'''<font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF4400>a</font><font color=#FF8800>i</font><font color=#FFBB00>n</font><font color=#FFFF00>b</font><font color=#BBFF00>o</font><font color=#88FF00>w</font> <font color=#44FF00>S</font><font color=#00FF00>u</font><font color=#00FF44>p</font><font color=#00FF88>p</font><font color=#00FFBB>o</font><font color=#00FFFF>r</font><font color=#00BBFF>t</font>'''--
'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:gold;">
'''Strong support''' Glad to support. =)
'''I swear to god if you make this guy run a <s>6th</s> 8th time...''' He should have been an admin a long time ago. --
'''Support''' Not that Wikipedia needs more lawyers in the making. :P
'''Support''' Seems like a good influence to Wikipedia; I see no significant reason to oppose admin privileges.
'''Support''' Though anyone who would allow themselves to go through hell week seven times must be at least slightly crazy, the candidate has genuinely improved since last time.
'''Support'''- We rarely share the same opinions on various debates, but I happen to know for a fact that you are an extraordinarily dedicated Wikipedian with a vast experience. There are absolutely no reasons to assume that you cannot be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' because of [[User:Pgallert/RfA_voting_criteria|clue]], although in our latest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Discourse_on_the_Study_of_the_Law&action=historysubmit&diff=402671963&oldid=402671194 encounter] I would have wished for a small note explaining what the problem was instead of a shortcut to a 151K page where the issue is not explained at all. (I took the time and indeed found the [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Caution on converting citation styles|link]], and I was wrong with my edit, but you could have saved me the better part of an hour.) --
'''Support''' A good thing for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' About time.--
'''Support'''. Ticks all the boxes. Impressed by answers and attitude towards previous RfAs, as well as the willingness to learn and improve from criticism.
'''Support'''. Sven Manguard's comment above (that I asked the question I did because I was looking for a reason to oppose) is very far from the truth. In fact I've found Ironholds very easy to get on with and very helpful when we've interacted at GAN, but I have a general disquiet about the difficulty of removing any administrator short of any offence less severe than mass murder. Absent a proper system of checks and balances it has to boil down to trust, and I have no reason to distrust Ironholds.
'''Support'''. There are two things that immediately come to mind re: my past experiences with Ironholds: (1) he is very motivated to help, and (2) he is able to evolve. Lest this sound like faint praise, it's not. The ability to adjust our approaches and perceptions is crucial to being an admin if we're to reflect the will of the community and not simply become little despots, convinced our way is the One True Path. Add to that [[WP:COMPETENCE|competence]], and he seems like a great candidate to me. I trust Ironholds not to lose sight of our purpose, but to be an able admin. --
Candidate is more than ready.
'''Support''' - I thought he was already an admin. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''  A nice way to start the New Year after a long drought.
'''Strong support''', switching from neutral. I had hoped that the answer to my question 6 would satisy my concerns, and it does so partly. I had inadvertently worded the question to allow it be reasonably read as focusing solely on temperament, and Ironholds satisfied me on that point. I had also ''intended'' the question to refer to errors of judgement, but am unsurprised that was not answered because I did not make it clear that I wanted an answer on that point.  However, that lingering doubt about judgement have been addressed in the answers about other questions, so I am switching to a strong support because of Ironholds prolific and high-quality content contributions, the high quality of his judgement and policy knowledge on the specific questions raised, and his rigorous determination to remedy any deficiencies found along the way. --
'''Support''' No issues here.  Not sure why I opposed 2 RfA's ago. '''
'''Support'''. Good, thoughtful answers to the questions.
Happy to support again. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] (from
'''Support''' - why not give him a chance. I can't see any big issues. Understands content well and I hope with the tools to amuse him he that he doesn't stop creating it.
'''Support''', all-around solid track record warrants a support any day...but esp. today to counter the "bigoted woman incident" theatrics below.  That topic always has and always will earn a "strong delete".
'''Support''' Even as an editor firmly in the "need more admins" camp, id say your content work is so outstanding it will be a shame for you to be distracted by admin duties. And the Colonel's concern about patience for editors who dont meet your high standards seems worth reflection. But overall I expect youll be a great positive as an admin.
'''Support''' No concerns here. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' Great user, can be trusted with the mop. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Support''', with pleasure. A great user who I have enjoyed positive interaction with. Pointless oppose by Colonel Warden noted and, as usual, easily rejected. Not going to damage the place with the tools, only improve it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' for the fourth time ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=218349643 1st], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_2&diff=prev&oldid=244627765 2nd], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_4&diff=prev&oldid=335361215 3rd])! –
'''Support'''.  I opposed last time, user now has my support as my concerns re CSD have been addressed. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Intelligent, reasonable editor with good taste in music. A heavy content contributor yet someone who does deal with the adminny side of the site. I went from opposing one of his RfAs to conominating him last time. He's the only person I've ever nominated for adminship- that says something.

'''Support''': of course. He can be abrasive, but he has worked on it and is very well spoken and can argue '''LIKE A BOSS'''. '''
'''Strong support'''
Per Lara, Malleus, J Milburn, Sceptre, and Q10. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Per Lara and J Milburn, except for the music. :p
'''Support''' Good balance of content and admin type work, seems clued in.
Have been waiting for a long time now. ''
'''Support''' He will become a great administrator.
'''Support''' From what I have seen - this guy is ok, serious, works hard and he can do the job...
'''Support''' Heck yes! --
'''Support''' In my short time here he has already helped me with one of my articles, and in my other contacts with him he has been nothing but kind and civil. I would strongly urge those 'neutrals' and 'opposes' to reconsider  - if you have concerns about his behavior, look no further than this very RfA. He has answered all questions in a way that promotes the ideal of trust for an administrator. The key for any admin is that the community can feel safe with them watching over. I trust him, and for me that is enough. Respectfully,
'''Yeps'''
'''Support''' strong candidate and hard worker who will do us proud as an admin.
'''Support''': Per above. --
'''Support''' Single-handedly writing most of our coverage of [[English law]]. When it is becoming increasingly difficult to add new information to Wikipedia one only needs to review the contributions of Ironholds to remember that the Wikipedia project is far from  finished.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' – Why the hell not? <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Wish I saw this earlier. Adminship is '''no big deal''' and you would be a fine admin.
Excellent contributor, who should do well as an admin.
'''Support''' just don't be too hasty deleting stuff and I'll be happy. Reflective and thoughtful is good.
The best administrators are those who are most aware of their limitations, and Ironholds- besides being a perceptive and valuable contributor- fits the bill.
'''Support''' - Of course.
I've supported him the last several times, and I'll support him this time too. My rationale hasn't changed; he'll make a good admin and I can't see any problems.
'''Support''' despite lingering concerns over some moments of over-enthusiatic deletionism. Certainly an outstanding content creator, which is important.
Yes
Oh, sure, why not? --
'''Support''' no reason to believe that he would misuse the tools.   --
'''Support''' - regretting my oppose last time round. I am entirely satisfied now that Ironholds knows what he is doing and is competent enough that he would be a valuable addition to the admin corps.
Glad I caught this before it closed.  Has my full and complete support for reasons mentioned in previous RfAs.  Good Luck.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''—I've seen a great improvement in Ironhold's demeanor since his last two RFAs and I applaud his efforts to take advice and improve. This, coupled with his excellent contributions over the years, clearly show that he will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Clearly, someone who is very intelligent and who is committed to doing what is best for the project. I find the criticisms that have been raised up to this point to be unconvincing. It seems to me that this is an RfA that has gotten an extraordinary amount of scrutiny, if one includes all the scrutiny from the past attempts. Thus, it's inevitable that a few issues over deletions can be found, but I don't want to see experienced users rendered ineligible for RfA simply because they have too much of a paper trail. In contrast, I'm impressed by how many users whom I respect came forward very quickly to support, including some who had opposed in the past. --
'''WTHN''', won't break the wiki, and I trust that he has integrity enough to step down if enough concerns are raised. →&nbsp;
'''Support''' Wat.  -'''
'''Support''' Looks like the candidate has learned some hard lessons and has made great strides to improve his standing.
'''Support''' I won't hold the fact that I know him IRL against him.  Will be a great admin.  Kinda surprised he's not already.  --
'''Support''' frankly criticising a user for making a deletion vote for an article which only has one non delete/merge vote is ridiculous. Also per the support of many other users above whose opinions I respect. --
'''Support''' - Ironholds has always been a dedicated user with Wikipedia's best interests strongly in mind. At this point I can definitely see the required levels of experience, maturity and knowledge have been demonstrated - definitely time for the admin bit. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''  Excellent contributor.  Has made great strides, and his recent talk page discussions look fine.  As far as AFD, I'm not playing "gotcha".
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''  A strong history and an incredible dedication to wikipedia.  You're bound to find mistakes if you nitpick, but Ironholds would be an absolutely invaluable Administrator in my opinion.
<s>'''[[Tarring and feathering|Tar and feather]]'''</s>... I mean, '''Support'''. So sorry to chime in near the end of the pack, as I had wanted to make a statement that Oliver would tear up over. Now, it'll be lost in the pile, so the best I can hope for now is a chuckle or two. In any case, Ironholds is a stellar contributor in his preferred areas of editing, and he has a rather strong hold of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as a judicial sense in a broader context that would be invaluable in many of an admin's tasks. His manner of wit may be offputting to some, but he is brilliant in his wordplay (he once neatly placed my foot in my mouth over an ill-considered lolcat joke without actually saying anything about myself or my words), and generally has come to know the limits of humour and with whom will not become offended at a joke; he's had ample experience at failing in this regard. I think he's mellowed in his mannerisms, or rather, as he says it, tempers it better with more awareness at the limits of digital communication. He will be a valuable admin, working in areas in sore need of help. And of course, anyone with the balls to walk around the streets of [[Raleigh, North Carolina]] in full [[Court uniform and dress in the United Kingdom|British court dress]] (to include an antique powdered wig) certainly deserves some extra consideration. '''
'''Support''' My opinion is that wikipedia needs more high-quality editors as admins, and nobody is more entitled in my view to answer such a lack than Ironholds.
'''Support''' Noticed him a few times at DYK, and after reviewing his backstory, I'm pretty impressed with the improvement. Good luck!
'''Support''' He does really nice article work, the opposes seem to be a touch overly picky. <strong>
'''Support''' -- No concerns. I did not find the oppose arguments convincing.
'''Deliberate pile-on support''' Was going to stay out of this as it seems a foregone conclusion at this point, but after reading the opposes I felt compelled to add my support anyway.
'''Support''' I run into this editor a lot, including on IRC, and have every reason to believe that they'll handle the mop properly. I think the opposers are being overly pedantic. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • <sup>(
'''Support:''' A GREAT CANDIDATE -
'''Support''' - clearly an appropriate candidate.
'''Support''' - good candidate, and while I can see some faults (in some AFD instances), I think I'd be troubled if I didn't.  The user is clearly a [[Turing test|human]] which is a good start and not [[God|infallible]] which is natural.  On balance, would Wikipedia make a net gain from making Ironholds an admin?  Yes.  Say no more.
'''Support'''. I thought this day might come eventually! I somewhat reluctantly opposed last time. Ironholds seems to have kept his nose clean remarkably well, and his position on deletion has mellowed slightly, which will allow him to better judge AfDs etc. I don't think being on the "wrong" side of some AfD debates should count against him, otherwise we'd probably have no admins. Lots of experience of article writing, familiar with BLP issues, seems to have a good general grasp on policy.
'''Support''' – Most certainly agree with Fences above. Ironholds has greatly improved since the last RFA and to say the least meets my standards of admins. –
'''Support''' - Seen this editor around for awhile, has my support.--v/r -
'''Support''' I've opposed in the past, but people change and Ironholds has been around a long time. The current AFD-related opposition is really unconvincing to me; seems like Ironholds is extremely unlikely to abuse the tools at this point. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Ironholds, I am an editor who was at the receiving end of your verbal outpouring this year, where you told me "not to talk like a hemp-wearing patchouli-smelling hippie from the 60s." I recall I had invited this comment from you after I had irascibly advised you on not CSDing an article that, on the face of it, appeared notable. Yet, this RfA and your contributions since a long time have me convinced of your worthiness for this project. I am sure you'll run into instances where your patience would be tested up to the hilt; and by degrees higher than your past interactions. It is human to err; and you might too in the future. But your honesty above has me sold on you. Best wishes for your adminship tenure.
'''Support'''. I have run into Ironholds quite many a times, but I don't think he'd remember! As far as I know, he is a good contributor, and would make a good admin. '''<font face="verdana">
Thought he already was one.
'''Support''' Very good content work and good answers to the questions. Question #7 in particular had a very good answer.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate at this point. I urge him going forward to take into account all the comments and suggestions made in not just this RfA, but also the prior ones to the extent they remain relevant.
'''Support'''; fully qualified and ready to go.
'''Support''', strongly: an outstanding content contributor, and more than meets the bar for administrator cluefulness. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''' I have supported Ironholds in previous RFAs for one single reason, his effect on my editing has caused me to seek improvemnet. In the past Ironholds has been vocale on my useage of barnstars and as such i aimed at improving this process with favourable results at WP:Reward board. However as recently as two months ago in The thing's RFA i once again found myself at odds with IH. But i feel in this case he was being direct about my rambling (which i do alot and can appear as not making sense). I think IH has a direct way of dealing with individuals, it may appear severe to some but he has wikipedia's best interests at heart. I supported in the past and will do so once again.
'''Support''' - A strong candidate with plenty of experience. I don't have any major concerns.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
You seem like you would do a great job as an admin. ~~
'''Support''' Well-qualified candidate. AfD matters raised below do not convince me, and I consider persistence and a refusal to be discouraged to be a positive quality. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', all the usual green flags, no red flags raised below (I think - I've read Oppose #2 three times now and still can't get my head round it).
'''Support''' - I've seen the candidate around the project and he (?) seems to be a clueful contributor and an active article-builder.
'''Strong Support''' – per the 6 FAs, 50 GAs, 183 DYKs and 13 FLs. Also great experience. [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="green">Perseus]] (
'''Support''' - No brainer.
'''Support''' - There can be no doubt that Ironholds is an outstanding contributor, and it so happens that he was the first Wikipedian I ever met in "real life". I did vote support previously at his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3|third RfA]], and I'm sticking with supporting this time round as well, even if we (probably) don't always agree - though I do think he's answers to question 13 were fair. The oppose that got be closest to not supporting was that by WereSpielChequers (who I have also met for real), and I agree with him that a level 4im warning was a bit hasty here, but I'm willing to forgive this providing that Ironholds takes the feedback on board.
'''Support''' - Editor seems to be level-headed and looks like they can be trusted to [[WP:POWER|wield the tools]] of adminship responsibly. <span style="border:1px solid;border-left:3px solid;border-right:3px solid;background:#D3D3D3">
'''Support'''  Satisfied that he will be a fine admin... though I hope swinging the mop will not keep him away from article creation. '''
'''Support'''. Ironholds is a dedicated editor. He has a good knowledge of the policies/guidelines and provides consistently good quality contributions.
'''Support'''. Even though i've seen him around only a handful of times, i wil trust the judgement of all the experienced above editors who give overwhelming support.
'''Support'''. Hang on, I thought he's an admin already. Guess I was wrong then.
Since this RfA is fast becoming a formality, I would like to welcome you to hell. I hope you have an enjoyable stay and don't burn out too quickly. &mdash;
'''Support''' Dedicated User and around for long time despite several failures in RFA the user has continued with dedication and commitment and has only improved and tried to overcame the concerns raised in previous RFA.Feel giving the user the tools will only benefit the project see no concerns.
'''Support'''. Thought he was an admin already. <font face="Cambria">
'''Support''' More than qualified. Also, the mop really isn't that big of a deal. --
'''Support''' It was a while before I realised he wasn't an admin, too. I've seen him around in AfD and similar places, and have probably disagreed once or twice with him, but have found his work sound. (I'm not always right - really....)

'''Support''' in this case the identities of some of the opposers speaks as well for the cadidate as the mountain of supports.

'''Oppose''' - To many questions are raised by the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bigoted_woman_incident&diff=358868334&oldid=358868114 strong oppose of Bigoted woman incident] 1 minute after AFD opened. Including the continued strong delete rather then 'cover the event' as [[WP:1E]] suggests leaves my head spinning with a very big 'WHY'?.  I could just about excuse people outside the UK who are unknowingly following [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]] by others but the very first !Voter - nope.  So I am left wondering what is going on i.e was it POV political bias, question of making rash decisions, inability to be informed, lack of judge etc. The Wikipedia coverage of bigoted woman incident should be similar to [[Joe the plumber]] to not be hypocritical. The ability to take a basic level of investigation and be ability to hold a neutral point of view are as I see it a basic requirement of being an admin. Therefore my decision is to oppose this candidate. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Anyone who has been through 6 previous RFAs just wants it too badly for me to be comfortable.
'''Strong oppose''' I see no reason to think his judgement has really improved. His proposed delete on the Irish centenaries test case is a prime case of admin super-vote for a situation he admits is evenly balanced. He should at least have known about the existence of a relevant  active arb com case. (and I endorse most of what CW has said)  Basically, the argument he gives for trusting him is that people will be watching if he messes up. That's certainly true, but we need admins who don't need such precautions beyond the ordinary.   '''
'''Oppose''' I am not impressed with the quality of RFA decisions. Excellent editor, but given the direction deletions seem to be moving these days, I do not feel comfortable with the issues outlined above. Issues like the one raised above with Irish centenaries shows he misses the point: an admin should not have to be "watched" to make the right choices but should only become an admin when the "right choice" is the natural one for him or her. I don't think I'd make a good admin, which is why I never tried,and after seven times perhaps this should start to sink in. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Oppose''' I like Ironholds, I've met him at several meetups, and I'm happy to agree with almost everyone on this page that he is a great contributor. But not all great contributors are suitable for adminship. I'm not too concerned about Colonel Warden's oppose, April 2010 is a long while ago and any editor is capable of changing greatly in that time. Nor do I share Short Brigade Harvester Boris's concern - commitment to the project is in my view  a good thing and multiple RFAs are perfectly OK, provided the candidate reacts to the reasons why people have opposed. But I'm not really comfortable with Ironholds having the delete button and block buttons. The incident I've queried in Question 15 is too recent. As is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffalo_Kill&diff=prev&oldid=400660368 this, where Ironholds jumped in straight with a level 4 warning, and I'm still wondering whether it was vandalism or a good faith attempt to rename an article by cut and paste.] Both of these imply to me that the reasons why Ironholds has previously been thought unsuitable for adminship are still current. Would Ironholds be the sort of admin to ignore consensus and go off on an out of process deletion spree? Hopefully not, but I do suspect he would be too quick with both the block and delete buttons, so with great reluctance I must oppose. ''
'''Oppose''' per DGG and Werespielchequers. --
'''Neutral'''. Ironholds' approach to deletion has improved considerably over the last RFA but some concerns over AFD mistakes (for example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Durham Proverbs]] shows a sloppy nomination without following [[WP:BEFORE]] just a month ago and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven T. Murray]] is an example where his nomination has not met any support from the community) and a too aggressive and/or hasty approach to speedy deletion (on these recent examples he later realized that the tagging was not correct: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mycobond&diff=prev&oldid=403567389] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piglet_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=402516134] - these were declined: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1181_Syston_Squadron_ATC&diff=prev&oldid=401518246] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Navea&diff=prev&oldid=400241112] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robyn_Donald&diff=prev&oldid=399984881]; also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ada_of_Huntingdon&diff=prev&oldid=396995074 this A7 was simply incorrect], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinitha&diff=prev&oldid=398180222 taggings within 4 minutes of creation] are strongly discouraged and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohd_Zaquan_Adha&diff=prev&oldid=397865254 A10 is not for plausible redirects]) still remain. As such, I don't think I can support this request - but given the improvements, I won't oppose it either. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' I'm a little bit reluctant to support here I'm afraid, despite the exceptional hard work that you've done over the past couple of years. I've seen you around for a while (Since 2009 I think it was) and I've even nominated one of your GA's which was successful. Even with that, my only concern is the temperament problems that you've had in the past (Despite the fact that you weren't blocked). And also, the answer to Q1, I don't mean to take this personally but that is quite a lot of areas for a newcoming admin, but you're not the only candidate who plans to take part in such a wide range of admin tasks. I'd really appreciate if you do more to the encyclopaedia though, as that is one of your strong areas of Wikipedia so far, but I still think that giving you the privileges would make a great big difference to the whole of Wikipedia.
Minimac's sentiments exactly, I'm afraid (although I applaud the willingness to help out in numerous areas). I may return and potentially reconsider my position, but I'm registering here for now. I do not think granting Ironholds the tools will be hugely detrimental to Wikipedia, but I still occasionally concerned at his characteristically frank manner of communicating.
'''Neutral''' Given that the problems identified by others (SoWhy mainly) are fairly serious and in an area I care about (deletion) I'm leaning toward oppose.  However, given your answers above and generally upstanding behavior since the last RfA I can't bring myself to oppose.
'''Neutral'''.  I think I opposed two and three, and supported four.  I've some concerns that are not heavy enough to weight an oppose, but I cannot muster a support either.  Ironholds has my respect for dedication to the project and its ideals.
'''Neutral''' I would genuinely like to support a quirky sense of humor; but I have two concerns. First, Ironholds would close ''none'' of the AfD examples as keep; this gives no idea what he would find keepable. More seriously, he writes of policies as though they were legislation; they aren't; in the words of David Gerard [[WP:Practical process|on a related subject]], they are Scotch tape and piano wire.
'''Neutral'''. If you're not careful this whole adminship thing (which you'll finally get now) won't end well. Based on your semi-interminable answers above&mdash;and I say that as someone who could/should regularly be tagged as a semi-interminable interlocutor&mdash;you (Ironholds) seem to care a great, great, great deal about being an admin. It's terrific (really, it is) that you want to help even more than you already do (way, way, way more than me and most anyone else who volunteers), but it's also undeniably weird that you want to do so. You are, dare I say it, a weirdo (a good weirdo, but still a weirdo). I read a lot of your answers, but not all of them. I think number 4 was pretty good and I particularly like the idealism and democratic spirit evinced therein. At the same time, much of the support and opposition and discussion on this RfA seems based on the very-personal-experiences-of-others who seem to know you quite well, either via the Real World or via [[WP:AFD|AfD]] (which is the ''real'' real world/shit! as we all know!). Thus in a sense I think this nomination is sort of the opposite of the values you espoused in your answer to question four. The people participating here are overwhelmingly experienced (and heavily en.wikipedia socially networked) Wikipedians, as would be the case for any prominent contributor on their fifth RfA. I think it would have been better for you to not seek adminship at this time, and to just continue contributing as you had previously&mdash;call it a semi-informed hunch offered only as unsolicited advice. It's important to point out in conclusion that you can ignore what I'm saying here if it seems wise to you to do so. --
I'd support, because this user has clue, but Ironholds is a bit too sure of his own judgment and has more than a bit of the deletionist about him.  Frankly, Wikipedia needs yet another deletionist admin like the US National Basketball Team needs platform shoes.  Don't start closing marginal AfDs on the basis of your assessment of the weight of the arguments when you first get the tools, Ironholds--get a bit of practical administrative experience under your belt first.  The "delete" button is your last resort.—
'''Support''' have at it ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. That disambiguation work is pretty thankless, I'd imagine, but essential to supporting readers' navigation.
'''Support''' Experienced editor, seems highly clueful, fully meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]] = A ''genuine'' net positive.
'''Support''' Stud.  -'''
'''Support''' Pretty hard to judge contributions since there's so many, but you meet my RfA criteria and seem to be clueful, and there's no reason to oppose that I'm aware of. My concerns below are still valid. However I feel I can trust you to use the mop responsibly. ''
'''Support''' Although the candidate does not have a great deal of new content creation, the quality vandal fighting & Wikignome work more than make up for it.--
'''Oppose''' - Candidate is not dedicated enough to improving articles. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/Queenmomcat] (j/k) Actually, JaGa's work makes him fully acceptable as an admin in my opinion.
'''Support''' Very experienced editor. Cannot see any issue in the recent edits I have checked. Happy to support. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Support''' Clueful and experienced. He'll do fine.
'''Support''' No worries here '''''
'''Support''' Eminently qualified for the role. I have no doubts that he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. Experienced editor who has shown great dedication to improving Wikipedia, especially in the unglamorous parts like fixing links to disambiguation pages.  IMHO, this kind of behind-the-scenes work is more relevant to judging admin qualifications than generating lots of content; whether one is a superb writer and/or editor has little correlation with the somewhat tedious, detail-oriented daily work of the admins.  Of course, that work does require good judgment in many cases, and good faith in all cases, and JaGa has demonstrated both in abundance. --
'''Support''' No skeletons in this closet... --
The rationales above summarize my quick impression. - Dank (
'''Support''' He will be a good administrator.
'''Support''', clueful, broadly experienced, valued contributor.  Ridiculously prolific at dab-delinking.  One of the reasons I don't try for the Dab Top Three (other is laziness).  Will make a strong admin.
'''Support''' Experienced user and has made a great deal of valued contributions.
'''Support''' likely net positive.
Should have been a long time ago. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''{{ec}}Support''' JaGa was ''extremely'' helpful in cleaning up after the whole TigreTiger fiasco (I can link if you'd like), and his new tool had immediate payoff. Knows what he's doing, and a definite net positive.
'''Support wholeheartedly'''. For future reference, candidates can always come to me for a nomination if they feel it might help.
'''Support'''. A strong and well experienced editor. I like the answers to questions, which come across as straight and honest, and a look through contributions throws up no concerns. --
Sufficiently reliable and trustworthy. JaGa has done some good things. '''
Amongst other things, particularly impressed by the handling of Q4, your "whoops" comment (!) and you collegial discussion with Chzz around it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': An experienced editor who has shown a true dedication to the project. Their contributions and role within WP:Disambiguation, particularly with regards to the DPL project, shows that this user has much to offer and can be trusted with the responsibility required for an admin. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Based on my experience with him, which shows he has experience, clue, calmness, and great awareness of what an encyclopedia is all about.
'''Support'''. Well deserved. Active, experienced, no reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support'''  ~~'''Awsome'''
'''Strong Support''' - Brilliant editor. Great stuff. :)
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''. User has a clue. Talk page conversations are clear evidence that the user is helpful and cooperative, and can hold a conversation in a respectful and friendly manner. Block log is clean. Contributions on the talk pages of disruptive editors are very courteous and diplomatic. Contribution history shows many, many positive and helpful edits; the ones I looked at were on the gnomish side, and I'd like to see a higher article-to-talk ratio in general, but all in all, I have no doubts.
'''Support''' Sure. Prolific editor well focused on content. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? <small>And, what's good enough for drmies, is good enough for me!</small>--
'''Support''' Very dedicated contributors like this deserved the mop a LONG time ago. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Clearly a candidate with a sufficient amount of clue.
'''Support''' Per the very competent people above.
Looks like this editor is ready to become an admin user.  Good luck to you.  &ndash;
'''Support''': Cooperative user. I like his tools. --
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to trust this user with the mop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''', appears to have clue.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The concerns expressed by the opposers so far are completely unpersuasive.
'''Support'''. Experienced and clueful editor. <span style="">
'''Support''' Well qualified candidate.  --
No problems. Opposes completely unconvincing.
'''Support:''' After a year and a half on Wikipedia, I decided to participate in an RfA discussion this morning. I'm pleased to say that my first determination on a nominee's worthiness to be an administrator can be one of support. After thorough analysis, I find no reason why you shouldn't soon be Wikipedia's newest admin. --
'''Support:'''No reason why not--
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' per above.  Good editors make good admins.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Give him the mop. Enough with the lame excuses for why someone proven responsible shouldn't obtain adminship. How much damage can he do? It can always be revoked. <b><font color="brown">
'''Support''' Looks like valuable editor and a good potential admin.--
Support.   <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' – Definitely. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - you're not an admin already!?
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you'll make a great admin!
'''Support''' Superb candidate, trustworthy. I'd like to reiterate the support of the editors above me. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support'''—No  red flags. I especially liked your answer to question six :).
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate for success...
'''Support''' Great work. --
'''Support'''. Limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support'''. Just happened to stop by, and noticed the request of someone I trust. Also allows me to check in and reassure anyone interested that I am all right after the earthquake/tsunami.
'''Support'''. Straightforward and honest.(
'''Support''' More than solid editing experience, good answers here. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' {{ec}} I was considering being your 'suitor' ;-) but self-nom works too. '''
'''Support''' Good editing experience, and I'm wondering why he wasn't made an admin a few years ago. This should be an RfB :P .
Why not? <font color="00ff00">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good experience and no major issues for me. Helps out in copy editing as well, which is much needed in order to raise the quality of work in the encyclopedia. – '''
'''Support''' "Good enough" - I know that isn't a fantastic ringing endorsement - but it is an honest one, and I hope it will encourage you take careful note of the more negative comments. The primary concern is, this "trying something new" attitude and lack of specific evidence of CSD (and saying that is what you want to try). However, I ''think'', from our interactions on your talk and your very good conduct in responses on this RfA that you've got the most important skill - "common sense" - knowing when to be cautious, when to double-check yourself, and when it's best to ask other people for advice. Your clearly demonstrated common sense has outweighed the concerns, hence I land here. And now I'm waffling. G'luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' - Drmies and Chzz have said it all.
'''Support'''. Conscientious, clueful and civil editor; little admin-related experience, but demonstrates all the character attributes of a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Give the fella a mop - he should do a good job.
--
per TCO. '''
'''Support'''. This is an easy support for me, lots of positives and no red flags. Go ahead, try something new, nothing wrong with that. (And I have to say, from my earlier lab research career, that [[apamin]] has a warm spot in my heart.) --
'''Support'''. Great user who deserves adminship.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' I see no red flags here, and no reason to distrust the candidate. '''''
[[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>

'''Oppose''' per the answer to Question #4.  I'm sorry, but BLP's that appear non-notable are not tagged as A7's.
'''Oppose'''.  Inability to give a structured response to a simple question.  You do not detail what you actually did.  How much prose, how many refs, etc.  You leave me having to go research through diffs.  That is unsat.  The whole article concerns legislation, but you say you described legislation.  If you can not describe what you did on an article, I'm concerned about your ability to contribute content or to synthesize arguments in AFD or the like.  We are in the business of synthesizing content for users...
'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced by the responses to questions, nor I trust you. This vote doesn't weigh much anyway (comparing it to the supportive totality), so best of luck.
Nominated by ''both'' Courcelles and MRG, wow. Overly qualified candidate.
Support.
'''Support''' Everything checks out for me.  I'm almost willing to support because [[User:Moonriddengirl]] nominated alone.  But honestly, checking random contribs, created articles, edit count, edit summary usage, automated edits and it all checks out.  Great candidate.--v/r -
'''Support''' as co-nom. (<small>Oh, we're live! :D</small>) --
{{EC|2}} '''Strong support''' - Willing and able to deal with copyright issues, and capable in other admin areas.
Certainly.
'''Support''' per noms. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' January is a very friendly person who has an amazing knowledge in the matter of copyright. She also helped to rescue one of the best tennis player nowadays, [[Svetlana Kuznetsova]], which GA nomination was quick failed due to copyright infringement. She explained why this can not be a copyright violation on its talk page. That was absolutely amazing, since she wasn't asked to review it. She just jumped in an began to review it! She absolutely deserves the tool!--<span style="background-color:#FF7F24;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"><font color="black">
'''Support''' The tandem strength of your nomination is intriguing. The quality of your contributions coupled with sensibility and a mature regard for propriety transform that intrigue into staunch support.
'''Support''' - Impressive nom and co-nom support, and from what I've seen, she should make a fine admin. —
'''Support''' She should have no problems at all.
Seen around, should be fine (though running in January would have been more appropriate, even though the weather (here at least) is basically like January!)
Absolutely no reason why not, a great candidate for adminship. Per above, though, what are you doing being nominated in May? :P
'''Support'''. Yep, all-round very knowledgeable and friendly contributor - such skills and experience are greatly needed in the Copyright and BLP fields --
'''Somewhat researched support'''.  Checked out her GA and the DYKs.  I looked at the article talk with most contribs (Richard Littlejohn) and also snooped her use talk.  Articles seem pretty short in general, but there is a decent number of them.  Has a very calm tone dealing with users who are going to get a vanity article deleted or some POV-pushing text pulled from a BLP they want to savage.  Basically is a credit to the project and has the tone that will work well dealing with problems.
No problem, Cass.  &ndash;
'''Support''' I remember seeing her around as Cassandra 73 and have nothing but the highest opinion of her communication skills and general common sense.  She'll wield the mop well. --''
Glad to '''support'''. Impressed by your UAA reports and CSD taggings (and by your nominators' statements). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Candidate has demonstrated impressive copyright work and a broad understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I also give great weight to the two top-drawer nom's in this instance.--
'''Support'''. A rare combination of writing skills, policy knowledge, calm dialogue, and common sense makes January an ideal candidate for the mop.--
{{ec}} '''Support''' based on a review of contributions, which evidenced deep understanding of a range of policies and excellent communication skills. --
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' - will do just fine in the areas she intends to work in from what I've seen --
'''Support''' — I trust the nominators, as well as the candidate. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
We definitely need more admins to work in copyright, and there's quite possibly no one whose weight carries more weight than Moonriddengirl when it comes to coptright issues. If MRG trusts you to do that job, by all means we should make sure you can take up the mop and do that job.
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate, don't see any problems.
'''Support''' - Everything I have looked at says that January will be a great admin.  I see no problems.
'''Support''' Big noms, no concerns '''
Let's see ... two of the best nominators possible, one of the awesomest usernames out there, some excellent writing, and experience dealing with copyvios. The only issue I have with this whole RfA was Courcelles' misuse of an apostrophe in his nomination ("12 DYK's"). :) <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Happy to '''support''' this well-qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Seems to be clueful and qualified for the mop. A check of the candidate's contributions revealed no problems that would let me believe they were not qualified to be a good admin. Regards '''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' - I did not recognize the [[User:January|January]] username, but absolutely recognized [[User:Cassandra 73|Cassandra 73]] as one of our best content contributors. She is an excellent Wikipedian,  very knowledgable about our policies and well respected by others. She will be an excellent addition to our admin corps. Being nominated by two of our best is just icing on the cake. I'll be very happy to see her with the additional tools and look forward to her participation in the admin areas. - '''''
'''Support''' deleted contributions look good, concentrating on advertising and copyright violation, with a few pagemove requests, prods and AFDs.
'''Support'''. I was familiar with this editor under her prior name, where I saw her doing good work in anti-vandalism and other areas. So support.
'''Support'''. Initially I was like "who's January"? But I've seen Cassandra 73 around, and she doing pretty good work. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]

'''Support''' Good work! I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin --
'''Support''' Trusted and knowledgeable candidate, no problems here. Will do a good job.--
'''Support''' – I see no issues here. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - I trust Moonriddengirl's judgement.
'''Support''' - as per the nomminee's comments and clueful and the apparent mature and common sense attitude of the candidate.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' Well rounded candidate, plenty of experience, mature, should do well. '''''
'''Support''' No problems, will make a good admin. ''<B>--
Looks like a fantastic candidate - '''support'''.

'''Support''' More copyright-savvy admins are needed. The content work and understanding is also a big plus.
At long effing last! ;) Easily fits into that "should have been an admin ages ago" category and I can think of few editors as qualified or as clueful as January.
Done some good work. '''
Will make an excellent admin.
We need people who understand copyright well.
Appears to be communicative and clueful. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' No reason not to and she'd be useful with the mop
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - seems like a thoroughly decent and highly capable user.
'''Support''' Actually, that was a perfect answer to my question.
'''Support''' - Clearly more than qualified. Answers to questions are fairly impressive. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
Having had a look over your answers to the questions here and your efforts at UAA. You demomstrate [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and I don't see any issues, that's enough for me to support. Wield the mop well. <font face="Forte">
I went and checked almost everything: random contribs, some articles they created, edit count, edit summary usage, ect., ant everything checked out to my tastes. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' Can't see any reason why not. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' January seems to have ample qualifications for adminship. ''
'''Support''' Appears to be a very good candidate, and impressive answers to the questions, except for one point: ''don't rely on Google Translate'' ("anos" is Spanish for "anuses" (plural of "anus") - the Spanish for "years" is "años"). --
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support'''. Seems completely unnecessary to add my two cents here, but the candidate appears to have very solid qualifications in copyright and an excellent, non-confrontational attitude. We could do with more of both. —&nbsp;
'''Support''', overdue, <s>Cassandra</s>January is effective and awesome.  <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Fully  qualified.
'''[[Mens sana in corpore sano]]'''  —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' good chance will be a net positive
Certainly.
'''Support''' - Certainly seems qualified.--
'''Support''', perfect answers -
'''Support''' - Good communication skills, good answers to RfA questions, great contributions including to Wikipedia space. -- '''
'''Support'''.
This candidate has all of the qualifications necessary to be a great administrator. That said, I place my vote in the '''support''' section.
Looks good, can be trusted with the extra tools. -
'''many fine reasons above.'''
'''Support''' I can't find any concerns, and user clearly demonstrates good knowledge of policy, good sense, and polite, diplomatic communication skills. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''', good candidate and having someone like MRG as a nom is rather helpful. @Question 7, you did take that way too seriously, but I liked your answer nonetheless. Enjoy the extra tools and feel free to ask me for help anytime.
Perfect answer to Q7. --

Clueful at UAA. ''
'''Support'''. Seen this user around in copyright-related areas, and I'm sure they'll make a good admin. Good luck.
More admins working in copyright issues is always a great thing. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' any month of the year! Maybe not that much experience, but enough, and very consistently clueful and will contribute in useful areas. Two great nominators. --
'''Support''' You should go with "WP:RIGHTNOW"!  ~~
'''Support''' Absolutely! I have no concerns.
Wait...isn't it June at the moment? Shouldn't this be a New Year Nom? :) Ah well. Seriously though, January is a name I am familiar with, and her content, anti-vandalism, and copyright work are excellent: I'm sure she'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' Trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Oppose'''  Has little experience  with contentious situations.  Will be incapable like most of the recent batch of admins, who all they want is the glory, but not really do anything.  Unimpressed by this nomination.  But the RfA process is nothing more than a beauty contest where big smiles count more than real competence.
'''Strong support''' I have been waiting for this one. Jimp has been an immense help with programming and debugging some of the most highly transcluded templates.  I have always known him to be extremely civil and levelheaded.  I believe he would make an exceptional admin.
'''Strong support'''; long overdue.  There is no reason why anyone should oppose this request; it is a slam-dunk.  &mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''; clear need, clueful longtime. He probably should have accepted when someone offered to nominate him a year ago ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimp&oldid=347979005#Would_you_become_admin_to_update_Convert])! <small>'''
'''Strong Support''' Your contributions have been invaluable to this project and will continue to be with the mop :) Best of luck--
'''Support''' I think we need more admins who specialize on article templates, and this user fits the bill.
'''Sure''', active trusted user. No doubt in my mind that he'd use the mop well.
'''Support''' - Redesigned {{tlx|convert}}? Wow....
'''Support''' per his answer to question three.  He seems to be very neutral and objective in his arguments.  I believe he would be a perfect candidate for admin.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - To be honest Jimp seems almost overqualified for the admin role, that's the only negative I see in this RfA. -- '''
'''Support''' Clear, well-articulated need for the tools. Well-qualified.--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Will obviously put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' per awesome template work.--v/r -
'''Support''' No concerns here.
'''Support'''. Access to protected templates would help enhance an already-impressive contribution record here, and provide us with an excellent admin into the bargain --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Good job.
Why not? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' – I see absolutely no reason why not to support. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Check of a month's worth of communication indicates that the candidate is more than capable of comporting himself well and he clearly needs the mop. --
'''Support''' - Capable, knowledgeable and fully qualified candidate. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' Can see no reason to oppose and we need all the help we can get - pass the mop!
'''Support''' - Candidate needs +sysop to continue their demonstrated capability in areas restricted to members of that usergroup. Clearly capable, not going to do any damage with the extra bits. Content contribution is not limited to writing articles - templates and navigation are very much part of this encyclopedia. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Clueful longterm uncontentious editor who has a clear need for the tools. I like the clean blocklog and saw nothing to worry about in the deleted contributions. ''
'''Support'''. Don't see any reason not to&mdash;the candidate clearly knows what he's doing and how to go about the said doing.—
'''Support''' I think it is unfortunate that admin is needed to work effectively in the area of templates, but being that it is, and that the candidate has an extensive history working with them, I see no reason not to support. Just be cautious using the mop in areas where you are less familiar.
'''Support''' - Yeah, he seems fine. I think can be trusted with the tools. '''
Not overly impressed with the content work, but the candidate is trustworthy and has clearly expressed his reasoning for the tools, so I don't see why I shouldn't support. '''
'''Support''' - I see no problems.

'''Support per pedro'''
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' I'm impressed, TBH. ''
'''Support''': As someone who also works on templates, I have seen his contributions, and I have no reservations with handing him a mop. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Would make a good level-headed admin.
'''Support''' I've looked through this candidate's contributions, and they are more than qualified for the mop. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. I get the impression that some of the answers to questions are not very direct; but having reread them, and having looked at a random sample of contribs, I'm confident that Jimp is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop - definitely a net positive.
I find no reason not to support, and it is always handy to have template editors who can edit protected templates. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' - Candidate performs useful service and could do with the tools. I have no issues with his editing history. '''''
'''Support''' I've not come across Jimp directly, but as I don't work on templates that's not surprising. Lack of content creation? Aren't templates a specialised form of content? Apart from which, I can't see that someone who has managed to do what's been done so far going wild with deletions, or closing AfDs as Keep when six regulars have !voted delete and one SPA has !voted keep.

'''Support''', switching from neutral per the comments I made there.
'''Support'''. Jimp makes a good case for needing the mop, and nothing I've seen suggests he'd do anything but good with it.
I prefer specialized admins who know where they're going to stick to, not sure why others don't actually. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support'''. Has a very valid need of a subset of the tools, and nothing in the history or his demeanor suggests that he would misuse the rest -
'''Support'''. I'm delighted to find that Jimp is taking the plunge. He is very knowledgeable in his field, level-headed, aware of [[WP:INVOLVED]], and just the kind of admin we need. Contrary to some of my wikifriends' views, I see no reason an admin should have a stellar record in article writing. The skill-base can overlap with the kind of admin protection we need, but in many ways it does not.
'''Support'''. I've seen his contributions over a long period. He's done a huge amount for the project. I think he's shown a great deal of gravitas and patience with both with novices and old-timers. I think he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. I decided that template and article contribs are great. Doesn't really matter what number of edits he makes to each namespace. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazymonkey1123/guestbook&action=edit Sign]
'''Support''', no evidence that this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me. --
'''Support'''. It's ridiculous that the admin tool set is bundled in the way that it is, but that's not the fault of the candidate. As Pedro says in his comment in the oppose section, it's either all the tools or none of them, but clearly Jimp has a legitimate need to edit through page protection, so ...
No one has brought up any trust issues in the template work Jimp is doing already. Given his record, I also trust him to either confine himself to that area or be cautious in expanding his use of admin tools.--
'''Support''' - consistent activity levels, active in templates which is an area that has much to offer. nice level of temperament and common sense approach to things. --
'''Support''' Seems a relevant choice...
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jimp&diff=prev&oldid=433346908 per this assurance]; despite your limited experience in admin-related areas, I trust you not to misuse the tools. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Competent, level-headed, and a [[pay it forward]] attitude. -

I don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' - Extremely strong candidate, and incredibly knowledgeable with regards to this place.
'''Support''' - Because no lessor right exist to allow this user to effectively function and I trust the candidate.
'''Support'''. The candidate is fully qualified for the tasks he wants primarily to focus on, and I trust him to move cautiously in expanding his use of administrator tools to other areas.
'''Support''' - Candidate seems knowledgeable about policies and guidelines and fit my criteria completely. Great answers to my questions as well. Good luck. [[User:Croisés Majestic/Guestbook|—]]<span style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' - See no reason to oppose, knows policies and guidelines and editing looks good.
Clear need for editing protected templates, obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' Administrators who specialize in the template department are desirable and can help to improve the project immensely. Jimp is knowledgeable, experienced, and all in all well-qualified to use the tools to work with protected templates and at TfD. The addition of referenced content to articles is preferable for most candidates, but this is one of those cases where I think it's unnecessary because of the excellence of other contributions.
'''Support''' This is a judgment call. I think on the balance that he'll learn to do it well, and will correct his mistakes when they are pointed out to him. Usually I think it best for someone to learn a little more first, & show it by a longer record,  but this is close enough. When in doubt,  I go a lot by how someone handles the AfD, and I think he's doing it right.    '''
'''Support''' The template work  is essential and he needs the backstage pass. We occasionally grant  the tools for specialists and as this is such  a case I'm  not  worried about  him not  meeting  all  my  criteria. I  have every  confidence that  he will  use any  other tools wisely  when he gets used to  them. --
'''Support''' trustworthy, has need of bit.  That's enough.
'''Support'''. On the one hand, the candidate is going to contribute in a specific area for which he is extremely well qualified, and where there is a need. On the other hand, per the kinds of issues that are discussed in Jim Miller's oppose, I ask myself what the risks might be if, hypothetically, the candidate later decides to move into other administrative areas. Given how long he has been here with a clean block log, and with no evidence of drama that I can find by going back over his talk history, I figure that the risks are low. Thus, a clear net positive. --
'''Support'''  Per review of contributions, a clear if narrow immediate use for the tools.  The contribution record suggests this editor has cluefulness and demonstrates appropriate levels of caution should they ever move into new areas.  --
'''Support''' Jimp does wonderful work in the template namespace. I don't have any concerns.
'''Support''' We need more template specialists to handle editprotected requests in that namespace.
'''Support'''.  Good addition.--
'''Sorry.'''  I was looking for more demonstration of adding referenced content.  For someone with that skill with templates to be doing references that are not inline citations, that are just renamed websites.  Would support you after seeing some work on the content side.  Think it is important for our admins to have some experience with creating the content as well.  Would be fine if you concentrate on coding, but need to see at least some more experience in writing referenced paragraphs.  Looks like you basically have not done it practically at all.
'''Oppose''' - Not sure why this user needs the admin bit. If the admin bit were more nuanced, like, say, any modern security system, perhaps I'd consent to this limited scope, but the admin system we have isn't... and I see no record or history that makes this blanket adminship the least bit necessary.
'''Oppose'''. I understand Jimp's request to handle protected templates. However I can't seem to find even a single XfD contribution. (I have looked back to October 2010.) I do not want to see Jimp given the deletion tools or authority to close XfDs. Content contribution isn't great either.
'''Oppose''' I regretfully oppose this RfA on the basis of a lack of significant content contributions. Templates are an important part of making things work, and a difficult part to master. I do not believe that specialist admins are the right way to go in furtherance of the project. If the admin bit did not include the delete button, I would gladly support this user for the editprotected right to do the work that they have shown a great ability to perform. Alas, the admin bit should not be given to those who do not write content, and I cannot support this nomination. I understand that this is still listed as an argument to avoid in an RfA, but I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. '''
'''Support''' Like what I see.
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' He's done some GAs in the roads projects as well, seems like a good editor. --'''
'''Support''' - partly based on nom, partly on spot review of last 500 contributions. Looks like a good addition to the corps. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. If memory serves me correctly, I've only interacted with this editor once, to tell him about an edit of his I undid. He responded in a friendly, courteous and conciliatory manner, and a brief review of his talk page archives and his edits to some other users' talk pages shows that this was not an aberration.
I don't see why not. &ndash;
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Why not? - user has no editing restriction or arbitration restrictions.
'''Support''' Cerebral answers to questions bespeaks a strong candidate--
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - I'm fully confident you'll do great with the mop. <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
{{Ec}}'''Support''' – having seen this guy contribute positively and interact well with others around the 'pedia, it's an easy yes.
Final-friggin-lutely. And if I have to make up a word for this, it means something. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Demote''' to admin and assign a mop. Don't see any reason why not.
'''Support''' from the answers to the nom, it looks like he will make a great Administrator. --  '''
Has always been a level head at [[WP:ITNC]].
'''Support''' A level-headed person. He certainly deserves the mop.
'''Support''' I was almost going to oppose because of the vague support for recall but that would be as silly as opposing over a term limit.  The rest of the nomination and answers to questions look to be on the right track. Also deleted contribs look good with AFD's and prods and speedy delete nominations.  Looks to be a tidy person not leaving a mess behind. There is also a second account {{User|KsØstm}} with no contribs.  Uploads looks to be pretty sparse though!
'''Support'''. We could do with more admins at ITN and Steve's input there has always been sensible. I've seen nothing to doubt that he'd do an excellent job as an admin.
'''Support:''' This user seems like an excellent candidate for the mop.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
No concerns I can see, seen good stuff from this user. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. ​—
'''Strong oppose''' - The candidate supports the idea of admin recall.
'''Support''' - Has a been a good active editor with sufficient contributions, has proper disposition to be an admin.--'''
'''Support''' The opposes should consider that sometimes ''quality is a quantity of its own'' - this is such a time. Also admin recall.--
'''Support''' candidate seems qualified and I can't find any problems. I did see a few reports to AIV that weren't blocked, but in each case blocking would have been a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. I'm also not impressed with the oppose rationales, especially the first two. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support'''. I've had nothing but great experiences working with him. ♫
'''Support''' Partly to cancel out the unpersuasive oppose votes. No cause for concern is evident
Well qualified candidate. I did notice one article where the candidate tagged it as A7 and I might have indulged in slightly less AGF. 23lbs struck me as awfully heavy for a baby and none a somewhat unusual number of friends, but it was a while ago and seems an isolated incident. I've read the oppose section and am not sure which I find odder, criticising someone with a GA for lack of content contributions, or opposing someone in order to promote a policy change. Neither struck me as a good reason to oppose this or any candidate. ''
'''Support''' - I'm familiar with Ks0stm from various places around the encyclopedia and he has always had [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] and coherent input from what I recall. The oppose votes below are completely unconvincing, anyone that can help bring an article to GA status through over 100 edits definitely knows something about content. -- '''
'''Support''' – Ks0stm's work has been exemplary across the areas in which he wishes to edit in as an admin. Giving him the mop would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' I'm always on the oppose bandwagon for not contributing content for Wikipedia, but it'd be ignorant of me to do so here. Unlike other candidates I've opposed, this one actually ''has'' tried to write for Wikipedia instead of deleting everything for brownie points or having everyone else do all the work. Good Article promotions to [[Storm Prediction Center]] and [[K-104 (Kansas highway)]] are more than enough for me. No valid reason found to oppose yet. '''
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support''' - The admin community could use some new blood. --
Forgot to support! :)
'''[[WP:Net Positive|Support]]''' And also [[2011 Joplin tornado|Try not to get blown away]] {{=)}}--
'''Support''' we need more, not less, competent people to deal with Wikipedia's backlogs and pressing issues. I find no reason not to support.
'''Support''' - I've seen the candidate around here and there; they seem alright. The situation in Q3 was a bit of a screw-up, but not terribly concerning if that's the worse that has happened.
'''Support''' Competent and qualified, and per nom. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' - I see no problems. Mop please.
'''Support''', strong candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' trustworthy candidate, oppose opinions regarding Q3 are of no concern to me (they are taking the [[WP:MEDICAL|medical disclaimer]] a bit too dogmatically, it is only a disclaimer and not a prohibition against asking such questions). '''
'''Support''' - Why not? — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
Q3 is concerning, but I put more stock in a user's track record than answers to questions. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Q3 is concerning, but at least he realizes it and if that is the worst people can come up with, he'll do.--
'''Support.'''
Should do fine.
'''Support''' moved from Oppose. I have some reservations about this editor, particularly surrounding Q3. But I see far, far more good than I do bad.
'''Support''' I think the candidate will be a net positive admin. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support.''' Not only is Q3 not that big of a deal, it happened at a time when a bunch of questions were getting removed from refdesks for various reasons, not all of which had clear consensus. Knowing the environment, it would be a shame to let that generate so much heat. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''', honestly, I don't agree with opposer's concerns. This user can handle the tools IMO.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support''' - We need more admins, and this user is good enough if not better. -
'''Support''' Having watched this RFA run, and taking into account the support and oppose commentary, I'm personally of the opinion that adding the bit is a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]]. Should this pass I'm sure Ks0stm will take note of the concerns raised in opposition. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Per reasons above I see no reason to oppose. We need all the admins we can get. --
'''Support''' - As best as I can tell, he has more than adequate knowledge of the rules that admins should abide by. The opposes and neutrals have not unearthed anything that would make me think that making him an admin would harm the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - I have been watching this one for a while trying to figure out where to land.  I have some concerns but I don't think those concerns out weigh the good so this is where I end up.
'''Support''' per glowing nom review and conversation in neutral section. That and I couldn't find anything wrong.
Sensible editor. Quite a few of the opposes are spectacularly unpersuasive. Also, I trust Julian.
'''Support''' (moved from Neutral.) I like the answers - keeping cool and rational.
'''Weak Support'''. I've looked at that Q3 set of diffs and thought pretty hard about them. My reading of the original post by the candidate is that it actually was ''not'' a request for medical advice, but rather, a request for information beyond what was found in a search engine search, but it was poorly expressed in a manner that could very easily be misread as a request for medical advice. Not a great performance, and disturbingly recent, but not as bad as it has been made out to be, and the candidate drew attention to it himself. I don't see editors here showing evidence that it has been part of an ongoing pattern. It seems too much of a single event to rise to the level of a deal breaker. Frankly, I'd rather see more maturity and more content experience, but I end up feeling on balance that I trust the candidate to be an administrator. Please don't prove me wrong. --
'''Support''' Although I would have liked someone to ask a difficult AfD question, but he appears not to be interested in the difficult cases there. <g>
'''Support''' per Tryptofish.  If Q3 represents this Wikipedian's darkest moment, there is not much to worry about here.
'''Support''' - After a thorough review, I can say the concerns raised by others appear to be glitches in an otherwise excellent Wikipedian career and don't outweigh the helpful work the candidate has done. The candidate is levelheaded, knowledgeable and learns from his mistakes. I'm certain he'll make a fine admin and he has my full support. - '''''
'''Support''' {{ec}} Although the candidate does not check all [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my criteria]], I trust Ks0stm not to misuse the tools. Points have been raised in the opposition section about age/maturity which I tend to agree with somewhat, but do not find them compelling enough for me not to voice my support; I tend to see those comments directed at age criteria in general for adminship, rather than an evaluation of the candidate's expected performance as an admin. I see no obvious patterns of behavior that would not be befitting for an admin and I am sure they will take this and other concerns expressed by the opposition on board.
After further reflection I am confident that '''all''' things considered requires this nomination to succeed. My confidence in some of the CSD tags has diminished slightly, and I do ask Ks0stm to use the tools for CSD with abundant caution unless he is absolutely sure. I trust Ks0stm and that has not diminished, so I have every reason to believe he will take this advice and bring it to bear with his administrative actions. And why in the world should I let Murphy determine my actions? I think not.
'''Support''' Tryptofish seems to sum up Q3 well.  I'm not really sure what the fuss is about.
'''Support''' - I don't see any cause not to support. I feel I can trust this user. [[w:User:Mlpearc|<font color="800020" ><b>Mlpearc</b></font>]] <small>
'''Support'''. Candidate has reasonable content contributions, and has also demonstrated thoughtful reasoning and calm and polite answers in their answers to the numerous additional questions. As has been persuasively argued both here and elsewhere, the negative incident described in the answer to Q3 shows a mistake at the time - which the candidate acknowledged in his initial answer - but is not so catastrophic as to imply a total lack of judgement. The candidate clearly has an adequate breadth of knowledge of policy, and a longstanding commitment to collaborative improvement of the encyclopedia; I don't see any significant concerns. --
I don't see any problem with the candidate myself.  Best of luck to you.  '''
'''Support''' (moving from Neutral).  Although I'm still a bit concerned about Q3, I've decided I don't see it as an impassable roadblock, and I'm hopeful that Ks0stm will take everything said here to heart and strive to keep improving (something we all should be doing, of course).
'''Oppose'''. Candidate has not committed to a term limit or to specific recall criteria. Sorry. No other concerns. --
''' Oppose'''. The situation you describe in Q3. It IS a request for medical advice and arguing the toss (instead of accepting it and letting the matter drop) looks self-serving. Your tone and manner used - you say that ''"Given the chance again I would probably express my opinion with less strong of wording..."'' and then describe it as ''"...a good model of how I operate under stress...when conflict arises, I initiate discussion and accept consensus, even if it's not a consensus that I agree with."'' That's a good model indeed but it's not what you did. You reverted <s>twice</s> before "initiating discussion" by kicking off with an attitude that does not demonstrate the necessary temperament expected from an admin. If you'd described this incident along the lines of "I was wrong, I then threw a tantrum", that would throw a different light on things but trying to show this incident as an example of your good judgment makes for the double whammy.
'''Oppose'''. As per answer to Q3 and Epipelagic.
'''(Weak) Oppose''' For <s>two </s>one reason (1) Intellectual and social ''maturity''. (a) His answer to '''Q3 '''is very troublesome—'''All voters should read the diffs'''.<small> I accept his statement that he accepts consensus when it goes against him.</small> <s>He</s>His initial answer acknowledged that  "consensus" was against him but seemed to ignore that his posting violated ''WP policy''. Already,  he should have apologized for posting a medical question, re-inserting it with a revert, and then discussing it so casually here: Those diffs and his response here raise troublesome questions about precision in writing and about social maturity, particularly his ability to foresee others' concerns and then persuasively address them. He addressed this concern better in the "Comments" section, so I reduce this to a ''weak oppose''. 19:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC) <s>(b) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ks0stm&diff=prev&oldid=407216386 Being grounded in January 2011 and having that parental punishment prevent him from editing Wikipedia, ''except during school-time'']</s> Explanation on my talk page shows character. (2) ''Inexperienced in extended discussions'': I fail to see any evidence that he has successfully had an extended discussion of any content issue, or any extended discussion of Wikipedia policy or any efforts at mediation (or bomb-throwing) between contending editors. Thus, he seems to be a wild-card. On the other hand, I mention two strengths: (3)  on many other edits, he seems stable and serious during  ANI discussions. (4) He has greatly improved one article, which was technically challenging. (''ω'') In summary, if he sticks to obvious administrative clean-up, he could do fine, but I would worry about him doing any mediation, etc. He should continue to develop over the next years: If he writes a few articles in the next 6 months, then I should be happy to support him. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the situation described in Q3, which occurred very recently; less than 6 weeks ago.  In my opinion, posing the question ''at all'' shows maturity issues and a lack of understanding of the Reference Desk's purpose.  The reverting and complaining also indicates a possible [[WP:COMPETENCE|competence]] issue; an administrator needs to be able to perform basic tasks like determining whether or not a question is a request for medical advice.  I mean, you were literally asking whether &mdash; based on your described symptoms &mdash; you had a bone bruise, a cracked bone, or a broken bone.  Regardless of how long ago it happened (which you don't initially specify, you only say "At one time a while ago" which could mean last week), on what universe is that not a request for a diagnosis and/or medical advice?  To have an admin applying this level of logic to real Wikipedia issues scares me.
'''Oppose'''. Clearly a good editor on most levels, and might well be a good admin in the future, but right now I have too many concerns to ignore. The edits linked in Q3 are troublesome, basically per Snottywong (although I'm impressed that the issue was brought up voluntarily). I'm also disappointed by the creation of two [[WXM87|unsourced]] [[WXL71|articles]] less than a month ago - verifiability is a fundamental policy that administrators should be able to understand and implement correctly. Given that we have fairly few recent edits to judge (only 430 since May), I would have liked to see much more consistency. Keep doing the good bits, don't repeat the mistakes and source those articles and I expect to support in six or seven months - although this looks likely to pass anyway, in which case I hope you prove me wrong.
'''Oppose''' for now; I would be happy to reevaluate some (significant amount of) time down the road.  Although only one incident, the answer to Q3 was concerning enough to prompt me to look at the rest.  My biggest problem with the answer to Q3 is that it is offered as an example of how the nominee responds to conflict, and as such, is not a good one.  Had the nominee simply said "I got into confict and I was quite wrong-- something that I accept today", I suspect he might be passing RFA easily; to be able to admit when you are so clearly and blatantly wrong is a sign of maturity and competence.  The incident was recent.  That the nominee doesn't recognize how wrong he was, and offers this as an example of how to handle conflict, is a concern for me; I had a big issue, leading to an RFC once, with an immature admin who wouldn't simply acknowledge that his use of tools was wrong, which could have easily solved the whole thing without wasting many other editors' time.  Two other problems with his response there:  "I've been around long enough that people should know by now I would be smarter than to ask for medical advice on Wikipedia)...it could have been answered with a simple link or explanation to the differences in symptoms between two conditions."  1)  A possible tendency towards arrogance which may make it hard to recognize when one is wrong ("I would be smarter"???), and 2) "it could have been answered with a simple link" shows a willingness to disrespect other editor's time-- if it could have been answered with a simple link, then do it yourself.  Looking at the rest of the picture, I simply do not see enough content contributions from this editor to assure me that maturity, knowledge, and competence are present.  The recent uncited articles are another big concern, showing both a lack of respect for other editors' time (someone else will have to clean those up, and that should have been done by now by the nominee) and a lack of respect for core Wikipedia policies.  All in all, too many concerns that are too recent.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but your answer to Q3 is a dealbreaker for me too: I agree with {{u|Snottywong}} that it shows maturity issues. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Regretful oppose''' Sorry, but I've checking the links to the answer to question three. I'd expect an experienced user to be less stressed in the given situation at the Reference Desk, and would also expect you to understand the Reference Desk "policy" - I think that it ''is'' a request for medical advice, contrary to the [[Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer|Wikipedia's medical disclaimer]]. However, I am '''not''' concerned about your age/maturity, as I am a student myself. However, I'm praising [[K-104 (Kansas highway)]], regardless of the minimal size and number of sources, I can see you did your best. Sorry to oppose, '''
'''Oppose'''. Too low [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=+Ks0stm&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia count] in article space. Also, the user doesn't have enough article-building experience. ''
'''Change from neutral to oppose''' - I like a lot of what I see and there is some great content editing in there; however, Q3 did concern me. The tone used, both in the edit summaries and the final initiated discussion, was too aggressive for an admin IMO. I appreciate you saying that you would ideally respond in a calmer manner in the future; however, decisions are made in the heat of the moment. If this was 6-12 months ago, it would be less of a problem; however, the incident occurred less than 2 months ago, which leads me to oppose. Given time and evidence of improved handling of these situations, I would support the nomination.
'''Oppose''' per Snottywong, and this was barely over a month ago.
'''Oppose''' edit summaries in question 3 too aggressive not admin like behavior. '''
To be honest, q3 doesn't trouble me too much. [[Storm Prediction Center]], the candidate's main content contribution does.  Most of the article is sourced to the subject's website and has obviously not been kept up to date since the green dooby-wacker was (in my view, wrongly) given. --
'''Oppose''' There are numerous indications of a lack of understanding of issues related to administration. The problems with the answer to question 3 have already received a good deal of attention, and rightly so: the candidate here showed a fundamental inability to see that a particular policy applied, ''even after it had been pointed out'', in addition to other issues, such as an excessively aggressive tone towards other editors. The answer to question 7 is also very unsatisfactory: "Sigma School" was unambiguous vandalism, and any administrator who can't see that is not going to be a reliable administrator. Then there is question 11, which dealt with a straightforward case, and an admin who is afraid to get involved there is far too timid to be able to work effectively in that role. Then we have the editor creating numerous completely unsourced articles, some of them of dubious notability: how can an editor who does not follow Wikipedia standards him/herself be relied on to administer them in connection with other editors? I could give more examples of problems from the editor's history, but I think those are enough to illustrate that there are numerous reasons for concern.
'''Oppose'''. Q3 response; also per Epipelagic before Storm Prediction Center caused him/her to strike.
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns over the responses to Q1 "relatively uncontroversial WP:ITN and WP:AfD discussions" and Q6 "I might pop my head in for "uncontroversial" threads". Admins, at times, have to work in difficult and potentially controversial situations. A reluctance to become involved with matters that could be controversial lead me to wonder whether the nominee will be able to make the hard decisions that are sometimes required. This also reinforces my thought that I am unconvinced that the nominee actually needs the admin tool; he has not exemplfied any instances where his work has been inhibited by the lack of tools. The Q3 situation is worrying and linked to my first point. A Reference Desk referral should be about as least pressurised as things get yet it became an issue. How would the nominee deal with some of the far more difficult situations that he would be faced with as an admin?
'''Oppose''' In contrast to many others here, I have no problem with the Q3 question.  It is an oddity of Wikipedia that it is not permissible to discuss some aspects of life, particularly where discussion could be construed as medical advice.  I think you know that now and I appreciate your bringing this up, because it showing mistakes is a way of showing what you learned.  I am concerned about your lack of experience.  I see [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ks0stm&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia here] that you have already done a lot of administrator-style work with usernames, ITN, and ANI.  I appreciate that.  The work you have done in articles is also great.  The reason I am opposing is that you lack both striking, long-term contributions and general experience.  You have made about 7000 edits total.  About 60% of them are to talk pages.  Your contributions to Wikipedia articles are typically short, so have not accounted for a lot of content.  While I think you can handle the admin tools and probably understand them, being an admin is more than competence about the tools; it also refers to an attitude which enables you to discuss what it is like to edit Wikipedia and promote the development of articles to excellence.  I totally trust you to do everything right when things are going right; if things ever go wrong, or if you have to do something over your head, I would also trust you to find an admin who did know what to do.  But for me to support you, I would want to see you either prove that you can thoroughly develop a few articles or spend more time doing minor development to a large number of articles.  You are not here yet; please try again later after you have more experience trying new things and I will vote for you.
'''Oppose'''. Poor communication skills, both in terms of understanding others (Q3) and making himself understood (Q7). Desire to work in uncontroversial areas is not comforting - even if I trusted the candidate to recognize what areas actually aren't controversial (a bit of a leap of faith considering Q3), I still don't see any pressing need for admin intervention in uncontroversial matters. It's the heated matters and areas where the real shortage lies, and I feel that - even if he did a 180 and became willing to get involved - the candidate is just a bit too sheltered to provide any real help in such matters.
'''Oppose'''. My gut rection on first seeing this was that we don't need another teenage admin nominated with a gushing reference from another teenager. I was willing to see if my initial prejudice was incorrect in this case, but it has in fact been confirmed by what other commenters have found. The nominee appears to be yet another of the long list of admin candidates who is trying to tick the right boxes to get "promoted" to admin status, but hasn't actually demonstrated any clue as to what writing an encyclopedia, or administrating those who are writing it, is actually about.
'''Regretful Oppose''' I see a user who is ready to take the next step, but I'm afraid this next step is not adminship at this time. This user seems to want to take the easier more basic requests and I get that to a point, they are not the only one, but admins have to 1) Be clear in their actions and be able to back them up, but 2) also be able to deal with the very hard cases, and not just back out (esp. in dealing with ANI). That being said, the CSD questions similar (but not all the way) to what JamesBWatson said are unsuitable for me to trust with the delete button. I also see a broad focus which concerns me with anyone requesting the tools as the last successful administrative report to a basic noticeboard was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=428626155 the 11th of May]. Don't get me wrong I see a good user, but I'm not ready to support for the tools yet. --
'''Neutral'''. I've decided to switch to neutral based on the issues brought up in the "Oppose" section. I understand that it was one incident and that everybody makes mistakes, but the fact that this incident was recent (a fact that I originally missed) concerns me. I do see a lot of potential in you, though, so if this RfA doesn't work out for you, come back in a year and I'll be willing to support you.
'''Neutral''' Do not oppose for 1 little incident, but its true that your answer to Q3 is worrisome.  ~~
'''Neutral''' Q3 is a serious concern and prevents me from supporting.  However, I can't oppose because of the candidate's honesty about it.  The honest could've derived from the candidate knowing it would eventually come up in this RFA, but I think it's more likely that the candidate feels remorse and has learned thier lesson.  I can't support only because I feel that time is needed for that lesson to sink in and stick.--v/r -
{{anchor|broken sw tool}}[[File:Pictogram voting neutral.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold">Neutral</span> - For now I am torn. The answer to question 3 is just a tad bit concerning. Also, you intend to work with CSD, but have either made very few CSD tags, or made hundreds without notifying the page creator.[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/commentsearch.cgi?name=Ks0stm&search=speed&max=500] This concerned me, as you would be working in a field you had relatively little experience in. I asked questions which were tied together. I am not completely satisfied with your answers. In general, they were good. You have an excellent understanding of A7. I found two of your answers to be relatively insufficient. With the information given, the Sigma School tag would fit either under db-hoax or db-reason. The pants article would fit under db-vandalism. Db-reason can be used for IARing when instantly removing a page that does not fall under CSD criteria (Tappy Jack Shack in this case) would improve the encyclopedia. I do not feel strong enough feelings to oppose. I am too concerned to support, so for now, I remain here. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em" class="texhtml">
'''Neutral''': The answer to question 11 which I asked is right what I expected it to be, the admin will notify another admin. And I expected it to be such, because I know that the admin will just be around in WP:AIV, but will not be involved with content mediation. I will not vote ''support'' or ''oppose'', because the requirements for an admin are too low for now. What I would expect is that the bar for an admin be raised and each admin be able to do a minimal research on content and contributions of editors in order to be able to mediate, as soon as he sees an issue arise.
'''Neutral'''. Ks0stm has generally good edits. However the answer to question 3 is worrying. I am less concerned by the action itself, but more by Ks0stm's reflective comment. Ks0stm doesn't acknowledge that his actions were inappropriate, and implies that future similar situations will result in fairly similar edits.
I am on the fence --
'''Neutral''' - Pros and cons balance out at the moment...
'''Support''' I was thinking of nominating this editor at some point too, but both co-nominators stole my thunder.
'''Support''' I've seen Kudpung around a few times and always felt he was a good editor. Reading over his recent edits, I'm impressed with his temperment and clear way of talking. I would have no problem supporting this candidate. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
Another no-brainer. Long time coming. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support''' I think Kudpung can be trusted with the tools. We have disagreed on some specific points but I am ''not'' going to make some childish grudge-oppose over a disagreement on an AfD months ago. Having seen Kudpung around a lot, I'm sure there's a good understanding of policy and lots of hard work for the benefit of wikipedia.
'''Support'''. An easy one. Kudpung has plenty of experience and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, and has very insightful judgment into policy issues. And he's pretty calm and mellow too, which is what we want. --
'''Support''' With a single exception (which I am not even gonna raise) this editor has always shown to have a [[Wikipedia:Cluocracy|clue]] when I met him in an AFD, which is all that is required for a good administrator. '''Yoenit''' (
'''Support''' I am happy what this user has to say.  Plenty of experience.
'''Support''' - I see plenty of clue here, and have for a while. There is no real need to go searching through his contributions for it.
'''Support''' A very good editor. I thought you were already an Admin Kudpung =O – <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Super Support''' It's about time. I'm not worried at all over the oppose based on one diff. Kudpung tried hard to resolve the disupte and turn the editor around with no luck. It's hard to deal with very young people like Gobbles, as I also tried. Kudpung has helped write many GA's, and has shown much dedication to the project. He's the type of person Wikipedia needs as admins, helpful, dedicated, cool-headed, and intelligent. Good Luck Kudpung, you'll do fine.
'''Support''' I have frequently come across Kudpung, and I have always found him to be a thoughtful and constructive editor. He has a very good grasp of policies, and an intelligent understanding of how to apply them in particular cases. He frequently goes to some effort to explain things to inexperienced users, rather than just throwing a boilerplate warning at them, and looking through his editing history I have found that he regularly patiently explains things in a courteous and constructive way to editors who have created problems. These are characteristics which are of great importance in an administrator. Is he perfect? No, of course not, and Kudpung himself admits in referring to the ANI case he mentions above that he "didn’t handle it too well". However, we all make mistakes sometimes, and the fact that he is able and willing to acknowledge his mistake is a strong point in his favour. That incident was a year ago, and I have not found anything similar more recently. The ability to learn and improve is good. In any case, he merely "didn’t handle it too well", rather than "completely mishandled it". There are people with far worse incidents in their history who have gone on to become excellent administrators. Do I always agree with Kudpung? No, there have been times when I have disagreed quite strongly with him. However, that is no bar to supporting: there is room for administrators with a wide range of points of view. Kudpung is perfectly right in believing that the admin tools would be helpful to him in the course of the sort of work he regularly does. To be able to deal with an issue and move on to other work, rather than to have to seek an admin's help and wait, will help his time working on Wikipedia to be even more productive than it already is.
'''Support''' I've been watching the candidate for some time, and I'm impressed at the dedication and cluefulness. This nomination is overdue.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Weak support''' He seems to be good at adminship but he already has lots of groups so he could do enough.  ~~'''Awsome'''
'''Support''' No reason to expect the tools would be abused. --
'''Support''' No issues seen, positive interaction history. No reason to believe the tools will be abused. --
'''Support'''. Non-controversial nomination, experienced, demonstrated civil interactions, no apparent psychoses. --
As nom.
The diff given by the lone oppose sums up my impression at the moment ... Kudpung has worked very hard, he knows a lot, and his his heart is in the right place, but occasionally he says things that offend people.  That's an observation, not a reservation ... he'll make a very good admin. - Dank (
'''Support''' well respected and trustworthy. Nomination statement is factual and well repreasenative.
'''Support'''. Intelligent, civil, trustworthy. Ideal candidate. --
'''Support''' Another great candidate &ndash; integrity, trustworthiness, experience, temperamentally well suited for adminship are all concepts that come to mind when evaluating this candidate--
'''Support''' Easy! --
'''Support''' I run into this user a good amount while gallivanting about Wikipedia. As other people have said, Kudpung clearly knows what's going on in terms of policy, judgement, and civility (and I maintain that the user is generally civil even after reviewing the diff provided in the oppose section). Most of the time I think this user has more of a clue than I do. Seems like an obvious support to me. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Strong support'''. Extremely well-qualified candidate, good answers to questions. The opposers' concerns are completely unpersuasive.
'''Support''' as per a review of contributions and a very positive experience I had with the candidate, who helped slog through some seemingly-intractable sourcing of unreferenced Thai footballers.  --
'''Support''' - per Keepscases (and Kudpung is an excellent contributor). '''
'''Support''' Kudpung is the kind of Wikipedian I hope to grow up to be. I have absolutely no reservations about giving him the mop. --
I think from past observations (eg the BLPPROD development and having deleted quite a few of his CSD-tagged articles) he'll do an excellent job in the deletion-related areas he's nominated. --
'''Support'''. A very dedicated Wikipedian, full of ideas for ways to improve the project.
'''Support'''. Kudpung seems to me to have the levelheadedness needed for the mop. His interactions are polite, thoughtful and considerate, particularly with less-experienced editors. --
'''Support'''.  :P -'''
'''Support''' Civil, trustworthy, and a good article writer. I don't see any issues.
'''Support''' Kudpung and I have had some 'vigorous' discussion in the past, but I'm please we managed to resolve the situation amicably (I believe so any way...). He also meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my other criteria]]; therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting his candidacy, I believe he will make a fine and clueful admin.
'''Support.''' Impressive candidate; will make an excellent admin. ~~
'''Support''' I've collaborated with Kudpung in several areas, and whilst we don't always agree I greatly respect him. He's done good work in referencing unreferenced BLPs re his own WikiProject and has been helpful both in uBLPs and [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis|death anomalies]], especially where Thai is needed. Now if we could just get him to learn Chinese.... ''
'''Strong Support''' - It's about time, <small>I thought you were :P</small>
'''Support''' Helped me out when I needed it, seems to demonstrate a strong understanding of the rules and workings of the encyclopedia. Without pointing to anyone in particular and with all due good faith, it seems a fair few of the delete votes seem to just be based on disagreements in AfDs. I'm also quite frankly somewhat surprised by how incredibly nitpicky !voters are being. Sure, admins should be held to the highest standard, but the idea that because he could have once worded something better or a layout was bad or humor was used in a potentially controversial way are not good reasons to oppose. Hell, there are quite a few admins who have behavior that could be considered downright objectionable, but they still wield the mop well. If any single controversial decision or move was a criterion for opposing admin status, no AfD would ever be closed, no block would ever be made, and no bold edits would ever occur.--
'''Support''' - great user. Opposes are fairly unconvincing.
Looks good. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support.'''
I was pleasantly surprised to see this up :). Kudpung is a fantastic editor who will do well as an admin and I offer my complete support.
Clueful user. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Yes, Kudpung may be quite a pain for some who can't handle the never-say-give-up discussion orientation Kudpung brings forth :) Ably trustworthy, knowledgeably competent, and humanly err-worthy, Kudpung will be quite a magnanimous and positive addition to the project.
'''Support''' - I've bumped into Kudpung a couple of times, most recently with a particularly virulent SPA at [[Alex Gregory]]. He's been cool, calm, displays a thorough knowledge of policy and a has a good head for applying it. Will be good with the mop.
'''Support''' -  User is a reliable and trustworthy editor can be trusted with the sysop tools.
'''Support''' I've had good experiences interacting with this editor. I have checked the details of the oppose votes, and saw nothing of concern. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' I was kind of leaning neutral, and I really don't remember having any contact with you, but almost the entirety of my own personal list of "editors I most respect and/or trust the opinions of" have come to your support, often on the basis of personal experience with you. In the absence of any troubling votes in the oppose column, that's enough for me.
Don't agree with him on everything, but he will probably be fine as an admin :) '''<font color="navy">
'''Support'''
Opposes seem to be grasping at straws.
'''Support''' Kudpung appears to me to be both reliable and clueful with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --

'''Support''' - I have worked closely with Kudpung recently, and he is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia first and foremost.  He's already had a large influence on the course of Wikipedia, and I would hope we can give him the opportunity to have a larger impact as an admin.
Just because he made enemies with some of the inclusionist crowd doesn't indicate that he would abuse the tools, calm and reasonable in AFD
'''Support''' His level of involvement in Wikipedia, cluefulness, and willingness to discuss shows that he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' No issues here.
Nominator support. '''
'''Support'''. Clueful. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - Sufficient experience to use the tools with a minimum of mistakes, a clear reason for needing the tools, no reason to believe Kudpung would deliberately misuse the tools, and no evidence that Kudpung would not be open to review and constructive criticism of his use of the tools. -
'''Support''' A clueful, intelligent editor who would be an asset as an admin. Good temperament for the work required. BLPPROD has been a real game changer for the wiki, in a good way -- and I say this as someone who was probably not in favour of it, at first.
This editor is good people and has a compelling use for the tools.
'''Support'''. Opposed by all the [[wrong|right]] editors, for all the [[wrong|right]] reasons.
'''Support''' NPP is a rather thankless job, and having someone who's been in the trenches as an admin will greatly help.
'''Support'''. Looking at editcount, user history and contributions, I see no reason not to trust this user with the mop. '''''
'''Support''' - A clueful editor who has made and will continue to make an overall positive impact here. I hope you use the tools with [[humility]].
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I see no reasons why not to at this point in time.
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Well qualified in pretty much every department. Some of the opposes are reasonable but not enough to push me out of this column.

'''Support''' Why not? --
'''Support''' Good worker who respects policies. Should be sufficiently sensible to avoid problems with undue school deletions. I think talk pages should be for discussion only and was not happy with answer to Q6 but it is a very good sign that Kudpung seems to have taken the suggestion and removed the barnstars ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&diff=415544959&oldid=415516855 diff]).
'''Support''' I !voted opposite to Kudpung in the Eagle County Charter Academy deletion debate.  However, his position there is mainstream and I see nothing wrong with it, other than (of course!) that I think he's wrong.  He seems qualified otherwise from a hasty look at the summaries here (I will admit to not having looked in depth).  I will not oppose an admin candidate for taking a position opposite to mine.  Support.--
A few of the opposing rationales are slightly concerning, as good temperament and attitude are certainly important qualities for an admin. However, in my personal experience I haven't encountered any problems with Kudpung and not seen much to suggest that they won't use the mop wisely.
I agree that some of the opposes bring up valid points and I hope Kupdung will take that criticism on board . However there are also some very poorly rationalized illogical opposes that can and should be ignored. I believe Kupdung will respect consensus even when he does not happen to agree with it.
'''Support'''. I've gotten a good feel for the candidate's demeanor from [[WT:RFA]] (although, come to think of it, maybe commenting there should be an automatic disqualification (joke)), and there's no question in my mind that this is a, well, grown-up person, with a mature and thoughtful mind. What many of the opposers say does not, at all, strike me as without merit. Indeed, much of it rings true. But I balance that against how I've seen the candidate express concern about ways that users can be inconsiderate of one another (for example, the list of bad RfA questions), and I really do not see someone who is bitey. Like others who have commented, I encourage Kudpung to take seriously the criticism that has been made. And I am pleased by the answer about being open to recall. Taking this together, I see a net positive. --
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user will abuse the tools --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Suppport''' I've seen his good judgment in action many times in AfD debates about schools, and have learned a lot from what he's said there and in other places.
'''Support''' A few of the deletion-related points brought up by oppose comments are concerning, but I think Kudpung will do fine on the whole, so this is an AGF !vote. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions.
'''Support''' I believe our paths have crossed in the path, and I have no issues supporting. – '''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' changing from neutral, I think on balance that he will probably learn quickly enough. He's kept calm here under a   barrage   of  rather hostile questioning, which is a very good sign.    '''
'''Support.''' I worked with Kudpung on the sticky prods. He is attentive; he was reasoned and reasonable; he fostered communication and compromise. NOTE: I haven't been editing in about a year. I had told Kudpung that I would support him if he went for adminship, and that's why I'm back here today.
'''Support''' A well experienced editor, time to give home the mop. '''
'''Support'''. I believe a lot of the oppose votes make some very good points, and I assume you'll take them on board. I also note a number speak of their opposes being "regretful" or similiarly worded. What I haven't seen is a clear demonstration in opposition as to why you might abuse or misuse the added toolset. I also agree with DGG's sentiments above concerning your calm responses in this RFA. [[WP:NETPOS|Thus a net positive]] in my view. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Kudpung has been around, and been helpful and active - I was unaware of his conflict with Kwami, who I also respect as a Wikipedian, but it does not seem to be a pattern, and Adminship is "no big deal".   ''
'''Support:''' See below. -

'''Support''', DGG said it well, there are some concerns but overall, I think a net postive - especially the calm and even-tempered handling of this RFA.
'''Support''' - This user <s>doesn't meet</s> meets my RfA Criteria :P Kudpung is a very experienced, knowledgeable and trustworthy user. It goes without say he'd do us good in taking up the mop and bucket. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' - Kudpung and I have disagreed once or twice, and as [[User:Wifione|Wifione]] says, perhaps Kudpung has his rough edges (my paraphrase); on balance, though, I believe he will be diligent in making consistent and positive contributions as an admin. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - the opposes raise some valid concerns, however overall I'm sure you'll be ok.
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support''' - I think he can keep it together...
'''Support'''. I run into Kudpung often enough, and I have no problem supporting them. I think they're doing a pretty good job at this RfA, and I don't mind being a follower if it's DGG I'm following. Disclaimer: Kudpung left me a nice note, which served as a reminder that I hadn't yet weighed in here. Voila.
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
'''Support''' - I knew this RfA was coming, but I held off from commenting until now. If I'm honest, I wasn't expecting it to be as controversial as it has been. I have known Kudpung for a while from WikiProject Schools, and there can be no doubt he has been of great service to this project. I have read through the opposes carefully, as a lot of issues have been raised. On the issue of age, I understand Kudpung has been quite frank on age related issues, but I don't think that means he is always hostile to younger editors, I myself being youngish. I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement with Kudpung on school notability, but as long as he is willing to listen, which I think he is, then that is again not a problem. On reflection, I conclude that he passes my [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]].
I've been thinking about this candidacy and reviewing it ever since it's been up, and I've decided to support Kudpung. I have been aware of some of the concerns listed in the oppose section, but in the end I think I can support: Kudpung is clearly experienced, but looking here and judging from past observations he appears to be communicative and responsive to concerns as well as an overall friendly editor, and providing he remains this way as an admin, then I think he'll do fine and will not be a problem. I also don't believe he'd want to let people down; so based on all of this, I can support.
'''Support''' - Like Acalamari, I hung back, waiting to see if the opposers could convince me.  They had some concerns about deletions and temperment, but after review I give a wholehearted thumbs-up to Kudpung.  My best wishes and thanks for your service to Wikipedia.
'''Weak support''' I kept thinking the opposers might come up with something to sway me... and there's minor problems, and Sonia's opinion definitely concerns me. Young people and newcomers are the necessary ingredients to ensure Wikipedia remains a viable project, not only for 2015 but for 2055.
'''Support'''. A fully qualified candidate who is helpful with new editors and willing to work on backlogs.  A review of his [[WP:CSD|CSD]] tagging turned up (as I knew it would) no problems.  I have found the arguments made in the sections below unconvincing.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Weak support''' We have a drastic difference of opinion on the inclusion of school related articles and I am generally hesitant to support editors who place such a high priority on subject-specific Wikiproject guidelines, but your answers to the questions, particularly where you discuss the difference between essays and policy, display good judgement as well as an experienced view on policy. I would suggest avoiding contested school deletion closures, which I'm pretty sure you would do given your participatioin with the project your desire to participate directly in the discussions. '''
'''Oppose'''
Based on the TLDR answer to Q6, and your genuine surprise at Sandy's reaction to it, it doesn't seem you sufficiently value the time of project volunteers who aren't operating on your wavelength.
'''Oppose''' Seems to operate on his own personal ideas of notability and personal essays like [[WP:Run-of-the-mill]] rather than following the [[WP:N|guideline]]'s objective principles.  For example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenues: The World School]] or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy]].  Determining that a topic is special or unusual in some way is not our policy as we usually aim to cover all members of a class for which there are reasonable sources.
'''Oppose''' I don't trust this editor to be neutral and to properly weigh in what everyone says in an AFD.
'''<s>weak</s> oppose''' I'm having problems with "As a school however, it cannot possibly be notable - it doesn't exist ad will not for nearly two years. It will still not meet notability for schools until 2016 when it starts offering Grade 12 classes"  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avenues:_The_World_School].  The (apparent) opinion that an essay on notability for schools trumps the GNG seems not only odd (and frankly mistaken), that whole discussion seemed off to me.  I can live with the notion that he didn't find the sources in the AfD in question strong enough, but that (very recent) quote really bothers me.  His answer to my question didn't really clarify anything for me.  That said, I'm seeing a highly active and helpful editor who does a lot of great things.  I'm just not sure I trust them with the delete button at this time.
Candidate will probably be a good sysop, and looks likely to pass anyway, but I'm compelled to sit in this section because his attitude against younger editors alarms me. A lot of his commentary at WT:RFA is age-related (and while it's a commonly discussed topic, I've seen Kudpung bring it up where it is not otherwise relevant a few times), and rather negative. I've always held the view that we can't restrict young people from editing unless we rescind being a free-as-in-speech encyclopedia, and alienating them is doing an injustice to those of our younger sysops/crats/editors who do a remarkable job. Count this as a "moral oppose", if you like, because it's meant in the same way as the moral supports that seem to come up-- best of luck, but do bear this in mind if/when you pass.
'''Oppose''' ...escape deletion...clueless !voters...sheer dogged inclusionists...Not at all the atitude I want admins to have.
'''Oppose''' One of the most unpleasant and seemingly purposefully obtuse long-standing editors I've ever dealt with. I'm sure he'll say the same of me, but we do not need admins who are inflexible, uncooperative, superior, contemptuous, and incapable of admitting error. I mean, refusing to provide any evidence for a claim over the course of months, specifically saying that he is not required to provide any evidence for his claims, but that we need to change our MOS immediately on his say-so ''or else''. Really, one of the worst people I've met on WP. (It's a bit late to dig up diffs right now, though he kept a complaint page on me, and even that shows him in a bad light.) —
'''Oppose.''' While my own interactions with Kudpung has been positive, I have no choice but to land here, having investigated Kwami's somewhat vague oppose directly above. I was very disappointed by Kudpung's demeanor on [[Wikipedia talk:IPA for English]], and the long-standing dispute with Kwami. A comment like (...)''[[Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English/Archive_1#rhotic_diacritic.3F|it just goes to demonstrate yet again (sigh) that the IPA and pronunciation articles are dominated by a bunch of semi-intelectual clowns pretending to be linguists. What have they been smoking this time?]]'' (though this outburst seems to be the exception rather than the rule), is not something I would expect from someone who has expressed their disapproval of drama-mongering at RfA. Having banned Kwami from his talkpage ([[User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Mar_2010#IPA|''I have asked you now several times to keep off my talk page. Any furthjer incursions here are clear attempts at a flame war'']]), Kudpung goes to Kwami's to inform them that ''(...)[[User_talk:Kwamikagami/Archive_10#WP:CIVIL|I may feel that my only recourse will be to escalate to an area where your constant personal attacks and abuse may require some explanation, and where your knowledge of linguistics will not help you]].'' Seems like <s>textbook drama-mongering</s>a rather unconstructive comment to me. Not saying that Kwami has no fault in the situation, but they are not the one standing for adminship here. Thus, oppose for now. <code>
Unfortunately per Sonia. I'll quote from my talk page: "While I often agree with what you have to say, around RFAs and such, your name does ring a bell in a less positive way. I think it's usually around discussions of teenage admins/editors, and your general negative opinion of them. While I can see where you're coming from, I think it unfair to consider all teens as a stereotype. This is especially true when we have some perfectly decent admins who are teenagers, who have never caused any problems, and at the same time we have some horrendously immature adults. I know that many people are of the same opinion as you, but like with RFA questions, I feel that you have sometimes become a bit of a broken record at RFA talk, not normally adding anything new, except another attack at teenagers with no real purpose. We are usually short of good admin candidates, and discussion about how teenagers are all emotional, immature and incapable aren't exactly welcoming for good teenage candidates (which there almost certainly are out there)." Sonia additionally points out you have brought up younger editors and attacked them for no apparent reason at all, in a completely unrelated discussion. It just leaves a bad impression. Like it or not, teen and child editors are our future.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of temperament, especially his defensiveness in acknowledging his own mistakes. As an example, 7 months ago, having told a new contributor that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diti&diff=prev&oldid=372224176 "articles about English subjects are best illustrated with original English images"], rather than responding to community disquiet on the article's talk page or apologising to the editor he'd misled, Kudpung attempted to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worcestershire_sauce&diff=prev&oldid=372524501 stifle] debate and then posted an odd, self-justifying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GyroMagician&diff=prev&oldid=372709486 conspiracy theory] that laid fault at everyone's door but his own. As well as expertise and an outstanding history of contributions - as Kudpung has - admins need the self confidence to admit it when they're wrong.
'''Oppose''' A bit regretfully though. I have great respect for anyone who does as much good work as Kudpung does. However, as emphasized above, the candidate has a number of problems that each would make me reconsider supporting and combined they are enough to sway me in this way. I share Sonia's concerns that based on the candidate's edits, there is a real possibility that Kudpung would apply different standards to users based on their age. I also find Alistair's comment above disturbing. Telling a new user that their contribution was incorrect because it was not an English image is puzzling to say the least and the fact that he was not able to acknowledge his mistake is disturbing. Last but not least, it's hard to ignore Hobit's and decltype's comments above. I think Kudpung is a valuable asset to the project but I feel that (at least at this time) he is not admin material. I also was confused (on a side note) by SD taggings such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malo_dubovo&diff=prev&oldid=412890393 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Stokes&diff=prev&oldid=410740490 this]. Regards '''
'''Oppose'''.  My knowledge of the candidate is from the debate over how to indicate the pronunciation for [[Worcester]], in which he was an obtuse jerk.  He's obviously intelligent and articulate, but he seemed to be playing dumb for the purpose of driving the editor he was debating mad.  I can't read [[Talk:Worcester/Archive_3#Pronunciation_3]] and come away thinking that a person with so smarmy yet stubborn a temperament should be given the privileges and powers of adminship. --
'''Reluctant oppose'''. There are many reasons why Kudpung would make an ideal sysop. Experience, clue, tenacity, insightful discussion in many instances, helpful to many new editors. However, there is a temperament issue that gives me pause. I've been mildly rubbed the wrong way by a few of his remarks that I've seen in the past year or two (not oriented at me personally), and the interactions described in opposes 11,13,15 and support 53 really give me pause. These are situations that could have been handled with greater tact, equal benefit to the encyclopedia, and truly minimal extra effort, leading to fewer ruffled feathers. I realize these situations are several months to a year old, and I know there are many other instances where his tone is exactly right. And the principle he outlines on how he would *like* to handle stressful situations in his answer to question 3 is excellent. On balance, I think we'll be better served if Kudpung waits a few months and comes back with a longer track record of ruffled-feather-free interactions.
'''Oppose''' I do believe Kudpung to be a very intelligent individual; however, there are issues with the way the user handles dispute resolution that I find troubling enough to place me here. First, the joke with keepscases. I don't agree with the questions the user usually posts, but I find the lack of tack of taking a jab on your RFA of all places for humors sake (flaming the situation) is not what I would expect from a admin candidate. Second, the passive-aggressive like commentary, as is seen on [[WP:RFA]] that has been slightly mentioned above, where on many occasions the editor has singled out individuals whom he does not agree with on issues (questions posed, drama mongering, etc), by refusing to address the editor directly, and instead attempts to call them out with generalized innuendos [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_207#RfA etiquette]. With these and the concerns addressed above by others, and as the editor has stated they plan on working as an administrator mostly within the meta portion of the encyclopedia, I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time.
'''Oppose''' I think Sandy is right on the money despite backing off her own statement.  I'm concerned that the comments she quotes demonstrate an eagerness to be awarded and then the candidate insisting they dont want awards even skipping their own graduation seems to be some deep inner thing against recognition that is hiding a need for recognition.  I am trying not to make this a personal attack, the candidate seems like a great editor and I have nothing against him personally.  I simply feel there is something below the surface that Sandy may have scratched at.  I feel slightly deceived by the candidate for these reasons which is why I am forced to oppose.  I dont expect the candidate to come out and say "You're right, I really love awards" but the candidates actions of posting those awards at the top of his talk page seem to contradict his words.  They appear to say "Hey, look at these before disagreeing with me.  I've received all these awards."  I'm not against award pages at all or keeping barnstars, I keep three on my own userpage.  I am only concerned that they were placed at the top of his talk page.  Sorry to Kudpung if my words were hurtful, I only wanted to explain my rationale.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' - doesn't seem to have the right attitude to be an administrator, as seen by some of the links provided elsewhere in this section. In particular, he seems to have issues with civility and [[WP:AGF]], both attributes which are pretty essential to admins. I'm also not too impressed by speedy deletion nominations like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Stokes&diff=prev&oldid=410740490] - we all make mistakes with CSD, and I know I've misused {{tl|db-attack}} at least once myself, but if you're an admin you really have to get it right first time. ([[User talk:Kudpung#Sasodei]] contains another example, of a misused [[WP:A7]] this time.)
'''Oppose''' For reasons of biteyness and concerns over the theory of inherent non-notability. Attacking other editors directly because of supposed immaturity is a ''great'' way to drive off younger editors, who may very well mature into good ones. Given our declining long-term editor base, this is a serious concern. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per the concerns with temperament raised above. ''
'''Regretfully Oppose''' - The candidate is a very productive editor and is valuable to the project. Unfortunately, several highly respected members of our community have raised issues that are valid concerns. Our community does have a dwindling user base of ''regulars'' and at some point that will be our top priority if it isn't already. We must be mindful that our Administrators' conduct in this area greatly influences others — regardless of whether it should or not. Regretfully, I must oppose at this time. - '''''
'''Oppose'''. No doubt Kudpung is a great contributor; however, he seems to be a delete happy editor. Some of his recent BLPPRODs ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rory_Michael_Bourke&diff=409844688&oldid=409844318 ], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klaus_Mosbach&diff=410810096&oldid=410809496 ]), though technically correct, don’t instill confidence in me. He could have as well added a few sources and help the new users who created the article. I expect such a considerate attitude from an administrator. Also concur with what Robofish stated above. <span style="">
It should be said that Kudpung has always gone out of (his/her?) way to give a well-reasoned argument for opposing, rather than going off of the basis of one question or diff. This is a neutral, but if there is to be ''opposition'' I would expect opposers to extend that same courtesy. Nonetheless, I feel uneasy about supporting an admin so soon after what appears to be sticking the knife in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gobbleswoggler&diff=prev&oldid=413081995#February_2011 ]. I accept that Gobbleswoggler was an extremely frustrating editor, and was a good example of why we shouldn't ''blindly'' assume good faith. But in that instance the issue was resolved, and it was bad judgement to wade back in. —
Still have some concerns in regard to style of interaction that the candidate sometimes slips into, but his answer to my question above and a bit more research lands me here. If this run is successful, my only request of Kudpung is that he be a bit more careful with how he interacts with troublesome editors, as tough as I know that can be, on occasion.
'''Neutral''' for now pending further discussion. We expect more than just "civility" from administrators; I want to better understand Kudpung's level of "collegiality". In the meantime, with regards to concerns expressed above about Kudpungs views on deletions, this may be useful: [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kudpung#AfD nominations, last 12 months]]. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral'''. Kudpung's contribution record should be enough for me to give an easy support, but I'd feel tepid giving it.  The criticisms directed towards his civility or lack thereof don't seem to be particularly strong.  Concerns over deletionism give me more pause, but a look through the list by A.B. didn't turn up anything I'd think of as egregious. Nonetheless, the overall impression I get from Kudpung is that he brings a more static mindset to the project that is contrary to the ethos that has made Wikipedia successful. His situation in Thailand but writing about England indicates to me that he'll have a tendency to uphold systemic bias; his push for what he deems relevant questions at RfA on the surface seems commendable enough but it preempts serendipity and necessitates a presumption of knowing what is relevant and what is not and questioning the judgment of another editor.  Sometimes a little slack is required in a situation to give it room to sort itself out, I'm not sure Kudpung takes advantage of that as an option. I don't think the foregoing is enough to oppose and it would be a little unfair to Kudpung given his strengths but neutral sounds about right.
'''Neutral'''. A solid amount of contributions and plenty of clue, but has some civility issues that would not bode well for an administrator. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Changed from oppose to neutral.''' I'm changing my !vote, because it is apparent that Kudpung is taking to heart the various concerns that have been discussed in this RfA. I haven't deleted the comments I made under "Oppose" (above). --
'''Neutral''' – My original opinion of Oppose was too harsh of an assessment.  Clearly an editor that is experienced, technically proficient and an admirable contributor.  However concerns with temperament hold me back from supporting at this time. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral'''. Kudpung clearly does a lot of good work here, but is too readily inclined to deletion for me to be completely happy to support. In several recent AFDs, Kudpung has quickly decided that an article should be deleted when sources to demonstrate notability have been readily available.--
'''Support,''' his work referencing BLPs shows dedication to the project, have sen no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' as nominator. ''
'''Support,''' as per J04N, I have just looked back over this users contributions and greatly admired his work especially with referencing the unreferenced BLPs.  I cannot see any reason why he would misuse the extra tools.--
'''Support,''' Quality contribs, very collegiate,  seems to like working on backlogs so will doubtless be a valuable addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' - Contributes to articles (6 DYKs & unreferenced BLPs), works on backlogs (unreferenced BLPs), fights vandalism, no excessive drama that I could find, and works on new page patrol. The poor grammar is not in my opinion a reason for opposition.
'''Weak support'''. While the issues below are important, I still believe you would make a good addition to the admin team.
'''Support''' - seems competent, clueful and works well with others. Frankly, the opposes below leave me utterly perplexed, but I've long given up trying to understand the strange idiosyncracies of RFA, where a grammatical error is considered more important than 18 months of good editing.
'''Support'''I am not going to hold your grammatical errors against you, as, if they were not made, the opposes would have been much different. I am not amazed by your answer to Q8, but I find no other reason why you should not be an admin. I like your answers to 4 & 5. Q8 answer is more of what I was looking for, very well.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you seem like a responsible and trustworthy fellow.
'''Support''' I think he will do fine as a sysop. <font color="00ff00">
A sensible editor whom I trust with administratorship.
'''Support.''' No regrets.
'''Support.''' A good candidate, with a record of useful contributions in many ways, and an excellent ability to deal with other editors. Reading the "oppose" comments below I think I have never seen such a poor set of comments in an RfA. The usual "can't be an admin because there aren't enough content creation contributions" argument has in this case been taken to a ridiculous extent. Even if you take the view that article-writing is a major qualification for being a good administrator (which I don't), in this case the candidate has made very good contributions. There are sufficient content contributions, including half a dozen very good articles created by the candidate, and substantial additions to other articles which is enough to indicate that the candidate knows what is involved in being a content creator: we don't need hundreds of new articles from everyone before they can be considered for adminship. There are perfectly good administrators around who have made no more contributions than Lear's Fool, and as a ''proportion'' of their edits far less. Worse, though, are those who oppose ''purely'' on the grounds that the candidate failed to adequately proof-read a comment here before clicking "save page". Yes, that was a fault, and in a borderline case such a slip might push one across the borderline from "support" to "neutral", or "neutral" to "oppose", but to oppose purely on the basis of that one mistake, without looking any further????? How many of us have never made such mistakes? And then there are the "drive by" comments, with little or nothing given in the way of reasons. The candidate's answers to the questions were not perfect, but there are no major problems with any of them. We have a contributor who has all the characteristics necessary to be an administrator, and my support is wholehearted.
'''Support''' Can't honestly see what the fuss in the opposition is. I see a decent candidate with a record of article work. A minor slip up in an answer (that was a mere grammar issue) should not be an excuse to oppose.
'''Support:'''  Candidate is experienced enough for adminship, demonstrates civility, and seems eager to improve after making mistakes. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Support'''. I generally don't like saying "as per xxx", but [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] has said it so well above that I really can't do any better than agree --
'''Support'''. As Boing! said above, JamesBWatson provided an excellent reasoning, that I can only agree on. I have to say, I find opposes because of less-than-stellar grammar in Q3 especially concerning. If the candidate's comments are understandable, then they communicate good enough to be an admin. We can't all be grammar experts (I certainly am not and still no one ever complained that they don't understand my comments because of their grammar). Regards '''
'''Weak Support'''. This is a marginal RfA. The candidate could have been more careful in answering certain questions. More significantly, his overall experience  is somewhat lower than I prefer for admin candidates. That said, I feel that Lear's Fool has an acceptable track record in content creation and in sysop-related areas. He has enough of a clue to handle basic admin functions. Most importantly, he interacts well with other editors. It's these interpersonal skills, coupled with a willingness to learn,  which lead me to support. Fools rush in to RfAs prematurely yet may mature to sage characters by Act V.
'''Support''' I've seen him for quite a while and now, I think he's ready. I hope he uses the tools sufficiently.
'''Support''' He'll be fine with the administrator tools.
'''Support'''. His answer to his own 'oppose' represents a good natured user. He hasn't responded harshly at all, and thus demonstrated his maturity here.
I find myself agreeing with most of the supporters, including the nominator. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Not seeing any compelling arguments in Oppose. Content creation is not a key criterion for adminship for me. A single close-paraphrased sentence is not enough to push me to oppose; a grammatical error in an RFA response, even less so. Candidate seems to have been acting like an admin without problems for some time, so let's give him the chance to provide further benefit here.
'''Support.''' Competent and level-headed. I flatly disagree with the "not enough content" opposes. It's a mop, not a paintbrush. ~~
'''Support'''- I think this user would likely be a net positive with the tools. The concerns that have caused others to oppose do not worry me very much.
'''Support''' I see no issues and the opposes are not convincing (Twinkle edits are not automated and his writing skills are just fine). '''
'''Support''', will do fine.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' a good Australian editor.
'''Support''' I don't agree with the opposes (I'm here, after all!) and see no reason to believe that the candidate will abuse the tools '''''
Lear's Fool becoming an admin will make it more likely that my children remain fed. There is a shortage of admins working the Australian afternoon timeslot, which LF will fill. Because of that shortage I often find myself lured into performing administrative tasks from work, thus increasing the chance of me being [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boned boned <sup>(no. 6)</sup>] and my family going hungry. But in all seriousness, LF is a good editor who will make for a good admin. The opposes raise concerns that are reasonable. Communication is important and if there's any more evidence of close paraphrasing I'd reconsider. But they're outweighed by the good. --
'''Support''' will help the project netwise.  I don't think adminship is a trophy only awarded to our stellar content contributors; this user has written more than enough to demonstrate policy competence.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''' per nom, while noting the objections to the candidate's relative lack of content work, I feel they would still be a net benefit to the project if given the tools. --
'''support''' I was on the fence for a while, and this is pretty close to a case of NOTNOW.  But I see high-quality responses to the issues here and that pushes me just off the fence.
I'd like to see a little more article work and '''a lot''' less robo-editting, but based upon great thoughtful comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=363654034 this one] I'm happy to support. -
'''Support''' Positives outweigh negatives, and I'm not going to let myself get sucked into the years-long "automated edits" argument. --
'''Support''' Lear's Fool has a sound understanding of policy, a calm demeanor, patience, and is a skilled editor. I am particularly impressed with how he explains policy to and interacts with newcomers ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lear%27s_Fool&diff=350926703&oldid=350916321 example 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lear%27s_Fool&diff=350607679&oldid=350604606 example 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lear%27s_Fool&diff=375502748&oldid=375502273 example 3]). The arguments made on the nay side IMHO are minuscule. Lear's Fool will be useful to Wikipedia as an administrator. <b>
'''Support''' can't see any problems with the candidate's AIV or deletion work and I think that if given the tools they would use them appropriately. I don't think content has much relevance to the admin areas they want to work in and it's not like they never touch articles. I confess I was a little startled when they said in Q8 that they would block the administrator. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''', the answers to question 8 and 9, especially, show that the candidate is thoughtful and capable of handling a difficult situation. After reviewing the opposes, I find them...wanting, to put it as tactfully as I possibly can. Spot checking the candidate's edits doesn't reveal any recent red flags or misconduct.
'''Support''' After due consideration of the oppose and neutral commentary (which I do find fairly valid to be honest) and dip checking many edits I think you'd be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] with the extra bits. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I can trust you with the tools.
'''Support:''' I just finished reading the oppose comments and found them to be harsh with little to back them up. I took particular offense at Malleus Fatuorum's comment, ''"Is this really a serious nomination? If it is, then I'll be happy to provide a shed load of reasons to oppose it."'' I was very impressed the candidate's response. This candidate is a solid net positive. -
'''Support:''' I'm a little disturbed by  the 58% auto edits, but as the candidate (just) passes on the rest of my criteria, and as this is a !vote of ''trust''  that  the candidate will  not run  amok with  the tools, he has my  confidence.--
'''Support''' As some might know, I usually do not support candidates with an amount of automated edits that surpasses their manual edits. But, I'm going to do this here for once because I think you have an attitude for it and some of the oppose reasons are pretty unreasonable.
'''Weak support'''. The oppose comments have merit but I think you will still be a net positive, and you will be open to recall.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Have seen no indication of major problems with this user, cursory check of edits gives me confidence candidate has policy knowledge and the right attitude.
'''Support''' - I'd be more than comfortable with Lear's Fool having the mop and bucket. My prior interactions with him have been superb.
'''Support'''. At first I sympathized with some of the oppose comments and worried about the adequacy of this candidate's experience. Then I looked at my own stats from when I passed RFA just slightly over a year ago. It turns out that without my even realizing it, I must have been an untrustworthy rogue who has terrorized the wiki with my incompetent use of the mop. Either that, or maybe people are demanding more experience than what is necessary for someone to be a decent admin. --
'''Support''' and for those worried about content; just because someone hasn't created a lot content doesn't mean someone knows nothing about it.  For those of us who came in later (i.e. I came in March 2010), it's a lot harder because the easy stuff is either a full-blown nationalist war or is good to the point where ''we're'' learning from the ''content''.  The fact that the candidate hasn't found something so esoteric that no one besides them gives a fuck doesn't matter; he's been maintaining this precious (in all seriousness) content for you and everyone else to build upon and enjoy.  I don't judge admin candidates for [[WP:DYK|mantlepiece]] [[WP:GA|content]] [[WP:FA|awards]], I judge them by their capacity to function as an ''administrator'', and I'm seeing a user who seems level-headed and competent; therefore, I'm supporting.
'''Support''' Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
'''Support''' Lear's Fool has a reputation for trying to do right; I strongly feel any user with a good understanding, history, and dedication to wikipedia should be worthy of the mop.
'''Support,''' not just based on excellent discretion, good work on the wiki, even temper, balanced contributions and open to recall , but even more due to the spurious at best opposes. I was neutral until I read through those and realized that they serve more to highlight what we need to be looking for. My opinion, but it's what matters to me.--<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' Defintely a net positive contributor.
'''Support''', mostly per Majoreditor. The candidate has clearly made some mistakes... both in this RfA itself and in some previous contributions that have been brought up in the oppose section. What's impressed me about the candidate is the calm, reasonable responses to some of the more over-the-top opposes, which is exactly the temperament we need in an administrator. The answers to the questions seem reasoned and well-thought-out. I've read and considered each of the opposes carefully, and there are a number of quite valid and reasonable oppose rationales presented, but I'm not convinced denying Lear's Fool the bit would be good for the project.
'''Support''', from all that I read, Lear's Fool is a competent person whose work will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia.  Typos and minor grammar can easily be fixed; I don't see them as a significant problem or as being related to a significant problem.  Moreover, per The Blade of the Northern Lights — it's definitely good to have recognition, but you don't need FAs or GAs or DYKs to be able to use administrative rights properly.
'''Support'''. Looks ok... --
'''Support''' Classic example of a user who should be promoted to support the ideology that adminship is no big deal. Positive temperament and disposition, thorough deportment through this RfA and earlier, trustworthy; yet without iconic content contributions. This is the time for bureaucrats to necessarily exercise their 70-80% judgement call judiciously and to ask themselves whether the opposes are so acerbic and vitriolic as to necessitate that this editor not be made an administrator. 20 odd editors commentating on lack of content contributions, English grammar, edit counts/worthy activity on our project versus 60 odd editors commentating on supporting the candidate's valid admin profile. My best wishes to you, Lear's Fool, for this RfA's success.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, good temperament; what more is there to ask for?
'''Support''' - The Opposers don't make a convincing case.  James B Watson, Kingturtle, Wifione and many others do.  I cast this !vote with the observation that support is currently at 73%, and in hopes that more Supporters will step forward.  Again, the burden is on Opposers to make a strong case for not giving Lear's Fool the extra buttons, and I am not seeing it below.  My best wishes to the candidate and thanks for the service to the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. Mediocre content creation, but otherwise mostly good contributions.
No concerns here. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''': The grammar error doesn't bother me at all - no one's perfect. Though this candidate has indeed created relatively few articles, I believe those contributions he ''has'' made demonstrate that he values content-building and can empathize with our contributors. Strikeoutgate is also failing to exercise me much: that reads to me as a good-faith action falling somewhat short of best practice. Regrettable, but hardly [[Seven deadly sins|cardinal]]. I'd intended to vote "neutral", but reviewing these points I'm not persuaded that the oppose concerns indicate this editor would harm the project. His courteous manner, positive approach on article talk page discussions, and a random sampling of edits instead suggest the opposite.
'''Support'''. The candidate is fully qualified for the administrator tasks he indicates he is going to concentrate on at first, and these are tasks that can always use additional staffing. He appropriately indicates that he will ease into other areas, and I trust his judgment regarding task selection, which is an important quality in an administrator. While some of the opposers have made valid points, which the candidate should take into account whether or not this RfA is successful, several of the other oppose rationales seem to me to be very weak.
'''Support''' I could wish for more experience actually editing content but it takes all types to make a strong Wikipedia community.  Adminship should be ''no big deal'' and there is creeping edit-countitis in play here.  I have no doubt that Lear's Fool will make a fine admin and will continue to learn along the way. --
'''Support''' This is a guy Id love to see interact more in places like Help desk, because of the wealth of experience. Lear has my trust (plenty of AIV work) though as an editor and i bleive him to be a net positive to the project as an admin.
'''Support''' Per Ironholds.
'''Support''' - I've done some research and I've decided to support. I think Lear's Fool has the experience necessary to be an admin, and does pass my [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]] well. I have reviewed the concerns of the opposition, but I see no smoking guns. First, Lear's Fool [[User:Lear's Fool/Articles|has done content work]], and while it is not going to blow people away, it is more than enough for adminship in my view. As for the comments over the grammar of question three, to be honest, this does touch a raw nerve with me due to my own personal history in this area as a dyslexic. I've read the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lear%27s_Fool&oldid=404798114 original version] and I can hardly see anything wrong with it. It is well within what an average English speaker could understand, and in no way should minor grammar issues impact Lear's Fool ability to be an administrator, and nor should it be a barrier to be a contributor to this project. As some one said in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1|my own RfA]]: "[[WP:TYPO]]. 'nuff said." As for the answer to question eight, I probably would not personally go for a block, but in the circumstances given in the answer with clear damage being caused and previous warnings, a block would not be unreasonable.
'''Support''' - I'd prefer to see some more content experience but I'm not going to wait until the perfect candidate comes along. Everything else seems fine.
'''Support'''. Seems a net benefit; am unpersuaded by the opposes. Would not normally !vote with lack of a truly personal viewpoint, but since this is in the discretionary zone, I figure additional opinions are helpful even if they are only weighing opinions only on the table.
'''Support'''  Net positive, based on a balance of generally good attitude, temperament and clue vs. experience. In the end, I weigh the former more highly.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Poke out of retirement support''' Opposes regarding automated edits and content creation are unconvincing. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' probably has more content experience than I have.
'''Support''' I don't place the same importance on q3 as some of the opposers do, and the other questions, as well as my experience of Lear's Fool lead me to think he will be a net positive. Noone has a flawless editing history, but there is nothing here that leads me to think he wouldn't do a great job as admin.--
I think you'll be fine: my advice is to take things slowly should this request pass, keep away from areas you know you're not familiar with, and don't hesitate to ask for help from more experienced editors if you're unsure about something. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] (from
'''Support''' No concerns here, and a very competent user IMO.
'''Support''' despite careful perusal of oppose section. --
'''Support''', with an increasing sense of despair at the level of perfection some people now expect from RfA candidates.  We cannot all be good at everything; a user who has limitations, but is aware of them and can be trusted to work within them, is an equally acceptable candidate.  I see sound judgement and some pleasingly uncompromising views towards supporting new editors.  [[WP:DEAL]] cuts both ways.
'''Support''' -- A reading of this editor's talk page and the talk archives suggests he is good at explaining policy to newcomers in a patient manner. He is likely to do well at the 'customer service' aspect of adminship.

'''Support''' - Althou he hasn't done much article writing, he has done useful work in other areas of the site. Also, he seems to have common sense and a leveled head which is more than I can ask for.
'''Support''' - Wikipedia needs people other than pure content creators at this point in its development.  There are millions of articles that need to be maintained, and hundreds of new articles are created every day.  If every admin was simply writing articles all day long, no one would be around to block vandals and close deletion discussions.  I think Lear's Fool has proven that s/he understands WP policies and guidelines and understands the processes by which articles are written.  I see no reason to deny him/her the tools.
'''Support''' enough experience for me, nothing in oppose section is sufficient to not make me support.
'''Support'''. I can't see any evidence that he'd misuse the admin tools. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  This is not a perfect candidate, but IMO he is more than satisfactory.  I will accept that an admin candidate should have at least ''some'' familiarity with content creation, but I do not agree with those who demand that an admin must "focus on content", and I believe his work on [[John O'Reily]] (currently a good article nominee) suffices to show that he is not clueless regarding content issues.  His edit count (even after adjusting it per the discussion below on automated edits) is adequate in my view, especially since it is almost entirely over the course of the past year (a sufficient time in my opinion to become familiar with what is going on here).  Per my other comments, I consider the admin recall question to be irrelevant here and decline to consider it either way.  I also ''agree'' with the candidate's answer to question #8:  administrators are expected to lead by example and should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility (see [[WP:NOTPERFECT]]), and this is precisely the sort of scenario in which a truly uninvolved admin should be welcomed (and an admin who has ''become'' heavily involved is out of line objecting to another, uninvolved admin dealing with the issue).
'''Support'''  Decent editor.  '''
'''Support'''. A small proportion of the opposes raise valid concerns, but to my mind not enough to withhold support. Content contributions are perhaps limited, but not so bad as to justify opposition. Experience in admin related areas is reasonable; 5,000 non-automated edits in a year is enough to demonstrate trustworthiness; grammar doesn't seem to be a major issue. Work on unreferenced BLPs is a massive plus.
'''Support'''  There are some valid concerns among the opposes - I too would like to see a little more content work - but I don't see anything to disqualify him.  After the blunder on question 3, I think his answers are generally quite good.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">
'''Support'''. I understand the concerns of those opposing for lack of non-automated content work as I did for those who opposed in my RFA for that reason. However, I see that his interaction with other users is civil and I see no concerns about his previous work in the administrative areas he says he wishes to work in. <small>ugh, did I just end that sentence with a preposition?</small> --
'''Support''' - This man is more than qualified for the mop and anyone who says otherwise might as well be lost in the wilderness with a King and his Fool. -
'''Support''' I see no reason why he should not be given the mop. Sadly, there does seem to be the usual amount of [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|editcountitis]] here as usual. '''
I first noticed this candidate from reading one of the articles he created, [[Union Hall (Adelaide)]]. That said he was blocked at the time i found the article. I trust that he understands that being an admin is the antidote to a self-block :P <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Is this really a serious nomination? If it is, then I'll be happy to provide a shed load of reasons to oppose it.
'''Oppose''' and here's a first - per Malleus. Having said that - not yet, rather than not ever.
'''Oppose''' the circumlocutions and impenetrable grammar in the answer to question 3 spared me the pain of having to do further research. Prima facie disqualifying. If one would like me to do further digging i will, if prompted. I warn you though, you won't be doing the candidate a favor.
'''Oppose''' Minimal content creation (including only 6 articles/28 redirects) and highly active for just a year. I agree with Baliultimate's point above that a lot of the candidate's answers appear contrived and phony. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Concerns with answer to question three.  -'''
Per [[User:Bali ultimate]]'s second response.
'''Oppose''' - I had a look at [[Philip Wilson (archbishop)]], an article you say was  "a lot of fun to put together", and in a single spot check in the "Alleged mishandling of sexual abuse of children" found [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|close paraphrasing]]. In my view, better to work on gaining more skills before gaining adminship.
'''Oppose''' [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=Lear%27s+Fool&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= 58.39%] of all his edits are automated, which is too many for me. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' Minimal content creation with well over 50% of edits being automated makes this a candidate I cannot support. Malleus and Bali also raise valid objections. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Oppose''', automated edits, not even 30 edits to any one article, very limited content creation experience, close paraphrasing, convoluted writing; sorry, I can't convince myself that you know enough about Wiki not to become the kind of admin who makes life miserable for content creators by not understanding the core policies of the project from having dealt with real conflict.
'''Oppose''' i would like to see more content creation, Vandal Fighting shows alot of gusto for the project. Lack of content creation shows low amount of collaborative activity. As this a ''collaborative project'' I cannot support at this time.
'''Oppose''' His pushing the block button on Question 8 did it for me.  He should engage with the admin in question, and probably go to AN/I if he can't resolve it that way.--
'''Oppose''' Admins need to have a thorough understanding of the time and effort required to produce quality content.
'''Oppose''' per exceptionally low article edit count - after my first failed RFA I was informed I'd need roughly 8 to 10k article edits and a wider use of Wikipedia talk and contributions to areas other than mainspace.  I see barely 2500 edits in article space, not even close to the guides I was given.  More contrib, more articles, less time worrying about getting to have the buttons :) '''
'''Oppose'''. Insufficiently well-rounded experience. As with Black Kite, this is a "not yet", not a "not ever".
'''Oppose''' - Not enough rounded experience as those above have said. Pushing (or not pushing) delete buttons requires more experience than I'm seeing here.
While I can't oppose on grammar errors, which I think it's a bogus excuse, (I'm awful with grammar) lack of real content contributions is a problem
'''Oppose''', lack of significant content creation experience necessary to understand issues admins have to deal with. --
'''Oppose''' not enough experience in general.   '''
'''Strong oppose''', moving from neutral. In my comments under neutral, I note that there was a lot to like about Lear's Fool, but I expressed concern at lack of detailed work on content and questioned Lear's involvement in efforts to form consensus about content.  Lear's answer to my question 11 makes it clear that he has no intention of making significant contributions to content, and that alone rules him out in my book: unless administrators are well-grounded in the hard work of content creation and consensus-building, they are ill-equipped to understand the issues faced by editors who ''do'' create content (without whom Wikipedia is pointless). However, even without that content-aversion, the three discussions listed would have been enough to switch me to oppose: in [[Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Recent_Polls]], Lear fails to understand [[WP:SYN]]; in [[Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image]] he tries to settle the issue on a headcount despite the strength of argument against the leading option, which still has only minority support; and in [[Talk:Isobel Redmond#Evans_Family]] Lear raised a [[WP:V]] issue which was already covered in one of the refs [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/redmond-takes-a-step-to-the-right-in-party-wrangle/story-e6frgczx-1225851728462]. The BLP concerns were laudable, but misplaced.<br />Lear, your conduct is consistently civil and thoughtful, and oozes good faith, but what I have seen here persuades me that you have far too little knowledge of policy and experience of content-creation to make a suitable admin ''at this point''.  I fear that could easily lead you to make well-intentioned but unpleasant errors in the use of the tools; for example I really don't like the idea of you closing an XfD based on the principles you applied to the Rudd's photo discussion.  So while your character is just what I like to see as an admin, I would hate to see you get the tools unless and until you have learnt more about policy and content-creation. --
'''Oppose'''. Way too little experience. I reverted my support because i did not see his contribution count.
'''Oppose''' this is a reluctant oppose, but I'm inclined to think it would be good if you had more experience of the project before being an admin. Sure, it's no big deal but it takes a long time to get your head around everything here and I'm not confident that a user with who's only been around for a year and has mostly been involved in counter-vandalism rather than content creation can know all the nuances that may be required of you as an administrator. I also agree with those mentioning this is a "not yet" and I would be happy to support if some more effort was made on content.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience at this time.
'''Oppose''' If I were being asked to allow you to do exactly the tasks you indicate, I'd be tempted to support.  However that's not what's being requested here.  It's a lifetime appointment to '''all''' the tasks that admins use their tools in.  With the experience level of this candidate I just don't have full confidence that this is the right move at this time.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - It bothers me that you have less manual edits that automated ones. And to the people that argue "Twinkle isn't automated", at least half of them are. The CSD nominations are 2 parts: the manual tagging of the page, and the automated user message. Same with AFD's. Same with reverting vandalism. Still, with only half of the Twinkle edits counting as automated, the automated edit percentage hovers above 50%. '''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124;
'''Oppose'''  ''Content is not my primary focus as an editor'' says it all. People who don't focus on content have no business being in charge of people who do. Oppose is necessary in any event because he says he is open to recall.
'''Oppose''' per Hokeman, SandyGeorgia, BarkingFish, and BrownHairedGirl. Candidate isn't qualified at this time. <big>
I'm deeply concerned by the close paraphrasing identified above.  I hope this candidate will return to RFA when that's a little further in the past and he can show more experience of writing material, as opposed to recycling it, and I hope that at that time, he will be able to show more experience of dispute resolution or dealing with difficult editors in high-tension articles.—
'''Oppose''', needs more seasoning, by writing articles and editing on a wider variety of topics. Also may I suggest contributing some photographs? <font face="Cambria">
'''Oppose''' Needs some more time, and experience IMO...
'''Oppose'''  The candidate would benefit from more experience, and in-depth experience, before taking up this office.
Not sure yet. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' I have yet to have a chance to look over this candidate, but at this time, I have to go on the record and say that there are a ton of opposes with <s>no rationales at all,</s> or exceedingly weak rationales. <small>(harsher wording redacted)</small> If you're going to oppose, please do right by the community and the candidate and provide a decent rationale (which, by definition, means that you have to put at least one substantive reason down, and saying "I have an internal list and might share it later" doesn't meet that definition.)
'''Neutral'''. Moving here from oppose since my oppose seems a bit harsh in retrospect (and because there's been a bit of a pile on). I stand by my rationale, but no longer believe it's a reason to oppose on its own, so here I am.
Strong arguments from both sides, though a promotion IMO won't be a detriment to the project.
Has potential. Admitted faults do not warrant the getting-on-for-piling-on situation in the Opps and there goes my grammar and that and all.
'''Neutral''' The lack of article work is concerning, but not enough to outright oppose. Some more mainspace work would be nice. --
'''Neutral''' - I don't feel I know this user well enough, but the thing that really stands out, for me, is the self-imposed block.  Okay, it's history now, but I can't quite get my head around it.
'''Neutral''' BHG makes a good point. You have '''many''' good qualities but the issues cited above, including automated edits, lack of content creation and your reply to Q8 make me hesitant to hand the tools over to you. Don't take this as a source of discouragement though. I'm not opposed to you becoming an admin in the future. Just work on the areas that others mentioned and come back in 6-12 months and you'll stand a better chance :) All the best,--
'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''. I looked carefully at the links you provided to some of the pages where you were involved in disputes, and I'm actually quite impressed with how you interacted with some temperamental editors. I'm afraid that this is a textbook case of what would have been an AGF support if only we had a viable system of administrator recall. But we don't. On the other hand, had you not committed to voluntary recall, I would have outright opposed. Others have noted the following: your initial carelessness in not proofreading your own RfA, your willingness to block that obnoxious administrator instead of taking the matter to ANI or RfC/U, and your need for a self-imposed block instead of just will-power in order to study. None of these things is anywhere near to a hanging offense. But, taken together with your relatively brief and limited editing experience, they leave open the question of how well you can be trusted with the tools. As I said, I think I see early indications that you would do just fine, so, like others here, this is more "not now" than "not ever". But I cannot offer support based on what is available now; maybe otherwise in a few more months. --
Positives include dispute resolution: negatives include lack of real content coupled with a few irritating factors mentioned by Tryptofish. ''
as nom
'''support''' as co-nom, if it wasn't obvious.  '''
'''Support''' - A "[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt#My Favorite Rabbit Inclusionist|rabbit]]" inclusionist, but also thoughtful, hard-working and competent. I've had the pleasure of dealing with MQS about two weeks ago at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/180 Documentary|an AfD]] and thought he had done commendable—if not outstanding—efforts to improve an article in the face of pending deletion, which resulted in a withdrawn nomination. I am not too sure how well he will deal with deletion, but overall I have faith in his abilities, and do not see any reason to doubt he will respect consensus when it comes to closing AfDs.
'''Support''' Outstanding editor. Hopefully, will be a great administrator too.
'''Support''' a hero. [[User:Jorgenev|jorgenev]] ([[User talk:Jorgenev|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jorgenev|c]]|
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin.--
'''Support'''. Outstanding work at AfD. I have closed many AfDs in which MQS was the one who swayed the debate. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. An outstanding content creator, mentor, and overall keeper of the faith. <sup><small><font color="green">
'''Support''' Logs for moves and uploads look good. Deleted content has not revealed stupid taggings.  But this user has not done any Patrol yet.
'''Support'''. Has made a great effort to address the concerns raised in his last RfA. A very mature response to a failed RfA.
'''Support'''. I really wanted to support last time, but felt I had to go neutral. But the editor's performance since then has made my decision much easier this time - I think I see excellent admin material --
'''Support''' MQS is a great asset to the 'pedia and his access to some resources makes him an excellent contributor to tv/movie/book articles.  Always presents a reasoned arugment whenever I've come accross him.  Would make a great admin.--v/r -
'''Support''' In patrolling (then) and CSD deleting (now), and in AfD, I see MQS around. Very often rescuing something I would have thought past help. And also voting 'delete'. If he does that, I am sure whatever it is is definitely past help of any other sort. He may have "not done any Patrol yet" as such, but, by heck, he's been around in there and knows what's what.
'''Support''' excellent candidate, I have absolutely no concerns. ''
Without reservation. An outstanding contributor. '''
'''Support''' Excellent contributions and in improving the encyclopedia. No concerns here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - I've seen him around at AfD quite a lot and he always gives well-reasoned replies. I'm fully confident that MQS will be a valuable admin at Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I have no concerns or issues - I have only encountered excellent contributions.  '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''  -- Qualified Editor
'''Support''' - a great nomination. Michael is not only a prolific and high-quality contributor, but I've seen countless Afd-ed articles that he's brought back from the brink with some perfectly executed sourcing. He knows the rules inside-out, and is cool-headed when dealing with potential conflict. His essays, and general manner when dealing with newcomers, show that he's a fine example of what Wikipedia should be about.
'''Support''' WE disagree on philosophy. bu there is no doubt I respect his commentary.
'''Support''' No concerns here. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - A glowing nomination from an admin who is experienced in deletion and who shares differing editing philosophies to the candidate. I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' - as I said in his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MichaelQSchmidt|previous request]], Michael's inclusionist views are somewhat extreme, but his article improvement work has been exemplary.
'''Support'''. Almost 4000 AfD !votes, with a consistent 85+% accuracy and a strong tendency toward inclusion. A quick look at his rationales showed that he has a sound knowledge of policy. No concerns.--
'''Support''' per past observations of work (largely at AfD) plus a modest review of random contributions.  Thoughtful AfD opinions backed by diligent research warrant my support.  --
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable, experienced, hard-working and cool-headed.
'''Support''' Yes one of our most strongest non-administrators. Excellent user.
Has absolutely the right mindset about improving content. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''support''' '''
I legitimately thought you were already an admin. Let's make it official. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' He can be trusted with the tools. -
'''Support'''- I opposed last time but my previous concerns seem to have been addressed. I am satisfied with the answer to my question.
'''Support''', I supported him before and he is now a stronger candidate. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Very strong support''' &mdash; As before.
'''Support''' He's the man
'''Support''' – MQS is an outstanding editor. He is definitely qualified for the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
Support per above and previous.
Don't see any immediate problems.
'''Support''' Definitely a very knowledgeable experienced editor.
'''Support''' Can't see any reason why not. [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup><font color="#E3A857">[[User talk:Armbrust|Talk to me]]</font> <font color="#008000">[[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|about my edits]]</font></sup><sub><font color="#0892D0">
'''Support''' —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
Already thought he was an admin. ''

I supported last time and clearly MQS has only become a better editor since then, so this is pretty obvious for me. --
'''Support''' --
If you are good enough for ''both'' Spartaz ''and'' DGG, you are good enough for me.
I'm
'''Support''' I've seen his work at AfD before, and he'll make a great admin.
'''Support'''…What more can be said. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''…Long term dedicated user who's shown good work and decisions.
'''Total Support''' A living legend.
'''Support''' - Qualified candidate. Why not? ''
'''Support''' Satisfied with answers to my questions.  MQS has mellowed quite a bit since his last RfA, and I think he'll do just fine.
'''Support''' Reviewing his contributions at this time, I think the reasons I supported the first request are still valid, so I'll just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MichaelQSchmidt&diff=349308819&oldid=349307627 refer to that !vote] instead of repeating it here. :-) Regards '''
'''Support''', improvement in areas of concern since last RfA, why not?
'''Support''' I'd been waiting for this one to come up again.
'''Support''' The candidate has addressed my personal concerns from the last RFA where I opposed. I agree fully with Snottywong above that the user has "mellowed" - a remarkably apt description. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. As far as I'm concerned, MQS is a great content editor who I've worked with quite pleasantly on many occasions. I am not concerned that he'd abuse the tools, I am confident that he'll keep his mop out of AfDs he's been involved with, and I am pretty sure there will be plenty of oversight of his work as well. Good luck, Michael.
'''Support'''.  Great editor. Supported last time. Supporting this time too.--
'''Support'''. MichaelQSchmidt is an excellent candidate. The opposers' reasons are unusually weak. Extra kudos for ignoring questions 9 & 10.
'''Support''' Most definitely!
'''Support''' Just loading on. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Support''' clueful content contributor, collaborates well -
'''Support''' Good contributor, we can always use another sysop.  Thanks for answering #9 and answering #10 in 9!  ~~
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support''' Always polite, helpful and informative.  I run across Michael often at AfD and, at least in the past year or so, he has shown a good understanding of reliable sources and notability.
'''Support''' - MQS is a decent editor who will use the tools appropriately. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Unqualified support'''.  He's a better candidate now than last time, and I was comfortable supporting him then. His work at AfD always has been a strong point, and has only improved with time. And, to my way of thinking, there's far less danger that editor whose identity is known will abruptly change behavior for the worse than with those of us who use psuedonyms.
'''Support'''. As I did last time.
'''Support''' Every time I've come across him, mostly at AfD, I've been impressed. Give him the tools.
'''Support''' No reason to suspect that he would be anything other than a good admin. '''''
'''Support''' Yes. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I feel an admin needs experience, courtesy and necessary toughness to prevent vandalism or mistreatment of articles. MQS displays all those. ''
Me too.  Michael: I do want you to recuse from closing AfDs involving the ARS for the foreseeable future, please.  You might be well capable of doing so, but there's no need to open yourself up to any accusations.—
'''Strong Support''' Neutrality, experience and courtesy.--
'''Support''' without reservation. MQS has the temperment to be a very good admin, and a fine sense of judgment as well.
'''Support''' a very helpful and understanding editor. Has made quite a few guidelines in order to help new editors.  Of course the opposers are going to throw around these dumb made-up words "inclusionist" and "deletionism".  It's just so much easier to type "delete" in AFD than to try and research the article in question and improve it and since Michael takes the time to do so, he's labeled some type of <s>Nazi</s> evil "inclusionist".  —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print">'''
'''Support''', very good and polite editor. [[Darth]] [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Strong support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: one of our best, friendliest, and most responsible editors, and who has saved many a crappy article written by [[WP:BITE|a newbie]].
'''Very strong support'''.  MQS is one of the best editors on Wikipedia.  Competent, civil, and knowledgeable about policies and guidelines.  He's not infallible, but that wasn't a requirement for adminship the last time I checked.
'''Support''': Schmidt would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''': I personally am somewhat of a deletionist. However, one of my own created articles was submitted for AFD, and the nominee came in and really improved the article to the point where the AFD turned around. While I am still leaning deletionist and think we have lots of crud pages, he did teach me a lesson about lending a hand and improving, rather than just taking things as they are and giving the boot.
'''Support''' – He appears thoughtful and communicative, willing to learn from community feedback, and unlikely to make rash decisions with the tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' Definitely! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support''' I believe he will make a fine administrator.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''.  comment: not often I've seen a DGG nom. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''support''' worth a go.
'''support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. A competent and knowledgeable editor that is perfectly able to handle the tools —
'''Support'''. Good stuff. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.  Candidate was both extremely helpful and civil in a recent AFD discussion.  He assumed good faith, made a rebuttal, and waited for the nom (me) to do the right thing.  It was only after browsing his talk page when we started discussing the episode that I learned of his RFA.  Good guy!
'''Support'''.  An outstanding content creator (and fixer) who has also shown a willingness and ability to deal with structure, procedures, and policy. I especially appreciate his responses to questions 6 and 11, which confirm that he will seek to follow consensus in his acts as an administrator, and at the same time that his admin activities will not deny us his continuing energy and skills in building the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''.  The opposes are not convincing enough in my mind to sway my vote.  Otherwise, looks fine to me.  '''
'''Support'''. Per previous RFA. Regards,
'''Support'''. What I see here is someone who is readily willing to listen and learn, and who is conducting himself admirably through an excess of grilling in this RfA. --
'''Support''' Clearly a thoughtful and knowledgable editor who will make a first-class admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - Happy to add my support. - '''''
'''Support'''. Adding my support to a thoughtful, seasoned editor. --
'''Support''': Absolutely. With  nearly 4000 AfD !votes, with 85% accuracy he obviously  knows what  he's doing. To  pick  out one or two  that  backfired from  that  number would be silly. Probably  everyone has some slight  leaning  towards either deletionism or inclusionism, so  what?
No concerns: I am pleased to support.
'''Support'''. Likewise.
'''Support'''- Capable editor with interests beyond main subject area; while mistakes have been made, they were not automated, ignored, or irreparable.
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' The opposes are not sufficient to stop me from supporting.
'''Oppose''' I do not like that the previous RfA has been blanked.  I feel the nomination here minimizes the various reasons for opposition, as well as the sheer amount of said opposition.  Voters deserve to see how the last RfA went in order to make informed decisions.
'''Oppose'''. I am very suspicious of this editor. The behaviour before the previous RfA looked to me as if he was following a guide on how to become an admin to the letter. Being inclusionist is generally a good recipe for that, but in that one instance that featured prominently in the last RfA, he overdid it far more than any reasonable editor could have done in good conscience. He has corrected his course since, but whether the underlying problem is one of competence or one of bad faith, it does not seem very likely that in an editor with his position in life it has been corrected. To put it more succinctly: I think the candidate is very good at ''playing the role'' of a good admin candidate. The question, then, is whether I trust him to be motivated to play the role of a good admin in a way that will convince me. I do not.
In the previous RfA, there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMichaelQSchmidt&diff=349622085&oldid=349616766 concerns] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMichaelQSchmidt&diff=349293677&oldid=349291247 about] MQS's understanding of identifying reliable sources.<br><br>At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Alonso]] (30 September 2011), while MQS did not support keeping with a bolded vote, he presented a number of sources to indicate notability. That some of those sources did not even mention the subject concerned me. When I noticed this RfA, I decided to review MQS's contributions at other AfDs.<br><br>I have concerns about MQS's understanding of [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:V]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMichaelQSchmidt&diff=349508289&oldid=349508120 shared] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMichaelQSchmidt&diff=349522596&oldid=349520516 by] participants in the previous RfA.<p>In June 2011, MQS supported retention at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datari Turner]]. The nominator had noted that there were V and BLP concerns ("embarrassing content" sourced to TMZ), that the subject was of "borderline notability", and that the creator (who claimed to be the subject) "demanded deletion" after being unable to purge the negative information. MQS's retention rationale did not take these factors into account, leading me to worry about how he would approach closing such AfDs. Admins should take a calculated stance on BLP to avoid harm to living persons.<br><br>In his March 2010 RfA, there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMichaelQSchmidt&diff=349542260&oldid=349540150 concerns] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMichaelQSchmidt&diff=349547128&oldid=349546960 about] his assessment of reliable sources in pornography-related AfDs such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lachelle Marie]].<p>More recently, at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwi Ling]] (15 November 2011), MQS initially supporting keeping the BLP per PORNBIO despite the article's failing verifiability. I note that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FKiwi_Ling&diff=460993084&oldid=460967592 revised] his opinion to "delete per lack of verifiability" after other users discussed the reliability of the IMDB website. The AfD participation indicates that while he is willing to change his position per other users' comments, he supported retention of a poorly sourced BLP without due diligence of checking whether the article complied with BLP and V.<p>At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer)]] (5 November 2011), MQS supported retention per [[WP:CREATIVE]] but did not take into account the fact that the article was an inadequately sourced BLP, as noted by the closer.<br><br>I do not have confidence in MQS to ensure that his closes do not retain articles that violate BLP and V.<br><br>At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil Inside (film)]] (3 November 2011), MQS wrote: <blockquote>'''Speedy Keep''' per [[WP:AGF|inadvertant]] errors in nomination statement [[WP:AGF|reflecting perhaps]] a lack of [[WP:BEFORE]] and misunderstanding of pertinant policy and guideline. To the nominator, and with respects, a topic's notability is not to be judged by an article's [[WP:UGLY|current state]]...</blockquote> I find this comment problematic for two reasons. First, the "speedy keep" recommendation met none of the requirements at [[Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability]]. I worry that MQS will be too inclined to speedy close discussions when reviewing AfDs.<p>Second, the links to [[WP:AGF]] in "inadvertant" and "reflecting perhaps [a lack of WP:BEFORE]" are veiled assumptions of bad faith. The "[t]o the nominator, and with respects" after the AGF links gave the nominator the opposite impression and is faux civility. I reviewed the nomination statement and was unable to comprehend what provoked this comment. I am concerned that MQS's AfD closing statements may contain such a harsh tone directed to nominators who had operated in good faith.<br><br>My review of MQS's AfD comments revealed an indefatigable AfD participant who frequently provided insightful rationales. I liked the in-depth research MQS performed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain in da Ass]] (5 September 2011) and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Treadaway]] (5 October 2011) and the sensitivity for the BLP of a minor at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Dell]] (21 September 2011).<p>I am particularly impressed with MQS's rescue work at [[User:MichaelQSchmidt/Article Improvement & Rescue]]. 424 articles to date. His article-rescue work is invaluable. However, I cannot support his adminship request at this time owing to the concerns about his understanding of BLP and V that persist from the previous RfA.
'''Oppose'''. For all the good work that he has done, Mr. Schmidt has persistently shown an utterly wretched understanding of WP:V and WP:RS, in particular with regard to their application to BLPs. As his answer to my question 18, above, demonstrates, he sees nothing wrong with citing a source in an AFD without bothering to determine it satisfies RS -- and, even worse, without checking to make sure it actually involves the correct person (as in the AFD I mentioned, where he identified a 10-year-old child as a porn performner). Equally disturbing is his interminable wikilawyering, to deny the obvious fact that he screwed up quite badly. '''Wikipedia should have no use for administrators who shoot first and avoid questions later.''' His answer to my question 17 is also disconcerting, since he acknowledges that he tailors his RFA statements to promote his chances, rather than accurately reflecting his positions/opinions. And, as Cunard quite accurately noted, only last month in a sometimes contentious AFD Mr. Schmidt initially insisted the article subject satisfied an applicable SNG , without bothering to verify the claim, even though the nominator's statement (admittedly by one HWolfowitz) pointed out that the claim was belied by the actual announcement of the awards. Administrative authority should be accompanied by demonstrated responsibility, and Mr. Schmidt's determined and repeated insistence that an editor need not bother to verify that sources they cite in Wikipedia discussions meet Wikipedia standards, or even actually deal with the correct person, is a demonstration of acute irresponsibility.
'''Oppose''' - Hullabaloo says it well, and I agree with Cunard too. I simply don't trust Schmidt closing AfDs. Imagine if an extreme deletionist editor had the same history... how would that RfA go?
'''Oppose''' per Hullaballoo, particularly the answers to his questions and a few of the earlier ones.
I really want to support here: MQS has come on leaps and bounds as an editor, particularly since his last RFA, and his edits outwith the realm of article deletion are exemplary. But it's disconcerting that this is RFA 2 and MQS's ''sole'' area of contribution admin-wise still seems to be AfD. Admins do not need to work everywhere, but when they're given access to the whole box-o-tools at once it makes sense that they have experience in at least a few of the main tasks; I don't see any indication of that either in the nomination nor in examining MQS's projectspace contributions over the last couple of months at least. This will likely pass with flying colours (especially given that out of the three current opposes, one is moronic and one other appears... well, vindictive), so I hope that MQS does broaden his scope to include helping the project out in areas other than AfD, and obviously that he proves his doubters wrong when it comes to using tools in that area.
'''Neutral''' I find myself siding with Chris here ... I will admit that I often put some extra weight on the comments of MQS on film-related AFD's, so it's an area where I might consider him an expert.  There's a lot of good work, but at the same time I do become occasionally minorly concerned that some ''borderline'' articles might be puffed up a little.  In my mind I have flipped the penny a few times on this, and the damn thing won't land one way or the other ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Very good article contributions!
'''Support''' long term editor with even more edits than me. There is a block from ten months ago, but due to the subsequent unblock I'm more than happy to disregard it and treat it as a clean blocklog. Deleted edits look OK to me, though one very minor point, I'd prefer edit summaries that say whether you are prodding or using a particular CSD tag instead of just "suggested deletion".  There is some concern in the oppose section about diversity of editing, if other editors share those concerns may I suggest they look at the editors contributions to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carabane/archive1|the FAC for Neelix's FA]]. This is an editor with a proven record of doing good stuff in multiple areas, and who is clueful and civil. The proportion of edits doesn't bother me when compared to their diversity and breadth - Neelix has done humongous amount of certain things and perfectly adequate amounts of others. ''
'''Support''' Checks of a month of user and article talk reveal competent communication skills. Other contributions reveal a strong grasp of policy. In regards to the opposes as of this vote, I think it's important to frame the candidate's namespace spread in terms of the type of editing they do. Neelix appears to be a classic gnome. When one spends one's time fixing disambiguation pages and making other uncontroversial but critical fixes to standardize the 'pedia, 1 or 2 edits in one hundred being direct communication is perfectly reasonable. I am more concerned with the quality of that communication than with the amount (which even at 1% of the candidate's contributions is a reasonable number for a candidate with a more "normal" edit count). When the editor is challenged on a move, they respond appropriately and are able to explain their reasoning clearly. Regarding concerns about the lack of projectspace edits, to me this indicates a focused editor. Not everyone is interested in whack-a-mole, and there's no reason to deny useful tools to an editor who isn't. Clearly the candidate is able to learn policy well and I have no doubt that should they decide to become active in deletion or vandal fighting that they will easily master that policy as well. This is Wikipedia, not a [[Operating theater|sickbay]]. :) --
Having 13 questions already? Sheesh, auto-support. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Mainly per WSC. - Dank (
'''Support''' Good communication skills, definitely has a clue, knows what the project is all about and trustworthy. He wants to work in requested moves which is pretty straightforward. He has experience with deletion discussions. This is a guaranteed net positive.
'''Support''' - More than enough experience in the proposed work areas to use the tools with a minimum of mistakes.  No reason to believe candidate will deliberately misuse tools.  Candidate's work will clearly benefit from tools.  Candidate seems open to constructive criticism and review of their use of the tools. -
'''Support''' Some amazing edits. Some good article creations. Talk page interactions seem well too. – <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' Long term editor, definitely will not delete the main page and would benefit from the tools. Edit counts or percentages aren't very relevant with someone who has this much experience. '''<font color="#000000">
'''"How is this user not already an admin?" support''' Comments made thus far by those opposing do not convince me that it would not be a strong net positive for this candidate not to have the mop. Good luck!
I disagree with Royalbroil's second sentence to a certain extent. Nonetheless, everything is exactly as has been been stated in the nomination statement and opening questions. Wikispace contributions were a cause for concern (not in terms of the overall number, but frequency: a lot of them were years ago). I looked deeper, and the ''quality'' of AfD participation is very high on the whole. As an example, this user clearly has an interest in [[The Bill]], but if you check out his Bill-related AfD participation, it's even-handed, and his arguments grounded in policy and sitewide practise. In summary, I trust him to primarily work on moves (for which he is clearly qualified), and I am not concerned should he decide to expand into other areas. In response to the three current opposes (two of which go much further than editcountitis and should therefore be respected), deletion is far and away the biggest deal of all, because it's the area you can get away with murder in. Neelix has proven himself to be trusted to delete/not delete things as appropriate. —
'''Support''' I would oppose if there is a mistake this editor has made, but when there are lack of edits in the Wikipedia and talk space, this isn't the case. Other important thing is, the editor likes to start slowly (i.e. on one area) which is a good start for an administrator. I'm pleased that the expected outcome of this area would be a lot of "Thank you" based comments. These are the several reasons why I support this candidate.
All things considered, I think you'll be fine. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Simply awesome work done for Wikipedia. '''''
'''Support'''. Someone with that amount of experience who wants the tools to do a specific job that is often backlogged - sounds fine to me. --
'''Support''' - Wikipedia has benefited hugely from having you here. Great work.
'''Support''' Very valuable and prolific editor; I'm not impressed by the oppose rationales.
'''Support''' Prolific contributions, no concerns, appreciate the temperament evidenced at the Carabane FAC. Review of random contributions looked great. --
'''Support'''. A review of a sampling of contributions in various namespaces didn't reveal any red flags. Neelix appears to be a hard-working editor with sufficient clue, appropriate temperament and an appreciation of their own limitations. I might be concerned by the percentage of project space edits if there were any indication that the candidate barrels into unfamiliar areas without carefully understanding them first, but I have yet to see such evidence, and the answer to question 5 suggests the candidate is comfortable asking others for advice in new or unfamiliar areas.
'''Support'''. By all appearances, neelix is a hard working editor who is well focused on content. The desire to work on [[WP:RM|requested moves]] is likely a symptom of this content focus (and we definitely need more admins willing to work on that backlog). The lack of wikispace edits is, to me, a plus because it shows a lack of interest in the drama and social side of wikipedia (not that there's anything wrong with that side!) and probably means that neelix will continue to work on content while also taking on the mop-wielding (as opposed to the fist wielding - not that there's anything wrong with that either!) duties of an admin. All in all, I'm happy to support this request. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Everything checks out just fine with me.
'''Support''' I see a competent content producing editor who has the right temperament. I am confident that he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' A good content contributor, knows the policy well and great answers to the questions. I'm confident he will be net positive as an admin. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' per my general rule of supporting anyone where the only reason to oppose is edit namespace balance.  You're obviously a fine and trusted editor. --
'''Support''' - Nice content edits and nice job answering questions. :) <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>
'''Support'''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with RegentsPark about the lack of project space edits.
'''Support''' - Candidate has been here a long time, has been an extremely prolific editor, and shows no signs of being clueless.  Answers to the questions indicate that he's likely to tread carefully when in unfamiliar areas.  That he has less than X edits in Y namespace is immaterial.
The oppose rationales are entirely unconvincing, regarding lack of edits in the Project space. Neelix has more edits there than I did when I passed RfA (in fact, I think he still might be ahead of me) so the proportion of edits compared to Article space is irrelevant. Some editors prefer actually editing articles (shock, horror!) to chasing vandals and requesting page protection, and it doesn't mean they will make a bad administrator. To be honest, I think we could do with more article-building admins.
'''Support''' I went through the talk page archives of this editor, and all I can see is a friendly and communicative person who works on improving this encyclopedia. In my opinion, Neelix has sufficient experience and dedication to the project. I don't think s/he'll misuse the tool.
Clearly dedicated and trustworthy, opposition are grasping at straws.
'''Support''' - Like the answer to question 16. I trust this user with the mop. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Wireless Keyboard-->
Per Chaser, RegentsPark. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support'''. I've seen Neelix around the wiki and I fully trust him and his abilities. I think we desperately need another admin to help out with the backlogs, especially at [[WP:RM]] because it's an oft neglected process. {{User|Fuhghettaboutit}} has been doing a awesome job so far at manually evaluating and closing the discussions, but it seems like he's all alone out there, meanwhile some requests sit there for months. Yes, if Neelix was to help out in the area he's got a definite strong support from me. --
'''Support''' <strong>
'''support''' Worried a bit about ability to deal with conflict and limited areas of interest/experience, otherwise looks great and has good attitude about things.  Will clearly help in areas that need help.
'''Support''' Ratio of edits to Wikipedia project space doesn't concern me that much.  Neelix has made similar amounts of edits to project space as several of January's successful RfA candidates ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Acdixon], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ponyo], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gonzonoir]).  I'm going to assume that over the course of his/her 95,000 edits to article space, s/he has learned through trial and error a lot of the skills/policy needed to wield the mop. If there was a demonstrated tendency by this editor to "lone wolf" it in contentious areas, I would be worried, but I haven't seen that here.
'''Support'''. The answer to my question wasn't quite what I was expecting, but it was well reasoned (and concisely so, which is never a bad thing!). If you do broaden your horizons, I would encourage you to seek feedback, but you're a competent and obviously dedicated editor. I think you posses sufficient clue to be trusted with the entire toolset and to not wade in aimlessly, so I wish you the very best of luck.
'''Support''' See my comments below. After five years, the only real question for me is whether there is affirmative evidence that someone would abuse the tools. I see quite the opposite here.--
Trustworthy user needs tools to work on RMs, and we need more people working on RMs.
Bonus points for self-nomination, no-BS approach to answering the optional questions is impressive, extensive experience with improving the project, areas of inexperience don't persuade me to oppose.
'''Support''' Incredibly prolific, good communication, experienced in applying policy and a clear rationale. Both deserving of greater responsibility and capable of exercising it wisely.
'''Support''' - Good luck.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy to me. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
From what I've read above and below looks like a good candidate. If anyone comes up with evidence that suggests Neelix might use the tools unwisely other than what is listed below already (as of 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)) please do ping me on my talk page.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, strong history of contributions.
'''Support''' If we start rejecting or opposing such candidates, I'm afraid that credible candidates would simply stop requesting for adminship. After such a dedicated commitment to this project - obviously in those areas that the editor is interested in - and especially over so many years, I would have expected this editor's request to pass with flying colors. I do hope that !voters in this RfA view this editor in the perspective of whether this editor would be a benefit to the project if their adminship request were to be passed. I believe the answer to that would determine the fact that this editor can be trusted without any issues with the tools.
'''Support''' Give him a mop!
'''Support''' Seems competent and level headed, that's all you really need.
'''Support''' Long established record of encyclopedia building, not pursuaded by the opposes. I will concede that proportionately his project space experience isn't that great, but the absolute quantity is fine. The user's record shows an appropriate temperment, and his/her history shows that they are unlikely to cause damage to the project. Given the way that most admins ignore [[WP:RM|requested moves]] (guilty!), we should be supportive of a credible claim of wishing to work there.
'''Support''' per Wifione and Xymmax. <span style="">
'''Support''' - moved from neutral. Obviously a clueful editor with a background that has demonstrated commitment to the project. I appreciate the candidate's straightforward answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - Generally good editor and community member. ''
'''Support''' - but no big deal. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' --
Won't abuse the tools
Seen Neelix around: impressive contributions, good behavior, and decent attitude in this RfA.
'''Support:''' Net positive for Wikipedia -
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.   --
'''Support''' Anyone with this much content creation experience ought to have a pretty good idea of how the tools should be used. --
'''Support''' as per Newyorkbrads position, trustable experianced user who won't make the wheels drop of with the mop. Neelix has also stated on his talkpage his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neelix#RFA acceptance] of community recall using [[User:Lar/Accountability]]. I trust them to take their time as they develop their mopping skills.
'''Support'''- Absolutely. Clearly knows their stuff and I see no convincing evidence that they will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Long-term, dedicated editor with no apparent competence or behavioral issues? These are the type of admins we ''want''. I see no evidence presented to suggest that Neelix wouldn't be perfectly capable of ''learning'' any admin tasks outside of his or her present interests and judiciously following Wiki policy. Sheesh people. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  This is the type of reasonable, experienced, trusted editor that should have admin tools.  Users that are primarily content contributors and don't spend their time in drama-burdened areas of Wikipedia namespace make the best admins.  --
'''Support'''. I waited until fairly late in this RfA before deciding, because I haven't crossed paths with the candidate despite the extensive edit history, and I wanted to see what would come up in the opposition. Honestly, I'm underwhelmed with the reasons that have been given for opposing, and I've read them carefully and looked at the provided links. What I think I see is a user who has a long track record that is free of trouble-making, who wants to make contributions to a specific administrative area where there is an unmet need. It seems to me that this is a net positive with very little risk. --
'''Support''' Anyone who is aware of my participation rate at RFA will know that I don't support many candidates, but Neelix is one of those who I do support. '''
'''Support''' - Like Tryptofish, I waited to see if the opposers could convince me.  They have not been able to, and I support with thanks to the candidate for his many acts of service.  My best to you,
'''Support''' - Looks fine; no concerns.
'''Support'''. Too many article edits?? WTF??
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with breadth of exposure.  While your article contributions are certainly sound, I am concerned by your low number and lack of frequent edits in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=250&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Neelix&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 Wikipedia] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=250&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Neelix&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 User talk] namespaces.  With regards to your Wikipedia namespace contributions, I would like to see work outside of AfD.  I've taken into account that you only wish to work in moves, but IMO, it is necessary that admin candidates be well-rounded, with some degree of experience in most fields pertaining to administrators (e.g. XfD, AIV, ANI, RFPP, CSD). The sysop toolset comes as a complete package, and campaign promises to remain within a certain discipline can quickly drift off into the sidelines when one is presented with the entire toolset.   With regards to your edits in the User talk namespace, I feel that the number of edits you make to the mainspace is largely disproportionate to the number of edits you make in the user talk namespace.  The ability of an sysop to communicate on a frequent basis is essential and I'm not seeing nearly as much activity from you here as I would like to see.   Alas, I feel you're on the right track to adminship, but are not yet ready.  Sorry.  Sincerely,  '''
Over 100,000 edits ... and less than 1,000 of them to the project or projectalk namespaces? I'm open to being convinced that this is not necessary, but it's rather worrying. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose'''. Largely per Fastily. Although the number of your contributions is impressive, I am concerned you do not have enough evident experience in AIV, ANI, RFPP, CSD etc. or in counter vandalism work. Whilst I appreciate you want to work in a specific area, I too feel the admin bit is a complete toolset. I generally do not support admin candidates that do not have experience in counter vandal work&mdash;per [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Weak Oppose'''. Concerns about [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|Editcountitis]] (evidenced by their self-nom statement and userboxes), lack of WP namespace experience in terms of both proportion and overall number: less than 0.75% of overall edits, less than 1,000 edits, not seeing the required experience. ''
'''Oppose'''. While the candidate appears to have the right temperment to be an administrator I feel he lacks the experience. I find myself amazed that I'm saying that since he's made so many edits, but in the last 6 months he's only made around 60 edits to wikipedia space - many directly related to articles he is working on. I have no doubt of his content creating credentials, and he is a credit to encyclopedia but I do not believe adminship is the right place for him to move. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
actions and comments at [[Anthropogenic]] and [[Talk:Anthropogenic]] are enough for me to oppose. haven't looked at anything else yet. -
'''Weak Oppose''' I feel the arguments above are compelling enough to make me feel uncomfortable with a Support vote. My mind is shaky on this one though, I may move to neutral. Regards,
'''Weak Oppose''' slightly regretfully. I just don't feel that the answers to questions 4/5 and to 17 are compatible. You can't have it both ways really. Since you would not have a second RFA if you took on additional tasks (which is fair enough, of course, as that's hardly common practice), it is only right that we take this opportunity to judge you on ''all'' tasks that you might one day feel like doing, and it seems that you are not clear on blocking policy or on how to deal with potential non-free image issues.--
'''Oppose'''.  User recently unilaterally enforced their own interpretation of naming conventions on [[Hawaiian cuisine]] without consulting the extensive discussion about the title in the [[Talk:Hawaiian cuisine/Archive 1|talk archives]].  In the user's edit summary, Neelix claimed they were implementing the move "To be consistent with other regional cuisine articles" because "there is no reason to make this article's title an exception."[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Hawaiian_cuisine&action=historysubmit&diff=414435460&oldid=410361761]  Yet, the talk page archives indicate that there was a reason.  Further, the reason itself was also expressed in the old move log entry which appears visible at the bottom of the screen prior to moving the article.[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:MovePage/Hawaiian_cuisine]  Neelix's claim that "there is no reason" for the title is clearly at odds with the stated reason that is in evidence in both the move log and in the talk page archive.  If this is the kind of informed administration we can look forward to, then I must regretfully oppose.
'''Oppose''' Largely per Fastily. <s>Also, rather worried with the obsession with DYK. We all know where that can lead... (yes, that was a plagiarism reference)</s>
Concerned about "If a user requested that I become involved in a particular RfA, I would likely comply" (q13). I hope the candidate won't similarly be open to being solicited to use administrative tools in contested situations. I'll happily reconsider my !vote if I can be convinced by the candidate (not random third parties) that I'm reading too much into that answer. --
'''Weak oppose''' per Fastily. With so little contribution to the admin-type areas, it is hard for me to muster the trust that the RfA requires. Oppose is weak because adminship is, or should be, no big deal. --
'''Oppose''' - Neelix appears to be very active in the article namespace. However there are a few things that concern me. Firstly he doesn't appear to have demonstrated understanding of the CSD policy. Particularly in question 15. Deleting an article under CSD is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the tagger. It is about being able to determine whether or not the article meets the CSD criteria. Question 4 is also concerning as it demonstrates lack of understanding of the blocking policy. Per the blocking policy, if a registered account is a disruption/vandalism only account it should be blocked indefinitely. Question 5 evades much of the question, as he said he would consult another admin. However, as an administrator primary working with content they should generally know how to handle a possible [[WP:COI|Conflicting Interest]] issue. If the article contained screenshots from a film still under production it is quite likely the author is working for the film company. With these issues I am quite concerned about how Neelix will handle administrative work outside of requested moves.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Little experience in areas that require admin intervention. Unlikely to use the tools effectively.
'''Neutal''' I am impressed with your contribs but I also noticed of the lack of edits in the Wikipedia and User talk namespaces. In this case I agree with what Fastily is saying and this why I am here in neutral. Good luck though! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' A trustworthy, prolific user who wants access to the tools for very limited and clearly articulated purposes. The only hesitation that I have here is lack of edits in Wikipedia and User talk namespaces; and a general lack of experience in the traditional admin. areas (e.g. vandal fighting).--
'''Neutral''' - I tend not to support self-noms, and I agree with most of the opposes thus far that the candidate needs more all-around experience with the system.
'''Neutral''' - Great contributor, but Fastily makes a solid argument.  Leaning toward support though.--v/r -
Moved from oppose, I appreciate all the hard work in article space but Fastily and Fetchcomms bring up good arguments. I would still like to see a bit more in project space before I would support. <font color="00ff00">
'''Neutral''' With TP on this one requires more thought.
'''Neutral''' Good work as far as I can see, but both Fastily and Fetchcomms raise valid considerations. As I write this, neither side outweighs the other. --
'''Neutral''' allthough I disagree with some deletion nominations and think there should be more experience in admin related areas, other characteristics are good. I thought that requested moves would be a reason to be an admin too, but in fact there is not much work there.
'''Neutral''' - While this user's content contributions are superb, I'd like to see more project/project talk namespace edits. A prospective admin needs to have experience in the "'''administrative'''" areas of Wikipedia and in comparison to their content edits I'm not satisfied by what I see, though I don't think that not having a substantial amount project/project talk edits merits an oppose !vote. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Neutral''' -  moved from 'Oppose'.   [[User talk:Keepscases]] question #13 impresses me - although  I  don't  generally  ask questions, it's one I've often pondered asking  at  RfA, and I'm  disappointed in  your answer. However, in  view of the support you have, I  have now been able to  review a lot more of your contributions, and I  no  longer see a reason to oppose, so I'm  moving  here. The comments in my  oppose statement still  stand, and I  hope you will take them into  consideration in  good faith, in your work as an admin.
'''Neutral''' [[Carabane]] needs work (confusing read).  Concerned about level of English language competence as well.  On the positive side, you are a big content contributor and "content is king".
'''Neutral''' - Many edits but relatively few in areas where the admin tools would be used, and more experience in those areas would be preferred before getting the tools.--
Why not? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Don't see any thing wrong with candidate. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' as nominator. (Missed first spot, had to be off-line).--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - a clichéd "Is he not already one?" !vote. --
'''Support'''- yup, no worries here.
'''Support''' Perfect candidate for administrator. ;)
'''Support'''--Good English skills, good people skills, solidly NPOV.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' Can't see any issues here '''''
Peridon was one of the most reliable page taggers I knew back when I did a lot of CSD work.  Glad to hear he's kept it up.  Support with no hesitation at all. - Dank (
'''Support''' No reason not to. ''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Solid credentials. The biggest feather in the candidate's cap is the terrific vetting statement by Tony Bradbury &mdash; someone whose opinion I give great weight.--
<s>'''Oppose''' didn't sign the acceptance statement.</s> '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|Why not?]]
'''Support''' Having looked through the AfDs Peridon has been most active on, I'm very impressed with the way the editor handled large swathes of biased editors/IPs/off wiki campaigns. For example, just a few months ago [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Gharios of Ghassan|here]] or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIBES FM Hamburg|here]]. Obviously works in deletion, with about a 1 in 3 edits deleted and (from what I've managed to unearth) understands the policies related to deletion. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Support''' I agree with Worm. Peridon seems like a reliable editor, who is eligible to become an admin. <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Worm That Turned|Worm That Turned]] and nom.
'''Support''' – Trustworthy user, giving him/her the mop would be beneficial. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' No issues seen. --
I reviewed some stuff, looks good, candidate seems like a nice fit for this role.
'''Support''' - A sound knowledge of policies combined with level-headedness and a calm communication style is a great combination. I trust that Peridon will use the tools wisely. --
'''Support'''. Simply why not? Reliable contributor with experience from different areas of editing. '''''
'''Support''' on the assumption that this user can be trusted with the tools.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Knowledgeable and a fairly wide array of experience. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Support'''. Yup. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' a review of this user's history shows civility, precise construction of the 'pedia and good humour. -
'''Support''' Why not? —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' This is the type of user we need in this capacity.
'''Support'''. Easy call. An experienced editor with a winning (online) personality. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Aye.
'''Support''' Looks like a good experienced editor. =]
'''Support'''. I don't see any reasons not to trust this user with the mop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - Why not.

'''Support'''  - Has my vote.
'''Support'''  - I'm impressed with the candidate's considerate responses, communication skills, attitudes and - above all - common sense. I see nothing that worries me in contribs, and in this specific case, the concerns regarding low content contribs are outweighed by other factors - including the plain fact that, here at RfA, the candidate has clearly demonstrated an ability to both understand policies and to communicate effectively (ie to "write well"). <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Why not?
<font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Excellent editor.  No reason not to give them the mop.  Good sense of humor. --
'''Support'''. Limited content creation. Otherwise good contributions.
Peridon always makes sensible arguments at AfD and the answers to q6 show Peridon will make sensible closes too, even if appropriately cautious at first. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
Nothing amiss here.
YES<small>Yes</small><small><small>Yes</small></small>
'''Support''', no reason why not.
'''Support'''; I went into this thinking I would support, and his answer to my question confirms it.
'''Support'''. All my experiences with this editor indicate that he has the maturity and judgment needed for the job.
'''Support'''.
'''Support:'''--
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Great candidate with a great nominator. I do not have any concerns here.
'''Support'''. Erudite, articulate, and no red flags that I can find. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''—should do just fine as an admin. Happy mopping!
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support''' No major issues and a stable track record. – '''
'''Support''' Clearly a solid candidate.
'''Support''' Happy to see that this will succeed!
'''Support''' - sounds good to me.
'''R'''esponses indicate a sound approach to learning the ropes and I find nothing disconcerting in recent edit history.--<small><b><i>Club<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font></i></b><sup>
'''Support''' Trustworthy, communicates well, has a sense of humour, isn't conceited, my first impression of him was that he already was an administrator here.
'''Oppose''' per fluffy non-answers to questions 2 and 3. Please provide real examples that we can use to determine your acumen. --
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough writing experience to moderate an encyclopedia website.  (I do appreciate the candidate's forthright answer though.)
'''Oppose''' Too negative.  For example, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant cover]].  This is a respectable topic for which it is easy to find a good source such as ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=yO5M08EP01MC Modern trends in applied terrestrial ecology]''.  The candidate indicates that he knows something of the field but does nothing to help.
'''Neutral''' Although I see lots of good work, especially with CSD tagging. There is very little evidence of real vandal fighting (often the main thrust of admin work) - indeed the user has the rollback facility, but the use of that seems very limited - the number of automated edits is zero - I don't remember a recent successful RfA with zero (someone's bound to put me right..). Having said that I can see that this is a well respected editor, with obviously a lot of trust, and I therefore doubt if they will abuse that trust, so even though my initial thoughts were oppose, I'll keep it neutral for now. '''
As nominator. ''
I '''Support''' a candidate who wants to help out with backlogs.
{{ec}} per nom --<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="blue">Perseus, Son]] [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/t|<font color="red">of Zeus]] [[Special:EmailUser/Perseus, Son of Zeus|✉]]
'''Support''' Clueful, helpful, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' -  has the profile and history  of a candidate who has the potential to  be a keen and trustworthy  sysop. --
No alarms here; seems balanced, good content work, BLP work seems good, should be a good addition.
'''Support''' - I find no issues when checking out his contributions.
'''Trust the nom support'''---'''
'''Support''' Her work cleaning up the unreferenced BLP backlog shows dedication to the project. Always remains sensible, confident that she will not misuse the tools. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I see no issues that worry me. I'm always happy to see someone well-versed in BLP policy.
'''Strong support''' . Ponyo is a clueful and conscientious editor who is also unfailingly civil, and that seems to me to be just about a perfect recipe for an admin. Looking at Ponyo's contribs, I note several instances of Ponyo expressing uncertainty about policies or guidelines, and refraining from further action or comment before doing some research. That sort of caution is just what's needed in an admin, because a rushed action can create a lot of drama, something which Ponyo seems skilled at avoiding. --
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. Very experienced and constructive editor. Doing great BLP work, which is a hard and often thankless task. Handing over a mop can only benefit the project. --
'''Support''' I have had a lot of opportunity to observe this editor's work adding references to unreferenced biographies of living people. It's excellent work, and Ponyo has always been a delight to interact with. This work with URBLPR has left hundreds (perhaps more) articles significantly better than they were before, as well as sending a few to a well-deserved end. I'm confident that this editor's work has been a significant, positive contribution to the 'pedia, and that providing this editor "the mop" will allow Ponyo to be an even more valuable contributor. While much of my support is based on personal experience, I also did a review of randomly-selected portions of Ponyo's contribution history and found nothing which concerned me, and much to like.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Absolutely'''! Giving her her own bit will, if nothing else, reduce the pressure on mine! Excellent BLP work, both in enforcement and sourcing and all around very clueful Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Looking back through her recent contribs, this candidate seems to be doing a good job cleaning up BLPs, finding sources and removing uncited claims - an incredibly important job, obviously, and one that someone's got to do. She also seems reasonably level-headed and approachable (something which is <i>very</i> valuable in admins who work on BLPs, since that particular policy has been used as a pretext for way too much trigger-happiness in the past). All in all, no red flags that I can see.
'''Support''''. Good work with BLP referencing, and being a moderate on issues of inclusion is good for an admin.
'''Support'''. Good mainspace contributions. Good contributions to discussions. Enough experience here and competence to make supporting an easy choice here.--
Per nom. - Dank (
Yes, I'm happy to support, although I'm disapointed with some of the editors I seem to be in company with. Nevertheless, a solid review of your talk page history indicates a pleasent and agreeable nature; recent sourcing work on articles is particularly impressive; enough talk page edits to indicate your desire to collaborate; general experience on the meta side is sufficent for me. In short - likely to use the extra tools without any concern of misuse or abuse. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Some mild concerns related to seeing him/her commenting on a recent AN or AN/I thread, nothing barring me from supporting. It's almost not worth mentioning and I don't really remember what it was, but I disliked it at the time. Meh. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Excellent with BLPs
'''Support''' per the nominator's reason.
'''Support''' No issues here ;)--
'''Support''' Per the above supports.
Yes ''
'''Support''' - I see no problems with this candidate. --
&mdash;
'''Support''' More admins are needed who are willing to wade into BLP problems, and fix them.
'''Support''' - Experienced and trustworthy, the candidate's more than 20,000 edits includes 10 new articles and 11 redirects. A terrific vetting statement by nom is also a feather in this candidate's cap.--

'''Support''' - worth a go with the mop.
'''Support''' - An editor who appears to be good at taking out the garbage, thus, I say we give them the janitorial tools to continue doing so. And, "Yay! Two candidates this cycle that are a pleasure to support!" --
'''Support''' – Experienced, communicative, and appropriately cautious. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''', no reason to think the tools would be misused. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Having worked on a few articles with Ponyo, It is always good to work with her/him and I  found her/him clueful and experienced and fully capable of helping out with the extra buttons without making the wiki wheels drop off. There is more than enough content creation in their edit history to satisfy me.
'''Support'''. I have seen Ponyo enough at [[WP:CP]] to already appreciate the diligence with copyright concerns. I don't see anything to give me cause for concern, but, on the contrary, quite enough that it seems to me this would be a benefit for the project. :) --
'''Support'''. Ponyo has always seemed helpful, civil and clueful whenever I have encountered her.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Good Editor, Good work. Good Luck.
'''Support''' per all above--
'''Support''' Absolutely! —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' An admin who has good knowledge in BLPs? Sounds like a Good Thing<sup>TM</sup>.
'''Support''' (move from Neutral) While I was hesitant due to a recent interaction, I have reviewed the contribution history and find an editor who is polite, thoughtful, and very good with BLP concerns. Additionally, nomination by WSC is generally a good reason to consider supporting a nominee. uBLP work, and good arguments on either side of AfDs show a level of contemplation and policy interpretation that makes me quite comfortable with giving the tools to Ponyo. '''
'''Support''' The candidate seems to generally have their head screwed on, and I see no reason to believe that they would be abusive of the tools. '''''
'''Support''' Everything I have seen looks good and I see nothing that makes me think Ponyo will misuse the tools.
I think the example q7 was a stuff-up by both me and the candidate: we don't need policy to tell us that once an admin has declined speedy deletion, it shouldn't just be reversed unilaterally. And earlier versions of the article, while copyvios, had information that arguably crossed the A7 bar. But strong support nonetheless -- the track record is excellent! --
<font color="00ff00">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' no issues here. Neither of the oppose opinions have raised any flags. '''
'''Support''' per nom. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Support''' kind, helpful, cares about the project and about other contributors. Thanks to Ponyo's generosity I got my first-ever DYK credit. My sig is boring vanilla but I can' imagine the wildest of sigs being a reason to vote against somebody who would make such a good admin.
'''Support''' Seems good to me! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - without a doubt.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --v/r -
'''Support.''' Mkativerata is spot on (as usual). The problem in this situation is an admin unilaterally overturning another admin's decision. Re-tagging for speedy deletion should therefore normally be avoided. Having vetted Ponyo more closely I see no other problems, so I'm still happy to support. <code>
'''Support''' Candidate is clueful, has a positive attitude and an excellent track record. Opposes to date vary between nitpicking and trite, and are wholly unconvincing. --
'''Support'''.  Good ser, knows what she is doing.  Oppose changing either username or signature.
'''Support''' Valuable contributions, and clearly trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' - Without Conscience. --
'''Support'''—Knows what she's doing, and I can trust her with the tools. Personally, I don't have problems with her signature. I believe she will be a valuable addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' - seen the candidate around, has clue. Good answers to questions.
'''Support''' - looks to have experience and clue. A read through of talk page archive show that the candidate responds well to confrontation. '''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 22,000 edits (including over 60 % article edits), high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. No issues. Long-time editor, perfectly safe.
'''Support''' Good contributions, especially in BLP. – '''
'''Support'''. Unusually good understanding and application of BLP and deletion criteria.
'''Support:''' Another great candidate. -
'''Support'''. I looked over your user talk archives, and they confirm what others above have said about you being trustworthy. And if the biggest problem uncovered in this RfA is that some people don't like your signature, well... --
Best wishes to you. '''
While RFA regulars may see a signature as a minor stylistic choice, I see an unnecessarily complicated one (French?) as a symbolic barrier to new editors fully participating in the project. The media attention Wikipedia's power-up users are getting lately is part of my concern here; whereas the nominator sees a declining admin class as a problem, I disagree with him and (as increasingly widely reported) I see a declining editorial class as the real issue. Admins should be able to address the newest 10% of that group as easily as they engage the most veteran 10%, and someone who so curiously defends a signature in a neutral section doesn't necessarily seem cut out for that. Not every great editor would make a great administrator.
'''Neutral,''' regretfully. I stand by my previous comment that the candidate would make an excellent admin, and I do hope that this RfA goes though (which it looks like it almost certainly will). However, I find myself strangely agreeing with [[User:Townlake]] on the signature bit. This is something that I would usually dismiss as a trivial concern, but I have a nagging feeling that it poses potential problems in this case. I'd personally like to see the candidate choose one name and stick with it, but this is not enough for me to oppose. ~~
Conditional '''neutral''' pending acceptable resolution of the signature issue. A bit of flair can be nice, I suppose, but there's really no acceptable reason to have a CamelCase in this instance.
'''Technicolor Hyper Support''' as per nomination statement. --
'''Support'''. I have watched the development of Qwyrxian's replies to the standard questions above but need see no more. Our mutual involvement has tended to be in the often very contentious area of India-related articles. I had already indicated that I would support, as a non-admin, because this contributor has time and again demonstrated to me some of the key points for anyone aspiring to the mop: clarity, throroughness, fairness, a recognition of where to draw a line, civility, policy/guideline knowledge, commitment to the project and, well, you name it. The attempt to mentor a recent contributor, {{u|Maheshkumaryadav}}, failed but it was not for want of trying and Qwyrxian had no problem recognising when the end had come. Is Qwyrxian perfect? Of course not, but xe is well in the zone that admins inhabit. Xe could make good use of the tools and has expressed a considered approach to using them. What's not to like? -
'''Watchlisted support''' I've been waiting for this!  Qwyrxian is a very discerning editor whose edits display a thorough knowledge of policy and consensus as well as good communication skills.  I have no doubt that he would put the mop to good use. '''
'''Enthusiastic support''' - Between my nothing-but-positive interactions with him at [[Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1]] and the glowing nomination statement from an editor I have nothing but respect for, this is an easy one.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong support''' - Easy one here given Diannaa's nom, and my one interaction with him has been positive (creating the anti-sockpuppet filter).
'''Support''' – has a good head on his shoulders.
'''Support''' Qwyrxian has the skills and the temperament. To me, what is most important in an admin, is a level head and thoughtful decisions. Qwyrxian demonstrates this in every edit. I have worked with Qwyrxian on many occasions, and have been constantly impressed. I think Qwyrxian would be a model admin.
'''Support''' Shows calmness, clue, and civility in contentious areas. I trust they will use the new tools in the right way.
I've been waiting for this one. Solid candidate, only have good things to say. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support''' - I will not withold my support on the basis of one erroneous CSD tag.
'''Support''' Lots of attempted consensus building and restraint were shown by the editor on Senaku and SSCS pages. I cannot say that anything I have seen is other than what I would expect from a well-balanced admin.
'''Support''' A qualified candidate with good judgement. We don't have enough admins with a username beginning with Q (There are only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Q&group=sysop&limit=4 4] at the moment).
'''Support'''. I was mediator during the Senkaku Islands case to which Qwyrxian was party, and was consistently impressed by his patience, evenhandedness, writing skills, and desire to reach genuine consensus during a period of intense cultural conflict. He was in many ways almost a co-mediator, and I heartily endorse him for adminship. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">
'''Support''' - seems like a rational, logical editor who would make a capable administrator.
'''Support''' based on who nommed, answeres to questions and the GA.[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Support'''. Easy decision - I've seen Qwyrxian around the place a lot, and recently we've started working in the same area (articles related to India) where there has been a lot of unpleasantness. If Qwyrxian can handle that and stay focused and calm, I have no doubts about any other areas. Oh, and general Wikipedia knowledge looks fine, overall experience looks great, etc --
'''Support'''. A level headed and fair personality around the Japan-related maritime disputes, a patient mentor to Maheshkumaryadav, a ravager of backlogs; Qwyrxian is an ideal candidate.
'''Support''' [[User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_1#Removal_of_substantial_changes|The candidate's talk page displays  calmness, clarity, and accuracy]]. Others have made similar assessments. (Inspection of articles revealed nothing especially interesting or easily accessible to me, so I inquire no further.) The candidate has contributed to content and helped the project in a number of fora, and so gets my support. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - great work on WP, and you deserve a promotion for it. Always best regards -
'''Support'''. Editor appears to have good judgement and shows understanding of policy.--
'''Support''' hard-working and patient editor, good for administrative tasks!
'''Support''' Hardworking and clueful editor.
'''Very Strong Support''' Seems like a great candidate for the job. Seems very knowledgeable. Answered all questions very thoroughly and satisfactorily. If he thinks he can handle it, understands all the policy's and stuff, enjoys Wikipedia.... Seems like he would work out great as an Administrator.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''': The effort this Gentleman puts in to clarify the doubts of the Users is definitely worth making him an administrator. Sincerely:
'''Support''' with the caveat to be careful with CSD. Otherwise, candidate is a good contributor, and a level head in one of our nationalist hotspots.
'''Support'''- absolutely. Meets my [[User:Swarm/RfA criteria|criteria]], seems clueful, thoughtful, civil, level headed, etc. Put admirable thought and effort into the questions. Seems like he would be an ideal administrator. ''
'''Support''' If there's a reason for this candidate not to hold the mop, I haven't spotted it. --
'''Support'''
'''Suppport''' - has good intentions. Regards,
'''Support''' – Good, clueful editor; the answer to the A7 question was fairly thorough, and touched on the right spots. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - Per nom statement. Good luck!
Although I feel the need to express my view that the answer to question 12 was over-egged. Holding opposite views in a debate (which is what the question asks) doesn't, in and of itself, constitute a dispute giving rise to an involvement issue or a "conflict" (the word emphasised by the candidate). When barristers move to the bench they don't recuse themselves from every case involving their former "adversaries". If it would be a nonsense in the courts it's a nonsense here. If the block arose from circumstances relevant to the debate (ie the same topic area), there would be an involvement problem. If the past debate was personal in nature, there would also be an involvement problem. But not just because there was, at some time in the past, a debate in which the editors held opposite views. --
'''Support''' -- seems fine to me. --
'''Support''' thought he/she handled the Maheshkumaryadav case very well, especially the willingness to go the extra mile to retain the user. About the A7 stuff below, I'm not worried. CSD is an area that a few people understand very well while the rest of us muddle along, occasionally straying onto the wrong side of the line. But that is the wikipedia way, if we never strayed then consensus, policy and guidelines would never change (which would pretty much be the death of this fine project). --
'''Support''' Net benefit.  -'''
'''Support'''- Appears to me to be well suited for adminship.
'''Support''' I believe that Qwyrxian is fine admin material. Xe is a clueful editor and thoughtful communicator who appears willing to pause and clarify when unsure of how to proceed in a given situation. I also hold the nominator's judgment in high regard, which is icing on the RfA cake.
—'''
'''Support'''; it's always good to have admins who understand the morass that is NPP.  I think he nailed Q8; [[WP:NFT|NFT]] exists for exactly this sort of "claim of notability".  I also saw the job he did cleaning up after (now banned) [[User:Maheshkumaryadav|Maheshkumaryadav]], and the work he did there alone is enough to support.
'''Support''' - No 20 questions bullshit from me. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Has been around a while. The end.
Rational and experienced, but a little verbose. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Despite a minor quarrel which could have been worse in a few cases, you did well in communicating with me at my talk page and wherever discussions were needed; in fact, especially in communication with me and [[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]]. The communication between you, Anna, and me were not limited to problems that I may encounter or done wrong, as well as the development that was stated in your intro page. Although it was a very tough decision for me when I noticed that your candidacy was posted for becoming an administrator, I say that you are good to go. Even if you are an administrator, I will continue to communicate whenever you want to do so, and will still try to ask if I need to clarify (along with Anna).
'''Support'''. I think that Qwyrxian is hardworking, competent, and can be trusted with the mop. The work on the Mahesh issue was impressive - helpful, thorough, firmly backing a position that supports the project but able to recognise when circumstances change and their old position is no longer viable. More admins like that would be a big net positive for wikipedia.
'''Support''' per Q8. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' I've seen the editor keep such a cool head at times.
'''Support''' - A7 is one of my pet-peeves and is one of those really problematic areas that comes up now and then at RfA. I love it when a candidate seems to have a great grasp on A7 (few do), it worries me when they completely fail to grasp the nuances of it (confusing "importance" with "notability" for example") and plans to work at CSD as an admin. In this case, where Qwyrxian seems to mostly get it, but is a bit shaky (for reasons outlined thoroughly in the oppose section), I don't really have a problem because it doesn't look like he's going to jump right into speedy deletion work. Everything else (good communication, article building skills, general experience, clean block log, ability to handle disputes well) looks good to me. -- '''
'''Support''' per Q6. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' Should make a better admiistrator than many around.
'''Support'''. I like what I've been seeing from this user, and hope to see a lot more in the future. --
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to distrust you so you have my full support!
'''Support'''. Candidate might want to double-check any A7 speedies for a bit, but overall appears to be a solid contributor with good answers to most questions and a proven commitment to improving the encyclopedia. --
'''Weak support''' - there are certainly areas in need of improvement, but the answer to Q13 is excellent.
'''Support''' &mdash;
Support.  Very calm editor, good at negotiation. If he accidentally deletes the odd [http://www.downfallguild.org/files/images/funny-pictures-these-kittens-may-have-firefox-as-a-mother.jpg Firefox kitten], it's easy enough to put it back, and he'd be so polite about it that the creator would probably be a friend for life.
'''Support'''. Even with a couple bobbles in his answers, Qwyrxian reads to me as the sort of thoughtful, cool-headed, willing-to-explain-but-also-to-correct-his-mistakes person who is well-suited to adminship.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Gave reasonable answers. Writing is verbose, but better than short/snippy replies to users, and experience being verbose can make replies as fast as snippy. Re Opposes: I cannot penalize a user based on disputes about [[WP:CSD]] which is obviously a "[[shaggy dog story]]" of deletion criteria. WP:CSD is the main problem (shave that dog), not the candidate's ideas of deletion. -
'''Support''' because of his characteristic approach to contexts which are like "a chicken talking to a duck" ([http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%B8%A1%E5%90%8C%E9%B8%AD%E8%AE%B2  鸡同鸭讲] or [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%B8%A1%E5%90%8C%E9%B8%AD%E8%AE%B2  雞同鴨講]). --
'''Support'''. I like the way this candidate has had experience dealing with content where there have been POV disputes. I'm very satisfied that s/he has the needed cluefullness to navigate those seas. I'm also impressed with the record of working with and even mentoring troubled users. And frankly, the objections over what I regard as quibbles about CSD stuff make me feel more inclined to support, not less, because I think these oppose comments are making mountains out of molehills, and because this is the kind of thing I think can be learned on the job, especially since it won't be in an area of early concentration. (About Q13, I wonder whether some of the scenario might make one ask about account compromise, though—just a thought.) --
'''Support''' He's a good user.
'''Support''' He's a level-headed editor who is open-minded and has a good grasp of Wikipedia policies. While he can be quite naive when it comes to dealing with inter-personal disputes, he appears to have as much admin quality as anyone can possibly have. --
'''Support''' Certainly goes out of his way to find amicable solutions to difficult problems. Definitely worthy of being an admin.
'''Support''' Very calm and collected editor who will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' Worked with this very patient editor on the 5W mess, I completely trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' I was recently nonplussed by the extent of this candidates politeness and helpfulness during a content dispute with a newer editor. The candidate was clear about his own belief abut what should happen on the article but found it necessary to make sure the newer editor had the tools to express their differing opinion also. Qwyrxian offered to show the other editor the process for expressing what they thought should be done and to help them get that process started at the proper board even though he disagreed withwhat they were trying to pursue. It went so far beyond being polite during a disagreement that I got curious and started exploring what else he did on the project. I liked everything I saw.
'''Support''' - We have interacted a few times, disagreements, but always professional.  That along with my reviews of contributions believe this will be a net positive.
'''Support''' - Level headed editor. Giving him admin tools will be a net positive to the project--
'''Support''' Minor policy quibbles aside (and disagreeing on the exact meaning of a word ''is'' minor), from my perusal of his contributions, this editor seems level-headed and articulate, both of which seem to be useful interpersonal skills for an administrator. Also, while it's important for administrators to not be complete douchetards, and that they should have a basic grasp on both how and when to use the tools, being one just isn't that big of a deal, particularly if the first part of the equation--I should really write a new essay called [[WP:NOTDOUCHETARDS]] :)--is present.
'''Support''' Answer to question regarding the ridiculous CSD candidate does, indeed, tell me Qwyrxian understands CSD, Steven Walling's (still) confusion of process with results notwithstanding. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' This editor seems to hold a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines and so I feel they would make a good addition as an adminitrator.  Good luck, --
I've thought about it long and hard, and after reviewing answers to your questions and all the comments above, I'm going to leave my comments here, because though some concerns that have been raised below I agree with, I still think you'd be a net positive as an admin, and frankly that's enough for me. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Dedicated, cautious editor. --
'''Support''' No major concerns.
'''Support''' per reasons above. My interactions with Qwyrxian have always been positive, and his answers above give me further confidence he'll do the job well. &nbsp; &mdash;
'''Support''' A good, solid editor who can be counted on to use the tools appropriately. Qwyrxian's behavior on [[Talk:Cheney_Mason|the Cheney Mason talk page]] was proper, in my opinion.  I am sure that Qwyrxian understands CSD better after this process, and I have no concerns in that area.
'''Support''' Impressed at his efforts to tackle and stick with difficult areas like caste and Seneku Island type disputes. So he read A7 wrong. He's got it now. Just one thing - where can I buy a Montydoodle?
'''Support''' No candidate is perfect, but Qwyrxian has show an willingness to listen and learn.
'''Support'''- Why not.
'''Support''' Level-headed, good author, with good answers to questions posed.
'''Support''' y not?
'''Support''' The questions asked in this RfA are extremely varied and Qwyrxian has answered them extremely handily and in a manner that shows deep understanding of the proper workings of policy. <font color="silver">
'''Support''' — I've read through [[Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/Archive 5]] and it shows Qwyrxian has some skill in resolving conflicts.
'''Support''' — Although I can't recall interacting with Qwyrxian personally, his edits and interaction with other editors have shown up on my watchlist more than enough for me to form an opinion of the editor.  I believe he'd be make a fine administrator. -
'''Strong Support''' I'm terribly impressed with the editing style and objective evaluation of the situation by this user. I wish him all the best. -'''<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#6666FF">
'''Support''' I am heavily involved with Qwyrxian and there were many disagreements with him. Nevertheless, I strongly support his adminship. ――
'''Support''' - The opposes are incredibly unconvincing. I see no issues with the CSD minutia brought up.
'''Support''' - can't see any reason to oppose - give him a mop!
'''Support'''. Nothing compels me to oppose. <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Strong support'''  Opposes are trivial matters that ever editor is bound to deal with.  If you have 50+ edits, you're likely to have been in some sort of conflict with someone.--v/r -
'''Support''' I've bumped into this editor a few times and found them to be clueful and helpful. Having read the opposes, they range from things I feel are not major issues to things I outright disagree with, but I see nothing that might waiver my support. Will certainly make a good admin.
'''Support''' Per the fantastic phrase that is "my RfA has exploded in a paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=441258478]). And also because I see no major reason to oppose, seems like a good candidate--
The opposes aren't convincing me; their rationales don't seem enough to oppose. ~~
This user and I have bumped into each other when we have worked on the same projects.  I found Qwyrxian's edits to be meaningful and trustworthy.
Seems to be a reasonable editor, I can't think of any significant interaction I've had with him/her but a look at contributions show a grounded and reasonable approach. &mdash;

Opposes are either mostly unconvincing, or canvassed non-votes over a minor issue.
'''Support''' - 100 people can't be wrong. Plus all the other good reasons that have already be named above.
'''Support'''   per review of a selected contributions, as well as A6, A14.2.  --
'''Gladly Support''' The administrator shows a clear reputation for fighting vandalism, and page protection, where they would like to begin their work.  Despite not participating nearly as often in AfD, the admin also seems to have a clear understanding of proper [[WP:BEFORE]] behavior, and seems to go the extra mile by checking in with others users who have access to sources that are not available online.
'''Support''' albeit a little late! I have seen nothing but good work from the candidate and cordial discussions. I trust the candidate will use the tools well and exercise caution in areas such as CSD.--
'''Support'''. Being very familiar with the BLP incident mentioned by the nominator, I am more than satisfied with the candidate's ability to deal with difficult situations in a calm and effective manner. The concerns about interpretations of CSD categories are of very minor relevance in my view. --
'''Oppose''' due to CSD concerns.  Fairly recently, Malik Shabazz [[User_talk:Qwyrxian#Speedy_deletion_converted_to_PROD:_UniStar_School_Changa_Manga|notified Qwyrxian]] that the school article that he had tagged as A7 was switched to a PROD because A7 does not apply to schools, as it states at [[WP:A7]].  However, Qwyrxian didn't seem to know this, replying, "As a school, it is necessarily either an organization and or corporation; it had no assertion of importance (unless you consider the mere claim to be a school of some type to be an assertion of importance), and, as such should qualify under A7." This worries me, as all admins should be almost perfect in their CSD tagging/knowledge, and not knowing a fundamental part of A7 doesn't cut it for me.
'''Oppose''' Per the vague, confused answer to Q8 and the incident noted above, I don't trust this user with the delete button quite yet. I'd hate to see articles about animals and schools (What else? Public parks deleted as A7?) being CSD'd more. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose'''. I disagree with the answer to question 8. The statement "''The breed is known for its amazing looks''" is a credible claim of significance. Thus CSD A7 is not valid.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of continuing misunderstanding of speedy deletion. It's not a question of the interpretation of "credible" and "significant", about which people can reasonably differ, but a continuing refusal to limit A7 to the types of articles for which it was intended. The schools problem has been mentioned, and the dog problem is also either not perceiving that this is not an individual animal, or   deciding it didn't matter and A7 can apply to whatever one might want it to despite the continuing strong consensus that the categories are meant as a strict limitation. I'm open to changing my !vote here if there is an adequate explanation.   '''
'''Oppose'''. Qwyrxian has done a lot of contributions to wp and I would say he (or maybe she) is a very productive wiki editor, and even may be more, an industrious wiki Online Ambassador. But I do not think he is qualified as an administrator now. He is still far away from wiki adminiship because he has quite often misconstrued or misinterpreted wiki's important policies and guidelines, particularly the most important the NPOV one. The maybe-well-known-disputed page [[Senkaku Islands]] and its relative pages was led to a mediation recently for its name/title dispute and debate. Based on the spirit, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia, I raised that "[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when involving international territory dispute|Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when involving international territory dispute]]". His answer was "Of course Wikipedia takes sides". When the precedent [[Liancourt Rocks]], which is demonstrated as a typical example in the wiki guideline [[WP:NCGN#Multiple local names]], was mentioned, he indiscreetly asked "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Senkaku_Islands&diff=434174679&oldid=434172139 Please drop it]" and then actually shut a door or way as a possible dispute resolving approach. The naming disputes over the page [[Senkaku Islands]] and its relative pages have lasted so long (a couple years) and Qwyrxian has actively played an important role there. Qwyrxian's "contributions" including tricks like "penny wise and pound foolish" on these disputes bear important responsibilities for the disputes last so long including the recent failed mediation. As for his such atitude towards wiki's NPOV, I am afraid if Qwyrxian is empowered with adminiship, he may make Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, becoming, at least in some parts or aspects, the pro-Japan or pro-whateverbiased encyclopedia. Qwyrxian should learn more in this important aspect from other administrators including admin [[user:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]]. --
'''Oppose''' on the bases expressed by all other editors/posters who have opposed Qwyrxian.  The foregoing posters who oppose have done a great job of justifying why Qwyrxian should not enjoy the privilege of becoming an administrator.  Speedy deletion, among other issues, is a serious flaw of Qwyrxian.  This is very much a public issue, and, with that in mind, I must be at liberty to say that the kind of actions described of Qwyrxian, and as personally experienced by me in the course of editing articles, make him/her unbecoming of a serious administrator candidate.  This is about trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and, with that in mind, I must oppose and urge that someone who is seriously qualified to be considered. In my experience and opinion, Qwyrxian overzealously fended off anyone from undoing the deletion of certain content he simply did not like attributed to a person--even though it was factual and had significant public interest--and he did so by seeking to expeditiously foreclose the possibility of a thorough discussion by deleting the subject content without allowing it to remain for others to view and comment, specifically the editors who actually had a vested interest in the article given that they had actually created it.  Aside from the few editors that came to his aid, Qwyrxian really took control over the future of the article irrespective of the discouraging effect it had on other editors who may have contributed to the discussion, but, in my opinion, did not in fear of being berated.  I pleaded to have the subject content remain for the time being in order to give a full opportunity for others who had worked on the article to comment, but, instead of compromising, Qwyrxian hastily sought to have me banned from Wikipedia when I sought to preserve the subject content in the foregoing vein of my good-faith intention.  Fortunately, an administrator, notably, REFUSED to block me at Qwyrxian's request.  Of course, expressing a high degree of professionalism and respect towards the administrator, Qwyrxian quipped about the administrator as follows, to wit: "Now that Master of Puppets has chosen not to block you..."! The administrator came in to do his/her job, and Wikipedia is not about puppet shows and censorship, but about an open source of free media, and, in my strong opinion, this is in jeopardy with Qwyrxian's nomination.  (Yes, I do have a conflict of interest, if it is not clear to all, but it accrued from my dealings with Qwyrxian, which I think is necessary to have in order to be able to make a useful opinion in such a pubic debate of nomination.)
'''Oppose'''.  Was asked by Diligent to weigh in.  (I've no prior contact w/ Diligent, not familiar to any degree w/ any of Diligent's issues or experiences.)  If I give opinion, I have to say ''oppose''.  (IMO Qwyrxian needs to mature before becoming Admin.  I feel he has a fatal flaw: predisposition to value policy over article quality.  Policies are good things.  But when valued to extreme in-and-of themselves, it becomes a bit manic and destructive.  For example, I've seen Qwyrxian go out of his way to basically invent fact and theory to maintain a policy view &ndash; essentially force-fitting a situation into the policy for the sake of the policy. I feel if he feels the need to go to that extent, something must be wrong.  Policies should be kept in mind always, with vigilance for opportunities to make them better.  But I don't think Qwyrxian carries that mindset.  I think he values policy to such degree, the article becomes in inconvenient nuisance to the policy.  If you promote him to Admin, which looks like will be the case here, I suppose he will eventually mature.  But I think there will be a cost, disheartening editors who must face this predisposition, too.)  [[User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso|talk]]) 02:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)<p>p.s. 1) this is my first-ever vote in an RfA, 2) I was aware of the RfA prior to hearing from Diligent, 3) wasn't sure I was eligible to vote (I had assumed RfA voting was for Admins and above), 4) didn't research voting eligibility further for two reasons: a) ''approve'' looked unstoppable, so what's the point? and b) Qwyrxian is currently working on something of value to me (i.e., building possible exception language to [[WP:COLLAPSE]]) and I didn't want to risk teeing him off w/ a negative vote, 5) I thought about the ethics of that, deciding to speak up outweighs my own personal interest.<p>Last, I think it's interesting to witness Qwyrxian during this voting period.  (Look what he did! ... He used ''policy'' to stomp down on Diligent, even there isn't anything fathomable he could possibly gain from doing so.  [To stop an influx of ''oppose'' votes which might tip the voting balance!?  Nonsense. To dispense helpful, corrective education to Diligent at an opportune moment for learning?  I hardly think so!]  So what explains Qwyrxian's interest to bring policy to the attention of Diligent, instantly and during the voting period?  I see only one answer that makes sense:  an overriding affection for policy, for policy's sake.  His answers to the vetting sample questions could all be perfect, his conduct might be friendly and polite as heck, but IMO, those things don't matter, if a predisposition rules.)
'''Oppose'''. I was asked to weigh in on this. Based only on my own previous interactions with Qwrxian, I do not believe he is an appropriate candidate to be an administrator of WP at this time. I found that Qwrxian was more interested in policing Wikipedia than editing it. In his zeal to voluntary enforce WP guidelines, I found that the user came off as brash, simpleminded, and authoritarian. This is because the user appears to have a very narrow and rigid understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I'm afraid that if he was given the position, he may potentially abuse it. Wikipedia does not need more administrators, it needs better editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy.
<b>Oppose</b> I have very limited interaction with this editor.  I thought better of a comment I made and chose to remove it to avoid escalating an editing dispute. Qwyrxian not only restored it, ensuring it was read but templated me for removing my comments. This demonstrates to me that he has poor judgement in managing disputes and doesn't have what it takes.
'''Strongly oppose'''. This candidate has very poor judgement.
'''Oppose''' An acceptable editor, but it would be dangerous to give Admin rights/tools to someone with such history, who has shown their inability to edit without bias. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I found this nomination while noting this editor throwing his weight around.  While I am awaiting a response to what issue in the [[WP:MOS]] opposes the edits he is dominantly making, the intense activity for this kind of repetitive edit, without discussion, alone tells me '''THIS IS NOT''' the kind of person we need having advanced power here on WP.  Its an attitude of his way or the highway and is bordering on POV.  We need admins who work with a situation, not wholesale delete or revert everything that they disagree with.
'''Neutral''' The candidate seems to still be having trouble with [[WP:CSD A7]]. In light of the previous concern raised about the proper scope of A7, I would have hoped that the candidate would have been careful with the scope of it in answering any questions, however the answer to question 8 fails to demonstrate that. The criteria only applies to an individual animal or animals. Normally an entire breed of dog would be outside the scope. That said, there are certainly ways that the example in Q8 could be argued to be validly speedy deletable, even under A7, but the issue of it being ostensibly about a breed, and how that impacts application was not addressed in the response. Otherwise the candidate looks great, and I don't think the edge case CSD issue is enough for me to outright oppose, but likewise I don't feel comfortable supporting given the issue.
'''Neutral''' I am utterly dismayed that you ignored the appeal from [[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] to earn his support. Honestly I anticipated a prompt equivocation that lessons had been learned (a rather small penance). In spite of your strong answers to many questions, I had resolved to see your reply to Steven before giving my own full support (perhaps as others). In keeping with my own resolve, I am more comfortable commenting from here.
'''Neutral'''. Quite simply not impressed. My concerns definitely aren't enough for an oppose, yet I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting. Here comes one of my rare neutral !votes. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Support''' Per [[User_talk:Rami_R/Archive_2#Your_closure_of_your_RFA|this discussion]] around your withdrawal of your last RfA. However I must note your much lower overall activity level since the last RfA. I suspect that may cause some to conisder that you haven't addressed all the oppose concerns from last time. Having said that, I was so impressed with your ability to read consnsus and take the knock back last time in your stride; I'm 100% convinced you will not abuse or misse the tools which is what it comes down to. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' (again). <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. Last time I said things like "''I've looked at quite a bit of the candidate's work, and I see a calm and level-headed person who understands how Wikipedia works''" and "''I'm also not worried about a low monthly edit count, as it's quality that counts, and quality is what I see''". Since then I see more quality work - and the candidate's handling of the withdrawal last time was pretty impressive too. --
'''Support''' - No reason why not; a well-balanced editor who will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''', just as last time.
Tch... well ''this'' is an obvious one. I once thought Rami R to have already been an administrator. No reason to believe he will do anything unscrupulous with the added toolset.
'''Support''' Still no reason to think theyll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' No issues seen. --
'''Strong support'''. There is a lack of recent activity, but that's not a great concern. Candidate has proven himself to be competent and clueful and is obviously not interested in adminship as some sort of trophy, as evidenced by his withdrawal right at the need of his last RfA, even though he was in the discretionary zone and the RfA could have been closed, at least in theory, as successful. His RfPP clerking script is widely used and extremely helpful and he has some recognised content to his name. Certainly more help at AIV and RfPP would be greatly appreciated.
'''Support'''. Although I do agree with Mkativerata's diffs, the intended admin areas of Q1 state that he will take part in RFPP, AIV and UFAA, and, as far as I can tell, the diffs were both located at deletion review, which isn't really the place where he is the most confident. I think he does deserve the tools, but I would avoid taking administrative actions in the DRV side of things.
'''Support''' just like last time.
'''Support''' again. <strong>
'''Support'''. Not particularly active, but quality is more important than quantity. As for the user's judgement of consensus, the user has [[User_talk:Off2riorob/Archive_8#Vote_Page|proved]] to be capable before, and has clearly indicated desire to work at AIV, RFPP, and UAA. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' The candidate came close (72%) to passing first RfA, and in my view, has taken the appropriate amount of time and appropriate steps to improve. I find this notion that the candidate has not been active enough in recent months to be a red herring. I see plenty of activity over the long term--
Yeah, yeah...I can certainly see some of the opposers' point, but not enough to oppose.
'''Support''' – I do have some activity concerns, but those are not enough to outweigh your quality work. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - Although the concerns in his first admin nomination were substantial and raised a few eyebrows for his admin capabilities, i think this time Rami is fully up to the task. The last time he did not have the experience but he does seem to have it now. I went through his contributions and he seems like he would be more than a suitable candidate.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' Blaming the editors lack of activity on him not caring for the project is really not considerate of the issues people face in RL. Many people donate to wikipedia but can't find the time to actually contribute. Do they care any less? I don't think that is fair. I'm sure the candidate will do fine.--
My concerns about Rami's ability to judge consensus pale in comparison to my concern that we might turn down an otherwise good candidate fo reasons of "recent inactivity" that have no apparent relevant to his capability to be an admin. Whether you call it "inactivity", "extreme inactivity" or whatever, the question is: ''how does it make him an unsuitable candidate''? The only reason proferred so far is that inactivity demonstrates a lack of commitment or dedication to, or interest in, the project. In my view, that's an extraordinary leap of logic to a perjorative conclusion. Commitment and interest aren't measured by activity levels. They're measured by motivations and qualities. But of course those traits take more time and effort to judge than reading X!'s tool. In any case, some of our best editors are not highly active. We need editors and admins who have successful off-wiki lives -- busy and successful people will tend to make for good administrators. Conversely, it's also reasonable to speculate that some of our most highly active editors, even admins, are here mainly to push POV or for plain self-aggrandisement. Time spent on the project per day has absolutely nothing to do with commitment or dedication. This user's qualities are amply demonstrated by matters including his demeanour in both RfAs and the fact that he's participated in difficult areas of editing seemingly without coming anywhere near blocks or discretionary sanctions. If Rami is going to use the tools once a week, and use them well: good. It's better than not at all. As for my own concerns, I think the fact that three editors have commented adversely on the DRV diff I presented will be more than enough feedback for Rami to take on board in judging consensus in his administrative activities. I see no evidence that he's the kind of recalcitrant who would ignore it. So I'm now supporting. --
'''Support''' I've looked through your edits and can find nothing that unduly concerns me.  Good luck!--
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. RfAs basically boil down to the question: "do you trust this candidate?". Usually, I like to see a bit more edits: it's not mere editcountitis, but a way to reasonably evaluate if the admin candidate is clueful enough not to screw up; that's why I'd also like to see that an admin candidate is experienced in admin-related areas, because even good-faith mistakes can have serious consequences (admin actions can be easily undone, but their consequences cannot; a blocked newbie can be unblocked, but if he's been scared away, we've probably lost him for good). In this case, however, despite the low number of edits in general and in admin-related areas in particular, I believe this user has demonstrated through his demeanour that he's calm, level-headed and clueful enough to avoid using the button in the areas he doesn't have enough experience in or in cases where he's not certain. And I also agree with Mkativerata: {{xt|If Rami is going to use the tools once a week, and use them well: good. It's better than not at all.}} [[WP:TL;DR]], For all these reasons, I believe this user can be trusted with a few more buttons. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''. Admins don't have to be extremely active on the order of hundreds of edits a day. This user is simply a dedicated Wikipedia and I have no qualms trusting him. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - people need to look further than the top of the edit counter page, where the total edits number is... We've got a person who's experienced in all the good areas. And he has a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'''Support''' As per  Pedro and No Red flags.See no concerns.{{xt|Admin tools are not a exhaustible resource and issue in wikipedia has been over misuse of tools rather than limited use of tools and denying tools to this user does not create another admin elsewhere.}}
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy. Has made a significant contribution and is cooperative in resolving disputes. Commitment to the role of admin suggests good understanding of its responsibilities.
'''Support''' seems to know what he's doing; editor will be a net positive as admin.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support'''. Could have passed last time. Knows his way around, no red flags. Current edit rate is a red herring: if the dire predictions of the opposers come true and he is a "part-time admin", then we'll have gained... a part-time admin (like me). Assigning admin rights to an account doesn't detract from the work of other admins, and there is no quota at RfA.
'''Support''' Some valid concerns but none that seem that serious. Frequency of editing is not a good test for whether someone should be an admin (it doesn't make them any more likely to mess up). On the whole, looks good.
'''Support'''. People, come on. We are losing admins every week. We need to bring in new ones, period. What are the concerns? They are trivial. "Oppose - person appears to have a life outside of Wikipedia" is just not a valid reason to oppose. Is the person likely to abuse the tools? There's absolutely nothing here to indicate that he will. Is he likely to be a loose cannon, arrogant, unmindful of consensus and policy, or anything like that? No, he isn't. Is he likely, due to his relatively low level of activity, to make some mistakes due to not knowing all the ropes? Probably will. So what? Everyone does. He'll learn. He'll be fine.
'''Support''' per Salvio, HJ, Mkativerata and Herostratus. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support'''. Limited content contribution, but a good record of collaboration with other editors.
'''Support.''' Above it is suggested that the opposition have cited the user's low volume of edits as a problem, but they haven't; what they ''are'' worried about is that the candidate has not edited heavily enough in areas that sysops frequently work in. I accept that that concern is valid, but reject the notion that it is serious enough to warrant not granting this user sysop status. The user is trustworthy, has an adequate understanding of the tools (as demonstrated here not by his experience in sysop areas, but by his answers to the questions and his record as a constructive contributor), and gives no obvious other reasons for concern. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''' Appears to be reasonably competent and trustworthy.
'''Support''' A history of quietly fixing things with no drama and no controversy. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
'''Support''' Excellent editor, sufficient activity level, why not.

'''Support''' A net positive contributor to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - I agree with many of the opposes that more edits in admin-ish areas would be nice, but this user has been around for a while and has edited regularly. I have no reason to suspect the user will abuse the tools. Overall I see a net positive here.
'''Support'''. I agree with Mkativerata, Salvio, Fences&Windows, and AGK. Has the candidate failed to jump through some hoops? Yes. But has the candidate demonstrated that he can be trusted? Yes, and a small positive contribution will still be a positive contribution. I like the answers to questions, and I went through the archives of his user talk, and through some of his I-P related talk page comments, and I see someone who spends a lot of time in a very difficult content area, and has handled himself in a way that shows me that he is trustworthy. --
I still have concerns about this user reading concensus but the original opposer crossed out their oppose and it really doesn't have much substance. Lack of recent activity isn't a problem especially if the user is experienced on Wikipedia policies.
'''Support''', was neutral last time, now has the experience required for me to support. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Has a clue.--''
'''Support''' From what I've seen, there's no reason not to trust Rami with the tools. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' A7 shows cluefulness, which is much more important than rulefollowing. --
'''Support'''. I trust this candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' I really see no reason why not to oppose.
'''Support'''. Ditto. No reasons to deny the mop. --
'''Support''' No negatives, relative lack of activity isn't a problem, lack of competence would be.
'''Support''' per the above. Lack of experience (beyond an absolute minimum) can be worrying only insofar as it provides insufficient evidence to judge cluefulness. Here it is adequate to judge cluefulness.
'''Support''' I don't have any doubts that he'd abuse the tools and has been really helpful with RfPP. I think he'll do a good job. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''', essentially per HJ Mitchell above.  The manner in which the candidate dealt with his previous RfA was quite endeering, and working in such a controversial area without running into significant trouble is a definite positive.  I have reviewed every [[WP:AIV]] report in the last 12 months, and each one was accurate and appropriate. Finally, I find Mkativerata's response to concerns about recent activity convincing.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' Nor persuaded by the lack of experience opposes, don't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' I'll be honest, the recent low activity bothered me a little, but not for the reason it's bothering the other participants here; the idea of either a part-time admin or a specialty admin doesn't particularly concern me. This is a volunteer site, and I see no reason to tell a candidate who volunteers to do task '''A''' that they can't unless they also agree do tasks '''B''', '''C''' and '''D''', and/or promise to do them for a certain number of hours per week. I take the candidate at his word that he will (A) be more active in the coming months (per the answer to question 5), and (B) not perform admin tasks that are outside his areas of strength (per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rami_R_2&diff=412588833&oldid=412587016 this response]).<br/>The reason I was reluctant to support is simply that Rami R should have anticipated that it would be a tough RfA to pass coming off a five-month stretch of very light activity; it would have shown better judgment (IMO) to have invested at least a month or two of the increased activity that he's already indicated he plans to invest, just to preempt the objections of many of the opposes who are (not unreasonably) concerned that he might get the tools and then not do anything with them due to a waning interest in the project. But if that's an example of a poor decision, I don't think it's a "fatal" one, and since Rami R has shown 100% accuracy making reports to the areas he wants to patrol as an admin, telling the candidate to come back in three months would just waste everyone's time when he could be at work blocking vandals and protecting pages. 100% accuracy is a pretty compelling reason to support, in my view.
'''Support'''. Sure thing, no reason to oppose. Mop well deserved. '''''
'''Support''' The fact, that 20% of his edits are automated, bothered me a little, but his answers make it's clear, that he understands the policies and guidelines. I think he will be net positive admin. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' - the candidate has worthwhile content work, is thoughtful, reliable, and seems to have an adequate understanding of policy. The relatively low level of activity is not sufficiently serious to deny adminship. --
'''Support''' - adminship is no big deal; user trustworthy.
'''Support''' - Thoughtful responses to above queries.--
'''Support''' - Sees like a reasonable editor.  Good answers, no indication he would misuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, so I will support you!
'''Support:''' Notwithstanding the "lack of activity" the candidate is clearly a net positive. -
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. From my perspective the candidate has more than sufficient experience.
'''Support''' - Review of 20 random manual contributions shows that all were clean and well-sourced. Edit summaries on reverts also look good, as do the answers to the questions. Requiring some arbitrary number of edits per month won't get us better candidates, but accepting a well qualified candidate such as this will encourage others to run. —
A fine candidate.
'''Opppose''' Not enough experience in the areas that the candidate wishes to work.  To wit: 59 edits to AIV, 34 to RPP, and just 12 to UAA.  Also averaging just about 200 edits a month shows that you aren't around a great deal, and we don't need "part-time" admins.
'''Oppose''' Lack of activity in recent months, as well as only four page creations. I'm not one to be big on that sort of stuff, but those to combine further my oppose.
'''Oppose'''.  What ArcAngel said.  Concerns with experience and lack of recent activity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' More experience. I see you only have 4,429 edits according to [[User:X!|X!]]'s edit counter despite creating an account a few years ago, respectively. I would like to see more recent activity out of you such as working on AFD discussions or GA or DYK nominations.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of recent activity.  Need more work in admin areas such as AfD, UAA, etc.
Although I'm relaxing my standards in general, you've done very little with the project over the last 8 months.  I can't support someone who isn't interested enough in Wikipedia to do any significant work, even if you used to be interested in the past. - Dank (
'''Oppose'''  There are plenty  of dedicated Wikipedians who rack up ten to  twenty  times more manual edits in quasi administrative zones and who don't dream of wanting  to  be sysops. I mean even doing  a quick  twenty  minutes a day  on  NPP without  even doing drive-by tagging would change a lot. I'm afraid that after doing  my  own homework, I have to go with the flow on the low level of activity.
'''Oppose''' I really don't think this user has enough experience and lack of enough edit even though he has been editing since 2006. I also notice that this user only has reviewer rights and I don't think I can accept that. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience yet, and low edit volume worries me - I know the user said ''I expect to have much more time available for Wikipedia, at least for the near future'' - but expectations don't always materialise - come back when you have demonstrated that you '''do''' have more time for editing on Wikipedia. Also suggest get yourself as a rollbacker and do some serious anti-vandal work. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' I've looked over your edits between November and January, if you take out the clerking and fiddling with archive templates, you are left with a handful of vandalism reverts and warnings and a couple of tweaks. I can accept that you had important real life issues and I'm glad that you focused on them, but I'm a little confused as to why you'd run for RfA the moment you're getting back up to speed. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' per most of what the neutral voters and the opposes commenting on activity have to say.  Unlike the neutrals, though, I prefer to express such a lack of support though an opposition.  Looking at the other oppose rationales, I don't mind the self-nom, but the lack of content creation itself is doing you no favors.
'''Oppose''' - Per others expressing concerns about low levels of activity since last June... averages out to ''two edits a day'', which is hardly the level I want to see in an admin candidate.  Q5 answer doesn't win me over either.  I thank the candidate for willingness to be an admin but I cannot support.  Best wishes in any case.
'''Neutral''' Very little activity since last rfa. Not much has changed. You do have exp though bringing an article to GA. which i think demonstrates the knowledge of article builing ( a concern from the last raf in my neutral). Im leaning towards support here but ill take a closer look.
I supported last time. Neutral this time partly because of Mkativerata's diff, partly because I think having narrowly failed on activity grounds last time, it was a questionable decision to run after a period of lower activity. —
'''Neutral''' - I have to go with this since your activity is so low. It gives the appearance that you are losing interest in Wikipedia, since 30-40 edits per month is only one edit per day. Of your active months last year, four were in the first five months.
IMO, a little premature nom; just would like to see more activity and a variety of experience in general. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
A lack of recent activity is concerning, especially when one's edit count in a month can't even crack 100. I'll mull it over, since I want to support but am reluctant to. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Relatively low levels of activity and overall experience concerns. I don't see this a reason to oppose this time around, but I'm not compelled to support, either.
This seems like a good candidate knowledge wise, certainly is saying the right things. However, at the same time, I have to admit that the numbers are an issue. This would have been a straightforward support had it been in June or so.
'''Neutral''' Not pleased with the candidate's edit count or overall lack of demonstrated experience in the areas that they state they are going to work in. However, after further review of contributions, interactions, and carefully considering some of the rationale provided in the support section above, I can not - with good conscience - state that this candidate receiving the mop would not be a net positive for the project. As such, I will not oppose, but at the same time can not outright support. --
Don't see why not.  Active since 2009 and over 10000 edits.  &ndash;
'''Sure''' - A glance through his contributions and talk page doesn't reveal anything upsetting. +1 for editing in contentious areas without edit-warring blocks, and another +1 for actually following the terms of [[WP:RTV]] and having the old account unvanished when you returned to editing.
'''Support''' - I've encountered RA on numerous occasions in relation to "[[Terminology of the British Isles|BI]]"-related matters, where he is one of the most effective protagonists for a calm, measured and balanced approach in a very difficult editing environment (though I'm sure we don't always agree about everything).  I'm confident he can use his mediating and other skills more widely here.
'''Support''' I take an active interest in watching the British Isles articles, and related (although I don't think I've ever edited them) and have seen the numerous issues and POV pushing that occur on them (from all sides). I've always been impressed by RA's neutrality and calming influence on those talk pages. That alone is enough for me to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Ghymrtle above.  Would be an asset to the cohort of admins.
'''Support''' seems like the negative issues from 2007 have been addressed, and I agree with Reaper-Eternal +1 for full compliance with [[WP:RTV]] - is this compliance is not a show the maturity issues from 2007 are absent now, I do not know what other evidence is needed.--
'''Support''' per the above. I don't see any issues with this candidate - lots of good edits, and a level of reasonableness that trumps any maturity issues from 4 years ago. Good luck,
'''Support''' long-time veteran with clean block log, broad range of experience, sound understanding of policy, solid contributor to article space, seems to have the "right stuff" with respect to the demeanor expected of a sysop--
'''Support''' I'm generally not a fan of users enacting RTV without a pressing need to do so. However due to it being 3 years ago and me not knowing the details, support '''
'''Support''' I'm a bit concerned about the RTV, otherwise this user seems fine. '''
'''Support''' Very reasoned contributor and editor. A breath of intelligent fresh air around the British/Irish article space (with one notable recent exception which I disagree very strongly with). Would be a real asset to the project, IMHO.
'''Demote''' to admin and assign a mop. Don't see why not.
'''Support''' Dedicated and good editor - lots of good edits, seems to approach issues or disputes reasonably and rationally - would make a good admin.
I've looked into specific edits which the negative comments on your userpage RfC stem from, and can only conclude that the complaint about your edits was based upon the POVs those people have. No evidence of improper behavior has been provided, nor have I found any.<p>On the one hand you've less of a record in deletion-related processes than I'm normally comfortable with, but on the other you have a strong record in Ireland-related matters, which is just about as controversial an area as there is. I've got no reason to suspect that you would use the tools in an improper way, I'm satisfied that you have decent all-round experience in spite of a small XfD record, and for that reason I'm happy to support. —
'''Support''' Displays a clear understanding of the project. --
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support'''; I didn't think you were an admin already, but I ''did'' think you should be.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Enthusiasts are welcomed. --
'''Support''' From what I can see from his contributions, he looks like a dedicated editor and a great candidate for adminship. --  '''
'''Support''' The editor has cast his mind on other times that WP in coming declines may be still feature the indomitable Irishry. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' we need more adminstrator specialists in problemmatic areas.
'''Absolutely sure''':  Going to do well with the SysOp privilege.  ~~
'''Support''' this thoughtful editor who seems to understand the position of trust he seeks.
'''Support.''' No obvious issues and clearly trustworthy.
'''Support''' We need more editors willing and able to work on dispute resolution (not just areas affected by ArbCom rulings, ANI or 3RR but before content disputes escalate that far) which RA seems eminently capable of doing. It would be nice if on becoming an admin they changed their sig to link to their userpage as it's useful for other editors to be able to readily ascertain whether a user is an admin or not.--
'''Support''' - Reasonable, dedicated, qualified, no concerns. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'''Support''' - My compliments on steering a straight course and remaining afloat in stormy waters
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Yes - Why not? Certainly trustworthy and experienced enough. Demonstrates excellent diplomatic  skills when faced with  inappropriate questions.
I do like [[WP:HUMAN]] and having an admin who has such views is a good thing, I think. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Knowledgeable and balanced editor. Would be a great asset.
'''Support''' I'm not in the habit of commenting on RfA's here (enwiki isn't my homewiki), but I've seen RA around and have been impressed by his approach, knowledge and obvious commitment to this project. I believe he would make a good addition to the team of administrators, happy to support.
'''Support''' Can see no reason why not - give the man a mop!
'''Support''' I believe he'd make a good admin.  Just hope it doesn't take from his editing....  --
'''Support''' - I'm glad you acknowledge [[WP:HUMAN]] as well. <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
'''Support''' - I wasn't familiar with RA before this RfA but what I see is good. A balanced number of contributions to article and non-article space, plenty of experience, a reasonable temperament, and a solid working knowledge of policies and guidelines. I see no reason to oppose. -- '''
'''Support''' per many of the above.
'''Support''' - Why not? +1 for [[WP:HUMAN]]. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - per many reasons given above; good answer to Q12.
'''Support''' - I glanced through his contributions and he has my check on that. He also has an ability of properly pouring well very articulated thoughts, which is something I like.
'''Support''' - Qualified candidate. Unlikely to abuse tools or do anything stupid. I'm really impressed with this editor's overall knowledge of policy and the wide variety of tasks already performed. I see no reason at all why they won't make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' – Absolutely; candidate is definitely qualified to be an admin. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' I find the opposes unconvincing.   No reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' You have my portion of community trust. Rest assured that if your conduct ever belies that trust, (which I highly doubt) I will tell you on that day.
'''Support''' - User seems able enough and willing to take his time, slowly developing his mopping skills without the wheels dropping off. His offer of openness to community recall and understanding that he is perceived as involved in the UK/Ireland topic area and will allow others to mop up there all allows me to support .
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', convinced the candidate understands involvement sufficiently to function in the contentious Britain/Ireland problem while holding the admin tools.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - User has displayed much diplomacy and tact when dealing with the controversial Irish/Troubles/British-related articles and their talkpages. I personally think he or she would be a positive asset to the community and fully endorse his candidacy as administrator.--
'''Support''' - As others have stated above, the candidate is fully qualified in all areas (understanding of policies, temperament, experience, contributions, etc.), so I shall not rehash that. I do want to comment on [[WP:HUMAN]] though. With the exception of a few dozen paid staff at the WMF, all the WMF projects, including enwp, are run by volunteers. For the most part, we volunteers do this out of the goodness of our heart. As volunteers we expect to be appreciated and treated with respect. Volunteers that are mistreated are likely to leave the project whether they are registered users or IPs. We've been losing registered members continuously for several years and it's enough of a concern that the WMF has made it a priority to increase our registered user base. All future registered users will come from this pool of IPs. They are a valuable and essential resource for our project. Having admins that understand this is a great benefit to the project and I applaud RA for writing [[WP:HUMAN]]. I look forward to RA's future contributions and hope RA will spend some amount of time interacting with the IPs that edit here and hopefully turn them in to long-term contributors. - '''''
'''Support'''. Level-headed contributions in heated areas are a good sign.
'''Support''', great candidate.
'''Support''' - has shown the required level of maturity to be an admin. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''', but here are some things which I do not like: This user often seems unable to give short answers on talk pages.  His answers are good, but more than what I would want to read.  I advise working to be confident that giving responses to only what is asked and nothing more is best.  This user does not have demonstrable experience working on admin-related functions; I trust that he will learn these.  Some big pluses are that this user knows how to make new articles and start them off being awesome, such as [[The_Image_of_Irelande,_with_a_Discoverie_of_Woodkarne|here]] and some impressive geography stubs with great pictures.  This user has on occasion made infographics and has tried to manage a bot, so I know he is exploratory.  Throughout conversation this user has been polite and fair.  I support this user's adminship.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Per reasons above I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' All the people above have pretty much summed up that he is an awesome editor who deserves the tools.
'''Support''' - After looking through contributions over the last couple of days, I see nothing that causes me to be concerned at all.
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Candidate has worked in a highly controversial content area, and has a clean block log, as well as the enmity of editors who have made the content area controversial. I'd prefer to see a clearer explanation of how the sysop tools would be used, but I'm satisfied that the candidate is qualified. --
'''Support''' This user has a clear understanding that we work under policy and the overall community, and even though they have a strong interest in a subject area, this should not have editors concluding that they would be misused. Concerned? maybe i'll give them that one. But this user seems to have the skill set of communication which is something I completely look for. --
'''Support''', because last time around I said: ''Come back in a few months having learned from this and I will support you, I guarantee it, for I see the good in you.'' It's been more than a few months, I see real evidence of RA having learned, and I still trust him. --
'''Support''' Seems capable, and ready to do the job...
'''Encouraging Support''' &ndash; two years experience with 10,000+ edits; looks like a great user to hand the mop to! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' Not at all convinced by the opposing side at this moment, they seem to scraping for reasons in some cases but those editors are of course welcomed to their own opinions. What we have here is a engaging editor that has measurable confidence and trust from the community. I do not beleive they will not break the project.
I have been reviewing Rannpháirtí anaithnid's candidacy over the week, and have decided to support: he appears to have learnt from past issues, and comes across to me as highly communicative. As for using the tools, I don't think he'll abuse them; and I'm not worried if he actually ends up rarely using the tools. His last RfA was nearly four years ago, so he has not been in any rush to become an admin either. In all, I think he'll be okay.
'''Support''' Opposes unconvincing.  Good luck!--
'''Support''' Likewise, despite my initial oppose; and 70 looks better.
'''Support''' See no real concerns. The vanishing thing bothers me a little, but isn't enough alone to oppose. Good work with the mop. <font color="#082567">
'''Strong Oppose'''. RA claims not to have edited on British Isles topics during his long IP-only phase (between his accounts), but his edits before and after were all on the subject, almost at the exclusion of anything else. When I asked him for examples of his "other topic" IP editing he refused to provide me with any, and when I said he was 'All-British Isles' he only then edited outside of it for a little bit. I found the fact that he always demanded that the Channel Islands ''must'' be part of the British Isles hugely problematic in solving the various BI issues (but RA wants us to use the "Atlantic Archipelago" instead) - he would never accept that all the main encyclopedias say that they can "also" be included (so therefore we need to use the graphic showing both definitions - which he removed years ago), and he has been far too pushy on the subject in general. He also cannot accept people calling Northern Ireland a “country” (even though the British government does) and is far too quick to reference the Troubles in relation to Northern Ireland in my personal opinion (they really needn't be so synonymous, people).  He is an admitted Irish nationalist (as are many of course), but not one that has kept the kind of distance a Wikipedia admin would surely need in the areas he has always edited in. Also problematic for me is that he has drummed-up interest for this RfA for about a year now in a special link on his user page, which I personally don't think is particularly fair, as it provides him with a head start of immediate support, and I've noticed that a number of commitments were from people who share his views. I realise there are elements that are vaguely 'personal' here (and he doesn't like me talking like this), but there isn't much I can do about it other than be as delicate as I can. Either I say this, or I don't say anything at all - which I think would be wrong given that I've seen so much of his editing since his days as Sony Youth.
'''Oppose''': I never expected to be lining up beside Matt Lewis against RA but such is life! RA has been an excellent contributor over many years and has given a lot to the 'pedia. However, he has certain, shall we say, characteristics that are acceptable in an editor but undesirable in an admin. He is very attached to his own opinion and is sometimes slow to open up to ideas or arguments that haven't come from him. He can be very verbose and, whether he realises it or not, tends to overwhelm other editors with sheer word count. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles&diff=next&oldid=448619364 Here] is a recent example: even though I agreed with what he said, it comes across as an attempt to dominate the discussion. He is also quite sensitive, and can sometimes take the most casual remark as a personal sleight. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scolaire&diff=next&oldid=337395644 This] is one of four or five times I was on the receiving end of that. Thin skin in an admin (pardon the assonance) is a dangerous trait. To be quite honest, I would be nervous if I saw him intervening in a dispute as an admin, because I would never know which way he was going to jump. An admin needs to be clear-headed and dispassionate; RA often is, but just as often isn't. I think he would make a better admin than some who currently have the job, but unfortunately that is not enough.
Pledges to be open to recall are made '''''ad captandum vulgus'''''. Any individual willing to make such a pledge is not an acceptable administrator.
'''Oppose''' Mainly as I fail to see why Rannpháirtí anaithnid needs the tools, a look at his contributions over the last 12 months shows no work in AfD, CSD, AVI or any other area that his access to the tools would be of a benefit (a sample look at his ANI contributions shows only edits relating to areas he is involved in) . I find it strange that someone who, as Matt Lewis points out, has expressed for over a year a wish to one day become an administrator should during that time not at least demonstrate a willingness to help out in those areas.  Since I strongly feel that learning on the job is not a good idea I have to oppose for that reason. I also have concerns relating to his reduced presence here over the last 12 months, this account has been active 27 months however only about 10% of his edits have been in the last 12 months, and three of those months see zero edits we do need administrators who are going to be around to deal with those who would harm the project, administration is not something that should be seen as the next step or as a badge of honour. If after Rannpháirtí anaithnid answers Q13 and he points out something I have missed, I would be willing to reconsider.
'''Oppose''' mostly per Mtking. Adminship isn't to be (or, at least, '''shouldn't''' be) regarded as a bauble, a little trophy given to those in recognition of good work. It's a set of tools that are used to accomplish certain tasks. The fact that this candidate self-nommed with no real admin-area experience, and is pretty blunt about having no real plans for the tools, leads me to oppose. Others may point to NONEED, I point to NOSENSE in having one more privileged account out there for vandals and phishers to target. I see no net benefit here - if you want a trophy, apply for a barnstar or something.
'''Strong oppose'''. Given what I experienced in this area I am shocked that an individual's whose only involvement appears to be on one side of the British Irish debacle could by any imagination be empowered with the "caveman's stick" or tactical tools to promote his and his compatriots views. Only individuals with sympathies to the cause, or little to no knowledge of the issues, could support this idea.
'''Oppose''': Mainly due to the unsatisfactory answer to Matt Lewis' question. Surely it would have been easier to answer it by agreeing to not use admin tools in British Isles matters rather than appearing to dodge it.
'''Oppose''' - no experience in admin areas means two things: 1) no need for the tools, 2) no experience in how and when to use them anyway. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I've been sitting on the fence for a couple of days, but I fear I have to agree with some of the other opposers; you are a good editor and an asset to the project, but you lack experience in admin-related areas. Therefore, I'm sorry but I feel I have to oppose your request at the moment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' mostly per Sven the Big Viking.  I wouldn't have too much problem with the lack of admin area participation, but that combined with the nearly singular focus on involvement in a very wasteful and pointless debate, leads me to oppose.
'''Neutral''' - The whole vanishing thing isn't sitting right with me.  I might dig into it further if I get a chance.  Until then, I'm neutral.
Lately, I've often felt that administrators should 'referee' things in areas they're not interested in. But then again, it's better that they know a topic better, if they're to judge what's appropiate behaviour from editors in that topic.
'''Neutral'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship.
I recall seeing the name once, and not in a favorable context. But I don't remember the exact details (or even be certain that I didn't mix up the name with someone else), so here I am.
I have observed and interacted with Reaper Eternal many times and am unequivocal in my support. I anticipate a rush of activity to this section.
Looks like a good 'un. --
'''Support''' — Definitely. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
Haven't interacted much with xyr, however xe seems to be a good candidate, and I'm '''Supporting'''
Yep. Cleaning up his own issues without prompting is another plus. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already.  Good nomination by HJ as well.  Moonridden girl took a look, so there must not be any copyright issues hiding. [[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>contribs</small>]] 14:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)<small><del>Moved to neutral over concerns discussed below.</del>
'''Support'''. When I read that RE was running for adminship, I came here fully expecting to strongly support his candidacy based on what I saw of him in the past, where he was always helpful and clueful. But I wouldn't be myself if I didn't check his actual contributions to see whether my feeling was correct. And unfortunately, for a candidate who wants to work in speedy deletion, RE has made some mistakes in the past: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skotfoss_Bruk&diff=438571747&oldid=438571646 This A7] just seconds after creation was truly bad. The rest of the taggings I found concerning were not bad as such, but look as if he had been impatient and overly hasty. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armin_Gr%C3%BCn&diff=424025553&oldid=424024757 This A7 6 minutes after creation] for example or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demal_mac_Rothechtaid&diff=prev&oldid=434628827] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maen&diff=prev&oldid=434628713]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A1rta_Egerv%C3%A1ri&diff=prev&oldid=438241765 This G7] was hasty as well, given that new users regularly remove all content to replace it with new one, not knowing how Wikipedia works. I'm somewhat baffled by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiseass&diff=prev&oldid=434116814] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisecracker&diff=prev&oldid=434116772] but I'm sure RE now knows what {{tl|wi}} is. Again though, those examples show a worrying tendency to act overly hasty. That said, in most of the cases I found, he realized his mistake moments afterwards and reverted himself and if there is a quality that every admin should possess, then it's the ability and willingness to perceive one's mistakes and the willingness to admit and rectify them. Because I think this is one of RE's main character traits, I am willing to assume that he is able to learn from those mistakes and will not be the "shoot first and check later" kind of admin if this request succeeds (we have already too many of those). My willingness is also fueled by the fact that the amount of such mistakes is somewhere near 1% of his taggings, so it's more likely that those were genuine mistakes and not normal behavior. Regards '''
'''Support''' Articles + vandalism reverting + etc = good admin (short verison, I could keep typing for ages! :P)
'''Support'''. Editor has plenty of experience in admin-related areas and good anti-vandal work. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Plenty of gorm. --
'''Support''' Personally I have no issue with hasty CSDs, it's hardly any less bitey to stare at the page for half an hour before tagging it, there's no data supporting the assumption that tagging in 5 minutes turns new users away while waiting 30 minutes is more likely to them into valuable contributors '''
'''Support''' I was doing some admin mentoring of RE (until real life prevented me having time to do so) (see [[User:Reaper Eternal/Admin Mentoring]] for what we did!), and I was impressed with what I saw. I see no reason not support RE, and I think that he will make a good admin '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' One of the best users on Wikipedia. I truly think he'll make a ''fantastic'' admin. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' A very well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - me too.
'''Support''' - Always thought he was one! I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' - We have worked together on several articles and Reaper has always been helpful and collaborative.&mdash;
'''Support''' I have been waiting for this all month long, and I'm excited to see what he's going to do when he receives the tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I thought he was already an Admin. Great job, [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]]. Keep up the great work!
'''Support''' Should be a great admin.
'''Support''', I know him mostly from the AFC submissions he is reviewing. Really good job! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' Good luck, I see nothing wrong!
'''Support''' – has what it takes for the mop and bucket, and then some :).
So that he can indef Jimbo.
'''Hell yes''' And that's all I'm gonna say about that.--v/r -
'''Suppport''' - I really, really, really hate the old cliche, "I thought he was an admin already", but I'd have to say that in Reaper Eternal's case. I actually thought this was a reconfirmation when I saw it in the candidate list. He handles himself as one already, and I have no doubt he'll be great in the role. -- '''
'''Strong suppport''' - An excellent candidate. Well-rounded and highly experienced in many critical areas; always friendly, helpful and full of clue. It's about time.
'''Strong Support''' Sterling candidate, no qualifications. Clear, succinct answers to questions on top of RE's solid experience. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
A well-rounded candidate, with good experience in content, Wikispace and anti-vandal work. I take deletion more seriously than most, and undeniably CSD was a concern. But a combination of self reverts for some of the mistakes, a very low error rate overall, and a very clear explanation of his policy on CSD going forward on his talk page, I'm comfortable in supporting. I look forward to reviewing [[List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset]] at FLC one day. —
'''TWO THINGS'''.  Don't turn mean.  Keep working to add content.  Without it, the site is nothing and contributors are not falling out of trees to write quality work.  Plus the latter will help prevent the former.  Good luck, FA cloud man.[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Support''' <b>
'''Support''' You seem sane enough for the job.
'''Support''' - outstanding candidate, outstanding answers to some tough questions.  --
Excellent candidate. The answer to question 7 is just such a long way from compliance with policy than I'm assuming it's a mere aberration. A subject's request for deletion does not mean that the article is doing the subject harm and most certianly does not justify a "no consensus = delete" close. The police position, at [[WP:DGFA]], is "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." --
Oppose as overqualified... err... '''Support'''
'''Support''' without reservation. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Obvious support'''. ''
'''Support''' - based largely on my interactions with him at FAC. I will point out, however, that you're missing something rather important in Q4, and you may wish to expand your answer.
'''Support''' I know Reaper Eternal very well and he is a very nice person/candidate. I'm sure he will use the tools properly. <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
While A7 was totally wrong, I'll ignore it because <s>he isn't that far off my personal views</s> Reaper's heart appears to be in the right place, which is what's important for BLP I think. The rest of his contributions as a whole seem fine. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' I have seen RE's contributions and we have worked together on some projects in the past. I truly believe that RE will be a great asset to the community. I'm happy to give my full support.– '''
'''Support''' Have always been impressed by the clueful, patient responses I've seen from Reaper Eternal. A definite yes in my book. And, to be cliche - I thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' No reason why not to. ;) &mdash;
'''Support''' More than qualified; this user should have been an admin already. :)
'''Comment'''. I have not found any reason to oppose this editor. Presents knowledge of the guidelines and policies, as well as the ability to apply this knowledge in an appropriate manner. I believe RE will be a welcome addition to the admin team. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support'' Are you sure you are not already?
'''Support''' I knew he wasn't already - but he was on my list of names that I would be very happy to nominate. (Curses, foiled again......) Also is on my 'buck-passing' list - 'don't just believe me, ask so-and-so, thingy, or Reaper Eternal, they're all fair-minded'.
''' ''Weak'' support''': [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Should_he_be_able_to_do_this.3F|The candidate is intelligent and usually clear]] and has some good content contributions, apparently. By his own account, the candidate has cleaned up past problems with copyright violations. I would have liked to have read more serious (both in tone and content) contributions to past RfAs by Reaper Eternal. Best regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I happen to disagree with your answer to Q8 but that's a non-issue. I think you'll make a good admin.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Absolutely.  This person is extremely hardworking, knowledgeable, and knows their way around the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Here's a guy who really [[Know where one's towel is#Knowing where one's towel is|knows where his towel is]]. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Sure.''' Seems to have a good head on shoulders and sufficient experience for the tools.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' Another mop to be dished out '''
Seems qualified. I get a good sense that he's trustworthy. '''
Generally good. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. I really thought he already was one.
'''Support'''. Why not? [[User:Sp33dyphil|'''<small><span style="background:HotPink;color:white">'''Sp33dyphil</span></small>''']] ''<sup>"[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ad]]
'''Support''' - Seen editor numerous amounts of times in different areas of the project. Satisfied with his/her edits, therefore Support. Good Luck! --
'''Support'''  ~~
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support'''. I have every reason to trust this candidate. I looked through the edit history on cirrus: nice work! Extra points for surviving trolls from another website. I can't find any red flags, a very strong candidate. --
'''Pile-on support''' per answers to questions above -- clue is definitely indicated. :-) Haven't reviewed contributions yet, but it seems to have been thoroughly done above.--
'''Support''' Very viable candidate --  '''

'''Support'''. Good content contributions, and I see no reason to think Reaper Eternal will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - based on my reviews I do not see anything that concerns me.
'''Support'''. Great user. No concerns. --
Delighted to moved from Neutral to Support - see below.
'''Support''',No concern.
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
I'm not sure why, but upon hearing Reaper Eternal I thought they had been involved in some negative way in some large incident. Off the top of my head. But looking into it I am indeed confused, and will support. No idea why I thought that o.o ''
'''Support''' Just as with my support of Q, RE is level-headed and helpful. I actually thought that RE already ''was'' an administrator.
Hardly a necessary support, as it seems that unless something untoward happens, this will pass with flying colours, but why not. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' I've read this whole debate in recent days, and have no concerns about this candidate.
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate. RE does a lot of good work on our edit filters and can easily be trusted with the tools. He conducts himself well, as an admin should, and treats other with dignity and respect. RE has a wide range of experience working in many different areas of the project and is conversant in our policies. I'm very happy to support the candidate and look forward to his help in the admin areas. - '''''
'''Support'''. Reaper Eternal has made many good quality contributions to the project. I'm sure he will make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' - I have occasionally interacted with RE and regularly see his work and have full confidence in his ability to wield the mop.
'''Strong support''' I recognize him, not sure if he recognizes me, however he is a '''solid candidate'''. Admin him up!
'''More pile-on support'''. No problems with this user.
'''Support'''. Clueful editor, good-natured and helpful to others. Worthy of a <s>sickle</s> mop.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. All the best, --
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' will certainly make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Puffin|Puffin]]'s [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Reaper_Eternal#Neutral|!vote]] below.--

'''Support''' This user's past behavior has been of the sort which is characteristic of the best Wikipedia editors.
'''Support''' The candidate is an experienced, dedicated vandal fighter and has demonstrated character qualities such as level-headedness and trustworthiness that give me great confidence in his ability to weild the mop. Cerebral answers to the questions and a terrific nom statement by HJM are also feathers in his cap.--
'''Support''' Strong content work, good knowledge of policy, excellent temperament.
Helpful editor, will be a great admin. Good luck.
As nom!
'''Support''' Yep, always seems like a good 'un. -
'''Support'''  - about time.
'''Support''' Per nom; very qualified candidate. '''
Don't see why not, had very friendly meetings.  &ndash;
'''Support''' Great user. <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support'''. Not a doubt in my mind that this user is deserving of the tools. '''

Lookin' good. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - WikiGryphons certainly make wonderful administrators. -'''''
'''Support''' Qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. RE has done a great job thus far, and is definitely deserving of the extra tools.
'''Strong Support''' An excellent candidate for the mop.
'''Support''', please contact me for your cabal ID card and invitations to the Cabal-only nights at [[Raffles Hotel|Raffles]].
'''Support''' Way qualified.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, involved with janitorial tasks already without the full tool set.
'''Support'''--
Definitely! I see Reaper Eternal everywhere! In every observation, I have found Reaper Eternal to be highly skilled, communicative, helpful, and polite, plus someone who takes criticism pretty well and learns from it. While I knew he wasn't an admin, he is certainly somebody who I knew would make an excellent administrator someday. I was surprised, however, to find out that Reaper Eternal created his account back in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Reaper+Eternal&page=User%3AReaper+Eternal&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1 September 2009]: it seems like he's been around longer. An amazing candidate...I have no concerns whatsoever here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ''"Thought he already was"'' situation here
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''[[WP:100]]'''...oh wait, missed that one. Seen good work from Reaper Eternal; support promotion. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support!''' My observation of Reaper's behavior on AfD and his vandalism work has informed me he is a responsible and prudent editor in WP who would contribute greatly to WP with administrator tools.
Can't see any problems. Good luck.
'''Yes''' - good range of contributions from content creation to cleaning up. Seems solid enough and reasonable enough. Should make a useful admin. '''
'''Support''' Have seen his contributions around. Trustworthy and competent.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - high-quality article work, copious work at WP:AIV, 9 months' editing, participation in Admin training, etc.
'''Support''' - I can't find any reason to oppose, based on checks I've done, and checking out the 'oppose' rationales below; op#3 I'll skip, because erring on the side of caution isn't a real cause for concern. Seems to have good judgement, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Great editor and contributions. No qualms here after reviewing.--
'''Support''', excellent candidate, full support.
'''Support''', don't fear the reaper.
'''Pile on'''. You know, I read through 130 supports and was happy no one else made [[Blue Oyster Cult]] references... but then I got to 131. Disappointing.
Definitely. No alarms here, should be a great addition to the <s>cabal</s> corps.
'''Neutral''' Look at this questionable revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Puffin&diff=prev&oldid=440846014]. Shouldn't an administrator examine the diff before taking action, as in this case nothing was done wrong? '''
I can not support anyone who goes through [[User:Guerillero/thoughts on admin coaching|admin coaching]]. --
'''Neutral'''. I have some concerns regarding how Reaper Eternal will use the delete button due to his answer to question #7; furthermore, your answer to question #6 adopts way too strict an interpretation of [[WP:INVOLVED]] which would make it very difficult to find uninvolved admins (I'd be involved regarding the some 300 people who supported the proposal to grant the crats the ability to remove the admin bit, for instance...). All these reasons prevent me from supporting, but, having seen you in action, I feel I cannot oppose your candidacy either... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Redrose64 is knowledgeable and clear-headed about technical matters; he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' Asset to project.
Great candidate.
'''Support''' - Excellent editing history, I had to dig down VERY deep to find something even slightly resembling something that maybe could have turned into an edit war. They seem to always remain civil and level headed and has managed to stay out of drama and politics in a way that editors with 40k+ edits very rarely do. I WOULD like to see a little bit more experience in some admin-related projectspace work, but that's almost totally irrelevant, definitely nothing to make me think that this user will not make an outstanding mop-holder. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Redrose64 seems to have a straightforward use of the tools in mind, and in my encounters with (him?) I've seen nothing to be concerned about. Mind you, that's not saying much if you believe everything you hear.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Great editing history, highly knowledgable about policies and content, always impressive at project discussions, no concerns.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong support''' Don't see any reason why not. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Amended due to great answer to Q5. --
'''Support''' - A calm editor and not only can put forward reasoned arguments for a point of view in discussions, but also constructively considers points of view from others. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Per my opinion.
'''Support'''
The perfect candidate.  Good luck. &ndash;
'''Support''' In brief: a knowledgeable and helpful user. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' I can't tell anyone how much Redrose has helped many WikiProjects. I've known Redrose for over a year and I was surprised what sysop tools could do to make a editor a better one. The tools will help people make them a better user, it isn't only for other purposes. I was surprised the Resrose wasn't already an admin, but now I (and everyone else) will see a possibility. I doubt that any corruption would occur in this case. Good luck,
Unreferenced article creations are a pet peeve of mine, and I did find a [[The Tragedy of the Moon|couple]] [[X Stands for Unknown|of]] [[Counting the Eons|them]] among Redrose64's earlier article creations. On the other hand, other article creations – especially later ones – are referenced extremely well, and the candidate has created almost a hundred of them, so obviously no slouch there. I do share the concerns about light participation in the deletion processes – I think more involvement as a participant would be advisable prior to diving into closing them, although the comments the candidate has made so far at AfD are quite sensible. Those concerns notwithstanding, this editor seems very intelligent, hard-working and good-natured, and is unlikely to run around breaking things. I'm especially impressed with the answers to questions 5 and 7.
'''Support''', no reason to think they'll abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' – Redrose is an excellent editor; giving him the mop will help benefit the encyclopedia. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' The candidate's honesty and modesty (affirming Saul Alinksy's maxim that it is impossible to read all the rules) benefit the project even more than the enthusiasm for Dr. Who and British railroads. It is time for the (red)rose to be in the fisted glove, and the eagle to fly with the dove. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Like what I see. Oppose does not concern me. Also a nod for being willing to endure the hellweek and BS of RFA week.
'''Weak support'''. Redrose64 is a great editor. However I am concerned by his intention to close XfDs, an area where he has little experience. On the other hand, Wikipedia would benefit if he had access to some of the other tools.
'''Support''' Per Malleus Fatuorum.
'''Strong Support''' He is a trustful user, so he can be a trustful admin. --
'''Support''' Knowledgable in the areas in which they plan to use the tools, and willing to help and work with others.
Support. Can't see a reason not to.
'''Support''', very knowledgeable in many very technical areas, like templates, CSS, etc.  Has always been extremely helpful with fixing many of the most highly transcluded templates.  I have never known this editor to act unreasonable or hot-headed.  I have no concerns, and feel as though he/she would be even more helpful with the additional tools.
'''Support''', Good luck! —
'''Support''' evidence from logs and deleted entries indicate this is a sensible contributor.

'''Support''' - Sounds like a good guy.
Very good answer to Q5. That's not how 99% of Wikipedians would have answered it. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - After a quick look through Redrose64's contributions, I was quite impressed. Though he does not have a lot of experience in the area of XfD's (an area in which he has professed interest), I believe he is familiar with the process. At this time, there is absolutely no reason to believe Redrose64 will abuse the tools. This is, of course, the most important question I must ask myself in a RfA.&mdash;
'''110% Support''', Redrose64 is one of my talk page stalkers, and has often provided words of support when editors have made less-than-good-faith comments on my talk page. I've collaborated with him on a few articles and have always found him ready to help, advise or assist in the furtherance of improvment of the project. The extra tools will prove to be of benefit here.
'''Support''' Give the man a mop! --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' Very thorough answers, especially to question 5. --  '''
'''Support''' If there's a good reason for the candidate not to have the mop, I haven't spotted it. --
'''Support''' — Good answers to the questions and a strong record overall.
'''Support''' Redrose64's significant contributions to wikipedia, combined with his willing to help other editors and having a clear understanding of many policies, makes it impossible for me to say anything other than support. --
'''Support''' Redrose64's long term benefits to the project, in multiple areas, far outweigh any lack of experience in others.
'''Support''', fully. --
The candidate has never said that he or she is going to close the whole day's AfD log, every day. Question 1 makes it clear. Question 8 re-inforces it. The answers to the questions generally demonstrate competence.  A brief scan of contributions fails to reveal that the candidate is either a complete idiot or a complete wanker. Happy to support. --
While I'm a bit concerned by the opposers and neutrals, we do need more active administrators, and Redrose qualifies
'''Support''' So far so good. Keep it up.
'''Support''' - Confident they won't abuse tools.
I am tempted to oppose this user based on a perceived prejudice against [[List of Rosa species|roses of alternative colours]], but I would need substantial evidence to support such a hypothetical concern. In the absence of such evidence, I shall assume good faith and support this request.
'''Strong Support''' - Redrose64 would be a wonderful asset to Wikipedia as an admin. His technical strengths and willingness to help others are outstanding qualities that would help the community immensely! The only thing else I can say is that he better have a great sense of humor! (see above comment) ... I can also tell he is well-liked, since this is my 3rd try to add my support to this section without getting an edit conflict message!! --
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate that I fully support. Redrose is a considerate and thoughtful volunteer that is always willing to help others. This is a very helpful quality in administators as new users often look to them for help. Redrose also has a great deal of technical expertise regarding the project and is very helpful in [[WP:VPT]] as noted above. The candidate has shown a history of studying and learning our policies before moving in to an area, so I have no concerns about inexperience in any areas of the project as I know Redrose will learn something fully before doing it. <s>I would like to note that it appears the nominators above may have forgotten to add their official !votes in this section, so their support is not shown in the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report|RfA report]].</s> - '''''[[User:Hydroxonium|Hydroxonium]]''''' ([[User talk:Hydroxonium|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Hydroxonium|C]]•<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V]</span>) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC) <small>striking note as my concerns have been addressed - '''''
'''Support''' - I  come across Redrose regularly and I've been  really  sitting  on  the fence here.  I  did my  research  as soon  as the RfA  was transcluded.  The candidate does not   meet my [[user:Kudpung/RfA criteria|criteria]]  but  the high  edit count in  this case is indicative of precision and good content work; the   95 clean creations  convince me that  they  are already  well versed in  policy, even if  activity  in  those policies is somewhat  low to  demonstrate that  knowledge. Their excellent  answers to questions, including the unusual ones,   prove a high  level  of integrity and  trustworthiness for candidate who  will  not  make many  errors when their tools  are granted.
'''Support''' Contributions are great and answers to all the questions are brilliant. :)
'''Support''' Answers to questions seem honest and show a willingness to learn and modify his behavior if necessary. Appears conscientious about studying policy and increasing his knowledge before moving to new areas. Good technical knowledge and admirable content work for a relatively newbie.
'''Support''' as co-nom, naturally.  ''
'''Support''' Looks ok to me. --
'''Support''' Just stay away from deleting anything until you spend more time working with that specific process. Since this isn't your intended area of focus, I have no concerns.

'''Support'''. Seems like a good candidate. I'm not worried about deletion activity, because I'm confident that Redrose will review the facts (and policies) before actually deleting. I hadn't deleted anything when I became an admin, either, to be honest. I'm more interested in the requisite level of cluefulness than in a certain number of successful speedy tags or whatnot.
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' seems very clueful about WP's policies despite having not participated in much AfDs and the like. Trust is all you need.
'''Support''' per Kudpung.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
+1&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' per MF, Hydrox, Kudpung, Vaibhav, Ultra and [[WP:NETPOS]].
'''Support'''.  I believe that others' concern about experience with deletion is misplaced.  Judging from this user's responses to questions (mine and others), Redrose64 is fully aware of deletion policy.  In addition, this user seems calm and capable of doing admin work impartially.
While I could see myself neutral per the valid considerations below, this is a perfect example where the nomination and above endorsements are sufficient proof that '''support''' is a better inclination.
'''Support'''. While dealing with a sockpuppet, I found myself wishing Redrose64 was an admin so the situation could be dealt with more expeditiously. I seem to keep running across the users good work.
'''Support''' - despite the fact that the candidate's nominator disgracefully refactored my commentary before discussion was complete (and from which I have a concern that Redrose64 has made an unwise move in accepting a nomination from the type of person who thinks they are fit to be judge and jury). My previous support rationale remains - oppposers have made some good points but not enough to sway me from it being a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] to support. As was pointed out to me it '''is''' intelectually dishonest to be in any other position than support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Obvious support''' Our project needs a regular supply of administrators like Redrose. The sincerity with which Redrose trawls (in a positive sense) across pages, improving any and every issue in his area of competence, is what attracted me to analyse Redrose's contributions over the past year - and subsequently to ask whether he'd ever thought of adminship. If it were not for the fact that Redrose already had Martin and Rich - two well experienced editors who're excellent judges of prospective administrators - as his nominators, I would have necessarily stood up to co-nom Redrose. I appreciate the points raised by the opposing !voters too and at the same time am extremely confident that Redrose is not one who'd let them/us down; especially given Redrose's credible answers. As I mentioned, this is an obvious support from me.
'''Support''' I like the answers given to the questions, and feel that caution will be exercised in unfamiliar areas.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Seems capable, ok...
'''Support'''; competent.
'''Support''' per Malleus and Ironholds --
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. All the best.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indication of assholery.
'''Support'''. I trust the candidate not to overreach, so I'm not concerned about the lack of deletion-related experience. Overall, there's plenty of experience, and plenty of evidence of good judgment, so I don't see any reason to be worried about that. And I think the questions to the candidate are over-doing it. --
'''Support''' I am very happy to support editors who have a long history of good behavior and encouragement of other users while they do work which I consider extremely important and extremely boring. If being an admin will help you keep doing what you are doing then godspeed and may you always enjoy what you do. Your answers to how you will use admin tools and your courteous talkpage histories make me feel safe in supporting you.
I'm
'''Support'''. Good answer on Q5 and that's how you won my support.
'''Support'''. The questions above and my interactions show that Redrose64 is a sane and thoughtful editor. I have every expectation that he will properly use the admin rights. ---'''''—&nbsp;
'''Support''' one of those names that I've seen around the place being useful for quite some time now, and I think that granting Redrose64 a few extra buttons will assist the project.
'''Support''' - Looking through edits and the answers above I see no reason to think Redrose will be anything other than a positive with the extra buttons.
'''Support''' - Seems fine.
'''Support''' - As an active participant at Articles for Deletion, I take SnottyWong's opposition seriously, and do understand SW's point.  However, I am very impressed with Redrose64's level-headed and thoughtful responses during this entire process.  In my opinion, AfD is important and I see experience there as a non-adminstrative participant to be a useful prerequisite to an administrator pitching in to close debates.  However, AfD is neither rocket science nor brain surgery, and any editor with a calm demeanor and a willingness to study policy, guidelines and established consensus can play a useful role there.  As I peer into my crystal ball, I predict that Redrose64 will soon be an administrator.  I invite this new administrator to join in 10, 15 or 20 AfD debates (you pick the number, Redrose64), and then to start close other debates per consensus. I look forward to your AfD recommendations.
'''Support'''- No worries; good luck.
'''Support'''. I hesitated here, but on balance, I think the benefits Redrose can bring to the project far outweigh the concerns of the opposers. Redrose has displayed great commitment to the project, and is highly competent in dealing with the template namespace, and has always impressed me wherever I've seen him. Thus, I would lose no sleep over giving him the admin bit.
'''Oppose''' - Candidate's answer to Q1 indicates an intention to close AfD's, as well as respond to CSD's and PROD's.  I've searched through the candidate's contributions and I find evidence of participation in only 7 AfD's, speedy tagging of only 8 pages (5 images, 2 templates, and 1 redirect; no actual articles in mainspace), and I can't find any evidence of any PROD activity (although it's entirely possible that I didn't look hard enough).  There isn't evidence of enough exposure to these areas to understand the nuances, and I'm not comfortable endorsing such an inexperienced candidate to make final decisions about the permanent deletion of articles.  If this is an area of interest for you, then spend some time participating in these areas in a significant way.  I would have no issue supporting a future RfA if more time was put into these areas between now and then.
'''Regretful Oppose''' - I greatly appreciate your work in articles, however I have to agree with Snottywong here; you need a little more practice in deletion topics before you can say you intend to work in them. If you altered your response to Q1, I would consider revoking this, but for now, I am still a little too concerned. <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a good editor, but I have a few concerns. For a candidate who has said that they will work in CSDs, AfDs and PRODs, I would like to see more experience in those areas as a regular contributor. I was also concerned by the answers to Q4 and Q6. In Q4, he says that he would delete [[Clyde Boats]], yet in Q6 he says that it is promising and could be rescued and expanded. I am concerned that he would choose to delete a page which he would not normally tag for deletion.
'''Oppose''' per SnottyWong. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Oppose''' More experience of the deletion and blocking processes needed.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a great contributor, they clearly have good intentions, and a good reason to want to be able to edit protected. However my concerns about the candidate's level of experience when it comes to Speedy Deletion, an area they declare an intent to work with, prevent me from supporting at this time.
I admit that I haven't read every single one of this candidate's 41,000 edits, but out of a random sample, I can't seem to find any substantial contributions this candidate has made to controversial or difficult topic areas, to dispute resolution, or even much to article talk pages, which makes it really quite hard for me to judge his temperament and suitability. The edits all seem to be relatively small and uncontroversial. I've got no reason ''not'' to trust this candidate, but because admins have tenure and it's really quite hard to get rid of a bad one, I feel as if I have to require positive evidence of trustworthiness, and not just a lack of recent mistakes, before I can support.—
'''Neutral''' per Snottywong. User does seem a bit weak in deletion areas. However, overall a great user, so I won't oppose over this. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' candidate has very little experience of the article deletion process: only a handful of speedy deletion tags (the only mainspace page tagged, [[Comet Awards]], was a redirect), [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?name=Redrose64&max=250&startdate=&altname= 7 AfD comments], and the only PROD participation I can see is removing a PROD that was incorrectly reinstated and endorsing the PROD of [[Iwade Railway Station]] which was added by someone else. There is also some participation in the processes regarding non-article namespaces such as CFD and TFD. Now that's not necessarily a problem, and there are occasional administrators who never delete articles, but the candidate clearly stated that they wanted to handle article deletion in their question answers. If this RfA does pass then I strongly recommend that Redrose64 get more experience of the article deletion process by participating in AfD discussions or by doing [[WP:NPP|new page patrol]] before deleting any articles and the fact that they've agreed to do this above is the reason I'm not opposing. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Neutral''' per Snottywong and King of Hearts. Your work overall is great, so I'm not going to oppose.
'''Neutral''' I've moving this from "Oppose"  . It's fairly clear the candidate needs considerable more experience with deletion before engaging in it, but  I'm not totally comfortable with opposing on the basis of an originally minor part of the application  '''
'''Neutral''' After rethinking this I have to say I think you will likely be a good admin.  Just leave deletion-related stuff alone until you spend some more time there...
'''Neutral''' - I will not downright oppose as I have no reason for doing that, and I have had good experiences with this user in the past, but I shall not outright support either, because, like others, I have reviewed the deletion-related contributions of this user and thought it best to wait just a little while before the admin tools are let loose on them. If it wasn't for this, I would have supported. But best of luck anyway, <font color="#A20846">'''
'''Neutral''' I've been watching this RFA for a while now. I really think the candidate will be a good admin but I do share the concerns above that the candidate simply lacks sufficient contributions in the areas they wish to work in (i. e. deletion) to actually be able to judge how they would use that "power" as an admin. Like DGG, I'm not comfortable opposing someone for not having contributions in a certain area (opposing is for when there are contributions that allow me to think that the candidate will not do a good job) but on the other hand, I lack the "data" to justify supporting the candidate. If this does succeed, which it looks like at this point, I would recommend taking the advice above of slowly easing into the area of deletion; if at all possible, you should probably ask someone experienced in that area to review your first deletions. Regards '''''
'''Neutral'''. Concerns with experience in the administrative areas candinate has expressed interest in.  After you've been promoted, take things slowly and act only when you're certain action needs to be taken. -'''
'''Strong support''' I've been privileged to work with RHM22 as informal mentor, and he's a fast learner, a fine writer, and a voice of common sense whereever he goes.  Well deserves adminship.--
'''Strong Support''' While I normally like to see more experience in the WP space, they're a content-focused editor, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe that they would misuse the mop. Furthermore, their answer to my question was spot on and I'm confident they have enough clue to work in CSD. Also, per Wehwalt; if that's an accurate reflection of this user (which I trust it is), RHM has everything they need to be a good admin. ''
'''Support''' Looks to be a good collaborative editor, can't see them misusing the tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.  ~~
'''Support''' - I think you handled experiment No.8 very well. No qualms here.
'''Support''' - Candidate seems clueful. Has shown pride while editing after a careful look into his contributions. I came to a few pauses while going through the candidates archives and I am very much impressed with the amount of contributions you have made at DYK. Shows intelligence while answering questions. And in my opinion, the content dispute the candidate engaged in, whiles it was stupid, it was not a big deal as to warrant a block. Will make a good administrator. Looking forward to seeing you mop up the admin backlogs some day. Also, RHM22 has shown civility and no lack of communication on his talk page which is a detail I look for in adminship candidates. And I commend the candidate for his answer to experiment No.8 above me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong Support''' - Good Wikipedian, knows his way around the project, knowledgable, helpful, works well with others, couldn't ask for anything better in an admin than that.  Give this man a mop. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I'm going to support you here. Besides the limited experience in project space, I don't have any other big concerns. Don't disappoint me.
'''Support'''. Three FACs will give you much more [useful] experience than hundreds of edits to the various noticeboards and one doesn't get articles through FAC by being an imbecile—it's something I've just about managed once, and that's with twice RHM22's tenure and nearly 15 times his edit count, which just goes to show that there is much more to RfA than the pie chart.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' if he is able to wade through the questions submitted he as the ability to deal with vandals and other unhappy people. Also anyone with three FAs has the policy knowledge to do well. --
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal, and this clueful and experienced content editor will have, in my opinion, no issues with the tools. That being said, it would be good if you got more experience in a wider variety of areas.
'''Support''' - While the edit count is low, 3 FAs indicates that those edits must be well thought out.
'''Support''' – Content contribution.  FAC process veteran.  I'd actually multiply edit count by 5 to get a better approximation with a dedicated gnome editor.
'''Support'''. Since your project-space edit count is pretty low, I'd suggest easing into adminship slowly if you get it at this RFA. But I really don't think limited time in the project space matters that much as long as you've got Wikipedia's primary goal-- building an encyclopedia-- in mind, and you clearly do. If this RFA doesn't pass, try again later and maybe get some more project-space edits in the meantime.
'''Support''' I don't see any reason not to trust him with the tools. It looks like the worst case scenario is that he'd spend too much time writing featured articles to the neglect of ANI drama.
'''Support''' Great article writing.
'''Support''' He has the policy knowledge he needs by contributing to articles. Wants to move some articles around or delete/not delete some? Great.  More interested in content than other matters? Perfect.
'''Support''' I like the "not a big deal" attitude of this candidate. Also, his/her interaction with other editors seems to be honest and well-intentioned. Moreover, the experience with featured content suggests that RHM22 has a decent idea of how Wikipedia operates.  This person appears to have the "diplomacy" and good faith needed for the job, and s/he will quickly learn about the specific aspects of the admin work. Good luck, RHM22.
per [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]].  &ndash;
'''Support''' - I can see that you're contributions to the WP space don't amount to a huge lot. That'll be your only criticism from me however, and nothing that you've done here is disappointing or non-constructive. You have my faith that you will do nothing other than good if granted the tools.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and a good editor, be stupid not to let them have tools. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' Despite low-ish experience, I think he'd do just fine. Adminship is not rocket science.
Some points of value in opposition, but I think you'd be cautious - so '''support''' per [[WP:NETPOS]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Have read through this RfA to date, and reviewed addressed nominee's work in those & other areas. Likely to improve edit count whether this passes or fails, and see no reason why quality should not be recognized.
'''Support''' This reminds me of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7]]. I opposed Hawkeye7 for reasons somewhat similar to those being voiced in the "oppose" section of this RfA. Out of all my votes at RfA, if I had to pick one to reverse, that would be the one. I can't do that, of course, but I can offer my support to a similar current candidate. RHM22 has contributed some impressive content to the encyclopedia, and he's had the dedication to elevate four articles to FA status and two others to GA status. His responses to Q11 and Q12 show that he'd bring a common-sense approach to admin tasks, which certainly is very welcome. In short, I'm confident that RHM22 would have a smooth transition to adminship.
'''Support''' regretfully. Regretfully in that I've enjoyed your series of articles on esoteric numismatics, and this passing is likely to delay further entries, but many of the standard edit count and time things looked for at an RFA are useless when a candidate has 3 FA's and an FL. Take it slowly, realise that other admins are here to guide you, and you'll be fine.
'''support''' I think the concerns held by the opposes about CSD are 100% valid and I sincerely hope you'll read and watch for a month or more before deleting anything there.  That said, your answers have largely been good, and more importantly, measured and thoughtful.  Quality content contributions and a good head on your shoulders is enough.
'''Support''' the candidate has multiple featured content, more than most of the opposers could ever even dream of having. I would, however, recommend caution before using tools related to speedy deletion.
'''Weak support''' - The candidate has good contributions and judgment. I have concerns though about their experience in some administrative areas but believe they would make good decisions with the tools.--
We need more article writers as administrators. Writing an FA means he's capable of knowing Wikipedia policies.
'''Support''' - has enough clue.
'''Strong Support''' - The user appears to understand the policies of Wikipedia through his articles (particularly his FA article), whilst appearing refreshing and open-minded - reflecting the ideals of the Wikipedian society.
'''Support''' Knowledgeable user, outstanding content contributor, though I share Courcelles' concerns: don't stop your content work if you can! =) Though, if the user is promoted I'd suggest that they give seemingly hopeless articles a chance before deleting them (that's a last resort), I do understand that their speedies have all been correct but some of the basis for opposition is in relation to "trigger-happy speedy tagging". —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' - Seems good.
'''Support''' – A really good editor. I totally loved the answer to Q15. I trust RHM22 :) <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' - would be a useful addition to the mop crew!
'''Support''' the only question here is one of trust. Can this user be trusted not to abuse the tools? Based on his record, I think so.
'''Support''', mainly per Vejvančický. My main concern was that the candidate didn't have a strong understand of administrative policies and was apt to "play it by ear" rather than investigating what the relevant policies and guidelines were before acting, but later answers to the questions suggest he's willing and capable of finding the appropriate information, albeit after a little bit of poking in a couple of cases. Other concerns were the CSD issues pointed out by WSC (people are ''still'' putting A1 tags on a minute after creation?), the lack of any edits of AIV, UAA or RFPP, and the limited involvement in deletion debates. Ironically, if I thought the candidate was planning to spend a lot of time on admin duties, I would probably withhold support for now and recommend spending a few months getting more experience in those areas first. But judging from the candidate's contribution history and comments in this RfA itself, his interest is clearly in content creation, and I can't really object to giving the tools to a trusted, clueful editor with a good temperament and solid article-building experience.
'''Support'''. Here's a candidate with experience and, I would say, a general trust of this community. Seems very good, no reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support'''.  I think RHM would be a very good administrator.  His responses to the questions indicates that he's willing to take the time to look up the right way to use the tools if there is an issue to which he cannot immediately figure out how to respond.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support'''. Fully confident that RHM22 can be trusted, and will be a net positive to the project. The content creation is commendable and engenders extra credibility when issues of deletion may be a consideration.
'''Support''' we need more people doing history merges.
'''Support'''. It's taken me a while to decide on this one, with my concern really being a relative lack of experience and very little clear experience in deletion-related areas. However, seeing the way the candidate has handled this RfA (which many would find stressful), has kept cool, has interacted positively, and has responded to questions (a number of which are about deletion), I think I see someone who will take care, and will be especially careful over deletions, and I've decided to support --
A lack of experience, but that is low risk given the candidate's profile and likely areas of activity as an administrator. I agree with the comment above that "if I thought the candidate was planning to spend a lot of time on admin duties [to which I would add one qualifier: ''contentious'' admin duties], I would probably withhold support for now". --
'''Support''' per the people above who have pretty much said it all.
'''Weak Support''' - As you're a trustworthy and capable editor, I'm sure that if you have any questions about a closure or the like, you'll ask someone else for help or to step in. That being said, the lack of admin experience is a bit troubling, but you're a good candidate. '''
I have to admit that I'm disappointed that all our discussions about RFA haven't changed anything yet.  Here we have an editor that someone should have talked to before the RFA got started; just a little attention to demonstrating competence in admin areas would have saved us a whole lot of drama here.  And just a little clearer feedback from the community to Arbcom about what kinds of slip-ups should result in demopping would go a long way toward dealing with the highly justified anxieties I see in the oppose section about what could go wrong here.  I wasn't going to vote ... but I just have to support someone who cares so little about their RFA that they're working on at least 3 FACs during the course of this one (one of which just got promoted).  Priorities are clearly in the right place. - Dank (
Everyone on RFA always complains that we need more admins who just write articles to run. There's one right here, so there you guys go. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I think the answer to my(9) and Swarm's(13) questions aren't ''quite'' right, but they're right enough where it counts and I think this editor is trustworthy to not misuse the tools. And [[WP:RM]] needs help.
'''Support''' - lack of experience? Maybe. Here to build an encyclopedia? Definitely. I have full confidence that this user has enough clue to make up for what he might not yet know.
'''Support''' – generally appears to be sensible, collaborative, and there's reason to believe he would be cautious enough with use of admin tools; otherwise the lack of experience in admin-related areas would be more concerning. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support'''. Despite a slightly low edit count, 3 FA's are pretty impressive. He has responded well to questions thrown at him. I think this guy is ready to hold the mop. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support'''.  I've interacted with him at FAC, and he seems like a straight-shooter.  I have no reason to think he'd misuse the admin's tools.  --
'''Support''' - see no reason from his behavior at FAC and on articles that he would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, in my view. I am sure the candidate will more cautiously at first in the areas in which he has relatively less experience.
'''Support'''—I see a net positive admin here whom I can trust with the tools.
'''Support'''- Great Candidate, good contributions (5 DYKs, helping with three FAs etc.) won't abuse the tools (even if he only uses it for select areas, although I believe he will be helpful where ever needed).<span style="background-color: #0080FF">
Somewhat concerned about his policy knowledge, but at least RHM22 has common sense. This appears to be a similar situation as to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain]]. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' (moved from neutral).  I've been thinking a lot about this one, and have decided to move to the support group.  While it's true that I generally prefer to see more time before getting those extra buttons, the temperament, maturity, and skill set here (along with the fact that Wehwalt thinks enough of him to nom) have pushed me into changing my !vote.  I get the impression that even if (s)he does make a mistake, he'll take any forthcoming advice constructively, repair the damage, and learn from the error.  In the end, I'd rather have admins with common sense, compassion, and an even temper, than ones who just have a whole bunch of edits. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. Better answers to the questions than I've seen in a long time. Come on, opposers, nobody's perfect! -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' from Neutral. I said in my neutral that I wanted to support. I've watched the RfA, and RHM22 has responded to the stress admirably. I may have suggested he waited a few more months before running, but there are insufficient red flags here for me to stay neutral - I wanted to support and now I am.
'''Support'''. Article contributions are excellent and although there are not so many Wikipedia-namespace contributions, what is there demonstrates that the candidate interacts well with others, and has plenty of clue. The current activity does not indicate a very ''active'' administrator, but that is not a requirement. The needs listed under Q1 are important enough, since it takes time and effort to find an administrator who will look into a request for a page move (I recall that the immediate reason I reclaimed my admin bit in 2008 was to carry out such a request). There is no need for all administrators to be involved with WikiPolitics, we also need those who will use the tools for less noisy purposes.
Clearly understands what Wikipedia is all about. Inexperienced in some areas, but every reason to suppose he will be careful with the tools. Definite net positive, hence strong support from me. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
Not just a vandal hunter, which is always a good thing. Appears to cope well under pressure, seems to have sufficient policy knowledge, and is aware that looking things up when unsure on a matter is the best course of action.
Per Courcelles.—
'''Support''' IMHO, admins only learn how to be admins when they become one. This candidate clearly understands the essence of Wikipedia, is a fine contributor, and is civil.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. Answers to questions were good. Looks to me like a user who will use the tools cautiously and ask questions before leaping into things. Admins who only use the tools occasionally are fine and I can't see any of RHM22's admin actions being a negative to the encyclopaedia. Checked the opposers and they don't bring up anything that concerns me enough not to support.
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''' not enough experience, but you look good
'''Support'''. More patience than I have since I'd never have answered all those questions. Not too many Wikispace edits. FA record shows attention to detail and willingness to jump through hoops. Seems like a good fit.
from oppose section.  --
'''Support''' I'm confident RHM22 will make up for a relative lack of experience in deletion by being cautious and learning the policy.--
'''Support''' honesty in answer to [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]]'s question.
Almost my complete opposite. But why, I like it. Per quite a few people above.
'''Support''' good track and see no concerns.
'''Support'''  Though I would like it if he read up on the BLP policies, to be sure.  I am quite happy that he is not an "instant delete" person for new articles which have a question about notability.
'''Support'''. Yes, the candidate has made only 3900 edits, and relatively few are to project space, but the amount achieved in those edits is very impressive. Answers to questions seem to show reasonable policy knowledge and a great deal of common sense, and the opposes aren't that concerning.
'''Oppose:''' Where's your understanding of [[WP:BLP]]. <s>'''Anyone''' can move pages, so if that's the reason for this RfA, the mop is not needed.</s>
'''Oppose''' Great content work and good interactions on your talk page and at the helpdesk, but I regretfully oppose due to inexperience in WP space. If you plan to be involved in admin areas other than page moves, you need first to show a sound understanding of policy which can only really come from experience in new page patrolling, anti-vandalism work, AfD discussions (and/or many other areas). I see you have patrolled some new pages, one of the articles you [[Installatron_(Script_Installer)|marked]] I would have at least tagged as not meeting notability guidelines, if not PRODed, but the others seemed fine. If there was a pagemoveroverexistingpages user-right I would not hesitate in supporting you to receive it. Also, to nitpick, re:q5 I wouldn't say 'anything defamatory is to be avoided' in BLPs; take the [[Charlie Sheen]] article, there are plenty of defamatory statements (e.g. "currently insane", cocaine, domestic violence etc.) but &ndash; as you do go on to say &ndash; reliable sources justify their inclusion in the article
'''Oppose'''  Concerns with experience, limited activity in the Wikipedia namespace. Your responses to questions one and four suggest you have no real need for the tools.  -'''
A fine writer, but limited experience IMO, especially in projectspace. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' – I feel that this candidate lacks experience in the Wikipedia namespace, even though he/she has nice content work. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' Strongly per experience and lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' I don't feel comfortable supporting someone with such low general experience, but more important very low mainspace experience, along with A4.  I see barely a dozen deleted edits, and that definitely is too low for CSD work, which the candidate expressed an interest in in A4.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship (answer to question 1). Intention to work with CSD (answer to question 4) without significant experience in the area or in AfD.
'''Oppose''' per Axl.  I would like to see more experience in the areas in which you would like to focus your admin work, such as AfD.
'''Weak oppose''' The candidate has been involved in several qualitative (GA, FA) content contributions, but lacks quantitative contributions to mainspace; and has been highly active only since November. More contributions and work in the administrative areas (e.g. CSD, anti-vandalism) needed before I can support.--
'''Oppose''' - Inexperienced in admin areas, very little use for the tools.  Dive into some areas where admins frequently work, and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but not enough hands-on experience for me to be entirely confident. I would like to see some demonstration of your ability first, you seem to grasp the principals, but putting them into practice is a completely different matter. However, what you have done seems great, but just not all that relevant to adminship. -
'''Weak oppose'''  I almost supported but needs some experience outside of article space. Some work at the notice boards and XFD and I think we could revisit in as little as 3-6 months
'''Oppose''' I originally supported, but on the basis of the further questions in which the candidate tires to explain their understanding of the practical application of policy, I've been forced to conclude that they are   obviously not quite up to speed on even core admin functions. The questions the candidate has needed to check up on are those that a candidate should know before coming here. I'd encourage reapplication again in a few months.  I do have confidence in the ultimate sucesss.  '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Might i add this is ''very weak''. Im not satisfied with the length of editing time done by the nominee to gain the experince necessary and some of the concerns from the opposition seem to relate to this- his previous edits though give indication that this may not be a problem, So leaving it up for the beaurocrat to decide whether this is weak oppose is valid or not.
'''Oppose''' - I can't support an account with [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=RHM22&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia such limited contributions/experience].
'''Neutral''' I have seen nothing to indicate that this candidate would misuse the mop, they seem trustworthy. However I am very concerned by the professed interest in getting involved in CSDs. The candidate does not appear to have much experience with CSDs, and admin actions related to CSDs are virtually impossible for non-admins to review and I don't know how much checking goes on by other admins, but I gather not much. To support this candidate I would need some sort of assurance that they either have a firm grasp on CSD decision making, or would not participate in an admin capacity until they had done so extensively in a non admin one.
'''Neutral''' for now, leaning toward oppose. Nearly 25% of your edits to date are to the user space and with only ~4,000 edits, that's a high percentage for me to be able to support. I'm just not completely comfortable with the idea of handing you the mop, at this particular point in time. Should this RfA fail (it looks like it could go either way, at this stage), I would suggest not taking it personal, addressing the concerns of the opposers, and run again in the future. I like the article work that you've done so far, so some more experience in admin-related areas would very likely bring me over to the support column in the future.
'''Neutral''' - You've made some good contributions so far, and I think you have the temperament for adminship. However, I'd like to see more experience in many areas of the encyclopedia. There are several times in the Q/A section where I could tell you hadn't previously thought of some of those issues. That's fine - adminship no doubt will have its surprises - but I think another few months of experience will help a great deal. Best regards,
'''Neutral'''-  Seems to be too soon.
'''Neutral''' - (Moved from  'Oppose'). I've had another very long think  about this, and although  the candidate does not  meet my  criteria, in  this particular case, trust trumps them  all sufficiently for me to move here.
'''Neutral''' Willingness to look it up when you don't know is a damn good trait to have, and a rare one around these parts. However the starting point here isn't where I want to see it. I can't oppose here, but neither can I support. Slum around with the admins in a few admin areas for six months, and I'd think you'd power through your second RfA.
I don't think its unreasonable to ask for some experience in admin-related areas. While his quality content building experience is excellent, the proportion of admin tasks that deal with high-quality content building is rather small. But I'm not seeing any red flags that would warrant opposing. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Neutral''' I like what I see in the way of high-quality article content edits, but limited experience in other areas almost (but not quite) makes me invoke [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'm going to stay firmly seated on the fence. Still, best of fortunes. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''. I'm confident Rich will do a fine job as an administrator.
'''Support''' - no issues here. LOL at the number of co-noms though!
'''Support''' - Per answer to Q4. There really are no reasons not to support! —
'''Support''' - excellent answer to my question, no issues I see. →&nbsp;
'''Support''' with full confidence. Literally two days ago I was thinking to myself that Rich should be an administrator. I opposed their last RfA because of a lack of experience, and as far as I'm concerned, they've fully addressed that issue. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'Crats count votes so I'd better put one down here even though it's clear from my statement above that I support the (excellent) candidacy. --
'''Support''' – I was disappointed to see his first RFA fail, but he has put in a great deal of work since then. That is something I definitely want to see in an admin; Willingness to learn from past experience! I supported him then, and I support him now.
'''Support''' agree with Kudpung and Wifione.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Same rationale as last time: Long-term commitment to Wikipedia (3/'05), cerebral answers to questions--
I supported last time and am happy to do so again. The candidate has done more than enough manual edits for us to assess them, more than twice as many as at least one successful candidate from the last year or so. I did notice a couple of occasions in the last month or two where he applied a BLPprod to an article that was poorly sourced rather than unsourced. Not an unusual mistake, that process is a bit of an awkward compromise where any source prevents a BLPprod being applied but only a reliable source can justify removal. I didn't notice anything worth opposing over. ''
'''Support''' – Excellent editor, with much more experience in admin-related areas than before. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
Happy to do so again for the same reasons as last time. Good luck,
per below, cause I am that original :) --
Per [[WP:Requests_for_adminship/Richwales_2#KWrespect|my reply to one oppose]] and [[Pere Ubu|per Ubu]]. Happily, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''; I think the candidate is competent and can be trusted with the tools. A random walk through past edits didn't discover anything worrying.
'''Support''' - supported last time around, happy to support again.
'''Support''' - A look over your contributions suggests you are dedicated, mature and trustworthy. With RfAs, I always look at how a candidate interacts with other users - anyone can add information to a page, but not everyone is capable of being civil, polite and assuming good faith. All of your contributions to talk pages demonstrate exemplary conduct, which I think is vital for an admin. I cannot see a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. It strikes me as ironic that some would diminish an individual's qualifications, based on the high number of automatic edits, when the candidate is applying for access to ''additional'' tools. That's like saying, "You can't have access to these tools because based on your history, you might be too effective in their use." I am confident that Rich will make a fine administrator, based on his background, knowledge, and proven ability to be effective in the use of tools previously entrusted to him. <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' Continually satsisfied with this editors track record.
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions. Yes, I'm aware that not all of the questions have been answered, but unless the candidate gives me good reason to rethink my opinion, I'm not going to wait until the three hundred optional pointless questions have been answered before I place my vote here.
Sure. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - No negative past, plenty of edits, breadth of edits seems fine. Seems like a fine candidate I see no reason to oppose. --

'''Support'''. I supported last time, and I support again. --
'''Support''' I don't see any reasons not to and I don't agree with the opposes below.
'''Support''' - I disagree with comments above that Rich should have passed last time. Ironically the Q4 of this RFA contrasts neatly with the Q4 of the last one however. It's evident he's clued up on the reasons the last one failed, and those concerns having being answered I'm delighted to support. As to the (current) second oppose over too many co-noms..... I believe I have the record for "too many nominators" and really it's a dreadfully silly - indeed paranoid - reason to oppose over.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''. Anyone good with Mkativerata is good with me.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. (It's reassuring to know that he passed the "not a dickhead" test.)
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. Appears to have carefully considered and benefitted from the input he received last time around.
'''Support''' - After reviewing edits and interactions, I see nothing to cause me any concerns.
So what if the candidate doesn't spend 24 hours a day undoing vandalism? He has experience, he is active, he is trusted, why not?
I don't see why not.  &ndash;

'''Support''' Would prefer the candidate to have more experience in admin related areas, answers to questions seem acceptable, otherwise looks good.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.   --
'''Support''' Would make an excellent administrator. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''<span style="display:none">oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose</span>'''<span style="font-weight:bold">Support</span> - User has given good answers <small>and endorsed my AIV report.</small> →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' No reason not to - "Mop please"!
'''Support''' <s>Two supremely</s> Three hilariously ridiculous opposes do not sway me from seeing anything other than an excellent admin candidate. He performs admin tasks, he understands what he's doing, he's unlikely to block Jimbo or delete the main page. I don't see any other issues.
'''Support''' On the basis of his excellent content contributions and experience fighting vandals.
'''Support''' I ended up in the support column last time, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be here again. It's also worth noting that AIV reports aren't the best metric for vandal fighting; most of my AiV reports have been for MascotGuy socks, for instance. Based on what I can see of his anti-vandal and article wirting efforts, I feel compelled to support.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''  No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Intelligent user with good grasp of policies.  No red flags.  Hopefully will be active in dispute resolution.
'''Support''' Per your answer to Q13 (the best I've seen in a while on that question). I'm troubled by the low level of experience in some of the cleanup areas (CSD, AIV, et. al.) but you seem sane enough that I don't think you'll charge headfirst into things that you don't yet know how to handle.
'''Support''' --  '''
Seen you around here and there, and nothing I've seen suggest that he might go rogue, lacks the required level of clue, or can't play nice with others. Can't see any reasons Rich can't be trusted with a few more buttons.
'''Support''' &mdash; This user is a [[rich|wealthy]] [[Wales|country]]. If that alone doesn't qualify a fellow being for the keys to the janitor's closet, then God only knows what does.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful and trustworthy. <font color="black">
'''Support''' - Plenty of gorm, no twitchy mop-trigger finger. --
'''Support''' - why not.
'''Support''' I opposed last time and for this reason feel obliged to re-evaluate, and to participate in RfA 2, even if it might make no difference. [[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]] makes some valid points in the oppose section. Those points would have given me a pause if it was Richwales' first RfA. But it is not. Content creation is exactly what we asked him to do. Citing sources is what we asked him to learn. And he did both, which shows me that he is taking advice from fellow editors. Honestly, if someone asked me to produce a few GA, I would not pick [[Holocaust]] or [[Business]] but a few articles for which the effort is reasonable. I trust Richwales will not abuse tools. --
'''Support'''. Very acceptable. <small>'''
'''Support''' as I did last time. If the primary criticism is automated edits in fighting vandalism then you aren't apparently very familiar with fighting vandalism. 15 AIV edits (or whatever it is) is low, but I don't doubt that the editor understands the distinction enough to help us on AIV reports.
'''Support'''. Glad to have you aboard. --
'''Support''' - very thoughtful responses, I am sure that you will do well...
'''Support'''. Can't recall exactly where I've seen him around, but when I have, he seems to be sensible and trustworthy.
'''Support'''; sane, thoughtful, competent.
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience in articles and in Wikipedia space, good communication skills. Like Jenks24 above I can't remember where and when I've interacted with Rich but I vaguely recall it was a positive experience. I looked at the previous RfA and it looks like the majority of concerns from that time have been addressed. -- '''
'''Support''' No valid reason presented to warrant oppose. '''
I opposed the first one, but I've seen enough since then to land on this side this time around.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' per Atama.
'''Support''' all experiences w/him have been positive.
'''Support''' per Blue Rasberry in the opposes... and no, I'm serious.  I usually have a great disdain for people who "support" because of an oppose because they are done so in a petty/spiteful manner.  And that's not my reason to support per BR.  In this case, BR makes a good case for supporting.  The fundamental question is answered in point 5; is the candidate trustworthy and smart enough not to break the wiki?  That is the only one that really matters.  Do the arguments in 1 and 4 have merit?  Not really.  1 is about the need for tools, and if he makes a useful admin action once, it is beneficial to the project.  4 is about the role he's had here, so he's getting more active, thus we should oppose?  That doesn't make sense to me. Getting more active---especially in response to criticism from a previous RfA is a good thing.  It shows that he wants to be here and will listen to the community. Points 2 and 3 are opinions; but they are not deal breakers---especially the way BR presented them.  If BR represents the most articulate and in depth oppose for Rich that there is (and so far he is), and he represents the most cognitive reasons to oppose, then I have to support.  Not only do I find the rationale unconvincing as an oppose, I see it convincing as a support--more of two people looking at the same evidence but seeing a different outcome... points 4 and 5 convinced me to support.---'''
'''Support''' I've never seen so many co-nominators add their encouragement to someone's own RFA nomination.
'''Support''' Great contributions, good ideas about dispute resolution.
'''Support''' A review of Richwales' contributions and responses above leave me with no concerns regarding his ability wield the mop. --
'''Support''' No issues with him.
I would trust him --
'''Support''' No concerns at all, he seems eminently level headed.  I also agree with Sven Manguard that your answer to Q13 is great, it made me smile anyway. --<font color="green">
'''support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - No problems here, agree along the same lines as Antandrus. Respected co-noms
'''Support''' - Fine editor. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''.  I'm long familiar with the nominee's work as editor, as well as his pre-Wikipedia work on the dual-citizenship FAQ that  he self-administered.  I'm sure he'll make a fine addition to the Wikipedia admin corps.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor showing sound judgment in various areas. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' Pile on support. I see few issues. Clearly trusted with tools. As an experienced editor who was considering at some point applying for service, I'm especially disappointed with the quality of the arguments made to oppose.
'''Support''' No concerns '''

'''Oppose''' The candidate states he'll be active in vandalism, but a look in his contribs doesn't back this up. It also shows a rahter uncomfortable (for me, at least) number of automated edits. His past 500 contribs show about 100 of vandal fighting, although most of them seem to be through automated tools, which echoes his overall automated to total ratio of about [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=Richwales&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= 15.95%]. A look at his past 500 edits with the statement [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/commentsearch.cgi?name=Richwales&search=revert&max=500&ns=none "revert"] goes back to July 21, which correlates to about a 28% vandal reversion rate and a 91.8% use of automated tools. Along with that, he has [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Richwales&namespace=4 made more edits to this RFA than to AIV] I'm ok (which means I'd like to see it higher, but am not strongly opposed to it as of now) with his edit amount (which seems rather low for a person registered in 2005 with 1000 automated edits), but he seems to have been not very active during the months between his two RFA's, along with the months prior to his first. I might change my mind if the answers to questions are good.
The large number of co-nominations indicates pre-RFA vote stacking. A good candidate doesn't need four nominations.

'''oppose''' because there is a lack of experience of the referencing. I mean you see, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Irwin&action=historysubmit&diff=409063821&oldid=406803250 he didn't use a citation template] which shows me, he only just read [[WP:REFB]] and is learning to use references you see. This was a GA nomination! It needs to have things like cite web and things you see. '''
Seems like a bragger.  Limited only to certain areas of wikipedia.--
I'm stuck here. I know I supported you in your last RFA, and even pestered some who opposed, but now that I look everything over again I'm just not sure. You're a great editor, but are you admin criteria? I try not to get into editcountitis, but your monthly counts are a bit low, especially for someone that gets help from automated tools, however, as of recent they have climbed. Depending on how this RFA goes, I may switch to support/oppose.
I'm a bit confused. I have no reason or intention to oppose this RfA, as I don't question that this user is a trustworthy member of the community; however I can't get my head round how this user has only made 6 reports to WP:AIV when it seems like this will be his primary area of administrative work, if I understand the answer to Q1 correctly. One of the secondary areas that seems to be mentioned in Q1 is CSD, yet the candidate has only ever placed 2 CSD tags? Is this correct?
'''Neutral'''. Candidate will not agree to term limit, reconfirmation or recall. I quite liked his answer to question 3 though, so won't oppose. --
I certainly won't oppose. But I'm not prepared to back an RfA where no attempt has been made by candidate or numerous co-noms to dissuade over-the-top comments. Many of the points made in the oppose section are valid, even if the decision to oppose based on those points is in my opinion over-the-top. —
- Solid content creators should not get mired in administrative drudge work. Clean block log, there's nothing to oppose here, other than to note the swamp is already overpopulated with alligators.
'''Abstain from voting'''. Sorry, but I'm rather worried by the concerns outlined by Blue Raspberry and Reaper Eternal. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
As others said, the skills required of a good administrator are not the same as the skills required of a good content author/editor. The status of an administrator should not be granted as a gold medal for anyone who did good work in the project. --
'''Support''', excellent candidate. Great deal of experience, both in breadth and in depth. Good temperament for an admin. -- '''
'''Support'''.  I'm surprised to see that he's not an admin yet; he's an outstanding editor, and will be an equally outstanding admin. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;
- <font face="Trebuchet MS">
I rarely support RfAs, but Sadads has made an exemplary impression on me as I've observed his work.
ABOUT TIME!
'''Support'''
Randomly found out about this and its worth coming out of semi-retirement to vote here to support him. We trust him off wiki with all our reputations on both sides of the pond so why the hell not on wiki. Most definitely '''Support''' '''
'''Support''' – Excellent editor, and I also support harej's comment above. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''. Good editing contributions, clearly understands how the project works. Contributions to discussions show an ability to think for himself and explain his reasoning. Importantly, passes the 'has clue' test. I see no concerns here, and I think Sadads will be an asset as an admin.--
'''Support''' <s>It might just be on my mind because I used English as oppose rationale in Armbrust's RfA, but your's does seem to have a little trouble being that you're a native speaker of American English.</s>  I am <s>also</s> concerned with your answer to [[User:ArcAngel]]'s 2nd question.  The most important aspect of A7 is any credible claim of importance.  It doesn't have to be substatial or true, it only has to be a claim to avoid CSD using A7.  Once a claim is made "this person is important because..." is enough to avoid A7 and must be taken to PROD or AfD.  "Credible" would discount "important because they're sexy".  All of that being said, you look like a solid editor who would benefit the 'pedia as an admin.  Maybe I am biased because I am also a Richard and Kahlen fan (new book comes out in August)?  Either way, your GAs and DYKs show clear understanding of quality content.  I would recommend that if you do get the tools, that you not let the tools "subsume" your work.--v/r -
'''Support''' - I don't see any glaring reasons to oppose, but I would like to point out to the candidate that he should make sure to know the difference between [[WP:G1]] and [[WP:G3]] when deleting articles. I found [[How did cathrin of aragon die]], which the user tagged as G1, but was really vandalism. It is a very easy mistake to make, and I have no concerns that the candidate will not know the difference by the time he gets the tools. '''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose, and I'm glad someone gets A7. I see people missing the point of the "claim of importance" far too often. I agree that the claim needs to be plausible and significant ("my Aunt Mary is the strongest person in the world" doesn't work, neither does "can do a headstand for an hour") but I see too often where people use "not notable" as a justification for A7. -- '''
'''Support'''. Of course. An active editor with years of experience, simply an outsanding candidate, looking at his edit count and contributions history. '''''
'''Support''', and add the cliched "You aren't an admin already?" No concerns whatsoever; you'll do quite well with the tools. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' Level head, knows what he's doing. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
Absolutely! <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - Long-time veteran Wikipedian, solid content contributions, nothing spotted in this candidate's body of work to cause concern.--
'''Support'''. A good all-round candidate. There is no reason I can see not to support.
For as long as I have been aware of Sadads I have been impressed by him: he does a lot of great work, is communicative, has good experience with policy, and is very caring and courteous. In addition, I have met Sadads in real life, and I can say that he is a friendly and decent person: the chances of him going crazy with the tools is very unlikely, and I'm sure that with admin areas he has limited experience in, he'll ask for advice and/or do his research before branching out. I have no concerns and am pleased to support his candidacy.
'''Support''' no concerns ''<B>--
'''Support''' - No reason not to, candidate seems knowledgeable. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' After looking over this candidate, and allowing time for questions to be answered, I have full trust in this candidate's ability to handle the mop.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' I don't see any reason why this editor cannot be trusted with the mop, and I think the pledge to take it slow with admin tools in areas where you aren't already familiar is the right approach. I would also suggest participating in a non-admin capacity in those areas first, such as continuing to CSD tag rather then delete on sight, even if the deletion policy would allow you to do so. Regardless, this candidate looks like a great admin prospect.
'''Support''' - No concerns at all! A great colleague with demonstrated leadership potential.
'''Support''' – outstanding editor.
'''Support''' - your contributions are helpful to the {{SITENAME}} community - you deserve adminship.
'''Support''' No worries, excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. Very active and helpful editor. Would make a great admin. --
your not an admin already? --
'''Support''' No reason not to, excellent editor and I'm suprised not already admin.
'''Support''' - I  first  came across Sadads through  his work  on  the Ambassadors progamme and was surprised that  he was not  already  an admin. ''However'', if he's going  to be given the tools, and it  looks very  likely, I  would like to  think  that  he will do  more background research, especially for example when mass nominating  editors for [[WP:Autopatrolled|autopatrolled rights]], instead of leaving  it  up  to  the admins to  find that  many  of the candidates are/were not  suitable. He must  learn  to  do this himself if he's going  to  have the button  to  accord user rights. If he would slow down a bit and apply  adequate research  in  ''all''  areas he's going  to  be active in, then I  see absolutely  no  reason  not  to  support. A totally  dedicated Wikipedian  with  the best  of intentions.
I see no issues and I completely trust several of the editors above me who are full of praise for the cnadidate.
'''Support''' - Stellar contributor
'''Support''' Edits in my area of interest, know him from around, no worries whatsoever.
'''Support''' - Good content creator, trustworthy and cordial. He has a good balance between work that encourages new editors and work that protects the project, and I believe would make an excellent admin. He has been submitting some of our best content creators to [[WP:RFP/A]], which I feel is an under-appreciated task and a very important one. It's one of the few areas that is beneficial for both the project and the end users. Users given the autopatrol bit by our admin corps are appreciative and often improve their content and contributions as a result. Setting the autopatrol bit on our best contributors also helps our overworked [[WP:NPP|NPPers]], which is another important task. Sadads could be very helpful in this area. This work will be a particular need, as, sometime in the near future, [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NoomBot 7|NoomBot]] will be ''slowly'' submitting several hundred users to RFP/A as [[Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 24#Automate submissions for Autopatrol right|part]] of a [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 6|project]] to help our NPPers. '''@Sadads''', thanks for offering to help with the admin work and a big thanks for being up front about the [[Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Wikipedian in Residence|Wikipedian in Residence]] stuff. As you mentioned, I do think it would be a good idea to set up a separate account if you do find yourself in a position to do any [[WP:GLAM|GLAM]] editing at a future date. Good luck. - '''''
'''Support''' - Fully qualified. ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' because of length and quality of contributions in diverse areas, and support by many respected editors (who often disagree). His disclosure of past payed positions shows character. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Would like to have seen more work in Wikipedia space, especially dispute resolution, however what I have seen is good. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
Solid, competent. - Dank (
See no issues.
'''Support''' User will use good judgment with the tools and overall, this new admin will help the project.--
'''Support'''. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' Great candidate for the mop. :-) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Most definitely.
'''Support'''. Have seen this editor in passing for a very long time. No hesitation whatever in giving him the tools. Good luck.
'''Support''' No problems here - you're pretty clued up and certainly seem to know what you're doing, and you have plenty of experience --
'''Support''' This editor has contributed over 50% of my worth of Wikipedia. Has been great ever since I came across him. Helped me build my first DYK etc. Will be a great Admin.
'''Support''' I am acquainted with this candidate through the Ambassadors program, where he is making a solid and important contribution to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' No concerns '''
Sorry, but your actions are just too good for wikipedia.  <small><small><small>(support)</small></small></small>  ~~
'''Support''' — Good editor, no issues.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' - Good contributions, see no reason to think this candidate will abuse the tools.
'''Support''', looks like he'll do a good job. --
'''Support''' Last year, Sadads and I were on opposing sides of a contentious AfD and the subsequent DRV; I think that he struggled a bit to express himself clearly in those discussions. However, reviewing his more recent interactions with other editors, my primary impression is that Sadads is courteous and knowledgeable. His content work (including [[Quicksilver (novel)]] and [[Health in Ghana]]) looks good; so do his answers to the RfA questions, particularly Q4. I think Sadads will do just fine as an administrator.
Yes a familiar name whose long overdue.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Almost seems like a token gesture at this point :) I am convinced of his good character and trustworthiness. Misuse of speedy deletion is a particular concern of mine, but I am entirely satisfied that this will not be a concern in this case. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>

Has clue, will do good with mop. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Support'''. Sadads is an active editor with years of experience and high quality content contributions.
'''Weak support'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. However AfD comments have usually been appropriate.
Of course.
'''Support''' - No concerns. This user has clearly benefited the project and will continue to do so.

'''Support''' - Helpful editor who knows what's up.  I see no reason not to support; Wikipedia will be a better place with the candidate having a mop. I thank the candidate for service to date. Best Wishes,
'''Support''' - helpful and responsible editor.
'''Support''' ''If'' "eager" is a detriment, it shouldn't be a disqualifier. Eager can also be seen as an asset from other points of view. As for liabilities, I see none. Assets, numerous. Net result of evaluation is overwhelmingly favourable.
'''Support''' I can see no concerns; the user seems knowledgeable, trustworthy, experienced, and collegiate. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' editor with an excellent temperament. I have observed him during his recent interactions with Maheshkumaryadav and he has a done a good job with a very difficult user.--
'''Support''' good answers to questions... particularly like the attitude towards CSD. Should make a good admin. ''
'''Support''' We've worked well together in the past...
'''Support'''.  Totally trustworthy, highly competent, very friendly. I've worked closely with Sadads quite a bit, and have no concerns at all.--
'''Support'''
I really don't see why not, being active for a few years helps.  &ndash;
'''Support''': I have interacted with this user a number of times and believe them to be an excellent admin candidate. Regards,
'''Support''', excellent choice for an admin, and I strongly disagree with the two opposers (and I can't even figure out what the second one is getting at).
'''Support'''. I appreciate the outreach work. I also think that Kudpung makes good points, above. --
'''Support'''- Every time I have seen this user around, they have struck me as intelligent and reasonable.
'''Support'''. Clear diplomatic answers, and supports new Be-Welcoming attitude; hence, [[WP:Article_Incubator]]. Erratic editing pattern: 10%-90% article, 10-80% talk-pages (past 12 mos.), but adminship is encouraged by months of >30% talk. Re Opposes, [[WP:MELT]] & I often make "3 typos" per message, so I overlook English typos. -
'''Support'''. Experienced user that pretty much meets all nine points of my [[User:Crazymonkey1123/Personal Grading Criteria for RfA Requests|Personal Grading Criteria for RfA Candidates]]. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' As a fellow Wikipedia Ambassador of Sadads, my interactions with him has been positive. From what I've seen so far, he has demonstrated capability and responsibility. I believe he can be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Support''' My interactions with Sadads have been limited, by my impression was of a thoughtful person who expresses themselves clearly. I hope Sadads uses he tools wisely.
'''Support''' Automated tool count does not concern me with this user, the rest of the opposes/neutrals are appalling. --
No alarms here. Looks like they'll be a good addition to the <s>cabal</s> corps.
'''Support''' I think that this candidate has learned some things about deletion tagging during this process, and has earned my support.
'''Support''' I think the tools will be helpful for the type of work Sadads does. Our areas of editing overlap, so I know that he's very dedicated.
'''Support'''- Per Sodabottle.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''
Before this closes '''support''' per many above and that I'm also not concerned about the automated edit count. Orange Marlin's limp neutral is rather akin to me telling my three year old she can manage with the fork and spoon, and if she wants a knife then tough - she hasn't demonstrated any need for it because .... oh - she's never had one. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''Sadads has shown ability to edit and use of admin tools would enhance this. The rationale given for actions appears to me to demonstrate self insight and reasonable temperament  which suggests the community is giving the admin flag to a responsible individual, hence my support. <span style="color:black; background:yellow; border:2px solid black">[[User talk:MikeBeckett]]</span> Please do ask questions! <span style="color:black; background:white; border:2px solid black">
Only seems to have been active since april last year Lots of automatic edits, sixty percent of all contributions - Users contribution history seems not related to any reason for using the tools - intends to help with the backlog is a bit of a wishy washy claim for a lifetime of authority.
'''Oppose''' - It's not a real RfA without an opposing [[User:Ais523/votesymbols.js|voting icon]]. --
While per the number of supports, I don't think this candidate is likely to cause any damage with the tools, I don't think I have interacted with them before, and I don't really want to make my support or oppose worthless because of one baseless claim from my part.
'''Neutral'''-Another editor who has all the tools that they need.  Not sure I'm convinced that they need to be an admin.  But nothing to say they shouldn't.
'''Neutral''', per Orange and Q&A.
'''Support''' Thought he was one already.
'''Strong Support''' He should be doing a very good job!  Now having many different user groups make's me think like the user has even more potential.   ~~
'''Support''' deleted contribs show that the admins agree with the candidates nominations. Hsa done account creating and a little of other loggable items.
Oppose.  ''Much'' too valuable as a page patroller to give him the mop.  Almost never makes mistakes at UAA, great social skills in dealing with other patrollers and admins, and ... oh wait.  '''Support'''. - Dank (
'''Support''' Well-qualified; will make an extremely valuable addition to the administrative corps.--
'''Support''' I Can't See Why Not
'''Support'''. Top quality contributor, with a very collegial approach and a great temperament --
'''Support''' Seen him around a lot. He and Mean as Custard took over my little niche of userpage spam and cost me a lot of edit count... Good spread of editing areas, and accurate tagging. Mind you, I do agree with Dank that perhaps we should keep him in patrolling...
As nominator. ''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' I only have to look at who the nominator is to make this decision. WSC is an editor that I have quite a bit of respect for and I have yet to disagree with. (The candidate's contributions look good, as well).
I have only really ever observed Salvio as a [[WP:ARBCLERK|trainee ArbCom Clerk]], but I have noticed that he does a fine job there. I am satisfied enough by Dank and WSC's observations in other areas of the project to support. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - No issues here. Great editor.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Well-qualified. ''
'''Support''' For some reason I seem never to have come across him; which could be good at least as easily as bad. But looking at his contributions, over a wide sweep of the project,he reveals a high level of competence and skill. Will be a good admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' This is an easy one.
'''Support''' If there's a reason not to give him the mop, I haven't spotted it. --
'''Support''' - I see no issues here.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. '''
'''Support''' He deserves it.
'''Support'''. Clearly well-qualified and clueful. WSC's concise nomination statement puts it well.
'''Support'''. This is an easy one for me. I hate to fall into that cliché, but I really did think he was one already! Just to be sure of my !vote, I checked some of his comments at the talk page of a now-departed user, and no red flags whatsoever. --
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. What took you so long? --
Absolutely. I have seen SG do excellent NPP work and think he's very much cut out for administrator duties. --
'''Support'''. Knows his way around. Contribs show he can discuss controversial issues sensibly :) --
'''Support''' Of course. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' All looks good here, a scan of talk page discussions show an editor who has a clear, concise manner.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, excellent work. Thought he was one already.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Great answer to my question, I hope you keep those ideals at heart when you become an admin. Best of luck with the tools! <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' About darn time.
Obviously.
My gut tells me no, but I don't know why. My brain tells me yes, so I'm going with that because it's backed up with the evidence of solid editing. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Without reservation; a solid candidate. '''
'''Support''' No concerns with you.
'''Support''' I've been aware of Salvio for some 12 months now, and as someone else who was involved in that particular long-running dispute, I remember vividly what he describes in his answer to Question 3. I have never known him to come across as anything other than reasonable, polite, and - with reference to the egregious user misconduct to which the [[Murder of Meredith Kercher]] topic has been subjected in the past - able to demonstrate endless patience and coolness under fire. It's a full endorsement from me. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Could have run  for office a lot sooner. Everything  fine, broad experience, clean content work, and a well balanced pie chart on a high  edit count of the right  kind. Meets my  criteria.
'''Support''': seems like a solid Wikipedian to me and one who will do good work as an admin.
'''Support''' No concerns and meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]]
He's an admin already, so allowing him to mash the buttons himself makes sense. This request is just housekeeping, really!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' From observation an impressively responsible editor...
'''Support'''. I haven't seen anything worrying in the user's contribs. So far as I can see, he has good judgement and is civil and friendly. All in all, an excellent candidate. &mdash;
Yes
'''Support''' Username work.
'''Support''' I saw his contribs and nothing where I could scream "wait". He conforms to the norm in my oppinion.--<span style="background-color:#FF7F24;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - Fine candidate. —
'''Support''' You're not an admin already? I'm honestly surprised. I also agree wholeheartedly with your response to Q4, a query as posed by [[User:Coffee]]. <span style="border:1px solid;border-left:3px solid;border-right:3px solid;background:#D3D3D3">
'''Weak support'''—I"m not sure why, but I can relate to My76Strat's oppose here. Nevertheless, I've seen nothing but good stuff from him and, barring my unsubstantial qualm, I don't see why not.
'''Support''' – Easy decision. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Can't see any issues '''''
'''Support''' No red flags. --
'''Support''' Knowledgeable user, with good history and great project-centred work (UAA, ACC etc). Has my full trust and support. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' Give the man a mop!
'''Support''' per review of contributions, as well as having many a time seen his contributions in article histories.  --
'''Support.''' Salvio is a trustworthy, experienced editor. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support.''' No brainer support. In bocca al lupo! --
'''Support '''Worked with him as a clerk - excellent chap.
'''Certo''' I've always seen Salvio as a clueful, experienced editor who would be a good admin. Oh, and I'm half-Italian, so I feel also somewhat morally obligated to support him ;-) Regards '''
'''Support''' - like many others, I thought he was an admin already; a polite, reasoned and dedicated contributor, no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' - a clueful editor with a good editing history. No concerns here. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support.''' After reviewing his contribution I think he will make a great admin--
I'm
'''Support''' - Clean block long, intelligent discussion of New Page Patrol, seems like a good dude.
'''Support''' - Seems like a good candidate. -
'''Hell yes, finally, oh my god why didn't this happen sooner, [insert tons more of exclamations here] support!''' Salvio is incredibly clueful, knows what he's doing, does things right, is courteous, patient and kind! He was one of the first people to interact with me on-wiki and cleared up so many points of confusion. Since then, I have witnessed him do the same for others as well as participate in areas such as the deletion process and UAA. He also exemplifies the ideal of assuming good faith while still getting the job done. Salvio would definitely make good use of the tools and I'm surprised this didn't come earlier! <small>— Preceding <span style="color:#0645AD;">''signed''</span> comment added by
'''No concerns'''.
'''Support''' - certamente.
'''Support''' No doubts here. :) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
I only recall one interaction; I made one of my apparently "unclear" statements, yet he had enough clue to figure out exactly what it was I'd said even then. I'm getting the impression that wasn't a one-off. Of course, you know the conduct and judgement expected of admins, and if you're willing to abide by those standards, there's only one way to vote - '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - this user not only understands Wikipedia policy, but also understands what Wikipedia needs to continue to succeed into the future. He is the type of user we need representing Wikipedia as an administrator.
'''Support'''. Yes, Salvio is a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Adminiship is no big deal and this guy is not going to put goatse on the Main Page. Why say no? <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support'''. I think that Salvio would be a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Salvio has the temperament, the level-headedness and the clue required to become an admin.
'''Support''' Checking through contribs, I can find no concern - but I do see excellent demonstration of Wiki-knowledge, and evidence of collegiate friendly discussion. Looks like a great candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Time to dole out another mop '''
'''Support''' We've had a quite a few problems at [[WP:UAA]] with overly gung-ho users making unfounded reports and demanding blocks for imaginary or extremely minor infractions. Salvio has been a voice of reason over there and was one of the few of the short lived "clerks" we had there who actually helped things rather than aggravating them. His demeanor and understanding of the subtleties of our policies, along with an ability to use common sense make him an ideal candidate.
'''Support''', but would like to see more content creation.
'''Support''' The candidate's remarks about biographies of living people and new page patrolling are insightful and perceptive enough to convince me that this is someone who will exercise the administrative powers wisely.  Speaking as an editor whose main efforts are devoted toward content creation, it would be nice to see more in that area.  However, I agree that translating a major article from Italian qualifies as a useful content contribution to the English Wikipedia. That's enough for me. Thank you, Salvio giuliano, for the work you've done here.
'''Support''', per above.
'''Support''', per Cullen28.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Solid.
'''Support''' - level headed editor. Would make an excellent admin.--
'''Support''' - remains calm and composed even in the face of adversity, clueful.
'''Support''' - Contributions are consistently high in quality. I've not seen his name pop up as a source of problems. His research has been spot-on and timely. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Well qualified. And he's a WikiGryphon! --
'''Support''' - Seems well qualified. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' What else?  Good luck!--
'''Support''' No problems whatsoever, is active enough.
Solid collaborator, no red flags, will be particularly helpful in this role. Pleased to support.
'''Support'''
Wanted to be #100, but it's nearly 2AM where I live, so #99 will have to do. I've seen nothing but good from Salvio, and he'll make a fine admin. --
Sweet, I get to be #[[WP:100|100]]. I think this is a first for me. And this guy is an obvious shoe-in for the administrative toolset.
'''Support''' Seems a great candidate
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' because you are one of the best. <b>
No joke. '''

'''Support'''  I've only had good interactions with Salvio. Responsible editor and deserving of the mop. – '''
'''Support''' He has a good investigative eye, among other things. —
'''Support''' Why not? <font color="#082567">
'''Support'''. Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''. I see no issue. I hope as an admin, he would act fairly, proportionately, and without bias. --
'''Support'''' Couldn't find anything that would make me doubt his abilities, best of luck :) <small>
'''Support'''. Of course, without any doubt the mop would be in good use. '''''
'''Insufficient content'''.  The author has almost no demonstrated content creation on English Wikipedia.  The article that he touts in his RFA statement is entirely from a single source, a translation from Italian Wikipedia, and still has an untranslated Italian phrase in one of the section headers.
I do not think that it is appropriate for an editor with so little evidence of content creation to be to become an admin.  There is also considerable concern over the balance of the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' page and an having an administrator who overtly supports one side of the argument is not a good idea.  Neutral editors are vital for the reputation and balance of Wikipedia and I would prefer caution if there are any question marks about a candidate.
I completely agree with NigelPScott! This editor is far too biased to serve as an administrator. Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality would suffer with this editor as an administrator.
'''Neutral'''.  Seems okay, but content creation is lacking.  Has gotten into an argument with an editor not interested at resolving an issue, a plus—knows what that looks and feels like—but is probably naive in thinking Wikipedia supports content additions.
'''Neutral'''  Cannot in good faith support the candidate due to what I consider to be a poor answer regarding new page patrolling.
'''Support'''. What have I wrought? Well, I am supporting you because I think that you deserve commendation for taking this on; indeed any administrator would. But I also want to say, very seriously, that while I repeatedly see you doing very good, very helpful administrative work, I think that you have a tendency to speak in a sort of voice-of-God tone when you state your opinions, and that it would be a good move if you could work on toning that down. I can expand on that in talk if anyone wants me to. --
Don't like this rubbish, but you need the tools to carry on working in this ''voluntary'' effort in areas you're best suited too. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A few rough spots seen from time to time, but as Goethe said, "Man errs, so long as he is striving." --
Support, but with a wish that you would not waste (imo) community time with this in the future. We gave you our support and I don't think we need another RFA unless that trust has been dramatically lost. (Ie by the creation of RFDAs, RFCs, or in-depth negative discussions of many admin actions.)--
'''Support''' He genuinely seems to want to be a successful administrator. I support him, so long as he sticks to his promises.
'''Strong Support''' - Even though I was on the opposite side of controversy some time ago, I have no doubt that Sarek has (1) a strong sense of fairness and fair play, (2) a sound command of policy, and most importantly, (3) a good understanding of when a heavy-handed administrative solution is not necessary.  Kudos to you for standing for review and confirmation.  You have my unqualified endorsement.
I took a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSarekOfVulcan&action=historysubmit&diff=221289565&oldid=221289444 my support] from nearly three years ago, and back then I gave SarekOfVulcan good wishes spoken by the real Sarek of Vulcan. To be a bit more serious this time around, SarekOfVulcan has always been a fair and communicative admin to my knowledge, and I have no problems in supporting him again.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Less obvious than the other reconfirmation, so I reviewed the oppose rationale and looked at some contributions; the ongoing dispute between [[User:TreasuryTag|TreasuryTag]] and the candidate (at FFD, AfD and on SoV's talk) indicates a personal issue rather than widespread displeasure with the way the SoV has been running things. Pending a stronger oppose from uninvolved editors, I support '''
'''Support''' – I think that the pluses outweigh the minuses in this situation. I respect TreasureTag's opinion, but overall admin work allows me to support. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''—from what I've seen of Sarek (which is a considerable amount) over the past few years, I think he has the clue to continue wielding the mop competently. It'd be a shame to lose a good admin, and I really don't see why the mop shouldn't be kept.
'''Support''' - I don't always agree with his opinions and actions -- and I don't believe he's an actual Vulcan. But Vulcans wouldn't wade in to try to prevent all-too-human conflicts from boiling over nearly as often as Sarek does. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Added: I should have been more explicit in saying that Sarek does a lot of valuable work as an administrator, and it would be a shame to lose him. Additionally, I surprise myself by saying that his response to Q14 demonstrates how a reconfirmation process can have value, as well as why he should be reconfirmed. The insights he has gained here regarding past errors will improve his performance in the future. --
'''Support''' But really don't think this is necessary.
'''Support''' - Sarek is and will continue to be a good admin. --
'''Support''' reaffirmation per above.  No reason why Sarek shouldn't keep the mop.  &ndash;
'''Support''' I have agreed with him, disagreed with him, he's blocked me at least once in the past, but I have absolutely no reservations about reconfirming Sarek as an admin.  He's done good work, has a conscience, and is an asset to the community.
'''Support''', I really don't see why you needed to give up the tools, so I see no reason to say that you shouldn't get them back.
'''Support''' I have no issues except for wasting everyone's time. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Sarek is a good admin and shouldn't be putting himself through this.  He get's it right the vast majority of the time.
'''support''' a really good admin who has on occasion made some pretty bad calls, especially wrt WP:INVOLVED.  I'm hopeful Sarek now understands that being involved isn't something to try to IAR around.  If it's so plain that an action needs to be taken, someone else will take it. If it's obscure, you can raise it at ANI...  As said above, almost all good work and has a conscience.
'''Support''' But if you feel a little burned out, a short break from admining is fine too. That said, there are certainly some admins that, if they come here for reconfirmation, are basically guaranteed not to make it. Bravo for putting some accountability back into Wikipedia's own College of Cardinals. <strong>
'''Support'''. My interactions with Sarek in an administrative capacity have been largely positive. I see no reason to take away his sysop bit. —
'''Support''' Stud.  -'''
'''Support''' good admin, has common sense, which brings about a better community in the long run.--'''
'''Support''' Good admin, with common sense. I trusted this user with the mop before, and hopefully will do so again.
'''Support''' While laudable, I hope all this reaffirmation stuff doesn't become the norm.--
'''Support''' His first RfA was brilliantly handled without kow-towing to the corps of questioners and unconvincing opposition, and I see the same bold frankness in some of Sarek's responses here. Some comments of his elsewhere have caused me to raise an eyebrow in the past but nothing, absolutely nothing has made me doubt his suitability as a sysop. Everyone, including admins, can make mistakes and sometimes get drawn into issues they should preferably have stayed clear of, but insisting that sysops be infallible reinforces the idea the adminship is indeed 'a big deal' and a very big one too. It ain't - it's actually a mug's game, but someone has to do it, and Sarek does it rather well.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Wikipedia is a unique place.  There are few other activities to which one could devote so much time as a volunteer, and receive so little appreciation and so much complaining, grumbling, drama, and endless arguing about anything and everything about which an argument could possibly be had (and then some).  Don't let the wiki-idiots shake your self-confidence.
'''Support'''. SarekOfVulcan has dealt with more than his fair share of disruptive users, and I have been consistently impressed with his equanimity in those dealings. A person who can keep a cool head as he does is clearly fit to continue with his adminship position.
Net positive. Hopefully this sorts out your dirty laundry, so to speak. ''
'''Support''': I know you've got into more controversial actions than most, and had your fair share of criticism, but I think that comes with not being afraid of difficult and contentious issues - you're not afraid to tackle things that need it (where I certainly would falter - along with many, I think), and if something goes against you, you accept it and move on. Respect for going for reconfirmation too - it's a good chance to listen and reflect, and I hope you're successful with it --
'''Support''' Jimbo was very much right when he said that RfA is broken. Sarek is a good editor and those who want to oppose him solely because he is "wasting your time" don't, he isn't wasting your time, no one is making you vote at RfA (although it is your duty to do so). He is a good editor and I believe that people shouldn't judge him harshly for going through this again. <span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
{{ec}}'''Support''' I've seen a lot of the crap SOV has had to deal with and he's dealt with it all superbly. I trust him and do not have a doubt in my mind that he'll continue to do the good work he's done so far. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' Never had a problem with SoV myself. Quite sure that he/she will take note of the views of the opposers and apply or ignore them as appropriate. :)
'''Support'''. This wasn't as obvious to me as HJ's reconfirmation, as Sarek has clearly been involved in a fair amount of drama. Looking through ANI archives, I've found no less than 7 incidents brought up regarding him specifically along with all sorts of accusations all over the place, including demands for de-sysop at places like ARBCOM. However, you haven't been de-sysoped, the ANIs were closed without incident and [[WP:Requests for comment/SarekOfVulcan]] is a red link. What's more, the fact that he have put himself up for this, knowing his own history and that "enemies" would come out woodwork, the fact that he pretty much [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650|INISISTED]] on being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASarekOfVulcan&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= blocked] for a mistake, implies to me that he trying to do the right thing. Sarek, Yes, you're cavalier, yes, you should respect [[WP:INVOLVED]] more, but all in all, you're a damn good admin.
'''Support''' Your answers to the questions have convinced me.
'''Support''' I think Sarek is doing a fine job as an admin, and hope that he continues in that role.  If you ever decide to run for a crat job, you would have my support there also.
'''Support''' - Wikipedia needs all the admins it can get, even more so ''experienced'' admins. Unless there is evidence of serious misbehaviour (which there is a process to deal with), then I see no reason why Sarek should not have the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Admins who do dick-all are never complained about; admins who are willing to drop the gloves when needed are going to piss a few people off.  Yeah, the Vulcan might want to count to 10 once or twice before a comment or a block, but that makes then ''human'', and ''not'' a "bad admin".  Reconfirmation should be a simple yes on this one. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''  Really appreciate the straight answer to my question.
'''Support''': SarekOfVulcan has contributed a massive amount of administrative work, nearly all of which has been faultless. In a few cases, he may have erred by enforcing contentious policies somewhat rigidly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=390906379 His block of Malleus  was poor judgment]; however, his unblocking was rapid and without less procrastination or bitterness than other administrators often have displayed in bowing to community consensus. In short, the errors have been few and corrected rapidly, while the vast majority of his work has been very well done. Any violations of the WP:Involved policy have been minor/formal, and that Sarek's history and responses here demonstrate integrity, so that we can trust [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan_2&diff=next&oldid=427513135 his pledge to avoid even formal violations of WP:Involved]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I think I'm with Pedro here, but I don't wish to speculate on the precise reasons for this 'RfA'. I think Sarek is a fine administrator who has the courage to make sometimes difficult decisions. Scott Mac's oppose, below, has merit as well, but "If you can't judge for yourself..." is not, in my opinion, the proper assessment: I don't think the issue is that Sarek can't judge for themselves. The whole INVOLVED thing, from what I saw of it (which probably isn't everything, unfortunately), is overblown. And if (per Pedro) Sarek is an attention seeking whore, well, slap them with a perfumed trout. So, support, get back to work, and let there be a timely end to this thing.
'''Support''' - SarekOfVulcan has gone up on my estimation of late. I think there are some grounds in some of the things raised by the opposes and that in turn demonstrates the good decision to have a reconfirmation RFA. Potentially such objective criticism may lead to SarekOfVulcan becoming a better sysop, I hope so. Regards,
'''Support'''  I've always found Sarek responsible with the tools and he has my support.--
Although I find this reconfirmation thing wholly unnecessary, but that's just my personal opinion.
'''Support''' - it's not a big deal after all 'eh, on reconfirmations only arbcom might make me reconsider --
'''Support''' Seeking reconfirmation in this way is impressively honourable and the candidate's admin actions seem generally to have been quite sensible.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' because his username is still awesome. Seriously, his views toward [[WP:INVOLVED]] sound reasonable, and a promise and desire to do better are good enough for me. I'm also hoping to counteract some of the "waste of time" opposes. (If you think this reconfirmation is a waste of time, move on. Or at least find a better reason to oppose.) --
'''Support''' as strongly as possible.  No question whatsoever.
'''Support''' also as strongly as possible. SoV has acted in a responsible manner and has been open to criticism. He should continue as an admin.
I think you're overall an asset to the project as an admin, and I think you should retain the admin bit. That said, you skirt way closer to the border of "involvement" than I would be comfortable with. It's not enough to lead me to oppose your reappointment, but I would seriously urge you to consider that feedback whichever way this RfA goes. If it fails, it will be largely because of the issue of involvement. If this RfA succeeds, it would still be worth considering adjusting your approach, since I think it will get you in trouble sooner or later. (Sorry, this came out sounding sort of lecture-y, which wasn't my intent. Bottom line: I think you're a solid admin, and I hope your reconfirmation not only succeeds but also provides some useful feedback). '''
'''Support''' - Why not? ''<font face="times new roman">
Strong '''support'''.
'''Support''' - I have seen Sarek make mistakes over the years (see what MastCell and others said above about acting as an admin while "involved") but I've always considered him one of the more reliable admins I've worked with. I think it would be a huge loss for the project if his reconfirmation doesn't succeed. -- '''
'''Support''' per Atama just above. --
This was a stupid idea. You're competent, despite the massive amounts of drama and WR threads in which you've been involved/discussed. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' as a net positive but... Sarek: you deserve many of the whacks you're taking in the oppose section. More importantly you knew (or should have known) that this was coming and you could and should have adjusted your methods accordingly a while ago. Passing this RfA does not mean you can return to business as usual. Whether you feel you're uninvolved is not always important: if you know you'll be perceived as such, take the slow route by asking someone else to review the situation.
'''Support''' Sometimes an admin needs to stick their neck out and call someone an idiot. Sure, it leads to ANI, but there are times where it needs to be done. --
'''Support''' You have not abused the tools so far, and I believe you will do even better in the future. No concerns here.
'''Support''' He's been around for a very long time (7 years) and was only blocked as requested for a very short time. I think he still has the patience an administrator should have, and will not retaliate within the next situation where he gets involved.
'''Support''' - No question. Go on lad!!!
'''Support''', guy generally has clue and cojones, is a net asset.  See MastCell's comments re concerns, which I think are overhyped in relation to some truly bad admin stuff that goes 'round.
'''Support''' - agree with BWilkins and MastCell. Also because [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|being an admin is not and should not be a 'big deal']]. Sysops are not meant to be infallible and if we screw-up every now and then it is easily rectified. <br>For these same reasons, I do not think this kind of reconfimration RFA is necessary and I do not encourage it--
'''Support''' - there a few valid concerns in the oppose section, however you still have my trust.
'''Support''' and keep up the good work.  Many of the people opposing have some sort of ax to grind, I'd disregard that as blowing off steam.
'''Support''' - There have been some errors in judgement, but SoV is an admin who is willing to tackle difficult issues, and under the circumstances occasional errors are not unexpected.  On the whole, a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' Sure there's been some drama, but that's not unsurprising given Sarek's willingness to address contentious incidents and make tough calls. Overall he is certainly a net positive as an admin, and I don't see anything so egregious in his behaviour that would preclude him from retaining/regaining the mop.--
'''Support''' As your judgments always looked good the few times Ive run across you.  Was  considering weak support due to valid concerns in the oppose section,  but in general your controversial actions seem to be against pushy (if very likeable) editors. Its invaluable for non confrontational types to have  bold admins out there making tough calls.  On the other hand perhaps sometimes it would be more collegial to do nothing in response to minor misdemeanours you encounter.
'''Support''' Because you are, and have been a good admin, and in my view any minor imperfections do not impar your overall benefit to the project. I will confess to feeling some irritation at finding this RfA; I see no reason for it to be here. I have read your inroductory explanation, and my comment remains. --<font color="Red">
Similar feelings to MastCell. --
'''Support''' Before this started I may have voted oppose or neutral based on history but seeing how he realizes that he is fallable and admits to it, I feel he recognizes his faults, realizes that he may do it again but knows when to ask for help or backdown when he makes a mistake instead of joining on bandwagons.  I think many on here need to follow that example.
'''support''' per most of the opposes
'''Support''', we're all only human (well, apart from [[User:Bishzilla]]).  We all make mistakes, and the candidate is wise enough to admit to his.  Running for reconfirmation when there has been as much controversy as there has been around this user is in my view the ''correct'' thing to do, and I'm supporting because of this.  However, I would ask that the candidate take the good faith comments in the oppose section to heart and be extra careful using the tools in cases where they might be involved.
'''Support '''- sure, some things could have been done better, but could this not be said of all of us.  Prepared to take things on even if unpopular.
'''Support''' Doesn't seem to abuse the tools and just needs to pull the throttle back a bit. No reason to desysop. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Support''', It was a nonconstructive, dramatic question at HJ's RFA, with a nonconstructive, dramatic answer and this is a nonconstructive, dramatic RFA. No where is it written that admins who make the wrong decisions need to be ''desysopped'', and I'm not going to pick and choose mistakes or bad choices so I can take part in the rare opportunity to desysop one. The lack of new admins is enough of a problem, we don't need current ones giving up the mop. It would really be a shame to see Sarek lose the mop in this ridiculous bureaucratic bullshit. ''
'''Support'''. It's clear Sarek has made some mistakes with the tools, and has been opposed below on the basis of those. I find it really hard, however, to ignore the huge amount of good work he has done in generally mucky areas. The overriding principle for me, then, is that adminship is no big deal. I have no doubt that if he slips again that it will be dealt with as it has been before (with, perhaps, a slightly different attitude from Sarek based on what's happened here), and as far as I can tell the previous issues were generally resolved. If he were running for ArbCom or asking for the oversight bit or something along those lines, it would be a different story for me, because those are bigger deals (even though they sometimes makes mistakes, too ;)). But I haven't been convinced that allowing Sarek to have the sysop bit would be a net negative for the project, and on that basis I support his reconfirmation.
'''Support'''. I think the "reconfirmation" idea is silly and misguided, but this editor has a [[Wikipedia:Cluocracy|clue]] and to be that is enough to warrant my support.
'''unenthusiastic Support'''  I feel that any user that has a few months experience and no indication of abuse can be an admin, so of course, this user should be an admin.  However, I agree with many of the opposes that say this is a waste of time.   If an admin abuses the tools, we can yank them away.   If you don't want to be an admin anymore, just resign.  But this is like this user is asking for a pat on the back from the community.  Can you imagine what a disruption there would be if all admins did this (or even 25%)?  --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I'd say that while they're not all constructive, many of the opposes should be a sign that more kindness, patience, and communication might be required. But Wikipedia is still much better off with Sarek having the tools. No doubt about that. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' My personal experience with SoV has been good, so here's my support. Mistakes are not necessarily bad if one learns from them. It is clear to me that SoV is willing to listen, learn and change if necessary. This being here in the first place is proof to me of that. – '''
'''Support''' Completely in agreement with his getting the tools.
'''Support''' Carry on.&nbsp;
'''Keep'''. I don't believe Wikipedia can afford to lose even a single competent admin that's active in the role, and Sarek is intelligent and mature and capable of making tough decisions. I still think he's done more good for Wikipedia than harm. He's a net benefit despite whatever perceived character flaws or occasional lapses in judgment, we all have our slip-ups. But whatever the outcome of this, I do hope Sarek can learn from the comments here and grow as a result. --
'''Keep''' Seems extraordinarily obvious, in fact.
'''Support''' Good admin, I've seen you use the mop well, and I reckon you can keep on doing that. --
'''Support''' I am concerned about the viewpoint on [[WP:UNINVOLVED]], but Sarek is a good admin who has done a great deal of good vandal-fighting and other work.  He would benefit from the tools, and, quite frankly, if [[WP:UNINVOLVED]] becomes a major issue...  I would expect arbcom to act accordingly.  --
'''Support''' I '''strongly''' recommend that SoV ask other admins to deal with Treasury Tag hereafter; but I don't think that disqualifying by itself. I must, however, protest Scott Mac's oppose: the first sign that many admins should retire is that they become over-condifent and think themselves immune from error.
'''Support''' this clueful, active and courageous editor. Sarek has asked for, and royally received, a lot of feedback during this RfA and I believe xe will be the better admin for taking it on board.
'''Keep/Support''' - as per Elen's support commment  and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SarekOfVulcan_2&diff=next&oldid=427513135 Sarek's comment] that he will use more care in regards to WP:INVOLVED - User does some useful administrative work and sometimes in difficult areas.
'''Support''' Harmless. Admins breakings the rules about admin involvement are one of the less problematical groups to deal with.©
'''Support''' Sarek has made mistakes; we all do; it's only human. The question on this is, can he learn from it and improve? I think so. I'm willing to give him that chance. I also admire that he gave up his admin rights and is willing to face this--THAT TAKES GUTS AND I ADMIRE THAT. Those who say we have too many admins are ones have I have to vehemently disagree with. I have been around long, but I see lots of backlogs, massive bad behavior that goes unchecked for years, etc etc. We need more people to deal with the problems and backlogs, not fewer. I've quickly seeing why so many people avoid wiki like the plague and why so many leave it. I've already seen atrocious behavior; generally due to Internet anonymity (ie, they'd never behave like that in the real world) or those who use the Internet to foment their real world ethnic wars. We need more people to help deal with these issues, not fewer. Sarek of V hasn't done anything so bad to warrant permanent removal of his adminship.
-
Per Lankiveil, MastCell. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support'''. "Mostly harmless". And really, this is a waste of time and space. If an admin needs reconfirming, it can, and should, be something initiated by someone else. ~
I've a generally good impression of Sarek; particularly, he is able and ready to make unpopular decisions. The "uninvolved" problems deserve to be taken seriously, but are not severe enough to convince me to oppose the candidacy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' No major issues that I can see here.  Good luck!--
'''wishy-washy Support'''  1.) I'm not a fan of these reconfirmation RFA things but since [[WP:Request for Adminship Removal]] isn't in the cards at the moment, AOR is weak (although you can create your own rules), and you really don't get much from the Admin review page - I guess I'll not hold it over anyone's head like some sort of banhammer.  2.)I genuinely like SoV, and not ''just'' because of the choice of name.  I enjoy his humor, his actions indicate he is dedicated, and I believe he honestly does his best to benefit the project.  3.) I agree he can be a bit heavy-handed at times (but sometimes that's needed).  4.) I do have to agree that I see 2 main issues that could be improved upon.  a)Sometimes the cute sarcastic trite comments can come off poorly.  b) You ''really should'' be aware of WP:INVOLVED - trouts for that!  5.)The bottom line is that I see him as a very <s>involved</s> err.. make that "active" Admin. that tries to sort through a lot of BS in many areas.  I don't see "Admin" in and by itself as a bad thing - just a few that do it poorly, and I just can't put SoV into that category.  In other words: '''Keep, or merge to editor with tools''' — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. These confirmatory RfA's are distracting and unhelpful. That said, the two most recent ones come from competent folks who aren't in it for ego-stroking so much as confirmation that they are making good contributions. While both have made their share of mistakes &ndash; as have we all &ndash; both have made solid, time-consuming contributions to the encyclopedia. So I support.
'''Support''' Hasn't been perfect, but who has? I think we're better off keeping him as an admin.
'''Support''' Done a fine job so far.
'''Support''', excellent admin with a very good record.  One minor, tiny little glitch does not make for desysopping this individual.
'''Support''', but only with the caveat that you take the criticism in the Oppose section very seriously. Frankly, I find the gamesmanship aspect of this RfA a bit strange, but you weren't going to lose your bit over the [[WP:INVOLVED]] dust-up, and I don't see why you shouldn't hold on to it now.
'''Support''', A few 'bumps' along the way, but nothing serious enough imo for you not to continue as an admin -
'''Support'''; valuable and dedicated admin. There's a line to be drawn between being involved in a situation to the point of being ''biased'', and simply being involved in the sense of being ''familiar with the participants and issues''. The vast majority of the time, SarekOfVulcan has been on the right side of this line and I for one salute his willingness to get involved in sticky situations. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Notwithstanding the issues he had with [[WP:INVOLVED]], Sarek is a net positive and an asset o the project. <span style="">
'''Support'''; aware of all issues he needs to work on, and willing to make the effort. Definitely a good faith, knowledgeable admin.
'''Support''' - Sarek has been a good admin generally and provided a lot of help to the project. I believe Sarek is sincere in wanting to improve and that's why he had his bit removed and started this RfA. The community has raised issues and Sarek has said he'll work on them so I am happy to support as I think it's important to encourage people that want to improve. I would just ask that Sarek try to improve as much as is humanly possible so that Wikipedia can operate as smoothly as it can. - '''''
'''Support''' I trust Sarek with the tools. <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">
'''Support'''. I think it was brave to put himself forward for reconfirmation in the light of recent controversy and that, at the end of the day, his being an admin is a net positive to the site. All the best, &mdash;
Generally sensible.
'''Support''' Seems to have been using tools reasonably well.
I have had pleasant interactions with Sarek as an admin. Agree with Celestianpower on both points. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support''' - Never any problems.
'''Support''' Sarek overall does a good job with the admin bit. I would ''strongly'' encourage him to take the criticism of the opposes, in particular the issues with [[WP:INVOLVED]] very seriously and make changes in his administrative decisions with respect to this policy. I'm also not terribly impressed with his insistence that he be blocked after accidentally violating [[WP:3RR]] and confessing at ANI. As Sarek should know, said block was punitive as he obviously knew he had screwed up and wasn't going to continue reverting. However, these two concerns do not outweigh the considerable good work he has done, and thus Sarek earns my support. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Support'''
Definitely needs to tighten up on INVOLVED, but that apart, I think overall their adminship has been pretty good. Not perfect, but none of us are.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The constructive criticism I would make here has already been said and apparently heard, and I do trust the candidate will make adjustments based on this RfA. (I can elaborate on *why* I believe that if people really care.) Finally, I want to acknowledge this editor's willingness to dive into some pretty [unkind word redacted] drama nexii and to try and sort things, which I appreciate.  --
'''Support''' In my encounters with Sarek, he has always proven helpful.
'''Support''' Per Joe Decker and the fact that I don't think you will mess up after reading these objections here.
'''Support''' -- to say we don't always agree is an understatement, but Sarek is ''always fair''.

'''Support''' - I really appreciate the willingness to be reevaluated; in my experience the other venues simply don't get the right level of feedback. If we're serious about accountability, this is the right way to do it. From my dealings with him, he's been fair and by-the-book. It looks like there's some major controversy brewing here, but as an outsider, I don't really understand what the problem is.  As such, I've decided to run him thru my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|Admin criteria]] like everyone else.  His answers to Q5 and 6 are maybe a bit curt, but I don't see serious incivility here. My only other complaint is that mainspace edits only make up about 52% of his edits, but from only that number, I can't qualitatively evaluate his editing history. Overall he passes, so I think he should continue pushing the mop around. --'''
''' Strong support'''  He often makes the tough decisions that many admins defer and debate endlessly.  For that, he often gets the wrath of the weak.  I have a few concerns over "involved", but they are fading.  As for "wasting time", I '''choose''' to take the time to vote/discuss, so any who post here are choosing to "waste time".
'''Support''' because I consider Sarek a net positive as an admin. I do think he should tread more lightly around issues with which he's been involved. Also wish this RFA weren't happening at all, since I have to agree with those who consider it a time-waster.
'''Weak Support''' I feel Sarek is aware of the oppositions views, I commend him for going through this in positive strides. Net psotive and i encourage others to go through this process as well.
'''Strongest possible support''' Sarek is one of the best admins around.  So, he has honor and does this reconfirmation RfA, and yet, really problematic Admins don't.  I hope you get to keep your tools, because you deserve them.  Don't volunteer to do this ever again (if I had a vote on that matter...hehehehe).
'''Support''' he has gotten some good feedback here in the oppose section, I think he'll take it. &nbsp;<small>
Will hopefully learn the lesson. '''
'''Support''', because I'd hate to see this user fail their re-RfA, and I wish that there was some other way for admins to receive good feedback than this.
'''Support''': I've only good experiences of interaction with SarekOfVulcan, and the opposes don't look too convincing. --
'''Weak support'''. The opposes do concern me. You tend to overstep on actions and move where you shouldn't. However, this is a reconfirmation for a reason, and I would imagine Sarek would take these opposes to heart. Definitely not as easy a support to make as I would have liked, especially since I'm known for wanting it to be easier to desysop admins, but I think the keeping of the tools will work out for the best. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''.  Kudos for standing for reconfirmation.  <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Some work needed on WP:INVOLVED matters, but overall he's a net positive as an admin.
'''Support'''. Thanks for your hard work. -
'''Support'''. Concerns brought in neutral and oppose votes balanced by [[WP:AGF]] on response to [[WP:INVOLVED]] concerns; active admin and editor, trust judgement to act in the future tempered by feedback, and not just for appearances.
'''Support''' SoV's to be commended for seeking feedback on his work as an administrator. This kind of reconfirmation's a minefield for any administrator who's dared to do anything controversial; Doncram's oppose, for instance, is completely expected given his history with Sarek. Doncram has no business complaining about "dubious" blocks when he's made a practice of demanding blocks on editors with whom he's having one of his many content disputes. I agree that Sarek's crossed the line into "involved" from time to time and should pull back, but I've also seen too many instances in general where admins have been tarred with the "involved" brush too quickly and would be sorry to see a broadened definition creep in by degrees. I've also noted that he is obviously conscientious - he didn't have to go through this - and he's owned up to edit-warring when others were ready to pass over it. I am confident that he will take the advice given here. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' – I was reluctant to !vote as I consider this RfA (and Mitchell's) to be somewhat ill-advised. On the other hand, I think that you're a valuable admin and that the community should retain your skills and experience. The opposes raise some important issues, many of which I agree with, but it appears that you are taking the criticism to heart and are agreeing to refrain from using the buttons if you are involved. —
'''Support''' - All Administrators are subject to mistakes, however Sarek has been one that I've always looked to when I needed to verify that my internal target for emotions/viewpoints is not off the deep end.  Administrator that is more than willing to stand up and wade into the more challenging conflicts and sort out the issues.
'''Support''' - I've never had a problem with SoV and while it is evident that some people ''have'', it does seem to me that SoV is prepared to address those issues in future. This exercise does seem to have the aura of self-flagellation about it. Why Admin Review could not be used escapes me. -
'''Support'''. Is he prepared to address the issues? Yes. Do we have any reason to doubt him? [[WP:AGF|No]].
'''Support'''. Hard to imagine a useful admin going a couple of years without generating a lot of heat and we need a few useful 'shoot from the hip' admins around. The process seems robust enough to ensure recourse when the shots go astray so I support this reconfirmation (or whatever it is). I agree with the 'why do we need this' editors but let's just blame this on HJMitchell and give SoV the benefit of good faith. --
'''Support''' - one of the good ones around here. Not afraid to get his hands dirty in some of the mucky areas of Wikipedia. I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''.  I originally voted to oppose based solely on this candidate's seeming unwillingness to respect [[WP:INVOLVED]].  Now that he has (in my opinion) satisfactorily clarified his intention to follow [[WP:INVOLVED]] except where common sense dictates otherwise, I am withdrawing my objection — and since I am generally skeptical of the current reconfirmation / recall mechanism, I am going to give the candidate the benefit of any remaining doubt and support him now.
'''Support''' - has always been a net positive as an administrator, and appears to have taken on board criticism in this discussion regarding [[WP:INVOLVED]]. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
'''Support''' - I believe that there are more positives than there are negatives in this situation. Indeed, initiating a re-confirmation RfA ''could'' come across as an attention-seeking move, but I interpret it as a sign that the administrator is willing to listen to, and act upon, any legitimate concerns that are raised, and this I respect greatly. '''
'''Support''' - I trust he'll take on board the feedback here.
'''Support''' - Sarek has been a fine administrator and the discussion of [[WP:INVOLVED]] appears to have been constructive.
Sneaking in a late support because when it comes down to it, I want you (just like HJ Mitchell) to continue your admin work. I'm sure you've taken any concerns that have been brought up to heart, now carry on.
'''Support''' In under the wire so no verbiage.
'''Strong Support''' - One of the admins I've come to respect for their work with the mop, often wading in and cleaning up messes where others didn't seem to want to go. To lose him as an admin would be a detriment to the project IMO.
'''Support''' I have a lot that I disagree with SoV in the details, but mainly agree with in the broader sense in his adminning. My major issue has been with his perception of being able to receive and act upon input - but the evidence presented here and the fact of this RecfA persuades me otherwise. Lastly, and this was the orginal basis for the provision of the flags, is do I think the applicant will abuse the permissions. No. Thus, I support.
'''Support''': Has always been helpful and polite, even when he was blocking ''me''.  Recommend that adminship be given back to Sarek. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. He did give me a monstrously bad 24-hour block, but it was only 24 hours, and he's mostly doing a good job.
'''Support''', wasn't intending to comment here, but because of the last two comments...
'''Support'''. A clear net positive as an admin, despite the concerns over [[WP:INVOLVED]]. The furore over Sarek saying he "wouldn't object to an early closure" is a storm in a teacup, and doesn't reflect on Sarek's competency as an admin. Any admin who makes it their policy to make tough block decisions is going to generate a hefty amount of opposition at a reconfirmation RfA. That Sarek knew this and went ahead anyway, clearly demonstrates that he values the community's opinions on his behaviour, more than he values his adminship. I think that's an indication that he can be trusted. In addition, although his way of saying it clearly doesn't satisfy a substantial minority of !voters, he obviously does take the concerns expressed seriously, and I think has learned from them. An addition - in my view a number of Opposes should be disregarded as they specifically state they are Opposed ''solely'' because this is a reconfirmation RfA; that's a groundless Oppose when this RfA clearly serves a very valid purpose. --
'''Support'''. Despite concerns which I shared privately with Sarek, I think his use of the tools is beneficial to the project and he deserves to be restored as admin. Let's not make the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we set impossible standards then we won't have any admins at all. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' I'm not going to ding someone for being willing to accept their limitations and understand the distinction between impossible goals and reasonable goals.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. I hope you don't mind if I go through my reasoning for this. I've been watching this RFA for a few days and, to be honest, if I'd voted the first day I'd have voted to oppose; I didn't vote the first day because I wanted to think about your responses for a bit and see if you would recognize what the root problem was, and I think you have. What concerned me most wasn't the issue regarding WP:INVOLVED; it was that you seemed to be contemptuous of criticism. I actually gasped aloud when I saw the answer to Q6 because it wasn't obvious at all, at least not to me, that this was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. What I saw was an admin sneering at what appeared to be a valid question because he didn't think it worth his time to answer. Now I see that the real problem was that you thought your intentions were more transparent than they actually appeared to uninvolved editors like me, and that you assumed that those watching would understand the background behind the question when they really didn't, and couldn't, because you didn't explain it. It's important for admins to realize that being fair isn't enough; they have to be ''seen'' to be fair as well. As the saying goes, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Had you originally answered question 6 by showing exactly why you felt the question was unfair and why you refused to answer it I doubt many people would have cavilled at your response. I think you're more aware now that a lack of transparency can create an atmosphere of distrust, and that sometimes taking a few minutes to explain saves a few hours of drama - and a few editors wondering just how trustworthy those admins are. Remember: you're the only person who can read your own mind. The rest of the world can only go by what you show them. --
'''Support''' moving from neutral.  I have seen some tricky questions, and at least Sarek answered my issue to my satisfaction, and left unanswered a questioin better left untouched. It would be better to have SarekOfVulcan as an admin.
'''Support''' My interactions with Sarek have always been positive, even in the heat of a dispute or when I find myself on the opposite side.  I'm not convinced by the opposes, and I think Sarek has taken the criticism of his admin work on board and is willing to make some changes.
'''Strong oppose'''—Make no mistake, I think that Sarek is a good editor in general, and I think it was a real pity that they became an admin, because it's simply a job towards which they are not suited which dragged them away from one to which they were. Most disturbing are Sarek's various problems with [[WP:INVOLVED]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Block_of_TreasuryTag&oldid=392963800#Block_of_TreasuryTag] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive649&oldid=397570411#Sarek_.2B_TreasuryTag_.2B_inappropriate_RevDel] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=396741250] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=396750450] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690&oldid=426797281#User:SarekOfVulcan_and_WP:INVOLVED] which are often (though admittedly not always) combined with an outright refusal to recognise that there is an issue. There have also been some problems with the use of [[WP:RBK|rollback]] for non-vandalism edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=372207860&oldid=372207721] as well as with starting [[WP:ANI]] threads without notifying the subjects [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag&diff=425822695&oldid=425819524] Please note that these concerns of mine are very much in decreasing order of severity (failure to notify being nowhere near as big a problem as UNINVOLVED violations) and to end on a light note: a genuine well-done to Sarek for taking a courageous decision to stand for reconfirmation. Yes, I hope it fails, but it is definitely the right thing to do, and I respect that. <font color="#FFB911">╟─
'''Oppose''' all reconfirmation RFA. If the community wants reconfirmation RFA then it can demand them, until then admins should have enough judgement to decide whether they are able to function properly, and if they don't to resign. Wasting everyone's time with another needless distraction because egos need stroked is not helpful. If you can't judge for yourself whether you are a good admin, then you lack the judgement to be an admin.--
'''Oppose''' The concerns that TreasuryTag brought up lead me to believe that this is the best option. Your, perceived, over reliance on [[WP:IAR|cowboy diplomacy]] leads me to question your judgment. I would like admins to have at least a GA under their belt if they aren't a gnome. I am looking and I can't find evidence of one; I can't even find a DYK.  --
'''Oppose''' I posed questions 6 and 7 above.  I perceive SarekOfVulcan as issuing blocks and making proposals without due care for persons hurt.  About SarekOfVulcan blocking me, another editor commented '''SarekOfVulcan has, yet again, descended upon a prominent content editor, vulnerable because he lacks the protection of having "administrator" status, and has blocked him. That seems to be what SarekOfVulcan is here for. Is there any administrator who has made more dubious blocks on prominent content editors over the past year?''' and said more, too, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALessHeard_vanU&action=historysubmit&diff=426211618&oldid=426204272 this strongly put diff], later amended to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALessHeard_vanU&action=historysubmit&diff=426292837&oldid=426287170 this still strong statement of concern about the '''demeaning environment''' created].  I perceive SarekOfVulcan as too involved, also, in blocks and proposals he has made regarding me.  I don't watch AN and ANI generally, but I was surprised by one or two other blocks he imposed.  I think there can be some value in some unexpected blocks, like it sometimes can shake things up in a good way, but the costs can be high, too, hurting editors and the culture we mostly enjoy.  SarekOfVulcan's blocks seem out of control to me.  I am open to reading how SarekOfVulcan responds to my questions 6 and 7 above, but think i should be honest that my position is to oppose based on my experience. --
'''Oppose''' Too many admins already. Self-nominations are ''prima facie'' evidence of hunger for power. Reconfirmation RFAs are wrong for many reasons. I have concerns with the diffs presented by previous opposers. I may revisit and start looking for some specific problems (and I do have some real concerns, but would have to dig for them) - but take your pick. I would prefer that this be withdrawn before I come back tomorrow. In the meantime: have you resigned your bit at Meta and made clear that reassignment is strictly contingent on success here?
'''Oppose''' this sysop has an unfortunate tendency to take administrative actions against editors with who he is [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]. I do not think this reflects well on his judgement. He is quick to wield the block when perhaps more flexibility is called for. I do not care for the tone of a couple of his answers above (Qs 4, 5 & 6) they seem unbecoming for an administrator. I believe the project will be better off if he does not have his tools returned.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I was less than overwhelmed by the whole involved incident.  Admins should avoid actions which skirt policy unless there is no alternative, and even then should hesitate.  Without prejudice to another attempt in six months if this fails.--
'''Oppose''' While I was considering supporting as I like the idea of reconfirmations, the answer to question 5 shows that this admin is unwilling to address what seems to be the biggest issue brought up in this process. The non-answer to question 6 implies a logical fallacy that doesn't exist, and is pretty much "conduct unbecoming" for an admin. Admins unwilling to discuss have no business holding the title. '''
'''Oppose''' Per history with the block tool.  Too many blocks that have needed to be reversed by clearer thinking admins at ANI.--
'''Oppose''' per Cube lurker and also too much drama. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Cube lurker. SarekOfVulcan's use of the block tool has been questionable.
'''Oppose'''. Too many mistakes regarding [[WP:INVOLVED]].
'''Oppose.''' A few mistakes involving [[WP:INVOLVED]] are tolerable; we all get hotheaded in disputes. But a lot of them have been made, and there is a fundamental failure to agree to pursue compliance with policy (see #5). --'''
'''Oppose.''' I am sure that he has the best of intentions and is an excellent editor, but [[WP:INVOLVED]] is very important.
'''Oppose''', per my conversation with Sarek below and in reference to [[WP:UNINVOLVED]].
'''Oppose''' In his time as an administrator, Sarek has repeatedly taken administrative action while involved, violating [[WP:INVOLVED|our longstanding policy]]. For me, that is problematic enough to decline to re-sysop.
'''Oppose''' per TreasuryTag, and I do not accept Q5 - blatantly stating that you are not prepared to adhere to policy. If you think the policy is wrong, then you know where to go to change it; however, it is absolutely essential that admins respect the community consensus- whether the admin feels it is right or wrong. IAR is complex, but this crosses the line. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
In the past I have voted neutral on these reconfirmation RFAs.  However, I feel, since they seem to be proliferating, that a stronger statement is necessary.  I regard them as an insult to me as an administrator; they suggest that by not submitting myself (again) to the nonsense at RFA, I am somehow less committed. (This is the same comment I am making at HJ Mitchell's.)
'''Oppose''' Pointless self aggrandizing.  Admins are supposed to defuse needless drama not create it.  If this unrequested reconfirmation circle jerk isn't nipped in the bud by someone failing one then everyone will start doing it and nobody will get anything done.
'''Oppose''' The purpose of this RFA is to ascertain whether the Community will elect SarekOfVulcan on the condition that he is permitted disregard parts of the very policy that we created (standards and expectations of an admin). When I say disregard, I'm not talking about occasional mistakes and lapses; I am talking about actions and comments which are made with a view that he should be allowed to make them because he has the privileges to do so. I'm not willing to elect on that condition. Sometimes admins are given feedback and asked to modify the way they act, and where they cannot or will not do so, are advised to avoid certain areas/actions/comments (eg; this candidate refers to an admin by the name of Sandstein above; recently, that admin was counselled and advised by AC in relation to a specific area [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARisker&action=historysubmit&diff=426850392&oldid=426785463]). But where an admin puts his own views ahead of the feedback and is unwilling or unable to avoid those areas/actions/comments, we prevent the problem from arising again. Policy is not just a statement for non-Wikipedians to understand how this project works; it exists to protect the project and hold users accountable where necessary too. Likewise, the protections that policy holds for admins (such as some of the involved provisions) are not to be relied upon as wikilawyering material when taking an action; '''those policy protections are for situations where genuine accidents and rare slight lapses have occurred; it's a matter of circumstances. When an admin knowingly goes out of his way to do something more than just questionable (because he has the privileges to do so), that is NOT ok.''' Also, admins should not set or follow poor examples, and it is unhelpful to the project to unnecessarily escalate/inflame disputes. The candidate's response for making blocks where he may be involved is that it is time-sensitive and that it will become stale by the time he reports it; in that case, is action absolutely necessary at the point at which he takes it or is DR more appropriate given his position? Privileges were given to use with good judgement both for the benefit of the project and in accordance with standards/expectations; that does not include toeing the line in terms of misuse and enforcing personal views ahead of the expectations of the Community. Sadly, what I asked in my support vote in 2008 seems to have been ignored by him, much like some other genuine concerns expressed by others, as of late.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I can't support an (ex-admin) that would use admin actions all-out on all WP conflicts, which does not seem to actually achieve community consensus. Based on his resignation of the tools, I believe he's better off without them. But do not let this distrust SarekOfVulcan from contributing to WP; after all, we are all volunteers, aren't we?
'''Oppose''' I'm not happy with the sequence of events starting when the candidate self-requested a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASarekOfVulcan 3RR block], which was granted (and later revoked) with [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Edit_warring_on_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_.28film.29|much drama]]. The candidate then used the aforementioned controversial block as precedence for another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=427060840&oldid=427059362 controversial block.]  That kind of behavior troubles me. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' I was going to go 'Neutral' as I did for HJ Mitchell, as I feel that reconfirmation RfAs are a waste of time if someone has not had an RFC/U which concludes a reconfirmation RfA would be a good idea. However, the problem you seem to have with [[WP:INVOLVED]] (and the self-requested 3RR block mentioned by Orange Suede Sofa directly above me) means that I do not have confidence in your ability to be an impartial admin, and so I feel that I must (with a little regret) oppose. '''''
'''Strong oppose'''—Like many of the comments above, a most unsatisfactory editor for the admin role. There are so many instances in which his judgement has been ill-considered that I won't bother to list them here. Likely to drive good editors away.
Oppose - So instead of vowing to stop using your tools when you are involved in a dispute, you actually tell everyone in this very RFA that you will continue to do so?  That doesn't make much sense.  And answering questions with "mu" is not a particularly smart way to go about convincing people that you will communicate effectively with other editors.  Seems kind of arrogant to me.  If you weren't an admin before, there is no way this RFA would pass.
{{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|427435164|427435073|This}} is poor judgment; I think bans are a serious matter.
'''Oppose''' Very active editor, and no doubt an asset to the Project; but certainly not in this role. Too trigger-happy, too unsubtle in judgement. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>
'''Oppose''' I am sorry Sarek you have explicitly stated that you are not going to follow [[WP:INVOLVED]].... end of story. It waste every one's time when people are discussing the Admin making the block instead of the disruptive editors actions.
'''Oppose''' I applaud SV seeking reconfirmation, and wish that more admins are like him in that respect. I have not had any close dealings with him that I recall. However, my observations, which seem to be mirrored by some users above, indicate that he is not the sort of logical dispassionate [[Vulcan (Star Trek)|Vulcan]] I would want to see taking admin actions. He is excessively abrasive and heavy-handed in his admin actions. In addition, I am somewhat concerned at his refusal to give a pledge to closely follow [[WP:ADMIN|a policy]] which he has had problems with in the past. --
Sorry. Editor displays poor judgement; aside from coming here instead of Administrator review - unless many users are calling for your head, that is the appropriate place, - using admin tools in situations where admin was clearly involved. If it were in relation to ''blatant and obvious vandalism'' that would be one thing, but this has also been done in content dispute where seeking an uninvolved admin would have been the appropriate action. The issue of WP:INVOLVED was touched on when the editor did go through admin review but SarekOfVulcan does not appear to have taken heed of that. I am also concerned with civility displayed; To me it appears the user has taken to this RfA with a bit of a cocky attitude and I concur with Sven Manguard that first timer would have been hung out if responding to questions as this user did, regardless of the reasons. I believe SarekOfVulcan could have responded more appropriately in the first instance - even without answering the question.--<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Oppose''' Multiple cases of bad judgement and violations of [[WP:INVOLVED]], per above.  I cannot support the re-adminship of this user.
'''Oppose''' SarekOfVulcan has gone out of his way to block a string of prominent content contributors in a cavalier manner, apparently just because he can. The current regime seems to think that going out of your way to punish the best contributors is okay. I don't know whether he has had enough blood now, or whether this will continue if his bit is reconfirmed. It is as though he thinks scourging content editors are attainments for him to add to his trophy board. Along with several other administrators, he has created a fraught environment for editors who are seriously trying to contribute. This does far more damage to the project than he can ever make up in other ways. --
'''Oppose''' - History of making blocks when involved.
'''Oppose''': I also was taken aback by an administrator seemingly haphazardly throwing around topic bans on the Mexican~American War fiasco. This was utterly unproductive, unsupported by most people, and served only to distract from the issue (which is obviously a significant one as it continues to this day at ArbCom). I expect administrators to calm situations, not inflame them. –
'''Oppose''' as an {{rpa}}; further rationale on my talk. Vulcans are supposed to have some sense, and  SoV wadded-in on the side of teh toxic trolls infesting this site. [[Special:Contributions/125.162.150.88|125.162.150.88]] (
'''Oppose''' per Epipelagic.--
'''Oppose''' too trigger-happy. Has blocked several editors while involved in violation of [[WP:INVOLVED]].
'''Oppose''' blocking and [[WP:INVOLVED]] issues concern me.--
'''oppose''' My comment is not really opposed to SoV personally, but rather opposed to an important tendency  that the RfA has come to represent, about the  permissible boundaries for administrator actions. We have too many problems with admins flirting with the boundaries of NOT INVOLVED. We need to move way, way, in the direction of stronger enforcement of it--there are 700 admins, and there is almost never need for one particular admin to take an action.  I cannot see that we can possibly have an active admin who intends to act totally opposed to Wikipedia policy about something important, and whose nearest approach to conformity is that he intends to  bring questionable blocks to the noticeboard more often, not that he intends to not make questionable blocks in the first place. As a subsidiary point, I would consider such an answer to be the height of arrogance, except that the following q,6 & 7, outdoes it. (even though I  agree with the actions he did take there, there were many perfectly good answers to give that would have said things politely).   Nobody who gave anywhere near the answers being given would have been confirmed in the first place.  This sort of unconcern is sometimes present in new admins, and I made one or two questionable calls myself in my first few months. The community explained things clearly to me & I've therefore learned to stay in the other direction. Many others have done similarly at first, and learned from it;  I wish SoV would do so also. But instead,  I interpret his   coming here as  realizing that  he has been working in a way that is questionable, and wanting us to endorse it. I would have liked to be able to interpret this as his way of saying publicly he has realized the problem and changed his position, and am willing to reconsider my  vote here accordingly.    '''
'''Regretful oppose''' I normally would have simply !voted neutral based on the same grounds as my !vote on HJ's reconfirmation RFA. I think that admin reviews are a great idea to get feedback but handing over the tools and running again (unless in respect to the principles of [[WP:RECALL]]) is a waste of the community's time. This is certainly not the case here. I congratulate SarekOfVulcan for having the courage to do this for the right reasons (no offense intended to HJ or anyone else who has conducted a reconfirmation RFA). SOV, by reading the RFA, and your replies, I've come to the conclusion that you did this out of sincerity to the community and to truly see if you are deserving of the role of an administrator any longer. I'm going to have to oppose this reconfirmation RFA though due to the concerns and issues raised by TT and others above. You're a great editor and an asset to the project SOV. I'm not trying to crush your spirits or anything though, give it some time, and try again in a few months :) Rock on ;) and all the best--
'''Very Weak oppose''' I commend SOV for taking this step. I'd like see more admins doing this, and even though I wanted to support just for putting yourself through this process when you don't have to, I will weakly oppose due to the documented issues with wp:involved. Anyway, Thank you all the good work. And if it passes please do take into consideration the substantive opposes. In the end you have been an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per DGG in particular. It was perhaps not best to run again straight after an incident; it would have been better to be able to point to an incident-free period.
'''Oppose''' - I came here intending to support, but DGG has convinced me otherwise.  I truly commend Sarek for being willing to take this unusal step, and like White Shadows' oppose, hope that if the buttons are removed that he will stand for another Rfa later this year.  That said, DGG points out that the issue of admin involvement is of major importance to Wikipedia's credibility with rank-and-file editors.  The community needs to be reassured that admins are, or on notice that they ''should'' be, squeaky clean in this regard.  Sarek's willingness to improve is noted, but a reconfirmation under these circumstances sends the wrong signal to other admins who in my observation "play the edge" and get away with as much as they can. My best wishes to Sarek, always.
'''Oppose'''. SarekOfVulcan is ''way'' too trigger-happy when it comes to blocking established editors.
'''Oppose''' For me the problems of using the tools while being involved are too much for me support the candidate regaining the bit. That said, kudos for standing for reconfirmation; knowing it wouldn't be an easy ride must not have made it any easier.
per [[WP:INVOLVED|INVOLVED]] concerns. With regrets,
'''Oppose''' as per DGG. <font style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;" size="2">&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Lack of judgement in terms of blocking established editors.
'''Oppose'''. This case highlights the need for term limits, even if set at a duration that would shame a banana republic. Voting into office should never be for life or optional. I give credit to Sarek for volunteering for this inefficient process of constraining powers. I remind everybody that gaining or losing powers is [[wp:deal|"no big deal"]], just as it is in the outside world. I think the relationship between admins and non-admins will improve by having more ex-admins, such as Sarek.
'''Oppose''' - my feelings have largely been summed up by Franamax and TreasuryTag. In addition, Sarek appears to be unaware of the existence of [[WP:INVOLVED]], or at least has never, ''ever'' read it. I will admit to a quixotic and surprising dose of respect for him actually doing this. What a shame it'll succeed; this will only embolden him to trample on more editors. Oh well, ''plus ça change, plus ça le meme chose''. The overweening arrogance demonstrated by asking at [[WP:BN]] for this to be closed early is likewise disturbing.→&nbsp;
Per [[WP:BN#Requesting early close on RFA]].  Many of the issues here are things I don't have the experience to evaluate, and I was planning to sit it out, but I'm comfortable opposing over the candidate's request to close this  before I had a chance to !vote. - Dank (
{{ec}}'''Oppose'''. I entirely agree with Dank. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=428138378#Requesting_early_close_on_RFA This] is a deal breaker, which, coupled with your interpretation of [[WP:INVOLVED]], forces me to land here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Boy I don't want to do this, but the request to close early, combined with the WP:INVOLVED stuff leads me to believe you are just not very good in making judgement calls in things that affect you personally. Unfortunately, when you have to revisit your own actions, it always affects you personally, and milling it over, I can't bring myself to trusting your judgement on when to solve things on your own, and when to delegate to other admins. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' Has done good work as an admin, but I can't overlook the significant issues regarding [[WP:INVOLVED]].
'''Oppose''' <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' Have not had positive interactions with this user. Attempted to remove a number of images from medical articles without obtaining consensus first [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649/Archive_17#ADHD_image] Than left the starting of a discussion to others [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Images] Which is not really that much of a problem but could do without the snide comments...
'''Oppose'''. Frequent problems in interactions with other editors.
'''Oppose''' I rarely oppose RfAs, but while adminship is no big deal Sarek has caused it to become a big deal by repeatedly stirring up unnecessary drama. Sarek has repeatedly violated [[WP:INVOLVED]] and doesn't appreciate the dramatic nature of this. Thus, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions 5, 6, and 7 show a troubling attitude for an administrator to have.
'''Oppose, regretfully.''' There's just too much baggage associated with this request. The concern expressed by many editors that the candidate would take approval of this request as endorsement of controversial practices, and the candidate's responses have not been sufficiently reassuring. In addition, the responses concerning doncram's questions, above, are just not adequate; while I agree entirely with the candidate's sentiments about badgering here, as well as with much of his nonresponsiveness in the underlying matters, the questions called for a more substantive response. If the candidate's request is denied, and he then returns after a short interval to request a second stint, I expect I'd strongly support that request. But this reconfirmation request, particularly as it's evolved, has specific elements that make it difficult to approve as it stands. Reconfirmation requests have symbolic components, and I'm not comfortable with the synbolism here.
'''Oppose''' - This users has  a different interpretation of  [[WP:INVOLVED]] than is currently acceptable to the community. The proper course of action is to seek a change to [[WP:INVOLVED]]. The lack of commitment to either do this, or to disengage form EVERY case of potential involved means I can't trust his judgment.
'''Oppose''' - Prone to rattling the I'M GONNA BLOCK YOU sabre. Whether he uses it frequently or not, I don't know, but I don't find that behavior in any way pleasant.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) I've read through all of this again. His answer to Tzu Zha Men (61.) is the proverbial drop...
'''Redirect''' to [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan]]. —'''
'''Neutral''' - I'm really mixed on this one: First, I don't see anything wrong with reconfirmations, so I don't hold that against the candidate, and further I think it is to their credit that they are willing to stand for reconfirmation knowing that there has been considerable criticism of some of their admin activity. But in light of the concerns being raised about taking administrative action after becoming involved, I don't understand the unwillingness to commit to the best practices outlined at [[WP:INVOLVED]]. They are best practices because we set the standard of required conduct lower, but in light of the problems in that area, seeking a commitment to the best practices does not seem unreasonable. That said, I wont put myself in the oppose column because I think the candidate has made substantial positive contributions as an admin, and I'm not convinced the WP:Involved issue rises to the level of revoking admin, but is instead an area that needs improving.
'''Neutral'''. I think that having S o'V as an admin rather than an editor (that's the choice before us) is mostly a net positive to the project. However, I do have some concerns about INVOLVED. I realise it's a thorny issue in practice, but if Right really is on your side, then surely another admin will come along and do whatever it is that you wanted to do, and the number of cases where it's so urgent that we really can't wait for a third party to turn up is small.
A good candidate but the question 8 answer isn't what I would expect.  Also, I hope that this isn't just because of HJ Michell.  Saw the de-adminship request on meta.  ~~
'''Neutral'''. SarekOfVulcan is a great editor, make no mistake, but I'm not sure what to think about the user's clashes with [[WP:INVOLVED]] and subsequent response to Q5. The job of an administrator is to lead by example. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Neutral''', from oppose. I do thing Sarek is a good admin, overall - but I still can't support given some of his comments here. Good luck,
These threads are a waste of time and ridiculous. The only upside is exposing the !voters who have zero context and yet still make compassionate arguments... <strike>without realizing that SoV is already an admin</strike>... a good one at that.
I directly stated my support for the canadidate in my oppose, but it didn't reflect my !vote. I like admins that have gone into the harder reaching areas and take the harder areas. We need admins like this, and at the end of the day, Sarek had dealt with it. For me though the journey is the issue and as [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] was quoting "conduct unbecoming", I am saying the ends don't justify the means and there is conduct unbecoming of an administrator here in my opinion. --
Leaning oppose now. I've become increasingly concerned that this candidate is intractably holding a position that a massive number of people are saying are against policy. I'll wait for his answer to my second question before deciding further.
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the candidate's suitability, and have no intention of forming one at this late stage. But Sarek recognises that s/he is controversial. Furthermore, s/he decided to take that a step further and see if there is still a community mandate, showing a recognition that the tools shouldn't be considered as the be-all-and-end-all of being a wikipedian, and should be easy come, easy go, depending on whether the community as a whole has confidence in your use of them. All commendable qualities. —
Supported last time, happy to '''support''' again.
28bytes took the words out of my mouth. I confidently '''support''', of course. (Also, Worm tends to have an [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swarm|eye]] for this sort of thing. :P) ''
Sure, why not. <font face="Verdana">
Looks fine to me. I see nothing wrong. --  '''
'''Support''' Don't see any issues. Might ask a question later.
No problem &ndash;
'''Support''' ; I opposed Slon's previous RfA. A couple weeks ago  I  thoroughly  reviewed his editing, with  a view to  nominating  him  myself, and found it  not only  to  meet all  [[user:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my  exacting  crtiteria]], but  also  found every  reason  to  strongly  support a new RfA. He has addressed all previous criticism, and I hope that  the community  will  concur.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''

'''Support.''' Why not?
'''Support'''ed last time, I see no reason to change that now. Last nomination got derailed by a pile on about CSD taggings, of which the only result is we had one less good admin doing work between then and now. Thankfully I don't think we'll make that mistake again this time.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' A hard-working editor who deserves a promotion. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
Seems as though they will make a fine admin. ~~
'''Support''', per exceptionally trustworthy and clueful nominators...
'''Support'''. Ha, I saw a hint last night that this was coming, and was pleased in anticipation :-) I was undecided last time, but this time I have no hesitation in supporting --
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Absolutely.
Still '''support'''ive.
'''Support''' - Had a quick look through contribs and can't see any reason not to.
'''Support''', as usual :)—
'''Support''' a fine candidate - what issues I saw in previous RfAs seem to have been addressed.
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Never worked with this editor, but they seem to be a hard worker so I support! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''/ No reason he shouldn't <span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Significant improvement since March 2011.
'''Strong Support''' -- Great improvement since the 3 nominations had failed. --
'''Support''' The user seems to have a good grasp of the policies, an example of which is the CSD log.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Looks good to me'''-No problems here.--'''''
'''Support''' - From what I've seen, he seems to be a dedicated & trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' good contributor and many useful work done on patrolling and AfD.
'''Support''' If nothing else, to balance out the ridiculous ageism.
'''Strong Support''' Slon02 has grown a lot in the past year and is ready for the mop.<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Per answer to q7. '''''
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and I believe that there was too much demand for perfection then. This time, I see some thoughtful editors say above that their previous concerns have now been addressed by the candidate improving in response to the feedback from before. I think it's clear that the candidate has amply earned the trust of the community. --
'''Strongest Support:'''  Excellent contributions to Wikipedia.  Good intentions and has a great attitude.  I trust Worm's nomination.  Great answers to my questions.  No reason why this candidate shouldn't pass.—
'''Support''' - I've had excellent interactions with this editor on [[WP:IRC |IRC]], and xe seems to have a good grasp of policy.~
'''Support'''- Reviewed during RfA3, but forgot to support before it closed; no concerns since.
''' Support''' – No issues here. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' — Good candidate.
'''Support''' I see no problems now, and I'm glad he persisted. '''
I supported last time, on the basis that he seemed open to learning from mistakes and was appropriately cautious. Since then, he has only been improving. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' as last time, albeit at RFA 3 I had a few concerns - this time I don't. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support.''' Why not?  Mop please! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' I supported last time, I see no need to change my mind. '''
'''Support''' Happy to support this time. Candidate has resolved the policy knowledge issues that caused me to vote neutral last time.--
'''Weak support'''.  Kiefer Wolfowitz puts it too harshly.  This user does have a GA, and it's not a bad one; there are plenty of admins who can't even show that.  In my assessment this user scrapes through, in large part because he's open to recall, which means that if this candidate proves to be a problematic admin, his appointment is at least not irrevocable.—
'''Support''' - Concerns about this being the 4th RfA, and the candidate seems to be (or at least used to be) in a big rush to get the mop.  From what I can tell, he seems to have calmed down about adminship and made some substantive improvements to CSD tagging and such, so I think it's safe to support now.  I also feel the need to cancel out some unreasonable oppose votes below.

'''Support''' I don't see any reason not to.  Opposes are unconvincing. '''
'''Support'''.  I've seen your good work; your answers are good; I'm sold.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">
'''Support''' - There are three fundamental functions of useful Wikipedia volunteers: content creators, quality control workers, and rules enforcers. The janitorial toolbox corresponds to the latter two functions, not at all to the first, so with due respect to the objection of my friend K-Wolf, any shortcomings of Slon in the writing department, real or imagined, are irrelevant. This seems to be a quality control worker who might benefit from the tool set. No indications of assholery.
'''Support''' - Seems ready for the bit.--
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - He should have been a admin by now.--
'''Support'''. Good contributions and answers, and no concerns —
'''Support''' - Good answers above that show good policy knowledge, contributions (including a GA) show experience in article work and in admin areas. The last RfA was a close one and I see improvement since then so I have no concerns. -- '''
'''Support''' For some reason, in spite of the length of time I have been here I have failed to interact with this editor (correct me if you find a diff). But looking through her/his work s/he is clearly competent and I see no problem in awarding the tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'' Looks good than from last time. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' looks good to me. <i><b>
'''Support'''. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
{{like}} --
'''Support''' - Demonstrates good comprehension of wikipedia regulations.
'''Support''' - I don't remember ever bumping into this editor but they seem like a solid candidate. I see no reason to oppose other than speculation and since my crystal ball is broken, why not! --
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
'''Support'''. Supported last time and will again. A quick learner, he's already carved out a niche in those areas he feels he has enough clue and can help make a difference in, and giving him the tools will allow him to do all the good for Wikipedia that he's already eager and driven to do. His enthusiasm and passion to improve Wikipedia is what allows me to assume good faith that he won't use the tools recklessly. --
'''Support''' - Oh, I forgot to support, silly me. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Support''' – Slon02's got my trust through his demonstration and understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. Don't think he'll be troublesome with the mop. Good luck ;) --
'''Support''' seems very good at counter-vandalism and deletion in accuracy and tenure. I don't see how he could misuse the tools given that he has never misused them before and also it looks like he/she has the potential to grow and become a better editor with admin tools. Cheers!
'''Support''' Most definitely.
'''Support''' With  confidence and enthusiasm.
'''Support'''. Some of the candidate's answers are imperfect, but none are disqualifying. The candidate has done good work for the encyclopedia, has a clue, and wants to do the right thing. That's all that should be required to learn the rest.
'''Support''' The reason I opposed last time, namely poor CSD tagging, is no longer an issue, so I consequently have no issues supporting this RfA.
'''Weak support''' I think your answer to Q7 is good, but some of the others seem rather generic/clichéd, as others have said. For instance in Q12 it would have been nice to have seen mention of [[:MediaWiki:Bad image list]], since people might not only upload images exclusively for vandalism, but can misuse pre-existing images of genitalia/whatever (''e''.''g''. by posting them on others' user pages), where these files ought not to be deleted as they appear on other articles. Indeed, the latter is probably going to be more widespread than the former, as you need to be [[:WP:Autoconfirmed|autoconfirmed]] in order to upload files. '''
'''Support''' I have been impressed with Slon02's sane and sensible work in the deletion processes, and trust him to handle speedy deletions of new pages and blocking of vandals directly as well as handling of AIV. Opposition over content concerns when the candidate is primarily interested in handling anti-vandalism and CSD of new pages is unconvincing. —
Don't see any real arguments coming out of the peanut gallery, as is often the case. The candidate raises many green flags for me.
'''Support'''. Some solid content work, a great deal of maintenance work of a very high standard, and thoughtful and competent answers to questions. Opposes are unconvincing - quibbling over not-quite-perfect answers is unhelpful. This process hands out mops, not sainthoods. --
I've had a scan of Articles for Creation work, and it seems Slon02 rejects pretty much everything there, which is a good thing of course. I'm not seeing any red flags arise from Slon02's recent contribs or talk page history. Doesn't seem to be a massive wanker either. --
'''Support''' Opposes unconvincing, imo. The candidate seems clueful and competent.
'''Weak Support''' Q11 gives me pause because the candidate fails to discuss reliability. Facebook, MySpace, and personal blogs are ''not reliable sources'', and that needed to factor into the analysis. Ultimately, however, the user has shown that he has and therefore will most likely continue to do good work, and he has handled himself very well in a pretty confrontational and rough RfA, which does inspire confidence.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Works hard in support of the project, and would be able to aid the project better with a few more tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:Mkativerata]] assertion that there is no excessive wanker behavior.--v/r -
'''Support''' I've decided to get down off this rather chilly fence. They also create the encyclopaedia who copy-ed. I've seen Slon around and don't associate the name with any problems. Stats are quite impressive, and so is the calm response here. Good nominators. That's enough for now.
'''Support'''. Perfection is not required. I've had dealings with the candidate, and I like several of the question answers, 7 and 13 particularly. Others show that you are not yet a highly experienced admin, but with experience such things can be fixed. I'm not convinced by the answer to q5, anyone who understands enough of our policies to be here will have some policies that they disagree with; But I think you have the sense to remember that we are all volunteers, and if as an admin you disagree with a policy so strongly that you don't want to be the one to enforce it, then simply leave the enforcement of it to others. I think you have the nouse not to use the tools or your admin status in contravention of policy. ''
''''''Weak'' Oppose'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Wikipedia already has too many kiddie admins.
'''Oppose''' Pledges to be open to recall are made ad captandum vulgus and are are unenforceable - any individual making them is either dishonest or inadequately aware of how a promise they made actually works, and is unfit for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Seems too lightweight.  The hasty CSD work seems have persisted after the last RfA, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Army_Values&action=history Army Values].
'''Oppose''' Answer to question number 14 was concerning and Slon02's further justifications were even more so. Seems to me that Slon02 seeks an excuse to go around Wikipedia blocking policy and inflict unjustifiable blocks. In addition, his first and last  reply (i.e. last until now) show that he did not read the situation carefully. A careless person is not fit for admin tools.
'''Oppose''' New users should be treated equally with others.  So I echo Charlie's comment.  Strengthened by Atama.  ~~
Sorry, just too many red flags for me. In Q15 you say you're not "eager" to become an admin, but 4 RFAs in 19 months is a little worrisome, and in some dialogue here you're indicating too much (IMHO) eagerness to use the tools once granted. So the Q15 answer ultimately rings hollow. Moreover, your engagement with opposers and neutrals, while not against any rules, is ill-advised. For those of us who have had bad dealings with defensive administrators, this is troubling.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I have been debating this for some time now. While you are a good editor, your policy knowledge is a bit lacking. You appear to have a strong grasp of policies related to new page patrol and anti-vandalism. However, you do not appear to have much experience with administrative work outside of these two areas. I am particularly concerned on how you will handle XfD's, file CSDs, and especially content disputes. Your answer to question 14 raised additional concerns, so I decided to wait on question 16. The answer to question 16 solidified my concerns. After reading your answer to question 16, I do not have much confidence with you handling 3RR violations, incivility, and disputes between editors. I am truly sorry, but I do not believe I can support at this time.
'''Oppose''' per drastically incorrect answer to question 14. Taking administrative action on a content dispute, which a refusal to perform a block is, only to forthwith become editorially involved in the same disagreement, is inelegant form. While knowledge of the '''subject matter''' may be required to distinguish legitimate points of contention from vandalism, since much physics, math, chemistry, medical, etc. content is written so as to be incomprehensible to the average citizen, "administrative reversion" to the "consensus version" in an actual dispute (following RFC closure, for instance,) is never to be taken lightly (be exquisitely well prepared to defend the propriety of your actions if you ever do such an extraordinary thing.)
'''Oppose''' I've also been giving this a lot of thought. The later question/answers have tipped me over into this section. Sorry. I am not convinced that, at the present time, you have an appropriate depth of understanding of the project. The answers to some questions give me the impression that you are striving hard to follow policy/guidelines, but I am not convinced you understand the rationale behind them; I think that is the reason for some of the errors (which others have elaborated upon above). That was my initial concern too, and the reason I added Q5. Admins do not just click buttons; it's necessary to have dispute-resolution skills, which are best learned through experience in some of the more contentious areas of the wiki. I just think you need more experience.  <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose'''. There are various little things, such as an apparent overeagerness to get the tool or your answers to questions 14 and 19, which, taken as a whole, lead me to believe you're not ready yet for the mop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Per Q20.  No matter how many times people try to claim otherwise a lifetime right to block and apply AE + discretionary sanctions is a very big deal.--
'''Oppose''' per Chzz and Salvio. Sorry. No prejudice against trying again in a few months. --
The answers leave me doubting your confidence a bit. I'm not sure yet. '''
Low content creation.
I am actually leaning towards oppose but am voting neutral due to the respect I have for your nominator.  There are two major problems I have seen here.  First, while I support your ability to discuss issues with people who !vote neutral or oppose, your discussion with Fleet Command is one you should have dropped.  I believe knowing when to drop an issue is an important skill for an administrator to have and I'm not sure that you show the level of maturity required for that.  Second, I disagree with your response to question 16.  I believe the clarity of the personal attack is less intense than you say it is.  Sure, the editor wasn't completely civil, and did stray off the content and onto the contributor but in a relatively minor way.  The worst part of the statement was the reference to autism; however, if you notice he stated "like everyone else who runs bots" making it slightly more of a statement on people who run bots.  Now, I am not saying it wasn't a personal attack at all, I am just trying to point out that it wasn't a ''major'' personal attack.  Continuing on, you stated you would leave a "strong, personal warning" on the talk page of the editor who left the attack.  That will do nothing but inflame the issue.  In a case like this, it would probably be best to ignore it and allow the other administrator to take his own actions to the statement on his own talk page.  There is no reason for you to get involved here.  Remember, "Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." -[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Responding to personal attacks]].  This issue makes you seem too anxious to wield the tools of an administrator and I'd like to see you wait a little while longer.<tt>  </tt>
'''Too soon for me to support''' The answer to my question was okay, but I do not like the answer to 20.  Adminship is a big deal because it takes a really major effort to reverse a bad decision.  The large number of questions reflects the community's concerns with the candidate.  When you become an admin, people will ask questions, challenge you, bait you, and even curse at you.   You need to handle all that with aplomb. I've moved this to neutral because you seem to have learned a bit from this process, which can be quite difficult.
Yes. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
It seems that you'd make a great admin. Best of luck,
'''Support'''. SmartSE's made a good impression at DYK as a helpful reviewer. I haven't looked through all 88 of SmartSE's article creations, but the ones I've looked at so far appear well-written and well-referenced, suggesting an editor who knows what they're doing.
'''Support''' longterm clueful user, with a clean blocklog (I don't count requested blocks for wikibreaks). I've encountered Smartse a number of times on wiki and have no hesitation in supporting as Smartse is more than ready.  Nice to see Smartse is also an [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodocene/archive1|FAC reviewer]], I think that FAC reviewing tests ones ability to communicate and collaborate over some of our best content.   ''
'''Support''' - I have no concerns here. The user seems to have good experience in multiple areas and interacts well with other editors. I believe Smartse can be trusted with the tools.
[[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I'm going to take a moment to make a few comments here, but they do not adversely affect my support.  SmartSE, it would be good to take a little bit of time to ''help'' otherwise good-faith editors with problematic usernames to find more suitable names; blocking should not ordinarily be the first option when a recommendation to change username can often be made without a block. You'd be surprised how many people of good faith will cooperate if addressed politely and without the assumption that they're up to no good. The templates that we often see are confusing and condescending, particularly the UAA block template. Perhaps you would also consider joining the unblock-en-L mailing list, as this is where many requests related to UAA blocks wind up.
Trustworthy and clueful. '''
'''Support''' Absolutely, and about time! Much clue observed from this user at COIN and DYK where our paths have crossed. Talk page is full of "Thanks" messages and inquiries from new users where helpful advice is usually given. Will be a great admin.
'''Support''' – contributions seem to be fine. No problems here. --<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="blue">Perseus, Son]] [[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/t|<font color="red">of Zeus]] [[Special:EmailUser/Perseus, Son of Zeus|✉]]
'''Support''' - Everything about this user appears positive!

'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. Good work at COIN. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
Provisonal '''support''' based on looking at speedy deletion work.  Seems solid there.
The candidate obviously knows what he or she is doing. I get that impression not only from things like FAC review experience, but from scanning back through the contributions and looking at those related to [[Julian Assange]], [[Wikileaks]] and [[Mark Stephens (solicitor)]]. Also, the candidate seems to give appropriate scrutiny to DYK entries: it appears he/she does a "second review" of all entries when moving them to the prep area ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=407260439]). The candidate clearly knows deletion policy well: despite not being a regular new-page patroller he/she clearly understands speedy deletion policy and will scrutinise bad speedy deletion tags appropriately ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kearney_%26_Company&diff=prev&oldid=407531034]). Obviously when an editor gets involved in difficult content work, they'll run up against other editors, and everything I've seen looking back through the contribs shows that the candidate deals with editing disagreements in an excellent way. To the candidate: thanks very much for putting yourself forward.--
'''Support''' I have to say that you were very patient during your requested block! Patience is important for any user who likes to be an admin. Also, you do have a fair bit of content creation and trust, so I'll support the nom for these reasons.
'''Support'''. Smartse has always been helpful, courteous, informative, fair, and concise. Smartse avoids drama, and uses discretion.
<font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' He did a great job dealing with a COI editor on an article that I created last month. I trust he'll be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - Smartse has been very helpful to me as a newcomer to Wikipedia.
'''Yes''' No issues.
'''Support''' I have seen you around and you look like you know that you are doing. Keep up the good work!
Clueful editor; interactions have been nothing less than pleasant.
'''Support'''. No red flags, plenty of experience. Civility and patience has been demonstrated. You have my support. --
'''Support''' I suppose that opposing you on the grounds that the SVG on your userpage crashed my browser when I tried to view it would make for a crappy oppose. Really though, that's all I or apparently anyone else, could come up with. You seem like a solid net plus.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. SmartSE is a helpful and positive contributor, and I think they have clue to spare.
I've seen you and interacted with you at DYK, and based on that, I think you'd make a fine administrator. You've contributed 24 DYK articles and have helped promote four Good articles. This shows that you are interested in expanding the encyclopedia and that you know Wikipedia's core policies. You use edit summaries almost 100% of the time, as can be seen [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Smartse&lang=en here]. According to [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/Smartse this], over 50% of your edits have been to the mainspace. A quick look at [[Special:Contributions/Smartse|your contributions]] shows that you also partake in some vandal fighting. You've shown that you are a mature, responsible editor that can handle the extra tools and use them wisely. You have my full support.
Consistant, strong work at COIN and UAA.
Absolutely. From what I have seen, you have demonstrated that your judgment can be trusted and that your interactions and contributions have only been for best interest of the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''.  Clueful, and more admins who understand and are willing to deal with [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] issues are very much needed.  –
'''Support''' Polite, helpful, level-headed, a regular "[[Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist|Dr. Katz]]", and most importantly, completely unaware that wanting to be an admin is insane. What more could Wikipedia ask for?
'''Support'''. Easy decision - great candidate who's knowledgeable, helpful, friendly, and has great experience. --
'''Support'''—yes of course. Someone who knows what he's doing.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He certainly deserves the tools.
'''Support''' - Surprised to see this RfA as I thought SmartSE was an admin. A highly valuable contributor with in-depth knowledge all across the project. i'm very happy to support this candidate. - '''''
Good attitude, good communication, good knowledge, strong candidate, happy to support.
'''Support'''  Candidate appears clueful, no trust issues seen. --
Excellent work at UAA.  Regarding the criticism of his UAA work above, I've never noticed anyone at UAA criticize his work, and none of us are hesitant to point out problems when we see them. - Dank (

We need to bang on the tree a bit harder, if this is the type of candidate that falls out...
'''Support''' Everything that I've seen has been done right, no issues. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Everything looks excellent  --
'''Support''' 17K edits without even a single block seals the deal. '''
Yup ''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - I see no concerns with the candidate having the tools. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support'''. Everything looking good . Plus, my special '''selfnom points''' are also due, so technically this is  '''2 1/2 supports'''. Please amend tally accordingly.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I am always glad to see Smartse pop up in my editsphere, and I am happy to find that the familiar excess of good sense and dedication to getting an encyclopedia written extend to many areas of the project. -

'''Support'''. Looks good to me! --
'''Support'''. I like the attitude evinced by this editor in answering the questions. So support.
Great attitude, great answers to the questions while at the same time not being afraid to question the value of one of them. Most importantly of all, clearly understands AfD and our notability policies, and does not see it as the vote that far too many participants seem to nowadays. —
'''Support.''' Experienced candidate who has competently handled every pointless "optional" question that was thrown at him. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support'''. Great candidate. Have trawled through lots of your contribs at random and cannot find even the smallest concern. I'm impressed you answered q4 though, I think I would have refused. You're a better person than me, clearly.--
'''Support''' Good editor; worked with and around at DYK. Cool and calm; would make a good admin.--
'''Support'''. Answer to my question removed only point of concern about candidate.
'''Support'''. Seems fine to me. --&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I don't see any red flags or concerns. Seems competent enough to me. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
In all my prior interaction with the candidate I have only had positive experiences. Will make a great admin. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support'''. Obviously a quality candidate - and I am impressed by the candidate's knowledge of the Orphan Criteria, as per question 8. Good luck,
Certainly; no alarms, no surprises. I've come across them a few times, and always found them helpful and communicative, primary qualities in an admin.
'''Support''' Hard working editor, strong work at DYK.
'''Support'''. Competent and clueful candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Satisfied with history and responses.  I was going to oppose per [[:Bill Conlin]] but I didn't trust some of you to get it.--
'''Support''' Every interaction has been positive, plenty of clue, long-time productive editor.
'''Support''' - everything looks clean. I'm particularly impressed by the candidate's answers to the above questions. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - looks fine to me. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong support''' Experienced, clueful, trustworthy, highly active since the beginning of 2009, cerebral answers - this is close to the "ideal" candidate --
'''Support''' Hard-working, helpful at DYK, creative, and knows a lot about flatworm sperm duels as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnna_Frodesiak&action=historysubmit&diff=409949385&oldid=409922210 this diff].
'''Support''' - clearly has clue and can be trusted with the tools.--
'''Strong support''' – valued [[WP:MCB]] contributor, very helpful, patient, and a pleasure to work with.  No doubt will put the tools to good use.
'''Strong support'''. Competence, trustworthiness and civility all well-demonstrated. --
'''Support.''' Excellent candidate; will do well with the tools. ~~
'''Support'''. No brainer.
'''Yes'''. Good contributions. Thoughtful. Intelligent. Seeks and builds consensus. Should make an excellent admin. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. I know the name. I can't for the life of me remember from where, but it obviously left a positive impression. I don;t see anything that would make me question that impression, so I'm happy to support.
'''Support'''. Handing this candidate a mop will significantly raise the standard of the administrator corp. --
'''Support'''. I'm glad to see candidates with interests in biology-related pages. I spent some time reviewing your edits at [[Mephedrone]], and I am satisfied about your understanding of content creation. I also looked at your archived comments at [[Talk:Julian Assange]], where you've navigated some contentious arguments (and I do see a few instances where others got under your skin, but nothing that raises alarms for me about your composure), and you know how to work with users who are in disputes. --
'''Strong support''', per my past interaction with this user. Thank you for volunteering.
'''Support''' No valid reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' Everything looks good with this candidate, will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.  Looks good.--
'''Support'''. The candidate is helpful, knows his way around, and quite productive.
'''Support'''. Solid candidate. --
'''Support''':Good luck! --
Better to have someone who ''knows'' that they need a block to stop from editing, than someone who doesn't.
'''Support''' Will not drop the mop. →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Sensible interactions with other editors.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' <s>Good</s>Great candidate! '''
'''Support''' - yes, will be fine with tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; high quality work at DYK, helpful and encouraging comment / feedback at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodocene/archive1|my present FAC]], good answers to questions, all are reasons to expect SmartSE will continue to valuably contribute to Wikipedia with sysop permissions.
Happy to support.
'''Support''' - Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' - Fully competent and courteous, quality contributions and a top notch candidate.
'''Support''' - Reviewed a random selection of contributions from the past six months, liked what I saw. --<font color='#66dd44'>
This is one of the more obvious RfA supports I've given in two and a half years of activity on this site. Smartse has smarts. He'll do fine as an admin.
'''Support''' a skilled and committed editor. --<font color="Red">
[[WP:100]]. Or 101, rather. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - I "know" Smartse from DYK, where the user's work is excellent and the user consistently "plays well with others".  --
'''Support'''. Why not? Mop and bucket are not a big deal, and my limited interaction with this user suggests he is not going to abuse them too much :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Weak Support''' I can see that the candidate has plenty of qualities that will make a good admin. I was a little worried about the edits to these two files, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chris-cattle-stool.jpg&oldid=340373851] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pete_in_garden_chair_01.jpg&oldid=340373513] where there is missing evidence of permission, but I cannot check back to see what permissions the web site may have had on it at the time of the edits. '''
'''Absolutely'''. --
'''Support'''.  Put me down as one who thought he already was an admin, just packed it in for a bit while life intervened. Well qualified, sensible candidate
'''Support''' Seems like a capable and good choice...
'''Support''' There is not a doubt in my mind about Smartse or his capabilities and judgment. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' SmartSE was the first regular editor I had contact with and our paths have crossed a few times since. Always helpful and I am yet to see a contribution or suggestion that I could fault. Does excellent work over a range of areas within the encyclopaedia and will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Appears to be a very good editor who I'd trust with the mop. Good luck!
'''Support''' - great candidate.
'''Support''' I see nothing to indicate that the candidate cannot be trusted, and no red flags appear in a quick look at their contributions and history. '''''
'''Yes, Yes, Yes!''' Very qualified. '''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124;
'''Support''' per nom and many of the other support !votes. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
Now '''support''' [[User:Ryan White Jr.|Ryan White Jr.]] ([[User talk:Ryan White Jr.|talk]]) 08:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC) <small>(Note: Originally neutral, did not add !vote to support column. Moved here by
'''Support''' Yes! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've had several good interactions with this candidate; checking contribs and looking at question responses, and other comments here, I can see no reason to oppose, and have every confidence xe will make sensible use of the SysOp tools.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support:''' Looks like the candidate will make a great Admin. -
'''Support''' Great candidate, should do well. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' That self-block convinced me, this editor has self-discipline.--
'''Support''' Good Track see no concerns.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 17,000 edits (including almost 10,000 article edits), high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc.  We need more admins with scientific interest and expertise.
'''Support''' had only positive experience with him, convincing nomination. --
'''Support''' Good candidate, hardworking and an excellent contributor. – '''
'''Support''' Solid answers to all questions, track record looks good, although the request for a self-block does strike me as being somewhat self-serving. I can, however, understand the reason behind it, so I can overlook (not that it would have really changed my opinion here, though, so I suppose I'm just babbling at this point). --
'''Support''' Just the sort of user who should be an admin, and nobody has come up with a real objection yet. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' Nothing wrong I can see besides the self-requested block, but that just seems a little off to me.  I think it speaks poorly to self-control (or, self-perception of self-control), but not to the extent that I will oppose the nom.
'''Support'''. The advice given by Swarm is evidence that he makes very good judgement in complicated situations, and always civilly. RfA criteria listed on userpage shows that he understands what adminship is about. Can only support.
'''Support''' Well rounded experience; trusted; should be an asset for the project.
'''Support''' I've seen Swarm around doing vandal work from time to time. He looks like a good candidate for adminship. --  '''
'''Support''' In before the transclusion. I was actually wondering today why you weren't an admin. I'm happy to see that you are interested in taking that step. And, much like Jasper Deng above, your RfA criteria alone proves you have a clue.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --
<s>'''Oppose''' Malformed nomination, user already admin</s> '''Support''' Why is user already not an admin. Pwr below,
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to withhold support. The candidate strikes me as very cluefull.
'''Hell yeah'''  Swarm, in my opinion, is one of the most thoughtful and well grounded editors around.  I agree with Buggie111 that Swarm is easily confused with being an admin.  Definitely trustworthy.--v/r -
'''Support'''. I trust the candidate, and I trust the nominator. Swarm's passion for the project is clear.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. I hate using the whole "I thought you already were one" argument, but I seriously did. I have seen you active in many areas of Wikipedia, and have no doubt that you'll do well as an admin.
'''Strong Support'''.  I've met Swarm months ago and I can say he's more than ready to receive the promo.  I especially liked the way s/he answered my questions.  &ndash;
one of the best here--
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' Honestly in the same boat as Ajraddatz - I'd thought you'd done the RFA bit already! Whenever I see Swarm's signature it seems to have sound commentary before it. User is a pleasure to interact with and I see no reason to not grant the buttons. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Swarm has made some excellent contributions to the encyclopaedia. Of particular note is the work Swarm has done in the wikification of articles. Every time I have interacted with Swarm, especially on [[WP:RFA2011]], he has appeared highly competent, very civil and amazingly patient (even in the most trying of circumstances). He will make an excellent addition to the janitorial ranks. &mdash;
Yep. Good vandal fighting. [[User:Porchcorpter/Guestbook|Would you mind signing my guestbook?]] -'''''
Usually a clueful and levelheaded user. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - Easy decision.
'''Support''' per Fastily. --
'''Support''' ​—
'''Support''' - You look like a good editor who makes valuable contributions to both content and discussion. I see no reason for you not to have admin tools and I'm sure you'll do a good job with them.

I concur with Fetchcomms' analysis.
'''Support''' - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, over 10K edits, seems oriented to administrative tasks rather than content creation.
'''Support''' - Swarm is a good editor who needs the tools to continue being good. Has helped me out of a sticky spot or two, and the powers fit them just right. <font color="#A20846">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think Swarm will be even more helpful here with the bit.
'''Support'''
I've done my digging on this one. I think the candidate's contributions to ITN are very helpful and it would be good to have some new admin blood over there after a few recent cowboy moments.  I'm also impressed by some of the talk page contributions, including throughout the archives of [[Talk:Anders Behring Breivik]] (although not at all a fan of the facepalm template: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnders_Behring_Breivik&action=historysubmit&diff=445949796&oldid=445929175]).  Swarm demonstrates a capable enough awareness and understanding of policy to be a good administrator. --
'''Support''' Had this RfA pre-watchlisted and since I cannot find any faults in the candidate's contributions, I probably did so because I really think he should be an admin. Regards '''
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
--
'''Support''' - Of course. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' —
[[Lagom]] '''Support'''. Generally has good sense and a self-deprecating sense of humor. He is one of the best editors associated with RfA deform, whose effect would be to make it easier to become an administrator if you lack interest in writing encyclopedia articles; his association with the RfA schools is both a merit and demerit. His comments on Dylan's RfA were the best of a bad bunch. I have some concerns about intellectual maturity based on a convenience sample of ITN edits, where Swarm opposed the story on super-symmetry and supported Amy Winehouse and seems to under-appreciate the significance of the Arab Spring. Of course, more article-writing experience would be useful; the 10 Good Article reviews would be even more meritorious if they pushed the writers to improve the article (to a greater extent) besides check-listing GA criteria. My main turn-off was his hard-ass approach to Lihaas, one of Wikipedia's most valuable members, who obviously was pissed off about events some months ago. A frequent contributor to ITN should have shown empathy for Lihaas, while justly complaining about Lihaas's rhetoric.  Sincerely,  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. What, you're not one now? Citing quality work and engagement with other users.
'''Support'''. Of course <<New mop please>> <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
The username gives me pause. How do we know this user is not a swarm of [[locusts]]? Or [[Africanized bee|killer bees]]? But then, I have yet to see a swarm of anything abuse an advanced technical access on a website, so I can't say I'm all too concerned about what would happen if we granted this account sysop rights. Guess we'll just have to wait and see...
'''Support''' --'''
'''Strong Support''' Answers seems to be brilliant.

'''Strong Support''' good spirit, huge constructive contributing, poised, with high level of understanding and helping other users. This is what all admins should be! ''
'''Strong Support''' good answers and has responsibllity
'''Support''' It could be too early to tell, but I think you are going to have admin powers soon! :P <font face="Palatino Linotype"><big>'''
'''Support''' -  Sure to make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. If  I  had known this was coming  up  I  would have been a co-nominator. Swarm  opposed my  RfA, but  ironically  has become one of nicest  and most  clueful editors with whom  it  is my  great pleasure to collaborate. I wholeheartedly  support this candidature,  and strongly echo  all  the sentiments above.
What a pleasant surprise. I just kind of assumed that you weren't an admin because you didn't want to be, but you have my unreserved support! We need more admins at ITN, and a level-headed editor like Swarm is the perfect candidate, and I'm sure his calm, well thought-out comments in heated discussions are appreciated elsewhere as well. Good luck, mate, not that you need it!
'''Strong support''' – Swarm is an absolutely brilliant candidate for RfA; the mop will just give him more tools for day-to-day work. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Sure they will be a very good admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Useless pile on but still enthusiastic Support'''
I think yes.
'''Support''' Had reviewed edits. Good Job!
'''Support''' Strike another one off my list....
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. (Wait a minute, didn't you just say a day or two ago that you disagree with me about an FFD? I should clearly oppose. No, just kidding.) Seriously, I like the commitment to adopting users. I went back and looked at talk page history, and everything checks out. I also like the answers to questions. --
In the interest of brevity, I'll not list my reasons for '''support'''
'''Support''' Strong candidate who has been friendly, level headed and a good contributor to the project. '''
'''Support'''. Highly competent editor. Happy editing! Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - All opposing users have very unconvincing rationales. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. The answer to question 12 is particularly good.
'''Support'''- Looks great, despite concerns about your holiday in March of this year. ;)
'''Support'''. When I saw this request listed, my first reaction was "''Oh no, not another reconfirmation request''". I'm as surprised as Pedro and others above that you're not already an admin. Happy to support. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. Of course. '''''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Great admin material. Best of Luck! --
'''Support''' - A very strong candidate that has been active in enwp operations for a good while. Highly knowledgable of our policies and our culture having worked across most areas of our project. More importantly, Swarm has been very helpful to new users, adding to our ranks of good contributors that help improve our quality. This generous help cannot be understated as our project has thousands of articles that could use improvement. So a steady stream of well-taught new users is an immense value to our project. I'm pleased the candidate has accepted the nomination and I'm very happy to add my support for Swarm <sup>X</sup>. <small>Yeah, I miss the old sig</small> - '''''
'''Support''' This user is a regular editor on some controversial articles such as [[War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)]], [[Iraq War]], and [[Waterboarding]] and despite the conflict he always stays cool and keeps other users calm and focused on article content also.  His work on [[10-20-Life]] shows that he knows how to make a good article.  The most important work that an admin can do, though, is set a good example for new users and his time on the "adopt a user" project demonstrates that he can do that.  I support his adminship for these reasons.
Completely agree. Although i don't know him that well, he's pointed out a few of my errors and looking at their contribs they seem to be a good editor.  --'''
'''Support''' No surprises. Top-quality answers to the questions. Evidence shown by WormTT shows that he has the right personality for an administrator.
'''Support''' Seems excellent!
'''Extra Strong Support''' Fantastic candidate. All vandal destroyers are A okay in my book. Has experience with vandals, article creation, etc. Good guy with good faith.
'''Support''' Ditto. Very useful contributor.--
'''Support''' Double ditto.
'''Support''' Good contributor. Don't see any problems with giving Swarm admin tools.--
'''Support''' Big on clue, low on drama. '''

[[WP:FUCK]], yeah <small>(an attempt at humour per my comment at Oppose 1 below)</small>. '''Support''' I've been impressed by this candidate's work for some time, and I'm sure this will only help the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - Everything I have seen looks good.
We've got plenty of work, have fun.
'''Support''', good answers.
'''Support'''. Swarm's done good work improving the encyclopedia, and the answers above demonstrate readiness for the mop. Wikipedia will be a better place with you as an admin.
No reason not to.
'''Strong support'''- Top-drawer answers, nom. statement, vandal-fighting creds, content creator - the candidate presents a complete package.--
'''Pile-on support''', high level of clue indicated. --
'''Support''' - Good friendly interactions on [[WP:ITN/C]].
'''Support''' - Thanks for all your contributions!  I hope you will submit some cases soon!  ~~
'''Support''' All interactions with Swarm have been positive.  Thanks for your work with new users and and with resolving civility disputes.
'''SUpport''' logs (moves and uploads) and deleted content look fine.
When you receive your mop, stop by. I'll give you ten bucks to mop my kitchen!  ;)
'''Support''' I can't see any reason to oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Seems like candidate will be a good admin. --
open-minded '''Support''' - worth a go with the tools.
Obviously
'''Support.''' When I was still a new editor, I disagreed with the way [[User:Swarm]] handled a dispute in which I was involved. Since then, though, I've come to appreciate Swarm's detached and nonpartisan dedication to Wikipedia and the efforts he invests in promoting cordiality between editors. In the particular area where I edit, Swarm's neutral application of policy can be illustrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_religious_terrorism&diff=448849874&oldid=446015476 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_southern_Israel_cross-border_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=445569441 two] diffs. Wikipedia benefits from precisely these kinds of contributors. I'm confident Swarm'll prove himself an invaluable asset to our project as Admin, just as he has as a lay editor.—
'''Support''' per response to question 12.  Anyone who is willing to wind their way through that circuitous hypothetical will surely do well when it comes to an actual administrative task.--'''~
'''Support''' I personally cannot find any reason ''not to'' - their work on the project is fantastic, their detachment from things should be a huge benefit to the thick skin needed to be an admin. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support Finally'''. Last time I hold out for 100! Of course I support, I'm the nom.
From my limited interactions with the candidate, I firmly believe he has the competance and knowledge to be an excellent admin. '''Full (if somewhat late) support'''.
'''Support''' One of the better RfA's, good answers to the questions. Time for another mop. '''
'''Support'''. Late to the party, but I'd still like to comment. Sound candidate, excellent answers to the questions. Great stuff.
'''Support''' I couldn't find anything concerning. The candidate is well versed in policy and clueful.
'''Yes'''. '''
'''Oppose''' I start checking out the candidate's contributions and discover that he thinks that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t-give-a-fuckism&diff=prev&oldid=440012659 DGAFism] is a "serious editing philosophy".  He has edited that essay repeatedly and so seems to support it.  This does not seem an acceptable attitude or mode of expression for an admin.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around a bit, especially with new page patrolling, and I've never seen a single reason to oppose any adminship nomination for this user. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Support''' without hesitation. Yes. ''
'''Support''' Blade is clearly here to help, and he knows what he's doing.  These are really the only two fundamental requirements for adminship.
The candidate is excellent, capable, clearly has the experience required for the position and will be a very productive admin. --
'''Support'''. Competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools. A random sample of edits didn't turn up anything suspicious, and my previous interactions with TBotNL have always been good.
Now that's a coincidence: a couple of hours ago I was wondering when we would see an RfA from The Blade of Northern Lights; I see their name everywhere, making excellent reports to AIV, UAA, CSD, etc. The Blade of Northern Lights is always doing great work, and I think that it will be highly beneficial to the project for them to have the admin tools.
Happy to '''support''' this helpful, hard-working editor.
'''Support''' No two ways about it. Seen around a lot, does great work, accurate in assessment and polite. <s>Sickening, isn't it?</s>
'''Support''', competent, trusted, etc.
'''Support''' - A capable editor with the right attitude to Wikipedia & adminship; the encyclopedia would certainly benefit with him as an admin.
'''Support'''. I've come across Blade numerous times on Wikipedia, and from what I've seen, he's an experienced and trustworthy editor who can handle the sysop tools responsibly.
'''Support'''  [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|Blade]] has proven to be an editor with clue... showing understanding of policy and guideline, making decent contributions, and always wiling to take part in discussion. Should make a fine admin. '''
'''Support''' Guess I need to check the flags more often, here's another editor I thought was already an admin. --''
You sir, have a crappy userpage -'''
'''Support'''. I've seen Blade doing lots of great work in all sorts of areas, and we've interacted a few times - I wish all RfA !votes were as easy to decide as this one --
Yep, Fastily sums it up. User page sucks. Clearly to keen on working on an encylopedia to bother to make an effort. I'm '''Support'''ing based on the fact that every time I see his siganture there seems to be an intelligent comment before it, a flick through talk page history seems fine and contributions are clearly strong. Anthony nominating is a big plus in my book too, but I won't let any of that take away from your shabby user page. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around patrolling new pages, among other things. I don't see any harm in letting Blade have the admin tools. --  '''
'''Support''' Strong candidate.
'''Support'''. Will change to strong support if he finds an Alabama Crimson Tide userbox to add to his user page.
'''Support'''. What? he is not an admin already?--
'''Support''' - I know the name well from NPP. A great support.
I'm a talkpagestalker ;) So yes, '''support'''! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' Seen him around and he seems to be suitable for the mop.
'''Support''' Wasn't {{gender:The Blade of the Northern Lights|he|she|he}} already a sysop?  ~~
'''Support''' Blade is a clueful editor who does a lot for the project. I'm a bit wary about granting him the delete button though since some of of his taggings show a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, something he should really be more careful with if this request is successful (two recent examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Louis_University_Laboratory_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=461463351 G12 with only some copyvio] that could simply be and was removed, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Abi_Nader&diff=prev&oldid=460477407 G11 for a non-completely spammy article] (that a experienced editor tagged for BLPPROD before already, thus indicating that it was already reviewed at this point) and which was shortly afterwards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Abi_Nader&diff=next&oldid=460477407 quickly copyedited]). Nevertheless, I think those are exceptions and he can change his approach to avoid them even without me having to oppose this request. Regards '''
'''Support''' Of course. '''''
'''Support''' – one of the best new page patrollers around. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' I wish more sysops shot first and asked questions later on BLPs, which he seems willing to do. A brief review of contributions leaves the impression of clueful productivity. Welcome.
Certainly. Highly clueful. '''
'''support''' --'''
'''Support'''. Per RfA tradition, here is the diff of the edit that will clearly sink this candidate: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=404705963] ''(sound of evil laughter)''. But seriously, this is a very easy support for me. I've crossed paths with the candidate numerous times, and consider him to be outstandingly well qualified. --
'''Strong Support''' -- Very good editor. --
NPP admins are a dying breed, but perhaps we'll see a comeback here. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Strong Support''' as nominator. Belated - apologies for that. Sudden emergency. Blade will be a most excellent admin. --<font color="Red">
Yes. Need I say more?
'''Yes, please.''' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Wait...you weren't one already? I've been tricked!
Hell yes
'''Support''' b/c there are no opposes, amazingly =). <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Support''' This one's easy --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' All around great candidate. Excellent work at [[WP:NPP|new page patrol]] (and [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]]). I don't believe there are any reasons he shouldn't be an admin.
'''Support''' and add me to the "he's not an admin already?!" club. --<font face="Book Antiqua">

'''Support''' - Opposers have unconvincing rationales →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Support''' per [[User talk:Σ]].--v/r -
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Strong support''' Well-qualified; close to the "ideal candidate", i.e. one with no readily identifiable weaknesses--
'''Support'''. Knows what he's doing with CSDs. Glad he kept editing after the [[WP:ACTRIAL]] fiasco.
'''Support'''. As another member of the "he's not an admin already?!" club I can say that the areas where I have seen BotNL's comments they were always thought out and seem to reflect WikiP's core values.
'''Support''' Great user! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' – Blade finally makes his RfA. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Everything I've seen of this user's work is consistent with thoughtful use of the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Looked over edit history. Very impressive. Good candidate.  One minor problem, though; his sig uses characters for his talk page that do not display properly on Firefox, IE, or Opera. Might I suggest changing that?
'''Support'''. Great user, will do good with the mop.
'''賛成''' <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' [[WP:ROUGE|the cabal says "yes"]] :P in all seriousness, though, I've seen his/her work at the admin noticeboards and elsewhere and they've shown nothing but competence and sound judgement. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
'''Support''' Have seen him around the shop and know no reason to oppose - a cool name too! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
It's that same old tired "thought he was already" comment again, which is one of the strongest indications of suitability for the mop IMO.
'''Massive HUGE Support'''This user had guided me from the beginning when I started my editing here.Just see his contribs,no problems.THIS USER WILL NOT ABUSE THE TOOLS,I can clearly say this.This is also very [[WP:CIVIL|civil]].
I thought I knew all  about  NPP until Blade showed me some of its more obscure corners. We've worked hard together on  NPP, and on desperate projects to  improve it for over a year. I knew this RfA was coming and it  should have come a long  time ago.
'''Support'''. Thought he already was one.
'''Support'''. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' very well qualified, this is long overdue. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
You do good work, and to me have demonstrated your competency to use the admin tools. I second Fastily though. Your userpage totally sucks. Just sayin'. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' without any hesitations.--
Per Fastily.
'''Support''' A capable candidacy and a great contributor.

'''Support''' I was recently trying to teach my sister how to edit, and was showing her how use the page history.  I forget which article it was.  Your name was there, we checked out your edit - good change.  We went to another page, again there is Blade.  So we try a third page off my watchlist, just as a lark.  Blade. Sis asks, "Who is this person?" I reply, "Some sort of superstar, I guess."  No red flags, dedicated editor.
'''Support''' Will certainly be a great help to the encyclopedia.--
'''Support''' Always assumed he was an admin. Adds more light than heat at AN/I, which is always a good thing.
'''Support''' Will be fine.  I assumed he was an admin already, and female, but then realised I was probably thinking of {{user|Elen of the Roads}} all along.  It's the slight difference in usernames that threw me...
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: especially as a rollbacker, reviewer, etc.  We need another admin who is culturally competent and can read Japanese.
'''Support''' to save face for the horde of us who believed based on your immense cluefulness that you were already an admin.
'''Very strong support.''' Immensely level headed. Extremely helpful with a particularly difficult case, very sane NPPer - understands the rules and the principles behind the rules.
'''Support'''I appreciate the work he's done at NewPagePatrolling which is terminally short-handed, laborious, and not very glorious work. I have generally appreciated his comments else where and I believe he would be a productive addition to our declining admin ranks.
'''Support''' Qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Competent enough for the position of administrator. Probably won't make Radio Three's programme controller though. --
'''Support''' – I have been impressed with his new page patrolling for a long time. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=The+Blade+of+the+Northern+Lights Per this], user who take an active role to help administrators work. Good candidate! --
'''Support'''- Good User, nice personality. --'''
'''Strong Support''' - The user will definitely make a great sysop. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
Opposes are patently unconvincing. Also, I like the username.
'''Support''' the major contributor to [[Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles]].
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''; owns a full set of well-maintained clue and isn't afraid to use it.  &mdash;&nbsp;
Sure, seems like you're well-qualified and will do a good job. Good luck... '''
'''Indeed''' — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' - good chance will be net positive.
'''Support''' No reason to think this user would abuse the tools, besides, I need to jump on this bandwagon.  --
'''Support'''. No concerns —
'''Support''' Great contributor. I've always had positive interactions with him. 100% support. --
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. I've been watching this user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights&oldid=347998026 from day one] - and I've seen nothing but positive contributions. It's an easy call for me. {{smiley}} <sup>
Of course!
Great to see you here Blade ... just remember, wet the mop first. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Good contribs. Bonus points for awesome username.--
'''Support'''  I've never heard a negative thing about this editor, and associate the name only with positive contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' based largely on observations of this editor's excellent work from a somewhat downstream point of view, e.g., in my processing of BLPPROD taggings.  No concerns. Also, [[WP:100]].  :)  --
Probably should be one, 100 wikipedians can't be wrong.--<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Oppo...errr...Support''' From both a look at the contributions, and from my occasional times seeing their name, they're clueful and a net-positive to the project.  Don't let the extra buttons detract from your great work! ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  No problems that I can detect.  Looks good to me.  Best of luck, '''
I'm
Well, it's taken quite a while, there was a lot to go through, but TBotNL is an exceptionally helpful, useful and clueful individual. Exactly what we need.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I can't think of a better way to round off my retirement-infringing visit here today than to '''Support''' this, per, well, everyone..., and I'm very glad not to have missed seeing it. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">
'''Support''' - Happy to add my support. - '''''
'''Support''', excellent choice of bands. But in all seriousness, every time I've seen this editor around it's been with a combination of competence and patience that we see all too rarely. I'm glad I caught this one.
'''Support''' <s>per Fastily's comment on a bad user page</s> errr no I mean per <s>illegible sig</s> err I mean per the stuff that actually matters: the good contributions I've repeatedly stumbled accross
'''Support''' - and here's another "thought he already was" reply!  I've mostly noticed Blade in npp, done a bit of stalking to discover more, and liked what I saw.
'''Support''' Even-tempered fellow who has been good in listening both sides in thorny issues.  Kudos!  [[Special:Contributions/CalvinTy|<font color="Sienna">'''Calvin'''</font>]]
'''Support''' No concerns '''
'''Support''' Stay editing my friends.
Noticed the accurate CSD work. --
'''Support''' - Seems to be a good candidate, good luck...
'''Support''' - I've seen him around many a times. I used to think he was already an admin :) . Good luck. '''
'''Support''' - Cool name. Plus above.
'''Support''' - he does excellent work!  I wondered when someone would nom him!  Will be a great Admin! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' I've seen this editor at work a couple times.  Blade is a good editor who knows what he's doing, and the mop will help him.~
'''Support''' No explanation is needed. '''
'''Support''' Also, wiggling fingers upwards to indicate that I'm participating in a consensus decision-making process rather than casting an evil !vote.  Have you got any idea of how hard it is for two-fingered typist to type while wiggling his fingers upward? I've read all of the comments in the oppose section, as of the time I'm typing this. I agree with every one.
'''Support'''. Happy to support. --
'''Support'''. You're obviously a better [[Wikipedia:NPP|NPP]] than me! :P
'''Support'''. I've seen the candidate around. I trust him with the buttons.
Good taste in music for a 21 year old.  Trust his judgement on WP too.
'''Support''' Very happy to support this editor.<tt>  </tt>
The times I have interacted with you have been pleasant. Your CSD work looks good.  --
'''Support'''- Under the wire. Easy to spot at AfD and elsewhere. Policy supported rationales and suggested improvements.
'''Support''' – Adding my obligatory "What?? You don't have the mop already??" No concerns. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
(ec*2)'''Support''' The way the user has conducted themselves in NPP and in contentious portions of WP has given me much enlightenment and hope for one day becoming entrusted with the supply closet key in the future.
Yeah obviously.
rare '''support'''. Not that I don't think people should be admins or anything, just don't come by rfa much anymore.

'''Support''' – I like your WikiCup work (so far). --
'''Support''' - a very reliable and experienced editor who always keeps his cool and is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and procedures. I believe he would make a good admin. -
'''Support''' - I have, over the past several months, been incredibly impressed by the workmanship, friendly attitude and quality of work The Bushranger has produced. He is, in my view, an excellent editor, and someone who will undoubtedly be an excellent sysop. <font style="font-family:Impact">
'''Support''' - good luck. -
'''Strong support''' per my co-nomination.
'''Support''' – I've had the pleasure of seeing The Bushranger hard at work over at DYK, where he's helped out a great deal with reviewing and prepwork. In all of my interactions with him, he's been friendly and helpful, and I have no doubt he'd be a huge asset to the project as an admin.
'''Support''' - great work.
'''Support''' - No reason why not.
'''Speedy close per [[WP:RIGHTNOW]]!''' I suggested a while ago that he consider adminship and DYK could certainly use the help, so it's my honour to support. The DYK queues compiled by Bushranger are always excellent and he clearly know both the DYK procedures and how to build sets of intriguing hooks. A talented writer, experienced editor with a high level of clue and a desire to work in a chronically admin-short area mean he should make a bloody good admin! My only complaint is that you don't have email enabled, but that doesn't make you less qualified, so I'm more than comfortable here.
'''Support'''—yes of course.
'''Support''' Will make an awesome admin.
'''Support''' It's about time! Bushranger has lots of clue. I've always been impressed. '''<font color="#000000">
Impressive work at MILHIST and elsewhere.  Easy call. - Dank (
'''Support''' When I initially saw that 6 out of the first 13 !votes were from admins, that tells me that this candidate has the '''trust''' of that peer group.  But, I also did my own homework on this candidate, and feel that he will use the tools as needed with DYK.
'''Support'''. Uh, yeah. Like totally way cool. I look forward to working with you in your new role. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' without a doubt.
'''Support'''. Ratcheting the project higher one stellar admin at a time.
'''Support''':
'''Support''' I honestly thought that you already were one already. Good luck!

'''Strong Support''' Rock solid credentials. Content creation includes 110 new articles and 893 redirects; trustworthy (reviewer, rollbacker); one of the "top guns" over at DYK; adequate experience in administrative areas such as AfD and vandal fighting; a Wikipedian since June 2008--
'''Support''' of course!--
'''Support''' The gaps raised a bit of a flag, especially after reading the words "burned out" in the candidate's explanation of them, but it is hard to argue with 12,562 edits since 10/1/10 and the contributions that the candidate has brought to the table, as a whole. Clearly a net positive. Best of luck! --
'''Support''' Great work at DYK.
'''Support''' Perfectly fine candidate with the perfect answers to the questions. A net positive user, give him the mop if he wants. <font color="#082567">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' The Bushranger is an excellent editor who I'm certain will use the admin tools wisely. I hope that he or she branches out in their admin activities beyond DYK and background tasks one they become confident in the role though as we always need more admins active in resolving problems.
'''Support'''. This is one candidate where I'm already familiar with their excellent record of content creation because I've spent numerous happy hours reading the results (and occasionally gnoming bits of it). I noticed the candidate uses their userpage to express a large number of rather robust political views, but I hope they will stick with policy and neutrality regarding any administrative decisions in those areas, just as they've said in their answers they will do so in areas of Wikipedia policy where they have strong views. (And, having looked through the candidate's contributions, they spend their time on content creation in their areas of interest, not on politics of any sort.) DYK is always in need of more admin help so I'm sure that will be very welcome. It's nice for admins to have email available, but it's not a significant issue for just one to lack it. --
'''Support''' - Absolutely. A name I'm already familiar with, and always in a positive context.--[[User:Korruski|<strong><font color="#96C8A2">K</font><font color="black">orr</font><font color="#96C8A2">u</font><font color="black">ski</font></strong>]]<sup>[[User talk:Korruski|<font color="#96C8A2">Talk</font>]]</sup> 10:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)<small>Just to confirm, still supporting despite small mistake in nom regarding FA--
'''Support'''. Looks like a trustworthy editor with plenty of understanding of the ways of things. Although I don't require it in order to support, I would strongly recommend enabling email, as admins will often have to deal with delicate issues that should not be aired too much in public. Having email enabled doesn't itself compromise your security, and nobody will get to see your email address unless you reply to them - and even then, using a dedicated and replaceable address should solve any potential problems. --
'''Support'''. For sure! Anyone who's against political correctness wins my support :)
Tell me why not. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''--
'''səˈpɔːt''' Excellent candidate who gets my unequivocal support. ''Muy bien hecho''. --
'''Support''' - Works a lot with DYK, which does need admins.
'''Support''' - Very knowledgeable contributor. - '''''
'''Support''' - One of the good guys.
'''Support''' Perfect candidate to receive the tools.
'''Support''' - It looks like you would make a great admin.
No concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' No concerns, this editor clearly has the editing experience, and appears to have sufficient knowledge in policy areas to be given the mop.
'''Support''' Is Bushranger experienced and trustworthy enough to wield a mop without breaking things and turning into an [[WP:NAM|angry mastodon]]? Yes. That is enough for me. The rest I'll assume good faith on. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The issues below regarding article sources reflect a good-faith disagreement about borderline sources but don't affect my trust in the candidate. The other concerns expressed in the oppose and neutral sections are unpersuasive.
'''Support'''. The candidate has demonstrated enough skill and dedication to the project (DYK and WP as a whole) and will be even more efficient with the admin tools. Opposes are good - learn from them and get better, but there is nothing more than that in those opposes.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' - Constructive editor who I anticipate will wield the mop sagely and with care.--
'''Support''' I accept and agree with ''some'' of Sandy's (and others) arguments in oppose. I think the candidate has had enough feedback in that respect, and understands the concerns going forward. None of those reasons presented, in themselves, seem to indicate likely tool misuse or abuse however; indeed I believe the candidate will use the tools well and reliably.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', excellent candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - contributions, clue.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and competent <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' - seems quite positive and constructive.
'''Support''' - Some concerns at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objekat 101]] but overall has a better handle on things than me.
'''Support''' - all seems in order.--

Quite a while since I struck, but first my computer crashed and then I decided to re-read everything before rubber-stamping my decision to support. Sandy's argument, while in places persuasive, has been blown out of proportion IMO. Two of her points I disagree with (one has since been stricken, the other I objected to in the conversation below), and a further two were not the doing of the candidate, which just leaves experience. Mkativerata makes an argument about the sloppy selection of DYKs, which has merit. Without wishing to completely excuse The Bushranger (because the CV should have been spotted), at the moment the stage of taking accepted hooks to the prep stage is procedural. The initial authors, reviewers, and most relevantly admin(s) who actually put those articles onto the main page are also culpable. In summary I share Mkativerata's sentiment that admins need to take a lot more responsibility at DYK, and that the argument constitutes solid grounds to oppose. But I believe that once bitten will be twice shy, that given the weight of the backlash here, some fundamental change at DYK is on the way, and as far as I have seen The Bushranger has not used sources that cannot be reasonably argued as reliable. —
'''Support''' we need more admins and you're competent. ''
'''Support''' Per WFC. I consider some of the oppose rationales to be fairly weak. That there was a sockpuppet in WP Aviation in the past should be of no consequence to this RFA. The early supports and the Feature list mistakenly presented as a Featured article (an honest mistake by the nominator, since corrected) were not the candidates doing, and penalizing him for it is not the way to go. Finally, regarding sourcing, the one source that generated alot of discussion is currently being examined at the reliability noticeboard and there is no consensus that it is unrealible. Even if it is found so, however, the fact that it generated so much discussion means that it is, at the very least a boderline case, and so, the candidates decision to used it is just as reasonable as would have been a decision not to use it. As for the unrealible sources added by other users, the notion presented by one of the opposers that editors are supposed to constantly watch over their GAs and should be held accountable for not undoing someone elses edit is simply silly. This is a volunteer project and I'm certainly free to take an article up to GA of FA and then decide to leave it to its fate.
'''Support'''. None of the opposing arguments have convinced me that Bushranger is likely to use the admin tools unwisely, which is what we're supposed to be assessing here. He can hardly take responsibility for events outside his control, and I find it troubling that we seem to expect admin candidates to submit quietly and even gratefully to a grilling the likes of which we wouldn't normally find outside a courtroom and then censure them when they have the temerity to show some personality. Three or four ongoing discussions in different locations about a good-faith difference of opinion that barely even relates to the candidate's fitness for adminship seems to me to be excessive :)
'''Support:'''  I feel better about this candidate who I now believe is a net positive. -
'''Support:'''No reason why not--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Some of Sandy's notes are concerning, but I'm willing to give him a shot. I took a close look at his earlier contribs and don't have the same doubts that I had about Archtransit or others. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I have no major concerns. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Not persuaded by opposes, do not see anything that makes me think tools will be misused.
'''Support''' – Will definitely be a net plus to the sysop group. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
Give him the mop, it's harder to give the tools than take them away nowadays.
'''Support''' I recently had really a good experience with this editor.  Over the same article I asked questions in two separate projects where I received the short answer.  Candidate came in and offered suggestions within policy that were be helpful for me and the article I was working on.--v/r -
'''SUpport'''- I've seen Bushranger around and he has always struck me as clueful and responsible.
'''Support''' - Heck yeah. Having a look at his edit history and editcount, there's no reason not to support. Long-term editor with a lot of experience from many areas of editing, and pretty active too. '''''
'''Support''' Very well rounded, though granted there are a few concerns, but overall a net benefit as admin.
'''Support''', and I mean it for this one this time. I think some concerns are legitimate, but not serious enough to warrant an oppose.
'''Support'''. Aside from the small mistakes we all make, this user shows great ability. Give him the mop.
'''Support''', content builder, good faith contributor, and not perfect.  What's not to like?
'''Support'''.  Solid, steady contributor.  <span style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 2px 0 2px;background-color:white;color:#bbb;">&ndash;
Weakly, because though I think you're a qualified candidate, the opposes do have weight to them. I think that you'll be able to improve upon those concerns if you pass or not, and if this RfA isn't immediately successful, perhaps a second time will do. '''
'''Support'''. Good content creator. My interactions with Bushy have been positive. I have considered Sandy's points and found them unconvincing.
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. Good work so far with GAs and similar edits. I see no reason why you shouldn't be given the tools. '''

'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''Some good points from the oppose comments and the neutrals for the user to take forward. Seems like a good faith offer to assist with the mop and if he takes his time I don't see any problems on the horizon.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Though I don't normally comment on these, I wanted to show my support for the adminship of Bushranger. I believe that he will use good, fair judgement if given the adminship. Also, he has done good work at DYK, and was very helpful to me when I had questions about the process. In my opinion, the opposing argument relies heavily on things that Bushranger had little or no control over. That's not to delegitimize the opposition, I simply disagree with their conclusions. Good luck!-
'''Oppose''' per my concerns listed below under my orignal neutral.  First, this editor has only been active for nine months, although the account was created in 2008.  <s>Second, I'm reminded that the Aviation Project spawned the now desysopped sockpuppet, Archtransit.</s> (Amended: struck per discussion and further clarification at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger#WikiProject membership used as an oppose rationale]], so as not to imply I believe he may be a sock.)<sup> [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)</sup>  Third, the nominator misrepresented in the nomination statement that this editor has an FA: he does not.  Fourth, multiple articles he has listed as GAs and DYKs do not use reliable sources, and we don't need more admins working at DYK who don't understand core policies.  Finally, several Supports were entered before this RFA went live.  Too many concerns here.
'''Oppose''' - No admin (or prospective admin) should [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Bushranger&diff=414331907&oldid=414330532 resort to shouting] to try and make a point, (bolded, block capitals is considered shouting on the internet and certainly should not be used here). I have seen good work but I am worried about policy/guideline understanding level and also Bushranger's potential ability to deal correctly and effectively with persistent 'troublemakers' in the aviation project which has not been explored yet to my knowledge.
Sorry (although not that it will make a difference to the result!). Sandy's sourcing concerns are borne out by a sample of DYK prep compilations. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2&diff=prev&oldid=413847838 this recent compilation] there is a [[Krishan Kumar|BLP sourced substantially to the subject's personal CV]] and [[Hermann Maaß|another article]] that does a fair bit of close paraphrasing of [http://www.gdw-berlin.de/bio/ausgabe_mit-e.php?id=61 this source]. I'm a bit uncomfortable looking through the history: you often have a very high rate of contribs in short periods of time. This indicates a propensity to rush, which might be a cause of the issues identified here and fairly unhelpful AfD !votes like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Piek|this]], which according to your contribs log from 29 November, came at the end of a flood of five similar AfD !votes in five minutes. (Note "per x" is fine sometimes, but only if x has a half-decent argument, and you didn't re-visit the !vote after it was refuted). --
'''Oppose''' - Based on Sandy's original note and the subsequent discussion.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] and [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]]. I'm really sorry, but I can't support you at this time. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''. He's prone to resting on his own judgement even when his charges rest on nothing more than the 'obvious meaning' of someone else's unspoken intent, even if that person is a veteran editor who is not likely to take accusations like serious ABF lightly.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2010_December_16&action=historysubmit&diff=402822757&oldid=402822397]. He has also sometimes offered short sarcastic one liners rather than a proper reply, or a diplomatic silence.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2010_December_16&action=historysubmit&diff=402791607&oldid=402790230][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FedEx_Express_Flight_647&diff=prev&oldid=401566131] And these are observations from just a couple of months ago. He could no doubt do a better job than several sitting admins, but still, standards are standards. Also, I see no explanation for this gap between setting up The Bushranger account and actually using it. That's definitely an open issue for any Rfa.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] and [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]].--
'''Oppose''': I am surprised to see a candidate shouting in bold and all caps in a place where they are trying to showcase their best behavior. With Bushranger seemingly only interacting within a small cadre of editors at DYK and various aviation articles I am concerned with how he might act with other editors in controversial topics or within a heated debate. Is there a diff that can be provided of him in such an interaction and showcasing civility? Also I'm having a difficult time finding much in depth participation in any Afd's, and from the discussion below I'm concerned with his upholding RS or other community standards, especially within DYK. A later date with more experience cross-wiki would seem like a better time to bring this up; now may be jumping the gun a little.
'''Oppose'''. Per above and per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&diff=414106726&oldid=414088060 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Bushranger&diff=414331907&oldid=414330532 this].  Concerns with temperament and judgement. -'''
'''Oppose''' (with reluctance) Firstly, I am concerned about two procedural issues - neither of which is the direct fault of the candidate, but they certainly could affect the outcome: viz, the posting of votes prior to transclusion, and the erroneous mention of an FA. Both factors may have influenced other support votes. This is unfortunate, and should in no way dissuade the candidate, if unsuccessful, from trying again in the future. Secondly, concerns expressed above regarding reliable sourcing, marginal etiquette concerns re. bolding of text in this RfA, the AfD rushed votes in November, and this being a relatively new account, push me over the line into this section. On the positive side, I found the candidates question responses to be considerate and erudite, and I admire your attitude to building the Encyclopaedia. If the RfA fails, I advise a few months of demonstrating exemplary attention to sourcing, and of courteous behaviour in wider areas of Wikipedia, prior to re-applying. As an aside: I do suggest you enable email; your privacy concerns are easily overcome by setting up a freebie account just for Wikipedia - for example, I'm {{NoSpam|Chzz|live.co.uk}}. There are various ways of easily getting an alert when the account receives email ([[RSS]], or some pop-up gizmo, etc). <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Strongest possible oppose''' per [[User:SandyGeorgia]]. We've got enough trouble already with admins who have no understanding of content policy. Let's not make it any worse by appointing yet another one.
"Content" contributions. -
'''Oppose''' I'm a bit worried about his temper impairing his judgement on delicate admin. decisions.
'''Neutral''' pending my questions answered. Seen him around, but not really in areas admins are supposed to be working, more of article improvement. [[User:WikiCopter|WikiCopter]] ([[User talk:WikiCopter|♠]] • [[Special:EmailUser/WikiCopter|♣]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/WikiCopter|♥]] • [[User:AirplanePro/Guestbook|♦]] &bull; [[w:simple:User:WikiCopter|simple]] • [[commons:User:WikiCopter|commons]] •
'''Neutral''' from Support. One of the main things I look for in an admin is temperment, and evidence of such. Adminship is stressful, you are likely to have your decisions challenged by people who disagree with your point of view. The discussions on this page with Sandy have shown that the candidate does get stressed when people question his decisions, which is understandable, and although he did not act in a way which would move my opinion to oppose, I do feel less inclined to support. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''' from Support. He is ready to have the admin tools but he already has lots of admin tools and I think that he could do enough with what he has.  ~~'''Awsome'''
'''Neutral''' Commendable contribution history and CV, but sufficient valid concerns raised by others to keep me out of the Support column. --
'''Neutral''' I could care less about him bolding a few sentences or capping them.  And he could get some decent work done in DYK for sure with the tools.  Still have a few reservations about the article churn, but hopefully, he will work on quality, not just quantity.
'''Neutral''' concerns raised by others above give me pause.
'''Support''' The utility in OTRS work is more then a enough reason to grant the admin bit. I don't see any reason to believe we cannot trust the candidate to act in good faith with the tools.
'''Support''' While I don't know Tom exceedingly well, I know enough to be sure he would make a good admin. When it comes to IT he's practically a wizard, which is always useful. I've never known him to make rash decisions, to get het up or really behave in any ways I would consider unbecoming in an admin. He's sensible and very clueful, and he's also capable of doing good content work. I really can't think of any reasons to oppose, and I'm 100% certain he will make a good admin and not only that, a ''valuable'' admin.
'''Support''' I have absolutely no doubts that Tom will make great use of the tools. I have a particular interest as Tom is part of the UK GLAM task force and GLAM is my "file" on the UK chapter board (note we are all unpaid volunteers). This has given me the opportunity to collaborate with Tom on a number of occasions, including how best to improve Wikipedia collaborations and encourage new editors. His thinking is sound, he is patient and a review of his contributions will show you his calm and patient approach with editors having problems understanding our policies is top notch.
'''Support''' I thought he was an administrator. He is an excellent candidate and I believe he will do great as an administrator. --  '''
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' OTRS access, trustworthy noms, good content work, great work at AfD, looks civil and helpful. Net positive.
'''Support'''. Regards,
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong Support'''. -- Good work
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. It couldn't be any simpler: Wikipedia needs admins, and Tom would make a great admin.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' I like their AFD participation along with content work. --'''
'''Support'''. Looks good, lots of great experience, no problems supporting --
'''Support''' WSQ's nom statement along with Tom's contributions that I've analysed are competently convincing.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' a competent user, no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, with a strong history of deliberative contributions both on wikipedia and elsewhere, Tom would be an excellent admin. (Though those who say they have never seen Tom get "het up" have clearly never read his tweets from public transport :D)
'''Support''' No need for any comments.
'''Support''' No concerns at all.
Im my opinion, a good sense of humour is a must for any sysop and you have it, at least according to the nominator and I trust that person as well.  &ndash;
Seems to have made a lot of positive contributions, understands how Wikipedia works and has the level head needed for adminship. Would make a good admin.
I will say first that Tom and I are friends and have been for a good while now, so my comment may appear biased - but, in all honesty, it is difficult not to be biased when discussing this candidate. He has shown time and time again qualities expected of administrators even without being involved in particularly drama-fuelled areas of Wikipedia. His level head and common sense, evidenced in numerous edits on numerous discussion boards and XfD discussions, is a valuable skill to have and it is rare to see in a non-admin. His history offwiki - for instance his knowledge of several programming languages and regex - is something I not only envy greatly but something that will inevitably prove useful with the more complex, technical administrator tasks. While Tom is not a ''perfect'' candidate for the role - his judgement can be questioned in some of his contributions and comments - he seems, to me, pretty bloody close. All the best with this application. &mdash;
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' No need to think twice before supporting him.

'''Support''' Tom has been nothing but supportive and helpful in my own contributions on Wikipedia and in other areas - when I've needed something he's always done a top job at my inquiries, concerns and questions. I think he'll really "up the ante" regarding quality admins - something we really need these days. Thanks Tom for considering adminship! (I already thought he was one, ha!)
--
'''Support'''.  His work at AfD and OTRS, which is directly related to the areas that he intends to work in as an admin, shows me that he'll keep up his outstanding service after getting the mop.--
'''Support'''. Great user, answered questions very well. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', definitely. Tom has been great community member for the past few years that I've known him, and I look forward to him having the additional abilities to help us in more ways.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' – Excellent work at AfD, and the answers to the posed questions are thorough and accurate. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' I see no problems, so I support. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
Well, this is a bit surprising. I kind of thought he was an administrator. Anyways, I'll support because I strongly believe that we need more administrators who are able to work effectively in the [[WP:DP|deletion process]].
Generally clueful. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
[[Bloody oath]]. <font face="Forte">
I, er, apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=NuclearWarfare&page=User%3ATom+Morris&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= blocked] Tom earlier this year, so I guess I will have to support to make up for it. '''<font color="navy">
As nominator. ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --v/r -
'''Support''' No reason not to, as far as I can see. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Support''' Long history with project and well-equipped to handle drama. I don't see any other issues and answers to questions indicate a solid thought process.
'''Support''' While I ideally would have liked to see more actual voting activity at AfD for an admin who primarily wants to work there, we desperately need more admins closing AfD's, and he seems to demonstrate a good understanding of how it works.
'''Support''' - OTRS access speaks for itself in terms of trust and communication, the two most important qualities required for adminship in my opinion. No reservations.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified for the job.
'''support''' '''
''Only'' 9 years experience and ''only'' 25,000 edits? My standard at Rfa is 10 years and 30,000 edits... Okay seriously '''Strong support.''' Excellent very trustworthy candidate with a highly respected nominator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Long-time Wikipedian, trusted by the community, great work at AfD, credible answers to questions, laudable content work. Should make a top-drawer sysop--
'''Support''' An experienced and extremely clueful editor, Tom is also friendly and helpful. I am sure he will make an excellent administrator and gets my full unreserved support. Best of luck, Tom --
'''Support''' As fetchcomms said, Tom has [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and I don't foresee him flubbing this up.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and clueful. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">'''
I swear, especially with his OTRS work, that I thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' - as clueful as the Daily Telegraph mega-bumper-hyper-edition crossword book.  Also very open to reason, level-headed, rational-thinking and (as far as I can see!)  non-grudge-bearing.  Sense of humour (especially when it can be directed against self) very  important for Admins.  Tom will be great.
'''Support''' I admit, I was going to default support here - I've met the guy and he seems like the sort that wouldn't go round blowing up the encyclopedia. But I did my review anyway and I was surprised at how much knowledge Tom has, and how willing he was get involved in difficult policy discussions. Certainly support.
I'm
'''Support''', <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' I've met Tom before at a Meetup and there's no doubt that he has lots of Wikipedia knowledge. Combine that to the fact that he has about 3 DYKs, it is obvious that he is very enthusiastic about his work. Giving him the mop is what he deserves to have.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Yes'''. ''
'''Support''' Well qualified.
'''Sure''', edits seem to be OK and good track record for civility and competence.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions.
'''Support''' I find no reason not to.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
''''Support''' The Citizendium work is a plus, not a minus; and, to my view, leaving it is not something negative but was , in this case, a distaste for the closed environment. He'll do very well here, form all indications.  '''
''''Support''' Disappointed that Fluffernutter finished her co-nomination before I got there. That aside, he'll be a sound admin (I have already mistaken him for one before).
'''Support''' - No concerns. I liked his answer to Q8 (third part) about the Scientology-related AfD. Shows that he gets some of the nuances of involvement, a thing which even experienced admins may go astray on.
'''Support''' - A solid candidate.
'''Support''' No concerns. '''''
'''Support''' AM comfortable with this - MOP PLEASE! <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' A great candidate; no concerns at all regarding their ability to wield the mop.
'''Support''' Does good work in OTRS. Did excellent work in [[:commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg]] which was uploaded by a famous person (Roger Ebert) and used on Wikipedia for more than 6 years. Yet he wasn't daunted by that when he saw the evidence that it was a copyrighted image of Getty Images.
'''Support''' I know Tom well from Citizendium, here and offline, and I trust that he will continue to deal sensibly with the tools and responsibilities given to him.  --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: especially rollbacking and an open mind.
'''Support'''. Obviously has great experience and is positively brimming with clue.
Unlike my erstwhile esteemed colleague NuclearWarfare, I won't hit the wrong knobs on Huggle or whatever technological gadget he was playing with and thereby accidentally block you to categorise this support as an 'act of wanton contrition'. Your answers alone incline me to '''support'''. --
'''Support'''. Not insane.
'''Support''' gladly per [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]]'s nomination, the co-nomination by [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]], and per support of all the above. '''
'''Support''', good answers. --
'''Support''' No concerns, he will go a fine job as an admin.
'''Support''' '''110% support'''!!! How can any one say he is not qualified!!!! Look at [[Special:Contributions/Tom_Morris|his contributions]] you can't deny the fact the is 'too cool' for [[Adminship]]. --
'''Support'''. Although I don't remember interacting with the candidate, I have a high opinion of the nominators. I looked through a lot of the candidate's talk comments, and he seems to me to be clueful, communicative,  and considerate. All of the negatives that have been raised in the RfA so far strike me as un-worrying. A very well-qualified candidate. --
'''Support''' No reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. I've found Tom to be a thoughtful and skilled contributor to our projects. No reason to think he would abuse the tools; to the contrary, I think Wikipedia will be much better off if he has them. I also highly approve of the choice to use a real name for a username, and think it is good for the public's perception of our project to have administrators who do so. -
'''Support''', [[no worries]]. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I've learned nothing that makes me doubt that this editor will use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''. I've met Tom at some of the meetups and got to know that he's a sensible guy. I think he'd make good use of the tools, and they certainly come in handy for OTRS work.
'''Support'''- No reservations.
'''Support''' There'll always be a learning curve ... even current admins still have one :-)  I'll forgive your work on Citizendium ... after all, I have friends who used to hold [[Rhinoceros Party]] memberships, but are still upstanding citizens in the long run ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. While I acknowledge that Pedro's comments raises the issue of responsiveness, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.  I think you are knowledgeable enough to deal with the tools. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Regards, '''[[User:Rock drum|Rock]] [[User talk:Rock drum|drum]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rock drum|Ba-dum]]</sub>''<sup>
'''Support''', no concerns —
'''Support''' - trustworthy and experienced editor.
'''Why the hell not''' - Above all, I know he is trustworthy and that counts more than anything. '''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
The blog entry Pedro cites below doesn't square with the aw-shucks answer to Q3. Moreover, why would anyone want to be an administrator here without firsthand knowledge of how they'll deal with conflict in this environment?
Whilst one normally cannot take off-site comments as adding either a plus or a minus you have a very clear link on your user page to your blog regarding you leaving Citizendium. [http://blog.tommorris.org/post/1629958884/citizendium-editorial-council-resignation-statement This] entry, some of which I agree with, nevertheless has some odd statements, not least '''''"Wikipedia and other projects have the principle of “assume good faith”. It is often hard to live by."'''''. I personally don't find assuming good faith ''that'' hard to live by.<p>I also note that after giving you a friendly heads up that you might need to sign the acceptance of this RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_Morris&diff=462461791&oldid=462461434] you simply could not be bothered to reply even though you have edited (at time of writing) some NINE other pages. Uncommunicative admins we '''don't''' need. People who either ignore common courtesy (i.e. replying) or don't think it is common courtesy to reply we also don't need. I'm sure this RFA will pass so FWIW I hope you take my comment in good faith and remember that a little more good faith, and a little more courtesy, are likely more important than a passionate interest in open source software to being a useful admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Concerns over AFDs where the subjects' notability appears to have been judged based on the WP article rather than other coverage, but other contributions look good.--
I cannot decide: I do not really know Tom Morris and his answers to the questions that I asked made me uneasy. The A4 is not really the differences between a Wikipedia admin and a company CEO but rather it is the lead section of an article titled "The difference between a sysop and a CEO". It is actually a very good answer; but I needed an excellent or outstanding answer to become a supporter of him. The A5 however is a bad answer. It appears to me that although Tom knows that the hypothetical User:A does not deserve a block, he would actually investigate deeper solely in search of another reason to inflict a block. These answers do not convert me from a neutral to a supporter.
Supported last time, happy to do so again.
I thought you were an admin already! --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
Come across the user on several occasions, Good luck. [[User:Croisés Majestic/Guestbook|—]]<span style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Calm hand on the tiller'''.  You have a nice tone and way of interacting.  Think that will stand you in good stead dealing with all the drama-monkeys around here.  Also, content is light, but at least contains several passages of prose and many referencing activities (from scratch, not tweaking).  I would not think of writing as only some "art" or that it is effective only if done as a super-verbalist.  It's about finding information and being clear to our readers.  That is significant work, but important and something that more and more is expected in daily life.  Hopefully stands you in good stead as a senior enlisted leader doing fitreps, staff assignments, etc.  Keep up the good work.
Familiar with your work. You always come across as pleasant and clueful. '''
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' – I don't see any outstanding issues, and the answers to the Q's were fine. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - In your last RfA I mentioned that your lack of experience gave me pause but I was driven to support you due to your demeanor and good judgement. This time around, you have the experience as well, so I unreservedly support you. -- '''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support.''' No issues with this candidacy. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''' No reason to decline - give the man a mop!
I would like to see more content work, especially for someone who wants to work in AfD. The relatively low (1214) number of mainspace edits is iffy to me. And usually, I assess candidates more in-depth if their edit counts are on the lower end of the admin average. But this user seems to know his stuff, from what I've seen of his work over the past few months. He doesn't have zero content experience—there's some fairly good work to be noted. He has a clue, and the only thing that annoyed me was he seems to like to write a lot. The answer to Q4 was fine, but it could have been shorter, as could the nomination statement. But that's no problem. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Candidate has made some mistakes, but who hasn't? Adminship is no big deal, and there is no reason why this candidate shouldn't have the tools.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' Has grown since last time and I see no reason to think the candidate won't do well. As a side note, I'm happy to see Brookie is still around.
—<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' No real concerns right now
'''Weak support''' He's a good man and a serious contributor. When writing articles or responding in the midst of a conflict, I benefit from a spell-checker and a grammar-checker, and I should use them more; these devices may help TParis also. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Lukewarm support''' Although the candidate could use some more content contributions and some refinement, I like the answers to the questions (particularly mine) and the serious workman-like approach he has taken to this RfA. I feel confident that he will not abuse the tools and will grow into the job.--
'''Support'''. The content creation isn't great, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support''' Meets most of my criteria, good answers to questions (satisfied with the answer to mine), clearly has the trust of the community, excellent communicator and he seems like a likable person. Also, he's done good CSD work. These things definitely trump the lack of content work, IMO. ''
Good luck.  &ndash;
I has faith in you! <!--Keep has the way it is. It's supposed to be a joke.--> [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazymonkey1123/guestbook&action=edit Sign]
'''Support''' (Moved from neutral) I am confident in this candidate and fully expect his tenure as an admin to be a net positive.
'''Support'''. While Wikipedia is attempting to address the lack of female editors on the project, I would have appreciated an example in the answer to question #4 to be a bit less sexist. I think the sexist comments made throughout the project are directly reflected in the underrepresented population overall and the tendency to think of Wikipedia as a "boys club no girls allowed" mentality. That said, I don't think this is a valid reason to oppose. I hope that as you move forward, you will work to align your words and actions in accordance with WMFs Strategic Plan in your participation in the project. I don't see any other glaring issues that would lead me to oppose. Best regards, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - I see no reason why you shouldn't be granted the mop :)
'''Support''' No red flags that I see that would prevent me from supporting.--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Good Luck.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Whenever I've seen TParis offering an opinion recently (usually at AfD, although I'm sure I've seen him provide input at other venues as well), I found his comments sensible and thoughtful. As Fetchcomms wrote, this candidate "has a clue" and, in my estimation, will make a good administrator. Verbosity certainly doesn't bother me.
I supported last time and am glad to see you back here again. I don't find the oppose section convincing, yes you weren't around much in 2010, but that wasn't recent in wiki terms as you've been active for 6 months since your 11 months of reduced editing. Looking through your deleted edits I saw one where I'd have tagged it as G10 rather than G3, but I had to hunt for it and you had valid G10 tags as well, so I think we can agree to differ there. ''
Happy to '''support'''. I've seen TParis working hard at NPP (often beating me to the tagging or fixing I'd wanted to do), and a review of contributions assures me that the candidate will handle the job just fine. Kudos to him for being up-front about the things he would have done differently; the ability to recognize and learn from mistakes is a very good one for an admin to have.
'''Support''' My brief interactions with TP have always been positive, and a review of contributions, talk page etc. shows no issues. A well rounded editor who will make sensible and cautious use of the tools IMO. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - great NPP work, CSDs I've checked look good --
'''Support''' Everything I see looks fine... '''''
'''Support''' While I agree with the oppose in that someone who wants to partake in deletions should have more content experience, I also feel this user would make a good admin due how I've seen him conduct himself onwiki and his knowledge thereof.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me.
'''Cautious Support'''. I'm sympathetic to many of the concerns raised by the opposers, but I'm coming down on the support side. It seems to me that the most important thing for an administrator—truly ''the'' single most important thing—is to, first, do no harm. I think the area where the candidate, if confirmed, could potentially be most likely to run into drama would be in closing a disputed AfD. I've looked hard at what the candidate has been saying over time, and it is very clear to me that this is someone who is, commendably, honest with himself about his strengths and weaknesses as an editor. He strikes me as someone with the good sense not to overreach. Therefore, I expect that you will be a helpful administrator. Please prove me right. (And, completely unrelated to the merits of the RfA, I'm glad to have learned about [[Le Pétomane]]!) --
'''Support''' - No concerns. I will support this request unconditionally. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTParis00ap&action=historysubmit&diff=321284718&oldid=321284647 supported last time] and am happy to support again: TParis is a fine candidate.
'''Support''' - calm and sensible user. Giving him the tools will be a net asset to the project.--
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support''' Thanks for waiting till I gave the !vote. Honest candidate. My interactions have been less with the editor; but my overall analysis of almost all edits going way back till the start of this editor's tenure, is quite positive. Yes, you can close it now. Thanks.
'''Support''', answers to questions appear clueful, and TParis has plenty of experience to back up the knowledge. --
There are several reasons I feel I must oppose. The main one being that an administrator with no interest in creating content who yet wishes to most of all participate in deletions is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, not a MMORPG. The deletion review incident cited is concerning. The timing of this nom does not show good objective judgment since the candidate has recently come back from a 13 month break and he appears to lack confidence in his abilities and commitment, making the motivation for this self-nom all the more puzzling.
'''Oppose''' His editing pattern seems too sporadic and his level of contributions too lightweight.
'''Oppose''' This is a second self-nom.  As such the candidate has had plenty of time to prepare his statement.  It is ''still'' full of grammatical errors, to the point that at times I am left wondering what the actual intention was.  An admin needs to be able to adjudicate disputes and ''clearly explain'' the reasons for their conclusions.  I fear TParis will simply prolong any disputes in which he becomes involved.
answers to DGG's questions are unsatisfactory. wants to work at RFPP, but as far as I can tell has never made a contribution there. mainspace contibs seem light. -
'''Neutral''' - I am concerned about the second part of the answer to question #4. My understanding of the credible requirement is that the claim have a reasonable possibility of being true. The problem is that in the response, the candidate acknowledges that the offered example could well be true. Now one could certainly debate whether being famous for a nice butt is enough of a claim of importance, but arguendo, if it is, then its certainly plausible that this person is famous for that reason. I think a better example of the rule would be something that is totally implausible, like claiming the subject who is still alive invented the wheel. There is no way that such a claim could possibly be credible. Combined with nominating statement point 2, which seems to demonstrate an over eagerness to see things deleted, I cannot support this RFA.
'''Neutral'''. I'm hesitant to support you, because I'm not really impressed by your reply to my question; your interpretation is, of course, correct and I'm happy to see that you would discuss with the blocked editor. However, I fear your reply lacks nuances: there are cases, I'm referring to BLP-vios, where a user, unaware of our policies, might make legal threats because, seeing he has been defamed, he wanted to remove the libellous statements and was reverted by a vandal fighter and, so, he did not know what to do; in those cases, a block is useless and can only inflame the situation, adding insult to injury. A very useful essay, in this regard, is [[WP:DOLT]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Neutral'''. This is a truly  neutral  comment  and is not  to be interpreted as a 'weak oppose'. I  am  recusing  myself from !voting  'support'  or 'oppose' because although I  very  much appreciate the comments in  the nomination  statement, I  would not  wish  the community  to  assume it  had influenced my  opinion  on  the candidate. However, there is strong  support from  regular  experienced RfA participants, and the oppose rationales are unconvincing. I'm  sure the community  will reach the right  consensus, and the closing  bureaucrat  will summarise accordingly.
I can't support with so little in the way of content experience, which ''is'' relevant because the candidate's primary interest is in deletion. In the past I would have opposed on that alone. But you clearly have clue, and that's just about enough to bring me back to neutral. Best of luck with the mop. —
'''Support''' Seen the editor around and have a good impression.  GAs look good and cited material looks accurate and paraphrased correctly.  CSD tagging also looks impeccable, shows good understanding of A7, A3, and A1.  Has my support.--v/r -
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' - this candidate will be able to contribute much more effectively with admin privileges. Good to see someone working on the spacefaring articles. -
I really don't see any reason to oppose.  Clearly shows experience across the board as opposed to focused on one or a few articles.  &ndash;
'''Support''' I don't see any reason not to support.
'''Support''' - Seems good to me.
'''Support''' - Definite support from me. Plenty of experience, including a great deal of solid article work and a large number of contributions in the Wikipedia project space. Good communication skills, a clean block log, and with GAs and DYKs. A solid all-around candidate. -- '''
'''Support'''. Good all-around editor, though it seems user has peaks and plunges in editing.--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
Will be a great addition to the admin corps.
'''Strong support''' - A person must not just be judged on how he cleans things up, but on how he writes, and how we judge his writing. (a weird response meaning: Am content after getting a response to my question.) <FONT FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' User is experienced in several areas of admin tasks, and I don't see any conduct issues.
'''Support''' Good contributions which show solid grasp of Wikipedia, and is willing to do the mundane sweeping up that is a large part of admin work. Articulate and level headed. Can walk and talk. '''
'''Support''' – A user that has both cleanup and article experience deserves to be an admin. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I just have an excellent impression of Tyrol. Don't quite recall any specific interactions, but there it is. ''
A clueful and trusted user with whom I have interacted on multiple projects. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
No concerns; happy to '''support'''.
'''Support''' Looks good to me!
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - Seen this user around for quite awhile. I see no problems, why not.
'''Nice guy with fair experience'''.  He comes across as calm and friendly which means a lot for being the better sort of admin.  He has done some article work (our product) and has also engaged in a lot of good policy and article talk discussions.  I kinda also like that he has some topic breadth experience (both medicine and space).  I looked at his page, nom statement (not the questions, being honest!), edit stats and a few articles he's been on. Also, went back and looked at some of his policy comments in the RFA reform 2011 discussions, where he was well composed and also providing real ideas and "paths forward" (not just a complainer, but a provider).  BTW, I probably disagree with his conclusions on RFA reform.  For example, I don't think drive by "not" [is that what the exclamation means?] votes are the problem in RFAs.  More the contrary really...and I find the rubber hits the road on the opposes (where a candidacy is decided) and they better research and thought and debate/discussion than the supports.  But I liked how he worked even if we disagree.  P.s.  Anyone who doesn't like my TLDR vote should realize that the candidate advocates more discussion and less voting structure in RFAs and even just sort of making that happen without waiting for a rule...so there! ;-)  P.s.s.  I wish there was some way for me to put paragraphs into my "comment of a vote".[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Support''' Per TCO, since I don't get to say that very often.
'''Support''' If there's a reason not to set the bit, I haven't spotted it. --

'''Support.''' Candidate has a solid record and is clearly trustworthy. Good answers to questions, and no obvious other problems. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support.''' Tyrol5 has made good contributions to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Sure!
'''Support''' Approximately four more GA's than I have and around an excess of four DYK's to my total... Not to support may be considered peevish; that and there is no indication they would abuse the flags.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. However I would like to see more activity in pulmonology-related articles. ;-)
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Why not.
'''Support''' No issues from me. '''
'''Weak support'''. I'm not really satisfied with your answers, but I haven't seen anything that might lead me to oppose. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">

'''Support''' Wield the mop well, and with care. :) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Clear discussion here and apparently good content creation. So far, there seems little discussion of the candidate's articles, alas. I would ask another editor to examine one of the candidate's articles for copyright violation problems, the way I and others have examined articles by earlier candidates. This RfA needs a comment like "I examined article XYZ for a good 30 minutes, checking for copyright violations and found none." <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Qualified candidate
'''Support''' Fully qualified.
'''Support''' Time for another mop to be issued. '''
'''Support''' - Seems fine to me. --
'''Support''' - Good luck with the mop! I wish you the best!!
'''Strong Support''' - Don't see any concerns. No [[WP:EQ|Wikiquette]] issues about this user. Lots of good edits to most edited article [[Pulmonology]]. -'''''
'''Support''' No evidence presented to oppose at this time. '''
No problems here. Per above comments and contributions it is clear that this candidate will be trustworthy as an admin.
'''Support''' I like your AFD voting and contributions.  [[Pulmonology]] is certainly better than it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulmonology&oldid=252204247 before you came along].
'''Support''' - Seriously, when one is faced with this answer from a prospective janitor, the call becomes a no-brainer, does it not? ''"A specific example is a situation in the past month or so where I should have tagged an article as SD criterion G10, instead tagging it G3 vandalism. The deleting administrator contacted me about it and I explained my viewpoint. In retrospect, I should have tagged the page G10 in lieu of G3; although it was borderline for G3, G10 was more accurate for the page in question and would have prioritized it for speedy deletion."''  Clean block log, more than 2 years experience, no indications of assholery.
'''Support''', looks good. I'm sure the admin backlog will benefit from having another wikignome on board. --
'''Support''' I've noticed Tyrol5 around, and after a quick skim through his contributions (should be more, I know) I see nothing to concern me. A good editor who will transfer well to being an admin.
'''Support'''; I think that creating highly-polished articles is rather orthogonal to most mop work, so - although impressive in general - they don't sway my opinion very much at RfA. However, I'm confident that the candidate is competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the mop. After a little snooping around I didn't see anything concerning.
'''Support'''; a competent, thoughtful and calm editor, good interaction with others.
'''Support''' Solid answer to Q3. All admins have to learn from the mistakes they made in the past.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 13,000 edits, high-quality article work, sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, and rollbacker.  Registered as user since 2008, so he's an old hand here and has proven his record. We need more scientific experts as sysops.
'''Support''' - Clean contributions and no blocks. Good luck!--
'''Support'''. Comes off well on talk pages related to pulmonology, good gnomish work, and if that discussion about CSD criteria was the worst drama, well, I'm envious! Clearly an intelligent and trustworthy candidate. --
'''Support'''. A quality contributor and good answers to all questions. Congrats on your forthcoming adminship. --
'''Support''' I'm not familiar with your work, but your deft handling of the questions (especially B's questions), your upfrontedness in regards to CSD tagging issues in Q3, and the fact that this has gone six and a half days without an oppose or even a neutral, all lead me to support.
'''Support'''  I guessed this RfA was coming  up and I had already  done my  research. If I had known ''when'' it  would be coming  up, I would probably  have been the nominator. He beat  me to it. The answer to  Q3 probably  alludes to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrol5&diff=next&oldid=437066909 this diff]. Golly, that's just  a standard "Im just  letting  you know..." message  sent as a courtesy - not  a criticism, and nothing  to worry about whatsoever unless you're getting  ten a week of them. A thoroughly  qualified candidate; I've been watching  since voting  opened and I'll  just  make my !vote now before it closes and wish Tyrol all the best  for the promotion  that  should be coming  in  a few hours.
'''Unanimous Support''' Congrats! &mdash;
'''Support''' – No reason to deny.
'''Strong, enthusiastic support''' as nom. -
'''Strong support'''. Depth and breadth of contributions is impressive, as are the comments and research in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vancouver Voice|this recent AfD]]. (I also quite like [[User:Valfontis/Tips and tricks|the tips and tricks page]].)
'''Support''' - Per nom.
'''Strong Support''' More than qualified and obviously trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Good attitude, impressive editing. No reason not to give her the tools.
'''Support''' as nom. I've been bugging her about an RFA for 3 years and I think it's a privilege to offer my support. &mdash;
I think looks like another good editor, so I'll give my support as well. &ndash;
'''Support''' The fact that she is primarily an article-space contributor does not hide the fact that she has made significant numbers of edits across the whole range of the project. And the rationale for needing the tools is reasonable. If she continues to create the encyclopedia as well as maintain it that can only be to her and our advantage.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''.  Satisfactory contentent creation and calm (please keep it calm, when you have the buttons) interaction in content disputes.  Basis: scanning the articles you started, looking at your discussions on talk page, and then the interaction we had on an article title.
Longterm user, clean blocklog, deleted edits look fine and I admire you for having an FA. I note the relatively low editing levels for much of last year that were raised by one of the questioners, but consider that no bar to adminship, especially in regard to your recent four months of activity. ''
'''Strong Support''' I concur. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">
I'm unfamiliar with your work but some research has yielded that you do a lot of good things. The Oregon WikiProject is a great group of editors, and I trust the nominators, so I have no reservations whatsoever. '''
Ceranthor's right. Valfontis seems like a clueful and sensible user, although I've never seen the username before today. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' What they said.
'''Support''' Per nominator.
'''Strong support''' I've been struggling to find a weakness in this candidate's body of work but cannot. Strong content portfolio, civil, cerebral &mdash; should make a top-drawer sysop.--
'''Support''' – Excellent editor. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Strong communicator, excellent contributions, looks good to me.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Extreme, no reservations, Support''' Valfontis is the model Wikipedia contributor, always fact based, with a higher standard than most for ''reliable sources''.  After at least three years of being uninterested in the [[WP:MOP|mop]], I'm delighted to see her pursuing adminship.  She will be a great asset!  —
'''Support''' - long time coming. Do note that although editor does not have "experience in administrative areas", who cares? Seriously, who cares? Nobody had experience editing Wikipedia until they started editing Wikipedia. Nobody had experience being an admin until they became an admin. Being an admin is simply applying our various rules in the proper way, but with extra buttons. And each and every action that an admin makes can be undone, as there is a level or two above. We simply look at a user's experience/contributions and judge how we think they can handle the ''role'' of being an admin. Are they hot headed, not such a good choice. Are they vindictive, not such a good choice. Do they fail to understand what a reliable source is, not such a good choice. Do they not know the precise way in which to submit an AIV report, who cares, as that they can learn. The tools and process can be learned; the temperament, intelligence, and character are what are far more important qualities in an admin.
[[WP:OREGON]] is a great project, and if they love her, I do too. - Dank (
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here. She is experienced and can be trusted with the tools.
Excellent Oregon-related work: I have seen Valfontis in the past, and I am sure she'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' - All looks good here. Clear support
Happy to '''Support''' this well-qualified candidate.
'''Strong Support''' - Satisfied with Q5 answer, but I'm wholeheartedly convinced by EncMstr. ''
'''Support''' Fully meets [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]]
'''Support''' I see huge amounts of exceptionally good work here, and not even a hint of anything that would cause me concern. A quiet spell for a few months? With the explanation given in Q5, I see that as a sign of good judgment - much better to step back for a short while than to burn out. --
'''Support''' No red flags. --
'''Support''' Tireless contributor, has always been cheerful with other editors and definitely knows how to build an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' No reservations. --
'''Support''' - without a doubt.
'''Support''' While I primarily ended up on this page out of curiosity, I was sufficiently impressed by the candidate that I decided to weigh in. I can only hope my level of competence and familiarity with various policies will approach those of Valfontis if I'm ever in a similar position.
'''Support''' Good content contributor, trustworthy user. No problems from me. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support'''—knows what they're doing. I can trust him with the mop at his fingertips.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''.  Based primarily on the strength of the editing history.  Answer to my question didn't address all concerns I had and her comment "one shouldn't use tags and banners to attack, own, edit war, vandalize, etc." in my view gives a strong inkling to what policies perhaps have the most applicability and should have been cited directly.  Still if an editor as experienced as Valfontis cannot point to a specific unambiguous policy covering the use of such cleanup tags I think it is an indication of the inadequate state of Wikipedia policy and guidelines on the topic.
'''Support'''. She is a great candidate.
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' The gap in the editing raises a little concern, but I am pleased with the answer the candidate gave, when asked about it. That, plus a bit of common sense (I believe) in regard to their overall experience, makes this candidate clearly a net positive.
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely. Valfontis is an amazing editor not only at [[WP:WPORE|WikiProject Oregon]] but everwhere else as well, and I trust her 100 percent with the admin tools. Sincerely, '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Not seeing anything wrong with her. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Full Support''' Brilliant user who has many edits. Answered my question brilliantly, in my view. <big>
'''Support''' slam dunk candidate. --
'''Support''' (moved from neutral) Without narrating the many reasons; I fully support this candidate.
'''Support''' after a review of contributions, including a few from various bits of Oregon I've had occasion to visit.  Looks like a fine candidate.  --
'''Support''' - Great candidate.
'''Support'''. Outstanding
'''Support'''. Simply awesome work, no doubts about this. '''''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Good answers, I think she deserves a nice new mop. '''
'''Support''' -- No concerns. I skimmed her talk archive and contribution history and did not find a single thing to dislike. She contributed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikiWooToo/Archive at least one sockpuppet case] and did all the correct things. Writes well. I suggest that we accept general cluefulness as a substitute for a record of experience in the admin areas.
'''Strong support''' Per nom. A model candidate. --
'''Strong support''' Deserves the mop. The contributions are great, the creations are not bad too. Also, the answers are well explained . <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Strong support'''.  It's about time. --
'''Support''' Almost didn't recognize her under her new username. --
This should have happened a while ago.
Valfontis is a [[Zaphod Beeblebrox|hoopy frood]] who really [[Know where one's towel is|knows where her towel is]].
'''Support'''. No problems that I can see, and I like the tips for new users linked from your user page. --
'''Tons of SUPPORT''' Has lots of potential.  ~~
'''Support''' could probably spoon-feed me [[WP:CLUE|clue]] for hours.
'''Oppose'''&nbsp; I'm new to this process, but given how close this is to closing, I wish to make a response.&nbsp; In my brief experience with the nominee, I have seen an ineffectiveness at first identifying the available facts, and then using the inductive process to limit his/her opinions to those that fit the available facts.&nbsp; <small>two diffs available on request&nbsp;</small> </small>
Seems like a thoroughly decent tenured editor who will wield the tools with caution if perhaps not frequency. Article work impresses and your talk page archive is littered with requests for help (often through your mentoring programme but also from outher sources) which indicates to me someone who has respect and is trustworthy and cluefull. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - Ummm...yeah. (I can provide a better rationale if asked, but why bother wasting the time on a probable [[WP:100]] unopposed?)
'''Support'''—I've seen you around and always been impressed with your calm and level-headed way of dealing with problems ([[User:Porchcorpter|case in point]]...) so good luck! <font color="#FFB911">╟─
'''Support''' - See no reason not to issue a mop
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' so far logs and other wiki and block log look OK.
'''Support''' I could not support an editor more emphatically than I can for Worm That Turned.  He has been a productive editor for over 3 years now, with a majority of his edits coming in the past year.  His work with his adoption school has been excellent and it proves that he has a clear understanding of policy.  He is one of the most knowledgeable editors I have met in administrative areas such as copyright issues and speedy deletion criteria.  The only thing I fear is that if you give Worm the mop, he might clear all of the backlogs and everyone will be moping around with nothing to do.
'''Support''' - If there's a reason this candidate shouldn't have the mop, I haven't spotted it. --
'''Strong Support''' - Experienced editor with a very good attitude. I believe would make an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely no reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Worm is my adopter. I've looked at the first adoption page, and even though it's only the first, I find it very comprehensive. Worm is friendly, and also cooperated with me very well. :) I think Worm will make a great admin! Good luck!
'''Support'''. You'll do just fine. --
'''Support'''. Worm is a great editor, who has helped me out of numerous struggles in the past. With the little help of some admin tools, this editor will only get better. His adoption programme is absolutely great, and the articles he has written are good too. In fact, I thought Worm was already an admin when I first came in touch with him - he deserves this. '''
Seems like a particularly humble and pleasant guy who's got the experience and a need for the tools. '''
'''Weak support'''. The candidate has no need for the tools, but is obviously trusted anyways.
'''Support''' - No reason not to. '''
'''Support'''. A solid contributor who can be trusted with admin tools. I'm particularly pleased about the mentoring work, because it demonstrates both knowledge and patience, which are key attributes for an admin. --
No problems. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - Absolutely. I've seen nothing but great contributions from you, and we definitely need more admins with the patience to deal with new editors. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''; Appears to be competent, hardworking, and can be trusted with the tools. The ''helpfulness'' is a big plus; I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that wikipedia's quality, in the long term, depends on how well we engage good new editors (not just how we deter bad ones).
'''Support''' - I seen the Worm around often, great contributor will do fine.
'''Support''' - Looks to me after reviewing the above that you will be a good addition to the mop-and-bucket crew.  Best wishes,
'''Support'''. In every interaction I've had with the candidate, he's been friendly and helpful. Anyone who has the patience to deal with some of the mentees he has without going postal clearly has the temperament to deal with whatever adminship might throw at him.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''

'''Support''' I have not reviewed this editor's work for this RfA but over the years I have seen this person on pages which I have edited and I remember the username as being one that was attributed to good edits.  I see that WtT now wants adminship; helpful editors should have this.
Assumed that the worm was an admin already, so let's make it so!
'''Support''' Review of random recent contributions shows clue and restraint, valuable attributes for an admin. --
'''Support''' Seen the candidate around often and always in a positive matter. He should be as clueful as an admin as he is now as an editor - despite the weird name ;-) Regards '''
'''Support''' - Easy decision. Great contributor and terrific mentor. Worm has immense patience with adoptees - even very difficult ones. --
'''Support''' Excellent answer to question 1, both in demonstration of need and commitment to take it slow in areas with less experience.
'''Support''' Makes a persuasive case so I'm piling on. No need to thank me for my support when this passes, in case you were planning to. You're welcome. Regards,
Looks like a great candidate. ~~
'''Support''' I didn't really research, but Pedro says it well.  Everything I've seen indicates appropriate level of clue.  Collect your mop at the door .. then go block Jimbo. :P — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' More than ready to wield the mop. --
Support strongly. Looks like an ideal candidate --
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' – No issues here, and OTRS volunteers are always helpful. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - I see no issue with this user being a new admin. Seems very reliable and trustworthy.
'''Support''' a great editor, I thought you already were an admin! '''
'''Support''' - You're a very helpful editor to Wikipedia; you deserve a promotion for your contributions. Best regards.
'''Support''' - Skilled editor who seems like they'd make a fine admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Staples''', that was easy.
'''Support'''. I know you have been hesitant to pursue adminship, but I am grateful that you stepped forward. I have full confidence in your abilities to continue assisting others, while seeking guidance in areas with which you may not be familiar. I believe that you will be an excellent addition to the admin team. Best regards, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
Yep. Good answers to questions and you have a record of sound judgement. Thank you for putting yourself forward.
'''Support and watch out for the jerks'''.  That Mikeymand fellow had an aggressive tone to him right from the start.  Probably some old Wiki-drama socker.
'''Strong Support'''. I absolutely love those easy descisions in life. This is surely one of them. This editor has shown that he is capable, infact many users who have gotten into contact with him on Wikipedia, would have to of mistaken him for an administrator, for his excellent work and contribution to the project. You have my full confidence + support. Wondering why you didn't apply any earlier...but better late than never. Great work, excellent candidate, good luck! --
'''Support'''. Sensible, level-headed editor who would put the tools to good use. More importantly, however, he realises the value of clotted cream!
'''Support'''. Great contributor. Deserves to be an administrator.--
'''Support''' - I see no reason to vote otherwise.
'''Support''' - Looks like a very good candidate. --
'''Support'''; cue "I thought he was already an admin" et al. Seriously, though, he looks great and I'm sure he'll do fine.
'''Support''' - Most of my reasons for supporting have already been mentioned above (good answers, good contributions, no serious problems), but I'd like to also add that I've seen WTT involved in numerous discussions and he has always struck me as being very cordial and full of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. -- '''
'''Support''' - No concerns. Overall I think WTT is a well-rounded contributor with good ideas and reasonable inter-personal skills. Best of luck.
'''Support''' - Everything looks good.  You appear to have a good, even temperament, which is the most important thing I look for in an admin.  I'm not hugely concerned with lack of XfD experience, as you seem clueful and cautious, and any mistakes you would make could be easily reverted by one of the other thousand admins.  Barring the reveal of any particularly nasty skeletons in your closet it seems like you'll be accepted without any contention, so I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you. Keep up the good work!
Good luck, WTT. &ndash;
'''Support'''. WTT shows quality as an editor and, most importantly for RfA, a clear and calm demeanor when interacting with others, backed up with solid answers to the questions posed here -
'''Support''' per Ironholds.
'''Support'''. Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' Knowledgeable, competent.
'''Support''' - Good Heavens, I thought WTT was already an admin! I really ''like'' to see someone who's prepared to admit to any need to be cautious in areas with which they may be unfamiliar - this shows that they really ''can'' be trusted not to do anything daft through lack of knowledge or experience.  I cannot see any reason why Worm shouldn't be awarded the mop; beautifully level-headed, a good communicator (even if things hot up a little), trustworthy, competent, and with nice amounts of brain-power to back it all up.  Who cares if Worm starts off only in restricted areas?
''
'''Support''' - Very  easy  decision. Although  he barely  scrapes through  on [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria|some of my  criteria]],  he has some very  strong  support here which  I  am  please to  put my  name to. Worm  and I  have collaborated and crossed paths in  many  different  areas and I  know his work  well.  He has voted on over  30 RfA and also  knows how to  research  and provide [[Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs#2011|complex data]],  so  he certainly  knows what  is expected here and would not  risk  this self-nom if there were any  doubts as to  his competency  for wielding  a mop  handle. He is a [[User:Worm That Turned|mature, intelligent  individual]]  with  a professional approach to  his work here, and above all tact  and diplomacy  come up  trumps every  time. His creations and contributions to  GA demonstrate a clear knowledge of the principles involved. His work  on  deletion and page patrolling  may  be low but  they  may  not  be his area of special  interest -  it  might  be the main  occupation for many  admins but  there are plenty  of other areas where his knowledge and communicative skills will  be a great  asset to  the project. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Worm_That_Turned/ work  on  adoptions] is exemplary and leaves no  further doubts as to  how Wikipedia works.. There are absolutely  no reasons to  believe he would abuse the tools and he will probably use them  sparingly to  begin  with. I  wholeheartedly  look  forward to  welcoming  him  to  the corps of sysops.
'''Support''' - Happy with the contributions I've seen. He's not hung up on Wikipolitics, does a good, solid job on the tasks that he does, and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. That's enough for me.
'''Strong support''' Good editor with intelligence & calmness, who has demonstrated leadership and commendable goodwill towards less experienced editors, and whose content contributions improve all the time.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I'm with Kiefer on this one, and I think this editor has the right temperament.
'''Support''' Obviously. I don't know ''how'' this person wasn't an admin in the first place.
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support''' - A perfect editor and no issues at all. Has 7 good articles and one DYK article.--
With a similar rationale to Reaper Eternal.
'''Support''' Good content creator.
'''Support'''. Seems sensible.
'''Support''' - Everything I have looked gives me nothing to question suitability for the extra tools.
'''Support''' Since I already thought you were an excellent admin, I'll jump on this [[bandwagon|hayride]].
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support''' I am glad to support this well qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Sensible person, experienced enough. No problems here.
'''Support''' Level-headed, patient, and capable.
'''Support''' Why not? &mdash;
'''Support''' No offense meant to him, but any editor who actually cares about content enough to join the Wikicup means he is better than all of the rest of them. I would ask Worm if he thinks he thinks that content is better than gaining status (run in a meaningless but fun cup and run for a meaningless but fun mop) but he is already in regardless of any conversation. And his name reminds me of a FNM song. "Why not" is stupid though.
'''Support''' Primarily because of his mentoring work that I've seen with [[user:Porchcorpter]] (a lost cause if ever there was). We have plenty of technical competence amongst our admins, but we also have far too many who see admin work as being its own justification, favouring the exercise of policy over added value. Worm seems to take a wiser view of this, and remembers that there is a broader picture. Inexperienced? Maybe - and the fix for that is experience.
'''Support''' I should declare first that WTT recently became my mentor, although we haven't had that much interaction as of yet. I have watched his editing for a while now, and he is always polite, patient and seems to have a wide ranging knowledge of policy. His extensive mentoring work thus far also should be highlighted. Seems he has what it takes to make a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' When I first met Worm I was surprised he wasn't an admin, when I first came across him I had spent just enough time on WP to start to get my bearings and kinda know how things worked around here. As far as I could tell Worm either satisfied or over satisfied the qualifications to become an admin. At first I thought he was an admin and I was surprised to find out he wasn't , although I'm glad I can now support him here. <span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
'''Support''' Calm, level-headed, seems likely to do a good job at defusing conflicts. All-in-all, an excellent candidate.
'''Weak support'''. I appreciate your OTRS and adoption work; therefore I'll support, despite your lack of experience in admin-related areas. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' I cannot see any major issues with this candidate.

'''Support''' It has become more obvious to me that Worm will probably make a great admin, especially based on the reasonings of the supporters. So I am supporting now. Like in my neutral vote, I think that if Worm can be a humble administrator, then that'll be good. I am always grateful to my mentor for mentoring me. I'd suggest a closure per [[WP:RIGHTNOW]], since this RFA has lots of support. -'''''
'''Support''' Seems reasonable and a fair communicator which is a big plus. Would have liked to have seen more content creation but meh.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Editor has a habit of doing the correct thing.
'''Support''' I've had only positive experiences with WTT and am sure he will be a level-headed and helpful admin.
'''Support''' just feel that I need to support, I don't think adminship is a big deal
'''Support'''. Sure, looks good. --
'''Support'''. Regular communicating in IRC, don't have any problems with him. So why not? <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''', a good candidate, disagree with oppose number 2. If the editor would benefit the project, and there are no suspicious signs, what does it matter whether their activity fluctuates somewhat? I'd understand if it was very spiky, but it isn't. --
'''Support'''. Why not? --
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' Ticks all the right boxes for me - as others have detailed above; demonstrable patience, understanding and cluefulness. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Person has good answers to question and can be trusted with the tool. '''
'''Support''' - The patience of [[Job (biblical figure)|Job]] shown by mentoring is almost enough for me, but the answers and actual experience seal the deal. WTT has clue and will be an asset. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. Absolutely yes, per above. '''''
'''Support''' – of course. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support'''. Highly clueful editor, helpful to others, answered questions intelligently, no red flags.
'''Support'''. Level-headed editor dedicated to impoving the encyclopedia. Will make a fine admin, even if he/she/it does focus on topics that ''[[Waveney Council election, 2011|are]] [[Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association|rather]] [[Stargazy pie|odd]]''.
'''Support'''. I don't weigh in on a lot of RfAs, and it's not as if this one won't succeed anyway, but I can't not comment. What do we want in administrators? Experience is nice, but cluefulness is essential, and Worm has that in abundance. Being a good and patient communicator is definitely an asset for an admin, and his ability to take constructive criticism in a positive manner and pick out any good points from not-so-constructive criticism while discarding the destructive stuff without letting it get to him (or so it seems, anyway) is truly admirable, and ''definitely'' something I want from a Wikipedia admin. Or, in other words, "What they said." --''
OK. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2011/Radical_alternatives&diff=436826205&oldid=436826013 not as much as you] but enough. Nice to see someone put work in to helping others become better contributors. Would have been at #2 but got back from perusing your menteeship of User:Porchcorpter to see them in the neutral column so thought it prudent to dig up some more dirt on you ;-) --<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Support''' for his conduct in the User:Pdfpdf shenanigans, '''weakly''' for mangling the title of his userpage with technical wizardry. <small>'''
While I think it would be a best-case scenario for all new administrators to come into their new roles with a vast wealth of admin-related knowledge, we all know that isn't really possible. In my opinion, that's what the new admin pages are for - to provide extended knowledge and a bit of guidance. Common sense to know that there is an issue in a particular instance, that there must be an answer somewhere, and to have a general idea of where to look for said answer (commonly referred to as part of "cluefulness") is a great aid to any new admin. That being said, I don't see any reason to believe that WTT does not have a clue and that giving them a mop would be a detriment to the community. '''Support'''
'''Support''' will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. I see nothing that even comes close to raising any red flags for me in any of the opposing comments. I like what I see in terms of being friendly to new users (including adoptions), having a clear and constructive plan for where to use (and not use) the tools, and the sense that I get that the candidate is not the kind of person who would do any harm. --
No alarms here, seems clueful. Just go steady at CSD for a while.
Pile on support.  I do want to point out that [[User:Axl]] is mostly right that the use of language is important in an online collaboration where other forms of communication such as body language do not exist.--v/r -
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and adminship is no big deal. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support'''.  There is definitely enough to show reliability.  I am sort of surprised by those talking about instability because of an absence.  If an editor only had the ability to access Wikipedia 2 months out of the year and was a solid contributor for 6 years, I would view his trustworthiness as ''at least'' as established as someone who had made comparable contributions over one year.  I also just find this editor an odd choice to make an absence argument in the first place.
'''Support'''. On several occasions I've introduced new editors to Worm's adoption school, sometimes because the editors were encountering (or causing) difficulties, sometimes purely because the editors wanted to learn as much as possible about editing, in a structured way. The very strong impression I get when observing Worm's mentoring, is of someone with a very calm temperament, who - as noted in his answer to Q3 - really doesn't get stressed about anything on Wikipedia. That's a quality that's very valuable in an administrator, but I'm doubly happy to support when I see in his answers to some of the other questions, that despite his relaxed demeanour, he's prepared to take a hard line on issues where it's really needed. --
'''Support'''. See no concerns here.
'''Support''' - No concerns. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' I have concerns about the candidate's experience, and I think more could be done to show us that the candidate is capable and competent in admin areas, particularly in areas relating to deletion.  The candidate expresses an interest in helping with the admin backlog (which is very general and could include anything) and specifically with OTRS, AIV, CSD's, and XfD's, but I see very little experience in most areas with admin backlogs.  It appears that you have tagged a total of [[User:Worm That Turned/CSDlog|3 articles for speedy deletion]], a total of [[User:Worm That Turned/PRODlog|6 articles were PRODed]], and you have contributed to a total of [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=Worm+That+Turned 38 AfD discussions] of which you were the nominator for nearly half.  <s>The latest PROD I checked was applied with a reason of {{diff|Jerry Jasinowski|433169971|431438786|"place reason here"}}.</s>  The candidate has only really been active for less than a year, and has about 6000 edits in that time, which is acceptable in my opinion but on the relatively low side for RfA, and in these marginal cases I want to see strong signs of familiarity with admin areas.  Tag a bunch of articles for CSD, do some prod patrolling (declining and seconding other editors' prods), perform some non-admin closures at AfD, vote in more AfD's, provide some [[WP:3O|third opinions]] etc., so that we can get an idea of how you will operate in these areas as an admin.  I applaud your work with adoption/mentoring and your GA's/DYK's, but that work doesn't require adminship.  I feel this RfA is a bit premature and I'm not seeing a need for the bit at this point.  But it looks like you'll probably pass, and if you do I wish you the best of luck.
'''Oppose (might go to neutral)'''. I'm sorry, but your edit count seemed a little low and when I looked at your monthly edit count, I saw a very prolonged period of little to no activity. If you can show long term stability with regular editing, I will be happy to support !vote you. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazymonkey1123/guestbook&action=edit Sign]
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns regarding WTT's communication with other editors. See under !vote 74 in the "Support" section.
Analysis needed-- you have a typo in your nomination statement (it's wise to take more care with these things), mention numerous DYKs and GAs but don't name them, and a quick glance at only one of your GAs ([[Bacon ice cream]]), shows uncited original research in both the lead and the body.  "Bacon ice cream has started appearing on on many high-end restaurant dessert menus, where it is generally well received." I hope it doesn't fall to me again to analyze the quality of the content you use to further your candidacy, and that someone else will do the work this time.
'''Neutral''' I cannot outright support you because of your lack of admin-related area experience, but I cannot outright oppose either due to your OTRS and mentoring work.  I'm sure you will do fine, and will gain experience in the Wikispace in no time. :)
I'm afraid I can only offer '''moral support''' for now, but if you keep up your good work and wait six months to a year, I'd be more than happy to fully support you. Happy Holidays! Kindest regards,
Not yet. Happy Christmas anyway.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but not nearly enough experience. I had a brief look at your edit history and saw CSD-A7 and A1 tags placed within a minute of article creation, as well as vandalism warnings given for run of the mill mistakes like a badly formatted image insertion into an infobox. '''''
'''Moral support'''. I cannot support you at this time due to your lack of experience and your answers. Merry Christmas, however. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Moral support''' for Christmas. Thanks for offering to take up the admin mop to help clean up vandalism, but you'd need a fair bit more experience first. --
'''Oppose''' Not ready for prime time. 2100 edits so far, according to X! Edit Counter (not enough in my book). I see anti-vandal work lately but no work on articles (copy edit, creation, discussions). Not well rounded yet. --
'''Oppose'' Sorry, with 2K edits, you need one hellacious nomination statement. I didn't see it, so I think there is a disconnection between your understanding and our expectations.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">
'''Oppose''': As your edits are good, but your nomination needed more information, I think.  Moral support (but not for christmas)  ~~
'''Oppose''' . Not  ready  for this yet  I'm  afraid. Did you read all  the guidelines at   [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|RfA guide]], [[Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship|RfA Miniguide]], and especially [[WP:Advice for RfA candidates|''Advice for RfA candidates'']] before attempting  this?
'''Oppose''' Badly written answers to the questions. I mean, they should be much longer than just a one phrase answer. I appreciate all your help in the rollback department and you do have potential in the future, but not just yet.
'''Oppose''' I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. I would like to see more thorough answers to the questions. Please come back later and try again. --  '''
'''Oppose''' Due to lack of experience, expertise and the answers which were provided.--
I'm not going to have time to finish this review before the RFA snow closes. But there are some key skills that an admin needs to have demonstrated, one of which is the ability to add reliably sourced material to the pedia. If your best contributions are vandalfighting then I have to hunt for that in your contributions, and I'm afraid I don't have time to wade past all the vandalfighting to see if you have demonstrated that skill. So I suggest for next time that you include some examples of that in your best contributions. I'm not asking for a GA or even a DYK though there are some who expect that. But I do expect to be able to check that an admin has that skill. Also a minor point, would you mind changing the colour of your signature? That pale blue has insufficient contrast against a white background. ''
<s>'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, and answers that were worse than mine before I revised them. <i><b>
'''Oppose'''. "''What I now know to be true, is that a consensus can override policy, and as such, the article was deleted.''"  No.  The article was deleted because it was a flagrant example of [[WP:BLP1E]], an article on a minor who asked questions to politicians on TV programs.  There was much coverage of his question and the politician's replies to them, but none whatsoever of him.  The AfD is [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joel_Weiner|here]] (with some content moved to the talkpage), the DRV is [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_27#Joel_Weiner here]].
Not a serious RFA.  While the editor is worthy of attention, this RFA is not, per the editor's admission that they're more interested in making a point or two.  Also, the editor misunderstands [[WP:BLP1E]]. - Dank (
'''Oppose'''. You stated yourself that this was not a serious RfA. Perhaps you would've liked to try [[WP:Editor review]] instead?
'''Oppose''' per the Utahraptor. You're running for adminship so that message does matter.
'''Oppose''' basically per {{User|Dank}}. You're a great contributor, but I cannot support you on this occasion, because you explicitly chose to run to make a point. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' "I am not expecting this request to be successful" Then why run for adminship? It's just a waste of time for everyone and [[WP:POINT|pointy]]. Regardless, you don't have enough experience for me to support.
'''Oppose'''. If at some stage the candidate wants to make a serious request for adminship, I will consider it seriously. But since this one is just a [[WP:POINT|pointy]] game, I'm not playing. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Blatant violation of [[WP:POINT]]. Somebody please close this RFA.
'''Oppose''' - Per above, I do not feel that you have had enough experience on the encyclopedia to yet be ready for sysop tools. Additionally, this is and RfA, a place where the community discusses your eligibility for adminship. This is ''not'' the place to be arguing every oppose. If other members of the community feel that an oppose was wrongly made, they will argue it. Your role right now is to answer questions, not discuss.
'''Strong oppose''' Running an RfA not intending to succeed just to make a [[WP:POINT|point]] is unhelpful, and there is no question of supporting it. What is more, having done this is likely to count strongly against the candidate in any future RfA, unless they can show pretty clearly that they have changed their attitude significantly. In addition, the candidate's comments regarding the deletion of [[Joel Weiner]] would in itself be enough to make me oppose. The candidate was belligerent and unconstructive in the discussion, but I would be happy to take the line "that was a while ago, when this person had little experience of working on Wikipedia, and is of little relevance", were it not for the fact that the candidate has brought this up in this RfA, insisting on a view of the deletion which does not fit the facts. The deletion was fully in line with policy, and an editor who does not understand that is not suitable to be an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. If you know you're going to fail, go away and stop wasting our time. --
'''Support'''. My interactions with him (though limited) have been good, and I don't see anything seriously bad in his contribs. Looks like he will do good with the mop. '''
'''Support''' Experienced editor, clean block log, would definitley benefit the community if given a mop :)
'''Support''' I definitely have no concerns.
'''Support''' Had issues when first starting on ACC but now the user seems to be doing some good work both on ACC and on the Wikipedia itself.
'''Support''' Don't see any problems. <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' No problems.  ~~
'''Support'''- I've seen current admins provide more childish/crushing outbursts than what you've come up with. I look what you've done around here, and what you've achieved is good.
'''Support''' - Great candidate. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - Don't see any problems either. Nothing but good experiences with this user in the past. ''
'''Support''' - The overall quality of this candidates contributions, their mature intentions and zeal for Wikipedia have greatly diminished the concerns of my peeve. My support extends beyond this RfA.
'''Support''' - I have personally interacted with this fellow, and I believe him to be a fine candidate. He's not perfect, but no one is, and many successful RfA candidates are a lot less so than he.-
'''Support''', don't see why not --
Some of the opposes are quite silly. Support in favour of neutralising them.
'''Support'''. (Second time I'm writing this tonight...) I think that if approved, the candidate would move slowly with the tools and wind up doing a fine job with them, so this is a true support rather than a "moral support." That being said, the outcome of this RfA is already pretty clear, and the candidate would probably be well-advised to withdraw soon and to try again after a few months of editing taking the opposers' and neutral commenters' concerns into account.
Based on age and maturity reasons. Also, lack of in-depth content contributions—only one or two of the DYKs listed on his user page was primary written by this user, and as far as I can tell, the GA (calling those edits a "major" contribution is using the term a bit liberally) was passed with some serious sourcing issues. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' - I'm going to have to pass on this one.  The candidate hasn't been active for more than a year and doesn't seem to have a content-creation focus. Though I like what work he has done (and AfC needs a lot of help), I can't support at this time.  --'''
'''Oppose''' This is only one link I've found, and it does seem like a while ago, but I was unimpressed to see a response like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLooie496&action=historysubmit&diff=388874306&oldid=388868132 this] to somebody he disagrees with. Other than that, his recent contributions shows that sometimes he uses edit summaries inappropriately, adding "Blech" and "Grrr" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Header&diff=prev&oldid=428409298]. He might be working at areas which are uncontroversial, but the links above show poor temperament and are the reasons why I don't support this candidate.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience.  You say you want to work in UAA, RFPP, PERM, RM, ect, but you have made a minimal number of edits, < 25 to each area you have indicated you wish to work (e.g. [http://toolserver.org/~thebainer/contribs-by-article/index.php?username=Ancient+Apparition&namespace=4&page=Usernames+for+administrator+attention&database=enwiki&action=Go], [http://toolserver.org/~thebainer/contribs-by-article/index.php?username=Ancient+Apparition&namespace=4&page=Requests+for+page+protection&database=enwiki&action=Go]).  Honestly, I do not feel that is adequate experience to judge your competency in these administrative areas.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''', concerns about experience and content familiarity. -- '''
Not malicious. But see [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcrop/Getting adminship|this MFD]]. You expected reasons to delete for small reasons. This does not show that you understand the '''main purpose''' of pages and is not good enough to see in an admin. -
'''Oppose''' – Lack of experience. "Well-intentioned" is bearable for editors but dangerous for administrators. --
'''Oppose''' I think it is good the candidate is transparent in his nomination but I feel he is too inexperienced, particularly in planned admin workspaces as Fastily points out above. He is an enthusiastic and good editor but more experience and knowledge is needed in article and administrative areas.--
'''Oppose''' Lack of content contribution, admin-area experience plus maturity issues, which are only highlighted by the persistent responses to oppose votes by the candidate '''
'''Oppose'''. User states that he wants to close AfDs, yet the only time I can recall seeing him is at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorgi Coghlan|this AfD]], where he displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This was only last week and comments like "just having major Australian newspaper articles written on a person does not equal instant notability" are worrying. I personally know little about UAA, RfPP and RfPERM, but Fastily's oppose that you actually have very little participation in those areas is convincing. In addition (although you have not expressed a wish to work in CSD), your answer to Q4 is incorrect. The correct response would be to decline the A7 (clearly makes an assertion of importance/significance) and, if you couldn't find any sources, tag for BLP PROD or send to AfD. Speedy deleting the article because it's unreferenced and doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO is incorrect and would be pretty BITE-y if the creator was a new user (many new users are unaware of Wikipedia's strict BLP policy and will often supply sources if the article is tagged for BLP PROD or, better, asked on their talk page for references).
'''Oppose''' Per Fastily's rationale on administrative areas as well as Jenks24 AFD rationale and Porchcrop's MFD rationale (even though Porchcrop was directly involved in the issue, it's still a valid point).  Candidate just doesn't understand deletion guidelines and especially CSD#A7.  Although, perhaps he went that direction because he thought the question was on the [[WP:BLP]] policy, but it's clear that Monty845 intended the question to be on [[WP:CSD]].--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 4 demonstrated an inadequate understanding of deletion policy. In my opinion, summarily deleting the article would be out of process, which was neither identified as such nor justified as an IAR. Jenks24 answer with the addition of notifying the CSD tagger of the reasoning behind it would have been an ideal answer, though there are other approaches that would also have been acceptable. Deletion is something that should be approached with caution out of respect for the energy good faith contributors have put into what ever it is you are considering the deletion of, and I'm not seeing enough of that for me to be comfortable supporting this RFA.
'''Weak oppose''' per very little experience in areas in which he wants to participate. Ultimately, there is no replacement for experience, and even if you know what to do actions speak louder than words.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't think you're quite ready yet.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I do not see enough experience overall in many areas. Try to re-apply at a later date. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Weakest possible oppose''' Candidate has been entrusted with many tools and has been highly active for a year; however, there are a few of areas of concern such as more experience in the administrative areas and a better understanding of policy. A few more high quality content contributions and mentoring would also be helpful.--
'''Oppose''' - Light experience.  Some maturity issues mentioned above.  Get some experience, I'm sure they'll be ready.
'''Oppose''' Not quite comfortable with giving this candidate the extra buttons, at this time. I have no problem with their age, but some of the concerns previously raised do give me reason for concern. With more experience, I may be able to support this candidate in the future.
'''Oppose''' Q4 is way out of order, I suggest that the candidate read up on BLPprod and perhaps strike their original answer write a new one. ''
'''Oppose'''. Not willing to support anyone who so harmfully misunderstood A7/BLP that recently. In a few months of no CSD tag misuse I might support. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''', Concerned about the experience. With more exprience and more quality content contributions, I may support this candidate in the future.
'''Neutral''' - Have not seen enough.  Perhaps in time ... --
'''Neutral''' Neither able to support or oppose, gut felling is not quite yet.  My apologies. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''' Concerned with the answer to #4, but I'm not sure yet. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Neutral''' – James is clearly a very helpful user, but he lacks experience in certain admin-related areas, so I'm not supporting or opposing. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' I really try to avoid outright opposes at RFA, but 188 edits is just not enough to run.
'''Not now'''. Not enough experience, sorry. Also, the fact that you didn't follow the instructions and put this request at the bottom of the RfA page doesn't make it any better.
'''Support''' Good editor, passionate about improving Wikipedia.
'''Moral support'''. For an editor with ~4k edits and an GA under the belt, that's very good. However, I would like to see you to be more active both in editing and engaging with the community (e.g. conversation, policy making/suggestion).
Sorry, but I do not see enough experience in the areas you express interest in working in, i.e. [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]]. In fact, I do not see ''any'' edits to those pages.
'''Oppose''' While I'm not worried about your relatively low edit count, I have a hard time supporting an RfA candidate who wishes to work with [[WP:AIV]] yet has not made a single report to that noticeboard. Your long service and consistent editing history is certainly a good thing, but your lack of experience is a broad range of areas is not. I suggest you take a more active role in administrative functions and then try again in six months. Best of luck.
'''Oppose''' - Little or no experience in anti-vandalism areas, which is the candidate's stated area of interest.  I have looked through your contributions and found one revert for vandalism and zero edits to [[WP:AIV]].
'''Oppose, with moral support'''. Heart's obviously in the right place, plus the Good Article is excellent. However, I cannot support any administrator candidate that doesn't have a single edit to any administrative project page to his name. No prejudice whatsoever against supporting once the candidate has gained the relevant experience.
'''Oppose''': Per {{user|WilliamH}}.  Possible SNOW close.  ~~
Regretfully. It looks like you've done ''great'' content work, but your experience other areas (specifically the one you intend to work in- anti vandalism) is just too light. The good news is that you don't ''need'' to be an administrator to get more involved in anti-vandal work! Patrol [[special:RecentChanges|recent changes]] manually for a bit and then request [[WP:ROLLBACK|rollback]]. You'll then have access to tools such as [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]] that will allow you to revert massive amounts of vandalism very easily. Best regards,
Regretful oppose. You do amazing content work, but I just don't see a need for the sysop tools here, or enough experience to judge how you'd use them.
'''Oppose for now''' I'm going to oppose for now. Try to get some more experience with the [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] (as stated in Q1) under your belt. After you do, I'll be sure to support you. --  '''
'''Oppose''' – I have to unfortunately oppose due to a lack of experience within the areas of anti-vandalism (no edits to [[WP:AIV]]), where you plan to be working in. Come back in a few months with more experience, and I may support you next RfA. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]], without prejudice. Editor needs more work on project pages; however, content work is admirable.
'''Oppose''' 28bytes gets the right points. Content work is a big <span style="color:green">+++</span>, but you say you want to work in certain admin areas that you don't participate in, really. Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:NOTNOW]] be active for just 1 year
'''Oppose''' Concerns with limited experience in indicated areas of interest, breadth of exposure. -'''
'''Oppose''' As answer to Q1. "More anti-vandalism" - there's not much to start with - 1 single automated edit - sorry, but you are too early. Do some anti-vandal - [[WP:TW]] with [[WP:VF]] are not bad to start with and need no extra permissions, move up to [[WP:HUGGLE]] and show plenty of clear anti-vandal working with correct warnings and reports to [[WP:AIV]], then you might be in a better position to give such an answer. '''
'''Neutral''' The candidate's content work is very good. Ankitbatt only has about 4,000 edits over the course of 2 years, and has limited work in administrative areas. However '''quality''' is more important than ''quantity''. As the candidate has one [[WP:GA|Good Article]], and a potential for at least two more, I am hesitant to oppose on grounds of lack of experience. Content builders do gain significant policy knowledge through writing articles. Therefore I am currently neutral. Answers to optional questions may sway me one way or another.
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and experience. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] and the user's misunderstanding of what adminship is all about. '''
'''Oppose and suggest nominator withdraw now''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]/terrible answers to standard questions.
'''Support''' Abundant quality contribs to our sports coverage, including recent work on GA candidate [[Steve Davis]]. Uploads large quantities of nice pics with extensive fair use rationale.   You mention conflict but I doubt its possible even for a saint to avoid wiki fights if one contributes as prolifically as you do, and I didnt see a single uncollegial edit in my scan of your talk page contribs.  Agree with SoWhy that more frequent edit summaries would be good.
'''Support''' As I mentioned above, I more then support Armbrust to become an administrator. To those that oppose, in my opinion you just cannot oppose a request for administrator, because they have one fault. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' Armbrust undertakes a lot of administrative work on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker]] and it would aid his work if he had an adminship; it would be useful to the project to have an "in house" admin.  Armbrust has a solid grasp on policy/guidelines so there should be no problems there.  As for the concerns expressed about the edit summaries, many of these are just routine housekeeping tasks and are self-explanatory so not really an issue. Good luck Armbrust!
'''Support''', I see absolutely no good reason as to why not.
'''Weak Support'''; I've occasionally moved in the same circles as Armbrust and they've always been hardworking, civil, and diligent. Trawled 50 random edits from a few weeks ago and found no cause for concern - apart from a couple of changes that took a little longer to be reassured about, for lack of edit summaries. I appreciate that edit summaries are an important service to other editors, but (a) I expect Armbrust would take that criticism on board, and (b) even with sparse edit summaries I think they'd still be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' morally.  I don't see why you aren't a good editor, but I do suggest you fill in the edit summaries.  &ndash;
'''Support'''. Moderately experienced user from which I can see. I often ran into him at AFC. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' - Clean block lock.
'''Provisional support''' – I have not yet looked at the candidate's editing closely, but I do not place too much importance to the reasons given in the quick flurry of opposes.  If the presentations made by the candidate and the nominator check out, I'd also be inclined to support.  So I will provisionally support now lest too much momentum for a snowball close gets underway before I can make a more definitive support.
'''Support''' His mistakes aren't controversial and in spite of them, he meant them all in good faith and his work at FFU, Sports articles and other noticeboards/administrative areas is just superb. He is always willing to help, he helped me get my wings at FFU and he's a backlog clearing machine! Most of the time that I'm at FFU there's not 1 request where I won't see his signature. His lack of edit summaries, while disappointing, has been pointed out that they've been routine maintenance and given that it's not a good basis for opposing the candidate as they're clearly a knowledgeable (clueful too) and helpful user. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' - Good user. I don't find the oppose rationales particularly convincing. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. The poor edit summary usage is unfortunate, but I still think he'd be a net benefit as an admin. An experienced, hard-working user, he's ready for the bit. --
'''Support''' done a lot of work, and edit summaries look fine on uploads and moves.
'''Support''' Moved from Neutral. I don't necessarily like his personal !voting criteria at RfA, but I believe, from evidence of his previous admin-type work, that he would be a credible and trustworthy admin. Click the ''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'' button in the ''Editing'' tab under ''My Preferences'' and the biggest issue cited in oppose will be gone. ''
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools, though I wish he would use edit summaries more.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry but without even analyzing the candidate's edits, I cannot support a candidate who uses edit summaries for [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Armbrust&lang=en less than a third of their major edits]. All editors and especially admins should be able to communicate clearly and edit summaries are an important tool to achieve this. Someone with more than 70k edits should know it better, especially since ''several'' editors in the last RFA opposed because of this. Either the candidate is unable to listen to advice or they are unwilling to improve their communication with others - in both cases it indicates that they are unsuited for adminship. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' I knew this candidate's name from somewhere and now I remember. 28bytes brings up the pointless question bombing (5 textbook questions that added no value to the RFA), in addition to various other strange reliance on useless statistics votes. I don't want to support a candidate who intentionally makes it even more difficult for candidates to pass by scraping the barrel for something, anything to oppose someone with. I do however, completely disagree with the idea that edit summaries are somehow mandatory (they're not, and never will be). Edits which are housekeeping or for which the reasons are obvious don't require an edit summary. Edit summaries are simply there for those too lazy to look at the diff for the change themselves, or the change is something substantial which might not be obvious. Of course, edit summaries can just have anything written in them, so they are unreliable too. We have talk pages to discuss edits, and we certainly shouldn't be explaining our edits in the history. That is not a collaborative approach.
'''Oppose''' per the lack of edit summaries, as brought up by SoWhy. On the contrary to what Aiken Drum says above, edit summaries are crucial to making a page history (or contribution history) easy to follow. Yes, you can just click on every diff to see what's been changed, but edit summaries vastly speed things up and save everyone's time. An editor who's been around as long as Armbrust, particularly one who wants to be an admin, should know that. It may seem a little harsh to oppose based on a statistical issue, but as an editor who routinely opposes RFA candidates himself based on edit statistics, I don't think Armbrust can complain.
'''Oppose''' per lack of edit summaries.  Sorry, but those are really important ([[WP:AES|automatic edit summaries]] don't cut it), and I hardly ever see them on his edits.  Seems a bit hypocritical, as Robofish said.
'''Oppose'''. I really think Armbrust needs to gain more experience and understanding of policies and guidelines. His contributions at AFD don't fill me with confidence, and the complete lack of edit summaries until recently and current sparse use of edit summaries is something that needs to be improved. Maybe later, but not now.--
'''Oppose''' per last month's RFA transclusion mentioned by 28bytes. That's far too recent a mistake when coupled with his "I don't see any other possible action with it." reaction to being questioned on it. --
'''Oppose''' per the issues brought up by SoWhy, 28bytes, and Sarek.  I don't see much of a problem with the first diff from MC10 below as editors can remove any message from their own talk page as they wish, but they shouldn't copyedit comments by others on same (which I do have an issue with).  All in all, I think the candidate needs to make better decisions in the future.
'''Oppose''' The poorly written nominating statement does not inspire much confidence, nor do the perfunctory and ignored answers to the questions. And then there are the issues raised by 28bytes...--
'''Oppose'''. 28bytes draws attention to significant problems. The lack of edit summaries is a relatively minor point.
'''Oppose''' The edit summaries and the diffs of 28bytes are a bit of a concern. I am also worried about Armbrust's ability to communicate effectively in English.
'''Oppose''' Appears genuinely a well-intentioned user, but I do not feel comfortable supporting this user to receive access to administrative tools per the candidates judgement skills (RfA transclusion, past RfA votes). While the candidate's level of English is definitely comprehensible, it may lack clarity required for an administrator communicating why they have deleted a page or closed a discussion '''
'''Oppose''' Candidate has minor English issues that normally wouldn't be a problem.  However, it seems the candidate has done a few odd things that 28Bytes has pointed out, which also wouldn't normally be a problem to me.  That said, if the candidate does odd things, they need to be able to communicate their rationale clearly.  I couldn't see this candidate being intentionally malicious, but I can see a controversial mistake made and the candidate unable to communicate their reasons clearly causing a headache for us all.  Given a little more time to get a firmer grasp on English and perhaps a clearer understanding of community "norms", I could support this candidate.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Concerns with judgement.  While you know your stuff, judging by your answers to my questions, I find  your recent conduct in at RfA to be unsatisfactory.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''', sorry but in addition to my concerns in neutral below, [[User_talk:Armbrust#Your_reversions|this]] is too recent and is really too far from good faith (see the first two diffs provided by Mato). Also I don't know what you're trying to achieve by sweeping it under a collapsible box. I'd rather someone who admits they make mistakes and apologises to the user, and you seem unwilling to do either... - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose'''. Not ready for prime time yet. Concerns about lack of edit summaries, but mostly concerns with communication skills. Bone up on those, and come back in awhile. In the meantime, this is a hard-working editor that the project needs.
'''Neutral''' for now. I'd like to support, but the candidate's approach to other people's RfAs gives me pause. The transcluding of an RfA for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust/Archive_5&oldid=425414559#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FThe.Computer1 someone with 11 edits] was a bad call, as was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neelix&diff=415741521&oldid=415739863 question-bombing] of another candidate. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lear%27s_Fool&diff=405011510&oldid=405011342 frequent] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rami_R_2&diff=413556763&oldid=413544683 reference] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Slon02_3&diff=418321113&oldid=418320843 to] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Glane23&diff=414155515&oldid=414151234 meaningless] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/5_albert_square&diff=412451356&oldid=412450746 statistics] in other RfAs also bugs me. Nonetheless, I'm leaning support and may switch after considering what others have to say, as the candidate has done good work elsewhere on the project and from what I can see is generally courteous and responsive.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose (for now). For lack of edit summaries. My position may change to support or oppose though based on the candidate's answers to future questions.--
'''Neutral'''. I respect Armbrust's article work, but I find that 28bytes's diffs concern me. Likewise, I find that <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust&diff=prev&oldid=428392187 the removal of this comment] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armbrust&diff=prev&oldid=426986712 editing of other editors' comments]</span> is a bit concerning; there are more diffs if you which to dig them up. It's generally considered etiquette to leave others' comments alone, even if they contain grammatical mistakes. I may change my opinion based on answers to the questions, however. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
Lots of good and some unfortunate bad. Some of the diffs and examples referred to above (e.g., RfA transclusion, lack of edit summary usage) show an unfamiliarity with ''convention'' (as opposed to policy). <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' I was leaning towards support until I saw that 20-30% of edits lack Edi Summaries.
'''Neutral''' - doesn't pass my flinch test and leaves me with a worrying feeling
'''Neutral'''. [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS]] regarding edit summaries aside, I see a good editor who needs to be just a little better before gaining the mop. --
'''Neutral'''.  No one problem raised is killer, but overall I'm seeing enough problems mentioned (edit summaries, RfA issues listed above plus a !vote to oppose without an explanation, some grammar issues) that I'm not comfortable supporting.  Answers to Fastily's questions look to be outstanding (but I'm not the best with images, Fastily did I miss something?).  A quick glance at this editor's recent contributions showed an image gnome who does a lot of useful things around here. So summary: very very helpful person, not sure they are ready for the tools.  I suspect they will be in a few months.
Nowhere near ready. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Try some more vandalism fightiing. 15 edits doesn't convince me. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but only 15 edits on Wikipedia doesn't give us a good way to check for a grasp of policy.  I'd recommend waiting a while.~
Sorry, but with only 1500 edits and two months of activity, I don't feel comfortable that you're ready for adminship.
Per Sven and lack of content contributions. How can you judge pages to be speedied without even contributing content?
Judging from the comments on your talk page, there appear to be a few areas of policy you're not quite up to full speed on. I'd need to see a couple more months of activity and a better understanding of policy before I could support. So not yet, but keep working hard, and hopefully I'll be able to support next time around.
'''Oppose''' - Hello there! Although you say you have been on Wikipedia for 5 years, that is not the case. Your experience still seems rather limited. I actually had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&action=historysubmit&diff=414863996&oldid=414856939 fix the position of your RfA], as you'd put it in the incorrect place. You seem a very willing editor, and thus I suggest spending some more time getting to grips with things around here, and then giving it another shot. Just a bit early at the moment. Many apologies,
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Also, you simply don't have enough experience in the areas that you indicated you wish to work.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experince. <font color="00ff00">[[User:Inka 888|<big>''I''</big>n<big>''k''</big>a]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Inka 888|<font color="black">'''''8'''8'''8'''''</font>]]</sup> 00:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC) <small>Boldface formatting fixed. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. Your revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Ball&diff=408240033&oldid=408239988 here] was only partially correct ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Ball&diff=408467804&oldid=408436595 fixed] by [[User:Ian Rose]]). Furthermore, when the user asked you what he did wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Breawycker&diff=prev&oldid=408242562#Level_1_warning_re._vandalism_on_Albert_Ball_.3F.3F.3F here], you replied, "If you can fit it into the article I will remove the warning from your page. Ok?" Sorry, but what is that supposed to mean, exactly? <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' Candidate does not meet [[User:Strikerforce/RfA_Standards|my standards]] at this time. --

'''Support''' Your answer to Q1 is a bit vague – PRODs, AfDs, or CSDs – but it isn't of major concern. I've always seen Buggie111 as civil and patient, and content creation is always a plus. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''support''' '''
'''Support''', good editor.  ~~
'''Support''' Though I have a few concerns about your AfD votes they aren't particularly serious. You seem like a competent editor who understands the most important part of wikipedia well, i.e. content creation. With your intelligent answers to the questions and your sense of humour (often sadly lacking at WP these days...) convince me you'll be an excellent admin. On a side note, I'd like to say that this RfA contains some of the most irritating and unhelpful questions and, quite frankly, stupid opposes I've ever seen.
'''Support''' Buggie111 is a good editor who I think can be trusted to use the tools sensibly. Some of the above answers to questions seem a bit under-developed, but the questions are also awkwardly phrased and there's no expectation that new admins will be an expert in all areas of admin-ship when they first get the tools (that's what the [[Wikipedia:New admin school|new admin school]] is for) as long as they're level-headed and cautious, which I think is the case here.
'''Support''' per Nick-D. While I agree that the question for number one isn't that great I doubt that Buggie111 would abuse the tools. I'm in the opinion that administrators who are clearly experts in their subjects should become administrators. Kudpung oppose is concerning, but the other opposes I'm confused about, and oppose two is bordering on absurd.
'''Support''' - I always had good dealings with this editor so I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' &mdash; Clearly a dedicated contributor and will likely do a very good job. I have to be honest and say that Kudpung's oppose does concern me somewhat, but I think Buggy will internalize it and be more cautious in the future. For that reason, I'm supporting this RfA.
'''Support''' You know..., I have not !voted in RfA or been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I am very alarmed by the fact that you can now nitpick anything you don't like about the candidate just to oppose now. In 2007, you would not see anyone opposing a candidate for running RfA before christmas, or not archiving talk pages. Kudpung is the only person here that gave somewhat of a reasonable reason to oppose, but it's nothing too serious for me to oppose.
I was looking for something that would lead me to oppose, but couldn't find any that resonated with me. I think Buggie111 will make a good sysop, nevermind xe's worrying answer to q13. Furthermore I feel compelled to cancel out Snottywong's assumption of bad faith and otherwise ridiculous oppose. Merry Christmas!
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Yes, good.  Caution is generally preferable to over-confidence.
'''Support.''' —
'''Support''' — Good editor who has less non-automated edits. I appreciate his questions and answers really well. I really see that there is no reason to oppose with that. I think that user can run himself for a sysop this time. He won't misuse the tools but he can use them sensibly. He is a long-time editor and has been to Wikipedia for 2 years. Yes, he is good and he can use the tools more caution. Get him a mop for to do so. Kindly regards --
'''Support''' No reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' I have worked with this user and I think he wouldn't abuse the tools.--
'''Sure'''. Lowish edit count, but there's no way he would be an untrustworthy administrator, but rather a responsible and competent one. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Support.'''' <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I like your friendly userpage. Your answers to the questions above show to me that you understand adminship. I think that the people who oppose you for lack of experience in admin-related functions have a valid concern, and while I do think it would have been nice for you to have more experience, for me you are on the low end of enough.
When I evaluate RFA candidates, the first place I look is talk page history, so I can evaluate your history as a communicator. You've chosen to not provide a talk page history to evaluate. That's your right -- it's your talk page and you're allowed to delete its contents -- but this practice would make you difficult to work with as an administrator.
Ah! Deletions! The cornerstone of any nutritious WP:RfA! Here's Buggie this morning: three template notifications to editors of speedy deletion noms, evidently got from hitting F5 on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and all without any contact with articles' nominators (example: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starvador09&diff=prev&oldid=467371538]]). So whatever it is that Buggie defines as "dabbling" I really don't want go there. Scanty comprehension of admin role evident in the vague and iffy short and sweets  to the first questions. Contributions to [[User:White Shadows]]' articles show almost no substantive edits to text. Ability to coherently express self in writing not proven: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Virginia_Tech_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=465218347]]. An entirely expected userpage.
You've decided to run your RfA during the time of year when the very least number of regular editors will be around to look into your history and vote.  There are only two explanations for this decision: 1, you didn't realize that it might not be a great idea to start your RfA 2 days before christmas, or 2, you strategically started your RfA 2 days before christmas to minimize participation.  Either way, I oppose.  <s>If I can actually find some time to review your contributions before the RfA ends, I might change my vote.  Otherwise, try again during a better time.</s>
'''Oppose'''. Having  reviewed your recent deletions, I  find your A3 tagging  to  be too  fast, while others fall  very  short of the mark  for an accurate criterion, and some pages, particularly attack, and vandalism/hoax, that  should clearly have been deleted but  where you  only  applied maintenance tags. (see list  on  talk  page). I'm  sure that  these are only  momentary  lapses, but they are too  many for recent patrolling and  reflect  on  your ability  to  assess other patrollers' CSDs accurately and whether you  will  check  taggers' tags before deleting. I  also  find that  among  your 20 or so  !votes at  AfD that  a hit of 72.7% does not  adequately  reflect that  you  will  be able to  close AfDs with  confidence. Where candidates have taken an interest in participatiing  at  RfAs, I  also  take it  into my  assessment and considering your own situation (16 edits to  AIV) I'm rather surprised at the comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Richwales_2&diff=451223815&oldid=451223008], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Richwales_2&diff=451057081&oldid=451054206] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Richwales_2&diff=451037275&oldid=451036913 this !vote]. You  have made valuable  creations with  your articles on  battleships  and you have  demonstrate that  you  know what  creation and mainspace editing  is all  about, however, I'm sorry, but  I  do  not  feel  that  you are ready  to  face the challenges of adminship  at  this time, but I  would like to  see you  try  again in 6  months or so when you  have more clearly  demonstrated your knowledge of deletion and AfD.
User either has no regard for, or no knowledge of, the requirements of the CC-BY-SA. [[Portal:American football/Selected team/6]] and related pages were created without attribution to the source text. A successful administrator ''must'' possess a strong knowledge of copyright on Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Sorry, the answers to the questions (eg: no block in question 7; rigid insistence on 4 warnings in the vandalism questions) and the [[Homer Langrill]] and [[onemorelesbian.com]] misses demonstrate you're not quite there yet. --
I like the clean block log, have no objection to the userpage and you've certainly been part of the community long enough to be an admin. I'm not at all bothered by the timing of the run, and happy with the way you responded to the archiving issue. However Kudpung and Fetchcomms raise issues about deletion and copyvio and those are things where I prefer to see a couple of months editing before a subsequent run. On the deletion front I'd also point out that deletion is not necessary when a duplicate article can be made into a useful redirect. ''
'''Oppose''' User lacks the requisite knowledge to be an admin - believes that tools can be removed by other admins.
'''Oppose''' this time, with moral support. I see a strong contributor to the encyclopedia here, but I don't think you're ready for admin just yet. It's really the answers to the questions, which sound like they're a bit "rote" as if taken directly from reading policy pages, rather than displaying experience of having seen examples like those given. The obvious example is the "4 warnings" thing - there are plenty of cases where disruptive editors should be blocked with fewer warnings (or even none at all). Some of the other questions, in my opinion, really needed "''It depends - if x, then I'd do one thing, but if y, I'd do something else''" answers - some of the questions do not have fixed "correct" answers in my opinion, and I'd really want to see a bit more reasoning and explanation rather than just an attempt at a straight answer. It's just lack of depth of experience, I think - following AIV for a while will help you see the various ways vandals are dealt with, and following articles at CSD should help tighten up your deletion approach (though the latter will also show you some, erm, varied approaches from admins!) I look forward to being able to support a future run --
'''Oppose''' Even if the answers to the questions demonstrated perfect understanding & comprehension my own judgement would still cause me to oppose this candidacy at this time.
'''Oppose for right now'''. Answers to questions show a working understanding of policy but not the creativity and vision that may be required under WP:IAR. Simply put, I feel confident that the tools would be used according to written policy but we need creative Admins more than we need AdminBots (who follow the letter of the policy but not the spirit). Along with the above comments, I'd like to see more participation in the Admin Sphere (like the AIV, AfD, RFPP, UAA and RM you said you'd dabble in) to get the experience to know when to Ignore All the Rules and when and which specific Rules to Ignore. -
'''Oppose''' Per above. Concerns with experience, judgement, policy knowledge, and technical knowledge. I'm also concerned with your ability to communicate.  Several times in this RfA, you made several  substantial statements about yourself which you personally did not fully endorse.  When asked about them, you gave less than satisfactory responses, and proceeded to [[Flip-flop (politics)|amend]] those statements where possible. This is not the type of conduct I like to see in administrators.  Watch what you say, and stand by it. -'''
'''Oppose''' in line with comments above regards policy knowledge, low experience in areas you said you wished to use admin tools, inadequate answers. Not ready to be an admin at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' on the basis of inadequate experience. '''
'''Oppose''' Fastily articulates my sentiments exactly.--
'''Oppose''' Nice editor but needs more experience, as enough editors have commented with documentation. Good luck in 6 months! Best regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Good content creation contributions, but not enough experience in admin-related areas. I am particularly worried by the intention to "dabble at AIV, AfD, RFPP, UAA and RM". The brief nomination statement doesn't help either.
'''Oppose''' per relative lack of experience. And going forward, to amend statements made at RFA without using [[WP:Strikethrough]] is bad form, as well. This is one forum where editors need to easily see what was said, and what has been changed, in the candidate's replies.
'''Oppose''' per Kudpung. He phrased it quite nicely- I can't support a candidate who says that he wants to participate in areas that he has little to no experience in. You have almost no contributions at UAA, RfPP and AIV, and have few !votes at AfD (with an accuracy that's a bit low for my tastes).--
'''Oppose''' for now. You have some good content-building experience and could make a fine admin someday. However, you have little experience in the admin-related areas you want to participate in, and it shows in answers to questions above (6A, 8, 10, 13), recent CSD actions, and copyright issues in [[:Portal:American football]]. If you want to be an admin I'm confident you can get the experience needed for good judgment in these areas. I have no issue with the time of year you came here.
'''Comment''' I'd like to see more depth in your the answers to the questions, particularly question 1.
'''Neutral''' This user has good and bad traits that seem to cancel each other out.  I can't decide if I should oppose or support for the time being.  Perhaps someone could give me something that will let me give a definitive decision.—
'''Neutral'''This user is not fit to be admin per above.--
'''Neutral''' - Candidate certainly has good traits, but I have some issues over competence, especially with deletion, so I'm neutral.
I am torn between opposing and supporting --<small><font color="green">Merry</font> <font color="red">Christmas</font> <font color="green">from</font></small>
Man, you're a great editor and would indeed be an asset as an admin. That being said, an admin needs to know a great load of information (about deletion, copyright, etc.), some of which you haven't fully grasped yet. Please don't be discouraged,
Head's in the right place and the motivation is genuine, but based on your answers, I think you need a bit more experience. I will say, though, that some of the standards you are being held to seem a bit high.
Longterm user, seems to have the right attitude. The 2007 incident is so distant that I'm more than happy to disregard it.  ''
'''Support''' trustworthy which is all that matters. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' - the comment about Feezo's RfA, to me, seems  to state this: ''because Feezo was successful in the RfA process with a similar situation with regards to edits as himself, he feels he is also within a chance''. It's not a case of ''I voted in this guy's RfA, so consider me good''. I think this statement has been largely misunderstood. Putting that aside, you seem honest, you care about the project, you take feedback from others and work hard on it, and all-in-all you want to help out. Good, honest person who I'm willing to hand the tools to. I trust you fully not to abuse them.
'''Support''' – long-term user, no solid reason for otherwise. I think four months is long enough since the last RFA (Wikipedia's rules aren't set in stone!). Also per user Orphan Wiki's comment. It's a little shame that you didn't replicate your 2007/02 editting spree. All in all, I trust you with the mop. [[User:Sp33dyphil|<big>'''<span style="background:SaddleBrown;color:Gold">'''Sp33dyphil</span></big>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ready]] • [[Special:contributions/Sp33dyphil|to]] •
'''Support''' User seems cluful, n reason to oppose adminship. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' BuickCenturyDriver has always given me a good impression. They seem like a clueful and reasonable user and are well qualified for the mop. ''
<s>'''Support'''</s>moved to Oppose''. I recommend withdraw.
'''Moral support'''. I hate to see an RfA go this badly for a long-term, good-faith editor. Many of the opposes have given you some useful suggestions as to what they'd like to see done differently before they can support; probably the best thing to do at this point would be to withdraw and work on those areas (the simplest, of course, being a higher activity level), and try again when you're confident that their concerns have been addressed.
'''Moral support''' - This is going downhill rapidly, so I would recommend withdrawing.
Shows no understanding of need or use of tools. Feezo's RfA shouldn't even come into play. Too recent since last failed RfA without showing needed clue. Oppose. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Oppose''' for now - in fact, call this a "Moral Support". Looking back through your contributions, you've been around a while, but not been editing as much recently. the 2007 incident doesn't concern me and the work I've seen you do looks perfectly fine, but you do still seem to be experimenting and learning a lot. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd expect more experience from an admin. You could do with some more content work. For example, in the article [[Ghostwriter (book series)]], you did some good copyediting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghostwriter_%28book_series%29&action=historysubmit&diff=420044408&oldid=409283549], but did not add a single source, nor have you in [[Ghostwriter (TV series)]], something you consider part of your best work on wikipedia. Your userfication [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:1Matt20/Raze_%28video_game%29&oldid=419965494 here] was a copy and paste move - losing attribution (I can't see the original article), I don't think that was right. (I'm sure someone will correct me there if I'm wrong!). So overall, you're doing a good job, keep it up, but I can't support you in a request for adminship at this time.
'''''Strong'' Oppose:''' The block log isn't clean, even though it is old. However what concerns me is your low activity in recent months and your edits on talk pages. You do not show understanding of the BLP policy. Does not seem to have learned from past mistakes (a key quality for admins).
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and dearth of recent activity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' You say you have a busy work schedule preventing you from being active on Wikipedia, and your edit count in recent months certainly agrees with this, I would say run for admin when you have more time to devote to the extra responsibilities you'll be taking on
'''Oppose''' per Fastily.  Summed up my concerns nicely.  Also, in the past 27 months, candidate has averaged a little over 84 edits a month, and not the 100 they stated.
'''Oppose''' per Fastily. I would also add maturity concerns after witnessing the candidate lash out in some of the above Opposes.--
'''Regretful Oppose''' - regretful because I see an overwhelmingly good-faith, long-term candidate and I don't like to give the impression that the work is unappreciated, because the exact opposite is true: I appreciate the work I've seen and I understand the candidate's desire to help. Unfortunately, I have serious concerns about communication shown on this page. It may seem picky to some, but most people who stand at RFA are unknown to the participants, so I think it is important for a candidate to really put their best foot forward as soon as the RFA is transcluded...you only get one chance to make a first impression. Some examples: unfortunately, while we can all ''guess'' what was meant by mention of Feezo's RFA, the reality is that the newbie user would be far less likely to be able to translate that comment, so I consider that something that might harm the project. (I'd sit this out otherwise; I don't like to even appear to pile on unless I think there is a real chance of problems.) There are also misspellings ("administrator" misspelled three ''different'' ways, for example)...referring to blocked users as vandals in a blanket fashion (not all blocks are for vandalism)...lack of demonstrated communication regarding unblock requests (you don't need to be an admin to see and respond to unblock requests, even if you shouldn't actually ''decide'' an unblock request)...grammar errors in conversations on this page...they all add up. I'm not saying admins are (or should be thought of as) perfect, but some of these things individually give pause, and, taken together, put me in the oppose camp. This is not a "never" oppose - I think all of these things can be improved and would like to support at a later date if they are improved. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Weak oppose, for now'''. This candidate seems borderline. I don't understand the candidate's hurry to gain the sysop bit. I'd like to see more participation in conflict resolution ([[WP:3O]] is a good place to start, as well as [[WP:AE]]). I'm not bothered by the idea of a part-time sysop, but I'd still like to see more consistency in participation. I'd also like to see a better ability to communicate (the edit summary record disturbs me somewhat). I'm willing to change my mind as the candidate answers more questions, but my overall impression is "not ready yet". By the way, BuickCenturyDriver claims that Wikipedia disallows multiple logins. Since when? I've never been prevented from logging in on multiple devices. ~
'''Oppose''' Too little activity over the last 14 months (or, if I wanted to look that far back, 27 months, as previously stated), too soon from previous RfA in which the candidate did not get one supporting comment, and only ~300 edits in the (full, not counting April thus far or November's total) time since that RfA means that I can not offer my support at this time. I'm sorry.
'''Oppose''' per recent apparent misunderstandings of various policies. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:28bytes&diff=prev&oldid=423956605 this very recent edit] shows a lack of understanding that "Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia". Furthermore, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BuickCenturyDriver_2&diff=next&oldid=423903289 this edit] removing legitimate comments (explained in Q7 as an "edit conflict") should be regarded with suspicion. In my opinion, Freezo's RfA, which the nominator compared this RfA to, should ''not'' be taken into account at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' Concerned about the user's knowledge and competence with blocking in general. "With a few exceptions, indefinitely blocking a user (who has not been blocked before) as a vandal-only account is not a good idea since it might provoke that user to behave worse than before." So if a user is a pest, but doesn't have an inherently disruptive username, we should give them the benefit of the doubt, <s>give them tea and biscuits and have a nice conversation by the fireplace? Sorry if I come across as snide, but that's basically</s> they're obviously not here to do good, so rather than try and re-educate let's just <s>what I'm getting from their user page. Very few vandals turn a new leaf, it is better to</s> [[WP:RBI|revert, block and ignore]] than to poke, poke, poke. Per discussion in the Neutral section, I believe the user needs to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]] more rather than instantly pointing the finger. "Sysops that apply WP:AGF to their actions are less likely to be targeted by vandals. While it is indeed necessary to take steps to prevent vandalism, most of it is done by new users who know little about how the site works. Talking them away from vandalism and encouraging them to do something constructive is a good way to avoid blocks. Look for ways not to block someone, not the other way around. Remember your actions come under great scrutiny." The user's actions are being scrutinised here and now, also I don't see much application of AGF... I like the user's contributions and hope they continue but I can not support at this time for the reasons above. <s>Also, I am perplexed as to why they are listed as an admin.</s> —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' due to answers to just about all of the questions.
'''Oppose''' due to recent low activity and the plain wrong answers to the questions. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' - I believe you need to get back on track and more involved with the Wikipedian community, and begin to understand the need and usage of the mop. After you have done that for a while - I think you will be ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''', but regretfully. I see a candidate who has made good contributions, certainly, and seems to have the right motivation. But answers involving policies disturb me a little, as I find them lacking thought - it's hard to put what I feel into words, sorry. I perhaps get the feeling that understanding of policies is rather superficial, like someone who really doesn't [[grok]] them. I hope to be able to support a future run. --
'''Oppose''' Per the comment, ''JD, no matter that I say or what I do you're going to find a new reason why I can't function as a admin. I have no further comments for you.'' Also per the Assume Good Faith concerns discussed in the neutral section. Not fixing an edit conflict, answering an RFA question on a user's talk page instead of here, low edit summary usage, are all minor points that combined make me a little concerned about your general knowledge of how things work (or are done).--
'''Oppose''' Because of too little activity during the past few months and the answers to the questions.
'''Neutral''' I'm not impressed with the 75% edit summary usage for Major Edits, and the 43% usage to minor edits. I'll evaluate more later.
'''Technical Neutral'''. I recuse myself due to the discussion of my own RfA and the fact that the candidate requested that I participate. I will say that I like the answer to Q1; unblock requests are often an unpleasant business, although I would prefer that the candidate have demonstrated experience in conflict resolution. <font style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;"><font color="#BBAED0">
'''Neutral''' - I see nothing egregious here that would make me oppose (even the blocks don't bother me; they are old and the actions that resulted in them don't seem malicious). But I also don't see all of the things I usually look for in a candidate such as extensive edits to the Wikipedia: namesspaces. I think if this candidate participated constructively in more maintenance areas I would support the next time around. Best regards,
'''Neutral'''. I see a lot of good editing, and nothing overtly untrustworthy from this candidate. At the same time, there are some concerning items on this very page that cause me to go Neutral. I'll keep an eye on this one, and may revise my !vote at some point.
Absolutely.--
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' I have seen Buster's fine work and diplomacy for the last few years and he is an asset to Wikipedia and can undoubtedly be trusted with the tools.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' - A well respected and productive editor. Suprised they didn't already have the tools. --
'''Support''' - We don't need people who've never made any mistakes, but those who can correct them. An admin needs to be calm and mature, and to work well with others. BusterD has the temperament for the job.
'''Support''' no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.   He has apparently learned from his <s>misteaks</s> mistakes. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.
Your closes simply demonstrate to me that you see "no consensus to delete" as synonymous with "keep". [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank|This]] shows it clearly. I have no problem with that. It really doesn't matter if there is a consensus to "keep"; all we need to know is whether there is a consensus to delete. However, practice dictates you really should say "keep" if there is a consensus to keep, and admins (including myself) follow that practice pretty much by the book. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd|this close]], you are making it clear that your concern is a ''personal'' concern, and your other comments are appropriately summarising the views expressed in the debate. Sadly, the drawback of giving reasons for closing an AfD is that they get picked apart. Keep it up, bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice, and you'll be fine coming back here in a few months. --
The outstanding behaviour of the candidate at this RfA demonstrates integrity and a willingness to learn and engage with others. All things considered I believe xe will make a fine and trustworthy administrator.
Cautious and perhaps somewhat moral support, but the candidate has impressed greatly during the course of this RFA; they will no doubt be well equipped when returning again in a few months (as it seems likely this will not pass). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Seems like a reasonable person who won't go off the rails. Not too worried about AfD issues mentioned below. The encyclopedia can live with the odd article wrongly kept and the occasional article wrongly deleted. --
I can trust you with the mop --
'''Support''' - Being an administrator ''is no big deal''. After six years' of contributing, it is clear to me that this candidate is an asset and a stayer. We all make mistakes from time to time; I have made many of them. This is not about retribution or reward – this is about recruitment.
'''Moral support''' recent issues loom quite large, but I've always found this editor to be on the reasonable side.
'''Support''' - Long tenure, well rounded set of experiences, no indications of assholery.
'''Support''' - a couple poor AfD closures worry me much less than his overall demeanor and editing patterns. I'm strongly in Graham's camp here. Of course, the major AfD close cited below has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLord%27s_Bank&action=historysubmit&diff=467477532&oldid=453422125 corrected], and unsurprisingly he made a mistake. By his rationale, I would have thought we can all see he plainly meant keep.
Lots of nominators = dubious candidate, never mind the bonus name you dropped in your own self-nom statement. And I wasn't impressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MedicoLegal_Investigations_Ltd this close], in which you interjected your own vote to support your "no consensus" close rationale, nor was I impressed with your talk page dialogue related to it.
'''Oppose''': [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MedicoLegal_Investigations_Ltd|This AfD]] had a ''very clear'' consensus for  'keep' with  very  strong  rationales,  and should have been closed without  comment. I  would have expected the candidate to  have accumulated a solid understanding  of evaluating  a rough consensus, having  participated in over  563 votes at  AfD,  but his explanation  [[User talk:BusterD#You aren't an administrator|here]] demonstrates that  he still has some way  to  go.  Although  many  will  argue that  creation  and content work  is not  essential  for adminship, where significant content  work  is concerned, it  will  be taken into  consideration and ought  to  be of a reasonably  high  quality. Unfortunately, of his 60 or so  creations, although  referenced, over 30% (see list  on  talk  page)  have no  or very  few inline citations. Where his research is based mainly  on  printed sources, this should be very easy. For an admin, a good understanding  of referencing  techniques is essential, especially  where the evaluation  of the accuracy  of content and notability  of other articles is concerned, and could have an impact  on  his CSD decisions. On  checking  his deleted contribs (mainly  in  his own user space)  and page patrols, I  see very  little  NPP  work or  CSD  tagging, and not  enough  to  be able to  evaluate his performance. Just  under six months ago he was warned for 3RR - possibly  an isolated occasion, but  he should know better. To  conclude, I  would say  that  Buster is a keen and civil  editor - even able to defuse conflict. However,  I'm sorry, but  I  just  don't  think  he's quite ready  for the challenges of adminship  yet.
'''Oppose''' Per above.--
'''Oppose''' Here's another strange ''no consensus'' close: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord's_Bank|Lord's_Bank]].
'''Oppose''' due to a misunderstanding of the AFD process pertaining to COI or PR developed articles. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm concerned how this lack would be manifested during interaction with new editors or in working with other deletion processes. I'm also concerned with the apparent inability to recognize when [[WP:NAC|non-admin closures]] are appropriate or not. When an appropriate close is elusive short of admin status, clearly there is no confidence that closures would suddenly be appropriate when handed the bit. I share the concerns of CET and Kudpung. And I personally don't feel that you should be closing AFDs as either an admin or non-admin at this time. Sorry. I recommend spending time reading and reviewing the deletion policy and processes, then working to present a clear understanding over the next several months. I look forward to seeing you again. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' with regret. I see a hard-working contributor here, but the two recent Afd closures that have been highlighted were just plain wrong. There was a clear consensus to Keep in both cases, and evaluating consensus is all the closer is supposed to do - not interject personal opinions or judge it according to any other considerations. (And a non-admin shouldn't be closing anything other than a clear Keep anyway, or clear housekeeping closes) --
'''Oppose''' per the technically incorrect/misunderstanding of AfD closures above. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Oppose''' I think people should be serious article editors before they become admins. I'm not a fan of significant Portal work; Portals get very low page views and they seem to me to be nothing but vanity projects for wikipedians who are scared of working on a real article. BusterD is a very useful editor but I don't see how the community would be significantly improved were he to receive the tools, especially in light of those RfD closures (linked above), which raise a number of issues: understanding when non-admin closure is appropriate, the ability to see the presence of a consensus, and imposing the closer's opinion on the decision.
'''Oppose'''  I would love to support but, these AfD closures are leaving me a lot of concern.  The way I am seeing this is that you appear to give closures stating basically something that doesn't fit as a final conclusion.  "Keep, keep, keep, comment, keep"  Your conclusion, "No Consensus".  You may want to try and fix that or stay away from this altogether.  I would recommend that you work on editing a while longer or work on AfD a little more before becoming an admin.—
'''Oppose''' per the arguments raised above. I have serious concerns that a candidate who would like to work in AfD closures does not seem to understand the process. A no consensus close should not be performed by a non-admin regardless of whether it is correct or not - someone well-versed in AfD should know not to close any debate they view as having no consensus; that is an admin's job. In addition, a number of the recent no consensus closures performed are quite obviously not no consensus (I won't bother repeating link offered above), which suggests a misunderstanding both of consensus and the AfD procedure. For someone who intends to work heavily at AfD, this is too much of a problem.
I'm sure that in good time, this candidate will make a good administrator.  I'm also quite convinced, based on the many recent NACs cited above, that he isn't ready yet.  His civility and thoughtfulness are commendable, and I think Kudpung may be being a little harsh about his content creations, but he's not making the right judgment calls at AfD.—
'''Oppose''' I oppose because your closures in AfD aren't very well thought out. You have done some good closures but there are too many bad ones recently for me to support. Keep working at AfD and improve please. '''
'''Oppose''' Per the arguments above, you need to be careful when closing AfD votes. --
'''Moral oppose''' You could consider accepting the mistake you committed and withdrawing this RfA. Improve your understanding of AfD closures with individuals like <strike>Richwales</strike> Ritzman and other established editors and reapply in three to six months after gaining appropriate experience. Overall, this mistake is not something that will be held against you in the long term provided you work towards correcting it and understanding how to determine consensus, or lack of it. I've made mistakes like these too before my RfA which were brought out in my RfA; but thankfully the community gave me considerable leeway. They will do so to you too in your next. Don't let this hit you bad. You're a good editor and I'll be looking forward to support you in the future.
'''Oppose''' - Not right now. I'd refrain from non admin closures for now.
'''Oppose''' per TCO's neutral. Excellent work at A and AA-level minor league baseball. Ready for promotion to AAA but not the major leagues (just now). Keeping throwing heat but gain greater control, by working with the pitching coaches at AfD; somewhat limited as a pitcher---you need a [[WP:Mediation|screwball]] or a [[WP:GA|slider]] to balance your strong arm. I hope to see you in training camp in Spring training. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''; not yet, more experience and better judgment needed.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience and judgement.  -'''
'''Oppose'''. In fact, stop closing AfDs for a while and read up on them, since the King's Bank close in particular was awful. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' I'm usually lax at RFA, but opposes are persuasive here.
I really hate to oppose anybody at RfA and initially expected to support &mdash; BusterD has been here for quite some time and is clearly enthusiastic about the project. However, I have to agree with concerns expressed above. Unfortunately, I think Buster needs to take some more time evaluating what constitutes consensus, which is so important in closing deletion debates, before he is ready to take on the role of adminiship. I wish him all the best of luck, and I hope his next RfA will have my signature in the support column.
Oppose, as user will need to know more about consensus, as above.  ~~
'''Oppose'''. I too am concerned by the non-admin AfD closures.
'''Oppose''' per above; seems like more experience will help...
'''Oppose''' Sorry man, but Kudpung and the others pretty much summed everything up here.
'''Lukewarm Oppose''' per Kudpung, et. al. Too many policy knowledge issues, but I do see great potential. Give it some time.--
I'm sorry. I know just how much being opposed at RFA sucks, so I rarely oppose, but one of the most important qualities I look for in an admin candidate is level-headedness and the ability to judge consensus, and from your AFD closes, I'm just not seeing it. I apologise if it seems like I am nitpicking here, but I worry how you will judge AfD as an administrator based on the examples that were presented above. Try not to let this discourage you though. Happy to reconsider in six months. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - non admin closes are very poor indeed - the nominators deserve additional eyes as well for this poor nomination.
'''Oppose''' - I would love to support in the future. Take some time outside of RfA to respond to criticism then request again. Right now, there are too many outstanding issues which would be impossible to address in the span of this discussion. None of them are major, but they are worth reflecting upon.
'''Oppose'''. There are unfortunately too many editors making bad AFD/CSD nominations and arguments. That's why we need good, experienced admins in that area. In this case we have a prior sample of closing decisions which does not bode well. It's not inconceivable that the applicant could improve significantly, but now is too soon to place that kind of bet. Happy holidays.
'''Oppose''' per concerns about AfD closures.--
'''Oppose''' per Kudpung.
'''Oppose''' at this time. Bad AFD closes= bad. Willing to listen and try to learn from criticism= good. Insisting on keeping this obviously failed RFA open for your own sake and/or as yet another opportunity to talk about how RFA is broken= fail. Maybe later.
'''Worried by who nominating and low content'''.  I wouldn't automatically rule someone out for a lot of noms--for instance, if someone was so well loved, peeps just wanted to be on his bandwagon--but this fellow seems more like a marginal candidate and the number of noms a coordination to get him over the top.  Also who is nomming, several blocking-bullying class of admins.  Having them get an acolyte seems bad for Wiki.  On the content: six years, one very short GA.  Never see the guy in article space.  Do more articles.  Colloborate and interact with content writers.  It will really deepen you and make you a kinder, more perceptive person.  Less "teh Wiki rules, teh Wiki rules" and more thinking about how people interact.  What our readers are and what they like. Even what are outside Wiki insights to bring here.  I want to know that you can interact like a "real person" when you have to stop some 40 year professional writing his first Wiki.  Not come across as some kid with a badge.  I'm in neutral, since I don't follow AFD and have had no bad interactions with the candidate.
'''Neutral''' - Very sorry, but there's no way I can support. I see a competent person editing in good-faith, but I believe that the job of the closing admin for AfD's is to judge consensus, not take what was said and add it to his own opinion. Whether or not the Afd's were even applicable to by NAC is another matter altogether, but I really don't like the two linked above.
'''Neutral''' Torn ... Mongo's nom probably cost this editor a lot of votes; Gwen is far more trustable.  Interesting spread of "personalities" as nom's ... will look some more here, which is not necessarily a bad thing ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid green;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but due to concerns raised in the oppose section, especially for your bad judgement in closing AfD's, I cannot support. Besides that, your issues aren't at a high level, but your AfD closures is a big issue as an admin. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Neutral'''. Your answers to Q 4–6 above indicate you're a mature editor and suggest to me that you'd put [[WP:DEAL|the appropriate weight]] on the position. Your work at AfD is much appreciated. Most candidates get only indirect chances to show what sort of admin they'd be. You had some real chances with non-admin closures, and unfortunately some of them don't reflect very well on you. As a result, I can't support now. You've done a lot of good for the project, and I would be happy to support at your next AfD after you've demonstrated that you've taken to heart the torrent of feedback you're getting here.
I feel very much the same as Spartaz 16:20, 23rd and 09:40, 24th December 2011 (UTC).  Buster is largely an excellent candidate, but clumsy NAC closes are a serious matter.  I have little doubt that Buster will overcome these mistakes with time, but it is hard to overlook. --
'''Neutral'''. Similar to Lagrange's concerns I feel not comfortable with your answers, but nothing that won't change with some more months experience. So, similar to many other ''voters'', my answer is atm NOTNOW. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' With the admonishment that full protection should be used sparingly.
'''Moral Support'''- Give it time, but now now.--'''''
'''Oppose''' Purely from this recent experience, others will no doubt comment on your limited article work etc. This request to [[WP:RPP]] is of concern [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Big_Brother_2011_.28UK.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29]  together with this associated bit of activity on the article’s talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_2011_(UK)&diff=next&oldid=457530423]. The IP left a warning (incorrect as it happens) which you removed without an edit summary explanation and then reinstated before heading off to [[WP:RPP]].  No involvement was really warranted by the low level of disruption. If that is a representative example, you need more experience and should assess the full picture before reacting.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you've only been editing for seven months, and editing seriously (my personal definition, which some disagree with) for five months. In this time it would appear that your work is almost entirely vandalism fighting, which is valuable to be sure, but I want to see more than just vandalism fighting under the belts of potential admins. That 48% of your edits are in the user talk space is indicative of this. In short, I don't think you've been around long enough, and I don't see you as being well rounded enough, for comfort.
'''Oppose''' - not very well rounded. 81% automated edits over 7 months. Leaky Caldron's cited RPP doesn't inspire confidence at this time either.--
'''Very weak oppose''' &mdash; I read through Calabe's introductory paragraph and answers, and my first impression was that I'd be supporting his candidacy. But the first link provided by Leaky Cauldron above shows that Calabe is probably going to need a bit more experience before he's ready for adminship. Page protection (especially full protection) should only be applied when other measures have failed to resolve the issue, and typically it's when multiple editors are engaged in disruptive editing, not just one. Once he develops a stronger grasp of administrative policy, then I can pretty much guarantee I'll support in a few months time. He seems to have the right attitude and is obviously very enthusiastic about helping others, which is exactly what I look for in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' He seem to know what he wants the tools for; but, at one point he had his rollback rights dropped a month ago. In my opinion I think he's too trigger happy for admin privileges.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]
'''Oppose''' - Firstly I agree with Unionhawk and Sven; you simply don't appear to be well rounded enough. Also there's the lack of work in the article space. As a [[WP:GNOME|Wikignome]] who's only created one article, my standards probably could not be lighter, but the highest number of edits you've made to a single article is only 18. What's more, only a negligible number of your edits have been to talk pages. Although the two articles you've made aren't bad, they're not enough to trump these concerns. Next, we have this incident in which you were given rollback, and less than ''two months later'' you had it revoked because you <s>were edit warring with it</s> "blatantly misused it in an edit war". And this whole incident took place in September&mdash; ''last month''. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Then there's the anti-atheist userbox and the answer to Q4, where you apparently can't see how expressing 'anti-<any belief or lack thereof>' is divisive. Sorry. ''
'''Oppose''' This user has not been editing Wikipedia for very long, is still learning basic policy, does mostly automated edits, and is still learning how to have disagreements on this site.  He handles himself well but everything is still too new for him to be able to answer questions by others as admins have to do.  Please stick with the site and try again after getting more experience, and try doing new and different things on this site.  Wikipedia is huge and there is a lot to learn.
'''Regretful oppose'''. We see a lot of vandal fighters come through here, and most of them, if they haven't done much of anything else, don't pass. It doesn't look like this RfA is going to pass, but this doesn't mean it's the end of the road for you. You're doing great as it is, you just need more experience. I recommend trying your hand at some content work and maybe even some AfD work for six months to a year before returning here. I know that this seems like a long time, but with time comes experience, and with experience comes a greater potential to succeed here at RfA. When you think you're ready for another RfA, please consider consulting somebody on [[Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination|this page]] instead of nominating yourself. Kindest regards,
'''Oppose''' No substantial editing history.
'''Oppose'''. Obviously good intentions, but the ratio of automated edits does not reflect well, and as Unionhawk says, the RPP issue brought forward by Leaky Cauldron doesn't inspire confidence either. It goes without question that vandalism fighting is a fundamental and valuable task, but personally I cannot support any candidate that doesn't have at least one content credit. However, I do believe these two things are related: if you had experience with article building and the issues concerning it, you might not have handled the RPP issue the way you did.
'''Neutral''' While I believe that your intentions are good and I want to support, I feel that I can't because I don't feel that you are quite ready as you are making mistakes in several areas, such as in correctly tagging a new page for speedy deletion ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calabe1992&oldid=456510432#Speedy_deletion_declined:_.C3.98vre_eikeland See here]), although I can see where you were coming from it shows that you do not fully understand the policies. Also, you should archive your talk page not just remove the content ([[WP:TALKCOND|See here]]. But you I do believe you have good intentions so keep editing and keep up the good work.
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]. Only 106 edits and a history of creating pages that don't meet guidelines: [[Evony wiki]], [[Whitney-Hostetter Volunteer Fire Department]] which don't indicate a strong understanding of [[WP:5P|Wikipedia's 5 pillars]]. Additionally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cjc811&diff=prev&oldid=408803161 recent issues with copyvio] and near-zero use of edit summaries are disturbing.
Sorry, but I don't believe you have enough experience yet. Take a look through the recent list of [[Wikipedia:successful requests for adminship|successful requests for adminship]] to get a better idea of the experience levels that are typically expected of admin candidates.
I have to agree with Tedder. —
'''Oppose''' You are in good standing, receiving no blocks so far, but I see less than 250 edits, which I think, isn't enough. Also, since you plan to take part in vandalism patrol, I don't see any of this "Undid revision by" part in the edit summary. You can use the [[Special:RecentChanges]] page in the interaction tab of this site. This is where you get the chance to see if there are any poor edits by IPs and new users. Anyway, I hope the statement I made will help you get started with vandalism patrol and good luck with it. If you're good enough, you may receive [[WP:ROLLBACK|Rollback rights]].
I am not going to withold my support over one mistake and I don't see why an admin can't learn on the job.
'''Moral support''' You're enthusiastic enough, keep editing and you'll be ready in a few months. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose''' per the inability to follow the instructions for this RfA correctly. '''
'''Oppose''' per Eagles247 above. Not being able to follow the instructions for creating and transcluding an RfA isn't a good omen for things to come. User has next to zero experience working in any admin-related functions.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience now, but like Trusilver above me I like what I see so far; a few months down the road working on NPP or RCP and I'd support you.
Per Eagles. If one can't follow simple directions, then they can't be an admin. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' If you can't follow directions, don't even think about it. [[WP:SNOW]]. '''
Lack of competence and clue. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Moral support'''. Sorry, but no. You lack experience in admin-related areas (and were not capable of correctly transcluding this request). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' for now, but you do have potential. I suggest you participate in some admin-related areas for a few months, then see if anyone on [[Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination|this page]] is willing to nominate you. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience,  breadth of exposure.  -'''
Sorry, with less than 100 edits, you've just got way too little experience on the site for the admin tools. If you're interested in vandal-fighting, there are lots of great tools to do that without needing to be an administrator; for example, check out [[WP:TWINKLE]] and [[WP:HUGGLE]]; I use these myself and I'm not an administrator. Unfortunately, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skins_%28North_American_TV_series%29&diff=prev&oldid=409297122 this edit] alone suggests you're not quite up to speed yet with how things are done around here: first, you should sign your talk page posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, and second, you shouldn't go around calling other editors idiots. You don't have to agree with them; just show them the respect you'd want to be shown. Take a look at [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]; those pages have some helpful advice about when and when not to request adminship. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience and policy knowledge.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - Per 28bytes. Think this should be closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]] shortly.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but we expect months and months of experience from the people that we promote to administrator. You just don't have that. There are plenty of other things for editors to do on Wikipedia, I'm sure you'll find something.
'''Oppose''' You only have 76 edits. You would need some more experience before I would support. <font color="00ff00">
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW]]. In addition to the concerns above: You should really be more careful in your edits, this RfA contains boilerplate text ("YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER") which should have been caught even on a cursory glance. Additionally, a personal pet peeve (which has no bearing one way or the other): don't use an apostrophe in the possessive form of "it". "It's" is the exclusive domain of the contraction for "it is".
'''Oppose''' Clearly not experienced enough for the mop, close as [[WP:SNOW]]
'''Oppose'''. Maturity and experience concerns. --
'''Oppose''' Clearly  does not yet  fully understand the importance and scope of admin tasks and the level  of responsibility  they  demand. The first  few thousand contributions to  the encyclopedia should preferably be to content building: writing and/or improving articles. Close as [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''Uhm, sorry, but you only have 1000 edits in about 4 months. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', similar to the editor above Cprice only has 1082 edits. The range of edits is not sufficient enough to demonstrate that the editor has enough experience or understanding of wikipedia rules. Although I will concur that he/she has made some good edits I don't think you are quite ready. Apologies. --
Sorry, but I have to oppose ''at this time''.  As the above two editors mentioned, a thousand edits and just four months of experience is hardly enough to have a broad scope of experience and trust in the community to become an admin.  Also, your short answers to the three questions hardly meet RfA "standards".  Also, you say you want to work in AIV but you barely have any anti-vandalism edits.  Overall, I think you'd be a great admin in time, but you need much more experience.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Very short, terse and (IMO) uninformative answers to the most basic questions every RfA is asked to answer, editing experience is insufficent both in quantity and variety. Nothing indicates an understanding of the Admin's job or demonstrates the judgment required to perform that job. Put in another six to nine months working on [[WP:CVU|countervandalism]], [[WP:NPP|new page patrolling]] and at least some [[WP:GNOME|gnomish]] article editing, then file another RfA. I don't think an Admin needs a half dozen [[WP:FA|featured articles]], or even [[WP:GA|good ones]], that they've authored themselves, but I do think they need to have some foundation in positive contribution to content. --
'''Oppose'''. That Cprice1000 apparently believes there is even the slightest of chances that this RfA will succeed speaks volumes.
[[WP:SNOW|'''Snowball in hell''']] - Sorry, but your answers to the questions do not even convey to me that you are just eager to help, but requesting adminship [[WP:NOTNOW|too soon]].
[[WP:SNOW]]. Candidate doesn't even care to write a statement. --
Unfortunately no. The candidate is keen and enthusiastic, and it's a pity to be discouraging, but alas it has to be so. Cprice1000 expresses an intention to work at AIV, but I can find scarcely any evidence of anti-vandal work at all, and ''the one and only contribution the candidate has ever made to AIV'' was an inappropriate one, involving an IP with very few edits and only one within the last month. We do not need admins starting to take actions at AIV without experience of how it works. Nor do I see much evidence of other work relating to admin issues. The candidate's work on Wikipedia is largely limited to one very narrowly limited topic, and does not suggest an all-round knowledge of how Wikipedia works. The candidate has a history of posting messages asking for participation in discussions, in a way that looks very much like [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]]. This has even happened in connection with this RfA, as can be seen in the following edits:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blackjacks101&diff=prev&oldid=405281498], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Candyo32&diff=prev&oldid=405281557], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lil-unique1&diff=prev&oldid=405281672], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jivesh_boodhun&diff=prev&oldid=405281721], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=prev&oldid=405281793]. Perhaps it wasn't canvassing, but it looks that way. Anyone who has so little awareness of Wikipedia standards that they don't realise that even the appearance of canvassing is likely to count against them cannot be suitable to be an administrator. (If it actually was canvassing, then there is absolutely no question of adminship, but I am willing to assume it wasn't.)
'''Oppose''' per Lil-unique1. I think that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cprice1000&diff=405279622&oldid=405272337 this] was good advice, and something to keep in mind for the future. If the primary (only?) admin task you intend to perform is anti-vandalism, then you'll probably need a vandal-fighting record much stronger than 4,000 edits if/when you decide to apply again.
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Also, you have not clearly outlined how you will use the tools, and you do not have very much experience, even in countervandalism.
'''Oppose''' The candidate's extensive and blatant canvassing of this RFA (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186&diff=prev&oldid=405281793],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lil-unique1&diff=prev&oldid=405281672],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jivesh_boodhun&diff=prev&oldid=405281721]) make this an unequivocal strong oppose regardless of any other merits. Someone who blatantly seeks to try to disrupt any decision-making process in this way is a nuisance to the project, and unfit to be even considered as an admin regardless of whether the canvassing was done out of ignorance or disruptive intent.<br />I have other serious concerns with this candidate, but I don't want to be even harsher than I have been already been, so I'll leave those aside unless this nom looks like it's going anywhere. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. Broaden your experience here, and come back in a year or so, and I'll be happy to support.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pileon. Basically, [[WP:NOTYET|you're not ready yet]]- but this doesn't mean not ever. Keep contributing positively, without too many bad screwups, and you'll stand a good chance later.
Just a hint for any possible re-run in the future. Re: "''I get really upset when someone does something I disagree with''". That would really not be a good attribute in an admin, so you really need to get over that first, and not try again until you reach a point where you're happy with the fact that disagreements are a key part of community-based content creation. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. Best  advice I  can  give in  addition  to  the others, is to  take a good look  at  the failed and successful  RfA  throughout  2010 and see what you are up against. It might  might take much more than 4,000 edits to get it right.
'''Support''' - No reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools, and good closure of an AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_Hilary_Duff_concert_tours&action=historysubmit&diff=407790637&oldid=407774572 here]. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC) <s>Switching to oppose. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 03:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)</s> Naw, keeping support. However, I am of the opinion that refering to anybody's religion as a myth demonstrates a decided lack of tolerance, and that is something I do not want to see in a sysop. Would you mind removing it, or replacing it with something along the lines of "This user is an atheist" or "This user does not believe in God". I have no objection to beliefs contrary to mine, but that is a little over the top.
'''Support''' - Dedicated Wikipedian, and strong content contributor. The project will be benefited by giving this editor the tools. -- '''
'''Support''' I had this page watchlisted ever since his first RfA failed, when he claimed he failed RfA because people didn't like his anti-Bush opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=199771893&oldid=199703496]. I [[User_talk:Ctjf83/Archive_2#Failure_of_your_RfA|raised the issue to him]] and subsequently watchlisted his RfA page. He didn't seem to get it, and I held little hope that he would improve. Flash forward to today; He seems to have a much better understanding of ''why'' his first RfA failed. Further, he's been contributing a lot more to Wikipedia space and has apparently gained a greater understanding of our policies and guidelines. I took a quick look at his image contribs, and found nothing lacking. I also looked across edit summaries for him (some of his past ones before the first RfA were pretty snarky), and also looked at a number of his non-admin closures of AfDs. He appears to be doing everything right. Barring revelations from others contributing, I see no reason to object to him being an administrator. --
'''Strongest Support Ever Humanly Possible''' I've been working with [[User:Ctjf83|Ctjf83]] for well over 3 years now (I think). This user has been the subject of many vandal attacks, but has kept his cool. We are all humans and should be allowed to slip up a time or two. Ctjf has been active in many Sysop areas and and has '''vastly''' improved, especially at AFD. He is doing a wonderful job, and I think will do fantastic as a Sysop. [[User:Ctjf83|Ctjf83]], I have a strong impression you'll pass this, and when you do - don't mess up :) <font face="Segoe script">
'''Support''' – Experienced, long-term editor that can benefit by having the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support'''. You have demonstrated to me that you are open-minded and knowledgeable. These qualities are important to look for in a potential administrator.
'''Support''' He's improved a lot since his last RFA so he deserves to earn the tools.
[[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] -'''
Experienced, can hold and use the mop. [[File:Face-grin.svg|20px]]--<font face="Times">[[User:Perseus, Son of Zeus|<font color="green">Perseus, Son]]
'''Support''' Oh, it's finally happened? About bloody time. This user already has shown competance in areas where admins are frequently needed, such as AfD, and I was so impressed with him a while back that I ''asked'' him to tell me when he was running for the mop. Well, he is now, and nothing I've seen since I initially asked him and now has made me any less willing to support.
'''Support''' Seen you around at AFD (doing a hell of a better job than me) closing them, you'll do fine.
'''Support''' A good candidate...good luck, there's plenty of work ahead!
'''Support'''. I see an editor who has progressed enormously since that first RfA three years ago, and I'm seeing careful thinking, discussion and understanding - and someone who wishes to contribute in areas that need it. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''About time!!''' ([[File:718smiley.svg|20px]]) →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support'''. The editor not only shows a thorough understanding of the policies and guidelines of WikiPedia, but also contributes well to content and can engage civily with any and all editors. <small>
'''Support'''His contributions tell me he's going to be a good admin.
'''Support''' There was a time, a few years back, when I would have strongly opposed the idea of Ctjf being an admin. He was always a good user, but he had a lack of understanding of wikipedia's fundamentals. Since then, I think he has worked quite hard to improve his editing and has a great understanding of wikipedia policy, probably moreso than I. We've had a number of disputes in the past but we were always on friendly terms, even if we never quite seen eye to eye, and I'm more than happy to support him now. --
'''Support''' after reviewing candidate's development. --
'''Support''' A review of this candidate's contributions leaves me satisfied that s/he will make a competent administrator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' – He is humble, open-minded, and always willing to improve himself: this candidate possesses some of the best qualities for resilience in an administrator.
'''Support''' Great AfD work. Also pictures, which I feel to be a fantastic and always-needed contribution. I do think his views on religion are a tad bit harsh, but I also think it is completely irrelevant. I see no instances in which any anti-religious sentiments affected his judgment in any way, and opposing him on this point would be nothing more than my own bias swaying my gavel. Indeed, I disagree with him on many points- he's a liberal, he wants to take my guns away, he drinks, he's pro-choice, he supports expanding use of the death penalty, and worst of all, he likes Mountain Dew. And every one of those things is completely unrelated to his qualifications as an Admin. Also, if you don't mind me pointing this out, he is a homosexual, one of (if not the) most discriminated-against groups in modern society. His entire life has been training on handling conflict.
'''Support''' A calm candidate and a prolific contributor.
'''Support''' - There is nothing wrong, in itself, with having strong political or (anti-)religious views. Editors are, after all, humans, with personalities and opinions and experiences. Nor is there anything wrong with being candid about one's views on one's userpage: indeed, I'd argue that it's better to identify one's own biases than to pretend they don't exist. Personal views become a problem only when they affect one's judgment as an editor, and I'm not seeing (thus far) any evidence to suggest that this candidate's views have affected his judgment.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Not overly concerned about the userbox; other admins have expressed similar views on their user pages without causing any drama.
'''Support''' - one of the finest editors, with one of the most even-keeled temperaments, that I have ever come across.  Only wish I'd known earlier, so I could've cast the first support vote.
'''Support''' Some observations over in simpsons related pages which ive found to be very sensible. I think this track behaviour would carry through, I would though for number 5 always encourage CT and others when they notice trolling and edit behaviours related, to consult Long term abuse. Its a resource which we have that can help. Support for now.
'''Support''' - We have a dedicated and knowledgable Wikipedian here. All the best! (I cannot BELIEVE some of the discussions in the oppose section!!! Such childishness highlights one of the many major flaws with the system here, and a large amount of those flaws sadly come from experienced editors) :(
I'd rather not get into it. - Dank (
'''Support'''; I think the candidate can be trusted with the tools and would do a good job. Random shuffle through past contributions does not turn up anything bad. I'm disappointed by the drama over the userbox. I extend my sympathies to those who feel offended by a userpage declaration of skepticism towards christianity, since there is very much more content on wikipedia which is offensive on the same basis, including quite a lot in article-space which is impeccably sourced. If a person felt that irreligious statements were offensive, and if that person went looking for them, this encyclopædia must surely be a challenging environment for them.
'''Support''' Seems okay. '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">
Right on! -
'''Support''' Every once in a while the opposes will manage to convince me to agree with promoting a candidate. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''[[WP:Net Positive|Support]]''' I'm no atheist, but your religious beliefs don't matter to me if you are an excellent Wikipedian. (Hence my support)--
'''Support''' I noticed Orlady's commenting in the first "Oppose" vote below, about an issue where as I firmly recall, Orlady butted in on a Davenport, Iowa article where i was developing with CTJF83.  Orlady was following me then and seems to show sour memories now about being called then on her abuse of rollback tool and of 3RR violation while being an administrator.  I thot the entire incident showed appropriate concern and interest on the part of CTJF83 in consulting about how perhaps to pursue the issue, in diffs that O provides. And it showed maturity in CTJF83 not trying to make more of an issue about it, after i so advised.  O provides no evidence of anything but appropriate concern by an editor seeing contention going on (where she happened to look pretty much in the wrong, IMHO).  My interactions with CTJF83 have been wholly agreeable as he constructively pursues development of the [[List of RHPs in Davenport]] and its huge number of indexed articles.  Orlady shouldn't be a spoiler here;  CTJF83 did fine then and i think will do fine as an Admin. --
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate. And Keepscases once again makes the bile rise in my throat with his petty, anti-atheist bigotry. When he's not asking pointless "funny" questions at RFA, he's spewing stuff like this. As I have stated before, it's an attack on the integrity of Wikipedia. Atheists have the right to participate fully in the project, including as admins, and have the right to display userboxes that state their views.
'''Support''' - A net positive. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' He's passionate about the project, and I'm sure he'll do fine.
'''Support''' Plenty of experience, trustworthiness, the candidate has learned from past mistakes. The plain spoken tone to his answers is especially appealing to me.--
'''Support''' Over 50 percent is in article space which fully meets my standards. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support'''. I am very comfortable with admins who have spent the time on the project to make mistakes, be introspective about them, and revise their behavior and understanding of themselves (and others) in the Wikipedia environment. This "evolving" wikipedian is more likely to understand, and be compassionate, towards newbies and other editors when they stray. "Let he who is without sin ..." and all that. I also believe this editor brings personal perspectives that are still in the minority herein. --
'''Support''' Like many here, I was shocked by the candidate's user page and the "in your face" way they proclaim that they live in Iowa. ''Iowa!'' Nonetheless, editor has made great strides over the past few years, appears willing to make further improvements, and is a positive contributor to the encyclopedia, bravely overcoming their Iowan surroundings. -
'''Support''' Good editor, and will make a good admin. Userboxes have nothing to do with that.--
'''Support''', I'm an atheist too. Yes, that means I think god/gods are a myth. Anyone want to desysop me yet? Reviewing the candidate's contributions show no red flags. Displaying a userbox indicating one thinks gods are a myth is no more "offensive" than displaying a userbox indicating one does not (which would be any userbox indicating the user has any religion). What garbage.
'''Support'''. I've read through the oppose votes, and don't find them at all convincing. This candidate will be a good admin.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support'''. I've checked some recent talk page and editing history and he seems reasonable and fair. The argument over userboxes is a total distraction. If one doesn't want 'attack' userboxes, nominate them for deletion rather than taking it out on people on [[WP:RFA]]. —
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you seem like you won't abuse it.
'''Support'''. The only criterion is whether the candidate will misuse the tools. I see plenty of evidence that people may disagree with him about how he uses the tools but that is something entirely different and is coped for. I see no evidence that this candidate will misuse the tools.
He seems like a fine candidate who has spent time making wikipedia a better place. There is no reason for him to be denied administrative powers. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''': After reviewing their last 1,000 edits on en.Wiki, I see nothing that pops out in my head of "bad" edits or anything that would make me not think Ctjf83 was not a good candidate for "the mop".  I have also read the oppose !votes and wasn't swayed by them.  Plus, hey, he likes [[George Carlin]]! :)  Give the man a mop. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': I'll be entirely honest, I'm not 100% convinced Ctjf83 has what it takes to make a good admin at this time. This support is ''purely'' to counter the ridiculous opposes below based on a single, unobjectionable userbox, which I had to search his userpage about four times to even find. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose, but that is not one of them: quite frankly, while I'm trying to [[WP:AGF]] here, it smacks of bigotry. If those opposes are ignored by the closing crat, this support can be as well.
'''Support''' Let me put it this way... if we held articles on G(g)od(s) to the same standard that we hold all other articles, then just about every article on such deities would be reduced to an article on a given myth, and the impact of said myth on society. As for the "light" discussion of this editor's sexuality, this is nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry, whether intentional or out of ignorance. Ctjf83 isn't perfect, and certainly has some things to learn, but the same could be said of all of us.
'''Support'''. I'm sure the opposes are well-meaning, but they are weak or tangential (an editor with a big signature objects to a colorful one) and none are convincing.
'''Oppose''' - Fine content contributor, productive and uses good judgment in CSD-tagging and deletion nominations. However, it is less than a year since this user engaged in some overly enthusiastic pot-stirring (mostly aimed against me and/or aimed at making an ally of [[User:Doncram]]; some of the relevant diffs and page versions are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive122#User:Orlady_reported_by_doncram_.28talk.29_.28Result:_stale.29], last thread on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doncram&oldid=341797210 this talk page], [[Talk:Riverview Terrace Historic District]]) and got his/her one block for some unrelated edit warring. Maybe there was something going badly in his/her life at that time that spilled over into a flurry of problems here, but the behavior causes me to question maturity of judgment. --
'''Strong Oppose''' based on anti-God userbox.  It's shocking and hypocritical that a user who has an anti-bullying song featured prominently on his userpage, and has a userbox claiming he "doesn't understand mean people", would display such a confrontational and offensive userbox calling God a "myth" or "superstition".  There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, but there is something wrong with unnecessarily belittling others' strongly held beliefs.  No one with an attitude like that should serve as an administrator.  And in case this turns into some Christians-against-homosexuals debate, someone with an anti-gay userbox would be (rightfully) shot down too, and we all know it.
For two reasons. ''1. Copyright'' The candidate's approach to this RfA bears out that he/she takes as little responsibility as possible for compliance with copyright. As was the case when the concerns were raised in March 2010 and September 2010, the candidate only corrected the problems that were identified, and conveniently and knowingly allowed other violations he/she created to remain on the mainspace. That has continued here. It's not good enough, in my view, for a prospective administrator. ''2. Userbox''. Setting out your beliefs and values on your userpage is perfectly acceptable. Explicitly belittling those of others as myths and superstitions isn't. That distinction shouldn't be lost by any administrator. And when someone says you have done something offensive, the most appropriate response, the response I would expect from the occupant of a position of trust, is to retract as much as is appropriate, ''even if you do not agree''. --
'''Oppose''' I get the sense that Ctjf83 just doesn't know what he is doing or how to do things around Wikipedia. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=407970420#Please_reconsider_how_you_post_this_article_... not mentioning BLP1E], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=407955213#Pending_Changes_on_talk_pages not knowing how PC works or how to propose a process change], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=407970420#Details_of_RevDel not knowing much of anything about rev delete] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=406021409#Page_protection_question or page protection]. This is all from just the last few days. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=407952014#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FCtjf83_2 Even in making this RfA]. I don't sense the required fluency in Ctjf83's understanding of how Wikipedia works.
'''Oppose'''. Maturity concerns. From the big look-at-me flags and banners, colorful nicks, stubborness and proclaiming he won't be bullied no matter what on his talk page, I get the impression that drawing attention to himself is of a higher priority than being a humble Wikipedian that just wants to quietly edit the encyclopedia. Also not confident I can trust him to not advocate on behalf of his strong views, and possibly misuse the tools, especially in dispute resolution situations. --
This is a tough one for me, and I'm sure my rationale will draw a fair bit of flack, but I'm fairly sure in what I say. I certainly respect the person for their beliefs. But upon viewing the userpage, it seemed as if, and maybe it's just your personality, that your userpage was meant to ''firmly'' state your beliefs to the world. Not in a sense of telling others your beliefs, but in a sense of well, being flamboyant. Now, this is certainly your right. But in an administrator I feel like this kind of page is somewhat well, flamboyant, and indicates that although you are here building an encyclopedia (and doing a good job), being flamboyant can't change for you, as it's part of your spirit. Essentially although your edits have been sound, I question your maturity to a certain degree. I feel like this kind of strong personal feeling, and a sort of feeling that they are the only person that understands (from above) makes me doubt the capacity of the user to act in the backgrounds in an administrative role, without generating division. ALthough I don't want to sound like a martyr, I'm sure a point will be made to counter this that I'm opposing based on sexual orientation. No, I'm opposing based on personality, which has been established in the past (ie those who have outbreaks) to be a reasonable oppose. What caused me to oppose was the sort of attack on Old English, who delivered a reasonable, albeit disagreeable oppose and you responded to by saying well, you don't understand. He may very well not understand the type of harassment, but there are certainly better ways to go about stating this, than (as I originally saw it) implying a wish of harassment on him. ''
'''Oppose''' - You seem to have accidentally gone here instead of Wikipedia:Debate your cause. An RfA is for the ''community'' to discuss your suitability for adminship. If you are going to argue every second oppose, then that tells me that you are not yet mature enough to take constructive criticism, and as an extension of that not currently suitable for sysop tools. Regards,
'''Strong oppose'''. As Prodego, I would have expected the condidate to have a firmer grasp of things, especially in light of the fact this is a second nomination. Many of those userboxes and the headline message on talkpage give the impression of a drama magnet, and also lends credence to the notion that neutrality may be an issue. As for the NOGOD box, if you want everyone to know you're an athiest there are much better ways of saying it than going down the confrontational route of running down others beliefs by labelling God (or all gods) as a myth or superstition &ndash; just say your an athiest, and {{t1|User atheist}} does the job just fine &ndash; shows bad judgment in my opinion. I've also been less than impressed by the candidate's somewhat dismissive response to concerns raised about it. <sub><font color="#007700">
'''Oppose''' based on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan A. Conklin|this]].  A non-admin close of an AfD, 15 hours too early, during his actual RFA—I'm sorry but that's just inexcusable.—
Awful NAC closure - basing the outcome on GNG when a ONEEVENT argument hadn't been countered and there were well argued redirect votews is .. just.. bad and there wasn't any clear consensus there as the sourcing hadn't been properly discussed. just lots of assertions. A relist would have been better with a direction for participants to improve their rationales. The answer the Q6 troubled me too. Seems a bit eager to label edits as vandalism. I'd expect an admin to recognise a) they need more info for that and b) given the public way the candidate wears the label of their sexuality that working in LGBT articles probably is too close to home for them.
'''Oppose''' based on evidence that the candidate may not comport himself in a manner conducive to developing articles. Yes, essays are not policy, but many, especially those about article content, reflect community consensus and allow discussions to move along and articles to be standardized. Twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parents_Television_Council&diff=prev&oldid=405606330] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Deere&action=historysubmit&diff=407520774&oldid=407515775] in the past month he has demanded that other editors explain their reasoning ''de novo'' because he refuses to read essays. This indicates an unwillingness to "play ball" with other editors. The second diff is also an example of opening a move discussion to reverse a previous move less than a month after it was completed, indicating that the candidate does not particularly respect consensus. Also per Mkativerata and his unsatisfactory response to those concerns --
'''Oppose''' Cuncur with OlEnglish, NativeForeigner, etc. From your userpage, user talk page and the way you interact in this RfA you seem very opinionated and zealous in some matters, and also a tad immature. Overall I'm getting an "us versus them" type mentality that isn't good to have when trying to communicate with other users from a (perceived) position of authority.  This doesn't inspire confidance that you'll use the tools appropriately or that you'd stay away from topics on which you have personal feelings. S Marshall's diff is also noted as it shows that you don't have the AfD experience needed to be closing deletion debates. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=407955213#Pending_Changes_on_talk_pages This exchange] is quite troubling as well. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' History of very poor NACs.  Just out of memory I recall [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers]] where candidate invented a redirect close out of whole cloth as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Down_the_Block_There%27s_a_Riot&diff=prev&oldid=395877232 this one] where he did a very similar thing. The last thing we need is an admin who closes AFD's with a supervote without [[WP:BLP|damned good reasons]]. (PS, running to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=396221290 RFPP trying to force] a poor NAC to stick was also poor form.)
'''Oppose'''. First off the candidate has my sympathies for the debacle that this RfA has become and for the personal attacks that he has obviously received due to his sexual orientation during his years at wikipedia (though not in this RfA, I hasten to add). Basically the reason I'm in oppose is that many of the opposes above give very really and concerning reasons, and together, they culminate in me not having enough confidence in you to have the tools. As an atheist myself, I can see why you have the userbox in question and personally I don't believe it is enough to warrant an outright oppose, but the confrontational manner in which you responded does concern me, especially the claims that it was kept at MfD so it is clearly fine. The fact that it even went to MfD should give you an indication that at least some people find it offensive. The sig issue concerns me very slightly, as I struggle to read it and find it unnecessarily colourful. Also (although you clearly don't mean it to), it does appear very MySpace-y. I must, however, say that I was pleased to note your removal of the confrontational user talk header. For me though, there are three main reasons why I'm in oppose. Firstly, that you needed to be told (whether it was in a roundabout manner or not) that you had missed the 3RR on Q6. This is partially Sven's fault, as you may have realised yourself without prompting, but you never got the opportunity and now it simply looks as if you forgot (or worse, didn't know) until you were told. Secondly, the incorrect non-admin closure. It's not really the decision you reached (yes, it should have been kept) but that you "supervoted" that it was your opinion that he passed the GNG, rather than saying that the consensus was that he passed the GNG (the AfDs Coucelles points out are also troubling). Finally, and in my opinion most importantly, are Mkativerata's copyvio concerns. As he says, you only fixed the problems that were identified in March and didn't take the initiative to fix your other copyvio problems before they again had to be raised in September. Although all of these concerns are obviously forgivable in the case of an editor, they are not so in the case of a prospective admin.
'''Oppose''' My regrets for this oppose. Will post the details tomorrow. Kind regards.
'''Oppose'''. I hate NACs to begin with, but this user's closures actually prove why I'm so against them. Links already provided by earlier opposers. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Per others re. poor AC of AFDs, during this RFA too. The RFPP pointed out by Courcelles is pretty bad too from November.
'''Oppose''' I haven't throughly vetted the candidate, but his persistence on user boxes that advocate positions (not just describe him) is troubling.  This is particularly troubling because it was one of the major issues (cited by 9 of 17 opposes) in his last RfA.  Having a user box that says, "I'm xxx" is ok.  Having a dozen saying "I'm xxx" starts pushing it into the land of advocacy---especially when some are aggressive to others.  This becomes even more problematic when the user admits to having issues with people vandalizing/harrassing him on his talk pages.  There are plenty of openly gay/lesbian/athiestic/etc users out there who do not feel the need to vow not to be silenced.  This tells me a fair amount about his attitude and ability to remain impartial during debates.  A good admin can look at an issue that he is interested in and knowledgable about and provide guidance that is accepted as objective--even if it is something s/he'd rather not see.  I do not see that happening here.  Do we need strong gay/lesbian/athiest admins?  YES---just as we need every area to be well represented, we need people who are familiar with the issues at hand.  Unfortunately, I do not trust this candidate to be one of them.  I also find it highly concerning, that when you try to edit his talk page, it proudly proclaims, ''Oh, and please never link me an essay, I find them useless and will put ZERO weight on them!''  He puts zero weight in ALL essays?  Now, I know essays are not policies/guidelines, but some do reflect community understanding and do have good insight.  His declaration that he is discounting all essays as they have zero weight? Again, that sounds like a person who has been quoted a few too many essays and rather than accept any guidance from them says, "no, i know better." Doesn't sound like somebody who is open to discussion.---'''
'''Oppose''' for two reasons. I share Spartaz's NAC concerns. I'm also troubled by the candidate's communication skills and attitude. Too often he takes a sour or combative tone with other editors, as is evident in this RfA. He may prove to be a fine admin one day; in the meanwhile he needs to take a calmer approach to  Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Courcelle's difs show poor judgement in closing AfDs. General tone in this RfA seem too overly confrontational for a potential sysop. If these issues are resolved, I would be willing to support future RfAs. --
'''Oppose'''. I have serious qualms regarding your maturity and the way you interact with other people, especially with those you disagree with. Furthermore, Courcelle's diffs are really unreassuring, since you've stated that, as an admin, you'll be closing AfDs. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' The ubx being discussed above is ''patently'' offensive because even though it mentions no particular deity, it demeans and ridicules faith. That itself is no reason to oppose, but the candidates inability to understand why others feel this way could be. The early AfD closure as well as the diffs pointed out by Prodego above are more problematic. There is too much of a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground mentality]] evidenced here, and little willingness to [[WP:STICK|put down the stick]]. None of this speaks well to the attitude needed to be an administrator at this time. I would certainly reconsider this candidate in the future with demonstration of greater maturity and more willingness to walk away when the situation calls for it. '''
'''Oppose''' Does not seem to have the meekness or humility which is so crucial for an admin. If he is given the tools, then the inevitable mistakes, misjudgments, and conflicts will be magnified because of his careless style and attitude. Imagine if two admins make the same mistake and do a small bit of harm to WIkipedia. The admin with better people skills, more humility, and greater maturity will obviously be able to mitigate much of the damage. If given the tools, I don't trust CTJF not to become a power broker or use his position of being an admin as a symbol that he has the community's backing. Imagine how intimidated future users may become of an admin like CTJF if they are on the opposite side of him in a conflict. He is already quite forceful, headstrong, and stubborn. Give him power and I think other editors will acquiesce rather than polite, civil discussion. I would surely support this user in the future if he can show meekness and humility, and I believe many of the other oppose-voters would also.
'''Oppose''' Per Mkativerata, Prodego, Courcelles, among others... But more than just diffs, your inability to learn from past mistakes, lack of humility, and consistent badgering of opposers indicate that you're more interested in proving yourself right than understanding their concerns.
Oppose per OlEnglish, NativeForeigner and Courcelles. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ctjf83&diff=prev&oldid=408271700 this] and others above. Bureaucrats don't just ignore opposes that they don't agree with. They're job is to weigh the arguments in support and opposition of the candidate and then decide what the community really wants. Expecting them to ignore opposes just doesn't make sense. In a way, that's showing the "us vs. them" mentality that others have shown above. Come back in six months and I'll probably change my mind but at this point I can't bring myself to support you.
'''Oppose''' per old english, Prodego, and the AfD closure points. If you claim you want to work in an area you should know it well. The points above don't show that. (They also show some us vs them problems) The answer to my question also raises an eyebrow. I can't see how you can maintain a NPOV while blocking/working with a dispute when you have strong feeling about the topic.--
'''Oppose''' per diffs from Courcelles and concerns about communication as already expressed.
'''Oppose'''. It's hard to quantify good judgment or common sense or discretion,  but the candidate does not seem to have it.  For example, though I perhaps might agree with the candidates actual position  on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers]], to make a NAC against the unanimous consensus of experienced editors was very poor judgment. I see nothing specifically offensive in any one userbox, and even the rather   aggressive array of them is entirely within his rights and does not bother me personally in the slightest, to have it up  when applying for AfD is either negligent or confrontational. A conscious effort at self-restraint might help before another application.    '''
'''Oppose''' this nomination. Clearly the candidate's heart is in the right place, and he has come a long way since the 1st RFA. However, being an admin needs not only enthusiasm and familiarity with the rules, processes, and culture of the place, but also reliable judgment in tricky situations. The combination of the various issues brought up by others, and the tone of candidate's responses, don't make me comfortable that he would act with good judgment when, as an admin, he would find himself in an awkward situation. (FWIW, I don't care one way or the other about the God userbox - but I do feel any administrator or would-be administrator who puts many boldly stated userboxen up inherently runs a greater risk of inflaming rather than calming situations.)
Oppose 3, 4 5, 6 and 9 indicate that the candidate is not ready at this stage. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', per Q7.  Either don't accept recall or do, please don't find some "middle" stage.
'''Oppose''' pile on per many above. Particularly disillusioning are the shallow answers to basically all the questions, the plagiarism/copyvio concerns, and the many mistakes with regards to accepted policies, both in the answers to RfA questions and in his ordinary edits. Great editor, but currently [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|too inexperienced]] with admin tasks. --
Per Prodrego, OlEnglish, Balloonman etc. It's a shame that this RfA has, in places, lost focus on the candidate's contributions, but I believe that's unfortunately down to the way the candidate has chosen to present his "Wikipedia face". On a website that's about collaboratively building an encyclopedia and where most of us adopt pseudonyms, there's no reason to ''militantly'' define one's self in terms of things like religion and sexuality that are basically irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Although we don't forbid divisive userboxes etc, I would expect a potential admin to show more judgement in presenting a neutral, collaborative, collegial and welcoming face to the world. Simply put, if I were an editor in difficulties I might be tempted to ask the candidate for admin intervention in, say, an LGBT or religion issue where I needed pro-LGBT/anti-religion support, but not otherwise. As a content editor the candidate clearly has a lot going for them and they should be very proud of their excellent contributions. However, as an admin I do not feel confident that the role would be performed with the necessary tact, judgement and detachment.
'''Oppose''' - While the candidate appears to be a very prolific content contributor, the answers to several of the questions unfortunately indicate a lack of knowledge and experience with admin areas, including some areas in which he has indicated he'd like to actively participate.
'''Oppose''' Reading through the candidates interactions within this RFA I don't believe promotion is the right move at this time.--
'''Strong Oppose''' per Mkativerata. Refusing to go back through past contributions to weed out copyvios is completely unacceptable for any editor. When [[User talk:Darius Dhlomo|Darius]] did this (on a much larger scale), they were indef blocked. --
'''Oppose''' EyeSerene put it very well. --
I don't know. What I do know is the flag and statement on the talk page is a bit "in-your-face"-y. I'm not homophobic but I just don't like it when any user prominently displays a strong, blatant statement that isn't really WP-related—it sort of makes me think "not going to back off" before I even start a discussion on a talk page. This is certainly not the main reason for my neutral, but I'm not sure right now. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''', leaning reluctantly towards an "oppose". The candidate has clearly learnt a lot since the previous RFA, and is a committed contributor who has worked hard to improve the quality of his contributions and his understanding of policy.  I'm pleased that the juvenile political abuse has been removed from his userbox collection, and I'm horrified that a number of editors oppose him because he says that god is a myth; he has just as much right to believe that as others have to believe that god is real and omnipotent.<br />However, I have serious reservations about the way he has turned his userpage into a political manifesto and apparently been surprised by the reactions to it.  I'd probably agree with him on most points there (apart from killing people, which like most Yurpeens I'm not so keen on as Merkins) ... but I think that such a huge exercise in political positioning is deeply unwise.  Editors here have a huge range of views on just about any subject you can think of, and waving a truckload of flags in their faces seems to me to be a very good way of bringing everybody's POV to the surface. Right or wrong, the forest of POV userboxes on the userpage conveys an ''impression'' of someone here to promote a manifesto, an impression heavily reinforced by the prominent [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]-like statement "I WON'T be silenced no matter how much you harass me!!". <br />While I believe that Ctjf83 2 does in practice strive to promote NPOV, the userpage poisons the ground before he even contributes to any topic. The substance of those userboxes could be conveyed in a short paragraph saying "this my politics, but I'm here to help build neutral coverage rather than to promote my views"  ... but going about it in this way suggests a grave lack of maturity. Some things which are permissible are nonetheless unwise if you want to avoid drama, and I fear that CT's failure to distinguish the two would impeded his ability to be an effective admin. (If CTj13 blocks a conservative christian opponent of the death penalty for even the most outrageous conduct, it's going to be hard for the blocked editor to grasp that were blocked for their conduct rather than for their views).<br />I start to write this as a "weak support", but was swayed to neutral by the candidate's explanation of his block  on [[same-sex marriage]] as being that he got overheated because "that topic clearly has a personal real life effect on me".  Sorry, but if you can't keep your cool on an issue because you got a horse in the race, that should be a clear warning to you not to edit in that area until you have regained an NPOV state-of-mind. That block was a year ago, but the defence in this RFA does suggests to me that appropriate lessons have not been learnt. --
'''Neutral'''. None of Ctjf83's userboxes bother me. What ''is'' bothering me is the reaction of the candidate to the people the userboxes do bother. He seems unwilling to see things from their perspective, and unable to understand why they find the userbox to be hurtful and inflammatory. The [[WP:WAX]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ctjf83_2&diff=407955810&oldid=407954977 response] isn't helpful either. Lots of us have had our userpages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:28bytes&diff=399680627&oldid=399477102 vandalized] but to imply that the opposes here have the same mindset as the vandals is a little inappropriate, to say the least.
'''Neutral,''' wanting to support. Being that I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing I do not feel I have the experience to make a full vote on his qualifications as administrator. However I wanted to state that Ctjf83 has responded quickly to help this newbie with quality answers and/or directions to where I could find the correct Wikipedia policies to follow. --
While a lot of admin actions are not a big deal, AfD closure is, so I'm nervous about the 15 hour early incident. For the record, there is absolutely zero chance that the community would ever reach a consensus to desysop an admin with your userpage. I therefore think it is invalid to oppose your promotion on identical grounds. —
'''Neutral''' - The candidate has my full sympathy for their RfA being turned into yet another RfA fiasco  for off-topic reasons, by participants who should keep their innuendos out of the trick  questions they  pose, and take their opinions and comments to the appropriate talk pages. But an NAC 15-hour-early supervote close of an evenly-balanced discussion so  close to, or during  a candidate's RfA, clearly  shows that  the candidate cannot yet be relied on to exercise due care when carrying out the kind  of admin  tasks that  require a mature sense of judgement. If the candidate had not got  involved in  this AfD (of which incidentally I was the nominator, although I don't personally care which way it goes) they would have had my clear support  !vote. --
'''Neutral''', (currently) leaning oppose. Ctjf83's attitude to the userbox oppose is worrying. Userboxes aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, but the way the candidate has responded to the discussion is not what I would hope to see in an admin. I'm uncomfortable that the discussion was allowed to get so personal so quickly. It would have been perfectly reasonable to respond to Keepscases with an 'agree to disagree', if keeping the userbox is very important to Ctjf83. The comments made by 28bytes [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ctjf83_2|on the talk page]] are completely valid, and explain what I want to say better than this will. We shouldn't demand perfect candidates, but in my view, calm and measured reactions to conflict are very important.  --
'''Neutral'''. This statement by Ctjf83 worries me: "''I'm sorry you don't have to go through harassment on here and in real life for being who you are.''" Ctjf83's subsequent dialogue with Keepscases and justification of the statement adds further concern.
We could do without any more admins lax about copyright.
'''Neutral'''. I am a middle-of-the-road, low-profile, gnome-type who would sooner avoid editing than wilfully upset anybody. My first instinct was to avoid this RfA altogether, since I find it generally dismay-inducing, and am not under the illusion that the process is desperate for my input. But I would like to say something in support of the candidate, despite the fact that I oppose his adminship. <br />I would have opposed this RfA on the basis of that early AfD closure. For my money, we need to observe deletion procedure and timelines in all but the most open-and-shut cases (e.g. nominator withdraws the nomination but doesn't close it). I would also like to have seen a more robust response to the identified copyright concerns, and a more proactive approach to ensuring that no more are present - I want to see a prospective admin showing a little more appreciation for the potential problems here. I'm not totally sold, either, on ''some'' of the candidate's responses to comments in this RfA - though I would be astonished if frustration was not playing a part by this point.<br />But I am putting myself here to try to counter some comments I find frankly upsetting, concerning the candidate's representation of his identity on his userpage. CTJF83, you must have the thickest skin in the world to be putting up with this. Leaving aside for a moment the question of adminship, we're really happy to tell our gay contributors, including ones we ''know'' have been harassed ''here on Wikipedia'' for being gay, that we'd all feel more comfortable if they'd just pipe down, lower their heads, and avoid making a big deal out of who they are (where devoting something like 50*50 pixels of screen space to saying they're proud to be gay apparently constitutes making a big deal)?<br />The candidate's attitude and personality are a world away from mine, but I am dismayed that anyone would construe his willingness to express pride in a part of his identity as evidence of a combative personality unsuitable for adminship. (Obvious disclaimer: I do not mean that ''all'' the oppose votes are problematic in this way.)
'''Neutral''' - I almost supported just to balance out Keepscases' oppose, but I must agree with some of the legitimate concerns about Ctjf83's maturity, leaving me neutral. At the very least, I offer my moral support for the personal hell that this RfA has obviously been. I am a Christian and don't approve of homosexuality. However, there is no reason that his beliefs should affect his editing, and by extension of that, no reason it should affect my (or anyone's) position on his RfA. I will add though, that a less controversial userbox could have been used. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
I've moved to neutral from support. I'm actually leaning oppose, but I think this RfA is going to fail anyway, and I don't want to pile on, especially in light of the far-too-numerous unfair oppose rationales. I still stand by everything I said in my support. But I also said that I could be persuaded to change my mind by new evidence, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Olympics national flag bearers]] is a deal-killer for me. It's recent, and it shows a clear lack of respect for the consensus of other editors. Administrators have to work constructively with the views of the community, even when they disagree. The candidate could have commented and discussed in that AfD, without presuming to close it. That could easily make me oppose, but I'm disgusted by '''some''' of the oppose comments, so I'll stay here. Please understand, this is "not now" rather than "not ever", and with a bit more learning and maturation, this candidate could easily get my support in the future. --
I'm sorry but you've done way too little editing the last months [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Curtis23&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]. With that little edits (especially to the "admin areas") it's not possible to judge if you would be a good administrator. I'm afraid you need some more experience.
Oppose Overall contributions too low and next to nothing in the last 8 months means one is unable to assess your temperament, policy knowledge and civility --<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you are asking us to waste our time. This isn't your first RfA, it is your third, so you should know by now that it is extremely unusual to support an editor for admin with under 5,000 edits, and most of those situations have extraordinary circumstances. 2,000 edits isn't close to enough to have the breadth of experience needed.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
{{ec}}'''Oppose''' Based on your answers, I really do not think you have the experience required for the admin tools.  I also noticed that you only used edit summaries in about [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Curtis23&lang=en half of your major edits].  It is exceedingly important for editors to communicate their changes when they make them.  I also noticed that you participated in the adopt a user program.  I don't know if I am missing something, but [[User:AJona1992|AJona1992]] complained that you left him and even left [[User talk:Curtis23/Archive 4#Are you even here?|this edit]] begging for help.  You also adopted [[User:Theoneinblue|Theoneinblue]]; however, I have seen no messages left on his page by you, and messages from him on your page have been left unreplied.  You state that you would like to work with AFD, but I see no experience in the subject.  Do some vandal fighting and AFD work without the admin tools so you can gain experience.
You've basically been gone for over half a year, and just came back to WP.  Far too soon to be launching an RFA, as you haven't shown you're knowledgeable about current practice: and as you've been here twice before, you should have known this would be problematic.
'''Oppose''' - I really want to see recent experience to evaluate how you handle different situations.  Less than 100 edits in the last 9 months is not enough.  Stay active and listen to the other opposers on their comments, then come back in 6+ months.
What use would you possibly have for the tools? You're hardly active here, not active in any admin areas, and as such I '''oppose'''.
Per experiance.  Over two years.  Good luck.  &ndash;
Your last RfA was SNOW closed just last month and nothing has changed since then. Just because you've made a lot of recent edits, it doesn't mean you have enough experience to be an Admin yet.
per reasoning [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Curtis23_3|last month]]. One month of rampant Huggle reversions and associated talk page notices after next to nothing in the last 8 months does not provide enough for one to assess your temperament, policy knowledge and civility. Proliferation of RfAs starts to look like badge collecting.--<small><b><i>Club[[User_talk:ClubOranje|<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font>]]</i></b><sup>
'''Oppose''' - too soon after last attempt - not a good sign that this failed SNOW and it is just too early at this stage. Keep at it though.
'''Oppose''' You still cite your experience with adopt a user; however, [[User:AJona1992|this user]] was very unhappy with the adoption you provided.  He even begged you for help [[User talk:Curtis23/Archive 4#Are you even here?|here]] and you failed to respond.  I would not hold this against you if you did not continue to try to use it to support your adminship.  I also saw very little effort with your adoption with [[User:Theoneinblue]].  You state again that you would like to participate in AFD, yet you haven't participated in a single AFD discussion since your last request was closed.  I haven't seen any improvement in admin related areas since your last request.  Continue reverting vandalism, that can be done without the admin bit. <tt>  </tt>
'''Oppose''' Sorry! Your multiple Rfas over a short period of time show that you are possible power hungry and are not ready for the tools. '''
'''Oppose'''. Your Huggle reversions are appreciated. However, one month of activity is not enough. I would suggest waiting 5 or 6 months before your next RFA and use this time to get more experience in admin-related areas.--
'''Oppose''' - Block showing for edit warring. This is the fourth try for the tool bucket, a self-nomination coming on the heels of a failed effort. Time to give it a break for a year or two...
'''Regretful oppose''', but with the '''strongest moral support possible'''. Don't nominate yourself right after you fail; rather, wait a substantial amount of time and then come back. I would recommend you avoid self-nominations from now on; either wait for someone to nominate you or find someone to nominate you. Waiting is the better option IMO, but I leave the decision up to you.
'''Strong oppose'''. This is just a repeat of what you did 18 months ago: requests adminship, community says no. Wait a few weeks, make an near-identical request for adminship. Such disregard for consensus is a trait I do not like to see in somebody who wishes to be an administrator. Some people just shouldn't be administrators, and sorry Curtis, but I think you're one of them. Forget about adminship and just focus on being a Wikipedian.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience, maturity, judgement, and block log.  -'''
I am neutral regarding this RfA because there simply is not enough new information to evaluate the candidate since the last RfA. I am inclined to see it closed as [[WP:SNOW]] and for the candidate to allow enough time (perhaps six months) for contributions to show the concerns of the last attempts have been addressed.
'''Moral support''' Contributions seem to demonstrate a good understanding of policy. --
'''Support''' I nominated him because he voiced a desire to delete articles with bad sourcing. He needs admin tools to delete articles, and also deal with editors who insist on breaking rules on sources.
'''Support''' because we need admin assistance to clean up and divide out the chaff from the sprawling hellscape of weak articles that, sadly, seem to make up Wikipedia's coverage of Asia and its rich and important history.  A lot of damage has been done to the Asian topics by nationalistic POV warriors, damage that most admins can't begin to grasp.  Us editors in the trenches need help.  This is one admin that won't tell me, as many have, "I'm afraid that I know next to nothing about China and its history so I can't be of much assistance..." and won't duck content issues— the number one concern for Asia topics.  We need help here, more eyes watching the store on Asian subjects. I would implore you all to reconsider.
I give moral support, please keep up the good work and you'll probably succeed next time.  &ndash;
A grand total of 11 Wikipedia-space edits in six years suggests to me there's too little for me to judge you on policy knowledge. You need to get active in the project namespace. Based on this, I do not think you are suited for adminship at this time. I also don't see a need for the admin buttons at all—adminship ''is'' a big deal, no matter what has been said about it in the past. There is no reason to give you the tools.
'''Not enough participation'''.  I checked user's listed articles and he seems to be the 3rd most active editor on them.  One article link goes to wikisource.  One goes to what is now a disambiguation page (yes the other pages split show his work, but still 3rd most active, also poor care with the nom statement).  Less than 3000 edits overall.  Nom statement seems overly terse as well (feel like too much is put on the voters to research the fellow...when he is closing discussions, he needs to be able to summarize things for others.  I would also like to see enough writing that is clearly his to see English ability (not saying I found mistakes, but an unknown).  He has also not optioned in for the month counts and the like.[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Oppose'''. User does not have experience in admin-related areas yet. Also, if you don't plan to work in administrative areas, why would you need the tools?--
'''Oppose'''. It's not very often that I participate here, but I stumbled over accidentally and this nom was at the top of the list. It seems clear to me from the user's contributions that, not only does this user not have a need for the tools, they probably won't know how to use them correctly. No experience managing files, no experience maintaining categories, very little interaction on user talk and Wikipedia talk pages, etc. I can understand an exemplary content editor asking for the tools just in case they need them, but this user hasn't even written a GA yet. --'''
'''Oppose''' - I think our standards are too high in terms of total number of edits - your edit count is just fine for someone who makes actual manual edits (as opposed to candidates who have 10,000 edits using AutoWikiBrowser or some such thing).  However, one-sentence answers to the questions above aren't especially impressive, especially when you don't answer parts of the questions.  #3 asks not only how you have dealt with conflicts in the past (which you say you haven't had any, so that's fine), but also how you will deal with them in the future (which needs to be answered).  #1 isn't about what you have done in the past, but what is it that you would want to do with the administrative tools.  Would you process [[CAT:CSD|speedy deletions]]?  Close [[WP:AFD|deletion discussions]]?  Patrol [[WP:RFPP|protection requests]], [[WP:REFUND|undeletion requests]], or [[WP:AIV|vandalism reports]]? --
'''Oppose''' - Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Well, it actually looked quite promising for a moment, as you have no blocks and over 2000 article edits, but I have to agree with the other editors and say that your answer to Q1 shows that you have no experience in admin areas.
'''Oppose'''. No evidence to suggest any future use of admin tools. No participation in AfD.
I don't expect essays, but the answers are severely lacking. Essentially per B.
'''Oppose'''. Quite simply, no evidence to suggest any future use of admin tools. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Oppose''' per above, seems like a good editor, but not ready for adminship at this time. --'''
You don't need the tools to clean up, reference, or organize articles. You can do that right now.
I don't think the work you do necessitates the extra buttons. I'm neutral rather than oppose because from your contributions I am fairly sure you would be a decent admin; there just isn't enough relevant experience to judge you on. —
You're doing a good enough job as it is without the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me! -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Don't see why not. --
'''Support''' I don't see a reason not to support, though their user talk page could use some type of link to the page archives.
'''Support''' Doesn't look like there's a problem. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Not an admin already? Gah, this always happens to me! '''
'''Support''' I echo Eagles247's statement. Totally assumed adminship before.
'''Support''' - Easy decision. ''
'''Support''' -  Easy  decision. The lack  of own  creations is more than adequately  compensated by  the candidates edits  to  mainspace -  all manual  except 2 (two)! and the the solid experience on  noticeboards,  and high level  of civility  when communicating  with  less civil  editors.--
'''Support''' - Looks a solid candidate.
'''Lukewarm support''' - Candidate has a solid record as a trusted vandal fighter and newcomer helper; however, Mkativerata raises some valid points, in particular no articles created.--
'''Support''' - Clean block log, 14K edits, no indications of assholery.
'''Support''' - A trusted user.
'''Support''' as nominator. Regards '''
'''Support''' - Has a trusted experience.
'''Support'''-Has a lot of experience,especially in removing [[vandalism]].
'''Support''' Seems competent enough to wield the mop.
While his edits to [[WP:ANI|this shithole]] have been ... well, numerous, he seems to know what he's talking about there. Minus a few hiccups I don't see any reason to think otherwise. &mdash;
'''Support.''' I see no problems.
'''Support''' Harmless.©
'''Support''' Everything looks good, I'm not big on the whole "You have to have some content creation to be an admin thing." and you seem to have the right attitude and are a solid vandal fighter.--'''''
'''Support''', plenty of articlespace contributions and AfD report shows that Daye's usually with consensus there. Why not? --
'''Support''' Content creation is not obligatory <small>(and reverting vandalism ''is'' a useful contribution to Wikipedia, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise: without vandalism reversion, all that beautiful content gets left unread and the reader just sees giant pictures of genitalia '''everywhere''')</small>, seems sane. Although a participant on drama boards, seems to not be a participant in the underlying drama. Which is good. —
'''Support''' &ndash;
I think granting Dayewalker sysop rights would be a ''huge'' net positive for Wikipedia. I can easily envision him being among the most active administrators in places such as [[WP:AN|AN]], [[WP:ANI|ANI]], [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:3RR|3RR]], and elsewhere. His relative lack of content work doesn't concern me &mdash; although it's certainly a good thing to have article building credentials, I'm just not convinced that a lack thereof equates to a lack of empathy for those who ''do'' write articles. Dayewalker has both the temperament and the diligence necessary for the role, and the fact that he has a propensity towards some of the more tumultuous areas of Wikipedia makes him a probable asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' Although I hope an admin to be experienced in editing mainspace, this user seems to be familiar with its basic policies.
'''weak support''' weak because of clarity concerns in his answers above.  The content issue worries me less given he seems to know what he's doing.  And given that I trust the nom's judgement, I'm here.
'''Weak support''' - I'm troubled by some of the opposes from respected editors, but all in all you appear to be level-headed and clueful enough that it's unlikely you'll delete the main page.
'''Support'''. <font color="#7026DF">'''
'''Support''', meets my RfA criteria of being a user and being competent.
'''Support''' per nominator. It is either hard or easy depending how confident you are writing an encyclopaedia article, and we all know that he finds it difficult, but what I am amazed about is the large detail in the answers to the questions, particularly Q10 and 11.
'''Support'''. I respect the opposes, but I feel that the jobs done with the mop are orthogonal to content editing; so a shortage of content editing shouldn't disqualifiy a candidate who already has experience in areas where the mop ''is'' used. Yes, the primary mission of wikipedia is to build an encyclopædia, but it needs other work too in order to support the primary mission. You don't need a finance degree to be HR manager in a bank; you don't need a driving license to lay paving; why must somebody have a clutch of FAs in order to prove they'd be good at stopping vandals?
'''Support''': Content work has long become secondary around here, as admin tools have nothing to do with writing. Opposing over a lack of content is hypocritical and damaging to a process that has seen dwindling numbers in recent years.  <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
692 edits to ANI; 61 to "Wikiquette assistance" (what is that?). Zero articles created; pretty much zero content work generally. There really is no reason at all why a non-admin should be so active on the drama boards, and demonstrates an imbalance of editing inconsistent with the characteristics I would hope for in an administrator. Sorry. Your nominator seems to be pushing an agenda, citing two essays written by him or herself in the nomination statement, and I think that is unfortunate for you. --
As Swarm says above, easy decision. Far too little content work and far too much time at the drama boards.
Not enough (i.e. none) content creation for me. It's something I've opposed people over before because it simply is the most important part of building an encyclopaedia and I think admins especially should be well-versed in that area of the project. Also, far too much time spent at ANI and the other drama boards for my liking.
'''Oppose''' - my recent spat with the user where he unarchived a discussion I had clearly closed on my talkpage to add another comment and then because I didn't care to continue the discussion with him, his opening [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Off2riorob.27s_comments_at_ANI an ANI report] in a manner of escalation and adding heat, which was closed without action leave me no faith in the users ability to reduce heat and deescalate situations in a manner that I feel is required and an ability that I expect of administrators.
'''Oppose''' - the last thing we need is a prolific contributor to the drama boards as an admin, and not a very polite and level-headed at that.
Everyone should have created at least one article before being able to delete one. There is simply no substitute for the experience of actually having created an article. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Weak oppose''' Although I disagree that admins should do some content work before becoming one, his time on the dramaboards seems overdone; after all, Wikipedia is an ''encyclopedia'', and these dramaboards and vandalism reversion really don't help Wikipedia much as a whole. IMO, I'd say content creation should be strongly recommended but not a requirement for adminship. <small>although that's irrelevant to this RfA</small> I am aware that [[WP:NEIA|not everyone is an artist]], and his edits indicate that he ''is'' aware of content; though I'm somewhat curious about two things: 1) he hints that he's a writer in Q2, yet he hasn't done any "major" content work; 2) why he participates at the dramaboards more than articles, although he claims to be a writer. In addition, I observe [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=457775746#User:AbsoluteGleek92_and_copyvios this], where Dayewalker's "easy question" is, in my opinion, slightly too intimidating. I don't want to create a bunch of [[WP:DRAMA|drama]] here, but also [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#User:Goldblooded|here]] his tone is slightly intimidating; <small>but I don't disagree with him...</small> and I am slightly concerned about whether or not other interactions with other users as an admin will go as well, although I can't immediately find any recent solid evidence of negative interactions.
Administrators are elected to support and serve the good faith content creators.  This means admins need a certain minimum amount of experience with content creation, without which the admin won't understand enough about a good faith content creator's point of view.  I'm not one of those who thinks every candidate should have a FA, but I'll always look for at least a couple of halfway decent articles the candidate has written from scratch.—
'''Oppose'''. First of all, I have found Dayewalker to be a net asset to the project, no doubt about it. But questions were raised about contributing to article content, and they responded by citing a number of articles, including [[Sean Hannity]]. Well, in the enitre history of that article I find only one contribution that can be called substantive, and it is minor: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&diff=343434073&oldid=343431503 this one] (my apologies if I missed anything). Without article creation, and without much indication of article contribution, the host of useful reverts etc. seems unbalanced. Contributions to the drama boards are there, of course, and I don't remember many negative ones, but admins need to have a bit more in the content department, IMO. Regretfully, I must oppose.
'''Oppose'''. I have no problems with an admin who is primarily a vandal fighter rather than a content creator, as I feel it's appropriate to have all sorts of people with different skills, experience and interest as admins. However, I do have a problem with people who mislead, however unintentionally, as then I can't trust them. The candidate has given the impression that they have been "polishing" articles, and that they try to "tighten up the writing", and they are "collaborating with other writers to produce a better product", and to support that they state they are a professional writer. Yet when asked which articles they are proud of, they list articles to which they added nothing at all. They did not correct spelling even. They simply reverted. One article in the list they only made one (revert) edit. And another article, [[Democratic National Convention]], they haven't edited at all under the name Dayewalker. It may be that the candidate doesn't understand what "good content work" means (they don't seem to know the difference between nominator and candidate, as they have made a statement - "Further Comment From The Nom"); though if it was the case that they are misunderstanding certain terms and phrases, then I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting as they would struggle with basic Wiki communication and would likely make too many mistakes. People who are clear and straightforward, and with whom communication has few misunderstandings make the best admins. It may be that Dayewalker feels under pressure from the comments of the lack of content work and so is now digging a hole for themselves. No worries. RfA can be a stressful experience, but lessons can be learned, and Dayewalker can come back and apply again in six months time. '''
Misplaced priorities, per above.
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork; you don't have to be a [[Dostoyevsky]] to be an admin here, but embellishing your résumé doesn't look promising for someone asking for a position of trust.
'''Oppose''' - "Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia anyone can edit".  It would be nice to see this proposed admin actually do some editing. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose'''.  Having problems with the candidates answer to question 5.  I went through the user's edits to the first article offered as their best work in some detail but found only one edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&diff=343434073&oldid=343431503] that added anything in the least bit substantive and that appears to be the output of a talk page discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_6#Waterboarding] in which the candidate did not take part.  It is not essential for administrator's to have article writing experience but in my view it ''is'' essential for them to have a good understanding of the needs of the article writing editors who actually make this place what it is.  An appreciation of the devastating effect caused by the deletion of ones work is not easily grasped by those not actually writing for instance.  For a professional writer to have so little grasp of what constitutes a substantial contribution is quite astonishing and I can only think there was an attempt to overstate their work to impress this RfA.  Candidates for adminship need to be able to make a far more honest appraisal of their abilities if they are to become effective admins.  '''
'''Oppose''' due to inadequate content work. My view is that any candidate for the mop should have written at least one worthwhile article. I wouldn't oppose on that ground alone, though, if there was a good track record of article expansion which there isn't here. Admins have the tools to take actions affecting content editors, deal with situations arising from content disputes, delete articles etc. In order to have a proper appreciation of the issues an admin needs to have undertaken a reasonable amount of content work. Vandal fighting; policy work etc are all essential tasks but we are here to build an encyclopaedia and that entails adding content. I am bemused by the answer to Q.7 "... I very rarely find anything that doesn't already have an article, and doesn't have what I'm looking for. When I find something missing, I'll certainly add it. As for my writing, I'm a sports and humor writer". I am sure that a trawl through [[:Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports]] would produce plenty of relevant subjects without an article.
'''Oppose''' for a number of reasons. First, per Silktork. Second, per answers to questions, which to my mind are problematic on several levels. Third, lack of substantive content contributions. I don't expect an admin candidate to have created 100 articles, 50 FAs, or even 10 GAs, but...this is an ''encyclopedia'' we're here to build. Vandal-fighting is helpful, but it's not the be-all and end-all, and admin tools are not limited to the ability to block obvious vandals. Admins, all admins, have the ability to delete articles that someone has put work into, to block someone writing (or "defending") articles, to make decisions that affect the content of the encyclopedia - content that this particular candidate isn't truly invested in in any substantial way, AFAICS (Dayewalker, if you disagree...the examples you've offered so far aren't showing it, do you have others?).
'''Oppose'''. I wouldn't necessarily expect great work, but at least some content work would be a must; I also wouldn't believe for a second that a professional writer so interested in Wikipedia would not once have bothered to edit an article substantively.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm moving to oppose from neutral for the reasons listed above and for the lack of content contributions which are necessary, IMO.  Answers to Q4 also has me a bit concerned.  User had no learning curve whatsoever upon arrival and went from creating a new account on 18 May 2008 to editing the admin  boards like a seasoned pro in a matter of days.  Answers to Q4 are unsatisfactory.
'''Oppose'''. for many of the same reasons: no constructive contributions, too much time spent POV pushing at AN/I and a lack of civility when dealing with other users. This user got into a content dispute with me at [[Barack Obama]] a few years ago, and since my contribution went against his POV, he has made a point of watching my edits and filing specious 3RR and AN/I reports, mainly out of spite (and interestingly, he hasn't done this since this RfA was posted, nor in the weeks immediately preceding). We don't need someone like this with admin tools running amok among us. <b>
'''Oppose''' Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dayewalker&diff=prev&oldid=459092748 this] make believe that something is really suspicious with this user. He's been contradicting himself with something so simple as article writing, or even non-vandalism reverting article work. I can't in good faith support this RFA.
No offence intended, but admins should have substantial experience in contributing content. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Just lack of content creation, but other than that, you're fine sysop material.  ~~
Opposes are a little weak and more than a little pointy, but I'm on the fence here due to not knowing the candidate (I've seen his name around, but can't ever remember why), the lack of a demonstrable need for the tools in the nomination, and a degree of trepidation regarding the sponsor. Really just looking for a reason to support.
Ebe123 said it above fine and clear that you are very fine material for a sysop. In my opinion, we badly need people of your ability in Wikipedia. However the lack of content creation that you are missing bothers a lot of people, and it IS important to write articles in wikipedia: I actually have gone on record that a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2011/Radical_alternatives&oldid=454580669#Automatically_sysopped_through_writing_30_GAs_in_5_different_topics minimum number of GAs could bring someone automatically to become a sysop]. And I greatly appreciated your answer to my question, it seems like you would review the content before handing blocks left and right without seeing what's going on. I am sure you would be able to build easily great articles on sports or improve them by bringing them to higher classes, since it's part of your profession to write. As a sports writer like you claim to be, one would generally believe that you have access to many books, from which to source a huge quantity of good articles. That's the only thing that you are missing to become a great sysop. If I were you, I would take the pain of bringing a couple of articles to FA (or even better, a couple of [[Wikipedia:Triple_Crown|Triple Crowns]]), and then retry here. That would be the best response to all of those who have doubts on your abilities as an editor. Best of luck!
'''Neutral'''.  Mostly I want to say that I think the opposition's focus on content creation is irrelevant.  Dayewalker writes for a living; he doesn't want to write in his free time too, and I have no problem with that.  That said, I think the answers to the questions are a little vague; I get the feeling that adminship is desired for social reasons and to bring a hobby to the next level.  I don't get the impression that this user knows what to do with the tools, or knows what he wants to do, just that he knows he wants them.  -- <font color="#668353">
'''Neutral''' I've seen some good work by Dayewalker in talk-page discussions and dispute moderation.  I would like to support, but I would agree there needs to be some sort of content contribution.  Much respect for the vandalism work, it is necessary and the good content would gradually disappear without it.  Writing an article and getting it peer-reviewed is a great way to become familiar with a wider swathe of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  It's also quite enjoyable.  I would also avoid casting any aspersions on the candidate's honesty regarding his profession.  That's unfair, and, short of outing himself, something he has little ability to defend himself against.
'''Neutral'''. I was going to support, but {{u|SilkTork}}'s arguments, above, gave me pause. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Neutral''' move from support. I am generally confident that the candidate will make an excellent administrator, but I'm not at all happy with Q5, and there was nothing in Q11 or Q15 that changed my outlook on them.  I don't necessarily believe that Q5's answer showed a lack of candor, but at a minimum it shows a level of carelessness. I would likely support again at a later date, but in this case I find the oppose's arguments to be compelling, particularly from Drmies and Silktort.
'''Neutral''' Moved from oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDayewalker&action=historysubmit&diff=459086487&oldid=459071639 this] and a look at the candidate's contributions. I am still reluctant to support because I am not totally happy the candidate has thought through what his strengths (which are many) and weaknesses are before accepting nomination. --
'''Neutral''' - The lack of content creation is not a problem for me: we need some admins who can create content and some who are better suited to other areas. I does seem that everything Dayewalker has done has been productive, but I'm not convinced that adminship is right. I asked in my question about dispute resolution (which is even more important if he says that this is where he works, rather than content creation) - I'm not convinced that I've seen enough evidence to demonstrate a really strong record here. Also, some of the diffs provided concerning RPP were problematic - I believe there are times when a block would be more appropriate than page protection, especially if only one user is involved. Thus, while I commend all the word Dayewalker has done, I'm not comfortable with giving him adminship yet.
'''I really don't know''' I'd hate to add on to the bitching about your lack of content creation, but it certainly is a concern. Why haven't you created an article? I'll have to take a closer look at everything, but I don't think I'll be moving over to support.
'''Support'''. You seem to show wide distribution of edits since joining and continuous stability of editing along with a high edit count. I can trust you to hold the mop. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazymonkey1123/guestbook&action=edit Sign]
I give moral support, but you've got more work to do.  &ndash;
''' ''moral'' support''' the issues raised on the talk page A) seem to be at least 6 months old B) <s>Aren't copyright violations and</s> C) aren't related per se to the admin bit.   You seem to have a solid (if narrow) need for the tools, though I'd like to see a bit more deletion and other admin-related experience than I'm seeing in a quick perusal of your contributions.
'''tentative support''' close paraphrasing issues seem to have been addressed. Looking forward to seeing how the rest of the questions are answered. --
'''Moral support'''. You're on the right track, but you're not quite there yet. Don't take any of the issues stated here too personally; rather, take care of the problems stated, and come back in six months to a year.
'''moral suport''', primarily to express my position that the inadequate paraphrasing here is not serious copyvio, but correctable editing error. Although the rewriting cited on the talk p. is not as complete as I would have done, Moonriddengirl was able to find only two   which were really inadequate and verged on copyvio. Otherwise, I agree you need more experience in process-related activities. In my opinion AfD is a good place to start, since the comments you make there will demonstrate the degree of your understanding of policy.  '''
per DGG.
also per DGG. Be seen in other areas, and talk to people who work in them regularly. Don't be put off from trying again -  - just be careful in between now and then (and afterwards, of course....)
'''Moral Support''' I applaud your work recognizing and correcting your close paraphrasing issues as I have done that as well without knowing it. We all make mistakes, and it is how we deal with them as well as how they change us for the better that makes us a better user.
'''weak support''' Per DGG.-
'''Support''' - You made multiple mistakes a while ago. I think everyone deserves a chance at whatever they may like. If you are passionate about this, and you want it so badly, you have time to change your old ways. Barring that, you've been with the project for just over three years, 13,800 edits +. For what it's worth, you have my vote, reguardless if this is successful or not. Oh and don't take the Opposes comments personally, use them as helpful critism for the future. Good Luck! --
'''Oppose'''. I would be very happy to allow the candidate to edit templates. I too have been frustrated by being unable to do so in the past, but that "right" can't be given without all the other admin rights, for which the candidate has demonstrated no aptitude.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I've had a look at your contributions and I've found several instances where you have plagiarized sources and created copyright violations. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Dudemanfellabra#Examples_of_plagiarism_and_copyright_violations]] for some examples. In my opinion an admin should know better than to do that. I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter.
What Theleftorium has found and put on the talk page is quite problematic and needs addressing. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Oppose''' – I cannot support in light of the plagiarism highlighted on this RfA's talk page. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' because of plagiarism. I respectfully suggest that the candidate withdraw the nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
The close paraphrasing issue is very concerning, and short of a valid explanation and a clean up of the examples raised and a promise to not introduce further such copyvio, I don't think this RFA is going to pass.
'''Oppose''', some serious concerns raised above. I cannot support a candidate who is involved in plagiarism of other people's work.
'''Oppose''' due to the paraphrasing concerns raised; the candidate efforts to sort it out are laudable but, to me, it'll take some time to demonstrate full understanding of the nuances of close-paraphrasing before I could support. See also [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Dudemanfellabra#Non-free_text|talk page]]. Other concerns include the CSD-tagging in Q5, and the answer to Q3 concerns me because it sound like using [[WP:NOTTHEM]] as a defence; your idea that "I imagine I will spend very little time in dispute resolution" ... well, as an admin, you'll ''have'' to (a bit). Sorry...but I don't think you're ready yet. I hope this RfA has been constructive, and that you'll work to improve in the areas mentioned, and be back in some time. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose'''.  Although  we occasionally  make concessions for candidates who are highly specialised in narrow fields, having  examined the candidate's template work, I don't believe it to be a sufficiently compelling reason to accord the tools. Probably the major part of admin work concerns deletion/non-deletion and helping to maintain the quality of articles by tagging new pages for improvement, and making some improvement  on  the fly - and this includes looking  out for copyvio. I  do not  see any  significant  activity  in  these areas and would not be comfortable in  according syop rights to a candidate that has not demonstrated some measurable activity in page patrolling. With regards to  the issue on the talk page here, I look for clean, or cleaned-up, articles prior to nomination. I would possibly support a new RfA in six months time if these issues are addressed. --
'''Oppose''' I just feel that I have to oppose on this one, do some anti-vandalism work and I'll support next time -
'''Oppose''', concerns about copyvio and plagiarism as noted by {{user|Moonriddengirl}} on the talk page. &mdash; '''
I'd like to see more involvement in projectspace discussions (esp. policy, etc.). <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' I was on the fence, completely neutral until I saw A4.  That was the deal breaker for me.  As I learned the hard way myself, A7 is NOT about notability, nor finding reliable sources.  A5 also seems to be completely off base, as was the tagging.  Based on that lack of CSD policy knowledge, along with the lack of Wikispace experience in general, has given me the unpleasure of opposing this candidate ''at this time''.
'''Oppose''' Personally, I do not believe the copyvio issues are enough for an oppose on my part.  The editor recognized the issues and made improvements to the pages.  In addition, the issues were not directly related to the use of admin tools.  That being said, I cannot currently support the editor because I do not think he has a full understanding of Speedy deletion criteria.  The article in question four stated that the company was "well known" and a "company to watch".  A7 can only be used when the article makes no ''claim'' to importance.  If a claim to importance is made, even if it is unsupported, it cannot be deleted under A7.  Unless you are 100% sure on the policy for speedy deletion, you should not delete the page.  I would probably have supported if the editor had stated that he would not delete the page and his sole intent was to use the tools for editing protected pages, but he has shown that he would use the tools in other areas and he is not experienced enough for that.  Correct these issues and you will have my support next time.
'''Oppose''' - Per Chzz's advise here and on the talk page.
'''Weak Oppose''' Requesting adminship with a reason to edit protected pages usually has my support, but with all those plagiarism issues provided on this RfA's talk page makes me reluctant to support at this moment.
'''Oppose''' both because of the close paraphrasing and because of answer A5 which shows little or no understanding of what was actually wrong with the CSD tag (the tagged article clearly deserved at least a prod but the chosen tag was a poor fit; CSD tagging should only be used in certain circumscribed cases not just as an expedient way of getting rid of problem articles). —
'''Oppose''' The answers to Q4 and Q5 were handed to you on a platter and you missed them both because you apparently didn't read the relevant documents. You were linked to both of them. Key phrases you needed to catch were "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines" for Q4 and "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" for Q5. This isn't a good sign.
'''Oppose''' per plagiarism. <font color="#FFB911">╟─
'''Oppose''' due to close paraphrasing and speedy deletion concerns.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with policy knowledge, breadth of exposure, and judgement.  -'''
Based on the information at the RFA talk page, the user does not appear to have a clear understanding of the problems with plagiarism and close paraphrase, and I am waiting a good explanation of the problems therein.  Leaning towards oppose, unless some really good explanations come through.  --
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose per copyvio concerns. --
'''Neutral''' I do not characterize the close paraphrasing as plagiarism which is a bit more malicious. It is however a copyvio of <s>significant</s> sufficient magnitude, and ones RfA is not the place where these policies should be learned. Therefor I can not support this bid at this time.
'''Neutral''' I would undoubtedly support were it not for the copyvio issue, which I consider an absolute dealbreaker among admin candidates. You have a very legitimate use for the tools and I think you should have them at some point, but for the time being, there are more crucial issues about your editing history that need to be resolved.
'''Moral neutral'''.  I don't support copyvio, but I think the acts were innocent.  Also, usually a real plagiarizer will have some big sections and the like, not a few bad sentences.  Too tired to do the work to investigate it more and the candidate was kind of "eh" with me as well.  Hope he will just take this blow, learn his lesson, up his game, write some more articles (really write them), and then come back in the future.  Have to admit, I feel a little sorry for him, so I'm in moral neutral land, since he is not passing anyway.
'''Neutral''' First, I don't think the paraphrasing issue should be decisive here; for me what is really important is that a candidate for admin have competency in the area(s) they want to work in, and that they seem unlikely to misuse the tools in the case of a conflict. The desire to work on protected templates is a good reason to request admin, and on that alone I would support. However, in light of the candidate's stated intention to work with speedy deletions and lack of history in the area, I felt it was necessary to ask questions designed to probe the candidate's knowledge of deletion process. While the answers to the questions have shown a positive content creation outlook and a desire to work constructively with others, they have not demonstrated an understanding of speedy deletion process. Deleting the article under A7 if you can't improve it could be argued to be a correct outcome, but the candidate has not identified the relevant issues to consider or explained why they result in deletion(note I personally think the article passes A7 and that if it is to be deleted it should be deleted under an alternative process). Because of the lack of review or discussion that occurs in most CSD applications, I cannot support a candidate who intends to work in the field but has not demonstrated a clear understanding of process.
It's impossible for me to support due to the copyvio issue above, but otherwise I think you're a great editor. Noticed some of your edits last week at NRHP and was impressed, so hopefully you'll continue doing that and won't be taken aback by the result here. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''neutral''' the candidate seems to have a broad enough experience, but first needs to prove knowledge of the A7 speedy delete criteria as compared to notability criteria.  This proof could be achieved by looking that the speedy delete candidates and identifying those that don't qualify because they make a claim of importance.
'''Neutral''' per many above comments, the candidate has broad knowledge over policies and experience, and has been in Wikipedia for some time. I still doubt this would be the right time, looking at a few negative points, such as those copyvios linked above. '''''
'''<s >Neutral<s >''' -(Moving to oppose) - After seeing issues on the talk page, it made me refuse to go <s >neutral<s > (moving to  oppose).--
Given that your previous RFA failed largely for temperament issues, the preemptively defensive post after the optional questions is an interesting choice. It suggests to me there may still be perspective issues. Furthermore, you already have an editor review up, and you know RFA isn't the same thing as an editor review; your from-the-jump desire to run this thing a full week even if its purpose has been served suggests a lack of interest in community consensus.
I'll admit, I'm a little predisposed to oppose here because of the sloppily formatted and premature (in my opinion) recall petition you initiated. But I figured the fair thing to do would be to look at your recent contribs before deciding, and they don't really fill me with confidence. <s>It appears that you don't notify article creators when you PROD or CSD their creations... even though you use Twinkle and Twinkle does this automatically if you let it. That makes it difficult for a non-admin to tell what proportion of your CSDs are upheld. Despite that,</s> I do see some obviously declined ones, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Guthrie_%28editor%29&diff=prev&oldid=410732147 this article], which makes a very clear assertion of importance for the subject. I'm open to reconsidering this oppose, but this is where I have to land for now.
'''Oppose''' a cursory look at some of your deletion nominations leaves me a little concerned but, taken in isolation, these would not normally lead me to oppose your candidacy. Of greater concern to me was the recall petition you initiated against a former administrator. Like others, I believe that action was premature and not wisely conceived on your part and led to the project losing a capable sysop over what I feel was a minor issue. I therefore question your judgement in administrative matters and I feel that promoting you to sysop at this time is not in the best interests of the project.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience, maturity, and temperament. <font color="00ff00">
'''Oppose''' - Mostly over drama concerns, and more widely out of a lack of content contributions. I don't mean just creating articles, but overall distribution of edits. The previous issues discussed on the talk page, which are entirely new to me, aren't confidence inspiring, but on the other hand I don't see anything to indicate the editor was at any fault.
'''Oppose''' - Too many recent misuses of rollback (and thus an inadequate understanding of what constitutes vandalism). (E.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buchanan_County,_Virginia&diff=407180973&oldid=407180897a] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fish_Hooks&diff=prev&oldid=410716523] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cass_Technical_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=406439503] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KLDZ&diff=377693300&oldid=377693263]) The most egregious example is this series of rollbacks (and escalating vandalism warnings) of a user who appeared to be going around removing broken links from articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turbo_Dogs&diff=410714781&oldid=410714763] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Friend_Rabbit&diff=410715407&oldid=410715382] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_BG&diff=410716056&oldid=410716031] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_Exploration_with_Jarod_Miller&diff=410716208&oldid=410716187]; while that may not be the ideal way of dealing with dead links, the user was obviously doing it in good faith (he even provided edit summaries), and he should have received an explanation of our policy on broken links, not a level 4 vandalism warning ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.143.224.15&diff=410716211&oldid=410716059]). We don't need another bitey admin.
'''Oppose''' per the misuses of rollback. Solid vandalism work is the most basic measure of competency there is, if you can't do it properly I can't consider supporting. Sorry. ''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:SheepNotGoats|SheepNotGoats]]. I don't think you're ready for the mop at this time, I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per Lovetinkle and Swarm. Apparent poor understanding of key policies and serious questions regarding judgment and temperament. --
'''Oppose''' per Townlake and Boing.
'''Oppose''' - It's hard for me to support a candidate who can't even correctly create and transclude their own RfA page.
'''Oppose'''. I hate to seem like a pile on oppose, especially when my question hasn't yet been answered. But, I've been looking through your recent work. I took [[User:SheepNotGoats|SheepNotGoats]] diffs with a pinch of salt as they are all from January or before (roughly when you had your editor review), so I thought that you may have improved in that time. However, I was a little disturbed by the fact that you made so few edits in March, then had an hour of heavy editing before putting yourself forward for RfA. So, less than an hour before putting yourself forward for RfA, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chernobyl_disaster&diff=next&oldid=419070085 this]. I've not played [[Modern Warfare 2|the game]] but an IP removing unsourced trivia from an article (with an edit summary) didn't seem "unconstructive" to me, I'd expect to see a more helpful edit summary there. Following it with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chernobyl_disaster&diff=next&oldid=419070415 this], how can you cite something not being there - the onus was on you as the person who wants to include the information. I share other editors concerns regarding your opinion against the former administrator, along with the concerns regarding the other rollbacks you have made.
Per all the above (although I don't grade off for not knowing expectations at RFA.  Still, this is your fourth one ...) - Dank (
'''Oppose''' per Swarm and Roving Alan above. Mentoring might help your cause, and I emphasize the word might.--
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above. This your fourth try and you are still making rookie mistakes on a regular basis. It is extremely important for an administrator to  be able to recognize what is and is not vandalism. And your call for an exemption to WP:SNOW shows a level of arrogance we don't need in an admin either.
'''oppose''' I am highly disturbed by the nature of what sven posted about below and on the talk page. Also the face that you could not do the fairly simple technical things to get your 4th RFA up and running casts a shadow over this. I would like to see at least one DYK/GA/B-class article that anyone running for adminship to have under their belt. There is more to life then smacking vandals. --
Per Sven. [[User:Mono|Mono]] (
Dusti is a member of the off-wiki group TechEssentials. Several other members of that group, all also Wikipedians, were heavily involved in the [[User talk:Sophie|Sophie incident]], and in my opinion those other members demonstrated bad judgment and in at least one case behaved in a highly unethcial manner. Normally off-wiki activity would have no bearing here, however since the Sophie incident was a Wikipedia based incident, which ended up involving ArbCom, I do believe it worth mentioning. On the one hand, Dusti was not directly involved in the Sophie incident, and did not exhibit the bad judgment or unethical behavior that other members of the group did. On the other hand, seeing what I saw during the incident, details Dusti is aware of, I find Dusti's continued involvement in the group to be troubling.
This is a totally neutral placement, a statement that, I am observing and likely will gather enough information to set appropriate regards, upon this RfA
'''Neutral'''. From the opening statement: "''I hate fighting and bickering when this can be simple.''" Unfortunately this is often the lot of admins, particularly in anti-vandal work. Dusti also has rather limited content creation.
'''Support'''. You'll make a great administrator.  I feel really bad about not being able to come up with a good nomination statement, but I'm sure that I wouldn't be able to write anything as good as yours even if I had lots of time to work on it. <b>
'''Support'''. I see a high level of reasonableness from this candidate; the recent ANI shenanigans cemented this. No concerns about this editor becoming an admin. Good luck,
Longterm user, seems mature and sensible. ''
'''Support'''. I've found Dylan620 to be a sensible and helpful editor, and I trust him to use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' I've seen you around in the right places and you seem to know what you're doing. Good luck!
'''Support''': I recall the two issues referred to in Q3. In the child one, I fully support your removal of sensitive information - the protection of minors (including from their own carelessness) is of paramount importance. But it's not agreeing with me that counts - what actually counts is that you handled the dispute calmly. I've also had a look over the Iaaasi case, and I think your contribution was excellent - very fair and even-handed. And looking back at a reasonable number of random samples of your contributions, I see nothing but good stuff --
'''Strong Support''', Dylan has the time, experiance and communication necessary for acquiring the mop.  &ndash;
Dylan620 has changed a lot in the time I've known him: I remember having concerns about him and being critical a couple of times, but that was long before 2009 ended. Nowadays he is much more mature; his work, both to content and maintenance, is good, and whenever I see Dylan620 around I am always pleased: I have no concerns now and am happy to support his request for adminship.
No concerns at all. Seems competent and is experienced. Has clearly learned from last RFA which occurred ages ago.
'''Support''' As far as I can determine, Dylan has matured considerably since his first RFA and is now experienced and clueful to be an administrator. Regards '''
'''Support''' No concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - no issues or concerns that you will misuse the tools. '''
{{edit conflict}} '''Support''' - No reservations here.
'''Support''' - No reason why not, adminship is not a big deal and this candidate has shown proficiency in many areas of administrative work.
'''Support''' I think this editor has improved this time compared to the previous RFA.
'''Support''' I like what you said about the protection of minors!  I wasn't here in 2009 so I can't comment on any of that.  Based on the progress you've made since then, yes, you're ready for the mop (and the "crappy" t-shirt).  :)
'''Support''' Last time around, I opposed due to maturity issues. However, a quick flip through your talk page and contributions show that you've changed a lot since then.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' – I have no concerns with Dylan holding the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
Friendly and motivated.  Also, per Soap. - Dank (
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' nice edits
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great Editor, been around long enough (13,000). And although the edit count does not make the editor, he is sensible and has been around long enough to know how the mop needs to be used (as he has demonstrated above). I believe he will do a fabulous job as an admin, and has proven that he won't abuse the tools. I say we give him the mop. <span style="background-color: #0080FF">
What we have here is an enthusiastic contributor who had a few issues but has done an excellent job of improving, and I think he's mature enough now that he can take on the job. '''
'''Strong Support''': I have worked with user on numerous occasions and have always found them to be knowledgable, helpful and willing to work with others.  I strongly support Dylan getting an adminship. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' Certainly deserves the tools.
'''Strong support'''. I was one of the editors you redacted in the AN/I discussion mentioned above. Your e-mail to me was professional, polite, and to the point, and your decision was IMO correct and in line with what policy we have regarding minors. Your actions showed initiative and common sense, and I was highly impressed. I think you'd handle the mop just as thoughtfully. --
'''Support''' per above.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''. per above too. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]]</sup>/<sub>
tentative '''support''' - I partly agree with NW's concerns below but three years without anything worse leads me to think that a trial with admin tools is feasible.
I understand why NW is opposing, but I can't really agree with him without being hypocritical. So, here I am...
'''Weak support'''. Dylan620's content creation is lacking a little and "[[Believe (Staind song)]]" is disappointing, but otherwise contributions are okay.
'''Strong Support''': Give the man a mop - he can be trusted with it
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and mature. If he breaks the wiki, [[wikt:I'll eat my hat|I'll eat my hat]]. --
'''Support''' - I sense a degree of maturity with this candidate and a willingness to tread slowly into unfamiliar areas.
'''Support''' Seems well meaning and trustworthy.  I hope he'll have more edits as an admin and do some quality writing, of which he seems capable.--
'''Support''' - seems to have intentions in the right place --
'''Support''' - the issue with the Staind song article is disappointing, but not enough to prevent me from supporting. I am especially impressed by your commitment to our child protection policies, which I think are more important than most of us think. You also say that you intend to tread slowly in any area you don't feel comfortable, and this leads me to think you won't cause any problems.
'''Support''' - Candidate seems cluful, intelligent and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' The contributions I checked out were great. Perfect example of how to learn from an unsuccessful RFA. --
'''Weak Support''' I was considering an oppose per NW, (and that Im weary over the recent editing exp and time, it is too small....) but I think you would be a net benefit based on previous editing time and some of your views/answers on questions. I and others are giving you the thumbs up, make us proud.
'''Support''' Meets my criteria. The answer to Q7 struck me as a bit odd, but  neither the question nor its response have really anything much to do with whether Dylan will make a good admin or not, and I'm sure he will.
'''Support''' - long term competent and enthusiastic user, who'd likely make prolific and effective use of admin tools. Dylan did have some maturity issues to start with but has always been a dedicated contributor - and it all looks good to me at this point. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Weak support''' - <s>User's a member of WikiProject Bacon.</s> No concerns. ''
'''Support''' Dylan has helped me two different times, and he seems to be ready for the administrator privileges.--
'''Support''' I feel, looking at his record, that this user will use the tools wisely. I am certain that he will not damage the encyclopedia. There are a few minor concerns raised in the Oppose section but hey, nobody's perfect. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''', this user looks trustworthy enough to use the tools. Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
I trust Soap's judgement.
'''Support'''. Although I agree that there are a few minor concerns, here, I do believe you'll appropriately use the tools; by the way, I also liked your answer to my question. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' I supported last time, this time is no exception ;)--
'''Support'''. He's become a lot more mature since last RfA, and I think he's ready. I have concerns that he won't be bold enough with his tools (we learn from trial and error), and may not be the right guy to make a tough call as a result. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Weak support''' It's disappointing to see an editor who has done some content work in the past, like Dylan, almost completely cease to do so. Ideally, most administrators would also continue to actively work on articles; unfortunately, that is not the case. Since his last RfA, Dylan made the decision to spend most of his time on Wikipedia participating in administrative areas rather than improving articles. That was his choice. Because it seems that his work in the project namespace has been helpful and not problematic, and because he's mainly interested in maintenance and administration as opposed to writing and editing, I think both Dylan and Wikipedia stand to benefit from his being granted adminship. Ultimately, based on his editing patterns since his last RfA, I suppose Dylan would only become a heavy content contributor in the future if he wanted to game the system to pass a third RfA. Surely that isn't something we want to encourage. People are going to do the things they enjoy on Wikipedia; in Dylan's case, we might as well give him some tools to help him do so.
'''Support''' - The user has been here long enough to know our policies well, and I see he does have experience in the areas he desires to use the tools in. I also don't see anything particularly troublesome in recent times.
''So basically, if I'm involved in a dispute — whether as a party or as a mediator — I know to hear what the editors have to say, remain calm, point out where they are violating policy, and when to let it go.'' All I needed to hear to '''support'''. Just remember to live by it no matter what.
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose; I believe he can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' No concerns here. I believe he can be trusted '''''
'''Support'''. No problems, no doubt he'll be a good admin. Trusted, experienced, very good candidate. '''''


'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' <font color="blue" face="Tahoma">Cheers!</font>
'''Support''' − Can't see any real problems. Candidate is a time served user. S/he's been around long enough to know the ropes and to know the project. Good luck. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I trust that Dylan620 will move cautiously in using the tools in areas with which he is relatively less familiar, and that he will bear the concerns expressed in the more substantive opposes and neutral comments in mind.
'''Support''' per NYB response to oppose vote 12 below. While lack of article and File: work is a concern Dylan620 does seem to have the balance between caution and action just about right which is really the main skill an admin needs.--
'''Support''' - Good user. I think you'd be absolutely fine with the tools. All the best,
'''Support''' I must admit I was a bit concerned with oppose #12, but NYB response to it was also quite persuasive. A deeper look into his contributions says he will do just fine.
'''Weak Support''' I'll comment more fully later, but I'm not worried about the lack of creative content editing.  I've vacillated on this before, but my current thinking is that the demand for more content editing says more about the politics of content heavy editors vs. admins than it does about admin judgment so I can't hold this editor hostage to a broader political gambit.
'''Support''' per NellieBly.--
'''Support'''. Answers to Q7 and 13 are good answers (and what I'd hoped to see, wrt Q13). A number of the opposes are baseless and the closing bureaucrat should, of course, take the reasoning given into account. I believe Dylan will not misuse the tools and his age plays no part in my decision to support.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - To counter Malleus' oppose: We have seen time and again that maturity and age are two separate entities. Take [[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]] for example... someone who even at a very young age has shown vast maturity in some of the most sticky situations, and is one of the few admins who I personally hold in high regard. The fact that Dylan is younger than most admins, does not mean he isn't mature enough to make tough decisions regarding this project. Therefore, as I do not see any concerns regarding his maturity or otherwise that would lead me to believe that Dylan wouldn't make a fine admin, I support his request. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
—'''
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to think that he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user who has handled several difficult situations well. I will note that the answer to Q14 is wrong because the check of what the requester has been doing should be made before granting the permission in the first place. However, based on the good answers to the other questions, I'll assume that the candidate didn't have time to more fully elaborate on this one. —

Fully trust Dylan to do well. I agree with Coffee's comment.
'''Support'''. This RfA alone proves he has a pretty even keel to deal with completely unreasonable demands, and I've seen evidence that this calmness extends to his other work.  And my signature shouldn't be headache-inducing.

'''weak support''' editor moved into project space big time in response to last RfA.  Has largely shown a reasonable degree of maturity in that time.  That said, the answer to #1 concerns me (per <s>NW</s> Sven Manguard).  I think we are seeing an editor who _really_ wants to be an admin.  That could be problematic, but honestly I'm seeing someone who looks like they will _be_ a good admin.  I do have worries about age-related issues and typically hold minors to somewhat higher standards for adminship.  But Dylan620 seems to be above that bar.
'''Support''' mainly per the rationale of {{User|A Stop at Willoughby}}, though because editing preference is personal to a user, I will not hold that against them. I also agree with {{User|Newyorkbrad}}. I've had good experiences with Dylan in the past and can't see a reason to oppose regardless of the concerns mentioned below. '''
'''Support'''. Age and maturity are indeed correlated, but a much better indicator of maturity is his contributions page, which does not show him to be significantly less mature than the average admin candidate. It's like how age and algebra ability are correlated, but it would be silly to say that an eighth grader is better at algebra than a first grader if both get the same grade on an algebra test. As for the alleged lack of content creation: Huh? The way I met him was through content creation (DYK). -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Maturity is clearly demonstrated, and age is unrelated to editing ability, [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates#What.27s_the_big_deal_with_underage_arbitrators.3F|if you ask me]]. I'm not sure why [[User:AlexandrDmitri]] said the answer to Q5 was "plain wrong". If anything, I think ''he'' misunderstood Dylan620's response ("to use a UAA template" used not as an instruction, but as "to answer this question using a UAA template"). All edits I've seen seem fine. Q13's response demonstrates growth as an editor. In my opinion, this user can be trusted with adminship, and should. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
not a bad person.
As Dylan's long-term mentor and former admin coach, I believe that he is unlikely to either misuse or abuse the admin tools.
You certainly have improved from a couple years back, but not by enough for my tastes. Your answer to question 2 is almost identical to your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dylan620|previous RFA]], which was a year and four months ago. Indeed, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Dylan620&namespace=0 last 500 articlespace edits] goes back six months, and the vast majority of those are mass link fixes or [[WP:HG|Huggle]] edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20101114233826&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Dylan620&namespace=0 The last 1,000 edits go back to your previous RFA, and much of that is cosmetic]). I'm also disappointed that you still have not referenced [[Believe (Staind song)]]. While you might not have understood the verifiability policy when you created that article, you should by now, and I would expect you to go back and clean up work old work.<p>Lack of article work is not by itself a sufficient reason to oppose, but I'm simply not convinced that enough has changed since then to warrant supporting, in terms of article work or other issues. '''<font color="navy">
Per NW. Not enough track record between RFAs to measure an improvement.
I could say "Per NW" as that is reason enough, but you really hit a sore spot with me in your question 1. I don't trust the judgment of anyone that says that they want to work near files in an admin capacity, even in something as trivial and non-policy intensive as the bad image list, when they only have 6 edits to the file namespace.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but doesn't have the right sort of experience to handle content disputes (see below). Nice chap, pleasant social skills, but definitely not an admin. -
'''Weak oppose''' per {{user|NuclearWarfare}}. Not enough involvement in the article-space – particularly not enough ''creative'' involvement, ie. not automated tasks. It's also concerning that you've had basically zero involvement in the AfD process and (since you say you'd like to be involved in this) in area of images. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Oppose''' per NW and Sven, with limited contributions to the file namespace and no participation at [[WP:FFU]] I'm concerned that the user lacks the required knowledge to deal with files (copyright, fair use etc.), especially in an admin capacity. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Oppose'''. There are already too many children in positions of authority here.
'''Oppose'''
Not strongly. I can't really support a candidate who wants to hand out the autopatrolled tool but (a) wouldn't qualify for it themself; and (b) doesn't have a strong enough content record to make me confident that they would hand out this content creation tool only in appropriate circumstances. Also agree with Pointillist's oppose and follow-up. Sorry. --
I'd like to see a stronger focus on content development rather than vandal fighting. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
I'd rather not make someone an admin if they want to work with files and only have six edits to the file namespace.--
'''Oppose''' Just a month ago, the candidate closed a community ban discussion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sol_Goldstone&diff=prev&oldid=416472570 he had himself proposed].  He performed this closure after a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=416504706 4 hour discussion] in the middle of the night UTC, whereas [[WP:BAN]] requires 24.  Even more concerning is that the candidate tried to ban someone under the cover of darkness here as a result of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dylan620&oldid=416873793#in_this_case peer pressure], not a good quality in an admin.
'''Oppose''' I have not seen enough real space content work; or a range of demonstrated expertise in anything beyond vandal fighting and notice board commentary...
I see no reason to allow someone with minimal files work to start doing admin work with files --
'''Oppose'''.  Minimal content contribution.  I am also not comfortable with the apparent suspicion raised of my good faith in posing my question.  My experience informs my decisions on what I see as important attributes in an admin candidate; it is also incorrect to assume that the situation alluded to by others was what prompted my question—another I was uninvolved in was the primary basis.  That the candidate feels compelled to hide behind the remarks of others to avoid the question does not indicate to me enough of a capacity to form an independent judgment or to address a simple matter head-on.  If he is going to place suspicion of editors he disfavors (or worse yet the prejudices of others he uncritically accepts) ahead of guidelines and policies he does not deserve the mop.
'''Oppose''' I agree with most of the above. Especially concerns about the user jumping into admin areas where they have nearly no experience. Such as working with images (and there is an additional concern about such a young editor working on the bad images list - where he has just two talk page edits). And also granting requests for permissions. I do a lot of behind the scenes work and RFPERM, and can't recall seeing him there once. Indeed, in my own RfA I cited RFPERM  as one of the places I would work, but only because I had been lurking there and helping out with the non-admin tasks long enough to be familiar with the standards for different rights. The answer to Q14 doesn't inspire confidence in me that this candidate has been doing the same, nor does the user's signing of [[Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge]] just over a month ago. -
'''Oppose''' - The opposes have convinced me.  I don't see the need to give the extra buttons here.  The "file work" arguments carry weight and I'd like to see a more well-rounded candidate in content creation.  Suggest if this Rfa fails that the candidate work hard and try again early next year.  My thanks for the candidate's service to date, and best wishes.
'''Oppose''' Contributions seem lightweight, and per Malleus and Modernist. The circular self defeating defense on this noms talk page almost proves the point, as do the headache inducing sigs of many of the supporters.
'''Oppose''' I still have a concern that a ''young'' teenager—who [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dylan620#Questions_for_the_candidate|has confessed his own past "addictive" responses (BUT IN 2009 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)) and making "hundreds of edits" when discovering new editing tools]]—<blockquote>I was tired of letting them make me feel badly about myself, so in February I began to tag pages for speedy deletion and revert vandalism. A couple days later, I was granted rollback rights – I became an avid vandal-fighter for about a week before slipping into a month-long wikibreak. After that, I thought, "Hey, maybe I can help with account creation!" That is how I became an account creator. About a week later, I curiously rummaged through some old RedirectCleanupBot (talk · contribs) archives, and found Schutz's tool. I became addicted immediately, tagging broken redirects left and right (which is why broken redirect cleanup makes up the vast majority of my 2,000+ deleted edits). Then, in July, I began using Huggle and made hundreds of edits per day through combat of vandalism. Lastly, in August I began reviewing proposed DYK hooks (achieving my first featured list around the same time).</blockquote>—should not be granted administrative tools now. <s>Doing homework, studying, reading, and writing and contributing to his family and friends are the primary responsibilities of  this young man</s>. His researching a topic and then writing a good article (or several) over the next years should provide him with ample opportunities to contribute to the project while developing discipline. At the same time, he should know that research is quite different than writing WP articles, and that he should strive to become a researcher by excelling in school and thinking for himself. Let him write some articles, and continue to grow as an editor, without the distraction of new tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' largely per {{user|Courcelles}} and the limited content contributions. That [[William Thompson Lusk]] (where the candidate made five edits converting notes to prose<span class="plainlinks"><sup>[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Thompson_Lusk&action=historysubmit&diff=305362673&oldid=304781230 1]][[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Thompson_Lusk&diff=next&oldid=305362673 2]][[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Thompson_Lusk&action=historysubmit&diff=306400120&oldid=305559380 3]][[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Thompson_Lusk&action=historysubmit&diff=306427208&oldid=306426101 4]][[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Thompson_Lusk&action=historysubmit&diff=306630408&oldid=306535859 5]]</sup></span>) is among his "best [content] contributions" is disappointing. Furthermore, I have seen no indication that the candidate is capable of sourcing content other than bare statistics, as evidenced by [[Believe (Staind song)]] and [[Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season]].
'''Oppose''' Last time I checked, the closing bureaucrats here have stated that "lack of content building" as an oppose rationale carries zero weight. Even still, myself and the others above still think that it IS a major problem and the candidate should not be promoted. Is it really that hard to write an article and source it properly, like [[Believe (Staind song)]]? Combine that with the fact that you're talking about branching off into AFD, and I have a major problem with this candidacy. I don't want to give the tools to someone that only knows how to destroy while having yet to exhibit any interest or competency in creating. Even if this RFA somehow drops to 68%, don't be surprised if this easily passes just like the others. One of them promoted last year exhibited so much inexperience that she looked like a chicken running around with her head cut off. You're pretty much guaranteed to pass, but that doesn't change the fact that I think this promotion is a very bad idea. '''
'''Reluctant oppose'''. I'm concerned about the answers to a couple of questions. Firstly, the answer to Q5 is plain wrong. The question was not "What would you do if this user was reported to UAA?", it was "You see this new user being created, what action would you take?". Either the candidate has not read the question properly and replied hastily, or has not understood the question, neither of which inspire me with confidence. Secondly the answer to my question failed to allay my fears about handing out the Account Creator permission without appropriate thought and reflection: on a borderline case such as just two days' experience I would expect a thorough review of the accounts created and those not created, not a "shrug, I recognise that there might be a real problem but I'll AGF". I'm all for assuming good faith, but I'd expect a far more reasoned and measured approach before assigning permissions. Sorry --
'''Oppose''' per {{user|NuclearWarfare}} and {{user|Pointillist}}. They've said it all.
Per many of those above, particularly NW, Pointillist and Agent Vodello; ''"I don't want to give the tools to someone that only knows how to destroy while having yet to exhibit any interest or competency in creating"'' sums up my view as well. With the current tight bundling of rights and strong vested resistance to any weakening and reform of those rights adminship ''is'' a big deal, and a single admin error can drive a productive editor away. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add substantive content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - user is a child and offering children authority here is irresponsible and ultimately detrimental to the maturity of the project. If this oppose is not sufficient - I don't see the degree of maturity or broad experiance contributions that I support in administrators, and I see no difference in contribution patterns since his last withdrawn RFA.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. <small>Candidate is too old. Experience shows that the admins who have contributed most constructively, became admins between the ages of 10 and 14. Also,</small> the issue raised by Courcelles about the non-admin ban discussion closure in defiance of WP:BAN is very concerning in the light of earlier concerns about the candidate. In the candidate's previous RfA, they referred to past complaints about them at AN/I. Those issues are now years old, but one thing that stands out is that the candidate was criticised for "Strange obsession with adding users to [[WP:LOBU]]" including pre-emptively. The candidate's clear focus on this aspect of Wikipedia persists to this day, even though their nomination statement and answers don't mention it. The too-soon non-admin closure I find very problematic because the candidate's ban proposal was misleading in itself and made accusations for which there was no evidence. The candidate was repeating accusations made by other non-admins, rather than making up the accusations himself, but that is still an indication of lack of wisdom in allowing himself to be led by other users without checking the facts himself, on a matter of this seriousness - a tendency which continued when he allowed himself to be pressured into the early closure by other editors as has been discussed already. His last 500 edits still show repeated interest in the List of Banned Users and opining on or making ban proposals almost as one of his main activities, and this worries me. This fascination is not going to change, and as an admin, the candidate's influence in such matters would be immeasurably greater. As Courcelles rightly said, banning a user is the ultimate sanction and should be enacted with the greatest of care, and having a wiki-policeman who is focused on that area ''and'' easily led or misled by others, is a big potential risk. Finally, the candidate's involvement in content creation and dealing with content disputes is extremely limited. (Having got a page to Featured List is good work, but rather limited in scope when you look at the list in question - the other items mentioned are pretty much trivial.) Those two areas aren't an admin's job, but having enough experience in them to understand disputes from the point of view of those doing the work, is an essential prerequisite for adminship in my view. --
'''Oppose''' per Pointillist. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Dylan620&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia This] kind of edit history doesn't instill confidence in me. <span style="">
per NW et al. -
'''Oppose'''. (1) Per the problem Courcelles pointed out; if the user is going to be enforcing policy they need to be pretty conversant in it or read up ''before'' they act. (2) Wants to work with files but does not seem to have any experience in this area. --
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. Being an administrator '''is''' a big deal. A very big deal. It gives the power to block well established content editors. Giving this power to yet another child who has contributed little content is inane. Sorry Dylan, its not your fault that the "admin" system here is so stuck and broken. I see little problem with granting you the other tools. But, along with many current admin incumbents, you have no background at all that should give you the right to block well established content editors. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of significant content work and other experience to eliminate the concerns on the previous RfA, and unconvincing answers to questions. (I could elaborate, but I think there's enough detail above to provide feedback on the specifics) - I hope the candidate will ''demonstrate'' suitability for adminship, and reapply at an appropriate time in the future. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose'''.   Unfortunately.  Per above.  Concerns with judgement.  -'''
'''Oppose''', primarily in accordance with Courcelles and Pointillist. I'm concerned with the relatively low number of edits per month. Too often, I have encountered an editor that received the mop several years ago, only to show up periodically to enforce obsolete policies and guidelines. The lack of consistency in editing has hindered the ability to effectively administrate. When I review an editor for possibly working in an administrative capacity, I consider the frequency of past participation, preferring a minimum of 500 edits per month during the previous year. Dylan has edited over 500 times per month, only five times since September 2007 (when he was 11 years old?). The last time was August 2009 (when he was 13? 14?). If Dylan never mentioned his age and continued editing at that capacity (minus the error in judgement), this request would have most likely resulted in less opposition. In my opinion, administrators need a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in order to effectively uphold them. This includes the basic knowledge of navigating the community, in order to locate the policies and guidelines with which the editor may not be wholly familiar. I do not expect perfection. That said, I do expect a display of quality, consistency, and growth before acting in a leadership role. --Respectfully, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' per NW and Diannaa.
'''Oppose''' - per concerns about maturity (yes, I'm aware there is no minimum age for adminship; I'm referring to emotional as opposed to chronological maturity) and experience. I don't feel this user yet has the skillset required for adminship, particularly in content-related areas, but also in policy and application thereof (per responses to questions and issues pointed out above).
'''Oppose'''-I change my position. I no longer feel he is experienced enough. Maybe in a year he shall be ready. However, now he is not ready.
'''Oppose''' <s>per [[WP:NOTNOW]]</s>. --
'''Weak oppose''' As Hobit put it nicely (though he's in the support section), I typically hold minors to somewhat higher standards for adminship. In particular I really want to see solid content creation (which I don't always view as essential for other candidates) before I trust them with the delete button. None of the problems noted in the oppose section strike me as deal-breakers but collectively they are sufficient to instill doubt.
'''Weak oppose''' Not much in the way of content contribution since the candidate's banner year of 2009. A lot of top-drawer Wikipedians have expressed some serious reservations about maturity and judgement in the oppose and neutral sections.--
'''Oppose'''. Insufficiently well-rounded Wikipedia activity, concerns about maturity.
I can't support nomination for the editor at this time; only one-third of edits in the main namespace concerns me.
Per NW, Malleus, and the failure to answer multiple, reasonable optional questions.
'''Oppose''' due to mismatching of goals to expertise, somewhat reluctantly given this editor's valuable contributions in many areas.  I don't want to discourage this editor - they have demonstrated they can contribute substantially without this bit.  I specifically reject the age-based criterion because expertise (in WP terms) is more readily verified and relevant in this context.  --
'''Oppose''' Due to most of the concerns found above. -

'''Oppose, sadly''' - There's very few reasons I will oppose an RFA, and as someone who has worked with Dylan in the long past, I just have a problem with Huggle being the majority of your article work. As an admin and a long time article writer. You need some article writing experience and experience before dealing with article content disputes. Just my personal pet peeve at RFA.<FONT FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Sorry''' - Largely per Sven and NW. Answers to questions #1 and #2 are unconvincing.
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral). Basically, after thinking this over, it just overall is not a good idea for the Wikipedia to encourage minors to be admins, period, part of my reasoning being delineated at my earlier postings at #8 in the Neutral section. Granted we have made admins of minors in the the past, but: it's time to stop doing this.
'''Neutral''' <s>pending further stats/contributions review. --
'''Neutral'''. To be honest, when I saw this RfA, I thought I would probably support. I understand your content creation is limited, but that said you have written an FL, which initially allayed my concerns there. But then I went to have a look at the articles you've created and the first one I looked at, [[Believe (Staind song)]], is completely unreferenced. While I understand it was created back in 2008, I still can't support, as it seems like you don't grasp one of our most fundamental policies, [[WP:V]].
Mainly neutral because I don't think there's enough in-depth article work or discussion on article talk pages. Not a major issue, as deletion is not this candidate's main intended area of work, but I still look for a bit more writing. Everything else is excellent, IMO; Dylan has always come off as a clueful user who is willing to learn and help out. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' - I don't think there's enough article work or discussion on article talk pages.
'''Neutral'''. Putting myself here because I honestly can't decide if Dylan would make a good admin or not. Good content work in the past but rather little recently, a slight lack of talk page and deletion discussions and few contributions to files - the last not usually a problem except when the candidate states it as an area of interest - make me hold back from supporting, but there's also a lot of good work and commitment to the project, and a fair amount of policy experience. I might have opposed if Malleus hadn't.
'''Neutral''' – I'm taking people's words that Dylan620 does a lot of vandal-fighting, which is good. I'm a little concerned about his/her (I'm guessing it's a him) recent decline in activity, and also Dylan620's lack of content contribution compared to other his/her other areas of prowess. I don't mind Dylan620's young age, since I fall in more or less the same category as Dylan620, or if he becomes a sysop. [[User:Sp33dyphil|<big>'''<span style="background:SaddleBrown;color:Gold">'''Sp33dyphil</span></big>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ready]] • [[Special:contributions/Sp33dyphil|to]] •
'''Neutral''' - Can't support per Malleus' oppose, but I'd prefer not to oppose in this instance either.
'''Neutral''' - I like your attitude, but I would like to see a bigger proportion of your time devoted to creating and editing articles, rather than just talking about it.  It's not because you are young!
'''Neutral''', but leaning towards support. I like the answers, but not some of the actions. In my opinion, age isn't really a factor here. The reason being that I would not guess your age if I did not already know. That's the best way to decide, I think. If you can tell an editor is underage from reading his/her edits or talk page, then said editor shouldn't be trusted with the tools. If you couldn't tell without them having told you, then it shouldn't be a problem. Just my thoughts. Good luck either way.-
'''Neutral''' I am very disappointed in those who appear to be opposing solely based on the candidate's youth, without giving due regard to his contributions. That is the epitome of '''not''' [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], in my opinion. However, there are some valid concerns raised that prevent me from being able to outright support Dylan. I can - and do - appreciate his work, but must remain neutral on this run.
'''Neutral''' - I was leaning towards support because there is a lot to like about the candidate's work in vandal fighting. But couldn't bring myself to jump over. Some of the opposers put up valid concerns about substantive content contribution which is essential in areas such as AFD, PROD and CSD when there are articles down falling into grey areas or down to the wire and require careful precise, and fine judgement. Having work on contents allow the candidate to know the in and outs of policies, inclusionism and exclusionism....etc. Come back in a couple of months, I'm more inclined to support the nominee.--
'''Neutral''' — this could easily change later. The editor shows good development and an even, calm disposition. These are essential in an admin. But we should sell no wine before its time. I'd like to support this candidate but he's really young. Other admin candidates were approved at even younger ages, and I feel those may have been a mistake. Also this candidate has fairly limited experience editing article mainspace. I started editing as an IP address many years ago. I created this named account only in response to sockpuppet accusations. And just for my named account, I have more article mainspace edits than the candidate. Given hyis youth and his mainspace inexperience, I remain hesitant. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' I mostly agree with King of hearts, but I cannot cross the border. NuclearWarfare's thoughts influence me too. --
'''Support''' - Seems to be a clueful article contributor and a good anti-vandal patroller. Good luck!
'''Support'''. I had a look at contribs; it's hard wading through a large pile of automated stuff (maybe somebody wiser than me can analyse the stats of NPP and CSD and so on) but I found nothing bad, but there were random little bits of helpfulness like [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_contributors%27_help_page/questions&diff=prev&oldid=432189879 this]. Random sample of talkpage history looked like reasonable communication without snarkiness. The [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=E2eamon&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia graph] shows lots of user talk edits but that goes with the antivandal work, it's not a sign of myspace-iness. I think E2eamon is competent, hardworking, and would put the tools to good use.
'''Support'''. CSD work requires particular care. E2eamon's work is as good as anyone can reasonably expect.
'''Support''' per users above, good luck -
'''Support''' - user is very competent. '''
'''Support''' Seems experienced with the relevant admin areas, and they could certainly use more attention. Good luck!
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' User meets my criteria. ''
'''Support''', no problems here. Active vandal fighter, experienced enough and seems to know what they're doing in the admin areas they intend to take part in.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and adminship is no big deal. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support'''.  Looks like someone who would use the tools well, and can admit the few times a mistake has been made.
'''Support''' No cause for concern is evident.
'''Strong Support''' This user already demonstrates a strong knowledge of admin-related functions. And to be honest, had sold me from the first words of their RfA. CSD is an area that is always backlogged and is always in need of motivated and knowledgeable admins to keep the nearly permanent backlog under control. Excellent vandal-whacking skill with consistent good judgment. Also has shown a level head and is not afraid to admit when they have made a mistake, something that is an absolute necessity in an admin candidate. I'm very hard pressed to find anything about this individual that makes me think they will be anything other than an exemplary admin.
Go for it!  I don't see a problem and I think you'll make a fine admin editor.  &ndash;
'''Support''' You definitely seem to have what it takes to be an administrator from the looks of it. Good luck!
We could always use more help at C:SD. Seems clueful and diligent. '''
'''Support''', an overall good candidate. Great work with the NPP, and no problems with XfD work either.
'''Support''' - Good answers. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' - Issue a new mop to this fella!
'''Support''' Is trusted in the areas he wants to do, particularly in the vandalism department, where he received three barnstars. He should be glad of the praise given to him there. Also a good content contributor, even though he made just 1 good article, it still shows that he understands the Wikipedia guidelines.
'''Support''' Article writing, I like :) No concerns here.
I don't see why not. ~~
'''Support''' - I disagree that CSD has a problem with backlogs, I work on clearing out that log every now and then and it's usually not that high, in fact I've helped keep it at 0 these past couple of days. But another admin helping ''is'' welcome regardless. I wish that I saw more participation with dispute areas, especially in Wikipedia space (like noticeboards) but that's not a big concern. I see plenty of general experience, no problems, and more than enough article editing experience to satisfy me. -- '''
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' - Now and again I do some CSD work, an area I think is highly challenging to do correctly and fairly.  In my view it is a highly important 'first check' to prevent a flood of time-consuming work from further straining community time.  I appreciate willingnesss by the candidate to labor in the murky Wiki-basement with a mop, and the crucial "collegial temperment" (Per Boing! above) is a big plus.  In short, giving this editor a bundle of tools is an excellent idea.  Best wishes,
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' We need more admins and I don't see any reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' The user has a high level of automated edits, but that doesn't matter to me. Not everyone has to be a great content creator. What does matter to me is the fact that you are very knowledgable in the area you wish to work in, you seem clueful, and you're not afraid to admit your mistakes. Adminship is not a big deal, and I see no reason to believe that you will abuse the tools. Why not?
'''''<font color="#9966CC">[[:m:User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="navy">
'''Support''' Useful, diligent and helpful editor. Thanks for your great contributions!
concerns expressed by the neutral comments below and talk page discussion are enough for me to oppose. -
''Oppose'' I certainly appreciate the excellent work that Eamon has done with NPP and [[PERISCOP]] is pretty darn cool, but I think he has a ways to go in understanding some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For an example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethics_AdviceLine_for_Journalists&oldid=354847853 Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists] (reversion as of last edit by Eamon) seems of dubious notability: the article does not explain why this service is noteworthy beyond it's existence. The only independent sources for the article are two short blurbs that note that the service exists. The article includes directory type information in violation of [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY|WP:NOT]]. There is also a direct quote from a source that was not marked as a quote. This article makes me nervous about his ability to do good DYK review work and to respond to the requests for advice from novice editors that invariably come with the mop. --
''Oppose'' - not enough broad experience for me and in such situations I am unable to support the users reason to require the tools as - " the backlog " - If you contribute and gaining experience in the areas you want to work in with the tools I would be open to supporting in another six months.
'''Experience more, please'''.  Your answer was fine in terms of responding to the question.  And the short DYK does show that you can format cites and the like (good).  I'm not concerned with the year-ago GA or feeling that you have to fix every article from a while ago that you were ever involved with.  That said, I basically echo the opposes above.  More content creation needed.  Also, I'm not an expert on these things, but I got a little the impression that you were light on policy and state of things even in "mop world" (the backlog that is not a backlog).  Come back in six months please and I will likely support.  (and usually I ask for twelve, so it's not bad.)
'''Oppose''' No way.  Inexperience and inconsistent editor.  Amateur in all respects.  Probably another kid who won't provide much to the project, but since we don't do an age check to make sure that admins have some modicum of maturity, I'm stuck with guessing based on what I read.  A 12 year old at best.  Will end up being another useless admin who will hang out in the drama forums like ANI passing out arbitrary blocks based on who whines the loudest.  Grow up, get a spine, ask for the tools again.

'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Evan+Pattinelli&timestamp=20100218004900&diff=prev vandalism from February 2010].  17 months since vandalizing means you're a valued user, but it doesn't mean I'm ready to give you the keys to the kingdom.  Also, [[:File:Disi water conveyance project pipes.jpg|this upload]] from April obviously does not meet our non-free content criteria.  And, of course, SandyGeorgia's writeup is reason in and of itself to oppose. --
'''Oppose''' Too recent vandalism, shortage of experience writing quality articles, and plagiarism. Just write 2-3 decent articles without plagiarism and come back in 6 months, please. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Plagiarism is a severe deal-breaker. Not only should he not be an admin, he should be indefinitely blocked. ←
'''Oppose''' On the basis of the evidence above I'm concerned about the ability of the nominee to be a good editor, let alone an Administrator. I might have opposed on the basis of the answer to Q4 alone, it certainly would put me off supporting the candidate - we block to avoid vandalism, and if there's an editor spotted in the middle (so to speak) of a spree of current vandalism we don't need to wait until he has enough warnings to at least give him a short block. Perhaps he hadn't read our blocking policy. But that's by the way, the other reasons to oppose are more important.
Sorry, per the plagiarism, experience and maturity concerns discussed above. The issues highlighted are, as Dougweller says, a big deal for any editor, regardless of whether or not having access to the tools is a big deal.
'''Oppose''' due to limited experience in admin-related areas, the issues discussed on the talk page of this RfA, recent vandalism and the amount of  "per user X" !votes in XfDs. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Plagiarism, vandalism, a lack of understanding of image use policy, and the answers to the questions are, at best, mediocre.
'''Strong oppose'''. I can't put my finger on it, but I know your name from somewhere and the impression you've left is one of an editor who lacks a practical understanding of policy. Reciting it in an RfA is well and good, but understanding it, implementing it and enforcing it is quite different. If you can't hold yourself and your own contributions (cf. Sandy at #6, B at #7) to those standards, how can you possibly hold others to them? <s>If this was my RfA, I would have withdrawn it as soon as the plagiarism was revealed</s>. The vandalism was a while ago, and I'd normally overlook something that far back, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you've significantly matured from that point. If I were to consider supporting a future RfA, it certainly wouldn't be this side of Christmas.
'''Oppose''' The concerns about plagiarism, vandalism, and maturity level expressed above are sufficient enough that adminship should not be granted to this user.  I'm inclined to believe that this user's focus has been more on obtaining administrator rights than on building Wikipedia.  Users with such an attitude tend to make poor admins.  --
'''Oppose'''. Courcelles puts it well.
'''Oppose''' Even without the plagiarism issues, CSD is well taken care of ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Per plagiarism and vandalism concerns raised above. --
'''Oppose''' I was initially going to support, but then [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] started digging, and then [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] put the final nail in the coffin.  Plagiarizing is not how we build an encyclopedia here. I would recommend to the candidate a dignified withdrawal at this point as this RFA is sinking faster than the [[RMS Titanic|Titanic]].
Per Q4, which conveys a rather soft attitude towards blatant vandals. It's not enough for me to oppose, but not enough for me to comfortably support, either. –
Per MuZemike. ''
Moved here due to plagiarism and NFC concerns (less so because of the vandalism due to it's age, but it is an extra nail). Whilst you are what I look for in an administrator, the concerns raised in other areas are valid and worrying. I'd call this a '''moral support''' as you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, and if you spend time working on articles and learn a bit more about how much work needs to go into them, you should make a fine administrator in the future.
As per my nomination.--
I'd give moral support based on experiance.  One word of advice, don't commit to thing you don't normally do if you wish to succeed in the future.  &ndash;
Too hell with random edit countitis checkboxing opposes. Ebikeguy demonstrates a consistent and high level of clue throughout all his work here. No non-admin closures? OH NOES!.. NACs are absurdly easy, whats important is inteligent !voting which Ebikeguy  clearly had a record for. <small>'''
'''Support'''. Good knowledge of Wikipedia policies, good conflict resolution skills, and diverse experience in the project.
I'm sure you'd do fine. ''
I agree with Jorgenev, basically. I'd trust him over some of the admins I've run into and he makes good points about the tyranny of the majority, which is a real issue. Bottom line: this should be conditional on someone's intelligence, temperament, and judgment, not number of "non-admin closures" or other piddling statistics. Mistakes happen. If the person admits to them and tries to avoid making them in the future, what's the problem? I'm more interested in the spirit of the person than whether they've broken their spine trying to please the powers that be. That said, I understand concerns like commenting on a closed AfD, but that seems minor compared to the many good points. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' This editor seems very level-headed and good in disputes.  However, I do not believe that he demonstrates his need for the administrator tools.  Looking at his answer to Question 1, he says that he wants to "close [AfD discussions] when appropriate as as admin," but I don't see ''any'' [[WP:NAC|NAC]] closures in his contribution.  He also says that he "would use admin powers to block persistent spammers and other vandals;" he doesn't have rollback/has used [[WP:HG|Huggle]] to revert vandalism (only using Twinkle), and, according to his edit stats, he has made 4 or fewer edits to [[WP:AIV|AIV]].  I could not trust an administrator to block vandals if they have virtually no experience with rollback/AIV.  Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, he states that he is "also interested in the Speedy Deletion process."  The last CSD nominations I see in his contributions are from way back in the beginning of April, where, among them, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highfield_Priory_School&diff=prev&oldid=422009511 nominated a school for A7], which was quickly removed by an uninvolved editor since A7 does not apply to schools. <br/>Thus, I see a candidate who clearly wants to work in administrative areas but has virtually no experience in them as a non-admin.  I would recommend gaining more experience in administrator-related areas and coming back in six months with a better resumé, for the lack of a better word.
See above, ~~
'''Oppose''' Per Logan, except that I rarely oppose because of "bad" deletion requests, I figure that people will learn..--
'''Oppose''' I am not comfortable with the candidate's lack of mainspace experience, along with the low level of activity over a sustained period of time.
'''Oppose''', per the fact that the candidate really doesn't have any use for sysop tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you don't seem to have a high level of experience in the areas you have stated a desire to work in. Your answer to Q1 was also too weak for my taste.
There's simply no way that anyone can have the breadth of experience needed to be an effective and responsive administrator in only 2,000 edits. Not even 1,000 edits to the mainspace, and less than 200 to projectspace and projecttalkspace combined. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' Simply not enough edits to demonstrate that they are ready for the mop IMHO. I also agree with Logan 100%. Not now but perhaps in the future ;)--
'''Oppose''', would like to see some additional experience, both in breadth and in depth. -- '''
'''Oppose''' While I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong based on the edit count, reviewing this editor's contributions there is just not enough activity in any of the admin areas where this candidate wants to work. Judging by the number of user talk page notices of CSD Tagging, they have only tagged in the low single digits, and without more, that really isn't enough to demonstrate competence. Likewise on the low number of AIV reports. As for AfD, there are more contributions, but even ignoring the NAC issue, I don't see enough there to really demonstrate an understanding of process, not to mention [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linux_XP]] with a merge being added days after the close.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and low levels of activity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' As per White Shadows. '''
'''Oppose''' - This is the ideal  Mr  Nice Guy  who  should be the backbone of our corps of admins. Unfortunately the practical  experience is not broad enough  and not  numerically  suffficient  to  draw any  conclusions as to  how he would use the tools and re/act  when the going  gets hot. Just  doesn't match  all the metrics on  my [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria|checklist]]. When he does, he can be sure of my  support. Note that  no  candidate has succeeded with  less than 3,000 edits since 2009, and that  one had over one million  edits cross-Wiki.
'''Oppose''' – very low edit count. I wouldn't mind of you edit 2,082 in two months, but, to rack up that many edits over 4 years is simply too dispersed. I value your contributions very much, but you need to raise your edit so we could better judge your character and commitment for the mop. I would like the nominator and the nominated to withdraw this RfA, to save from future opposes.
'''Neutral''' Seems I !voted early.  I didn't think it was necessary to look at his edit count.  Generally ECs are higher than 2K on RFAs.  I dont see 2K edits as enough to oppose and my rationale is still true above in the support, but I simply don't think editor has enough experience yet to have community trust with the tools and it is enough to move me to neutral.--v/r -
'''Neutral''' While I can not support at this time, based on the emerging consensus, I also can not oppose, based on the strong and sensibly mature statement made upon acceptance, and your undeniably positive tenure within the community.
Want to oppose due to lack of activity, but disagree entirely with Logan's oppose, as we should be discouraging NACs. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Neutral'''. Maybe the answer to Q1 ''could'' have been a little better, but I cannot see any other real problems, so I'll  stay neutral ''for now''. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Neutral''' While saying 'too soon' seems a bit odd for someone who's been here a bit longer than me, but getting a bit more breadth in the standard admin areas would be beneficial.
'''Neutral'''. I agree with most points by both supporters and opposers, and I'm waiting on the candidate responses to the questions. Actually, if I may, I would like to see a couple of extra questions presented by the opposers, if anything to help the candidate have a clearer perspective of the matter for the future -
'''Neutral''' - You're on the right track, but you mention taking part in CSD and blocking vandals. However, you have 4 or fewer AIV reports, so I cannot really determine how you would use the block tool. An admin will hopefully review your CSD nominations. However, you also mentioned that your main activity will be AFD, so I am not as worried.
'''Neutral'''. This is someone I'm sure I will support at some point - I'm just not sure this is that point yet. What work I've seen looks great, but I just don't think I'm able to see enough of it and enough variety at the moment to be sure. But then, I really don't want to oppose on edit count - arrgh, this really is a "don't know" --
'''Moral Support''', but landing here due to the lack of contribs mentioned above.  Just would like to see more activity before pushing the buttons on this. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' per lack of recent experience. Flurry of activity from April-July '07, then a slowdown from August '07 through May '08, and then almost no activity (in more than a handful of months '''no activity''') until last month. User fails my [[User:Strikerforce/RfA Standards|standards]], at this time.
'''Oppose'''. I'd really need to see a good bit more activity in general, but more importantly, there's no real activity since 2007/8 - just a couple of hundred edits since the start of February. I'd suggest you spend some more time here, get back into the swing of things properly, and don't think about admin until you've got a decent track record of recent activity. --
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. I'd prefer to see a little more experience first, specifically in admin-related areas. For example, I don't see many (any?) reports to [[WP:AIV]]. If you're interested in vandal-fighting, some activity there would help demonstrate understanding of policy. Also, with less than 1000 mainspace edits, I'd hope to see high-quality edits to make up for the low quantity, but recent article creations like "[[When I Had the Chance]]" and "[[Good to Me]]" don't demonstrate that quality: they're tiny stubs (which is OK) sourced only to Twitter (which isn't.) Come back with either a solid anti-vandalism record or high-quality content contributions (or even both!) and I hope to support.
'''Oppose''' Too low activity in the recent months and very low number of edits in the project namespace. It also concerns me that he wants to deal with vandals, and to which [[WP:AIV]] also belongs, but has only [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Eduemoni&namespace=4 2 edits on the page]. He made one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=124182584 report] to AIV in April 2007, which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=124182995 false]. The answer to question 1 is very vague and the wording of it doesn't everywhere makes sense. XfD discussions are closed not finished. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall and recent experience alike. It's a little too soon, Eduemoni. [[User:Swarm/RfA criteria|I like to see]] about 4,000 edits, about six months worth of continued activity, and a decent amount of experience in the Wikipedia namespace at the minimum. Sorry. Take any advice you get from this RfA, get some more experience, and come back and I'd be happy to support you. Regards, ''
'''Oppose''' per the comments of Strikerforce and Boing! above--
'''Moral support''' - This looks like it is going to [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Support''' He seems to be sensible, mature and experienced. Also good at content creation, helping to get articles and lists to a good standard. He should have no problems with the mop.
'''Oppose''' Attitude to copyright unbecoming an administrator expressed at [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Mathew Campbell and Adam Colvin]]. Suggests uploading third-party created images with inadequate evidence of permission to enwikipedia [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFiles_from_Mathew_Campbell_and_Adam_Colvin&action=historysubmit&diff=53332310&oldid=53330519] (can't use them here either, unless justified under the [[WP:NFCC|NFCC]], and certainly not with a claim of free content.)
'''Strong Oppose'''.  ''Severe'' concerns with temperament, maturity, and civility.  Although I originally came here to support, I thought I'd have a brief look at some of the candidate's edits in the last few days just to be safe.  The diffs I came across are extremely troubling (note the edit summaries in particular): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=427479908#Proposal], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=427329677], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=427310602], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Floydian/Electrical_pollution&diff=prev&oldid=426902945], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MediaWiki_messages&diff=prev&oldid=426895796], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perfect_game&diff=prev&oldid=426223245], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oakshade&diff=prev&oldid=425786013], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_Highway_404&diff=prev&oldid=425692056], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oakshade&diff=prev&oldid=425756935] .  <ins>All</ins> of these edits were made in the <ins>past two weeks</ins>.  The edit summaries Floydian uses are offensive, crude, and uncivil.  FWIW, Many users have been blocked for much less.  I don't believe the candinate is fit for adminship at this time.  -'''
'''Oppose''' While I do think that at least one or two of the examples Fastily provides are taken out of context (the "admins are clueless" one for example), they do paint the picture of an editor who is easily frustrated by a number of things and has the tendency to express said frustration in his comments. While frustration about how certain things are handled is perfectly normal, an administrator should be able to edit in a way that does not raise such frustration for other users. Unfortunately, I cannot envision this candidate to do so. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' What Wikipedia needs is more patience and kindess towards everyone. Crass stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_Highway_404&diff=prev&oldid=425692056 "Fucking tards"] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oakshade&diff=prev&oldid=425786013 "are you really that thick?"] in permanent edit summaries is not helpful, whether you have the tools or not. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose'''—I don't actually have a problem with most of the diffs {{user|Fastily}} presented above – the 'stupid rollback' one seemed completely innocuous to me – but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_Highway_404&diff=prev&oldid=425692056 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oakshade&diff=prev&oldid=425786013 this] are just way out of line. <font color="#FFB911">╟─
'''Oppose''' I was ready to support, having so much experience at AN/I means you know the way things work around here. The diffs given above, however, are concerning and you do not appear to have the correct temperament to be involved in conflict resolution as an admin '''
'''Oppose'''. Per calling people '''LAZY''' at ANI for disagreeing with your position. Can provide diff on request.
'''Oppose''' - Too much incivility, clearly does not understand file copyright. Wikipedia and Commons delete files with insufficient evidence of permission because in hosting such content there WILL be legal repercussions if the file is copyrighted. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Oppose''' - Civility issues. Please reapply again after you have improved your civility. -
'''Oppose''', I have to admire your chutzpah, I suppose.  A definite no, based on constant and recurring rudeness and incivility.
Based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Canadian_federal_election.2C_2011 this discussion], I have an issue with your judgement of consensus and apparent inability to keep an NPOV view on certain issues, but barring further investigation into your other contributions I will not oppose at this time. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Neutral''', leaning oppose. I've interacted with Floydian once, at [[Talk:Warwick]], and although we disagreed - I could tell this was a user who was passionate about the subject and a great asset to wikipedia. Unfortunately, the civility diffs raised in the oppose section are far too recent (last 2-3 weeks), and I expect there is too much passion for an admin...
'''Neutral''' only because piling on would serve no purpose.   Per many diffs provided in oppose section, you need to cool your jets and be more collegial.  –
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on - the reasons given in both the oppose section and this section reflect my concerns. I suggest that the candidate withdraws, or that this is soon closed as [[WP:SNOW]]. '''''
'''Neutral''': Extra hands in the template area would certainly be useful, and I see a candidate who is pretty clued up in terms of content and is very positive towards the project. I look forward to being able to support a future run after a bit more effort on hanging back and staying calm is evident (though not all of the diffs presented above bother me - I don't mind a bit of honest expression sometimes) --
'''Neutral, with regret.''' I know you're a great editor and I know you mean well, but I can't support because of the diffs others have pointed out (and that I have noticed before). I would suggest toning down your comments and reapplying in a few months. --'''
'''Support''' As nominator.
'''Support''' – long-term contributor, certainly knows what he's doing and what adminship is, though exclamation points in edit summaries, like in {{diff2|407673157|this edit}}, are unnecessary.
'''Support'''. You make good use of edit summaries, as can be seen [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=GiantSnowman&lang=en here]. The article that you stated is some of your best work, [[Racism in association football]], is an interesting read and communicates a potentially controversial article in a neutral tone. You remain civil at [[WP:ANI]], even though at times it is very difficult to do so. High participation in AfD discussions shows that you know about Wikipedia's policies, which is good. A quick look at your contributions shows that you do a lot of maintenance, which is also good. On top of everything, you've created over 2,000 articles, which shows that you are interested in building and expanding this encyclopedia. You definitely deserve the tools.
'''Support''' longterm user, cleanblocklog, no particular red flags (or cards in this case). Deleted contributions show a user who is more than capable of sorting out what does and does not need deletion. Two minor points, I hope you've learned from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryo Miyaichi]] that non-English sources are perfectly acceptable - however awkward to use; and I saw one hoax that you tagged as a hoax but incorrectly described as G1. However it took a bit of a trawl to find those and neither was worth opposing over. ''
'''<s>Strong</s> support''' - I do not normally give this but this candidate has everything: article creation, minor article fixes, and good contributions at XfDs.
'''Support''' – Excellent article writer; giving +sysop is definitely a net plus. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
{{ec}} '''Yup''' Why not? →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support''' He's got experience so he'll be find with the tools.
'''Support'''. A very prolific content creator, with a great deal of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and a very civil and collegial approach to other editors - exactly the kind of admin that Wikipedia needs more of. --
'''Support''' I am always happy to support qualified candidates who, despite being atheists, do not choose confrontational and offensive userboxes.
I've reviewed a random sample of this candidate's more recent contributions and I'm quite happy.  I see there's one opposer who's managed to tie the candidate in knots by asking tortuous questions about specific notability guidelines in deletion discussions, but what I don't see is any actual evidence from the candidate's contributions that there's a genuine problem there.  Quite the contrary: I think this user shows good judgment and common sense, and there is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kignelman Athanase|evidence]] that he can look back at what he's said in the past, recognise when he's wrong, and change his mind.  I like that combination.—
'''Support''' I think you're a net positive and have a good enough grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' A good admin should be, first and foremost, concerned with producing high-quality encyclopedic content. Back when I was an active admin (some years ago now - damn, I feel old), I regret the fact that I tended to get too tangled in Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy and meta-politics, and periodically lost sight of what the project is really about. Looking at GiantSnowman's contributions, it's clear that he has a long track-record of producing solid, well-referenced articles on football and footballers. His views on AfD and notability may be somewhat more inclusionist than the norm, but I'm inclined to see that as a good thing: I don't think there's anything wrong with erring on the side of keeping articles whose notability is borderline, as long as people are willing to put the work in to dig up references and improve the article to an acceptable standard. GiantSnowman has illustrated that he's certainly willing to do that.
'''Support''' - The opposition is based largely on unrealistic hypotheticals. GiantSnowman has been around long enough, contributed enough, and built enough trust to warrant the mop. Good luck!
per S Marshall. The candidate's views on specialised notability guidelines are reasonable -- reasonable minds on these issues may differ. I am confident he/she will not abuse administrative tools to push the view. --
'''Support''' Long Term Contributor Since 2006 and has  contributed a lot, and built enough trust and feel the Project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
[[WP:NETPOS|Net Positive]] and per Walton One. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
support per S Marshall.  I think Q6 is debatable, but WP:PROF in particular does let us have articles without independent reliable sources so long as A) they meet WP:PROF and B) there are reliable sources to base things on (their school's bio will do).
'''Support''' per Pedro :-)
'''Support''' on content creation and clue. Many of the opposes based upon Q6 seem to fail to AGF about why the SNGs exist. We must remember that the vast majority of reliable sources are not available online or for free. All of those guidelines are based upon the concept that if we had free online access to every RS ever written/filmed/produced, a person who has achieved a certain position in life would be able to be found in them with enough material to support the article. That same amount of AGF is also why V says "verifiable" and not "verified." This candidate understands the function and common outcomes of those guidelines which are all based upon consensus. I cannot see any answer to that question as a reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' - when I consider all this Wikipedian has done for Wikipedia, and all the experience he brings, and then look at how picky the reasons for opposing are, I feel wholeheartedly that GiantSnowman will make a valued and highly capable admin.
'''Support''' went over his contributions and they all seem pretty solid. I also like his answer to my question. I think giving him the tools would make Wikipedia a better place.
'''Support'''.. opposes unconvincing. I especially like Q7.. It is admins who think they know all are the ones who will kill wikipedia, not the admins who dont know WP:ATHLETE word for word. Good enough for me.
'''Support''' - Don't see any reason to oppose, great edits and would clearly benefit from sysop tools.
'''Support''' I don't think you'll break the encyclopedia if given the tools. I'm not wild about some of the questions, but there are no red flags. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' A good contributor and valued member of the community. I can trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' First off, I think his answer to q 6 is entirely reasonable: the hypothetical seems to propose that there ''are'' no third-party sources for a BLP that nevertheless meets [[WP:ACADEMIC]]. In that case, a press release or bio from the university are reasonable sources that ''do'' offer proofs that the subject occupies the position that meets [[WP:ACADEMIC]]. If there are no [[WP:RS]], then a trustworthy primary source can be reasonably, well, trusted to verify that person X occupies position Y, which is the hypothetical question before us. Moreover, the candidate has an interpretation of [[WP:ATHLETE]] that does not suit the fancy of some ''but it is not wrong'', as far as I can see, based on the wording of the actual guidelines.
'''Support''', and add the arguments of many of the opposers to our [[straw man]] article; the candidate isn't perfect, but he has common sense, which is really what we need.
'''Support''' A valuable contributor to the project. Some of the answers to questions here could have been better, but I trust GiantSnowman to take on board the feedback from his answers and to be careful initially and seek advice if unsure.
'''Easy Support'''. Long time contributor with demonstrable positive record. I have no problem with this editor not having an [[eidetic memory]] with regards to policies, and am comfortable with the fact that future mistakes will be made (and subsequently fixed with lessons learned). I prefer experience over perfection. Would prefer the user had more extensive experience with Azerbaijani professional football ;) --
Woah woah woah. The amount of opposition being generated due to #6 (a well-reasoned answer derived from reading policy rather than personal opinion) and #7 (RfA is supposed to weed out people who would do bad things, rather than forcing people to give right answers) is depressing. From my experience working with GiantSnowman I've no concerns at all regarding #6; he's very active at [[WT:FOOTY]], which sees a huge amount of discussion regarding SNG/GNG, and I trust that he'd pay close attention to the concerns raised if he passes. IMO the point of asking people notability questions in RfAs (other than as a petty litmus test) is to weed out people who are either clueless or actively working to undermine the current consensus on notability. GiantSnowman is neither. #7 is no biggie when there are plenty of admins available to block established users at the drop of a hat. Anyway, the issue here is clue and trustworthiness, and I reckon GiantSnowman has both. I'd really like to see some of the opposers taking a look into the editor's contributions and considering whether the response to #6 really means problems for the encyclopedia.
Weakly; I always go with the actions of a user rather than what they say in response to the myriad of questions. Yes, 7 and 8's answers are odd, but I'm willing to look past that. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you seem like you won't abuse it.
'''Support'''. While a portion of the candidate's answer to Q6 is not completely correct, the overall thrust was on the mark. Taking into account the totality of the candidate's RfA - which includes edit history, interaction with others, and general knowledge -  GiantSnowman seems to be a dedicated, balanced, reasonably competent editor who can handle the sysop gig.
Though the answer to Q7 isn't ideal, I definitely see where he is coming from. I see his reasoning. I see the implications that he saw in the question. Follow up has been reasonable. ''
'''Support''' -  Excellent long time content contributor. May<s>be</s> have fallen short on some questions but nobody is perfect on their first run. RFA are always loaded with a few tricky questions to extract the tiniest of screw ups or walk in a tightrope without falling, impossible for some. Very low risk of rocking the boat with the tools. --
'''Support''' on the basis of contributions, which show no instance of dubious or borderline interpretation of policy and guidelines; the actual work is a better test than the answers here. I agree with the candidate on Q6, though he should have stated more clearly that he was assuming that the was evidence for the key accomplishment. I do not think he   ignores WP:V--for the PROF example he is making the assumption that WP:Verifiability for the position could be met, and similarly for the athletic accomplishments. Obviously an article asserting notability without any evidence at all for the key points  would not possibly be kept, and would be unlikely to get as far as AfD in the first place. Every time that the point has come up for WP:PROF the article has been overwhelmingly kept, though for ATH it seems that not everyone actually accepts  the  ATH guidelines as stated, and I am not sure I do myself.  To oppose on the basis that the candidate does not support what a minority of people think ought to be policy is pointy and inappropriate. An admin does not do wrong to follow the accepted practice. What is needed is a willingness to follow the consensus of how policy and guidelines are to be applied .   The only problem i see is that the answers to Q7 does not show an appreciation of the possible unusual circumstances which do arise. `  '''
'''Support''' No reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Yes, the answer to Q7 is idiosyncratic, but I think the candidate is aware now that there may always be very unusual situations in which certain actions have to be taken, and I can't see any other problems.
'''Weak Support''' (switched from neutral) Theres alot of things being blown out of proportion i think with q7, like pedro mentions below; q7 has difficulties due to its wording which i agree with. But i do see an largely expereinced rational user who wants to keep improving. Ill support for adminship
'''Support''' - I have had many encounters with GiantSnowman, and i have found him to be nothing but highly professional and knowledgeable. As for his "wrong" answers to some of the given questions, i have often thought that people write those questions in order to try and catch out the candidate. Yes his answers may not have been the best, but he will certainly learn from the feedback given to him. I completely agree with a comment made by Pedro in the neutral section, when he talks about thinking that we used block as a last resort, i too thought that until today. All of Snowman's contributions to date should not be brushed aside simply because of two or three answers to a question!
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support''' I understand the concerns with Q6 and Q7, but I feel that these hypothetical questions do not adequately show the user's actual experience. He's a smart user and one who's been with us for a long time, and I'm happy to support.
'''Support'''. Q6 is unfair IMO because it asks for a canned response on a questionable topic. Topic notability guidelines are designed to be interpretations of GNG, which asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A clear passing of a topic guideline, even if GNG status is in dispute, is sufficient to keep an article, because what is "significant" and "reliable" is determined solely by AfD consensus. That is, topic guidelines are designed to make the implications of GNG more objective. Now if a topic guideline clearly contradicts GNG, then it should be changed, simple as that. Regarding Q7, RfA is designed to assess how good a user will be in the adminship role. No admin would actually try to conjure up cases under which they would block someone without warning. If GiantSnowman saw clear evidence of a compromised account, I'm pretty sure he'd block it. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Great contributor, a lot of commitment to WP, thank you for putting yourself forward. Now, I do understand that at this point of GS's RfA, supporters should mention Q6 and Q7. Regarding Q6, I believe GS has learned something and would adjust accordingly. I would have walked into this trap myself because a lot of AfD discussions silently or explicitly assume that it is sufficient to either pass GNG or the particular SNG, just search for AfDs containing a reference to WP:PROF. Regarding Q7, I believe it is entirely possible to spend 5 years here without ever coming across an obviously compromised account, or an admin on amok. For editors not usually following RfA, this possibility might be difficult to imagine. Again, now that he has been trouted more than sufficiently for his answer, I believe the penny has dropped for cases like these as well. I'm not saying the opposers' arguments have no merit but for me the positives outweigh the concerns by far. --
Never a big fan of those trick questions anyway.
'''Support''' will be perfectly trustworthy with the mop. The fuss about the Qs I see as a sign of the times rather than any indication that GS would make a poor admin - indeed I look at one answer in particular that I gave in my own RFA and know I'd be absolutely crucified for it now. <big>
'''Support''' A strong editor, and a good contributor, that I think would make a fine admin. I can understand the confusion of an editor regarding Q6, espically one who has spent time on AfD discussions. The SNG should be a universally accepted clarification of the GNG. If the SNG says that anyone who plays full back for Collingwood is notable, then so be it. There still remains the matter of acually creating the content.  As for Q7, the question seems a lot more common than actual instances. I've never come across an account run amok, and hope I never will.
Won't abuse the tools
Harmless. Remember all admins learn on the job as it were even if they don't admit it.©
'''Support''' - Dude has been around since 2006 and racked 40,000 edits. If he wants a bigger tool box, why the hell not? Hypothetical questions generating hypothetical answers which result in hysterical objections to same as a pretext to block membership in  the "cool kids club" strikes me as pretty ridiculous.
'''Weak support''' Concerns about your response to question 6 noted, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GiantSnowman&action=historysubmit&diff=408244545&oldid=408242118 this] shows maturity and willingness to learn. '''
'''Support''' - not convinced by the Opposes, particularly those based around answers to the questions. GiantSnowman's answer to Q6 was not wrong; if it was poorly expressed, his subsequent replies show he knows what he's talking about. His answer to Q7 was misguided, but it doesn't seem fair to oppose someone being promoted to administrator for their ''reluctance'' to use the block button. We should be worried about admins who are too quick to block, but one who is too slow to block is much less of a problem. I don't see either of those 'issues' as reason to deny GS the tools.
'''Weak support''' You look like a capable person who would use the tools well.  I'm somewhat uncomfortable with your responses to Fastily's two questions, since I don't see F9 as covering this image, and since there are [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar|occasional situations]] in which blocking is blatantly obviously necessary.  However, the image surely needs to be deleted for other reasons, so I won't see that as a reason to oppose, and as Robofish says, it's far less of a problem when an admin won't block than when an admin will block.
'''Support''' - The opposes make some valid comments, but I think your history indicates you can be trusted with the tools. Hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions should be given less weight than actual actions performed during actual situations.
'''Support''' deserves the status --
'''Support''' - the user is trustworthy. I feel that some of the opposers are requiring a certain type of legal perfection in the candidate's answers. Relax, GiantSnowman's not going to do anything stupid. -
'''Support''' - RfA has become a blood sport, I support on the grounds that I consider you an experienced editor who is in good standing with the community, who cares if you didnt answer some of the questions "correctly", I assume good faith and I assume you are some what nervous (under the circumstances you would be). C'mon people how about you stop being so cruel and opposing for "technical" reasons, I mean half of you on here would never have the guts to go through RfA. Assume some good faith (or is RfA in a league of its own rules on Wikipedia).
'''Support''' Contrary to many of the opposes, I think he has a good idea of how to use the Notability guidelines and I would trust him closing at XfD.  Meets all my other [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|criteria]].  --'''
'''Support'''. At most three poor answers to theoretical questions should'nt override tens of thousands of high-quality contributions. And for those opposing over low percentages of project and user talk space edits, the only reason the percentages are low is because of the high number of mainspace contribs. Candidates have passed with fewer ''total'' contributions that the 2196 GS has made to user talk pages.
'''Support''' His response to some of the questions may not be among the best, but I feel GS is valuable to the project and don’t see any problem in giving him the mop. <span style="">
'''Support''' I think he deserves a mop!
'''Support''' Seems okay '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support.''' Good candidate, quality contributor. No concerns over potential abuse of tools. ~~
'''Support'''.  Adminship is no big deal.  Many of the opposes based on your phrasing in the questions seem a bit over the top. You seem to be a good editor whom I would trust with the tools.   &ndash;
'''Support'''.  I don't agree with all GiantSnowman's answers above but I'm satisfied with the thought processes that yielded them, and believe that GiantSnowman is open to continued learning and will in the mean time use the tools in a responsible and productive way . -
'''Support''' - have been mulling this one over, and while the opposers try hard, I can't be convinced by their arguments.  This is a long-term Wikipedian with enough experience to be trusted with the extra buttons.  The !vote is close; I would ask my fellow fence-sitters to weigh in.  Once again, there are numerous names among the Opposers whom I greatly respect, but I believe this editor is qualified to hold a mop.  I thank GS for his offer of service, and wish him the best.  I also would like to respectfully suggest to the closing 'crat that a 'Crat Chat be held if the percentage is near or past 70, as I have noticed that it continues to edge upwards.
'''Support''' - Long time user, and a great contributor with a clean track record.  Regarding question 6, I believe he/she made some good faith assumptions with regards to verifiability and reliable sources being available for reference material to meet the standards for '''SNGs''' and more importantly would be willing to follow the consensus of how policy and guidelines are to be applied.  As to question 7, rather like that [[User: GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] mind is not devious enough to consider a comprised account and their first thoughts are to [[WP:AGF|AGF]].  Overall an editor that will do far more good with the extra tools than the possability of doing evil.  <font face="Times New Roman">

Otherwise clueful candidate and long-serving volunteer seems to have gotten snagged by some tricky questions, and it appears they answered them as one might in a closed book test (rather than looking the answers up).  I find "oppose per Q7" (alone)  particularly uncompelling: just because GiantSnowman couldn't think of any situations on the spot where one might block without warning doesn't mean they wouldn't recognize one in the field and pull the trigger as needed. Administrators are not expected to know everything on day 1: learning on the job is compatible with adminship. Should this request be closed as unsuccessful, I would urge the candidate to try again after a few months after addressing the concerns raised. –
Shifted from oppose. Per WereSpielChequers and Xeno. Regards.
'''Weak Support:''' I think we were a bit hard on you because of your views on deletion. I hope you make the necessary "adjustments" and try again! Thanks for making yourself available to endure this process. -
'''Support''' Experienced and sensible user. I agree with [[User:King of Hearts]] above regarding Q6.
'''Support''', from neutral. The more I think about this candidate, the more I'm inclined to give him a shot with the mop. As noted above (and below), you're going to want to tread lightly in deletion and blocking, at least until you've got some experience. Good luck,
'''Support''' - has the right attitude. I'm never bothered when somebody makes a mistake (we all do), what matters is if a person has the right attitude, intelligence, flexibility, etc. We learn by mistakes. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' – I did have some concerns about the creation of unreferenced articles, but in the end I'm supporting because the candidate appears able to take in feedback and learn. And per S Marshall. <font face="Comic sans MS">
I'm going to have to oppose, as GiantSnowman states that he wishes to work with AFD closures. I cannot support someone who gives more importance to the myriad of the notability guidelines than these [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and notability|core]] [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview|principles]]. '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about the answers in question 6. For someone working in [[WP:AFD|AFD]] I find this to be problematic. --
Sorry, but I'm not at all confident in your knowledge of V and RS, which is concerning given your desire to work with article deletion processes.
I'm sorry, but I'm moving here from neutral. But I share the concerns of the opposers above, and I am not sold by your response to my previous neutral comment. The point is not that ATH is just a guideline (although it is). The point is that it's not a free pass around GNG, even if some editors around the project have not grasped that concept yet. An administrator who is going to work on deletions needs to understand that. Please understand that I'd be open to supporting a future RfA if you can convince me that you have come to understand this. --
'''Oppose''' per Q6.  Doesn't appear to have a firm enough grasp on notability to be trusted with making deletion decisions.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  <del>I'm assuming you have no interest in answering my questions so I'm just going to go ahead and cast my !vote.<del>  I share the concerns of the above: concerns with your experience and policy knowledge in the administrative areas you wish to work. -'''
Answer to Q6 as well as subsequent replies show a significant lack of knowledge regarding notability standards. The subject-specific guidelines contain some sort of disclaimer, such as the one in [[WP:ACADEMIC]], ''It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject'' - press releases and university biographies are not independent sources. The subject-specific guidelines mean the subject is ''most likely'' notable, but only meeting the GNG or being one of the few topics that are "inherently notable" can ''establish'' notability. To address some of the support comments, this isn't some hypothetical, contrived scenario based on an interpretation of a vague guideline, this is a question about something explicitly stated in the guideline that the candidate got wrong even after several followup replies. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' partly per MrZman. I was going to go neutral here, but the concerns about the deletion, especially if he wants to ''work'' there as an admin, is a bit too much. Also, I had a recent look at his talk page, and I haven't seen any replies so far. The most recent contribution I've seen from him in this area is the unsigned marking of another contributor's comment. That's fine, but I'd rather if he replied on his own talk page, rather than keep the other users waiting. For example: Pbl1998 asked an appropriate question [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiantSnowman&action=historysubmit&diff=406578340&oldid=406450619 here], but all GS did was mark it as unsigned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiantSnowman&action=historysubmit&diff=406578627&oldid=406578340] without actually replying to the contributor, which left Pbl lacking his/her patience with another comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiantSnowman&diff=next&oldid=406578627 here]. All admins should explain their reverts except in obvious cases (e.g. vandalism). I'm afraid with that evidence he isn't civil enough to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' There is no doubt that GiantSnowman is a very good contributor, as several people have pointed out. However, being a good contributor of material and being a good potential administrator are not synonymous, and I see several reasons to think that here we have a Wikipedian who will make a better contribution to the encyclopaedia by writing than by administration. I see no evidence of any significant involvement in any administration related areas except for AfDs, to which GiantSnowman is a significant contributor. Contributions to AfDs are mostly sound, but they mostly consist of a simple statement, often along such lines as "oppose, as he does not meet [[WP:ATH]]". There is nothing wrong with such simple contributions, but they do not show any evidence of ability to discuss and weigh different arguments, balance one aspect against another, or consider the details of policies or guidelines, which are ''absolutely vital'' needs for an administrator, particularly one who indicates that deletion is likely to be their main area of operation. I also see insufficient interaction with other users for someone hoping to become an admin. It is essential for admins to show  an ability to engage in discussion and debate. GiantSnowman makes relatively few user talk page contributions, and those that do occur are often minimal. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emeraude&diff=prev&oldid=407347048 Here] GiantSnowman said "you incorrectly added an 'BLP Unrefenced' tag to [[Nicolas Cinalli|this article]]; the correct tag you should be using in such circumstances is {{template|BLP sources}}", but gave no indication whatsoever why that is so. The recipient of this message then followed this up, and GiantSnowman did then take part in discussion, but largely to dismiss the other editor's view. The article in question contained a couple of external links which the other editor did not consider suitable as references, while GiantSnowman did. My own view is that GiantSnowman was right to consider them references, but they are of such poor quality that the other editor's opposing view is by no means an unreasonable one. An admin should be able to understand another editor's point of view and explain their reason for disagreeing, ''not'' simply dismiss the other view. I also think there should have been at least some indication of the reason with the original post. Having said all that, it is only fair to acknowledge that on this occasion GiantSnowman did actually contact the editor and start the discussion, rather than simply change the tag on the article without comment. Looking at the candidate's answers to questions above I see a few things which I am not entirely happy about. I do to some extent share concerns about question 6, but I will not dwell on that, as I think the concerns have been exaggerated by other editors, and in any case it is an issue on which there is a range of opinions. I am actually much less happy with the answer to question 7. No administrator should be willing to give a categorical "never" to such a question. I am not sure what Fastily meant by "established" in the question, but no matter how well-established an editor, if they do something totally unacceptable they need to be blocked, and in some cases (such as persistently making really serious libellous statements) there may not be time for a warning. One should not usually block any user (registered or not, established or not) without warning, but there are times when exceptions are necessary, and anyone who does not realise that is showing a lack of understanding of basic principals which every admin should have. I could pick on more details, but I think I have written enough to show the nature of my reservations. As I have already said, we have here a very good contributor of content, but no evidence of the kind of skills, understanding, or experience needed to become an equally good administrator. I sincerely believe that GiantSnowman will make a better contribution to Wikipedia by continuing to write content than by diverting their time away from that job and into administration.
'''Oppose''' sorry, but I don't like the response to Q7, what about a clearly compromised account? Or start suddenly posting child porn pictures? <font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Oppose''', per CTJF83 and Mr Z-Man's comment on the same area.  Established or not, if you need to block, you block.  Shoot first, ask questions later imo. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' Changing from weak above. Watching this RFA extensively has shown me larger concerns about [[User:GiantSnowman]]. With concerns over Q6 above, I'm now also concerned about 7 and 8. As [[User:BarkingFish]] just said, if you need to block you can do so, and you NEED to do so - to protect the integrity of the project and ''possibly'' the integrity of the Account Holder. Compromised accounts do happen, and your answer to 7 shows me that you don't understand policy regarding Blocking, and your answer to question number 8 shows me you aren't that familiar with [[WP:NFCC]] and [[WP:C]]. I'm sorry, but I believe [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]] is in order here. You're a great editor, but I'd focus a little longer on the areas the community above has expressed concerns on, and I'd come back in a year or so and try again. Best of luck to you though, as I said - you are a great editor. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Strong Oppose'''. Honestly, my jaw was dropping as I read the answers to #6 and by the end of #8, I was just dumbfounded. You have done excellent work developing article content. However, while this is admirable, it doesn't qualify an individual for adminship. I know one editor on Wikipedia with over 250k edits to his/her name. Less than 1.5 percent reflect communicating with others via user talk pages, less than .4 percent involve edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and less than .05 communicating with others in the Wikipedia talk space. I consider this person a valued member of the Wikipedia community. I don't mind cleaning up the articles created or flagging for lack of notability. That said, sometimes it's frustrating because this individual will not communicate with others, and displays minimal understanding and experience interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A candidate for adminship needs to be able to understand, interpret, and effectively communicate with others, a complex range of policies and guidelines. If an admin doesn't know the answers at the time, they must be able to research in order to find the answer in a timely manner. The answers to questions 6-8 illustrate that you are not yet able to effectively manage the basic knowledge of which all admins should have a firm grasp. I find in various RFAs, individuals fall on one side or the other when it comes to article creation. Admins need to have a sure knowledge and effective level of expertise in writing and editing content. But this is not the end of knowledge. In my opinion, it would be beneficial if you were to spend some time reading, reviewing, and coming to an understanding of the policies and guidelines regarding the basic nature of the notability guidelines, along with reliable and independent sources. Honestly, I don't know much about science or sports. I tend to stay away from those subjects. That said, I've reviewed the notability guidelines for sports and athletes and have a solid understanding of the criteria for notability. I have also formed definite opinions. The criteria needs to be made consistent and expanded to include more sports. Heck, I'm a chick, but for crying out loud, where's the boxing criteria? But I digress. In the end, press releases and university/corporate bios? Not reliable. Not independent. Established, regular editors or admins? Block when appropriate. Legal threats, sockpuppets, edit wars/3RR, compromised accounts, gross incivility, harassment, unapproved bots, and outing and/or disclosure of confidential/personal information. And if you don't know the copyright policy, review it until you do and don't do anything until you do. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
Regretful '''oppose'''. I'm sorry to be in this column, because I believe you are a valued contributor to Wikipedia, but, unfortunately, I fear you do not have the experience an admin candidate needs, in my opinion, to be handed the mop. Answers to questions 6 and, especially, 7 are a deal breaker for me. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' on answers to questions, particularly the later ones. The problems with your answer to 7 in particular have been detailed extensively above. In addition, the phrasing of your answer to 9 in the face of the not-inconsiderable issues raised by opposers to me speaks to an over-confidence, even arrogance, unbecoming of a collaborative contributor - admin or not. That being said, I would encourage the candidate to work to gain more experience in all areas of the project, as he seems to be at heart a good-faith contributor.
'''Oppose''' The answers to q6 through Q9 were poor. Further, I won't repeat Nikkimaria, though I agree with every word she wrote.
'''Oppose''' You might be a good content contributor, but you muffed too many questions, some of them really badly. I'd strongly suggest that before you run again, if you choose to do so, you go to the [[Wikipedia:New admin school]] section, specifically [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]]. While it seems counter-intuitive if you go purely by the name, it's essentially the same basic concept of going to the police academy before getting the badge. Sorry, and I hope this helps.
It's a shame that, collectively, we're too incompetent to devise a system whereby those who are ''trustworthy'' (as GiantSnowman certainly is) can have the tools for janitorial purposes, without being permitted to make sometimes complicated judgement calls, such as AfD closures. Things being the way they are, I have no option but to oppose on AfD grounds. —
'''Oppose''', per answer to Q7.
'''Oppose''', per answers to Q6 and Q7. Even beyond the issue of deletion participation, the idea of a contributor who creates a lot of articles but doesn't think much of verifiability makes this gnome's teeth itch. The answer to 7 indicates to me that the candidate either didn't think very hard about the answer or that he hasn't thought very hard about blocking policy. His reply that he doesn't intend to be involved in <s>deletion</s> blocking doesn't comfort very much; he's getting that button whether he's interested or not and should have the basics of the policy down. --
'''Oppose''' per Q7. There are times when an editors actions is far beyond good faith. <font color="00ff00">
'''Oppose''' per Q7 and AfD experience. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Strong Oppose''' per Q6.  Verifiability and reliable sourcing are not at all new ideas here, and anyone who ''still'' can't grasp those concepts needs to find some other website to contribute to, never mind adminship.
'''Regretful oppose''' this time, mainly per question answers (particularly question 6). In concept I think of the GNG/SNGs much like the UK's Health & Safety legislation: the GNG is like the [[HASAWA|enabling act of Parliament]]; the SNGs are like the [[Health and safety regulations in the United Kingdom|mass of subordinate regulations]] that set out how the general rules are to be applied in specific circumstances. Thus the SNG's can expand upon, but certainly shouldn't contradict, the overall GNG requirement for verifiability. That said, thank you for your great content work, and if you take a little time to familiarise yourself with the core site policies I'd probably support if you decide to run again.
'''Oppose''' with regret. Question 6 is not helpful, but question 7 decides it for me. I recognise that if you were faced, as I in the past have been, with a grossly offensive and pornographic edit submitted submitted by an established user then you would instantly block the user in question. But you were unable to conceive of the possibility. And in my view, cynical though it may be, this ability is necessary. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' – Q6 is iffy; I mean I can understand where you are coming from with your response, but there must be a ''bare minimum'' of verifiability there or something to work with in which to build an article. That being said, Q7 definitely raises a red flag in my book; one example of that already comes to my mind – sock puppets of a banned user. –
'''Oppose''' per Q6 and Q7.
Hate to pile on but I'm concerned about the lack of nuance in the candidate's response to question 6.--
'''Oppose''' as per JamesBWatson and Cindamuse. You are a good contributor to Wikipedia. However a quick look at automated edits show zero vandal fighting - and hence the low numbers of edits to talk pages. A good proportion of admin work is often down to sorting out vandals, 3RR, disputes, etc. I think you need to broaden your field of work within Wikipedia, and then that will help you make better answers to the questions next time. '''
'''Oppose''', concerns about familiarity with regards to [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]], and specifically, [[WP:NOTE]]. -- '''
'''Oppose''' After reviewing some of your discussions and a recent issue you took to ANI, I don't feel that you're assuming good faith and that you're more confrontational and heavy handed than I'd like to see in a prospective administrator.  You've undoubtedly made some great contributions to wikipedia, and for that you have my deepest gratitude.
'''Oppose''', per concerns raised above, and [[José Núñez (footballer)|this uncited BLP]], created January 9.  Please work on building some good articles, refine your policy knowledge, and try RFA again in six months or a year.
'''Oppose''' per NW --
'''Oppose'''. Obviously a valued contributor and a reliable individual. However, three of the questions were answered poorly (Q6, Q7, Q8). The candidate themselves admits these were not great answers. Ordinarily I wouldn't oppose for just one or two of these problematic answers - answering questions like this is harder than some people seem to give credit for - although Q6 would come close given the areas the candidate has said they want to work in. But three together is concerning. The candidate suggests looking at their contribution record instead. However, despite the volume of the contributions and the quality of some of them, there are problems there too; I am not totally convinced by the candidate's explanation that some problematic articles should be disregarded because they created them a long time ago when standards were different. If that's the case, wouldn't the candidate want to go back and improve them, at some point over the intervening years, rather than rushing on to create yet more articles? The recently created unreferenced BLP mentioned by SG above also seems to overlap with the concerns about the poor answer to Q6 - I can't say what actually went through the candidate's mind here, but it seems like this living person met ATH and therefore it was an "easy article create" without thinking to get the references in there right at the start (and, obviously, check that widespread coverage in secondary sources actually existed. If those checks had taken place, why not put the refs in when creating the article or at least over subsequent weeks?) --
'''Oppose'''. I really wanted to support this candidate. The answers to the questions aren't great, but they're not ''unreasonable'' either. I think the instinct ''not'' to block an established editor without warning is a good one. But I simply can't support a candidate who creates unreferenced articles. I pointed out one, he responded that that wasn't a great example because it was 4 years old. Fair enough. So I looked at his creations from the past month and found two more unreferenced creations. He didn't directly respond to that but when someone else reminded him, he said it was accidental and went back and added references. I was willing to AGF at that point; we all make mistakes. However, at ''that point'', a careful editor would have done a spot check to see if there were any ''more'' unreferenced article creations from the past month. I just did a spot-check myself, to see whether I should remain neutral or change my !vote, and found two more unreferenced articles in the same time period: [[Southampton Rangers]] and [[Deportivo Mongomo]]. I am willing to grant that these may be accidental too; but if that's the case, the candidate is simply not diligent enough, in my opinion, for the tools at this point.
answers to questions. per above, especially NW. -
Q6. No other compelling reason to support, but I will not oppose on this alone. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Fetchcomms]]<s>, pending further review.</s> Answer to Q6 makes me uneasy, but not sufficently so to oppose outright. <s>Also pending answers to [[User:Fastily]]'s questions.</s> Good answers to Fastily's questions, but demonstrated gorm is just not quite enough to overcome my apprehensions. --
'''Neutral'''. GiantSnowman is a great contributor. However the answer to question 6 isn't quite right.
'''Neutral'''. I like your content work, but I can't support due to your response to Q7. Sorry. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Neutral''' A prolific user who has paid his dues and seems to have a moderately sound understanding of how things work; however, the answers to the questions, and in particular the latter half, give me pause for concern.--
'''Neutral''' The answer to number seven is quite wrong as are a few others, but otherwise you are a good editor. Good luck!
Well, I really can't support, but I'm not sure I have seen enough to oppose, so I will hang here now.
'''Beat the nom to voting Support''' I don't see any problems at all, he/she seems to have work in many areas, and would not likely misuse the tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Will write more comprehensively on Giftiger later. For now, great support.
As nom.
I've seen the user around, and then I was pretty confident his/her abilities. I took a quick look through his/her contribs, and I was thoroughly impressed - he/she is involved in many different areas, some of which are mainly administrative areas. I fully support Giftiger as a candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' I think he/she would be a good administrator with the tools.
'''Support''' This person was one of the first to help me when I started on Wikipedia last summer. I appreciated the friendly support I received and I am happy to offer my friendly support to this cause.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about the candidate's temperament. A review of his contributions have left me with the view that he can be brusque to a fault and given to a sarcastic tone when dealing with others. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epeefleche&diff=prev&oldid=400092064] There are numerous examples of him demanding that editors with whom he has disagreed stay away from his talkpage, yet he dismisses such demands when they are made of him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giftiger_wunsch&oldid=405972244] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giftiger_wunsch&diff=prev&oldid=400226459]. I believe this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&diff=prev&oldid=405967970] speaks to questions of judgement and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HIV-positive_people&diff=prev&oldid=407481490] redaction of another user's comment was excessive.
With all respect to the nom, I regretfully oppose. Giftiger appears very weak on content,[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Giftiger+wunsch&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects] though I'm not much of stickler for content from Rfa's. What really bugs me is that Giftiger's most edited page--by far-- is ANI. Anyone with such a disproportionate edit history, unless they are very wise and peace loving, is usually a drama-magnet and thus a "net negative" to this project. In my few interactions with Giftiger, I have concluded that it is unfortunately the latter.--''
Giftiger, if you hadn't responded to LessHeard vanU like you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giftiger_wunsch&oldid=407563888#Please_withdraw_from_User_talk:Giacomo_Returned here], I'd be in the support column. LHvU was ''not'' calling you a troll; he was merely concerned that your actions could be interpreted as trolling by others. The fact that you applied [[WP:DENY]] to him and called him a hypocrite only makes it worse; that is not how you're supposed to respond to polite and reasonable (if blunt) requests, let alone to people who are trying to look out for you. --
Ouch. Those diffs are ''very'' recent. I normally despise editors who comb through editors' entire histories and pick up age-old, long-forgotten mistakes from the past to "excuse" their opposition, but some of the diffs only happened the other week. Now is not really the best time to be requesting extra responsibility.
(Weak)''' oppose''' - edit stats show user has only recently became active - May 2010.  Not enough experience in my book.  That, when combined with what appears to be a rush to become an admin through heavy involvement in UAA and ANI, along with the diffs provided by Lovetinkle (especially the tone in the GiancomoReturned diff) leave me here.
'''Strong Oppose''' Logging in on this account, normally in AN/I with usually unhelpful or plainly obvious comments, little article writing to counter the balance of AN/I edits. I have some difs but I want to see how this RFA follows before firming my oppose.
'''Easy Oppose''' <s>Sorry,</s> but this is one of the easiest opposes that I've encountered.  Hell in all honesty, I've been keeping an eye on this page for his RfA which I strongly suspected was forthcoming.  This user strikes me as being too firm with the civility patrol.  A few months ago, he [[User_talk:Balloonman/archive_25#NPA|he issued me an NPA warning]] because in my response to a person making pointy AFD's, I wrote, "It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs."  According to him, that is a personal attack.  It should be noted that Giftiger himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSteve_Raby&action=historysubmit&diff=392990132&oldid=392985714 started questioning the motives] of the person making the nominations, it just took him a little longer to realize that they were in fact being made to be pointy.  (In 4+ years of editing, I think this is the first time that a non-involved editor has ever issued me an NPA warning... and to the best of my knowledge, only the second one that I ever received the first coming from somebody I called a wiki-lawyer.)  He later warned Giacomo about violating 3RR... Giftiger apparently already had a history with Giacomo, so rather than leave a personalized note, he "chose to expend as little of my energy as possible this time" by issuing a template warning.  Needless to say, if it wasn't for LessHeardvanU [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiacomoReturned&action=historysubmit&diff=405972284&oldid=405971616 collapsing and closing the discussion], he would have wasted more time making comments like "Sigh... as much as I'd love to be baited with your silly comments, Giacomo, some of us actually have something constructive to do."  If you've had a negative encounter with a person, perhaps you shouldn't get involved?  Perhaps you should simply report it and let somebody else handle it?  Sorry, but I fully suspect that if we dug around his history for any length of time, that we'd discover somebody way too prone to use the block buttons and a strong arm.---'''
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiftiger_wunsch&action=historysubmit&diff=405973890&oldid=405972244 this] was completely uncalled for. --
Not sure yet, but so much time spent on ANI is automatically a negative. I'll look further though. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Do I have the honour of being the first? Long-standing editors with great records and a willingness to chip in with the cleanup tasks as and when needed are exactly what we want as admins, so I have no hesitation. --
'''Support''' A perusal of talk archives all looks good. The odd error seems to have been quickly fixed. Clean block log and almost 50% edits in the main space - noted that a lot is vandalism reversion, but there is content creation and much wiki-gnoming as well. Good answers to Q1-3. In short - tenure, experience, stoic userpage, and a sensible and non-lycra clad pink flashing signature. That'll do for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I see only good things here :)
'''Support''' No issues seen. --
'''Support''' [[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] --
'''Support''' No issues here. →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support''' - I'm not real happy with the answers above regarding blocks, and I view extremely suspiciously anyone who claims to have been on Wikipedia for two years without getting into a conflict, particularly when they're engaged in contentious work (eg. anti-vandalism).  Frankly I just don't believe that.  HOWEVER, a review of GLane's contributions suggests that, in practice, there's no reason to believe he'd use the admin tools inappropriately, and that however poorly he may express himself above he has a sufficiently strong practical knowledge of Wikipedia operations to minimise the number of errors he makes.  He also seems open to self-improvement and constructive criticism, and he is engaged in an area of work where he would clearly benefit from the tools.  So - Support - but GLane, if you are successful, please don't hesitate to get advice and second opinions from other admins over your first couple of months with the tools! -
'''Support''' - Oh no! A high percentage of automated edits! Whatever will we do? (Great editor.)
'''Support''' per NW is the oppose section. I don't really care that ~80% of his edits are automated when he has ~27,500 total edits. The cool-down block answer is worrisome, but not enough to sway me the other way. Good luck.
'''Support''' if only to soothe the headache I get from the absurdity of the "too many automated edits" arguments. Let me get this straight. 7000 non-automated edits = good. 7000 non-automated edits + 20000 automated edits = bad. Seriously, the opposers need to think this through and decide whether Wikipedia would really be better off without Glane23 as an extra admin.
'''Support''' A net positive contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I am a little concerned by Glane23's idea of "cooling off". Despite the large number of automated edits, the contributions are generally good.
'''Support''' A very good user. – <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">
'''Support''' - seems sufficiently competent to be a trustworthy with the admin tools. The high percentage of automated edits doesn't bother me; not every admin can be a content builder. Also, I strongly disagree with the opposes over [[WP:COOLDOWN]]: it's an archaic policy that we should have dropped years ago, and doesn't accurately describe current practice. Whatever that page says, so-called 'cool-down blocks' do happen all the time, and rightly so. It's high time we recognised that reality and stopped pretending otherwise.
'''Support''' Once I got passed the image work and huggling, I found a fair few comments at AfD, which gave calm and rational arguments. I'm not worried about the "cooling off" issue, as I see it as an unfortunate turn of phrase. You appear to be a net positive to the encyclopedia and I'd have no problem with you holding the tools [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - I think the umbrage being taken over the comment 'cooling off' is out of context and proportion. Editor looks responsible, acceptably versed in policy and highly committed. For a janitorial role, that's plenty.
'''Support''' seems to have clearly demonstrated competence in vandal-fighting.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''' I think this user has what it takes. Competent, polite and constructively responsive to other editors. Areas of concern outlined by opposers seem to be very minor.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support:'''  Competent, polite and constructively responsive to other editors. Areas of concern outlined by opposes are petty. The more I look at this candidate the more I think he will make a great Admin. -
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. Although I can understand the basis for some of the opposes, I do not find them persuasive, for the reasons outlined by several of the other supporters above. In particular, I have never understood the objection to a candidate's having lots of automated edits where he or she also has a good quantity and quality of "regular" edits; taken literally, that suggests that the candidate would be more qualified if he or she had helped the project less, which except in very unusual circumstances is not true.
'''Support''' This candidate has been around for two and a half years, has a clean blocklog and a record of helpful and civil communication. In my view the manual edits are sufficient to qualify him for adminship. He also has done quite a few automated edits, I count these as a positive, reverting vandalism is great experience for an admin to have. Opposing an otherwise well qualified candidate because they revert too much vandalism doesn't make sense to me. ''
'''Support''' - If for no other reason than to oppose the reflexive "automated edits" !votes, against an editor with nearly 30,000 edits. I don't see a suggestion of coasting on numbers in the questions, nor any concern about it, which leaves simple prejudice against automated edits: something that's '''absolutely critical''' to this encyclopedia. Good people who know how to use automated tools are what keep this thing functioning. If that's a negative at RfA then that's a '''toxic''' trend that threatens the entire encyclopedia.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - trustworthy. '''It's that simple'''. <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' - no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --
'''Support''', per WereSpielChequers.  The small sample of vandalism reports I have reviewed show no problems, and I've been through almost every AfD contribution since March last year and find them reasonably impressive.  The candidate's arguments are considered, and it is clear he makes the effort to search for sources and seek alternatives to deletion.  I must join the chorus of editors who find unconvincing the opposes based on automated edit percentage and an unfortunate use of the word "cooldown".  Those due to the "cooldown" remark I find particularly concerning, as it is ''absolutely crystal clear from the context of the remark that the candidate was not referring to blocks made solely to "cool down" an editor''.  So long as Geoff is cautious, asks for help when neccessary, and is willing to learn from his mistakes, he will do fine.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' - In protest against anyone citing automated edit percentages.  And the candidate looks good, too.--
'''Support''' - I'm a bit depressed to see the amount of people citing automated edit percentages in their opposes, especially when the candidate has so many non-automated edits as well. Glancing through his contributions, I have full confidence that Glane will be an excellent admin, and I commend him for stepping up to the plate here.
'''Support''' "Automated edit" opposes are the epitome of [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|Editcountitis]], plus they make me physically ill. I know, that's probably a manifestation of a larger problem, but I digress. They've obviously done a lot of good work and have my complete trust. ''
'''Support''' cooling off? well lets face it, blocks are often issued when an editor refuses to do exactly that after warnings to desist, step away from the horse etc - Collaboration and cooperation are key. I have read some of the comments on the Taco and other talk pages and think that article creations such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeeuws_spek&oldid=330544760] and the way in which the discussions on [[Talk:Steak_sandwich#Merge_direction.3F]] show there should be no mopping up after him (lol).
So he got the cool down block question wrong. Now he knows what the right answer is. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' No reason why not. --
'''Support''' Adminship is really not the big deal that others make it. It's not like Glane will delete the main page. The cooldown wording was unfortunate but not so bad that I believe that Glane hasn't learned from this experience. I don't care about the percentage of automated edits. The number of non-automated edits is the only thing that might really matter and even that number is suspicious in many circumstances. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Want to know why we have a declining number of admins on this site? Read the opposes. This guy's number of manual edits is not far behind the total number of edits I have made, and I am an admin who has been active here since 2005. As for the 80% of automated edits, if someone is willing to dedicate the time and effort to carry out such a maintenance task, then that sounds to me like someone who is a very admin-like editor already. Onwards and upwards!
'''Support''' I think it's safe to assume that this editor, if given the mop, will not now be implementing any cooldown blocks. That being the case, I see no reason not to support.
'''Support'''; I find the opposes over what was obviously a wording mistake (cooldown blocks) unconvincing, and maintenance work is just as important as anything else.  The only difference between manual and automated edits in vandal fighting is that automated edits allow you to do your job better; why oppose over that?
Though I've barely participated in RfA since last summer, I maintain my view that if the candidate seems experienced and knowledgeable, the only reason to reject their nomination is if they've been proved untrustworthy. The opposes don't seem to establish a lack of trustworthiness at all, so I support along the same lines as Royalbroil.
'''Support'''- I think giving this user the tools would benefit Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Active user who fights hard against vandalism, and is anyway an active, resourceful fellow. No reason to oppose. Personally, I think opposes like "too much automated editing" are nonsense, an active editor who helps keeping Wikipedia clean of vandalism and does a lot of such good work for Wikipedia, deserves the mop, even if he/she hadn't done much content work and written featured articles. '''''
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools.
Seems like a trustworthy editor with a legitimate use for some more buttons. A sampling of recent vandalism warnings suggests this editor understands [[wp:NOTVAND]], and while a lot of the automated warnings are canned, they are the right cans, chosen with some care. So I think a lot of the concern expressed in the oppose section might not be applicable to this editor.
'''Support''' – Review of contributions and talk page show substantial knowledge in areas of [[WP:COPY]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]; much more so than the candidate takes credit for in the questions. I agree with HJ Mitchell that more participation in policy discussions is desirable. However, I see nothing wrong with an admin who follows policy even if they haven't contributed to its development. The candidate stays cool and quickly apologizes when a mistake has been made. The number of complaints on his talk page is insignificant considering the large number of vandalism reverts. The number of his non-automated edits is sufficient for me and the candidate can be trusted to not abuse the tools. Requiring admins to be tremendous content creators is short-sighted because of the "gain an admin, loose an editor" trap. And right now we need good editors even more than we need admins. This user is willing to mop for us, but he's not wrenching the mop out of our hands, which is one more good sign of his intentions. It's time to hand it over already. —
'''Support''', you have been doing a good job so far and I trust you'll make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' Give him his own mop!
'''Oppose''' I hate to do this, but you have 79.72% automated edits, which is pushing the limit when it comes to a balance between human edits and Huggle edits.  Plus, it seems that the only administrator-related page that you regularly update is [[WP:AIV]], which is automatically done through Huggle.  More participation at places such as [[WP:UAA]] would show that you are well-versed in the policies.  Again, I really did not want to do this, but having almost 80% automated edits is not great.
"... giving vandals a cooling off period by blocking access for appropriate lengths of time and the like"—uh, [[WP:COOLDOWN|no]]. Convince me otherwise? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' For various reason. (1) As Logan already mentioned [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=Glane23&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= 79,72%] of his edits are automated, which is clearly too many. (2) "... giving vandals a cooling off period ..." is very ambiguous and makes me think, that the user doesn't read the [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]]. (3) He says: "I would like to be able to close AFDs once consensus has been reached.", but there are cases, when AfD ends with "no consesus". <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I do not trust this candidate with the tools, especially when the opening statement is to give vandals a "cooling off period".  Secondly, one doesn't need the tools to CLOSE AFD's.  Lastly, I don't feel comfortable with your level of experience at RPP or AIV.  I feel that 450 edits is not enough to judge your experience in this area.
'''Oppose''' cool off blocks?  wat.  -'''
[[User:Mono|Mono]] (
'''Oppose''', concerns about experience, temperament, and judgment. -- '''
'''Oppose''' According to the talk page it looks like you needs more experience working your ways around Wikipedia, especially when I saw that page blanking note by JohnCD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Glane23#Pages_blanked_by_author]. I am unconvinced by the answers to the first three questions: Q1 has a mention of cool-down blocks. Usually those blocks are not requested unless they've done something seriously wrong. Q2 shows that you don't have much in the way of content creation, for example you only created a few articles and haven't really done any (if not much) in the way of expanding any other articles. Q3 shows that you've never been in a dispute, and yet you also have an intention to work at edit warring related noticeboards? Well, my advice is, look up an article that interests you, and try and make an addition so that you can get a feel of what content building is all about.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. I think "cooldown" was just a foot-in-mouth moment rather than an inherent misunderstanding of the policy and I think opposing over automated edits is a bit like avoiding a bakery because it uses a bread-slicing machine rather than slicing its bread by hand. If someone spent 80% of their time patrolling recent changes without the aid of Huggle and Twinkle, or with java script that X!'s counter doesn't show, their percentage of "automated" edits would be much lower. Opposing over automated edits is '''madness''' and any 'crat worth their bit will completely discount it. '''However''', having taken a more detailed look at your contributions than the editors who jump to oppose over the most trivial of trivialities, I see only a minimal participation in discussions{{mdash}}most of your edits to the various non-user talk namespaces seem to be reverting vandalism. Don't let anyone for one minute tell you that reverting vandalism isn't a valuable and essential task, but admins need to have a proven, broad knowledge of policy and the only way to get a real, hands on knowledge of policy and its application is content- and policy-based discussions. Most of your edits to the Talk namespace are vandal reversions and discussions on more minor points, rather than discussion over article development and controversial content and the applicable policies. You only have 7 edits to the WT namespace and none of them  are to policy talk pages.
'''Oppose''' I have no problem with the use of tools to perform monotonous work, and I believe that the candidate's "cooling off" statement was not intended in the way it is being interpreted by many other opposers. I do have a problem with the lack of significant contributions to content and the statement that "the bulk of the substantial articles have been created" already. There is also the noted lack of participation in discussions and collaboration in content building. These two things are essential for an admin. I could support in the future with greater participation in those areas. '''
'''Weak oppose''' - I'm sorry, but per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Glane23/Archive_2#IP_edits_to_Squanto this]. {{user|HJ Mitchell}}'s comments and the gaffe in Q #1 would have put me in neutral, but that edit was ~1 month ago and explicitly violated [[WP:DRC]]. Maybe in a few months, after you've brushed up on policies, I'll be happy to support! (By the way, to the people opposing over "automated percentages", would you support a candidate with 5000 non-automated edits or a candidate with 10,000 non-automated edits and 30,000 automated edits?)
'''Reluctant oppose''' per [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]] and [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] above.
'''Reluctant oppose''' I have ''no problem'' with the high number of automated edits, but I'd like to see some more contributions in areas where editors are required to demonstrate policy knowledge such as AfD. At the moment I don't feel there is enough to judge in such areas. If anyone can point me towards some good edits in these areas I may shift to support.
'''Oppose''' -  also  most  reluctantly. I  would have been tempted to  support  just  to outbalance the needless pile-on due to the honest  approach  to  blocking using  an unfortunate expression that  looks as if it has been taken out of context  and used to  undermine your RfA. However, I  don't believe tactical !voting to  be an expression  of confidence in  a candidate. I  most  regretfully  have to oppose however based on a the lack of active  participation of semi-administrative tasks as per HJ Mitchell and Jim Miller. There's a lot we can do  there without   needing  the tools, and by  doing  so, we gain the experience and the insight  to  policy that  we need to  be able to  use the tools with  confidence when and if we get  them. People always learn a lot more from  hands on  experience, rather than from  just observing what  goes on. If you  can offer more,  regular !votes/comments/advice on, for example,  RfC, Afd, ANI, Deletion revision, and on some other noticeboards and help  desks, and more content  building, I'm sure I  would happily support your next  RfA.
Nominating one's self merely to loosen the admin drought doesn't make you a good admin. <span class= "color:red;size:2.5">[[User:WikiCopter|Wiki]][[User talk:WikiCopter|cop]][[Special:EmailUser/WikiCopter|ter]]</span> [[Special:Contributions/WikiCopter|<sub>what i do</sub>]] <span class= "color:#C0C0C0;size:2">[[w:simple:User:WikiCopter|s]] + [[commons:User:WikiCopter|c]]</span> <span class= "color=#D3D3D3>[[WP:CUP|cup]]&#124;
'''Oppose''': although fairly safe to presume Glane would not abuse his privileges, I'm not sure his level of understanding and familiarity with policies would allow him to utilize them properly. I would like to see this user engage in less wiki Gnomish activities as I think he could be useful in article building, but I'm not confident with him as an admin now.
'''Oppose''': No content creation.  NYB makes a correct point, that percentage automation is not the issue.  Lack of content is the problem.
'''Oppose''', none of the answers to the questions inspire confidence, the answer to Q4 doesn't seem well thought out, and that this RFA has been taken over by a the trivial issue of automated edits, with editors supporting based on opposes on automated edits, is wacky.  Per TCO-- lack of content and demonstrated knowledge, not automated edits, is the issue.
'''Oppose''' - you said, {{xt|working with new editors, policy discussions and such activities as SPI requests, those are examples of the areas I'd like to explore further as an admin}} - you need to demonstrate capability in those areas ''before'' becoming an admin. I have no particular problem with your reluctance to write articles, however you'd need to show ''understanding'' of article building, through communication and interaction across the various processes of Wikipedia. If you can do that, in the future, then in some months you should re-apply. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' per HJ Mitchell.  Letting ''vandals'' cool down is not a big deal; anything that converts them to productive editors is good in my book.  Likewise, large number of automated edits aren't a big deal--I have quite a few myself.  The lack of a demonstrated track record of collaboration is more concerning.
'''Oppose''' There are just too many things wrong here. Your word choice in the questions was tragic, I'm not sure that it comes from a lack of coherency in writing rather than a lack of understanding of policy. Ultimately what sealed the deal is that you never explained or defended yourself effectively, you had to be corrected by someone else on the issue. If someone points out that you're lacking knowledge in an area, you need to read up on it before you plunge back in.
Sorry. Lack of breadth in editing experience, including content creation and participation in consensus-building discussions. I think a higher degree of experience of both is required for an admin. Couldn't give a crap about the supposed "cooling off" gaffe. --
I feel similar to Mkativerata. I don't think you're ready yet and the policy error and lack of content work support my opinion. '''
Content contributions per above. -
'''Oppose'''. The proportion of automated edits is irrelevant, since 7000 non-automated edits is quite sufficient to assess the candidate's contributions. However, the very limited content creation and the gaps in knowledge of policy are a real problem. While I wouldn't encourage non-admins to be trying to comment on every single discussion at AN/I like some seem to, I think a good candidate needs to go one step further than just reading it without ever commenting. I feel that Glane23 would make a good admin given a few months extra spent reading up on policy and getting more involved in admin related work. --
Lack of article writing
Uhhhh
'''Neutral''' Leaning toward oppose. I still believe in at least [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mkativerata/Administrator_capability_statement&oldid=407983205 this] version of the ''capability criteria'' and I've yet to see that demonstrated. #'s 4 through 6 give me particular concern, and #'s 1-3 aren't looking good either. I'd like to see some examples that satisfy these criteria.
'''Neutral''' This is clearly a candidate whose heart is in the right place and who has made a number of very valuable contributions to the project; however, the downside is lack of sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia's core policies, and an abnormally large percentage of automated edits. I would suggest mentoring, solidifying your credentials and trying again in 3 months.--
'''Neutral''' Per cool off comment and knowledge of core policies, but is a reliable huggler so I wish all the best.
'''Neutral''' Do you currently have any experience in page moving, edit war dispute resolution, or closing AfDs? All of which don't require you to be an admin. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">
'''Neutral'''. And pretty much agree with [[User:Hokeman|Hokeman]] above. --
I love his experience fighting vandals, and many edits, but we don't do cooldown blocks.
'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''.  I'm not concerned by the "cooldown" choice of words, which I think may well have not been used in the defined term sense the rest of us understand.  Nor am I concerned by the automated edits -- NY Brad put it nicely.  However, I don't see the discussion contributions I would need to assess properly the candidate's understanding of policy.--
'''Neutral''' The "cooldown" choice of words concerns me a bit. The percentage of automated edits, in relation to the candidate's overall total, doesn't raise as much of an issue as it typically might. Not convinced that the candidate might not make a good admin, but can not offer my support at this time. Good luck! --
'''Neutral''' - per above.
'''Neutral''' - Hokeman has effectively hit the nail on the head. <span style="border:1px solid;border-left:3px solid;border-right:3px solid;background:#D3D3D3">
'''Neutral''' per those above me.
'''Neutral''' me too.--
'''Neutral''' - per Hokeman.
I'm not an admin (though it would be cool, if I were one) but i'm a fellow friend and member of WP:EE of GSorby. I know him quite well. He puts a shame on all of us at EastEnders. Literally. He clicks his fingers and an image (of the highest quality) pops up and everyone goes 'wow'. He is very friendly, but does have moments on the edge, but apoligises straight away, and you forget them seconds later. He has done amazing edits to [[Ann Mitchell]] and [[Yusef Khan]], which will easily pass GA. He is very easy to talk to, just the other day we were talking and it ended up in a whole conversation (and I had only asked if he could restore a image). I think he is an invaluable essence of Wikipedia, and will easily make it a better place. <font color="#007FFF" face="Orlando">
I'm open to changing my mind, but the edit warring on [[David Platt (Coronation Street)]] and the talk page archives filled with image warnings do not fill me with confidence. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Hmmm, this is going to have to be a [[WP:NOTYET|not yet]] !vote.  Your lack of a nomination statement, coupled with your lack of experience in the Wikispace does not make me feel comfortable with you having the tools at this time.
Sorry, but someone with under 3k edits needs an outstanding nomination statement to even be considered. The absence of a nomination statement means I won't bother looking further.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' [[User talk:GSorby#Repost of Mia McKenna Bruce|This conversation]] seems to show a lack of maturity required of an administrator.  In addition, you say that your work with non-free images is your best contribution to Wikipedia, but your talk page is covered with warnings related to them.
'''Oppose''' - Due to the image concerns.
'''Oppose''' - I'm not opposing for simple [[WP:NOTNOW]] reasons, I have some specific concerns with your candidacy. As suggested by ArcAngel above, your participation in the "Wikipedia:" areas is limited, which is something that always stays my hand. I'm particularly troubled by your lack of experience dealing with conflicts, especially since one of the main reasons why you're requesting the tools is to be able to block people, I see no evidence that you have the proper judgement when it comes to judging the actions of other editors (and in particular, I'm troubled by the statement, "I have had a few ignorant users who I have politely asked to stop but didn't so took it to WP:AIV but nothing more than that"). On the other hand, just in a general sense you seem to be doing well in improving Wikipedia's articles and files, and I encourage you to continue with that good work. I'd also like to point out to other commenters here that GSorby has nearly 4,000 edits, not under 3,000. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. User needs more experience in admin-related areas, and the conversation pointed out by Ryan Vesey shows some maturity concerns. --
'''Oppose''' - the answers to most of the questions concern me, but particularly #6, as it seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of our Wikipedia policies. --
First! Heh, anyway... I've known Guoguo for a while, and most of our interactions have come at [[WP:WWF]], where he has done a great job leading after [[User:Mono|Mono's]] retirement. I've always found him to be competent and helpful, and I firmly believe he will be a net positive to the project. Now, will he be the perfect admin from day one? Probably not, but has anyone? The one thing I ''definitely'' know about Guoguo is that he knows his limits and would not bite off more then he could chew as a new admin; I anticipate him gradually learning and taking on more tasks and tools as he gains experience. In my mind, there are few non-admins who are better suited to the bit then Guoguo, and I hope the community agrees with me. '''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' - It's time. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Why not? <font color="#082567">
'''Strong support''' Having read what the users who oppose this RfA have said below, I still see no serious problems.
'''Support''' Everything I have seen from this user seems consistent with his plans as an administrator.  He has been very active for a year now.  100% usage of edit summaries.  He also has done great work at project wikify.
'''Written articles and is not a jerk.''' Please continue to contribute on the content side.  It is not about being a super verbalist, but is about reading some references, boiling down the content, writing some organized paras.
'''Support''' I don't know you, but TCO just summed it up perfectly.
'''Support'''.  <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Give that man a mop!
'''Support:'''  The candidate's editing history convinces me that he would be a good admin.  <span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:blue;">—
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to.
'''<font color="navy">
Yes, please.
'''Support''' A vast improvement compared to what happened 6 months ago.
'''Support'''. Edit history and content work is good enough combined with the edit count. Summary usage seems great too! [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazymonkey1123/guestbook&action=edit Sign]
'''Support''' A good all-rounder who can and will use the extra tools positively. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' <small>'''
'''Strong support''' Im convinced, solid answers to queries thus far. Good Luck!
'''Support''' – About time he ran for RfA. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
I really don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
Seems clueful and has sufficient experience. '''
Good answers, good contributions.  Age issue is, to me, only a factor when it's a close call or where maturity issues are evident.  Not seeing that here.
'''Support''' Per NW, per the extremely intelligent answers, and the diligent work over the past few months. Highly trustworthy, atypically mature and worthy, quite, of adminship.
—'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support:''' ''Not'' an admin?? His advice to AGF a little more on RFAs a while back to me was right on.
'''Support''' because his age does not matter on Wikipedia. '''
'''Support''' He won't disappoint anyone with the tools.
'''Support''' Mature and committed.
'''Oppose'''-

'''Oppose'''.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Guoguo12&diff=366289121&oldid=270082803 Age], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guoguo12&oldid=435388313#Drive.27s_goal maturity] (per SandyGeorgia, SG), plagiarism of extensive paraphrasing (SG). Promoting inadequately sourced herbalist claims in a DYK was a severe error, for which a deeply heartfelt apology is due, and atonement (e.g. removing herbalist junk from WP) should be undertaken; too many people have died because of herbalist quackery.  Otherwise, a nice youth  with great promise: Most of us wish that we had such poise and ability at his age. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. For the reasons enumerated above. Perhaps a good wikipedia contributor, but not ready for admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - another case of close paraphrasing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Allen here], where the source says,  "Allen’s experience shaped an educational model that knew illustration was a commercial art, one that needed to integrate professionalism with artistry"[http://www2.citypaper.com/arts/story.asp?id=11377], and our [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Allen article] says "In 1997, Allen became the Illustration Chair of the Maryland Institute College of Art, where he integrated professionalism into the artistry curriculum." Personally I think it's nice to see students adding to the project, learning to write, learning to use sources, etc. But it's really important that in all that learning, the core policies are understood and taken to heart, especially before asking to be made an admin which essentially cannot be undone. For these reasons I have to oppose.
I was unsure earlier, but I'm very concerned about the close paraphrasing issues, as well as the age-related discussion, raised above. The answer to my question was a bit brief and failed to identify any specific advantages. I'd also like to see much more content work, but what distresses me a bit more is the privacy-related talk above. This morning, I found a thread on a certain unsavory website about Wikipedia, and I'd be interested in a response to these privacy concerns, as the candidate has said that he did not need "adult supervision". (If the candidate wants a link to that thread, please email me.) In any case, I feel uncomfortable with child admins in most cases, though not all. If it's clear a user is a child, then I will lean oppose based purely on that, simply because admins deal with adults, especially business professionals, on a regular basis, and it would be extremely unprofessional for a company rep to see that their page had been deleted by someone who appears to have no job experience. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' due to the numerous concerns raised above. ''
'''Oppose''' I think SandyGeorgia was a little harsh, but certainly correct.  Age never bothered me and having done my usual checks, including random diffs, I was an enthusiastic support.  Given SandyGeorgia's in-depth research, it's hard for me to keep that enthusiasm.  I have to be honest with myself here and oppose.--v/r -
I have concerns about the candidate's age. I believe he is a minor. I'm not sure that minors should be granted adminship. But his record is good and he has quality supporters. So for now I sit here.
'''Regretful neutral''', but '''moral support'''. I'm not worried about the age issue, but after seeing the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia and several other users, I must, unfortunately, move my vote from support to neutral. I'm sorry.
Hi welcome to Wikipedia I hope that one day we can have this discussion again but right now you barely been here for a Week! People typically need at least 9 to 12 months worth of work before applying for Adminship I Suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] and learn a little about our community before doing this
'''Oppose''', way too early. <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">
'''Oppose'''. Please see [[User talk:GutiLucian02#Request for Admin]] from your earlier attempt. --
Clear [[WP:NOTNOW]] case, please withdraw this nomination.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
What [[User:The Resident Anthropologist]] above in "Oppose" said is true.  You need 9 to 12 months before even considering adminship.  You need to learn the ropes of Wikipedia and I recommend you read your Welcome notice (someone did Welcome this user, right?) and click all the links on that thing and throughly read everything on those links.  Immerse yourself on the basic policies of Wikipedia.  Don't get into the "deep" stuff, stick with the basics since you are new.  That "deep" stuff gives me a migraine and I have been here 4 years.  Once you learn the basics, then start editing.  Give some [[WP:GNOME|GNOMEish]] edits a try to get the hang of things, minor corrections and stuff.  Then go for the bigger stuff, maybe a new article.  Read [[WP:FIRST]] for that.  When you start one of those, then work at it, edit it, mold it into something neat.  If you are a writer, this will come easy.  If you aren't, there are people who can help.  Remember, Wikipedia is a collabrative effort.  After some time, editing here will become easy.  You will be picking up on policies easily and everything will become second hand.  After you gain some confidence, a good amount of edits in project and mainspace, and keeping your nose clean, ''THEN'' after that 9 to 12 months, come on back and give it another shot.  Now remember, you may not get in on that try either.  We have some great people who don't get adminship on their 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd try.  You have to convince ALOT of people you are ready for some ''BIG'' tools and ''BIG'' responsiblity.  Do the things I mentioned above and you will show them that when the time comes. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' While Hallows AG has been on Wikipedia for 5 months, he has done good work here, both at [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] and in [[WP:AV|anti-vandalism]] work. His dedication to AfC is commendable. When an AfC submitter asks a question on his talk page (i.e. asking him about one of his reviews), he is polite and willing to explain his actions. So although he has only been here for 5 months, I believe he would be a net positive.
'''Support''' -- Since you have only been at Wikipedia for 5 months, you can help with us.  I would be glad to support an Indonesian speaker for admin, but not until you are much more expereinced if it is not successful. In the meantime, keep enjoying Wikipedia in several months and helping out wherever you can but you have the experience but I support you for now. Great work with the AfC's! --
'''Support''' - I've seen Hallows around the project and I've seen nothing but fantastic work. Fantastic vandal-fighter and AFC participant. --  '''
I do not think that a contributor can have amassed the necessary knowledge to be a competent administrator in only five months of active editing. AfC is useful but creating articles oneself is an entirely different experience. For example, the article [[Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Seria]] is completely unreferenced and does not even have a period at the end of its sole sentence. [[BRIDEX]] is not in much better condition and [[Telisai–Lumut Highway]] is in need of more references. These three articles by themselves are enough to disqualify an administrator candidate in my opinion. I also don't see significant content development or enough breadth and depth of activity in administrative areas outside of AIV. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''', as per Fetchcomms.
Moved from neutral, per answer to Q4 : "The one reference to the article shows that it exists, the only requirement for notability." If this was a general statement, then this is a significant misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. If it was specifically in reference to highways, the answer is not consistent with my reading of [[Wikipedia:Notability (highways)]]. In any case, the answer is worrisome. Combined with the above by Fetchcomms, and my concerns already stated below, I must oppose. '''Strong oppose''', per above.
'''Oppose''' Too soon. Candidate needs experience and seasoning.--
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms --
'''Oppose''' for now re Q4, but try again after a few months more.
Inexperience.
'''Oppose''' per my (and others') concerns about a general lack of experience in various areas. Furthermore, per CharlieEchoTango, the nominee clearly has some issues with determining notability. This, in general, feels to me like an RfA into which the nominee didn't put a lot of effort, and I think that that reflects poorly on the candidate.
'''Oppose''' Candidate seems to need more experience.
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms --
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''This user didn't follow the general guidelines for nominationg on RFA.So,opposing.1 year of experience is mandatory for all RFA candidates.Better luck next time.
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms.
Don't have the heart to pile on here, but I do encourage Hallows AG to continue his great efforts here.  Brush up on policies and guidelines, join some talk on those pages .. work on communication .. expand your skill set; and I'll gladly support in a few months.  Thank you for all you do. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
I encourage this editor to consider withdrawing this RFA and spend some time expanding, improving and referencing the three articles discussed above and studying what notability means here on Wikipedia.
'''Strong Support'''. A great editor who deserves a re-promotion, especially for his anti-vandal work. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''<s>Strong</s> Weak Support''' -- Has experienced on tracking down spammers and blocking users who were troubled in Wikipedia such as vandalism but I think you can request it at the BN becuase you are back. However you can request resysoping at the Bureaucrats noticeboard because you are back. Thanks --
'''Support''' Seems good enough. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong Support'''. Glad to have you back. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I see no problems, so I support. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; Yes, Blueboy96 has made some mistakes in the past, but he's acknowledged his shortcomings and appears to have learned from them. He should definitely be given a second chance!
'''Weak Support''' the candidate has made sufficient mistakes to be presumed human. However HangingCurve appears to have learned from his mistakes and I hope if given a second chance will be a little more cautious with the delete and block buttons. <s>I never thought I'd say this, but this might be one instance where it would be useful to have the candidate commit to being open for recall.</s> Nice to see that the candidate will be open to recall. ''
'''Weak support''' Seeing that he's stepped down as an admin before, I'm hesitant here, but I think he's proved that he can be trusted with the tools again. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
The self-nom is a bit disingenuous; you resigned voluntarily, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_administrators#Resigned you're required to return to RFA to get the tools back. (#115 on the list.)] Can't see myself supporting this given you already had the tools once and resigned under less-than-clean circumstances.
'''Oppose''' for several reasons: (1) Lack of candidness in self-nom statement and in Q4- "I felt compelled to stand down"... did you mean you were [[User_talk:HangingCurve/Archive_11#Admin_Recall|recalled]]? (2) Lack of contrition. You've pretty much blamed those two incidents on circumstances instead of taking [[Responsibility assumption|personal responsibility]] for your actions. Other editors see where you erred in these cases ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=363726576#Unfolding_fiasco_on_Live_Art_articles here] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Dwm_Deletion_Proceedings_and_User:Blueboy96 here])... why do you continue to blame it on "information that was available to me at the time" ? (3)You [[WP:BITE|bit]] a newbie by blocking her for having a role account an hour after she posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lisa_Mattocks&oldid=363548505 this] on her user page. You say her userpage gave the impression that it was a role account yet she started it with "The articles '''I''' am creating..." Isn't a discussion warranted when someone posts "If we are doing something wrong please advise" on their user page? I think you should at least open a dialog with someone who posts that before you block them. Bottom line: You are a good editor who showed really bad judgement when they had the tools, but you haven't shown you've learned from your mistakes. A mentorship would help, but I'm not comfortable supporting a user who suggests one '''during''' the Rfa instead of completing one '''before''' the Rfa. <font face="Verdana">
Did you feel compelled to stand down because you made a mistake, or because you simply were unable to deal with a recall at the time? Parts of the story have been left out of your nomination, and if I have to dig through diffs to learn the whole story, then I'm already feeling unsupportive. As VictorianMutant stated above, mentorship should also be sought ''before'' an RfA&mdash;not during it. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' Just as VictorianMutant expressed, I also feel that HangingCurve is shifting blame away from himself, which is strange because there may not be significant blame to even want to shift it.  I do not understand the details of whatever went wrong, but being an admin is about being in a place which can alienate users.  If anything goes wrong, it can almost always be made right by acknowledging a problem and stating what steps one will take to make sure it never happens again.  The answer to question 7 above is a non-answer to the most pressing issue in my mind - has enough time passed?  It is good that HangingCurve can do good work, and wow! this user has done so much good work!  What a time commitment and dedication and awesome record! But I do not vote admins in for doing good work - I vote them in when I am sure that if something goes wrong, they will not upset any other users.  I am not seeing the responses I expect to be able to give a vote of support. The response I would have liked to have seen is personal accountability and rather than a list of accomplishments, a description of what this user has already done to safeguard problems in the future.  Proposing to get a mentor or review in the future is not ideal.
'''Strong Oppose''' What a trigger-happy person! I would probably demand a guarantee before supporting him for adminship.
'''Oppose''', with regret. I've had a good look over the desysop incident, but unfortunately even now I don't see a proper understanding of why all those blocks were wrong. They were not wrong because the accounts turned out to belong to editors in good standing on another Wikipedia, they were wrong because the mass blocking of suspected canvassed editors at AfD as a first resort is always wrong --
'''Weak oppose''' per VictorianMutant.  I think the candidate's resignation pending a recall is actually a good thing.  Saving the community the drama of a recall and also voluntarily releasing the tools shows that the candidate stands by their commitment to be accountable to the community.  However, as VictorianMutant points out, the candidate was in fact close to a recall and that should have been mentioned by the candidate for full disclosure.  The candidate seems to have tried to cover it up and hoped no one would call them out on it.  Also, blame shifting seems apparent too.  Sorry.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Had your answers to questions 5 and 6 been better, I would not have opposed, as I believe in second chances. However, your answers to questions 5 and 6 were not good enough for me.
'''Oppose''' - Unconvinced that the candidate has sufficiently learned from previous mistakes which caused his desysopping.  It's hard for me to support desyssopped users in general, unless it's crystal clear that they have changed and/or fully learned the lesson behind their previous mistake.  If you try for RfA again, I would highly recommend fully disclosing everything that happened when you los the bit last time, with links and diffs (possibly on a separate page), so that people don't have to dig for themselves.  Otherwise it appears that you're trying to make your past less accessible.
'''Oppose''' Much like the above, I'm not convinced you've changed your attitude much since those incidents, I don't think the explanations of them are clear, and I'm particularly worried about admins whose attitude to the encyclopaedia is to go "vandal-whacking" (it's not just that one phrase; it's the impression I get from the tone). An RfA candidate shouldn't be talking about maybe-possibly-getting-mentorship. Get a mentor, do good stuff, and then apply for RfA - be open about the past (explain it all in detail, and show what you did wrong, and why it wouldn't happen again) <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' - Thank you for expanding on the points I made, but it just confirms to me that you don't seem to understand why you were recalled, as Zebedee says. If the editors ''hadn't'' turned out to be editors in good standing, the way you went about handling the situation was still wrong. It wasn't a case of "you did the right/best thing, they turned out to be editors in good standing, they got unblocked, you made a mistake you couldn't have known about", I don't think anyone would try to recall you if that happened. The mass blocking was fundamentally the wrong solution.
'''Oppose''' - With editors who resigned/were recalled after an incident, I always look to determine whether they have learnt since the incident and if I trust them not to make the same mistake again. A brief look through the both the discussions at the time of the incident and the answers in this RfA suggests that the candidate still does not fully understand [[WP:AGF]]. "The situations appeared to be so clear-cut, based on what I knew at the time, that I went ahead and blocked", his current view, seems to suggest that he still believes he made a good choice at the time, based on what he knew. AGF would suggest that he should not block these users unless he is confident that they are disruptive editors - assuming good faith and waiting some time to obtain all the facts would have allowed a better decision to be made (and would not have affected the outcome of the AfD). He has not really indicated at all that he has learnt from his past mistake - he had asserted that he has, but then said he wishes to work in "vandal-whacking". The events leading to his desysopping and his current attitude to the decisions he made means that I am not confident he understands AGF and so I would not be comfortable in giving him admin tools.
'''Neutral''' - Acknowledging shortcomings and past mistakes and taking responsibility for your actions are Good Things in my book, and I'm all for second chances. That said, the self-nomination is weak, I shouldn't have had to ask q4, and even less should Mato have had to ask for diffs. Boing! said Zebedee also makes a valid point in that you were ill-prepared to come here. Considering your history, and since you seem to think mentorship would be necessary, your RfA should have ideally been nominated by a trusted and experienced administrator, one who would give assurances and have accepted to serve as a mentor. Another concern I have is your answer to q8 (or else please define stress). I do not think opposing will do any good; my concerns do not outweigh your fine contributions and overall record, and I think you will do a good sysop. Regards,
I've interacted with Blueboy many times mainly because we have some of the same interests. But looking back on your circumstances which led to your recall, I don't see the full truth about it in this RFA. I'm confused with the mentorship by another administrator agreement, plus some of what I've seen from him as an admin, and after were a shoot first, deletionist mentality (can dig of diffs if needed). I totally agree with Fetchcomms but with my interactions with him were positive, I can't bring myself to oppose neither.
I came here to support, but my God the stuff in the Oppose section is worrying. I have therefore elected to sit squarely on this rather uncomfortable fence, probably for the whole seven days. &mdash;
I don't see why not.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' - Hazard-SJ is a great editor. This would be a good asset to the project.
'''Strong moral support''' as the candidate has done good work here and has valuable contributions ahead of him. However, I think this RfA is premature; the candidate would be best served by withdrawing the RfA now and getting more experience, as suggested by some of the opposers.
This is not 3000 edits racked up over a couple of days. It is rather consistent editing spread over a significant period. I see the candidate as a net positive, and do support their endeavor.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this editor would abuse the tools.  3000 edits is a hell of a commitment.
'''Support''' You're doing great work and I think you'll be a very good administrator.
'''Oppose''' - You have made many useful contributions looking at your edit history however taking into hand what you said you would be involve in. Could you please look at this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hazard-SJ&diff=424304265&oldid=424302262]. You say you want to work with requested moves but looking at that diff how could you if you don't even know how to close them. Going through your contribs I only see a handful of speedy tagging in the last month. <s>And I see absolutely no edits relating to [[:Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests]]</s>. I also see very few edits to WP:AIV. I would suggest you continue editing, work in the areas you say you want to work in a little more and in oh say 6 months you will pass RfA in flying colors. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' Good vandalism work but you don't have enough experience yet, not just in admin areas but in the whole project. You've never created an article, for example, and you've made about 1400 total non-automated edits. You also, per above, don't seem to realise how CSD taggers and admins work together; admins have to be well-versed in deletion policy in order to evaluate the CSD claim. I would say gain experience of CSD, AfD, and other deletion areas if you want to use admin tools to help out there; the 6 months suggested above is a reasonable timeframe for reassessment. Keep up the good work '''
Considering your main focus is anti-vandalism patrolling, I'm not sure your current level of experience is enough. Given that you have less than 3,000 edits (which anyone could rack up in one or two days using Huggle), less than 1,000 mainspace edits (and no content development), and little activity in projectspace, I'm not sure why you need +sysop right now. Also, I'm a bit put-off by the list on your userpage of other wikis on which you are active—it makes me feel like you're just listing places where you have "important" userrights, like admin or steward or dev. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' You have less than 3,000 edits and almost half of your edits are semi-automated. I can't really support you by that. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Not quite yet. Do a bit more work and come back here in 6-9 months.
'''Oppose'''. You seem to be doing pretty good anti-vandalism work here, but I agree that you need more experience. I'm not opposing because of your lack of content work, as I don't think every administrator needs to be a content editor. However, many of your edits do show inexperience. Perhaps I'm confused on this one, but what exactly are you doing at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=424302042 this disambiguation page]? Section headings such as "templated red links" or "recovered names (non-redirect)" are not useful at all, and certainly don't follow [[Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Organizing_long_lists_by_subject|MOSDAB]]'s guidance to chose subject areas carefully to simplify navigation. I see similar edits at many other disambiguation pages: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binary&action=historysubmit&diff=424304887&oldid=420509944], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell&diff=prev&oldid=424303856], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bar&diff=prev&oldid=424303800], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABCD&action=historysubmit&diff=424304668&oldid=380606747], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABC&diff=prev&oldid=424302001]. I also agree that it comes off like you are trying to "collect" userrights, as shown by the extensive list of participation and userrights on other wikis. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  Concerns with experience. -'''
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about a few things, 49.1% of edits are automated, very little article work with the most edits spent at one article being 9, only created one article (which is a disambig page). Overall he is a good contributor but not one that should be an admin, at least not yet. <span style="border:1px solid #999;-moz-border-radius:2em">
'''Oppose''' Not enough broad experience across this wiki, at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' Very little experience.  Adminship would be a disaster.  I am also concerned about some anti-vandalism edits with Huggle.  Why was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_Panther_and_Sons&diff=prev&oldid=426770240 this] horrible section overlooked?  It's just like you saw most of the content missing and immediately hit the red button without thinking.  The IP who removed most of the content probably noticed how bad the section was and attempted to remove it in good faith but missed some of it, or something.  Removal of content (even while unexplained) is not necessarily always vandalism.  Most IPs are just inexperienced and are trying to help.  Also, why was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_drug_films&diff=prev&oldid=426762518 this] content reverted?  Both are legitimate films that, through my research, do have drug references and therefore qualify them to be included in that list.  The second film was a redlink (even though it is a real film), however there are other films on that list that are redlinks too.  I know both were unsourced, but just simply adding {{citation needed}} to both additions would have sufficed, in my opinion.  I just don't see anything that would lead me to believe this candidate is ready for adminship.  Inexperience aside, I don't even see hardly any edits that add to this wiki in a constructive and helpful manner. - '''
'''Oppose''' You'd make a great admin, but not yet. I'm sorry, but 24 edits to AIV and only 5 to RFP is just not enough for an admin wanting to get involved in those areas. As for your work on CSD, I cannot judge you there, as I cannot view deleted edits. Keep working at it. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em">'''
'''Oppose'''  - I'm  sure that  you  would not  abuse the tools, but I have concerns that  your work  to  date does not  demonstrate broad enough experience. However, as soon  as you  can meet [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my criteria]] you  can be assured of my  support next  time.
'''Oppose''' He has been around for a year and has two barnstars, but experience wise (in particular looking at MauchoEagle's diff) he isn't ready. Also, I've noticed that he shouldn't have intended to use rollback for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Otto_%28drummer%29&diff=prev&oldid=426320182 this edit], as this wasn't called vandalism.
'''Oppose''' -- concerns about experience, particularly those brought up by Uhai. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - 2655 edits, half of which are automated; a Wikipedian for less than a year -- simply not enough experience. I do see a bright future, however. Try again in 9 months after solidifying your credentials--
'''Oppose''' Juvenile
'''Oppose''' Not enough content contribution and too many automated edits.  Also the links provided by GorillaWarfare makes me think, that you don't even know how to use the [http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dabfix.py Dabfix tool]. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' per others above -
'''Oppose''' My concerns have already been stated.
'''Oppose''' − Sorry, but there seems to be a lack of experience. Reading the replies to the questions does not fill me with confidence. I don't get the impression that this candidate is a knowledgeable, well rounded Wikipedian. I get the feeling that s/he wants to block vandals. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and others above, I see no reason to grant you admin tools at this time, especially since you have no content work to speak of that would indicate you clearly understand our content policies. Neutral to avoid pile-on.
Experience, I feel, is still somewhat limited, and I feel you would benefit from a bit more time racking up the experience. However, what you ''have'' done is exceptional, and there is no doubt that the 'pedia has benefited hugely from your efforts. Keep up the good work, and hopefully we'll see you here again sometime in the future. :)
For someone planning to get involved with article deletion, I would expect more previous experience with CSD tagging or activity at AfD. While I think it is perfectly reasonable for editors whose primary contribution is counter vandalism work to be made admins, I still think its a case of [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]] on the basis of insufficient contribution.
'''Moral Support''' I think it's clear that this is a [[WP:NOTNOTNOW]] case, hence I am not piling on my oppose, but I cannot offer you real support at this time.
'''Support''', looks like a good editor.  &ndash;
'''Oppose''' due to, for example, repeatedly requesting "rollback" [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Neutralhomer|(i)]], misuse of "twinkle" [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#Inka_888_misusing_TWINKLE|(ii)]] which lead to removal of twinkle access [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Inka_888_misusing_Vandalism_Templates|(iii)]], misuse of 'reviewer' rights leading to removal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=385729198 (iv)], and various other concerns over temperament, policy knowledge, civility and competency which can be seen on archives of the user talk page ([[User_talk:Inka_888/Archive_1|1]] and [[User_talk:Inka_888/Archive_2|2]]). I do appreciate that Inka 888 has improved, and that mentoring has helped, but I also feel that these incidents are not far enough in the past to be ignored. I suggest Inka 888 spend at least 6 months demonstrating exemplary conduct prior to re-applying for RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose'''. Six months ago, Fetch.Comms was considering blocking this user on competence grounds, which is a pretty massive red-flag for me. I'm not convinced that enough time has been spent demonstrating exemplary conduct, as chzz puts it. Especially when you consider that, since December 2010, Inka888's edits have dropped off significantly, to only 100-200 a month, which gives us much less to judge on. <small>(Additional info added slightly later)</small> In addition, for someone who claims to work on helpme and wants to work on adminhelpme, I am not massively impressed by contributions. [[User_talk:Chris314|here]] for example, Inka888 initially gives a fairly unhelpful (and possibly inaccurate) answer, directing the user to 'take it to the talk page' without a link, which may not be much help to an inexperienced user. Then, when the user follows up, Inka888 simply tells them that they can make 'whatever changes they feel like', seemingly without giving any information about edit warring, [[WP:3RR]], [[WP:BRD]] or how to discuss and achieve consensus.--
'''Oppose''' in the terms outlined by Korruski.
'''Oppose'''. I know that  in  the past  some editors have got the mop  with  only  4,000 or so  edits, but with  bots doing  much  of the work  these days, admins need to  have good communication  and mediation  skills. With only 1,150 edits to  main  space and the majority  of the others (50%) to user talk,  and very  few to project  space, I  feel  there are not  enough  contributions of the right  kind yet  to  be able to  measure how you  would perform  as an admin. The number of RfA !votes also seems top-heavy  compared to  the rest. I  haven't  done any  further checks but  I'm  sure that  Chzz is right with  his research  and I  trust  his judgement, and Korruski makes some very  valid points.  I  think you  should consider continuing to  work  on  the aspects of Wikipedia that  you  are still  not  quite confident  with. When it when it  it  becomes routine in  a few months, and preferably with  a few nicely created articles, you  should should work  for several  more months without  the main idea of working  towards adminship. --
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Inka_888_misusing_Vandalism_Templates]], which was the biggest red flag I've seen in my interactions with this user in the past. Also per Chzz and Korruski. I think that given your history here, you should not self-nom and wait for a respected admin to offer to nominate you for RFA before I'd consider supporting. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Oppose'''. Although the inappropriate "vandalism reversions" and other misdemeanours were six months ago, they created a significant problem for editors and readers. Inka 888 has not demonstrated better judgement since then. I am disappointed by the lack of candour regarding these issues in Inka 888's opening statement & answers to questions. I have also informed [[User:Intelati|Intelati]] of this RfA.
'''Oppose''', Changed from support following an examination of the various vandalism tool problems. Yes it was almost six months ago, but I would like [[User:Inka 888|Inka 888]] to wait a bit longer before getting the mop. Vandalism reversion is one of the simplest tasks an administrator performs. At the moment, I do not have enough confidence that [[User:Inka 888|Inka 888]] will use the myriad other sys-op tools correctly. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', per the ANI discussions linked to above. Also the 2 archives of your talkpage show too much rushing with reverting and templating, perhaps trying to beat other vandal-reverters (I could be wrong, but that seems to be the reason behind all the attempts to get rollback), which is kind of missing the point of anti-vandalism work. When people have brought up problems and mistakes on your talkpage, your attitude has not always been the most helpful, either missing the point of what has been said, or just saying "sorry" and the going on to make more hasty  mistakes. Many of the issues on your talkpage are several months old, but there doesn't seem to be a good block of consistent, constructive edits since then to look at. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInka_888&action=historysubmit&diff=392670143&oldid=392668077 This comment] made me wonder: do you actually add anything to articles, or make constructive edits changing what is there? Or do you only edit ''re''actively to other people's edits (eg. reverting vandalism)? Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Inka_888&diff=prev&oldid=418938288 most recent edit] is not really acceptable. You should simply point out to [[User:Axl]] that Intelati is not your mentor, don't change another editor's comment. Sorry, but there are far too many issues right now. --
While I have concerns that the editor does not have enough experience on Wikipedia, from what I've seen he is a level-headed, mature user, and I doubt that he would break anything with the tools. I doubt that this request will pass, but this user really is doing a great job, and I don't want that fact to get lost in a sea of opposes.
'''Support''' - I was very close to automatically jumping down to neutral and brushing the candidate off as needing more experience, but then I started reading into his edits. I am '''extremely''' impressed by how calm and collected he presents himself (I'm using the male pronoun, my apologies if you aren't a "he"), especially in situations where a flame war could quickly escalate such as [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawrence_Kennedy]]. Through all of the AfDs he has posted to, I see a level of clarity and deliberation that is unfortunately not seen from every person that contributes to them. From a prospective anti-vandalism admin, I would like to see a little bit more anti-vandalism experience but that's not something that's going prevent me from giving my otherwise wholehearted support.
'''Support''' yes his history is a little sparse, but he appears intelligent, good natured, and clueful: Solid AFD arguments (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Barnett_(video_game_designer)&diff=prev&oldid=455593693][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moscow_Penny_Ante]<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elonka_Dunin_(2nd_nomination)]</s>), a solid history of vandal fighting, 18 of his last 21 speedy deletion tags have been actioned (so just review the three declines and learn them well, Zippy), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&diff=prev&oldid=447660090 a decent grasp of consensus,] and all of his request for page protection have been actioned. Here is a chance to push back against the even increasing standards of RFA I hear so much complaining about.
I don't see why not.   True this candidate has a short stay, but that alone shouldn't be a cause for concern.  Candidate seems very familiar with the project.  I wouldn't hesitiate to entrust this editor with the promo.  &ndash;
I'm going to go ahead and '''support''' with basically the same rationale as Trusilver above. I get the sense that this user would make a great admin despite their relative lack of experience. Besides, we need more [[zipper]]s with the sysop bit.
'''Support.''' Why not?
'''Support''', As a new user myself, ItsZippy and I had a ''civil discussion'' about the name to a page that I thought needed changed. I still think it should be changed due to ''Commonname'' but there isn't enough evidence. However ItsZippy is a civil and honest user and is doing good at what he is doing.
I became an admin after 2-3 months of real activity and turned out okay. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. I agree with Wizardman and think a few months activity and several thousand edits is enough to assess someone competence for the tools. Contribs all look good. No red flags that I can see. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' You've only been editing for only 2-3 and I think its too early. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Concerns with limited experience in candinate's stated areas of interest, breadth of exposure, and familiarity with the English Wikipedia.  -'''
Sorry, you're doing a great job as explained in the supports, but the depth and breadth of experience required of being an admin on the project is too great to obtain in such a short period of editing. Especially for an admin interested in deletion: I'd suggest hoeing into more [[WP:AFD]]s for a few months and checking out [[WP:DRV]], the latter being the place to be to really learn about deletions. --
'''Oppose''', for all the obvious reasons – lack of experience, low edit count, suspicious spike in activity last month – but also because of the number of times that "civil" and "mature" are mentioned in the nomination statement and in answers to the mandatory first three questions.
'''Oppose'''  Certainly  a very  civil editor and with  a heart  in  the right  place, but Malleus, Mkativerata, and Fastily  have said the essential  Does not  meet any of [[user:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my  criteria]] and 3 months and 3,000 edits   are  insufficient  to  prognosticate on  a future performance as an admin. I  would suggest  reading  [[WP:NPP]] and helping  out with  those urgent  tasks -  to  demonstrate your knowledge and understanding  of page quaulity and deletion  policy.   Following  through  with  participation  in  [[WP:AfD]],  [[WP:AIV]] and other administration-related areas, as well as  working  on  a [[WP:EAR|help  desk]]  would also  broaden your own knowledge as well  as illustrate how you  would handle users' problems. Do  also  read [[WP:RFAADVICE]] before trying  again  in  6 months or so. --
'''Oppose'''. Ability to remain civil in discussions and keep a level head is commendable and required of all editors. That said, there's quite a bit more to administration. I've never been one concerned with automated edits, but with the high percentage, there's not much that makes me confident that there's a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the community policies and guidelines. I support the recommendations made by Kudpung above and look forward to seeing you again in the future. Best regards,  <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I find both your number of edits and time spent pretty low to what I expect. Better luck next time. :)
'''Oppose'''. I'm reasonably sure you'll make admin, but at this time, in my opinion, you're simply not ready. You lack experience in admin-related areas and, furthermore, I agree with {{u|Kudpung}} that 3 months and 3.000 edits are too few to foresee how you'll act as a sysop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' You need to be active for 1 year and have a lot of edits, you may apply in March or April 2012 becuase, your still active.

'''oppose for now''' You've got a ''really'' solid handle on Wikipedia for someone who has only been active for three months. However there seem to be significant gaps and your knowledge of policies and you seem a bit too hesitant to actually ''use'' the admin toolset . For the record, your answer to my first question was pretty good, but I think you missed the mark with your answer to my second question. As these were requests for judgement calls there were no right or wrong answers exactly, but I would expect most admins would delete or relist a second time in that situation.
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]
The answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 demonstrate a bit of a weakness in the candidate's understanding of how we do things. 5, in particular is problematic given that the candidate intends to work on XfDs. The answers to 4 and 6 are probably harmless, except that they indicate the candidate doesn't have a level of understanding we would normally expect an administrator to have.
I fully agree with Ajraddatz but find myself '''neutral'''.
'''Moral support'''--
'''Moral support'''. There's a lot to like about this candidate, including his pleasant demeanor and thoughtful answers to the questions. It's clear that this RfA is not going to succeed, but I hope the candidate will take heart from the statements in both the support and oppose columns; even several of those opposing think he has the potential to be a great admin with some more seasoning. In particular, I think Mkativerata and Kudpung offer excellent advice. Keep up the good work, keep building your experience and breadth of knowledge, and in six months or so I suspect there will be a number of respected editors willing to nominate you for a second try.
'''Immoral support'''. How can the present Wikipedia exist with an omniscient, omnipotent, good being? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - I still think you need a bit more experience, but you've impressed me with some of the answers, you're obviously very clueful, and, even if this isn't successful, I'm very confident that you'll be a great admin in the future.
'''Strong support''' - Geez, I thought I would be the first supporter, but I was beat by a troll! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano_2&diff=446477875&oldid=446474049]
'''Support''' - and well done Jeske, not many people are able to acknowledge their own mistakes.  We need him back as a vandal fighter.
'''Support''' and let's get rolling!!  Shit happens, people make mistakes, and now we're 13 months later and you're still ready.
'''Support''' Jéské did a lot of good as admin (especially re: 4-chan raids) & in my opinion he can be trusted to continue to do so upon regaining the admin bit.
'''Support''' Really supportive and is helpful when it comes to questions. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
Experienced and knowledgeable user. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Weakest of supports.''' Nothing that sets off the alarm bells too bad. At times marginally civil, a bit hotheaded.. It's a bit against my better judgement, but I'll support. ''
'''Support''' Jéské has learned considerably from his past experiences.  -'''
'''Support''' My experiences with this user have been positive. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
Candidate's signature doesn't match his username at all.  Showing up at RfA with such a blatant problem makes me unable to trust this user.
'''Strong oppose''', notwithstanding Keepscase's oppose above <small> The only blatant problem I regularly see at RfA is ''keepscases''</small>. Jeske's record is one of, to put it bluntly, hot-headedness; he was desysopped for losing his judgment when things get difficult, and being an admin can get really damn difficult. In my dealings with him, I've yet to get the impression that this is something he's dealt with - rather, I get the impression that he's not messed about simply because he doesn't have the tools that would allow him to.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I've seen too many instances of incivility and rigidity. I think the candidate's comments during the discussions of pending changes tended to exacerbate the heat of the debate. No need to restore adminship here. --
'''Oppose'''. I think Ironholds hit the nail on the head with his reference to "hot-headedness". My impression of Jeske is as someone who is short-tempered and prone to becoming so angry that he cannot even speak with the barest civility to the people he's angry at, which makes it rather hard to resolve the sort of issues that crop up around admin actions. In addition, when someone has given up (or caused themselves to lose) the tools in the heat of anger, I would expect to see a commitment in any later RFA that such behavior would not be repeated. Instead, I only see a statement that next time, he won't block himself, he'll just resign.
'''Oppose''' The candidate claims that 13 months have elapsed since they were last an admin and that they have matured considerably since then. I was thinking during that period of not being an admin I would find an effort to demonstrate cool-headedness. Instead I am seeing edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&diff=prev&oldid=419368565 this], more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&diff=prev&oldid=417229468 hotheadedness] in the pending changes debate, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=420388265 fucking] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=443112803 more fucking] edit summaries. This doesn't lend weight to the assertion that the user has yet matured sufficiently to be trusted with the admin tools again. --
'''Oppose''' I do not like the arguing I see on this editor's userpage, such as in [[User_talk:Jéské_Couriano/Archive_9#Do_my_worse_ok....|this entire section]].  The situation was that this candidate was dealing with a hostile editor and engaged the attacker in an unproductive conversation.  Wikipedia is not a place to host flame wars.  I will say that this editor does remarkable work and I appreciate the support to LGBT issues, but administrators are supposed to suppress conflict and fighting. Jéské_Couriano sometimes likes to participate in conflict in a way unbecoming of an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Blue Rasberry's comment. That is not something that admins should be doing.
'''Oppose''' based on concerns about temperament evidenced by various editors above, e.g., Pontificalibus's diffs, plus some I found while reviewing contribs myself, (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011&diff=prev&oldid=433838738] from less than 3 months back.)  I am actually sympathetic to many of the situations in which this editor found frustrating, and very impressed by some of much of this editors work, but being able to walk away is an essential skill for someone with the mop.  --
'''Oppose''', Blue Rasberry sums up my feelings; I worry about history repeating in this particular instance.--
'''Strong oppose''' If a user had been desysopped, then it's unlikely for you to be resysopped.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I am really not liking the talk archive Blue Rasberry presented at all. An admin is supposed to stop conflict, not engage in it.--
per Ironholds, Pontificalibus, Blue Rasberry et al. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Oppose''' per Pontificalibus.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' per Pontificalibus and others - this editor knows the RfA process, and would know that '''all''' their edits since desysop would be carefully evaluated. '''
'''Oppose''' per Pontificalibus and Blue Raspberry. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
Temperament.
'''Oppose'''. Pontificalibus points out a worrying edit summary from 5th August 2011. This is not acceptable from admins or RfA candidates. (Actually it is not acceptable for regular editors either.)
'''Reluctant oppose''' I was going to stay out of this one, but the recent bout of prolonged [[WP:DNFTT|troll feeding]] is not the sort of thing we expect from an admin, and as a former admin the candidate obviously should have known better. Sorry man, but you should probably just withdraw. Believe me when I say [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox|I know how this will end]] if it keeps going.
Ridiculous.
'''Oppose''' per Pontificalibus's edit summaries and the candidate's recent temperament issues.
'''Oppose''' Primarily due to the statement that the opposers going neutral offends you.  I would not find it hard to support if it were one instance of hot-headedness which led to an oppose; however, continued hot-headedness has been shown, by that comment and from the editors posting above me.<tt>  </tt>
I have been enticed to oppose. Not because I get vengeance, but because you seemed to indicate that you want honest feedback. Therefor, I would not be truthful if I did not state that the very recent conduct shown by Pontificalibus is sufficient in itself for me to oppose. That being true if I had never interacted with you. I think redemption will take time and perhaps effort. I do not think it is a thing you can not overcome. With diligence, I think you can regain the admin bit, but you do have some things to overcome.
'''Neutral'''<s>, leaning support</s>. The candidate has shown commitment to WP. Moreover, an administrator blocking himself is an excellent first step towards a responsible community where administrators block other administrators. (On the other hand, I am concerned with the focus on popular-culture (e.g. Pokemon) content, versus traditional encyclopedia content, and the great interest in ANI/AN. The candidate protected [[Smegma]] well, and I suppose can be trusted with administrator tools again. 11:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)  perhaps after another 3 months of civil edit summaries and perhaps more writing. 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' <s>for now, but willing to be convinced otherwise</s> <small>After seeing the opposes on the candidate's civility issues I've chosen to remain in neutral</small> The candidate says in their answer to Q3: "The biggest conflict I was in is not one I care to rehash because it reflects poorly on me..." The phrase "...it reflects poorly on me..." makes me think this candidate is just trying to look the part, like they're afraid that their biggest conflict will prevent them from becoming an administrator. I look for honesty as well as policy knowledge and Wiki experience in RfA candidates, and I'd like to know what this candidate's biggest conflict was; however, I don't want to make them feel too uncomfortable. <s>The candidate is qualified otherwise, and as I said before, I'd be willing to be convinced out of neutral.</s>
'''Neutral - moral support''' With similar concerns to those in the oppose section on hot-headedness, I cannot support the candidate, unless he can can somehow allay those concerns. I'd like to point out though, that I've chatted to Jeske a few times on IRC, always finding him a very personable chap and that he offered me some very good advice back when I was being harassed by sock puppets. Without a doubt a moral support.
'''Neutral''' for now, maybe I can be persuaded otherwise. On one hand I see a genuinely dedicated Wikipedian who did a lot of good work with the admin tools before the desysopping, but on the other I'm not entirely convinced that the attitude that led to the desysopping is no longer an issue. It might seem silly, but the word ''vehemently'' stood out as I was reading the answer to Q3. Passion is good, vehemence can be damaging. I would expect an administrator, when faced with something they really don't like, like Jéské and the pending changes, to be able to continue to function as an administrator, and not feel compelled to resign dramatically in protest, or cause unnecessary dramaz. But I'll continue to have a think about it and watch this RFA.
'''Neutral''' (leaning to oppose).  I'm concerned about the drama, and although I'm definitely in favour of people turning a new leaf and mastering their faults and weaknesses, I'm not convinced that has really, truly happened yet in this case.  I also agree with the concern expressed over this editor's signature; if you're going to be interacting with lots of different people, I believe it's important that your posted comments should be clearly and unmistakably associated with your official account name.
'''Neutral''' - per [[WP:Civil]].
'''Support''' - Everything looks good, especially temperament. '''
While I dislike "per nom" and the PROD issues raised below should not be ignored, I think this candidate has a firm grasp on the CSD criteria and knows their proper applications. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' per last 8 months of active editing.  &ndash;
The issues about PROD and "per nom" are certainly not to be discounted; however, I am confident that Jsfouche has learned from the former issue (it happened a while ago) and will be careful with the latter. Also, I do admire the guts that it takes to self-nominate. From prior experience with the candidate as well as stalking their edits from time to time, I can be confident with them having the mop.
'''Support''' – In light of the PROD and "per nom" issues, which are valid issues, I believe that the candidate has the temperament necessary for an admin, and I believe that he/she will be able to learn from his/her past mistakes. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' I don't really like the prod spam, but particularly as they were prods, and therefore easy to challenge, I don't think that is enough of a reason not to support. Per Nom is an acceptable response at an AfD, even if a more nuanced response would be more helpful.
'''Support''' I agree with Airplaneman on this. Also, this user has responded courteously to concerns made below; one of the requirements needed for an administrator.
'''Support''' Candidate seems to know their way around pretty well, and has a very good understanding of the CSD criteria (misuse of G1 is one of my pet peeves). Bit of over-zealous PRODing from months ago doesn't worry me too much - I think the candidate will use the admin tools with care --
'''Support''', has clue. <small>'''
'''Support'''. I'd been wrestling this one, and I finally got answers to the two questions I had. Does the user need the tools? Yes, he's interested in working with CSD and COI, areas where Wikipedia can benefit from another person with the mop. Can he be trusted with the tools? Yes—even though there's missteps in his editing career, there's not a history of making the same mistakes over and over. Additionally, as in question #8, he's expressed a willingness to seek mentoring and guidance from the admin community. That tells me he's got a respect for the tools and to make sure they're used properly. —'''
'''Support''' per answers to questions and responses to issues raised in opposes. --
'''Support''' especially because I feel that Steve_Zhangs oppose is a silly. The prodding was a little OTT but he can be trusted and i think he will make a fine admin. '''
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - this one has taken me a fair while to reach a conclusion. As we by now know, there are issues that need to be looked at for a bit. Whatever the result of this RfA, I recommend you to just sit back and take in what your critics have said, and drill home that policy, as mundane a prospect as that seems. But it needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I have no doubts in your enthusiasm, your work and honesty. All the best.
'''Support'''. Good responses to criticisms and questions, and a solid balance of contributions. <span style="padding:2px;background-color:white;color:#666;">&ndash;&nbsp;
(Move from oppose). My original comments in my oppose vote stand, I still see an issue with your rationales in XFD and the 29 PROD tags in just as many minutes. on the flip side of this your answers to RFA questions since my original comment are quite well thought out and demonstrate a sound understanding of CSD policy, which I note is the main reason you are running for RFA. These two balance each other out well, so while I still feel niggling issues in the past, your answers demonstrate you've gone past them. The RFA pool is quite dry now, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I need to consider net positive to the wiki, after careful consideration, I feel you've had issues in the past, but your answers demonstrate sufficiently enough to me you've learnt better, and will be a net positive as an admin. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' - the candidate's affirmation that they will improve their editing regardless of the outcome is certainly a quality a good admin possesses. If the RfA passes, the candidate should go slow and defer to existing administrators where they are unable to make a decision for themselves. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' After mulling this over, I'm moving my !vote to support. I believe that, while not insignificant, the PRODing situation is unlikely to occur again and that Jsfouche will make a good admin.'''''
'''Sure'''. I see no "canrightarticle" right in the sysop package, so content experience really doesn't matter (nor should it).
'''Support''' - The candidate clearly knows the difference between right and wrong and how to use mistakes as an opportunity to grow his knowledge, and he shows great talent and administrator qualities. --
'''Support''' - Good vandal fighting. Knows what he's doing as well as perfect contributions like [[Wikipedia:Did you know|WP:DYK]] articles. --
I like Swarm's note in the neutral section and the candidate's response. That settles that super-minor little issue as far as I'm concerned. The candidate looks like a trustworthy editor with a compelling use for the buttons.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 7,800 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. I have never made it a habit of denying the mop to anyone who is religiously different from me, and this is not a good time to change one of my few good habits. I have read and reflected on the opposition comments (including from two editors whom I especially respect), but I think on the whole this user would be a good sysop. I also think that it would be good to have another nurse on crew.
'''Weak Support''' - I think the editor has been on Wikipedia for long enough, with enough edits, to satisfy me as far as general experience. This editor's communications skills are quite good. The poor judgement in a small number of cases (CSD and PROD have been mentioned in this RfA) is a concern. My biggest concern is a lack of participation in Wikipedia space. However, there's enough that I tentatively support. This RfA is not going well, and if it does not pass, my advice to Jsfouche is to keep doing what you're doing, get some more experience, and learn from your mistakes. -- '''
'''Support''' - the concerns raised by the opposers have been a concern.  I believe the good outweighs the negative.  The answers to the questions give me the confidence that this will be a net positive.
'''Support'''. There are valid points in many  of the opposition  statements. These problems of approach  to  maintaining  the encyclopedia do  not  display behavioural traits that  require a long  time to  overcome, and can be addressed in  a day. I am therefore confident that  the candidate has demonstrated sufficient  insight to  take those issues on  board and adapt  his housekeeping  tasks accordingly. I trust  the candidate not  to  make abuse of the tools and I am  sure that  he would ask  other admins for advice if he is not  sure about  something.
'''Support''' User has clue. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I cannot see any major problems here. A clueful, courteous editor who seems trustworthy. Nothing in opposition seems particularly persuasive -- minor judgement issues at most.
'''Support''', you'll do a good job with the mop. We all screw up occasionally &ndash; I'd rather have a candidate that's done wrong and learned from it than one who has never done anything.
'''Support''' - shows clue and ability to learn. Yes, the opposes have a few points, the PROD incident being the most serious to me. However, I think the candidate has learned from that and will not make similar mistakes. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''- I've detailed my concerns in the neutral section. Jsfouche understands and has acknowledged them, and I'm confident he will be more careful in the future. In addition, his overall comments in this RfA have convinced me that the candidate's communication is actually ''ideal'' for an administrator, and the previous issues were probably just, as Lovetinkle says, minor judgement issues. Lastly, I agree with Kudpung. The concerns raised, while valid, can be addressed in the time frame of this RfA. I really think the candidate has taken the point from the opposes and neutrals and will improve accordingly. I fully trust Jsfouche not to abuse the tools, to accept criticism and to admit when he was wrong. This will not only make him an acceptable admin, but an ideal one. ''
'''Support''' – A reasonable – rational and realistic explanation to the first person to oppose and the numerous pile-on-opinions based on this oppose opinion (not counting the first individual in the oppose section.  Who, by the way, moved to '''Support''').   Other than this one blip, the candidate looks like a trustworthy editor with a persuasive argument for access to the extra buttons. Good Luck<font face="Times New Roman">
''' per airplaneman'''.
'''Weak Support''' He has been a long-time editors making good edits. He (or she) has being doing hard work, he(or she) needs a promotion. --
'''Support''' Opposes are not convincing I have no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools. ''<B>--
No evidence that user will abuse the tools. He might misuse them a couple times at the start based on some of the opposes' diffs, but everyone has a learning curve. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>

'''Weak Support''' – I'm going to AGF on both major issues, the 29 PRODs (Was Jsfouche aware it would create as many ugly warnings, was he aware the same user created them, did he have the time to think through how 7 pages of warnings might make a user feel), and the unreferenced creations, because he did go through that list today and provided references. The support is weak because at [[Anhanguera (district of São Paulo)]] the added reference does not support anything in that article, raising fears of shoot-first-ask-later, or worse, window dressing. Good answers to questions, clean history. --
'''Support''' I agree with Pgallert just above. Despite these missteps, I still think giving Jsfouche the bit is a net positive for the project.
'''Support'''; I've looked through the oppose rationales, and while I certainly agree there are some rough spots I don't think there's anything indicating a serious problem.  And to echo Ajraddatz above, content writing and being a good admin do '''not''' go hand in hand, however much some may want to pretend it does.  They're different roles, and while many are good at both there are also many only good at one or the other; I think Jsfouche falls into the latter category, and will make a very good admin.
'''Support''' Just a heads up support, really.--
'''Weak Support''' - After reading over the arguments for opposing, I can understand where they are coming from and am myself personally very close to opposing, but as the 29 PROD's occurred back in January I'm going to AGF them and from what I can see, your contributions sense that point have been of a high enougu quality to allay any concerns I may have.  Best,
'''Support'''  no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools  --
'''Support''' No concerns, and I think if you get the tools (though, unlikely at this point), you will address the issues brought up here.
'''Oppose''' Despite nice answers and a seemingly good knowledge of policy, I think the application is, at times, poorly thought out. An example is adding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ajsmith141&oldid=407828011 29 consecutive PRODs to the same user] over half an hour a few months back. Is that really the best way to go about ''"developing new editors"''? Did you make any attempt to contact or help this user (albeit not a 'new' user) who is creating articles in good faith? I note that the user then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsfouche&direction=prev&oldid=407830548 contacted you] with a lengthy rationale and you gave a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsfouche&diff=prev&oldid=407830548 three-sentence reply], which was devoid of policy, helpful links, friendliness etc. '''
'''Oppose'''. The recent PRODding of all those articles on Slade hits appeared to show a lack of good judgment and lack of consideration of alternatives such as talk page discussion and merging, what with PROD being for articles that are "uncontroversially a deletion candidate", while at the same time suggesting that the information could be included in album articles. I'm also not convinced by contributions at AFD that sufficient care will be taken before deleting articles. The candidate only really being active here for a little over six months  is also a concern. --
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about experience and temperament. -- '''
'''Inadequate article writing experience'''.  I would ask my standard question about the article that you contributed most content to in second half of 2010, but you barely started with wiki then, so no point.  Also, I checked the article where you had most edits (nurse anesthitist) and most of the content pre-existed your coming there (almost every reference was already there).  I prefer admins to be experienced editors.  Advise spending a year of article editing and then coming back.  There is lots of good work to be done sans moderator status.  You do have a nice demeanor and I have no doubt you will pass an admin board once you have more time in the hospital (I mean in the Wiki).  Good luck!
'''Oppose''' The epic PROD spam above is alarming enough, but the editor's apparent lack of understanding that this constitutes a problem in his response to the issue when raised above is more alarming. Even if 100% of those PRODs were absolutely appropriate -- and I haven't checked, because that's not the issue I'm raising in concert with one other person in the Oppose list -- it's plainly counterproductive to dump 29 identical PROD templates on an editor's talk page in a 30 minute span. Frankly, it borders on black comedy. Poor judgment, at least for now.
'''Weak oppose''' The candidate has been highly active for only 8 months and lacks in depth writing experience. Also the perfunctory "per nom" issues are a concern, as are the serial PROD spamming issues. That said, I see real promise here. Answers to questions demonstrate a sound grasp of policy. Try again after 6 months and mentoring.--
'''Oppose''' Concerns with judgement, temperament, experience, policy knowledge.  -'''
'''Oppose''' There are several problems, including the 29 PRODs, which indicates a poor style of communication which I think would be totally unsuitable for an administrator, the compromised CfD discussion, which indicates a poor grasp of how to use procedures constructively, the "per nom" rationales, which might be an abbreviation for a well thought out reason but might also be a shorthand for "I've just read what someone else has written and without checking myself I think it looks good": in either case, an administrator should be better at communicating what they have in mind. However, what really decided me to oppose was the fact that the editor does not seem to accept that there is any validity to the criticisms. An administrator who can't acknowledge their own mistakes is not a good administrator.
'''Oppose'''. The series of PRODs is concerning. I am also disappointed by [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ofei Sakyi|this AfD nomination]]. Jsfouche has not indicated any attempt to establish notability. (MelanieN's response is far superior.) MelanieN showed that the problem with the article was with verifiability, not notability. The fact that other editors demonstrated that the article should be deleted does not vindicate Jsfouche's initial AfD statement.
'''Oppose''' While I am willing to overlook the PROD taggings, my main concerns are 1) your lack of Wikispace experience (currently only 4% of your edits), 2)the severe drop off in activity since January, and 3) your generic "per nom" statements in AFD's.  Showing more independent thought (which also shows that you have done some research) will show that you can rationalize why something should be kept or deleted, a quality needed when you close AFD's.
'''Weak oppose''' per Michig and a lack of experience in general content work. Given a little more work and a good track record, though, I'd be willing to support in the future. –
'''Oppose'''As mentioned earlier, we need administrators who edit content and add to the encyclopedia.  We've got tons of policy-pushers and content taggers, but real meaningful editing and adding to Wikipedia shows the actual true core understanding of what it is.  Try again after you've developed your lack of content creation, especially in comparison to your overall edit count.
'''Oppose'''. I had wanted to stay out of this one because the candidate had already gotten so beaten up over the "29 prods" thing; seemed like a bit of a pile-on over that, and hey, we all make mistakes. But I really can't support a candidate who creates articles with no third-party references. The whole point of the autopatrolled/autoreview flag, in my opinion, is that editors are trusted to perform new page patrol on their own creations, and neglecting to either provide third-party references, or tag the article as unreferenced, means that responsibility is not being met. I think the candidate has a lot of good qualities (the answers to the questions, in particular, are generally well-thought out), and once the referencing problems are resolved I hope to support in a future RfA.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. I was also planning to stay out of this, for very similar reasons to 28bytes', but the percentage has gone up a bit recently. You're a nice guy and I didn't want to oppose, but a variety of things make me think you're not quite ready. The first is the 29 PRODs—you used the same rationale (word for word) for each one and did all of them within about 25 minutes of each other. That rationale gives no indication tot he author or the deciding admin of your thought process behind the deletion request or what research you've done to determine that the song isn't notable. It also fails to demonstrate communication skills, which are important for admins for a variety of reasons. That alone wouldn't make me oppose, but I see a pattern with the two-word rationales for !votes and nominations at AfD (as brought up above). You need to make use of your communication skills (which I'm sure you have, especially since you're a nurse), especially in deletion-related areas. My other concerns are a general lack of experience and "hands-on" knowledge of policy, demonstrated by only ~200 edits to the project space (a tenth of which are to this RfA) and a negligible amount to the WT namespace, none of which concerned with policy discussions. You've only been active for a ''relatively'' short while and some of your most recently-created articles aren't in compliance with some of the basic policies, so I can't judge how well you know and would implement those policies. Sorry, but put all this together and I can only say 'not yet'. I think you have the potential to be a great admin with a little more and a little broader experience, but I don't think you're ready now. With regret,
'''Oppose'''  Per others.  Immature.  Bad communication skills.
I should stress that I don't think your reading of NSONG is completely wrong. It says "''Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.''" It is therefore possible, admittedly at a stretch, to defend the evaluation of 29 articles in half an hour. But by the same token, it gives a clear steer towards merging in this situation, and in my view that would have been (and still would be) the correct approach. Given that admins are usually our only line of defence against the deletion of salvageable content, I feel that this isn't the right time to hand you the delete buttons. —
'''Weak oppose''' - User does a lot of things correctly, but the creation of unreferenced articles goes against the policy of [[WP:V|verifiability]].
oppose. I believe a good administrator needs to be clueful to how a community is moving in regards to important topics such as new content creation. I have sampled some of your work from late last year October / November 2010 and can see where you have added references after other editors have tagged the unreferenced articles. The thing that concerns me is that even until recently, many of the new stubs / articles lack any inline referencing. As an administrative candidate, I would hope that you would have been keen to know that one is expected to clean up their prior work, and move in a progressive manner towards quality referenced material. We extend some learning curve to new editors towards non-referenced new articles. But new admins and Auto-patrolled not so much in my view. I would be more than happy to support a future run after previous concerns have been addressed. Kindly
'''Oppose''' - the PRODS and temperment.
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' Only eight months worth of real experience. Not enough for me to feel comfortable handing someone the mop. With regrets,
'''Oppose'''. The prod-spree may have been a sin, but not a mortal sin - many of us have made minor misjudgements from time to time (I certainly have) and as a single event it's well within the error bars, I feel. However, I went through the last 50 article creations and most of them were identikit minimally-referenced stubs, albeit with assorted templates (ie. The writer finds a source which lists several things of type X, so several articles get created which cite only that source). That suggests, to me, an attempt to write as many standardised articles as possible with minimum effort, rather than taking the time to write a deeper encyclopædic article with more readable prose than infoboxes, and with more diverse sources. Not necessarily a bad thing from some random editor - though it's a long time since wikipedia actually had a shortage of two-sentence stubs. However, if a candidature puts so much emphasis on article creation (rather than, say, vandal-fighting or dispute resolution), then the hasty identikit articles tarnish my opinion of the candidature - how can I have confidence that they will put thought into admin actions, or check sources?
'''Oppose per nom''' - or something like that. I think Jsfouche has potential, and is likely to make a decent admin at some point - but just not now. Candidate has been active only recently, and much of their contributions do not demonstrate the qualities we expect of admins. I think this RfA has been a learning curve, and I think Jsfouche will take the comments on board. The Wikipedia community likes all editors, and especially admins, to show evidence for their actions. We expect edit summaries for edits, and we expect rationales for supporting or opposing AfDs or when prodding articles, etc. We expect articles to be created with care, rather than have [[List of microregions of São Paulo|unreferenced linkfarms]] dumped on us. The answers to questions show that there is a thoughtful and intelligent individual behind the account, but the edit history indicates someone who is only making low level and low quality edits that require little thought or judgement. There's a feel of "I'll make some prod and afd and new page patrol edits, bung in some article stubs, and it'll look good so I can apply to become an admin!" We do expect a bit more than that. We like to see evidence of judgement, communication skills, understanding of policies, etc. I suggest a period of article building, and doing some conflict resolution, as well as working on the [[WP:Backlog]], and then applying again in 6 months time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
per OM and TCO (when did they allow you back?). concerns about experience, policy knowledge, article writing, etc. -
'''Oppose''' per the PROD-spam mentioned ('recent' to me, too), and other aspects detailed above which might, in themselves, be overlooked but there is insufficient demonstrated history of editing to balance the concerns. Question responses don't convince me of policy knowledge; Q4 has odd use of the acronym 'COI', Q5 misses a lot of the points of A7 and is unclear - it's hard to work out exactly what you mean, and that isn't a good sign in an admin - my asking for clarification wouldn't resolve it, because although I think you understand the basic principle, the fact that you've not been able to explain it clearly, in itself, is concerning. Browsing your talk-page comments gives the same impression - that you know the essence of policies and guidelines, but sometimes your explanations of them are inadequate, and even misleading. Temperament does seem good, thus I hope you'll be back here when you've accumulated broader experience. I questioned things a bit in the 'neutral' section, but I don't find the answers satisfactory; sorry. Get more experience at the sharp-end, then come back. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' Chzz and ArcAngel make good points here. I have open contempt for people that oppose on the grounds of lack of content contribution, and the PROD thing is... old news. However you need to be clearer. Ambiguity is like chest hair; A little bit of it is okay, a lot of it is disturbing.
'''Neutral''' (leaning towards oppose). The candidate needs to do a better job with his CSD tagging and discussing his reasoning with other editors, but he also uses edit summaries on both major and minor edit oftentimes and has created some articles, so I am staying as neutral for now. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
I don't think you're quite ready yet. But I think you're a decent candidate, one who could succeed in another few months or so. :) '''
'''Neutral''' more concerned about lack of writing experience than prods.--
'''Neutral''' per my stroked oppose !vote above.  Candidate was not obligated to read my essay but took the time anyway and otherwise answered Kudpung's question correctly.  I can't honestly keep an oppose !vote believing that the candidate has addressed the issue that brought me into oppose.  That said, I am borderline support/neutral/oppose.--v/r -
'''Neutral'''. The editor has been enthusiastic in expanding nursing content, and was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jsfouche/Archive_3 quite reasonable in my only interaction]. I would be happy to support if the candidate had indicated wishing to devote more time to content issues, but I am troubled by some of the PRODs. I expect that if the candidacy is not successful now, that the editor will brush up on some PROD details and return in a few months and be acclaimed by the community. Best regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' You're on the right track...but the issues raised above are simply too outstanding for my to throw in my support for you at this time. Work on your weaker areas and come back in a few months :)--
'''Definitely.''' Great user with great contribs, no problem trusting them with a mop.
'''Support''' No reason not to at this point.
'''Oppose''' I am deeply concerned by the candidate's interest in doing speedy deletion work. Reviewing their recent contributions, I found a number of troubling CSD nominations. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iden_Green&oldid=424274136 Example 1], the db tag had two reasons, 1) "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)" 2) disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6." This was a list of two locations with the same name, it did not end in (disambiguation), and this had useful information that was not duplicated elsewhere, while perhaps eligible for deletion under an alternative process, it was clearly not a good candidate for G6. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas/E&oldid=423208890 Another list] with the same tag, this one had substantial content. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highways_numbered_467&oldid=425011400 List of highways] being CSDed as a disambiguation page. Then there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navalpakkam&oldid=425548492 this] A3 CSD of a town complete with infobox, clearly not a good A3 candidate, and I think it would even survive an AfD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatehpur,_Uttar_Pradesh&oldid=426212064 CSD A3 on a vandalized page] that had a good version in history. And finally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vagisa_Munivar&oldid=427065645 this] A7 CSD on an article that even in that version cleary indicates why the person was important, namely "He is the author of Gnanamrutham". CSD is a process that should only be used carefully, and is designed for urgent or patently obvious and uncontroversial deletions. Clearly the candidate does not understand the proper application, which scares me in light of the interest in handling them. <s>Also, a minor issue, but the candidate failed to follow the instructions and improperly transcluded this RFA at the end of the list instead of the top.</s> (striking, transclusion was by nominator, not candidate)
{{edit conflict}} '''Oppose'''. While it's clear she does good work with dead-end links and minor cleanup, I'd like to see a more rounded contribution profile before supporting. I'm not denigrating the work she does - they are tasks that need doing, but she has less than 20 Wikipedia: namespace edits to her name since 2008, which doesn't lead me to have confidence that she understands all that is required of an administrator. Someone wanting to work with speedy deletion needs to have a vastly greater experience of deletion discussions before wielding the mop - speedy deletion is ''only'' for things that will always be deleted at XfD, and you need to have experienced lots of XfD's before you can truly understand what this means.
'''Moral support'''. You might want to read [[WP:NOTNOW]], but you've done good work on the encyclopedia thus far. Keep it up, and if you have a need for sysop tools in a few months, come back and request again. Best of luck,
Well, the good news is, you can deal with vandalism and unsourced content right now... you don't need special privileges for that.
'''Oppose''', move to close. Last fifty edits stretch back four years. <small>'''
[[WP:NOTNOW]], serious grammar/communication issues. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience. -- '''
'''Write an article'''.  This is an editorial venture full of content creation.  If you haven't done any, then you just don't get it.  This is NOT a video game for vandal wacking or a mysite for playing moderator and leveling up.
'''Moral Support''' I am very very tempted to be bold and close this now before the parade of [[wp:notnow|not now]] starts. I hope your not discouraged. --

'''Moral Support''' Your intentions are great. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and read the feedback given in the "oppose" section. You can try re-applying for RfA when you have the necessary experience. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">
'''Weak Oppose''' Not convinced based on the statements I am seeing.  Not a good first impression.—
'''Oppose''' Concerns with the Wikipedia namespace. Not convinced based on the statements. --
'''Oppose''' Copyright and other warnings on talk page are major negative factors. Giving himself a barnstar as shown at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKylekieran&action=historysubmit&diff=439796634&oldid=437976829] is also rather questionable to me. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KYLEKIERAN 2|This]] does not inspire confidence in his understanding of Wikipedia. I'm also rather concerned about the low number of edits to the article space (less than 30%) as well as a complete lack of any reports to RFPP and AIV- two areas where the candidate seems to want to work. I also can't see any evidence of him participating in speedy deletion, other than creating pages that were speedy deleted, and can only see him participating in a single [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Grenadian|AfD]], which didn't demonstrate a lot of policy knowledge. I have to oppose based on a complete lack of any admin-area experience.--
''Unwanted pages'' is the way an admin should ''not'' define pages that have been nominated for deletion. Long list of copyright problems on talk page raises concerns; ''all'' admins should demonstrate a full understanding of Wikipedia's [[WP:NFCC|non-free content policy]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Oppose currently''' Would want to see more work on content such as creation of good articles. Needs to prove self further.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Edit summary usage is 12%. No experience of any kind in vandalism. Edit count is not as important as quality. Also strong oppose per all reasons above.
'''Oppose''' per Hurricanefan25 generally and lack of real explanation on any question.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience. -'''
'''Neutral''' I'm a little hesitant to submit a support vote because of all of the copyright tags and deletion templates on the user's talk page, especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKylekieran&action=historysubmit&diff=440726980&oldid=440339446 this] warning. --  '''
'''Neutral'''. The candidate has submitted a poorly-written self-nom. This, coupled with the tags and deletion templates, raise concerns. Perhaps the candidate will be better prepared for RfA in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Less than 50 edits in the past 3 years, and an edit-warring block in the last 300 edits. Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' The editor's first edit in 2007 as User All in vandalized a template, translating it to Spanish. Shortly after, All in requested an RfA. Why stop at RfA? Why not be at ArbComm? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' The answer to what the candidate would do with the tools doesn't seem apt: the last involvement with AfD was in 2008 (and even then it was only 5 Discussions); the editor has moved 2 articles themselves (this year, plus a few in 2008) but I don't see any requests to admins to move others. Along with the concerns above, I don't see that the candidate had demonstrated either the need for, or the knowledge of how to apply the mop. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|alternative account]] of
'''Oppose''' -- [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]] and concerns with the block log. --
'''Oppose'''...sorry, but no. Come back in a year+ with much more experience and MAYBE.
'''Oppose''' per Tofutwitch. Please consider withdrawing your nomination.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Recent block due to [[WP:3RR]] violation is also a red flag. Another year of ''active'' editing, especially in areas where admins are commonly called upon to wield the mop (e.g. [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFPP]], and/or any of the XfD discussions), will help a great deal. --
'''Oppose''' This user in this account has hardly edited Wikipedia since 2009. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Latish%20redone&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia See here].
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' . Sorry, but  with only  59 edits in  three years.- even with  the 953 mainspace edits as User:All in, this is nowhere near enough to  provide a profile of what  you  would do  as an admin, and the nomination  statement  does not  provide a compelling  reason  for needing  the tools. You  do  not appear  to have  followed the links to any of  the various guidelines and advice pages on  becoming  an admin, and what  admins do. I also  recommend that  you  should consider withdrawing your nomination - I do not  think  there is the remotest chance of this RfA succeeding.
'''Yes!''' Before I retired I worked with this user, and I still work with him on [[Mozilla|other projects]]. He's very mature, [[Rickroll|knows the rules (and so do I)]] of how to deal with trolls/vandals/other morons. Quite honestly, he is one of the nicest, most honest, and politest (is that a word?) person that I've ever met.  I rarely edit anymore, but supporting this RfA is just something I have to do. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:gold;">
'''Ooh Rah!'''
I've been out of the loop for quite a while, so I missed this user's rise to prominence, and only became familiar with his contributions recently. I suspect this section will end up on the north side of triple digit votes, so congrats in advance.
Excellent user who is thoroughly qualified for what he wants to do.
'''Weak support''' I have some concerns with your content creation and that 55% of your edits are automated, but overall, intelligent, willing and knowledgeable candidate. As I said to him in IRC and I will say it here: Its about freaking time. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' You're a great editor, you'll make a great admin as well. <b>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' I fully support this candidates, particularly for the work with speedy deletion declines, and I think having more admins who take the speedy deletion criteria so seriously is exactly what we need. While I would have preferred to have seen some followup in the example from Q4, the challenge was clearly correct.
'''Support''' Veteran Wikipedian who is already entrusted with a large number of tools; adminship seems to me to be the logical next step.--
'''Support'''. Definitely. Very helpful editor, lots of clue. --
'''Support''' Seen great work on ACC and seems a commmitted user, can't see any reason why not to support giving him the mop.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. An editor I'm familiar with, though nto someone with whom I've had a great deal of interaction. My impression has alwyas been one of a level-headed editor keen to help with some of the grubbier areas of the project. While UAA abd AIV aren't yet crying out for more admins, both boards can back up at times, so it's better to do something about it now than wait until we desperately need more admins (RfPP is in need of more admins eyes as well if you fancy helping out there). I trust Logan to be effective but fair as an admin and to help keep the backlogs down.
'''Support''', good answer to my question and to be honest I knew I was going to support, because we need more admins who are willing to decline speedies more often. However I feel that once you remove a speedy tag from an article you should always make sure it meets Wikipedia standards (at least as a stub), or if not send it to PROD or AfD or a WikiProject as you said.. otherwise badly formatted/inappropriate articles sit there festering for a while. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
My first impression of Logan was very good, and I think he'll make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter. Will do fine. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' My main interactions with this user occur in the <code>#wikipedia-en-help</code> channel. It seems like much of the oppose reasoning centers around the IRC channel, but I must say that I can't recall any time Logan has come off as "too eager" in a negative way. When I see him there, he is always more than happy to help new users, and is both very helpful and very patient: two good qualities for an admin. I completely agree with Juliancolton's comment. If Logan is being too eager to the point where it is a problem, there should be diffs available to prove that. Until those are provided, I'm not sure how much weight those comments hold for me. Although there should be certain standards for behavior on IRC, IRC is not Wikipedia. There is much more leeway given for behavior, and like I said, I've never seen Logan do something that I think pushes the boundaries in that respect. Anyway, I agree with the comments about his CSD work. I've yet to run into an incorrectly-declined speedy, and it's always good to see an admin candidate who clearly understands [[WP:A7|A7]]. I think he will do well! :] <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support'''
'''Support''' If there's a good reason not to give him the mop, I haven't spotted it. --
'''Support''' - nice lot of experiences in all the relevant areas.
'''Support''' - I'm quite convinced that someone with Logan's experience level is more than capable of administrative tasks. ''
'''Support'''  Excellent contributor. He's been really helpful in #wikipedia-en-help channel and helped out a lot of new editors.
'''Support''' – Excellent editor. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''', I don't see why not. --
'''Support''' Very experienced editor with plenty of contributions in the areas he says will be his main roaming grounds. I have also interacted with Logan on #wikipedia-en-help and he is always very supportive of new editors and communicates effectively. Net positive. Regards, <font color="green">
'''Support''' - Fully qualified candidate who will be a good administrator.
'''Support''' - but if you disappear off into the admins channel and abandon us peons, I will scowl and shake my fist angrily in your general direction.
"Being eager" is a ridiculous reason to oppose, but an excellent reason to support.
'''Support''' per [[User:N5iln]]. [[User:Crazymonkey1123|Crazymonkey1123]] (Jacob) <sup>[[User talk:Crazymonkey1123|T]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazymonkey1123&action=edit&section=new M]</sup>/<sub>
'''Sure'''
'''Support''' I have handled quite a number of AIV reports from Logan and don't recall a single false positive, that is, I can trust the candidate at least in this area. I consider vandalism fighting important (at this WP stage) and believe that administrative tools will make this editor more efficient.
'''Support''' - Why not!
'''Support''' While I trust the judgement of Fetchcomms and Prodego, I don't think IRC actions are enough to have serious bearing on whether Logan is basically trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Wait...I thought you were one...
Per Fastily. --
'''Support''' - No concerns. -
'''Support''' Experienced editor, no concerns '''
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Strange AfD]] and answers to the questions, Logan seems to be have a fair bit of clue. Can see where the opposers are coming from, but they aren't compelling enough to convince me not to support.
'''Support''' Aren't you already an sysop?  ~~
'''Support''' I've seen Logan performing non-admin closures and relisting debates at AfD, and he seems to be competent as far as that goes. I'm moved to support in part because there are administrators who have supported above on the basis of Logan's accurate CSD tagging and AIV reports. But perhaps more importantly, Logan comes across as thoughtful and articulate, both of which are desirable traits in an administrator; I think he'll do just fine.
'''Strong support''' No doubt about it. He'll be a great admin.
'''Support''', great user, would use the tools well.
Clueful and is already showing the ability to judge consensus at AFD. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Support''' I think you will do well with a mop. The decisions I have examined from you are almost always correct to my eyes, and while sometimes I don't fully agree with your tone or decision, I also don't think I will get far in expecting every Admin to agree with my views at all times. You do well with replying to questions and criticisms on your Talk Page with informative responses, but I think in general you could work on raising your level of civility in some discussions. I see a diligent effort at performing maintenance tasks around the project, and communicating swiftly with users about any procedural work you participate in. I think that your "No Consensus" decision on the NAC cited in Jorgenev's Oppose was in fact correct, however I agree that that particular AfD was not the clear consensus usually preferred for NAC's. But you got it right (to my eyes at least), and overall I think you should absolutely be promoted to Admin. Best of luck,
Looks fine to me. Can't comment on the IRC related opposes as I don't use IRC. Other opposes not persuasive. Agree fully with the comments and analysis from [[User:A Stop at Willoughby]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing. Also, I'm pleased that Logan has asked a kind question to the 4th opposer. It shows an example of how mature he is at the moment.
'''Support''' Seems like a user that should the mop, as you appear to have a good understanding of policies. Work on IRC shouldn't affect wiki-work. <span style="background-color:yellow;color:blue;">
'''Support''' Logan is a mature, considerate user who will almost definitely provide a net positive contribution to the project with admin tools. Good luck! --'''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]]
'''Support''' Seems fine. --
'''Strong support''' - Almost missed this...almost, but not quite! :)
'''Support''' a great editor with lots of experience
'''Support''' He agrees with my position in two example AfDs in question 10 and even gave me a ''shout out''! This guy will make a great admin, clearly, because I totally agree with anyone who agrees with my opinions ;). Further, based on his responses above and, more importantly, ''below'' (in the oppose section), he seems like a reasonable, even-keeled fellow.
'''Support''' He was one of the first contacts I had with anyone from wikipedia, and in the short time I have been around, he seems to have a good grasp on things, I think he will make a good admin.
'''Support''', no reason to suspect that the user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''', I  don't  have anything  to  do  with  IRC so  I  must  discount  any  comments about  it. We have no  control how people express themselves off-Wiki. My  concern is that people express themselves on  talk  pages and debates in  a correct manner, and I  trust  him with  the tools.
'''Support''' <font face="Comic Sans MS">
&ndash;
'''Support'''. Good contributions and appropriate experience.
'''Support''' Answered the very long list of questions well - I think he can handle the mop
'''Support'''. Solid answers, and supports new Be-Welcoming attitude, plus knows how it feels to be "unjustly blocked". Very consistent editing pattern: ~49% article & ~31% talk-page edits, each month for over 3 years (even if massive edits in 2011). Very articulate, to learn quickly. Re Opposes, I don't view words of "reluctant" as "disingenuous" but rather "dissuaded" (deterred) when others kept repeating not-ready yet. -
'''Support'''. Fair and balanced answers that reflect what we want in sysops. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. Awesome candidate and wikipedian.
'''Support''' - Opposers fail to convince me, and the supporters - including several whose judgment I find compelling - point out a number of good qualities. This editor is mop-ready, in my view.  I thank this candidate for service to date, and offer my best wishes.
'''Support'''. A good answer to my question! I definitely support. Also very helpful when it comes to questions other editors might have. Congrats! <font color="blue">
Does good work, trusted and knows what they are doing. Enough for me to support.
'''Support''' - I feel Logan can be trusted with the extra tools.  ~
'''Support''' - Experienced editor, no concerns.
'''Support''' editor has far too many good edits and has been around too long for us to be concerned  about the percentage automated, as for hesitation about RFA, in my view that reflects badly on RFA not this candidate. ''
'''Support'''. Yes, Logan tends to jump in too fast. However, my personal experience is that he ''is'' prepared to review his actions when it's pointed out that he may be in the wrong, and to make corrections to his actions quickly and without undue fuss. Based on that and on a long history of positive contributions, I believe he would be a clear net positive as an administrator. --
'''Support'''- Reviewable en.wiki actions show minor mistakes but no major concerns; harness exuberance and balance 'nuanced' solutions, and you'll do fine.
'''Support'''Harmless.©
'''Last minute support!''' He's a good looking motherfucker. --
While I hate tagging my comment as a vote, on this occasion, '''very weak support''', while I see a lot of merit in Ironholds' oppose, and I am quite concerned about your non-admin closures of AFDs as no consensus, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in this case. Whichever way this RFA goes, I feel that in future you will be more careful with your actions. My support is based on the fact that I feel you could be a net positive to the encyclopedia as a sysop, and that a lot of learning will happen on the job, so, as long as you take it easy to start off with, I'm ok with providing you my support. Best of luck. <font face="Forte">
'''Support'''
Ironhold presents a serious reason to pause.  At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rosenblatt (2nd nomination)]] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Rosenblatt_%282nd_nomination%29&oldid=428849598 this] was a very poor close.  It was a poor reading of rough consensus, and a poor judgment of where NAC is suitable.  As per Sandstein, Logan needs to demonstrate a better understanding of AfD.  Support on condition that Logan takes this feedback on-board, and noting that adminship is not ''carte blanche'', and that WP:DRV remains an effective tool for recalibrating individual approaches.  --
'''Oppose''' concerns with competence. Logan is a bit too eager, and that tends to lead to poor decision making.
Per Prodego. I've interacted with Logan on IRC and while I think he's a generally good user, I've always gotten the "eager" impression—and I'm not going to nitpick through the last 500 edits, because that would be nitpicking and this is a general feeling I get. I don't like basing comments off IRC, but it's true that people are more "free" and ''true'' (open, maybe, or less formal?) in how they interact there and I've found it easy to learn things about people from that. Regardless, I'd like to see more content creation and development work. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/

'''Oppose''', sorry, I like the guy a lot, but just two days ago he had a NAC of his overruled: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMichael_Rosenblatt_%282nd_nomination%29&action=historysubmit&diff=428887126&oldid=428851323]. And call me [[sex joke|anal, but it rubs me the wrong way]] that he has closed a whole bunch of AFD's as no consensus (which I'm not sure [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure]] even endorses) yet has never helped build consensus (I'm still looking for a debate where he actually !voted). <small>'''
'''Oppose''' - Over eager beaver, not broadly experienced enough to have authority.
<s>Strong '''oppose'''</s>. On multiple occasions, I have challenged Logan re: his interpretations of policy; his response is invariably to leave.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly; I echo some of the concerns above, although with a slightly different light - these concerns being that Logan (a) has not shown himself to have good judgement in this field and (b) that he ''has'' shown himself to be overeager and perhaps inclined to jump in without preparation. As Jorgenev has said, most of Logan's AfD related contributions - that is, contributions to a field he wishes to work in, by his own admission - are Non-Admin Closures (NACs). This is an important job which keeps backlogs down, ensures the regular and steady flow of <s>currency<s> edits and is generally A Good Thing, and I applaud Logan for the very admin-like attitude of being willing to get his hands dirty. The bigger problem is that this means he's got no way of showing that he has good judgement in this field; NACs are, by definition, those AfDs where the decision made is "there is no decision made". Logan's counter-argument doesn't actually address that point, instead providing an excuse for why he can't show he's got good judgement. However, it's a bit cruel to hold a standard of "he must positively prove he's got good judgment", which is where my second point exacerbates the issues with his actions; to summarise, he has a habit of jumping into things without heeding the advice of others. As an example, this RfA. Logan has spent the past few months (somewhere between 3 and 6) pestering me to nominate him for RfA. I reviewed his contributions, and one of the concerns I cane up with is "you need to actually contribute to more AfDs so we can see evidence of your judgment". As we can see, he didn't heed that advice; instead, he decided to simply go it alone without the support of me or anyone else. His statement that he was "reluctant to be considered for the job" is a blatant falsehood give that he's spent between a quarter and a half of the year asking others to support him in this endeavour. Despite this, when the support failed to materialise, he went ahead. Together with the AfD actions, this strikes me as the actions of someone with a tendency to jump into a mess when he feels he's ready for it, ''regardless of what other people are saying'', and that kind of gung-ho attitude is only useful in an administrator (someone who has the implicit support of the community for his judgement) and is not at ''all'' useful in a candidate, who has to prove that judgement in front of the editing community.
'''Oppose''' Although Logan is an enthusiastic contributor, my gut instinct is that he is not ready for adminship. I find the issues that Ironholds has outlined above to be concerning, particularly his second point regarding the apparently disingenuous statement "At first I was reluctant to be considered at RfA". I believe that there is a certain level of maturity to be expected of admin candidates (which is unrelated to age), and I simply don't feel that Logan meets said level at this time. --
'''Opposed''' to nom-admins closing as no-consensus.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q7 is a bit disconcerting, but the deal breaker for me was A13.  Edit summaries are ALWAYS important, and should always be included.  This helps other editors figure out the good edits from the bad easier, without having to "dig" through diffs to weed out the vandalism edits.  This RFA will most likely pass, and if it does, I hope that you wield the mop wisely (as in, look before leaping, so to speak).
'''Oppose''' – Sorry, but I'm going to agree with Ironholds here. Even in the four AfDs you started that you pointed us to, I'm not especially reassured—for example, at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live And Learn (Crush 40 song)]] your rationale is the very brief "Most likely a non-notable [[WP:NSONG|song]]." You don't make it clear that you've done any research to be sure that there aren't sources covering the subject in detail. You might have done so but you didn't bother saying so, and I expect admins and admin-hopefuls to set a better example at AfDs, for our less-experienced users, if nothing else. It does look as if this RfA will pass, so I offer my best wishes and hope that you'll take the criticisms on board and proceed carefully. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''' I too find myself agreeing with Ironholds and Ponyo.  I think you're a little too eager to leap in, and not survey the situation soberly.  Like Spartaz, I think non-admins being eager to close discussions as "no consensus" is a rather poor idea.
'''Oppose''' - I don't think Logan has the maturity to be an admin yet. Seems to be too much black or white on issues, and little flexibility when it's needed. A lot of what admins do here requires flexiblity. Sorry, I just can't support.
'''Oppose'''.  Initially supported, backstepped to neutral, arrived at full turnaround after much thought and consideration of opposes (particularly Ironholds).  Sorry, Logan.  –
'''Regretful Weak Oppose''' Logan, your a great contributor, don't get me wrong on that, but I have to echo Acps110 with being too black and white on issues and also Courcelles, a little to eager to jump in. Also, Q13 was not clear, even after an apparent cleanup. --
'''Regretful oppose''' I do like the user's contributions but I feel the concerns raised by Ironholds. I would like to support the user but the concerns raised about this user's AfD work have me opposing at this time. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Oppose''' I'm uneasy about Ironhold's statement about being pestered over the last 3 to 6 months to nominate the candidate for adminship, particularly coupled with the fact that the candidate's contributions were sporadic up to about seven months ago. I'd rather see a longer period of consistent editing without making adminship a goal. ''
'''Oppose''' largeley per Ironholds. I origially supported, and I feel that his answers to some of the questions demonstrate he has the ability to become an admin in the future. However, following my looking into Ironholds' comments I'm not actually convinced that he's listening to or acting on the advice he's been receiving and one of the most important things for any administrator to admit when they are wrong, listen to advice and criticism and use that to improve. We already have too many administrators who think they don't need to listen (even 1 would be too many) so I can't support someone who I'm not convinced will. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Too eager, non-admins shouldn't close AfD discussions as no consensus. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' - I also changed to oppose per Ironholds. I think I now understand how "eager" could be considered to be a bad thing here. One of the biggest dangers in giving someone the bit is if they jump into things before they really know what they're doing and screw things up. New admins should take it slow, ask questions, defer to the judgement of more experienced admins, and try not to get in over their head too fast. I get the feeling that Logan would take things too fast. -- '''
'''Weak oppose''' per Courcelles et al. Non-admins should not be performing NACs on controversial AFDs, whether they are right or not is irrelevant. Ironholds' point is also concerning. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose'''. I've vacillated on this, and I hope I'm not doing the wrong thing. Overall, I see a lot of good qualities here. But I have thought carefully about what Ironholds said, and I'm just not comfortable with that. My gut is telling me that there is too big a risk that there would be problems down the road. If you come back after a period of time, after showing responsiveness to the feedback here, and try a second RfA, there is a good chance that I would change my mind. --
'''Weak oppose''' per Ironholds. (Switched from support following quick review, based on large number of good edits, and non-dramatic response to criticism.) The slight experience with editing articles or discussing articles is another concern. I would welcome the candidate's application in another 6 months, with continued maturation of judgment and hopefully more content experience. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Ironholds and Courcelles. The candidate's lack of comments at AfDs as well as the "no consensus" closures are not reassuring. I fear that should Logan become a sysop, most of his closures would be "no consensus" despite consensus' having been reached, as in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rosenblatt (2nd nomination)]].
'''Weak oppose''' because of the AfD-related concerns discussed above, wouldn't mind supporting with a more solid track record of making good arguments in AfD rather than closing them. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Sorry. Per Ironholds' reasoning. --
'''Oppose''' -- Ironhold's comments raise serious doubts in my mind about this candidate's suitability for the role ''at this time.''
'''Oppose''' Agree with Ironholds. I think Logan is slightly too "eager", there isn't a problem with this per se, but it's an eagerness for the "wrong" things, and I don't think it's a great trait for an admin, as it can lead to too many rash decisions. Also, I can't really find a lot of places where he has exercised a lot of judgement, most of his work is pretty routine - again, this is great, but simply not something I look for in an admin candidate. So overall, he does some great work, but hasn't really demonstrated he needs or would correctly use the admin tools. I would suggest he continues at what he's doing, or if he really wants the tools, that he gets involved in some areas where he can analysis consensus and really show that he is able to assess a situation well -
(Moved from neutral) Sorry. I thought there was tons of upside, but the developments since the casting of my original neutral !vote are too much to ignore. Ironholds makes a very, very compelling argument.
'''Neutral, reluctantly''' My interactions with Logan (mostly on IRC) have been positive, though I don't have a strong opinion nor I'm not really comfortable supporting or opposing this request for adminship.
'''Neutral, switched from oppose'''. I do believe that he could be a decent admin, not the best though. Idk.
'''Neutral''', switched from Support. The "reluctant to be considered for the job" bit in the context of Ironholds' comments means I can't maintain my support at this time, but time is too short for me to investigate that further, so I have to land here --
'''Neutral'''.
'''Moral Support''' You've done good work and I respect that. However, you took a really long break and only returned three days ago. You need some more experience before you're going to be able to pass an RfA. The message is the same as it was in your last RfA: get some more experience and come back. ''
Why not?  My dealing with you on FS and IRC have been admirable --
'''Oppose''' Per experience since you only have about <s>3000</s> 2270 edits. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose'''. Absolutely not, this is way premature. And your school work ought to come first in any event.
I certainly don't hold this self-nom against you because you've done a lot of good work, and I never grade off because someone didn't anticipate the reactions of RFA voters ... Wikipedia is what you're supposed to be learning about, not RFA.  I'd be quite happy to see you back here, possibly in as little as 3 months.  But since you just got back, I have no way of knowing if you're going to lose interest next month, and admins who aren't paying attention can, innocently, cause harm. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - So, from what I see in [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=MacMed&l=all your edit history], you had your first RfA in the last week of August of 2009. You continued to edit until early December, racking up about 400 edits in that time period. You then stopped editing for almost sixteen months, and then returned three days ago. This massive gap in editing followed by an RfA three days later is worrisome to me. I have no prejudice against you as a young administrator, being one myself, but I do need to see a substantial ''recent'' editing history before I can support. Now that you've gotten into your college of choice (and congratulations on that, by the way!), stick around for a few months and keep up good editing to show that you're ready for the mop. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Oppose'''. The first RFA turned on lack of experience. It was followed by three months of limited editing, a fifteen-month hiatus, and three days of very active editing. I don't see how this could satisfy the community concerns expressed at the first RFA -- and, to be blunt, not meaning to be harsh, I don't understand how the candidate could think it satisfied the community's concerns. An administrator needs to be able to read community sentiment accurately in order to carry out admin responsibilities, and to miss so badly in the request alone is a very bad signal. Very sorry if this comes across harshly; I can't find any less severe way to say it.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with judgement, lack of experience, and a fifteen month-long vacation.  Sorry, '''
Unless I'm mistaken, it appears you haven't created any articles, and have only participated in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism|one]] deletion discussion. I suggest doing a little more work on the content side of things before requesting adminship.
Sorry, but you don't have very many edits, only have three months with a significant amount of contributions (which are not consecutive months), and have more user talk contributions than you have any other namespace. I'm not seeing anything other than a short stint of vandalism fighting to establish your credentials, and while vandalism fighting is no doubt important, more is needed for adminship.
'''Oppose''' I think that you are on the right track, and I certainly encourage you to give thought to another adminship attempt in the future. For the time being I'm going to have to say no, however. Your contributions are good, though I would like to see something more substantive than automated anti-vandalism edits (Not that there is anything wrong with that. By all means, continue that work, it is of absolute necessity to the community.) I'm not one to insist on any ridiculous quota of mainspace editing or article creation as a prerequisite to gaining the mop, but I would like to see a more comprehensive knowledge of administrator function. Take the following months to branch out a little bit, try different roles and get an understanding of what you are going to be doing once your next bid succeeds. I wish you the best of luck.
'''Support'''. I see a good, level-headed, mature Wikipedian who I think will handle admin tasks without drama. (Just, please, no txtspk when talking to people - an admin is expected to communicate clearly with people from all over the world, who won't always know your text dialect) --
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and I can see no evidence that Moxy would misuse the tools.--
'''Support''' Thoroughly deserves to have the extra buttons. Plenty of barnstars, and even a GA being created is something that most people can't do.
'''Support''' – I've seen him around a lot, and see a level-headed and helpful editor; unlikely to misuse the tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' longterm, civil and very active wikipedian with a clean blocklog. Some opposers have raised concerns about communication, having read Moxy's talkpage I don't share those concerns. I see this candidate as an effective and friendly communicator, typos on talkpages and even their user page do not make me doubt Moxy's ability to use the tools. Perfection is not required, trustworthy civil and clueful should be all we require. ''
After reading your answers to the questions and some of the text you wrote in main space, I believe that your command of English may not be sufficient for you to communicate effectively with others, which is an important requirement for an administrator. For example, the following text written by you in one of the articles you say are among your best contributions contains many errors and is hard to understand: <p>"When examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using autosomal (atDNA) micro-satellite markers genotyped; sampled from North, Central, and South America, analyzed against similar data available from other indigenous populations worldwide. The Amerindian populations show a lower genetic diversity and cellular differentiation than populations from other continental regions. Observe is both decreasing genetic diversity as geographic distance from the Bering Strait occurs and of decreasing genetic similarity to Siberian populations from Alaska (genetic entry point). Also observe is evidence of a higher level of diversity and lower level of population structure in western South America compared to eastern South America. A relative lack of differentiation between Mesoamerican and Andean populations, a scenario that implies coastal routes were easier for migrating peoples (more genetic contributors) to traverse in comparison with inland routes. The over all pattern that is emerging suggest that the Americas were recently colonized by a small number of individuals (effective size of about 70), and then grew by a factor of 10 rapidly. The data also shows, that there are genetic exchanges between Asia and north America since the initial peopling of the Americas." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&oldid=341783400#AtDNA]) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per deficient communications. Please improve your skills before filing another RFA.
'''Oppose'''. Good communication is one of the most important skills an administrator can have, and I'm not sure I'm seeing evidence of it in your contributions. Even just looking through the contributions page, edit summaries like "rv self i sit it not the linked page", "ce..add ref plus stamtment", or "oops sepll chenck erro..:_)" are unclear to the point where they actually become difficult to understand. I'm also impressed with the sheer number of times you can misspell "comment" in an edit summary. The edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nickelback&diff=prev&oldid=430441618 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nickelback&diff=prev&oldid=430401240 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nickelback&diff=prev&oldid=429318141 here] make me doubt that you know the difference between a [[WP:BAN|ban]] and a [[WP:BLOCK|block]], something that I'd say most administrators are expected to understand. Finally, I think that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMoxy&action=historysubmit&diff=431332013&oldid=431328090 this response] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMoxy&action=historysubmit&diff=431332479&oldid=431332013 quickly removed]) that you gave to a !neutral in this RfA was a hasty and perhaps slightly emotional response to valid criticism. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
I can't support a user who does not consistently capitalize "I" when appropriate. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. A sysop needs a minimum level of competence in sentence construction and grammar, and you're not there yet. Sorry --
'''Oppose''' Concerns with communication skills, policy knowledge, and judgement.  -'''
I get worried when I see potential (or actual) admins communicating on Wikipedia as if they were texting. Looking over the conversations on your user talk page I found that you were ''generally'' understandable, however I found your liberal abuse of punctuation and capitalization to be distracting. Admins need to be able to communicate clearly, and I'm just not comfortable with how you talk. I'm also unimpressed with your answer to Q1.
Minded to support, but with the issues relating to communication can't quite.
'''Neutral'''. I kind of torn. On the one hand, Moxy is a great contributor with a lot of good work under his belt. On the other hand, we expect our admins to be somewhat professional in their communication. As admin there would be a lot of people posting on your talk page and you need to be able to communicate effectively. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' The communications that I saw in my searches looked fine.  The logs show that various move and upload features have been used.  The deleted contributions shows very little work in the deletion area, so little in fact, that a recent goof stands out like a sore thumb (but one accident is excusable).
'''Neutral''' - I feel terrible about this, because grammar seems like a such a small reason to oppose an otherwise decent candidate, but your spelling and grammar leave much to be desired. I first noticed non-capitalization of "I", but this sentence really bothered me:"I have np disclosing all (well not my Visa number ) was User:Lucifers hammer with my son (15 at the time) and my wife - this is were a learned wiki coding and etiquette (did not realizes many should not edit from one account - thus its hard to say what is mine or not as in way of edits)." Sandstein's link, which shows that this is also a problem in article writing, not just on talk pages, is massively concerning. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Neutral''' I will support if the candidate substantially improves his English skills.
Beat-the-rush '''support'''. Experienced editor, thoughtful, well-rounded. No reason not to have the mop that I can see. --
'''Support''' - Definitely a qualified candidate. I have worked with him on ACC, and seen his antivandalism/NPP work and it is very well done.
'''Strong Support''' – I have worked alongside My76Strat reviewing AFC submissions and creating accounts through ACC. No concerns with this candidate. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Strong Support:''' - I haven't worked with the candidate, but they're obviously a very well rounded and highly experienced editor. I was also very impressed with the answers to the questions; not only were they excellent answers, but they show that the candidate clearly takes the notion of adminship seriously. Aside from that, any editor who has a structured schedule for their Wikipedia activities deserves the mop in my book! ''
'''Support''' Absolutely. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong Support''' I have not worked wth the candidate but from what I have reviewed he is a great candidate for sysops.
'''Support''' Of course, great editor. I have seen him at AfC and en-help. All of my interactions with My76Strat have been positive.
Fine, I'll <s>'''weakly</s> support''' based upon the contributions. What on earth the ''"And the IRC is a constant backdrop of watched and stalk word pings"'' drivel means I have little idea - and hence my weak support. Assuming you are refering to Internet Realy Chat, one thing I don't like is editors that seem to think off-wiki communication is a good idea. I'll AGF you'll take any admin actions based solely on on-wiki (and therefore open) actions and evidence. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Ooh, another strong contributor to [[WP:UAA]].  Yes please. - Dank (
Of course. Good luck, <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Great nom statement. I hope you'll find time to fit admin duties into your weekly schedule. ;)
'''Support''' --
The only problem I see, aside from the occasional bad CSD tagging, is the wordiness. My76strat, you're clueful, a quick learner, and very helpful, but sometimes you just seem too formal or wordy. Have fun! <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. One of the quickest, most accurate and most prolific taggers of some of the really nasty attack pages. Allowing him to do the zapping would not only save me some work, but ensure that potential libel and other crap disappears as quickly as possible. While Salvio's concerns appear to have some merit, I think you're sensible enough to take the criticism on board. As long as you remember not to act too hastily and to solicit a second opinion when in doubt, you should be fine.
'''Strong Support''' great guy to have around at UAA. I would trust him with the mop --
'''Support''' What they said.
'''Support''' Of course!
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seen him around a time or two from where I hang out here. Seems knowledgeable
'''Strong support''' - I find the nom's response to the opposes reassuring in spite of some ridiculous oppose rationales. It only reinforces my confidence. As an aside, I hope RfA can heal itself from its broken status; given the tenor of some of the opposes here I'm less than confident.
'''Weak support''' The opposers bring up some good points, and I almost voted neutral...but I really appreciate how this candidate's personality shines through, and I trust he will learn from his mistakes that have been pointed out, and from the RfA experience in general.
'''Support''' He'll succeed as an administrator.
'''Support''' - Take on those notes given to you in the oppose section.
'''Weak Support''' Some legitmate concerns such as dubious CSD's, speaking plain English and haste. You are great editor and we need admins. Therefore I hope you will work on the areas flagged and come back in 6 months. -
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' don't think abuse of tools will happen '''[[User talk:123Hedgehog456|<span style="color: red">1</span><span style="color: blue">2</span><span style="color: green">3</span>]]
'''Support'''. I hardly think someone with this level of enthusiasm will come anywhere near abusing the tools and, although they may make a few mistakes, no one is perfect and I'm sure My76Strat will own up to them completely and work to have them fixed as soon as possible. As to concerns about length of replies, I would rather that an administrator have give a long, well-considered and thoughtful reply (as My76Strat has done throughout this RfA) than a short and dismissive one (as I have seen a few administrators do on occasion).
No major concerns. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support:'''No reason why not--
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and I think you'll make a fine addition.
'''Support''' as owner of a '63 Strat.
'''Support''' He weighs facts carefully.
'''Support''' – The candidate seems to have enough of an understanding of what the project's about and what he wants to do on the project to be trusted. He isn't the finished article, but who ever is when they take on a new role or a new job? We all have to learn from experience. All the best, and good luck. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry but I have some concerns regarding your judgement, when it comes to determining if a username is disruptive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=416435261&diff=prev Here] you reported {{User|Nigahiga12}}, without [[Nigahiga|checking]] first and while the user hadn't even edited yet; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=416262577&diff=prev here] you reported {{User|Ownerofcanada}}, again while the user hadn't even edited; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=412582512&diff=prev here] you reported {{User|Nigsyman}}. None of these usernames, in my opinion, is disruptive or offensive; or, at least, not so much so as to deserve being blocked outright. Also, I have concerns regarding your [[WP:CSD|CSD]] taggings. Sometimes, it seems you're a bit too trigger-happy and do not check the article's history, as happened [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Jung_Sung-Ho&diff=416499710&oldid=416499690 here], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miriam_Ashby&diff=next&oldid=410921970 here], or [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Providence_%28religious_movement%29&diff=415823034&oldid=415822931 here]. Other times you tag an article as a hoax, without making sure it actually is, such as [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Erotic_Asphyxiation&diff=413794691&oldid=413794458 here] or [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Al-Haramain_v._Obama&diff=407756502&oldid=407755891 here]; or you tag per [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Reporter_Blues&diff=413818894&oldid=413818769 A7] an [[Reporter Blues|article]], when [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] doesn't apply to cartoon series. Finally, in these three cases you tag per [[WP:CSD#A1|A1]] or [[WP:CSD#A3|A3]] an article less than 3 minutes after its creation: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Last_Light_%28novel%29&diff=406916904&oldid=406916882 1 minute], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_%28season_37%29&diff=415924305&oldid=415924095 1 minute] and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Fundamental_number&diff=408501472&oldid=408501275 2 minutes]. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're ready to be an admin just yet. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Link to your talk page isn't obvious in your signature. Some outsiders and media types view Wikipedia as an ever-more-cliqued-off society, obfuscating an important means of communication only supports that notion. Not everyone can hover and deduce where your talk page is. (I'm also a bit surprised that I have to add a # for you so my vote numbers correctly.)
'''Oppose''' on the basis of Salvio's examples. The summary I'd give is "trigger-happy" and its the last thing we need around here.   I would never disqualify for one or two bad taggings, but these are simply too many, and not even disputable. Those hoax taggings really concern me in particular. The first might be a result of inadequately wide reading (and not the sort of reading some people might have in mind , but mainstream novelists like PD James) , but the second must be an example of not thinking, or possibly of mistakenly tagging the wrong article--because the article when tagged had excellent sources.  I also see severe problems with communication. I should be the last one to ever use tl;dr as a reason, but the excess verbiage in Q2, and in the response below  to TCO, indicates a lack of skill in focusing on the essentials. '''
'''Weakest possible oppose''' On the basis of the CSD mistaggings that Salvio has done a terrific job outlining above. The excessive verbosity is also annoying. You're applying for a mop, not running for POTUS. That said, you have contributed a lot of great work (e.g. vandal fighting and NPP), but I don't think you're ready to be a sysop quite yet.--
'''Oppose''': I originally wanted to support this candidate, but those CSD taggings are unacceptable and show that the candidate is either rushing or is not judging articles properly. [[User:Logan|Logan]] <sub>[[User_talk:Logan|Talk]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Logan|Contributions]]</sup> 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC) <small>Moved from support.
'''Oppose''' Salvio's diffs are enough to draw an oppose. I really think we need fewer shoot first and ask questions later admins.
'''Oppose''' per Salvio's diffs. It's gives me a sense that My76Strat has a tendency to rush things without checking. An administrator needs patience, and with the diffs provided, he does not have enough patience to work as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Salvio.
'''Oppose''' participating in a move war with [[Jonathan A. Obar]]. Seems to value speedy action, but perhaps more time is required before clicking. However there seems have been plenty of good work done too.
per Salvio's diffs and Minimac's comment, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough time served to meet [[USer:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. Also concerned about their attitude, based on some of the condescending, patronising responses to other editors on this RfA.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Concerns with policy knowledge, judgement, and lack of competence. Move warring: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jaobar&diff=prev&oldid=417895817].  The user moved a userpage, [[User:Jaobar]] back into the mainspace as [[Jonathan A. Obar]], when the original move of [[User:Jaobar]] to [[Jonathan A. Obar]] had already been reverted by an administrator.  By making reverting that move, My76Strat violated guidelines/policies [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:ADS]], [[WP:CSD#A7]], and [[WP:GNG]] all in one go. When asked about it, I received [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&diff=prev&oldid=417908254 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastily&action=historysubmit&diff=417929698&oldid=417927204 this], and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastily&action=historysubmit&diff=417931708&oldid=417929698 this] in which he desperately attempted to defend his egregious action.  After receiving three posts to my one query in a matter of several hours, in which the latter two were largely incomprehensible, I am concerned with My76Strat's ability to communicate effectively and handle situations while under pressure.  Administrators deal with scrutiny everyday, and if My76Strat is going to act rashly under pressure as he did today, then he is not fit to be an administrator.  -'''
'''Weak Oppose''' leaning neutral. I'm afraid I'm going to have to land here. Pressure is a large part of the administrator role and the debacle above shows that My76Strat may not be able to cope with the that pressure. It's not so much the mistake of moving the page, but the attempt to clarify on Fastily's page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&diff=417908254&oldid=416915938 here], which 1) seemed rushed and 2) jumped to a conclusion which was not shown from evidence (that Fastily would "defect" to oppose based on a clarification request). Taking 2 hours to reply properly would not have been a problem - the RfA lasts a week. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' great potential, committed editor with a clean blocklog.  But largely per Salvio I'm afraid you aren't ready for the delete button. I also had a quick look myself and quickly found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=B%C3%BCble&timestamp=20110222022422&diff=prev this A7 tag]. I've no view as to what makes a skateboarder famous, but there are famous skateboarders and this article clearly asserts that the subject is a famous skateboarder. I don't know whether it would have survived AFD, but the test of CSD is much more cautious. I would be happy to reevaluate you in a few months if you've learned a little restraint in your CSD tagging. NB If you are fairly sure that something is a hoax but not quite certain, {{tl|hoax}} is more appropriate than {{tl|db-hoax}}. ''
'''Oppose''' despite your obvious worthiness in so many other areas. Speedy deletion is a powerful and dangerous tool, though obviously a necessary one. You have not yet demonstrated that you have the patience and good judgement necessary to make good decisions in this area. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral).  This is not based on your knowledge of content-creation (although I still have questions on your practical experience there, but leave that aside).  Have just seen a lot of long-windedness, and rushing around with excuses.  It's come through in various aspects of this RFA trial by fire.  We need a more poised precense from administrators (all the dealing with users).  Please spend some serious time doing content creation and structuring your thoughts.
'''Oppose''' Per Salvio and, you twice, forgot to sign a comment on this RFA. You went back and signed one, but forgot [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/My76Strat&diff=prev&oldid=418005678 the other.]
'''Strong oppose''' <del>Oppose</del> (see comment below), per Salvio and my own concerns over the general quality of communication demonstrated in this RfA: being in constant contact with a large part of the community, admins should always be able to communicate effectively and politely, and I feel some of your comments so far (such as ''"Fetchcomms, you are one of the people who I have learned from since the very begging"'', ''"For you to recognizing the qualities I endeavor to permeate strengthens my very resolve"'', ''"I resent your misrepresentation of the facts however, I can not imagine a reason for you to create a malicious fabrication, so it has to be a mistake of some kind"'', etc) don't demonstrate that ability. --
'''Oppose''' The diffs in Salvio's oppose indicate some carelessness, and the candidate's response to that oppose is quite concerning in its length, tone, and (in)accuracy.  I also have concerns about his general attitude at this RfA.  Less importantly, his answer to Q4 is wrong (or, at best, answers the wrong question). —
'''Oppose''', with a heavy heart. I consider this user a personal friend, having communicated a great deal, off-wiki. However, I have to stick with my principles in judging a candidate. Three concerns; 1. Some dubious CSD's, noted above; not in itself enough to warrant oppose from me, because the candidate has expressed regret, and admitted errors - which is admirable. But the concern is cumulative with the others; 2. Inability to speak plain-English. I have nothing against good use of language, but the comments right here in RfA have highlighted this concern; an admin must be able to convey information in a clear form. Gtdp gives examples, above; plus the schoolboy errors in edits even on this RfA - not signing...which may be more related to my third concern, 3. Haste. The incident regarding the move (during this RfA), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&diff=prev&oldid=417921048 this diff]...well, I am not concerned with the specifics, but,...it shows a lack of ability to STOP, THINK, and then act. There's no deadline here. And so...with enormous regret, I find myself opposing a user who I feel is of huge benefit to Wikipedia. I truly hope that you'll be back here, in 3-6 months, having directly addressed these concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' but moral support - I agree with Salvio.  Not now, but one day. -
'''Oppose''' at this time.  Are you a young person? Your general demeanour seems 'young' - a level of impatience, errors made in haste, argumentation, the rather schoolboy assumption that ejaculation is a rude word [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ejaculation] etc. All you need is a little time to become a better editor and more likely to succeed at your next RfA.  Follow up on all your mistakes - every time someone questions you, start by assuming that maybe there is something to learn here (4chan always excepted!!). In no time you'll have learned far more about language, about wikipedia, and about interacting with people generally.
'''Oppose'''. Strat has surely done a lot of good work, but I think the concerns about hastiness / trigger-happiness don't sit well with getting the extra buttons.
'''Oppose'''. Per Salvio /DGG: examples do not inspire confidence that the candidate is able to work readily and safely with the tools. The happytalk nom statement, the tail-wagging responses to the Supports and the argumentativeness elsewhere, the ostentatious sig: communication and judgment concerns.
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong oppose''' {{small|(See below.)}} I looked through the examples of hasty speedy tagging that Salvio offered, and found that yes, generally this user is a bit quick on the trigger when it comes to that. However, my main concern here is with communication. It's very important that administrators are clear, calm, and ''to the point'' in their interaction with other users, particularly new ones. There are far too many examples of heated responses that were clearly not thought through in this RfA alone: "Salvo, would you care to tell me why you embellished this report to highlight that I filed the report before the user even edited when that is not true?", "If you don't like what I posted to Fastily's talkpage that is fine. It wasn't meant for you anyway.", "Or would you rather jump on the nearest bandwagon and spread a bunch of untruths.", "And it is all crap.", etc. Furthermore, other users have mentioned the [[wikt:sesquipedalian|sesquipedalian]] speech. This alone would not be negative, but the general structure of the user's responses often forces me to read them more than once. Frankly, the user could benefit from more time spent constructing a calm and coherent response and less time consulting the thesaurus. Also, it feels a little strange to be tempted to send an RfA candidate a {{tlc|uw-sign}}. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Oppose''' due to excessive haranguing of opposers.
'''Oppose'''. Some rather too hasty decisions have been made. I'm sure you will learn to slow down, and gain guidance from the experiences of this RfA. Let's see you again, with better decisions in six months. '''
As you have wished to leave this RFA open for additional feedback, I would just like to reiterate what has been brought up throughout this RFA and will be in my opinion, the most important criteria should ''you'' ever wish to be an administrator here - your communication style. Even should you show in the future you have the crucial policies down, you must still be able to convey that you can guide those of many different educational levels and from other primary languages that come here, how to abide by these policies and help with their questions in a more precise, easy to understand style. The best way I could put it is this. When giving a presentation, know your audience. If this was a scientific research peer review, the style here would not be so pronounced and probably appropriate (minus the somewhat excessive pleasantries); however, for the most part, this is not the case here. This is not meant to diminish any of the work you have put into this site, only to have you take a moment to really consider if this is something you really want to do, changing the way you communicate (whether it be fundamental, nervousness, or haste) to met a certain perceived expectation to gain the bit. kindly
'''Oppose'''. CSD tagging needs to be very tight. (Also, it is unclear to me if My76Strat participates in AfD.) The rather lengthy answers and discussions with other editors also worry me. Admins need to communicate well with a range of editors, not all of whom have a great understanding of English.
'''Oppose''' based on the many reasonable concerns have been raised above.
'''Oppose''' - I'm not in this section to pile-on, but  for for me, you  blew it  with  your answer to  Q5 - some worse publications of my  past  behaviour were vented on  my  own  recent RfA (but  they  were in  the distant  past). You are highly communicative, but [[User:GorillaWarfare]]  makes some pertinent  observations, as do  many  others, and I'm deeply  disturbed with  the message you  sent  to  Fastily. I'm occasionally accused of wordiness myself, but  I get  the feeling that  your responses are TLDR, an attempt to  be a little too smart, and an unusually  undue effort, bordering on sparring, to defend your RfA.  If it is an example of the way  you  will be engaging  in the inevitable conflicts you  will be involved in  as an admin, I  seriously  do  not  think  you  already have the right  approach  for mediation. I  don't  think  this is a trait you  can change in  a day  or even in  six months  hence.  Nevertheless, I hope I'm wrong, because you are a mature and intelligent individual with bags of energy, your other talk  page communications, if wordy,  are reasonably  civil and polite, and your work  on  the Ambassador programme is beyond  reproach. I admire your enthusiasm and courage in coming forward to be considered for adminship and holding  out to  the bitter end.
'''Oppose''' – Unfortunately, I will have to put my hat with the oppose lot. Q5 worries me, and your CSD tags need to be more accurate, else we scare away newcomers who may have something constructive to contribute. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' - Mostly per Q5, although some of the other concerns mentioned weigh in as well. More than anything, what bothers me is this tendency to use four syllables when one would do, and ten lines when a few well-chosen words would be clearer. My76Strat may think his walls of text display intelligence, wide vocabulary and clear reasoning. Infact, all they achieve is obfuscation of his point in a sea of totally unecessary pseudo-academic waffle. If I have to re-read an admins post two or three times to be sure I have fully understood what they are saying, then they are almost certainly going to end up being a net negative. The failure to even understand or properly acknowledge the problem that 28Bytes raises only compounds the issue.--
'''Oppose''' -- I'm a lawyer, and used to reading walls of complex legalese, and I can't understand a word of what you say half of the time. To be blunt, fix it so we can evaluate you as a candidate, rather than a joke.
'''Oppose''' I originally supported this candidate, but his increasingly odd responses on this RfA led me to withdraw that support. He has now crossed from odd to outright hostility towards others in some of his comments here. For that reason I think him quite unsuitable to be an administrator and must oppose.
'''Oppose''' Response to Swatjest above is completely inappropriate. --
'''Oppose, with regrets'''. I'm not really bothered by the excessive prose (although a lesson in brevity would do wonders for this candidate), the fancy signature, or past mistakes that the candidate has owned up to. I see a candidate who is clearly intelligent, who has a love for Wikipedia, and wants to do the right thing. But in observing the progress of this RfA, I also see a melt-down under pressure. The RfA process does put candidates through a wringer. How they react to it speaks volumes about how they may conduct themselves as an administrator. Dealing with conflict, particularly regarding others disagreeing with administrative decisions you make, is part of the job. I'm not convinced My76Strat is compatible with the job, and I suspect he wouldn't enjoy the job if he had it. ~
'''Neutral''' I appreciate your intentions, your thoughts toward the project as a whole, and the contributions that you've made thus far. However, the diffs provided by Salvio above in the Oppose section are concerning enough to me to land me here rather than in support of you, at this time. Good luck, however!
'''Neutral''' A well-meaning, hard-working candidate, but the CSD-tagging concerns prevent me from supporting at this time.
'''Neutral'''.  On the plus you're a good editor, but you there is concern you might be too quick delete an artile or block a user.  Being an Admin user requires patience and tolerance with other users.  Especially with new users who are prone to make mistakes.  &ndash;
'''Neutral''' Leaning, I regret to say towards oppose; but not quite getting there. You have a lot of good work to show, cancelled out to a meaningful extent by significant errors. Please try and curb the verbosity, which tend to impact negatively on you whatever the content thereof; and, purely as a personal opinion which not all may agree with, I suggest that in your next RfA you try not to play such a prominent part. Discussing the oppose comments should be done only if essential, and discussing the support comments is of no value whatsoever. --<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' I see a user with dedication to the project, and one who takes his role here seriously.  Unfortunately, I can't support because of communication concerns.  I recommend reading some of [[George Orwell]]'s essays on non-fiction writing, basically, he advises to never use two words where one will do.  I'd also recommend slowing down a bit while patrolling.  The vast amount of dodgy new articles coming in every day sometimes gets me a bit panicky, but remember you aren't the last line of defense.  Anyway, keep your head up, and regardless of the outcome here, remember that you are a valued contributor.
'''Neutral''' <small>(Moved from Support)</small> I see a highly motivated Wikipedian, but some of the oppose concerns and the reactions to some of the comments mean I'm unable to support at this time - but I hope I can support a future run. --
'''Neutral''' - I concur with Chzz's excellent comments above. I've worked with you at AfC and seen you as a UAA regular and would love to see you be an admin in the nearish future. I'm not that concerned about specific incidents and misunderstandings, but the overall pattern of communication is problematic. Portions of your answers above are simply incomprehensible to my tiny brain, especially Q5. This is a text-based medium and clear explanations are vital, especially when working with new or misguided editors. It sounds like you have some ideas on how you'll work on this, and that's wonderful. I very much hope I can support you in a new RfA in a few month.
I see overwhelming enthusiasm and nearly endless energy for the project, but I'm not convinced that you're ready for the extra tools just yet. I echo many of the people who gave comments in this RfA, mainly keeping cool and calm under pressure (and therefore offering optimal responses to queries and such). I commend your willingness to see this through to the end; don't let the criticism bring you down or dampen your enthusiasm even as you take it on board to improve. Best,
'''Neutral''' I would really, really love to support you but I'm sorry, I can't. My conversations with you in IRC has been generally good. I can vouch to you being helpful in IRC. But, the concerns mentioned in the opposes concerns me. I think that you need to "slow down" a little. Don't be so hasty in your editing. This might not be the right time for you to run in RFA. Maybe in 4-6 months time. Prove to us that you are going to change on-wiki. You can count on my support then.
'''Neutral''' -- I understand you want more feedback, so here it is: On the positive side you have many valuable contributions to various areas of WP, particularly to the areas you want to get involved in. You have been made aware of some problems with your CSD tagging; I trust you'll learn from it. What cautioned me from supporting right away was your talk page archive; it seems you learned many fundamental things only very shortly (1-3 months) prior to this RfA. In this sense your application came too soon. What finally convinced me not to support was the communication issue mentioned by many participants: Not every question requires a 200-words response, not every RfA !vote invites you to hit the "edit" button, and eventually, you do not need to show off your rich vocabulary in everything you write here. Some of your analyses come across as kafkaesque at best, and as pompous and obfuscated at worst. Cheers,
'''small comment''' (not a vote of any kind!) I was surprised upon checking on RfA just now and finding you both running and swamped by opposes. I've always held you in high esteem as one of the more composed of the users whose names I come across often. That said, being someone who was taught English by non-native speakers, it took me four or five reads to parse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/My76Strat&diff=418439028&oldid=418437960 this comment]; even now, I'm not sure what it's trying to say. (I've given up on attempting to get my head around much of the rest of the discussion on this page.) I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already -- but since you've opened this up for feedback, I was simply compelled to note that I don't think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/My76Strat&diff=418722316&oldid=418722075 a fourteen-year-old] (is that 9th grade?) would find your prose here anything short of baffling. A bit more clarity in your writing would go a long way toward helping those of us who don't have a university-level English education (which I imagine is a fair amount of the community!) That said, don't let this RfA make you feel that you're not appreciated; you certainly are a valued member of the community. I'm sorry this has been the shambles it appears to be.
'''Support''' Have seen the editor's work in account creation in the ACC tool interface and have been thoroughly impressed - the editor stands currently as the 16th highest new account creator among active editors handling requests coming through the tool interface (the remaining 15, leave one, are all administrators on either the Interface or on the English Wikipedia) and 26th highest since the English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface became active. The editor has assisted over 340 users in opening new accounts with the English Wikipedia and I view that as one of the sincerest examples of dedicated contribution to the advancement of Wikipedia. Would love to have My76 as an admin.
'''Support''' {{ec}}{{ec}} I can't remember if I supported you the first time, but I do remember your RFA in general and what happened after wards. I think you have progressed since then, and therefore see no reason not to give you the tools.
'''Weak support'''. I sampled My76Strat's most recent UAA reports and I see nothing unreassuring there, unlike the last time, which is good; however, checking My76Strat's CSD nominations, I still see some weird tags: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Best+Selling+Fan+Like+LED+Watch+with+Blue+LED+Display&timestamp=20110801023808 this A1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Star+Kimble&timestamp=20110719063829 this G4] (the article had only been speedily deleted before, whereas [[WP:G4|G4]] only applies to articles deleted after an [[WP:AFD]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Global+Lighting&timestamp=20110706225831 this A7] (the article only contained the word "Yay") and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Panda+The+Panda&timestamp=20110511223703 this G1] (for a related discussion on My76Strat's talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My76Strat&oldid=428659195#CSD_nomination_of_Panda_The_Panda CSD nomination of Panda The Panda]). Despite these mistakes, I believe you'd be a net positive; please, just remember to do things slowly and to ask for advice whenever unsure. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' with the caveat that you never change.
'''Support''' - no reason to believe the tools will be misused. --
I've noticed a marked improvement at UAA and I think My76Strat is ready. '''
'''Support'''. Net positive. Good luck!--
<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' based largely on communication issues. My76Strat's commentary is commonly impenetrable, needlessly and often incorrectly using phraseology that prevents clear understanding. A great deal of administrative work ''requires'' accessible communication with editors of highly variable English-speaking abilities. That this pattern continues after it was a major point of contention in the last RFA suggests My76Strat does not think this is a serious concern. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. I believe that you have not left enough time since your last RfA. I also find it alarming that the experience brought on in you symptoms that required urgent medical attention, and that the role of administrator may not therefore be in your best interests.
'''Strong Oppose''' Absolutely not.  In short, My76Strat is mentally unstable, prone to personal attacks ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastily&action=historysubmit&diff=419256338&oldid=419128466 calls me "quip"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy76Strat&action=historysubmit&diff=418718177&oldid=418713852 calls me "FastQuip"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMy76Strat&action=historysubmit&diff=418651883&oldid=418642634 Attacking other users at his RfA: "An ass by anyother name is still a donkey"] - when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy76Strat&action=historysubmit&diff=418698132&oldid=418686650 questioned], he responded with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy76Strat&action=historysubmit&diff=418708552&oldid=418698132 this]), and more troubling, is incapable of communicating comprehensibly ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastily&action=historysubmit&diff=417908254&oldid=416915938], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastily&action=historysubmit&diff=417921048&oldid=417920496], Also, see responses to !votes and questions at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/My76Strat]]).  Upon the failure of his previous [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/My76Strat|RfA]], My76Strat was found to have both an egregious understanding of policy and an inability to handle even the most ''minor'' scrutiny without having a meltdown.  For a good length of time after the previous RfA, his user page consisted of a childish mockery of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fastily&oldid=384831310 mine]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMy76Strat&action=historysubmit&diff=419402659&oldid=419256679].  I had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=419928331&diff=prev personally request] it's removal.  For the record, all this happened no less than four months ago.  Sorry, but you do not have the qualities I look for in an administrator, in fact, I see quite the ''opposite''.  I'll be boarding a plane soon, so I was unable to post as many diffs as I would have liked to.  Should I have time, I'll add more later.  Sincerely, '''
'''Oppose''' Per evidence of persistent personal attacks. '''
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011/My76StratRFA]]. That RfA began as one of the joke RfAs of April Fools' Day 2011 on Wikipedia, but Strat decided that if some users ignored the day and seriously !voted, that he would treat it as a serious RfA. If not, it was a joke RfA. That major lapse in judgment concerns me as well as the constant commentary and grieving from Strat regarding the outcome of his previous RfA at any RfA-related discussion. Strat's mental state troubles me, especially after one former admin (whom I will not name out of respect) was banned by ArbCom for his mental instability a few months ago. Finally, the communication issue is severe enough to make me oppose alone. As Reaper Eternal says in the neutral section, I think you are a great editor, and I wish you luck in your future endeavors on Wikipedia. '''
I have to end up here. While I like My76Strat as an editor, I don't think he would make a particularly good administrator. I looked through his contributions, and found that he still has the propensity towards loquacious and occasionally incoherent paragraphs when he should have used only used a couple sentences. However, that would be easy enough to fix, especially if you were to apply Tony1's method on removing redundancies to your talk page posts.<br/>However, I am far more concerned about your instability. After your first RFA, you retired multiple times, posted pages of text that made me concerned about your sanity, and generally triggered a ''massive'' amount of drama. Additionally, your parody of Fastily's userpage was silly.
I'm joining RE here. I too like him as an editor, but feel that 'perhaps not yet' is the best policy at present. His wording has improved from the sesquipedelian to merely slightly verbose (with patches of startling clarity), and he has a sense of humour that I think some miss. (Unless I'm missing something...) (Don't answer that.) To be honest, I can read Fastily's first two diffs as being somewhat complimentary, but can see how they can also be interpreted the opposite way too. I've read them three times, and still get an ambiguity. However, ambiguity is not a good thing when dealing with angry customers (unless you're a used car salesman about to start a fortnight's holiday). My advice would be to keep cool, keep improving the clarity and simplicity, and keep working in the admin fringe areas to gain respect and reputation for good work. And to remember that Wikipedia is only a life and death matter for the spammers who haven't yet made the grade and this is their last chance (they think...). For the rest of us, it's a hobby.
As nom.
'''Almost-beat-the-nom support''' Excellent candidate, no worries. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' - Per nomination and personal interactions.
'''Support''' has an extensive record of quality contributions to articles, sometimes contentious or rapidly changing current events, and to administrative work. Talk page discussions show maturity. Of course, some mistakes have been made from time to time, but the candidate seems to respond well to criticism and quickly to acknowledge corrections. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', great user, just make sure that you read up on the speedy deletion guidelines.
'''Weak Support''' The only thing I'm worried about is your A7 tagging. --
'''Support'''- every time I've seen this person around Wikipedia they've always been talking large amounts of sense.
'''Support''' The CSD tagging worries me, but I've been there before and I know what it's like and I trust this user, he's helpful, nice and a fantastic content contributor. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' Per the answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - have seen this editor in action at the 2010 Polish Air Force TU-154 crash article. As stated by N419BH, there have been many obstacles to overcome due to language difficulties nationalistic differences which make keeping to NPOV harder. I've every confidence that we have admin material here.
'''Support''' - some balls-ups brought to light below indicate that you should just take a quick step back to study the deletion policies better. All it would've taken to avoid the mistakes highlighted, is a little more time taken over the decision. You can't rush things when you're an admin, especially with deletion and blocking. However, you are a very capable user and you've been of immense use to the project. I'm willing to support this because I feel that a few mistakes shouldn't be landed down so harshly, providing that a person can learn from them and improve. You must do that.
'''Support''' Looking through the contribs I really can't find anything to oppose over. The two CSD examples provided are borderline; there doesn't even seem to be anything wrong with the first one. ''
'''Strong Support''': Worked with N419BH on numerous occasions and seen him around the Wiki, both times doing really good work.  User knows their way around the Wiki, knows the "lay of the land" and the policies and is friendly (which, when trying to calm drama down is a good thing).  Give this guy a mop and a free T-Shirt. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Reasonably good candidate.
'''Support'''. I think that if approved, the candidate would move slowly with the tools and wind up doing a fine job with them, so this is a true support rather than a "moral support." That being said, the outcome of this RfA is already pretty clear, and the candidate would probably be well-advised to withdraw soon and to try again after a few months of editing taking the opposers' and neutral commenters' concerns into account. (Though not enough to cause me to oppose, I also disagree with the response to question 7.)
'''Oppose''' Sorry but with A7 nominations like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natixis_Asset_Management&diff=prev&oldid=428186077 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advanced_International_Translations&diff=prev&oldid=428186001 this] only 5 days ago I simply do not trust the candidate with the delete button. Also, a bit older (but the user does not have many recent taggings): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feedthrough&diff=prev&oldid=416153074 A1 with context], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hilary_J_Bell&diff=416152589&oldid=416152463 A7 with multiple strong claims of importance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_My_Life_%282004_film%29&diff=prev&oldid=415790571 A7 for a film]. And even some of the deleted articles were deleted incorrectly (next links admins-only): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Romtoc+Packet+Protocol&timestamp=20110413062637&diff=prev A7 for an Internet port] (A7 only covers web ''content'' and there is a suitable target for redirecting at [[List of TCP and UDP port numbers]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=SEW2871&timestamp=20110413062200&diff=prev A1 with clear context] (deleted by an admin infamous for incorrectly applying CSD). As the candidate indicated that they want to work with speedy deletion candidates, I expect them not to make such really basic mistakes in tagging and I simply would not trust them to have the deletion button at this time. If this succeeds, I strongly recommend them to be ''very'' careful with speedy deletions and have an experienced admin check their deletions if they are unsure. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy.  SoWhy seems to be much better than finding CSD nominations than I, and I have contested too many A7 nominations already to support this user's adminship request.  As I said above, all other activity looks great - I was at first truly in support.  However, if N419BH studies the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]] and makes sure not to make any mistakes, I will have no problem supporting at the next RfA if this one doesn't make it through.
'''Oppose''' I was hoping to support with the nomination statement, but I have been finding problematic speedy deletion nominations such as [[Romtoc Packet Protocol]] nommed for A7, where the topic is out of scope, [[SEW2871]] a chemical with full chemical formula and already categorised for A1, and [[The great lusitania]] for A1 which had a clear explanation of what it was (should have let prod run it course). [[Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO)]]  using "WP:NOTDICTIONARY" as a speedy delete criterion. It looks Like I will have to go through all these and restore lost assets to the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with policy knowledge in the administrative areas candinate wishes to work.  Sorry, '''
I would prefer admins to have understood and applied the main point of A7 [[User_talk:SoWhy#CSD_A7|for a few months]], not just seven days. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Sorry, but I just can't trust the candidate with the delete button at this time, based on the evidence. With a better understanding, and a few months of applying it, he should be fine for a return visit to RFA.
As much as I'd hate to say "per SoWhy", I guess that'll have to do.
I don't like to pile on, but the diffs that SoWhy and Graeme presented are just too much. Per above is generally not constructive, but I feel all the evidence needed has been displayed above. Come back in a couple months with an improved CSD track record. Regards, <font color="green">
Good user, seen him around, but the diffs presented elsewhere in this section lead me to '''oppose''' at this time. --
'''Oppose''' per the links provided by SoWhy. Hopefully, he'll learn from his mistakes in the deletion department, and will practice some more in the NPP section. No blocks though.
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament, policy knowledge, and experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' as others have noted, deletion issues combined with issues around temperament arise with this candidate. I do not think he or she is to be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry. You are helpful to the project. But the CSD tags diffs shown by SoWhy is concerning. So you will have to improve your CSD tagging. -
'''Oppose''' SoWhy makes a solid point that is very tough to ignore.  Too many CSD problems too recently.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy and A4.
'''Oppose''' per the highlighted CSD issues and the answer to question 4 is unsatisfactory. Examples were asked for and this is an area the candidate wants to work in, so a more in-depth and researched answer would have been nice. Alone that's not enough to oppose, but CSD issues are '''
'''Oppose''' Your description said to me that you just want it so much.  It is like that you just want power.  The other arguments are good too.  ~~
'''Oppose''' - SoWhy hits all the right notes. ''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' over the CSD problems quite well documented by SoWhy and the problematic answer to question 8.
'''Oppose''' - Concern over deletion tagging and overall lack of experience. --'''
'''Oppose'''-[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=prev&oldid=421651534 Annoying comment.]  It was done, and making further comments was silly.
'''Oppose''' – I cannot support in light of SoWhy's diffs above. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
A7 issues aside, the candidate would otherwise seem a good fit, so I'm not opposing outright.
'''Neutral''' Apart from CSD issues would have supported so I feel I cannot oppose.
'''Neutral''' Not able to support at this time per CSD tagging illustrated in the opposes.  Otherwise appears to be a good candidate. my apologies. ''<B>--
Agree with Mjroots that there are admin qualities here to work with. However, the degree of the A7 mistakes prevent me from supporting at this time. —
'''Neutral''' Candidate has demonstrated trustworthiness and a great deal enthusiasm for the project; however, the CSD mistaggings and answers to the questions show it's a bit too early. A great candidate for four to six months of intensive mentoring and coaching.--
'''Neutral'''. I have a good general impression of the user, but the CSD issue suggests "not now, but next time".
'''Support''' I've seen Alan the Roving Ambassador around, and they always seem to be contributing in a positive manner. Will make a great admin. Also, that is an awesome name.
'''Support''' - I've been watching for this! ;)
'''Support''' I've seen him around a great deal, and he strikes me as a rather level headed individual. I thought he was one already. The more wikignome admins, the better IMO.
'''Support'''. I haven't done all my RfA homework on this one yet, but as Swarm says below in the oppose section, "I have a good impression of this user overall." I agree the username issue is a bit confusing, but also quite easily fixable. ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 3|Look in here for one way.]]) Among the non-admin AN/I regulars, Alan is ''well'' above average in cluefulness and helpfulness. Not perfect (I wasn't thrilled about the tag-team-hatting of TomPointTwo this week) but certainly a net positive presence on that board.
'''Strongest possible support''' per Chris Cunningham below. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC) (Original rationale struck). I also think that question 10, and all comments about the candidate's answer to it, should be ignored. I do not think that it was fair.
'''Support''' I think he is clearly very experienced and I'm not bothered by the proportion of automated edits. I would prefer him to change his signature if appointed though <font color="#00bb00">
'''Support''' - User appears to know what they are doing. The signature issue is the closest thing to a minor issue I see, and even that is not a big deal to me. I clicked on the signature and ended up in the right place.
'''Support''' - My gut was, "This is a good editor". Research backs that up. The name issue is the only one I really have and that's easily correctable. Alan's work at ANI shows a lot of clue and a fair amount of tact. Overall, he'll definitely be an asset. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.   --
'''Support''' With enthusiasm
'''Conditional Support''' conditional on agreeing to fix signature/username problem.  Se no other issues, classic case of "already thought was an admin"
[[WP:NETPOS|Net positive]]. Username linking a non issue for me (but I do understand the concern). Slightly to much ANI involvement, but hey there we go. Not likely to nuke the place or piss off other editors with tool use. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', seems like an okay guy; opposition hardly has a leg to stand on.
Per answer to question 6.  I usually will put an article through AFD, but if a copyvio is discovered then the article must be deleted until it can be rewritten in another way.  &ndash;
'''Strongest possible support''' - The user looks like a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]], and the issues presented below seem very minor, especially the lack of content creation. The user knows what he's doing, and I believe that it would be very beneficial to the encyclopedia if the candidate was given the mop and bucket. [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|Absolutely]].
'''Support''' I understand that there is not a lot of content creation from this editor, but their actions and comments at the Admin Noticeboards does not lead me to think that they do not appreciate or are ignorant of what content editors do and the problems they face. My impression is that this is a person who is more adept at the clerical and backroom side of building the project. However, my support is solely based on whether - in my experience of their editing - they can be trusted to use the tools; I do not see them trying to break the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' A vast amount of content creation is not mandatory, so long as the editor has a good understanding of policy and procedures, which I feel this editor has. The comments about his signature are wholly irrelevant to this issue, and should not IMHO have been offered as meaningful objections. His signature is totally irrelevant to his potential ability as an admin.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Candidate is always very helpful at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]].  Why not?--
'''Support''' I have never been unimpressed by this user.
'''Support'''. I've seen nothing in his past edits that would suggest he would use the additional tools wisely.  Someone posted down below suggesting that focusing on non-content editing would lead to an overly aggressive editor, but I've never seen any problem in the tone of his posts.  It seems to me that most raised objections are contrary to the ideas behind [[WP:DEAL]]
'''Support'''. The username concern is not a major issue. Seems to have ability to be a great admin. --
'''Support''' No cause for concern is evident. Opposes are unpersuasive as they seem unrelated to fitness to have the extra bits. --
'''Support, for ability to learn complexity quickly'''. After reading the "Oppose" section, I was concerned about content-judgment, so I posed the "[[Blue iceberg]]" questions, knowing this article/topic was mysteriously missing, but also knowing it is quite famous re [[RMS Titanic|R.M.S. ''Titanic'']] in 1912 (99 years ago). Although [[WP:notability]] is based on the proportionate coverage in [[WP:RS]]'s (and not how a title is used within WP articles), I felt the candidate was quickly learning how topics can link together, while juggling the multiple meanings of the term "blue iceberg" as sometimes an iceberg which has flipped over to show the smooth melted side (aka "[[blackberg]]"?), or sometimes a blue-colored iceberg, and whether to have a separate article (or merge into "Iceberg"), not fully aware of how notable "blue iceberg" might be. I was pleased with the open-ended responses considering multiple, mainstream meanings for a major term, where many high-count article writers are likely to be confused in writing multiple meanings for the same term (consider "[[Blue moon]]" as 2nd full moon in a month, versus 3rd full moon of 4 in a season, or "[[Trivia]]" as either trivial items or [[Trivia and Quadrivia]] aka [[trivium]] of [[Liberal Arts]]). Other content concerns can be learned quickly. Hence, passed this complex ''[[trial by fire]]'', well done (pun). -
'''Support''' - This will end up being a moral support, I'm afraid, because there are a large number of opposes with solid reasons for opposing your candidacy. In particular a few of your answers above showed that you might be a bit lacking in areas important to adminship. I might have gone into the neutral column, but I've seen you active in a number of Wikipedia project areas and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. When I see your name attached to a comment, I automatically expect it to be a good one, and it generally is. I hope that if this nomination doesn't succeed, that you don't give up, just work on your experience and try it again when you're better prepared and more knowledgeable. You could be a good administrator. -- '''
Collegial, responsive and apparently good at what he does. The opposes are variously things I'm not overly concerned about (CSD minutae for a candidate whose statement specifically cites CSD as a tricky area he's not overly involved in; admins can learn on the job, and without evidence to suggest wilful cluelessness on the candidate's behalf this seems unlikely to matter), already resolved (the sig issue: hell, I was even used as the example) or garbage (particularly "lack of experience" for a user with 20k+ edits and five years on the project). If this were a "best editor ever" contest then the relative lack of in-depth contribution to particular articles and lack of namespace breadth would be a concern, but it isn't and so it isn't.
'''Support''' The opposes do not sway it for me. '''
'''Support''' - I've had limited dealings with him in the past, but he's always been professional.  I agree with thumperward, I'm not overly concerned about the things that the opposes are are taking issue with.  If he's willing to take on the ''chore'' of adminship, he's got my !vote.
'''Weak Support''' I think this Rfa passing will be tough, but after reading over the opposing comments, I am not completely swayed to oppose. Good luck!
So the candidate says that he'll "proceed cautiously" in CSD, an implicit statement that it won't be a primary area of activity, and yet he's hauled over the coals for answers to CSD questions, at least two of which (5, 6) are completely theoretical and devoid of any relevance to the practical tasks an admin performs? Please. The signature concerns are, in my view, similarly unconvincing. I see good things. My only concern is the high levels of activity on ANI. Good luck. --
'''Support''' - user is holding himself well under pressure here.  Collegial, responsive good at what he does and willing to take his time and learn what he doesn't.
'''Support''' - let's see, we're opposing because his signature is obnoxious, his edits don't have the right balance, and he declined to research and create an article about something on the fly that he's not familiar with and probably didn't feel he could do justice to.  Obviously, I'm supporting ... you should deobnoxiousify&trade; your signature, though. --
'''Support''' - Courteous, excellent anti-vandalism work and experienced user. (as well as 535 edits to [[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]])
'''Support''' - Clean block log, has been around since 2006, no indications of assholery. Those should be the criteria for the janitor job. And say, why don't we change the name of the job from "Administrator" to "Janitor"? That would weed out a lot of the egomaniac problems right there... Whether the candidate is a content creator is 100% irrelevant — in fact, it's better if content creators keep the hell away from the janitorial nonsense if you ask me...
'''Support'''; I've seen the candidate in various places and they have been consistently hardworking, helpful, and pleasant. I respect the concerns expressed by other !voters but think the mop would be in safe hands.
'''<s>Weak</s> support'''. This is one of those cases where I actually do agree with a lot of the opposition and read through the comments closely. As a result I really had to think about this one, but in the end I think he'd be a net positive. I'd rather have an admin who knows where their weak spots are and will proceed with caution there than one who pretends they are an expert on everything. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' – I'm on the same page as Wizardman, especially when it comes to signature vs. actual username. However, having seen good work from him around the areas where he wants to be involved, and fine editing in general, I don't think adminship will pose a problem.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - gnomish article work, copious work at WP:AIV, reviewer, and rollbacker.  Registered as a user for 5 years, and has plenty of barnstars.
'''Support''' While I understand the concerns expressed in the oppose section, they do not sway me from supporting a candidate that is able to work with others in a thoughtful, calm manner and who has a wide variety of experience under his belt. I would suggest a thorough reading of [[WP:CSD]] prior to performing any admin related CSD work, but overall I believe he will be a positive addition to the mop-wielding clean-up crew.
'''Support''' to offset lame oppose !votes. Personally, I don't know the answer to question #6 and the answer to question #5 is good enough. My signature is slightly misleading too; should I request removal of my tools? '''
'''Support'''- seems intelligent and responsible. I am also ''very'' unimpressed with opposes over Alan's response to the "create this article" question and feel they need cancelling out.
'''Support''' Per Blurpeace.
'''Support''' I can see why the Oppose voters acted so, and their reasoning is not invalid; however, and this is just my opinion, I'd like to remind everybody that adminship is a learning experience. Very few candidates are fully-versed in every aspect of an administrator's duty; asking them to be is a bit unrealistic. I doubt Alan is going to dive headfirst into areas he's not familiar with. What's important is that he demonstrates a strongly-professional demeanor, excellent work ethic, and keeps calm under pressure - if that's all handled, I'm sure we can help him build up a few of his weaker areas. Best of luck, Alan.
'''Strong support''' Signature issues are a terrible reason to oppose.  I specifically like your response to question 12.  A perfect answer in my book.
'''Support''' - A clueful, long term  editor that has experience in many different areas of the project. Cordial, inviting and has helped Wikipedia in many different ways. Alan can be trusted with the tools and has shown a willingness to learn and improve. I'm certain he will work on the areas mentioned in the oppose section and the username issue has already been taken care of and therefore moot at this point. I do not feel the concerns raised so far are sufficient to deny granting the bit to a valued editor such as this. - '''''
'''Support'''. Though some of the opposes make some valid points, on balance I think this user would serve the project well as an administrator. I trust that whether or not this RfA is successful, the candidate will take some of the opposers' concerns into account going forward.
'''Support'''. I'm surprised I'm doing this, as I do have some concerns with some of the subtle statements by the candidate. However I think the opposes over signature are unreasonable and am trusting in the other supporters that say he has helped out at ANI and other venues without inciting too much controversy.
'''Support''', mainly per [[WP:NETPOSITIVE]], but also because some of the opposes are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Opposing over his signature (when it's clearly ''not'' the sig of a 12-year-old using a paragraph of mark-up) and the answers to trick/ridiculous questions are no doubt part of the reason that RfA has become such an ordeal. The only opposes that merited serious consideration were those considering content creation and his desire to work at RfPP, but on balance, I think Alan has a level enough head on his shoulders that he won't do anything that can't be promptly undone (not to mention that most of our RfPP admins aren't content creators anyway).
'''Last-minute support'''. I've been on the fence throughout, and the opposers do raise some very valid concerns, which is why I've been hesitant, but I've seen Alan around a lot and always doing useful things. I think he would be more useful to the community with the tools and, as long as he's careful (especially with CSD), a net positive.
'''Support'''; I think Alan is the kind who can learn from his mistakes, and although his CSD answers aren't perfect I think he's willing to learn.  Meant to do this two days ago, see indented neutral comment for why I didn't.
'''Oppose''' Per the signatures policy that the candidate even links to in his own userbox, signatures that contain no reference to the username are strongly discouraged.
'''Oppose''' per Keepscases (minor issue, but perfectly fair point all the same), Snottywong, the relatively low number of non-automated edits and the relatively high number of ANI edits. Individually, these points are quite minor, but together, they're enough for me to oppose. FTR, I have a good impression of this user overall. ''
I agree with Keepscases' statement. I didn't know who "N5iln" was until I saw "Alan the Roving Ambassador". It's confusing for me, what about for new users? In addition, very many mainspace edits but very few article talk page edits, and barely any project talkspace edits. I'd certainly expect to see more policy discussion from an admin, as well as talk page edits for someone with so many article edits. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Lack of content'''.  If candidate lacks the work ethic or brains to write articles, I am concerned about his performance as an admin.  Also my experience is that non content contributing admins tend to turn mean more and just lead us more to a project that is oriented around conduct rather than product (e.g. his ANI fascination or the Project as a whole with its gargantuan arbitration cases).  Even if the user prefers non-writing tasks, would like to see that he has the capacity to do written work before putting him in a supervisory role.  IOW, he does not need to concentrate on writing, but he should "check the box" to show the ability.  It is just too big a part of what is our final product to have no signficant experience.  Also, like anything we try on the Wiki, it would deepen his understanding and make him better able to handle new situations on the job.  (I know this is an unpopular view.)[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Oppose''' Do to the concerns expressed above. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not  altogether satisfied the the answers to  Q. 5, 6, 8, - they  do  not  demonstrate to  me that  your knowledge of CSD is sufficient.  Although  you  have now modified your signature due to  the advice on this RfA, please see this section at [[WP:SIGNATURE|SIGNATURES]], I'm  surprised that  you  would not  already  have realised the inconvenience of such  signatures.  You  have a healthy  number of edits, good work at  AIV, and your enthusiasm  is in  the right  place, but  I  do think  your knowledge of deletion  policy  still  has some way  to  go.
'''Oppose'''. The answers to Kudpung's CSD questions in particular do not instil in me much confidence in the candidate's ability to judge speedy deletion candidates.
'''Oppose''' over general inexperience.  The candidate shows lack of experience with signatures, understanding of account creation, user rights, CSD, and UAA.  I disagree with SW in that I think there is a lot of non-admin work to be done and there are frequently non-admins clerking UAA doing pretty much what the candidate is doing at AIV.  All seperately these are minor issues, but together they show broad lack of knowledge.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' I wasn't sure whether to support this or not, and was going to go neutral; But due to the concerns above, I can't trust this candidate for adminship at the moment. He doesn't have enough content creation (In my opinion content creation would be handy because at [[WP:RFPP]] there will be some requests involving disputes and this requires judgement over content) and I'd rather he did an area more helpful as an admin rather than doing what I call "villainous" actions such as blocking, deleting and protecting, let alone the rollbacking which he does at the moment with Huggle. The signature has changed already, even though I don't mind about signatures.
'''Oppose'''. This candidate lacks/confused over different [[Wikipedia:User access levels|user access levels]]. Accountcreator flag can be granted by admins but this candidate showed that he mixed up different types of flags. I'm worried that if this candidate becomes an admin, various flags are granted to questionable users without knowing exactly what those flags are for and could harm the community.
'''Oppose''' <small>(moved from Neutral)</small> - per my comments in the Neutral section.  The answers to questions 5-8 were not great, and for a candidate with low experience, I'd want to see excellent answers to questions like those before I can support.  (I thought question 10 was handled very well.)  Otherwise, the candidate appears to be an excellent editor, and if he takes a few months to actively participate more in the stated areas of admin interest, I would probably support next time.
'''Oppose''' while not bothered by the signature issue, I cannot support due to your replies to {{u|Kudpung}}'s questions. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Concerns with policy knowledge and experience in areas candinate wishes to work.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned with the editor's lack of knowledge shown through the answers to Kudpung's questions. Regarding Wikid77's request, I would not hold back support if Alan had simply stated that he would prefer not to create an article due to competing priorities. However, he opened the door and essentially stated that an article about blue icebergs was inappropriate, primarily based on his lack of knowledge about the subject and lack of ability to find content on Wikipedia or elsewhere that would possibly support an article. That was followed by referring to the subject as a fringe theory. Just because it isn't mentioned at great length on Wikipedia is not an indicator that an article wouldn't be appropriate and/or welcome. If that were the case, we'd all be outta business. This leaves me concerned that Alan may be too eager to discredit the work of others, because he is either unable to ascertain the viability of an article or he is simply unfamiliar with the subject. There's seriously a vast amount of information available about blue icebergs. Even the "fringe theory" of the mummy is mentioned in a standalone section in the [[Titanic alternative theories]] article. Not to mention in a separate article at [[Unlucky Mummy]]. Sorry, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
Regretfully, my comments fall here. I was initially going to support (partly because I read the discussion you and I had about a year ago and felt like a bit of a jerk, though while my points stand I should've approached it in a different way), but I find your answers to Kudpung's questions quite lacking. Sorry. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose''' The answers to Kudpung's questions, and also per Cind.amuse's oppose. Also content creation concerns, but that is always dismissed by closing Bureaucrats. The concerns I have with the candidate extend far past that. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. I see a number of issues, which although individually valid to some extent, wouldn't cause me to oppose on their own. The signature, the limited content contributions, the weak question answers and minor confusions -- all are legitimate concerns, but any one of these I might put aside if everything else about the candidate made a compelling case. But combined they are too much to allow me to support him for adminship at this time. --
Disappointed at the failure to communicate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=440567628 here] beyond a simple edit summary; a talk page comment was certainly warranted. I share the same overall concerns as RL0919, sans the signature issue, which I don't see as a problem at all. '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose'''. One of the many things that Wikipedia is short of isn't administrators.
'''Oppose''' per the answers to Kudpung's questions.  They do not inspire confidence in me, honestly.
'''Oppose''' per the answers to Kudpung's questions (specifically 5, 6, and 8,) as well as the lack of experience detailed above.
'''Oppose''' Due to the large amount of concerns expressed above. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I really wanted to support this, but your knowledge of deletion policy just isn't there yet.  Issues about your signature are, however, rather silly as a basis for opposition.  Should this fail, I'd encourage three to six months of close experience with deletion processes, and then a fresh RFA.
'''Oppose''' You handled Q10 well and Q11 as well as could be expected from one that does not spend a good deal of time in the file namespace. Your answers to the optional questions above that, however, do not inspire confidence in me.
'''Oppose''' per lack of in-depth policy knowledge; I'm unconvinced from answers to questions, and edits, that you've currently got the depth of knowledge required. The previous responses above have elaborated on the specifics. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' per RL0919. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Neutral'''. CSD answers could have been better. More AfD contributions would be good. (Thanks for changing your signature.)
'''Neutral''' - Good work in noticeboards. But still concerns with understanding with the deletion policy and content creation. So wait till you have a bit more experience in the areas you don't know yet. :) -'''''
'''Neutral''' - per Porchcorpter & above , I believe that this candidate will soon have the potential to handle the mop. But as for right now, I think he should first get a better understanding of the deletion policies. -
'''Neutral''', I am a bit worried by poor usage of the term "unconstructive edit" as per Q13, plus the other opposition reasons. However none are reasons to fully oppose in my mind, but I feel uncomfortable supporting. I disagree with you that there was little else that could be done. Throwing the term "unconstructive" around so lightly is damaging to editor attraction and retention. Personally I would recommend a few more months experience, then try again. All the best, --
'''Neutral''' Though I have worked with this editor and have always been impressed with his temperment and his attitude, I cannot in good faith support this application due to reasonable comments by the opposers. I congratulate you for updating your signature to allay some concerns and would encourage you to come back in a few months and try again.
'''Neutral''' (Previously ''support'') I've reviewed 20 ANI discussions and Alan's discussions on the [[Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden]], in which  he has always been professional, clear, and accurate. Some answers here could have been improved, as noted by others. Experience writing articles should be a high priority, and I would urge the candidate to write more and then return and enjoy the acclaim of the community. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. I have seen lots of good work from Alan, but this RfA points at a few weak spots--article creation, obviously, and some basics about CSDs and all. Perfection should not be the standard, of course, but I think next time around (I hope there will be a next time) Alan will have raised their game and their answers. Good luck. (BTW, I note now that I am really very much in agreement with Kiefer, above.)
'''Support as nom'''  Best of luck!
'''Support''' I think NH has matured since the block incidents, and learned considerably more about the place.  In my experience, editors who have been there themselves, and who are otherwise qualified as admins, as Nh is, tend to make less block-happy admins.  I've mentored Nh a bit, and believe he will make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' He seems to have gone past the block incidents totally, and is doing good work as an Ambassador. I think he will make a good admin. '''
You know what, what the heck. I've had only good experiences with this user so, screw the existing sanctions — I doubt he'll break them even more so as an admin. '''Support'''.
I have been familiar with Neutralhomer for several years (since May 2007), and am somewhat familiar with his history: I do remember some of the discussions regarding why he was blocked. There would have been a time when I would have opposed his RfA, though not now, as I do believe he has improved a lot and is a much, ''much'' better editor than he used to be; that being said, I do acknowledge the concerns listed in the oppose section, and I hope that Neutralhomer will continue his path of improvement regardless of how this RfA turns out. Every time I have seen his name in recent months, I've seen something positve (something that wasn't always the case years ago, sadly), which is a good thing.
'''Support''', this candidate is an excellent editor with a great attitude and knowledge of how WP works.  I firmly believe he's learned from his past mistakes and will make a fine administorator.
'''Support'''. I can't say "no red flags" here, because, well, there's the block log and sanctions and edit-warring with RussBot and such. But I can say that NH is a hard-working editor who cares deeply about the project, and in my interactions with him, he's always been helpful, courteous and willing to respect and consider an opposing viewpoint.
'''Support'''. Dedicated editor with the project's best interests at heart. He may have made a few cock-ups and a few of them may be too recent for some tastes, but one doesn't get an article through FAC by being an idiot and I could point out plenty of admins who have made cock-ups and errors of judgement of the same magnitude recently. Admins are human—a fact recognised by ArbCom and [[WP:ADMIN]], but not by RfA—and so is Homer. He has plenty of more experienced admins to call on if he finds himself out of his depth, including myslef, Wehwalt and Mifter and wants to do things that constantly need doing, like blocking vandals. I can only foresee Homer acting for the good of the encyclopaedia and so it is my pleasure, no, my honour, to support him.
'''Support''' why not.
'''Support''' The last block was nearly a year ago, and I believe they've moved past the disruptive behavior. They're a well qualified and experienced user and I think they'll be a great administrator. ''
'''Support''' You have a chequered history. not a controversial statement. But your block log, which is unarguably diabolical, is all receding into the past. I feel we could sensiblty trust you with the tools. --<font color="Red">
Sometimes overeager, sometimes aggressive, but I don't think he will be a bad admin. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' has always come across as a good user to me, who seems to make a good admin. Maybe he's a little aggressive in the December 2010, but he's not being particularly uncivil. --
Will be a good admin. Net positive. Good luck.
'''Support'''.  Energetic, evenhanded, experienced.  The only block during the last year was last April 22 and it was lifted after only a few hours; it involved misusing Twinkle, which I know nothing about, because I avoid unnecessary complications like Twinkle, and now I have an additional reason to avoid Twinkle.  NH has apparently done good work as an "Ambassador", as well as working to get articles featured.  My interaction with NH has mainly been about the [[Frank Buckles]] article, where we worked well together.  He hasn't hesitated to warn me about other activity when he thinks I've erred.
'''Support.''' I'm convinced that NH has turned the corner with regards to their past problems.
'''Support.''' Always here to help.He well be a good admin.--
'''Support''' Based on interactions and observance of strong wiki clue.
'''Support''' per HJ Mitchell.
'''Support''' If he screwed up terribly he would simply be stripped of adminship (seen it a few times recently). I see no reason not to trust him, and wish him the best of luck in this downright grueling process.
'''Weak Support''' I became aware of this editor only recently, and have generally been impressed. The sanctions page was disconcerting, but given his recent good behavior and helpful nature, I am willing to overlook it.
'''Support''' (edit conflict) Even if he was blocked some months ago, I feel this user is very trustworthy to grant him the user right "admin". Anybody can make a mistake in his life and the goal is to adjust the mistake, and I think he did that.--<span style="background-color:#FF7F24;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"><font color="black">
'''Support'''. My first instinct was to Oppose, after having looked at that rather horrendous block log. But it's clear that the candidate has worked hard to overcome those early problems, using mentorship etc, and the last block is nearly a year ago now. Then I wondered how I'd feel if he'd gone for Cleanstart 11 months ago, which he could easily have done. And just looking at the past 11 months since then, I see enough to be confident to support - and I actually think the candidate deserves credit for *not* seeking Cleanstart, and just running "warts 'n all" --
'''Moral Support''' Lots of flack on whats gone on a year ago, but I'll give some moral support to the editor, Neutral is improving so i hope it continues.
'''Support''' - Well, well, we've been a naughty boy in the past, haven't we? Still, that's all behind you now, and you must take into account the extra responsibility you have if you are ''trusted'' with these tools. Use them well. I trust you to move on from the past and serve this community well. Just because someone has been boisterous in days gone by will not mean he'll block Jimbo and delete the main page. Take note from below mate, even if some folk are being rude. Never changes here, I'm afraid.
I can trust Neutralhomer with the tools and echo the supporters above. You seem to have learned well from your past mistakes and have safely moved past them at this point. These, coupled with your enthusiasm for the project and solely positive interactions with you in the past compel me to '''support''' this request. Best of luck,
'''Support'''  I've been a mentor for Neutralhomer in the past, and I have been very impressed with the way he has grown and matured as a Wikipedian over the past few years.  Frankly, I think he is a true Wikipedia success story - an editor who went from being indefinitely banned to one who has contributed an FA article and is undeniably an asset to the encyclopedia.  What you see is what you get with NH - a luxery we don't always get with admin candidates - and I think he can be trusted with the extra buttons.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">
'''Support''' is Neutralhomer perfect? No. Is he trustworthy? Yes. His decision ''not'' to seek a clean start, but to live with the block log he accumulated, to work hard and successfully on content creation, and to change his approach to editing is evidence of that. He has shown himself to be willing to listen to constructive criticism, of which I've provided a great deal. Wikipedia has always had a tradition of redemption for those who sincerely wish to improve the encyclopedia.  NH's history is a clear example of that kind of redemption and forgiveness. Blocks are not be a mark of Cain, never to be lived down. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Taken some time making my mind up about this one, because there are a lot of good reasons to oppose... but somehow I'm not quite convinced by any of them. Looking at the past ten months or so, I think NH has overcome the serious issues, and I would trust him to use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' NeutralHomer is a good candidate who has shown the ability to learn from past mistakes. I haven't been round long enough I guess to remember the "old NH" and had no knowledge of his block log before people pointed it out here. I think the fact I have had no reason to examine it says something about how much change has occurred since the last block. And might I say his "person of the day" thing is good way to promote morale here. Editors grow and change and we should recognize when they do it.
'''Support'''. I've known Neutralhomer since August 2006, and he's learned and grown as both as an editor and as a person. He's made 40,000 good contributions, created hundreds of good articles, and his days of drama are long behind him. I'd trust him with the tools. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. A responsible, dedicated contributor who has learned from his mistakes.
'''Support'''.  Great content.  (This is much more important than people think.  If we want to have quality that approaches Britannica or magazines or newspapers, we can't have admins incapable/disinterested in writing.)  As for the past misdeeds, it will probably make him a better admin since he understands the mind of the misbehaver.
'''Support'''. Candidate has made many mistakes as per his block log and extensive history on ANI and other boards. Clean block logs for almost a year. Candidate has grown and mellowed out. His edit summaries requires remediation. He deserves a second chance to contribute more. --
Appears trustworthy and greatly improved. Given how much this editor has overcome, I don't see why being on ANI a lot should be an issue. NH is quite helpful there.
'''Support'''. Despite the block log, I feel Neutralhomer is an experienced, highly driven candidate that has learned much through experience. Because he's been through so many trials he's all the wiser for it. --
'''Support''' Neutralhomer is one of the community's biggest success stories in terms of perserverence, he's endured a lot of crap in the past, he's made mistakes, but he's moved on, learnt from those and bettered his own knowledge and experience in doing so. He's patient with the newbies and has got the kindness and other good qualities an admin should possess. He is trustworthy and knowlegeable, I find the per above opposes and opposers whose sole rationale is "chequered history, big block log". —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' I've looked at over 100 interactions that Neutralhomer has had in the last few months. He's clearly a dedicated contributor. I mentioned while I was neutral that I had doubts and to make sure that I could allay those doubts I looked at a lot of contributions. Now, if NH had run for adminship 5 months ago, I'd have said no, but even in the last 5 months he has progressed a long way. This year, I have seen a few "negative" interactions, through all of which NH remained calm and didn't get worked up. On the other hand, I've seen countless offers of help to newbies, positive interactions and hard work for the betterment of this encyclopedia. I feel he's redeemed himself on the block log, the previous harassment and other issues - the last one being the edit summary usage. I was never going to oppose based on edit summary usage, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=421164787&oldid=421152433 this] is enough for me to support. Good luck Neutralhomer, you are a credit to this encyclopedia and give us hope for other less productive editors.
'''Moral Support''' As someone who used to edit in the same areas as NH during his "younger WP years", I have seen the bad. But, I've also seen the good. NH can be a very intense and dedicated editor and for that he should be applauded. While I definitely agree that he has matured a lot over the years (as most of us have, no?), it will likely be a long time before he can be fully embraced as a WP:ADMIN. For now, I hope he can see how far he has come and not take this likely unsuccessful RfA as a negative but as merely another step on the learning path. I wish you continued luck, NH.
'''Support''' Will not purposefully damage the encyclopedia, but may bring some drama, which is always fun! <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' - ready now.
'''Oppose''' I am impressed with the block log you've had, and yet the admins have managed to let you carry on editing. You were blocked too many times in the past for 3RR violations and sockpuppetry, and at one point your rollback rights were revoked. I think this poor behaviour record would affect your judgement vastly, which is the reason why I'm against this RfA nomination. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Per your extensive block log, and because you only use edit summaries 21% of the time.
{{edit conflict}} '''Weak oppose''' - It is my policy to ignore all blocks and mistakes older than 12 months, so I will not hold the indefblock, sockblock, and host of other blocks against you. However, I have found that you tend to invite a lot of drama, so I have to oppose. You are also under sanctions. On the other hand, you do a lot of great work for Wikipedia ambassadors. I strongly disagree with {{user|Tofutwitch11}} that "you cannot be trusted". <small>Redacted comment.</small>
'''Oppose''' Neutralhomer can be very combative and has been in trouble multiple times for [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING|wikihounding]]. I'm sorry, but I don't think he should have admin privileges. --
'''Oppose''' I've seen Neutralhomer around making a lot of good edits, but.. the block log. I doubt that thinking in terms of a fixed expiry period for blocks is helpful, since a ''pattern'' can be quite telling. A long string of blocks over 2.5 years, and then RfA less than a year after the last entry block, which specifically referred to recidivism? I'm not sure I could trust this candidate with the tools just yet; sorry. Incivility is unpleasant from any user and that wouldn't put me off so much; but I worry that somebody with a history of socking & editwarring might find new temptations in the admin toolbox... If this sustained series of blocks were 2 or 3 years old, I would probably reconsider.
'''Oppose''' You have a long block log. Sorry.
At about every third thread at ANI I seem to see your username cropping up. From personal interaction I think you're a great guy, and pretty level headed. Why on earth you haunt the drama boards (thick end of 2000 edits to ANI so far!) has often befudled me. I'm sorry to bad faith you, but it really looks like a bit of a "career" move to be an admin, not something to help with the encyclopedia. Weak oppose, and willing to be convinced otherwise. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - [[User talk:R'n'B/Archive 13#Only Warning|This]] says it all... we don't need admins who jump to conclusions when they could have just clicked a few links and fact checked. And if that's not enough to oppose for, how about [[User talk:Will Beback/archive59#Kicking Rlevse when he is down|this]]... which looks exactly like what he ended up getting blocked for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=336586301#Proposed_topic_ban_for_User:PCHS-NJROTC here]. It's obvious to me that the candidate has not fully learned how to not "jump from the gut" or stop hounding people to get their idea across. Simply put with those incidents not being more than 5 months ago, and the fact that it's a continuation of his abuse pattern going back over a 3 year timespan, I do not believe that Neutralhomer is ready at this time (or perhaps anytime) to be an administrator. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - I would be willing to ignore a couple blocks from several months ago, but NH was blocked on almost a regular basis for around 2 years, including a 4-month block in 2008. After that block he was fine, for about 11 months, and then he was blocked for harassment again and fell back into getting blocked every couple months until last April. In this case I'd like to see a clean block log for at least 2 years. He says in Q2 that he took ANI off his watchlist, but that didn't prevent him from making 37 edits there so far this month and 109 edits last month. 40% of his last 500 Wikipedia-space edits are to ANI. That hardly looks like "walking away" to me. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
Sorry. The block log ''per se'' is not a problem. Indeed, the candidate can be given credit for choosing to press on with the account. But Coffee's diffs above show an ongoing propensity for conflict ''escalation'', not avoidance and resolution. Having 2,000 edits to ANI, many of which are recent, (which ''per se'' is a concern) suggests that the candidate will not be able to help steering clear of ANI despite the nomination statement. We therefore have to be certain that the candidate will defuse drama and not be a magnet for it. And the edit summary usage is awful. Poor edit summary usage indicates (a) haste; and (b) a lack of regard for other editors. --
'''Oppose''' for excessive blocks, old sockpuppet issues, difficulty properly identifying vandalism, and a lack of edit summaries. <B>—
'''Oppose'''. A huge block log, with the last block less than a year ago, sockpuppetry issues, still under sanctions,  plus quite a bit of time spent hanging around high drama venues like ANI,  and you want to be granted adminship now? No, thanks.
'''Oppose''' I cannot support anyone without a clean block log.
'''Oppose''' In the few days I knew him it was clear that he lacks maturity, is too battle ready, [[User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 47#Block of Passionless|lacks understanding of edit warring policy]], and likes to make accusations without proof. A few weeks ago I opposed an ITN he supported and he immediately accused me out of doing it in spite of him even though I had opposed the same ITN a week before. Just take a look at [[User talk:Passionless#Honest Answer|this conversation]] and the other link and you will see it is obvious whether or not Homer should be an admin.
'''Oppose''' - That block log is too much, sorry, even if the most recent item is almost a year ago. Per concerns voiced above.
'''Oppose''' not only that but, '''''HELL NO''''', This user has displayed repeated abuse of wikipedia polices, many edit wars, and multiple abuses of the tool twinkle. Ive lost count of the number of abuses that lead to the removal of rollback and twinkle, NH has had twinkle access for less than 6 months. I could pull more diffs of CIVIL and other issues, but I think that should be enough.
'''Oppose:''' Pretty ugly block log. Apparently, the user in question has been even banned from certain topics. Abuses automated tools. I cannot trust this user with the mop.
'''Oppose''' For the aforementioned reasons, I cannot trust this user as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' I believe the wiki should be able to forgive and forget but the block log is still a deal breaker. I can accept old 3RR blocks or old civility blocks but hounding that results in specific sanctions is much harder to overlook. The killer is sockpuppetry though. It's unforgivable as a blatant abuse of other editors' good faith and as a refusal to respect community decisions. More worryingly, it shows that you really believe that you can game the system, or in other words that you're smarter than all of the idiots on the project. You can change how you behave but I think the underlying bit of contempt for others most likely lingers.
'''Oppose''' Should probably remain the prolific content editor he is. Don't know if edit warring with a bot is just funny, or if there's more to it. Giving the bot operator a L4 warning over an issue he didn't understand, then fighting on without apology, makes me wonder what he will do when having block and page protection rights. --
Too many blocks and sanctions. Leopards and spots and all that.
'''Oppose''' cannot trust as sysop.  ~~
'''Oppose''' I do not believe that this editor is ready for the tools. Many of the other opposes have noted sockpuppetry, wikihounding (although I actually agree with his edits which coffee cited re:Rlevse), edit warring, battleground behavior, and the block log; any single one of these would be a deal-breaker; when considered together, I simply cannot support adminship. '''
'''Oppose''' as past experience with Neutralhomer has shown him to advocate for punitive blocking of IPs because Neutralhomer does not "have time or energy to watch over [IPs] like a hawk" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kralizec!/Archive_2010&diff=prev&oldid=350598394]).  Since the IP in question had made just one edit in 87 days and immediately stopped vandalizing after receiving a level-1 warning ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=prev&oldid=350622468]), Neutralhomer's assertion that the IP had been "sufficiently warned" is both flat-out ''wrong'' and shows a seriously flawed understanding of [[WP:BLOCK|Blocking policy]].  I could accept and forgive this sort of a hostile, anti-IP attitude from a new editor, but not from a seasoned editor who had, at that time, more than 25,000 edits under his belt.  —
'''Oppose''', with regret, per Mkativerata (amongst others) above. Neutralhomer has good intentions, but doesn't seem to quite have the attitude required to be an effective admin at this time; it requires being able to maintain good interactions with other users, and looking at the links provided in this section he seems to have some issues in that area. The readiness to block IPs mentioned by Kralizec immediately above is concerning as well.
The block log doesn't bother me as such, given that it's historic. Indeed, the lack of recent blocks after such a history is a positive. But, per Pedro, the absurd number of times I've seen you at AN/I in contexts which are not helpful unfortunately suggests to me that the potential for misuse of the admin bit outweighs the perceived benefit of allowing you further tools to deal with vandalism. You're clearly a popular editor (I see several people asking you about potential adminship in your talk archives) and have shown you can learn from feedback on your behaviour, so I'd be happy to reevaluate in future.
'''Oppose''' I'm willing to overlook past issues as long as the editor has changed their behavior, but [[User_talk:R'n'B/Archive_13#Only_Warning|this]] exchange (previously linked above) occurred only seventeen days ago. I also found the tone in [[User_talk:Will_Beback/archive59#Kicking_Rlevse_when_he_is_down|this]] conversation troubling. In both cases, I think Neutralhomer meant well. --
'''Oppose''' Your heavy block log has this RfA crippled. If only you were more mature from the beginning, then that may change the vote, but you weren't, so I won't change it. I'm sorry Neutralhomer, but that's the best I can give.--<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' I think it's reasonable to expect that the community would want to see more than 11 block-free months before handing out the mop, considering you've been blocked 15 times, 3 of which occurred after your mentorship ended (which, as you mention in Q3, was the period in time when you felt you had matured).  I'd support if you can keep it block-free for ''at least'' another 6 months, preferably 9-12.
Per "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=prev&oldid=418091457 Why do you feel you have the right to undo an admin's edits?]", only a couple of weeks ago. I do appreciate the work you do—and the block log doesn't bother me at all provided you've learned from it—but we have ''way'' too many admins who think the sysop bit makes them some kind of power-user as it is. Being in [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents the all-time top 10] for edits to ANI isn't a deal-breaker, but it tilts me over the edge.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I cannot support anyone with such a low edit summary usage (less than 25% of all major edits!). Admins should demonstrate an ability to communicate their actions and edit summaries are imho an important tool to do so. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' - The prospect of allowing power tools to an editor with such a checkered block log is extremely troubling. Blocked for wikihounding???
'''Absolutely not.''' I respect that you take responsibility for the past mistakes you've made, and I'm glad that you've made obvious progress, but your blocks are far too recent and far too numerous for me. If someone had been blocked once or twice a couple of years ago, I can get around that. But blocked ''repeatedly'' until just a year ago? No chance. With that said, I certainly hope you continue to make positive contributions to the site and the community. --
'''No.''' Plain and simple. Over ten blocks (that I counted before I lost track of what was a block and what was an unblock/reblock to disable something) in the candidate's account history and they are requesting administrative privileges? I can not support that. Per my [[User:Strikerforce/RfA Standards|standards]], I would have to oppose based on the length of time from the previous block, even if the others weren't there. I appreciate the candidate's work in regard to radio station articles (one of my pet areas, as well), but to give him the mop would be a gross misplacement of trust by the community.
'''Oppose''' Per Coffee, bobrayner, and Mr. Z Man. Granted we have had people that have had less than 11 months pass RFA but this seems to be an ongoing problem that I am not confident has yet been resolved as there appear to be other issues since then that have arisen, though not to the level of a block. To me the position of some of the people above that any user without a clean block log should never pass RFA seems to me to be absolutely too high of a bar.  The lack of edit summaries is also kind of concerning, as an editor as experienced as the candiate should know that they are kind of a big deal at RFA. To me that is not something that I would oppose over, but it does make me wonder why you would intentionally go against a known convention. I would like to see the candiate continue with his/her work, avoid ANI or at least dwell there less often (we have plenty of other noticeboards to worry about), demonstrate ability to use automated tools effectively, and continue to have a clean block log for at least another 6 months before I would consider changing to support. --
'''Oppose'''. Seriously? People would consider making somebody with ''sixteen'' blocks an admin? That's pretty stunning.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Sorry - the prospect scares me! If I came across someone with a history like this, I would be very worried - but to give them a mop - er No!
'''Oppose''' - too many blocks, too many of which are recent (and one of which was an overturned indef), added to the number of worrying comments from other users about incivility and combativeness means I can't support in good faith. --
'''Oppose''' In addition to the general concerns above, the main issue to me is - as Fetchcomms put it in eir support - "Sometimes overeager, sometimes aggressive" - and to me, that is an oppose reason. I appreciate you've made good progress, and are heading in the right direction; however, at this time I do not consider you are appropriately cautious - and that is a concern in an admin. Specifically, recently, [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Media_and_Telecommunication_Policy_spring_2011_(Obar)#Another_note_to_online_ambassadors.2Fmentors|here]] in the "Ambassador" programme, when a prof. shouted to ask helpers not to move students pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Media_and_Telecommunication_Policy_spring_2011_(Obar)&diff=prev&oldid=419751007] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=419751252&oldid=419692355], your reaction was to tell all online ambassadors - on their talk pages, and via the mailing list - that they should stop it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=419755993&oldid=419754169] and e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bejinhan&diff=419755102&oldid=419148899]...instead of, as I'd think better, stepping back a bit and saying "hold on - ''why'' shouldn't people move pages? What's the actual problem?". On the same page, when a question arose about reversion of unsourced material [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Media_and_Telecommunication_Policy_spring_2011_(Obar)&diff=418076533&oldid=417519019] your response indicated that the standard of [[WP:V|V]] applies less to "random articles" than it does to GA/FA - and that unreferenced additions were acceptable [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Media_and_Telecommunication_Policy_spring_2011_(Obar)&diff=418208785&oldid=418207518]. I think that is inappropriate advice, from a mentor. In other (occasional) postings (which I can't easily find, because of the lack of edit summaries), I think your tone is inappropriately aggressive. It seems that most of the time, you try really hard to be friendly and collegiate, but occasionally you get angry, and rant a bit. (I can find diffs, if necessary). I think you're trying hard to improve, and I think you definitely ''have'' improved - but, I think you need to continue to do so, for a while longer, before you're ready to be an admin. I hope you'll accept this as intended, as constructive criticism. ≈99% of the time, you do good things, but the 1% of of sufficient concern that I cannot support at this time.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''' There is a lot of bad history here. The user has made a good start at repairing the damage, but I must go with [[User:Tofutwitch11]] and look for a significantly longer clean slate. '''
'''Neutral'''. I want to support, but the block log looks troubling. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''.  Regardless of whether an 11-month clean block log is long enough or not, the ongoing sanctions, lack of edit summaries, and the conversation on Passionless's talk page are troubling.
'''Neutral''' Per Kcowolf, except completely neutral and not leaning either way
'''Neutral''' - I've been familiar with NH's edits for a while, and I think he'd make an excellent admin, in time. But many of the comments here are relevant, including references to the block log. I find some of the commentary amusing actually, but notwithstanding some of the superficial distractions... I think maybe some more time would be good. As for those distractions... that's why RfA is transforming from mildly absurd to ridiculous. This process really needs to be fixed.
Too many block issues, yet a good user.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' – I agree with much of what WormTT has stated above—on one hand, you are an excellent user that has been fairly helpful; on the other hand, you do cause quite a bit of unnecessary drama, especially at [[WP:ANI]]. I am currently leaning towards support, but I'll stick myself in the neutral section for now. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
WormTT hits it on the head --
'''Neutral''' − Has made many valuable contributions to many areas of the project. I would support, but the block log is a bit worrying. Although, the last block was a year ago, and the 3RR blocks were three years ago. People can and do mature. I'll sit on the fence for now to see how things unfold. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Moral support''' I've not looked closely into your history, but my memory of you in the last 6 months is almost entirely positive (I find you a bit "rough around the edges" which would be nice to improve but I can cope).  11 months after such significant problems is, however, too soon for me to support at this time.  Keep up the good work, try to tone the occasional combativeness down a bit and I would expect to be in the support column in 4 months or so.
'''Neutral''' − I've never come across you  or your work (contentious areas have never been my haunts) and there is nothing  personal  in  my  not  supporting. However, while on  several points you do not meet my [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria|my criteria]] for a pass mark this time, I  will  not  pile on  with  an 'oppose' !vote. I'm  sure that when a few months more have elapsed and you  have taken  all  the advice on  board, I  will  be able to  offer my  support next time.
'''Neutral''' - that's one heck of a block log. I see lots of good, but, unfortunately, I see an extensive block log, which concerns me.--
'''Support''' Everything checks out although I can see a potential concern for the lack of a lot of activity until the last few months. Besides that, you seem like you know what you're doing and unless anyone says anything otherwise, I support you.
'''Support''' Agree with Kevin. ''
While NP has just around 4000+ edits, s/he has the experience.  I don't see why we shouldn't give support.  &ndash;
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you'd use the tools just fine.
'''Support'''. I'm not a numbers snob. Most other editors with 20,000+ edits make me think, "get a life."  No red flags for me. Wants to chime in as an admin, go for it. This is an old school support. Until we get rid of 90 percent of the early admins (something I'm not in favour of doing) this editor is, comparatively, not problematic. The mop isn't JUST for dealing with conflict and doesn't require massive contributions.  I like "non standard admins" and this nomination suits me fine. Would be stunned if they ran amok. I actually think a casual user like this brings something refreshing to the Brahman class of admins of which I'm seeing more and more. --
Nick has been here forever. I've seen him around a lot and I can't recall any negative interactions. I have no reason to believe he'd be a bad admin. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
seems clueful. --
This <s>isn't going to</s> <u>might not</u> pass, but I've seen nothing in Nick's contribution history to suggest it ought to be failing <s>''this'' badly</s>. I don't find it hard at all to AGF that "I generally avoid conflict" is intended to convey that he's not the type of editor who tends to ''start'' and ''escalate'' conflicts, of which there are plenty. Kudos to Nick for volunteering for the mop, and hopefully after a few months of addressing the concerns brought up in the neutral and oppose columns, a successful second RfA will follow.
I believe this user would be an excellent administrator. There is absolutely nothing I've found that would make me think otherwise. I certainly feel we need more users like NickPenguin.
'''Support''' - Well, I know some folk want to see more recent edits, but never mind all that numbers namby-pamby. You seem to know what you're doing here, you've done some great work and you seem to have a life ''away'' from this beast, at least! I trust you not to delete the main page, my man.
'''Support''' Long standing Wikipedian
'''Support'''. per various above. Adminship isn't actually a ''job'' you have to turn up to or get fired from - it's just whether you trust the editor to use the tools responsibly.
No evidence that Nick would be an unsuitable administrator and plenty of evidence that he would be just fine. We don't need every admin to contribute content, and 4000+ edits over 5+ years is more than sufficient experience. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
After thinking more about the issue,  someone who has given 5 years to the project and intends to work in a specific location where they are experienced is no problem. He has [[WP:CLUE|clue]] and has been around more than enough time to know what he's doing. '''Support.''' Regards, <font color="green">
'''Support''' upon further reflection. MSGJ sums my thoughts up nicely in his support.
'''Support''' (Moved from neutral) NickPenguin is a clueful, civil longterm contributor with a clean blocklog and a record of doing useful uncontentious edits. I'm not particularly concerned at the pace of those edits, policy and cultural change is actually quite slow on the wiki nowadays and I rather suspect that NickPenguin will be editing here for years after the hyperactive editors like myself have burned out and gone. I've got some concerns as I detailed when I posted in neutral. But sometimes you read a candidate's responses and just realise they've got what it takes. ''
'''Support''' (Moved from neutral) NickPenguin has earned my confidence. He will be a fine admin. There are no issues related to trust. He has tenure, admiration for Wikipedia, respect, self respect, pride, vigilance, and the other positive traits RfA would hope to find in a candidate. I ask my colleagues who oppose to reconsider this candidate, under a wide criteria. I found more than enough positive strengths to overcome the concerns of a single criteria, which is not strong. (content creation) And I refute any notion of one size fits all. I agree that content creation is an important consideration. But often we see a candidate earn support because their other strengths overcome the single concern. NickPenguin is such a candidate.
'''Support''' per a review of contributions and your answer to WSC's question. I'm very confident this editor is here to "make things better", and seems to be both careful and experienced enough to avoid burning the place down.  --
'''Support''' As I said before in neutral, I saw no problems, but you hadn't shown me enough to support. With some of the comments you have made - especially such a clear explaination of copyright, I have no problems moving to support you.
'''Support'''. I trust NickPenguin and have only seen good things from him. I understand the concerns about recent inactivity, but for me that's not enough to oppose on its own.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' I'm not an admin and I havn't been on Wikipedia long but from what I can see, NickPenguin is one of the best standard users Wikipedia has. He dosn't make major edits to articles to claim the glory but makes little edits which make Wikipedia an easier place for everyone to use. I would be very happy to see NickPenguin becoming an administrator.
'''Strong Support''' I was formerly in the Oppose section but after careful consideration I have com to the conclusion that this user is more clueful about Wikipedia policies and guidelines than I originally thought.
Not worried by the fairly low edit count, this user seems competent enough and would use the tools sensibly.
'''Support''' experienced, still here after many years, hardly likely to do anything stupid with the tools.
'''Support'''. Long established and reliable editor. Lack of recent activity is much ado about nothing.--''
'''Support''' - I do not have any concerns that this editor would misuse the admin tools.  —
'''Support''' on balance. Through several years of moderate activity, NP has amply demonstrated trustworthiness and clue. I disagree quite strongly with those who feel admins should only be people who spend hours a day for a year making zillions of edits. I'd love to see more admins who have a healthy level of long term involvement of a couple of hours a week during which they make a handful of thoughtful edits. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate those who spend hours a day and rack up many thousands of edits a year; just that is not the only way to be an effective admin and I think it is beneficial to have others who do not, and thus are less susceptible to potential groupthink. That aside, back to NP specifically - I would have loved to see greater contribution to content, and more nuanced responses to some of the questions on policy. But that is mitigated by NP's overall experience, by his apparent contributions to pragmatic policy change, and by his interaction style. He will a net asset to the admin corps and is unlikely to burn down the wiki.
'''Support''' - As I've done before, to contradict some ridiculous oppose rationales. I also happen to think this is a great RfA, and Penguin would make an excellent admin; rfa is broken though, so I have no illusions about anything here. Definite support though.
'''Support''' - I went through his contribution and he's trustable imo.
'''Support'''. I started off in the Oppose section because there weren't enough recent contributions for me to inspect, then I moved to Neutral in response to the candidate's replies during this RfA. And now, after following all the candidate's responses and looking back over some older contributions, I've become sufficiently convinced to support --
'''Support'''. I think I trust this user just well and I'd trust him the mop. I can't see any big concerns, and he'll no doubt use admin tools responsibly and well. '''''
'''Support''' At first I wasn't sure, but now, considering all the positive interactions and comments made by other supporters, particularly WSC, It looks like my opposition statement is not convincing enough so I decided to change my vote. He does have good intentions and isn't going to make decisions bad enough to get him desysopped.
'''Support''' Don't worry. You'll make it. Will write mo' later...
Wikipedia is not a cartel built by a limited group of the x most active editors. Neither is the list of admins. Near as I can tell, that's the only thing most of the objectors seem to be seeking – a community excluding the "little man" whose value is defined not by quantity but by quality and usefulness. Nick seems knowledgeable, adequately in the loop, and extremely unlikely to abuse or badly misuse the tools. I also see a high degree of integrity maintained by the candidate throughout the course of this rather divisive RfA, which solidifies my support. Best of luck.
'''Support''' for the reasons laid out in support 1. Further I cannot find anything in this editor's contributions or in the arguments offered by those opposing that convince me NickPenguin should not be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' per Julian Colton. The candidate looks clueful and has shown himself to have a level head throughout this RfA even in the face of a few opposes which are, frankly, stupid and insulting.
'''Support''' Not the perfect candidate but seems clueful enough to use the tools properly. I know some below don't like the answer to Q5 but I think it's spot on. Adminship is not rocket science: read the policy, apply the policy, when in doubt ask around.
'''Support'''. Well rounded candidate, who has demonstrated resilience under the pressure of the abuse of this RFA. I am dismayed by much commentary in oppose, particulary Treasury Tag's - who appears to advocate going into difficult editing areas for the sheer hell of it (or rather to pass RFA which ammounts to the same). Slow, safe, cautious use of the tools suits me fine. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. The level of experience is fine (in comparison, my account was only four months old when I passed my RFA), and there is no concerning edit patterns which indicate that adminship should be withheld. Being a bit on and off with activity is natural, and does no damage to an editor's competence.
'''Support'''. After reading some of the "oppose" arguments, it's clear—to me, at least—that we place '''way''' too much emphasis on a candidate's Edit Count. To some, it is like the High Score list on an arcade game and they will do all sorts of things (like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Graduate&limit=500&curid=29942&action=history]) to get their name onto the scoreboard. In the example I cited, the user made 81 edits over four days, edits that were so bad another person reverted darned near all of them. But what the hell, his Edit Count is nearly 100 ticks higher! Woo hoo! In the copy-editing, vandal-fighting, spell-checking dungeon where I spend a good deal of my time, this is not at all uncommon; if you incent a behavior, you'll see more of it. Even. worse. are. the. editors. that. save. every. stinkin'. word. as. a. separate. edit. Sure, it rapidly increments their Edit Count, but it makes cleaning up after them horribly tedious and far more difficult than it need be. Having spent an entire morning—three or four hours—working on '''ONE''' big edit, I know I will never log 25,000 '''quality''' edits. Personally, I don't think we—an organization trying to encourage volunteers to donate their time—have any business belittling their efforts. And, as [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds#top|talk]]) stated in another RfA, far more eloquently than can I: <blockquote>''Are you a content writer? I am, and I can tell you that if you think just producing the raw content is the most important thing in the world, you're mistaken. There are writers, there are copyeditors, and there are janitors. All have a role to play, and when we're discussing someone's aptitude for janitorial tools, an absence of writing should not be an issue. Wikipedia's tagline is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and since "anyone" includes "dicks", someone who thinks that countering those dicks is not a prime goal is simply wrong, as is somebody who mistakes "our main goal" for "our only goal, to the exclusion of all other contributions". Have you got any evidence, whatsoever, that JaGa is incompetent in the janitorial field? He's applying for janitorial tools, he's asking for the trust of the community in using them. If you cannot find evidence to indicate that he'd be a bad person to hold them, all other concerns are irrelevant.''</blockquote> Bravo! We need more of this thinking! Me, personally? I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance here because, as soon as someone implied my 500 or so rarely-reverted edits over three or so years (and the hundreds of no-charge hours they represent) don't measure up to some arbitrary and capricious '''number''', I'd likely tell them—loudly—to take a long walk on a really short pier on a really cold day. As for NickPenguin, though, I say "give him the mop!" The arguments opposed to his application seem specious, at best. &mdash;&nbsp;
Support due to response at Oppose #26, 06:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC).  I read Q5 as honesty, and Nick is right, CSD criteria are pretty clear.  If the new admin is unsure, he can ask someone, or generally at WT:CSD if the problem may reflect criterion language needing improvement, or can use XfD.  I get no sense that Nick will be reckless.  --
Support per my general rule of supporting any candidate when the primary reason for opposition is editcountitis.  He's been reasonably active since 2007, that's clearly sufficient experience. --
'''Support'''  Has potential.  Some people know about the RfC that I recently madde of him, but the username should not count for potential for being an sysop.  ~~
'''Support:''' I don't participate in RfA discussions unless I am already familiar with the nominee but I decided to make an exception here. If someone has been around this long without causing issues I find it hard to believe that he would do anything inappropriate with the tools. I see nothing but cluefulness and civility in his work and can ask for nothing more. Best of luck, <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support:''' A number of the opposes do bring up reasonable points, but this user has enough clue that none of them convince me that he'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''': The contributions I see look solid and I'm more concerned with the tone many of the NOTENOUGHCONTRIBS opposes take than I am about the relatively relaxed workrate.
'''Support''' - picking up CSD/AfD and the like is pretty easy as long as you have common sense. I don't see a lack of that in this candidate.
'''Support''' the user seems clueful and that they can be trusted with the tools.  Best,
Nothing major to oppose over here, and the candidate otherwise seems ok.
'''Support''' - Gnomeish admins are in shortage. I support per [[User:Shadowjams]].
'''Oppose''' for the lack of recent activity and for the contradiction in the candidates following statements "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument" and "fulfill closing roles in SpeedyD, RfD, MfD, AfD and other Ds.". Candidate also says "I have been fairly active", while I would consider 4,457 edits in 5 years as fairly inactive. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose'''.  Candidate does not list any significant content creation.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with lack of recent activity and judgement.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough contribs to areas of the wiki within the past year (ie about 300 contribs total) to form a judgement of appropriateness to the role. In RfA, we tend to disregard ancient history (>1 year) when it comes to previous ''bad'' edits, and we therefore have to do the same (to some extent) for good ones. To demonstrate current, appropriate knowledge of policies regarding issues such as deletion, we need to see evidence of input to those areas within the past year. (Airplaneman has detailed the stats below, so no need to repeat them) <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''', per my [[User:Strikerforce/RfA Standards|standards]], specifically in regard to recent activity.
'''Oppose''' Not enough contribs, does not meet [[User:Pol430/RfA Criteria|my criteria]]
'''Oppose''' solely due to lack of activity. Although I normally stand against those who rely on [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS]] as part of the RfA process, a total of around 4500 edits in a reported activity period of six years is limited experience, even to me. --
'''Oppose''' per lack of recent activity.  <span style="white-space:nowrap">
Not going to repeat Airplaneman's analysis—would like to see more activity and depth of experience in administrative areas. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' for two reasons. One relates to your statements that "you generally avoid conflict" and "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument". You are asking for a mop to clean up conflicts. Secondly, I took a look at some of your content contributions, in particular some early work, and was left scratching my head and saying "what the ...--
'''Oppose''' Lack of recent activity.
'''Oppose''' Needs more recent activity.
'''Oppose''' Due to a couple of reasons.  Firstly you say that you "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument", but if you're an admin a lot of the time can be spent clearing up conflicts.  In my opinion an ideal candidate would have experience of dealing with conflict and policies like 3RR first hand.  That way it gives us who are voting for you the chance to see how you handle yourself in conflicts.  My second objection is simply the number of edits.--
'''Oppose''' – Per Armbrust and TCO, as well as the candidate's response to TCO's !vote. I believe that all admins should be time served contributors. It doesn't feel right to give someone extra control over a project to which they have contributed so little. I see 11 new articles and 4,340 non-automated edits in the last four years. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose'''. Too little activity, especially in  semi admin areas, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience of what can and will  be done with  the tools. [[User:Chzz]] also makes some valid points. I  would be happy  to  support a future run  as soon as [[User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria|my RfA criteria]] are largely met.
'''Oppose''' – I see a lack of activity these recent months. Contributors that wish to be admins should to be willing to dedicate at least six months or so before their RFA, and continue with more dedication afterwards. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' per lack of recent activity.
'''Oppose''' in addition to activity concerns, I also question the judgement of anyone who refers to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture]] among their 'best' contributions.  Trivia and "In popular culture" material are some of our absolute worst content and a regular source of disrepute for Wikipedia, and while of course NickPenguin is hardly solely to blame for it, I'd say anyone still proud of their involvement with it should be kept well away from AFDs and the mop.
'''Oppose''' Per above. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose'''—sorry to join the brigade with this one, but the fact that you have deliberately avoided edits and activity which might bring you into contact with conflict may be very admirable, but it means that we have a very limited pool of material look over and assess your suitability. Also, your answer to Q2 concerns me: "I had a few failed ideas, [[Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion]] for one," "I got involved in a few things, like an attempt to redesign the main page which failed for good reason," "a few other jobs that didn't completely come to fruition." You then round off this blaze of disappointments with the analysis that "it's been a positive run." Which seems utterly bizarre, though I respect your honesty. <font color="#C4112F">╟─
'''Oppose''' NickPenguin, you are a very good editor, with plenty of positive contributions. (I disagree with the "oppose because of insufficient contributions" thread on this page.) However, there is a serious lack of involvement in areas which are relevant to administrative tasks. There are plenty of good, hard-working editors who unfortunately simply misunderstand policies on deletion, vandalism, and so on. Unless you have experience in these areas, showing understanding of such matters, we have no way of knowing whether you are likely to make mistakes. Furthermore, your response to question 5 seems to indicate that you have a far too simplistic view of this issue, without even being aware that it is an issue. For example, understanding the speedy deletion criteria is a major issue, and assessing them in particular cases often requires a good deal of thought and care. Anyone who is not aware of that fact is not ready to be an administrator, especially if they have indicated that this is an area they expect to work in. You are doing a good job where you are, and you don't need to be an admin to continue to do those things you are good at.
"Too little activity" is generally frowned upon as a reason for opposing. However, you state an intention to close "D's", yet have only participated in one XfD since 2009 as far as I can tell. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=NickPenguin&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 ] I respect and trust you, and on that basis if it were just a case of giving you the ''tools'' for maintenance purposes, I wouldn't hesitate. But given your participation at XfD, combined with your stated intention to work in that area, I am evaluating you in that judicial capacity. Regretfully, that leads me to oppose at this time. —
'''Oppose''' Not enough edit for my liking, and very little activity in 2010. Also I do not see much evidence of vandal fighting, which is often a major part of admin work. '''
'''Oppose:''' The major bulk of activity is confined to 2 years ago or earlier. Not active enough on a daily basis.
'''Oppose''' - I was previously neutral in the matter of this RfA (as visible below), but I have taken further time to evaluate this candidate and cannot support them nor continue to remain neutral in their bid for adminship. My reasoning has to do primarily with two factors which I find disconcerting. As previously stated, I find this candidates activity level - especially over the past year and a half - to be really low. Though the user has admitted themselves to being really busy [[WP:IRL|throughout 2009 and 2010]], I would rather avoid the potential of even more inactive admins - a point which is further outlined upon below. Secondly, I find the candidates response to the 5th query to be rather disconcerting as I believe it shows that the user does not have a grasp or full understanding of how the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion process]] works. As for the candidates statement, "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument"; I would suggest a good read of [[Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school|What you won't learn in new admin school]]. <span style="border:1px solid;border-left:3px solid;border-right:3px solid;background:#D3D3D3">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - I was going to await the candidate's answer to my question before I made up my mind, but Nick's latest comments show that he indeed does not have enough experience to become an admin. A5 was worrying by itself, but then he stated almost outrightly that he has basically zero knowledge currently on how to look at an article and determine if it should be speedy deleted vs. nominated for AFD, (after clearly stating in A1 that it would be an area that he will focus in as an admin). I also don't see the sudden need for Nick to have the tools only after becoming slightly active again over the past two months, and he's apparently only "observed" critical admin areas (places stated in A1) before then. Having admin rights shouldn't be something you learn "[[OJT|on the job]]", but should instead be granted to those who not only show a clear need for them, but also a clear understanding on what they should do with them when they have them. Therefore I do not think the candidate should receive the tools at this time. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Limited activity in AfD, etc., for a candidate who intends to work in deletion. Little content creation.
'''Reluctant oppose''' because of the stated desire to work in CSD and XfD. There is "tedious repetitive" work there - clearing the expired prods out for one thing. However, deleting CSD tagged articles and closing XfDs isn't just routine button clicking. Anyone can slap a CSD tag on. Very often articles that need to go are tagged wrongly - either wrong criterion or CSD when they should be prod. Some should stay, possibly needing help. If you don't have a reasonable amount of experience tagging and watching the resulting admin action and on occasions querying it - how are you going to decide which are right and which are wrong? When I started CSD tagging, I got knocked back on quite a few. I took note and increased my accuracy. Copyright is another tricky area. What is public domain, what is licensed and what ain't? Some people think that because the US Govt stuff is public domain, other Govt stuff will be. UK isn't - but it may be licensable. It may not. And closing a contentious AfD is another matter altogether. It may just be that you over-emphasised this sort of work in your answer to Q1, or under-emphasised your potential contribution in other areas. It's not easy to face not just one quizmaster but possibly dozens. I'm not worried about lack of content addition. Every publisher needs authors. Every publisher also needs editors and proof-readers, and someone to sort the recycling stuff. If this goes in your favour, I'll welcome you and offer what help a new mopholder himself can give. If if doesn't, spend more time in CSD and XfD (and add some content to keep that lot happy....).
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience in content creation and in working with deletion.
'''Oppose''' There's a lot of boring admin work you could handle competently.  Your experience level at XFD, however, doesn't tell me enough about a (potentially heavy) XFD closer to support. After 4 to 6 months of moderate, consistent involvement with the project and the deletion processes... please come back for another run if this fails.
<S>'''Hmm, I can't decide'''</s> - Looking at your contribs I see calm reasoned arguments, a great sense of humour, and nothing objectionable. You've been coming back for a long time, so I don't doubt your dedication to wikipedia. And I think low editing ''rate'' (as opposed to low total experience) shouldn't matter too much, because otherwise we discriminate against candidates who are successful busy people. But admins do need very sound understanding of policy, and judgement in applying it, in the areas they plan to work in. What experience do you have in the areas of copyright and of speedy deletions?--
'''Neutral''' I echo Airplaneman's !vote, get some more administrative experience and come back in 5-6 months. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Neutral''' - Lack of recent edits and then one month of activity means that you are probably just getting back into the swing of things.
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure of the candidate's attitude regarding Q5: so without the tools to do deletion, you don't see the point in tagging Speedy Deletions or Copyright Violations? Using that logic, no one but admins would ever tag anything for deletion or copyvio - so hardly anything would be tagged! For me, the importance of seeing an RfA candidate tagging SDs and CVs is to see that they know what is a suitable article/image for such tagging. If I see a candidate with 200 speedy deletion tags, and most of them are declined, that shows me that they do not understand the criteria. If, on the other hand, I see 200 tags (especially across different SD criteria) and they are mostly deleted as a result, that shows they understand the criteria. I am sitting here on the neutral sofa, rather than the oppose one, as the numbers show that as it stands, you are unlikely to be successful in this RfA. My advice - before going for another RfA, do speedy deletion and copyvio tagging, and get more involved in xfDs - you mention wanting to close them, but over the last 2 years, you have only been involved in 7 or 8 of them, and several of those are comments rather than !votes. I see insufficient evidence of your understanding of policy here, and hence I am not confident enough of your ability to close such discussions '''''
'''Neutral.''' I don't think the candidate's answer for Q6 is encouraging: [[WP:BLP]] applies to ''all'' contentious material, not just the "damaging" material. However, the candidate also said that this is not an area that they would be active in, so instead of opposing, I'll leave this neutral. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
As per nom.
Only here for one and a half months with only 1,500 edits. Unfortunately, you're not ready at this time, as you lack the editing experience admins must have (at least six months experience and 4,000 edits). However, in six months to a year, if no problems arise and you keep up the good work you're doing right now, I'd be happy to support you. Good luck.
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYMets2000&diff=447509630&oldid=447509274 This] shows a ''profound'' lack of understanding of what it means to be an admin.
Per [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=447506086&oldid=447505879 misuse of rollback].
'''Oppose''' We do like to see more admin-hopefuls go into the reverting vandalism department. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough experience yet in general and some of his edits can be problematic. (Including inappropriate use of rollback made today [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=447506086])
'''Strong oppose'''. Appalling use of rollback, berating an editor for trying to help you, and you haven't even bothered to answer the questions.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and the above comments by ErikHaugen, Strange Passerby, Minimac, and HJ Mitchell.  I strongly suggest a speedy withdrawal per [[WP:SNOW]].
{{edit conflict}} '''Oppose''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=447511737 this AIV report], which is for submitting an AFC multiple times.
After looking through some diffs, this is exactly the type of person who should not be an admin. Will need at least six months of learning. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' The user does not meet my [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|requirements]]. Additionally, the user's answers to the questions are poor.
'''Oppose''' - 67 edits and less than two months is far too little to go off of for the community to trust you with administrator tools. Sorry,
On the off-chance that this user is sincere, I must regretfully '''oppose''' as "nowhere near ready".
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. In a few months I am sure you'll be golden for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Nowhere near ready.
'''Oppose''' As said above it seems to soon haven't seen any other significant administrative task as well as your answers to the above questions is not setting with me well. [[wp:notnow]]
'''Moral support:''' nyswimmer, candidates for admin are usually expected to have a lot more experience. It's not necessarily the number of edits you make; but an administrator is expected to be familiar with a lot of different policies and noticeboards, which is something that comes with a year or two of experience working on wikipedia. It's good that you want to serve the project, but I think it very unlikely that most people will support your request for admin just yet. In the meantime, you can make lots of positive contributions without being an administrator.
'''Support''' Don't see anything wrong with candidate. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Great candidate.
I've noticed his work for years.  Dedicated, conscientious. - Dank (
Looks good enough to me.  &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' - <strike>just to counteract</strike>SoWhy's insane arcade of articles that should have been deleted are a great example of why we need more level headed editors with the mop. The extreme inclusionist disguised as discretion has to stop, and this looks like a damn good place to start. Regards.
The answer to Q4 doesn't answer anything. Unless I'm reading the question wrong? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
{{ec}} '''Oppose.''' Concerns about judgment. In February alone, I'm seeing a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muzondo_High_School&action=historysubmit&diff=414550039&oldid=414503828 PRODed high school], a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristian_%C3%98stby&action=historysubmit&diff=414561016&oldid=414559095 BLP-PRODed dead person], <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Askari&action=historysubmit&diff=414248509&oldid=414229177 ''another'' BLP-PRODed dead person]</s> (my mistake), several not-so-good declined CSD tags, and some more questionable PRODs. For example, there's probably a dozen different rationales [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_Space&oldid=417344104 this page] could be deleted for (namely [[WP:NAD]], but I don't see how [[WP:NOTMANUAL]] applies to a page that consists only of a glossary of words. Another example, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planking&diff=prev&oldid=417198098 the PROD] of [[Planking]] with the rationale, "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" when the article clearly links to a news report by [[Ten News]] that describes the act as a "craze that's sweeping the nation". Seems like this user would play a little too fast and loose with the delete button for comfort. (Pardon the metaphor, I'm not implying that you would actually ''play'' with the delete button, but this is RfA so I feel compelled to clarify.) In addition the incident that 28bytes brought up is concerning. Regards, ''
'''Oppose''' I don't think you really understand deletion policy or (more critically) [[WP:BLP]].
'''Oppose''': Per Swarm and Courcelles above and 28Bytes below. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Concerns with policy knowledge and judgement.  -'''

'''Oppose''' Based on the above and [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#Fergie_Olver|this discussion]], in which the candidate really did demonstrate a lack of policy knowledge concerning BLP's and seemed unable to reconcile their views with several other editors one of whom is a crat.
'''Oppose''' regrettably, as Radiofan is clearly a excellent contributor, but there are sufficient questionable decisions above to doubt this candidate's jusdgement with regards to deletion - and since deletion (albeit of prods) is an area he is interested in I cannot support this request. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' Yes, Radiofan is indeed a good contributor, with many strengths. However, I have searched extensively through his editing history and have found very little evidence of experience of admin-related areas, and in the few cases where there is relevant experience it often seems flawed. For example, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orange_County_Science_Fiction_Club this AfD discussion] I would have preferred to have seen more readiness to accept that consensus was against him. That is debatable, but more serious is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=415059359 this report to AIV], where the user reported had received no warnings at all. Circumstances where a report without a warning are justified are quite exceptional, and that came nowhere near to being one. One or two mistakes like that among hundreds of good reports would be acceptable, but in this case I see very little experience in the relevant areas, and what experience I do see contains a high proportion of edits which are either questionable or, as in that one, just plain wrong. Radiofan is making very useful contributions, but lacks knowledge in those areas which are relevant to being an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Regrettably, for continued errors in CSD tagging that should not be problematic at this point in time.
'''Oppose''' - Per that AIV report and those CSD tags, which were very recent.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns over BLP and CSD policy knowledge.
{{ec}}'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry but those CSD nominations lead me to oppose your candidacy at this time. That said, you're a valued contributor and I hope you'll run again in a couple of months; I'll be glad to support you if you improve your CSD tagging. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' for BLP and CSD issues. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
I've reviewed some of the links above in the Oppose section. Some strike me as no big deal, others strike me as rookie mistakes that an admin shouldn't make. I give more weight to the latter.
'''Oppose''' for many reasons stated by others but especially for trying to delete an article about someone who is dead using [[WP:BLP]] as a rationale, and for reluctance to accept reliable sources that are not readily available online.  Paper sources and sources hidden behind paywalls can be reliable and should not be discounted.
'''Oppose''' per Townlake, who put what I was thinking into works better than I could have done.
'''Oppose''' per CSD noms linked by SoWhy. I appreciate RadioFan's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RadioFan_2&diff=417605110&oldid=417603651 additional notes] regarding process, but they don't make up for CSDs which are just plain improper. I think it's entirely logical for reviewers to presume that how one nominates articles would greatly inform how one adjudicates - especially at CSD. Obviously AfD is more of a discussion, but that is most often not so with CSD. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but it's not the right time to give RadioFan the mop, not yet. Per some opposes above, especially [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]]. RadioFan does possess a nice edit count, but that's not all about editing. I say, he's a promising user, and in the future, I'd like to see him as an admin some day, but not yet, not today. '''''
I see a lot of speedy deletion tags that are just wrong, and a lot of admins that delete the articles anyway. Admins, I think, need to examine each speedy tag and verify that the criteria has been met. I think it's pretty safe to say I'm a deletionist, but we need to respect the consensus reflected at [[wp:CSD]].
'''Oppose'''. JamesBWatson has said most of everything I was going to say. Question 4  was quite easy, but even a helpful prompt still didn't  bring forth an answer that inspires confidence in  your knowledge of deletion policy. I'm sorry RadioFan, but I don't feel happy with the idea of you having the tools just yet.
'''Moral support'''. Reenem, you seem to be a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and in your 17,000 edits have probably done more to help build the 'pedia than many of us who will now opine about you here. I'd trust you to not delete the main page, and to helpfully block vandals when needed rather than have to rely on others. The trouble is the admin role has many other elements to it and like last year, we have very little to go by to trust your judgment in tricky situations. That's what people need to see to be comfortable with supporting you for adminship. Your question answers above, e.g. your desire to help enforce rules and regulations, are going to make some people here uncomfortable as well - they're a bit "off" to the culture of the place. I'd suggest withdrawing from RFA now, and getting more involved in the administrative aspects of the wiki even without the mop (this includes watching WP:RFA to see what sorts of candidates come through and how they are treated). Then come back in a few months once we know more about you in this area.
'''Moral support'''. Your heart's definitely in the right place. I just think you need a bit more experience. Keep up the good work with your contributions in the current events areas, and try to remember to always use edit summaries! (even for minor edits) --
'''Moral support'''. Please don't be let down by the response here.  With some more experience, you can get rid of those events of the past and possibly become sysop quality.
'''Weak support'''. Looking through recent contribs, the candidate is a very, very good content-editor. (And has nearly twice as many edits as I do, incidentally, and I'm an admin and have been here since 2006...) However, as far as I can tell, he doesn't have much experience with XfDs, say, or counter-vandalism efforts, or anything else that would allow me to judge what he'd be like as an admin. Although I don't think editors should have to jump through hoops to become admins, we do need (per Martinp above) some kind of track-record in order to judge whether the candidate knows what he's doing, and is capable of making the right decisions on difficult questions. I'd suggest building a stronger track record - for example, by commenting regularly on XfDs and illustrating a knowledge of policy - before coming back to RfA.
'''Oppose''' - You write that you warn vandals, but I can see ''zero'' warnings or reversions of vandalism. (I also see you [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=Reenem&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= never used a tool] and are not a rollbacker, which, while definitely not an issue by itself, makes me more sure that you do not revert vandalism except when you stumble upon it.) In addition, you rarely use edit summaries. I see little contributions outside of article space, so while you may be a decent editor, you probably do not understand what the sysop tools will be for. Additionally, you appear to still have some issues with sourcing articles correctly, as evidenced by your talk page and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sara_Roosevelt&action=historysubmit&diff=409582782&oldid=396641231 this diff (7 revisions)], where you create an entirely unsourced paragraph and use exactly no edit summaries to indicate that you are rearranging content. Finally, your answer to question two is slightly evasive and leaves me wondering what you actually do consider your best work, so will you please list an article or two that we can actually judge.
Waiting for the questions to be answered and the edit counter to be opted-into, but I'm thinking oppose right now. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/Reenem Over 90% of the edits] are in the mainspace; there's very little activity elsewhere, especially in projectspace. In fact, there doesn't seem to be an edit to project talk space, and relatively few to user talk and article talk pages, too. I'd like to see a bit more activity in these areas, particularly projectspace—an admin is involved in the project's ''administration'', and while a lot of contributions to mainspace is great, I'm looking for more. I also agree with Reaper Eternal above that, if you want to work in anti-vandalism, some experience with Huggle and rollback would really be beneficial; it's harder than it looks. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Strong Oppose''', I only see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Reenem&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 two] warnings in your last 100 user talk edits, which goes back to May 2010. I also don't see any recent substantial contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. You said that you want to work on anti-vandalism, yet your contributions show otherwise.
'''Oppose''' I can't find <s>much</s> many vandalism warnings in your contributions or an edit to AIV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=2000&tagfilter=&title=Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=Reenem&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1]. Also, the lack of edit summaries and the block log worry me. →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
I have asked questions as well, but feel compelled to add myself here. What's extremely concerning is how you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reenem&action=historysubmit&diff=410302494&oldid=407600820 removed] all evidence of negative interaction from your talk page moments before transcluding this RfA. This tells me that you're trying to hide what you think are your low moments instead of addressing them straight-on in this RfA. An administrator will have to deal with situations much worse than what was removed, and being unable and/or unwilling to address issues is highly concerning. I also echo the comments from the above opposers. And a small typo you made in your self-nom: it seems you were blocked thrice, not twice. Until I'm convinced otherwise by your answers to the additional questions or general composure throughout this RfA, I'm stuck here. Please don't take the opposes personally; I am not here to put you down, and it would be depressing to see you stop editing because of this (something I've seen happen more than once. However, these comments provide points for you to improve and answer your question on whether or not the community thinks you're ready to assist with admin operations on this encyclopedia. Someone with the level of dedication that you have has extreme potential, that, if nurtured, may produce a strong potential administrator and editor in general. Are you up for the challenge?
I'd prefer to see better references in BLPs than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reenem&diff=prev&oldid=410302494 an IMDB external link]. Also, I can't find any evidence of [[WP:AIV]] edits; I'd really need to see at least ''some'' activity there to get an idea when and why you would or wouldn't block someone for vandalism.
'''Oppose''' You would be a good candidate for mentoring. Get more experience (e.g. rollbacker, reviewer) and try in 6 months. Sorry--
'''Oppose''' per block log. I would also like to see more work in project space before I would support. <font color="00ff00">
'''Oppose''' per block log and answers to just about every question.
'''Oppose''' Sorry that this is ending in a pile on. I have serious concerns about the candidate's understanding of some of our most basic policy. The answers to the questions also do not instill me with a great deal of confidence.
Numerous concerns.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Blocked less than a <del>week</del> year ago for disruption.  Serious issues with policy knowledge, judgment, and maturity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' I have opposed last time because of the block you had last year. At least that got out of the way. Sadly, I still don't see much improvement here. Your answer to Q6 is too vague (i.e. not enough information).
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry  to  add to  a pile-on, but  after doing  my  own  homework, I  really can only  reiterate User:Sven Manguard.
'''Oppose''', but with moral support. Don't really want to pile on, but would like to make a few suggestions. Firstly, it's never a good idea for an admin candidate to remove stuff from their Talk page, especially not immediately prior to RfA. And saying it's because you never learned how to archive really isn't good enough - learn, and revert your removals and archive. You need to show evidence of significant activity in the areas in which you wish to do admin work, so for AIV, you need to show experience of dealing with vandals - we need to see appropriate use of warnings, understanding of what vandalism actually is and what it isn't, etc. And the answers to questions, I'm afraid, are just too vague/incomplete/inaccurate, and show you haven't really gained the knowledge from experience which is required. Finally, use edit summaries - always. Edit summaries aren't there just for when you don't add sources for a change - edit summaries and sources are two entirely separate things with entirely separate purposes, so learn about both and use both. I look forward to being able to support a future run when these problems have been addressed and you have a good amount of "behind the scenes" experience in admin-related areas. --
'''Oppose''' per Airplaneman, Sven Manguard and edit summaries. Keep your head up and please take the advice well.--
'''Oppose''' - well meaning, but not enough knowledge at the moment - continuing to add unsourced material even after two blocks, not using appropriate edit summaries, and not having a useful talkpage archive are all signs of someone who is not quite in step with the community and would benefit from being mentored for a while to help guide them. I would also suggest asking the opinion of an experienced Wikipedia before applying again for adminship. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' – Doesn't seem to need the tools. I don't like the rhetoric about enforcing rules and blocking people; seems like he wants to be a Wiki-policeman. Hasn't demonstrated anything more than superficial knowledge of policy. His interpretation of the vandalism policy is, IMHO, not correct. (There's no need to stick to four warnings and then a ban. That's a guideline. It should be decided case-by-case.) Sorry, but no. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose''' per above opposes. Sorry, but I can't support you at this time. Please don't take these opposes the wrong way; instead, take everything that has been said into consideration and reapply in a year or so. Best,
'''Oppose''' per above opposes. My personal suggestion is that you attempt to be more rigorous about edit summaries, at least for major edits. More than 1/4 of all of your last 150 major edits have no summary. To me, this is a bothersome symptom. Good (clear and accurate explanations) edit summaries are among the most efficient ways to communicate with other editors. Many of us are perusing and monitoring a large number of articles and good summaries make all of our lives easier. I exercise the Golden Rule and religiously enter (sometimes lengthy) summaries as a courtesy to all the other editors. you don't have to be [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/editsummary/index.php?name=Quartermaster&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia as assiduous as I am] about this, but I don't see much improvement from your overall percent to your most recent activity. --
'''Neutral''' I feel as if I may move to the '''Weak Support''' section of the benches above, however, waiting for answers to the above section. [[User:Reenem|Reenem]], in any sense, please don't let this get you down. I've had ''3'' failed RFA's and I'm contemplating my fourth within the next three months. Those people up there ^^ really do want to see you succeed, but we all have our doubts and worries, and in the long run... we're all here to support and build this encyclopedia. Keep your edit counts up, start using edit summaries (Even if you add "re" or "+" ... put SOMETHING in there because communication is '''KEY'''. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Neutral''' Dont want to pile on here, query 10 needs more thought. Sentiments expressed by dusti are shared here.
'''Neutral''' number of edits is good. Some work on audited content such as [[WP:GA|good articles]] or [[WP:FA|featured ones]] would give yu a good understanding of how the 'pedia works.
'''Strong Support''' I really couldn't say no to a member of the OTRS. I believe and anyone correct me if I am wrong that members of the OTRS should be admins on the basis that they must deal with different types of situations and In my opinion adminship is needed to deal with these tasks. When you have been trusted with the OTRS I think you can be trusted with admin privileges. The user has shown much pride in his contributions to the encyclopedia however there were a few minor blips I saw while reading through his archives. Regards. '''<font face="times new roman">
I would have nominated you tomorrow if you had waited until then. I have seen nothing that would indicate you would be a net negative as an admin - rather, I see that you are trustworthy, competent, and can make good use of the tools. I'll expand on this tomorrow - good luck. --
'''Strong Support''' Quite a positive and enthusiastic contributor to the project. Although I respect the opposing viewpoints, I suspect that it is purely the candidate's enthusiasm which is being misread. I should request editors to view this editor on the basis of his contributions - which I find credibly encouraging - rather than the perspective of whether the editor wishes to have another flag. If that were the case, then we should purely discourage editors from applying for RfAs - because the mere application to become an administrator would then disqualify a candidate as 'wanting' to get the bit. In that case, we should have been trawling through various editors and their contributions to select prospective administrators. The RfA exists so that editors who may want the bit may apply. For Rehman, I would have been more than pleased to nominate him myself, leave an inconsistent schedule on my part that almost but ensured I kept delaying nominating him. I hope Rehman qualifies as an administrator because not only is he trustworthy, his contributions have validated his dedication to the project and his commitment to contribute on a continuing basis. Fair, well mannered, great deportment, and with an extremely amicable disposition, I strongly support Rehman's candidature for adminship.
'''Support'''  I don't see any indication that the tools would be misused, which is the most important thing.  I do feel it's possibly too easy for the opposers to mistake honest-to-goodness enthusiasm for 'flag-collecting' -maybe I'm wrong - but provided that the tools are used correctly, does it matter that they may not ''all'' be used straight away, or that their use may start slow and then build?  Surely the most important thing to look at is the likelihood of ''mis''-using them.  I don't think it's likely.   And I feel that being over-enthusiastic, in and of itself, doesn't indicate a problem.
'''Support''' I opposed last time, but now I'll support. There aren't enough administrators willing to work with OTRS (although I'd like to go there too, I don't know how to) so Rehman would be a good choice here.
'''Support''' Looking over his talk page he seems like a reasonable guy who knows his stuff. &nbsp;<small>
'''Support''' Qualified, experienced, longtime editor. No reason not to support. I don't quite understand how user rights can be used to determine whether or not someone can be trusted with the tools, but whatevs. ''
'''Support''' This user has requested rights because he feels he has the experience required and he does, enthusiasm is what the project needs. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience, high quality work, wants to work in areas where we certainly need more help, and seems to be an amiable and civil person. --
'''Support'''. The contribs I looked at were fine, and the enthusiasm is certainly there. I think that, with some quality mentorship from existing admins, this candidate would be a fine admin. Do take some of the concerns below on board, though - there are certainly areas for improvement, but none of these is a deal-breaker.
'''Support''' unconvinced by oppose rationale. Being eager to take on extra responsibilities does not appear to in any way detract from the good onwiki work done by this user.
'''Support''' - eagerness to help out in as many ways as possible should be praised, not cast aside.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Oppose on the basis that I do not believe you are currently mature enough to handle these tools.''' - You seem to just need to have as many rights as possible, everywhere. This is seen by your last two RfAs here, your sysopship on commons.wikimedia, and your [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2011-01#Global_rollback_for_Rehman various] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2010-10#Global_rollback_for_Rehman requests] for global rights (and your request for rollback on simplewp with only 12 edits, and your request to be on the OTRS, and the fact that you [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kylu&diff=prev&oldid=2226919 requested autopatrol] on meta - most people just get it when an admin thinks they are trusted, and don't need to ask). Honestly, you need to learn that these are merely rights on the internet, not anything special. This lack of maturity and questions of motivation leads me to be concerned about how you will act in certain situations when people don't agree with you - but that is just my personal experience with other people who collect rights. Regards,
I just get the same feeling as Ajraddatz. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]].  It hasn't been 9 months since the last RFA, which received zero support.  I would need more time to see evidence of sysop-worthy work.--
'''Oppose''' - I normally do not chime in on the oppose, unless something just does not sit or feel right.  To me this seems to be all about user rights.  It appears this user is acquiring as many as he can get.  User rights are no big deal, but comments listed here and on request for global seem to indicate otherwise.  I also have an issue with this users answer to question #1.  "I currently do quite a lot of CSD-requests on files...this procedure is a little pain in the butt...wait quite a bit for the file to get deleted by another admin; unnecessary work for both, me and the other admin".  I think that admin's should only out right delete items that are nominated by other users G10,G12, or other libelous content under the file tags of CSD's since this is where they claim to be working, that they themselves find.  They should tag then leave any items they find that they feel needs to be deleted as a CSD to other admin's so not to be judge, jury and executioner of that article, item, etc.
Per fetchcomms.
I couldn't care less about user rights. However, your answer to Q4 appears spectacularly wrong (unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, you appear to be saying that if you can't find a mention of something on Google, it ought to be deleted). Since the only admin area in which you indicate you want to work is deletion, I think you'd be far too trigger-happy.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. A7 does not apply if there is "any credible claim of significance or importance", irrespective of Google searches, reliable sources or verifiability. Deleting something under A7 because your "news/scholar search gives undesirable results." shows a very serious misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria, which is a problem since this is the area you state you plan to spend most of your admin time in, if given the mop.
'''Oppose'''  He appears to be ''very'' active at files and templates for deletion.  In fact he has a 99%+ record of !voting "delete" and "per nom" as the reasoning.   I am sorry, but I do not think "per nom" over and over actually helps the project (though it makes deletions a near certainty).
'''Oppose''' I think it's been over a year since I've encountered this candidate; the last time was at [[WP:Requests for adminship/Rehman|his first RfA]]. Unfortunately, it looks like one thing hasn't changed since then &ndash; he still doesn't understand [[WP:CSD#A7]], as explained above by Iridescent and Dana boomer. I also agree with Collect's position that voting "per nom" the vast majority of the time at XfD is unhelpful; it certainly doesn't enlarge your experience with deletion much, if at all. In spite of these criticisms I do want to commend Rehman for working OTRS, which certainly is very beneficial to the project.
'''Oppose''' An editor seeking admin responsibilities must have a very clear idea of speedy criteria. This editor either does not understand A7 or alternatively is unable to explain it - see incorrect answer to Q4; either case IMHO disqualifies him. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4.  The answer was not the one I was looking for (in fact, it went in the completely OPPOSITE direction), and gives a pretty clear understanding that the candidate does not understand the A7 criteria.  Therefore I am not comfortable with supporting this candidate.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent et al. A7 states quite clearly that "verifiability" is not a standard involved, yet the candidate essentially states that he would apply A7 if he could not verify the article.
'''Oppose'''. I think it's rather shocking to see four administrators supporting a candidate who has such a very clear misunderstanding of the guidelines surrounding one of the administrator's basic jobs. One can of course easily understand the motivations behind the usual fan club supports, but I'm left wondering if those four administrators actually understand the guidelines themselves.
'''Oppose''' I would need a better understanding of the speedy deletion process to support, since that is the area Rehman is planning to work in. Come back after making more substantive contributions to AFD and reviewing how speedy deletion works. In particular, admins usually don't delete articles they themselves have tagged for speedy deletion.--
'''Oppose''' – Q4 is simply wrong, and shows a misunderstanding of A7. Considering the fact that the candidate states that he will work with CSD, Q4 just worries me, and prevents me from supporting. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Oppose''' I do not think that having many or "collecting" flags is a huge matter as long as it isn't disruptive to the project. However, the misunderstanding of speedy deletion worries me.
'''Oppose'''editor is seeking too many user rights at once. Establish yourself a little more, perhaps, come back in 1 yr or so, and I'll be happy to support.
'''Oppose''' per Q4. I don't have much else to add besides that the answer to that question raises huge red flags in my book. –
'''Oppose''' per Q4. At first, Rehman made it sound like [[wikt:xe|xe]] would delete an article if it simply didn't have enough Google results, which is an pretty significant problem. It wasn't until after Iridescent [[User_talk:Iridescent#RFA|pointed out the error]] that Rehman clarified. Furthermore, placing the blame on staying up too late seemed odd to me as well. What if xe is up late on Wikipedia? Will xe make other similar errors because of it? I don't have too much issue with the "collecting of user rights", but the error on Q4 was a dealbreaker for me. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for requesting adminship. It is a "pain in the butt" to wait for an admin to delete Rehman's CSD-tagged articles? The asnwer to question 4 is also of some concern. CSD deletions need to be solid.
'''Oppose''' per above (answer to Q4 and trigger-happy with wanting tools). In addition, [[User_talk:Anikingos/Archive_2#WP:ITN.2FC|this barely five months ago]] in which you described [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&action=historysubmit&diff=396882841&oldid=396882358 this edit] as a personal attack leaves me wondering if you're well-versed enough in policy to be an admin. In the same thread, you also cited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIn_the_news%2FCandidates&action=historysubmit&diff=396501503&oldid=396499107 this edit] — in which a user opposed a nomination of yours at ITNC — as being of a "bad attitude", apparently for the mere fact that he opposed it. These are big red alarm bells.
'''Neutral''' I don't see any reason why we couldn't trust him to use the tools in a good faith matter, I don't think bit collecting is a major problem if it isn't disruptive; but I can't support someone who wants to work with CSD and seems, based on question 4, to have such a fundamental misunderstanding of criteria A7.
I think I've supported Rehman in several of his endeavors on various projects thus far, and I remain pleased with his contributions to Commons. I know him to be trustworthy and friendly, which would normally sway me to support. Unfortunately, the answer to question 4 illustrates a potentially fundamental misunderstanding of the CSD criteria, and of the role of an enwiki admin in general. Our job is to push buttons that either 1) the community has decided should be pushed or 2) obviously, without doubt, should be pushed. Unless we're working in our capacity as editors, which we should most of the time, our personal opinion and research doesn't really matter. An A7 should be blatant – you should be able to decided in less than a minute whether it should be speedily deleted. If you feel it justifies further research or review, then decline the article and send it to AfD. It's not just this question; I usually can't stand minor misinterpretations of deletion policies being used against RfA nominees. I simply feel you're rushing into the role. Best of luck for the future.
'''Neutral''' I was not concerned with the "flag desire" that a few other editors had raised, but the candidate's answer to Q4 subsequent to my original support moves me here instead. I am not flat out opposing because I believe the candidate could be a net positive with a better understanding of CSD.
'''Neutral''', to avoid pile on Oppose. Sorry Rehman, your answer to Q4 is fundamentally wrong. When a candidate who has stated he will be working in CSD  has shown that they do not understand quite how strict CSD must be, I cannot support. I waited as long as I could before changing my vote, to see if it was a misunderstanding, but I have seen nothing to confirm that.
'''Neutral''' think of it as moral support, you have good heart, but you had a misstep here that was piled on in query 4, keep improving :).
'''Support'''. Richardcavell was a valuable admin back in the day (check the logs, lots of good work) before some very strange drama brought him to resign. The BLP issue that brought down his second RFA was kind of sketchy, but the incident it centered on was pretty minor and I think he still should have passed (he added the persons full legal name to [[Josie Parrelli]] from his own personal knowledge and defended it). Not as active as I would like but he is an intelligent contributor, experienced and clueleful and very gentlemanly. I have no doubt he can be a good admin because he already has been one! <small>'''
'''Support'''. Richard's previous tenure as an admin demonstrated he can be trusted with the tools, and his decision in RfA #2 to put himself up for the community to judge rather than simply requesting them back (as he was permitted to do) speaks highly of his integrity.
Yes. Would like to fully understand privacy issues, but it's not that important. ''
'''Support'''. Most odd that you didn't get my support at RfA number 1, but glancing at RfA, mainly out of morbid fascination these days at how difficult and challenging the whole procedure has become, I was naturally surprised to see a familiar name, someone I knew as an administrator. Don't see any reason not to give him the bit, yes, unsourced information in BLPs always has been an issue, but more so are those contributors who want to stick [citation needed] next to statements like "The sky is blue".
I'm inclined to say "yes" here. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' because, quite simply, he should never have lost the mop in the first place. If the opposes are the biggest problems, I confidently support.
'''Support''' His adminship finished before I started looking behind the articles themselves, but in the time I've been here, he's always been knowledgeable and it was a while before I discovered he wasn't an admin. No problems for me with this application - I just hope it doesn't cause any for him.
'''Support'''- I've seen this guy around and he has always come across as intelligent and reasonable. No concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' Net win. The privacy stuff is pretty normal, low drama material and the answers about BLPs seem adequate to me. <font style="font-family: Georgia">

'''Support'''. In the end, RfA comes down to trust. I have seen Richard around, as well as having a look at the previous admin decisions he has made (the ones I, as a non-admin, can see) and I trust Richard to use the admin tools appropriately.
'''Strong support''' A trustworthy editor alive to privacy concerns, would be a great addition to the admin corps.
I've read the oppose section and don't share their concerns. The candidate found time to make sensible use of the tools when he was last an admin so I don't accept the "no need for the tools" argument. The Privacy situation is unusual, especially as he edits in his own name, but I don't see this as grounds for an oppose. If anything it is a positive that the editor is aware how serious privacy problems can be. As for his former divergence from policy re sourcing, I am happy with his assurances and trust that he will use the tools in accordance with policy ''
'''Support''' I usually don't like "per someone" comments, but I have to say per WereSpielChequers.  He summed it up more eloquently than I could.
Net positive to the project. Already showed himself to be trustworthy with admin privileges. --
'''Support''' - shouldn't have given up the first mop and no issues when he had it
'''Support''' ''<B>--
'''Support''' - Clean block log, has had tools before, no indications of assholery.
'''Support''' - Previous admin, nothing major recently, no blocks, no problem.
'''Support''' - As he's described it, I agree with his previous decision to resign the tools and I don't hold it against him.  I wish more admins were willing to do that.  I see no other reason to oppose here and he meets all my criteria.  --'''
'''Support''' (formerly ''oppose''). The candidate has created some good quality articles about serious topics. His open and direct answer explaining his privacy concerns satisfies me. Nobody claims that this or any editor be infallible, and so I believe that a handful of minor editing mistakes should not deprive the community of a proven administrator. I would urge other early "opposers" to reconsider the decision. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I can't quite oppose, so I suppose weak support will do. I think resigning the tools was smart on the candidate's part, and I don't hold that against him at all. I wish you luck!
He knows the tools and the BLP concerns brought up below aren't convincing enough for me.
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' I see the candidate as a net positive and have no concerns related to trust.
'''Support''' Answers to the questions are good and I see lots of good contributions from when he was last an administrator. '''
'''Support''' After additional answers and clarifications. /
'''Oppose'''. It seems like insanity for someone concerned about their privacy to the extent that they feel obliged to move their home should raise their online profile by becoming a WP administrator, and there are already quite enough unhinged administrators.
'''Oppose''' - maybe I'm incredibly dense, but the diffs in the answer to #5 look incredibly underwhelming.  Also, this statement also bothers me: "I note also that Wikipedia is far more influential these days than it was in 2006, and has a much more rigorous, academic focus, and therefore should exercise more responsibility."  So if Wikipedia is less visible, it's okay to libel people???  I looked at your more recent edits.  In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_David_Mitchell&diff=438404054&oldid=437404823], you left "mormons" lower case.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eat_a_Peach&diff=prev&oldid=429551303 This] seems rather inappropriate, particularly when unsourced (though obviously not a BLP). In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Elstner&diff=prev&oldid=428441056 this diff], you correctly changed "suffers from" to "has", when referring to an illness, but made no effort to cite remove, or even tag what is certainly a potentially contentious statement in a BLP.  In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wetten,_dass..%3F&diff=prev&oldid=428239491], you added a claim about a living person without an inline citation.  In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atticus_Shaffer&diff=prev&oldid=427667687], you correctly removed "and does well in his studies (this was written by his parents)" with the edit summary "that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia" but left in the previous <s>(unsourced)</s> sentence (which was verbatim from his official bio), "where he presently lives with them and five cats, two dogs, birds, fish, a rabbit and a large flock of chickens".  That should be in an encyclopedia?  Sorry, but I'm not seeing this new commitment to BLP. --
'''Oppose''' Your answers do not impress, they appear to me to be phoned in. I expect for administrators to have decent communication skills and be willing and able to answer important or complex questions fully and clearly. I'm not seeing that here. Cases in point: For Q2, you give us a link to a list of articles and expect us to sort though them. That's great, and that could be part of your answer, but it tells us almost nothing and puts the onus on us to do the work of figuring out what your best contributions are. Some of those articles are better than others, a few are redlinks, and most of them were probably worked on after you started them. Ergo, your answer tells me almost nothing. For Q5, you respond to a question on BLP by showing a few minor edits off, some of which are routine vandalism fighting, and from that extrapolate that you have an understanding of BLP. I'm sorry, but that's not what we're looking for. We're looking for a coherent explanation as to we should trust that you understand BLP policy. Links can be part of it, but not all of it. In Q3 you are asked about conflicts, and how you would respond to them. Again you link us to other pages as opposed to answering the question. Finally, I'm troubled by what I see as a few knowledge gaps. You say in Q1 that one of the reasons you want to get the mop has to do with bots, except bots are handled though the Bot Approval Group, which has nothing to do with being or not being an administrator. There are other gaps, but I've gone on long enough, I think.
'''Oppose''' The response to question #5 was made without elaboration, overall I did not get impressed by any. I'm sorry, but I don't think you would suit this charge.
'''Regretful oppose'''. I talked to Richard about this RFA before he opened it and offered some of my thoughts, mostly centered around the idea that I would need to see assurance that he was willing to commit to not using his adminship as something to be used to make a point, and I was hoping he could explain his growth on the issue well enough here to persuade me to support, but his answer to my question just doesn't do it. The issue in my mind is not that someone who felt he and Wikipedia were unsuited would resign (which actually seems quite proper), but that the actual manifestation of that resignation was something resembling a ragequit, where someone said something that upset him and he turned in his bits in response. Admins catch a lot of incidental flack as they carry out their actions, I think most people can agree with that, and without knowing if Richard has some sort of plan for constructively coping with criticism if someone says something to him on a bad day, I don't have enough confidence in his coolheadness to support this RFA.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q5 was very poor.  The linked diffs do absolutely zero to reassure me that the candidate is now aware of the need for secondary sources in BLPs.  I gave the candidate a second shot to refactor the comments in their last RFA in Q7 and I feel they threw it away.  Their comments were a very serious misunderstanding of [[WP:BLP]] and all the candidate had to say was "I no longer agree with that comment."  I am not confident that this candidate has improved since the last RFA and the academic journal comment has not helped.--v/r -
'''Oppose''' Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge.  Furthermore, after reading your nomination statement and question answers, you do not present yourself as someone with a legitimate need for the tools.  Also, what's with the ambiguous reference to 'privacy' in Q1?  -'''
'''Oppose'''. Overall, Richard's participation in this RFA is a reflection of poor communication skills. I see a lot of words, but not a lot of substance or (apparent) thought behind them. It all appears very disordered. In my opinion, the request for adminship would have been better served with straightforward answers, rather than vague, deflection about privacy concerns. I'm concerned with the answer to Q6. If all individuals participated in editing under some kind of clandestine geolocation protection, the encyclopedia would equate to one big socking nightmare. And yet, Richard feels very strongly that any person should have the right to access Wikipedia in this manner. Heaven help us. <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' - Per Fastily, and similar concerns in the opposes. No need repeating them.
'''Oppose'''. I am not convinced by the answer to question 7. I am also concerned that Richardcavell has personal issues with privacy. Becoming an admin isn't going to make that easier, although it is unclear to me if the privacy issues had any relation to Wikipedia. (I don't really want to know.)
Do you actually really have a need for the extra buttons? Running a bot has nothing to do with adminship.
'''Oppose''', per Fastily and similar concerns above. --
'''Concerned'''.  The bot interest is not mentioned in your previous work through the end of 2010.  Giving you the tools for bot work also requires giving you a bunch of regular admin moderator tools, but there is some evidence of being at odds with sourcing norms and of personal drama.  The possible gain to the community doesn't seem worth the risk.  You've been around a while and not enough has changed since RFA2 just a half year ago.  Also interesting looking at your month by month that there was a huge spike before the last RFA and then you seem to have contributed less in last 6 months.  I would also want some better evidence of writing up a good BLP (not a stub) from sources to allay the Josie concerns (note just reffing Josie not enough for me...would want to see you check this box hard.)  I felt for you with the 'crat RFA action and agree with Malleus, that dude was at fault not you.  And nothing wrong with a principled resignation.  Still...just concerned too much drama around you.[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Oppose''' This editor [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Richardcavell&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia has been doing good work] on Wikipedia for years.  I have seen his edits on some medical articles which I have also edited.  I reviewed some of the controversy this person has been in, and he handled it gracefully.  I would rather see a person's worst behavior than their best behavior, and even at his worst this person would make a good admin in many cases.  In the "oppose" section there are some complaints about how he answered some questions.  His answers are not the answers I would give but despite that I am not concerned that this person is going to misuse admin privileges based on my review of his past behavior.  Despite all these good points, this user is seriously missing the point of question number 5.  The major requirement for being a good admin is direct, concise, answers to questions, and an answer of "I do not not know" or "I do not understand the question" would have been preferable to the trite and non-informational answer given in this case.  This editor is really cool, and I would love to support him on a future nomination.  But this nomination should be a learning experience - this is the second time there has been a problem with explaining BLP policy so get it right for the future.  Ask any other editor on the oppose board for help if you do not understand the problem.
'''Oppose''' - I wish I could support Richard, he's a good egg and I've had nothing but positive experiences with him. But unfortunately my concerns at his last RfA, in regards to his stance on BLPs, still seem unaddressed. I see that I'm not alone with my concerns. I remember that I had advised him last time to volunteer at [[WP:BLPN]] to pick up some pointers, and I'm not so arrogant to suggest that would have been all that was necessary, but I think that might have helped and I still suggest it. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Cindamuse.  I don't understand the purpose of the long diatribe on Richard's 007 lifestyle, fleeing his hometown in the nick of time before the bad guys get him, editing Wikipedia from the witness protection program.  If none of it affects your ability to serve as an admin, then why even mention it?  Competency/stability concerns.  And, the circumstances under which adminship was previously revoked give me concerns about immaturity.  You had your chance as an admin and you voluntarily gave it up in a temper tantrum, despite dozens of editors asking you to reconsider.  Don't be surprised if the community is reluctant to give it back to you.
'''Oppose''' I hate to oppose former administrators, but there are still some problems that haven't been addressed, such as the BLP and also, the poor clarification of answers to some of the questions.
'''Oppose''' In my interactions with Richard concerning bots and as a member of the [[WP:BAG|BAG]], I've always been left confused about his requests. The advice I gave seem to be poorly understood even when I took above-average efforts to make things clear. Richard never violated any policy, or was incivil or anything like that, but communication was definitely an issue, and I never had the sense that we spoke the same language. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">
'''Oppose''' --
'''Strong Oppose'''. The [[WP:BLP]] stuff is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, and the opposes based around that are unconvincing. On the other hand, the extremely terse answers to the questions (even after going back and elaborating, these are remarkably short answers) are pretty troubling. Brevity is an admirable trait, and I'd be the first to acknowledge that I myself could stand to benefit from some - but when you're giving woefully incomplete answers, it's a communicative issue (look at the original answer to Q3 - the question asks 1) have you been in any conflicts, 2) how did you resolve these conflicts - your original answer dealt solely with (1)). If I ask a question of an administrator, I expect a complete answer - I really dislike being made to feel like I'm badgering (heh) someone when getting a complete answer is like pulling teeth. This also leads me to worry that you may take administrative actions based on an incomplete reading of the situation (if a person can't even pay attention to both parts of a thirty-four word question, how can I reasonably assume they'll be able to read an entire discussion through which multiple points may be raised)? Finally, the real-life concerns lead me to '''seriously''' question your judgment. Applying for a prominent position on a high-ranking website under your real-life name - a website quite well-known, at least within its own ranks, as a place where occasionally tempers flare and all sorts of kooks, nutcases, and cranks end up on Holy Wars - when you seem to have some persisting real-world stalker issues is, pardon my bluntness, dumber than dumb. Even if your answers to the questions demonstrated perfect understanding and comprehension (and were comprehensive themselves), my own good judgment (lacking though it may be at times! :-D) would still cause me to oppose this candidacy, for much the same reason that I would not hire a photo-sensitive [[epileptic]] to juggle chainsaws at a [[rave]], no matter how skilled a juggler he was in normal daylight conditions. I do wish you the best outside of WP, and should the real-world issues ever suitably resolve themselves I would be happy to re-evaluate at that time.
'''Oppose''' per concerns over BLP interpretation, communication issues (on BAG and elsewhere), unconvincing answers to Q's (per Sven Manguard), "don't have enough confidence in his coolheadness" per Fluffernutter, and (FSM help me) per Malleus Fatuorum...the latter being, that although we need admins, we don't need ones who look like a magnet for DRAMA before they start; the latter point may seem unfair, but I'm sure you are already used to accepting things-you-cannot-do, due to your background. But, the attitude to BLP is the killer, for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Weak Oppose'''. In your nomination statement, you said "I note also that Wikipedia is far more influential these days". To me, it sounds like you want to make sure that Wikipedia is the biggest playmaker and not a fringe project in the field before coming back and apply for admin again. No comments regarding the RfA questions or other concerns raised in previous RFAs.
'''Oppose'''. I came here today thinking I'd gladly support the nomination, although I opposed your 2nd RfA. However, I have to oppose per Fastily and Cind.amuse. Wikipedia shouldn't need to adapt to Richard Cavell's 007 lifestyle, like SW said. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Oppose''' Communication is a key part of what I know is required for administrators. I see many follow ups in this users questions. When I look for an admin, I always look for max 1 or 2 good clarifications to answers. I don't see that here, and that's how I know there is good communication. Also reading BLP questions, I see "[WIkipedia] has hardly any barrier to participation." That doesn't comfort me, seems user is more willing to use the tools then to try with words. Also BLP is not only sourcing...there is a whole other end. Sourcing is only one part of BLP. Further concerns for comments from Fluffernutter, TP, and more. --
'''Oppose''' per Malleus. A person who is concerned about his privacy would be attempting to keep a low profile, not try to make himself stand out of the crowd.
'''Neutral''' <s>for now, leaning toward support</s>. You certainly have come a long way since your second RfA, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rove_McManus&diff=prev&oldid=416890133 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Molina&diff=prev&oldid=425332932 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sara_Gilbert&diff=prev&oldid=423496086 this] (among the links you provided in Q5) did not show me how you demonstrated your knowledge of the BLP policy. The first link has nothing to do with Wikipedia's BLP policy; it was simply a punctuation error. I can see where you were coming from in the second link, but I would think, since Alfred called himself Fred in the television episode, that the usage of the {{tl|Cite episode}} template, with a link to the video in which Alfred called himself Fred, would be sufficient. Like the first link, the third link has nothing to do with the BLP policy, as it was just a difference in spacing. The first link you provided in the answer to Q5 did show me you've at least learned a little more, however, so don't feel bad. You are definitely a highly respected editor, and I wish you the best of luck in the rest of your RfA.
Not impressed with the answer to number 5. I may be swayed either way, but for now I think I'll remain neutral. '''
'''Neutral''' for now. Many thanks for the answer, though it did not really address the question on how you could convince me that NPOV would be maintained. I fully understand your points on the problems of censorship when it comes to BLPs and perceived defamation, in fact I agree with most of what has been said in the reply, however I still feel that such a heated reply (basically repeating the User page comments) is not really going towards convincing me how that POV would be avoided in admin actions. I am satisfied that there was no malice aforethought in the article creation list and the mistake was minor, probably caused by oversight after AWB produced the list, and that the list was not intended as a de facto record of your article creations.
'''Neutral''' (not  leaning  either way). RfA is not  just  a question of ticking  all the items on one's/my list  of criteria. It  also  involves evaluating the candidate's  participation, motivation, and need. As  I'm  completely  undecided, I've been looking  at  the rationales  of those  who  have voted  one way  or another -  something  I generally  do  not  take much into  account. There are some big  guns in  the 'support ' section whose opinions I  always respect. However, there are some opposers whose work in  Wiki project  space I  also  hold in high  esteem. After following  this RfA since it  started, I  still  can't  make my  mind up, and in any case a vote now won't  change the outcome. I hope Richard will  continue to  do  great  work in  the knowledge that  there are always admins around whose opinions he can seek  if he feels a button  ought to be pressed  somewhere.
'''Support''', obviously. --
'''Support''', in-obviously. <small>'''
Per nom; I have a great deal of respect for Sarek and implicitly trust this candidate. --
I first came across Rob in the AJona situation, which I thought he handled fairly well despite his adoptee being very stubborn initially. His mentorship seems to have been invaluable in turning AJona into a useful editor. Rob will benefit from the tools. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support''' Yes please.  -'''
'''Support'''. I had a few doubts regarding your CSD tagging (due to the following articles: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Products_International_%28OPI%29&oldid=444022317], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ETC_%28Water%29&oldid=444161574] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Kteil&timestamp=20110809044303] — though this was one was deleted —), but I like your answer to my question, so I'm supporting. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose - give the man a mop!
'''Weak support'''. Patchy editing history. Generally sensible comments in discussions.
'''Support:''' While the user does not have a great deal of experience with content creation, I don't see this as a deal breaker as I believe not everyone is comfortable/skilled with content creation, but can excel in other areas. He seems to have a solid understanding of policy, and I have no reason to believe that he would not use the tools as they were intended.
'''Weak support''' Candidate has some rough edges that could be sanded off with more experience, that said, I generally see a competent user.  If this passes, remember that your fellow admins are great sounding boards, and don't ever be afraid to bounce an idea off them.  If this fails, I hope you'll be back in six months with more experience.
'''Support''' Looks to be a good mediator and also someone who likes helping newbies learn to become quality contributors.
'''Support''' Per Courcelles.
'''Support''' net positive. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>
'''Weak support''' I am a bit reluctant here and agree with Courcelles. I highly recommend the candidate get some experience in content.
'''Support''' A goo, reliable contributor. I don't agree with any of the reasons given for opposing, including the string of objections on the all too common but pointless grounds that only people who have written lots of articles can be administrators.
'''Support''' Clearly a trustworthy, decent chap. Concerns about lack of experinece with whatever are irrelevant. Adminship is no big deal - he won't do anything stupid, he will be a credit to the encyclopedia. As I write this the vote split doesn't look so promising, but let's hope there's more people around who know a good guy when they see one and are happy with that {{=)|smile}} <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">
'''Support''' I agree with the above from Egg Centric that the vote split doesn't look good right now, but Robert would make a fair admin. He's taken those in need of mentoring under his wing (which is more than many prolific article-creator admins have done).
800 article edits, 0 articles created. Seems like a class act of a guy, but simply inexperienced with Wikipedia content.
'''Oppose'''. Most contributions seems to be in pop culture and not in traditional encyclopedia content, and the editing efforts have not been extensive. Like <s>many</s> other edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=430277177 this ANI intervention was not what we want from administrators, in terms of resolving disputes, of helping to focus rather than fracture discussions, and of writing clearly]. Sincerely, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' It's a shame that I dropped my vote on this side on the RFA nomination, because RfA has been quite inactive within the past couple of days. All qualified administrators need to be calm and have some good judgement, especially when working with vandalism patrol and more importantly, ANI. At the moment, I have seen a couple of cases where you called some edits vandalism when they're actually not. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_National_Party&diff=prev&oldid=431730149] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=prev&oldid=431235933] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mercury_vehicles&diff=prev&oldid=429924170] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_music_artists&diff=prev&oldid=429188917]. Also, I was unimpressed to see a comment like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=430277177 this], as part of it has <s>a personal attack</s> some sort of aggressive attitude like "That's reality. Live with it." for example. At the moment, you do have some good content creation under your belt and you are quite an active editor, but running for adminship though is questionable in my case.
'''Oppose'''. User does not appear to be very active. Less than 100 edits in 7 of the past 12 months.--
'''Oppose''' inexperience highlighted by premature transclusion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RobertMfromLI&diff=444399693&oldid=444396322 answering opposers in the discussion section], and backed up by ~3k non-automated edits. In all honesty I think i was a mistake for SoV to push a nom on you at this time. I hope you don't take this or any other oppose comment to heart, it's [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|just an RfA]] '''
'''Oppose''' There is extreme lack in content creation. The top edited page seems to be [[Iron Maiden]] with 68 edits which is ok, but then, the second top edited page is [[OS/2]] with just 18 edits. Also, in January, they made 1 edit, in Feburary and March, they made no edits at all. Then, in April, they made 4 edits. Administrators need to have a stable editing history with no random gaps in editing like this person has. '''
'''Oppose''' per Jebus989.  Just not enough experience to satisfy the current RfA standards.  Candidate barely has over 3,000 non-automated edits.  Rack up a couple thousand more edits, create an article or two (maybe even bring one to GA), make some significant contributions to areas where you'd like to work as an admin, and then come back here.
'''Oppose''' Too much fighting of oppose votes by candidate and nominator.
'''Oppose'''. Two things. First of all, while I have found at least some of Robert's (many) remarks at ANI helpful, I detect a certain eagerness to jump in with comments, which (in my opinion) are not always grounded in a lot of editing and communal experience. Second (but see my note above in response to Salvio's question), I disagree with the comments on Salvio's sample articles. Now, I am going to assume that the question is "what if you stumble upon these new articles with these tags on it."<p>1. There is, in my opinion, no credible claim to notability [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Salvio_giuliano/CSD1&oldid=371697322 in this example]. Even if the article were verified and all, owning a bicycle business, even at a young age, does not establish notability, unless the kid had been reported on in the WSJ and the NYT and was frequented by Lance Armstrong, and the article gives me no reason to believe that something special like that was going on.<p>2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Salvio_giuliano/CSD1&direction=next&oldid=371897688 This article], and I think that perhaps Robert misread the intent of the question, is simply a poor stub on a notable topic which deserves a place. BTW, it couldn't be a duplication of an existing article, since they have the exact same title (I assume it would be called "Maritime Safety Information", not "User:Salvio giuliano/CSD1"). Now, I understand that Robert followed up with "Under the assumption that neither #2 or #3 had dupes existing", and some elaboration, but even the follow-up does not completely convince me. That they would support a new user, that's great, of course, but they forget to mention that there's still an A7 tag on the article which is completely unjustified (such "information" is not covered in that category). So, a better answer would be, if there is no duplicate, to ''immediately'' remove the speedy tag, with an extensive edit summary, and possibly a note on the speedy deletion nominator's talk page: if that nominator is new, then they need some guidance and possibly oversight. Helping new editors is great, but stopping other editors from chasing away new editors with incorrect speedy templates is just as important.<p>3. Something similar applies to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Salvio_giuliano/CSD1&direction=next&oldid=376487818 this article]. First of all, the duplication thing doesn't pan out for the same reason, "Sorj Chalandon" presumably being the title of the sample. Second, this one is also incorrectly tagged with A7, since (as opposed to the bike repair kid), this article does make a very credible claim to notability: "Médicis", for a Tunesian novelist (who presumably could be eligible for an award given to a book in French), is [http://www.google.com/search?q=M%C3%A9dicis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a immediately identifiable] as the [[Prix Médicis]]--automatic notability (if correct, of course). So, here also, that A7 tag needs to be removed immediately, with an explanation--an edit summary, a note on the talk page, a note on the nominator's page.<p>More in general, but this is editor's more than admin's advice, do something with those articles besides tagging them. Add a category, add a reference, make some MoS edits, wikify (the Prix Médicis, for instance), so that the next person looking at it will know there's something to it, instead of thinking that someone removed a tag without a good reason. Incorrect speedy tagging is a real big deal, and I think this is something you need to work on--not just what to do with an article, and with a tag, but also what to do ''after'' a tag, so to speak. I think you can be a very productive editor and possibly a good admin, but there is work to do. Yes, article creation as well. All the best,
'''Reluctant oppose'''. I really do not want to be casting this !vote. I've interacted with Robert quite a bit, and I actually like him very much, and enjoy working with him. I like that he gets involved with adopting new users, and I have zero doubts that he has the best interests of the project at heart. But here's the thing that holds me back. Please see [[User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 9#Right idea, wrong justification?]], where Robert and I discuss my having reverted what I am quite certain was a troll posting on a talk page. It turns out it was an adoptee, whom Robert defends despite a messy history with SPI and ANI. Just a few days ago, there was [[Talk:Atheism#First sentence misleading]], which starts with what seems to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion from a newish user. But as the talk continues, it becomes apparent that the original poster is asking increasingly trollish questions. As this becomes apparent, the rest of us pretty much walk away, but Robert continues to discuss the issue as though it were serious. Now please don't get me wrong, and please don't accuse me of being BITEy, because I'm generally a fan of AGF. But I keep getting the feeling that Robert just goes too far in AGFing users who don't merit it. (I don't know how to reconcile that observation against other oppose rationales about being too argumentative, other than a general sense of poor judgment.) So I feel very bad about opposing for, in effect, being too much of a nice guy, but I think that if Robert starts using administrative tools in situations like these (perhaps overturning a legitimate block on appeal), we are going to end up with too many instances of actions taken that are not consistent with community sentiment, and too many cases where actions will have to be reviewed. Sorry. --
'''Reluctant Oppose''' - I have no idea who this editor is, but judging by the supports and opposes, seems like awesome guy, and we do need coders, but admins should be well-rounded, and article creation in multiple namespaces (even redirects), participation in GA/FA process (as reviewer or significant editor), participation in WikiProjects, participation at Meta, participation in policy talk and articles (including essays) etc etc etc are all key things for an admin. These things take time, and take edits. I dislike edit counting, but it is a good measure not only of commitment and knowledge, but of ''experience'' - if you have not been steeled in the often grueling process of editing real, live content, how can the community know how you work under pressure? I highly recommend that he wait some more time, perhaps putting his coding skills into use at Templates and trying out to generate a decent amount of quality content (GA/FA/DYK/ITN etc) before trying for adminship. There is simply not enough experience with the dark side of wikipedia for us to be confident that the tools can be trusted at this time. I might reconsider, that is why is "reluctant", but this seems to be the type of nomination that doesn't understand [[WP:DEAL]]. I mean, if this guy can be an admin, I should be a steward! --
'''Oppose''' per the response to the question he, himself, asked. It is one thing to say "I've contributed content elsewhere so I can easily contribute content to Wikipedia" and quite another to say "I've contributed content elsewhere so I can easily be an admin at Wikipedia." Similarly, as this is not the traditional kind of public office, what one has done outside Wikipedia is quite irrelevant to this admin-ship "campaign" whereas what one has done here is quite relevant. Admin-ship someday, perhaps. But, not today.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_glossary Tom Morris' concern] (in the neutral section) and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=430277177 Kiefer's link].
'''Oppose'''....sorry, just not what I'm looking for. If you had some more content creation (or at least more than 800 or so article edits) I'd be open to reconsider, but you don't. 2,000+ user talk edits? Why?
'''Oppose''' I find 4,200 a very small number, especially in two years. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
<s>I will not !vote until the general questions are answered (I find it curious that the RfA was transcluded before the questions were answered).</s> Still neutral at this point.
'''Neutral''' I found the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary]]: I participate in AfD quite a lot and your back-and-forth was, well, too much. I hate to be frank, but a bit less arguing, just simply state your case calmly and trust the closer to sort the good arguments from the bad. Not quite enough to oppose, but I would want to see some more calm, level-headed participation in consensus-based discussion outside of ANI before voting support. —
'''Neutral''' -  Seems okay, but cannot in good faith support the candidate with irregular contributions.
Er, sorry, but this is quite an obvious [[WP:NOTNOW]] candidacy. You don't need to be an admin at the moment, not with your current activity level. Reverting vandalism does not require admin tools. See [[WP:TWINKLE]].
While I applaud your enthusiasm, and can forsee you becoming an administrator in the future if you keep up with your current learning curve, but at the moment I don't feel your ready. Particularly I don't think you yet understand the ethos of the deletion processes fully (something that can only come with experience). I also find your lack of [[help:edit summary|edit summaries]] disapointing (almost all the ones you have used have been automatic) and well below the standards I expect of an administrator in this regard - although take hear that this is something that is very easily improved.
You should try out more of the features available, such as the move button, and upload files.  Administrators will be expected to help out with and understand all these common sort of activities.
'''Oppose''' - you do not have enough experience (400 contribs, 3 months). I suggest you withdraw this application, and consider re-applying after you've been active for at least a year, and have several thousand contributions.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Your enthusiasm is great, and please don't feel your efforts are not appreciated - they are! However you simply don't have the experience at the moment. The NOTNOW page has some good advice and links, and the helpful commentary on your talk is also worth heeding. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
As nom. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Excellent anti-vandalism work. Don't see anything that would concern me if they had the mop. Also impressed by Q2, I would have expected the typical "my anti-vandalism work" answer.</s> ''
I have no major concerns. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' - great user. I really don't care about a high percentage of automated edits. Automated tools are there for a reason, and that is to get hugely necessary jobs done fast and efficiently. Slon02 has proved highly capable of using these tools. Seems to know his way around the place and appears to me a knowledgable and hard working Wikipedian.
I'm not concerned about nitpicking about hypertechnical CSD details&mdash;it is far more important to recognize when a page can be deleted than to memorize which CSD technically authorizes the deletion&mdash;or infelicitous phrasing that, while not totally accurate, does capture the basic idea of the CSD at issue. I hardly think forcing everyone to type "importance/significance not indicated" instead of "notability" in the edit summary will somehow improve CSD tagging. [[Sara chaudhry]] was deleted A7 once before, so I hardly see a problem with the relatively rapid tagging. Everything looks good here, and I trust Fetchcomms' judgment.
'''Weak Support:'''   Good candidate but concerns over limited experience. In 6 months I will give full support. -
'''Support''' I agree with the A7 stuff that WSC points out in the first oppose. That said, you were actually right, and just had the wrong CSD reason, which is a minor concern. However, please take the content of that oppose seriously, as the delete button carries a heavier responsibility than the ability to tag. Deleting articles is not a sprint, and it if you win the mop, it will be your responsibility to slow down, and research before removing an article.
'''Support'''. Not swayed by the opposes. I think Slon02 will make a great admin, and I suspect would be of the much-needed 'worker' type, that we can rely on to effectively clear backlogs during crunch time. --
Incorrect CSD tags seem to be outliers - I'm seeing hardly any, if any at all, declines among recent speedy deletion tagging. I could oppose and say come back in a few months, but in this case, I think the project would be losing a few months of competent backlog clearing. --
'''Support''' Great candidate and great work too but could use some work in the [[Wikipedia:CSD|CSD]] department.
the opposes aren't convincing. As for content creations, i have watched him build [[Renewable energy in Russia]] to become a respectable article that is currently a GAN and looks to be a GA by the end of this discussion. --
'''Support'''-- Recently (earlier today), I made a mistake involving CSD policy.  The candidate left a note on my talk page just a few minutes later, pointing out my mistake.  It seems to me, from looking through his history and from this brief personal experience with him, he understands CSD policy just fine.  I see no reason to oppose. --<span style="border: 1px solid gold;padding:1px; background-color:navy;">
'''Support''' no reason the think that this user will abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. I take WereSpielChequers' concerns seriously, and hope the candidate does too, regardless of the result of this RfA. But going through the candidate's talk page contributions, I see an editor who readily admits when he's made a mistake and who's willing to explain why he took a particular action. I consider both of those qualities to be essential in an administrator. I'm not at all concerned by the candidate wanting to check a couple of things off his to-do list (e.g. the GA submission) before coming here.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, per many of the comments above. I understand the opposers' concerns and I trust that the candidate will take them into account going forward, but none of them are serious enough to deny adminship in my view.
'''Weak support''' - Issues are not sufficiently widespread enough to induce me to neutral. Additionally, following Slon02's clarification of Q6, I think he knows what CSD A7 means.
The impatience part makes me a little uncomfortable, too, but having reviewed the nominee's past activities and behavior, I see no red flags precluding Slon02 from being able to handle the admin tools. '''Support'''.—
'''Support''' there seems to be no substantial reason to oppose and I believe this user can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. An impressive amount of anti-vandal work, sensible approach to content creation. I have collaborated with the candidate on [[Renewable energy in Russia]], and I think that creating a GA in such a short time is quite an achievement, and the way Slon02 treated all the issues raised during the article's creation and subsequent review was exemplary.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy, fixes mistakes promptly, and has a need for the tools [anti-vandalism]. This is an easy support. It's unfortunate that Slon had to stumble onto the [[WP:CSD|third rail of RfA]]. It would be unfortunate if this RfA fails based on the trivial CSD examples.
Trustworthy editor, compelling use for tools.
'''Support''' good trustworthy editor. The dispute was nothing, it happens at WikiProject Wikify all the time. [[User:Sumsum2010|<font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010</font>]]·[[User talk:Sumsum2010|<font color="#007AFF">T</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Sumsum2010|<font color="#7FFF00" >C</font>]]·
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. Has my trust. <sup>
'''Support''' - Gained much more experience and knowledge since past RfAs. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''' Net benefit i believe.
'''Weak Support''' Can't see any catastrophic problems. I normally trust Fastily and WSC here, but I think he might work out
'''Support''' He seems informed, responsible, and (per Swarm) able to change and get better... sounds like he would be a good admin. --
'''Support''' A net positive contributor.
This is a hard call because I trust WSC's judgment, but so far, I'm just not seeing it.  Looks like a net positive. - Dank (
I've read this RFA in detail and I don't disagree that the opposition has some points of merit. Nevertheless, they seem to have overlooked the likelihood of a cautious editor (which I feel you are) misusing or abusing the tools. As this possible outcome is frankly very low I'm going to call a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] here. Good luck, and best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' I'm sure the candidate will learn from their errors, now that they have been brought up.
'''Support''' No problems with him here.
'''Support''' There is some good anti vandal work done by the user, on the whole I see a net positive to granting the mop. I don't see that he will misuse the tools. '''
'''Support''', you seem to be capable and not the type of person who will misuse the tools.  Automated edit counts and the lack of GA writing really aren't relevant when we're deciding whether you're capable of blocking and deleting and protecting in a proper manner.
'''Support'''. At support #2, Swarm's addendum does an excellent job of expressing what I, too, have been thinking. I've looked carefully through the candidate's user talk, including the archives, and I see someone who is very courteous, calm, and thoughtful (including explaining plagiarism to a user, and replying to another user who asked if the candidate were a real person). I really feel as though there has been too much "gotcha" in this RfA. --
'''Weak Support'''.  I've reviewed most of the candidate's new page patrolling since the start of the year (nearly 200 pages), and with the greatest deference to WereSpielChequers below, I don't agree that it is so poor as to require delaying adminship.  Certainly there are some things I would like to see improved. There seems to be very little ''patrolling'' of new pages, as opposed to simply tagging them for deletion (I can't find many examples of Slon02 improving pages he marks as patrolled), and the consistent tagging of pages within seconds of their creation is irritating.  My extensive review also re-affirms WSC's concerns about picking out [[WP:G10|G10]]s: there are a number of occasions where pages that should have been blanked due to [[WP:BLP|BLP]] issues and nominated under G10 were instead tagged as [[WP:G3|G3]] or [[WP:A7|A7]].  However, with this exception, I have found the ''overwhelming'' majority of Slon02's tagging (especially the A7s) to be quite accurate.  So long as the candidate takes the advice given here on board (particularly regarding [[WP:G10|G10]]), I do not feel that the CSD errors are sufficiently egregious or numerous to warrant delaying adminship.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' – There are valid concerns in the "oppose" section, but I land here rather than there because I'm seeing sufficient capacity to take in feedback effectively, and the candidate seems to be the type who will proceed with caution. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - Will this person abuse the tools? Of course not. Will this person misuse the tools? Possibly. Will this person learn from his mistakes? Undoubtably. Will the net change to the encyclopedia be positive? Yes. Should anything else be taken into consideration when evaluating an RfA? Good god, no. --'''
'''Support''' on balance.
'''Support''' - While there are names I respect highly in the Opposes, I'm not convinced by their reasoning in this case.  I feel Slon02 is ready, willing and able to take on the tasks of adminship, and will be a net plus to the project.  Nobody is perfect, not even admins and admin candidates, and I believe this editor has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.  Best wishes,
I see the value of some, but not many and not all, of the arguments put forward by those who opposed. But on balance I think this candidate is experienced and trustworthy enough to be an administrator. '''Support.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
'''Support''', will do fine.
'''Support:'''No reason why not--
'''Weak Oppose''' Slon02 has been active here for more than a year, has a clean block log and is a useful editor who has demonstrated they can add referenced notable material to the pedia. I don't see how the percentage of automated edits would be relevant to an RFA, but sometimes the total amount of editing is. In assessing your contributions I give more weight to your four thousand manual edits than your eight thousand automated ones - not least because those four thousand manual edits will have taken longer to do and therefore demonstrated more understanding of this sometimes rather complex site. My concern at the moment is with CSD tagging which isn't always quite there yet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Sara+chaudhry&timestamp=20110222192241 this A7] was in the minute after the article was created. That would be fine for the "is our high school prom queen and totally fab" type of A7. But too soon in my view to tell whether an actor is significant or not, and this sort of speedy tagging risks biting newbies and losing potentially good content. I don't think it was an isolated example as in the same batch of fifty edits I found another A7 done just as quickly.  Another of your last fifty deleted edits had the edit summary "(tagging for speedy deletion- notability)", which leads me to suspect you might consider that speedy deletion like AFD is related to notability rather than the much lower test of an assertion of importance or significance. I'm also concerned that you aren't  spotting the attack pages.  One of your fifty most recent deleted edits is an A7 tag of an article about a living person with an unsourced allegation about drugs and alcohol, another A7 tag was on an article that accuses someone of being a pornstar. I agree with you that both merited deletion but I would have preferred to see them both as G10s. I would be very happy to reassess you in a few months if you improve your CSD tagging. ''
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' In light of the fact that you have two previous RfAs (which with the benefit of hindsight you will probably conceed were probably poor judgement), I think it was unwise not to take [[User:VictorianMutant]]'s advice in your first editor review, and wait six months. As for right now, concerns have been raised over CSD. I don't wish to pile on too much in that area, but one that I've seen that I'll add is [[User talk:216.106.111.142|this one]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A216.106.111.142&action=historysubmit&diff=394084646&oldid=394084625 diff]), which in my view can only be explained by not being completely familiar with the criteria. AfD participation is on the thin side, although in fairness is insightful on the whole. You have a strong copyediting record combined with a couple of well developed articles, but as far as I can tell you haven't taken anything through a collaborative environment (I've seen a [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Vladimir Teplyakov/archive1|peer review]] and a [[Talk:Vladimir Teplyakov/GA1|good article nomination]], but you didn't interact in either). On balance, I think you would benefit by waiting a little, and working on getting one or two GAs through (March is a great month, as there's a backlog drive), CSD accuracy, and more of the same at AfD. My belief is that by narrowly failing this RfA now, Wikipedia will in my view have a better admin when you return for what I believe will be your successful run. —
The accuracy issues around CSD tagging worries me. Also, you [[User talk:Ezhiki/2011#RFA proposal|said]] not too long ago that you didn't feel you were ready yet. What has changed in that time?
'''Oppose''' Concerns with policy knowledge and judgement.  -'''
'''Oppose''' I hate to do this, but I have to agree with the above users. Sorry, not right now.
'''Oppose''' Regrettably so, but I just don't see the need for the candidate to have the tools, given their stated purpose for running. I also have a concern with the candidate's own words, as provided above, less than a month ago more or less stating that he didn't feel like he was ready. As already raised, what's changed in a month?
'''Oppose''' Based largely on your answers to question 6, I feel you have have not displayed sufficient grasp of CSD policy. Your answers seemed to lack confidence and WSC has found reason to question some of your previous CSDs. This alone, is enough reason for me to oppose.
'''Oppose''', concerns about breadth and depth of experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Concerned about fixation on admin status, very late move to content creation, as well as GA article itself.  If you slug away and do a bunch more GAs, I may be happy.  But for now, not impressed with your editorial ability.  And this is an encyclopedia we are trying to write (not a video game of vandal wacking).  I really think you have a bunch to learn.
'''Oppose'''. Limited content contribution. Trigger-happy CSD tagging, as demonstrated by WereSpielChequers.
'''A rather reluctant oppose''', because in many ways this is a good candidate, with many of the strengths that are needed for a good administrator. However, some of the answers to the questions (particularly 6 and 7) were unsatisfactory, not so much because they said anything that was wrong, more because they suggested a degree of vagueness and uncertainty. An administrator needs to have more clear and certain thoughts. Also, I have found various indications, both on this page and in the candidate's editing history, of lack of clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. <s>For example, the link given in the answer to question 3 above does not lead to the discussion in question, not is it even a nearly correct link. Of course it would be ridiculous to oppose purely on the basis of a mistake like that, but when I see several cases of failure to quite understand how the system works, I start wondering if the candidate is ready to be an administrator.</s> However, I would like to emphatically reject one of the other concerns raised here. We have the perennial "too many automated edits" nonsense. If I type ''<nowiki>{{Subst:PROD|No evidence of notability}}</nowiki>'' at the top of an article then that is a manual edit, which is good, and counts towards becoming an administrator. If, instead, I achieve the same result by clicking a link at the top of the page labelled "prod" (put there by Twinkle) and type ''No evidence of notability'' into the box that comes up, then that is really bad, and counts against my becoming an administrator. What utter nonsense. In fact, since administration work is all about using automated tools, a case could be made for the opposite view, but in all the times I have seen the "too many automated edits" cliche brought up in RfA discussions, I have not once seen an intelligent case in favour of it. The nearest I have seen is "manual edits are slower, so you have to think more about them", but that is not true. To make automated edits properly takes just as much thought as making manual edits properly, and what is more you have to think quicker. It is true that some automated tools make it very easy to make mistakes (Huggle in particular), but if a candidate has made lots of automated edits without frequent errors then there is no problem.
'''Oppose''' <s>as you still don't seem to have a grasp on A7.  I learned the hard way that A7 is NOT about whether a subject is notable.</s> Struck comment after seeing A7.  Still, candidate has some CSD tagging issues that make me feel uncomfortable with giving him the mop at this time.
'''Oppose''' I'm  also  concerned with  the accuracy in  tagging. Speed of tagging  is not  of the essence, I  suggest  you  review [[WP:NPP]] and take a calmer look  at what  can be done. I'm  also not  entirely  convinced that  you  will  be able to  remain  objective in debates that  would require your intervention as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Hasty CSD tagging is the one deal breaker for me. Per WereSpielChequers.
Misstep on Q6 + other opposition based on CSD concerns that I find compelling + eagerness to become an admin (third RFA in ten months).
'''Oppose''' Concerns over limited experience (thus policy knowledge) led me to poke regarding BLP; the answer did not quell my concerns. Coupled with the noted CSD concerns, and the impression that the candidate is a bit too keen to get the bit. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Weak oppose''' NOBIGDEAL and CSD concerns.
'''Oppose''' per CSD tagging concerns.
'''Oppose''' Per above. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
Pending Q4, of course.
'''Neutral''' <s>pending Q5. --[[User:N5iln|Alan the Roving Ambassador]] ([[User talk:N5iln|talk]]) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)</s> Candidate has grown in experience and gorm, but answer to Q6 gives me pause. I may reconsider in a bit, but right now, neither side of the coin outweighs the other. --
'''Neutral''' I was the other editor in the Boyar caste mentioned as "the conflict". This really was not a conflict and certainly not about edits. To keep dragging it out in the exact same wording every time an RfA is attempted, is quite disheartening for me.
'''Neutral'''. [[User_talk:Ezhiki/2011#RFA_proposal|A month ago]], the candidate said "at the moment I'm not content with my work, and I want to fill in some holes in my experience, specifically content creation and page protection, before I make another attempt at the mop." What has changed in a month?
'''Neutral''' The CSD opposes while not bad enough to cause me to oppose, are enough to keep me in the neutral category, my apologies. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''' Pro: Strong vandal-fighting portfolio and technical proficiency. Con: There are issues with CSD tagging and policy knowledge.--
'''Neutral''' Can't make up my mind here, in general there's a lot of good work here, but as I can't see deleted edits, WereSpielChequers comments do give me pause. Not impressed with the answers to questions, but not sufficiently unimpressed that I'd oppose. Overall, I'm neutral leaning oppose and will be watching to see if anything changes my mind. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''' Simply too hard to decide. I partially agree with some opposes, lack of experience and such, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with the user, I don't think he would be a bad sysop at all. '''''
Would have opposed except that I think Slon02 shows unusually strong potential. This RfA seems a little ill-prepared and premature (and I caution against re-applying too soon) but I expect he'll emerge all the better for the experience and suggestions. Look forward to more content work too.
'''Neutral''': I've been prevaricating all week and still can't decide. But I do just want to say that I feel confident Slon02 will succeed in a future run, even if not this one. --
'''Oppose:''' I'm sorry, but with only something like 20 edits, I can't be sure that your claim of editing here for 4 years is really true. You don't seem to know how adminship works here, sorry.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]]. Candidate's edit history (at this writing) shows a total of TEN edits. --
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
I have interacted with this editor before, particularly during his disagreements as outlined in answer 3. In dealing with disruptive editors, as far as I have seen he has always been civil and fair, so see only positives.
'''Support'''. I've seen Snottywong around for quite some time, and I see someone who cares greatly about the project and is very knowledgeable. I think it's fair to say he has, on occasions, expressed himself perhaps a little more forthrightly than is ideal, but I do see some mellowing with experience and I trust him to use the tools dispassionately. I think the honest self-appraisal in Q3 is highly commendable. --
'''Support''' I may not agree with him all the time, but overall I think granting him the tools would be a net positive to the project. Based on what I've seen, I trust that he'll follow policy.
'''Support''' This candidate I think would be useful with the mop. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' in light of answer to question 4; could not find any significant issues. <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''' He'll be fine.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''&nbsp;— an appropriate candidate for the tools. I've no concerns about misuse of them, and trust that they will only be used appropriately. Cheers,
'''Support''' Cerebral, level-headed answers. A quick review of his contributions reveals a high level of technical expertise. I suspect that the candidate will be a tough but fair sysop, just like on RfA--
'''Support'''. From recent interactions, I know that this is a quality candidate. Overall, this candidate would be a net positive for the project as an admin. <s>Caveat - I'm unclear why being a native English speaker is a problem - it's never been an issue for me.</s> [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 02:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Context = win. Also, in re: Question six - Well done.
'''Support'''. I have collaborated a great deal with Snotty and I know his work well. I most strongly support this nomination in every way possible.
'''Support'''—I share [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]]'s sentiments exactly. Barring some occasional mild abrasiveness (if you could even call it that), Snottywong knows what he is doing and is more than ready to wield the mop.
'''Support''' - no problems here & should be just fine :) -
'''Support''' per nom and demonstrated understanding that personal opinions have no place in AfD closures (QQ 3 and 10). The userbox in its first version is troubling, also that the wording remained that way for several months. But the other concerns in the oppose section I do not share—actually I would submit that he !voted along policies and guidelines in every one of them, albeit in an enthusiastic manner. Prospective and sitting admins should be allowed to take sides in the inclusionist / deletionist debate, as long as their admin actions follow policy. --
It bemuses me that editors raise speculative concerns about the candidate's intention to close AfDs given his confessed deletionist tendencies. It bemuses me because there is a clear track record we can look at: the candidate's extensive DRV contributions. It is easy to work out how a candidate will approach closing an AfD based on their views on closes at DRVs. Excellent contributions like {{diff|Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27|prev|404497207|1}}, {{diff|Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 27|prev|404532282|2}} and {{diff|Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 30|prev|411107941|3}} indicate that the candidate will do a very good job of closing AfDs and can separate his own views from the task of closing a discussion. But I would add that as an admin, SW would do well to tone some of his statements down a little. --
'''Support''' That small thud offstage was the sound of Snotty falling off his chair. I have a long and acrimonious history with this editor, and some heated rebuttal of his past deletionist stance. However he seems to have shifted his position: he'd still delete things I'd probably keep, but he's doing it from a balanced position now, not just as a reflex. I might not agree with his judgements any more as an admin that I would as an editor, but I trust him not to abuse mop powers and to recognise that on subjective content judgements, admins remain as just another voice amongst editors. I wouldn't support any admin with ''that userbox'', but that's a past issue now and I don't think we're talking about the same person. His technical skills also appear to be at a rather higher level than most editors can offer, and I'm sure that would be of benefit to the project. I'd like to see him tone down the opposition to ARS though - that sort of confrontation is never productive long term.
'''Support''' per excellent answer to questions 6 and (more seriously) 10. Also, answer to Q3 indicates that SW is unlikely to be closing many AfD discussions involving the ARS. SW seems clear on the difference between voicing an opinion in an AFD !vote and trying to rise above personal opinion when performing an AfD closure. A safe pair of hands, IMHO.
'''Support.''' Answers to questions 3, 7, and 10 have allayed any temperament-related concerns. Candidate has his wits about him, as the answer to Q6 indicates, and I can see no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. Would make a strong admin. ~~
'''<s>Moral</s> Support''' Barring a significant turn around, which I don't see coming, this RfA looks likely to fail---the opposes have legitimate concerns (which if I looked closer at SW might have me go the other way.) That being said, I've decided to cast a supporting vote for two principle reasons 1) He has given excellent answers to all of the questions and 2) even though his opposers seem to think he'd be a lousy admin, most acknowledge that he is either a good or improving editor. (Which indicates a level of respect from those who disagree with him, which in my book counts for something.) I would, however, suggest a name change... Snottywong just strikes a negative chord, which is not the first impression (and IMO, that impacts future interactions.)---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 15:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) This RfA is still not going to pass, but I'm going to go ahead and move to a normal support based upon Jclemens statement below.---'''
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' - Just because the candidate has voted "delete" many times doesn't mean that he will misclose AFDs. Also, as regards the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting|Porch sitting AFD]], remember that Snottywong saw it as {{oldid|Porch sitting|412931087|this}}, a collection of original research with no evidence of notability.
'''Support''' I feel compelled to support SW. Too many of the "tone" issues raised in the opposes are quite simply ''non''-issues, imo.
'''Support''' - SW is an asset to the project and understands the big picture. Wikipedia needs users that are decicated and SW is certainly dedicated. However, I would encourage SW to work on areas that others have mentioned. Personnaly, I think SW would be highly valuable at teaching new users how to create proper articles, but I will leave that up to him if he wants to participate in that area. - '''''
'''Support''' - Having read the opposition comments, I've just spent a couple of hours checking SWs history of contributions in quite some detail, looking at the specific discussions and context; and whilst I sometimes saw brusque comments, I saw nothing that crossed the line into incivility. Close, but not quite. I ''also'' saw a lot of polite, courteous interactions. In the cases of AfD, I saw reasoned, rational debate. I don't agree with some of it, but I accept the viewpoints expressed are valid. I think SW is perfectly aware that some of xis views are toward the deletion-side of the equation, but I think that awareness means xe will be able to remain neutral in judgements. I see good knowledge of policy, and - despite working in a contentious area - no major blow-ups.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Why is it that whenever I find my way in here I find people that I had previously thought to be already mop-holders? Snotty and I cross paths (but not swords) fairly often at AfD and I've always found his (can't be a girl - but [[Robert Silverberg]] made a mistake like that over [[James Tiptree, Jr]]) contributions to be of value - and for some time thought him (OK: /her) to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions, and in particular [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] which was a grossly inappropriate question. You handled it well. '''
Hugahoody, your support suggests otherwise.  Anyways, '''Support'''
'''Support''' Completely suitable candidate for adminship. Well versed in policy. "Tells it like it is." Just by reading through the opposes, it's obvious the vast majority emanate from content disputes with Snottywong, not from any "fear" of him abusing power.
'''Support''', although my person feelings are neutral, to counteract some rather odd opposition rationales.
'''Strong support''' - Way too late... an editor who's opinions haven't been hidden and yet still remain some of the most honest RfA opinions I've seen in a long time. No question there's the experience and knowledge base here. Certainly trustworthy. The rest is just window dressing. Easy support.
'''Support''' - oh yes. Knowledge, experience, not afraid to voice his opinion and therefore trustworthy.
'''support'''+clue.
'''Support'''.
'''Sure''' Opposers make some good points but I like the trajectory described by balloonman and handily evidenced by a number of !votes here. I think he'll do just fine. --
<p>Writing this input into SnottyWong's RfA is a lot less problematic than deciding which section to put it in: I could easily legitimately oppose, because of our mutually acrimonious history.  On the other hand, I can legitimately support, because SnottyWong has gotten so much better (from my perspective) since our first interactions.  For those of you not familiar with the history, suffice it to say that in mid-2010, SnottyWong and I had an altercation surrounding a number of rescue-tagged AfDs which ended up with an MfD for one of his userboxes and RfC filed against me, both of which were inconclusive.  We've since put those differences behind us and been collaborating on a number of issues, including discussions about the possibilities of SnottyWong serving as an administrator.</p><p>I continue to have some concerns about his views on deletionism, most recently with the AfD for [[Surfer hair]], where I think his !vote tended to focus on the trees—notability contribution of individual sources—instead of the forest—the fact that the article, as improved, read as well or better than many other Wikipedia articles and covered a topic whose inclusion a man-on-the-street would find comprehensible.</p><p>Still, taking a forest vs. trees view myself, I see a marked improvement over the past year, and have solidly changed my mind, being now solidly convinced that SnottyWong is here to build the encyclopedia.  He has done some bang-up content work, participated more broadly in various areas including [[WP:3O]] and GA reviews, and has moderated his participation in AfDs.</p><p>Ultimately, I am not particularly surprised by the results here.  I grant that others may not see the evolution I have seen, and given the battlefield history, I can no more fault them for opposing SnottyWong than I can for folks opposing my own ArbCom election.  In each case, good editors need to make decisions about whether the editor in question has learned from past mistakes.  The bottom line for my '''support''' is that I believe that such is the case in SnottyWong's Wikipedia career.
'''Weak Support:''' Snottywong is a valuable and experienced editor, but being a self-identified deletionist gave me pause. -
'''Support'''. Disagreed with at afd's in the past, but have always felt he was judicious and would not misuse his admin tools.--''
'''Support'''- clueful and responsible.
'''Support''' The editor has always seemed rational to me, and all of the answers to the questions certainly demonstrated that they will have the correct knowledge to perform well.--
'''Support''' - I had previously voted Oppose below, but (a) I have considered, what's the worst that would happen if Snottywong had had the tools during the periods I was most concerned about?  He might have blocked JClemens and Dreamfocus and he might have deleted a few articles, all of which are subject to review and reversal and would have done no lasting harm.  On the other hand he'd have been reducing the admin workload every day for six months in almost wholly constructive ways.  He's not out to actively sabotage the project; he might, at worst, make some bad calls in highly visible and community monitored places; that's a small price to pay for the services of an otherwise experienced, intelligent and passionate admin.  And (b) Snottywong's conduct throughout the RfA has been so excellent that I am prepared to trust that he understands that a higher and better standard of conduct is expected from admins and he intends to elevate himself to that standard.  Given this, I can't in all conscience oppose the request for adminship. -
If only to cancel out some of the more ridiculous opposes below. Also per DustFormsWords and in part per Jclemens.
I don't mind supporting someone just because they happen to have an opinion. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' My limited interaction from the editor has not been positive and I am left feeling that he does not understand the guidelines and policies enough to deserve the tools. Unfortunately, it would take some tracking down of discussions to find the diffs so this is an oppose without any evidence backing my thoughts.
'''Oppose''' due to numerous conversations at [[Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron]] and especially {{diff|Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron|407891624|407886939|this reply}} to me in which SW is aggressively hostile toward a collaborative process. SnottyWong has a problem with concensus (as determined in this [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 June 30#Template:ARSnote|TfD discussion]]) which he {{diff|Template:ARSnote|prev|410459503|unilaterally reversed}} when an editor got around to implementing the change. In the [[Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#.7B.7BARSnote.7D.7D|ensuing discussion]] SW would not even acknowledge a problem, and sought to maintain their preferred version regardless of the opinions of others. I do not believe that SW can be trusted to determine or follow concensus, collaborate well with others, or decide closes at XfD discussions. '''
I don't think working primarily in XfDs is a good idea for this candidate. Despite the statement that he has moved more to the center, I still get a strong deletionist vibe when reading his AfD comments and am unsure how he would read consensus in such discussions. Two that I looked at today were [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagging]]; other participants noted the existence of relevant reliable sources, but reading comments like "so better to delete until such time that someone has the time and motivation to start from scratch" is distressing, as it shows a "someone else should fix this" mentality. Indeed, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia but I see little content development apart from a GA or so (please correct me if I am missing anything). I cannot support this candidate not because I disagree with his opinions at XfDs, but because I perceive a serious flaw in his mindset that I think will lead to (unintended) bias in closing deletion discussions. Other than echoing DustFormsWords' concerns above, I don't really see any other issues; PROD/CSD work seems fine (mostly endorsing PRODs recently), but I really would like to see a lot more content building. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' I'm sort of deletionist, but the responses to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagging]] are too much even for me. Would not feel comfortable with this candidate having free rein with the delete button. The answer to Q6 is perfectly in line with policy though. ;) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' Regretfully. Concerns with judgement and maturity. It does not bother me if you're deletionist, but I really wish you wouldn't openly attack the Article Rescue Squadron. -'''
'''Oppose'''. It looks like you've allowed a strong personal bias to manifest itself on Wikipedia. That's concerning to me. WikiPhilosophies are just like real life philosophies: I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed [[Young Earth creationist]] who clashing with others over at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology|Wikiproject Evolutionary biology]] to impartially assess the neutrality of [[evolution]]. In that same sense, I couldn't trust a self-proclaimed deletionist who clashes with others at the [[WP:ARS|article rescue squadron]] to impartially assess deletion discussions. An admin has to demonstrate a neutral demeanor to those with different opinions. You've demonstrated the opposite. ''
'''Oppose''' Editor goes primarily into the deletion area, but occasionally has a tendency to make very poor decisions and make irrelevant comments into a deletion discussion like {{diff|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting|412933474|412913962|"Give me a break"}}. I'm afraid he is not mature enough to be given the administrator functions.
'''Oppose''', not because of the contributions, but primarily because of the user name. Admins are usually the first brush with authority that new users come across, and I don't think it will give a professional impression if that admin is named 'Snottywong'.
'''Oppose''' - I can't recall if we've had any past interactions, but I have seen the canditate's name often enough to agree particularly with some of the concerns brought up by Jim Miller, DustFormsWords, Fastily, Swarm, and Minimac. I agree with Lankiveil, but won't oppose based on that reason. I know that my wikiphilosophy is about at the other end of the spectrum as regards inclusionism, and at my RFA the mere ''suggestion'' that I ''might'' get involved in the deletion process raised some eyebrows, so I quickly recanted and almost two years later I still haven't touched it once. I'll reconsider my oppose if the candidate reconsiders any administrator involvement in the deletion process.
'''Oppose''' - So far, most of my interactions with Snottywong have been negative. From what I've seen, he seems to fail to assume good faith a lot, fails to remain civil when under fire, and fails to understand core Wikipedia policies. That, combined with the username itself, compel me to oppose. <small>(
'''Strong oppose''' that Snottywong is even considered a serious candidate for adminship shows how combative Wikipedia has become. In my interactions with Snottywong he is quick to pick fights and template the regulars. He would be a disastrous administrator, alienating good faith editors, and causing division and strife.
'''Oppose'''. Some things that bother me. Early in the (very recent) [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porch sitting|Porch sitting AFD]], an editor pointed to this NPR story [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5589974] entitled "Sitting on the Porch: Not a Place, But a State of Mind" which a few sentences down reads "This summer, All Things Considered is examining the front porch: its history, its role in American life and literature and its rich symbolism." SW later !voted to delete, saying "not convinced that the activity can be shown to be a notable cultural activity..." It looks to me as though he didn't check the provided link - if so his !vote didn't demonstrate a careful evaluation. Another is that he consistently takes the effort to add the tl-rescue tag at AFDs, but AFAICT seldom or never notifies the associated projects - I strongly disagree with that prioritization; the project people are the most knowledgable. Another - the original answer to the question 'have you ever been in conflicts here' rather understates the issue. Lastly, it seems to me that a fair number of the articles that he wished to delete were kept, but I don't see any withdrawals on his part. Could you, SW, explain why this is so - was the presented evidence of notability wrong, or the closings wrong?
'''Oppose''' this candidate has temperament issues which concern me. He seems unduly combative in discussions and I do not feel he confident that he would not use the tools inappropriately.
Candidate has recently treated me with incivility bordering on contempt. No thanks.
'''Oppose''' The few interactions that I have been in with you as well as what I have seen you do on the community are quite worrisome. You are overly combative and seem to lack a whole bunch of other things that administrators need. If it was one or two things, I would support you, but the fact that there are a lot of issues are pushing me towards opposition at this time. Otherwise, I think you are a marvelous editor but a year or two of more experience couldn't hurt you.
those AfD discussions give me some doubt on giving him the delete button. --
'''Oppose''' Evidence of an antagonistic temperament; of using forceful language purely for effect. Possibly an asset in some settings, but not desirable in an admin.
'''Oppose''' Agree with Cptnono, and with oAlistair Stevenson.--
'''Oppose''' regretfully, because I know you do very good work. I think you are more deletionist than the overall consensus position at AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Kefalianos] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgia_national_under-17_football_team] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SmallBASIC] and sometimes even deletionist in the face of policy[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oz_Bengur]. In itself that is no problem, but sometimes you seem to be dismissive of consensus when you disagree with it[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Harper_Clarkson] and sometimes overly-aggressive in your comments about keep !voters[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Merkow]. Given that, I'm not sure that you would always be able to make a neutral judgement of consensus when closing AfDs. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">
'''Oppose''' After reviewing the last month of SW's user and talk page comments, I've found enough troubling interactions to lead me to oppose. In two cases, he has 'dished' about another editor on user talk, [[User talk:Bulldog123#Funny thing...|here]] and [[User talk:Snottywong/Archive 4#Glossary of robotics|here]]. Regardless of what one thinks of other editors, complaining about them on-wiki is inflammatory and generally not helpful. That's not the sort of behavior I'd like to see in an admin. More disturbing, from the admin specific point of view, is his vote on the move request for [[Pro-life]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-life&diff=prev&oldid=411993581]. He supported a snow close and writes "I'd do it myself but [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure]] suggests that I shouldn't". The discussion was active with editors arguing on both sides: not an obvious SNOW close at all. To me this suggests that SW may be willing to use the tools inappropriately and ignore consensus in favor of his own opinions. So, no. That said, he does excellent work at NPP and I commend him for that.
'''Oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMC10_2&action=historysubmit&diff=375808557&oldid=375805846 this] RfA vote, and the fact that I have not seen sufficient changes to the users personality since then to be convince me that such behavior would not be repeated again.
'''Oppose'''. The diffs in this oppose section don't read -- to me -- like a normal RfA oppose section. They strike me as resembling more what I've seen in RFC/Us, where there is something serious being complained about. Frankly, they would be troubling to me were I to see them at an RFC. Seeing them here, with the editor self-nominating in an effort to put his hands on the mop, I'm even more troubled. Many good reasons discussed above to not give him any more powers than he has at the moment as an editor.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] and [[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] . The evidence I've seen just doesn't make me comfortable supporting granting Admin rights ''at this time''.. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Okip|Okip]], [[User:Cptnono]] and others. Niggling point maybe bu I can't help thinking his choice of name does say something about him.--
'''Oppose''' I honestly don't trust him to weigh consensus properly in any AFDs he closes, instead of just looking for a reason to delete anything he doesn't like.
'''Weak Oppose''' leaning Neutral. I've seen SnottyWong at a number of AfDs and believe him to be a valuable contributor to the AfD process. That being said his temperment in the AfDs, his tendency towards deletion and his open disagreements with the ARS lead me to oppose this candidate as his stated area of admin interest is XfD. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' My main encounter with this editor was at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden|an RFC he filed on another editor]]. I [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden#Outside view by WereSpielChequers|queried parts of the "evidence" that he presented]]. Judging from his subsequent responses in that RFC and on its talkpage I don't consider that this candidate has the judgment, temperament or competence needed for adminship. I'm not opposing merely because he is a deletionist, I have no objection to people trying to change policy, but I consider they should do so by proposing policy changes, not by filing RFCs on editors who are operating in accordance with a policy they disagree with. I don't always disagree with what SnottyWong is trying to do, but he sometimes uses tactics that are way too confrontational, and exaggerates his case rather than tries to seek consensus or at least a fair analysis of the situation. I might have supported a change of policy to require editors to give an explanation when they decline a prod, but trying to achieve that change via an RFC on an editor who "declines prods without explanation" struck me as unnecessarily combative almost to the point of bullying. Whilst criticising an editor for removing a Refimprove template without striking that criticism when it was pointed out that there had been two refimprove tags on an article and they'd merely removed a duplicate struck me as both stubborn and inept. As for the username, it may be appropriate for the editor, but would be inappropriate for an admin. ''
'''weak oppose''' There are too many concerns raised based on maturity and I share these. I do think the editor can adapt though and run in the future. And hopefully this is the case
'''Oppose''' My first inclination was to remain neutral. However, having reviewed some of his postings at AfD, I don't think that this user has reached the level of maturity required of an administrator. Perhaps sometime in the future but certainly not now.--
'''Oppose''' SW was accused of behaving in a ”very parochial manner”. This was regarding a requested page name change at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops|Judaism and bus stops]] which requested a page with a more encompassing subject matter, namely Judaism and transportation. SW simply closed the request with hardly any input from other editors on the premise that the suggestion was disruptive. This in my view put an end to any possibility of hoping to salvage the subject matter at hand. Stifling information that may seem trivial is not in my mind the wikiway.
'''Oppose''' Seems a bit ''argumentative'' at XfDs, but his handling of the RFC/U on Jclemens really sways this !vote. ''Note that this question has also not been answered. SnottyWong talk 13:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)'' is sufficient enough to bar him from consideration at this time.
'''Oppose''' This is an RfA and I’ll be perfectly candid about ''why'' I feel Snottywong would be inappropriate as an admin. I witnessed firsthand, a lengthy interaction over a golfing article I hadn’t contributed to and wasn’t particularly animated over. I was really disappointed with SW’s character there as evidenced by his writings. The most reasonable and fitting interpretation to account for the totality of it was that he wasn’t truthful when he professed to have read through the available evidence, dug his hole deeper by employing a mountain of CYA to explain away the obvious, and managed to exhibit palpable arrogance the whole time. I feel he is prone to being drunk with power and would be a problem if given the opportunity, which I don’t want to give him.<p>Some might point out this is flimsy and scant evidence upon which to base an opinion. An RfA is not a criminal jury trial where the allegations must be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt—and be seen as such unanimously among 12 people. Someone’s liberty isn’t at stake here where they can be thrown in jail. The litmus test and burden of proof is ''far'' lower when it comes to deciding if the wikipedian community should grant special privileges, powers, and responsibilities to one of its peers. This is particularly true when the procedures and hurdles put in place for the community to ''revoke'' those powers are so formidable; it’s double-tough to strip adminship once granted. I’ve been around the block a few times, have a few hard-earned gray hairs, and think I have Snottywong’s number sufficiently well established.
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre]] is a current discussion - just a few days old. The candidate's comments in this indicates that he does not understand the policies or guidelines which he cites. He also seems to misrepresent basic facts about the article's content, claiming that sentences are "irrelevant" when they are directly relevant to the topic.
'''Oppose''' <s>I am rather concerned with the way that the David Merkow AFD was handled, and that, coupled with</s> the user's use of profanity on wiki in a few instances I saw, I am not sure his temperament the type of user I really want as an ambassador of Wikipedia. I say ambassador because so often a new user's first interaction with an administrator is likely to leave a lasting impact. I know Wikipedia is not censored but I ask for a higher standard from administrators.
'''Oppose''' Per Fastily and fetchcomms.
'''Oppose''' An unfortunate and single minded interest in besmirching the work of the entire ARS based upon his interactions with only a <u>very few</u> editors with whom he disagrees, shows a willingness to cut down an entire forest to get at the one or two trees with whom he disagrees. [[WP:BATTLE]] discourages such actions in any editor... and creating battlegorunds or even a perception of a battleground is unacceptable in a admin.  As there are soooooooo many productive things that need doing on Wikipedia that do not need the mop... if this editor were to [[WP:LETGO|walk away]] from continued denigration of the ARS, and come back to RFA in some months, we might then perhaps better evaluate his his need (or not) for the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' per my comment in the neutral section and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Line_1_%28Rio_de_Janeiro%29&diff=prev&oldid=377425365 this diff] provided above. I'm unconvinced that Snottywong has the patience and/or tact to deal with typical issues that will arise for an active admin. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' because of his confrontational username, his old userbox, his constant bickering with the ARS (I'm not a member), and his long history of failing to follow [[WP:BEFORE]] item #4 in deletion debates.  Just one example: earlier this month, SnottyWong nominated [[Robert Harper Clarkson]], a 19th century Episcopal bishop, for deletion. I pointed out that the article already had an external link to sources, some of which seemed reliable.  He responded that they were primary sources - sermons and obituaries, and that Episcopal bishops weren't necessarily notable.  I pointed out that one of the obituaries was actually a fairly lengthy biographical profile written by notable newspaper editor [[George L. Miller]], admittedly right after the bishop's death.  I expanded the article, and added three references, which were quite easy to find.  I then asked politely, on his talk page, if he would take another look at the article after I had tried to improve it.  I received no response.  I hope that this editor will mellow and mature, and perhaps be a good candidate for administrator in the future.  But not now.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' The candidate says he "would be comfortable jumping right in to XfD's, speedies and prods" but it seems to me his contributions at XfD show he does not agree with or approve of the deletion policy at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion]]. At the level of contributing to discussions his approach is coherent and, given sustained support, could lead to policy change. However, closing deletion discussions in an administrative capacity requires an acceptance of policy and I am not confident the candidate has this ability.
'''Oppose''' per Cullen328's comments above. <span style="">
Totally unimpressed with the user's on-wiki behavior. No trust at all unfortunately.
Neutral (old commentary removed but in history)<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''', I see no reason to oppose at this time but my (admittedly very limited) past interactions with the candidate at AFD has been about average, and nothing really stands out enough for me to support. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Neutral''' <s>pending further review. I don't recall seeing the candidate outside RfA discussions, but I also don't typically go look through the stated areas of interest. --[[User:N5iln|Alan the Roving Ambassador]] ([[User talk:N5iln|talk]]) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)</s> On review, positives do not outweigh negatives (see XfD concerns noted by others), but neither do negatives outweigh positives. The !vote stands as called (said the retired umpire). --
'''Neutral''' Not enough edits to the article space, given the amount of time that the candidate has been active on the project, for me to be able to support. Best of luck, however! --
'''Neutral'''. Although this may yet change, I just don't see myself supporting at this time. I still have concerns about his past interactions, from which I got the general impression that he tends to be a drama magnet. I also find myself disagreeing with his viewpoint on many issues, although I can't exactly say that's relevant to whether he'd make a good admin. With all that said, I'm not in support, but it's not enough for me to oppose either, because I trust he won't break the wiki, and because I realize we need as many competent admins as we can get.. so I guess I'll see how it goes from here.. --
'''Neutral''' I have seen this user around and have never had cause for concern; however, some of the opposes above give me food for thought&mdash;so neutral for now.
Downshifting to neutral.  There's a lot that I like, and I would be supporting if I felt competent with the XfD issues raised, but I'm just not.  Whether this succeeds or not, I hope that the candidate and the opposition can find a way to come to terms. - Dank (
Many positive aspects, but opposition brings reasonable arguments regarding XfD and apparent abrasiveness. ''
'''neutral leaning toward oppose''' Honestly he does a lot of good work, but some of his interactions with others need improvement.  I'm largely seeing a very good communicator who occasionally gets biting.
'''Neutral''', at least for now. Like jclemens, I have a better idea of what I want to say than of how I want to !vote. Snottywong did a nice job addressing the questions on this page. If those answers were all I had to go on, I'd be heartily in favor of making him an admin -- he's clearly smart, he's familiar with policies and processes, he's willing to help out, and we need more admins to pick up the workload. In my past interactions with him, which I remember him because of that username of his, I've found him at different times to be an annoyingly doctrinaire deletionist, a reasonable guy who admits his errors and goes out of his way to be civil, and even an inexplicably impassioned defender of inclusion (this was at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings]]). Although my personal interactions with him have been civil, it's clear that this is not everyone's experience –  it seems that Snottywong has a temper.  I'm concerned by his expressed hostility to the ARS and his filing of that RfC for Colonel Warden. As others have said, that behavior suggests a lack of maturity. I have experienced some hard-nosed deletionism on his part (for example, when we interacted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartland Baptist Bible College]], he declared that the article should be deleted as an "unaccredited school which cannot grant academic degrees", leading me to wonder if he thinks that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be certificates of legitimacy, kind of like the [[Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval]]).  Seeing his deletionism, I looked at his article-edit count, because I think that people who delete articles ought to have sufficient article-building experience to give them empathy with the people who have put their hearts into article development. His low article-space edit count doesn't give me confidence that he has that empathy.  I want to say that he'll do fine if he's handed the mop, but I can't, because there are too many things that make me think that this could be a big mistake. --
'''Neutral''' - I was actually contemplating a weak support as per Jclemens, but cullen's experience really put a dampener on that.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Supporting myself. Hnoestly don't feel its necessary however, as the supports will be rolling in very soon
'''Not yet''', per the nomination statement.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per the nomination statement, answers to the questions, and the fact that the candidate supported themselves. I suggest closure of this RfA per [[WP:NOTNOW]] immediately.
'''Oppose''' due to serious concerns regarding {{u|Spongefrog}}'s maturity. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
I just removed this from RFA because it's pure trolling; currently considering whether to block Spongefrog or not.  Anyone who already has this on their watchlist and remembers how to close these things, please feel free; I can't recall where the instructions are. --
'''Oppose''' this clown; I have a strong feeling it [[WP:GOTHACKED|isn't Spongefrog himself]] filing this. —<font color="228B22">''Jeremy'' v^_^v</font> <sup><small>Components:[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|V]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|S]]
'''Support''' User is experienced and will be able to help out in their intended areas. Based on automated edits, user has done thousands of vandalism revisions. Automated edit percentage is still reasonable. Several articles created, 300+ AIV reports, 190 RPP [[RAS syndrome|requests]], 180 UAA reports, when they're active they are ''highly'' active, received multiple barnstars, presumably understands fair use, clean block log etc. etc. etc. More than enough to support. ''
'''Support''' I trust this user -
'''Support''' Yes, the English is poor (put charitably). But they don't want the tools to write articles - they want them to protect the articles. And everything suggests that they are able to do that. Furthermore, according to Jimbo becoming an admin is no big deal... in my view it should be given out like candy to anyone who appears trustworthy.
'''Support'''--
'''Weak Support''' I think this is a bit of a surprise for me going in the Support column, as the opposes have raised a couple of concerns, including deletion tagging errors as mentioned by WSC, but I think he does has the necessities of an administrator. He has received a couple of barnstars, a clean block log and received four user rights.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you seem like a trustworthy person.
'''Weak Support:''' Potential, but needs to work on a couple of issues mentioned below. I do hope you will not give up and try again. -
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable here.  In your opening statement you said "after two failed RFA's", yet this one indicated your 2nd?  Then there's the matter of your transclusion.  Someone with over 12k edits should know how to do it properly, which this one wasn't.  Then, something very basic here - you didn't take out the nom acceptance line since this is a self-nom.  Almost half your edits are to user talk pages, and only about 10% are to Wikispace <s>and because you haven't "opted in", it's hard to judge your WP-related experience without having to do a bit of homework first</s>.
'''Oppose''' Per the comments from ArcAngel. As regards to the formatting issues, it seems that even taking into account your comment, it would have been fixed quickly. There is also not enough experience in the mainspace in my opinion. All these factors seem to demonstrate that perhaps there is not quite enough knowledge yet to be given the mop. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I am likely going to get nit-picked on this, but I can not support a candidate whose self-nomination (which, in itself, goes directly against my [[User:Strikerforce/RfA_Standards|standards]]) statement looks as bad in regard to sentence structure, capitalization, etc, as this one does. That is an immediate red flag to me. I respect that candidate's desire to contribute, but can not offer my support. --
'''Oppose''' The lack of recent activity bothers me, especially when the candidate is applying for adminship after only about 10 days back.  Also, the grammar is worrisome.
[[Wikipedia:Competence is required|Competence is required]], and I don't see signs of the candidate's ability to wield the new powers he seeks.
If you can't even pay attention to details like capitalization then I don't think you'll pay attention to things like policy. That is what you'll be interpreting or enforcing as an admin.
'''Oppose''' I need to see more demonstration of continued editing over a long period to support. Right now id only count one month of recent editing. There is good intentions it seems but i feel adminship is premature at this point for you. Grammar is not an issue for me (I and others make alot of those mistakes) tough.
I like the clean block log, and I'm not bothered about your recent break, though it does mean I regard edits in September last year as quite recent in your editing history.  However I'm not convinced you are quite ready for the deletion button. Your talkpage history has a rather high proportion of threads about speedies that have been declined or deleted under a different reason, and looking through your most recent tags I saw several that seemed overhasty to me or simply wrong, for example an Irish politician who served 8 years on Dublin city Council, I'm not sure if all Dublin City Councillors would have the notability to pass the GNG, but it isn't what I expect to see an {{tl|A7}} tag on. I also saw a couple of A7 tags on articles where I would have thought a G10 tag was more appropriate.  Happy to reconsider in three or four months if you improve your deletion tagging. ''
'''Oppose''' – The matter of the poor grammar and technical errors generating the nomination are troubling to me, but based on the supports I decided to still take a look at recent contributions. The first two I looked at weren't pretty. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey_Mountain_%28New_York%29&action=historysubmit&diff=413643827&oldid=401976451 first] converted three bad ELs into refs (one was a domain for sale, one was unreliable with very little information, and one linked to a non-applicable home page.) It was so bad that I stopped and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey_Mountain_%28New_York%29&diff=next&oldid=413643827 fixed it]. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Nuclear_Safety_Center&action=historysubmit&diff=413643376&oldid=352523574 second] was an addition of a good ref, but it was just put in as a raw URL. I expect an admin to use a cite template on a new ref, or at the very least to give it a readable title. —
'''Oppose''' – A higher level of command of the language is necessary; even for a vandal fighter.  It is how we communicate, and lack of facility with it impedes a sysop's performance.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to oppose someone who is clearly well motivated, but I see a number of problems - perhaps none individually would have been enough, but taken together they are. 1) Recent activity - I see nothing at all for months, then a quick burst in the RfA month - and that comes not long after a lengthy Wikibreak. After a couple of breaks, I'd want to see you building up at least several months of regular contributions before running for admin. 2) Those recent incorrect CSDs worry me a little, as they show incorrect understanding of the categories. 3) English grammar and technical errors. OK, people make mistakes, but you consistently don't seem to take care about getting things right, like capitalization, spacing, etc - consistent failure to capitalize "I" is something I find very irritating, for example. I think taking care over communication is very important for admins. Getting technical things right is also important - if you don't transclude your RfA properly, how can we trust you to close AfD's etc? Anyway, spend more time, get at least a few months of regular contributions behind you, and pay attention to details - and I hope I can support a future RfA. --
'''Oppose''' due to a lack of consistent editing history. I concur with Boings concern over English grammar. The last thing we need in an administrator is poor communication skills. Regards, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' The candidate's opening statement kind of says it all.--
'''Oppose'''. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] says it best, in particular with regard to your CSD tagging and English grammar and technical errors. I'm sorry but I don't believe you're ready to be an admin just yet. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio giuliano]]. --
'''Regretful Oppose''' due to the improper grammar and recent CSD mistakes. Sorry. →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Oppose''' Based on Staffwaterboy's nomination, answers to the questions, and general communication elsewhere, I'm afraid that I have to oppose. For me, good communication skills are a mandatory requirement to become an administrator, and that includes using proper grammar and sentence structure. I don't expect anyone to be perfect when it comes to spelling and grammar, but I do want to see a higher level of performance in that department. In addition, more active editing over a consistent period of time would also be a plus. I don't mind an occasional break, and I do understand that life gets in the way. In my opinion, though, admins should be available a bit more than what I'm seeing, mainly because admins should be available should the need to be communicated arise. I'm not a fan of completely going away for several months, popping back in and editing for a month, and then leaving again. As a final point, the incorrect speedy deletion nominations are also a concern. Otherwise, Staffwaterboy has done some great contributing, and if the points that I brought up are addressed over time, then I'd have no problem supporting in the future. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Oppose.''' I have reservations about the candidate's judgement and competence with regards to the project. Decent contributor, but not admin material at the moment. ~~
'''Oppose''' Only 2 active months in 2010, and then one in 2011, and then an RFA. No, sorry.
If one can't be bothered to regularly capitalize his or her I's, why should I assume that one would bother to carefully perform administrative tasks? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Per Epeefleche, Boing, Fetchcomms, et al. Someone who keeps making elementary grammatical mistakes cannot communicate effectively, and admins absolutely ''must'' be able to communicate, period, no matter what types of admin work they plan to do.
(ec) '''Oppose''' going through the contributions, there's a bad A7 of a place [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ch%C3%A2teau_Eza&diff=prev&oldid=412021895].  The vandalism reverts look fine to me at first glance.  However, lack of attention to detail (as seen in this RFA) causes me to lack trust in the candidate's ability to execute admin actions, where details really matter.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament and experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' The only concern raised above that dosen't bother me is the grammar/capitalization issue (although that won't endear you to me.) More concerning to me is the long absences you've taken. They're fine, but running for adminship right after a four month absence is not something I can support.
'''Oppose''' I don't expect every administrator to be Cicero, but it's pretty clear this user has very basic communication problems.  An editor can get by like that, but being an administrator requires significant communication skills and a great deal of tact.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns with maturity and experience.  -'''
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support''' - and in doing so, I'll quote what I said in the Abortion case: ''"Steven Zhang should be commended. He was, in my opinion, presented with an extremely difficult MedCab case to work with. He came up with a novel solution... I believe he did this in the belief that it would be an acceptable compromise for both sides."''. I fully support Steven's nomination in the spirit of good faith - he's matured into a useful, adult and trustworthy user.
'''Support''' per this statement once said by Graeme Bartlett "Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skills in the admin area." I feel that this statement reflects on how much work he has done within the past couple of years.
'''Support'''. I think Steven is one of the most patient and civil editors I have ever come across.  I'm not very knowledgeable about the qualifications for being an admin, but I know Steven has the character.
'''Support''' we need more admin clerks at [[WP:SPI]], among other reasons. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Per below.
'''Support''' As joint nominator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Give him a chance --
'''Support.''' - I see no problems.
'''Support'''. I've worked with Steven over at SPI for awhile, and he seems to have a good head on his shoulders there. And just for the record, I believe he's atoned enough for what happened back in '08. —
'''Support'''. I have been working together with Steve at the [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]] and at the [[WP:MEDCAB|Mediation Cabal]], and he has shown himself to be extremely knowledgeable about dispute resolution, as well as being a very pleasant editor to work with. I am confident that he will do great work as an admin, and I think that he will be an asset to the community. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">
'''Support''' I've yet to come across someone who's done more good with a second chance than Steve has. Tremendously useful, and a force for good in numerous otherwise high tension areas, such as SPI and MEDCAB.
'''support''' opposing people dont be mean 2008 was like 3 years ago! '''
'''Support''' A great editor, definitely deserves nothing less than a promotion. --<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Support''' 2008 is a while ago, and Steven has clearly rebuilt his trust from the community. No problems afaik. '''
'''Support''' 3 years is a long time, and frankly the harm from the incident was to himself and the other two people involved, not to the community at large. In light of what happened, I think 3 years is long enough for a second chance. The supports above are more convincing then the nominators at most RFCs. I see no reason to withhold support.
'''Support'''. It is important to note that I voted to ban Steve after the incident that happened with the administrator accounts (and was actually the arbitrator that posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=233610039 a notice] from ArbCom about the behaviour). Also, as noted in Steve's disclosure, he violated my trust and posted chat logs of private chats I had engaged in with him. Despite this, I think over the time that has passed he has demonstrated he can be trusted with the administrator tools. Indeed, the administrators who gave him their password credentials have had their rights restored since, so I do not see why Steve should be not considered under the same regard. I trust he can use the administrator tools appropriately. --[[User talk:Deskana|(ʞɿɐʇ)]]
'''Support''', Steven Zhang has demonstrated that he can be trusted, and shows a useful ability to think outside the box. --
'''Support: Nobody should be judged exclusively on the worst/daftest thing they've done.''' As difficult as that might be in some cases, I think it's absolutely fundamental. As Deskana states, all the previous admins involved have had their rights restored (and one of them is now a ''Steward''), so I also do not see why Steve shouldn't be given consideration for turning things around. Plus, as HuskyHuskie says, it must have taken a large amount of grit in keeping everything to his name at the table, and it is only to his credit that he has done so. On a practical level, Steve does good work. For example, where a load of socks have been put in the laundry basket at SPI and Steve is around in IRC, I have, a couple of times, typed out if he'd like to tag and block them, only to realise my mistake and backspace it out. Basically, Wikipedia will benefit with him as a sysop.
'''Support''' Uncontested. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333">
'''Support'''', yes please. Why did you wait so long? <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
'''Support''' - I've been working with Steve for a short time at the DRN recently. Watching how he has both managed disputes between users and helped to develop Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and get other editors on board shows the discernment, maturity and leadership which we really need from administrators at the moment. There were problems in the past, but Steve's recent contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate that Steve has not only learnt from the experience, but gone on to be an incredibly valuable editor.
'''Support''' for the reasons given by the nominators, which I agree with.
'''Support''' Yes, the 2008 incident was a very bad mistake, but it was 2008, I've seen this user in my seven months with the CU flag be clueful, capable, and on top of things at SPI and in the MedCab.  I didn't know him in 2008, and quite frankly, I don't care; I've seen enough quality work from the candidate to say firmly that he is ready for this, mistakes from three years ago notwithstanding.
'''Support'''. Steven is, to my mind, the textbook example of how to recover from the type of monumental fuckup that would send most of us running for the hills. I've interacted with him a fair amount since his return, and I have seen a stable, coolheaded, incredibly well-intentioned and cautious editor who is aware that he has much to make up for and intends to make up for every iota of that. His [[User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure|disclosure]] is frank, explicit, and owns up to his past immaturity and errors, and his behavior on-wiki since his return has been nothing but helpful and wise. [[WP:DRN]] is pretty much his singlehanded creation, and anyone who steps up to mediate an abortion dispute and does it as well as Steven did has more patience and wisdom in their little finger than most of us have in our whole bodies.
'''Strong Support''' I had only recently offered to nominate this user for the tools, but Pedro beat me to it. I have interacted with Steven on several occasions, and I have only the highest regard for his skill, comittment and dedication to the project. I would recommend him for the tools in the strongest possible measure. What happened three years ago is, IMHO, wholly irrelevant. He will be an excellent admin now. --<font color="Red">
Always seemed to know his stuff when I've seen him around. I'm actually quite surprised to learn about the whole banning story, but this looks like a pretty textbook return to good grace. In cases where I've some doubt I look to the opposes to see what I might be missing, and at this time they're basically of the "I will never forgive you" (and its little brother, "I will forgive you in X months") rather than adding anything of particular note to assessing the candidate.
'''Support''' good editor, I've seen him around a lot, he knows what he's doing, and who honestly cares about one stupid mistake in 2008?
He isn't defined by one incident, just as [[WP:BLP1E|no one is]]. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
I once ate a worm, aged about five. I'm glad I'm not judged on that. &mdash;
'''Support:''' Excellent work with MedCab. --

'''Support''' I've seen him around in various places - and seen nothing but good. I would think the incidents of 2008 will prevent him doing anything silly here again - because a load of people will be watching him like shitehawks (until they get bored and go off to watch some paint dry instead).
'''Support''' - I could not care less that he took part in account sharing ''three years ago''. This is just a freakin' website&mdash; time to get over it. ''
To err is human. He has certainly learned from it, and earned back the community's trust. '''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per most of the above.
'''Support''' per Swarm above, who couldn't possibly have said it any better. I understand that he did something bad but it's been three years. Seriously. [[WP:STICK|Put the stick down.]] He's unlikely to be anything but a net-positive.
'''Support:''' I think Steve will be a great addition to the areas where he intends to work. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
Because it seems we may be getting three administrators for the price of one. But in all seriousness, Steve is obviously qualified. Of course if he'd socked around the previous incident he'd have passed RfA two years ago. That he's taken his medicine over three years and there have, as far as I'm aware, been no like conduct issues since, suggests that it should now be left in the past. --
'''Support''' I trust him and trust that he has learned his lesson --
'''Support''': This user knows the wheels here, and what happened in the past is in the past.  Thanks for answering my question!  ~~
'''Support'''. From the great state of Victoria, so it's not surprising that he's a good bloke. I trust him to use the admin tools appropriately.
'''Support''' as I also did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSteve_Crossin&action=historysubmit&diff=315292621&oldid=315290645 last time]. We are all prone to occasional error and those who can admit and learn from error are valuable to the project, as are those who can forgive them. Steven's having access to the tools seems like a net  positive. --
'''Support''' From my experience Steven is an exceptional editor, my only qualm with him is the fact we both have a heterosexual man crush on Jack Bauer even though we all know Jack loves me more so he has no shot. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Support''' - Theres no reason to dwell on something from literally years ago. The tools can always be taken away if the user gets into mischief. --
'''Support'''. When I saw the nomination, I thought, "He's not already an admin?"  I was unaware of the prior bad behavior.  I would have opposed the nomination in 2009, and maybe even if he had run in 2010, but the work he's done with MedCab and DRN show a clear change towards extremely valuable and productive engagement with the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' My interactions with this user have been very positive. He does great work at the [[WP:DRN|Dispute resolution noticeboard]] and at [[WP:MEDCAB|MEDCAB]]. The incident from 2008 isn't really concerning. I don't believe he would do something like that again.
Absolutely.
'''Support''' - What happened in '08 was bad, but I think he has made up for it, and it has been three years. Valuable contributor in a number of ways.
'''Support'''. The candidate is qualified. I think he's learned from past mistakes. More importantly, he has a solid track record during the past couple of years.
'''Support'''. DRN was a pretty great idea, contribs suggest he will even more helpful in his current administrative-type task given the tools and he clearly knows how to handle himself in heated disputes. I mean, not only can he help out with mundane topics like abortion, but he has the guts to venture into ''Windows'' related disputes!
'''Support'''.  2008 was a long time ago, as was 2009.  Since then Steve has been an active and model Wikipedian.   He's worked hard in the mediation area which is so desperately needed.  He spearheaded DRN, which is also a great asset sure to grow in the coming years.  His original crime was, if anything, being ''overzealous'' to be a part of the process.  It seems he has harnessed that for the greater good, and will continue to add to our ongoing improvement.  That said, he is entrusted with a good deal here, so he should know that there won't be as much slack for mischief as an admin, considering he's already been one twice! :p (note, he was not *really an admin before).
'''Support''' I've had excellent interactions with Steven, and I've found him to be very helpful and polite.  2008 is forever ago, and Steven seems to have learned from his mistake.~
'''Support'''. Great candidate with track of excellent work in Wikipedia: in my opinion he has already done an admin type work.
'''Support'''.  I  see Steven everywhere and I  have absolutely  no  reason  to  believe he would abuse the tools. The opposition  is unconvincing -  if Steve had joined the project  two  years ago , they'd be none the wiser.
'''Support''' One of the things I most admire in Steven is his openness and honesty in dealing with the (ages-old) incident.  It would have been extremely easy for him simply to have resigned from that account, created another one under another name, and just come back as someone else.  In which case, nobody, as far as I can see, would have had any qualms on giving him a mop now.  The fact that his honesty about the earlier incident is effectively now used against him makes me uncomfortable.  We're all human, we all make mistakes (particularly in our over-zealous and impatient youth), and many of us can regret those mistakes, be honest about them, and turn over a completely new leaf.  This is what Steven has done.  The Steven of now has excellent interaction skills with other users, even difficult ones, and has shown superb judgment in (particularly) the Abortion debate.  His work there was quite brilliant, and an example to us all in terms of patience and insight with a very tricky situation.  His tagging is acceptably accurate and trustworthy, and he works hard, and well, and consistently.  If he had been a new editor in the latter part of 2009, with the record he has made since then, nobody would be likely to oppose this at all.  I strongly feel that it is very wrong for us to hold years'-old sins against people.  People do grow; people do change.  We need to accept this, and to move on, as Steven clearly has done. I don't think that there is the remotest possibility that, having worked so hard and well since then, he would abuse the mop. Time to say yes. Just adding (and I hope Steven can forgive me!) It's important to remember that he was ''in his teens'' at the time of that earlier mistake.
I think most people are probably going to disagree with me when I say this, but I don't think Steve's err in judgment in 2008 was really all that big of a deal. Yes, I do think he rightfully lost the community's trust for doing what he did. It was inappropriate for Steve to log into [[User:Coffee|Chet]] and [[User:PeterSymonds|Peter]]'s accounts to perform admin actions. It was also poor judgment to use another editor's account on Simple English Wikipedia despite being banned from this site for having done exactly the same thing here. But aside from those breaches of policy, Steve never did any harm to Wikipedia through his actions. And that's why I have always opposed his ban. We basically told an invaluable contributor that he's no longer welcome on Wikipedia just because he made some huge mistakes, and he remained gone for several months. He owned up to his decisions and accepted the consequences for them. There was no need to punish him any further. But that was way back in 2008; here we are in 2011. Times have changed, and so has Steve. I think he would be a huge asset as an administrator, particularly at [[WP:SPI|SPI]], so I'm supporting.
'''Support''' after some deliberation. It is a net positive kind of thing.
'''Support''' It's been over 3 years since the incident, which had no serious long lasting effects. I notice that Coffee and PeterSymonds are both admins who regained tools after they were removed following this incident. Opposers using this as an excuse to oppose prove the classic idea at RFA that you can never be forgiven for anything on Wikipedia. Anyway, no reason why this candidate won't make a good admin.
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' - I've seen him around and looks like a great candidate. --  '''
'''Support''' - He seems like a great candidate and his blocks happened three years ago and everyone makes mistakes on Wikipedia. If he turned his editing around after the blocks then he is a great candidate. You can't hold someones blocks against them forever.
'''Support''' The incident that happened two years ago is two years gone, and it seems, to some level, he has regained trust in the community and has bettered himself after the fact. If anything fishy happens while he has the mop, something can always be done then. In response to Townlakes oppose, I say: '''The Benefits outweigh the risks'''. Good luck!
The lack of trust shown in the opposition has proven to me that there are people, who after 3 years, cannot seem to forgive an error, and who cannot look past the one bad judgement error to see the 3 solid years of contributions to this wiki. This is disgusting. Steven Zhang is a well-rounded, dedicated, extremely clueful user who made a slip up 3 years ago. It's amazing that people can't see the opportunity presented to us. We need admins. Steven is more than capable of this role. <small>(
'''Support''' - user didn't delete the main page. And good answers to questions. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Support''' - the fact that this user continued editing after his problems in 2008 is commendable.  I'm sure most people would simply dis-own their old account and create a new account thus giving the impression of being free of any controversy.  I'm sure that lots of people have done that including many admins.  User seems respected and has significant support.
'''Support''' Awesome guy! he Needs admin tools again! I've know him for a while and he's a really great guy. So it's a definite support from me! --
'''Support''' .
'''Support'''. I too have noticed this user's many helpful contributions to the Mediation Cabal and as such believe that he certainly passes the aptitude test here. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No reason not to; user does good stuff, no evidence of problems. Imagine if this were a 2-year user; we wouldn't even think about this? Forgive and forget, surely. Xe did something REALLY extremely stupid, years ago; and that's been pointed out quite a lot. I doubt very much that xe'll do anything similar every again. And the contribs since are fine fine. No concerns here. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Yes, Steven has done much for the project in the past years but the incident in 2008 was really really bad with a healthy dose of cluenessless, so I'm wary to grant Steven the mop. On the other hand, he has, as Pedro correctly points out, accepted the blame, admitted his mistakes and worked tirelessly to make amends; being a firm believer that anyone should get a second chance, I'm willing to give Steven one as well Plus his actions will most likely be more closely scrutinized because of his past and thus any misuse will be identified swiftly anyway. Regards '''
'''Support''' - Back in 2008 my and Steve's mindset was different... it was more of a "shoot, ask questions later" kind of thing. Neither Peter, Steve, or I harmed the encyclopedia by our actions, but we definitely didn't think them through and realize what the consequences might turn out to be. I think that is what is most important to note about his past actions. He's realized that actions like those during 2008-09 aren't acceptable, and he's realized it was a mistake and has apologized several times for it. He never intended to hurt this encyclopedia he was simply impatient, as I'm sure we all have been. Wikipedia is a site made for people who have a passion for spending their time helping others, and Steve's been doing that since he got here. Looking at his triumphs in the mediation area one can see how he is very level-headed, and that the so-called rash actions are in his past on this site. Anyone can see now that Steve deserves the mop, and that he is a net positive to this encyclopedia. I too see no worries in handing the simple tools of adminship to Steve, and I'm positive no one in the oppose section can tell me how he would possibly do harm to this site. The human brain is a complex thing, more complex than any computer on earth, yet we as humans are prone to making mistakes - it's how we learn everything about ourselves and the world around us, ''"through trial and error"''. If we were to be stopped from advancing forward during our short life due to every mistake we make, be it small or large, we would all end up locking ourselves inside our homes waiting for death to take us away. <small><nowiki></purposefully dramatic></nowiki></small>. I and other admins have become less active, and it seems (to me at least) that there needs to be more administrators helping maintain this site; I also completely trust Steven Zhang will not abuse his tools. Therefore, I support his RFA and wish him luck in his new endeavors as an administrator. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
I've looked through the candidate's recent deleted edits and am content. Few would dispute that the candidate is well qualified based on the last couple of years edits. That leaves one issue, should the previous events be regarded as time expired? My view on this is pragmatic, I would prefer that people who have made mistakes continue with the project rather than leave or exercise cleanstart.  So when a candidate stands who chose not to cleanstart from events this old it is important that we don't judge them to a harsher standard than if they had exercised cleanstart and we were just judging their last two years contributions. ''
'''Support''' - I think the candidate has atoned enough for what he did in '08, and will make an excellent Administrator. &nbsp; — '''<span style="background:Yellow;font-family:Helvetica Bold;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G. ツ]]
'''Support''' - Candidate is well-qualified in all respects with the exception of the "catastrophic error of judgement" as the nom statement puts it. Disclosure of the error has been extremely transparent. The candidate has the support of a large number of distinguished Wikipedians who believe that enough time has passed, and that the candidate deserves a chance at redemption. I concur--
'''Support''' - While the episode 2 years ago is quite concerning, I think enough time has passed, and the full disclosure was the right way to handle this.  Looking at the candidate's contributions, it's clear he's not here for malicious purposes; and even if he was, he'd be quickly desysopped if he deleted the main page.  One of the best ways to motivate someone to do good work is to put your trust in them.  I say let him help out.
'''Support''' — I've interacted with Steven through [[WP:IRC|IRC]] and I truly think he'll be a good admin. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>
'''Support''' The spirit of Wikipedia has always been to believe that people who make mistakes can change and learn from their mistakes. I'll encourage the opposing editors to view Steven's candidacy in this perspective.
'''Support''' while I don't know the candidate or have ever really spoken to him, I've heard nothing but good things about his work these days, and nothing but good things about his personality. Can't find a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' For sure.
'''Support''' I've seen Steven's work on Wikipedia a lot and, based on experience, can only support this nomination. '''''
'''Support''', 2 years is plenty of time to atone for one really really really dumb mistake.  No concerns at all.
'''Support''' — I've been working with Steve at DRN and MedCab and have found that he is energetic, efficient, and chock-a-block with good ideas. I've rarely encountered anyone who has the good of the encyclopedia so much at heart as Steve and he'd make a great sysop. Regards,
'''Support''' Despite the disgusting behaviour of one of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Zhang&diff=459178831&oldid=459178553 supporters], Stephen Zhang is an excellent candidate. I personally thought he was an admin already, and after a decent review I can see why I did. His temperment and knowledge are excellent. Perhaps he did slip up two years ago, I remain unconvinced that that has any bearing on his request today.
Over two years ago I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steve_Crossin&diff=prev&oldid=315350682 opposed] Steven Zhang's previous RfA, citing the Simple Wikipedia incident in conjunction with the earlier account sharing plus a few other smaller concerns; however, I also said I disagreed with the "never" comments, and that I'd be willing to support at a later date. To now support is what I have decided to do, and I'll explain why: the PeterSymonds/Coffee account sharing and incident happened well over three years ago...more than long enough for someone to learn, mature and rebuild their trust, as Steven Zhang has done. That error notwithstanding, Steven Zhang is a highly experienced editor, and could quite easily have abandoned his account after the news broke, created a new account, and returned to adminship a few months later without anyone knowing. Instead, he has stuck with his original account, been honest, and worked hard to restore his image...a fair more difficult undertaking. I have been familiar (at least in observations, as I don't recall ever interacting with him) with Steven Zhang long before the sharing was revealed, and based on everything I know I do not believe he would be a bad admin; and nor do I think he would share his own admin account with anyone else (this assuming, of course, that this RfA is successful), thus creating a similar scenario to what happened years ago. He is constantly doing good work in the places where he chooses to edit, and there are no faults that I'm aware of. Finally, I have confidence in both the nominators, and know that Pedro and Doug would never have nominated if they thought that Steven Zhang would make a similar error to the one three years ago. As a past oppose, I now support. Good luck, Steven.
'''Support'''. Steven's last major issue was back in 2008, and while it was a very concerning issue, it's been three years and he's had time to mature, and mature he has. He's a well-qualified candidate, and I'm happy to offer my support.
'''Support''' I wouldn't call myself one of the candidate's "IRC friends" but we have spoken a couple of times.  I did ask on IRC a week or so back why I haven't seen an RfA from him before because I see him around the project often and he mentioned that one might be forthcoming.  He didn't tell me it was finally transcluded though, shame on him for not properly canvassing my support.  Anyway, I have nothing but good thoughts about the candidate.  Since the "[[2008 Stephen Crossin Incident]]", the candidate has had a collective 17 months (50+ edits) of editing.  I'd say that is plenty to demonstrate that the candidate has matured and grown.  It's too bad negative memories stick better than positive ones.--v/r -
'''Support'''. I have had numerous good interactions with Steven in the past, all of which demonstrate his experience and ability. He has been extremely helpful, particularly regarding SPI–an area where I'm not nearly as experienced as he. I am confident that Steven can be trusted with the tools, and I believe the issues in the past are just that: in the past. He will be a very valuable administrator. <span style="font-family: Georgia">–
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The user has been active on Wikipedia for over three years. During that time he has been very helpful in dispute resolution areas. He has grown since 2008. Even then, he showed wisdom and patience. I think he'd be an effective and uncontroversial admin. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support'''. Such experience and edit history can't be doubted. No big concerns, let's give him a chance. '''''
'''Support''' I can think of two reasons for this.  First, his actions from 2008 deserve a 10 year ban from adminship... luckily, a year in the computer world is like a decade in the real world... so he's served his time.  Second, we know that he already knows how to use the bit. ;-)---'''
'''Support''' From what I've seen of him, he sees to be capable and qualified to be an Admin. I don't see any real reason to worry if he gets the mop.
'''Support''' - Seems to know what he's doing, and I can't see any real problems that have continued to today.
'''Support''' See nearly every comment above! [[User talk:Η-θ|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Η-θ</b>]]&nbsp;<sup><small>
'''Support''' - The account sharing incident was an extreme lack of judgement on the part of all three users involved, but I trust that the candidate will not do anything that stupid again. With all the good work he does now, I expect that the extra buttons will allow him to be even more productive. A net positive, in other words. ​—
'''Support''' - Although there may have been controversy back in 2008, as many others have said, people can change, and I believe that Steven has definitely changed for the better. I would definitely trust him as an administrator at this point, unless something else arises in this RfA that could raise concern. He has been very proactive in creating pages on Wikipedia like [[WP:DRN]], which is a great alternative to the constantly-backlogged [[WP:AN/I]]. All in all, he's a very strong candidate whom I am willing to support.
'''Support''' Enough time has passed that I can support him with no reservations.
'''Support''' Recent interactions have been positive - willingness to learn & grow is evident.
'''Support'''  Has done some great work.
'''Support''' Steven adopted me and spent time teaching and answering questions. Early in the adoption process I trailed his edits all over Wikipedia out of pure curiosity. What I saw was lots of hard work and a passionate focus on mediation. Reading the candidate's [[User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure|disclosure]] and the links at the end of it made me cringe in more than a few places. While I knew they were bad, I hadn't realized his actions of 2008 and 2009 were quite the disturbing train wreck they were. They went well beyond account sharing. That said, I also appreciated the brutal honesty of that page. There was no ducking and weaving, no avoiding full responsability. That straight on acceptance of blame and the mess he had created was what convinced me he had matured in important ways. I have every reason to believe Steven would be a productive and valuable admin.
'''Support''' Per above. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' – Steven is definitely qualified for the mop. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Has done a good job and look forward to him joining the ranks of admins. --
'''Support''' - Work on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard trumps previous account transgressions.
'''Support''' Unpersuasive opposition forces me to !vote in this RfA. It is very disappointing to see something from ''three years ago'' - which is followed by (as far as anyone can tell) three whole years of productive service and contributions - prevent people from granting needed bits. Passing this RfA will improve the project.
'''Support''' - has done commendable work for MedCab, and in this context, I think he will make a fine administrator. Otherwise, in regard to the events of 2008, I think Trusilver sums it up well, and I agree with Skier Dude about his willingness to improve.
'''Support''' - responses to questions suggest an openness and recognition that earlier issues were problems, so it's doubtful we'll see those kinds of issues again. Work he's done since that time and in the last while has been strong and beneficial to the encyclopedia. It seems to me that he's done enough to move forward from past transgressions, and will be an effective and trustworthy admin.
'''Support'''; the transgressions described above are serious - it's important to be able to ''trust'' an admin - and the cooldown time should be a long one. I have some reservations but if three years have passed - with much good editing - that's probably long enough to rebuild trust, in my mind.
'''Support''' - I can't remember a time when I've been so swayed by oppose !votes, but still decided to support. My rationale is simply that it seems, to me, to be unfair to have restored adminship to the other involved parties but to uniquely deny it to the candidate, who has accepted responsibility and acted well since that episode, years ago.
'''Support'''. Major cock-up three years ago (although probably acting in good faith). I am sure that Steven understands his mistakes and will be careful. (Ironically, I believe that Steven's previous involvement with this conflict will make him a better administrator than many uncontroversial candidates.)
'''Support'''. I was extremely pissed at Steve several years ago when the account-sharing thing happened. He knows this. However, since that time I have seen an extraordinary effort on Steve's part to regain the trust of the community. From what I can see, despite his past transgressions, Steve has grown to be one of the most trusted members of the community. He is a leading figure in the dispute resolution process; despite not being an administrator he makes well-reasoned AfD closes; he is a valuable SPI clerk; he is very helpful to new and old users alike. He has fully regained my trust, and when he was waffling back and forth about whether to run or not, I encouraged Steve to do so. Even if he should not gain the tools this time around - which I do hope he does, as I feel he has earned them - I have every confidence that Steve will continue to work to improve himself as he has been doing these past three years. While the opposers citing issues of trust are entitled to their opinions and, I am sure, well-intentioned, I do not believe that any reason to doubt Steve's trustworthiness remains. Good luck, Steve. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''. I trust that Steven will put the community's best interest before his own, and that he will be very careful in the future. In his role as a co-ordinator of the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|Mediation Cabal]] and someone who frequently works in the more administrative side of things, I think he has done a good job. He's also one of the people most open to criticism I have seen on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I am personally shocked by some of the opposes existing below, and the idea that people can not re earn trust, and from seeing a lot of per x person above. This RfA is not one where the per above does, and makes me think that this was just a skim over for a few. Beyond all that, some of the arguments I have seen below seem to be trying to shoot and drag Steven out like a dead animal from a hunt, which is inappropriate. Also some of the requests for information...people I know he's lost trust, but where in the world is the privacy for a user, you wouldn't want to reveal these details about you. Moving on to my actual support reason: Steven is a great editor and i've worked with him for several months and now seeing that he has regained (for the most part) trust from current functionaries and admins that he betrayed shows that this editor has gone a long way. The fact that he didn't just disappear with RTV and go under a new account, that says a lot. At the same time I take the previous incident very seriously, and any further abuse of any sort IMO would be the last we see of him. Now let's leave the baggage of the past behind and move on and look at his suitability these days. --
'''Support'''. I believe he can now be trusted. --
'''Support''' My prior (not necessarily correct) impressions of Steve were that he is a talkative person on IRC, trustworthy overall and loves his ''[[24 (TV series)|24]]''. So it came as a real shock to me when I discovered about the incident in 2008 after reading the first few lines of this RfA. After a few days of thoughts, I think that the community should forgive what Steven had done in 2008, because (I know it's a clique) humans are fallible. I don't blame him because back then he was an immature and thoughtless 18-year-old (we all know what worse things people in this age group can do). Since the incident he has realised his mistake and is still working hard to salvage the irreparable faith of the communities. We all have done something that we're not proud of, whether they may be minor or significant, but I don't think it is fair when some people are not willing to change their opinions towards you when you have been repentant and are willing to make up for what you've done? I call on those who oppose this RfA on the basis of the 2008 incident to have a think about their stance and ask themselves if they are willing to forget about it and forgive someone who sincerely would like to be forgiven. We all make mistakes, so it is a matter whether the person is prepared to say sorry for their actions. I believe Steven is a perfect example of this, so please, forgive and forget. That's all from me. --
'''Support''' I supported on the last RFA and Steven has stayed clean in that time.
'''Support''' Hoping past errors are behind him and lessons learned <span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em" class="texhtml">
'''Strong support''' I was brought up in the view that its often best not to play tricky situations with a straight bat, and it wasn't till my 30s that I began to understand the importance of being almost totally truthful, especially if one wants to serve the common good rather than feather ones own nest. Perhaps due to this background the candidates past mistakes concern me not at all. What does impress is their extensive track record of valuable contributions, their generally collegiate nature, and especially the time and energy they've spent helping the community by long hours reading folks comments and then trying to broker workable compromises at DR. Should be a fine addition to the admin corps.
'''Support'''; everyone deserves a second chance. Enough time has passed to put previous indiscretions behind; let's move on. This user is very helpful and will, I'm sure, help the project even more with the Administrator rights.
'''Support'''. The above comments convince me that he'd likely be an OK admin, and we need admins. The Oppose comments raise some good objections, but looking at the totality I'm willing to take the chance that he'll be alright. Regarding the 2008 incident in particular, meh. He didn't ''hack'' the Wikipedia and then go on some destructive rampage or something. Somebody left their password open to being figured out, an attractive nuisance if you will, and so forth. Willing to overlook that.
'''Oppose''' - while a great contributor to the project, I cannot ignore what happened in 2008. I would like to see a longer history of positive contributions, and not just a few months. The answer to question 3. is also not very reassuring.
Agreed - '''oppose''' for now. Maybe in another year?
'''Oppose'''. No personal animosity toward the user, who is a very nice person and who I always had good interactions with, but for me, what happened, whatever long ago, makes me still very uncomfortable with the thought of this particular user being granted sysop tools. Second chances are a good thing, but certain things cannot be washed away for me. Maybe that's just me being stuck in an old mindset and not adapting to changing circumstances, I cannot tell for sure. The breach of trust in '08 and the subsequent handling are still too much on my mind, Dragonfly above me wrote "Maybe in another year?", maybe. No offense to the user, whose valuable contributions, hard work and dedication we all know. <i><b>
Risks outweigh benefits.
'''No''' - My objection is along the lines of Snowolf - I cannot ignore the 2008 account sharing incident and regardless of the position of others in the community having been regranted these perms (which they should not have been - misusing the permissions which have been trusted to them once should mean you don't get them back) - It is not possible for me to say in all certainty that I'd trust this user to have this position <s>again</s>. Sorry.  <span style="border: 1px solid red;">
'''Oppose''' - The earlier incidents of course, but also other things I've personally noted in the past years that make a general impression on me. I can't support.
Snowolf put it quite well; this user's contributions may be valuable but '''I do not trust him with admin tools'''. — <span style="font-family:verdana;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold">
'''Oppose''' Seems too inexperienced.  For example, he wants to be closing AFDs but he doesn't seem to have much experience of that forum.
'''Oppose''' - Even leaving aside the 2008 incident, the above comments reveal what is, to my mind, a rather unhealthy "cult of personality" around this user. An admin candidate who cannot be criticized, no matter how gently, without people popping up left and right to offer helpful non-sequiturs (oppose #2), bicker over technicalities (oppose #8), needle (#5) or just generally badger (#4) is, simply put, not healthy for the project, no matter how capable and trustworthy the candidate himself may or may not be. To put it another way, if Joe Blow Who Nobody Knows makes a weird block or a questionable XfD decision and I bring it up on AN/I, I can be reasonably confident that the subsequent discussion will be focused on the action itself (to the extent that AN/I discussion ever is). Here, I get the feeling that there'd be a lot of kneejerk reactions to support the decision of a guy people are personally buddies with, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose the decision of a guy who's part of the Wiki Cabal, which leads to kneejerk reactions to support a guy who's being unfairly targeted by the self-styled anti-cabalists, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose a guy who's being passionately defended by some other guy who made some bad blood on a random Talk page somewhere, which leads to... plenty of kneejerk reactions to go around, which itself leads to a lack of confidence on my part in the ensuing circus. Just too much emotion surrounding the candidate. I'm sorry, Steven.
'''Oppose''' - I would like to start off by saying that I consider Steve a friend. He and I have worked together since he started editing on this project (I "adopted" him back in 2008, see [[User:Steven Zhang/My Adoption]] for more information), and I will be the first to stand up and say that he has grown a lot over the years. Unfortunately, I have not, and do not feel that he is a suitable candidate for an administrator. For starters, the situation in 2008 leaves me questioning his judgement, but I also believe that people make mistakes and should not be faulted for the rest of their life because of it. That said, after the incident occurred with the administrative accounts (in which he was banned, and evaded that ban by editing while logged out), Steve's ex-wife (who created the account [[User:Mellie]]) managed to gain access to Steve's account and a rather harsh edit directed towards a user. When I confronted her about it on IRC, she replied, and I quote: "''I know, people violate policies all the time and do not get blocked.''" (Steve can confirm that this did in fact happen). While this is in no way directly Steve's fault it leads me to feel (coupled with the earlier incident) that Steve doesn't put account security high on his priority list; something that should be important to an administrator. Additionally, in my opinion these diffs show Steve  "[[WP:DIVA|diva retiring]]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steve_Crossin&oldid=231337276], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steven_Zhang&diff=292789377&oldid=292409545 this time he sated it was "his last time"]. While minor it adds to this feeling that Steve tends to let his emotions get the best of him, and instead of walking away from the computer does things that he later regrets. Like I said before, I think Steve does good editorial work, but simply don't feel he is the right person for the tools.
'''Oppose''' as per [[User talk:Badger Drink]]. If there are factors that prevent the effective use of the tools by a candidate, then that candidate should not be given the tools, whether or not the candidate is at fault. There appears to be many uncritical supporters of this candidate, which would hamper proper scrutiny of the candidate's administrative actions. The candidate also appears to have been solicited off-wiki to nominate for adminship. That has corrupted the process and destroyed the legitimacy of this particular RfA. --
'''Oppose''' For reasons already discussed by others, as well of the reality that there's no community way to remove adminship if it turns out to be bad idea.  I'm not comfortable with this.--
'''Oppose''' Repeated account-security issues.
'''Oppose''' Are we really that desperate so as to give the bit to formerly banned sockpuppeteers?  I don't think so.
'''Oppose''' Since “retiring” in May 2009 the candidate has only been back as a regular editor since May 2011. In the interests of consistency with any 6 month editor making a RfA, I oppose and suggest coming back next year, just in case you retire again.  6 months may be enough for the candidates IRC friends, as well as some others, but given the background of negligent personal security and other serious breaches of trust, a bit more time is needed to satisfy me.
'''Oppose''' I completely agree with the above comment by User:Leaky_caldron. --
It's right that the Wikipedia community is prepared to forgive and forget, but in this case, I think that to do so would be a little bit premature.  The community can grant the tools, but we have no effective way of removing them again, so we need to be quite sure before we do grant them.  Poor administrative judgment is known to create significant disharmony, and I don't yet have complete confidence in this user's judgment, so I think an oppose for the moment is in the community's best interests.  I could be persuaded to support after another six months of regular trouble-free editing.—
Spent some time looking at this.  Good contributor.  I'm a bit worried about the previous problems and having only been editing for (exactly?) 6 months[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20110514142357&limit=500&target=Steven+Zhang]. Would likely support in another 6.
'''Oppose''' the candidacy of this thoroughly untrustworthy editor. His previous offences render him permanently unsuitable for positions of trust. Granting this editor the tools can only result in much grief, for him and the project.
'''Oppose'''.  Let me start by saying that Steven has made outstanding contributions to the project as an editor.  That said, I just can't bring myself to trust him with the mop.  And I am not sure that mere passage of time will change that (i.e., some comments about coming back in 6 months, etc.)  It's not just the 2008 incident.  Everyone makes mistakes.  But while Steven was the only editor involved who was not a sysop at the time, he was experienced enough to know better.  But, as Steven seems to realize now, he made things much worse for himself than the involved admins did by being less than truthful during the discussion about the incident, sharing private emails, etc.  But that reaction is a bigger problem than the account sharing mistakes that led to the incident.  If Steven was less than truthful then, and willing to do more things he knew he wasn't supposed to do in order to save his skin, then how can I believe things will be any different in a stressful situation now?  Well, maybe he learned his lesson over time.  But if there is one lesson from the incident that should not have required any time to learn, it should have been "don't share accounts."  But then that is what seemed to happen on Simple, even if no edits were made.  And there seemed to be less than truthfulness - or at least less than candidness again - when trying to get the ban overturned.  And then again during the 2009 RfA, when some of these issues went undisclosed until other editors brought them up.  Perhaps, as Steven writes in his disclosure, he has matured and learned his lesson, and we should be able to trust him now.  Perhaps.  But he was supposedly mature enough to become an admin even back in 2008, when a number of editors stated they were prepared to nominate him shortly.  And it seems like he had trouble learning his lessons from the incident.  And trust lost through lack of truthfulness (as opposed to an honest mistake or error in judgment, like the one that started the whole thing) is much harder to regain, even through the passage of time, especially when the lack of candor and truthfulness has been repeated several times in the interim (even if perhaps not recently).  The bottom line for me is that I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=440964841 this exchange] between Steven and [[User:Durova]], who had called out some of Steven's lack of truthfulness during the 2008 discussion.  Steven states that he is asking about Durova's recollection because he wants "to be completely transparent about what happened."  And that may well be the case.  But I could not help thinking that he is probably asking because he wants to know what Durova remembers, so he can weave his narrative around it without risk of Durova tripping him up again.  That may well not be the case; indeed, I want to take Steven's explanation of his post at face value.  But the fact that I don't feel secure about a simple think like that, and I think I have good reason for not feeling secure, means that I cannot trust this editor with the mop.
'''Oppose'''. per Badger, Tiptoety, Cube, Leaky, and Rlendog. These alone are plenty for me to oppose. What else is there we don't know about?
'''Oppose''' as per Rlendog. We all make mistakes, but we don't all then attempt to deceive in an effort to cover them up.
'''No'''. Per Badger, Leaky and Rlendog. Accessing accounts is of itself almost the unforgiveable crime. But the circumstances and subsequent activity surrounding this candidate's activities then and since is disturbing. The efforts from the chat cheerleaders to persuade otherwise do not convince.
'''Oppose''' I have observed enough of Steven during my time on Wikipedia to know that he is an experienced and competent Wikipedia editor. The questions raised in this RfA are not about experience or competence. Instead, the issues here have to do with the candidate's judgment; they are detailed by various opposers above. Steven's attempts to deceive others in order to cover his own ass, in particular, are problematic enough to prevent me from supporting his candidacy. Anyone familiar with the arbitration process knows that it's quite difficult to remove administrators who won't cop to their transgressions. As such, it strikes me as unwise to promote a candidate who has enjoyed a bit of notoriety for being unwilling to own up to his own mistakes.
'''Oppose'''. I share the concerns of several opposers above. Despite past transgressions the candidate remains a respected editor in good standing. This is well and good, but I do not think it appropriate to grant them additional privileges; at least not at this point. <code>
'''Oppose'''. Supporters describe the user at the time of the incident as "a teenager" - presumably because someone said in his defence at the time that he was only 18.  In fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steven_Zhang&oldid=193638878 his userpage from Feb 2008] says that he is a [[Young adult]] defined in the link article as aged from 20-40, says he has a degree in Computer Systems Engineering, and he's taking a wikibreak because he's getting married. I think the youngest that makes him is probably 22, so the events cannot be excused as the kind of stupid thing that 18 year olds do, and I rather object to the way Steve has continued to allow folks to defend him on the grounds that he was a stupid kid, whereas in fact he was a grown man, and ought to take responsibility for his own f....ups.
'''Oppose''' - I am feeling to oppose with the comments above - there are still good faith doubts about this users readiness for the tools after his admitted previous issues - add that to the fact that there is [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Steven+Zhang&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia only recent six months of activity], at this time I prefer to oppose. Also as per User:Casliber's comment from the neutral section below in regard to content creation.
'''Oppose''' Per everything above, I do not trust this user. '''
'''Oppose'''--It's nothing personal. It's just that the incident in 2008 got him temporarily banned (it happened again later) and also got the mop ripped out of the hands of two sysops. (Granted, one is now a steward, and the other ''did'' get their tools back, but it cannot be ignored) I am inclined to fear that this might happen again. I've heard great things about this user, but yet that incident is not something that can't be just forgotten. While, recently, his edits ''have'' gotten more positive, I don't think this user is ready for the mop and bucket... yet. Soon. Not now. [[User:Belugaboy|<font color="#004730" face="Trebuchet MS">'''Beluga'''</font>]][[User talk:Belugaboy|<font color="#FF2400" face="Trebuchet MS">'''boy'''</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' per numerous concerns raised above.  Additionally, Badger Drink's oppose has now caused him to be taken to both ani and rfc/u on what look to me like flimsy grounds.  This adds weight to Badger Drink's claim that there is a pattern of harassment of oppose !voters at this RFA.
'''Oppose''' Per Shadowjams. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' When a person has done something particularly foolish, it's very difficult to predict whether it is likely to repeat. One possible I know does not work is how strongly the individual and supporters say it will never happen again, and another is how strong opponents say otherwise. But perhaps   consistency of behavior afterwards over a long term is a relevant standard.. The recent editing history is too short to be consistent after the original problems. This does ''not'' mean I think the problems will recur, but I  would prefer to  be more sure of it. There's another test I am reluctant to mention because its more a matter of feel: and that is the eagerness for return of privileges--especially when the privileges are not necessary for the   work currently being successfully engaged in. I'm quite lenient about permitting trial overturn of blocks, since a block prevents doing anything here. I don't feel the same way on this.  '''
I've been following along since the start of the RfA, reviewed his contributions, and wondering why I was so reluctant to go ahead and register my support, really wanting to give Steven the benefit of the doubt here, given the time that has passed since the 2008 incident. But then I saw DGG's comment, and it clarified my thinking as to what's held me back. I hope Steven continues the good work he's been doing, but I'm going to '''oppose''' per DGG; sorry. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''' There are concerns raised about Steven's honesty, trustworthiness, and influence. His potentially disturbing influence is shown by the fact that he persuaded not one but two admins to breach their accounts, was offered another account to breach, and - as has been pointed out - this RfA has attracted some rather uncritical and unseemly badgering by supporters. He has misled people in the past, including his academic credentials, and in his previous RfA he comments on editing when banned: "From memory, I once edited outside my ban...." The fact is that he was caught once, and admits to that one incident. There is a possibility of other occasions hiding behind a vague "from memory". His memory seems to be that he remembers abuse when it is pointed out. He had to be pushed to "recall" that he had breached someone's account on Simple. There are questions of poor judgement - he allowed an RfA in 2009 when he had not long returned from the ban, and had little positive content to show for himself. But, as people are pointing out, let us judge Steven not on the past, but on what he has done recently. And what he has done recently has been very positive. Good works in dispute resolution. Helping out on ArbCom cases, closing AfDs securely, reverting vandalism, and occasionally adding content. If taking this AfD as if Steven had gone for a clean start and looking at his contributions from after his previous RfA, I would see a good editor, and certainly one who I would see as a potentially god admin. But my response would be that as the contributions are patchy with eight months of only 12 edits in total before the recent 6 months worth of decent work, I would say that it is too soon to make an accurate and considered judgement. I would encourage Steven to apply again in six months. It is a rare case for someone to be given the tools after only six months contributions. I think it has happened, but those candidates would have had more outstanding contributions in terms of quality and quantity. Steven's contributions are good, but not outstanding in terms of quality or quantity. So as a new editor I would say no; given Steven's past I think he additionally needs to show us that he can be trusted, so there is again that question of good judgement in allowing this RfA when there is not quite enough recent extended material on which to make a secure decision. I would be very happy to look again in six months. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' His stance/POV stance on China-related issue is problematic. Giving him the mop will no doubt compound the problem.--
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=440964841 Durova's recommendation (3 months ago) that the candidate focus on editing] sufficed to remove my support. The few content contributions focus on the horrible show ''24'', with a "hero" played by another Kiefer.  On the other hand, his intelligent mediation of [[Holodomor]] and other community service shows that he has a lot to offer. I accept his answer to Elen's good question about his age. Write a few articles, one near traditional encyclopedia content, and come back in 6 months.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - If I'm to forget and forgive the incidents until late 2009, then I'll forget everything, also edit count and good contributions until then. I wasn't around much of that early time, but I think it is clear that as of Sept 2009, chances were slim he'd ever succeed with an RfA. Forgetting everything, I now see a user with somewhat 4K edits, most of them over the past 6 months, and an eagerness to become admin. Those edits are good, and someone involved and experienced in dispute resolution is a potential asset to the admin corps. But it is too soon to judge. Happy to reevaluate in 6 months' time. --
'''Oppose''' - Based on many of the concerns raised above.
'''Oppose''' <blockquote>Given the information above, it is clear Chet B Long and PeterSymonds have retired "under a cloud", and as such, should only have their administrator access granted again via application to the Arbitration Committee.</blockquote> It wouldn't be fair for Chet B Long and PeterSymonds to only be able to become admins again by applying to the Arbitration Committee when Steven Zhang was just as culpable.  He should have to apply to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Elen of the Roads and many of the concerns above. Steve has matured as a person, but this RFA is premature, because he is not ready to hold any kind of permission yet. I have told Steve repeatedly that I don't think he should submit an RFA, and he was unhappy but accepted my view. Seemingly, he simply asked around until somebody said they would nominate him, and I cannot interpret that in any way other than that it reflects an unnerving desire to be an admin. With the benefit of retrospect, I know that people who have to ask around for nominations are probably not ready, and the concerns raised above about judgement and respect for account security only compound my nervousness about this candidature. I think Steve is a good contributor and has a lot to offer the project in his own way, but I would not be comfortable with Steve being an admin (though I say that without prejudice to changing my mind at some later date). Sorry, Steve.
'''Oppose''', too many questions and concerns about this user to ignore.
'''Oppose''' based on previous issues, lack of truthfulness and maturity. --
'''Oppose'''. I apologise for my indecisiveness, but, from following the questions and the discussions in the oppose section, it seems one has to ask a question two or three times to get a straight answer, and when it arrives, it is an attempt to deflect responsibility based on your age or some other factor. Now, ask anybody who's come across me, and they'll tell you that my judgement at times has left something to be desired, but when I fuck up, I bloody well admit it and I try to make right. I don't expect perfection, but I expect admins to be able to hold their hands up to a mistake (from monumental lapses of judgement down to, for example, inflating credential's on one's userpage), and I'm afraid I just don't see that from you, Steve. You seem like a nice bloke, and I could probably see my way to supporting you in six months or so, but not right now. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Too many issues, too many questions, too many explanations, too many unknowns, I don't see the point, sorry...
'''Oppose.''' Surely a valuable contributor to the Project, and better than many current admins who got in when it was easy. (Reforms are desperately needed, to weed out those who do not meet the expected standards of probity and balanced judgement.) But the candidate does not come up to the current archangelic standards for getting over the line, because of the history that has been amply examined above. Try again in two years. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>
In his "disclosure" ([[User:Steven_Zhang/Disclosure |here]]) the candidate says that it wasn't until after his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steve_Crossin|Sept 2009 RFA]] that he recognised what he did in 2008 was wrong. In Q3 above he says that he "returned to full editing in May 2011". That's only six months ago. -
Undecided, at this point, and hence neutral.  I see good contributions by this editor.  But the points made by those objecting do give me pause.--
There are positives and there are negatives. They're about in balance.
Yeah I was going to offer a qualified support initially but have paused. Badger Drink makes a point that gives me pause, as does the exchange with Durova. One of the reasons I like to see admins (and arbs for that matter) doing content work is that it is a great leveller. You sit down and write some content and you are the sheep rather than the shepherd. I like the idea that this place should be as level a playing field as possible, and I think being a sheep more makes for being a better shepherd.
'''Neutral, leaning support'''. Overall, Steve has done a lot of good work, especially toward dispute resolution. In my opinion everything on the Internet goes by so fast that two years ought to be enough to forgive any offense. However, after the initial incident he repeated his mistake on Simple and posted private logs/emails, which makes it hard to overlook. I am partially satisfied with concerns about security in Q10 and Q11 though. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' My first encounter with the candidate was, in short, a dust-up. However, he did make some very valid points, and forced me to re-examine some of my early efforts on Wikipedia. With that said, I believe the RfA process shouldn't involve personal opinions, but instead, objective assessment of capabilities and trustworthiness, or as objective as such an assessment can ever be. And with that in mind, while the candidate's contributions since my first encounter (and, presumably, before) have been a significant positive for the Wikipedia project, and thus prevent me from an outright Oppose !vote, the Oppose !votes carry sufficient weight to preclude my joining in the Support category, especially the stated use of accounts not his...accounts which carried an Administrator bit. It's that very last that concerns me the most. --
After reading the comments of SilkTork, Pgallert and Casliber, I can only agree with them. The number of post-incident edits, 4K or so, is relatively low for admin-standards; heck, they are close in number to my own. I'm also concerned that Steven seems to have admitted to the multiple accesses to the accounts of others only when pressed by others.
'''Not now''' - Sorry, but you've only been active for three months and have less than 3,000 edits. With nothing but respect, I don't think you have enough experience. Personally, I like to see 4,000 edits and a year of editing, and this is a relatively low standard compared to many other users. Best regards, ''
I have to agree; I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, you're far too inexperienced at the moment to be handed the mop. You're doing a good job, though! If you keep it up, in some six months, you should pass with flying colours. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
I also have to agree.  Sorry but I just don't think that you have the experience yet.  I'd suggest that you use the following months to learn everything about Wikipedia and try re-applying in say six months time.--
'''Not now''', sorry. You clearly look like a smart and keen Wikipedian, but you do need to have been around a good bit longer than this to get to know the ropes - the great majority of your edits have only been this month --
'''C'mon man''' Three months just simply isn't enough time. I do see great potential, however.--
'''Oppose'''. While you're a clearly a well-meaning editor who wants to help, frankly I did a double take when I saw this RfA. You've been participating in RfAs for the last couple of weeks and I've seen you oppose candidates who have more experience than you do. Why would you stand at RfA if you don't meet your own standards?
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose'''.  Insufficient content creation.  The Fukishima article is one where almost NONE of the referenced content was done by you.  The second article had 10 refs and was of the "copy a website" kind (not journals, newspapers, web, books, etc.).  Third article was tiny and had two refs.  And has a tag since FEB asking for more refs!  All of the contributions are very recent as well.  Building referenced content is an important thing to understand as a moderator at this encyclopedia project.
'''Strong oppose''' - This user, after I deleted a previous attempt at RfA, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&oldid=419895870#Wikipedia:Request_for_adminship.2FGabriele449 thanked me] earlier this month for deleting it because they knew it would not stand a chance. Two weeks later and I find a live request here. This candidate appears to be collecting hats as shown by their request of almost every bit here on Wikipedia within the past month. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&diff=prev&oldid=2463527#Gabriele449 OTRS], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAbuse_response%2FNominate&action=historysubmit&diff=419908576&oldid=419902226 Abuse response], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FAccount_creator&action=historysubmit&diff=419044835&oldid=418499685 Account creator], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover&oldid=418039351#User:Gabriele449 File mover #1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover&oldid=418554272#User:Gabriele449 File mover #2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled&oldid=418514009#User:Gabriele449 Autopatroller], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=417373493#User:Gabriele449 Rollback], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&oldid=417297412#User:Gabriele449 Reviewer]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&oldid=419895870#Chzz_talk_page This] message was concerning to me, as well, following [[User talk:Chzz/Archive 29#Adminship nomination in your archive|this discussion]]. This user's [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gabriele449|first created RfA]], which I deleted, was created by a sockpuppet with no prior edits ([[User:Jaiwilcox]]), of whom SunCountryGuy01 still claims is one of his friends who gained access to his computer. '''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You need more experience and try reapplying in six months for adminship.
'''Oppose''', per HJ, Eagles, the bizarre edits to Valfontis' RfA, and the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunCountryGuy01/Archives/2&diff=prev&oldid=417710507#Nima1024.27s_RfA surprise RfA]" the candidate sprung on someone else a couple of weeks ago.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]] and reversion of the RFA closure, while Baseball Watcher certainly closed it TO early -- it should not have been you to re-open.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Candidate does not meet my criteria. As everyone else said, come back in about six months if you're still interested that way we can see if you have a firm grasp of our policies. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' For the following reasons: (1) Lack of content creation. User has only created one article. (2) The low number of [[User:Tarheel95/CSD log|logged speedy nomination in the last 6 months]]. Although the tagings appear to be accurate, I think there should be more from a user, who wants to handle speedy deletion of articles. (3) User has a [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Tarheel95&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator+intervention+against+vandalism&max=100 low activity at AIV], 21 reports to AIV and only 2 this year. How come an user actively engaging in vandal-fighting only reports two vandals in a year? I'm not even do it, but made [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Armbrust&page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator+intervention+against+vandalism&max=100 3 reports this year]. [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] <sup><font color="#E3A857">[[User talk:Armbrust|Talk to me]]</font> <font color="#008000">[[Special:Contributions/Armbrust|about my edits]]</font></sup><sub><font color="#0892D0">
Really, but having ~4000 edits, asking for [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering&oldid=2894589#User:Tarheel95 OTRS access], a second RFA, that smells like a collection of user rights. You have made ~1000 of your edits in the last 3 months, you want to work in the CSD area, but
'''Oppose''' See [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Membrane_Science&oldid=457809620] (not blatant spam); lack of experience in general. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Oppose'''  I think this user has a lot of great thinking but I really think that the user doesn't have enough but he has improved better than the 2009 RfA per [[WP:NOTNOW]] but he has made just a few hundred edits in 3 years and only 5,000 edits. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm not a strict edit counter by a long way, but trundling along with just a few tens of edits per month for two years (apart from a sudden burst just ahead of RfA) suggests to me you can't really have a sufficient level of intimacy with the project. I'd suggest you should try to manage a significantly higher level of contribution on a regular basis over the next 6-12 months, focusing on areas related to the admin work you would like to do, and perhaps try again then - I wish you luck --
'''Neutral''' Some good work on NPP, but would prefer candidate to accumulate more experience before getting the mop. Some of his/her CSD taggings are on the cusp of being a bit bitey... A7 for the owner of a motorcycle business purportedly worth $10M? Within 1 minute of the page being created? '''''
'''Support'''. The candidate seems to have made very valuable contributions to several apparently good articles in [[control theory]] and mathematics. He has helped with cleaning up others' articles in an efficient and generally correct manner. My expectation is that you would be (like [[User:Geometry_guy]]) continuing to make valuable contributions to content, and use the administrative tools infrequently but intelligently: This has worked very well for other writers of quality technical articles. <s>My ''concern ''is about about what may be, at first glance, a relative shortage of discussions and collaborations, so that it is hard to judge how you would interact with other editors.</s>  Interaction at [[Q factor]] shows calm, clear, cooperative personality. This candidate's being an administrator could be very valuable to the Systems and Mathematics projects, imho. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. The candidate would add diversity to the admin pool, which seems to be evolving towards a specific type of Wikipedian. I'm not all about looking at edit counters and edits in particular namespaces. The candidate has made quality edits to Wikipedia and Wikipedia desperately needs admins who are also good editors. It is apparent that he is not applying because he is obsessed over Wikipedia nor having Wikipedia administration rights, but simply wants expanded capabilities and tools to interact with the Wikipedia community. --
I support morally, 5 years experiance but only 3200+ edits.  The editors opposing suggest you should participate in areas like [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]], [[WP:AIAV|Vandalism intervention]] more.  If they see more edits to those areas in your contributions, then they'll be more inclined to support you next time.  &ndash;
'''Protest Support''' - if 5 years and 3200 edits is not enough for adminship, then our standards have become far too restrictive.  But I really do think you need more demonstrated knowledge of our policies and procedures, even though you are qualified on the basis of your technical expertise.  Wikipedia's policies and procedures are often counter-intuitive and just knowing how to edit a wiki doesn't give you all of the knowledge you need.  I do think, though, that the total time in service and total number of edits should be more than enough, hence my protest !vote. --
'''Support''' - Why not? [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 02:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (This candidate has expressed a desire specifically to edit protected pages, not to participate in CSD, XfD, AfD or AIV. Relevance questionable.)
Trustworthy user inconvenienced by protection on some pages.
I'm really sorry to be the first one to oppose your request, because you're a valuable Wikipedian, however, your lack of experience in admin-related areas makes it impossible for me to be able to support at this time. Again, I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
No experience in Xfds, too less edits and thus experienced and in the last year only ~100 edits. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
User has [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/afdstats.cgi?max=250&name=TedPavlic no experience with AFD's] and has been relatively inactive since August of 2009.
The user does not meet all the criteria [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|here]]. I like to see at least 300 edits to the project namespace. Currently, there's only 71. I'd like a candidate to have 5,000+ edits under his/her belt. Currently, the user has 3,242. As for being versed in policies and the areas that he/she wants to in, the user has little to no experience with [[WP:AFD|AfD]], and doesn't have a history of sustained and active editing in the past 8 months. I'm sorry.
With all respect to you and your work, I think even the most brilliant person needs sufficient experience to be a good admin. It is not merely comprehending the policies, but understanding how the contradictions between them are resolved in practice (not necessarily the most logical way!) and how consensus is formed, neither of which are actually written out anywhere. I sincerely support your work on the 'pedia and hope that you continue to be an excellent asset to the community. --
'''Oppose''' for the very little activity over the past months (less than 300 edits in the last 19 months), almost no experience in admin-related areas: TedPavlic has only participated in one XfD discussion ([[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_8#Template:Ndash|there]]) and only one report to AIV ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=267200234]). He has also created only 3 articles (except the [[741 (disambiguation)|1 dab page]] and the [[Sugarscape|two]] [[Rhytidoponera|redirects]], which were latter turned into an article by others). These articles are poorly sourced, and rely only on 1-2 sources. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' Concerns with recent inactivity, experience, and breadth of exposure.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately too  little activity, especially  in key housekeeping  areas to  apply  any  metrics for assessment, and [[user:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my  criteria]] in  particular.  --
'''Low content and not much recently.'''.  You are a sharp guy and a grownup.  I looked at several of the articles you cited and what you had done there and when.  Yes, you have a few articles with some paragraphs of text added.  And I respect you for knowing how to do equation formatting and all.  I did check over several of the articles and it seems that most contributions were over a year ago and not much since.  And 3000 is a light total regardless.  Stay around, write some more articles, do some reviews, etc. (and not just in amplifiers).  Hone your skills at that.  Besides content editors are better than admins.[[user:TCO|TCO]] (
'''Oppose''', concerns about experience and activity levels. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose'''. Recognize the valuable contributions and the high level of clue, but for someone who's been here since 2006 I'm looking for a bit more experience in terms of edit count and in more diverse areas, also wider community involvement. I often evaluate candidates by reading their talk page archives and I didn't get much of what I was expecting from your single archive. I don't distrust you or think you have bad judgment, but I do question your dedication to the project and especially its administrative aspects. --
'''Oppose''' per the low-level of editing activity and Wikispace experience - there simply isn't enough there to base an opinion on the candidate's experience in the admin-related areas.
'''Moral support''' - I respect your work, but this is unlikely to succeed.
'''non-pileon Moral Support'''.  But yes, I'd rather see a bit more ''recent'' activity before supporting. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Moral Support''' Although I applaud your enthusiasm, RfA standards have changed substantially since 2004, and at th is time you just aren't up to the generally accepted standards for adminship. This, of course brings up the question as to whether these standards are "correct" per se, but that's another issue. Although I don't feel you're ready at this time, I'd be willing to fully if you had another 3-4 thousand edits with a larger breadth of experience. Your heart is in the right place, but you don't have the experience to pass an RfA. ''
'''Tentative actual support''' - I do not suffer from editcountitis. This editor has been here for seven years. A single erroneous CSD tag is not enough to cause me to withold my support. I don't see any reason in principle why a person could not read the whole of a policy from start to finish immediately before applying it, so I am not going to absolutely insist that an administrator knows all the relevant policies back to front ("Vita brevis est ars longa, our life is short and full of calamities, and learning is a long time in getting"). It has not been alleged that the candidate is incapable of doing that. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 05:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I would like to see this candidate given the opportunity to answer some sensible questions about the use of sysop tools, instead of being dismissed off-hand.
I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being willing to do boring tasks in order to help the community. Adminship is not a big deal, and he is willing to learn. He behaves like a nice person, edits like a nice person, and responds to feedback like a nice person so he probably is a nice person.
'''Strong moral support''' for nominee who has seen 'grown up admins acting like children' and would 'like to set a different example'.  –
I'm sorry, but your general lack of activity does not give me much trust in you. Perhaps you'd like to pick up your editing a bit more, including in the project (Wikipedia) namespace, before trying again in a few months? There's simply too little to be able to judge you on.
'''Oppose''' I don't believe you have been active enough in recent months.  Wait until you have been actively editing for a year.  In addition, you stated that this will be a learning experience.  Admins should have the knowledge before they become admins, not the other way around.
I have no problem with your (recent) activity level, but I'm seeing a lot of uses of the minor tag in recent times, and I think most don't comply with [[WP:MINOR]] - minor tag should be used for formatting, not content. I see language being adjusted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eclipse_cycle&diff=prev&oldid=437890550] and even a "personal observation" addition which is marked minor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&diff=prev&oldid=437498365]. Understanding the little rules is a signal for how well you understand the more important ones.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid 1600 edits isn't quite the number of edits that I would like to see for an admin-hopeful candidate. This editor does have good intentions, and s/he'll probably pass the next time round when s/he gets more experience.
'''Oppose''' - The answer to the first question is quite vague and the edit count is rather low for an admin candidate--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience. [[User:Sp33dyphil|'''<small><span style="background:HotPink;color:white">'''Sp33dyphil</span></small>''']] ''<sup>"[[User talk:Sp33dyphil|Ad]]
'''Oppose''' Concerns with recent inactivity, experience, and breadth of exposure.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately too  little activity, especially  in key housekeeping  areas to  apply  any  metrics for assessment, and [[user:Kudpung/RfA criteria|my  criteria]] in  particular.
'''Oppose''' To earn my support, the candidate should have cleaned up '''''[[Denial of Death]]''''', which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Denial_of_Death&direction=prev&oldid=15369844 he  started as an essay] and which still reads like an essay (with phantasmic "explanation" of [[schizophrenia]], which is at best a public nuisance). It [[User_talk:Timl2k4/Archive#Speedy_deletion_of_Magic_donkey|appears that the candidate started the article]] [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_14|'''"Magic Donkey"''', which was deleted because its usage was apparently limited to the commercial media company]], [[Flickr]]<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' It looks to me as though you have not done much in admin related areas.  For example there are very few (1?) articles that you nominated for deletion. However I am happy that you have used upload and move buttons!
'''Neutral''' While I could see it proper to mitigate your low statistics against your long standing tenure, I do not see where you have enunciated a particular need for the extra tools. I agree with Graeme Bartlett that you should participate in "admin related areas" and perhaps return for an RfA2 within 6 months.
'''Support''' as nom--v/r -
'''Support''' Following on from the answer to Q4, have no problems supporting.
With well over 2 years of editing, I don't see why not. &ndash;
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' No worries from me. 1 wrong speedy's nothing to go crazy over. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">'''
'''Support''' You shall make a great addition to the already stellar list of admins.
'''Support''' - No worries, Tony's contribs to new page tagging will be of even greater benefit as an admin.  Best,
'''Support'''. I've seen Ttonyb1 around NPP many times, and I've seen nothing but good stuff --
'''Support''' - I see no serious problems.
'''Weakest possible support''' - Candidate is light on content contribution particularly article creation (10 new articles; 200 redirects); and there are some CSD mistagging issues and judgement concerns. That said, however, the candidate has been highly active since the end of 2008, >80,000 edits, a sound anti-vandalism portfolio, and most speedy deletion tags have been deleted. So the scale (barely) tips in favor of support.--
I admit that I have seen some of the issues raised below, but I don't think that they occur frequently enough in Ttonyb1's 80,000+ edits to be a major issue. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' - Good in many areas, including new page patrol.
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' – Excellent work with NPP, and the opposers' rationales are not concerning. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' – The excellent work far outweighs the error. I think he is capable of being a fine admin. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, I cannot support this user for adminship at this time due to CSD tagging concerns.  Some weeks ago, he tagged the article [[Diann Blakely]] for speedy deletion under the A7 criterion.  It looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diann_Blakely&oldid=427918373 this] before tagging, where it clearly established the subject's significance/importance through the awards stated for her various anthologies and through her fellowship at a writer's conference.  A7 is only for ''no claims'' of importance/significance, and Ttonyb1 clearly does not understand this.  Sorry for being nit-picky, as I really appreciate his efforts with NPP, but I really do feel that Ttonyb1 is too trigger-happy with his speedy deletion tags and could turn new users away from the encyclopedia through unjustified deletions, at the most extreme level.
'''Oppose.''' Ttonyb1 has a poor attitude and little history of actually writing and expanding articles. I agree with the opposer above that he has a tendency to be a bit trigger-happy, but really - some contribution to the project outside of the bureaucracy would be a good start.
'''Low demonstrated Wiki-article writing experience.'''  Didn't even start to answer my question either.  (Even if one disagrees that content is important, or is worried that the answer will not look good, just answer the question!)
Of the articles you've created, most are stubs or sub-stubs. [[Arnold Franchetti|One bio]] has only one reference and the article is actually longer than the actual reference (which is an obituary). May reconsider if you can point to quality content work. And per NW in the neutral section below. -
I hate tagging my comments, but in this instance, I must '''strong oppose''' your nomination. I don't do a lot of article creation work myself, and I feel that while a desirable characteristic in an administrator, is not essential. Civil and reasonable interaction with users is essential, and when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ttonyb1&diff=432632864&oldid=432632318 I asked] for you to demonstrate evidence that you've corrected the sorts of issues I've already seen with biting newcomers, you actually linked me to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erkman27#May_2011 more] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Comisar#Comments_by_71.214.79.239 evidence] that this sort of behavior has continued. Comments like "''Do you really wish to be banned? What is it you do not understand about not being able to use copyrighted material in Wikipedia?''" is unacceptable. Obeying copyright is essential on Wikipedia, but linking a new user to a massive policy is at times unhelpful. Based on the discussions I have reviewed of your interactions with other new users, I feel you may be heavy handed as an administrator in terms of dealing with these sorts of users, and for this reason must oppose. Sorry. <font face="Forte">
'''Neutral'''; editor systematically conflates [[WP:CSD A7]] and [[WP:N]]. <small>'''
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Tseng&diff=prev&oldid=357944033 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Tseng&diff=next&oldid=357944033 sequence], he edit warred with a user who was bringing up a BLP matter (see AJH's explanation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive129#User:UnnotableWorldFigure_reported_by_User:Ttonyb1_.28Result:_full_protect.29 here]). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive159#User:Jack11111_reported_by_User:ttonyb1_.28Result:_Warned.29 Here], they edit warred with a new user while "trying to explain via edit summaries"&mdash;there was no indication that the user had any idea what was going on; all he saw that his image was being removed. Tony made no effort to truly discuss with him either on his user talk page or the article talk page.<p>While a few isolated instances are acceptable, these are only two non-easily resolvable matter that Ttonyb1 has brought to the [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|administrators' noticeboards]]. The rest have almost exclusively been straightforward legal threats, sockpuppetry, or similar, and I think that Ttonyb1 would be fine acting as an administrator in those cases. I worry that we might have an issue in non-straightforward matters.<p>Will consider more, might change to support or oppose later. Please feel free to "badger" if you wish. '''<font color="navy">
Neutral for now. I have some concerns about lack of article-creation experience, and an over-tendency to deletion, with several AFD nominations that appear to lack sufficient prior investigation, although the majority look fine.--
'''neutral''' some aspects looked good, such as use of move.  However no images have been uploaded to en.wikipedia.  This means there is little experience with fair use. However I did find a couple of uploads on commons. I also had a check of contributions,  he speedy delete nominations have almost all been deleted.  Some prods have survived. And there is some vandalism reversion tagging, and some actual constructive work with references.
'''Neutral'''. Lacking content contribution. Some questionable deletion tags.
The lack of content and and that A7 screw up is a kicker but I have yet to see a real reason to say no. --
'''Neutral''' – with caveat - user seems pretty much experienced in the area they want to contribute  - few minor issues/feedback to take on board from the comments and moving forward a take it steady approach with the tools and if the user will state a willingness to be open to community recall I will move to support.
'''Neutral'''. I see Tonyb's work often enough, and I don't recall ever having difficulties with their nominations, but I like admins who also create content. I've looked through all ten of their creations (well, nine and a half, I guess, per comment by NW above), and in my opinion that's not enough. I like an admin with a broader grasp of WP than just the area they wish the tools for.
'''Neutral''' While I think Ttonyb1 has done alot of good work, and means well, I cannot support Adminship at this time due to the recent questionable CSD tagging, (A7 on articles that clearly indicate basis for importance, but are iffy on full notability) and a bout of edit warring a little over a month ago at [[EXBii]] (resolved without anyone getting a block)
'''Oppose''' - {{xt|I ... made another account to vandalize his account}}. Self-admitted sockpuppeteer and vandal; enough said. →<span style="font-family:Euclid Fraktur">
'''Oppose''' per &Sigma;. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' - per Σ. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per above--
'''Strong Oppose'''  [[WP:NOTNOW]] + concerns with the block log on sock puppetry --
'''Oppose''' This is much too soon after your October block. Spend some time learning to help out. It's great that you wanted to be a hero[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VegetaSaiyan&diff=prev&oldid=456095023] but the way to be a hero is to learn honest ways to help.
'''No, obviously, sorry'''. Try again when you have at least several thousand edits under your belt, and significantly more maturity --
'''Oppose'''. Bad reason for wanting to be an admin, sorry - old revisions of articles should generally not be deleted. --
Sorry, but your answer to question one is concerning. Revision deletion, commonly referred to as RevDel, is normally used for [[WP:CFRD|these purposes]]. It can also be used on large page histories. However, the articles which you wish to perform RevDel on do not have large page histories or any content that meets the RevDel criteria. This misunderstanding of policy places me here. Please take this comment only as constructive criticism, and feel free to run again in the future.
Having numerous revisions on a page isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly isn't something to be embarrassed of. If you really need something deleted, you could consult an editor who already has administrator rights (although in the instances you've specified, I couldn't see an administrator following through with it). I doubt you'd abuse the privilege of adminship were it granted to you, but I think it would be best if you held off on requesting for it until you've become more integrated into the Wikipedia community and have gained more experience in administrative areas (eg. [[WP:AFD|deletion discussions]], [[WP:VAND|anti-vandalism]], etc). I think you'll be ready for it at some point &mdash; I could easily see somebody like you being suited for the position with experience &mdash; but just not at the moment. Good luck!
It's no worry if you have bad revisions in the past, nobody will hold it against you or something. Adminship is for much more then just deleting your own revisions though-- I'm sure in the future there'll be a time where you'll feel more qualified for it. Until then, good luck and go ice hockey.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You lack experience in most area of Wikipedia and have only ten edits in the project namespace. The answers to the questions are bothering. There is no problem with an article having many revisions, contrary it shows how article evolved over the time. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but not now. The answers are not only tiny, but not really important for RfA. --<span style="color:#A4D3EE; background-color:#E0EEEE;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but now now, not yet. You have been in Wikipedia for long, but you haven't got a very extensive edit history yet, to prove your knowledge of general guidelines and experience around here. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong in you as a candidate, I'd gladly support you at a later date when you have gathered some more experience and contributions. '''''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. As a side note, when revisions are deleted by an admin, they are not actually deleted, just hidden from non-admins and can actually be undeleted later on, so deleting does not free up any space. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry -- you're just not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' According to your answer to Q1, I don't think adminship is necessary here. I'd probably consider a request for oversight permission in this situation. Using the rev-delete to remove your own revisions will not only be invisible to you, but to the public as well. As a community we'd like to keep as many revisions as possible, unless they meet the redaction criteria.
Deleting revisions will, in general, not remove them from the database.
[[WP:NOTNOW|'''Not now''']] - The admin tools are not for deleting old revisions of articles. Disk space isn't an issue.
'''Strong Oppose''' per my rationale from the user's last RfA last month. '''
This seems like trolling to me.
'''Strong oppose'''. User has next to no experience. <br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">
For the record I share the concerns below. But feel that your range of contributions does come close to that of at least two current/recent candidates who garnered support, and therefore that a moral support is merited. This RfA will fail, but don't take it to heart too much. I would advise you largely keep doing what you're doing. Additionally, I would suggest that you spend a little of your time showing that you have the necessary judgement for an admin. For me, the best way to do that is to get more involved in AfD, showing that you understand how policy and guidelines should be ''applied'' (which involves a far more developed argument than "per nom", "per the above user" or "per the GNG"). At the moment we don't have much of a track record to go on to measure your judgement. Other suggestions include going through an editor review before a future RfA attempt, ''taking any advice that comes out of that'', and to wait for someone to nominate you next time around (once you've gone through a constructive editor review you tend to be on people's radars). Best of luck, —
I share the sentiments of WFC above. I have been dropping in on this user's talk page for a while and have had the opportunity to work with the user when he reviewed a GA nomination I had put forward. I have always found this user to be respectful and see that the user always puts 100% into everything he does. While, like WFC, I can't see this RfA succeeding, I wouldn't want to oppose it as I believe the user would make a good admin sometime in the future. Take WFC's suggestions to heart - they will help.
'''Support'''. Both WFC and Arctic Night make good points, and the candidate should mind them - and yes, I know that this RFA is unlikely to succeed. But I see an earnest candidate who seems intent on helping out as an admin, and there is no evidence to suggest that the candidate would misuse or abuse the tools. Yes, the answers to the questions were less than ideal, if you're looking at them from a "Don't piss anyone off" standpoint. But I'll take an honest answer over an inoffensive one any day. Good luck, and I look forward to supporting RFA 3.
Not enough experience, strikes me as too immature and rights-eager. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' I've come across him a few times, and I don't think he has the maturity I'd look for in an admin.
'''Oppose''' Though I didn't initially see a pressing reason to oppose, you killed yourself with those answers to the questions. While I had no impression of lack of maturity before, I do after reading them. You've completely shattered my confidence. Your nomination and answer to Q1 were great. Then Q2: "I have not accumulated a large amount of high-quality content..." Ahh! That's something you ''don't'' say in an RfA, explanation or not! Then Q3: "I have been party in a minor dispute (mainly because of my immaturity..." {{facepalm}}. That would ''also'' be something you avoid saying in your RfA. I appreciate you owning up to your mistakes, but some things are better left forgotten when trying to instill community confidence in yourself. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you should know how important those questions are. It's nothing but first impressions for a lot of people, and those answers make for a terrible first impression. ''
'''Oppose''' Concerns with maturity -'''
'''Oppose''' Per Swarm
'''Oppose''' also per [[User:Swarm|Swarm]]. Suggest closure via [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]].
'''Very strong oppose''' I was rather inclined to say "oppose" on the basis of lack of evidence of experience related to administrative issues, but before committing myself I searched for participation in deletion discussions, as that is an area in which the candidate has indicated an intention of acting. I found some. At best the candidate's contributions were trivial (e.g. "delete per nom") and at worst they showed '''''really serious''''' ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Development_of_Windows_8&diff=prev&oldid=415163457 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Second_Revolution_flag_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=415164154 here] the candidate says "Speedy Delete and Merge". For someone with such profound lack of knowledge of policy as that to be an administrator closing deletion discussions would be completely unacceptable. (I might also suggest that saying "the administrator's noticeboard, which in my opinion all good and respectable admins should frequent" is not a good way of gaining support. Do you really think that those administrators who do not choose to work in that particular area are bad and unrespectable? This is a very minor matter compared to the major concern I have mentioned, but it doesn't help your case.)
'''Oppose''' per Fetch and Swarm.  I cannot trust someone whose immaturity might lead to an uncalled for block in the "heat of the moment".
'''Oppose''' per [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]. I'm sorry but I have concerns regarding your maturity and policy knowledge. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions, particularly Q4 and Q6.  It may not seem fair that you are denied adminship because of your age, but the answers to your other questions show a bit of immaturity.  For instance, I'm sure you've seen typical RfA's before, most people don't give 5-word answers to the optional questions.
This user clearly means well, but I agree that he is too "rights-eager" and does not demonstrate much maturity. Such an editor would not make a good administrator. I think, WikiCopter, that the best way you can contribute is to become a more proficient  content contributor. Editing exclusively in the mainspace garners you a lot of respect from the rest of the community, and is the most direct route to improving the project. If you try again in a couple of years (if, as I hope, you are still around then), you would be a better contributor; and then you'd be a shoo-in for RFA. (As a side note, I find such comments as "Very strong oppose" to be distasteful and do not think we need to be so harsh in dealing with an editor who is ''volunteering to help''.) I hope you find my comments and those made by others to be helpful and can work on the areas we have highlighted. Thank you, also, for offering to assist with our administrative backlog, but I must '''oppose''' this request. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>
Based on statements in this RFA, candidate is not well-suited for this role.
'''Reluctant oppose''', mostly per SW. Admins need to be able to explain themselves clearly and fully when questioned about an action they've taken, and the terse answers to the questions above suggest a strong reluctance to do so. The "speedy delete and merge" AfDs linked to by JamesBWatson are also concerning.
'''Oppose''' . In addition to the other comments and advice you've been given,  two things in your talk page discussions give me doubts:  there is not enough interaction to demonstrate how you would conduct a crisis or give advice to others, and there seems to be some misunderstanding among you and your colleagues as to our policy on [[WP:OWN|ownership of articles]]. There is a lot of good information on preparing oneself for adminship, plus a couple of dozen excellent user essays - do read it all, but do also remember that experience is the most important thing, and which you still lack. Get it all together before you try again. and perhaps consider some coaching. Good luck next time!
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW]]. After some months/years of gathering experience and learning, maybe then. '''''
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. Your heart is in the right place but I have concerns about your maturity and experience. Also remember that admins deal with some crazy stuff and crazy people. As an admin, you will be threatened, ridiculed, attacked, and demeaned with frequency. While being over the age of majority isn't a requirement, possessing the maturity to handle yourself while under fire is, and I don't see evidence of your ability to handle that here. I don't see a lack therof, but that is because you haven't really told us much with your answers to these questions. You need to fully answer questions, preferably with a fairly detailed reasoning behind them. We want to know what you're thinking, not just what the answer is. I strongly encourage you to keep writing good articles, and get involved in some of the other maintenance aspects of Wikipedia, such as [[WP:NPP]]. While it isn't necessary for you to participate at [[WP:AIV]], I would read the page and get familiar with some of the drama that occurs there on a daily basis. Good luck and we'll see you back at RFA when you're ready. (Have an experienced editor nominate you next time) <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Oppose''' Per horrible answer to question 5, coupled with a general impression of a lack of both policy knowledge and good decision-making skills.
'''Oppose''' Seasoning and maturation needed. That said, I see some valuable contributions to the project and your heart in the right place. You would be a good candidate for mentoring.--
Right now I'm not particularly swayed either way. You have very good article contributions, however more detail in your awnsers would be nice. Your awnser to the quesion about disputes worrys me a little. Your dispute was because of immaturity, yet there is no dates or detail to pursuade me that this is firmly in the past. If you can provide more insight, and prehaps cleanup some of the awnsers, so they don't advertise an FAC. If the honsest details show a a good learning ability, then I am definetly ''not'' going to be stuck in this section! You're a great editor, just a few more details please. [[User:Sumsum2010|<font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010</font>]]·[[User talk:Sumsum2010|<font color="#007AFF">T</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Sumsum2010|<font color="#7FFF00" >C</font>]]·
Almost bang on 6 months after [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikiCopter|your first RFA]], which was closed as a [[WP:NOTNOW]], I can't see a lot of evidence that inexperience issues have been addressed. I do worry that you are seeing Adminship as a target. A total of 4,200 edits, which from what I've seen look perfectly reasonable have meant that I won't oppose, but I can't quite bring myself to support. I do think you should be a little more positive about your work though, explaining unsolicited what you haven't done is never going to be helpful. [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]]
[[WP:NOTNOW]], not active enough, weigh too inadequate edits. Edit more per day, and engage in deletion discussions. Make submissions to AIV and RPP.
Per [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]]. Although you've done some good work today, a flurry of recent edits really isn't enough to evaluate your work on - you will need to work consistently over an extended period of several months to gain the experience necessary for the bit. And amongst those edits today were some serious mistakes - perhaps it would be wise to seek out a mentor for a bit to learn the ropes? I'm sure you will bring a lot to the project, but you'll need more time to learn how things work first. -
Not now, but maybe in the future. You recently returned from an editing hiatus three days ago, March 31. Your last edits before then were in September 2009. I like the enthusiasm, but I think some more time on the job would help. Also, try dabbling in areas besides counter-vandalism, such as audited content ([[WP:GA]]; [[WP:FA]]), deletion discussions, [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:RFPP]], etc. Best,
Per [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]]. I do respect your ambition and motivation. I did comment at your talk page as well, to the fuller regards.
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Not nearly enough experience to see how you'd do with the mop, sorry.
'''Oppose:''' I'm sorry, but I still don't feel you're experienced enough. The bulk of your edits are confined to this month. If you keep that up for the next 2 or 3 months though, feel free to try again. Another thing to do is to participate in deletion discussions and WQA more.
'''Oppose:''' The third RFA for only having 2,673 edits is quite worrying. --'''
'''Oppose''' you've done lots of huggling this month, which is helpful in removing vandalism but that's not enough experience for adminship. Plus I disagree with some of your AfC declines (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Crew_Cuts_%28company%29&diff=prev&oldid=424225895 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Letsbonus&diff=prev&oldid=424226429 2]), incidentally the only two I've looked at
'''Strong Oppose''' - I closed [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipedian2 2|your last RfA]] 12 days ago per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. NOTNOW does ''not'' mean come back 12 days from now and you'll succeed ''regardless'' of whether you have addressed every single concern at your last RfA. '''
2,416 edits this month. Focus on broadening your experience in all different areas (not just vandalism), get a couple thousand more non-automated edits and come back in 3-6 months. That's what we mean when we tell you to "come back later". ''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. --'''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I commend your enthusiasm but with so little experience on the English Wikipedia - and a very narrow area of interest which could be read as meaning that you would use admin powers to protect articles which ''you'' feel should be here - which would be an abuse of the admin tools. I'm sure that I must have misread your statements, but that is the impression I've got. Keep working on the articles you are interested in, finding [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which are [[WP:IS|independent]] of the subject - I feel that you have a lot to offer as an editor at this time, but that you are a bit of a distance from being ready for adminship. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|alternative account]] of
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Thanks for your offer of service but I don't think you are close to ready for the extra buttons.  (Suggest this is a [[WP:SNOW]], so let's not drag this out, thanks.) Best wishes,
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. It seems most of your article creations are entirely unreferenced, and a quick look at your talk page shows numerous recent misunderstandings about how the project works. I believe mentoring would be helpful; I encourage you to consider seeking a mentor who can help show you the ropes a bit.
'''Opppose''', I'm afraid I must agree with 28bytes above. I am impressed by your energy for Wikipedia, and I appreciate your desire to help out with admin tasks, but I can't support now from what I've seen. To name a specific example, I feel that your AfD/FFD votes suggest that you don't have a deep understanding of the notability policies here yet, that comes with time and discussion, and can't be rushed. I hope you will consider mentoring as 28bytes suggests, and I hope to see you here again someday. --
'''Oppose''' per 28bytes and Joe Decker. I am sorry that I can't support you, but your contributions show a lack of understanding of vital policies. I agree with 28bytes' suggestion to get a mentor. Also, taking a [[WP:ER|Editor Review]] couldn't hurt. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' as above. I'm afraid you just don't appear to have enough experience in the areas you've worked, let alone the areas you haven't. Also, answer 3 is troubling given the "winning/losing" stance, which isn't really appropriate. I'm sure there was  I would suggest you carry on as you are for another 6-12 months, get a feel for more areas of wikipedia. You're doing a great job, and you may well be an admin one day. If you'd like some mentor like help, let me know. I'm a bit busy to actually take you on as a mentee, but I'd be happy to offer any assistance I can
'''Oppose'''. Wilbysuffolk is an enthusiastic editor. However he says that his best contribution is "[[List of bus routes in Central Suffolk]]". The article contains no in-line references at all. Indeed the section "References" includes variations to the regular bus timetable. Wilbysuffolk's CSD A1 tagging of "[[Level 26: Dark Prophecy]]" is incorrect. Wilbysuffolk gave no reason for his proposed deletion of "[[Kimberly Proctor]]". As above, I also recommend a mentor.
'''Oppose''' Simply not enough experience, at the present time, for me to feel comfortable handing this candidate the mop.
'''Oppose'''. I am definitely concerned about the lack of experience, but also, a quick look at X!'s edit counter [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Wilbysuffolk&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia shows] 35% of all the user's edits are to the Userspace, mostly to his userpage. This number is abnormally large, especially as the percentage of mainspace edits is only just above it. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
'''Oppose''', As above - keep at it and come back in 12 months
'''weak support'''competent enough enough. Although edit waring at [[Indian Air Force]] is cause for concern especially given earlier issues on the same article in May 2010.©
'''Weak Support''' Candidate seems like a good editor, and in the future would likely make a good admin. -
'''Oppose''', regretfully, per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Candidate has expressed interest in serving in all areas where the mop might be needed, but I don't see any activity at all at [[WP:AFD]], and I don't recall seeing this username on [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]] or [[WP:RFPP]]...three very-high-traffic noticeboards where admin action is exercised, both in the use of the tools and the decision when to use them (or not use them, as the case may be). Before I could support this candidate, I'd need to see contributions to discussions at least on AfD nominations, in order to evaluate both their judgment and their ability to apply policies. --
Sorry to join in opposing, but I would need to see either more content work or administrative work (e.g. reports to WP:AIV) before I could consider supporting. I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Woe90i&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 almost no project-space activity] and only three created articles, [[Current ships of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force|one of which]] is entirely unreferenced.
Sorry, but as above, [[WP:NOTNOW]]. See my [[User:Swarm/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]] for the things I would expect from a good RfA candidate. ''
Sorry, but as above, [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''-Sorry, not enough experience for me to trust with the mop. Request this be closed per [[WP:Snow]], however the Nominee should not be discouraged, a sampling of edits proves them to be an outstanding Wikipedia who just needs to give it time.--'''''
'''Oppose''' for the lack of experience in admin related areas. Also he doesn't need admin tools for the administrative work he wants to do with it. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' You may want to work on your grammar.
Sorry, but in the last 4 months only ~300 edits and before that nearly a year inactive. That is far too less for being called active. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">
[[WP:RfA]] is not [[WP:Editor review]]. Not enough evidence of activity in admin areas and no apparent areas where the tools would need to be applied. Your (non-standard-definition type of) dyslexia (per your response to Keepscases) is also something you'll need to keep working on: an admin must be able to communicate in writing clearly, concisely and quickly.
'''Oppose''' Not yet. I suggest you take a few months and broaden your areas of partication. Take part in some admin-related functions and get a better feel for the areas you are interested in participating in. Also, take part in every RfA and that comes up, because there is no better way to get a firm understanding of what is looked for in an admin candidate. Good luck to you.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Please do not discouraged. Just get some experience under your belt ([[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AfD]], etc.) and re-apply in a couple of months and I'll be sure to support you. --  '''
'''Moral Support''' Candidate seems like a good editor, and in the future would likely make a good admin, but they have not made it clear what type of admin work they intend to undertake. It is very hard to evaluate a candidate who just plans to engage in admin work generally. While admins are free to do that in practice, at RFA it is very helpful to have a specific area of interest (in admin work) so that !voters can analyze the candidates non-admin contributions in that area. Based on the somewhat limited history of the candidate and lack of involvement in specific quasi-admin areas or the Wikipedia namespace, I can't support at this time.
'''neutral''' Too few successful image or file uploads to get a support.  Also deleted content shows no nominations for deletion of any kind.
I was amused and vaguely impressed by the frankness of your opening statement, given how easy it would have been to lie, kiss our arses and avoid those opposes. RfA is broken and, if meant as an attack on the process rather than on individuals, then your view is pretty fair. I went to look through your contribs and found some good edits and nothing I object to. So now this has reopened you have my support.--
'''Moral support''' - It looks like you do good work around the wiki, and I hope you continue to do good work.  Like some other users, I appreciate the honesty in your self-nom statement, but the tone of the statement is quite aggressive and defiant, and only serves to give you a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding here.  Continue doing good work, and come back in 3 months or so with a rational, polite nomination statement.  You can be honest without being harsh.
You state that RFA is a ''pathetic and disgraceful part of Wikipedia'' and that it is a ''bloodbath''. You then go on to state ''if you attack my edits be sure that if you have ever done the same I will find it and point it out'' and ''you make up the main toxic core editors who make RfA what it is and YOU are responsible for this horrible process''. The toxicity I see underlying you request is the very toxicity you hate at RFA. No I can't support someone with the mind set I see displayed in your opening remarks. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
The tone of that opening paragraph of this RfA is not what I want to see in an admin. The sentence "if you attack my edits be sure that if you have ever done the same I will find it and point it out" is particularly worrying.
I don't need to look at your edits-- I simply can't support a candidate with such a combative, hostile temperament that you've made so completely evident in your opening statement. "If you wish to be harsh expect me to be harsh back"? Hell, I'd give you a break if you reacted poorly to harsh comments in the heat of the moment, but the fact that you plan to be harsh (which I take as "uncivil") before any comments are even made is an example of this bad attitude. We want to see that you can accept criticism, even if it's unnecessarily harsh and still behave reasonably. It's quite clear you don't even ''intend'' to do that. ''
'''Oppose''' The incredibly high level of hostility in the nomination statement makes it clear that this user is wholly unsuitable for administrative work. I don't believe you will ever be a viable admin candidate and strongly suggest you withdraw this ill-considered RFA.  That you thought it had any chance of succeeding speaks volumes.
'''Oppose''' To be honest, I quit reading at "If you wish to be harsh expect me to be harsh back" because that's just not the way I personally want to see it work here. No offense Zoo, but that doesn't go over well with other editors from what I've seen in my past experience.  — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' Firstly, I'd like to say, you've done a fantastic job with the zoological articles. ''RfA voting is pretty easy, if you trust my edits then Support me, If you dont then Oppose me simple''. Not exactly. I look for temperment in a candidate, how they handle stress and difficult situations. I personally believe that an administrator has to do the dirty work of the community and take the greatest backlash. So, my take on RfA voting is different to yours. I can only echo the comments above, such a combatative opening statement does not suggest to me the sort of temperment which will cope well with the stress of being an administrator.
Oppose, obviously. If you're this aggressive regarding a hypothetical situation, there's no way I'd trust you with a block button, given that every admin regularly gets challenged.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Oh, wow, what a nomination statement! Being an admin requires more than just being a good editor (and you do appear to be a terrific editor) - it also needs the right temperament, the ability to take criticism, to take shit without dishing it back out again. A statement that you're going to adopt the exact opposite temperament and appear to be spoiling for a fight pretty much rules you out, sorry --
'''Oppose'''. No  one will  disagree with  you  that  the RfA process is in  need of reform for the reasons you  state, and there is now an active project  whose goal it is to  finally  get  some changes made. I don't  think however that  using  your RfA itself to  tell  us something  that many  old hands here already know, is the right  way  to  go  about supporting  that  move. If it's an experiment, I  admire your courage; if you  really  believe that  this will earn  you  enough  support to  get  the mop, I think  you're wrong, because it  demonstrates a combative side to  your character, which  would be unsuitable for the role of admin. Nevertheless, I  commend  your work on zoological articles, and very  much  hope that  you  will  continue.
'''Strong Oppose''' par ''some editors that participate on here are sadistic and deserve to be banned'', along with the rest of the opening statement. I am sorry, but such as vindicative statement means that i do not believe - at all - that you should be given the ability to actually block other users, if you believe that this is a reason to block someone. I appreciate the honesty of your statement, and i am glad that you aren't trying to butter things up while thinking otherwise, but i will have to be equally honest and say that this is a big no-go for adminship.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' [[WP:NOTEVER]].  If the candidate continues to show the temperament displayed in the opening statement, this candidate will never be worthy of the mop.  Also cannot support due to the civility block last year.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Beeblebrox.
'''Absolutely not!''' - Per the response to {{user|Minimac}}, which violates [[WP:NPA]], and per your nomination statement. You are exhibiting a tremendous [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] mentality, and your "I will kick you if you kick me" stance is not the way an admin is expected to behave. Would you block somebody just because they criticized your edits? There is no way I can trust you as an admin with an attitude like that.
'''Strong oppose''' – per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''', from Neutral, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FZooPro_4&action=historysubmit&diff=422849997&oldid=422849516 this edit]. There no longer appears to be any upside here, Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Wow.
'''Oppose''' per battleground mentality seen in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ZooPro&diff=323594798&oldid=323444276 this old edit] that seems to have not changed at all. The slight watering down of the nomination statement is a bit of an improvement, but do you honestly expect such a statement to just make the "horrible, broken process" vanish? —
'''Oppose''' ''I dont recall saying i would blocking anyone.... I stated Ban not block two very different things.'' You are confusing the [[WP:BLOCKBANDIFF| two terms]], so along with pretty much all of the above, your apparent lack of understanding of policy makes this an easy decision. —
'''Oppose''' Maybe you were shooting for humor or sarcasm in your self-nom statement, but neither came across as clearly as outright belligerence. No go. --
'''Strong Oppose''' This RfA seems extremely [[WP:POINT]]Y.
'''Moral Neutral'''. With some well-intentioned candidates crumpling under a barrage of opposes, I'd be tempted to offer ''moral support'', but not in this case. Admins don't need to go looking for trouble; trouble comes to them, so an aggressive, provocative, and defiant stance is the last thing we need. An admin should be able to pour oil on troubled waters, and that's the exact opposite of what I see in this RfA. I had a look through some past edits and they were OK, but...
'''Neutral'''. Yep, I took a look at your edits. They seem fine, and you seem clueful, and even friendly! But then here on RFA you just ''explode'' with fury. I see your earlier RFA's were a couple of NOTNOW's and then one that failed primarily because of recent rash actions. Adminship is not just about being a good editor, it is about being approachable, able to learn and adopt criticism (one reason the RFA process is designed to be critical), to take part in discussions calmly and, most of all, to stay civil. You've demonstrated being a good editor, but this RFA suggest that you are also a little too confrontational (at this point) to be trusted with admin tools. Doing rash/angry things as an editor is one thing, doing them as an admin can cause all manner of fall out and controversy. Honestly; if you had not posted the rant then I suspect you would be looking at a successful promotion... the RFA process has it's problems, true, and it can get nasty, but in this case you have scuppered your own ship... {{small|if you have constructive ideas to improve RFA you may be interested in the work at [[User:Kudpung/RfA reform]]}} --'''
'''Strong support''' Absolutely thrilled to see this up and running. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Strong support''' - Excellent editor, adminship is long overdue.
'''Support''' This has been on my watchlist for a few months now. About lack of content: [[WP:Requests for adminship/Jamesofur|some people]] just "admin" far more than they "edit". Whilst the tools are beneficial to content-builders, I feel that people like 7 who are more familiar with the areas they want to work in are more use to the project ''as admins''. From what I can see, he's likely to be a process admin, really working with those backlogs, not a drama admin, so it's a net positive, right? The opposes from the previous RfA are slightly disconcerting, but heck, in Aug 2009 I had <150 edits, and a lot of learning can happen in that amount of time. Good luck, 7, and keep up the diligent work. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support''' 7 has been helpful to people, rather than causing drama.
I offered to nominate 7, and I'm sorry that it didn't work out. However, I am pleased to support this candidacy. Not only is 7 sensible and clueful, but he has the experience and the confidence in the areas he's worked in to become a wonderful administrator. '''
'''Support''', as I wished I could've last time. :-) Since his first RfA, 7 has only improved as an editor, and all I've ever seen has been helpful, fine work. 7 is a generally sensible and calm person – he won't do anything crazy. Making him a janitor was long due. '''
Offers a '''[[7 and 7]]''' to [[User:7|7]] as she is the 7th support vote. 7 seems quite easy to work with from encounters on ACC. Cheers <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' fine editor who I have had nothing but good interactions with.  Will make a good admin. This RfA put a smile on my face this morning (after looking outside and seeing snow on the ground). ''<B>--
'''Strong Support''' - Very glad you took the nom
'''Strong support''' Impressive and clueful. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Supported before, see no evidence to change my view.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' I've had a positive impression of 7 based on the places where we've intersected. Review today of his recent contributions and deleted contributions (mostly pages tagged for CSD) gives me confidence that he will use admin tools responsibly -- and likely will shoulder a sizeable workload. --
'''Support''' I thought that he was an admin already.
'''Support''' - Seems very knowledgeable in the fields I've seen him in. '''
Looks good. G'luck. <span style="font-family:Calibri">
Because it looks good and I'd like more sysops to assist vandal fighters —<font color="black">'''''
'''Support''' I've seen 7 doing good work around the place, and with more work having been done on the deletion front since the last RfA, I'd be happy to hand over a mop --
After eventually working out this was the second RfA for a user called [[user:7|7]], not some promising newcomer called [[user:7 2|7 2]], I'm delighted to support.
'''Support''' – Very experienced in the areas he wishes to work in. No problems with me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Strong support''' Per me. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Weak support'''. When I noticed this RFA, I (honestly) wanted to support this second RFA without hesitation because I like 7 as an editor. But his speedy tagging (an area he wants to work in), as critizised in the first RFA, still shows multiple reasons for concerns: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monikangana_Dutta&diff=prev&oldid=360667435 A7 for self-promotion by a significant person] (could have been G11 but based on [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22monikangana+dutta%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&num=100&hl=en >60 Google News hits] it should have been rephrased instead); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=System_utilities&diff=prev&oldid=344713428 This] was meeting G3 but should have been redirected instead like the reviewing admin did; and  I cannot understand [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silas_Bissell&diff=prev&oldid=362942764 this recent tagging] at all, which seems simply wrong - even if parts of the text were copied from that page (which I couldn't really find), G12 requires that all text is copyright violating. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Flood_Warning&diff=next&oldid=337319716 This] though shows an desirable reaction and generally 7 seems to have improved, maybe because of the criticism in the first RFA, in this area and I hope that they will continue to do so. As such, I will AGF that further improvement will not cease if they are made an admin and thus it will be a net positive to grant them access to the tools. I want to ask you though that you should be careful with your new delete button if this request proves successful and that you try to fix articles whenever possible instead of deleting them. And of course I'd be happy to assist with any questions concerning speedy deletion, regardless of the fate of this RFA :-) Regards '''
I'm pretty sure I'm going to wind up on this side; if I go hotter or colder after looking at the deletion work, I'll say so. - Dank (
I'm conscious of speedy deletion issues but it is obvious that there has been significant improvement since the last RFA, which I probably would have opposed. In my view, the examples mentioned by SoWhy constitute the occasional error (if that - eg redirecting instead of tagging is nice but not everyone can be expected to foresee the redirect possibility and sometimes it is better to delete then redirect to prevent a reversion to the offending article which here was vandalism). Not the perfect candidate but there's definitely more upside than down. --
'''Support''' I thought that this was an RFA for [[User: 7 2]]! My mistake :)--
'''Support''' I haven't seen anything that wouldn't make his addition as a sysop a net positive. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Suuport''' i remember this user, from what i've seen he/she would be a good administrator.
'''Support'''. Yes! -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Well qualified candidate - civil, clueful, knowledgeable.  It's a green light from me.
'''Support'''. Been seen around, I'm sure they will do well with the mop.  '''
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support'''.  No problems with giving the tools to this user. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' Y, obv. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
Thought I already supported. =/ He'll be great.

'''Strong Support'''Candidates Active areas would be improved with the mop
'''Aye'''.  I supported last time and while I understand Jclemens position, I can't honestly say it's enough to change my stance.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I supported last time, I'll support again.--
'''Support''' Quite honestly, I thought you were one already.
'''Support''' Did well on the last RfA, (the only concern as far as I know was not enough experience) but now this is the perfect time to support.
'''Support''' - Good involvement in [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN/I]], [[WP:VP/T]] & [[WP:RPP]].
'''Support''' but what are we going to do if we have a [[User:7 2]] who runs for adminship? On a more serious note, I appreciate the answers to my questions which seem well thought out. I'd add that move protection is often used for highly visible pages, such as Today's Featured Article, but I see nothing concerning here and the desire to work in areas that can always benefit from more admins is definitely a plus. Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' - no issues seen. Light on content creation, but so are a lot of other editors, and as I've stated elsewhere, to each their own. --
'''Support'''  no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - I appreciate his well-thought-out answers in this RfA.  Especially #9, "There has to be a rational basis for the decision, and the person IAR-ing should be highly confident that a majority of prudent people faced with the same situation would make the same decision." This completely captures my ideas about IAR.  --'''
'''Support''' - no issues here.
'''Support''' - I've seen this user's good work around the encyclopedia. Good demeanor as well.
'''Support''' - I have seen them around and have no concerns, firmly believe they will be a net positive.  '''
'''Support''' - Seems like a strong candidate who would make good use of admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I had the pleasure of getting to know 7's way of thinking before his name change, and I believed that he was mature and competent then. Time has only increased his maturity. '''''
'''Support''' - No problems here.
'''Support'''. I've seen 7 around ACC and UAA and it's nothing but good work. --
'''Support'''. I see no problems watsoever with 7's contribution, here on Wikipedia. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''.  "Thought he already was" is a cliche, right?  A sensible, knowledgeable and helpful editor.
'''Support''' Respect the nominator's opinion. But the nominees experience is why Im supporting
'''Strong Support''' Nothing that worries me at all.
'''Support''' Very thin on edits to article space (of 75 article creations, 63 are redirects); however, what tipped the scales in favor of the candidate for me was a very strong vandal-fighting portfolio--
'''Support''' I am strongly opposed to the notion that "someone who's never had a GA or the equivalent has no business with the mop," as we badly need admins to perform a myriad of maintenance functions. I've seen nothing -- here or in the candidate's past work -- to suggest that 7 would not be a great addition.
I've been waiting quite a while for this.
{{flagicon|New Mexico}} '''Support from the land of enchantment''' - Excellent choice for the mop. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support''' Initially worried with my question, but my worries are now gone.
'''Support'''. "Thought he was already" cliché. Plenty of clue.
Thought he already was one.
'''Support''' Sure, good choice for the mop, -
Haven't seen any major issues, and the humble acceptance of this RfA shows at least some degree of levelheadedness.
While I'd generally like to see some type of audited content- even the cursory audit of a few DYK's, 7's other work outweighs that.
'''support''' Everything looks good here.
'''Support''' yep I think you will do great; your contribs are very nice. [[User:Parker1297|<big>Parker1297</big>]]  ( [[User talk:Parker1297|Talk to me]] · Sign my
'''Support''' Sure. '''
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' I've seen 7 around and also feel that the first RFA issues have been addressed considerably well... My support!
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' Editing activity indicates this editor will be a productive administrator.--''
Due to vacation last year, I could not vote.  I fully '''support''' 7 for sysop.
Should be a net positive.
'''Support''' Got nothing to oppose on. --
'''Support''' Okay. --
'''Support'''—appears well-intentioned, competent and generally sound, and the only so-called argument to oppose is so weak that it makes me want to take cyanide. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Support''' - you now have a strong and uncontroversial track record in responsible and accurate use of speedy deletion tags over the last year or so. Even if all you do as an admin is carry that forward when you evaluate articles tagged for speedy deletion by others, your admin status will be to the overall benefit of the project. Of course I'm sure you'll contribute a lot more than that :)
'''Support''' Will make a great administrator --
'''Support'''  I don't see any problems with the editor to oppose for. Good enough for me. ''
'''Reserved Support''' - My primary concern in any RfA is "how will Adminship change the editor?" )like it or not, it always happens) Here, I see strong potential in Vandal fighting, but worry that your function may become more Bureaucratic in nature.
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. Excellent work. <sup>
'''
'''Support''', confident this candidate will make a fine administrator. <i>
'''Support''' - Good vandal fighter, and unlikely to misuse the mop.  Best wishes for your adminship!
'''Support''' - Regards,
We need non-content people as admins, not the other way around. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' I opposed last time for lack of content creation, and I don't see that you've made any progress at substantially improving your content creation--no FA is fine, but no GA or DYK in several months since this was raised as a concern in your last RfA indicates that you're more interested in tools than content creation. I wouldn't normally outright oppose for lack of content creation given your article creation to date, but I consider what you're touting as your best contributions as insufficient forward progress to building an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' Seems to lack experience of content creation.  His confusing account name and signature indicate an unacceptable level of ego and incompetence.
I am confused
'''Neutral''' - I wish you the best, but I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time, based on editing habits and other concerns. Not strong enough for an oppose, but still.
'''Neutral''' I'm sure you'll be a fine admin, but I like seeing more Article edits than User talk ones, so I'm not comfortable voting support. I definitely don't see grounds to oppose, though. --
'''Netural''' per SarekOfVulcan. I know you'll be great but mix in some article contributions too.
As nom. I've been looking forward to this for a while, so best of luck.

'''Another beat the co-nom support'''. Good content work, good editor, good noms, good responses, good good good.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, more than sufficient experience.
'''Support''' per TFOWR :) '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Support''' support, support, support, support, support. That should hit home my point. :)
'''Can't beat the co-nom anymore support''' per me. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''';(edit conflict) I think Airplaneman appears to be hardworking, familiar with policy, and a safe pair of hands.
'''Support''' - {{ec}} I've collaborated with Airplaneman most through the PJTF and found him to be clueful, helpful, and mature. He seems to have infinite patience with new users and shows up all over the 'pedia doing useful work. In addition to not doing anything stupid with the mop, I think he will also add a lot to the project. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - your user and talk page colours are a little disturbing, but your editing record seems substantial and well balanced. Looks fine to me.
'''Support'''. He has occasionally come across my watchlist, always with good and useful edits.
'''Support''' - I think he has earned his mop!
'''Support''' - Great candidate all around. No concerns at all.
'''Support''' Definintely.

'''Strong, Strong Support''' because of my experience with him during GA reviews and [[WP:NASCAR]]. --'''[[User:Nascar1996|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color: black">Nascar</span>]][[User talk:Nascar1996|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color: red">1996</span>]]''' <sup>''[[Special:Contributions/Nascar1996| <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color: blue">Contributions</span>]] /
'''Support''' Dedicated and experienced contributor and clearly trustworthy.
'''Support''' Why not? Airplaneman should do fine with the tools :) Good luck my friend!--
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Supprot''' Absolutely.
'''Absolutely Strong Support''' Seen him around, no reason not to.
{{ec}} '''Support''' Much improved from last time around --
'''Super Support''' He's been working hard to improve, and he's definitely ready now. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">

'''Support''' - good to see that content editors are being nominated this week!
'''Support''' - I've seen this candidate around the project, and he always seems competent to me when I encounter his work, His contributions look good, and he has gained lots of relevant experience. Should be a net positive, and I see no reason not to trust him with the tools. I'm also impressed that he altered his user page to a colour scheme that doesn't make my eyes bleed any more, but that's not part of my support rationale - just an encouraging indication that he is receptive to positive criticism - a good trait in any editor, and doubly valuable in an admin. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - per nom and co-nom, two fine testaments that speak for themselves. Airplaneman with a mop is a good idea. Best wishes for the Rfa and beyond,
'''Support''' – I've also seen this user around the project, and all I see is great work. Definitely a net plus for the sysop group. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. (Someone pinged me about this RfA, so a quick Wikibreak break was called for). I supported Airplaneman last time, and all I can see since then is improvement. Looking at his Talk page, I see someone who is brilliant at helping others and great at communicating. --
'''Oppose''' for ripping off my userpage :) –
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Sure''' - good luck! <span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Support''' - I opposed last time mostly on what I thought were poor answers to questions. I still thought you were a good potential candidate who just needed more experience. I've seen you around the encyclopedia a lot, doing good things, and I see a vast improvement since then. (In particular, your answer to the IAR question was very thoughtful, completely different than the last RfA.) I'm happy to support you this time around. -- '''
'''Support'''.  Excellent, helpful, good-natured editor.  A great addition.--
'''Support''' - A RfA that your not voting on..Wow. Give this man a Mop.
'''Support''' I've seen the user around and I'm quite certain I can trust this user with the tools --
{{ec}}'''doesn't beat the co-nom but would have if he'd known about the RfA earlier support''' :) Good user who would be great with the mop. Have to add this: I thought he was one already. (Don't all RfAs have that?
'''Support''', have seen the user around a few times, nothing springing out against them. A good candidate I am glad to support. --'''
'''Yes'''.  I see no reason why not.
'''Support''' for the second time. --
'''Support''' Like Atama, I ended up in opposition last time; mainly because you botched one of the questions so badly.  That question has already been asked, your answer is better, and your record since the prior RFA has been very good.
Most definitely. ~~
'''Support''', excellent user.
'''Support'''. Thank you for making me realize that ''[[The Accidental Asian]]'' was not yet an article! —<font face="Garamond" size="3">
'''Support''' an rfa that i too have looked forward too
'''Support''' - nobody has more enthusiasm for the project than this candidate; clueful and trustworthy; should be a great sysop--
'''Support''' - has always come across well to me. And I usually avoid RfA but I thought I should comment especially on this one. --
'''Edit-conflicted support''' -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - No problems with this user. Can we still [[Airplanes (song)|pretend airplanes are <s>light</s> like shooting stars]]? :p
'''Opport''' ;) '''
'''Support''' Based on interactions, very nice user etc..
'''''Weak'' support''': The Jimbo joke is even less funny (considering it was never funny) than the last time. However, overall positive experiences, good content work, blah blah blah. Have fun ([[:File:I_IZ_SERIUS_ADMNIM_THIZ_IZ_SERIUS_BIZNIS_lolcat.jpg|or not]]).
'''Support''' Seen editor around many times and would be a good candidate IMO. --
'''Support'''
'''Super strong support''' per my experience with this user at [[WP:APPLE]], [[WP:NASCAR]], and [[WP:GAN]]. Also a good vandal-fighter. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
Support- Trusted user.
'''Support'''. This is one candidate whose contribs I don't even have to check. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Support'''. I've reviewed the editor's contributions. Hopefully, the RfA would be a successful one. Best.
To be honest, when I first saw this RfA up I thought I was going to have to go neutral based on my initial impressions. But upon review of recent contributions, the answers, and the effusive noms, I can see that Airplaneman has improved dramatically in the last few months since I formed my rather misguided opinion of him, and am somewhat perplexed as to why I had anything but a positive view of what is obviously an excellent contributor. Best of luck.
'''Support''' - Good contributor, support for all the previous reasons I did the first time around.
'''Support''' - Yes, everything seems good here.
'''Support''' Sorry for not voting in the previous RfA, but now, I will support.
'''Support.'''
Eminently suited for the sysop bit.
'''Support''' Looks fine. --
'''Support''' Based largely on excellent experiences with this editor.  Will make a fine admin.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
Definitely!
'''Support''' Looking forward to more interactions with you.
'''Support''' Insert standard "uhhhh, thought you were one already" comment.
'''Support''' - impressive contributions, and has definitely shown the tools will be used well.

'''Support''' A trusted and proficient editor. Very happy to support the candidate's nom.
'''Support''' - looks fine.
Believe Airplaneman's fully ready this time around. '''
'''Support'''. No problems that I can see. --
'''Support'''. Many positive interactions in the past, no concerns. <code>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Airplanman is diligent and really wants to improve Wikipedia. He also goes out of his way to help others make their articles better. He has my strong support and my vote.
'''Support''' - no concerns. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Strong Support''' I really liked the answers for questions 4-6. Excellent editor. :)--<font color="blue" face="linux libertine" size="3">
'''Support''' Improved answers to questions since last time. Good all-round backlog-fighting candidate.
'''Support''' supported last time and still see good stuff here. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Candidate has improved since 1st RFA. --
'''Support''', I'm seeing lots of good adjustments made since prior RFA. -- '''
Yes!

'''Support''' - per Keepscases. '''
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' I don't like the phrase "common sense" for personal reasons, but that's definitely not a reason to oppose or be neutral here, the question answers fit very well otherwise. If you can redact that phrase, i'd be happen to change my opinion to strong support. I just dislike that phrase that much, sorry, but it's a pet peeve.
'''Support'''. Sufficient experience, see no reason to think he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent editor. Will be an assert to the project. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I come across you on my watchlist, and I see you are reviewing a [[WP:GAN|GAN]].
'''Support''' Seems capable...
'''Support''' no bad experiences.--
'''Support'''. My first interaction with you was at RfA. I have found your RfA participation in the past to lack explanation, which was the "relevant" reason for me asking question 8. That said, your answers are all thoughtful, and having reviewed your contribution history I have no other reason to think that you wouldn't give due care, attention and feedback on any decisions you made with the tools. --
'''Support''', looks good.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Airplaneman has greatly improved upon the issues that took down his last RfA. I believe that his being an admin would be a net positive to the project. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' He can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - In view of the overwhelming number of support !votes, I have searched hard to find a reason to oppose, or to be neutral. I couldn't find any - of course.--
'''Support''' When I've seen him, he does great. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Strong Support''' You dealt with [[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Airplaneman|my comments in your editor review]] like a pro, and you [[User_talk:Nomader#Your_editor_review|followed up with me]] to get specific advice about your articles. Your answers to the questions were all completely sound, and everything points to you being an outstanding administrator. Looks like I might just be piling on at this point, but it's my complete pleasure to support. Look forward to seeing you with a mop, well done Airplaneman.
'''Support''' —
Support
'''Support'''. Nice person, competent editor.
'''Support''' Good editor. Both GAs were good '''
'''Strong Support:''' I am glad you are having another go as a candidate. You have shown yourself to be a great candidate. -
'''Support'''. Per answer 7. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Appears to be a very reliable editor whose access to the admin tools would greatly benefit the project.
'''Support''' Our recent interactions clearly show that Airplaneman is ready for the tools with the poise and experience that I'd expect in an administrator. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Competent enough and stable enough. --
'''Support''' Cheers mate, ·
I opposed last time for lack of experience, and I see that Airplaneman has made a real effort to gain some experience. What I see is a user who is very keen, very helpful, hard working, and will be an asset to Wikipedia and the community. Even though I feel that some of the GA articles reviewed could have been a little more exacting in order to preserve GA standard, I really admire the attitude shown [[Talk:2010 Showtime Southern 500/GA2|here]] of willingness to get involved, and of being encouraging to those involved. Despite the overall very favourable impression I have gained, I would ask Airplaneman to proceed slowly and carefully - errors like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David&diff=next&oldid=373681807 this] can be demoralising. Assume good faith of all users including IP accounts, and if you don't understand why an edit has been made, then investigate it, ask a second opinion, or even speak to the person who made the edit before reverting. That said, I feel Wikipedia is going to benefit greatly from Airplaneman's enthusiasm and generally helpful good nature. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' I supported last time and see no reason to change my view.
'''Support''': looks good to me. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits (29,000!) including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article rescuer, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]]. P.S.  I did not take part in the 1st RfA.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I've seen him do a good job patrolling new pages; I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I see a net positive. —
'''Support'''.  I believe this user will make a fine administrator. <i>
Good user.
'''Support''' - but what happened to the original? Something fishy is going on... '''<font face="verdana">
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' for taking the bait on question #8. This question has nothing to do with the RFA, and it raises more questions about the candidate, particularly their definition of "picky"-ness, than it answers.
'''Weak Oppose''' description as a "vandal warrior" had me worried. Then the part about having a lot of policy knowledge sealed the deal. This is not the type of person I want as an administrator. However, I do note that airplaneman has contributed positively to many articles, so that is why my oppose is weakened.
'''Neutral''' The fact that there's no "what's changed since the last RfA?" response in the candidate's own words is problematic.  I'd oppose on that basis, but it seems that no one else has bothered to even ask you the question, so it'd be hard to consider that your fault... at least not yet.
Support as co-nominator.
The nominators got this one right.  AD's work at ACC has been stellar, and he'd be the first one I'd look to for advice were I to eventually get around to it.  I know him from clerking, where he's been a fantastic sounding board and has always had his head in the right place.  More importantly, any review of his contributions show that courtesy is his middle name, and when that's combined with experience as a trusted user on other sites, well, I think you all know what I'm getting at.  Calm demeanor + solid contributions + foreign-language experience = no brainer. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' Trustworthy and dependable. '''
Looks the goods. --
'''Strong support''' I've known this user for a few months through ACC. Reliable and to quote MBisanz, trustworthy.
'''Support''' No problems I've found.
'''Support'''. Pretty much per Amory and MBisanz. Definitely trustworthy and has a genuine use for the tools.
'''Support''' as co-nominator -- '''''
'''Support''' Deleted content, and logs looks good, even marks pages patrolled indicating thorough work.
'''Support''': [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship|Too many]] threads about not enough RfAs... Oh, and no concerns with the user, either in my (limited) contact or in my (slightly less limited) perusal of their contributions.
'''support'''- well-deserving of the mop. Excellent conduct and he will certainly use the tools well :) <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support''' I've seen his work, on and off the account creation interface. As is said, methodical and trustworthy.
The creation of "all those accounts" doesn't mean shit, I'm afraid, it's more a race than a task for most of them now.  I do however feel Alex is more than helpful and approachable enough for this role.
'''Support''' - Have seen his work and trust he'll make a good admin.  --'''
I'm genuinely shocked to see this user is not yet an administrator. He certainly deserves the support of the community for this role.
'''Incredibly Strong Supprt''', AlexandrDmitri has done tremendous work as an arbclerk, and this is long overdue.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy. <font color="maroon">
'''Strong support.''' A fantastic user who has some serious amounts of clue. Alexandr will do extremely well with the tools and he's obviously in need of them. He'll make a fantastic administrator. '''
'''Strong support'''; clerking for the Committee is a hard task that drops one in the middle of frayed tempers and angry editors while being continually under a microscope.  That Alexandr manages to keep his cool ''and'' act deliberately and carefully is proof that the admins tools would be no big deal for him.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - trustworthy.
'''Support'''.  I, too, thought this editor was already an admin.  Thanks for all your hard work, Alexandr.
'''Support''' Very light on edits to article space and highly active for a year; however, the candidate has proven trustworthy with a number of tools (current administrator on WikiNews, accountcreator, ipblock-exempt, rollbacker). His consistently calm, cool demeanor and body of work clerking for the Arb Committee &mdash; an area where emotions can get white-hot &mdash; is what tipped the scales in his favor for me.--
'''Support''' - I have known AlexandrDmitri for a while, and he has always been very helpful when we have interacted, such as on [[Eurovision Song Contest]] articles. He showed himself to be admin material in a dispute I got involved relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, where he remained civil and logical in the face of hostility from some other editors; the relevant discussion is at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5#Dealing with criticism and controversy]]. Alexandr passes [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|my criteria]] well, with "bonus points" given to his work as an ArbCom clerk and trusted positions on other projects.
Per Ryan. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' - The trust of the nominators goes a long way in my book. Also, the clerking for ARBCOM indicates a cool head needed for adminship. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' - I've been working with AlexandrDimitri since he became a trainee clerk. He is hard-working and level headed and will be an asset.
'''Strong Support''' - I thought AD was already an admin. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Weak support''' I see nothing in this candidate that would make me feel they would abuse there tools, but I would have liked to see more contributions in the article space.
'''Support''' - Great experience in various maintenance roles, which, as indicated in the nom, is mostly what being an admin is about. The limited content creation doesn't bother me at all. The candidate seems to interact with others well and I think overall he will make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support''' per MBisanz and LiberalFascist.
'''Support''' Candidate seems to be well suited to become an Admin.
'''Support''' Has shown that he will remain cool and calm in pressure situations, whether clerking or in content/conduct disputes.
'''Support'''
Excellent work in ACC. He is level headed and should do good as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' As a member of the [[Wikipedia:Account creator|Account Creation Team]] I work with AlexandrDmitri on a daily basis. He is always professional, consistent and trustworthy. He is one one of the first members I go to when I need guidance with a new account. Further as NSD states above I thought he was already an admin.
'''Strong support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' No concerns, I have seen his work and have always been impressed. ''<B>--
'''Support''' He is already an admin on ACC, so he knows the role well. --
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' per [[WP:RIGHTNOW]] --
Looks to me like he won't mess up too badly.
'''Support''' Two great nominations in one day! AlexandrDimitri clearly has lots of relevant experience in the areas he wants to work in, and I offer a strong vote of support and my encouragement to carry on the good work. And I like [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|Gnomes]]. --
Hmm, though he was an admin. Nonetheless, a good candidate. '''
Answers to the questions are reassuring, I can't find any problems, and it looks to me like you're trusted and appreciated all over the place. - Dank (
'''Support''' Of course, he's a great arb clerk and is extremely active in [[WP:ACC|ACC]] as well. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' - don't see why not :)
'''Support''' I see nothing in my review to say they would be anything other than a net positive.  '''
Overdue.
'''Support'''. Limited content contributions, otherwise good work.
'''Support''' for the simplest possible reason: I have no doubt that giving him the tools would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. --

'''Support''' - although i never worked with this Wikipedian, from the look of his/her edits, they've done well.
'''Strong Support'''Outstanding work all around. Those traits and his track record show he'll be an outstanding wikipedian in whatever area he works in. Note: I could count on one hand the RFA/Bs I've voted in since becoming a crat and this is an easy one to make another exception for. Also, recusing on closing this on two grounds: 1) I've now voted and 2) he's a current arbclerk and I'm a current arb. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' per Amory and Ryan. Excellent candidate! -'''

I think I've seen you somewhere. Anyway, net benefit.
'''Support''' - I'd like to see more automated edits, but otherwise good.
Yup, no alarms here.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy.
'''Support'''-Thought this user already had the mod.--'''''
'''Strong support'''. Fully qualified, trustworthy, and I have no concerns. '''
'''Суппорт''' – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' Pleased with question answer.
'''Support''' - Obvious.
'''Support''' - yes, please. Genuine need, cooperative, friendly, and helpful (from experience in ACC). Broad knowledge of Wikipedia, and knows when to ask for help. Demonstrable calm attitudes through clerk work.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
Looks like a big net positive to the project.
Yes. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support''' – Has my trust. I'm not worried about [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit count]], because of activity. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - looks good to me. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. I can think of few more obvious candidates - best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - knows what he's doing.
'''Support.''' No concerns. <code>

'''Support''' Per above. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' Very helpful editor, and has shown he can be trusted at ArbCom.
'''Support''' - the relatively low percentage of edits in the article space is the only thing keeping me from a strong support. You have my support nonetheless.--
'''Aye''' Having spent nearly all of our respective time together on account creation i have see his ability to make wise decisions in tricky grey areas. It hurts a little to say it but people turn to ''him'' all the time for his sound reasoning and guidance. That same competence does carry over into his editing which, while not being large on content, is still helpful. Gnome, elf, færie, or whatever, consider me one more proud supporter. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' You are a newpage patroller, and as one myself I know admin tools could be extremley useful, instead of constant tagging. And nothing bad I can see

'''Support''' No concerns- ACC admin doesn't necessarily mean a lot to me, but enwikinews admin and Arbcom clerk do.  No concerns with this one.
&mdash;
'''Support''' yes I would prefer some more article creation but do I think he'll be a net positive to the project? Yeah, most likely.
'''Support'''.  He looks good, and easily meets my standards.  The concerns raised by the opposes do not concern me greatly. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)  P.S. We could use some proof-readers. :-)
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' - no reason not to trust him with the tools, and his answers to my followup fit nicely with my understanding of the situation. --
'''Support''' and I hope he decides to move on to AIV very quickly, because he seems the ideal person to work there as an administrator.'''
'''Support''' I appreciate how well and helpful he resolved [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-24/List of channels on Virgin TV|this mediation cabal request]], and closed it at the right time. Resolving disputes is important in an administrator, and AD has done it very well. Although I voted neutral once, I agree to myself that it was pretty harsh of me being the first neutral voter. See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AlexandrDmitri|here]] if anyone wants to have a look at my Neutral vote.
'''Support''' per noms.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. In a way, I might have expected an RfA ''before'' becoming an Arb Clerk. But I think it speaks volumes to see Arbs, Clerks, and AE workers endorsing this candidate as having the right temperament for the flag. --
'''Support''' Seems to be capable of doing the job...
'''Support''' No problems here. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, AlexandrDmitri. —
'''Support''' No concerns. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' as I see no evidence the tools would be abused. I'm still of the opinion that adminship isn't and shouldn't be a big deal. Also, [[WP:100]] is coming up. :) ···
'''Strong Support''' per the above comments, answers to questions, and past productivity.
'''Oppose''' I have skimmed through all article contributions. Aside from [[Christophe Moulin]] and [[Sans aucun doute]], I found one nice, promising little [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insulin_glargine&diff=prev&oldid=299588132 substantive edit] but in general I couldn't see many. I know lots of people will very heartily disagree with me, but drive-by tagging is one of the more annoying things in Wikipedia. It appears as if the editor may be somewhat addicted to wikignoming and similar tasks. '''These are things which do not take much wisdom and are pretty much black & white. So it is impossible to determine the person's ability to make wise decisions in tricky grey areas.''' It's concerning that he wants to work in mediation but does not get into the trenches himself. If the person cannot allocate a certain proportion of edits to straight content building and the closely related work of checking articles for accuracy and debating over what should and should not be included - the core areas of Wikipedia - I cannot support. I believe that the sad truth is that Wikipedia desperately needs more content people and less gnomes and less politicians. Spend some time looking for citation needed tags and adding the refs, spend some time at [[WP:RS/N]], [[WP:NOR/N]], [[WP:NPOV/N]], and also perhaps the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All]]. I don't drop in here very often but I'm disappointed at the number of supports. It's also interesting that NPP is mentioned but the editor shows no interest in the AfD process. A new pages patroller who has a general intention to stay uninvolved in deletion seems problematic. I agree with his philosophy on unilateral page and topic banning by admins (unacceptable), and it is somewhat unfortunate that we couldn't delegate some of the extra "no-brainer" technical tools to clean up things without giving him the power the make controversial judgment calls. But there's no certainty that he won't move in with judgment calls in the future.
'''Oppose''' Too many supports for how little content creation AD has done.  When one spends time clerking rather than developing a single GA, it says to me that this user is not interested in building an encyclopedia.  Wikignomes are fine, but II is right--this is precisely the profile of an admin candidate we ''do not'' need.
'''Oppose''' as per ImperfectlyInformed and Jclemens -  they've said it all. I've  checked everything  out and there's no  need for me to  add anything. --
'''Oppose''' as per Jclemens. This trend for lionising wikignomes with no actual experience of building an encyclopedia, and no demonstrated ability to do so, is rather alarming. I'm curious to know how and where this recent batch of candidates has been recruited. (Please, don't anyone waste electrons on asking me to [[WP:AGF]]; I wasn't born yesterday.)
As I have said in numerous RFAs before, I simply cannot support a user with such limited content creation contributions. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and the lack of experience in this area is too much for me to overlook.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of thorough questions with which to assess this candidate, the paucity of his encyclopaedic contributions and the immediate rush to support him based on generally meagre justifications. This seems to be a popularity contest rather than a searching test of the candidate’s credentials.
'''Oppose''' (not that it'll make any difference) per II @1. Alexandr's efforts are appreciated but are not what's truly needed for an admin (and I say this as somewhat of a wikignome myself). Leaky has also made an interesting point about the RfA=popularity contest situation.
As per my own criteria, those who don't contribute significantly to articlespace/auditing content are out of touch with the point of the encyclopedia, to a certain extent, which is a negative quality in a potential admin. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Believe in most cases an admin should have significant content contributions so as to understand better the conflicts among editors.--
Agree with BigDom. While his work is commendable, there is a clear lack of article creation and building. I would prefer a more 'well-rounded' editor. -<font color="Grey" face="comic sans ms">
'''Neutral'''—this sentence put me off from supporting: ''Whilst I am on NPP I hit "Random article" and tag with {{tl|noreferences}} or {{tl|primarysources}} very often.'' (I don't actually see what this has to do with [[WP:NPP|NPP]], but that's not the point...) To me, that sort of tagging, which someone above described as "drive-by", is essentially 'whining' at the state of an article. Perhaps important, but easy, effortless and not anything to broadcast or be as proud of as AlexandrDmitri seems to be. The fact that this specific editor's tagging arises from hit-and-miss random searching for problems also doesn't suggest a methodical or dedicated approach... though I think that sounds much harsher than I mean!! On a related note, {{user|Jclemens}} makes a good summary, with which I concur, of the content-creation issue. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Y not'''? '''
I've scanned a couple of the 3Os; that dispute resolution experience is invaluable. As were the contributions to that DRV. Absolutely a strong support. With bonus support for the self-nom.--
'''Support'''
'''Why not''' <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support'''. High number of edits, longtime experience, continuous dedication throughout editing history, good content work that includes GA work and article creation, has uploaded several images, lots of dispute resolution work, appears to have good amount of experience at AIV and RPP (despite no automated vandal fighting?). Definitely a great editor and a great candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' – sure!
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Impressive level of experience,
'''Weak support''' Q4's answer was a bit incomplete, but you've written a fair amount and 3O isn't always the easiest place. I'd trust you, and your answer to Q5 is something I look for. '''<spa n style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy. Dispute resolution experience is a definite plus.
'''Strong support''' There's something about this RfA that screams ideal admin to me... mature, long-time trusted user, no blocks, great answers. Strong support from me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', positive contributor, good experience, good answers to questions. -- '''
'''Support''' The candidate has a long history of excellent contributions, and is obviously very well versed in procedure. Particularly impressive to me was a talk page where civility and good faith are maintained without compromising his ability to stand by his convictions. I see an editor with analytical skill, strong communication and commitment to policy, but with the added, essential trait of understanding that policy is the means to the end, and not the end in itself. It is also evident that he is quite prepared to carefully explain a position or an action, and open to revising that stance when appropriate. I have no doubt that these, and other traits I noticed in my review, would help him to become an excellent administrator. &nbsp;
'''Support''' cursory review looks okay, big boost from the well-thought responses to support #10 above.
'''Support''' It's a rare self-nom that gets my support... not because I dislike self nominations, but because so few of the people who pursue them have the experience I'm looking for in an administrator candidate.  I've run across you at 3O before, and have confidence in your ability to handle the mop.
'''Support''', because I consider you to be a net positive; your answer to question 4 was unimpressive; however, your reply to support #10 allayed some of my doubts. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Looks like a safe pair of hands to me. I like the dispute resolution experience.

'''Support''' I don't see why not. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support''' Amatulic's breadth and depth of experience is impressive.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' - long-term Wikipedian (Jan. 2006); trustworthy (rollbacker, reviewer, no blocks); experienced (>10,000 edits)--
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' – Seems to be a trustworthy candidate. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' trusted contributor, knows what he's doing.
'''Support''', and going for it because there's a shortage is a good thing, the Oppose/Neutral are just looking for reasons to not support again.
'''Support''' - good answers, plenty of experience, seems fine overall.
'''Support''' So far no alarm bells are going off, everything looks good. </s>I might ask a question later though.</s>
Seems to be civil and accountable, a fine candidate. '''
'''Support'''. Going in to bat.
'''Support'''I welcome a volunteer who will join me in doing the routine housekeeping, and I think this editor will do so.--<font color="Red">
Seems good to me. ~~
'''Support''' - Great answers to questions, fine contributions, no concerns. -- '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support per "Supports #'s 2,5,11,12,14,15,19,22,34,36," a la Begoon'''. Good answers to the questions. Answers 8 and 9 show depth of thought and perception. Reading candidates talk page was a pleasure. User is polite, but there's a strength, a firmness underlying it. As Ceranthor puts it, "civil and accountable, a fine candidate".
'''Support''' - Here again, we see an editor who, with a mop, will make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for stepping up, and best wishes.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, particularly AIV.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The opposer's concern is unpersuasive.
'''Totally support'''. I can't see any reason why Amatulic should not be an admin! They seem to qualify greatly.
'''Support.'''  I'm long familiar with Amatulic's contributions to the [[:Wikipedia:Third opinion|Third opinion]] project and think he'll be a terrific admin.  –
'''Support.''' - A level headed and regular user with sufficient experience in all the pertinent areas. --
'''Strong Support.''' - Although I doubt it makes a difference at this point.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good user, understands policies and use them in a practical and effective way, per competent writing record '''
'''Support''' per "Begoon's list". Also answer to q.3 - editors prepared to wade into disputes yet keep cool: excellent.
'''Support''', reluctantly. I don't really want a deletionist becoming admin (and your stance on the Valhalla article didn't convince me), but your good work on articles and against vandalism  shows me you deserve the mop. I also don't like your misuse of the Stanley Wagner AfD to make a general point about policy, but your explanation of the incident indicates there won't be a repitition of this. The experience of four years of editing shows, and there are good answers to the questions here. OK.
'''Support''' Lots of positives, few negatives. Some of the concerns that have arisen, I perceive as minor differences in interpretation of quite tricksy questions, e.g. when I read the answer to Q4 I was worried, but probably because I knew what Fetchy was looking for, and when I read your further discussion further down, I saw your measured consideration for the issues; I'd much rather see someone who actually thinks a bit than someone merely quoting policy, so I'm happy with it. I understand your prior reticence to apply, and I'm grateful that you've decided to help out. I checked out your contribs to [[Zinfandel]] over the years...nice stuff; the edits seem well-considered...so, my only real concern at this stage is, if the gain in an admin will be a loss in a content editor; I do hope not, and that you will see the tools as tools - a useful additional option, not something that takes over from the good stuff. From your responses, I believe this will be the case, so I will raise a glass of red to you. Best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' Good history and solid instincts. Should make a fine admin.

'''Support''' - Good answers to questions. The candidate also seems to interact with others well.
'''Support''' -- good answers to question 12 about the proposed deletions. I agree about 95+% with his assessments; the 5% difference involves judgment calls and gray areas and his opinions on these are carefully thought out (and just as valid as mine). What I especially appreciate is that Amatulic has a good understanding not just of our content rules but, more importantly the spirit behind these rules. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', somewhat reluctantly. I ran into the candidate at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Creek Vineyards]] and felt that there was a bit too much badgering going on, too many responses given too quickly, similar to the vintner AfD referred to in this RfA. That another editor would qualify the candidate as a deletionist, I can see that too, and I think that the tone adopted by the candidate in those two AfDs on some occasions wasn't friendly or collegial anymore. Now, I looked at some of the 3O cases (esp. the Senate discussion--where, frankly, I disagree, but that's another matter) and that unfriendly tone is missing there, and that's a good thing. I do not think that this candidate would misuse their enormous power given the mop, and I imagine that their possible deletionist temperament (that is, their love for strict policy) will be reined in sufficiently by the need to mediate, which obviously is something this candidate is pretty decent at. Good luck.
'''Support''' because of the comment immediately above and because Amatulic kindly answered by bumbling question without ridicule.
'''Support'''. Looks OK. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Good communicator, clearly open to listen to others and engage in discussion, and seems generally pretty clued up. --
'''Support'''. A good editor who would use the tools well.
'''Support''' - Why not? The Wiki can use him.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' had a good experience with him at [[Talk:United States Senate]], he seems like a reasonable editor.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 12,800 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, Rollback rights, autoreviewer, etc.  Of special usefulness is his background as a scientist.
'''Support''' Never heard of the candidate, but can't find anything wrong.
'''Support''' Seems to make good decisions and understands guidelines/etc, is good people, and small backlogs are good.
'''Support''': As a person who has had regular debates and extremely opposing points of view with Amatulic in the not so distant past, I believe my support vote might count for its neutral point of view. I believe that Amatulic, although not being particularly as active as some of the top editors I have seen on Wikipedia, is trustworthy enough for the admin tools. His discussions have exhibited maturity and even openness to change his points of view and accept mistakes. His contributions are what I should call acceptable for my admin standards. Best regards Amatulic. Use the tools well.
'''Support''' No concerns. If only I had seen the Stanley Wagner (vintner) AfD I might have backed up Amatulic's argument, what a farce. Notability entirely resting on a single obit in the NYT (for a New York state vintner). Calm policy based arguments from Amatulic falling on deaf ears. I see Amatulic's AfD contributions as rational and intelligent.
'''Support''' Good work at 30. --
'''Support''' I trust this candidate with the admin tools.
'''Support''' - seems to be a reasonable chap.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' -net  positive.

'''Support'''. I've worked with Amatulic over at 3O and have always found their edits there to be helpful and useful. Keep on rockin'. —
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Appears reasonable, balanced, calm, intelligent and articulate. Valuable qualities. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''', as the candidate is experienced, knowledgeable, and mature. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' I thinks there's a reasonable understanding of policy.,   '''
'''Support''' precisely the sort of wildly overqualified candidate I was hoping to tempt forth with my Signpost article. I'm sure you'll make a great admin - hopefully the sort who continues to spend most of their wiki time doing the stuff that you already do. ''
'''Oppose''' - Your Nom. statement gives me the impression of your "sneaking into the drive-in in the trunk of a car", or "The time is right their voting for everyone now's my chance" I'm not sure if this is the premise of the neutral votes feelings, but I formed this impression from your statement and I can not support feeling the way I do. Good luck.
<del>'''Oppose'''</del> for deletionist tendencies.
I disagree with the premise that apparently motivated the nomination. I will not discuss the issue here, as the argument is already going on in numerous other places. Before you respond to this, please note it's in the Neutral section.
I guess I'm on the fence. I don't find any reason to oppose and I'm satisfied with the explanation regarding the confusion over the motivation for this RfA, but for some reason, I can't quite fully support, so here I am. I could probably be swayed to support, so I'll keep an eye on this RfA and re-evaluate my position before the close.
On the one hand, I see some good work, on the other, I am not satisfied with a number of responses, in particular Q4 and its various follow-ups. Not ''quite'' enough for me to oppose, as the user has not indicated a desire to work in [[WP:UAA]].
As nom.
Brilliant content contributor who would probably be a good and cautious administrator. '''
This page has been on my watchlist for a while. Strong support.
'''Support''': I can trust anyone who has created over 1800 new and lasting articles (Your coverage of Norway is impressive).  He clearly understands the community and will function well with the tools.--
'''Support'''. The candidate seems trustworthy and has a solid record as an article-builder. I've reviewed a portion of Arsenikk's recent edits and I like what I see.
[[User:Arsenikk/Contributions]]  Need I say more?  This dude creates articles - a lot of them.  Him not having the tools appears to be a major negative for the project, so let's rectify that mistake. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
Like the content contributions. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support''' Like one of this user's userboxes says "This user is Doing It Right", I agree too.
'''Support''' - All round talent. A clear understanding  of the need for article building. Might  not  actually  need the tools, but  I  see no  reason to  refuse them. I'm sure he would put  them to  good use and with sound judgment.--
'''Support''' I can only Support from what I've got, good number of edits, active editing and an empty block log.
Answers are reassuring, and
'''Support'''. Long-term contributor with a strong contribution to building the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Nice contributions, seems to have a clue.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Strong support''' - has written plenty of great articles, has plenty of experience. The nom says it all :).
'''Full Support'''. I appreciate the thorough and thoughtful answers to my questions. I love the answer to Q6. Dedicated content work as well as sound work in the project space is a big plus and all in all, I'd say we have a very well rounded, qualified candidate and I'm happy to support.
'''Support.''' Great editor from what I've seen. Thoughtful answers to questions. <code>
'''For''' – En veldig pålitelig bruker. Lykke til! ;)
'''Support''' I see no problems here -- '''''
''''Support''' - Mmmhmm .
'''Oppose''' - too many good candidates this month.--
''''Support'''  The user has written 1800 articles,  so I will support, however, I am concerned that this user has limited experience with dealing with vandalism and thus I would possibly not perform as well at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]]. Overall ,however, i trust this contributor, though I feel they are inexperienced in some areas.
'''Support''' I like the answers to all of your questions and I have seen you around in DYK (for obvious reasons) Bravo :)--
'''Support''' --
I'm sorry, did you say '''70''' good articles? <font color="black">'''
'''Support''' candidate who has provided excellent answers to the questions
Sold.
He is a force for good on Wikipedia, and I can't see any reason to believe he isn't trustworthy.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Plenty of experience. --
You seem to know what you're doing. Let's give this a shot.

'''Support''' - Yeah!  Give him the mop, he knows what he's doing!  --'''
'''Support''' Seems good overall. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. My thanks also to the nominator who has done an excellent job recently in restocking the RfA pool.
Yep.
'''Support'''. Good for systematic bias. 70 good articles? --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Still waiting for an answer to a question but an editor who writes well is the best kind of administrator, not some busybody who just vandal fights and could still do so without tools.  We need more smart administrators who can write.
'''Support''': highly likely to be significant net positive with the tools.
Per Newyorkbrad. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support.''' I am impressed with this editor's collaborative ability.  Thanks for all your hard work, Arsenikk.
'''Support''' I checked every upload ( and deleted a lot of old revisions) nad a quick look of deleted contribs and logs looks fine.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' — Fantastic content work. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Strong candidate with lots of great experience and an excellent attitude --
Great contributions to the encyclopedia, and a good editor all round.
'''Support''' - Between the staggering contributions and terrific answers this is a no-brainer! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' – Great content contributions from an editor who clearly values civility among editors. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that the tools would be misused. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' per extensive and impressive content work.
'''Support'''No concerns.
'''Support''' – I fully trust this user with the tools, especially with his good article writing skills. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. I've crossed with the candidate quite a lot while reviewing their DYK nominations, and the memories are very positive - strong, reliable content work, no cheating. Just one wish - please keep content work as 1st priority.
'''Support'''. Very strongly. One of the most prolific editors on matters relating to Norway, Arsenikk has devoted himself to creating several high-quality articles through meticulous research on a variety of topics and is definitely among Wikipedia's prime content contributors. The only reason I have not offered an RFA nomination myself is that he has not shown a high level of obsession with WikiPolitics (read: I didn't think he wanted to be an admin), but his contributions in discussion are always calm and well-reasoned.
Certainly. Top quality content writer, with a balanced and calm approach will do well!
'''Support''' as long as you won't get bogged down in admin stuff, we need you more as an article writer. Why do people ask all these stupid questions above? Some kind of weird humour?
'''Support'''. Why not?
'''Support''' No concerns. ''<B>--
On my 'if i ever nom people again he's one of them' shortlist, so yes. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I've come across Arsenikk many times at GA/GAN, and I've always been impressed. Supporting despite the answer to Q6.
All clear!--
'''Support!''' - Excellent and thoughtful answers to the questions above. Have a great day!
'''Support''' Good answer on 10.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' - will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per nom and trusted users.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Clearly an excellent contributor and will be a great asset as an admin.
'''
Per above, best of luck!
Absolutely. Easily one of my top-five favourite editors. Just don't let the admin stuff stop you from writing articles, we need those.
I don't see any reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' Good reasons. Seems trustworthy
'''Support''' Happy to, great editor.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Arsenikk. —
'''Support''' Trustworthy, conscientious. I hope that adminship won't distract much from writing articles. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' All good; clearly competent, trustworthy, fantastic contribs, etc etc. Let's get this over with, so we can get back to editing.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' as per, er, everybody above.
'''Support'''. Not someone I've seen around before, but I see nothing that concerns me.
'''Support''' had the pleasure of working extensively in [[WP:FLC]] with this candidate.  He is courteous and knowledgeable and will make an excellent admin.  Good luck!
'''Support''' About as close to an ideal candidate as I've ever seen.
Great article-writer, and I know he's been around for awhile when I can remember him from the GA reviewing I used to do... in 2008. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
Absolutely. Someone who understands what we're trying to do and why.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''support'''. Fine article builder. I'd use [[WP:IAR]] to downgrade [[WP:CIV]] when needed because CIV can be abused, but I can't expect that I'd use IAR to override [[WP:NPOV]] or the legal policies like [[WP:BLP]]. --
'''Support:''' The user is doing a great job writing articles. He has worked out disputes and has been civil and will make a great addition to the administrator group. --
''''Support'''.  As per [[User:Iridescent]]; this editor understands what we're trying to do and why.  He will obviously use the tools well.
'''Support''' And I don't see why I shouldn't. --
'''Support''' A particularly strong content builder. Thoughtful. Cerebral. Well-rounded--
It pains me to support this RfA. Why? Because we'll be losing a content contributor. I don't think we should be throwing them into the pool of lava that is adminship when they have proved they can offer up fantastic content on a grand scale (we've all noted how much so I shan't repeat). I also think this is one of those times that we're not giving the tools to someone who would make the best possible use of them; rather, a prize of sorts for his content. So yes, it pains me to support. But it's probably the right thing to do.
Happy to support - thanks for taking the time to answer my question. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Excellent work-a-day editor who does not seek controversy. Perfect! --
'''Support'''. Hard-working and experienced editor. -
'''Support'''. Someone who's put in the effort to learn how to create good content won't have any problems learning how to use a few extra tools properly. --
'''Support'''. Good answers and good contributions.
'''Support''' No reason to think that this would abuse the tools.  We need more admins.  --
'''Support''' Seems quite mopworthy to me.
'''Support''' Great candidate.  Particularly good at answering questions.
'''Support''' - Good candidate, with plently of knowledge about building this encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Seems like a good choice...
'''Support''' per the 99 people above me.  But Oh! the irony... too much article creation and not enough vandal fighting.  Suggest a chunk of time on Huggle dealing with the sewage, for a truly eye-opening experience.  Best wishes for your career as an admin!
'''Support''' Not only am I impressed with this Editors answers but also the ability to '''Convey''' them so well, Good luck
'''Support''' because I feel sorry that cars are so expensive in Norway, about double the UK price. (just kidding, the latter, not the support).
'''Support''' A solid candidate, good answers. No problems here. --
'''support''' Is clearly a great candidate, deserves adminship. -
'''Support''' Great answers to questions!! Good luck!
Too many GA, a few GT, a handful of FL, 10% automated editing, no use of huggle, less than 4% deleted edits, and not quite four years of experience. Clearly people trust him. Really, why not? Anyone who listens to music not suitable for commercials must be ok.  Anyone who correctly spells encycloædia deserves my overwhelming hugs of support. It may not be [[Winter (U2 song)|winter]] on the ancient holy streets where i learned to crawl but this looks like [[WP:SNOW|snow]] to me. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' despite the bizarre answer to Q6. --
No problem exactly, but I'm not seeing much if any policy edits or comments, noticeboard comments, dispute resolution comments, RFA votes, and things of that nature. Content contribution and GA/FA is great for the encyclopedia and I wouldn't exactly discourage it, but the sysop bit isn't an award for being a good contributor, as much as we might like it to be... you need to have experience in the right areas, and I'm not seeing that. I see many of my colleagues will probably disagree with me on this, but I tend to speak my mind even when it won't earn me brownie points. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Neutral'''—you seem like a sound editor, but your answer to Q3 concerns me. It's extremely evasive (no specifics at all, purely hypothetical, which is obviously not the object of the question: anybody can say that stuff, it's just conflict-resolution-textbook-bumph) and, coupled with your seeming lack of experience in the policy/noticeboard side of things, I'm just not confident yet. Expand your editing style and give it a couple of months :) <font color="#C4112F">╟─
'''Beat-the-nom-support''' Plenty of experience, no questionable actions. --
'''Support''' I don't see any problems, and WikiGnomes make excellent admins IMO.
'''Support''' Content contributions might be light, but the user is certainly worthy of the admin tools. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
Should be no problems with this one.
'''Support''' With over a year of non-stop edits (editing every month for a year), never being blocked and with reassuring answers. I vote for Support. --
'''Support''' You look like you need a mop.  --'''
I have observed [[WT:WikiProject Spam]] and other similar pages where Barek has been an excellent contributor for an extended period. Barek has consistently shown calmness and good judgment, and will perform useful work as an admin.
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
Deleted contribs look OK, block log is squeeky clean and I think that the candidates involvement in [[talk:Whitefish_Mountain_Resort]] shows clue and ability to communicate in building an article. ''
Solely needed to get things going at the spam blacklist talk page.
'''Support''' - Looks good. I didn't look extremely in depth, but I liked the random sample I saw. We always need more vandalism patrollers.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q3, I'm pleased you found a sufficient way to control a dispute.
'''Support''' What a nice way to start the day - with two new RfAs, both of which I have no hesitation in supporting --
'''Support'''. A very experienced user, no concerns.
'''Support'''. Experienced and trustworthy. He would clearly make good use of the mop.
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''support.''' readily meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA|my standards]]. Intelligent, articulate, open to discussion/feedback. Obvious net positive.
'''support''' sure --
'''Support''', in my review of their talk page and a sampling of their edits to different namespaces did not see anything that would lead me to believe they would misuse the tools.  Appears to have a very good knowledge of policies and guidelines.  '''
'''Support''' - everything seems in order here. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools and looks like a productive member of Wiki-society.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' - solid contributer, good communications. No reason to oppose. Best of luck ! --&nbsp;
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Strong support''' -- very knowledgeable about some of the more technical aspects of ferreting out complex spam schemes. Judicious and temperate in his dealings with spammers -- good at sorting out those acting in truly bad faith vs. those a bit off-track in their understanding of our rules. Furthermore, we need more spam-savvy admins to deal with backlogs in blacklist additions and removals. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' and I like the way he answers the questions. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Good answers to questions, can't find any problems (looking randomly). - Dank (
'''Support''' Spam is a big problem in Wikipedia and we need more admins in that area.
No problems in my dealings with Barek.  Has a clue.
'''Support'''. Anyone willing to deal with spam cleanup is much valued and has my full support. --
'''Support''' be happier with some more concerted article building but a fair chance will be net positive.
'''Support'''. Good involvement in [[WP:AN3]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:RPP]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:HELPDESK]], [[WP:COIN]] & [[WP:ELN]].
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - why not?
Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' - no problems.
'''Support'''. Hardworking & trustworthy --
'''Super strong support''' An excellent nominee if there ever was one. Barek's edits oftentimes pop up on my watchlist because our areas of work overlap (spam, external links) and I have never found a need to question his judgement. I have no doubt that giving him the tools will be a benefit for the encyclopedia. '''
'''Support'''. Not particularly familiar with this candidate but everything presented in this RfA, combined with the run of supports above, looks top notch.--
'''Support''' - A trustworthy editor with no issues. He would really benefit from the use of admin tools in the areas he works in.
'''Support''' - Candidate is a valuable and courteous contributor. I'm sure he'll make good use of admin tools.
I see no reason not to support, and critically, any prospective admin willing to hel pout at RPP has to be a good thing!
'''Support''' as everything looks fine by me
Seems like a great user who will use the tools wisely. '''
'''Support''' Very good answer on 8. No other reasons I see to oppose. Good luck!
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose, and no mild concerns to justify a neutral. -- '''''
'''Support''' - Per above; I should learn to vote in RfAs ''before'' all of my support/oppose reasons have already been specified multiple times ;)
--<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - '''''huge''''' edit count, great Userboxen/user page, anti-vandalism work, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Strong support'''- a Wikipedian for almost 4 years with > 25,000 edits. Broad range of experience. A spam-fighting specialist --> now that's an area where we need more experts like Barek.--
'''Support''' - I've seen Barek's work, and have confidence in his judgment.
Good answers, good recent edit history. /
Could obviously use the tools well and I sincerely believe he will do a good job. '''
'''Support'''. Good contributions. No issues.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Barek. —
'''Support''' - no concerns regarding Barek's ability to wield the mop and their anti-spam work is impressive.
'''Support''' Could use a few more sysops with an interest in spam and ELs.
'''Support''' - I'm not familiar with the editor (if they are a WikiGnome that's no surprise), but their contributions look excellent and the answers to questions above impressed me. -- '''
'''Support''' Barek has less content work than the average editor, but he does have experience with it, so that doesn't really concern me. However, I am pleased to see his dedication to an important part of our project, [[WP:RSPAM|spam response]], which goes above and beyond what most editors do. I think using the tools there and at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] would suit him just fine.
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support'''. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' When you get the mop, don't forget to mop my kitchen first.  There is dust behind the refrigerator
'''Support''' Can be trusted not to abuse the bit.  --
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate. -
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools.  The fact that he's willing to work in the hard business of keeping spam at bay is a massive bonus, too.
'''Support''', thoughtful contributor. Regards,
'''Neutral''' I generally don't support without significant work on article building, but see no reason to oppose at this time.--
'''Neutral''' per mediocre content work.  No reason to oppose, just no support from me.
I opposed BigDom's last RfA and it was not long before I regretted it. I regret it because it was ill-conceived and based in part on me asking an unimpressive question. I've since seen heaps of good work done by BigDom all over the wiki, particularly as one of the few genuinely competent content creators in football. I also think BigDom has the right temperament for an admin, evidenced by not just the way the first RfA was handled, but I also a tough unsuccessful FAC that was dealt with very well. BigDom is also an admin who will break the mould a bit and question quite a few conventions, which is a very good thing. --
'''Strong support''' User is even better than the last time I supported.
'''Support'''. Good work in a number of areas. Making progress at an impressive rate since the last RfA.
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and since then all I see is improvement - including a serious effort to work on the issues outlined in the oppose section last time. Looks like a committed content-builder, and seems to understand the areas he wants to do admin work in. --
I've seen you around and have no reason to think you'd not be a fine admin. + Good contrbs
'''Support''' looks to have the right attitude about building an encyclopedia, knows how to move and upload and talk.
'''Support''' - a fellow sports editor and long-time Wikipedian, the candidate is familiar; has shown character and fortitude in improvements since last RfA--
Helpful, friendly longtime editor with good contributions. Has taken concerns to heart from the last RfA and addressed them from what I can see, so I see no reason not to '''support'''. Good luck!
'''Support''' - excellent contributions. Seems to relate extremely well to other users, and comes across as helpful, polite and knowledgeable. I see plenty of relevant experience, lots to indicate the candidate would be a good admin, and nothing which causes me concern. &nbsp;
I don't see why not. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' I supported last time, and, I'll support again.
'''Support''' No worries.
'''Support'''. Long since earned my respect, so it's a pleasure to land here. We often seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, especially at RfA, but every encounter I can recall has been civil and you always back your opinions up. I had a quick look at your deleted edits and saw nothing concerning and a few good G10 taggings, which shows you understand things like BLP as well as a good number of F5 tags (since it's an area you mention in the nomination). I see nothing to suggest you wouldn't do a good job and we need more admins, so good luck!
Tempted to add a belated co-nom. --
As per last time, I see no reason not to support. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
Absolutely; a strong candidate. '''
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
Very good candidate. ~~
'''Support''' Of course. Good contributor in all ways. '''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' - The answer to Q4 addressed BLP issue raised at the previous RfA, and overall I can't see any other problems.
'''Support''' - should b e fine.
'''Support''' Trusted user. I am confident they will do great with the tools.
'''Support''' <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''—did so last time and will do so again.
'''Support''' Trusted editor.
'''Support:''' No major concerns. -
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The opposer's rationale is completely unpersasive.

'''Support'''. I have examined what purport to be opposes, and find no substance in them in the slightest. Unsourced bile is no substitute for reasoned argument. However, for the sake of argument, I have also examined the candidate's contribs, and can see no reason why the mop should not be granted.
'''Support'''  User has addressed the concerns I had at his last RfA and I am happy to support this one. ''<B>--
Seems to have improved from March. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' – Excellent article creator with enough experience in admin areas. A definite net plus. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - no probs. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' - I was going to support last time, but the nomination was withdrawn before I could.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' I supported last time. I actually agree with BigDom's position in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji]].
<s>'''Support''' Of course. [[User:Trusilver|<font face="papyrus"><font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver</font></font>]] 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''Strong Support''' in light of the number of opposes from the hand-wringing, yet always humorous, BLP crowd. There have been a few minor BLP issues over time that have needed to be taken care of, yes. But nothing to justify the tens of thousands of man-hours of intellectual masturbation that has gone on by people that really need to find something else to do with their time. Sorry for being blunt, but it strikes me that BigDom understands that. That makes him an even better candidate in my eyes.
'''Support''' After small analysis, I find nothing to be concerned about. --''
'''Support'''. Responsible approach, well experienced, and qualified. Concerning the diffs in the oppose section, well-reasoned and respectful dissent from a consensus position is fine, and the note that he would close that AFD against his personal opinion exhibits a healthy respect for the community.
'''Support''' Experienced, no concerns. I'd missed that (he?) didn't have the bit already. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''. I've interacted with you in the course of developing [[WP:NSPORT]], and we do not always agree, but I am confident based on those interactions that you have the best interests of the Wiki at heart, and that you have an excellent understanding of how things work. I am sure that you will be a very good administrator, and I'm happy to support. --
'''Support''' - Substantial content contributions and plenty of experience outside of article space, and good answers to questions above. -- '''
'''Support''' Due to my brain suffering from overpopulation, I can't remember the former nom, so I'm voting yes since no unopposed opposes (meaning ones that have not been discussed) are visible.
Article writer, won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per thoughtful answers to questions, per Colonel Warden (yes, I know that was an oppose, but the linked discussion shows good judgment and thought rather than slavish adherence to subguidelines), and per excellent effort at addressing issues raised at the previous RfA.
'''Support''' User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Works on content.  Always need more admins who understand this aspect of things.
'''Support'''. A credit to [[WP:Football]].
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and things seem to have improved since then. Good luck! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' - trustworthy article writer and editor. Agree with Seraphimblade about the opposes - the candidate very occasionally invokes IAR, which as far as I'm concerned is a plus point.
'''Support''' - clean talk / user pages - great answers to the questions - sound in policy IMHO. I understand and have noted Malleus in oppose - the commentary in opposition from Colonel Warden is easily ignored. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Opposes don't add up. Don't screw up?
Wikipedia would be benefited by him having access to admin tools. I see no reason to oppose, or !vote otherwise.
'''Support''' Have seem him around a bit and thought was reasonable and good editor.  I share a small bit of CW's concerns but I don't that that should be deadly to an RfA.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, BigDom. —
Good answers to questions, good editing history without significant conflict. I see no glaring errors in judgment. We need more admins like this. <big>
I don't see anything wrong. I think BigDom will make a great administrator. --
Wait, I haven't '''support'''ed yet? '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">~</span>]]
'''Support'''. Another useful addition for the mop. '''
'''Support''' No outstanding issues here.--
'''Support''' Looks ok to me, not persuaded by opposes.
'''Support''' Looks ok to me, has made some mistakes, but appears to have learned from them. In particular, the oppose below based on prior support for another user's RFA leads me to a moral obligation to support - we can't have open and frank discussions here if we are held accountable merely for expressing an opinion.
'''Support''' - Seems to know policy well and has a good grounding in dealing with content-related issues. Should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Glad to do so.
'''Support''' - I  left rather a long  oppose speech on your last  RfA. I also  left  a personal note on your talk  page that  if you  you  follow the advice in the opposes, I would support  your next  attempt. I think you did,.--
'''Support'''. The candidate is intelligent, reasonable, and knowledgeable on policy matters. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A trustworthy candidate. Good luck! ---- [[User talk: Gfoley4|Gfoley4]] (
'''Support''' Mhm. -
'''Definite Support''' for sure.
I'm really sorry to be the first in this column, or indeed in it at all in this case, but I really can't excuse BigDom's support of Terrasidius's RfA. BTW [[User:WFCforLife|WFC]], that prose you praise so lavishly is largely mine.
'''Oppose''' - I feel high regard for our policies is needed in Administrators and don't think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2&diff=prev&oldid=369757716 User:BigDom,s comment here] reflects that position.
'''Oppose''' Checking his contributions for Oct'09, we see him creating lots of stubby footballer articles such as [[Jeff Tate|this BLP]].  But in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji]] he invokes [[WP:IAR]] to !vote delete contrary to consensus.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, because your answers were, generally, good; however, [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]]'s diff is really a dealbreaker: BLP is one of our most important policies and admins should enforce it as strictly as they can, because what we write here can have serious consequences ''in real life''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Some more experience needed in my opinion. Too may examples of questionable judgement and policy/guideline knowledge.
'''Oppose''' per Off2riorob and Salvio. I have read the follow up explanation, however it's still a dealbreaker for me. BLP is extremely important, and it's not just about avoiding "misrepresenting people who could possibly sue". Regardless of whether or not someone may be able to to sue, we have a duty and responsibility as a top ten website to take the time and care to get biographical material right. Having seen through OTRS work the distress and suffering caused to BLP subjects when BLP isn't followed properly, I cannot support a candidate who doesn't seem to "get" BLP.
'''Oppose''' per "BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia and some people really need to get a life" No, BLP still, even after all this time, needs to be taken more seriously.  I can't support anyone who demonstrates a lax attitude towards BLP policy.
'''Oppose''' BLP.
'''Oppose''' over BLP concerns. If those of us who stand up for the principle of doing no harm to living individuals are to be derided as ''hand-wringing, yet always humorous'' by the candidate's supporters, then we probably need to stand up for ourselves. Sorry BigDom, but this policy is not up for grabs. --
'''Oppose''' per Sarah.  The BLP policy is not just a means to avoid lawsuits; it is an ethical imperative founded in respect and fairness.
Sorry to join in here, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABigDom&action=historysubmit&diff=382835661&oldid=382813927 your explanation] shows you really don't seem to understand what we're trying to do here. Wikipedia policies aren't about "preventing us from getting sued", they're all (with varying degrees of success) attempts to make a working system of ethics that's applicable to Wikipedia's unique situation. To me, that explanation reads like someone who's thinking in terms of "what can we get away with?", not "what is the right thing to do?", and that's not an appropriate attitude in an admin in the Wikipedia context. Don't read this as a "never", but as a definite "not now".&nbsp;–&nbsp;
I would have to agree with Iridescent. There are already far too many administrators who do not value our responsibility to individuals in the world who by no choice of their own have been been placed in what we term to be an encyclopedia, but can sometimes be better labeled a libel mill. Hell, I probably was one of those people who undervalued BLP myself before (to be honest, I probably am such a person now, though I try to recognize that and improve). I realize that this RFA will likely pass regardless of what I say here. BigDom, might I ask that after you do pass, pop me a note on my talk page. There are quite a number of emails (76) in the info-en-q queue on OTRS right now, and many refer to articles that need to be radically fixed, which you could certainly assist with and thereby possibly gain a better understanding of the importance of BLP. '''<font color="navy">
Some of the arguments in this column are poor or hair-splitting, but really, our admins need to have a good understanding of the importance and background of BLP, and BigDom doesn't seem to have such an understanding.
I cannot support someone who thinks "BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia" &mdash;
I opposed last time on sourcing, and was hoping not to oppose again. But the BLP policy is crucial: we have an obligation to insist on getting it right. The answer to Q10, "some editors believe that all unsourced material should be removed, even dates/places of birth/death, et cetera, despite the fact that the policy never states that this is the case" isn't an overly strict interpretation unsupported by the policy. It's exactly what [[WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources]] and [[WP:BLP#Misuse of primary sources]] says we ''should'' do. Whether this RfA passes or not, please take seriously the comments made in this section.
'''Oppose''' - On BLP related concerns. It's much broader than a single comment made, but on an overall impression that given the recent BLP shake-up, I think the criteria's elevated.
'''Neutral''' – At the moment not willing to support, for the most part per Iridescent in the "oppose" section, but might reconsider based on responses to Q9 and Q10. <font face="Comic sans MS">
Off2riob ''
The BLP related comments are of concern, but I'm unsure if it enough to outweigh his other administrative ability attributes.--''
'''Neutral''' I would like to see answers to questions 9 and 10 before I make a firm decision, and I, therefore, hope that the crats give this RfA a little more time. BigDom does a lot of good work, and I would like to hear a properly formulated account of his opinions regarding BLPs - the comment cited by several opposers was ill-advised and is worrying, but I am unsure as to how it might affect his work in admin areas.
'''Neutral''' It's all good apart from the take on BLP... '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Thought he already was one... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' I know it's a cliche, but I honestly thought Blurpeace was already an admin. Beaucoup de clue, so [[WP:WTHN|why not]]? --
As nom.
Fuck yes. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' He's an admin at Commons. Blurpeace is an excellent contributor who should also get the mop here. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Very Strong Support''' After knowing this user for the span of my entire active time here onwiki, I am glad to ''finally'' see an RfA. User demonstrates the upmost patience, espeically when dealing with new users. User is also patient when a user shows good faith, but assertive when it becomes obvious that bad-faith is involved in a situation. I think that this user would make an excellent sysop, as demonstrated on commons. Absolutely no concerns, full support. --<span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' should do.
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:X1&diff=prev&oldid=188038809 Can't follow instructions in a sandbox?] How can we support that?
'''Support''' no doubt, would be a great help in multiple locations '''<font color="#999" face="Tahoma">
'''Support.''' Clear support for the blurry one. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
Per Amory.

'''Support''' There's just too many reasons to support then oppose. -
'''Keegan!''' &mdash;
'''Support''': wide range of activities with no disasters. Would be useful to go to for day-to-day admin services.
'''Support''' seems to be doing a good job nominating things for deletion especially in the image area.
'''Support''': Contribs demonstrate industrious work in undermanned areas, answers here show a level-headed approach to conflict. I don't subscribe to the "must create audited content" requirement, and don't think the cited RfA votes are particularly heinous.
Why not?
'''Support''' Great. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Specialist admin candidate]]. One can set all the criteria for an "ideal" candidate (none exists) one wishes, but the bottom line is "will the candidate benefit the project with the tools?" In this case the answer is "yes." User already is trusted with OTRS and as an Admin on Commons-- show has proven common sense. User delves deeply into areas I could never work in and has the knowledge to use the tools in those areas.
'''Support''' Although in my opinion creating articles is like a proof to show how well you understand the Wikipedia policies, he does get a lot of trust from those new users who can't wait to create articles. I think he has read all the existing policies and has used that knowledge to help the others too. Even though he never abused the rollback, I hope he's not a trigger-happy kind of person when he does get the tools he want.
'''Support''', and a very strong one at that. '''<span style="font-color:black;">•</span>
'''Weak Support'''. I was going to go neutral because the opposers raise concerns that are not invalid, however, Dlohcierekim's comment changed my mind- the candidate is obviously trustworthy (OTRS; admin on Commons) and appears to possess enough common sense to do a good job.

This user, no matter if it is here or other projects, is my voice of reason and sanity. I bounce a lot of ideas off of him and he always gives good feedback. I just feel bad I am converting him to become a vexillologist like me.
'''Weak support''': Light on number of edits to article space and highly active for only a year; however, the candidate has been a Wikipedian for 2 1/2 years and has made solid contributions to the project. What tipped the scales for me is his current status as an administrator on Commons, and a firm belief that the project will benefit from his high level of technical expertise.--
'''Support''' I feel that the candidate is trustworthy, and would not abuse the tools. -- '''''
'''Support''' Of course. --
Very intelligent and reeks of clue. '''
We have three very strong candidates at RfA, all of whom I feel will be hugely beneficial to Wikipedia in the long run. Specifically, Blurpeace is a dedicated editor, and dedicated editors make dedicated admins.
'''Support''' per wise comments from {{User|Dlohcierekim}} above <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Often, editing and admin work are mutually exclusive as devoting time to one keeps you away from the other. I don't think an admin needs to be a great editor, but I do want to see an example that a person has ''some'' editing experience to at least have empathy with those who do spend more time working in article space. I see enough from Blurpeace to satisfy me. Contributions outside of article space are impressive. -- '''
'''Strong Support''' mainly to offset the opposers who say the candidate doesn't have enough article creations, because there are admins who AREN'T content creators, and I don't believe in the "must have created x X-class articles" mantra to qualify for the mop.
'''Support''' Commons admin, looks like a great gnome - seems eminently suitable --
'''Support''' - opposes are unconvincing. Solid editor, so I don't see why not!
'''Support''' - in my review I found nothing to say that giving Blurpeace the bit would be anything other than a net positive.  '''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor who will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - seems to be a very helpful and knowledgable Wikipedian.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''':  editor's experience as a Commons admin and desire to focus on neglected areas are more than enough for me.--'''~
'''Support'''. I have interacted with this user before and I feel confident that they have good intentions and would be a great asset to the encyclopedia. I am also satisfied with the answers given to questions in this adminship request.--
'''Support''' based on positive interactions at other projects and per contributions here as well. Trusted.
{{Ec}} '''Support''' Absolutely no reason to oppose. —
'''Support''' Why shouldn't you get the weapons of minor destruction. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - no reservations or concerns here; everything seems to be in order.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. Was under the misapprehension that the candidate was already an admin
'''Support''' - Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and clueful. --
'''Weak support''' Per concerns raised above and in oppose section.
'''Support''' - admin on commons, infinitely patient with new users, willing to tackle file problems, has a clue. Why not? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - I trust this user.
'''
'''Support''' - I think he will be a good administrator.
'''Support'''. All looks ok; I don't know the candidate but the supporters more convincing than opposers. Blocking an IP on-sight for PENISPENIS might be a bit rough but maybe I'm misreading the answer to Q6. --
'''
Yes
Has some content, informed on copyright issues, would work in deleting duplicate images, an area I am fairly frequently involved in and know takes a lot of work. ''
'''Support''' Q6 was not a [[home run]] for me, but somewhere between a [[base hit]] and a standup double. That's good enough.
'''Support''' The PUF and other image backlogs do need more people who specialize in that rather (for me) esoteric and mysterious area. So count this as a support on the strength of your other supporters. <strong>
Good answers to the questions, and enough history that anything troublesome would have shown up by now.  Full support. - Dank (
'''Support'''. As one of the few admins who works in [[WP:FFD]] and [[WP:PUF]] (I can only think of maybe four or five other admins who I notice regularly ''active'' around there), I can definitely say we need more admins in these areas. I see no evidence suggesting that Blurpeace would abuse or misuse the tools. —
'''Support''' Agreed with Dlohcierekim.

I've seen Blurpeace exercise good judgment both here and on Commons. Working in image related areas = even better. We need more administrators there (as Explicit says above). --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Good answers to questions and trusted as admin on Commons. I agree with Explicit and Kanonkas as well.
'''Support'''. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop!
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Blurpeace. —
'''Support''' - Does he have a clear reason to use the tools? Yes.  Do we have any reason to believe he will deliberately misuse the tools? No.  Does he have sufficient experience to use the tools effectively and with a minimum of mistakes?  Yes.  If mistakes are drawn to his attention, does he seem likely to accept criticism in good humour and learn from the experience?  Yes.  Full support. -
'''Support''' mostly per Atama. I think the reason for wanting to see evidence of quality content work is really just as reassurance that an admin candidate understands and can empathise with Wikipedia's most important role. I'm happy that Blurpeace will be of great benefit in those areas he intends to work in and, at worst, won't be a hindrance in the others :)
Complete support, knows what he's doing and will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. Seems responsible and trustworthy. <font color="maroon">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' No concerns ''<B>--
Being a university professor is not required to be janitor at the library.
'''Support''' &ndash; No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Little in the way of content creation, but lots of experience in the image department. That, plus a good knowledge of our image policies, means that this candidate will be a helpful addition at the almost-always backlogged [[WP:FFD]] and [[WP:PUF]].
'''Support''' No reason why not; I don't consider content contributions essential in sysop candidates.
'''Support'''.  A strong colleague among the Commons administrator corps.  Because of the large number of images hosted locally at en:wiki it is useful to have administrators on this site who are well versed in media copyright. <font face="Verdana">
'''[[wikt:d'accord|Oui, je suis d’accord]]. [[user:jamesofur/whynot|Pourquoi pas]]?''' <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' - I have looked through logs and contributions both here and on Commons. Blurpeace seems to well suited to be an administrator here and passes [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|my criteria]] well.
'''Support''' - a great helper. Regards,
'''Support'''. Blurpeace iss a great candidate who should have had the mop and bucket long ago. I'm happy to support!
'''Oppose''' - For a few reasons. A lack of core content contributions (3 created articles that aren't [[WP:REDIRECT|RDs]]), a whole lot of meta-contributions, low levels of edits (especially when considering automated edits), and some fundamental disagreements with RfA reasonings. For the latter, some examples include: Per PeterSymonds "reasons", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be&diff=342777858&oldid=342776962 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz&diff=322858406&oldid=322856202 2], Opposing based on the editor having a narrow areas of interest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_7&diff=311577176&oldid=311575698 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Until_It_Sleeps_3&diff=309150952&oldid=309150732 2], and opposing based on philosophical reasons without an explanation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nosleep&diff=304730368&oldid=304720035 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_4&diff=306986816&oldid=306968594 2]. Also some concerns about policy issues including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008&diff=313143497&oldid=313131309 some misunderstandings] about new usernames (this was later retracted and this reason for opposing is minor). In the end, I don't have enough confidence about this editor's need for the tools balanced against their history and criteria regarding others having the same set of tools. I could be convinced with additional editing, and in a few months, but I'm bothered by the above.
'''Oppose''' - As Shadowjams said, I'd like to see more mainspace content contributions in an admin, since we should all be here to make an encylopedia.  These peripheral tasks can be important, but an admin needs to be focused on editing.  Also doesn't meet several other of my minimum RfA criteria.  --'''
Content contributions just aren't enough for a sysop candidate in my opinion. Wikipedia is about more than policies and vandalism reversion. No doubt that the tools would not be abused, but I just can't support a candidate with such meagre content creation.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of content contributions (only 3 pages created), overall lack of activity (user was not really active until April 2009), low edit count, a very irregular month count, including 300 edits this month, and lack of evidence of extensive vandal-fighting (over the past 500 edits I only see a couple of vandal-reverts). <s>Also, I question why this user was made an Autoreviewer when I (who has created 13 articles) and whatamIdoing (who has created 34) were turned down for autoreviewer rights</s>. If this user becomes more active in Wikipedia, particularly in content additions and vandalism-fighting, I might support at a later time.
'''Oppose''' - per the nomination. This user is a servant, he doesn't require the tools to freshen mah drink. :)
'''Neutral''' - Basically  as per Shadowjams oppose, but  not  enough for me to oppose at this stage.  Blurpeace has only contributed four short creations and they are not  altogether of a quality and/or significance I  would expect  from a (future) sysop, and many  of his/her other main space contribs seem to be small, minority edits. With just  over 5k edits,  I think maybe a more balanced contribution  profile would be  preferable.  I'm also wary of RfA candidates (or contributors in  any  kind of debate) regularly following  the opinions of others; it  might  look to some is if the candidate is trying to curry favour with  a sysop. I may  of course (hopefully) be completely  wrong, but  the possibility  is staring me in the face. Finally, although it is totally  optional, I feel  that  an admin should be prepared to be a bit  more open on his/her user page -  one short line and four neutral userboxes do  not  convey  enough  for me to  know with whom I  am  dealing  and to  establish confidence.-
'''Neutral''' 4 articles created in total, considering opposing as in case of other candidate.

{{ec}} Been waiting for this. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''  '''
Oh, go and transclude it while I'm not looking why don't you? Ah well, I'll just have to belatedly '''support''' as co-nom.
Here goes somthing.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. -
'''Support''' Seen him around. Does good work. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''. Always feel confident that things have been licked into shape when I notice a recent visit to an article by this editor.
'''Support''' One of those RFAs where one can just give drive-by support on the name alone rather than actually reading any of the noms or the questions. --
'''Support''' Seems qualified.--
A decent, familiar name that I see often.
Duh.
'''Oppose''' too many good candidates this month. Need more RFA drama. <small>No but seriously [[WP:WTHN]]</small> --
'''Strong support'''—Excellent content and AIV work! '''
Finally.
I thought he was already an admin. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support''' Rather than repeat what is written in the nomination as my reasons to support, I'll just leave it at per nom and above :)--
'''Strong support''' Good editor, very sensible. Excellent interactions. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - Already thought he was one [seriously].
'''Support''': Another easy one - I've seen Bradjamesbrown around the place a lot, doing all sorts of good stuff, and have no hesitation --
'''Strong Support''' - great editor. I've seen only good things from him. Definitely ready for the tools!
'''Support''' Definitely a no-brainer. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|L]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' The way he's been editing, I would've thought he was an admin already. Definitely deserves it. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' Easy call. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' - the status of the ''noms'' and many of the support !voters is almost enough in itself to make this an easy call but a quick review of the candidate's edits and interactions convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bradjamesbrown will make a great admin --
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''! - Very useful, clue-ful, and civil editor who has been a great help to me. He will make a terrific admin! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' A Wikipedian for almost 4 years (albeit highly active for the past 6 months), the candidate is a familiar name. His main focus and mission from the very first edit has been vandal fighting &mdash; and he does a superb job at it.--
'''Support''' Like Tide rolls, I look forward to working with you as a sysop. <font color="black">'''
I have used the phrase "thought he already was one" before, but I ''really'' thought this RfA was a joke.  Not only did I think he was one, I thought he was doing a pretty good job.  I won't be so quick with that comment in the future.--'''~
Seem him around, but never noticed anything that suggests he'd be a bad sysop. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' per "assumed already was an admin". No concerns.
'''Support''' - Great vandal fighter, thought you were one already. '''
'''Support''', piling on.
'''Support''' as co-nominator. Sorry for the delay.--
'''Support''' - I've had this on my watchlist for a few weeks now.  <b>
'''Support.''' I've seen this user helping with [[WP:RC|recent changes]] and was impressed by their ITN and DYK work when I checked their contributions.  Thanks for all your hard work, Bjb
'''Support''' Doesn't seem to be any issues at face value.
'''Support''' - at least the third good candidate this month. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - I always catch him reverting vandalism which is good, i find all of his work helpful to the project.
'''Support''' - Absolutely~!  --'''
'''[[I Feel Good|i feel good]]''' about arguably the [[Hardest working man in show business|hardest working editor in admin business]] to the extent that i am [[bewildered]] that we have to go through [[These Foolish Things (Remind Me of You)|these foolish things]]. However [[I Don't Mind (James Brown song)|i don't mind]] voting for him as [[I Got the Feelin'|i got the feelin']] that this [[Funky Drummer|funky drummer]] will be well pleased with his admin actions. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Already an admin-by-proxy, cutting out the middleman will be a good thing.
'''Support''' I was about to nominate him myself! First I knew him as a rollbacker, then he worked in the article creation department. He knows all policies well, so Bradjamesbrown has all the right necessities. I'm very excited about the outcome of this nomination.
'''Support''' I can find no reasons to oppose.
'''Wholehearted support'''– He has already proven he will be a capable admin. Finally. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support''' logged actions, deleted content and block log all look good. (Twice blocked by accident!)
'''Strong Support''' Always need more admins at [[WP:AIV]]
I noted his name several times when reverting vandalism, and it was always good work that this user did. They're gonna make a good admin. --
'''Strong Support''' - Exudes sensibility. '''
'''Support''' - haven't we got a good batch of nominations right now! Clearly will be an asset.
'''Support''' Have witnessed his careful and diligent work at AIV, AFC, DYK, and ITN. His interactions while collaborating with other editors has always been calm, helpful, and courteous. The access to a few extra buttons in the areas he works will help the project further.
'''Support''' - one of my regular RC Patrol companions, and he does a bloody good job - not just with the vandalism, but everywhere else he works in too.
'''Support''' OK, he has 80% automated edits - but that means about 11000+ non-automated edits! That is more than a lot of admin candidates have in total (and is more than the editor who uses it as the reason for being neutral!) I've seen Bradjamesbrown about, and seen no problems -- '''''
'''Strong support''' User has both created 68 articles and been extremely active in vandalism patrol, indicating a very well rounded editor. I have no boubts that he would use the administrative tools well. My only concern is that the month counts show prolonged inactivity prior to recently. I do not feel it is a major concern that 80% of edits are automated, as this still leaves thousands that are non-automated, and it is obvious, when seeing that this user has written 68 articles, that he is involved in content creation.
'''Support''' Gives this Editor his mop there be Vandals about, Good work !
'''Support''' I first interacted with him only recently, but have been impressed with his contributions.
Don't have anything to add, except "good work", and congratulations. - Dank (
'''Support''' Always wondered why they were not an admin already. Regards '''
'''Support''' this clueful editor
Really? This is surprising, I feel like I saw an RfA of his succeed just a few months ago. Maybe I'm just confusing him with somebody else... either way, his contributions to this site have been entirely positive and he'll do very well with the tools.
'''Support''' as this should be a net-positive.
'''Strong support''' Almost 1,000 edits to [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. --
'''Support''' Good knowledgeable editor...
'''Yep''' Looks good.r--
No reason not to.
'''Support''' Definitely, Brad's been dedicated and clueful, as well as a great contributor everywhere I see him--DYK, AfC, etc. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Another very useful editor, will be good with the mop. '''
'''Brad Cabal Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
'''Of course''' &mdash;
Per Elockid. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''. Pretty clear.
'''Support'''. good chance of net positive.
'''Support'''. Why not?
'''Support'''. I recognize this candidate from ITN and good participation throughout Wikipedia. -

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' – No worries with me; nice [[WP:AFD|AFD]] and anti-vandalism work. I trust him with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - remember crossing with the candidate quite a lot (perhaps at AIV) and memories are positive.
Come across BJB several times I'm sure, though can't quite remember where, and don't remember any issues. Seems to have a good handle on it all, and answers to the questions are excellent.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' No concerns. ''<B>--
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. I've seen you around a lot, and only seen good things. --
'''Support''' - Another excellent candidate. —
'''Support''': stereotypical "thought he already was one" support.
'''Support''' certainly works with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and will wield the mop fairly. No concerns.
'''Support''' - Always around, always helpful, and alas, I thought he was already an admin, like 90% of the rest in here. -
'''
Alright, but you'll need to stop beating me to reverts ;)
'''Support'''. I see lots of reasons to support and no reasons to oppose.--
'''Support''' - I see no reason to believe they will be anything other than a net positive.  '''
'''Support''' - Delighted to join the throng.  A lot of reasons to support, even aside from his fantastic work in anti-vandalism, which I can vouch for first-hand.  My best wishes for your coming adminship!
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Bradjamesbrown. —
'''Support''' It's about time! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Yes, easy decision.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' Aw, wanted to be the 100th.
100<sup>th</sup> '''support''', no concerns here.
'''Strong Support''' easiest decision I've ever made
'''Support'''. Great candidate.
'''Support''' Thank you for wiring €50 to my bank account. I will return half if the RFA fails.
'''Support'''. Another hard worker who will use the mop wisely.
'''Support'''; Bradjamesbrown is one of the most obviously suitable admin candidates I've ever come across, demonstrating great knowledge of content and great dedication to the project through anti-vandalism work. I would have put this support up much earlier if I'd been around - he will undoubtedly make an even greater contribution with the admin toolset. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' – Happy to pile on here. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support.''' BJB will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' - seems mop-worthy to me,
'''Support''' – Everything looks good. Please don't stop in the mainspace, though. –
'''Support''' Even ClueBot loves him.
'''Support''' Definitely can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support'''
'''Neutral''' - far too many  Huggle edits out of a relatively  low edit count. Too short a time as a regular editor. Too  little article building. But  shows promise. --
'''Support''' as nominator -- '''''
'''Support''' - I remember meeting Bsadowski1 months ago when he was still a newbie. Over the past however many months, I've always been impressed by his cluefullness, his willingness to learn, and his helpfulness throughout the wiki. I've always seen him as a great editor, and it pleases me that he's finally running. <small>(
'''Support''' - Call me naive but I have come to the conclusion only in the past few months that persistent abuse by socks are one of the biggest - perhaps ''the'' biggest - problems Wikipedia faces.  Excellent nom and co-nom... in short, this is an editor I want to see get those extra buttons.  I'm rootin' for ya to get 'em!  Cheerful best wishes,
As the [[Chilean people|Chilean]] [[huaso]]s say, "¡póngale no má' mijo!" (in short, '''support'''). '''
I anticipate there will be substantial concerns expressed in this RfA about a lack of content building. Those concerns are entirely valid. But I am happy to accept that (a) some editors just don't like or don't feel comfortable creating content; (b) those editors can still do an excellent job in backroom tasks; and (c) they can make for competent administrators who benefit the project in their own areas. From what I have seen this candidate satisfies those tests so I will support.--
'''Support''' as per Jusdafax due to the experience in sockpuppet work. In response to the first neutral by WFC, I'd say that while you have a point about Bsadowski1 having little article work, not all admins necessarily do. Less time in article can mean more time adminning the sockpuppet team.
'''Support''' Contributions look very competent. Anyone who can help keep the workload at SPI under control and reduce delays must be a plus. I don't think it's essential to be a big content contributor to be an admin, and what I see of the candidate's article edits and interaction seem good. Looks like a "net positive" to me. &nbsp;
'''support''' This is one of those no brainier RFAs.--
'''Support.''' I recognize lack of content creation can be a legitimate concern to some, but this editor's dedication and hard work show me that their possesing the extra buttons would benefit the project.
Familiar with your work. I remember your beginnings, and you've gradually grown and now I think you're ready to handle the tools. Take it slowly, if you will. '''
'''Support''' I've worked with Bsadowski both on and off-wiki, and he's an all-around great guy. As The Thing That Should Not Be points out below, anti-vandalism and SPI is a dirty area to work in, and we don't have many people who do that. The admin tools rarely come into use with article work, and instead come in use with anti-vandalism and SPI work. Having Checkuser on Simple wikipedia is a huge plus, because that means that he's generally trusted in the Wikipedia community. Bsadowski is one of the greatst peope who I've ever worked with here on Wikipedia, and I hope that we can work together in the future. Best of luck Bsadowski, hope that you do well in this RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' – We need more admins working in [[WP:SPI]], which at the moment is very backlogged. The lack of focused article space edits somewhat worries me, but not enough to make me change my support vote. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' How could I not support? Yes, not much article work, but vandal-fighting is still a rather large area. ~~

'''Strongest possible support''' The opposes do not convince me. Bsadowski1 has been immensely helpful on IRC when it comes to catching sockpuppets and the like. I think he is a great asset to the Wiki, and making him an administrator would only make that better. And, to counter Tiptoety's oppose below, I see asking other users for advice or help as a positive trait. I take it as a sign that '''he won't blindly rush into areas that he has little or no experience in.''' He will ask for help, and most likely take it slow if he wants to go into a different areas. And to counter the other opposes, I should point out that not all of us are writers. So what if he has only written a stub? Is learning the layout of articles, learning how to deal with disputes, learning the policies and guidelines without writing something that people are incapable of? (As a side note, I would say that vandal-fighting, cleanup, and maintenance have given me a very good view of how articles are made, sourced, debated about, etc.) I myself will attest that writing is not my best trait, but I do have my moments (like this one). Frankly everything that I would want to write about has... already been written about. A very large, simply massive amount of things have already been written about. The traits of the Wiki are beginning a transition more towards maintaining this collection of articles, and writing about recent events, and less about things that are already known. Why isn't the community's attitude reflecting that? The package of admin tools is descibed as the '''mop and bucket''', not the '''pen and paper'''. Denying administrators because they would rather maintain everything else that has been written rather than writing things themselves is, in my opinion, a silly notion. Maintenance... vandal-fighting... SPI work... it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. And without the tools, we are very limited in the way that we can carry out those dirty jobs. The people who are already writing, and doing nothing but writing... let them write. It's the maintainers of this encyclopedia that need the tools, and I would say that Bsadowski1 is one of the best persons for the job. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support'''- Unimpressed by the opposes. We are discussing whether to grant a user tools to maintain the encyclopedia, not electing a Pope or selecting a diplomat. The lack of collaboration and discussion would only be a concern if it took the form of unresponsiveness to constructive criticism. Quiet, lonerish wikignome work is ''not'' grounds to deny a responsible user the tools they need to do their work. From what I have seen, this candidate is reasonable and intelligent. Granting them the mop would be a net benefit to the project.
'''Support''' - Nothing wrong with being a WikiGnome and I see nothing wrong with his edits.  Expect good things from him.
'''Strong support''' Oh, yes. I've known Bsadowski for quite some time, and I definitely think that he'll make a good admin. Good luck, Brian
'''Support''' Really no complaints. I'm sure they'll be fine.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and able. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''. Experience of creating content is one route to achieving admin suitability, but doing lots of work in admin areas like SPI and UAA is another. From what I see I'm happy to support this candidate.
'''Support''' his temperament as an admin as evidenced on other projects is sterling and he is experienced in the areas he wants to work.
'''Support''' Everything looks good :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I'm maybe a little concerned with the rather low overall contribution history (not related to "creation" edits), but I think there's enough of a dedicated vandal fighting history I'm willing to support.
'''Support''' entirely per Phantomsteve's nomination.
'''Support''' Good work with the sockpuppet cases, as such I support. --
'''Support'''. I do not believe admins ''need'' to have a lot of content creation experience if they bring valuable experience in other areas. And I am particularly interested in seeing more admins at SPI to reduce backlogs.
'''Wow''' Not yet one? '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Per above. Also very encouraged by the fact that this user is already an admin and checkuser on simple wikipedia. ''
'''Support''' We could always use more sysops who are willing to perform unglamorous and sometimes tedious work to maintain the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' A valuable editor who will be more valuable with the extra buttons, and that this editor comes pre-tested as admin on other wikis gives me even more reason to believe I won't regret this !vote. Always happy to see more hands at SPI, but that didn't influence my decision. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' I'm not seeing any issues. I may put up a question later, but I doubt it would change anything.
'''Strong support'''. The only two possible issues here - low number of talk page edits and limited content creation - are both unimportant because of the good work done on both counts at Simple English Wiki. Good contributions in other areas make this worthy of a strong support.

'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - enough edits, vandal-fighting, and admin rights on another wiki.
'''Strong Support''' One of the few editors whom I trust completely and fully.--
Support - I've worked with him often on simple and meta where he does a great work. I'm sure he will do the same great work here. -
'''Support'''. All of my interactions with this clueful editor make this an easy decision.
'''Support'''—looks good!
'''Support''' – After training him as an SPI clerk and watching him improve over the past six months or so gives me enough confidence to support as an admin. Besides, albeit a small Wikipedia, he is a an admin on Meta and an admin and CheckUser on Simple, and he has already demonstrated enough trust with the more advanced tools. –
I've worked alongside this candidate on simple, and I have great respect for him. He stays out of drama about as much as a CU can do, keeping his head down and doing what is necessary&ndash; content, admittedly, is not his strong point, but is it something that is needed to help with SPI or speedy deletes? I can say for sure that I am confident this user will be a good administrator and I trust his judgement. The lack of in-depth answers to the questions is, well, something he should know better than to expect this community to overlook, but not enough of an issue given my previous interactions with him for me to not end up squarely in this section.
'''Support''' You've always been helpful when I have questions about SPI and other things, and I'm sure that as an admin you'll be an even greater help.  '''
'''Support''' Definitely!
I would like to see a little more consensus building and general discussion; however, there are no alarm bells, Bsadowski1 appears to be committed to the project and is working well within his chosen area of nuisance fighting. I see no problems on my random search, and nothing serious is being reported by others. I have a feeling Bsadowski1 will move slowly and carefully and should make a decent admin. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Weak Support''' Would like more content work, but Brian's UAA, Sockpuppet etc edits overcome the lack of content work. Otherwise no concerns. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Hells yes'''. Brilliant editor, brilliant guy.
'''Support''' nothing wrong here. ''<B>--
Weak support. Brian does good work at SPI, but is rather limited in other admin-related areas. Also, he has little content creation. Overall though, I think that Wikipedia would benefit if he receives these tools.
'''NO WAY''' would I not support this awesome candidate!
'''Support''' per [[:simple:Special:Contributions/Bsadowski1]]. '''—
'''Support'''. Support, support, support, support... Did I mention I support this candidate? I did? Oh... :D '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>'''
'''Support''' - this candidate has done excellent work here and has earned adminship on multiple other wikis.  &nbsp; — '''<font class="texhtml" text-shadow="004400 4em 4em 4em">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Weak support''' - really not thrilled about lack of content contribution...but being round here a while makes one realise just how many chores to do. Better  than even chance of being net positive.
Methinks if he can be trusted with CU on one public project, he can be trusted with +sysop on another.
'''Support''' - Per nom and co-nom
Why not? '''
I trust and respect Brian for his work at Simplewiki and Meta, and his experience will certainly be a net positive. Although his content creation is admittedly weak, he is one of the few I trust with the tools regardless. He knows what he is doing, and some people just aren't writers. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''', why is there so much emphasis on article creation?  It's not like being an administrator makes a difference, and that doesn't seem to be something administrators do much of.  I don't see a good argument that he would misuse the tools, so support.
'''Support''' responsible, trusted user. Will do just fine.
'''Support''' The opposition comments are not unwarranted but I have worked with Brian for quite a while here on en, on xwiki work where he is active and as a fellow CU on SimpleWiki. I think in the end his benefit to the community as an admin outweighs the concerns especially since I have known him to always be careful and to seek help or advice if he needs it as he learns his way around. '''<font color="#999" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - The opposes are far from convincing.
'''Support'''-He's an admin on two other projects and a checkuser on Simple.  He seems trustworthy enough to me, and it looks like he would do a good job. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support''' - Brian is a fellow admin and checkuser on simplewiki. As a wiki, we get a lot of the same longterm sockpuppeteers as enwiki gets coming over to us and working their magic there. He does a great job in this area. He is one of the most active admins I know on the project. He knows how to be an admin. He knows what all the knobs and switchs do. He's got a great understanding of policy as well. He's very active in the protection aspects of a project but also gets involved constantly researching what needs to be done elsewhere as an admin and then doing it. I couldn't recommend him more! :) Good luck buddy! '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Strong Support:''' He is already a great admin and checkuser on simple wiki. In my mind he has proven himself. -
'''Support''' - he's an admin on simple wiki anyhow.
'''Support''' trusted at this level and higher on other major wikis with no problems. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' per Royalbroil and Dwayne. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
A university does not require its library janitor to be a professor.
'''Support'''. per good experience as a sysop on meta and simple. User is civil, can be trusted, and has a clue.
'''Support''' I've read the oppose section, and worried that the candidate might indeed be one of those trigger happy wannabe cops we sometimes see here. However I've now gone through the candidates deleted contributions for the past two months and I saw good CSD tagging. If the candidate's other edits are as cautious and uncontentious then I think Bsadowski will make an excellent admin. - I'll watchlist in case anyone in the oppose section can come up with difs showing recent mistakes by the candidate. But otherwise I'd ask the opposers to reconsider. ''
'''Support''' Proven and capable.
'''ʇɹoddns''' ¡ɯıɥ ʇɹoddns ı os ˙sןןoɹʇ ɯǝɥʇ ʇsuıɐƃɐ ǝʇɐpıpuɐɔ uǝʌoɹd ɐ sı ǝɥ puɐ sןooʇ ǝɥʇ spǝǝu ǝɥ --
'''Support''' Experienced sysop in other wikis and can be trusted to do a good job.

'''Oppose''' - I'm not seeing much evidence of collaboration or interaction with other users, especially in building an encyclopedia. While it is not required that everyone be a scholarly writer, most of your article edits are trivial or vandal reversions.
'''Oppose''' Not enough collaborative work for someone who wants to use the tools on articles.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have ''any'' substantial edits. You have more edits to your own userpage than you do to your own talk page or any article or, for that matter, any discussion page in any namespace. Further, your activity seems to have peaked in the middle of last year and has only started to increase from <100 edits per month recently. I'm not convinced that you have the practical, "hands on" knowledge of policy and current practice at places like AIV and RfPP that can only be acquired by experience. Further, I don't see any evidence that you've ever played a substantial part in ''any'' discussion of either content or policy. This is what pushes me into the oppose section, I'm afraid. The vast majority of admin tasks require interpreting consensus in some form or another and I'm afraid I just can't trust you to deal with that with only a theoretical understanding. Finally, I'd add, that while I feel strongly about this, absolutely none of it should be taken slightingly- if you took the feedback and got more involved and more experienced, I could easily support a future RfA.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not big on the idea you have to make lots of audited content, but I've not been persuaded you have the relevant experience with policies here. I can only see less than a dozen substantive edits to SPI cases, participation in only 16 AfDs (no CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD or TfD), only one dodgy RFPP edit, limited AIV involvement, limited article work, no template, category, or image work, only 3 minor article talk page comments, no helpdesk activity, limited interaction with noobs, vandals, or other users. The answers in this RfA are also quite underwhelming for someone without much demonstrative experience of policy in the areas they intend to specialise in. I'd like to see more examples that you're familiar with policies on this wiki. --
'''Oppose'''. The editor's limited content development and lack of interaction with other users make me uncomfortable with assigning delete and protect buttons.
'''Oppose''' per
'''Oppose'''.  I am concerned about the candidate's apparent lack of collaborative editing experience.  I do '''not''' share the views of some who demand that admins must have significant experience creating featured content, but I do believe it is crucial for admins (even those who will be mostly fighting bad guys) to demonstrate good people skills.  I am willing to reconsider my !vote if the candidate can demonstrate that he does in fact have good people skills (possibly via an answer to question #4 which would highlight some of his best interactions on user talk pages).
'''Oppose'''Nobody can properly deal with things like protection unless they have some experience with the dynamics of how articles get written.   I've supported people here without significant content work if they intend to work in truly specialized areas, but anti-vandal work inevitably implies dealing with articles, in particular, people who are simply writing bad articles.   '''
'''Oppose''' Per my previous comments in the neutral section, very weak answers to subsequent questions, and also per [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]]. The statement of intention to work in RFPP was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. As I've said previously, it's regrettable that adminship is an all-or-nothing deal. --
'''Oppose''' - When I first saw this RFA and started my review I was definitely leaning towards support.  I came back today to register that support and read through the RFA one last time.  After that the answers to the questions pushed me here.  The answer to question 4 makes me think of [[WP:WAX]].  I know that is a argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but seem to be saying that because other good admins have less content contributions than you, you should have the tools too.  This discussion should be focused on what you can do for the encyclopedia not what others have done.  This all brings me to the question whether I can trust you to close xFDs or other discussions based on consensus.  In answer 7, you don't even try to convince anyone that you know the policies.  Your answer is, I am going to do it and do my best to follow the policies, not a very convincing argument in your favor.  '''
'''Oppose''' - the only article he created was a stubby one. If you can expand it to a full article, maybe bring it to B class or someting, OR create a new one that is not a stub, I will reconsider. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Regretful oppose''' - I have had the pleasure of working with Bsadowski in a number of situations on a number of projects, and have always found him to be respectful and generally willing to help. Unfortunately, there have been a number of situations in which he has (unintentionally) shown a lack of critical decision making skills. In particular, he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks&diff=347607046&oldid=347351003 removed as an SPIclerk] for a time because he was failing to "progress", so to speak, and on occasion would make some questionable decisions regarding specific SPI cases. The answers to the questions above raise some concerns surrounding policy knowledge, and I can personally attest to the fact that there are times Bsadowski has asked myself, or other users questions regarding policy and the appropriateness of certain actions. Additionally, I share the same concerns as others above. While I do not feel that article creation is a must for adminship, I do feel that working in more areas of the project than just anti-vandalism and SPI are. Sorry,
<nowiki>{{Tiptoety's comment above}}</nowiki> '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' - Per HJ's reasoning, Tiptoety's eloquent statement above and <s>lack of attention (and a solid response) to</s> a response that fell short on question #9.  IMO, #9 deals with the most important work any of us will do here.
'''Oppose''' - Seems like the user lacks the experience required to work in the fields where he stated he intends to use the tools, as many have pointed out before, and considers his best contributions in a field where he has been forcibly removed from. Also, answer to question #4 isn't really convincing, while I personally could be the posterboy for admins that never did a single content edit at all, the candidate didn't replied to the question at all in my opinion. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' - I must admit the enthusiastic support votes from people I hold in high respect gave me a (2-day) pause. However, answers do not convince me at all, and the lack of dialogue ''and'' content creation ''and'' policy work is just too much to ignore. After all, I cannot evaluate whether the candidate has sufficient [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|clue]] outside SPI. --
I don't believe that the user has enough experience in article building to understand the relevant guidelines and policies, especially regarding BLPs. Lack of content creation is also a serious negative for me.
'''Weak Oppose''' Article writing and skills associated to that need to be developed a bit more before i can support. Just too minimal right now for me to support for an admin. I am impressed with spi and the counter vandalism effort done though as well as nomination statement. I wouldnt think you would abuse the tools or anything the seeds are definately here for doing a good job. I  just think if you did a bit more article writing, with that in hand you could be a great admin and be able to deal with a more broader ranges of issues (which may be applicable to AIV and SPI) that may come up in articles.
'''Opppose''' Minimum article expansion, no reason to trust at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient experience, particularly in the area of content development, and only 100 edits in the article Talk space.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience on this wiki, answers to questions above were quite short, uninformative, and not convincing enough to make up for lack of en-wiki experience.
'''Oppose''' per the weak answers to the questions (Q4 and Q8). The concerns brought up by HJ Mitchell (the lack of collaboration and the fact that Bsadowski has more edits to his userpage than his talk page), the lack of experience with Wikipedia's policies brought up zzuuzz, and the lack of ''substantial'' content contributions raised by Kayau and DGG compel me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Not a content creator but just another wannabe cop.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, answers were a bit short, and only experience at AFD, and more recently, Sockpuppet investigations. Only 0.96% of the contribs are in the talk space. Although his/her account was created in December 2004, this user barely made any edits until November 2008.
'''Oppose''' Concerned about the lack of talk space edits and Wikipedia talk edits. Also the 'top edited articles' concerns me. Not this time. --
'''Oppose''' I'm not satisfied with the main space edits because I go to the toolserver and look at your most edits in an article, it's 10. I think you need to focus more on an article that you like and know a lot of information. <font color="#008000">[[User:ActivExpression#top|ActivExpression]]</font><sup>[[User talk:ActivExpression#top|<font color="#E62020">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Oppose''' per above. Also, answers are unimpressive, and Bsadowski1 has little content work. Edits to his top-edited article are racked up from reversions. Being an admin at Simple and Meta is no testament to the fact that he will be a good admin here. That only accounts for the trust factor, but not whether he is accquainted with the policies here.
'''Oppose''' and it stuns me that I landed here.  I saw the name, recognised it from SPI, and supported based on prior experience with the candidate.  The answers, though, are so lacklustre and lacking in depth of thought that I'm not comfortable with Bsadowski becoming an admin at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Answers to questions seem a bit too terse and shallow, leading me to believe that there may be communication difficulties. A3 does not bode well for editor's policy knowhow. A8 - could one possibly create a more middle-of-the-road answer? A9 - immediately blocking an I.P. after threats of harm is worrisome when combined with lack of proven on-wiki communication skills - I fear this editor may over-react and, while their actions may be well-intentioned, they may likely result in causing more harm than good. Lack of content creation isn't really a dealbreaker for me, some excellent content creators would make / have made less-than-ideal admins, and some excellent admins are just not suited for content creation. One doesn't have to be a magnificent librarian to be a good traffic cop - the problem here is that I'm not terribly convinced that this editor would be a good traffic cop, either.
'''Neutral''' per WFC.
'''Neutral''' per WFC. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Neutral'''. Candidate is an administrator on Simple English & Meta, which is a feather in his cap with respect to trustworthiness; however, his incredibly meager article creations (1 article, 2 redirects) and relatively weak answers prevent me from voting 'support'.--
Lacks the breadth of experience I'd like in an admin, however also unlikely to break things by going outside of his area of expertise. Lack of answers above also a worry, but either way I'd be here I think.
'''Neutral''' I'm not going to rant on the pros and cons of requiring content creation as a criterion for a successful RfA. However, despite having the privileges on Simple English and Meta, I'd need to at least see at least some significant gnome-level work at article maintenance, especially if the candidate intends to work in the AIV arena. --
'''Neutral''' I'm fine with a potential admin having a relatively low proportion of article or talk space edits, as long as they can explain well how they are a good candidate in spite of these shortcomings. In his responses to question 4 he seems to be dodging the opportunity to proffer such an explanation, and likewise Q7 regarding policy knowledge in areas he intends to work. I have decided to remain neutral as Bsadowski has demonstrated trustworthiness and capability in his admin and CU roles on other projects and that is a big plus. I would probably be swayed to support if the candidate could satisfactorily expand on his answers to the aforementioned questions. <span style="font-family: sansation, sans-serif;">'''
'''Neutral'''. I've spent several days swaying between ''support'' and ''oppose'', so I suppose it's inevitable I'd end up ''neutral''. Bsadowski clearly has experience in several areas where the tools would help - SPI is the obvious one, but CSD and others spring to mind. I'm not sold on the "lack of content creation" argument - their article and redirect creations exactly match mine when I went through my RfA, and additionally their articles at simple.wiki look great. My concern is around the lack of communication experience (and HJ Mitchell's ''oppose'' comment about more userpage than talkpage edits is a real concern): admins have to communicate well. I can easily see Bsadowski passing an RfA in the near future - once they've built on their existing strengths - but for now I'm not convinced.
'''Neutral''':  switching my vote per lack of an answer to the question that I posted in the Discussion section, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1#Discussion|above]]. (A response would have provided information on how thoughtful the candidate is.)
As nominator. <b class="IPA">
'''Strong support'''. Trustworthy, has his head screwed on the right way; an excellent candidate.
One of the strongest candidates I have ever seen. '''
'''Strongest possible support''' Absolutely, he would make a great administrator. <span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print;">[[User talk:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]
'''Strong support''', an excellent candidate, does excellent work at WQA and ANI. All the best, --
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful, independent thinker.  All is well here.
'''Strong support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' - I know this is a cliche at RfA, but in all honesty I thought Bwilkins was an admin already. I could have sworn he was. Anyway, with no doubts I support him, he's one of the most clueful and level-headed people I see on the project (and I second Taelus's comment about WQA and ANI). -- '''
'''Support''' - it's way past time!
'''Strong support''' - was considering nominating him myself, and in fact found this RfA when starting to look through his contribs earlier today.  Bwilkins puts a great deal of effort into drama reduction and problem resolution at ANI, which is where I first saw him.  If existing admins did as well as he does, we'd be much better off.  --
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' No issues here.--
'''Support'''. Trustworthy with much experience.
'''Support''', per my conom.
'''Support''' - have seen them around a lot and they're typically clueful... Hate to use the tired old cliche but "thought they already were one". –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' I was very impressed with how the candidate dealt with [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball|the WGB issue]]. In other areas, I haven't seen anything that cause me to be concerned. -- '''''
'''Support''' - I opposed last time, but have since come to regret it, and Bwilkins' answers here confirm that he has the attitude and policy knowledge required to be an admin. His answer to Q8 is exactly what I wanted to see, and matches the impression I've gained of him.
Very impressed with this user's approach to conflict resolution. ++
Impressed with the answer to my question. Spot-checking his contribs shows no issues that concern me. <strong>
'''Strong support''' Good Track and Thank you for your answer to Q9 and the user has clearly overcame all issues raised during previous RFA.
'''Support''' I don't think this has ever happened to me before, but I've genuinely paused for a second and gone "huh? Is this a reconfirmation RfA or what?" Balanced, sane, sound and clueful. No reservations.
Per all of the above. - Dank (
'''Support''' A definite improvement since your last RfA (which I believe I opposed).  You are a net positive to the ANI discussions you participate in and I trust your grasp of consensus in closing AfD's.  Also, spot-on answer to the EL question! '''
'''Support''' Trustworthy from what i've seen of him.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - thought you were..... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' Impressive record, happy to support.
'''Support'''. Surprised to see that BWilkins isn't an admin, but happy to support. Also, good answers.
'''Support''' Absolutely trust Bwilkins.  All the recent edits have been respectable, well-thought out, and helpful around this place. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' Honestly, I already thought that you had the tools already.
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' with nothing else to add.
'''Support''' I consider him trustworthy and sensible.   '''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Sure]]. &ndash;'''
I knew Bwilkins wasn't already an administrator, but I always thought he'd do very good were he ever promoted. On a more trivial note, I have a feeling this RfA is going to have a very large number of supporters; this particular editor is one of the project's most prolific and uncontroversial non-admins. It's just a neat thing to point out. =)
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWiki_Greek_Basketball&action=historysubmit&diff=335447711&oldid=335446559 diff] brought up in the nom pretty much demonstrates everything I appreciate in an admin. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Strong Support'''. Bwilkins isn't an admin already? Coulda fooled me. Astoundingly levelheaded.
'''Support''' I already thought he was an admin! Genuinely surprised he isn't. - [[User:Tbsdy lives|Tbsdy]] (formerly
'''Support''' good chance he'll be fine with the tools and a net positive.
''''Support''' Always visible in places of responsibility, interacting with excellence and grace. Open to innovation while honoring community standards.
'''Support''' No problems
'''Support''' As past nominator I have supported this for quite some time. I only wish I had known early enough to nominate again. One of the few I turn to for actual answers.
'''Support''' Candidate will; make a good admin. ''<B>--
<small>[[User:Redvers/SN|⇦]]'''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]'''
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Strong Support'''. Absolutely.
Wow, I honestly thought he was. Certainly.
'''Support''' - Hmmm, I remain unconvinced of the opposition below. Should be ok.
'''Support''' and throw in another cliched 'You mean he's not already?!'
'''Strong support''' - excellent candidate, mature enough in outlook to be willing to look at his own behaviour as well as that of others should events escalate, does not feel he has a personal mission to 'clean up' or whatever (which makes quite a refreshing change from some recent candidates)
'''Strong support''' – sensible, able, helpful and well experienced. . .
'''Support''' Bwwilkins has said his main area of activity will be in [[WP:ANI]], and I see a lot of activity there. He knows what he's doing. --
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Bwilkins' contributions to ANI are often well considered and helpful and show a sound understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines and a willingness to assume good faith rather than just bounding an acronym around. Having a few extra buttons to push is not that big a deal and I see no reason why Bwilkins cannot be trusted with them. Speaking from my knowledge of him from ANI, I have every confidence that Bwilkins will be of even greater help there if he is able to act, rather than waiting for an admin to act on his suggestion.
'''Support''' very comfortably after the answers to questions, especially question 10. --
'''Support'''. Dedicated editor, with a good recent record - concerns raised in the previous request have not been repeated. Looks good to me. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' the opposes are unconvincing, and largely bring up actions ''prior'' to the previous RfA.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Strong Support'''  This falls under the "always thought he was one" category.  My experience with BWilkins on AN/I has always been positive.  He has shown remarkable civility, patience, and good judgement.  A welcome addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' My impression of Bwilkins is a solidly positive one. His efforts at defusing conflicts at [[WP:WQA]], [[WP:ANI]], and elsewhere are commendable. As an admin, he would surely be an asset at such boards; I expect he would be helpful with the ability to block, both in instances of disruption and in instances of username violations at [[WP:UAA]]. I normally would balk at supporting a candidate with 1375 edits to ANI, but such users are typically [[WP:RUBBERNECK|rubberneckers]], and Bwilkins is not a rubbernecker. Kudos to him for his laudable approach to the WGB affair, and for his work on [[Trinidad and Tobago]] and related articles.
'''Support''' Although I disagree with the nom's hearty praise of Bwilkin's AGF willingness to handhold such a screamingly obvious troll as Hellenic Hoops Boy, whose antics may not have bust anything but certainly were a time-wasting piss-off. And such a visible example of extreme forebearance was rather timely, so it seems. But not all wrong judgments are bad ones, so give him the extras and let him get on with doing his stuff where and with whom it actually matters. Which he does admirably well.
'''Support''' - This candidate's patience with dispute resolution will be useful on Wikipedia.  I also liked his answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - I have an overall positive impression of Bwilkins, although at this moment I can't tell what that impression is based on (wikistalk is denying me access). Regardless, adminship is appropriate because it will make his valiant efforts at WP:ANI and other venues even more effective. --
'''Support''' - per candidate's answers to questions, attitude, experience and per my intuition - same as Orlady, I have good recollections about this user name, but don't remember from where and when.
'''Weak support'''. Reasonable participation in the areas in which he intends to work. No real concerns, even though the humor could be less acid (grammar jokes and allusions to mental illness).
'''Support''' - Per Ed's rationale. Please also take into account Pcap's support.
Should be fine.
'''Support''' has clue, should be an admin. ''
'''Support''' Opposes are rather unconvincing.
'''Support''' From what I've seen, candidate will make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' --
'''Strongest Support''', although admittedly biased. One of my favorite wikipeople, I would trust him with the tools and with the drama policing. --
'''Weak support''' - clearly meets my standards, but I am not a fan of his sarcasm.
'''Support''': Escalating in admin areas, working hard. No major objections, but <u>minor</u> concern about how you 'get to the point'. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' – I'd pretty much support any candidate who puts up and tries to deal with the endless river of crap that goes on at WQA day after day. –
'''Support'''. I believe he will make a great admin, and the Oppose votes haven't been able to convince me otherwise. —
'''Support''' Still dont agree with your handling of editor Wiki Greek BasketBall,  and will offer some feedback on your talk. Even so you easily seem  a net positive overall, and I like how you AGF.
'''Support'''. What I've seen of the candidate indicates level-headedness and responsibility.
'''Support''' I have absolutely no concerns that Bwilkins will be anything but a fair, insightful, and helpful admin. Hand him the mop! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - didn't realize you weren't an admin already. <b>
'''Support''' - per cliched argument above. --
'''Support''' All my interactions and observations of Bwilkins have been positive. By the way, I '''did''' realize you were not an admin, and am here to help rectify that.
'''Support''' Seen him around, only positive recollections. --
'''
'''Support''' I have trust in Bwilkins that he will do a good job.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''': No reason to oppose. And may I say, regarding your liberal manner of expression: ''Honi soit qui mal y pense''
'''Strong Support:''' I believe he will make a great Admin, and the Oppose votes  convinced me he has a sense of humour. -
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate...
'''Support''', good work.
'''Support''' Looks good enough for me. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''', even though the candidate can't distinguish between "diffusing" and "defusing". Ready by now, just a few rough edges. The "fuckface" comment was ill-advised though well-intentioned. Net benefit to the project, probably. --
'''Support''' - Does a great job dealing with issues on ANI, and is a bit more independent in thought and action than the usual cookie-cutter admin candidates, which is always nice to see.
Seems fine to me.
'''Support''', Good candidate for the mop. Keeps a level head need more of those people
'''Support''' per UnitAnode.
'''Strong Support'''; we need more users with the mop like Bwilkins! Very level-headed and a great asset to the community.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''', looking forward to having Bwilkins on the team.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I'm impressed how Bwilkins so civilly tried to handle the WGB situation. His response to question 8 also indicates to me that he will not charge blindly into battle. An administrator must often have pause, not to have to be the first one in admin guns blazing. Sometimes it's indeed best to just back away.
'''Support''' - show that he's learned from past mistakes and is ready to be an admin.
'''moved from oppose support''' - Despite a few misgivings, I have a generally good feeling about this user and think he will make a good admin. He's responsible, civil, unlikely to delete the mainpage, break the wiki, or block Jimbo. While I feel that he has the tendency to gravitate toward politics a little more than I would like to see, I do note that he does a good job of not wading into the drama therein. That combined with his strong article contributions really tips the scales for me. I normally oppose people who spend too much time at [[WP:ANI]] or seem to enjoy participating in [[WP:RFC|requests for drama]] too much, but despite that, there's too much to like with this candidate.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' Everything looks in order for now.
I am a bit unsettled at the candidate's past comments in BLP-related issues.  See [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNadya_Suleman_.282nd_nomination.29|here]] for an example.  I realise this diff was actually brought up at his last RfA and was made quite a while ago, and while I imagine the candidate would certainly do some good work with the extra buttons, I am a bit leery of the candidate's slanderous comments.  Such comments, while not inserted into an article (thankfully), reflect extremely poorly on both the candidate and the project as a whole.  Apologies, but I am strongly opposed to this request at this time [[User talk:Ocee|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''ocee'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Candidate is being described as civil and level-headed, yet his previous RfA garnered a throng of opposes based on concerns over temperament and gross incivility. Sorry, but I cannot support. <tt>
'''Oppose''': he has made some ridiculous statements in the past that tell me he should not be an admin.--
<s>'''Strong oppose'''.</s> '''Never'''. Didn't have to get very far in reviewing the editors' contributions, for which I thank Bwilkins. I also want to thank Bwilkins for letting me know what a "fuckface" is,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=338353928] and for bringing it up at AN/I. There's so much that's unimportant and dramatic going on at AN/I, that's it's always nice to get in that extra little conversational edge on the truly important matters. --
'''Oppose'''. I was going to leave this one alone, even though I'm not nearly so impressed with Bwilkins' work at WQA, but after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&action=historysubmit&diff=338939007&oldid=338938377 this tacit support] for not deleting unreferenced BLPs, I've decided to go ahead and follow my gut and oppose.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Ret.Prof]]; I want a shrubbery.
'''Strong oppose''' ANI is a place people should be able to ask for a serious answer when they have concerns. To make a joke about a civility issue (thus condoning the behavior) is completely inappropriate. If this thinks that it is funny to throw around terms like dick, fool, idiot, and fuckwit during a content discussion, this person clearly places no value on WP:CIVIL, on of Wikipedia's five pillars, and has no business being an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - Unlike my oppose against [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6|Everyking's Rfa]] just now, this is a !vote that is not even close, and will only have the effect of a protest.  However, I agree with those that have concerns about your judgement in the use of language and civility.  I think in dealing with members of the public you have to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  Joke or not, I could wish for better judgement and urge you to consider your future words with greater care when you are handed the tools today.  Admins really need to lead by example, as I see it, and civility is important to many of us here when it comes to working together.  Thanks for your consideration of the concerns expressed about this point, my congratulations on the trust you have earned from this community and good luck, always.

Neutral move from weak oppose. From what I've experience, getting an oppose vote from unexpected person could be upsetting, but he behaved civilly, and tried to improve himself. Decltype's concerns that affected my vote are matters of some times ago, so I'm switching my vote for now. Good luck.--
Let me be the first to '''support'''. Active and trustworthy editor who works in areas where the tools could help.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|<s>Weak</s> Support]]''' - 3 articles created strikes me as quite strange in an RfA when someone is asking about DYK, however other then that I don't see a problem. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' Anyone who spends time around DYK can put the tools to good use, and I can't find anything that persuades me Calmer should not have them.
'''Support''' Lots of edits, around 8 months of experience and a good number of Did you know's make it decent enough to let us supporters know what you're waiting for.
'''Support'''. Always calm and polite from what I've seen, does good work at DYK. Deleted contribs show a good understanding of CSD and PROD policy, created articles are neat and well-sourced. Very unlikely to misuse the tools. <tt>
'''Weak support''' - Take things easy in controversial areas and I think you'll be just fine. You seem like a calm individual with a willingness to help. Net positive. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Support]]'''. Competent, calm (as indicated by the username!) and wants to work in admin-short areas.
'''Support''' because contributions do not look suspicious at all, [[WYSIWYG]].
'''Support''' Contributions are a tad on the light side (I do like to see a GA...), but editor clearly appears here to build an encyclopedia.  I have no concerns at this point--specifically, I found Editor Review to be a waste of time myself when I went through it as a non-admin, so you have my sympathy there.
'''Support''' I find the "Manuel of Style" link in his/her userpage strangely endearing.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Srtong Support]]''' I have seen you around DYK since I first started to participate there. Your work there is enough to make me support. I only wish that more people would be like you. Good job on your current work and good luck in the future!--
'''Support''' Per Q7. I like your approach of walking the user through the events nessecary and of course getting them to ''think'' about what they are actually doing. The query is a tad open ended, and the answer to this is solid . DYK work is admirable. And strong dedication these past months reassures me further to support. I think you will make a strong admin. Good luck
'''Strong Support''' - This is the best admin candidate I have yet to support.  I think [[User:Calmer Waters]] has absolutely the right temperament for the job.  I have worked with this user on several very complicated content areas, and [[User:Calmer Waters|Calmer Waters]] has shown to be a careful and responsible editor.  I believe the user's current work on the [[List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Palmoplantar_keratodermas|palmoplantar keratodermas]] (still a work in progress) is just one example.  I agree with some of you that this user does not have an extreme amount of experience in all the areas involved with adminship, but his consistent careful and cautious approach to contributions leave me reassured that he will do well. ---
'''Support''' From what I see, a qualified candidate who does good work around here. Having been active for at least 6 months is fine for me, and while the lack of more AfD involement may sometimes cause me to oppose, this candidate has no plans to do much work there, so i don't see too much of an issue (although more participation is always a good thing). <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support'''. <s>Six</s> Eight months experience is not too short for my vote. DYK experience demonstrates a strong understanding of fundamental project principles (verifiability, NPOV, etc). Nothing in the answers to the questions or user's history sways me away from a support. --
'''Support''' per co-nomination.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' Calmer Waters is highly qualified to take on the role of admin at [[WP:DYK]].  I first encountered Calmer Waters when he approved one of my DYK hooks; I've subsequently noticed what excellent work he's done at DYK. Careful, constructive, helpful, questioning &ndash; like Materialscientist, I've seen this candidate display these traits. The answers to the questions look fine, so I'm confident that Calmer Waters will handle adminship both at DYK and elsewhere splendidly.
'''Support''' No concerns with you right now.
Looks highly knowledgeable.  Six highly active months are most definitely sufficient.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' despite my strong disdain for DYK
As long as he starts just at DYK, sure. Take it slowly from there and you'll be fine. I think you're plenty trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' per question answers.
'''Support''' &mdash; looks good!
'''Support''' Competent and almost psychotically prolific for his relatively short time here. This editor does a lot of very high quality work and seems to stay away from the politics. Zero drama-mongering and other assorted asshattery at [[WP:PITCHFORKS]] is a huge plus, in my opinion. I'm supporting for the same reason that (I have little doubt) others are going to oppose; because he has gone almost completely unnoticed. He has built himself a nice foundation based on good, solid work. That makes him the best type of admin candidate there is.
'''Strong Support''' — Excellent DYK work. —'''
'''Support'''. Clueful, productive, amiable. Fine candidate, No problems here. --
'''Support:''' Possesses a calm, even temperament and carefulness of thought, and is considerate, helpful, polite.  Nothing concerning in history or contributions.  Will do just fine, :-)
'''Support''' Despite noting the opposers' concerns, I feel that the candidate has done good work, and I do not see any cause for concern. -- '''''
Adminship is about the careful exercise of judgement; if an editor can demonstrate that they know when to act, when not to act, and when to seek advice, everything else can be learned on the job. Looking through Calmer Waters's editing history I believe they possess this quality and will make a competent and trustworthy janitor. '''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' - Candidate looks fine. (By the way, for what it's worth, I have over 35k edits, I have been on WP for 3.5 years, and been an admin for about 10 months. During this time, to the best of my knowledge, I have participated in a grand total of 2 AfDs.)
'''Support''' Seems fine. Good luck!
I have seen much of CW's work at DYK and, like Materialscientist, I think he's doing a good job explaining issues to article authors and helping run DYK. I have seen a few problems&mdash;[[User talk:Calmer Waters#Marinelli]] is an example&mdash;but think he will do great as an admin at DYK. Wisdom89 thinks CW is too new, but I believe I have seen enough of him to know what to expect. Polargeo has issues with CW's lack of AFD votes, which I don't think should be detrimental: he is working in other areas of the encyclopedia, and is doing a fine job there. I just checked and in fact I did not have ''any'' votes in AFDs before I became an admin.
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' CW has asked me for advice several times and from what I have experienced in my interactions with them, they are a civil, thoughtful and helpful user with the best interests of the project in mind. Will be a great help at DYK. Regards '''
Yep.
'''Support''' - Decent contributions, great answers to questions, shows quite a bit of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. -- '''
'''Support''' — youth (or should it be WikiYouth?) should never be a means to quantify experience. I am not afraid to see a mop in your hands!
'''Support''' Everything that I've seen at DYK shows that Calmer is ready for the mop, and we can always use more help. '''<font color="#000000">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support.]] &ndash;'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has multiple DYK credits, has received at least a half dozen awards from other editors, has approached me in a mature and civilly fashion as seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Nobody/List_of_traps_in_the_Saw_film_series&diff=319033273&oldid=268638608 here], and as the candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''': No problems I can see. DYK could do with more help, especially since [[User:Chamal_N|others who promised to do so]] are neglecting it ;) ≈&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good, responsible contributor.
'''Support''' A very helpful user at DYK.
'''Support''' as all looks good to me
'''Support''' [[m:user:Katerenka|m:Katerenka]]
'''Support''' Seems like a very calm person, just the right temperment for an admin.
'''Support''' tenure is relatively short, but the candidate has been active and has clearly picked up a good understanding of this place. I also like the civility and cluefullness they've shown in this RFA. ''
'''Support''' evidence suggests reasonable chance of net positive with tools.
The candidate seems thoughtful and cautious, and assuming good faith that their conduct here is indicative of future behaviour it would seem highly unlikely that their being an administrator would be anything but good for the project. Thank you for volunteering,
'''Support''' I do not see any problems with this user.  Good answers to questions. ''<B>--
'''Solid support''' – I was considering nominating Calmer Waters myself for RFA. This user has lots of clue, and I not worried about only being onboard for less than a year. –
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Helping at dyk is commendable. Good to go.
'''Support''' - Yep,
'''Support''' - I've known this editor for a while. Would make a very good administrator. [[User:Samwb123|Samwb123]]<sup>
'''Support'''. Calmer Waters is always over at DYK, assembling queues in the preparation areas, so he certainly has enough experience there.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''.  Clueful, appreciated thoughtful answer to #20.
'''Support'''.  Meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular -lots of edits, great User page, Autoreviewer/Rollback rights, etc.
'''Support''' Candidate is thoughtful, willing to learn, and level-headed.  --
'''Support'''. The candidate is trustworthy, helpful and mature. I see no compelling reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''': No concerns here. Would be a welcome addition.
'''Support''' answers to questions (not just mine) show a good knowledge of policy and a helpful attitude. A few random dips into the contribution logs show no problems.
'''Support''' Nice answers and I'm fairly certain you won't break anything around here.
'''Support:''' A net positive. -
'''Support:''' More help at DYK would benefit all.
'''Support''', good user. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' The username is particularly apt.
Hard worker, good people skills, easy call. - Dank (
Yes, why not.
'''Support''', a good candidate for the role. --
'''Support''', per DYK work.  —
'''Support'''. I see no problems from this prolific editor.
'''Support'''. Sure thing. Recognize this candidate from DYK. -
'''Support'''. Good points, non-confrontational at edit conflicts.--
'''Support''', I've looked closely at Calmer Waters' edits, and been very impressed by what I've seen.
'''Support'''. I'd assumed Calmer Waters was already an admin.--
Certainly. I thought I'd already !voted, but apparently not. No alarms, no surprises.
'''Weak oppose''' - Qualifier - This oppose is subject to change. Your tenure here is rather short and your tasks are relatively perfunctory. My standards tend to be rather high for supporting candidates who are relatively "new".
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 13 and 14 regarding the BLP issue. Closing "no consensus" BLP's to "keep" is poor form, whatever the current policy may or may not say '''
'''Neutral''' I haven't seen anything to oppose on but I am not seeing any real strong significant expeience at AfD or CSD. You may not wish to work in these areas but without more evidence of contribution in these areas I cannot support. I am willing to change my oppinion if evidence is provided.
'''Neutral'''.  per short tenure.  Other than that, good user. -'''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Neutral]]''' - Per a lack of understanding in the BLP arena, I cannot say that ''I'' fully trust Calmer Waters to make the right decision. I see that you are already likely to pass this RFA, so I say good luck with the tools! <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Neutral'''Seems kind of new for an admin (I started last August and they started in May).  What's the edit count; not to violate [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS]]?  I don't know; seems kind of like a WikiGnome.-- <big>
As co-nominator. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' per nom. Ceranthor is a great, trustworthy, and friendly editor. Good luck! :) '''''
'''Strong Support''' per my nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' too many edit conflicts :)--
Nominated him last time, so naturally I think he'll do just fine with the bit. &ndash;'''
'''Support''', looks fine. I haven't done too much of a detailed review of contributions, but I've certainly noticed none of the maturity issues recently that were apparent prior to the second RfA. Plus, I trust both the nominators and all my experiences of Ceranthor recently have been positive - best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceranthor&diff=prev&oldid=275246036 Support]''' ''
'''Support''' by the same reason I supported the previous RFAs. (This user can be trusted with the admin tools.)
'''Support'''. Excellent content contributor. Scan of admin-like contributions (just to be sure!) looks fine, including CSD work. --
<s>Support</s> per nom. An article builder who also has experiecne with the admin related areas. Trust the nominators. Boring talk page. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Readily meets my standards.]] Has remedied past problems.
<font color="#E45E05">
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Lots of experience, and I think he has improved significantly since his last RfA. --
'''Support''' Strong editor, has matured ''a lot'' since I first saw him on Wiki.
'''Strong support''' Terrific editor, will be the same as an admin. <font face="Segoe Print">
{{ec}} '''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' Definitely, long overdue. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Why yes of course!
Enthusiastic support. - Dank (
'''Support'''- absolutely.
'''Support''' I thought you were one already.
'''Support''' Another fine candidate for admin. Looks good! --&nbsp;
'''Support''' He'll do.--
'''Strong support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Strong support''' per nom. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Strong support'''—'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', ceranthor has overcome the issues from last RfA (which was a while ago—plenty of time elapsed), and I have no concerns with him holding the mop. :-) '''
'''Support''' - certainly. <font face="arial" color="#E8A317">
I am pleased to support Ceranthor &mdash; an editor who has demonstrated, over a lengthy period of time, a certain degree of conscientiousness that is not found in very many people. He is always willing to lead, to listen, and to learn. Even if he's not perfect, or if he's not been perfect before, or if he'll ever ''be'' perfect, I know I can trust Ceranthor &mdash; and that's really what it's all about. Trust.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I don't see any current problems remaining from the last RfA, just lots of good work and plenty of relevant knowledge and experience - looks like being a good month for RfA :-) --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Suuport''' <small>Gasp, fall over and pinch self</small>. Wow! Such a great wiki-specimen! I would never be able to do such content contribs!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good experiences with candidate. '''
'''Seriously Strong Support'''. I supported both of your previous times and you've just gotten so much better so a regular "Support" just won't cut it.
'''Support''' I only oppose without reviewing candidates. Sheesh! ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
<s>'''Oppose''' Because he resisted my efforts to goad him into it last month.</s> '''Support''' anyway.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Long overdue, will make a great admin.
'''Yep'''.
'''Support''' - high probability of being net positive.
'''Support'''. Noms made their case well. Seen a lot of good from this editor, pretty sure they're ready. --
'''Support''' No reasons to Oppose from me. --
'''Support''' Sure. Ceranthor is a good member of our collective.
'''Support''' this editor would do great with the mop, from the look of his contribs.
I commend your proactivity in WP:AIV and WP:UAA. --
Excellent job, deserves the mop.
Duh.
'''Support'''. The concerns expressed in previous RfAs appear to have been overcome. I think Ceranthor is ready for the mop now.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
'''Support'''. Good involvement in [[WP:UAA]] & [[WP:AIV]] too.
'''Support''' - it's ages since I've seen a name on this page that I actually recognise!
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already. I've seen his name around enough.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. No concerns. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' has my support, will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''', absolutely. I looked at your speedy nominations since September, and based on that I have no concerns about your knowledge of the speedy criteria. Also liked the answer to Q4. Good luck!
'''Support''' Competent. I'm satisfied with answers to Questions for Candidate. No concerns with this user. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''', Ceranthor has matured since his LordSunday Meldshal42 days into a fine and helpful contributor to Wikipedia-- I believe he's ready for the tools!
'''Strong support''' &ndash; undoubtedly one of the best around. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support'''. I've seen Ceranthor mature on an almost daily basis; no concerns that he'll abuse the tools, and every indication that he's all clued up.
'''Support''' - Great contribs, from what I've seen from him around the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - I supported last time round, and I'm happy to do so again. Ceranthor has contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia and I haven't found anything of concern. While I don't think the concerns of the previous RfA were baseless, it should still have passed in my opinion. Ceranthor has passed my [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]] and he should make a compotent admin.
'''Volcanic support''' Ceranthor is a pleasant user that understands what Wikipedia is about. He'll make a fine administrator, and his passing will surely be a net gain for the project.
I thought he was ready the first time, honestly. <strong>
'''Support''' Looks like he knows what he's doing.  Meets my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|criteria]] for admins.  --'''
'''Support''' Certainly knows the territory...
'''Support''' thought he was one already... <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' No concerns from my reviews of his work,  '''
'''Support''' No concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Friendly and knowledgeable.
'''Support''' Net positive.
'''Support'''.  As far as I can tell, he would make a fine admin. <i>
'''Support''' Looking over concerns about age and the concerns of "the voiceless", I still think this is a fine candidate.
Constantly surprised Ceranthor isn't already. JulianColton is one of our best admins, and isn't (or wasn't for a long time) legally of age, so I don't see that as an issue.
All looks good - a dedicated contributor who could really use the tools for every day tasks. Best of luck. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' He obviously knows what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=0.999...&diff=prev&oldid=356861905 vandalism] is. A mixture of article promoting ''and'' admin coaching means support comes in for me. Haven't seen any evidence of cooling issues though, but he is trusted, to say the least.
'''Support''' as the user is evidently dedicated to the project. I see no concerns.
'''Support''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_characters_from_The_Simpsons#Helen_Lovejoy Helen Lovejoy]'s vote notwithstanding. User is an obvious good choice, and has been for a while.
Since the only opposition is petty, I '''support'''
'''Support''' - a clueful and experienced editor. I have no concerns regarding their ability to be responsible and fair as an admin.
'''Support''' - I often see Ceranthor in admin-related areas, making helpful suggestions and showing quite a bit of clue. -- '''
'''Support''' - Per above, great work on Wikipedia!
'''Support''' - Ceranthor's heart is in the right place, and his actions mirror this. I think that he will be responsible, and will always act in the best interests of content generation and general happiness on this encyclopedia.
'''Support''' I've seen Ceranthor about in various areas, and have had no bad experiences of him - I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''
'''Support'''. I've wanted to support Ceranthor for adminship before but had some hesitations related to maturity. However, the fortunate thing about such an issue is that it naturally resolves itself with time. ''
'''Support''' Seems to have overcome all concerns raised on his second RFA as far as I can see, so there is no reason not to support him. :-) Regards '''
'''Support''' - I don't see any serious reason to oppose this motion.  Everything looks to be in order.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' for the third (and hopefully last) time. Great content contributor, as well as other places around the 'pedia. Deserves the admin bit. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''[[WP:100]]''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - I have no concerns. Quite the contrary, this candidate seems to be easy to work with and has made good contributions. I'm not sure why his age matters.
'''Support''' - Wikipedian for > 3 years with > 15,000 edits. Broad range of experience. Solid credentials. Showed fortitude, improvement after two unsuccessful attempts. Hopefully, the third time will be the charm.--
'''Support''' - Per contributions in the recent past.
Seen this editor around, definitely have no concerns here.
Edit history looks great. No worries about this candidate. /
'''Support''' - good editor, no reason to believe that adminship would destroy the wiki (although it may reduce article contributions).
'''Support''' Seems mature enough to be an admin, whichever jurisdiction s/he lives in. &mdash;
'''Support''' Fairly experienced, feel he could make good use of the admin tools.
Good to go.
'''Support''' Good content contributor with a mature attitude IMO. -
'''Support''' - I'm not  one to  be impressed by  a large creation  count, particularly  of one-line stubs and redirects, nevertheless he has hugely  contributed to quakes & volcanoes, he has a well balanced participation in a diversity  of encyclopedia-building  activities, and  looks like a consistent  editor with  staying  power. I  can't  see any  strong reasons not  to  support.--
Aren't you one already?
'''Support''' - Good contributions, friendly, well-trusted by community - why not? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' Long since earned my trust, and [[WP:WTHN|I have no reason to oppose]] --
'''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Ceranthor. —
'''Support''' - No reason not to. Plus 42 is indeed always the right answer.
'''Support''' &ndash; has all the pieces, and has put them together in the right way. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' Mop-worthy, and a good solid contributor.
'''Support''' This is probably overdue, though I understand the reasons for waiting. Ceranthor is friendly, hard-working, and seems sufficiently trustworthy. He has a ''lot'' of commendable content work under his belt (I enjoyed skimming his six FAs), and his commentary in administrative areas is valuable as well. If he is underage, he's on the upper end of the maturity scale for such editors, at least given what I've seen. In any case, his vast experience with [[WP:DYK]] and [[C:SD]] make him a good fit for fulfilling administrators' duties in both places.
'''Support''' Seen him around several times. Looks quite good.
'''Support'''. No problems at all. [Would a bureaucrat consider an early close here?]
'''Support'''. Ceranthor seems to have genuinely matured since last July. I have no concerns with hanging him the mop and bucket. —
'''Support''' No obvious recent errors of judgement, but everything else seems to be fine so I will support anyway...
'''Support''' No problems here. Can be trusted --
'''Support''', clearly a good editor.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]] - hate to pile on like this, but I don't think this candidate should be allowed to escape the mop again!--'''~
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Seems mature enough now and his commitment to content creation is most welcome.
'''Support''' After checking through contribs and particularly talk-page comments, I have no concerns about maturity or any other issues. Happy to support. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support:''' An ideal candidate. -
'''Support.''' What more can I add to what has been said?
Agree with Useight.

'''Very Strong Support''' because he refuses to answer Q6. "Our ideals of transparency" in this case only apply to admin ''actions''. There's nothing in our "transparency ideals" which states than an admin must provide personal details regarding their personal life outside of Wikipedia. This type of request is just as invasive as asking about an editor's sex life, and it's just as much none of our business. As the WMF has never required proof of age for adminship on any WMF site, it is not and should not be a requirement imposed here. Also, everything I've seen from this editor shows me that they "get it" and would not abuse the twiddled bits. ···
'''Oppose'''. I feel as though I have no choice but to oppose this nomination for the voiceless among us.
'''Provisional Oppose''' until and unless candidate asserts that he is of legal age in his place of residence.  Nothing personal, contributions look great, but I will always oppose child admins, and as of 9 months ago, that was you.
'''Oppose''' due to failure to answer question 6.  If the candidate was willing to answer a yes or a no, then  maturity of contributions could be assessed. I can't say that there is much adults only admin work though.
'''Oppose''' Due to Q6. I find the failure to give a straight answer to a serious question to be incompatible with our ideals of transparency, and a very undesirable quality for an admin, regardless of what the answer might have been. (For the record, if the question had been grossly intrusive, such as about the candidates sex life, I wouldn't object the the failure to answer.)
'''Beat-the-nom support'''—I opposed weakly last time based on the answers to some of the questions and concerns over his content contributions. Connormah has definitely addressed those issues (see the nomination and question 4, for instance), so I'm more than happy to support.
'''Support''' Like people who work images---'''
Good nom - yes the last RfA failed but it was very borderline. As I supported then I will obviously support now for the same reasons.--
'''Support''' - I supported you last time and I'm happy to do so again. Work in images is excellent. Opposers last time were unconvincing, even overly fussy. Best wishes,
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' as I did last time. Solid candidate who deserved to pass last month.
'''Support''' for the third time in a row per my reason in the first RfA, but also the concern has been released as Wehwalt mentioned.
'''Support''' I've only interacted with this user once, but does seem friendly. I see a net positive with this user.
Absolutely.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Longterm user, clean block log and his last RFA shows an ability to handle flak. Yes the last RFA was relatively recent, but it was also unusually close. So if he has since addressed the concerns raised by the Oppose !voters I see no reason for him not to run again after a shorter wait than would have been appropriate for someone who'd failed clearly or for reasons that take longer to fix. ''
'''Support''' supported last time and my rationale still stands. ''<B>--
'''Sleepy nom support''' Of course.--
'''Support''' Yes. Supported last time, very much respect this editor and belive them to be a net benefit
'''Support''' I like that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_3&action=historysubmit&diff=381060216&oldid=381045500 said] in his answer to 4 that he'd block anyone falling under the category "users" without warning.  Takes chutzpah.
'''Support'''. Lots of progress since last time round, especially on the content front, which was my main area of concern.
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and I'm happy to support again. --
As co-nom.
This editor has more than enough article work to alleviate apparent fears they may misuse admin tools. Getting an article up to GA standard isn't easy, and FA is even harder. With regards to the single oppose so far, I think it's off the mark. I also think that counting article creations is inappropriate on RFA. The candidate could have created over 9,000 articles but they might have all been unsourced BLP stubs. It's quality over quantity on Wikipedia. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
Looks good to me. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' - Same as last time - don't see anything that would change my mind.
6 weeks is generally a bit low to try again at RFA, but Connormah seems to be on the right path. Although I opposed last time, I shall support this time in recognition of the work you have done to improve your editing. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''', per the two nominators who summed things up rather well.
'''Support''' as a net positive.
'''Support''' - good track record of positive contributions, a clear desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason to believe that he would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' - though I agree that this is perhaps a bit too soon, I believe that the candidate has learned and improved since his last attempt. <small>I would, however, gently suggest that he consider re-reading [[WP:RS]].</small>
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' – In spite of only 6 weeks between this RFA and the previous one, I am supporting based on your improvements. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' – congratulations on raising your content game so quickly (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Charles_Wilson&diff=cur&oldid=364757896 improving Herbert Charles Wilson]). -
Looks fine to me. ~~
'''Support''' <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support'''. I supported the last time and I'm supporting again. It would have looked better to wait a bit longer after the last RfA, but I do not blame the nominee for having accepted the nomination. --
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - almost 20,000 edits, sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. P.S.  I did not take part in the last RfA.
'''Support''' - No concerns and frankly, someone opposing an editor with a GA and DYK because they aren't a content contributor is being ridiculous. -- '''
'''Support''' Satisfactory answers.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''

'''Strong Support''' Absolutely. Great, trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support''' I supported last time, I see no reason not to now.
'''Support''' if only because the opposes make so little sense. I'm all for admins being content creators, but article creation is a poor metric for that, and this user has actually done good content work. Then there are those who say he is hasty, or something, but I don't see why we should care how long ago the previous RFA of a good admin candidate was. Contrary to DGG, I find his answers concise and to the point (though a few are indeed a bit vaguely worded). I have no reason to doubt that he'll make a great admin; good luck!
'''Support''' per Fastily. --
Yeah, it's been six weeks. So what. Connormah's sensible, civil, and professional. I don't see why anyone wouldn't trust him with the tools, even if he doesn't do a lot of content work. '''
'''Strong Support''' - Worked with this user on an FAC.  User is knowledgeable, knows the systems and policies in place.  Will make a good admin. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yes!
'''Support'''sure. <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Taking a chance here, but I think you have grown. Good luck...
Great editor, no problems here.
'''Strong support''' Yes yes yes yes yes. Great editor, i see no reason to oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' I supported last time, and have only seen more good work since, so I support again. &nbsp;
'''Support:'''  The Candidate has great potential and will be a net positive. -
'''Support''' - candidate has shown they can turn their hand to new tasks and do a great job of it; they can find their weak spots and address them. The 6 weeks thing doesn't bother me at all - I might have leant towards Oppose in the case of some self-nominated brat desperate to gain more power, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
'''Support''' per convincing nom by Wehwalt, fine contribs, and because I find the "time elapsed" rationale for opposing wholly unconvincing.
'''Support.''' More time between noms may have been the tactically correct choice if the goal was [[WP:TROPHY|winning]].
'''Support''', this user seems to have necessary experience and contributions, and Wehwalt's discussion of BLP issues from last time is also encouraging.  I don't see any good reason to say that Connormah will misuse the tools.
{{agree|Pro}} I donna see problems. --
support, per oppose rationales below. In particular, I have no problem with sysops that just do janitorial work or whatever. Having this sysop does not mean fewer sysops with content experience. Small backlogs are good. I don't see the downside.
I cannot in good conscience withhold support in this RfA.  See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_3&diff=prev&oldid=381283941 last edit] though where I admit to feeling uncomfortable at first. '''
'''Support''' Although I hesitated because of the short time since the last one, that one ''was'' close. I have no problems with an admin who doesn't contribute majorly to article creation (don't we have thousands and thousands of editors who ''do''?) and I am in favour of janitors wielding the mop rather than tenured professors. My only advice would be that if Connormah ever does venture into CSD, to start with really obvious ones (copyvios and the like) - and feel free to ask for advice from experienced admins (hell, you can even ask me if you want to!) -- '''''
'''Weak support''' I was leaning neutral until I looked at the individuals who were supporting and those that were opposing.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">
'''Support''' - Didn't last time but will this time because the concerns the last time have been taken to heart. Not loving the tone of this RfA though (through no fault of Connormah).
'''Support''' On merit from looking over a few days, and anyway because a nom by Wehwalt is good enough for me.
Contribs since Aug 1 look fine. -
'''Support'''  Knowledgeable, productive contributor.  No concerns from me that the tools will be abused.
'''Support''' I was a conflicted neutral last time. Lots of positives, but some concerns about content creation. While the content in the intervening six weeks isn't enough to move candidate into the ranks of strong content creators, I've seen enough to alleviate concerns. I am puzzled at the timing. Candidate has participated in enough RfA's to know that three months between attempts is often viewed as a minimum, and it is not uncommon that three months isn't viewed as sufficient. I fear that this tactical blunder may be the difference between success and failure. Six more weeks, and this might be a shoe-in—unfortunately, the clock gets reset, so if this fails, it isn't just a matter of waiting six more weeks. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Really good contributor, these admin tools would be put into good use for sure. '''''
'''Support'''  Not without concerns, but my primary concern in the last discussion (I'm a stickler on BLPs) seems addressed. I wish the candidate had waited a bit longer, but I also respect the enthusiasm. <small>And without meaning to call anyone out, I would ask that folks opposing using questions of "content creation" would (as a favor to me) consider a different choice of words. Images are content, too. I do understand and sympathize with the idea that article creation and test are our primary product, and mean no disrespect to that idea. But the candidate's contributions are signficant and have made Wikipedia a better resource.</small> --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' per HJ Mitchell. --
'''Support''' Looks like a decent editor. We're handing him or her a mop, not a [[Brain surgery|cranial saw]].--
'''Support''' I see no reason to change my stance since the last RfA.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully considered the opposers and neutral commenters' concerns and find them unpersuasive. (In particular, I consider "he wants to be an administrator too much so he shouldn't be one" to be a rather weak basis for opposition.)
'''Support''' per HJMitchell.
'''Support''' happy with the answers now, no issue with the Six weeks, the last one was a very close call.
'''Support''' no problems. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' great candidate! --<b>
'''Support'''. I supported last time, this time is no different. Three months is a good time to wait for a candidate who ''fails'' an RfA: Connormah's last RfA fell within the closing 'crat's discretionary area and I feel a shorter wait before the next RfA is entirely appropriate.
'''Support''' - problems raised in last RfA, problems solved quickly, people interpret that in itself as a new problem to oppose over. In my view Connormah will be a definite asset as an administrator at this time. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|'''Support''' in the role of dealing with vandalism. Is sufficiently ready to perform in that role.]] I would suggest demonstrated ability and undergoing mentorship before going beyond that role.  <small>expanding</small>  also, per Mazca, per Joe Decker, per Phantom Steve, per nyttend, per Bob Rayner.
'''Weak Support''' While [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FConnormah_2&action=historysubmit&diff=372735551&oldid=372725195 I supported in the last RFA], this time round I feel that you reapplied too early since your last RFA. However, improvements have taken place since then, so I feel that I can support again. --
'''Support''' - After careful consideration, and in particular, investigating the points made by HJ Mitchell in his co-nom, I came to the conclusion that the candidate did make a valiant effort during the six-week period to address the concerns raised in the last RfA. He deserves a chance.--
'''Support''' Seems to be qualified.
'''Support''' - knows what he's doing, seems like he would do a good job as an admin to me. Also, I have to add opposes along the lines of 'too soon since last RFA' strike me as particularly weak - if the worst thing about Connormah is that he's too keen to become an admin, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
'''Support'''- clearly knows what he's doing, and by all rights should have passed the one in July (which was as borderline as you can get), so I'm sot impressed at all by the people who reckon it's too soon to renominate.
So it's been since weeks since the last one, who cares? [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Article writing isn't a necessary part of being an admin.
'''Strongest possible goddamned support''', because it's the only way to boldly (ho ho) make up for the rampant stupidity of most of the oppose section. You've produced GAs, that's good enough on the content side for me. You've got AV and similarly admin-related experience, excellent. Done. Anyone who feels different can drop a note in my suggestion box *holds up waste paper basket*.
'''Support'''. A positive contributor with a substantial track record and reasonable grounds for wanting the tools, and I see no red flags. The many opposes for "too soon" after the last RFA are surprising to me. The result was "no consensus" and the candidate made a very reasonable effort to address the concerns of the opposition. If he had done the same thing for a no-consensus FA or XFD nomination, I would not consider six weeks too soon for a new nomination, and I see no good reason why it is too soon for this one. --
'''Strongest possible support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_3&diff=381894988&oldid=381890839] --
'''Strong support''' per Shirik. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' The opposes are unconvincing and in fact make me make me want to support more. Looks to be a net positive '''<font color="#999" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' per [[WP:GETSSHITDONE]] (I know, it doesn't exist... but shouldn't it?) I see no legitimate reason why this user shouldn't have the mop. He has a demonstrated use for the tools. He is unlikely to break the wiki, delete the mainpage or accidentally block Jimbo. As I have said before, it all comes down to trustworthiness and competence, everything else is standard RFA political asshattery.
'''Support'''  Qualified.  Period.
'''Support''' per my comments on [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Connormah|your editor review]]. I normally oppose users in RfAs if they have no real major content contributions to the encyclopedia, but you've contributed a great deal unlike what some of the opposes are stating. Although I'm a little bit wary of an RfA coming so soon on the heels of a failed one, your dedication towards improvement and your quality contributions lend me to support.
'''Weak support''' It is quite soon since your last RFA, but I do see content work since then. Plus, image admins are always important. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' -
'''Support.''' I didn't read or participate in this person's previous RfA's. I find the Oppose votes, generally, to be extremely weak. Who cares if he had a recent RfA? What does that tell us about his likely performance as an admin? He ate the burger and went back and ''changed''. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? It takes a big man to accept good advice and change his actions based on it. Who cares if he appears to really really want to be an admin? Good for him. In your job (if you're a manager) and an employee really really wants a promotion and does the things that make this possible, do you go "Nah, wants it too much"? We're supposed to be working to take our skills and responsibilities up the the next level. As to content creation, good grief. First of all, he ''is'' a perfectly adequate content creator, and second of all, administrating is not about creating content. "Only" seven articles created, give me a break. Everyone can't be good at and interested in everything. His answers to the questions are perfectly fine. I'm looking at a lot of oppose votes that basically seem to be "Oppose: Not perfect." People, please. And we need admins.
'''Support''' per all the reasons below used to oppose. Let the record reflect that the previous RfA almost passed, the criticisms were noted, and the candidate addressed them. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''
'''Support'''. I think RfA has lost the plot. None of the opposers say he can't be trusted, so what's the prob? If he stuffs up (doubtful), what's the prob? Easy fixed.  Re contributing/creating content, I suggest everyone read [[User:Trusilver]]'s comment way down below in the oppose section.
'''Support'''. Not convinced by the opposes. There's no real reason to not give the tools to this fully qualified candidate. He has the clue and a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia, that's good enough for me. --
Nothing wrong with being keen to help. --
Give the guy a chance to prove [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3o4NsRCHrI he was born to be an admin]. ;)
'''Support''' Seems to have a reasonable grasp on the project and no reason not to [[WP:AGF]].
'''Support'''. I have no concerns.
'''Support''' per nom. I don't see a reason not to give him a mop. -
'''Strong support''' Nice collegiate approach, responsive, works with images, good  mix of content building and content defence skills.
'''Support''' I don't seem to have any history of interaction with this user, but I like everything that I see in his responses to questions here and in his recent edit history. --
'''Support''' - Responses to questions are good. Seems overall to have dealt with the issues raised in the previous RfA.
'''Support'''. The main concern is how long you waited. I'd perfer if you waited longer (~4 months) but so far it looks like all concerns in the last RfA have been resolved. <s>[[User:AutoGeek|AutoGeek]] ([[User talk:AutoGeek|talk]]) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)</s> '''—[[User:I-20|<span style="color:black">I-20</span>]][[User talk:I-20|<span style="vertical-align:super;">the highway</span>]]''' 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) - <small>Silly me, was in the wrong account! (I need to look more closely)'''—
'''Support'''; although six weeks is usually to short a time between RfAs, that last one was so borderline as to raise the question whether candidate has since successfully addressed the issues addressed there. In my view, s/he has. Article creation is not the be-all and end-all here, and I see '''nothing''' to indicate that Connormah would misuse the tools. Accordingly, support I must.
'''Support''' - I see no problems to not give him the mop. '''
'''Support''' - per OlEnglish.--<span style="font-family: Orlando">
'''Support'''.  Opposition is entirely based on RFA etiquette rather than editing practices.
'''Support'''  As per Newyorkbrad whose judgement I fully trust.
'''Support''' Clearly has learned from the criticism of previous RfA attempts. Seems level-headed with a good understanding of policy.
'''Weak Support''', been considering this for a while now and taken several looks at it. On balance I would say it would be a net positive promotion, as the user has clearly learnt from previous mistakes and thus has the qualities to be a long term benefit. ---'''
'''Support''' - For same reasons as last time, except that this candidacy is stronger than before, and meets my [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]. Like last time, I can find no comments from the candidate on this RfA which meet [[Wikt:badger|the definition]] of "To pester, to annoy persistently". 6 weeks is a perfectly reasonable time between RfAs, and while more time is needed in some cases, given that I supported last time, no further waiting is needed as far as I'm concerned. As long as they don't disrupt the process, I have nothing against users running for adminship frequently, nor against candidates politely responding to opposes to ask questions, apologise, clarify e.t.c.
'''Support''' We need the help and Connormah is qualified.
'''Support''' Time since last RfA is a non-issue to me; I don't buy into people putting themselves through this process just to get a God-like sense of power.  Calls for content creation make ''some'' sense to me, as an admin is asked to judge the extent to which articles/content comply with policy—inferring that someone who has created "good" content is more likely to be able to make these judgements in the admin role.  So here we have an individual with policy experience, content creation experience, and the knowledge to stay away from things he/she doesn't understand.  Net +++. --
'''Support''' Opposed last time based on content/BLP concerns, confident that those have been dealt with, and have no concerns.
'''Support''' - Although six weeks ''is'' a little short, he has done a lot of good work since then.
'''Oppose''': I'm sorry to be the one starting this list. The user seems well intent to fight vandalism, and that's good. However in my opinion a great content provider is the best qualified person to have admin tools. In my experience in Wikipedia the most time consuming issues are content related. Per his userpage this user has a DYK, and some help in one FA and one GA under his belt [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Connormah&oldid=381013437]. This is way too little: The user also has only 7 started articles [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Connormah&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects]. I continuously incite users with incredibly high contributions to become admins. We should have more admins of that nature: academic scholarship and content related qualities is what I value the most and, unfortunately, this user is not part of the strongest people in those areas. I am aware I might stir up controversy with my vote, but in my time in Wikipedia, the only problems that I've had with admins relate to their poor knowledge of content or inability or unwillingness to read well the articles and the epic wars related to it. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' Per Sulmues. 7 new articles doesn't cut the mustard sorry. Not enough of a real content contributor.
'''Oppose''' No o serious attempt to answer the questions, just like last time.  fortunately, he doesn't have any real need for the tools, so he can continue the good work he's been doing.   '''
'''Oppose''' per DGG and because this RFA is too soon, in my opinion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I supported last time, but this is too soon subsequent to the July failed RFA... and of more concern to me, it's obviously leveraging the Chicken Little path to adminship.
'''Oppose'''. A mere six weeks between RfAs displays an unseemly haste.
'''NO NO NO''' Failed last month, Coming back a month later pushes me awful close to a no never.--
'''Oppose'''. The short time period between this and the last rfa doesn't sit right for me. That this one was started the day after the two GAs were promoted also doesn't feel right. I personally don't particularly care about the whole content creator thing, but I do care about adminship appearing to be "levelling up" in the game of wikipedia. I just get wary when someone seems to want it too much.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with DGG, address the issues in your last RfA and come back after a dignified effluxion of time.
'''Oppose''' - Agree with MtD --
'''Oppose''' - In my opinion, six weeks is too short of a time span to determine if the issues from the last RfA have been addressed. Also, one of the issues in the last RfA was a possible lack of understanding of some core policies. CSD for example. You didn't answer the (admittedly optional) question 6a. That does not help your case in my opinion.--
'''Regretfully'''. It should be noted that I supported last time, which in itself is rare for me for candidates with little or no content experience. But content experience ''was'' a legitimate concern last time. The fact of the matter is that while your recent creation record is impressive, a few weeks is not a long enough time to deal with things such as people making edits you do not agree with to articles you have an emotional attachment with. This RfA ''itself'' demonstrates at best questionable judgement on the part of the nom, late co-nom and candidate. Last time I was prepared to gloss over your lack of all-round experience on the grounds that would mainly stick to non-controversial, technical decisions in an area we could do with an extra admin in. But given that anyone could see that this was going to be controversial, I can no longer assume that you will stick to non-controversial calls. And given that I am now weighing up your ability to make controversial calls, I find myself here. --
'''Oppose''' Speedy renom and answers to questions are perfunctory or absent.
'''Oppose''' I have had so many concerns about Connormah (as stated in previsous RfAs) to do with CSD, understanding of policy and other issues that repeat RfAs with slightly altered reasoning has just gotten me in a knot and as this new RfA unfolds I can only see a reason to oppose a candidate who changes their intentions over such a short period of time in order to get the bit.
'''Oppose''' Six weeks since last failed RFA.
'''Oppose''' - This RfA is very premature and the decision to go ahead with it rather hasty. I like eagerness in my candidates for adminship, but this is just coming off as bad judgment and a desire for status. That's just my perception.
'''Oppose''' – I've actually thought long and hard about this, maybe longer than I have with any other RfA. I did indeed "tactfully ignore" (as Courcelles aptly puts it) your second RfA, and have tried to do the same here. However, something is niggling me which I can't ignore and neither can I sit on the fence with it. I believe you have the commitment to the project, I don't think ''anyone'' can deny that, and I have no doubt you will make it in the end, but it's just the sense of urgency you seem to have about getting ''There'' – this mythically positioned place in the echelons of Wikipedia. It's not just the fact that this is only one month after your second RfA, it's your ''third'' in 6 months and 3 weeks – the time it, arguably, takes for just one to come and go. Now, I think this is because you have become very good friends and colleagues with your nominators Wehwalt and HJ Mitchell, for whom, I stress, I have the greatest respect, and you maybe feel you are missing out on something if you are not a fully-fledged member of The Club. I don't really see in your contributions a need for the tools. In your second RfA, you were opposed on the grounds of content contribution versus vandalism fighting. So, in your third RfA you have worked on the content contribution (for a month), but seemingly forgotten what it is the tools are for. Now, I know that may seem like a "FFS! Damned if I do, damned if I don't!" situation, but it is all about balance. And consistency. If you are Vandalbane the Great or Sherlock Sockpuppet, have little content creation to speak of, but I often find myself blocking or deleting on your behalf, I will support you; if you are Mr GA 2010 but find it frustrating when someone has plonked a great big redirect where you want to move a more appropriately named article with a rich history, I will support. Or any mixture of the two is welcome. However, since this RfA started it seems you have avoided contact with anything and everything at all (apart from userspace article work) – this doesn't really tell us what you ''want'' or ''intend'' to do; only that you are perhaps scared to do anything in case it has an adverse effect on this Request. There's no consistency, and vitally, no character to assess therein. Nothing more to say, I'm afraid. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Very Weak Oppose''' I'm sorry but 6 weeks is simply not enough. This nom shocked me when I saw it because it seemed like just yesterday when you ran for the second time. Just give it a few ''months'' and I'll support. It does not appear that you've really fixed all of the issues from RFA #2 in that short amount of time. Just the fact that you decided to run again so soon makes me question why you want the bit.--
'''Oppose''' Only 6 weeks since the last failed RfA. I might support you if you wait another 6 months to 1 year and you can do more articles (about 30 or more) and do more DYK articles, more FAs and more GAs.
I do not believe an editor could satisfactorily deal with all the issues in their last RfA within 6 weeks. The fact that you addressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FConnormah_2&action=historysubmit&diff=373949290&oldid=373933570 my concern regarding the sourcing of fair use images] ''a day'' before this RfA is also problematic, to say the least. I would've hoped that a candidate would take criticism on board immediately, and not a day before the next RfA started. And the fact is, you haven't even sourced all the images either. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando_International_Airport_Logo.svg][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skellefte%C3%A5_AIK_Logo.svg][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atlant_Moscow_Oblast_Logo.svg][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingston_Frontenacs_Logo.svg] Sorry, but I do not believe it is acceptable for a candidate to address their concerns for the sole reason of passing an RfA (sorry to be blunt, but that's how it looks like to me). [[WP:NFCC]] is important. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Seems too inexperienced.
'''Weak oppose''' This is, without question, ''way'' too soon for another RfA. For me being an administrator isn't a big deal, but this push so soon makes this appear to be something that is a big deal to Connormah. He does good work, but I think DGG and Polargeo raise some good points. Take a couple of months, <u>at least</u>, before applying again should this fail. The wiki isn't falling apart, and will survive should you not become an administrator this summer.
'''oppose'''. No doubt that you are not a typical vandalfighter-sysopwannabee. You contribute real content. I wouldn't care too much about the sneaky nomination practically immediately after the failure: thirty opposes is a lot but not an overwhelming veto. But why do you have to confront every opposing voice? And do you realize that Wehwalt's too-evident support makes more harm than good? The way you handle the process is not a good sign. I see poor judgement and agression. No, thanks.
'''Oppose''' – "Final (88/30/11); ended 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)" ?? Surely an editor with a modicum of judgement would feel that attempt 3 is premature? (I see the average is slightly better at the moment, so perhaps attempt 4 or 5 in mid-October or so will succeed.)
'''weak oppose''' I think on the balance it is more likely he will be a benifit rather than a negative.  But quick re-RfA and lack of solid answers to questions (or any at all in some cases) lead me to have doubts about judgement and communication skills.
'''Oppose''' per above, mainly with the RfA being premature.  Plus, oppose badgering is annoying as hell.
'''Neutral''' - I'll be overly  fussy  again, but  a bit  less severe: I !voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of the need for his own recent  unreferenceed BLP stubs  to  set  an  example to  others, and the fact  that  he promises to do  everything  right  if he is promoted. I  still  say  that  admins should be a role model and a breezy  six weeks down the line isn't  enough  to  convince me of a change. I'll give him the benefit  of the doubt  though, and assume he is in  the process of improving, and I move from  oppose from  last  time to  neutral this time. And please note that  neutral is neutral - it's not  a weak oppose.--
'''Neutral''' Six weeks is a short time. I'm not convinced that accepting a nomination so early after the last one was the best decision. Almost over-eager, to me, but I suppose that's up to opinion. I'm not trying to bash the nominator's judgment either, but I think that six weeks can't possibly mean everything has been fixed, and lessons fully learned. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral''', will support if Q6 is answered satisfactorily. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' (from Oppose in #2). Because on the one hand it seems unfair to oppose due to the candidate being eager to improve and stand for adminiship again. Still, it almost feels like yesterday that the candidate ran last time. I like Connormah's honest and straightforward stance on blocking and the warning system. His somewhat diffident approach to deletion and questions regarding deletion, not so much. <code>
'''Neutral''' I think there are quality arguments to oppose and support here, but this is a quality editor and I hope they don't become disheartened from this process.
'''Neutral''' I voted support the last time around, but would have preferred this candidate wait a bit longer to reapply. That said, I think he's capable and has shown a desire to improve on the areas where he was found wanting the last go-round. I'd support if he reapplied in a few months, and kept up the good work. Right now I can't bring myself to support nor oppose.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. Plus, opposes are weak imo. Minus, quickly RFA since previous one. Minus, why so much  [[User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#YGM|emailing]]? Regards,
Some convincing opposes. ''
'''Support''' Been waiting for this one.  Good luck!
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' I feel truly lucky to have spent so many months working with Dabomb87 (mainly at FLC), he's the most dedicated Wikipedian I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, bar none.  Good luck.
'''
'''Of course''' &mdash;
<small>([[Help:Edit conflict|too many people supporting this candidate]]&#32;× 3)</small> <font face="Segoe Print">

This user should definitely become an administrator.
Took you long enough to submit this. Happy to support. '''<font color="navy">
Looks fine to me.
Have been waiting for this.
'''Support'''. Bit of a no-brainer decision. --
'''Support''' no-brainer —<font face="Cambria" size="3">
'''Support''' - I admire people that can admit they have made mistakes in the past, and learn from them. If the mop will help you in your work, I'm happy to support you.
I've made a big deal about X!'s edit counter in the last few days, and look forward to reviewing my neutral !votes tomorrow. That said, I don't need the counter for this one, as I'm very familiar with Dabomb's contributions. His record generally speaks for itself, but what I will add is that he has that rare balance of being forthright about his opinions, while at the same time being one of the most level-headed editors on the site. --

Yesyesyes. Extraordinary user and brilliant work in both writing, reviewing, and directing the reviewing of our best content. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
So that I don't have to correct all the TFAs anymore.
'''Support'''.
([[Help:Edit conflict|Edit conflict]]) '''Support'''. I've run across Dabomb on several occasions in the [[WP:FLC]] process and in every instance I've interacted with him, he has come through as professional and dedicated to his work on Wikipedia. That he can admit that the whole date-linking business was a silly mistake is impressive, and I'm glad that he's learned from his past. I'm incredibly happy to support such an outstanding editor and I wish him luck as an administrator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' without reservation.--
Can have no qualms about supporting such a well-qualified editor. Like the carefully considered answer to my question.
'''Support'''. I don't see any reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''You mean he isn't already?''' --
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' 'nuff said.
'''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Absolutely''' <small>I thought you already had the mop.</small> -
'''Hell yes'''! I could never work out why the f*ck you weren't one already, but I'm glad we now have a chance to put that right and, having seen you on several pages I stalk and on my very occasional excursion to FLC, I support without hesitation.
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' Well, duh! No concerns whatsoever that he'd abuse the tools.
Arguably one of the best candidates we've ever had. Dabomb is civil, professional, intelligent, helpful, and diligent at his work, not to mention that he's very humble and works behind the scenes. '''
'''Support''' - I've only seen good work from you.
'''Support''', solid long time contributor with a need for the buttons.  Anything to help with the basketball BLPs come playoff time... :)
Among the most productive contributors to Wikipedia. Shame we had to wait so long for this nomination, but better late than never, I guess. <small>This IP is used by
'''Support'''.
'''<s>Request</s>''' Dabomb87 can be a bit abrasive.  I support as long as he/she promises to him/herself to be less abrasive and not be a bomb.  He/she is not abrasive enough for me to oppose.
<span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Support''' The nominators put it better than I can.
'''Support'''. While not knowing this user well, I've encountered them recently in the FL area. Seems a reasonable editor with a long term commitment to the project. I've seen no issues, and it would seem, no one else [[#Oppose|↓↓]] has either. Cheers,

'''Support''' No doubt about it. Dabomb87 is very helpful.

'''Strong support'''. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Assumed you were one.
'''Support''' Definitely dedicated and adds to the project.  No concerns here.
'''Support''' Without hesitation.--
'''Strong support''' (ecx3) DAMN YOU SANDYGEORGIA... Dabomb was on my radar from last year! Unfortunately, when I was reviewing him last year I realized that the incident he discussed above would have precluded him from passing RfA (I think bomb and I had a short convo about it back then.) I've been planning on re-reviewing bomb ever since then. But I have nothing but respect from my personal interactions with him and his dedication (at least at the time) to the FLC process.---'''
'''Support''' Thoughtful and hardworking candidate ;) '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' &nbsp; — '''<font class="texhtml">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Support'''. Very helpful, great work ethic, has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. The endorsements from highly-respected editors really helps too. --
'''Support''' good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Of course. --
'''Support''' This one's a no-brainer. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' Good choice and good luck...
'''Of course''' - strong candidate, no concerns that I can see.
Yes, please. Helpful and experienced editor who no doubt will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Broad and deep level of experience; cerebral answers; well-qualified for the mop--
'''Support''' Very strong candidate.  I've no doubt he'll use the mop well.
'''Support''' - I've been waiting for this to go live. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - No objections from me. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' - I dealt with this user at FLC, and he was very helpful and knowledgeable.--
Without a doubt.
'''Strong support''' - extremely trustworthy candidate who will put the mop to good use. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
A not incompetent not nitwit. ''
'''Strong Support''': Worked with this user on my FAC, good user, very knowledgable, give that man a mop. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why did this RFA take so long to happen?--
'''Support''' Looks good, best of luck.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' -- Although I can actually empathise with Dabomb's action that led to his brief block, he displays maturity in acknowledging that he would act differently now. He makes a substantial contribution to many areas of the 'pedia and I have no doubt that the tools would broaden his contributions further. A trustworthy candidate. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Mature and acts with reason.
''sans aucun doute'' --
'''Support.'''
Answer to Question 2 starts with an incredibly cheesy half-sentence, but '''support''' nonetheless.
'''Support''' You've got some good people on your side, and while I don't think I've ever seen you around, I trust many of these users. '''
'''Support''' excellent reviews at FAC and, well, everywhere. Hope you continue them.
'''Support''' Glad I checked the RFA page!
'''Support''' – Yes. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support'''.  Easy one.--
Looks good.
'''Support'''. Although I have long forgotten the way to FA section, my past recollections were of a hard-working editor who will be even more efficient with the admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Easiest call I've ever made on here.
'''Support''' No concerns. &nbsp;
'''Support''' per [[User_talk:Dabomb87/Archive_23#If_I_have_any_admin_TPSers...|the nudge I gave in July]] and per many of the above, particularly Ealdgyth.
- <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - Solid editor with a good focus on building the encyclopedia. Was worried about the block, but his explanation makes sense.  That date-delinking thing seemed like a nightmare.  Good luck!  --'''
'''Support'''. At this point it's just pile-on support, but I thought the responses to the questions were great, contributions look good, and the willingness to learn from - and acknowledge - past mistakes is extremely good.
One of those instantly recognizable names that go up at RfA where the gut reaction is to support.
'''Support''' - I'll pile on too. We tend to be active in different areas, but every time I've seen Dabomb87's edits they've been effective and professional. Firmly rooted in policy, without being pedantic. I like that.
'''Support''' - This level of involvement in FL and FAC shows a high regard by the community as a whole and respect among other experienced editors for policy and content building. People do make mistakes but 2008 and the date delinking saga are quite a time ago and the explanations given convincingly suggest Dabomb learned from them. Sometimes the very best editors only get that way by making really messy mistakes, which they ultimately learn from; enough time has passed that if there were lapses they would probably be listed below by now. I have no doubt of his merits and ability to enhance the project as an admin - if this RFA passes as it looks like it may, then go easy on the tools and ask if needed!
'''Support''' Per pretty much everyone else.
Oh alright, Sandy, I've been hovering here with  a mouse for 20 minutes,  but  I'm  really  afraid of wet noodles! '''Support'''.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' (what's the opposite of a wet noodle?  Kablammo gets one!)
'''Support'''. Definitely!
'''Support''' Not only he handled disputes, but with four featured lists, I'm sure he understands what an encyclopedia is.
'''Support''' – Wish all of my FAC/FLC reviews were this easy... '''
'''Support'''  Totally, he is a very helpful person and he should really become admin fast. Come on he has like freaking 70 likes and ZERO neutrals or against that should be enough to promote him to admin!
'''Support''' Might as well pile on. [[WP:300]] anyone? :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' – I don't need to say much else. I've been him at FAC and has done a tremendous job coordinating and running stuff over there. –
'''Support''' – Definitely a net plus. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. I figure I'd better, since this looks to be so close! But seriously, this is a textbook example of where a past block should not be any cause for concern at all. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;I have no doubts that this editor will make a fine administrator. <i>
'''Support''' Completely familiar with this editor due to FAC and FLC. I don't !vote in these often, and even though it's a pile-on at this point, I still want to voice my support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Good choice!
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - helpful and trustworthy user. --
'''Support''' - Why not, this bandwagon seems comfy enough. -- '''
'''Support''' I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''
'''Support''' per 69.121.245.182.
'''Support'''. A small blot should not be a barrier to adminship. I'm sure Dabomb has learnt from the experience and has become a better editor as a result.
Trust the one RfA I want to participate in to happen when I am away. I would love to write an extensive rationale of all the excellent qualities Dabomb87 brings to Wikipedia. I only hope that the fantastic non-admin contributions this user makes will not be lost in the seemingly inevitible success of this RfA. By using the tools even half as well as you have worked without them would be a massive benefit to the community. To summarise: '''Big support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Dedicated and skilled.
'''Support'''. &mdash;/
'''Da bomb is comin'!''' :) '''
I heard about this RfA from somebody, and I'm coming out of retirement to support it. Dabomb is an incredibly dedicated and skilled editor. I don't really have much more to add, but all I can say is that the tools would be put to very good maintenance work in his hands. Strongly supporting... +sysop has been long due. '''
Another real cliffhanger RfA, I can see.  I'd better get my support in before I forget. '''
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support''' Huge dedication to the project, and great edits. Yes, that was a lame dispute, and the lame ones it seems can bring out the worst in any us. Dabomb has been doing a great job.
'''Support'''.

'''Yes'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. One of the most prolific high-quality editors I've seen in my time without any actions that I have seen as objectionable. —<font face="Garamond" size="3">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' He's not an admin? oO <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="black">
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. He wasn't an admin already? -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. I've seen Dabomb in FAC and FLC. Excellent user. This is a somewhat belated RfA I should say. All the best, Dabomb87.--<font face="calibri">
'''Support'''. A dedicated and prolific editor—no problems at all. <font style="color:Navy;background:#C2D1F0;font-family:Arial;" size="2">&nbsp;
Yes. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' Why aren't you already an admin? ;)
--
'''Support''' Thought he already was one.
'''Support''' very good editor.
'''Support''' - yep. -
'''Support''' - Shows enough intelligence to use the tools properly and without undue haste. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I see no issues.
'''Yes please''' Competent and clueful. &mdash;
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' - Skilled and dedicated editor. Has made many great contributions to Wikipedia. <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''. History of constructive editing outweighs one indiscretion. --''
Seems good to me. No problem supporting. ~~
'''Support''' Good answers. Involved in a lame edit war which is kind of troubling but seems to have learned from it. I view that more as a positive given the time.
'''Support''' User may of had a bit of a rough past, but looks like they have come around since any issues. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - yes please. A good editor and will be a good admin.
No alarms here.
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support'''- why not? Seems to be an excellent Wikpedian.
Coming-out-of-retirement '''Support'''. Dabomb87 is one of the nicest and most helpful people on Wikipedia. In my opinion he is too good to give it away for free, however, it's his choice and I wish him all the best. --
'''Support''' Can  be trusted with the tools. --
I have no reason to think s/he'd abuse the tools, so I have no reason to oppose. Good editor overall, so sure, why not?
'''Support''', yes, great contributor, great candidate. Certainly. -- '''
'''Support''' - has a thorough understanding of the article-writing process from both sides of the aisle, a strong synthesis of policy and common sense, and a general courteousness in all of his dealings. [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] <sup>([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]])(
Looks good.
'''Support'''. I've met him in FLC several times. A dedicated user who has always been pleasant and helpful in my dealing's with him.
'''Support''' no reason to oppose seems like a very experienced user.
Utter no-brainer. :)
'''Support''' User is regularly involved in FAC noms. from my observations.  The tools could come in handy to help him close in favour as well.
'''Support'''. See no reason to believe editor will abuse tools.
'''Support'''—Apart from the maturity and dedication, he has a flare for compromise. This is an excellent attribute in an admin.
'''Support''' - Excellent editor; I have no concerns! ---
'''Support''' I have absolutely no doubt that this editor will make an excellent admin
'''Support''' I've known DB87 since his starting days at FLC, from his editing days to his FLC directing, and am 100% confident that he will make an excellent admin. Forgot to say thanks for the welcoming me back! :D --<font face="Calibri">'''
'''Oppose''', I won't support candidates without at least [[Graham's_Number|G]] edits, and I'm a bit concerned about the lull in activity in early 2008.
'''Support''' Long overdue
'''Support''' nice fellow.
'''Support''' Reviewed talk, skimmed the question answers... looks like a good candidate who admits their mistakes and learns from them. Will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Admittedly a pile-on, and wholly unnecessary, but nevertheless a great editor who will be an asset to the project.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Has learned from past mistakes. --
'''Support''' ''<B>--
'''Support'''. I say Dabomb's experienced enough for this.
'''Support'''. Sure, I'm piling on at this point, but it never hurts. {{=)|wink}} —
'''Strong Support:''' A great candidate in every way. -
I am still pissed off about that terminally boring [[Annie Hall]] thing by the inappropriately libidinous [[Woody Allen]] beating out [[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]] for the [[Academy Award]] for Best Motion Picture in 1977. As my contribution to the effort to restore balance to the sum of good karma in the universe, I '''Support''' this candidate...Now if Sandy would just run,we might start to do something about the stain left by the evil that is [[Yoko Ono]]. &bull;&nbsp;
'''Support.''' Looks like a fine candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.  Surprised s/he isn't a sysop already.
Sorry, but I have seen nothing from this editor in the past except minor changes and tweaks to articles created by others, many of which were unconstructive.  The only reason I'm not opposing him is the fact that some contributors I respect are supporting him - therefore I'm prepared to be convinced he may have changed his ways since the date-linking dispute.
'''Support''' Looks fine. --
'''Support''' - I've seen the candidate around here or there, and always thought they would be make a good admin.
'''Support''' Great candidate.
'''As nom'''
'''Support''' Six featured articles? Unbelievable. She really is a high quality user and could've been trusted for the tools a lot earlier than this.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits, high-quality article work, sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, and great user page.  We could use another sysop with experience editing quality articles about horses.
'''Duh''' →
'''Support''' from self-interest. If she's an admin, I don't have to. In all seriousness, no reason whatsoever to think she'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' --
In spite of having only six featured articles to her name I think that Dana Boomer could make good use of the admin tools in her work as an FAR delegate. Normally I'd be demanding at least 10 FAs plus a clutch of GAs, but I'm prepared to make an exception in this case.
'''Support'''—of course.
'''Support''' good egg.
'''Strong support''' per Jack Merridew. Not tainted with salmonella, for sure. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
Looks good to me. ~~
Do I get to be the first one to say "I thought she was one already"? By the looks of it, yes.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - I do not know of a better editor. A lovely candidate! -
'''Support'''.Splendid! Can see the wood ''and'' the trees.
'''Strong support''' - excellent content and project contributor, definitely will be a net positive with the tools.
'''Support''' Sure <font color="#228b22">
I offered to nominate her and got beaten, yes of course
Excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' - Excellent and well-deserving, trustworthy member of the community. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' - Looks good. She deserves it.
'''Support'''
'''De ninguna forma''' I wouldn't support, with the condition to not get on to the inactive admin list ;) --
'''Looks OK.''' I too miss [[Pluto]].
I cannot for the life of me work out where we've interacted, but it must have been a very positive experience since my gut instinct is screaming at me to support! A dedicated content editor knowledgeable in The Ways of the Wiki<sup><small>TM</small></sup> with a good head on her shoulders. My gut says she'd do a damn good job and I can't remember the last time it was wrong. :)
'''Support'''. Very grateful for her work at FAR. A good example of someone whose admin work seems likely to be limited to particular areas but whose access to the tools will help the project along.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Strong Support''' For all of the above reasons, and more. Excellent editor with the right personality and temperament, to boot!  Plus, according to her user page, she manages to associate an [[Appaloosa]] horse, and if anyone knows Appaloosas, who are the [[Jack Russell Terrier]]s of the horse world, that's proof she can put up with anything wikipedia throws at her!  :-D
'''Support''' I am unfamiliar with this editor which, considering where I have been spending most of my time these last few weeks, is all to the good. Only box that was not ticked upon review of stats and questions is the grounds for instant block - there are a couple more of which the most important is violation of [[WP:OUTING]]. However, the candidate indicates that there are area's in which they are not so familiar and would need to develop better understanding if they were to participate there. From what I have seen, I do not believe the candidate would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' a trustworthy candidate. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support''' I see no issues right now.
'''Support''' Did a great review of a GAN of mine. Thorough, straight-forward, and friendly. The way it should be. '''
'''Support''' + Commendable work; good answers.
'''Support''' – No problems with me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - No issues.
'''Support'''—Very trustable, does a lot of valuable things, excellent work as a FAR delegate.
'''Strong support''' - Distinguished, veteran content contributor; well-qualified across-the-board--
'''Strong support''' - Massive content contributions, and no experience in admin areas where she's indicated she has no intention of working. A perfect candidate. --
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Strong Support''' A great delegate at the FAR. I'm just shocked that she wasn't an admin yet.
'''Support'''. Very experienced editor who is strong in the areas she knows (and they're areas that need help), and will clearly be cautious about areas she doesn't know so well. And horses are good. --
This one I trust to learn on the job if necessary. Excellent candidate; best of luck.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''- As I said, I'm not going to keep a vote based on 3 or 4 sentences. Seeing that you admit to not having much experience in some areas shows a lot of character <small>and obviously no one is experienced everywhere</small>. Your honesty is much appreciated. So looking through your contributions, I see a user wise enough to handle herself well in such areas. And I see a user who would not make stupid mistakes. To make is short; I'm sure you will make a fine administrator. The only thing I would '''''highly recommend''''', is to add [[User:Porsche997SBS/Userboxes/User MissesPluto|'''''this''''']] userbox back to your userpage. Please...Please! do not let me down...
'''Support''' I think Dana boomer can be trusted with the mop. Not being familiar with ''certain'' aspects of policy is no big deal to me, if the candidate is honest about it (but still understands the basic principles), and would not work in that area without learning more. In the meantime, there are plenty of other bits of wikipedia that need mopping.
Some may bridle at the puns, but if Dana is willing to be saddled with this thankless task, it's well past time we harnessed Dana's energy and talent. ++
'''Support''' - although Lar ''almost'' made me reconsider. ;) '''<font face="verdana">
'''+S'''. Diplomatic and reflective. &bull;&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - logs look OK.  You may also find that warning bots is useless, immediate block and then find the operator for a rogue bot!
'''Absolutely''' (how did I miss this?)
Exceptionally thoughtful, hardworking, and gifted at content work. '''
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - good choice...
'''Support''' seems like the perfect candidate. Content provider and good understanding of tools. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Weak Support''' - The content contributions and work at GAN are just fantastic. My big concern is with a lack of involvement in other admin-related areas, as pointed out by Salvio and Pepper in their <s>opposes</s> neutral comments. What sways me to support is the insistence at caution and the very clueful and thoughtful answers to questions posed in this RfA. -- '''
&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' No reason to think theyll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' A lack of experience in admin related areas is not concerning given the thoughtful answers given at the start of the RfA; the last two sentences in response to question six exemplify this.
'''Support''' experienced and willing.
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Yes''' per the WTHN rationale.
'''Strong support''' Dana could have / should have been an admin  a long  time  ago. For once I'm  able to  !vote for an editor with  whom I have greatly  interacted. If we want  a true role model  of how an admin should be in  every  way, this is it - and yet  another reason  why  we don't  need to  lower the bar. --
'''Support''' No issues that I see.--
A lot of great candidates of late. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' From my limited interactions with Dana, and observations of her work, overall I am impressed, and I think she will acquit herself well as an admin.
'''Support''' Answers above suggest that Dana is aware of those admin areas where she has limited experience and won't go rushing in, which is always good to see. Excellent content work, too. Seems like a great candidate to me.
'''Support''' unequivocal and significant net positive.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - interactions have been positive, and editor is clearly comitted to the long-term advancement of Wikipedia, careful and courteous, and keen to seek advice on areas of unfamiliarity. Don't see that anyone could ask for more than that.
'''Strong support''' Yes yes yes. Reads things in detail beyond the headlines, per article reviewing, so will make proper and well-informed decisions. And also writes, so we won't have stupid interpretations of policy per armchair "intellectuals" and "Wikipedia scientists" and other such junk that are already all too numerous in the running of the place. '''

'''Support.''' I was unfamiliar with this editor before this nomination, but a after checking their contribs and user talk I'm convinced that their effort would be greatly enhanced with adminship.
'''Support''' -'''
'''Support''' -
'''Yes'''. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support.''' A significant content writer, who thinks about the tools and how to apply them, and is prepared to openly admit when she is unfamiliar with some of the rules? Wikipedia needs more admins like this!

'''Absolutely.''' The FAR delegates require the admin tools. I've looked through this user's edits and she would be an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' - a great content contributor, and will be valuable with the tools as well (hopefully they won't slow down the content work).
'''Support:'''  A content writer, who thinks! Will make a great Admin! -
'''Support'''. Very strong content contributor, good experience all round, see no issues.
'''Support'''. Cordial, helpful, and very skilled editor.
'''Support'''.  No concerns that this user would be anything but an excellent administrator. <i>
'''Support'''. Excellent content creation + sufficient knowledge of deletion. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Impressive contributions, intelligent answers to questions - I have the strong impression the candidate will make thoughtful, positive use of admin tools, and see nothing to cause concern. &nbsp;
A good example of how a user can be light on admin-related experience but still be a very good candidate. Despite the relatively open-ended timescale of FAR compared to FAC, it's still a pretty intense job, so I very much doubt she would hastily move into too many other areas. --
'''Support''' Due to her being an excellent FA/GA contributor to horses (a poorly supported part of wikipedia) and for being female (we need more rationally thinking females on this site as admins!!). I very much like this candidate, candidates should be strong editors like this one. She is clearly intelligent enough to learn about admin stuff she is uncertain about anyway, as long as becoming an admin doesn't mean less time developing the encyclopedia.

'''Support''' per nom.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">
'''Support''' seems like a sensible choice. --
'''Support''' not your typical candidate, but has the experience to use the tools wisely. ''<B>--

'''Support'''. Strong content editor with what seems to be plenty common sense (I am not bothered by a bit of hesitancy in pulling the trigger immediately on an apparent sock--admins are rarely alone on call).
'''<font color="navy">
'''Strong Support''': Worked with this user on a FAC.  User is knowledgeable, knows the policies of the project and giving this user a mop can only benefit their already great work on the porject.  User will make a good admin. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great edit summary use, civil, good edit history. Found no reason not to support.—
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. I've seen her around. She's a great contributor and quite level-headed.
'''Support''' Dana is a great contributor. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Strong Support''' - phenomenal content creation at the GA and FA level, a staggering quantity (and quality) of work across a broad spectrum of Wikipedia's many facets, and significant clue. [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] <sup>([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]])(
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Dana has a strong grasp of policy and I have full faith in her judgement.
'''Support''' - Happy to pile on. Clearly has a clue. Overdue for the mop, I'd say. Best wishes,
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good editor with the right attitude and knowledge of Wikipedia. And anyone who can handle Appaloosas that well, can certainly handle the mop.  :)
'''Support''' Hell yeah.  Per nom.--
'''Support'''. Piling on..
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns.
Clueful editor. Good attitude and contributions.
Of course.
'''Support''' Candidate is good people, small backlogs are good.
'''Support''' largely based on previous positive experiences with the editor as well as a great record of contributions.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Neutral'''. I'm a bit on the fence, here, especially because you're a great content creator and because I respect your nominator's judgement; however, taking a look at your 'tribs, I see very few edits to admin-related areas (actually, only 5 to [[WP:ANEW]], no to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]) and some of your answers are not really satisfactory, in my opinion; therefore I feel I cannot support you at this time. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Neutral''' because of experience. I know no one can be active in all areas, but to have 0 edits to AIV, UAA, RFPP, AN, ''and'' ANI raises a small concern. I will definitely not oppose, but at this time I can't support either. <small>'''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
'''Neutral''' Given your lack of experience in admin areas I would be happier supporting if your answers to the questions were stronger and you had looked into the policy a bit more. I question someone working as an admin in the area of PROD who admits to knowing little about CSD and has shown no evidence of significant AfD experience.
'''Neutral''': This otherwise solid contributor had a remarkably weak answer to question 5. For the benefit of the candidate, threats of violence should be met with immediate blocks.  In my opinion, responsible editors (not just admins) should follow-up on credible threats from IPs with law enforcement if feasible (note that this part is my opinion, not policy). If not an IP, immediate CUs should be pursued. In addition to TOVs, editors making legal threats are usually  blocked.
Excellent balance of content contributions and anti-vandal work.
{{confirmed}}--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="#FD0000">Talk</font><font color="#FFBF00">tome</font>]]<sup>(
Looks like a great user. Very good anti-vandal work. ~~
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' I've thought this would happen eventually for at least four months now.  I'd have offered to nominate her in a cuple months, in fact.
'''Support''' Good editor, great contributions - would be good admin.
'''Support''' Strong article contributor and vandal fighter. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Great work, I know this editor through GOCE. No problems here.
'''Support''', user appears to have Clue.

'''Support''' A good user that deserves the tools. <b>[[~]] <font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#66699"><i>[[User:QwerpQwertus|Qwerp]]</i></b></font><font size="2.5" face="Apple LiSung" color="#CC6600">[[User talk:QwertyQwerpus|Qwertus]]</font> <font size="1.5" face="Lucida Sans" color="#003300">[[User talk:QwerpQwertus|Talk]]</font>
'''Support''' Seen her around in GOCE. Impressed by her edits.
'''Support''' Whoops! I forgot about the fact that I can support myself as the nominator.
'''Support'''. Easy decision. Dianaa has done an amazing amount of copy edit work, has an excellent calm temperament, and clearly knows a great deal about Wikipedia policy. We definitely need more people helping with copyright problems too. --
'''Support''' - Candidate has done fantastic work with the GOCE, extremely deserving of the tools and would put them to good use :) —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Strong Support''' I've known Diannaa for a while and her work over at GOCE is invaluable. Diannaa is a great editor and very helpful. No red flags here and nothing that I see that would cause me to even vote  neutral :)--
'''Strong Support''' - I've also seen Diannaa a lot from the GOCE backlog elimination drives and I know she is an excellent copy editor along as a new Huggle user! [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Strong support'''. I've worked with Diannaa many a time, and rest assured, she would make a great administrator.
'''Strong support''' Diannaa is a very discerning and active editor who has worked in coordinating roles with the [[WP:GOCE|GOCE]] with great success. Awesome pick for admin. –
'''Support''' An able and clueful editor, no concerns here. --
'''Strong support''' the candidate has all the "right stuff" with respect to copy editing and vandal fighting credentials. Her work at GoCE is exemplary.--
'''Support''' Active, experienced editor. Well deserved. '''''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Fought a lot of vandalism on Huggle. <b>
Everytime i check RC, i see her reverting something, this is a hardworking user. -
'''Support''' <font color="Darkorange">
'''Support'''--<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
I want to oppose because I think the tools will take away a good deal of your copyediting time. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Per expanded answer to question number 1, I have some concerns about article creation, but there's no reason why she would abuse the tools.
You've done some great work on Wikipedia, and if you feel that you would be able to benefit the wiki further with sysop tools, then you won't get an objection from me :)
Excellent candidate. - Dank (
Why not. Smiley4541 (
'''Support'''—don't see why not.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems. --
'''Strong support''' per her outstanding work to the encyclopedia. I'm sure she'll use the mop well. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Strong support''' I was one of the first people to give Dianna a Barnstar for her work last year, Great to see she kept up and collected many more. Looking at her edits, I can't think of a more deserving candidate.
Looks good.
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns and feel the project only gains with the user having tools.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and so I am happy to hand you the mop.
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. I have always had positive interactions with this candidate, and I have not seen anything problematic or which cause me concern. --
'''Support''' indeed! Very pleased to see Diannaa take the plunge(er) :) Ever since her first few edits when I noticed her diligent copyediting work I knew this editor was among those of us who 'get it'. I'm confident she will make an equally fine admin. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Diannaa. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Default support, find opposes unconvincing.  As a content contributor, I want to see some involvement, but do not ask for GA or FA involvement, which are quirky processes at best.  Nominee minimally fulfills that criterion.  Know of no other reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' for Christ's sake. If anyone seriously considers the votes in opposition then we should be voting to make this candidate Jesus or his metric equivalent.
'''Support''' Knows what she's doing. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' I'm comfortable supporting here. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
All looks good. I've seen the candidate make some good reports around the place, such as AN3. --
'''Strong Support''' I can think of nothing bad to say about this editor. Plenty of good work, copyedit project, some promotion work, active, seen her around and can't think of anything objectionable. Give this one the mop. <span style="text-shadow:#CC1100 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Support''' Heck yes!
'''Support''' Solid candidate
Great editor.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Yo Apoyo'''
'''Support''', absolutely knows what she does (saw a "false positive" from me once I didn't saw...) -
'''Support'''.  No reason not to give her the mop. '''
'''Old fashioned support''' It does not bother me that the candidate has shown little ''need'' for the mop, what is important to me is that she has shown that she is here for the purpose of creating encyclopedic content - and that she appears sufficiently trustworthy to be provided with the flags regardless of how often she may use them. I hope she continues to copy edit and do the other stuff that is read, and uses the responsibilities that comes with sysop privileges to further that work.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' I know Diannaa as a very helpful volunteer in a leadership role in the Guild of Copy-Editors. All of my interactions with this candidate have been helpful and have helped me feel more enthusiastic about volunteering my time and effort to build Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' - Rock on! An obvious choice! I see no reason to oppose. --'''
'''Strong support''' - I'm glad you ran. I've seen you around and have no qualms about giving you the tools. Your answer to question nine was very good, by the way.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Candara; font-size:125%">
'''Support'''  Looks good, I trust the user to work well with the community and the encyclopedia.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Everything looks ship-shape here to me. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
Certainly. I'm not sold on any of the opposes below, which essentially spin around one PROD on an article about a snake, which clearly doesn't have a written consensus on whether they're inherently notable and which an admin (Explicit, who I think knows what they're doing!) deleted presumably having made all the relevant checks. If after 7 days of a PROD nobody could be bothered to fix it, I don't see the problem with deleting it if it's non-notable. Copyediting checks out, answers to questions look fine (even the stupid ones); no alarms, no surprises.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' No obvious issues, enough content work, and a great anti-vandal track record.
'''Support.''' Excellent candidate. Contributions to lower-level articles highly encouraging, shows willingness to actually improve something that can grow rather than just tweak something that has already been worked on extensively. ~~
'''Support''' Mature and thoughtful. No one has experience in everything, but if a candidate is mature and thoughtful they'll learn without causing disruption. More important is neutrality and the ability to interact with other editors calmly intelligently and fairly as this candidate does.(
'''Support''' Diannaa has come to my attention for her work in fighting recurring vandalism on a page of particular interest to me ([[Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania]]). I'm grateful to those who spend time and energy fighting persistent vandals.
'''Support''' per above and [[WP:NETPOS]]. I note the opposes, and they are reasonable enough, but not enough to cause me concern the tools will be misused through accident or design. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|15px|link=]] '''Support definitely''' Very positive interactions. '''
I shall '''support''' because I forgot to do so before. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Support'''. Definitely competent enough.
'''Looks good'''. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' - Diannaa got my attention for her productive (albeit brief) involvement with addressing ongoing problems at [[Alvin C. York]], including her patience on the talk page there. I have not delved into much of her history, but that episode, combined with her answers to questions here, gives confidence that this is the right sort of person to be an admin. --
'''Support''' Positive editor in which I see no obvious problems with; Diannaa seems prepared to use the admin tools in the areas that she is experienced in. She has a strong ability to work with others, and her work with the GoCE is fantastic. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support:'''  A great editor. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Experienced editor who has worked tirelessly at the [[WP:GOCE|Guild of Copy Editors]], keeps a level head in the many policy discussion we have had, and has contributed greatly to improving numerous articles.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No reason not to. '''
'''Support''' Great antivandal editor and very polite (from what I can see on the editor's talk page.  <font color="blue">[[User:Feinoha|Fei<font color="red">noh</font><font color="green">a</font> ]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Feinoha|Talk]],
'''Support''' Absolutely, 100%, yes. Great work, Diannaa.


'''Weak oppose''' per SandyGeorgia. The bureaucrats have made it clear that a !vote for this reason carries zero weight, but I still want to request that the candidate improve in this area. <small>Off-topic: Question 7, posed by Keepscases, is a weird, weird thing to ask.</small>
'''Weak oppose''' per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat_death_of_the_universe&action=historysubmit&diff=392162903&oldid=392162895 - I know we all make mistakes, but if you don't notice when you re-insert vandalism into an article, I think you're moving too fast with Huggle. It's kind of a pain to fix vandalism twice.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Weak oppose; I appreciate your effort as part of the LOCE, but my personal criteria require more significant contributions to audited content ([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|further]]). <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' for several reasons: first, works far to quickly with articles to be able to see all the problem or leave properly personalized notices; second, admitted lack of knowledge of deletion criteria; third, almost no contributions to policy discussions,; fourth, an outspoken dedication to removing rather than improving content. I have no objection to deletionists who wish to remove borderline notable material; I do object to those who would rather remove than fix, even when they know it's fixable. People who think we do not need new content are not to be trusted in dealing with new editors.    '''
Q1 - essentially the same reason as DGG's #4 above.
It is with great regret that I land in this section. Diannaa is a friendly, likeable editor in my experience and if RfA were just about liking the candidate on a personal level, I'd gladly support. However, I can't help but think that many of the supporters are basing their !votes on her likeability (I mean no offence to anybody here as I hold both the candidates and the supporters in very high esteem). Being able to interact civilly is an admirable quality and certainly one that is useful for an administrator, but I'm just not seeing the kind of breadth of experience I think an administrator should have, not least because those seeking their help will expect it. Diannaa has excelled in enhancing the quality of poorer articles and in enhancing the prose of already high quality articles, but I don't see anything more than superficial (and, as a sometime copy editor myself, I don't mean to knock it) involvement with articles. Nor do I see any involvement with policy discussions nor any significant involvement in the project space aside from WP:EAR and the GoCE, both of which have important, even vital, functions, but neither of which provide one with the breadth and depth of experience that I feel an administrator should have. Administrators have a vast array of tools, functions and responsibilities and I just don't feel that you have sufficient knowledge and experience of these to be able to take on the tasks that admins are charged with, many of which can be extremely difficult or contentious. That said, if this RfA is successful, I wish you only the very best of luck as an administrator and, if not, I wish you all the best for a successful second attempt. Finally, this is absolutely nothing personal, so don't think that my door isn't open. If this RfA is successful, then my advice would be to stick at first to areas you know before branching out and never be afraid to ask for help or defer to somebody else if you feel you may be getting out of your depth.
'''Oppose''' Per SandyGeorgia and DGG.  We do not need administrators who are cavalier with deletion.  Since this appears likely to pass regardless, please take this under advisement: we absolutely need administrators willing to delete lousy articles, just like we need administrators who are willing to create content, but by far the most important aspect is that we need administrators who can--and take the time to--tell the difference.
'''Oppose''' Per DGG and a remarkably weak and rambling answer to question #9. Answer to #1 shows that this user has no need for the mop and is unlikely to use it.
uninspired by answers to questions, especially Q2. Also, the concerns brought up by DGG and SandyGeorgia. -
'''Neutral''': please check out what patent nonsense means was several articles were tagged that way but not according to the definition.  Also there seems to be no uploads of anything on en Wikipedia or Commons.  I feel an administrator should have at least tried out the upload button, and know how to put on a fair use rationale.
'''Neutral''': based on the answer to Q1 which does not mention doing anything that non-admins cannot do. Are you 100% clear on what being an admin involves? (i.e. blocking, deleting etc.) I'm also a tad concerned by the number of supports which look like they are treating the mop as some kind of award for GOCE work.
'''Neutral''': same reason as Smartse. They will give you a mop with block and delete buttons on it, and you will be expected to use it. I can see you using the delete button occasionally on irredeemable copyright pages, but it sounds like you want to rescue prods rather than delete them. Would you be OK with blocking the odd vandal/copyright infringer/repeat uploader of nonsense articles? Maybe you want to add a little to that first question.--
'''Neutral''': While you have about 8,000 main space edits, you have only been here about a year. I think you would make a good admin, but hang around a little longer before we hand you a mop. Reviewer/Rollbacker is a good was to start (which I see you have).
'''neutral''' - User is fine, but high percentage of automated edits (nearly 40% of total), and huge increase in this month (over 5,000 v. a previous high of about 2,000).  Here for the long haul at those levels?  or was it a push to become an andmin?  --
'''Neutral'''. Generally looks okay from what seems to be the conventional view but copy editing doesn't provide the content addition perspective I'm looking for that seems to be in dwindling supply among admin candidates. I'd have preferred more enthusiasm and cognizance of the potential of Wikipedia articles too.
'''Neutral'''. I don't have any problems with the answer to Q6 regarding quotation use, but I had hoped you would also address the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diannaa&oldid=392331596#Vandalism.3F 184.36.90.17 talk-page interaction] itself. That interaction concerns me, since there seems to be a lack of [[WP:AGF]] on your part. An editor who was quite clearly trying to improve an article instead of harm it still has a "do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles" warning template on his talk page despite everyone acknowledging that the change he made (which included an explanatory edit summary) was in fact correct, if initially unreferenced. Indeed, after he provided a reliable source reference, you then, rather than withdrawing or striking the "incorrect information" template, scolded him for "plagiarism" (!) for quoting the source text in the reference. Both the unsourced correction and the use of extended quoted text to support or defend a correction are typical newbie mistakes, and I think your response could have been much less [[WP:BITE]]Y. And that your response included a reference to [[plagiarism]] rather than acknowledging that the quote was properly attributed but perhaps too long a quote to qualify as fair use is also concerning. That said, by all accounts you've done a lot of great work here, and you were correct in requiring a source for his change, so I can't in good conscience oppose. I just hope you'll be a little more kind to well-meaning newcomers when you get the bit.
.'''neutral''' sitting on the fence here with concerns raised by the opposers, still the more hands on deck the better. As astrong believer in the preservation of information I am pausing.
'''Neutral''' - would love to support a good copy-editor, but good copy-editing alone does not an admin make. Several of the opposes present good points as well.
'''Beat ze nom support''' Wait, you are the nom. Oops. Anyways, I've seen you at SPI, and you are great. I love to be the first one to support. More content would be nice, but not that much of a biggie.
'''Support''' You sound like a great candidate!
'''Support''' I think it's clear you can be trusted with the buttons.
{{ec}} '''Support''' per your excellent work at SPI. I'm sure you'll use the mop well. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Everything I've seen of him has been satisfactory. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Very good editor, wouldn't think twice about supporting this RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:gold;">
'''Support''' I looked extensively into your more recent contributions and your most edited pages according to X's edit counter, and I found nothing but integrity in almost every direction I looked. You have tons of article contributions, lots of experience in sockpuppet discussions, at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:ANI]], and you get along well with other editors. I happily lend you my support and I look forward to seeing you as a sysop.
'''Support''' Great work at SPI, would make a decent admin. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' - I think the editor will do a fine job. With my question answered I see no reason why not. --
'''Support''' - I have interacted with Eagles from time to time and have no reason to object. Would've sworn you've been around longer. '''
'''Support.''' Yes.
'''Support.''' balance of evidence suggests should be fine.
'''Support''' Strangely, I was just wondering a few hours ago if he was an administrator without even seeing this until now. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Competent and trustworthy. Glad to have you aboard as an admin. --
{{ec}}'''Support''' Yes, Si. All good

'''Support''' To be honest, I was going to oppose this man because I thought he tried to have me blocked and said some bad things about me but then I looked at his contributions and this actually never happened and I may have got him confused with someone else who said bad things about me and tried to have me blocked and in fact he was good to me and he LET ME KEEP MY BARNSTAR when he [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bad_edits_r_dumb/barnstars_and_award_and_things_of_this_nature|closed the deletion discussion]] in a competent manner but this is not why I am supporting him, i am supporting him because he is a GOOD EDITOR and he know all the policy. :-)--
'''Support''' - why not? :) —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Support''': User knows what he is doing, give the dude a mop. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' 9 DYKs and a good article. Well done, and good luck with the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' candidate has more than adequate experience and tenure plus a clean blocklog. Still a little quick off the mark when tagging articles for deletion, I saw one or two tags in the first few minutes of a new article where we will never now know what the contributors second save would have brought us, and one A7 tag where I would have thought the line "SHE IS VERY STUBBORN AND EVIL." merited a G10. But I think you've become sufficiently less trigger happy than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Gurley&action=historysubmit&diff=377216574&oldid=377216339 a couple of months ago] for me to be in this column. ''
'''Support''' Other folk here have highlighted various good work. When I browsed through random old edits, I didn't find anything bad at all. So, why not?
'''What?!''' You mean you aren't an admin already? Well you should be...
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' Of course --<font color="black">
'''Support'''—excellent editor.
'''Support''' Candidate undid my change to [[Mike Bell (running back)|Mike Bell]] but I will not hold that against him.
'''Support''' His work really does seem exemplary. Excellent online demeanour, civil and level-headed. Most deserving.
'''Support''' Why not?  -'''
Good football editor
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Well-rounded user.
Been waiting for this.
A scan of the contributions (eg speedy deletion tags) indicates that the candidate is very much qualified. Thank you for putting yourself forward. --
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''': Has a lot of edits. <b>
'''Support''' Good enough for me.  I appreciate his plain-talking style.
'''Support''' -I've seen the editor at AFD a few times nominating football articles for deletion. Good work. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support'''

'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - Yeoman editor, high-quality article work, reviewer, rollbacker, new page patroller, etc.
'''Support''' - Excellent user, very knowledgeable. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - I edit a lot of (American) football articles, so I've seen this editor around. Will handle the mop wisely...
'''Support''' enthusiastic and spirited editor.
'''Support''' - Per my [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|RFA rationale]].
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive; in fact, with all due respect to those who posted the questions, I am not quite certain just what Q6 and Q7 were driving at, or what answers would have better satisfied the questioners.
'''Support''' - Seen him around a bit, should be fine. The opposition has me a bit confused, and I have no idea what the proper answer to #6 would be. As to the content concerns, [[Mike Kafka]] isn't exactly FA material but it isn't too shabby, either; it's not like the guy has never touched an article before.
'''Support''' User shows clue, and while the answer to question 6 is fairly bad, I see nothing here that convinces me Eagles247 will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' a capable candidate. The questions are crap it follows that his answers are similarly shitty. Those who oppose this candidate should go and lick the pavement. Bah!
I'm generally as strict as they come, and will continue to maintain high RfA standards in future. But seriously, a well-rounded RfA candidate potentially failing for underplaying the difference between BLP1E and BIO1E during the 16-question-and-counting gauntlet? That would be a travesty. —
'''Support''' Should do just fine.
'''Support''' Absolutely. -
'''Support''' as overall broadly experienced candidate. I found nothing in his contribs that convinced me he would be anything but a "net-positive" with the tools." &nbsp;
'''Support'''. No brainer based on extensive record. --
'''Support'''- sure, why not? User seems to have a lot of clue.
'''Support''' While his answer to Q6 is overly simplified, the effective difference between the two policies is a fine example of Wikipedia instruction creep and hair-splitting. A well-rounded candidate with a reasonable amount of content creation who will do well. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' No reason to think theyll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Having interacted with this user a number of times I seeno reason why you should not be anadmin.
'''Support''' Of course! <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' Lack of article contributions as an opposition rationale doesn't hold any water in this instance as it is false. User has written a good article, several DYK's, and many B and C Class articles. Can't find a reason to oppose at this time.
'''Support''' - Good overall experience and although their answers to the questions could be more in-depth, they seem to have a good general grounding in policy.
'''Support''' per WFC and what I've seen of him in various areas of the project.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around doing some very good work.  I just read BLP1E and BIO1E and I honestly cannot figure out the difference.  I'm sure this user will make good use of admin tools and have the good sense to keep his finger off the button when dealing with areas outside his expertise. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|Lord]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' Seems to have plenty of [[WP:CLUE]] - contributions across the place, and I agree with NYB in respect of Q6. White Shadows almost farcial ''"Utter lack of content contributions with the exception of one GA"'' is an embarrassingly poor oppose I'm afraid to say.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' His head is screwed on right.
'''Support''' Absolutely. I've seen you grow from a new user to a potential admin in such a short time period, it's made me happy to see that somebody who I've helped learn the "hang" of editing NFL-related articles and templates has become such a respected user here. Having known you over the past few years makes this an easy decision; yes. Good luck with the "tools".--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' Definitely deserving.--
'''Support''' Quite impressed with Eagles' interactions with other editors, general temperament and policy knowledge.
'''Strongest possible support.'''  Helpful, mature and a real asset to the project.  I can't imagine a better admin.
'''Support''' - I did a detailed review of Eagles' contributions several months ago and was impressed with his involvement with [[WP:ADOPT]]. A very cordial and helpful person that has respect for new users. - <span style="background:#FF0000;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background:#00FF00;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background:#0000FF;">&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Knows what he's doing, interacts well, content work is well sourced. No problems here
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Don't agree with the opposition, particularly the contradictary commentary in one of them. Otherwise looks fine.
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
''''Support''' Broad set of skills, good communication. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' - Overall I see a lot of very good reasoning and [[WP:CLUE|clue]] from this person. A reasonable amount of work in non-article space, and some very respectable article contributions (the GAs and DYKs in particular). I also see very good interaction skills which are a big plus. -- '''
'''Support''' - not worried about anything the opposers bring up. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">:</span>]]
'''Support'''. I actually thought the candidate was an admin already - shows how much I pay attention. In this case, I think adminship would be a '''Net Positive''' to the project - and, in this context, I use the term Net Positive to mean that the candidate will screw something up at some point, but that the positive work done by the candidate will far outweigh any possible (and normal) human error that might creep into the admin work.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Lukewarm support'''. The opposers' points are, on the whole, not invalid. However, at the end of the day, I think he would be more use to Wikipedia with a mop and the benefits of giving him one outweigh any mistakes we think he might make. I'm sure he'll take the opposers' comments on board and seek advice when he's unsure. Best of luck,
'''Support''' The candidate is very familiar from the football footnoting project. He's a top-drawer editor who will make a top-drawer administrator.--
'''Support''' (moved from oppose) I made a rather weak and ill-guided oppose at first. Having looked over Eagles' contribs again, I see no reason to withhold the mop. Sorry for my initial oppose and the weak rational to it Eagles, good luck. All the best,--
'''Support''' No objections.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. IMHO the opposes are somewhat nitpicky.
'''Support''' Absolutely!
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. An outstanding editor, has been a key contributor to Wikipedia's coverage of American football.  I see no reason why he would not make excellent use of administrator tools.--
'''Support''' Really seems to know what he is doing, key contributor. Best of luck, looks like you've got it!
'''Support''' Nice contribs :) --<b><font color=red>
'''Support''' Seen Eagles around quite bit the past few months, seems like a very solid candidate for the mop.
'''Support''' Of course! '''
'''Support''' Looks ok to me -

'''Conditional support''' per his one and a half years' worth of activity. --
'''Support:''' Some concerns but I believe him to be a net positive. He will become a great admin as he uses his tools and gains hands on experiance. -
'''Unconditional support'''. Per what I've written in the oppose section, and per 97 editors above (leave one).
'''Support''' – Have seen only good work from this editor. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - Eagles247 has the right demeanor, attention to detail, and willingness to listen that all good administrators need.
'''Support''' - Eagles247 is one of the nicest people I've seen on here. He's helped me many times when I needed it. He knows all the rules, has a clean record, and I've never seen him lose his cool. What more could you want?
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose --
'''Support''' Good contributions and a great editor <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Support''' You definitely deserve the mop.
'''Support''' - I don't see any problems here, you can be trusted with the tools. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="black">
'''Support''' You have been active for only a couple of months with this much constructive edits! More than half of your edits are article edits. I don't seem why not be admin. You deserve to be an admin. Hope you be one. <font color="#008000">[[User:ActivExpression#top|ActivExpression]]</font><sup>[[User talk:ActivExpression#top|<font color="#E62020">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''', excellent editor with good grasp of policy, very good attitude...will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - seems to be a solid editor who knows what he's doing. :) Cordially, →
'''Weak support''' - Lacks content contributions, but seems well intentioned, which is prob enough. I not most of the supporters have colourdy fancy sigs, which usually sets off alarm bells, but, eh, good luck to you anyway.
'''Support''' Hard-working active editor that really deserves the mop. Well deserved. '''''
'''Support''': most points have been covered, but I was particularly impressed with the candidate's responses to the various questions asked. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''
A solid candidate. '''
'''Support''' Why not? I think he would be a great admin.
'''Support''' Loving your work!
'''Support''' Nobody  knows all the rules, and an occasional  mis-tagging  is not  the end of the world.-  we all make mistakes. What  impressed me most  was the extraordinary  low percentage of automated edits.  --
'''Support'''.
A net positive to the project.
'''Support'''. Pile-on support at this point. SPI needs fresh blood: though the candidate's contribs to SPI aren't as high as I might have expected, the work there seems sound. The ''oppose'' argument ''above'' was weak: candidate has two good articles. The ''oppose'' argument ''below'' (BLP1E/BIO1E) is a relatively minor concern: I'm assuming that the candidate now knows more about the two than many of us ;-)
[[WP:100|120]][[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' —
'''Support''' - I recently realized I've seen Eagles around for quite a while.
'''Support''' - A capable choice...
'''Support''' - I'm going to pile on here, which given the candidate's interests, seems apt. Best wishes for your adminship!
'''Support''' - He would be an excellent addition, although the idea of eagles circling my head 24/7 is quite odd... =P
'''Support''' - The candidate is clearly a very productive editor who's very knowledgeable of the various policies. I've seen him work hard every day, and I knew it was only a matter of time before this RfA appeared. With that said, I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted with the mop. Keep up the good work, Eagles! --
Q7. Under ''any'' definition, "net positive" implies not always positive. The answer the candidate gave was really the only wrong answer possible, and regrettably reads like just writing what the masses want to hear. If adminship was simply about telling people what they want to hear, designated sysops wouldn't be necessary.
'''Oppose''' fails to appropriately understand the differences I'm getting at in Q6.
Lack of content contributions don't bother me so much. But I was rather confused by some of the answers to the questions. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
per everyone below. --
'''Support'''—I've frequently seen Elen around various venues on Wikipedia as well as in my watchlist and article histories, always contributing positively and knowledgeably.
As nominator
'''Support''' I'm surprised that EotR isn't admin already! Can be trusted with the tools, I think, and will be a net positive.
'''Enthusiastic support'''    she's one of the very best people we have for dealing with complex questions and difficult users. I have had occasion to wish that I were capable of doing as well as she does.   (There are a few areas where my views and Elen's differ a little , but that's no reason to lessen the degree of support--it would be true of everyone.)   '''
Support.  Thought she was already an admin.
'''Beat the co-nom support''' - A fantastic candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' Elen is clueful, helpful, and knowledgeable.  Although one has to wonder if a person who is an experienced public servant and still wants to be a Wikipedia admin might be a bit of a masochist.
'''Support''' Of course!!
'''Support''' - Seen you around, don't know of any concerns. '''
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate.
This, I guess, was bound to be. Sure. --
I've seen good work and a clueful attitude. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. The candidate has much experience in many areas, so why not?
'''Support''' Thoughtful editor with experience defusing tension... can't think of any reason not to support.
'''Support''' --<b><font color=red>
I thought so too. :/ [[User talk:intelati|<font color="#FD0000">Talk</font><font color="#FFBF00">tome</font>]]<sup>(
'''Support.''' Yes.
'''Support''' Very positive contributions in some difficult areas.
'''Support''' - well, the "I thought she was already" line has already been used a few times, so I guess I can't say that. I've seen nothing but good work from this contributor and like her attitude. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' <font color="Darkorange">
'''Absolutely yes'''; was glad to see this link come alive.  Very strong candidate in every regard.
'''Support''' The candidate has the temperament and people skills to do a splendid job as an adminstrator, albeit she is light on edits to mainspace.--
'''Support''' No problems that I can see. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 03:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Back to support following our recent conversation at Elen's talk. --
'''Support''' I have often noticed Elen's helpful contributions, and enthusiastically endorse this RfA.
I'm quite shocked to see that this user is not already an administrator. I suspect this will pass with a very high support tally disproportionate to what may be minimal opposition.
'''Support''' Elen has style, grace, wit, and above all intellectual integrity. She's open-minded and fair, and knows how to defuse tension with a sense of humor (we need lots more of that around here). She's trusted, and authoritative without being overbearing.
'''Support''' friend of content and good sense. No friend of drama, yet not shy to help soften dramatics. Good luck! ---
'''Support''' Easy decision.
'''Support''' I notice that you've been very helpful cleaning up copyright, especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Yid this] one (It appears to be blanked, sorry about that). I appreciate your helpfulness to the project and therefore I'll support.
Per 28bytes, for the most part. A great user. ~~
'''Support''' Most definitely.
'''Support'''. Whenever I see that user name appear, something good has been done. Editor strikes me as even-tempered, knowledgeable, and trustworthy.
'''Support''' Yes! Finally :) -

'''Support'''
'''Support''' I rarely want to chime in to support a candidate, but this is a great candidate for the job. For instance, her input on a debate over reliable sources several months back was invaluable based on her thorough understanding of policy. — '''
'''Support'''. I particularly endorse DGG's comments here.
'''Support''' I'd always thought you were an admin.
'''Support''' yes please.
'''Support''' I fully agree with Balloonman. This RfA only serves to set a flag this candidate clearly achieved through her editing and skills. Like many above, I too often wondered why she was not an admin yet. Time to fix this :-) Regards '''''[[User:SWM|SWM]]''''' <small>(
Without doubt. I vaguely recall some interactivity previously that was positive. Certainly every time I see Elen's signatire it seems to have something wise in front of it. The joint nomination statements say it all really. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Per DGG and others.  Great editor that can definitely be trusted with the tools.--
'''Support'''. I've seen Elen of the Roads all over the place, doing all sorts of great work - definitely a great admin candidate. --
'''Support''' - extremely qualified candidate :) —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' As Per DGG and Baloonman and track is good and see no concerns.
'''Support'''. I assumed I'd be "beat the nom support", but I sign off for a few hours, the RfA is transcluded, and I sign back on to discover ''47'' supports ahead of me :-) Per {{diff2|365408667|this}} and other past-interactions: editor is level-headed and has massive reserves of good-faith, helpfulness and clue. If it wasn't for pop-ups I'd be trotting out the old cliché right now{{mdash}}Elen is already an admin: let's make it official.
'''Strong support''' Thought she was one already - let's make it so.
'''Support'''. Clearly well qualified, scores highly on pretty much every count.
&mdash;
'''Support''' as the somewhat low content contribution does not bother me, and everything else seems fine. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Support''' per nom. No issues here.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy admin.
'''Support''' before the page fills up. Level headed, even-handed, amazingly useful to all other content contributors, guides lost lambs into the fold, doesn't witter and had nothing to do with the Liverpool debacle.
'''Support''' EotR's content contribution tally is comparatively low but the edits are of good quality: more pertinently, her understanding and application of the rules - and general all-round clue - are excellent.
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor around and they are of good temperament and knowledge. Should be wonderful with the tools. Good luck!
Certainly. No alarms, and no surprises.
'''Support''' - Calm, sane, smart, funny, well-meaning.
'''Support''' - I have never had the happiness to personally know this editor, but she seems to be calm and sensible; her contributions show a valuable degree of cluefulness, maturity and quality that I am quite impressed with. :) You have my warm wishes for the best. Love,
Yeah, why not? {{small|And I see Nakon has taken the IAR question this time...}} [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Support''' - as per User:Beeblbrox and others, clue-full and experienced.
'''Support''' per the obvious reasons cited above, and that the candidate's adminship will be a net positive for the project. Add me to the "thought she was already an admin" list as well. Good luck,
'''Support''' Elen provides sage and calm advice in situations that are often heated. I believe she would be a very positive addition to the admin crew. --
'''Strong Support''' Enviable temperament, this editor also appears to wield a mighty clue. I'm happy to extend my enthusiastic support.  Strengthened support as per answer to Q9. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''. I've been looking forward to this for a long time! I first encountered Elen when I raised a problem at AN/I. She not only took an interest in the thread there, but became actively involved in the pages that were under dispute. In so doing, she very substantially improved the content, and did so in the face of a lot of disruptive editors (those who are worried about content creation, please take note). She also showed excellent judgment in dealing with the dispute, and repeatedly gave me useful advice when I asked for it. I support with the strongest of enthusiasm. --
'''Support''' For the exact opposite reasons of the Oppose and Neutral below.  This project has to stop handing out admin mops as rewards for good content creation, and start encouraging admins that are willing and able to maintain a working cooperative civil environment for great content creators.  EotR is very capable, policy-literate and sensible - all the important traits.  --
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support'''. Per everyone else, plus seeming admirably level-headed.
'''Support'''. Per everyone above. Good editor in all ways, active and quite experienced. '''''
Not just joining the snowball, but '''Support''' for quality and wise input on most occasions when i see her signature. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Yes, yes, yes. (By the way, I agree we need more content contributors as admins but the tools aren't going to run out).
'''Support''' <cliche> Really thought she was one already. </cliche> &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''': She'll be a good administrator. <b>
'''Support''', I know that "thought you already were one" is cliche, but in my mind if I have been assuming you were an admin all along, then you must be striking me as having the qualities required. ---'''
'''Support''' <joining the cliche [[Bandwagon effect|band wagon]]> Thought she was one already. </cliche> Seems a good candidate for the mop.
Appears to be a sensible editor who will likely be a sensible admin. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''', You will make an excellent admin.
Per above, best of luck.
'''Support''' a nice lady. Frankly to oppose this candidate is to oppose your mum.
'''Support''' with bells on.
'''Support''' Oh my word, yes. ''
'''Support''' Absolutely!  Great editor with a fantastic attitude and knowledge of how the 'pedia works.
Elen seems like a sensible editor, and a few more sensible administrators wouldn't go amiss.
'''Support''' Seen good things from this editor.  Lots of people I respect think she'll do fine. I'm good.
If you've worked as a complaints officer in local government, and have experience in dealing with children, then you're admirably equipped for adminship. '''
Per everyone above. <small>I think this generates an infinite loop with Mkativerata's support :)</small>
'''Support''' Perfect temperament, excellent attitude, and knowledgable. I always find her comments valuable. More content would be a bonus, but it would be churlish for me not to support for that reason alone. --
'''Support''' – Definitely. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Strong support'''. Extremely well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' – An honourable and constructive administrator! What a breath of fresh air after the recent embarrassing machinations by those prominent non-constructive incumbents the project would be so much better off without. --
'''Support''' She will fit the job.
'''Strong support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Most definitely. No qualms at all about supporting this candidate. --
'''Support'''. Yes, absolutely. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''.  Excellent attitude.  Reflected in Q6.  --
'''Support'''. I had assumed she already ''was'' an admin.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. See my comments after my oppose for reasoning.
'''Support''' - no brainer !vote.
'''Support''' -- oh hell yeah. :-) --
'''Support''' - Great temperament. Regards,
'''Support'''. Seems sensible enough in my encounters and, though we haven't always agreed, she's always backed up her opinions and kept a cool head. I'm sure if she puts as much care and consideration into her admin work as she has into various ANI threads and other discussions, she'll do a great job.
'''Support''' - Very even-handed, with enviably neutral temperment. The only reservation I might have is perhaps undue humility. Not only did I think she should already was an administrator, I think she should have been one for a rather long time by now.
'''Support''' per ''The Coming of The Roads'' [http://www.uulyrics.com/music/judy-collins/song-the-coming-of-the-roads/] ...
'''Support'''.  Lovely whimsical job of answering the questions.
'''support'''  --
'''Support'''
I guess I should '''support''' due to her answer to Keeps.---'''
'''Support''' Absolutely, per most of the above, particularly the positive comments about her temperament. I completely agree. —
Seems like a well-rounded candidate. '''
'''Support''' --<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
'''Support''' - I believe that Elen's here for the right reasons and won't abuse the tools, or the project.
'''Support''' - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - seems level-headed and is an effective editor. Won't abuse the tools, and should be a net positive to the admin corps.
No objections, thanks for the answer to my question. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' I was more than willing to support you before you answered my question, which you did answer satisfactorily. I changed my level of support to "strong" after reading your answer to question 9. It is the most thoughtful, insightful, intelligent, and coherent analysis of Wikipedia civility I have ever seen. Well done. Your eloquence and thoughtfulness set a high bar here, one that I one day hope to reach, and one the community should strive for. <span style="text-shadow:#CC1100 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Support'''. Somewhat lacking in content contribution, but otherwise a good candidate.
'''Support''' Usually makes sensible comments on ANI in complex situations. Her level-headedness and experience in dealing with people in real life are highly desirable assets and outweigh any qualms on content contribution.
'''Support''' Don't see any problems with this editor and no reason to believe they wpould abuse the tools, also I don't subscribe to the must have tons of content work in main space as a reason of oppose, when your here long enough you know how article creation and editing works.
'''Support''', will make a good admin.
'''Support''', I've found her level-headed and well-suited to the tools. Also (contra some of the opposes) find her take on the civility policy refreshing and welcome.
'''Support''', cliche as it may be, she isn't already?? Long past time to fix that. Also love the answers to questions 9 and 10.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''', per my struck "Neutral" below.
'''Strong Support''' - Need common-sense admins who will call a spade a spade when dealing with the various miscreants who often abuse wikipedia, and who realize the odd abrasive attitude isn't the end of the world. Oh, and don't act all poncy and above themselves. I'd wish you luck, '''but you don't need it.'''
<font size=5>↑</font> What he said. I'm normally cagey about RFA candidates with a lack of content experience—I think it's generally hard to understand the internal dynamics of Wikipedia without experience of patiently explaining to someone why no, the article wouldn't be improved by a long discussion of their pet theory—but, although I can't recall any conversation where I've ever agreed with you, you understand what we're trying to do and how we're trying to do it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Yo Apoyo''' Opposes don't convince me. What we need is people that ''do use'' common sense.
'''Support'''. No reason not to give her the Mop. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Thoughtful, insightful,  practical and fair. (
'''Support''' likely net positive.
'''Support''' Your experiences on Wikipedia and in real life have prepared you well to handle administrative duties. --
'''Support''' - Well qualified candidate. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' - partly because her user name strikes a chord.
'''Support''' excellent contributions. I also love the answer to question 6. {{=)}}
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The candidate is helpful, experienced and mature. While I'd prefer additional content-building experience it's clear that Elen has made meaningful contribution to several articles. I'm confident Elen will be a rock-solid admin.
'''Support'''- Certain to be a net positive with the tools.
'''Support''' I have seen no problems when I have seen the candidate around, and I believe that she will do a good job as an admin -- '''''
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Of course! Like so many others, I thought she already was an administrator. Also, I am favorably impressed with the answers to questions. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' An ideal candidate.
'''Support'''&mdash;seems like the candidate will make an excellent administrator. <i>
'''Support''' - per all above, basically, but I particularly like the liberal attitude to [[WP:IAR]] demonstrated in the answer to Q4.
'''Support'''; as someone who does a lot of CSD work, it makes our job easier if pages that are [[WP:SNOW|clearly not going to make it]] get deleted without requiring us on NPP to find another shrubbery and chop down the tallest tree in the woods with... a herring!!!! (read: set up an XfD)  Seems like this candidate is willing to use common sense, which is really all I want to see in an admin.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support.''' No major problems here as near as I can tell. ~~
'''Support''' mainly for answers to Q. 6 and 9--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' I see no glaring reasons not to support this candidate.
'''Support''' - seems like a reasonable person. Good luck with the tools!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Smart, good writer, insightful edits, with the proper, even-keeled, on-line personality to be an administrator.  We need more like her.
'''Support'''. Yes, trustworthy.
'''Support''. Seen the candidate around and I have been duly impressed
'''Definite Support''' - I've run into EotR multiple times, and have always been pleased with each encounter. Helpful, knowledgeable, experienced, patient. EotR has been, for quite some time, one of the people on my watchlist that I follow to "watch and learn" from the way they carry themselves on Wikipedia. <small>
Like...duh!
'''Support'''.
'''Support:''' A great candidate. -
per Mkativerata. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Support''' - Count me in, as the I find the handful of opposer's arguments are unconvincing. Best wishes on your adminship!
One of those people who I can trust to always make sense. I agree the lack of article edits give me some pause, but that's been overcome by the general feeling that this is someone who knows where her towel is, and can be trusted to use commonsense in dealing with problems. -
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''': She's not an admin already? I'm surprised.
'''Support'''. This editor's track record makes this a no-brainer for me. Lack of article edits bothers me not at all (still chewing on how that has become such an important litmus test for administrative activities - discussion on that left to another venue). --
'''Support''' Per candidate's exchange with Wehwalt below
'''Support''' I don't poke my head in this neighborhood very often, but I'm glad I did on this occasion. I may  be superfluous here, but I would have hated to miss it. Elen seems very sensible to me based on prior observations, and sense matters. :) --
'''Support'''. Highly capable candidate with sound judgment.
'''Support''' - ''per everyone'' at the top of my support :) -
'''Support''' Err... she isn't already? hm...
'''Oppose''' I guess I'm that jerk who is the first oppose. You just don't have enough content contribution for me. Looking at your edit count and percentages, I see that less than a quarter of your edits are actually to articles. We're here to work on the encyclopedia, not spend all our time at the admin boards. I simply cannot support a candidate who spends so little time editing articles. Apologies. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Oppose''' - I'd also like to see more content work in main space. This is a tad premature.
'''Oppose''' I do not think her stance on blocking policy is appropriate, see discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FElen_of_the_Roads here].   Seems to have a view on civility that differs from our rules, and fear that she will impose them unilaterally through unblocks as a cowboy (or cowgirl) admin, something we have seen too much of recently.--
There's no magic number for me, but I like to see more significant contributions to audited content in candidates. ([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|further]]) -<font color="#cc6600">
Q4 reflects a dangerously overexpansive interpretation of IAR. The reference to Fox to justify this interpretation is bizarre.
'''Oppose''' The massive proportion of Wikipeida namespace edits strikes me as rather bureaucratic. The editor has twice the number of WP namespace edits as mainspace edits. Something is fishy to me.
'''Oppose'''. I would prefer not having admins who have shown a predisposition to make unnecessary non-constructive and/or snarky comments
'''Oppose''' More article writing would be preferable. You can't gain a proper understanding of "how the project runs, how it governs itself, how it makes decisions" without much involvement in content creation.
'''Oppose''' I reviewed the candidate's contributions during October 2009.  Most of the contributions were to [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]].  For someone who is not yet an admin, this is not a good sign.  Then there was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge]].  This seemed to be a significant failure of [[WP:BEFORE]] as the topic has great notability but the candidate did not even seem sure what the topic was about.  Perhaps the article was poorly written but we require better due diligence in such cases.
'''Neutral''': Sorry to be the first nuetral, but would like to see more than 1500 mainspace edits before we give you the mop. Great Job anyways, and best of luck.
'''Neutral'''. I have often seen Elen provide very insightful comments, and her observations are often spot on. What's preventing me from supporting is essentially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangemike&action=historysubmit&diff=389770826&oldid=389747952 this] recent "unworthy comment", to a frustrated new user who may or may not have been here for the right reasons (whatever those are). <code>
'''Neutral'''.  Got the most important part to my question correct—the need to personally verify—but I was actually looking for an even stronger comment. [[WP:Dispute resolution]] if followed correctly pretty much directs that other forums be tried first before disputes are brought to ANI.  Taking this into account, accusations of "forum shopping" at ANI should be taken with a special grain of salt.  If no "forum shopping" occurred that may actually be a greater cause for concern.  Anyone planning to involve themselves at ANI should understand this automatically.  The dismay an editor might feel who has followed guidelines but then is accused for doing so should also be understood.
I hear a "jerk" here and a "Ooo yeah!" there so I don't care. --'''
'''Beat-the-nom Support''' - I've seen him around and he possesses a good amount of [[WP:CLUE|clue]].
'''Support''' as nom. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
<s>Looks OK.</s>On review of the discussion, upping to '''strong support.''' Clearly a positive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Wikipedia could use more editors like this one.  Will make a good admin. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Everything looks great.
'''Support''' per nom :)--
'''Support''': I don't see why not. Everything looks in order.
'''Support''': No concerns ([[WP:WTHN]]), but I advise the candidate to review the [[WP:CSD|CSD]] criteria before working that area if he/she decides to, as I can see little evidence of work in that area. --
'''Support''' - We need more vandal-fightin' admins, and I like the cut of Elockid's jib.  Think that's a very good plan for growth after tools are (hopefully) granted.  Best wishes on this Rfa!
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
Looks good.
'''Support''' All we need is one more admin that is like Elockid, than the "drought" will rebound!
'''Support''' No apparent issues. <strong>
'''Support''' yes. like nom. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' Trusted and experienced user. --
'''Support''' Can't find a valid reason to oppose. '''
I remember being impressed by your SPI work a little while ago. <s>I can't quite remember what messed up the last RfA, but</s> I think that you are ready for the bit now. '''
'''Support'''. An experienced and knowledgeable editor who will make a great admin. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. No problems here. --
'''Support''' Elockid does valuable work well at WP:SPI and is level headed, and so should make a very good admin. His/her responses to the above question indicate that they'll take a cautious approach to using the admin tools.
'''Support'''. I'm usually a little uncomfortable supporting candidates with thin content contribution records. But the limited content work that this candidate has undertaken shows that he understands content fundamentals such as [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], etc. I'm comfortable that despite the candidate's fairly narrow experience (counter-vandalism and counter-socking), he has sufficient clue to be trusted with the full range of tools. --
'''Support'''. Seems willing and able - best of luck to you.
'''Support''' - All around solid candidate.
'''Support''' No concerns with you.
'''Support''' Would like to see more content creation/heavy content work like DYK, GA, FA, etc. as well as more AfD involvement, but overall as good user who will only do more fine work at SPI. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' Hardwording and knowledgeable editor. I'm sure will make a very good admin. --
'''Support''' Nom seems knowledgeable and on top of the many issues vital to the project.
'''Support''' Certainly not "a one trick pony" but a specialist in AIV and SPI. High number of edits and clean block log far outweigh any issues of short tenure.
'''Support''' No blocks, over 10,000 edits and rollback rights, I don't see anything wrong here. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' A cool calm, friendly user. Excellent traits for an administrator.
Looks a fine editor and a dedicated vandal-fighter. I'd like to see more content added, but that's not a strict (from me) for using Admin tools. /
'''Support''' No problems here &ndash; a good candidate. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - No blocks, has rollback rights, been here 11 months, will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' No real concerns in my mind.  SPI and AIV are both easier places to be with a mop than without.
'''Support'''- why not?
Seems entirely fine.
'''Support''' - good edits from everything I've seen, and competent contributions to relevant admin areas. Sensible question answers, and nothing brought up in the oppose section to date gives me any real concerns. Looks fine to me! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', a decent candidate, from what I have read here and seen previously they would not be a problematic admin and would help the project, thus they have my support. --
'''Support''' Wiki-gnomes make great admins IMO.
'''Support''', effective editor in their areas of interest, will be a net positive. &mdash;
'''Support'''- a heady, dedicated vandal-fighter --> has the "right stuff" for the job--
Opposes are, at best, unpersuasive.
'''Support''' well balanced approach.  would make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, and per Tim Song.
'''Weak Support'''. Not full support due to initial first block q answer, but more than a neutral because he was able to accept criticism and not be stubborn about it and that I can't find another reason not to support.
'''Support''' Alright
'''Support''' A candidate who knows their own strengths and seems to understand vandalism criteria/actions pretty well. Experience looks good, esp a lot of work in SPI - we certainly need people there. Answers to questions are fine. --
'''Support''' I think there are many examples applicable to Q8 as well that can be listed. Some words for the candidtae (feedback from myself) The only danger i see with it is if someone edits like a LTA file without realizing and they get pegged as a sock and blocked only after one edit, I would say it has to be very clear that they are that person. I think in some gray areas where there is some doubt caution and a an SPI should be done but I trust your judgement to make that call. Good luck
'''Support''' worth a trial with the tools, more than likely a net positive.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support'''. Does a good job at SPI, and SPI would definitely benefit from him having admin tools. --
'''Support'''. More positives than negatives, by far. --
Can't see any problems with giving you the mop. --
'''Support''' - I ''am'' concerned about a lack of content creation (only 1 article created) and the relatively short tenure. But the "best" reasons for oppose that is mentioned below are vague concerns over being ''too'' vandalism happy, and an apparently now wrong assertion that an IP's edits weren't vandalism. That second case, on further inspection appears to validate Elockid's sophisticated understanding of what vandalism patrolling is like in practice, not in theory. This is ''exactly'' why we need more vandalism patrolling admins that know what vandalism looks like. Opposing for that reason, in my estimation, reflects a certain idealism that while understandable, is ultimately counterproductive to the encyclopedia.
'''Support.''' On Question 6, as Wikipedia becomes more and more comprehensive, we can only get more admin candidates with no experience in article ''creation'', yet who merely update existing ones. All core topics are now covered, and it takes an insider who is possibly not admin material to be the first to create an article on a new topic. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support''' - Decent contributions, solid policy knowledge, and frankly having another admin helping at [[WP:SPI]] will be very helpful. -- '''
Good answers to questions, solid track record, nothing jumps out as a concern. - Dank (
Good vandal fighter. Good answers to questions. Unable to see why not. --
'''Support''' Elockid has done great work fighting vandalism. I've only had one direct interaction with Elockid, but I had a very positive impression of him.  He has a genuine concern for the integrity of this project.  Wikipedia would benefit by providing him access to the admin tools. <b>
'''Support''' Will make good use of the tools. I'm afraid I also find the opposition unconvincing given the context of the candidates contributions so far. I also agree with Jclemens (currently in neutral) that the answers to the questions show conviction which is also not a bad thing.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - it looks like the potential positives outweigh the potential negatives here, so I will support this motion.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' - There's no doubt that I can trust this candidate with the tools. Shows good composure. I am concerned at the ''real'' lack of article space contributions and article creation.  This will be a handicap when venturing into PRODs and AfDs.--
'''Support''' - One of the most valuable sock fighters I've come across. Comes across as someone who understands policy/tools well and shows a level of equanimity in dealing with other editors.
'''Support''' Elockid may not have a particularly long tenure on Wikipedia, but the anti-vandalism work he's done is solid. We will also benefit from giving the tools to SPI clerks like the candidate. I also want to say that I'm very impressed by [[Wikipedia:Abuse response/79.0.0.0 - 79.63.255.255]]; that's some excellent work by the candidate, and it shows the kind of dedication to upholding our policies that I like to see in a potential admin.
'''Support''' - no ''major'' issues or problems; fully meets[[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Good work seen in the past. No problem with him getting the mop. '''
'''Support''' - Good candidate who looks like they will use the tools wisely. '''
'''Support'''- Looks like he knows what hes doing :). <i><b><font color="#32B430">
'''Support''' Have fun with the tools! :) '''
'''Support''' Ive looked through this user's contributions, and i cant see any reason why this user should not obtain the mop.
'''Support''' Seems like a pretty cool guy.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A good understanding of policies.
Opposes nowhere near worrying enough to justify joining them.
'''Support''' ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Strong Support:''' I really like his style. -
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Elockid. —
'''Support'''- more vandal-fighting admins is only a good thing. Won't break the wiki. Content creation seriously isn't that big an issue now that this 'pedia has so many articles. <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
'''Support'''. Longer experience would have been a plus (although content creation issues are not a concern for me), but I very much like the idea of admins who take care of vandals and socks so the rest of us don't have to, and this user clearly ''gets it'', clearly has clue. --
'''Support''' I've seen the good work you do at SPI and I think it's vital to have more admins that know how to handle sockpuppets. To clarify, not how to manipulate them, but how to beat them up.
'''Support''' &ndash; We need more admins at [[WP:SPI|SPI]], and nothing worries me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - First act as admin should be to block WifiOne for [http://www3.wifione.eu/ violating] [[WP:ORGNAME]]....  Either that, or use comon sense, ignore the probable coincidence and get on with necessary anti-vandalism and SPI work.  The answers above strongly suggest an editor that knows about dealing with such things  --
'''Weak Support''' Alright, hit me! :)
'''Strong Support'''. He's smart, has a helpful disposition, is vigorous against vandalism, has a good temperament, and the general judgment is that he's experienced enough. Good luck, Elockid.
'''Support''' - I think he is ready for adminship. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' -
Last-minute '''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|support]]''' before this gets closed.  The opposes seem to be more focused on proving that the candidate lacks the experience and maturity to do the job, but I find the answers to the questions to be thoughtful and indicative of good judgment.--'''~
'''Support''' based upon contribs and answers
'''Weak oppose''' - Seems knowledgeable and has specific work that they want to do with the tools (always a huge plus at RfA).  Unfortunately does not meet my minimum criteria as he has been here less than a year and, as another user said, is a little light in content creation.  He seems well suited for anti-vandalism work, but for the reasons stated I cannot support.  I would like to see a better rounded candidate.  --'''
'''Oppose''' We're writing an encyclopedia and although (like any other class of freely-accessible online self-expression) it gets mucked about with, some users seem to see it more as a variant MMPORPG. Vandal-fighting becomes for some a preference to the point of exclusivity, rather than an integreted part of involvement and contribution. Article creation, expansion, alteration, citation and inclusion or deletion: the core of what we're here to do just doesn't hold the same appeal, instead being almost like some incidental 'product' to protect and 'fight' for. But from it the necessary for RfA will somehow be extracted. Elockid's Lists and Stats are basic gnoming: regrouping existing info or adding easily available, condensed sources. But its not the time taken or effort expended that matters, its that lack of substantive contribution is because Elockid just doesn't seem interested. Such work also enables and develops the most valuable experience in communicating with other editors across the resultant range of issues, policies, and rules - communication beyond the usual circle of similarly interested/involved contemporaries and the hence beyond their usual focus and preferences. Elockid has done valuable work in his particular area but as far as preparedness and suitability for adminship goes, there is a substantive and, IMHO, fundamental <s>lot</s> part missing.
'''Oppose'''|A strong affinity towards blocking users would be counter-productive. The very first edit of a user should not be the reason for being blocked.--<sup>
'''Oppose''' As a spot check, I looked into his interactions with an [[User talk:88.160.124.73|IP editor]].  The candidate seemed too quick to assume and assert vandalism in this case.  He does not seem to have sufficient offsetting strengths for admin status yet.
'''Oppose''' Using SPI clerking as a backdoor to the admin bit. Severe lack of content contributions. Overly block happy. -
'''Weak Oppose'''. Concerned about longevity (here for less then a year) and unvaried content creation.--''
'''Oppose'''. A preference for the status quo, in the face of painfully obvious evidence to the contrary, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/65.116.143.83&diff=next&oldid=351305672 indicates] a likelihood Elockid will take the easy way out, failing to use any kind of thought process in decisions when a simple "I was just following policy" will excuse any errors.
'''Ugh''' no.
'''Oppose''' regretfully, for now, because of inadequate general experience, especially in writing articles, which is needed in judging how to help new users. '''
'''Oppose'''. You're a great editor well on your way to becoming an administrator, but I do not think the time is right. Your answers to some of the questions show a limited knowledge of policy and limited scope. I would expect broader horizons in an admin candidate and a sound knowledge of the blocking policy for someone who wants to work at AIV, yet your answers to blocking-related questions show that knowledge to be quite shaky. I think you lack a little hands-on experience that is gained by spending more time in the less trafficked areas of Wikipedia and that 3-6 months of editing in a variety of areas. While it seems likely this RfA will pass, I hope you take this on board.
The user seems knowledgeable, but they have not significantly contributed to audited content<sup>([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|note]])</sup>; while lists are great, they aren't articles. I also could find very little in the way of AfD contributions; the only one I found in the last 4 months was to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population]]. I'd like to see more contributions in that area. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral''' leaning support.  Per David Fuchs, the content contributions seem light.  On the other hand, the non-pansy answers about blocking are quite positive and show more backbone that most RfA candidates give.  I'll be watching this and may switch later in the discussion.
'''Neutral''' -- while I'd like to support, Q9 worries me. It seems to jump straight to "assume bad faith", but maybe I'm just not reading what he wrote properly. --
'''Neutral''' I'd like to see a clarification of Q9, as, like SoV, I'm a little concerned about a block after three warnings / VOA, especially if it's an IP. 4 warnings is the standard practice, unless it's an extreme BLP violation, HAGGER etc.
I am not concerned about lack of content creation as the qualities we ask of an admin can be found in other Wiki activities - we like to see commitment, impartiality, calmness, patience, knowledge of Wikipedia, understanding of human nature, the ability not to be deceived or misled, resilience, intelligence, flexibility, good judgement, and the ability to successfully research and find what is needed. I found that Elockid showed evidence of some of these qualities in dealings with other users - I liked what I saw at [[IQ and the Wealth of Nations]], and at [[Filipino people]] - the user appears quite level headed, dealing calmly and sensibly with other users, usually checking facts and data carefully. Though there is also evidence that Elockid may not always do the checks needed, and can make possibility incorrect assumptions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration&diff=next&oldid=336386735 This edit] makes an accusation that doesn't appear accurate, and the edit itself appears to be a good faith if clumsy attempt to insert information rather than straight vandalism - there appears to be [http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.3645822499 some sources] that say there are over 1 million illegal immigrants in Italy. I'm reluctant to support when a person has less than 12 months experience - I like to see a user encounter a range of situations, displaying knowledge of Wikipedia and coolness under stress; and also reducing the possibility of the account being a sleeper troll - so I expect a bit more of users who have a short history, and when I turn up material which gives me pause for thought I hesitate. I do think that there is much positive in this candidate, so I am not opposing, but giving that example of poor judgement combined with less than 12 months experience, I can't support. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Neutral''' Wobbly answers to Q8 and Q9 and the lack of content creation prevent my support at this time.
'''Neutral''' – while Elockid certainly has the ability as far as stopping vandalism and disruption are concerned (he's an ably competent SPI clerk IMO), I do echo David Fuchs' and a couple of others' concerns about experience level and lack of mainspace content building. I don't think my !vote will matter at this point, however, as Elockid will likely pass, barring any "WTF discovery" or something. –
'''Support''' as nom. --
'''Support''': My random sample of a dozen edits shows careful preparation and willingness to check text vs cites for accuracy.
'''Support'''. Sifted through contribs and deleted contribs. Appears to be polite, clueful, and knows policy. Been around awhile and has done some good work. It's a green light from me.
'''Support'''. Like the above editors, the contributions I've seen look good and knows policy. Communications with others have also been good. No reason not to support. Good luck! --&nbsp;
Same here, random sample, everything looks great.  I collaborated with you on [[Yao Ming]]. - Dank (
'''Support''' per 3. I am a huge fan of [[WP:BITE]]. We need more admins who appreciate it, and I don't think enough users do.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' I've worked with this editor before, and have no problems with adminship. Good user, dedicated to improvement of the encyclopedia, and no qualms. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Haven't worked with this editor before, but seems well-qualified from what I can see. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' This editor seems to know what they're doing.
'''Support'''. Eustress is a calm, productive editor whom I trust.

'''Support''' I've seen him at GAN before; he's clearly here to contribute good content to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' No issues here. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Support''' All my boxes ticked. --
'''Support''' Why isn't he already an admin?  --'''
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Indeed.
'''Support''' What a nice way to start the day - with two new RfAs, both of which I have no hesitation in supporting --
'''Support''' Sure, why not.
Dedicated to the project and will make a good admin, I'm sure.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Reading through user talk page and reviewing a sample of edits, I see nothing to indicate that they would abuse the tools.  '''
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' per Doc Quintana. per readily meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA|my standards]]. See no reason to believe will be anything but a positive.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good contributor to our collective
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' - no qualms here. Seems like a qualified, trustworthy candidate.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' No worries.
'''Support''' I haven't encountered this candidate often, but what I have seen -- and see here--  is   favorable. '''
Strongly: I remember Eustress coming to my talk page over two years ago for rollback. Everything I've seen from Eustress since then has been positive, and I'm pleased to see this RfA.
Very good. --
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' Who was it who said no strong candidates were seeking adminship?  Wrong.--
'''Support''' liked previous work ive seen.
'''Support''' <strong>
'''Support''' I have full confidence in Eustress. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' good chance at being a net positive.
'''Support''', complete lack of anything worth complaining about! Eustress is overdue some administrator tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Seems trustworthy enough for me. Good luck! &ndash;'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Has my support. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
Remember seeing you around a few times. Obviously, you're a good person, and I think your nice userpage reflects that. '''
'''Support''' - why not?
'''Support'''. Looks qualified to me. --
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin
We always need more image understanding admins, and I see no reason to think they'll wreck up the place.
'''Support''' as I see no reason for concern. Candidate willing to work on backlogs is a plus.
'''Support''' I see no causes for concern. -- '''''
'''Support''' - I love all of your work improving the content of articles, as well as AfD work, counter-vandalism, etc. Great work, keep it up, and hopefully these extra tools will help you :)
'''Support.''' --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work (over 4.3 edits per page edited) and sufficient WP edits, interesting Userboxen/user page, Rollback rights, autoreviewer, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' - Solid record: 2 1/2 years experience, >11,000 edits, of which half are to articles; many quality additions to worldwide college and university pages; seems to have a great deal of expertise with some of the more technical aspects of editing; and has shown a willingness to take on less glamorous jobs--
Good answers. /
'''Support'''. I appreciate the well-thought-out answer to my question and the polite poke on my talk page to get me to return :). I can't think of any valid reason to oppose, so the best of luck to you!
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Eustress. —
'''Support''': I like the answers here, see no cause for concern in a sampling of edits, and think we could use more admins wanting to work with images.
'''Support''' - No concerns, will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I have interacted with Eustress on WP for two years.  Solid, level-headed editor. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Eustress seems like a fine candidate to me, particularly given his extensive work with content creation/improvement and reviewing; I enjoyed reading some of his GAs, including [[Order of the Arrow]]. I'm glad to see a prospective admin who's willing to tackle the monstrous backlog at [[CAT:NC]] and [[CAT:NCT]], and he seems to have a strong grasp of our policies, including those regarding images. This candidate is a quality contributor all around, and I don't doubt his ability to become a quality administrator.
'''Support''' - This editor's achievements are impressive, the answers to questions were informed, and OlEnglish's endorsement carries weight with me. I see no complaints of any substance that would lead me to oppose. -- '''
'''Support'''. An intelligent, calm, and highly-qualified candidate with plenty of clue. Good luck with the mop!
I'm previously unfamiliar with the candidate. Looking through their interactions with others, the vast majority of the time I see them being calm, courteous, and clueful. Marco's allegations below are serious, but I was unable to find any evidence to substantiate it. Everything I saw was in line with [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:VERIFY]], and [[WP:RS]]. Thank you for submitting yourself for adminship Eustress, and I hope you make good use of the tools. '''
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate. Regards,
'''Support''' - Agree Good candidate. Good Luck. '''
'''Support''' Good for the job, can be trusted with mop. --
'''Support'''.  She will bring a touch of kindness to the encyclopedia; everywhere I see her, she is always being kind, to newbies and anons alike.  I never vote here, but I want to support Eustress. [[Special:Contributions/74.178.230.17|74.178.230.17]] (
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate. -
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', Eustress has the all-important Clue. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose'''. Some edits have a pro—[[Latter Day Saint movement|LDS]] bias.--
Has a strong commitment to content building and review, but with almost no AfD participation it's hard to tell if they have a practical grasp on many of our policies and guidelines. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral''' Until questions are answered. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' as nominator; with pleasure.
'''Support''' I supported last time, and I will do so again. Everyking would be very useful as an administrator.
'''Support''' per my !vote on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5]].  I also applaud the bravery and persistence of someone being willing to come back here time and time again; some may see it as a sign of power hunger, but I see a great difference between the power hungry types who have only one goal, and the people who are here to contribute constructively in any way they can. -- ''<B>
'''Support'''. I am impressed by Everyking's conduct, and his work for the project has always been commendable.
'''Support''' Gone beyond a joke, you guys. Anybody who wants it this bad will surely do the job. And you can always desysop him if he muffs it. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]]
Exemplary editor. No reservations whatsoever. ···
'''Support'''. Very dedicated to the project.
This is unfortunately going to fail anyhow. But while I often very much disagree with Everyking's opinions, I have never seen him enforce these opinions with his admin hat on. Which is something that I cannot say for every current administrator that we have. --
I subscribe to a much different *fD philosophy than Everyking, but for me, that has little bearing on my evaluation of the fellow as a extremely dedicated and long-standing volunteer who has only the best interests of the project in mind. [[User talk:Ocee|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''ocee'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' just like I did last time. He's agreed to steer clear of the AfD process, and I'll take him at his word on that. It's not necessary that an administrator be an enthusiastic supporter of the consensus, only that they agree to abide by it. <strong>
'''Out-of-retirement-for-one-edit Strong Support and this is why:''' You couldn't find two editors that are more at odds on Wikiphilosophy, especially on XfD, than myself and Everyking. Yet EK's loss of adminship is a nasty albatross that still hangs round enwiki's head, and I'm sure a lot of people would be happy if he'd just stop reminding them that they screwed up in the past. EK's desysopping was effectively a lynching by many of enwiki's "great and good". I would like to think that the falls from grace of many of those that performed the act are some sort of divine Wiki-providence; but in reality, all it proves is that those people weren't competent to remove the bit in the first place. The current community has the chance to show itself as mature enough to reverse that error - if it does not do so, it risks proving itself to be an entity that self-perpetuates its own mistakes. <b>
'''Support'''. Everyking has been a long-time editor for nearly six years now and has proven to be an excellent article writer.  No major incidents have happened regarding him in recent times and he has demonstrated his loyalty to the project through his hard work.  My only concern is that when he creates articles on living people (namely African politicians) that he should place the BLP template on the talk page and place the Category Living People on the article.  Otherwise, a very good editor who deserves a chance to aid the project further as an administrator.
'''Support''' Commited user and Outstanding track as a user and one who is going to stay in the project and I [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]] that the user will make good use of the tools this time around and will not close AFD .Despite failures in RFA and desysopping the user's commitment and dedication to the project has not gone down and truly desires to contribute to the project.
Pretty much what Black Kite says. I am no fan at all of Everyking, and I disagree with him on practically every issue on which we've ever come into contact, but I have no worries at all about him misusing admin tools. We're talking about three buttons on a rapidly deteriorating website here, the misuse of which can easily be reverted; we're not electing the Holy Roman Emperor.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Support'''.  Everyking knows the project inside and out, is dedicated to its success, and has displayed the commitment and experience to help make it so.
'''Support'''. Per nom; clearly committed to the project.
'''Support'''. Supported last time, and am doing so again. Everyking is a trustworthy user who has long since 'learned his lesson'. He is not going to abuse the tools, and would be a net benefit to Wikipedia by having them.
'''Support''', per Aditya Ex Machina.
'''Support'''. I have no real concerns with the candidate, and I do not know the details of the previous desysopping aside from what has already been discussed here, [[WP:DRAMA|nor do I want to]]. What I know is the candidate's current contributions and answers leave me with not much to doubt. I am concerned with the comments on [[WP:AFD|AFD]], but the candidate has stated he will not venture into that area, and [[WP:AGF|I have no reason to think otherwise]]. --
'''Gimme the usual'''.  Per last time, per the time before that, per nom, per this shouldn't have been necessary to begin with, pick one.  --
'''Support'''. Everyking has shown over the last couple of years that he's thoughtful and independent-minded. He knows the project like the back of his hand, and he doesn't take "sides" depending on who's involved, but follows the arguments. That's desperately needed. <font color="purple">
Per Black Kite, and Everyking's promise to stay away from closing discussions.
Again, per Black Kite, I hardly ever agree with Everyking. But I usually disagree in a way that makes me think. I certainly trust him to do the Q1 stuff, and certainly trust him not abuse the tools.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - He has most certainly improved since 2005. He hasn't been blocked for a loooong time. I think we should trust him. We have trusted him before.... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
I don't like qualifying rationales with "weak" (and especially "strong") but I suppose this could be construed as one.  I really dislike a poor usage of edit summaries, and think it highly unacceptable for a sysop; I'd suggest regardless of outcome Everyking use them.  I also am not wildly clear about the AfD stuff above - I don't see where you said you support counting ''here'', but when Ironholds asked you why you didn't deny it, so I'm a bit lost.  Still, whatever your views may be, you admit they are very different compared to what consensus is to do, and you also admit that you would ignore your views and follow the leading consensus, which you seem to have a good wrap on.  You also say you don't intend to deal with discussion closures.  Aside from that, I [[User:Amorymeltzer/rfa rationale|firmly believe]] that anything can be forgiven given enough time and the user has earned, and I believe that has been met here. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support.'''  Five years is not a few lifetimes in "internet years."  Whatever problems this person had in the past with his admin position are ancient history.  Please give him a second chance.  From what I see Everyking is one of the wisest sages on this website. [[User:Reg7ha|Reg7ha]] ([[User talk:Reg7ha|talk]]) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Reg7ha|Reg7ha]] ([[User talk:Reg7ha|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Reg7ha|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if:  | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small> <small>
'''Support'''
Sure. I don't feel like an archaeological expedition into the murky nether depths of Wikihistory; someone who wants a second chance this badly deserves one. I'm not going to pretend I have zero reservations, but my faith in Antandrus' judgment swings it. '''
'''Support'''. You know EK's going to try hard to do a good job if he's requested the bit this many times. Ancient history should be just that. <font color="#0000FF">
Do I think he'd act in a way that he thought would hurt the project?  No.  Do I think he'd use the tools to further his position in disputes?  No.  Do I trust Antandrus' judgement?  Yes.  OK then, '''support''.

Per Guettarda.  It's hard to believe that we desysopped people for providing deleted content (yes, I am aware of the particular problem with one particular instance).
'''Support'''. I wasn't familiar with Everyking's history prior to this RfA and had to do some reading before I could make an informed decision. I was leaning towards oppose given some of the "archaeological" (to borrow MastCell's terminology) evidence. However, the observation about "ossification" is a prescient one. Put another way: '''The user has tried to learn from his mistakes rather than creating a new account''', which speaks volumes in light of some recent incidents. He deserves a second chance.
'''support''' in part because he's a good level-headed editor.  In part per Black Kite.
Everyking is a very dedicated user, and his service as an admin was generally good. The only major issue occurred years ago, and was treated fairly. The user continued to contribute in spite of that rather minor setback, and remains an asset to the project. He's presumably learned his lesson, but is obviously a bit unpopular. To be honest, I think it's becoming a bit excessive to deny him another chance with the bit time and time again, when he has given us his word that he won't use the tools maliciously or with disregard for consensus. The ArbCom thing was years ago; decades in "internet time". I don't usually agree with Everyking, but seriously—adminship is a technical position on a website. I trust him to not do anything stupid. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' Dedicated user, will AGF that he will honor his word to not close XfDs.
'''Support'''. Same as last time. I don't care for him so much, but he got epically screwed over. Never should have lost his bit to begin with, never abused it. Displayed his value as an admin during his previous run. ArbCom should have given it back to him ages ago. <big>
'''Support''' de-admin was a very long time ago and it wasn't like Everyking did something serious like deleted the main page or sockpuppetry. Everyking could have easily retired, hid behind a new username and probably passed with minimal opposition. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Slightly weak support'''. That request to ArbCom to overrule the dozens of opinions in 4 RfAs gives me a ton of pause, but the oppose section, most of which violate [[WP:AGF]] to some degree or another, are drawing attention from the real issue. There's no evidence Everyking will abuse the tools, and plenty to indicate the opposite will happen.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Most dedicated editors have a black mark on their record at some point (myself included), and I see no compelling reason to oppose at this point. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' worth a trial with the mop. really. Will be watched closely so will be pulled up if misuses tools.
'''Support'''.  Behaviour problems, such as they were. are long in the past and should be considered resolved.  I don't entirely see eye to eye with him regarding determining consensus, but view his opinion as unlikely to lead to wrong action (EveryKing isn't promising to stay away from AfD as a campaign stunt, his long history shows him to have little interest in that area) and a useful corrective to the tendency of admins to use their close as a "super-vote" basing their decision on which arguments have convinced them rather than on the demonstrated consensus of the discussion.
'''Weak Support''' - I have very serious reservations about this editor's AfD policy judgments, but the nominator and editors I trust above have convinced me otherwise. I fully agree with the nom's frustration about the RfA process, which is broken in more ways than that, but an editor with this pedigree is clearly dedicated. There probably is a predictable change in sentiment regarding what qualifies at AfD as the project progresses. Right now I don't see any extreme behavior that I'd regret supporting.
'''Support''', if only to prevent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 7]]: give him the mop back already. Nobody's perfect, and who's going to tread more carefully than a previously-desysopped admin?
'''Support''' I see some odd arguments about AfD policies but without going through the extensive history I don't see any reason not to trust Everyking.
'''Support''' in line with my support of previous requests. I remain amazed that EK has stuck with the project given that I believe he has been treated unfairly on a number of occasions, particularly by past ArbComs. EK holds non-mainstream views on some issues, but I do not think that should disqualify him from being an admin. Diversity of opinion tends to be a good thing. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per nom, WJBscribe and others.
'''Support''', Everyking, in my opinion, will be a fine administrator and more than capable of wielding the mop. - [[User:Tbsdy lives|Tbsdy]] (formerly
Honestly I never agree with Everyking stances, but he never abused the tools, and I remembered that he was one of the projects strongest vandal fighters. Having the abilty to block vandals is a net positive. I trust the nominator, and many of the supporters. It's overdue.
'''Support'''.  He got on the wrong side of the ruling clique a long time ago, and they'll never let him live it down.
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]. What a long and winding history to follow, in reviewing this candidate. The arbcom request after RFA 5 is off-putting, but I'm seeing nothing that leads me to think the tools themselves will be abused. The reason the drama doesn't bother me? I can't imagine a newly minted administrator who will be under more intense scrutiny than Everyking will be when the tools are restored. If there are shenanigans, and I stress that I don't believe there will be, I imagine there would be 20 editors jumping in to point out the failure. Kudos to EK for being willing to proceed, despite that scrutiny - and good luck.
'''Uber-strong-nononsense-why-was-he-desysopped-new-year-support!''' He seems to be very good, and I believe his mistake with the page was minor. Congrats on [[WP:100]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Weak support'''.  I will always associate EK with Ashlee Simpson in my mind, but I see him occasionally on Africa-related topics doing sane and constructive things. As I simply will not oppose a candidate for a years-old block log and cannot find anything recent and troubling, I'll support with some trepidation that we're simply giving EK enough rope to hang himself again, and for the last time. No third chances. -
'''Support''' 5 years is punishment enough, time for the mop to be haded back to this worthy user. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. He's not perfect, but nobody is. In fact, he's made some sizeable errors in the past. But the were far enough in the past that I am able to support.
'''Support''' An excellent editor with a clear commitment to Wikipedia.
Per my comments at RFA#5. I'm not really a big fan, but there's a fairly long track record of him ''not'' using his tools in areas where his views don't match consensus. Such a history makes me comfortable accepting his promise not to close XFDs. --

'''Support''', as per last time.
'''Support''' as I did before. Will be a useful admin and is hardly likely to make the same error again.   '''
'''Support'''. It's time to put the old grudges to rest, and give a second chance to a good content contributor.
'''Support''' I supported his last two RFAs and see nothing to make me hesitate in supporting again. I've read the oppose section and would prefer it if he made greater use of edit summary; Otherwise unless something surfaces from the last twelve months, I think the project would be best served by giving this candidate the mop. ''
'''Support''' per the last time I voted on this, don't always agree with him but think he'd be a good admin.
'''Support''' - He definitely has the ability and experience to be a good admin, and I'm now convinced that his unorthodox view of AfD closure won't be a problem. -- '''
If he wants the tools back and there's no sign that they'll be abused or misused, then I say let him have them back. I think he had a good reputation as an admin back in his day (I wasn't around then, though) and I think he'll be even better today.
'''Support''' I honestly thought you were one currently.
'''Support'''. I have consistently supported Everyking for many years.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support'''  Agree that edit summaries are nice, but still think hed make a great admin as his  considerable experience doesn’t seem to have compromised an inclination towards fair and independent thought.
'''Support''', especially per RP459's comments. Please use edit summaries.
'''Support''' Arbcom desysopped you unfairly, so you shouldn't even be here. I still have some concerns with your opinions on consensus, but I don't have a problem letting you do the tasks that you laid out in question one. Also, I just have to get out that I think a lack of edit summaries is a pretty lame excuse for an oppose rationale. '''
'''Support'''. Mainly for being masochistic enough to go through this ''six'' times! As long as you stay away from closing AfDs, I see nothing that makes me think you would be untrustworthy and certainly nothing to say you're incompetent. From my own experience, AIV, RPP and similar noticeboards are "staffed" by two or three great admins who work their arses off, but the boards become quickly backlogged when none of them are online. Another admin there would certainly not be a bad thing and you obviously know what you're doing. Good luck.
'''Support''' I feel that Everyking 6 will not misuse the tools. His views on xfD are... different... but as he never closed any before, I don't see any reason why he would start doing so now, if he is successful. -- '''''
'''Support''' User has a long history of building the encyclopedia, was an admin with no misuse of the tools, has made a few mistakes, but has behaved well for a long time. He's been denied the admin bit for a long time. I propose we restore the bit on the basis that he will be unlikely to abuse it, he will be able to use it often in a manner beneficial to the encyclopedia, and that editors holding critical viewpoints should be present among the admin ranks. --'''''
unlikely to fuck up too badly.
'''Strong support''' per Badger Drink who acknowledges "the value of Everyking's content contribution" and "Everyking's intellectual comprehension of WP's rules and norms".  Everyking's approach to AfDs tend to be in line with those who are here to build a comprehensive paperless encyclopedia that anyone (i.e. a diverse audience with many interests) can edit.  Exemplary contrbutions include [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_weapons_and_items_from_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series&diff=179926384&oldid=179829066 this fine argument] in which he is not persuaded by use of the immature nonsense "cruft."  Moreover, it is 2010.  He was last blocked waaaaaay back in 2007, which means all of 2008, 2009, and thus far into 2010 with no blocks.  How much more reformed can one reasonably be?  Thus, the candidate passes [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' almost 5~6 years dedication. I do not belive Everyking would abuse the tools, I can only see them complimenting Everyking's edits. Good luck
'''Support''' per nom, Black Kite, and many others. Long experience and excellent knowledge of how things work, no reason to expect misuse of tools.
'''Support''' I don't think we need to worry about him using the tools in a harmful fashion. I think that his original desysoping was justified and that his behavior was been at times very much less than ideal (supporting bring Wikipedia disputes into real life is such a large no-no that I can't even begin to express it). However, his behavior over the last few years has improved and I'm convinced that even if he doesn't necessarily agree with the community and policies on some issues he isn't going to go run around crazy if we give him the tools. Overall, I expect a net positive to the project if we return the tools to him.
'''Support'''. Previous indiscretions are simply too long ago for me to consider them relevant. His weighty experience and reasonable answers to the questions convince me that he should be given the tools. --
'''Support'''  Its past time for this promotion for an excellent contributor.
'''Support'''  I simply cannot imagine that Everyking will misuse his tools, if given them.
Just give them to him already. All the opposes are completely unconvincing and it's pretty obvious given his continued work and constant defence of wikipedia that he's hardly going to suddenly ruin everything when your back is turned
'''Support''' a tireless contributor, whose [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Everyking&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 124 thousand+] live edits place him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest #40] in contributions out of the many thousands of Wikipedia editors.  His  [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Everyking&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 171]   articles shows an editor all about building an encyclopedia.  '''
'''Support''' I do agree that the incident that got him de-sysopped was a gross error in judgment. However, his supporters who argue that he could have started over under a new name and gotten the bit by now have a valid point. While I do have concerns, I also have respect for someone who attempts to clear their name by actions rather than abandoning ship only to return with wearing a wig and a fake mustache. I think it's also safe to say that if given the bit, I doubt he'd do anything controversial, given the scrutiny he will surely be under.

'''Support''', lots of valuable institutional memory embodied here.
'''Support''' for the honest answers to my questions (particularly number 18).  I believe in redemption.  EK has worked with the community to redeem himself and like he said, he could have created a sock and gone about this the back avenue way.  I prefer what he did even though it has made his wiki-life much more difficult.  Plus, think of it this way, if we grant him the bit, he will be a closely watched admin for a while... I doubt that he'll go rogue...---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) More explicitly:  If he had "restarted" after his last RfA, he would be an admin by now... while I it would be foolish to ignore past transgressions, he has shown more class and character than most in trying to redeem his princple account.  That gives me faith that if he were given the bit, that he would not then turn around and squander that opportunity.  I suspect that because of how hard he has worked to salvage his name, that he just might turn into one of the better admins.---'''
'''Support''' Honesty and integrity if I've ever seen it.  A reasonable minded person who will do the Wikipedia good when given the tools he needs to make it happen.
'''Strong Support''' - Everyking has earned this.
'''Support''' My decision to support is based partly on an assumption that Everyking will keep his word and not apply his unconventional ideas on XfD-closing to actual XfDs, as well as Antandrus's very convincing nomination statement. Everyking was desysopped by ArbCom back in 2005, it's true, and he was the subject of three ArbCom cases prior to that. But since then, he has a fairly clean record &ndash; and it's been a pretty long time since 2005. I'm impressed that Everyking has stuck with the project all this time after he lost the bit, and that he has been a seminal article-writer in areas where Wikipedia's coverage needed expansion (African politics comes to mind). I also strongly agree with Recognizance's comments above: That Everyking had the decency, the respect for his fellow editors, and the guts to stand by his record, warts and all, when returned to RfA five times since 2005 speaks volumes about his trustworthiness. There are those who abandoned stained accounts in order to deceive the community and gain or regain adminship (three have been exposed, to my knowledge), and Everyking could easily have done just that. But he didn't, and ''that'' is why he is worthy of our trust and respect.
'''Support'''.  Appears very knowledgable.
'''support''' per above.
'''Support''' - Per Willoughby.
'''Support'''. I have good faith in Everyking. '''''
'''Support''' He's committed and as dedicated to this project as anyone voting here. I disagree with most of his positions on wiki-political issues but that's no reason to oppose. He can be trusted as admin.
'''Support'''. Everyking is not the kind of person who has left Wikipedia in a huff when things have taken a wrong turn for him. He has instead continued to use his old account with all the baggage that carries with it. His contributions to encyclopedia writing are very solid, and his approach to process and policy is one which empowers the community instead of individual admins to make the decisions, and his main use of the admin tool was to fight vandalism, an effort which is still needed. While I do disagree with him on some issues, his approach is not one which is prone to rogue actions.
'''Support''' Partly because of the answer to question 15, partly because of Atama's reasoning, and partly because their history as an admin seems, that one incident apart, pretty good.
'''Support''' Good work, keep it up
'''Support.''' Basically, Balloonman said most of what I wanted to say. Here is an editor, who, despite significant past problems, stuck with the project and did not try to hide under a new name but continued to be a constructive and prolific contributor to building up the encyclopedia. Rather an admirable example to follow. It is time to let bygones be bygones, both for the sake of this candidate and other editors who might find themselves in a similar position. I am somewhat bothered by the low edit-summary usage (please do improve it), but overall a hugely experienced editor who is unlikely to abuse the trust.
'''Support''' I understand the concerns but in the end, I'd rather have an extra admin on the project. Everyking wants to help and I think he understands that his previous handling of the tools was ultimately unhelpful.
'''Support''' Per Cla68 and Sjakkalle--
'''Support''' Based on SlimVirgin's comments at 21 above.
'''Support'''. Everyking's dedication to the project is unmatched. There is no risk in toggling the sysop bit of one of our most experienced and hard-working contributors.
'''Support''' Seems to have the right stuff, as detailed above.  I especially like his [[judicial restraint]] which indicates that he will be unlikely to abuse admin tools.
Support (again). &mdash;
'''Support''' - Per previous, long over due. Everyking has agreed not to close AfDs, but even so his philosophy that the ''"...outcome of an AfD should accurately reflect the discussion, and an administrator shouldn't close an AfD based on his or her own personal opinion about the merits of inclusion. Obviously, in individual cases there can be questions about how to interpret the outcome, but the point is that the decision needs to be based on consensus."'' hardly sounds like  a contradiction of policy to me, and even if it was [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|my criteria]] scrutinizes editors for following policy, not for how they think.
Frankly, only because it's Antandrus. But Ok.
'''Support''' - What's past is the past, and although there's no guarantee that he'll never ever make a mistake as an admin, the future is brighter when users like this are allowed to pick up the tools (again).
'''Oppose<!-- Support, in case you didn't get the sarcasm ;) -->''' - The wiki universe as we know it will come to a sudden and tragic end should we [[WP:AGF]] and say what's in the past is in the past, and give the bit to this dedicated content contributor. Oh dear, oh my.
'''Support''' - meets and exceed my standards, but is not perfect.
'''Support''' - Worth his weight in gold.
I'm impressed by the effort that Everyking has put in after being desysopped. Not only is it good judgement, it shows that he has the maturity and clue to be an admin again. Aside from the proposed amendment to his arbiration case, I've been impressed by his other work and I'm glad to support him. <small>(
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''
'''
'''Support''':Per the reasons stated above.
'''Support''' From observation of editor's conduct. '''''
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent content editor. Other issues are of interest; however, I strongly feel he again deserves to wield the mop. '''
'''Strong Support''' - Dedicated and I believe he would do well.
'''Support''' - yeah, he'll do fine. It's past time he got the bit back -
'''Support''' Sure. Long time contributor with an ancient block log. Former admin desysopped for a marginal reason. No worries. --
--[[User:Chris Markides|Chris Markides]] ([[User talk:Chris Markides|talk]]) 12:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)<small>this editor has made few or no edits outside of this discussion---'''
'''Support'''.  I've thought about this one for a while.  On the one hand, I often find Everyking, with whom I've interacted some at Wikipedia Review, grating and unduly fixated on perceived slights.  Additionally, there are some disconcerting elements of his past, especially as it pertains to his comments appearing to encourage interference with a rival administrator's academic/professional career.  On the other, it is very difficult to conclude that the desysop those years ago was justified: Everyking was careless in musing about posting information deleted from an article without knowing the nature of that information, but once he found out that it was a privacy issue he immediately declined to actually post it; on the spectrum of poor administrator judgment, that is very mild.  Moreover, I'm satisfied that in the case of his more serious behavioural issues, Everyking is contrite and much less inclined to act rashly than in the past.  AGF notwithstanding, I am not sure I accept Everyking's explanation that his sole motivation in this RFA is to help Wikipedia; I believe that he also wants what he perceives as justice.  But if I were desysopped on as dubious a basis as he was, I would very likely want the same.  A successful RFA here would help turn the page on one of the many sorry chapters in Wikipedia's history.
'''Support''' Hardworking and trustworthy [[User:MeisterChief|MeisterChief]] ([[User talk:MeisterChief|talk]]) 13:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC) <small>this editor has made few or no edits outside of this discussion. --
'''Support'''; I remain convinced that this RfA is a consequence of an unhealthy fixation on a desire for justice against perceived slights; but I am also just as convinced that Everyking is capable and willing to be a competent and useful admin and that misuse of the tools is vanishingly unlikely &mdash; and those are my only strong criteria towards adminship.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Drive-by support''' for a long overdue candidate.
'''Black Kite-style support''' --
'''Support''' per Wikipedia Review.
[[User:Mobile Suit Gundam]] 21 January 2010  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>this editor has made few or no edits outside of this discussion---'''
'''Support''' Having had assuaged my concerns about Everyking's effort to have the bit restored by the Arbitration Committee, by both his answer to question twenty and his creditable&mdash;and prompt&mdash;response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everyking_6&action=historysubmit&diff=338687696&oldid=338687449 my first vote] on my talk page, I am comfortable situating myself firmly in the "support" section, believing with a great deal of confidence, consistent with my votes in RfAs three and five, that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Forgive and forget support''' - also per {{User|UltraExactZZ}}. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' It's time to move forward away from the past...
'''Support'''. As last time.  Best of luck! '''
'''Strong support''', per my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=288829954&diff=prev vote] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=288860653&diff=prev comments] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=289012540&diff=prev last time]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
''''Support''' I won't pretend not to have misgivings, but life is too short for excessive risk adversity. We all deserve an opportunity to make good on our attempts to prove our worth.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' The nomination by Antandrus is one of the stronger ones I've ever seen and was quite convincing for me at the outset, whereas the oppose !votes generally are not. Black Kite, Juliancolton, WJBscribe, and Steve Smith are among the supporters above who make good points with which I largely agree (but won't repeat). In a nutshell I think Everyking is a fine contributor who will make good use of the tools while not abusing them, so I'm happy to support. --
'''Support'''. Wikipedia is officially run by administrative fiat now, so [[WP:WHYNOT]]?
'''Support''' - Seems like he'll be good for wikipedia!
'''Support''' As far as I can see, should never have lost the bit in the first place.  Stinky.
'''Support''' once again. Everyking is sensible, dedicated, and understands what an administrator should be.

Since I supported EK in the last two RfAs it would be foolishly inconsistent for me not to support this time.
'''Support''' - Capable editor, useful for the project to give the mop back.
I '''support'''ed EK before. My reasons have not changed so I support him this time also.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as per above. ''Per ardua ad astra'' —
'''Support''' - As I said when I supported his previous RfA, the lapse in judgment a very long time ago was a serious lapse, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will not happen again. His responses to questions here support that expectation. I do disagree with his view on consensus, but his view is not entirely wrong -- and disagreeing with me isn't necessarily a bad thing. --
'''Support''' again.- Supported last time...hasn't shown anything but dedication since=D.
'''Support''' - It's always refreshing to see an admin candidate that seems more concerned with the encyclopedia than they do with petty politicking and meaningless projectspace edits (onoz! somemone made a ANB/I post, I '''must''' go there and give my opinion!!!). This user has opinions, some of them are good ones, some of them I don't entirely agree with. But regardless of that, this is an admin candidate who is grounded in the betterment of the project, rather than all the extraneous crap that surrounds it. That gets my support any time. The opposes below range from valid to laugh-out-loud hilarious, but none of them convince me that Everyking would be anything but an exceptional admin.
'''Support'''. I have never voted on any previous RFA by this user.
'''Support''' - per Orlady.
Giving them the tools will not make them more of a pain in the neck but would conceivably lead to some naughty vandals being blocked from further abuse. I consider that to be a good thing.
Tactical '''support''', to cancel some of the ridiculous BADSITES opposes. --
Yes please.
'''Support''' - Lapses of judgement are are in the past and I'm convinced he's learned from them. Per Slim, we really need admins of Ek's calibre. --
'''[[Redemption Song|Bob Marley support]]'''
'''Support''' Although Everyking fails my "every admin should identify" test, he posts on Wikipedia Review and his posts there show he knows Wikipedia isn't the fluffy utopia a lot of the liberals and kids here claim it is '''
'''Support''' Honest, committed and long term contributor. The tools get misused and abused everyday. Get over yourselves.
As one of Everyking’s former nominators, I’m here to give him my continued support. First off, I want to address the AfD issue and tool usage: Everyking has spent years to restore his reputation and standing, building and creating hundreds of articles, making over 125,000 edits, working with people, putting countless hours of work into the project, and been through several rough RfAs. Why would he, if resysopped, go on a mass AfD closing spree or do any other sort of abuse with the tools? Why would he want to do that? No one who has been through what Everyking has been through would want to do something foolish like that: if Everyking really wanted to damage Wikipedia, he could quite easily have created a sock, got it up to adminship, and pushed his views with that sock, as that would have been far more easy to achieve. Instead, he’s stuck with the one account, been open and honest with his views, and at same time sticks to his principle of not subverting the project’s rules in favor of his own views. Besides, if he did start closing AfDs in light of saying many times that he wouldn’t, or started abusing his tools, Everyking would not be an admin very long after that, as many users who placed their trust in him would call for his resignation, and if he didn’t follow through with that, his desysopping. In addition, closing AfDs is not all adminship entails: I myself don’t close XfDs, and am not hindered in any way by it, so Everyking won’t be a “partial admin” at all (in fact, I suspect that Everyking's tool usage will be similar to mine: using the tools in assist in everyday editing, such as coming across vandals to block, and there aren't any complaints). Based on all of this, I don’t believe he would ever begin closing or have any reason to close AfDs, nor would he have any reason to abuse the tools in any way either. Regarding Wikipedia Review, it’s disappointing that there still seems to be a dislike of WR among a few users, despite the fact that countless editors (regular editors, admins, and arbitrators) all participate there. Overall, I believe Everyking has improved over the years (I'm very impressed with his answers to the questions), learned from his mistakes, and will be a better admin than he ever was before (bearing in mind that he never abused the tools nor his position when he was an admin). I strongly support his candidacy.
'''Support''' I have every confidence in your judgement and skill.
'''Support''' - I see evidence from long past and recent behaviour that tells me the few extra buttons will be used well -
'''Support''' the lapse of judgement was long ago, and I am willing to believe that this editor has grown in responsibility since his last RfA. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Wikipedia measures time in dog years, so 2006 is long ago.
'''Support'''. In spite of the arbcom case, the user clearly knows how to use the tools to the benefit of wikipedia. And to his credit, he has decided to stick it out on the same account, when starting afresh would have been easier. He has acknowledged that appealing against desysopping was misguided, but maintains that he was, and remains, a good candidate for the tools. From what I've seen of his contributions, I completely agree. [[User:WFCforLife|WFCforLife]] ([[User talk:WFCforLife|talk]]), <small>

'''Support''' per all the other times I've supported.
'''Support'''  Been on the fence on this one all week.  EK wouldn't be here if he wanted to abuse the tools; he would have vanished and reappeared with a sock.  If he wants to fight vandals, do it with a mop.
Spent all week thinking about this, and, on balance, '''support'''. <small>[[User:Redvers/SN|⇦]]'''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Acalmari's argument. <span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print;">[[User talk:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]

'''Support''' as I have done previously under other username(s). Everyking has a long and well-established record. What you see is what you get. If he says he won't close AFDs, he won't, period.
'''Support'''.  How long has this person been contributing to Wikipedia, seriously?  Since some of you were in diapers probably.  We all make mistakes from time to time but I see no reason why the community cannot trust this person.  That's what the tools are about, right?
I '''Support''' ---
'''Support''' Face it the original de-admining was on ah questionable grounds.©
'''Support''' The multiple RfAs are concerning, but on the whole I think Everyking is a net positive for the project. I also think that since everyone knows his past, enough eyes will be on him that any misuse of the tools will be caught quickly. I do wish he'd use edit summaries more. It's really easy now that there is a setting in the user preferences that lets you know when you're not using them.
'''Support''' Fully competent candidate and not expected to fail. --<strong>
'''Support''', it's time to bury the hatchet.
'''Strong oppose''' per his AfD philosophy.
'''oppose'''  Reading his past RfAs and his opinions as stated on XfDs, I am rather uncertain of him, And since he will have the ability to close XfDs, I must assume he will use such power at some point.
'''Oppose''': based on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5|RfA 5]] but also the subsequent request to ArbCom to restore his bit by fiat (see archive [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|oldid=302860979#Request_to_amend_prior_action:_Everyking_desysopping}} here]), I have formed two impressions: Everyking is indeed prone to ignore consensus, as the appeal to ArbCom to override the result of the 4 previous RfAs demonstrate, but more importantly, it is my impression that Everyking is not seeking adminship in order to help the project, but rather as a means to clear his name or restore his honour. While I sympathize with this (assumed) endeavour, the mop is not a token, nor is it a means to right past wrongs. In other words, the mop is supposed to be [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] but the candidate is, endlessly, making one of it. I can't support under these conditions, and the backdoor attempt through ArbCom leaves a sour taste.
'''Strong Oppose''' I was going to write a long and comprehensive rationale detailing past misconduct that led to his desysopping as well as being grossly out-of step with current policies and community standard regarding consensus (see also RFA #5), etc.  But you know what, the link posted by MLauba would be more than enough even without all that.  Strong oppose per MLauba.
'''Oppose''', but I want to stress that I am opposing only because of Everyking's views on deletion, and not because of misconduct, which I believe is well in the past.  His statements about avoiding AfD are a downside to me, as I am not a believer in any kind of partial adminship.
'''Oppose''' Per MLauba and Collect, in addition to my policy of never supporting a 4th or subsequent RfA.  Cool Hand Luke, you are not helping by reiterating Everyking's [[campaign promise]]s.
Following MLauba's link, you told ArbCom they should restore your mop despite the last RfA, which failed, because there was a "campaign" against you.  Okay ... so, tell us about the campaign.  If there's something dishonest or unfair going on at any RfA, we should learn about that, so we can fix it, for your benefit and for the benefit of other candidates.  OTOH, if you're willing to go to ArbCom to accuse good-faith voters of bad faith with no credible evidence, then I'm less likely to support you this time than last time, and I opposed last time.  I do sympathize with your point that, once ArbCom has ruled, it tends to poison the waters and make it difficult to fight back, but the best I can tell from my limited vantage point, your problems are your own making. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' per above.
I was hoping to see some recent examples of this editor interacting with other administrators in order to review how his approach to handling disputes has changed since his early arbitrations.  Unfortunately, this editor has very few recent contributions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces beyond extensive participation in AfD (and the odd RfA).  I skimmed back to the beginning of October.  (Namespace contributions: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&contribs=user&target=Everyking&namespace=4 Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50&contribs=user&target=Everyking&namespace=5 Wikipedia talk].)  While he states an interest in blocking vandals, I see no contributions in the last year to WP:AIV.  I ''was'' worried by comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Coren/Questions_for_the_candidate&diff=prev&oldid=330018304 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&diff=prev&oldid=318291968 this].  Everyking seems to ''still'' believe that the restrictions imposed on his conduct were some sort of political persecution, and not a reflection of the persistent, disruptive, unfortunate damage his conflict with another editor was causing.  In his response to question 3 he talks about the lessons he's learned, but his comments since his last RfA (and since his subsequent attempt to have the ArbCom reinstate him without an RfA) don't seem to reflect this.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with the recent arbcom request and AfD philosophy.  Little has changed since that last RfA.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Made non-binding pledge to do/not do something. Pledges during RFA are made [[ad captandum vulgus]], and evidence a lack of reliability.
'''Oppose''' Per Hipocrite and per [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26946&st=40&p=200464&#entry200464 describing Wikipedia consensus as "administrative fiat"]. Anyone with so little respect for the way consensus is evaluated on Wikipedia will have great difficulty judging it fairly. In response to the arguments I can hear brewing as I type, consensus does not only come into play at AFD time: nearly every action an administrator makes is enforcing, at some level, a community consensus. Being able to judge that consensus is a critical skill.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per MLauba's rationale above.
'''Oppose''' is a prolific contributor to the [[Wikipedia Review]], an irresponsible attack site and well-known trolls' den.--
'''Absolutely not'''. I am not questioning the value of Everyking's content contribution. But content creation and adminship are two entirely separate skillsets - just because one is an excellent actor does not necessarily mean they're cut out for directing. While I have faith in Everyking's intellectual comprehension of WP's rules and norms, I cannot help but find a long history of getting caught up in the heat of the moment and throwing that knowledge to the wolves - be it [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Statement_of_complaint|edit-warring over Ashlee Simpson in 2004]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_2#Statement_by_Snowspinner|refusing to learn from his mistakes and continuing to edit war in 2005]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive57#Everyking_desysopped|off-handedly offering to share sensitive personal information in 2006]], and [http://www.elsewhere.org/tmp/brandt-sandifer.png encouraging the real-life harrassment of the WP user who brought him to ArbCom over the Ashlee Simpson behavior], also in 2006 (and to date one of the most disgustingly juvenile, downright petty statements/actions I have ever seen from a Wikipedian). One could try to pish-posh and hand-wave this away, sweeping it under the rug as "ancient history", except '''EveryKing still cannot back off'''. His ArbCom appeals were so frequent that ArbCom took the unprecedented, to my knowledge, action of [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Modified_by_open_motion_2|limiting him to one appeal per year]] (number 7 in that section) - a quota which Everyking was only too happy to meet, continuing to hoot and holler, painting a picture of himself as a political prisoner over '''horribly unjust''' (I hope my sarcasm will make itself obvious shortly) remedies which included (paraphrased, see previous link for exact wording) "do not involve yourself with the man you encouraged the real-life harrassment of" and "familiarize yourself with the facts before spouting off on noticeboards". The nerve of them! And yet Everyking still can't quite get the hint that there is a fine line between standing up for one's self and acting, to put it bluntly, kooky. His first reaction after his most recent RfA went down in flames was to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=298370645#Request_to_amend_prior_action:_Everyking_desysopping race to ArbCom], insinuating that ArbCom should go over the heads of the community and restore his bit by fiat. ArbCom mulled the issue over before responding in the negative, to which Everyking responded with ''yet another appeal'', this time asking that the remaining restriction against him (that of being required to stay away from the Wikipedian whose real-life harrassment he encouraged) be ended. I got the distinct impression that Everyking felt that his RfAs failed simply because he was under sanction from ArbCom, without quite bridging the gap between that intepretation of the facts, and people saying "no, because he speaks before he thinks, and to support that claim I offer a link to this ArbCom finding". Overall, I find Everyking contrary simply for the sake of being contrarian, and given the well-documented history of ''doing'' before ''thinking'' and [[WP:DEADHORSE|beating the absolute piss out of ailing equines]], I do not feel he is of the temperment suitable to adminship.
'''Oppose'''. A vexatious litigant regarding his own sanctions, someone once banned from the Administrator noticeboards for constantly not knowing what he was talking about, a subject who couldn't take "no" for an answer -- on the losing end -- of at least three RfArbs and who has never, as far as I can tell, shown much awareness of his own responsibilities for his own troubles, preferring to blame others and wikilawyer. The various RfArbs, sanctions, appeals, his desysyopping and other troubles brought to [[WP:AN]], [[WP:AN/I]], and the enforcement boards show a consistent lack of good judgment over his entire editing career at Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per MLauba above. Excellent editors do not always make good admins.
'''Oppose''' I agree with MLauba, although that alone would make me !vote neutral. But I cannot support any candidate who does not use edit summaries in at least 95% of all edits (although I see no reason for anything less than 100%) and Everyking has not improved in this area despite being asked to in previous requests. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' too much drama, too many RFAs, evidence of poor judgment in one area is likely evidence of poor judgment in others.
'''Oppose''' extremely poor judgment for an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Badger.
'''Weak oppose''' - Sorry, 6 is too many. I don't doubt your value as a contributor to the encyclopaedia, but I feel that this RfA displays a certain sense of desperateness with respect to being an administrator again. I have absolutely no doubt that if this were to fail, you'll be back again to try again. I'm aware you want to help the encyclopaedia, but reviewing the above opposes fills me with a sense that you do not have the temperament for the role. I hope you understand, it's nothing personal, I just have to go with what I see before me. I hope you'll continue to focus on article work. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Weak oppose''' Sorry, but I don't see a very strong anti-vandalism history-7 reverts in the last 500 edits. Also, in the last 500 hundred edits I saw only 1 [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]] and no activity in [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. I'd say try again once you have had more experience in those areas. --
'''Oppose''' per everything above.
'''Oppose''' per his last RFA and per Q4. I don't care if he's not willing to close AFDs as much as his response (and similar others) show a disregard for the wiki process. –
'''Oppose'''. Quite impossible to support. Any number of the above oppose reasons are sufficient, but if I had to select one it is his evident disdain for “consensus” decisions. His unwillingness to tolerate that consensus equals compromise identifies him as a poor candidate for critical decision making and one therefore not to be trusted.
After so many RfAs, it's been long laid bare what I and others find wrong here, and I don't really feel like repeating my conclusions from past RfAs. I've long ago come to the conclusion that Everyking is more interested in regaining "status" as a point of pride more than anything else, and have not been swayed from that position since. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose'''. Seems a bit too controversial for admin. We have a sufficient number of admins with a pov. We don't need more IMO.
'''Oppose''' The history here, combined with a lack of recent collaborative administrative-type activity to prove that anything much has changed leaves me too uncertain about this candidate.
'''Strong Oppose''' if he's a Wikipedia Review editor he has too much time on his hands and will certainly expend it doing something contentious, pointless, and without consensus over here when their servers are down. --
'''Oppose''' per BadgerDrink and Fuchs. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned that he appealed to arbcomm to be re-sysopped after the community decided against it.
'''Oppose''' - As per Caspian Blue and Ironholds.
Rather reluctantly. I'm not too concerned with his AfD philosophy, given his promise and track record, but the arbcom appeal leaves me unable to support.
'''Oppose''': Everyking and I have something in common: We should never never never never be Admins! He is a gifted editor, but should never never never never be an Admin!  -
'''Oppose''' Per the above. Everyking's views on consensus are fundamentally against the reality of what consensus is. <font face="Celtic">
'''Oppose''' His posts at WR tell me more about him than his actions here ever could. Also per DC and MLauba.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=302860979#Request_to_amend_prior_action:_Everyking_desysopping This]. Trying to simply bypass RfA entirely after repeatedly failing is troubling enough without it being an obvious contradiction of everything Everyking's previously intimated about his attitude towards consensus, i.e. that administrators should never be using their own status to override the numbers in a debate. I don't agree with that attitude, but far better for him to stick to it than ignore it when it happens to personally concern him.
'''Weak oppose''' per Kww. The ability to judge consensus is in my eyes the most important one for a prospective administrator to possess. A disdain for the process makes me feel very uncomfortable. —
'''Oppose''' per several of the above oppose comments. Everyking is a great content contributor, but is simply too prone to lapses of judgement to be trusted with the mop.
'''Oppose''' - per Starblind and Hipocrite.—
'''Oppose''' per Mlauba et al. Attempting to overturn consensus is disrespectful of the community. Also, I don't see the pressing need to have the bit back just to do some minor anti-vandal work that up to now EK hasn't shown much interest in. I don't see a need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' per much of the above, especially per the excellent point made by {{user|IP69.226.103.13}} — very well put! --
'''Oppose'''. Do not trust the candidate's judgment. Sorry, nothing personal. -
'''Incredibly strong oppose''' per my comments on his previous RfAs and per many comments above. --
'''Oppose'''. Don't think he's a candidate and many opposers above strike a chord.
'''Oppose''' as per Cyclonemin and The High Fin Sperm Whale.
The block log troubles me. Yes, the blocks are old, but people seldom change fundamentally. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''  while a good editor, I am afraid I cannot support a candidate for the mop with this history, his past indiscretions appear to demonstrate a fundamental lack of good judgement to me.
On the ballance of probabilities would be a mistake.--
'''Oppose'''. A very good editor with article building capabilities and trusted enough to be a rollbacker but with a very bad history of blocks. Moreover, I don't really believe in admins with limitations. If we think he is trusted enough he has to be able to close XfDs. Since I don't trust him to do that right now I oppose handing him sysop rights. --
'''Oppose''' per long block log and involvement in ArbCom decisions.  Besides, once someone loses the tools, why should they get them back?  There shouldn't be any tolerance for screwups.  --
'''Oppose''' Too many issues to feel comfortable. When there are questions around an editor, and there has been drama, and the RfA itself becomes a bit of a drama, and people start taking sides, then that is going to carry over into decisions this candidate makes and there is genuine potential for this candidate to create more drama as an admin than to calm matters down and sort things out. If the mood of the community had been unquestioned support, then there would be no issue, but there are enough people disquieted by this to also make me feel uneasy. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - The problem with power is that, almost always, the people who want power are the very people who should ''not'' be given power.  I've waded through most of the words here, and while there are some very good editors supporting this candidate, I'm personally not comfortable giving him back the mop.  Can people change? Yes, absolutely.  Do I ''know'' this user has changed behavior that I and others don't see as constructive to the project?  I do not.  Frankly, the user seems obsessed with clearing his name via the Rfa process.  Yes, he could have rebooted his Wikipedia standing by changing his identity.  But, if I have this pegged right, that's not the point here.  It seems to me this Rfa is a small part of a long-term obsession with validation... and that's what worries me.  '''I do thank the candidate for his lengthy history of service to the encyclopedia.'''  Lastly, since the !vote will be somewhat under 80%, I urge the bureaucrats to 'crat chat this, as I know they will take a maximum of care to make the right choice for the project.
Normally, I'm an avid supporter of past troubled candidates looking to regain the tools, but there are just too many concerns. I'm sorry. '''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Neutral]]''' '''Huge''' block history, one that rivals [[User:Vintagekits]]'. However, the last time that you were blocked was around 3 years ago. I like your contributions here and I do belive that you'll regain the tools someday but right now I have too many concerns. Good luck none the less though!--
I will support if half of the current arbitrators vote support. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Neutral''' Good question answers, but many concerns including block history, the afd issues (promises mean little to nothing from any candidate), and other miscellaneous things brought up.
'''Nominate for "Honorary Admin".''' Everyking does more janitorial work than most official members of the mop brigade. We should call Everyking an "admin" and include him on the lists of admins. He's certainly earned the honor. &nbsp; <b>
'''Neutral''', Everyking has done a lot of great work, and to be fair, the drama was ''years'' ago.  But there are still enough things brought up in the Oppose section that I don't feel I can support.  Just !voting Neutral so that Everyking knows that his work ''is'' appreciated.
'''Strong Support''' I was considering offering to nominate Excirial only yesterday, brilliant candidate, with great work in newpage patrol, also, I have always seen them to remain civil, which is a big plus.
'''Support''' - barring any (''recent'') concerns that might be raised, the candidate seems clueful enough and is a dedicated vandal-fighter. –
'''Support''' Plenty of experience, plenty of edits, plenty of clue. The honesty in his statement is refreshing and I see this user being a Net positive to the project if given the tools--
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Always found him to be very clueful and in general a great user. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' - looks fine to me, an experienced and diligent user who could make good use of admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Very active; would make good use of the tools. --
Seems fine. -
'''Support''' will make a good admin, has my support. ''<B>--
'''Dang your userpage gets vandalized a lot'''
'''Support''' I've seen Excirial around the place a lot, doing great work. Concerning the proposed admin areas, [[WP:AIAV]], [[WP:RPP]], [[WP:SPP]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:SSP]], I have no worries at all supporting the presentation of a mop. --
Yeah, good work thus far.
'''Support''' can be trusted
Per the
'''Strong Support''' Can be trusted with the tools... in fact the first oppose rationale gave me even more reason to support. He made a mistake and acknowledged that he made one, and apologized, and was civil the whole time in the face of an uncivil editor. These are the kinds of attitudes that an administrator should have. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support'''. Seems like a very clear case. --
'''Support''' Per jak's comment in the oppose section.
Net plus for the project.
'''Support''' - Delighted by this nomination.  Like others, I find the first oppose commentary to be decisive.  Fine overall contribution qualifications indeed.
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor around and have confidence in their ability to wield the mop.
'''Support''' The error rate is as low as can be expected, automatic tools or manual. It is reasonable to be concerned about someone making primarily automated edits, but his are of high quality.   '''
'''Support''': Switched from neutral now I have time to investigate impressive mopping up operation.
'''Support''' No issues whatever. G'luck! <strong>
'''Support''' Fine candidate. No problems. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Strong support''' Plenty of experience, perfect for being an admin. --
Weak Support - I'm not as overly wild about this as perhaps others above are; I don't really like the "vandals reported" bit on your activity list on your user page for example. Maintaing "strict policies on personal attacks" are, well, perhaps something you need to reflect on - one man's personal attack is another man's honest critique. However on balance no likely misuse / abuse of tools. The oppose arguments (at the time of writing) are exceptionaly poor. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - Opposes are especially unconvincing.
'''Strong Support''': Great with Anti-vandalism, quick, but careful with reverting.
'''Support''', a good candidate. I am unconvinced by the reasons given for opposition so far, thus feel that I can do nothing but support as a net positive. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' I like your responses to the opposes.  Some people advise "don't badger the opposers", and many interpret this to mean they shouldnt respond to opposes at all.  But your responses are helpful because they show us your point of view and yet don't try to make the opposing views seem invalid.  '''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' - Seems to have a clue. Work on capitalizing those 'I's though! :)
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Any enthusiastic, highly  active, and reasonably  conscientious user is bound to  get  into  an occasional  tangle with other editors. I  don't  think Excirial's history  is a reason to  oppose his nomination,  but  when (and I  say 'when')  he gets the tools, he will  need to  remember that  he has become a role model. --
<s>Nothing</s> Little that worries me. &mdash;
'''Support''' long working history with wikipedia. Good attitude on vandalfighting, I love the self assessment at the start. I wish more applicants would do the same, nice transparency. Strong candidate Good Luck!
'''Support''' - I think he is ready for adminship. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - Though I'm somewhat concerned about the absences in editing, I see a strong editor who likes to fight vandalism and has the experience needed to do this well as an admin.  --'''
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' Nothing to oppose here except the fact that no edits were made in January and February this year, though the thousands of edits made in March kind of cover that up. --
<s>Support</s> meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#.22standards.22_chart|my standards]] and per [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Tyrenius|specialist admin rationale.]] I won't add a cliché, though 'tis true in this instance.
'''Support'''. Hard-working, honest and approachable. Definite net positive.
'''Support''' My eyes cannot believe temselves. You seem to be a great vandal reporter. Good lcuk, and have a nice time.
'''Support''' Your answers are appropriately put. Thanks for the patience. My support is offered. Best for your future as an able admin.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Has clearly gained a clear understanding of the areas he wishes to work in. Calm, careful, patient, ability to communicate, assist, and work with other editors, and understanding of policies and how enact them all pluses. Shows quite a bit of [[Wikipedia:Cluocracy|clue]]. No reason not to trust with the extra bit.
Goodness, how is it that this user not already an admin? Pile-on '''support'''
'''Support'''. Enough clue. Looks like he's already been doing plenty of clean-up work. Seems aptly suited for the job. --
'''Support''' - I've only seen the candidate's antivandal work, but what I've seen there has been overwhelmingly in the correct direction. Has both the gorm and the cojones to do a proper job. --
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support'''-Clearly qualified and trustworthy.
Well-qualified. Opposes are patently unconvincing.
'''Support''', I see no reason to oppose only reasons to support.  '''
'''Support''' cos userpage gets vandalized a lot, plus other abovementioned. /
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- purely to counteract, to some extent, the more ridiculous of the two opposes.—
'''Support'''- sure, why not? We need more admins, and this candidate seems reasonable and trustworthy. Nothing I've seen suggests Excirial will do the wrong hing with the mop.
<small>⇦'''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]'''⇨
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent candidate and I have not seen anything even remotely persuasive to change my mind in either the Oppose or Neutral camps.
'''Support''' as an experienced, dedicated vandal-fighter.  --
'''Support'''- a hard-working, experienced, clueful vandal-fighter--
'''Support''' good candidate, I see no reason for concern about the proportion of automated edits as the number of unautomated edits is more than enough to demonstrate experience and ability to communicate. Whilst the automated edits are useful work that demonstrate a need for the tools and indicate they are likely to be used well. ''
'''Support'''. Reliable new page patroller with a good track record. First noticed his good work as early as March '09. <code>
'''Support''' Can't find a reason to oppose. "Automated" edits don't worry me at all. '''
Has been around for a long while now. Has done lots of stuff which could go horribly wrong but hasn't caused any great wikitragedy along the way. A safe pair of hands I think.
'''Support''' - will make a good admin.
'''Strong support'''. Fully qualified candidate, very strong answers to questions. I find the opposers' and neutrals' concerns to be entirely misguided.
'''Support'''. Sensible approach to issues. Responsible handling of the tools likely.
'''Support''' Adequate answer to my question, around 20,000 non-automated edits so the automated thing doesn't concern me as long as the automation doesn't get into the way of the mopping, which it doesn't seem like it would, no reason to see concern at present.
'''Support''' &ndash; yes!
'''Support''': I consider the answer to Q8 thoughtful enough to counter any impression that this is exclusively a "whack-a-mole" high-speed anti-vandal user.
'''Support''' Discouraging the use of semi-automated tools won't encourage higher-quality work, or more work, it will just result in less work getting done.  This user uses such tools well.
'''Support.''' Good vandal fighter, very helpful to others engaged in the same activity. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support''' Heavy use of tools doesn't make the candidate incapable of discernment. --
'''Support''' - The candidate is a hard-working and helpful contributor who has extensive experience with vandal fighting. Examining the candidate's talk page archives shows someone who is thoughtful and level-headed. This user most certainly can be trusted to use the admin tools responsibly and effectively.
'''Support''' - Great candidate on all fronts. -- '''
'''Support'''. Prolific editor who has significant experience with counter-vandalism and no problems that concern me. I'd say yes.
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems that I can see -- '''''
Uses the editing tools a lot, but seems to know what to do with them. Will make a good admin, I think.
'''Support''' Uh... yeah? Are you kidding? I honestly thought that this editor already was an admin.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Excirial. —
Absolutely. I see Excirial all over the place, and have yet to see an issue that they've not addressed sensibly, and I see no reason why with the mop they wouldn't action sensibly as well.
'''Strong Support:''' Close to an ideal candidate. -
Seems pretty clueful and well-versed in the areas in wishes to work in. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' answered questions with good explanation of why.
'''Support''' friendly, helpful, learns from mistakes, trustworthy, and knowledgeable. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including sufficient WP edits, interesting Userboxen, Rollback rights, Veteran editor, and article rescuer.
'''Support''' - Clued-in editor that seems to know his limitations. I have no problems granting the mop. I trust you will use it well.
'''Support''' Seems a good choice...
'''Support''' Haven't interacted with this editor before that I recall, But he seems a goo editor and i like his response to the questions, and a random sample of his edits all seem good. I would mention that the A7 bar is supposed to be significantly lower than [[WP:N|notability]], and I think his response to that question is slightly off. But I don't think he will mis-use the tools.
'''Support''' No indication at all that Excirial would abuse the tools but plenty of indications that he will make a fine admin. Regards '''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and clearly here for the right reasons. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
This guy is great – already an admin without the official ☑. I swear, it was just a week ago that I was noticing his work (probably speedy deletion) and thought "he sure needs the mop, and if nobody feels like writing a statement, I will". ;-) '''
'''Support'''. I've waited to see if any serious issues would come up in the opposes, and none has, in my opinion. I hope the community is moving away from opposing on the basis of not enough FAs. --
'''Support''' - I spent some time going over this editors contributions. It's a bit odd being so many automated edits. The non-automated edits however are rather good, gives an honest balanced opinion with reasons. A none natural English speaker that uses time constructively. I approve. :) Regards,
'''[[WP:100|Support]]''' most helpful the other day and i like the boldness of the expanded nomination section. Cheers. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Excirial is a fine candidate. He's got plenty of experience in administrative areas, such as tagging articles for speedy deletion, reporting problematic usernames, reporting vandals, and working at AfD. He doesn't have a whole lot in the way of content creation, but what I see is good, and he has more than enough experience in the area of deletion to put me at ease. His answers to the questions show the appropriate amount of thoughtfulness and capacity for clear communication; the answers to the questions about responding to iffy CSD tags, in particular, have impressed me.
Looks to me like a fine chap to use the mop correctly - full support. '''
'''Support'''. Track record looks fine.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks ok. <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
'''Support''' &ndash; no need for concern, especially because candidate know his flaws and what he has to work on. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' I have no concerns. &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks ready for the mop to me.
Oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AExcirial&diff=224549601&oldid=22454760].
Seems to be an intelligent and level-headed user, but, as he points out, doesn't meet my criteria of audited contributions, or significant content building therein. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral'''. You're a good editor and I'm sure you'll make good use of the tools, but the areas you say you intend to work in feel like they were plucked from a guide to passing RfA rather than something a lot of thought has gone into. It's not nearly enough to make me oppose because I'm sure you're capable of working in those areas, but I'm more inclined to favour an admin candidate who wants to work in the areas with less glory. Also, your poor use of apostrophes bugs me! For example, in your overview "area's" does not require one!The latter point should be taken light-heartedly, and I hope this passes, but I also hope it will give you something to think about.
'''Neutral''' while I mull over [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Excirial 44.43%] (30079) of his total edits being automated.  With [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Excirial&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 48.34%] (26619) of his edits being in talk space and [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Excirial&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 42.86%] (23604) being in article space, I might have hoped that such a large number of article space edits would have reflected less automated policing work and a bit more by way of content creation. '''
'''Support''' Seems fine. Experienced with a good personality.
'''Support''' IMO people who edit content are deserving of admin tools.  Anyone who can make it through FA especially on a controversial topic is definitely bright enough to figure out how they work and wise enough to know when not to use them.
Longterm user, clean block log, deleted contributions check out OK, and has a nice combination of vandal fighting and FAs. ''
'''Support''', though had better not work in the picture area until has had some more practice!
'''Support''' Per above: I do not see any reason to oppose. --
'''Support''', Fainites is an exemplary and knowledgeable contributor, most unlikely to abuse tools.
"A safe and sane pair of hands" indeed, from what I have seen.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience, solid content contributions and good answers - works for me.
'''Support''' - Good, wide experience and contributions seem intelligent and collegial. I see no reason why admin tools would do anything other than assist this candidate to contribute even more. Support as net positive. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. I think your responses so far show your knowledge of admin-related areas. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Seems to demonstrate a good knowledge of policy, has done good content work. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Solid civil editor.
'''Support''' – A long-term trustworthy editor. Net positive for the admins. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Strong support''' Excellent answers and contribs.
'''Definitely''': Strong content creator with in-the-trenches experience in handling conflict maturely and productively. These are the kind of qualifications we should look for in admins. '''
'''Support'''. No worries at all - experienced, knowledgeable editor with good understanding of WP stuff. Answers to questions are good and thoughtful. --
'''Support''' - great content contributor, and per MastCell.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions to this project; they will make great use of the sysop tools.
'''Support''' - no visible problems here - great contributions. <span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Wonderful long-term editor - very good at keeping a cool head in heated discussions.
Simple: '''Support'''.  Though I'd like to discuss on above about the question I asked, I am simply impressed by the answers (also to other questions).  --
'''Strong Support''' Excellent, experienced content editor with a remarkably cool disposition. Per MastCell, these are indeed the kind of qualifications we need. --
'''Support''' No reason to not trust him. Fainites appears to be a net positive to the Project.--
'''Support''', though remember not start using the new buttons constantly; keep up the writing.
'''Support'''. I have seen this editor around and appears to be someone who can be trusted. I was particularly impressed that this editor reports that they read over article talk pages to gain a background, context and understanding of content disputes before engaging. This quality is most important for an admin in order to get to the root of entrenched drama and come up with the best remedy.--
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''. I do hope you will make use of the tools consistently, but every little bit helps. --
'''Support''' good level of experience. Can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Sure. Seems fine.
'''Support''' - No issues here. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''<font color="navy">
'''Strong support''' Solid content work (incl. 3 FA in his body of work); ample experience; cerebral answers--
'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. temperamentally well-suited for adminship.
'''Support''' - the psychology/psychiatry articles on Wikipedia need much work. I believe that Fainites, as an administrator, will help us with them. -
'''Support''' Good record. Top answers. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 07:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) <small>Just one note: please use edit summaries, especially on your own RfA :) --
'''Support''' definitely here to build an encyclopedia.
'''Support''', nothing leading me to oppose. --'''
'''Support''', perfectly good candidate
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support''' - "concern" below under '''Neutral''' addressed.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Even the concern about a lack of opposers has been addressed - outstanding!
Superb article contributions, and familiar with user's temperament. '''
'''Support''' – Good content contributor; good communicator. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support'''. I see only positives. I look for trustworthiness, and I see it here. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - well-trusted editor. [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Weak support''' - too content focused in my book, but seems trustworthy, just afraid we'll burn out a good content editor with adminship
'''Support''' - could do with some more Project participation but otherwise I'm happy. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''', while not a ton of project space participation to date, the thoughtful and thorough answers to the questions give me no concern at all that the candidate will be an asset there.
'''Support''' - Good answers.
'''Support''' I like the account name which indicates a high level of erudition and wit.
'''Support''' definitely.  By the way - and I don't blame you for getting this wrong, because it's rarely discussed anywhere - as regards Q5 we ''do'' indefblock IPs - the usual reason is for open proxies, by request (i.e. from schools), for legal threats, spambots etc.  See [[Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Indefinite_blocks]] and [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c)]] 08:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<small>Thanks.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Duh...
'''Support''' - Meets all [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|my criteria]] for experience, stability and content focus.  I especially like this: "I learned early on that what POV pushers do is bait and troll until you lose your cool and then report you for violations."  I haven't heard that put into words before, it's so true!  I also sympathize with "From my point of view I feel like I've spent at least half my wiki life in conflict", it does feel like that sometimes.  --'''
'''Support''' - no red flags.
'''Support''' Great answers. <b> [[~]] <font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#052900">[[User:QwerpQwertus|<font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#052900">Qwerp</font>]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good article work, good answers, see no significant concerns.
'''Strong support''' Knows what the point of WP is, ie building and not politics and ladder-climbing, per actions, which speak loudest, and the only thing worth listening to '''
'''Support''' - I'm shamelessly piling on, and will sleep better in the near future knowing Fainites is mopping up.
'''Support''' - I'm  not  sure if this candidate really  wants to  be an admin. he has however clearly  demonstrated the level  of maturity  that  is expected from  an admin and whether he uses the tools or not when he gets them,  I  certainly ''trust''  him to  use them  correctly. Fainites promotion  would thus clearly be a net  benefit  to  the project.--
'''Support''' on the basis that he is not only a good "policeman" but has actually contributed to 3 featured articles. If only we had more amdin who actually write articles.
'''Support'''. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' Awesome content work, trustworthy and helpful. '''
'''Support''' - Seems like a good candidate all around.
Of course.
'''Support''' - Very good candidate. Will do well. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Support'''. No reason not to support. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''.  I've been impressed with what I've seen of Fainites, and I trust that he'll be an excellent admin.
Obviously, as per the good doctor just above.
'''Support'''. Good answers to the above questions; I can't find a reason not to support. --
'''Support''' His work at [[Attachment theory]] and his calm, collaborative attitude at its two FACs impressed me. Psychology is a difficult subject to deal with in Wikipedia, and Fainites does a fine job.
'''Support''' Hard worker...
'''Support''' - Just seems like a great candidate all-around. Another pile-on support. -- '''
'''Support''' I often see this editor doing good work. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The concerns expressed in the neutral section are completely unpersuasive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Have been positively impressed by whatever I have see of this editor, and trust themto use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''
Nice edit count. ( ;) )
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' – Looks good in my view. –
'''Support'''
'''Support'''&mdash;I have no doubts that this editor will make a fine administrator. <i>
'''Support'''.
You poor, poor fool. Go ahead, become an admin. You'll regret my '''support'''.
'''Support''' Should be a net positive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy.
'''Support''' I see no problem with supporting this candidate. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' Sure. And, if my experience here is any guide, I don't think Fainites is a pushover or will run away from conflict!--
'''Support.''' A congenial and capable editor.--''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - somewhat familiar with the editor in question and have not seen anything problematic.
'''Support'''. Everyone else is supporting. I just want to be popular.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Seems to be a decent and patient person. This is something we need more of.
Bit of a pile on, but yes, no alarms here.
'''Support''', looks good. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
<big> '''Support''' </big> - great answers, great attitude, great everything... '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Support'''. Just in case one more voice is needed to push this one - that's really on the edge number-wise - over the top.  Looks to be sensible and articulate, and plays well with others.

'''
'''Support''' He'll certainly make adminship! [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TCNSV|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]]
'''Support''' No issues here. --
'''Support''', 111 Wikipedians can't be wrong!  Seems level headed enough.
'''Strong Support:'''Wrong. 111 Wikipedians can be wrong but not this time! -
'''Support''', yes, have seen and experienced lots of great contributions from this well-qualified candidate. -- '''
'''Support''' - impresses as sensible and good natured. Been around a while. ergo, better-than-even chance will be net positive with tools.
'''Support'''.  --
I've always been impressed with his work on policy talk pages. - Dank (
'''[[User:Otherlleft/RfA|Support]]''' - I think you'd make a find addition.  And I like your template quite a bit, too.  --

'''Support'''. Why not? -'''
'''Support''' after some serious consideration to Mbisanz's neutral and the currently lone oppose. I have also been at odds with the nominator at various times in the past. However, candidate clearly has the experience and maturity, and I can't envision them using the tools to further a personal agenda.
'''Support''' per some of the editors above.
'''Support''' I don't confess to fully understanding ''all'' the past policy discussions raised here, but I haven't seen anything to make me feel as if he wouldn't be a highly knowledgeable, fine admin. In fact, it seems to to me that some of the oppose/neutrals are instances where he has boldly worked to make Wikipedia a better place, just not to every single stakeholder's liking.
'''Support''' per the awesome nickname :-) But seriously, he seems a good enough candidate to get the bit. I like the [[WP:BOLD]] and sensible approach in dealing with the BLP issues. --
At RfA, the question is whether the candidate would make a good administrator. I think you'll do that job fine. '''
'''Support''' Good long term editor who will make a good admin. ''<B>--
'''Support''' I've been impressed with his work on the template, and spot-checking his contributions shows no issues of concern. <strong>
'''Support''' Looks like an experienced and well-rounded Wikipedian. --
Sorry, I now see the comment you made about editing as an IP - my apologies for overlooking that and asking what, in effect, was a pointless question. I agree with Tan, too, regarding no risk of tool abuse and Caspian Blue in respect of your approach to BLP. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per good answers to questions 7 and 8 and has the necessary experience.
No convincing reasons not to.
'''Support''' I see no reason to believe that the candidate would misuse the tools, and I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  Man alive, I just keep finding candidates to support as of late!!  I do not even recall when I last saw someone I needed to oppose.  Anyway, candidate makes good arguments in such discussions as [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AndyJones/Triceratops_in_popular_culture]] (argument was consistent with practically everyone else and even influenced others as seen with the "per Father Goose", [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3rd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture]] (approached it as discussion rather than a vote), [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January]], [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States Presidents (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)]] (recognizes the work of others during the discussion), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Star Wars]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thong in the news]] (again, keeps an open mind during the discussion and recognizes and compliments the work of others), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture]] (once again, acknowledges efforts of colleagues and looks at actual evolved article since nomination), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb]] (does not simply vote, but actually sees what he can do to improve the article as well).  As you can see it is not a mere case of the candidate correctly shares my viewpoint in most discussions, but rather that the candidate approaches the discussions in a commendable manner in which he tries to improve the articles, praises the efforts of colleagues, approaches them as discussions rather than votes, and writes thought out policy backed rationales as arguments.  We get a sense of that respectable attitude on this RfA page as well.  Specifically, I admire that the candidate would "source it properly if I could" when it comes to Afded articles rather than just vote or leave the work to others.  As such, we have plenty of examples in which the candidate is thoughtful and articulate and has a demonstrable understanding of consensus and policies so that we can trust him to close discussions in a reasonable and logical manner.  Moreover, candidate is nominated by a trusted, uncontroversial, and respected administrator.  The candidate has also never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
Sensible view on BLPs, and trusted otherwise. &ndash;'''
'''Support'''. I like what I've seen of Father Goose, including when he argued against a particular edit on talk&mdash;but when consensus went against him, he stepped up to make the edit. <font color="purple">
'''Support''' - Seems sensible and experienced, I see no reason to oppose. -- '''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per A Nobody.--
'''support''' per Casliber's support.
'''support''' per DGG. Opposes are not compelling.
'''Support'''. Kind, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, can change his mind. --
'''Support'''. Seems okay.
Yes, I think so. Not seeing any real alarms.
'''Support''' A strong advocate presentation by User:ANb and others...Father Goose has the right tools to use the tools rightly. --
DGG similar editor, good editor in the inclusionist side who doesn't cause drama,
'''Support''' Trust and respect the judgement of DGG.User has been around  since August 2006 and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' – Candidate look OK in my book, and the answers to the questions look all right. I'm not worried about the low mainspace editing percentage. (I think I'm at around 28% or 29% myself also, but a lot more of my non-mainspace work has lately been involving administrative tasks). I'd rather see quality mainspace edits as opposed to quantity edits, which from a quick spot check, is what I see. –
'''Support'''. No concerns, sensible and well-reasoned answers to the questions, and a nominator whose judgement I trust. --
I share some of Steven Walling's concern below, but the candidate appears to have a solid grasp of the underlying principles of the role and not afraid to take oppose-inviting stands on important issues. I hope you stick to the 'mop not cop' philosophy while branching out from gnome-editing.
'''Support''' per nom by DGG (If DGG nominates an editor, it's a real seal of approval) and comments by A Nobody.  A long-time user who clearly [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|meets my standards]], I also note his [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' I can hardly think of any nom whose judgement I trust more than DGG. I remember a handful of interactions with FG and all were pleasant, no reason not to think he'd be good admin. <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">
'''Support''' I know that answering questions isn't the only thing that goes into a good admin, but you sure did a great job in that department. I think that Wikipedia would greatly benefit by having you as an administrator. Good luck!
'''Support''' – I'm impressed by the attitude that leads to the creation of {{tlx|BLP unverified}}, and I'm not finding anything in the contribution history that suggests to me that this editor would abuse or misuse the tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - Good attitude, is not afraid to propose radical solutions while at the same time always careful to be inclusive. Wikipedia needs more editors like Father Goose.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems like a capable candidate...
'''Support'''. Unlikely to do anything crazy.
'''Support''' Seems unlikely to abuse tools.  --
'''Support'''.  Without hesitation.--
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a fine fellow with a good positive attitude.
'''Support''' Clearly committed to the project and willing to engage in discussion and not go against consensus. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. In my observation, this editor is very articulate, and is fair-minded in dealing with controversial issues. I've looked carefully at the opposes, and they just have not won me over. --
'''Support:''' Articulate, fair and committed to the project. I too have looked carefully at the opposes, and they have not won me over. -
'''Support''' Excellent reply on the talk page, and given your stance above about closing XfD discussions, I think you'd be a top notch admin. '''
Should be fine.
'''Support''' I think we can trust him with the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' I originally voted "weak oppose" below, but Father Goose took the time to address my concerns in depth on the talk page of this RfA. I now consider my concerns resolved, and I have no reason to withhold my support. I also would like to once again compliment Father Goose for his thoughtful, intelligent arguments at AfD. It is unfortunate that the only DRV argument I previously encountered from Father Goose left a bad impression, but I am glad to see his changed opinion on the merits of his arguments there.
'''Support''' &ndash; should be a net positive.
'''Support''' Looking over your responses on the talk page and your answers to the questions, I am confident that you will make a great admin. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' per the above, particularly DGG. This is the one time I see a candidate discussing their positions with the Opposing editors, below, where it ''doesn't'' feel like badgering. This speaks to the candidate's thoughtful and calm demeanor, and speaks well of the candidate's ability to be a skilled and clueful admin. No reservations at all.
'''Support''', yup, and the fine reasoning at the talk page.
'''Support''' per the talk page explanations.  Well-reasoned candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Great editor, not suited for adminship.<br />While article space is sufficiently well-populated that recent emphasis has been moving from article creation to article improvement, Father Goose has a history of tolerance (or even activism) toward lowering article quality, as evidenced by historical support for Trivia sections and ''In pop culture'' lists. FG unilaterally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=157907774&oldid=157806241 removed] mentions of Trivia from [[WP:NOT]].<br />The line "Quality punt, fellas" in reaction to ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_3#Requesting_a_temporary_injunction_.28arbitrators_please_read.29_2 this thread] where Goose is attempting calls for sanctions against JBsupreme, suggests Goose continues to foot-drag on cleanup, and may still have problems working in consensus and with Wikipedia policy in general. I am not confident this editor should have admin tools. /
'''Oppose''' for a variety of reasons. Not only does he get the answers to 7 and 8 wrong, but they contradict themselves. Insufficiently concerned with the quality of content, verifiability and protection living people from harm. Overly concerned with coddling people who can't source articles. Capacity to cause harm as an admin.
'''Oppose''' - Appears that he likes discussion, that's good - but it also appears to be at the expense of any participation in active admin areas. More experience needed for me to support.
'''Oppose''' Policy wonks who can't write articles make me uncomfortable when they're up for sysop status. The examples given in Q2 are pretty unimpressive quality-wise, and for someone with only a bit more than 7k edits I would like to see more article writing/vandal fighting/XFD and less of other work. Those who gravitate to highly controversial areas like policy editing often make troublesome sysops for the community. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' - I guess I'm concerned with the editor's 28% article contribution, and somewhat lenient view towards BLPs, evidenced in a number of ways. The page creations I see look really good, but given some of the concerns above I don't see a corresponding compelling reason why admin access would help. The user's apparently never done a new page patrol. Given the concerns I don't see the advantage to adminship. As always, if I'm wrong on any of these counts I'll happily entertain switching my position.
Just not really comfortable supporting or even going neutral. It's a gut feeling, but I've learned to trust my gut more than digging through years of contribution history. I did look through some of his edits, and I can't really see anything too too bad, but there was something overly politic-y about this answers to the questions, and I agree broadly with most of the opposers above. But those were just my initial reactions, which could very well could turn out to be wrong. I'm going to park myself somewhere around a weak oppose for now, and possibly change my opinion later in the week. <font color="navy">'''
'''Neutral''' [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_3#Requesting_a_temporary_injunction_.28arbitrators_please_read.29_2|This thread]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=340303224#Not_in_citation_given this edit] leave me concerned that the user seeks the tools in order to push his view of policy or at the very least, the second edit seems to indicate he would edit a protected page that he felt was at the wrong version to make it what he thinks is the right version. <br> On the other hand, I do like his view at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incivility_blocks&diff=prev&oldid=339837403 WP:AN] on civility. But I am still concerned about his BLP views in light of the off-wiki coordination with [[User:Ikip]] indicated at [[User:Ikip/arb]]. I can still be convinced either way. '''
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' Seen good stuff from Favonian.
'''Support''' - One of the first editors I came across, and in that category of "I thought they already had the mop" and absolutely no hesitation to support.
'''Strongest support''' (more later) – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' - have also come across this editor many times ...has always conducted himself in the best manner and is one of the most pleasant to work with.
Yep, no worries here. Clueful and collegial, the latter not being especially easy when one does so much work around new editors.
'''Support'''. I've seen your vandal fighting many, many times, and I'm very happy to support. --
'''Support''' Great contributions, knows what he's doing. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' – yes.
'''Support''' - Delighted to see Favonian here.  Great vandal fighter who has done outstanding work, and Favonian with extra buttons will be a good thing for the project.  Trustworthy to the core.  My best wishes now and always.
Seen him in action. --
'''Support''' I have not seen any reason why they shouldn't be granted adminship (I even had this RFA pre-watchlisted). Regards '''
'''Support''' User has shown exemplary experience; I can only assume that they care deeply about improving and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Respected user who will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Strong support''' for a user who would make an outstanding sysop. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Strong support''' I like the response to my request for elaboration, and he has great contributions.
'''Support''' Favonian is an experienced and unfussy editor, and I have no doubts that he would make good use of the tools. Seems like an ideal candidate.
'''Support''' No worries here. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Support''' Definitely seems to me like the kind of editor who will make good, responsible use of a mop.
'''Support.''' From what I've seen, Favonian does very good work in new page patrol and [[WP:PNT|pages needing translation]], and seems generally trustworthy and level-headed. <code>
'''Support''', experienced, good potential, 'nuff nous. --
'''Support''' A good all-round user. Good with the rollback, good english and has no evidence of incivility.
'''Support''' – A trusted user doing a great job. /
'''Support''': I thought s/he already was an admin. This is overdue.
'''Support''' - I've only seen good things from Favonian so I support this.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Answers make me think that Favonian would do a good job. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' I don't see any problems, and IMO, wikigonmes are especially well suited to adminship.
'''Support''' I've seen much good work, and see no negatives. Good answers to questions reinforce this. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Strong support'''; me likey!
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and trust his judgement. -- <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - looks good here
'''Support'''. AIV and RPP reports have been spot on s far as I've seen and both areas would greatly benefit from more willing admins. He's a clueful and experienced editor and I've no reason to think he wouldn't do a good job with a few extra buttons.
'''STRONG support''' God yes. And the answers were spot on, on all of them. This made my day. Best of luck, sincerely -
'''Support''', looking forward to having you join the team.
'''Support''' I believe we can trust this editor with the tools.--
'''Support''' I've crossed paths with Favonian several times while patrolling new pages and have found his contributions solid and worthwhile.
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' No problem here. Good admin material :-)
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' One of the most regular contributors to [[WP:PNT]], can deal with Scandinavian languages, good knowledge of policy. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support'''- I don't think I've ever had much interaction with this user, but I see their name pop up every now and then and I've always had a vague good feeling about them. And Favonian's answers to the questions are very, very impressive to me, so I have no hesitation in offering my support.
'''Support.''' Solid maintenance work and clueful editor.  I am not familiar with their content contribution, but my standing to judge from that perspective is not strong.
'''Support.''' Seen him around, and he often gets to vandals before I do, which is commendable. No qualms about him having the mop. Content creation is not the be-all and end-all of participation here.
'''Support''' I am confident that you will do a fine job...
'''Support''' No issues at all. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support'''. Favonian is a good all-around editor who is level-headed and diplomatic. I have the utmost confidence in them.
'''Support''' - i thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''' Sure. '''
'''Support''' Candidate clearly knows the ins-and-outs of vandal fighting, and the answer to #6 is, in my opinion, pretty much right on target. —
'''Strong support''' Oh, yes.
Seen some good work - and I look forward to more. '''
'''Support''' based largely on previous observations and experiences.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' I thought you already were an admin. --
'''Support''' A quick exam makes this pretty obvious.
'''Support''' I've seen you around the site before and your work is commendable. This adminship is long overdue. '''
'''Support''' Very good admin candidate, also I feel the need to offset the weak opposition a little more.
'''Support'''. Easy decision.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Favonian. —
'''Support''' Yeah, --'''
'''Support''': I hummed and hawed on this one, and was considering a neutral !vote.  Favonian is undoubtedly a valuable contributor – performing tireless anti-vandal work whilst retaining a cool head is a combination many struggle with.  I was just a little concerned about the seemingly low level of content creation or related activites – I have lower standards in this regard than many; I don't think having F/GAs under one's belt is a requirement for instance, but I like to see ''something'' which demonstrates an understanding of what goes into ''building'' the encyclopaedia. On the other hand, his gnomish edits appear good and well-founded in policy, guidelines and the manual of style, which suggests he is clueful in this area too, even if he doesn't use that knowledge to its full potential, and his unquestionable commitment to the project is mightily impressive, so in the end I'm actually leaning towards strong support. <span style="font-family: sansation, sans-serif;">'''
'''Support'''Admirable knowledge and application of policy, dramah-free, hard-working, clueful. Vandal haulage is hassle enough without the hot-button MMORPGesque trophy hunters but Favonian's consistently thoughtful approach demonstrates the need for and the ability to use the tools well.
'''Support''' - the opposes bring no reasonable concerns, terrific answers to questions. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - Good anti-vandal work, much of which I've seen on the front lines. Good contributions in other areas; I feel he will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Looks fine, don't agree with the opposes.
'''Absolute Support''' We need more Admins like this.
'''Support''' I've seen great things from this user, and I don't see anything that would lead me to oppose.
'''Support''' Should be a net positive.
'''Support with the hope''' that the Q4 answer is broader than others have interpreted it, meaning that "i like pie" (actually, probably something worse) vandals that get a L1 warning, then a L3 warning, then a L4 warning, count within the definition of "focused" vandals.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. At some point, the community may wish to reconsider the number of warnings that vandals receive before being blocked, but the candidate's agreeing with and/or complying with the current policy is not a concern at RfA.
'''Support''' based on interactions with candidate.  Fully agree with Newyorkbrad above, that individual RFA's aren't the place to decide to rearrange the warning levels, though I feel it may well be a good idea.

'''Support'''
All looks fine to me. --
'''Support''' This user will be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin
'''Support''' I've seen them around Wikipedia and shouldn't do too bad. Good luck as a janitor!
Good luck. '''
'''Support''' Good luck! <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' I have actioned many of the requests by Favonian, and I have the impression that they are likely to be good.
'''Support''' Insert cliche "thought he was one already" statement here... --
'''Support''' Favonian, meet your new friend, [[WP:ADMIN|the mop]] (hopefully). --
As promised, if I could be convinced to '''Support''' I would. A perusal of your deleted contributions plus my recent deletion of [[Ryan Sault]] which you correctly tagged have swung my opinion in your favour.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' I have come across Favonian frequently, and have found him to be a very reliable Wikipedian. I have no concerns at all. (I do agree that the answer to question 4 was too tentative, but I regard this as a reason to encourage Favonian to take a more forthright approach to vandals, not a reason to withold adminship. In any case, I would '''much''' prefer a new admin to start by being over-cautious than the opposite.)
'''Support'''. Clueful answers. I respect the oppose rationales, while disagreeing with them. In particular I feel that 1,2,3,4 warning for vandals demonstrates [[WP:AGF]] and a thorough, methodical approach which befits prospective mop-wielders.
'''Support'''. I haven't seen anything to give me concern, or even a pause. Cheers. &mdash;
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' A favorite. '''
'''Support'''. Seen them do good work. Would be a net positive. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''. Solid credentials: clueful, experienced, cerebral answers (I have to confess that I have a soft spot for those who use sports metaphors)--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.--
'''Support''' This will most certainly benefit the wiki. ~~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I've seen this editor's work and been impressed; I have not seen anything at this RfA to suggest there'd be any problem whatsoever.
[[WP:100]] support.
'''Support''' I trust this user. ''
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]], autoreviewer, great user page, and the use of templated warnings when necessary.
Hay que '''apoyar''' po', mirevé. '''
'''Support''' - extra points for using "i.e." correctly in an RFA.
'''Support'''. The candidate is a seasoned user with a good track record.

'''Support''' - No issues.
'''Support''' I have a general favorable impression of Favonian and a quick review indicates that adminship is a good idea here. --
'''Support''' I could have sworn you were already an admin.. either way, I have no issues.— '''
Weak support. Lacking in content creation, but otherwise good contributions.
'''Support''' - I am mildly surprised that he's not already an admin. -
'''Support''' - you do a fine job, my friend. Seen you around a lot. :)
'''Support'''. I'm certain Wikipedia will benefit greatly with Favonian wielding the mop. --
'''Support''' – Looks fine in my view. –
'''Support''' – lack of content not thrilled about, but honest self-reflectiveness is a plus, and seems to have the trust of a few folks. ergo, likely to be a net positive.
With no reservations. &mdash;
Dedicated, collegial.  Congratulations! - Dank (
'''Support''' - answers to questions show Favonian can learn from mistakes, which is a vital trait in an admin. --
'''Reasonable Support''' The answer to Q9 indicates that Favonian is fallible, but he does realise his mistake.  To see if this was indicative of other bad nominations, I had a good long look at loads of his other recent CSD noms.  It does appear that this was his only mistake, so to put it down as even a neutral vote would seem a little harsh. If you are going to do work on CSD nominations once you get the mop (and let's face it, at this stage it is looking very likely), I would recommend you have a read of  [[WP:WIHSA|this essay]] and the links. '''
Yeah, yeah. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
Yup, no alarms here.
'''Support''' No reason to believe tools would be misused.--
'''Support''' As someone said on my RfA, an admin who understands his limitations, knows that he is fallible, and is willing to own up to his past and future mistakes, is way better than an admin who thinks he can do everything and is perfect.  His nomination and answers to the questions indicate strongly to me that he will act responsibly and will carefully consider actions he is taking, and will not object to criticism over misuse of the admin tools.  I don't foresee any abuse of the tools from this editor.  (Also, I have a soft spot for RfA candidates who don't have a lot in the way of super-awesome article-writing contributions, but are very active in the AIV arena, since that's the boat I'm in.)  --
Looks good. There's something ''real'' about the way this user interacts with others that strikes me as rare.
'''Support'''. Favonian is a responsible, experienced, and skilled editor who has my trust. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this user reverted vandalism on my user page (before it was deleted), though I don't even remember half the stuff I've done on it.
'''Support''' // '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Oppose''' per wimpy response to vandals and lack of content creation.  I'm entirely mystified why so many people are supporting this thin self-nomination.
Candidate unfortunately does not meet my [[User:BigDom/RfA Standards|admin criteria]].
Weak '''oppose''' - the user's last two articles contained no inline citations. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Neutral.'''  Per points raised by JClemens, Connormah, and Nuclear.--
'''Strong support''', per reasoning in my co-nom.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Totalmente a favor''', I have interacted with this user, totally deserves it. --
Yes! A thousand times yes! I think Fetchcomms would be a perfect sysop, andI actually thought he was one up until a little while ago... ~~
'''Support'''.  Yah.  -'''
'''Support''' based on contributions here and positive interactions at other wikis. User has my full support.
'''Sure'''--
'''Support''' Our paths have crossed both here and on other wikis; I've nothing but respect for Fetchcomms.

{{ec}}'''Super Support'''—Yes!
'''Support''' - Easy. '''
'''Support''' without hesitation :)--
Oh, hell yes.
No problem.  '''
Very good candidate; essentially acting as an admin already. I first came across Fetchcomms when he or she did a very helpful editor review for me (at the time I was very much a new user). From that experience I'm confident Fetchcomms will not only be a technically competent admin, but a helpful admin.--
'''Support.'''  Yes, definitely.
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate and I'm happy to support.
'''Strong support''' Definitely, I've known Fetchcomms through IRC and I know that he will be able to handle the tools well.
'''Support''' Absolutely no reason to oppose adminship. Fetchomms would be a good admin on WP. —
'''Strong 'would have happily co-nominated' Support''' I thought that I'd quickly check Wikipedia before I went off and did other things (life is hectic at the moment!) - and saw this RfA. I'm glad that I did, as I have no hesitation in supporting Fetchcomms -- '''''
&mdash;
'''Strong support'''- yesyesyesyesyes. Most definitely.
'''Support''', no reservations. -<font color="Grey" face="comic sans ms">
'''Strongest possible support'''. I don't normally give that twice in just a few weeks, but I've seen Fetchcomms doing brilliant work, well, just about everywhere! If admisnhip was a trophy, I could think of nobody more deserving. It's not, of course, but I could think of nobody more qualified to wield the mop nor who would do a better job. His work, particularly at AfC and in answering {{tl|helpme}} requests, is exemplary and from my occasional work at the latter, I know how helpful it can be to view deleted edits. I have no doubt that Fetchcomms will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''.  I've seen him at work, and he's very helpful.  No reason not to give him the mop.
'''Support'''. I like easy decisions, and they don't come much easier than this :-) --
'''Clichéd support''': "aren't they an admin already?" Is this another reconfirmation RfA, or have I not been paying attention to pop-ups again?  And noting that Fetchcomms's contribs are wide-ranging, comprehensive, helpful and welcoming.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
''' Super Support''' - It would be truly an honor to have Fetchcomms as an admin, he is very helpful and trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Fetch him the mop already. -
'''Support''' No reasons given not to. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - good contributions, tons of clue, and very helpful based on my previous interactions with him. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Very super ultra strongest support ever''' - I wished this happened a few months ago. I waited, and waited, and waited, and now this moment is finally here! [[File:Face-smile.svg|20px]] Fetchcomms would without a doubt make a great sysop. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
support- trusted user. &nbsp;&ndash;
'''Strong support''' An experienced user who is very active in vandalism-fighting but also has created some content (at least 20 articles). ''
'''Support''' An absolute yes. Fetchcomms has been a very helpful user and helped me out once ([[User talk:Andromedabluesphere440/Archive 1#Help|in this discussion]]).  --

'''Support'''. I see a goodly amount of reasonableness from the candidate, and it seems clear that adminship in this case will be a net positive to the project. Good luck,
'''Support'''  I have seen this users work in the past and feel that this user is responsible and can be trusted with the mop. ''<B>--
Absolutely.
'''Support''' – Nice article contributions, and the answers to the questions were reasonable. I trust Fetchcomms with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' I'm not sure why I'm constantly surprised when I find someone I though was an admin already at RfA. He seemed like one, with his experience in the Wikipedia-ways. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Spport'''. I can't think of anything why he shouldn't be an admin. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Umm... Hell yeah!--
'''Support''' Seems like we can trust this guy, as he has made 27,000 edits, in addition to possessing rollback, account creator, and reviewer status. We need somebody who seems to apply common sense to arguments, can clear out backlogs, and create GA-class articles.
'''Support''' No negatives that I can see, lots of positives, though. —
'''Support''' I have had my fair share of interaction with Fetchcomms, and he certainly knows how to use good judgment and how to be civil. Support all the way. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support'''[[File:Thumbs-up-icon.png|20px]]Will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' - I can find no  reasons, including gut feeling, for not  supporting  this candidate.--
Clueful, reasonable, mature, and civil. Absolutely. '''
'''Support''' Checks out with me.
'''Support''' - Appears to be clueful and unlikely to misuse the mop.  Well-rounded, also. Best wishes!
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions.
'''Support''' Absolutely. He would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' For sure. He's got what it takes. <sup>
Absolutely!
'''Strongest possible support''' Always liked this user as he welcomed to me to Wikipedia, and since then has always been helpful and civil whenever I had a question or needed help. Has always shown good judgement and commitment to the project.
'''Support''' without hesitation. I've witnessed how productive Fetchcomms can be and giving him the tools will greatly benefit Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' - From the discussion against, and neutral concerns, either those "concerns" seem like a plus to me or I have yet to have a response that makes me question a support.
'''Support''' - I've seen nothing but good things from Fetchcomms. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' - Pretty sure he won't delete the main page. Now seriously, I have known this user most of the months he has been on, he is a good user and knows his way around. -- <font color="green">&#47;
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' One of the easiest !votes for me. <sup>

'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Why Not'''- A good reason for almost anything.
'''Support''' I thought he was one.
'''Certainly'''- why not indeed? Everything I have seen fro this user has been uniformly positive.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Will be an even bigger asset to the encyclopedia. <big>
'''Support''' I was honestly just going to look to see if he already was one, and if he wasn't, I was going to nominate him myself. --
'''Support''' - Strong candidate, answers are well thought out, do not see any reason to think they will be anything other than a net positive.  '''
'''Strong Support''' - seen this user around all over the place, is trusted with lots of user privaliges, and has done an incredible quantity of useful work since he joined in October.
'''Support''' I see no issues that would cause me to be neutral, let alone oppose. A fine user, who can be trusted with the extra tools.
'''Support''' FC is one of the most committed Wikipedians that I've seen in a long time.
Congratulations and well done. - Dank (
'''Support''' (from neutral).  My concerns have been directly dealt with below.  I would still like to see a little bit more care regarding AfDs, but Fetchcomm's obvious concern for the role of consensus in the deletion process is more than enough to counter that.&nbsp; -- <span style='font-family: "Calibri", sans-serif; font-size:1.2em;'>'''''
'''Support''' My dealings with Fetchcomms have manifest a staunch supporter of Wikipedia, an experience level which reflects competence, and a genuine fairness which is apparent to even those on opposing sides. Certinely these bundle into an appropiatly qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Definitely, good candidate.
'''Support''' I completely trust this user with the bit.
'''Support''' In the words of Churchill 'Oh yes' :) (Seriosly though only good things ive seen, well respected and definately ready)
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support'''. <font color="#008000">[[User:ActivExpression#top|ActivExpression]]</font><sup>[[User talk:ActivExpression#top|<font color="#E62020">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' My review of contributions found predominantly dedicated, excellent work. The only small concerns were the 'Joy and Tom Studios' Afd, discussed below, and just a slight feeling that very occasionally a response to a newish user could be "short" enough to seem a little too "bitey". Not enough to prevent a Support vote, though.
'''Support'''&mdash;from everything I've seen, this user will make an excellent administrator. <i>
Good editor, no problems here.
'''Strong Support'''. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - No apparent reason not to.  Good work clearing backlogs, and writing a GA.
'''Support'''. I've seen good work, and I do not see any problems. --
'''Support'''. The canditate is ready for the mop.
'''Support''' Seems capable...
'''Support'''. <font face="Papyrus" size="4">—<span style="cursor:crosshair">
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Very Weak Support''' <small>(I was going to ask why [[User:Fetchcomms2]] was blocked, but then I realized that I had blocked the account myself … O_O)</small> I don't think there's any reason why Fetchcomms will turn out to be a ''bad'' admin; his contributions are wide-ranging and decent. I'm hesitant based on my past interactions with this user over [[WP:IRC|IRC]]. I understand that IRC ≠ Wikipedia, but the IRC side is really all I know of him, aside from the few occasional discussions we have had together on-wiki. He has a tendency to act a little immature, and sometimes I get the feeling he does things without thinking them through or realizing the repercussions. For example, I notice how he often [[geolocation|geolocates]] other users when their IPs are revealed. He will do this sort of thing to unidentified users requesting help in-channel, as well as someone like myself. This behavior is a little frightening, considering the user doing it will be trusted with a certain amount of private information as an admin. In the {{irc|wikipedia-en-afc}} channel, where I am a co-founder, he would sometimes act very inappropriate, once or twice causing me to quiet/ban him for a short time. This behavior has mostly ceased, and it was only prevalent when he first got active on Wikipedia, so he is much better now. Again, this has very little to do with on-wiki issues; on-wiki he is a fine user, which is why I am not going to let my concerns about his attitude on IRC affect my decision strongly. In short, I feel he would be fine as an administrator, which is what we're here to decide, isn't it? &mdash;&nbsp;
I concur with Earwig, as a fellow member of AFC and one who shares the same long-term experience with Fetchcomms (e.g., I participated in most of those channel quiets, kicks, etc.). He handles himself on-wiki well, which is what this discussion is concerned with. Fetchcomms has greatly grown in maturity over the time I have had the pleasure of knowing him. Also, I ask that other editors empathize with NuclearWarfare's position. He most likely shares the same concerns. Sincerely,
'''Strong Support''' - Fetchcomms and myself have had our moments, in IRC, ACC and AfC but he has always showed insight and clue. Fetch it's about time..
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' – everything looks good in my view. –
'''Support''' Minor concerns were raised but they seem to have been addressed successfully. Regards '''
'''Support''' Seen Fetchcomm's contribs. Makes an admin for me.
'''Full Support''' Entirely friendly candidate, good answer to the questions, particularly Q5.
'''[[WP:100|Support]]'''
'''Support'''. Been seen around, looks like a good one for the mop to me. '''
'''Support''' He's been doing a good job.
'''Strong Support''' Great job on-wiki and on the account creation tool.
'''Support''' -
'''Yes.''' - looks good. <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Support''' being generally helpful especially on [[WP:FFU]].
'''Support''' - it's a yes for me. A hard working person <span style="border:1px solid #ed7606;background-color:#fef6e5;padding:1px;">
Per previous positive interaction. Has a good knowledge of how stuff works.
'''Support''' Yes, give him the mop. --
'''Support''', I have seen some good quality content work, and admirable demeanor in multiple capacities. -- '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Mega support''' I tried nominating Fetchcomms myself a little while ago, but he was to busy. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
Certainly. No alarms here.
'''Support''' Known Fetchy since he became regularly active again this past year. I've seen him help out a number of new members, as well as produce good DYKs and more recently a GA. No concerns. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''', in spite of the fact that he gave a wrong answer to question 16.  The correct answer is of course, ''he'd chuck the wood as much as he could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood''.  Seriously though, Fetchcomms is a valuable contributor and I trust him with the tools. <span style="font-family: sansation, sans-serif;">
'''Support''' per answers to questions and previous reasons. --
'''Support''' without a doubt. '''—
'''[[Ad quod damnum]]''' <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''': pretty much everything I've seen of this user has been impressive.
'''SUPER Support''' He has a good clean track record, is a tireless and keen contributor and the mop would aid his work greatly. <b>
'''Strong Support'''. Very impressive editor, definitely deserves the tools.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' Yesh! (No typo either). Will do great job as an admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Have worked with Fetchcomms with [[WP:FEED]] cleanup.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Fetchcomms. —
When the candidate was in his early days with the project I felt his CSD work was hasty and sloppy in some cases, and told him as much. It was all amicable and I'm sure things have improved dramatically since then. We all can make mistakes at the beginning. However, before supporting I would like to get a better sense of how his CSD work has been lately, particularly in regards to using the right tag for the job, and not resorting to CSD unnecessarily.
'''Neutral''' - I've worked with him over at AFC and know he can be trusted.  But he doesn't meet my [[User:Kraftlos/admin criteria|admin criteria]] so I can't support.  --'''
'''Strong support''' - they are already an admin, they just need the bit flipped on. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' with gusto!  Floquenbeam is certainly trustworthy and would be a fantastic addition to the list of administrators.
'''Strong Support''' As co-nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''
Thought you were an admin already, see no problems :) Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Absolutely. Xeno said exactly what I was thinking.
'''Support''' I see no cause for concern, and every reason to back this candidate. -- '''''
Record of positive contributions, no obvious signs of kookery.  The AFD mentioned above was a bonehead move, sure, but he recognizes this.  A mistake is no big deal- we all make them.
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]] The candidate has a record of strong contributions, is friendly and helpful and not ashamed to admit mistakes - something which is very important in an admin. The only reason to doubt their suitability would be the previous, undisclosed account - but if Alison says that there were no concerns with that account, I trust her. And from what I ''can'' review, this candidate will do a fine job. {{=)}} Regards '''
'''Strong support'''. Good attitude, mature user, lots of contributions; no reason to oppose.
Support, speedy tagging in your del contribs looks good to me, otherwise per noms and Alison.  ''
Wait a minute... he isn't already?--
'''Support''' - I've seen Floquenbeam around doing good work. I think this editor is unlikely to misuse the mop. -
'''Support''' What I have seen of Floquenbeam's editing (example, at [[User_talk:Drew_R._Smith]]) has been impressive in terms of cluefulness, temperament, and inclination to deescalate disputes. Will make a fine addition to the admin corps. All the best.
'''They're not one already!?''' What took so long? <font face="Segoe Print">[[User:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]
'''Support'''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Certainly]], per the two respected nominators. I see nothing that would suggest this editor is incapable of using the tools responsibly. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I see Floquenbeam around everywhere, making great contributions to discussions, this is someone I would certainly trust with the tools. Addendum: the answer to question #6 is just awesome. -- '''
'''Support''', acknowledging your failings and mistakes is an excellent trait to have, and can be very difficult. An excellent candidate, best of luck. --
'''Support''', based on trusting Alison's recommendation and on the answer to Q6. <small>[[User:Redvers/SN|⇦]]'''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]'''
'''Support'''. It's a green light from me.
Yessir. <small><span style="border:2px solid #006600;">
'''Support''' - an excellent, knowledgeable, and trustworthy candidate. --
'''Support'''
'''Self-righteous-argumentative-negative-pessimistic-bitter-still-clinging-on-to-my-tools support''' (per Majorly's nom). :P In all seriousness, Floquenbeam is a sensible, mature, calm, level-headed individual. S/he clearly gets it; I see a substantial benefit from providing clueful people with a few extra buttons, and I have no concerns here. History of prior account is not a concern given that behavior with the old account was apparently quite upstanding and constructive as well, and I completely trust Alison as to the details. And per answer to Q6, because it's funny. '''
Support. Article writing is great but there is many parts to a machine and his work is useful.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' No concerns and [[WP:WTHN]]. --
'''Support''' and I like answers 5, 6, and 9. --
'''Support''' I trust Pedro's judgment as a nominator (arrogant much?) and I've seen Floquenbeam around enough times to believe he can be trusted, he's already showing good judgement without the tools, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_alternate_account.3F]--
'''Weak support''' per {{user|Taelus}} – I'm not 100% happy with the former-account-jiggery-pokery, but {{user|Alison}} and the nomination statement written by {{user|Pedro}} put my mind at rest somewhat! <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Slight Support''' I say Slight because I made a few more contributions than you did, but what I understand is that the quality of the edits are more important than the quantity. Fine, go for it. PS: I like the answer you made to question 5! :)
'''Strong Support''' I can think of no one better suited for the position.
'''Support''' Trustworthy to me. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support'''. Sensible, trustworthy and knows what he's doing. I can see no reason to make me think Floquenbeam would be anything other than an even greater asset to the project with a few extra tools.
'''Support''' per answer to question 6.  Admin dealings could always use more levity.  In all seriousness, candidate appears to have the right attitude, and, I trust, the right knowledge.  Would welcome as an admin.
Allie! Allie! Allie! Oi! Oi! Oi! &mdash;
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - Nice, helpful, and a definite asset to the project.
'''Support''' with forty supports in the space of eight hours, you must be doing something right.
'''Support''' - I can't really come up with anything that concerns me.  Everything seems solid.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Strong Support]]''' per nom and Atama.--
Heck yes. I've been waiting for this. '''
'''Support''' No problems, thanks to Alison's comments, and more main page admins are always needed.
Sure, why not?
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' - no issues.  Rollback rights, sufficient number of edits, ''and'' a Wikisloth!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nomination. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Sane positions at XfD.
Certainly. Excellent answers all round, showing good humour which will be needed when prodded with the inevitable sticks, and all round solid contributions. I don't understand anyone complaining about lack of transparency, when the vast majority of people on WP do so editing under a username, rather then their own name.
'''Support''' per "oh, he's not already?" --
Certainly.
'''Support''' Quality edits over qunatity. Trust user, and level of activity currently is satisfactory, the question responses are good.
'''Support''' per nom, and I like his answers, cheeky but respectful :)
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around wikipedia and they seem dedicated to bettering the encyclopedia.--
'''Support''' I often don't bother when an RFA is going this well to throw my support in, but I am sufficiently impressed with the candidates demeanor and policy knowledge, which are the actual skills an admin needs to do a good job. I also like how he(?) ttok the risk of identifying his own mistakes in the above answers, that's a level of honesty and transparency that shows he cn be trusted with a few extra buttons.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - You bet! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' I very clearly remember supporting Floq before.  Seriously, stop screwing with my head and just get the damn bit already! ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' I can't see any problem. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Weak support''', if for nothing else than a sense of humour. Honestly, I'd have liked to see you wait until you have built up a longer and more numerous editing history under your new name, as I'm not a big fan of "seems OK" votes, but I'll AGF and give my support. —
'''Support''' Per responses at the help desks. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Judging from contributions and answers, seems quite trustworthy to help the project.  '''
'''Support''' as I have seen Floquenbeam around and this user has the right attitude to become an admin in my opinion. The answers to the questions confirm my view. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a clueful editor, satisfactory answers to questions, no concerns about previous account.
'''Support''' Good policy knowledge, previous account does not bother me.
'''Support''', with multiple editors I trust attesting to the fact that the previous account was noncontroversial, I can treat it as an entirely neutral factor in my opinion of your RfA. Taking solely your contributions as "Floquenbeam", I'm entirely happy to support based on your demonstrated experience, wholly sensible behaviour and well-reasoned contributions. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - worth a trial with the tools. Better than even chance will be a net positive. Would like to see more article content though.
'''Support''' Give up the lack of transparency act. If somebody isn't comfortable editing on an account, they have a right to vanish, a right to edit somewhere else. There is nothing wrong with good faith, hard working, net positive "socks". I don't even want to call them socks 'cause that word has cause so much trouble at RFA in the past.--
'''Support''' - no problems that I can see; not concerned by any of the issues in the Oppose section. I don't think the previous account is a problem - Floquenbeam has been as honest about it as we could reasonably except s/he to be, and Alison has confirmed that there's nothing dodgy being hidden here.
'''Support''' I like it that you edit for vandalism from your own watchlist, rather than trying to make a name for yourself. You seem to interact well with other editors in a neutral manner, as if it's about creating the encyclopedia, nothing else. You've made a few mistakes, some heated. Well, that's not very interesting in your overall bland record of editing wikipedia. Please don't turn away from editing and devote too much time to adminship, wikipedia needs more editors like you, and if you can be the same sort of admin as you are editor, then wikipedia needs more admins like who can lead by example in the behavior department. --
'''Support''' Strong candidate; experience is fine, in my opinion.
'''Support''' When I first saw this RfA, I did a double-take; I was sure that Floquenbeam was already an administrator. Based on my observations of this candidate's experience in the project namespace, I am fairly sure that he will be an excellent admin. He certainly has the right temperament to do so, with a calm, rational approach to issues and an ability to defuse unnecessary drama everywhere from article talk pages to ANI. Looking through Floquenbeam's history as an editor, I am particularly impressed with his work at [[WP:ERRORS]] over a long period of time, and with his exceptional work at [[WP:NCHP]]. Simply put, I think Floquenbeam is exactly the kind of admin we need at those pages. In all honesty, I was considering voting "neutral" in this RfA because of the candidate's general lack of article-building experience. He hasn't created a single article (although he created one disambig page), and [[HP Newquist]] is the only article which he's edited 25 times or more. So far as I can tell, [[San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuge]] is the only article he characterizes as his "own" content work ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Juan_Islands_National_Wildlife_Refuge&action=historysubmit&diff=303434185&oldid=303426043 cleaning up plagiarism and rewriting]), and only 35% of his edits are in the mainspace. I think understanding article-building is absolutely crucial, and I am tempting to withhold my support on that basis. However, due to exceptional work in the project namespace, particularly at [[WP:ERRORS]], I've decided to support anyway. Besides, the prior account issue is no big deal, as three or four trusted editors have verified that there're no skeletons in the candidate's closet. Good luck, Floquenbeam.


'''Support'''. Aside from everything else mentioned, accepting your mistakes is something that I see as very important.
'''Support''', per Q6; because there are too many admins with no sense of humour.  No red flags raised for me here.
and I almost missed this due to r/l based absence from the wiki. Dang, that would have been a bad way to start off the new year.  [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
Support: this guy manages to get people to stop killing each other with walls of text, and start actually communicating and making <s>babies </s>content.  This is a skill that we need as much as writing content, or indeed fixing it every time I screw up a double redirect.
Support, much for the same reason of Elen of the Roads. Has clue, shares it, produces calm rather than violence. We need more people like that with the mop. Even the rebuke of Giano, his friends, and enemies, which he apologizes for, makes sense, and if that's Flo's worst, it's better than many current admins' best. --
'''Support''', trustable editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Good candidate.
'''Support'''  No issues at all with this candidacy. I'm sure that Floquenbeam will make good use of the  tools and we need more admins with his dedication and sense of humor. Damn good editing as well. [[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] ([[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]]) 14:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)<br>  '''Addendum: '''The more I read the rationale of those opposing this nomination the more convinced I become of the arbitrary nature of those oppositions. This candidate has clearly demonstrated an expertise in dealing with conflict resolution and vandalism reversion which is of paramount importance and as valuable as WPspace contribution. We all contribute in ways that best utilize our native talents and to challenge Floquenbeam's worth to administer the tools for reasons as arbitrary as his percentage of edits in WPspace is certainly, well, arbitrary. Those whose talents lie primarily as prosemasters or photoshoppers ought not criticize those others who may be less prose/photo-centric but contribute to the overall robustness of WP in ways that are somewhat less "profound" in WPspace. Many diverse talents are needed here to accomplish a finely polished end product and the protection of the fine prose is IMHO a necessary ingredient which Floquenbeam provides in an exemplary manner. Also, question #6 offends me, this is supposed to be serious.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' For me, the speculative concerns about the previous account do not go anywhere near outweighing the strong reasons to support (being the answers to the questions and the candidate's record).--
'''Support''' It's taken me five days to come to a decision here, but I've decided to support based on the rationale that the candidate's edits as Floquenbeam look great, and even if the edits on the other account weren't so great, they ended in mid 2008, so that's long enough of a gap for me to ignore.  And I do believe Flo when he says that he's only trying to hide his identity, not an embarrassing edit history. -- ''<B>
'''Support''' ''For those who expect a touch of humor, my rhetorical matrix statistical analysis of all communication by all participants on this page indicate there is a nonzero probability that Floquenbeam is Majorly's mother.'' :-)<br>'''Interactive quality:''' My support for Floquenbeam is based on limited interaction, but in rhetorical matters my judgment is is rarely off. The spirit and good humor of the candidate are well suited to the role of administrator &mdash; with a clear idea of when the "weight" of the role should have not weight. One concern regarding anyone given the tools is whether they have sought the role because of the power of authority granted within the social virtual space. (Some enjoy bullying others, and such people should not be granted the tools.) I have witnessed no element of character which would be problematic, but of course, they have not had the bit. Let us say that I trust this editor. <br>'''My comments on this project talk page regarding issues raised:'''<br>+[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam#The_.22gospel.22_of_Alison|The "gospel" of Alison]] (I believe Alison's analysis is unproblematic.)<br>+[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam#The_myth_of_.22content_creation.22|The myth of "content creation"]] (Contrary to the popular perception, we 500 [create the environment of creation, not just content] )<br>+[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam#The_edit_count_issue|The edit count issue]] (should also not be problematic)<br>--
'''Support''' mainly due to an excellent answer to the slightly ridiculous question 6. - [[User:Tbsdy lives|Tbsdy lives]] (formerly
'''Support''' No reason to not give tools, exhibits common sense, good answers. ''<I>
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Because as Tan said, I view Alison's word as gospel. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
Either Floquenbeam will be an adequate, perhaps even great, admin, in which case all's well, or this really will turn out to be some evil conspiracy by Alison, Majorly, and Pedro, in which case extreme wackiness ensues and all's even better. I suspect that I'll be disappointed here - my first guess will be the right one - but we really can't lose either way.
''' Strong Support'''  I am really puzzled.  We tell folks that privacy is critical.  No outing, no personal info released, etc.  But someone has a problem, drops their account, and comes back editing very well.  But, folks feel someone has to sacrifice themselves again, just in case it is some big plan to screw Wiki.  Record since the change is fine, and unless Flo has the most masterful plan we have ever seen, full trust is given.  Flo, stand up for what you have done - editing matters to me far more than "OMG - what if?!?!"
'''Support'''. If the previous account was abandoned due to legitimate security reasons and confirmed by a CU, then there's nothing against this user.
'''support'''  --
Content contributions are not a required skill of admins.
'''Support'''. I have never had any issues with Floquenbeam, and was in fact always well impressed. With the elephant in the room addressed up-front (existance of a prior account was obvious), I have no concerns. I trust Alison/Pedro/Majorly that no known RfA-relevant controversies of the previous account were omitted, but even if one doesn't one can expect the closing bureaucrat {{diff|WT:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam|338446309|338430517|to be aware}} of any such omissions and to judge consensus appropriately, so Q18 and related questions should not be of concern.
'''Support'''. Have seen him showing good judgment and doing good work for humane settlement of difficult situations. See no reason not to trust this user, and can't hold the prior account situation against him as per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Future Perfect at Sunrise|my own precedent]].
'''Support''' - Looks okay overall, I'd prefer a bit more article work, but I'm not expecting every candidate to be perfect in every way. If content work isn't your thing then it isn't your thing, and to get involved in it just to look better at RfA wouldn't be the right way to go. None of the opposes have me very worried.
'''Support'''. I came here through a link on Proofreader77's user page which leads to [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam#The_myth_of_.22content_creation.22|his post on the talk page about content]], with which I wholly agree. Heavy content work can help in understanding what admins must do, but there are other ways this can (and does) happen. I also trust Alison's take on the earlier account and note that bureaucrats will most likely be heard from if there are any missed worries.
'''Support''' - My concerns about transparency are largely ameliorated by the various statement from Alison, Pedro, and Majorly. —

'''Support''' per Pedro, et al. Alison's word is good enough for me.
'''Support''' per the (currently) 103 votes that precede mine. {{tl|om nom nom}} <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' per latest note on talk page.  This account's contributions meet my requirements and I now know enough about the previous to be confortable.
'''Support: ''' Looks good.
Да ···
'''Support''' - a competent user who I can trust with the tools. Their privacy must be respected and I think it is best to [[WP:AGF]]. Good luck,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' Can be trusted
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' gladly; MastCell pretty much sums it up for me. I'll add that I've taken positive notice of the candidate and respect for the nominator helps as well. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' per Q6 answer and lack of transparency.
'''Oppose''' - Per the answer to question 2. This is an encyclopedia. It would be nice to see some article writing. Right now it's quite unspectacular. Also, we really don't need anymore needlessly bureaucratic admins. I mean come on, question 1 is just a cookie cutter laundry list of adminy areas <s>probably the result of some kind of grooming.</s>
'''Oppose''' The lack of content creation gives me pause, but utilizing AfD as a weapon in inexcusable. No reason to trust this user with the delete button. '''
The candidate has a lack of audited content contributions, and their non-content building work does not sway me to support. ([[User:David Fuchs/Guide to featured writing#Article 4: Me and RfA|more info]]) --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Strong Oppose''' Not qualified in my opinion. Needs more edits, and more content work. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Oppose''' The total edit count "3500" looks still pretty low to become admin in my opinion given that your edits are mostly "vandal-fighting" with convenient tools. Your lack of article building casts me doubts on how well you're knowledgeable of Wikipedia core content policies and experience with them yourself. Even though you "honestly" say you are a reincarnated editor, we don't see any "actual proof" to verify how much you contributed to Wikipedia with the old account except Alison's brief and general analysis. Moreover, the following thought of mine is not just limited to your case, but I'm not convinced that retired editors for their privacy concern come back with a new account want to get admin bits even though the admin position has a "riskier environment" regarding "privacy" since they are exposed to many and all sort of people. Your general contribution is good, but I can not support you at this time for the said reasons.--
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.  I don't have confidence that they are familiar enough with Wikipedia to hold the mop.  --'''
'''Reluctant Oppose''' It isn't given to everyone to be a writer, but it isn't given to everyone to be an admin, either, and I continue to believe that all admins should have more content work than this, so they really understand the passions that go on in a content argument.  Second, that is a low number of edits given vandal fighting work.  Not yet.--
'''Oppose''' changing my mind on this one.  The lack of an answer to question 18 bothers me, as does the answer to question five.  Also the lack of answers to the questions on the talk page (especially whether this user's prior account and this account's editing overlapped) persuaded me to change my mind.
'''Oppose''' this time around.  I feel editor needs more experience in article creation and the criteria for nominating articles for deletion. And while his fighting vandals is great work, such does not require the tools.  '''
'''Oppose'''. Being told that someone’s previous identity is okay so let’s just merge it with this one may be acceptable to some, but I’ll disregard it. So it is a straightforward decision based on the available evidence. More experience needed. (no criticism of those involved is intended, I just don’t go along with the approach adopted).
You have been someone that I respected, but unfortunately, there's no way of knowing because you're unwilling to disclose your previous account name. As far as I'm concerned, you have two routes to choose when thinking about editing under a new username (and not being willing to divulge the previous account name) after previously editing under an old one; 1) Right to vanish - this means that you move completely away from the project and don't edit again. 2) You start a new username, but don't apply for any role which requires additional trust. I'm sorry, but if you're unwilling to divulge any information, and expect us to trust what 1/2/3 people (and they're all users who have my ultimate respect as it happens) say then I'm unwilling to support this request. Sorry Floquenbeam. '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.  If the candidate is not willing to have their record examined, they should have a longer record for us to see.  Now they have 3,500 edits.  Not enough.  If we allow vouching by a few respected people, then we are allowing the important people to appoint administrators.  That's ok that the Ambassador to Switzerland or a cabinet minister is appointed, but that's not the way it's done in Wikipedia.  Come back in a few months when the Floquenbeam editing record is more established.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. I'm aware of Alison's analysis of the previous account, but "largely wikignomish" previous activity doesn't say much to me.
'''Weak Oppose''' - No worries about the prior account, but this account should have more of a history. In particular the very first answer worries me: "CAT:CSD. I don't do much new page patrolling"... the user's edit history suggests ''no'' new page patrolling.
'''Oppose''' per Wehwalt, and JB50000. Come back when *this* account has enough of a demonstrated record to justify adminship. I do not go as far as Ryan, and your privacy is your own, but you can't have your cake (prior good behavior) and eat it too (not show that record). <strong>
'''Oppose''' I can't support candidates who don't use real names '''
'''Oppose''' User is too anxious to become an administrator.  This is a bad sign.  The user wants to be an administrator even though he or she hasn't had enough edits.  Edit-countitis is bad but a minimum number is required per Wikipedia custom.  The user probably had enough by the old name but the old name is not running for administrator, this one is.  Reapplication recommended for later this year.  Predict success at that time.
'''Oppose''' you need to start writing articles to experience certain things about the site.--
'''Oppose''' per relative paucity of article work, combined with the "I had an account before but won't tell you anything about it" schtick, overall relatively low level of contributions.  If you want to come back in a few months of good editing (e.g., go get something from a stub to GA) and declare your previous username, I'll likely support in the future.
'''Oppose''' - concerned about lack of article work.
'''Oppose''' Q18.
'''Oppose''' per relative paucity of article work, prior account is no concern.
'''Oppose''' Transparency is essential and there seems to be a little less than usually here.  I do have concerns about the prior account.  Sometimes one needs to put there neck out especially when an admin.  For me to overlook this would need a longer editing history.
'''Oppose''' Lack of article writing, and experience in admin related areas is quite weak.
'''Oppose''' I simply do not see the point of this candidacy - too many questions...
'''Oppose''' per Jim Miller and the whole secrecy issue.
'''Neutral'''. I must say that your contributions have been outstanding thus far, but I'm afraid I cannot, in good conscious, support per the lack of transparency.  Sorry, '''
'''Neutral''' per question 5 and bits of pieces of other questions. They might be isolated incidents and this RFA is going to pass anyway, so I don't think an oppose is my opinion here, but my concerns prevent support.
'''Neutral''' leaning support. Excellent work with this account, but low content creation makes me waffle. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Neutral''' - Candidate does good work in vandalism-fighting and other gnomish work, and has provided sensible answers to questions. I would be happier with the candidate if he had some more experience in content creation. I come to this view largely because of my one "run-in" with the candidate, which was at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canbourne University (2nd nomination)]], an AfD started by Floquenbeam that I personally found annoying. At the time, I feared that Floqenbeam was going to turn out to be a smug holier-than-thou deletionist who has little empathy for the challenges faced by contributors who build and maintain articles. I am pleased to discover that I was wrong -- it seems this is one of just a couple of AfDs he ever initiated and one of only a very few that he ever participated in. Furthermore, he says he's not interested in doing XfDs. I think, however, that it is beneficial for administrators to have some experience in content creation -- in order to have some empathy for the concerns of contributors who research topics and write prose, and it appears to me that Floquenbeam lacks that kind of experience. The experience that his nominator describes as "content creation" is more along the lines of "article cleanup." I expect that this RfA will be succcessful, and I am voting "neutral" because I want the candidate to think seriously about the need for him to try doing some actual content creation in order to get that experience. --
'''Conditional Neutral'''...I trust Alison & Majorly, but would like perhaps one more endorsement of someone who knows of the old account (did I miss one while reading this?), as that would (IMO) make sure that possible minority/alternate viewpoints on the old account would have been expressed. After that, I would be happy to support. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support''' Clearly we're getting stupid now in terms of admin requirements. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigel_Levings&oldid=360407999 Solid stub with refs]. [[User:GorillaWarfare/Archive_2#Types_of_rape|Understands policy]], [[User:GorillaWarfare/Archive_2#Be_more_careful|Owns their mistakes]]. Now, I think there are a few areas that you could develop on, but I'm assuming form the answers to Q1-Q3 you're hardly going to go crazy with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Pedro and largely as a protest against any suggestion that a candidate needs to be at all familiar with RFA before becoming an admin. Tactically, it is a good idea. But there is no reason for its relevance to suitability for the tools. Taking this approach risks casting aside good candidates. --
'''Support''' on the basis of clear, thoughtful, and intelligent answers to the questions. For some candidates I'd want to see more varied edits, but GorillaWarfare already strikes me as someone who knows what it's about, and I'm happy with what I see. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]] and question 9 as this user obviously will not go crazy with the tools.
'''Support''' Why do most of oppose rationales at RfA say things like "Not enough content edits." and "Too many automated edits.". In fact, some [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_4|successful RfA]]s big part of the nom was the fact they wrote an anti-vandal bot. Most of being an sysop is to prevent vandalism, so why would they need major experience in content creation? Other [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cgoodwin|RfAs]] have been denied on the fact that they had only content creation experience. RfA is supposed to see if the community trusts the candidate's judgement, not if they have enough trophies. Sorry for the rant, but good luck. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' (edit conflict) - seems competent, has clue. Not having voted in any RFAs is a plus in my book - it means you're less involved in the drama side of the project, and more involved in improving the encyclopaedia. I trust this user with the tools.
'''Support.''' Research into GorillaWarfare's edit history indicates (s)he is a compotent editor and will be a plus to the project as an admin. --''
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience, unlikely to do anything rash, and puts forward a good and - importantly - honest argument. As I've been arguing on the Signpost, the benefit of the doubt needs to be given more around here.
'''Support''' - I was going to go neutral and say rack up more edits, but that's not necessary. The contribution number is on the low side (8,386 if you add in the previous account but consider the automation) but the non automated edits are good, and I wouldn't underestimate the quality of vandal patrolling here. I didn't look at every edit, but I saw nothing that worried me looking through both accounts.
'''Support''' I oppose almost all the time lately, and normally the CSD mistakes would keep me out of this column. However, the candidate seems to take constructive criticism on board unusually well, and the communication skills are top-notch. The Talk page correspondence with other editors is particularly encouraging. I believe this user will be a good administrator.
'''Support''' - has a clue and gave good answers to all questions.
'''Support''' Despite the mistakes, I trust you, and hope that should this fail, you'll be back here in 6 months.
'''Weak Support:'''  Some valid concerns raised below. Take some time to deal with them. We need good admins and hope to see you in six months. -
'''Support''' I've seen your mistakes from the past, and seen how you improved over the months (and years). Even through you have less edits then some users think you should, and that most of them are automated, I still trust you. After all, the point of having Administrators is that they spend lots (if not the majority or all) of their time to control vandalism with their enhanced tools and help make sure the project runs smoothly.  RFA standards for lots of users are way too high right now, and this has led to a reduced number of new admins which has now cut into the number of active admins. I probably have low standards than everyone else, but they are good enough that you can do the job.
'''Support''' per Pedro. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="black">
'''Support''' per Techman224.  I like you, and I thought your answers were spot on.  I'm not at all bothered by the balance of your edits, and even though you've certainly made mistakes, you've shown a great willingness to learn from them.  Here's hoping you get enough support to get you over the hump.
'''Support''' - was on the fence until I saw the first three sentences of the candidate's answer to Q7: "''Well I don't see why you shouldn't support those three [JD, TR, TTTSNB] either. I was not of the impression that there were a limited number of administrator positions (for lack of a better descriptor) available. I don't see why it would be possible or negative to have too many vandal fighter administrators.''" Great phrasing, in my opinion. A bit combative, but that can be chalked up to a slightly combative question. It shows the levelheadedness I like in admin candidates. Gorilla, if you ever need assistance, [[User talk:The ed17|drop me a line]]. &nbsp;
'''Support''' level headed and sufficient experience.
'''Support''' Enough substance in vandal fighting to support IMO, also strongly agree with Pedro.
'''Support''' - Good communicator, intelligent and considered answers to the questions, good contribution history and demonstrates a willingness to self improve. Satisfies my [[Wikipedia:Net positive|main RFA criterion.]] &nbsp;
'''Support''' - per Pedro. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' A net benefit to the project here, very much appreciate the vandal fighting techniques, But article edits seem low, would be a good idea to beef this up in the future for experience.
'''Support''' - While she doesn't have that much content contribution under her belt, she certainly understands what it is all about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stage_lighting_instrument&action=historysubmit&diff=374557133&oldid=374369181] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_E._Grady&action=historysubmit&diff=375244755&oldid=375062216], and that's what matters to me. [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|My criterion]] is met, answers are good, and mistakes are there to learn from them. <small>refactored - candidate is female</small> --
'''Support'''- I see no real grounds for concern with this candidate.
'''Support''' Will be able to learn on the job.
'''Support''' Although your amount of mainspace edits is rather small in comparison to your total amount of edits, you have 2537 mainspace edits, and [[WP:Admin coaching]] says ''For most editors, around 1000 – 1500 mainspace edits (and a reasonable proportion of all edits) would be a typical minimum [for RfA].'', so I guess you're fine. You also seems to have a good understanding of the policies and guidelines. —
'''Support''' - good knowledge of content creation, shown by candidate's two created articles; good answers to questions, especially Q7. Also, good knowledge of policy around here, such as demonstrated in [[Talk:Ocean_City,_Maryland#Ocean_City_Surf_Report]] and [[User talk:Pankajraj01#Your edits to Garhwali]]. I note a bit of misapplication of policy, such as [[WP:PROD]]; I also note that [[WP:BELLY|none of us is perfect]].<small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''Active in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia, and accepts positive criticism to improve use of CSD tools. More article creation and contribution to articles would be good in an admin candidate, but seems worthy of the mop and bucket.
'''Strong Support''' Per answers to questions, I think you'd make a great "mop-wielder". To those who opposed on basis of lack of experience, if being on the project and active for almost three years is "inexperienced," then what ''does'' constitute enough experience to be an admin? '''
'''Support''' - looks trustworthy, not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Strong support''' - we need more janitors, not more paper pushers and architects
'''Support''' Per answers to my CSD exercise (and not because of the flattery... honest!).  I don't see that it is necessary to be a good editor to be a good administrator (heck... I've hardly ever written anything of substance, even before I got the mop!), but an understanding of the policies is definitely required.  Has shown good understanding of policy and follow-up work.  '''
'''support''' - RFA sucks.  --
'''Support''' I'm shocked that I am lending my support to such an inexperienced candidate. (Zounds! Only one edit to the Portal namespace? I have 14 times as many.) However, I have been known to be a bit of a nut, so I'll support anyway.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. Unconvinced by opposes so far - and I quite like the level-headed attitude taken when responding to criticism. Not a perfect candidate, but we don't seek perfection. --
'''Support''' since the candidate has good policy knowledge and is trustworthy. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Support''' Nothing in the oppose section is concerning enough for me to oppose you.
The candidate has made a few mistakes (who hasn't?), but overall seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –
'''Support''' Although I understand the objections raised below, I see no reason not to believe that the candidate will use those as a learning opportunity and improve. I also see no reason to believe that GorillaWarfare will abuse the tools -- '''''
'''Support''' Looks good. Oppose reasons are unconvincing (whether people have voted before in RfAs is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they will make a good admin, I can marginally see the argument about automated edits but the total number of non-automated edits is high enough that this isn't an issue.)
'''Support''' Seems level-headed, which is possibly the most important character trait in an admin. &nbsp;&ndash;
'''Strong Support''' Don't listen to all these '''haters!'''; they just jealous. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Support''' I don't think she nailed all the questions, but I also sense a willingness to quickly rethink a position when errors pointed out. I liked the CSD answers, I liked the q8 answer, and I liked the firm, but not confrontational response to the AfD edit used as an oppose. I confess I didn't know the policy until I looked it up, and yes, she is right. I think WP will, on balance, be a better place with her as a sysop.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' '''
Editor looks solid and I find no reason to oppose. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' —
'''Strong Support''' Quick draw tagging is a concern, but you responded positively to the criticism and generally seem to be an excellent, diligent contributor.
'''Support''' - Sort of going on instinct here. I have a few concerns regarding CSD tagging, but just be careful in the future. I think you've learned very quickly how things work here and I suspect you'll continue to learn quickly.
'''Support'''. Still slightly concerned about you suddenly becoming "too busy" again because of school, especially since adminship brings with it a higher level of activity and responsibility, but I don't feel right opposing over just that. I trust you're not swallowing more than you can chew, and that you have it in you to make Wikipedia a better place. --
'''Very strong support''' GorillaWarfare does excellent vandalism patrol work, showing a good deal better understanding of policies than many editors who try to deal with vandalism. Her answers to questions (above) also show a good level of understanding. Many of the objections raised below by opposers do not carry much weight. The comment at the AfD was not entirely unreasonable. Lack of article writing experience is given far too much importance these days in RfAs. The removals of the PROD were more significant, but presumably she knows better now, and not even admins are perfect. The concern about being too busy is totally irrelevant: an admin who has little time to work here does no harm, and may do a little good. I believe she will make a good admin.
'''Support''' because I don't see a convincing argument she would misuse admin status if it is given.  Perfect, no, but I'd rather not have perfect admins because it means that they will be less afraid to '''be bold''', which always entails some mistakes.
'''Support'''. I have millions of automatic edits, best thing for an admin to have. We're not here for content, we're here to clean. Solid grasp of policy, long-standing editor, willing to admit mistakes. We need more people like GW for adminship, and we need more admins. Sod the detractors. Vote YES.
'''Support'''. I have some concerns about CSD, but I'm confident you'll learn from the comments here. What swung me from a possible ''neutral'' was [[Nigel Levings]]: CSD isn't just about deleting stuff, it's about knowing how to rescue a stub, and you've convinced me you have the skills for that, too. I'm dating your experience back to July 2006 (Theunicyclegirl) and considering your edits to various namespaces as Theunicyclegirl, so I'm not seeing quite the "problem" some of the opposers may be. <small>I had to smile at your "blemish": I've got a block more recent than that.</small>
'''Support''' Maybe some of the usually silly opposes will come around.
'''Support'''. GorillaWarfare's long-standing contribution is amazing considering the age/student status she discloses. That she responds positively to even difficult feedback is apparent and her tone towards other editors is encouraging, clear and cooperative. If I wanted guidance or example, GorillaWarfare's exactly the kind of admin I'd like to have around.
'''Support''' - as with all of us, mistakes have been made and doubtless will continue to be made. What I'm seeing here is a dedicated and sensible editor who works hard to rectify concerns, and makes many valued contributions - a clear and obvious net positive with admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', I see someone who's calm, rational, and willing to learn from their mistakes. Not impressed at all by the "wherearetheeditscountitis" opposes, or nitpicking at the fact that-God forbid-the candidate made the occasional mistake, the candidate shows knowledge and willingness to learn through their actions. While it doesn't look like this one's on track to pass, I'll be just as happy to support you next time around.
'''Support''', I don't see any reason to say that GorillaWarfare will make anything but proper use of the tools.  Frankness is a positive aspect; I have no complaints about former shortfalls freely admitted.  Just one bit of advice: be careful to remember  your password lest you have to register a third account.
'''Support'''  Support per Pedro.  Tired of the "too many automated edits" argument; tired of the "messed up an AfD once" argument.  Is he going to fix more than he breaks - yes.
'''Support''' - a very good candidate who is willing to learn from her past mistakes. GorillaWarfare certainly is a good choice for becoming an administrator due to her long-standing contributions. [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
Per Pedro.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate who seems to have a great track record
'''Support''' - Looking at [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|my criteria]], I've decided to support. Out of the reasons given in the opposition, only the PROD and speedy deletion concerns are good in my view, but all editors make mistakes from time to time, and the important thing is that she learnt from these mistakes, which is what I want to see in admins. I don't give much weight to edit count and even if I (unfairly in my view) treat "automated edits" as worthless, the user still passes my base edit count requirements, easily in fact with the old account included.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - A little green but otherwise I think he'd make a decent admin eventually.
'''Support''' not perfect, but no deal breaker problems that I can see with this candidate. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - I share the content concerns but think you can handle the extra buttons. I was a little hesitant, but there are some editors I deeply respect supporting you.  Will Wikipedia be a better place if you are helping out here with the admin workload as you find possible? I believe the answer is yes. Just remember to do your homework and get plenty o' sleep too! (Gawd, I sound like I'm lecturing my stepdaughter.) Best wishes,
'''Support''' - I have positive recall observing theunicyclegirl. How did you forget your password? - you know you can often salvage it from a browser you used to login, but I digress. The plus point here is the fact GorillaWarfare is at school but has civil ability beyond what you may expect. Regards,
Different admins have different strengths and different administrative interests. We should not expect any candidate to know how to do everything or want to do everything. In my mind, content creation is not a pre-requisite. She wants to go after vandals. Great! She is competent, trustworthy, able to take advice and criticism, willing to learn and grow, is cordial, and is not combative. Also, in response to Bejinhan (below), articles are built by communities. As editors develop their skills, they should not be expected to go back and update every single article they've worked on.
I appreciate GorillaWarfare's responses and behavior in this RfA, including her willingness to address problems when they've been mentioned. I recall seeing her name long before this RfA, and have always thought that she's a good editor. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] (from
'''Support''', longstanding good editor.
'''Support'''. Honestly, if the tools allow someone with a long-standing, proven track record to accomplish their tasks more efficiently, then we should be giving them to them. Period. Full stop. Will GorillaWarfare be more able to accomplish her tasks if given the tools? Yes. Is she likely to abuse the tools, delete the homepage, or break the Wiki? No. Will jumping through ridiculous hoops by creating some content improve her vandal-whacking? No. Is adminship [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|a big deal?]] No. The correct course of action seems obvious to me. All else is just standard RFA political asshattery.
'''Support'''. IMO the main reason candidates need article writing experience is so that they appreciate the difficulty of creating content and don't go delete-happy. While GorillaWarfare is not primarily a content contributor, she has enough to gain my trust. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. I'm doing this as moral support, in the spirit that I hope you will try again after taking time to address the issues raised by opposers. I've looked carefully at the arguments on both sides of this RfA, and the opposes strike me as piling on over little things that just aren't that bad, while your own work shows plenty of courtesy and good faith, and is clearly not without content work. --
'''Support'''. While the opposes raise some valid concerns, I think overall you'll be ok.
'''Support''', trustworthy user, and I'm unpersuaded by oppose arguments that reek of checklistism.
'''Support'''. Obviously not a vandal, and seems friendly enough. More edits (i.e. experience) would probably serve her better as an admin (but hey, look who's talking!) :) --<font color="blue" face="linux libertine" size="3">
'''Support'''. I agree with the Titoxd, and we need to maintain an adequate number of admins to prevent vandalism from slipping through at RC Patrol.
'''Support''' - seems OK. Copntent work a bit limited, so make sure you take that up a notch going forward. And be careful with the CSD's - making the occasional hasty recommendation is one thing, but every hasty delete risks alienating a new editor.
'''Support''', to be honest, the things brought up by the opposers don't convince me ''not'' to support.
'''Support''' You've been here for a long time, seem to be honest and a blemish or 2 isn't a big [[WP:DEAL|deal]] to me.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - From what I have seen in the answers to the questions above and the edits I have reviewed I think she has a clue and can be trusted with the tools.  '''
'''Support''' - Can't see a reason to think she is not worthy of the tust needed for the mop, the only thing that has given me pause is the relevantly recent nature of most of the contributions.  I also share [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] feeling about the checklistism of some of the oppose's
'''Support''' Opposes aren't convincing. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' - has done good work, adminship is not a big deal, and the opposes are unimpressive.  &nbsp; — '''<font class="texhtml">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I am not liking the almost 70% automated edits, even if you do have 8,300 edits. Also [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/index.php?name=GorillaWarfare&rfb=on this page] reports that you have not voted in any RfA's or RfB's before, which is definitely an area an admin should have experience in. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Oppose'''. When it comes to project space edits, you're a bit on the low side: only 76 edits to AIV, 4 to RFPP, none to UAA or ANI and only two edits to Wikipedia talk pages are way too few for a metapedian. Even though I think you're a net positive and I morally support you, I have to oppose, because I don't think you're experienced enough in admin-related areas to be handed the tools. Sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
I'm not worried about the proportion of automated edits and I'm certainly not bothered about lack of RFA involvement as this is an RFA not an RFB. However I am concerned about some of your speedy deletion tags. I've restored one and moved it to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare/Mii Party]] as an example - over hasty and not in my view "no context". As it says at [[Special:NewPages]] "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision". So I'm sorry, but I don't think you are ready yet - hope to be able to support in a few months, but please learn a little more restraint at newpage patrol. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC) NB also not bothered about age and not particularly about the amount of editing, but in my view while you are on the right path the prod and CSD examples indicate that a bit more practice is needed. However if this attempt fails I hope to be able to support before the year is over. ''
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more content editing. The proportion of automated edits is not a problem for me (mine were 85%...), but I did have 5000+ "normal edits" which just about got me through, you have less than 2000 "normal edits". I would expect quite a few editors to oppose with less than 2000 edits. '''
'''Oppose''' While a lot of automated edits are fine, they comprise almost all your edits which is not ok.  Less than 50% of your edits are to article space, and your editing pattern is sporatic. I know we can't be on all the time, but you've been active less than half the months since account creation.  I'm happy you've decided to take an interest in Wikipedia and please continue to work hard.  However at this time, you do not meet my [[User:Kraftlos/admin criteria|admin criteria]].  No prejudice against a second RfA maybe 6-12 months down the road.  --'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the limited content creation, the low number of projectspace edits, and the focus on automated edits gives me the opinion that you have limited experience throughout the project. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=GorillaWarfare&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= This] puts your Huggle count at about 2400, and your Twinkle count at 1700. That's not what I would consider a lot, if you plan to focus on that (I have 2900 Huggle edits and I haven't even touched it in months). I'd recommend waiting about four months, and during that time, you should write a few articles, maybe get one to GA/FA level, and explore more areas of the project, including RfA, AfD, etc. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''': Little to no involvement in template, category, file,  and portal namespaces shows a lack of versatility, although these ''are'' more obscure areas of the project, it is likely you will come across something here. Also, I tend to expect over 5,000 non-automated edits for admins; you have 1932. As Fetchcomms points out, that number is very little, as someone told me that Hugglers get up to 2,000 edits in a weekend. A lack of content editing (3 articles; two stubs and a dab) and no "recognized" content. Write some stuff, or improve something and try again in about a year.
'''Oppose''' at this time. {{diff|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHealth|378106639|378062025|This edit}} gave me a bad case of {{facepalm}}. The editor was explaining their extensive experience with the subject, and you dinged them for not mentioning that they had edited the article as well. Practice a bit more, and maybe in 6 months to a year, I'll be able to support.--
'''Oppose''' per SarekOfVulcan, large automated edits proportion, and lack of content building. If you don't see anything wrong with the AFD comment, now is clearly not the time to give you access to the tools. Even without that, I would not support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I have to oppose at this time. Looking at your recent history I see several things that concern me over your knowledge of policy. The speedy tagging identified by [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] above and at [[Serwan Baban]] concern me over you knowledge of the speedy criteria, which is an area you say you want to work in. The [[Route M4 (Manhattan)]] article where you restored the prod tag to the article twice after it was removed, was only a couple of weeks ago and how this was wrong had to be pointed out to you on your talk page. The AFD comment brought up by [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] is also concerning. Given that speedy deletion and AFD closing are areas where you want to work in as an admin these recent examples, combined with not having much content experience, lead me to have to oppose at this time. I see evidence you are learning from you mistakes however and hope (if this fails) I can support you in the future where you have more experience showing knowledge of policy in the areas you want to work in.
'''Oppose'''. The overall experience is insufficient at this time. Vandal fighting is certainly appreciated, but for an admin candidate I would generally want to see greater evidence, at least in terms of absolute numbers if not the percentage, of involvement in other areas of the project. In particular, a bit more content work would certainly be a plus - right now your top edited article has only 10 edits by you. Looking at the projectspace contrib record, only 268 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk namespaces. A few recent problems with CSD tagging; you mention that you plan to do AfD closings, but from looking at your contrib record since the start of this year, I see little AfD participation before July. One needs a bit longer than a month of active AfD work to really get the hang of things there. The diff provided by Sarek is also somewhat worrying - bringing up a "vested interest" argument in an AfD usually requires more substantial evidence than what was available here. Overall the candidates strikes me as someone who is certainly on the right track but is not quite ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose'''. Little experience of building the encyclopedia, and I was very unimpressed with the AfD brought up by SarekofVulcan (vested interest in an area of academic study?), by the overhasty speedy tagging, and by the misunderstanding of the proposed deletion process.
I find the attitude displayed by {{diff|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHealth|378106639|378062025|this recent edit}} to be distasteful and indicative of a patronisingly bossy mentality that too many administrators already share. I find it doubly distasteful to see it displayed in a schoolchild.
'''Oppose''' Content is a consideration, but your deletion record is the big issue. Following on from where Malleus left off, if an admin is doing his or her job properly, vested interests are irrelevant at AfD (unless it is a breach of [[WP:COI]]). All that matters is qualitative discussion based on policy or guidelines. That fact that you see a vested interest as an issue suggests to me that you would close AfDs democratically, which is entirely wrong. As a non-admin, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin or crat could verify DaveWild's claim that a PROD was incorrectly re-added twice on [[Route M4 (Manhattan)]]. I'm in no doubt that it's true, but it would be helpful to get confirmation from an uninvolved party. --
'''Oppose''' A Wikipedian since July, 2007, but really only highly active since the beginning of the year. Low number of edits to article space; meager article creations (4 articles/11 redirects). On the flip side, the candidate has developed significant vandal-fighting cred's. One day this candidate will be a fine administrator; however, I don't believe now is the time.--
'''Oppose''' – Although you say you would like to work in vandalism revertion, I would also like to see more content building. Also, I'm not trying to be picky on edits, but for a user who specializes in anti-vandalism, I would like to see more edits than you have. In addition, I am concerned about your CSD taggings. A7 is not about ''notability'', but ''importance''; if an article has ''any'' credible assertion of importance, it cannot be deleted under A7. This is frequently misunderstood by new page patrollers. If DaveWild was correct that [[Route M4 (Manhattan)]] was double-prodded, then I have some concerns about that as well. I would like to see more edits spread out in different parts of the project besides vandalism revertion. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' -  On  the question  of creations, I think  it's reasonable to  expect  an RfA candidate's own creations, however few they  are,  to  demonstrate that  the candidate has a fairly  sound knowledge of content  policy. GorillaWarfare's contributions do  not. My  opinion  here is that  a little more experience and an increased sense of judgement are needed - things that  will come with  a few more months of more experience. One way  to  get  the CSD issues right  is not  to  tag if in  doubt, but  to  watch  the page and see what  the more experienced  patrollers do to  it, and if you  visit  a lot  of AfD debates, don't  feel  compelled to leave a comment each  time,  but  come back  and see how it  was wound up..--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Davewild]] mentioning the prod, which was recent. Per [[User:DeltaQuad/RfA voting|my RfA requirements]]: Ratio of edits are out of proportion, % Automated edits are too high (even for a Vandal patroler wanting to be an admin), queasy about policy understanding per CSDs in questions (user has a clue here though), AIV and Deletions aren't everything, and given the limited articles, this is tools to deal with people who edit articles. No RfA votes, which would help tell me that the user knows what admins face. Sorry, but at this time I can not support. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose''' - I've been on the fence and was considering a neutral comment but that proposed deletion pushed me over to the oppose column. The fact that it was so recent is what really disturbs me, and I think highlights the lack of policy knowledge from the candidate. The other troubling matter is the lack of participation in the project space, which was my first hint that you might be lacking in this area. I just don't have confidence that you're not going to misuse the tools if given them, not out of malice, but out of misunderstanding. In the near future with more experience you might be ready. -- '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Largely per SarekOfVulcan and Atama. The answers to my three questions were wonderful and I'm glad that you replied to them the way that you did but you simply do not seem to have enough "experience" (a rather vague term on Wikipedia) to be an administrator ''yet''. I'd say give it another 3-6 months and try again. You'll do fine next time around if you stay on this track and I look forward to supporting you next time around.--
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has made relatively few contributions and needs additional experience, as we see from SarekOfVulcan's example. With additional experience GorillaWarfare will probably make a fine sysop.
'''Oppose''' There is a calmness, and an openness and a willingness that I admire, and these are great qualities for an admin to have. However I'm opposing due to evidence brought forward that the candidate hasn't got enough all round experience of Wikipedia and has made some poor judgement calls (possibly due to that lack of experience). Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of quality editing to look at to balance the negative points. I would suggest and urge GorillaWarfare to gather more experience - and, if wanting to help out as an admin, to broaden that experience by getting involved in admin areas such as dispute resolution, AfD and RfA. Then try again in 6 or 12 months time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Weak Oppose''' for now per Majoreditor.  Look forward to supporting in the future after more meat-and-potatoes contributions.

'''Oppose''' I hate to oppose, but I do like to see some content creation. You seem levelheaded, but I think you need to start seeing manual contributions. As of now, there is not much to judge on. In a couple of months, if you re-apply, my vote will probably be a support. ~<strong>'''''
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Mainly per the above.  I like the work you're doing, and I encourage you to keep it up.  While the large number of automated edits is concerning, that aside, I think you would benefit from more experience working in the administrative side of the project.  Whether this passes or not, keep up the good work and don't decrease the amount of automated edits you make - just have several thousand "normal" edits to counterbalance the automated edits.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Per the reasons above, especially the hasty AfD tagging since you intend to work in the deletion area. [[User:Bejinhan|<font color="#8000FF">Bejinhan</font>]] [[User talk:Bejinhan|<font color="#FF00FF">talks</font>]]  12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC) There is also problems with some of the articles you created with your first account. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Activists_Alliance] - This has only primary sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaela_Kocianova] - This has ''no'' references at all. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycus,_son_of_Poseidon] - This has 2 sentences and no references. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Marie_Kortright] - Why did you not use the references templates? I have already run Reflinks so it's alright now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_Force_%281914_film%29] - Another completely unreferenced article. And a few others which isn't completely unreferenced but would need more sources.
'''Weak Oppose''' - While I am willing to overlook occasional lapses in civility and maturity (none of us is perfect, and I'll willingly confess to having undergone said lapses on a few occasions myself), as well as a high quantity of automated edits, I am not as willing to overlook a lack of high-level content creation. At its core, participating in Wikipedia is about writing articles. Much of what we see over at [[WP:ANI]] ultimately deals with conflicts in the article-writing process (and, it must be noted, much of what eventually makes its way to ArbCom), and as such I believe it important that admins have a firm firsthand knowledge of that process. In the same way as being a complete article-writer and having no experience in admin-like tasks is a quick way to fail an RfA, I'm also of the belief that pure wikignoming/low-level content creation is not suited to the role of adminship. I regret having to oppose this RfA, but I simply don't see enough experience at the higher levels of article work that are so critical to wikipedia as a whole. [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] <sup>([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]])(
'''Oppose''' Seems to lack adequate experience.
'''Oppose''' Agree with Colonel. Also nobody seems to have shown a concern here that this editor has only ever created 4 articles in his existence on here. That's extremely poor. I've created more start class articles than that in 24 hours.  This site is about content not a race to see who can get tools in the shortest amount of time with a distinct lack of encyclopedic contribution.
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's lack of content creation and work in the project, template, category, file, and portal spaces, heavy focus on automated edits, and errors with CSD and AfD tags. Thus, I have concerns about the candidate's experience and knopwledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' - Statistics don't usually tell the whole story, but when I see virtually all of a candidate's article and article talk edits in the single digits, alarm bells begin to sound. Upon digging a little deeper, all I found was an automated gnome machine. Sorry, but no.
'''Oppose''' – very regretfully, as you appear to be generally on the right track, and willing to learn. Supporters and opposers have brought good arguments for both positions, and I've been wavering all week. (Your answer to my question was somewhat reassuring.) I'm ending up in the oppose section essentially for the reasons expressed by [[User:Nsk92]] at oppose #11, and because when you have made some errors in judgment, they've been towards deleting and/or biting, which is more concerning in a novice admin compared to one who errs on the side of keeping articles or holding back. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Nsk92]].
'''Oppose''': Insufficient experience because very little content provided. In general I believe that an admin can't administrate contributors, if the admin him/herself has been a poor contributor. I look at the admin tools as a stewardship to help content providers: a poor contributor can't be a leader without proper evident experience. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' I believe an admin should have some significant content work.  I ask not for GAs or FAs, but simply major effort into article or articles.  I believe it is necessary, and that blocks should not be handed down from an ivory tower.  If you haven't been in the trenches ...--
'''Neutral''' - Neutral for now until further arguments by others. I see positive contributions and I recognise your name. However, you've not got a huge amount of edits in Wikipedia space and you've only been properly active on this account for 8 months. That last part isn't an opposing factor, it's just a minor concern, so for now...neutral. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB">
'''Neutral''' I think you're on the way there. Keep up the good work, and try again in a few months.
I would support if you had a few thousand more edits. Try again in three to six months.
'''Neutral''' (mainly since I think that it should be the editors that trust you, with the admins as a bonus; I'd only oppose or support if my opinion is strongly on one side).  While I do think that you have a good grasp of how the spam black- and whitelists are handled, I am not sure if you have a sufficient idea of the policy concerns behind it.  Although most spam is indeed plain spam .. some of the blacklistings that are being performed are due to abuse of core policies and guidelines, or misuse the possibilities of Wikipedia in such a way that some links don't need too much abuse (if any ..) to go over the limit.  --
Pluses and minuses here.
'''Neutral''' for now.
Hate staying in this section, but I'm too unsure right now. May be swayed either way. '''
I'm neutral on this one too.  Nothing per se makes me oppose, and most of the opposes seem pretty low on my hierarchy of reasons to oppose, but the content creation isn't terribly good either.  I'm not going to be upset if you pass, but I suspect you'll be better off addressing the areas of concern and coming back in three months.
'''Support'''. User has experience in different areas, seems intelligent and level-headed, and has a clear idea of what they will do with the tools.
'''Support''' - Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''. Definitely could use the tools to benefit the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' No present concerns.
'''Support''' Why not? <font color="#082567">
'''Support''' Looks ready for the tools, and has identified a good place to put wiki skills to work.
'''Support'''- I see no real concerns.
'''Support'''per Trebor.
'''Support''' – Good candidate. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' Highly active for almost exactly one year, the candidate is familiar from college football pages. Adequate content building (26 article creations and 110 redirects) combined with factors such as a high level of technical skills, trustworthiness and cerebral answers to questions warrants a vote in favor.--
'''Support'''. Enthusiastic editor with a positive attitude and enough experience/clue to do a good job of administrating. --
'''Support''' See no concerns feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
A fine editor. '''
'''Support'''. Grondemar's focus on DYK is clearly an area where he could usefully use the admin tools.
'''Support''' - Seems like he will use the tools, trustworthy, no complaints from me.
'''Support''': He will fine as an administrator.
'''Support''' Strong candidate with the required experience.  Agree that DYK needs more involved administrators and that the rate may need to be slowed (although disagree with the all-GA DYK idea).  User shows intelligence and thoughtfulness in his responses.
'''Support''' Candidate knows their strengths and weaknesses and has identified areas of Wikipedia where they can apply those strengths best, and minimize those weaknesses. Uncommonly gormful. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, intending to focus on an area that could use more administrators. Very strong answers to the questions, IMHO.
'''Support'''.  Very good answers to the questions, a user to be trusted with the tools.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''' per above.
I have a weird feeling, but I think I'll go with a weak support here. I don't like opposing for things I can't put in words, and I don't care enough about the answer to Q4 to oppose. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Strong support''', candidate knows how to follow our policies and plans to follow them carefully.  Most important to me is the response to the IAR question — this policy tends to be forgotten about far too often, and we need an admin who sees it as a benefit.  As long as it's genuinely improving the encyclopedia, there's never anything wrong with an action done in the spirit of IAR.  My only disappointment with the candidate is about DYK policies, and that's an editorial matter that shouldn't affect this RFA.
'''Sooner Magical Support''' May your RFA go well and may your Fiesta Bowl be a crushing disappointment. ;-) <sup>BOOMER SOONER!</sup> '''[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa</font></font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy user, seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Answers show thought and thoroughness. A GA reviewer. Substantial contributor to an FA.  No issues I see worth opposing over.
'''Support''' Is he perfect? ''No.'' Is he ideal? ''Close enough.'' Is he acceptable? ''Yes.'' The RfA is a nasty process and attracts nasty people. It's a nit-picky process that attracts nit-picky people. I see no need to be either. Sure, he might have answered Q4 better. In the end though, I still have a solid 90% confidence in him, and that's a whole lot higher than I have for a handful of ''current'' admins. In the end, the fact that he has stated his target niche and demonstrated the proper level of knowledge to effectively operate in said niche, (and meets all my basic requirements, such as putting in six months and not having a long ban log), is enough for me. Good luck and don't screw up.
'''Support''' I like the generally well thought out answers, esp. answer to #3 in which he emphasizes that his philosophy is to avoid escalating conflicts.
'''Support''' #I was leaning towards neutral on the basis of the response to Q4; it's not what I would do, then again I'm not experienced with DYKs, and the response does not seem too bad. Based on the other responses, and great user contribution to wikipedia... I'm supporting on the basis of [[WP:Net Positive]].
'''Support''' - Thought out his answers well—I think he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' I'm surprised the user hasn't received more support !votes by this time. Seems extremely intelligent, mature and a brilliant example of why a combination of regular civil communication, reasonable cross-forum experience and well-thought out RfA replies almost always works brilliantly in influencing Wikipedia editors positively. I'm also quite appreciative of all the other editors in the neutral section who've taken care to explain their positions so well for the sake of the editor. Grondemar, I look forward wholeheartedly to have you contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator; my best wishes.
'''Support.''' Superb candidate. An excellent addition to the admin staff. ~~
'''Support''' Another admin at [[WP:DYK|DYK]] would definitely be a good thing. →<span class="ad-sig" style="border:3px solid goldenrod;">♠
'''Support.''' I've seen a lot Grondemar around, and been very happy with the level-headedness. I may be slightly biased, due to similar interests, but I'm confident candidate will be a good addition to the ranks of admins.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' No red flags. Grondemar's response to Q4 is what I would have done as well.--
'''Support'''. I appreciate this editor's calm, positive attitude and believe he will be an excellent addition to the team. <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Support''': Excellent Job. would make a fine sysop. Good Luck.
'''Support'''. I ''don't'' think that Grondemar got the answer to question 4 quite right.  However, I am very impressed withthis editor's experience in a very exposed area of wikpedia, and the lack of drama. I see a commendable his focus on content combined with a diligent attitude to policy and guidelines which gives me confidence the q4 shortfalls will be learnt from.  So I'm very confident that this is just the sort of responsible person who should have access to the tools. --
'''Support''' No red flags here.--
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
I wasn't planning on actually voting, but having read the opposes, I feel obliged to comment.  Why is it that everyone assumes that incompetence is required for new editors?  There are two reasons that new editors can show competence, either they read the copious documentation that has been provided for how to edit wikipedia, or they are exercising a [[WP:CLEANSTART]].  Neither of those reasons should be a problem.  If a clean start is so clean that one cannot say who the original account was, who cares?  Clearly the user has remedied whatever deficiency lead him or her to leave the project.  If the user is someone who has read the manual, then they are exactly the sort of user we want contributing to the project and as an administrator, not someone to discourage with allegations of sockpuppetry merely for showing competence.  I believe we have a case of the latter here, and I thus give my full and unqualified '''support'''.
Seems to be a fantastic candidate; I don't have any problems with supporting. ~~
Wonder why he isn't one already.--
Per [[User:Sailsbystars|Sailsbystars]]. Have seen the work that this editor has put into doing over at [[WP:DYK|DYK]], and through the suggestions in the oppose gave me a momentary pause, the rational that some editors do spend a considerable amount of time viewing / editing this website before finally seeing the benefits that registering an account, and fostering trust from the community can have. I am interested in the candidates response to the above question posted, but for now, I believe this would be a welcomed addition in an area that is unfortunately under-served at this time (coming from one that should be spending more time over there) and experiences frequent burnouts and turnovers. A net positive.
Clearly here to build an encyclopedia.  The answer to #5 will correct itself fairly quickly once he starts actually tackling vandalism.
'''Support''' I really pity the users who are opposing for such lame reasons below. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Support''' Here for the right reasons and doubt he'll break the place if given the tools. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support'''.  Questioning is overly intrusive and aggressive; I see no reason for that.
'''Support''' I don't think he will abuse the tools. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support'''. Lots of work on DYK where admin tools would be of great benefit. Candidate clearly has a deep understanding of the way things work on Wikipedia, and has a professional background that will be a great boon to the project. --
'''Support''' Has experience contributing to FA level (although not successfully but will eventually). Admins need to understand the effort that goes into producing quality content.
'''Support''' Have had good interactions with this user. '''
'''Support'''.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. No qualms whatsoever about this candidate. Communicates with clarity, edits with common sense, would easily be an asset as a level-headed admin. Accusations of sock-puppetry are unsupported by any evidence, and in my opinion, such accusations are troublesome in the context of this RfA. --
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' - Trust worthy, good DYK work <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Support''' - I've observed Grondemar's good contributions in two areas that I'm also active in: DYK and college athletics. I'm confident that, while not perfect, adminship for Grondemar will at the very least be a [[Wikipedia:Net positive|net positive]] for Wikipedia. In particular, Grondemar has displayed a willingness to ask questions when unsure, to acknowledge their errors, and to act based on consensus even if they disagree with that consensus.
'''Support''' - Good track record, seems very enthusiastic and willing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. See no issues here, and DYK needs help.
'''Support''' I've seen Grondemar at FLC and FAC, and am impressed with his work. Two words come to mind when describing him: "sensible" and "articulate".
'''Support''' A person who likes to help out with the Main Page, especially on the DYK aspect. He/she is an intelligent and important candidate to grant adminship for.
'''Support:''' Looks good. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support:''' Thoughtful answers.  Looks good.--
'''Support''' Per Sailsbystars' excellent reasoning. I'm willing to AGF that the candidate is what they say they are and if that turns out to be incorrect, we can still do something about it later. Regards '''
I was waiting on Q10, but I'll happily '''support'''.
'''Support:''' No reason to oppose. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - Answers to questions, while not all 100% correct, show that he has his head in the right place.  Seems clear to me he's not here to reinvent the rules, he has the capability of carefully interpreting the rules and enforcing them, even if they are counter to his personal opinion.
'''Support'''. I think Grondemar can be trusted with the tools and will put them to good use.
'''Support'''. Looks like someone... that would be an even greater asset with admin tools.
'''Support''' - good answer to Q13.
'''Support'''. Good contributions & good answers.
'''Yes'''. Everything looks great. The answer to Q10 was exceptionally good. '''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124;
'''Support''' because the candidate gives thoughtful answers and DYK has a need. I'm pleased that the oppose issues got resolved as they should have, and I think that it is possible to over-analyze the answers to questions. --
'''Support''' fully qualified candidate. ''
'''Strong Support''' – Excellent, well thought out, detailed responses to the questions above. Will be a huge help keeping things mopped up!
'''Support''' - highly qualified user. I'm particularly impressed by the way you handled unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry on this RFA with coolness and dignity, which bodes well for how you'll act as an administrator.
A little over 12 months' experience, not a very high edit count, but enough to show that he knows what he's doing and a desire to work in admin-short areas where the work can be tedious. No reason to think he wouldn't be a net positive with the admin bit.
'''Support''' Despite a low edit count, I'm satisfied with this candidate's answers to the questions, and he seems to be an experienced user. I've no reasons not to trust this user.
'''Support''' I don't think that the his behavior when he created an account is an issue. He stated that he'd been using Wikipedia as an IP. That's good enough for me. He hasn't damaged the Encyclopedia and has been, as far as I can tell, a net benefit. A good user that actually takes the time to think before making possibly damaging edits. Definite support.
'''Support''' Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question.

Appears competent.
'''Support''' This candidate handled his quesitons well without losing his cool. This added with clear demonstration of expirence leads me to a yes vote.
'''Oppose''' per interest in enabling a dysfunctional DYK process that harms content, rather than being focused on reforming it (a worry about a "backlog" there is precisely the wrong thing administrator material should be focused on). Anyone remember [[User:Rlevse]]?
'''Oppose''' per Q4 - anybody who can look at those sources and not simply answer "those are not neutral sources" does not understand our key policies. If the answer to Q11 were "I will submit myself for fresh community approval in X years", I would be happier about this, especially in light of the praiseworthy answer to Q5, which should be read widely; but this is likely to be the only chance to object.
I don't know of any reason to oppose Grondemar (and am sorry the archiving of a recent FAC was demoralizing :) and am satisfied with his response above on DYK, but neither do I know him well enough to Support; I may revisit later if I have time.
This is a genuine "neutral". It isn't a "I'm not supporting". The answer to q4 was fine to the extent that it isn't wrong. I particularly liked the identification of a responsibility to detect plagiarism, which has been a huge problem across the main page recently. But I think the candidate dodged the actual issue in the specific question. The article in question only has one real source so it would have been abundantly clear where the problem was without having to ask a follow-up question of the complainant. The other problem is the idea that non-reliable sources are less of a problem when they support "non-contentious material". What is contentious? How do we know? What to our unknowing eyes might be an innocent factoid might in fact be a highly contentious claim. For example the article says "In the latter part of his life, Guha was accorded pension as a freedom fighter." "Freedom fighter" is an extremely value-laden word. This statement, like the rest of the article, is sourced to avowedly communist material that is fawning of the article's subject ("Comrade Guha!"). In my view, the article isn't fit to be on the mainspace, let alone the main page. I hope the candidate's refusal to say arose from RfA diplomacy rather than a genuine tolerance of the article. Anyway, I'm just throwing thoughts out for discussion and contemplation rather than rushing to a conclusion early in this RfA. My gut is much closer to supporting than opposing. DYK either needs to be (a) tanked; (b) overhauled; or (c) given an influx of qualified admins to help the current admins do the detailed scrutiny described in question 4. Given that (a) and (b) will probably never happen I'm inclined to think giving Grondemar the tools would be a good thing. --
I'm not happy with A4 or its followup answer. Mkativerata says it well. I shall park myself here for now, but I am leaning towards oppose. '''<font color="navy">
Moved from oppose, see reasoning there.
I'd love to support, and would do so except that while there is distinguished support, I'm not seeing names I recognise as DYK process mainstays. Perhaps I'm wrong - please anyone feel free to point to ones I've missed. December 24th is probably not the best day to launch an RFA, & I'll keep an eye on this until the 31st.
Looks good to me.
Very impressive.
'''Support'''—yes.
'''Support''' Having had WP:3O on my watchlist which i sometimes contribute... Half the time HelloAnnyong has already taken it within minutes of being posted! (s)he has Helped hundreds of wikipedian both new and old. He even checks up on me and lends assistance if I am out of my league!
As I said in a recent RfA, substantial 3O experience is invaluable - it requires good communication and negotiation skills, solid policy knowledge, and clue. Sounds like all the attributes required of an administrator. And bonus support for the self-nom.--
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - Your contributions are varied, substantial, and of quality (4 GAs) but beyond that I've seen your participation firsthand on numerous occasions and always felt you'd be good at the role. I'd have nominated you myself. -- '''
Yep, although mind me asking why your name includes annyong yet you translate Japanese? ''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
Seems to be a good candidate. ~~
'''Support''' Activities at 3O suggest that HelloAnnyong will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''—yes. Temperament and content production, and length of time here indicate will likely be an unequivocal net positive.
'''Support'''
Sure. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Strong support'''. I am familiar with HelloAnnyong's work on [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]]. Active, helpful, and prolific contributor. After my own RfA completed, I was going to make an unsolicited offer to HelloAnnyong to nominate for RfA, but this self-nom beat me to it! ~
'''Support''' - looks like a clueful editor.

'''Support'''
3O is not always the funnest place. Good work writing as well. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support.'''  Prolific contributor to the [[:Wikipedia:Third opinion|WP:3O]] who has helped keep it focused and on task, excellent understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, more than qualified for adminship.  –
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - a Wikipedian since 2006; trustworthy; superb translation work and at Third opinion--
'''Support''' - Lots of edits to  article space. regular contributor in  many  areas. Knows how to properly  create pages. Sound judgement,  and stays incredibly  calm  even when goaded. Absolutely  no  reasons not  to  give her the tools.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Seems knowledgable, reasonable, and helpful whenever we've crossed paths. Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Excellent answers to the questions. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - Good editor. Ready for more.
'''Support'''. Great work at [[WP:3O]] - more admins in that area can only be a good thing. --
'''Support''' - Great work.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Good worker. --
'''Support''' per WTHN and net positive rationale.  All the best.
'''Support''' I am familiar with HelloAnnyong's great work at [[WP:3O]], which I think demonstrates a great deal of patience, cool-headedness, and neutrality. A good track record, a desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason not to trust with admin tools.
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 21,000 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, surely will be safe with the mop, etc.  Zen-like userpage. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Add: also has autoreviewer, reviewer, and rollbacker already.
'''Support''' Clearly wont abuse the tools, excellent answers to all questions. '''
'''Most definitely''' An excellent editor with a temperate disposition who has done wonderful work helping out at [[WP:3O]]. Good 3O editors become well versed with policy as well as with negotiating through a variety of disputes and HelloAnnyong is an excellent one. --
'''Support''' I really thought you were one already. Great answers to the questions so far, great editing history, and strong knowledge of policy. '''
'''Support''' Plenty of gorm. --
I love seeing long-time editors run and be recognized for their behind-the-scenes work. A wonderfully qualified candidate. '''
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' No concerns, no problems. <font color="#228b22">
'''Support.''' Extra points for the selfnom, not that the candidate seems to need them.
'''Support.''' Good answers to questions, excellent contributions, wide experience, seems strong with positive interaction skills. Net positive. &nbsp;
'''Strong Support:'''   Active, helpful and a solid contributor. A great candidate in every way. -
'''Support''' I like all the 3O experience. It suggests that the candidate has seen lots of different bits of articlespace, encountered lots of different content-related policies, and dealt with an astonishing variety of disputes - and the awkward people that fuel them. ;-)
'''Support''': This contributor is exactly the kind of admin I would like to see. Involved in RfCs and Third Opinions. Those are the biggest concerns in Wikipedia. If we want WP to be reliable, admins should be mostly concerned with content disputes. We have way too many admins that are concerned with wp:npa exclusively, but fail to see who is right and who is wrong academically in the first place. Will do an excellent job: I wish more people like him would apply for adminship. My full, strong vote. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
I don't often make my personal RfA criteria explicit, but the main one is that I'm reasonably familiar with the candidate even if I haven't interacted with him personally (which allows me to get a feel for his suitability far beyond trying to tick boxes looking through his most recent contribs). From what I've seen of HelloAnnyong's edits over the years, I'm satisfied on that front. It's also important to note quite how awesome HelloAnnyong's user name is.
'''Support''' I trust this editor to use the tools responsibly.
'''Support'''. Sufficient experience, see no reason to think she will abuse the tools.
'''Strong support'''. Recent dealings with this candidate convince me that HelloAnnyong would be an excellent admin.
'''Strong support'''. Long overdue.
'''Support''' – Definitely. No problems here. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''はい、いいです''' -
'''Support'''&mdash;looks like an excellent candidate to me. <i>
'''Support''' Works for me.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Good work at 3PO and not afraid to get stuck in.
'''Support''' I can't find anything wrong here. ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - no problems here. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' Sure, why not. Great, active contributor to Wikipedia with long experience, a good sysop in all ways. '''''
I have full faith that he'll do a great job. Good luck.
'''Support''' Candidate looks suited to adminhood.
'''Support''' Trustworthy for sure. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' of course -
'''Support''' Have had limited interactions, all good.  No problems raised, so I'm pleased to support.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified "generalist" candidate who has experience in many fields.

'''Support''' Deserves it. Has a lot of experience. We can trust him.
'''Support'''. Impressive. Has my trust.
'''Support''' Have quite a bit of experience with him as a fellow Third Opinion Wikipedian at [[WP:30]] and know that he's steady, considered, responsible, and a self–starter. The very kind of sysop that we need.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support'''. Well qualified, and I don't find any problems. --
'''Support''' - Have seen his vandalism reverts turn up on my watchlist, and in detail, no concerns present themselves.
'''Support''' - Another good one for the mop. '''
'''Support''' a strong candidate.
'''Support''' I was involved in the Akins thing, and HelloAnnyong's handling of that messy situation helped sort things out. He'll make a good admin in my opinion. Anyone who works hard at 3O, and helps solve disputes between dedicated editors has my respect!--
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user.
'''Support''' See no concerns.
'''Support''' Seems to be very level headed with a good knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''. I have always been impressed with how HelloAnnyong handles himself. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him. He'll make a fine admin. ···
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, exemplary civility, excellent answers.  Game, set and match. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Appuie.''' --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support''' Not an ideal candidate but I am happy to support. Regards,
'''oppose''' Not going to change much at this point, but I can't support this user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koman90&oldid=360068815#Edit_summaries] He joined in a conversation, made claims he couldn't back up. When called on it, he tried to back out and even insist he hadn't made claims he did, then insisted it be taken to a notice board. He then accused me of coming after him for simply asking him that he cite the consensus he twice claimed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HelloAnnyong&diff=prev&oldid=359972414#Talkback_2] Shows a lack of maturity in debate and not someone I want with the tools.--
'''Beat-the-nom-support''' - Excellent, calm and thoughtful replies. I feel very comfortable granting the mop.
Can I add my '''support''' now then as well? I was here a few hours ago but it told me not to submit. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''.  As nom. -'''
'''Support'''; as co-nom.
'''support'''- Will make sure the main page is mopped (is that a word?) when it needs it- an important job. <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
'''Support'''. Very qualified, without him I would be lost. -
'''Support''' Sure, qualified and trusted.
'''Support''' Good candidate. --
I've been waiting for this! HJ Mitchell has long been a constructive contributor to discussions, content, and wikipedia in general. I am proud to support him. '''
'''Support''', definitely. I've had many good experiences with HJ Mitchell - clearly a sensible and constructive editor who we can trust to use the tools well. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', this one is easy, I can trust this editor with the tools--
Time for a cliché: I thought you must have already been an admin. Definitely a support from me, a great constructive editor.
'''Support''' has not triggered the edit filter for around a year, and delete noms look reasonable..
'''Support''' Looks good to me; no reason not to support.  --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me too. Have seen him around doing sensible things. <font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. I trust this user to use the tools with respect. I appreciate the answer to question 4 - I would be surprised if there were many admins who do not take such an approach in one area or another.
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.
'''Support''': responses and review show sufficient responsibility and clue. --
'''Strong support''' Excellent user. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' As BigDom said earlier, I thought you were an admin already when I bumped into you...
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. I recognise the concerns of the opposition, but am confident the candidate will take them on board to improve. I believe they will be a benefit to the project in the role, thus am still happy to support. --
'''Support'''. Good involvement in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:UAA]] & [[WP:ERRORS]].
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''' because this editor already is the kind of admin I would like to be - able to recognize his own shortcomings, willing to defer to consensus when it doesn't match one's personal opinion, and very knowledgeable about the [[User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Inglorious_admin_areas|non-sexy tasks]] that lie before him should the bit be granted. --'''~
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. HJ has really took on Wikipedia with both hands. He passed the 'ready and reliable' mark for adminship a long time ago. I have absolute faith in him that he will use these tools responsibly. I can feel his frustration at not being able to use them. An ITN updater is needed. He is a Wiki-rolemodel, being so helpful and trustworthy. If I am not mistaken, he recently worked on the project for around 12 hours straight. Dedication! —<small>&nbsp;<span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Has a clue. Good work in both editing and maintenance areas.
'''Support''' Net positive.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
Fully trustworthy, and ITN needs more admins. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support'''. Excellent user who's answered all questions excellently. I've yet to see him to anything wrong.
'''Very Strong Support''' per nom, my own interaction with him, as well as my own co-nom. good luck :)--
'''Support''' - good head on his shoulders. –
'''Support''' Appears to have that rare and misnamed quality of 'Common sense'. I can't see any problems (from checking some contribs), and I'm impressed by the answers to questions. Previous RfA concerns have been directly addressed, and there are good reasons for this person to have admin status. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
Looks good.
Friendly, good work with Main page-related stuff, and willing to work with the Main page as an admin.
Well, obviously I'm returning to this column because I liked him the first go-round. :) But I will add that HJ has gained some good experience, and between the last RfA and this one, he's remained a pretty smart guy who offers interesting perspectives in discussion and who, from what I've seen, wouldn't do something rash or non-beneficial to the encyclopedia. So he's got my support again.  '''
'''Strong support''' Agree that he is trustworthy, and am not concerned about misuse of of admin tools. It does look like he has been away for several months in summer of 09, which is not optimal, however, there are quite a few content additions (33 articles created), so I support.
'''Strong support''' Recommend closing as a [[WP:RIGHTNOW]]. --
'''Support''' Content contribs nice, hope break in summer won't affect him (I'm going to hjave it too), wish good luck.
I was on the fence in December and didn't vote in that RFA, but there's been substantial improvement in the areas mentioned above. - Dank (

'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' Long since gained my support; I have no reason to oppose. --
Not much (or anything at all, really) to add to the above reasons, but may as well pile on the supports. Meets my standards, which exist, pending a chance to write them down, solely in my mind,
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - With over twelve thousand edits, and active editing for a few months, I vote for support. --
'''Support''' Thoughtful, intelligent, calm, reasoned, precise.  We will be fortunate to have him in the admin ranks.--
'''Support''' Employs a common-sense approach to matters with no tendency to obfuscate the central issues with wikinonsense.
'''Support''' everything I have seen gives me a good impression.  I see no reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' I have worked with HJ promoting some articles to GA status, [[The Bill]] and [[Neighbours]] spring to mind immediately.  [[The Bill]] has undergone some vandalism in recent weeks as it's been axed by ITV, HJ has adopted a common sense attitude with regards to warning people on this article.  I have always found HJ to be a very fair editor --
Seem him around, nothing I've seen to suggest the candidate will misuse the tools. &ndash;'''
'''Strong support''' - Supported then, support now. It's too bad we lost 5 months of productive administering. Good we're fixing that now.
'''Support''' Am confident that he is ready to wield the mop.
'''Oppose''' Mistakes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ratio_Decidendi&oldid=281548169 this] can not be tolerated. :)
'''Support''' User can be trusted. Only positive recollections of HJ Mitchell. --
'''Support''' He's a friendly, reasonable and understanding editor.
'''Full-fledged Support'''-Since I met HJ on my failed RFA he has always been friendly, courteous and an overall great editor with a level head and solid work which will be further advanced as an Admin.--'''''
'''Super-strong support''' - clueful, friendly, and an overall solid editor. I was neutral at the last RfA, but I believe the CSD issues have long since been cleared out. My only tiny suggestion is that you watch your [[comma splice]]s :). I've seen them twice today (in your response to Oppose #1 - "''I faced some criticism in the ANI thread''',''' however, I hope...''" and in [[Talk:Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/GA2]] - "''I'd decided to fail it based on the breadth of coverage''',''' however, these are...''"). It's always after the word "however". Interactions have been overwhelmingly positive. He also offered much constructive criticism in his oppose at my (failed) RfA. I can fully trust him with the admin tools.
I see HJ Mithcell around doing good things.--
Yes, yes, a thousand times over, yes. I've been expecting this RfA for ''months'' now &mdash; 100% right attitude for the role, and by most accounts, he's basically already an administrator.
'''Support''' been seeing HJ's edits around alot , mostly good things.would be a benefit.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. We need more good admins for Main Page and related stuff, and I'm confident that we have a good one here who has made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia. Issues from previous AfD don't worry me, as the candidate has clearly understood and rectified them. And as for mentoring this Diego chap, we now have a previously problematic editor who has been turned into a constructive contributor - and that's a good thing, isn't it? --
'''Support'''Have seen much of HJ Mitchell's contributions around the encyclopedia and have only seen good things come from his contributions. Looking at his recent CSDs, it appears he has benefited from the feedback of the last RfA and has worked to addressed and correct the issues raised. One rollback error that was quickly addressed and discussed with the editor involved does not lead me to question if everything I've seen him produce need be discounted. I have witnessed countless correct rollbacks and reports generated from them to trust that he correctly knows when to utilize it. I have no reason to not trust him with the extra bit.
'''Support''' - has a clear understanding of the rules of article creation  especially  BLP. and most  other aspects and  it  looks as if the mop will be used with  discretion  if not  all  that  regularly. Anyone can make the occasional genuine mistake. He has leanred through  his previous RfA and will be on his mettle in  the future, so I see nothing  to  object  to  his promotion.--
'''Support''' Nothing in the opposes strikes me as very convincing. He's been excellent whereever we've crossed paths, at least. '''<span style="font-color:black;">•</span>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, good answers to questions, no issues. The candidate wishes to work in an important area that could always use more administrator attention, and should be welcomed to doing so. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' concerns but find them unpersuasive. Finally, the fact that the nominator is a paid-up member of the Brad Cabal is not a factor in my !vote, but is nonetheless impressive.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' no problems here. Looks good to me.--
'''Support''' More competition for putting things up on ITN, but I can handle it. -- '''
—<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Strong support''' - Great mentorship and content work. No worries here. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support.''' The issues raised are not enough to convince me to oppose. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">

'''[[wikt:support|Ar son]]''' Four months ago, less a few hours, i opposed the previous request for administrator rights of HJ Mitchell.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HJ_Mitchell&diff=334183373&oldid=334181370] As has been mentioned in a few places none of us are perfect. People learn and grow and mature. I think Risker said it all. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''', though I share Leaky_Caldron opinion that "taking personal responsibility" is just "puffery of words". Many politicians often take "personal responsibility" when they screw up. Why? cause it doesn't mean a god-damn thing. At worst it is a "y'all know it's not really my fault, but for simplicity's sake, i take 'responsibility'". Don't "take responsibility" unless there are real consequences. </rant> '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Support''' What I have seen has been good. I can trust this editor.
'''Support.''' Very hard worker, he's a definite benefit to the project. No concern at all for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' - I supported last time and I'll support again. HJ Mitchell is often helping out in admin areas and I think he'd be a good addition to the admin corps. I'm not MisterWiki's biggest fan, by far, but since the unblock there hasn't been any problems so I don't see it as a bad thing. If he'd gone on to be disruptive after the unblock, and HJ Mitchell tried to cover for him, that I wouldn't excuse. -- '''
'''Support''' I supported last time, and am happy to do so again. The "I wouldn't trust myself with the delete button" above gave me pause for thought, but I see no reason to believe that the candidate will abuse the tools. -- '''''
quick review of contribs showed no major problems. -
'''Weak Support''' [[WP:NETPOS|Net Positive]]. The opposers, generally, make some good points - however I'm sure you'll take them on board. Just take it steady and you'll be fine. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' due to nominee's experience, cluefullness, civility, and willingness to improve the project. '''

'''Support'''. I've seen HJ around Wikipedia a number of times and feel that, based on all of his beneficial contributions here, cannot be anything but a plus to encyclopedia if made an admin.
A couple of things stopped me '''support'''ing earlier. Firstly it looked like you didn't need it, but now the support % is slipping a bit there is more point. Second, some of the reasons listed in the oppose section caused me to pause for a while. However, on balance I think HJ is sensible enough to use the mop to clean things up rather than make a mess.
HJ isn't an admin? Must have missed the memo. [[WP:WTHN]] seems appropriate. I see nothing wrong. <font color="BLUE">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  We can always use more admins around the main page and HJ has been particularly active and useful in the non-admin parts (particularly relating to ITN and WP:Errors) -
'''Support''' - A great user who is unlikely to abuse the tools given to him. Adminship is no big deal. -<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Great work so far, very cooperative and helpful in various fields of WP. Admin tools should make everything easier. --'''
'''Weak Support''' - The concerns about MisterWiki/Diego Grez are legitimate, but I respect HJ Mitchell's interpretation of [[WP:AGF|AGF]]. His answer about CSD's is troubling, but having had trouble with that criteria myself, his position is understandable. Given his strong contributions and interaction with the community, I believe he will make a good admin. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''. A positive contributor who would be helpful with admin tools in his areas of interest. If he is aware of his limitations, then all the better. As for the MisterWiki business: Obviously unblocking a previously disruptive user entails some risk and not everyone will agree whether the risk is justified. But I think volunteering to help mitigate the risk with mentoring is a positive thing for a prospective admin, not a reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''. What I saw from the candidate around the Main Page was good and useful, and IMO we need more admins in that area, especially ITN section.
'''Support'''. Solid editing and contributions. The answers indicate a willingness to abstain from tools when he is uncertain. Avoiding speedy deleting really bad articles is in my view overly cautious, but it is not in any way harmful (some other admin will eventually handle it anyway as long as you don't remove speedy tags willy-nilly). Regarding the unblock discussion on ANI, I have no strong opinion about whether HJ was right or wrong, but I cannot see that he was being unreasonable, so I won't hold his conduct there against him. A net positive overall.
'''Weak Support''' I opposed last time due to poor CSD tagging. As the candidate has stayed away from that area, and recognises that their past work there was not up to admin standards, I'm OK with the reassurances they have given in this RFA and am happy to support based on the above. ''
'''Support''' I opposed last time, but as user has agreed to stay away from deletion, I see no reason not to say yes. <strong>
'''Support''' Net positive in spite of the opposing comments. --
'''Support''' - Every user is going to have something negative attributed to them, but having  worked with the nominee in the past I can assure the community that he is worthy of wielding a mop. -<strong><font style="color:#007474">
'''Strong Support'''. HJ Mitchell user has very good contributions. HJ Mitchell has worked hard on Wikipedia and reverting edits that break Wikipedia's policies. In fact, HJ Mitchell's edits are so good that I thought HJ Mitchell was already an administrator. HJ Mitchell can be trusted to be an administrator. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong Support''' [[WP:100]] :-)
'''Support:''' Net positive -
'''Support''' Will be a net positive, regardless of the MisterWiki incident. (I know MW on IRC, and as much as the opposers dislike the situation, I too believe that MW would eventually be a good contributor, not that I would get involved in the situation myself.) <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, HJ Mitchell. —
'''Support''' My day to day interaction with this user has confirmed me that he is indeed worthy of being trusted with the broomstick. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''.
HJ Mitchell appears in my watchlist often, and from what I've seen, he's a decent user.
'''Support''' Take it slow...
'''Support''' Looks like a great editor, and therefore I am happy to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Just got back from a long but much needed wiki-break, and given my memory capacity (comparable to small rodents) I can't specifically name any encounters between the two of us. I can, however, say that I recall holding some degree of respect for him in some way. Given that and his overall satisfactory answers, I fully support.
'''Support''' - Weak support, the honesty given in the reply to Q4 is refreshing. Regards,
'''Support''' will be a great admin.
'''Last-minute-5-hours-past-the-deadline-support''' I trust him.
'''Oppose''' The handling of the Mr. Wiki aka [[User:Diego Grez]] unblock discussion on AN/I showed a lack of clue IMHO. You ignored a consensus not to unblock in the AN/I discussion and started a new section that managed to get him unblocked with a lawyer's list of restrictions which you intimated would be released [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&action=historysubmit&diff=355605494&oldid=355602780 "in a day or two"]. That you worked so hard to get this user who caused so many problems back, and then intimated to him that his restrictions were written in clay, shows a disrespect to the many who totally disagreed with this unblock.
'''Oppose.''' I had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHJ_Mitchell&action=historysubmit&diff=356257532&oldid=356256854 warn] HJ Mitchell just 10 days ago for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPolargeo_2&action=historysubmit&diff=356228090&oldid=356227595 misusing rollback]. I can't trust him with the full admin tools so soon after this incident. '''
'''Oppose''' I oppose this candidate for 2 reasons. He was clueless in a big way in his first RfA to the extent where his proposer had to withdraw support. OK, so he now knows more about policy relating to community banned socks  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334654544#User:John254_socks_question], but his nonchalant approach to policy knowledge is a red light for me. Statements like “…there is no policy against the use of multiple accounts, as long as they are not used abusively if my somewhat hazy recollection of policy is correct...”  and “I cannot be expected to have flawless knowledge of every policy” are honest but disconcerting.  In what other areas of policy is he hazy or lacking knowledge? <br />In the case of MrWiki, HJ has given an answer to my questions at Q8. Personally I just don’t go with all this “if you don't trust MisterWiki, trust me” stuff. At best it is naïve and at worst, posturing. Shoehorning a serial culprit back in because he does a bit of good work elsewhere and applying a cumbersome set of rules in order to achieve that objective is something I cannot support. I’m just not that desparate to have known disruptive editors back quickly, and there are  significantly more able editors than MrW. will ever be who remain banned for longer, unless they see this approach as a route back. <br />My oppose is therefore based on inadequate and to some extent casual approach to policy awareness together with a lack of objectivity which could influence his Admin. decisions.
'''Weak Oppose''' Due to stance taken with Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez. I feel that it generally is a good idea to attempt to rehabilitate troublesome users, but in this case, it seems that consensus was ignored. Furthermore, Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez had received a 10 year (later extended to indef) block. I feel that the unblocking of Mr.Wiki/Diego Grez erodes the credibility of our sanctions. Put bluntly: if we give multiple "last chances" eventually no one will take policy seriously. HJ Mitchell seems to be a good editor, but I cannot support his bid for adminship when he advocates giving a troublesome editor a third "last chance".
'''Oppose''' Although he has an impressive edit record, I don't think he's been here long enough and it's only been 4 months since the last RfA.  I expect at least two years for any admin candidate.  --'''
'''Oppose'''. The MisterWiki thing was, frankly, completely ridiculous. Wikipedia is not therapy, is not a game, and it's not a place to draw up hugely bureaucratic rules for a single editor. I feel your judgment was ''so incredibly bad'' on this issue that I can't trust you with the mop.
'''Weak oppose'''. Several small issues, detailed above. Although champions for guys like Mr. Wiki tend to get a stronger oppose from me, I'll assume it was an honest mistake.
'''Oppose''': Similar to Auntie E & Tan, I think the Misterwiki denouement is a problem. I'm surprised HJ didn't withdraw his/her candidacy after his/her answer to question 4, in which HJ seems to declare his/her own unsuitability: '''"''...I don't trust myself to place the right template on the right article, I certainly don't trust myself to speedy delete somebody else's work!'' "'''
I think your contributions are fantastic and I have found your AIV reports to be generally very good, and while I wildly disagree with your opinion on the whole DG thing, I think what you did and are doing is a '''very good thing'''; as Xeno said, it's something we could always use more of; in that regard I disagree with a lot of the other opposers.  Ryan's diff above definitely gave me pause here, but especially alongside your responses to the questions; I, like Fox, find them ''very'' artificial.  We all do/did it, but the juxtaposition and amount here leaves an aftertaste.  I also note Toddst1's !vote above. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
Between the Diego thing, the suspect tone of the answers ("hazy" policy knowledge?) and the general artificial feel of this RfA, both in the forced politeness and the generally verbose responses, I have to oppose this RfA (not that it means anything).
'''Strong Oppose <s>Oppose</s>''' My latest interaction involved the same incident as Ryan.  I'm sure it was an honest mistake.  However it demonstrated an inability to actually look at a situation before you started punching buttons.  I'm very concerned you'd carry on this same method of button first, figure out what's going on after people tell you about it.--
'''Oppose''' Several reasons, the Misterwiki situation being one. I commented at the time that I thought that was being done for reasons not entirely confined to a lavish faith in the power of altruism and now here's another RFA go. What a surprise. The rollback per Ryan @ 2 is concerning. Being embedded in a clique of teenage aggravations is another problem IMO. Still making rollback errors, maturity issues and a desire bordering upon desperation to get to be a admin.
'''Oppose''' The Diego Grez situation, not trusting yourself to delete, answers to questions not overly strong, and recent misuse of rollback make this a no for me.
'''Oppose''' My only experience in looking at the candidate's edits in detail was the recent MisterWiki/DiegoGrez unblock.. situation, and within that I saw character traits which admins should not possess. MW was blocked in mid-January, the candidate waited only till late February to initiate an unblock discussion. When that didn't happen, the early April re-run caused by MW/DG's rename request became a platform for the candidate to start banging the same drum, posting repeatedly and drawing up a heavy set of restrictions as conditions of MW's unblock. The restrictions were only necessary because it was far too soon to unblock such a time-wasting individual. One of these restrictions was agreed to be watered down at MW/DG's request [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADiego_Grez&action=historysubmit&diff=355172432&oldid=355168911 just under an hour] after they were posted to MW/DG's talkpage. In the same ANI thread the candidate highlights in bold that anyone commenting should be trusting him, not the user whose unblock was in question (guilt trips, they '''really''' impress me), and at least once bandies around the [[WP:AGF]] bomb without qualification, something as helpful in conversations as throwing around [[WP:DICK]]. During all this, it didn't occur that perhaps he was about as far South of being a neutral party as possible, in terms of being a mentor, and that someone else might be more even-handed. As well as seemingly being unable to recognize the limits of his own neutrality the candidate appears to treat 'friends' differently to 'enemies', there's something very plastic about the responses left for those who disagreed with the unblock. Doesn't bode well for someone who will be expected to wade into all sorts of awkward slap-fights. There are suggestions that DG's progress justifies his unblock, but not kicking water out of the paddling pool he's been confined to for a few weeks is not proof of anything. Considering that the candidate supposedly stuck their neck out in the above situation the fact that this RFA is happening before any real conclusions can be drawn is extremely dubious.
'''Oppose''' For the reasons explained well above, but specifically the MisterWiki situation. Having looked at that in detail, I see a somewhat puzzling insistence on unblocking this disruptive user, and insufficient agreement from others that it was a good idea. Even some of the few admins who expressed a wish that the mentorship would be a success tended to temper that opinion with statements like they would not, themselves, have been willing to unblock on this occasion. The candidate stated that his reputation was on the line with this trip "out on a limb" - yet the jury is surely still out. I also have concerns about a potential Admin who states he is "hazy" on policy and cannot trust himself with some of the tools. ''(disclaimer: yes, I know I have very few edits, and have never voted at RFA before - I fully expect my opinion might be given less weight than some - but I am a user with an account, and the guideline says anyone with an account may vote - so, given that I hold the opinion, there it is)''
'''Oppose''' essentially per Leaky Caldron. Reviewing RFA1, HJ's interactions here, and the MisterWiki discussion overall gives me the impression of a very enthusiastic candidate whose maturity is still somewhat less developed than his enthusiasm. I think we have more to gain by waiting another 4-12 months.
'''Oppose''' the MisterWiki thing is just too much.   We need the collective balls to deal with people like MisterWiki decisively.
'''Oppose''' Does not trust himself with the tools.
'''Weak oppose.''' Sorry about having to land here again. I do not mind specialization, but I think Q4 is going too far. I don't think the whole "restricting oneself from working in a particular area" is good practice — it's something that shouldn't have to be spelled out. Furthermore, I'm concerned about Q7, as the article already had several sources at the time. Besides, the first ghit is a comprehensive biography in an RS. I have no particular opinion about the MW incident. <code>
'''Neutral''' The candidate has shown improvement and fortitude since the last RfA, and does work very hard; however, I do have concerns and they are articulated very well in Oppose #3 by Leaky Caldron.--
'''Pending''' Currently debating what I want to !vote. User has overall good conversations, but has become almost suspiciously involved in saving an editor, based on contributions on other projects, with huge editing restrictions. Per fox, the RfA seems set up, but I would still support if that was the only concern. ''
'''<s>Support</s>''' changed to '''Neutral''' This MisterWiki situation (He supported unblock and I didn't and gave a good reason) reminds me of former admin [[User:Archtransit]] unblocking the banned user [[User:CltFn]]. Archtransit got desysopped for the unblock along with other abusive blocks. CltFn was blocked multiple times and exhausted commuity patience, and Archtransit clearly didn't understand the situation with CltFn. I hope this doesn't apply to HJ when he does get the tools, but I still think HJ has good communication skills, and that is important in an administrator.
'''Neutral''' I appreciate anyone who is willing and able to know their own mistakes and learn from it and I can see that HJ is willing and eager to help out and who might just be a net positive. But the candidate has indicated (and demonstrated) that they should not be trusted with the delete-button. Since we have no working mechanism to ensure that HJ really does not use the button anywhere where they have no clue, this would mean that this request should be opposed. But I will assume good faith that they will indeed keep their promise, not to do so, if this passes and so I will not oppose over it. The MisterWiki situation has been another source for concern and opposition but since I cannot find any other similar examples in HJ's track record, I think it can be considered a good faith attempt to help. TLDR: The candidate shows promise but is, at this point, imho not ready for the mop. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' Too many concerns at the present time.
'''Neutral''' Leaning towards support. Edits definitaly cause me to go for support. But, the User issue above, and the self-trust issue, they both made me stop and think for a while. -- <font color="green">&#47;
Some concerns as seen above prevent me from supporting, but don't push to oppose.
I've had only positive interactions with J04n at [[WP:Albums|the albums WikiProject]], where he's active, and I've seen him a few times at AfD. His work all around looks very good, and I think he'll be a great admin.
J04n's calm temperament and level-headed judgment befit an admin. His comments at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]] are always incisive and well-put. I am confident that his addition to the admin corps will be a net positive.
What's not to love?  A big pile of barnstars from people I respect, 48K edits, no evidence that he causes trouble, great answers to questions. - Dank (
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|OK]]. Name sounds familiar. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' I thought you were one already.
'''Support'''. Genuinely thought you were one already. Answers to the image questions are a little weak (someone correct me if I'm the one who is wrong here, but question 9 is wrong); however as you don't intend to work in image deletion (a very specialised area) this doesn't bother me. --
'''Support''' per my boredom at vetting this editor (no drama I can find, nothing interesting, entirely collegiate collaboration, content work, and gnoming) and the answer to Q11.
'''Support'''. Sounds like a Wikipedian with the right attitude and humility, and surely enough edits to satisfy even the worst case of [[WP:editcountitis|editcountitis]].
'''Support''' Only a recent contributor to DRV but edits show a good grasp of policy and a collegiate manner. I generally support giving the tools to all DRV regulars because of the need to look at deleted contributions.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - Per above. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support'''. A content-generator first, and prolific contributor to the project space second. I'm sure this mentality will continue into adminship.
'''Support''' As nominator. ''
'''Support''' I see no problems with the candidate. -- '''''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per the answer to my questions.--
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate now that he has taken care of the experience issue. He has a  wide range of contributions, a broad understanding of the issues, and a clear block log after 48,000 edits. He quietly works to resolve problems and is encouraging to new editors. -
'''Support''' Great attitude in prior RfA. Candidate is a content builder, and no problems in the editing history. ARS work is a big plus. '''
'''Support'''.  A prolific editor whose quality edits I have often run across.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I see sufficient experience and nothing to worry about either. This was going to be a weak support because I do see some weakish arguments and I prefer to see editors more willing to voice their opinions (rather than letting edits talk for themselves). However, I did look through a couple of AfD arguments and I am satisfied that this editor has a really good idea of what wikipedia should be and that this focus on benefit to wikipedia is what is needed in an admin.
'''Support''' Good Track and regular Editor with solid contributions.Feel it only be net positive to the Project if the user gets the tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as my opinion has not diminished from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J04n&diff=312039253&oldid=312039033 last time] (I cannot wait for tonight's three hour ''Lost'' event!).  In fact, such sound arguments as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_disguise_(2nd_nomination)&diff=325600182&oldid=325591504 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_of_Ireland_vs_France_(2010_FIFA_World_Cup_Play-Off)&diff=326808525&oldid=326806212 this] have only served to increase my respect for the candidate as the candidate approaches discussions with care and detail backed in policy and logic alike.  Best, --
'''Support''' I swear some of these RfA questions are designed to trip you up, but the answers here are really good.
'''Support''' - I opposed in the previous RfA, but I had stated that if in the future J04n was able to show more policy knowledge that I would support. I see that now, and so I will support. I was then, and am still impressed by contributions to Wikipedia. -- '''
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Support]]'''. Seems like a sound, competent and knowledgeable candidate to me. As for the image questions- they ''were'' tough and the complexity of the system discourages people from uploading images. I'm sure J04n has enough sense to get a second opinion if he's not sure!
'''Support'''. Experienced editor. --
'''Support''' - From my encounters with him, mostly at AfD, this candidate always offers well-reasoned arguments in a calm, positive manner. He is a valuable contributor whose judgment I trust. <small><span style="background-color:#77CCFF;border: 1px solid;">
'''Support''' per nom. ''<B>--
'''Support'''  '''
'''Support'''.  I have seen this editor's name crop up and I associate it with useful and temperate policy-based comments.  I couldn't have answered those image questions either and would have immediately referred them to an authority like the person who asked them; admins don't necessarily have to know all the answers, just where to look for the answers.
'''Support''' Definitely satisfies all the concerns from the last RfA. -- ''<B>
'''Support'''; the reasons that caused me to support the previous RfA persist, and J04n has only improved his contributions in other areas. No concerns here, great admin material. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', more understanding of policy now compared to the last RfA. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Only improved from the last RfA. A wonderful candidate! '''
'''Support''' While not a heavy contributor of audited content, the user's efforts towards rescuing, rehabilitating, and promoting worthy articles is commendable. No evidence he would abuse the tools, and he  provides satisfactory answers. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support'''. Going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.  Cheers, '''
'''Support''' demonstrates knowledge of adminship tasks and has experience in areas of focus. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
Fine with me.
'''Support''' - looks like J04n will make a great admin.
'''Support''' makes clueful comments. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' Looks okay to me. Good luck.
'''Super Support'''.  Great editor, I can't see abuse with the sysop tools from J04n. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' J04n will make an excellent administrator. In general, his answers to the questions are respectable and indicate solid policy knowledge. The answer to Q9 is indeed wrong, but its subject is relatively obscure; Q10 is one of the hardest questions I've ever seen asked at RfA. The candidate's article work is very respectable, and the elbow grease put in to bring [[Ramones]] to GA status was much needed. I enjoyed reading [[Eddie Bayers]], to which the candidate is the primary contributor. Ultimately, however, my decision to support is based on the candidate's superior ability to present thoughtful arguments at AfD and DRV. This is the kind of editor who I trust to judge consensus correctly when closing AfDs.
Certainly. Seems level headed and thorough.
'''Support''', a good candidate. --
'''Support''', good candidate and will be a good admin.--MrRadioGuy
Eminently sensible candidate.
'''Support''' Interestingly enough, I missed the last RfA but probably would have supported then, too.  Good content creators will take the time to learn to apply policy correctly, while the inverse is far less often true.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work, great Userboxen, lots of [[WP:BARN|barnstars]], and rescues articles.
'''Support''' - to be honest, I thought J04N already was an admin. No concerns here.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. My interactions with the user have been nothing but positive, and like Cocytus I had assumed he was an admin already. —
'''Support'''.  One of the best.  Level-headed, intent upon being helpful both to the Project and other editors. We're lucky J04n has interest in the mop.--
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' looks good! Great candidate.
'''Support''' Excellent balance between projectspace edits and actual content work. This user is generally drama-free, stays out of politics, and obviously has a clue. That works for me.
'''Support''' I'm happy with what I have seen. Discusses issues, doesn't make a drama, is not snappy. Works in dull maintenance areas which shows dedication and commitment. Would be helpful to archive the long talkpage though! <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. Happy to support, no problems that I can see. --
'''Support'''. An experienced, knowledgable, dedicated editor who will, in my opinion, make a great administrator. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' Can't find any problems.

'''Support''' The user seems trustworthy from what I've seen. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' no reason to think theyd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' A very good candidate. Definitely has my trust. I'm sure they'll make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''': Canidate has my support. I would have a continuing list of contribs of good things this user has done. ([[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support'''. See no obvious issues.
'''Neutral'''. Per answer to question 12, support. Per answer to question 13, oppose. Candidate correctly observes that WP:CROSS is flawed as a reason to support deletion, however, that leaves the opinion of two editors against the opinion of one editor supported by WP:Namespace.  Insufficient reason to close as consensus.  Taking various things into account I will go neutral on this one.
'''Beat-the-noms support'''. Seen him around doing good work.
'''Strong support'''– No reservations whatsoever. James (the !James thing bugs me) is very conscientous about the way he deals with new users, and careful not to be condescending or rude. It's a skill that is well becoming of an admin. He's also very diligent in pretty much everything he applies himself to. Good luck. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
I had been thinking of co-nominating !James, but in light of the two detailed statements by Peter and SoWhy I think a '''verbose support''' will do instead. Besides enthusiastically agreeing with the nominators' comments above, the one extra thing I'd like to mention is !James's thoroughness. There are a number of reasons people prefer admin candidates to have article-writing experience, of which perhaps the most common (and to my mind convincing) is that it makes them less likely to wade in with the tools with no appreciation for the "editors' eye view" of the situation. !James's article output is smaller than some - though by no means negligible - but I think any potential lack there is more than made up for by his thoughtfulness and thoroughness. A look through his talk page archives and some of the diffs above shows many conversations where he's gone beyond the call to patiently research a situation before explaining things to confused or abusive editors where many others would have simply dumped a few [[Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!|TLA]]s and moved on. I have no worries therefore that he'd be the sort of admin to drive off contributors or generate drama with ill-thought-out actions, and if you'll excuse a second run of boldface he gets my '''strong support'''.
Oui.
'''Support''' - One of the best vandal fighters I know, and well-rounded in many areas, as noted. Indeed, the noms and JBW's answers say it all; I am proud to be among the first to help him to obtain the extra buttons that can make a big difference in blocking repeat vandals in a ''timely'' manner. My best wishes on this Rfa!
'''Support''' - Have come across James a number of times while paroling New Pages, and have no hesitation in supporting.
'''Support''' Easy decision,
'''Support''' Have seen the quality contributions from this editor at [[WP:med]] and have often wondered why you weren't one already. Helpful, clueful, rational, trustworthy and very approachable. A wonderful choice and I'm sure will put the tools to good use
'''Support''' However I would like to see the use of a [[fair use rationale]] template for [[WP:fair use]] images!
'''Support'''. I've had a few discussions with JamesBWatson and have been very impressed with their thoughtful and well reasoned arguments on contentious issues. Regular at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WT:CSD]]. No hesitation in recommending that we make the mop cupboard JamesBWatson's [[Sherlock Holmes|new home]]. [[John Watson (Sherlock Holmes)#Cultural references|Elementary]]!
'''Support''' for the purposes of those who count, even though for everyone else it should be pretty obvious without this...
'''Support''' - despite the lousy co-nom statement {{=)|wink}} <small>just kidding of course... ^^</small> Regards '''
'''Support''' a great choice for admin. '''
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support'''. There's ver little I can say: a very good admin candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - Great candidate who will make good use of the tools. I also am happy with his demeanor and how he interacts with other editors.
'''Support''' Of course I have seen good work from this candidate.
That was one hell of a nomination.
'''Support''' Trusted candidate. I was wondering when this nomination was going to come up. Obvious support anyway.

'''Support.'''  Yes.
'''Support''' Another candidate with clue. —
'''Absolutely'''. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Obvious support''' - Will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' – good admin material :)
'''Support''' --  JamesBWatson, besides being very helpful, is calm, unfailingly courteous, knowledgeable, and very thorough. He will be an extremely good admin. I know from experience that he is the person every disheartened and flailing editor hopes to encounter.
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no problems -- '''''
'''Support'''. An analysis of his edits indicate he will be a good admin.--''
'''Support''' - Seen him around, nothing negative. '''
'''Support''' When someone is advertised as having a non-controversial userpage, you best believe I am going to be digging through it with a fine-toothed comb, but I just don't see any problems!
'''Support''' Certainly can be given the mop. --
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions. I don't anticipate any problems.
'''Support''' - can I support based on the terrific noms? Seriously, great answers, good work, can use the tools. No problems here. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
Great answers, has an impressive range of edits. Maybe he can rinse off the soap. ''
Good candidate. <span style="font-family:Calibri">
[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px|link=|alt=]] '''Verified'''  for adminship per [[User:OpenTheWindows/RF* stuff|criteria]]. --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, good anti-vandalism work.
'''Support''' I cannot find a reason not to.--
'''Support'''.  I am delighted to know that such an excellent candidate actually wants the mop.  Dr. Watson's attitude towards helping new editors is exemplary; he couples a thorough knowledge of policy with a helpful and polite attitude.  He works hard here for all the right reasons and administrative tools will merely help him to continue that effort.
'''Strong Support''' Exceptional question answer.
'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Support''' I've seen his work quite a lot and wondered why he WASN'T an admin (and thought he ought to be drafted if that was possible...).
'''Support''', and about time, too!
'''Support''' I'm especially impressed by the answer to #6 (vandalism vs. AGF).  We need as many admins (and regular editors) as we can get who have this level of insight and are willing to take the chance of being made a fool for the possibility that an apparent vandal might in fact have a valid point.
'''Support''' Boy, you had me confused for the past year.
'''Support''' Nothing but good contributions in the Wikipedia namespace. Sound knowledge of policies and guidelines and drama free. Good answers to the questions and impressive nominations. '''
'''Support''' - I also liked answer #6, and a good story too, good luck
Good candidate. ~~
'''Support''' trustworthy user. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
''''Support''' I think he has come to understand the deletion criteria, and I have no other objections. '''
<s>'''Support'''</s> – Definitely a worthy candidate for the mop. Thought you were an admin already. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - 10 minutes with Huggle will show that we can always use more anti-vandalism admins. No concerns at all. &nbsp;--
Yes, despite his lack of a stupid signature.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Trusty, plenty of experience. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Support''' Impressive contributor
'''Support''' - An excellent  response to  Q6. Properly  active for 12 months since May 2009 with  monthly  edits steadily  on  the increase. A good balance of participâtion  in  most  areas. --
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --'''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, JamesBWatson. —
'''Support''' - Exceptional in his dealings with new users, demonstrates intelligent understanding of policy. Support without reservation
Appreciate the the thorough answer to my question and that you recognise the importance of communicating in non-template fashion with newbies and new page patrollers. No reason to think you wouldn't be a fine admin.
'''Support''' A clueful candidate - no concerns. --
Full support. - Dank (
'''Support''' - seems tedious and crappy to say so, but...... '''I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALREADY AN ADMIN!'''.
'''Support''' - I have seen James around more then once, and i never had any reason to complain about him or his edits. I could write a longer rationale but in this case i will just state [[WP:IAR]] (Or rather - Ignore All Essays) in regards to [[WP:OBVIOUS]] - sometimes things should just be obvious on their own :)
'''Support'''. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support''' Answers to the questions are satisfactory and user has a positive track record. Everything seems to be in order here.
'''Support''' AIV reports (which is where I've seen the candidate) have invariably been sound; other contributions look good. I trust this candidate with the mop.
'''Support''' - I'm not seeing anything wrong... must be something wrong with my contacts. ;) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support'''
'''Support''': On Q7, as the exemplar contains unsubstantiated claims of lawbreaking I suspect <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Db-attackorg|db-attackorg]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> (G10) might apply, but since you arrived at the conclusion of deletion and everything else here looks good enough to outweigh any doubt there.
'''Support''': without hesitation. I thought he already was a fellow admin.
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here...
'''Support''' - Good involvement in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN/I]], [[WP:EAR]] & [[WP:UAA]].
'''Support'''. I've seen you around, and those nominations are very impressive. --
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Hopefully he will do a good job...
'''Support''' - Everything I have seen from him tells me he will be a net positive.  '''
'''Support'''<s>No concerns, seems like a sound editor and knows his way around admin-type stuff already. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</s><small>Moving to neutral. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</small> Back to support, satisfied with JBW's reply.
'''Support''' ''<B>--
'''Support'''  --'''
'''Support''' - only positive interactions with the user.
'''Support'''- What I've seen of this candidate is uniformly positive.
'''Support''' - Always happy to run into positive, familiar names at RfA. I do not believe I have ever dealt directly with JamesBWatson, but I have seen some of his work at AfD and have been impressed with his attitude, candor and aptitude. He is fair-minded, polite and puts in maximum effort where it is due. An easy support.
'''Support''' Looks good.--
'''Support''' Will not abuse tools.--
'''Support''' I'm not seeing anything wrong. --
'''Support''' Long time strong contributor. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' Yes, surely.
'''Conditional support''' per heavy activity in the last 13 or so months alone. --
'''Support'''. Sometimes the most effective test of a man's character is to look at his opponents. In this case, one quick scan of the "oppose" section reassures me that he is being opposed by all the right people, for all the right reasons.
'''Support''' Good user and editor, needs its tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good user and will not abuse the tools. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
RfA isn't a perfection test. I'm impressed by the replies given to concerns. Of the current opposes, half of them can safely be ignored and while the comments regarding A7 use give me cause for pause I trust that the candidate has learned from previous mistakes.
'''Support''' &ndash; <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support'''.  Am confident he will take seriously the opposing points, and will do very well.  --
'''Oppose''' In a number of AfDs I've encountered him he came across as stubborn and uncompromising. I cannot support such a person for the mop. Examples include [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ESET]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WinBuilder]]. I can probably dig out more with wikistalk, but these should give you an idea why I'm opposing.
'''Oppose''' Seems too negative and unhelpful.  For example, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=APG_III_system&diff=prev&oldid=322704442 this case], he proposes deletion of an article about a respectable system of taxonomy just 10 minutes after the article was created.  The editor who created this article does not seem to have responded well to this brusque welcome and has edited little since.
'''Oppose''' In answer to ''Airplaneman'', "Are there any more recent diffs?"; yes there are: I agree that he seems too negative and unhelpful. Other, very recent example (June 15th), to support this: In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattoo#Mormonism Tattoo - Mormonism], he deleted a scriptural reference to the New Testament (1 Cor 3:10-17), again just 10 minutes after the reference was added, arguing that ''"This "reference" is not a citation for the fact stated, viz. that the Mormons hold a particular belief".'' Neither is the New Testament a Mormon book, so should the reference to any non-Mormon books be deleted? The Mormons wouldn't be very happy about that. Or else, why measure with a double standard - allowing references to the New Testament in general, but no more specific reference? After all, quoting a certain scripture from the New Testament is merely comparable to mentioning a certain page from a quoted book. Conclusion: This edit has no added value at all; quite the contrary: It discourages enhancing existing articles with such things as more detailed references.
'''Oppose.''' I have been watching this RfA for a while considering a neutral comment, but I am pushed to oppose by the diffs provided by [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]]. I fear that the editor exhibits a too rigid response in some cases, sticking to rules rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia, which might include being helpful to new editors even when their contributions are not perfect.
'''oppose''' <s>for now at least.</s>  I can see that a large number of people I like and trust think you are great editor.  However, CW raises a number of valid issues.  I don't find the errors to be outrageous, but I do get the sense that you aren't following WP:BEFORE before applying a PROD.  I'm also waiting for Q8 to to answered.  Issue raised by MESJ doesn't concern me.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't seem to really understand csd criteria here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Future_of_mathematics&action=historysubmit&diff=357794926&oldid=357794441], and I'm concerned that a lot of users - including admins - are playing fast and loose with these. <s>And this prod [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=APG_III_system&diff=prev&oldid=322704442], noted by Colonel Warden above, is just too deletionist even for my taste.</s> I do really like the answer to question 6, though, and if you are sysopped, I encourage you to really respect the community's consensus embodied in the CSD criteria.
'''Oppose'''. I am not happy with A7 tagging of [[Juice Lounge]], a company with significant coverage in ''[[Times of India]]'' and ''[[The Indian Express]]'' (cited as links in the article), as little as a week ago.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Juice_Lounge] Similarly, [[Taecyeon]] was in poor shape when JamesBWatson tagged it (three days ago), but clearly indicated the subject's significance nonetheless. Also, [[The Tower of Dudes]] from three days ago has at least one good reference (''[[The Prague Post]]''). Then there's [[John A. Wells]] and [[Comhar Dún Chaocháin Teo]] from nine days ago, both of which I believe did not qualify for speedy. I don't think it's unreasonable to take this very recent batch of A7 taggings as an indication of when he would use the delete button, and I have to oppose for this reason. I've otherwise only had positive interactions with JamesBWatson, and hope he will take this into consideration should he pass (which seems likely at this point). <code>
'''Oppose''' Reading through the edits posted by others, I have to agree with them.  This person would not be a good administrator.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Colonel Warden. We don't need even more administrators who bite new editors, ultimately hurting wikipedia's long term viability.  Because of a company culture which rewards and retains editors who have little respect for other editors good faith contributions,  it looks like there is enough support that JamesBWatson will  become an admin anyway.
Uncomfortable supporting, per my struck oppose above, but on reflection, opposing is a little over the top for me given the clear evidence on this page that the candidate lears from mistakes (see for example the conom of SoWhy who knows CSD issues well). --
'''Neutral''', on balance, this editor looks like they're of the "net positive" type, but I don't feel comfortable supporting given the concerns that Col. Warden brought up above.
'''Neutral''' – I've been going back and forth on this, as I'm concerned about the article taggings that decltype identified, which did not qualify for speedy deletion in my view. Some are a bit on the edge, I acknowledge—but perhaps it shows that the candidate was not aware those taggings would be controversial (which itself would concern me), since they were made either during this RfA week or in the lead-up to it when admin candidates are typically being additionally careful. That said, I completely agree with Mkativerata above, as the candidate is very willing to accept feedback, so here I land in the neutral section. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' as nominator -- '''''

'''Support''' - fantastic contributor to many Wikimedia projects. James easily has the knowledge to perform en.wiki admin tasks and I can see they would be extremely beneficial in undertaking OTRS actions. A great candidate. '''
Hell yes. Has sufficient clue and has done a great job with sysop tools in various wikis. <small>Dammit, I hate edit conflicts.</small>
Definitely.
Obvious. --
'''Support''' per nom.--
Even with the admin highlighter installed, this is 100% true. '''I thought you ''were'' an admin...''' <small>(
'''Aye'''.  No-brainer.
Seems fine by me.
Despite his colorful activities on [http://www.sexyclopedia.com/?title=User:Jamesofur 'other' wikis], I'll still support .. hey it's your business! ;D --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Clearly very experienced in behind-the-scenes work, in areas where we really need it. Not bothered by lack of article creation - the "You can't understand the admin job unless you create lots of articles yourself" argument has always seemed obviously false to me. --
A great editor for sure. I was a tiny bit concerned with your answer to 4, but I trust you have the sense to block only when necessary. If you do end up blocking someone for legal threats when they feel that an article about them is bad, remember that writing variants of {{tl|blocked subject}} is an appropriate way to start communication. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Not the most active of editors on en-wiki, but certainly does enough to put sysop tools to use. Given the substantial level of privileges he's been demonstrably trusted with elsewhere in the WMF projects, I struggle to think of any downside to giving him adminship here too - he's been around enough to know our local policies. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' No issues here. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Strong support''' Already privileged as Checkuser on a sister project, and has shown nothing to cause any concern at all here. More admins are very welcome. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Trusted user across multiple projects. Chance of inverting and becoming a damaging influence to this project? Zero. So what if he "only" has 3000 edits? --
'''Support''' Whilst I usually have concerns over editors with so little content contribution, in this specific inst I believe that the candidate has amply demonstrated their ability to consider policies and guidelines with care - I trust their judgement, and their cross-wiki contribs show a considerable amount of common sense, a rare commodity indeed. Coupled with their knowledge of legal matters, I see this as a definite benefit to the project. They wrote, "I absolutely love copyright law, and helping others" - I find the former mind-boggling, but extremely valuable, and I can vouch for the latter from their work in account creation. I trust the candidate, in particular his open attitudes, knowing when to be bold, and knowing when to ask people with more experience in specific areas - so indeed, [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|why not]]? <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' par reaction to my comment \ question in the neutral section. No doubt that James will use the tools correctly, and his answer reflect a clear need for them as well.
'''Support''' James is a very experienced and trustworthy contributor. I have no doubt that he would use the tools wisely, as he has elsewhere.
'''Support''' I have the opportunity to work with James on OTRS and on the wider wikimedia scale, and I think his becoming a sysop would be a benefit to the project. In my experience, he has the temperament to deal with the pressures of being an admin and the integrity not to abuse the tools. Good Luck! --
'''meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA]]. OTRS and admin elsewhere's offset low recent edit count. In fact, focus will be on OTRS.
'''Support''' &ndash; a very helpful and knowledgeable user elsewhere, so why not here. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' - credible.
Was going to sit this one out because I know some will oppose on principles of what might be called fairness or consistency of standards, and I don't want to take a position on that general issue, but it seems to me that there's zero chance that this particular candidate will go off the rails.  Enthusiastic support. - Dank (
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' May not meet my typical criteria for RFAs, but [[WP:WTHN|I have no reason to believe this candidate will misuse the tools]], for fairly obvious reasons. --
Will candidate break en.wikipedia with extra bits? Clearly No. Will candidate use extra bits to help en.wikipedia? Clearly Yes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Good dude, will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Definitely. Already has global sysop anyhow. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Just to note that the global sysop proposal that passed is not as far-reaching as the one that was originally proposed; if my understanding is correct, a global sysop account means nothing on most wikis with more than 10 active administrators, so he doesn't have any special admin-related rights here or on any other of the thirty or so biggest WMF wikis.  However that doesn't mean it's an easy position to get or to retain, and I think that the combination of his work on other wikis and the work he's done here is enough to convince me he's ready for the job. '''
Pedro compressed my thoughts perfectly (except he used the shift key twice too much).
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Trusted. <debate/> I don't see how 3500 edits over three years can be considered as marginal involvement.
'''Support''' overall appears to be a well qualified candidate and I see no reason to think he might miuse the tools.  '''
'''Support''' - I feel that I can trust this person. While I weigh experience in other areas of Wikimedia less than experience here (because en.wikipedia has rules and a culture that is unique, as each wiki does) it does count for something. I'm supporting for much the same reason Soap is. -- '''
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Obviously trustworthy, the oppose rationales are utterly unconvincing. This is about if the candidate can be trusted no to abuse the tools, and I see no indication ha couldn't be, he's already used the checkuser tool on another project, something even most admins here don't have access to.
'''Support''' CU at Simple, sysop at Meta, global sysop. No harm in giving him some extra buttons here.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' Clue'o'Meter gives a high reading.
'''Support''' &mdash; no concerns here.
'''Support''', kind, approachable user who has sufficient technical knowhow to do the job.
'''Support''', definitely.
(Hey, I wanted a nom!) Trusted with adminship at over 500 Wikimedia projects or so, can be trusted with the bit here as well. &ndash;'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' - Seems trustworthy. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
Heck yeah. Will use the tools (very well might I add), won't break the wiki. Isn't that what the mop's about? <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Jamesofur. —
'''Support'''. I'm confident he will make an effective admin here. <font face="Arial">
&mdash;
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' - Jamesofur is a very well-rounded person with the WMF. I don't suffer from [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis#Seriously.2C_though...|Editcountitis]], and it's [[Wikipedia:NOBIGDEAL#History|no big deal]], so [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not?]] He's spread himself multiple places and is an asset here and abroad.  <sup>
'''Strong Support''' I've known Jamesofur through ACC and IRC. I strongly believe that he is knowledgeable with the different aspects in Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Trusted editor in a variety of WM project roles, already knows the buttons, and sysop here will help his OTRS work, which in turn helps this project.
I see no pressing reason why Jamesofur, who is a global administrator, should not be trusted to do maintenance work here.
'''Support''' James who will clearly benefit from the tools
'''Support''' Had contact with the user, meets [[User:Pgallert/RfA_voting_criteria|my requirement]]. --
'''Support'''.  Hooray for editcount-itis.
[[WP:GOLDENTICKET|It's a matter of trust]], and I trust this user.
'''Strong Support''' I know there'll be opposition and questions about whether he has credible experience on the English Wikipedia. He's perfectly alright for my standards.
'''Support''': Can be fairly confident he won't abuse his tools. Seems to be happy to help out. Cross fertilization between Wikimedia projects is to be welcomed - it works at the top, so why not down here too?
'''Absolutely support'''. I'm struggling to work out why we aren't leaping more enthusiastically at the chance to gain an admin who loves to work in some of the most needed admin areas. I see no evidence that James will do anything to harm the project, and plenty that will help.
'''Support''' A RFA I am happy to see. One of the better candidates to have rolled into RFA in a while (imho). I trust James fully with the admin tools.--
'''Strong Support''' I fully trust James to use the the tools wisely here. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' will not abuse the tools and has a clue. ''<B>--
'''Support''' I don't think he'll break anything.
'''Strong Support''' i have worked with Jamesofur before and he's very helpful and i think he would be a great admin.
'''Support''' Strong; thoughtful
'''Support''' Has a clue, has a need. [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]]
'''Support:''' Great Candidate. The opposes below have been weighed measured and found wanting. -
'''Support'''-Read through a couple of the opposes and don't really understand much of the logic for them, He's been a great asset to other projects including this one and I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools.--'''''
'''Support''' As he's already trusted enough to be an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia, I believe he can be trusted to use the tools here too.
'''Support''' - [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|close enough for me]].
'''Weak support''' - very, very light on edits to mainspace; however, his commitment to the project, current status as a global administrator and body of work as a vandal-fighter has tipped the scales in his favor.--
'''Support''' - Committed and will benefit from the additional tools.  --
'''Support''' - He does a really good work as a sysop and cu on simple. Always a kind user. No reason to not support him.
'''Support''' based on positive interactions on other projects. No reason to believe he'd misuse the sysop tools.
A great candidate. The claims that he doesn't have experience are not really backed by solid evidence, since he has experience with several other large projects and obviously did a good job there. '''
'''Support'''. Read the answers to the questions; this guy has clue and will do just fine with the mop.
'''Support''' - While the opposers have raised some valid concerns about participation here, the experience elsewhere tips the scale for me.  It's simple: this is an editor the community can trust will use the admin tools to further the project.  I predict he will be an excellent addition the ranks of mop-holders.
With all due respect to Snowolf's comments below, I don't see this as a showstopper. Good worker and won't break the wiki.  Per the users draft essay at
'''[[User:Jamesofur/whynot|Aye]]''' James wants to help in those really unseen, thankless corners. If he can restore & re-delete an article under correct reason per an OTRS ticket then if it really is a waste of time (which i think not) it is his time wasted. I appreciate his answers to my questions. I can appreciate the decreased activity as he finishes his degree in a few weeks; he is dotting other "i's" right now. A credible candidacy for steward and global sysop in the mean time shows the high and widespread level of trust he has earned. James' experience as a CU on SimpleWP can only be of greater aide to this project with his being a sysop here too. He did hear from me in private about the lack of any article creation. I appreciate his integrity to not go create some random stub just to make the 0 into a 1. <tt>:D </tt> <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' per the above. Seems to have a high level of reasonableness, which is always useful in an admin. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' - While I have no doubt that are responsible, you don't have nearly enough involvement here for me to justify giving you the tools.  You are definitely a valued member of the project at large, but from your record I don't see a solid interest in building the English Wikipedia.  --'''
'''Oppose''' lack of contribution to the English Wikipedia. lack of content contributions. While I appreciate this user has contributed substantially to other Wikipedias, they only have 424 edits here in the last 6 months, of which only 97 are to the mainspace. Most of this users edits were using Twinkle to revert vandalism in August 2009. -
''' Oppose''' Evidently does an admirable job at the other places but there's not enough been done, in either quantity (especially lately)  or quality (especially content), to take a mop here. But I hope he sticks around and gets stuck in.
''' Oppose''' Lack of involvement at the English wikipedia. Does surely a good job at other projects, but I would prefer someone with a heavier involvement at en wiki.
'''Oppose'''. User's lack of involvement on the English Wikipedia, also, my only interaction with the user has left doubt in me as his suitability for adminship. He asked me to undelete, among other things, an article, [[Stand and Deliver Records]], for which text he got permission for thru OTRS. It worries me that said article was clearly fitting [[WP:CSD#a7|A7]] and [[WP:CSD#g11|G11]] criterias, he had reviewed the article text, still asked for the undeletion. (I undeleted and then asked other users to confirm my own opinion that it was fitting said criterias, Prodego deleted it right away) I'm sure he's an excellent OTRS agent, but as this example shows, I am not confident enough in his judgment on CSD criterias. I'm sure he's an excellent user and very good admins on other projects, but not sure he's familiar enough with our policies. Also, concerns about too many hats. <i><b>
Regretfully, per Snowolf. [[m:user:Katerenka|m:Katerenka]]
'''Oppose''' - Absolutely not enough experience here. I could easily support if there was some more content editing (and this is ''not'' something I generally oppose on). There are only '''1,382 non automated edits''' and only 9 months with over 3 edits (5 with more than 100). Some of those are manually warnings. I don't know the number of mainspace edits that weren't automated or rollbacks, but it's obviously lower than that 1,382 number. This is just after we came off of another candidate who had a tremendous number of edits both automated and not, but was opposed for the percentage of automated edits. To be clear: I have no problem with automated edits (I have a lot of them), but I think it's appropriate to discount them somewhat (maybe 50%?). Even if we didn't discount them in this case at all, combine that with S Marshall's very valid concern that there's 0 page creation, I'm stunned at the arbitrary fashion that the "automated edits" or "not enough experience" claims get thrown at editors. I think this could be a successful admin run ''with more experience'' but there's just not enough activity to support. I'd be fine supporting a strong content editor with 3,000 edits, but not a vandal patroller with that few who's only been truly active for 9 months (and that's being generous about what's "active" for admin purposes.) Even including edits to simple wiki, by my count there are about 2,001 edits at Simple Wiki (no edit counter; looking at 500 x 4 + 1 edit pages), many of them with TW too.
per <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf</font>. I look forward to reconsidering this candidate after further experience. /
'''Oppose''', regretfully, per Snowolf because I can vouch for what he said above. Some more work on content and some more good understanding of how [[WP:DEL|deletions]] work (especially [[WP:CSD|speedy deletions]], and I'd be happy to support in the future. –
'''Oppose''' per Shadowjams.  The mop is about trust.  While it is nice he is trust on other parts of the project, I need to see more from him ''here'' to judge whether I trust him.  Just not enough edits, too few of them to mainspace.--
'''Oppose''' per Snowolf. I don't object to giving admin powers to OTRS and other cross-project people engaged in administrative work, but only if they have good knowledge of the areas where they plan to use those powers. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per Snowolf. "My personal best case scenario would have been to restore and immediately delete with the new reason and then email the user explaining why." [[WP:NOT]] a means of promotion nor is it a a bureaucracy. The best case is not a waste of everyone's time.
'''Oppose'''. This seem like another sham RFA for the foundation to hand over the bit to someone they like. The should do it directly.
'''Weak oppose''' per Snowolf. Although I do realize that OTRS is not concerned with speedy deletion criteria other than G12, any editor there who is aware of the speedy deletion criteria should not be asking other departments to do jobs that are clearly pointless. At [[WP:PNT]], we do not hesitate to tag candidate pages for speedy deletion when it is blatantly clear that they would never survive after the translation is complete. (Sometimes others beat us to the punch.) Also, we never tag a page for speedy A2 when it is apparent that the creator intends to do the translation by himself. Informing the OTRS requester that the contribution will probably be deleted anyway over other concerns should have been the proper procedure here. To his credit, per the reply to my question above, the candidate seems to be willing to learn from past mistakes and willing to adapt to a different environment. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' per Colonel Warden.
'''Oppose''' Commitement to project  last few months low, auto edit to high, only one redirect created, few  RFA comments. Queazy about policy issues. (see [[User:MWOAP/RfA  Voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose''' - per Snowolf.
Looks okay, and I'm not one of the "must have written audited content" crowd, but I can't bring myself to support someone who's never created a mainspace page.—
'''Neutral''' Well, I really don't like the fact that Jamesofur's had less than five thousand edits, it's good to see an user with rollback stopping vandals and never being blocked. But the edit count just doesn't meet my edit count requirement (five thousand), sorry. --
'''Neutral''' - I commend the candidate for his work across multiple wikis, and he seems to being doing good work so far here on the English Wikipedia. I personally don't believe a specific number of edits is necessary for adminship, but I do look at the sum total of the user's contributions. While I see nothing alarming with this user that would make me oppose his candidacy, I don't see much that makes me support him either. It doesn't seem like he's had a lot of interactions with other editors (for example on his talk page), and thus it's difficult to determine how this candidate will deal with the conflicts inherent to adminship. I don't need to see GA or FA or DYK articles, but a little bit of content creation would be nice. All this being said, the candidate seems trustworthy and my instinct is that he would use the admin tools responsibly, but I just can't quite put myself in the support section. Probably another few months of good work on the English WP would make me comfortable with supporting him.
'''Neutral'''. Limited contributions to Wikipedia. Minimal content creation.
'''Neutral''' - Nice userpage, let's try to focus on improving Wikipedia first and then request this again. There isn't anything really wrong with you, but I would like to see some more article work, or at least some more counter-vandalism.
'''Neutral''' Would Jamesofur be a good admin on the English Wikipedia? Probably, yes. However, he's not very active on this project and has little to no experience with content creation here. So while he ''could'' &ndash; and I do admire his service on other projects and in the crosswiki department (I supported his candidacy for stewardship) &ndash; I don't necessarily think he ''should''. If he had more sustained activity on this project, I would probably support his candidacy for adminship.
'''Neutral''' - I am firmly  against  high edit counts as being regarded as a path to  adminship, but I have seen a lot of  RfAs from  really experienced users fail,  so  I  think  a bit  more all round experience is needed here. --
'''N'''ominator support.
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong Support''' Not only is this editor a strong contributor, but also, has always appeared to show a friendly, professional, and genuinely helpful approach to collaborating. I am sure this can be validated by others who have worked with the articles pertaining to the vast reach of the [[WP:MED|Medicine Wikiproject]], where he regularly helps both new and experienced users with article and task force problems and suggestions, as can be seen at the project's talk page [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine] where he is the second most highest contributor. Civil, professional, knows his way around the encyclopedia, and willing to help other do the same. Can only further benefit the project and the encyclopedia as a whole.
'''Support'''. Jmh has contributed substantially to the project. Fantastic contributor. Good answers. Actually admits to being in disputes (wow!). Well experienced. I would probably trust your average vandal-fighter with the tools in these circumstances, so I absolutely would trust a valuable encyclopedist with them.
Per Calmer Waters. James is exactly the sort of editor we want as an administrator, regardless of how often he will use the tools. '''<font color="navy">
Longterm user, with clue and experience of a contentious area. Having now read through much of the material that lead up to it, I'm happy to disregard the one short block per time served, especially as it was over a year ago and relates to a content dispute. ''
'''Support'''. Looks like a candidate who has contributed a great deal, has made the effort to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, and is good at communication. Answers to questions look fine to me, and I see no reasons at all not to support. --
'''Strong Support'''. James is an excellent content contributor and understands well how policies apply to articles – and those are the main reason for us being here. More importantly, in my interactions with him, he is always willing to listen to reasoned advice and act on it. No sysop starts out "fully-formed", but I am convinced that James will ease himself into the role of administrator, broadening his experience with the tools as he goes along – and be a better admin for it. I really believe we should be encouraging more good content contributors to take up the mop, rather than expecting candidates to artificially garner huge edit counts at NPP and AIV. The question is actually "Do we trust him with the tools?" I do, and you should too. --
'''Support''', from a brief review everything looks good to me. The odd minor concern is brought up in the oppose and neutral sections, but I certainly don't see anything remotely worthy of withholding my support - a generally competent and well-intentioned editor who would do well with additional tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', impressive contributor!
'''Support''' Thank you for not having hateful userboxes.
'''Support''' - impressive contributor, who I am sure would make positive use of the tools. I see nothing in his history to convince me otherwise. &nbsp;
'''Support''' – Great editor that I trust with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' I have seen this user around [[WP:MED]] quite a bit over my tenure here. He is a great contributor and I am confident that he will use the tools effectively.
'''Strong support''': Solid and prolific content contributor with a demonstrated understanding of this site's policies and goals. James has in-the-trenches experience in handling on-wiki conflicts, which should be a prerequisite - not a negative - for admin candidates. I have no concerns, and I think Wikipedia will unquestionably benefit from giving James a few additional tools. '''
'''Strong Support''' Extraordinary content editor. Strong advocate for sound and consistent application of Wikipedia policies and goals. Extensive experience in highly-contentious areas, always keeps his cool. I would note that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJmh649&action=historysubmit&diff=378734546&oldid=378732656 this] comment below opposing the candidacy is from an editor who was recently subjected to Discretionary Sanctions as a result of an AE commenced by DocJames [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:TimidGuy_and_User:Littleolive_oil_and_User:Edith_Sirius_Lee]. DocJames will make an outstanding Admin.
'''Support''' Good dude with obviously significant and accurate content contributions. Sometimes seems a bit excitable, but not in an asshole manner like many around here. :P I did mention to him a while back that I would prefer more edit summaries and fewer edits for ease of review, and looking at his contributions he has taken this feedback into consideration. It's particularly important to note when references are added/removed/changed (or content is added without references), as these are the edits which need close review, and he seems to do that pretty well these days.
'''Support''' Great content contributor and good overall editor. More than enough clue to pick up what he needs to know if he decides to get involved in areas where he doesn't have a lot of experience.
'''Support''' unlikely to break the wiki.
Won't delete the main page.
'''Support'''. A good editor with good judgment. &nbsp; <b>
'''Strong support'''. Doc James has experience in articles for deletion, helps to maintain and run [[WP:MCOTW]], is already a roll backer and autorights user, with no misuse of these privilages. He is a fast learner, helpful, civil and is very popular among his fellow wikipedians. Wikipedia Medicine Project is unfortunately lacking in admins; it is my view that Doc James can fill this gap of lack of medical admins and I feel that he has more than earned the trust of the wikipedian community and should have been made admin a long time ago!--
'''Weak support''' - great editor who I can trust with the tools. I would've liked to have seen a more complete answer to Q6, though.
'''Support''' Sure, you seem competent.
'''Strong Support''' - I have worked with this user extensively, and have found him to be trustworthy and responsible.  I think he would make an excellent admin. ---
'''Support''' good general experience, should be fine with the mop.
'''Support''' What Mastcell says.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy enough to me.
'''Support''' Great content contributor, and per Literaturegeek.
'''Support''' I enjoy working with him, and I think he has enough sense and judgment to do useful things and to ask for help when he's not sure.  I do not believe that [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#User_made_a_mistake|admins need to be perfect from their first edit]]:  I'd rather have admins who will make a good effort to resolve stressful or difficult situations, instead of those who are too timid to do what they can to help.
'''Support''' I don't see the personal-related issues brought up by the opposers as being of significant danger, and there's nothing wrong with you only making a few requests for vandalism intervention or page protection.  I've been around for four years now, and I'm sure that I've made fewer requests for protection.  You look like someone who's going to do a good job.
'''Support''' has been around a while and edited in difficult areas. Has been around long enough to show is trustworthy. As with any admin, any admin misconduct can be reviewed by the arbitration committee.
'''Support''' I think people use X!'s counter ''far too much''. Looking through this users contributions, I find a more positives than negatives. I honestly don't think users need 100s of edits at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] to understand what vandalism is and when it is appropriate to protect pages. And for the block, I think you learned from it and it shows a lot about your character to see you have not been blocked since.
'''Support''' I don't need X!'s counter. I've seen his work. He's too libertarian for my taste (per [[Rorschach test]]), but that just means he'll wave the wand less than others. He could use spell-check more, so what? He passionately defends evidence-based medicine but applies [[WP:DUE]] deftly. Hard working. Anti-drama. Smart. Helpful.
'''Support'''  I've followed James before and through the ADHD kerfuffle (which I participated in), less since then.  While he's no longer blustery, he's not timid.  His improvement as a Wikipedian has been impressive.  Unless winning spelling bees is essential to an administrator, he'll be an excellent one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good content editor, and I just have to support any editor who would say they are "proud of gout, croup and strep throat." <small>(sorry, couldn't resist)</small> &nbsp;&ndash;
'''Support'''. No red flags, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24inkblot.html?_r=1 one black flag]. Go Doc!
Have noted some issues, but ultimately, I'm more than satisfied with "Doc James"' contributions. He's done some excellent work in some difficult topic areas. '''
'''Support''' Seems like a decent content editor who writes well and can carry himself maturely. Net positive.
'''Support''' great content contributor who knows his stuff. Only concern that he has been on occasion a bit too combative.  On the other hand, I fully agree with the positions he has taken and trust that he will use the tools carefully.
'''Support''' Net positive. This user is unlikely to abuse the tools, delete the mainpage or break the wiki. He's not afraid to speak out when something needs done even when it means stepping on toes. This is a quality which is, contrary to the beliefs of many around here, A Good Thing. While some of the opposes are ridiculous, some are valid and I hope this editor will learn from what has been expressed there and note for the future how that may affect his abilities to be a competent admin... but there's nothing there that would even make me think about not supporting.
'''Support''' Seems level headed, but not afraid to step on toes to do the job.
'''Support''', looks like a net positive. Not really put off by the arbitration stuff; quite honestly, sometimes a bit of a firm hand is necessary against people trying to civilly POV push woo-woo crap. If his hand got a little too firm, his heart's still in the right place. Also not concerned by the "lack of AIV edits"&mdash;it doesn't take a ton of experience to ask "Are the edits vandalism? Did the vandal get warned? Have they vandalized since then?" I would advise the candidate to observe and carefully review the protection policy before starting work at RFPP, but I have no doubt that this will occur.
'''Support''' - per above. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Strong Support''' An excellent contributor, good answers and abundantly evident intelligence and clue. Has consistently defended the need for scientific integrity and taken on contentious areas against POV pushers who have honed passive-aggressive to an art form whenever their fraudulent woo and quackery is challenged. Anyone who has come up against the snake-oil contingent - whether here, on another web place or IRL - knows they will not,'' cannot'', be persuaded to voluntarily quit evangelising their pet assertions. It takes stamina, integrity and dedication to take them on, especially in the face of the "play-nice-at-all-costs" contingent all too quick to flex their punitive powers without really understanding what's at stake. I wouldn't be surprised that some of their enablers (and wannabes) below have not even read through the Arbitration case that has got their flags flapping.
'''Strong support''' - so what if in some distant time he was a little heavy handed in an edit war over a controvertial topic and had wrists slapped, people learn and in wikipedia get better at handling difficult disputes. Since then he helped defend freedom of speech at wikipedia and for wikipedians not to be sued by simply publishing what was in the public domain (involving as I undertstand both legal threats and professional misconduct accusation) - the guy deserves our deep & humble thanks (please accept this as my late offering). Strong content contributor and on basis of our beloved founder's "[[WP:NOBIGDEAL|not a big deal]]", experienced editors who are willing to engage in controvertial topics to ensure (what they have learnt) of our policies & guidelines are adhered to, deserve to be trusted with the contents of our mop cupboard. He has indicated he appreciates that he wont be toying with all that this grants ("Much like in real life it is wise to stay within ones competence..."). So moving on from one reprimand over a year ago, and reclusing the topic-specific objections of those sanction by ArbCom I fail see any current or pending fatal signs being reported ([[List_of_medical_abbreviations:_I|ISQ]] & [[List_of_medical_abbreviations:_N|NAD]]) :-)
'''Support''', know this user to be adequately knowledgeable about Wikipedia intricacies. Also a mediation >1 year ago is not a reason to oppose for me. --
'''Support''' - good, active long-time contributor to the site, and has shown to be a valuable editor. So of course. '''''
'''Support''' - a careful, calm editor who understands the importance of reliable sources and respects them.  Some of the "oppose" comments seem to be concerns over the possibility of admin tools being used to support a POV on a specific page.  That's a universal concern, but one that administrators tend to respect and thus go through the appropriate process.
'''''Oppose''''' for having a user name with numbers at teh end; I've never understood that sort of thing ;)<br />Obviously, I've been reading [[WT:RFA]] and such. I don't know James, but noticed this RfA. And I've looked pretty closely; I don't need X!'s fine tool for that. I looked at the block, the RFAR, the NYTimes, too. My net impression is quite positive. I see wise statements in this section, and a few in the oppose section that should have fish for dinner. James will do just fine. '''''Strong Support.''''' Sincerely,
'''Support''' Strange that we look back over a year and oppose. To some it is a valid concern, however, the flip side and to me, since then a progression, improvement. Im a firm beliver in the turn around, and see a net benefit to granting the tools. I am also satisfied fully with the level of anti-vandalism fighting this user has done and fully trust them to be able to handle AIV.
'''Strong Support''' An impressive contributer focused primarily on medical topics.  He continues to be a valuable asset who works towards the goal of creating evidence based content.  Doc James seems to understand that human knowledge is not always the same as human belief.  [[User:Ceazar77|Ceazar77]] 15:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<small>—
'''Support'''. Seems to be a perfectly good candidate to me. Net positive, &c.
'''Support''' I have respect for strong contributors who edit in controversial topic areas. Occasional blemishes are to be expected, but on the whole he has demonstrated that he possesses the necessary skills for adminship. It's been more than a year since the ArbCom case concluded and since he was blocked; 12 months is ample time to demonstrate improvement and I think Doc James has done so satisfactorily.
'''Support''' - Experience and [[WP:CLUE|clue]] seem to be there and my limited interactions with the editor are positive. Opposes seem to be either for blocks and sanctions years old, or from partisans on the other side of the TM debate, and don't impress me in the slightest. -- '''
''Support'''. Good contributions, sufficient experience, no reason to think he would abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support'''.  Objectively I  see a committed dedication  to  expanding  the encyclopedia - and that's what  it's all  about. Apart from  that ,  his communications with  others are, if anything, a bit  on  low side. Subjectively, I  feel  he has the maturity to  use the tools responsibly even if he has been mildly waspish occasionally -  and I  think  most  of us have been forced into  situations like that  at  some time or another;  Without  checking  the backgrounds of all  the voters, it  does possibly appear as if some of the pile-on opposers are detractors who  live in  glass houses and just  scraping  the barrel of semantics to  interpret reasons of incivility to  oppose.  When I  discount  those votes, I  certainly  trust  this candidate with  the mop.--
'''Support'''. He has shown a true interest in improving the encyclopedia with great contributions over time, even on controversial areas. Admin tools to this user will help the project. --
'''Support'''. An enthusiastic editor, who I would trust to use the admin tools and benefit WP.
'''Support''' Given that he actually contributes to the encyclopedia. While I wouldn't call 85 new articles a "heavy" contributor he has done lots of good work improving medical related articles and is exactly the sort of admin the site should have that finds a balance/has a lot of experience.
'''Strong Support''' My main requirement for a prospective admin is a dedication to improving the encyclopedia. Sometimes this comes in the form of featured articles, sometimes serious vandal fighting. Jmh649 makes lots of little (and sometimes not so little) improvements to existing articles, and these contributions (IMO) are just as, if not more important than FA's. 85 new articles to boot isn't bad either. Will make a helpful, trustworthy, mature and dedicated mop-wielder. '''
'''Support''' - I've seen the candidate's work at WP:MED and am quite happy with that. Seems level-headed overall.
'''Support''' - I would gladly vote for an admin who has an opinion and voices it, rather than someone who disclaims his. We need admins with a clear record of contributions and this user has that record. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
Looks good. Given the time that has lapsed since the AE restriction (with no red flags since), I see no reason not to trust this candidate. '''
4 GAs, deals with a highly difficult subject, seem like canvassing against the RFA is going on as most of the opposers are new to RFA
I see enough good things to outweigh those opposes that aren't derisory. I don't think having been subject to an Arbcom sanction should be a disqualifying event (although in many cases it will be - it just depends on the circumstances). If anything, having been at the wrong end of a dispute resolution outcome is a valuable learning experience. I think this candidate will do well.--
'''Support'''. Many of the oppose votes indicate to me that this user is probably going to make a great administrator. Especially the ones from the coordinated TM accounts.
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate.
'''Support''' Honest , careful,and  straightforward, and I fully trust he will not use the tools in areas where he is involved in controversy. For editors with a strong position on a topic, or in a topic area, that's all that can or should be asked for. It would be a step towards rewarding blandness if it became a requirement that candidates for admin  refrain from engaging themselves ''as an  editor'' in difficult topics. I strongly discount all opposes based upon his position on TM in particular, and I'd think that there is no further need to respond to them here.  '''
'''Support''' Thoughtful and knowledgeable editor. (It is disappointing to see some of the opposes the candidate is gathering due to content disputes that are irrelevant to this RFA. I trust that the closing bureaucrat(s) will familiarize themselves with the editors involved in the recently closed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement|TM Movement arbitration case]], and recognize the apparent cause and motivation of some of the opposes).
'''Strong support'''. I trust his judgment.
'''Support''': I've never interacted with Doc directly but from what I've looked over, he's an outstanding editor who's long overdue to be an administrator. Most of the oppose votes are actually reinforcing my decision to support.
'''Support''' - This was a lot of reading, but having done it I'm !voting yes to hand this guy the mop. I am absolutely floored to see he was taken to court over a Wikipedia issue... and for eight months. I commend him for sticking it out and staying with us. As for the opposers, I am largely very unimpressed. As noted, many seem to be dragging to this Rfa resentment over content issues.  The project will be helped if he has a mop, and this editor has the moral sense not to abuse the tools re: [[WP:COI]]. Best wishes!
'''Support''' a competent editor who will make a competent administrator.
'''Support''' per ScienceApologist and DGG. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' per Darth.
'''Support'''  This editor seems to understand Wikipedia policies well and I have no reason to worry that he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' – He's been around for a while, and the contributions look good, especially in the more controversial areas. –
'''Support''' – Experienced editor, and I believe we can trust his words at question #9. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''', may not be the most prolific user of the tools, but will certainly be a net positive where they are used and my hat goes off to somebody who can make over 1400 edits to a difficult article like [[obesity]] ''and'' get it to GA status. That takes dedication and patience.
'''Support''' We all have issues in life and online, and to expect someone to be perfect is, well, stupid.  None of us would be admins if we were held to a 99%, A+++ average.  We need the help, we need the experienced editors, and while there ''may'' be a few questions and/or issues, wake up and realize Jmh is going to be helping out a lot.  Give them the mop, and get them to work already.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''  Nice to see an editor that has a stong background in science and medicine holding firm to verifiability.  Someone willing to make a firm decision - about time.
'''Support'''
I know that [[WP:MED]] has been trying to increase the number of administrators in their active ranks for various housekeeping tasks related to medical articles that come up from time to time. As long as the candidate refrains from using administrative tools in controversial areas with which he's been involved ''(I would also suggest he avoid controversial areas wherever possible)'', I am willing to lend my cautious support. –
'''Support''' - without any reservations whatsoever.
Certainly I'd have preferred stronger experience in admin related areas. However, will be a net positive, a la Mitchell. DGG gets right to the heart of the matter.  King Pickle makes a good point as well. Having read the opposition, I can say I do not share their concerns.
'''Support'''. Smart, trustworthy, good editor. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''. Appears capable to have administrator tools.--''
'''Support'''. Highly beneficial contributions to Wikipedia, and clearly an intelligent and educated editor with good motivations and good Wikipedia skills. As he works on some highly contentious articles, some friction has to be expected. I think he's handled it quite well - sticking to the policies and guidelines - and his contributions are solid. No reservations about supporting this candidate. <font color="80080">--</font><font color="800080" face="Verdana">'''
Cautious weak '''support''' In the end analysis, I think the benefits of having you as an admin outweigh the risks, though I'm always cautious supporting someone who has been formally restricted by ArbCom. I trust you have learned from your first trip to Arbitration, and a return will not be necessary.
<span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Support''' - I think I like that this editor has been to Arbcom. We all make mistakes and the important thing is to learn from them.
'''Support''' - Cautious support (much as expressed by Xeno), on the balance I believe this editor having the buttons will be a net win for WP.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
Sure thing. I didn't realize this was Doc James's username at first glance.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support'''. Although the candidate has had some problems, I still believe that, as an admin, he would be a net positive for the project.
'''Support'''- User does not appear that he would delete the main page.
'''Support''', appears reasonable.
'''Support'''. More admins with MDs, please.
'''Support''', seems like a level-headed sort of person.  Opposes are not convincing.
'''Support''', excellent contributor, strong science background, good answers to questions, multiple positive qualities, all-around. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. Although I sympathise with you for the Rorschach test issue and although I deem you an experienced user, I don't think you're experienced enough in admin-related areas to be handed the mop: I'm not entirely satisfied by your answers and 60 edits to AIV and 13 to RFPP are a little too few, if you want to work in those areas. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Strong Oppose''' I don't think this user  understands some fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. If he does understand and acts as he does then I have some concerns with misrepresentation.  I think he needs more time to improve his understanding before he's given admin tools. (
'''Oppose'''.  Per above. Concerns with the answers to questions, fairly recent AE block, and minimal experience in administrative areas.  You're a fantastic editor, but I think you would benefit from a little more experience.  Sorry, '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Salvio and Fastily. 60 edits to AIV as well as <s>13 to RFPP</s> are simply no where near enough to show me that you have enough experience if you plan on working in those areas with the tools. That last (and only) block also scares me a bit. It's over a year ago so enough time has passed to not make me scared in that respect but the ''nature'' of it is a bit worrying. The fact that you were blocked in the first place, arbitration enforcement, is not a good thing at all. I look forward to seeing you re-submit another RFA in say 3-6 months and if you stay on the track that you currently are on, expect to see me in the support column :)--
'''Strong Oppose''', Candidate shows continued propensity towards edit warring, although seems to be more careful not to cross the “electric fence” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=378197661&oldid=377912396][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=377911202&oldid=377820023][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=377561961&oldid=377498446], with a recent involvement in an edit war, barely avoiding being blocked: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=prev&oldid=366780807#Edit_warring_at_Abortion].  This editor has recent complaints that he doesn’t use edit summaries properly: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&oldid=362517963#Edit_summaries].  Candidate has misrepresented facts and issues in a recent TM ArbCom case and fails to assume good faith, one of the most obvious misrepresentations being his identification of me as being an editor who “primarily edits TM articles” [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Evidence&oldid=345882773#This_group_of_editors_primarily_edits_TM_related_pages]– patently untrue, and obvious to anyone who bothers to even glance at my editing history .  Shows a lack of judgment on the part of the candidate.  Additionally, per Skinwalker and Salvio, this user has had virtually no experience in administrative areas.  Needs a lot more experience in admin areas to show he understands and is able to properly judge administrative situations.
Quite simply, I feel his temperament when dealing with others is unsatisfactory. His snide remark and accusation of bias on Dreadstar's part is, in my opinion, inappropriate &mdash;
I do not support people who have been subject to arbitral sanctions ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Jmh649]]) and who use [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jmh649&oldid=378702080 their user page] for advocacy or divisive content of any sort. This does not rule out that Jmh649 may become a good admin in areas unrelated to topics he feels strongly about, but these are just two huge red flags for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I can't support a candidate that has had [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Jmh649|sanctions of this nature levied against him or her in arbitration]]. Per Sandstein, I feel it's too much of a red flag.
'''Strong Oppose''' I am an editor with limited experience and am not familiar with requirements for becoming an administrator. However, my interactions with the candidate in editing articles related to Transcendental Meditation left me with a strong impression that his content POV was negative and that he was willing to twist the rules and to use bullying tactics to get his way. This does not bode well for a candidate for administrator in my book.
'''Oppose''' While we appreciate Doc's service to Wikipedia, I feel he does not have the quality of heart to be an administrator. I found him lacking in grace and respect in his interpersonal skills, and at times to be a bully.  Perhaps in time, if these attributes can develop he will gain my support as a candidate for administrator.  For now, I cannot support his application. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Largely per Sandstein. I am impressed by your content work, but am concerned that you may stray too much into advocacy, especially given the administrative areas you wish to work in. Your answer to Q6 in particular gave me the impression that you might use the block button for advocacy. However, I would not be adverse to supporting you in the future if you were to gain experience in other admin related areas, such as deletion.
'''Strong Oppose.''' At this time I cannot support Doc James' candidacy, because of his simplistic, close-minded view of science and the scientific method, particularly as it applies to alternative health modalities. My own brief interaction with Doc James was in the context of the Transcendental Meditation ArbCom proceeding. For anyone interested in the details, here is where I laid out a proposal for breaking the logjam on one of the most contentious scientific issues (TM versus ordinary rest): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=363045373] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision&diff=next&oldid=363440971] Doc James' response was courteous but disappointing and unhelpful. He seemed not to understand the deeper issues involved and he chose to respond in a way that was partisan and one-sided: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=363476384] Clearly Doc James is energetic and resourceful and I think that, as he gains more maturity and a broader perspective on what constitutes legitimate science, he should be reconsidered at a later date.
'''Strong oppose''' My opposition is based on his wrong judgment in one dispute that I had with him about Transcendental Meditation. Because it was about NPOV, the most important policy of Wikipedia, I feel it is sufficient for a strong oppose. Doc James says that his approach in a dispute is to focus on the best sources available.  In the case of Transcendental Meditation, these "best sources" were five systematic reviews on meditation (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&oldid=379297641#Suggestion_1] -- there are seven citations, but the Ospina meta-analysys is cited three times). The lead authors were Ospina, Krisanaprakornkit (for two reviews) and Canter (for two reviews).  Despite attempts to include other sources (for example see [[Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Adding_Anderson_meta-analysis]]), after his edits and his influence on other editors, only these sources were used to present research on transcendental meditation in the Intro.  These sources all had a similar POV, which is essentially that meditation in general is not better than health education or relaxation.  A different POV, which was presented in recent systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, <strike>was totally suppressed</strike> was totally suppressed from the Intro. This other POV is that transcendental meditation and other meditations have a significant effect on blood pressure and other health or physiological measures. If you do a search for ''meditation meta-analysis OR review'' (or for ''"transcendental meditation" meta-analysis OR review'') in Google Scholar [http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=100&q=meditation+%22meta+analysis%22+OR+review&hl=en&as_sdt=2000], the "best reviews" of Doc James does not appear so early: even after about 18 pages (180 entries), you don't see the ospina review.  On the other hand, there are many other systematic reviews that present the other POV (positive toward TM) in the first pages. For example, one of these systematic reviews was published in 2008 by Anderson et al. in the American Journal of Hypertension, which has a good impact factor (ranked fifth amongst the journals on hypertension). This review, which considered 9 studies (Random Control Trials) with seven of them controlling for health education,  concluded that TM has a significant clinical effect on blood pressure.  However, Doc James insisted that it is not necessary to include this other POV because the "best sources" were already taken into account. He and his fellow editors discredited Anderson meta-analysis because Anderson, one of the three authors, declared some partial funding from a TM related source. This is a personal judgment. The source of funding constitute only one of the many possible source of bias. The authors of the "best sources" of Doc James can also be biased in different ways. All of this is weighted by the referees and the editors.  This partial TM funding has not been the subject of a controversy at all. Even though Doc James' judgment was indirectly supported by two external contributors in a Rfc, this does not make it NPOV.  <strike>I found strange that one of the two external contributors insisted very much that his support in the Rfc was toward Doc James version, which only included the so called "best sources". After he was presented Anderson 2008 review (and knew about the partial TM funding), one external contributor in a Rfc said that he had no strong opinion about whether we should mention  in the Intro. What? No strong opinion? </strike>  It is a violation of NPOV because the effect of TM on blood pressure is one of the most prominent POV on the subject with many studies and at the least two systematic reviews in peer-reviewed journals supporting it. Some scientific TV programs reported it together with many other benefits. For example, see [http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2954785.htm]. The effect of TM on other aspects of health and well being such as reduction of anxiety is also well sourced.  It is completely non sense that we totally suppress such a prominent POV in the Intro.

Obviously I am wasting my time, as the bureaucrats only use their discretion to pass candidates slightly under the 75% threshold, not to fail candidates slightly over it. I accept that this user edits in a particularly contentious field. But the record of uncollabourative editing entirely vindicates my explicit and much discussed "neutral for now" in this RfA and the one above. The fact that this editor was wrongly sued does not necessarily mean that he will make a good admin. The tendency towards edit-warring, in matters varying from the well-meaning and constructive to the absolutely pointless (see oppose 5 for diffs), suggest that he will not. --
'''Oppose''', from Neutral. I'm not interested in Transcendental Meditation and haven't edited in that area, but like WFC above, I've come to the conclusion that I can't endorse Jmh649 getting the tools at this time. I just feel, from the evidence in this RFA, that he doesn't have the right attitude or communication skills to be an administrator. I admire him for his contributions and his trying to enforce NPOV in a difficult area, but I don't think he's admin material at this time.
'''Oppose''' per WFC and Robofish above. The candidate has such a strongly held point of view that he sometimes deliberately misrepresents sources. For example, here he writes that TM worsens high blood pressure [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&diff=338813656&oldid=338813201], but the source he used (Ospina 2007) says in the Results section of the abstract (p. v)[http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf] that TM lowers blood pressure. This review has 5 meta-analyses on TM and blood pressure; three show lowering, two show no effect compared to controls. None shows a worsening. How could this edit have been inadvertent? And if an editor respects the mission of Wikipedia, why would he do something like this?
'''Oppose''' I find Doc James to be someone who has been involved in quite a lot of controversy in a relatively  brief time span, i.e., the  Rorschach test situation, Arbitration cases in Transcendental Meditation, has been admonished, and has been blocked. That in itself does not make him an ideal candidate. My reaction in reading the neutral replies he presented in support of his nomination, was that they are not like the Doc James I see in the talk pages. There, he is often aggressive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=next&oldid=377923776], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=next&oldid=377933501], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=370920785&oldid=370920140], stubborn, and flippant. (He continues to argue his point, regardless of evidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=prev&oldid=377562252]). To me these are the traits of someone who still has some maturing to do. Therefore, I do not feel he is yet ready to be an Administrator.--
'''Neutral''' - X!s edit counter....disabled. Can't review contributions to wikispace easily now. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB">
'''Neutral''' I'm not impressed with the candidate's answers so far, but I haven't seen evidence that the candidate would be a detriment to Wikipedia if they had the tools yet.
'''Neutral''' – I'm not really sure whether to oppose or support, but I really would like to support. User in question has been in arbitration one time in 2009, which led to his 48 hour long block in July that year. His edit restrictions were revert-related, with only one revert per page per week. On the other hand, this user has made [http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Jmh649&dbname=enwiki_p almost 30000 contributions] to the English Wikipedia. I take the safest by going with neutral. /
'''Neutral''' (I explained elsewhere why I don't feel a strong obligation to vote support or oppose), though I am not impressed by the answers.  IMHO, there are several cases where blocks are given without the total 4 warnings, there are cases of IPs blocked for >1 year (though sporadic), and cases of links being blacklisted even though there is only one editor using that specific link in its sole edit.  You seem to know policy and guideline well, or read them well, but also there [[WP:IAR]] needs to be used to apply exceptions to the cold rules that are laid forward.  I've not seen the imagination necessary to see that cases can be so blatant that waiting to handle is a waste of time, or see further than the one edit that is evaluated, which even (may) result in continuing damage.  --
'''Neutral''' Some of the answers aren't complete (for example, Q6). Good work writing, though. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral'''. I've been arguing for less stringent RFA criteria recently, but the block appears to be alarming, so I can't support.
I like the contributions, but I can't support because of your too recent block. Sorry. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Neutral, leaning support'''. Your contributions are excellent, but the edit warring is a little troublesome. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I will not support a candidate until I can fully analyze their edit count.
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' The candidate has been around a long time and has >27,000 edits; however, the legal trouble involving Rorschach test, a 48-hour block in July 2009, and some pretty basic grammatical and syntactical errors (e.g. spelling the word grammar-->"grammer") causes me to have concerns.--
'''Neutral leaning oppose.''' Normally, I would very much like to support a candidate with a background editing in controversial medical topics. But when I look at the ArbCom restrictions, I see cause for concern that we could have the kinds of conduct issues that make me wish we had a better recall process. I don't buy the argument that this was a while ago so it shouldn't matter. One doesn't get to the point of being restricted by ArbCom just by having a bad day. I think the argument often made in RfAs, that something bad doesn't count after some period of time, is one of the least persuasive arguments I've seen. Part of me would really like to have a reason to support. But here is a concrete example where I might support per AGF if we had a better sysop recall process, but I'm not going to support, because we don't. --
'''Neutral''' His editing seems to be by-and-large helpful and content-focused; however because of the block and the apparent history of editwarring/near-editwarring I'm not comfortable with supporting at this time.  --'''
'''Neutral''' - Kudos for the correct answer to what for so many is a great mystery: ''I interpret IAR to mean that one should use common sense, that one does not need to know all the rules and regulations to begin or to continue contributing to the encyclopedia.''  Too damned many administrators already, I hope you remain a content creator.
'''Neutral for now''' - User seems to have very strong opinions and edits in that nasrrow sphere, it would likely be impossible for the user to use the tools in those fields and I am wondering what the user would do with the tools, I see they would protect articles from vandalism and so on but the user doesn't seem active in these areas and is so involved in his specialist areas I don't see that changing anytime soon. I also would like to know more about these legal issues if possible.
It looks to me as if he'll make a great admin. No problems that I can see. ~~
'''Support'''. Contributions look fine, answers to questions are great (and we do need people focused on the areas in question), and he's been nominated by one of the best admins in the business. That's more than enough to satisfy me.
'''Support''' I tend to favor those who spend time creating audited content, but fixing unsourced BLPs is a necessary task.  We need more people who are willing to consider unreferenced BLPs and fairly source them or delete them through our established processes.
'''Support''' – We need more admins working with BLP, and Joe seems like a great fellow. No problems with me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' Excellent collaborator, excellent judgment.
'''Support'''—no red flags.
'''Support''' no big concerns here, good work with BLPs.
'''Support''' as nom ''
'''
'''Support''' After a closer review lots of great BLP work. I'd advise you to take it steady on CSD, should you get into that, as I noticed some rather dubious [[WP:PROD]]s (although you seem to have realised your mistakes on those and fixed them quickly). On balance a cautious editor and to that end I'm overlooking the rather odd sudnen ramp up in activity. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
A cursory browse was impressive; strong candidate and trust the nominator. '''
'''Support''' - comes highly recommended, and I see nothing that causes concern. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''.  Has the experience, skill and temperament to be a good admin.--'''
BLP focused editor, we need more of them.
'''support''' I've had great interactions with him, he's doing great things with BLPs, and people I trust support him. I'm good.
'''Support.''' We need more people focused on BLP's. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support''' No concerns
'''Support''' Good BLP work is a major plus.
'''Support''' i suspect he will do great.
'''Beat-the-nom support'''. Will be a great admin on every level.
'''Support''' No issues here. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems, only positives :)
'''Support''' - I have looked through this user's contribution history and he is an exemplary Wikipedian. We are lucky to have him. -
'''Support''' Good answer to my question!  Thanks ''<B>--
'''Support''' No issues here.--
'''Support''' User has right mentality and experience; They are a good fit for sysop work.
'''Support''' A Wikipedian since March 2005 with more than 5000 edits; the candidate's contributions in the area of BLP are exemplary.--
'''Support''' Okay with me. --
'''Support''' Lucky number 31...
'''Support''' Being able to delete is very helpful to someone working in this area, and I'm sure he'll do so only very conservatively. '''
'''Support''' on the basis of having no evident problems and having good experience in a slightly undermanned field.
'''Support'''. A courteous editor with strong editorial contributions. We need more admins whose first response to an unreferenced BLP is to make a careful search for sources.
'''Support''', and as much as I hate to say this... per nom.
'''Support''' Good enough for [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]]... good enough for me. '''
'''Support''' Looks like he'll do a good job. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support''' hop aboard....
'''support'''
'''Certainly''' - though it'd be ideal if his articles were less stubby. He has written some good ones though, and for that reason he has my full '''support'''. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
Long time user, no problems, and your dedication to referencing BLPs shows you've got a good sense of priorities. - Dank (
'''Support''' should be a net positive.
Looks all good. '''
Exemplary BLP work. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''': Should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' not a lot of content creation but looks sound all round. Impressive on the BLP sourcing.
'''Support'''...can't see any reason to believe tools will be misused.--
'''Support''' Looks like excellent admin material to me. --
'''Support''' with no hesitation. BLP is an area in great need. --
Not a name I'm familiar with personally, but I see no reason to oppose. The high esteem in which I hold the nominator and many of those above me convinces me to support- looks like a net positive to me.
'''Support''' - Very good answers, no problems trusting with a mop.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' - A year ago I might have !voted to oppose, but I have come to appreciate this type of editor.  Plenty of good people already in the support camp... in short, looks like a good choice. Best wishes!
'''Support''' Experience with BLP is a big plus.
'''Support,''' with pleasure. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' clueful editor who is happy to work in the relatively thankless area of unreferenced BLP sourcing. That sort of temperament translates well to adminship. &nbsp;&ndash;
'''Support'''. Seems sensible, and the weak opposes persuaded me to support.
Looks to do some very good deletion work. I can understand the alarm at the Q6 answer but I don't read it that way.--
'''Support'''.  I was impressed by his answers, especially to question #5.  And I believe his answer to question #6 (especially given the followup and clarification) is fine too.
'''Support'''- I was impressed by the answers to the questions and haven't seen anything troublesome from this editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No concerns whatsoever. Q6 is a non-issue, from an editor who wrote the book on incivility, as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support''' An excellent, helpful, and thoughtful editor. No concerns at all. --
'''Strong Support:''' This is a near perfect Candidate. -
'''Support''' You are civil and calm, this is great to see in sysops. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' - He's admin material alright ;) <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' per Pedro and Malleus.
'''Support''' He's going to be a great admin with great experience. <font color="#008000">[[User:ActivExpression#top|ActivExpression]]</font><sup>[[User talk:ActivExpression#top|<font color="#E62020">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' per above, and we need more admins.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support'''. 76% of edits are in article space. Promise you'll keep it up after you get the mop. We need more admins who can relate to those in the trenches, and fewer professional Wikipoliticians.
'''Support:''' Extra points for civility.--
'''Support''' - Late to it but no problems.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Good Luck, Joe Decker. —
'''Support''' We're here to write an encyclopaedia.  Being focused on that shouldn't count against a candidate.
Mainly per Q6. Saying that the word "wannabe" constitutes a personal attack demonstrates outrageously poor judgement, so I can't personally trust this user with the mop. Also fails my [[User:BigDom/RfA Standards|admin criteria]], but that is a secondary worry for me.
There are already more than enough block-happy administrators without adding another one who considers "wannabe" to be a "personal attack".
The answer to Q6 (a straightforward question) displays a gross misunderstanding of 'personal attack'. And we will all be blocked if 'wannabe' is a threshold.
This user's grammar is somewhat poor, to the point that it is difficult for me to even understand his answers to some of the above questions without reading them multiple times.  If an admin is going to take action on my edits or my account, I need to be able to understand their explanation.
'''Oppose''' for now.  Joe has only really been continuously active since around March this year. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Joe+Decker&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]  I've like to see a bit more continuous involvement before he becomes an admin, and more talk-page interaction, rather than the bulk of the editing (over 75 percent) in article space. Will be happy to support next time. <font color="blue">
'''Oppose'''. The issue raised above by SlimVirgin is the only thing that makes me hesitate. Agree with Slim. --
'''Oppose''' per Slim.  <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">
'''Neutral, Leaning Towards Support''' Q6 gave me some concerns, but not enough for an oppose.
'''Support''' - looks good to me, some nice contributions and a generally sensible editor. Decent admin material. ~ <font color="#228b22">
My only interaction with the candidate was when I questioned a non-admin closure he or she performed. The closure was re-visited (and self-reverted) without me even explicitly asking. So clearly he or she is not just willing to admit mistakes (as stated in the nomination above), but is receptive to community concerns even when a mistake might not have been made. So that makes me very comfortable to support, in addition to the wide range of competent contributions in a variety of areas across the project.--
'''Support as nominator''' -
Know of the candidate's strengths and think them a rather good candidate. Definitely has the sense desirable in a good administrator and is also - as demonstrated above - accountable. So support for a net positive. '''
'''Support'''—yes.
'''Support''' Wish every admin candidate had this level of content creation!
'''Support''' Satisfies my main [[Wikipedia:Net positive|RFA criterion]] &nbsp;
'''Support''' No concerns so far.
<s>'''Support'''</s>. Capable, experienced editor. No reason to think they wouldn't do a good job.
Experienced editor, I don't see why not. ~~
'''Support''' I've seen his work at FLC, and am confident that he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' – No problems with me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - great answers, good work, great personality on talk page. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' Good experiences with candidate at FPC: was rational, friendly, civil, and always added to the discussion. '''
'''Support''' Well-rounded editor.
'''Support'''. A well-mannered editor with decent content contributions and good reviewing skills. I don't usually support people who've been here less than 18 months, but the candidate seems to know his/her way around already.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Why not? Can not see any reason not to trust him.
'''Support'''. Looks like a very good community-oriented editor to me, and should make a great admin.
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong at first glance. No reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' Seems to have a clue in the areas they want to work in and has a nice track record. I couldn't find anything concerning in the last few months I reviewed. Regards '''
'''Support''' Certainly good enough for adminship. --
'''Support''' Seems to do a good job, no concerns. --
'''Support''' as I deem them to be a good admin candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''', everything looks good.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose
'''Support'''.  Satisfied with his people skills after reading his additional answers.  Good luck with the mop.
'''Support''' Experienced and, based on their questions, they seem sensible, reasonable and level headed. Very satisfying candidate. Also, ''wow'', Arb really knows how to write a nomination.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and experienced editor. The wisdom in the answer to question #7 impressed me. --
'''Support''' Experienced, and no reasons to oppose. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support''' indeed.
'''support''' yeah
'''Support'''; not a regular at RfA, but Juju's worth supporting.
'''Support''' per answers to my questions above (9&10), with my thanks. '''
'''Support'''. Great candidate. -

Featured work and reviewing isn't required but it's a big plus, and spot check of CSD work looks fine. - Dank (
'''Support''' should be a net positive.
'''Support''' I've had really good interactions with this user over at [[WP:FLC]], where he reviewed 3 or 4 of my lists.  I'm sure he's worthy of this, and will do a good job.--
'''Support''' Clearing doing excellent work here, and appears responsible.   '''
--'''
Yes, pleaseeeeeeeee. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' I see no issues.
'''Support''' I'm sure Jujutacular will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Candidate appears to possess an extraordinary level of gorm. --
Absolutely.
'''Support''' - I see no problems here.
'''Supprt'''. See no reason to think candidate will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - looks good --
'''Support'''  No qualms, and I particularly like the answers to 9b/c.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''. No concerns here. Good lcuk with the mop!
'''Support''' I was impressed when I did an editor review on Jujutacular and even more impressed now.  I am very happy to support. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support'''. Cerebral answers; experienced; well rounded--
'''Support''' No issues here!
'''Support''' Convincing record and I only had positive encounters with him. --
Excellent contributor, will no doubt make a good admin.
Should be no problems here, user has a good mix of contributions and should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - a fine set of contributions there, my man! :)
'''Support''' - Sure, why not? I don't see any real concerns with this user.
'''Support''' <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' Really good editor, I see no reason why he shoudn't be an admin. Well deserved. '''''
'''Strong Support''' A great candidate. -
'''Support'''. Great at FLC; excellent all round.
'''Support''' User does good work at FLC.
'''Support''' Quite impressive.
'''Support as newbie he has helped''' Just today he gave me advice after first fixing a problem [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&curid=1003209&diff=375785025&oldid=375780526] in my first AfD submission. By both fixing right away and explaining, he kept the project on track and made me feel like a valued member of the community. I will definitely try to follow his example as I become less of a newbie and have occasion to help Wikipedians newer than I am. --
'''Support''' - what more's left to say? --
'''Support''' Everyone is supporting. Why not? Jujutacular is a great user. <font color="#008000">[[User:ActivExpression#top|ActivExpression]]</font><sup>[[User talk:ActivExpression#top|<font color="#E62020">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' What I've seen of Jujutacular (and believe me, that ''is'' a name that stands out, tell me how you landed with that one day) doesn't raise any red flags. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support:''' Experienced in gnomish work.--
'''Support''' Ready for a mop. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' - Looks like another good mopper is on the way.  I have not run into Juju in the areas I edit in, but the unanimous support is impressive, as are the answers and overall bearing. Best wishes to you in the days ahead!
'''Strong support''' I don't normally pile on with my support !vote. But content contribution is strong, AfD approach is common-sensical (for instance [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCAA history|NCAA history]]), civility is a plus, and the FLC contributions I've come across (how do I not remember you?) show both general technical knowledge and an ability to provide constructive feedback. I asked a question about one of the CSD criteria, and was very impressed with the answer there as well. A model RfA candidate. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Ya. —
'''Support''' No problems that I can see.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' – Happy to pile on here. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Neutral''' - it would be ideal if the article [[Danmono]] cites sources from a different author to ensure NPOV. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
Impressed with the way [[Katie Piper]] was written, especially since the article is quite contentious. Concerns raised in the previous RfA regarding content work had been dealt with. &mdash;
'''Support''' A user I have seen in action many times and from this I agree should be given the mop.
Have seen him doing good work. Excellent work at different parts of the encyclopedia; will be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. He seems to be really good at reverting vandalism. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:lime"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Odyssey]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">HUCK FINN</span>]]  <small>
'''Support''' An admirable contributor, from what I've seen. --
'''Support''' &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I supported last time as in my view the then recent CSD tagging had improved from earlier times when I and others had declined some of this candidate's tags. I've since been impressed with the way that Kingpin has diplomatically dealt with me and others [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot II|at his bot request]]. ''
'''Support''' Good Contributor and user has improved and overcame concerns raised in previous RFA.
'''Support''' Kingpin13 has demonstrated that he is able to learn from previous mistakes and address concerns raised previously. As WSC says above, his behavior since the last RFA is very impressive. Also, I trust decltype's judgment. Regards '''
'''Support''' - per above praise
I supported last time, and he appears to be a better candidate now than before. - Dank (
'''Support''' per nom.
Had it watchlisted '''Support'''. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
I think we forgot to flip the switch on this admin... &ndash;'''
'''Support''' Good job since last time. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support'''--
Long overdue.
Assumed you were anyway. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' Trustworthy, won't abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Looks good, concerns from previous RfA have been adequately addressed.
'''Support''' &ndash; a great user, happy to support. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' Sure, why not.
'''Support''' I see no problems, and feel that this candidate can be trusted with the tools -- '''''
'''Support''' - It seems that this candidate has taken to heart the criticisms and comments from his previous RfA. That shows a willingness to branch out and heed advice. For that you have my support.
'''Support'''. In a second RfA, I like to see an editor who has built upon the comments in the first and Kingpin seems to have done so. No reason not to support!
'''Absolutely''' Long overdue, great contributions here and I could only see Kingpin helping more with the additional tools. --
'''Support'''  Looks like a good candidate.--<big>
<span style="font-family:Broadway">
Technically knowledgeable, all-round contributor. --
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' No concerns. --
'''Support''', sure. Decent answers to the BLP questions. I'm alright if you don't have "much of a personal opinion" on the policy as long as you know how to firmly apply it.
So very overdue. Thoughtful and clueful, Kingpin is a strong candidate. '''
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' &mdash; A helpful user who can be trusted with the tools. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  About time.  -'''
'''Support''' Any reason not to? No opposes, and no mistakes that I can see. (Correct me if I'm wrong).--
'''他是好'''
'''Support''' A good choice for the tools indeed. Of all the active BAG members, I think Kingpin13 is one of only a couple of non-admins.  The community already trusted him with that position, and it’s time we trusted him this one as well.  He has more than enough experience to be helpful at [[WP:AIV]] and [[CAT:SD]], and if he would find the tools helpful with his bot work I’m more than happy to oblige him.
'''Sure''' Don't see why not. --
'''Support''' Good answer to my question. Also has a long experience too.
'''Support'''. I trust you, and have found myself thinking that you'd be a good admin on at least two occasions. Nice to see that you've taken the concerns from last time constructively.
'''Support''' - responses and BAG performance --
'''Support''' Yep. From my limited experience, I'd say that he's a very helpful person, and unlikely to burn the joint down. Cheers,
Are you sure he's not one already?  Great DYK work and all around contributor.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
'''Support''',--
About time
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] due to no memorable negative experiences in any AFDs, candidate has rollback, candidate is a veteran editor, and [[User:Kingpin13/thanks]] is nice to see.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - Wha?! All this time I thought he was an admin,
'''Support''' - A fantastic candidate who has become well-rounded since the previous AfD. -- '''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. I like the way he produced [[John Willis]] out of a mess that was about to be speedied. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Willis&action=historysubmit&diff=312622938&oldid=312601261] <font color="purple">
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' A great contributer and a great vandalism fighter
'''Support''' this dedicated user who is here to improve the encyclopaedia. Good clueful answers to questions.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - Very good editor, should have been an admin a long time ago.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - per above. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
''''Support'''
''' Support''' Ran through your thousands, and thousands, and thousands, and thousands, and thousands of edits back to April 2009, all uncontroversial rather low-key anti-vandal stuff; it's really difficult to see exactly what you represent.  You took responsibility for [[Jon Willis]], you do show the occasional glimpse of pretty good reasoning, you sure can, and I believe [[User:Derob ecnirp|Prince Bored]] can be trusted.
'''Support''' Strong CSD and antivandalism work. Will make a very good admin. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' - Very impressive contributor who deserves to be an admin. -'''
'''Support''' - Everything  I  would have wanted to  say  about  Kingpin  has already been said above.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Plenty qualified and looks great.
'''Support''', knowledgeable and very competent. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here :).  Best of luck,
'''Support'''. Qualified, experienced, and knowledgable candidate. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' Great contributor makes good admin material. Looks good to me. --
<s>'''Oppose''': Does not use monkey nostrils in each answer to question</s> '''Support''' Great editor, clean log, very nice contribs... the whole nine yards!
'''Support''' - pretty impressive resume.  No concerns here.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Well rounded, net positive.  I'd say something inspirational, but it's already been said. ''<I>
jo --
'''Support''' able to take criticism and improve accordingly- good qualities for anyone. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Is another expression of wholehearted support needed? If so, you got it from me --
'''Support''' Why Not! ''<B>--
Good observations of Kingpin13. Happy to support.
'''Support''' Gladly. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
Certainly, I can see no reason to oppose.
'''Snow support''' I like snow... but California rarely gets any :( <font face="Segoe script">
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''-Definitely worthy to hold the mop.
'''Strong support''' Candidate has ''tons'' of activity in the areas he is going to work in, great contributions, and a high edit count. Plus, we need more admins at [[WP:AIV]]. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - All of the above.
'''Support'''.  Piling it on.  <font color="#BA181F">
'''Support''' as last time. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' via [[Groupthink]]. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support''' —<small>&nbsp;<span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal Candidate. -
'''Support''' Sound knowledge of policy, and experienced in the areas you wish to work in. '''
'''Full Support:''' Although my !vote is not needed, I fully support this admin. (see [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' Given Coffee's question and your careful considerate response, I feel confident you won't abuse Admin/IAR.
'''Support''' - Nearly 100 supports, with no opposes, and no neutrals (anymore), that pretty much gives you my automatic support. That and there's absolutely nothing worrisome at all with your answers and conduct. -
'''Support''' - One step closer to 100 supports.
'''Support''' - best of luck. Not that you need it, obviously. (:
'''Support''' - Fully confident that this user meets the criteria! Support number 99! Good luck mate! <i><span style="border: 2px solid #87CEEB;background-color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Very much so. '''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support'''. I think a case could be made for an early closure per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' &mdash; finally getting around to supporting. Doesn't appear to be any real concern.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''[[esto perpetua]]''' <font face="Georgia">
'''Per NYB'''
'''Support''', excellent choice for admin.
'''Support'''. I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. As nom. <tt>
'''Support'''. While I didn't participate in RfA 3 I have read it in full. It appears the candidate is aware of things he could have done better in the past; and stands by the things he thinks he did properly. That candour and honesty, and a willingness to put himself forward for RfA 4 after the nature of RfA 3, are big pluses in my book. We shouldn't be reticent to promote candidates merely because they are not milquetoast uncontroversial, or sit on one side or the other of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum. I am satisfied that giving this candidate the tools will be a net benefit to the project. --
I supported last time, and I think I will again. You've done some good work, and you've shown that you have potential to serve the community as an admin well. '''
'''Support''' - I supported in the last RfA and I don't have any reason to not do so again this time. -- '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' again. In fact I'm just going to copy over most of my support comment from last time: "Some users have the perseverance to actually listen to the criticisms from their previous RFAs and learn from them. How is it that a certain crowd is willing to assume good faith and keep almost any article, but perpetually oppose someone they have had a disagreement with. KWW seems to have a strong understanding of the admin approach to decision making, which is based on an understanding of Wikipedia policies and current consensus, not personal feelings. I trust him to use the tools."
'''Strong support''' as nominator last time.  He deserved to pass last time.  He presents his own work better than I can.  I know him from working side by side with him on [[Natalee Holloway]], a FA and TFA he did much work on, and persisted with in the face of vandalism and opposition.  Pass him, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia.--
'''Support''' - While there have been times that I felt Kww has been a bit heavy handed, we must all be reminded that administrative actions are reversible. In giving my support, I request that Kww asks for help in situations where they are not sure about the correct course of action to take, and be willing and open to others critiquing their work. I know Kww well from their edits at [[WP:SPI|SPI]] userspace, and have come to find a dedicated user with a knack for catching sockpuppets. We could always use more active administrators at SPI.
'''Support''' Even just reading the long statement he's made, I think that he's got the right idea and knows what he's done right and wrong. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' despite Kww's and my vastly differing opinions on notability and inclusion in the 'pedia, I can see he is dedicated to improving the 'pedia, worth a trial with the mop. Remember that we have an effective review mechanism in the arbitration committee for anyone who misuses tools.
'''Support.''' I was a bit shocked by the first two words to the answer to Q5, but when I saw that he wouldn't be opposed to the block being lifted once the blocked editor understands what is wrong. This is fully in line with [[WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks]], in that if an editor sees no reason to stop disrupting we have no reason to allow him to edit. Also, great answer to Q6. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support'''. Kww doesn't have the greatest history, but let the past be the past, guys. He has always been a dedicated contributor; this is seen through his contributions and endless efforts to keep banned users like Brexx from coming back. Clearly, he keeps Wikipedia's best interests in mind. He's done extensive work in several different areas through the last few years and I haven't seen anything from the past year that would make me question his judgment in the slightest. I think Kww would be nothing but a net positive with the tools. —
'''Support''' Plenty of experience. --
'''Support''' - No issues here. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Support''' overdue imho. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' watched from the sidelines last time, convinced by opening statement this time.
'''Support''' <strong>
'''Support''' - A candidate with an eventful background, who seems to have learned from his experiences.
'''Support''' - I supported before in your third RfA and I'm supporting again.
'''Support'''.  No previous unpleasant interactions.  The blocks and past history are concerning but Kww seems to have learned from those mistakes.  -'''
'''Support''' - No problems here. Will make a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No objections at all. --
'''Support''' I opposed at the last RfA, but I see no recent problems, and so I am happy to support this time. -- '''''
Looks fine to me.  頑張って!
Seems to have learned from previous mistakes. Should be no problems with this one.
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support''' Admiration for the honesty and openness with which the candidate has approached this RfA. Should make a great addition to the ranks of vandal blockers and sockpuppet investigators. And has a bit of passion for the project, which is no bad thing --
'''Support''' as last time (though I opposed on RFAs 1 and 2). Kww has acknowledged his mistakes, and is ready to move on. Even though I have differences with him when it comes to the proper application of notability and deletion policices, he has a generally sensible approach to process issues.
I supported last time as a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] and my opinion has not significantly changed. If anything a stronger support than last time due to the impressive honesty and willingness to "hold your hands up" over past errors. Making mistakes is not the issue - refusing to learn from them is. I don't see we have anything like that issue with Kww and that's the turn-key for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - Last AfD was definitely close, and the previous one reeked of politics (especially oppose #7). Definitely time, and the elevation of which would validate some of the progress that's been made in making RfA less absurd.
'''Support''' Nov 07 is a very long time ago in wiki time and I'm happy to disregard such an old block. All else seems fine. ''
'''Support''' &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">[[User:Pablo X|&nbsp;pablo]]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablo X|hablo]].</sub> 09:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) <br />tempted to move to oppose re the answer to Q16:– clearly admins should know who supplied the ingredients to the rama lama ding dong et al. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Kww. —
'''Support'''. About time. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Yes. I've, particularly recently, come across Kww a lot at RPP, when he's requesting a bulk protection on a number of sock targets. His dediction to hunting down and dealing with socks is admirable, and having the mop will only make it easier. And additionally mean that I won't have to deal with his protection requests ;)
'''Support'''- well and truly overdue.
'''Support''', assumed you already were... <font color="green" face="Tahoma">
Obvious record of good work and (recent) good sense. The prefacing Act of Contrition makes it hard to resist a '''Support''' !vote. Also, great answers, especially to question 14. /
'''Support''' I'm pleased you've realised the mistakes you made earlier in your career, anyway, a long term contributor with a barnstar too.
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' communications with others seems to have improved since number 3.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' as previously. Kww does excellent work in important areas, and would greatly benefit from admin tools. Granting him adminship is overdue. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Whether he was before or not, Kww is ready to be an admin.--
'''Support''' no concerns. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Shows clear reasoning and dedication to the project. Someone with the great brass fingers and perseverence to bring [[What the Bleep Do We Know!?]] ''and'' [[WP:GOODCHARTS]] into a semblance of order will make a fine addition to the mop'n'bucket brigade. I look forward to working with you. -
'''Support''' Compelling arguments made above.
'''Support''', looking through previous RFAs the concerns raised appear to addressed.  I see no current reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
''' Support''' Supported 1 & 2, missed 3, hope 4 here finally does it.
'''Support''' as per previous RfAs.
'''Support'''
Now Kevin has knocked on the door,<br/>With RFA number four.<br/>Last time was so close,<br/>Much closer than most,<br/>But he'll easy pass this time, I'm sure.
I'm really happy to see how this one is going; it may be a sign that [[Can't we all just get along?|we can all just get along]], after all. - Dank (
'''Sypport''' Sure, since I supported you last time.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', already.
'''Support''' yeps.
'''Support''' as in RfAs 2 and 3.
Meets my criteria, could quote myself from RfA 3 but that's a waste of bytes. <font color="#cc6600">
Convinced by a review of previous RfA's and commentary on the current one that Kww will be a solid admin. Good luck. '''
'''Support'''. Can't say much more than I have already. I have no doubts Kww can be trusted to use the admin tools with discretion, in accordance with policy, and with a willingness to accept input on their use. --
'''Support''' he seems to have enough experience to obtain the mop.
'''Support''' <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' - Has work he wants to do, and appears to have the experience to handle the mop properly.  --'''
'''Support''' per my vote on the previous RfA. '''
Give them the mop already. Demonstrated commitment to wikipedia should be worth something. --
'''Support.''' Experienced, dedicated, clueful guy.
'''Support''', as I have previously.
'''Support''' I would have supported you last time had I seen your nomination.--
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], and should "get it" by now. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)  P.S. , but remember, [[WP:BITE|don't bite the noobs]]!
I'm late, I'm late, for a very important '''Support!'''<small> Such a great guy...</small>
'''Support'''. -
'''Strong support'''. Our areas of editing have been known to overlap and I've always valued your input, even where I've disagreed with your opinion. Never short of policy links to bring up in discussions just when you think you must have covered every policy! All in all, a knowledgeable, clueful editor whose edits are consistently helpful. A fine candidate for adminship. Fourth time's the charm hopefully!
'''Strong Support''': whilst i've never been involved in previous discussions i've read through and support all of the other supporters. Kww is an excellent example of an editor who displays patience and virtue. His edits are very rarely undone and has many times that he is not personally attached to content. He is always helpful and has been a good mediator. The makings of a good admin. I admire his attitude and personally feel like i've learnt a lot from him.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': This editor seems long overdue for "administratorship"!
'''Support''' - I'm well aware of this editor's efforts against persistent sock puppets and have worked with him regarding it. He is conscientious and patient and an asset in this area. Completely support him.
Don't know about you guys, but I think it's high time this fellow got promoted.
'''Support''' An editor who has put up with a lot of grief and still contributes tirelessly. '''
'''Support'''. I don't always agree with him, but he's always willing to engage in discussion and well-versed in policy. <font face="arial" color="#E8A317">
'''Support''' A very hardworking editor who has been shown to be capable. Short blocks are long past in wikipedia terms. Should be given a chance to contribute with the mop.
'''Weak hanging-on-by-a-thread-on-a-mechanical ventilator-in-the-ICU Support''' I've had both negative and positive experiences with you&mdash; to be honest, mostly negative. But that was a long time ago, and I myself didn't have the smoothest interactions when I first came to Wikipedia. <small>I'll be watching you... I'm kidding... no I'm not</small>.
'''Support''', as I always have.  Give him the tools already. -
Yes. ++
'''Support''' - I like all the answers.
'''Support'''.
'''Cautious Support''' I trust Kww to do what he sees as the right thing.  I'm still not certain that I trust his judgment about the right thing.  There are a number of editors who put their own views above the community when using the bit and I worry that Kww will be one of them.   But his contributions have been outstanding for the last year or so.  So if not now when?  Kevin could easily have ditched this account and made a new one and made admin.  No question.
'''Support'''. Clearly dedicated, thoughtful and intelligent communicator; WP needs more of those. As to the "wikicop" theme raised by opposers and neutrals, I would agree that admins who run around just happily waving their wikicop badges are to be discouraged. However, I don't sense that here.
I don't even remember what it was, but I had some interaction with him that raised a red flag. Because of that (and because it seemed in conflict with my prior opinion of him) Kww became an editor whose comments I paid attention to when I came across them. Initially that was driven by my desire to figure out what I really thought of him, but later it was because I found his comments a helpful marker in trying to orient myself in a long debate (think AN/I, or something of the sort). And based on that, I feel comfortable with the idea of letting him have a few extra buttons.
'''Support'''. No recent controversy. Good contributions and a good understanding of policies.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Because, to quote the end of Rocky IV, "Everyone can Change", and it's been two years since this editor was getting into trouble.
'''Support''' As I did before...
Just as I did in 3/2, for similar reasons.  Nothing about the candidate has changed in the interim.
'''Support''' Seems to have a handle on all the relevent stuff.
'''Support''' No worries here.
'''Support'''. I see nothing wrong with any answers. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong Support''' I have supported Kevin on Kww 3, and will continue supporting until he becomes an Admin. Kevin has always shown wise and trustful judgement, as I have never seen him be biased or unfair. Looking forward to the good news!!!--
'''Support''' Longtime, hardworking editor with experience with both content and administration, who has not attracted controversy recently and who appears to be trustworthy enough to be given the tools. Kww will no doubt be careful to use the mop properly; I am confident that he will based on his solid answers to the questions. Reading through the past three RfAs, I realize that Kww's candidacies have been considered problematic in the past, and while I have carefully considered the arguments presented by opposers in those RfAs and in this one, I am not convinced to oppose or even remain neutral. This candidate has earned our respect during his tenure, and I feel he deserves my support.
'''Support'''—
'''Support'''- Answers and explanations are well thought-out and refreshingly sensible. <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
Should be fine.
'''Support'''; Kevin has been helpful and courteous to me, and shared his experience without hesitation. I've been watching his Talk page and observing his actions esp. in music-related areas for months now, and he seems to have good, steady hands for holding a mop. His facility for clear expression in English and his sense of humor will help him help us. <i>&mdash;&nbsp;
Comment #85 on Kww 3 still holds. He's honest, willing to discuss his past and willing to be held accountable to it, which is better than many admins who presently work on difficult stuff. ALl the best.
'''Support:''' Growth and persistence. All the best. -
4th time lucky as they say? Well I hope so because Kww is a fine editor who I'm sure will use the tools wisely. '''
Very helpful and decent user: giving Kww the tools will be beneficial to the project. I have no concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''': understands that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Been reading the last three RFA's over the last few days, don't have any outstanding concerns.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' as I have in the past.  Kww has a comprehensive knowledge of policy and sound judgement. Nomination statement and answers to the questions only increase my confidence in his abilities. '''
'''Support'''; &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' &mdash; looks good!
'''Support''' Just as I did last time. He has matured, has experience and clue, and is a great contributor. --'''''
'''Support''' I have briefly dealt with Kww in the past as well as observed some of his contrubutions, all of which have driven me to believe that he'd undoubtedly make a decent administrator.--
'''Support''' Candidate seems perfectly fine to me. &mdash;

'''Support''' again, as I have the last two times :-) KWW certainly meets [[User:Collectonian#RfAs|my criteria for an admin]]. Nothing has changed since then to show any reason to oppose him now. He has a solid understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. His dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Certainly having more admins willing to deal with anything Disney is an extra perk, and recognizing the serious problem with have with being overly permissive with the Bambifan101 socks and those who help him is a plus, not the negative people wrongly made it out to be in the last round. --
'''Support''' per my support rationales in RFAs Kww and Kww 3 (and I missed Kww 2 or I would have supported there too).
'''Support''' Jumping on the support train, wishing I'd been here earlier to be Support vote 10 rather than 110, or whatever number I am here :). I believe Kww is a fine, well-intentioned, and thoughtful editor, based on my experiences working with Kww as well as a jaunt through Kww's other contributions, which are many and varied. Kww would make a superlative admin, with his respect for consensus, his patience, and his reliance on protocol.
No problems in my opinion.
'''Support''' Ok.
'''Support''' Knows his way round vandalism & sockpuppetry issues and would be a useful asset.
Although issues have been raised in the past, now would be a fine time for Kww to have the tools. (Although I was inclined to oppose when I saw it was the fourth RfA until reading the full background.) ''<I>
'''Support''' After lots of reading.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Weak support''' – OK, why not? I was thinking about this one for a good while, and I think Kww has significantly improved since the last RFA in which I did oppose. I still have a couple of reservations, but I don't think with the recent activity is enough for me to oppose. Anyways, don't let me down, now. –
'''Strong support:''' Kww will always have my support. -
'''Support''' - Good involvement in [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RPP]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:VPT]], [[WP:SPI]] & [[WP:CHARTS]] too.
'''Strongest possible support''' for a user who is long overdue for the mop and bucket.  --
'''Support''' for a superb candidate. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said.
'''SUPPORT'''. Let the WARS begin!!!!
'''Support''' - Fourth time's a charm. Great work, per above. I really hate how some people can't understand that we are humans, and that we can make isolated mistakes without turning into bad people. Best of luck, and you should work on that military leader thing ;)
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Weak Oppose''' (per statements in Neutral section) Moving from Neutral. On further consideration, this "Indef block until the offender accepts the Truth" attitude is extremely troubling. In any project, variety of thought, including criticism of power structure, should always be considered a strength. In a project like Wikipedia with labyrinthine guidelines which are constantly in flux, and which are, after all, only made up by fellow editors, an inflexible attitude towards criticism of the status quo would be disastrous. On a personal level, I was blocked by an involved Admin for restoring my own !vote which he had removed. I refused to apologize during the block, and I did apologize for the incivility-- which was used as a post-block justification by the Admin-- ''after'' the block had expired. I did not apologize ''during'' the block because I felt it was unjust, and that the incivility complaint was made post-block. I continue to believe I was in the right and the Admin was in the wrong. Were this Admin to follow Kww's philosophy, I would still be blocked. Cannot in good conscience sit on the fence on this one.
'''Weak oppose'''.  In RFA #3 I opposed without the "weak" qualifier, on the grounds that admins have tenure and it's virtually impossible to rid ourselves of a bad one--which means I need to be certain, and with Kww, I'm simply not.  This editor is active in contentious areas, and has in the past lost his temper, which isn't a good sign in an adminship candidate.  But, it's been a while since the last such incident so I've downgraded my oppose to "weak".  After another few conflict-free months I'd be neutral.—
'''Oppose'''; Very standoffish; Not a good quality in an admin. Admin actions are not black and white, they require considerable judgment in some cases. I'm especially troubled by his stance towards tending to bite newcomers. Needs to mellow considerably before I'd reconsider.
'''Oppose''' As stated in his past attempts, I don't trust him. Comments like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=240066845&oldid=240061552] "''As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by extension, desire to keep it around.''" cause me great concern that he will ignore whatever consensus is, and just delete something he personally doesn't like.
I agree with Kww on most things. As satisfying as it might be to "pack the Court", if you will, with another admin with whom I am ideologically aligned, I think I would rather not. Admins with (declared) predispositions about fiction and notability walk a fine line, and I think Kww lacks the diplomacy necessary to be a judicious administrator of this area. We have enough poisonous people and enablers there, and I don't think Kww+sysop is going to be able to add constructively to resolution of the broad problem. Sorry, Kww. ''÷
'''Oppose''' The way the [[N.I.N.A.]] article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKww&action=historysubmit&diff=353222407&oldid=353184086 redirect] was handled gives considerable concern over the ability to be constructively level headed when dealing with others. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Insufficient content creation - the candidate's edits seem relentlessly regressive and reactionary.  And there seems to be a bitter, ''ad hominem'' edge to them too.  For example, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Croft_Tomb_Raider:_The_Cradle_of_Life&diff=prev&oldid=345679186 this case], what seems to be a good faith edit is reverted on weak grounds with a personal attack.
'''<s>Placeholder Neutral''' I think I will support, but not quite there yet, i'm going to make Kww earn it. [[User:Doc Quintana|Doc Quintana]] ([[User talk:Doc Quintana|talk]]) 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)</s> '''Full Neutral''' per Dekkapai. I have no doubt that Kww is a good editor and this RFA is going to pass anyway, but the sentiment of "You didn't listen to us and our standards so now we're going to block you until you do" won't reach the proper results in most cases. It seems almost pedagogic I think it'll only cause more frustration on the person being blocked and possibly only further fuel their disruptive behavior.
'''Neutral''' I've opposed in the past, and if you want me to be honest, I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of this RFA passing. It's also true that most of these concerns come from events that are somewhat dated. So though i'm still not comfortable jumping on the support side, here's to hoping my concerns are unfounded. Unless something new develops between now and then I won't oppose.--
'''Neutral''' While I would normally oppose a 4th RfA, Kww's rationale in questions 5 and 6 1/2 is far more correct than Dekkappai's oppose rationale. Blocks aren't timeouts, and should not be lifted (absent a community discussion showing no consensus for the block) unless the problematic behavior is repudiated.
I have some concerns - notably that you are too rigid in your view of WP process.  However, my concerns aren't sufficient to oppose.  You do have my respect and, as this looks likely to pass, I wish you the best.--<span style="font-family: Orlando">
I opposed the last time around due to serious concern's about the candidate's attitude when interacting with other people.  His behavior during that RfA was above reproach and showed that he's ''capable'' of much, much better, but my cynical side expects that when the stress levels rise that ugliness will be front and center.  Considering his experience and skill, the significant shift in community attitude towards him, and the fact that my own view is based in part on cynicism, I do not feel my concerns are sufficient to oppose.  I wish the candidate luck.--'''~
'''Neutral''' - Kww has contributed significant amounts to Wikipedia and has a clear need for the tools, and seems to pass most of [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|my criteria]] fine. I am still not fully though that Kww is suitable for the role of an administrator, along the lines of key criterion 7, with the Meursault2004 incident still an issue for me. While I appreciate and have read Kww's nomination statement on the issue, I am not convinced by it. I will not oppose however given that this was a while ago now and I have not seen anything fresh in the oppose section which is of serious concern to me.
'''neutral''' changed from oppose.  I did not expect to be changing my vote, but his answers to my question and to Langviels following question (and the other questions as well)  are so impressive, showing understanding and skill--which is no surprise, and also judgment--which is more of a surprise, at least to me  -- that I think it would be unfair for me  not to acknowledge it.  Additionally, a careful review of recent edits shows similarly good skill, judgment, and even tact. I will be very glad if the change is real. '''
'''Support'''. As nom. -'''
Yes, please. --
'''Support''' --<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print;">[[User talk:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]
'''[[uberrima fides]]''' <font face="Georgia">
Without reservation. Leo has my trust and has shown he can handle the responsibilities that come with with the sysop flag.
'''Support''' Has the experience.
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
Sure.
Seen the name on many occasions; has earned my trust for a while. --
Of course, Mr^Redirect.
'''Support''' - I don't need to go through this user's contribution history. I have long been aware of his contributions. It's a cliche, but I thought he would have been an admin already. It's good to see a user use his real name too!  :D -
'''Support'''. Experienced, knowledgeable, and civil. A sampling of his contribs (including deleted) looked good.
'''Support''' - Looking at his past RFA's and his contributions it looks like this editor has more than learned from the concerns that were raised in the past and would be a valuable mop wielder
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Sure]] &ndash;'''
'''Support''' As an IP multiple civil encounters with this editor who appears to be here to write an encyclopedia and knows that acting in a professional manner on that task does not prevent enjoying being part of the community. --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and civil.
'''Support''' Has the experience and the clue, and is trustworthy. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' No concerns, and even though I have never run into you before, the supports above are pretty convincing.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' — Whilst I cannot remember a specific encounter, I have an odd feeling of trust. I have no concerns with you having the bit. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Conditional support''' so long as this user takes a pledge not to sign [[Wikipedia:Petition against kitten abuse]]. Signing such things is ''prima facie'' evidence that he isn't willing to make tough decisions. (And I'm sure there are several waiting to oppose you if you ''don't'' sign it because it's ''prima facie [[Reductio ad Hitlerum|ad Hitlerum]]'' as well as one or two who will oppose you for making a pledge.)
'''Да''' ···
'''Support'''. Why did Fastily have to provide such a good nomination statement? The only thing I can think of to say is that I second the nom. Obviously clueful and competent candidate- goo luck. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">fancy a chat? </font>]]  17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) {{small|I note the concerns raised by DGG, but I believe we have an easily competent candidate here and, with respect to DGG, I reaffirm my support
'''Support''' - No worries,
'''Support''' Per Q5. When i first read the first sentance i was thinking, okay theres a problem here, but after the bit of joking around, the thought process on the event i think is just perfect. No worries here, fully support, Good luck
'''Epic Support''' Demonstrates upmost clue & skill, and is frankly just blatantly awesome, except for the ^ bit which sends my browser into the ever so annoying %3 state. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' Does good work at AFC, competent, clueful contributor.
'''Support''' — I have to second Cyclonenim's comment. You demonstrate what I think would make you a very good admin. Bonne chance!
'''Support''' better-than-even chance of being net positive.
'''Support''' A clear case in my view: a solid record of content contribution, sound answers to questions, etc. --
Definitely '''Support''' per nomination and good answers
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate currently has unanimous support, candidate's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsaber_combat_(6th_nomination)&diff=221348317&oldid=221347510 argument] in the sole AfD in which we both participated was reasonable and intelligently worded, and as candidate has never been blocked.  Put simply, while I and my fellow editors see various positives, neither I nor anyone else has come up with any reason to oppose at this time.  Bravo!  :)  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' No problems.
Yeah. <small><span style="border:2px solid #993333;">
'''Support''' – Leo is easily one of the most clueful users I know. No problems with him being an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' Trust the nom of Fastily and the user has overcome the issues raised in previous RFA.project will gain with the user having tools.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - RfA is a test of trust. Can we trust this user? I could say yes. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' - [[User:Tbsdy lives|Tbsdy]] (formerly
''' Y Not?''' Looks perfect to me.
I have long known Leo Bloom and he has always acted with integrity. He is inherently trustworthy and I think he has a good enough grasp of policy. '''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' sure.--
'''Support''' Competent and useful. '''
'''Support''', clearly an excellent editor.
'''Support''', per nomination.
No problems I can see. Should do fine.
'''Support''' - What I've seen of Leo around Wikipedia has been good, answers to questions are good, seems to have experience and there are no problems. -- '''
Certainly, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Looked over a lot of edits and it all looks really good. An excellent patrol history too, and a few CSDs (although those did drop off a few months before this RfA) that look pretty good.
'''<s>Was Neutral</s> Now Support''' Looking good so far, but I can't 'fully' support you yet unless you explain why you first wikibreak was taken. :P
'''Support''' I've seen Leonard around and I haven't seen any problems (either there or in a look at his history). -- '''''
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' per answers to RfA questions. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Sound knowledge in the areas that you want to participate in.  Also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instantaneous Personal Magnetism|this move]] was very respectable and shows your personal integrity and commitment to the project. '''
'''Support''' - seems like a trustworthy editor.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' I wish you had made it last time.  -- ''<B>
Sure.
'''Support'''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Per answers. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
Who?  That means perfect.
Happy to give this candidate my support this time around, best of luck!
Seems to have improved since last time.  Good luck, '''
'''Support'''. Improved leaps and bounds since the last to RfAs. I can trust this user with the tools.
No major concerns. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' The disruptions caused by out of process deletions have everyone on edge, but there's no reason to believe this editor won't respect community consensus.
'''Support'''. Yet another no-issue candidate falling victim to trivial matters, in this case finger-wagging by people who don't seem to understand what the abbreviation "IAR" is short for.
'''Holy Monkey Balls Yes''' Leo has been extremely helpful at AfC, recently and especially with helping out new contributors seeking guidance.  He has always had his head in a level and right place, and definitely has the [[WP:CLUE|right stuff]].  He has taken a cool and collected approach to editing, and has his priorities in the proper order. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - Seems fine overall. Jesus Christ Himself wouldn't have been able to craft a perfect response to that IAR question that would have made all Wikipedians happy - and the candidate's wasn't too bad. It's a tricky current issue - just remember that IAR and admin tools rarely work well together. Sometimes, perhaps, but not often.
'''Support''' per answers and AlexiusHoratius. —[[User:Department of Redundancy Department|DoRD]] (
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or worries. I find the concerns expressed by the opposers to be unpersusasive.
'''{{User:Fail/Rainbow Support}} Fully qualified candidate. --<strong>
Thumbs up.
'''Support''': clueful enough.
'''Support'''. I think an ''admin'' erring on the side of caution with IAR is a very good thing. [[User:WFCforLife|WFCforLife]] ([[User talk:WFCforLife|talk]]), <small>
'''Support''' - very cluefull.  The concerns below about IAR and BLP don't strike me as significant enough to oppose.  It is entirely possible for an editor (or an admin) to go through their life on WP never having to use IAR, and I like that he doesn't plan to use that as a fast/easy solution to everything.
'''Support''' - Have rubbed shoulders with this editor on about a dozen occasions. I have found him to be highly calm, welcoming and rational. I have no doubts in his abilities to use these buttons correctly. —
'''Support''' - per nom.
I have met this user in connection with the [[WP:WPAFC|Articles for creation]] project, and believe he can be trusted to do a good job. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(

'''Support''' - sufficiently experienced and sensible to be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' The lack of ability to negotiate subtle "gotcha questions" with political undertones is something that would concern me more if Leonard were applying to be head of public relations or something.
'''Support''' The candidate has good contribs, clue, and a cool head. Eminently suitable candidate. --'''''
'''Support''' – certainly competent and clueful, and thoughtful answers to the questions. Will do a fine job as an admin. –
'''Support''' Obviously well-intentioned and experienced. To address to the opposes: "With a BLP, I believe to err on the side of caution." is a sentiment worth supporting, especially in a sysop. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''', as per Gigs.
'''Support''' from Port Grace. -
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support''' and may I just say I'm not entirely sure why we're opposing a candidate because he didn't agree with an asker's viewpoint on a question, but it's certainly not a shocker considering the things I've seen in previous RfA's.  <i>'''
'''Support''' A good editor.--
'''Support''' Looks like a very capable Wikipedian who has come a long way since his first RfA, and he sounds like someone who could be relied on to treat admin tasks fairly. One or two concerns voiced below about BLP and IAR don't really worry me, because they apply to hypothetical situations in which I strongly suspect the candidate would, in reality, seek assistance rather than make a solo decision.
'''Support''' - I'm sort of confused as to why he's being opposed over his IAR views. His initial response to the question (not considering his response to the odd followup comment/question) seems not only reasonable, but spot on. Use on a case-by-case basis where it's either a clearly good use or in cases where the policy being ignored is heavily contested. I hope people aren't confusing Coffee's followup as Leonard's response. Anyway, of what I've seen of Leonard, I think he'll make a good admin. <big>
'''Support''' Seems clueful. Good contributions and answers to questions.  '''

'''Support''' Here we have an excellent editor who will do similarly excellent work with the tools. He's got article work &ndash; I enjoyed reading his GAs, such as [[Big Stick ideology]] &ndash; and a solid understanding of policy. I personally think his answers to questions 12 and 13 inspire confidence, and I obviously am not taking Coffee's views on IAR into account as they are immaterial. This candidate will be a capable admin and deserves our trust.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions and a good, clueful editor. -
'''[[WP:100]]'''. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose'''. While housekeeping and other daily chores are important, I also prefer a good deal of content contribution, which I simply dont see with only 15 articles created.  Good content contribution work is a healthy antidote against potential harsh treatment of content contributors (newbies and IPs included) and cognitive problems with understanding the wider implications of [[WP:IMPERFECT]] - a number of admins unfortunately do exhibit these traits, and we certainly don't need more of those.  I'm not saying that you will be so, just that I want admins that have demonstrated that they actually can row the boat, not only directing how other editors should do so.
Reluctant '''oppose''', unless he clarifies that IAR should '''rarely''' be used for admin actions, and '''never''' unless in support of policy or consensus.  He may have been tricked into it, but we'll see.  —
'''Oppose''' per your answer to Coffee questions as DGG explained.
'''Oppose''' Especially about IAR.
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about his troubling views regarding policies.
'''Oppose''' per DGG.  While I differ with your answer to the "rights" question, that's just semantics.  The IAR/BLP interactions are not.
Switched from oppose. Now neutral leaning support. I'm still concerned about IAR interpretation but his most recent clarification looks like it has covered most of those issues.
Moved from support. Outside the IAR question, this candidate is superlative.
Moved from oppose, on the hope that the  revised answers are the genuine  ones '''
'''Support'''. My thoughts are that allocating admin rights for specific purposes like this is a good idea, and I see no reason to suspect the candidate will abuse it. Edit count here on en.wiki might appear low, but we have someone here who is active across other wikis, including Commons, so I don't see that as a problem. --
Why not?
'''Support''' - Leyo is here to build an encyclopedia, understands the policies of this wiki ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=375818506 AIV example]), and seeks out and [[User_talk:Beetstra/Archive_14#List_of_category_for_local_structural_formulas |communicates intelligently with users on intricate points of templates and images]]. It can also be said there is an unmet need (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=376065266&oldid=376064110 this archived, unanswered thread]) that would have been avoided with the bit. (Maybe there was a better place to ask, but still...nobody even responded.) Leyo is ready to hit the ground running and do even more for the project. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. I see good work from this candidate - and I know we focus on en.wiki here, as well we should, but the high quality of the candidate's work on other projects cannot be discounted. I'd ask that they tread lightly in other policy areas, until they're more familiar with en wiki's quirks, but I'd say that to any new admin. Good luck,
'''Support''' The edit count here is low, but with 50K edits overall, not a concern. The promise to use only a subset of the tools is a potential concern, but there's no way to enforce that. In some cases, that would concern me, but given status as a sysop on Commons, and dewicki, I'm confident this editor is not likely to begin blocking without making quite sure it is appropriate. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' - Leyo's technical knowledge and contributions on other projects outweighs the low editcount here. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
Overall Good work. So '''Support'''--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="#FD0000">Talk</font><font color="#FFBF00">tome</font>]]<sup>(
No objections. These are the sort of specialist tasks we should be glad anybody ''wants'' to do...  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' - he will do even better in the future -
'''Support''' Sure <font color="Darkorange">
'''Support''' Commons and de sysop who could use the tools here, and has done good work here?  Letting him self-serve instead of tracking down a local admin can only make things more smooth.
'''Support''' Compelling use for buttons, good people.
'''Support''' If an engineer asks for a screwdriver, has used a screwdriver before, and can tell you why he needs another screwdriver for a paticular project, then it's generally a good idea to hand over the tool. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Usually I don't support admins based on promises to use their tools in certain areas only.  In this case though, I believe there is enough evidence in the past history to convince me that the candidate isn't going to drift to other areas lightly.--
'''Support'''. I like this candidate's reasoning and their work, and I like Pedro's rationale. Give Leyo a toolbox with a screwdriver in it, please, and should he ever need a hammer he won't need to search for it.
'''Support''' Well, an admin on Commons and an admin on German Wikipedia. Should get the same amount of trust with the tools on English Wikipedia too.
'''Support''' Looks competent and trustworthy to me, so why not? Looks like the tools will be put to good use.
'''Support'''. Normally I'd have reservations because of the lack of edits on English wikipedia. But the admin roles at the other wikis convinced me.
'''Support''' sounds like a good idea to have some one working on the backlog.
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' Well Deserved

Despite the editcount, Leyo will be able to do the job.
'''support''' --
'''Support''' - Quality beats quantity. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
Looks like a fantastic candidate. ~~
'''Support''' Competent and trustworthy, the candidate's sysop nomination on German Wikipedia passed with flying colors (126/8/27) and was without opposition on Commons--

'''Support'''. What Courcelles said.
'''Support''' - No problems here.
Eh, trusted and experienced elsewhere, has a pretty good track record here, so why not? <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Opposes aren't convincing.
'''Support''' – If he's trusted with the mop at de and meta, he can be trusted here. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
Demonstrated need for the tools, the competence to use them properly, and has been given the community's trust on other wikis. That outweighs the minimal chance that he/she will delete TFA with a deletion reason written in substandard English. --
He is an administrator on both Commons and the German Wikipedia with good edits here. On his talk page and this RfA, his ability to communicate in English looks just fine to me.
Per [[User:Vodello|Vodello]]. Opposes are quite frankly baseless. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
'''Support'''. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not]]. --
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, and if it'll help in his interproject commons work --
'''Support'''. Good contributions. There are minor issues regarding grammar and communication, but not bad enough to prevent my support.
'''Support'''. Has specified a good reason for using the administrator tools, and prior experience on other projects gives no indication that he will abuse them.
'''Support''' - As a general rule I don't support this kind of RfA.  But it appears you have quite a bit of experience, and a lot of work with Commons.  If the work you want to do all deals with commons files, then I support you picking up the mop and tidying up.  Since your home project seems to be de.wiki and you only have 3k edits here, I'll expect you keep a narrow focus here and stick to the areas you have specified.  --'''
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.

'''Support''' adminship on other wikis suggests dedication to the wiki and cross-wiki tools is a good thing.
'''Support''' - Work in Commons and de shows experience. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support.'''
'''Support''': There's nothing wrong him to become an administrator. He'll be a good administrator. <b>
'''Firm Support''' well intentioned dedicated and in my view proven editor. a net positive here. I have zero concerns at this time
'''Support'''—dedicated and knowledgable, as evidenced by a sampling of their contributions. Also being trusted with sysop tools on other Wikipedias is also a plus, and I offer my full support.
'''Support''', I can't find any reason not to, nor any reason to believe the candidate will act abusively with the tools.
'''Unqualified support'''. Good editor, good reputation on both de and commons. We need more admins with specialist knowledge. --
'''Weak Support''' While I appreciate that this user is an admin on two other projects and does far more creation work than deletion work, I still would like for all admins to be at least comfortable with implementing deletions and blocks. The candidate clearly knows how to do these things, as he is already familiar with the tools, I just wish that I had more assurance that he is willing to use them if push comes to shove. <span style="text-shadow:#0099ff 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Support'''. Legitimate need for tools for reasonable cross-project work. It's grunt-work that nobody wants to do, and here's someone willing and already able to do one side of it, and trying to avoid creating more work for others in the process? Sounds good to me!--not like we have a dearth of backlogged admin and admin-esque tasks here. I appreciate that editor knows own limits of experience and is willing to work within them and/or be trouted-or-worse if problems arise in other areas. All admins were newbie admins once and didn't know the intricacies of all of it at first, so having not-much-experience in the .en admin realm isn't a concern to me. But knowing the general idea of being an admin and being trusted with buttons on other major projects gives me confidence he can be trusted in general to do it right or to learn quickly or to avoid making major messes without first seeking collaboration.
'''Strong support'''. Leyo is a very experienced editor, even if s/he might seem "discrete" on enwiki. Discretion is often the better part of valour, especially for someone unto whom we are entrusting the mop and bucket to clean up after other editors' mistakes. Leyo's contributions to chemistry articles on enwiki are widely appreciated, and his commitment to discussion between projects on chemical topics is extraordinary. Enwiki should have no hesitation in giving this user the tools s/he thinks necessary to further improve the encyclopedia (in all its languages).
'''Support''' - per above. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' I'd have preferred it if you warned more of the vandals who you revert, and I think you slightly overruse the minor edits option, if you've set your preferences to default to minor edits you might consider setting it the other way. As for the language issue, I'm concerned at the risk that the various language versions of Wikipedia could diverge too far and welcome multilingual cross project editors as part of the glue that holds Wikimedia together. ''
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable user. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' Rather than seeing good but imperfect English as a negative, I see non-native English speakers as a positive addition to en.wikipedia and imperfections as something that "comes along with" that benefit. By "positives", I nod to the potential importance of being able to work with other non-English-centric wikis, non-English sources, and non-native-English speaking editors. Variety makes Wikipedia stronger, not weaker. While I intend to look more closely at the concern expressed elsewhere about WikiCommons, I respectfully don't see that as a reason for me to oppose this editor in particular. Mostly: Good contributions, can be trusted, Why Not? --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Leyo is a trusted user that I have interacted with both here and on Commons.  I have full confidence that he will handle the tools here appropriately.  --
'''Support''' his English is fine. Superior, in fact, to that of many "native" speakers.
'''Support''' I see no reason to suggest he would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No red flags, experience and commitment is demonstrated. No doubt this editor would be an asset to the project as an admin. --
'''Support'''. Admins should not delete images on enwiki without making sure the Commons equivalent contains ''all'' the information of the original upload. Sadly, lots of people seem to do this so we need people like Leyo to clean up their messes.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', user appears to have Clue.
'''Support''' Really experienced, long-term wikipedian, no reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. Thus, you have my support!
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Jolly good folk some of these wogs, including this one. Bully for Johnny Foreigner!
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' —
'''Support''' --<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
Forgot I hadn't '''support'''ed :) '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Strong Support:'''  I took offense at Colonel Warden's statement, '''''"OPPOSE My general experience of foreign editors coming here to make rote edits is not good. They seem to operate in a bureaucratic, high-handed fashion and do not communicate well."''''' Prejudice and bigotry have no place on Wikipedia. A candidate should be judged on his or her edits only. -
'''Support''' No issues here.--
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Looks good.
--
I don't know who is this user, nor what they do, but per the comments above, I think they'll do fine. --
'''Support'''. I'm sure Leyo will not abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' per Colonel Warden.
Erm... I'm neutral but a bit up so I must go with '''Weak Support'''. But still '''Support''', don't worry. --'''
'''Support''' Admin in 2 other Projects,see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' - useful cross-wiki work in relation to chemical structures, wanting to be able to take care of the en:wp loose ends is a reasonable request.  In addition, user has demonstrated trustworthiness in other projects, and is scientifically literate - something we need more of amongst the en:wp admin corps, in my opinion
'''Support''' . Would be a net positive in area of administrative duties in which Leyo intends to work. No indication would abuse the tools in any way.--''
'''Support''' I've seen the quality of the editor's work and I think that this is a good candidate for admin duties.
'''Support''' I see no problems which would give me cause to oppose -- '''''
All seems fine to me.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' My general experience of foreign editors coming here to make rote edits is not good. They seem to operate in a bureaucratic, high-handed fashion and do not communicate well.  I do a little sampling and soon find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dioxin_(chemical)&diff=318237481&oldid=318237248 this].  This is marked as a minor edit but appears to be removing a large number of interwiki links for no good reason.
The answer to Q1 isn't persuasive as a special-circumstances request, and the candidate's English is inadequate.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral - see discussion there). Candidate intends to cooperate with Commons, but did not see a clear violation of COM:FOP and a shakey license claim. Yes, it's a copper fish, and no, it's not uploader's "own work", it's a derivative work.
I've changed my vote to '''neutral''' because, although I'm still a bit uneasy about your low edit count on Wikipedia, your work on other wikis is impressive.
'''Neutral''' - I would be an oppose if I didn't fully agree with Cube lurker's reasoning above. This is a special case. However in most other instances I would say the low experience on this wiki and the communication issues are significant. There's a lot of subtlety to how policies work and the reason we have the firewalls between the various wikis is for ''exactly'' that reason. There's an intangible feeling for how the system works that's necessary in an admin and fluency in the wiki (this is broader than language or edit count alone, although both factor in) is crucial. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but you can't just brush those concerns off without at least considering them.
'''Neutral''' - I want to oppose because Leyo wants/needs to use only a very small portion of the tools which he/she would be given access to if granted adminship.  I want to support because, on the whole, Leyo appears to be a great editor.  Therefore, I am neutral.
'''Neutral''' more or less per Snottywong with the additional note that I feel your English language skills appear to be below the bar I'd hope for in an admin here.  Given your stated intent of avoiding ANI and the like, it's not enough to oppose over however.
yes. Clear net positive. Has the 'pedia's best interests at heart and happy to discuss issues and negotiate.
'''Support''' Good contributions and good common sense. --[[User talk:intelati|<font color="#FD0000">Talk</font><font color="#FFBF00">tome</font>]]<sup>(
'''Support'''. Brains, what else can I say.
'''Support''' Seems to be conscientious, thoughtful, and careful.  --
'''Support''' Clean log, supporting due to ref. desk involvment. Long standing editor. plus one
'''Support''' Established and experienced user, talk page archive oozes [[User:Pgallert/RfA_voting_criteria|clue]]. No hesitation to support him. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a great contributor with plenty of experience in admin-related/interaction areas. I like the answers to the questions too. --
'''Strong Support''', looks great.
'''Strong Support''' A trusted contributor. Deserves my support. Good answer to Q14 (even though I didn't expect the answer to be full quality!).
'''Strong Support''' Looks solid to me, why not?
'''Support''' I think he should get his own mop!
'''Support''' The candidate appears to be dedicated, trustworthy, clueful, cerebral --
'''Support''' Has a [[WP:CLUE]].
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns.
Sure. No problems with this one. --
'''Support''' Mature, level-headed, common sense editor. No problems supporting. --
'''Support''' Looks great in every way.
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' appears clueful and reliable to me. I like the work in dispute-related areas; the desire to deal with conflicts and awkward editors, and still work towards a nice resolution rather than nuking from orbit is - I think - useful preparation for working with the mop. (But I'm not an admin, so what do I know?)
'''Strong support'''. An excellent candidate, level headed, easy going, civil, knowledgable and experienced with wikipedia's policies, guidelines and proceedures, very productive content contributer and good at handling disputes. I had previously tried to persuade this candidate to run for adminship about a year or so ago and I am glad to see they are now running. Also per Quartermaster.--
'''Support'''.--''
'''Support'''. Seems positive and level-headed; good to have a content contributor who is also active in other areas (noticeboards, talk pages, etiquette board, reference desk, etc.).
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. Here's a candidate where I can truly say that I have worked closely with them many times! I am solidly confident that Looie will be an administrator who is clueful about both content and conduct, and who has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. This is someone who thinks critically for himself, and who knows how to behave like a grown-up person. --
'''Support''' – Will be a great addition to the admin group. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. Your contributions are good, as are your answers to the optional questions.
<s>'''Weak Support'''</s> '''Strong Support''' Would do a great job as an admin. Excellent answer to my question, I can rethink my previous thoughts. Best of luck.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with Salvio insofar the responses to Q4 and Q8 aren't perfect, but to my mind that's offset by the cautious answer to Q1.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The answer to my question wasn't what I expected, but it's fine.
'''Support''' Substantial editing record, thoughtful answers to RfA questions... looks good to me.
'''Support'''. No problems here. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
From the record and answers to the questions, it is clear that the candidate is a skilled, mature and responsible editor who'll make for a very good administrator. Thank you for nominating yourself. --
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. --<font color="black">

excellent candidate. ''
'''Support''' I see no problems :) —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' --<b><font color=red>
Some of the answers are iffy to me (5, 8), but I don't think it's a major issue at this point. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' You seem to have the trust of others even though we have knowingly never interacted. Good luck.
Expert in the field they edit in, solid editing history, no major concerns with answers to questions. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' Will do fine.
'''Support''' Reasonable answers to questions, no issues raised that worry me.
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions. I don't see any problems with any of the edits. --
'''Support'''. Well experienced and qualified.
Whenever I've encountered the editor's work I've been impressed, and based on what I can see of their contributions I have no trouble supporting. -
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Answers are fine, edit history looks competent, response to oppose below was encouraging, levels of head-screwed-on-ness are manifestly high.
'''Support'''. I see nothing that suggests it would be unwise to support, and plenty to suggest it would be positive to give this intelligent, productive user the tools. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Kind-of confused with the opening statement at the beginning, but really a great editor who will mop well '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">:</span>]]
'''Support''', builds content, seems sensible.  No major concerns here.
'''Support''' I have no concerns. &mdash;
'''Support''' No valid reason to oppose at this time.
concerned about lack of recent mainspace contributions, but no that concered to oppose. -
'''Passable.''' --
'''Strong support''' great content and copyedit contributor, diplomatic and sensible.
'''Support''' – Appears sensible and communicative. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' – No red flags that I'd be concerned about brought up yet.  Content contributor to an important article.
'''Support''' No red flags. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' - Seems like a reasonable editor.
'''Support''' - I'm convinced. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' Yes, of course. Trusted long-time contributor. '''''
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' - Great work on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Anyone that can take a major article to FA knows what they are doing.  And more importantly, how to keep there noses out of what they don't understand until they do understand. (That would be me ''not'' touching neuroscience, for the record.)
'''Support''' Generally clueful and a strong editor; I think I have disagreed with you in the past, but your positions tend to be reasonable and clearly expressed. I particularly like your answers to Q#9 (admins as a body should be predictable) and Q#15 (it is important to be aware of perceptions and potential ramifications). Q#4 almost puts me in the next section, though; the explicit promise not to apply a unilateral ban and your approach to problem solving reassure me that you will not make a big deal of the position. Also, we do have [[WP:RESTRICT]] for central logging of ArbCom and community imposed restrictions. -
'''Support''' per objections raised in neutral comments 1 and 2 and opposing comment 3. I often skip straight to opposing and neutral comments when I come to a new RfA; I was pleased with what I read this time. Personally I like that ''"this just seems to be a really generic RfA; I can't think of anything unusual at all about it. I suppose a completely formulaic RfA is a sign of a good candidate"'' <small>(neutral comment 1)</small>; we need all the drama-free admins we can get. Likewise, I disagree with the objection to Looie's statement he ''""especially hate[s] to see cases where a new editor puts a lot of effort into edits that show clear expertise in a topic, and then somebody comes along and reverts the whole thing because of some niggling policy violation"'' <small>(neutral comment 2)</small>. We need more editors that can add great content; a good admin (or any editor) will work with the new editor to fix the policy issue. As for opposing comment <s>3</s> 4, ''"I can't support someone who starts off their RfA stating areas that they wont work in"'' -- it doesn't bother me; some specialization among admins is a good thing in my experience. I know I better serve Wikipedia sticking to a few areas I really understand well (like spam) and that others may not. Note that these objections by others were thoughtfully made and I don't mean to criticize them; I just draw different conclusions from the same data. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' No issues.  Good editor.
'''Support''' - good to see neuroscientists on the rise. -
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. I can't find a single reason to suggest you'd abuse it or that you'd make it into a big deal.
'''Support''': Great editor which will not abuse its powers.--
'''Support''' Unreservedly. Looie is modest, helpful, collaborative, no-dramas. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' The wiki pages that the user usually edits could need another admin, and a quick look through the scope revealed no major drama, so yes. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Looie496. —
'''Support''' - Although I have a few reservations regarding this candidate (it isn't the job of an administrator to boss anyone around), they appear in the overall sense to be a very competent editor who knows their own strengths and weaknesses and plays to them superbly. Please keep it up.
'''Support''' - This user will make a good admin. ---
'''Support''' Oppose #4 still doesn't sway me: etiquette warning was fine imho and a little exasperation in the face of having to issue multiple warnings to vandalism-only accounts is excusable. He now sees that it was a (small) error in judgment to have phrased it so.
'''Support''' This is the type of admins we need.
'''Support''' - with his strong involvement in high-need content area, it's clear that he's the type of editor Wikipedia needs, and I saw nothing on the oppose section that really swayed me.
'''Support''' - Looks like a good candidate, take your time and take care using your tools in your main contributory area.
'''Support''' Raised eyebrows just a little re the Opp#4 issue but agree with Shawn@#78 re context and response. An experienced, intelligent and dramah-free candidate. Most pertinently, IMO, for Looie496 the tools will provide valuable assistance with his content contributions (substantial and of excellent quality) rather than status in some MMORPGesque peergroup.
'''Support''' Good content contributions, clueful responses to questions (8, 12, 15, etc.) --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Our paths have only crossed a couple of times. However, in the few dealings I've had with Looie, I've known him to act with reason and maturity. I have no doubt he will use the bits responsibly.
'''Support''' looks good to me. ''<B>--
'''Strong support.''' Fully qualified candidate. I find the opposers' concerns to be completely unpersuasive.
'''Support''' no issues, good candidate -
'''Support''' good history, good attitude--<small><b><i>Club<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font></i></b><sup>
'''Support''', helpful, knowledgeable, will be an asset.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Appears to be a very good editor and the project will benefit if he becomes an administrator.--''
Suggested it a long while ago... excellent candidate. '''
Looks like a good candidate. No problems that I can see. ~~
Edits look great. Answers to questions are generally excellent (the one on IAR misses the point a little bit, I think, though I agree about the urge to joke about it).  All in all, you look like a great candidate.--<span style="font-family: Orlando">
'''Support''' From everything I have seen should make a very good administrator.
'''Support''' Good editor with no red flags for me. looking at Looie's comment at oppose#5, I'll happily support someone who's so aware of their own limitations; it demonstrates clue. --
'''Support''' I generally agree with Lou's overall philosophy; I especially like the answer to the last question: Authority is demanded from the RfA process.
'''Support''' No real issues here.--
'''Support''': not seeing any problems. We're all volunteers, and can choose not to work in certain areas if we want to. Not wanting to close deletion discussions seems reasonable, though I agree with Black Kite that it does call into question the candidate's willingness to "get their hands dirty". But it's entirely possible for an admin to mop up quietly behind the scenes.
'''Support''': Of course. ([[WP: 100]])! '''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''': No concerns. I am glad that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Looie496&diff=389422263&oldid=389417883 explained] why he doesn't want to close AfDs.
'''Support''': He's done a lot for Wikipedia. <b>
'''Support'''—a knowledgable and capable user. I see no evidence saying that they will be anything but a competent and able administrator.
'''Support''' overall, yes.
'''Support:''' I like his honesty. -
'''Support:'''  - without  any reservation.  I  ''trust''  this candidate, who  most certainly  has far higher levels of civility and maturity than those I have come to  regard as major criteria.--
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. --
'''Support''' I think this candidate can do the job...
'''Support''' Absolutely! This user can clearly be trusted to think and keep a level head when using the tools.
I don't see why not.
'''Support''' He is clear about content issues when others aren't.
'''Weak oppose'''. I'm sorry to be the first to oppose, because I think that you're a great editor. That said, I don't particularly like your answer to question 4; more importantly, however, your answer to question 8 is the real dealbreaker, since you'd like to work on AIV. There are some cases where a block is warranted even if an editor has not been warned (such as legal threats, cases under [[WP:CHILDPROTECT]], ducks, inappropriate usernames, open proxies and others). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Q5. "The sky is blue" is either 1) exactly the kind of fact you can state without giving a source per [[WP:V]], or 2) you're being so scientific in having us ponder whether the sky is actually blue that you're unlikely to communicate effectively with us common folk.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|my criteria]].  I can't support someone who starts off their RfA stating areas that they wont work in.  That's a quickfail for me.  --'''
'''Oppose'''  I didn't arrive here without a lot of consideration.  Looie seems to be someone primarily interested in content, and writing an encyclopedia, not drama.  That's always a big plus.  However, one big flaw seems to be the misunderstanding of the way authority works around here.  Administrators have access to additional tools, not additional authority (for the most part).  Edits like these raise concerns in my mind: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=385658828] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr_abbey&diff=prev&oldid=383194255].  A final, more subjective, concern is that I'm afraid of what Looie will become.  With such ill-specified reasons given for pursuing adminship, I wonder if getting the bit will indulge the side of his editing that is not as interested in content contribution, and is more interested in exercising authority, real or imagined.
This is a technical oppose, because this is going to pass and I actually think Looie will be a fine admin, but seriously, if you don't think that you're qualified to close deletion debates, then it does sort of bring into question your judgement on everything else.  AfDs are the most contentious area of Wikipedia, and by saying that you give the impression that you aren't willing to touch anything that might be controversial.  But that's what admins have to do, unfortunately.  As I say, this is only technical, and good luck, but it might be worth bearing in mind.
'''Oppose''' Frankly very concerned about an admin candidate not intending to understand deletion policy.  This is the very basic minimum knowledge and experience level required of an admin, and I am actually a little shocked this adminship appears as it will pass considering this basic requirement seems to be fail in this case.  Nothing personal Looie, but well-honed skill in deletion debates, reviews and the accompanying discussions are paramount for access to the admin tools. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤
'''Oppose''' per the airy response to Q1. -
I've been looking over recent contribs, question answers, etc., and this just seems to be a really generic RfA; I can't think of anything unusual at all about it. I suppose a completely formulaic RfA is a sign of a good candidate (per [[WP:DEAL]], etc.), but I generally don't support RfAs without a reason to, so here I am in Neutral. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 19:00, 4 October 2010 (
I appreciate your considered responses to my questions. Normally I'd support based on your answers but when you say you "especially hate to see cases where a new editor puts a lot of effort into edits that show clear expertise in a topic, and then somebody comes along and reverts the whole thing because of some niggling policy violation — there could hardly be any behavior more destructive to the future of Wikipedia," and can't provide examples of it happening, I can't support. More often than not if a policy has been violated, policy is more important (IAR aside); the good parts of the edits can be reinserted if those meet the policy guideline. So I'm '''neutral'''. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
I think this is the first time I've ever found myself in the neutral column, but I felt motivated to point out to the candidate in response to his answer to question 4 that it is most definitely ''not'' the role of administrators to issue orders to anyone. Had this RfA been in the balance I would have opposed.
'''Support''' As nom. -'''
Per my confidence in the nominator and the need for more admins who know what they're doing in the file namespace.
'''Support''' Looks like a solid addition to the admin team.
'''Support'''. Let me just say that my heart dropped when I started reading his answer to question 3 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Magog_the_Ogre/Admin_coaching/Lesson_1&diff=362735704&oldid=362718081 here] about blocking in his admin coaching until I got to the last sentence of his answer; that sentence allowing me to breathe a sigh of relief. Solid contributor, especially in the realm of images. Somewhat taciturn, like myself, but quite cordial. Clean block log. From my examination of his Wikipedia namespace contribs, appears to have good grasp of policy. Knows where to go to get answers to his questions. It's a green light from me.
Familiar with Magog's work, and remember the last RfA. File admins are needed, and he's a good candidate! '''
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''  - Also  confidence in  the nom. A serious coaching  programme that  has answered most  of the things I  look  for.  A serious editing  history that  supports the candidate's RfA. --
'''Support''' Good answer on #3.
'''Support''' - Per Kudpung '''[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' A dedicated editor with the good of the project in mind.
'''Support''' As per Fastily and the candidate has worked and overcome the concerns raised in the previous RFA.
'''Support''' at this point I have a good feeling about MtO's nominations. However I would not like the admin work to detract from the good map work.
'''Support''' Longterm user with a cleanblock log and judging from their talkpage an Ogre by name but not by nature. As for the referencing of articles, I'm happy to judge the candidate by their [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andr%C3%A9s_Montes&diff=prev&oldid=320502748 more recent articles]. The point I take from their earliest articles is that they weren't ready to be an admin when they wrote them. I'm supporting now because I think they are ready now. ''
'''Strong support'''—my recent interactions with Magog have all been overwhelmingly positive. He has shown a vast amount of knowledge in the file area and has helped a new user in a place where I didn't know nearly as much (the file namespace). We need more admins working with files. I did oppose his last RfA, but I no longer think experience is an issue, per the nomination and my own experiences with the user. Best of luck, Magog!
'''Support''', no concerns, have seen this editor doing good work.
'''Support'''. File space work is great, article creation acceptable, policy knowledge seemingly fine. No reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposer's rationale but I do not believe weighs heavily against the candidate that he was conservative on the issue of a logo's being copyrightable. I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I suspect it would come as a surprise to in-house counsel at the company using that logo that Wikipedia has declared it to be non-copyrightable subject-matter (do we know if the logo was registered at the copyright office? we do know from the file that it has been trademarked). Taken literally, that means not only that we can use it in articles without a fair-use rationale, but theoretically we could plaster it anywhere in the world we please (although I anticipate the response that perhaps ruling it isn't copyrightable doesn't mean it's not trademarkable). In any event, I don't see this as a basis for opposing the candidate, although I do appreciate having learned a new fact about Wikipedia today; I've been here four years but I don't do much image work and I'd never even heard of [[WP:PUF]] before. As for the BLPs, while consensus now agrees that these require sourcing, I find the candidate's response to this concern satisfactory, and it remains a category mistake to consider a simply unreferenced but non-controversial BLP as being in the same vein as a defamatory or privacy-invading one.
'''Support''' - Looks like a great candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' Will do just fine.
'''Support''' No problems --<font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' There are pretty much always file-related backlogs here (and worse ones on Commons!) so someone with clue in that department is always a useful addition to the team. I've no qualms about this candidate.
'''Support''' because if Fastily supports with anything other than "Why not?" then the candidate must be qualified :) <small> ...and per we need file-related backlog admins, but '''Support''' all the same!</small> '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">~</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks great. --
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Strong support''' well-rounded, fully-qualified. The candidate is someone who has taken all the right steps in preparing for the role of sysop since his first RfA--
'''Support''' I haven't encountered the user before but looks like he'll be a net positive on the balance of evidence :)

'''Support''' I think this candidate will do a good job...
I have seen only good things from this candidate. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support'''
Looks like a good candidate. ~~
'''Support''' Good work with files will always score highly with me. Candidate also comes highly recommended, and a review of his contribs shows nothing to conern me. Support as net positive. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Yes!
'''Yeah, okay'''.
'''Support''' Positive contributor; well validated background; promise and potential for the future as an administrator.
'''Support''' - More file backlog clearing admins would be useful. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here. ''<B>--
'''Support''' appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Support''' -

'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' He fixed the BLPs mentioned in the Oppose section. '''
'''Support''', but take into consideration the concern listed in the oppose section.
'''Weak support''' doesn't meet my levels of expected content contribution, but seems to have a good head on his shoulders and gave clueful answers to policy questions.
'''Support''' Good answers, good contributions, particularly recently. A note about edit count regularity: My work life plays havoc on the regularity of my own contributions, as long as someone is relatively consistent, and/or knows that after a long break that they might be out of date and might need to exercise extra care (which to me seems a basic issue of the sort of judgment I want to see in an admin anyway), edit count irregularity doesn't concern me, and that appears to be the case here.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Good answers and good contributions; images needs good administrators. Just try not to leave for too long without reading up again!
'''Support'''. Experienced and smart editor, wants to work in areas that need it and clearly understands them well. --
'''Support'''. An exceptionally good editor nominated by someone who has a pretty good head for picking admin candidates. I don't see anything to make me think this editor isn't right for the job.
'''Strong support'''. Understands the policies, seems levelheaded and bright, and there just aren't any good reasons to oppose that haven't been addressed by the candidate's actions; even the reasons to oppose were tenuous at best. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - reviewer, rollbacker, long-time editor.
'''Support''' Darn tootin'!
'''Support:''' I believe the time has arrived! -
'''Support'''. The extra year of editing and preparation makes this one easy; adminship for this candidate will certainly be a net positive for the project.
'''Support'''. Candidate has given the answers I look for in the questions that have been asked. Seems knowledgable and trustworthy with the tools. ~
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience all over the encyclopedia, informed answers to questions in this RfA, no concerns. Magog has come a long way since the last RfA a year ago. -- '''
'''Support''' This user looks well qualified and would make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Don't see any problems here.
Not being familiar with the candidate or his/her nominated areas of activity, and having reviewed Explicit's early oppose, I've been waiting to see if the opposes materialised into anything more extensive in terms of evidence of lack of experience or competence in the nominated areas of activity. They haven't, so in light of the solid experience, testaments from those who are experienced in the nominated areas of activity, the way the candidate has responded to the oppose, and the good answers to questions, I'm glad to support.--
'''Support''' no problems, pile on support
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''' Excellent history, clear and good answers to the questions, should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' per all of the above. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - Have seen work at various image-related discussions & think would make a good sysop.
'''Support'''  '''

'''Oppose'''. I've seen Magog the Ogre plenty at [[WP:PUF]] and I'm concern of his employment (or lack thereof) of the [[threshold of originality]] concept. For example, he [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 10#File:CamelBak Logo.jpeg|nominated]] [[:File:CamelBak Logo.jpeg]] for deletion on the grounds that "I disagree that the arrangement of colors, the arrangement of changing font of the letters (larger font for the C and the K), and the line do not have enough creativity to exist for copyright." The logo is simply not copyrightable, and his assertion that the differing font size, color arrangement and a simple line beneath the company's name is creative enough to merit copyright leads me to believe that Magog the Ogre will mishandle these types of files that simply can't being anything ''but'' the under public domain. There was a similar [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 15#File:Rachel zoe project logo.jpg|nomination]] with [[:File:Rachel zoe project logo.jpg]] as well. A more recent example is with the nomination of [[:File:Ethanol.gif]], where he states: "I see no reason to believe this is PD." Again, not copyrightable. Secondly, I see very little evidence of the candidate interacting with the community. Aside from his own and Fastily's talk page, the most edited user talk pages consist mostly of notices. Most edited article talk page... 16 edits. I simply do not see sufficient amount of activity where Magog the Ogre jumps in and interacts with the community; it seems a need for the community to reach out to him. Reviewing Magog the Ogre's first RFA (which will reach it's one year anniversary later this month), I noticed that there was concern with creations of unsourced biographies and [[WP:BLP]]. Reviewing those articles, I see that there's been little to no improvement to these articles—most of which were completely unreferenced to begin with, and still are to this day. All these concerns add up and it worries me to see a potential admin with this type of history under his belt. —
'''Oppose''' – I believe that Magog needs more time to ripen as an editor before being granted an administrator position. I do not question his value in general, I merely believe that he needs more experience. I only have encountered Magog in [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 23|thirteen puf challenges]] of images that he issued against me on one day last month. Seemingly triggered by one image uploaded at that time, however, he then opened my gallery of uploaded images and selected twelve unrelated images, essentially for a single concern, that had been uploaded over several years (and obviously had been reviewed when uploaded) that he also challenged. I believe this was imprudent because of the overwhelming sense of an assault that could not be addressed adequately in the allotted two weeks for a response before the images were deleted (while one image could have served until the general issue was resolved for the twelve and then extrapolated).  I also found it very difficult to understand his challenge of the first image. When that finally had been clarified and the validity of the upload was apparent, he directed me to others to seek a solution (all over again) that he identified as a policy to "ease" the process. It certainly did not ease the process for me, adding an additional burden. Regarding the twelve files, none are illegal. As I attempted to address the fundamental issue of his concern, I found repeatedly that he did not read what I presented.  I provided the lengthy text of the relevant law (for his convenience) and other support materials that, '''''granted''''', were in poor format, but nonetheless, were the basis for legal upload. He declined to read the legal material and asked for a link to it instead (curious, because he still would have had to read it). I found that he had no knowledge of the valid legal basis I had for the uploads and unfortunately, relied upon a simplistic prevailing philosophy here that aided his prompt rejection of my premise. Other editors read the same materials I presented and came to the conclusion that I was correct, yet he persisted without seeming to read the opinions presented. One editor even provided the supporting advice of the attorney overseeing the information I uploaded. This was not addressed by Magog while he kept returning to a statement from a short article about one irrelevant peripheral subject in the laws. When for the second time I directed him to the existing template that should properly have been attached to the uploads, I discovered that he had changed the template so that it asserted his misinterpretation of the laws. The result was a template that now would be most misleading (and support his argument in the unresolved debate).  That is a serious concern.  I believe that he now realizes that he should not have done that, but remember that it was discovered only because I looked at it again.  The debate remains in progress (endlessly) although I asked several times for it to be advanced to a higher level if he remained confused.  Several times I have been left for days without responses to my replies.  I do not want anyone to presume that I am making this objection because of Magog’s challenge of my uploads.  That is unresolved, but I believe that the correct decision will be made&mdash;however&mdash;please consider my insight about his needing to continue to develop his skills in this area where he frequently works and my concern that in all areas he read the materials presented in arguments in order to make the correct decisions which will shorten the process and make it just, and most importantly, to seek advice if necessary. Developing these skills is essential for an administrator and will prevent valid responders from abandoning their objectives in simple frustration when they fail to persist as I have&mdash;the encyclopedia will benefit greatly.  Eventually, Magog will deserve the status he is seeking. ----
'''Oppose'''. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Wittgensteins_1890.jpg&curid=28724090&diff=383460938&oldid=383218685 arrived on Sept 7] at an [[:File:The Wittgensteins 1890.jpg|image of Ludwig Wittgenstein's family from 1890]] that was tagged PD-old-50 (meaning the author had died over 50 years ago), and tagged it PD-US-abroad-1923, which requires that it was published before 1923. We don't know when this image was first published. I asked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre&oldid=383856982#Wittgenstein.27s_image on his talk page] if he had a source for the publication date, and he said no. It seems he just added that tag randomly. I asked him to revert himself, and he declined; said I could do it myself. He did this while the RfA was ongoing, which doesn't bode well. <font color="blue">
'''Oppose'''.   Effort (and an extensive one at that!) to remove content for which PD-FLGov clearly applied (and which is, in turn, well-documented)  indicates poor judgement, IMO. --
At this time I am Neutral on the issue because, while I don't for a minute doubt what Magog does is helpful, I have some concerns. The question I asked above arose because of a deletion discussion that is not uncommon, but the reply seemed to "neat" of an answer, almost as if that is the "correct" answer but, more important, the comment that "it's important to read all <b>or near all</b> of the text..." (Bold added for emphasis) worries me. A question posed by another editor stated that Magog ''had close to 2000 edits in the past 30 plus days or so'' and that concerns me as well. So it is not that I doubt that Magog's "heart" is in the right place and their work ethic is a good one, my concern right now is they would overwhelmed with information and the added "duties".
Please note that this is a neutral, which to all intents and purposes is the same as commenting but not voting. I'm slightly concerned that you were reasonably inactive for four months, and then a mini spike before RfA 1, then relatively low activity for a year followed by a huge surge of interest before RfA 2. Don't get me wrong, 100 edits a month is fine. I just question whether your understanding of the way things work is through experience you have built up over time, or predominantly through the last 30 days. While I'm satisfied that you are a good thing for the project and as far as I can tell have sufficient common sense, I question whether your understanding of the consensus view will be the same in 12 or 18 months' time, given that policies, guidelines and general views have a tendency of evolving. --
Mainly per WFCforLife.  The burst of activity makes me think this might be an attempt to grab all the brass rings.  I do not think an admin has to be dragged to the mop kicking and screaming, but I've always been a little concerned about bursts like that just before a RfA.  That being said, the candidate certainly seems qualified, so I may look back at this later and change my !vote, especially if it begins to matter.--
'''Beat-the-nom Support'''—I've seen only good work from this user and have no qualms with them wielding the mop.
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' Mandsford has solid AfD experience and even when we don't agree I respect the perspective he brings to the discussions. His arguments aren't biased nor do they stray from established consensus. He would make a great AfD closer. '''
Mandsford is a sensible, experienced AfD contributor who gives intelligent and policy-based opinions. Also, (s)he possesses a sense of humour which is a valuable admin trait - AfD would be a little duller without Mandsford's comments. Good luck!
'''Support''' With sincere apologies for my hasty oppose, I see after further review that in fact, as you say, the block shortly after the comment I referenced seems indeed to have been "the best thing that ever happened to you". Subsequent to that, I see nothing of concern, and a healthy history of positive contributions to AFD, along with good humour, intelligence and tolerance. Apologies again, and this is in no way an excuse for my 2008 based "oppose", but you should probably archive your talk page once in a while - it's pretty big. :-) &nbsp;
Seems fine to me. Good AfD experience, would be helpful there. ~~
'''Support'''. AfD work looks great to me, and the candidate shows civility and good humour, and seems to understand consensus well - and the AfD backlog often needs mopping up. --
'''Support'''. Agree with the above, the candidate has a good body of quality input at AFD, and appears to be well-suited for adminship. Good luck,
'''Support''' More than demonstrated his suitability with good work at AfD.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''', I quite frequently don't agree with Mandsford's opinions at AfD, but they're almost invariably sensible ones nonetheless. A conscientious user that definitely puts thought into what he does, I'm confident that Mandsford will make a good admin. ~ <font color="#228b22">
No problems here. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
{{ec}} '''Support'''. I've frequently cited his arguments when I'm closing heated AfDs. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - huge number of edits, sufficient WP edits, and autoreviewer.  The only minus is the current lack of a user page. One of our most clueful and [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] editors.
'''Support'''. Pretty much everything checks out. In fact, it has done for some time.
'''Support''' Looks good with me.
In my view, Mandsford is one of the most thoughtful and sensible contributors at AfD so of course I think he will make thoughtful and sensible AfD closes. --
'''Support''' no reason not to <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - no problems here. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' Trusted user, should do fine w/ the tools.
'''Support''' Trusted user who has a clue.
<strong>
'''Support''' – We need more users working at AFD, and this candidate will be a fine admin. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''weak support'''.
'''Weak support''' Although the candidate's portfolio has quite a few thin spots (e.g. no user page, no opt-in of X!'s counter), the need for the tools in support of AfD work is what convinces me to vote in favor--
'''Support''' – An editor who has matured with experience and learned from mistakes. He's found an area where he does excellent work, and would use the admin bit to further that work. All valid reasons to support and nothing to cause me any concerns. --
If all admin candidates were able to demonstrate the levels of policy-based decision making that Mandsford can, we wouldn't have had people crying about the lack of successful RfAs the other week, because the minority of people that believe sysops should have this quality wouldn't be opposing. Will be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' - An excellent AfD mind. I've agreed and disagreed, but I highly respect the sum of Mandsford's opinions. The oppose only reinforces my opinion here.
'''Support'''. Contrary to Colonel Warden; if somebody has changed their mind after encountering new evidence or persuasive arguments from others, and struck through their old opinion, I find that very impressive. I think wikipedia needs more people - and more admins - like that.
'''Support''' As with so many things, I can't see eye to eye with the Colonel.
Definitely. Remember disagreeing with him but always found his arguments to be solid. A wonderful candidate. '''
'''Support''' Very rare I disagree with the Colonel, but I dont see an issue with offering a provisional opinion without doing much research as long as you watchlist the discussion and have the flexibility to change your view. Hasty admin decisions have much more potential to cause damage even if your ready to reverse them, but the candidate seems thoughtful enough to know this.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per WTHN.
'''Support''' Good choice! He is an intelligent presence at AfD.
'''Support''' openmindedness is undervalued - often there ''is'' no black and white, only shades of grey...so worth a go with an indecisive mop, <s>or maybe not.</s>


'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I note the opposition and many of those who oppose have made fair points. However on balance a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - looks good to me.--
'''Weak Support:''' Many of those who oppose have made fair points but on balance the candidate is a net positive. -
'''Support''' - I've "known" Mandsford a long time due to his long-time dedication to AfD. At various times I've judged him to be an inclusionist, and at other times he seemed to be a deletionist, but that shows that he's neither, which is a good thing. With his extensive experience at AfD, I believe he has a good understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy, and I expect that he will use good judgment in closing AfD discussions. Most of the "oppose" votes seem to be due to the shaky understanding of speedy-deletion criteria that he reveals in his response to Q7; I submit that this is not a relevant concern -- because he little history of working on speedy deletion (this lack of experience could help explain his shaky understanding) and he does not indicate an interest in working in that arena. I do wish he'd provide more edit summaries, but I suppose summaries aren't real important when most of your edits are in AfD discussions... --
'''Support''' per Fastily. --
'''Strong support'''. Excellent user, great contributions in admin-related areas. Mandsford and I disagree, and have done repeatedly, but the one constant is that he can always justify his argument. The only occasion of incivility I've run into with him was me acting like a dick and him persuading me to calm down. Some of the opposers are exactly who I expected; the hemp-and-sandal wearing, pot-smoking hippie brigade identifiable by the smell of patchouli drifting after them and the way they keep chaining themselves to forlorn Amazonian articles at risk of being chopped down. They'd be more persuasive if they weren't going "OMG HE CHANGES HIS MIND, HOW AWFUL IS THAT!". You're right, keeping an open mind is a horrible, horrible thing to do.
'''Support'''. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
No hay problema. -
'''Support'''  I waffled on this, my first reading of your answer to Q7 left me almost voting oppose, but on rereading it, I believe that I read the question differently than I did.  I read it as asking "as an admin you find this article already tagged A7, what do you do?" and it appears that you read it as "was the tagging defensible (even if not correct) in the first place?", which are enormously different questions. While you and I will probably disagree on a few subjective calls (based on at least one of your other answers), your answers were within policy and reason. I would ask that you consider the advice given elsewhere to think a little bit in AfD debates early on, but that is advice that I need to take myself as well, and I suspect you will be a NETPOS. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Trusted user who will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - net positive. I don't consider being indecisive a good enough reason to oppose, and while the speedy delete concerns are more valid, in all honesty, I don't believe he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Mandsford is an outstanding contributor to deletion discussions, and the fact that he managed to take the time to give such detailed answers and explain his reasoning so well gives me great confidence in his abilities as an administrator to be able to reason with people over his decisions. Full support.
'''Support''' We're all weak in certain areas, and Mandsford's weaknesses are pretty minuscule compared to a lot out there.  Give them the mop and a couple weeks at most, and they will be working like a veteran around here.  Good user, going to be a good admin.
'''Support''' on the basis of ridiculous opposes and the plain and simple fact that this user has demonstrated competency in the working of the project. He is unlikely to abuse the tools. Adminship isn't a badge of honor, it's really [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal.]] Period. Full stop.
'''Support''' User has been around since May 2007 with over 16000 edits and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
Support, largely from Nomader's points raised.
'''Support''' All things considered, a net positive.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I do not always agree with Mandford's opinions in AfD, but his opinions are well-thought out and he is not afraid to work on "controversial" AfD discussions, to actually look at sources and look for new sources, and to make his own assessments.  Not enough of us put in that needed level of effort.  He is also level-headed.  These are all attributes of someone who would be a good admin.--'''
'''Oppose''' I've seen Mandsford at AFD many times and it has often struck me that he seems only to give his personal opinion of the matter, without reference to any independent evidence such as sources.  To confirm this impression, I started sampling his contributions from Oct 2009 and immediately found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates]].  In this discussion, he flounders because he's not looking to see what external sources have to say about the matter.  So, it seems that he views AFD as a place where people vent their personal opinion of topics, contrary to all our core policies.
'''Oppose''' I hate to admit it, but the Colonel might have a point.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple]], Mandsford starts with a (rather inexplicable) Speedy Delete !vote, and then three hours later switches it to a Keep !vote.  Looking at it again, I see that Mandsford likely meant A7 and not G7 as the speedy criteria, but either way it shows both a lack of thought being put into his !votes (followed by backtracking once he's proven wrong) as well as a gross misunderstanding of speedy deletion criteria.  It's great that he's capable of admitting that he's wrong (which is a rare character trait), but it would be nice if he was wrong ''less''.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, you whiffed question #7. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I do not always agree with him at AfD, but I would not   oppose on that basis. I might oppose on the basis of my  concern that  he may show a tendency to decide on the basis of his own opinions rather than those of the community as expressed at the AfD, though that's obviously hard to demonstrate in advance.  But I unfortunately must oppose on his apparently total lack of understanding of the basic speedy criteria. I'll be glad to support when he gets some good experience nominating speedys, so we can evaluate the results.   '''
'''Oppose''' due to Q7 and Q10.
'''Oppose'''. Whilst not always directly uncivil, the tendency of Mandsford to personalise matters and/or to allow too much unnecessary colouring in his comments, can inflame matters or irritate people - something unwelcome in any user, and very problematic in an admin. His talkpage archive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mandsford&oldid=310290024 two] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mandsford/Archive versions] indicates that this is a long standing habit, and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mandsford&oldid=376723492#Policies_and_guidelines listing of a user's edits] was made within the past month. That in conjunction with a block for incivility a year ago lead me not to support. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm concerned at the answer to the first example in q8, an unsourced article saying that two people "killed many innocent people" is an attack page not an A7 candidate - but such "good faith" attack pages need a tailored explanation to the author as the addition of a reliable source could turn that into a legit article. Some of the other CSD related answers were also weak, and informing an author of a speedy deletion tag is not giving them an opportunity to contest the deletion, usually it is telling them why their article has been deleted. Prods and AFDs give the author 7 or 10 days to contest a deletion, correct speedy deletion tags can result in deletion by the first admin to see them - that's why speedy deletion is for clear and uncontentious cases. If turning out for a team can in your dialect of English mean having a trial rather than playing for a team then I can understand the tag of a Harlequins player - but I'd suggest a quick Google check can't hurt in such situations, nor does it hurt to prod such articles with a rationale that includes "Doesn't appear to have actually played for the team". Weak because these were not in his core competency area. ''
'''Weak Oppose''' - I've held off for awhile because I wasn't sure whether or not to support. Mandsford seems to be very thoughtful and certainly has the right kind of activity and contributions I'd look for in a candidate. My concern is that the main area of interest as an administrator is in closing deletion debates, and I think that the answers to questions above miss the mark. Another problem I have is that I see a little too much IAR; the common sense arguments in deletion discussions are refreshing, and I admit that I dislike the usual AfD !votes along the lines of "fails [[WP:N]]" but in this case there's too little appeal to policy and guidelines. I dislike opposing someone who has a good head on his shoulders and has experience but my gut feeling is that I wouldn't trust this person to close deletion debates so I have to oppose. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Per Snottywong, Hobit, and DGG.  Reading the examples above and your answers, I see someone who wants to be a great judge and issue grand opinions... but who doesn't understand the law--in this case, Wikipedia's various policies, guidelines, and precedents. Nothing personal, go learn them better and come back in three months after increasing your policy knowledge.
'''With deep regret'''. Sorry, I think you have the potential to be a fine admin and I held onto my support despite multiple issues being raised. However, the answers to Q7 and 8 are, frankly, just plain wrong. A claim to have won a notable prize is more than enough to escape A7 deletion, even if it's total bollocks (in which case, G3 applies). That pushed me into neutral, but I'm afraid Q8 compelled me to oppose. It's ''vital'' that you be able to distinguish things like G10 and G12 from A7. Don't just go by the tag the patroller has placed. I just don't think you are thorough enough in your checking to be safe with a mop right now. Worst case scenario, not doing your due diligence could lead to a gross BLP violation or a blatant copyvio slipping through the net, which could potentially be extremely damaging.
'''Oppose''' - While a good editor, this user frequently imposes his own analysis and opinion counter to community consensus in decision making processes.  I just don't feel comfortable advocating more power to this editor.--
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I have run into Mandsford many a time at AfD and always value their opinion, whether I agree or not, and will continue to do so. I hope that, should this RfA fail, they try again in the future. But the answers to Q7 puzzle me, frankly. That Medicis award, even if typing it straight into WP delivers not the right article, could be traced using Google, and even if that doesn't work, at the very least the article ''claims'' notability. The Maritime Safety Information article--A7 is obviously the wrong category, the information in the article certainly suggests encyclopedic relevance, and [http://www.google.com/search?q=Maritime%20Safety%20Information&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22Maritime+Safety+Information%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=449835a92abc7991 this search] immediately indicates that we are dealing with a notable topic (though how that info is to be turned into a decent article, given that [[Maritime safety information]] still looks terrible, is for the experts to figure out). So Mandsford, I am sorry. I disagree with you a bit on Q10 and that's a question of individual weighing, but Q7, that's policy. If the RfA passes, good luck, cause you will have your homework cut out for you. All the best.
'''Oppose''' The AFD participation cited by the nominator as examples of sound, policy-based participation in that arena are neither policy based nor very sound. The attitude is actually hostile in some of them and I see basic errors like confusing "needs cleanup" with "merits deletion". I expect someone with the candidate's level of experience to have better judgement at something that is supposed to be their forte. In short, I wouldn't be very comfortable with Mandsford closing deletion debates. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' Per Q8, Q10, and especially Q7, I really can't trust your judgment in closing AFD debates.
'''Oppose''' Just looking through the user's talk page and I really do not like what I have seen. Frequently accused of being incivil and making personal attacks by other users[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=137555472&oldid=137232502][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=157553071&oldid=157507166][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=162376057&oldid=161339608][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=376723492&oldid=376567379][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=252688949&oldid=252603410][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=253826512&oldid=253722253] User was also once blocked for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMandsford&action=historysubmit&diff=255802173&oldid=255541089]
'''Oppose''' - Agree with Truthsort--
Although I never thought I would say this I have to agree with Colonel Warden. I have gone through three or four of Mandsford's more heavily edited AfDs at random and find Mandsford to be very wishy washy. I don't see this as a good basis for an admin running on his ability to deal with AfDs. However, I reserve my right to be wishy washy and sit on the fence for now, I cannot fully oppose based on this concern at present.
'''Neutral''' - Just  so  that  we  are quite sure:to  me  ''neutral''  is ''neutral''-  it's not  a 'weak  oppose'.  My  first  thought  was: all  one needs to do  to become a sysop  is to  choose a single domain  of maintenance and stick  with  it  until  one has accumulated enough  edits to  run for office. That  might  be true, but  I  find the candidate's AfD comments a tad too  inconsistent - but  that  may  be due to  a lack  of my own   experience at  AfD. A very  one-sided pie chart. I  can't  honestly  see how the tools would be an enormous advantage to  him except  for occasional  admin  closures. He certainly  probably knows all  about  deletion  policy - but  what  does he know about  the rest  of the areas where admins are expected to  use the tools once  they've been given them? I  don't  see a great  model  of civiity  on  his talk  page, but  perhaps I just hit  the wrong  archives.  I  see no  reasons  strong  enough to  oppose whatsoever, but  I  see no  special  reasons  to  support either.--
'''Neutral''' AfD-related answers are reasonable, but I can't overlook the CSD-related answers. The candidates stated an interest in the deletion process means that he is expected to have a good grasp of it. While CSD and AFD are different and perfect knowledge of CSD isn't expected for someone dealing with AFD, an insufficient knowledge of CSD is a cause for concern. If the candidate had expressed an interest in CSD, I would oppose. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Neutral''', essentially the same as Rami R above. I would like to support - it looks like Mandsford knows AFD well, and would do a good job of closing discussions there. However, even though he hasn't said he'll deal with CSD, his poor understanding of the criteria gives me cause for concern. I won't stand in the way of him becoming an admin, but I'm reluctant to support him for that reason.
'''Support'''.  Let me be the first.  This user has experience working with images, even if some of it isn't on en.WP.  Given the specialized nature of his request, I won't hold his lack of experience in other areas against him.  I think his adminship would be a net positive to the project, and I trust him when he says he'd stay away from other admin-related areas.
'''Über strong support''':I've been working through it. There's a long way to go, and a lot of help would be really nice. As a checkuser on another wiki, the user can be trusted with not blocking/protecting, and only doing his job. ''
Here we have an experienced checkuser and sysop on sister projects who wants to help clear out a backlog that seems to be growing by the day.  If this was an account with under 2,000 edits, I'd likely be under the oppose column, but on a project wide basis- we're all one project- the ser has the experience and trust level necessary.
I agree with Shimeru. --
'''Support''' – I've seen [[User:Lustiger seth|Lustiger seth]]'s RFA, and it was another example of a specialized request. As long as MGA73 does not use his tools for other purposes, and I trust him not to, as he is admin on two other projects, I don't see why not. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - I sure would like to see that backlog cleared.
'''Support'''. This user's permissions on other wikis, and the specialised nature of this request, mean I am perfectly comfortable supporting it. --
'''Support''' I'd also like to see the backlog at least partially cleared. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' I don't see any problem with this one, he is obviously well trusted. Good luck to him and the long slog of that backlog! '''
'''Support''' Thanks for offering to help out.

sure &nbsp;&ndash;
'''Support'''. Seems like a very sensible request, and it would be great to have that backlog cleared. The candidate's clear experience and admin status on other projects lead me to have no worries about handing over a en-mop
'''Support''' I only just heard of you the other day but you seem amazing so I will support you.
I have no problem with this. ~~
Hopefully this request will go very smoothly. Obviously the candidate's a trusted user; there really isn't a reason not to support. '''
'''Support''' we don't do temporary adminships often, but that category is horrific (I have given up on most of the file backlogs), and he's a trusted user on various other WMF wikis. Definitely a net positive. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' - Count me as a thumbs up, it is good to see this backlog getting attention. My thanks and very best wishes.
'''Support''' as an obvious net positive for the project. The number of active admins is going down, the backlogs are going up and the en.wiki can use the extra help. Trusted user who definitely won't break the wiki and is extremely unlikely to break his pledge to stick to what he knows.
'''Support''' I do not automatically trust the judgement of all Arbs and Checkusers. However, I do trust everyone with those permissions not to deliberately harm the project. Couple that with the fact that this user clearly knows what they're doing in this area, and I unreservedly support.
{{ec}}'''Support'''. He is a trusted user and clearly experienced on Commons matters. I see no reasons not to support. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' If he's an admin, checkuser, and OTRS volunteer on another wikipedia, I see no reason why he shouldn't be an admin here.
'''Support''' I would like that backlog cleared.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - 'nuff said. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Support'''. <hands MGA73 the mop and bucket> Backlog's over there, knock yourself out. --
'''Support''' Thank you for volunteering to take on this job. '''
'''Support''' experienced admin, just not here on en-wiki, who is willing to help us out.  Why would I not support? ''<B>--
'''Support''' - I trust that he will stick to the clearing the backlogs, but I'm not worried about handing him all the tools, his blocks on [http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciel%3ALoglister&type=block&user=MGA73&page=&year=&month=-1 da.wiki] and [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MGA73&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= the commons] all look good.  No real concerns were raised at his RfAs at [http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anmodning_om_administratorstatus/arkiv5#Bruger:MGA73 da.wiki] and [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_and_votes/MGA73 the commons], and he was [http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Afstemninger/Afstemning_om_CheckUser_adgang_3#MGA73 granted checkuser] permission almost unanimously.  The combination of such a clean record as a sysop on the other projects, no problems here and an intention to help clear those backlogs compels me to support.&nbsp;  -- '''''
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' - I second "'nuff said"
'''Support''' - for a user who wishes only to contribute and make the encyclopedia better. I remind !voters to assume good faith, and that there is absolutely no history of privilege abuse from this candidate. -
I got a bit of an edit conflict here but to answer White Shadows' possibly rhetorical question there are '''1077533 reasons why'''. This is total edit count of MGA73 plus the two bots he runs plus the above noted backlog. No complaints about the local edits. Trusted user? I would say so. Does he have a reason? Clearly, a yes. My only concern is that this is a request for temporary admin rights. <font face="Georgia">
'''Sure''' No objection from me, due to your experience in this line of work at other projects. '''
'''Support''', but conditionally: as long as the scope of admin work on en-wiki is limited to what's specified in the RfA rationale, I have ZERO problem extending courtesies to admins on other projects.  Involvement in en-wiki specific administration would be a breach of the purpose for which this administrative bit is given. I ''know'' we don't have limited-duty administrators, but this is the perfect sort of rationale for one.

'''Support''' See no reason not to support experienced and trusted user willing to help.
Strong support.
'''Support''' Fill your boots! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
MGA73 is self-evidently capable of doing the (duller than watching paint dry) work described above and is willing to do it. We would be dim indeed to turn this generous offer down.
--
'''Support''' Trusted user.
'''Weak support''' I would just like to see more activity on Wikipedia. --
'''Strong Support'''. Good luck tackling that backlog, buddy!
'''Strong Support''' As far as I can tell from my discussions with him,
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
With knowledge of his adminship on other projects.  '''
'''Support''' as a specialist candidate. It would be nice to have more than <s>two</s> a few administrators endlessly working with media files, even if it is just dealing with Commons-related files. —
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' Evidently already a highly trusted user. If he/she is willing to throw some Danish muscle behind the back log here then: ''Velkomst og tak!'' --RA (
'''Support'''. Glad to support again. I'm positive and sure MGA would be an asset. I just wish it wasn't temporarily :-) --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Of course. He has good experience and is a trusted Wikipedian. He deservres it. '''''
'''Support''' Completely untrustable. Will abuse the tools because he only wants them temporarily. Is trying to sneak in the back door. Since we can't de-admin him, only he can do so voluntarily, I'm terribly frightened about the long term prospects of this user having administrator rights with which I'm sure he'll demolish the encyclopedia. We will of course have no recourse to stop his damaging ways. And holy 'save page' button Batman! He has less than 1400 edits!!!! We'd be INSANE to grant this user rights here! Somebody file a request at Commons to de-admin him. This madness must stop! Save the wiki! Oppose MGA73 today! --
'''Support''' Trusted admin of other projects, and these areas here SERIOUSLY need work, major backlogs. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">
'''Support''' as he intends to do useful work.--
'''Support''' can always use another person in the backlogs!
'''Support''' But can we move this spam filter thingy to Meta or something? ''
'''Support''' The Danes trust him, can't see any reason to oppose (and for some reason I feel very bad about Craftyminion's stupid comments, which I still can't fathom out if they were intended to be jokes)
'''Support''' He is already an admin for other projects, and even though he hasn't made many edits to English Wikipedia, it seems like we can trust him. Just up the amount of English edits!
'''Support''' - Oh why not, it's less work for everyone else at the end of the day...
'''Support''' Although the user's adminship will only be temporary, Wikipedia can always use help on its backlogs. MGA73 can be trusted to be an administrator. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' - on pl:wiki it took us almost a year to go from 10 000 files to just about 1 000. Anyone willing to dive into heap of transferred/transferrable/questionable/unknown files should get admin rights.
'''Support''' Admin tools are there to be used for the good of the project. The granting of this request, with the promised restrictions, will do that. '''''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MGA73. —
'''Support'''' Not seeing any red flags. --
'''Moderate Support''' Even though I think admins should become admins only if they will be using all admin tools, I don't see any major issues. And Craftyminion's twisted comments make me feel kinda bad for him.
'''Support''' No issues at all. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
Based on his work at Commons.
'''Support''' per responses to q. 4 and 5. I trust MGA73 to use ''all'' the tools. MGA73 will know better than many of us that admins use the tools they need to get the job done, to be cautious, and to seek review.
'''Support''' User has admin experience in other projects, 'nuff said.--
'''Support''' User could clearly help with the task and is extraordinarily experienced with the duties they wish to take up. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785"><font size="1" color="9E0508">
'''Support'''—net positive, no concerns.
'''Support''' - MGA73 has ample knowledge of the correct use of the tools, and has shown that he is trustworthy and sensible....what more is required ?
'''Support''' I share some of the concerns about lack of enwiki track record. The promise to stick to images is, as noted unenforceable, but less of a concern that it might be in other cases. IIRC, we once had a candidate with strong qualifications in one area, but problems in another, and there was debate about a promise to stay away from that area. I see that as different—an unenforceable commitment  to stay area from an area where there are known problems is quite different than a similar commitment where there are no known issues, simply a lack of a clear track record. We do have, albeit imperfectly, a mechanism to address problems. It is painful enough that I don't wish to take a chance when there are red flags, but not so painful that I'd pass on this candidate, on the extremely low chance of rogue behavior. That coupled with experience as an admin, so there isn't even the possibility of accidentally using tools in ignorance, persuades me that the legitimate concerns are not compelling. On the positive side, there is an enormous need, and a willing volunteer. I say let the cleanup begin.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' I see no problem with a user who has demonstrated trustworthiness in more than one area of wikipedia being given the tools to do something which needs doing. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Another Dane here. Let the record show that I don't think highly of da-wiki at all. It is riddled with BLP violations, copyvios and NPOV violations. However, MGA73 is certainly not to blame for that. His work there as well as on Commons has showed that he is absolutely capable of performing the tasks he is requesting the tools for and I'm sure he will make an excellent administrator here.
'''Support''' Has clear ideas for how they can help, no red flags, no reason to oppose, good reasons to support.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose this request.  '''
'''Support''' MGA73 is a trustworthy user and has admin experience elsewhere.
I agree with most of the opposing and neutral rationales, and I'm impressed with the rational (no "e") and even gentle way that they make their case ... still, anyone who can garner this kind of fervent and solid support despite the community's basic position that we're not looking for temporary admins has I think proved that they're not going to be just a temporary or second-rate admin.  Full support. - Dank (
There has traditionally been caution applied to nominations from people with little experience on enwiki, and less (or no) allowance given to work or status on other wikis, however this candidate has strong credentials on da-wiki and Commons, is clearly keen on cross-wiki work, and has a bot which has worked intensively and succesfully on enwiki, with minor issues quickly and politely sorted out by MGA73. The request for temporary status is an error, but it's a small one, and I feel the candidate will be a benefit to enwiki. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' as long as he's amicable to us taking them away if he misbehaves.
'''support''' both temporary and permanent adminship.
'''Support''' I worked with this user a lot on the Commons and OTRS and he knows what he is doing. I trust him with the tools, especially when it comes to image work (which is really needed on this project).
'''Support'''. Being in a quite similar situation as MGA73, I am sure that en.wikipedia could benefit from providing him the tools. --
'''Support''' - a trusted user on other projects wants to help out here. Why not take advantage of that? <small>Also per Hammersoft</small> —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' Hopefully this will be a plus...
'''Support''' Obviously trustworthy. I hardly see how someone with a specific goal for being a volunteer sysop is a bad thing. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No evidence of incivility, has been given tools on other areas too, so why not?
'''Oppose''' - I have no concerns about the editor's motives, but I think experience on the wiki they want adminship on is necessary, and because there is no temporary adminship, I cannot support. I'm also bothered by the provisional adminship notion, and while that ship has sailed, I don't think we need a precedence of it.
I cannot support giving administratorship to users for only a single purpose. ''
'''Oppose'''  - on  technicalities rather than what appear to be the (self)nominee's genuine reasons for request. Experience on the en.Wikipedia goes before experience and/or privileges on  other Wikimedia, which  clearly  excercise very  different  criteria of quality, and while a high  edit score is not  a qualification, only just  over 1,000 over a period of nearly  2 years does not  demonstrate consistency or knowledge of our processes. Nor does it convince of a future, more intense  committment  (although  this is also  not  an exigency). Only  237 edits have been made to  file space, a number which  many  'non janitor' editors casually  make on  the fly while contributing in  other areas. AFAIK we neither have provision  for temporary  adminship of this kind, nor  admin  tasks dedicated to  different  areas (except  perhaps minor privileges for for reviewing, rollbacking, account creation, etc., for example), and admins are at  least  expected (but  not  obliged) to  get  involved in  a variety of tasks. I would most  likely  support a new RfA with  a truly  significant  increase in  contribs, but  probably  not  in  under 12 months from  now. --
'''Oppose''' Per my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|admin criteria]] I won't vote for someone who promises not to exercise certain admin powers; that doesn't make me feel more comfortable with giving you the mop, it makes me more nervous.  Also you don't have nearly enough work on here for me to judge how you would perform as an admin.  I know you just want to help, but there are some other work backlogs on Wikipedia that need to be worked on that don't require admin rights.  I would recommend building a reputation here before doing another RfA.  --'''
'''Oppose''' On my principles I cannot support this type of RfA asking for only certain admin powers.
'''Oppose''' - while I'm sure his motivations are good, I do not feel that it is appropriate to grant what is in effect a lifetime grant of power that is realistically without a good method to appeal or recall to one that has not worked extensively on this wiki.  No articles have been created here, and there is no valid reason IMO.  Crafty, your comments are uncalled for, and I fully support Spartaz's comments in that regard.  <span style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #990000;padding:2px;background:#FFFFCC">
'''Oppose''' per Craftyminion (although the wording of his oppose has caused an enormous kerfuffle) and others; there should be no "Admin Lite™" position. Either the community trusts with all the tools or it doesn't. What tools the admin chooses to use is then up to them. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Oppose''' giving "temporary admin status" as I don't think we should go down the road of having different kinds of admins. On the other hand, I would '''support''' making this user a regular admin. ''Please move this comment to the the support section if that request is made.''
'''Neutral''': I'm really glad your willing to clear the backlog but your experiance on the english wikipedia is lacking.
'''Weak Neutral''' Alot of potential, but it is too soon, although I would happily support a limited adminship dealing with just the photo backlog.
'''Neutral''' if only because I wish there were a way he could accomplish his goal without being granted full adminship.  I would oppose if I weren't very confident that he will do exactly what he says he's going to.
'''Neutral''' - like it or not, we grant adminship forever at the moment.  I'm pondering how best to ask an optional question to find out exactly why "temporary admin" status is being requested and how exactly we're supposed to grant such a thing; maybe someone who has already had his or her coffee can take a stab for me?--'''~
'''Neutral''' per Qwertyus. A bit more experience on en.wiki would be great. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Neutral''' I would have voted oppose, but you are an admin on DaWiki and Commons, which is a big plus. I would like to see more experience here, so it evens out to neutral. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Neutral''' The whole idea of adminship as a temporary measure for one task seems to me slightly wrong. (thats just a preference however and is not based on the editor themselves). If the editor wants to the tools permanetly I will gladly re assess and likely support. Otherwise I think i prefer to obstain for the time being.
'''Neutral veering towards support''' The work on dawiki and commons is good, but as enwiki does not have 'temporary' admin positions, or an ability to limit the tools which an admin uses, I am a bit uneasy with supporting. I'll probably change this neutral to a firm support or oppose in a few days, but at the moment, I'm still a-thinking -- '''''
'''Neutral'''. I'm not comfortable with the  "temporary" duration request. While MGA73 undertakes useful activities, he doesn't demonstrate enough constructive interaction with other editors.
Pending answers to Qs 4 and 5.

'''Neutral''' - User seems genuine and I think he would use the tools responsibly, but given that specific admin tools can't be handed out, I think the user needs to demonstrate knowledge and mastery in more areas. Maybe with a little more consistent experience with en-wiki I'd feel more comfortable. All that said, I don't think I'd be upset if this user is given the tools.
'''Full support''' as nominator. –
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Absolutely.

This was a very tough decision, based on the fact he's never edited the portal talk name space. In the end though, why not {{;)}} ''
'''Support''' – Along with a years-long history of good content contributions, he's a conscientious discussant at AfD, where he has a habit of not only identifying sources but also adding them to the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Pegasus_(Rapper)&diff=372445941&oldid=372442821 here] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Pegasus_(rapper)&diff=374279141&oldid=373713797 one recent example] of many I have noticed). <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' ...And they just keep coming... Yes, they lack experience at AIV and RPP, that I can't deny. It appears that the WP namespace isn't this editor's strong point (less than 2,500 edits to the WP and WP talk namespaces in four years of continuous, substantial editing isn't a lot). However, I think the long, continuous, substantial contributions to the actual project more than make up for what's lacking. This user is a dedicated, valuable member of the project -- ''that'' is what makes a good admin. Number of vandals reported or number of pages requested for protection can be used to evaluate experience, but we shouldn't come to judge ''all'' candidates by such numbers. Long term experience and dedication to the ''encyclopedia'' are traits that are just as valuable- if not more so- in a candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' – Definitely. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''--absolutely. I won't be the last one to say it, but I thought you was one already.
'''Support''' per Swarm. I was wondering why I hadn't heard of you until I saw what articles you edit... but then again, my battleships are probably just as obscure as your reggae. ;-)
'''Support'''. Easy call, fully trusted.
'''Support''' Checks out okay with me.
'''Support''' Looks good - and we need good content editors as admins. --
'''Support'''
Appears to be a good candidate. ~~
Has schooled me on notability before, politely enough considering how off base I actually was... Have interacted with him for a year with no negative issues, hence my unqualified '''support'''.
'''Support''', absolute. Thought it might have happened long before now. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Strong support''', seen him everywhere. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - Another strong candidate.  Haven't run into Michig before, that I can recall, but this candidate with extra buttons can only improve the wiki. Best wishes,
'''Support'''. Another easy decision. --
'''Support''' - Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' - No problems. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Yes'''. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' without question. I am very familiar with Michig's work here - his content contribution and his input at [[WP:AfD]] are excellent, and in my dealings with him he has been nothing short of civil and extremely helpful. An experienced editor and valuable contributor, the project will be enhanced with admins of this calibre. '''sparkl<sub>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, good answers to questions, no problems found in review - support as net positive. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - No problems here. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to (and I really like your answer to question #4). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' -- per the nomination + answers to question 10. PROD nominees are often gray area articles and a good test of administrator judgment. I appreciate your thoughtful answers to my question and especially your research on the [[KF Suhodolli]]. As an admin, I'm wary of deleting such a nicely formatted article about a seemingly obscure topic when any potential sources would probably be in a foreign language. I like your resourcefulness in looking at the linked articles and connecting the dots on what now looks like a fishy article. I think many admins would not have done as good a job with that one. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - qualified candidate. Though he lacks experience with admin tools, I believe that he will refer to relevant policies rather than jump in over his head.
'''Support''' - Your incredibly detailed answer to question 10 gives me incredible confidence in your ability to be an administrator. Full support.
Looks good + trusted nominator.
'''Support'''—suitable for the mop.
'''Support'''- Looks good.
'''Support''' - Absolutely, good work
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks hardworking, patient, and trustworthy; I think a good person to wield the mop. I think Q10 was overkill, but it's reassuring to see the detailed (and presumably time-consuming) answers.
'''Support''' - No concerns. Good answers to questions.
'''Support''' No problems here :)--
'''Support''' Good work all around. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Good answers from an experienced editor. I have no concerns.

'''Support''' A long-time Wikipedian (July 2006); relatively consistent level of contributions; trustworthy (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, no blocks); strong vandal-fighting credentials; light on contributions to WP namespace, but otherwise adequate level of experience across-the-board--
No problems - a good record and good answers to the questions. --
'''Strong Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 22,000 edits, over 5 years' experience, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article creator, article rescuer, autoreviewer, great user page, etc.  One of our best editors, who "gets it"; has saved many articles and created over 300 new articles, and has the barnstars to prove it.  See also [[User:Michig/How_to_find_sources_for_popular_music_articles]].
'''Support''' - Good contributions, no concerns, and they had the guts to answer Q10. -- '''
'''Support''' Does his homework.
'''Support''' A great candidate who I'm sure will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Looks fine.
'''Strong Support''' no reason To oppose. Great editor. <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - His answer to Q.10. No need to say more. --
'''Support'''.  Without question.  Careful, intelligent, fact-based, accurate, knows the rules.  One of the best.  Let's clone him.--
'''Support''' Absolutely full of clue and not at all the extreme inclusionist I was fearing to find when I looked at the nom statement :)
''' Support''' might as well pile on. Even if they are an inclusionist.
'''Strong support'''. Everything checks out. An impressive record on all fronts.
Looks fine to me. '''
'''Support''' per Bearian. <small>'''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
'''Support'''; I'm another on the thought-you-''were''-an-admin bandwagon. You certainly conduct yourself like one.
'''Support'''. No reason not to support. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''.  Full confidence in MuZemike's opinion.
'''Support''' After a look through some of yuor talk page and seing a need to undelete articles and also that you answered q10. --
'''Support''' Everything checks out, and user has a strong history of edits. --
'''Support''' - Another editor of the calibre that  the Signpost  article was hoping  to  recruit. No  need to  lower the bar to  let  Michig  in.--
'''Support''' as a certain net positive.
Sure. Good luck.
'''Support''' - net positive.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' This user is nothing but a positive, very happily support. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Q10, great history, civil, communicative etc. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Q10 was a good test. I agree not 100% but sufficiently.   '''
'''Support'''. good contributor, good experience.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''': Great experience in AfDs and good content provider, and honest intellectual. Will do well in settling content disputes. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Support'''. Wise editor and good content-builder, plays well with others.

'''Support'''&mdash;looks like an excellent candidate to me. <i>
'''Support''' nothing wrong here ''<B>--
'''Support''' Looks like a superb candidate. Good luck!
'''Support''' Very impressed.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good luck...
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral'''.  I prefer not to support someone who does not seem to have thought about the difference between judges and janitors.
Unconditionally...will be an asset.--
Absolutely.  Fine editor; likely will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Excellent article creation, and I like the approach you mention in the answer to Q1.  I hope we share the same views on [[Catch and release|important policies outside of WP]] but would support you even if we don't.
'''Support''' - Likely to be a fine admin. --
'''Support''' - Exceeds my criteria.
'''Support''' Content works look great. We need more admins who write articles (as opposed to focusing on vandal fighting)
'''Support''' He's calm, friendly and has lots of experience (3 years). I accept the nominator's decision.
'''Support''' User has been around since Jan 2007 and good track.
An exemplary track record of content-building combined with a low profile in drama space sounds like the ideal candidate to me. I believe you've demonstrated that you possess the judgement and maturity to take things slowly in unfamiliar areas and even if, at worst, the only times you use the mop are to maintain your own userspace that would still be a net positive for Wikipedia. Wholehearted '''support'''.
'''Weak Support''' I would have liked to have seen a little bit more experience in admin areas but I see just enough to support and I also trust the judgement of the nominator here.
'''Support''' may not become the most active admin but would be trustworthy with the tools
'''Support''' - level-headed, good writer, little downside.
'''Support''' Good editor with a long tenure and clean block log, I recently flagged him as an [[wp:Autoreviewer]]. I'm not bothered if his use of the mop will simply be moving articles from his userspace to mainspace without redirect - that would still save another admin from deleting them as U1 or G7. It could also be useful for him to be able to see deleted articles, as there could be occasions when he is contemplating writing an article for a subject that has previously been deleted, and if so it is useful to be able to check whether the previous article was for a different person of the same name. ''
Strong candidate - experienced with no outstanding issues.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' Looks good. Thanks for your contributions.
Without reservation. If a candidate promises to learn how to be an admin before using the tools, then why shouldn't we trust their word when they have such a wonderful track record? I'm confident the candidate will make a fine admin, and that's that. '''
'''Support''' - A long-term editor with fine content contributions. His responses and editing history show an individual who takes a very reasoned and mature approach to Wikipedia. I envision the help of this kind of thoughtful drama-free editor with administrative tasks will only be a positive. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
And why for not? Looks to be a sound bloke. Solid experience. No downside apparent.
'''Support''' Not seeing any evidence Mike wouldn't use the tools well (even if he wouldn't use them much); and in the absence of such evidence, he should be given them.
'''Support''' No concerns.
Not seeing any issues. That they've largely avoided the project space is all the more reason to support. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' A zero-drama, zero-politics admin candidate, what's not to like there. I don't see anything that raises my concerns. While I would like to see some more projectspace work, it's not a dealbreaker.
'''Support''' Seems like a good asset to the project.  The concerns brought up by the opposers do not seem IMO to bear on his fitness to perform admin duties.  --
'''Support''', [[User:Trusilver]] above puts it quite well.  Always happy to have more admins that stay away from drama and Wiki-politics.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Has experience in the areas I'm concerned with and seems to possess prudence.
'''Week Support''' I'm too lazy to add up my RFA criteria, but he looks ok, my only concerns are the edit summaries, the speedy deletion warning things and um....., the lack of contribs to wp mainspace.
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience for me to trust him, looks like a great editor. I feel much more comfortable supporting candidates like this, whose edit stats may not be perfect in every way, than ladder-climbing [[Mandarin (bureaucrat)|mandarins]] who have spent the last six months in training for the truly epic goal of becoming a Wikipedia admin.
'''Support''' He'll do just fine. Responsible and clueful editor with three years of solid experience.
'''Support''' Plenty of experience and clue, suggesting that he'll quickly figure out what to do and what not to do. --
'''Support''' He's not the most outstanding candidate I've seen. But he's done his bit to add to the value of the project.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor who's made fine contributions to the encyclopedia. He will be just as trustworthy, careful and valuable as an administrator. '''<font face="Arial">
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Strong Support]]'''. Brilliant answers to my questions. Yes, the last one was a loaded question. Nice job at noticeing that. You are open minded and will not make a desision without all of the facts. I like that. Good Job!--
'''Weak Support''' per buggie.
'''Support'''. Can be trusted. --
'''Support'''. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the fact that an editor focuses on ''actually writing the encyclopedia'' rather than engaging in other activities shouldn't be held against them. He has plenty of experience and great answers to the questions; I would definitely trust him as an admin. The lack of contribs to the wp namespace doesn't mean that he will suddenly start using his tools in new areas without a clue.
'''Support:'''  Well said Swarm. And I will say it again! '''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the fact that  editors focus on ''actually writing the encyclopedia'' rather than engaging in other activities shouldn't be held against them'''. -
Wow.  After reading your userpage, I think we're very lucky to have you.  If this RfA fails, I hope you'll run again in 6 months or so. - Dank (
Should be okay.
'''Support''' I trust him to be a fine admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' Out of pure disdain for the idiocy of the opposition. A perfectly solid candidate who you oppose for lack of obsessive fanboy behavior? This is an encyclopedia, folks, not a best-in-show at Comic-Con.
'''Support''' &ndash; no concerns here. To the nominator: doesn't using a sandbox also up your edit count?
It's not rocket science.  All that's really needed is someone calm, intelligent, and if they goof, willing to change behavior in response to constructive criticism.  That seems to be the case here. --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate makes reasonable arguments in AfDs as seen at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_major_artifacts_in_Dungeons_%26_Dragons&diff=217731183&oldid=217383631] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline_(2nd_nomination)&diff=227607514&oldid=227554481], he is an article creator as seen at [[User:Mike_Cline#Articles_I_have_created]], he is a fellow fisherman, he is a veteran editor, and he has never been blocked.  His heart and mind lie in the right place. I have no reason to [[WP:AGF|assume]] he would abuse adminship tools.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Looks great. <strong>
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions. Though I would have used '''Article X''' rather than '''Article A''' in 4c :). Unlikely to go berserk and (quoting ANobody) "his heart and mind lie in the right place". As an aside, I don't think we should only be emphasizing experience in project space when picking admins. Any reasonable person can figure things out as they go along and most reasonable editors are willing to undo mistakes. While we might need admins who have project space experience,  we also need admins who work primarily in article space but are willing to help out with admin duties.--
'''Weak Support''' I have some concerns but I think the candidate deserves the benefit of the doubt and could make a good admin.  Best,
An experienced editor with a history of collegial interaction and solid content contributions whose answers to questions induce confidence. Familiarity with project space can be easily acquired post-RfA, and Mike seems to have the qualifications where it matters – character.
Won't abuse the tools
Support per Mongo.--
Next thing we'll be saying is that 20k projectspace isn't enough experience. &mdash;
'''Weak support''' from neutral. On review, I don't see why not. --
'''Support''', will make good use of the tools. The fact that editor has had less than 4i^pi contributions to namespaces starting with the letters B and Æ since last Saturnalia doesn't concern me nearly as much as it seems to terrify the Oppose voters. I can see them now, their monocles dropping into wine glasses, trays of imported delicacies being hurled across dining rooms, howls echoing around studies and conservatories... What were we talking about? Oh, yes, will make a fine sysop. —
'''Support''' I am sure this fine editor will make a fine admin too once he has the tools. No concerns here.
'''Support''' Sounds like an extremely cool, considerate, deep-thinking, and well experienced editor. Lack of experience in some important areas doesn't really bother me, because this is clearly someone who would not venture into unknown areas without taking the time to learn about them properly first --
'''Support''' Seems experienced, competent and unlikely to abuse the tools. The opposers' concerns about experience are a-priori reasonable but personally I disagree.
Lack of project-space edits isn't really a concern to me: to my knowledge, nobody has been desysopped for not having enough experience, rather, improper conduct has been a more common desysopping reason: no one has brought up any behavioral concerns here, and my observations of the candidate prior to this RfA were positive, so I don't think there are any problems here in that regard. In addition, I should note that someone can still be an effective admin without participating in admin areas, and instead can use them productively during their everyday editing. I think Mike Cline will make a decent admin.
Not convinced by arguments in oppose section. Think that project would benefit from giving this editor the tools. -
'''Support''' Yup, definitely.  <small>(Although I'll point out that deletion rationales by closing admins are not usually given at RfD as they usually aren't needed.)</small> ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' While DGG's neutral argument is pretty compelling, I'm inclined to trust a good content creator with good answers and a clean track record to learn on-the-job. If he hasn't been a problem so far, giving him the tools isn't going to make him one.
'''Support''' User contributes to building the encyclopedia and demonstrates due care in their on-wiki activities. See a good admin candidate here. --'''''
'''Support''' Reasonably satisfied with the user. Like the devotion to the fishing articles. I think he will not abuse the tools that come with adminship. Fully support.
'''Support''' Seems quite sensible and mature.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' – agreeing with Jclemens. <font face="Comic sans MS">
As many people above, such as Acalamari, explained more fully, there is no reason to assume that Mr. Cline will be a bad admin. Some of the oppose reasons (lack of deletion notifications) don't appear to be grounded in fact if he did not have any nominations he had to notify people of.
'''Oppose''' - I can't support editors with virtually no project space experience.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - I was about ready to go to the support column but then I went to your contributions and saw that when you [[WP:CSD|nominate things for speedy deletion]], there are no notifications to the article creator. Either that or you don't use edit summaries. Two things that per [[User:Smithers7/RfA|my RfA criteria]] can't make me support. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose''' - I'm not sure the bit would be of use to Mike, his categorisation of CSD as keeping peoples user-spaces clean fits with his deleted edits, several thousand almost all in his userspace suggests he is unaware of the actual meaning of csd, I can't support that. I think if Mike was made an admin it would just result in him spending less time doing what he is clearly good at - writing articles--
'''Oppose'''.  per above and per low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace.  -'''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Per lack of contributions in the Wikipedia space. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  The A7 category is always tricky, and contentious, and it is important to get it right. The A7 should be declined if the article makes an ASSERTION of importance, regardless of whether that will ultimately meet the notability standard. Mike's answer - that he would decline something "instinctly left the impression that the Importance Claim was on the fence" is not the right answer.
'''Oppose'''. I don't see any XfD, CSD, or PROD notifications in the past 2000 edits. This is fundimental that the user be notified on deletion of an article. Users need to cleanup their own mess and not leave it to other editors. I also don't think you have an understanding of CSD A3. (For more details go to [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose''' editor has no experience in project space, and based on answer to Q1, I wonder if the editor has any interest in the project space.
'''Oppose''' You've spent too much time away from the project space to be given the sysop tools right now. I really think sysops should participate at least somewhat in the development of community consensus regarding policy interpretation, which requires some participation in the project space.  Because I haven't been able to see your recent stances on community consensus I can't support based off of the year-old participation that I see, since it oftentimes lacked a basis in policy (particularly your participation in list-related AfDs). '''
'''Oppose''', sadly. Great content work, and reasonable answers to some questions, but you need some amount of practical experience in admin-related areas before applying for adminship. Also, it's not clear at all what admin areas you intend to work in.
'''Oppose''' - I think this is a very good editor, and a promising future admin candidate. But I see this nomination as putting the cart before the horse. Basically, this is an editor with little-to-no experience in areas related to adminship. Per Q1, the intention is to get the tools, and then to participate in CSD and NPP work. The editor should rather participate in those areas first, show competence in those areas, and then apply for adminship. What I do see from this editor is good; I see intelligence and caution, and a lot of article development. It's what I don't see that leads me to oppose. -- '''
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per low edit count in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose'''. Per Atama et. al. For someone who would like to use admin tools in NPP / CSD, I would like to see some experience in those areas. However, lack of project space contributions is of no consequence. <tt>
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. A very good content contributor who simply needs more experience in the general "admin areas".
'''Oppose'''. Per smithers, Elen of the Roads, and MWOAP, I feel that Mark Cline doesn't have the experience in administrative areas and understanding of CSD that a RfA candidate should have.  His answer to the questions posed above do not indicate a strong understanding nor complete knowledge of CSD that an administrator should have.  ''An RfA candidate should have an intimate knowledge of everything that an Administrator needs to know.'' An Administrator must already have all the knowledge necessary to make quick, justifiable, sensible decisions BEFORE he or she becomes an Administrator - Administration is not a time to learn, but a time to lead. --
'''Oppose''' - Mike is an experienced editor and while I don't think he'd abuse the tools; I feel reluctant in giving them to someone who has little experience in admin-type areas.  I also think an admin needs to be involved with at least Wikiproject; a connection to the Wikipedia community.  --'''
Need understand and follow process more, like telling people of delete noms.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Oppose''', reluctantly.  Seems to be a very sensible editor, with firms support from many trustworthy people.  Your answers are somewhat bland, you lack practical experience in admin-related areas and I cant get a firm picture of what you represent.  I have recently intensely regretted some earlier support votes I have given, I'm sick of tendentious admins, and then I default to oppose.  Sorry.
I would trust this editor as an admin, and I understand the argument that one good use of the tools is a net positive. But while I have the utmost of respect for their encyclopaedic contributions, I do not want the user to be given the tools if this would significantly change their focus, as the answer to Q1 implies.
'''Neutral''' Excellent user but I am worried that he does not have enough demonstrated experience that is specifically relevant to being an admin. ''<B>--
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Neutral]]''' Good content contributor, but I am concerned about the lack of admin-related area experience. Particularly, the statement that the editor would work in the [[WP:CSD|CSD]] area combined with the indicated lack of experience in that area gives me worry (but insufficient to oppose because I feel the user is well-intentioned and has good common sense judgement as indicated by existing contributions). --
'''Neutral''' Regardless of where this candidate wishes to work, I believe that all admins must still have a certain level or involvement in the project space, and only 400 edits (see [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Mike+Cline&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]) is not enough for me. I also agree with Shirik, I would like to see some more in CSD other than userspace. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral''' - Has ''nothing'' to do with lack of involvement in project space. I see that as a plus. But most RfA duties involve either vandalism patrol, something deletion related, or perhaps more nuanced page protection and editing those pages. I see almost none of that in the long list of this editor's strength. I think given a month or two of some reasonable activity in any one of those fields, he/she can come back and it's an easy yes.
'''Neutral''' Although the candidate is a good editor, I do not think that they have enough experience in admin areas to be an admin at the moment, but this is not strong enough to oppose - hence my placement here. -- '''''
'''Neutral for now''' Even when someone intends limited use of the tools, they will inevitably run across situations where other things are called for, and should be able to respond apropriately to at least the most common situations. I don;t think he'd go wrong, but if he intends to work at CSD , he needs to practice there with the things a non-admin can do, such things as nominating articles for deletion,and   removing clearly inappropriate tags. His answers to the CSD questions were very good, so I can see he at least knows what the rules are--otherwise I would be opposing. But he has almost no experience using them,; if he had, I would be supporting.   '''
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Neutral]]'''. The article writing is valuable and impressive and should not be underestimated. However, I'm not seeing the kind of established excellence in any area other than article writing (which is excellent and long may it continue, but you don't need admin tools to write great content) and I'm afraid I just don't feel you have enough experience in the "behind-the-scenes" areas of the wiki to convince me you truly know what you're doing as an admin. I was considering opposing based on that, but I rest here because several editors whom I respect greatly and who have excellent judgement are in the support column.
'''Support''' Decent-looking candidate. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Abso-bloody-lutely'''! I've been bugging him to run and I'm glad to see he finally is. More than qualified and wants to work in admin-short areas. What more could you ask for?
'''Support''' This editor can be trusted with the tools.--
'''Support''' – I've been anticipating this one. Mkativerata is one of the most sensible people around here. <font face="Comic sans MS">
{{ec}} '''Support''' – Looks good to me. Can be trusted with the tools. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - Not come across this editor editing articles but our paths have crossed in AfD and other areas and have no hesitation in supporting.
'''Support''' Sensible candidate, and I am aware of how much more admin help is needed at CCI.
'''Support''' More than 10,000 edits; ample contributions to areas where the mop is often used (RfA,AIV,AfD); seems clueful and trustworthy--
Definitely. Well experienced in the relevant areas; can't see any problems giving him the mop.
'''Unquestionably'''. Well-rounded candidate, with a good balance of encyclopaedic contributions as well as experience of the adminny side of things. --
'''Support''' Don't see any problems, and they have lots of experience. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support''' clean blocklog, deleted contributions look good fine ''
'''Support''', with no hesitation at all - already a great contributor to related areas, and will make a great admin.
'''Strong support''' But I wanted to nom or co-nom you :'( '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' – no exceptions! /
'''Support'''. I've been waiting for this! I've worked with [[User:Mkativerata]] primarily on copyright cleanup, but I've been impressed. Diligence and good sense are a great combo in an admin, and I think the tools would be a good benefit here. --
'''Support''' Looking at the CCI I was humbled by your [[WP:COOL]] approach. A pleasure to support this request. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
{{ec}} '''Support'''.  Has done good work with copyright issues, and I see no reason not to trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here. Mkativerata will make a fine and trustworthy admin.--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate with experience in all the right areas.
'''Support''', no concerns. --
{{ec}}'''Support''' Experienced candidate, active in all the right areas. --
Definitely.  '''
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this editor at AFD and DRV, and have been impressed by their contributions to those debates. I'm amazed that they aren't already an admin.
I have never interacted with this user (I had never seen his/her username), but well, that doesn't change the fact I still can '''support''' :P '''
'''Support''', a good candidate. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No concerns, great candidate as evidenced by the support reasoning above.
'''Support''' Solid-looking candidate, good answers to questions. Gets my support.
'''Support''' No major concerns at all.
'''Support''' looks good to me. ''<B>--
Clueful, reasonable, and experienced. '''
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' No issues seen. --
'''Support''' - No problems seen.
'''Support <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
Very good candidate, most certainly will be good with the mop. ~~
'''Support''' Willing to work copyvios and has a clue. I had just watchlisted this yesterday to make sure I didn't miss it whenever it came up, I just didn't know it would be so soon.
'''Support''' I generally don't support self-noms, but I see nothing here to make me think he wouldn't be an excellent admin. I do happen to differ strongly with the candidate on his support for the 'other current' Rfa -- but not for his particular ''reason'' for supporting, which I do think is, well, reasonable.
'''Support''' Easy. I'd already seen many of his great contributions, and looking through his others just makes me more sure he would make a good admin. &nbsp;
'''Strong support''' Luckily I visited a talk page with the scoreboard on the top. I hardly ever pass RFA anymore, this user is really great witht eh content policies and applying them practically, not just theoretically waffling, without understanding, and he edits and writes really well too, per FA/GA '''
'''Support''': looks good to me. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Strong support''' Have dealt with him on content matters and found him to be well-reasoned, intelligent and careful, and responsible with regards to [[WP:BLP]]. Good luck.
'''Support''', looks good to me.  I've also been an editor since 2007.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' From his work at [[WP:WikiProject Malaysia]]-related matters, I've found no fault and see no cause not to support this. :p
'''Support''' Not often I come by RfA, but in this case - sensible, experienced, level-headed, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate. A little too laissez-faire on BLPs for my preference (however my preference is probably on one extreme of the pendulum) but I am extremely confident that he will not abuse the administrator tools to push any barrows on this, or any, issue. Can he be trusted with the tools? Absolutely. --
'''Support''' Good answers, good attitude.
'''Support''' has shown enough for me to predict that is highly likely to be net positive.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Solid contributer/editor. Certain trust can be given here.
'''Support''', looks great.
'''Support''' I'd always assumed he was.  Seriously.
'''Support''', no real problems here.
'''Support''' - I've seen this candidate's work around the encyclopedia and I am happy to support.
'''Strong support''' Often see this candidate at AfD, and while their notability standards are too high for my likeing they always seem polite, fair and thoughtful.
'''Support'''. I've seen you around a lot, and I'm very favorably impressed with your cluefulness and courtesy at [[WT:BIO]]. --
'''Strong Support''' - Fantastic contributions (1 FA, 3 GAs, 11 DYKs), a number of barnstars showing appreciation, you ''already'' have [[User:Mkativerata#Fan club|sockpuppets gunning for you]] so you're ready for that side of being an admin. Great answers to questions, and my vague memory of encounters with you seem positive.  Seems like a well-rounded candidate. -- '''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - sufficient time as an editor, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article rescuer, autoreviewer, great user page, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' - an editor of extremely high quality :)
'''Support''' Clearly this is going to pass without my help, but in view of the brilliant answer to Q3 I wanted to pitch in anyway. --<font color="Red">
'''Support:''' Appears to be about as good as they come.
I might have been under the impression that this user was already an admin. Either way, I support.
Copyright cleanup and FA of course.
'''Support'''- Absolutely no hesitation.
'''Support''' This candidate demonstrates a level of maturity and professionalism that seem to be becoming rare among recent RfA candidates. Throughout his work, I find no reasons to hesitate in supporting. --
'''Support''' Excellent nominee, no concerns personally, clearly inspires confidence from the community.
'''Support''' [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]&#124;
Yes!
Upon inspection, no issues surface. Thanks for putting yourself forward.
Support.
Support.
'''Support''' - Seems level-headed enough.
'''Support''' - Our paths haven't crossed, but contributions & responses look good so I see no reason not to give him a mop :) -
Positive interaction, comments show an abundance of clue. The calm demeanor I see from this candidate is the right attitude for the mop. Good content work. '''
'''Support'''. Sufficient experience, good content contributions, see no concerns.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''': I've seen the candidate making cogent comments at AfD; all the answers here confirm the impression of a thoughtful, articulate user who will contribute a great deal to the project's professionalism and tackle backlogs. Good answer on BLPs, I think.
'''Absolutely'''. I've been wanting to nominate Mkativerata for a while now. He is definitely trusted to use the tools. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Support''' I thought he already was one. Wasn't sure if I already voiced my opinion here.
'''Support'''.
Of course.
'''Support'''. Yes. Impressed by answers and record.
'''Support''' No problems. '''
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions above and has made very good contributions.
'''Support''' No concerns and thoughtful answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate. I don't know this user, so I checked lots of contribs, and I'm very impressed. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' I've seen this editor at different venues and appreciate his reasoable demeanor. '''
'''Support''' good work at ITN--
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Mkativerata. —
'''Support''' Seems capable...
'''Support''' Has made many good contributions to wikipedia and its community. Knowledgeable and demonstrates high level of maturity/professionalism. <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' Nice to see a self-nom getting the deserved support. Best regards.
'''Support''' - seems highly qualified and sufficiently experienced.
'''Support''' - seems quite sensible.
'''Support''' - no reason not to. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support.''' Trustworthy, clueful editor.
'''Support''' <strong>
'''Support''' Looks fine, don't see anything making me think tools will be misused.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Exactly what wikipedia needs, a good user.--<font color="759653">
Sure thing.
'''Support:''' Valid concerns raised below, a little more focus on the mainspace would be better, but a net positive in my mind. -
'''Support''' I certainly do not see any issues with this user that may lead me to believe that they would not make good use of the sysop tools.
'''Support'''. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - Finally getting around to this Rfa, and my !vote is moot, but I am delighted to support, even as a pile-on, this well-rounded candidate. The answer to Q7 is nicely phrased. Best wishes for your coming adminship.
'''Support''' - good quality candidate. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Pile-on support''' per Jusdafax. Though the candidate's hatred of Kiwi soccer is a cause for concern... ;-)
'''Support''' I have seen Mkativerata around doing good stuff so many times now I am sure the mop will only improve their contributions to the project.
'''Support''' of course.
'''Strong Support''' Credentials seem solid all around. And we definitely need more work done in "Speedy Deletions".
'''Oppose''' - Cannot support at this time, does not meet my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|minimum criteria]]. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you're only really been active the last for the last nine months.  I'm happy that you're really strong in AfD work, but a little more focus on the mainspace would be better.  --'''
'''Neutral'''. I hate to be ''that guy'', but I'm a little uneasy at Mkativerata's feeling that not all administrators should be well-versed and in good understanding of all administrative policies. You seem to be a good user and will almost certainly pass with this RFA, but I guess I'm a little old-fashioned in feeling that you should know about block policy and so on, especially if you are dealing in administrative tasks (such as sockpuppetry) where this becomes important. Nothing against the work that has been done<s>, and given a push, I'd lean toward supporting.</s> [[User:Esteffect|Esteffect]] ([[User talk:Esteffect|talk]]) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)  Remaining neutral after discussions in the Oppose section.
'''Neutral''' - How is your ''recall''?
I have full confidence in NativeForeigner. He strikes me as a confident, yet reasonable, experienced yet willing to learn, and clueful editor. He'll be a great admin. <small>(
Per directly above.
I think X! said it all. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' – Great candidate for adminship. I admire his contributions to mainspace; personally, I think that we need more mainspace-building admins. X! sums it up very nicely. I trust NativeForeigner with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''.  [[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] -'''
I remember working with him on [[Lac Dore Vanadium Deposit]]. I found him amicable, willing to learn, and clueful; per the arguments above, I think he'd make a good admin. '''
Concise and to the point. I trust him '''
'''Support''' deletion nominations look good.
Everything looks very good to me - eg not seeing any declined speedies. --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' per my nomination. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' – I particularly remember viewing his great contributions for the first time on [[Mo Tae-Bum]]'s article way back in February. I've seen only good things from him during my time here.
Nothing but positive interactions with NativeForeigner.
'''Support''' Per X! --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
Per X! No problem supporting. ~~
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. Kudpung raises good points, although not significant enough (in my opinion) to prevent support.
'''Support''' We need more admins who hold (or are at least eligible for) a [[WP:CROWN|triple crown]] before standing for RfA.  The fact that he's done this with a relatively low edit count is a strong mark ''in his favor''.
'''Support''' &mdash; Ahh, ''another'' RfA that seems poised to hit [[WP:100]] by the end of its allotted time. This candidate should do fine.
'''Support'''. It's always been the case that a candidate with a relatively low number of edits would need to be exceptionally good to get my support - and exceptionally good is indeed what I see here.
Low edit count not an issue here. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Strong support''' NativeForeigner and I first had dealings on Wikipedia back in Feb 2007 and have kept in touch on-and-off since then. I'm delighted to see that others got here first to say things that I otherwise might have said. Suffice it to say that he's always struck me as a sensible, reliable individual who, if successful in this RfA, will use the tools sensibly and be a net positive to the admin ranks.
'''Support''' NativeForeigner should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Having worked with NativeForeigner on the milhist coordination team I've found him to be thoughtful, constructive and collaborative in the best WP tradition. Experience isn't an issue for me at RFA because it comes with time; judgement on the other hand is. I'm pleased to say I've seen no reason for concern here.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Support'''. At the end of the day, the question here is "does the candidate have sufficient knowledge of the wiki, sufficient experience and and are they trustworthy enough and sufficiently competent to handle a mop without deleting the Main Page or something equally stupid?" In this case, I believe the answer is yes and any help cleaning out the spam category is always appreciated.
'''Support''' Only concern is inactivity. --
'''Support'''. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
I know him from [[WP:MILHIST]], where he does an excellent job all around. - Dank (
'''Support''' - I don't care what is said down below; I think you know what you're doing. No reason not to thrust thee...
'''Support''' Yes!
'''Support''' Seems like good people, and the more admins clearing out G10s/etc the better.
'''Support''', good attitude, history and answers; edit count is not a concern - will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Given that another admin decided to block himself in good faith, I think NativeForiegner would be a fine substitute for the mop.
'''Support''': Though this candidate's level of experience it toward the lower end of what I'd usually support, what s/he has done shows ample knowledge of the areas where s/he intends to work and makes me confident that s/he'll grow into more. I'm not the least concerned about the edits to articles subsequently AfD'd, per Bencherlite's evidence that NativeForeigner was approaching these articles in a constructive but critical way.
'''Support''' - per satisfactory answers to questions and good interactions with other users. Good candidate overall.
'''Support''' A quick review of experience leaves me with the impression that this candidate is exactly right for the role. I remain to be convinced that there are any genuine red flags here.
'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent editor with thoughtful responses to the questions above.
'''Support''' Looked at contribs - looked at opposes. Liked the former better than the latter. Editor is roughly 900% more competent than I. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support'''  While otherwise lacks the experience I'd ideally like to see, I'm happy enough given high-quality answers. Opposes aren't enough to worry me though they raise reasonable points.
'''Support''', a good candidate that as far as I can see will be a benefit to the project. --'''
'''Support''' Normally I would be very reluctant to support a candidate with so little experience at Wikipedia, but he seems to have learned very quickly. It's a bit of a guess, of course, but I have the right sort of feeling about it. '''
'''Support''' What you lack in edit count you make up for with your 3+ years longevity.  You have a thorough knowledge of policy with good answers to the questions. Can't find any issues to oppose over. '''
Short version: '''Support'''. Long version: Not fully provided to prevent this turning into a rant. Some clues can be found [[User:Peter/RfA criteria|here]] and by my complete rejection of the reasons provided in the oppose section.
'''Support''' I've got this wierd feeling that I've already voted....--
'''Support'''--
'''<font color="navy">
Seen them around, which is generally a good sign.
--<span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Support''' No problems that I can see. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' See no problem with how this user conducts himself & has a clue to what is going on. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''support'''See no problems.©
'''Support'''. Slight concern around the periods of inactivity, but not enough for me to oppose. Net positive. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, NativeForeigner. —
'''Support, move for speedy promotion to adminship''' You have my full confidence.
Somewhat low content contribution, but seems to have a good knowledge of policy and has an understanding of CSD.
'''Support''', quality > quantity.  No real areas of concern that I can see.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Great user and editor. Needs his tools. --
'''Support''' Trusted user. ''<B>--
'''Moral support'''
'''Support''' per Jclemens and Lankiveil. Net positive.
'''Support''' An analysis of NativeForeigner's editing history indicates (s)he will make a good administrator. --''
'''Support''' per my take on [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|NOBIGDEAL]].  I don't see any convincing argument that he would ''mis''use his admin tools, so support.
'''Support'''.  The history looks good and, as per [[User:DGG|DGG]] above, I have a "feeling" that this individual will use the tools well; time spent/edit count are not the only indicators of ability to wield the mop.
Last minute '''Support''' '''''!'''''
Whilst I  am  fully  aware that a high  edit count is not  a criterion for adminship, NF has a relative low edit  count (around 4,000) when considering that about  25% are automated.  and  only  just over 2,000 edits to  article space. Only  four  short creations, one a stub (I'm  not  sure of the policy  on  ski  resorts but  this might  ring  a tad promotional), two  are very  short, (but  neverthless GA), and one unreferenced article. Contribs/creations also include a recent article that  was unanimously deleted at  AfD.  I'm sure NativeForeigner has a ''basic'' knowledge of most  of the policies and principles  but has only  been active during  the past  6 months or so, and looking  at  his work to date, I'm  not  sure that  he even  really  ''needs'' the tools yet. IMO (s)he has not  yet  accumulated significant practice that  would demonstrate the sense of judgement  needed for wielding  them.  Another six months perhaps at  the same rate and doing  the housekeeping that  he already  can without  the tools would probably see him/her better prepared for the tasks of sysop.--
'''Oppose''' Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh here, but I'm just not seeing enough diversified contributions. Generally, I do not support most candidates without enough in-depth content work, excepting several exceptional candidates I have seen. Not to say that you are unexceptional, or that you are a poor user, but the lowish levels of activity, and the relatively low number of edits in various places you want to work in, especially files, does not instill into me confidence. Some of the answers are a bit iffy for me (you can't actually BLPProd files, bans can be imposed by the ArbCom, "although only those that are in the United States, as that is where my true knowledge of copyright law lies" doesn't make me feel any better about your experience--things like the [[URAA]] are global yet very important in the U.S. as well--etc., etc.). While obviously a nom from both bibliomaniac and Ed are commendable, I think you would really benefit from another 3 or 4 months. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—

'''Oppose''' I was going to support until I looked at the two GAs, which are very short (basically two thoroughly sourced start class articles). And I like a lot of experience as well, given my past experiences '''
'''Oppose''' Per above and per the statement that you "BLP PROD files" which is impossible and demonstrates that this candidate is insufficiently experienced and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies. Also concerned over recent inactivity.
'''Oppose''' Per Kudpung.  Even if quality is better than quantity of edits, 5k edits is not enough of a history to judge by; especially since most of them were in the last 6 months.  I'm sure he's a good editor, but I can't support for adminship at this time.  --'''
'''Oppose''' - This is one of the hardest Rfa !votes I've made, because I suspect this is a good person who would/will be a fine admin.  But... I find that, like some others, I have concerns about the edit count and overall time spent here, and my personal feeling that Wikipedia admins need ''a lot of experience'' to really learn the ropes.  That I haven't noticed NF around much is a factor, though this is such a huge project that it's not a big part of my oppose.  No, it's just the conviction that 4-6 months from now (given steady participation) the candidate will have a ''much better'' idea about the newfound adminship: what it takes to be one, and what those extra buttons really confer. Since it appears this !vote won't derail the Rfa, I'm going to wish NativeForeigner easy sailing with my very best wishes, now and always.
'''Oppose''' - We have a lot of good editors and good people on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no doubt that there are hundreds of users, users that have contributed to good or even featured articles, that if given the admin tools, would not do a thing wrong with them. I would actually trust this user with adminship. However, as much as being a good person and editor is a merit in and of itself, it is not grounds for being granted very serious rights in the Wikipedia community. The user has been here (or rather been active) for only seven or eight months (forgive me if I am off on that number), and during that time the user has barely any experience with the tasks administrators are usually given. Put simply, I just think this user is not experienced enough to go admin. (Yes, I have read the other oppose commentary and know that Inactivity != Experience, etc. etc., but that's my opinion.) —
'''Oppose''', does not meet my [[User:AnmaFinotera#RfAs|criteria for an admin]] as he is far too inexperienced. Barely has 5,000 edits, with very few in the user and article talk pages - indicating little actual interaction with other editors. Most edits are just from the last six months, and still are still scant. Only active in the last six months, which does not meet my view that at an administrator should be an active and heavily editing editor, i.e. someone who has survived the "honeymoon" period of active editing. Little activity in the more contentious areas. Encourage candidate to get more active and more experienced, start interacting more and in more areas, and try back after a year or so of doing so. --
'''Oppose''' I am uncomfortable with lack of experience, patchy involvement, and not enough significant contributions to counter-balance the concerns. I would like to see at least 12 months decent involvement with Wikipedia, especially in areas of consensus building or dispute resolution. I'd like to see more evidence of understanding of Wikipedia processes and policies. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
You comment that you'd do work with files, but less than 2% of your live edits are in that namespace.  I'd suggest more experience in this area, before handling any File deletions.--
'''comment'''. Same concern as Rockfang: your ''apparent'' record with files here and on commons does not convince. You said "Lastly, I would delete files with duplicates on commons, as well as do transferring myself.", but are you ready to decide whether the file meets the written policies and unwritten conventions of the commons?
'''Neutral''': Per relatively low editcount (for an admin candidate) and heavy activity in recent months, although you're getting there; also per file-handling concerns.  Keep up the good work, though. --
'''Neutral''': I really hate to do this, but I'm not comfortable with my Support vote any longer, so I'm moving to neutral. The concerns expressed in the Oppose and Neutral sections have added up to give me too great a sense of unease. I failed to pick up on these things in my review, which is a criticism of me - not the candidate. However, the concerns related particularly to file deletion should not be ignored. One additional disappointing aspect to me is the promise to return with diffs for question 3, which seems unfulfilled. I understand things can be overlooked, but on your own RFA you need to display the attention to detail which will be expected of you as an admin, imo.
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Strong support''' Nev1 is a fantastic editor, and imo should never have resigned. Though I think he ought to have gone the painless way, so be it. Welcome back! '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Good candidate. I do not see any reason not to trust Nev1. --
'''<font color="navy">

'''Support''' per Aiken drum, with the caveat that I regard this RfA as unnecessary, and a testament to Nev1's good faith.
– <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support'''
'''Very Strong Support''' A superb editor who upholds the highest standards of Wikipedia.  Always helpful, gives wise advice, and despite all tribulations always seems to maintain a calm temperament. --
'''Strong support'''. New RfA wasn't needed, but going for it shows the candidate's humility and strong ethics. --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. We need more admins, this user already was and left with good standing, this RfA is totally useless and someone needs to just give him the tools already (although in terms of acts of good faith this is pretty up there). <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="black">
Echoing everything said above. '''
'''Support''' - Easy call, let's hand the mop back.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. And, for what it's worth, I commend you for choosing to run for adminship again to get the tools back! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' - I applaud the integrity of running again given the substantial change in situation, but in this case my opinion has only improved further since the initial RfA. Nev1 is very much welcome to his admin tools back, he was a good candidate the first time and is an excellent one now. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong support''' – Given that this user could have just requested his adminship tools, but instead runs for adminship, this user shows that he is (still) trustworthy with the tools. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' -- a user with the integrity to choose this route has my respect. Give 'em the tools.

I don't see any concerns with this editor's previous handling of admin tools, so I don't see any reason to oppose giving them back. '''
'''Strong support''' User stepped down in good standing previously, and edits since last RfA don't seem problematic at all.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''support''' --
'''Support''' former administrator who passed the first time with flying colors (90/4/6); absolutely no reason to oppose handing back the mop--
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support''' - one of the most level-headed editors around here, and one of the few whose RFA I'd ever support. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support'''  - No reason to oppose.
Obviously.
&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Very Strong Support'''  - Of course - and welcome back.--
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Nev1 has already demonstrated his trustworthiness and suitability for the role.
Tempted to oppose because this process is unnecessary, but going to '''support''' because it's a no-brainer that Nev1 should have the tools back.
'''Support'''. A productive content editor, who I've always found to be calm & helpful. Will be even more of an asset to the project with the tools again.
'''Support''' per his own nom. I don't think you needed another RfA; you're sensible enough to figure out the new stuff yourself :) '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Given all the discussion about admin numbers falling, glad to see one returning.
'''Support''' - ownership and acceptance of errors is always good to see. Also a very experienced editor. Congrats and welcome back to adminship......oh dear...[[WP:CRYSTAL]]. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB">
'''Support''' - I don't see why you need to go through a RFA, you could just ask a bureaucrat to give you back adminship. You did resign in good standing, and you are still in good standing today.
Appreciate the "reconfirmation". --
'''+1''' --
'''Support'''- yeah, this renomination is probably unnecessary. Definitely should have the tools back.

'''Strong support early closure''' since this RFA isn't really necessary. It's obvious the community wants Nev1 to regain the tools. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
Obviously, as well. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Hooray'''
'''Strong support''' already proven trustworthy.
'''Support''' I don't know why he wants to do it the hard way, but I see no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' per NerdyScienceDude. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••

'''Support''' About bloody time :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per all of the above.
It's refreshing for an admin to treat the bit with respect, rather than as an entitlement after a poll once upon a time. And as said above, from what I've seen you were an excellent admin anyway. --
'''Support''' Do we even need to have an RfA? --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Support''' I have a lot of respect for the fact that you chose the RfA route rather than just asking a 'crat for the bit back, as would have been your right. You should be given the bit right now! ''(puts on best [[Yul Brynner]] voice)'': "[[The Ten Commandments (1956 film)|So let it be written. So let it be done.]]" -- '''''
'''Support''' ......
'''Support.'''
'''Support.'''
This fellow has done nothing the least bit deplorable as an administrator, and is one of those contributors who serve as a reminder that there are still very decent and caring people out there on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - The tools were relinquished in good standing, and used responsibly when they were held. Nothing has occurred between now and the time the tools were given up that give me concern in returning them. I gladly support. -- '''
'''Support''' - No brainer. Maybe reelection is the system we need, more than recall or other bureaucratic methods.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I simply cannot oppose. I've had a few bad run-ins with Nev1 in the past but I have to say that Nev (I can call you that, right?) is just an "ideal editor" so to speak. I'd have to say that he's here for the right reasons and really cannot think of anyone who is ''not'' an admin right now that should get the tools more than him.--
'''Support, but''' ask that Nev1 either promise us or promise himself not to act in a fashion unbecoming of an admin like mentioned in John's oppose (oppose #1).  Such diff is a bit less than 4 months ago.
'''Support''' I think redemption is in order here.
'''Support''' Looks ''fantastic''. '''
'''Strong support''' '''
''' Support''' I've had one run-in with Nev1 on a piece. But overall I'm impressed with his presentation here. So support.
'''Support''' absolutely no reason not to. Don't get me wrong though, the link John posted was really not cool.
'''Support''' - Per the honest and respectable self-nom statement.
'''Support''' Net benefit, and responsible for suggesting this rfa in the first place.
'''Weak Support''' I'm a bit concerned about the civility issue, but you meet all my other criteria for stability and content work.  --'''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Nev1. —
'''Support'''. Almost no issues at all. The RfA is hardly needed in this case.
&mdash;
'''Support''' - with my respect for putting yourself through an RFA to ensure you still have the community's confidence. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - a fantastic editor, might have some flaws, but we all do; all that matters is that the work is done and done well. '''
'''Support''' No reason to not give the mop back. No serious question of abuse of the tools. He can be uncivil from time to time with or without the mop. I would need to see signs of him being abusive to newbies or generally aggressive rather than an odd heated swear word to oppose this RfA.
'''Support''' candidate has my admiration and respect as an editor. Will make an excellent admin, as demonstrated already.
'''Strong support''', mainly per the opposes. Someone remind me; when did we decide that actually expressing opinions was a negative thing? Or did I miss the memo which added to the adminship requirements "must have a stick rammed so far up his jacksie that, with the application of some caramelised sugar, the candidate could be used as a toffee apple".
'''Support''' <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' - If this man isn't suitable for adminship, I'm certainly not. I was talking to Ironholds the other day - and a few prominent WFM officials - and we all agreed that there's a lack of admins here. Enough candidates of good quality, just too many opposes based on shitty reasoning. And yes, I said shitty. It is shitty. One of my opposes in my RFA was based on ''my username being sexually offensive''. And that's a ''good'' oppose compared to some of the reasoning I've seen recently. In conclusion: most of the oppose votes I've read are rubbish, and I'm not going to argue with them in every RFA because it'd just get messy. Instead, I stamp a strong 'support' on this wonderful candidate, who shows all the love, dignity, experience and foul-mouthed rants required to become an admin. Complaints about ''my'' foul-mouthed rant should, as always, go to my talk page.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' – per the opposes as Ironholds says above. One can but regret that the opposers have been exposed to such dreadful incivilities.
'''Support''' - of course. Has been a very great contributor and an active user. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Passed first time and I see no reason to change the decision reached then. I agree with the sentiment expressed by user:Ironholds above.
'''Support'''  Good contributor, learned from a mistake.  No big deal.
'''Support''' An excellent contributor and I have no objections to this user to regain adminship again. [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. {{ec}} Opposes, to me, are not a strong or convincing argument. If being in a pissy mood at times is enough to not have the bit, I think we'd have to fire a good deal of current admins. The larger question is, have any of this "pissy mood" moments affected the editors use (or misuse) of the tools? I think not. Lacking evidence otherwise, this is an easy choice for me. <sup>

'''Support''' Looks good to me, and the language doesn't bother me, as I've seen admins use the [[seven dirty words|words you can't say on television]] before. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support''' without any reservations.  I'm certain [[User:Nev1]] with (once again) make a fine administrator. <i>
'''Support''' - admins don't have to be perfect. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Definite Support''' - Excellent contributor and a plus to the Admin corps if he gets the mop and bucket. Although I must say, I think my enjoyment of toffee apples has been forever ruined...
'''Support'''. I am yet to see any problems with any actions they took as an admin. That alone should speak for itself.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Doesn't concern me, as he/she was an administrator before. More importantly, this user realises and learns from his/her mistakes.
'''Support''' - Per above, great work on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - looks good for a return.
'''Support''', largely per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=378595777&oldid=378595567 this]. One mistake does not a bad admin make. --
'''Support''', per the above discussion, it's a no-brainer the mop should be handed back.
'''Strong support''' a good editor who has been a great asset to WP - and the fact that he has put himself up for Rfa again shows integrity, not "suspect judgement".
'''Support''' proven track record as a good admin. ''<B>--
'''Support''' He hasn't had the admin tools for a while, So I think subjecting himself to the hell that is en.wikipedia's RFA to see if he still has the communities trust is a responsible thing to do.--
'''Support''' - Even if I didn't think this was an excellent candidate, with a strong background in content creation and no history of abusing the tools, I would be tempted to support based almost solely on the "holier-than-thou" opposes below. The odd strong word is much less damaging to this project than the default passive-aggressive bullshit that WP:CIVIL tends to encourage. I am not saying use of strong language is a good thing, but it is more forgiveable than most of the sins that we stone people for here. --
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support'''
Pleased to support Nev1 for adminsip again. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] (from
'''Strong Support''' Anyone with the balls to tell it like it is instead of prancing around the issue in strict line with our policy and guideline pages is bound to be a good admin. As the say, the best defense is a good offense, and if you will not take BS from anyone then you've got what it takes to make the hard calls on site.
I '''support''' this candidate ''because'' they were willing to undergo a full RfA when they did not have to.  (Would have been a stronger support but for the valid civility concerns given in the &#8220;oppose&#8221; votes.)
''''Support''' per all of the above. An engaging and constructive editor.
'''Support'''.  I am here very confident that Nev1 knows what they are doing (even while I did not get the answer that I wanted, at least I did not get the answer of someone regurgitating the policies and guidelines).  --
'''Support''' – Among other things, I checked some of his deletions from last year, and didn't see anything concerning. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' I'd be surprised if anyone who has 30,000 edits over four years hasn't had the odd tiff. Opposes rationales simply don't persuade me that Nev would not be a clear net benefit when the tools are returned. We have the unusual benefit of being able to review his past admin actions, and there is no evidence that he has used them other than appropriately. --
'''Support''' - excellent content creation across a broad spectrum of articles, huge quantity of experience. [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] <sup>([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]])(
'''Support''' - calm, circumspect, his own man. Support on the condition that he does not neglect his editorial work on medieval castles!
'''Support''', this one is fine.
'''Support'''. We need our admins back! -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Although I would suggest that Nev1 address the concerns expressed on the RfA, nobody's perfect. &mdash;
'''Strong support''' An excellent record and a great attitude.
'''Strong Support'''. I have always been impressed by Nev1's wonderful content contributions, and so I support without reservation. '''
'''Support'''. I don't recall interacting with you, but I take note of your substantial experience, clean block record, and obvious support here from so many other users—and I want to go on record as being happy that you came back to the community instead of simply asking a crat. --
'''Support''' - no problems here. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Get in''' and keep that shit coming.
'''Support''' John's diff isn't too concerning.
'''Support'''. Was a good admin before and I'm sure will be again. I'm unconvinced by the opposes, basically per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FNev1_2&action=historysubmit&diff=378337361&oldid=378337161 Fainites' comment here]. Also, I completely disagree that this RFA is disruptive since nobody is compelled to participate.--
I had to read the opposition section twice to check if I was missing a note of sarcasm. I grant that there are vast cultural differences in civility norms, but to consider use of the word "bullshit" ''prima facie'' uncivil fails any reasonable test of credulity. I find Nev an admirable administrator, and commend him for re-submitting for community mandate.
'''Support''' - civility is in the eye of the beholder, and Nev's been quite civil and constructive in the vast majority of cases. No concerns at all about his handling of the tools.
'''Support'''. Good contributor, lots of experience, see no reason to think candidate would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Some of the below concerns me, but it seems they could be trusted and their very opening of this rfa says a lot about them. <b> [[~]] <font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#052900">[[User:QwerpQwertus|<font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#052900">Qwerp</font>]]</font>
'''Support''' - agree completely with many of the above comments. Candidate is a strong content creator and was previously a competent admin. While this RfA is by the current "rules" and standards of Wikipedia unnecessary, its existence to my mind proves the candidate's character and responsibility to the Wikipedia community (not to mention, given the sometimes combative nature of RfA, his(?) courage ;-)
'''Strong Support'''. No concerns whatsoever! Good luck with the mop!
'''Strong Support'''' Excellent choice for Administrator.  Nev1 is keenly intelligent, does great research for his articles, is polite even under unfair criticism, and always willing to help people.  I cannot think of a better person for the job.
Well you have never been rude to me, but I trust you will take to heart the opposes, even if you believe your indiscretions to have been minor. It is  interesting how much damage can be done by a little "incivility", however defined - and anyone who thinks differently is a [[nincompoop]]! :)

'''Support''' Occasional incivility doesn't bother me.
'''Support'''  While I hope you'll make note of some of the civility complaints raised in the opposes below, in my reckoning they are not severe or frequent enough for me to question your trustworthiness with the tools. That said: I have to question your judgment for volunteering to be an admin again, even after having experienced the "benefits" of the position before. But we are not above taking advantage of your masochism!
'''Support''' if he was good enough then, he's good enough now.
'''Support''', and glad to see this brought to the community, even though not required.
Yeah, he's fine. No need to oppose over colorful language.
Not happy (on several levels) with edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=355405470 this]. Sorry to spoil the party. --
'''Oppose''' This RFA is process for the sake of process, where none was necessary. The existence of this RFA indicates suspect judgment.
'''Oppose''' per Town, and the fact you have too many "cheerleaders" on your team. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Oppose''' Has civility issues, and defends/encourages his friends' incivility.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with the above.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' per civility issues raised by [[User:John]] above.  Hot-headed editors need not apply for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per civility issues raised by [[User:John]], pigheadedness is not a quality that I desire in an administrator, having an administrator with civility problems could pose a significant risk.
'''Strong Oppose:''' Pedro old boy,  surly old gits . . .  rude, uncivil and who do not write any articles or who are generally negative, are too common on Wikipedia. That is NOT a good thing. Therefore I cannot support such a candidate. -
'''Oppose''' - I'm at a loss to reconcile [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&oldid=355405470#Bad_language_-_5_pillars_etc... this] with the temperament required of an admin. This was only 4 months ago. I've been an admin too, and sometimes it is like running a kindergarten, but you have to be above that kind of thing. -
'''Oppose''' Civility issues per John and Richardcavell. Past precedent may show that admins are able to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2#Evidence of disputed behavior|get away with treating others like crap]], but I'd prefer not to add another one to the party. The point is moot, as you're well on your way to getting promoted again anyway. I will not support a candidate that has exhibited temper problems multiple times.
'''Oppose''' per John. Administrators ''need'' to show deference towards our civility policy. I don't have a problem with saying "shit", but when when I read the entire conversation I saw Nev1's comments as demonstrating a rejection of our civility policy and the idea of constructive criticism. '''
'''Oppose''' For ignoring/ defending his friend's incivility while only admonishing editors of opposing viewpoints. He repremanded me, but not his friend Gun Powder Ma, because he was supporting Gun Powder Ma in a dispute against User:Teeninvestor. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_China_(pre-1911)&diff=373874519&oldid=373873271] I was repremanded by him for trolling that User, but Gun Powder Ma has already had four blocks, for incivility and edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGun+Powder+Ma]. It seems that he should have learned his lesson and not get offended by my alleged trolling. Nev1 seemed rather quick to jump to Gun Powder Ma's defence. As an admin he might be quick to block the incivility of opposing editors, but turning a blind eye to incivility of friends.
'''Oppose''' due to incivility concerns. &nbsp;&ndash;
'''Oppose'''. I'm amazed that so many people are in support, having seen the attitude issue demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=355405470|here]. I also don't see the point in this RFA, in that it is wholly unnecessary.
'''Oppose''', per Esteffect. Unfortunately, I am opposing due to recent and on repeat occasions, the use of swear/cuss words aggressively towards other editors. I myself have been incivil before during content disputes although I did not use swear words, I do understand how stressful wikipedia can be. If the editor was to rerun in 6 months or more time, and shows no repeated incivility from now until then, I would most likely support.--
'''Oppose''' I think it is important for admins to maintain decorum as representatives of the site; I would not support a candidate who uses vulgar language in a dispute.
Incivility is unacceptable in administrators. Wouldn't mind supporting after an extended period of editing in which no such concerns appear, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', rudeness and incivility are not what I want to see in admins.  I could forgive an occasional lapse of judgement, but there have been enough incidents that I think a pattern is evident.
What Lankiveil said.
I am not in favor of duplicating RfAs, and would prefer ex-admins in good standing to just ask for the tools back rather than create another non-content page that will be archived and (rightly) never looked at again. However, if you're using this venue to encourage comments on your behavior as an editor, then so be it: Nice content, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nev1&diff=356163214&oldid=356161883 shame about the language]. I appreciate that my standard for civil conduct may be different from yours, however, I still do not completely understand why you and your many friends, who are obviously intelligent and educated people, feel the need to resort to potentially offensive language. You (all of you) should be clever enough to realise that it weakens rather than strengthens any reasoned argument.
Withholding my support since RFAs by former admins in good standing who can request the bit back "just like that" are inherently disruptive.
'''Neutral''': This editor has been a previous admin, and can be generally trusted with the tools. But, although I don't mind admins getting pissed and using some harsher language, it seems to happen too often with this editor in the past few months. Enough to cause me to raise a brow. -- <font color="green">&#47;
Former admin who resigned the tools uncontroversially. I actually think it's a good thing to see former admins going through RfA since today's RfA standards are much different to those of several years ago, as is the admin package and the community's expectations of admins. That alone is enough to make me seriously consider supporting but, while it looks as if this RfA will likely pass, your username is distinctly familiar. I've a feeling we came across each other in less-than-ideal circumstances, but I've neither the time nor the energy to work out where, so I won't oppose. I'd also advise you to tone down the language- I don't have a problem with "bad language", but admins need to be able to calmly and carefully explain their actions when queried, even by people who don't show the same courtesy.

'''Support''' Excellent content contributor. The block doesn't worry me; as far as edit wars go, it was pretty tame, and I can understand Nikki's position.
'''Support''' as per my nomination.
If we have to have administrators then at least they should be content-oriented rather than virtual policemen. The block is, of course, a bonus.
'''Support'''. Great long-term content creator who certainly seems to understand what makes the whole thing tick. And the block? It's only a short one from a year ago, and it stems from the candidate's passion for good content, so I don't see it as a problem at all --
Going to get shit for the block, but the other contribs easily outweigh that.
'''Support''' because she escaped the 24hr block back in July!
'''Support''' What i like is the DYK creations the author has worked on. Theres a broad range of activity for article devlopment and maintenance. I do not think the Block (being over one year old) is recent enough to deter.  So plus one
'''Support'''. A brief concern about the block, and the opening statement only really talks about non-administrative stuff, but she doesn't look like she's going to be anything rash, and we need to assume good faith in these cases.
'''Strong support''' Well-qualified--
'''Support''' – I'm not seeing much a problem following that block over a year ago. All the contribs after doing a spot-check seem to be outstanding. –
'''Support''' Definitely qualified.
Another great candidate. <span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Support''' – Seems like a great content writer. Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - Great content editor and reviewer, lots of clue.
'''Support''' Contributions look good, and I do not believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per the candidates outstanding content contributions. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support''' - This editor is clearly a longtime content asset to the encyclopedia. Having a mop will help keep Wikipedia clean. Best wishes,
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  Good editor, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' I don't say this often, and ''despite'' that I flagged you with reviewer, I would have said you already were an admin. Absolutely no concerns.
A very clear case. --
'''Support''' No concerns.
Familiar with this user's civil, clueful approach to editing. No worries about their handling of the tools. '''
Clueful, hardworking, good writer. Per nom. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' From all appearances a level-headed user who can do a lot for the encyclopedia given the tools. &mdash;/
'''Support''' No problems here. Everything points that XYZ will make a good admin. '''
'''Strong support'''. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' One of the best and calmest contributors I've had the pleasure to interact with. The circumstances of the block speak more in her favour than against. Very happy to see her here.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Yup. Handled the troll well too.
'''Support''' Should be a net positive.
'''Support'''. Yeah, Nikkimaria would be a great admin! Also, 11k contributions, that's amazing!
'''Support'''. Over 7,000 article edits certainly meets my wishes for an admin to be familiar with content work. I'm very impressed by her attitude of making use of the tools to extend the work she's most familiar with first. I have no reason to doubt Nikkimaria will have the community's trust as an admin. Good luck with the GANs! --
'''Support''' - her GA Review of George Washington was impressive and very detailed, I must apologise for not requesting peer review first though. I can think of no reason why she is not deserving of the mop. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Strong Support''' [[Tony Abbott|Time for real contributors. Stand up for Wikipedia. Real Action]] '''
'''Support''' Strong editor who can really use the tools to help Wikipedia.
'''Support''' – Contributions look good; I'm not seeing anything that might suggest she would abuse or misuse the admin tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - Answers to questions demonstrate someone who thinks things through in a logical and reasoned manner. <big>
'''Support'''  Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. Excellent content contributor with a sufficient understanding of policy. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - No problems, seems like she'd make a good admin.  (WOW over 70% of your contributions are to the mainspace, Good job!) --'''
'''Support''' as there is no reason to oppose.

'''Support''' The candidate has made many very valuable contributions, clearly understands the project very well indeed, appears pleasant and helpful and would, I am sure, make positive and considered use of the tools. &nbsp;
No red flags, one block back in the day really doesn't bother me. My only concern is that the candidate's content work may decrease, but that's really no reason to do anything other than '''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;no doubts that this user will make a fine administrator. <i>
'''Support''', looks good to me. --
'''Support''' should be fine.
'''Support''' A helpful and thoughtful editor who I trust with the tools.
'''Support''' I've only had wonderful experience working with Nikkimaria here and the chance of abuse or even misguided use of the tools here is about nil. Great content contributor and an even better overall editor whom I trust.--
Long term content creator with no major problems that I can see. Any minor concerns I had about lack of experience in administrative areas is offset by the reasoned and well-thought-out answers to the optional questions. '''<font color="navy">

'''Support''' Q8 impressed me.
'''Support''' - Great contributions, a reasonable amount of experience in project space, wonderful answers to questions, excellent communication skills, no concerns. -- '''
No problems supporting. ~~
'''Support''' seems like an exeperienced user. <font color="#228b22">
Why not?
'''Support''' - No problems here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' Level-headed; good quality contributions. --
'''Support.'''
'''Yes''' <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
Yup, no alarms here.
'''Support''' No reason not to.

'''Support''' - an excellent content contributor across a range of areas, indicating a good knowledge of guidelines, etc. Looks trustworthy, and should be a benefit as an admin.
'''Support''' Appreciate the respectful way the candidate dealt with the 2nd oppose, and her thoughtful answer to question 1. The candidate does not come to RfA with a set list of what she needs the tools for, but there's a good explanation of where she will start and how she might expand her use of admin functions, once she surveys the lay of the land. And I've never met a Manitoban I haven't liked.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I've seen the candidate around at the Manitoba article, and they seem to know what they're doing. Plenty of experience in my opinion.
'''Support''' - more than enough content creation and contributions of the right kind to demonstrate this candidate's empirical knowledge of policy.--
'''Support''' Seems like this should work out...
- <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Strong Support''', not only are this user's GA reviews thorough and of a universally high quality, they've also developed a lot of great content themselves.  I was very impressed with this user while I was GA reviewing one of their articles.  No hesitation whatsoever.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Quality contributions, good answers to questions. -- '''
'''Support''' so ''you're'' the one who wrote the Manitoba article!
'''Support''' Here to build an encyclopedia.

'''Support'''. Good contributions, good experience, see no significant concerns.
'''Support'''. No concerns whatsoever! Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. Good content/reviewing editor and unlikely to do anything precipitate with the tools.
'''Support''' Great contributions. --
'''Strong Support:''' Another great candidate -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Having looked over contributions and interactions, I'm happy to support, as I can find no concerns. Answers here, and  discursive contribs elsewhere, demonstrate thoughtfulness, consideration and knowledge of Wikipedia goals and principles. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' With such knowledge of content editing how could she go wrong?
'''Support.''' Fine to me. &mdash;
Not that you need it, by the looks of things, but '''support''', just to edge this towards [[WP:100]].
'''Weak support''' meh.
'''Support''' Good constructive editor.
'''Oppose''' – Not enough recent activity. /
Beat-the-nom support. <small>Err, wait...</small> &ndash;'''
'''Support''' '''
This looks like a fine editor to me.  &ndash;
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Strong Support]]''' per nom.--
'''Support'''. Great edits, good experience, no cause for concern.
The name rings well in my head. No reason to believe he wouldn't wield the mop well. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' I don't personally like the idea admin coaching much, but this candidate is qualified anyhow. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support'''. I'm seeing good content work overall. The candidate seems thorough - take a look at the concerns raised during his October 2009 GA review of [[Mercury-Atlas 8]] (found [[Talk:Mercury-Atlas 8/GA1|here]]). Don't know how typical that is for GA reviews, but it tells me that the candidate took time to do it properly, and followed up later on to put a little green {{Classicon|GA}} on it. Participation at AFD looks good, edit volume and pattern look good, and I see quite a bit of reasonableness overall from the candidate. In short, I see nothing that indicates that the candidate's adminship will be anything other than a Net Positive to the project. Good luck,
'''Support''' You seem safe.
'''Support'''. In my experience, he has been a great help at DYK; I trust Olaf with the tools. <font face="Arial">
Mature, sensible, gets the site, participates enough in the administrative areas to give me an idea of what to expect. I do think that lack of participation in AN or AN/I is a reason to support more&mdash;administrative work does not need more drama -
'''Support''' -- A thoughtful even-keeled editor. A look at Olaf's edits at Afd and talk pages shows an editor who is willing to discuss and collaborate. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support.''' Nothing in your edit history sends me running away, but the fact that you've only edited the AN/I back-biting drama fest 12 times in almost two years of editing is a very strong positive indicatory that you know where to stay away from. Good job, and I wish you luck. --
'''Support''' Good points what the nominator said. I 100% admire Olaf Davis to go for it.
'''Support''' I am happy with the answers given to my questions, and can see no obvious problems which would cause me to oppose the candidate. -- '''''
'''Support''' longterm user with a clean blocklog and meaningful edit summaries. I've encountered the candidate a couple of times and been very impressed, and checking through his deleted contributions I saw nothing I was concerned about. ''
Seen some good stuff. I think he'll be just fine with the bit. '''
'''Support''', looks like an excellent editor. AfD work shows a collaborative attitude, which is what is needed.
'''Support'''(ish) Not a major contributor but no obvious problems, clearly intelligent, has clue, has served time at NPP ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20080512190529&limit=100&type=patrol&user=Olaf+Davis&month=&year= log]). If we need more admins (do we?) I've no objection. -
'''Support''' intelligent, reasonable, moderately experienced. Will be an asset over at AFD.
'''Support''' Valuable editor who seems to have their head on straight when it comes to professed areas of interest (by which I mean XFD). A credit to the project. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' our interaction at DYK has proven to me that Olaf is ready for the mop. I hope that Olaf can help there a little too. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''', per nominator statement, and answers to questions. It seems to me that the user will be a positive to the project, and has enough experience to know what they are doing. Not convinced by opposes which seem to be requiring an arbitary number to prove experience. --
'''Support''' per WTF is DM and is it anything to do with QM and eigenstates? Did you collapse the wave that doomed Schrödinger's cat?
'''Experienced''' user with a proven track record of keeping his cool.  I have encountered the user before and have been impressed, that and I trust Julian's endorsement.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Strong support'''. A simply fantastic editor who I remember as an extremely helpful presence at DYK. Experience in what matters and clearly has the ability to learn the rest. --
'''Very Strong Support'''This is an editor I would gladly support.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Free lemonade''</font>]]
'''Support''': Very impressed with answers related to CSD. I'm loving the spread of contributions in different namespaces and at least some established track record in a lengthy list of locations. Uses details explanations for opinions given and seems to have fine policy knowledge. I only slightly wonder about a lack of time on dreaded incident boards, but since preferred areas listed are more drama-free this is still far from a concern, since by no means should all admins be expected to be experts in absolutely every Wikipedia discipline. Some can take more abuse, others not. This candidate should be flagged as an example that mild-mannered yet confident editors still exist and just maybe thousands of different preferred objective requirement essays can hopefully be someday moot-- Proof that edit counts or more time spent in certain areas are completely meaningless when finding a good possible admin. Quality of contributions over quantity, and the ability to recognize strengths versus weaknesses being far more important. Best of luck to you!  <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' solid answers.  None of the opposers' concerns concern me.  ~
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Strong support'''. Mostly per his answer to question #3. Exactly the kind of attitude and temperment I look for, and admire, in any Wikipedia editor, not just admins. I wish you all the best. --
'''Support''' Seems good to me. Opposes didn't seem convincing.
'''Support'''. No particular concerns. Impressed with talk page contributions to controversial articles. <tt>
'''Support'''. I was unacquainted with this editor before [[User:Juliancolton]]'s nom.  I cherry picked their contribs and only found good ones.  I particularly liked the distinction between ''ban'' and ''block.''  Good luck
'''Support'''. I looked at Olaf's coaching page and when I saw Deletion Today I thought it was some sort of newsletter written by deletionists. Olaf's been around and I see no problems and a positive use for the tools.
'''Support''' Seems very level headed, great answers to the CSD questions, steers clear of ANI which is a plus. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no reason to oppose.
Whilst agreeing that there could be more experience in certain areas, the quality of edits so far indicates to me that the candidate will be more than capable of using a few extra tools constructively and without issue. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', Olaf has proven himself a trustworthy, helpful editor. I believe his attitude and quality of contribs sufficiently deflects any experience concerns.
Good user, seen him around and don't recall any problems. Good balance of edits to lots of namespaces. I don't see any issue with experience; Olaf has been around longer than I have. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' A random sampling of the candidates contribs suggests they are unusually diligent, clueful and helpful.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. His work at AFD is first-rate, his answers to the CSD questions are good, and he seems to keep a level head when the discussion gets heated, which is probably the most important aspect that I look for in a good administrator.
'''Support'''. Great AfD work, good general experience and a nice, mature attitude. Several of the opposes seem quite exquisitely nit-picky; and I really do not find anything to concern me. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Olaf Davis has been around long enough, and made enough edits to show adequate experience to me. I see enough AfD work to trust the editor with the tools in that area, and a random sample of AfD participation shows a civil attitude, good reasoning skills and policy knowledge. -- '''
'''Support''' the answers give me confidence.
'''Support''' Good user contribs, elegant mind, seems to have a stable personality --'''''
'''Support''' Solid contribs, seems a pretty stable addition to the corps.
'''Support''' per clueful answers to questions, experience of candidate, and low-drama persona.  —
'''[[user:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - User has a clue. Questions are well-answered. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Support''' Glad to. <strong>
'''Support''' Satisfied with question answers.
'''Support''' In addition to being very good at what you do, you have also demonstrated a level head, very little interest in Wikipolitics, and a lack of drama. Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' I think you get "it".  Good luck.
'''Support''' - Good answers, good contribs, good experience.
Intelligent, rational, adult.
--''
The contributions and the answers leave a very good impression. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - have only seen good things from this editor, and he seems to have the correct temperament for the job. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' This editor is clearly experienced, and has the correct attitude to do well as an Admin.
'''Support'''.  I have seen some intelligent comments with specific policy references from this editor in AfD discussions and I believe he will use the tools well.
'''Support'''. Seems to get everything and answers above questions knowledgeably. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Strong support''' I'm very pleased to see that Olaf Davis is seeking adminship. I've seen him at AfD in the past, and I've been consistently impressed with his well-thought out rationales in those discussions. It's nice to see a candidate for adminship who consistently maintains his cool and stays civil during disputes. Moreover, Olaf's lack of edits to the drama-packed [[WP:ANI]] is something I applaud; admins should focus on using the tools to protect and improve the encyclopedia, and I foresee Olaf doing just that. In fact, given his impressive answers to the questions (particularly 15-17), I think he will do an excellent job of closing AfDs. I'm also glad to see his willingness to provide closing rationales. (Oh, and 200 edits in AfDs is plenty.) Good luck and keep up the good work.
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' Candidate has my support after seeing his answers to the questions.
Looks good.
'''Support''' Feel the project will gain by the user having tools and do not see any scope for misuse of tools .
Thought he already was one, to be honest.
'''Support'''. Olaf Davis appears well prepared to handle AfD closures. Well-thought out reasoning to the questions above.
'''Support'''. Seems a thoughtful and reasonable candidate; I appreciate the willingness to give rationales and follow policy in AfD's. --
'''Support''': More or less exemplary responses on CSD questions above make me confident you'll do well in the areas where you've said you want to work.
'''Strong support''' Experience shows that experience is not a significant factor when it comes to adminship; the problematic administrators are those who are stubborn, conniving or otherwise unwilling to be held accountable for their actions. I have no such concerns here; Olaf definitely has the clue and character for the job. The only thing that would give me pause is the almost too by-the-book answers here which would normal give rise to sock suspicion, but given his commendable openness concerning real-life identity, that is not an issue. I look forward to working with you.
'''Support''' Demonstrates competence and trustworthiness, and, while I was not a part of, nor am I excessively familiar with, the controversy of the [[WP:NEWT]] "issue", the candidate's demonstrated ability to clearly discuss the matter shows a strong presence of the very necessary ability of an admin to communicate clearly and effectively. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - to negate Caspain Blue's oppose. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Well-qualified, can't find anything to lead me to oppose. '''
'''Support''' My small experience with AfD has given me a healthy respect for those with skills in that area.  This candidate is someone I want to see get the mop.  It's been made clear to me in the last 6 months that article contribution is not an absolute requirement for a good admin, and given the lopsided vote in favor, it is an absolute pleasure to pile on.  The few opposers fail to present creditable arguments, in my view.
'''Support''' Excellent responses to the questions.    '''
'''Support''' – He appears thoughtful and careful, and I'm especially impressed with his comments in the discussion section, above. <font face="Comic sans MS">
- I was impressed with the quality of Olaf's contributions to DYK when he was a regular participant there early last year, and by his friendly and helpful attitude. I'm not overly concerned with the NEWT involvement as everyone is entitled to the occasional mistake and I'm sure he's learned from it.
'''Support''' Evidence of being thoughtful, considerate, and non-confrontational. Good answers to (way too many) questions. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''.  After reviewing the candidate's contributions, I see only a level-headed net asset to the community.  His work at AFD also is a plus.
'''Strong support'''. This user has been a very good help to wikipedia and definetaly is usefull.
'''Support''' - no issues here.  I am particularly impressed with your response to question 7, as it is of fundamental importance. :) <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Having worked with Olaf, I've found him to have a remarkable attention to detail and a helpful, thoughtful and friendly manner. Definitely a credit to the system, and an excellent candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Absolutely.
'''Support''' per calm and sensible conduct in areas of dispute, and the fact that I feel that the NEWT thing is being way overblown in many places. --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate is an article creator and improver according to [[User:Olaf_Davis#Articles_I.27ve_created_or_significantly_improved]], candidate has never been blocked, and per reasonable attitude at deletion discussions.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm)]], the candidate kept an open mind, noted improvements and efforts by colleagues, and returned to the discussion accordingly.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ (Family Guy)]], candidate understood that outright redlinking is an extreme last resort and again made an argument in line with the spirit of [[WP:PRESERVE]].  Thus, the candidate is recognized as a [[User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts|nice Wikipedian]]!  Best, --
'''Support''', nothing unusual to be seen here. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''', should be a net positive.
'''Support''' I think this editor will make good use of the tools granted to him.  He appears to be thoughtful and willing to accept criticism--important qualities in an Admin. I especially appreciate his sincere posting on the NEWT business.
'''Support'''<small> reaffirmed support vote</small> per Coffee, to help negate Caspian's oppose. Using the same rationale to support an RfB and oppose an RfA doesn't make sense. Cheers,
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - great editor, great contributions, great answers to questions.
'''Support''' Considering the community is still quite divided about NEWT, I wouldn't oppose a candidate based upon it. Outside of this, the candidate seems extremely clueful, honest, and thoughtful. I'm especially impressed with the [[Flatness problem]] article, and interactions with other users I've seen.  '''
'''Support''' Good deletion work, but more importantly knows when ''not'' to delete; recognising what is salvagable is just as important as recognizing what is junk.
'''Support'''. From reading Olaf's answers to the questions above, I get the impression of a thoughtful editor who is able to see and explain why we have the policies we have. I am sure someone who is able to do so will not screw up in another part of Wikipedia he may venture in, and therefore I disagree with the opposes by Wisdom89, MisterWiki, and Off2riorob as well as the neutrals by HJMitchell and Fastily. Happenstance's neutral is similar, but more specific; he is setting the bar for adminship higher than I, and I think also the community, find desirable.<p>The oppose by Caspian blue and the neutrals by TreasuryTag and Nsk92 are over Olaf's involvement in [[WP:NEWT]]. The concern is valid, as Olaf himself admits (above) he was wrong there, but it does not diminish my support; rather, I take this as an opportunity to reaffirm the principle that when someone does something wrong, realizes that he did something wrong, and is sorry for it, it shouldn't make him a bad admin.<p>Collect's neutral rests on vague concerns about Olaf's answers to questions, which I do not share from my reading of his answers, and on his stance on paid editing. I do not feel comfortable with opposing over that, or over any subject in Wikipedia policy where the candidate's opinion may be different from my own. Whether or not Olaf is an admin will (or, perhaps, should) have no bearing on how much weight his opinion on paid editing has, and there is no indication that he will use his admin tools to act contrary to community consensus here (which would to me be a compelling reason to oppose).<p>In summary, I see evidence that Olaf will be a good admin and none of the oppose and neutral votes provide persuasive rationales; thus, I support.
'''Boom!''' [[WP:100]] ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' doesn't have as wide of experience as I'd like, but answers to all questions are very good indeed.
'''Support''' - a good editor by the look of things, and someone I'd trust with the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. '''''
'''Support''', don't see any good reason why not.
'''Support''' &mdash; I thought I already voted.
'''Weak support'''. Clearly thoughtful and will probably do fine (WP:NEWT is a side-show), but I'm a bit surprised that you've still not managed to give closing arguments for two of the example AfDs. If you find closing AfDs this arduous they'll all be closed by the time you've finished deliberating!
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Olaf Davis. —
'''Support'''. Although I wasn't around for the [[WP:NEWT]] saga, by reading through the pages kept for historical purposes, I can see that joining the project was a bad choice. However, we all make mistakes, and we shouldn't let this get in the way of a brilliant editor's promotion to adminship.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Weak Oppose''' - Regardless of whether the candidate states that they wish to focus on deletion, I don't see much experience elsewhere. <s> Also, I'm a little uncomfortable with what appears to be RfA "grooming" in the form of coaching. At one point I was a supporter of admin coaching, but now (and given the reference to quizzes and such above) I feel that it's nothing but a how to pass and RfA course. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)</s> My oppose has now been downgraded to "weak" based on the fact that my earlier assessment was inaccurate. While I am still not wild about admin coaching these days, Julian made sure to simply "test" the clue or the knowledge of the candidate. With that said, I am still slightly concerned by a lack of project space experience. This should come as no surprise.
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose.''' Appears to lack all round experience which imo is needed as an admin, dispute resolution for example.
'''Oppose''' switched from support per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=324165295&oldid=324163714 the candidate's involvement] in the [[WP:POINT]]y [[WP:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion]]. My vote may look inconsistent to the candidate given that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/SoWhy&diff=prev&oldid=336337850 I relegated my vote to "weakest possible support" at SoWhy's RFB] unlike this one. However, the latter ''is'' already admin and his chance to become a b'crat is not high. Besides, I only saw your contribution a couple of times in DYK areas except the page. I'm regretful to say that I can not support your RFA due to my concern over your judgment. --
'''Oppose''' For lack of article writing. I don't require featured article writing, if the candidate has created a large number of shorter articles instead. Olaf Davis has only created [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Olaf+Davis&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects 4 non-redirect articles], and not very impressive ones. Especially deletion work as an admin requires experience with creating new articles. He has also only uploaded [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&format=html&img_user_text=Olaf+Davis&order=-img_timestamp one image]. I do have some understanding that it is hard to find new topics for articles in maths and physics, and he seems like a good editor, but I still expect an administrator to have more varied experience. --
Oh dear, the first neutral. Sorry, but I would like to see a bit more time spent in the project space (maybe a few more AfDs, keep an eye on ANI and maybe comment where you feel able) to "support", but hey, I don't by any means think that would make you a "bad admin" which immediately draws me away from the "oppose" section. If your RfA passes, I'd advise caution when making potentially controversial actions, but I think you have enough common sense to do so anyway.
'''Neutral'''.  Good work, but concerns with experience.  You have done some great work for the project and I encourage you to keep it up.  However, I don't feel you have adequate experience on the project.  Since this RfA looks like it's going to pass at this point, just make sure that you are extra careful with the tools and ask questions when unsure about how to act.  -'''
'''Neutral''', moved from <s>'''O&#8203;p&#8203;p&#8203;o&#8203;s&#8203;e.'''</s> I'm sorry but I see no compelling reason to provide my support. The biggest draw for the support votes seems to be that you're a good new editor, which for me is still quite a bit away from an admin. What you do is the norm, I have yet to see you going above and beyond. Given your unexceptional editing record, I simply can't tell whether you're really that neutral and wise an editor, as seems to be implied, or whether you've yet to show your colours. Giving you the wizbit is the ultimate expression of community trust, and I would like to see a bit more experience before you receive said trust. However at this point my opposition is symbolic at best, so like Fastily I wish you good luck with the tools, and I hope you use them wisely. —
'''Neutral'''—moved from "Support" due to Olaf's involvement in the highly irresponsible and inapropriate [[WP:NEWT]] initiative, which I hadn't realised when I commented earlier. The candidate's truly outstanding honesty in dropping me a note on my talkpage to let me know of his connection with the project does him great credit, however, which is why I can't quite bring myself to oppose. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Neutral''' NEWT is fully irrelevant, and actually increaes my urge to support.  I am, moreover, concerned about the wording of his answers about deletion, and more concerned about his support for "paid editing."
'''Neutral'''.  Moved from support, in light of the [[WP:NEWT]] involvement. Deliberately creating malformed articles to prove a point is disruptive. It wastes other people's time and resources and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Experienced users, particularly admins, should know better.
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Did last time, no reasons not to do so again.
'''Support'''. From what I can tell, you've improved much since your last RfA, so there is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - No big deal.  As an aside, I'm no RFA regular, but question 4 is the most ridiculous hypothetical scenario RFA question I've come across. Well done. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Well, ''yeah''. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Reasonable (and prompt!) answers to the questions. The interactions I've seen between the candidate and other editors show an even temperament and willingness to engage and explain her position. I'm not really thrilled at how credulous the paranormal articles seem to be, but I've got no reason to suspect the candidate would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''&mdash;seems fine to me. &mdash;'''
Support - just met this good-natured user. Looks up to the task.
'''Support''' - I especially like the beginning statement showing all that the candidate has learned since the last RfA. I think that it shows that no one is perfect and there are always areas that can be improved. It's good to take pride in such improvements. Should be a good addition to the admin team. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
Seems fine to me. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Definitely! Ironholds' nomination hit the nail right on the head for the reason that you should get the tools.
As nom, and per Ironholds. ''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. I think she's ready. --
As the above, Ironholds says it all. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]]
'''Support''' I have seen the User in Action, her last RFA Fail was due to some of the most bogus and discriminating statements I have ever seen any where on Wiki. Content creation is still on the low side but better than some Admins I know.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions and don't see that health concerns should be an automatic concern.
'''Support''' Should be a fine addition to our list of admins. Best of luck -- <small>(and happy turkey day :D)</small>
'''Support''' good chance will be a net positive.
'''Support.''' Yes.
'''Weak support''' Light on edits to article space (14 new page creations, 12 redirects); however, the candidate has made improvements and, IMHO, done what she needed to do after first RfA in January.--
'''Support''' I think she deserves it after many have opposed for lack of experience.
'''Support''' I was neutral at her last RfA, but having seen what she has done since then, I am very happy to support (incidentally, the Admin Mentoring we worked on together can be found at [[User:Panyd/Admin Mentoring]]). As Panyd said, real-life commitments meant that my ability to come on Wikipedia has been temporarily reduced, and that is why the mentoring was paused - not through any lack of interest on either of our parts! -- '''''
I haven't participated in RfA for a while, but I'm going to support this one. I did not take part in Panyd's last RfA, but I do recall reading it when it was live. I think Panyd has addressed the legitimate concerns listed there, and I think she'll do fine as an administrator. I also appreciate her acceptance statement, and trust the judgment of both her nominators. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] (from
'''Support''', certainly. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''.  Seems sensible to me, and his/her attitudes toward admin status and how that status would [not] effect any judgement calls, are quite welcome. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' per nom as OTRS specialist, though it's good to see the content creation since the last Afd.
'''Support''' I once again apologize for my sock-related suspicions last time around but hey, you're better qualified now anyways.  No issues with mental condition nor userbox.
'''Support''', answer 8e is encouraging. --
'''Support ''' I watched the last RfA, opposed then, not because of specific problems, but just thought it was premature. I see a lot of progress, and specific addressing of issues identified last time. Some reservations remain, but I see GF attempts to address them.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' While I think that you should be involved in more areas of the encyclopedia, hey, it's just adminship.
'''Strong Support''' Really active, thoughtful editor, She'd make a great Admin, my full support.
'''Support''', thought she already was one.
Having a similar diagnosis as her and her OTRS work, of course.
'''Support''' based on (a) a review of contributions, (b) the breadth of support demonstrated in the nominations, and (c) many positive experiences seeing this editor work on sourcing unsourced BLPs, an area I spend a fair bit of time in myself. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''. Careful thinker who clearly understands the areas she plans to work in, good answers to questions, and pretty good on policy too. --
'''Support''' Absolutely needs the tools for [[WP:CONTRIB|Wikipedia Contribution Team]] work.
'''Support''' Panyd has been an amazing asset to both the Contribution and Social Media Teams, and her work on OTRS should also be recognized. --
'''Support''' The answers here and at [[User:Panyd/Admin Mentoring]] convince me that you will be a force for good.
'''Support''' I don't see any problem with this user getting the mop. I think she has good, well thought out answers to the questions asked. '''
'''Support'''. The user has been proven capable in both writing articles and in admin tasks like anti-vandalism and AfD work. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' Sandstein's neutral is noted but so is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APanyd&action=historysubmit&diff=398233567&oldid=397972785 this]. No reason not to support. --
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Panyd, for a non-administrator as you are, I loved your answer to 8e. By the way, 8b is actually a copyright violation you handled much earlier yourself. Although my answer would have been to rescue the article by deleting the copyright violation content (and not the article per se), I accept your view as one that is safer and for the benefit for the project. Do remember, Wikipedia has many editors who'd be ready to support and assist you the moment you so require. But there will also be a few situations that should test your patience to the hilt. Try to slowly gain experience in handling such situations than jumping right away into the same. Final advice, when you believe that the stress is getting over the edge and you might not be able to handle the admin mop temporarily, it'll be better to request that you be desysopped temporarily (and then get them back later without issues). With WSC nominating you, and the pleasantly good humored IronHolds providing the co-nomination, most of your contributions had already been, as they say, audited. My questions were meant to simply test your analytical strength. And you passed quite well. My best wishes for you (take the scripts from my js book when this RfA passes; and ask me or any of the administrator bunch for any help in using the tools).

I'm impressed. I was going to raise an issue with you dating another admin, and someone who might soon become a member of ArbCom, however I'm going to AGF that the two of you will recuse yourselves from situations where the other is involved. That, and I doubt you'll ever wind up in front of ArbCom for doing something wrong, so the elephant in the room doesn't really apply. <span style="text-shadow:#E61994 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Support'''Great Commitment and dedication despite health problems. See no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
Hell, it's about time. ''
Now! '''Support'''  --
'''Strong Support''' - Good contributions; good answers. (LOL at dating another admin.)
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support'''. I looked through some random edits and they seemed reasonable. The answers to the questions are good. (Also, illness really shouldn't be an issue here, but I found [[User:Panyd/Mental Health|this]] very impressive). I think the candidate can be trusted with the tools, and would put them to good use.
'''Support'''. Number of edits is still on the low side, but quality should trump quality. Her answers here seem thoughtful and well-written.
'''Support''' per excellent contributions. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  '''
'''Support''' Reasonable and quite a detailed answer to my question above. We need admins who are patient and are willing to look over both sides of the story properly, like you have exhibited. Hence I endorse your adminship. — <font color="blue">
'''Default to Support''' per drama mongering by administrator Sandstein below. Come on. '''
'''Support''' A read-through of Panyd's user talk pages show them to be level-headed, courteous, and able to resolve problems efficiently. No red flags. '''
'''Support''' - User has a clue and can be trusted with the tools.
Might as well '''support'''.
All looks good to me, especially the answers to the questions. --
'''Support.''' I see that Panyd has taken an effort to fix the issues that were brought up at Rfa#1, and generally improve and widen her experience as an editor. I see no reason not to support at this point. <code>
'''Support''' – I see nothing wrong with this editor. <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-color:#000000;">—'''mc10 (<font color="#000000">
Me neither.  &ndash;
'''Support'''. See no significant issues here.
Seems like a well-qualified candidate. '''
'''Support''' -
Seems to know what they are doing. ~~
'''Support''' - [[m:RfA Candidate's Song|She is the very model of a very modern Wikipedian]] :) —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Support''', no problems here.  First RFA was unfortunate.
'''Support''' was disgusted by some of the opposes last time, am very happy to support now. —<font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''', everything looks good - a dedicated and thoughtful editor with a good track record of contributions to a variety of areas. Reviewing the first RfA generally gives the impression of a discussion that was derailed by multiple valid, but separate, issues coming out in a confusing way - nothing raised back then causes me undue concern now, so I think we have a good potential admin here. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable, experienced and clueful editor. Great improvement since last RfA. No reason to think she wouldn't do a good job with the mop and we need more active admins, so it's a pleasure to support a well-qualified candidate.
From what I've seen, Panyd deserves to be an admin. '''[[User:Rock drum|Rock]] [[User talk:Rock drum|drum]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rock drum|Ba-dum]]</sub>''<sup>
'''Support''' - excellent progress since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panyd|her first RfA]].  &nbsp; — '''<font class="texhtml">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. From 'Neutral.' Candidate clearly has support of community, and has demonstrated aplomb in handling herself at this RfA. Happily support.
'''Support''' Give it your best, and good luck...
'''Weak Support''', Impressive questions, and generally impressive answers. I only hope the theory works out in practice. Regards, [[User:SunCreator|SunCreator]] <sup>([[User talk:SunCreator|talk]])</sup> 13:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I am back peddling. Moved from support to weak support.  Regards,
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support'''. Lots of patience and clue in the answers to questions. And, having read the essay on mental health in your user-space, I want to say "yes, yes, yes!!!". --
Everything looks fine - nice progress since RFA 1, good answer to questions, etc. etc. I have no concerns. '''Support.''' '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
Have had positive interactions with this level-headed user. Good answers to questions, though I'll note [[WP:COI]] is a guideline, not a policy.
'''Support''' I was sure I'd already commented, but clearly not! The concept "only one RFA live = [[umpteen]] questions" seems to be alive and well I note. Respect to the candidate for their perserverance over them; All looks good IMHO - clearly a clueful editor who can well use the tools. No reason presented not to support, and with regard to the "polemic userboxes" bit below I'm glad to see that issue was rightly addressed by the, then, opposer. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Seems to have a good handle on editing and policy, and to be a reasonable editor.
'''Support'''. Seems to tick all the boxes for doing the job well.
'''Support:''' The time has clearly arrived. -
'''Support''' Excellent answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent candidate.
'''Support.''' Superb candidate. ~~
'''Support''': A proficient user.
'''Support''' Fantastic candidate for the mop. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Panyd. —
'''Support.''' Excellent candidate... was a bit hard on her at Editor review but in retrospect, she will make a fine admin. <font face="Verdana">
'''wow'''
'''Support''' – She seems a more than capable editor. Good look. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''[[WP:100|Support]]'''—fully qualified candidate; no red flags.
'''Support''' - Appears to have learned a lot from the last Rfa.  Seems sensible and ready to shoulder the load.  Best wishes for your adminship, and grats on the [[WP:100]]... fine work!
'''Support''' - as per nom.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' per ''"can be trusted with the tools"'' - frankly, I feel the editing history is not (even with the prevailing situation) indicative of a sufficient degree of commitment <u>but</u> the OTRS work and especially the candidates candid commentary upon their illness and the steps they have and will undertake to alleviate concerns over it confines me to support, because they evidently can be trusted.
Moved from "oppose" above. I still believe the userbox is inappropriate for any user, much less an admin, but since no other voter has so far agreed with me, I'll accept that the community does not agree with me about this. And it's unfair to oppose somebody's candidacy for something that appears to be widely tolerated. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Love the responses. I cannot emphasize how much I enjoyed reading the mental health page. A focus on OTRS is a good thing as far as I see it. Short enough on contributions and content that I am not comfortable full-on supporting. Doesn't look like my !vote will m ake much of an impact at the end of the day so best wishes on the added responsibility.
I had already piled on when I read Sandstein's oppose; I actually feel their point is completely reasonable and opposing based on that reasoning is as well. In practice, admins generally ''shouldn't'' make political statements of any kind in their userspace for exactly that reason. If they were ever needed to intervene in a dispute on the [[Fox News]] article, for example (or anything related to American conservatism), their judgement and impartiality could easily be called into question and create more trouble than it's worth. I really don't think it's a terribly big deal, but it's enough to express my concern here (if my !vote would make any difference, I would not strike it - it won't, so I'm moving to neutral). I wanted to do this almost immediately after my support, but my internet lost connection and I haven't been able to make it back until now. I used that box in the past and took it down precisely for this reason. I understand some may feel this is a triviality: I feel that while it is too trivial to make myself a sole oppose (I wouldn't want the candidate to feel that anything has been "spoiled"), I do feel it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose in general. ''
Certainly; good work in different parts of the 'pedia. Good work at ACC as well.
'''Full support''' - easy decision.
Thought you already where. Apparently not, so we need to fix that. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I've seen enough of your work to know you're friendly, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and [[WP:CLUE|all that stuff]]. Besides, [[WP:SRA|anyone Julian coached must be great, right]]? No hesitation in supporting. Best of luck,
I've seen you in a wide variety of places, and you've been consistently helpful and sensible. Definitely someone I'd trust with the mop. <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
'''Support''', I've seen him around doing good work; seems to be sensible and dedicated. Works for me! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support:''' I've always been impressed with his replies at the Help Desk.  Will do well as an admin, I think.
'''Support''': Calm, collected, tirelessly helpful: will be an asset with the mop.
'''Support''', no doubt about it. Steve is a very experienced user who is fit for the tools, and one that is also willing to invest time in helping others. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' Most definitely. '''
'''Support''' Looks good.
TBH, I didn't expect Phantomsteve to appear at RfA this soon. Even though (in my probably inaccurate impression) he's only been actively editing administrative-type areas for a few months, Steve has proven to be a helpful, sensible, and experienced editor. I've seen nothing to be worried about -  I think the phrase "no problems here" helps me. :-)
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Congrats on [[WP:100]]
'''Support''' per noms. In reply to Throwaway in the neutral section, as a semi-regular admin at AIV I can vouch that Phantomsteve's AIV submissions are appropriate and extremely helpful.
'''Support.''' I know this sounds cliché but I'm very surprised to learn that you aren't already an admin.  Your work at editor review is commendable and looking at your contributions at the help desk I'm certain that you will remain an asset to the project. <font face="Century Gothic">
As nom. &ndash;'''
'''[[uberrima fides]]''' I would have supported sooner if only i had known. Cheers <tt>:D </tt>  <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Based on the fact that through my encounters with this editor every time I see his signature I get the instant feeling that here is an intelligent sensible editor making a good contribution to the project.
'''Enthusiastic Support''' I know Steve mostly from the help desk - where he is one of the most prolific contributors. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Full support''' as co-nominator. No reservations whatsoever.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' Great contributor, it's about time he was nominated. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' per question four. Nice touch! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], as no one has opposed, candidate has rollback, candidate has a GA and DYK credit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Faux_Cyrillic_(2nd_nomination)&diff=333281533&oldid=333277756 this argument] was thought out and reasonable, and candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
'''Strong Support''' I cannot express how much I support this canidate. They are an asset to wikipedia. The work on the help desk is above and beyond the call of duty.
'''Suppport''' - No question, I've seen many examples of Steve's good reasoning skills and help in areas related to admin work. -- '''
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Strong support]]''' My first time ever giving out a strong support, but this user has shown significant contributions and clue in admin-related areas and this is long overdue. --
'''Support''' I trust both nominators, and know that they would not nominated unless they felt the user ready. I've only had positive interactions with PhantomSteve, leading me to support.--
'''Support'''. I have a slight concern about the low CSD hit rate (70%) but this is more than outweighed by the positives. In any case, the candidate has indicated he will take it easy with the deletion trigger to start off with. I also think its great that Steve keeps tabs of his CSD tagging. It shows he looks to learn from mistakes which is an excellent trait for an admin to have. --
'''Support''' Add one to the "thought he was already an admin" list. In addition, i'm breaking my semi-wikibreak to cast this vote. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Strong Support'''  I did a double take on this RfA and honestly thought to myself "that's a mistake he's already an admin".  I have worked with this user before and have absolutely no reservations as  to him getting the mop (especially since I already thought he had one) ''<B>--
'''Support'''. Seems to be cautious and thoughtful in his speedy deletion tagging, which is a particular concern/pet peeve of mine. I can see no problems.
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Strongest possible support]]'''. I would hope that I don't have to justify that, but I will. I've seen Steve around at... er, just about everywhere! When I see his name on a special page or his signature somewhere, it gives me great confidence. Steve has proven himself to be a useful, helpful and thoughtful editor and I don't doubt he'll make a great admin!
'''Support'''. likely to be net positive.
'''Strong Support'''. Add me to the 'I thought you were already an admin' pile. Great candidate. -
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. Knows what he's doing, grasps policies and procedures, civil. A green light from me.
'''Support''' - Add me to the 'I already thought you were already an admin' bunch. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - undoubtedly and unarbitrarily.
'''Support''' - clueful and competent candidate.
'''Support''' - no issues here. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''' No concerns, since I already thought that you were one.
'''Very strong support''' Finally. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Why sure. He's very helpful and I think clueful so he'd make a great addition to the admin team! '''
Takes deletion and patrolling work quite seriously.  Bravo. - Dank (
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Pretty easy decision, this one - great answers, very good understanding. --
'''Support'''. Your contributions at the help desks demonstrate a patient, kind and knowledgeable editor. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Support''' &mdash; I've been expecting this.
'''Support'''  I see this guy's name around frequently, which to me shows dedication to the site.  My personal experience with him is brief, but his help is both kind and immediate, and he keeps his promises!  Admin quality. – <i><font color="#6600FF">Ker</font><font color="#6633FF">αun</font><font color="#6666FF">oςc</font><font color="#6699FF">op</font><font color="#66CCFF">ia<sup>◁</sup></font><sub><font color="#5100CC">
'''Support''' Steve was the first person to welcome me to Wikipedia and since then I have spotted his name in a lot of areas. Quite apart from his dedication to the site his demeanour is fantastic and brings a calm considered element to many discussions. Overall I think Steve has the potential to be a great admin and a worthwhile mediator.
No serious issues.
'''Support'''. Clueful contributions at ANI and elsewhere, civil, courteous, and with a good range of activity. No concerns.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' Good answers and contributions. Phantomsteve will make a fine admin.
'''Support''': This guy reminds me of myself when I was contributing in full swing. And since I'm an admin, I guess that means he should be too :) But seriously, he's a well qualified editor and will be very useful to the project as an admin. ≈&nbsp;

'''Support'''I have had the occasion to crossed paths with Steven over the past several months, in-addition to popping up frequently on my watchlist while he assist inquires at the help desk. What makes me support him is being able to watch how he has conducted himself from the first time I crossed paths with him at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco (musician)]] till now. It was here that I saw his sense of understanding consensus, ability rationalize the points raised, demonstrated courteous behavior, and ability and willingness to accept a change in his stance. I have observed that these enduring characteristics have not wavered since. Trustworthy, clue-full, and modest. Great potential to become a great administrator.
'''Support''' I see Steve at the Help Desk quite often, and his comments there always reflect an understanding of WP, general common sense, and a desire to help out. Best of luck!
'''Support''' Keep up the good work. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' great history, great answers, great editor. This one is a no-brainer.--
'''Strong [[User:Otherlleft/RfA|Support]]''' - If I may throw the candidate's words back at him, "I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}."  --
'''Very Strong Support'''
'''Strong support''' Among all the potential admins out there, I trust Phantomsteve's judgement perhaps the most. His comments always add to the discussion at hand, his article work is excellent (I very much enjoyed reading his GA, [[William Stanley (Victorian inventor)]]), his answers to the questions show very good policy knowledge, his AfD contributions are respected and thoughtful, and his CSD tagging is solid. I trut him with the tools at all the admin areas he mentioned and at others as well. And as Calmer Waters wrote, Steve always seems modest and is all kinds of civil. Let's promote him, shall we?
'''Support''' I think he can be trusted, based on his contributions. --
'''Strong Support''' User has a lot of [[WP: CLUE|clue]] and is always active in all admin areas. --
'''[[User:Black Falcon/Essay/Adminship#Requests for adminship|Support]]''' - A good candidate and good editor, judging from his responses to the questions, what I remember of having seen him in action, and a sampling of his edits. He has and is continuing to gain experience in the necessary areas ([[WP:XFD|deletion]], [[WP:AIV|vandalism]], and [[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|new users]]); has shown a willingness to write and improve articles, such as [[William Stanley (Victorian inventor)]] (which he created) and [[Pavel Popovich]] (which he improved from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Popovich&oldid=317067453 this] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Popovich&oldid=317432880 this]); and has demonstrated an ability to constructively engage others (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hawk_and_Chicken&diff=prev&oldid=328835907 here], where he engages AfD participants until a reasonable compromise emerges, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mrmewe&diff=prev&oldid=335081127 here], where he offers a detailed and constructive editor review). Based on his responses to the questions, my impression is that he is a calm, balanced, mature but not unhumorous, and informed editor, and the fact that he created and maintains [[User:Phantomsteve/Editor/Deletions]] suggests to me that he is detail-oriented and cares about transparency. My only suggestion would be to be slightly more conservative when it comes to [[User:Phantomsteve/Editor/Deletions#Outcomes|considering articles for speedy deletion]]; however, based on his expressed intention to "ease ... into the new role" and his other apparent traits, I have no reservations or hesitations at all about supporting his candidacy. –'''
'''Support''' - I really liked his answers and as user was a teacher they already have maturity and control. Good lucky, my friend.
'''Mega huge strong support''' which isn't something I say very often. I've been waiting for this RfA for ages, in fact I'd have happily co-nomed. I can't remember exactly where I first came across PS, but he's clueful, level-headed, logical, and befitting his former profession, an excellent communicator, all essential for when the inevitable pokes come along.
'''Support''' User has been around since May 2005 and with tools will only contribute to the project.
'''Support''' Seen user doing only good work. Give him the mop. '''
'''Support''' meets [[User:Jclemens/RFAStandards]], so I won't hold admin coaching against him.
'''Support'''. Steve is one of those "I thought he was already an admin" candidates. Should be a net positive to the project as a calm and clueful admin. Good luck,
Oh goodness, should have been made an admin ''ages'' ago. '''Support''' per answers and for all of the work Steve puts in at ACC.
'''Strong support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], and practically over-qualified: huge numbers of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]], account creator, great user page, etc.
'''Support''' based on excellent answers and an excellent record.   '''
'''Support''' Well, I second most of what has been said above.
'''Support''' - thought he already was.  As such, no concerns, I support this request.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Strong support''' Candidate worthy of adminship. I've seen him around here and in ACC. Trustworthy.
'''Support''' per many of the above. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I've been wondering for long why Steve hadn't applied till now. And I have to say, Julian's put him through a rock solid test already. I've interacted with Steve in the past and have found him to be extremely helpful. He's a role model in the specific area of supportive communication that a few other editors should try and follow. I don't think many, including me, contribute as sincerely as he does. It's wonderful to have you here with us Steve.
'''Support''', Per the crowd above. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support''' Nothing really new to say, that hasn't been said above.
'''Support''' No worries here
'''Support''' Reasonable, kind, thorough, and well into ''net benefit to the project'' territory. -
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable choice...
'''Support''' An excellent user, one that I've ran into a few times. Would be a great and civil admin.
'''Support''' Yes, support Steve, all good no worries.
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate.  His edit record shows him to be reasonable, kind and thorough. I also like his answers above. -
'''Full Support''': I have ran into this editor many times, has helped me everytime. Lots of different edits around Wikipedia. Very good knowlage of CSD. Support per [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' Phantomsteve has a lot of useful contributions, and could certainly do with the new tools. --
'''Support''', just for comprehensively answering the myriad of pointless question presented. You will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' —<small>&nbsp;<span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' I like what I have seen. Steady, calm, and intelligent. Is prepared to explain actions when challenged, which is important for an admin. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' His efforts at the Help Desk are appreciated. It also demonstrates the amazing amount of knowledge regarding this project that we should all be attempting to gain.
'''Support''' The answers to the questions are good and I have not seen anything from Steve that would make me assume that he has any other motivation than to improve the encyclopedia. Specifically, from all I have seen, I have no doubts at all that he will be willing to learn anything he does not know yet and not use his new tools in an area that he has no experience in. Regards '''
'''Support'''. I've frequently seen this editor around, and I have no concerns. --
'''Support''' - don't see anything to make me think he wouldn't be a good admin. Sort of thought he was one already.
'''Support''' Everything looks in order.--
'''Support''' Per all of the above.--
Overdue.
'''Support''' I can trust him with the tools. He'll be fine. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' no reason to think theyd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seen him around. Experienced and helpful. '''''
'''Support''' Helpful, hardworking and trustworthy. Will make great administrator. --
'''Support'''. No reason to think he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Seems to be quite a good candidate. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. Good editor with good results from admin coaching. I see good things from PS as an admin.
'''Support'''. I, too, have seen him around. Very trustworthy candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose'''.  For someone planning to work on xfDs not enough relevant experience.
'''Support''' Read some of the balkan comments, very calm in a difficult field.  A look at stats and prior RfA makes me confident he's qualified.--
'''Strong support'''.  I opposed first time round based on the false impression he was a POV warrior, but after several hours researching to correct a perceived NPOV violation in a Balkans article i found even sources I expected to favour the "injured" party treated the subject the same way as the candidate.  Intelligent and mostly even handed, he seems to have a rare combination of respect for consensus with independence of mind. I regretted opposing the candidate on the first RFA so much i put a reminder to nominate him in June, as a nom from someone with a contrasting outlook might help with the partisanship we sometimes get there (though tactically I would have asked a more moderate and respected colleague as first choice for the nom to maximise chances). Good all round wiki skills.
'''Support''' I supported last time, and nothing I've seen since gives me reason to change my mind; I have lots of respect for anyone who can approach the former Yugoslavia whilst maintaining a NPOV.
'''Support'''. Liking everything I've seen on a review of recent contribs. I had vague memory of concerns going in, but rapidly realised I was getting Polargeo confused with another user with a slightly similar name! Looks like a mature editor with sensible stuff to contribute. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I wish I saw more experience and coolheadedness, but I appreciate the willingness to take on hard work such as Balkans and new BLP's. /
I supported last time, as I remember it your opposers then included some who thought that you had insufficient tenure and  and some who thought you had insufficient experience of deletion. You've now been here 14 months which should reassure those who prefer their admins to have over a years experience, and having just trawled through a bunch of your recent deleted contributions I can reassure those without access to deleted stuff that you now have more CSD tagging experience, and are doing good work there. ''
This one seems easy, per above.  If an editor works for 14 months on difficult issues in climate science and the Balkans and has somehow managed not to generate a huge counter-reaction, then their diplomatic skills are better than mine. - Dank (
Definitely. Calm, collected and balances content work with behind-the-scenes maintenance. &ndash;'''
'''Emphatic support'''. I supported last time and have no reason to change my mind now. Knowledgeable and sensible contributor who is dedicated to maintaining quality content, who holds his own in interactions with forces hostile to verifiability and NPOV. --
'''Support'''.
I supported last time, and I'm pleased to again. Calm, sensible, unlikely to break anything by accident or design. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I have no problems with this user receiving the mop. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Support''' I had no qualms in supporting the first RfA and I am glad to support this one.
'''Support''' I opposed at the last RfA, but I feel that my concerns have been met, and I can see no problems here -- '''''
'''Support''' per above. Has learned from and remedied past problems. Courteous user  willing to engage in meaningful discussion and grow. Has created a GA that was praised by an opposer in previous RFA. Good experience in CSD. Little likelihood of misuse/abuse of the tools.
'''Support'''. I opposed the last RfA; candidate has since proven themselves an exemplary editor.
'''Support'''. We've had our scuffles, but from the looks of it, you'd be a fine admin.  --
Finally, a candidate who has a chance of becoming an admin! <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' I reviewed candidate last time in some detail, had some minor concerns that didn't seem strong enough to oppose, but left me uncomfortable supporting. I do feel comfortable supporting now.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
No concerns. Can tell the speedy criteria apart, and I found no problems in recent AfD participation.
I was neutral last time, but said that I'd support this time if Polargeo learnt to take a breath/step away when being poked, which I believe is a critical response to the inevitable poking. He (she?) appears to have done that, so I'm happy to support this time, as promised.
'''Support''' This is an editor who has clearly listened to the feedback from the first RfA and who has acted on it very constructively. It's also pretty good going to contribute to such contentious topics as the Balkans and Climate Change and remain sane, let alone civil. Experience, track record, temperament, answers above - all good --
'''Support''' I really wish you had made it last time. ''<B>
'''[[nihil obstat]]''' I had supported the first RfA but it was <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Polargeo&diff=next&oldid=333619625 secretly already closed]</span>. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Polargeo's made edits every month since he joined Wikipedia and he's hasn't been blocked a single time. --
'''Support''' I can trust this editor with Admin tools based on the track record.--
'''Support''' It's been a while since I've said that. It feels great!
'''Support''' I thought he was ready last time. <strong>
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' Insert cliché "I thought he was already an admin" here --
Excellent editor, sufficiently experienced. Meets my criteria. --
'''Strong support''' - Not only has Polargeo improved since the last RfA (which I opposed, FYI) but I've personally seen a lot of really good contributions all over the project, including non-article space. I think he'll make a great admin. -- '''
'''Support''' with admiration for bravery. '''
'''Support''' <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support'''. I seem to see you express a lot of strong opinions. I disagree with a few of them. But that's a good thing. Your contributions are always well considered. And you have an excellent record of building this project in the mainspace. I'd be delighted for you to have the tools. --
'''Support''' per [[WP:RIGHTNOW!]]. I supported last time when I was a relative RfA novice and I'm supporting this time. It appears to me that Polargeo has gone out of his way to address the issues raised in the last RfA. I'm certain I've interacted with him at some point in the past but I can't for the life of me remember where. Anyway, wherever it was, he made a good enough impression that I can say without doubt that giving him a few extra buttons to press will be a genuine asset to the project. If RfA weren't so ridiculous these days, this would certainly be the easiest pass of 2010 so far.
'''Support'''. Although I opposed Polargeo's previous RfA, I feel that he has sufficiently addressed the issues and concerns raised last time and would make a fine administrator. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' You far surpass my [[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale/RfA expectations|RfA expectations]]. --
'''Support''' neutral last time, but I think that he's a fine candidate now. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' Good job constructively addressing the opposes from your first RfA, article content work includes a GA, diplomacy per dank... Give 'im the mop.
'''Support''' I supported you last time, and I see no reason not to this time as well ;)--
'''Support''' - I see absolutely no real reason to not support you. You're a good editor, you can keep cool in a debate, and I see no problems with CSD or AFD. Good luck. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
'''Support''' Welcome back to RfA. '''
At last, someone to take the "junior admin" title from me.
Support. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You look stellar. And, you might be the  answer to all the talk about "drought" at [[WT:RFA]].
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - enough edits including high-quality article work, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, great user page, autoreviewer, etc.
'''Strong Support''' my rationale remains the same as my support from this users last RfA.  I trust this editor.  ''<B>--
&mdash;
'''Support''' as someone who opposed (albeit weakly) last time around. I had barely encountered Polargeo before his prior RfA; in the months since, my impression of Polargeo (based on his AfD and DRV work, largely) has been very positive. I fully trust Polargeo to fairly and accurately weigh arguments at AfD when interpreting the consensus in deletion discussions. In my experience, Polargeo is reasonable, thoughtful, and always willing to improve himself. I no longer have any concerns at all about this candidate becoming an admin. I remain impressed with his GA, [[Pine Island Glacier]], and his extensive content work. (I also support Tim's quest to ditch the "juniormost admin" mantle.) Anyway, good luck and keep up the good work!
He should do just fine.
'''Support''' per [[WP:WND|WHY NOT?]]
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. The candidate now has the experience needed for the sysop gig.
'''Support''' - I was another of those !voting against Polargeo in December.  I did so with the urging that a return here under the right circumstances would gain my support.  Mine was one of the last !votes, and I was quite aware how close Polargeo was.  So, it gives me great pleasure to go the other way this time, and to see that I am hardly alone in feeling this way.  Well done!
'''Support''' - Very good candidate, and will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atmoz&diff=350062082&oldid=350047048 inappropriate edit summaries] -
'''Support''' good article work '''
'''Support'''. Good candidate. <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Substantial improvement (not that it needed a lot) and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - No major issues with candidate, overall a good contributor.
'''Support''' Seems fine.
Sure, why not.
'''Support'''. Go for it. I see nothing wrong here. —<small>&nbsp;<span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Back for more so soon?  I supported last time and I see nothing since then to change that.
'''Support'''.  Meets my criteria.
'''Support''' Definitely. He's a very good contributor.--
'''Support'''. A good contributor who will make a good admin. I appreciate how he has responded to the concerns raised in the last RfA.
'''Support''' Without reservation.
'''Support''' I think he would be a good choice for being an administrator. --
'''Support''' Shows clue.
'''Support''' I remember supporting your last RfA, and I was very disappointed when it did not succeed. Good luck with this one.
'''Support''' - will be a good admin. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Support''' per the crowd. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support''': A bit soon after the last attempt for a self-nom, but I've looked into recent contribs and agree the he appears to be ready.
'''Support''' From what I can see, he has successfully managed to overcome the objections raised in his last RFA, so there is no reason for me not to support this request. Regards '''
'''Support'''. Definitely. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I thought he was one.
Add me to the list of '''support'''ers. Candidate looks qualified.
No reason not to - definitely has a clue.
'''Support'''. Answers to questions show clue. Contributions are beneficial. Displays a positive attitude. All in all a fine candidate. --
'''Support:''' The time has come. -
'''Support''' Not insane.
Per Boris.
'''Support''': Polargeo is fair-minded and articulate, and ready for the tools.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
'''Support''': keeps a cool head while working in hot-potato areas.
'''Support''' Polargeo always helped well in the disputed areas of wiki. He will be good expansion to wikipedia administrators. Only support from me. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Hardworking editor - has my support. --
'''Support''' Thoughtful. Clueful. Interestedintheencyclopediaful. -
'''Support''' One of the most insightful Wikipedians I've encountered. When this guy gets to work on something, you can be sure he'll take the time to understand the situation and that his position will not be formed on a whim. This kind of thoroughness and dedication to the encyclopedia is exactly what admins need most, in my experience. This is in addition to all the above, of course, but is what I found to be the fellow's most admirable (and most necessary) characteristic. Admin material without a shadow of a doubt. --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">
'''Support''' Hopefully will do a good job...
'''Support'''-Definitely well qualified.--'''''
'''Support''' has shown fortitude and character after unsuccessful (albeit close) nomination; hung in there and improved--
'''Support''' Appears to be qualified for the job, not that this !vote is necessary.
'''Strong support''' effectively dealt with Balkan related disputes (not an easy thing to do). <font face="xx-medium serif">◅
'''Support'''- I have seen Polargeo around here and there, and I am confident that this user has epic amounts of clue.
'''Support''' This user has made many good contributions. I think he deserves this position. Thank you, --
[[WP:100|Congrats!]] --
'''Support''' — '''
'''Support'''. Well-rounded, with a proven record of being able to edit constructively in areas where there is controversy. --
'''Support''' - why not?
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
I remember passing [[Pine Island Glacier]] and thinking you had a clueful approach. There's no reason to oppose, as far as I'm concerned. '''
Sure. nary a concern. --
'''Support'''A worthy candidate...
'''Support''' - Supported the last one, no reason not to support this one,
'''Support''' Another case of EnWP RFA standards on the rise to insanity. Previously, the answer was come back in three months and try again. Now it is "Only a three and a half month wait? Not long enough!" Come on people. You are asking to much. He wants to be an admin, not god.--
'''Support'''. Polargeo seems to have the ample experience needed. He'll make a good admin. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Good nom, I like!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''', I don't see any reason why not.
'''Support''' neither do I.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' It's all been said.
'''Support''', not that one more support matters at this point. Impressed by that Polargeo does not shy away from controversial topic areas, as most prospective Admins do.
'''Support''' Highly qualified, in my opinion.
'''Support''' I would see a good candidate for the mop from the evidence, after a fairly interesting interaction in relation to an issue that we (poleargo and I) had an interaction over - the outcome - after many words, was positive to the wiki project concerned - and on that basis I would support, but hope the negotation skills improve in relation to the volume of words
'''Support''' &ndash; what they said. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' clearly worth a trial with the tools, more than likely a net positive.
I see Polargeo's name around often, and he always comes across as reasonable and sensible to me.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]] --'''~
'''Oppose''' - I don't see a susbtantial improvement in the last three months. This new self-nom is premature I think.
'''Oppose'''  I was concerned enough to oppose at the last RFA.  Although I don't have any diffs of problematic edits between now and then, philosophically I think 3 months is too short of time to revisit my oppose.--
'''Oppose''' Doesn't meet my minimum criteria for admins both in tenure (a little over a year) and edit count.  I'm pleased to see that you're getting more involved here and I do see improvement, but your last RfA was only 3 1/2 months ago.  It seems too soon to reconsider.  --'''
'''Nominator support'''&mdash;'''
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' A review of his contribs gives me no reason to think he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I don't find lack of summaries a problem, as long as he doesn't abuse them. Other than that, this is clearly going to pass.
'''Support''' highly likely to be a net positive.
'''Support''' - no problems from me :) —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''': Experienced, helpful and mature user; I've never—nor, as far as I know, has anyone else—encountered problems with him. As has been said, his appointment would be a net gain for the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' — I have watched this editor for quite a long time and he definitely seems worthy of the broom. — <font color="blue">
'''Jubilant Support''' Net positive editor. PresN will be a good addition to the admin corps.--
'''Support;'''. Clueful, level-headed content editor. Net benefit. --
'''Support''' - plenty of experience and seems trustworthy. Axl's oppose raises some concerns, and in general I agree that candidates should have some recent experience at [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]], however I think overall the PresN will be ok.
'''Support''' – as a good editor with experience. <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Support''' - Looks good. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
PresN seems to [[WP:CLUE|have a clue]] and generally seems to know what he is doing. I am sure he would be able to figure out the admin tasks he want to do, and to ask if he could not figure it out. Doubt he would be a net negative at all. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Good content contributor, looks to have sound reasoning skills, and I trust the nominators. --
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. Thanks for the great content!
'''Support''' -per nom statement. BUT i implore you, use edit summaries more, please :)
'''Weak support''' - Per nomination, I don't see much of a problem.
'''Net Positive''', agree with the others, Please use the edit summaries. They are there for a reason.--
'''Support''' - I don't see any problems. Would like to see edit summary usage when you use your admin tools though! What I really liked was the comment in Q1 - "when I become more comfortable with the tools". Proof of sound judgment and will not rush into something. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' – Clueful editor that can be trusted with the tools. Great article work as well. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
[[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] <small>Look below before you yell at me...</small> <span style="text-shadow:#91219E 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - I'm going on faith a little bit here. I would prefer to have seen more experience in admin-related areas, and I don't see a strong ''need'' for the tools. However, you seem like a level-headed contributor who interacts well with others. I guess this a "why not?" !vote from me. I hope/think that you will wade into the admin waters slowly as you get comfortable with the tools. Great job with what you have done so far! Please always use edit summaries.
'''Support''' Nothing worries me here. -
'''Strong support'''. No concerns, seems to know policy very well.
'''Strong support''' – If I recall, I wanted to nominate PresN for adminship a while ago but was turned down. Good to see a change of heart there. More than enough clue and competency to easily support. –
''' Weak Support.''' Great content creator, but answer to #5 did cause me to pause a little. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. It is refreshing to see a content oriented editor here who requests the mop. There are plenty of vandalism oriented admins around to help keep the house clean. Although he may have been incorrect on the statue question I find that no reason at all to oppose. We all have learned on the job and I am sure PresN will be no different.
'''Support'''. Should be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Valuable contributor, no strong concerns
'''Support'''—per NW, mainly. I believe PresN will be a net positive.
No reason not to.
Seems to know what they are doing.
Agree with NW.
Trustworthy. No concerns. '''
Great editor, great member of the Video Game WikiProject, and I think that he should be given a mop.
'''Support''' Has been around since June 2006 and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no scope for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' clearly here to build an encyclopedia, opposes fail to convince me that there's anything he won't soon come up to speed on.
'''Support'''. I see a very good contributor here, and I'm convinced by the answers to the questions that we'll get an admin who can be trusted with the tools, and who will be very careful with them and won't rush in without being up to speed. One specific caution on CSD, though. The categories might look clear enough, but that's deceptive, and real examples can be quite tricky to get right - great care is needed before you start deleting. (I've seen a lot of articles tagged when they shouldn't be, and, worse, deleted even with inapplicable tags by admins who don't understand the categories properly.) --
'''Support'''  An editor with much experience and good temperament.
'''Strong Support''' - This editor seems to know what wikipedia is about. Since it seems that his (lack of) usage of edit summaries was only because he was fixing table formats, I have no problem at all with granting this user admin privileges.
'''Strong Support''' Long history of creating exactly the kind of content that enhances Wikipedia's reputation. Clearly trustworthy, experienced and collaborative. The project is fortunate to have people like this seeking additional responsibility.
Great content work along with good answers to questions show trustworthiness. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]]
Looks like this editor is ready for the tools, good luck.  &ndash;
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>

--''
'''Support'''. Plenty of positives, and if there are any negatives, it's up to the Oppose voters to bring them forward. And they haven't, the Oppose arguments are not strong or convincing.
'''Support'''. I have no major concerns. Although his answer to Q5 could have been stronger I trust the candidate's judgement and believe that his strong track record at WP indicate he's qualified for the sysop gig.
'''Support''' No reason not to. --
'''Support''' While the answer to question 5 is enough to give pause, editor seems more than [[WP:CLUE|capable of learning]] from it. Since that question isn't about policy, but about law, any problems in the area would be quickly corrected by those with more experience anyway. None of the opposes are convincing, although I hope PresN would strive to get to 100% edit summary usage from this point on. They are an important method of communication, and admins should be all about communication. I have never cared for the "need for the tools" argument, and don't find it to be persuasive in any way. '''
'''Support''' Sure. No reason not to support. Active, experienced editor. '''''
'''Support''': My interactions with PresN have been pleasant and fruitful. He is knowledgeable of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and he has exercised good judgment in his overall editing. I see an extra set of tools for him only helping Wikipedia. (
'''Weak Support''' Good content work- I've reviewed a fair amount of it at FLC, but poor edit summary usage is a concern.
'''Support''' Looking though PresN's contributions I don't see any issues. The lack of edit summaries does not concern me. When I do repetitive tasks I too occasionally forget to type one in as well. --
'''Super Support''': Superbbbb
'''Support'''. Good content work, see no significant issues.
'''Support'''. No problems with content, nor with the Commons stuff, as I've indicated below. But I do have a problem with lack of edit summaries, which I think are essential. Nevertheless, supporting, as I think candidate is competent.
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' I have no problem with you not using edit summaries for tedious edits. That's what popups are for.
'''Support'''  Contributions look good, answers seem to have clue.  (I would endorse a few more edit summaries in some cases, not everyone has popups and summaries are nice for scanning, but I'd probably have omitted them too in a very long series of repetitive table formatting edits, so, not a deal-breaker for me.)  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, although I do think the request that the candidate use edit summaries regularly is well-taken.
'''Support''' I advise many block happy admins to memorise your answer to 13a (particularly those who gravitate to certain places on wikipedia because they seem to like blocking people).
An eminently sensible and even-tempered candidate. Even if he were to initially stumble in a few areas due to unfamiliarity, I have little fear of PresN becoming an incompetent or abusive administrator.
'''Support''' - Worthwhile editor at the video games project with proven track record of content work.  No reason not to trust with the tools, although I understand that Adminship is a massive deal now. [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Looks good
'''Support:''' Not perfect but will make a good admin. -
'''Support''' - Despite some very good opposes, I support. I do hope the candidate will take their advice to heart and study those areas he plans on working in.
'''Support''' – <s>S/</s>he seems like quite a nice person. Some thoughtful and considered replies to some very difficult questions. A lot of them seemed designed to trip him<s>/her</s> up. <s>S/</s>he did well; I'm impressed. Good luck. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Support''' Appears to be a very good editor who will not dissapoint as an administrator.--''
'''Oppose'''. PresN is a great editor with excellent content contributions. However I do not see evidence of activity in areas requiring admins. I didn't find any comments in XfDs over the last six months. In the answer to question 1, I am particularly concerned by PresN's intention to be involved in speedy deletion in this context.
Per (a)Lack of almost any visible [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit_summaries|edit summary]]. (b)[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit_summaries|Zero reasoning ever given by the editor]] in almost ''all'' the reverts they've undertaken. Will add more after further analysis (or move my vote to support if I think everything else is fine).
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry, but your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPresN&action=historysubmit&diff=396282383&oldid=396281599 answer to question five] is dead wrong.  Freedom of Panorama and Derivative Works are, among many other things, topics you will encounter on a frequent basis at PUF, FFD, and in moving files to Commons.  For someone who wishes to work in media files as a sysop, I cannot, in good faith, support someone who lacks fundamental knowledge in media file policy.  If this RfA passes, I strongly urge you to read up on media file policies before starting work in the field.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - Ironically, a few hours ago  in  another discussion, I  said something  about  'not needing the tools' to  be a weak  reason for opposing on  an RfA. Here, however, I'm afraid, together with  the low importance attached to  making  edit summaries, and  with  what  I  feel  is rather a vague notion  of where the candidate would be active with  their average of ten edits a day, is enough  for me to  suggest  that  s/he does not  need the tools just  yet. Getting more into  the thick  of things and racking  up  some broader experience to  include   NPP, AfD, vandalism, and other areas that  demonstrate measurable skill of judgement in the  more contentious areas, then coming back  here again in  six months would move me to  support whom  I  have no  doubt  is a trustworthy  editor.--
'''Oppose''' - While I did like some answers (#15, for example), I'm opposing mostly for four reasons. '''The first''' is that the editor's main intentions for being an admin (per question #1) are in an area that I feel that I'm not very "fluent" in (File:), and so I typically seek out the insight of those who are; and so [[User:Fastily]]'s oppose (and other comments on this page affirming the accuracy of the info) would seem to be enough to cause me to oppose. '''The second''' (which is more a case of "neutral, leaning towards oppose"), is because he really doesn't show a "need" for the tools (question #16 in particular). Not that anyone ''must'', but having a wont to fix stuff, doesn't necessarily mean that the tools are needed to do so. And the answer to #7 seems to confirm the lack of need, for me. '''The third''', the answer to #9 (about CSD) is bothersome to me. The impression I'm getting is: I don't help out there now, and know little about it, but it sounds like a good starting place to cut my teeth as a new admin. - That concerns me. '''And fourth''', the propensity for a lack of edit summaries  - Communication is one of '''''the''''' more important aspects of adminship (and really, editorship, for that matter). '''Note:''' At this point, just from "vote" counting - 42/6/2 - this nom will likely succeed. If so, I sincerely hope the candidate will take my concerns into consideration upon becoming an admin. - -
'''Weak oppose''' I think this candidate has the best interests of the project at heart but I don't think adminship is right for him. I share many of the concerns mentioned above about the lack of edit summaries. While his reply to question #8 might be plausible, it also demonstrates a lack of understanding what edit summaries are for. They are not only to explain potentially confusing edits but should allow people to understand what you did without having to review your edits. Also, it's not easy (if possible at all) for anyone to judge whether an edit of theirs is potentially "non obvious". As jc37 put it, communication is a vital skill for an admin and edit summaries are one of the main tools for said communication to happen. I can understand missing a summary here and there (my record isn't 100% either, although those edits are from 2004 or 2005) but the candidate is systematically not using them, as he admits himself, which is not something an admin should do. We have plenty of such admins already and each one of them makes Wikipedia a bit harder for old and new users to use. On a side note, as some mentioned above, CSD is more tricky than it looks, so if this is successful, please consult a more experienced admin in that area before starting to work there (despite my opposing !vote, I would of course be happy to help). I don't think that's a reason for opposing the request though, many admins found their area only after they were granted the tools. Regards '''
'''Weak oppose''' I cannot support someone who does not try to get their edit summaries close to 100%. Admins should lead by example, I have often explained to other editors the benefits of the edit summary - I would not feel happy doing that if my count was not very high (99.8% for >63,000 edits) - they would be likely to ask "why should I do it, if you don't?". Personally I have my preferences set to not allow an edit without a summary, if I'm doing a chain of edits, then I use a suitable summary for all - then after the first edit, just by just typing the first letter, firefox will fill in the rest with a click of the mouse. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Concerns about the edit summaries and the 'need' for the tools add to a weak oppose from me.
answer to Q5. Cannot support a user wanting to work in File namespace who doesn't have a basic grasp of FoP regardless of your other contributions. -
'''Oppose''' – inadequate experience of AfD and counter-vandalism work, which are both core areas of admin activity. Content building alone, laudable as it is, is not a core area of admin activity. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
I think the article writing is wonderful. Solid work there. The answer to Q5 is off, and you know you need to learn CSD/deletion policies—knowing what you need to learn is good. This seems on track to pass, but I'm neutral because I'm hoping you would know about CSD, etc. already. It's a very tricky area, and "learning on the job" may not be safe always. But I think you're very clueful and will learn quickly. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' While the candidate has made some valuable contributions to the project, the answers to question 1 and in particular question 5, causes me concern with respect to understanding Wikipedia's policies.--
'''Neutral''' - A very fine editor but I'm a little concerned about their lack of experience in admin areas.
'''Support''' as nom--
'''Support''' &mdash; Rlendog is obviously a thoughtful person from his answers to the questions, he seems to have very good reasons for having the tools (anti-vandalism is basically sysop work, and not having tons of edits to AIV or RFPP, in my opinion, does not mean that the particular person does not understand how things work there), and he has a desire to help out. Plus, his nominator has demonstrated good judgment many times in the past; I coudln't imagine him nominating somebody who wasn't suited for adminship.
Yep long overdue.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale]] &ndash;'''
'''Support''' of course, all looks good.
'''Support'''. Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Stats and edits look good, no major problems as far as I can see.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' pretty much per nom and above.--
'''Strong support'''.  A font of nothing but positive contributions.  A good collaborator who's competent in a variety of subject areas.  We need many more editors just like him. --
'''Support''' Have always been impressed by his strong content contributions and calm demeanor (at least from what I've seen).
'''Support''' I can't find any reason not to. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' I don't remember coming across this editor before, but I enjoyed reading their work, and I see from their contributions a nice mix of building the wiki and defending it. ''
Absolutely. I've found him to be easygoing and his contributions and temperament are stellar. '''
'''Support''' Helpful and civil editor who has a strong record as an article writer. He seems to be less experienced in admin related areas but I am sure they will approach it in the same clueful way (for example, they have never compiled a DYK set but I am sure they will learn to do it easily and are able to ask for help if they need it). Regards '''
'''[[WP:AGF|Support]]''', not because you're a Mets fan, though I am a fellow Mets fan. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' wow this user edits different parts of Wikipedia in general than me, on review they are pretty amazing...  I am honestly surprised that they are not already an admin...
'''Support'''. We've crossed paths, and I'm impressed that this is a very capable contributor. --
'''Support'''. I'm sure some would argue that he does not "need" them, but I have no reason to believe that he would misuse the extra buttons, and therefore think it would be a net positive for him to have them. Model editor, good answers to questions - thus support. <tt>
'''Support''' High quality and quantity of article work. The Good Articles and many DYKs impress me more than Featured Lists, but that's just my bias. No negative things that I can find. Not very much policy/administrative work, but what I see looks clueful. --
'''Support''' The User is a outstanding content creator with high quality and quantity of article work.The Project will only gain with the user getting tools see no scope for misuse of tools through the user has  not taken part lot of Admin/Policy work .
If this editor has been here for 2 years and have more than 20,000 edits, why not?  &ndash;
Nothing there to indicate he can't handle the tools.
Oh definitely.  Calm, cool, and collected, and the nominator makes some very good points. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' for pretty much the same reasons as the three editors above me.
'''Support''' Now only if we could nominate more outstanding people like you...
'''Support''' I have no concerns, hopefully will be helping out with DYK backlogs. '''<font color="#000000">
'''[[user:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - Looks fine to me! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Support'''. Although I'd like to see more extensive work in "admin areas", the real question at RfA is simply: '''''Is the candidate trustworthy'''''. I see nothing to make me doubt that he is.
'''Support''' Good question answers, no reason to oppose.
'''Strong support'''. Excellent work, good answers - a great candidate. Less experience in admin areas than other candidates, but I'm confident he'll take it slowly.
'''Support''' Seems to have a good empathy and understanding of our primary purpose.
Good candidate. Fine for me. <strong>
'''Support''' No concerns. I do think only nine AIV's is rather low considering the amount of time Rlendog has been active, but I'm actually going to take that as a good thing. Blocks and other administrative actions should be used sparingly in response to only the most persistent of vandals; by requesting such actions only when absolutely needed, Rlendog shows that he will use them only when needed as well.
'''Support''' stirling content contributor and clearly dedicated to the 'pedia. Should be fine.
'''Support''' Editor's first contrib was creating an article that has remained relatively stable for two years.  I found no issues in a random check through their contributions.  Good job
'''Strong support''' - Apart from the answers to questions, the AfD discussion contributions I checked, for example, are simply excellent. --
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''strong support''' , great candidate. Has plenty of [[Cool (Leonard Bernstein song)|clue]].
'''Support'''. Excellent content contributions and good answers to the questions. I think Rlendog will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' as all looks good
'''Support''' Looks like a strong candidate to me. Should make a very good admin. --
'''Support'''. I have found it a pleasure to cooperate with Rlendog (I reviewed one of his GAs and we've had some other interaction) and believe he'll make a good admin. The neutral voters' concern is reasonable, but I believe the answers to the questions indicate that Rlendog is able to immerse himself in the deeper parts of Wikipedia if necessary and in his Q1 answers specifically he gives solid reasons why his adminship would be helpful to the community.
'''Support''' Wow, he may even be a bureaucrat if he keeps this up! Because he already has 3 barnstars and 22,000 contributions without warning, he surely does deserve the prize of becoming an administrator.
'''Support''' After looking this candidate over, while there is low activity in the admin areas, I do not believe they will do any harm with the tools.
'''Support''' [[User:Airplaneman/RFA|looks good]].
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Q11.
'''Support''' - seems like a level-headed editor that will exercise some caution.  The statement that he wouldn't close a BLP AfD if he wasn't comfortable doing so is a plus in my book.  I trust him not to abuse the tools.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support!''' If anyone's deserving, it's Rlendog.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' no concerns, especially after the practical responses to questions by [[User:Coffee]] despite the noted lack of experience in AfD areas. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Rlendog. —
'''Support'''. Although I was initially inclined to [[WP:VOTE|!vote]] neutral here, I have done a bit of thinking and decided that extensive experience in every single administrator's tools area is not necessary to pass an RfA.
'''Support''' Seems level headed and trustworthy. No problems to be found, and I expect that this editor will easily grow into the role once the tools are in place. The well thought out answers to the questions (especially #11) are convincing. '''
'''Support''' I am happy with his responses to the questions, and I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= block Jimbo] -- '''''
'''Support''' No problems.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' User has many useful contributions, strong edit count (22,180), very high quality of articles, and is already an [[WP:AUTREV|autoreviewer]] and [[WP:RBK|rollbacker]]. I think he is trustworthy and could use the extra buttons. --
'''Support''' - thoughtful answers to questions, many featured contributions. Can't see why we couldn't trust you with the mop; wield it well! —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' - Candidate is undoubtedly trustworthy and will likely make very good use of the tools.
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Looking through his edit history, I don't see any problems.
'''Support''' Capable, willing editor...
'''Support''' A very strong history of contributions - obviously a fine editor who can be trusted as an admin. --
'''support''' answers seem solid, lots of people I trust support.  Seems good.
'''Support''' I did a little search and every thing is good, no concerns.
'''Strong Support''' - I don't know if I have an "ideal candidate" but I think Rlendog would be close. I see no negatives against this editor, and on the positive side some fantastic content contributions, a solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, very reasonable demeanor, and some of the best RfA answers I've ever read. I don't think I've ever heard of Rlendog before this RfA but that might be a good thing. -- '''
'''Support''' no reason to '''''Oppose'''''. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' - great answers to all the questions.

'''Support''' – you're not an admin, yet? –
'''Support''' – Yes! '''
'''Support''' I don't recall ever crossing his path, but I like that he is a solid contributor with a suitable grasp of what makes Wikipedia tick. '''
'''support''' Good editor, will make a great admin--
'''Support'''. An admin candidate that contributes to article content[[Interrobang|‽]] No Way! All for that!
'''Support''' Nice whale article. No reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I haven't encountered the candidate before, but from all I have seen at this RFA Rlendog is clearly a thoughtful and level-headed editor, who deserves our trust. Also, I think, it is useful to have admins working to help fellow project-members, even if they use their tools less frequently than admins involved in the more centralized admins areas.
Certainly. Level-headed and balanced, I see no reason that they shouldn't be given the mop to help out as best they can.
Truly excellent answers and a sound contribution history; it'll be a genuine pleasure to welcome such a thoughtful, mature, and conscientious admin to the ranks... on the understanding that your skills will undoubtedly be used and abused until you regret ever hearing about the mop :)
''' Support''' I've seen him around. his answers reflect his behavior that I have seen. Verrry good.
''' Support''' - a very easy vote.  Great userboxen/userpage, huge number of edits, great work on DYK, sufficient experience.
'''Support''' - judging from my experiences with him over at [[WP:DYLAN]], Rlendog is a very fine editor, and would make a good admin. -
'''Support''' I can see no reason to oppose, and from what I have seen of his work here to date he seems like a very level-headed and thoughtful editor. I have no doubt that he will make a fine admin, as well. Very pleased to see him as a candidate.
I concur with the_ed and Michael Q Schmidt; Rlendog has a very solid record of contributing to the encyclopaedia, has given thoughtful and sensible answers on a broad range of issues, and throws up no obvious red flags. Seems to have a calm temperament and a cautious view of administrator actions, so I don't expect there will be any attitude problems down the road. Thank you sincerely for all your work thus far Rlendog, and best of luck in the future.
'''Support'''. A superb editor who makes a great candidate, although I would like to see a bit more participation in admin-related areas. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - so far undisputed by any editor, with only some minor neutral concern - impressive - is that a first?
'''Support'''. Solid contribution history, level-headed approach. What more can one ask for?
'''Support''' I don't see reasons to oppose. --
'''Support''' Per nomination and answers to questions.  '''
'''Support'''—
'''Support'''.  An actuary?  Attention to detail and precision always welcome.--
'''Support''' One of the strongest candidates I've seen.
'''Support''' With Rlendog's contributions, I doubt there are many policies he hasn't come across. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Strong Support''' Now here's an excellent candidate. Rlendog has accumulated some dazzling content work since he joined Wikipedia, including a featured article, [[Primate]], several featured lists and GAs, and well over a hundred DYKs. Deeply impressed as I am by his sterling content work, I found his answers to the questions nothing less than excellent. The level of disclosure in the answer to Q3 makes me trust the candidate all the more, and the answers to Q8 and particularly Q10 and Q12 convince me that he will use the tools very wisely. Trustworthy, hard-working, thoughtful, intelligent...no wonder this RfA is passing with overwhelming support. I'm pleased add my name in this section.
'''Support''' - Solid record and very experienced.  Have the tools!  --'''
'''Support'''. A solid, experienced and trustworthy editor.
Weak support. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. However Rlendog would probably use the tools appropriately.
'''Support'''. [[WP:100]]! [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Experienced and no concerns.
'''Weak oppose''' I don't see any need for the tools for this user in the answer to that question above. You can help users who need assistance without being an administrator, oftentimes with less ego involved, too. Page protection is a simple request, and there are a number of administrators who will show you a deleted article. I just ask whoever deleted it, and, even as an unregistered user, either they or someone stalking their pop page will give me the deleted text rather fast. I'm not sure that DYK needs administrators so much as it could use a number of more editors. Eagerness to fight vandalism without any statement about what type, worries me. I have concerns when editors are made administrators without some positive declaration of the need for tools after seeing what can go wrong with this. --
'''Neutral'''  I see very little activity in general "admin areas" (AfD, RFPP, CSD, etc.), noticeboard discussions (policy pages, for example), or anything else that would reflect your knowledge of policy. There's really not enough to judge whether you'd use the tools correctly.
'''Neutral leaning towards support'''—perfectly sound editor, and I have no reason to mistrust, but (as Aditya points out) there hasn't been much activity in the normal theatres of admin operation, and the answer to Q1 is a little vague; it isn't clear that Rlendog intends to do anything more than occasionally use the more peripheral admin tools. I'm open to persuasion, though! <font color="#C4112F">╟─
'''Neutral''': Very solid number of edtis and defiantly trustworthy. I have one major concern though, as was noted in my AfD (which I withdrew), I don't see the need for the admin tools. The check to see why a page is deleted is what normal users deal with all the time. And if RPP only happens once in a while, why can't the admins who like to keep clearing out RPP? --
'''Neutral''' per Q1. Except for the DYK backlog, the tools are not strictly necessary to perform those activities. <font face="courier new"><b>>
I've seen you around a lot and have been waiting for this RfA to happen.  I'm glad you finally decided to run.  '''
Per Sopapiglobo. --
edit conflicted '''Support as nominator'''.
'''As co-nom'''.
About time!
I'm very concerned about not having any content creation, but his experience in AFD counteracts that. To participate in AFD you need to know a shitload of different policies and guidelines, and I'm sure Ron knows it all being on AFD for years. He reminds me of [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] who mainly used to sort out the AFDs, and I nominated him for adminship for that special skill. Now he's a former arbitrator and a high-ranking member of the community.
In a past life I actually nominated Ritzman for adminship, but he declined. I, of course, have no problem supporting him now. He has thorough experience in Wikipedia's bureaucracy.
'''Weak Support''' I would ''really'' like to see some article work.  Just a little.  One article. Great work everywhere else, though.--
'''Support''' Ok --<font color="black">
'''Strong support''' True story, I was just looking at a non-admin close by Ron and thought "it's a shame he's never going to put himself up for admin" and then jumped to my talk page to see who was at RfA.  Let's face it, the guy is a janitor's janitor.  He's great, makes good calls and generally is one of the best 2 or 3 people closing AfDs.  I trust his judgment. That's enough.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' I am grateful that this editor has decided to run. I have previously suggested (as have several other editors) that this editor apply for the mop. His long, consistent work at AfD is valuable and would be significantly more valuable with the tools. Good grasp of policy (including BLP policy) and consensus, and deals with the inevitable conflict that comes with closing thousands of AfDs with humility and humor. (Also: As per Hobit.)  --<font color='#66dd44'>
Totally. I was closing AfDs a few minutes ago and saw that he had relisted all of those needing relisting already... and was dropping by to offer a nom... and I saw this... and I was even dreading him declining a nom from me. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
An experienced user who knows what he is doing. Not everyone focuses on building articles.
For a long time now he has demonstrated good judgment with his AfD closures—he knows policy and knows how to assess consensus, at least as well as most admins. He's one of those unusual admin candidates whose extensive experience at maintenance work more than makes up for the lack of article writing. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''': <insert standard "I thought he was an admin" statement here>  Will be a good admin. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Ron is one of those editors who will greatly benefit from the tools because he is always asking for help with simple requests. I am so glad to see him running now.
'''Support''' – Definitely fit for the admin tools. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Weak support''' The candidate is very light on content building; however, his superb work as an AfD specialist is a compelling reason for a vote in favor--
'''Support''' Everything I've seen him do at AfD pages, and it's a lot, is exemplary. I also appreciate the candor and self-honesty in response to Q2—in spite of the lack of content creation he shows a great deal of clue regarding AfDs. He can certainly be trusted with a few extra buttons.
'''Support''' I think this is my first !vote here, be nice. Article building is hard, AfD closing can be harder, I think.
'''Support''' for the most famous non-admin closer at AfD. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' - no concerns from me, his work at AfD is invaluable :). '''[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' - should be "AC", not "NAC".
'''Support''' User would definitely benefit from the mop.
'''Support,''' I only !vote here when I am already familiar with the candidate.  I find Ron Ritzman to be very clueful and careful in what he does and takes the responsibility of closing discussions seriously. I'm glad that he accepted the nomination and I have every confidence that he will use the tools appropriately. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - trustworthy and reliable.
'''Support''' In the light of the candidate's experience and history, I can't imagine that giving them admin tools could be anything other than a positive move, both for them, and for the project. &nbsp;
'''Support''' not everyone is a writer, but it takes all sorts to make an encyclopaedia and with his record the project would benefit from the additional functionality given Ron.--<small><b><i>Club<font color="darkorange">Oranje</font></i></b><sup>
'''Support''' - likely net positive.
'''Support'''.
This editor makes far too many non-admin closures. It is completely inappropriate for him/her to continue to do so. He/she must be made an admin to rectify the situation. Good luck. --
'''Support'''. I'd thought I might wait and check the answers to Uncle G's AfD questions, but I really don't need to - Ron has so much experience of AfD, and clearly knows so much more about it than I do, that even if I should disagree with any of his answers, it would be far more likely that I was wrong and not him. --
'''Support'''.User has been around since Jan 2005 and has over 35000 edits and this is his/her first RFA.Great track and see no concerns.
Already acts like one. Usual concerns about content creation waived as Ron has shown thoughtful understanding of the related issues through participation at AfD and elsewhere. No doubt he will make a fine administrator; good luck Ron.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' -- No concerns as well. --
'''Support''' Clean block log, longterm clueful editor. I think your answer to q2 didn't do justice to the article improvement you've done by spell checking, but perhaps I place more value on such work than others :) ''
'''Support''' - I also thought he already owned a mop. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''. No red flags, overall record appears to be well within my acceptable parameters for an admin. --
'''Support''' - certainly a clueful contributor. His calmness and common sense when working in an area that can be contentious (namely AfD) certainly bodes well with regard to his wielding the mop. --
'''Strong support''' to counteract the torrent of opposes that state that he needs to, in essence, (and this is probably a poor analogy, but it's the best that I can come up with having just woken up) write [[Over 9000!|Over 9000]] essays before he can mop [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over 9000|the puke]] off the floor. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Non-admin support''' :) Not overly worried about the lack of content, as Q2 to me indicates he understands the gravity of the delete button. "They also serve..." as Mr Milton says...
'''Strong support'''. I see lots of hard work without ever getting tired of the treadmill. I don't expect every admin to be an all-rounder with ten FAs, a hundred new articles, and a thousand edits to template talk; I just want to be reassured that the mop will be put to good use.
'''Support'''. You've already proven that you know how to close AfDs, so why not be efficient about it? <span  style="white-space:nowrap">—
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Experince is whats necessary for support here. Though i still think some content creation would be beneficial as an editor. Still plus one all the way.
'''Support'''  No concerns from me. Not at all concerned about Q2, in fact, in some cases I find admins can be ''too'' focused on content creation, neglecting much-needed admin work..
'''Support''' Had this one pre-watchlisted. Good way to allow a good user work more efficiently. Regards '''
'''Support''' He already handles more AFDs than most admins. <strong>
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Will do just fine.
'''Support''' Seems appropriate to entrust this user.
The right stuff. Overqualified if anything, should have been an admin months ago already.
'''Support'''. Another one for the Ritz man! --
'''Support''' - I often oppose editors asking for adminship who have little-to-no article edits (the article you've contributed most to, [[Shakira]], seems to be solely vandalism reverts). But you have demonstrated so much competence in admin-related areas (especially AfD) that I'm forced to make an exception in your case. Regardless of your lack of content experience I think you'll be a great administrator. -- '''
'''Support''' I keep seeing Ron around at AfD, and I can't recall a NAC which I'd disagree with! At the end of the day, the question is "Do I trust this user with the admin tools?" - for Ron, the answer is "Yes!" -- '''''
'''Support''' Small backlogs are good.

'''Support''' User would make a great admin.
'''Support''' About time :) '''
'''Strong Confused''' (insert cliché "I thought he was already an administrator" here) --
'''Support''' Haven't had any dealings with this editor, but seems fine to me.
'''Support''' I'm convinced it's possible to grasp the experience of the article creator even without creating articles yourself; this candidate is a case in point. His lucid, professional approach removes any concerns.
I recall seeing your name around. I also recall having disagreements with you. Which you took with a placid demeanour and a generous understanding of opposing positions. I see nothing here to alarm me. →&nbsp;
'''Support''' - ''obviously'' experienced, ''obviously'' trustworthy. I can't use the cliché ("I thought he already was...") because I've encountered Ron Ritzman's NACs before, but this is one editor for whom that cliché applies with bells on. My only concern is... who'll do NACs now?
'''Support''' enthusiastically. The main concerns people should have at RfA is does the candidate have the judgment and temperament to do the job, and has he/she earned the trust of the community. Experience is, by definition, learned via On the Job Training (OJT). However, in this case we already know how Ron will close deletion discussions; Correctly and rationally, since the only thing he couldn't do was to actually delete an article. The support of many respected others is also a sign. Unqualified support, and about time. —
'''Support''' does excellent work in AfDs, even when i don't agree with outcome, he is even-handed and follows policy and common sense.  Contentious AfD discussions should not be left hanging through day 8 and day 9, and I think Ron can help with that.--'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' long-standing, active, and dedicated user who is very obviously competent in the areas in which he chooses to work. Definitely good admin material. ~ <font color="#228b22">
--
Long overdue. Obviously knows what he enjoys and would make a solid AfD admin. '''
[[File:Artículo_bueno.svg|20px]] Every one needs a chance... Ron seems to be a solid candidate, with a solid head on his shoulder. Not as many "marks" on his record as others I have seen, So why not?? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Weak Support''' Despite his nearly non-existent article work, I think he deserves it, and there is no good reason not to give it to him.
'''Support''' I've been a bit reticent to opine recently, as I like the opportunity to flip the bits, but in this case, I'd rather voice my support for Ron. I've seen him around enough to have originally thought he was an admin, and my impressions were always favorable. Good Luck. --
'''Support''' Although my exposure to him has been maximum at the AfD closing log pages, I believe that he qualifies as someone who will be extremely trustworthy, and will work towards the betterment of Wikipedia to a considerable extent. Best wishes Ron.
'''Support''' - While candidate does it have much article work which is desired, but it is not strictly necessary in my opinion. The user shows good understanding in closing AFD and understanding in policy which qualifies him for the mop. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' Yet another excellent candidate being beaten about the head and neck over content creation crap again. He's experienced, well-meaning, very unlikely to break anything, and let's remember that adminship is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal.]]
'''Support''' Content creation is very very important. I mean, we are an encyclopedia after all. However, the admin buttons don't require you to write an article. It helps very much if you know the relevant policy and have experience in this area, and I know that some people who don't write a lot of content don't have these characteristics. I believe however that this candidate does, so I have no reason not to support.--
'''Support''' Very good work, even though it does not all fall under content.
'''Support''' Great work, Ron.
'''Support''' In much the same way that an editor at a paper-publisher may add little content, focus on culling out "unacceptable material," and yet still be considered a high-quality editor, I think there's nothing wrong with us having an admin who focuses more (or even exclusively) on the "back-end" of the encyclopedia than the front-end.  In a certain sense, his lack of content creation work can be seen as a benefit, as it will allow him to participate in more administrative activities without worrying about the problem of being "involved."
'''Support''' He seems to be a solid editor who knows what he's doing. :) [[:Simple:User:Clementina|<span style="color:#6B8AB8">Clementina</span>]]
Appears to be a good candidate. ~~
'''Support''' Great candidate for the mop, especially with deletion debates.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''' A good choice.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I do not see a problem. --
'''Uber Support''' Basically already an admin, will obviously be able to handle the extra buttons.
'''Support'''. Definitely seen Ron around deletion discussions, don't have any complaints, and we especially need admins who will be able to handle the often backlogged task of Closing XfDs.
I just really can't follow the argument in oppose that seems to be, generally, "You can't be trusted to delete articles if you've never written one". In this particular case we have ample evidence that the candidate understands the deletion policy (from his NAC's at AFD). I also note that the majority of opposition are qualifying their opposes or otherwise saying that Ron would be fine with the tools but for the lack of content creaion. In general I agree with {{user|Mazca}} above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Easy support. Fully qualified. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' Heck, I thought he was an admin - very sound on AfD area, to be sure.
'''Support''' Obvious support per NAC mountain
If we're electing a single admin of Wikipedia, maybe I'd agree that he would need to be a jack of all trades. Until then, I can rest knowing that we have more than one to cover for each other.
'''Support'''  - I hope that the 20 'optional' questions are exceptionally related to the candidate's lopsided pie chart, otherwise we have a perfect example here of why fewer and fewer editors are prepared to run for office. Whatever the candidate's reasons are for such narrow specialization,  we need dedicated plodders like this. If he were to create an article, I'm sure it's quality would put a lot of us to shame.--
'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Ron Ritzman. —
[[WP:100]] [[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''Yes'''Nice work in AFD!! :)--
'''Support'''. Long overdue.
'''Support''' – The lack of content creation doesn't bother me. Many editors can create non-controversial content and yet be wholly unqualified for a mop. I see plenty of effective interaction between Ron and other editors geared towards improving the project. The most important criteria is trust, as stated at the top of this very page, and I cannot find a single instance that makes me question Ron on this point. —
'''Support''' As noted below.
'''Support''' I wouldn't normally support someone with such a lack of article work, but I will make an exception here as I believe the candidate would be a net-positive as an admin.
'''Support''' It takes many different kinds of people to create and sustain a project as complex as this one.  It's true that we primarily need content creators, but they are not the only type of contributors we need.  Ron has found his niche, he does it well, and we need such people who are happy to volunteer to take care of the more mundane, administrative, maintenance functions.
'''Support''' RFA really needs to get rid of the notion that editors MUST write a bunch of articles to be acceptable admins.  There's a lot fewer missing articles we need than in the old days, so that's becoming an increasingly unreasonable rule.
'''Support''' will make a competent admin.
'''Support''' Why not? [[User talk: Gfoley4|Gfoley4]] (
'''Support''' Definitely.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' will be a good mod.
'''Support''' I trust Ron to make the right decisions and will make a fine admin.
'''Support!''' '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙∙∙</span>]]
'''Hopeful Support''' Hopeful in the sense that hopefully when you have the tools you will feel less need to relist discussions unnecessarily although I applaud you for relisting poor discussions of BLPs against the numbers when sourcing hasn't been forthcoming.
'''Support''' - this editor has gained the community's trust. [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Support''' - I don't recall ever working with this editor before, probably because he buries himself in AFD and I rarely go there.  However, I have no problems with the lack of mainspace work; you need to understand mainspace to admin but this editor seems to have a good handle on that.  The idea that admins need to have a lot of substantive article work under their belts is not supported by any evidence.  The candidate's participation and initiation of discussions of policy are insightful and I look forward to seeing first hand what he considers a delete, based on what I see here and have seen in the history, it will not be a problem.  I am troubled more by the exceptionally high standards the opposers set for admins.  Very little that admins do can not be easily undone and we need more maintenance workers. --
'''Support'''. I've wavered about this one, because I don't have much personal experience with the candidate, and I see many valid arguments from among both the supports and the opposes. What has tipped me into the support column is the way that Ron has conducted himself during the RfA so far, in a process where the "optional" questions seem to me to have gotten particularly, ahem, proctological. --
After reading the opposes, I have to support.
'''Strong support''' per excellent AfD work. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. The opposition due to lack of content work is predicted, and those concerns have a great deal of merit. However, the candidate has in my experience always held content creators in high regard, and his demeanor is not in any way arrogant. His work in other fields more than make up for the deficiency he himself noted in Q2. The candidate has demonstrated good judgement, and I think the candidate and the project will benefit from granting him adminship.
'''Support''', a good candidate. ---'''
'''Support''', very promising candidate. Awesome work at WP:AFD. '''''
'''Support''' I have seen you making lots of constructive edits to Wikipedia and think you will make an excellent administrator. <b><font color="#0000DD">Joe Gazz84</font></b><sup>
'''Support''' User knows his stuff I have interacted with him at AFD and believe that they will not misuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' Communicates well, and appears to know more about XfD policy than most admins do. --
'''Support''
'''Support''' <font color="#082567">
'''Weak support''' The concerns of those opposing over lack of content creation are valid but I don't really see a problem with letting you get more involved in closing AfDs.  You already serve as a sort of "admin light" in your NAC closures at AfD and all of your recent ones show good judgment. '''
'''Support:''' A net positive, but an admin really should be an editor first. You spend 70 % of your time in AfD which is a not a good thing. Remember, the main goal at Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia. Having got that off my chest, I think you will make a great Admin. -
'''Support''' changed to support on the basis of the response to Q13. I think Ron now understands the problem, and on the basis of very good sense in general, I assume he will gradually increase the extent of his responsiveness. My appreciation to Bongomatic for helping him elucidate it.   '''

'''Support''' because of decent rationales given in closings and overall continued good works supporting the project itself. '''
'''Support''' despite the lack of content creation--which I find odd for someone who is so involved, so dedicated to service, and so knowledgeable. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I have seen Ritzman's contributions many a time when I was very active at AfD, and I think a mop will be a very useful tool for them--and that their having a mop will be a very useful tool for us. Uncle G's questions and the responses given clinched it for me. Good luck, Ritzman, and thank you for your contributions.
'''Support''' --
Though Ron Ritzman lacks substantial content creation, I believe that he is well-versed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as evinced by his responses to Uncle G's questions. He always gives good rationales for his non-admin closures, and I see no reason that this will not persist after he is granted the tools. The extra tools will allow him to close more AfDs which will lessen the load on other admins. His being granted the tools is a net positive.
'''Support''' - Another good editor who isn't a "Content" person. We need more Admin's that can help, guide and manage all those content people.
'''Support''' Having seem Ron's work at AFD closures I am confident in his administrator capabilities.--''
'''Support'''. Candidate has demonstrated an impressive amount of [[WP:CLUE|clue]], before and during this RFA. —
'''Support''' - also surprised he wasn't already an admin.
'''Support''' - He is doing a great job on AFD closures. I see no reason why he should be a admin. --
'''Support'''. Opposes on the basis of no content creation are misguided. Content creation is not necessary to establish a track record of making contributions and decisions that benefit the project. <sup><small><font color="green">
'''Support''' before I forget and the RFA closes. As I said before, different admin candidates (and different editors and admins) bring something unique to the table, and Ritzman is no exception. No more closing AFDs with "non-admin closure" for you. –
Q2. This vote cast, I applaud your candor, and I sincerely thank you for all your other contributions to the project.
Although I've never seen a non-admin close I didn't agree with. I am reluctant to trust an editor with the mop whose never created or had to defend content in the encyclopedia.--
'''Oppose''' - I've seen Ron around for quite a while, and never had a problem, but I've also had times that I haven't agreed with relisting discussions that should have been decided by an admin. In the best these are gnome tasks; at worst they're ideological edits that prolong debate. Given that, I'm amazed at the lack of actual opinion in the discussion on both sides. There's an arbitrary nature to the "no contribution" kind of comments... where we butcher RfA candidates for their lack of content contributions. I don't support that approach, but I find the analysis here particularly lacking. I'm not sure how to judge an editor that has no controversy, particularly when the professed area is deletion, and the user has overwhelming support prior to answering most of the initial questions. No problems with any of that. But I think it's worthwhile to look towards other criteria, and for the people that usually crow about content contributions to at least speak up here.
'''Oppose''' – <s>I was planning on waiting for an answer to my question before voting but, upon reflecting on Shadowjams' comments, I've decided stating my current leaning would be okay.  I have concerns that are the same as those articulated by Mike Cline.  If the candidate was going to administer other areas I might not oppose but for AfDs I think content creation experience is important to have. AfD admins are more likely to make decisions involving experienced editors and decisions from an admin with a solid record of content creation experience to point to is in a better position to give adverse decisions that go down easier.  Still I have a question outstanding so this vote is not yet final.  Question answered, but not in a way that would make me revise my initial impression. The question has several aspects to it and the answer given is too perfunctory addressing as it does maybe 30% of the issues and does not answer either the technical or philosophical points addressed in a manner I would agree with.</s> Candidate does not seem to know how to determine consensus.
'''Oppose that will carry zero weight''' The bureaucrats have made it clear that they don't give a damn about content building from any candidate, nor editors that oppose for this reason, but I again agree with the few above that have expressed the same concerns that will be once again ignored.
'''Oppose'''. Is doing great work at AfD already and clearly has tons of clue in that area, but candidates for admin powers need to show a reasonable minimum of content experience. This doesn't mean creating new articles btw, but it does mean demonstrating the ability to add or copy-edit content, use references properly and collaborate with other editors. Sorry -
'''Oppose''' per above. Don't really expect you to f-up, especially if you stick with AfD, but your lack of content creation makes me oppose. -
I've no opinion about the candidate's other merits, of which I am sure there are many, but administrators should have substantial content writing experience. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Vodello. I really am not comfortable letting him delete articles when he does not have that much experience writing one firsthand.--
'''Regrettable oppose'''. I really feel bad for writing this oppose. I really do. Ron seems like a wonderful person and judging by the support he's earned here, I hope that he'll go on to being a more than satisfactory administrator. But per Q2, I cannot support. If someone's going to be deleting articles, I'd rather them have at least minimal experience with content building, but he has none. I wish him luck in his endeavors, I appreciate his candor in answering the question, and hope that he considers writing an article one day– I'd enjoy reading it.
'''Oppose'''. No content creation. Little collaboration with other editors to improve content.
I ''really'' don't like the company I'm keeping down here (we're talking "reflexive support" here), but there are pretty big problems here. Content creation is not a deal-breaker for me, but a ''complete lack'' of articlespace work other than the most trivial wikignoming would make me hesitate no matter what an editor's projectspace work amounted to. But then we get to the actual substance of Ron's work, NACs, and this is also problematic: many of the ones I've looked at are wishy-washy (as are the replies to the questions above), which would be fine if Ron were not a regular participant in AFD but not for an editor who operates almost exclusively in that domain. I am ''more than happy'' to be convinced that I'm missing something here. For now, I see an editor who is very active in clerk work but who hasn't demonstrated the experience to handle, well, basically anything that he isn't currently handling well enough without the bit.
'''Oppose''' While I like your non-admin closes, and don't recall one I've ever disagreed with, the other opposes are pretty compelling.  PLEASE go spend the time to get your content creation up-to-snuff and reapply.
'''Oppose''' Apologies for the double-negative, but I cannot not oppose someone with so much interest in a content-related process yet so little experience in content, particularly when there are multiple concerns about non-admin closures. --
'''Oppose''' I thought this was going to be a slam-dunk !support, but I'm seeing some red flags. Primary is the unanswered questions. It is now three days in, maybe I'm too harsh but I think if you're going to commit to this process you should be willing to accept you might not be sleeping much for the next week. If you're going to be taking actions as an admin, you better be ready to stay up late explaining them. Secondary is the number of !supports put in before the candidate started answering Q's. That makes me rather suspicious that someone may be hoping to just skate to the goal line. Article creation count as a problem, nah, leaves me cold. No audited content, same thing, whatever. What I do look for though (in an admin or any editor) is substantive participation in discussions - so article talk, user talk, and project (WP) spaces. That is where you resolve content, behaviour and governance issues. I've seen no evidence led that the candidate has made notable contributions in this area. My uContribs thingydoo is 'asploding on me, so I can't get the detailed analysis, so I'm open to being convinced on that. I would even ask a few Q's, but why bother if they are going to be ignored? Just not a good feeling here, seems like a one-dimensional candidate, though apparently good enough in that one dimension. I'm not happy to be making an edit in a space I normally don't go, with a candidate who I'd previously thought was pretty OK - but there you go...
'''Oppose''' Avraham's concerns resonate with me.  For myself, I will also say that I'd like some level of decent content contributions.  Not everyone is geared to FAs, but in this case, the lack of content contributions is glaring.  Without that, you have an admin who has been raised in an ivory tower.--
Oppose. As White Shadows says, and others have suggested, nobody who hasn't built an article should have the power to delete one.
'''OPPOSE:''' limited CONTENT CREATION. The WISHY-WASHY answers by this candidate for modship leads me to be UNCERTAIN about whether he would treat commoners differently than mods in deciding if he should block for alleged violations of CIVILITY.
'''Oppose''' While I don't think he's going to break anything, an admin really should be an editor first.  One part of it is empathy, I don't feel comfortable having someone "at the helm" of AfD that doesn't have any real chance of his own hard work going to AfD.  But also, your perspective is colored by where you spend your time and if 70+ percent of your time is spent in AfD you really don't have a good idea of what goes on on the Wiki, you don't have experience collaborating and compromising outside of the "crisis situation".  Finally, the main goal at Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia, I don't want to see people getting the tools that don't appear have that same goal.  <sub>One could argue that the Wikipedia space supports that goal and helps build the encyclopedia, but strictly speaking that isn't actually contributing to content.</sub>  --'''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of significant content work. We already have too many admins who are disengaged from content. More [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris&oldid=380081091 here].
'''Oppose''' Per reasons already discussed in detail by many users above.--
Huh? All this time I thought Ron ''was'' an administrator. ~
'''Neutral''' Still seems trusted, but an administrator who only wants to take part in deletion or restoration of pages makes me wonder, will he eventually move over to other parts of the administrative project? Also my reply to Q2 is that you can't think of one good contribution? Not even those unrelated to the encyclopaedia? I could say that your judgement of deletions is one of them. Well, I see from your answer that you have been dreading Q2, so I won't oppose for the sake of not being too harsh.
Ron's answer to Q13 was very poignant and after some thought, I decided my feeling was not to oppose. Still can't find it in myself to support a user with almost no content contribution to articles, but holding him at his word that he will in the future.
Ron, You're great and all, but I can't bring myself to support an editor that written zero articles for an admin. Sorry,--''

As nominator.
Good candidate. Good CSD work; especially with G10s. If the answer to Q3 is the biggest dispute he's ever been involved in, candidate needs to get involved in more disputes :) --
<s>'''Oppose''': Has not met the requisite z000 edits in q months</s>'''Support''' Great editor, funny nomination statement, look promising.
Umm... duh. I've been persuading him for months. It pleases me to see it finally on the main page. <small>(
I don't even have to think about this !vote; he's done good work all over. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
You didn't let me nominate? Lame. Happy to support regardless. '''<font color="navy">
You'll do great work as an admin. '''
'''Support'''. Absolutely no qualms whatsoever when I came here, great answers, great nomination, if ever there were a case for a [[WP:RIGHTNOW]] close, this would be it. When I first bumped inot you (yes, I know, cliche, but it's true) I genuinely thought you were an admin and was shocked to see you weren't! Let's put that right! ;)
Absolutely
I was waiting for this, honestly. Good luck!
'''Support''' great user.
'''Strong Oppose''' Too perfect. Can't find any edits to make fun of. Obviously not admin material.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' User is competent as he frequently demonstrates. No concerns with this user. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
Content work, technical knowledge, mature demeanor and trustworthiness combine to form a highly qualified candidate for adminship. &ndash;'''
Refreshingly competent and clueful. Experience doesn't matter as long as the candidate shows they're ready for the tools. '''
'''Strongest possible support''' Would make an excellent admin. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support'''.  Why not? -'''
'''Support''', of course.
A much better SPI clerk than I am. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
Absolutely.
'''Support''' Shirik is a trustworthy candidate and is ready for adminship ''now''.
'''Support''' I've just started working with him on IRC and he seems competent. His sense of humor is also a plus.
'''Support''' - No worries here. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Strong Support'''. Shirik has done excellent work so far, will make an excellent admin, and made his first edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Object_copy&diff=prev&oldid=258504327 17 December 2008 03:53 UTC].  &nbsp; — <font size="4">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
As of right now I have never [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/index.php?name=Tim1357 !voted] at an RFA. I try to avoid them because I never feel strongly about if the user looks like he/she would make a good admin. However, with [[User:Shirik|Shirik]]; I knew before he did that he would do an awesome job being an admin, and I am comfortable saying that I '''Fully, 200% support'''. I only wish that this RFA had come sooner, so that wikipedia would not have lacked such an admin for so long.
Yes, please.
Most definitely. <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
'''Strong Support''' Shirik's work in the area of edit filters is nothing short of brilliant; I have observed him to be very clueful and ready to assist when people have questions or requests to do with edit filters, and I am certain that Shirik will be able to put the admin tools into good use in dealing with users or page creations picked up by edit filters. I've also been impressed by Shirik's recent work in [[WP:SPI|SPI]]. As he has fairly recently become a trainee clerk there, I'm pleased to see that he's shown the prudence to say that he'll take things fairly easily to start with in regard to dealing with SPI cases as an admin, although I have every confidence that should he pass this RfA any work he does do as an admin in SPI will be of the highest standard, and having more admins there is always something which will be appreciated. Finally, he is a polite and relaxed editor, and I'll be delighted should this RfA pass and he becomes an admin.
Support. Fully qualified candidate, ready to help out in an area that can always use more staffing, no issues or concerns.
<s>'''Strongest possible oppose''' User did not let me co-nom.</s> '''Strongest possible support'''. Extremely helpful and friendly. Excellent work on the filters and good work at SPI.
'''Support''' Shirik does good work and would benefit from having the admin tools to deal with sockpuppets and edit filter-related things.--

--
'''Support''' Good work with the edit filters.
'''Support''' I can't find any reason to Oppose. -
Looks good to me.  Impressive CSD work.
'''Support''' I know some edit-filter work of the candidate, which is good and rather useful, especially given a number of maniacs crawling around WP recently, which can't be stopped by blocks ..
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've gone through the candidates's deleted contributions for April and saw some very accurate speedy deletion tagging of attack pages and vandalism. I might suggest that more meaningful edit summaries than (CSD) would be preferable, but that isn't a sufficiently serious quibble for me to downgrade to a weak oppose. ''
'''Support''' Absolutely, very cooperative.
'''Support''' Valuable editor. Has my trust.
'''Support''' seen 'm around. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|3 months/3,000 edits]] is usually enough to assess and this user seems ready. Obviously intelligent, knowledgeable, even tempered, articulate user. Nominator is someone I trust. Besides, I'm jealous of that camera. Thanks to WereSpielChequers and others above for doing the homework, so support per them as well.
'''Support''' Looks good, has enough experience. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' per WereSpielChequers. I first knew this user as a rollbacker. An active edit filter manager too.
'''Support''' Abso-friggin-lutely. '''<span style="font-color:black;">•</span>
'''Support''' - all right, I'm convinced now...--
'''Support''' - Based on thoroughly competent work at SPI. <font color="darkorange">
He is a very good copyeditor, he even helped get [[Flag of Japan]] to featured status due to his copyediting.
'''Support''' No problems that I have found. -- '''''
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''':  a net gain for this editor to have the tools.--'''~
'''Strong support''' I can't believe he isn't one already! Good luck. --
I seriously thought Shirik was already an administrator and was surprised to see his name here.
'''Support''' The candidate's copyedit skills and specialty work in edit-filter management are very impressive.--
'''Strong support'''. Shirik has been exceptionally helpful with checkuser-related duties, and I would trust him to not abuse the administrator rights, so therefore I support. --
'''Support''' - I've seen Shirik around, doing good things. Nothing to concern me, and I really like the answer to Q5. -- '''
'''Support''' Clearly a great editor doing lots of 'near admin' type things - would make a great addition to the ranks --
'''Support''' per Q5 answer, except for the phrase "common sense". If we had a sense that we all shared in common, there'd be no conflict. It's a cliche I really can't stand.
'''Support''' Seems like a decent candidate.
'''Support''' I can find no reason to oppose only reasons to support in my review of their contributions.  '''
'''Support''' Decent candidate. Already helpful and has experience to where he wants to work in. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support'''. Good involvement in [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:EF/R]], [[WP:ANI]] & [[WP:FALSEPOS]].
'''Support''' - nothing to strike me as warranting an oppose; abuse seems unlikely to me.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' - A great user who is unlikely to abuse the tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Very helpful editor. Can be trusted. --
'''Support''': I see solid vandal-fighting, tireless sock-whacking, smart participation in audited content creation, and articulate answers to questions above.
Weak support, mainly because while content creation is low, the articles created are of good quality, and there is nothing to suggest that the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' - Technical knowledge, very good answers to questions above, friendly interaction with other users, good article work, obviously trusted by the community (trusted, not popular). Of course! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - Edit filter rights are a big plus to me, as is some real experience vandal fighting. A little low on some other areas, but after letting the discussion develop more, I don't see red flags.
'''Support''' - No reason to believe he will be a bad administrator.
'''Support'''. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop!
User useful in GA review, as well as general edit filter issues. Has clue. ''
'''Support''' I trust Shirik to act in the best interests of the project, and to try hard not to mess things up; demonstrates a great deal of common-sense, and in my experience they have been courteous, polite and helpful.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
Good answers to the questions, and you've obviously made a good impression. - Dank (
Confident that they'll do a good job. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
Interactions with user have been positive. They have done a great job so far, no red flags.
'''Strong Support'''-Very level headed and friendly editor with technical expertise. His common-sense approach and courteousness suggest that he will make for an excellent admin.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Shirik. —

'''Support'''. Positive interactions with other users, very good CSD work. Knows how to write articles, too. My only nitpick is regarding uninformative edit summaries for CSD nominations, but has my full support nonetheless. <code>
I see nothing that raises any red flags and lots of positives. Good nom and excellent candidate.
I see no reason not to '''support'''
'''Support''', great work on the edit filters, diligent and thoughtful.
'''Support''' Is trusted, and from a 10 minute scan a good guy. More hands are needed, so fine - best of luck to you.
'''Support''' can be trusted with the tools. ''<B>--
Support. &mdash;
'''Support''' I see no issues that would cause me to be neutral, let alone oppose.
'''Support''' &mdash; Will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Dedicated, trustworthy, and able and willing to respond to concerns.  <small><span class='nounderlines' style="text-decoration:none"><font face="tahoma"><font color="#df1620">
'''Support''' Shirik is already a trusted edit-filter manager; he will surely do just fine as an admin. He may have been around for only seven months of activity, but during those (blemish-free) seven months he's proven himself highly capable in both content work and administrative areas. Based on my personal experience, I agree with those who've described him as "level-headed."
'''Support''' I don't see any reason why not.
'''"What about æroplanes?"<!--<ref>{{cite audio|people=[[Carbon Leaf]] |title=What About Everything? |album=[[Indian Summer]] |format=[[CD]] |year=2004 |label=[[Vanguard Records]]}}</ref>-->''' "Lift away and float it on into space."<!--<ref>{{cite audio|people=[[Carbon Leaf]] |title=Home |album=[[Ether~Electrified Porch Music]] |format=[[CD]] |year=1999 |label=Constant Ivy Music}}</ref>--> "If i face indecision don't let me face it alone, just take me straight to Virginia, back to the faces of home."<!--<ref>{{cite audio|people=[[Carbon Leaf]] |title=Snowfall Music |album=[[Nothing Rhymes with Woman]] |format=[[CD]] |year=2009 |label=[[Vanguard Records]]}}--> "And if you're burning like a candle all alone ... let it snow."<!--<ref name="Snowfall Music">{{cite audio|people=[[Carbon Leaf]] |title=Indecision |album=[[Nothing Rhymes with Woman]] |format=[[CD]] |year=2009 |label=[[Vanguard Records]]}}--> "Night sky, city sleep; snow globe halos on the lamps in the street."<!--<ref name="Snowfall Music"/>--> ~ [[North American blizzard of 2009|It is a wonderful article]]. I thank you. Cheers <font face="Georgia">
'''Strongest Support''' For your extremely needed work at abusefilter, 1000%edit summary, etc, ctc, tct --
'''Support''' Looks good to me! --
'''Support''' – I'm not worried about the amount time-in-service. The user has demonstrated trust with tools like the edit filter, I'm confident he'll be able to handle the sysop tools. –
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' - I may be bias as I have been working with Shirik for awhile regarding abusive banned editors, and the filters constructed to prevent them, such as [[WP:LTA/WF98|Wallflowers98]], along with a twinkle mod to combat said banned users.  I don't know much of his work in other areas, but I would trust him to the tools.— '''
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' for the sake of [[WP:100]].
'''Support'''. No worries. Regards,
'''Last Minute Support''' Great with AbuseFilter. He could handle the mop really well.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, has only been active about six months.  Would reconsider at a later date.  --'''
'''Oppose''' — "Similarly, IAR can only apply in other cases when there is supported by obvious community consensus." (below). On this we differ.
I agree with MSGJ that the bot issue raises some potential judgment issues. In particular: No bug report was filed or developer consulted to determine why the extension wasn't working properly before the bot was written, flagged, and tested. The bot was also run in (likely) violation of Toolserver rules. While no real damage was done, the rush to judgment without consideration of alternatives is disconcerting. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Neutral''' Only 4 articles created, and has only been actually active on Wikipedia for about 6 months, however, there is evidence of good activity in other areas that would lead me to trust him with the admin tools.
'''Neutral''' As per User:Immunize. There seems to  be a reasonable balance (but  not quantity) between main  page contribs and discussion  about  them, but there is a big difference between the time people have been users, the number of months in  which they  have made an edit, and the number of months that demonstrate a regular, stable commitment  to  the maintenance jobs that  can  already  be done without  admin tools.  --
'''Neutral''' He seems an ideal candidate: thoughtful, intelligent, and skilled. I'm sure he will make a superb admin, and I would support in a second if he had some more months actively editing. It may sound harsh, but I have to see at least a year's worth. It shows a level of commitment to the project, even when it gets ugly or real life intervenes. It shows the candidate has witnessed all the issues that have been fought over just in the past year, and despite all that, still wants to be an administrator.
'''Neutral''' only 4 articles in total; considering to opposing.
'''Absolutely the strongest support I could think of'''. I have interacted with Soap for a few months now, and he has given me good advice when I was a newbie. Soap has done some great around the 'pedia, including his work at [[WP:UAA]] and [[WP:SPI]], as well as helping the newbies, including me. Soap is an excellent choice for the mop, and Wikipedia will certainly benefit from it. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Stronger than my Tide rolls' RFA support''' You've been a guideing force for me here and you have proven yourself capable of haveing the tools. (I'm adding myself back in the spot that I was at first prior to Soap removeing it due to the fact that this RFA had not officially begun. If anyone opposes this just add me into mumber 36)--
'''Support''' without hesitation. I've seen this candidate's good work in many places.
'''Beat the nom support''' I thought he was an admin.
'''Support''' &ndash; not much more to add, as it is already stated above and in the nom. Good luck!
'''Beat-the-nom Strongest possible support''' Absolutely. What good is the mop and bucket without Soap? <font face="Segoe Print">
OK folks, enough of your beating-the-nom fun! I support, natrually.
'''About  @#!*%  time'''. I would have put stronger words, but even with [[WP:UNCENSORED]] it is not, as they say, "[[wiktionary:couth|couth]]" to say exactly how I feel. --
'''Strong Support''' responsible editor who will make a good addition. ''<B>--
Soap cleans things up!
'''Strong support'''  An excellent choice.
'''Support''' - agree, great name for an admin. This is a person who has done much to improve the Wiki, and my best wishes go with this !vote.
Long overdue. Soap tends to be a voice of reason in discussions and is very experienced with the ways of the wiki. I'm sure he'll make a great admin.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''' with the sincere hope this makes it to [[WP:200]].--'''~
'''Support''' Nothing to say other than that he's fit for adminship. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' Without a doubt fit to be an admin. --
'''Support''' Of course. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' - took you long enough! —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
For only the second or third time ever, I'm going to declare my '''strongest possible support'''. Many months back when I first came across Soap, I genuinely believed he was an admin (yes, yes, I know it's a cliché, but it's true!) and, several months later when I installed popups, I was genuinely shocked to discover that he'd never even requested it! Since then, I've come across Soap on a regular basis, even more so since getting my own mop. I've found his technical expertise with edit filters and the mediawiki namespace invaluable and have always appreciated his input when we happen to cross paths. In many ways, he effectively ''is'' an admin already, so I think the project would greatly benefit from Soap being able to press the buttons himself- he knows how to use the mop better than many admins. I'm proud to be able to claim a small part of the blame for getting him to finally stand.
'''Support'''. Very good candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Very strong support''' &mdash; not sure if I've even met him. I don't think I've met him. But that's a name which anybody who's even slightly into Wikipedia would know (...or at least, I sure ''hope'' they know what [[soap]] is), simply because he's so proactive in contributing to this site. I'm shocked to see he's not already an admin &mdash; don't get me wrong, I always knew he wasn't, but I'm still shocked that it took so long for this RfA to happen (and this is his first time?). Strongly support, let's see how far up [[WP:100]] this will go! :)
'''Support'''. A mop, a bucket, and a little bit of Soap, and we'll have a spic-n-span Wikipedia! --
'''Support''' From what I've seen here, Soap appears to be a great candidate for the tools and would certainly help out wikipedia by having them. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Strong support'''. Excellent candidate, I thought you already had the mop. -
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A fine candidate.

'''Strong support''' Soap should have been an admin long ago. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Strong Support''' - Every-time i have come across Soap he has been very helpful and kind.
Very happy to support. --
'''Support''' - Cliché, I know, but I thought he was one already. '''
'''Support''' Good answers, I see the user around alot, would be a good admin.
Of course. An exceptionally helpful, clueful, compassionate, and genuinely personable contributor who would make an excellent administrator. '''
'''Support''' Thought he was one already.
'''Weak Support''' I really appreciate your stepping up to investigate my erroneous block (because of the actions of a different "Keepscases" on a different wiki), but next time you face a situation like that, please be more diligent...it really should have been clear it wasn't me.  I am not trying to be hard on you; you will be a good admin.
'''Super soapy support!''' Yes, yes, yes! Great user. Heck, if I could i'd give him two mops.<small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' Seems like a solid addition to the admin team.
'''Support''' Good and solid. I was impressed by the removal of preemptive !votes, shows a level head. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
Thought you were one already. <span style="font-family:Calibri">
I'm sure you'll be level-headed as a sysop. --
'''Support''' Pleased to support.
Oh, definitely. I think that this has a good shot at being on [[WP:200]]. ~~
'''Support''' Soap has a clean enough record for me! -- '''''
'''Strong support''' per nominator. Most definitely. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support'''. I don't usually vote on people I don't know but reading about Soap, I am particularly impressed and can see how the tools would benefit him. A great candidate.--
[[Scrubbing Bubbles|Someone who cleans the edit filter so I don't have to]].
'''Support''' - no hesitation at all that this will be a net positive.  '''
'''Support''' You weren't one before?
'''Support''' Good contributions, and will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support'''.  Fo sho.  -'''
'''Support''' Great contributions, especially in the edit filter areas, which is mostly where I've seen this impressive user's work! ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support'''. A very easy decision --
'''Duh.''' _'''
'''Support''' – Definitely. Good answers to the questions posed. A net positive to the project. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
To be honest, i thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' ''It is odor free Soap right?''
'''Support''' - A solid, long-term contributor who has found his own niche on WP. This editor knows his strong points, and so despite the lack of high-level content work, I think that WP could only be improved with a mop in his hands.
'''Support.''' Demonstrably an excellent editor. --''
Duh.
'''Hesitant support...'''.
'''Speedy support''' nom to bureaucrat. -
'''Support''' I thought you were already an admin.
'''Support''' I have no concerns regarding Soap's candidacy and am happy to support this RFA.
'''Support''' —'''
I thought he was an admin already '''support''' -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Can't think of any reason why not. And after all, things do get cleaner if you use soap with your mop. <tt>;-)</tt> Regards '''
'''Support''' Sounds like a good idea to me. -
'''On-a-rope support'''. The areas in which this editor has been working would, I'm sure, have revealed any problems with his/her judgement and attitude; there seem to be no concerns on those areas so I have no concerns about adminship.
'''S-s-s-s-support''' - Amazing.
'''Support''' already.
'''Support''' Seems ideally suited and qualified.
'''Support''' wholeheartedly, as he left nothing but positive impressions on me. Though i do regret that i lose the ability to grin thinking "Well, its properly soaped up, now to mop it out of the door" as i often did while handling your reports.
Since  @#!*%  when are you not an admin?
'''Support''' A checkthrough his contributions confirmed me that we can trust him with the tools. <font color="blue">
Well geez, it's about time you ran... <small>(
'''Support''' Soap is admittedly an excellent candidate. Trusted user. No problems.
'''Support'''. Would it be unheard of to invoke [[WP:SNOWBALL]] and close this as a successful RfA now, or do we really need for someone to post a token "oppose" !vote? I don't remember a previous RfA that got so many "support" !votes so fast... --
'''Support.'''  I've been the recipient of this editor's assistance several times.  They are always patient and their advice/feedback has always been on point.  Their contribution would be greatly enhanced with the extra tools.
'''Support''' Per [[WP:Right now!]] <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Thesevenseas-->'''<span style="font-family:garamond;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''',
'''Support''', Very impressive track record. Trusted user. Gets my support. --
Of course yes.
'''Bubbly Support'''<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support'''-on-a-rope. Excellent candidate; helpful, has clue, ticks all the boxes. Glad you've decided to go for it; best of luck, soap.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' I am taking time out of playing [[Red Dead Redemption|this]] to vote in support. So with that said, Soap will be an awesome adminastrator.
'''Support''' - Of course! —
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Soap has been doing a great (and often thankless) work as an Edit Filter manager. Since the end of the last year, he has often answered to the majority of reports on the false positives noticeboard. I think he will a great administrator.
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support'''  Good candidate.
'''Support''' Another specialist (edit filter management) who is well-rounded, clueful and has shown a willingness to perform what are often thankless tasks--
'''Support'''. A good candidate with experience in areas where admin tools would be beneficial, so I'm happy to add another count towards the soon-to-be [[WP:100]] support. --
'''Support''', great work with the edit filter.
'''Support''' - obviously great editor, a wide range of valued contributions to the project. And yes, thought he was one already. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - is more than capable :)
More soap for all of us. —
'''Support''' - odd user page, but otherwise he looks fine.
'''Support''' Great contributor who would likely make a great administrator.
'''Support''' No doubt about it. :)
'''Support'''. [[Squirrel Jokes|Soap... soap... what is soap?]] —
'''Support''' – Glad to add my support; I'm another of the confused ones who had thought he already was an admin. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' I honestly thought Soap was already an admin. An obvious choice, a great candidate. It's about time.--
'''Support''' per Gordonrox24
'''Support''' Great user, feels he finally needs adminship. Z̋̿̐̓͜҉̶̟̺̪͍͔̰̯̥̹̬͟algo
'''Support''' I see no major issues. --'''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Out of retirement to strong support'''.
You have, at amazing speed, surpassed my very hard requirements for an <b>AUTOMATIC SUPPORT</b> (Those requirements being, having over 100 supports and NEVER - even temporarily - having any opposes or neutrals.) -
'''Extremely strong support'''
'''Support'''. Oh, go on then.
'''Support'''. Quick review of the past few thousand contributions proves very impressive. Look forward to working with you as an admin in the future! Shouldn't [[WP:SNOW]] apply for RfAs that clearly aren't going to ''fail'' as well?. &mdash; '''
'''Soapport''' — See? ''It's no big deal''. And no worries.
'''Pile-on support'''
'''Snow support'''. Soap has definitely done a great job as an edit filter manager. After a quick review of his contributions, I believe that he is clearly well qualified for the admin tools. --
'''So Much Support It can't be measured''' A brilliant Candidate very worthy of the "Mop and Bucket" [[User:Floul1|Floul1]] | [[User_Talk:Floul1|My Talkpage]] |
'''Support''' Soap has proven to be a friendly, patient, and knowledgeable editor. I have no concerns regarding handing them the mop and bucket.--
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. Clichéd "I thought there were an admin already." Awesome job. :) <sup>
'''Support''': per [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested]]: (a) Soap's all over it, and (b) I'm scared that if I tried to oppose an edit filter would stop me ;-)
'''Support''' - Just in case you need a tie breaker !
'''Support''' Appears well qualified for the extra tools.—
'''Support'''. Well, reading this over, there seem to be an unusually large number of bad puns on the word "soap". So I'm just going to say that it is always gratifying when there is an absence of ''drama'' from [[Soap opera|''this'']]. --
'''Support'''.  Give him the mop, he already has the soap. At this rate, this way well be a record breaking vote'''
'''Support''' I'm pretty sure all that be said has already been said for this candidate.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Derild4921|Derild4921]] ([[User talk:Derild4921|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|contribs]]) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> forgot to sign [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">2</span>]]
'''Support'''. Soap's record and esp. answers to the above questions are excellent. --
'''Support''' - I've done my share of pushing Soap to run. I believe he will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Valuable worker...
'''Support''' - No concerns whatsoever. &nbsp;--
Of course, and gratz. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Fully qualified, no concerns. It appears that any objections to Soap have come out in the wash.
'''Support'''
'''So i herd u liek abminchip''' No reason not to inflict the candidate with the mop and bucket. Have fun.
'''Support''' Not a prolific content  editor, t'is true,  but  very  consistent  work  on everything  a janitor can  do  without  the tools, including  a lot of RfA's! My  !vote at  this stage is probably  superfluous.--
'''Support''' trusted, knowledgeable, experienced, good-smelling—what's not to like?
'''Support''' ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Speedy Support''' if such a thing exists.
'''Support'''. Good work with false positives.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Uh, yeah. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' deleted contribs look good - I think a mop is in order. ''
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - No reason I can think of not to hand Soap the mop. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. [[A Little Bit of Soap|Soap will never wash away my tears]]. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Support''' Soap + mop = clean floors? --
'''Essential support''', because at this percentage every !vote counts. :/ It may be a cliche, but it's true: I thought Soap was already an admin. Finding out I was wrong, I see no point not to remedy that expeditiously. --
'''Support''': Met this person only a few weeks ago on IRC, but has a great history. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' – No exception here.
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' -
'''Support''': Pile-on support. Seen nothing but good work. No concerns here. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' - great work, terrific community trust. Can we make it to 200? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' Woah! I thought this user was already an admin because of his (or her) contributions! --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support'''  soap it, wash it.
I was going to oppose based on the fact that my irc client had issues with tab completing his nick, but then decided there were greater things at stake. {{;)}} huge net benefit. ''
'''Support'''. See no reason to think Soap will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. You always beat me to handling the false positive reports for the edit filter, but I suppose I can let that slide.
'''Support''', though I wonder if there's any point in supporting: with already 159 supports and no (real) opposes I think I can guess how this one will go! I have looked at a sample of Soap's edits, and I have seen a very thoughtful and constructive editor, who should make a first rate administrator.
'''Support''', no reason not to--
'''Support''' I love this candidate. I want to have their babies.
'''Support''', fine admin material

'''Support''' This is someone who, by all appearances, could have become an admin a long time ago.  I'm a huge proponent of [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]], and I see no evidence that he would ''mis''use the tools, therefore support.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I have done a bit of reading by putting the candidate against my [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]], and like the above, I have come to the conclusion of supporting.
'''Support'''.  I see nothing but good work and I believe the tools will be well-handled.
'''Support'''. duh.  <font face="arial" color="#E8A317">
'''Support''' Not much that I can add that hasn't already been said above or made a pun of. Trustworthy admin that will finally have the bit flipped. Good wishs Soap
'''Strong support''' Excellent editor who will make an equally excellent admin.
'''Support''' (not thast you need it!) Of coure. Entirely positive previous interaction and no chance of tool misuse. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Soap. —
'''
He isn't one already? '''
'''Support''' Might as well pile on. Soap is a great editor, and I believe he'll make a fine admin. Almost to [[WP:200|200]]! :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
Pile on '''support''', good luck Soap!
'''Support''' I'm satisfied with answers to the questions, and I think this will be a responsible admin.
A very strong candidate working in an important area. No-brainer '''support'''.
'''3¢ for common sense to stand on your soapbox''' because you realised there is no dash key on my keyboard. However you then turned coat and added dashes to your signature. <tt>:S  </tt>  Realising it is a petty reason to oppose and recognising i have the chance to make it [[WP:180|180]] if not 200 i am Viva la [[H.U.R.L.]]ing my support your way with this vote.  <font face="Georgia">
Have known this guy in the past and I trust him with the tools.  Best of luck! '''
'''Support'''.  Appears to be more than qualified knowledge-wise, and comes over very calm and collected.  I liked the last section of your talk page where you asked help before just jumping in and messing something up.  If you stick to this when you become an admin there shouldn't be any problems.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''. Seems to be a solid contributor with an even temperament.
'''Support'''. Very helpful and knowledgeable editor. Was going to nominate him myself. --
Seems like a fantastic editor. ~~
'''Support'''. Someone I've frequently seen around, and I see absolutely no downsides in terms of competence, civility, or clue. --
No concerns. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' – Great contributor that can be trusted with the tools. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Yes''' <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' dedication at help desk is a strong reason to say plus one.
I asked S to ping me if and when he was nominated. So here I am. :) Avi has it just so, I think S will be a fine admin. ++
'''Support''' - plenty of experience, seems trustworthy, opposes are unconvincing.
'''Support''' My interaction with SPhilbrick has been at the help desk - they are a knowledgeable editor and very willing to help. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Trust the judgment of  Avraham and Good Track.
'''Support.'''  Yes.
'''Support''' I don't see any special reason behind the two first oppose votes. From what I've seen, this is a good, trusted user.
'''Support''' - I can't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck!
'''Support''' - hard-working user with a seemingly level temperament. The opposes have not brought up any points, so... <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
All three current opposes really don't have any reasons while the candidate is a level headed editor with plenty of experience. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]]
'''Support'''. This user is a hard worker with plenty of experience.
'''Support'''. Good history of content creation, and good answers to the questions. Best of luck.--
'''Support'''. Hard-working wikipedian; provided good answers. '''<span style='font-family:Calibri;border:black solid 1px;'>
I've followed the climate-change judicial processes closely, and I'm OK with what I've seen there from Sphilbrick. (S)he strikes me as thoughtful, calm, and reasonably grounded in policy. I differ from Stephan in that I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=prev&oldid=383697542 this] is actually a reasonable take on a somewhat overdramatized dispute. I'm very willing to support someone when I've seen them deal with conflict in a mature and sensible manner, even if their positions on specific questions don't agree with mine. I haven't spent much time looking at climate-change ''articles'', so I guess there could be something hidden there that would make me change my mind, but based on what I've seen thus far, I can get behind this as a good idea. I think Sphilbrick will be a good admin. Make us proud. :)<p>As an aside, I would greatly appreciate it if some of the opposers below were at least allowed to expand on their rationale. '''
'''Support'''—I've seen many of his contributions during my time here on Wikipedia, whether they be to articles or discussions. I have not once seen something that would suggest he is an incompetent or uncivil editor; on the contrary, my previous encounters with his contributions have proved otherwise. I can trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' per nom. Great candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' I have had significant interaction with this editor in the "topic area which must not be named", and while I didn't always agree with this editor, they always seemed to be reasonable and level headed.
'''Support'''. In addition to what others have said: I recall seeing good work in areas dealing with newcomers particularly, and that's an attitude/focus which should be part of the variety of interests in the admin corps.
'''Support''' Per all above.
'''Support''' His edit history suggests that he is well familiar with WP policies. I don't have any interaction with this user and my opinion is solely based on his contributions. '''
'''Support''' Per all above AND how could I not support a potential admin who actually cares about editing the entry for [[Carol Blazejowski]]? --
A few prolific drama mongers below that have offered either a completely ''blank'' oppose rationale or IMO inaccurate claims of the candidate inciting drama. This has lead me to <s>'''Default to Support'''</s> until I can be convinced otherwise. The candidate has clearly made popular enemies, but their arguments on why we should not support the candidate are beyond weak and/or non-existent. [[User:Vodello|Vodello]] ([[User talk:Vodello|talk]]) 02:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) '''''Addendum''''' After learning more of why there are so many blank opposes below, I am updating my vote to '''My Strongest Support of 2010'''. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#William M. Connolley]] and other sections that relate to blank or weak oppose voters on the arbitration case were fun reads. It seems to me that the candidate is a major threat to many prolific and very well-known users that our arbitration committee have found by majority decision to have repeatedly treated Wikipedia as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. I talk about candidates bringing up red flags by having views that conflict with Wikipedia policy or by being a major drama monger, but strangely enough these circumstances, beginning with the Big Blank Oppose #1 by the ex-admin William M where his reputation certainly precedes him, lit up a big ol' green light. '''Support, Support, A Thousand Times Support'''
I think he would do fine. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''. Everything I see here indicates to me that he'll do fine. Seems level-headed and plenty skilled enough. No serious negatives - nothing provided by the Oppose commentors rises to the level of a deal-killer, or even close. Candidate is to be commended for being willing to work on climate change topic, even though its stressful and likely to create enmity.
'''Support''' per Herostratus' reasoning. I'm underwhelmed by the oppose comments so far. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' A level headed candidate - per nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) ''(Note - this comment was originally posted in the "Oppose" section
'''Support''' Nothing of major concern here. We all make mistakes and I'll assume that you mean the best. Besides, bringing the issues to light here is a good thing.
'''Support''' the reasons given for opposition are weak to say the least.
'''Support''' Yes definitely! I was thinking when this would come up.
'''Support''' I don't see any issues in this user's history that raise concern at this time. Oh, and ''Closing Burecrat: Please just do everyone a favor and just ignore the first four opposes. The first two are from people with personal grudges that are ignoring the spirit of the rulings against them in order to avoid having to justify opposes that they probably cannot justify with actual words if they had to, the third has no reason at all, and the fourth is a boilerplate oppose by someone who appears to not want anyone at all to be an admin, i.e. a POV pusher.'' This is a really pathetic lineup of opposes here, except for the ones that actually give reasons, of course. <span style="text-shadow:#E61994 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Support''' the opposes so far are pretty convincing: this is the kind of guy we could use as an administrator.
'''Support''', per Jclemens, who's onto something. Sphilbrick seems ripe for teh tools, and has much to get on with. Cheers,
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - about time too :P —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' - per nom. Looks fine to me & should make a good admin. No concerns here -
'''Support''' per a most persuavsive nomination. I'm confident that the 'crats will ignore oppostion attempts to rat-fuck this candidiate.
'''Support'''.  I have an impression of someone who always gives thoughtful and constructive contributions.  I am unfamiliar with Climate change and POV issues raised by opposers, but I believe that administrator status has no bearing on these issues.  If he were to use administrative privileges in a partisan way, the community would respond resoundingly.  I am sure he will be a greater asset to the project per his answer to Q1A.  --
'''Support'''. I see no worries here. Moreover I liked "However, we aren't in the truth business, we are in the verifiable business" in the QA.
'''Support''' unquestionable support. Due to extended interaction with this user I judge them to have common sense and the project at heart. Even when I disagree passionately with them.
'''Support'''. Plenty of good and varied experience, and good answers to the questions. Climate change conflict opposes don't really worry me. If you edit in contentious areas like that, you're certain to garner vociferous opposition - and it is the opponents who have the bans, while the candidate does not and has a clean block log. The discourse highlighted in Q3 is perhaps not ideal, but if that's the worst example of a heated exchange, I don't think we have a great deal to worry about. --
'''Support''' Good responses to questions, giving me the impression he is able to exercise restraint with the tools where appropriate.
'''Support''' Was concerned by the opposers implication that the candidate might push the harmful climate skeptic POV, but Polargeo's support and a quick check of their contribs mostly allays this. Other than their take on climate they look excellent, per all the above.
'''Support''' per nom, answers to questions, Feyd's support above. --
'''Support''' Great answers here, solid contributions to several areas in both the main space and the project space. Sphilbrick will make a great admin. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The answers to questions 10 and 11 may alleviate the concerns implicit in some of the opposes.
'''Support''' As nominator. Of course it gets transcluded when I'm out of town on business 8-). Good Luck!! --
seems fine. -
'''Strong Support'''&mdash;every interaction I've had with this user leads me to believe he will make an excellent administrator.  I believe he can be trusted not to abuse administrative tools in areas such as the climate change topic. <i>
'''Strong support.''' Excellent candidate. Very thorough and knowledgeable responses to questions. Just the man for the job... ~~
'''Support''' When checking the candidate's contributions, I find them improving content, creating a DYK, making sensible comments at the Help desk and helping new contributors.  Seems quite admirable.
'''Support''', generally per Mast Cell, excluding his last sentence, since I don't think further elucidation of those opposes are necessary to anyone who is paying attention.  The Climate Change Arb sanctions cast a very wide net:  anyone involved there who ''wasn't'' sanctioned was most likely behaving.  I have read every diff presented in the Opposes and Neutrals and don't see anything of concern.  He has agreed not to use the tools in the Climate Change area.  He corrected his answer that concerned Malleus.  I encountered Sphilbrick during the DYK copyvio debacle, and he was a voice of reason.  In short, I see a mature, helpful, knowledgeable editor here unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- No concerns. I notice there are some Climate Change issues swirling around, but they seem to have been adequately addressed, especially since the candidate agrees not to take admin action in that area.
'''Support''' -  Seen this editor around, have confidence that he'll be able to handle the tools without problems.
Fine answer to my question, no concerns. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Overall I see a net positive.
'''Support''' - per NY Brad and others.
'''Support''' - per above -
'''Support''' - the candidate looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - We need more neutral admins, given existing Wikipedia systemic bias and double-standards.
'''Support'''. I was initially concerned by some of the comments made by the opposers so I went through the users contributions looking for a reason to oppose. I have determined that he well suited to the tasks of an administrator. Climate change is a difficult area and it is no surprise that any involvement will generate strong opposition. But it seems to me that this user kept his head while strongly making his points. He then bowed to the decisions and moved on. Asking questions, seeking understanding and plainly stating your case any important qualities. Is he perfect? Of course not but he is suited for he job.
'''Support''': Shouldn't be a bad admin.
'''Support''' Good content, good answers, opposer's diffs are unconvincing
'''Support'''. Level headed editor with a record of quietly improving the encyclopedia, and his answers demonstrate he has a clue. Two of the opposes from editors for whom I have a great deal of respect  (jc37 and Dragonfly67) gave me pause, but I respectfully disagree with them. '''
'''Support''' - Yes, some of the opposes are correct that the timing of this nom may not be ideal, but I've seen very few ideal RfAs, and I expect that this candidate will turn out to be an excellent admin. —
'''Support.''' Not insane.
'''Support''' I'm not particularly swayed by the opposes and I've interacted enough with Sphilbrick in various areas that I think he would be a fine admin.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around in several places. Although the first several !opposes claim (rightly IMO, but likely would be OK to bring forward here IMO)) that they are prohibited from elaborating their rationales I am somewhat aware of the surrounding events and I dismiss their opposition as "you opposed me once, I will oppose you forever". The answers to Qs 1-8 plus some cherry-picks pretty much sold me, as did the nom statement. Everything I see is consisten with the editor with which I'm familiar, a very thoughtful and well-spoken contributor. I might agree with a little more than half the things they say, but almost all of them get me thinking, which helps my own progress. I see no indication at all that they would abuse the bit to forward an agenda, rather I see a large dose of integrity and clue. So no problems, but we will likely have some debates in future. In a perfect world I would take you to task for your dozens of typogrammos above, and point out how you can use preview to ensure your ideas are conveyed (almost) perfectly clearly, and how important it is for an admin to be very clear in their communications - but I'm wagering you've been drinking late-night coffee just now, and after all, dude, it's the 90's, just sound the words out.
[[User talk:Sphilbrick#Support|Link to the ballot box for early voting]]. I think Sphilbrick is able to put his personal opinions he has as an editor aside when it comes to using the tools. Comments made by Sphilbrick after the end of the CC case when problems arose, lead me to believe this.
'''Support''' I trust his judgment. --
'''Support'''  I've been aware of Sphilbrick's work for quite a while and I've  looked extensively  for a chink  in  his armour. I  couldn't  find any. To those who  are opposing  simply  to  retaliate, and to  those who  are neutral because they  think  he chose the least opportune moment to  run: it's the best  time, because it's nothing  compared to  some of the drama he will  encounter when he gets the mop, and if this is the way  he handles the scandals, I'm convinced he's fit for the bit.--
'''Support''' The sensible and thoughtful answers to the questions indicate to me that this user would make a good administrator.
'''Support''' Serious, thoughtful, calm editor. I trust him not to use admin tools/status in the climate change area.
'''sure'''.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' It would be a terrible thing indeed, if in addition to having a gazillion edits and a thousand FAs, we now required admin candidates to hold no opinions in controversial areas. After a careful examination of his edit history, I see no reason to believe that Sphilbrick should not be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' I've every confidence that he'll use these tools well.
'''Support''' has the experience, and could explain their actions.
'''Support''' - switched from Oppose, see below.
'''Support'''. An experienced editor with numerous positive indications for how he would use the mop, including his handling of the controversy in the RFA. Even many of the opposes acknowledge his qualification, expressing concerns instead about things ''other people'' have done. --
'''Support'''  Excellent contributions, trust the use will use the tools well.  I've reviewed contributions in general and made an attempt to slog through the controversy that appears to be at the center of many of the opposes.  I don't have any skin in that debate, but what I will say is that it appears to me that any editor who wades into a fracas of that type will end up getting at least a bit muddy, and I see at worst a little mud, not a lot. I feel more strongly about my support (although I'd support even were it not for this) for another reason: I am very concerned about the possibility of a result here that will push editors away from trying to improve controversial articles. We will always have controversial articles here at Wikipedia. It is essential that we try and find ways to create great articles despite that controversy. That process is hindered, not helped by pushing experienced editors away from where their help is most needed. --<font color='#66dd44'>
--''
'''Support''' You'll do fine.  Good contributions to the Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  Mainly on the evidence of the underlying attitudes displayed in their work I have encountered at the refdesks and RFF, and the DYK mess.  Courteous, calm and lucid, with a history of tackling unglamorous donkey-work as well as collaboration and content-building.
'''Support''' Noting that original thoughts are actually found in the answers rather than just iterating "successful answers" from the past.  What we need more of.
I frequently oppose candidates for being drama magnets. However, this particular candidate manages drama better than most, and has notably kept this RFA on the rails despite all kinds of weirdness within and around it. Happy to support; good luck and happy admin-ing.
'''Support''' A good choice for adminship.
'''Support''' Nice answers to questions. --
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. I've seen the user helping in different areas, and believe they have what it takes to make a good admin. <sup>
'''Support''' (moved from [[#Neutral]]). I was never worried that you might abuse the tools through [[WP:INVOLVED]], and I think on balance you will make a fine admin. -
'''Support''' (moved from [[#Neutral]] - see my comment there.) No worries. --
'''Support''' Trusted, active editor with some good experience. '''''
'''Support''' Moved from neutral.  Anyone who can edit in that contentious area with that degree of calmness either is a very worthy candidate or needs to share his meds around the wiki.  No further concerns.--
'''Support''' - Having watched the way you have dealt with this RfA and investigated further into how you dealt with Climate Change I think it's fair to say that you have clue, you can keep a cool head and explain your actions within policy as well as common sense. Well done that person!
'''Support''' I don't like such eye-catching signatures. But regarding giving him the tools, I have no concerns. --
'''Support''' I think the signature is great, and strongly support this nomination per my own interactions, a review of contributions, and particularly for the answers provided to the "Questions for the candidate". The only loss would be if the admin tools were used to the exclusion of content contribution. In other words, you'll make a fine admin, I do believe, but to lose your contributions would be a greater travesty.'''
'''Support''' Seems capable of remaining calm in a storm...
I'm convinced.
Willing to do hard work
'''Support''' - I was favorably inclined early in this RfA based on (admittedly limited) past experience, the nomination, and early supports. Noting that some opposes are from editors I also respect, I've watched, waited, and looked deeper, and I feel even more favorably disposed to support. I am impressed with comportment in this RfA, both in answers given above and in responses to concerns below. That's what we need in administrators. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Have looked through some of the contributions in the climate change area and found none of the battleground mentality that so many editors in that area subscribe to, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''&mdash;seems fine to me. &mdash;'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I've been impressed by how this editor has handled the flap over this RfA, etc. I do not expect any unremediable problems. --
'''Support'''. I've been watching this RfA and am impressed how the candidate has reacted during the week. Also per the arguments put forth in the support votes.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per Truthkeeper88. Quite impressed. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Support:''' Some legitimate "Oppose" comments, but I believe that the candidate will work them through. A net positive. -
'''Support''' Based on the answers to the optional questions, particularly question 20, I feel he can be trusted as a administrator. There are some reasonable opposes, however I believe he will be a good administrator.
Poor judgement under stress; e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=390722549&oldid=390721850] (nb: revised vote)
I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools to push a fringe POV.
"''admins don't get positive consideration for their content argument by virtue of being an admin''". Really? Until there's a fair and honest desysopping process in place (which may be never judging by current progress) such a blinkered view does not bode well for the use of the admin utility belt.
'''Oppose''' as I believe too much drama will ensue from this editor being made an administrator. Someone who teams up with another user to write something like [[User:Sphilbrick/Robert_Watson_incident_timeline|this]], in my mind, is running afoul of community standards we have to avoid, say [[WP:ATTACK]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. That's not the kind of problem I like to see surrounding an admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' - On good days i've been considering giving out a barnstar for levelheadedness and adherence to NPOV, despite S's personal POV - but unfortunately each time its been followed by incidents that made me wonder why i even considered it. More detail is unfortunately not within my means to provide, given that my interaction with S is in an area from which i've voluntarily topic-banned myself. --
'''Weak oppose''' I'm not inclined to grant adminship to anyone who has been involved in the climate change fracas right now. This user certainly seems to have offended one of the factions, and looking through their contributions I can see why. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Oppose'''. This is a courteous editor, and generally kept above the fray in the CC articles. But I'm concerned about his/her view of reliable sourcing and his/her attitude toward the general topic of keeping inaccurate information out of the project. I remember having a generally negative opinion on this editor, to be frank, but the volume of CC talk pages is so immense that the task of finding the basis for that feeling was daunting. A cursory search found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_36#EPA_rejects_challenges_based_on_the_stolen_emails this comment] in which he demonstrated what was, to me, a poor concept of reliable sourcing. In this instance, he opposed inclusion of a United States Environmental Protection Agency report relevant to one of the CC articles. I felt, and feel, that this demonstrated poor judgment, and I'm reluctant to elevate him to administrator if he can't make a proper judgment in a straightforward instance such as that. In that discussion, we see him articulating a sentiment that I've seen him make in other contexts: "Yes, we go by the sources, occasionally even when they are wrong." I know, the rule is "verifiability, not truth." But there is no rule that says, "we put in stuff even though we know it's wrong." I don't like that attitude. I would prefer a potential administrator to say that sources that we know to be wrong are not included. We are not mindless automatons. Editors, and especially administrators, must exercise good judgment for the good of the project.
Sorry, the drama attached to someone who seems to otherwise be an excellent candidate means that I must regretfully '''opppose'''.
'''Oppose.''' Today's attempts at blocking people involved in the climate change controversy that oppose the the request for Adminship, but not those climate change folks that support the request for adminship has tainted the whole process to my mind.  It is clear that one one side of this discussion is silenced either through topic bans and perhaps fear of actual bans if they come forward and try to express their opinion. I have no personal contact with this particular editor, and under normal circumstances have no reason to support of oppose their adminship.  But the current situation seems to be to have become one sided.  So I think this adminship should be denied for now and a new RfA shoud take place again when an honest and more frank examination of the interactions with other editors can take place, where these editors themselves are welcome to comment.
'''Oppose''' Per SA.
'''Oppose'''. A skim of talk page comments gives me sufficient concerns about this editor's judgment, and about both the rush to confirm and the ludicrously overreactive blocking of a couple of editors voting oppose. --
'''Mostly procedural oppose'''. I have a bad feeling in the stomach about this candidate and find some of the diffs above concerning. I would normally stay out of the discussion until I have made up my mind, and if this doesn't happen wouldn't consider it necessarily a bad thing. But since several bureaucrats have announced their intention to rig the vote in this case it's appropriate to make it harder for them by adding yet another oppose vote which they will have to ignore.
'''Oppose''', for several reasons, including:<p>(1) Question 6 posits you being "familiar with the topic area (having participated in some fairly collegial editing in it not too long ago), so you know that all 3 editors adding the claim hold views strongly opposed to those of the BLP subject", yet the two answers given make no mention of [[WP:INVOLVED]].  We have enough problems with involved admins who act despite their involvement, and not recognising the involvement issue in two responses is disturbing;<p>(2) In answer to question 5, Sphilbrick wrote "A careful researcher can find some strongly worded statements, but I don't think you will find anything that crosses bounds" in response to NW's request for further comment.  I really object to being told to dig for problems when a specific issue is raised.  Sphilbrick, I would have much preferred you say 'these (diff, diff, diff) are what I think are my worst comments in the area, though others may think different comments were more serious'.  You are asking to be trusted with the admin tools, so I think you should have been more direct and open about places where you may have gone a bit too far;<p>(3) In answer to question 13, you wrote "an admin who takes 100 admin action in an area but zero editor actions qualifies as uninvolved, but in practice we are human, and if you take that many admin action, recognizing that each action almost certainly raises some emotions, one reaches the point that one can no longer truly be uninvolved" - this was exactly the issue around Lar at the Climate Change case, yet I do not recall you calling for Lar's sactioning or an adjustment of the loophole he was exploiting.  If your past actions bore out that you would act on this statement, I would not be concerned that it is hollow; yet (as far as I recall) they don't, so I am;<p>(4) The preposterous blocks and the WP:BN discussion of discounting opposes are, I recognise, outside of your control.  The safe action is to stay out of those discussions, and it is also the politically-wise approach; however, we have plenty of admins who are adept at safe and politically-wise actions.  What we need are admins who will stand up for a principle, in this case, the principle that sanctioned editors are not unpersons and should not be disenfranchised.  Sphilbrick, you were uniquely positioned to be able to stand up and defend those who oppose your election on principle, and I would have been greatly impressed and respected that action, as (I suspect) would have others; I am disappointed that you did not choose such an action.  I could not support or oppose on solely on this ground, but it does help to sway;<p>(5) The only examples in Sphilbrick's  [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Sphilbrick|evidence at the CC case]] were about using words like "denier", which was (at best) a very minor part of the problem in the area, and all directed at one "side".  A would-be admin should be able to recognise a more complete picture of problems, even when they hold a strong view.  I applaud his declaration of involvedness in the area, but I still question his judgment and impartiality and these are critical skills for an admin.<p>
'''Oppose''' per jc37.
'''Oppose''' - Too many questions about political judgments on controversial subjects, and not a lot of discussion addressing that issue head on.
'''Oppose''' - I'm uneasy about this editor.
'''Neutral''' for now. I have some concerns, e.g. wikilawyering [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=prev&oldid=383697542 here], but I've also seen some sane comments. I'm a bit concerned that he seems to have dropped all contentious topics and sticks with Wikignoming - I'd like to see more behavior under stress from an editor who has (had?) an interest in contentious topics. <s>Also, his [[Erdös number]] is too small to be plausible, but too large to use it to bribe me.</s><small>No longer relevant.</small> --
'''Neutral''' - candidate's answer to my question seems to suggest a certain level of naivety with regard to how some admins regard themselves here.  Nice though to see someone who actually creates content. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">

'''Neutral''' for now, when having a look at this my reading of Sphilbrick's comments in the CRU controversy talk archives was pretty favourable, but the response above to question 5 led me to the answer "The CC evidence page has a lot of unpleasant reading, but I see at least 749 diffs, and I don't think a single diff of mine made the list." That suggests no involvement, but rather to my surprise [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Evidence presented by Sphilbrick]] is there, and is a bit disappointing. Sphilbrick's "a few examples of word choices which should not, in general, be directed at editors" starts with a diff of my use of a word which wasn't directed at an editor. Maybe Sphilbrick feels we should avoid the usage altogether, but in the circumstances more care should have been taken about introducing the evidence. Not really a big deal, but gives me some doubts.<br>On a different topic, the answer to question 9 opens up some questions. Perhaps it should be taken as read that before issuing warnings for edit warring, the first thing to do is check each editor's talk page and talk page history for previous warnings, as well as checking the edit history of the article concerned to confirm that there had been edit warring. There's an unstated presumption that the answer is from an uninvolved admin dealing with this situation, in which case "I'll try to note in the warning that I separately plan to determine which version should be displayed while we work out the issue, and neither editor should take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide which is the right version." is a bit odd as it suggests becoming an involved editor rather that an uninvolved admin, and the warning will require editors to stop all unilateral action anyway. While it's a good point made in the answer that libelous or attack material should be removed until issues with it are resolved, my understanding is that in general page protections are always of the Wrong Version, and 3RR is no respecter of being right or wrong, subject to any valid BLP exemption or evidence of sockpuppetry which should be considered before the warning. If there was a clear BLP violation the editor should be warned for that rather than just for edit warring, so the proposed note in the warning would be inappropriate, and if there wasn't then the first priority would be to remind editors to take the issues to talk rather than edit warring. Just my take on that answer. . .
'''Neutral''' Although the candidate has made some very valuable contributions to the project, I'm a little concerned about the timing of this RfA in light of what's going on in climate change and this candidate's involvement therein.--
'''Neutral''' I am now neutral to both my positive and negative thoughts on Sphilbrick. <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Neutral''' - I think this RfA probably is premature, but I don't think it would be a serious mistake to give Sphilbrick the mop. Sphilbrick is a good photographer, a solid contributor, and pleasant and helpful person to interact with. His patience and consistency at [[WP:Requests for feedback]] are admirable. However, one of the best indications that a person is ready for adminship is a record of "acting like an administrator" for some period of time before the RfA, and I don't get that feeling with Sphilbrick. A year ago, we interacted on a couple of AfDs in which his comments seemed naive and newbyish, but that was a year ago. His recent involvement with MfD shows a commitment to helping with admin-type tasks, but even his most recent comments there ([[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lehla/userpage]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brook DeWalt]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist]]) fail to give me a sense of a person who confidently addresses questions from the context of Wikipedia policy. Several of his answers to questions above give me a sense of someone who hadn't thought very hard about the role/perspective of an administrator before beginning this RfA. I'm also bothered a bit by some of his input in climate change discussions. <br />It appears to me that this RfA is functioning as a learning experience for him, so if he is given the mop at the conclusion of the RfA, he will know what to do with it. Also, his cautious approach to his work as a contributor gives confidence that he will be cautious as an admin -- and won't jump in the middle of matters he doesn't understand. --
Changed to '''Neutral''' per his position [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy/Archive_36#EPA_rejects_challenges_based_on_the_stolen_emails here], as pointed out by Scottyberg in Oppose 7. I do disagree enough with the candidate's position on the EPA to be uncomfortable with supporting. And I won't ever support an RFA based on non-enforceable pledges of what he will and won't use admin powers for, once approved. Sorry,
'''Neutral''' for now. Question 6: "Two editors have repeatedly inserted a claim that the subject has been unethical in his work, sourced to a well-known blog. ... A single editor has reverted the claim 7 times, claiming the WP:BLP exemption to WP:3RR ... a fourth editor [an admin] reinserts the information, adding several more blogs and a press release from the subject's institution rejecting the claims". Answer: "All parties should be warned about edit-warring. Either report them to WP:AN3 or confirm that they have been reported." Not happy with that answer. Citing a self-published source's negative claims about a living person is ''as clear a BLP violation as they come''. The editor who has reverted the material out 7 times under the BLP exemption should be commended and backed up, not reported to AN3, and advised that they can take more effective steps the next time a similar situation occurs (e.g. post to ANI, rather than edit-warring). Editors adding the BLP violation should be warned. The admin adding the BLP violation needs to go to ANI. The article needs to be protected while the matter is sorted out. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''', after  a brief review I've seen many intelligent contributions in Wikipedia-space - more admins at RfD would be helpful. Edit count is a little on the low side, but it's plenty for me given that you seem to know what you're talking about. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Contributions I have seen appear to be fairly intelligent. Experience in RfD a plus. Experience in WQA a minus :-). A little too light on the content contribution for a strong support but not without some good contributions.
'''Strong Support:''' How's this for irony? About eight hours before, I searched for this and was surprised to find the page didn't exist. Taelus is always very helpful and polite towards myself and other users, pointing out where people need to improve and how they can do so. The answers to the questions up at this time show a good knowledge of policy, how the admin tools should be used et cetera. No blocks is always a good sign. User doesn't have rollback, but I believe they can be trusted with it, based on some vandal fighting with [[Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]]. Edit summary usage is a perfect one hundred percent. Contributions are a healthy mix between the right areas for what Taelus plans to do with the tools. The only potentially concerning thing would be the low edit count, but we have no way to know how much work she did as an IP, especially since it was dynamic. However, her contributions under this account have been very good in my experience, though I'll keep flicking further through the contributions, see if anything worrying catches my eye. If anyone cares to read it, here's [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Taelus|Taelus' editor review]]. --<font color="#009000">
'''Strong Support:''' It is only recently that I have had the pleasure of meeting Taelus but his contributions are 100% positive from what I have seen. He regularly contributes to assessing different articles in [[Wikipedia:VG]] and gives helpful summaries on what needs to be worked on. I think this editor would go far as an administrator. There is no evidence so far to prove that he would do wrong with the tools. The 3000 edit count shouldn't be a problem, especially since most previous edits have been using an IP address. Good luck with the RfA.
'''Support''' predominantly per "why the hell not"? A spot check of the candidate's contributions shows a demonstrated knowledge of policy and guidleines, for example the WP:VG ratings and some [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] contributions to RfDs along with good maintenance work such as [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Busy_Bee_Mall|this AfD]]. I see absolutely nothing to make me think Taelus is anything other than fully qualified to wield a few extra tools.
'''Support''' I see no cause for concern in the candidate's contributions, and do not feel that they would misuse the tools. -- '''''
Seems to be a skilled and courteous editor. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' And trustworthy on top of it, Martin!
Seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' Seems to meet my standards of, "Why not?"
'''Support''' – looks good on nearly all aspects. I've worked with Taelus before, and the user certainly expresses a desire to continue to do good to the project. –
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]]; no issues as far as I'm concerned. &ndash;'''
'''[[WP:AGF|Support]]'''. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support'''. Giving this editor the tools can only be a benefit to the project. Excellent answer to Q10 only re-inforces my confidence. --
'''Support'''. Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Per 6. The answer is solid. Theres a little bit more that could be said to the user in the question, but the necessity of what needs to be illustrated to the user has been outlined by you. Its an open ended question i think. Im sure you will use the tools well, Good Luck
'''Support''' User has a clue, and while edit count might seem a bit low, it's certainly fine for a great user like Taelus. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''STROOONG Support''' Whoa. This editor really blew me away with her question answers. She looks great, and I think she will be with the tools.
Upon a light review of her contributions, and some good answers to the questions, excellent even, I'm enthusiastic to support. '''
'''Support''' - Taelus has decent contributions and experience in article space (enough for my standards) and shows strong clue with policies and guidelines. Also, my interaction with her at the [[Talk:World of Warcraft/Archive 15#Regarding revert of "shut down in China" edit.|WoW talk page]] was very positive, when such discussions are often anything but with different editors. -- '''
'''Support''', solid character who I can't see using the tools controversially.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' I would like to see anyone come up with a good rational to oppose. No one will be able to. Taelus seems to be "squeeky clean". I doubt that you'll screw anything up :)--
'''Strong Support''' Good Question answers, good stats otherwise, seems like a good egg. Can't ask for more.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' No concerns, [[WP:WTHN|why not?]] --
'''Support''' Definitely seems trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''.  A solid, level-headed editor.
Passes the eyeball test.
'''Support''' Very good and well thought answers to questions; maybe I would have preferred a bit more confidence when dealing with policy but, for example, the way she answered Coffee's questions is extremly equilibrated. I'd say she should use the mop with a bit of caution, but well, who shouldn't? --
Doesn't seem like anything is wrong.  Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' - No problems here! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' She knows what she's doing- giving her a mop will be a net gain for the project.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q16, long experience and high quality posts. I'd admire Taelus to go for it.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''support''' Everything looks good here.
'''support''' An appropriate candidate for the mop. --'''''
'''Support''' Clearly an intelligent and considerate editor who thinks carefully before acting, understands the relevant Wikipedia policies well, and focuses on the Wikipedia spirit rather than a rigid interpretation of rules. Has a specific area of admin interest that needs extra hands. Answered questions well. Low number of edits isn't really a problem for me, as I see no reason to doubt her honesty in relating her IP-editing phase.
'''Support''' per above. I like easy calls like this.
Changed to '''Support''' after Taelus reflected and adjusted her response to my question. I appreciate people who demonstrate an ability to reflect and adjust. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' Answers show a good understanding of policy —[[User:Department of Redundancy Department|DoRD]] (
'''weak support''' no reason I can see to oppose. ''<B>--
'''Support''' An examination of his edits reveals that Taelus has been a helpful contributor at RfD for quite some time now. His participation in AfD debates also looks substantive and helpful. I encountered Taelus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Post Facto]], where my impression was a positive one. Taelus is refreshingly low on drama, and while he hasn't got a whole lot of content work under his belt, what he has done looks fine. His answers to the questions inspire confidence as well.
'''Support''' - quality answers to questions from what I see, and nothing to persuade me that there would be a potential abuse of the tools.  Looks good to me.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Strong candidate. '''
'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Support''' Good editor, good answers. -
'''Support''' Edit count is a bit low but the answers to the questions have been great. Answer to #15 is the best response to that question I've ever read. Everything else looks fine.
'''"Why Not?" Support''' per Happenstance.
I think so, yes. Whilst 3000 is right at the bottom end of what I would generally consider as a good indicator of knowledge, answers all round are very solid, excellent in many cases. I see nothing that indicates they'll go mop-mad.
'''Strong Support''' – I have recently had an opportunity to see Taelus dealing with a difficult dispute in which I was involved. At all times she was polite and constructive. She has clearly demonstrated to me far more ''clue'' when interacting with others than some who have many times her logged edit count. As an admin she will be a real benefit to the project. --
'''Support''' --[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't see any reasons for concern with this editor. The answers to the questions are thoughtful and 3000 edits are more than enough to demonstrate that she has a clue. Regards '''
'''Support''' I see at least 8 months of solid editing, and her early contributions show that I can significantly [[WP:AGF]] about prior experience editing as an IP.  She's polite, has a sense of humour, and has generally provided good and thoughtful answers to the array of questions posed.  A lot of positives, and I can find few negatives - she has my trust. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' The editor displays quite a balanced perspective towards handling specific issues on the project and is quite honest and clear about situation analysis. I personally believe the editor's communication perspective is her/his biggest strength. We need many such editors for the growing project.
'''Support''' I've had a few interactions with <s>Calmer Waters</s> Taelus, and all of them were positive. Would be a great admin.
'''Support''' evidence suggests reasonable chance of net positive with tools.
'''Support:''' Lack of edits but a reasonable chance of being a net positive. -
'''Support''' - per solid answers to questions.
'''Support''' The response to my question cleared up the only point I had significant doubt about.   '''
''' Support''' - Has abley demonstrated the qualities required and will be a welcome addition - especially in her stated areas of interest.
'''Support''' - No issues. Probably a net positive. Can't imagine any abuse arising from it,
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''': meets my standards.
'''Support''', even if somewhat weakly. The "low" edit count by nowadays standards is compensated by high clue, and 5 years on the project.
'''Support''', particularly based on the answers to Questions 4, 5b, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 23, as well as history of successful interactions with a variety of users. Having edited largely as an IP for a while myself, I can understand and accept the candidates statements on that score. I'm a bit teoubled by the answer to Q9, as it seems to misunderstand [[WP:CAS#A7]], a hot-button issue with me. Taelus should remember that any reasonably credible claim of significance, even if it does not rise to full notability, and even if it is not supported by references, is enough to prevent an A7 speedy and require a [[WP:PROD|Prod]] or a deletion discussion, either of which gives time for sources to be found and an article to be edited to demonstrate true notability if possible. (Of course this doesn't apply to copyvios and other things speedy deleted for reasons having nothing to do with notability.) But this one matter doesn't bother me enough to prevent me from supporting, though i hope Taelus  will review A7 and the other CSD before using the delete button on things tagged as CSDs, and indeed before tagging such. I also hope he observes he "tag-and-bag" system (a best practice but not required) under which an admin will normally not speedy-delete a page unless another editor has already tagged it, if no one has the admin will tag for another admins's review. (Blatant libel in a BLP might be an exception, although blanking and tagging might be enough.) In any case, I trust Taelus with the tools, and am glad he is willing to take on the job.
'''Support'''. Answers to questions show a high level of clue and are also very articulate, which to me is as important as experience. No-one has uncovered any behavioural issues. Good luck.
'''Weak support''' - she's barely meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' She seems to be capable and willing to do the job...
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Last minute, but it never hurts.
'''Oppose''' Limited edit count, little to no content contributions, majority of the edits are from the last 6 months.
'''Oppose''' - Way too low of an edit count. I understand responsive opposition to the "too low of an edit count" statement, usually I would too, but let's be clear about this. I want editors to know the project as a whole, and more importantly to have made enough mistakes that their character is apparent. This editor effectively started in May 2009. Only three pages created. There is a moderate new page patrolling (175 out of < 3k edits). A 2.4 edits per page ratio means a high emphasis on a set number of pages, which is fine. All told though, I just don't think, this editor has enough widespread experience to be an admin. There are loads of editors that could meet these criteria within 8 months too. I have no problems with the editor, but I want more verifiable experience.
'''Oppose''' per "''I believe that the current BLP policy is good''". Despite the qualifiers afterwards, that statement worries me '''
'''Oppose''' - Honestly, per above. Less than 3K edits just isn't enough. Call it editcountitis or quantity vs. quality, but really your tenure is short, your edit count is low and your project space contributions don't exude experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I don't think he would need to ask why.
'''Neutral'''. I am tempted to do a [[WP:POINT]]y oppose simply to counteract the "Why not" votes. Nothing turns me off a candidate faster than "Why not", it's like saying: "As far as I know you haven't done anything to suggest you need or deserve the mop, but since you haven't eaten more than 3.5 babies in the last fiscal year as per my arbitrary criteria I'll mechanically support like a tool". Administrators ''are'' a big deal, no matter what you delude yourself into thinking. RfA is one of the greatest expressions of community trust. Would you trust strangers based on a "why not"? Apparently so, because that is what you are doing here. Just because malicious admins are difficult to avoid doesn't mean we should just give up, sysop everyone, and let the ArbCom deal with the mess, that defeats the entire point of the process. Let's tell our kids to get in vans with strangers, after all we have the prison system to deal with it if anything goes wrong. Bad admins do irreparable harm to the project, if not to content then in reputation and community trust, and if you're concerned that RfA standards are rising - I say, good, great, maybe we can claw back some street cred that some of our current admins have cost us. —
'''Neutral''' I feel that the canidate is ready to be an admin.  However, I am also feeling the desire to oppose him for various reasons.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
First! -
As nom! :) Took me long enough to bully him into it!
'''Support''' - I saw this being prepared, so had time to do my research in advance... User seems level headed and knowledgeable. His contributions show a very positive approach to Wikipedia, and enough good experience in Admin-relevant areas to be ready. Answers to the questions are thoughtful, and demonstrate understanding of Admin responsibilities. Acknowledges that his block for edit warring was "good" - but IMHO it is mitigated to a large degree by the circumstances. I have every confidence this candidate would be an asset as an admin, and no concerns about granting him access to the tools.
{{flagicon|New Mexico}} '''Support from the land of enchantment''' - Excellent choice for the mop. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
Yep!
'''Support''' No concerns mature and respected editor, answers to questions were well though out and I was very happy to see you explain your blocks in detail. ''<B>--
'''Weak support''' Only 2 articles created, and little evidence of recent vandalism-fighting (over the past several hundred contribs), however, there is currently nothing that concerns me.
'''Support''' Admin-by-proxy.  Might as well let him press the buttons himself.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
I find this user's sense of being at ease enjoyable and would like to see that in more sysops. The edit summaries.. I think you can tone down a bit in my opinion, but not enough to oppose. '''''
'''Support''' I should really learn to pay attention to the userrights summary in ''PopUps'' to save myself the "I thought they were one already" comments. -
'''Support'''. Absolutely no concerns, here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Genuinely expected this. Wonderful candidate. '''
'''Support''' seems clueful enough. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' . Of course - plenty of clue. Will be an asset.
'''Support''' The most level headed editor I have ever come across. If he doesn't make a good admin I'll eat my [[Feather Bonnet|bunnet]].
Some minor maturity concerns but overall a good candidate. Best of luck.
Cliche "You mean he isn't one already?" '''Support'''.  Seems to do a fine job.
'''Support''', I've seen this editor around and have no concerns.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor at ANI, and hve been impressed.
'''Support''', a good candidate, I am encouraged by my encounters with the candidate, they seem to genuinely be friendly and seeking to help the project and its users in a wide range of ways. I am sure they will take on any criticism, including the current oppose, and learn from mistakes. All the best, --'''
There are a few reasons why I have been hesitant to support here. First, my first impression of this candidate, when he responded to an ANI post of mine, was that he [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Edit-warring and personal attacks by IP|lacked clue]]. Second, I have an aversion to non-admins hanging around ANI. Third, the candidate seems to be more interested in the back rooms of the project that building an encyclopaedia. But from what I see here those concerns - which amount to mere first impressions and my own prejudices - can be cast aside and my support is none the weaker because of them.--
'''Support.'''  Very easy decision.  Thanks for all your hard work, TFOW
'''Support''' - on top of the candidate's substantial efforts, I liked the candid self-assessment in the answer to Q3. Best wishes for a fine adminship.
Why not? <span style="font-family:Calibri">
Damn! I watchlisted this and was online for most of yesterday, and ''still'' missed this being transcluded! '''Support''', of course. Even the answers to the questions are excellent. The only thing lacking is that I would like to know what colour the flag is now. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support''' When looking for the definition of "clueful", I found "full with adhesive"; when I corrected my tyop, I found "tfowr", so I deleted it as [[:WP:CSD#G1|G1]]; when I reviewed the situation, I found some unfathomable equation: net+ – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' – I have no concerns with TFOWR. The answers to the questions above satisfy me. A net positive to the project. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
I recognize the name, and I think this user should be given the mop.
'''Support'''. I've seen the name around a lot. I believe he'd make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' No concerns since I've seen you everywhere.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
The concerns raised below don't trouble me at all; I think he'll be a great admin.
'''Support''' Definitely, he's everywhere!
Yes!
'''Support as co-nom''' Mkativerata makes an interesting point above about non-Admins on WP:AN/I. There is no reason I can think of that a non-Admin shouldn't post there, & there are times I think a non-Admin's point of view -- not the Wikipedia jargon sense of the word, but the general one -- should be heard; the board gets insular at some points. (On the other hand, some non-Admins who post there shouldn't, & not only do they end up hurting themselves but making it difficult for non-Admins to effectively post there.) Yet it shows his potential ability as an Admin that TFOWR has been posting there for a long time, & because of his level-headedness & confidence many of us Admins ''thought'' he was already one of us. --
'''Support''' Good candidate, only concern is the recent inactivity. --
'''Support''' Friendly and helpful.
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
No concerns about edit summaries or block (see Oppose #1), bonus points for moderating IP disputes. Caution on biting new users. We need more admins like this candidate. /
'''Support''' without a doubt. An excellent Wikipedian, and would sure be an excellent sysop. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' with multi-coloured flags. All good as far as I can see. --
'''Support''' I don't know the user, but it sounds like his is eager for an admin job! --
'''Support''' Good Good. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No concerns. For an example of TFOWR doing useful work in an area relevant to adminship, see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nimbley6/Archive]] and search for his name. This is an SPI where I worked briefly myself, and I notice that TFOWR seems to have good judgment and makes proper summaries when submitting new complaints.
'''Yes, indeed''', very helpful and level-headed, no problems with having the tools.  As for the edit summaries, I don't see any real problem there, and TFOWR has already stated an intention to tone them down when appropriate. &nbsp;--
'''Yup''' - excellent work on the Nimbley front and pretty level-headed all round.
'''Support''' Great candidate, has an excellent attitude - no worries at all --
'''Weak Support''' Qualified, no concerns, etc.
contra Minimac (I don't like it when people give spurious oppose reasons)
Another one in the "you mean he isn't already?" camp. Calm, competent, clueful. My only slight misgiving is the in-jokey nature of TFOWR's user page, which wouldn't typically fill me with confidence, but I don't think that's an indicator of any bad habits in this case.
'''Support''' Give another user the janitors mop... Just use non-toxic sprays :)
'''Support''' sure. Why not?--
'''Support''' - Good answers, great track record, no noticeable concerns. Give the guy a mop and put him work! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Strong Support''' - Excellence candidate; I've been waiting for this RfA for quite a while. Well written answers to the questions above. Keep up the good work TFOWR!
'''Support''' -  I have had no dealings with this editor, but I also have no issues, good answers, and good community support.
'''Support''' User is ready for the mop.
'''Support''' I've seen him around and he's an excellent user who deserves the mop. <b>~<i><font color="#66699">[[User:QwerpQwertus|Qwerp]]</font></i><font color="#CC6600">[[User:QwerpQwertus|Qwertus]]</font></b><big><b> ·</b></big><small>[[User talk:QwerpQwertus|_Talk_]]<big><b>·</b></big>[[Special:Contributions/QwerpQwertus|_Contribs_]]<big><b>·</b></big> <small>
'''Support''' Is probably familiar with admin 'processes' if he helps out at ANI
'''Support''' - Good involvement in [[WP:AN/I]], [[WP:HELPDESK]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RPP]] & [[WP:AN]].
'''Support''' - appears more than capable.
'''Support'''. It's refreshing to see such openness and honesty in the questioning, especially in mentioning a block history. To me this demonstrates above-average gorm. --
'''Support''' - My contact with TFOWR has been positive, and I do believe he would make a good admin and passes my [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]. I have reviewed some of his contributions and the issues raised by the opposition, and they do not concern me.
'''Support'''. Plenty of good work, questions answered well; while a little more article creation wouldn't go amiss, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' &ndash; the edit summaries are not a reason to oppose for me, and [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] brings up a good point. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' Seems capable and serious...
''Support''' - looking around I have found nothing that concerns me or leads me to believe they will be anything other than a net positive.  '''
'''Weak/Strong Support''' - very clueful answers. However, would like to see participating in more DR areas.
'''Support''' This human will not misuse the tools.
Ready to go as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support''' I can live with occasional uncivil edit summaries. Even admins were once human. As long as they can see they ''were'' uncivil.
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' I didn't agree with him on everything, but I think he would make a good admin. I saw several cases where he was very civil when I have seen other admins get rude under the similar circumstances. He seems to be able to keep his head on and not act like a member of the Wikipedia NVKD. My thumbs up.--
'''Support''' Positives far outweigh any concerns. —
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - The candidate presented good answers to the questions and seems to have a level-headed, consensus-driven approach. The candidate's talk page also reveals that the candidate interacts well with other users. I'm happy to support.
'''Support''', excellent answers to the questions, with a realistic view of civility issues, good understanding of Wikipedia, good editing history (the short block from over a year-and-a-half ago is not a concern, we all make mistakes.), and the diffs provided by the first oppose below are obviously of comments that were made and received in good humor - and humor is valuable commodity around here.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' No problems
'''Support'''. Everyone else is supporting. I just want to fit in.
Support

'''Support''' I see no problems here. -- '''''
&ndash;
I've seen you around on various noticeboards; you've given the impression of a clueful and thoughtful editor who's here for the right reasons. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' while only asking, please do what you can, as an admin, to show others how helpful civility can be.
'''Support''': clearly sound policy knowledge; the willingness to respond to situations on their merits rather than applying a cookie-cutter approach strikes me as a net positive (though, as others have said, maximum civility behooves everyone). As for the edit summaries, on the whole I thought they were pretty funny.
'''Support''' I am impressed with his calm and rational approach-assets which are certainly needed at Wikipedia. He is also intelligent, polite, informed, with a fine sense of humour. I think he's excellent administrator material. He definitely gets my vote.--
'''Support'''. A good candidate.
'''Strongest Possible Support'''.
'''Support''' after reading this [[Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice#Rory_.3D_companion_.3F]]. Wikipedia needs more admins with as much common sense as this user. Good luck! :)
'''Support'''.  Good history, good answers to problematic questions, and I am delighted to expect that [[User:TFOWR|TFOWR]] will be bringing a lot of civility to processes which frequently lack it.
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''', but if I see much more hectoring of opposers I will be joining them.
'''Support'''.  See my earlier comments under "neutral".
'''Weak support''' The candidate has two article creations and three redirects. ("That don't impress me much"). However, his body of work on ANI and exemplary work helping newcomers convinces me to vote in favor.--
''' Support'''- let me be the one hundredth. Appears to be flying through, user is level headed and will I am sure take his time and develop into a fine administrator.
'''Support''' - A good user who would be perfect for the job. --
Looks good.
'''Support''' I have come across TFOWR numerous times, and have found a reliable, thoughtful, constructive editor. A very good potential admin.
'''Support''', seen plenty of good stuff from him and nothing bad. A sensible and productive contributor who will do well with the tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' solid user, minor imperfections are not sufficient to oppose.
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. Good stuff, and I am sure they will keep it up. <sup>
'''Oppose''' Yes he seems trusted, but I'm concerned of his edit summary usage, especially on talk pages, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&diff=prev&oldid=365197675 this] (Probably) and maybe [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lil-unique1&diff=prev&oldid=365013914 this] one too, which demonstrates how to bite a newcomer. All the excessive punctuation in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TFOWR&diff=prev&oldid=365481287 this edit] is unnecessary too. Also by the fact that he was blocked for edit warring (Only for 3 hours though) shows that he isn't calm enough.
'''Oppose''' (a gesture, in view of the overwhelming support to date). The answer to my Q9 is not persuasive. The existing policy is clear,'' “.. editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment...”''  It does not contain  any twin-track approach when dealing with editors of differing experience, quality of contribution or popularity. It only encourages tolerance to account for different cultural standards.<br>The second part of your answer is as inconclusive as it is indecisive. I don’t think that the implementation of the policy as it currently stands - and that is all you as an admin. need to be concerned about - is difficult to uphold. It is favouritism, cabals and deliberate policy avoidance by certain Admins. that has resulted in a de facto twin-track approach for certain “gifted” editors. Your answer prevaricates – perhaps hoping to be seen as acceptable by all. I cannot support a candidate who is not fully committed to working within existing policy.
'''Oppose''' Okay, one last little notavote before I blow this joint. A couple of his comments on AN/I makes me concerned about his knowledge of the basics. Proposed semi- to full protection(!!) on an article that was being vandalised by a static IP [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=363015956 here]. This was two weeks ago. He seems under the impression that page bans need be voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=363749239 here] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#Onefortyone a situation] with consensus of disruption on an article page (whether there's an ARBCOM decision or not) one can be topic banned. It was obvious that [[User:Onefortyone]] would not agree to a ban yet TFOWR didn't seem to comprehend that.
'''Oppose''' Per comment above by Leaky Caldron.
'''Oppose''' The five month break is too recent for my tastes.  I generally like to see candidates active for 4-6 months before running.---'''
'''Neutral for now''' - although TFOWR seems to be a good editor in many respects, there are a few nagging concerns stopping me from supporting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=366335960 This help desk response] suggests that there may be an over reliance on user talkpage templates. Although I'll give TFOWR the benefit of the doubt that the advice was general and they didn't know which "relatively inexperienced editor" was being discussed, it's a bit worrying that when asked which warning template would be most appropriate to put on the talkpage of someone who is editing in good faith, TFOWR's answer is to recommend a combination of Twinkle and Friendly. I would rather see a potential administrator taking the time to ''talk'' to inexperienced users (and advising others to do so). I'm also concerned with the apparent lack of content contributions. Despite regular assertions at RFA that administrators don't need to have content experience to effectively use the admin tools, I do think that it's important to have put a significant amount of effort into getting an article ''towards'' FA standard. It is, after all, why we're here and not only does it help reinforce (in one's mind) a number of important policies and guidelines, but it creates more empathy towards content creators. Other than that, there is a slightly uncomfortable feeling reading the talkpage threads that led up to this RFA, a sense of TFOWR being coerced against their humble protestations by their many fans to submit to RFA. Also (and this is not a deal breaker), the overuse of <nowiki><small></nowiki> tags gets annoying while trying to read through contributions. Are we not supposed to read those bits? Sitting on the fence for now, but will look into it further.--
'''Neutral, leaning to oppose''' A generally good editor, like many others here on WP, and I appreciate the rvv work, but nothing really long-term stellar at all to deserve adminship other than just the prestige. The recent extended break should in fact resets a warm up period and perhaps this nomination could wait longer for the candidate to prove himself. User:Immunize 'weak support' reasons above is also a concern I have. Answer to Q1 seems like a vast amount of responsibility claiming to be taken on and we know that many an admin simply do not dedicate themselves to even a few areas after the novelty wears off. I want to see a pattern of exceptional contributions, not just someone with lots of time on their hands making tiny bot-like edits (w/r to socks that User:Nimbley6 provides extensive love and care) which does not need admin permissions. Some problematic recent edit summaries ''Also candidate is an idiot'', ''Won't someone block this evil editor?'',  and subsequent excuses that humor does not go well on the internet is ridiculous. --
'''Neutral.'''  Would support if not for some concerns about somewhat uncivil edit summaries mentioned above. --''
Moving to '''Neutral''', from Oppose, given candidate's responses.--
Of course. Wordmith's BLP and mediation work has been outstanding, and has proved to me that he is able to be trusted with the tools. <small>(
'''Support'''; good user, no reason not to.
Thoughtful user who's unlikely to abuse the bit. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' No reason not to. Good luck!
'''Support''' No concerns or reasons not to.
'''Support''' - A fair amount of experience across a variety of Wikipedia areas, not to mention being a coordinator at [[WP:MEDCAB]]. -- '''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as no one has offered any reason to oppose at the time that I am typing, [[User:The Wordsmith/Awards]] are nice to see, candidate has contributed to GA and DYK articles, candidate has never been blocked, candidate is an article creator per [[User:The_Wordsmith#Pages_I_have_created]], but most importantly candidate makes reasonable arguments, which means we have evidence he would close discussions reasonably.  Candidate correctly said to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Warriors_Trial&diff=264210526&oldid=264173062 delete] something that not even I said to keep and that was indeed deleted.  When the candidate argues to keep as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars_(2nd_nomination)&diff=324677698&oldid=324674042 here], he writes detailed and policy based arguments rather than just voting (incidentally, that discussion would have probably closed as a keep instead of no consensus if legitimate; the nominator and two of the most adamant deletes were ultimately determined by a checkuser to be sock accounts thereby distorting consensus).  As my final example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Simpson&diff=160920597&oldid=160714731 this] argument reflects [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state]] which is also good to see.  Thus, in my own experiences, the candidate tends to not be a zealot, i.e. he argues to keep when reasonable and delete when reasonable.  Thus, I am joining the pile on off supports bandwagon here.  Best, --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and a good mediator.
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this for a long time. -- ''<B>
'''Support''' I can't find any problems, and candidate's contributions appear to be of a high quality. Should do well.
'''Support''' I'd assumed he was an admin already, anyone who has the dedication to take on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx]] can handle anything
'''Support''' Well rounded, solid dyk work. Support
'''Support''' Per [[User:Jclemens/RFAStandards|my criteria]] and ANobody's analysis.
'''Support''' an excellent candidate, lots of history, will do a good job. &mdash;
'''Support''' experienced user who will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' for sure. Candidate is trustworthy and will make good use of the tools to further the project.
'''Support''' Good Track , user has been around 2005 and see no concerns.
'''Support''' per the positive comments above. No concerns whatsoever. I'm most impressed by their mediation work.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''' - this is a case where I don't mind piling on.--'''~
'''Support''' – I've seen him many times before, and I don't see anything standing out that would not cause me to support. –
Definitely. He'll make a good admin. '''
No reason not to, and more importantly, many reasons to.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Don't see any concerns; user is clueful and will be an even greater benefit to the project as an admin. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' for now - but I might reconsider if you waste your time on Q4.  ;)
'''Support''' - No concerns. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' - No problems here. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Support'''. Why not? -'''
'''Support'''. This candidate is a competent, knowledgeable, mature, trustworthy, and capable editor. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''', looks good to me, an excellent candidate. --

'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' [[WP:WTHN|No concerns]]. --
'''Support'''. excellent contributor; solid history.
'''Support''' Only seen good and promising things from Wordsmith.
'''Support'''. Without hesitation.
'''Support''' I've never seen any problems with Wordsmith, and see no reason for the candidate not to get the bit, so hopefully... ''(puts on best [[Yul Brynner]] voice)'': "[[The Ten Commandments (1956 film)|So it is written, so it shall be done]]" -- '''''
'''Support''' Willing to put in the work to get an article to GA.  Shows commitment to the project.

'''Support''' Good record.--
'''Support''' Mediation is difficult, and I appreciate that you keep going back to help. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Support''' - looking everything over, I see nothing to be concerned with.  I support this motion.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Probably my easiest !vote decision so far --
'''Support''' Ready for the mop, everything that I've seen has been solid. '''<font color="#000000">

'''Support''' BLP work has been excellant. Personal interaction has been very productive, clearly ready for adminship.
Let The Wordsmith proclaim "'''[[vi veri universum vivus vici]]'''" for he has truly show that [[the pen is mightier than the sword]] and that the mop will be used in its time and place. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' - I have found absolutely nothing that would prevent me from supporting, or even give me pause. Good grasp of policy, good BLP work, excellent work in mediation. Absolute benefit for the project. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
Excellent BLP and mediation work; I trust him with this.
Sure.
Much as I hate to see people intentionally subject themselves to the potential water boarding at RfA, The Wordsmith is an exceptional candidate and worthy of the community's full confidence. High time the mop is given to this admin should-be.
'''Support'''. Very capable and diligent editor. The mediation/dispute resolution work is commendable and a definite plus. --
'''Support''' You have the right amount of experience in the areas you wish to work in. This is highlighted by many of the comments above.
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Support]]'''. I've seen this editor a couple of times on my travels and I've seen nothing that gives me cause for concern. I have confidence that he's competent to use the tools in the areas he wants to. Besides, 55 people can;t be unanimously wrong!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' This editor really has a diverse pie graph. Helps out in every section of en.wiki and (yawn...) has even heelped build a portal! (Oh the pain...) And great answqer to question 4.
'''Support''' Experience from Mediation Cabal will be useful.
'''Support''' Of course. Great editor, good answers, and the mediation experience will be useful. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''': a thoughtful, conscientious editor intending to work in areas where extra admins would be useful. No concerns from reviewing edit history.
Certainly, I can see no reason to oppose, and lots to support. Editor seems clueful, articulate and calm.
'''Support''' - great editor, no reservations. Wordsmith has a level head and I would like to applaud his dedicated BLP sourcing work. '''
Sure. Can't seem to find a reason why The Wordsmith should not be an admin. --
'''Support''' Excellent background for admin work, supported by concise and honest answers to the RFA questions.
'''Support''' &mdash; no concerns here; good luck dude! <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''', good answers here, solid editing history; will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Seems to have a constructive attitude.
'''Support''' Per Qs 5 and 7, good enough otherwise for everyone else it seems.
'''Support''' &mdash; looks good!
'''Support''' Easy decision. <b><font color="teal">
'''Strong Support:''' Good answers to questions and great attitude. -
'''Support''' Per the answers to my questions.--
'''Support''' I see experience, wisdom, reason, and A real wish to improve the project... '''
'''Support for arbitrator'''! [[User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing]] that is so incredible! Maybe this can be combined with [[WP:CONTEST]] somehow?
'''Support'''. He plucks his eyebrows. <small>(Translation: I thought he was an admin already. In addition to his responses and such being satisfactory, good personal care habits are a plus.)</small>
'''Support''', with a strong passion. [[Landslide election|Landslide]]. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support'''. No reason to believe The Wordsmith will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per answer to Q4--
'''Support''' 1,000%, will be a great admin.--MrRadioGuy
'''Support''' - looks good.  <b>
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''', particularly based on question 4. <small>(Some of our editors may be of another species; [[On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog|on the Internet, nobody knows]] for certain.)</small> Also, I thought he was one.
'''Support''', very high probability of being a net positive.
'''Support''', no problems here. --
'''Support''' great editor who will be an asset to the project. The one single oppose is not convincing, quite the opposite. If the only fault you can find is that the candidate argued in a discussion in a way that you disagree with, then the candidate really will make a good admin. A good adminship candidate needs to be clueful, civil, helpful, able to articulate their thoughts and explain their actions - but they do not have to share your philosophy or views. Regards '''
Doesn't look like a bad editor to me, good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support'''. Candidate's adminship will be a net positive to the project. I'm impressed by the high level of reasonableness I see, as well. Good luck,
'''Support''' I see no problems. <strong>
'''Support''' - The Wordsmith is a fine candidate for adminship! <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Only concern is that I wasn't notified that he was running and feel ignored by my Wikipedia friend :(  I could have nominated The Wordsmith ('''not to be confused with Wordsmith''') and eliminated that other guy's opposition (Curt something) to self nomination, which he used to put after every RFA.
'''Support''' as the candidate does nothing but convince me that he or she will make a good admin
Strong support. No problems here. Wordsmith is one of the best candidates I've saw at RfA for a while.
&mdash;
'''support''' Your contribs are outstanding, and you are polite in discussions (I recommend you join [[WP:OTRS]] a few months after you become an admin). The only thing stopping me from giving a strong support is that you haven't been active for as long as you have been on WP.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I'm confident The Wordsmith will make a good admin.
Support. Very good candidate.
'''Support''' No issues here. '''
'''[[User:Gosox5555/Rfa|Support]]''' a very strong candidate, although a bit more mainspace experience would be nice. Still, qualified for sure.
'''Support'''  Sensible answers and good contributions.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Yup]]'''. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' Thoughtful and experienced editor; will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' per opinion about BLP fiasco. -
'''Support''' My only problem with Wordsmith is that he's not already an admin.
'''Oppose''', user is not dogmatic enough with regards to BLPs and fair use images.  User has neglected Portal Talk-space - only three edits!.
'''Support''' WP needs all the BLP-cleansing help it can get.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great candidate for the mop. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
Looks good to me. '''
'''Support'''--
Disagree with him about quite a number of his views, but he does good work and can reason out his points well enough. Also, fine answer to my question; shows he will utilize common sense when using the admin tools. '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' Good candidate, no problems
'''Support''' excellent concise responses, and not afraid to take a well thought-out minority position nor ashamed to defend it.   '''
'''Support''' - Sure.
Wordsmith's responses to the opposition seem more than adequate.  Congratulations in advance. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Nothing bad sticks out to me.
'''Oppose''' based on rather poor judgement shown over <s>[[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-01/Realclimate]]</s> [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming]]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&diff=338082590&oldid=338074162]. This was a waste of time, TWS seemed to feel that wasting other people's time was a matter of no importance
'''Oppose''' Seems a bit ready for a ''dispute'' , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=346906690&oldid=346905802 this edit] for example made whilst this RFA was happening was imo throwing fuel on the fire and I expect from administrators that they try to put fires out, not ''stoke them up''. Also not enough edit history for my liking.
'''Neutral''' - Though you've been on since 2005, you've only really been active the last 14 months.  Both in activity and total edits you don't meet my minimum criteria.  That said, we need good mediators and if all these people support you, I don't feel like its appropriate to oppose.  It looks like you have a good reputation and that's what's really important here.  --'''
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''': No problem for this user to become an administrator. <b>
'''Support'''. No problems that I can see, content creation checks out OK, so why not?
'''Support''' - Good work, no problems here.
'''Support''' -- Excellent, well-rounded editor with lots of experience.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Excellent Track and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Trustworthy for sure. <font style="font-family: Georgia">

I asked Q4 to get a sense of the way the candidate thinks. There are a number of answers that can be given to it, including blocking both parties (including the admin) for edit-warring. Some might consider the candidate's approach to be a bit soft, but it's legitimate and the reasoning for it is sound. Also, the candidate's first thought is "what do I do about the content?" not "what do I do about the editors?" which is good and consistent with the candidate's track record as a content contributor. Good luck.--
'''Support''' evidence will be net positive.
No opinion for or against. Default to '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems good! [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' no issues here.--
'''Support''' – No problems here. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' as nominator. '''<font color="#000000">
Seems to be a good candidate; no problems with supporting this user. ~~
'''Support''' – Not noticing the 3RR and possibly overly tolerant reaction to an admin's edit warring may be a concern, but I'm satisfied the editor isn't naive and credit his content contributions.
'''Support''' I will support, but why can't non-admins view pages unwatched by anyone?
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.

'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions, is experienced, and is active in many areas of the project. No doubt in my mind that this user having sysop tools would benefit Wikipedia.
'''Support''' On the topic of Q4, remember we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to block every user possible. So the answer above is OK.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Regarding the opposes and the answer to Q4, I agree that a response which discussed 3RR, exceptions and so on would have been preferable, however the candidate's answer is a long way from a deal breaker for me.
'''Support''' Sure <font color="Darkorange">
'''Support''' I'm not really bothered by the answer to question 4. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' I would have done at Q4 essentially he same as the candidate--including the warnings. The only thing I would do also, which was alluded to at then end is check the contribution history --if the editor had been previously making similar unsourced edits in multiple articles, a very strong warning or even a block might be in order. (And I would make sure those edits were actually removed or else sourced, as they should have been--sometimes a few slip by).I am very reluctant to block but if it's obvious someone is here to vandalize only, I have a few times  blocked immediately  Unfortunately this exact type of vandalism is one of the most common.    '''
'''Support''' A Wikipedian since July 2007; trustworthy & consistent--
agree with PhilKnight. -
'''Support''' Longterm experienced user with a clean blocklog and good contributions. Q4 is troubling, but it is a sin of omission not a sin of commission. I don't think you'd be the sort of admin who'd bite that newbie, and I'm more concerned about over eager admins than over hesitant ones. ''
'''Support''' Add comment per Q4: While consistently under reacting could be a problem, a single instance of leaving well enough alone is OK. Since the candidate has indicated he's "listening" to the comments here, I don't expect him/her to walk away if a future situation requires reaction. I'm supporting for an  over all record so far, and the character potential to be a good admin who will not run through Wikipedia halls as if in the Wild West creating problems while gaining more  experience. (
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy, and I thought his answer to question 4 was fine, if I understood it correctly. His instinct was to take care of the content issue, and not stoke drama by warning editors after the issue had died down. It's also a little unfair to expect people to be experienced admins before they've been elected. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable person who isn't likely to act precipitately. Net positive. --
'''Support'''. The only possible issue is q4, but the fact that so many admins and other users with more experience than me disagree about what, if anything, is wrong with that answer makes me think that I shouldn't withold support purely because of it. FWIW, I think that approach could be helpful, as it sorts out the content issue without causing unneccesary drama.
'''Support'''. SlimVirgin basically sums it up well. There's this certain subset of editors who are addicted to warnings and formal disciplinary pathways, the sort who prefer the letter of the rules to the spirit of them, who get a squirmy, squishy feeling in a certain nether-region over working out a rigid, completely inflexible and oftimes labyrinthine "dispute resolution flowchart". I do not consider myself amongst their ranks. What strikes me as particularly funny is the insinuation that not editing for eight hours is the same as "abandoning the project forever". I remember when eight hours felt like a long period of time, too.
'''Support''' - seems to be a competent, sufficiently experienced editor with a good attitude. I'm not convinced at all by the Opposes. I think the initial answer to Q4 was perfectly reasonable; we need more admins who are reluctant to get involved in drama, and are more interested in improving the encyclopaedia than throwing around warnings and blocks. To me, opposing over the answer to Q4 looks less like a justified objection and more like looking for an excuse to oppose.
'''Support''' Even if they got muddled on answer 4 - so what?they are not expected to run the wiki single handed. ''
'''Support''' The Catalyst has done an excellent job with the unincorporated communities in Wisconsin-Thank you-
'''Support''' The situation described in Q4 is a tricky one, and depending on what one's pet issue is, anyone could find a reason to criticize TheCatalyst's answer. Things aren't always black and white. It's difficult to balance WP:BITE and WP:BLP. But from what I've seen of TheCatalyst's actual activity here, I think he'd be a good addition to the admin crew.
'''Firm support'''—I trust you. Mkativerata raises good points, and Rich Farmbrough said what I would have. I believe you being an administrator would benefit the project. A look through your contributions shows a good amount of experience and I'm sure that you now have a better understanding of situations like the one presented in Q4 than before this RFA began. Best of luck,
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong in Q4. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Support'''. I fail to see how anything brought up in "Question 4-Gate" should be used to deny an excellent user a few simple tools to maintain a large subset of articles that may escape the attention of other admins. To me, there is a clusterfudge of uspside to TC31 getting the mop.
'''Support''' Personally I would respond just as you initially mentioned with regard to Q4. Think about content first. However, I would make some strong suggestions to both the IP and admin on their talkpages about sourcing and 3RR etc. I wouldn't necessarily go straight to reporting it to noticeboards for punitive actions unless either one showed signs of continuing this behaviour either here or elsewhere. I think the initial question was designed to see if you would start blocking (using your admin tools on a content dispute on an article you created) you passed this test with flying colors. That is the important thing.
Swayed to participate here by the fact that 100% of opposes thus far focus on Q4. When TheCatalyst31 hypothetically woke up, BLP policy had been upheld, and the block/protect buttons were not used inappropriately. As far as the content in question was concerned, the original answer sufficed, and the fact that one editor was an admin was therefore irrelevant. Admittedly "leave it at that" was very weak, but the follow-up answer reflected how I would have approached the situation, and although prompted, was a natural follow-on to the original response. Outside of that, a balanced and level-headed contributor. Most significantly, s/he appears to always be willing to explain decisions, and in the case of mistakes, reconsider. —
If someone's going to turn out to be a bad admin, there's going to be more evidence that they're off track than one BLP issue.  BLP issues are contentious, with opinions all over the map. - Dank (
'''Support''' I agree the answer to Q4 wasn't optimal, but let's face it, that's a really good (and hard) question. I very much bet that 50% of those in the oppose section would have gotten it at least partly wrong themselves.  Heck, I'm not sure there is an answer that would make more than 50% of the opposers happy.
'''Support''' Good candidate, a lot of contribs and experience. '''''
'''Support''' Good editor who made one mistake answering one question. Nobody's perfect, the answer wouldn't break the encyclopedia, it wasn't disruptive and life goes on.
'''Support''' - The answer to Q4 isn't that bad.  It's kinda good, even. -
'''Support'''. TC31 seems like an experienced and conscientious editor with a good grasp of both policy and practice and a commendable absence of drama.  The dispute around the answer to Q4 seems odd to me, because TC31's initial reply seemed good to me: drama minimised, focus kept on content. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support:''' I found the remarks in the oppose section to be petty. The candidate will make a great Admin. -
'''Support''' -very constructive and potential user. I am very pleased to write in his support. --
'''Support''', a strong candidate overall, quibbles about Q4 nonwithstanding.
Q4 is one of those kind of questions where no matter how he answered, there was going to be some form of opposition, so that gets a pass for me even though I don't care for the answer myself. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' an editor whose history of contributions to the project bodes well as an admin.
'''Support''' - I'm okay with this, overall. The answer to Q4 wasn't great but I wouldn't call it terrible; everything else looks fine.
'''Support''' per Wizardman. Not overly concerned. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Support''' Question reminds me of the ones on my bar exams, very easy to miss an issue.  Once burned, twice shy.  He'll do fine.--
'''Extremely Strong Support''' I believe the editor is an extremely competent prospective administrator. I checked his speedies, prods and AfDs. Cumulatively, when I minutely checked, 98 of the past 100 deletion nominations have been deleted - that's very good and impressive for me; and I think a similar number is what he has for the next 100 or so of his deletion nominations. I checked his new articles created count. The editor has 2456 new articles created in his 19872 edits - the figure (of ''2456 new articles'') is an outstanding evidence of the quintessential sincerity the editor holds towards contributing for our project! Talking about content, with 13 DYKs, 3 Good Articles, and one Featured List, the editor has proven that he can qualify quite competently on proving his mettle on the quality scale and on the clue-scale. Can he improve further in his content contributions? Of course, yes; and much! Even a cursory look around our project will show that the Catalyst can use many brilliant editors as his benchmarks; editors who have gone ahead and created multiple FAs, and who continue doing so even post becoming administrators. The Catalyst has many stubs to his creation credit that he can, is improving, and should do so further. Still, does his policy knowledge qualify as outstanding? Clearly not. And clearly again, it should have qualified so; more importantly because he might have ended up mis-applying the very policies he's supposed to utilise if he were to become an admin. Is this admin-hopeful so clueless that he cannot fathom the (mis)understanding of a situation/rule despite being told so? My perception is that, that is not the case. The fact is that this editor has shown regard and respect for being open to change and improvement throughout this RfA and even through his past two plus years with our project. I do observe his dissonance in trite badgering; yet, the editor has given his worth of sincere commitment through the past two years towards our project with a grinding schedule of working with an extremely civil orientation. And post all that, he has requested for adminship. I know that we have administrators who I look up to (like Fetchcomms, Fastily, John, Nikkimaria) in the oppose/neutral section; and I see some of my peers too, in Bejinhan, Salvio. Given all this, I take this opportunity to implore my peers, my administrators and the other respected editors in the oppose/neutral section to re-look at their vote considering one question which has become clichéd at our RfAs, yet retains its pertinence within its simplistic naivety, "Will this candidate be a net positive to our project?" If you truly believe the answer to this to be no, I will respect your vote - as most of you have more experience than have I. Yet, a moment of requestion will not take away the potency of your vote. With sincere regards.

'''Support''' - no major concerns. --'''
'''Support''''--
'''Support''' Will make good admin. <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #3366FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>


The answer to Q4 is simply ridiculous, and demonstrates that the candidate does not have enough experience in dealing with content disputes.
Admins need to be able to deal with content issues; the Q4 answer suggests this user, unfortunately, is not.
Based on answer to Q4, which displays too much naivety to suggest the user is ready for adminship. The answer is simply written from the perspective of an editor, not an admin; it does not display the required understanding of 3RR or exemptions to it. I'm not saying that the hypothetical example necessarily required blocking but the answer required discussion of these issues, and a mention of [[WP:BITE]] and helping the errant IP (eg with a welcome message or friendly note) would have been nice. In addition, taking an interest in the content issue is fine (sometimes illuminates how to interpret the behaviour), but your comment about not starting up the edit war again also seems underthought: if the sole objection given was the lack of sourcing, re-adding with a (reliable) source should resolve the issue better than leaving it on the talk page, especially given the IP's previous failure to use the talk page.
'''Oppose''', per my struck neutral.
'''Regretful oppose''' per Boing said Zebedee; I was leaning towards supporting too, but I cannot do it now in light of your answer to question 4. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can trust your judgement as an admin... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
(Moved from support) Q4, as well. My reasoning: I think that looking for a source is important. I think unsourced material should be discussed. I also think that it's not good to create more drama if the event happened while I was sleeping and I didn't notice till later the next day. But what I disagree with you is your statement "since the admin acted appropriately by attempting to discuss the issue and removing unsourced content". The admin acted in ''no way appropriately'', considering that [[WP:3RR|3RR]] is a policy and the admin should know better. The admin should have notified the IP of 3RR, ''stopped'' reverting once the IP violated it, and reported the IP to [[WP:AN3|AN3]] to let an uninvolved user assess the situation. Pulling the "it was vandalism" card is clearly unjustified, as the content was not potentially harmful BLP material. At the very least, the admin needed a strong warning (if someone didn't already report to ANI), and a block if they were continuing to demonstrate similar behavior elsewhere. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''': Per the answer to Q4. What about [[WP:3RR]]? The IP added unsourced information to the article, which can be identified as vandalism and continued to do it! Leaving it alone is not the right approach...sorry.

'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with answer to question four and policy knowledge.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - amendment to q4 represents an improvement, but not enough to cancel out the original answer.
'''Oppose''' per Q4.  Plus, the oppose-badgering is as annoying as ever.
'''Oppose:''' Per Q4 - Admins should always try to hold themselves and each other to a higher standard, especially under the usually valid presumption that they should know far more about Wikipedia; which means the reverting admin should have been aware of the numerous other options available to them - none of which included 3, 4, or 5R or edit warring. Semi-protect (I've requested a few myself to stop such till an anon reads their talk page), welcome templates, more thorough message on the anon's page explaining things, taking the time to try to find a source for the info (or the correct info) to end the edit war by correcting the lack of a cite on the anon's part (with a polite msg on the anon's talk page explaining what was done and why), a hidden comment (ie: HTML comment) next to the section of text the anon is editing so next time they edit, they will see it (maybe short explanation? or direct user to their talk page?) <- working pretty well on another article with contentious content, request/implement a short block if they think it's THAT serious, etc... (could go on and on). Point is, admins should not be reactionary in such circumstances (well, all editors really, but those entrusted with the mop and bucket, even more so). Sorry for rambling. <small>
'''Neutral''' per SG. --
'''Neutral''' mentioned above, q4's approach is rather questionable.--<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
'''Neutral''' upon re-reading Q4.
'''neutral''' - I mostly agree with SandyGeorgia.  --
'''Neutral.''' Would have liked to support, but response to Q4 illuminates significant weaknesses, as explained by others. Not enough misgivings to oppose, but enough doubts to not support. ~~
'''Neutral''' Per Q4. There is no doubt that this editor has done great work, but the answer to Q4 raises concerns about the editor's ability to handle conflict.
'''Neutral''', switched from Oppose (see above). After further response to Q4, I think the candidate was probably focusing on the issue of content rather than the editors' behaviour, and has clearly accepted that the original answer was off the mark. But I'm not sufficiently convinced to support, so here I am. --
I just don't agree with the question four opposes, or Diego's nonsense oppose. I have my concerns involving [[WP:BITE]], but I don't think he's going to use the tools that much, or would block [[WP:BITE]] violaters after my oppose vote. Firm '''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' - because of Q4, i'm not ''in position'' of supporting at the moment. Sorry, -
'''Neutral'''. Generally good contributions. However the answer to question 4 is somewhat disappointing.
'''Neutral'''. I think  there is far too  much fuss being  made out of the Q4, it's typical  of the pile-on  opposes that  the so-called 'optional' questions section  spawns. However, I  generally  expect  sufficient   content  building  in  order to  be convinced of an understanding  of basic policy  concerning  article production, and I  don't  think  that  3 short GAs with  23  - 35 edits each, and 2,500 one-line settlement stubs really  do  it.--
'''Neutral''' Per answer to Q4
'''Neutral''' - The answer to question number 4 is unacceptable. On the other hand, they seem like an great editor overall. I am sitting in the neutral camp until either they conclusively prove they don't have the knowledge for the tools or it's proven that that was a little mistake.
Super early support (saw this coming a few days ago). Can trust the candidate with the tools in an area where the tools are greatly needed (copyright). --
Per Mkativerata.
'''Support''' -- Unequivocally. I trust this editor. During the past year,  Theleftorium's presence at copyright violations has been invaluable to me in alleviating the persistent backlogs there.  His access to the admin tools will only be a benefit. — '''
'''Support''' - Fantastic work has been done by this user. Willing to admit that mistakes have been made in the past, and that we learn and move on. This is important, as we '''all''' inevitably make mistakes. Indeed, there's been a lot of high quality RfAs as of late.
'''Support''' - Positive impression of user from previous work, review of contribs reveals nothing of concern. Interview in working on copyvios a plus as this is an underserved area.
'''Support''' Has a clue, willing to work in copyrights, what more could we ask for?
'''Strong support''' What's not to like? The strong nominations, with a look at his previous RfA along with a review of this user's contribs only lead me to support. On a  side note, I'm sorry for your loss. &nbsp;&ndash;
I strongly supported last time, and so far I'm only seeing more to like this time.  There's a left-handed mop with your name on it. - Dank (
'''Support''' I have seen this person's work around, and it all looks strong.  Ditto on the answers above.  Seems like a good candidate for admin.
'''Support.'''  Yes.
'''Support'''; are you kidding me? Almost an automatic support when  saw that MRG had nominated someone.
'''Support''' - I've known Left for several years now due to his peerless work at [[WP:DOH]]. He wanted to join in and help out, and quickly started making the rest of us look bad. Also, very impressed at how quickly he learnt from problems brought up at the last RfA. Nothing but praise from me.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Very good admin candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' – I've been waiting for this RFA to start so I can give my support vote. His work is excellent; I trust Theleftorium with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
[[Ned Flanders|Okilydokilydoo]].
'''Support''' - Copyvio is a major area of concern in the vast cyberspace of Wikipedia, and I thank the candidate for seeking to work in this important sector.  Candidate learned from a previous Rfa, has good content experience, and stands ready to be handed the tools.  There are some names I highly respect already in support, which additionally make my !vote easy.  My best wishes for a fine Rfa and adminship,
'''Support'''—Yes! No concerns here.
Generally competent + good understanding --> huge net benefit. ''
'''Support''' The only vague concerns I had were from the last RFA. The candidate's eagerness to learn from that, and his excellent answer to my poorly worded question above dispel utterly any of those concerns. I have "seen him around", and his contributions always seem well-considered. Couple that with the illustrious Support and nominations here already, and my !vote was easy this time :)
'''Yes'''. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support''' per fox. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' The ability to acknowledge one's past mistakes and learn from them is essential in an admin. Patience is another valued quality. Candidate has demonstrated they posses these qualities.
'''Support''' Good work on the Simpsons articles. Not only that, he's worked in the other areas and has done very well thus far.
'''Support'''.  I opposed last time over copyrights and non-free concerns but my interactions with this editor since have shown that he has fully taken those concerns into account.  No problems at all here.
'''Support''' i see no concerns.
'''Support''' A content creator who can learn from his mistakes is a positive combination.  I'm actually tempted to oppose because the project could probably use you more as a pure content creator. :-)
'''Support'''.  Good contributor, fair range of experience, no recent concerns... easy call.
'''Support'''. Seems like a mature, humble, and open-minded candidate. No problems --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great to see an administrator hopeful with great content contributions! [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support'''.  I'm satisfied by candidate's reformation re: the copyright issues.  A person who used to have a problem in this area, but who has clearly turned over a new leaf, may actually be more reliable than if they had never been in trouble in the first place.  The thing which pushed me over the edge to support was when I went looking for his old [http://babysimpson.co.uk/left/ Simpsons web site] (mentioned in his previous RfA) and discovered he had taken it down.
'''Belated nom support'''. Now that I'm back in town. :) --
'''Support''' – Experienced; responsive to concerns. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' Highly qualified candidate. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Support''' Sure.

'''Support''',
'''Support''', strong candidate, quality contributions to the project. -- '''
'''Support''', He is a pleasure to work with, and I know he will be a great admin and use the tools properly. <font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support'''. No problems.
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''', trust the noms and I'm not seeing anything of concern in the candidate's contribs. An intention to work with copyvios is an added bonus.
I opposed last time, and have been impressed with Theleftorium's contributions to copyright issues after the first RfA. Being able to handle criticism well and learn from your mistakes is a good quality in an admin.
'''Support'''. Without a doubt a highly valuable and trusted user. Needs and deserves the tools. --
'''Support'''. Cannot find a reason not to, amusingly the debate which sprung from the oppose !vote here only reinforced that you have learnt since the last RfA. --'''
'''Support''' Clearly learnt and grew from the copyright issue thing, no doubt will put the bits to good use. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Very late co-nom support! Per my nomination; there are so many reasons to support. '''
'''Support''' Per above and a review of the users contributions.
'''Support''' Had this one watchlisted. '''
'''Support''' Won me over. --
'''Support'''. We really need more administrators willing and able to work in the area of copyright.
'''Support''' Came accross some cp work earlier. no objections raised over this editor.
'''Support''' The more I learn about copyright, the more I realize how much there is to know - having more sysops with copyright expertise is a plus.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''', looks like a great user who's put a lot of effort into both demonstrating that previous concerns have been rectified, and assisting in neglected areas of the encyclopedia. Excellent choice for admin tools. Oppose section is not convincing. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I know from experience the most sure-fire to learn something properly is to be reprimanded in public view for doing it wrong. Leftorium is obviously a good-intentioned, experienced contributor, and his coolness in the face of criticism last year was commendable.
Looks good to me. ~~
'''Support'''.  From what I see, deserves the mop and will use it well; as per others above, I'm happy to know that copyvio issues will have more experienced help.
'''Support''' well qualified, I've seen a lot of good copyright work from the candidate. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - No "Current" issues here, Good luck
'''Support''' - I very rarely comment at RFAs (only a couple of times in the past 5 years) but this is an editor I've noticed being hard at work all over the place, and his adminship, while probably not overdue, would certainly be welcome.
Might as well '''support''',

Oppose is patently unconvincing.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems.
'''Support''' a history of good contributions. Can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support'''ed last time, happy to do so again after Kudpung's comment has been clarified, and no further concerns have been raised (likely because there aren't any). <code>
'''Support''' - A good contributor. --
'''Support''' - I see no problems, '''
'''Support''' - Seems reformed, and demonstrates the ability to learn from mistakes; no concerns in recent contribs, and it's clear to me the candidate has common sense. WRT the single current oppose, I support BarkingFish's right to state their piece, and on that note, '''I''' find the opposition supercilious. "Let he who is without sin cast the first meatball" <sup>[[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Ravioli 8:7]]</sup> <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Support''' per Chzz: ''ramen''.
'''Support''' - He knows his way around Wikipedia, as he is a great contributor, and deserves the tools. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]
'''Support''', nothing amiss. --
'''Support''' The last RfA would have discouraged many users from continuing here. Theleftorium took the valid criticisms and improved as an editor instead. Plus, any user name related to stupid Flanders is okily-dokily in my book.
'''Support''' Has my support. ''<B>--
'''Support''' happily. In his last RFA, I said I would support given even slight improvement in the areas of copyright and sourcing, and I'm glad to see that the improvement has been much more than slight. Exemplary editor, and should be an exemplary admin. -
'''Move to support'''. Second chances seem to be the order of the day here, so what the hey. '''<font color="red" face="arial;Times New Roman">Barking</font><font color="blue" face="arial;Times New Roman">Fish</font>'''
'''Strong support''' We need admins as such. I comply, but I also think that it could be better if the user has applied this request by his own. '''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, article rescuer, etc.
'''Support''' - Will do fine as a sysop. Their contributions appear to be seemingly far from wrong.
Shouldn't have failed the first time. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. See no current issues.
'''Support''' - (moved from  'neutral'). Here we have one candidate who  has  really  learned from  his previous RfA. Appears to  be a good all-rounder, and earlier slip-ups were probably simply  part  of his  learning curve. Most  of  his creations are nevertheless very  cleanly  presented. I'm  impressed with  his answers to  the additional  questions (which  I  generally  hold for an unnecessary  evil  in  RfAs). I  belive when  he says he will  stay  out  of areas he has less experience with  untill he has observed more how other sysops successfully deal  with  various situations. Now as 'poacher turned gamekeeper' I'm  sure he will  be a good Wikipedia housekeeper,  and after further research  and reflection, I  see no  reason  not  to  give him  the mop & bucket.--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''': Couldn't ask for better evidence of having learned from experience; no concerns from a review of last thousand-ish edits.
'''Support''' - Theleftorium will no doubt make an excellent admin. <font color="purple">
'''Support''' - In contrast to opinions expressed elsewhere, I believe that someone who has learned thoroughly from earlier misapprehensions/screwups/whatever, and has come back and actively worked to improve things, deserves every support.
'''Strong Support'''Was already going to support, but after a short conversation with the user changed to Strong, this user is very communicative and civil.
'''Support''' - Easy one. -
'''Support'''. My own limited interaction with him has been positive, and I see no good reason to make me think he wouldn't do a good job with the admin bit.
'''Support''' Can't find any concerns. =D
'''Sure'''. <span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Support''' This user can be trusted with the tools.  Best of luck,
'''Support''' I've seen this user take the shellacking from his last RfA and used the experience to learn and grow.
'''Support'''. All indications are that this user will be a good administrator. --''
'''Support''' - After dealing with a convoluted question of mine with extreme grace, and then providing an excellent answer to a better question, and of course all of the above, I have no concerns. The user's not a copyright lawyer, but that's a good thing too.
'''Support''' - This user seems to be commited and has proven thier value to me
'''Support''' We need this type of people as admins! :)
'''Support''' Definitely. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Here's your ton.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' if it's possible for a Norwegian to support a Swede.
'''Support'''. Obviously. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
{{verified}} because I'm convinced by the supporters and work he's done. '''—
Kill me for using the cliche, and also feel free to kill me for the cliche of calling it a cliche, but I thought Left was already an admin. Oh well, looks like that assumption will soon become true. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''', seems fine, learned some valuable lessons between last RfA and this one.  Will do well with the mop.
'''Support''' oh-diddly ree no.
'''Support''' Impressed by improvements, it is a good auger of success...
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.  Give him the mop. '''
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely. <sup>
'''Support'''. I've checked his underwear, and while he may have an uncomfortable obsession with The Simpsons, he does contribute significantly to building this encyclopedia, is polite and helpful to others, and doesn't look like he's going to press [[Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose/Uh-huh|this button]]. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - Per the other 112. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I've had good experiences when interacting with the candidate. '''
'''Support''' should be a net positive.
'''Support''' due to his many cromulent edits. I was happy to co-nom him last time and I would have been proud to do it again had he asked. Personally, I think he's far too good of an editor to become an admin, but I wish him the best of luck. --
'''Support''' Can't say anything that will add value to the comment directly above.
'''Support''' Given that 50% of his contributions are article based (could be better though) and is a fine DYK and GA contributor. Don't let adminship dimiish your article editing though. Agree with above if anything you are like myself, too good to be an admin!
'''Honored to support'''  '''
'''Strong support''' Would certainly benefit Wikipedia as an administrator.
Without making any accusations, because I didn't have all the facts, I wasn't impressed by several of the opposes in the second RfA.  I don't see anything yet that makes me reconsider my support, but I'll keep looking. - Dank (
I've seen his work both on-wiki and off. His quality contributions to talk pages alone leave me cheerful in supporting. --
Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - per forthright answer to my Q4, and a long record of good deeds (it ain't easy to hit 70,000 edits!) to improve the encyclopedia. Best wishes here, and always.
'''Support''' per all of the above. I'm not seeing any issues. Good luck!
'''Support''' - a productive contributor. I must say that the self-nom statement was pretty good. Interactions with other users seems mostly positive, from what I can tell.
I know from experience that this candidate will be efficient at dealing with problems of a technical nature. We need more admins like that. In addition, I can vouch for the accuracy of the first three answers.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen Thumperward around before and have no doubt that he will be a trustworthy and valuable administrator.
'''Support''' No red flags. [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]&#124;
'''Support''' trusted and experienced editor. I was impressed by his calm in [[Template_talk:Infobox_ice_hockey_player/Archive_4#Revisiting_the_name_issue|this recent absurd dispute]]. Will be of great help in template space.
'''Support'''. I don't see any reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support.''' I believe this editor's contribution to the utility and dependability of the encyclopedia would be significantly enhanced with the extra tools.
'''Support''' – I trust Thumperward with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - certainly trustworthy enough to give tools too, and should make good use of them.
'''Support''' - should really have passed last time, let's hope we don't have a repeat of some of the absurd opposes from that RfA.
'''Support''' Trusted user who has my support. ''<B>--
'''Support''' This user has demonstrated exemplary involvement in admin-related areas of the encyclopedia. I was not impressed with the opposition of his previous RfA, nor do I see any reason to believe that he is not ready to be a sysop.
'''Support''' I've seen a lot of this editor, but just now realized I've only seen the tip of the iceberg - the template work is a solid rationale for having the tools.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support'''  Enormous history of contributions. After hearing concerns from previous nominations, well, I just spent an hour looking for trouble, and in short, I couldn't find it. I certainly found places where we differ, but I found nothing to criticize, and much to praise in those arguments in terms of civility and policy based in, well, policy and rationality rather than "gut feel." Additionally, I have a respect for the opinions the editor expressed in Q5 with respect to !voting. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Leet skilz :) and lots of experience. I dub him GNU/Thumperward. Seriously, though, the candidate is eminently qualified by my scan of his contribs and seeing his work around the wiki. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy, good history of contributions, can't see any concerns. Probably should have passed last time around.
'''support''' .. and an exemplary self nom. well done (and good contribs) -
'''Support'''. I supported last time and see no reason to change my opinion now.
'''Support'''. Lots in favour and <s>almost nothing</s> not as much against. I'll be very surprised if this doesn't pass with flying colours.
'''Support''' largely per nom.--
'''Support'''. As one of the few admins who patrol [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]], Chris's signature is a regular sight. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it attached to an {{tlx|editprotected}} request, usually requesting some fiddly change, but always well explained for idiots like me! We have a shortage of editors who have both the expertise to work with complex template code ''and'' the admin bit, which is required to edit many of the templates. He has the former, giving him the latter only makes my life easier, so I've no reason not to support!
'''Support'''  '''
'''Absolutely'''&nbsp;— This is past-due and Chris will be of even greater value with the mop. Cheers,
Net positive. '''
'''Support'''; what I've seen is quite good.  Looking at the oppose (one as of this writing), all of us get short-tempered once in a while; we're just human; it's a request for adminship, not sainthood.  Also support per HJ Mitchell's excellent bit above.
'''Support''', competent and dedicated editor. In the long term I've seen a large amount of good stuff from him, with only the occasional screwup that i'll allow anyone! Definitely a net positive with admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' The others have said it all.
'''Support''' I see good contributions, lots of them, good interaction even in difficult circumstances, excellent technical skills, dedication. I can only Support. &nbsp;
'''Support''' The editor has shown knowledge, patience, and both the ability and willingness to "listen" to other's opinions. '''
'''Yes''', a great future admin. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Support'''- Absolutely. Highly intelligent, sensible and responsible editor. Would be a great admin.
'''Support''' Sound judgement, highly competent, and not prone to needless drama. '''
'''Weak support''' – From what I've seen of Chris around Wikipedia, notably at [[WP:TFD|TFD]], he has a firm grasp of Wikipedia's policies and good contributions in general. I'm a bit queasy about temperament (see Tryptofish's oppose), having seen evidence of it myself on many occasions, but it is nothing over the top (as [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] said, " "the difference between firm and uncivil" can wildly vary depending on who you talk to"). I am sure Chris will watch his edits carefully enough, especially after this RFA, so it gives me no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around, and I've generally had a good impression of him. That he is a wikignome is another plus.
'''Support''' because I think it's important for those few with good technical skills ''and'' who edit templates to be able to do it without interference.  Also, he's plenty experienced enough to know what he's doing, and hasn't shown any particularly egregious issues.

'''Support''' &mdash;
'''[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support''', as we say on Commons. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Support'''-He seems to know what he is doing, he can do the technical stuff, and he has a high edit count. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support'''.  Yes, Chris can write terse, which can read as rude, but he is a net asset, and I support per Antandrus.  I am confident that with the confidence boost that this process will afford, Chris will grow into the calm and polite temperament that an administrator needs.  Per DGG, Chris has not impressed with candidness, and I would hesitate to trust him with power, but adminship does not confer unilateral powers so much as it demands greater accountability in actions than is expected from ordinary editors.  --
'''Strong Support''' - User's contributions are positive. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' focused on the right things.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No red flags, [[WP:AFD|some rouge flags]],
'''Support''' - all of the concerns that have been raised in the 'oppose' and 'neutral' section are not enough to disqualify the candidate, who is able and eager to help. -
'''Support''' - Per above and this user seems to be trustworthy. <span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. I believe the oppose !votes are pointing out exceptional cases. I'm happy to be proved wrong though. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Support''', a little rough sometimes in tone, but by no means intentionally impolite. Plus, from my own experiences with the candidate, it seems clear enough they have the project at heart and want to better it. As above, despite the rare issue pointed out by the opposes, I am happy that the candidate would be a strong net positive to the project in the role of administrator. Best of luck! --'''
I am quite familiar with this editor already, having seen him around WikiProject Football from time to time. Meets my personal [[User:BigDom/RfA Standards|admin criteria]], which cannot be said of many candidates.
'''Support''' He has got enough clue to know what should and shouldn't be done when you're an admin. &ndash;
'''Support''' Long time editor with obviously the good of wikipedia in mind. About time. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Solid edits and deep and abiding interest in the project - I fully expect Thumperward's contributions to continue to be firmly in the ''net positive'' category. -
'''Support''' The opposes raise valid concerns but not enough to unduly worry me. --
'''Support''' I too, am not so worried about the opposes. A "net benefit" as already expressed above.
'''Support''' He has been a great help at TFD, and I have always found him to be rather clueful and logical in his responses.  I haven't seen anything which would make me think this wouldn't be a net positive.
'''Support'''. 1) We need more admins, and my checkup on this editor reveals no serious problems. I get a sense that this fellow will make a reasonably good admin. 2) Solid grasp of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toast&diff=next&oldid=374278347 proper terminology] related to ingestion of toast.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' My support for you. —
'''Support'''. There gave been some concerns raised that the candidate might occasionally react a bit too emotionally, and they are valid. But we're all human, we all have emotions, and I'd be amazed if emotion didn't come out occasionally in the course of more than 70,000 edits over five and a half years. And it should also be noted that the candidate has made progress on that front. Overall, I think the project would be served very well by handing over a mop to Thumperward.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' My earlier reservations have been satisfied.
'''Support''' A solid candidate who seems dedicated to the project
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.  As for incivility now and then, even Mother Theresa got up on the wrong side of the hard floor she slept on ...--
'''Support''' Works for me... --

'''Support''' This user will be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin
'''Support''', an editor with a personality will make a good admin. <font face="Cambria">
'''Support''', as I thought you were an admin held in high esteem already. --
'''Support''' I reckon this editor should have the mop. --
'''Support''' I am certain you will make a great admin!
'''Support'''. Sounds familiar. Seems fine. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Most of the concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections relate to a tendency of the candidate to say just what he has on his mind. Where I come from that's a good thing. He is experienced, hard-working and fully qualified for the mop.--
'''Support''' Looks to me as if he knows what he is doing. Will most certainly be an asset with the extra buttons. ~~
'''Support''' Same as last time. '''
'''Support'''. I've always found Thumperward to be a most helpful and kind editor, always willing to go the extra mile to sort out a problem. He would make a very good admin, in my view. <font color="blue">
'''Support''', bumped up from my "neutral" on RFA2. The current record is less aggressive than was the case previously, and the positive content contributions and input to discussions are also fine. I don't endorse all the views Thumperward has on deletion and notability, but I don't see him going rogue with the admin tools either.
'''Support''' - Opposes are unconvincing. Will make a great mop and bucket.
Need more sysops.
'''Support'''. Trust. As already said, opponents aren't convincing.
'''Weak Support''' Toiled about it for a while, but I think i can support, my only hesitation is the civility issue, but i think that Chris has an understanding of what it will mean to hold the reigns and the responsibility that comes with their use. plus one.
'''Support''' strong candidate anyway, code-skills a huge bonus. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  While he may be curt, he'd also be a [[net asset]] as a sysop.
'''Support''': I've been a fan for years, and have offered to nominate him on at least one occasion I can remember.  He would do a great job as an admin.  I personally think he does great work. I'm not convinced by the opposes, as my experience with him has been overwhelmingly positive. Cheers, --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No reason to believe this editor will abuse the tools.
'''Weak support''' per Airplaneman. I'm not especially convinced by the reasons to oppose. I have hesitated due to the temperament issues presented, but I think he will learn that, as an admin, people will look to him to make decisions which at times may be unpopular. –
Out of semi-retirement for this one. Long standing member of the community, dealt with Thumperward before and my interactions with him has been positive. Yes temper is a bit of a problem but who doesn't have temper problems when it comes to AFDs and DRVs and other drama laden stuff, which is his speciality. His knowledge is valued in the community. He won't abuse the tools. '''Strongest Possible Support'''
'''Support''' - based on my interactions with this contributor, I can trust him with the tools.--
'''Support''' - The opposes made me stop and think about this one.  After looking more into things I think the positive outweighs the negative.  '''
'''Support''' I stand by what I said in the nom statement for his last RFA.
'''Support''' I've searched and I found no reason not to support. I'm also not convinced by the comments in the oppose section.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Complete support''' I supported at least 1 of the last two RfAs and I feel Chris has only improved over time.  We need admins who think seriously about the consequences of their decisions and understand the intricacies of some of the elements of the wiki (for template work or bot work).  Chris has shown a strong desire to work in these areas and an aptitude as well.  Beyond that he is consistently a calming force in deeply emotional discussions about the nature and boundaries of wikipedia (the kind of subjects which need and seldom receive calm and logical discussion).  Chris brings maturity to discussions like those, and shows a capacity to make fair and equitable decisions--a critical component for the bit.  He is dedicated, smart, introspective and fair.  More comments once I look at the opposes.
'''Cautious Support''', as last time. I agree the exchange with Tryptofish isn't great, and more care is required when one is an admin dealing with non-admins ''(well, admins too I guess)'', but given the lack of catastrophes and proven dedication (70k edits suggests this), I think a trial with the mop is warranted. I concede our opinions on notability vary widely, but funnily enough it is hard to have one's admin hat and veer too much from concensus without causing a ruckus. We have checks and balances and as with all admins, I encourage editors who are concerned about an admin's conduct to contact arbcom.
'''Support'''.
Chris is a very active member of [[WP:FOOTBALL]], a project with remarkably few active admins despite a remarkably high need for them (massive numbers of little-watched unsourced BLPs, high proportion of highly vandalised articles, widespread use of full-protected templates etc.)  Of the editors I've encountered at that project, he has shown an unusually deep understanding of what our policies say, and their implications for articles.  I have found him a very reasonable editor even when we have disagreed; he seems perfectly amenable to reasonable suggestions, so I see no reason he will not take on board those regarding his interaction style.  I must note at this point that at least in previous heated group discussions I have seen, he has been a calming and constructive influence.
'''Support''' Nobody's perfect...see no reason to believe tools would be abused...--
'''Support''' - Enough trust to support.
Cautiously; if he sucks with the tools then we can get them removed. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Chris is a well experienced contributor to the project, and after reviewing this case, which involved me asking optional questions for the first time ever in an RfA, I have decided to support. From [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]] the issue which is of most concern to this candidacy stem around key criteria 5. I can see why some users may see Chris as blunt at times, but I don't consider the evidence presented damning. I'm not too concerned about the mistakes in the main space as many trusted users make mistakes like that occasionally, and they are fixable.  I do hope if that this RfA passes that Chris will think carefully on the consequences before making decisions, show civility in discussions, and possibly try to "agree to disagree" with some users he is in an ongoing dispute with.
I think Chris will take the input from the opposes on board, and will do fine. ++
beat the closing crat support.
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate that this user does a lot of helpful gnomish work. However, I am deeply concerned that he does not have the calm and polite temperament that an administrator needs. I base this on some interactions that I had with him at the page on [[Crucifixion]] this past winter, during the rather stressful time that a large number of IPs from an external site were disrupting the page. I made these two edits to the "see also" section, which I think were rather innocuous: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crucifixion&diff=prev&oldid=332695972] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crucifixion&diff=next&oldid=332695972]. I was then unpleasantly surprised to get this from the user at my talk: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATryptofish&action=historysubmit&diff=332718061&oldid=332696718]. I invited comment at the article talk [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrucifixion&action=historysubmit&diff=332722250&oldid=332654994], to which other users responded, but Thumperward did not, and the following exchanges occurred at my user talk [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=332718061], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=332722003], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=332734308], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=next&oldid=332734825], and at his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=prev&oldid=332728018], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=next&oldid=332728018], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=prev&oldid=332735979], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=next&oldid=332735979]. I get the impression here of someone who has difficulty assessing "the difference between firm and incivil", who was impatient about discussing things with an editor who disagreed with him, and who displayed a completely gratuitous emphasis on making disparaging comments about me in lieu of simply commenting on the content issues. (Secondarily, I also think he showed a questionable understanding of how a "see also" section can be configured, and also very recently made an edit at another page (subsequently reverted by someone else) that rather strangely enlarged an image that probably should not have been enlarged so much: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piss_Christ&action=historysubmit&diff=369351124&oldid=365389531].) --
'''Oppose''' I suspect that Chris has improved greatly since I last ran into him, but Tryptofish's comments lead me to believe that isn't entirely the case.  I've always found Chris to very difficult to interact with and quite rude, and that's being polite.  Also his answers to DGG's questions seem both lacking in detail and a bit scary (the best  you can find for a !vote toward keep is an argument to merge?) Like Kww I might be able to support at some point, but not now.
'''Oppose''' At his 2nd RfAdmin, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2]], he gave even shorter answers to my questions. I would expect that an admin whose decisions are challenged will give fuller explanations. I can only conclude that he feels a certain degree of discomfort upon being asked these questions--or possibly even a certain amount of contempt for the line of questioning.  I see a considerable lack of candidness in misleadingly characterizing his one non-delete opinion, and I wonder if the refusal to use the keep and delete !votes everyone else uses is just a contempt for conventions, or a desire to obscure his opinions in anticipation of this RfAdmin.    I see no reason to trust someone who repeatedly responds in this fashion.    '''
'''Nay''' I just got to change <span class=plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&tagfilter=&title=Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=Deliriousandlost&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2010&month=7 28 links]</span> because you converted a disambiguation to a redirect less then 3 days ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meego&diff=373858998&oldid=370172888] Saying "only a hatnote is needed here" when i then end up looking for [[Meego (sitcom)|the tv show]] by clicking a link in a cast member's filmography and end up on a page about [[MeeGo|an operating system]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Estes&diff=prev&oldid=374267836] because of the redirect shows poor follow-through. Granted, you didn't move the page but you clearly didn't look to see what links to the disambiguation either. I was going to leave a note on your talk page but seeing as you are a current candidate for administrator i thought to vote instead. <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose''' per D and L.  Was leaning oppose based on Trypto's encounters, but this seals the deal.
''' opposed''' in the conversation in Question 8 he shows he has quite a temper in 2006, others have expressed the same concerns in more recent disuptes. I think this guys makes good contributions but does not handle conflict well. If improvement is shown i may reconsider at the next RFA
'''Oppose''' - I also think the answers  to [[User:DGG|DGG]]'s questions are lacking detail, and [[User:Deliriousandlost|Deliriousandlost]] raises a very interesting aspect of content editing if your going to make edits of that nature an Admin should have foresighted the ramifications of not checking the "what links here" and then not rechecking the results of the changes to make sure their working the way you intended. This is unfortunate and is not something that can't be fixed but it's the lack of answers to DGG's questions the sway my input.
'''Oppose''' per Tryptofish. I know how much hard work you've done, but I'm more strict when it comes to civility side. Sorry, but I'm too worried about this nomination.
'''Oppose''' per Trypto and D&L. Cannot trust promotion would be anywhere close to a net gain.
'''Oppose''' Candidates who don't make a habit of participating in AfD with an eye towards keeping content ''at least occasionally'' should not be empowered to close AfDs.
'''Oppose''' - still no reply to some questions. Prompt, courteous responses are part of the job requirements. Question 5A raises a particularly troubling point; CC's comment could definitely be seen as condoning sockpuppetry. If he presents a convincing alternate interpretation, I'll reconsider, altho the delay alone would still be bothersome.
'''Oppose''' Per delirious. How can I trust Thumperward to be an admin if he can't even edit content without messing stuff up?
'''Oppose''' Just too concerned about potential civility issues as explained and examined above.
'''Oppose''' per Trypto and D & L.
'''Oppose''' This is reluctant because Chris does valuable work; however some of my encounters with him have been somewhat less than collegial, and quite difficult. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_artist#Colour_code]...
'''Oppose''' - We can certainly do without more administrators with temperament issues. Some of the diffs strike me as unfriendly and brusque.
I often encounter protected edit requests from this editor as I patrol [[CAT:EP]], and I find that I need to decline a surprising number of his requests. Based on this, at this time I am not able to trust the candidate to appropriately edit high visibility templates according to consensus. I hope that if this RfA passes he will exercise restraint, not use the tools to further any agenda of his own, and ensure that every possible controversial edit is properly discussed. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' - I was undecided until I saw the comment right above. I also noticed the same thing.
'''Oppose''' - Too many issues raised by the other opposers that worry me.  Answers to Q5, temperment, etc. -
'''Oppose.''' Concerns about temperament, and a tendency to make unnecessarily inflammatory comments, as shown in diffs above. I am hoping he'll become a bit more "mellow" should this pass. <code>
'''Oppose''' I really appreciate Chris' work for this project but I share the concerns that this candidate has some problems with civility and temperament and possibly falls into the category of great contributors who are not suited for adminship. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' I was originally neutral on this issue as I felt that Chris was dealing adequately with civility issues and being more aware of consensus and the need to encourage and support a collegiate atmosphere in which discussion is paramount; however, I note from the oppose comments and the diffs supplied that there are still a number of concerns, and in general Chris needs to negotiate more, and with a more inviting attitude. It is through open, honest and helpful discussion that we discover what we didn't know before. MSGJ's comments that he has to turn down a number of requests from Chris tipped me over. I'd be more comfortable supporting when there are fewer issues. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' – I see a lot of excellent work from this candidate. I was concerned enough about temperament, though, that I was thinking of going "neutral" here. But it's the oppose from MSGJ that pushes me into this section too. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose''' per other opposes mainly.  Seems to make hasty changes/requests that need to be reverted often, probably not the kind of thing we want to amplify.
'''Oppose''' Civility issues raised by Tryptofish are a concern and with the comment from MSGJ, I couldn't support at this time.
'''Oppose'''. I am worried that the editor's combative approach to discussions (in the diffs in previous opposes) is not well suited to adminship. I'm also unconvinced by some of the editor's responses to questions, in particular those related to AfD participation.
'''Oppose'''. [[User:Iqinn|IQinn]] ([[User talk:Iqinn|talk]]) 09:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Per all the given oppose reasons above my !vote and now also per all the ones below my !vote. Too many negatives.
'''Oppose''' I looked at the issues D&L and MSGJ cited; I share their concerns. The boldness that makes one a good editor doesn't necessarily translate to making one a good admin.
'''Oppose''' – The diffs linked by Tryptofish and others confirm the concerns which were lingering in the back of my mind. I've seen Thumperward display incivility and a poor attitude on several occasions. —<strong>
The points made by Trypto makes me quite uneasy. Not yet. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Civility issues per above, and a bit too bold at times.
'''Oppose''' I have been weighing this up for a couple of days now, and I feel that the attitude and civility issues sway me towards opposing at this time. I hope to be able to support at a future RfA should there be one (I see some good work by Thumperward3), but I am to concerned to be able to support or be neutral on this one, sorry -- '''''
'''Oppose''' Too many negatives.
'''Oppose''' Based on DGG's questions and what others have said.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions, and several of the points raised above, especially temperament and editprotected requests.
'''Oppose''', per concerns about the candidate's temperament and particularly in view of MSGJ's comments about EP requests. The candidate really comes across as too hard-headed and too sure of the rightness of his own position to handle the mop well.
My encounters with Chris have not been pleasant but I do believe he has the best of intentions, just needs to curb a bit of the tendency to go for the kill in his relations with others, especially the so-called "established" editors. FWiW
He does a good job, but sometimes he can be quite rude in discussions. --
per concerns by trypto and d&l. Not enough to oppose, given the high support and my tendency to [[WP:AGF|AGF]], but not comfortable supporting. I wish you the best either way this goes. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Neutral''' leaning towards "oppose" based mostly on the exchange at [[Template talk:Infobox artist#Colour code]] cited by Modernist above. A few extra words can convert "terse" to "gracious" -- they're worth taking the extra minute or two to add to a comment. Some of the comments in this RfA provide case studies as to how what's concise to one person is terse to another and downright laconic/gruff to still another. Finally, from the Infobox artist exchange and several others cited in this RfA, I sense the nominee sometimes sees just one right way to do things. In the absence of a guideline or policy, there are often multiple ways to do things and consensus is critical. I believe Chris is a good editor who does good work. I don't sense he's a on a power trip or that he's an inherently grouchy person. Just the same, if he becomes an admin, it will be important for him to move to a higher level of tact, understanding and kindness. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral'''. Mostly good contributions, but too much drama. Also significant concerns raised by Deleriousandlost.
'''Neutral'''. I've come across Thumperward many times, and while the edits are generally  good, I  too  notice a tad too much  drama to  make me comfortable enough  to  enter a 'support' !vote. However, do  remember that  'Neutral' is ''definitely''  not an 'oppose' either.--
Civility issues raised above, everyone else seems satisfactory. Perhaps slow down a bit or be more cautious with items like delirious' concerns. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral.''' Can't get past some of the concerns raised by the opposers, but am not willing to go that far, because I'm concerned it's not enough to invalidate for administration. --''
'''Neutral''' after much thought. This RFA started reminding me of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3|Kww 3]] once I realized he was going to get over 100 support votes, but still had a substantial Oppose section. I was thinking about Supporting him this time, but just can't bring myself to do it (maybe it's because I have yet to support a self-nom, heh).  I remember in one of his prior RFAs, I was going to vote Oppose because of some dispute I was having with him at the time - can't remember exactly what that was.  Anyway, we talked about whatever it was and I told him that if he ran again I wouldn't Oppose.  I could be misremembering this entirely, so let me stop rambling.  I do believe Thumperward means well, and I do see him fairly often making helpful edits on articles I watch.  My own past experiences have shown that he can be pretty brusque when dealing with other people, and I can see quite a few people in the Oppose section and even a few Supports have had similar or worse experiences.  I think the ability to show restraint when dealing with others is an important one in an admin - even if it means you'll need the help of other admins to get you through a situation.  The reason I brought up Kww earlier is because while his third RFA was awfully contentious for some similar reasons and the crats had no confidence to promote, his 4th RFA six months later passed with landslide support. If this one also fails, maybe you can learn whatever secret he learned in that time and the same fate may await you the next time out! Good luck, in whichever result comes out of this one.
'''Beat-the-noms extra strong support''' - This RfA is long overdue. Tide rolls would make good use of the admin tools. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
As nom. &ndash;'''
'''Literally the strongest support I have ever given''' I have (and wikipedia as a whole) been waiting for this day for a long time. I first asked for him to go for an RFA last year!--
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong Support''' As a fellow Huggler I have seen Tide rolls doing wonderful work. --
'''Support''' - Great user, will no doubt help the project. '''
I shouldn't think this one will delete the main page.—
'''Strong support''' Tons of experience, would make a great admin. --
Should be one already.
'''Strong support''' You will be assimilated into the Admin Collective. [[Resistance is futile]]. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Perfectly fit for the mop. May not have the most edits when it comes to expanding content, but that does not degrade of the fact that Tide is very experienced when it comes to overall editing and policy. He is incredibly active and I have seen Tide a countless number of times making edits, all of which were constructive. I have no doubt about adminship and am sure that the tools will be in good hands. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' Everything I've seen from him is good. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Strong support''' -  Content  contribs and edits in  other areas are exceptionally  low but  this candidate is a dedicated janitor. Random stabs at  the user's  archives show great  attention to  civility and explanations for  edits, and demonstrate a high degree of comprehension  of  guidelines.  Someone I would turn to without hesitation for  advice on  editing or suggestions for conflict resolution..--
'''Strong support'''. Seen him pretty much everywhere. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''- Civil and tactful, and will be an immense help when AIV is backlogged. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Strongest Support Possible''' - Yeah, this one's a no brainer.--
'''Support''' - one of the names I have scribbled next to my computer with the note 'knows what he's doing at AIV'.  I have no problems with specialist admins, be they pure content contributors or pure janitors. Absolutely no concerns here.
'''Support'''.  Stud. -'''
'''Support''' Can use your skills in the admin corps and I trust you to use the tools responsibly (including knowing when ''not'' to use them in areas where greater experience would be beneficial).
'''Support''' Recommend closing per [[WP:SNOW]]. He can has adminship ASAP? <font color="BLUE">
'''Super-strong support''' &mdash; great user who knows what he is doing. Need I say more? @Tiderolls: if you want, add {{tlx|RfX-notice|a}} to your user and talk pages.
'''Support''' per nom. Tide rolls is an outstanding wikipedian and will be an outstanding administrator
'''Support'''. I've always respected the candidate's contributions.
'''Very Strong Support''' I tried to find the tiniest stain on this candidate's résumé, but I failed miserably. This user is an admin. And I am humbled to support. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I can trust this editor with the tools, but as an [[Auburn University|Auburn]] fan, his user name is suspect.--
A venerable candidate whom I can support without reservation. '''
Tide ''roll''s, ''roll''back?!?  '''Support''' puns. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''(
Finally.
'''SUPPORT''' - I could have sworn he already had the mop... --
'''Support''' - Looking through a smattering of edits (hard to look at a good % of them) I found nothing to indicate that they will be anything but a net positive.  '''
'''Strong Support''' per all of the above. Will be excellent handling the mop. --
'''Support''' Definitely.
Wow, I can't believe this hasn't happened already. :)
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' Yes, please can we have another active admin around here. --'''
'''Support''' Why not? Looks good to me. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' Amazing that someone was finally able to convince this wonderful editor to finally run. All the best Tide Rolls, you'll do just fine with the mop.
'''Support''' Long since earned my trust. All the above applies to my sentiments as well. --
For excellent and consistent work protecting the 'pedia. - Dank (
'''Support''' - I've seen Tide Rolls on vandal patrol and I'm certain s/he can be trusted with the tools.
No hesitation whatsoever. Very good candidate. --
'''Bandwaggoning ftw''' who needs a better reason? :D <font color="#3300ff">
Thought the user was one.
Although there is something about the name, something I'm forgetting. I also hate conoms, but hey, what can you do.
'''Support''' as the user shows dedication to the project along with [[WP:CLUE]]
'''Support''' I can find no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Thanks to you the tide is turning (sorry, couldn't resist!) in the fight against vandalism! Seriously, though, AIV needs more admins so I can do something more interesting!
<s>'''Support'''</s> Another one of those users who, I assumed, wasn't an admin because they didn't want to be one. No brainer. [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#99CCFF" face="Garamond">'''Şłџğģő'''</font>]] 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Switching to '''Strong support''' to, hopefully, offset erroneous <s>opposes</s> oppose.
'''Support''' As co-nom
'''Support''': Diplomatic, patient and hard working. Tools would be a useful bonus for this editor.
'''Support''': [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship|Too many]] threads about not enough RfAs... Oh, and no concerns with the user. Also meets my "but I thought they were an admin already"-criteria.
Certainly. A good vandal fighter and CSDer, with some article building work. I can't see any mopping disasters.
'''Support'''. Not an admin already? Surprised me. --
'''Support'''. I don't think I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''

'''Strong support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
Easy support. &mdash;
'''Support''' Finally. I've had this page watchlisted for months,
Support. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, will be a benefit to the project. --'''
'''Support''' per nom. The tools would certainly allow him to help Wikipedia even more. --
'''Support'''. Have seen contributions. Satisfies my criteria.
'''Support''' &ndash; <nowiki>[insert most commonly used cliché in all RFAs here]</nowiki> <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Strong support''' Have seen nothing but top-drawer editing and vandal fighting from this candidate.--
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, I thought you already had the mop. -
'''Support''': I've seen people say it about others, but I really had assumed that Tide rolls was already an admin, judging by the unstinting dedication to vandal-fighting that I've seen. A most excellent candidate. --
'''Support''': I'm surprised Tide Rolls isn't an admin already, as the user is very dedicated to Wikipedia.  <font color="blue">[[User:Feinoha|Fei<font color="red">noh</font><font color="green">a</font> ]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Feinoha|Talk]],
'''Support''': I have seen Tide rolls around the wiki many times, and so far i never saw anything that concerned me.
'''Strong support''' Seems to be a nearly ideal candidate.
'''Support''': Dedicated user with sound judgment.  Great addition; very pleased to support.
'''Support''': I've seen his(?) impressive work vandal-fighting, for which the more the merrier.
'''Support''' Good luck,
'''Support''' He's got so many barnstars and he won the Civility award back last year. I always support civil and calm people. And Tide Rolls is no exception.
'''Support''' per nominators. A good addition to the Admin ranks.
'''Support''' Tide Rolls does a excellent job reverting vandalism. Yesterday I decided to watch recent changes for vandalism, and by the time I clicked the link to the page it was often already reverted. Many times those reverts were by Tide Rolls. --
'''Strong support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' Can't see a reason [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not]]. {{=)}} Regards '''
'''Unconditional Support'''  I honestly thought that this user was already an admin, this came as a bit of a shock to be !voting here. ''<B>--
'''Strong support''' - A tremendous asset.
'''Support''' -
'''I cannot even express my support!'''  Tide Rolls, you may not remember it, but you helped me out a lot as a new user.  You also have helped me along the way here and there.  I have seen you all over Wikipedia, and I, like at least five others, thought you already had administrative privileges.  If you are so good people assume you're already an administrator, than you certainly deserve it!  I think the only reason you haven't been nominated before was because people thought you were already an administrator!  <small style="border:1px solid #444;background:grey">
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Strong support''': without hesitation.
'''Support''' - Great vandal fighter.
'''[[Florida Gators football|Chomp]]'''. Fantastic editor. I don't really have much to add – I've noticed his work for quite some time now, and TR is simply one of those great candidates.  '''
'''Support''' One of the best vandal fighters here, always thought it was weird he didn't have the mop.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' - seen this user around loads. Does a very good job. :)
'''Strong Support''' - I know this doesn't add much, but what can I say that everyone above hasn't already said? Clueful, useful, civil editor that knows his way around. Give him a mop already and put him to work! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - I've done some patrols with this user in the past, I trust them and I'm sure they could make good use of those extra tools. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''Support'''. Strong applicant.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' From my observation, seems like a very capable choice...
'''Support'''. We all contribute to the project in our own way, according to our strengths. I have no doubt that giving Tide rolls the tools will only improve his valuable anti-vandal work, and may allow him to broaden his areas of contribution. --
'''Support''' I honestly thought he was an administrator already. --'''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' does some very valuable work, especially keeping the vandals at bay.
Overdue.
'''Super Support''' - i worked with him before and he is very helpful and he has enough experience to obtain the mop.
'''Support''' Easily. <font face="arial" color="#E8A317">
'''Support''' Yup. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' One of the best vandal fighters out there, no reason to suspect abuse of the admin tools, huge net positive. --'''''
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose.  Appears qualified.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Thought you already were :) &nbsp;--
'''Strongest possible support''' (second in my RFA voting history and probably the last). I have crossed with the candidate countless times while reviewing their WP:AIV submissions and am more than pleased with their integrity, motivation, judgment and efficiency. Thank you for nominating and keep up your great work.
'''Strongest possible support''' (not per Material scientist he just has good wording here ;)) but this person is a class act. Always been impressed with the work done. Zero worries. Full endorsement.
'''Support''' per [[Cnut the Great]]--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
I was delighted when I was doing my usually "wikiwandering" and came across this. Assuming this is where administration rights are granted, I only have strong support for TR. Curteous, helpful, would make an excellent admin, especially after seeing these other comments here. Keep it up, TR --<font color="black">'''
'''Yup''' – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Pile-on support''' I couldn't begin to count the number of articles I've deleted that Tide correctly identified as meeting [[WP:CSD]].
'''Support''' - no concerns about automated edits; with this ''enormous'' volume of contribs, the candidate has demonstrated ample trustworthiness, policy knowledge, and cluefulness. Has my trust. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' - I don't have to read the rest of this page. I've seen this editor's work on numerous pages and have no problems supporting this RfA. ---
Of course.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''' - it's reassuring to see that the right vandal-fighting candidate can get this level of community support.  --'''~
'''Strong Support'''. I wanted to nominate Tide rolls a long time ago. Tide is one of the most prolific contributers to AIV, knows and applies relevant policy, and I think that he has a serious need for access to the banhammer.
Noted strong work already. Will do the work good. --
'''Support''' About time.
Yes, certainly. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' – Definitely has my trust. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. Tide rolls has been doing valuable defence work for over a year, and doing it in a quantity that defies all expectations. His contribution history (where to begin?) shows that he's willing to step out of automation mode to address an issue, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=311207987 ask for a consultation] when necessary. It's clear that he knows how to handle patrol tasks properly, and would benefit from administratorship—and Wikipedia will no doubt benefit from his service. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">
'''Strong Support'''. Absolutely. Whenever I am using huggle, this user always beats me to reverts and reports. This is because he is so quick at reverting/reporting vandals. He would be excellent. --
'''Support.''' Should do fine, I think. I've only had positive interactions with Tide rolls. <code>
'''Support''' A user that has beaten me multiple times while reverting vandalism. I can't believe this did not come sooner.--
'''Support'''. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop!

Yep. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|L]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' seen Tide Rolls around a lot and it always means good things are happening or will happen every time I do  --
'''Strong Support''' Outstanding user and track .This was long overdue.
'''Strong Support''' As a fellow Huggler I have also seen Tide rolls doing wonderful work. &nbsp; — <font size="4">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
I've seen your edits appear on my watchlist many times and didn't realize how far-reaching your work is. Good to have you here.
Would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Like Clayoquot, I've often see Tide Rolls' edits and am pleased to see this RfA.
'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' I though Tide rolls was an admin already. Apparently not yet, so I fully support this RfA. Tide rolls is an excellent vandal fighter (has beaten me way too many times to count to reverting vandalism). ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' Courteous, conscientious, clueful. -
'''Support''' because of good work in a variety of useful fields, appropriate and humble answers to questions and because Malleus opposed, of course <tt>;)</tt> <font color="#C4112F">╟─
'''Support''' with no concerns.
The name is familiar, and there should be no problems. Also, 100,000+ contributions? Either you're incredibly dedicated or incredibly addicted (or both) - I guess the remedy for either is handing over the mop. ;)
'''Support''' from a fellow Huggler, and he's usually faster than I am, but always accurate. '''
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support''' He earned it.
'''Support'''. Long overdue, as I've been telling Tide for a while.
'''Support'''. choice of inherently calming username is a positive.
'''Support''', I see no compelling reason why not.
'''Support'''- Appears to be deserving/trustworthy enough.
'''Support''' - looks like a great vandal-fighter.
'''Support''' Unfailingly courteous, welcoming to new users, such as me.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support!''' Well deserved.
'''Support!''' Excellent candidate. I have seen some of his contributions in areas I normally edit. He has attained "auto-reviewed" status in my watchlist; I know I don't have to review his diffs there.
'''Support''' His vandal fighting will be even more useful as an admin, and I trust him in other respects. I think content work is very highly advisable, but I no longer oppose candidates without it if they have a really extensive and unimpeachable record otherwise. '''
'''Support''' I see no rational reason to believe that Tide rolls will not be a good administrator.
'''Support''' per nom. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. All good, no negatives. --
'''Support''' - Might as well pile on as well as I can't think of anything to add to what has already been said above. —
'''Support''' Have seen this user around and no opposition to admin. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Support''' - I like seeing a fellow vandalism-reverter here - seems like a great editor! Good to see people aren't being so harsh just because he doesn't create a high level of content.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, I don't think the lack of content work is detrimental in this case as the editor is clearly clueful when it comes to fighting vandalism and maintains civility and decorum while doing so - this display of level-headedness is to be commended. --
'''Support''' [[User:Akirn|Akirn]] ([[User talk:Akirn#top|talk]]) previously
'''Support''' I am sure Tide rolls will make an excellent admin. Definitely has my support. --
Schfifty has been bullied from his opposition to this vandalism warrior, but I won't be, It doesn't require administrator privileges to combat vandalism, and I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in any editor without some demonstrated writing ability under their belt. The last thing wikipedia needs is more enforcers of the law as they interpret it. I want to see some evidence of interaction with other editors in difficult circumstances, not whack-a-mole vandal fighting.
We have enough vandal-fighters here already, and I just don't support candidates with such limited content creation. I firmly believe that expanding the encyclopedia is the single most important thing about this project, so I honestly couldn't give tuppence about reversion and tagging. The time wasted creating hundreds of user talk pages for IP addresses just to give level 1 warnings especially grates with me – you may as well have bashed your head against a brick wall for the last few months. I agree with Malleus that you just don't need the tools to carry on what you have been doing. *waits to be lynched*
'''Neutral'''. I've found nothing that suggests this candidate would abuse the tools, and I appreciate the commitment to vandalism reversion; however, I can't support an editor with such limited contributions to building the encyclopedia. I fear that a history of almost pure vandalism reversion & speedy tagging doesn't lead to consensus-building discussions with other editors, and I see no evidence of engagement with forming encyclopedia policies rather than policing them.
'''Neutral''' Although I have seen good vandalism reports at AIV from Tide Rolls, I was disappointed to see that there were no uploads of fair use material, or any moves of pages.
'''Beat the nom (and be the first) Support''' I thought he already was an admin! I've seen nothing but good things from Tim, and I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''
'''Support'''. Of course. From my observation, is essentially a de facto admin at the moment. --
'''Support''' - User is trustworthy and the tools will assist in his work.
'''Support''' I've had good interactions with this user. His tool, [[WP:KISSLE|Kissle]], is helpful for new page patrollers, and he does a fair bit of good new page patrol himself. His AfD arguments appear to be well thought out, and he seems to be able to remain calm and civil. I don't know much about SPI, but he appears to do a lot there. No blaring issues, trustworthy. -
'''No-brainer support''' A completely qualified and trustworthy user, incredibly knowledgeable and helpful.
Absolutely. Admin without the flag for a while now. &ndash;'''
Oh yes... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Trustworthy, helpful, knowledgeable admin who needs the bit flipped.
'''Support'''. This is one of those cases that I thought he was already an administrator. Well, as above, he needs a checkmark in that box.
'''Support''' flipping the bit doesn't change much in this case.
'''Support''', sure. Trustworthy guy, no concerns here. '''
'''Support'''; no concerns. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Absolutely. Even without much content work, he plans to work in SPI and UAA, delete obvious speedies, and you don't need much content work for that. While he also plans to work in AfD, I'd like to see an instance where he closed a discussion incorrectly or caused some sort of massive chaos as a result of some mistake. Such an argument doesn't sway me for this particular user. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' I've had the pleasure of running into and working with Tim Song at both AfC and SPI, and if he shows half the excellent ethic and desire as a sysop as he has there, then we're all in for another excellent admin.  His judgment is always thought out, and usually gives me pause as to my own rationale. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Strong support''' I've read some of the objections such as "very small number of edits to top-edited articles" and "only 16% of his edits are to mainspace". Non-sequiturs all, in my judgement. He has been a Wikipedian since the end of 2005 and has 14,000 edits. The bottom line is that this is one of the most dedicated vandal fighters and newcomer helpers in Wikipedia.--
'''Support''' - I'm suprised this user isn't already an admin. Lots of edits to the [[WP:ANI|ANI]]. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Per nom'''
'''Absolutely''' &mdash;
'''Support''' &mdash; user with a [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. His edits to AfC, to me, have stood out, and I can trust him fully with the admin tools.
'''Support'''  Passes most [[User:Mono/RFA_voting|criteria]].--
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' Clueful, probably not insane, so meets my standards.--
'''Support'''.  About time.  -'''
'''Support'''. yes!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' - I was pondering nominating him myself, after I discovered that he was not already one (which I had assumed).
'''Support''' You bet. :)
'''Support'''.  No concerns, not even about mainspace edits.  --
'''Support'''-His conduct is very becoming of a potential admin, and his lack of contributions to wikipedia mainspace are made up by his contributions to the wikipedia mainspace.<!-- irony -->
'''Strong Support''' Review of talk page shows an intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable editor that is receptive to feedback. Reveiw of deletion log shows a considerable number of successful speedy taggings. Already working at AFD with no talk page complaints about it. With the profoundest respect to Durova, Candidate has only been truly active since August, and has a huge number of edits in that amount of time. Candidate will use the tools effectively and will be an even greater benefit to the project with the extra buttons.
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and I have no reason to believe he would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I understand the opposes, but I guess I set the bar lower for content contribution. I look for any evidence of actual article creation, and creating a reasonable sourced stub of a notable subject passes for me. Aside from that, Tim has had plenty of great contributions to non-article space and I've seen firsthand his temperament and good reasoning. No reason to object to adminship. -- '''
'''Support''' Per nom, and experience of helping new users. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''', opposition is unconvincing. Song will make a good administrator.
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Support]]'''. Normally I look for a little more content work and (shock horror!) Tim has never edited the portal talk namespace! However, from what I've seen of Tim, I believe he is more than qualified to work in the areas he wants to and intelligent enough to ask for help when he needs it. Admins (and RfA candidates) should not have to be perfect and Tim obviously excels in the niche he has carved out for himself.
'''Support'''. Been expecting to see this for some time. Opposes not convincing - I'm not a content producer myself, and I'm a native English speaker. Key qualities are good judgment and trustworthiness, and he has both.
'''Support''' had nothing but positive interaction with him - no reason not to.
'''Support''' Per nom. Will not abuse tools.--
'''Support'''. Amongst his other talents, has been very helpful as an SPI clerk, where I have seen his work.
'''Support''' Was going to nominate him soon.  Darn it!
'''Support''' One of the easier RfA !vote decisions - looks like a terrific "behind the scenes" Wikipedia worker. --
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, will benefit the project in many areas. --
I was under the impression Tim already had administrator rights, and am surprised to see his name here.
'''Support'''.  --
Tim just got Keegan-ed. Poor guy... &mdash;
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' light on content but I've often seen this user around doing good stuff so on balance yes.
Well, good to see my nagging has paid off. The ideal candidate, Tim is clueful, intelligent, levelheaded, and always has something valuable to add. '''
'''Support'''. At first I thought Durova's oppose had some merit, and then I read the talk page discussion and laughed out loud.
Excellent and qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Tim has demonstrated that he is a clueful and trustworthy editor. He has a clear use for the tools and I have no doubt that him having them would be a net positive. He is light on content work, but his contributions in other areas have been excellent and have been beneficial to the project nonetheless. I certainly see no reason to think that he doesn't understand policy or is likely to delete the mainpage.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. ''<B>--
'''Stereotypical thought-he-already-was-one''' support. I have seen him a lot in AfD making sensible decisions.
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Tim Song. —
'''Support''' OK the candidate is a specialist, and hasn't ticked all the boxes to get adminship in a more fashionable way. But in my view his contributions are are good and I actually prefer that he hasn't come via some sort of admin coaching scheme - a bit of skill diversity in the admin cadre is healthy. ''
'''Support''' While I agree with the basis of the opposition rationale, I believe in Tim Song's case it does not apply. Tim Song has demonstrated through thoughtful XfD and AfC work that he appreciates what we are here for: to build an encyclopedia. '''
'''Support'''. The opposition may have a point, but Tim Song is a great editor whose judgment and temperament is sound. I feel he can be trusted with the tools. <tt>
'''belated co-nomination support'''. yeah, you all beat the co-nom :-)
'''Support''' Absolutely fit for adminship.  Your work at AfC overrides any hesitation I would have about "content contributions". '''
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' long overdue; Tim has been working his ass off at [[WP:AFD]] and doing it well. I said I'd co-nom him at his last editor review, and that still would have stood, but apparently someone else beat me to the punch. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools, and I totally reject the peculiar notion that you have to have extensive writing experience to correctly interpret an AIV, XFD, or somesuch.
'''Support'''. Already a valued contributor in areas where admin tools would be useful. More article content contribution would be great, but the fact is that we have a number of current admins whose article edits at the time of RFA were fewer than what Tim has now (there have been over a half dozen such cases just in the last few months). --
'''Support'''. See my [[User:Peter/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' Trustworthy and experienced user. --
'''Support''' as I see no reason not to trust the user with the tools
'''Support''' and happy to do so for a level-headed editor whose efforts improve the encyclopedia. '''
'''Support'''. I can understand Durova's oppose, but Tim knows the ropes and I don't need an admin to have FA, GA and DYK plaudits. You don't need to be a content-creation machine to use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''. as per [[User:RL0919|RL0919]] --
'''Support'''. Wikipedia (and its content) will benefit from having Tim as an admin. He has an interest in doing behind the scenes work, and he has thus far done it well; I have no reason to believe that will change.
'''Support''' See no concerns and feel the project will gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; won't abuse the tools, is experienced, but a bit light on content. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' – Appears clueful and he communicates well. I can understand the opposition, but I still find him to be sufficiently experienced in relevant areas of the project. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' I understand the rationale of some of the "oppose" !voters. Lack of real content work was one of the reasons I declined a nomination last year. However, he does a lot of good work in AFD and he has a clue. --
'''Support''' Has sufficient [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]]. --
'''Support''' [[WP:CLUE|Clueful]] editor who will certainly do well with the tools. In fact, I was under the impression somehow that he already was an admin. While I understand where the opposes come from, I don't think every admin needs to have X GAs oder >XX% mainspace contributions or >XXX mainspace edits - they just need to know how it's done, not spend their time doing it. I think, despite his low activity in that area, Tim has demonstrated that he does. Regards '''
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, understands policy, and I've seen some excellent and insightful comments from this editor.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. To be honest, I was just wondering a couple of days ago why you aren't an admin yet. The concerns about your content contributions surprised me somewhat (and that's something I usually give a lot of weight to), but I've seen enough of your work in other valuable areas to convince me to support.
[[m:user:Katerenka|m:Katerenka]]
'''Support''' -
'''Absolutely support''' Valued and sensible contributor I've run across a fair bit. <strong>
'''Support''', of course. Dedicated user, no problems whatsoever. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' wholeheartedly.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Positive prior impression and answers to questions are more than satisfactory (my own opinion is that answers to questions far more often serve to disqualify a candidate than to qualify one). Regarding automated edits, while I'm not a fan at all for myself, they definitely have their place, and anyone who takes the time to navigate the intricacies of the API cannot be said to be unaware of how Wikipedia works. That technical knowledge, combined with AfD and other policy work, provides a candidate with great all-around experience. It takes all kinds here just as in life. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Per answer to my question and overall support above. I think Tim would be an asset as an admin from what i've seen here.
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable, sensible, and trustworthy editor. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''...I thought he was one already! [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support''' Does not seem like someone who would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' I trust that with Tim's courtesy and compassion in helping new users at AfC, as well as his solid rationales at AfD and DRV, he will be an exemplary admin. The administrative tools will aid him greatly when he closes or participates in AfD and DRV debates.
'''Support''' Hard-working and trustworthy administrator candidate. Has my support. --
'''Support''' Tim is a reasonable, thoughtful, and articulate candidate at AfD and DRV; in my experience, he is unfailingly civil and helpful. I'm surprised to learn that English isn't his first language. In any case, in spite of his general lack of content work, I feel that it's fine to promote such candidates when they are clearly exemplary in other areas. Tim is exceptional at AfD and DRV, and that's why I support promotion. As a dedicated and trusted user with an excellent grasp of policy, he'll do fine with the tools.
'''Support''' I rarely support a candidate with as little content work , but Tim is an exception. His  work at AfD and DRV--regardless of whether i always agree with it--is so intelligent and reasonable that he would clearly make a good admin, and the  overall quality of his judgement is so manifest that he would not try to intervene in areas that he is not yet prepared for.    '''
'''Support''' I'm new to editing on wiki so there are a lot of things that I still don't know.  I really appreciate Tim's edits.  Thanks! --
'''Support''' Level-headed and trustworthy.
'''Support'''. As with DGG, I am also initially somewhat sceptical of candidates who do little in the field of article building, simply because that kind of experience, with the problems that brings, is useful when dealing with discussions and content disputes. Nonetheless, there are a handful of candidates whose maturity, intelligence, and fundamental respect for the article writers make them suitable for adminship anyway. Tim Song is one of those who have demonstrated all those qualities.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Will make a good admin, and content contributing never used to matter in RFAs, don't see a reason for it to matter now. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' As Tim's somewhat absentee trainer at SPI, I was impressed with how quickly he learned and how consistently he kept up with a relatively boring but still key set of tasks. Tim looks before he leaps, is careful about doing his research and always has clear and thoughtful reasons for his actions; not much more we should ask of admin candidates.
[[WP:100]]
'''Support'''. Make it 101 :) Great editor; no reason not to support in my humble opinion.
'''Support''' '''
'''support'''
'''Support''' - easily passes [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]].
'''Support''' - I particularly agree with Spartaz's nom statement. While opposing over a lack of content focus is not a new thing, I feel it's particularly unfair on this candidate. Tim does indeed tend not to work heavily on articles, but his work with new editors and on preserving content has a direct, immediate, and tangible effect on our encyclopedic content. When you combine this with his mature and calm attitude and his wide range of project-space experience, I can think of few more suitable admin candidates. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Good guy to be around with when you're a newbie. <small>--
'''Support''' - I mostly "know" Tim Song from his clerking at [[WP:SPI]], and "I thought he was already an administrator." I have found him to be consistently sensible and clueful. Furthermore, although most of his article-space edits are related to vandal-fighting and other maintenance activities, edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carmel_High_School_%28Carmel%2C_Indiana%29&action=historysubmit&diff=308602573&oldid=308597439 this one] give me confidence that he is cognizant of content creation issues. --
'''Support''' - Net positive. I don't think the lack of content work would have ''too'' much of a negative effect on this user's ability to perform admin tasks. Probably,
'''Strong Support:'''   Close to an ideal candidate. -
'''Belated support''' – I'm not worried about the lack of time here on-wiki, as the user has clearly demonstrated a sense of clue in his short time here. –
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - He will hopefully not abuse the tools, like deleting the main page, blocking Jimbo, and being compromised. The lack of experience in July 2009 and earlier does not concern me as he already has over 10,000 edits mostly to admin-related areas.
The relation between content contributions and adminship is dubious at best, and I have no other concerns.
'''Support''' - No concerns. Tim's work shows good judgment.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Not everyone is an article writer. Regards,
'''Support'''. Yep.
'''Support'''. As he is already a user who works behind the scenes, Tim would be a great asset as an Admin.
'''Support''' both polite and adminly.
A university needs cleaners as well as researchers.
'''Support''' I frequently run across his comments and contributions and have never seen him use bad judgement, will use the tools to better the encyclopedia. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support'''. Sensible, knowledgeable contributor whose work in various areas makes him a strong candidate. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">
'''Support'''. Sensible, experienced, constructive contributor.
'''Oppose'''. Very small number of edits to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tim Song|"Top edited articles"]]. Would first like to see a bit more experience in this arena, particularly some quality content article work. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Extremely lightweight on content.  According to the Soxred report, only 16% of Tim Song's edits have been to mainspace.[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Tim+Song&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]  It's not a question of quantity vs. quality either.  The most heavily edited article is a [[Liu_Yong_(Qing_Dynasty)|three line substub]].  This person has only ever made over 15 edits to two articles.  There's questionable wisdom to entrusting administrative powers to someone who has demonstrated so little interest or aptitude for writing an encyclopedia.  Tim Song may be the nicest person in the world, but when someone who has had an account since 2005 has so little to show for it I just can't support the RFA. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Has only been editing actively for a little over six months and still seems green.  As he is especially interested in scripted editing, we should be cautious in extending access to dangerous functions.
'''Oppose''' I only have positive memories of what I have seen of Tim Song's work, he has a clue -- but Durova's reasoning is very sensible and Tim Songs edit distribution is ''extreme''.  Admins must have some hands-on experience with rowing the boat, in particular in a volunteer-run organization like WP, they should not jump right into the ranks of policy wonks (I'm no Maoist) - and Tim can easily rectify that situation.
'''Oppose''' severe lack of content contributions. -
'''Oppose''' The edits to mainspace are lacking.  An administrator's job is maintenance and janitorial-ship.  To understand the maintenance of a project (sysop), you have to understand the mechanics of the project (editor).  Warmly,
'''Oppose''' per Durova. There is a yin and yang to article creation and destruction, and I really prefer to see balanced candidates who have both a good handle on the deletion process, as well as the article creation, improvement, and/or rescue processes.  That just isn't there yet, Tim, but put forth the effort to get something to a GA and I'd be enthusiastically supporting you.
Not yet. ++
Eight months editing is generally considered not long enough for a RfA. I'd be happy to look into supporting after 12 months continuous contributions. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' per Durova and Lar. --
'''Weak oppose'''- Although I do not believe that admins need to be huge content creators - there's plenty of room and need for wikignomes and policy scrutineers - I think you need to have done a big content-creation push at least once. That will give you insight into issues and disagreements arising between article writers and enable you to administrate with fairness and experience.
'''Oppose''' please come back later after build some decent amount of contents. Wikipedia is after all to write articles and admins are to aid the purpose.--
'''Oppose''' This is one of the toughest calls I've ever made. Everything I've seen of Tim says that he has his head screwed on straight. But the lack of content contributions ultimately leads me to oppose. Wikipedia is in danger of growing a "political class" that is detached from actual content building. We already have too many people filling administrative and other roles while contributing virtually nothing to content. In my view, it would be better to have those roles filled by people with first-hand experience of what it's like down in the trenches. If Tim had more extensive content-building experience (not necessarily GA or FA) I'd support without question.
'''Weak Oppose''' [[WP:NOTYET|Not yet]]. Give this user another 6 months-1 year, and I'd support in an instant. But I feel that 6 months isn't quite long enough to have the tools. This is a very tough call, however.
'''Oppose''' per Durova.
'''Oppose''' — lack of content. —'''
'''Oppose''', somewhat regretfully because I appreciate the candor in response to Q14, and Tim Song seems to be sharp and well-intentioned.  However, the fact the candidate says he isn't adept at doing the research involved in article-writing raises a concern - we don't all need to be article writers, but volunteering that he's not a researcher makes me wonder if he should be hanging around AFD.  Additionally, the end of the belated co-nom gives me pause, because my lone interaction with Tim Song outside of this RFA ended with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim_Song&diff=344748809&oldid=344684814 unconstructive sarcasm.]  I asked a good-faith question and essentially got a "duh" in return.
'''Oppose''' per  Short Brigade Harvester Boris. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that consists of organised content. I am alarmed by Tim's lack of experience in building that content. I don't care whether he has been anywhwere near a GA or a FA, but I do think it's important that an admin should have real personal experience as an editor: article-writing, working with other editors, dealing with disagreements, arguing over the weight and applicability of sources, and so on.  Tim seems to have a lot of experience in dealing with project issues, and to have been calm and fair in doing that work ... but wikipedia will be dead if editors are not at its core, and from what I have seen Tim has hardly any experience at the coalface.  I would be delighted to be able to change my mind at a further RFA if Tim has gained real experience in content creation, but right now he looks far too much like a process-oriented civil servant. --
'''Oppose''' - candidate is on the right track, after another six months with varied experiance I could reconsider.
'''Oppose''', user claimed to me that he found it difficult to write ''anything'' in articles. Given he can string thoughts together in places other than mainspace, I find it just too weird. Why not ask for guidance, or pick a topic from [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]? How about uploading photos of landmarks in one's local area, if writing is not one's bag? Also, user greatly enjoys early, non-admin closing of AfDs. <font face="Cambria">
'''Oppose''' - per above comments - all editors should have decent main-space experience to be considered for adminship
'''Neutral''' Until I'm shown otherwise, I'll vote neutral. I really appreciate Tim Song's contributions to the project, and I really like his work in admin areas, but he hasn't contributed semi-sizeably to content.  To me it feels like even a little more wikignoming around mainspace would be fine, because of the weight of the other contributions. (Or get a featured topic too?) Until shown otherwise, I stand neutral. ''<I>
'''Neutral''' - I think Tim Songs has great programming skills, a definite plus for an admin. My reservations are on only three measures. ''''First''', I'm worried about recent-edits, really only since August of 2009, about 8 months of admin-level editing. '''Second''' is the relatively low edit count when you consider the automated edits. When you design your own tools they don't always show up in the toolserver automated edit system. It's pretty easy to do that, and the 2,400 odd article edits are probably the more accurate article count, although determining that exactly is hard. '''Third''', the lack of hard choices in AfD, among other places, the lack of broader opinion seeking (echoing Durova here) and a few comments at [[WT:NEWT]] that bother me, are all especially acute here. I would like to see some more opinions, which will undoubtedly lose some !votes either way, but would at least give us a better idea broadly. But the programing skills and general decorum keep me from opposing.
'''Neutral''' I have seen him around and I think we can trust him to use the tools properly.  Unfortunately, he does not meet my criteria for participation in article making.  He might be a good behind-the-scenes editor, but the goal here is to make an encyclopedia.  I'd like an admin to be primarily focused as a regular editor of articles.  --'''
'''Neutral'''.  This is an intelligent editor who has shown consistently good judgment within Wikipedian policies and guidelines, with which he very quickly became familiar--and I personally do not believe that editors need substantial content contributions before they can participate in the back-office, processy parts of the encyclopedia.  Also, I usually agree with Tim Song and I find him likeable.  These factors would normally have pushed me to a "strong support" position.<p>However, I am concerned about the very speed with which Tim Song picked up Wiki-culture, and with the fact that he has never to my knowledge expressed a controversial view.  There's a nasty, suspicious part of me that thinks that if I, knowing what I know now, created a new account specifically in order to become an admin, its edits would look a lot like Tim Song's.<p>My previous remark is unfair, because if Tim Song is innocent of this there is no way for him to prove it; and it utterly fails to assume good faith; so I cannot in good conscience oppose this, but I am afraid I'm too suspicious to support.—
I have had good interaction with the candidate and can remember no bad behaviour from Tim Song, but there ware some areas that should be tried out a bit more, such as file uploading.
'''Neutral'''. Generally good contributions. However the limited content creation gives me concern. [I have read the extended discussion regarding Durova's !vote.]
'''Support''' - CSD tagging looks good, don't see any issues. Good luck =) '''
'''Support''' I see no issues. --<font color="Darkorange">
'''Support'''. All looks good to me - lots of great work done, good friendly communicator, and English is just fine. --
Good impression. Content creation is excellent, and Vejvančický seems to have the calm and detached attitude needed for the job. And we need more Eastern European admins because of the number and frequency of nationalist wiki-disputes this region seems to continue to generate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' From the looks of it, he has a good head on his shoulders :)--
I don't see why not. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' absolutely.
Scan of CSD tagging and AfD contributions, as well as content creations, brings up all good things. --
'''Beat the nom support''' - No problems here. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no reasons not to.
'''Support'''—Looks good.
'''Support''' - Good work in CSD and AFD. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' Extremely qualified candidate. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
Interactions are nothing but a pleasure.
'''Support''' Unable to find a valid reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Good Track and see no concerns.
'''Support''' - Can't  find any  reasons not  to,  and Vejvančický's English  is excellent.--
'''Support''' - Of course. '''
'''Support''' Agree with the project needing more Eastern European admins, so support.

'''Support''' - Well-qualified. The candidate was reluctant to pursue adminship until a sufficient mastery of English was accomplished ---> this shows excellent judgement--
'''Support''' This editor's contributions are excellent. I'm also impressed with the honest, measured, and thoughtful responses to the questions. I see someone focused on adding to and improving the project. --
'''Support''' --<b><font color=red>
'''Support''' Looks good, great contributions.
'''Support''' Active, long-term editor with a lot of experience, deserves the mop. '''''
'''Support''' I believe this user only wants to work on deletions. Because he knows the inclusion and deletion criteria I'll support unless he wants to work on other admin criteria, which require understanding of expansion policies.
'''Support'''. I don't feel satisfied with his answer to Q7. But I see he is open-minded enough to accept that he is fallible and unafraid to put his opinion out there because the discussion demands that every possible avenue be examined. To be fair, [[Cracking the Quran Code]] is really a more complicated case than it looks, an entirely grey area. Everything else about this editor is excellent. All the best!

'''Support''' Why not? -'''
Oh absolutely.
Very late support by nom returning from a day's break :)
'''Support''' Yes, Yes... Good luck!
'''Support''' Appears to be a good editor with sound judgement.  Meets all my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|admin criteria]].  --'''
'''Support''' No concerns. ''<B>--

'''Support'''
Agree with my Mentoree. "'''Support''' I see no issues.--Inka888" :)--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="#FD0000">Talk</font><font color="#FFBF00">tome</font>]]<sup>(
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. <small>A minor point as the candidate attains adminship is that some editors (who do not think to cut-and-paste) may have trouble typing his username. He should probably create the User:Vejvancicky (without the diacritical marks) and its talkpage as redirects to his pages to ease communication.</small>
'''Support''' Good answers, good editor, will use the tools well.
'''Support.''' Very modest, helpful user with which I have had only positive interactions. Clearly here for the right reasons (just look at the user page!). <code>
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''': Seen him around often at various deletion avenues and always impressed with his attitude and approach.
No alarms here.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''. No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' Looks perfectly fine to me. ~~
'''Support''' Hard-working editor, and the "if I'm not sure, I ask" philosophy is a big plus.
'''Support''' Seems like good people, small backlogs are good.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think this editor is an asset. Demeanor and approach to editing and adminship is a breath of fresh air. Honestly, your English is fine. I look forward to working with you more in the future.
'''Support''' I think Vejvančický can be trusted with the tools. English language skills are fine - better than many natives! :-)
'''Support''' Vejvančický is doing a great job creating articles and with CSD. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't get the tools. --
'''Support'''. This is not a college entrance essay; the answer to the authority question is fine. I also don't see a problem with the answers to Panyd's questions. I've never been an administrator, but as far as I'm concerned, the notion that "they will inevitably get dragged into other things" only applies to those administrators who go looking for trouble. He said he'll help elsewhere if/when he thinks he can be of assistance, which is good enough for me. :)
'''Support''' Seems rather well qualified for the job. Can't think of a single objection. ~~
'''Support''' - not worried. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">:</span>]]
'''Support''': He'll be a good administrator. <b>
Strong candidate.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Obviously to be trusted with the tools. Props on recreating the [[Shit My Dad Says]] article. ;) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' per excellent response to Q6. That's a tricky AFD to close for a non-admin, Personally, I might have relisted specifically to get more opinion on the sources but the delete side didn't seriously challenge the coverage so a keep against numbers would be the right way to close this. That's a mean question Hobit ;-)
'''Support''': No objections here.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Does his homework and improves articles when appropriate.
'''Support.''' Impressed with this editors answers and overall contribution history. --''
'''Support''' Seems reliable, and conservative in his application of policy.   '''
'''Support''' Makes good edits, I don't have anything to argue about him.
'''Support''' Would you mind registering [[User:Vejvancicky]] and redirecting it's user and talk page to yours, and labeling it as a doppelganger? Would be nice for those (not myself) that don't have the ability to type non roman characters, as well as would prevent some impersonation :) ''
'''Support''' Overall good contributor.
'''Support'''. Clearly is here to build an encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' Seems like a qualified candidate from what I've seen and is unlikely to abuse the tools. I second NativeForeigner's suggestion above (currently #69). Regards '''
'''Support''' - at last, a name I know.
'''Support'''. Good work on WikiProject Czech Republic. Calm and creative editor. -
'''Support''' - works for me.
'''Support''' looked over last 500 edits prior to this nomination and feel very confident in this users ability.  This one can make good use of a mops. I see the XFD as a rather trivial issue
'''Support:'''  Looking good. -
'''Support''' I've seen only good things. '''
'''Support''' No concerns, well-rounded editor.
'''Support''' - Impressive candidate.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">
'''Support''' As promised. Very nice candidate; needs to perchance become tougher skinned if he wishes to participate in administrative activities.
'''Support''' with confidence.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - The opposes are unconvincining... <s>wait, there aren't any!</s> (Erm, the one oppose is unconvincing.) May your mopping be fruitful.
'''Support''' Appears sound on deletion raeasoning to be sure. And erring on the side of "no consensus" is not a flaw either. Admins ought not assume any special voting powers.
'''Support''' Having more international administrators is important.
'''Support''' Seems like a user who would be able to clean up efficiently and pleasantly without knocking users on the head with the mop...so, why not? :)
'''Support'''. Qualified candidate.--
Beat-the-close '''Support'''. Looks fine to me, unconvinced by the oppose rationale, international mop-wielding is good.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - I know that my lone oppose isn't going to put a dent in the forward momentum of this RfA, but I can't support due to the answer to Q6.  Closing that AfD as Keep would be a clear [[WP:Supervote|supervote]], and chances are it would have ended up getting overturned at DRV.  That particular AfD ended up uncontroversially closing as Delete without much new information being added to it after the revision we were looking at.  Even after various sources were uncovered, there were multiple delete voters saying that the sources were unconvincing.  Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it's automatically notable, and in this case, closing an AfD against consensus is incorrect, in my opinion.  It would have been a different story if there were a bunch of Delete votes at the top, then someone uncovered sources, and then most of the subsequent votes were Keep based on the newly found sources.  This was not the case here.  Sorry, but I don't think we need another admin who believes their opinion is more important than the opinions of the editors who took the time to !vote.
'''Neutral:''' Good Edits. I'm not really impressed with the answer to my question, if the answer was a little more thorough I would probably switch to support. Sorry.

'''Neutral''' - I just don't believe that an administrator can only work in one area, not because they don't want to, just because they will inevitably get dragged into other things. I really want to see some proof that this person has worked on more than just deletions. If there had been a more thorough answer to my questions, this would have been a support without hesitation.
'''Neutral:''' I'll stick a neutral in here, per Panyd - I don't suppose it will make any difference; it's just that I am concerned when there has been no discussion regarding protection, blocking, or any of the other areas. As the tools are all wrapped up together, I'm concerned about this idea of admins who have demonstrable skill in just one area.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Strong support''', valuable copyright cleanup contributor. Earning rave reviews from Moonriddengirl says it all.
'''Support''' as nom. :) --
Absolutely. VernoWhitney is a valuable contributor with good knowledge about copyright issues and would certainly benefit from admin tools.
'''Support''' as co-nom --
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' VernoWhitney has great experience in copyright issues, something I think we can all agree needs more eyes in. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' This user is definitely a great benefit to copyright cleanup and to the project as a whole.
'''Support''' I think VernoWhitney can be trusted with the tools and would put them to good use. I can understand why some would want to see "more content creation" but that handful of created articles looks reasonable enough to me. Specialists are a Good Thing.
Copyright issues always need work. VernoWhitney's contributions look good and their content experience is sufficient for the job. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Per Moonriddengirl. - Dank (
'''Support''', with reference to Strange Passerby's second reason; and because content creation is not the be-all and end-all. Cheers, '''
'''<font color="navy">
Trust the nominator, and seems like a solid editor. '''
'''Support''' This user should be a fine admin.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support without hesitation'''. I'm familiar with Verno's work since he started helping out at [[WP:SCV]]. Having myself manned that particular backlog for a semester in 2009, I have been impressed with his dedication but also the precision of his intervention. Verno is clear, concise and helpful. In times where copyright issues keep being brought back to the collective consciousness, more admin hands that understand both the issue but also how to handle them are sorely needed - one only needs to look at [[WP:CCI]] to get a grasp of how important that is. I had no hesitations backing Verno as a CCI clerk, where he has again shown that he is an asset to the project in this critical area, and I have no doubts that he will be nothing but a net positive for Wikipedia with the broom.
Seems to know what to do with the tools.
'''Support''' Experienced, knows a lot about copyright and is very helpful in that area.
'''Support''', with full clarification and disclosure of the amount of "homework" I have done on this candidate.  I have not read his statements calmly and thoroughly, I have not checked his contribs and recent history, I have a lot going on and do not have time to do that this week due to IRL issues, my support is entirely based on three things:  1) my knowledge of the nominator, MRG; 2) my encounters with the candidate since 28 October when plagiarism and copyvio issues surfaced at ANI; 3) Wiki's need for more admins conversant in the Copyvio realm.  That is my disclaimer-- should evidence of failure to understand or enforce any aspect of Wiki policy surface during this RFA, I will revisit my Support as time allows.
'''Support '''Cool and level headed, knowledgeable about policy, good "customer service" type skills. Has great respect for content even if, as he says, he's a slow creator (can't be slower than me, surely)
'''Duh''' <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Super Strong Support''' <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Support''' Clear case of ''long overdue''. If he wants to demote himself into the oblivion of adminhood, then he deserves it :) --
'''Support'''. Good experience in admin-related areas, content contributions aren't so bad as to justify opposition.
'''Support'''. It's funny, I'm surprised to see the candidate presented as such a specialist, because I have repeatedly seen him around, and found him to be articulate, measured, and sensible in discussions, not just some kind of narrow-band gnome. The rationale for use of tools makes good sense to me, everything I see when I go back over contributions reassures me that this is not a drama-monger, and the AfD comments linked in the second oppose show me someone willing to listen to those who disagree with him. --
'''Support''' My experinces with the editor have been pleasent and show him to be communicative and engaging. Indeed Verno shows a desire to improve the project. Verno has demonstrated the necessary knowledge which leads me to believe the tools will be used extremely well.
'''Support''' - I have had the pleasure of working beside Verno for several months. He is a highly collaborative workhorse. Has demonstrated a willingness to discuss and solve issues with both new and veteran editors alike. And Wikipedia's list of copyvio problems has diminished by 10-fold due to his diligence. I have firm trust in VernoWhitney's use of the additional administrative tools. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' - having had an article blanked by VW for copyvio (inadvertently but justifiably) in the last few days, he's been helpful in getting it into shape and back into view, and from looking through his pages I've no doubt he'd use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to; and, in particular, I agree with Alzarian16 that ''content contributions aren't so bad as to justify opposition''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''. Does not have the level of contributions to audited content that I usually look for in candidates to support, however this is in my opinion balanced by the strong focus on article maintenance and backend. My selected sample of his CCI contributions suggest he is competent and understands these policies well. In regards to the opposes below that sample recent AfDs, I don't see VW's comments as not "getting it" or ignoring guidelines; he repeatedly references policy in a non-manipulative fashion and while his opening nomination statements could use some work beyond "non-notable", his engagement in AfDs seems perfectly acceptable. <font color="#cc6600">
[[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] -'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. The opposes are unconvincing.
'''I thought he was already an Admin''' :) All good.--
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' Specialist adminstrators are the best kind of adminstrators, know his stuff because of copyright cleanup.
'''Support''' after reviewing user pages, some contributions, and remarks here. Looks OK.

VW is already acting as an admin and we need to give him/her the tools to confirm it. I have seen VW's work in many capacities around the wiki and from those experiences have nothing but 100% confidence.--
'''Support'''. Long overdue. I've been complaining to VernoWhitney for their lack of tools recently. {{=)}} We have few expert-like editors dealing with copyright issues, and VW will only become a greater asset with the tools. —
'''Support''' Good candidate. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' It's easy to pick up on an article that receives lots of garbage, and end up with an high number of edits there without actually writing a word. We need more copyright-focused admins, and this is one of the best not to have the mop.
'''Support'''—I have actually been thinking of offerring to nominate Verno in recent weeks, but looks like that has been done already ;).
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've worked with the user a few time before, great user, and will make a great admin. <font face="Kristen ITC">
[[File:718smiley.svg|20px]] Keeping with the current trend. Now for the real support rational, VW appears to be a very clue-full editor would should only be a [[WP:Net positive|net positive]] if handed the mop.--
'''Support.''' No substantial reason not to. ~~
'''Support''' Giving admin powers makes removing copyvio easier, and no reason not to.
'''Support''' Don't see why not.... :-)
'''Support''' - No doubt (s)he will make use of the tools.
[[File:SurprisedSmiley.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - All experience I have had with VernoWhitney has been positive. VernoWhitney is a great editor. I don't have any issues with him/her having the mop. --
'''Support''' Mature, thoughtful and dedicated to a difficult area of management.  Admin tools will make them much more effective, and I believe they can be trusted to use them well.
'''Support'''- I have seen VernoWhitney around and know they do good work. VW has always struck me as clueful, courteous and intelligent. I also find the opposes totally unconvincing.
'''Support''' – Trustworthy and experienced. Definitely is a net plus for him to become a admin. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Strong Support''' Very experienced. <font color="Darkorange">
'''Support''' After a thorough examination of the candidate's history, I am !voting support for this candidate. The tools would be well used, as the concept of an experienced copyright investigator identifing copyvios and then having to get an admin to do the actual deletion is, for lack of a more professional term, a huge time suck. Also I find [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VernoWhitney#Regarding_M.N.Alam the user's interactions with others] to be encouraging. <span style="text-shadow:#91219E 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Absolute, without-hesitation SUPPORT'''. Great editor. Polite, courteous, helpful and experienced with the various copyright areas which are chronically short of admins. To add VW to that small list would be a massive net positive for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. Most of the opposers' rationales are unpersuasive. An exception is Jclemens' comment in opposition, which makes some sound points that the candidate should seriously consider going forward.
'''Support'''<s>-ish</s>. He's useful, hard-working, interacts well with others, and has done sufficient content work (e.g. [[Charles-Amable Lenoir]] and [[Henri-Pierre Picou]]).<s>, but I'd be happier if he'd applied some of his source-sleuthing-skills to substantially improving an article or two.</s> FYI—in the spirit of [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Evidence_of_improvement_at_RFA |SandyGeorgia's comments]]—my due diligence was: read all the messages to/from/about VernoWhitney in the talk pages and archives of [[User:Theleftorium|Theleftorium]], [[User:Fastily|Fastily]] and [[User_talk:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]]; looked at twelve of the [[WP:XFD]]s he'd participated in (seems to be even-handed); checked that he can find sources ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Four_boxes_of_liberty&diff=prev&oldid=387344847 example]); briefly scanned some of his [[WP:CCI]] work (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League|Arab League]]); dug around a bit more and read all of [[Talk:Battle of Berlin#Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo]]. - '''
'''Support''' I think he does understand the work he intends to do, and that he will be careful in doing it. I recognize the possible validity of the objections from some  people I generally agree with, but I am using my personal estimate that he'll do OK.   '''
'''Support''' I've seen his work on [[WP:NFCR]] when I've been there to talk about non-free images I've run across.  This is the kind of user who would benefit greatly from the tools.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''' enthusiastically. So happy to see this go blue, especially with such fantabulous nomination pedigree. VernoWhitney is a a solid and dedicated contributor, and I will be sorry to lose his (apparently - I had for some reason been under the impression that you were in possession of a redundant X chromosome; no idea why, though) contributions to keeping the G12 category filled. Solid reasoning skills evident whenever I have seen him elsewhere, and spot-checking reveals no concerns. Content contributions are sufficient to demonstrate an interest in the core purpose of the encyclopedia and an understanding of the difficulties faced in content creation. Plenty clueful to RTFM before deleting the Main Page. -
'''Support''' Needs the tools. --
'''Support'''. A very useful editor who will make a useful admin.
'''Support''' In this case, having an editor who is more of a specialist than most admin candidates is a big plus—we clearly need admins who are knowledgable about copyright.
'''Support''' While I don't think I've had any interaction with him, I've seen him around and he does have clue. —

I see no reason to oppose. ~~
'''Support''', a careful and thoughtful editor, with an expertise in the area of copyright, where more admins would certainly be a plus.
'''Support''' - about time :) —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' As someone who works on NPP, sometimes obvious G12 candidates can sit for hours, and we need more people willing to deal with them.  VernoWhitney is someone who can and will, hence my support.
'''Full Support''' I've always liked to see more users helping with removing copyright violations, maybe even rather than removing vandalism, and VernoWhitney along with MRG and Elen of the Roads has done a terrific job removing them along the way. I remember his communication skills, and he always tries his best to keep civil when communicating.
'''Support''' - From what I've reviewed I see a careful diligent editor in a much needed area that would be a great asset. I haven't seen anything that would weigh against that yet.
'''Support''' after a, what I admit to be a somewhat limited, review. Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' My work on WP is almost exclusively content writing (and areas related to it). I have interacted several times with Verno concerning copy vios I've discovered and found him unfailingly helpful, prompt, and knowledgable. His skills and his dedication in this area are ''sorely'' needed here. How on earth this can be termed 'elitist' is beyond me. From what I have seen, he is also very good at communicating with editors who have (intentionally or unwittingly) violated the copyright policy on Wikipedia. This is key, and his restraint and patience is admirable — administrators working this area sometimes have to take a fair amount verbal attack and/or [[WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT|"I didn't hear that"]]. I see no indication that we would misuse the tools or use them in areas that he is unfamiliar without seeking advice first. His adminship would be more than simple net gain. It would be a positive asset. This is the first time I've ever commented in an RFA, but I feel very strongly about this one.
'''Strong Support''' Fully trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and outstanding work in Copyright related areas and user is very helpful and friendly.
'''No problems here''' '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support''', does good work in an important area.
'''Support''' always willing to help others and I dont see lack of content creation a big problem, if VW is not comfortable with creating articles but loves to fight copyvios, so be it, it can only be of benefit to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - the tools will be a large wiki net gain in the field the user intends to use them and he has the experience in the field and the maturity to use them intelligently with the support of policy and guidelines.
'''Support''', as his rather tedious work at [[WP:CCI]] has been invaluable. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''', a great asset to Wikipedia, I see no reason why they can not be trusted with the mop <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Strongest Possible Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' - No concerns. My review included reading [[Spreuerhofstraße]], an article he created. Although it is a short article, I found it to be informative, sourced and well-written.
'''Support''', certainly! <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - WP needs ''some'' specialist admins.  Content creators are not the only type of users that keep WP going.  VernoWhitney is clearly dedicated to copyvios, and shows no other behavior that is concerning to me.
'''Support''' per my observations on MRG's talk page and links from there! &mdash;
[[File:Perriello Official Portrait.jpg|15px]] '''Virginia Support!''' If others can use pictures in their statements of support, then so can I. I have heard of you and that should suffice for me.
'''Strong Support'''. I believe that [[User:VernoWhitney|VernoWhitney]] is clearly dedicated to improving the quality of Wikipedia through his work on copyvios. I think this editor will be a tremendous asset not only to the Admin team, but to the project overall. Strong vote of confidence here. Thank you for the work you have done. It has ''not'' gone unnoticed.
'''Support'''&mdash;per [[File:718smiley.svg|20px]]. Seriously, though, I don't see a reason to withhold the extra tools here. This isn't an RfB. I would like to see more article contributions, but oh well. &mdash;'''
'''Strong Support.''' You don't need to be an admin to create content, but you do need to be an admin to be able to clean up copyvio efficiently (well, without asking other admins for help, anyway). While I don't do much [read: any] copyvio work myself, I've come across VW more times than I can count and every time I do come across him, he's out there, doing some mundane task of cleaning up the encyclopedia from copyvio or asking an admin to do something for him that he doesn't have the tools to do himself. Having the admin tools will just speed up his work and I'm confident that he'll do an outstanding job in his area of expertise. Lack of content doesn't bother me in the slightest, we have thousands of editors creating content, there's no harm in having specialized admins who focus on a handful of administrative [read: ugly janitorial] tasks.
'''Support''' based largely on my review of contributions.  Good CCI work, I trust this user to make good and careful use of the tools. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' Absolutely yes, active, experienced contributor. Deserves the mop, they'll be in good use. '''''
'''Support''' - I like what I have looked at, I trust the nom's and I also like Cheesecake.
'''Support''', clearly a competent and dedicated user who would benefit from the additional tools. A great example of a user that has identified the best ways they can help the encyclopedia, and proceeds to do so effectively. Also, [[File:2006-07-03_Katze1.jpg|36px]] ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Good work when it comes to image use and it is an area that always needs more clean up. I was concerned about his interpretation of what is and is not OK for lists but he addressed it in question 11.
'''Support''' Self evidently able to use and not misuse the extra tools per the nominations. The opposes - (2-4) at time of posting - are reasoned enough but hardly sufficent grounds IMHO to deny the tools. Colonel Warden's oppose is easily ignored unless expanded upon. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''100% support''' <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' <font color="#990000"><strong><em>
'''Support''' Appears to be doing good, valuable work, with which the admin tools can assist. I also have trust in the judgement of the nominators.
'''Support'''; I trust him.
'''Support'''. Easy one this - great candidate, with knowledge and experience in the key area of copyright where were need more admins. --
'''Weak support''' A Wikipedian for less than a year with minimal article creations and light content work; however, the candidate's work as a copyvio specialist and answers to questions merits a vote in favor.--
'''Support''' - sufficiently experienced, trustworthy user who would be a net benefit to Wikipedia as an admin.
'''Strong support''' Extremely sincere in efforts and a brilliant plus for our project.
'''Strong support'''. Copyright work is extensive and valuable. Zilch indications of potential problem editor. Obvious that the admin tools will streamline work in the copyright areas. --
'''Tentative support''' - not thrilled about lack of content creation or AfD material pointed out by opposers below, but overall I predict still likely to be a net positive. If there is a problem identified subsequently, someone can ask the arbitration committee for a review.
'''Support'''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, VernoWhitney. —
'''Support''' - I'm a stickler for content, but  this candidate's work  in an area that is particularly complex, the sensitivity  required for OTRS, and an endorsement  by  Moonriddengirl, leave me no  option  but  to  make an exception  to  my  rule and offer my support!--
Images have been my achilles on WP, but I think he'd do a good job with image management and the abilty to delete copyright violations.&ndash;
'''Support''' Copyright work is so important, we can use specialists.
Per the noms and sound answers to questions.
'''Support''' Less than stellar content creation is trumped by copyright work. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' &ndash; I think Mkativerata put it best, this editor will be a benefit as an admin and I fully trust that the tools will not be misused.
'''Support''' I had this huge long support statement, but I had an edit conflict. Oh well. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Fully support.'''
'''Support''' I have seen the tireless efforts VernoWhitney has made with regard to copyright clean-up and if having the extra buttons will help enhance his contributions, then I definitely support it. --
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''' - Candidate seems to know their stuff in their given field and appears to be polite and well-reasoned when dealing with other editors. The only thing I would ask is that the candidate take note of alternatives to deletion a little more often. Best of luck!
'''Support:''' This looks like a great candidate. -
'''Support''' - It doesn't take a genius to know that copyvio is one of the most important wiki-issues that need firm oversight. Verno is willing to work in this area - great!  Having the tools will help with the work, so I'm happy to support.  The few Opposers (6 as of this !vote) utterly fail to convince me with their arguments. My thanks to this candidate and best wishes.
'''Support''' I don't see a problem with "specialist" admins when they also have the judgment not to charge about waving their tools all over the place.
[[File:Yes check.svg|20px]] '''Support''' Why not! Great contributions! What else can I say.
'''Support''' I remain deeply conflicted about copyvio, and I think that the opposers have good and valid points; but I have decided to support. Having the tools will help with the work the editor is doing. Please do not make me regret my support. Be polite, cautious and sensitive at all times.
'''Support''' I've seen lots of great work being done, and he clearly is prepared. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' Looks like the candidate will do fine with the tools. --<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
'''Support''', after reviewing edits, I find a lot of good cleanup work. Anyone who can handle that can well handle what's thrown at an admin.
'''Support''' this is a rare case where the identity of those in the oppose column speaks almost as well for the candidate as the legion of supporters do.
'''Support'''. I looked at the concerns raised, but I just do not see it.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''. Stirling chap.
'''Support''' an asset to the encyclopedia, even more useful with admin tools.
'''Support''' - opposes, while perfectly entitled to their (mostly) understandable opinions, are not enough to discount Verno's useful, clueful, work. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - concerns over one joint AfD not strong enough to outweigh good work he does. --
'''Support''' - anyone that can handle the problems that come with doing copyright work should be able to handle being an admin.  And on a purely selfish note, more admins familiar with NFCC are always useful, of course.
'''Support''' Seems genuine and capable, good luck...
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - [[WP:COPYVIO|Copyright clearance]] is an important issue for Wikipedia, and this candidate has expressed interest and competency in this area.  <span style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp; &nbsp;
'''Support''' as specialist in an important area, and per Sandy Georgia's leap of faith.
'''Support'''. Has my trust. Opposes unconvincing.
'''Support''' - I may have had an interaction with Verno, but I'm not sure. Very helpful responses to the questions. Has a measured response to most anything he begins; No snap judgments a definite plus. Can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - solid candidate, wholeheartedly sndorse/ --
'''Support''' - No concerns.
Wants to work in a specialized field, and has demonstrable knowledge of that field, and I have no concerns that if he does "spill over" into other areas, he'll do so in a disruptive way.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Good editor; will be good sysop.--
'''Support.'''  It's all been said above, and swayed my opinion from neutral.
'''Support''' - I have no doubt that this candidate will do very well with the tools.
'''Support''' I've always thought that you had the mop.
'''Late support'''
'''Oppose''' Too negative.
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' Comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Dragon Prince]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep]] implies a lack of sufficient knowledge of guidelines and site policy such as [[WP:LIST]] and [[WP:LSC]]. The community has promoted several candidates in the last month that have similar issues, and I cannot support the addition of another potential inexperienced admin.
'''Oppose''' While VernoWhitney has been polite and straightforward in dealing with fictional cleanup, he's demonstrated a penchant to use the hammer (deletion process) when other tools (merging, redirecting, sourcing) would have worked much better, and are expected by guidelines like [[WP:ATD]].  This is a bit problematic, in that he's obviously working in a new area, in good faith, but failing to listen to the counsel of other admins (like, oh, me) who've worked in the area and understand precedent and consensus as applied to this particular facet of Wikipedia. This, in concert with his lack of content creation, suggests that he may in good faith end up doing a lot of damage as he expands his scope, contrary to the answer to question 1.  This is precisely the reason that administrators should have adequate content creation experience.  If VernoWhitney is confirmed, he needs to learn to rely on the advice of contributors with more experience in an area when he enters it, and if he is not promoted in this RfA, he should seek to expand his scope of interactions, such that he can use the tools effectively in any realm.  Given his polite and straightforward manner, I would be willing to support him in a future RfA once he has demonstrated content competence. Non-copyright problems are handled in a vastly different manner than copyright problems, and I do not currently have confidence in the candidate's ability to effectively manage the former, despite his compelling track record in the latter.
I like a lot of what I'm seeing here.  But there are three factors that bother me.  First, I'm getting a bit concerned that we're in the process of creating a ruling caste who think there are more important things to do than write content.  It's okay that some admins don't write content, but it's not okay that there are now so many who don't, and content-writing experience is necessary to deal appropriately with content writers (as anyone who's active in copyright must).  Second—and I think this is linked to the first concern—I entirely agree with Jclemens when he says that this candidate doesn't always exhaust the alternatives to deletion, and needs to improve on that.  Third, admins have wide powers so we need to see well-rounded contributions from them before we can properly judge their fitness for adminship.—
'''Oppose''' competent, but has elitist tendencies which run contrary to our collectivist ethos.
'''Oppose''' on three grounds, one of which is the "elitist tendencies". The others are the lack of content experience and the lack of an effective desysopping process in the event that the candidate tries to extend the application of his new tools beyond his obviously rather limited areas of expertise.
mostly per Jclemens and Malleus Fatuorum. -
'''Oppose''' per Jclemens. While I definitely agree that we need more policing of copyvios on WP, I also think we need someone with a stronger understanding of deletion criteria to get the tools.
My head says support, my gut says go neutral. Without question, we need to improve admin recruitment in this area, arguably more than any other. The answer to Q6 and good comments on your temperment suggest that you are well equipped to deal with those who were unwittingly committing copyvio. But S Marshall makes valid points, and the first in particular is one that I'd been mulling over before seeing it. There's a good chance that I'll switch to support, but I feel that there's some value in saying where I am at this point in time. —
'''Neutral'''. Disappointing lack of content creation.
'''Neutral''' per above statements. I know content creation isn't exactly exciting for <s>most</s> some people, but when I think admin, I look for someone who ''can'' do tedious work that they are a bit uncomfortable with.
'''Beat-the-nom support'''. Looks fine.
'''Support''' looks to be a helpful person.
'''Beat-the-nom support''' Broad range of contributions, consistent, steady--
'''Support''' - No major concerns here. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support''' I like it. &nbsp;&ndash; <font color="black">'''''
'''Support'''. Easy decision, nothing to indicate I should even consider opposing.
'''Support''' Excellent content work, with 148 articles written, only concern is the response that "I do not see my self blocking vandals" as I feel that this is a major part of administratorship.
'''Support''' The candidate's got good chances with the contributions. --
'''Support''' candidate may not fit the mold for 'typical' administrators, but there's no evidence to suggest he'd abuse the tools, and he has a legitimate need for them. He already knows how to use them, being an administrator elsewhere, and hasn't abused them elsewhere either. --
'''Support''' Don't have any problems; sysop on Commons; involved with the Portuguese Wikimedia chapter, good contributions here.
'''Support''' Despite no interest in blocking vandals, there is no downside. I think once an editor has sufficiently demonstrated good judgement, then wikipedia's interest is best served by removing the obstacles to the editor's work. In this case, we can be confident that allowing Waldir to edit templates, etc, and help out with editprotected requests, will be beneficial.
'''Support''' I see no reason why this editor cannot be trusted with the tools.  His content contributions and judgements are sound.--
'''Support''' Awesome candidate on this wiki who already has the mop on 2 other wikis.  Easy support on this one, user will not abuse the mop and will make a very good addition. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' Everything seems to check out. Overall, no reason to believe he will abuse the tools, if he's already a Commons sysop as well. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Not your usual RfA request, but I can't see any problems with giving this editor the tools at all, given the nom statement and answers.
'''Support''' - Good answers, good record and I also support despite minor concerns about the comments above re: blocking vandals.  I admit I come to the discussion as a vandal-fighter, so I'm not exactly neutral here.  In brief, I ask the candidate to consider blocking vandals as circumstances dictate, as this is an important function of Wikipedia administrators.
'''Support''' I can trust this editor with the tools. I don't care if he never blocks a vandal in his admin career. --
'''Support''' I see Waldir's works in pt.wikipedia, and have the honor to work with him. Based on that, I believe that he will be a very good sysop. Not the most active one, but still a wise adm. <font color="black" face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Beat-the-nom support''' :) But seriously, no problems with this editor, I think that he'll make a great admin.
Slightly bemused [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sal,_Cape_Verde&diff=prev&oldid=9877374] support (previous experience on a different wiki?), but [[WP:NETPOS|unlikely to blow up the site]] with the tools so no concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Sure, why not? <span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Support''' - Having Waldir as an admin would definitely be a net positive in my book.--
'''support''' I think it's inevitable that someone with the buttons will sometimes come across situations where it is necessary to use them even for things they are not primarily involved with. Here, we need to judge whether we can trust they will be used intelligently and without trying to do things whose details and implications are not understood. The thing to go by needs to be  the general work and background and apparent intelligence and judgment, and I think the record shows this. The magnificent ant images work is enough to indicate he'll know how to be an asset wherever he finds himself. '''
'''Support''' From what I can see, I'm confident that Waldir can be trusted with the tools in the areas specified, and will only use them with caution in other areas. --
'''Support''' I probably wouldn't support, but he's already an admin on Commons and an admin and crat on Wikimedia Portugal. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' no reason to think that he would abuse the tools, and we need more admins --
'''Support'''. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''', has my complete trust and I'm sure he'll use the tools to improve Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' likely to be a net positive.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Unlikely to hurt anything, and his record is good.
'''Support''' Meets all my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|admin criteria]].  --'''
'''Support'''.  Administrative activity on other wikis looks good, I have no concerns that Waldir will be an asset to the project in the areas in which he says he will work.  I had some concerns regarding lack of experience dealing with vandals, but the three times he's blocked users on other wikis ([http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ARegisto&type=block&user=Waldir&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= two on pt.wikipedia], and [http://pt.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ARegisto&type=block&user=Waldir&page=&year=&month=-1 one on pt.wikimedia] for cross-wiki vandalism) he did so appropriately.&nbsp;  -- '''''
The track record, here and on other wikis, is solid. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Looks fine.
Sure.
'''Support''' You look clean to me.
'''Support''' Yep !
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Without hesitation. Has the maturity and clue to be a net positive as admin. --
'''Support''' changed from oppose - I had concerns about q6, but after a very good explanation, I'm confident in Waldir.
'''Support''' q7 answer is acceptable.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Waldir. —
'''support'''- Seems willing to stop and ask directions when help is needed, so I have no objections. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
Yes I think so, no alarms here.
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing.
'''Support''' If intersted in templates, could also maybe help deleting templates for which consensus has been reached at WP:TFD?
'''Support''' While not a typical candidate, this gentleman is clearly here to build an encyclopedia.  Trusted with the mop elsewhere + clear pattern of contribution en.wiki = mop for you.
'''Support''' – No problems with me. I trust him with the [[WP:ADMIN|mop]]. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - Sound candidate.
'''Support''', a good candidate. --'''
'''Support''' No issues here, order a new Mop !
'''Support''', seems fine to me. Oppose rationales seem particularly hypothetical, no deal-breaking problems have popped up that I can see ...  this user's done more than enough for me to feel they'll be a net positive with the admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree the opposes are unconvincing.
'''Support''' - Willing to take criticism well, and being upfront about what areas he is weak in gives me confidence in his cluefulness. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' - Satisfied by the nom and I like the answer to the first three questions. I am also seeing in the candidate a good demeanor and positive attitude which is helpful to foster amiable collaborations on the project. -- '''
'''Support''' - The usual stuff all checks out, plus, I'm very impressed by responses to queries raised in this RfA. Looks good. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support'''. I still remember supporting you on Commons. Waldir will be an asset as an admin. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - No issues seen. --
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, this person is responsible and willing to answer swiftly to questions and concerns, I hope he does the same as an admin. --
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''.  Looks good.--
'''Support''' looks all good to me.--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong Support''' The candidate definitely deserves a mop. Excellent work!
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I see nothing that leads me to think they would abuse the tools, net positive.  '''
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' - See no reason to do otherwise.
Absolutely
'''Support''' - I'm satisfied with the candidate's answers and see no problems.
'''Support''', I don't see any compelling reason why not.
If it were possible to hand out administrator privileges on an "as needs" basis, then I'd be quite happy for Waldir to be able to delete images from wikipedia once transferred to Commons, but it isn't. It's got to be the whole shooting match or nothing. With that in mind, I have some concerns about the article that Waldir pointed to as being one of those he was most proud of, [[Pogonomyrmex maricopa]]. Some of the wording appears to be disconcertingly similar to that found [http://chemistry.about.com/b/2007/11/16/worlds-most-venomous-insect.htm here], and some of the statements made do not appear to be backed up by the sources: the claim that this ant, as opposed to the Fire ant, has chemical signals in its venom, for instance. I also don't see how [http://integraonline.com/~pondhawk//GUMO/orders/Hymenoptera/cards/MaHahill.htm this personal web site] can be considered a reliable source either. One of the pillars of wikipedia states that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy&nbsp;... That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources". I know that many here think it's ''far'' more important to be "civil", but they're wrong.
'''Neutral''' - After going  through  the usual checks, and leaving  the candidates's user pages till last, my  optimism was marred on  discovering that discussions on  their talk  page are in  some other language.--
'''Neutral''' (from oppose) per my original oppose rationale above, but the candidate's conduct during this RfA and the supports from many editors I respect bumped me into the neutral section.
'''Support''', no reason to think they can't be trusted with the mop.--
'''Support'''. Not before time, judging by quality of contributions - happy to give my backing. --
The candidate's record in CSD tagging looks excellent - I've found one or two declined tags but the hit rate looks to be around the 99% mark. I've also noted in the past the candidate's very thoughtful contributions to other RfAs (in particular, questions). Definitely qualified. And bonus points for the self-nom! --
'''Support''' - Has good work in CSD, AFD and UAA. User can defiantly trusted as an admin. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' Was on the fence, seeing that a good portion of your contribs are in the Wikipedia space. However, a closer examination reveals a helpful valuable editor, should make a fine admin.
I've seen this user around various places and have no concerns - seems to have a good head on their shoulders. –
As Xeno said, seems to have a good head on their shoulders. ~~
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' While I understand what ϢereSpielChequers is saying in the oppose, I note that the vast majority of the CSD tagging that I looked at were accurate. My advice would be to ''slow down'' if you are evaluating CSD. -- '''''
'''Support''' Been seen around, I don't see why we shouldn't dish out another mop. '''
'''Support''' We are not looking for perfect candidates. And besides, if all the incidents that were "problematic" are all ''still'' deleted (actually, deleted at all, which means we have admins who agreed with the candidate's interpretation of CSD), then I cannot see a problem, certainly not one to oppose over. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Seems well meaning and well versed in Wiki-policy. Unlikely to delete the main page.
'''Weakest possible support''' The candidate has been highly active for less than a year. 251 Article creations and 50 redirects look impressive at first glance; however, most of the articles are single sentence stubs. That being said, what convinced me to vote in favor was a clean block log and a relatively broad range of experience in the administrative-related areas. I feel the candidate is someone who can be now trusted with the tools (Accountcreator, rollbacker, reviewer) and will constantly learn and improve as time goes on.--
'''Support''' Contributions in admin-related areas suggest that this editor will make fine admin.  --
'''Support''' Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' I like and respect ϢereSpielChequers, but in this case I think that his oppose is a little ridiculous. This user is an excellent candidate, as far as I'm concerned. He has experience in a wide number of areas and shows a level of competency that I find acceptable for an admin per [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]].
A very rational and levelheaded individual who is able to distinguish between right and wrong, and learn from his mistakes in the wrong. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' Have encountered and been impressed by this user. ''<B>--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good nomination statement. I trust the candidate with the tools.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - per PhantomSteve and Xeno. '''[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;

'''Support''' I think the CSD issues are relatively minor and certainly not enough for me to be overly concerned as long as Wifione is prepared to learn and improve. In this respect I see a good attitude in respnse to the oppose.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
--
'''Support''' The stubby town articles are a small cause of concern but they all appear to be verified. Nothing stands out hinting that you'd not make a good administrator. '''
'''Support''' Satisfies my [[Wikipedia:Net_positive|main RFA criterion]], and seems to have a good sense of humour, which I actually find a big plus in an admin. No problems found in review of contributions, and lots of positives, so I support. &nbsp;
'''Support''' I don't see any red flags, he seems to have a good head on his shoulders, and takes constructive criticism well. <font face="Segoe script">
Don't see why not to support, generally an all-around fine candidate. '''
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience in article and project space, nothing to raise a concern. The few CSD mistakes aren't enough to drive me to oppose, when compared with all of the successful CSD tags. -- '''
'''Support''' No problem <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' I read through the oppose section since in my experience, when WereSpielChequers opposes it's a pretty well-grounded rationale, and it is this time too, but it is not enough to convince me to oppose.  I think you will do just fine with CSD as long as you take it carefully.  '''
'''Support''' Looks good [[User talk: Gfoley4|Gfoley4]] (
'''Support''' - No problems here.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose
'''Support''' Yeah
'''Support''' - cautiously. Looks like good work in various areas, and I'm not hung up on edit counts. The downside, for me, is CSD tagging. Even when done perfectly, CSD tagging is bound to put off some new contributors (or old ones who are moving into article-creation for the first time). The handful of examples I've seen aren't ''bad'', per se, but perhaps just slightly too keen. I would advise caution & conservatism with CSD - and wikipedia won't really suffer in the meantime if it has a handful more articles where the ''notability'', rather than the accuracy, is unclear. But that's just my opinion....
'''Support'''. I'm surprised no one's mentioned Wikione's Help Desk activity - that's where I've encountered Wikione and I've been very impressed with their cluefulness and helpfulness. Wifione, I'd hope that you take the oppose comments on board, particularly WereSpielChequers', but I also believe that a mop changes ones perspective on CSD and that admins tend to be more conservative when handling CSD requests than editors requesting CSD.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Intelligent, helpful, very well-rounded. A model editor whom I'm sure will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Yes, answer to question 6 is a little odd: our specific notability guidelines are intended to offer guidance on how to apply the GNG to various fields, not to ovethrow the GNG.  But with that said I still think Wifione will make a capable admin.
'''Support''' He looks entirely trustworthy.
'''Support''' - Yes, defintely. -
'''Support''' – Why not? <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' - Absolutely yes. '''''
'''Support''' - but please please please promise you'll be good with CSD tags.
[[Copacabana (At the Copa)|En el Copa... murió el amor]] --
'''Support''' - Why not? <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - autoreviewer, rollbacker, etc.  I understand that he had a faulty CSD, but everyone makes one or two mistakes.
'''Support''' - On the condition that they consider their CSD tagging more carefully. Very good well-rounded editor.
'''Support''' - saw him around WP:AN/I, and liked what I saw.--
Per frank answer to Q3: ''"Learnt to let go"'' - so vital in defusing tensions.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' no concerns--
'''Support:''' Overhasty deletion loses us newbies, but over all a net positive. -
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' - the concerns below are not unfounded, such as the one about article building; however, the knowledge of policy and the sense Wifione shows in answering all the questions makes me feel that this user and Wikipedia would both benefit from having the tools. :)
'''Support''' only reservation is fast csd tagging mentioned in opposes, but as steve points out there is still a high level accuracy though. Net benfit as admin though broad exp/civil.
'''Support'''. Responsible editor who works in areas where the admin tools will be useful. A few of the CSD tags cited in the oppose section are on the edge, and a few may be (minor) mistakes, but I see no egregious lapses in judgement. I also like the calm and civil manner in which the candidate has responded to the criticisms.
'''Support'''—A net positive.
'''Support''' - Most likely, he will not [[WP:DDMP|delete the main page]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales block Jimbo].
'''Support''' as someone I've seen around, who is intelligent, articulate, and courteous. I've thought very hard about the opposes. I have a ''lot'' of respect for WereSpiel's views about RfA, and I think the discussion is a useful reminder of the hazards of too-rapid CSD, but I see the issue as something where the candidate has had this pointed out, has learned from it, and won't keep making the same mistakes. Some of the other opposes seem to me to be piling on or nitpicking. --
'''Support''' - Seems ready.
'''Weak Support''' - Though Wifione's mainspace contributions are lacking to what I prefer and he's had some issues with his CSD taggings, but from what I've seen the candidate knows his shortcomings and is willing to work with them. That kind of admirable trait lends me to support instead of being neutral.
'''support''' I see little in the oppose category to worry me, and largely solid contributions.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing in the opposes to sway me. I'd be concerned about someone who was misusing the speedy tag but that really doesn't seem to be the case here, as the candidate has been able to offer perfectly reasonable explanations for a number of the cited examples. I've seen his/her work around and the candidate has always been a pleasure to deal with. (And for what little it's worth, per oppose #10, I love the candidate's signature).
'''Support'''. ''His sig seems too elaborate'' is one of the worst possible reasons for opposing an RfA I think I've seen; I am hoping that user was joking. In any case, a minor percentage of mistakes at CSD are acceptable, as long as the admin has a good attitude about accepting errors and userfying/undeleting articles; while I am usually a stickler for the [[WP:GNG]], an adherence to SNGs as a support to that sways me far in his favor: it's these sorts of liberal attitudes that help admins to smooth over issues. As long as we realize policy is ''important'', it doesn't have to overrule the ''good of the encyclopedia''. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I have some concerns on the CSd, but besides that, everything is ok.
'''Support''', a good candidate who will be a net positive on balance, I am happy to assume they have learnt from CSD issues and will not rush in that area. ---'''
'''Support''' - Wifione has always struck me as an thoughtful and intelligent editor, and I regard his aptitude for making newcomers feel welcome as a great positive for the project; certainly it played a part in my deciding to hang around. While I find the opposes pertaining to speedy deletion tagging quite legitimate, I am sure that he will take the advice below on-board, and ''given that'', I do not believe the past errors are sufficiently egregious or numerous to warrant delaying adminship.  Oh, and the answer to question 8 is fantastic.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''' Clearly a competent editor, no major issues, so no reason to oppose.
per Q8,and general demeanour in this RFA and elsewhere. ''
'''Support''' No objections.
'''Support''' although I prefer poetry to scan as well as rhyme - but I can live with that in an admin.
'''Support''' - Yes there are a few minor concerns about CSD, content creation and lack of experience in some areas, but this candidate is clearly competent. If nothing else, the candidate has demonstrated during this RfA that he is willing to accept criticism and make appropriate adjustments.
[[File:Pictogram voting keep.svg|20px]] '''Support''': I'd like to see some more edits, but the rest seems fine, so why not? —
''Support'' Seems competent and willing and safe, which is really all we ask for. The pointless opposes about his signature, which is perfectly legible (unlike one or two above here) will, I trust, be discounted by the closing 'crat. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Yes, user is very polite (at least to me) both on and off-wiki, i see no reason to oppose really. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support'''. Anybody who can write poetry like that just for an RfA is obviously dedicated (or very bored!). ;) All things considered, I think he'll be a net positive.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No indications whatsoever that this editor wouldn't be a responsible and conscientious admin. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. Many of the opposers do raise some valid observations, and I expect that the candidate will take them into account going forward.
'''Support''' per retired professor.
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable guy with a clue.--''
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
[[File:Artículo bueno.svg|16px]]'''Support''' Every messes up, every one needs a chance... So why not?? --
'''Support'''. Seems to exhibit plenty of goodwill and competence, and a willingness to address areas of personal weakness. Might not become a "super admin" (right away, anyway), but this user seems likely to be able to contribute productively to a number of areas, which is really the key thing in my opinion. I'm not exactly ''enthused'' by the flamboyant signature, but I did some checking around and noticed that those can actually be changed, amazingly. -
'''Support'''. Not convinced by anything I read in the Oppose section. Seems to possess clue. Signature doesn't bother me. --
'''Oppose''' Candidate himself admits that his content creation and dispute resolution are both weak. Administrators need to be able to ''relate'' to the users whom they may be blocking, to understand what goes into an edit war and prompts page protection. Go get some experience and come back in six months. We've certainly had enough candidates recently who've excelled compared to this candidate in one or both areas, no need to rush this candidate before he's really ready.
'''Oppose''' Question #6.

Reluctantly, '''oppose'''. A lot of good work in important areas, but content creation is a ''big'' stumbling block. Of the [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Wifione&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 251 articles created], over 200 are orphaned sub-stubs like [[Qadirabad Village|this]]. The best articles  I could find were [[Houthoff Buruma]], which was left in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houthoff_Buruma&oldid=377076531 this form] by Wifione and expanded by another editor, and [[Central Council of Homoeopathy]], which has a similar story having started life like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Council_of_Homoeopathy&oldid=337761302 this]. Creating very poor articles on notable topics and failing to improve them isn't what I want to see from an admin candidate, I'm afraid. Come back in six months having sorted out some of those 251 articles and I'll probably support.
Echoing the above, I personally feel that working at a higher level in quality content is a must for admins; it's not about X number or quantity, just some evidence of quality building. <sup>{[[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|explanation]]}</sup> -<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose.'''  Concerned about the liberal CSD tagging mentioned above, some of which occurred in the past few weeks.--''
'''Oppose''' per CSD concerns. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
I doubt I would have supported off the back of CSD (an area you stated that you would work in), but Q6 tipped the scales too far for a weak support or neutral. The sorts of sub guidelines you mention are not intended to be considered independently of the GNG. They are routinely used at AfD by field-specific editors to protect articles that fall a long way short of the GNG; the sheer volume of field-specific keep voters gives admins very little option to close as delete, even if consensus among uninvolved editors is to do so. In this situation, the furthest they can go is "no consensus", with a rationale explaining that they think that a broader spectrum of editors might have found consensus to delete. To go further and state that you ''agree'' that these articles should be kept despite failing GNG is a deal breaker for me. --
'''Oppose''' In addition to the good points made above, when I sampled I found that he created a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Stitzer&oldid=325562680 poorly sourced BLP] of a high-profile person without following through.  And his sig seems too elaborate.
'''Weak Oppose''' Per CSD issues.--
Partly per WFC; I also agree that many editors give too much weight to project-specific notability guidelines and I can't agree that articles whose subjects do not meet the GNG should exist. Also, some suspect speedy tags and lack of quality content. Unfortunately, we don't give out mops for poetry skills, or you'd already have one!
'''Oppose''' CSD concerns and severe lack of article building. Per above mostly except for Gigs.
'''Oppose''' Though I really would ''like'' to support - the large amount of CSD work appears not to be correlated with any XfD work, making any comments as to "notability" a bit of a problem. I would have liked to have seen actual comments at XfD concerning criteria for deletion other than just CSD.  I am also concerned about stub creation as a main source of adding articles to WP. In my experience,  the amount of work needed to make a "real article" should not be a deterrent.  IMHO, some significant experience in XfD discussions is valuable. I also tend to agree with Jclemens about broader WP experience being quite useful.
'''Oppose''' Help Desk regulars may know that I hate complex signatures, and this is a prime example of one. You use it to associate a post with a name. It doesn't have to be a work of modern art. But there are other things wrong with this nom as well. You have to be crazy to nominate yourself with the type of content you have created -- mostly one-line stubs. I want to see an admin with more content under their belt: at least a good article or two. I've found one article of real substance ([[Indian Institute of Planning and Management]]), and even that has a bunch of issues with NPOV, sourcing and whatnot. On the topic of experience, I just don't think you have been here long enough to be an administrator. You seem to have a fondness for non-admin closing AfDs, but as far as I can tell you stay away from actually commenting on them. So my only guide to your deletion policy experience is your CSDs, which I have to agree with other editors that it's evident you exercise little judgement before mashing the Twinkle button. And you say that you are weak at disputes -- so what the hell '''ARE''' you planning to do? Images? Finally, Q6, Q6, Q6. You cannot pass a sub-guideline, not pass the general guideline, then have an article. It's just ludicrous. If you're planning to thankspam when this passes, I don't want any.
'''Oppose'''. Anyone who considers that their best contributions to wikipedia have been their csd nominations and uaa reports and puts him or herself forward for the cloak of invulnerabity has my undying contempt.
'''Oppose''' per CSD work, and almost non-existent record of creation of proper content. Learn the criteria for SD forwards, backwards, and sideways, and write a GA/FL/FA, and then run again.
'''Oppose''' I believe that editors should write some valid content in the encyclopedia with a few exceptions, most of the articles created by the editor are just nanostubs, I feel like supporting to cancel out some of the omg long signature votes, but I can't. Too inexperienced Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Per Alzarian and Der W. This is something I feel rather strongly about: I've opposed otherwise strong candidates before ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2|here]], for eg) over this same thing. I can't help but wonder that these left-behind stubs get done primarily in an attempt to answer the "creating content" thing at RfA. Quality matters over quantity every time and that goes for the entire encyclopedia and for individual content building. And for the latter, done preferably by adding substantially to stubs rather than, say, knocking oneself out over a single article for a star in the top right corner. And incidentally, the name is by me a bit unfortunate: I come from a long-before WiFi era and so can't help seeing it as pronounced "Whiffy-one." Soz.
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned with the lack of content work at a higher level (not x number of FAs, GAs etc, but evidence that you have worked at that level, either alone or collaboratively, either creating or reviewing). With the ability to block editors, delete pages and protect pages during edit wars, as well as deal with the confrontations that may follow, I feel experience in this area is essential. I'm also concerned with some of the CSD tagging brought up and the fact that you seem to think that CSD A7 is about ''notability'' rather than a claim of "importance or significance". --
'''Oppose''' User has made ~4500 non-automated edits, I agree WP is not a numbers game but this coupled with the low standard of created articles makes me think this User is not experienced enough with article fundamentals. As pointed out previously, 180 edits to [[The Indian Institute of Planning and Management]] (4% of this user's non-automated contributions) without resolving the two tagged issues which have been present for over 9 months. If these issues were fixed this could have been an easy(ish) target for GA before RfA nomination
'''Oppose''' It wasn't that long ago that Wifione was suspended on the ACC tool for not staying up to date on the changes in a single policy. I can't support someone who must know many, many policies if they cannot stay on top of the changes in just one. I realize that policies don't tend to change much, but it doesn't inspire confidence either way.--
'''Oppose''' lack of content contributions. Don't require a GA/FA, but do require some writing of an encyclopedia besides sub-stubs. -
'''Oppose''' - would like to see more content building and more non-automated editing.
'''Neutral'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. CSD tagging needs to very tight.
'''Neutral''' I'm seeing concerns on both opposing and supporting, I may ask a question later.
'''Neutral''', user appears to be productive and well intentioned, and there's no indication they'd misuse the tools.  Normally, that'd be enough to put me in the 'Support' column.  On the other hand though, a lot of the CSD tagging is sloppy at best.  It's not enough to make me oppose, but I can't support, sorry.
'''Neutral'''. I really have misgivings about commenting on this RfA at all, because Wifione graciously gave me unsolicited support at my own RfA. I don't do ''[[quid pro quo]]'', so I must comment on what I know. Note that this is being posted in the Neutral section.<p>I sincerely do believe Wifione holds promise as an administrator, but I'm not certain about his readiness. I fully admit that my point of view includes unfair bias on my part due to recent memories. [[Indian Institute of Planning and Management]] had suffered from an onslaught of sockpuppet whitewashing ([[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey/Archive|see investigation]]) just before Wifione appeared there as a single-purpose account seemingly intent on including arguably promotional information and challenging every source that reported negative information, to the point where Wifione [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_39#User:Wifione_and_The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management|had to address a conflict of interest]] earlier this year, partly based on observed edits from suspicious IP addresses on both his[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wifione&diff=prev&oldid=321143639] and my[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&diff=prev&oldid=335033443] talk pages. That fairly recent history underlies my personal bias.<p>However, I also can assume that Wifione has acted in good faith. From that low point I described, I have seen Wifione redeem himself, growing into a productive Wikipedian, spreading out to multiple subjects, making positive contributions, becoming someone I would be pleased to collaborate with on just about any article. I think, if this RfA had appeared six months ago, I'd have opposed it. Six months from now, I'd likely give it my full support. But now, given Wifione's answers to some of the questions above (gotta give points for the poetry, though!), I find myself thinking that a bit more experience is in order, so I am comfortably settled into the "neutral" position. ~
'''Support''' - extremely productive and trustworthy user.
'''Support''' - Experienced editor (clean block log over 3 years exp). Im not a template man myself, but i like the dedication and patience. I see only a net benefit here at adding the additional tools.
'''Support'''... very prolific user. --
'''Support''' Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' Sure. '''
'''Support'''. Trusted, experienced, and wants to help in admin-short areas. The protected edit requests could certainly use the help of someone with WOSlinker's template knowledge.
'''Support''' linky linky linky '''
'''Support''' - dedicated and knowledgable user who will benefit from the tools. Best of luck,
'''Support''' Another wonderful and helpful user in the recent string of RfAs. His experience dealing with templates will benefit the project greatly. No other issues; user has over 100,000 edits and clearly knows what is going on. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Tyrenius|experienced, knowledgeable, specialist admin candidate]] who will benefit the project.
'''Support''' No issues here. I'm amazed that you have not lost it after doing over [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/WOSlinker 120,000 edits]!--
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Templates are a time consuming, yet important part of Wikipedia.  This project could use an administrator devoted to template development.
Looking forward to your help with the editprotected templates. <span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Support''' - a template specialist with > 100,000 edits; appears knowledgeable & trustworthy--
'''Support''' - it must be frustrating to make so many edits and so many contributions without the ease of the admin tools. -
'''Support''' Seems sane enough for the job.
'''Support''' Extremely productive and does not appear to be at risk of misusing tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' because I can<!-- vote -->, but more importantly, because he can<!-- be an admin -->. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TCNSV|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]]
'''Support''' obviously qualified.
'''Support''' no problem suporting  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' This would appear to be a "slam dunk".
RfA is broken. There are too many high quality RfAs open at the moment. In all seriousness, an easy support for me. Looks like the Signpost article had some success.--
'''Support'''. WOSlinker is an excellent editor and the answers give no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools.
'''Strong support''' per WOSlinker's template syntax knowledge. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
WOSlinker would be an extremely valuable administrator, with his strong technical expertise. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
Quiet, helpful, dedicated editor. Plenty of clue, great with templates. No cause for concern. –
'''Support''' longterm useful editor with a clean block log, deleted contributions look good to me as well. Just the sort of good candidate I was hoping to tempt forth with that signpost article. ''
We seem to be having a slew of fantastic candidates. This one is highly prolific and would be very helpful as an admin.
'''Support''' - don't see any issues with this candidate at all.
'''Support''' per above. Templates are not an area I know much about, but I'm sure he or she will be of help.

'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support''' &ndash; Very good contributions, long-term editor, will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' - I despise [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]] but any editor who has nearly 130,000 contributions and zero blocks is impressive. Excellent answers to questions and an admin focused on templates would be nice to have ([[WP:TFD]] can get backed up sometimes). -- '''
'''Support''' Okay, the tree shaking is working.  We seem full of good candidates lately!
'''Support'''
Looks fine. '''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Strong Support''' - This is refreshing, I hope this softens the hard driving "you must be an Author" to be an Admin. I also dabble with templates hope to see you around and the best of luck.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - No concerns from me. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' Varied and lengthy experience? Yes. Empty block log/no civility issues? Yes. Wants to work in heavy-backlog area? Yes. What more can we ask for?
'''Support''' It seems that giving the candidate admin tools would enable them to contribute more, and more easily - given the already impressive contributions, this can only be a positive for the candidate, and for the project. &nbsp;
'''Support''', have experienced firsthand lots of positive contributions from this candidate over time. -- '''
'''Support''', Wikipedia will only benefit from having him as admin. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. No red flags. I respect Jclemen's ''oppose'' rationale, but respectfully disagree: I've messed up more than my fair share of {{tlx|editprotected}} requests on templates, and a template specialist like WOSlinker (40640 edits to templates alone! Blimey!) would be a welcome addition to Team Mop.
Template work == need for tools.
'''Support''' – Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Not only would do very well with adminship, but needs the flag to work with protected templates. Have worked with the candidate and have no reservations. --'''
'''Support''' Some RfAs fail because of a low edit count. On that basis  128,000+ must be meaningful. Of these over one third are template related. This editor has got to be an asset to the project, and really, really should have the mop and bucket. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' No probs here. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support'''. I rest comfortably knowing the tools will be put to good use in his hands. --
'''Support''' Easy decision.
'''Support''' - A fine editor with a clear commitment to making the encyclopedia a better place. Impressive work! (I find myself having to restrain harsh language regarding the reasoning of the first oppose.) Best wishes to you always, WO!
Sure. Won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I think JClemens makes a good point below - for any borderline candidates that ever wanted to run, this Chicken Little era is certainly the time. That said, I looked over this candidate's talk page and some other stuff, and I'm confident they will make a fine administrator. Pleased to support this candidacy.
'''Support''' Among other reasons, as per Mlpearc (#42). Nothing to do with countitis, but anyone who has clocked up 40,000 edits on templates and posted a further  2,000 messages talking about it must know what they are doing. This is hardly a borderline case - at least not yet.--
'''Support''' no issues as far as I'm concerned, should be fine.
'''Support''' – Committed to the encyclopedia and the tools will make his work more productive. No reservations. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Always seems to be doing something to improve the encyclopedia, whether the task is large or small. —'''''
'''Support''' as a net positive.
'''Support'''. The number of years as an editor and his sheer number of edits demonstrate that WOSlinker will be a good admin.--''
'''Support''' - looks fine.
'''Support''' I see no issues here. '''
'''Support''' I have seen many edits and never had a problem with any of them. WOSlinker's dedication to the project is well documented and tools will help make editing easier. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support:''' He's a solid editor, a fine template guy, lots of edits, clean block log, and so forth. Nor is he verbose, giving clear but minimalist responses to the questions so far. - A breath of fresh air. -
'''Support''', you don't need to be an artist to work in an art gallery.
'''Support'''. I am sympathetic to the points raised by Chzz in neutral #1, but I'm satisfied with the record as it exists already. The opposes do not convince me, and I'm happy to support. --
'''Support''' A helpful editor. Great with templates. Regards,
'''Support''' - and he's right, we do need more admins.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits (over 29,000!), four years' experience, Rollback rights, WikiGnome, etc.  Only minus is the user page, but nobody's perfect.
'''Support''' - Seems like a hardworking editor who understands what he's doing...
'''Support''' I changed my mind we need more specialist adminstrators.
'''Support''' I was initially inclined to go neutral or even oppose based on WHY? But I think this is an exceptional case and "WHY?" is outweighed by WHY NOT?
'''Support''' Anyone with the Wikipedia bug can't be half bad for adminship.
'''Support''' Why not? --
'''miss the cutoff support'''
'''Oppose''' I've seen no reasons given for adminship. Yes, he's a fine template guy, lots of edits, clean block log, and so forth.  He's also been asked almost no questions, given entirely minimalist responses to the questions so far, and has little actual content creation. It is my considered opinion that too many of the "YESS!!!1!!!!" voters are swayed by recent grousing on [[WT:RFA]] and are abdicating their responsibilities to thoroughly investigate candidates.
<s>You</s> Jclemens most certainly <s>have</s> has a point, and it appears to have swayed me. ~~
'''Oppose''' Uncertain content creation record '''
'''Oppose''' Why?
'''Neutral''' I'd like to see some evidence of ability to discuss and evaluate the more difficult areas, either through examples from the past, or from questions raised in this RfA;  I do appreciate the need re. template work, but with no unbundling, I need more dialogue to evaluate the candidate, in terms of their ability to apply reason and to comprehend policies, guidelines, consensus. Maybe some diffs / links to discussion would sway me to support; possibly I should do the digging myself, but the sheer number of contribs to look through puts me off a bit! I will try to revisit this later though, and see how things are going. I also dislike excessive questions in RfA, but at the moment, this one is too spartan...IMHO. Maybe I will add a q. myself later, if other discussions do not appear. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to be the first one, but you only have 37 edits to project space and your answers are definitely not impressive; even though you've been here a long time, I fear you're not experienced enough to be handed the mop; I'd suggest you to get more involved with the behind-the-scene aspects of Wikipedia and come back in a couple of months. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''. I feel that with your number of edits, and the RfA template wasn't fill out fully, templates are important in an admin's job, and taking your time to do things fully and properly is important as well. I agree with Salvio, that more behind-the-scene aspects need to be learned. --
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW]].  You clearly do not have enough experience to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, [[WP:NOTNOW|I don't think you're ready for adminship]]. Also, your edit summary use stands at only 11%, which is very poor (IMO). Get some more experience, try doing some 'backstage' work and come back again (hopefully with a better edit summary usage!) :).
'''Oppose''' per your lack of experience. There even isn't a nom. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but after seeing your editing history (particularly in project space) and your responses to the above questions, it's obvious to me that you do not have sufficient experience to justify handing you the admin tools at this time. But please don't let this discourage you; I'm sure you'll make a great candidate for adminship at some point in the future. --
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]'''. The fact that you mentioned "speedy deletion debates" and misused the term "ban" instead of "block" leads me to believe you don't yet have the experience necessary to be an administrator. Work in various areas a bit, contribute some content, etc., and I will be happy to support you in a future RfA. --
'''Not now''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Registered <1 month ago. Reverting vandalism and nominating articles for speedy deletion doesn't require adminship. As Shirik mentioned CSD's are not debated so you might want to get some more experience before trying again.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A1234r00t&action=historysubmit&diff=363100275&oldid=362938211 What he said]. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works yet, and this is an environment where you need to learn to walk before you can run.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Maybe later'''. You're obviously off to a good start, but I don't think you yet have the technical knowledge of what an administrator does nor the policy knowledge of how they do it. Adminship isn't easy and it's not a trophy or a symbol of power, but a position of trust. Show us you can be trusted (that takes time) and we'll support you. :)
Sorry, you've nowhere near enough experience to gain the community's trust right now. But please try again later.
Unfortunately, since we have no way to see what your previous contributions have been as an IP, there's no way to gauge if you can be trusted with the tools. You'll need to get a few thousand edits and several months under this account before the community will have enough data to make a decision. &nbsp;--
'''Support'''.  At first, I was somewhat hesitant to support this user because of their somewhat low amount of time spent active recently, but after examining 28bytes's editing, I am confident that s/he will do well as an administrator.  Not only does 28bytes have a lot of quality content work through the strong DYK work, s/he also demonstrates good knowledge in the policy area.  One place where this particularly stood out was at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't]], where 28bytes made several extremely well-informed comments in dealing with the author of the article up for deletion.  If there is one area that makes or breaks an administrator, it is being able to respond to problems that crop up in an intelligent and efficient fashion.  Best of luck to you, 28bytes! '''
Very strong self-nomination demonstrates a sound understanding of policy and process which leads me to believe that this user can be trusted with the admin bit despite the lack of experience relative to other recently successful adminship candidates.
'''Support''', I see no issues whatsoever. Good blend of decent content edits and intelligent contributions to a variety of Wikipedia-space discussions. Sufficient experience, I think. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Weak support''' for now. Short activity period is a potential problem, but it's positive to see a contributor with the initiative to find and fix a content issue. Absent someone else finding anything problematic, I see nothing wrong.
'''Support''' When I ran in September 2008, I had just [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/SoWhy started editing seriously in May 2008], so I cannot oppose anyone with a similar track record because I know full well that it's possible to have sufficient knowledge to understand and pass RFA with a short track record (and if you believe some people, you can be a very good admin with that track record {{=)|wink}}). 28bytes has a good track record of content edits and policy knowledge and I did not see anything really that might be concerning when checking their contributions. If this request is successful, I would though advise that you request a more experienced admin to mentor you before handling speedy deletion requests. It's a pretty tricky area and I would feel more comfortable if you did not try tackling it without someone to assist you. Judging by the clueful edits I have seen so far I AGF that you will, so that will not stop me from supporting. Regards '''
'''Support''' - I see no reason why he shouldn't be an admin - he hasn't done anything recently to show that he'd abuse the tools, and it's just adminship (as opposed to a big deal).
'''Support''' - I found discussions reasonable and constructive, --
'''Support''' - Works well in deletion discussions and shows AGF. The work at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't]] really impressed me, as Malinaccier notes above. Also has good experience in content areas and anti-vandalism. Overall, 28 bytes seems like a well-rounded candidate with nice expereince, making up for his shortish time here.
'''Support'''. I see a good candidate with solid contributions, and have no problems with handing over the bit. As to the short span of active editing, I can only note that I had a similar span of really active editing before going to RFA (and passing). The quality of edits is critical - and, in this case, that quality is good enough for me.
I was considering nominating you myself. --
I was only active (500+ non-auto edits) about a month and a half before self-nomming and becoming an admin. I like to think I turned out okay. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. I strongly believe whether a user should be an admin or not depends on the quality of their edits and what they would do with admin powers, not the length of time editing. 28bytes has clearly demonstrated this. [[User:Samwb123|Samwb123]]<sup>

Should be fine.
Shows clue and no bright red flags pop up. Experience level is fine. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
He should be successful on this RFA.
'''Support''' I don't see any major issues.
'''Support''' I see no problems. Has been doing a great job at DYK and I'm satisfied with 28's experience level. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I believe an candidate should be judged on their overall attitude and demonstrated good intentions with the edits they have made, rather than experience in specific areas. Most admin tasks require common sense, a willingness to help and complete neutrality. After reviewing a sample of 28bytes' contributions, they have adequately demonstrated this with their activities over the last few months. --''§''
'''Support''' will do fine.
'''Support''' has been doing good work at DYK, which needs a workaholic admin. Also, strongly support answer given to '''Q.8''' above.
clue. dyk help. clue. ''
HJ in the oppose section: "Adminship is a tough role that requires you to draw upon significant experience." No, it really isn't, and the notion that it is frightens me. You can delete articles, you can protect articles, and you can block editors. Deleting articles is an easy call 95% of the time, protecting is an easy call 99% of the time, and blocking is an easy call 95% of the time. There's no reason a good editor like 28bytes can't learn on the job by doing the easy tasks, doubly so when their interest is in DYK, which can be picked up relatively easily. I learned almost everything I know about adminship after I was given the tools &ndash; I had never done speedy deletions, rarely participated at AfD, never did anything at SSP (now SPI), and only posted at ANI when I was a party (so one section's worth). Despite this, I'd like to think I have done a decent job.
Per Ed. When I started participating in RFA in 2006, three months was the standard. There's nothing that's happened since that makes me think we had the wrong standard then. Do I trust 28bytes with the tools? Yes, I do.--
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Weak Support''' I like Eds words above which i find sums up things nicely. For our candidate though, This is a hard working editor with positive intentions for the project and would be a benefit as an admin HOWEVER, Editing history is too short. I really count only 4 and a half months of active participation, therefore my support should be judged as weak, but I do encourage You, to re-apply in some time and give another go. I think many will look at you much differently with a longer editing track. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' He has Reviewer, Rollbacker and Autopatrolled rights, which therefore, knows the inclusion and expansion policies, and hasn't notably misused rollback. I'm sure he'll do fine with the extra buttons despite the four year break.
'''Support''' I don't really see that your relatively short period of "activity" is an issue, unless there are reasonable grounds to doubt your trustworthiness (I can't see any). Clearly you are a committed contributer and a responsible editor, the answers you gave to the questions put forward showed that you are an intelligent individual with the ability to rationalise and engage with others in a personable manner. I don't see that 'a few months more editing' will make you a more suitable candidate for Adminship. That being said; if you were granted the tools, I would like to see an equal amount of your time dedicated to tackling the usual Admin backlogs at CSD, AIV, UAA as well as monitoring the Admin noticeboard.
'''Support''' The supporting rationales seem so much more persuasive and sensible, so I'll stick my name here.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of  edits, sufficient WP edits, reviewer, rollbacker, etc.  I do not consider leaving and coming back to be a serious issue.
'''Oppose''' – Sorry about this. <s>WP:NOTNOW</s>. Your account lay dormant for four years after it was created. You've only been active since August ''this year''. Out of your 6,400 edits, <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?user=28bytes&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end= almost 3,000 (i.e. 45%)]</span> were automated; meaning you've only made about 3,500 edits yourself. I'm sure you're trustworthy, but there is no where near enough edit history to prove it. Sorry. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Reluctant but strong oppose'''. You've only been active for 3 months (20 edits/month isn't what I'd call active) and RfAs for candidates with similar tenure have been open and shut within an hour. To invoke NOTNOW is a little insulting to a candidate who has 6k edits and has been granted reviewer, rollback and autoreviewer permissions, but 3 months is not enough experience for adminship. Adminship is a tough role that requires you to draw upon significant experience. You want to work at AIV, but have made only 31 edits there, along with just 8 to AN and, if you have made any to RfPP, UAA or ANI, they're so few that they don't show up on X!'s tool. All in all, you have very little experience outside of article writing and DYK, both of which give you valuable experience, but you don't have the breadth of experience I look for in a potential admin.
'''Oppose''' <s>[[WP:NOTNOW]]</s> Not enough experience to make me comfortable supporting. <font color="00ff00">
I happen to think the article in question 6 does closely paraphrase the source. It's not obvious copy-pasting, but a number of consecutive sentences are largely the same. I picked that example because the candidate placed that nomination in the prep area. No big deal for me though, it's very difficult to pin down a clear view on close paraphrasing and it's not a very clear case (watch now: a number of editors will probably come along and disagree it's close paraphrasing). But DYK and other main page areas are places that need a lot more scrutiny at the moment from experienced admins who will keep a better eye out for close paraphrasing, dodgy sources and BLP violations: see the mini-essay on my user page. I don't think you have the experience at the moment to fulfil this role, I'm sorry. Also, per HJMitchell, a bit more experience in other areas would be useful given the breadth of the admin toolset. --
'''Oppose''', concerns raised regarding issues surrounding experience are significant. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia, but you don't have the requisite experience yet to go for the mop, in my opinion. Don't hesitate to return, though, when you've racked up some more time here.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Your contributions look good, but I agree that you require more experience in other areas. I would recommend you wait six to nine months before trying another RfA.
'''Oppose''' per MarmadukePercy.
'''Reluctant oppose,''' per MarmadukePercy.
'''Oppose''' - You seem like a productive Wikipedian, but I'm not confident that you have enough experience.  I'd be willing to reconsider at a later date.  --'''
I consider DYK to be a different project from Wikipedia, one with a fundamentally different culture and goals. Inexperience on the main project compels me to oppose.
I think HJ Mitchell had an excellent rationale, so I am stealing it. ~~
Almost nothing to projectspace/projecttalkspace. Candidate has been active for a few months, certainly not enough to be familiar with most of the project (evidenced by, well, the lack of projectspace edits!) Not right now. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience in administrative areas. -'''
'''Reluctant oppose''' – Although I see you with the best of intentions, and your answers to your questions are adequately answered, I do not yet feel that you have enough experience in the areas you wish to work in, excluding DYK, of course. I also echo MarmadukePercy's thoughts—come back in maybe six months with more experience. I look forward to supporting you in the future. <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-color:#000000;">—'''mc10 (<font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' - Track record isn't fresh enough in context of all of the above.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience shown. Self-nominating after barely three months of unexceptional/regular activity with no evidence of dispute resolution or consensus building, doesn't indicate a clear understanding of how the community thinks. Candidate appears from comments to be a reasonable and intelligent person, and at this stage I would hope would withdraw from this RfA, get involved in helping out in dispute resolution, clearing backlogs, and doing various other maintenance and consensus building activities for at least six months, then apply again. This is a fairly clear [[WP:NOTNOW]] based on almost total lack of previous activity. The user boxes on 28bytes userpage indicating long service on Wikipedia are extremely misleading to the point where someone might reasonably consider their use to be deceptive. I would suggest 28bytes to remove the Experienced user box, as that should only be displayed by someone who has 18 months '''service''' (a stale, unused account is not "service"). For a number of people, myself included, you are a [[Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users|new user]], regardless of when you registered your account. It is active use of the account that we consider, not the date it was registered. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose'''. A look at this user's edits show them to be courteous, highly active (recently) and experienced in areas which desperately need admin attention. The main question seems to be over his/her long break from editing. Now, if this was immediately following (or within a couple of months) of a user's return, I would most probably oppose on those grounds. Policies and guidelines shift massively over time, and an administrator has tools that require knowledge of a fair few of them, particularly in relation to the "delete" button - notability guidelines, particularly those relating to BLPs, are the guidelines most constantly and regularly in flux. Four or five months of activity is easily enough to get a grip on most of them, and none of this user's highly intelligent and verbose answers to the questions indicate, to me, that he/her does not have such a grip. The issue is over experience. While 28bytes may be experienced in DYK and other areas, the tools (as mentioned) cover a wide swathe of ground. I would expect to see much of this ground well-trodden by the user in question before I could support. Please don't take this as a bad thing; get some more experience, reapply in six months, and I can see nothing which would prevent me from giving a strong support.
'''Oppose''' Although a Wikipedian since 2006, the candidate has been highly active only since September of this year. That is simply not enough time. You are on the right path, but another 6 months to a year of experience is needed.--
'''Reluctant oppose.''' Give it a few more months and I'm sure you'll breeze past your next RfA. Regards, ~~
'''Oppose''' I want to support you, I really do, but at the same time, I feel I can't. Some people say a year, some say nine months, some say six. Personally, I'd just as easily go with six months, but three just is too little time. If you run again after, say, 1 March 2011, and you haven't exploded or done anything reprehensible, I see no reason why I wouldn't support you. <span style="text-shadow:#458B00 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Oppose''' with moral support - Per Sven Manguard. Also, you said you want to take part in CSD work, but only have 25 deleted edits. At maximum, therefore, you have only tagged 25 articles for CSD.
'''Reluctant oppose''' - Like Fetchcomms and Fastily have said, I don't think you have enough experience in ''administrative'' areas. I do think you are still an excellent editor, just not sysop material ''yet''.
'''Reluctant oppose''' - As per Sven Manguard ''et al.'', your record looks good so far, I see no reason you couldn't be confirmed with a few more months experience. - '''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em">
'''Neutral'''- I can see by your answers to the questions that you are thoughtful and intelligent, but still I'd like to see a few more months of experience. I have no doubt that if you try again in February or March that you can succeed.
'''Neutral''' Your edits and answers show that you are an intelligent and committed editor, and i would have no trouble in principle supporting. But you must/should have realised that you would generate significant numbers of oppose votes based purely on experience and understanding concerns - based on your activity level and edit count. This suggests to me that you are well read in the policy of the project. But perhaps less aware of the more "messy" realities of everyday life on wikipedia. I reserve the right to strike this vote and support (or oppose!) if you convince me otherwise during this rfa, but at present I fell you need to understand the community aspects of wikipedia a little more thoroughly.
'''Neutral'''. Still undecided. --
'''Neutral'''&mdash;will most likely be a net positive, but I'd like to see a longer track record first. &mdash;'''
''' Support''' Vandal fighter and Civil User and feel the project only gains with the user having tools.See no scope for misuse of tools.
You seem to do a good job at fighting vandals, and the more people who help at AIV the better.  And your work with otter users (as you mentioned in Q2) is a plus.
{{ec}}<small>x2</small>'''Support''' sure. Knowledgable and helpful user; all experiences with him have been positive.
'''Support''' – Knowledgeable and experienced user. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Strong Support''' Great user, really knows what he's doing. Giving him the extra tools will majorly benefit the community. Keep up the good work! --<b><font color=red>[[User:ADH10|Addi]]</font><font color=blue>
'''Support''' While you've done a good job reverting vandalism, You seem to do a lot of cleanup of pagemove-vandalism according to your talk page contributions. I think you would do well with the mop.
Excellent User. Excellent Editor. Excellent Help. '''''Hell Yes'''''--
'''Support''' I see know need why admins need to be authors, this user exhibits good work, always remains civil and his work will only be improved by the mop.
'''Support''' - article writing is a fallacy, requiring users to be on Wikipedia for more than 1 year is also another fallacy, the concerns raised by the Opposers are valid but I trust this user's judgment to the extent that I trust them with the mop. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' trustworthy and capable editor
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support'''. While content creation is important, it's definitely not the most important thing. Lack of content creation doesn't show me how you would abuse the tools, so I have no reason to oppose.
'''Some support'''. I greatly appreciate the work you do fighting vandals, but seeing some content contributions would probably help me decide better how you know what is and isn't important for the encyclopedia. <small>(If non-admins are not allowed to vote in RfA's, feel free to remove this vote.)</small>
''' Support'''  No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Weak support'''. Do not have reason to oppose him. <span style="color: #FF4400">Arie Scheurwater</span> <sup>(
'''Moral support''' I think it's too soon, but I don't want you to be downhearted.  You're doing some good things, and you're clearly learning, and intend to be here to improve the encyclopaedia. I disagree with those who say you need to write a featured article (takes skill - I've never managed it) but I do think you could do with writing some content.  Pick a stub off NPP and add some references.  Hit random changes and see what you can add to whatever pops up.  --
'''Support''' Of course. He started in May, but I see no problem in that, as he's otherwise very active, friendly and trusted editor. Does a lot of different tasks here, such as patrolling. Not really much content work, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I strongly disagree with those who think that working with articles is so essential for adminship. '''''
'''Support'''. I've encountered him before and I believe that he is a responsible vandal fighter. I also agree with [[User:DARTH SIDIOUS 2]] above: "I strongly disagree with those who think that working with articles is so essential for adminship." <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''''''A very experienced user.Would be a good admin.
'''Support''' Speaking from a modestly long track record of interactions with this user, I am going to support him. It's too bad this thing is sunk before I even saw it, but I'm still going on the record with a support !vote. <span style="text-shadow:#8A360F 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
Candidate's talk page is mostly used for socializing. Per talk archive, as recently as a week ago candidate was having trouble even bringing his own signature into compliance with project best practices. Candidate is currently trying to push addition of busywork questions to RFA template. No thanks.
{{ec}}Although there aren't any specific problems ''per se'', I feel as if this user sees adminship as a trophy, and has been setting himself up for this for quite some time. Purely gut instinct. ''
'''Strong oppose''', and I'll be back with more diffs as needed.  As little as a month ago, an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Access_Denied/Archive_2&oldid=392985953#Gloucester.2C_Massachusetts IP had to contact Access] on his/her user talk to remind him that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gloucester,_Massachusetts&diff=next&oldid=389613912 this reversion] was incorrect (which Access corrected after the IP contacted him).  His talk page archives show a lot of similar. Access has no content creation whatsoever (highest edit count on any one article is 12 edits), but his/her user talk shows a limited understanding of vandal fighting in addition to the lack of content creation.  Five months on Wiki, half  dozen edits on any one article, is not enough time to evidence s/he is ready for the tools (it might be for an extraordinary editor, but hasn't been for Access).  Also seems to have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=395664616 crystal ball] that s/he would apply to blocks.  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Utahraptor 2|This RFA]] doesn't indicate Access understands the skill level needed in an admin.  More diffs evidencing immaturity can be found at ANI and WT:RFA if needed (just found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_204#Proposal_for_a_new_desysopping_procedure this one,] and wildly supporting a proposal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_204#New_RfA_procedure_proposal lower RFA standards] a few weeks before standing at RFA doesn't show particularly good judgment). Also, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Sound_Canvas&diff=377497825&oldid=377497812 Huggle revert,] only in August.  Come back in a year, with more experience Wikiwide, less unhelpful posts at ANI, and better evidence of, if not more than vandal whacking with tools, at least accurate vandal whacking (all IPs aren't vandals).  And a new sig.
'''Oppose''' per above. Lack of content creation, coupled with concerns with maturity and comprehension of policies and guidelines: (1) Cluelessness at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palo y hueso]]: "Because it's listed in IMDB it probably fails A7". Absolutely not. (2) [[User:Access Denied/Template:uw-rmwarning2|Subpage]] that goes against [[WP:REMOVE]].
'''Oppose'''. Concur with SandyGeorgia's assessment, particularly regarding concerns about maturity.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=394318830] On the positive side, Access Denied generally does good work in deletion, apart from the above-mentioned AfD, and a few other pages that could've been handled differently. Overall, I see a slight tendency towards reaching for the "XFD" button before actually trying to understand the subject. Regards, <code>
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with experience, judgement, policy knowledge, and maturity.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience to warrant the mop at this time, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced.
'''Oppose''', I do think AD could be a helpful admin one day, lack of content does not bother me, but still a little too much messing around. Take [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Access Denied/Fooled you]] which seems to be connected to a spoof "new message" box. A certain amount of experimenting can be tolerated early in a users time on wikipedia, but this was created only a couple of months ago. I would need to see a longer period pass without this sort thing.--
I don't care about content creation, but I do remember seeing various instances of cluelessness. I'll put up diffs if necessary.
'''Oppose''' No content creation makes me a sad Parrot. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
As far as I can tell, you literally have ''no'' content experience of any kind other than reverts, other than the creation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Before_the_Lobotomy&oldid=380625119 a sub-stub] which failed [[WP:NSONGS]] and was promptly removed, and have roughly as many edits to your own userpage as to the entire Talk: namespace. My usual argument applies: I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with when and why tempers can become heated, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. The repeated mentions of the fact that you intend to indefblock IPs (on five different occasions, so it's not a slip of the fingers) also show a glaring lack of clue as to how Wikipedia actually works, and in a field where a trigger-happy admin can do serious damage.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Lack of content-creation is a concern. Amassing edits through vandal-fighting with automated tools is, while undeniably useful, no substitute for creating, improving and occasionally defending content.--
'''Oppose''' Five months spent mostly in vandal fighting will likely result in a skewed notion of what this project is about. The concerns expressed above support that notion and I suggest that Access Denied seek out other areas so as to broaden his/her experience and vision of the project before reapplying. --
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced, No Content creation, viewing Adminship as a trophy. Doesn't know what Adminship is about.
"You have been blocked from editing. --Access Denied!" Clever name, but not to newbies. <small>(
'''Oppose''' Most edited article has 12 edits... which I assume are vandalism reverts. The candidate has never really been involved in any article aside from the single stub he created
'''Oppose''' Highly imature too recently.
'''Oppose''' at this point in time. It's early in the career of this editor whom I hope to see continue in wikipedia and stand for adminship at some time in the future. --
'''Oppose''', concerns about experience, maturity, and temperament. -- '''
'''Oppose''' with recommendation to withdraw.
'''Oppose''' At least some meaningful content creation is necessary; admin-related work is also limited. And answer to Q4 is wrong. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppoes''', good points raised by other opposers, but I was particularly put off by [[User_talk:Access_Denied/Archive_3#Hm...|this conversation]]. Firstly, everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding content work at RFA. However, you seem to be completely unaware of what makes some RFA voters value content work, dismissing it as a "silly idea that everyone needs to spend all their time on FA writing". That makes me think that you haven't read those kinds of opposes properly, or haven't really thought about where they come from. Secondly, it seems that you said that you avoid article writing for fear of being blocked for tendentious editing or edit warring. That's worrying. Thirdly, you talk about "the way-too-frequent situation of having a blatant G10 sit there all night". There is no reason for a blatant G10 to sit there all night if one editor has seen it. If you see a G10, you should blank it while waiting for it to be deleted. Great work on vandal-fighting, although I'd like to see you slow down a little to reduce some of the mistakes mentioned. I suggest getting some more experience around the project and either getting involved in content writing, or finding some other way to show that you are right for the tools.--
'''Regretful oppose''' While your vandal-fighting work is decent, I think you're trying to move up the ranks much too quickly. You're more like... a relatively new version of myself, in that you have barely any content creation, your maturity needs improving, and your policy knowledge needs improving. Try doing what I'm doing, get off of Huggle and try creating some content... whether it's creating a whole new article, adding a source to an article, or improving the wording of one. Media contributions could do you some good as well, like uploading pictures for articles that need them, that sort of stuff.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think you have the experience, maturity, and temperament I'd like to see in an admin candidate yet. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per SandyGeorgia.  Maturity concerns.
'''Oppose'''.  Some of the "not enough content creation" opposes at RfA have been known to irritate me, but there's a huge difference between that and "practically ''no'' content creation".  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' SandyGeorgia is persuasive here. This fella is not foreman material.
'''Oppose''' Per SandyGeorgia's very convincing arguments. I would also like to see this editor not only get a little more diverse experience but also be on the project for a little longer before being handed a mop. Having said that, please keep up the work vandal-fighting, just with a little more care.
'''Oppose''' and withdraw ASAP. --
'''Oppose''' More experience is needed with content creation, along with working on developing the right temperament to be an admin, maturity, broader and longer experience on Wikipedia, and a more well-rounded understanding of policies. These can all be developed in good time, so I would encourage you to work on them and try again in about a year.
'''Oppose.''' Rather inexperienced. Not ready for adminship. ~~
'''Oppose''' Drama firestorm. Amount of content creation is also unacceptable.
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. I love our RfA problem.
'''Neutral, leaning support'''. I've seen you around quite a lot, but most of your edits are reverting vandalism. I'm not sure the six months you've been here will be enough experience to prepare you for adminship. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral'''. I'm torn here. I see lots of good vandal-fighting, and peripheral cleaning up too. I see valid oppose reasons, but I would tend to see those as probably down to a bit of early over-enthusiasm coupled with inexperience - but at this stage I can't be sure. And I am a bit concerned over experience. I'm not much of an edit count stickler, but I see what looks like a big push for edits lasting just over a month, immediately followed by an RfA. So while the candidate has been here for 6 months, the bulk is very recent. I think a longer period of experience would be beneficial, and perhaps a bit of branching out to wider things. But I'm not sufficiently swayed to Oppose, and I can see myself supporting a future run in, say, 6 months time. --
'''Neutral''' - My first gut feeling was to support, but I'm not ready to do so until you've had a bit more experience. Thanks, '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose for now based on BLP concerns'''; see [[User talk:Access Denied#99.28.152.166 and Limuel B. Forgey III]]. While technically Access Denied was correct in warning<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.28.152.166&diff=395855196&oldid=395855041][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.28.152.166&diff=395855482&oldid=395855196]</sup> this IP for removing an AfD template, it sure looked to me as if the anonymous editor might be the actual subject of the article after reviewing the article's history, the AfD and the IP's edit history (as well as that of similar IPs). Whois and traceroute also indicate these IPs are located in same area as the article's subject. I think we owe it to the subjects of articles to err on the side of tact when dealing with them and our policy encourages this ([[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article]]). A good admin can maintain our standards for notability, conflict of interest and proper AfD behaviour with kindness and diplomacy. Not only that but an admin sets an example for other editors; I learned of this situation when another editor added a 4th warning<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.28.152.166&diff=395860233&oldid=395855482]</sup> on top of Access Denied's 2nd and 3rd level warnings, then took the IP to WP:AIV. The second editor later cited Access Denied's 2 warnings as precedent.<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards&diff=395870288&oldid=395863341]</sup> That's not exactly Access Denied's fault but it's an example of questionable judgment snowballing into an unfortunate situation; the added credibility that comes with adminship will give warnings and actions still greater weight. Finally, is it just me or do others find "Access Denied" an off-putting user name for an admin to use? --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral'''...my thoughts go along the same lines as Pepper's above...my gut instinct is to support, however experince level makes me hesitate attm. No doubt at some point after another few months experience under his belt he would make for a very good admin, but attm it is too soon, in my opinion. Not enough concern to make me oppose, but enough to make me not support. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Neutral''' because I see no need to pile on in what is obviously a failing effort. I've seen [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]] around a lot (haven't we all), and I think he's an asset to the project. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral'''&mdash;needs more experience and a boost of maturity. There are issues with subpages and interactions with IP addresses, which are outlined in the opposes. This is also not governed like a web forum; we do not block "trolls" per se. I don't see enough evidence to signal the potential for ''excessive'' misuse of the tools, but I certainly see a few opportunities for error. I also notice a trend of young student "vandal fighters"&mdash;they do not realize that there is more to adminship than fighting vandalism. How do you judge consensus? How long do you block? What is the main purpose of administrators? Why is Wikipedia here? There is nothing wrong with being a vandal fighter, and blocking tools will help in your endeavors, but with that tool comes many others that must be understood. Participate in more AfDs, policy discussions, and so forth &mdash; as someone who will be responsible for judging consensus and dealing with conflict, you should have experience in discussions beyond social loafing. &mdash;'''
I know you're a good editor, but the opposes raise up some eye raising concerns. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]]
'''Neutral''' - I see mostly good things and a couple bad things. I think you've learned a lot about WP and will make a good admin someday. I think it comes down to experience and time. Maybe come back in the spring and I'd be likely to support.
'''Neutral''' Something really doesn't sit right with me. This user has been very helpful though so I'm closer to supporting than opposing. <font color="00ff00">
Not wishing to pile on, and personally I've found the candidate to be a pleasent, well meaning editor who simply needs to get more "into" Wikipedia if they want the bits. Let's be fair - there's lots of good stuff here but the lack of content is even less than mine (and that's saying something) and there does seem to be a, well, desperation for the admin bits from almost day one of editing. I'd suggest the feedback from this RFA is taken positively, and as others above have suggested perhaps hitting "random article" and doing some fix up stuff, and generally trying to view the project more on it's net output (a clean, tidy, accurate and reasonably detailed learning resource). I'd suggest withdrawl at this time - I'm not sure you're going to get much more in the way of feedback that has not been said and I'm afraid this will clearly fail. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
User has not opted in to the edit counter stats: please create [[User:Addihockey10/EditCounterOptIn.js]]. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]].  Also almost all edits are being done with Huggle, and how is Wikipedia spelled?[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Addihockey10]
'''Oppose'''  You seem to be a net benefit to the community, but [[WP:NOTNOW|you're not ready]] to have the tools.  --'''
...there's something almost surreal about this RfA. Can't place what. But yeah, [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]] and all that.
'''Very weak oppose''' with very strong moral support. And a cookie. While I can see you do a very good job at vandal fighting and is obviously well trusted with rollback, you need a more well rounded experience. Again, I do sympthasise with you as I used to work in a similar way to you.
'''Oppose''' for the moment.  You do good work fighting vandals, but there's more to being an administrator than that.  It seems to me as though your contributions lie mostly in that realm, and a lot of them seem to be semi-automated.  I'd like to see more evidence of experience with [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] or involvement with other admin-related tasks, such as [[WP:AFD]] (since you mention speedy deletion as an area you'd like to take interest in; AfD obviously isn't quite the same, but taking part in discussions there would help demonstrate your grasp of deletion-related policies and guidelines).  Usually I also like to see some experience with article building, although a strong record in admin-related areas could overcome that.  Basically, some more breadth of experience would benefit you.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience first, in some other well-rounded capacities. -- '''
'''Weak oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You're a good and useful wikipedian and I really appreciate your fighting 'em vandals, but as someone else has already pointed out, your experience is not well-rounded yet. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. The candidate seems to have good intentions and overall is an asset to the community, but I don't see enough experience yet. Perhaps the candidate should work in a few other areas in order to gain additional experience and try later this year.
'''Moral support''' (but reluctant oppose) Give it until the end of the year and go up for an RFA again and you may very well pass. Also do some article writeing! That's what we are all here for correct?--
'''Oppose''' try again after you get some experience. Strengthen your cred's--
'''Strong oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Good work, but you need more experience.
'''Neutral''' Well, reverting vandalism is one way an administrator does; But there are many other aspects too, like protecting pages and deleting. I would highly suggest you take [[WP:Admin coaching]] before going any further.
'''Neutral''' Experienced in fighting vandalism, but not much else.  Even though I commented on another recent RfA that there's no requirement for candidates to be familiar with, or experienced in, all aspects of Wikipedia, you really need to expand your resume into other areas that may require Admin tools, such as [[WP:NPP|new page patrolling]] or [[WP:3O|third-opinion requests]].  At least minimal work in actual article creation would be very useful...it doesn't have to be [[WP:FA|a featured article]], or even [[WP:GA|qualify for "good" status]], but there needs to be some level of actual content creation.  (Yeah, I know, I'm a fine one to talk!)  As for the use of Huggle, I've also commented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tide_rolls&diff=362002928&oldid=362002198 elsewhere] on that, and don't count your use of that tool against you in any way.  Again, to sum up, I'd like to offer full support, but your WikiCV is just too skimpy right now. --
'''Neutral''' far too many automated edits for me to support at this time. ''<B>--
Moral support. Seen some of him, seems willing to help, but [[WP:NOTNOW]].--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="blue">Talk</font><font color="green">ToMe</font>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Intelati|c]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''': Fairly new, it seems you go on an editing spree and then you apply to be an administrator...You were quite inactive for about eight months, and then you made about 2000 edits, and then applied for an RFA again. It seems you just want to be an administrator, you have shown no commitment to the community. All your edits seem to be done with [[WP:GLOO]]. Absolutely not.
'''Oppose''' Frankly there is alot of good intention from this user. Alot. But, I think this is premature from the last RFA. Just this week you tried to close a request for rollback apparently, while strictly an admin duty, I would have imagine you would have known that? What is bothersome though is the drop in editing following the last RFA, while natural and maybe for good reason, youve only been active for two months really since that RFA. I just dont see whats changed from the last RFA. All that aside. Theres alot of heart here from you and thats good to see, lots of anti vandal work. My advice, particiapate at the help desk, you can build up lots of policy knowledge and demonstrate it there and come back when theres been a longer continous track period to assess your potential better.  Good luck and see you around.
'''Oppose''' I see nothing to indicate the candidate understands why his first two RfAs did not succeed.
'''Oppose'''  Too soon from last RFA and too many attempts in too short of a period of time.  Sorry.
This should be closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]], no major article wrting, seems desperate for the tools which means immaturity.
'''Oppose''' The lack of edits, sporadic contribution history, and fact that almost all of your edits are vandalism fighting demonstrate that you clearly are not ready for the mop. Plus three requests in such a short amount of time and with so few edits is ''not'' a good sign. Lots of people ''want'' the mop, but you want it too much. <span style="text-shadow:#2f4f4f 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Oppose''' but with moral support. I just see two short sprees here, and I think a good admin candidate needs to be here pretty regularly to remain focused and keep up with what's happening. (I'm not doubting you have valid reasons for your long absences, I'm just suggesting that now that your latest absence is over you need to stay around long enough to build up a good recent history of contributions) --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience across the board. <font color="Darkorange">
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience.  -'''
'''Oppose''' you have the tenure and a clean block log, which is great. But you need to learn a few things before you are ready to be an admin. I've looked through the two articles you mention that you started, and I couldn't see you adding a third party reference. I'm not very harsh as far as contributions are concerned, but even for vandal fighters I do want admins who have added content cited to [[wp:Reliable sources]] to articles. I'm worried at your attitude to speedy deletion  "If I come across a page that fits the criteria for speedy deletion I will delete it." would be fine for {{tl|G3}} and {{tl|G10}}, I'm not happy with that attitude re good faith article creation, as speedy should not always mean instantaneous. As for your amount of edits, if they were all or mostly manual edits you might well be ready, but an awful lot are automated, that doesn't mean they are bad, but it does mean that you can do far more edits in an hour (9 in one minute earlier this evening), though without necessarily learning as much as in an hour of manual edits. When you said "I do not consider them automated edits" I think you misunderstood what we mean by automated edits, if you are doing 9 edits in a minute they are automated. I'd suggest picking a subject that interests you, joining the relevant wikiproject and referencing some unreferenced BLPs. ''
I don't see enough effort and/or dedication in this candidate's work. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' I simply don't see you holding the mop well. Give it a few months and work in some admin related areas :) (Note, I opposed last time and I don't really see any bit of a change from RFA #2)--
'''Oppose''' with moral support. I don't think you're experienced enough to be an admin just yet, I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' It doesn't seem like you have enough experience yet, judging from your edits to the Wikipedia namespace. You primarily report usernames and vandalism, which is great, but you'll want to branch out and gain experience at other places too. Also, you'll want to work on what was pointed out in your [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Addihockey10_2|request for adminship 2]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Addihockey10|1]]. I would also suggest waiting for a longer period and gaining more experience first, as your last RfA was around June 2010.
Something about this RfA has my [[Ghostbusters|P.K.E. meter]] buzzing.
'''Oppose''' Almost every edit is automated. I normally don't care about automated edits, but 81% is far, far to high. If there's a crat watching, this looks a bit WP:SNOWish.
'''Oppose''' ...and because he's keen, I feel bad that he's going to want to wait at least a year and 5,000+ more non-automated edits before applying again because he's here for a third time already, and getting thumped...people don't forget quickly ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' 80.40% of all of his edits automated and too little content work. The articles he created have dubious notability. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience quite yet, but don't give up. Keep improving--
'''Oppose''' – Not enough experience. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
Sorry, I forgot to respond to your message earlier.  5700 edits isn't bad, but when it's more than half Huggle, it really is difficult to pick out anything among it as evidence that you would be a good administrator.  I meant to discourage you from running another RfA.  '''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Moral Support]]''' - [[WP:SNOW]]. Nice enthusiasm though; try again in a few months! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Weak Support:''' per Smithers -
The edit summary made when transcluding this RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=342597820&oldid=342536078] indicates that you understand your chances but wish to go ahead anyway. While I applaud your boldness, it can't come as any great surprise that I '''oppose''' you gaining the tools at this time. Your answers to the standard questions make me wonder if you even know what an admin does. You don't appear to have the experience in administrative areas that most users like to see before granting adminship. Also, you have numerous warnings for vandalism and adding copyright violations to articles within the last two months.
'''Oppose''' Less than 20 edits to the project space, and while 2 months might be a long time ago for a more active user, the warnings on your talk page are quite recent in your edit history. In your last ~100 edits you received 4 warnings on your talk page. You're not ready to be an admin yet, sorry.

'''Strong oppose''' <s>indefinitely blocked.</s> Not ready to become an administrator. --'''
'''Oppose''' Let's SNOW this, what a waste of time.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Strong oppose'''. I'd also support [[WP:SNOW]]. Having had to revert a number of this editor's contributions of OR[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Montana_%28season_3%29&diff=prev&oldid=342483682], copyvios,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_on_Deck_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=333277138][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_on_Deck_episodes&diff=next&oldid=333277138] and uncited OR,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Montana_%28season_3%29&diff=next&oldid=332985820] it's clear that this editor has neither the experience nor the understanding of policy that is required of an administrator. --
'''Oppose'''. No chance, close per [[WP:SNOW]]. --
'''Oppose''' to offset error in support vote #2, which supports "per [a pretty obvious oppose]."
'''Neutral''' per naïvety [[WP:SNOW]] this. ''<I>
'''Neutral''' because nothing else would be productive but a [[WP:SNOW]] close, but I would to express a specific concern that two of the four warnings on your talk page were ''for the same issue on the same page''.  I don't know if I would regard those warnings as for vandalism ''per se'' but they show an unfamiliarity with basic sourcing principles.  I echo the suggestion to consider an [[WP:editor review|editor review]], and perhaps a [[WP:ADOPT|mentor]] would help focus your enthusiasm more productively.  --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. All loooks solid to me.
'''Support''': Should be a fine administrator. <b>
'''Support''' Yes please.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Up till now, my only recalled interaction with him has been when he opposed my RfB. :) Aside from that, though, I feel that he can be a good administrator. He's trustworthy, dedicated, and qualified for the job. <small>(
Won't abuse the tools same reason as X! only interaction was when he opposed my rfa, but he did it in a civil and reasonable way, unlike the bloodbath that was occured later, also went to my talk page right after I got a health related episode related to the RFA.
'''Support'''
'''Whatever happened to the life that we once knew.'''
I often see Aiken around doing good things. This is quite a firm support. I've considered the opposes but I don't think the concerns raised warrant an oppose from me.--
'''Support''' - I don't find the opposes really convincing. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.  Temperament?  Gee whiz.  A very good test of temperament is one's reaction to RfA, colloquially known as "Hell Week".  So far, I would say the candidate is passing it.--
'''Support''' - at one point I had offered to nominate the user, so I must've thought they were suited for the role. I read the thread at [[talk:Dancing mania]] and while it certainly doesn't reflect favourably upon them, I wouldn't call it a 'temper tantrum'. Aiken drum speaks his mind, and doesn't appear to have moderated his tongue ahead of a potential RFA (i.e. didn't bother with "gamesmanship") so at least we're getting a known quantity. –
'''Support''' All the civility problems shown below are relatively mild and were not serious enough to warrant a block. Being around for a year is quite a long time on Wikipedia isn't it?
'''Support''' The answers to the questions that I have seen are brilliant and this shows that he is a trustworthy editor who can be trusted with administrator tools. '''
'''Oppose''', temperament not suited to adminship, see temper tantrum linked by Iri below, which was also evidenced other places.  Medical statements in [[Dancing mania]] were not sourced correctly (per [[WP:MEDRS]]), yet when that was pointed out to Aiken, he simply refused to engage further with the article, and was apparently offended at efforts others made to help him. (See [[User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch74#Dancing_mania|here]].)  A thin skin when the going gets tough and the real work starts will not bode well for adminship.
'''''Very'' Regretful Oppose''' because of the temper tantrum provided by iridescent.
The problems demonstrated at [[Dancing mania]]'s FAC are too recent to be ignored.
'''Oppose''', with some regret. I do see good work from this editor, and the mainspace contributions are fine - but I am troubled by the issues raised by Iridescent and Sandygeorgia. The most telling aspect of an editor's contributions here is how they disagree with people - and I'm not sure I'd be comfortable asking this candidate to review an erroneous block, given those diffs/threads. And that is a problem. <s>The conduct here on this very page is less troubling, honestly, but I would note that a candidate's chance of success at RFA usually goes down the more edits they make under "Oppose". Just saying.</s> Good luck,
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I don't feel you have enough experience. Currently you have 5,724 edits and one year of experience. That's the amount of experience I have as well(if IP edits are counted) and I am not even considering trying a RFA because it's too soon. The link given by iridescent also worries me. Overall I thing you are a good contributer, but I think it is too early. --
'''Oppose''', but with moral support. You're a great contributor, but admins need to handle stress and conflict well, and I'm afraid what I see is conflict and stress being handled less than optimally. I'd suggest a bit more time, get more involved with people, and come back here and try again when you're able to point to some problem-solving and say "I handled that well". Good luck --
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with experience, temperament, and judgement.  -'''
'''Weak Oppose''' Concerns with temperament. Maybe try again in 6-10 months. <font color="Darkorange">
'''Oppose''': Per all reasons brought up, and, why do you really need the tools?
Based on some observations made over the last few months, I don't find Aiken ready or having the right temperament to use the tools at this point. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''': Ouch! Really sorry Aiken, but to be an admin you need a good understanding of the processes of Wikipedia.  FAC isn't a [[Transactional_analysis#Transactions_and_Strokes|get strokes]] process - the [[Virgin Mary]] could write an article on [[The Annunciation]], and the FAC crew would still ask for 100 improvements, and reject the picture of Gabriel because Mary had uploaded it to Wikipedia rather than Commons.  And to be a good admin, you need not to take things personally, and not to take your bat home when questioned. Content is created by consensus. Take some time, make some more content, hold more discussions with other editors. Pick that article back up, and talk to the other guys on the talkpage.  You'll be able to come back and show that you've moved on from this blip.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Come back in 6 months to a year after a bit more seasoning, because you are definitely on the right track; however, now there are too many issues surrounding temperament, maturity and policy-knowledge. You'd be a great candidate for one of the sysop-mentoring programs.--
'''Oppose''' Drama mongering as cited above.
'''Regretful oppose''', mainly per ''Boing! said Zebedee''.
'''Oppose''' per above reasons. --
'''Oppose''' Not that I'm the greatest role model for this, but one of the first things I look for in an admin is the ability to detach and just say "You know what, I was wrong, I'm sorry" Considering the stress and conflict that every Admin will inevitably one day be confronted with, and the fact that Admins are frequently called up to make judgments and close debates, the fact that I do not see this ability in the candidate is deeply troubling. Fastily's !vote says it best. <span style="text-shadow:#2f4f4f 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Oppose''' per temperament reasons and general inexperience. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Weak Oppose''' You're a good guy but that diff (or diffs) is simply too much for me to support. I must oppose per the comments of iridescent and Soap.--
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=389123527 "Since when were admins janitors?"]  Sorry, but I prefer admins who don't have grandiose opinions of their role here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose'''. Issues involving temperament. -- '''
'''Oppose''', temperament not suited to adminship. -
'''Regretful (weak) oppose'''. I'd really like to support you, but I have qualms because of the issues concerning temperament highlighted above. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
"[[Talk:Dancing_mania#Sources|Here's my GA nomination, make sure to nuzzle my nuts with the utmost tenderness or else I'll have a temper tantrum]]" belies an underlying juvenile temperment that would make this user a net detriment in any position of self-determined authority. Could just as easily become "sure, my block was wrong, but your unblock request contained insufficient amounts of genuflection, I see no reason to overturn it".
'''Oppose'''. Needs that tad experience more and more stuff in other areas than just editing.
'''Oppose''' I'm not seeing the temperament issues people seem to be concerned about here.  However, like Jokerman, I don't the he has enough experience yet.  Would like to see a wider range of involvement, service, content creation, etc.  Would not be opposed a second nomination once the candidate is more seasoned.  --'''
'''Oppose''' I can't support, as I don't think you have the experience required to become an admin yet. Work with deletion discussions, CSD, vandal fighting, as well as other admin related areas, and review policies. After a little more time and experience and I'm sure I'll be able to support.
'''Oppose''' NOO. --'''
For [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atmoz&diff=prev&oldid=356227479 this] edit back in April.  Normally I wouldn't notice something so small and so far back, but your talk page only has 2 archives, and you don't seem to have a lot of edits overall, so I'm basing my opinion on what I found.    '''
AFAIK my only interaction with you has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=386922425 this comment], [[User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_14#On_lying|this exchange]], and your temper-tantrum at [[Talk:Dancing mania#Sources]]. Everyone has bad moments, but when someone has a lot of problematic exchanges in their recent past, I expect to see evidence of collaboration and a willingness to admit that other people might have a point even when they're not agreeing with you.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
I'm tempted to oppose per Sandy, Iridescent, and Soap, but I'll stick myself here for now. I have concerns about temperament and overall experience and may ask a question later on. While I've seen no problem with the majority of your edits, I have sometimes seen some unnecessarily heated comments from you. I addition, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=389123527 this] comment; this is what is tempting me to ask the question, stolen from {{user|Groomtech}}: {{xt|Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?}}
Much as with Airplaneman, temperament concerns expressed by Sandy, Malleus, etc. are strong enough to lean me opposing, but here for now pending a broader review of context and contributions.  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Neutral''' But i want to stress moral support here. I do see evidence of policy knowledge, but the dancing mania event is too recent. And i have concerns about the handling of the event and temperament. My advice take the experience and grow from it. Sometimes comments we recieve which we may feel as an attack, can be used by ourselves as motivation to continue to improve as editors rather than allow it to create frustration. I guess what im saying is, dont let it get to you :) At any rate keep going, your not far off, in some time (not too long) give RFA another shot. I think i could gladly support then, Good luck
I se temperament problems, but also very good content contributions. I'm not convinced either way, so I'll just wait here, for now. ~~
I'm changing my vote to '''neutral'''. I see that I was wrong in saying your content editing was not enough, but there's still the issue of your temperament. I morally support you, though. Come back in four to six months and I may support.
'''neutral''' - I haven't seen enough to make up my mind one way or the other - I think it is worth a try but the exchanges higlhighted by iridescent give me pause. Given that this RfA might be heading south, I think the best thing is to try and show people you can collaborate and interact, so I do think taking a deep breath and trying to produce a Featured Article is a really good idea.
I hate to vote oppose in any RfA, especially one for a contributor who, three years ago would have been given the mop without all of this fuss. RfA has changed though, voters are demanding more and more perfection from candidates. There is a reason that we call RfA "Hell Week."
But count me as a definite moral support. Suggest you withdraw, take note of the "oppose" arguments  and come back in 6 months.  <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral, but really Moral Support'''. I really wanted to support. I've interacted with the candidate during the recent proposal for a vandal-fighting flag, and even gave him a barnstar for it. This is someone who cares about the good of the project and is very intelligent and insightful. When that vandal fighting proposal was being discussed, I felt that Aiken gave up a bit quickly. Seeing the thread about [[Dancing mania]] makes me think that this kind of reaction to criticism may be a repeated behavior. For that reason, I want to encourage you strongly to think hard about all the comments in this RfA, and try again in a couple of months, because I'm confident that you can grow into an administrator who will be highly valuable to the project. --
As nominator. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
As co-nom.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Why not! ''<B>--
No issues. [[m:user:Katerenka|m:Katerenka]]
'''Support''' I've been impressed by his work in the past. I believe he'd be a great addition as an admin.
'''Support''' He is very friendly, and uses good faith all the time. I have seen his contributions everywhere, from warning vandals, to welcoming new users, to working on GA's. Airplaneman was the first person I really met and trusted on Wikipedia, and his friendliness was encouraging. Therefore, I fully support this nomination. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support'''. CSD hit rate seems to be around the 95-100% mark. That's a very good sign of policy knowledge and clue. I find myself decidedly unconvinced by the opposes. --
'''Support''' Don't get distracted [[WP:RFDA|or else!]]--
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' - I don't think the Q4 answer is a problem if you assume (as I'm doing) that he's excluding obvious socks, or people who otherwise demonstrate from the first vandalism edit they know what they're doing. I've never sent anyone to AIV without either a warning or a ''very'' good idea that they know what they're doing or were very recently another account I'd recently warned. Given this editor's history, I assume that logic is so natural it wasn't even thought of. On top of that, an awesome patrol count (3k+) that indicates someone who knows what new page patrol looks like, and yet a good CSD log on top of that. Everything looks good.
'''Support''': No worries here - looks like a trustworthy and clueful editor, who appears to show good judgment, and to whom I'd be happy to hand a mop. Opposes generally look rather nit-picking - specific weakness in GA articles and criticism of exactly how many minor edits they took? We're looking for someone who'll reliably clean up some of the mess we get around here, not the next William Shakespeare. --
Sure, why not. Positive interactions.
'''<font color="green">Support</font>''' More than ready for it!
'''Support''' Has done a great job with working with new contributor [[User:Nascar1996]] without being bitey. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' He is a good editor with a lot of experience.<!-- This is my opinion. --> -- '''
'''Support''' no major concerns
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as the candidate has Rollback (some admin trusts him), is involved with [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User]] (wants to help others), has received at least seven barnstars (other users recognize his efforts), has over 10,000 edits, has never been even accidentally blocked after making 10,000 edits, and makes reasonable arguments in AfDs (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Salvation,_Texas_(book)&diff=305521932&oldid=305514394 here]).  Overall, this candidate strikes me as good guy, serious contributor, and mature editor.  Sincerely, --
'''Weak Support''' Good but not great answer to my question. I do not believe in casting my opinion as an oppose here on his history, nor a neutral. I think Polargeo and A Nobody above sum up my sentiments best: not a superlative candidate, but a candidate that should pass.
'''Support''' Good work so far.
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''' - I'm not concerned about the answer to question 4, because it was asking the candidate what ''he'' would do, not what he would be ''permitted'' to do.  There is nothing wrong with a new admin being cautious in using the tools.  --'''~
'''Support''' See no concerns as per track and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
User flies like paper, gets high like planes.
'''support'''
'''Support:''' You have my support because of the way you help new users, but looking at the oppose section, you may need to work on your people skills. I would suggest contacting   [[User:J04n|J04n]]([[User talk:J04n|talk page]])  who went from being a failed candidate to 100% support (it did take some work) -
'''Weak Support''' Interperetation of IAR was too broad for my liking, but everything else seems good.
'''Weak support''' I think you mean well, and if promoted you would steer clear of areas where you would feel weak, so I think you would be a net positive.  '''
'''Oppose''' Trying to have me banned from RfA is a good way to earn yourself a big fat oppose.
To be quite honest, I was very unimpressed with the quality two of the three GAs you mentioned: [[The Sea of Monsters]] and [[The Titan's Curse]]. Not only does more information need to be added for the articles to be properly comprehensive, but the formatting and sourcing needs quite a bit of work. Those articles are nowhere near GA standard, and I am disappointed with your claim that they are among your best. In addition, I disagree completely with your answer to Q4. Even discounting obvious vandal-sockpuppets, there are plenty of accounts that should be blocked on sight. [[User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings]] explains my views. There are also a number of small things that just add up in my mind to an oppose. '''<font color="navy">

add me to the '''Opposes''', I will check further, but the nominations seems to be feeble. Well on checking he seems to be a prolific gnome, with no negative contribution. I have seen nothing substantive yet! Looking at the questions 4: there are at least 4 reasons to block such a user, and 5: failed to answer part of the question, as an admin you  have to address '''All''' the concerns of the people who question you to defuse the potential trouble. The bock Jimbo joke indicates immaturity.
Not ready yet. The answers to the questions show this user could develop a bit more experience. Sorry. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' - I am uncomfortable with this nomination. Answers to questions leave something to be desired, especially Q4, which is just flat out wrong.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' Question 4 worries me; nothing is absolute. There always has to be some form of human judgement involved (or else all our admins would be bots). Blatantly obvious, severe hits (not just in count, but content severity) on the [[WP:EF|edit filter]] are a perfectly valid reason to block someone on occasion. It's rare, but it's possible. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Per question 7. Not just because he would close it as no consensus, but because his answer shows a lack of understanding in the AFD and BLP area. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per PeterSymonds and Coffee.

'''Oppose''' with some regret. The answers to the questions are not up to par, and I find the candidate's level of experience lacking. The candidate's flashy userpage and "MySpacing" aren't exactly indicators of maturity; however, I think Airplaneman has a good understanding of the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and [[WP:PP|protection policy]]. Plutonium27's vote pushed me into the oppose column, however; the fact that Airplaneman takes credit for three GAs where he didn't do much besides minor fixes is...well, concerning. I don't want to call it deception, but it's [[WP:SPADE|something along those lines]].
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions, #4 and #7 especially.  Blocking, AFD, and ''especially'' BLP issues are essential aspects of being an admin.  We simply can't have admins who are shy/"soft"/clueless in those areas.  Sorry, but no thanks.
'''Oppose'''. I must say, the opposition brings up some fairly good points. This, combined with the weak noms and the bad answers to several of the questions, is concerning. This isn't a deal-breaker however - awaiting answers to remaining questions.  -'''
You will probably make a fine admin one day, but you're not quite ready. The answer to Q4 doesn't inspire confidence in your understanding of vandalism policy. With regret, I must '''oppose''' at this time.
'''Oppose'''. With considerable reluctance but strongly nonetheless. This RfA raises questions over maturity, judgement and knowledge of policy and, more importantly, its implementation in the running of WP. I think you have the potential to be a fine administrator in the future. Maybe in 3 or 4 months, with a proven knowledge of policy, more article work and less social networking, I could support, but not right now.
'''Oppose''' Given that Airplaneman has made several mistakes in judgement, as shown on their talkpage archives, it seems that the candidate may possibly delete the main page or block Jimbo ;-) I'd like to see at least six more months of positive editing with plenty of evidence of sound judgments, and no more mistakes regarding speedy nominations. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''', concerns about answers to the questions, experience, and judgment. '''
Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q8. -
'''Oppose''' - Airplaneman, I've seen you around and I think you're a good editor, and a promising future admin candidate. But I don't think you're ready yet. Your answers to the questions above are woefully lacking to me. Q4 in particular is troubling, and while I understand that you forgot some situations where an immediate block is warranted, keep in mind you seem to be quite focused on blocking vandals and a major slip-up on a basic blocking question doesn't look good. Q5 is a wishy-washy answer and glosses over some important things like noting that A7 only applies to articles that lack plausible claims of importance, not evidence of notability (the most common way that A7 is misused). Finally, the answer to Q8 bothers me, generally there's a point when most editors realize how important [[WP:IAR]] is, and it seems to illustrate your lack of experience that you haven't reached that yet. -- '''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but if this is your view, "I can't see a situation where I would ignore a rule for the good of the encyclopedia.", then you're not ready yet.  IAR is a critical policy; not only as a way to finally cut the [[Gordian Knot]] but as an essential part of the editor's- and admin's- tool kit.
'''Oppose''' Actually Bradjamesbrown said almost word for word what I would have said. You look like a decent candidate otherwise, but if you honestly can't even conceive of ever invoking IAR I can't support. [[WP:CREEP|Process creep]] is a serious problem on Wikipedia and drives away a lot of people who just wanted to edit, not learn some elaborate system of rules/policies/guidelines/essays that are treated like rules/etc. IAR is one way we can avoid  sinking further into a bureaucratic nightmare. Admins need to be able to exercise their own judgement and not just be rule enforcers.
'''(Weak?) Neutral''' Given the answers to the questions (including the clarification for #4), I'm not going oppose, but I do find the work in the GAs a bit weak. Moreover, I agree with mono's now struck-out comment that having the tools would probably cause this user to be less involved in his other work. Putting all that aside, I just don't think now is the right time, and because this candidate is still pretty strong, I won't oppose (unless some big change occurs later on). This really isn't a very strong neutral, and I'm leaning support. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral''' I see some good contribs, but the answer to q4 is a bit of a worry to me. Even with edit filters, pagemove vandals/grawp/socking users should be blocked on sight. Warning is a waste of time when a user is moving pages with edit summaries of known banned users.--
'''Neutral''' This user seems competent and acts in [[WP:GF|good faith]], but is rather ill-experienced. Sorry. --
Question 4 worries me somewhat. Legal threats, blatant, aggressive vandals, & sockpuppets, can, and should be blocked without warning, but that is not enough to sway me to oppose.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. Your almost there, a bit more experience will help you out! Best of luck in the future, from reading your talk page I can tell you are taking the feedback well and plan to improve upon it, which is an excellent sign. --
'''Neutral'''. I was going to support as question 4 didn't worry me; I believe your clarification that in practice you would use the extra buttons responsibly. However, I can't support because of your response to Question 7, being a little cautious when you first get the extra buttons is a good thing, but that caution shouldn't imply that you close AfDs as 'no consensus', when 'delete' was the correct call.
Not going to oppose, but I don't think Mr Airplaneman is quite ready for adminship yet. He seems to be a very well meaning, friendly fellow who just wants to help other users and the project, so I'm sure he can become an admin one day, but I just don't think he has sufficient experience and really just isn't quite ready yet.
I've looked through his contributions and I have found only a few edits to [[WP:AN/I|the incidents noticeboard]] and no edits to [[WP:RFPP|requests for page protection]] &mdash; I'm not so sure Alan16 is going to fare well, I'm afraid. Yet I trust him when he says he monitors both regularly and I will assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that he knows how they work, so I personally am registering a support.
I supported last time, and with zero diffs to backup the poor judgement comment in the oppose section, I have no hesitation in supporting again. ''
'''Support''' Decent answers, nothing in the user's contribution history to cause any alarms. Wikiproject Novels contribution is a plus, lack of drama board activity is a plus. -
'''Support''' Seems sensible, good contribs. The opposers make some good points however, if I didnt try to live mainly by faith Id find it easier to trust youd be good at ANI if youd had a few more contribs there.
'''Support''' Seems okay to me. Oppose arguments are pretty weak.
'''Support''', no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' Exceedingly poor judgment.  This RfA won't pass.
'''Oppose''' - I'm just not seeing the experience in the project space I'd like admin hopefuls to possess.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more behind-the-scenes work.
'''Oppose'''—I'm concerned that the last RfA was closed in August, and Alan16 has taken a three-month break from editing in the interval... so scarcely any discernable change. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose''' Very few edits in the last three months, so doesn't appear to be any need for the admin tools. --
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Serious concerns with experience, judgment, policy knowledge; little has changed since the last RfA. Recommend early closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. -'''
'''Oppose''' If I had seen any reasonable attempt to remedy the lack of experience in admin areas I would support as I believe Alan16 to be an honest contributor.
WereSpielChequers, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J04n&diff=prev&oldid=313206575 here]'s a diff to back up my assertion of poor judgment.  If Alan16 had shown some improvement between then and now, I wouldn't be bringing it up, but due to the wikibreak, I can't really be sure of that.  In fact I'd even say that running an RfA with almost nothing to run on is itself poor judgment, or at least a misunderstanding of how far we can trust each other on Wikipedia.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' It's nothing personal, but you ''tell'' us in Q5 that you've matured.  I'm sure you have- but 195 edits in the last 3 months of 2009 isn't enough to demonstrate that.  Come back in three months.
'''Oppose''' Per above. The diff. shown by Soap is concerning but with limited personal interaction with you I'm not going to jump to conclusions based upon it. However, 195 edits in the last 3 months is enough to oppose for me since I want to see more dedication and experience in admin areas.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I'd suggest waiting a little longer to demonstrate that you have fully moved past any pitfalls from before.  Overall experience is still a slight concern of mine.  Regards, <strong><font color="maroon">
Barely 200 edits in 3 months? One thing we don't need is inactive admins. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' self acknowledgment that the editor has not and will not be active.  The last thing we need is another inactive admin.
'''Oppose''' Very little activity since last failed RfA. The point of waiting is not mere passage of time, but to build up a body of work to ascertain abilities. I don't want to hear that you may be returning to more active participation, I want to see it. Some are advising three more months - that won't be enough for me.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
I avoid opposing RfAs with less than 50% support and avoid pile-ons, but I remember seeing Alan16 at RfA in the last few months and remember not being impressed, and it's enough to convince me to oppose. There's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Beeblebrox_2&diff=prev&oldid=310372457 this comment] against discussion in RfAs, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_spesh_man&diff=prev&oldid=311342291 this harsh oppose] against a snowball candidate, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shoessss_3&diff=prev&oldid=318087792 an oppose] where he didn't even give a reason. I also seem to remember [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_3#Oppose this RfA] where he seemed to oppose on the basis that the candidate was "unlikeable" (also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMZMcBride_3&action=historysubmit&diff=311154518&oldid=311150608 asking the candidate] how they'd close their own RfA, though it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_3&diff=prev&oldid=311306346 removed] by Alan16), and also tough responses to several people in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J04n this RfA].
'''Strong Oppose''' per RP459. --
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Weak Oppose]]''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]--
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry, but good luck next time.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Close to Strong Oppose]]''' - almost no experience in the admin areas and the fact that he took a 3-month long break. This might be a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''  You just aren't yet qualified to be an admin.  Don't think of this as a position of power.  You really don't need to be an admin to have a good reputation here.  Be active, contribute and maybe further down the line you might attempt an RfA.  [[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]].  --'''
'''Neutral''' I'm still on the fence. I like some of the answers, but i'm waiting to hear more.
'''Neutral''' I am not sure one way or another at the moment. Hopefully the candidate's answers to my questions will help me to decide. -- '''''
'''Neutral''' - or actually on the fence between Neutral and Oppose.  Overall, I see positive work, and a reasonable quantity/quality of edits.  ''However'', I see very few edits since the last RfA - no real way to show change/growth required to prove that you have learned from the last RfA.  The recommended period of time between RfA's is to change and build further experience - a lack of edits between them does not give us that - especially working in the areas that you were recommended to step into.  I ''want'' to oppose simply because you did not listen to the advice, and seem to assume that we're just going to trust you with time - but I will [[WP:AGF]] and stay here in Neutral unless I see something offensive. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' but leaning towards support per SpacemanSpiff's rationale. I like Alan16 as a candidate for adminship because (a) he has a year's experience but no history of "drama"; (b) his article work seems to be his primary focus, and he would be an admin "when needed"; and (c) he seems intelligent, trustworthy, and articulate. His efforts at WikiProject Novels are laudable. It's particularly good to see a potential admin who wants to help out with the always-backlogged [[WP:RM]]. However, there are some issues which make me hesitate to support. The dearth of edits in the last three months (and, really, since the last RfA) is hard to ignore, and I would like to see more experience in the project namespace. In any case, I'd like to see the rest of the answers to the questions before supporting.
'''Neutral'''. Answers to the questions aren't sufficient for my liking- I'd like to  know what he ''would'' do, not what he thinks he's ''capable'' of doing. I await the answer to Coffee's question with great interest and if the answers to the remaioning optional questions get a bit longer and more specific, I'll more than likely switch to support unless the opposes can actually find a serious red flag (backed by diffs, not persoanl opinions).
Agree with Acalamari about some questionable posts by the candidate in the past, which largely keep me from offering a support. Nonetheless, they seem to check in almost every day and I'm not convinced by the arguments that being relatively inactive is  grounds for opposing. Given the humble nomination statement and lack of any major issues, I'm neutral for now. &ndash;'''
'''Neutral''' While I like the answers to the questions so far, I see very little work in the way of ANI, AIV, AfD, and especially CSD.  If you had more contributions in these areas, I would feel more comfortable supporting.  Also, your low level of recent activity is a concern.  If you can manage a more stable editing history (say, at least 250 edits a month) over the next few months, I'd be more comfortable with that.
'''Strong support''': Nonminator. <b>
'''Support''' - Very poor nom, but Alansohn is an excellent candidate (over 800 DYKs?!) '''
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''.  '''
'''Support'''
I remember having a concern relating to his temperament, but I think I'll register an overall support on the basis that he doesn't appear to have had any real issues in quite a while. Alansohn is possibly the most prolific RfA candidate ever.
'''Weak support'''. Although this user doesn't have a clean block log, their contributions look good, and they haven't been blocked in the past year.
An excellent candidate, in my opinion. ~~
'''Strong support''' - 800+ DYKs is impressive. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''This is long overdue.''' Excellent anti-vandal work and '''''over 800 DYK's?''''' Are you kidding me?
'''Support''' - Per Access Denied.
Holy shit. an Vandalism destroyer with '''800''' DYK. Hell Yes.--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="blue">Talk</font><font color="green">ToMe</font>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Intelati|c]]</sub><sup>
'''Strong Support''' A long-time Wikipedian with over 200,000 edits to article space alone, the candidate is familiar from New Jersey-related pages. He also has distinguished credentials as a vandal fighter. The issues raised in the oppose section are somewhat of a red herring because his block log has been clean for 18 months.--
'''Support''' - Amazing DYK and Huggle work. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' Thought he was one already.  Opposes utterly unconvincing.  Believe Alansohn's learned any lessons that needed learning.--
Because no one is perfect and the candidate has obviously and tremendously improved.
'''Support''' A number of the blocks are justified, but since it was that long ago I'll let it pass. Amazing editor, I'd doubt he'd screw up now. ~<strong>'''''
Per answer to question 7, I didn't see anything concerning for the past six months or so, I feel that this user has reformed.
'''Support''' - Alansohn is clearly and unequivocally dedicated to the project. This is blindingly obvious. it is also 18 months since last block. New users have become admins in less time. May I remind everyone that we have checks and balances for admins, so any tool misuse can be reviewed and dealt with accordingly.
'''Support'''. Impressed by his work (both submissions and verification) at DYK. Behaviour that led to blocks appears to have been rectified.--''
'''Support''' – Impressive DYK and mainspace work. I'm letting the blocks pass with reformed behavior. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' –  It really all boils down to whether one trusts this editor or not. Given the passion he has shown in the past, his dedication an perseverance despite bad experiences, his reflectiveness and recent reformation, I think he could make for an excellent administrator.  Unlike many of the admin candidates frequently seen this candidate actually has experience seeing the dispute resolution processes from the other side.  On a further note I would make the observation that some of the strongest content contributors to the project I've seen are some of the most controversial.  Are there circumstances that create a direct correlation here? If so the current conventional standards of RfA that look for super clean candidates may need to be examined.
'''Support''' Brilliant content writer, arguably the best ever in WP history. May have been a bit prickly at times, but this is evidently in the past. Besides, any even potential issues do not give rise to any questions regarding his integrity and consequently do not give rise to any questions regarding potential abuse of the tools he well deserves. --''
'''Support''' - The phenomenon that when people first come to WP they take things personally and are overly argumentative is probably more common than many people realize.  I fell into the same trap early on and I've also made an effort to shut down the conflict and drama.  While the previous blocks are troubling, I think Alansohn should be commended for recognizing the problem and taking steps to change the offending behavior.
'''Support''' Appears sound enough on XfD issues (also checking actual pages)
'''Support''' He appears to be a prolific and versatile editor. As for the block logs, blocks aren't scarlet letters, and I am sure that he's mature enough to learn from previous minor errors.
'''Support'''  Alansohn is one of the people who has helped build this encyclopedia in a meaningful way.  He would be a good administrator.  As for XfD's, I think he would help bring some balance to the process, which is currently out of balance.
'''Support''' OF COURSE! Any vandal fighter should be given adminship. What about me then...:D
'''Support''' WHAT! 800 DYKS! ARE YOU MAD!?!?! --
'''Moral support''' This obviously isn't going too well, but Alansohn has clearly given a ''lot'' to this project over the years, and I'm personally grateful for many of his contributions. <s>I bet this vote would be closer if he belonged to one of the right cliques.</s>
'''Support''' - I think very highly of this candidate's stature as a Wikipedian. 800 DYK's? Outstanding! But what makes me look past the block log is the essay 'Dumping Poop' on the candidate's user page.  Identifying problems is a big skill, and Alansohn has gone to the heart of the vandalism matter with a simple solution - require regristration.  I have to agree.  I speak as a fellow Huggler who has "only" 50,000 edits: give this editor the buttons.  My very best wishes to Alanshon - a mighty Wikipedian!
'''Support''' - I've been seeing Alansohn's work for a very long time, and have interacted with him occasionally. He does an enormous amount of good, careful, work and clearly has Wikipedia's best interest at heart. The only complaint I've ever had about him personally is that he is too darned quick at creating artices from rich new sources like the day's New York Times obituaries -- he hardly gives other folks a chance (wink). Having watched his editing issues and blocks unfold, I believe that they resulted from an excess of positive qualities on his part (basically, caring too much about his personal beliefs and loyalties, Wikipedia, and his own work here). From the subsequent record, I believe that he got over that phase and will not repeat it (although he'll probably never fully  regain his idealism). I expect that he would use the tools wisely and responsibly. --
'''Support''' - Vandal destroyer, 800 DYKs, reformed/improved editor, bulwark of the Project.--
'''Moral support''' Given the problems of the past, I'd rather see another 6-12 months go by.  But I'm not seeing recent issues and you are clearly a great contributor and care quite deeply about the place.  I disagree with some of your answers, but they aren't so unreasonable as to be wrong, merely different than mine (the IP answer especially).
'''Strong support''' per nominator.--
'''Support''' We need admins who are experienced editors especially in the areas of dispute resolution and vandal fighting and Alansohn has that experience, which is what I think adminship should be primarily based on. Plus he is also an excellent content contributor. He is passionate about his work for sure but that to me is not a negative. --
'''Weak support''' - I share some concerns of the opposition, but the last block was in early 2009. Plus, you guys want article writers as admins, can't get much more of one. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Strong content contributor, dedicated to the project, last block was in early 2009.
'''Support'''.  Excellent content contributions.  Bags of experience.  Blocks from eighteen months ago don't concern me.  The "confrontational" criticism doesn't make sense to me.  Alansohn has strong opinions and expresses them forcefully, which is fine by me; administrators aren't supposed to be shrinking violets.  I haven't seen him being uncivil.—
'''Oppose''', per my struck neutral and other commentary in Neutral.  One year after an arb sanction for disruptive behavior, he had five more blocks.  Limited participation on article talk, and DYK writing doesn't impress me as the kind of content building which leads to difficult interaction or shows he would not continue behavioral pattern in arbcase. Further, "happening a bit fast"?  An RFA should be contemplated with the seriousness it deserves; you are asking us to trust you to determine the fate of other editors and articles, not an unimportant matter.
'''Oppose'''.  Per long block log and proportionally lower levels of recent activity.  You do good work, but I don't feel you're suited for adminship at this time.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' While his article contributions may be good, the problem is Alansohn’s long history of making bad faith assumptions and uncivil personal attacks on editors and admins who disagree with him. A user-conduct RFC [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn|was opened on Alansohn in 2007]]; followed by [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Alansohn_restricted|ArbCom Restrictions in 2008]]; he was blocked four times ''during'' the restriction; and when it expired in 2009, Alansohn immediately began personally attacking others once again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Henry_Barry&diff=304710905&oldid=304702889][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Henry_Barry&diff=304591196&oldid=304473400][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Henry_Barry&diff=304621186&oldid=304601035][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Henry_Barry&diff=304690058&oldid=304686008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Henry_Barry&diff=304756349&oldid=304746450][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Henry_Barry&diff=304966725&oldid=304797929]  He was blocked three times in 2009 for "persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions".  Alanson does a large number of automated edits, with a large number of DYK noms, but he has not yet proven that he can play well with others; and as an admin, he will absolutely '''''have''''' to interact with others.  With his long history of bad behavior in mind, the glossing over of this history in question #3 above, and the relatively short time with so few interactions since his last series of attacks, I do not believe this editor is suited for adminship yet.
Many people seem to be wowed by the large number of edits and the massive number of DYKs. I don't see much collaboration activity: very few article talk page and project talk page edits compared to the rest. The long block history is worrying as well; yes, the last was over a year ago, but ''that many'' blocks at all spanning more than two years deserves a good explanation. The temperament concerns raised by others also deserve an explanation. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Per Dreadstar and fetchcomms. I have great respect for the candidate as an editor and content writer but I have serious issues with the candidate's lack of talk page use to discuss and communicate with others. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Oppose''' Extensive history of arbcom sanctions and blocks is beyond unacceptable for any potential administrator. Can not trust.
'''Oppose''' ''Many to many blocks'', agree with Fastily. I can't trust someone with ten or so blocks...even if there has not been one in more than a year.
'''Oppose''', moving from neutral. The unfairness towards the closing admin at the [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_4|DrV I mentioned]] in my earlier 'neutral' was both more recent and more unfair than I remembered.
As per SandyG I'm rather surprised that the candidate appears to be surprised by this nomination, and if unprepared opted to accept it.
'''Oppose''' Some people who are really, really good writers/editors for the encyclopedia (and Alansohn is) are unable to resolve even simple differences without drama. The ArbCom sanctions and the block log are pretty obvious cues that he's just not someone who could wield the tools without controversy aplenty. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' per Fastily, numerous blocks over two years is too long for me to trust the candidate as an admin, at this time, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Too many blocks.--<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
'''Oppose''', after some thought. Alansohn is a good editor who has been exceptionally confrontational in deletion debates. Most of this is well in the past, but it was pretty bad, including a disturbing willingness to make up rules to support his cause: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sernio (2nd nomination)|this]] was typical of his behavior in the period when I interacted with him most often (I am less active in deletion debates now; I'd also stress that Alansohn has always been civil to me personally). I've looked at his more recent participation in debates, and he no longer does this sort of thing, but he's replaced it with a stock statement he barely varies in each debate, regardless of the differences among articles, which contributes in a totally different way to the politicization of the deletion processes.
Due to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Alansohn history of disruptive conduct]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms and Sandstein. Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about the history of sanctions. -- '''
'''Strongly oppose'''.  Alan believes that XFDs and DRVs should be closed by counting heads, and that any admin who discounts votes based upon strength of argument is the equivalent of a "supervote". [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_4]]  In addition, there is the matter of his attitude.  His many blocks while under an editing restriction by the arbcom for incivility [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Alansohn_restricted]] worry me as well.  I appreciate that he says he has toned it down at XFD during the last few months, but July isn't that long ago, and besides, it's going to take far longer than a few months for me to trust him as an admin.  --
'''Oppose''' per several above, notably SandyGeorgia, Dreadstar and Reyk; there are enough issues with Alansohn's conduct and interaction with others to make me reluctant to grant him the tools. I ''am'' willing to forgive a user who has 'reformed' after earlier problematic behaviour, but 18 months since the last block is a little too recent for me. (Additionally, though less serious, there have been more recent incidents of poor conduct like the DRV above.) If there are no further issues, I'd consider supporting a future RFA in about six to nine months, but not right now I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' with regret. The blocks were a while ago, the combative approach to AfD was dealt with admirably in Q7, but the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4|DRV mentioned above]] was this year, and in this context, I have concerns about closing deletion discussions.
'''Oppose''' I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to RfA's with more that one block. I worry about civility issues.
Reluctant '''Oppose'''.  I believe Alansohn believes in and is committed to the project, and I've always been thoroughly impressed with his prolific contributions.  My interactions with him over the past several months have been completely positive and supportive.  But prior to that, it was a completely different story.  I don't want to stir up bad feelings over past conduct, but it's been far too recent that Alansohn showed a disturbing and persistent tendency in XFD discussions to personalize content disputes, to the extent of mischaracterizing others' comments and assuming bad faith, and targeting particular editors for feuding.  Not that everyone else is blameless, but in these ways I think Alansohn contributed to making CFD a much more hostile environment for awhile than it would have otherwise been, and his responses to attempts to address these issues with him would typically escalate the hostility.  As recently as January and Feburary of this year, after more than a year of trying to deal with it at CFD, he brushed off complaints by me and others regarding his CFD conduct [[User_talk:Alansohn/Archive_29#How_can_we_fix_this|here]] and [[User_talk:Alansohn/Archive_30#DRV_comment_2|here]], which escalated into this [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive81#Incident_with_Alansohn|Feburary 2010 Wikiquette alert]], which escalated into [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive596#Alansohn_is_now_abusing_DR_and_engaging_in_textbook_wikihounding|this ANI report]] filed by someone not originally involved...which escalated into [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=347299071#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Footnoted_quotes this attempt to amend his prior Arb com ruling].  As I said, my interactions with him since then have been positive, and I do have great admiration for his contributions and faith in his ability to reform.  So I'm not saying that I would never support him for adminship; I just think this is too soon given how longstanding and recent the conduct issues were.  '''
'''Oppose''' per many above; I cannot support someone with as many blocks as you have and, furthermore, Postdlf's threads and diff are rather unreassuring. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''  Too many concerns as well as concerns per 13, 14 and Postdlf above.(
'''Strong oppose''' block log, longstanding behaviour problems and a shocking lack of understanding of deletion issues, which is absolutely essential in an admin.  See Kbdank71's oppose above for a recent example.  Probably a "never", I'm afraid.
'''Strong oppose''', per extensive block log.
'''Oppose'''. Moved from Neutral - see below. The DRV mentioned above, which was recent, shows that the candidate either does not know the difference between consensus and democracy, or eschews the former in favour of the latter. In my opinion, Wikipedia would collapse if we enabled vote-stacking as a way of making decisions, and I have to oppose an admin who argues so strongly in favour of a simple vote rather than consensus. --
'''Oppose''' have seen civility issues with this user in the past. --'''
'''Oppose''' per Postdlf, SandyGeorgia and others. An excellent contributor, but doesn't seem like a good admin material. --
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I read your userpage, and asked question nine hoping that my interpretation of your comments was off. In reality, it seems I gave you just enough rope to hang yourself. The more I look at you, the more I see a person that has trouble with good faith. Working in AfC I have seen plenty of IPs that want to contribute constructively, and indeed often do, but for one reason or another, do not create an account. Just as there are hundreds of bad IP edits a day, there are as many good edits. From passers by that see a spelling error and fix it, to ambitious individuals that [[User talk:76.66.199.238|create entire WikiProjects]]. We have bots that do what you do, and filters, and plenty of other vandal fighters, all of which seem to take IP vandalism a little less personally. Your attitude hurts the project, and I shudder to think about what you would do with the tools. I'm not !voting oppose just because I disagree with you, I'm !voting oppose because I oppose what you stand for, how you think, how you act, and because I find the possibility of you as an admin to be deeply, deeply troubling. <span style="text-shadow:#FFA500 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Oppose:''' Your block log. Need I say more. -
'''Oppose'''Because of your block log. <font color="Darkorange">
'''Oppose'''  Essentially per SandyG and DreadS - and the circumstances of the nomination not inspiring much confidence either.
'''Oppose''' Severe civility problems which made the block log dirty because of it. Sorry, Alansohn, but I think you're better with improving the encyclopaedia a bit rather than judgement of the tools.
'''Oppose''' per previous blocks. -
'''Oppose''' Failure in what would be multiple admin areas per block log.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I can not support as the user does not pass my [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|standards]].
'''Oppose''': Per SandyGeorgia below, less than 2% of edits to Talk space indicates an editor who is clearly gung-ho about creating content, but doesn't provide evidence to show collaborative ability.  Perhaps this is because the user realized, following the years ago blocks and Arcbom decisions, that xe works best alone.  That's great for the type of work xe does, in creating new articles, but doesn't bode well for his/her ability to interact with others in an administrative capacity.  Just as I believe that excessive content creation should not be required to gain adminship, I also don't believe that excessive content creation overrides other concerns.
'''Oppose''' Far too much inclined to be combative in the face of disagreements, and yes, there have been recent examples of this, including in the past two days, so this is not something which he has put behind him years ago, even though he now manages to keep it at a level which does not lead to blocks. There are also cases of not really being in tune with the way Wikipedia processes work, such as seeing AfD closure as largely based on head counting. His answer to question 4(b) was unsatisfactory. The situation described does not warrant immediate reporting to ANI, and as for Arbcom, it is nowhere near that. If and when the problem escalates ANI may be worth considering, but at the point described in the question an admin should be able to act without bringing ANI into play. In addition, a minor point is that most of his work is in areas (such as article writing) in which admin tools are irrelevant.
'''Oppose''' Approach to deletion is too far from community consensus. I rarely find his arguments at DRV compelling.
'''Oppose.'''  With apologies, and no malice, it's the block log.  Won't always disqualify you in my book, but ideally there would be some more space between the last block and the RFA.
'''Oppose''' - Well, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Alansohn block log] ''worries'' me alot. Sorry :( -
The answer to 4(b) is very much inadequate and I don't have confidence in your ability (or willingness?) to close AfDs with the appropriate balance between arguments and numbers. AfD is not "democracy in action".--
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons (question 1). I also have concerns about your intention to adjudicate XfD. Although the edit warring was a long time ago, it was so disruptive that I still have misgivings about future events if you receive the tools.
'''Oppose''' Promises to be open to recall are made [[Ad captandum vulgaris]] - making such promises is disqualifying.
Strongest possible '''oppose''': user has not done [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=&page=User%3AAlansohn&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= any new page patrol]] whatsoever.
'''Oppose''' - RFC + long block log = no thanks.
'''Oppose''' on basis of block record.
Numerous blocks, which are very old, but there's no easy way to remove the tools if candidate reverts to old ways.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, that block log sank you. --
'''Oppose''' Too many blocks and civility issues. -
'''Oppose''' - I sincerely believe that this is a reformed editor, but closing AfDs on the basis of a headcount? No way Jose.
'''Oppose''' - per concerns in regards to the candidate's civility and previous blocks. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Oppose''' - because of incivility and block record, per my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|admin criteria]].  --'''
'''Oppose''' wow your block log was the torpedo that sunk this one for me... ''<B>--
'''Oppose'''. I see a red flag at the lack of talk page edits. Communication is key in this venue, and from what I can see, Alansohn's is less than fruitful. Sure, the blocks are troubling. Even more so, is the behavior and actions that led to the various blocks, shades of which continue, as evidenced in recent AfD and DRV conversations. I also see poor choices in overt, as well as passive aggressive behavior in responses to this RfA, expressing appreciation to another editor for a noose with which to hang himself, relating to IP users believed to be vandals as "infantile", and attempting to deflect attention from his own shortcomings by pointing out the edits of others, which he deems substandard. Sure, there's a lot of back and forth in this RfA, which equates to "I know you are, but what am I?" attacks, but the snide remarks of one editor does not justify the snide remarks of another. As evidenced in this discussion, it is apparent that Alansohn continues to lack the ability to maintain decorum through disputes. I shudder to think what would happen if this RfA were to continue another week. When all is said and done, I present a vote of no confidence in Alansohn to interpret and properly apply Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Regards,
'''Oppose''' per above. <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #3366FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Neutral.''', changed from Oppose. The candidate's response to Q7 is completely unlike what I had seen from him previously, and even the DRV exchange from July seems more like a heated debate than the sort of personal attack I'd seen from Alansohn previously. (I seem to have utterly screwed up the numbering sequence in Oppose, sorry. I've tried three times to repair it. Sorry)
'''Neutral'''. Great content creator, and he really has tried to pull things round.  But the mini rant on the DRV quoted above only comes from July, so I have a concern that he's not over his XfD issues yet.  Also, waiting for his answer to Q8.
I think Alansohn is a great editor and, other things being equal, would like to be on the support column. But the DRV quoted above gives me pause. I guess that means I'll hang out in the wishy-washy world of neutrality. --
'''Neutral''' Impressive number of DYKs, "impressive" number of blocks. ~~
Leaning towards "support" awaiting an answer to question 11. The last block was quite a while back and I believe Alansohn would be a net positive.
'''Neutral''' His/her contributions are out standing and I dont mind the block log too much as his/her last block was in April 2009. Lack of communication with with other editors is a serious problem as this is a collaborative Project.
'''<s>Oppose (but COI)</s> Neutral''' because of COI, but essentially opposed in my opinion for the reasons given by postdlf. I don't want to dredge up the details of past conflicts I have had with Alansohn which essentially amount to a COI in my formally opposing here, especially since he seems to have largely rectified any problematic behaviour over the past few months. But I too just think it may be too soon to consider adminship, and I haven't seen sufficient evidence that he can truly play well with others as opposed to just keeping his head down.
'''Neutral''' From looking through your contributions, I understand you are an excellent vandal fighter and content creator. It is evident that you are interested in expanding your own and other people's knowledge through your work here&mdash;and that is why I am not going to oppose. I know that your history with ArbCom and your block log are the things that are behind the majority of the oppose !votes here&mdash;and I believe you have put them behind you now&mdash;but the very fact they are there makes me cautious in adding a support vote. Don't let the oppose votes put you off&mdash;I started editing Wikipedia in April and I have a great deal of respect for your content contribution and your amazing set of DYKs. I hope there are more to come, whether you are promoted to admin or not. Good luck. '''
'''Neutral''', because I too might be perceived as having a COI here ...  but I share all the concerns expressed by Good Ol’factory, as well as by those who explicitly oppose the nom. I have long admired Alansohn's astonishingly prolific rate of DYK creation and his dedicated vandalism-patrolling work, but I have also encountered his sustained and bitter ABF personalisations of disagreements at XfD. Those lead me to conclude that Alansohn's undoubted strengths wrt content have not so far been mirrored by any remotely similar strengths in interaction with other editors, and skill at interaction is an essential part of adminship. I am impressed by the efforts which Alansohn has latterly made to avoid conflict, and he should be commended for that. However, this appears to have been done primarily by ''disengaging'' from discussion, rather than by developing a sustained pattern of more collaborative engagement, and episodes such as the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4|NYT DRV in July]] suggest that the combative persona may be dormant rather than reformed.<br />I hope that in time my concerns will prove to be unfounded, but the proof I would seek is of a sustained ability to routinely engage in civil discussions with editors over contentious matters, rather than simply avoiding points of contention.<br />In the meantime, I hope that Alansohn will not see a lack of support for adminship ''at this time'' as any sort of lack of respect for the real strengths which his commitment brings to Wikipedia in other ways. --
'''Neutral''' because there is little to  be gained by  adding  to  the pile-on  'opposes' , and BrownHairedGirl's comment  above summarises the situation  well. Nevertheless, the comments  of those  who  have cited lack  of collaboration/communication, and blocks,  appear to  be well  founded. Even if the civility  issues are borderline, they  are frequent enough  to  suggest  that  the pattern of communication  may  only  tone down after a period of concentrated effort. The high  edit  count is not a qualification - a gnome who  has made 15,000 'contributory' edits to  article space that  take 20  minutes each, or who  even prepares longer edits /articles in  their user space or offline, has done as much  or even more for the encyclopedia as a vandal fighter  using  a software solution  to  make 150,000 edits at  the rate of 20  a minute. As long  as it's not  just  a 'beat the bot' exercise, the candidate is already  providing  a vital contribution without  the tools, and when he has had the patience to  diversify, and make edits and decisions that  take more time, and that will demonstrate a clearer understanding  of some of the core policies, that  will be the time when the next  RfA will  succeed.--

Judging from the user talk page and the absurd introduction in this RFA, I don't think Alex is ready.--
Application indicates a lack of familiarity with Adminiship on Wikipedia.
Sorry, I agree with Chaser. Adminship isn't a big deal, but it should still be taken seriously.
Is this even a serious request. I suspect it may not be. Regardless you are not ready for this position.
'''Oppose''' - For the reasons stated above and because your falling out the back of the truck defies the laws of motion - kinetic motion would have propelled you through the windshield (or onto the driver's feet, depending if the driver was holding you or not). -
Because of his comment immediately above, I ''oppose''
'''Oppose'''. The RFA response alone is enough for me to confidently say that this editor should not, at this time, be trusted with the admin tools. I move for [[WP:NOTNOW]]. --
'''Oppose''' per lack of judgement in opening statement and for repeated use of 'my man' (it's outdated and sexist, IMHO).
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Strongest Possible]]''' - Cool as a cucumber? Whatever you say, my man? Heres what I say to real admins who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/. alexsautographs&oldid=337942109 don't consider adminship a joke]. Close per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Definitely. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
Per the opening statement, the answers to questions, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=337938917 failure] to transclude the RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=2609425&diff=337950685&oldid=337938917 correctly].
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]'''. Adminship is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]], but that doesn't mean it's a joke. --
'''Oppose''' this and all subsequent RfAs for the next 6 months per the nonsense categories and unreferenced BLPs created, the AfDs, and the [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/editsummary/index.php?name=alexsautographs&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia low] edit summary usage.
'''Not yet, my man.''' You don't take adminship seriously my man. <font face="Segoe Print">[[User talk:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]
'''Oppose'''. User obviously does not take adminship seriously. The answers to the questions here have shown us that you're simply not ready.
'''Strong oppose''' per the ''disgusting'' level of unpleasant badgering Alex appears to be doing. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Concerns with maturity, policy knowledge, and general lack of common sense.  -'''
'''Sorry''' You do have over 7000 contributions, including ''over 600 created articles'', so you must know something about content work. That being said, there's no way I can support a joke nomination such as this. I'd welcome you back in 6 months with a serious attitude and some evidence of constructive interaction with other editors, since your talk space edits are out of proportion with your article edits: you only have 31 in the user talk space and less than 100 in the article talk space. I think this lack of interaction may explain for your unusual behaviour here as well. '''
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of seriousness displayed. '''
'''Support''' if for no other reason than I would like this RfA to stay open.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but this should have waited a few weeks- at a minimum. After that mess of an RfA, to come back with a serious one a mere 15 hours later inspires no confidence in you and your judgment.  Sometime down the road, try March at the soonest, this may change.
'''Strong oppose''', obviously, per last RfA and answer to Q3. That question has a point, and you missed it. Precisely what have you learned in the half day since your first RfA that will make you a worthwhile candidate this time? Needs prompt close per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''', previous RfA notwithstanding, the opening statement of Q1 "My goal is to be one who decides whether to keep or delete articles that have been put up for AfD" strikes me as worrisome; I am not very optimistic that the candidate has a firm grasp on the administrator's role.
'''Oppose'''. After a spectacular display of bad judgement in the first RfA earlier today, it is rather too early for another try.
While I appreciate that you sobered up and wrote a serious attempt, and you seem like a good editor, you should still wait more than 15 hours after your last RfA failed. I agree with Bradjamesbrown that it shows a lack of good judgment. Perhaps you could take the advice given in this RfA and the last one, then re-submit yourself in 6 months or so? --'''
'''Strong oppose''' And I didn't even see the other RFA. The answer to question 1 is more than enough to get me to oppose, user wants the tools for the wrong reasons, and does not understand our deletion process.
'''Oppose'''. It wasn't hard for me to find reasons to oppose other than your earlier nomination. A selection of your very recent contributions in AfDs are, in my view, weak: see [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Will_Ratner|this non-contribution]] as an example; and 'it's not my fault it's a stupid policy' [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Bicknell|here]]. With respect, I think you are some way off being trusted with the delete button. --
'''Oppose with a long winded explanation''' Alex (I hope its okay if I call you Alex for short), I've gone through your contributions, and I must say, you do have potential. Coming from someone who has done Rfa after Rfa, you gotta slow down and wait. You're eventually going to end up like me, and go on hiatus for a year. You do have the potential to be an Administrator, but from what I can tell,  you don't seem to have enough experience yet for those "haters (j/k)" above ^. Rarely, RARELY, do I ever !vote oppose on an Rfa (go check). I believe in giving everyone a chance, at least once. Granted, the tools are powerful and you can do damage if you don't use them correctly, however, it's an easy undo most of the time. I do appreciate your enthusiasm and the fact that you're willing to put yourself out here like this, but kid, relax. Wikipedia will be here for a long, long time, and there's so much knowledge out there that you can learn, before becoming a leader. Practice AFD's, and fixing up articles. Get your name out there more, so when it does come time, you will go through this with a breeze. Much love and support, <font face="Segoe script">
'''Weak Support''' Looks like youve done a lot of quality work and Im sure youd be a net positive as an admin providing to start with you tread very lightly in the area of dispute resolution, where I agree you seem to need more experience. If youre suggesting we amend guidelines so they refer to edit wars as "wars against vandals", that would definitely be unadvisable as often both parties involved in edit wars are equally passionate about building good content, neither should be judged as vandals, they just have conflicting opinions.
Sorry, but I can't see what you need the tools for at the moment. Keep up the good work you're doing and get some experience in admin areas and I'd be happy to reconsider my opinion in the future.
I don't think you're quite there yet, in terms of experience.  Also, ''"I also want to replace "edit wars" with "war against vandals"'' doesn't strike me as the right attitude for these sort of matters.
'''Oppose''' There's simply not enough experience that the user can discern community consensus. I don't think this user is sufficiently cognizant of the community, evidenced in part by the project contribution paucity, the lack of edit count enabling, the very recent copyright concerns on image uploads, and a few deletion template notices that resulted in deletions. None of those are fatal, but given the broader context of these edits, I cannot support.
'''Moral support'''. It's great to see an active editor from India whose aim is "improvement of grammar, cohesion, formatting, layout and general presentation and look of an article" - there are lots of India-related articles that need a lot of improvement, and we're under-represented by [[WP:GNOME|Gnomes]] and [[WP:COPYEDIT|copy-editors]] from that part of the world. So keep up the good work, and I look forward to supporting you for adminship when the time is right. --
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, I don't see why you need the tools.  You can do all that right now without any special rights.  I'd reccomend at least another year with Wikipedia and more community participation.  Keep up the good article work too, that's what we're all here for!  --'''
'''Oppose''' I cannot support any candidate with only 32 edits in the wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose'''. Would like to see a bit more experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' at this time per "edit/vandal wars" comment, but more especially <s>{{diff|List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets|next|353172546|this recent edit summary}}</s>{{diff|List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets|prev|353172546|this recent edit summary}}.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience for me to trust him with admin tools. Sorry Ankitbhatt.
Some very good work there, but I'm not seeing much experience, especially in resolving conflicts, and the answers to Q1 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films_in_overseas_markets&diff=prev&oldid=353172546 this edit summary] suggest a somewhat combative perspective that could be troublesome when empowered by Admin tools. In the example of the Jeevcy reversion, a [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace|user warning]] (or perhaps a civil note) on that editor's talk page might have been better than a huffy edit summary. Speaking of [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]], 5% is quite low. Hang in there&mdash;you seem to have the right stuff, just short of experience. /
I'm not familiar with your work yet, but you mention film. If you are knowledgeable or interested in films, you might like to help out with finding references for the examples given for various film editing techniques. Your work would be much appreciated. You can see about a dozen such articles which I'm working through listed on my talk page.
I do like your content contributions, but what's keeping me from supporting is the lack of big experience in the Wikipedia: namespace. I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and come back in a few months after you gain some more experience. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
Suggest you spend some time helping  at the help desk a bit and build some policy knowledge, then come back and try this again. Might be some potential here, just difficult to assess. Happy editing
You may find [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]] useful in preparing for next time.
'''Weak Support''' What is clear to me is that this candidate has improved considerably in the last 10 and a half months, that ''speedy''<!--added three minutes after initial comment--> deletions aside this candidate knows what to do with the tools, and that I am convinced that one day ArkAngel will be a valuable admin. While this RfA will probably fail, I don't think the nomination was as ill-advised as the early comments imply.
'''Support''' I think he would handle the mop well.
Moral support-- Needs more experience in the areas you want to help out. -
'''Support''' ArcAngel is thoughtful, and focused on improving the encyclopedia as well as the quality of his contributions. I see some opposition about an A7 speedy nomination for an article on an obscure record label... well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Country_Turtle_Records&oldid=369954207 look at the version of the article he nominated]. Looks like a perfectly reasonable nomination of a sub-par article without solid sources. That something existed is not enough to avoid an A7. Even more importantly, ArcAngel's ability to defend his position to admins and other users, as well as continue to follow process with an appropriate AfD suggests he has enough clue to wield the mop. If anything, it seems wildly inappropriate to vote against him simply because you differ in opinion on a matter of little importance. The fact that many admins don't agree with SoWhy on the interpretation of A7 suggests that the matter is far from written in stone.
'''Oppose''' with a bit of regret. I am sorry, I am just not convinced by your responses to the questions (not just my one). You say that you want to work with UAA/AIV/RFPP, but looking at the last 6 months, I see 3 contributions to UAA; none to AIV, and 1 (a comment) at RFPP. Your reply to my question mentioned your CSD nominations - but this is not an area in which you want to work as an admin. I think that you are not yet ready for adminship - although I would not say that you never will be ready, just that you are not at the moment -- '''''
'''Oppose with moral support''' This [[User_talk:ArcAngel/Archive0015#Speedy_deletion_declined:_Country_Turtle_Records|faulty CSD nomination]] is too recent IMO. I have otherwise held this editor in high regard, and hope that they are able to learn from their mistakes.
'''Oppose''' Not right now for me. Your response to RadmanCF's concern directly above shows that you still do not have a good grasp of what A7 does and does not include. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose'''. I think it's a [[WP:NOTYET]] RFA. You've got plenty of experience, but, in my opinion, you're not ready yet; and, quite frankly, I wholeheartedly concur with Phantomsteve: you have way too few edits in the areas you'd like to work in. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' based on other opposes, and the fact that I don't think you need the admin tools; you do a good enough job doing what you do already. --
'''Oppose''', concerns about judgment and responses to questions. -- '''
'''Oppose''' With deep regret. This RFA reminds me of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/White Shadows|my own RFA]] just a few days ago. I understand that it can be very sad (and even depressing and demoralizing to an extent) to have an RFA fail and then the second one go just as badly. I really wish that I can support; you seem to be an honest and constructive contributor who has the best interests of Wikipedia in your heart. However, there are a few red flags that pop up in my opinion such as your edits to the places that you wish to work in as well as your knowledge of policy. Here is some advice that you can take (or leave) if you'd like: Start making many edits to the places that you'd like to work in or you can even expand your horizon (we could always use you over at [[WP:DYK]] and I know that [[User:HJ Mitchell]] is dying for more editors over at [[WP:ITN/C]]) As for CSD's, why not keep a list of the CSD criteria on your main or talk page, I have one. If you're not entirely certain about a new article, just go back and take a look at your "cheat sheet"! I hope that you take all of these comments and learn form them, don't get discouraged just take it all in as advice. I look forward to supporting you about 5-6 months :)--
'''Oppose''', with regrets, due to concerns on interpretation of CSD A7 and lack of recent experience in stated admin areas of interest (AIV and UAA in particular).
'''Oppose''' - The CSD issues especially interesting because this editor has opposed others based on CSD issues ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blanchardb_2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_4] for some). I also find [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Until_It_Sleeps_3] this reason for opposing wrongheaded. There is no reason to try to reduce any particular percentage-we need automated editors for vandalism patrol-and there's nothing wrong with them.
'''Oppose''' - Like others above, I don't think you are quite ready.  Keep at it, get stronger in the areas you want to work in, and the community will back you next time around.  I sincerely thank you for your interest and work on the project to date. Best wishes,
'''Oppose'''. Faulty understanding of CSD. Limited experience in the areas where he intends to work (AIV, RFPP). Limited content creation.
'''Oppose''' If you think A7 is about notability, you're not ready for the delete button.
'''Oppose''' although I can't rule him/her out yet. I think more practice with the CSD tagging is ideal first before this user press the delete button.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, and policy knowledge.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Per above. I do not feel you have the experience needed for adminship. ''
'''Oppose''' - to be frank, i dont think your ready yet.
'''Oppose''' Comments on CSD A7 is plenty reason enough to not support giving this user tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I just get the feeling you're not ready yet. --
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, not at this time.
'''Oppose''' - You don't appear to have enough of a focus on content building, less than 30% of his edits are to article space and less than 3% to article talkpages.  While it might not be the only area to specialize in, I'd like admins to be Wikipedia editors first and foremost.  --'''
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTYET]]. ArcAngel has improved since the previous nomination, and I think that he will make a fine admin in the near future. Unfortunately, the response to RadManCF shows a clear misundertanding of the higher threshold for deletion under A7, and I cannot support any candidate proposing to work with CSD who does not appear to make a distinction between [[WP:N]] and A7's "indication of importance of significance". That indicates a certain degree of inexperience, and I suggest that ArcAngel carries on gaining experience in that area, along with those other areas that he wants to work in&ndash;as indicated by PhantomSteve&ndash;and comes back in a few months, when I am sure that he will be successful.
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTYET]]. Too close to the last RfA without a convincing accumulation of new experience and new edits. Adminship - IHMO - is not for a once-in-a-while editor. There is plenty of good work to be done without needing the tools.--
I have seen some great work, but I can't support with the mistakes you have made. Sorry. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Neutral''' – Great work, but can't support in light of the opposes. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Neutral''' for now. Great Wikipedian with lots of good work, but I'm concerned about understanding of deletion criteria.
'''Neutral''' I am checking out the deleted contributions.  With [[Catherine Angiel]] it was tagged by the candidate in less than a minute of creation.  Last RFA this overhaste in speedy delete tagging was also a problem. This suggests a slow down is needed or at least a bit more of a check first.  But otherwise accuracy of tagging  for the deleted stuff is OK.
'''Neutral''' You do excellent work, but I can't support at this point due to the experience issues noted. I strongly encourage you to take the good advice given by those voting, and try again later. I'm sure you will be more successful with extra experience in Admin related tasks "under your belt"
'''Neutral and sorry''' - as I tell my students, you need to show up more regularly.
'''Neutral''' As it turns out, you have good intentions but I think you need some more exprience, mainly because of what [[User:Phantomsteve|Phantomsteve]] raised. You are welcome to re-apply, of course by October, I'd think after some more exprience on the areas you intend to work on. --
'''Moral support'''. I perfectly understand your A7 woes- I myself avoid A7 like the plague and only really deal with G10 and 11. I would support, but your lack of recent activity in the areas you say you wish to work in is not good. If RfPP and AIV are what takes your fancy, start offering useful non-admin comments there- you'll find that many admins, including myself, greatly appreciate the input as it can save us a few vital seconds in weighing up whether to block or protect. If you did that for 3 or 4 months and avoided getting yourself into trouble, I'd almost certainly land in the support column. Bugger it, I might even be willing to nominate you, but for now, I'm afraid you're not ''quite'' ready. Sorry.
Have at it and you'll get there (for what its worth, after all). Just do what you like best, and see where it takes you.
'''Moral Support''' Sorry, [[WP:NOTYET]] is still clearly apparent.  I would recommend discussion your future admin plans with a trusted admin or 2 (or 3), and have someone you trust let ''you'' know when they think you're ready.  Future self-nom's are not likely to succeed. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' your responses to the questions need some work specifically Q5 needs to show how you have grown since your last RfA. ''<B>--
'''Support''' --<font color="black">
'''Support''' User has been around since 2008 and has over 47000 edits and has created over 200 articles and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support''' Has been a great contributor to the encyclopedia, and knows a lot of policies. I agree with POTW & BlueDog to give Armbrust the mop.
'''Moral support'''. A sensible, hard-working and ambitious editor that displays a passion for being a Wikipedian. His activities on behalf of the welcoming and birthday committees provides motivation and make this a better place to work. Looking like it's not going to happen this time hence the 'moral' support, but I see a lot of potential in this user and if he takes into consideration the issues raised in this RfA I have no doubt his next one will pass. --
'''Moral support''' - bit more moral support. User is clearly experienced and there would be some areas of Administration that I am sure he could and would be an asset. Recently a user was given the mop with the comment that he should go to admin school and get a mentor or two. Perhaps this user has some minor issues but if he took his time I am sure he would not make the wheels drop off.
'''Support''' - The user is doing a great job and has demonstrated that he/she knows and understands the policy. Looking through contributions I don't see anything wrong.  --
'''Support''' Lots of experience, don't see any major issues.
'''Support''' I can't honestly see a reason to make me believe he would destroy the wiki with the tools.--
'''Support''' - He's done a good job, I'd say we should give him a chance. He might have had some disruptive edits but that does not outweigh the good he's done and the work he has effortlessly contributed. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Support''' I see no major issues. Good luck :)--
'''Support''' - Problems have indeed been listed in the oppose section, but I trust that he will not act in any way to disrupt Wikipedia with the tools. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' He meets all my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|admin criteria]].  I was a bit nervous about the stuff being brought up in the oppose section, but with this many edits you're bound to make a few mistakes. He seems to be committed to the goals of the project and has plenty of experience.  --'''
'''Support''' - No red flags for me. Editing wikipedia is a fuzzy process in all cases (and I think SHOULD be a fuzzy process). Anyway, generally clean record, heavy contributor, understands a chunk o' stuff, and all indications are that this editor is capable of refining his understanding of wikipedia adminship. I think I'm a bit old school in thinking that granting admin status shouldn't be that big of a deal. --
'''Support:''' A dedicated and prolific contributor. I am changing to support because the concerns raised represent a very small % of this candidate's large number of edits. -
'''Support''' some issues in opposition raise a few eyebrows, but the editor is progressing and experienced. Hope after a few months that Armbrsut decides to give another go. Moral here
'''Support''' --
Sorry. I think an essential quality of being an admin is judiciousness in decision-making and the ability to explain a decision to people disappointed by it. Those qualities are particularly important in deletions. Looking through your contributions (and I have had a good look) I see a lot of very quick AfD !votes, often within one minute of each other. I think it would be unusual for an editor to have a proper look at an article and the sources that might be usable for the article in such short periods of time. Admittedly, most of your delete !votes are on uncontroversial deletions. But you get caught out: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manmadhan Ambu|here]] on a delete !vote; and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints in Hell|here]] !voting keep without checking verifiability. You usually change your mind when new sources become available - which is great - but it is better to be careful first. So I don't think you are careful enough with your delete !votes and they are often cursorily explained. That leads me to have doubts about AfD closes, particularly as there are questionable recent NACs ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Kenneth_K._Kim&oldid=373327756]). Having said all of that, I am willing to listen to any response to this oppose, for example, if I am unfairly considering things out of context. --

'''Weak oppose''': Though in my few interactions with this user in the past he has appeared to be a good editor, unfortunately some of the issues raised above are too problematic to ignore; I had noticed previously that the user's !votes in AfDs often seem rushed and could be better researched prior to coming to a decision, and upon being reminded, I also recall the inappropriate NAC referenced by [[User:Christopher Connor]] above, as I reverted it myself at the time. It's a reasonable mistake for an editor to make, but illustrates that the user may have some work still to do before they can be an effective sysop. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''
'''Oppose'''. I've taken a look at your 'tribs and you appear to be a valuable Wikipedian; however, I cannot ignore some of the issues raised by Mkativerata and by Christopher Connor, which make me feel uncomfortable trusting your judgement as an admin, especially when it comes to AFDs (your rushed !votes and that NAC are unreassuring, IMHO); and, finally, your use of edit summaries could definitely be improved... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''OPPOSE:''' Christopher Connor's thorough analysis SHOCKS me. I've seen Armbrust at AfDs, generally making rational comments, but those diffs exhibit utter incompetence in content work. <s>Also, he closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. L. Langley]] inappropriately as "speedy keep" in violation of [[WP:SK#Applicability|#3]].</s>
'''Oppose''' I'm not going to be nearly as dramatic as the actor above my vote, but the lackluster AFD !votes, wonky edits that create problems instead of fixing them, and especially no edit summaries in controversial edits and/or reverts is a dealbreaker. I cannot trust the candidate at this time.
'''Oppose''' - Well said Vodello.
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Christopher Connor sums it  up well  and after following  up, I don't  want  to  pile on more rationale. Armbrust  appears to  be a friendly, helpful and civil editor, and we ''all''  make occasional mistakes,  but  his editing  pattern is still  too  unstable. If he can  work  on  those deficiencies of AfD judgement, lack of edit summaries, and other points, I  would probably  find my  way  to  support a new RfA in  about  six months time.
Multiple issues raised by review of candidate's talk page, including questionable policy interpretations and iffy command of English language.
'''Oppose''' On the grounds that you have communication issues. To an extent, we all suffer from this, so please don't take my vote as a judgement on your eventual ability to gain the mop. For now, I would simply prefer to see a greater degree of receptive and interactive communication (edit summaries, meaningfully explained tags, and substantive commentary) before I support your bid.
'''Oppose''' with regret. While the problematic edits outlined above are only a tiny proportion of the 47,000 total edits, I'm afraid what I'm seeing looks like sub-optimal communication and attitude - failing to communicate (eg omitting edit summaries from contested edits, deleting messages asking for clarification), getting bogged down in disputes over trivial style changes, and over-eagerness and terseness in AfD, are not ideal behaviours for an admin. But I stress my regret, because I really do see a dedicated and prolific contributor. --
The lack of communication is the deal breaker for me - a simple glance at your talk page is concerning in this respect as well as revealing. As an aside, carrying all the personal stuff on your user page isn't to wise IMHO (but nothing to do with my comment regarding your RFA). Sorry and I hope that this request provides some good feedback. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.   Concerns with judgement.  -'''
'''Oppose'''. Sorry brilliant editor but no. Ownage of snooker project can be seen as intimidating to other editors. And immature behaviour/refual to write to explain edits, although I do notice that since his been nominated he has used them on every ocassion. Here he stuck the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_World_Open_(snooker)&diff=378206281&oldid=378202904 wrong reference in] refused to go to the talkoage page and carried on warring. I go to the talk page and he still refused to admit what was wrong with it. When I say wrong reference he turned round and said well why didn't you say that inciting that he knew exactly what was wrong with it. And then promptly did it right. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_World_Open_(snooker)&diff=378376224&oldid=378375862 1]. And has had numerous of other trivial wars recently. Sorry but oppose, but keep up the contributions.
'''Oppose''' As others say, a good editor but not administrator material.
'''Oppose'''. I don't mind occasional quirks of grammar or punctuation (although when I tried looking at some random edits, the first one I saw involved Armbrust returning to an old comment on a talkpage after somebody else had replied, and changing their own text to break the grammar). In an international community I'd rather prioritise productive work over linguistic pedantry. However, the interaction with other wikipedians mentioned above looks worse (ie. failing to respond to concerns, and/or deleting them), as does the hastiness at AfD. I'm sure Armbrust is a great ''contributor'', but I do not think they would be a great ''admin''.
'''Oppose''' per many of the editors above me, especially Christopher Connor and his detailed analysis. Aarmbrust seems like a great guy, but I'm not sure with a contribution history which Connor has brought up that I'd be fully comfortable making him a sysop.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the quality of your written english is not high enough to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''' - I can honestly say that this person is a fantastic editor and we should all be grateful for having them on the project, but I don't see enough evidence to counteract the issues brought up earlier in this RfA. I really hope they work more on their AfD contributions and come back at a later date.
'''Oppose''' per Christopher Connor and Know|G, particularly.
'''Oppose''' due to judgement and communication concerns. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
I've seen him do good work in various areas, as well as make some poor decisions and questionable comments in deletion discussions (Christopher Connor's oppose above mentions some of these things). Overall, I've found Armbrust to be a good user, but I can't bring myself to support right now. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' established editor, but the above oppses do not allow me to support at this time. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''', a committed editor who has made substantial contributions to the site. However, the issues stated above does cast doubt over the handling of AfDs. -
'''Neutral''' I too am concerned by the same things as raised by the opposes, but I will not pile-on oppose. I would suggest that it might be an idea for the candidate to withdraw this RfA -- '''''
'''Neutral''' i can not ''Support'' at this time. -
'''Neutral''' Cannot support right now. This is a hard-working user, but the opposers bring up valid and worrisome concerns. I'd be more than happy to support once these have been addressed.
'''Neutral''' - I can't support at this time due to multiple issues. I'd be happy to support in six months once you've improved. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Neutral'''—Fantastic overall contributions, but I'm concerned about the issues brought up by the opposers, namely some hasty XfD !votes and communication skills. I do hope you'll try again once you've worked on these points,
'''Neutral''' Leaning towards oppose, but landing in the neutral camp to encourage this editor to continue making good contributions and apply for the mop in a bit.
'''Neutral''' — per Airplaneman —
'''Neutral'''. I see a lot of good work out of this candidate, but there are some lingering issues that need work - and these have been discussed at length above. I would highlight, though, the fact that there are so many of us here under "Neutral" - this is a good indication of the positive work that the candidate is doing overall, and that there may be a lot more support for a later RFA that shows good progress. Best,
I don't intend to pile on with an oppose, as although I can't support I did see good qualities in the contributions. I wasn't going to comment at all, but linking to a live, deletion-reviewed and relisted AfD of an article subject to ArbCom sanctions doesn't say "excellent judgement" to me. Something to bear in mind for next time. --
'''Neutral''' I wish the best of luck here, but there have been too many points brought up earlier to support.
'''Moral Support'''- your RfA is going to fail, as it should. You simply do not have enough experience yet. Clearly you are acting in good faith and have good motivations, and I hope this doomed RfA does not put you off. Best of luck in the future, and maybe we'll see you here again in six months or a year.
'''Oppose''' too inexperienced and the answer to #3 gives me pause.  Your first step when engaged in a conflict should not be to warn the other side, but to engage in discussion.  You should also not be perpetuating the revert war as you said you do.
'''Oppose''' but with moral support. Really not enough experience yet, and answers to questions aren't really there. But please stay with us and keep making great contributions - once you have a wider range of experience, I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. --
'''Oppose''' because of (1) lack of experience, (2) answer to #3 and (3) almost no content work, almost all of his edits in the article namespace are reverts. He has violated [[WP:3RR]] many times. <font color="#082567">
'''Oppose''' Q1 is poorly answered. Applying blocks for those who need a break is discouraged. Also, you've called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bol_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=387695229 this edit] vandalism when actually the IP was adding references. I'd advise you to read [[WP:Vandalism]] first before re-applying.
'''Oppose'''. I'm forced to agree with those above - you need more experience and more content work before submitting to RFA. Do stick around, though, and do not be discouraged.
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Moral support, but you're a bit too inexperienced. Edit conflicts are not anyone's fault you do not warn users involved in an edit conflict, rather you discuss the edit conflict on appropriate pages. I commend your eagerness and willingness to participate in the project :) Don't give up your hopes :) Regards and happy editing, —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' - Not yet enough evidence of experience in either quantity or quality. --
'''Oppose''' - You clearly don't have enough experience to become an administrator. And we don't block people who need a break. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
See [[WP:NOTNOW]]
'''Oppose''' I am taking this seriously. I can imagine myself supporting a candidate with a thousand edits or so. But an editor with a clue would realize that a nomination with this few edits is going to have to present a case to explain why this situation is unusual, and deserves  support. I not only don't see a credible case, I don't see an attempt. If you would like me to take your nomination seriously, you have to meet me part-way and show that you take it seriously. I don't that. Sorry. Hope this does not come across too harsh, and I hope you gain experience try again when you are ready.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' Don't be discouraged, but you don't have enough experience and knowledge to become an admin yet - Q1 is an example, it's well-known that "cool-down blocks" are not appropriate, but come back in maybe six months to a year and you'll have a shot. <b>[[~]] <font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#66699"><i>[[User:QwerpQwertus|Qwerp]]</i></b></font><font size="2.5" face="Apple LiSung" color="#CC6600">[[User talk:QwertyQwerpus|Qwertus]]</font> <font size="1.5" face="Lucida Sans" color="#003300">[[User talk:QwerpQwertus|Talk]]</font>
'''Comment''' - I'll comment, rather than piling on another oppose. I don't want to discourage a keen and well intentioned editor. However, I can't support you yet, because your experience is not sufficient to be seeking adminship right now. I'm sure that, later, with more experience, you could make a good admin, and judging from your helpful contributions so far, I'd be likely to support, then. I'd recommend reading [[WP:NOTNOW]], and looking through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing in the meantime. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Wow, 78% main space edits - that's fantastic! After a quick scan through your contributions, all looks fine - I'd perhaps have liked to have seen more Wikipedia space edits, but you've been around long enough to understand how we do things. Reviewing some of your talk page comments makes me think you're a polite chap which is always a good thing! Best of luck! '''
'''Support''' Decent editor, good contribs to the mainspace and nice XfD tagging, but would you to see a little more project space edits (They are a tad dwarfed by your article edits). In other words, your  a great role model.
'''Support''' 72 AfDs participated in, 625 CSD tags placed, and 1,495 pages marked as patrolled - perfect for the role. --
'''Support''' Excellent work has been done by this candidate. I see no problems with giving him the mop. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Support''' - looking at your deleted contributions, you seem to have more than enough experience with speedies, and help with CSD is certainly appreciated.
No glaring issues, and seems like an experienced user. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' See no concerns as per track.
'''Per above.''' no worries.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''. Experienced, polite, knowledgeable. Answer to Q5 alleviated that concern. A green light from me.
'''Weak Support''' (EC) I think the answers to some questions could have been better, but I don't see much risk/downside.
'''Support''' Large number of mainspace edits, large number of pages patrolled, satisfactory experience where you intend to work as an admin, and you give a good impression. No problem trusting you with the mop.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - over 9,000 edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, autoreview rights, has a [[WP:BARN|Barnstar]], prolific article creator, etc.  Recently came of legal age.
'''Support'''- I don't know why but I think you'll be good.
'''Support''' - looks good. I'm sure the BLPs will be fixed one time or another, since almost all of them were created back when the rules were not as stringent.
'''Support'''. The candidate has both XfD and article-building experience, seems helpful, and has a clue. I see no red flags.
'''Support''' What I see looks good. <strong>
Intelligent.
'''Support''' some good points raised about BLP, but have faith the candidate will take them on board and otherwise looks like a very good editor.
'''Support''' - Seems to be a good editor for the most part and I think they would be a good administrator as well.
'''Support''' - You meet all my admin criteria.  Keep up the good work!  --'''
'''Support'''.
Would like you to sort out the unrefenced stuff but I'm not going to oppose you for it.
'''Weak support'''. Upon visiting BigDom's showcase of the articles he created, nearly all those showcase articles are stubs and most are rated low-importance by WikiProjects the articles he created have been inculded in. And per the oppose comments, with all those unreferenced biographies tags (or whatever they're called), 24 of them is probably a problem. So that's another negative. However, everything else looks ok for him to be an administrator. Best of luck (even if this is a weak support). --
'''Support''' - I honestly don't see any major red flags, and the answer to question 8 is perfectly acceptable. G10 does not apply as it is not an attack page. The question is nothing more than a trap.
'''Support''' the BLP concerns are valid, but overall, I don't believe they will cause this candidate to exhibit poor judgment with the tools. I do, however, want to see a bit more activity in the project space and the BLP issues to be dealt with, whether through better sourcing or deletion if no reliable sources exist. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support''' I would have liked to have seen some detailed AfD debate on non-football related issues but plenty of useful contributions and reasoned arguments and I am satisfied that the BLP issues are not a reason for opposition to this RfA.
'''Support''' 78% mainspace edits do impress me, but also he's a cool, calm and friendly type of characteristic with no intent to argue.
'''Support''' No issues that I can see. --
'''Support'''. I realise that some of BigDom's BLP stubs are inadequately referenced. However the overwhelming majority of his work is of great quality. BigDom (now) understands the importance of referencing in BLPs. I don't think that this will continue to be issue in either his content creation or potential AfD closures.
'''Support''', looks fine with a good record of low-drama editing and sensible behaviour. I'm all for encouraging BLP sourcing but the concerns raised by the opposers seem rather strictly theoretical: harm comes from poorly-sourced controversial BLPs, not from single-sourced mini-stubs about minor athletes. This appears to be a dedicated editor who could make decent use of the tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Seems fine to me.
me too. -
'''Support'''  - A long editing history in which he's gotten into remarkably few conflicts, evidence of a willingness to recognise and learn from mistakes, a good reason to have the tools, and no serious evidence that he'll misuse them.  I honestly don't care if he makes a bad call about BLPs from time to time - admins make mistakes too - but what's more important is that when he does, it seems likely he'll be receptive to having that drawn to his attention, and learn from the experience. And thanks, BigDom, for your answer to my question. -
'''Support''' - It seems to me this user has enough experience, i mean he has created over 1,000 articles! He should be no concern to the Wikipedia Community. <small>Written by </small><b><i><font color="#FFFF00">
'''Support''' mostly per Balloonman and DustFormsWords.
'''Support''' Most of the unreferenced BLPs listed in the talk page archive are stubs, and as BigDom says, standards were much lower when those were made; the effort put into fixing them lately is acceptable, and he is certainly going to be aware of these concerns in the future. Your answers to the questions are overall fairly good. You may not know everything, but I don't require someone to be the perfect admin at RfA. What you don't know, you'll learn, and I see no reason to oppose. Best of luck as this continues. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' I think this editor has learned from and continues to be willing to learn from their past mistakes, and has a reasonably sound grasp on policy.  Plus, he seems like he isn't an a--hole., which is a good thing.
'''Support''' - seems harmless enough. BLP considerations are irrelevant. No one has mounted a successful action against wikipedia thus far, I fail to see why things should change now. Libel away!
Fully qualified. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' I understand the opposes due to possible mistakes in BLP (esp G10), but the candidate did clearly say they would seek the guidance of more experienced admins before making decisions on such issues, and I think that is commendable - a new admin who seeks help from others is a whole lot more useful to Wikipedia than no new admin at all. As for the unsourced early BLPs, as others have said, there were different standards in the past, and I see no evidence the candidate has acted against any contemporary standards. And finally, I see an intelligent and mature editor, which goes to show how you shouldn't judge a potential admin by their youth. --
--''
'''Weak Support:'''  A good editor but there are some issues raised by the "oppose" that need work. Good luck -
'''Support''' Great work in content building ''according to the criteria in place at the time'' throughout this editor's tenure. I see good work at AFD and in CSD tagging to go along with the content creation. I am not swayed at all by the opposes below, and believe that as per [[WP:OWN]] no editor has an ongoing responsibility to improve articles as standards change. If one wishes to do such a thing they should, but there is certainly no obligation to do so. Absent such an obligation, there is nothing to be held against this candidate. '''
I checked out one of the 1300 articles which the candidate has created - [[Malungisa Dlamini]].  This is a BLP which was recently created without any references.  Given the recent furore, this seems too clueless.
'''Oppose''' per [[User_talk:BigDom/Archive_4#Unreferenced_BLPs|User_talk:BigDom#Unreferenced_BLPs]] while some have external links some do not...  Sorry BLPs need to be properly referenced and cited for me to support it is simply too big an issue facing Wikipedia right now. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''', per the BLP issue. Not that the candidate used this argument, but "other articles use it" is not a defence for referencing a BLP. Inline citations, while arguably not necessary for articles, should be; if you say "everything in the article is referenced to this source", fine, but if crap is added it's difficult to tell it's any less genuine than anything else. It's also a personal gripe when people stick sources under "external links", but that's somewhat irrelevant.
I will not support, or even evaluate further, until the list of articles at [[User talk:BigDom#Unreferenced BLPs]] is cleaned up. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_I#View_by_NuclearWarfare my position at BLP RfC Phase I]. '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' - It  is my  opinion that  sysops should set an example if they  are going to  use a special set of tools to  inform, encourage, educate, and pass judgement on other users. These actions are important amidst the common  contention that  admins  are here just  to  delete articles and block users. I'm  not  convinced that  BigDom's use of edit  summaries is consistent enough. I'm also not sure that  the candidate understands the difference between References and External links, and the reasons  why  we have those two  distinctions. There are still too many  Wikipedians who  believe their edit count  is a passport  to  adminship and that quantity  is far more important  than quality, I am not overly impressed by  the number of created stubs or their notability (or lack of it),  or the hig number of redirects counted as creations, or what  in my  opinion is a clear misunderstanding  of the system of classifying  articles as stub/start class etc. Admittedly  the candidate makes very  few semi-automated edits from  Twinkle or Friendly, but  that   assumes also that  welcoming  or warning  other contributors has  been low on  the priorities, as has, to judge from  the  ratio  of article space to  various talk  pages, his general  enthusiasm to  be part of the greater community, and to  be active in  a broader diversity  of topics. I'm sure that  given time, BigDom would make a great  admin, but only after becoming  a  more all-round editor and participating  more in  discussions,  and cleaning  up  his own articles.  I  would like to  see several  months without  a single complaint  on his talk  page, and then a new attempt  at RfA.--
Per the Q8 answer. In my opinion an unsourced article containing accusations against living people is a perfectly valid G10 close, regardless of the AfD arguments. There are also several excellent arguments against adminship above.
'''Oppose''' from support. My initial concern about Q8 has now materialised into enough to swing me to an oppose: a litany of unsourced BLPs, poor sourcing in many other BLPs. Admins have to set high standards on BLPs: even if they're not BLP activists, they have to be trusted to see a BLP problem when there is one and not create BLP problems themselves. --
'''Oppose''' for the simple reason that anybody who wants the job is invariably not suited for the job. Regardless of how many edits they have or how many answers are answered with the answer the candidate thinks the flocking throng wants to hear. --
'''strong oppose''' for the serial creation of lightly sourced (some unsourced) stubs of living people that are unmaintained, add no encyclopedic value, and demonstrate a lack of judgment and discretion by the candidate. Evidence that he shouldn't be in a position of authority over content. Articles like [[Phinda Dlamini]] are also evidence of the problem with the special notability guidelines on athletes in general. [[Ryan O'Neill (American soccer player)]] is even worse (an american third division midfielder that hasn't had a decent source since big dom created it four years ago. The man is probably retired by now, given his age and the fact that 3rd division players in the US only make a few hundred bucks a game, if that, but there's really no way of finding out. (''moved to strong in answer to my question; playerhistory.com does not have strong editorial controls, it's run by free contributors.'')
'''Oppose''' until BLP is taken more seriously.
'''Oppose''' We need admins who are willing to assist in making atheletes of minor notability deletable, not admins who are going to make more. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per not yet. '''
'''Weak Oppose'''.  You've done a respectable amount of work for this project, but some of the opposers have valid points.  If this doesn't pass, come back in a few months and several thousand more edits.  I would be happy to support you then.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - This user created some non-notable, unsourced articles.
'''Reluctant oppose''' per NuclearWarfare. I went and found the list of unsourced BLPs in BigDom's archives. One has been stubbed down to one sentence, but contains no sources. The other remains completely unsourced. Even if everything is sourced to an external link, I feel that should be indicated in the article. Work on your BLPs, come back in a couple of months, and I'll happily support.
'''Negative ghost rider''' pattern is full.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - BigDom, by his actions, has shown that he does not comprehend the BLP problem. We can not expect editors who don't hold themselves to any standard, to make admins that will hold others to any standard. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' The BLP example (Q8 hypothet) showed a ''clearly contentious unsourced claim affecting a named individual,'' which falls into a clear BLP violation situation.   I am less concerned about innocuous claims about footballers, though I suspect that normal notability issues may well apply - material suitable for a composite list may not be sufficient for individual articles.
On the right track, but this nomination demonstrates a need for a bit more refinement before the candidate is ready.  Keep doing what you are doing, take some of the comments above to heart, and in particular become more familiar with the BLP policy and its application and I'm sure a future nomination will be an uncontroversial shoe-in.
'''Oppose''' BLP issues raise too much concern. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per NW basically - work on the unsourced articles you created, and come back in a few months, when hopefully I will be able to support. -- '''''
'''Oppose'''. For quite some time, I've worked on referencing football BLPs, either fully, or just the basics: remove libel if any, add RS to verify notability and anything dubious, and tag {{tl|BLP sources}}, which is what I'd done with [[Ian Paul Smith|this BLP]]. Yesterday, the candidate edited it to remove unsourced statements and to add more inline refs to a book source I'd used in the article. His changes didn't seem to tally with the book, so a conversation ensued, split between both our talk pages.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDom&diff=350453236&oldid=350442842][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Struway2&diff=350468778&oldid=350031763][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDom&diff=350474797&oldid=350453236][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDom&diff=350475339&oldid=350474797][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Struway2&diff=350475616&oldid=350468778] The fact in question, concerning when the player left a certain club, wasn't remotely contentious and could safely have been left uncited, but the candidate still reworded it, citing an offline book which plausibly might have verified the information but in fact doesn't. I went back a few minutes later to add something to the conversation and found he'd already archived his talk page, except that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDom&diff=350474797&oldid=350453236 my middle post], where I said I didn't see why he was citing a source to verify something it didn't, or deleting as unsourced information that ''was'' verifiable using it, hadn't been transferred to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDom/Archive_4&oldid=350476019 the archive] with the rest of the page. As yet, I don't think the candidate has enough grasp of what's important to the project, but if he takes this RfA seriously as a learning exercise, I don't see why he couldn't be a good admin somewhen in the future.
'''Oppose''', concerns about [[WP:BLP]]s and poor sourcing. -- '''
'''Oppose.''' WP needs fewer Sheep Maintenance Engineers and more content creators.
Per Struway2. ''
'''Neutral''' I will not support over the unresolved BLP issues. Q8 i think is quite crafted for a paticular response which was not provided. Although its clear by the asker what his perferred response was, The fact that you would seek an additional opinion before closing is good and respectable though. However the article as it stands is against the BLP policies and would require immediate fixing (through G10) or ''immediate'' other means. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with ''yourself'' changing the article to meet the BLP standards during the discussion, although this would require another independent admin to close the discussion and not you. But to me the BLP violation is the most important thing to be dealt with and needs to be ''speedily'' dealt with. I think that you can still comply with consensus at that point (in fact youd tackle both sides of the coin in the discussion without even ruling). This is just my opinion based on your response to the query asked. I will not support, nor will I oppose. Please deal with the oppositions concerns and most importantly please come back to RFA and make another run(if unsuccesful), you have alot of potential and with a little tweaking your going to be a fine admin
'''Neutral''' for now.  Support per my first question.  Oppose per my second.  An admin should be able to assess matters independently and arrive at a clear and logical conclusion. XfDs are not a vote so relying solely on this vote of two individuals against one even when against the candidate's own interpretation of pertinent WP help files is not ideal. If the candidate was to close this as he says there is a better guideline based argument to be made but candidate has not identified it.  Even then there are other circumstantial issues particular to this case that have been overlooked and to be considered.   Will observe how the rest of this RfA plays out.
Without hesitation.
'''Support''' I'm actually quite surprised why this user isn't already an admin. No issues here. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
So very overdue. '''
Absolutely. per above.
'''Support'''. Can be trusted, plain and simple. --
'''Support''' No worries here. --
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
''<B>--
'''Support''' despite the opposes. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support.''' What I have seen from this user in the field has been impressive. I don't see any reason to not support this user, even if some speedy tags may have been in error. It will happen to the best of us, no matter what. We all make mistakes...even admins do. For that reason, I will definitely support Blanchardb. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' Sure, no reason not to.
'''Support'''  I've seen lots of excellent janitorial work from Blanchardb, and I think he would do fine with the mop.  Yes, among his 75k edits there are some mistakes; I hope this RFA does not get hung up on those as I think any fair analysis would conclude that Blanchardb would clearly be a net positive admin.--<span style="font-family: Orlando">
One of the very few contributors I've given two barnstars for deletion work.  The block is a shame, but anyone can have a momentary lapse and lose count, and I have to weigh the one lapse against the thousands of good calls. - Dank (
After reviewing the circumstances of the block, I conclude it's no big deal - Huggle mistakes do happen, and in this case I think it was perfectly understandable. Q4 concerns also satisfied on reflection; admission of error on the first tagging helps a lot. <strong>
'''Support''' all the way. Strong English, as communication is important in an admin. Lots of experience and did you knows too. He should be a good candidate for administration.
'''Support''' Actually, we probably need more admins who have been on the receiving end of a block - it brings a sense of perspective. The candidate clearly learnt from that experience. A nod to the opposers regarding speedy deletions but if you take it slow and steady I'm sure you'll be fine. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Apart from being blocked five months ago for 3RR, I don't see too many problems. --
'''Supprt''' No concerns with this user. Competent without question. Supporting without hesitation. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Weak support'''. While there are some mistakes, nobody's perfect and there are plenty of admin backlogs.
'''Support''' No problems with this user becoming an admin. Does a great job at WP:PNT.
I '''support''' this excellent candidate.  Block unfortunate but overlookable in view of the totality of his contributions.—
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' While I am still concerned about question 4's response, I trust that the candidate will learn from past mistakes and feel promotion will be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]]. --
'''Support''' This user will be a net positive. I have slight misgivings about his answers to Q4, but, will probably learn from any mistakes he/she makes.
'''Support'''. Blanchardb has clearly made some mistakes over time, but viewed in the context of the ''immense'' number of good contributions he's made and his generally very accurate patrolling work, he is a very clear net positive and would make good use of admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' The question i asked was technically based upon that exact discussion (So i already knew what it was about), but i am satisfied with the answer. If one knows a recent change in the BLP policy such as the BLP prod i have no doubt that they know the rest of the policy as well. I'm a tad worried about the incorrect CSD tags but recent history also shows that Blancharddb removed several incorrect CSD's added by other users and replaced them with PROD tags so i think that evens out quite well. Thus i would say [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|Net Positive]], with an additional note to be careful when pressing "Delete", as that is a bit harder to correct then an incorrect tag :).
per Pedro. -
Has been active for quite some time, so I'm sure the tools will be found helpful. --
'''Support''' No real problems here. We're electing an ''admin'' here, we allow mistakes to be made. No one is perfect. Also, per Pedro'''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' The block was deserved but it was over a minor spat. I'm confident that giving the bit to Blanchardb will be a net positive.
'''Support''' per Pedro, et al. It seems clear that the candidate is familiar with policy; the very few CSD errors brought up here are a tiny portion of the deleted contribs I see, most of which are fine.
'''Support''' I can't count the number of articles I've deleted that were correctly tagged by Blanchard, the error rate is very low. The block was five months ago, he accepted it and didn't freak out, and hasn't repeated the actions that led to the block, to me that shows maturity and an ability to learn from mistakes, valued qualities in an admin candidate.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' block was unjustified, as candidate was clearly reverting vandalism.  So this vote is to counteract some opposition.  However I will check more.
'''Support'''. I was seriously considering a neutral or even a weak oppose with a "try again later" type comment, but I appreciate the thoughtful, policy based and thorough answers to my questions. With those answers and everything else considered, I think Blanchardb has sufficient policy knowledge and clue to make a good administrator, though I would add that in a potential "wheel war" situation, you may find it useful to seek input at AN/ANI or a relevant talk page (like [[WT:MP]] if the matter concerns the Main Page). Best of luck to you.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' the block notwithstanding, appears to be a net positive and would be as admin.--
'''Support''' I agree with the general thrust of the above
'''Support'''. The block was last year, so I don't consider that a sufficient reason to oppose. Regarding the speedy tags, I think you just need to be a little more cautious.
'''Support''' I've crossed Blanchardb's path at many AFDs. His comments were reasoned and he was open to discussion. Decent qualities for an admin. '''
'''Support''' May have a different interpretation of CSD tags than others, but able to support his usage of it. There is no bright-line rule establishing ''how much'' lower a bar A7 importance is from notability. So [[WP:WTHN|why not?]]
'''Support'''. I see Blanchard's work all the time, and the few incorrect and borderline A7 tags don't trouble me so much. We all make mistakes, admins included, and I have faith in Blanchard's mental flexibility and willingness to be corrected.
'''Support'''. In my experience, those editors who are critiqued for CSD work during their RfA are more cautious in the future; there is [[WP:AGF|no reason to assume]] Blanchard will make the same mistakes in the future.
'''Support''' Appear to be an editor with a clue.  I see no good reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate to me.
'''Weak Support:''' Still has a few issues to work on, but don't give up. -
'''Support''' - This is a close call for me, but I think the candidate has a good breadth of experience. The block and CSD issues are a little disconcerting, but my guess is he had learned something here.
'''Support:''' Does a terrific job at [[WP:PNT]]; we're always in need of more admins, the more so multilingual admins. The points raised by in the oppose section do not convince me.
'''Support''' I think a couple of minor errors on speedy tagging and the block log presented are very poor excuses to oppose on.
'''Support''' - Would be a fine admin in my view.  75,000 edits speak to a long-term involvement here. The block issues are minor.  Should this nom fail, strongly suggest another Rfa before the year is out.  Best wishes to the candidate, always.
''''Support'''.  In my personal experience, this editor consistently and constantly does intelligent work, is respectful of others, and is probably more knowledgeable about policy than I was at my RFA.
'''Support''' My rationale is similar to Accounting4Taste's. While a couple of problematic A7 tags surely isn't a good thing, and while that edit-warring block is worth raising an eyebrow, in the end my personal experience overrides those factors. I have seen this editor around AfD and CSD multiple times before, and I do think he has sufficient knowledge of policy to use the mop properly. Like Accounting4Taste, my impression of this editor is that he is respectful, intelligent, and would be a good admin; in fact, not so long ago he corrected a misconception of mine about a CSD in a rather polite way. Together with his content work, which is impressive, I feel comfortable supporting. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' sorry. I don't find the answers to Q4 satisfactory enough to allay my concerns that the candidate interprets A7 incorreectly and will continue to do so as an admin. The answers clearly conflate "notability" with "significance or importance". These are not isolated examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adel_Awad&oldid=350192364 this] was particularly suprising. Mistakes are fine; everyone makes them. But the consistency with which these poor tags have been applied takes "occasional mistake" to "consistent misapplication of policy to the project's detriment". Bad CSD tags are a concern for a number of reasons: it can result in losing good content; it can create work at DRV; it bites newbies unnecessarily; and it shows misunderstanding of policy generally. I am also concerned by the 3RR block: 3RR is such an easy rule to comply with. But that alone would probably not have been enough to oppose. I recognise this is an experienced candidate with a generally fine editing history; but I don't think adminship is suitable at this time. --
'''Oppose'''.  Per the recent block from edit warring and the answer to question 4.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' [[User:Jclemens/RFAStandards|My standards]] expect a clean block log for the past year.
'''Oppose''' - While I see some good reasons to support, I can't support a candidate that has had blocks within the last year.  --'''
'''Weak Oppose''' I don't like to see recent blocks in an RFA candidate, but I'm happy to disregard this particular block. However I'm uncomfortable with the candidates CSD tagging. I'm concerned about some of the examples above, and have gone through some of your deleted contributions to see if these are isolated examples or not. Tagging [[Mooball]] as a hoax is somewhat understandable, but implies that you didn't [http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=mooball+nsw&meta=&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=mooball&gs_rfai=&fp=23e9d7872b349109 google it].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Daniel+E+Odia&timestamp=20100412151111&diff=prev But this sort of one minute tagging] seems to be quite frequent. If you are going to tag articles for speedy deletion after just one minute you need to be very cautious about good faith articles where only the first sentence has been saved so far. Most of the tags I checked were OK, but I'd like to see a little more caution if you are going to tag articles at the moment of creation. ''
'''Oppose''' - The CSD problems (as seen in Q4,5 and WereSpielChequers' oppose above me) and the recent block leave me with an uneasy feeling. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Oppose''' due to the recent block.
'''Weak Oppose''' - The CSD mistaggings are troubling. But not so much the mistakes, as the incorrect response to them in Q4. The bar for A7 is supposed to be low, you're not supposed to look at an article and determine whether or not you think it's notable and speedily delete based on that. A7 isn't even about ''notability'', as Wikipedia defines it, it is about whether or not the article plausibly claims importance. An article that says "Sam is my neighbor and is really smart" doesn't assert importance, "Sam is my neighbor and is an alien from Jupiter" is implausible, "Sam is my neighbor and is a famous local radio personality" plausibly asserts importance. Even if the article explains that the radio station is a pirate station with few listeners, you'd have to bring the article to [[WP:PROD]] or [[WP:AFD]] to delete it. That's our process. These misunderstandings combined with the recent block push me over to oppose. I still think Blanchardb has a lot of potential, and would probably support in the future if I see improvement, but I can't trust that the tools won't be used for out-of-process deletions. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Based on the snotty attitude that was displayed when he was questioned about the circumstances that lead to his too-recent block [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive118#User:Blanchardb_reported_by_User:Qikr_.28Result:_24h.29] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb/Archive_9#Queer_Fist].
'''oppose''' primarily due to apparently rigid attitude about notability shown above.
'''Weak oppose''' While I applaud anyone who is willing to admit their mistakes, WSC and Atama have correctly pointed out that the candidate is showing more than a few problems with applying speedy deletion tags correctly and those examples are far too recent imho. Also, the block, while 5 months old, is a bit worrying because since they used a custom revert summary[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blanchardb_2/Queer_Fist&diff=332697928&oldid=332697813] in their second revert, it was clear that the candidate was aware of why they reverted the edit and should not have continued doing so.I like the candidate as an editor but at this time I do not think they have the necessary policy and guideline knowledge to become an admin. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - Candidate does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of CSD criteria, primarily A7. Way too stringent.
'''Strong oppose'''  You do not seem to recognize the difference between the mere assertion f importance that is enough to pass WP:CSD, and the demonstration of notability that is required to stay in  WP article. Even after some prompting , you still don't recognize it. Given your  proposed area of concentration, this makes for an impossible situation,. The basic requirement of someone deleting speedies is to delete the right articles according to the existing narrow criteria. It's not a question of deletionism, but where and how to do the deletion. '''
'''Weak oppose''' seems to be a net positive, but would be better off fixing the identified problems (mainly A7 issues) before getting the bit.
'''Oppose''' whilst noting that the candidate has done a great deal of good work in the area of [[WP:SPEEDY|speedy deletion]] - including removing inappropriate tags - I do not feel comfortable with them being granted the tools at this time. The user constantly refers to [[WP:NN|notability]] when discussing criterion [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] when the policy specifically states that only the "''lower''" standard of an indication of "''why its subject is important or significant''" is necessary for an article not to qualify. I do not think this is merely a case of incorrect terminology as in the questions above the candidate refers to "''[[WP:NOTINHERITED]]''" which specifically refers to notability in terms of the [[WP:NN|Wikipedia guideline]].

'''Oppose''' Per several of the opposes above (the block, rigidity, edit warring, etc.)
'''Oppose''' I don’t get involved in CSD issues but as an editor concerned with the overall integrity of the project, there is sufficient concern expressed by those who know that area well for me to add my opposition to this candidate at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Warrah.  Attitude issues.
'''Regretful Oppose''', I followed a similar train of thought as User:Atama when looking at the CSD stuff here, and was on the fence after Q4 answers... However, the Q11 answer coupled with what I have reviewed previously make me a little worried. My apologies, but speedy deletions are very important in my mind as they affect both our content, and potential newcomers to our community, thus I feel unable to support here. All the best, --
'''Oppose''', regretfully. You seem to be an excellent editor, and I don't think the history of  a block is a problem, but unfortunately some of the diffs presented of recent CSD tags concern me, as well as your response to Q4. With regard to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrolls_Winward&oldid=354875294 this tag] for example, "Eddie and the 'touch button tank' went on to win numerous Grand Prix's all over the globe" is surely an assertion of importance (assuming the touch button tank is the horse). I realise that claim is not in the article now, so perhaps it wasn't true, but I think that's a credible assertion of importance given that it's a horse ridden by an Olympic showjumper. It looks like it will probably be deleted at AFD, but I don't think it met the CSD criteria at the time you tagged it. That's just one example of a several that are concerning, but given it's the area you say you will be active in, I'd like to see another few months of speedy deletion work to fully trust you with the deletion button.--
Sorry to "pile on", I'm not bothered at all about the block, but for someone who wants to work in the area of speedy deletion some of the answers just aren't up to the job.
'''Oppose''' Too clueless.  For example, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olex2&diff=prev&oldid=323091978 this case], the candidate nominated an article for AFD on the grounds of "''no assertion of notability''" which both misunderstood the nature of notability and was blatantly false as the article said it was "''widely used all around the world''".  To the candidate's credit, he withdrew when sources were produced, but, per [[WP:BEFORE]], he should have found these himself and not wasted others' time.
'''Oppose''' – the recent blocks and the answers to the questions are raising to red of flags to ignore. –
'''Oppose''': Having a block in past 10 or so months (as said above) raises red flags.
Problematic CSD responses. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Incorrect CSD tagging is a serious problem.
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's inadequate understanding of deletion policy, CSD mistaggings, and recent block for edit warring.
'''Weak oppose'''. I don't have the time to pinpoint problematic AfD nominations, but I do recall him nominating several articles in the software and/or computer science area that were easy keep after quick searches.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Per CSD stuff above, and the block thing doesn't impress me either.
'''Oppose''' per comments by other regarding poor CSD taggings.
'''Regretful oppose''' - fails [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] due to twice being blocked in the past 12 months. Also, I'm worried about the overactive CSD tagging, especially on [[Mooball]].
'''Oppose''' <small>(from support)</small> - I have reviewed the taggings and feel that this candidate is not ready at this time. The fact that my previous 'support' !vote had no comment shows how weak a support it was, but having thought about this long and hard over the last couple of days, I cannot support a candidate who had a problem with CSD tagging - the relatively recent block was the initial reason for my weak support, and merely confirms that I cannot support this candidate at this time. -- '''''
'''Oppose'''. The block for [[WP:EW|edit warring]] is far too recent to comfortably support the candidate. Additionally, Blanchardb's CSD tagging also needs improvement from its current faulty state. —
'''Oppose''' with regret: Sorry, but I've been seeing some AfDs recently that look as if they haven't had sufficient [[WP:BEFORE]] done, which supports the suggestions that the candidate is a bit too quick with the deletion finger. A bit more experience and a shift in focus away from "delete" and more towards "improve", and I could see myself supporting a future RfA --
'''Oppose''' Concern with CSD tagging, and block less than six months ago on a core Wikipedia policy. (See [[User:MWOAP/RfA Voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose''' per concerns with CSD tagging, and the recent block history. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Weak Oppose''' &ndash; problematic A7 tags and recent block stop me from being neutral or supporting. <sup><font color="orange">
Not sure for the moment. While Q3 does help to reassure me, the 3RR block is still too recent for me to comfortably overlook. --'''
'''unfortunate neutral, but...''' I wont support due to the block. But id like to. But i wont oppose either, I think theres more levels to this block than meets the eye. I think the mere fact that the edit war involved suckpuppets and such (I guess they were confirmed later right?) that they were disrupting and one could argue some justification in reverting and warning providing it could be proven they were socks. At any rate the best way to handle that would have been to file a sock puppet case after 2 reversions as you identified you would next time in your statement. However as from what i understand the blocking admin stands by his actions and this event was only 4 months ago. I hope you decide to come back to rfa in time if this is unsuccesful. Its unfortunate. but i cant support. Sorry.
'''Neutral''': Normally I'd have opposed from the block, but the surprise sockpuppet issue is a sort of get-out-of-jail free when combined with the positives here. Candidate seems very reasonable, experienced and well regarded. But deletion has an air of finality which makes me wary of giving this power away to easily. I'm also concerned of losing nascent articles and consequently the potentially good editors who make them. I contrast this with deletionist admins who go for articles which can never reach their required standard due to their inherent nature.
'''Neutral'''. I'm  totally  opposed to people getting  the mop  & bucket  based on  a very high  edit count of which  a significant  number are automated or semi automated, because it  smacks of drive-past  tagging. Nevertheless, the inevitable collateral  damage by  such  a high  edit  count in his case seems to  have been proportionately very low, and I think l we need more of this kind of janitor. I think Blanchard needs to  be given time to demonstrate that he better understands the principles of CSD,and reflects for a few seconds longer before pressing his buttons.. --
'''Neutral''' well, he was blocked because of [[WP:3RR]] back in December 2009, so this would be a reason to oppose for now. This user has made great edits and created 24 articles, which would be a good reason to support. So im a bit confused here, i guess.
'''Moral Neutral''' (I may have just invented that) On the one hand, the concerns over interpretation of CSD and some of the other oppose concerns have foundations (that AFD, but meh, we all make mistakes). On the other hand, I admire the way that Blanchardb has dealt with the questions raised here, his honesty and openness to discussion - and I don't find the block too worrying. I suspect that the best result here will be to give it a few months to demonstrate a clear understanding of deletion policy, and I sincerely hope that we will see you here again, if you do not succeed on this occasion.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Neutral''' ''Pro'': this candidate has almost 75,000 edits including > 20,000 to article-space. The 3RR block doesn't concern me all that much --> after all, the now-deleted article was 'Queer Fist'. That incident could very well have been (and probably was) a case where sysop discretion wasn't exercised well. Very valuable multi-language skills which have translated into solid contributions at [[WP:PNT]].  ''Con'': the CSD mistaggings and the fact that the candidate seems to have a high % of his tagged AfD's kept causes me concern.--
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]''' I'm really sorry, you're a great helper but you've only been around for 2 months. Try back in 6 months or so. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawl, too new

'''Oppose with strong recommendation for withdrawal''' <font color="#990000"><strong><em>
'''Comment''' - I'm not going to oppose, because I don't want to discourage you. You seem to have made a good start. However, I can't support you, because your experience is not really sufficient to be seeking adminship right now. I'm sure that, later, with more experience, you could make a good admin, and judging from your helpful contributions so far, I'd be likely to support, then. I'd recommend reading [[WP:NOTNOW]], and looking through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing in the meantime. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' – Completely whiffed Q4. Answers to Q1 and <s>Q7</s> Q6 are also shallow. IAR does not need to be invoked only when all parties agree. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 4 & 6. The candidate seeems not to understand received wisdom on Cool Down Blocks and the answer to IAR just seems to be flat out wrong.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) Completely missed the questions. Q9 just plain stupid...plus all my concerns below.
'''Oppose''' Questions 4 & 6. <s>Why does Question 9 exist.</s>Updated Question 9. Maybe next time.--<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with policy knowledge, lack of experience, judgement, and maturity.  -'''
Optional question answers are scary, particularly IAR.
'''Oppose''' - problems with answers to questions as outlined above. Additionally, I'm seeing seemingly pointless creations of test pages in mainspace ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Fffffffffffffff&timestamp=20091220200728 example] is unfortunately admins-only), edits that demonstrate some misunderstanding in regards to [[WP:V]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Caray&diff=prev&oldid=389808461 example], removing a deadlinked reference without attempting to fix or replace it, in a BLP no less), [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=BuickCenturyDriver&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia relatively low activity levels in the past year or so]. I'm also not sure why the user would have received credit for the GA, as he [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=1998_National_League_Wild_Card_tie-breaker_game&since=&until=&grouped=on&hideminor=on&order=-edit_count&max=100&order=-edit_count&format=html made only 8 non-minor edits to the article] a year before the article's review and promotion. Overall a decent enough editor, but...
'''Oppose''' per questions 4 and 6; I don't think you're experienced enough for the mop yet, even though you've been here a long time... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I have concerns with the answers to the optional questions. [[User:Gfoley4/GSV|—]]
'''Oppose''' I'm very disappointed with the answer to Q4... cooldown blocks should never be used. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' I won't say you whiffed the questions, but quite a few of them sliced so badly they're lost in the fescue.
'''Oppose''' as candidate, per above and per [[WP:SNOW]].  5 Questions and three opposes make it look like this is just not in the cards.  But like a road test, you can try again.  See you in a few months.  &ndash;
'''Support''' as nominator. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' - Very unusual for me to be this high up the list, but this is a candidate in my timezone. I was rather amused by the restraint that the candidate showed in relation to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACgoodwin&action=historysubmit&diff=337178927&oldid=336739809 this] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Handicapper]]. -
Long-time productive contributor. Not all admins need be "professional admins" in the sense of being well-versed in backroom policy wonkery. --
'''Support''' - I've seen Cgoodwin around and just now spend quite some time looking through the contributions history. What I see is a mature and serious editor who clearly has the betterment of Wikipedia at heart - certainly an editor who is sufficiently possessed of time here and common sense, to get the proper use of those few extra buttons.  PS: Andrensath the answer to Q4 is lots of sandbox edits polishing drafts. -
'''Support''' - We need more admins who still edit content. I see no reason not to give this editor admin rights. He or she seems bright enough to figure out how all the details work once they have the ability to use them.
'''Support''' candidate is a longterm editor with a clean block log. Judging from their [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Cgoodwin+&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects 78 created articles], and looking through their deleted contributions, the candidate was ready for the Autopatroller flag, and I've just actioned that. As for knowing whether articles should or should not be deleted we can only judge them from their proven ability to create articles that don't get deleted. Many of us are used to judging candidates by their record of identifying what should be deleted, but that is to an extent the other side of the same coin. Looking through the candidate's contributions I did see the occasional reversion of vandalism, though without the follow through of warning the vandal. I noticed the concern about their large number of user space edits - but looking at those edits they are clearly article building in their sandbox before copying articles into mainspace. If this RFA fails, and I hope it doesn't, I  would suggest that in future when a draft is ready, moving if from sandbox into mainspace rather than copy pasting its contents into mainspace would prevent future misunderstandings of that nature. ''
So they haven't been active in admin areas yet. Usually, I'd be concerned, but they're clearly trustworthy and I have no problem with them receiving the tools. '''
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong here.--
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Absolutely no concerns. Cgoodwin builds the encyclopedia, and that is a good thing. Many people are given the mop because they prove they are good at tagging things that should be deleted by hanging around the right message board, but this creates a systemic bias wherein we promote people who want the mop for the sake of having the mop. This is an editor who doesn't show a great deal of motivation to have the mop, but who just enjoys working on Wikipedia. There is no harm in granting the tools to someone like this, because there isn't a quota for admin actions because you want to have the tools in the hands of trusted and committed editors to allow them to take admin action when they see it, rather than waste time calling one of us. Personally, I've barely used my mop recently, taking the opportunity to simply enjoy reading articles for the past few months, but I'm ready to take action if the need presents itself.
'''Support''' Long term contributor with the good of the encyclopedia at heart. No way will he/she mess things up. While I understand the concerns of the opposes, I do feel that 'need for the tools' is overrated. In fact, I could argue that if someone has a need for the tools it may not be desirable to hand them over! In addition to professional admins, we also need content builders who are willing to lend a hand where ever necessary. In general, many admins doing light work will make this a better encyclopedia than a few admins doing heavy work. --
Never heard of you, but if the (pretty much universally ridiculous) "arguments" in the oppose column are the worst anyone can find to say, I'm sure you'll do fine.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' Clearly a user who has their head screwed on straight. Why not!
'''Support''' Our very ''raison d'être'' is to write and maintain an encyclopaedia- everything else we do is subservient to that overarching goal.  Candidates who are good at advancing that should not be prejudiced against at RFA for not actively involving themselves in the behind the scenes activity of the 'pedia.  (Further, there are several good uses of the tools on the content side that will never generate logged actions; being able to look at deleted content being the most obvious.)
'''Support'''. The opposition is utterly unconvincing. You don't have to spend years on Huggle or requesting page protection to make a good administrator. Cgoodwin already has extensive experience as to what warrants deletion based on his solid and extensive mainspace work. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt he's any more unfamiliar with the various admin policies. This is definitely a net positive. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''.  I've looked through his contributions and talk-page interactions and I find him to be calm, level-headed, mature, and an excellent content contributor.  These are exactly the kinds of people we should be promoting.  This isn't someone who is going to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as nominator. Clearly a trustworthy user & we don't have enough successful RfAs.
Cgoodwin is evidently someone [[WP:CLUE|who knows what he's doing]] at Wikipedia, and he's been doing good work for a while. Calls that he needs "more experience" are unconvincing; he will administrate the encyclopedia he is helping to build himself.
'''Support''' No real issues here. It's refreshing to see a candidate more interested in working with articles than anything else. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
Fine candidate; oppose rationales are idiotic.
'''Support''' - Looks fine, overall. Lack of project space edits aren't that big of a deal for me. Knowing how to write articles and keeping your cool goes further than racking up edits to AIV, in my opinion.
'''Support''' The high ratio of User: to Talk: namespace edits was initially worrying, but looking into them, most are sandbox article drafting and polishing, which is a good thing. --
'''Support''' Yeah -
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' per [[User:Hiberniantears|Hiberniantears]]. The opposes are unconvincing. --
'''Support''' I'm leaning to Neutral but I have no reason not to trust you with the mop. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Strong support''' &mdash; I know that Cgoodwin should be punished for focusing on content creation rather than content removal (tagging, obsessing over policy, hanging out in WP namespace to make new rules for everyone)...but geez, I can't find it in my heart to do it!  His edits on his own talk and in article talk show that he understands policy perfectly well, and is capable of working with others.  He also has the trait of being short and to the point, which is rare among WP admins (and will apparently remain rare, from the looks of where this RFA is going). '''
'''Support''' I appreciate how much work this user has done to the encyclopedia, and therefore understands wikipedia policies.
'''Weak support'''. Weak because I would like to see more detailed answers to some of the questions (not all of them, the number is getting ridiculous, but more than a sentence for the ones you opt to answer would be nice). However, you're clearly trustworthy, unlikely to bugger anything up and, contrary to popular opinion, the best way to get to know core policies etc is not CSD tagging (yes, I know this may surprise many people), but actually getting out there and writing which you clearly have vast (enviable, in fact) experience in, so I support. If the RfA passes, just be careful and you'll be fine.
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with strong content contributions. Judging by created articles, appears to understand policy fine, despite a lack of edits to project pages. I too find the opposes unconvincing.
'''Support'''. Great candidate, although I'd like to see a little less terseness in the answers to the questions above.
'''Weak support:''' A great editor who is not quite there. The good news is that the concerns that have been raised below can be easily remedied. Thanks for making yourself available. Please work on your issues (most are minor) and have another go in a few months. Cheers -
'''Weak Support''' Not very detailed answers but can still be trusted to the tools. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' Great content building, no reason to think youd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per Courcelles and answer to Q8. --
'''Strong Support''':  I can't believe the comments in opposition!  Not enough involvement?  Au Contraire!  Here we have a contributor who does good work, knows good work from poor work, and most of all, is a master at staying OUT of the drama wars!  For crying out loud!  If  Cg HAD gotten into every drama on wikipedia that crossed the bow (like I, unfortunately, have tended to do) then the opposition would be running along the lines of "getting TOO involved,"  "overinvolvement in the dramas," etc.  This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  Sheesh!  We have a PERFECT candidate here, no real enemies other than one known nutcase, proven level-headedness, ability to not get hooked by the nonsense.  Cg is quiet, but very responsible, I have worked with this editor since Cg first appeared on wikipedia and if nothing else, Cg has survived the gauntlet of my trout-slappable approach to quality control over at WikiProject Equine!  I mean, just putting up with ME alone should quality someone for adminship!  This is a true grownup in a world where true grownups are needed. ;-)
'''Support''' CGoodwin has shown clear dedication to the project with content work. I highly doubt will misuse the tools. We have processes in place (such as arbcom) to deal with this should it occur (which is unlikely). Realistically is unlikely not to be a net positive.
'''Weak Support''' - The answers to most of the questions are weak or non-existent.  I see nothing that would indicate that CGoodwin would be anything other than a net positive.  '''
'''Support''' I have no reason to believe that he would misuse the tools or venture into any territory that he is unfamiliar without seeking advice. Dedication to the project is unquestionable. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''<s>Reluctantly</s>''' (more certain of my decision to oppose given the nominator's subsequent comment) Cgoodwin is a fantastic content creator, but the DYK/GA/FL/FA processes are considered rewards until themselves. By contrast, adminship is not a reward or a status. You haven't made a case for why you need the tools, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that you understand how to use the block and delete buttons, both of which you state an intention to use. --
'''Oppose''' - I don't see why this user needs the tools. He or she has tons of mainspace edits with high quality articles, but he or she is inexperienced in other areas. For example, even his or her userspace edits are more than his or her project space edits. He or she is not a rollbacker, which means he or she seldom does recent changes patrolling. His or her lack of deleted edits shows his or her lack of experience in new page patrolliong. All in all, if there's anything that this user needs, it's the [[WP:AUTOREVIEW|autopatrolled]] userright, and not the admin userright. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Oppose''' - Overall the candidate seems to be a positive for the project, but I don't see enough experience outside of article writing to warrant adminship (only 41 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace for example). I would recommend gaining experience in areas such as RfA, AfD, AIV, etc and come back in 6-8 months.
<s>Sad</s> '''Strong Oppose'''. You're a great content contributor; however, I don't think you have the experience I'd like to see in an admin candidate, yet; too few project space edits, only 17 deleted edits - which means almost no new page patrolling experience - and as far as I can see almost no vandalism fighting. If you're sysopped, you'll be able to block people and delete pages; I'd really like to make sure you know your way around those areas... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
<s>'''Oppose''' You don't seem to need the admin tools, your answers to the questions are lacking depth and/or nonexistent, and almost all of your edits are to article space, and almost none to projectspace, so I can't be sure you have a deep enough understanding of Wikipedia to be an admin.</s> Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' after blunt and/or nonexistent answers to questions. [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]&#124;
'''Oppose''' - Excellent work on articles and I disagree with people working off of percentage (for example, I have about 75% article work, but a few hundred edits to wikipedia space, but this would be judged badly). However, that flies out of the window when the user only has 41 edits to wiki space. Moral support, but more experience is needed.
Exemplary content building, but with limited experience with vandal fighting (you don't even have rollback), CSD, and other assorted admin tasks, I just can't yet see how you will use the tools. Also, with less than 50 projectspace edits and less than 20 projecttalkspace edits, I see very little involvement in discussions, whether they be about policy, AfD, or really anything else. Sorry, but I'm looking for much more diversified experience. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> – You are undoubtedly a great content creator/writer, but you have not shown any need for the mop, as echoed above by the other opposers. With only 41 edits to the project namespace, this shows that you do not have enough experience with the admin areas you plan to work in. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' clearly an asset to the project, I feel bad opposing, but Wikipedia adminship is a queer beast that takes much familiarity to understand. I do believe that extensive contribution to, and collaboration in the article space is indicative the the best qualities that an admin can have but experience is still a requisite. Just as in the way that academics who have years of experience writing can come to Wikipedia and get keel hauled by a system they don't understand so to can users who have long had experience in the article space flounder when they try to get involved in the maintenance processes, the rules of which are not at all obvious. This is evidenced in the record, looking at Cgoodwin's most recent contribution to an AfD: "Please do not delete. There are other worse, poor, non notable and even hoax articles and comments that are still in existence on WP.", I would have pegged him as a newbie. To the candidate: You are wonderful, sir! But I can't support you for adminship until you have taken the time to observe and experiment with the the way the system works, which I hope you do. We always need more admins!
'''Oppose''' The content work is admirable, but the lack of project space and the tone of the edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bull_Arab&diff=prev&oldid=376545447 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bull_Arab&diff=next&oldid=376545447 here] from earlier today cause concern at first glance.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> You have some great content work, but you have almost no experience in admin-related areas. Experience in those areas is a huge factor in becoming a sysop. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Your content work is great, but I do not see why you would need the tools.  More experience in the project namespace is a must, as well as a better knowledge of policy.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Oppose''' Great content work, but tools are unneeded. Your answer to Q16 wasn't what I was looking for. If you elaborate more, :I would gladly reconsider. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
The candidate most certainly has excellent content contributions, but the areas that he would like to work in, he has no experience in them. One question that bothered me was his answer to 16; I would think there would be something to say if he wants to help as an admin in an area that he has an extremely low level of experience in. Questions 8, 9, and 13 also bothered me a little bit; just saying that he is mature and not ruthless, just saying that he would "tag the article", and then not knowing how to answer 13, all make me want to oppose. More in depth answers for all of these would make me reconsider my position, however. ~~
'''Oppose'''- moved from neutral. The answers given to some of the optional questions strike me as being dismissively blunt, and demonstrate a lack of understanding.
'''Oppose''' There is no great mystery to being an admin, so I have no problem with Cgoodwin focusing on content creation rather than NP patrol, or whatever, prior to his nom. However, that does mean that he has yet to demonstrate his knowledge of and engagement with established policy and practice. The questions above are the ideal opportunity to do that, so the answers just make me wonder what he expects from this process, and what he expects from adminship in general. To be honest, the bluntness of the answers do not convince me that Cgoodwin even wants to be an admin, let alone whether he is ready for it.
'''Oppose''' Like Reyk, moved from neutral based on the trite answers to serious questions.  Please, take a few months, watch how a few RfA's go, and consider coming back when you're ready to address the community's concerns in a bit more verbose manner.  No hard feelings, but just "no" at this point.
'''Oppose''' - Same reasons I was neutral below, but the terse answers are insulting at worst, and naive at best.
'''Oppose''' - per professed lack of experience in areas where the candidate wants to work. The candidate's responses to questions are so terse as to make me concerned about his/her ability to communicate productively with other users, a skill I consider vital for an admin.
'''Oppose, sadly''' Clearly an excellent contributor, but I have to agree with Gonzonoir and others; I can guarantee that if you become an admin, you will get poked, nagged and abused by editors, registered, non-registered and IPs alike. The ability to explain your decisions is critical, and the style of the answers is too abrasive to be non-inflammatory.
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' my apologies but I cannot support at this time.  Your answers to me indicate as a whole that you have not spent enough time getting to know the admin related portions of Wikipedia and as such have not yet demonstrated to me that you can be trusted with the tools.  Please keep up the good work and after doing more work in the Wikipedia namespace. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry but like a number of other editors above I am not sure that you have the need for the tools and the answers to the questions (or in some cases lack of answers) just don't convince me that you fully understand what the community is looking for in it's admins.
'''Oppose''' It does not seem as if Steven has nominated someone who is ready, at least at this time. The candidate fails or refuses to explain why he needs the tools or what he would do with them, if he had them. Answers to several of the questions -- especially some of the more latter ones -- suggests to me that this candidate does not have a real clue on why he's here at Rfa. More seriously, his recent statement at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_convicts_on_the_First_Fleet this Afd] indicates to me that he does not have a most basic grasp of why articles are kept or deleted. The result of this Rfa now seems clear and I'm sure it will be a disappointing one for the candidate. However, I hope this a lesson learned for the nominator as well: no good can come from nominating someone who is so clearly unprepared for the task.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;a key trait needed in any Wikipedia administrator is the ability to clearly communicate and answer questions.  The short and somewhat evasive answers to the questions above do not inspire confidence that the candidate will be able or willing to answer user questions about his administrator actions in the future. <i>
'''Oppose''' - the fact that 36 people (as of this writing) have supported a candidate who wants to use the tools for deletion (Q1) but whose '''sole contribution''' to AfD consists of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_convicts_on_the_First_Fleet&diff=prev&oldid=374436234 this] charmingly-naive appeal to emotion speaks volumes for the RfA process. Adminship is not a trophy awarded for decent content building - it's a set of tools bestowed upon those who have shown sufficient [[WP:CLUE|aptitude]] for the skllset required for the use of said tools. This candidate has abysmal communication skills (Q7, Q8, Q9, Q16), a lack of [[WP:CLUE|pre-existing clue]] (Q13), a seeming tendacy for selective response (Q6, Q11, Q12) and ''seems'' to already be getting a bit prickly (note progressively more-disinterested answers to questions). The overall picture here is of an admin who would try to "learn on the job", make mistakes, offer tersely-worded explanations - or just archive requests for explanations without a response - and eventually have two or three dramasplosions on AN/I or somewhere, with possibly two or three "retirements" to boot. [[WP:AGF|Even if this is a false impression]] (which I suspect may well be the case), a candidate should strive to leave a better impression on their RfA page. One doesn't need adminship to install Twinkle and warn vandals, and a candidate with only one (1) comment to AfD should not be getting involved with admin-level AfD closing. In summary, because I feel the above [[WP:ABF|could be construed]] as unnecessarily harsh, I would like to make clear that the candidate does have an admirable  skill-set with regards to content-building - but adminship requires a separate skill-set which I am far from convinced this candidate possesses. I see no flaming on Talk pages, no excessively ridiculous AfD arguments - but this is more a result of "lack of evidence" than "evidence of lack".
'''Oppose''' I really don't like the answers to the questions other opposers are having problems with. Combined with some other concerns raised, I cannot trust this user to use the tools responsibly at this time.
Whilst I lean to support for a lot of reasons I find Badger Drink's arguments above persuasive. I looked at this RFA a couple of days ago and was going to leave it without commenting to be honest. However I'm not impressed by the approach to the answers to the optional questions either. Yes, they are optional, but as editors have pointed out in discussion above when you have no demonstrable experience in areas you'd like to work in then the questions are there to tease out that which cannot be found in the contribution history. Sorry, and FWIW a weak oppose due to many positive aspects of the request, but an oppose nonetheless. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' – Sorry, but I don't think this nomination is motivated enough, despite the fact that he has made more than 13,000 edits since his first edit in early May 2006. I would still like an answer to question 6, I am really wondering what he wants to use the admin tools for. /
'''Oppose''' Moved here from neutral. I am a bit to worried about various aspects of this RFA to remain neutral or to support. As others have mentioned i still cannot see what you would require the extra tools for - adminship is really nothing but a few extra buttons that help with some sensitive tasks - it is not a badge or a reward for excellent work. This also raises my second worry: You have virtually no edits in usual admin-related area's such as [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AIAV]], [[WP:PROD]], [[WP:RFPP]] and [[WP:AIAV]]. Work in those area's often signals a need for the tools, as well as an understanding of the policies related to them. I could easily overlook that if your answers showed that you know the ropes of those pages, but Q13 suggest that you have little working knowledge of the blocking policy. I'm sorry for being so negative, as it doesn't do justice to your excellent contributions as an editor. As i said before, you are a top-notch article writer who's edits and dedication are truly admirable. However, for now i cannot see you as an admin, as it seems to far outside your normal scope of contributions. I'm not saying never though - work in the above mentioned area's for a few months to get a good feeling for the respective policies and i will certainly support.
'''Oppose''' per Excirial and others above. I can't support given that you intend to work in anti-vandalism and yet have made no [[WP:AIV]] reports. Your answer about that in the question above is unsatisfactory.  I do admire your content work, and suggest coming back after you learn some of the anti-vandal ropes. With best wishes,
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions lack depth, numerous questions have not been answered, and the candidate does not seem to have prior experience in the areas they intend to work in. Spend some time working in AFD and AIV and then you'll have a good chance of passing.
'''Oppose''', I think GedUK's train of thought is similar to my own. There are too many worries with the abrupt/short and blunt answers to this RFA so far, and your projectspace experience is indeed shown to be lacking by others in this opposition column. I am unfortunately in the position where I feel this would possibly be a net-negative promotion, at least in the short term whilst you gain experience. I would recommend gathering some more projectspace experience, then trying again. Best of luck, --'''
'''Oppose''' - The first thing that caught my attention about this RfA was the lack of answers and the brevity of the existing answers. Yes, most of the questions are ''technically'' optional, but in reality, you're not going to be promoted if they're not addressed. Beyond that, I think that Badger Drink has done a good job of summing up the concerns most of us are having. The candidate is a far better content creator than I could ever be, but they unfortunately lack the experience for using the tools. —
'''Oppose''' - While I certainly appreciate the content contributions from this editor, I don't see any indication of an understanding of admin-related areas of Wikipedia, most especially areas involving conflict resolution and article deletion. The answers to questions posed above for the most part either aren't clear, or don't seem to understand the question (the answer to question 4 in particular stands out). I don't see a particular problem with this editor's attitude or aptitude, I just don't think they are ready to accept the responsibility of adminship at this time. -- '''
'''Oppose''' ''Terrible'' answers to numerous questions. Admins are expected to be able to communicate clearly with users, not give evasive non-answers. Suggest candidate withdraw as this is obviously not going to pass.
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) - sorry, I appreciate Cgoodwin's willingness to help Wikipedia, but I don't feel I can support this one. While there's no reason to think Cgoodwin would ''abuse'' the tools, I don't believe he has enough relevant experience to trust that he would use them correctly. His uninformative answers to the questions do not help matters - yes, they're optional, but if you're not willing to take the time to answer them, how can we expect that you will treat difficult situations with the necessary care and attention? I advise Cgoodwin to withdraw this RFA, and gain more experience in areas such as AFD (and user interaction in general) before applying again.
'''Oppose'''. In Cgoodwin's words and with his own lack of depth from Question 9, "No".
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about breadth of experience, temperament, and answers to some of the questions. -- '''
'''Oppose.''' You're clearly great at editing the mainspace, and you're a benefit to Wikipedia. However, the answers to some of the questions you give are very short, and that worries me. "No, I would tag it" for example is very short and does not explain much at all. Also, even though you may wish to focus on a different area, I like ''all'' admins to have significant contributions to Wikipedia: pages, and unfortunately you don't have enough for me. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' The answers given above are so inadequately addressed that it seems as if this user is not taking this nomination even slightly seriously. The user has been almost exclusively a content contributor (not a bad thing) and just needs some experience in some of the other areas to be an admin. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' You've had plenty of time to deal with concerns expressed via the optional questions but haven't really addressed the issues. I'd like to support, because you obviously have the interests of wikipedia at heart, but your answers don't persuade me.
'''Oppose'''. Where a candidate has very little project space experience your interaction on the RfA is all we can go by to assess your judgement. Steven Walling was right; you're a great content editor and on paper appear to be a good admin nominee. However, unfortunately I think that by your non-participation you've sunk an RfA that, with decent answers to the questions, could have been yours for the taking. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - per my statement from neutral.
Content wise we have a person who tops the charts here. but the motivation for the tools is for usage in areas where experience seems to be a bit laxed, ie vandal fighting etc. obviously theres policy and content knowledge with the article development. Id like to see more answers in the queries before making a final decision, i could see some avenues where admin tools would help a great deal, Im certaintly am optimistic about supporting, but id like to just hold off for a tad longer.
Leaning support. This user appears to be a fine editor indeed, but as there appears to be a comparative lack of experience in admin sectors, I am not comfortable supporting until I can make more of a judgement based on their answers or any further evidence.
My heart wants to support because the candidate has made some fantastic content contributions to the project; however, my mind says that the points raised in #3 & #4 oppose above are right on the mark. More experience is needed in the areas where you'll be using the mop.--
I would like to see better answers to the questions.  I get the impression you may have not realized there would be a rush of questions right after the RfA went live and that that is why you havent answered them. '''
'''Neutral''' for now. Clearly a great content creator, and we definitely do need those in admin. But from the answers to the questions, I just can't really tell whether the candidate understands what admin tools are there and how, when and why they should be used. The answers are brief to the point of being curt, and in some cases (eg Q4) don't even answer the question. An admin needs to be able to express themselves well in discussion and properly explain what they're doing and why (and in some ways, I think that's a more important attribute than knowing what buttons to press). However, I appreciate that this RfA is still young, that a lot of questions have been asked, and that the candidate might simply have been a bit overwhelmed by them and hasn't really had time to answer them properly. So I'm neutral for now, and hoping for some expansions of the answers (inc Q8, 9, 12, 13, 16) to help me decide.
'''Neutral''' per Boing! Additionally, I don't like the question answers, ''especially'' the one for Q13. There are certain cases to block on sight and/or without the "sufficient" four warnings, for example: blatantly obvious edit filter hits, obvious socks, and page move vandals.
'''Neutral'''  As [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing!]] said, &#8220;[a]n admin needs to be able to express themselves well in discussion and properly explain what they're doing and why.&#8221;  But I lean towards &#8220;support&#8221; because this candidate seems to be completely drama-free.
'''Neutral''' per Boing! and the three after Boing!, for now.  I would like expansion on some of your answers that are vague or <10 words, as these types of answers really don't tell the voters anything.  As for Q13 (and Q20), can you give an answer that is more than "Have not struck such a situation, yet"?  Also, your responses to questions 8, 9, and 16 don't answer the question. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Moral support''', but I don't think you're quite ready yet, or at least you haven't shown you are to my satisfaction.  You've done a remarkable job of editing, but I'd like to see more familiarity with admin areas, particularly those areas in which you say you want to work.  Get involved in some AfD discussions, watch the AIV board (and maybe file some reports), and come back in a couple of months, and I suspect you'll pass easily.  Right now, you just don't have enough of a record in these areas for me to support you.
'''Neutral''' Moved from Support. Per my comments in Support vote. I'm sorry, but every time I look at those answers, they seem to look worse. I'm afraid the enthusiasm from the candidate for this to succeed just doesn't seem to be there, for whatever reason, so I can't support, which is a shame. I did want to support such an excellent content contributor, but honestly can't with such poor interaction in their own RFA. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' After looking on your talk page it seems that you have been engaged in edit wars quite recently and have even broken the 3RR as per [[user talk:Checker_Fred#March 2010|here]]. You have just recently gotten Rollback yesterday. I would advise you to wait about a year without anymore edit wars and good edits before coming back. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Candidate's talk page archives display a number of recent problems, as pointed out above. I don't think the candidate is ready to be trusted with the tools yet. Sorry. --
'''Strong oppose''' per Derild and per [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. You are not close to ready; at least six additional months before I would even consider a support. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Having recently come off from an unsuccessful RfA, I've started to understand what qualities an administrator must have. Unfortunately, your edit count doesn't impress me. You only have made a little more than 1,000 edits. This doesn't necessarily mean this RfA is going to be unsuccessful, but it strongly suggests it. We need to know that you are going to make a good admin, and things don't usually look good with a small edit count. You may want to try applying for adminship again in six to eight months, or when your edit count is a couple thousand edits stronger.
'''Oppose''' - a '''very''' quick look at your contributions and talk page shows too many recent problems for this to have my confidence - sorry
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. As almost all editors before me have already pointed out, too many recent issues to warrant a support. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Your answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3 seem to not have enough content as to ''why'' you would qualify as an admin. <sup>
'''Oppose''' Removing the 30% automated edits, gives less than 1000 manual edits, definitely a [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Come back when you have a better breadth of editing. (Don't just up edit counts with Huggle & Twinkle - too many automated edits can be a millstone around your neck) '''
'''Oppose''', as you are far too inexperienced (see [[WP:NOTNOW]]). What few edits you do have don't strike me as impressive; for example, your premature updates to [[National Security Advisor (United States)]], [[James L. Jones]], and [[Thomas E. Donilon]] are misleading in that they give the impression that Donlin has already succeeded Jones, whilst he has only yet announced his forthcoming retirement. I cannot find any contributions for you relating to [[Tony Hayward]], unless you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Hayward&diff=prev&oldid=369375038 this] edit, in which case you are blocked user {{user|UnitedNow}}, who was already counseled about premature RfAs. In fact, if you are going to claim this credit, then I will ask for a sockpuppetry request. '''
'''Oppose''' as NOTNOW. As for you presuming you would know how to handle conflict, I see no evidence that would allow me to presume that -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts|alternate account]] of
'''Oppose''' While I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia cannot support you at this moment as per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Support''' the answers to questions show understanding of policies and requirements for the areas that he intends to work on. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' A plus is that you admit to your mistakes. Good luck.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per the answers to my questions. I doubt that this editor will turn into one of those "I'm right, your wrong and I'm an admin so deal with it" admins. We already have enough of those. Good job and good luck!--
'''Weak Support''' Great editor, but have some concerns about issues raised below. -
'''Support''' I have had extremely good interactions with this user, and I trust him/her with the administrative tools. --
'''Support''' Good Track and see no scope for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] due to no memorable negative interactions (usually means candidate is reasonable), candidate having never been blocked (never stepped on any toes), candidate having rollback (trusted), and candidate having edited for over three years with over 9,000 edits (experienced), which again, with three years and nearly ten thousands edits has avoided being blocked or coming into conflict with me.  I also like the answer to the question on handling speedy delete templated articles that "I would search if there are any reliable source coverage for that subject."  THAT is exactly what I expect of anyone who templates an article, i.e. to not go about templating in a lazy manner that goes against [[WP:BEFORE]].  The candidate in that response demonstrates a considerateness toward fellow editors, namely article creators and editors and a willingness to not be careless, but to instead be helpful.  So, I might as well support.  Best, --
'''Support''' Over 3 years of experience and a fairly calm user in my opinion. Also support as per Ktr101.
'''Support''' - honestly don't believe there would be more than an occasional mistake if given the mop.
'''Support''' the idea that an admin candidate has to know by heart all of the tricky deletion criteria annoys me.  If this is an "open book exam", the book will still be there when the new admin does it for real.  Sorry the opposes are not focusing on suitability, rather than minor mistakes.--
'''Support''' Seems a trustworthy person and patient almost to a fault. Excellent admin material.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Weak Support]]''' - It's not like he will block [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] or [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]]. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''[[User:Buggie111/Rfa criteria|Weak Support]]''' I spent about 20 minutes checking him off, and even if I do not go by my criteria, he seems decentm, with his work in RFPP, AIV and his partial work in CSD, along with his minor article building (lots of gonming). (Now I have to open other tabs for the next person down)
'''Support'''  Been very supportive of me, completely trust the user with Adminship.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' Sorry to be the first opposer, but I'm unfortunately not convinced of your knowledge of the [[WP:CSD|CSD]] area right now. I went back a few months and could only find CSD activity going back until the 11th of January. In that time, I saw a few questionable calls for CSD, most notably [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Karunamayi&oldid=337803188] but also the peculiar but non-vandal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foot_slave&oldid=338267454]. Questions #7 and #9 lead me to believe you need a little more experience before I can trust you in that area. I would certainly not be opposed to another RFA in a few months after you gain more experience in that area. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, I've agonised over this one. Question 9 is a real problem. A7 is the most commonly applied speedy deletion criterion. To not have a basic understanding of it is a fundamental issue, all the more so in what is an "open book exam" and where the candidate has recently made some erroneous tags. I could only overlook it for a candidate who outright promised not to do speedy deletions. I don't at this stage see enough positives to outweigh this but, like [[User:Shirik|Shirik]] I may move my vote if those positives are presented. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Shirik]], while I understand that you have said you will not be working tons with new page patrolling and CSD it was one of you stated tasks in the answer to Q1.  As such I cannot support this user. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience first in varied capacities. Particularly content work, improvement of article quality, etc. '''
'''Weak Oppose''', I do not like the answers to Q7, Q9 and Q12. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safeword_(sports)&oldid=338890440 This revert] and the subsequent newbie user warning could have been worded much better. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Politoman&oldid=338890744 The subsequent message] is not helpful either. I also don't like the banner on [[User_talk:Connormah/RVV_Noticeboard]]; the guidelines do not seem to assume good faith per se. --
Not satisfied with answers to 5, 6, or 9, and answer to 12 is a cop-out.
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' I was on the verge of supporting but I see that this editor still does not have a full grasp of CSD policy.
'''Weak Oppose''' The fact that apparently you didn't notice the difference between an '''A''' and a '''G''' in Q6 is already enough to sway me to oppose... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' Still looking for a better grasp of CSD policy. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' per 3.  Sorry, but I don't like to see an admin candidate blaming another user entirely for a dispute, as it shows a lack of reflection.  Rather than describe how the other user misbehaved, I would prefer to see you opine on how you could have handled the situation better.  If you thought you handled it in the best way possible, then an argument as to why that is the case would be appropriate.  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I think it's by far the most important question.
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Oppose]]'''. I'm sorry, I hate to oppose but the answers to the question are not deep enough to convince me that you know what you're doing. The CSD questions are concerning, but probably not oppose-worthy in themselves.
'''Oppose''' per Shirik above. Good editor, adminship isn't for them right now.--MrRadioGuy
'''Not right now'''  Study up on policy, keep contributing, and decide in 3-6 months if you want to really invest the time in answering the questions carefully the ''first'' time.
'''Oppose''' I think that you are a very experienced user here, and are an asset to Wikipedia. However, I don't really see how administrative abilities would help you, and before I support this I would like to see some more marking articles for deletion, and maybe even some Huggle vandalism undoing. Also, you have only been granted the rollback flag recently, and I would like to see how you do with that a bit more.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Not enough experience, as is shown by the answers. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Essentially per Jclemens. The answers demonstrate an unsatisfactory level of comprehension, and understanding and application of policy. A few months of dedicated immersion in admin-space would make a lot of difference as potential is there.
'''Oppose''' I am not confident that you understand CSD policy. I am afraid that this is my major turndown. All admins, even if they '''intend''' not to CSD, need to know the policy. (See [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose'''. I would like to see much more content contribution, activity in admin-related areas, and knowledge and comprehension of policy, particularly CSD. The glib, "fluffed-up" answers don't help either.
'''Oppose''', sorry, CSD concerns, per above. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
I'm not really convinced either way. I want to see some more answers before I decide. '''
'''Neutral''' The opposes give me cause for concern, but not strong enough to oppose. -- '''''
Bad feeling about many of the answers. The CSD thing seems like more of a {{user:X!/facepalm}} thing than a legitimate concern, though. &ndash;'''
'''Neutral''' I too would like to know (per query 3) if the user would handle this differently today. But thats just my curiosity. I wont oppose/support at this time. I think the user has alot of potential but i share some of the concerns raised by the opposition.
'''Neutral''' for now, after looking over this a few time there are a few concerns which make me uncomfortable to support, my apologies. --
'''Neutral''' – Both the affirmative and the opposition make good arguments. <big>
'''Neutral'''.  You're a great editor, but your answers to the above questions are giving me a pause.  Sorry, but I don't think I can support in good conciseness any longer.  -'''
'''Neutral''' leaning support.  While there are definitely some great contributions, and I don't think you'd willingly misuse the tools, the answers are causing me some pause, I think.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral'''. Absolutely zero prejudice towards a second RfA in 4-6 months. Pick the issues here that seem the strongest, work on them, and I'd be happy to support later.
'''Neutral''': Leaning support, but still undecided.
'''Neutral''': Not quite ready yet.  If I were you, I would become involved in the areas ''now'' that you want to be more involved in later.  Let a few neutral third parties let you know when ''they'' feel you're ready to put yourself through RFA again - it's no big deal. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' In my opinion, administrators should generally have some more substantive content contributions than the candidate seems to have at this time. However, I'm not very convinced by the opposers.
'''Neutral''' Per Bwilkins. I hope this user comes back soon, he seems on the cusp of making it.
'''Support''' Contributions come up to my standards. HJM has summarised the nom pretty concisely. Use the tools well Connormah.
Maybe I'm a bit quick to jump here, but I think you've improved enough from the last one. '''
'''Support''' – I trust Connormah with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' I supported last time, and I will support again. Reason [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah#Support here].
'''Support''' About time he ran again.  He does a great deal of work around here and would make a very useful admin.--
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy enough to handle the mop.
As nom. Best of luck to you my friend. :)
'''Support''' Well rounded and experienced. Also, the answer to question 4 is fantastic. Spot on.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Seems fine for the mop. --
'''Support''' Should be just fine. But q4 shows a little trigger-happiness. Unless the vandalism is ''really'' malicious, there's no need to block immediately. But one warning may be enough for the example you provide.
'''Support'''. I'm sure they've helped me with at [[Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop]] before now, and every time I look hard at image stuff they're there working hard behind the scenes. q4 is ''a little'' [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin|rouge]], but not overly so.
'''Support'''. Plenty more relevant experience since last RfA, and issues from then (which I suspect were at least partly due to rushing the Q answers a bit) look to be well in the past. Looks like another good one to me.
'''Support''' Mature and respected editor, has my support. ''<B>--
Per Wisdom89. Also, the nomination statement is just as tacky as mine usually are. ;)
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, no reason to think user couldn't be trusted with the mop. --

Good experience and answers to questions - especially Q4. There is nothing rogue about applying the "4 warnings" principle with appropriate flexibility. The answer to Q9 of course is piss-weak but since when is going a bit overboard on answering an RFA question diplomatically a sign that the candidate will not be a good admin? --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I originally was going to oppose because he's Canadian (Just kidding, don't hurt me). I completely agree with his statements on the 4-warning progression, and I believe he's going to do an amazing job --
I thought he was already one. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
I did too, NSD. Looks good to me, seems to have a clue. About Q9 (which I wrote), I was being rather sarcastic about Q7, as I was alarmed to see a question about "how candidate views life, mentioning glasses of water". <font face="Papyrus"><big><big>—
'''Support''' - I honor all who are working in fairuse images and [[WP:RPP]]. Answer to Q4 made this ol' vandal fighter grin.  I welcome further discussion on this, as it may be a bit of a grey area to some of us. Best wishes,
'''Support''' With a strong disagreement to Fetchcomms' oppose.  No need is not a valid argument, and bandying about with talk page warnings and all that is just words.  I've been an admin here for four years, the levels of warnings/immediacy of blocking is never an issue.  The issues always arrive over "vested contributors".  The rest is the hum of the radiator.  Not a big deal with the questions, in my opinion.
'''Support''' I thought you were one already.
'''Support''' <b>
'''Support''' I'm satisfied with his answers and his preparation.
'''Support''' I trust he won't abuse the mop, and liked the answer to Q4 in particular. --<font color='#66dd44'>[[User:Joe Decker|j<small>&#9883;</small>e decker]][[User talk:Joe Decker|<sup><small><i>talk</i></small></sup>]]</font> 07:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)  Additional issues have been raised in opposition, in view of and with respect to those issues (particularly concerns regarding BLPs) I still find that I support the RfA, on the whole, I think the nominee having mop access would be a net positive for WP. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' - I do not see anything in his answers or latest contributions that put a doubt into my mind that he will abuse the tools.  '''
'''Support''' I think he would make a good admin and A good Holder of the Mop.
'''Support''' - Good involvement in [[WP:GL/I]], [[WP:RPP]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN/I]] etc.
'''Support''' - I would normally have reservations about a candidate with little obvious article creation/expansion experience. But that is more than outweighed by their excellent experience in admin areas, responses to the questions, and the literally thousands of valid files/images uploaded.
'''Support''' I've read the opposes, and find them utterly unconvincing. Candidate has experience and no serious issues with their actual ''actions'' on Wikipedia have been brought up, just vague fears based on their honest responses to vaguely worded questions. Some of the opposers really seem to be grasping at straws for reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' I particularly like the answer to Q4. The image work is also a big plus for me, and I see nothing in the Oppose reasons that worries me unduly. From what I can see, would be a net positive as an admin, so I support.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Support'''.  Editor seems to be a fine candidate for the adminship tools.  Although I would still like to see an answer to question seven, I doubt it would change my opinion at this point.  Sorry once again for any issues I may have caused with my questions. --
'''<strike>WeakISH</strike> Support''' - you're a good, dedicated editor, but be careful with that barrage of questions, they can catch even the most confident Wikipedian out, if not thought through...
'''Weak Support'''- mostly per Beeblebrox.
'''Support''' Your answers make me think that you will be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' for demonstrating good judgment by not answering some truly ridiculous quiz-section questions above.
'''Support''' editor seems to be very experienced and trustworthy
'''Support'''. Need new admins. User interactions seem OK. Answers to questions are fine. Fights vandals properly. Not overly concerned by content creation issues.
'''Support'''. I think that many of the concerns expressed by those who oppose or are neutral are valid issues to raise, and I take them seriously. However, I am coming down on the side of supporting, primarily because I think that it is actually a good thing to encourage administrators to specialize in a few areas of administrative work, rather than to work across the board, and also for administrators to limit the amount of time they will put into administration, in favor of continuing their regular work as editors. In the long run, that's good for the project, and I want to make the point that we often do not give that sufficient credit. In addition, I have a warm spot for the answer to Q4. --
'''Support''' Contributions look good. ''
'''Support''' Don't see any red flags. [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]|[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]|[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]|
'''Support''' I find the level of restraint and judgement to be inline with what i would expect an admin to use. At this moment i can fully support. My support is also heavily based on HJ Mitchells nomination statement and observations since the last RFA.
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' I note the opposers valid concerns, but believe you'd be [[WP:NETPOS|more help]] with the extra buttons. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' For sure. <sup>
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Connormah. —
'''Support''' Experienced. If the best oppose rationale is 'Occasionally creates a few weak stubs' then I don't have a problem
'''Support''' I think you can certainly help clean up wikipedia
'''Support'''  solid editor.--''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Read opposes, see little that bothers, so why not?
'''Support''' I think the opposes raise some good points, but nothing that would preclude adminship.  Maybe some areas to improve on after the RfA goes through?  I greatly appreciate your contribution of signatures, and agree that they add a personal touch to the relevant pages.  Also, in my dealings with you, I've never seen anything that would make me want to oppose.  More admins at AIV would be particularly welcome.  Here's hoping you pass!
'''Support''' - can we trust him? Yes. Do I care if he won't use the tools a lot? No, because I trust him. 'Nuff said. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' Seems fine, don't agree with opposes.
'''Support''' I trust this guy, he seems to have good restraint
'''Support'''. Definitely seems trustworthy. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around at RFPP, and they seem to know what they are doing. I'm all for good sourcing on BLPs, but I don't think that the creation of unsourced BLPs at some point in an editor's past should be seen as some sort of mortal sin.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Don't see why the ability to create articles has anything to do with misuse of the tools.
'''Support''' longterm user, clean block log and this RFA shows an ability to handle flak. Things change here from time to time, but an admin who responds to someone pointing out a change such as new BLPs needing a source, by changing their behaviour accordingly is OK by me. ''
'''Support''' ---
'''Support''' Looks good to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''support'''- After some thought, I found I had to be in this column. Has he screwed up in the past? Yes, but who hasn't? The openness to advice and changing behaviour is good because it is done in moderation- there's no wholesale catering to what people want here, and behaviour during this RfA has been exemplary. I'm sure he'll tread carefully as an admin.
'''Support''' Has necessary experience, looks good to me.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', and a note to the opposers that admitting you're wrong is always preferable to playing the highly frustrating "OMG BADGERING!" card.
'''Support''' - I have reviewed this candidate and the concerns of the opposition, but haven't seen anything that stops me wanting to support. Firstly, I would be interested in hearing on how the candidate's responses to the opposition, which are mostly reasonable clarifications, apologies, and requests for elaboration, can be considered "[[Wikt:badger|badgering]]". Next, while I see why users are concerned about the creation of unreferenced articles, Connormah has demonstrated more recently that he has understood the importance of referencing, and that this will not happen in the future. The ability to learn from mistakes is something which should be valued in admins. Given that Connormah has performed well in other areas where he intends to use the tools, I don't think this is a strong enough reason to deny adminship. As a whole, the candidate passes [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]] fine.
'''Support''' per my take on [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]].  I haven't seen a convincing argument that he would misuse his admin status if given to him, so support.
'''Support''' Seems a strong sapable editor, just the type of admin we need --
'''Support''' While I respect those offering differing takes on this candidate, I have found him helpful and constructive. We all bring different skills here. I think he has shown a few of his own. I am also impressed by his resilience in fielding questions, and his general attitude.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. All seems well. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' from neutral.  Having re-read my own rational for !voting neutral, I find my reasons against supporting completely unconvincing.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support''', looks fine to me. Clearly the unsourced articles are a concern, but Connormah evidently understands the concern and it's been a good few months since he last created one. All we can ask is that our editors improve on their weak points, and he's clearly already done so and is continuing to. In all other respects he seems to be a good admin candidate, and I wish him luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I tend to agree that the opposes are weak. Nominee is highly capable.
After giving the opposition some very serious consideration, I'm just not convinced that Connormah does not understand [[WP:BLP|BLP]] sufficiently enough to adequately enforce the inclusion/deletion policies. I also see no reason to believe that Connormah would not be a particularly active administrator, which in itself would not be substantial grounds for opposition on my part.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal and you clearly would not make a big mess.
'''Support''' Meets my admin criteria. '''—
'''Support''' <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' because he seems to be a good contributor and because far too many of the opposes seem to be users desperately searching for a reason to oppose.
'''<strike>Weak</strike> oppose'''. I'm sorry, because you look a very good contributor, but in my opinion you might be a little block-happy if you were sysopped; I really wouldn't have opposed, if you hadn't stated your intention to work in that general area. And, furthermore, I'm a little puzzled by answer 10, when you hold that, although IPs shouldn't usually be indeffed, under certain circumstances you think that would be warranted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> ([[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk 'bout it!</sup>]]) 10:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my !vote to '''oppose''' because of the incessant badgering of anyone who opposes. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Per answer to Q9.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I  was really  impressed with  all the  answers. Then  I  started checking  the candidate's editing  history. If  those 15 easy,  short, creations had been immaculate, and demonstrated a clear understanding  of MOS, sourcing, and references, and didn't  have any ugly  tags on  them , or if they  had at  least  been been cleaned up  before accepting  the nom, I  would have been going  for a strong  support. Sorry, but  admins have to  know how to  create  articles if they  are going  to  police others.--
'''Oppose''' per Kudpung.
'''Oppose''' per Kudpung, and per the answers to Q1, Q8, and Q10. For Q1, you don't seem to actually have a real need for the tools. You say that you do occasional vandalism/AIV work, that you don't have much interest in CSD/AfD, and I get the feeling that you don't really need the tools if you aren't going to get involved all that much. For Q8, If I were to suddenly run around CSDing major pages, you should block me ''right away'', especially as I an an admin and any compromised admin account is major trouble. You cannot afford to leave a nice message on my talk page, email me, then warn me (unless my account is not compromised, and I have no clue what is going on other than it's seriously messed up, I doubt a warning would do much), and then wait for an ANI discussion. I would be blocking that user right away if they appeared to be compromised, and (if a sysop, crat, etc.) ask for an emergency desysop, etc. so they would not unblock themself. For Q10, I'm not sure what you mean by your answer to Q10, even after fixing it. I've personally never seen an indef on an IP, just long-term blocks (the longest being for open proxies, usually), and your comment that "'indefinite' does not always mean 'infinite', the block should be lifted whenever the IP is reassigned" makes me feel like you would indef them, and then suddenly figure out when the IP got reassigned (how would you know when that happens?) and unblock then. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' per fetchcomms. I think you could do it right as sysop though, but the responses to the questions changed my mind.
'''Oppose''' - per concerns raised by Salvio giuliano. -
{{ec}}'''Weak oppose'''—Although I do like your answer to Q4 and your response to Q1 can be interpreted in many different ways, I am compelled to oppose citing your answers to Q8, and Q10, in which I agree entirely with fetchcomms, who said pretty much what I would've said. Kudpung also brings up a good point about articles. So how can one look at the first question's response? One way to look at it is that you do not ''want'' to use the tools. Another way to read it is that you will go on editing like you always do, but instead of bugging an admin for help like you used to, you can wield your mop. I assume you mean the latter, hence my weak and not full oppose.
Can't bring myself to support a user with such poor content creation.
'''Oppose''' I think you need more work, although I've seen you do good stuff, but I really do not think you are ready for this...
'''Oppose''' Concerned about creation of unsourced / poorly sourced biographies, including unsourced BLPs, most of them remaining decorated by maintenance templates until fairly recently (e.g [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Fleming&action=historysubmit&diff=358517562&oldid=358266504 this]). The answer to my question wasn't quite what I was looking for, but that may be because I wasn't specific enough. <code>
'''Oppose''', per Decltype and Kudpung. Creation of unsourced BLPs in March 2010, ''after'' the big BLP RFCs of the spring, indicates either that the user is unwilling to keep up with community norms, or has learned from his mistakes but still needs further seasoning before he would be an effective administrator. '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' (mv from Neutral) On closer inspection, I am unimpressed with the answers. Answers to Q9 (see my older cmnts in Neutral) and Q8 in particular show wobbliness.  The answer to Q8 is really unsatisfactory. As an admin, you have a responsibility to act, and to act quickly, if you see obvious and continuous disruption, such as somebody CSD tagging [[United States of America]], [[Wii]] and [[March]]. You issue a quick warning and if that does not help, you block the user. As an admin, your first priority should be to stop ongoing disruption rather than worry that you might be insufficiently nice to an established user. Do that, and then post to AN/I and wherever to check if the account has been compromised or what.  NuclearWarfare and Decltype also raise important point. I don't expect every RfA candidate to have a bunch of FAs/GAs, but the content that you do create needs to be brought up to par, especially in BLP cases. I have looked up, at random, at one of the articles you created, [[Dan Tencer]]. The first ref in this article is currently a deadlink to a Facebook(!) page. Also, for this BLP article more than a year ago you uploaded an image File:Dan Tencer.jpg, downloaded from a Twitter page and missing copyright permissions. When somebody finally tagged the image as CSD F9 in March 2010, you woke up and filed an OTRS ticket request. I am not sure what exactly is going on there, but you did not follow up: the ticket, apparently, could not be resolved, went stale, and the file is still missing a copyright permission several months later (and has been tagged for deletion again). You need to be more pro-active in mopping up these kinds of problems and not let them drag on for ages.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, because I don't think this is a bad faith issue, but the example decltype uses above is apparently not the only one, and worrisome.
'''Oppose''' Per fetch-comms and dectype. Too worrisome, sorry. -
'''Oppose'''. The low quality of the recent content contributions gives me little sense of this editor's understanding of our key policies of notability & verifiability, which makes me uncomfortable with assigning the delete function. Additionally, I am concerned by the answers to some questions, especially 8 and those relating to blocking IPs. I do not feel this editor is currently ready for adminship.
'''Weak Oppose''' per answer to Q1. --
'''Weak oppose''' per non-answer to Q.15.  I would like to see candidates who have thought through the issues of admin "authority" and have a reasoned stance on the subject.
'''Oppose''' per NW: Connormah has created unsourced BLPs, e.g. {{la|Wayne Fleming}}, as recently as March 2010. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Sorry Connormah, but I oppose as well, chiming in with arguments put forward by Nuke, NSK, and <tt>decltype</tt>.
BLPs are a major deal breaker here. Weak article contributions don't help, nor do many of the arguments found in this section.
I can't support someone who has such minimal content work, and the unsourced articles push it over the edge. It's not the specific examples, exactly, since it's not like there's any huge BLP violation, but it's the creation of such articles in general.  As far as I can tell, it shows one of two things: One, candidate doesn't fully understand BLP, or two, doesn't think it is important. Neither is reassuring.
'''Oppose'''. [[William McKinley, Sr.]] has no footnotes at all; all there is is a few external links which were not formatted with [[Template:Cite web]]. [[Nathaniel Fillmore]] was even worse - only one external link. A good admin would develop these articles within his/her userspace before moving them into the mainspace. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Oppose''' per Salvio, Q11 and some other lingering impressions from here.
'''Oppose''' per the BLP concerns raised above; also the fact that they simply said "I should have worked on those articles more". Wikipedia is a work in progress, and they could have gone back at any time to work on an article. When asked about it, their answer was simply "I should have". Not, "I'm trying", not "I plan on fixing it". That's unsatisfactory.
'''Oppose''' Connormah has clearly indicated his intention to clean up these articles.  IMHO it'd be in everyones best interest if he were allowed to complete this work prior to being burdened with admin jobs.--
As per Kudpung. "''I promise to do everything right if I am a sysop''" just isn't good enough.
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' - I recognize the usefulness of your work in vandal-fighting and signatures etc., but I think you need a much, much better understanding of core Wikipedia policies before you can become a sysop. <s>As per your answers above, you do not seem to fully understand [[WP:BLOCK]], and furthermore,</s> I have concerns about an editor with such few and mediocre content contributions working in page protection.
'''Oppose''' – I would like to see just a little more experience in content-building before I am comfortable enough to support. –
I would have to agree with AniMate here. BLP concerns and generally weak on content contributions. I would also like to ask where the sources are for the non-free images uploaded? (for example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NFL_Europe_Logo.svg] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Super_Bowl_XVII_Logo.svg] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Super_Bowl_XXIV_Logo.svg] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Super_Bowl_XXXII_Logo.svg]). You left the field blank. If it is intentionally done so, stating that "The logo may be obtained from Super Bowl XXXII" is just lazy. &mdash;
I don't have a vote for you because my own position is that I'm not looking for a way to slap someone down; if you've got a sense of how you want to contribute, and you make it work, fine.  But I've got an opinion: I think you should be up front about your reaction to your last RFA; it looks like you didn't like the advice you got.  Looking quickly through your deleted contribs since your first RFA, I don't see a single non-image CSD tagging.  The community seemed to be asking for a little broader knowledge; it looks like you've gotten more focused.  Some asked for "content"; have you had any DYKs or GAs since the first RFA? - Dank (
'''Neutral''' (leaning to support) Fetchcomms makes a point in his oppose. However technically speaking, (though this is not always applied in reality) RFA's should be about whether or not you trust the person, not "This guy has W amount of edits, in X amount of time and it's been Y amount of months and Z amount of edits since his last RFA so I...." I know that if this RFA were to pass you'd likely take Fetchcomms' comments as advice so there is no real reason to oppose as long as you're willing to learn from the opposition.--
'''Neutral''' I had just about decided to go with 'weak support'; however, after re-reading some of the Q&A's, I decided to go with neutral. User Kudpung makes a very compelling argument in #3 oppose above.--
'''Neutral''' - I like his answers and appears to be an active vandal fight, but he's only had about 14 months of active contributing and doesn't meet my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|admin criterion]] for experience.  --'''
'''Neutral'''. Unconvincing reason for adminship (i.e. answer to question 1). Mediocre content contribution.
'''Neutral''' for now. I like most of this but the article creation side worries me a little. I would probably support if some of those 15 articles were improved, or if a really convincing new one was created.
'''Neutral''' I had wanted to support; however, the issue regarding the BLPs in concerning. Not that they have been up to 5 months ago, but that they were not addressed before being nominated for administration. I am not opposing because I do feel that this is a good user, but I must honestly say the last bit of badgering of the opposers rational by HJ is unwarrented and kind of leaves a bad taste. It is not comparing him to a vandal and really should have been addressed with Connormah, before this went live and I don't believe this would be the issue it is now. BLPs are important and down playing others rational towards this as absurd may have an even greater negative impact.
Good edit history, some good answers. Reservations on WP:V and WP:N grounds. Since these policy concerns do not seem to be the lynch pins of applicant's proposed use of Admin tools, I could be persuaded to vote ''Approve'', but am not ready with the above answers. /
Moved to Neutral from opposed, see above

'''Neutral''' voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of CSD. No further understanding has been shown but Connormah has said they do not wish to take part in CSD or AfD and I am in a good mood today. Fairly recent creation of weak/unreferenced stub articles on people is a concern.
'''Support''' It strikes me that the only reason to oppose this guy right now is that you disagree with his view of Wikipedia, rather than have any real issue with policy violations that would de-bit an actual admin.
'''Weak Support:'''  Needs to mellow a bit. -
Could be a bit less ''direct'' with edit summaries and so on, but people also need to grow a thicker skin 'round here.  Admins who do a tough job shouldn't be expected to walk on eggshells all the time.
'''Support''' although this looks exceedingly unlikely to pass. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC) <small>{{cratnote}} Note: As this !vote was expressed before the block was placed, it should not be removed. ···
'''oppose''' This looks like a decidedly [[WP:POINT|pointed]] nomination. You say you present yourself because there are not enough candidates, but you don't actually plan to do much admin work, so that is not particularly helpful.  I appreciate that you were honest enough to say that the main reason you want the tools is so you can view deleted content, but frankly that is just about the least compelling reason I have ever heard for granting adminship.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Crotalus is certainly a name I've seen around, and your experience and contributions in general are sufficient for what I'd support, though your contribution history is spotty (a number of absences for up to a year at a time). But I don't see the demeanor I'd want in an admin, honestly. The link in Iridescent's question above is very troubling, and I'm not convinced you won't abuse the tools in violation of [[WP:POINT]]. Also, a look through your talk pages shows a number of complaints about incivility and personal attacks. -- '''
'''Oppose''' I see less than 1000 edits since your last block and not a sufficient reason to give you the tools. More of a risk than a benefit.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't meet my minimum participation criteria.  --'''
'''Oppose''' The candidate's block history, recent Talk page incivility issues, and that badly misjudged attempt to get the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation banned, all suggest an attitude that just isn't appropriate for an admin - I wouldn't risk it for a candidate who planned to do lots of good admin work, but this candidate isn't even planning to do that. --
'''Oppose'''. Would increase drama. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. I have no problem ''per se'' with promoting editors with strong or controversial views to be admins. But I do have problems with admins causing unnecessary drama. The candidate's history suggests to me that he/she will fall in the latter category. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per block log, insufficient recent experience, and attempting to community ban an employee of the WMF (Which shows questionable judgement).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence This] is more than recent enough to give me serious doubts as to your attitude and potential disruption with the tools.
'''Oppose'''. Significant concerns about [[WP:POINT]] and lack of experience, as well as agree with issues raised above. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - With all due respect, trying to ban a WMF employee shows a basic lack of common sense. Add in the other concerns and I'd say this RfC should be closed asap per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Proposal_for_community_ban_of_User:Eloquence Oppose]''' - as noted by Iridescent. Distressing lack of clue about the bigger picture. Hate the foundation or love the foundation it doesn't really matter - If you can't understand fundamentals of the way stuff works on the foundation sites you are clearly not ready to be granted the technical ability to block whole IP ranges for example. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Poor judgment overall, no real need for the tools. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' Too many blocks to pass (4 blocks) in my opinion. Agree with Atama on this one. You do have lots of experience, but the exceeding number of personal attacks really spoil the chance.
'''Oppose''': No RFA Votes, possible inactivity note, failed my afd/csd/prod requirements, multiple previous blocks. I need not go on. (See [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with judgment, maturity, experience, policy knowledge, and breadth of exposure.  The lack of recent activity isn't a plus either.  -'''
{{ec}} '''Oppose'''. I don't like the way the block log looks. Sorry. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's incivility towards other editors, block log, lack of recent experience, immaturity, lack of policy knowledge, and poorly-judged attempt to community ban a WMF deputy director.
'''Oppose'''. This candidate lacks the judgment or temperament that I would expect from an admin candidate. I am concerned about the candidate's civility and the suggested community ban of Erik Moeller. Yes, some people might be thin-skinned, but I feel that edit summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_scientific_articles&diff=prev&oldid=328830568 this one] - which was made barely 100 edits ago - show little of the cool-headedness I would expect from an admin.
'''Oppose''' As others, I see too many traits that would worry me. '''
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' Block log is concerning. Normally I'm willing to overlook a block older than a year, but in this case not even 1000 edits have been made since that block. I don't feel that's sufficient time to demonstrate to the community that judgement can be trusted. With more demonstrated positive experience, I would not hold this outdated block against the candidate. --
'''Oppose''' Basically wants to access all those juicy intra-project spat pages he thinks he's missing out on.
I have some major concerns about your judgement, mainly when you wanted to community ban a WMF deputy director. The lack of activity recently doesn't help, either. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' This Candidate has traits that are really worrisome. When he has difference of opinion with another user he takes it personal. He almost got an innocent user banned out of wikipedia (With whom he was edit-warring at that time) on the context that person's username had similarities to another banned user. Finally that user managed to come back when CheckUser proved his innocence. I would n't recommend this candidate for adminship.
'''Oppose''' There is nothing here that makes me want to support this candidate, but sadly much to oppose with. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Neutral''' Not piling on. Blocks and limited editing after last one have me not supporting. There are some other things that Im worried over but these have been mentioned before by other editors. Most paticular though i have a worry over the main reason that you say you want to run for admin in your nomination statement, ''to see deleted content without a direct reason'' (at the time of this post). I dont undertsand why and how this will help and the motivation behind this. The case for needing the tools just doesnt come accross for me. This could still be clarified but theres just too many other issues present. All this aside I am pleased that youve had continued activity in the project for 5 years.
I'm '''Neutral''' with a moral support, if only to distance myself from your detractors.  I have issues with your overall temperament and recent editing experience.  That being said, I strongly support the idea that the community can stand up to our overlords, the foundation; so bravo on pointing out the foundation's hypocrisy.  I would never personally support a ban on Eloquence but I would gladly support some sort of wrist-slapping censure due to the reinsertion of the spam banner against consensus. '''
'''Neutral''' not ready for the mop but am unwilling to pile on. ''<B>--
'''Strong oppose''' your last RFA was closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]] just over a week ago. Trying again so soon shows a clear lack of understanding of why your previous RFA failed and what is expected of an administrator. I suugest you withdraw this request.

This editor is actively seeking admin coaching after their last AfD on the 22nd Dec: "I want to be an admin but after my RfA was declined I saw I needed coaching." Quite. Has no experience in any area to do with adminship, and opening this second RfA shows quite a lack of judgement.
'''Oppose''' I see no reason to suppose that you will not, in time, be a good admin. But you have less thann 900 edits in total, and while edit count alone is not relevant, we need to see a reasonable amount of editing in order to assess your skill in admin-related tasks. About 3000 edits will usually so it. applying for adminship too soon after a failed RfA is also not good. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Curtis23_2&curid=25647487&diff=335354865&oldid=335350571 this display of woeful lack of judgement] '''
'''Oppose''' aside from what has been pointed out above, you have been blocked as recently as August last year. My suggestion is that you spend the next few months exploring the pedia and editing the areas you are most interested in, but don't consider another run for adminship until your block is at least twelve months old. ''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per Beeblebrox.--
'''Oppose''' You lack the judgement (blocked recently), patience (A week between RFA's), tenure (under 1,000 edits), or breath of experience (Few edits outside wrestling topics) to be an admin.
'''Neutral''' per my [[User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards]]. Too soon for adminship, too soon after last RfA -- '''''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW|With under 900 edits, i can't support, but please keep up the good work!]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Oppose''' Less than 1,000 total edits, less than 100 this year.  I can't evaluate a candidate with this little experience in absence of unusual circumstances (such as a sysop on other WMF projects).
"I probably did it wrong"... no you didn't, but I would advise observing other successful and unsuccessful RfAs to see what the standard is, before you next run.  I hate to oppose, but you're really not ready. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
Per Pilif12p; even globally less than 1000 edits. Keep up the good work and come later. --
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about copyvio here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grevillea_australis&oldid=277847228] and mildly annoyed by the signature not being the username, but I can get over that :). Also, full protection would have been very inappropriate, I think, for the page you mentioned. It used be possible to become an admin with <900 edits; unanimously, even: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Meelar]]. I'm not sure why this has changed.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, maturity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience and activity. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Moral support''' <font color="#082567">
Hi Darth. Looks like you just got reviewer and rollback permissions on Friday, so I recommend you try those out for a while first before requesting adminship.
You need to have a few more edits - less than 1500 overall, and only 220 in article space isn't really enough. Nothing to say you shouldn't come back in a bit, with some more work under your belt --
Bit short on article space edits, slightly unconvincing answers to the questions, and not much sign of experience in admin-related areas. Still, nothing that seems so egregious as to prevent another go in the future.--
Not enough experience and the problems mentioned on your talk page suggest you still have a bit to learn about some fairly basic policies.  Suggest you get rather more experience, then come back. --
As others have said, 220 article edits is nowhere near enough experience yet. But thanks for offering your services, and please do stick around and carry on the good work of helping to improve the encyclopedia. --
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]], you have good intentions, but are not quite there yet. Build up some more experience in the Wikipedia community, and you may one day make a fine admin.--''
Sorry, with under 1500 edits, it would take an extraordinary nomination to convince, and that didn't happen.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Sorry, but you need a great deal more exposure and experience with Wikipedia. You're doing decent work right now, and with time and experience that will develop into excellent work. But based on your edit history and User Talk page comments, you're just not there yet. --
'''Oppose'''. Could use a bit more experience. -- '''
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]], Sorry Good Luck for the future.
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]''' ~~
'''Oppose''' -- Sorry, too soon, not enough experience. You were even just a few spots up from my own [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Krashlandon|rollback request]].
'''Oppose, with Moral Support''', not nearly enough experience...plus a copyright violation on your talk page. No work in admin-related areas. I'm glad to help you with any questions you may have, and encourage you to come back after gaining some more experience. Dont be discouraged! I did this same thing when I had recently joined Wikipedia. I hope to see you back here someday with tons of experience and good admin-area work.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]].  Sorry but with only about 125 edits you are nowhere near ready enough to become an admin.
'''Oppose''', [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Lack of experience. -<font color="Grey" face="comic sans ms">
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Oppose]]''' Lack of experience overall & no edits to admin related areas.
'''Oppose,''' but you're off to a good start. Additionally, admin tools are not necessary to perform the tasks for which you are requesting them. Just go ahead and do it. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Oppose''' - this nomination should be closed on the grounds of [[WP:NOTNOW]], user isn't experienced enough.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]/poor answers to the standard questions.
'''Oppose''', would like to see some more experience and better answers to questions. -- '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]]. [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]&#124;
I don't want to add another Oppose vote, so I'm just going to comment here that I applaud your enthusiasm, but you really need to read [[WP:NOTNOW]], and look through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. Certainly, further down the road, I'm sure you could be a good candidate, but in the meantime I echo the recommendation above that you should withdraw this for now. &nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' I've worked with this user in [[WP:ACC|Account Creation]] and [[WP:ABUSE|Abuse Response]]. He's VERY helpful all around. Reading over his answers just makes the support even stronger. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' More than enough gorm demonstrated to wield the mop. --
'''Support'''—Only positive interactions. Am confident with them wielding the mop.
'''Support''' No concerns with you as I've seen you around and can attest to your competence and need for the tools.
'''Stop-beating-the-nom support''' D: As nom. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
Worked with him in [[WP:ACC]], and have seen him around other places. I think that he will make a great admin. ~~
Pursuing his edit history, he seems level-headed and trustworthy.
'''Support''' Good track record in tool-related areas, plenty of experience. --
'''Support''' Definitely earned my respect. Very helpful and appropriately qualified. I can only foresee positive results with ratification of this nomination. '''
'''Support''' – Great work in ACC; you seem to have a clue here. Since you state you would be working in AIV, I would have usually have liked a few thousand more edits, but since edit count does not matter, and you are a trustworthy editor, I'm fine that you do not have as many edits as some of the other RFA nominees that work in anti-vandalism do. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this candidate. Not that many edits, but I'd take quality over quantity any day.--
'''Support''' Per nominators' statements. No concerns.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]&#124;
'''Weak Support''' I am comfortable with what I saw in my review. The candidate makes positive contributions, and I don't see the number of edits as a barrier. Satisfies my [[Wikipedia:Net positive|main RFA criterion]], so I support. <small>[noting change to weak support in the light of some valid concerns in votes below, still supporting as I believe candidate appears intelligent enough to take these points on board] </small> &nbsp;
'''Support''' I feel good about this candidate after reading his answers.
Open-minded '''Support''' - I suppose I'd like to see more audited content under their belt, but the answers are okay, plus lack of any problems highlighted to date suggests will be more likely than not to be net positive, so let's give it a whirl.
'''Support''' - I have looked through this user's contributions, and it is clear that he is level-headed and is able to make use of the tools. -

'''Support''' – looks good; why not? --
'''Support''' - editor has the necessary clue and competence required of an administrator
'''Support''' - a Wikipedian since November, 2007; strong vandal-fighting credentials; cerebral answers--
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
Not familiar, but a review of his contributions and trust for the nom convince me that DeltaQuad is a strong candidate. '''
'''Support''' I opposed the previous request made as MWOAP back in January, but even then I'd said that this editor was off to a good start and needed some more experience before being ready to be an admin. I see that experience now, and I see evidence of plenty of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] both in the answers to questions above and in contributions made on the encyclopedia. I feel confident supporting this person now. -- '''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], and, from his user page, appears to be even more of a [[geek]] than me.
'''Support''' nothing wrong here. ''<B>--
'''Strong support''' - I meet this editor a few months ago in Account Creations. As a newbie to the process, I frequently called on DeltaQuad for assistance with policy, procedural and general advice query's. He has always been very professional, insightful and courteous. He has a great deal of clue and experience. His coordinating the re-vamping of the Abuse Response team and LTA has been an immense help, his having a mop could greatly enhance those projects and Wikipedia as a whole. As per Co-nom Why not ?.
'''Support''' Per my co-nom and [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|general guidelines]] '''<font color="#999" face="Tahoma">
-
'''Support''' because I don't see a good reason not to.  Being older and having lots of article content are not good indicators of who'd be a good admin.
'''Everlasting Support''' per recent interactions with said person.--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support'''. I think that this person will make a good admin, has a good attitude and seems like an individual who can be trusted and has a pretty good grasp of policy. I respect people's right to oppose candidates but I have not been convinced by the opposes.--
'''Support''' The opposers raise some good points, but not ones that to me make you seem unfit for administrative work, and the fact that you've gained the support of an admin whose RfA you've opposed gives me more confidence. '''
'''Strong Support''' Extremley helpful user who guided me through the Abuse Response 'system', and would make a great admin. Confident that the user wouldn't make any rash desicions, and wont abuse the tools.
'''Support''' the opposes are weak, at best. Right there beginning with oppose #1; 7,000 edits and 9 months of non-disruptive behavior isn't enough to figure out if this editor can be trusted with the tools. Absolutely, shockingly unreal. And we wonder why the pass rates of RfA is at an all time low. Good God people, wake up. --
'''Support''' I don't believe that I've interacted with this user before, but you seem quite trustworthy. As Hammersoft said above, the opposes are awfully weak. You don't need to pick apart all the minor things DeltaQuad does. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' Mostly to counter the opposes, which for the most part, are clutching at straws for reasons to say no. Two years indeed and 7000 edits "not enough" - complete nonsense... some raise valid points, but these are generally nitpicking. I look at the whole picture rather than a couple of isolated incidents. If I never see a single error in a candidate, I'd be more concerned than pleased. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - per nom. '''
'''Support: '''This user is Canadian and does not use profanity, swearing, cussing, cursing, or expletives. He also likes Star Trek. Res ipsa loquitur -
'''Support''' Seems like a good user, with a reasonable (though not great) grasp on policy.  Opposing concerns are not persuasive to me.
'''Support''' - Passes [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]], which is to summarise, ''do I trust the candidate?'' Yes I do. I have read the concerns of the opposition carefully, but I don't find the arguments presented persuasive. The GA reviews seem fine to me, and that ''is'' content related work, so I'm not going to criticise DeltaQuad for learning, particularly given he has demonstrated the ability to respond constructively to criticism and knowledge of policy. I don't see anything wrong with DeltaQuad's quality of English, user space, signature, speedy deletions, nor his answers to the questions. Question twelve for instance does not have any red flags to me; blocking users for violating policy such as edit warring is reasonable, though I would possibly emphasise more the option of forgetting blocks and just fully protecting the page, and make the parties discuss it on the talk page. Finally, I had only been here just under ten months, had 4,900 edits, and my article creation count was at ~1 disambiguation page when [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1|I ran for adminship]], and while I'm biased, after passing I don't remember being incompetent. I struggled at first with some of the admin tasks, but a higher edit count, article count, or time of the project would have made a negligible difference here.
'''Support''' - seems reasonably competent and trustworthy, and understand the areas he wishes to work in. The lack of content contribution isn't such a problem for me if the user has demonstrated he can collaborate with others, and I think DeltaQuad has. I'm not saying there are no concerns here - some of the opposers raise good points, e.g. about CSD (only in extreme cases should an article be tagged for deletion less than a minute after creation!). But on balance, I think DeltaQuad would be unlikely to misuse the tools, as long as he takes his time to learn the ropes and keeps a careful eye on what he's doing.
'''Strongly Support''' - I have encountered DeltaQuad in the past and been impressed by his hard work and good spirit. He has demonstrated that he can be trusted and there is no reason to believe he would abuse administrator rights if he had them.
'''Strongly Support''' - DeltaQuad is highly competent, and trustworthy editor.  He has put in many hours of hard work in Wikipedia, both working to add and improve articles, as well as working to fight vandalism on Wikipedia.  I feel that DQ can be trusted with the super-powers we call Admin/Sysop.  DeltaQuad has also put in several hours on the IRC helping both noobies and experienced editors alike.  In my personal opinion, DQ has earned his shot at being an admin here on EN-Wikipedia. <small>--
'''Support''' Will do fine.
'''Support''', and baffled by the level of this opposition to this good editor. No one comes into adminship with perfect skills, and we all learn as we go. The real question is whether this editor can be trusted with the tools, which appears noncontroversial to me.
Am not inclined to support, but I wish to counteract some of the rather harsh oppositions.
Per Stifle above. '''
Pile on with Connormah, though I largely agree with Mkativerata. I'd planned on remaining neutral but this seems to better reflect my feelings.
Theres a net benefit here for addition, Moving from neutral.
'''Support'''. I believe this user has the work ethic and a strong resolve to make a difference in the administrative backlogs. --
'''~hugs~''' You looked like you could do with some. DQ, while you likely would be most proficient in this position and i am inclined to consider that foremost, i am hereby voting. <font face="Georgia">
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' - Although I've felt from the beginning DeltaQuad was a good candidate, I took my time in this RfA to mull over all the opposes, and I remain unconvinced. This is still an easy decision for me. Net benefit to the project, IMO. <sup>
'''Support'''- sure, why not?
'''Support''' Not everybody likes to write articles, doesn't mean they aren't just as competent, if not more competent to be an administrator.--
support  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - sure, I got no reason not to support. Good contributor in all ways. '''''
'''Support''' I like what I've seen when going through contribs. Behind the scenes admins are very useful to a project. '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' - A year ago I doubt I'd have !voted for you, but I see things differently these days.  It now comes down to this simple question: Would Wikipedia be a better place if this user had the mop?  For me the answer is yes.  I respect the opposers but I just don't agree with their reasoning regarding content creation concerns. OlEnglish put it brilliantly above, and it bears repeating: ''"I believe this user has the work ethic and a strong resolve to make a difference in the administrative backlogs."'' Bravo! I would ask those sitting on the fence to consider those words. Best wishes, DQ, whichever way this Rfa goes... and if you don't gain consensus, consider trying again before the year is out.
'''Support''' From working with this user at [[Wikipedia:Abuse response|abuse response]], I know that he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' because I don't believe DeltaQuad will be going rogue with any admin tools, and because he works in vandalism patrol where admin tools are helpful. On the content work and article creation issue cited below by opposers, I agree that a certain amount of content work is needed to demonstrate understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, but ability to write "good articles" or score "DYKs" is not. Making several minor improvements over a large number of articles, or keeping articles safe from malicious edits is a fine way of contributing.
'''Support''' Please try to expand some articles, just one or two but I don't think there are any reasons not to trust you with the mop.
'''Support''' You seem to have a solid history at Wikipedia, as stated above, there are seemingly no reasons not to trust you. Best of luck.
'''Support''' Some valid points made by the opposes, and I do see some things myself but I still feel DeltaQuad would make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't have enough editing history for me to judge by.  Though he seems like a good contributor, doesn't doesn't meet my [[User:Kraftlos/admin criteria|minimum admin criteria]]  --'''
'''Oppose''' My general impression of you is that you're rather young, and sometimes this gets you in trouble.  Of your very few created articles, all but one has some kind of cleanup banner on it.  Your GA reviews have always seemed a little strange to me- at [[Talk:Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey/GA1]] you demanded a nominator go to Commons and get an image renamed; something that has no basis in the GA criteria ''at all''.  No basis in the FA criteria, either.  I've also noticed that every review I've checked has the strange grammatical construction "the reviewer will change that their selfs."  [[Talk:Windows Product Activation/GA2|Here]] you summarily passed an article that was [[Talk:Windows Product Activation/GA3|de-listed within days]].  Ultimately, I've never gotten the impression from you that you're sufficiently mature for adminship, but I'll admit this is more of a general impression oppose than anything I can haul out diffs and point to. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) <small>ETA: The answer to Q9 is worrying, and the answer to Q8 feels like a complete dodge of the actual question.
'''Oppose''' I don't normally comment at RfA, but I see DeltaQuad displayed the [[Template:UserMandatorySignin |<s>IP Addresses</s> userbox]] until his/her earlier 2010 RfA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DeltaQuad&diff=next&oldid=335561168 diff]), and that he/she has been keeping track of admin related contributions since March ([[User:DeltaQuad/adminrelcontribs |here]]), so I hope this user isn't trying to simulate perfect RfA candidate behavior, with all that implies. Ironically, though [[User:DeltaQuad/RfA voting|DeltaQuad's own list of RfA criteria]] looks for over 40% article edits, DeltaQuad has actually achieved only 30.5% article edits (per [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=DeltaQuad&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia X!'s Edit Counter]). Recent content quality is mixed: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Product_Activation&diff=prev&oldid=348388085 Petz Rescue: Ocean Patrol (diff)] was definitely improved, but the source promulgated in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Product_Activation&diff=prev&oldid=348388085 Windows Product Activation (diff)] is little more than a blog, and in [[Alexa Hampton]], where DeltaQuad has carefully converted bare web addresses into structured citations, the destination URLs don't actually support the article content: they are just places where you can start to search for supporting facts. So I'd prefer to see a deeper article improvement record before letting DeltaQuad loose on difficult content disputes. -
'''Oppose''' per Courcelles and Pointillist; although I've worked with you at ACC and I respect your work there, I think you're a little inexperienced, when it comes to AIV and RFPP. And besides, I deem your answers to questions 8 and 9 unsatisfactory, even after your additions. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per above. '''
'''Oppose''' I prefer more article writing, I don't see much history in that very important skill set.
'''Oppose''' Bunch of little things add up. First and foremost, I realize some 'crats don't care about content creation vis-a-vis admin qualifications, but I consider it important since admins are empowered to impact editors' content creation. Meanwhile, the user's user page is unnecessarily chaotic (it's great you like pepperoni pizza, but...) and it doesn't render cleanly in my IE7. Further, the candidate's name change is rather recent, and the signature, like the user page, is unnecessarily form-over-function. There appears to be a curious gap in the Talk Page archive history, which is not in correct monthly order. All told, given the candidate's approach to his/her own user spaces, I have concerns.
'''Oppose''' As per every one of the opposes above in particular the comments by Courcelles, Pointillist, Salvio. I have run my own checks, and the maturity issue is one that especially strike my mind. --
'''Oppose''' - No. I see 8 article creations, I see a very strange early edit history, and I'm otherwise unconvinced.
'''Oppose''' - per issues raised by Pointillist. -<font color="Grey" face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. Only active for 9 months, very limited experience with article building and with the BLP policy all make me uncomfortable with assigning delete and protect buttons. I'm also concerned by the issues raised by Courcelles & Pointillist.
'''Oppose'''. I took a more receptive approach to this RfA than I have recently: I'm sure one or two July candidates will wish in hindsight that I had taken a similar amount of time in forming my decision. I remain unimpressed by answers 3 and 9, which highlight my concerns that the user hasn't compensated for a lack of writing by showing some of the skills that can be gained from writing. These, combined with opposes 2 and 3, vindicate my stance that while non-writers can pass RfA, they need to prove that not writing doesn't affect their suitability for the role. --
'''Oppose'''. With deep regret. I think you're a great editor and I'd really wanted to support this RfA, but I feel compelled to oppose. I took a look at [[Ishrat malik]], the article you mention in Q9 and you tagged it as G3 and left it unblanked when it was a clear G10 candidate and needed to be blanked to avoid it being picked up by search engines. I could forgive that, since it was last November, but then I looked through your deleted edits and my mind wasn't put at rest. For example, you tagged [[Conor oreilly]] (whose content was a repeat of the title) with {{tl|db-nocontext}} less than a minute after it was created. I could be comfortable in the neutral section if that was all, but there are numerous editors I greatly respect above me who all raise very valid and very concerning points. Right now, I wouldn't be comfortable with you having the mop, but everything I see would suggest that you'd do a fine job with it after more time and more experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Insufficient content experience.  Its why we are here and the tools are just a means of making the content better.  This oppose isn't about trust, it pure and simple about lack of tangible and broad content experience. --
Mainly due to lack of content creation. Also unimpressed with answers to some of the questions. Nothing majorly worrying I suppose, but just can't support.
'''Oppose'''.  As said above, insufficient content experience and very unimpressed with the answers to the questions.  Several of the answers are hard to understand (I had to read them several times to figure out what you were trying to say), and communication problems are worrying in an admistrator.  The lack of content experience I thought showed particularly in the answer to question 12.  Block first, page protect second?  While this may be the right mindset for dealing with vandals, it is often not the right approach for content disputes. For someone wanting to with RFPP, this seems like an ill-considered answer.
'''Oppose''' Concerns raised by Pointillist leave me unable to trust the candidate at this time.
As [[User:Pointillist|Pointillist]] pointed out above, this candidate doesn't even seem to meet his own RfA criteria.
'''Oppose''' per Pointillist.  Not enough experience with content contribution.  Go create a few articles, and get one or two of them to GA status, then come back.
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of content experience. -- '''
'''Oppose'''.  Per above and per concerns with judgment, experience, and policy knowledge.  -'''
'''Oppose''' per  Pointillist and Karancs.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience.
'''Weak oppose''' per a weak response to #12, and per pointillist. You have thus far created [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=DeltaQuad&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects 8 articles] of which 3 are simple lists, 1 is a disambiguation, and 3 are split from other articles... You've also only uploaded a [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&format=html&img_user_text=DeltaQuad&order=-img_timestamp single image]. It also [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=DeltaQuad&namespace=0 seems] as though you haven't made more than 10 edits to any mainspace article (except [[Alexa Hampton]]). Consider creating and maintaining an article you create.
'''Oppose''' Only 8 articles created, with none of them to GA or FA status. It doesn't convince me that you understand enough wikipedia policies.
Sorry, I just don't understand this RfA. I just feel not enough content creation or experience; not even a DYK? Although I'd be happy to support in the future.
Sorry, I've been thinking on this one for a few days to the point where I've opened edit boxes in both support and oppose columns and not saved the !vote. I don't think content contributions are generally necessary for an RfA candidate. But you want to work in areas like AN3, which I believe require an understanding of content policies and article-related dispute resolution. In that context, the lack of contributions and the issues raised by Courcelles somewhat compel me to land here. Also (and this is why I'm glad I waited for this RfA to play out a bit) the multiple stabs at a number of not so difficult questions suggest you're not quite there yet. Ultimately I think the risk of giving you the tools prematurely outweighs any detriment by having a few months before the next RfA.--
'''Oppose''' Can't support per some of the above and in particular HJ Mitchell.
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns raised by other editors above to support adminship at this time.
'''Oppose''' Experience.
'''Oppose'''- I concur with HJ Mitchell, while you have been an active contributor, only 30% of your contributions are located within mainspace, I know I am not in a position to make this statement or contend with the Support and nominations of long standing members of the community, a bit more recognised content and mainspace contributions would change my mind. I don't mean to be biased or rude but I don't think you're ready. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Oppose'''. Very much talk, lesser article work and almost no contributions for [[Help:Template|wiki-tech]]. No offence but as for me such proportion is far from ideal.
'''Oppose''' Needs some more experience before doing a RFA again.--<font color="759653">
'''Oppose''', sorry. A number of things lead me into this column (edit count and length of service [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|do not worry me]]): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metropolitan_Bible_Church&oldid=335565922 This] is not something I would release into main space, neither is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=107th_Infantry_Regiment_(France)&oldid=349098414 this], yet both are singled out as some of your best content contributions. [[User:DeltaQuad/adminrelcontribs|This page]] leaves a bitter taste, too. Multiple stabs at many of the questions haven't led to answers convincing me (QQ 6, 8, 9, 12, and yes, also 13). Great editor, no doubt, and no offense intended, but too early for adminship. --
'''Neutral''' - I've seen your name around occasionally and find you trustworthy. However, I'm a little concerned by your response to q.1 where you say you'll work in [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]]. You've got less than 10 edits in RPP (the top edited pages on wikipedia according to the X! counter has the lowest page as 10 or so edits and RPP doesn't show up). Additionally, you've only got 48 edits in AIV. Is this enough experience to admin these areas? Neutral for now until further research. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB">
I wouldn't have an issue with this passing, because I don't think DQ would misuse the tools, and because the concerns in the above section don't bother me for the most part (edits to templates are a prerequisite for adminship?). However- my issue here is that I've gotten the general impression that DQ sees adminship as a bit of a personal goal. I have no problem with users who admit they want to be an admin, because even the most humble of candidates would not have run if they had not wanted the tools at the time. But when it is treated as a milestone to be reached, that at the same time both inflates its importance and diminishes its role. I would like this to pass, but I think it is good that it's the way it is, because I'm sure that the candidate will take on all this advice and feedback and come back in a few months with a new outlook and insight into things, much more equipped for the role. All the best.
'''Neutral''' - moved from Support. I see a really good Wikipedian here, but having seen some poor content quality and some poor CSD tagging uncovered by others, I now think the candidate is not quite ready yet. While I don't believe that it is necessary to be a great content creator in order to be an admin, what content work is there needs to be up to scratch and a good working knowledge of content is needed.
Unfortunately had my mind changed to neutral due to issues raised in oppose I otherwise would not have seen. --
Switching from support to neutral due to some of the concerns raised in the oppose section, particularly Courcelles' rationale.
'''Neutral''' - Overall I think the candidate has done decent work and probably wouldn't abuse the tools. While I don't find the arguments in the oppose section convincing and serious enough for me to oppose this candidacy, I can't comfortably support it in light of those arguments either.
'''Neutral'''. Inexperience is not an issue here - I was here for less than six months when I became an administrator, for example - but I do get the feeling that you're not ready. There's also a lot of "to clarify" in the questions and answers section, which is disconcerting in a way.
I'm stuck on this one, so I'll be neutral. DeltaQuad has done some excellent work, but there are some convincing opposes. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Neutral''' There are convincing arguments to oppose and support, but I think this user has a good future ahead of them. For now though, I am too conflicted to support.
'''Neutral'' per all.
'''Neutral''' per Doc Quintana. In particular, while I applaud your desire to work in SPI (it certainly needs more bodies) I'm concerned that you may lack experience at the moment. I'm impressed with your response to q.14 and would hope - if this RfA is unsuccessful - that there's another RfA in the not too distant future.
'''Neutral''' per NerdyScienceDude and concerns about lack of policy knowledge. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Support''' I wouldn't be surprised if you get some opposes based on focusing on vandal whacking, but considering you've been here for 18 months and plan on working in an area where you have obvious knowledge and clue, there's no way I'll oppose.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support'''  While you don't appear to have much experience in XfD or any of the other various areas admins are expected to know backwards and forwards, I find those ''de facto'' requirements patently ridiculous.  You are a dedicated vandal-fighter, and we are in constant need of more admins in that area.  Having another editor with the bit protecting the project can only be a good thing.  As a huggle user myself, I have often been frustrated when tracking a single dedicated vandal and reverting their edits while waiting for an admin to block them.  I would more than welcome another admin to help shoulder the load at AIV.
'''Support''' Impressed by your contribs , as well as the valuable anti vandal work youve made useful improvements to the clarity of maths articles.
'''Support''' This user has stated that he needs to learn more about the areas of Admin where he lacks experience. For the purposes that he requests the tools I trust him.
'''Moral Support'''. I like you- for being a vandal fighter, for giving considered answers to the questions, for having the bollocks to nominate yourself and proving the size of them in keeping it open despite the opposes to get feedback- it shows sound character and, hopefully one day you'll make a good admin. The number of AIV reports is an inaccurate way of measuring your proficiency at vandal fighting, but you would do well to gain more experience there and related areas and with other areas of the project- essentially, show us what you can do ''without'' the tools so you can show us that you'd be even more useful to the project ''with'' them. Don;t be put off, though!
'''Moral Support''' for the future. It is fairly clear that this RfA is not going to succeed, but I think this is a "not yet" rather than a "not ever" (as Tan put it) case. Tireless vandal fighting is appreciated. Plus I have seen the candidate at [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics]] where the candidate is a frequent and constructive contributor; he has also made some good contribitions to math articles. The incidents from Aug 09 cited by JC and Tan show unfamiliarity with some of the conventions and inexperience more than anything else; time and a constructive contrib record can certainly heal that. Same goes for Q8 and the photo copyright issue (please do fix that). Spending a bit more time in other areas of the project apart from vandal-fighting would help for the next time around.
'''Support''' I think theres alot of opposes pileing on here though im not convinced yet to oppose based on the reasons given. I think the user has some potential. To me there is nothing wrong against vandal fighting I find that reason to oppose unconvincing. Without vandal fighters we couldnt build wed have to repair constantly. You have to have an eye for constructive/unconstructive edits it can be difficult and sometimes comes with mistakes, and I challenge anyone who hasnt fought vandalism in the last year who did so in the past to start again and see first hand the difficulties these users encounter today. To Dr Dec, some more article work would help put other users at ease over this and demonstrate yourself a well rounded editor (I think your on the right track). Ref desk/ help desk work admirable and my reason for supporting. I would not belive Dr dec would abuse tools.
'''Support.'''  I think this candidate will be a conscientious administrator.  None of the opposes have convinced me otherwise.  —
'''Support''' Looks okay to me.
'''Oppose''', just another 'vandalism' reverter.
Sorry, but I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=311001574#Roll-back this issue], and I don't see any overwhelmingly positive article or dispute-resolution contributions to outweigh it. &ndash;'''
'''Oppose''' per Julian and previous interaction with the candidate. Vandal-fighting is stated as candidate's primary need for the tool, but only 70 reports to AIV. Also, as noted above, very little work in the XfD arena or with article creation.
'''Oppose''' - Regardless of what the user says about "just fighting vandalism", I don't buy it. The tools are bundled. Outside of reversions, I don't see anything that helps me gauge the clue of this user. Also, julian's diff shows a very worrisome immature tone.
'''Weak Oppose'''. I'm with Wisdom on this one. The vandalism reversion is definitely not a bad thing, but there isn't a whole of other stuff to go off of. I took a sample of maybe ten edits and got [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=329554832 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sswonk&diff=prev&oldid=333391811 this], which didn't instill in me much confidence of maturity. I do intend to take a closer look when I get a chance a little later, but from what I've seen so, a little more time would be of use.
'''Oppose''' The situation Julian pointed out shows a real lack of ability to handle conflicts as recently as August.
'''Oppose'''.  per above. Troubling concerns with policy knowledge, experience, and lack of common sense.  -'''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - This user is not ready to use the admin bit yet, as they are lacking in sound judgmen in several admin related areas; as was shown by Julian and Wisdom89; and they are not mature enough yet. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' ~70 edits to AIV aren't much to judge a vandal-fighting admin-candidate.  Combined with the diffs Julian and Wisdom89 point out- no, not this time.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience. '''
'''Oppose''' per Julian's first link, it doesn't reflect the way an admin should behave. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose''' - sorry dude, but I don't trust you with the tools. -
'''Oppose'''. Not enough deletion discussion/CSD work. Also per the image that user claimed to have the copyright of. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Oppose''' per above.  I can't really hold Q4 against you, although I can't support someone who has only 3 months of talkpage history available either.  I'm also confused why you would want your talkpage deleted for privacy reasons, but make no attempt to hide the edits that you made during that time; you know your username still shows up in the edits, right?  (Even if it's not the sort of thing someone would often run across if they weren't looking.)  There's really no way to ever get rid of the connection to your old username, unless you abandon this current account and start a new one (and that would lead to a difficult situation it itself; see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam]] for an example of an admin candidate who's struggling on RfA even though his change of name was 18 months ago).  I do sympathize with you, because RTV seems to be a "no way out" situation and I think that administrators, like other users, should have a right to keep their identities private.  But again, that's not a factor in my oppose rationale; the oppose !votes above me are.  -- ''<B>
I'm pretty sure the candidate was expecting this !vote from me, but I '''strenuously oppose''' per what I consider a complete lack of common sense. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/August#Snotty.3F.21 This] is my obvious example that culminated in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39&diff=next&oldid=310959689 this] series of edits. Then, of course, we had the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39&diff=next&oldid=310959689 call for revolution] thread. Absolutely not; not ever.
'''Oppose'''. Not fully up to date with policy. Sorry, try again soon. —<small> <span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Question 8. Admins should take copyright with the utmost seriousness. --
Only joining the pile-on because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dr_Dec&diff=prev&oldid=338344902 this request], as while I don't think you're a suitable candidate you're certainly not problematic enough to warrant a full-blown flaming-off-the-project. Of the 11 questions you've answered above, you've given (in my opinion) a clearly wrong answer to eight of them. If you had a fantastic contribution history, to provide evidence that you understand what we're trying to do here, I'd be prepared to overlook such a wildly different interpretation of policy to my own, but I see virtually no content contribution whatsoever. Sorry, but I can't see any good reason why you ''need'' admin buttons, and the general "Ignore all rules applies to me, not you" tone of your answers above (and your hassling of what seems to be every other oppose voter) makes me think you'd be another addition to our many admins who understand out rules precisely, but have no understanding of the carefully nuanced compromises and discussion which went into the making of those rules, or of which rules are ignorable "it would be a good idea" guidelines and which are firm legal and/or ethical boundaries.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font> 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)<br>Actually, changing to flat-out '''oppose'''. I hadn't noticed "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits". We have far too many arrogant admins who think the place would fall apart without them as it is.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' - Julian and Wisdom above have clearly demonstrated a lack in sound judgement and maturity that are critical parts of an admin's job. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions two (quite an arrogant statement, you're not the only vandal fighter), five (particularly the stale warning part), seven (you still need to warn vandals/trolls).  Also, I don't get the deletion of your talk page, because as you mentioned anyone can go back and easily go into your edits and find your old account name.
'''Oppose''' I had a sort of feeling and reading the discussions noted above just seem to confirm that. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per demonstrated lack of policy knowledge in regards to answering the questions.  Take a few months to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies in the areas you wish to work.
'''Strong Oppose'''. To me, this candidate comes across as arrogant, immature, and inexperienced. He has made virtually no contributions to any area outside of anti-vandlism work (which is good, as far as I can see), especially to content, and apparently has little to no understanding of policy, particularly copyright, per Q8. I recommend closing this RfA per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''': Per regards to answering the questions.
'''Oppose''' Imperfect process knowledge is not disqualifying by itself, but combined with a combative temperament (which the user has demonstrated even during this RFA) is a dangerous combination in an admin. So I need to oppose this candidacy even though I appreciate Dr Dec's anti-vandalism work and contributions at the refdesks.
'''Oppose'''. It was last August that the candidate showed remarkable lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes. From his reply to Tanthalas here, it seems like he still has an axe to grind with him after all those months, even though Tan did no more than point out his ignorance of AIV at that time. I certainly don't want grudge-bearing editors like that to become admins.--
'''Strong oppose''' per request that [[WP:SNOW]] not come into play without Dr Dec's say-so. Why do we have the SNOW policy if hopeless editors like this can overrule it for no good reason? Why in hell are so many doomed RfAs getting these kinds of demands lately?
'''Oppose''' I was veering towards a neutral to avoid pile-on, but when a candidate shows the arrogance that this one has ("Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits", "If a SNOW closure seems in order then I will request the closure myself" (which seems to imply that only you would be able to judge when it is in order)), the inadequate answers to some of the questions as pointed out above, the fact that you appear to be bearing a grudge against Tan which is something that would be unbecoming in an admin. Incidently, I disagree with your reply to one of the neutrals below - "I could reapply in seven years and the same links would be presented" - they could well be presented in future RfAs, but if your behaviour/attitude is different in the few months beforehand, I would expect most editors to basically say "that was then, but it doesn't apply now". Looking through the RfA archives, you can find many examples of people who applied at RfA a couple of times, and got it after that because they had shown that they listened to the comments and responded in a positive way. If you can do that, then perhaps there is hope for a future RfA - if you can't, then there is no hope. -- '''''
'''Oppose''' Editor appears to be growing, but I don't think he's experienced enough yet.  --'''
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid. I find the above concerns about attitude and lack of policy knowledge worrying. In particular, no matter how unreasonable you thought Tan was being, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39&diff=next&oldid=310959689 edit warring] is not a productive response; that would be the case even if it weren't for the fact that talk page policy was on his side. Although that incident was several months ago so I could normally overlook it, your comments to Tan here suggest that you haven't moved on. I suggest that you don't take the outcome of this RfA [[WP:FUCK|too badly]] and take PhantomSteve's good advice above: change really is possible. Best of luck,
'''Strong Oppose''' - at first, I was going neutral to avoid piling on because 70 AIV reports is nowhere near sufficient for a candidate to pass RFA based on anti-vandalism work alone. However, I then saw the "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" comment and decided to oppose. This became a strong oppose when I saw that Dr Dec thinks that a valid oppose rationale is "why RfA is broken" - no, that's why it ''works''. In sumnmary, definitely not. Recommend [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' Good experience, not sure about the edit count, but what I don't like is you making negative statements during an RfA nomination, like this one: "although I'm not the most prolific, or most talented, article creator on the project." Since you already have the rollbacking tool, it's better to stick to what you're doing at the moment.
..Pending some further investigation and particularly answers to some of the optional questions. I notice you would have blocked another admin barely two hours ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=338253787], blocked a user after minimal warning for vandalising a ''vandalbox'',[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=337014699] and may think that deleting user talk pages is generally OK. I can see some good things though. --
'''Neutral <s>For Now</s>''' - <s>Answer Question 4 please.</s> Again, I feel like a tug-o-war rope. There are good reasons to oppose and good reasons to support. I'll stay here. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
Per JC, but would not pile on.
Again, per JC but won't pile on.  Recommend [[WP:SNOW]] closure. (Or not, looking at user comments) ''<I>
'''Neutral''' Question answers are generally good, but judgement calls shown by an opposer make me worry.
'''Neutral''' at this second. It's probably best to apply around 25 months of editing or so.
'''Neutral''' The answers to questions are good. I see reasons to support, but links provided by the opposers leave some doubt. I would not be opposed to coming back a little later. --
'''Neutral''' for now, based on concerns raised above.
'''Neutral''' Normally I would oppose, but you seem to know what you are doing.
'''Neutral'''. Although I like the answers to some of your questions, the Q8 issue (regarding image copyrights) very much concerns me. Admins ''should'' know about the [[WP:OTRS|OTRS]] system. Plus, I can't see too many edits in the field of deletion - although I can't vouch for CSD work (can't access deleted pages... not an admin), I can see there's only been one AfD edit from you in nearly the last three months. I'm sorry, I have to go with neutral right now.
'''Neutral''' Not enough comfort to support, not enough disappointment to oppose.
'''Support''' Experienced in anti-vandalism and CSD work, will make a fine admin. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''<font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF4400>a</font><font color=#FF8800>i</font><font color=#FFBB00>n</font><font color=#FFFF00>b</font><font color=#BBFF00>o</font><font color=#88FF00>w</font> <font color=#44FF00>S</font><font color=#00FF00>u</font><font color=#00FF44>p</font><font color=#00FF88>p</font><font color=#00FFBB>o</font><font color=#00FFFF>r</font><font color=#00BBFF>t</font>''' Good guy, lots of work on CSD and anti-vandalism! Hope this passes! --<strong>
'''Strong support''' Great helper around here. Wonderful at CVN, as The Thing said earlier. Would be a great admin!
'''Support''', I know I'm going against the run of things here, but I'm not particularly concerned by the things brought up in the Oppose section.  Korath's diffs are over a year old, and it strikes me as pretty harsh holding something that old against the user.  The business with Tuxedo junction was regrettable, but given the user's combative nature and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dusti&diff=351244432&oldid=351243739 this comment], I'm happy to overlook it as an innocent misunderstanding.  No evidence that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' friendly, helpful and good track record doing admin like work without a mop.
'''moral support''' at this time as you are generally a good contributor but the timing of your RfA could have been better, once issues were resolved and not so heated. I had suggested a bit more time in returning from your break to ease into things when you asked on IRC but you seem to have jumped right in. A little more patience would be good. <font face="Georgia">
'''moral support''' - I think that Dusti is a pretty decent up-and-coming vandal whacker, but I see a very serious lack of judgment. I mark this up to inexperience rather than carelessness, I suggest that this user gives it four or five months and tries again.
Some of his closures at AFD are frightful, amounting to supervotes: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Sullivan_%28producer%29&oldid=271521165 a close after fourteen hours with rationale "Several hits when doing a Google search"], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Taylor|"You CANNOT make an AFD based on personal opinions"]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger|a speedy keep]] because the article "hasnt [sic] been [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion|tagged for clean up or expansion]]", [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spacecraft|another speedy keep]] because "This &#91;[[WP:BEFORE]]&#93; hasn't been followed... and sources have been shared".  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=339750512&oldid=339729800 His close of] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination)]] was especially poor, even more so in light of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=339898798&oldid=339897559 his later comment on that afd]. &mdash;
Per Korath. Those closes were way out of line. With all due respect, that makes me afraid of what you would do with the mop. A promise to stay away from AfD doesn't compensate for it, in my view. It shows a clear disregard for the place of community discussion and consensus. I have no doubt that you regret the closes, but you really need to show consensus-building activity in the project space to make up for it. --
'''Oppose''' He gave me a  final warning because of a single editing mistake that I immediately reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tuxedo_junction&diff=351237365&oldid=351233915] I don't think he has the necessary judgement or tact at this point in his career on Wikipedia. He has very few article edits, so I don't think he understands was article editors encounter.
'''Oppose''' because I'm not confident in your judgement abilities, as pointed out by the AfD links above, and the final warning for an edit that wasn't vandalism.  '''
'''Oppose''' Recent talk page discussions show a lack of knowledge of wiki rules. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Oppose''' Giving a user a final warning for a mistake, and arbitrarily closing discussions, does shows some issues with judgement at this stage.
'''Oppose''' Appalling judgement.
'''Oppose'''.  Serious concerns with judgement, maturity, experience, policy knowledge, and breadth of exposure.  Also, the incident with Tuxedo junction could have been much better handled.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - I looked into the "Tuxedo junction" incident and don't see much of concern. In fact, TJ was pretty uncivil with Dusti (and others) and Dusti did a pretty good job of keeping cool. My reason for opposing is that I don't see that Dusti has a very good grasp of CSD; I deal with [[WP:PROD|proposed deletions]] and delete a lot of them, and I've seen a few that were originally nominated for speedy deletion where they don't even come close to meeting the CSD requirements. For example, see [[UsageTracker|this article]] (history only available to admins) where a one-line article with absolutely nothing promotional was nominated for [[WP:CSD#G11|G11]] deletion. Giving someone with such a shaky grasp of deletion policy the tools when they are planning on doing speedy deletions would be a big mistake. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - The recent Tuxedo junction incident makes me oppose.
'''Oppose''' Not now. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' I am concerned about the candidate's knowledge of [[WP:CSD]], based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zirconia_Starfighter&diff=351097105&oldid=351096008 edits like this] which were tagged for A7 despite being asserted as notable for "the first and only cyber model and grinding performer in Greece" and "interviewed by several magazines". --
Mostly per Korath and Atama. I rarely oppose, but the judgment is clearly lacking here. Since Atama's one is from ''less than two weeks ago'', I doubt that any amount of coaching since then would make me change my mind.
'''Oppose''' - Korath gives the evidence and rationale I was going to. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
Serious concerns about temperament and judgment. <strong>
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament, experience, and judgment. -- '''
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about the candidate's familiarity with speedy deletion criteria.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - Always forgiving towards vandalism patrollers--trust me, we all screw up from time to time and I don't want to discourage people based on mistakes we all make. Some of the badgering of opposes doesn't sit well with me. On top of that, a year long break, and activity over last 3 months, a reason I've never opposed for before. I'm also curious how someone with a 10% automated edit count racks up a ~70 edits to 1 AIV report ratio... which is pretty high as is, let alone given that few automated edits. You have huggle, are you doing these by hand, or just using rollback by hand? Is the tool not accurate, or are you automating some of these tasks, or doing them all by hand? All that would make me weak support or neutral, but the real concern is a shaky, perhaps permissive approach towards some AfD issues. Like Atama I don't think anything about the TJ incident is fatal. But I am bothered by the AfD closures above. I would be open to a future run for sure; I would like to see some solid patrolling for maybe a month or two, as well as a little bit more page creation (3 right now). And get into the mix on AfD as well. None of that's a dealbreaker for me (or probably anyone else), but it's some idea of what I feel are issues.
'''Oppose with moral support'''. Not up to speed with CSD and AfD. I do accept that the candidate does not intend to do any admin work in those areas without sufficient learning/experience first. But at the same time, the candidate is actually active in those areas in a non-admin capacity, and I can't help feeling that an admin who is active in any capacity in an area should really be admin-competent in that area. (The Tuxedo junction issue isn't fatal, as it seems there were errors on both sides, but I think it would have been a nice gesture to strike that final warning). I'd say get all the learning/coaching complete, put it to use at CSD and AfD, and then come back and try again and I'd probably be happy to support --
AfDs raised in the first oppose are absolutely outrageously bad judgement. Thank goodness they were only keeps - imagine the kerfuffle if they were deleted? I can't trust an admin to deal with AfDs if that's how they go about it. Also, I've concerns relating to this RfA - it seems very few of the opposers will get off without badgering.
'''Oppose''' Generally poor judgement made worse by overconfidence in that judgement.
Per Korath. Very sorry, but these closures suggest judgement or experience issues, hopefully just the latter. /
Per Polargeo and the recent unilateral AN/I close of a discussion, revert of another editors comment and ensuing discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dusti&oldid=352226122] on dusti's talk page.
'''Oppose''' I cannot support an admin candidate who does'nt even trust himself or herself to participate in AFD.
'''Oppose''' I can't support you due to judgement and AfD concerns. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Oppose''' Based on the concerns raised here and my own observations, I have no confidence that this person can handle basic administrative duties.
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose''' For the most part, you are barely over my [[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale/RfA expectations|RfA expectations]], but Korath and Soap have some good points. --
'''Neutral to prevent pile-on''' I do not feel that the candidate is ready at the moment. I am not convinced by the "I won't use certain tools" argument - a candidate cannot be held to such promises. I am concerned by the points raised by the opposers, and the candidate's responses haven't been enough to persuade me that the reasons given in the opposes are invalid. -- '''''
'''Neutral'''  I personally avoid AFD-- not my cup of tea. And the user is not prmarily seeking the tools for CSD, but CSD and AIV are too closely linked to be separated in the knowledge base of the candidate. Tuxedo junction could have been handled better, there are situations not covered by templating, and an Admin working in AIV needs to know when not to block well intentioned errors. Had Tuxedo made another faulty edit, would the candidate have proceeded with the threatened block? I don't issue a final warning till I'm convinced that the other user has exhausted my ability to [[WP:AGF]] and means to make unconstructive edits. Clearly Tuxedo was not at their best that day or in those discussions. ''Discussion and dialoge had begun after prior templated warnings.'' The thing to do was to put away the template machine and coach/assist/guide/continue discussion. Tuxedo was clearly outraged by prior warnings and obviously still has strong feelings on the matter. The situation needed to be defused. '''Before giving a user the ability to block vandlas, the user needs to be able to distinguish between the need for blocking and the need for assisatnce.''' I recommend withdrawing for now, gaining more experience, and trying again in 6 months, 6,000 edits. Cheers
'''Moral support''' - I welcome your enthusiasm for the project and encourage you to make use of the opposers' constructive criticism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harmelion&action=historysubmit&diff=377754239&oldid=376843588 This] and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harmelion&action=historysubmit&diff=377754239&oldid=376843588 this] raise questions about maturity, and I otherwise generally echo the opposers' comments.
Moral support, per above. '''
'''Oppose''' - I am sorry, while you appear to be on the right track, you don't show the experience needed to become an admin at this time.  Get involved in other areas and show that you understand policies.  I look forward to you coming back here and reapplying in the future.  '''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you do not have nearly enough experience for adminship. Please review [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Concerns with experience and policy knowledge. -'''
'''Oppose'''. I'm not as strict on experience as other users, but under 500 edits is simply not enough.
'''Oppose''' You don't have enough of a history yet to indicate whether you should be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' – Not enough experience; recommend closing per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Strong oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]; answers to the questions demonstrate a lack of experience throughout the project (you haven't explored around enough to see how weak your answers would be considered by others), and you can't seem to follow the direction in the RfA template saying "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER", unless "JDONT" (which doesn't even have your username in it) is your self-description. Simply put, you don't understand what is expected of an admin quite yet. Also, your list of significant contributions includes [[Houston Food Bank]], which I cannot find any edit from you in the history, nor can I in [[Houston]]. [[Bay City High School]] is in horrible shape, and [[:File:Bay City High School.gif]] says both PD and gives a CC license, but does not indicate a clear source. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' - I to appreciate your enthusiasm, but much more experience all around are needed, Good luck in the future.
'''[[User:Jamesofur/whynot|Moral Support]]''' as this candidate appears to have good intentions. I would like to see less repetitive tweaking edits to articles and more use of ''preview''. The response to the hasty initial closure of this RfA shows a level of maturity that is an admirable quality for an administrator. <font face="Georgia">
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' Sorry, but considering this RfA is currently your #1 most edited page in the Wikipedia namespace, I simply have no indication of experience in admin-related areas. Get some experience in [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AIV]], or any of the other admin areas first and I will be happy to support. --
'''Oppose''' - basically per Shirik. I'd like to see some more experience in admin-related areas. I'd say give it another 6-9 months of active editing. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' - ditto.
'''Oppose'''. As above, not yet enough experience in admin-related areas to be able to support. I'd suggest following up on at least one or two of the suggested areas above and see what admin areas you like. But otherwise you seem to be a good area: I don't regard any of the "tiffs" you highlighted as actual disputes, and in my view your response to the premature closure of this RfA was very positive.--
'''Oppose''' While I thought the previous close was premature as did Juliancolton, I have to say that this is probably going to be closed the same way because you just don't have enough experience. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose'''.  Serious concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and maturity.  Recommend early close per [[WP:SNOW]] or [[WP:NOTNOW]].  -'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of experience to an appropriate degree. '''
'''Neutral''' - The candidate looks promising, but I would like to see a little bit more experience. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Neutral''' On the right track but not enough experience in admin related parts of Wikipedia for me to be able to support. ''<B>--
I second the advice given by Shirik and others above. You really don't have any experience in the WP namespace areas (this is your top-edited page), so I can't support you for adminship. We need to see more involvement in administrative work (and mainspace articles, too) and look at demonstrable knowledge. As a candidate, you ''do'' look promising - you seem like a level-headed, decent editor. Try gaining more experience (in varied areas) and return in at least a few months from now. Keep up the work, stay out of trouble, become more familiar with process stuff, and I think you could get a strong level of support in the future. '''
'''Support'''.  Inactivity is not such a bad thing, and 50 edits a month is plenty.
This is a joke, right?
I can't support at this time, due to the lack of activity. You don't seem as though you would use the tools too terribly often. ~~
'''Oppose:''' Conflict comes with the admin territory. If you can't handle it constructively, you probably shouldn't have the mop.
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal. Fairly or not, I'm sensing indifference from the candidate about the past issues. Mere passage of time isn't enough to resolve.
'''Oppose''' I can't support an editor that's been blocked repeatedly.  I recommend withdrawal or closure per [[WP:SNOW]], whichever comes first. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time supporting you with your past blocks and issues with edit warring.
'''Strong Oppose''' Not nearly active enough, and you don't seem trustworthy enough for the admin tools. [[User:Access Denied|Access Denied]]<sup>([[User talk:Access Denied|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Access Denied|c]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Guestbook|g]]&#124;[[User:Access Denied/Desk|d]]&#124;
'''Oppose''' Not active enough. I've made more total edits than you've made for at least a year, and I wouldn't dream of running for admin yet. --
'''Oppose''' - Going through this user's archived talk pages was illuminating and a little troubling. I'm not providing diffs as it's all very ostensible. Lack of maturity.
'''Oppose''' being blocked for harrassment and edit warring are signs of temperament problems.
'''Oppose''' I don't see a pressing need for you to have the tools.  Fifty edits a month is fine, you don't need to live on Wikipedia, but the tools are not some trophy to put up on the shelf.  I wont support unless I have reason to believe that you need the tools and will use them responsibly.  --'''
'''Oppose''' - Concerns about temperament, and activity. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - Srsly? -
'''Oppose'''- not yet.
Rude opposes (important caveat: not all of them are rude) should be balanced by supports. Candidates who have done good work for the community deserve a basic degree of respect whatever you think of their competence as an administrator. --
'''Moral support''' I think that Endofskull may have to learn about more parts of wikipedia, and build more experience, before most folk are willing to switch from "oppose" to "support"; but I don't want to crush the spirit of somebody who has their heart in the right place and appears to have made positive contributions.
'''Moral support'''. You're definitely a good-faith editor, but you don't have any substantial content work. Come back in six months to a year, addressing the concerns raised in this RfA, and I'll be happy to support.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walnutwood_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=395654690], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Hixon&action=historysubmit&diff=381625793&oldid=381163790], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doubleheader_%28fishing%29&diff=383529007&oldid=383528795], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CatherineMunro&action=historysubmit&diff=388164561&oldid=381016977], an editcount target on your userpage, [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Endofskull&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 61% of your edits to userpages], ''no'' substantive mainspace edit of any kind that I can see. Please, withdraw this for the moment; I appreciate you're here to help but you don't yet understand the Wikipedia policies which every admin needs to know.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''No''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:gold;">
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent.
Sorry, but the discussion in the "Warning?" section on your talk page suggests you aren't clear on when warnings are appropriate and when they're not.
'''Oppose''' <s>Clueless</s>. Could be more clueful.
Sorry to oppose, but the diffs shown by Iridescent shows lack of understanding in [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:PROD]]. Hopefully this RFA will not get you too down and will return when you have had enough experience. Best of luck. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]]
Inexperience.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience and policy knowledge.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience and knowledge of delete policies.
I rarely support users who don't work with content extensively, and your relatively low edit count, concerns over policy knowledge, and lack of varied experience, don't make you exceptional enough for a support from me. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
Per Fastily, and Fetchcomms. {{=)}}Wait a bit.
This RfA problem is getting out of hand.
'''Oppose''' – Not enough experience, and diffs above show a lack of understanding with CSD and PROD. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' Bad CSD noms as recently as yesterday, warning a user for an innocent talk page remark made in 2006, etc. Lacking in clue. The first, best thing you can do to strengthen your future chances at RFA is to show some good judgement by withdrawing this RFA now.
'''Not Yet'''- didn't want to pile-on oppose, but I don't think you're ready yet. Come back in 9-12 months and you will stand a much better chance.
'''Agree Not Yet''' - Endofskull and I have had a few interactions, always good. You have my full moral support. You are a very unique Wikipedian and with more time and experience you could do well, you always have this projects well being at heart. Good luck my friend.
Too soon, sorry. You should continue editing, and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Although edit quality is far more important than edit quantity, I'd like to see many more edits on user talk pages, especially if one of your main aims is counter-vandalism. Similarly, I'm worried that you've had little communication with the community &ndash; almost every edit to your user talk page since 2007 has been an automated message (image notifications, speedy deletion, ''etc.''). With regard to what you aim to do as an admin, remember that fixing grammatical errors, vandalism, and missing information doesn't need admin user rights; I suggest you look into [[WP:ROLLBACK|rollback]] for more counter-vandalism tools.  If your contributions aren't always kept (whether they've been reverted or deleted), I feel that you may not be fully aware of the relevant [[WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]]. Finally, I think your use of [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]] should be improved too.  On first glance, I can't see anything particularly worrying about your edits (I'll look into the userbox issue), so keep at it &ndash; but I just don't think you're ready.
'''Oppose''', but with moral support. Sorry, but nowhere near enough experience yet. As for Q1, you don't really need the admin bit for all of that - anyone can make corrections, improve information, revert vandalism, etc. And it's not admins who "miss" stuff - it's ordinary editors like you and I who spot bad edits and revert them, and then report repeat vandals for admin attention. I'd suggest withdrawing this current nomination, getting at least another 6 months experience and a few thousand more edits, and having a look around all of the venues and tools available for tackling vandalism. Then when you understand the ropes a bit better, think more about what you can actually do with admin tools and how you'd want to use them --
'''Oppose''' - You do seem to be quite a good editor. However, I think you need a little more experience before you run for adminship. I suggest you spend a little more time in areas such as: [[WP:XfD]], [[WP:AIV]] and the various other admin related areas. It's also good to get admin coaching as it can often help. All in all, you are definitely on the right path, you just need to go a little further before you are ready. Good Luck. :) <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Thesevenseas-->'''<span style="font-family:garamond;white-space:nowrap">
You've been around longer than all the people opposing above, so I'm not sure "too soon" qualifies as a reason to oppose. Then again, judging by the many warnings on your talk page, you do seem to lack an understanding of our image copyright and licensing requirements. In addition to 7 seas' advice, I suggest you work on that too before applying here again.--
'''Oppose'''. Per [[WP:NOTNOW]], as pointed out by all before me; it's not a matter of how long you've been here, but of how much experience you've gathered in that time and, in my opinion, that's not yet enough to warrant a support from me. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''. I'll say it first. Thanks for offering to help, but far too soon. Come back in another six months or so. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Oppose'''. I'll say it second then. If you feel up to cracking down on vandalism or any the above, try starting somewhere a little less ambitious with less than 200 edits under your belt. Try going for rollback rights and work from there. Nothing against your edits, but your account is way too young, see other's who have RFA's currently listed for idea's on what your next step could be.--
'''Oppose''' Simply per [[WP:NOTNOW]] Come back in say 6-12 months with some more experience :) I'd be happy to help you out in your way around Wikipedia if you ever need it. All the best,--
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Welcome to Wikipedia, though. Try creating an article or two first.
I'd say to give it a year, particularly as you are quite young.  You need to get a real feel for the place before you can be a successful admin - there's a lot more to it than blocking the odd vandal. Plenty of things to try - [[WP:RECENT CHANGES]] and [[WP:NPP|new page patrolling]], adding content, finding references for all our unreferenced articles, join a WikiProject and get involved in that.
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Feel free to come back when you have gained some more experience. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Longterm very active user, with a clean blocklog and diverse editing activity. Deleted contributions look OK (I've only checked the recent ones). ''

'''Support''' 9630 edits in one month! Good grief. I have no doubt that Falcon8765 is a hardworking vandal-fighter... and to get this far with no blocks is a sign of a nice temperament, I think.
'''Support''' There's nothing wrong with having a small number of non-vandalism related edits. He deserves it.
'''Support'''. I see no reasons not to. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Weaker''' Excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' per the user's anti-vandal experience. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support''' Always like RfA Candidates who specialize in vandals. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA|Demonstrated in area for which tools requested.]] Appears to be a Huggler, so the lack of a long list of angry complaints like what I sometimes see tells me user has sufficient caution and takes care. The [[WP:AIV]] filings I saw looked good. Takes time to explain and discuss. Apologizes when wrong-- an admin who can admit mistakes is good. As per above above arguments as well.
'''Support'''. I like the long term activeness, and vandal fighters are always useful. <small>'''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
'''Support'''. I was a bit hesitant at first, but I see no compelling reason to oppose. If WereSpielChequers says his speedy taggings are in order, that's good enough for me and I can't remember turning down one of his AIV reports in my 4 months as a fairly active admin at AIV, so it makes sense to cut out the middle man.
'''Support''' No reason to think theyll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' A great vandal-fighter, I would've liked to see more content since you'll have to make content related decisions, but you've earned it. <b>[[~]] <font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#66699"><i>[[User:QwerpQwertus|Qwerp]]</i></b></font><font size="2.5" face="Apple LiSung" color="#CC6600">[[User talk:QwertyQwerpus|Qwertus]]</font> <font size="1.5" face="Lucida Sans" color="#003300">[[User talk:QwerpQwertus|Talk]]</font>
'''support''' looks like he could do good work.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - three years' experience as an editor, over 50,000 (!) edits, sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, Reviewer, great user page, WikiGnome, etc.
'''Support''' Been seen around. Well known vandal fighter. I hope people will concentrate on the fact that there are almost 10,000 non automated edits, rather than moan about the high amount of automated edits. '''
'''Weakest possible support''' - Ultra-thin portfolio with respect to areas such as content creation, GA/FA collaboration, dispute resolution, consensus-building; however, what convinced me to vote in favor was the candidate's superb record as a vandal-fighter, >50,000 edits and long-term commitment to the project.--
'''Support''' No red flags, and the answer to my question shows that the user is not a rampant salivating deletionist just because he hasn't created enough articles to show that he "gets it™." For the record, I made up "Kerzbekal" but the [[Nimruz Province]] is a real place in [[Balochistan]].
Vandal-fighters are always good to have. ~~
'''Support'''.  We're here to evaluate the candidate's ability to use the tools properly, not write articles.  Duh...  -'''
'''Support''' Net benefit AIV/vandalism fighting just outstanding.But its borderline support, Id like to see some content building.
'''Support''' Sure. <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - I see a productive, trustworthy, friendly wiki-gnome that would be that much more productive with the mop. There is also good content work if you care to look.
'''Support''' - I see you as a productive person who will be able to get the job done and get it done right. <b><font color="#0000DD">Joe Gazz84</font></b><sup>
'''Strong support''' Great vandal-fighter, I see no reason to believe that he would break the Wiki. Opposes are unconvincing, as is usually the case with me in these kinds of RfA's... Frankly we need a Huggler as an admin, if only to prove that people like us can make perfectly fine admins. We will never know if we don't give it a shot... <font face="Segoe Print">
Why not? Content work is not a requirement to be a good admin, especially in the categories that the candidate wishes to work in.
'''Support''' Absolutely, my rationale being identical to Connormah's.
'''Support'''.  I hear the concerns in the oppose section, and I think there are some valid ones.  However, your answers seem succinct and clueful to me, and I see no evil in your contributions.  Also, it would be good to have a vandal fighting admin around in off hours.--<span style="font-family: Orlando">
'''Support'''. He says that he wants to focus on vandal-fighting, and he has plenty of experience there. As for content, it's not necessary to have an extensive experience in a field where one doesn't want to work. &mdash;<span id="Train2104" class="plainlinks" style="color:#000000">
'''Weak support''' – user has sufficient experience, although I would have liked to see some more thorough answers to some of the questions, specifically Q4. I'm sure Falcon8765 has already learned a lot from the opposers' suggestions as well, so why not for a net positive?
'''Support''' Even with automation, 37,000 isn't half bad, and I thought the questions were answered fairly well.
Admins don't need to have dabbled in dispute resolution, content discussion, article collaboration, or content creation. Plenty of admins find niches. Falcon is a hard worker who does not increase the drama.
'''Weak Support''' - must confess I am not thrilled about lack of content, ''but'' 14 months of solid editing and no huge flareups in what can be a confrontational area suggests you are able to keep your cool (which is a ''very'' good thing), so on the balance of evidence, I am prepared to give a trial with the mop. We have a check system (i.e. arbcom) for misuse of tools, which makes me more willing for you to have a go. Good luck :)
'''Support''' -
{{ec}} '''Support''' - Excellent vandal fighter. I have also gone through his CSD work; while I would disagree slightly with a few of his taggings, overall they are a net positive. For those in opposition: Yes, most of his edits are reverting vandalism, but even a small fraction of 53,859 is a lot of content-building! -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Weak Support''' per the rational provided by {{User|Dlohcierekim}} above. However noting comments in oppose please take it steady - in particular if you do start becoming more active in areas outside your "niche". Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - really valuable, longtime editor with good experience. Of course. '''''
'''Support''' I can't see this nominee doing any harm with the tools.
'''Support'''. Think of this as moral support. I've seen you around and seen you doing good work. I feel bad at the extent of opposition, and I hope that you'll consider carefully the suggestions for improvement and come back to RfA again. --
'''Weak Support:'''  A minimalist editor who is not quite there yet. -
'''Oppose''' sorry to be the first one to oppose, but I see very little participation other than vandal fighting. The article he mentioned just barely passes the stub category. Also not impressed to the answers of the questions.
While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Even a quick glance at your special contributions demonstrate an over-reliance on Huggle and other minimalist approaches. I see virtually no evidence of any dispute resolution, content discussion, article collaboration, or content creation. Sorry, but this is really off-putting.
Sorry, it pains me to oppose a candidate who is so dedicated and competent in relevant areas. But I think the track record of experience and competence is too narrow. I've gone back through the last two months of contributions. There is great work on anti-vandalism: reversions, AIV reports, RPP, etc. The new page patrolling is also good. But what I don't see is experience and skills working with other editors in difficult situations, in consensus-building, or with relevant ''content'' policies. I don't think article-writing should be a pre-requisite for adminship, but those other fields I just mentioned should. Because adminship is more than nailing IP vandals at AIV and hitting speedy deletions; even with those two mechanical tasks more judgment and communication skills are required of an admin than of a non-admin editor. It would not take much to change my mind - either evidence of good experience the matters I've mentioned that I've missed here, or future experience that would get my support in a future RfA.--
'''Oppose''' - I've been on the fence for awhile, I appreciate the attempt to reduce vandalism and that's a critical task for an administrator, but I have to oppose. Initially it was only the lack of activity outside of antivandalism work that put me off, although I'm convinced that you have enough article development experience to at least show competence there. What pushed me to oppose were the sparse answers to questions above. For someone who is essentially focused on protecting Wikipedia from troublemakers, the answer to question 4 was a huge disappointment and alone would cause me to oppose. Personal threats (of the non-legal kind), obvious sockpuppetry, breaking 3RR after being warned once, violating a topic ban or other sanction, there are numerous reasons to block a person before they received the usual 4 escalated warnings and I think that your answer demonstrates your lack of experience outside of the narrow focus of vandal-fighting, even in regards to other forms of disruption. The answer to the next question (IAR) is nearly as disappointing; I didn't understand IAR (I thought it was ridiculous) until I'd had a better understanding of Wikipedia in general and I consider it a very good indicator of a person's experience. The next question is also a problem; despite the sockpuppetry, the good-faith edits might indicate that the person ''isn't'' just a vandal, and so perhaps the original indef block could be overturned, it would be best to try to engage the editor before taking further action (they might also not know about block evasion and sockpuppetry rules). The answer to 7 was correct, I have no issues with that, but the answer to 8 was lacking substance (though there's not much I'd object to in what you said). Overall I see that you're lacking experience, and I don't have a problem with you in general but I think you'd benefit greatly from participation outside of the Huggle/Anti-Vandal/Recent Changes arena. (I apologize for the verbosity of my comment but my intent is to give advice because I really do think you have a lot of promise.) -- '''
'''Oppose''' The answers to Q4 and Q5 are just so far off the mark that I have no choice. I've said this before on RFA's, but anyone who doesn't grasp the vital importance of IAR isn't ready for adminship.  Four warnings is not an entitlement, either.  I really would like to see more content creation from you before running again, though [[WP:FA|awards]] from [[WP:FL|those]] [[WP:GA|places]] aren't necessary.
'''Oppose''' Largely per Iridescent, Wisdom and Atama. I see very little leeway in the terms of writing and you seem to simply come off as one of those vandal fighters that has Huggle and relies on it to make every one (actually "most of") your edits. I'm sorry but try coming back in a few months and do some work that does not require Huggle like writing. You don't need to promote anything but after-all, ''"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary."''--
'''Oppose''' per Courcelles - that is troubling. --'''
'''Oppose'''. I would like to see more article writing, after all we all are here to ''build an encyclopedia''.
'''Oppose'''. Needs to edit content, have some disputes, get blocked once or twice, feel "admins are so unfair!" a couple of times, and generally understand the social dynamics of a wiki.
Agree entirely with Atama. '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose'''. I absolutely disagree with most of the "oppose" rationale here: I have no problem with an editor who only does vandal fighting also handle AIV backlogs; I don't want to discourage users who like vandal fighting from doing what they like. And this editor has done a tremendous amount of great work fighting vandals - as someone who doesn't really do a whole lot of vandal fighting I am extremely grateful to Falcon8765 and others who do that kind of work; the project would be much worse off without it. I think a critical component of fighting vandals is to distinguish between the "obvious vandals" and the misguided good-faith editors, and it is particularly important for admins to be able to make this distinction. An example of a mistake in this area, I think, is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.236.155.129&diff=380867179 here] - the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akahi_Nui?diff=380867169 edit in question] was not vandalism. I think the goal with this kind of misguided but good-faith editor should be to educate and encourage; a barrage of warning templates and reverts without edit summaries ([[wp:3rr|3, even]] in this case) is less helpful in these situations.
'''Oppose''', mostly per Q4. Blatant vandals are not entitled to anything. Vandalism blocks are issued depending on the severity and frequency of said vandalism, which is within common sense and discretion. As far as Q5 is concerned, IAR comes down to exercising common sense and sound judgment; we need to have admins that can do that. You also don't seem to have much experience as far as handling disputes and conflicts is concerned; as an admin, I guarantee you ''will'' run into some, if not many. –
'''Oppose''' I look for at least moderate content work, but I find little here. And although I may give exceptions to candidates, the answers are not impressive or very well thought-out. Atama really hits that point. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose'''  Sure, plenty  of admins find niches, and I definitely  do  not  believe in  editcountitits,  but eighty-three percent  automated edits  out  of a total  of 50k does not leave enough  manual edits in  all  other areas to  make an  objective assessment. His work  is not  diversified enough  to  demonstrate access to  all  areas with absolute confidence, and his take  pages (perhaps I  just  hit  the wrong  archives) attract  a rather high  degree of possibly invited ruddiness - there must  be an underlying  cause why  people should single out this editor  as a target for incivility and excuses for using  bad language.   All this plus an unconvincing  self-nom suggests  that  the candidate is not  yet  ready  for the tools and can still  do  an excellent  anti-vandal  job  without  them.--
'''Oppose''' Various grievances raised on user's talkpage archives - user appears to template rather than talk and makes mistakes, especially in regard to IP accounts, which generates a fair amount of heat. The impression given is that user doesn't give enough thought and consideration to their actions; something that is unwelcome in any user, and is potentially very problematic for an admin. A 6 month period spent in which the user got involved in some dispute resolution in order to gain some understanding of people's motivations and frustrations, and during which the user discussed matters with users rather than template, would be useful; and then I would be inclined to support. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' reluctantly, and with moral support. I'm very much in favour of having admins whose focus is on vandalism, and this candidate has done a lot of good work. But I'd really like to see a little more personal discussion and interaction rather than just straight Huggle templating, particularly when a dispute occurs. I'm also a little troubled by some of the answers, particularly Q4, Q5 and Q6, which are areas in which a dedicated vandalism fighter should be able to demonstrate deeper understanding. (I especially disagree with Q6. My first instinct in such a case would be to engage with the editor - I've seen enough examples of people starting out vandalising and then turning around and becoming good contributors). I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. --
I have plenty of time for this candidate's work, but in the end find myself here. As adminship also involves the lifelong ability to make difficult blocks, call the outcome of heated discussions, and the ability to fully protect pages and templates, I would like to have seen some evidence of making or helping to shape difficult decisions, but have been unable to find any of note. The answers to questions 3-6 weren't fantastic. And although I welcome [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andre_Wisdom&action=historysubmit&diff=380859780&oldid=380386439 this attempt to remove a non-notable article], there is enough in the article to suggest that the living person could conceivably pass the GNG. That suggests to me that either the user is unfamiliar with how we handle unreferenced BLPs, or considers NSPORT to be an equivalent to the GNG, which are both grounds for an oppose from me. --
'''Oppose''' reluctantly since Falcon8765 is clearly making a great contribution. But coming so soon after a load of high-content candidates, this user isn't yet ready for "making difficult blocks" and calling "the outcome of heated discussions" as [[User:WFCforLife|WFCforLife]] puts it. Ironically, if we had the "[[Wikipedia:Vandal fighters| vandal fighter]]" right, Falcon8765 would be the perfect candidate. -
'''Oppose''' - unfortunately, since I see some great work. However, answers to questions 3-6 concern me.--
'''Oppose'''. Needs broader experience.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience, timing of this run probably isn't a coincidence.
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescent's articulation of our commonly held philosophy of the necessity for content efforts in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' I'd like to support a keen vandal fighter, and I certainly wouldn't oppose through lack of content creation if contributions in other areas were sufficient. However, I don't personally see much evidence of positive interaction and discussion rather than just automatic templating, particularly with anons.  When considering automated edits, we often fail to make the right distinction here, I feel, counting Twinkle and Huggle similarly. The difference is that one can use Twinkle purely as an editing aid to open pages for you, and grab templates as and if you need them, whilst still maintaining a level of personal interaction. Huggle doesn't even require you to look at the user talk page or history (you can, but you don't have to) - and so it can encourage a robotic impersonal approach, and makes it easy to make mistakes quickly. I'd encourage more manual interaction with users you revert. I can certainly see this candidate being a good admin in future, and I think this slight shift in focus could help a lot. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per questions 4 and 5.  Appears too timid and afraid of conflict to use the tools wisely.
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork and large lack of article building.
'''Neutral''' – I'd like to see a bit more diverse contributions besides just vandal fighting, although anti-vandalism is very useful. Also per WFC. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Neutral''' Looks like you know what you want to do, but I would like to see a little more detail on Q7. Your answer to Q2 in particular doesn't satisfy me enough to support. A little more article building would be my expectation, like bringing a stub to GA status for example.
'''Oppose'''. "Please pick me I want to give it a try." is not a good reason why you want to be an admin, therefore I can't support you. Sorry. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Oppose'''. Not a genuine request for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' Your last RFA was closed ''this week''.  Sorry, but this is just not going to happen for at least several months.
'''Nay''' Your first RfA closed 2 days ago per [[WP:SNOW]]. You don't have even enough experience for me to offer moral support at this time. Try just editing and participating in the various aspects of Wikipedia to gain understanding of how things work and maybe in the summer try again for adminship. <font face="Georgia">
'''Weak Support:'''  I like what I see but the experience issue causes some concern. -
'''Oppose''' - I don't see much, if any, change since June.
'''Oppose'''.  Per concerns with experience, judgment, and general lack of recent activity.  Suggest early closure per [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] or [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. -'''
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of experience, as evident at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Frozen4322 2]]. '''
'''Oppose''' 30 edits over December 2009, January and February 2010.  Just not enough recent experience.
'''Oppose''' There just are not enough recent edits to judge whether Frozen4322 fully understands current policy. I also like to see recent interactions with other editors, this tends to be a good guide to a candidate's appropriateness for Adminship. Frozen4322 may make a good admin in the future, but we really need something to base a judgment on - 30 edits in 3 months is simply not enough. I am not looking for thousands of edits a month to make such a judgment, but clearly more than 10 is needed.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.  --'''
'''Oppose'''. Suggest candidate withdraws, and reads [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] as a guide to why this nomination will not succeed, and what the candidate can do to improve chances next time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' Just not active enough for me to support for adminship tools. Sorry
'''Oppose''' - Whatever the intended area of specialisation, IMO adminship requires at least some significant experience in contributions to articles, and other maintenance tasks, in order to fully understand the challenges that article contributors are faced with, and then to apply the admin tools diligently. I oppose this AfD because I do not believe that Frozen4322 with his/her short membership and low edit count has gained sufficient all-round experience. A look  at the comments Frozen's talk page and archives does not convince me that  he/she is ready  for the admin tools, and that  the tools already  available to  registered users and/or rollbackers are suffient at  least  for  a while  to  continue his/her valliant  fight  against  vandalism. I too, support  the suggestion  of  early closure per[[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] or [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. --
'''Neutral''' Long experience, not sure about cooling skills. BTW, answer Q4.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Neutral, leaning support]]''' You're a curious one. I typically would oppose someone with your level of experience in the project. However, I see ''very'' good contributions at <s>[[WP:RFP]]</s> [[WP:RFR]] which show strong judgement and decision making. Currently I cannot support because of your lack of demonstrated participation at [[WP:RPP]], which is one of the areas you said you would work in, but despite your lack of edits I do see really good things coming from you. If this candidacy is unsuccessful, I look forward to a future one soon. --
'''Neutral''' for the moment. I don't suffer from editcountitis much, but very low edit count really does suggest insufficient experience. However, I'll stay in neutral until the candidate has the chance to answer the additional questions. I'd also like to see a more in-depth development of the answer to Q4. (The particular reason I'm interested is that I am currently engaged in a content dispute, but I wouldn't expect admin action until consensus has already failed - and it's definitely not a 3RR issue) --
'''Oppose''', your nomination statement is more of a suggestion for changing how we react to vandalism than a statement about yourself, if you intend to use the tools as you describe then you should achieve a consensus to do so first. Also you've barely edited recently, and you have few edits in the areas which potential admins should be familiar, most of your wikipedia space edits are to this and your previous nom--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, very low recent activity. Your nomination statement has good intent behind it but administrators are expected to act according to current community consensus rather than build their own rules. Much of what you say you would like to do with the tools is possible with no need to be an administrator. I'd suggest you ramp up your activity, get involved in consensus building areas or other areas that interest you and come back after you have more experience in those areas.
'''Oppose''' and I urge you to think about withdrawing this. You've made four edits this year- all right in this RFA. Adminship is a measure of trust- it's not that I don't trust you, it's that I have no evidence one way or the other to look at.  If you want to fight vandalism, try [[WP:TW]] and in a little while [[WP:ROLLBACK]].
'''Neutral''' I feel that this is going to be a SNOW or NOTNOW closure, so I'll pre-emptively avoid pile-on! Your only edits since 8th December 2009 are the 4 edits related to this RfA (there are no deleted contributions after 20 February 2009). You say you want to work on combatting vandalism, but there are no AIV edits, and going back in your contributions for the last year, I can see no instances where you have done anything to combat vandalism (ok, there are only 49 edits in that time, but none of those were anti-vandalism edits). I cannot support someone for adminship if they have not done *any* work in the last year in the area in which they claim they want to work. Hence, I am going to go neutral, per my [[User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards|RfA standards]] -- '''''
'''Moral Support''' for a longterm user with a clean blocklog and 1600 edits. Only a moral support because the speedy deletion tagging is not quite up to snuff yet, just in July I've seen examples of speedy deletion tags on articles I would consider to have asserted importance - though to be fair I doubt they'd have survived AFD. I also saw a couple of A7 tags where I would have preferred you to have tagged the article with a {{tl|G10}}, and some very hasty tagging - remember if it isn't clearly a badfaith article or it asserts that it isn't notable, then tagging for speedy deletion in the first minutes after creation can lead to mistakes. Take care and hope to see you back here after November. ''
'''Support''' for having made numerous contributions to Wikipedia articles. Good luck on your request for adminship!
I don't like opposing RfAs, much less being the first. However, a quick glance through your contributions shows that you are just [[WP:NOTNOW|not ready]] to be an administrator. Not only have you got just over half the 3000 edits that are recommended, they are not all recent. The reason why this is a problem is because it is not enough for me to see how suitable you are for the position. Also, a sizeable chunk are to your userpage. The creation of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/166.183.178.85/Archive|this]], just 60 edits ago, shows lack of understanding of what SPI is for. Whilst your speedy deletions seem to be accurate, most of your edits appear to be vandalism-fighting and it's hard for me to find much of anything else, which makes it hard for me to assess your judgement and familiarity with different sectors of admin work. That said, your use of edit summaries is commendable, and you seem to be a good editor thus far.. (Also: as you've noted, your username is somewhat misleading. It would probably be a good idea to change it.) Don't be discouraged by this; you look like a very sensible editor, working without desiring recognition or causing drama, and this is much desired. Keep up the good work and I hope to be able to support you next time.
'''Oppose''', the contribution record, both in mainspace and in project space, is too limited at the moment. Also, the current username is problematic as it suggests that you are a bot; please consider changing it soon.
Per Nsk92. --
'''Oppose''' -- I think you need more experience in mainspace, particularly creating new articles: two is not enough for me. Like others, I'm not saying you won't make a good admin one day, I just don't feel that day has yet come. But stick at it, keep doing good work, and I'll hope to give you my support in the not too distant future (but not until you've changed that misleading name!).
Per Sonia. --
'''Oppose''' Not only that I agree with Sonia on her vote comment, but the answer to Q2 shows that you only have minor edits, and therefore hasn't shown a demonstration of Wikipedia policy understanding. The only suggestions I have to consider is to go article building and/or creating articles on a subject that you might be interested in. Then I would try admin coaching in about 6+ months time so that you can understand what [[WP:SPI]] is all about along with other administrator tasks.
'''Oppose'''. Q3 has a point, and you missed it.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about experience, answers to the questions, and breadth of experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Good spirit from the candidate, but inappropriate username for an admin. I suggest changing it before another attempt.
'''Oppose'''.  Not nearly enough experience, and I don't like your answers to the questions.  Also, a username that contains the phrase "bot" is reserved for bot accounts.  I recommend a close per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]]. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Oppose''', but with moral support. Not enough experience right now, and your activity level is a bit low. Come back in about 6-12 months with at least 4k-5k edits, and I may consider supporting you. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Comment''' - I'm not going to oppose, because I don't want to discourage you too much. You seem to have made a solid start, and lots of your vandalism work and CSD tagging look pretty good. However, I honestly can't support you, because you just don't seem to have enough experience to be seeking adminship right now. Your recent contributions are just not enough for me to see that you have the knowledge and experience required. I'm absolutely sure that, further along, with more involvement "under your belt" you could make a very good admin, but I'm afraid I don't think you're at that point yet. I'd recommend reading [[WP:NOTNOW]], and looking through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing. I do, also, agree with the other comments that considering a username change might be a good idea. &nbsp;
'''Neutral''', leaning towards Support:  I do not think that lack of edit count is that much of a big deal.  Indeed, having fewer than 2000 edits makes it that much easier for us to look at somebody's contributions.  Nevertheless, I'd like to ask:  did you ever start something that later became a [[WP:GA|Good Article]]?  Or, did you ever make edits that substantially contributed to the [[WP:GAN|promotion]] of a good article?  If yes to either, then please show me.
'''Neutral''' Per Begoon
'''Neutral''' per above !votes.
'''Neutral''' per Begoon. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Neutral''' - I would say that Begoon voices my own thoughts quite accurately.
'''Neutral''' Not enough exp. I find the account name confusing with a bot in the title. I would ''strongly'' suggest looking in to making it a bit more unique to you. Please do consider running again down the raod though. Just not quite ready yet.
'''Support''' His edits that I looked through look good. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. I do think more experience and interest in areas where admin tools are used would be beneficial in demonstarting a need and the expertise to use the tools wisely.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but as demonstrated by your non-answer of Q1 you do not yet have enough experience to be trusted with the tools as it seems as if you do not know what an admin's role is.
Hi Gobbleswoggler, I'm afraid I don't think you are ready for adminship yet. Very few of your edits have an edit summary, and you seem to be altering a lot of information on living people without adding a source. Looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Callum_butcher&diff=prev&oldid=331251666 the last time you used an edit summary] you created an article for someone where we already had an article where their name was spelled correctly. Lack of an edit summary is especially problematic for admins because we need our admins to be able to communicate clearly with other Wikipedians, I would suggest you go to ''My Preferences'', ''Editing'' and check the box ''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary''. Lack of references when adding information to articles on living people is a problem per [[wp:BLP]], so while its great that you are updating these articles we really need you to start citing your sources for this information. Also you don't need to become an admin to start cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia, you can start right now. So when you've been doing that for a little while and have demonstrated you can tell the difference between vandalism and good faith mistakes, and know which message to use from [[wp:WARN]], have a read of [[wp:Rollback]] and come to me or one of the other admins who appoints Rollbackers and we will enable that on your account.  ''
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience, also the lack of edit summaries is an issue. '''
'''Oppose''' Looks like you saw the word 'administrator' and glommed on regardless.
'''Oppose''' Editing articles is great, and I would never try to discourage you from doing so, but that is all you do, you don't seem to have any experience in admin-related areas, and you don't seem to have any idea what an admin does or what you would do with the admin toolset. I strongly suggest you withdraw and file a new RFA when you have overcome these issues.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] seems relevant.  Your only edits seem to be to article space.  You should have some experience discussing on talkpages when needed, with a Wikiproject connecting with others on a topic of interest, and on other wikipedia space helping out in admin areas.  I don't see any reason why you would need the tools.  There are a lot of new areas for you to try that don't involve the tools. --'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience with the admin related portions of Wikipedia for me to be able to judge if this user can be trusted with the tools. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal, you lack experience with conflicts in wikipedia. You will just get yourself in trouble when you use the admin tools incorrectly due to that lack of experience. You need to look at what admins do and decide what things you would like doing, And you need to look at how they do them and why they do them in one way or other way. --
'''Oppose''' ''VERY RARELY'' will someone find me opposing an Rfa, as I feel that each user should be given a chance with the tools, unless there is a blatant reason not to. This is one of those minimal occurrences that I see. With a little over 1,000 edits, and hardly any to the <s>main</s>adminspace, I have to oppose here. I don't see many, if any, edits to [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:AN|AN]], [[WP:ANI|ANI]] as that's where you should be focusing if you're going to be a Sysop. Give it a few months, Wikipedia isn't going to go anywhere. You seem to be a very civil editor, and you would make a great asset to the Sysop team, with Admin Coaching. Having "spunk" and determination is great, but make sure that you know what you're getting yourself into and what tools are going to be handed to you '''before''' you file your next Rfa. Good luck!! :) <font face="Segoe script">
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]] is appropriate here. You need more experience communicating and discussing with others in the Talk and Wikipedia spaces, a much greater usage of edit summaries, and a better knowledge and understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] Much more experience needed in a variety of areas. (Good username :) )
'''Oppose''' notnow, snow, whatever.
'''Neutral''' because I prefer to [[WP:AGF|assume]] that the candidate didn't meant to ignore the three standard questions.  I will reconsider after reviewing them.--
'''Neutral''' to avoid risking pile-on opposes. I feel that ϢereSpielChequers' comments are very apt - plus the fact that you did not read the instructions for creating your own nomination (including adding another optional question from yourself without a question) does not make me inclined to believe that you have a knowledge of the other "vital reading" that is required for an admin - that of the policies on Wikipedia. Thank you for your keenness, but I think this is a definite case of [[WP:NOTNOW]] -- '''''
'''Oppose''' - HI, with  regard to  the edit summaries, it  would probably  be best  if you were to  get  used to  always making them ''before'' you  become an admin. The same goes for one or two  other tasks, such as regularly  looking  at  your talk page and taking  part in  discussions. Nobobody  has been rude to  you - there have been plenty  of friendly  requests on  your talk  page to  conform  to the way  some things are done on  Wikipedia, but  if you  choose to  ignore them, then the tone of the requests will  become stricter, but  not  ruder. The admin  tools will  require you  not  only  to  fight  vandalism, but  also  to  do many  other operations that  require an acute sense of good judgement. I don't  think  you  have this yet, and you  probably  need to  get  a lot more experience before becoming  an admin,  so  I  would suggest  that  we all  agree to  close this second request as per [[ WP:SNOW]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]], and give you  a chance to  apply again  in  several  months time.--
'''Strong oppose''' - little or no content creation. That means no evidence of whether he is familiar with creating content or not. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:lime"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Oppose''': little experience of editing to date; user does not appear to read, or respond to comments on, [[User talk:gobbleswoggler|their talk page]]. '''''(To gobbleswoggler: your talk page is at [[User talk:gobbleswoggler]]: please read it and respond to the comments there!)''''' --
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You don't need the tools for what you want: for vandalism work, try [[WP:rollback|rollback]] first. Otherwise, not nearly enough experience throughout the project. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose'''. Obviously a notnow case. You should have known better than to make a third RfA within a month's time, especially considering the feedback and reaction you received after the others.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] - Doesn't seem to understand what an administrator does, no project space edits, and this is his third request in a month. Please try again in a year or so, not a week from today. '''
Moral support. Try helping some vandal fighters and learning more about what admins do, take a glance at some successful RfAs to see what the community is looking for. Thanks, '''''
'''Strong Oppose''', support immediate close per [[WP:NOTNOW]], an essay Gobbleswoggler has apparently never read, despite repeated requests across several hopeless RfAs to do so. Answer to Q1 indicates a likelihood of using adminship to settle grudges. You don't need it to revert vandalism, either. Answers to Q1 and Q3 indicate a belief that a minor bit of housekeeping was done so well it ought to be rewarded with the mop. "General comment" note indicates GS doesn't know of AIV, ANI, RFPP, SPI, or any of the several other outlets a non-admin can use to get a vandal blocked.
'''Oppose''' - Definitely a [[WP:NOTNOW]] case. Get more experience and read up on policy.
'''Oppose''' per unsatisfactory answers to questions and [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Sorry to oppose. Wait a while and keep on editting, and I'm sure it'll materialise one day.
'''Oppose''' - Point of diminishing returns was some time back, as far as candidate's repeated Rfa's. Candidate needs to not try again for at least 6 months. Suggest close per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' i think you need some more experience before you can obtain the mop, read [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Strong oppose'''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Extreme oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. <big><font face="Papyrus">
'''Strong oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW]], I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' sorry, but having seen your talk page before this RfA was started, I think you've got a severe case of [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] re your previous RFAs. Get at least a year to 18 months solid editing in before running again. Repeated RFAs are only going to result in more failures or maybe a ban on running for a period of time.
'''Oppose''' Per all of above. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' just wants the rights. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral''' Well intentioned but needs to take an active part in more admin related portions of Wikipedia prior to me supporting for the mop. ''<B>--
'''Good Intentions''' but please read [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] and [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship|This]] too. You can still help Wikipedia with stopping vandalism. Things like [[WP:Twinkle|Twinkle]] and [[WP:Huggle|Huggle]] are very useful and easy to use. Besides, without users reporting the vandals, few of them would be blocked by Admins.
'''Oppose''' as per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but with only 437 edits you have nowhere near enough experience. (In fact, I find it hard to imagine how you could have done as much as you claim in Q1 and Q2 - have you used a previous username or done a lot of IP edits?) --
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTYET]]. I don't like opposing here since you are doing a good job so far, and you may well become an admin in the future. However, adminship requires more experience then you currently have, mostly because your administrative actions can potentially cause a large amount of damage if used incorrectly. While there is no "Set" criteria for adminship, most current admins have at least a year of experience, and several thousand edits under their belt. Just keep doing what you are doing now, get more accustomed with some of the administrative area's, and show you have good judgment when working as a user there. Once you feel that you are ready for adminship please go ahead and nominate yourself - but keep in mind to be critical when evaluating yourself. Other people will definitely be :).
Not yet, but would be happy to reconsider in the future.
I'm sorry but I think you need more experience and to improve your communication. I would suggest setting your preferences to force an edit summary and also being a bit clearer when you revert someone else's edit as to why you disagree with them or that you are undoing vandalism. You might also look at using [[wp:warning]]s - there are plenty of templates for warnings that you can cut and paste for common issues like vandalism. When you've got a bit more experience of reverting vandalism and warning vandals I suggest applying for [[wp:Rollback]]. ''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. User is definitely not ready yet. I would be happy to support once user has much more XP.
'''Oppose''' - less than 500 edits; get some experience and mentoring and then apply--
'''Comment''' I don't want to vote Oppose , as I don't want to discourage you too much. I'm just going to comment here that I applaud your enthusiasm, but you really need to read [[WP:NOTNOW]], and look through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. Certainly, further down the road, I'm sure you could be a good candidate, but I'm afraid that isn't just yet. &nbsp;

'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm, as stated many times above, is really good. Your edits are good when it comes to building articles, and equally good when reverting vandalism. I suggest using [[WP:Twinkle]] or [[WP:Huggle]] to revert vandles. Once you have several thousand more edits, try runinng. I'll look you over and migth vote yes.
Moral Support, you seem eager to help the project, and that is good. But, come back in 3-6 months with a few thousand more edits. Thanks,
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] I recommend you withdraw the RFA and try again in three to six months, just a little over 1000 edits.
'''Oppose, with moral support'''. Last RfA was only in September, and there's been nowhere near enough time or further experience to have satisfied all the issues from then. Enthusiasm is great, and your desire to assist further is admirable - but I'd say you need more like another year and a few thousand more edits than the well-meaning but misleading "3 to 6 months" that people often tend to suggest. Really, don't be so keen to get the admin bit - just concentrate on making Wikipedia better, and if it turns out you're suitable for admin, it will become clear in time. --
Unfortunately, I do not think you have neough experience yet. I will be happy to support later, when you have more, however. ~~
Plus points for almost 50% main space edits and for going to a '''great''' secondary school <small>bias - I went there !!</small>. Alas creating an article on your self (per your talk, admins can see the deleted content) at the start of the month and under 1,500 edits is simply not going to cut it. [[WP:NOTNOW]] is great reading, and please do not be discouraged. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]].''' ~~
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I admire you for running (I'm too scared), but you need more experience. Creating an article about yourself and performing this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Barlow&action=historysubmit&diff=402744066&oldid=402743616 cut and paste move] before the discussion ended, doesn't fill me with confidence. -
Moving to oppose because of the cut-and-paste move of [[Ken Barlow (Coronation Street)]] mentioned above -- that's far too recent an error on basic licensing requirements. --
Sorry, simply not enough experience. But don't take it personally, please; I just went through a failed RfA. Keep up the good work! <span style="white-space:nowrap">
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].--
''Neutral'' With no activity in the Wikipedia namespace, apart from your RfAs and a namechange, I do not have enough evidence to support you, but do not feel the need to pile-on oppose, as you are enthusiastic and make good contributions. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|alternative account]] of
'''Neutral, with moral support''' - Please don't be offended at this RfA, which will probably be closed per [[WP:SNOW]], but most candidates have significantly more Wikipedia experience. Anyways, congrats on your File contributions.
'''Support'''. Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Weak support'''. Answer to Q4 tells me that this user is experienced enough to handle the sysop tools, but the issues stated in the oppose section concern me. Not enough to make me change my vote to oppose or neutral, but enough to only weak support.
'''Support'''.  I read the opposes, and while I like seeing good content contributors, it's not really that necessary for the field of adminship he plans to work in (CSD/AIV), and I don't see anything egregiously wrong with his understanding of policy in those fields, so I'll support.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Support''', will put the deletion tools to good use.
'''Support''' A fine candidate. No red flags here.--
'''Support''' – I don't mind the lack of content work, as not all editors are artists. Strong anti-vandal fighter will benefit Wikipedia as an admin. <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—
'''Support''' - Since you plan to be mainly active in counter-vandalism, I see no reason for you to have a strong history of content creation. I think that the opposers should stop over-valuing adminship and realise that it is not some reward for being active in all areas of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' I see an excellent editor, with a good grasp of how Wikipedia works, and an ability to work collaboratively. I do not find any of the "oppose" arguments convincing. Yes, there is a limited amount of content work, but so what? There is enough to see that the candidate knows what is useful, and the candidate's main contributions are in areas where being an admin would be relevant and helpful. I am confident that we have here an editor with the potential to be a very useful administrator.
'''Support''' per JBW.  None of the opposes convince me to join them, and no evidence has been presented that promoting the user would do harm to the project. <span style="font-size:normal;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;">
'''Support''' per DC.
'''Support'''. I think the candidate would do a good job as an administrator. I base that in part on his seeming to know where his current areas of expertise lie, and his intention to focus as an admin on those areas first, and expand to others gradually. That being said, it seems unlikely that this RfA will reach consensus to promote, based on the numbers to date and the matters raised below. It might be in the candidate's best interest to withdraw this RfA soon, and reapply later after he's addressed some of the opposers' concerns.
'''Support'''. I believe that the candidate has the right mindset to edit and the right mindset to learn. Looking at my own experience and at the experience of others, that's all that makes a good admin. '''''
'''Support''' Per Newyorkbrad, per JamesBWatson, per bibliomaniac.
'''Support''' No red flags. --
'''Support''' per the "haven't done anything wrong, you seem to understand the main policies, and you're capable of engaging in debates about deletion intelligently" part of Trebor's oppose.
'''Support''' Content contributions in no way indicate your trustworthiness as an admin. Since adminship is '''no big deal''' I heartily support.
'''Support''' per answers to questions 1,4 and 5.
'''Support'''. Willing to take on admin tasks and there is nothing here which really alarms me. It has been pointed out that content creation experience is light, but the record there isn't empty either. While I agree that a little experience in content creation (which can consist of improving articles as well as initiating new ones) is usually needed to demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's content policies and empathy with content writers, I cannot see that the candidate is deficient in that area.
Not nearly enough content experience; less than 100 edits to article talk pages indicates a lack of collaboration on articles. You've only been active seven months and many of your edits are automated. The "Well then, go ahead and disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. 'Tis the season to be jolly, after all." on your talk page doesn't inspire me at all, either. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' Too many automated edits for me and not enough content work. <font color="#082567">
'''Weak oppose''', close to a neutral. There is a heavy focus on anti-vandalism work, and a lack of real content creation (or engagement in sustained discussions about content). That said, you haven't done anything wrong, you seem to understand the main policies, and you're capable of engaging in debates about deletion intelligently. I'm sure you could use the tools valuably in the narrow area you tend to work, but I haven't seen enough to be sure you could use them properly outside of those areas. If you gain some wider experience and come back in a few months, I'd probably support.
'''Oppose''' as per Fetchcomms.
'''Oppose with no prejudice to the editor''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] applies. Help write a "Good article" or even better a ''featured article'' and some WP:DYKs under your belt then come back.
'''Weak oppose''' Highly active since June 2010, the candidate has only 3 article creations and 13 redirects. On the positive side, the three articles are well-referenced, solid examples of how it should be done. You are on the right path. Mentoring, more collaboration, more content-building and in six months, you'll be a shoo-in.--
'''Oppose''' However, you are on the right track. We're all on a learning curve, and it took me two tries to get the mop. I think you'll make a fine admin in the very near future, and your history suggests that you'll continue to learn, grow, and (I hope) try again soon.
'''Weak Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] - Nothing wrong so far, more experience needed, but (from one who knows...) don't rely on Huggle and Twinkle to bump up your edit count, it already stands at 45% of your edits, too high percentage here can go against you. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with experience. -'''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'm a bit uncomfortable with any editor who's been active less than a year being given the mop. --
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms and other time-related concerns.
'''Oppose''' as per Fetchcomms. Also, poor response to constructive criticism given by Fetchcomms "Sorry if you didn't catch it, but it's sarcasm"; <s>silly vandalism with disingenuous edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tockwith&diff=prev&oldid=366225600]</s> and earlier posting of personal information of a minor on user talk page - removed on March 8, 2010. All in all, probably a good editor, but needs maturity and experience before being given the mop.
'''Weak oppose''' - I would like to see a few more DYK/ITN or a good article. (A good article especially shows you have "stick-with-it-ness".)
'''Weak Oppose''' unlike certain editors above me I'm not concerned that you don't currently have a GA, [[Virginia Street Bridge]] alone is enough to differentiate you from the "pure vandal fighters" who we occasionally still see at RFA, a GA or FA would be impressive, but is not essential for adminship. Nor am I opposing because you have only been active 7 months, especially as you opened your account in 2008 and had a trickle of edits before the 7 months. But I'm concerned that you aren't quite there yet with your CSD tagging. Going through your deleted contributions I see just in the last ten days two A3 tags such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Pandongo+Entertainment&timestamp=20101221002459&diff=prev this]in the same minute as the article was created, and one after just three minutes. Most of the tags I checked were correct, especially the G10s. But I'm not happy with you having the delete button until you've learned why [[special:newpages]] warns not to tag articles as A1 or A3 within minutes of creation. I'd be happy to consider you again in three or four months, and suggest installing hotcat and working on the basis of "if in doubt categorise it rather than tag it".  ''
'''Oppose'''. Shows poor judgement. Advise to wait at least six months and open an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] before next RfA. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of experience, particularly in areas of quality improvement and writing related to content. -- '''
'''Oppose''', sorry not enough content contributions. Admins need to understand the effort that goes into writing quality articles. People come here to read these. Yes it might be a place to make friends, but this is not Facebook.
I think a bit more experience is needed; there is nothing wrong with what you have done. ~~
'''Oppose''' - I appreciate your openness and honesty here.  But you simply don't have enough experience.  You seem like a net benefit to the community.  Keep working!  --'''
Not going to throw [[WP:SNOW|snowball]] at you (even though there's plenty of snow outside). Your first sentence in your nomination statement "...I had not planned to attempt an RfA this early" is essentially correct. Get more experience (particularly on content-writing and less on automated processes) before coming  back. I would suggest you to withdraw now.
'''Neutral''' – I don't see anything in your contributions that makes me oppose; However, I can't give you my support. You seem to be viewing adminship as a trophy to capture. This is not a good thing. I'm sorry, but you just don't have enough experience for me to support you.
'''Moral Support''', but '''Neutral'''. From my limited interactions with the nominee, I believe he will be a fine admin one day - unfortunately, today is not that day. :( Just wait a few months, and I'm sure you'll do fine.
'''Neutral''' - Not convinced the candidate has a thorough-enough knowledge of difficult policy areas.  Would appreciate more detail in answers to q's.
'''Neutral''' Has the right attitude [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuoguo12&action=historysubmit&diff=404090567&oldid=404052377], and I don't mind anything over six months, so the time doesn't bother me, and I don't mind the low article contribution count, everyone works in different ways, but still, but I can't bring myself to support. I guess part of the issue is that the candidate isn't flushed out, he hasn't defined his scope or his niche very well, especially where it comes to how he is going to use the mop. Not anything to cause me to oppose, I can't bring myself to support. I suppose if this RfA doesn't scare you off, I'd be inclined to reexamine your credentials in six months, if you so choose.
This user isn't ready yet, but I hope to see him back when he's written a reasonable amount of content and can demonstrate experience with dispute resolution and contentious articles.—
'''Neutral.''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Don't want to pile onto opposes. ~~
'''Neutral''' I cannot find any negative reasons to oppose, but I do feel that the candidate would benefit from more all-round experience and more participation in Wikipedia semi-admin areas (particularly, but not only, AfD) before being ready for the mop.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator.
'''Moral support''' I think you were unwise to accept this nomination and the poor transclusion, though not your fault (or anybody else's) is unimpressive. However, having seen you around, I think you're a great editor and you have the potential to become a fine administrator. One day. For the minute, spend some more time getting to know the wiki, get some content work under your belt and establish a reputation as someone who can be trusted an depended upon. With another 6-9 months' experience, I may even be willing to nominate you, but not now. Sorry.
'''Support''' for Hadger's continued involvement in Wikipedia and seeking adminship at a future date. However, it is obvious that the candidate does not yet have enough experience to render ''this'' RfA likely to pass, so I urge that the candidate consider withdrawing it for now and resubmitting a new RfA later on, after you have more editing experience and have worked in some of the areas where administrators are usually active.
'''Moral Support''' - for the candidate's good attitude so far in this RfA. I will comment that among more experience, etc, which have been mentioned, you should be more careful about using edit summaries all the time. I look forward to seeing another nomination when you have more experience. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Moral support'''. If push came to shove on this I would oppose, the primary concern being a lack of experience in the stated areas of activity (in particular, AfD which is a tough job for an admin). But this is a moral support in recognition of three things: (1) the candidate's good record of contributions; (2) the candidate's approach to this RfA and (3) Taelus' and my comments above about the conduct of this RfA being less than optimal, to the candidate's detriment. I really hope to see you around. --
'''Moral support''' as per above. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support''' Calm and friendly user, and a good number of edits too. I don't think there's a reason why it meets the [[WP:NOTNOW]] basis. I do expect him to be a future candidate.
'''Moral Support'''.  Though this nomination might no succeed, 4,000 edits is enough for my support.  &ndash;
'''Moral Support''' per HJ :) I'll be loking forward to supporting you fully in the future.--
'''Support''' for now - I like the answer to Phantomsteve's reverted question, although I think user3 had a compelling point. Also, I'll point out that [[wp:NOTNOW]] links to an [[User:Davidwr/Administration_is_not_for_new_users|essay]] which says: "Once you've been around for 6-12 months and made a few thousand edits." Just sayin'.
'''Moral Support''' per NYB and other comments. Look forward to seeing the candidate continue to gain experience, and continue their good approach.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW|not even 4,000 edits]], but I like your enthusiasm toward the project. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Strong oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and HJ. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' - <s>for now at least. You should have answered the questions before this is transcluded.</s> This sort of thing typically ends as unsuccessful per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I wish you the best nonetheless.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. It is pretty clear that for the moment the candidate does not have enough experience to be an admin and the answers to the first three questions are rather telling in this regard. The candidate lists closing AfDs as one of the main areas of prospective admin work; yet, looking through the candidate's controb record to date, there is very little (almost none) participation in AfDs there. In fact, the candidate has only 252 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk namespaces altogether. The answer to Q2 also sounds pretty naive and fairly strange. Looking at the candidate's last 500 edits (since early March 2010), I see almost no vandalism reverts there and no reports to AIV. So how exactly does vandalism reversion qualify as the candidate's best contribution? I am also troubled by the fact that Hadger accepted the RfA nomination from a user who has been editing Wikipedia (at least from their current account) for less than 10 days and in relation to whom suspicions of sockpuppetry have been raised, see [[User talk:Rohedin#Prior usernames]]. Accepting such a nomination does not demonstrate the best judgement by the candidate.
'''Oppose''' I expect an admin to utilize edit summaries essentially all of the time.  This user has falls below my threshold [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/editsummary/index.php?name=Hadger&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia] currently 88% of all major edits have summaries and 91% of the last 150 have edit summaries. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' – I hate to pile-on on these votes, but this is truly a [[WP:NOTNOW]]. The acceptance seems a bit overeager, and the answers to the questions were lacking. I also have concerns about this user's activity. He only has 50 edits last month and 195 edits the previous month. I will consider supporting you in the future when you have more experience in the areas you plan to work in. Cheers, <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' but with moral support. Clearly a well-meaning candidate with a very positive attitude, but just not the right experience yet - I'd need to see more work in the appropriate areas, more specific answers to questions (referring to actual policies and actual courses of action rather than vague generalities), and yes, more edits in general. And if people think that's editcountitis, well, that's just the way it is - experience comes with edits, and I think people with few edits need to be truly exceptional to get the mop. I look forward to being able to Support in a future RfA --

'''Oppose''', per above. Lacking in experience and maturity. -
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. It seems you got caught up in a train reck that's not all your fault, but my oppose is based on not now.
'''Oppose''' and [[WP:TROUT]] the nominator for playing games. Putting forward an obviously unsuitable candidate is basically trolling, and I would still like to know Rohedin's prior accounts, as they're clearly not a new user. The candidate shows too many signs of MySpaceitis, has little apparent experience of policies and guidelines, and generally seems to lack the maturity needed to handle the tools well.
The answers seem to have a "what people want to hear" tone about them, and "Well, for AfD's, I'll be careful of deleting them and research the article to make sure it's notable" - that's not how you close AfDs.
'''Strong oppose''' per others. Greatly lacking in non-mainspace experience. Sorry. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' I hate to heap on like this, but this has very few edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and almost none to AfD, SPI, ANI, and AIV. I think you could make a good admin someday, but not now. Sorry. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Oppose'''  I’m not sure which is more troubling –  the nomination by a editor with less than two weeks experience, or acceptance of a nomination by such an editor. (And those are the AGF scenarios.)<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about experience, edit summary usage. -- '''
[[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]]'''Oppose'''. I have a few concerns, not the least of which is the situation described in question 3. There are serveral possible courses of action there, but posting a few warnings and then ignoring the user is not the best way to handle any situation. If the user was blocked for vandalism, why would you not have posted at AIV once it was clear the user would only continue despite warnings? This being an area you say you would help in, yet not reporting a case there when it seems that would have been best, seems odd to me. I will say that I am only going on your information, and I am sure there is more to the the story that I am not aware of. You seem to be a good editor and certainly a net positive for the project, so I really hope you are not discouraged by this. [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I would love to support you in a later RFA, after you have some more experience. :) <sup>
'''Weak Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I see almost no participation in any of the admin areas you intend to work in. I would suggest participating in more AFD's, DRV's, and perhaps work in CSD. If I saw more work in those areas, I would have no problem supporting.
'''Oppose'''.  per weak nom and concerns with experience, breadth of exposure.  -'''
'''Oppose'''—Avoid accepting a weak nom from an inexperienced editor (possible sockpuppet), who failed during the copy and paste mission.  User does not have the experience needed for being an admin, like making "tough blocks" and such.  I find it odd that the user considers their best contributions as vandal fighting, contrary to the expected featured content, while they haven't made an AIV report in the last 500 edits.  With some experience, this user could pass a second RfA, but it seems truly [[WP:NOTNOW]], even [[WP:SNOW]]. <big><font face="Papyrus">
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and oppose, neutral reasons.
A little too MySpacey. '''Neutral''' for now. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Neutral''', now that I have had time to scan and consider the candidates contributions. Keep up the good work, get some more experience in the project space, and I look forward to seeing you re-apply in a few months with more experience under your belt. I hope this RfA does not discourage you, as you are a good contributor, but perhaps just a teeny bit too soon for adminship. Happy editing to you, --'''
'''Neutral''' as I don't think that you are ready for adminship yet, per the various reasons given in the support, oppose ''and'' neutral sections of this RfA! -- '''''
Edit history shows Hadger is enthusiastic, sensible  and eager to help; good traits for a future admin! While I can imagine ''Support''-ing someone with only 3,500 edits, this candidate seems to still be learning, and has little article-building experience outside the field of TV shows (if that's what ''[[Total Drama Action]]'' is). Would the candidate consider [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]] and perhaps either creating an article or helping build an article in another topic area?<br />Either way, great work so far. Best of luck! /
[[WP:NOTNOW]], but wait a few months and I will likely support from initial impression. I may ask a question towards [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hadger 2]].
Not quite ready, but you are most certainly enthusiastic, and no doubt will have a much better chance of succeeding in a few months. ~~
I'm not going to oppose but I can't support at this time. I feel this nomination is premature and I hope the rather *cough* - unpleasant - experience of a premature run at the RFA gauntlet doesn't affect you negatively or deter you in the long term. I also think it's unwise to accept a nomination from a very new editor - frankly, I would suggest self-nominating rather than accept a two-sentence nomination from a new person, but it's much better to find someone you trust and respect to nominate you. I hope you consider coming back to RFA when you've got a lot more experience (but next time, take your time with writing the RFA and if someone else posts it live before you've finished writing, take it down until you are ready).
Per just about everyone else. You're definitely going in the right direction and you've been handling this RFA well, despite the disappointment I expect you must be feeling. You shouldn't worry too much if it's difficult to find an admin coach. There are advantages, but also disadvantages, to having coaching. All you really need to do is get involved at places like ANI, AfD etc. Read other editors comments, get a feel for how things work, and when you feel ready join in yourself. Sarah's advice about the RFA nomination process - including who nominates you - is well worth remembering for next time. All the best :)
Well worth reading Sarah's comments carefully - and actually not bothering to respond - just understand that you have some good advice to inwardly ingest and take a deep breath and get back to some active participation in other activities on wikipedia - admin coaching and RFA are not the place to be getting to carried away - get a feel for the rest of the place before jumping again
'''Netural''' Good contributions, but this seems to be a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Maybe a few months more experience and then come back to RFA again. --
'''Neutral'''. Has good potential, just needs a bit more time and edits under his belt. --
'''Neutral''' per Sarah.
'''Neutral'''. Has potential tho.  Answer to Q3 puzzles me a little. I hope he's not meaning that as an admin he would block a user he was in an edit dispute with. Did I misinterpret?
'''Moral support''' per [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|whynot]] for the sincere answers. <font face="Georgia">

'''Oppose''' Normally I consider edit count irrelevant, but in your case you have far too few to even make an approximation of your abilities. Furthermore (this may seem a bit odd) I am hesitant because of your lack of conflict with other editors. While it's always good to avoid unnecessary argumentation, any [[wp:BOLD|bold]] editor will sooner than later butt heads with a fellow Wikipedian. This lack of conflict leaves me inclined to think that you're unwilling to make controversial edits.
'''Oppose''' Per above rationale. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Oppose''' Per above. --
[[WP:NOTNOW]]
Obvious [[WP:NOTNOW]] case, I recommend you withdraw this as it will probably be closed soon anyway. Throw in [[WP:NOTMYSPACE]] as another reason for my oppose. You have barely 600 edits, and over 150 of those are to your own userpage. And your answers to the standard questions indicate a poor understanding of the English language. Communication is an essential skill for an admin, you need to be able to talk to other users coherently.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] Sorry while I welcome your desire to contribute to Wikipedia Please try again later good luck.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - The fact that this RfA hasn't been set up properly basically sums it up.
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and Beeblebrox. There is no nom and very weak answers to questions. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
Any crats around....[[WP:NOTNOW]]
Sorry, I'm going to have to '''oppose''' for the same reasons as all previous voters.
'''Oppose''' per above - please close asap, thanks.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and judgement.  -'''
'''Support''' Per the nomination requesting that admins recuse themselves, I am noting that I am an editor, not an admin.  I offer my extremely strong support for not de-admining this editor.  At worst, Herostratus offered a few obviously sarcastic but poor taste comments in a BLP AFD discussion.  This happens all the time, so I fully expect most admins here on the project to resign if Herostratus is recalled.  Let's drop it and go work on improving articles.--
'''Support''' with the codicil that the information I have reviewed is decidedly missing what may be key information, so I may have to reconsider.  I admire the ethics underlying this reconfirmation, and do not believe that any specific BLP violations rise to the level of requiring this level of sanction.  The violations of [[WP:CIVIL]] are troubling, but I have seen far worse examples from admins that have ''not'' submitted a reconfirmation.--'''~
'''Support wholeheartedly''' I don't know and honestly could not care less what the BLP violation was. BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia and some people really need to get a life if they are offended by the little things editors get admonished for sometimes. I like a user with a good sense of humour, who doesn't feel the need to conform to exactly what's expected of them. The fact that some of you are calling this man a pedophile without even knowing him just shows how prejudiced and pompous some editors really are. It's a disgrace that anyone should ever have to put themselves up for recall in this manner and if it fails, I will lose the very last shred of hope I have that this place can ever be a reasonable community. As for civility issues, I have seen much, much worse from many admins in the past and the "misdemeanours" of Herostratus are definitely nothing to deserve revocation of admin status.
'''Support''': If for no other reason than to offset Cirt's stupidity below. --
'''Strongest possible support''' for two reasons.  First, per MZMcBride above.  Secondly, and far more importantly, this looks an awful lot like a witch hunt- it seems like there's a sort of [[WP:IDONTLIKEHIM]] attitude, as opposed to actually being concerned about his ''administrative'' capacities.  He's been doing a fine job, and there's no need to pillorize him now.
'''Support''' unless and until abuse of admin tools to a degree warranting their removal is demonstrated. Also linking [[User:Herostratus/Pedophilia and Me|['''this page''']]], for the benefit of users like BigDom who, judging from his comments above, may not have seen it and may be confused by that part of this discussion. Finally, I want to express my admiration for an Admin prepared to go through this process. Many have pledged openness to recall. How many have honoured that pledge when the time came ?
I don't really find his "jokes" funny, nor I would agree with him on his views of BLP, but mainly I see no evidence of abuse of administrative tools either, it would be a different story if the admin tools got involved in the articles he's been editing however.
'''Support'''. I don't agree with [[Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space|his proposal]], and will shortly say why there, but just proposing a change that I don't agree with isn't a reason to desysop someone. As for namecalling, it was certainly wrong, but he admits it. ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus_2/The_Great_Galoot_Scare_Of_2010|"..I went completely insane..."]]) We make mistakes, it's part of being human. If he makes a habit of this, we can return here, but I don't think he will. Finally for being a pedophile, that's just ridiculous. So he edits pedophilia articles, surely ''somebody'' has to. I wrote the articles about [[Uganda National Rescue Front|two Ugandan rebel groups]], [[Gugum Gumbira|an Indonesian musician]], and [[Tursunzoda|a city in Tajikistan]], does that make me any of those? <small>(Caveat, I think I met this editor face to face for about 20 minutes in [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston#June_15.2C_2010|a meetup]] recently. I don't think that's a major factor in my support.)</small> --
'''Support''' – Just because he's an admin does not mean he isn't human. We need to accept that admins do make mistakes. I also congratulate Herostratus for undertaking recall, as I have seen <s>many</s> recall RFAs <ins>usually</ins> fail. I still trust Herostratus, even if he has made some mistakes. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
I have considered my !vote here carefully. I land here ultimately because I don't think Herostratus has abused the tools in a way warranting recall, and the BLP incident - while unbecoming - is not of sufficient gravity to warrant desysopping. --
'''Support''' I cannot see any actual abuse of the admin tools, so I see no reason to de-sysop. ''
'''Arrgh.''' I don't appreciate his sense of humor, and I believe his attempt to change policy in line with his beliefs defied consensus. However - he was blocked for something he did not do, and then admonished for unblocking himself. He's not really abused his tools. Herostratus, try to act more like an admin. Help me to be happy about this !vote. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support''' Herostratus has made a not-so-right decision but I believe he has learned from it. There has been no outright abuse of the tools and I'm completely satisfied with his explanation in the nomination statement.
'''Support''' The name-calling (I think the main word generating this issue was [[wiktionary:mook]]) is impolite and completely uncalled for, but this response is over-the-top. I personally don't name-call very often, but I shouldn't have to worry that, just because I comment "the guy lacks intelligence" [a polite way to call someone dumb] in an article talk page that I'll be strictly sanctioned. I also support at least in principle the idea of Herostratus's proposed new policy [[Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space]] although it should be consolidated into the main article. Name-calling is just bad in general, but I don't really see calling ones' colleagues bad names as being intrinsically more acceptable than calling a "living person" a bad name.
'''Support'''. Whatever [[WP:BLP]] covers, I do not think it was intended to prohibit statements of opinion about a public figure in non-article space.  Herostratus may have acted in poor taste in the AFD incident, and rashly in the unblocking incident, but I do not think he has abused his adminship and do not think it is appropriate to strip him of administrator privileges.
Moral '''support'''.  This isn't a collegial and reasoned discussion, it's a lynch mob.  I've struck my question and I'm going to stand in the path of this rolling [[WP:SNOW|snowball]] to support you simply because you've had the bottle to face this process. Kudos for that.  And thanks for showing us how much it needs to improve.—
'''Support'''. As someone who ''was'' de-sysopped, I flatter myself in thinking I have a better grasp on what rises to that level and what doesn't. I disregard the unblocking as the work of a humorless idiot (where, in this century, are there actual major-domos?). And the BLP strikes me as uninteresting; any damn fool can write in some over-reaching clause to policy somewhere, and BLP fanatics are known for their extraordinarily thin skins and highly developed sense of dudgeon. (You know you're fanatical about BLP when even Jimbo isn't supporting your crusade to quash the heretics.) If we cannot speak what we see as truth even at AfDs, then we are in a sad state indeed. And besides that? Little to nothing. --
'''Support'''. No abuse of admin tools. Irrational mobbing.
'''Support'''. I read that AfD that got deleted, and I am on record at the time as saying I could not see it contained a BLP violation. If it said the words 'bigot' or 'homophobe' they must have been in invisible type. I do not think saying "Elen of the Roads is a mook" is a BLP violation. I do think that saying "Herostratus could be a paedophile" is a potential BLP violation, but no-one seems bothered about that. I think you have a terrible sense of humour, and should stop and ask your mum/sister/gf before cracking any more jokes, but I can't see anything worthy of desysop. --
'''Support'''. When I came across this RFA and the circumstances behind it, I didn't expect to support; I believe [[WP:BLP]] is the most important policy we have, and it must be respected at all times. I believe Herostratus' comments on the AFD in question were inappropriate, and that his proposal to exempt talk pages from BLP rules is misguided and wrong. ''However'', I have seen no evidence that he is a bad admin, has misused the tools, or is in any way unfit to be an administrator. He made a mistake, but he showed great responsibility by putting himself through this process and being willing to resign as a result, and I respect him for it. We should not lose one of our valuable admins over a single error of judgement.
'''Support''' - There are definetely reasons an admin should have their acess to the tools removed.  Looking through all the discussion to this point and those actions I can see, I see no pattern of admin abuse that would justify removal of the tools.  Now looking at the editor actions, while there have been some actions that are questionable I do not feel that those actions rise to the level that require removal of the tools.  Even putting everything together the lapses do not in my mind rise to the point of requiring the tools be removed.  I think Hero should step back and thiink about their actions before taking them to stop the lapses from continuing.  '''
'''Support in an editorial capacity'''. That Herostratus is prepared to go through this RFA and that he has admitted he made the mistakes outlined above means that I am prepared to support. I have seen no evidence of severe abuse of administrative powers here such that I cannot retain confidence in this editor being trusted with administrator's privileges.
'''Support''' First of all, the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/Interview|dialogue Herostratus wrote]] to explain this deal was one of the most honest things I've ever read in an RFA, and pure honesty is very good for an administrator to have. As for the BLP drama, this is a good example of how we are getting a bit too extremist with the whole BLP idea. I don't see what's the big deal about mentioning negative information about living people as long as it stays off our articles. BLP is an important policy ''for what we publish in our articles'' but outside our articles what is proper decorum should be left up to the much neglected [[WP:CIV]]. Anybody who reads over the AFD will clearly see that this is one editor's ''opinion'' of the subject and not a blanket statement put out by Wikipedia.   Most every other discussion-based website would permit remarks such as what Herostratus made without thinking twice about them.  Unless he goes and publishes these remarks within our articles I see no infraction of the intent behind the BLP policy. I also echo SMarshall's voice above about the lynch mob and BigDom about BLP. '''
'''Support''' the request for recall is based on a single comment made by the candidate in an AfD. Now that comment was in extremely poor taste, and Herostratus has had the sense to apologise for the worst part of it. But this one offence, by itself, isn't sufficiently serious to justify a desysop in my opinion. There is no long-term pattern of poor judgement and Herostratus has not misused any of his administrator tools. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Herostratus made some mistakes, sure, but I feel this is a step too far. I agree with S Marshall that this is more of a lynch mob than anything else and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Per S Marshall.
'''Support''' This is more a reflection of my particular dislike for the idea of condemning somebody on the basis of evidence I'm not allowed to see. The concept of a lynch mob acting on rumor, innuendo, and tone, without solid evidence, offends my sense of justice. As I have no access to the material in question, I issue no judgment on the merits. <strong>
'''Support''' I can not support punishing an administrator for expressing his honest opinion about a politician, even if somebody does not like it.
'''Support''' This situation really shouldn't be this big of a deal. -
'''Weak Support''' I regard the BLP/AFD and the copyvio issues as both meriting trouts. I'm not convinced by the argument that admin tools weren't involved as I think that admins should behave properly on this site, but I wouldn't have supported a desysop for either incident. ''
'''Support''' with mixed feelings. Admins should be accountable just as editors are, and the sole reason I support is this statement of Hero's ''"Admins exist to serve the editors, not each other, and there's the danger here of the Tribe of Admin being inclined to protect one of their own."'' - which is a position I think far too few admins hold.   <span style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #990000;padding:2px;background:#FFFFCC">
Really sorry to hop around guys, but after Hero's comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=369958748&oldid=369958082 at WP:BN], I feel I have to support, because it's my personal preference that he pull out of this and not resign the tools at this time ... I would prefer that we tackle the issues raised one at a time, then we can come back to Herostratus's issues another time (and hopefully in a different forum, this doesn't seem to be working). - Dank (
'''Support''' If it was me posting the AfD in question (which I do remember well, having !voted in it) you wouldn't even have blocked me for an hour. Maybe I would have gotten a warning on level 1 or 2, and that's about it. Now you want to desysop someone over this? That's totally out of proportion. --
'''On balance support''' (switch from oppose). I still stand by what I wrote below while opposing. I also think that your understanding of the motivations for BLP policy, as shown by your [[Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space|proposal]] is wrong and misguided. But I see that you have expressed regret at your actions and are discussing in an exemplary way. I hope you will take the emerging consensus [[Wikipedia talk:Material concerning living persons in non-article space|here]] on board as go ahead as a sysop and long-term user.
'''Weak support''' (switch from neutral).  I still think Herostratus displayed a lack of good judgment here, but I'm not convinced that it merits desysopping '''if''' he shapes up and takes his role more seriously and conscientiously from now on.  I also have serious misgivings about the current recall process in general, so I'm reluctant to see anyone's mop taken away in this fashion except in the most egregious of circumstances.
'''Weak Support.''' I don't very much like that AfD nomination. In fact, I do not like it at all - but to immediately request recall over it seems over the top. I'm sure Herostratus have now realized that he needs to tone down his rhetorics and take a slightly different approach if he is to remain in good standing. On a side note, I examined Herostratus' logged actions, and found that he has generally been using his tools well. Of course, that's not very relevant in a discussion regarding removal of said tools... <code>
'''Support'''.  I don't see anything here that suggests you area "bad admin".   You made a few isolated mistakes, and perhaps your actions warrant some sort of intervention, but desysopping is not intended to be punitive.  It seems that those who support your losing the bit do so for the reason of "conduct unbecoming", or something similar.  Admins aren't special, they're just editors with more buttons and a certain degree of trust/respect.  If your conduct is unbecoming an admin, then surely it is also unbecoming an editor as well, and should have resulted in an AN/I thread or RfC.  I don't see you having the bit as being a threat to the project.  To the extent that your actions might bring the project into disrepute, I think you've learned your lesson.  This RfA is unnecessary.  Carry on.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''  I came to this position after reading links and discussion here (I wasn't aware of any prior controversy about Herostratus).  I was initially inclined to oppose because he seemed kind of lackadaisical and inclined to be neutral because I've seen admins behave a ''lot'' worse (I'm an admin, btw).  I've learned enough to like both his sense of humour and his serious stand [[:User:Herostratus/Pedophilia and Me|here]].  The logs of his admin actions look OK.  All in all, I deem it appropriate to support.  –
'''Support''' We all make mistakes here, even if they are huge, so I guess a little forgiveness is in order here.
'''Support''' actual admin thus far actions appear to be of quality.
Mistakes have been made, but not enough to require de-sysopping, in my opinion. ~~
'''Support''' I've seen way, way worse. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]]
'''Support''' This self recall is enough to prove to me that this editor deserves to keep the mop. ''<B>--
'''Support.'''  Herostratus has been and continues to be of positive value to the project as an admin and as an editor.  He's been willing to work in difficult areas and his work has made a big difference there.  The recent mistakes were just simple mistakes, not abuse of admin tools or anything else that would rise to the level of admin-recall.  There are situations where admins should be recalled, but this is not one of those.  We need more admins, not fewer. Herostratus has earned my trust and respect, I support his re-confirmation as admin. --
'''Support''': Q7 - Herostratus finally accepts that calling someone a bigot and a homophobe is a violation of BLP! That's all I wanted to hear, and I really don't understand why he didn't just say so up front instead of diverting us by making out it was all about the unimportant "mook" nonsense. Anyway, with that accepted, I'm happy to accept that he won't do it again and to give him another chance.
'''Support''', while the comments from Herostratus were certainly uncalled for and unnecessary, there was no misuse of administrator tools used here and therefore I think de-adminning is not justified at this time.  I have to say I'm also impressed by someone actually going through with admin recall and facing the music rather than trying to weasel out of it, as well.
Everyone makes mistakes and I'm convinced that Herostratus will not make a similar mistake again. I'm impressed by the way this editor has handled this recall process. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''weak Support''' No abuse of tools, nothing quite blockable and an understanding of the issues means to me he should probably keep the bit. I would however hope that he'd be a lot more careful in the future.
'''Support''', seems the recall process has served its purpose and corrected the issues at hand.--
'''Support''' - as per [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]], [[User:RP459|RP459]]
While i opppose the reöpening of a bureaucrat-closed RfA i see no proof that anything bad was done. Use of hiderevision on what is alleged to be the offending edit on a AfD page leaves this non-admin to consider this entire process ungainly, cumbersome, and clumsy. I can not in good conscience oppose on hearsay and secret evidence. Or, in other words, i agree with Stifle on RfA #1.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herostratus&diff=59672341&oldid=59668819] <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' - I'm supporting another chance; but you need to take more care in the future, my man.
'''Weak Support''' The behavior of the user in question here was incorrect and correctly criticized but it looks as if they learned their lesson and it may thus be in the project's best interest to let them keep the mop. Also, from what I have seen, the criticism was not in reaction to misuse of the tools granted to Herostratus, so taking away those tools is not the best way to solve this anyway. An admin who misbehaves without misusing the tools should be treated exactly the same as an experienced user without the tools acting this way. Regards '''
'''Support''' Let me first of all stipulate that I am an admin, and if my !vote should be disregarded then so be it. I do not recall ever interacting personally with [[user:Herostratus|Herostratus]], either positively or negatively. This admin has been guilty of judgemental error, but who has not? The only abuse of admin tools was a self-unblock, where the block itself was an obvious error and which [[user:Herostratus|Herostratus]] has admitted to, and explained, in his opening statement. I do not believe that desysopping is necessary. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' continued adminship.  He has an irreverent attitude and has made unfortunate mistakes, but it should take more to take away admin rights.    And also because of this: [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/], noting that this admin is vigilant in guarding wikipedia against such destructive conduct.  <span style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #999999;padding:2px;background:#FFFFff">
'''Support''', the alleged BLP violation is a red herring and the rest of it is far too minor.  There is simply no evidence of abuse of admin "powers".
--''
'''Weak Support''' I think that despite the BLP issues that Herostratus deserves the benefit of the doubt.  Best,
'''Support''' Nothing large enough to warrant loss of the mop.
'''Support.''' It looks to me like Herostratus is an asset to Wikipedia. The six recallers, while properly and formally "in good standing", do not all of them put forward arguments that impress me. This is simply my opinion; I've no intention of arguefying about it.
'''Support''' Yes, he screwed up. No, he didn't screw up badly enough to warrant removal of his mop.
'''Support'''  BLP is a tricky topic, and one that gets many people all worked up, but we take it to an embarassing extreme. For [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqnNCtliUVI example, look at this YouTube clip on Palin]. The clip underscores the hard fact that "calling bullshit" on this type of politician can effectively only take place when done accidentally. Herostratus rightly asserts that an encyclopedia has to reserve the right to discuss notability of a subject. While a vanilla discussion on a talk page might have been a more effective tactic, the more colorful conversation on a talk page is in no way a violation of BLP. In losing our heads over this kind of thing we only serve to harm Wikipedia's mission to serve as an objective compendium of knowledge by conflating SHOUTING with reasoning.
'''Support''' I see no reason to de-sysop this admin at this time.  I do feel that six editors calling for it to be a bit extreme<s> and not [[WP:AGF|showing good faith]], IMHO.</s>
Herostratus fucked up big time, and still does not appear to get it... Well, it is obvious that if you make a serious mistake it is because you are unable (presently) to understand the issue; it is in the nature of error. Mistakes happen, and you learn from it and try not make the mistake again - sometimes by simply staying away from the area where your understanding of what is correct is at variance with what appears to be the norm. Repeating that mistake is another issue, and not one I see is being seriously promoted here. Outside of this matter I am not aware of any reason to think that Herostratus would abuse his position of responsibility, let alone misuse the tools. A person made a mistake, but the admin retains my '''Support'''.
Support, per herostratus examplary behavior. also lhvu above.
'''Ultra-support''' &mdash; BLP is a joke policy, and the culture of extremism which surrounds it would lead any onlooker to assume this must be the most urgent moral issue of our time.  If Wikipedia is to have any future as a serious encyclopedia, rather than a censored and whitewashed PR-style Who's Who, BLP and BLP-mania must die.  My infinite gratitude to any admin willing to strike any kind of blow against the hysteria, no matter how small.  '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Haha, majordomo :D
'''Support'''. Kudos for invoking this process, and the way you've gone about it. But please handle yourself with more decorum when discussing BLP subjects in future, and please refrain in internal discussions from disparaging them in a coarse manner for their views, however distasteful they may appear to you. Whether we think someone is a bigot or not does not affect their notability, or the amount of respect we owe them as BLP subjects. It's perfectly alright to think that someone is a bigot, and I have little problem if you say what you think about a public person on a user talk page, but in processes like AfD, we should be seen to be objective, rather than swayed by likes or dislikes. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Strong Support''' - per his polite, reasonable and exemplary behavior through what must be an exceptionally trying process. He retains my trust.
'''Support'''. Hero has merely made some errors. Administrators, in my view, are entitled to make some mistakes, so long as they are upfront in their actions and do not abuse content editors. Hero has done nothing which seriously damages Wikipedia, unlike other administrators who have unjustly alienated valuable content editors, and have not been held accountable. --
'''Support''' - The self-unblocking was found by the Arbcom to have happened in good faith, and not worthy of a de-sysop. His other mistakes were unrelated to his admin position and he seems to understand why they were mistakes.  --
'''Keep'''&nbsp;—People are not perfect; mistakes happen, and those with clue learn from things. I don't believe I've ever interacted with Herostratus, but I looked at this a few days ago and came back and looked further today. He's fine, doing good work, has a clue and a sense of humour. And I see this whole page and how he's dealing with the concerns as appropriate. I've watched his page and hope to work with him at some point. Cheers,
'''Support''' - He made a mistake, big deal so does everybody.  As others have said he seems to have done fine with his actual admin edits.
'''Support''' - he screwed up, he knows it, he's most likely not going to do it again. I had the same thing happen to me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Eminem multiple] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Lionel+Messi times] in the last week. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
I am sure that Herostratus has learned everything that can be learned from the situation.  Will removing his admin rights keep the project from harm? Not that I can tell.  Going through such an experience already has taught him enough, and this request shows his humility. '''
'''Support''' Everybody is human, and we all make mistakes from time to time, but this is not a hanging offence. '''
'''Support''' As I believe almost all established editors should have admin tools, and that you have not abused said tools. You've made some poor judgement calls, but not those that specifically affected the readership. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''-As recall requester. User violated BLP to the extent that the comments had to be removed, after the issue was brought to his attention he still did not appear to understand the issue and has since not shown understanding either and has even begun to attempt a rewrite of the policy [[Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space]]. One of the guidelines of Administration is that they at least understand and conform to policy themselves. As this user has failed to do that and has continued to seemingly dispute current BLP policy I have lost trust in his ability to administrate
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=347914724#Herostratus_.2F_Viridae Sanction by ArbCom], coupled with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=368231353&oldid=368230799 BLP violation] does indeed show this individual is not fit to be an admin any longer. -- '''
'''Oppose''' I have the benefit of having read your AFD prior to it's deletion.  I've just read your commentary on the incident.  There's more to BLP than keeping away lawsuits.  There's a key moral/ethical factor.  You're comments wern't actionably slanderous, however they were clearly abusive to the BLP, and without any need.  You say you're for BLP, yet after having the benefit of hindsight on this incident [[Wikipedia:Material_concerning_living_persons_in_non-article_space|you propose a policy that would allow abuse of living people as long as it wasn't legally actionable]].  I would strongly oppose any fresh RFA candidate who came in with that attitude, I feel I must oppose.--
'''Oppose'''. When I talk and nobody listens about my belief that admin terms should expire, this is exactly the kind of situation I had in mind. For whatever reason, Wikipedia adminship does seem to have a peculiar moral corrosiveness of its own; after a while, it turns people who have always been perfectly reasonable into petty tyrants who think Wikipedia's rules apply to the little people and not to themselves. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/The Great Galoot Scare Of 2010|This page]] shows that not only does Herostratus not "get it" as to why people were getting upset with him, but that he genuinely believes Wikipedia policies are for other people and don't apply to him. (The reason you're "banging your head against a wall trying to get people to understand that none of this is BLP violation" is that you appear to be the only person on the whole project who believes it, regardless of your [[Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space|attempt to retroactively rewrite the BLP policy]].)<br>Regarding ''"On [failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators] I've served my sentence, in that I was taken to the woodshed by ArbCom, so why should I be punished again now?"'', in my opinion the fact that you're apparently treating this whole process as one big joke shows that the lesson clearly hasn't sunk in. Wikipedia now isn't the Wikipedia of five years ago, made up of a relatively close-knit community who mostly knew each other and shared each other's in-jokes; it's a loose-knit global community of [http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm around 40,000 occasional editors and 4,000 regulars], and what was appropriate then isn't appropriate now; not in an editor and certainly not in an admin. Like it or not, [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] is a thing of the past and those 8,000 new editors joining each month ''do'' look to admins as role models; crap like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&oldid=369756701#Origins_and_Early_Life this] is never going to be appropriate any more. Resign, and come back in six months if you find you actually miss adminship; I'll lay a reasonable bet that you'll find you don't.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">[[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font> 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)<br><small>Note: while our paths may have crossed at some point, to the best of my knowledge I've never had any dealings with Herostratus, and have no particular ax to grind here. And I think EricBarbour's accusations were ludicrous.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose'''. Herostratus should be held to the same standards as any other RfA candidate. Too many administrators forget that.
'''Oppose''' The recall candidate shows a worrying lack of judgement, which as far as I'm concerned is the foundation of all good administrators. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time and if this had simply ended with him needing to brush up on his understanding of the BLP policy I would be voting Support. Instead he tried to retroactively reqrite the BLP policy and seems to be treating this as a joke. That tells me that not only does he lack judgment regarding current policies, but that he also believes he's part of the old boys club and therefore in no real danger of being desysopped here. I see this attitude among a number of admins, and particularly amongst those who have been admins for many years (although certainly not all). I like iridescent's "term limits" idea above, or at least think admins should be required to be "reelected" every two years. I think we would avoid problems like this if we did that. <s>(I also can't figure out why the numbering has restarted...)</s> nevermind, figured it out.
'''Oppose''' Continuation. Looks like I'm agreement with Iridescent and Malleus Fatuorum. This candidate wouldn't have a hope of passing today. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Oppose''' Given the candidate's recent actions and words, I do not trust him or her with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Herostratus has been largely absent since 2007, and has shown poor judgement since coming back. The ArbCom incident, the CopyVio incident and now this BLP incident. Mistakes are acceptable. Three serious mistakes in three months is a bit much to take, but can just be allowable if it were not for Herostratus' defending his "right" to [[defame]] someone on Wikipedia's servers, and for not telling the whole story in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2/The Great Galoot Scare Of 2010]] - the tone of Herostratus' comments throughout the AfD were hostile and derogatory toward the subject of the article, and contained libelous statements that he does not mention. There are few hard and fast rules that Wikimedia Foundation lay down for what we write here, but one very important one is not to defame other people. If Herostratus has a personal dislike of anyone and wishes to slander them, he has a "right" to do that at his own risk in his own publication, not this one. If there is any area in which we are better to err in caution, it is in the area of slander and libel. The [[Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space|extra drama]] that he is drumming up only adds weight to the overwhelming impression of a person who appears lively, intelligent and interesting, but has some serious gaps in good judgement. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' While I don't think calling an article subject names on the talk page necessarily a WP:BLP violation, it is very disruptive, and an admin should know better. This, combined with the other lapses in judgement listed above, tell me that adminship is no longer appropriate.
'''Oppose'''; bad judgement shown with regard to [[WP:BLP]], copyright violations and bizarre "jokes". When reminded that the BLP policy applies outside of article space he says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_okay_to_violate_BLP_policy_in_the_talk_space.3F "Yes, but I don't think most people really expect that to be applied with rigor to people's collegial intercommunications ... It's just sort of an aside"], which is a little bit astounding for an administrator. There's no way I'd support if this was an ordinary RFA, and I don't see why a recall RFA should require lower standards. --
'''Oppose''' due to conduct unbecoming an admin and editor - especially the attitude towards BLP.  As an aside, I agree with Iridescent's comment on [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]'s obsolescence.  While useful in the early days to set an egalitarian tone in the community, it is now an actively harmful meme that encourages the promotion of unfit candidates.
I'm less concerned about the specific "violation" (I haven't actually looked at it in detail TBH), I'm opposing purely because of what I see as significant lack of basic policy knowledge. I've seen several recent comments by Herostratus, including on his proposal to weaken BLP on talk pages where he states in no uncertain terms that he believes the primary purpose of BLP is to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. This is simply ... not correct. The primary purpose is to protect the subjects of our articles from undue harm and invasions of privacy due to incorrect material, undue weight, etc. That it helps to shield us from lawsuits is just a bonus. [[WP:LIBEL]] is about lawsuits, "libel is removed" is all it needs to say. BLP is about getting articles right. I would expect any admin candidate to know this, and I would certainly expect it from a current admin. This is not about knowing the specifics, which can change day to day, this is about the spirit of the policy. Knowledge like this is something that should only increase with experience and should be unaffected by "politics." The implication that all admins will engage in groupthink-like behavior and that admins somehow cease to be members of the community once they get the tools is also rather diconcerting. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - I'm not an admin and have been here long enough to know this is not how one should act. These "jokes" don't look much better than a lot of the vandalism I revert with Huggle.  Creepy stuff... but when you throw in ArbCom and the rest, it becomes overwhelming. No, I suggest you resign, and perhaps sometime in 2011 ask for the tools back. Right now, I strongly feel you need to give the mop up, earn community trust, and ''start over with a focus on why we are here: to build an encyclopedia'', and hopefully without all this drama.  I sincerely hope you can learn from this.
Others have given more eloquent reasoning than I can at this point. Summation: wouldn't have supported him had he not been an admin here at RfA. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Poor judgment, leading directly to much drama distracting the volunteers of this project from doing constructive things.
My gut reaction in looking at this reconfirmation RfA (without even reading the discussion) is to place my name in this section. I'm sorry, but that nonsense about the "incident" and his "local council" revoking his internet access (especially with the situation a few months ago) left a ''very'' sour taste in my mouth.
'''Oppose''' Unblocking one's self is in my opinion a sign of impatience. All admins who are blocked should be consulting on their own talk page, rather than using the unblock to give themselves an advantage. In summary, I totally agree with the Arbcom's decision on the desysop.
'''Oppose'''. For "sysops not wanted here". I admit there's a strong division between "editors" and "sysops", perhaps exaggerated, but it does not justify discrimination of any group here, regardless of intent.
'''Oppose''' This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus&diff=prev&oldid=362658551 general statement] regarding what editors ''must agree'' to if they want to object to ''any'' revision the candidate made ''any'' area of sexual content.  Why?  Also, advocacy has no place on the encyclopedia.  Advocacy '''for''' or '''against''' any position.  To remain neutral, it is best that we don't understand the subjects we edit.  We use neutral, third party references.  This is not a battle ground.  There are ways to disagree about content without advocating a position.  Having also reviewed a good sample of contributions, I find the candidate wavering in the BLP arena.
'''Oppose'''. Wow! I haven't had any contact with Herostratus before, but I just read through the relevant pages & diffs. Herostratus doesn't have a good enough understanding of the BLP policy. This is especially important in the topic where he edits.
'''Oppose'''. I was going  to  say  more (I usually do) but  in  this case I  feel that Iridescent has already  said it all.--
'''Oppose''' it should be easier to both get and lose the bit, as being an admin is no big deal. The BLP issue shows a lack of judgement, and as such I wouldn't trust this user with the bit for now. The joke is a non-issue for me, and ArbCom (and others) over-reacted, no one should have been officially sanctioned for that little caper. I would note that an admin offering themselves up like this earns my respect, and I would be inclined to support them. However, H really dropped the ball on BLP and still doesn't seem to have found it. We don't need this from any user. They can reapply in a year if they get more experience working on BLPs. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Oppose''' Based upon the issues, I must regretfully oppose this RfA. There are significant issues of trust and use of good judgement. Again, regretfully.
'''Oppose''' - I don't get the feeling, after looking over the copious amount of evidence provided by supporters and opposers above, that Herostratus would make a good admin, and should drop the tools at this point. I certainly wouldn't have supported were this an initial RfA.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent and reading the various linked pages.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' - The concerns over wrong forum are a distraction (and dealt with elsewhere, whether or not this process is ideal--it's not) from the point that most of the aboves make, and which I agree largely with.
'''Oppose'''. I commend Herostratus for submitting to this process. We need some way to recall admins who have gone off the right track, and I hope a process like this may eventually evolve into such a general recall process. The question asked here is the same as at any RFA: does the community trust the candidate with the admin tools?<p>At this moment, I don't believe Herostratus should retain his tools; as amply documented in the above comments, his judgment has been questionable on a number of occasions and he appears to be missing some basic understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' - The only thing I've seen to commend Herostratus' judgement to me is his submitting to this process. Were he coming at this afresh, without the tools, I'd oppose it anyway for poor judgement and obviously the wrong temprement/sense of humour to be an admin, we do hve quite a few admins so we can afford to be a little picky and insist the candidates are acctually up to par now rather than just having a pulse. <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> --
'''Oppose''' This is more than the "one mistake" as touted by some of the Supps. The diffs and refs supplied show a pattern of poor judgment exacerbated by self-regard (and not helped by the Uncyclopedia-esque humour which Hero seems to think is such a treasurably idiosyncratic part of his contribution profile). Iridescent @4 has described the intensely unsatisfactory impasse we're now at and I doubt any of this will make any difference, either to Herostratus here or to adminship in general.
Per Iridescent and Elen of the Roads.
'''Oppose''' I commend Hero for going through with the recall proceeding, but I must oppose. I would be willing to look beyond Hero's recent BLP violations in the AfD if he came out, admitted his mistake, and apologized for it-- instead, he has tried to argue that it isn't a BLP issue at all. Calling the subject of an AfD a bigot shows a lack of neutrality in its proceedings. It's important that administrators be able to cast aside their political and moral spectrums during a deletion proceeding, but Hero made it personal. For that, I oppose. --
'''Oppose''' Herostratus, I'm sorry. But the temperament you use to address issues, at least my perception, is not what I would expect of somebody up here fighting for re-sysopping. And what is the temperament I expect in this situation?.......
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork. I've been keeping an eye on this recall since it began and I'm less than impressed with the situations Herostratus has gotten himself into. This, along with what I have read on the talk page of this recall pushes me to oppose, as I have some serious concerns over Herostratus's judgment as an editor, let alone an administrator. —
'''Oppose''' Herostratus is not a role model for the administrative community. Not only does he express poor judgment and a lack of understanding of BLP policy, but he should not have unblocked himself, whether or not the block should have been implemented in the first place. Instead, he should have requested an appeal just like everyone else does. I support ArbCom in their decision and I feel that handing the mop and bucket back to this user would be disastrous.
'''Oppose''' - It's all been said, so I'll just give my judgment on each issue. I am a former admin who resigned the bit voluntarily after some minor conflict, by the way.<br>On the ArbCom sanction, I feel that all's well that ends well. The candidate's actions in unblocking himself simply corrected a technical error and when viewed at the time rather than in hindsight, could be justified as an application of [[WP:IAR]]. ArbCom's reaction was more for the sake of demonstrating a point than a real attempt at repudiation. The candidate does not deserve desysopping for this (and ArbCom had jurisdiction to do that, and did not desysop him). On the joke on his website, the candidate acted in a way that was silly but does not deserve desysopping. Calling a man a 'mook' is undignified but does not deserve desysopping. <br>The candidate asserted that a particular man, a politician from California, called himself a bigot and homophobe. If the candidate could find a source that demonstrates that the candidate described himself in those words, then the candidate's use of those words in relation to the man would be entirely justifiable. But he has no such source. I have examined the subject's website and it does not proclaim him as a bigot or homophobe. Google returns no statements of the type. <br>The candidate relies on the contents of the subject's website, and states that it contains "code words" that are equivalent to the subject calling himself a bigot and homophobe. The candidate's drawing too long a bow. To describe the man as a bigot and homophobe, and to say that he himself described himself in those terms, is going too far. <br>It is well documented that US law defends freedom of speech, especially in relation to politicians. The candidate's words are almost certainly not legally actionable. I agree that [[WP:BLP]] exists for reasons other than avoiding lawsuits. But the comments were not made in a biography and so I find that BLP does not apply. <br>It is wrong, and against the interests of this project, to make incorrect and unfair statements of this type in an AfD discussion. For this reason the candidate deserves desysopping.  -
'''Oppose''' based on BLP issues.
Can't fully trust your judgment as an administrator at the moment. Sorry.
'''Weak Oppose''' I don't think adminship is appropriate for this user at the present time, but I reserve judgement on their overall ability.
'''Oppose''' I can only look at this as I would any other RfA. Balloonman wrote, {{xt|"some might argue that we should use the same standards that we use when evaluating new candidates when assessing already existing candidates"}} - that'd be me then. This is an RfA, and I do not consider this person a good candidate for adminship at this time. Herostratus, I hope that you will understand my viewpoint, and if this RfA should fail, I hope that you will endeavour to demonstrate more collegiate behaviour, and will apply for adminship again after appropritate time. I believe that the best approach to 'recall' is for admins to demonstrate exemplary honour and common sense, and to resign where appropriate, and apply for adminship in the normal manner. I think that Herostratus' instigation of this RfA, acceptance of the recall, and behaviour in it has been great, and that this should be taken into account in any future application for adminship. With a nod to [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. I have taken into account the support reasonings about no great harm being done to Wikipedia in the actions leading up to this, however, we would not factor in a 'lack of harm' when evaluating a non-admins RfA; we'd look at their recent edit history and conclude based upon that. I'm prepared to hear and evaluate counter-arguments, but this is the way I understand this process at the present time. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Regretful Oppose''' In an ideal world I would have remained neutral. But for all the good things, there is one problem that casts a shadow over the entire project. Nothing good can happen without drama. I think it's a scandal that someone decent enough to hold their hands up can be desysopped, while someone "guilty" of similar or worse but not prepared to put their neck on the line for their principles can get away with their actions scot-free. Until this anomoly is dealt with, I feel it would be very difficult to support <s>anyone</s> ''any admin in this position''. If you were to demonstrate understanding of BLP policy over the next few months, I'm absolutely certain that I would support a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure your stance on BLP, judgment, etc are for the best.
'''Oppose''', per spectacularly bad judgement and equally spectacular capacity to generate drama. The BLP episode (especially the idea that it is OK to violate BLP in projectspace) and unblocking himself are pretty bad but, in an of themselves, would probably not be enough for me to oppose. However, the candidate's behaviour in this "RfA" clinches the deal for me. It is clear that if someone with such bad judgement, stubbornness, the ability to generate drama and propensity to plunge into something without thinking it through run in a standard RfA now, they would not be approved for adminship.
'''Oppose''': There certainly have been lapses in judgement and the statements made by the candidate here seem to indicate that such behavior is likely to continue. H should hand in the mop for awhile, methinks.
'''Oppose''' – I found this a difficult decision, but I'm just not confident in his judgment. A crucial quality in an admin (in my view) is the ability to ''reduce'' the drama-level of discussions. With Herostratus, drama seems to ''increase'', as he wades into areas without quite knowing how his comments and actions will be seen by others. (I would say that even this very non-RfA RfA is an example.) His possibly-BLP-violating comments in the AfD are not something new for him: see also his completely unnecessary comments "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SupaFly98/Megan_E._Wagner&diff=prev&oldid=350440412 the girl is just not that pretty]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Judge_Trudy&diff=prev&oldid=350442130 talentless mope]" at MfDs. One can debate whether or not these project-space insults violate BLP policy, but either way this is not the sort of decorum one expects from admins. It doesn't help that he [[Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space|misunderstood]] BLP policy as being primarily about Wikimedia avoiding lawsuits. His close of deletion discussions suggest a lack of understanding of process as well, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_6&diff=prev&oldid=364334742 this close as "merge denied"] is a lengthy and cogent explanation but in no way is it an attempt at determining the consensus of the discussion's ''participants'' (he seems to be using his status as admin as a "super-vote" though I don't doubt he was doing it in good faith, and yes I know it was upheld at DRV). So, contrary to some of the supporters here, I do see a ''pattern'' of problems with Herostratus, and think he should relinquish adminship until it is clear that he has the trust of the community again. He certainly can do plenty of good work (and has done plenty of good work) here without the tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose'''. Much as I respect Heros for actually putting himself up for recall, after close review of his entire administrative history I must oppose. Take a much needed break from admin hassles, Heros. Maybe even help build/improve mainspace a bit. Then, if and when you are ready again, I will seriously consider supporting you. Till then, be well.--
'''Oppose''' repeatedly demonstrated poor judgement.
'''Neutral for now''' - I haven't seen any examples of the user abusing admin powers, but I have seen bad judgment shown on multiple fronts...and they seem to be making a joke of the whole issue. Not knowing that copyvio issues and [[WP:BLP]] apply outside articles. Calling the subject of a BLP a bigot and homophobe. (The words don't need to be redacted, just their use against a specific target without damn good sourcing.) I very much question the user's judgment and knowledge of current policy, but don't support removing the tools unless they've been abused. Vote subject to change if examples of poor tool use are provided. --
'''Neutral for now'''. <small>''[Comment and subsequent thread removed per [[WP:NPA]], "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)]''</small>
'''Neutral''' Abused tools? No. Questionable views? Yes. Tools revoked? No. Blocked or admonished? Yes. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral'''. I'm an editor who happens to be an administrator and it's in my capacity as an editor that I make this comment. I'm not in the oppose column because I feel the examples cited are a few isolated cases of bad judgement rather than an ongoing series of poor judgements and who among us can honestly say the haven't completely and utterly fucked something up in their time? I've made my share of bad calls as an editor and as an administrator, but this is a wiki- there are very, very few things that an editor (or even an administrator) can do that will cause irreparable damage. However, what stops me from placing this in the support section is that you don't seem willing to admit that you were in the wrong. If you came out and said, clear as day "OK, folks, I cocked up, I'm sorry", I would have no issue whatsoever with you continuing to serve as an admin.
Made himself open to recall, 7 editors in good standing take him up on it, and now it's coming back to bite him in the ass. You should feel very fortunate if you do walk away from this with your mop intact, as it's no small matter that several highly experienced editors say you should be de-sysoped. Of course, you ''do'' have the option of withdrawing from this RfA at any time.... --
'''Neutral for now'''. I have seen great admin work, but I don't like admins unblocking themselves after seeing what happened to Tan. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Neutral''' Since I seem to be prevented from commenting on the merits of this RfA ''qua'' Admin, per the wishes of the nominee, I can only comment as an editor. That said, I support [[User:HJ Mitchell]]'s comments above. A mess from start to finish, and should never have happened.
'''Neutral''' This one was hard. I could have supported, but I can't per the concerns raised in the oppose section. Sorry. --
'''Neutral''' but only for now, i cant support right now, <s>maybe some other time</s>.
'''Neutral''' because his lapses of judgement IMO are almost exactly balanced by his attempts to do the right thing. BUT this messy incident does point to the need to improve/clarify the procedures for sysop review (e.g., automatic expiry after 2 years).
'''Neutral'''.  While I don't think that Herostratus' AfD nomination was a true BLP violation or at least not one that should lead to automatic desysoping, I am concerned about poor judgment both there and in other cases (as noted by ArbCom).  Nor do I favour revoking the bit for old or inactive admins (though I may be biased by my own desire to retain adminship).  Overall, while Herostratus has not done anything that would make be call for his bit in normal circumstances, I am, not prepared to endorse his retaining it either.  Hence this neutral "vote".
'''Neutral'''. I'm not seeing any abuse of the tools themselves, which prevents me from opposing. But his lapses in judgment prevent me from supporting. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Neutral'''.  Adminship's not the issue; adherence to/acceptance of policy and general civility are.  Can't help but wonder about the subjects choice of pseudonym  - see [[Herostratus]] if your classics are shaky. -
'''Weak Neutral''' Respect for going through the process (much respect actually). Arbcom thing has been dealt with in the past. BLP issues are a concern though. Jokes tend to be best in other wikis though... Not enough to oppose and go with de-opsing based on everything to be considered. But still concerns for the status quo. Quite the toss up i think here. (If consensus steers towards the status quo though, Id respect and support that, hence my weak neutral)
'''Neutral.'''  Like The Thing, I see no abuse of admin tools.  However, I cannot support as I feel this matter should be addressed at RfC/U,
'''Neutral''': changing from oppose per discussion on talk page and other arguments. It seems pretty clear that while the statements made regarding the subject being a "bigot" and a "homophobe" were self-admissions of the subject and undeniably true; in light of that, it was simply that Herostratus failed to reference that which made it a BLP violation. While I'm concerned that Hero seems to have set out to change policy so that his own offence will no longer be an offence in future (which seems to indicate that he doesn't really believe he was in the wrong here, and is why I'm neutral rather than support), I don't think that this incident alone is enough to warrant removal of Hero's admin tools; I would like to see what consensus says though, as ultimately the community needs to have faith in his ability to be an admin. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''
'''Neutral''' Is it worth keeping an admin who does hard work in murky areas, if they don't seem to get what the community view of BLP is? I'm geniunely not sure. Lack of actual evidence of abuse of tools is not wholly irrelevant, but the core issue is one of confidence and competence.
'''Neutral''' After reviewing the situation in Question- He sees admittance to wrongdoing, but he refuses to acknowledge his BLP Violation. Technically, he should not lose his admin rights because removal of his admin rights are reserved for abuses that also include admin tools- anyone could make a bad AFD nomination. I have no idea who the politician in question ''was''- but an AFD should not attack the subject of the article- it appears his reasoning was his political views rather than the notability/lack of notability for the subject. I don't want to have my own political beliefs cloud my judgement, so rather than '''oppos'''ing this, I'm going to just comment on my thoughts about it. --
'''Neutral''' largely per The Thing and HJ. I don't really see "admin abuse" but you do seem to hade a few bad choices....--
'''Neutral''' You have some good work but the concerns in the oppose section make me remain neutral.
'''Neutral lean oppose''' After reconsidering this, I've decided that I just can't support... to many issues that make you wonder... plus, it is always a bad thing when a person is as prone to drama as Herostratus is... and I just don't see that drama disappearing anytime soon.  If this is closed as a keep, it will be decried as a sham.  If it is closed as a removal of the bit, it will be decried as a farce.  Too much drama based off of an ill conceived and ill planned move adding to other ill advised moves forces me to move to the neutral category.  I do like the fact that you work in an area where most of do not want to go, but still, you have shown some significant lacks of judgement.  I fear that the best thing, although not necessarily the right thing, would be to relinquish the bit.---'''
As xeno has stated, your lack of knowledge about transclusions is rather troubling, however minimal it may be. I looked through your edits and you seem to be good at revert vandalism, which is something that is needed. Little things such as ill-formatted text in your answers just make me a bit more hesitant. I think in a few months you will be good to go. –
'''Oppose''' Sorry Immunize. You need more rounded experience.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, but I cannot support at this time. Your intentions are admirable, but you just haven't been here long enough to be ready for the additional tools. As Xeno says below in Neutrals, 6-9 months more experience, with the dedication you have shown so far, and you will probably be ready.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're ready yet. That doesn't mean you ''cannot'' be ready or ''will never'' be ready, but as of right now, I don't think you're there. Your activity levels are good, but I don't see the breadth of experience necessary to be an admin. <font color="darkorange">
[[User_talk:Immunize#Your_rollback_questions_on_the_helpdesk|As little]] as a couple of weeks ago you had so little confidence in what was an acceptable use of rollback you asked at the helpdesk. As an admin you would have the ability to add the rollback flag! You're clearly a commited editor, but this is very much a [[WP:NOTNOW]] - your edit count may be high but the above prooves that your tenure creates a lack of knowledge about the administrative part of this wiki. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''': Being a WIkipedia Admin is a minefield. Your early block experience and your later vandal patrol reverts do not give me confidence that you have the experience to handle difficult people yet. I would be happy to be proved wrong over the next few months.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with limited experience, policy knowledge, judgment/maturity, and breadth of exposure. -'''
Your head is in the right place, but I think it is premature to be standing for adminship. You've been here only about three months and it doesn't seem like you're ready to take on the mop and bucket. In particular, the fact that you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=356444413 didn't know how to transclude this RFA] (see [[WP:TRANSCLUDE]]), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&oldid=356446128#Set_higher_standards_for_rollbackers this recent proposal] as well as various other comments you've made at the village pumps lead me to believe that you could do with at least another 6-9 months of service to integrate yourself with the ebb and flow of the 'pedia. –
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure. Loads of contributions, but only 3 months of experience. In my opinion he could be a future candidate for adminship. Not now though, I'm not sure if he understands ''all'' of the existing Wikipedia policies, especially the more complicated ones like Notability and Neutral point of view.
'''Neutral''' The experience level is too low to get my full support. I also don't see a ton of content contributions. ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
Cool! First time I've been first! But really, it seems like you'll do a good job. No problems that I can see. ~~
Morally; I think Immunize is well on his way, he just needs a bit more experience, and should remember to exercise a little more caution at times. There's real potential here, but not quite yet.
'''Moral support'''. I'm sorry I can't support properly, but 2 months since a previous RfA, which was closed early as 0/7/3, is too soon in my opinion. As Xeno said in your first, your head is definitely in the right place and I believe you have the potential to be a fine administrator in the future, but I don't think you have sufficient at the minute. You've only been here since January and while some would argue that 6 months is long enough, in most cases I prefer to see 9-12 months. It takes considerable time to get to know the real workings of the project and all the stuff happening behind-the scenes. My suggestion would be to throw yourself into some good content work, maybe rack up a few DYKs and GAs and gain more experience in the project space before considering requesting adminship again. Give it 6 months at the very least then drop me a line and I might even consider nominating you.
'''Oppose''' As much as it pains me to do this, I would have to say no. Your last RFA was a mere two months ago. On your first RFA, Xeno suggested that you wait at least 6-9 months before running again. You also just ran an editor review and although your only response was positive, you should've waited more time to see what others said. I have seen you around and I do think you will make a great administrator, someday. That being said, you will draw a lot of opposes because you have had a RFA a mere two months ago and in that time there is no way that any editor, even the best ones, could gain so much knowledge and become an effective administrator. I would advise that you wait at least a year before running again and seek a coach in this time. I am saying this because you are in the place where I was two years ago. Look at my RFA history and you will see that you are mirroring me in more than a few ways. I am sorry if this doesn't turn out the way you plan but I am confident that this will help you become a better editor in the next year as we all learn from our past experiences.
'''Oppose''' - not convinced that 2 months (that was primarily vandalism patrol) has garnered 'more' experience. Also agree with KR. -
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  I don't feel much has changed since the last RfA.  On top of that, I cannot support per your recent block.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose'''  The block is still too recent, your last RFA too fresh, etc.  6 to 9 months from ''now'' would be a good benchmark for coming back.
'''Oppose''', but with moral support. The consensus 2 months ago was [[WP:NOTNOW]], with people suggesting spending another 6-9 months gathering broader experience. I think that was a good recommendation, and I don't think the past 2 months has added the experience necessary - I think there's a kind of core approach/attitude that comes with time, and doing lots of vandal reverts, delete taggings etc, in a very short time is not a substitute for that. I really would recommend waiting a genuine 6 months - the difference it will make is not something you can really appreciate until you've tried it. I look forward to supporting a future run --
'''Oppose'''. Reporting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=359263464 TheManThatKnowsEverything] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=363204777 Tonyisnotawesome] as inappropriate usernames? —
(ec x2) '''Oppose, but with moral support''' per Ktr101 and Boing! said Zebedee. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Oppose''': {{ec}}{{Ec}}I don't feel 2 months was enough, especially contrary to the consensus.  <big><font face="Papyrus">
Per explicit. You'll get there eventually, no need to rush it. _'''
'''Oppose''' – Agree with Kevin above. Two months is not enough time to gain experience, and the answers to the questions above do not show much depth with policy. I look forward to supporting you in the future. Cheers, <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' - Five months is too little experience - come back in 6+ months and it may be a different story. Also, too little content writing experience. Of the created articles, most are either very short stubs, have been redirected, are soon to be moved to Wiktionary, or have major cleanup banners. Try doing a bit more intense content work, and see what life is like in that area of Wikipedia, as a well-rounded set of wiki-skills makes for a better administrator.
'''Oppose''' – In addition to the previous RFA and the still lack of experience needed, I also point out his dislike of anything even remotely humorous on Wikipedia, some of the stuff which helps "lighten the mood" a bit especially when tensions and drama flare up from time to time. –
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Oppose]].'''  Airplaneman's comment at neutral reminded me that I'd seen this editor's comment at editor review, which was followed up later with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review&diff=next&oldid=365911480 this] response.  That's a bit more foot-stomping "pay attention to me ''now!'' than I think we need in adminship at the moment, and ''continuing'' to demand a review while not being willing to take the time to perform one doesn't say "team player" to me.  This is about temperament for me, not experience.--'''~
Sorry, I can't support comfortably with the issues raised above. Best of luck. <span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Oppose''' - Back at your first RfA, it was suggested that you gain 6-9 months' experience before trying again. I think that was good advice, and I don't think that 2 months is a suitable substitute. You've done good anti-vandalism work, which in my opinion goes a long way to counteract your problematic editing behaviors of January/February/March 2010. Now I think you just have to keep up this good work, and continue to get involved in other aspects of the encyclopedia. I also recommend working more on the articles you've created. Some of them are stubs and/or need additional sources. If you can create a couple well-sourced articles (using citation templates and not just bare URLs), I think it would also increase your chances of success in a future RfA.
'''Oppose'''. I think you're a net positive for the project and I hope you will keep up the good work; however, I fear you're not experienced enough to become an admin, that's why I'm opposing per [[WP:NOTNOW]], for the moment. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Strong oppose''' per this is way too fast (you've been registered in mid-January only), and disturbing crosswiki behavior. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Strong Oppose''' I would have gone with a ''Neutral'', but as you requested this to be re-opened despite it being pretty much a foregone conclusion as to what was going to happen, I'm going to ''Oppose''. My reasons? Well, I am not convinced by your answers to the questions; I ''definitely'' was put off by your impatience at Editor Review (you should have put your name up there a few months ago, where there was a 3-4 week delay or more before a review would be done); I feel that you are ignoring the advice given on your last RfA about waiting 6-9 months before considering re-running... My gut instinct says that in time, you might make a good admin - but you are not near to being ready yet -- '''''
'''Oppose''' per Phantomsteve. I previously avoided comment on this RfA as I wanted to give you the chance to withdraw, however as you requested this to be re-opened after closure I am afraid I have to register my opposition. Take the advice you were given last time, then try again in 6 months. This second RfA is premature. Best of luck, remember there is no rush. --'''
'''Oppose''' - Applying for a second RfA only 2 months after your first and consequently not heeding the advice of your peers seems to be a serious lapse in judgement. Also, your work at UAA just isn't appropriate at all.
'''Strong Oppose''' Whoa. I didn't expect to see this after just 2 months. If you're going to nominate yourself, I suggest you either wait for a few more months, or try admin coaching to see if someone has the confidence to support you. I think it's going to be highly doubtful since you failed to capitalise the block you had back in February.
'''Oppose''' My own interactions with this user combined with their over eagerness to push forward with this RFA indicate to me that they lack the understanding of policy and the temperament expected of an admin. And the UAA report on "TheManThatKnowsEverything"  shows a very poor understanding of what kinds of usernames are blockable and why , and this is an area the candidate says they will work in.
'''Strong Oppose''', moved from neutral. It's obvious my concern won't be addressed, and I hate it when people overrule admins and resurrect DOA stuff like this.
'''Strong Oppose''' As per the reasons behind the block mentioned by FetchComms, candidate persists with the la-la-a-I-Can't-Hear-You and demonstrates a transparent desire for the perceived laurels of adminship rather than the practice it entails. Will need to see a major and sustained transformation in attitude, maturity, content, and knowledge and application of policy.
'''Oppose''', concerns at this point in time, would consider reexamination at a later date. -- '''
'''Neutral''' pending answers to the additional questions.
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose''' for now, as I'm still evaluating. I'm turned off by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Editor_review&action=historysubmit&diff=363931966&oldid=359151957 this] edit especially at [[WP:ER|editor review]].
'''Neutral''' You seem like a very active editor and very active vandal fighter. However, as you stated, it has only been 2 months since your last RFA. It seems too short a time for another RFA. Maybe in another few months? [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">2</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Well only 2 months is not enough time between this RFA and your last one. My advice it try again in December and find a place that could use more admin assistance such as DYK or AFD ect and work there. I look forward to supporting you in the future :)--
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, I don't want to pile on the opposes but I think you're not yet ready for adminship. I would advice you to ask an admin to close this Rfa and try another time, later.
'''Neutral''' - you can count this as an oppose, with moral support. I think you've come a long way since your last RFA, to the point that I was actually surprised to see this one come up so soon. I would recommend waiting ''at least'' another six months before trying again, if not more. Remember, it's not a race. There is much to be done to help Wikipedia without the admin tools, as you have been doing up to now. In fact there are more jobs that don't require the tools  than do. Per [[User:SluggoOne]], question 3 could do with a better answer. it would be nice to know what you learnt from that experience and how you would do things differently. You say at your [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Immunize|editor review]] "However, I later learned that the editor was actually blanking out warnings that had been given in error" - this doesn't indicate whether or not you realise that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages, or whether or not you would interact with such users differently in the future, regardless of who is in the wrong. You do great anti-vandalism work, but it would be nice to see some more content work. To avoid this getting any longer, I'll make some more comments at your editor review.--
Per my neutral in the first RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Immunize&diff=356448729&oldid=356447401], and also for re-opening this RFA after it had been closed due to inclement weather. [Yes, I understand the closer suggested to you that this was your prerogative, ultimately I think it was a bad idea all the same.] However, I do offer '''moral support''' as I do still believe that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Please wait ''at least'' another 9 months before standing for adminship again and perhaps float the idea to some RFA regulars before submitting. See also [[Wikipedia:How to pass an RFA]] for some excellent advice. –
'''Neutral''' A good number of edits within six months, and certainly something to support is how much action has been taken against vandalism, however, there are three things to oppose on, one, a block occured less then four months ago for unsourced content, two, the last RFA only occured two months ago which isn't much time to improve and change and three, the account has only been active for half a year, which isn't the biggest ammount of time to learn all the admin essays. From this I cannot support or oppose. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits and very little experience. Also, your username comes across as inappropriate and immature.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You'll need a few more months of editing and a few thousand more edits before I can support you (and a name change as well)--

'''Oppose''' per {{diff|Talk:Let's Get It Started|prev|364643892|this edit}} showing lack of knowledge of citing requirements (you can't cite another WP page as a reference (which this edit doesn't exactly do, but same principle applies)). The username doesn't bother me, but the content does.--
'''Oppose''' Candidate lacks experience, maturity and competence. Consider trying again in 2015.
'''Oppose''' - Username alone decides me, suggest you change it asap.  Experience is another big issue, however. Suggest this be closed quickly per [[WP:SNOW]] as, in my view, there can be little more constructive comments that can come of this Rfa.
'''Strong support''' as nominator. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' For being blatantly awesome... (and qualified). Clearing the New Pages backlog a few days ago was quite a feat, and quite appreciated by fellow New Page Patrollers. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' This guy's so incompetent he couldn't get laid at a frat party in a whorehouse. Luckily, he's running for admin instead. Should be exemplary.
If only for clearing the NPP backlog alone. The perfect admin candidate with everything else on top of that. --'''
The amount of RfA's is concerning, but since the first 2 listed were SNOW closures, and since it's been so long since your last one, I can't find any other concerns. The NPP backlog clearing was especially impressive, and clearly shows a need for the tools. <font face="Segoe Print">
If I recall correctly, there were temperament concerns before - I could be wrong, though, and I might be mixing Ironholds up with somebody else. Unless something very convincing comes up in the oppose column, I'm supporting this editor. We need more admins, and Ironholds has been here long enough and has a wide enough breadth of experience to know how things are done.
'''Support''' Ironholds has demonstrated the highest levels of competence and trustworthiness and I am sure that he would make an excellent admin.

Has clue, is experienced, and will not blow up any whales. Sounds fine to me. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' Experienced and certainly is a net positive.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' – Ironholds' content contributions are top notch. He also does a lot of quality work in the area of BLP. He’s got a strong grasp on policy and experience across the board. His work in various admin areas displays competence, and his dedication to the project is indisputable. His sense of humor is sometimes lost on people, but I believe he'll make a fine admin. As for the situation Caspian blue mentioned in his oppose, having seen all the logs and heard from all involved at the time, I don't see how any informed person can consider Ironholds to have blackmailed Law. That's utterly ridiculous. Boys will be boys, and it was off-wiki activity. <big>
Heck yes. Ironholds has a good outlook and is both humorous and focused at the same time. His content work is excellent, he's dedicated, and I think he'll make a fine administrator. '''
Ironholds has grown up since the third RfA. He's got a lot of clue, he's a brilliant content writer, and he's got a good attitude that's jovial but at the same time comforting. '''
'''Support'''-per ceranthor, Triplestop and others. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Strong Support]]''' - And a happy new year! --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
Per NW's nomination.
'''Support''' per consistent positive contributions including (but certainly not limited to) clearing out the Newpage patrol backlog singlehandedly. Also per
Definitely. I supported last time, and if this doesn't pass, I'll support next time. A great great benefit to the project overall, and can certainly get his head around complex issues that plague ANI and similar.
&mdash;
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support'''. I did actually intend to be a conominator here, but I chose to go to bed instead. Is it too late to add a nomination statement? Ironholds is intelligent, logical and mature, has a sense of humour, and is someone with whom it is easy to interact. All of these are extremely positive traits in an administrator. Further, he has a solid knowledge of a classically encyclopedic topic, and uses this knowledge to write great articles. He has a real commitment to the project, as shown by his article writing and his recent achievement with new page patrolling. Ironholds would have been the first person I nominated to adminship in my two and a half years of adminship- I just genuinely feel he is close to the perfect candidate.
'''Support'''. No problems here; should have been appointed earlier. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><small><span style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:#FF6600;">~~&nbsp;
'''Support'''—I have always found Ironholds to be a committed, organised and approachable editor. <font color="#A20846">╟─
In one episode of [[Newsradio]], Matthew takes a magic pill and becomes super-intelligent.  When someone objects that he now seems to prefer reading books upside-down, he replies, "If you've never read 4 books at once, then don't tell me how to do it."  I'm not going to tell Ironholds that he's clearing out the NPP queue too fast, or writing too many articles.  If someone can point to actual mistakes, fine. - Dank (
'''Strong support''' excellent contributor and I trust him thoroughly to use the extra buttons with discretion and ever-growing skill.
'''Support''' While noting the opposers' concerns, I see insufficient evidence to cause me concerns about this candidate at this time. -- '''''
'''Support''' - <s>I can understand where some of the opposers have come from, but</s> I do believe that IH has the ability to learn, first of all, and secondly that he has demonstrated that ability in the improvements made to his attitudes. He will do well and, more importantly, be fair. I've known him to rather activly avoid any potential CoI, which is a fear some have with admins, and he has also gone to other people for opinions on things many times, showing his ability and desire to build consensus as well as an appreciation that admins are, shockingly, humans and not miracle computers that are always right. Providing he sticks his feet to the ground, he will be a great admin. Just no-one tell him I said that. <span style="font-family: helvetica;"> --
'''Support''' Ironholds isn't to everybody's taste which I believe is to his favour.
With more then 40,000 edits, there's no reason not to support this editor.  &ndash;
No concerns ''whatsoever''. '''
'''Support''' See no problems. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''': Ja good.
Absolutely, fine user. <small><span style="border:2px solid #000000;">
I opposed last time, and I think the time before, but I'm sure that Ironholds is ready for the mop now and will not use it as a badge and gun as I feared before.  He has sufficient clue.
'''Support''' As for the missing Latin knowledge "Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" should help.
'''Support''' Interactions have been mostly positive.
'''Support''' I had a bit of an issue with the way he handled the Law/undertow thing, but nobody is perfect. If the community was a bit more accepting of a few mistakes, I think it would be a better site. I generally trust Ironholds to do the right thing, and I think he'd be a great admin.
'''Support''' - Thought he already was one.
'''Support'''.  I've supported this candidate twice before, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=218349643 June 2008] and in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_2&diff=prev&oldid=244627765 October 2008].  I think Ironholds will be a good admin. —
I had this whole long (albeit stupid) oppose written out, and after finishing it I realized I had just written a support.  I'm not wild about his comments about other editors at [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno]] (both on the project and project talk page).  I wish he used more and better edit summaries ("''r''" makes me wince).  And, although I applaud him a thousand times over for his recent [[WP:NPP]] efforts, some of the taggings, as noted elsewhere, leave something to be desired (although arguably they are a drop in the bucket and well within the range of acceptable mistakes given his volume).  Still, his comments and efforts all over the place are of extremely high quality, and I trust him to take a lot out of this and to be more careful when deleting than when clearing a backlog.  I just spent about an hour looking for something to really, truly tick me off and '''it's simply not there'''. Over the past year I have found myself double-checking to see he isn't a sysop at least a half-dozen times, so I'd say it's time. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Strong Support''' per the nominators. I really don't think there should be a question whether he will be a net positive. Seems obvious to me. '''
As always.
'''Support''' mostly per Amory (#40 currently).  -- ''<B>
'''Strong support''' Trust him absolutely.--
Hard working. ⇌
'''Strongest possible Support''' Per nom. Deo Volente! ++/
'''Support''' Good luck.
Net positive. <strong>
'''Support''' There are many attacks on this user's "temperament" and "civility". This is constantly being used as an unfair ploy to block certain people from becoming admins even though such accusations seem to always be unfounded. There is nothing wrong this user's behavior and they should be given a fair chance.
'''Support''' - I see this user as a net positive to the project, and thus support.
'''Support''' for having the patience to deal with so many questions from [[User:Average White Dork|<font color="#000000">Average White Dork</font>]]. Ironholds' responses are quite civil and sincere. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.
'''Strong Support''' Know the editor in question to be responsible and skilled, with the good of the project at heart always.  Find opposes utterly unconvincing.  IH's body of work and edits is strong, and a few instances of wry British snark are absolutely not equivalent to incivility. '''
'''Support''' I know from watching other RfAs that anyone who almost loses because of an issue will be extremely careful once they pass their RfA. Hence, I think it is very, very, unlikely that (should this request pass) Ironholds will immediately jump into CSD with gusto deleting everything in sight. That aside, I believe that Ironholds has a real desire to improve this project, and I have no question that he will do what he truly believes to be the right thing to do. We need more admins who are willing to set aside "political" considerations to just do the right thing for its own sake.
'''Support''' per my colleague just above. <strong>
'''Support''' — I've seen this user about over time doing good, so no worries; impressed by the above, not by the oppose section. Sincerely,
'''Strong Support'''. A very firm familiarity with the project, and a user who could certainly benefit from the mop (and the project from the arrangement). I have personally seen through our interactions that he doesn't always try to be a crowd-pleaser and stands by his convictions, which is a great positive in my view, and tries hard to maintain a high standard and help those who need or request it. He is an efficient and trust-worthy editor with my full support. —
'''Strong Support'''. Absolutely. Fight the broken RfA system and support this obviously qualified candidate.
I think Ironholds is a very productive and strong editor. I am pleased to support his candidacy.
'''Support''' Nobody's perfect, least of all us New Page Patrollers. It's not unusual at all to have a fraction of our CSD taggings declined, nor is it unusual for our PROD tags to be contested. While Ironholds did tag some articles in the new-page backlog incorrectly, and while some of his AfD nominations weren't the strongest, I think it's helpful to look at them in context. Ironholds patrolled so many pages at the end of 2009 that the incorrect taggings are actually a small fraction. Like J.delanoy above, I trust Ironholds to approach the delete button cautiously as an administrator, and I do trust him to do the right thing. Therefore, I share the concerns that SoWhy, F&W, and DGG voice, but I don't think they are enough to prevent me from supporting. Ironholds' involvement in the Law incident does not bother me; let's not forget that it was The undertow who was truly in the wrong, engaging in ban evasion. I also firmly reject the notion that eliminating the unpatrolled backlog at [[Special:NewPages]] is a bad thing. Finally, Ironholds is a terrific content contributor, with 4 FAs, 13 FLs, 13 GAs, and 122 DYK credits, which is always a big enough plus in my book that I am moved to support this RfA. The entire body of Ironholds' work outweighs a few mistaggings, in my opinion.
'''Support''' No worries from me.
'''Strong Support''' Ironholds is a real person, he makes mistakes, he does not always phrase his non-content contributions in the most temperate language possible and he may even, horror of horrors, have occasionally tagged some of the '''hundreds''' of new page articles he single handedly patrolled in a way that was with ( to quote [[Lord Denning]]) with the benefit of rose-tinted spectacles, not the most correct tag amongst many - but here is the thing, he is a truly prolific content contributor and '''everyday''' he makes wikipedia a better, more stylish, more comprehensive resource.  In my estimation administrator tools would be a be a valuable help in his work - he contributes so much to the project that a few disputes might have been inevitable and do not in my view in any way suggest he would not help make wikipedia a (much) more valuable resource if given admin access - which at the end of the day is the most important standard for anyone to be judged by.  As a disclaimer,[[User:Ironholds]] is one of only a very few other UK law contributors to wikipedia, and as a UK law student I particularly value his work in that regard so maybe that is a COI to some users, but i hope not
'''Support''' Everyone has their bad times, nobody is perfect. I am not going to hold a potental admin back because he is not perfect. This user has a solid edit history, and is trying to make wikipedia a better place. As for the NPP, he is following policy ([[WP:IGNORE]]) to benefit wikipedia. --
'''Weak Support:''' He is a net positive-
'''Support''' Per above user a net positive. I have been impressed with this users Law related work - an area of huge systemic bias.
'''Strong oppose''' Although I highly respect the nominating admin (I really do), I have to oppose the candidate strongly as possible. I've expected Ironholds would run for adminship ''again'' some after people may forget about the User:Law/User:The_undertow incident. I felt absurd at that time for the fact that he was not a subject of any single warning or admonishment given for his backchannelling and manipulating to get favorable result for his POV via IRC and retaliation. While User:Daniel who was equally in charge of leading the disgraceful incident and other involved people got the consequence, he was not. Moreover, he has failed to prove that he abides by the civility policy such as [[Wikipedia talk:Automatic Adminship]] (<sup> a notable example added since people thirst for "evidence". The whole page shows well how poor grasp of [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:Civility]] Ironholds has by engaging in such behaviors regardless of repeated warning to him.16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC))</sup> I don't see why we need to add a potential admin to abuse the admin tool with the disgraceful demeanor.--
'''Oppose''' He seems to be doing good work at articles such as [[William Garrow]], which is a fine choice of topic,  but his approach to new article patrolling seems too casual and intemperate, indicating a lack of the measured and mature approach which we expect of an admin.  This [[WP:AN#Avast, me hearties!|recent spree]] attracted my attention and so I looked at some of the [[WP:PROD|PROD]]s and did not find them satisfactory.  When one of the PRODs was challenged - [[Golconda Express]] - his response was to immediately escalate to [[WP:AFD|AFD]] rather than engaging in discussion at the article per [[WP:BEFORE|our deletion process]].  His nomination and comments in this AFD seem over-opinionated rather than addressing the sources and so I fear that he would use admin powers as a means of his expressing his own strong opinions.  His recent edit summaries include "''Wrong place, matey''", "''bollocks''", "''sod it''" and "''listen to a bit of The Clash''".  These seem too loutish and so may too easily be taken as uncivil.  Behaviour of this sort during RFA does not seem acceptable.
'''Regretful Oppose''' I like Ironholds and as such it is not easy for me to be in this section. Ironholds is a great contributor to this project and his article writing skills are without doubt making this project a better place. Sadly, his approach to speedy deletion is too aggressive in my opinion and shows an apparent lack of understanding when it comes to our [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion policy]]. I know he is very active at NPP and as such does thousands of taggings, which is commendable but if he approaches deletions the same way if this request passes, I fear it will lead to many incorrect deletions and thus to the [[WP:BITE|biting of a lot of newbies]]. To cite some examples (all within the last 4 days): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starseed_%28novel%29&diff=prev&oldid=335039046 A3 on article which had a infobox with non-trivial information] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stardance&diff=prev&oldid=335039019 twice]) ([[WP:CSD#A3]] explicitely excludes such articles), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Media_City&diff=prev&oldid=335036852 A7 with claims of importance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_McKechnie_Walton&diff=prev&oldid=335032181 A7 with multiple claims of importance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Technologies&diff=prev&oldid=335027034 A7 with claims of importance] ([http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22allen+technologies%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&num=100&hl=en and 190+ GNews hits]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ry%C5%ABhei_Tamura&diff=prev&oldid=335020971 A7 on manga artist where the manga has its own article and is award-winning], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_State_Association_of_Counties&diff=prev&oldid=334981671 G12 where copyvio could have been removed easily], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_for_Research_on_Learning&diff=prev&oldid=334859538 A7 with claims of importance and reliable source], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_City_Summit_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=334654714 A7 for organisation that initiated notable projects], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tensie_Whelan&diff=prev&oldid=334601969 G11 on non-spam article], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoff_Apps&diff=prev&oldid=334593902 A7 with claims of importance]. Similarly, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda Express]] as mentioned by Colonel Warden above which currently has only "keep" !votes and which looks like Ironholds forgot [[WP:BEFORE]] also shows a skewed approach to deletion. Again, I have great respect for Ironholds' contributions to the project but currently I have to say that I don't trust him with the delete button. Sorry... Regards '''
'''Oppose''' Enough excuses. This is seems to be part of a pattern of sloppy CSD work. I have grave doubts about entrusting him with the delete button, as well.
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' – This is only the ''sixth RfA'' for this user, I guess we should wait for the ''seventh''. --
'''Oppose''' Seems to have unreliable knowledge of deletion policy--or perhaps goes to fast to think about it properly, which leads to the same bad results. Absolutely do not trust with the deletion button.  Those who support should review some of his nominations. Giving an excuse for poor deletions as "Luckily, no action on-wiki is permanent" shows indifference to new contributors. More important than any of this is the poor judgment in trying to accomplish good things by taking on too much work. It would have been much more realistic for him to propose the clearance as a mujltiperson project over the holidays. I'd gladly have done one or two thousand, which is all that I would dream of attempting to do properly in a week. If I try to do more than 50 or 100 at a time, I see so much junk that I too tend to judge inaccurately. I've learned my limitation. Ironholds should learn his, and be able to show it with a cleaner record of admin-related activity . I need to explain that I think many of his noms were fine, even some of the ons that have been contested--I've already supported a few, and intend to support some others. And of course I have the highest possible respect for his work as an editor.  Bur that does not necessarily carry over into admin work.  '''
'''Oppose''' per sloppy CSD taging here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tensie_Whelan&action=historysubmit&diff=334607945&oldid=334601969] (just 2 days ago...).
'''Oppose''' - I feel kind of bad since I've supported Ironholds in the past for some great contributions to the project. However, I'm noticing some dodgy CSD work, and since he is particularly active at NPP, it's a nagging concern. I don't think I'm quite ready to see him with the delete button.
'''Oppose'''. I'm willing to reconsider this, but the lack of care taken over deletion makes me unwilling for Ironholds to be an admin yet (although this is their 7th RfA). As well as some of the examples pointed out by DGG (such as nominating [[Italian Physical Society]], a national science society, for speedy deletion), Ironholds' AfD nominations are sometimes poorly thought through, see e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish-Lebanese relations]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political uprisings of 1968]]. I don't think this editor makes much effort at sourcing or considering alternatives to deletion [[WP:BEFORE|before]] nominations, so I worry for how they would close debates. A pledge to follow [[WP:BEFORE]] is good, but I'd rather see a change in practice ''before'' they become an admin. Also, use of insults such as "crap", "gtfo", "bullshit" in edit summaries is not behaviour I want to see from an admin:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMK_Batu_Maung&diff=prev&oldid=334962224][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kennard-Dale_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=334014245][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=prev&oldid=333994890]
'''Oppose'''. It's too easy when patrolling new pages to tag for speedy almost on autopilot, without doing the necessary checking. Same for AfD. It would seem that Ironholds gets into that "open-new-article-tag-for-deletion-open-next-article" groove rather easily. There's also some issues of civility. The community is (rightly) quick to admonish users for a lack of civility, I see no reason to award this user by giving them admin rights. That said of course, Ironholds content work is often superb, and when he reins in these other tendencies he'd probably be a great admin.
'''Strong oppose''' per DGG: "Seems to have unreliable knowledge of deletion policy--or perhaps goes to fast to think about it properly, which leads to the same bad results. Absolutely do not trust with the deletion button." You called "End of Active Service" a "non-notable neologism"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=End_Of_Active_Service&action=historysubmit&diff=335036697&oldid=334919863] possibly to avoid running through the million google hits about it, or doing any research. It's not a "neologism" because ''you'' personally have not heard of it, that's not what "neologism" means. I think that administrators are more useful if they serve community consensus rather than personal biases. If you think just because you have not heard of something, even if there are a million google hits on it, speedy deletion or a prod is fine, then you will simply act in the same way as an administrator, deleting and prodding subjects which don't interest you or about which your knowledge is limited. I don't see an encyclopedia array of personal knowledge attached to your edits. I do see (predicting future now) pages of AN/Is about you in your first weeks as an administrator, followed by an RFC/Arbcom/defrocking. Let's just call it quits, now. Prod the RfA, imo. --
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Week Oppose]]''' per SoWhy. Sorry, but if you comeback in a few months (June perhaps?) Im sure that you'll pass. Good luck!--
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per SoWhy. It will be good to Request another Requests for Adminship in late-May or Mid-June.
'''Oppose''', per concerns raised by DGG and Fences&Windows, don't need another insulting admin with a too-quick deletion trigger-finger.
'''Strongest oppose possible''' as per Fences and windows. Complete lack of care in AFD nominations.
'''Strong oppose''' Very serious concerns about behavior, civility and judgment. Ironholds has often been confrontational in including in as a big part of the Law/ Undertow disruption when his off-site feuding and threats against another Wikipedian brought on Wikipedia. This is absolutely not the type of confrontational behavior and disruption we should be encouraging from admins.
'''Oppose''' Though he seems to do a lot of good work, my lasting impression of Ironholds is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_United_States_network_television_schedules&action=historysubmit&diff=307803433&oldid=307803191 this] response during one of the TV schedule AFDs. Now, I can understand someone not being familiar with any TV historians; we all have gaps in our knowledge. But the fact that he couldn't even ''consider'' the possibility suggests a lack of imagination that I really don't want to see in anyone with deletion tools. I was also bothered by the way he cherry-picked a few TV schedule AFDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1966_Australian_network_television_schedule_(weekday)&oldid=310155915 here] to cite a precedent for deletion, even though the admins closing those debates were not doing so in a consistent fashion. (Several TV schedules were actually kept, as I pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F1966_Australian_network_television_schedule_(weekday)&action=historysubmit&diff=310200696&oldid=310155915 here], but no one bothered to respond. We probably should have had a DRV, but Ironholds just plowed ahead with the AFDs.)
'''Oppose''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  I hate to oppose on a holiday and so will not make an elaborate oppose paragraph as I usually would, but sufficient concerns have been raised to give me pause.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''' Looking at all the diffs posted, although I can't see most of the CSD ones, I have concerns about your deletion policy knowledge and the fact that you seem to want to delete things before thoroughly reviewing them, a trait I don't feel comfortable with in an admin.  Perhaps if you can get your "deltionitis" under control, I would feel confident in supporting you in a future RfA.
'''Oppose''', Ironholds is a net benefit to the project, but too many rather elementary errors at CSD.  I'm not comfortable giving him the delete button at this point in time.
'''Oppose''' too sloppy with tagging and AfD.  Basically per So Why, CW, and DGG. I've encountered Ironholds a number of times in discussions and have found the user to be a fine contributor and one who I respect.  But the issues listed above are too significant...
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Ironholds is a friend, but the edit summaries (such as ''cite or gtfo'', which I didn't expect from my past interactions with him) and sloppy CSD work is too much for me. Once in mistakes or the occasional [[WP:BITE|bites]] aren't that big a deal for me, but these are recent and plentiful.
Per {{user|SoWhy}} and {{user|DGG}}. ···
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. I've worked with Ironholds occasionally, such as on articles at GA, and like their contributions to article creation and improvement. I'm concerned that adminship will draw Ironholds away from the stuff they're really good at, into areas where they're less suited. I think the contributions to patrolling and CSD etc are very valuable, but the issues raised by others above suggest that Ironholds' contributions in those areas are best done as a non-admin, where others will have some oversight. I would think of withholding the mop as a desire on our part to encourage this valued editor to keep wielding the pen :-)
'''Oppose''' due to concerns about judgement and civility. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Opposed'''. Per the recent prodding spree, apparently without doing a google search first. Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TurboPrint&diff=prev&oldid=335113815] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Picture_Motion_Browser&diff=prev&oldid=335115347], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hennekam_Koss_de_Geest_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=335117660], etc.
'''Oppose''' due to quick delete trigger, excuses, civility concerns, treatment of newbies (and fellow editors at times), temperment, caustic summaries.--
'''Oppose''' Due to histories of incivility and sloppy work.
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns about his judgment.
'''Oppose''' - seems excessively 'trigger-happy' when it comes to CSDs, and some of his edits raise civility issues.
'''Oppose''' - per examples of biting, incivility, and lack of care in CSD provided by DGG and Fences and Windows. I have concerns about this user's judgment and would not be comfortable with him as a sysop.
'''Strong oppose''' I have great concerns about his lack of policy knowledge and enforcement as well as his apparent disapproval of [[WP:CIVIL]].--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but when you make cases that put other editors under fire such as [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AtlanticDeep]], you should notify them instead of trying to get them crapped in secrecy behind their back. For admins especially, there should be no excuse for not notifying accounts involved in certain  situations especially  when the accounts are under fire, such as at [[WP:SPI]]. This also applies to ANI, RfC and various other discussions.--
'''Oppose''' Not at all convinced that the editor's judgment in handling matters which are common for an admin to handle has significantly improved, per several diffs above.
'''Oppose''' the [[WP:CSD]] process is supposed to be a system wherebu the nominating editor makes an informed decision to tag, and the admin makes an informed decision to delete/not delete. If this editors nominations are unconsidered, as appears to be tha case, then the process is not being followed. How can I therefore have confidence that he will follow process as an admin? --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - per DGG, Caspian Blue, and Lionmadness. I wholeheartedly agree with their statement's. Continued improvement is required.
'''Regretful oppose''' - as so sad, because he's such a great editor!  I oppose giving the mop because of Ironholds' repeated trigger-happiness to delete new articles [[WP:BEFORE|before checking them out by using easy searches online]]; and because of his ongoing incivility as noted above and as I've experienced.  At his 3rd RFA, I admitted that both sides had good arguments, so I was neutral.  He recently nominated [[Nursing in Pakistan]] for deletion, [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|without checking it out]], and then claimed that I was rude to him.  I actually thought he was [[WP:POINT|joking]] with that nomination, or had made an [[WP:IAR|honest error]], but no, he was [[WP:NAM|serious]].  After that experience, I don't think he's admin material.
'''Oppose''' - It is possible to be a fantastic content creator yet a horrible sysop. This candidate IS a fantastic content creator, yet a comically poor choice for admin. His judgment leaves a great deal to be desired, and I see no reason to take a chance on him.
'''Neutral'''. Generally a good user, but still has some issues with civility and temperament. Sorry. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''', per King of Hearts. Observed civility and temperament concerns. &ndash;
'''Neutral'''.  Ironholds is a total beast at [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrolling]].  Unfortunately, I do have some concerns with civility/temperament so I'm afraid I cannot support in good conscious.  Good luck nonetheless.  -'''
'''Neutral'''. Certainly Ironholds is an able user, but concerns about civility and temperament keep me from supporting. '''''
My thoughts match bibliomaniac15's exactly. '''
'''Neutral''' The same as bibliomaniac15. --
I think that this person would be a very good administrator and the user has enough experience to get to that level.Cheers,--<b><i><font color="#FFFF00">
'''Oscillating''' This is a hard one. Although his work clearing the backlog at npp is admirable, he shouldn't sacrifice quality for speed. Everyone makes mistakes, bad calls, ect., but his are more common than I would like to see in an admin. However, the sheer volume of his edits must be taken into account. As [[User:Amorymeltzer]] observed above, his mistakes are "a drop in the bucket" when compared to the number of edits he makes. I stand firmly by my statement about trading quality for speed, but I must also say that for the amount he gets done, he's not that bad. As for his deletion policy, he seems a bit too trigger happy by my rather inclusionistic standards. Now I will say that there many articles on Wikipedia (both new and established) of questionable encyclopedic value; Ironholds may well have the right idea, and I did like his Q29 answer. Regarding concerns over civility, I do feel he is showing improvement (although "cleaned bullshit" is never an appropriate edit summary). His content work is exceptional, so if he does get adminship I am glad he will keep the focus on his editor's work. Still, he does enough in admin territory so giving him the tools wouldn't be a waste. Still looking over his contribs and watching this page, could go either way.
'''Neutral''', echoing Bibliomaniac's concerns above. I will try to make a specific decision after this RfA matures, and I have more time to evaluate the user. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - cogent arguments from both sides.  I'd say I'm leaning more towards support at the moment, but I am holding off going one way or another at the moment.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral''' You're heart is there, but the deletion tagging is a bothersome trait for me. I will likely support you next time, so please come back.
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]''' Few edits, RfA filing is malformed, no experience in any admin-related field.
[[WP:NOTNOW]]
Per above.
'''Support''' looks fine to me. Good luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
Consistent editor which i like, particularly like involvement in the help desk.
'''Strong Support''' - I feel very good about this candidate. Edits show a strong distribution all over the encyclopedia, in article space, project space, etc. This editor's communication skills are fine, I see no evidence of past disruption, they show technical aptitude (just peek at the [[User:Jc3s5h|user page]]) and copyright knowledge is a HUGE plus. I only hope the old account doesn't cast a pall over this RfA; even though it has been vetted, people get paranoid about that kind of thing due to some past bad experiences here. -- '''
'''Support''' Good answers, knows his way around, old account seems to be no issue. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Support''' – Great contributions and excellent answers to the questions. Old account seems to be of no issue. Looks good to me. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' Looks good to me, though I'd like to see more edits per month in the future.
'''Support''' Why not? It looks fine to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Weak Support''' Relatively consistent level of contributions since joining Wikipedia in March 2009; quality content contributions (but only two article creations); cerebral answers; appears trustworthy (reviewer, rollbacker) and mop-ready--
'''Support''' Lacking in article creation, but everything else looks good to me.
'''Support''' for a longterm user with a clean block log. Also per Frank and Xeno. ''
'''Support''' No red flags. Experienced editor and good answers to the questions above.
'''Support''' - editor looks trustworthy and steady in edit contributions over time. Should be a useful addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' Much thanks to both Frank and Xeno for there work.
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support''' - Excellent choice for the mop. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
'''Support''' - I've looked around, and you seem to be a good choice for an administrator. Use the tools wisely :)
'''Support''' nothing wrong here. ''<B>--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - ^ <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="black">
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' Has the specialty experience in the area he wishes to work in.
'''Support''' Full confidence in Xeno and Frank regarding certification of the old account. No obvious reason to oppose + experience in the areas where you wish to specifically help out = [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', seems sufficiently clueful.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', you look like someone who will use the tools responsibly.  The whole changing-username issue says to me that you're well aware of the potential danger of using your real name, and thus likely to be even more careful than most of us are.
'''Support''', good track record in content work.
'''Support''' Appears responsible from everything I've looked at in history/contribs, and will be useful in copyright matters - net positive.
Solely on the fact that I trust this user. I think they'll be accountable and mature in their decisions. '''
'''Support''', especially like the second paragraph of the answer to Q3 (had the same issue over free content, we're not a free content project right now), and answer to Q6. The candidate seems thoughtful and prepared to check into things before acting, and the willingness to allow trusted editors to examine the previous account relieves any concern that there's something to hide there (and from those reviews, it certainly seems that there is not a thing bad there). Overall, seems a net positive.
'''Support''' meets most of [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|my criteria]].  I see no reason to oppose.  --'''
'''Weak Support:''' Not quite there yet. -
'''Support:''' I've been teetering  on  a 'neutral' here because  I'm not  sure the candidate needs the tools for he work  he does, and I  find the self-nom rationale a bit  thin - though this seems to  have been compensated for in  the answers to subsequent optional  questions. Whether the candidate uses the tools or not, I ''trust''  him with them, and I  trust  his sense of jedgement in  instances where he does not  ''need'' to  use them, but  ''will  need'' to  demonstrate the maturity  we generally  hope to expect  from admins. Therefore I  see no  reason  not  to  offer my  support.--
'''Support''' - can't see much to object to here, especially after reading Frank and Xeno's reports.
'''Support''' We need more admins working in copyright, that and I see no major issues causing me to doubt whether I can trust him or her with the mop. '''
'''Support''' - I can't really find any reason to oppose. More experience would be better, but I think the candidate will learn fast. The answers to questions and analyses of the previous account are satisfactory.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I worked with Jc3s5h for several years including under his previous named account. His contributions have been reasonable even under challenging conditions. --
'''Support''' - No problems that I can see. We have an ever-growing need for administrators. I hope you will make us all proud to have voted for you.
'''Oppose''' per your answer to my question (I don't want to be mean, but, in my opinion, you whiffed it) and because, more in general, I fail to see much experience in admin-related areas. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - I honestly don't know what you do with regards administrative areas. You've said that you're working with copyright, but I don't see any copyright related areas in your top wikipedia edits. If this is my genuine mistake, then could someone kindly point me in the right direction, so that if I'm wrong, I can then re-evaluate. Thanks. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB">
'''Oppose''' - I would support in the future, but there's just not enough admin-like work here that I can support. There are 2 page creations, and little to no work in RfA, AfD, vandalism patrolling, or other admin like areas. Also, less than 40% of the edit history is to the article space. Maybe it's because we can't see the previous account, but I'm not convinced of a strong need for the tools at this time. If there was a little more of a track record in some traditional admin areas, I would support the next time around.
'''Oppose''' - Possibly support in future, but fairly sparse involvement in any administrative areas to date. Claims of off-wiki knowledge and experience hold little water. Also a little concerned by apparent lack of willingness to research before answering a number of the questions above. <sub><font color="#007700">
'''Oppose''' Reluctantly, since the massive backlog in the copyright area could always use more admins. From your answers and your contributions though, I just don't see that you have any real familiarity with how copyright is handled on-wiki, regardless of your real world experience. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheleftorium&action=historysubmit&diff=378626064&oldid=378625708 How to comment at copyright problems?]" is a good question to ask, but you should already know that if you really want to work with copyright here.
'''Oppose''' I've enthusiastically supported specialist admin candidates in the past, but Verno's diff is part of a pattern of stuff that concerns me about this one. A large part of the candidate's edit history is hidden, the candidate's talk page archive is hidden - you have to go into the history to see "Archive 0" - and the stuff that is in the talk page is more surly than I'd hope for from someone I'd work with on a volunteer project.
'''Oppose''' Too much smoke and mirrors. This candidate should be able to say "I have done this in the last X months, I edited previously under another name and that account is okay" not "I am okay but I was previously excellent please trust this"
'''Oppose''' Partly per VernoWhitney, partly through somewhat vague answers to questions, particularly on copyright, where he had expressed most interest. I also found the talk page less than helpful in terms of accessing historical archived posts, and when I did reach the archive I was concerned that often the collegiality I would be hoping to see seemed less than pervasive. Put all that together with a lack of relevant experience in the contributions I can review for this account, and I'm afraid I can't support. It's nice that others can confirm no skeletons in the closet for the contributions on the previous account, but that doesn't add to my ability to review them - so I can only consider what I can see. &nbsp;
'''Weak oppose''' (switched from support) I was feeling ''neutral'' before, so I "defaulted" to support. However, my support decision's been bugging me and I've had a number of growing concerns. The copyright specialty is still a plus, but there's just too much that I'm "not feeling" with this candidate. The unimpressive answers, <s>vague history</s>, and the general lack of anything that impresses or ''wow''s me has led me to the extremely regrettable decision to withdraw my support and oppose. I feel bad doing it, but I'm just not comfortable enough supporting. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough work in copyright areas on Wikipedia IMO, sorry. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Lack of evidence presented regarding user's onwiki experience with their area of focus (copyright). I am unconvinced. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Moved from Support after checking [[User_talk:Jc3s5h|Talk page]] more closely. It has nothing earlier than 12 July 2010, and the Archive box says there are no archives. But there is an archive page, at [[User_talk:Jc3s5h/Archive_0]]. I'm not saying that is the deliberately concealing of the candidate's past discussions, but the archive has been going since June 2009 and neglecting to change the "no archives yet" statement for so long is at least careless. But more importantly, a read of the Archive shows curt and abrupt communication, with suggestions of stubbornness rather than the openness and willingness to discuss things, as I would expect in an admin. --
Sorry, because of a lack of experience in the procedures with which wikipedia deals with copyright problems (which is more important than legal knowledge of copyright).--
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience and policy knowledge in the field s/he wishes to work.  -'''
'''Oppose''' partly per VernoWhitney and Mkativerata. Jc3s5h‎ wishes to work with copyright and copyright violations, but has very little on-wiki experience in that area. (See, for example, [[User_talk:Theleftorium#How_to_comment_at_copyright_problems.3F]].) In addition, at [[WP:SCV]], Jc3s5h confirmed a copyright violation in the [[Rideau Canal Festival]] article yesterday, but I've had a look and there doesn't seem to be any copyright issues at all (see [[Talk:Rideau Canal Festival]] and [[User_talk:Jc3s5h#Rideau_Canal_Festival]] for more information). I'd be willing to support a future RfA if you get some more experience in dealing with copyright violations (if you're still interested in working in that area). Also, you've only made two or three speedy deletion nominations, so I'd like to see some more work with [[WP:CSD]] before you get access to the delete button.
'''Oppose''' - per above. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Oppose''' I'm not satisfied with policy understanding given from this discussion.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient experience.
Per [[User:Boing! said Zebedee]] I have concerns about this editors politeness and responsiveness. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience, [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Jc3s5h&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects extremely poor content devleoper]. Two articles is extremely poor. I also get highly suspicious when somebody with lack of experience nominates themselves for adminship.
'''Strong Oppose''': People who have not contributed sufficiently, can't properly administrate contributors. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns with the candidate's knowledge of policy, particularly in their intended field of work; experience, especially with content creation and copyright issues; and civility, as the candidate often comes across, at least to me, as brusque, curt, and unresponsive.
'''Oppose''' - This was a hard !vote because I see good arguments on both sides. In the end, it came down to experience concerns, with a mild concern also regarding civility.  May I encourage you to try again in 5-6 months? I thank you for your service to date, and hope you can be handed a mop not too far down the road. Best wishes,
'''Oppose '''per VernoWhitney and Boing said Zebedee.  Really not convinced by very vague answers to questions above and lack of involvement in project areas.
'''Oppose''' per Sulmues and that there is not much documented work currently in the relevant copyright areas. There needs to be more in the content area and in the copyright area for me to comfortably support. –
'''Oppose for now'''. A few more months and a bit more experience and I reckon you could make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' - per above, basically. I don't think you've gained enough experience in the areas you wish to work in (e.g. copyright) for me to have confidence in you as an admin. I hope to be able to support next time.
'''Oppose''' very weak candidate. There is nothing to indicate to me why this candidate ''must'' be an admin, and there are, IMHO, far too many bad ones to take the risk in approving this candidature.
'''Oppose''' I’ve found Jc3s5h to be prone to ideological certitude that defies common sense and reason. This is the last thing we want in an admin.
'''Neutral''' Looks good to me, although with only two articles created, I'm not sure if he understands enough policies in order to qualify for an admin.
A very very odd RFA this one. It's as if you've got a new identity and are heading into a job interview - I can't do anything without a résumé, as it were. I'll wait until the trusted folk you've given your name to give their reviews. (I don't blame you personally for any of this, it just makes it impossible to judge.)
'''Gut feeling to oppose''' My conclusion is that either you changed accounts due to fear over privacy, or that you wanted a clean break from the account. If its the former, I question the judgement of a person who would submit him or herself for adminship 5 months later. Despite our policy on outing, surely you are aware that you run the considerable risk of being identified? If it's the latter, I feel that you should be judged solely on this account's contributions, in which case I would be willing to evaluate your contributions, but will almost certainly oppose on a lack of experience in requisite areas. --
'''Neutral''' (but that is since I mainly feel that non-admins should show their trust in the support/oppose) - However, you're right in saying that the addition of links ''to'' copyright violations don't follow the classical pattern of spam.  But unfortunately, a lot of spam on Wikipedia does not follow that pattern (and copyright concerns are one of the issues that is encountered with links to e.g. YouTube, but also with blogspot I have seen such issues!).  Quite some links on the blacklist are there because of multiple concerns, where quite some is classical spam on 'financial' (not only commercial!) grounds, but that is often not the only reason.  --
'''Neutral''' Nothing wrong that I can see with the candidate, but the pretenses make me somewhat uneasy. Once the designated reviewers come forth I'll consider moving to support. ''
'''Neutral''': General feeling is not going anywhere after reading everything. I go into these looking for reasons to support/oppose, and here they are weak or are equaling out. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Neutral''' per DeltaQuad. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' per my earlier opposition. I do however feel that my rational was not strong enough to Warrant an all out oppose, hence my presence here.--
As nominator. ''
'''Support''' Checks out alright with me.
'''Support''' per my good interactions with the nominee on some lower profile articles.
'''Weak Support''' - <s>seems fine to me.</s> '''Did''' seem fine until you answered questions 6 and 9. Under your policy, which is somewhat awry, I would be blocked but an admin in the same situation wouldn't. :( However, I'm not opposing, because otherwise, you're a good editor, and you may well not have worded what you meant very well. I don't want to see your RfA be ruined when it was going so well, and let's face it guys - he won't make the same error of judgement again... (fingers crossed anyway)
'''Support''' Been around for 12 months and his interest around the admin related areas gives me no choice but to support. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' did so last time and will do so again!
'''Support''' - Giving Jeffrey a mop seemed like a good idea to me at first glance.  I then read through his first Rfa, which confirms that he took some good advice, including work on speedy deletes, and is ready. Best wishes!
'''Support''' Never heard of temporary wikipedian userpages, after clicking on the link in his past Rfa, I was genuinley amazed to find such a backlog.
'''Support.'''  This editor appears willing to engage on their user talk calmly and directly.  Having addressed what seemed to be the major reasoning for the opposes in the previous RfA, along with my observation of Jeffrey's clueful contribution, point to a major net positive.
No problems that I see.
'''Support''' Per above.
Seems to have genuinely improved since the last RfA. '''
From what i've seen, its a yes.
'''<s>Weak</s> support''' – Giving Jeffrey the mop is not a bad idea. He's been very helpful around Wikipedia. <s>However, I am worried about his answers to questions 6 and 9, as the oppose below have mentioned. Just because someone is an admin does not give them immunity from blocks. If an editor is being disruptive, they should be blocked, regardless of whether or not they are an admin. If they try to unblock themselves, they will be desysopped by ArbCom ({{user|Tanthalas39}} is a prime example). If he corrects his answers to these questions, I may change to a normal support, but currently, I have to unfortunately only weak support.</s> Cheers, <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' User has a clue about not blocking other administrators.  It's unfortunate that the initial opposers have seen that as a double-standard, but I believe I understand it for what it is: a strong preference for drama-avoidance. Blocking another administrator is a guaranteed drama magnet, especially in the circumstances posed in the questions he answered.
I agree with Jclemens above. The user simply wants to exhibit caution, as to not create a fiasco when blocking admins. Especially as an admin hopeful, with little "real" experience blocking, exhibiting caution in this situation is one of the best things Jeffrey could do. ''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Weak support''' Answers are fine with me. I didn't mean to cause a scene by my question, and it is indeed a difficult situation. We all don't wanna piss anyone off, but a hypothetical situation can very well happen, I think you're a fine candidate that would exercise great care when using the administrative tools as well as someone who would think about the consequences if such a situation were to occur. In Q10, the 2nd CSD should be deleted under G10. &nbsp;&ndash; '''''
'''Support''' I can't see what all the fuss is about. I have read his answers and I can see no reason to oppose his promotion.
'''Support''' Same reason as with MtD.
'''Support''' His answers seem fine to me also.
Even after my above question I do still believe that he should get the mop. Good answers to other questions. Not into making choices but who can blame him. '''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.  Also, I like his thoughtful and organized approach to the RfA responses, and the rewording of a questioned response to make sure he was communicating clearly.  That kind of attention to clarity is a valuable quality for an admin.   --
'''Support'''. Have no problems at all with this editor and seen some really good work from them. Has earned the community's trust. --
'''Weak Support''', sufficient clue [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|for me]]. I see questions 6 and 10 as traps. Q6 and its follow-up cascade actually describes a very difficult situation for a new admin, and I can understand the candidate's gut feeling to back off from such a case as soon as possible, for instance by reporting it to AN/I. Jumping into a new field of admin tasks and performing one of the most controversial actions possible without prior wide consultation is seldom a good idea. Q10 asks primarily about the A7 criterion. That the second example should be deleted per G10 is actually a new question, hidden in the somewhat murky wording. My support is only weak because (1) he walked into two traps at once, previous attendance of RfA discussions could have avoided that, and (2) I have trouble following his arguments in many of the answers and believe as admin he should be able to explain things much more to the point -- the latter concern is of course a personal feeling, and if I am the only one having that problem then it is my fault, not his. --
'''Support''' Q12 has clarified things to my satisfaction. I'm convinced this candidate will do a lot of good things with the tools, and if, as a new admin, he's not comfortable diving right in to controversial actions, then I think that is understandable - in fact, I think it's quite wise for new admins to start off cautiously. (And I don't think it's fair to judge a candidate on one, ostensibly hypothetical, issue - one that has only recently arisen in RfA land) --
'''Support''' - Good involvement in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:HELPDESK]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AN/I]] & [[WP:RPP]].
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strongest possible oppose'''. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick from the answers to Q6 and 9, but you seem to think admins are exempt from policies or are exempt from being blocked for violations thereof. Also, admisnhip is about making tough decisions- if it wasn't, we'd have bots that do more than just clerk AIV and RfPP. Wishing to be an uncontroversial admin is commendable, but I worry that you wouldn't be comfortable having to make potentially controversial decisions and I have concerns over how you would deal with the inevitable screams of admin abuse that follow any controversial decision. I can't support an admin who won't make a judgement call when it might be controversial- that why we ''have'' admins.
'''Oppose''' (for now) Q6 and Q9 seem to tell me that you belive in double standards here. You litteraly said that If say HJ here got into a big fight with an Ip or a newbie, you'd not block him since he is an admin but you would block oh say me since I am an established editor but not an admin. Until you clarify your answer a bit more and tell us that you're admin related actions would not be influenced by another person's "user rights", I'm going to have to oppose this RFA.--
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, I was actually going to support, but your answers to questions 6 and 9 are more than worrying! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per answers 6 & 9. If the admin was annoying the newbie, I'll say yes because admins should not annoy newbies, and that the admin should be blocked and de-sysoped.
'''Oppose''' per the two above me. To be an admin, ya gotta step be willing to step in the shit sometimes. Don't get me started with AfD and DRV closes, and that's the ''least'' controversial. Still controversial, though. I should add that "established editors" are often following IAR, as it were, and tend to lose some of the more current clue. But that's just imo.
'''Oppose''' per questions 6 and 9. Administrators shouldn't be blocked, but experienced editors should be? Admins are ''by definition'' experienced. "one rule for thee, another for me" is not how I expect an admin to behave, and if you refuse to undertake actions because "they might be controversial" you're not needing the tools. Oy ''vey'', the number of emails OTRS gets about blocks and deletions (and that's just OTRS) shows that almost ''anything'' can be controversial.
'''Oppose''' - I kinda feel for you on questions 6 and 9 - that's one of those where there's no good answer.  If you say yes, then you're not supporting your fellow admin and if you say no or "let's discuss it", then it's a double standard.  Your answer of "I'm not going to be the one to make the block" is probably what most admins feel, if we're honest.  But your answer to #10 really bothers me.  That second one obviously cannot be allowed to stay like that.  It needs to immediately be deleted or sourced - not hang around waiting for a prod.  BLP is a fundamental policy and a firm understanding of it is the most important job for an admin. --
'''Weak Oppose''' my apologies for the pile on but your answers to Q6 and Q9 and the follow up do not convince me that you are ready for the mop. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry but to Q's 6 and 9, my take is the admin should never be on that side of the fence and blocked immediately. As per RP459, hate to add to the pile but not yet
'''Oppose'''. As noted above, per the responses to 6, 9,  and 10. --''
'''Oppose''' A number of the answers aren't great, but #10 is particularly worrisome. BLPs with unsourced potentially libelous material need to be deleted immediately and handled more aggressively than A7s.--
'''Oppose''' per the answers to questions. I believe you are well-intended and wish to help the project, however, I can't support someone who would keep the Teo Eff article (example 2 at question 10) which contains very serious - potentially defamatory - completely unsourced claims that named and presumably living persons are gang members who murdered numerous innocent persons. I think the candidate needs to go back to the basics, particularly with regard to [[WP:V]] and [[WP:BLP]], before being granted the administrator tools. I'm glad you've made a clarification, but I'm honestly not convinced re the whole special treatment for admins answers.
Per above. Answers to 6, 9 and 10 appear worrisome. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' with regret, per Sarah- Q10 is a softball for you to show what you know on, and I'm afraid you blew it.  Example 1 should be instantly BLP Prodded, and 2 should be an instant delete under G10.  We do ''not'' let "X and Y are murderers" sit around for however long hoping someone drives by and sources it- it goes, instantly.
'''Oppose''' with regret, as per Courcelles. While I don't have a problem with declining the speedy for Example 1, Example 2 is clearly a BLP-insta-delete. I look forward to supporting next time around.--
'''Oppose''' (moved from support) per Q6, Q9, Q10, et al. Sorry, but I was hoping for less sloppy work than that out of you. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Weak Oppose''' answer to Q6 honestly is not acceptable. An admin and a non-admin editor have exactly same rights, and a private email discussion with another admin is the worst way to lead a dispute to a resolution, above all when there'is an evident deprecable behaviour. --
This is a tough one for me.  A lot of these questions are really tough, and taken individually I don't see how this candidate's views would be problematic.  I don't expect a new admin to be able to sort through the stickiest stuff right out of the gate, and this candidate seems willing to tread carefully at first.  Taken as a whole, the responses strike me as written by someone who's unwilling to take ''any'' position on a debate.  Being able to see all sides of an issue can be cultivated into admin skills, but I need to know that an admin can move past that and determine which viewpoint most reflects consensus.  I don't think this candidate is quite ready to do that, but I strongly believe this will change.  Please try again if this attempt is unsuccessful.--'''~
'''Oppose'''. Re the mistake regarding the second speedy example, which shows a dangerous level of lack of care; it might be a trick question, but it's not a particularly difficult one. (As an aside, caution regarding civility blocks seems to me a reasonable response.)
It appears from Q's 6 and 9 that you see Admins as warranting special treatment compared to an established editor. I note that blocks were held as options in both cases, hence my neutral for now, but in the case of the established editor (who "should know the policies") the block seemed to be higher up on the list of options than for the admin, who is certainly expected to know the policies as well.
Answer to Question 10 is a problem if the BLP/G10 issue isn't picked up [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mkativerata/CSD_examples/Teo_Effi&oldid=349487603 here] and I've opposed other candidates because of this question. Parking here while I consider further because I want to take time to think and consider the bigger picture before opposing over one question. --
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' - Can't give full support due to Q6 and Q9. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Weak Neutral''' leaning to support: Answer to Questions 6 and 9 are making me think no, however your strong work toward making the Wiki a better place is making me think yes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Neutral''' Per Philif12p and oppose reasons.
'''Neutral''' but leaning support. I’m less concerned about the Q6 and Q9 answers than I am the Q10 answer.  Q6 and Q9 are minefields – the tension between the unwritten rule that you don’t block sysops, and the written rule that everyone is treated the same makes for hard to answer questions.  I slightly more concerned at the miss for the  second Q10 CSD. On one hand it is a serious miss for the project if it isn’t deleted. However, in practice,  the declination would delay the deletion by literally minutes, until someone else alerted a different sysop,  and it would be a good learning experience. So missing this isn’t enough to cause me to oppose, but it leads me to think a little more time spent o policies would be worthwhile.  Looks like ti could be a close call; I won’t be unhappy if the supports win, I see evidence that Jeffrey intends to tread carefully, so will probably turn into a fine sysop.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Neutral''' A good candidate, good intentions but answers to Q6, Q9 and Q12 are a bit of concern and the "totally unacceptable" part is something I'd hope you wouldn't go saying around to an admin. --
Can't support a candidate who's never had a conflict on Wikipedia, because there are guaranteed to be conflicts after you start using the tools. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm glad you're interested, but you need ''way'' more experience first. Definitely a [[WP:NOTNOW]] case.
'''Oppose''' This is a [[WP:NOTNOW]] if I ever saw one. As of 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC), all of the edits this user has made (apart from the ones for this RfA) are to [[User:Jempcorp]], [[User talk:Jempcorp]], [[User:Jempcorp/Secure/TestPage]] and the deleted [[File:Dwmovie2008.GIF]]. There are no edits to the encyclopedia, none to AIV, none to other Wikipedia: namespace pages. Come back when you have more experience of the site using this account, and can show that you understand the role of an administrator. -- '''''
'''Oppose''' - Needless to say, not close to the the editing experience needed. Candidate needs a minimum of 6-8 months of work to get a handle on the many mansions of Wikipedia. Suggest this Rfa be closed asap per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' Good faith self nom, but [[WP:NOTNOW]] is appropriate. I would ask the user to withdraw their nomination, and if they did, i'd commend them on their zeal and recommend them to come back after far more experience is obtained.
'''Oppose''' My goodness; I haven't seen any contributions to the article mainspace at all. Just reading the admin-policies is not the only way to get adminship. Contributing is key.
'''Oppose'''. No mainspace contributions. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. I very impressed with the low number of automated edits. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' - Don't see why not.
'''Support''' I don't see why he shouldn't be a sysop.
'''Strong support''' - lots of good contributions.
'''Support''' – I can't see any of the problems raised in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jerem43|his last RfA]] in his recent edit history. Seems more than capable. I wish you all the best; good luck. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Strong Support''' - Great edits, and an active user for quite a while.
'''Support''' Seems like he has all the wanted qualities of an administrator.
Seems like a fantastic candidate. ~~
'''Support''' - No reservation whatsoever in supporting. Jerem reviewed and passed one of my GA and I was impressed with his active help, suggestions, and polite approach to the task. I'm also impressed by his diversity of interventions across the board. --
'''Support''' No red flags here :)--
'''Support''' - He is a active and constructive editor in the WPFOODS and has given me good advice for many things. Shows that he has very good understanding of WP policies. A very good candidate indeed to help with general backlog stuff and general mop duties. --
I appreciate Cirt's concerns, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon&diff=391779955&oldid=391628323 edit in question] is incredibly minor - simply adding a word. In regards to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=391795074&oldid=391784136 this] I can see Jerem43's point, in a way; two requests within a minute of each other followed by "very good, now here's how to talk" would hack me off as well. I don't see it as "his only response is to blank his talkpage", given that he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk%3ABacon&action=historysubmit&diff=391780149&oldid=391633229 initially engaged] and, following Cirt's comments on his talkpage, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Bacon&diff=next&oldid=391781923 opened up discussion again and reengaged with those editors who had a problem]. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Bacon&diff=prev&oldid=391782207 edit there] cannot, in full, be summarised as brusque or sarcastic, but simply the standard response of somebody being rebuffed. Yes, he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article&diff=prev&oldid=391780778 make other edits], which seem fairly reasonable. [[WP:BRD]] exists for a reason; to promote the idea that nothing is irreversible, and if you want to make a reasonable change, do it - anyone with a problem can then revert, and discuss. This process was followed, with Jerem43 engaged in it. The idea that somebody should be opposed on the grounds that they [[WP:BOLD]]ly went where no man has gone before would have a chilling effect on the acceptable actions of contributors, even when it's within policy, should said contributors ever want to become admins. I doubt this is something any of us want to see. I cannot see a valid reason why Jerem43 should not become an admin, excepting this wholly understandable blip. For that reason I '''Strongly Support'''.
'''Support''' Supported for Admin in the past. Positive benefit to the project, has matured well in the past year. Plus one again.
'''Support''' Has been around since 2006 and has over 38000 edits and has overcame the issues raised at the last RFA.
'''Support''' A Wikipedian since 2006 with a consistent editing record, the candidate has shown improvements and maturity since last RfA.--
'''Support''' Don't see why I should oppose, fine job.
'''Support'''. Good edits in relevant areas, seems to have experience and appears trustworthy. The Bacon thing looks to me like a small incident that was at worst misguided and can possibly be justified under [[WP:BOLD]].
Yep, happy with. Jeremy has been known to be forceful, but that is not a negative quality. I've found him to be communicative (beyond the call of duty on occasion), clueful and generally mindful of the opinions of others, and haven't seen anything which would give me significant pause after a rather long-term overlap in editing on fast food articles. The cluebat is always available if there are any problems mop-wise, but I can't see anything which should prevent that.
'''Support''' - No concerns here. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Strong support''' <s>but willing to change to strong support once the candidate answers their optional questions.</s>
'''Support''' as the opposes (valid as they are) do not concern me. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - I to am impressed with the low automated count. (<small>and a Twinkle fan</small>) I think Jerem43 is a good candidate and can be with the tools.
'''Support''' - Whilst Jarem43 has made a substantial contribution to not only WikiProject Food and Drink but many other areas; I am primarily in support as Jarem43 has shown experience, and exercised both opinion and good judgement in discussions responsibly since the last RfA, and I have come across no significant recent activities which suggest Jarem43 would not be appropriate as an admin.
'''Support''' — Seems to be competent and reasonable.  I'm satisfied with his answers (including answers to the additional questions).  While respecting people's right to hold different opinions, I agree with Ironholds' position (see above).
'''[[Whopper]] support''' (warning: image NSFW). I was waiting for the answers to questions 6 and 8 and they look good. I particularly liked q8 because I would be sceptical of a non-admin hanging around ANI and AN too much - observing from a distance before actively engaging oneself is a very good approach. --
'''Support''' Answers look good and I am not seeing any concerns. →[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:maroon; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif;">Gƒoley</span>]][[User talk:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen; font-family:papyrus;">Four</span>]]
'''Support''' No major concerns, looks fine. I agree with '''Ironholds''', it is normal for users to make problematic edits once in a while, so '''Cirt''''s concerns are not enough to drag me to oppose. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
'''Weak support''' I do have some concerns (in the same vein as Cirt; I remember seeing a rather brusque and unhelpful edit by Jerem43 months ago but for the life of me I can't remember where it was). However, bearing in mind the volume of edits and the diversity of contributions I think that, overall, Jerem43 can be trusted with the tools and would make a lot of positive change with them.
'''Support''' Opposes are personal opinions, that whilst valid are not enough to withhold my personal support. Not likely to break the place with the tools. [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' this guy seems good. --
'''Support''' no reason not to.  --
He could have answered question 6 more wrong (like that wasn't a BLP violation for example), just because he was a little off doesn't indicate instant oppose.
'''Support'''- sure, why not?
'''Support''' Very productive editor, good technical skills. Occasional (very occasional..) lapses in the highest standards of civility and communication are not sufficient reason for me to oppose.
'''Support'''' yes of course. '''''
'''Support'''. Knows his way around content creation and user interaction, no major issues with the answers.
'''Weak support''' There are some red flags, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, cross my fingers, and hope you don't wreck the place. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' Seems like someone who knows what he's doing and is more than willing to learn on the job, which is important.  No serious concerns.
'''Support'''. I am disappointed to see that Jerem43 was tripped up by Fetchcomms' trick question (question 6). However Jerem43 has many good contributions and appropriate interactions with other editors. I think that it is unlikely that will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''  I wrote a gentle but strong oppose in the last RfA, but I believe he has soothed all of my concerns. Others disagree but few seem to suggest situations in which the candidate might actually cause problems; they merely seem to feel he could be better if he waited for a 3rd RfA. Sure, he could, but how many third RfA's succeed?  Let's give him a chance. '''
'''Support''' Has the background, skills and knowledge to be an effective administrator. Still has areas of admin responsibility that would need to be learned, but the areas in which the editor plans to focus on at first are appropriate.
Per Soap...
'''Support''' Good grasp of policy, and even if Cirt has a point I don't see that it means he shouldn't be sysop.  He may need better communication skills but as long as his intentions are good all such should work out. Being an admin isn't being a god. He's a good hardworking editor and personally I think minor deviations from perfection should not be eliminated from WP.  If they are we will simply ensure that our administrator corps is composed of a bunch of old nags. '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__
'''Support''' Like the responses to q 4 and 5. Will probably make a few mistakes, but then who doesn't. All in all I think he'll/she'll be a reasonable admin. --
'''Support''' Ultimately Jerem43 has earned my trust. This based on his contributions to Wikipedia, and his participation in this RfA. While I respect many of the opposing views, I can not adopt the concerns as my own. I do not see the down side. '''
'''Support''' I have to disagree with the opposes that are coming because of Q6. I'd actually agree with the admin for blocking both parties for the edit warring, as the IP could argue that the gossip mag, is in fact, reliable– the user is well within rights to revert the IP because of the BLP policy, but should also reach out to the IP user and discuss the changes that the IP user has made. The administrator would notice that it was a wheel war, and rightly blocked both parties, while locking down the page on the version without the BLP problems-- I think this question was badly worded and is a prime example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It would be a shame if Jeremy didn't get sysoped because of this-- he has my full support.
'''Support''', definite net positive and clearly a competent and dedicated editor. While I can see the concerns raised by opposers over Q6, I personally feel the question as asked is sufficiently flawed that I wouldn't blame anyone for answering it badly. Overall I'm happy with what I've seen from Jerem43 and I think he'd make sensible use of the admin tools even if he does need to brush up on a few policy areas. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' IMO the positive contributions outweigh the concerns raised. --
opposers raise valid concerns, but I think that the user will be a net positive with the admin tools. -
'''Support''' I thought that the project would benefit from this user having a few extra buttons when I nominated him the first time, and I still think so today.
'''Support''' Good luck in the future. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Support''' If the question is 'why not?' then I'm still waiting on an answer. ''
'''Oppose'''. Disruptive behavior at [[Portal:Bacon]], domineering edit style attempting to push POV from "food" portals into this particular portal - with unilateral actions. Subtle edit summary of "tweak" formatting was actually quite drastic, adding ugly large text to the top of the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon&diff=391779955&oldid=391628323]. When communication was attempted with the user in question - he chose instead to ''blank out two subsections from his talk page'', rather than respond to the concerns raised [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=391795074&oldid=391784136]. User tagged a major important template for [[Portal:Bacon]] with deletion, without any prior discussion whatsoever [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article/Layout&diff=prev&oldid=391780636], and then proceeded to modify multiple pages on the portal - again, with zero prior attempts at discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article&diff=prev&oldid=391780778] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article/1&diff=prev&oldid=391780947] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article/2&diff=prev&oldid=391781059] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article/4&diff=prev&oldid=391781201]. When two users disagreed with the changes, user responds with sarcasm, ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Bacon&diff=prev&oldid=391782207 "Sorry for trying to help."]'' User's responses were less than helpful, discussion style and tone seemed to be abrupt, brusque, and less than professional. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. I came to this RfA hoping to support. I specifically remember your last RfA because I thought that you were a really good editor that just needed work with thoroughness and communication/interaction skills.  15 months is certainly a long time since then and is long enough to change or correct, but I do not think that this has happened.  Cirt's diffs show the same type of demeanor that I opposed for last time.  '''
'''Weak oppose'''—this doesn't look like the sort of behaviour expected of administrators. <font color="#C4112F">╟─
'''Oppose'''. Don't want to put off a good contributor, so please remember adminship is not some kind of Great Editor Award, and so declining to support is not saying you're not a great editor. I'm opposing because of "I would be able to better serve its contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia." This suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning and importance of [[WP:INVOLVED]]; there are well-established procedures for every kind of admin intervention and contributors shouldn't generally approach you directly for intervention (advice is different). <s>Also, not spelling correctly in an RFA self-nomination is just slightly suggestive of a lack of requisite attention to detail.<!-- repetition of same type of error suggests at least mild dyslexia --></s> Finally, as Peter Karlsen noted, being seemingly blissfully ignorant of the BLP exemption to 3RR is not a good thing for someone self-nominating for their second RFA; you'd expect them to have prepared adequately by brushing up on major policies, or at least refer to them carefully in answering questions.
Per the answers to my questions (Q5 and Q6). An admin may actually block a user who has not been warned for many reasons, such as: socks of banned users, persistent vandals, or other LTA users; vandalbots or unapproved bots; users making death threats or outing other users; open proxies, obviously compromised accounts or accounts of confirmed-to-be-deceased users; and grossly inappropriate usernames ("User:Block me please, I'm a vandal!" or "User:Go fuck yourself, wikibitches"). And 3RR does not apply to BLP violations, which my example clearly was. Of course, the blocking admin was probably acting with the intent of stopping the disruption, but that doesn't make his actions right, and you should have every right to enforce the BLP policy. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' per Q8.  Many situations at ANI are dealt with via discussions.  Often when tool use is needed it's after consensus.  If you intend to work ANI I'd like to see you participate in discussions so I can get a feel for how you'd deal with situations there once given tools.--
Questionable knowledge about BLP. In regards to Q7, "I have been making an effort to engage those who leave posts on my talk page instead of blowing them off" is at odds with your response to Cirt. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. I don't like the answer to Q5, it seems to miss the point. I would like to have heard a view on whether four warnings is too many or too few and whether or not we should be tougher on vandals. Also Q6, of course. To get a question wrong is one thing, but that was an open book test. If you can't take the time to look up [[WP:EW]] to double check in your RfA, what's to say you would when you're about to block someone in similar circumstances? Sorry. Fifteen months is a long time, but it takes more than waiting patiently to be an admin. If I were you, I would think long and hard about whether I wanted to be an admin. If the answer is still yes, then I would spend another 3 months at least gaining more experience in the areas I wanted to work in (interesting that someone who wants to work at AIV hasn't been granted rollback, but that's not an indicator of anything in and of itself).
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with policy knowledge and experience in areas candidate wishes to work.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Clearly needs more experience with BLP, an essential part of adminship. A good way to get it is first careful obsersvation, at the various discussions of WT:BLP and WP:ANI, nd then suggest some active participation there.   '''
'''Oppose''' The candidate's editing history raises questions for me about temperament and civility. My opinion only based on issues raised by commenters above. --
'''Oppose'''.  To me, Q6 was a particularly easy "technical" question that the candidate should have gotten right.  Sometimes the questions on RfA do seem to be extremely tricky and subtle; this one pointed to a clear policy that I would expect all Admins to know before gaining access to the block button.  As has been pointed out many times, in many places [[WP:BLP]] really ''matters'', in a way that many of our other policies don't (in a real world sense).  Candidates don't need to nail ever question, but they do need to get core policy at least close to right.  I'm also unclear exactly what the candidate plans to do as admin.  As an experienced user xe can already be a source of guidance and info; and anyone can join in the discussion on [[WP:ANI]].
'''Oppose:''' Some people should never be Admins. This is not meant as a put down,  as I also fall into that category. However you are a gifted editor. Cheers -
'''Oppose''' Q6 is bad enough by itself.
'''Oppose''' - While I agree with Ironholds, and don't oppose on the points he's addressing, the Q5 and Q6 answers are problematic.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately there are numerous indications that this user is unclear about various areas of policies and procedures. Also, several of the answers to  questions are too general, and avoid really indicating what the candidate's views are, in some cases leaving me wondering if they have any views. For example, the response to question 5 doesn't answer "When should you block a user who was received no warnings?" Yes, it says that "It would require a truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction", but it gives absolutely no indication whatsoever what the candidate thinks would be such a "truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction". Presumably we all know that it would have to be something serious, but to me the question is asking for an indication of specifically what would be serious enough, and the candidate makes no attempt at all to tell us. The answer to question 4 suggests a readiness to unblock by default "unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history". I would certainly want to ask the user requesting the unblock for further information than just "I will be good in future". Also, while "If the address were a shared address from a school" then the candidate is right to "encourage him/her to create an account", but wrong to think that one should, in general, also unblock for the whole school. I am also not sure about unblocking "unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history". If there was no pattern of vandalism then why was the IP blocked in the first place? The answer to question 9 suggests a lack of clarity as to the distinction between a ban and a block. Yes, I accept that it is possible to make a slip and use the wrong word, but (1) the question asked about banning, and to say "oh, I was answering the question as though it meant blocking, and only wrote 'ban' by a slip" is really not good enough. Also, "ban" appears three times in the answer, which seems unlikely unless the candidate is not really all that clear about the difference. An admin should be 100% clear about those two being different concepts. The candidate indicates an interest in playing an administrative role in ANI, but admits to having taken very little part there hitherto. Watching and not taking part is helpful, but does not provide any evidence as to how the candidate would perform there. Likewise the candidate indicates an interest in playing an administrative role in AIV, but I can find very little vandalism-related work in the candidate's edit history. My experience of working at AIV indicates that even among experienced Wikipedians there are many who have quite mistaken ideas about how AIV is to be used, and it is essential that ''every'' admin who works there has a thorough grasp of procedure. Those are just a few samples of my concerns, and unfortunately there are many others, several of which have already been discussed above by others. (e.g. the answer to Question 6, and doubts about the candidate's temperament.) Some of the concerns are fairly minor, but there are just too many of them. My overall feeling is that the candidate is rather vague about the whole question of what being an administrator involves. It's a pity, because we are dealing with an editor with many strong points, but unfortunately some weaknesses in areas which are of great importance to admin work.
'''Oppose''' While it is true that Q6 contained a pitfall it is one that an admin should not fall into. It may be that this candidate's answer was arrived at too hurriedly, but whether this is the case or not he clearly failed adequately to consider the relationships between [[WP:EW]] and [[WP:BLP]]. And, as a seperate concern, the failure to differentiate between a ban and a block (Q9) is worrying, whatever the reason for it. --<font color="Red">
This editor often labels good-faith edits as vandalism in edit summaries when reverting. Some examples here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_cuisine&diff=371796248&oldid=371759957], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frosty_(frozen_dairy_dessert)&diff=prev&oldid=396653939], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gelatin_dessert&diff=prev&oldid=394603874], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Dig&diff=prev&oldid=392170586]. The edit summaries link to [[WP:VAND]], in the first sentence of which the editor is accused of a "''deliberate'' attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I really want sysops, especially those who deal with vandalism, to be able to make the distinction between misguided good-faith edits and real vandalism; the appropriate response is radically different.
Q5 and Q6 are not good. Also in Q1 he states he will be at [[WP:AIV]], but he is hardly what one could call a vandal fighter. There is a small amount of Twinkle edits, but it might be better to spend  some time with Huggle to see what vandals really get up to - after all a good proportion of an admin is dealing with vandals - [[WP:AIV]] shows the worse ones, but there are plenty of real smart alecs, with much more subtle vandalism who stop at 4 warnings (and then change IP...). '''
'''Oppose''' - Trick question or not, Q6 throws me.  Cirt also raises a concern, and I can't say yes to this Rfa despite some names I highly respect over on the support side.  I'm additionally aware that this !vote comes when the percentage is at 68%, giving it a bit more impact than usual.  Assuming this Rfa fails, could I suggest, Jerem43, that you try an Rfa again much sooner in time than the last one, perhaps next spring?  It is clear you are a net asset to the project, and this Rfa shows you are close, but in my view not quite ready.  Best wishes in any case.
'''Oppose'''. It seems the candidate has a serious temper problem. In his answer to Q7, he claims to address his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&oldid=302516955&diff=next poor communication skills], and yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=391795074&oldid=391784136 still does] the exact same thing two months ago. And if removing valid comments on one's Talk page wasn't bad enough, using a revert tool to do that shows a dangerous tendency to abuse tools. Same goes for the delete button; I'd be hesitant to give such a tool to someone who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Bacon/Selected_article/Layout&diff=prev&oldid=391780636 is too CSD-happy]. And yes, I have read Ironholds' comments, and find it hard to believe the few examples listed here are the candidate's ''only'' slip-ups.
'''Slight Oppose''' I think there is much to like about Jeremy. I think he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And I'm not too concerned about people making small mistakes, as long as they learn from them. I think perhaps a little too much is being made of the answers to the questions. The course of action he says he would take in answer to Q6 is not disruptive, though - yes - Jeremy should have had the sense to look at the actual policy that was linked to in the question, but that is part of a learning curve. However, if we add the little mistakes in this RfA to the observations that people have made that Jeremy can sometimes lose his cool or be a bit stubborn/obstructive, I think it would be better for Jeremy to take on board what has been said, and try again in 6 months. And in the meantime work in some areas, such as [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] and/or [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance]] or dealing with [[Wikipedia:Backlog]]. The community in general favours a person who nominates themselves for adminship when they can demonstrate that they have already done a fair bit of maintenance and admin type work, and who have demonstrated that they have already been serving "contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia". <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''

'''Oppose'''. Anyone who believes that the current warning/blocking system works well (answer to Q5) needs to get out more, and certainly ought not to have their own blocking tool. The answer to Q6 of course just beggars belief.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but the unsigned oppose by [[User:Shawn in Montreal]] is really concerning. Reverting this kind of comment with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=391795074&oldid=391784136 ... please don't tell me how to have a conversation..] is a poor response, unacceptable for any good editor. --
'''Oppose''' Per Q5 and Q6. Also it is ironic how your talk page is telling others to polite when you aren't.--<font face="Bradley Hand ITC">
'''Oppose''' I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, but I can't get past the answer to Q6. Politeness can be taught, and I don't particularly care about his opinion of the current blocking system, but he can't 'explain the rules' if he doesn't get them himself. -
'''Oppose''', mainly per answers to Q5 and Q6, but also per Cirt. <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-color:#000000;">—'''mc10 (<font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' Q6.  It was a whiff on an open-book exam.  Admins need to know the book well enough to use it "in the field", not botch easy questions when they have all the time in the world to look it up.  And this isn't some esoteric trivia... the exemptions to 3RR are things you will use, and use often if given a mop.  (Yes, you also have to learn when  "the book"is wrong.  That only comes with experience, though.)
'''Oppose'''. Concerned with answers to Q5-6. Additionally, editor has established a pattern of poor impulse control in responding to others in a belittling and dismissive manner, as evidenced on his talk page and through various edit summaries. This is unwelcome behavior, inappropriate not only for admins, but for all editors throughout the project.
'''Oppose'''. Critical civility concerns, as well as concerns with the responses to questions five and six.
'''Oppose''' Civility concerns, and Pedro's new temper tantrum does nothing to sway that. '''
'''Neutral veering towards <s>oppose</s>support''' Cirt's comments cause me concern. I will look into the candidate's editing and communication in more detail in a couple of days when I'm not at work, and change to either oppose or support -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts|alternate account]] of [[User:Phantomsteve|Phantomsteve]]'']</sup> 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC) ''update'' having seen Ironhold's comments above, I'm more inclined towards support, but will look into this in more detail in a couple of days when I'm off from work and have the time to do it properly -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve.alt|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>.alt]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]\<sup>[''[[WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts|alternate account]] of
'''Neutral''' Why not? —
'''Neutral'''. My comments in my original Support still count and I still see some very positive attributes, but concerns voiced by a number of people over the answers to the later questions have pretty much neutralized my opinion. I would be very likely to support a future run. --
'''Neutral''' - I see many good qualities here with respect to content, but some of the issues raised about policy knowledge worry me.
'''Neutral.''' Serious concerns raised by those in the oppose section, but still a number of positive attributes. ~~
[[User:Jamesofur/whynot|'''Support''']] mature and sensible-minded user who seems highly unlikely to abuse tool access. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''.  Seems level-headed enough and a hard worker.
How dare someone opt to not entertain the ''optional'' queries?! &ndash;'''
'''Support'''. a) Thinks before he acts. b) Has a sense of humour. c) Give me quality over quantity ''any'' day!! d) Agree with Deliriousandlost and PeterbrownDancin. d) Knows the right amount to offer as a bribe to get what he wants.
'''Support'''  per telling us not to do a normal blown out of proportion RFA process, by not answering the gambit of questions. ''<B>--
'''Support'''per [[User:Juliancolton]]--
'''Support''' I see no evidence that this user will misuse the tools.  Seems level headed and responsible.  --
'''Support''' Keep up the good work and learn from your mistakes. I think it would good if you acknowledged why people think it's important to ask questions of admin candidates and withdrew your opposition to it. Also, please indicate whether you can do a competent rendition of [[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song]].
'''Weak Support: '''Great content contribution but the areas you're proposing you will work in need some experience. -
'''Support''' Needs more experience, but odds are the user won't misuse the tools.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that 1) Happy [[Valentine's Day]] (it would not be all that loving of me to oppose someone today...); 2) we have had no memorable negative interactions in any AfDs; and as 3) candidate has been editing for over three years and has amassed over two thousand edits and in that time, the candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Moral support'''. The nom has been withdrawn, so I'm not reviewing whether the candidate would make a good admin. But I did want to give a shout out about the calm, cool responses to the opposes. Good work there, and I have great hopes for a future RfA.--
'''Oppose, with Moral Support''' - I'm sorry to be the first one to oppose, but I don't feel like you have enough experience in admin-related areas. You only have 165 WP space edits, yet you say you're interested in doing [[WP:AN3]] work as well as past experience with vandalism. I would have expected to see much more activity, including at [[WP:AIV]], since you said you're an active vandalism reverter. Also, from what I can tell, you've participated very little at [[WP:ANI]], another area that you expressed interest in. It does look like you're fairly active at [[WP:AFD]], which is good, because around here candidates seem to have been getting hammered lately for lacking experience there. In other words, diversify your experience and keep up the good work and I think you might make a fine candidate in the future.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' {{ec}} You have great content contribution longevity, and I thank you for that, however the areas you're proposing you will work in need some experience. I don't feel you have enough experience at [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:AN3]] yet, but that [[WP:NOTNOW|doesn't mean I'll never trust you]]. I simply think it's prudent to get a little more activity in the Wikipedia namespace first. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but asking people not to ask questions draws an automatic oppose from me.
'''Oppose''' - Various statements in the self-nom rubbed me the wrong way - especially listing editors whom you admire, which is little more than hoping to gain support from them, and those who they associate with.
'''Oppose''' per general low activity in WP space combined with the nomination statement.  I can't get behind a candidate who in their nomination requests no questions; questions are too much a part of this process (despite nearly never asking any myself.)
'''Oppose'''. The candidate is light on experience in most wikispaces. The candidate's statement leads me to believe that he's not yet ready for the mop.
'''Oppose'''.  Per concerns with experience, the nomination statement, and answers to questions.  Perhaps in a few months and several thousand more edits.  -'''
'''Weak Oppose''' per several of the above. Someone not willing or wanting to answer questions should not be an admin. I'm thinking of asking a question regardless of the candidate's request. [[User:Doc Quintana|Doc Quintana]] ([[User talk:Doc Quintana|talk]]) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)<small>Changed to weak oppose due to question answering.
'''Oppose''' I would oppose even if this RfA were unanimous support because of your not willing to answer additional questions.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't automatically oppose with a candidate who has between 2000 and 4000 edits, however, I would expect to see more experience in certain admin areas. Only 168 edits to the wikipedia namespace is fairly low. People above have mentioned that it is good that you have AfD experience. If you had good general AfD experience I would count this as a plus but you only really have experience in karate related AfDs. As an admin you would be expected to operate in areas other than karate. In fact using your admin tools to fight vandals and handle deletions within the area you edit is generally frowned upon. I see very little experience outside of the karate area of wikipedia and so there is no way I can assess your general abilities and knowledge just looking at your contributions.
'''Oppose''' You should have also asked that we refrain from oppose votes.  Then this would have passed for sure.
'''Moral Support but [[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - The two areas you intend to work in, you have a total of 150 edits combined. I am not one to have editcountitis, and I respect the quote you mentioned, but this time, I am forced to oppose because of the edit count. Terribly sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose''' (I would have added moral support, but request not to ask any further questions is a big no-no). Willingness to help further is very commendable, but experience is currently lacking. Also, doesn't really seem to understand IAR. I'd suggest working on some admin-related areas, learning more about policy issues, and then trying again from a more experienced position, with sufficient humility to be open to any questions anyone wishes to ask  --
'''Oppose''' per statement.  "Wikipedians I admire" seems more like "popular Wikipedians I really hope vote for me", and attempting to ward off candidate questions is a major faux pas.
'''Oppose''' Lacks appropriate level of clue.
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's lack of experience, especially in the general "admin areas" and the Wikipedia namespace. The request to not ask questions and the "Wikipedians I admire" section (which, to me, seems to simply be an attempt to canvass the support of those editors) are also major turn-offs.
'''Oppose''', would like to see some additional levels of experience in varied capacities. '''
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately I don't see anything that demonstrates the experience needed to be an admin.  Quality vs. Quantity might hold true in some circumstances, but I just can't see it in this case.  2.5k edits in over 3 years isn't active enough.  --'''
'''Oppose''' A desire not to be asked questions indicates a prospective admin unresponsive to others' concerns. <strong>
'''Oppose''' If you cannot handle a "stressful" RfA, then how would ever deal with some of the stressful situations that you will run into as an admin?  If you do not want additional questions that allow us to see that you have the power of ''thought'' and can actually ''show us'' your skills and abilities, then how will you answer questions when someone asks why you performed a specific task.  When we interview someone at work, we do not just read their past work, we want to know if they "fit" - same thing here.  Although I ''see'' some good work, I am afraid that I have to oppose based on the ''sheer audacity'' that we can/could/should be shut out of asking additional questions. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Per "I do not think admins should be bold in their duties". <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' – while I appreciate your desire to become an administrator, I don't think you're quite ready at the moment (despite the fact that you've been around for about 3 1/2 years). You seem to have good mainspace edits, but I'm not sure you're able to negotiate and discuss with other editors about thing, as you seem not to talk much. I do understand that it is difficult to gain experience as far as 3RR is concerned, but participating in the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process may help a little (such as providing [[WP:EA|editor assistance]] or [[WP:3O|third opinions]]) and try to help prevent edit-warring. Also continue to work on building up articles as you have been as well as maybe also participating in some [[WP:XFD|deletion discussions]] just so you get some experience in those fields. –
'''Oppose''' - I was going to go neutral, but after reading that the nominee didn't want to answer questions and sought a "low-stress" RfA I feel I must oppose. While certainly no one intends to cause you stress, I believe that an admin needs to be able to handle stress, as it seems to go with the territory on occasion (regrettably). This is even less important than the questions part of the statement--answering questions, and explaining things, etc. is one of the fundamental tasks of an administrator, as I see it, and if you don't think you are up to that task, then perhaps this RfA is premature. I'm not knocking your editing abilities or seeking to offend you, but I personally feel that the willingness to answer questions that will aid others in determining whether one is trusted enough to become an admin is essentially a prerequisite. Best of luck in this RfA and in the future, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote support here.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' "'' I think this RfA may be a little too pre-mature.-- <big>[[User:iBen|i]][[User talk:iBen|B]][[Special:Contributions/iBen|e]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I see barely any activity in the areas he says he will be involved in - less than 3 edits to both. --
Definitely a great content editor and has shown a high level of maturity. However, adminship is not about writing content; it is about pushing certain buttons. While his enthusiasm is commendable, I feel uncomfortable supporting a candidate who has no experience in the admin areas. I know I opposed; however, this is also a moral support. Come back again with more experience in the right areas.
I was abstaining, but since Jmcw37 has requested the early closure be reversed I assume they are after additional input :) Like many other participants here I'm seeing a very competent content editor who is courteous, trustworthy, meticulous and most importantly, understands [[WP:V]]. The reason I'm opposing is solely the nomination statement; volunteering for adminship is volunteering to put yourself "in harm's way" and two prerequisites for survival are a high tolerance for stress and a willingness to communicate (sometimes ad nauseum). True, it's possible to avoid problems to a large extent by staying away from difficult areas, but as an admin Jmcw37 will be turned to by other editors to help solve their problems and sooner or later will step into potentially stressful situations. I strongly suspect Jmcw37 was merely asking commenters to be kind and didn't intend to imply that they can't cope with stress and would rather avoid communication, but the impression has been left nonetheless. Sorry I can't support for adminship; you seem like a fine editor and frankly we need more like you building content.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Looie496|Looie496]]--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' per Pmlineditor.
'''Oppose''' per MuZemike. Will be a good administrator in the future but not ready at present.
'''Oppose''' Per Cocytus and too little experience. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' - I wasn't going to bother to comment, but the applicant (supplicant?) has expressed a wish to avoid a [[WP:SNOW]] closure and see what constructive criticism might result (a la [[WP:ER]]). Looking over contributions I don't see many negatives, it's what I don't see that leads me to oppose. Overall, my concern is with a lack of experience (like many here) and a desire to avoid stress. As to the latter, while few sane people actively seek stressful situations, any active administrator is ''guaranteed'' to be faced with potentially stressful incidents. Whether it is an angry [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] vandalizing your user space and trying to drag your reputation into the mud, or editors questioning your judgment (some saying you are too soft on someone, and too hard on someone, for the same event) you are going to face things much worse than probing questions. If you can't handle that, do yourself a favor and just be the best editor you can be. As to the experience, my suggestion is to get involved in areas outside of the karate-related articles. There must be something else to interest you. Wikipedia namespace is a great way to get a feel for how the administrative side of things work, and volunteering to help people at one or more noticeboards will go a long way toward making a future RfA attempt more successful. -- '''
'''Oppose''', may I join in the recommendations that you gain some more experience in admin areas before re-applying? Whilst you are correct in the fact that adminship is about trust, trust is gained through experience, and thus if you gain some more experience in admin areas those who oppose this time may be supporting next time. As you stated yourself, making a decision whether to trust an unfamiliar candidate is often difficult, thus a strong collection of project work can help to make the decision easier. Best of luck, happy editing to you, --
'''Oppose''', as per [[Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/Jmcw37|talk page discussion]].
'''Feedback''' You have too few edits outside article-space for me to truly judge your understanding of policies and practices that admins need to be familiar with. On the other hand, from what I have seen you are an even keeled and intelligent person, so I have substantial confidence that you'll be able to pick up and follow those policies as and when needed. What pushed me to add my comment in this section though, is your wish to avoid optional questions at your RFA in interest of low stress. That is a valid desire for a volunteer devoting their time to this project; however with adminship editors take on the responsibility to handle contentious issues, disruptive editors, and inevitable complaints and if one is not ready for the additional stress, it just leads to an eventual burnout, or worse, flameout. Hope you continue enjoy editing after this RfA, and think over whether you ''really'' want to volunteer for the additional tools in a few months time. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' Has shown poor judgement in several areas. Keeping this RfA open against advice in order to use it as an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] is one of them. My constructive criticism would be to reflect more on any advice offered, and to work in a range of areas across Wikipedia to get a broader knowledge. Try working in some of the maintenance areas as that gives the community some confidence that you are committed to working for the project and are able to make regular good judgments on everyday policies and guidelines - people sometimes work on the backlog for merging, or splitting, or sourcing BLPs, or do newpages patrol - find what works for you. And/or work in some conflict resolution areas or welcoming new users, or answering questions at the help desk - stuff that shows you are willing and able to deal with other people and help out, and resolve conflicts. Essentially, the stars of Wikipedia are the content producers - admins are the janitors who ensure that the content producers can do their work with as little hassle as possible. Some people are able to be both notable content producers and admins - though in an RfA the community would like to see a lot of the evidence of the qualities of an admin rather than the qualities of a content producer, though working an article through to GA or FA can help, as that often requires collaboration and following procedure - qualities admired in a prospective admin. I will now again suggest to Jmcw37 that this RfA be withdrawn. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - Candidate does not display the judgment required for the mop at this time. Yes, I closed this RfA early at 9/25/5, but my oppose is not in response to candidate's desire to reopen, however ill-advised that may have been. For me, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Jmcw37&diff=343702045&oldid=343694919 "I will withdraw on Monday afternoon"], after nine additional opposes (and no supports) were added, is more of the same "I'll do it my way" that is displayed by requesting no questions be asked. It's just not how RfA works, and more to the point, it's not how the community works. It's a shame because contributions look good and I'm not the first one on this page to say I ''could'' support at a later date, but sound judgment is possibly even more important than content contributions ''in an administrator''. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - Because 1.  the candidate has a low count in the areas where admins are likely or supposed  to  be reasonably  active, and able to  excercise sound judgement, and 2. because instead of answering  the questions directly, he/she is telling  the RfA reviewers how ''they''  should evaluate him/her.--
'''Oppose''' When I first saw this RfA, I was veering towards a neutral, but as you seem to want to subject yourself to this continuing although a close was offered, I assume you are after feedback! I feel that you are a good contributor to the encyclopedia (in common with most of the editors who have commented here), but I feel that you are not ready to be an admin yet. Looking for a stress-free RfA is everyone's hope (I was lucky in that my recent RfA was not stressful!), but as an admin, you are opening yourself to stress (one of the first IRC messages I got was "welcome to hell!" from another admin!). Also, the questions that crop up at RfA give you an opportunity to show both how well you understand policies and how well you can explain yourself. As an admin, you would be expected to explain your actions if required. I hope to be able to support you at a future date -- '''''
'''Oppose''' I hate to pile it on, but your not quite ready. Sorry :)--
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per little experience in admin-related areas. What about increase your edit count in the admin-related areas, and I will support you on a future date. Right now, let's close this per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose''' I'm not sure about your 'cooling' skills. Although it was ages ago I was fairly concerned with what happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive60#User:Jmcw37_and_others_not_responding_to_arguments| here]. Other than that you have had a lot of experience. I also don't know if you were "admin coached" either.
'''Neutral''' You have the spirit but lack the experience. Come back with more edits and experience and I will likely support.
'''Neutral''' This RfA is premature, but Jmcw37's spirit should be commended.
'''Neutral''' but would like to support this candidate, seems like he could be a good admin and his experience with AfD is a plus but the lack of main space edits is a let down as well as some other concerns raised. If the candidate can show a couple of months productive work in the main space and address other concerns raised here I believe I would support this candidate if he returns in a couple of months time.--
[[WP:Notnow|Premature]] at this time: suggest withdrawal.
'''Neutral''' I assume that youve re-opened your RFA for feedback purposes. Some advice I would say before running another RFA is to participate at the Help desk. I believe this will put others at ease (at least myself) as you can demonstrate Policy knowledge (building this also there) and that your not afraid to answer queries as well and deal with moments of stress for other editors. Addtionally your edits are consitant for a long period of time. But you range from about 10 to 100 edits a month, while you (others) argue quantity vs quality, I still think you need to double or even triple your involvment in the project. This can easily be done by branching out from Karate related articles (you could still contribute there) but you could also contribute in other areas as well. Same stories just different topics. Finally I would suggest for constructive feedback as well you consider [[Wikipedia: Editor Review]] after your RFA or down the road. You'll get alot of benefit from that I think. That aside theres much potential from you, innovatation and good spirits. Good luck with your future editing.
'''Neutral''', and commenting for the same reason as Ottawa. I assume you will happily answer questions in your next RfA ;) As for diversification of your involvement consider scaling your activity at [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol]]. It automatically leads you into the farthest areas of Wikipedia, from inappropriate usernames to copyvios. The "patrol" itself does not clock an edit but you will find plenty of things to improve. Good luck also from me, you'll make an excellent admin. --
'''Neutral''', echoing Warrah. I would love to support next time, if the experience is there.
'''Neutral'''. Whilst I don't expect that the user will misuse the tools I fail to be convinced by the need and readiness for the tools. I'm not so concerned about the edit count as the lack of proven experience in admin-related areas. Consider this a moral support.
'''Neutral:''' Per [[WP:AGF]]. This is probally one of the rare times I use that. I have trust in the editor, but I always say you need evidence to back up your opinion. I can't pull enough relevant evidence. (My Guildlines are at [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Neutral''' Edit count shouldn't determine a person's ability to be an admin. However, experience sure lets people know of your achievements and stances. I doubt the user will fail to use the tools, but I'm not sure they have the experience or need to (of course, I don't edit in Karate) have admin tools.
'''Neutral''' - Next time, I'd be more than happy to support, if experience issues are addressed. Better luck next time!
'''Weak Support''' as nom and by vague answers to questions. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' Good AfD participant, always on the lookout for reliable sources.
'''Weak Support''' I've seen him often at AFD and trusted his opinions there, although Q7 is concerning.
'''Support''' as the most improved editor who I've run across in many months.  Meets my usual standards in edit count, edit summary usage, XfD work, experience, etc.  I have to note that if he'd applied a few months ago, I would have said, "No way."   He has grown a lot while doing work at [[WP:AfD]] and has shown real maturity.
'''Support''' for creating ''[[Limnonectes megastomias]]''. Thanks for knowing how to contribute to wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be fine as an administrator. --
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Good enough for me]]. He may be rather quick to nominate AfDs, but we need both inclusionists and deletionists on Wikipedia. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' (based on my experinces with Joe chill on AFD, yes he nominates articles for deletion, but hes reasonable and reserves some good judgment. My dealings with him show that if plausible evidence suggesting or unsuggesting notability exists hes reasonable to changing his opinion if he views it necessary(if examples of this are needed I can supply these). He has good judgement, is fair, revisits discussions and is open to consensus and would be a benefit to adminship.
Per apparently irrelevant answer to Q7 (both [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joe_Chill&diff=338447451&oldid=338446859 versions] of it). <b class="Unicode">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, Joe, I think you're still too deletionist for me to support at this time.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 7 and 8. I honestly don't understand that answer about IAR being relevant to geographical places. Plus, the reasoning you gave above for the lack of edit summaries. The fact that you didn't see them as necessary seems more than a bit troubling to me. It shouldn't take long for an editor to find out what a PITA when others don't use one, and that should be impetus enough to begin using them yourself. To me, these responses show you aren't quite knowledgeable enough yet for the bit, sorry.
Candidate needs to work on the tone of their interactions with other users. Too confrontational. Poor answers to many of the questions as well. You may be ready at some point, but not today.
'''Oppose'''. Mostly clueless.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - It sounds like you don't think much of edit summaries. Me, like most other contributors, do. I cannot support someone with a low edit summary usage, especially absolutely none this month. Otherwise, it is mostly per Auntie E. for this one, and that remark you gave him. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Lack of edit summary usage, concerns with policy knowledge, experience. -'''
'''Oppose''' per Q7 and apparent lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' Per 5d, AFD is not about numbers, but overall answers do not show sufficient knowledge of policies at this time--
'''Oppose''' Although I acknowledge that an administrator is not expected to be perfect, I expect them to be a model of behavior for other Wikipedian. in that respect, Joe Chill is impertinent, is unable to assume good faith in other Wikipedians and is unforgiving even to smallest of ''perceived'' so-called sins of others.
'''Oppose''' Yet another nonsense, probably juvenile, self-nomination.
'''Neutral''' for now. The answer to 4.c. troubles me. I take "I would AfD or prod it" to mean that the nomination would be declined, not merely passed over for another admin. If unsure about how to apply a CSD criterion, an admin shouldn't just decline CSDs on that criterion. In my view, that amounts to complete rejection of the criterion. Passing over the nomination for another admin to deal with is perfectly acceptable, but not declining it. Speedy deletions are discretionary, but that doesn't mean the discretion can properly be denied its exercise by an admin just because the admin is unsure of its application. I'm also unsure of the answer to 4.b - has the question been answered the wrong way around or am I confused? Nonetheless, the editor is a tireless and valued contributor to AfDs, albeit sometimes I find his explanations for his votes (as some of his answers here) a little on the brief side. --
'''Neutral''' As an editor I have nothing but respect for Joe Chill. However, many of his answers are rather vauge. If he expands them, I will natually reconsider my position. Also, I'm a bit wary about giving the mop to a known [[Joe Chill|murderer]].
'''Neutral veering to oppose''' I am not satisfied from the answers to my questions (4 and 5) that the candidate has a thorough understanding of the deletion policies. However, I am willing to give the candidate a chance to expand on those answers. If I am still unsatisfied (or they fail to do so) then I will change this neutral to an oppose. If I am happy with their answers, I will look in more detail at their contributions, etc, and decide from that whether to support or oppose -- '''''
'''Neutral''' I am surprized that I am here, as I instantly recognized your name as a sound contributor to AfD. That being said, after looking over this RfA and your talk page I have some questions about your communication style.  Your replies are always very short and sometimes give what are obviously wrong impressions on readers, such as your reply to  Auntie E. above.  I don't doubt your reading of consensus or policy at all, but I do have worries that you could unintentionally flare up disputes instead of calming them down. Sorry. '''
I applaud your enthusiasm, but I don't think you have enough experience to become an administrator yet.  You say you would like to take part in [[WP:AIV]], but you barely have any reports to that venue yet, with just around two thousand edits and some made by automated tools.  I recommend you try again in a few months with more experience.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''oppose''' I'm afraid I must agree with Download. You only have about three months of experience editing Wikipedia. Few if any users are ready to be an admin after so short a time. Keep up the good work and come back in a few more months.
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' You have very little content-building experience, and unfortunately what there is, your "best contribution" is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustus_Nathaniel_Lushington&action=historysubmit&diff=382406649&oldid=365978695 not hugely impressive]. Not everyone here focuses on "article building", but it is important that you have ''some'' experience if you are going to be able to delete articles, protect/unprotect articles and block users for edit-warring. Your vandal fighting is great, but that kind of work doesn't demonstrate a thorough understanding of policies and guidelines. I recommend getting a bit more experience with article writing, as well as behind the scenes. You say you want to delete articles under the CSD criteria, but do you have any experience tagging such articles? Looking at your contributions, I can only see one warning to a user about a CSD tag, back in July (your 7th live contribution!). Was that your only CSD tag or have you not been warning editors about them? Finally, just a small point, but your over-complicate talkpage instructions and system may be a bit off-putting to new users (is [[User talk:Joe Gazz84/private|this]] really necessary?) Keep up the good work here, but I would definitely leave it at least several months before another RFA.--
Please don't be put off. Some may have told you to come back later; I can only echo that. I had a quick look at your contributions and didn't see anything bad, but building up some more experience of different bits of wikipedia will win you a lot more "support" votes even if sometimes it appears that many voters have contradictory requirements.
{{ec}} '''Neutral''' - You're doing a great job, but I have to agree that you don't have enough experience to gain the mop at this time. You're welcome to try again in six months. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
The answers say it all. That's not what being an admin is about. <small>(
'''Oppose''' Does not understand the role they are applying for, and also, they supported themselves with a weird "vote for the first African admin" box... '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Oppose'''. Probably not ever. The attacks in deleted contributions say all I need to hear. --
Closer to an indefblock than adminship. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Oppose''' Absolutely not. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support'''.  As nom.  -'''
'''Full Fledged Support'''. Kingoomieii has been a great editor who has been a great editor since the time we met. From fighting the genre warriors to always keeping me laughing or in spirits when I felt like giving up on this project, King is a great friend and would make a better admin.--'''''
'''Support'''. Will make an excellent admin.
'''[[User:Otherlleft/RfA|Support]]''' - net gain for the project.--
'''Support'''. All my dealings with Kingoomieiii have been good ones, and he'll make a decent, level-headed admin.
'''Strong Support''' myself and Kingoomieiii have had our disagreements in the past (I'm not going to go into specifics), however, in those disagreements I have always admired the way that Kingoomieiii kept a level head, a polite demeanor, and above all an open mind. If he wants the tools to aid him in patrolling CAT:CSD and the recent changes then why not? He's sure to use the tools with insight and we need more steady admins in those areas. Kingoomieiii is among the most reasonable editors I have had the pleasure to meet on wikipedia.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] per the lack of glaring issues. (Although the vocabulary in the oppose section is incomprehensible at the moment.) &ndash;'''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and helpful; will be a benefit to the project to have as an admin.
'''Support''' I've never ran across you knowingly, but you seem to be competent.
'''Support''' User has been around since March 2006 and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.
Moved from neutral. I was initially worried by the rather short answers, but he seems to sum things up concisely and I think that's a good trait for an admin to have. He seems to be competent and I see others trust him. '''
'''Support''' Good candidate!
'''Support''' - Based on personal experience I know that this editor has competence both with content creation matters and behind-the-scenes work, has a calm demeanor, and has a sufficient amount of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. -- '''
'''Support''' Fine to me. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' I've seen you around and always had a positive impression of you.  I think you'll be a great admin.  '''
'''Strong support''' &ndash; absolutement! – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' - I see no obvious or jarring issues. Communication is good and concise, and work is perfectly satisfactory. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
'''Support''' - No issues here. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Strong Support''' - Being a regular editor at a handful of articles to which King Oomie contributes I've seen him diffuse tense situations and add quite a bit of value.  I've seen him self correct when he gets a bit worked up and that level of self-awareness and respect for civility and AGF are fantastic traits for an admin.  He has a strong grasp of policy (not only in word but in spirit).
'''Support''' I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA]] as candidate has six barnstars on his userpage and has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Willing to get involved with controversial topic.  Is appropriately skeptical.  We need more admins like this.
'''Support''', experienced, trustworthy.
'''Support'''— great spread of experience in wikispace incident/discussion areas, and respect for the bold use of an incident analysis as an example of one's best contributions. The whole recent Genesis thing might be poor timing and not somewhere I'd venture, but after looking it over, past a few pointed words in caps in edit summaries the edits weren't actually that horrendously irrational. Certainly not destructive, maybe a little stubborn, but the two pulling a NPOV view out are fair. I'll AGF and trust the candidate knows that ever using tools on that article or any editors involved with it would subject him/herself to a swift desysop (or worse).  <small>Signing for certification since I very obviously forgot.</small>  <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)  <!--  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Lots of relevant experience and plenty of knowledge. I'm happy that the candidate will not abuse admin tools. I'm also impressed that he is so open about what he considers his failings. As for the Creation Myth thing, I think it is reasonable if some religious believers are a little disturbed by that (and by the user box), but I note that the candidate has clearly stated he will keep his mop clear of any areas in which he has a personal interest, and I see no reason to doubt that - and I think it should be noted that he was actually on the side of the consensus. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. I don't see any problems, and the user appears willing to dive into difficult areas and try defusing conflicts. But for Pete's sake man, use some edit summaries! --
'''Support''' We need more sysops at [[WP:AIV]]. --
'''Support''' per Coldplay Expert and Keepcases.
'''Support'''. King Öomie has a good head on his shoulders and I have no doubt that giving him a mop will bring about a net benefit to the project.
'''Support''' – i've seen many manifestations of his good judgement.
'''Support''' - Of course. User is undoubtedly an asset to the project and, I am sure, will provide Wikipedia with the administrative support that it requires. Per nom, basically.
'''Support''', among other things quite explicitly because of the self-reflection in Q3 about the edit warring. Trivial side note, I don't agree with your answer to Q7; IAR asks for improvements to Wikipedia, which in the end is only judged by consensus (Of course whether the consensus system is the best solution is a very different question). It's not an out, and doesn't allow to ignore policy at one's whim.
'''Support''' excellent knowledge of Wiki-process/policy. A cool head in any debate. Always neutral.
'''Support''' with one remark: please use edit summaries a bit more. We're not all great at using informative ones, but having only the section title on a lot of your edits is less than helpful when scanning through them. That having been said, I saw nothing in your edits to concern me. <strong>
'''Support'''.  I'm impressed by the honest answers to Q11 and Q12.  Many folks (myself probably included) would have been unable to resist the temptation to pull something out of the hat.  Better to admit that a good answer would require more work than you're willing to do, given your interest in the topic.
'''Weak Support''' after much consideration. This candidate will be a net benefit to the project, and I am sure that they will take into account the concerns raised here by some. Their responses and editing pattern show a willingness to discuss, and they seem willing to help out in times of backlog across other areas which is always welcome, especially as they show they would be cautious when wielding the mop in unfamiliar areas. Whilst a few comments in their edit history could have been softened and feel less like "badgering", none are of significant enough concern to me to lead me to oppose. Anyway, I won't write an essay here, best of luck to you and thanks again for answering my comments in the neutral section. --
Support based on answers to questions (particularly 6, 11, 12, and the taelus question in neutral). Seems to have his/her head screwed on the right (or do I mean wrong?) way! Can't see any particular reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' per Coldplay Expert and Keepscases.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
cautious '''Support''' - funny that I have never come across King Oomie (?) - anyway, succinct and straightforward answers are a plus. I am concerned about lack of mainspace contribs, but we ''do'' have a process (i.e. arbcom) to deal with problematic use of tools. On the balance of things, worth a try.
'''Support''' per Badger Drink and Iridescent. :)
'''Support''' My Magic 8 Ball says no. But that thing's always wrong anyway. I see no problems with user's contribs. -
Wikipedia needs more antitheist administrators. In fact everywhere needs more antitheists. --
Per coldplay expert's diffs, this person shows clue. --
I think they'll be a fine admin. They seem level headed, reasonable and trustworthy.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I haven't been convinced otherwise.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Controversial editing does not necessarily equal evidence that someone is willing to abuse the tools to push a POV. This editor's work seems like a net positive to me, and I would AGF that the trend will extend to adminship. Also, If religious Wikipedians can express their faith on their userpages, everyone else is perfectly free to express their irreligious sentiments.  <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' I think this is s good choice...
'''Support''' Strong positives with no evident concerns. Per Badger and Iridescent.
'''Support''' Good contribs, interesting attitude, I see a positive addition to admin ranks. Have faith, people. :) --'''''
'''Support''' This term might seem a little bit out-of-place here, but I'm AGF-ing this. Hopefully Kingoomieiii would make a good admin.
'''Support''' This user has promised to not use his admin tools when dealing with the controversial subject, and per his other actions, I see reason to believe this. ''<I>
'''Support'''.  Seems as though s/he will use the tools well and I have no concerns about POV issues, based on what I read here.
'''Support'''. Saw firsthand how this user dealt with conflict at the debate over the term "creation myth". Hope that my numerical presence will help make him an admin.
'''Support''', I don't see any serious problems here, given that the user has promised not to use their tools to further a POV.
'''Support''' While the opposition makes good points, the user will ultimately benefit the project with the tools, especially if the criticism below is taken constructively and if a heartfelt effort is made to improve in areas of concern. Cheers,
'''Support''' The existence of deity lacks even the most scant evidence. Were it not for millenia of oppression at the hands of oligarchical religionists who's lack of scientific curiosity led to such high water marks as human sacrifice, crusades, jihads, suicide bombers, and other such nonsense, no encyclopedia on this planet would take seriously the concept of deity as an objective reality. There is no evidence for a higher power, and thus a higher power has no place in an encyclopedia if an article on said subject even so much as suggests a legitimate existence of deity. No evidence, no article.
'''Weak Support:''' I think we have been we have been a little harsh on our ungodly candidate. He is a good editor and will be a net asset to Wikipedia. Being a [[Godless]] [[pagan]] should not stop anyone from being an Admin, as long as he is a neutral Godless pagan. Merely having different views is not a cause for concern; but rather, how they come out while editing is what is of concern. If you work on this issue and broaden your experience, you can count on my full support next time. May I also suggest you contact [[User:J04n|J04n]]([[User talk:J04n|talk page]]). He went from being a failed candidate to 100% support in the most spectactular brilliant Ressurection event <s>since Jes</s> in along time. I have <s> faith </s> every reason to believe you will be successful next time. All the best. -
'''Support''' I agree with the considered sentiments expressed by [[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#00ff00">  Dloh</font>]], so as this RFA is relatively close I am adding my support
'''Support'''  Edits look fine, and I have been following the Creation Myth mess.  I don't see the terror that he has unleashed, according to some.  Too bad he was forceful in his opinion and stance on policy there; had it been deleting BLP stuff, that would be "good".  Seems too many want Admins to be strong when they agree, and to step back when they disagree.  Keep doing what you are doing - at least we know where you stand.
'''Support''' good candidate, ''
'''Support''' some experince on policy building. overall solid record. Adding support for this candidate overall net benefit and I feel will not abuse tools to push beliefs.
'''Support''' Yes I have concerns about this candidate. I don't like the lack of content building and think that this needs addressing. However I think I can trust kingoomieiii but I know this RfA is now likely to fail so this is now a moral support.
'''Oppose''' - Looking back through some of the candidate's talk page archives, I'm noticing a wee bit too much dogmatic editing. I'm not sure if this user is fit for adminship at this time. Bad feeling, sorry.
'''Oppose''' "Antitheist" userbox is intentionally disrespectful towards persons of faith.
'''Strong Oppose''' POV pushing and/or edit waring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_myth&diff=prev&oldid=344279384], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_myth&diff=prev&oldid=344222954], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_myth&diff=prev&oldid=344210691] are '''NOT''' the quatilies that I like to see in an admin. We do '''not''' need to have another editor over at [[Genesis creation myth]] that can push his own views because he's an admin. Also, I don't like that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenesis_creation_myth&action=historysubmit&diff=345689863&oldid=345688952| this] reply basically states that you are "''outsourcing the decision because I [you] refuse to argue it''". The fact that Kingoomieiii has a userbox that litteraly says "''This user is an antitheist, and finds belief in supernatural beings profoundly irrational.''" and his [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Kingoomieiii&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia| 200+ edits] to [[Talk:Genesis creation myth]] is ''proof'' that he is here to make his views known to the world. This is the last thing that Wikipedia needs, another POV-pushing, edit-waring admin who can now get his [[WP:POINT|point]] across because he has the buttons to control those in his way.--
'''Oppose'''. Does not satisfy my criterion for relevant XfD experience.  For the second question the candidate offers WP:REDIRECT as a stronger alternative to WP:CROSS which would be more compelling absent any other essays or guidelines touching on the issue but there are others so this seems selective if understandable citation of Wikipedia help files.  Also the dismissal of the usefulness criterion seems groundless.  The usefulness criterion was given as much space as the cross-namespace item. If it only applies in 1% of cases what is it then?  A sop?  A bone to be handed out to quell worries of naive inexperienced XfD participants before the upcoming article execution?  What is that 1% theoretical case where it would qualify as a legitimate reason to keep?  To answer the candidate's question: Is the question trappy?  Yes. But it is a tricky real example selected with a purpose. As a real example there are other dimensions to the episode to consider.  In your answer to question 2 you say investigation and analysis is a strength of yours.  I was hoping to see an example of it in this case.
'''Oppose''' per editwar on and about Feb 15th 2010, while self disclosed in nomination it is too recent for me to support. ''<B>--
'''Oppose'''. Partly but not entirely, per Coldplay Expert. I can deal with you expressing your opinions on your userpage. To a certain extent, it's what it's there for, but for someone with those beliefs, or lack thereof (and, for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with them), it concerns me that your only significant edits are to "Genesis creation myth" (or the talk page thereof). You also seem to have a habit of badgering those who disagree with you- I was willing to discount it in this RfA because RfA is tough, but it's exemplified by [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain Hertz]], though I realise it was 5 months ago, to which you racked up forty edits, most of which were arguments with keep !voters. It also concerns me that you have less than 800 edits (~18%) tot he mainspace and almost 1700 (~40%) to user talk pages, though that is not, in itself, a valid oppose rationale. I hate to oppose an RfA, especially for an obviously good, long term contributor so I promise I'll reevaluate before it closes.
'''oppose''' combination of things: you've only got 700-odd article edits and one third of them are to the same contentious topic [[Genesis creation myth]] and many to other related topics. You don't seem to have been the most impartial editor there, and using your userpage to parade your POV and disparage others kills it for me. All told, not someone I want admining on a project committed to NPOV, which has more than enough people grinding axes. Show me you can edit uncontentiously, and indeed show me a commitment to editing against your POV and try again later.--

'''Oppose''' Seems too partisan and aggressive contrary to NPOV.
'''Oppose''' per Coldplay Expert. I don't feel comfortable supporting.
I'm always concerned when I see that the editor has more edits to 5 article talk pages than any of the articles he has contributed it. It makes me even more uncomfortable that you have more edits to [[Talk:Genesis creation myth]] that your top ten articles combined. I realize that you have done some good work in admin areas (and I thank you indeed for your help at SPI). However, I would like to see a bit more content creation before I feel comfortable supporting. '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' Contentiousness and partisanship are concerning, but not compelling in and of themselves.  The lack of article creation work, antagonistic userboxen (since removed? Fine, they were still there recently), and badgering of opposers just give me an overall bad feeling about this candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.  I also have concerns after reading the difs above.  --'''
'''Oppose''' The sum of all the concerns above gives me pause. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKingoomieiii&action=historysubmit&diff=345971217&oldid=345969566 initial response] to oppose #8 (now amended) tipped the scales in your disfavor. Sorry. <tt>
'''Weak Oppose''' - Almost there, but I get the feeling candidate is bit too confrontational, per Colonel Warden. Some more content work wouldn't hurt,
Per Scott Mac, not confident in this candidate's track record.
I generally oppose candidates who advertise divisive beliefs on their userpages. I also note the concerns about the candidate's confrontativeness, above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' as well said by others here. Taken together too many negatives. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I was geared up to !vote neutral based on limited edits to article space until I came across the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHrafn&action=historysubmit&diff=326388385&oldid=325920995 following] conversation regarding another editors adminship (referring to [[Fundamentalist Christianity]] as one of the crank articles). This gives me doubts on whether you can put aside your POV which is very evident from your edits or if you will become "hotheaded" at times and misuse the tools. However, saying all that, I haven't seen any [[WP:CIVIL|uncivility]] towards other editors. →
'''Very Strong Oppose''' Inadequate background of work on either articles or policy. An admin will necessarily be judging newly-created articles, and the candidate admits he has never written one himself. This may not absolutely prevent an understanding of the problems such articles and their creators pose, but it makes it much less likely. Nor is there any substantial writing elsewhere: the article most edited [[Dane Cook]] and [[ShiTzu]] the editing is almost entirely the reversion of vandalism--that's valuable, but it shouldn't be all there is. The concentration of discussion edits   are on a single article is also very troublesome--an admin will -- indeed should -- deal with a range of matters outside his speciality--that's one of the ways we keep ourself neutral in disputes.  <br />As a secondary matter, the  actual contributions at [[Talk:Genesis creation myth]] are, taken as a whole, somewhat disturbing. They show a lack of willingness to understand other people's position, amounting to a general failure to Assume Good Faith. (A good deal of the other discussion at that page also does not AGF, but that isn't relevant to this RfA.)  that these edits overlapped the very consideration of this RfA is exceptionally. Most people would have known to stop participating in an argument some while before they submitted an application, not even continued it while the application was pending.  <br /> What I suggest is   another few thousand substantial edits to content , and to major policy discussions.   '''
'''Oppose''' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKingoomieiii&action=historysubmit&diff=345971217&oldid=345969566]] Seems a little arguementful to me. The low amount of article work and the tone used in diagreeing with opposers are enough for an oppose. Per Coldplay Expert and Doc as well.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament, and lack of experience. '''
I'm just rather worried about the emphasis you have towards the Genesis creation myth. I find myself agreeing with DGG and Wisdom, to an extent. "Show me a debate where the secular/science-minded side isn't clearly in the right" just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per concerns about breadth of experience, temperament and dogmatism as raised above.
'''Oppose''' I've had another look at this and your behaviour regarding POV just leaves me unable to vote any other way. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I'm just seeing too much argumentative behavior.
'''Oppose''' - A few too little mainspace edits for my liking, and over all lack of experience. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Unfortunately, I see too little activity as far as mainspace is concerned, which is needed for admins to make informed decisions on things. I also don't see much either with regards to other things such as deletions, vandalism, etc. Try to discuss a little less and work a little more on building some decent articles. Participating in XFDs will also help you get a feel about the deletion process, and combating vandalism will help you as far as what to expect when blocking vandals is concerned. Finally, I will add that merely ''having'' different views is not a cause for concern; but rather, ''how they come out'' while editing is what is of concern. Try not to have whatever views you may have come out and affect your judgment (which according to the other opposers may well be the case) while editing a this, a neutral encyclopedia. –
'''[[User:Gosox5555/Rfa|Oppose]]''', at least for now.  I'd need to see significant article creation or improvement work.  I have NPOV issues as some people above do.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per recent edit warring, and POV pushing. He/she also has some incivility.
'''Oppose''' Too much unproductive combat.
'''Oppose''' pretty much per everyone above. I have concerns about temperament and would like to see a bit more experience.
'''Oppose''' - not concerned with the userbox or the examples of alleged "POV pushing" someone posted above, but with only 4k edits and a general lack of experience, this user does not meet my basic criteria. Suggest you take MuZemike's advice and perhaps come back in six months.
'''Oppose''' mostly due to lack of experience. At the least, I would like to see a few months go by without any bad POV experiences. '''
'''Oppose''' - I have to agree that the edit warring a POV pushing is something that we dont want in a admin.
'''Oppose'''. I would be prepared to support just because of Keepcases' oppose over a userbox, but the lack of article creation work as voiced by DGG is a serious concern.
'''Neutral''' This editor has a pretty good track record and I love the fact that he or she is in on many noticeboards. I do have a few concerns though. First one has already been pointed out, but the Creation talk amounts to 231 (or 5.3%) of the users edits. Admins need to have a neutral view abroad on Wikipedia to show that they aren't going to favor to a certain area of articles or possibly inserting a non-NPOV. Also, this editor has only four redirects created, no pages, under a thousand edits in the article space, ~50% of his or her edits are talkpage related without explanation (my problem holds to [[WP:NOT]] Socail networking section), and only one RFA vote. I don't know what editors or admins think here, but I try and keep major points of view out of Wikipedia. (ie relegion which I do have a viewpoint on) Good editor over all, just have some concern. -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Neutral'''   I've been very much on the fence about supporting you King Öomie. On the one hand, you seem to be a straight shooter (and civil in our discussions re:Sumbuddi), but I find myself concerned about the company you keep.  It looks like I've stepped into the middle of a disagreement between [[User:Sumbuddi]] and [[User:Wiki libs]] which appears to have resulted in the action by Bubba hotep (see my comment above under hotep's Support vote) of listing me as a Sockpuppet at [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumbuddi]] and an edit to my user page (with "Request by Libs" as the summary) by another editor (who I won't mention since he apologized).  So, I guess neutral for now...
'''Neutral'''.  While neither the userbox nor the limited article space contributions would be enough on their own to oppose, they can't be considered plusses either.  Given his contentious involvement at [[Genesis creation myth]] I can't bring myself to support at this time.
'''Oppose''' No, sorry. Sporadic editing, with ''very'' little content contibution and a heavy reliance on automated tools. Slender input to the maintenance side with the exception of vandal fighting. Simply not enough evidence for me to extend trust at this time in respect of the block, protect and delete tools. My apologies and please do not feel down heartened as your contributions are very much valued. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Need deeper (more) and broader (in other admin-like areas) experience. Less than 3000 edits, around 75% which are automated, is just not enough of a contribution to just suitability for adminship at this time. I suggest branching out from anti-vandalism (not that anti-vandalism isn't an essential part of the project) into other areas. Sorry --
'''Oppose'''.  Serious concerns with experience and breadth of exposure. -'''
'''Oppose''' - per Pedro. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Oppose''' Per your answer to Q4. Dead wrong, context has nothing to do with referencing. Demonstrative of a general lack of knowledge and experience in admin areas.
'''Oppose''', essentially agree with {{user|Pedro}}. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. Vandal-fighting is useful contribution. However it's also important to have constructive collaboration with other editors. Unfortunately Kirachinmoku doesn't do much of this.
Sorry to pile-on, but your answer to my question shows a serious misunderstanding of deletion policy. I can't trust you with deletion powers if you think "unreferenced" is ever grounds for speedy deletion.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''', this is still a NOTNOW case. I'd recommend several things. First, you need a more sustained level of engagement with the project: for the last year you only had 2 out of 12 months with more than 40 edits per month. Second, you need to develop a more substantive mainspace contrib record: preferably write at least a few articles from scratch, and participate in substantially improving/extending some existing articles. For now almost all of your mainspace edits are vandalism reverts. Third, as others have noted, you need a more varied and substantive projectspace contrib record, not limited to [[WP:AIV]] (some wikiproject activity, at least occasional participation at pages like [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:RPP]], [[WP:UAA]], some XfDs, etc). As answer to Q4 shows, you are still quite unfamiliar with our [[WP:DEL|deletion policy]]. Blocking vandals is the least sophisticated task that an admin has to do, and some degree of experience related to dispute resolution or at least to project-space collaborative activities is needed.

'''Oppose'''  per sporadic editing and lack of overall experience. ''<B>--
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Neutral]]''' per [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/Kirachinmoku sporadic editing history] as well as Pedro.--
Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW]] -- I need to see some edits in the Wikipedia space before I can judge how you'll do with the tools. --
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions 1 and 2 not very satisfying. You don't have to have adminship to perform those tasks. Not only that, you have too few edits too. You don't seem to be familiar with certain aspects of Wikipedia that an admin should.
At this stage, not enough experience in administrative-type areas for me to be satisfied that the candidate is qualified. It is not clear what administrative tasks the candidate intends to undertake "helping monitor" and "injecting balance" are things any editor can do. After some more contributions to adminisrtrative areas (eg [[WP:AFD]]), I'd be happy to support.--
'''Oppose''' per Q1. Nothing listed there needs the sysop tool set. I'm happy to support candidates who don't indicate they plan to use the tools much, I have a problem with candidates who answer Q1 in such a manner that I'm left wondering if they truly understand the role of administrators. Admin tools are not a trump card in a content dispute; and everything you've listed can be done with nothing other than the edit button.
'''Oppose''' Q1 shows no need for the tools. Also, per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Not nearly enough experience, barely any activity, almost nothing to project space. I know I sound harsh, but please take a look at [[WP:GRFA]]—I just don't see it right now. <span style="border:1px solid;">
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' - Sorry to say this, but you don't have enough experience to be an admin. Your edit count is way too low, and you don't have a lot of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Sorry. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, not very active at all, only around 50 edits to the project space. [[WP:NOTNOW]].

'''Oppose''' due to answer Q1 (the mop isn't needed to accomplish the goals you outlined) and lack of editing experience, particularly in WP space. With additional experience you may make a fine admin.
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' - Although I hate to pile on like this, you really do need more experience. Although you've been editing for a few years, you've only made about 1000 edits - not enough to gauge your experience. Looking at your answer to Q1 seals it; not only do you not need admin tools to do what you suggested, but your answer implies that you see adminship as a way to lead others. This is absolutely incorrect. Try editing a little more actively and involve yourself in a few policy space activities (say, !voting on a few RfAs), and you might want to re-run in a while. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
'''Oppose''', concerns about answers to the questions and lack of experience in multiple varied capacities. '''
The tasks you've stated in question #1 do not require administrative access. I'd be happy to support if you do gain more experience in administrative areas ([[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:UAA|UAA]], etc.), but I don't think you are [[WP:NOTNOW|ready just yet.]] Sorry.
'''Neutral''' per answer to Q1, you do not require access to the mop for your stated tasks. ''<B>--
'''Weak Support:''' Not enough experience . . . But I like people who are bold. -
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Usually nominees require at least 5000 edits on a variety of articles, notice boards, and talk pages to learn policies and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Please contribute as a regular editor before potentially trying again. --
'''Opppose''' As above, there is not enough experience in your contribution history to make a judgement whether you should be an admin. The matters you have identified in your RfA are things that can be done by any editor of wikipedia, not just admins. I hope to see your around soon. Cheers --
'''Opposer''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] to prevent pile-on opposes.
'''Oppose''' sorry 22 edits is not quite enough for me to support. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' You have way too little experience, and you clearly have no idea what administrators even do here. I ''strongly'' suggest you simply withdraw this RFA and re-file when you have a lot more experience and an understanding of what the admin's role is on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and your answer to Q2... of your three content contributions, only one was helpful. The other two, made to [[Walrus]], were unconstructive and could even be considered vandalism. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walrus&diff=prev&oldid=209228663 first] one was not helpful and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walrus&diff=prev&oldid=209228843 second] was made just to undo the first. I guess what I was getting at was that you need more content work, as others have noted. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darkri&diff=prev&oldid=200883178 This] is clearly your best contribution; I commend the ample referencing. All in all, once you garner more experience, I'll be happy to support!
'''Strong oppose''' You may wish to read over our [[WP:ADMIN|adminship]] page... <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' per[[NOTNOW]]. Come back after having gained some experience observing and participating in the project space.
'''Moral Support but [[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - You are obviously here with good intentions but this is what we call [[WP:NOTNOW]], which means it isn't time yet; you don't have enough experience. If you edit a bit more then you can come back again in a few months and I'm sure you won't have as much of a problem. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Neutral''' 20 edits is no indication of your abilities as an editor to understand policy. Reviewers such as myself need much more than this to assess. I think a 'not now' is appropriate.
'''Neutral''' For a couple of reasons: firstly, you have 22 contributions, of which only 3 appear to have been to articles (so why you think you have too many contributions to choose your best, I'm not sure) - this is far too few to be able to judge what kind of editor you will be, let alone what kind of admin you would be; secondly the answer to question 1 do not require you to be an admin. This is a neutral rather than an oppose, as I do not want to pile-on oppose. I think this should be closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]] -- '''''
Strong support as nom. And of course recuse from closing. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
Yes. Yesyesyes. Yesyes. I have been urging him to run for a while. And I recuse from closing too. <small>(
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this.  '''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Cod_Air_Force_Station&diff=prev&oldid=165756030 Despite the mistakes!] --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
After carefully going through the opposers, I am again supporting in good faith for a couple of reasons. First, I feel that Kevin has a high level of respect for being a sysop and I trust that he will use the new functions carefully and not out of impulsiveness, while I have some disdain with him being "honored" if becoming a sysop. I'd also like to say that Kevin has been here for a while and that also in good faith, being a sysop is [[WP:DEAL|not a big deal]]. I support in good faith because I think the impulsiveness worries, while having merit, are not enough to oppose. I feel he is a hard worker and excited about helping Wikipedia, as am I. Good luck —<font color="black">'''''
'''Support''' - per résumé and above. '''
I'm sorry to hear about the problems at SPI.  Although I trust NW, I'm going to support anyway ... my sense is that Kevin pushes himself to do lots of everything, and has done for a long time, so I'm not shocked that he occasionally screws up.  I think the chances are zero that, if the community feels he's not ready to operate in an admin capacity at SPI, he would go ahead and barge in anyway. - Dank (
Don't see any major reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Looks good.
{{flagicon|New Mexico}} '''Support from the land of enchantment''' - Looks good. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Support'''. Despite the opposes, I feel Kevin is a hardworking and clueful user who will tread carefully as an admin until he gains experience. <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Support'''. I see NW's oppose, and buffer that with Ktr101's agreement to pause more, and his deep contribs. <font color="red">&rarr;</font>'''''
'''Support'''. With some hesitation, but I think overall Kevin will do OK on admin tasks.
'''Support''' Does almost everything right. A Rollbacker, an autoreviewer and a worker of many admin related areas. I realise the mistakes he made recently at [[WP:SPI]], but hopefully, he won't fall into the trap. I think the safest bet is not to go there, and he should be fine.
'''Weak Support''' Nothing majorly worrying, and seems well-intentioned.
'''Support''' willing to [[WP:AGF]] the the candidate will not abuse the tools. ''<B>--
'''Support''' I don't see anything to raise serious concerns. A "zero defect" mentality when it comes to admins is not sensible. It comes down to a question of good intentions and relative competence, and candidate clearly possesses both. Shame that he probably won't pass as of this writing <strong>
'''Support''' despite the mistakes pointed out in the oppose section. I think having a such a good attitude overrides that and as Ray pointed out, he's far from incompetent, just hasty. I would suggest he slows down a bit with his editing, however, whether he gets the bit or not (not going to be negative!) and good luck to him!
'''Support''' per content creation and per Wolfkeeper's oppose.  Candidate, despite his flaws, demonstrates an appropriate amount of politically incorrect clue.  The opposes are concerning, and you'll likely not pass, but you have my support with the proviso you learn from what's transpired here.
Agree with Jclemens. In my personal conversations with the candidate I suggested now might not be the best time to run, but after this bout of criticism I think it's fair to say he'll take it much more slowly in the future.
Sorry Kevin; I am just not sure that you are ready yet. I, as well as other clerks and checkusers, have seen a number of mistakes from you at [[WP:SPI]] in the recent past. These number enough that I just would not feel comfortable with you having the tools just yet. '''<font color="navy">
Per NW, sadly. It's all right to be eager to help, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&diff=357880984&oldid=357847763 this] is a bit too far. It's all right to be bold and make mistakes, none of us is perfect, but I've seen too many recent mistakes, despite the fact that you have been working for more than a month at SPI, to have confidence that you would look before you leap were you to be granted the tools. Sorry.
'''Sad but definite oppose'''--  This is one where I have to give an unequivocal "No." Although Kevin is a very nice fellow and a productive editor in many ways, his lack of clue combined with a rogue streak leaves me no choice but to oppose. ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=353969639|An example]]: why would he initially come to support this editor who created a major time-sink while admitting knowing nothing about the editor?) After joining SPI as a trainee clerk, he went "rogue", archiving cases without the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WiccaWeb&diff=prev&oldid=357976231 socks] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JI_Hawkins&diff=prev&oldid=357976505 being blocked], recommending checkuser on cases that absolutely did not call for it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments_2|specifically on a bad faith case] brought against two long term productive users which  had previously admitted to being colleagues, [[User:RetroS1mone|one of whom]] ended up leaving the project as a result, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&diff=prev&oldid=360670849 causing his trainer to restrict his edits.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&diff=next&oldid=347604723 He is just too eager for this.] I think eagerness is getting in the way of thoughtfulness, and that's not a trait I feel comfortable having in an administrator. All in all, I don't see he has shown that he can use the extra tools wisely. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  While I feel you've improved significantly after the last RfA, I don't think you're quite ready yet, especially after looking over the concerns noted by the other opposers.  Sorry Kevin.  -'''
I like the keenness and zeal I'm seeing here, and I look forward to supporting this candidate when he's developed his judgment and experience a little further. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&diff=prev&oldid=360670849 This] diff, which Auntie E provided above, is a bit too recent for me to be comfortable with a promotion for Kevin this time around, but he needs only show me this passion for the work combined with a little more discretion to get a strong support from me later.—
This is a very sad '''oppose'''. I don't normally care for things like SPI because they are primarily a distraction from the encyclopedia, so any mistakes made there wouldn't really bother me. However, it appears you are inclined to rush things, which leads to careless errors, which may lead to quick decisions used with admin tools, which would affect a wider area than SPI. I don't think you're suited to the role. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
I'm sorry. Maybe it'll be 5th time lucky, but for someone who wishes to be actively involved at SPI in an admin capacity and with an eye on the CU bit, I think you need more experience in the area and you need to take things a bit slower. You appear to have good judgement from what I've seen of you in my travels, so slow done, take a step back and ''use it''. It's not a race- if you were to pass, you'd be one of around 1800 admins and you're not the only SPI clerk. If you're not sure what to do, consult those more experienced or just wait and see how they handle it so that you might be better able to make tough decisions in the future. It pains me to oppose, because I hold you in high esteem as an editor, but I just don't think you're ready yet. I don't think I've ever supported someone's 5th RfA, but if you adequately addressed the concerns raised here, I'd be happy to make your 5th my first, so to speak!

'''Oppose''' per Auntie E. and several of the questions. There are too many worries to support right now.
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament, experience, and lack of ability to think things through and slowly and methodically go over actions prior to acting them out on wiki, especially with regard to important processes like [[WP:SPI]]. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. Kevin is a very well-meaning, hard working fellow and I have no doubts about his good intentions for the project. However, I have observed some of the problems referred to by NW, Auntie E and others and I can't support this request at this time.
'''Opposing, regretfully'''. As other have said, Kevin is a nice guy, and he's keen and eager to help, however, until these (excellent) traits are complimented by a bit more prudence and judgement, I do not feel confident that Kevin would be able to manage the admin tools sufficiently well, in particular at SPI. His mistakes there are just too serious and too recent to be overlooked, I don't want to add insult to injury, so I won't go into specifics. Kevin has great promise, and I look forward to a time when I feel confident enough in him to be adding my support to an RfA, however, at this time, I do not think it is appropriate for him to be taking up the tools. However, I encourage him to continue his work at SPI as a trainee clerk, and to carefully learn more about dealing with cases there. Apologies for this oppose, best wishes,
'''Nay''' [[User:Stwalkerster|Stwalkerster]] revoking your access to [[WP:ACC|ACC]] and questioing your rushed actions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&diff=344053371&oldid=343882043] and then 10 hours later you ask [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] to train you as an [[WP:SPICLERK|SPI clerk]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterSymonds&diff=344147054&oldid=344143420] shows too much haste and not the best judgement. You have been welcomed back at ACC and noöne has had any issues with your actions there but you have only handled one request since being reïnstated. The nomination and first vote coming from a respected bureaucrat is impressive. The second vote of support coming from a temporarily resigned bureaucrat says a lot about some aspects of your contributions. That other users, mostly from SPI, have concerns such that the yea/nay is breaking even does not aleviate my concerns from almost 4 months ago. <font face="Georgia">
Sorry, but D&L sums it up. Maybe a little ''too'' zealous, looking for adminship like a trophy. Sorry, that's how it's coming across.
Candidate appears to be hat-collecting. Wikipedia is not an RPG.
'''Oppose''' per concerns both about prudence and about leveling-up. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|Lord]]</font><font color="red">
'''Oppose''' as per Deliriousandlost, Stifle...
'''Oppose'''. The fact that there are so many opposes from SPI clerks, under whom you are training, indicates that there is a lack of confidence in your ability to handle an admin bit at this time. Unfortunately I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Although you are a productive editor, I must oppose due to the two blocks for repeated copyright violation.
'''Oppose''' - Agree don't seem ready just yet. And as deliriousandlost commented the ACC issue is not a light issue.
'''Oppose'''. Still falling over his feet in order to get on.
'''oppose''' per Auntie E.
'''Oppose''' per Deliriousandlost.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Strongest possible oppose''' He just tried to close a ''contested'' deletion, 4 days early as a non administrative 'snow'. I can't begin to imagine how awful he would be as an actual admin if he's doing this kind of thing now. He just doesn't seem to be cut out for it.- <small>
'''Oppose''' You have a lot of good qualities, but in my judgement need more experience, then maybe I can vote 'support' in the future.--
'''Oppose''' per NW, Delirious, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lady&oldid=365557866 this].  I wanted to be in the support column here, but the good reasons why you're just not ready yet keep coming.  The conversation on your talk page makes it even clearer- when you get called on doing something wrong, its time to admit it and fix it, instead of justifying yourself.
'''Oppose''' After speaking to him on his talk page and waiting for his reply, I have to stay, I'm against this person being an administrator.  The AFDs should remain open for all 7 days, not closed half way through, except in certain cases I mentioned. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKtr101&action=historysubmit&diff=365563507&oldid=365562525]  There is no reason to rush through these things.  Everyone should have a chance to speak their mind and discuss things.
'''Oppose''' per NuclearWarfare et al. Some of the judgments I've seen made were not very good, including at SPI. –
'''Oppose''' sadly, per your response on speedy deletion. Some people favor expanding what speedy deletion can be used for, and some people favor restricting it. Both of those are valid points of view. But people on both sides of that debate would probably agree that over-hasty use of the A1 and A3 tags, and stretchy attempts to use A7 to cover things that the template itself specifically says it does not cover, are quite common occurrences. Your answers suggest that you might not have much experience looking at [[:Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion|how people use speedy deletion tags at present]], and assessing whether the tagging is correct or not - something that any editor can do. Of course you are intelligent and keen and I'm sure you would learn these things quickly, but speedy deletion is very BITEy, and very difficult for new users to appeal, and a new admin with limited CSD judgement experience engaging in CSD deletions could potentially scare off quite a lot of potentially good new editors when their first experience of Wikipedia is having their good-faith, potentially-valuable new article deleted. I will support you in future if you have more experience in this area, but for now I must oppose a potential admin who specifically wants to carry out CSD work, but who does not perceive any misuse of the CSD system.
'''Neutral''' per NuclearWarfare. I know you've been working hard to correct the mistakes, but I don't feel comfortable supporting right now as you mentioned that SPI would be one area you will plan to use the tools in. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral leaning on support'''. I was going to support, but NuclearWarfare's comment is unreassuring. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Neutral''' reluctantly. Although he is a great contributor (I can attest to that just by seeing him around this place), the SPI issues brought up in the opposes are things to work on. Until they are fixed, I'm not comfortable with Kevin becoming an admin. Keep it up,
'''Neutral''' per Airplaneman
Although you're a great contributor, the opposes are making me feel less confident about my support. I'll remain here for now. <span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Neutral''' unfortunately. I cannot support in light of the opposes, but I can see that you are a well-intentioned editor. Keep up the good work! <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Neutral''' - The candidate has been quite productive and seems eager with good intentions, but the issues raised in the oppose section make me uncomfortable with fully supporting at this time.
'''Neutral''' From what I've seen is a productive and nice editor. However, per Auntie E and NW, I cannot support at this time. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Neutral''' for the purpose of commenting on the [[WP:NAC|non-admin closure]] of [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lady|the Lady AfD]] (I did not thoroughly check other contributions, and the incident alone for me is not sufficient to oppose): While the decision itself was right and clueful (Note that he closed it "snow keep", not "speedy keep") he was not right in ''making this decision''; the [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures|policy on this]] is rather specific. So yes, it is a concern. --
'''Neutral'''. On the plus side is the candidate's clear motivation and enthusiasm for the project, but on the minus side is a bit of over-enthusiasm and lack of "take it easy, there's no rush" cool. (The obvious example is the non-admin snow close, which was against policy - and it would have been nice to see an acceptance of that rather than continued arguing). I feel sure I'll be !voting Support in a future RfA --
'''Moral support''' but '''neutral'''.  Your enthusiasm is wonderful.  Your haste, less so.  You need a little more time to demonstrate some patience and consideration, I think.
No evidence of helpful contributions; no answers even to the basic 3 questions.  Apart from certain [[WP:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth|exceptional cases]] which are well-explained beforehand a user with 26 edits should not be running for adminship.  The average edit count of a Wikipedia administrator is somewhere around 20,000. Many have passed with less, some with much less, but all of them have had significant experience that has convinced users to ignore the low edit count.  '''
'''Oppose.'''  Please close per WP:SNOW.
'''Oppose.'''  Please read [[WP:NOTYET]].  Only 31 edits is simply not enough.  I would strongly recommend thinking about this again in about 6 months.
'''Oppose''' – This user has been active for four months. In which time s/he's clocked up 32 edits. Out of these ''nine'' have been to the Wikipedia name space, all of which are for this RfA. Meaning that the user has never made a single report to [[WP:AIV]] or commented on a single [[WP:AfD]]. But the user's only reason for wanting the tools if AIV and AfD! Suggest a close per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''oppose''' by the way, most of their mainspace contributions appear to be vandalism. Why put up with it?
'''Oppose'''; Close per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. With only around 30 edits and two of those on 27 August were really not quite the right thing to  do, you are not yet ready to be considered for adminship. Do take the advice the others have given you above, and make a couple of thousand good solid contributions you can be proud of, including the creation of some new articles. You don't need to vote for yourself on your own RfA - do take a look at some of the recent RfA of other candidates, especially some that have failed,  to  understand the process, and to see what you will need to learn about all the different Wikipedia policies.
Please close per [[WP:SNOW]].
Trustworthy and experienced.
All seems fine.
'''Support'''.  Veteran editor of considerable accomplishment; sane, competent, conscientious, trustworthy.  Everything's right here.
'''Support'''. 'nuff said.
There's only one Ling.Nut; they broke the mold when they made him. He is exactly what he says he is, knows most corners of Wiki, is a straight shooter, is trustworthy, and won't abuse of the tools-- it's just not in his nature. Understandable real life stresses that led to some retirements have passed. Whatever he takes on, he'll do it right. He might not know how to work the buttons yet, but he knows policy.  He doesn't do things the conventional way, including ask me to nom him !!
'''Yes'''—I've been wondering when this would appear. I encountered their username long ago and decided to take a look at their userpage, contributions, etc., and am confident they will be more than able to wield the mop well.
An unorthodox nom for a highly unorthodox candidate- but one well worth supporting.
'''Support''' What she said.
'''Strong support''' '''
Ran across talk when somebody was trying to convince you to run. ''
'''Support''' Surprised but pleased to see this. Yes, Ling doesn't have the "adminly" experience that some RfA !voters may look for, but through his content work demonstrates the vital skills (understanding of content policy, communication, judgement) that are important for adminship, and he has the common sense and intelligence to learn to perform admin tasks effectively.
Thought he was already? :/. Excellent user. Helpful and experienced. YES--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="blue">Talk</font><font color="green">ToMe</font>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Intelati|c]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Seems good to me. <font color="Darkorange">
Your answer to Q1 isn't lame at all. It shows a great deal of maturity which is occasionally lacking in Rfa's. '''Support''' <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Has been around since Aug 2006 and see no concerns.
An honest and excellent self nomination from someone who would have had an easy support from me to begin with.
As his former admin coach, I have to '''support'''.  While I will be surprised if this passes, I think he'd be a nice change of pace in the admin corps.  Oh, BTW, your nom is a little inaccurate---you did have mentorship... but that was a year an a half ago or so ;-)  And like Sandy, I too would have been willing to nom him!---'''
'''Support'''. Per {{user|Casliber}}. -- '''
Answer to my question showed an abundance of common sense. One minor quibble: Kmalaysia hasn't broken 3RR (his first of the 4 edits wasn't a revert) but technicalities are much less important than common sense, and there was so much of the latter in that response. --
'''Support''', despite his confession he has a 'tremendous respect for authority'. Yet what I've seen of his work, esp. towards NPOV and rewriting of pages according to quality standards, indicates a strong respect for textually authoritative article-creating and revision on wikipedia.
'''Support''' (but please don't allow Ling.Nut.Dark to write warnings or other administrative message. And don't show .Dark how to use the block button). ---
'''Support''' - capable of good stuff...
'''Support'''. Great contributor, so why not?
Oh yes, I take account of the civilty concerns but he is clearly a dedicated, no nonsense, article writer.
The lack of experience in admin-type areas is a bit concerning as are the civility issues - but the honesty is nice to see, and sometimes someone needs to put things plainly (even at the risk of being slightly crude) in order to make a message heard.  I see no reason to believe that Ling.Nut will misuse the tools, so why not?
Support.  Following answer to Q10 and Q8. OK, so we've agreed he comes over like [[Basil Fawlty]] sometimes, but I'm not seeing bad faith accusations and sniping.  His aim to help newbies is admirable, and the answer to Q10 is excellent. "Read all the way to the bottom before you give an answer" and "do not merely set out to justify the position of the organisation" is advice I've been drumming into complaints officers for years.
I never thought I'd see this here.
Support. now this is a rfA, this user seems much more experienced than I was when I rfAed, the request is also well written, next time when I'm ready I'll take note when writting my rfA unless someone nominates me, also the basil fawlty comparison from Elen is amusing, i'd say I'm more like Manuel in comparision a bit compared to this editor, he diserves the mop--
'''Support'''. Ling.Nut is a thoughtful and valuable contributor, someone whose posts I always learn from. He'll be an asset as an admin, just as he is as an editor. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' - honest and trustworthy editor, likely to be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' - based on extensive record and responses to questions (I was especially impressed with the response to question 9 regarding "consensus") I see no reason to not inflict adminship on an editor who is already an asset to the project, and likely to be MORE of an asset as an admin as time passes. Let me also say that my eyes didn't glaze over while I read the responses to the questions. --
'''Support''' per above. I'm sure Ling.Nut will use the mop well. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''. Contributions.
'''Support (from neutral).''' After reading your disarming "Siege" essay, I am compelled to support. ~~
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support'''. Several experienced editors have indicated above that they would have been willing nominators for this RfA, and I would have too, but welcome the self-nom because no one could have presented Ling.Nut's case to the community quite like Ling himself. I've known him since he singlehandedly diffused a conflict over [[Georg Cantor]] between the GA and Mathematics projects in 2007. How? By getting sources from the library and rewriting the article so that everyone was happy. What a fantastic response that was! In everything he's done since, I've seen his dedication to the goals of the encyclopedia, and respected and admired his contributions. His colorful style masks yet in some ways also softens the seriousness, maturity and self-awareness with which he contributes, making him human and approachable. We need more admins like this. Maybe reading and commenting on his excellent answer to the civility question should be a future RfA requirement. ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Ling may decide to retire again, but I have no concerns he'd become block happy or anything like that. His aim is always to add content to the encyclopedia, content that is well-sourced and NPOV. Isn't that what admins are supposed to support?
'''Support''' without hesitation. I've had many interactions with Ling and everything single time I believe he was acting in the best interests of the project. I have no doubt that he will use the tools carefully and with reason. I've always known Ling to research everything thoroughly, and that can only be a positive when dealing with administrative issues. --
Understands what needs to be done. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Don't see why not!
'''Support''', per Geometry Guy and Sandy Georgia.
'''Support''', good user. So he'll get huffy if he doesn't get his way? Seems like a normal admin trait to me! ;)
'''Support'''. Oppose votes aren't convincing enough, and some (i.e. Elcobola's) actually speak in favor of the candidate.
'''Support''' – Trusted with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support'''. Ling.Nut is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia, has very high standards, always helping others, especially newbies. Just looking at some of the stuff he's done, as I have on occasions when our paths happened to intersect, leads me to say that his very presence here makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.  Does he get emotional sometimes? Sure, he's human like the rest of us. But never, ever have I seen any occasion where, sensing that he might be about to cross some line, he has not reined himself in and tried to do the right thing&mdash;and often I think it's the most sensible thing anyone could have done under those circumstances. --
'''Support'''.  The answers to Questions 8, 9, and 10 show a remarkable perspective: the idea that there aren't context independent answers to administrative questions, and that each situation may require a different approach to be handled properly.  The notion of talking in an intentionally nonstandard by effective way (as in #8, and in [[User:Ling.Nut/Siege]]), that still falls within broad policy guidelines, seems promising. And the fact that the notorious (and, I believe, sincere) critic of adminship, Malleus Fatuorum, has approved this candidate, makes me think the Ling.Nut will treat the post with the respect it (im)properly does(n't) deserve(s). That is, though I may not agree with everything MF says, his standards on admins are quite demanding and clear, and a candidate who meets them must be a remarkable person.
'''Support''' per Sandy Georgia and Elen. --
There's a difference between "occasionally grumpy" and "obnoxious to the point at which it becomes disruptive". I find the opposes utterly unconvincing.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support'''. It is about time Ling.nut is granted the mop. He is a tireless content editor, he takes great responsibility in many areas of the pedia and he is a nice guy. His thoroughness and efforts invested as a pivotal participant in the review process also speaks volumes about his dedication to the project. Being emotionally invested in ones work is not a detriment as long as it doesn't lead to uncivil or disruptive behaviour - something that no one has been able to show from Ling.nut and which I have never even experienced hints at myself during several years of regular interaction. Addition: I really think that around 25-30 of the oppose voters should change their minds. Ling.nut is not just a good editor - he is going to be one of the most valuable additions to the admin corps<s>e</s> that we could hope of getting. I even would go so far that if it could change anyone's vote at all I will vouch for him and say that if he ever abuses the tools or gets reprimanded for civilty violations at an RfC after receiving the tools I will step down as an admin myself. That is how much I believe that any civilty concerns are unfounded.
Some of the cited incidences give me pause, and I wouldn't be surprised if temperament were to get the better of Ling.nut on occasion in future, but perfection is not a prerequisite for adminship. Ling.nut shows serious levels of honesty, understanding of and dedication to the project. "Idiosyncratic" administrators of this calibre add to the diversity, wisdom and capability of the corps.
'''Support'''. I think Ling.Nut achieves a fair balance of insistence and humor. It is possible to be passionate and yet not be rude, or "uncivil" in some interpretations of the word. In particular, I think the exchanges at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quid_pro_quo&oldid=391583959#not_myspace._Not_geocities.] are ''on point'' and not unreasonable. I can see Elcobbola's point that passion might get the better of Ling, but I personally don't think Ling would fall into "block first and ask questions later" behaviour.
''''Support''' - Need more people calling a spade a spade.
'''Support''' Trusted, experienced user, so of course. '''''
'''Support''' per Sandy Georgia & others. A really solid content contributor, with occasional barking rather than biting issues.
'''Support''' Cordial, self-aware, experienced while still eager to learn. A real pleasure to work with and a person whose well-meaning intentions I would never doubt.
'''Support''' per Sandy, etc. Appears not to take himself too seriously -- a very big plus. --
'''Support''' per answer to my question.  I've changed in the same way, although starting at inclusionist. -
'''Support''' - I have the utmost faith in this editor and believe he (or she) would make a fine and trustworthy admin.
'''Support''' -Though the user's smuggish behavior appears to be in a way haughty and arrogant (perhaps infantile and aloof at times)...the user has shown their dedication to the project. Provided that they don't get excessively involved in contentious issues, the user's dedication should allow them to be a successful admin.
Anyone who contributed to our article review processes gets my support. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
Useful, trusted, experienced.
'''Support''' Unorthodox and I like it.--
'''Support''' Rather refreshing; although I'd try to be a bit more circumspect about civility, there's nothing so far over the top to merit too much concern.  Let's go.
'''Support'''. Some of the diffs shown in the Oppose section raise concerns. However, I've never experienced any problems with Ling.Nut and find him to be a helpful, sophisticated contributor. I trust him with sysop responsibilities.
'''Support'''. There are a lot of positives. The questions then are 1) is he going to misuse the tools, block people wrongly or that sort of thing? No, he's not. There's no evidence that he will. 2) Is he going to have the appropriate demeanor? Yes, probably. He says he will. The diffs shown by the Oppose commentors just don't seem that bad. He appears to have intelligence and character, and those are helpful things to have. I expect he'll be fine.
'''Support'''.  Temperament issues were raised, but I don't think it is a reservation as far as I am concerned.  Having a bit of ardor is not a bad thing for an administrator as long as he can rein it in ''in the role as an admin'', and I think he can.  --
'''Nervous support''' Great editor, and I'm confident that Ling Nut would not abuse the tools. I'm nervous because of the concerns raised by many in the oppose section, but sufficiently reassured by the candidate and by the clean blocklog that I believe if we give Ling Nut the mop dark Ling Nut won't go biting newbies and non-admins. Challenging other admins perhaps, but sometimes that is something we need done. ''
'''Support''' per the excellent and creative questions 14 to 16. Also, seems like someone who "tells it like it is" and, in my opinion, we could use more people like that in the admin corps.
'''Support''' as a worthy contributor who will be an effective addition as an admin.
'''Support'''  In  spite of his tendency  to  TLDR, and his rather subtle use of borderline incivility, I  am quite familiar with  his work and have every confidence that  he will  use the tools with  the greatest  discretion.--
'''Yes please'''. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Warm support''' I appreciate the concerns of my friends who have opposed Ling's RfA, and he has not handled some situations as I would have.  But I am convinced that Ling will be one of our best administrators.  My faith is based partly on his honesty, intelligence, and devotion to our encyclopedic goals, which everyone recognizes from his years of work here.  But I also know from personal experience that  he has the maturity and inner tranquility to work productively with other people, and that the responsibility of being an admin will bring out the best in him. I believe we Wikipedians will be thankful for making him an admin.
'''Support'''&mdash;I haven't been that active in the last two years, but I'm pretty sure the number one priority when it comes to administrators is that they won't abuse the tools. I don't think Ling.Nut will do this. Unconventional thought and practice is good as long as it doesn't obstruct an administrator's basic functions. As for retirements...who cares? It's volunteer work. If someone is offering to work at the soup kitchen, why deny them only because they don't come down every four days? &mdash; '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; honest, straight-spoken person, we have a desperate need of more people like that, especially as admins. Wonderful answer to question 8, too.
'''Support''' - I don't think your answers are TLDR at all. I think they show you've thought your positions through and answered honestly. A laudable position indeed. Contributions look excellent and a clean block-history. Good luck!
'''Support''' Quite a clueful user. <span style="background-color: #0000FF">
'''Support''' I admit I haven't always seen eye to eye with Ling.Nut but his heart is definitely in the right place. He's a very conscientious editor who's here to improve Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' I trust that Ling.Nut will not abuse admin priveleges. A solid contributor who is ready for new responsibilities here.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. A great editor. I certainly don't see what's wrong with wanting to help with "gnomish backlogs" or with showing a little emotion once in a while.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has the knowledge and expertise to do the job
'''Support''' Refreshing to see such honesty, and someone with such an honest view on WP:CIV <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong Support''' Great editor. <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #3366FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Support''' I agree with most of what's above, but a good deal of what's below as well.  I agree you sometimes come across as self-important,  faux-erudite, or simply incomprehensible.  Rarely are our insights so wonderful that they can only be expressed in convoluted Joycean whirls. --
'''Support'''. Only a handful of editors I've come across care about quality of content as much as Ling.Nut. I won't say much more, because [[User:WillowW|Willow]]'s appraisal of this editor can't be bettered: Ling.Nut's honesty will be a boon to the admin pool, and the responsibility of the position will bring out the best in him. Win-win.&nbsp;
'''Support'''. This is a highly experienced editor who has grown in wisdom without becoming wishy-washy. Answers to questions clearly show a cautious approach to using the administrator tools, and hesitance to block. In the end, what I look for in an administrator is maturity, wisdom, and a deep concern about this project. I see those things in Ling.Nut. It is obvious that Ling.Nut's self-nomination grew out of a desire to help, rather than simply a desire for admin privileges. ~
'''Support''' - The "civility oppose" reasoning is utterly lacking from the sample I looked at in the opposes below. The supports above provide enough reason to like, and if the oppose reasons are based on phrases that people don't like, then that's not enough to change my mind.
'''Support''' - weighing both supporters' and opposers' arguments I find myself in this column: Candidate shows [[User:Pgallert/RfA_voting_criteria|clue]] and experience, and will therefore probably act on the advice given here. --
'''Support''' While i acknowledge the opposers views, I do feel Ling has the heart in the right place. Merely starting a discussion (as has been done with DYK), as ling has done, at what someone views as a potential problem on wiki is not something to fault for as has been done in the opposition. We need to encourage discussion and collaboration, that to me is a sign of a viligant editor.
'''Support'''. What iridescent said.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've thought a bit about this because the Nut is a first class contributor and reviewer of substance, and all round good egg. I have considered his more colourful side (particularly his language) but believe that whilst it is in his nature to express himself in somewhat extreme terms on occasions, it is ''not'' in his nature to abuse power. It ''is'' in his nature to be thorough, sincere, insightful and helpful. (I don't think it matters if he ends up not using the tools much as we are not going to run out).
'''Support''' Reasonable guy who will not abuse the tools.--''
'''Support''' No evidence provided by anyone that he would be likely to abuse the tools. It is good to have a variety of backgrounds for administrators. The idea of admins as a separate, priestly caste - with admittance only to those who pass some ill-defined test - is wrongheaded in my opinion. --
'''Support''' Was initially suspicious of the user name and the opposes below but it's clear Ling.Nut is not your average editor. I  find him an intelligent and well intended with some outspoken views. If not an admin then an addition to the Wikipedia's who can [[Thinking outside the box|think outside the box]] would be appropriate. Regards,
'''Support''' Focussed on content, with intelligence and experience. Not a conventional candidate, but I'm happy to support an editor whom I believe won't abuse the tools, even if they possibly won't use them much. --
'''Support''' A thoroughly genuine, humorous, flexible guy with extensive experience and abilities as a content editor. This project is being torn apart by dysfunctional administrators on destructive missions to try and force the best content editors away from Wikipedia. It seems even a matter of gratification amongst them, chalking up their trophies. The focus is radically confused. We desperately needs administrators that competent content editors can trust and view with pride. Ling would be such an administrator. Like any editor who has made major contributions to Wikipedia, detractors emerge from those who are jealous and resentful of his abilities. That he might not succeed in this RfA is utterly damming to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' - (moved from neutral) the answers to questions 14 through 16 &ndash; ''especially'' q16 &ndash; have completely overridden my previous concerns.
'''Support''' While the opposes note some points, in the end I feel Ling. Nut will use the tools well. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support'''' I trust you. '''
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ling.Nut&diff=prev&oldid=393611007 This] comment from SandyGeorgia makes sense to me.
'''Support''' Trust this user also.
'''Support''' I trust this user.
'''Support''' Generally intelligent, has a sense of humor, and seems to have the genuine ability to read a situation. And quite honestly, when someone is full of shit or doing stupid things and hasn't listened to anyone telling them more gently, they probably need to be told so without any sugarcoating. Knowing when it's time to do that is part of what admins should be doing. As to the "TLDR" crap, not everything can be said in ten words or less. Demanding people put everything into bite-sized chunks so you're not inconvenienced by having to read everything they have to say is ridiculous and arrogant.
'''Support''' Been pondering this one all week.  All things considered, likely a net positive.
'''Support''' Seems ok to me, based on interactions at FAC.
'''Support''' – There are some valid concerns in the "oppose" section, but this candidate would, on the whole, be a net positive I think. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''', wholeheartedly. A first-rate contributor, thoughtfully diligent & helpful reviewer. Ling.Nut is one of the most competent, engaging, honest, generous, and clued-up wikipedians it's been a pleasure to collaborate with over the years. Ling's someone whose dedication, interest in & care for the project and its aims have been evident from the get-go. No issues at all in trusting Ling.Nut to use the tools appropriately. Contrary to some of the 'incivility/drama' scenarios imagined below, actual experience has shown Ling.Nut to be flexible, sensible, and capable of de-escalating conflict situations without pig-headed pursuit, and have no doubt he'd be an asset as an admin. I suppose folks are entitled to either like or not like his expressiveness or style as suits their own tastes, but that has little to do with prospective competence as an admin. Thus far there have been no actual hard outcomes --blocks, arb, etc -- that would give adequate reason to be worried. --
'''Strong oppose''' - While, granted, my experience with this editor is limited, I have found him to be repeatedly rude, abrasive, condescending, and prone to run off in a huff. We have far too many admins prone to that sort of drama. We don't need one more. Especially when that person shows such a limited understanding of [[WP:BLP]] that they are willing to make utterly unsupported accusations of fraud against identifiable, living people, as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_denial&action=historysubmit&diff=329402897&oldid=329402337 here]. In addition, my experience with him on that article suggests to me that he has little hesitation when it comes to substituting his own opinions for reliably sourced content. Judging by the comments above, I assume that this isn't always the case. But really, that makes his behaviour even ''more'' worrying, since it suggests a willingness to disregard BLP and [[WP:V]] despite the fact that he knows better. Either way, a very poor candidate.
(ec with the above) Per [[Talk:Quid pro quo#not myspace. Not geocities.]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quid_pro_quo&oldid=391583959#not_myspace._Not_geocities. permalink]), the "Ling.Nut.Dark" moment of a few days ago that the nominee alludes to. The same temperament issues are also apparent in e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War&diff=prev&oldid=391823201 this edit] of two days ago. While I agree entirely with the position Ling.Nut takes with respect to trivia at the "quid pro quo" talk page, administrators should set an example in how to get their point across (i.e., not by swearing at those who disagree with them). I should be able to support Ling.Nut's candidacy after an extended time of active editing in which no such problems manifest themselves, i.e., after it becomes clear that Ling.Nut has succeeded in retiring that "dark" personality. In addition, it is not really clear to me (especially from Q1) what Ling.Nut actually needs the tools for. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose.''' [[Talk:Quid pro quo#not myspace. Not geocities.]] does not demonstrate the temperament expected of administrators. Another concern (but not a serious one) is Q1 - a clearer indication of what you actually want to do with the bit would be nice. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Guettarda sums up the actions I saw on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quid_pro_quo&oldid=391583959#not_myspace._Not_geocities. recent edits] well, "rude, abrasive, condescending". I can't see an administrator mediating and helping two groups on a talk page by calling edits "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War&diff=391823201&oldid=390694595 idiotic crap]" and questioning whether they are an editor or not. The user has improved the encyclopedia no doubt but being an admin requires good communication skills and assumption of good faith. Slip-ups happen and sometimes you have to call it like it is but those recent edits are absurd and unbecoming of a potential administrator.--
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia is in great need of unconventional and outspoken administrators, but such attributes must have foundations in good sense and informed knowledge.  I would have been firmly in the support category before Ling’s comments at the [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1| Taiwanese aborigines FAR]].  Comments such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Taiwanese_aborigines/archive1&action=historysubmit&diff=387640518&oldid=387545534 this] are, frankly, ignorant and offensive.  To claim systematic bias is ludicrous (as en.wiki considers only copyright status in the United States – non-US works are actually given a ''significant'' advantage in many cases), and the remainder is patent disregard for [[WP:V]] and intellectual laziness.  I don’t believe Ling would intentionally misuse the tools, but I no longer have confidence that they would be wielded with sufficient consideration of policy, but, rather, with undue emotion and personal opinion.
'''Oppose''' For various reasons.  1)The nominee seems to me to be quite insulting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quid_pro_quo&oldid=391583959#not_myspace._Not_geocities. here].  I would hope that admins (and editors that want to become admins) would express themselves without insulting other editors.  2)The nominee mentions multiple "retirements."  Seeing this makes me wonder if the nominee would be able to handle any stress that might come with being an admin.  3)The nominee states "the near-complete lack of adminly experience."  The nominee also states "I will certainly never participate in XfD...I will not actively use my blocking button, nor seek out vandals or debates where its use is likely. I will never be a vandal-whacker."  Those statements decreased the likelihood of me supporting.  For a potential admin to avoid so many different aspects of adminship seems unwise.--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Prolific drama monger per diffs provided above. We have enough of these with the tools already. It is pointless to add another. (ec)
recent negative interactions with user leave me unable to trust that this user will not abuse the extra tools. -
'''Oppose''' per response to Q1. I applaud your honesty, but in my humble opinion, you aren't yet ready for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with temperament and judgement.  -'''
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' Your answer to my question leads me to believe that your understanding of what an admin does is very poor despite your long tenure at Wikipedia. Latest attempt to answer the simple question of what admin work you would do is even worse and more evasive than the first two attempts. You are expected to have an understanding of the basic concepts involved in admin work ''before'' submitting an RFA, the few specifics you have provided show that you have little to no understanding of what administrators do. Upgrading to '''Strong oppose'''.
Wish I could support, but there's a niggling feeling in the back of my mind that stops me doing so.
'''Oppose''' - I don't like your answers, quite frankly, especially to question one. From what's said above you may be a great editor, but I see no need for sysop tools.
'''Oppose''': All reasons mentioned above.
Per Above. -
Per Ajraddatz's reason. <b>
'''Oppose''' Those diffs/links make me think twice about handing you the tools. Go a few months without being involved in major issues like the ones mentioned above and I'd be more than happy to support :) All the best,--
'''Oppose''' I was willing to overlook the ''colorful'' language and the arduous history you seem to have, but in Q14, you shot yourself in the foot. "My first response would be that I have based my solemn assertion that I will retire all over-colorful language on my desire to uphold the reputation of the encyclopedia." is all well and good, except you should be saying "I'm retiring my bad behavior because it is disruptive and wrong." Address your past problems as issues for self improvement, rather than self sacrifice. The whole 'for the good of the encyclopedia' thing is off-putting. I also see in your recent comments that you keep promising reform while skirting on the edge of acceptable behavior. Eccentricities are fine, heck they keep the world interesting, but they are only fine when the repercussions are minor. Considering that the probability that any action taken as any admin is going to be major is higher than if that same action was taken by a non-admin, your eccentricities are a tad too much for me. Sorry, but I have to oppose. Since it looks like you might pass anyways (50-20 support-oppose at the time of this comment) I'd like to offer some humble advice. ''Prove me wrong.'' Prove that you're a capable and respected admin. Use the tools well. Don't do it for me, do it for the "reputation of the encyclopedia." :) Cheers, <span style="text-shadow:#91219E 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''Oppose''', [[Talk:Quid_pro_quo#not_myspace._Not_geocities.|this]] clearly shows the wrong temperament for an admin. Opposing trivia in Wikipedia is good; making it a righteous crusade that justifies throwing profanity all around is not, and getting snitty with those who ask for it to be toned down isn't scoring points, either. I'm not a civility policeman, but I'm also not into giving people like this use of the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Too idiosyncratic for an admin. The best type of administrator is a disinterested sobersides (I'm sure we all know the difference between disinterested and uninterested).
I'm sorry; I respect the work on content and the dedication to the project. But there's too much temperamental and volatile history here for me to be comfortable. Those are huge red flags, because adminship exacerbates those tendencies. I just can't confidently support this as a good idea. That said, I see some of the names I respect most on this project in the "Support" column, so I hope I'm just wrong or uncharitable, and that if this passes, Ling.Nut will do good work. '''
Per Sandstein. ~~
'''Oppose'''I agree with the comments regarding civility and demeanor. The editor actually started off OK in our interactions but eventually fell into passive aggressiveness, flat-out rudeness, and assuming the worst in others. To top it off, it was all in a topic area that is subject to sanctions through the arbitration process so an admin would need to show that they have the patience to handle it. Not my finest moments but I'm not going for admin: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ling.Nut/Archives/2010/09#Six_day_war]. Has some great qualities while interacting but the pendulum repeatedly swings too far the other way.
'''Oppose'''. It is with regret that I have to oppose this time. I really like the open and honest "stream of thought" approach to answers, which is clearly not pre-prepared and carefully edited in order to please - and I find myself agreeing with much of the thought that is in those answers. I also see someone who is clearly very smart, and with wide and deep knowledge of Wikipedia stuff. The problem is this Ling.Nut.Dark business, and the "solemn assertion that I will retire all over-colorful language". I'm very much inclined to trust that solemn assertion, but the problem I have is that if I am mistaken, then, in the absence of a sensible desysop process, there is no comeback - giving admin rights is a one-way street. And so I feel I just can't support someone based on what they promise they will do, no matter how much I feel it is a trustworthy promise - I can only base my decision on what people can show they have already done. And the last problematic emotion/drama was only a week ago. Should I see a future RfA following a Dark-free 3-6 month spell, I would very much expect to support it. --
'''Oppose''' – Ling.Nut has neither the temperament nor the experience to be an administrator. My interactions with him, though limited, have led me to the conclusion that his attitude is often one of condescension and arrogance, and that he holds the project and its editors in contempt. (Evidence for the latter point may be found in the various essays Ling.Nut has posted to his userpage, each as self-important and falsely erudite as the last.) —<strong>
'''Oppose to avoid future drahmaz'''. I find the personality to be unsuited for administrative action. This, to me, will probably only end in an arbcom case. Forestall that by letting this editor do something else other than be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' I do not trust this user not to abuse tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' this candidate already has severe lack of maturity, even during this RfA right now. I was thinking of recusing it, but when I saw that sensibly worded Q10 I've already pointed out his maturity problems with his excessive '''boldness''' in his answer. I have no doubt that he'll soon be yelling out the word "BUTTONS!" if he gets the privilege next week.
'''Oppose''' per the talk QPQ stuff.  Not the temperament expected of an admin.
'''Strong oppose''' - I don't often weigh in on RfAs, but I feel that I need to express my opinion on this one as it looks like it could be close. The Ling.Nut.Dark and Ling.Nut.Nice personas concern me quite a bit -- although the user promises to retire Ling.Nut.Dark, I can't help but wonder if the added stressors from admin work will pull this persona out of retirement. The diffs of insults that have been provided are especially concerning, and I feel like if this user is given the mop, it's only a matter of time before we see an ArbCom case for desysopping. ''I have amended my !vote from an oppose to a strong oppose. Claiming that ten days is sufficient time to learn from inappropriate comments shows a lack of evidence of maturity. A large part of my decision to strongly oppose, though, is Ling.Nut's response to JamesBWatson's similar !vote. Saying things such as "I went to all the trouble of doing an extremely unorthodox thing..." seems, frankly, too conceited to me. <span style="font-family: Verdana">—
'''Oppose''' for now. Too much drama, too much behaviour that looks immature.  It's great to hear that this sort of behaviour will be discontinued, and I accept in good faith that LingNuts sincerely intends to stop that.  However, only time will tell how successful this is, so we need more time before to see how successful the reform is.  There is a lot to like about LingNuts, so I hope that after 6 months of cleaned-up conduct, we'll see another RFA, ''provided'' that it gives us some idea of what LingNuts actually wants to do with the tools. --
'''Oppose'''.  For now, per WhiteShadows and BrownHairedGirl, I might be willing to support if more time elapsed between the diffs cited above in this section of !votes and the next RfA.  As little as six months might be enough time...  Best of luck.
'''Oppose''' Sorry ling.  That yellow highlighting is just obnoxious.  The conversation in those diffs is pretty troubling.
Per Sandstein and others, and I'm doing you a favor, Ling.  In your current mood, you'd only mop yourself into a corner.  Give it a rest, come back when you're feeling better. - Dank (
Questions 14-16... creative approach, but it's passive-aggressive, and it amplifies the TLDR concerns.
'''Oppose''' per BrownHairedGirl.
'''Oppose:''' The candidate does not demonstrate the temperament expected of administrators. -
'''Oppose''', per Sandstein. Significant concerns about temperament.
'''Oppose''' First of all, it would take quite exceptional circumstances for me to be persuaded it would be beneficial to give adminship to someone who says, in effect, "I don't have any idea what I will do with my admin tools: I will think about that when I've got the tools". That is further reinforced when the user in question does not seem to currently be doing anything admin related, and when they actually rule out several admin areas (vandal fighting, XfD, blocking) without ruling any in. Secondly, this user is frequently contemptuous and dismissive of those he disagrees with, which is completely unacceptable for an admin. Thirdly, the user is clearly out of sympathy with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in several respects (e.g. "I find the idea of preventing people from editing the encyclopedia anyone can edit a bit distasteful"). That would be fine if I detected a suggestion of "I don't agree with policy X, but I will do my best to uphold it per consensus", but I don't. Instead I see remarks such as "CONSENSUS is wholly and completely a farce on Wikipedia ... Feel free to do the right thing at any time" (i.e. to do ''what you personally think'' is "the right thing", irrespective of consensus). The whole manner and tone of many of the editors comments here and elsewhere suggest that this quote '''''is absolutely representative of the editor's approach''''', and so I fear a use of admin tools to carry out his own wishes, not to serve the community's consensus. There are other reasons for not being happy with this candidate, covered above by other commentators, but those three are the ones that I find most compelling.
'''Oppose''' - Responding to TLDR concerns by asking ''yourself'' three questions at your own RfA doesn't seem like a well thought-out idea.
My interactions with him have not been positive. Although I'd doubt he'd ''abuse'' the tools, I could see him dramamongering for sure. ~<strong>'''''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, from my various interactions with him, I can agree with the temperament/attitude issue.
'''Oppose'''. This is a bold self-nom and Ling.Nut is a great editor. However the answer to question 1 shows unconvincing reasons for adminship. I am also concerned by the "lack of adminly experience", by which I think he/she means "lack of experience in areas where admins are required".
'''Oppose''' Has undoubtedly made some friends here but the only times I remember seeing this user are from shockingly abrasive comments
'''Oppose''' It is difficult to see why this editor, who certainly has extensive experience here, needs the tools. Having said that, his experience does not adequately encompass admin-related areas, ans his attitude, as detailed in various opposes above, gives me cause for concern.--<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' I think Ling.Nut is a great contributor. I've seen him doing awesome work in many places over the years, and I think we're lucky he's a part of Wikipedia. Any contributor who has been prolific is going to have people with grudges against them in some sense, whether for legitimate reasons or bad faith ones. See[[WP:LAWS| J.S.'s second law]] (#120 on the list) for a funny yet true maxim on that. But regardless, the opposition brings up a point that is extremely relevant. Admins need to sometimes be able to stop, take a deep breath, and calm down in the face of rude or frustrating behavior. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six-Day_War&diff=391823201&oldid=390694595 This comment] from about a week and a half ago is not an acceptable reaction in a debate. Not that I'm saying I'm perfect, but that's not the kind of attitude and action that drives away newbies and adds to burnout among old hands. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' per many above: concerns regarding temperament and attitude. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - per concerns in relation to the candidate's temperament and general attitude, great contributor but I don't think I can support at this time. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't seem to have a good idea of why they want the tools or what they would do with them. --'''
'''Oppose''' - recent civility issues. Ling.Nut doesn't always seem to interact with other users in the clear and calm way that is expected of an administrator (the [[WP:TLDR]] concerns apply here as well, though that's less of an issue). Also, this isn't automatically a reason to oppose, but he doesn't seem too clear about why he wants the tools. Most of the 'gnome work' on Wikipedia doesn't actually require them; merging articles, for instance, can be done by anyone.
'''Oppose'''. My feeling here is that the appointment of this user would lead to drama and conflict, leading to a net negative for the Wikipedia project as a result of his adminship. I'm not sure that users whom are controversial and involved in conflicts as editors are ever suitable for adminship, actually.
'''Oppose'''. Dislike how candidate appears to turn up [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page|here]] with no obvious reason but to pile on against DYK. Not what I expect from a potential admin. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Oppose''' after going through the various (opposing) arguments here and consulting his user page, not somebody I'd personally be comfortable with as an administrator (see also Esteffect reasoning) --
'''Oppose''' I appreciate the work that Ling.Nut has done for the project. That said, I have concerns about his ability to be patient and keep his cool when confronted with heated situations. It only takes one bad decision or comment to cause friction as an admin and I can't say with confidence that Ling.Nut will not do that. If Ling.Nut can improve his ability to be civil and calm to others in the future for a good period of time, I may support. For now however, I have my concerns. Regards, --
Has his way of intimidating and bullying just about anybody. Seems to retire every so often to circumvent criticism. I have no problem supporting people I don't usually "get along" with, but I honestly believe promoting the candidate would create more harm than benefit. Also, FWIW, LN seems to be fond of using condescending clichés in his conversations, which has made me uncomfortable in the past.
'''Oppose''' - sounds like a lot of drama. No now, but maybe later.
'''Oppose''' for now out of fear this person will cause more dramas than he/she resolves based on the comments above. I encourage building up a drama-free track record for 6 months, then standing again. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose'''. I do not trust this user to abuse the tools only in ways of which I can approve.
'''Oppose''', per Q3, Q5, Q8. Referring to one of the more contentious areas of Wikipedia as a "circus" leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Q5 leaves me particularly worried. Neither do we need admins who defer to authority, nor admins who assume that the job does confer authority. We don't call it a mo<s>b</s>p for nothing. Finally, I think we have too much back-channel communication already, and in particular we can do without the condescending tone "in almost those exact words" obvious in Q8. --
'''Oppose'''. Very worrying, in particular responses to Q5 and Q8. Maybe one day, but a lot would need to change.
'''Oppose''' - Tough call here for me, for a number of reasons.  This is a dedicated editor with support from over 100 editors, many of whom I respect highly.  And yet... the concerns around "drama" strike me as valid.  Perhaps I'm showing my age, but a 'dark' alter ego just strikes me as childish.  I want to see less of that sort of thing in the admin corps.  With respect, I cannot support at this time.  My best wishes to the candidate and thanks for your offer of service.
'''Weak oppose'''. Not because of the answer to my question, but becasue, out in the wild as it were, I have encountered only the "Ling.Nut.dark".
'''Neutral for now''' While the candidate's unorthodox and eccentric ways are somewhat charming and refreshing, I'm still in the process of deciding whether this behavior comports with the temperament expected of administrators.--
'''Neutral''' On the fence...supporters and opposers offer reasoned explanations for their positions.--
'''On the fence''' as well, though I write this mainly to state my moral support. Ling.Nut is an excellent content contributor, and I do like an administrator with a sense of humor; a better answer to Q1, and a bit more moderation in their comments (referred to here often enough), would have made me support.
'''Neutral'''. Something doesn't sit right with me.. --
'''Neutral''' (moved from oppose).  His good conduct during a difficult RfA has shaken the strength of my oppose, and I'm moving to neutral.  Maybe in a few months?--
'''Neutral''' (moved from oppose) I cannot assess this candidate to the level I would like to. As with Wehwalt I think his conduct has been reasonable during this RfA, if a little confusing at times. He makes good assurances but there is a reason why good assurances from any particular candidate are not enough.
'''Neutral'''. Probably per Wehwalt and Dank - I'd like to see some time elapse re style of interaction issues. Other stuff that's been raised I'm not that concerned about. Ling.nut has been fabulously valuable at places like FAC and FARC, and when Sandy says they broke the mould when they made Ling, I'm one who wishes they hadn't - Ling is an interesting contributor who often makes really thought-provoking contributions. I'd like to see another nom in a few months time...
"Musical artists and albums" is not an area of administrative work.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, and while I hate editcountitis, 365 edits just isn't enough to pass an RfA. Please come back in 4-5 months with 4-5 thousand edits.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but as I said on your talk page you have insufficient edits to prove you've been trusted. This is a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]]--'''''
'''Oppose''' as you are inexperienced. This is a waste of time and should be withdrawn as soon as possible. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Oppose''' Well intentioned self nom, but nowhere near ready per q's. Please keep up your good intentions and come back several thousand edits/several months from now.
'''Oppose''' please look at [[WP:ADMIN]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Admins do much more than preventing false edits, which you can do without being an admin anyhow. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' - User doesn't seem to comprehend the actual role of an administrator. Spend some more time actively editing and familiarize yourself, then return.
'''Support''' as the nominator.
'''Weak Support:''' will some day be a net positive.
'''Oppose''' - You seem to have a penchant for Huggle mistakes. This coupled with my relative disdain for the overuse of Huggle, I'm going to be force to oppose for now.
Everyone makes mistakes, but I can't support in good conscience an admin who [[User_talk:Madhero88#Please_stop_reverting_my_edits|accidentally]] restores vandalism twice in a day while using Huggle.  Looking at your edit history it seems you do a lot of good work, both in article work and in anti-vandalism, but one out of every few hundred reverts is something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chimpanzee&diff=next&oldid=277701896 this], which you didnt seem to notice until the user Tangent747 brought it up on your talk page. I would be happy to support if you return to full time editing for a while and show us that you won't make mistakes like that in the future. -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''', I see some causes for concern regarding Huggle and copyright issues. Would also like to see some more experiences in varied capacities, including quality content work. '''
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' Per Soap <s>and lack of recent activity. The majority of activity within the last 2 months seems to be controversial, and I cannot support an admin with that in mind.</s> --
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per soap.--
'''Oppose'''. Pretty much for the same reasons as Wisdom and Soap.
'''Oppose''' this time.  Huggle mistakes are relatively easy to make, so I'm not going to hold them against you.  However, I'd like to see a good deal more recent activity before supporting.  Someday, just not today.
'''Oppose''' due to the candidate's several lapses in judgment, Huggle errors, and lack of recent activity.
'''Oppose''' Huggle is a powerful tool that should be used very carefully, and you seem to make numerous mistakes... Now, I make mistakes every now and then, but I catch them practically every time I and revert myself, but seeing these mistakes of yours isn't exactly what is causing me to oppose, because everyone makes mistakes. It is the fact you don't seem to notice your mistakes until someone tells you about them that fills me with doubt... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose'''.  Per concerns with judgment, experience, and recent inactivity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - Per the talk page comment pointed out by The Thing. The mistaken revert happened too soon before this RfA gained more votes, thus I am opposing this user for now. I also know that this will be a learning experience for him, and that I wish him best of luck in the future. :-)
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - Per the above. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Neutral''' due to lack of evidence - I like to review the candidate's answers to the three standard questions as a minimum.--
'''Neutral''' Huggle edits seem like really bad timing (and cause for concern) especially after launching this endeavour. Query 1 and 3 should be answered before I will make any decisons on support/oppose
[[WP:NOTNOW]] '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
[[WP:NOTNOW]] Some time to get a feel for the site would be in order. With less than 20 edits, it is impossible to evaluate your understanding of the policies and how you would inact them as an administrator. Please follow some current and previous [[WP:Requests for adminship|RFA's]] to see what things the community looks for in a potential administrator candidate. Kindly
I can only see three edits made outside this RFA. That's not enough experience to judge capability for admin status. Further, the motivation to become an admin ("put and end to my posts being questioned") is unsound: being an admin does not confer elevated status in the community. An admin's edits are to be subject to the same scrutiny as (and in practice will be subject to more scrutiny than) any other editor's. --
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - Zero quality contributions so far (all three edits besides this page and test request have been reverted), seems like this request was only to "prove" that he is a good editor. Try [[WP:ER|editor review]] for that, and welcome to Wikipedia. '''
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - I don't think you have enough experience to be an administrator yet. It is nice to know that people are ready to take the jobs. I would recommend looking at the contributions of current administrators. --
'''Oppose''' - Per terse nomination statement and strangely written non-answers to the questions. Also, you don't have enough project space experience in my opinion.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, judgement, policy knowledge (i.e. why are there so many warnings on your talk?), and skimpy/vague answers to questions. -'''
'''Oppose''' As Wisdom says, the nomination statement is very lacking and inspires no confidence whatsoever. I've not even hit the links to your contributions, talk etc. The nomination is enough to oppose out of hand. <small>In particular '''''"and even got a couple people"''''' might be acceptable in America (where they use the bastardised  "he wrote me" ''et.al.'') but not to me I'm afraid.</small> Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. "I watchlist ~800 pages so the block function will doubtlessly be used"? [[Non sequitur|I drank a Diet Coke so the post office I doubtlessly shall visit]].
I watchlist 7,471 pages and don't feel the need for a block button, doubtlessly or not. Sorry, but from your (terse) statement and answers above, you give no impression that you know what a Wikipedia admin does, let alone make a case why you should be one.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose'''. You do some very good work with CSDs, which indicates you could have admin potential in the future. But at the moment, your experience is too narrow to be confident to give you the broad range of administrative tools. The questions bear this out: in my view, there will be times where a block without warning is warranted, such as for an [[WP:DUCK|obvious]] sock of a banned user or extreme BLP violations (Q6). I suggest you broaden your experience a bit: get involved in some XfDs and solid content creation. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, yet. I'm sure you will make a good admin someday, but for now, I advise you to withdraw and come back when you have gained more experience. --
'''Strong oppose''' even before my questions are answered. To number 4, if you still need to read up on something, maybe you should wait and fully understand everything before an RfA. To the (other?) number 4, you should already have a strong password regardless of how often you change it. Number 5, you didn't answer it anyways. Number 6 is outright wrong, you should ''always'' immediately block banned users' socks, etc. I'm not sure why, if you are not confident in your own abilities, that you require access to the tools. <span style="border:1px solid;">
The candidate does look promising, but I don't think you're ready to be an admin. I don't see a lot of edits in the Wikipedia: namespace. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
<s>'''First to support.'''</s>'''Weak support''' Good balance of contributions for an admin. --
'''Support''' Good balance of audited content creation and vandal-fighting. Clearly here to build an encyclopedia, have never had any negative interactions with him.
'''Oppose''' I find both your actions and your explanation for them in the Jansport thing disingenuous. You didn't seem to care one bit about this until earlier today, when you went over there and asked them to come back right in the middle of putting together this RFA. (look at the timestamps on these edits:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marcus_Qwertyus&diff=prev&oldid=374377034] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jansport87&diff=prev&oldid=374378020][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marcus_Qwertyus&diff=prev&oldid=374378391]) That looks to me like just trying to cover your tracks and make an apology for the sake of appearance to help you at RFA. You completely ignored my postings your talk page about this incident[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus&diff=369272810&oldid=369237349] and about a bad CSD tagging you made the same day[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus&diff=next&oldid=369272810]. Admins are expected to be skilled at communicating with other users, and should respond to legitimate criticisms of their actions. Your answer to my question about this did nothing to persuade otherwise.
'''Oppose.''' No rationale given to Jansport87 as for what makes the username promotional (I honestly have no idea!), and a lack of follow-up on [[Miami University Art Museum|this article]]'s speedy G11 tag, which you self-removed without explanation after the material was sent to OTRS for G12 compliance. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Oppose''': Beeblebrox's rationale is just too compelling to ignore. I don't think you have the right attitude to become an admin at this time. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry - I can't support, having seen the diffs for the Jansport87 incident. I also have some general maturity/attitude concerns from reviewing some contributions, and from the responses to questions and criticism here. &nbsp;
'''Strong oppose'''. Opposing an RfA is not something I enjoy doing, but something just doesn't sit right with me. In my own interactions I've found you abrupt and uncommunicative. My most recent interaction was an {{tl|editprotected}} request, where you demanded that code from your userspace be copied over, your request comprising simply of "implement this." You only added the word "please" after an administrator all but refused to make the change until you did so. The only justification you provided for your lack of common courtesy was that you were going to request adminship in a few weeks. If that was my only concern, I would abstain or put my comment in the neutral section, but everywhere I turn, I find yet more niggling concerns- Beeblebrox above does nothing to put my mind at ease. I'm also unimpressed with "''and rightfully there should have been a couple of ITN's but the ITN talk page's atmosphere is not conducive for democracy''"- the bad grammar and use of apostrophes raises an eyebrow and [[WP:DEMO|Wikipedia is not a democracy]], but much more concerning is your refusal to accept the consensus when it didn't go your way and the desire to take on a role that often involves sorting out some bitter disputes when you can't accept. All in all, I have deep concerns about your maturity, communications skills, ability to accept consensus and understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. TL;DR? Sorry, I don't trust you.
'''Oppose''' Although vandalism fighting is definitely a plus, I don't feel that the user is fit to become an administrator at this time due to the run-in with Jansport87.
'''Unfortunate oppose''' – Your contributions are great, but the Jansport87 incident killed it all. Sorry. That should have been handled much better, and the diffs make it worse. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
<small>2x</small>{{ec}}'''Oppose''' from neutral per CSD concerns (see my neutral comment), Beeblebrox, and HJ Mitchell. In addition, the Jansport87 incident tipped the balance for me; it should have been handled better.
'''Oppose''' He/she can't be an admin at this time due to the recent Jansport87 incident and CSD concerns. I might support you once the Jansport87 incident is 1 year ago and the CSD concerns has been addressed.
'''Oppose''' largely per the Jansport87 incident. Just looking at your comments as well as the stuff on your talk page makes me hesitate about giving you the tools. My oppose can largely be summed up as "Per HJ".--
'''Oppose''' Per HJ Mitchell. :( '''
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus/Archive_3] in regards to CSDs, what HJ said, and the odd Jansport thing. I appreciate the work in tagging articles, but having to be informed about it by multiple people in a relatively short time frame is hard to ignore;  if you aren't sure about a tagging an article, you should ask for a second opinion if you didn't already. (for the record, the CSD thing is the least of my concerns, I'm just pointing it out)
'''Oppose''' - Ouch, Jansport.  Could have been handled a lot better... and I think we can see this is already in [[WP:SNOW]] territory, so let's not prolong the pile-on.  Candidate should work hard and come back next year with a clear slate.
'''Oppose''' Jansport oppose. Suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' per attitude illustrated above by candidate, not yet ready for the mop in my opinion. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' Per oppose reasons. Attitude matters a lot in this area!
'''Oppose''' - the candidate had no basis for purporting to give a new user a 36 hour deadline to change his username. He assumed an air of authority that he had no right to assume. -
'''Oppose''' - per Beeble.  Suggest withdrawal, so as to avoid a pile-up of opposes, and trying again after a year.--
'''Oppose''' No, not a great idea.
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' beeblebrox makes a good point and a valid issue of concern. I do oppose this rfa. Suggest a Not now and snow at this point.

'''Nay''' clearly i missed something big in approving you for account creation team and there is no way i can support you for admin at this time. Your other edits to UAA looked good so i never got as far back as your reporting Jansport87. Jansport87 is not a flagrant violation of user name policy and your behaviour surrounding that user is not becoming of an admin. Hopefully you have learnt from this experience. And hopefully Jansport87 comes back. <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose''' per Beeblebrox et al. The interesting bit here is that, despite the damning diffs above and the very serious concerns about your conduct, you still have several veteran admins offering encouragement. Add me to that list - I think you can get where you need to be, and that you can eventually be a good admin. But you'll want to find a mentor and work very hard on your communication skills. As we see with the Jansport incident, mistakes can have real consequences, and that's something every admin must consider all the time. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a good content contributor, but the concerns raised above are a bit alarming to me. Perhaps a bit more experience will help.
'''Oppose''' per Beeblebrox et al. I also have some serious conduct concerns that I just can't shake, normally, I support RfA's because I think RfA is too hard already, but I just can't here.
You could have just ignored the Jansport thing, which happened a month ago, and hoped no one mentioned it.  But you chose to be honest and state it in the answer to Q3.  Admitting one's mistakes is a good trait for an administrator to have.  However I don't think you're quite ready yet, because of the other reasons brought up in the oppose section.  '''
'''Neutral''' I don't know.  He has had some good contributions, but that [[User talk:Jansport87|Jansport87]] thing ruined it for me.  At least he didn't make somebody else bring it up  (then I would have certainly opposed).  I agree with Beeblebrox's and HJ Mitchell's rationales, but also with the three supports. I'll need more time to think about this before (or if) I move it to support or oppose. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Neutral''' I think the Jansport87 thing was a mistake, but that and HJ's points are still too recent. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' per the Jansport incident. Sorry I had to change my !vote, but I am now convinced you aren't quite ready. Sorry. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Neutral''' even after having a deeper look at his contributions, this one is a bit hard to decide, does he earn it or not. '''''
'''Neutral''' &ndash; and not for the Jansport87 reason (though it was a large mistake I am sure that with a majority of people opposing because of it, you have learned your lesson). I would very much like to support, but for other reasons brought up in the oppose section and your somewhat pleading replies to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marcus_Qwertyus&diff=prev&oldid=374394160 some opposers], I will stay neutral. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">••
I support for myself to become a Wikipedia administrator. I feel that I have the honesty, integrity, and experience needed to be an effective administrator for the Wikipedia community. --
'''Oppose'''. Nowhere near the experience needed. Answer to Q1 describes a function where admin tools are not necessary. Recommend prompt [[WP:NOTNOW]] closure of this. (Although, the !vote for yourself is amusing).
'''Oppose''' The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedia; everything else is supposed to be in furtherance of that goal.  However, you've never been to project space under this account before this RFA; which means you lack enough experience for me to form any real opinion either way on you.  I'd recommend that you withdraw this RFA and come back in 6 months or so.
Moral support. You're a great editor. You have my respect. But I agree with Julian that you're just not there quite yet. This is certainly no [[WP:NOTNOW]] RfA, but still. --'''
'''Support''' While I acknowledge the objections raised by the current oppose voters, they are not enough to convince me that Wikipedia would be better off without you as an administrator, and so I support your RfA.  -- ''<B>
'''Weak Support''' per Q's 3 through 6. The "advertising" though shows a lack of understanding of project space protocols and traditions. I might move to neutral over that, but I think he hit the nail on the head with those questions, so i'll weak support for now.
'''Moral Support'''
'''Support''' Great user who will use the tools well. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''support'''--
'''Support'''  Didnt see much AfD participation in your recent contribs, but very good work improving the crusade article and others plus decent anti vandalism efforts.
'''Support''' Probably over qualified.
Lack of security in this user's household. He and his brothers, who are prolific and unrepentant vandals, use the same computer. Not worth the risk.
Sorry, but I've noticed several substantial issues. While I do have concerns about your level of activity (your past 500 edits only go back to October), this is not the sole basis for my objection. Instead, I still feel you don't really have the maturity and integrity necessary to use the bit responsibly. I see that yesterday you posted messages to several users asking whether they'd support your RfA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bibliomaniac15&diff=prev&oldid=337117852 example here]). While requesting advice is fine, your tone in those posts came across as a bit loaded. Your responses to the questions are shallow, and don't seem to give the voter much to go by. You mention [[First Crusade]] as one of your proudest article contributions, but to be perfectly honest, it seems that your work there was still mainly minor and cosmetic in nature. This isn't bad by any means, but I'd like to see some more evidence of appreciable article work to outweigh the other problems I see. Finally, I'm really not comfortable with your answer to #3. Editing Wikipedia alongside family members isn't forbidden, but given the circumstances, it seems like a bad idea to me. I don't necessarily disbelieve your denial of the sockpuppetry allegations, but it just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Again, nothing especially terrible here, but the multitude of recent issues leads me to oppose. Best of luck, regardless, and let me know if you'd like further clarification. &ndash;'''
{{ec}}'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' as the candidate has somewhat of a lack of experience in a couple of the areas they indicate they would wish to work.  <s>I count TWO AFD disucssions</s>, 34 edits to the AIV area, and 3 edits to the RPE area, and 6 edits to the UAA area.  Though I see over 1,000 deleted edits, I cannot see what they are so I cannot judge the candidate on their CSD work, plus their activity has been slacking off over the past couple of months.  If that trend continues, we could have another not-so-active admin.
Pretty much per JC.  The comments on some user's talk pages isn't enough to put me here, but it certainly isn't comforting.  It seems to indicate a desire to just get the title, and not a true belief that the process is worth it.  It just leaves me with an unpleasant taste.  Moreover, your answer to question 3 is offtopic at best, but mainly #1 is my issue.  Maybe it's just the language you use, but it seems to bespeak an overall lack of experience in the area. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Strong Oppose]]''' - Not like me to strongly oppose someone who has the guts to self-nominate themselves, however [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_not_to_see|this]] states that we don't want to see you "advertising" your RfA. You already asked someone who is a regular !voter (notice this is an [[WP:!VOTE|!vote]] not a [[vote]]) to see if they would support (as pointed out by [[User:Juliancolton]] and you are currently persuading people that are in opposition in your RfA to switch to a support. Not Admin-ish in my opinion. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose''' - I saw some of your "would you support me in an RfA" queries on multiple user's talk pages before this went live. It was enough to give me pause, but considering the above and your unreliability regarding a compromised account, ao, sorry, not at this time. I have concerns regarding your maturity and judgement.
'''Oppose''' First, you seem to be a good editor.  But I don't think you're ready.  The answers (especially #3) are rather weak, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username&diff=prev&oldid=336820989#RSA23_.E2.86.92_ActivExpression this comment] shows you seem to lack an understand of username policy (ActivExpression is a company, so using as a name is promotional).  And the polling before this isn't great either.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with maturity, the "sockpuppetry" incident, user's policy knowledge, user's answers to questions, and the fact that the user has replied to/challenged just about every single oppose.  Suggest early closure per [[WP:SNOW]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]].  -'''
'''Weak Oppose''' I hate this; but between the whole sockpuppetry investigation, canvassing in advance of this RfA, the incomplete or unimpressive answers to questions, and only 500 edits since October all combine to put me down here. Truly, this is not now- none of these alone would have been enough for me to oppose, but combined I'm just not comfortable- and I could see this turning around three months down the road.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' I am sure the user is intentioned well, but I share [[User:Juliancolton|JC's]] concerns about question #3, and the answer to question #10 seems to imply a purely mechanical approach to decision making. To clarify, my concerns are that there are occasionally reports to [[WP:AIV]] which will not consist of 4 warnings. As simplistic examples, extreme cases often result in "4im" warnings and warnings starting at level 2 or 3. These are not entirely uncommon and may still warrant a block if disruption is persisting after a level 4 warning was issued. An effective administrator needs to be able to interpret policy in a way that is best fit for an encyclopedia; I feel some additional experience may help the user in being able to hone in on this ability. --
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament, maturity, experience, readiness. '''
'''Oppose''' let me count the reasons.... An "I found a secret page" userbox, "brothers" using the same IP address to vandalize, better part of a dozen different accounts, an "I want to be an admin someday" userbox, the whole pimped out user page complete with guestbook. Absolutely nothing about the way you keep your userpage demonstrates a professional demeanor.  Your answers to the questions demonstrate that you haven't a clue about real administration (never block before 4 warnings? Please.) but have a ton of textbook answers memorized.
'''Oppose'''. The answer to #10 seriously concerns me. I want to be sure that MC10 or any other administrator would be able to make judgment calls even if a vandal hasn't reached the milestones. It's the attitude of sticking to the letter of the law that allow vandals to abuse and [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]].
'''Oppose'''. Likewise.. question #10's answer does not inspire confidence in me as to your ability to make the necessary judgment calls. To use an analogy, a policeman needs to know when to pull out his gun and shoot, lest the criminal runs him down while he's still yelling "Stop! Or I'll shoot!" for the fourth time. --
'''Oppose''' The answers given so far to the questions do not cause me to feel comfortable with this candidate; the vandalising brothers causes me to feel that there would be potential for significant problems should this candidate get the bit; the sheer number of alternative accounts makes me pause; the "bot" account which is not a bot - what's that all about? All of these leave me unable to support this candidate, as I do not feel they would make a "safe", "secure" admin at this moment in time. -- '''''
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to support you at the moment. The above opposers have set out well what I would like to say, namely the point about advertising your RfA and I'm a little concerned about the lack of edits to administrator-frequented areas, especially AfD. In addition, the fact that you have a heavy percentage of your contributions dedicated to your own userspace is a little concerning. I think it's acceptable to have maybe a couple of 'fun' pages (like a guestbook) in your userspace, but a chess game and a doppelganger account created for the sole purpose of ''playing'' that chess game?  You sound like a nice person, but I really can't support right now.
Candidate has been here a while, but I'm fairly sure is not ready yet. The level of editing doesn't worry me, nor of course does the presence of a guestbook. The canvassing merely raises one eyebrow, as from what I can see you were consulting more experienced editors as opposed to approaching wikifriends and adoptees who might be predisposed to support you. There are however some questionable uses of rollback such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brainpool_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=330113025 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ellen_Burstyn&diff=prev&oldid=332965516 that]. I don't know these subjects, and it may be that to people who watchlist those pages these were obvious vandalism. But if so an appropriate message on the user talkpage would have been in order. Better still if it isn't obvious that something is vandalism, please use undo and explain your reasoning in the edit summary. ''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but a little bit longer won't hurt you.
'''Oppose''' per Julian and Jclemens. Seriously worrying immaturity pattern, not to mention potential security risk. This is a request for [[WP:MMORPG|level-up]].
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q10 which does not reflect current policy or current implementation...
Answers to several questions are rather poor. For Q5, even if someone is vandalizing an article about you, its never going to be COI to block a blatant vandal. For Q7, IPs should never be indef-blocked ever. For one, very few people actually have static IPs and even static IPs may change eventually. Q8 is somewhat questionable. If they were notable as a movie star or a model, a non-free image of them when they were working could possibly be justified after retirement, but for someone who didn't make a living on their appearance, I don't think so, as such an image would almost always just be decorative. Q10 is just wrong, 4 warnings is both a courtesy and a maximum. If its obvious from their first edit that there's no evidence at all of good faith, they don't need 4 warnings. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' based on answers to RFA questions and contributions history. MC10, in my opinion, needs more experience in administrative areas before becoming trustworthy with the tools. I also have doubts about the user's ability to interpret and understand policy versus simply being able regurgitate it. With some more time and dedication, I could see a future RFA succeeding, as MC10 does appear to be driven, although perhaps not for the right reasons at the moment.
'''Oppose''' - I'm offering a sincere moral support, I think you're actually a good editor and I don't have a problem with your recent number of contributions. The security situation in your house might give me pause, and would lead me to a weak support or perhaps a neutral vote, but on that alone I doubt I'd oppose. What concerns me is what I see as a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The answer to question 10 is particularly troubling, what would you do if a person was reported with a clear [[WP:NLT|legal threat]], or a threat of bodily harm to a person, or had [[WP:OUTING|revealed personal information]] about someone, or had admitted to being a [[WP:SOCK|previously-banned user]], or any other number of problems that normally lead to an immediate block? There was also the questionable RfA canvassing, the comment about promotional usernames... My personal opinion, which might be contrary to some other opposers, is that one day if you gain more familiarity with the workings of Wikipedia then you might make for a fine administrator. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. Inaoppropriate answers to questions 8 and 10, on elementary issues, and the poor judgment shown in calling for a quickly-SNOWed RFA to run its full length.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per Q 8 and 10.--
'''Oppose''' per all the above, particularly the brother-sockpuppetry-type affair. <font color="#FFB911">╟─
'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite.
'''Oppose''' per JC, not much else I have to say. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, lack of certainty about account security, wrong answer to question 10, and advertising give me great pause.  I'm sure you're a great editor, but I don't have faith that you're ready for the admin bit.
'''Oppose''' mostly per Jclemens and per the answers to Q8 and Q10. There shouldn't be a fixed number of warnings an account gets before blocking. It could be less, it could be more, depending on the frequency and severity of the vandalism. Q8 gives me the suggestion that notability overrides our [[WP:NFCC|non-free content policy]]. I am also not very confident about your "brothers" situation. –
'''Oppose'''. The principal admin work that MC10 plans to do is anti-vandalism (‘voting’ in AfDs is not admin work). Yet the answer to question 10 – anti-vandalism – is plain wrong. I am not, at this stage (maybe later), confident in the editor’s ability to use the admin tools with the sound exercise of discretion.--
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per answer to Q10 and the little bit of experience in Admin-related areas.
I take it you want this RfA to run so that you can get some feedback. Your answers to Q1, Q8, and Q10 are at least partially incorrect. {{user|Nsk92}} explained Q8 well. For Q10, I would recommend revisiting the relevant policy. <tt>
'''Neutral''' You are a good editor, but I don't like your answer to Q10... There are cases where it's acceptable to block at AIV who have less than 4 warnings... one of these might be a vandal-bot. Although this is unlikely to be a problem today, vandal-bots should be blocked on sight. Also, there are some cases of vandalism severe enough to warrant an immediate block, such as severe BLP vandalism (the kind that might warrant oversighting), and/or Grawp style vandalism (He's been known to replace pages with severe personal attacks against other editors or people, and has also gotten [[4chan#/b/|4chan's /b/]] to do the same in the past). <font face="Segoe Print">[[User:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]
'''Neutral, leaning support''' I was one of the individuals contacted prior to this RFA. I did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Useight&diff=337210206&oldid=337130791 reply] that I'd support. But two items that I didn't know at that time give me a bit of pause. I did not expect MC10 to mention AFD in Q1, with only 34 edits to XFD in the last nine months (8 of which were actually in the last two days). Not a whole lot of experience there, but what I've seen is pretty good. His answer to Q10 is incorrect. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but nothing is coming to mind since I just woke up (it'd be nice if someone would tack on one or two), but pretty much nothing on Wikipedia is ''never'' or ''always''.
Too many issues to support&mdash;Q10, security, etc. Would not pile on, though.
'''Neutral'''. As others have pointed out, (per question 10) there are circumstance in which it is appropriate to block with less than 4 warnings and it does happen. Also, on question 4, while your answer is correct according to the policy, it would be nice to see someone take a slightly different angle on that or at least give their own opinion rather than regurgitate the policy. I'd like to see more time spent in the project space- I count a comparatively small number of edits to areas like AIV, RPP and ANI- all of which, I'm sure, are good edits, but, considering you say you'd work in AIV, I'd like to see more experience there. Finally, though it does not substantially affect my position, I'd like to see more substantial content work- FA, FL, GA and DYK credits are always nice to see, but if content ''building'' isn't your area, try showing off you scrutinising abilities by reviewing GA candidates (GAN is semi-permanently backlogged) and/or FAC/FLC. Perhaps you could work more on [[First Crusade]], try nominating it for GA again- I'd be happy to review it for you if you did. I'm not averse to you gaining the tools, because you seem to have enough sense not to completely f**k things up, but maybe waiting another few months would make you even better?
'''Neutral'''. Moral support for the future but it is pretty clear that not ready for adminship yet. Too many areas of concern that, taken individually, might be overlooked, but taken together they really add up. As, others have said, it would help if you invest more time and effort in content work (especially since in Q2 you list that as your best contributions to Wikipedia), write some articles from scratch, maybe some DYK and GA contributions, etc. Some of the answers to the policy questions are a bit wobbly and at least partially incorrect. As noted in oppose no.17, you also need to be more careful with rollback. Personally, I would like to see more AfD contributions, both in number and in substance, especially since in ansering Q1 you mention AfD as a planned area of admin work. I have looked through your contribution record for the last three months and I see only a handful of AfD's there, with fairly brief !votes. I'd like to see some less than straightforward AfDs, where you make a reasonably complicated and involved argument. Also, even your short AfD !votes could use some improvement. In these two recent AfDs, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris C. Kemp (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM Hypermarket]] you say things like "Being NASA's web council chairman and CIO of NASA's research center appears to assert notabilty" and "As such, it asserts notability" as arguments for "keep". There is a big difference between ''asserting'' notability and ''demonstrating'' notability. The former is usually sufficient for avoiding a CSD tag, but not for a "keep" decision in an AfD, where demonstrating notability is required. An admin closing an AfD often has to provide a well argued policy-based closing statement and stuff like "appears to assert notability" is just not going to fly there.  I'd suggest withdrawing this RfA, there is really no need to prolong it.
'''Neutral'''. MC10 is a good editor who will, in time, be an excellent admin. But we're not there yet, unfortunately. The policy questions are discussed above, and I have little to add, except that (Question 10) there are times when an editor will need to be blocked without four warnings - sometimes without an explicit level 4 or 4im warning. Some vandals need to be blocked right-the-hell-now, and then the notices and explanations and paperwork can be completed. Sometimes, not. But that level of discretion is precisely why adminship is a position of trust - we trust our admins to know when to block and when to warn. You're on the right track, though - and I look forward to supporting your next RFA. Best,
'''Support''' Looks alright to me, see no reason to oppose/go neutral. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' The nominee does great work. ''<span style="background:#00BB00">
'''Support''' This user has done a great work on articles. <font color="#008000">[[User:ActivExpression#top|ActivExpression]]</font><sup>[[User talk:ActivExpression#top|<font color="#E62020">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' - a good set of edits. Hard work has been done. You seem to know what you're doing. You've taken onboard concerns in the past, some of which weren't directly your fault, and matured. This ought to commended, rather than to still have you coming under fire for what has past. You can have confidence in being nominated by HJ Mitchell too - he sees the good in Wikipedians who deserve to know it, even if they cannot see it in themselves. Furthermore, and importantly, your age is of '''no''' concern to me. All the very best,
'''Support''' Nice mix of maintenance work and quality content building edits.
As nom. I see no reason why you wouldn't make a good admin and, as I said in my nom, I was stuck by how much you've matured since your last RfA. I'll address the age thing very briefly: as an admin, much of the stuff I've dealt with that would be "unsuitable" for "minors" was brought to my attention by non-admins, some of them below the age of majority and it would be impossible and undesirable to prevent them dealing with such material that some maniacs insist on adding to WP.
'''Support''' I am going to support purely on the basis of the [[ageism]] present in oppose rationales. All this demonstrates is it is better to lie in RfAs!
'''Support'''. A fine nom from a very well respected admin, and pretty impressive maturity in one so young - I'm not opposed to admins being under 18. Problem with brother is not the candidate's fault, and it looks like he's taken sensible precautions. As for the Q9 CSD examples, I thought the first one was borderline - I would have looked for sources and tried to improve it myself, and only done the G11 if that was not possible. As for the foot fetish one, I suspect if you asked a number of experienced admins, you'd get several different answers.
'''Support''' Looks like he'd do a good job.  I personally thought one of the pages in Q9 (page 3) was inappropriate to bring up to someone that said that they were a minor (it's possible he wouldn't even know what that meant), so I completely disregarded any mistakes made by him in identifying what to do to the third article. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
'''Support''' although less active on AFD these days, I remember MC10 doing quite a lot of good work.  I'll assume the Ola's Kool Kitchen incident was a one-time mistake, and give MC10 the benefit of the doubt.  Has plenty of wikigrome experience and is unlikely to misuse admin tools.
Q9 is wrong but not, in my view, profoundly "shouldn't be an admin" wrong. On balance, I think the positives outweigh the errors. --
Don't worry, he's okay.
Worked with MC10 before, good guy, knows what he is doing. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' MC10 has done great work over the project and the admin tools would only support his work on Wikipedia.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Fridae'§Doom</font>]] &#124;
'''Moral support''' While I don't agree with certain of MC10's answers to the questions, I think some of the oppose reasons are a bit unfair, especially those regarding MC10's age. A person can be 40-year old and yet be immature and behave like a 14-year old, while a 14-year old can be mature way beyond his years.
'''Moral support''' If you plan to work in a field as an admin such as CSD, your going to have to nail the criteria correctly. Spend just a bit more time reviewing those and you should be good. I see a good balance of editing articles as well as vandalism fighting which is very promising. Your close very close. Nice turn around and good luck with the future edits.
'''Support''' I'm going to support, but if this passes, make a GREAT password and don't have it remembered, and be careful around CSD. A little unsure at Q9, but the oppose rationales made me decide to support. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Support''' I take note of the brother problems; I am among the oldest of the admins her (no data, but I just must be) and I think thay I would much rather trust a bright, committed teenager with the tools than many others who have in the past applied for them. a little mistake in Q9, yes; don't we all make them occasionally? Will be a good admin, and if this RfA does not pass please re-apply in the Autumn. --<font color="Red">
Nay. I have interacted with this user in the past in MW.org (where I gave him editor status), but I think he's not ready for the admin mop in a big wiki such as Wikipedia. Sorry, I respect you lots and I liked the responses to the questions, but I reiterate, I don't think you're ready. '''
'''Oppose''' The user page is somewhat better than when I opposed last time, but still not particularly professional.  While I admire the honesty and have been impressed with your more recent contributions, I cannot support an administrator candidate while you're not yet legal age.  I realize that this may actually get you more supports, since my rationale is not popular, but I vote my conscience, not the prevailing opinion.
'''Oppose''' - I apologize in advance if this oppose seems somewhat judgmental, but I can't help but get the overall impression that this candidate doesn't have the maturity I like to see in admin hopefuls. Also, his userpage makes me feel that he's applying for all the wrong reasons. Cares more about status than anything. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I’m really sorry MC10, you seem like a great guy and a fairly good editor who has good intentions  but I've noticed several substantial red flags that keeps me from supporting you much as I would love to. Your initial comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ola's Kool Kitchen]] show a lack of policy knowledge. I also feel you don't ''quite'' have your maturity issues that were brought forth in your last RFA to use the tools. While I suffer the same issues to a carbon-copy match at times (and I feel bad for being a hypocrite), I must point out that [[User talk:HJ Mitchell#Ding!|in the past few days]] you were e-mailing HJ Mitchell incessantly asking him to nominate you in the first place and when he did not reply fast enough, you kept nagging him to get to it as shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHJ_Mitchell&action=historysubmit&diff=375642647&oldid=375642283 here]. This made you come off as a bit too eager to get this RFA up and running. HJ pointed out in his nom that [[First Crusade]] was a good example of your “work in the mainspace”. The article is good (It's also a GA and I applaud you for getting it to that quality of work) but having looked at your edits to it, I merely see very superficial edits like fixing re-directs and minor copyediting. You’ve done a good job at [[WP:Wikignome|Wikignomeing]] but your overall lack of true article writing leaves something to be desired. Remember, ''[[WP:OWB|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary]]''. I want to see you truly get into article writing, even if an article written by you does not get up to GA or FA status. Lastly, I’m a bit uncomfortable with having an admin’s brother-and one who is presumably within reach of your computer and possibly your account-be a disruptive sockpuppet who tries to destroy this project. I have no doubt that you are telling the truth on the matter of your brother but the whole situation leaves me second guessing handing you the tools. You’ve come along way and I am truly sorry to oppose you but I simply cannot support you this time around.--
'''Oppose''' - per whiteshadows. As a sidenote to this, it seems that maturity has increased according to a few trusted users, but the nagging and the brother issue is just a little too problematic for the tools in my opinion. Otherwise, due to the seemingly good work in most areas, this may have gone differently. Good luck with the future and hopefully you'll have success in the near future.
There are definitely pluses and minuses here. A strong nomination, coupled with your enthusiasm and your tendency to want to be helpful, are convincing for support. However, the negatives here - which include maturity and "game-playing" (as Wisdom mentions above) concerns, along with WS' concerns raised just above - convince me that you're not ready to take on the tools yet. There is definitely an improvement in maturity - quite like White Shadows' improvement - but there needs to be a period between for it to sink in so that editors can be sure that you have grown. Wait a few months, and do some more work in areas which you already enjoy. Write a few more articles. When you feel ready, consult someone you trust to be fully honest with you, and work from there. Regretfully, '''
Whiffed Q9.
'''Oppose''' per your response to question 9, I'm sorry (yes, the first one should have been speedied per G11). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I really do hate opposing, but the candidate wishes to work with CSD, and the answers to Q9 were completely wrong. As much as I hate to say it, I'm also seeing immaturity coming through loud and clear. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with ageism, and we have many great admins who are under 18. But I do expect candidates who come across as mature adults, even if they are not. Sorry, but adminship isn't everything and not everyone is ready/suited to the role. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal: nothing against your age, maturity, or temperment; but the answer to question 9 is way off the mark. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' If you want to work with deleting articles, particularly speedy, you need to have a good understanding of the policies and criteria.  I was hoping you would have had Oversight in your mind without the extra prompting (Q8 above).  I thought I would wait for you to answer Q9 though before deciding how I would !vote.  Unfortunately, you're not quite there with your understanding. I would suggest you concentrate your efforts in the coming months on XFDs (discussions) and CSDs (nominations), and I think you should be ready.  Have a read of [[WP:WIHSD|this essay]] on speedy deletions, and maybe try the exercises too.  Hang on in there... you are nearly ready for the mop! '''
'''Oppose''' Numerous red flags. The dialogue surrounding #9 is particularly ominous.
Q9 was the killer. Sorry, just not ready yet. Dodgy deletions are a sure fire way of losing new editors and I have a feeling you'd not be cautious enough around them at this time. Certinaly not a "never" comment though, but I suspect the community would like to see some more time and more of your undoubted good work. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - because teenagers have much better things to do than spend all day on Wikipedia.  Like finding girlfriends.
'''Oppose''' There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the candidate will one day be a fine administrator as MC10 has made many fine contributions to the project; however, it's obvious to me that it is too early (e.g. Answer to question #9)--
Per Wisdom89, White Shadows, Q9, and a general uneasiness about the candidate's judgment and knowledge of policy. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose'''. First, [[WP:Ageism]] means that this RfA is not going to succeed. I say so even though I'm 100% sure I'm younger than he is. Secondly, Q9 makes me, as Hi878 said, a bit 'e-hesitant' (want to procrastinate on the internet! Yay!) before supporting. Also, I think a few more DYKs would be ideal, because it shows that you don't just add to and improve articles. Other than these points, MC10 is a good editor, and I hope that when he is 18, I can support him in another RfA. '''[[User:Kayau|<span style="color:navy"> Kayau </span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Kayau|Voting]]''  [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|<span style="color:red">IS</span>]]  <small>
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament, experience, and maturity. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Cirt.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry - I think you mean well, and I have seen many good contributions, but maturity, judgement and temperament concerns are too much here for me to Support. &nbsp;
'''Reluctant Oppose''' The age issue is a silly and trite one at that.  But the overall grasp of policy and understanding of the general issue(s) concern me a bit too much.  You're still on helluva editor around here.
'''Oppose''' per Q9 and maturity issues.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q9, specifically the first example. That's not a G11 candidate, and probably shouldn't be deleted at all. (Your answer to the third example was also wrong, but I can forgive you for being unfamiliar with the somewhat perverse subject matter.)
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q9 is a dealbreaker given that you want to work with CSDs. Other than that, I think that you are an excellent editor and your maturity has certainly improved. I will likely support next time if you learn those speedy criteria and otherwise keep doing what you're doing.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry this whole thing just seems too weird: the fact that one of his brothers is apparently an unrepentant blocked sock who may at some point try to find out ''this'' brother's password: it all just seems too childish and silly. These are truly children.
'''Oppose''' but I am more likely to support next time. This was a hard !vote for several reasons, including my respect for the nominator.  I would suggest working as often as possible on some of the concerns raised, and come back for another Rfa sometime early next year. Thanks for your service to Wikipedia to date, and best wishes always!
I'm not entirely sure what to think; I've seen plenty of good edits from you, but the answers to some of the questions, particularly number nine, make <s>e hesitate</s>me e-hesitate, so I'm just going to be noncommittal... :) ~~
'''Neutral'''—I commend your enthusiasm and great work, MC10, but I am not so sure about Q9. (Personally, I would've Googled the subjects first to get some background info, and salvage them if possible.) Don't be discouraged!
'''Neutral'''. While I can see that you probably have the best of intentions, I can also see a clear lack of maturity. I had never heard of you before this RfA; by reading your answers to the questions, I could tell that you most likely a teenager. It's in the tone, the wording. And this "bad brother" thing, it's really not doing much good for your reputation. Even if it's not your fault, it still happened. <span style="font-family:monospace">[&#65279;
'''Neutral.''' I regret not being able to support because I believe this editor has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.  I believe (and their contributions support the belief) the user is making the best of a bad situation.  In all honesty, MC10, I appreciate your help and your contribution and I hope to be able to support a future nomination.
'''Neutral''' Personally I think you're an amazing person and should get the tools but some of the issues brought up are concerning. The fact that you are a minor though is a plus and is one of the reasons I support you. Come back in a year with no major issues and I will support you.
'''Neutral''' I challenge those who have opined that age might (or does) equate to immaturity provide evidence to suggest that's true of this particular candidate, or at least have the curtesy to admit that your fears are based on a hunch. I'll be interested to see how many !voters hide behind the numbers, and how many of the ones who have not already done so give stronger justifications. Having said all that, regretfully I cannot support. If my brother was a wikipedia admin, and I was a proven, prolific and determined vandal, I question whether I would need to ''hack'' his computer and wikipedia account in order to do damage. This candidate would ordinarily get a support from me. But the risk is substantial, so the candidate would have to go above and beyond what I would usually expect to demonstrate that they're a net benefit. In short, keep going, and I'll probably support next time. --

'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]''' <300 edits, registered <1 month ago. No indication of any activity in admin related areas (AN, ANI, SPI, UAV, AIV).
'''Oppose''' - Uhhhm, please close asap under [[WP:SNOW]].
Not yet. You should bear in mind that most successful RfA candidates have many thousands of edits and have been active on the project for several months at least. You need to prove to us that you know what you're doing with the tools, that you know the community well enough to know when to use them and when not and that the community can have trust in you. I'm afraid with your current level of experience, you're not ready. That said, I'm sure your request was borne out of a genuine desire to help, so please do stick around, write some stuff, whack some vandals, participate in some discussions and enjoy just being an editor for now. :)
'''Support''' A long-standing drama-free productive contributor who needs the tools for routine tasks. Looks good. --
'''Support''' per Mkativerata. Plus his answers are good and admirably concise. The fluency in some other languages may turn out to be helpful too. --
'''Support''' willing to [[WP:AGF]] here.  Long time editor with a self nom and '''concise''' answers.  He has a proven track record of article creation and expansion.  While this editor does not fit into the mold of our typical candidate I think he will not abuse the mop.  ''<B>--
'''Support''' No problem. Candidate seems to be an experienced and good editor. Furthermore, I like his answers here. Those who don't may ask for more specific explanation. --
'''Support''' I don't see any evidence the candidate would misuse the tools, and to me, that's the only thing that really matters.
Per Mkativerata. Opposes are not convincing. Actions, or in this case edits, speak louder than words. We have promoted [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth|a user who is much less experienced on this wiki than Mikael]], and looking over Mikael's edits, I'm sure he would not get into an area he is unfamiliar with without familiarizing himself with it first. There's no reason to think that granting adminship here would be anything but a net positive.
'''Support'''. I have interacted with Mikael a few times, including awarding him a barnstar. He has lots of experience on wikipedia and brings a lot of medical knowledge. He is trustworthy, calm and reasoned. It is sad to see the opposes. I think the opposers should [[WP:AGF]], take note from people who work in similar environments as Mikael such as myself on [[WP:MED]]. His answers are likely because he does not know what is expected from this request for admin process or else because english language is not Mikael's first language. Give a guy a break.--
I do like an editor with a lot of experience in article building, and that's you, Mikael. Don't see anything untoward in the contributions or on the user talk page. Nothing wrong with concise answers to questions. I think you'll make a good admin (at least I hope so; there are enough rubbish ones about).
'''Support''' Positives (solid contributions and experience) outweigh the negatives (short answers). Actually, the short answers suggest he A) is not an RfA regular, and B) doesn't really care about adminship that much, both of which are good things.
'''Support''' No concerns with this user.
'''Support'''; answers are short but the user appears reasonable and meets my criteria for adminship: 1) I trust him not to abuse the tools and 2) he knows policy well. I think it's absurd to expect a three-page essay response for every question asked and subsequently oppose only because the candidate fails to do so. If anything, the short answers indicate he doesn't care overly about adminship and doesn't regard it as a "big deal". We need more such people here.
Knows what he's doing, hugely unlikely to screw up, and he's patently here to help rather than power grab.
'''Oppose'''. Question 3 has a very specific point and you missed it. The idea of an admin giving up a dispute by saying "to hell with it" rather than actually behaving proactively to solve a dispute is very unsettling. I'm seeing a lack of the ability to compromise, the ability to convince people to see things a different way, the ability to keep a cool head in a heated situation, and the ability to give a shit.
'''Oppose''' per SluggoOne, though they're a little more brusque than I'd have been. Evasive answer to the question that doesn't give me confidence. <font color="#FFB911">╟─
'''Oppose''' Poor answer to Q2. I can't support those who don't answer the questions properly.
'''oppose- subject to change''' I don't doubt your good intentions but I think you should go through some recently over the top successful RFA's and answer your questions in much, much more detail because I do not have high standards but I'm also unconvinced on how being a sysop would really help with what you'd do. You also do not need to b a sysop to move a page... but you have clearly moved pages so I'm confused... Poor answer to Q2. <font color="black">'''''
But I could easily be swayed by enough support from people who have worked with him, including members of [[WP:MED]], since there are lots of edits and little apparent drama.  This appears at the moment to be kind of a lone-wolf candidate who's likely to make quite a few mistakes, not because they're not careful and diligent but just because they haven't learned when and how to use the admin tools. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - I should first note that you've made some great content contributions to articles and images. It also seems like you have mostly positive interactions with other editors, as is evident on your talk page. However, I agree that your answers above seem almost evasive. Maybe you have a good grasp of policy, but from your answers I can't determine that. I would like to see more recent edits to the Wikipedia: namespace (a good way to demonstrate grasp of policy). Perhaps doing some cleanup work such as patrolling new pages or recent changes or making a strong presence at AfD would make me more comfortable with supporting this candidacy.
'''Oppose''' - Per extreme hand-waving responses.
'''Oppose''' - Unsatisfactory responses to the questions. -- '''
I love how the answers are called "no-nonsense and stylishly short" above me, but they're so short they tell us nothing. I can't support on no real evidence.
'''Oppose''' - Rightly or wrongly, the Wikipedia community requires extreme civility in an Rfa, a proper 'bedside manner' if you will.  Your answers and tone here are all wrong for a Wikipedia administrator, as I and others see it.  Since the admin 'mop' is for life, unless it is removed, many are wary of handing it over to those who don't answer policy questions in a forthright and friendly way.  I respectfully suggest you withdraw from this Rfa, take the constructive comments to heart, and try again.  I honor your contributions to the encyclopedia and believe you could well be an effective admin, but this Rfa has gotten off on the wrong foot.
'''Oppose''' Per meager answers to questions.  You give the impression that you really don't need the tools.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Unsatisfactory answers in that they offer little information and are rather vague, and per his own statement above: "The main issue seems to be that, despite 20.000 article edits, I do not engage very much in situations requiring adminship. Yet, in those (yet relatively few) cases, adminship is of help, resulting in a (yet relatively small) positive effect of adminship. I will still ask for consensus in controversial changes, so I see no negative effect of it to the project. I made this request because I thought that small plus and no minus would still, summed together, be a plus." If you don't need them a lot, then why subject yourself to an RfA for only the occasional use? '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Strong Oppose''': Candidate appears to have slacked off while answering questions.  ''Not engaging very much in situations requiring adminship'' seems quite frightening; this user obviously has no need for the tools.--
'''Oppose''' - Great work in the article space, but... I don't feel that you have enough experience in situations that you ''will'' be forced into as an admin. You can [[Help:Move|fix misspelled titles]] and [[Template:Db-g7|request speedy deletion on your own articles]] already, which, as you stated in Q6, would be what you would mostly work with. Vague answers and a severe case of [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]] makes me really nervous about this one...--
'''Neutral''' Good number of edits, clean block log, but I can't support someone with no vandalism fighting (or at least that's what the most recent three thousand edits tell me). --
'''Neutral''' Here we can see some of what makes choosing admins tough.  Quite a few candidates get shot down for having too little content experience, something this candidate certainly has.  The neutral above mine shows that some editors are looking for admins with more vandalism experience than this candidate.  Is this maddening contradiction?  In a word . . . no.  Opposes and neutrals for what seem like inconsistent or vague reasons are really the candidate's fault, because the candidate hasn't provided a compelling reason to support.  In this case, the small amount of talk page activity doesn't give us much to understand his demeanor, and his responses to the <s>mandatory</s> standard optional questions doesn't give us a hint about his specific admins interests or his knowledge of policy.  In general I support unless I see a reason not to, but I'm staying neutral to encourage the candidate to provide more detailed responses to those questions and others which might pop up.  Solid answers may turn this RfA around.--'''~
'''Neutral''' - there seems to be no nominations for deletion of anything by others, just a couple of requests to delete own work. There should be more participation in more admin like activities first.
I'm just not quite satisfied with his answers. Not enough to oppose, so I'll just put my !vote here. I will be willing to change, if I feel that the questions are answered sufficiently.
'''Neutral''' per answers to questions. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Neutral''' Good Luck
'''Neutral''' Im not a fan of the answers to the questions.
'''Neutral''' I think that had you planned this out ahead of time, you may have been able to pass, and I was tempted to !vote support just on the supposition that you would be a good administrator in the ''future''.  But I don't think you're quite ready yet.   There is always [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikael Häggström 2]], if and when you should decide to try again.  So I'm reserving my !vote for then so I can see you when you're at your best. '''
'''Neutral''' In order to pile on that the answers to the questions provided so far give us insufficient insight into you as a potential administrator. Please consider reanswering.
'''Neutral''' Answers to questions are minimal, bordering on evasive. Someone with the mop needs to be able to explain a particular Admin-level decision clearly and concisely, and candidate hasn't demonstrated that. --
'''Neutral'''- To me this is as neutral as it gets, I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools, but the answers aren't really ''answers'' (If that makes sense)--'''''
'''Neutral''' (Switched from Oppose) your lack of answers alone is not a good reason to oppose. I doubt that you'll abuse the tools but I'd like a buit more effort in the answers and some more work in the admin related areas. You're on your way but I simply cannot support you right now. (feel free to sway me though)--
'''Neutral''': Looks like a very well experienced editor, so no problems with Mikael Häggström himself. But I don't really see any need for the tools - fixing up one's own occasional errors doesn't seem sufficient to me, and I don't see any real explanation of any other planned admin work. --
'''Neutral''' He  has a lot of solid editorial contributions. However, I'm concerned by the answer to question 3. As an aditor, that's a good attitude to take. but one of the responsibilities of a sysop is to help out when conflicts occur. Can he handle that? Maybe. Might even be good at it, but I have no idea. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' seems to get deletion reason right, and uses AIV.   I would like to see use of the upload facility though.

'''Weakish support'''. I do have concerns - all of the article creations are stubs, and the nomination statement isn't the most convincing - but overall would probably be a net positive.
'''Oppose''', sorry not convinced about the user's capabilities in terms of the deletion process. Several relatively recent speedy deletion templates and PRODs on the user's talk page. -
'''Oppose''' - a Wikipedian for less than a year, the candidate has had very modest experience in most of the administrative-related areas with vandal-fighting a notable exception. Other issues include a rollbacker revocation and very meager content contributions. The candidate is definitely on the right track, but now is not the time.--
'''Oppose''' Grammatical errors throughout this RFA.
I like you, but would like to see more writing before I can comfortably support. Would be happy to reconsider in the future --
'''Neutral''' at the moment. I have some concern with the speedy deletion templates etc., in the candidate's talk page/archives, mentioned above,  albeit they are from a couple of months ago. I also get a general nag from looking at contributions that there isn't quite enough experience just yet. Also the answer to Q3 makes me a little uneasy, indicating that the candidate may find vandals commenting on his reverts, or reacting in other ways, a "big stress". That seems worrying considering the amount of that type of thing an admin would be faced with. I do, also, see lots of committment, a good personality, and a good, wide range of relevant contributions, the candidate obviously having good intentions, and putting in a good deal of effort, so I'll possibly revisit this !vote later. &nbsp;
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], if only morally; agree that more experience would be good, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest this editor is incapable of handling the bit responsibly. Lots of productive edits, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MWOAP&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 involvement] in the projectspace, and no blocks/warnings. This isn't going to pass, but I wish you the best of luck and encourage you to not get discouraged! &ndash;'''
'''Support'''  Experience is always preferable, but you seem to know your way around well enough. I see no reason not to support you, and keeping your nose clean for 1,400 edits is good enough in my book. Don't expect you to pass, though- edit count may just be a number, but a lot of people hold real stock in it. Good luck anyways!
'''[[A Mari Usque Ad Mare ]]''' I would have to agree with Julian on this one, [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|why not?]] Though this RfA might be a bit early in terms of length of active participation or/and edit count for by some standards i find that it is filed sincerly in good faith. Support from sea to sea to sea. <font face="Georgia">
Moral support, based on the fact that despite your relatively little experience, there is nothing to suggest that you will abuse/misuse the tool. Agree with JC on this one. <strong>
'''Support''' Lots of good admin type work in your recent contribs, working at AFC is a good indicator of helpfullness, no reason to switch from the default support.
'''Moral Support''' per Juliancolton. You seem to be using rollback successfully since I gave it to you last week. Take a few more months of active editing, seek counsel whenever needed, and try again in the future. Keep up the good work! '''
--''
'''Support''' Why the heck not?
'''Support''' Because you mentioned that you have kept cool, I think keeping your cool is one productive way to success in becoming a sysop! Keep it up with your constructive comments as well, and you'll be there in no time.
'''Moral Support''' Keep up the good work. Or not. :) But have fun regardless.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Weak Support]]''' - Although the edit count is a little small, the user has a clue. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Support'''. It's clear that this user is responsible to become an admin, and edit count is a meaningless standard. As Juliancolton said, why not? "This user has 1500 edits" is not significantly more valid reason to oppose a user than "This user's name is in all capital letters".

[[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'm sorry, but you need to have more experience before we can judge your understanding of policies and guidelines. Get some experience in [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CSD]], and such areas, get a little time under your belt, and then come back. I look forward to seeing you after you've gotten some more experience. --
Sorry, your timing is just not right.  Also establish a more stable editing history and the community might be able to judge your content work better.  I also recommend and endorse a [[WP:SNOW|snow]] closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. However, if you follow ceranthor's advice, you'd be in good shape for another try, provided you're still interested.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] per above.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience come back in 3 months.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''  Sorry, I have to agree, you don't have enough experience yet.  Please continue to contribute and perhaps another RfA might be in order a ways down the road.  --'''
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with judgment, experience, and policy knowledge.  -'''
Sorry, not ready yet, as several people have already pointed out.  <small><span style="border:2px solid #999933;">
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]''' I don't want to spend much time beyond the less than 1500 edits on the project.  Keep producing solid work, and follow some of the advice that has been previously provided. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about experience. '''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Weak Oppose]]''' per Fastily.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - You're off to a great start but I have trouble supporting someone with so few edits. Just thinking of my own experience, when I was at your position in terms of "tenure" and number of edits I still had quite a lot to learn about policy and procedure. I'm just not comfortable with someone getting the bit this early. -- '''
'''Weak Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]]: a good user who simply needs more experience. Come back in a few months!
'''Oppose''' The answers do not give me complete confidence in the candidate's knowledge of policy (for example, their answer to Q9 seems to indicate that they would block an editor with whom they are personally having a dispute). I think that the candidate is not ready for adminship yet, but hope to see them here again in the future. -- '''''
'''Oppose''' I just don't feel a solid and comprehensive understanding of the policies and guidelines here. I haven't seen much monumental work in the past 1.5 weeks (question 11). Also, G1 is about gibberish only, and A1 is different from G1. The BLP (question 6) answer isn't complete enough for me, it would be a keep unless there was too much negative unsourced info or promotional material. For 4.C., 3RR doesn't just expire every 24 hours, and they could still be blocked regardless of whether the edit war was still going on. Cool-down blocks aren't used because they generally inflame the user as well, and I see a lot of personal rules, not necessarily bad, but of course personal rules aren't really your guide in most cases. Sorry, but I'd like to see 6 months (a min. of 3) and several thousand more edits. [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. <span style="border:1px solid;">
<small>'''Weak Neutral'''</small> Before I support I would like to see the candidate try out more aspects of the facilities here.  So far only one image has been uploaded.  I would like to see the uploading of free images, preferably at commons. Although working in AFC, I can only see one article accepted: [[Carl Reindel]]; also a bit more knowledge of the category system would be useful: [[:Category:American film actors]] [[:Category:American television actors]] are sub-sub cats of [[:Category:American  actors]] so [[:Category:American  actors]] is not required.
'''Neutral''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. More experience would be helpful, although the work you've done to date is not a problem.
'''Neutral''' not gonna pile on but you need to go back and relook at [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]].  Your answers to Q7 and Q8a are incorrect.  "I love hotdogs" is not incoherent text so it does qualify for G1.  A1 is not similar to G1, an article with "I love hotdogs" would qualify or any article that you can not figure out what the article is about from the text of the article.  A3 is for articles with no content whatsoever.  '''
'''Neutral'''. Looks generally competent. Possibly needs more experience, and the suggestion that they might block a user who they were in a content dispute with raises my eyebrow.
'''Strong support''' per my nomination above.
'''Strong support''' &ndash; Mysdaao is a very nice and helpful editor who always does right and deserves to be an admin. [[User:SuperSonicSpeed|SuperSonic]] [[User talk:SuperSonicSpeed|SPEED]] (formerly known as
'''Support''' I like to see administrators who have a high percentage of edits in the article namespace and Mysdaao certainly has that, but also has reasonable experience in other areas. I think the answers to the questions suggest a good admin in the making. --
'''Support''' Plenty of experience, would make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Has been around since Nov 2004 and this is his/her first nom  with over 20000 Edits and really see no concerns as per track .
'''weak support''' logs, uploads, and new articles all look OK.  Though there seems to be very little writing of articles in there!
'''Support''' He seems pretty nice, he welcomes users, and he acts calm most of the time by the look of it. However, the articles he created (exculding one of them) look a bit small and three of them have stub tags (I think it's three, might be two). So apart from those small articles, support from me. --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] due to no memorable negative interactions ([[WP:AGF]]), candidate has rollback, has created some articles that still exist, is a fellow member of the welcoming committee (thus is friendly), has received over a half dozen barnstars, and has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''[[Mutatis mutandis]]''' the nomination comes via rather unconventional means but i would have been willing to support if this were a self-nomination as the candidate appears to have a good comprehension of where to help and where additional experience is needed before taking any administrator actions. Don't we all wish disputes would resolve as friendly as this. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' while the nom may be a bit weird I am [[WP:AGF]] this one why would a user with 20K+ edits set this up? Also Candiadate has stated that he lacks experience with BLP so I will not hold his answers against him in that regard.  Good editor who will make a good admin. ''<B>--
'''Weak Support''' per RP459. —
--''
'''Supporters have won me over.'''
'''Oppose''' Uncomfortable about lack of experience in deletions (particularly AfDs). Answer to Question 5, example 1 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mkativerata/CSD_examples/Teo_Effi&oldid=349487603], is concerning. Unsourced negative BLP material of this magnitude should not be let to sit in an article with a mere tag. Also, there are no real substantial content creations available to allay concerns about referencing, BLPs, etc. Not a strong oppose, but this is where I'm parking for now. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Weak Oppose]]''' - Per Pedro, until more information is revealed... as it's highly doubtful a spanking new user just "suddenly" sparks the knowledge of every part of this site. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Per Mkativerata, and I'd have deleted example 1 per [[WP:CSD#G10|G10]] if it was a real article. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - ''Note: my opinion is given with no position on the issues Pedro raised.'' My worry is about the Q5 answers. The second is not within the athlete criteria and doesn't have any additional indications, and the first is problematic in a number of ways, one of which being that it doesn't claim notability other than through criminal notability, which isn't established either. That isn't the type of nomination with which to chastise a newpage patroller. I don't want new admins that will remove speedies without following up adequately, if necessary. A procedural AfD or PROD would be appropriate if the admin is uncomfortable with CSDing. The response is probably a result of limited page patrolling (less than 300 out of almost 20k edits), which is part of the problem when listing CSD as the first admin area of interest.
'''Oppose''', agree with {{user|Mkativerata}} regarding concerns about leaving up material about negative unsourced BLPs. -- '''
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Collectonian#RfAs|my criteria]]. Not nearly active enough nor with enough experience to be a useful administrator, almost no edits in the talk space nor the Wikipedia space, and I share Pedro and Maureen's concerns below. --
''''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per Collectonian and Pedro. Try again in a few months. Say June or July.--
'''Oppose''',  The single most important asset an admin needs is good judgement, and going with that nomination statement shows extraordinarily poor judgement.
'''Weak oppose''' Sorry, but the answer to question 5 (for the first article) shows lack of understanding of our BLP policy. '''
'''Oppose''' I would not oppose based on accepting a good faith nom from a new user. But accepting a nom from a new user who appears to be stalking you by for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LordPiratez&diff=prev&oldid=348816348 copying] all of your barnstars to their userpage. Your answer to both parts of question 5 also missed the mark.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above and per nom.  -'''
Call it bad faith, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LordPiratez your nominators rapid ability to learn WP] makes me very faintly nervous. I guess I could just shut up but I really think that accepting a nom from an editor with less than 50 edits and under a weeks tenure is rather odd for a Wikipedian with years of experience and some 20k edits. I'll review further. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' &ndash; I, unfortunately, currently agree with Pedro; The nomination seems a bit suspicious. <sup><font color="orange">
Indeed, per Pedro. I'll try to take a further look at your contribs though. '''<font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' -- I rarely participate here, so I wasn't sure whether to put these thoughts here or in the question section. But I would like a response from [[User:Mysdaao|Mysdaao]]. I am assuming good faith concerning your nomination by [[User:LordPiratez|LordPiratez]], who says he(?) has been here only three days. But to me, your acceptance of the nomination raises concern about your judgment and foresight. I am surprised that an admin candidate would not expect at least concern from !voters, based on the nominator's inexperience. And I am surprised that an admin candidate would believe that a person with only three days of experience would be in a good position to judge whether a candidate is suitable for adminship. Can you allay my concern?
'''Neutral''' --Sorry, but this is exceedingly weird. On the merits, the answer to #5 shows a lack of clue, but I don't want to oppose over one such example, as I know I've missed the point on many occasions. On the nomination, seems hard to believe that a clueful editor would accept a nomination from a brand-new editor. A mitigating factor is that candidate has never participated in a !vote here, so may not realize how unRfA like the decision appears, but that just begs another question—how does an editor with a professed desire to become an admin decide not to ever participate in the process? I don't view it as a requirement to participate; I've supported editors who have not, but it seems odd.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Neutral''' Per Pedro. Nominator even seem to have an idea about trolling even though he was new here and therefore had not an idea what featured article templates were for.
'''Me too''' - I think Pedro's on to something here, alas. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but...can't support at this point. Not obvious what's going on, but still... <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''' - I would also have to agree with Pedro. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Neutral''' as per Pedro - sorry, Mysdaao, but although I read your comment above, I personally ''would'' have waited a couple of months and then self-nominated (or hope that someone else nominated me). I'm here on the neutral sofa at the moment rather than over there on the oppose one, as I want to look into the candidate a bit more before making a final decision. -- '''''
'''Neutral''' Too many concerns to justify Supporting at this time.
'''Neutral''' - I'm struggling to understand how you got from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LordPiratez&diff=next&oldid=348808877 here] to accepting this nom.
'''Neutral''' &ndash; per Pedro.
'''Neutral''' At the very least, I think accepting the nom was a lapse in judgment, as Pedro has shown. Also per Mkativerata in the "Oppose" section. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral''' I don't think that I have ever opposed someone with the percentage of support but the whole nomination thing is really fishy. I have the sneaking suspicion that there is a sockpuppet issue going on here as this whole thing just feels rather weird. I'm likely wrong though and will be willing to support you next time.
'''Neutral''' - some concerns over the nomination like many others.  I am assuming good faith and thus will not oppose, but in good conscience I can't support.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral''' Some issues raised by the opposition relating to the nom, have me not opposing, but more urging that you wait just a few months and give it another go. I appluad your help of new comers, but I strongly caution accepting a nomination from individuals with less than 50 edits. I respect your editing skills though and think there is potential to be a good admin.
'''Neutral''', but with moral support. I'm torn on this one. The whole "flame war to nomination in 3 days" thing is bizarre, but I've seen far more bizarre things than that in my time, so I'm minded to let that go. On the plus side, we have a candidate with a good number of edits who seems to be positive and constructive, and who I would probably trust not to misuse a mop (certainly not deliberately). But against that, the answers to the questions leave something to be desired - some seem wrong to me, and others don't really have the depth I'd hope for. Really can't choose. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Of course. --
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Meh''' I think he's learnt his lesson. :-) '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
Pointless support, net positive.
'''Support''' Hopefully
'''Support''' Hardworking editor with the good of the project in mind. --
'''Support''' Obvious net positive, but might as well register a pointless support.
'''Support''' Highly dedicated editor. Some of MZMcBride's tools make up the backbone of Wikipedia. MZMcBride's actions although sometimes mistaken are always done with good intentions for the project. A great asset to the project. Regards,
MZMcBride hopefully learned from his mistakes, he obviously needs the tools being a developer. That's why I'm giving a '''caustious support'''
Duh. Many of the opposers are piling on and don't know exactly what was going on before. MZMcBride is a genius, and the tools will only benefit his work. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
Yes. I agree with SunCreator in that many of MZ's tools are a great service to Wikipedia, and I see a net positive here.
'''Support''' Why the hell would you oppose? Some seem to have a point but most seem to look at the past and not judge the user from what he has learned from then.
'''Support''' I realize that MZMcBride has irritated some other editors in the past, but he's been consistently kind and helpful to me, and I expect that the average user's experience will look far more like mine than like those of the grudge-holding crowd below.
'''Support'''  Granted, all of the things he did were before I joined (in March), but I didn't see a huge amount of harm done, and his bots seem quite useful.
'''Support''' MZMcBride is rather like [[Sunderland Football Club]]; gets promoted, and then quickly finds themselves back where they started. However, like Sunderland FC, the presence of M is generally beneficial - they know the conditions and situations that prevail, they are genuinely passionate and committed to the ethos of the project, they are intelligent, they have technical skills that are lacking in most sysops </me waves>, and they are fairly non conformist. That last has been a factor in past troubles, but has also been used to advantage - the ability to think up different solutions where others have failed is worth two dozen too conformist to break ranks admins that RfA has been recently generating. I trust MZMcBride to use his tools for what he sees as the benefit of the project, and hope that his idea of beneficial remains consistent with the consensus.
'''Support''' with mixed feelings. Many situations in life don't offer second chances. I don't believe adminship should either. MZMcBride's recidivism has already blown two chances, and now he wants a third bite at the apple. On the other hand, the disruption resulting from his creativity resulted from actions performed in the spirit of pointing out problems that ultimately help the project. I'll note that Wikipedia allows vandals four strikes; if MZMcBride is given a third chance, then it should be the final chance.<br>I had a friend once, whose job it was in the Navy to sneak aboard heavily-guarded nuclear submarines and plant fake bombs aboard, to ensure that the security systems and procedures worked. You can bet it was disruptive when he succeeded. MZMcBride reminds me of him, except that my friend had authorization to be disruptive and MZMcBride doesn't. How does the saying go? If you want to break a few eggs, you need a loose cannon. I think. I reserve the right to flip my vote to Oppose or Neutral as the questions posed here get answered. ~
'''Support'''. Net positive. Really. He cares. Cheers,
'''Support''' Despite it all, still a net positive. Wikipedia should be more forgiving than it currently is.
'''Support''' MZMcBride made over 800,000 deletions as an administrator, more than three times as many as anyone else. I'm not happy with everything he's done, but I found his comprehensive response about the BLP list persuasive (I can't find this now, so any help locating it would be appreciated). His script skills, technical know-how, and productivity make him a net plus for the project.--
I've changed my mind.
'''Support''' Tough call. Three big blunders: Userpages; Socking manual; BLP list. But in each case, I think the intentions were good, even though the consequences were not anticipated. Weigh that against his experience, the unique technical skills and contributions to the 'pedia, plus the ability to be incredibly helpful if he can. I think the deciding factor is that only the earliest blunder depended on admin tools, and he's learned from that. Whether or not MZMcBride has the admin bit, his other privileges are already enough to do far more damage if that was his goal. Net positive, and if the admin tools help the work he does, then he has my support. --
'''Support'''. Switched from neutral.  After reviewing M's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&action=historysubmit&diff=380843630&oldid=380843260 answer] to my question, his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&action=historysubmit&diff=380844550&oldid=380844145 insight] into the reaction to his BLP experiment, and his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&action=historysubmit&diff=380846131&oldid=380845415 commitment] to respect the community in the future, I feel he has demonstrated an understanding of what he did wrong, remorse for same, and a commitment to improve.  Combined with his excellent work on the project and the increased ability to do more of it that the bit would allow, I believe that the project is better off with MZMcBride as an admin than without. I may be wrong, and I may get burned, but I'm willing to take that chance.
'''Support''' Wow, there wasn't nearly this much of a kerfuffle during the ArbCom case itself. It looks like a lot more people care about BLPs than did before. Something obviously worked. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Support'''. Agree with others who think he is a net positive, plus he seems irresistibly charming . -
'''Weak support''' I agree he's a net positive, but the past issues are serious.
'''Support'''. Hmmmm.. ok. --
'''Support''' - I trust this user with the mop.
'''Support''', it's not like I haven't done completely dumbass things in my time.... --
'''Support'''. Were the candidate granted the tools again, unlikely though that may be this time around, I think it would end up being a net positive for the project. Past issues are serious, as noted below - and above - but the editor is, I believe, trustworthy.
'''Support''' You have more clue than quite a few admins that I can think of. --
Per Chris, et al. We've all done stupid shit in our pasts.
I am '''supporting''' to make up for those who oppose on the sole grounds that the candidate overturned the closure of this RFA.  He was right to do so; it was inappropriate to close it early, given that this is a veteran editor.
'''Support''' I can sympathize with the claim that giving a banned user a list of unwatched blp's constituted poor judgment, but I [[wp:AGF|assume good faith]] and believe that the candidate trusted this users intentions and sincerely was sorely mistaken about what a "breaching experiment" is. The list was never exactly super private information; it's not like the candidate knowingly enabled or participated in a pointy vandalism spree, at least as far as I can tell. The wheelwarring thing is ancient. I trust this candidate, and the candidate obviously has a compelling use for the admin buttons.
Unlikely to pass, but [[User:ErikHaugen|ErikHaugen]] sums it up above. There's a lot less to his desysopping than meets the eye; "the BLP list" consisted of MZM compiling publicly available information as a favor, not surreptitiously leaking the State Secrets of Wikipedia. MZM can be a self-righteous tool sometimes, but no more so than most others here and a lot less than most.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Stones. Not slavish to process, I think he has a view on what we are here for in the first place and is not abided by cumulative druggerly, endlessly compromised, formulated, rules to interfer with that view. Per  Epbr123 below, I think well intentioned is far more favourable than has spent 20 months vandel reverting, and has been coached to learned all the right answears to questions that have been in place for 3 or 4 years now. Rfa should not be a yes sir zombie factory.
@Strong '''support''', regardless of how ''pro forma'' it might be.
Moral '''support'''.  MZMcBride has the potential to do great good.  I still have an optimistic belief that he can turn his onwiki career around if given the right support and motivation.
MZMcBride has not lost my trust, and my interactions with him have always been positive. Regarding tool use and all that, from what I understand, MZMcBride still has the Toolserver access which led to the second arbitration case; and his use of adminship was fine after his second successful request at RfA (and was good for the ''most part'' prior to his resigning the first time, in all fairness), and didn't appear to have anything to do with what caused the second case. I do think MZMcBride is a net positive to the project, and his work is appreciated here: I hope that he won't be discouraged by this request for adminship. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] (from
'''Support''', certainly. My usual extra points for selfnom apply, so this actually counts as some '''ten''' or '''twelve''' supports.
'''Support''' Does great work. The BLP list thing was dodgy, but well-intentioned.
'''Support'''. &nbsp; — '''<font class="texhtml">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]]
'''Support'''.
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support'''. I would trust them with the tools. <sup>
'''Support''' From my brief interactions with him I've found him to be amusing, perceptive and honest (update wikistalk though!).
'''Cautious support'''. Previously, I had been neutral-leaning-oppose with regards to this RfA, but after going over the ArbCom cases again and looking at his behaviour now, I think that MZM is most likely not going to make the same mistakes again. The BLP thing wasn't exactly the best idea, but I do think it was well-meant. ---
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''', same as last time[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMZMcBride_3&action=historysubmit&diff=310457192&oldid=310456767].  His judgment has been rash sometimes, but I trust his intentions.  I think he is clearly a net asset.  I suspect that most are expecting a better [[User:Geo Swan/On apologies|apology]].  --
'''Support'''.--''
someone has to cause more drama than me.--
'''Support''' He's a gutsy character who screwed up a couple of times and yet has probably forgotten more than many will ever know about this place, in spite of my disagreements with him in more than a few places..
{{ok}} says --
'''Support''' The user did, as an admin, do something controversial off-wiki. However, the wiki wasn't actually damaged by that, beyond very transient (and harmless, i.e., not libelous, innocuous) hoax information being inserted in low-watched BLPs as a test. This kind of testing should be done more often, under supervision of the Research Committee, and MZMcbride's provision of information led to an efficient demonstration that there was a problem. We need more like him, not less. What ever happened to [[WP:IAR}}? (And he violated no rule, by the way, just a "rule" made up after the fact. Not the first time that someone has been dinged for such. --
'''Moral support''' MZ is like [[Marmite]] – you either love him, or <s>hate</s> [censored by the civility police] <s>''don't agree with'' him</s> he doesn't agree with you. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' I consider him rather trustworthy. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
I believe that MZMcBride genuinely felt that what he doing was for the good of the project. Providing the unwatched articles was a daft move politically and indicates that he places the encyclopedia's interests above his own. –
'''Support''' After reviewing the comments, and there were definitely some [[WP:POINT|bad moves]] I still believe that this user is a net asset to the project with administrator rights. Forgive and forget, and move on
Learned my lesson after supporting the last one.
Too many chances given. In addition, most times that we have interacted, our encounters have been unpleasant. I am not sure that anything has changed since the last time he was desysopped and resysopped. <small>(
'''Oppose''' Twice abused his tools and resigned in the face of ArbCom sanctions.  We don't need a third trip on this merry-go-round.
'''Oppose'''. As much as I would like to say "third time lucky?", I don't think this would be appropriate. The reason you were desysopped the last time was enablement of BLP vandalism by a banned user.
'''Oppose''', certainly not.
'''Oppose''' I do not feel that I can trust you following the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2|Arbitration case]] in January/February. I also note that you do not actually say what admin actions you would do - your answer to the first standard question seems very vague, although I appreciate that this may have been unintentional. Perhaps I can support in the future, but I can't at the moment -- '''''
'''Oppose''' you have not given us an insight into the arbcom cases, what areas of administrative work you wish to take part in, my vote was in part due to the concerns raised and that I don't think that you have garnered enough trust from the community. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Oppose'''. Not with the candidate's history. —
'''Oppose''' I do not question MZMcBride's dedication to Wikipedia, but his last resignation was over a gross breach of trust on his part. Unfortunately, this nom does little to convince me that the benefits outweigh the clear risks.
'''Oppose''' His caustic approach to me on my talk page, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_5#Poor_unblock this thread] tells me all I need to know.  People can disagree with civility, and do, otherwise this place would be endless trench warfare.  He's had his chances and should find another way to help out with the project.--
'''Oppose''' - mirroring the feelings Rje mentions. MZM's dedication is unquestionable but unfortunately his track record regarding adminship is less stellar. He has proven that he is likely one of those users which serve the project better if they were not granted adminship. I, too, have learned my lesson after RFA #3. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC) PS: The way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&diff=380859659&oldid=380858263 he reverted a crat decision to close this very RFA] further demonstrates that he seems to be unwilling to accept that others might be correct. Furthermore, he simply reverted Joe's close without even trying to discuss it first - even if you believe you are correct, an admin should be able to discuss first and act later. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' Not impressed at being called a member of "the cadre" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FLar&action=historysubmit&diff=359454501&oldid=359434508]. General putdowns of multiple users is poor.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' Disappointed about the failure to comment on [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2]] in the nomination, which, given the serious nature of the accusations (helping a banned editor to edit unwatched BLP's and posting a list of techniques on how to beat sockpuppeting checks) leaves me with no other choice than to to oppose.
'''Oppose''', although I do understand why MZM did what he did re: that ArbCom case in February - sometimes I also feel like I should have to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, but I never have done. In situations like this BLP qualm, I would prefer people in trusted positions to know when it's better to just walk away, safe in the knowledge that they personally can't and won't be held responsible if anything does go very, very wrong. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
I think Prodego above captures why this request is [rightfully] doomed.
'''Christ no'''. MzMcBride's one man campaign to show how important BLPs are by undermining the wiki and blaming ArbCom for everything simply because he's butthurt it actually sanctioned him for acting like a prize idiot does not require the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Not now and probably not ever: long-term history of drama, bad judgement and problematic behaviour, particularly while an admin.
'''Oppose''' due to risk of misuse of tools, and/or related drama. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] (Clarification: There's a mixture of good and bad. I think that MZMcBride has done a lot of good work on wikipedia and hope they will continue to do so. The bad stuff is, I feel, largely admin related (or is a matter of temperament which is perhaps unsuited to situations that admins can find themselves in). Making a decision on the margin, I'm concerned that handing back the mop presents a risk of tool misuse; but that risk is not really offset by the potential for good work, because lots of good work could be done anyway as a normal user.)
'''Oppose''' per Nsk92; I don't think that an admin who's twice relinquished their bit while a request for arbitration was pending against them is mature enough to have the bit. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''. Bad judgement with the tools more than once. Can't see why he needs them, and the risk of another "incident" must be significant. Plenty of good work in non-adminny areas though.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#Statement_by_WJBscribe]. MZMcBride shows a consistent and unfailing belief that his judgment is better than that of everyone else. This colours every interaction he has with other members of this project. It is an unacceptable attitude for an adminsitrator to have and it is little surprise that it has gotten him into trouble in the past. Last time I made the mistake of believing this had changed and did not oppose. Well, you know what they say: "Fool me once..." <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' - per Arbcom concerns. Suggest given the !vote that this Rfa be closed asap per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Strong oppose''' mainly per the ArbCom situation, as well as abusive actions with the mop. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
You were desysopped twice. No thank you.
'''Oppose''' Based on history, would probably abuse the tools.
'''Strong oppose''' – His history, and of desysoppings, is terrible. I don't think he's ready for the mop yet. /
'''Oppose''' -per the candidates history with the Arb Committee and other issues--
'''Oppose''' - abusing BLPs is rather disgusting. I would've been willing to reconsider if McBride had answered some of the questions put out by the community in an extraordinary fashion, but I don't see that happening. Strong oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Resigned the tools twice? I can't support a candidacy with a history like that.
'''Oppose''' While I'm certainly desirous of granting admin rights if I can see my way through to doing so, in this case cannot. It might be a net positive to regrant MZMcBride admin rights. And the tools are amazingly useeful in doing one's chores. But so often trust comes down to judgment, doesn't it. Imagine you have a large office buidling and you give keyes to the offices to the cleanup staff. One of the janitors does something that loses him the keys with the trust. He comes back, and you decide to trust him again.. He then takes files out of an office and gives them to an outsider, so you take away the keys again. '''Can you ever trust him with those keys again.'''
'''Oppose''' "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."  Sorry, but while I am a believe in redemption and supported you in your last RfA, loosing/surrendering the bit twice under a cloud is enough for me to comfortably say, "No."---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)  NOTE: I do appreciate your dedication/commitment to the project, you are an asset here, but there is no way that I could support you regaining the bit---your past abuse/lapses are too significant.  Unfortunately, they are not mere disagreements or momentary mistakes, but true lapses in judgement done in a premeditated/thoughtful manner.  Ones that I'm not convinced you realize are mistakes or agree with, that make it unlikely to ever support you.---'''
'''Oppose''' - Essentially agree with many of the comments in the Oppose section, including those of {{user|Courcelles}}, {{user|X!}}, {{user|Wehwalt}}, and {{user|WJBscribe}}. -- '''
Per Prodego.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, you've simply lost all trust that I had in you with that last Arbcom case. The case itself was not that long ago and that whole situation left me guessing your judgment as an admin.--
'''Oppose:''' Some people should never be Admins. -
'''Oppose''' - I was one of the 200+ people who supported you in your last RfA. Not this time. You had your second chance already and abused the tools, I'm not sure you can be trusted with them again. -- '''
You had too many chances that you blew. I would not feel comfortable with you as an admin. ~~
'''Oppose''' - I don't feel I can support this candidate's request.
'''Oppose''' In view of your previous actions with the tools (twice) I cannot support your becoming an admin again.
'''Oppose''' - Any editor that [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#MZMcBride.27s_role_in_an_.22experiment.22|knowingly assists a vandal]] should not be an admin.--
'''Oppose'''. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me [three times], shame on me. You've twice proven that you can;t be trusted with the tools. In addition, you have serious civility problems. Every time I see your name, you're being uncivil, attacking someone, edit warring or doing something else undesirable. Far too many traits I don't want to see in an admin [again]. Sorry.
I've actually gone back to read the Arbcom decisions rather than !vote here based only on the fact of them. I don't think they're disqualifying circumstances, but they were examples of privileges being misused. Sadly there is little acknowledgement of that in the nomination statement, and that does give a lot of credence to the opinion expressed by WJBScribe above. --
'''Oppose'''. One mistake can be forgiven, but two shows that you are not learning from them. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
No. A shameful failure to own and admit to your mistakes, instead ditching the bits before they were taken; this is coupled with acidic commentary at Wikipedia Review and a generaly arrogant attitude on Wikipedia. You'll just do it wrong again frankly, which is a shame. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Why are people supporting''' someone who essentially helped a banned editor to vandalize BLP's!? I can hardly think of a worse breach of trust short of MZM vandalizing them himself. I can't possibly trust him with the tools again, and can't understand why people are even supporting him.  '''Appending:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&diff=prev&oldid=380859659 Flying in the face of consensus] more than demonstrates that he is not suitable for adminship at this time.  <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' - I did not read everything [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#Findings_of_fact|here]].  The drama outweighs his usefulness.
'''Oppose''' Ive got a bad feeling about this after reading the arbcom statements. There is alot of history here from MZM as an editor though Some good, Some bad. Ultimaetly this comes down to trust though. I just dont feel comfortable going in the support col for a third go around. My suggestion is to spend time rebuilding trust in the community. Right now i dont think is the right time.
'''Oppose''' - frankly, this request strikes me as extremely presumptuous. MZM doesn't make a clear case of why he needs the tools, or how he would benefit Wikipedia by having them; he just seems to assume he deserves them by virtue having been an admin previously. Well, it doesn't work that way. He's shown poor judgement on multiple occasions, sufficient for many of us to lose trust in him, and hasn't given good reasons why that trust should be given back. I would be prepared to switch to Support if he returned to this RFA and actually made a strong case for why we should support him, but as it stands I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' I have very little trust in the judgement of MZMcBride anymore. The sheer number of bad incidents overwhelm the good experiences I've had with him. Adminship is not for everyone, and this doesn't prevent anyone from helping out on Wikipedia, but I simply cannot trust him with the tools anymore. --
'''Oppose''', per Prodego, Nathan, and the above. Not at all comfortable with MzM having the tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' - After having read through [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#MZMcBride.27s_role_in_an_.22experiment.22|this]], there is no way that I can trust him with the tools at this time. To knowingly assist a BLP vandal is completely unacceptable. --
'''Oppose''' Was happy to be part of the massive pile-on of support last time, disappointed to feel compelled to oppose this time. Please keep up your quality work in other areas, I don't think the community can see it's way clear to granting the bits a third time anytime soon.
'''Oppose''' I've seen some of his work and it is quite impressive. However, I just read the ArbCom case, so regretfully, no way.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''No way''' I don't trust this user.
'''Oppose''' I don't trust him either. --
'''Oppose''' Ditto. It's unlikely this user will be an admin again.
You can only get so many second chances. No.
'''Oppose''' per above. --'''[[User talk:ZooFari|<span style="color:green; font-style:italic">Zoo</span>]]
'''Oppose'''. I believe that MZMcBride has the best interests of the project at heart but I do not think that giving him back the admin bit would be in his or the projects best interests so I cannot support this request.
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#MZMcBride.27s_role_in_an_.22experiment.22|Are you kidding me]]? Which way are we trying to move this project? Although you seem to be a very helpful person and trustworthy I feel that I should do what I can to prevent you from getting access to information like that again. I like to consider myself a sort of [[Albus Dumbledore]] but am afraid that I'm just not feeling it. Sorry but I don't think we can ever give you these tools again.
'''Oppose''' As an editor, may well be a positive to the project. As an admin, past behavior, and lack of regret for it, is damning. <strong>
Per WJBscribe.
'''Oppose''' – Too many chances given by the community. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' - Per above, don't trust user after the Arbcom case not too long ago.
'''Oppose''' - supporting a user with this [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2|kind of conduct and judgment]] for admin makes zero sense, unless the goal is to destroy this site.
'''Oppose''' due to an established pattern of poor impulse control, most recently evidenced in the response to [[User:Throwaway85]] above, stating that "in some cases, the opposes [to this RFA] are downright hypocritical, spiteful, revengeful, and/or brain-dead."
'''Oppose'''. I'd be happy to support someone as intelligent as MZMcBride to regain the bit, but the flip answers are similar to what got the editor in trouble this most recent time. It'd be nice to see a more sober approach to adminship.
'''Strong, strong oppose''' per The Thing That Should Not Be. That kind of behavior is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to pile on, but seeing this user ''un-close'' his own RfA after it was closed according to [[WP:NOTNOW]] really concerns me. Shows an inability to accept consensus, which is a most definitely unwanted attribute in an administrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">—
'''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMZMcBride_4&action=historysubmit&diff=380859659&oldid=380858263 this]. Clearly, you don't give a damn about following any policies or guidelines here, and your actions show that. I was pretty ambivalent about you having adminship before, but I don't think you get it. ···
'''Oppose''' per GorillaWarfare.
'''Now opposing''' per Nihonjoe. Sorry, but reverting the judgement of one of the people whose ''job'' it is on Wikipedia to judge RFAs? No, I don't think so. You still believe your judgement outweighs everyone else's, and your disingenuous responses to questions about what assurances we have that this has changed, well... clearly it hasn't. No mop, please. →
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&diff=380859659&oldid=380858263 Reverting a bureaucrat close] of a clearly failed RfA? Are really sure you want more people to tell you how you are clearly unsuited for this job? Very well. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I wasn't going to vote in this one, since I didn't have any strong feelings either way. Overturning a bureaucrat close put it over the line. NOTNOW, and quite possibly NOTEVER. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Oppose''' <small>(moved from neutral)</small>. This decision pains me. I can see the great contributions the candidate has made, but the actions that led to the ArbCom cases (especially the second one) showed extremely poor judgment, and the responses to the cases were dismissive and arrogant. But I was still open to supporting, depending on the answers to the questions above, and if I'd seen any genuine-sounding contrition and a bit of humility, I may well have switched to support. But I'm afraid all I see is more dismissive arrogance, and further poor judgment exhibited in the combative approach to this RfA. Sorry, but no. --
'''Oppose'''.  Per the above, rather overwhelming, points supporting rejection.--
A leopard never changes its spots.
Since MZMcBride apparently wants the RFA to run for its full length, I assume that he wants the whole community to weigh in here. As such, here's my voice. What irks me most about all the incidents involving MZMcBride is his "I know best" attitude, which becomes more and more dangerous the more authority a person has. And anyone claiming that adminship is "no big deal" and "just a few extra buttons" is still living in the Wikipedia-world of 2003, when these things were actually true. --
Upon careful reflection, I've come to the conclusion that shameless arrogance and weaseling sliminess are evidently '''not''' good qualities in an admin candidate. Unfortunately, my less-than-good-faith '''support''' !vote was being out-ridiculoused by its neighbors, and thus I feel compelled to move down to this section, where the mood may be less jovial but where it's much less daunting a task to figure out where my neighbors craniums end and posteriors begin.
'''Oppose''' - Seems reluctant to talk about the previous desyssops, which were pretty abysmal cases in and of themselves.
Net positive to the project but cannot be fully trusted and causes far too much drama. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' MZMcBride, you've often impressed me with your poise, kindness and creativity. However, I was astonished when your BLP stunt came to light. The lack of judgment was immense. Opening a door to vandalize BLPs threatens the entire project. Break the wrong eggs and the entire kitchen implodes. Your answers do not convince me that you've been humbled by this yet. I don't trust you with the bits yet. If this were to pass today, I see more difficulties than benefits. Net negative.
'''Oppose''' per past and present behavior & comments.--
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_4&diff=380859659&oldid=380858263 this] revision. <small>'''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
'''Oppose''' The fact that he refuses to realize this RfA is going to [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] is enough to oppose. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF">
'''Absolutely not, extremely strong oppose''' Moreover, I believe the MZ ought to be subject to a ''ban'' on applying for adminship.
'''Oppose''': Several times the contributor has lacked respect for other editors, which is a very important requirement for an admin. Equilibrium is the most important quality of an admin. I think that you should leave aside disputes, keep the good contributions up and retry in a year or two. --<span style="font-family: Gothic;">
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has repeatedly shown an immense lack of judgment, respect for others, inability to create drama, and ability to accept consensus. He most certainly does not have my trust.
'''No thanks''' - per all above. <span style="font-size: 93%;">'''
'''Oppose'''. Mainly to move one step closer to WP100 when hopefully youll no longer object to this divisive RfA being closed. Just in case you are open to constructive feedback, one issue is that no matter how talented or charismatic you are theres a limit to how long you can get away with trying to control events with force and power plays. Force provokes opposition. It takes more energy to persuade folk and it feels worse if your ideas are rejected, but when it works instead of leaving the other side feeling resentful you bring them along as collaborators and that way you can achieve lasting change. I also think you should work on being more respectful to folk with different views. Folk wont forget the unparalleled contributions youve made for the project. If you still want the tools in a years time and theres been no more major drama Id be happy to to support.
From a dude whose opinion is entirely devoid of prior contact or involvement - the answers you have written carry a very negative mindset. Its more like "why I don't really want to be, or shouldn't be an admin." You need more time to cool off and build a better history - you're maybe looking at more than a year from now before a return to adminship. Keep up the commitment and all the best -
'''Oppose''' - You've really done some good work for the project and I can see that you had good intentions, but after the BLP incident, the secret pages, and everything else mentioned above, I'm not ready to trust you yet. You haven't even taken the opportunity to at least partially explain yourself to the community by answering the questions better than you have, but in a year, maybe less, if nothing else goes wrong, I'd be open to supporting you. <b>[[~]] <font size="2.5" face="Arial" color="#66699"><i>[[User:QwerpQwertus|Qwerp]]</i></b></font><font size="2.5" face="Apple LiSung" color="#CC6600">[[User talk:QwertyQwerpus|Qwertus]]</font> <font size="1.5" face="Lucida Sans" color="#003300">[[User talk:QwerpQwertus|Talk]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. His evasiveness and clear unwillingness to address his previous desysopings except via lame handwaving is completely unacceptable.  Admins should be accountable and he's trying to avoid it.
'''Oppose'''.I  was on  the fence  after doing  my  own  research, and I  nearly  stayed completely  out  of this one (like not even going  neutral). I  think  Malleus support has a point  about  the BLP,    but  now after following  up  on  some of the opposes such  as those of Ciçndamuse, GorillaWarfare., and Boing, and the lack  of a convincing  self-nom as to  why  he really  wants the tools again,  I'm  not left  left  warm  to  the idea of him  being  an admin again. He's a great  asset  to  the project in  other ways and he can still be that  without  the tools.--
'''Oppose''' Generally nasty, with plenty of issues. I'm stepping outside of my "writing-only" box for this RfA.
'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2#MZMcBride.27s_role_in_an_.22experiment.22|Never.]]'''
'''Oppose''' per attitude to this RFA and general arrogance. '''
'''Nope''' You had your chance, and you blew it. TWICE. Is this some kind of joke? ~<strong>'''''
'''Sorry''' No, seeing arbcom cases... <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Oppose''' - I still do not trust you and your judgment, and your recent behavior especially during this RfA in regards to the reverts of its closure exemplify the arrogance and holier than thou attitude which makes you unsuited to be an administrator. The two trips to ArbCom apparently have not had the intended effect, and I have no clue as to what will. -'''
Too many judgment issues for me, sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  I opposed your 2nd RFA, stating "''If as you say, you are willing to change, then give it some time (months, not days), and show us you are. Then I'll support.''"  I don't see that you have changed, so I must again oppose.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I have just watched ArbCom take great care to decide another complicated case, and in general I wouldn't expect any user with an unfavorable ArbCom record to carry the mop. The unresponsive answers to questions from the community are also very troubling. No hard feelings (I haven't personally interacted with this candidate at all), and best wishes for future participation in various Wikimedia projects, but I don't feel comfortable, on the basis of this nomination file, with the candidate having the mop. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per Nihonjoe and others.--
'''Oppose''' somehow I missed the last RfA in which I would have opposed for lack of judgement regarding the out-of-process userspace deletions.  When you had the tools given back you abused them even further. Your recent removal of the bureaucrat's close of this RfA indicates even more that you are too reckless for the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' Per much of the above... ''maybe'' in the future,  but unfortunately this run is likely to taint future RFAs...
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per the closure revert alone.  That shows this user is clearly not even following the policies and rules as an editor and should ''not'' be given tools of any kind anytime soon. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
As many others have commented, I don't have any doubt that MZMcBride's intentions are good. But MZMcBride's judgment is another matter, and I was concerned with the manner in which the BLP issue went down - the decisions made in each step, from providing the information to responding to initial queries, raise enough flags that I can't support. -
'''TTTSNB (#45) said it best. Sorry.''' --
'''Oppose'''. Civility issues and previous trouble make me reluctant to support, but I would oppose anyone who made that kind of closure revert.
'''Oppose''' - When I saw this RfA, I was reluctant to go to the trouble of reading all the way through the ArbCom stuff and was going to skip over this RfA. However, as soon as I saw that he unclosed his own RfA and said 'Fixed' to the closing beaureaucrat, I knew I could make a decision without even needing to read through the ArbCom stuff. -
'''Oppose'''.  Someone that blew his second chance so egregiously should not get a third (or a fourth).
'''Oppose''' I supported giving a second chance in the previous RfA. However, judgment issues have continued since then as pointed out by many other users. MZMcBride seems to have good intentions, but they say the road to hell is paved with them...
'''Oppose''' Would be best to stick with non-admin contributions.
'''Oppose''' - This user has good intentions. Unfortunately, for us, he has abused these administrator tools and has also been incivil. I think he will never be given a third or fourth chance, because if he did, that will cause a lot of trouble for us users. [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Oppose'''.  I opposed [[:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 3|RfA/MZMcBride 3]] in August 2009 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_3&diff=prev&oldid=310811387 diff]).   I oppose this one as well.  –
'''Oppose'''.
Nice guy (y'know, when he's not being sarky or blunt :)), but not at all what we need in an administrator. Which is a shame, because he is technical prodigy compared to me. '''Oppose'''.
'''Regretful Oppose''' too much baggage for me to support as an admin. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' Thank you for all the work you have done that makes it easier for users to edit. But allowing a banned editor to edit unwatched BLP's, posting a tutorial on how to defeat sockpuppeting checks and reverting a crat close is too much. —
'''Oppose''' (moved from support) Has shown poor actions in relation to our encyclopaedia, especially in the second Arbcom case. Since MZMcBride has responded to that contributor who wanted to know how to sock without getting caught, that contributor might have said "Thank you" and done the dirty stuff. Sorry, I know I supported in the first place, but I learned a lesson about how bad that action was.
'''Oppose''' Why do something constructive here when you can piss and moan at a place like Wikipedia Review? [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2]] is simply an example of over the top stupidity by anyone, let alone an administrator. Aside from the needless creation of drama, the motivation for said drama was and remains flagrantly obvious to anyone with ten minutes of experience using Wikipedia; vandalism is easy. As an admin, it is your job to use the very tools that you abused on behalf of K to prevent people from doing that. Next time, take such a list and add the list items to your watchlist, or enlist the assistance of interested users to do the same. Without knowing much about bots, someone could have probably automated this process, and with the semi-advent of approved revisions, that process could also probably be automated into a bot as well. Instead, you displayed all the maturity of a 12 year old and took the most dramatic and least constructive action anyone here could conceive of. Well struck. I stood up for you in the past, but this time you really dug yourself a hole.
'''Oppose''' - per Hiberniantears. Couldn't have said it better myself. [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] <sup>([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]])(
'''Oppose''' In the past I supported some of what the candidate was doing, however the ignore all rules activities to prove points was seriously out of order, and it will be best for Wikipedia if these cannot happen again.
'''Neutral''' As much as I would support you (I did on your last one) the whole de-sysoping incident background is a bit concerning. Maybe in a year or so you'll get my support. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' I don't usually care about the content of the nomination statement, but given that you have previously been desysopped by Arbcom, it lacks an explanation of why and what you've learned, and would therefore suggest that Roux's negative opening sentence appears to still be the case. That said, other than knowing that I've seen you in wikispace, I'm not familiar enough with you to oppose at this stage. --
'''Neutral''' - pending answers to Questions 4, 5, 6. I know they are optional, but without those points addressed I could not consider support. &nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - I still think you might, overall, be a net positive with admin tools. I supported last time on the basis of your otherwise excellent commitment and competence - but the whole banned-user BLP experiment was a real lapse in judgment and in trust, and I'm not willing to support again at this time. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral''' I was considering a moral support, but then I remembered what happened with BLP deletions.  No need for me to pile on, because you're clearly not getting the tools back this time.
'''Neutral''' per Ayn Rand. Sorry dude; with the current climate and processes, it ain't gonna happen. I think you know my thoughts on that, so I won't elaborate here; I think you're great, you've helped me a lot, etc. etc. You ''are'' a net positive, for sure, with or without tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Neutral'''.  While I like the work you do, I can't say I agree with some of your recent run-ins with arbcom.  That in mind, I don't think that warrants either an oppose or support.  -'''
'''Neutral''' unfortunately. Although I would really like to support (Bejinhan sums my thoughts up quite nicely), you've had more than one chance. Sorry,
If there were any prospect of this passing this would be a '''NO way!''' oppose but since this is clearly going to fail I'll tuck this down here to avoid piling on.
'''Neutral''' i would like to see you have more experience before i would support you. <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral''' I was inclined to support strongly, as my own limited experience with this editor has been positive.  But then I saw the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride|arbitration]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2|cases]] and believe that [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2#Findings of fact|this &#8220;breaching experiment&#8221;]] is problematic.

'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' - this is a hard decision for me to make, i had no idea that such behavior had been shown in the past ''so that's why i cant really support''. This user had always been helpful to me and i saw no signs of disrespect whatsoever. This just lead me to put Neutral.  -
Entirely confused by anything arbcom related, I don't think I have the necessary judgement to !vote. ''
'''Neutral''' - Flash mobbed, ouch. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#731A25">
This is not so much a neutral as me refusing to put myself in either camp. Since I'm a former arb you probably have a judgment against me already, so placing myself in either support or oppose would mean nothing. No doubt that MZMcBride is hard to figure out. On the one end, he's amazing with the toolserver, and I'm a regular user of his database reports. Many of his deletions were great as well, and I respect that part of him. That being said, one thing that bugs me about wikipedians in general, let alone admin candidates, is when they blindingly hold grudges. There are users who I've had conflicts with and usually disagree with, but when they do something smart I acknowledge it. What I see from you is someone who will blindingly go against any person or group who's wronged you, whether right or wrong. Arbs aren't perfect, and I know I wasn't a perfect arb, but I read the noticeboard, and when your comments end up not really being related to the noticeboard topic, and instead are just your usual bashing,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=372697736] it makes me wonder if you can let things go. I actually don't mind the crat undo too much since it's your RfA, if you want more ammo fired at you then so be it. I'm naturally forgiving, but the RfA community certainly isn't, so the mound of opposes doesn't surprise me. It's a tough question in the end, though. Would I trust you with adminship in terms of the tools themselves? Most likely. Would I trust you with adminship in terms of the position, the figurehead status, the intangibles of the position? The two cases combined with the BLP incident makes it hard for me to. All I can say is just keep concentrating on those database reports and the like, which luckily you don't need the admin tools for. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Neutral''' I am a regular user of MZ's database reports & find them greatly valuable - and would offer support, but at this point it ain't got a snowball's chance... Would support next time if good behaviour continues/grows.
I can only assume this is meant to be some kind of joke or social experiment. Otherwise, I would oppose on balance of the candidate's behaviour.
I'm still opposed to MZMcBride regaining adminship, but I decided that I don't want to be embroiled in a negative, dramatic pile-on. It holds no benefits in the long run.
I would support if you had waited a year since the last RfA, but it looks like you only waited 361 days 12 hours 6 minutes and 1 second.  And I really dont think that's enough time to learn from your mistakes.  '''
'''Oppose''' - You're on the right track, but not quite there yet. There is more to being an administrator than vandalism. Also, content resolution/disputes are solved through community consensus and discussion. Administrators are not referees or an authority. I think you should focus on broadening your horizons abit, and maybe take a stab at more prolific content creation.

'''Oppose'''. Candidate has [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=NastalgicCam&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 1,036 edits] and several unexplained breaks. Answer to Q3 misses the point and has a remarkably dismissive, who-gives-a-shit tone. Answer to Q1 implies a lack of need for the tools since NC admits to spending "hours" on vandal fighting, which of course is easy to do without adminship. Hurry up and close.
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I would like to see you familiar with the different aspects of Wikipedia an admin has to be in. Not just fighting vandalism. Join discussions at [[RS/N]], [[AN/I]], etc. Have more mainspace edits. 430 edits is not sufficient. Familiarize yourself with article creating. Then only come back here.
Sorry, but I can't see what you want admin status for. "Resolving disputes" has nothing to do with adminship, and neither does "helping with various wikiprojects, particularly those involving graphics". Your nomination statement gives no impression that you understand what a Wikipedia admin actually is; you seem to think it's some kind of "Wikipedia umpire" authority figure, which is definitely not the case. ''If'' you can convince me that you understand what a sysop does, and that there's a reason you should be one, perfectly willing to reconsider.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' You've been blocked recently, and I like to see at least 12 months clean block log at RFA. I'm also concerned at the various warnings on your talkpage and in its history. You might also consider setting your preferences to force an edit summary as you don't always use one. Happy to see you back here when your block is 12 months old. Please don't get dispirited about not succeeding on your first attempt - my first run wasn't a success either. ''
'''Strong Oppose''' As WereSpielChequers said you were blocked recently back in February for edit warring, I can't support here with a recent block you just had.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but with a block that occured only a month for breaking the three-revert rule and with file source problems. I'm going to have to oppose on this one. --
'''Oppose''' because adminship is not [[Captain (Royal Navy)|four stripes on your sleeve]]; some kind of authority; it's just a few extra buttons. Combine a misunderstanding of the role with a recent block log, and I don't have much choice.
'''Oppose''' I have to reluctantly oppose, sorry, mainly because I don't see enough general experience or evidence of sufficient policy knowledge. On Q3, I would hope for some discussion of the actual Wikipedia procedures involved in handling edit disputes - and a recent block for edit warring isn't good. I'm also a little disturbed when I see repeated blanking of a user's Talk page, and various warnings when I look back at the history - I know users are allowed to blank their talk pages, but I'd hope someone wanting to be trusted with a mop would be sufficiently open to preserve their history (archive pages can be used to avoid the main Talk page getting too big). Anyway, I'm rambling - if you come back when your block is old and cold and with no further warnings, and spend some time looking at other related areas and getting to know the tools and procedures available for dealing with vandalism, edit wars, and general unpleasantness, I could see myself supporting your next nomination. --
'''Oppose''' You seem to be involved in vandal-reverting only, and have no plans to change this. An admin doesn't have much extra power in killing vandals, except the blocking power, and anyways we have AIV for that. An admin must be present in all fields, must have knowledge of our 1000+ <small>(contradicting)</small> policies, and must be able to solve disputes. I don't think that you really don't have much of a chance at the moment. Diversify your work on Wikipedia and you'll probably get the mop next time.
'''Moral support''' With under 300 edits, I'm going to have to say [[WP:NOTNOW|not right now]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:gold;">
Not Now, sorry
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but fewer than 300 edits is nowhere near enough experience. The claim "''I say this because I know all of Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures''" is really not convincing - nobody knows them all, and you can't hope to understand how policies really work until you've spent some time actually using them. Also, "''The reason for my low edit count is that editing is not my main purpose on Wikipedia. My main purpose is to fight vandalism, deal with issues and problems, and be as helpful as I can''" doesn't make sense, because you can't do any of those things without doing edits. We need to be able to see evidence to support claims of how good you are and what you say you know, and that takes at least a few thousand edits - so please stick around and try again when you have that level of experience, and I hope I'll be able to support you at a later time. (Oh, and if you haven't done, have a good read of [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]) --
No experience in Wikipedia space at all, which is where an admin would be expected to work. Fighting vandalism can be done without the tools. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
Inexperience, and candidate's failure to understand why this matters.
'''Oppose''' As per [[WP:NOTNOW]] .I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.Sorry and Best Wishes for the future.
There is really not enough yet to evaluate your candidacy. On the other hand, I haven't seen anything that leads me to distrust you with the tools.--
'''Support''' Frankly, the fact that you have only 3,000 edits does not bother me in the least. You have been around for two years, and you seem to have a good grasp on policy. I don't see any issues. ~'''''
'''Moral support'''—I don't agree with all of the 3,000 edits nonsense, but it does look like more experience couldn't hurt. I looked at a few of your recent AfD comments, including [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_White_Tiger_LLC&action=historysubmit&diff=396735087&oldid=396734018 this] and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Luchagors&action=historysubmit&diff=396732626&oldid=396168288 this]; while they bring forth logical arguments, they seem weak because you provide no evidence (for example, sources) to back up your claims in one, while you give no reason for your argument to merge in the other. This is something to work on. Additionally, [[Special:Contributions/Navy_blue84|you don't seem to be very active]]. While this isn't and should not be a factor in your competence as an editor, many would like to see more activity (at least for a few months) for an admin candidate, as more active editors are usually more in touch with the goings-on around here. I have found that I have a bit of catching up to do even after taking a break for a few days. Another small thing that may help: work on spelling, etc. Examples from this RfA include: ''Admins are not always going to be the favorites of regular {{xt|Wikipedian's}}'', ''If it is the {{xt|persons}} first block''. It's a really tiny thing but, sadly, may make the difference in whether or not you're taken seriously by, say, an editor that you blocked. Overall, you're a great contributor, but I don't think adminship fits you quite yet. Good luck,
'''Moral Support'''.  Good editor, but needs a little more experiance.  You have only 3000 edits in 2 years.
'''Strong Oppose''' needs more experience. <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Oppose''' Only 3,000 edits &mdash; you are on the right track, but more experience is needed--
'''Oppose''' per Hokeman, need more experience. You have my moral support though
'''Oppose''' per Hokeman and Acather. There has been very few users that have 3,000 edits or less that became an admin. Experience what is you need in other to be admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Sorry You are on the right track.Please try again with more experience later.Good Luck.
'''Oppose'''. Fine contributions but I don't see a lot of experience in admin related areas or interaction with users.
'''Oppose''' Failed to answer my question substantively, and appears to lack experience in more than one department. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' with moral support - you definitely have good intentions but there are still concerns about experience levels. I'm sure that if you came back in a few months with more experience and a higher edit count that I would be more inclined to support. Regards, '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per low edit count (despite SoWhy's valid remark--I want more from an admin today), per Parrot's comment, and per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_White_Tiger_LLC&diff=396735087&oldid=396734018 unsubstantiated remark at recent AfD]. I could offer moral support, but it would come with the advice to a. get more edits that have substance to them (the satellite article is nice but it won't blow anyone away) b. get a firmer grip on policy and guidelines (Q.5) c. get edits in the fields you say you want to be active in (Q.1 and 3)--I looked through all your edits and found you had reported two IPs (maybe three?) to AIV, but I saw no participation in any of the notice boards. If you have participated in mediating discussions on talk pages (which don't require admin status, of course), I didn't see them, but I gladly stand corrected. Either way, that is the kind of thing you'll need to strengthen the argument you're making for the job, especially since many good contributions at ANI (where you say you will contribute--you can already!) come from editors who are not admins. Good luck next time,
'''Oppose''' {{edit conflict}} I'm not seeing enough activity to feel comfortable. I haven't seen anything ''wrong'' with your actions, but you just don't have enough of them for me to judge well. Sorry, <span style="text-shadow:#CC1100 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
I'm leaning towards oppose, but I'm going to vote '''neutral''' to avoid pile-on. You need a little more experience, in my opinion, before reapplying. My recommendation would be to wait at least a year before applying again.
'''Neutral''' not enough experience in admin related areas of Wikipedia for me to support. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''' The candidate has the right attitude and no red flags come up on review of contribs.  I feel the candidate needs more experience, which I personally do not gauge by mere edit count, but also an evaluation of the diversity of their participation in areas where admin tools are used... noticeboards, backlogs, and the various deletion-related venues.  Such participation is what demonstrates an understanding of policy and can show where the user is currently limited by the lack of a mop bit o further their work in those areas.  So moral support, but I recommend you withdraw the RFA for now, and try again after maybe 6 months. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤
'''Moral support''' for a positive candidate who clearly wants to help, but who really doesn't have enough experience yet. At an RfA, you need to be able to answer questions in terms of what specific admin tools you would use, and how and when you would use them - so I'd suggest that's an area to learn more about before trying again in the future. --
'''Support'''.  Supported last time, some things only get better with time.--
'''Strong Support''' Without reservation. I'm familiar with this user. They've done outstanding work, they have a ''wonderful'' temperament, and they're incredibly suited for the task. '''
'''Support''' - this user says that she wants to be involved in deletion, but her edits to the Wikipedia namespace are generally not in deletion. Still, she appears to be a constructive and civil editor who will not cause trouble if given admin status. -
'''<font color="ff69b4">Happy Birthday</font>''' I almost supported her last time. Some things only get better with age. The tone of this second self-nomination shows a greater maturity. <font face="Georgia">
Supported last time; no reason not to now. ···
'''Support''' there is no rule that wikipedia editors have to like everyone who has been rude to them. And not liking Malleus is not really a reason to oppose. Still there is reason for caution but I don't see any evidence that this editor would abusively use the mop to block others. In fact I see quite the opposite. This idea of potential mop abuse seems to be entirely in the imagination of some of the opposers.
'''Weak Support''' To be honest a lot looks better here... but the Malleus thing seems to indicate that you have a pretty thin skin.  I read the original flames/disagreement/whatever and it really wasn't so extreme.  I wonder how well you will hold up if someone really tears into you over the use of tools, but I'm willing to give support with some hesitation.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Weak Support]]''' - RfA is about trusting people. I can trust the user, so I will support. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
If that is the only negative, then I have no hesitation. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339933;">
'''Support''' No concerns, I also thought you already were one already.
'''Support''' Support in the past continues today for me. Editor has good experince and the honesty is what i like about the editor most. Good Luck!
'''Support''' Although the incident cited by most of the below opposers was not handled well by the candidate, I don't think that's indicative of how she would conduct herself in an administrative capacity, especially given her history outside of that incident. The candidate has done a lot of good content work for [[WP:CYC|WikiProject Cycling]], and she seems to understand the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] just fine. Her views on stubs and the [[WP:MYSPACE]] policy, detailed on her userpage, are not necessarily in line with my views; however, I don't believe that's material to this RfA.
Per review of user's contributions. -
Nosleep in his answer to Q3 is referring to the incident described [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/August#Its_just_not_my_morning... here]. --
'''Oppose''', as per Malleus's reply above, and my comments on that matter in the Neutral section.  A simple matter like this should be faced head-on, and not simply ignored. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Per Malleus and Q3.  Your answer to Q3 leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Although you don't name anyone, you're clearly targeting someone. The last thing we need on this project is more admins who use the tools on users they dislike.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose'''. Answer to Q3 is disappointing. Not only does Nosleep admit to losing his cool in a dispute, he seems to be holding a grudge as a result of this dispute. I would normally over look one episode of uncivil behavior if it were way in the past, and had not been repeated, and the perpetrator did not hold a grudge. But Nosleep's answer to Q3, particularly his remarks about how Malleus Fatuorum "doesn't exist" raise red flags. First, it indicates to me that he is holding a grudge. Secondly, I would not consider the tone of the comments to be appropriate for an RFA. Also, Nosleep replied to the last Oppose !vote by implying that he would avoid Malleus, and that there are other editors he has had problems with. The tone of his answer to Q3, and his admission to having acted in the heat of the moment lead me to question whether he would actually avoid Malleus. The comment about having had problems with other editors, coupled with Maleus's contention that Nosleep lied about their conflict, also raises red flags (though in all fairness, I wouldn't be surprised if anything else is trivial).
'''Oppose'''. Cue the broken record, but the Q3 response is an enormous concern. I actually more or less understand the "doesn't exist" bit, and to a certain extent applaud the idea of simply avoiding someone you can't quite come to terms with in a reasonable way. That said, the rest of the response is the type of vindictive conduct I would generally be shocked to see coming from an admin. Your honesty is admirable but unfortunately it's also exposing a problem. With regret...
'''Oppose''' for two main reasons; not because you fell out with Malleus (you're not the first!), but because (1) you still seem to be letting it bother you, and (2) because reading through the diffs, I'm just not seeing support for your interpretation of events. Communication on Wikipedia, as a text-only medium, can be problematic at the best of times, and admins need to be more careful than most when reading something that has the potential to upset them. You ''could'' have ignored any offence, taken Ealdgyth's and Malleus's comments as constructive advice, and used them to improve your review. However, at the time you chose to focus on the negatives and become offended, and more worryingly, you still seem to be nursing a grudge now. Admins are inevitably subject to genuine abuse and bad-faith - merely by taking up the mop you become a target to some editors - and I have no confidence that you will be able to cope with far harsher and more personally-directed criticism than the mild comments Malleus made.
'''Slight Oppose''' As per RadManCF, I can tell that it's going to be difficult for you to keep your cool but I like your detailed answers to the questions, showing how intelligent you are on Wikipedia. Still, keeping your cool is more important in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' per the thread in the neutral section. I don't think I could trust you with the tools right now.
'''Oppose''' The Q3 experience (per RadManCF). The replies: "I won't block anyone I don't think exists" ''et al'' illustrate a persistent lack of maturity and perspective over an incident characterised by a startling abdication of both. Further maturity concerns: the user page begins with 'must fill space' and does so by linking to Sporcle quizzes followed by reams of personal interest blather. The non-MySpacey stuff does eventually appear: NoSleep has lots of opinions and little apparent restraint in stating them: I'm bothered by NoSleep's beliefs and deductions re edit summaries and article length, and the dramatic assertions re notmyspace v. dickery. NoSleep has worked hard and made good contributions but does not show the necessary temperament for admin.
'''Oppose'''. RFA is to some extents like a job interview. One of the first rules in interviews is that if you are asked about something negative, you should try and spin it into a positive. Unfortunately the Q3 answer really doesn't manage this. The incident itself doesn't necessarily worry me - malleus winds lots of people up - but the answer gives the impression that the incident has festered, if only in nosleep's mind. I also find the answer to Q6 slightly odd, when his answer to Q3 in the last RFA said that they had invoked IAR correctly.
'''Oppose''' - Per Q3 (and comments in the neutral section) and Q6. Using an RfA answer to slam another editor is really bad taste, and I'm not comfortable with an administrator who doesn't even understand, let alone embrace [[WP:IAR]]. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per several of the above comments. I was involved in the incident with Malleus and Nosleep was unable to let the issue go. We don't need admins who hold grudges.
'''Oppose''' per the incident with MF. The response to q3 does not gel with my reading of the contents of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2009/August#Its_just_not_my_morning... this]. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' The answer to question 3 is jaw-droppingly bad.
'''Oppose''' per temperament regarding interaction with Malleus.  Admins need to take the high ground when it comes to communicating with other editors, no matter how contentious the experience is.  I am sure that we have all had tensions with other editors, but I think as an admin, you will have similar experiences to the one covered in Q3.  Some growth is necessary in this regard.  Strive to be amicable.  Ask polite questions of the other party.  Focus on the content, not the contributor(s).  If necessary, find uninvolved editors to maintain that focus on content.  Preview your comments and consider their impact.  Try to adapt a collaborative tone, because I think people forget that we're all trying to build an encyclopedia, and we just have different ways to do it.  Sometimes there are ways to compromise, sometimes you don't agree with consensus, and sometimes your exchanges will get your blood boiling.  Being stoic is an important characteristic of any editor, but especially of admins.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament. '''
'''Oppose''' per the comments made by Nev1. Look, I have had my own fair share of troubles between Malleus and myself in the past but you just need to [[WP:STICK|move on]] and ignore it. [[WP:DGAF]] is a perfect essay for this case. Untill you can drop you case against him, im not comfortable with you haveing the ability to block those whome you get into arguemnts with.--
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q3 which floored me when I read it, my apologies for the pile on. ''<B>--
When you edit for some time here, it's not an unusual thing to get into an argument with someone else. What bothers me is that you still seem to hold a grudge about it, judging by your comments here. Considering the amount of abuse you'll inevitably receive as an admin, I'm not sure how you'd cope with that. There are no other problems that I can see so I won't oppose. ≈&nbsp;
Nosleep, after reading your user page, I'm impressed with your Wikipedia contributions and how well you've handled real life; I'm sure you'll continue to do a great job with both.  RFA is in part an interview, and you kind of flunked this interview in Q3.  If this RfA fails and you're interested in running again in 6 months, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, I'll be happy to help. - Dank (
Per struck support. I now have concerns about whether this candidate would, perhaps unknowingly, go a little too far when put under pressure. I'm going to evaluate further. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Although I recognise the contributions that the candidate has made to Wikipedia, but I am concerned that if they were to be put under pressure as an admin, they might not cope with this well. Having no other concerns, I cannot oppose, but this concern is enough to prevent me from supporting. -- '''''
Not really sure after reading your response to question three.  Maybe not the right temperament for an administrator. '''
Good luck with this. Some more stuff in the nomination would help, though.--
'''Support''' editor is low on edits but seems to be level headed, I see no reason to think that he/she would abuse the mop. ''<B>--
I agree with RP459.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' One word people: '''''[[WP:AGF|AGF]]'''''.--
'''[[User:Otherlleft/RfA|Support]]'''.  Faced with a user that has been blocked and since granted rollbacker rights, I see no reason not to support.--
'''Support''' Regarding this user might not have many edits and apparently little experience, I believe the candidate is ready for the request made as he (see support number 2 above for clarification that this user is male) seems to know what he is doing and I personally think its not about the experience. If every job needed experience then no-one would get anywhere (some people start their own businesses with little or no experience on how to do anything but they still seem to manage).
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate already has Rollback, has received a barnstar, and as the lone block was back in 2008.  Sincerely, --
'''Weak Support:''' The "experience issue"  gives me pause. -
'''Support.''' He knows how to mop. He'll learn how to wax. We need more admins to clean the floor. Put him to work. He'll regret it soon enough.
'''Support.''' I like the transformation of editors when they improve over time. I see that here. I think He's not 100% there and Id like a bit more activity but hes been around for a while, but; just because we dont edit as much doesnt mean we dont read alot. I think the motivation is there. At anyrate, I support this editor. I do though acknowledge that my support is more a moral one though. Good luck with your future edits.
'''Support.''' Experienced with CSD nominations. Would benefit being an admin. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Support''' because I can trust him with the tools. All the points about experience, activity-level and mistakes are irrelevant to the deeper question of whether Osarius is trustworthy and will be coachable once he starts to use the admin tools.--
'''Support''' - the "experience issue" doesn't matter at all to me.
'''Support''' I'm assuming good faith. If you needed help you'd always ask for it wouldn't you?
'''Weak Support''', clearly not going to pass, but I like your enthusiasm.  I'd listen to [[User:Glasscobra]]'s advice down in the Oppose section though, your signature is a bit overly long and obnoxious.
'''Oppose''' - I'm afraid I must place myself in this section as well - mostly based on a lack of experience in areas you express interest in working.
'''Oppose''', Unfortunately. You're on the right track, but with only 12 edits to AIV and AIV listed as a area you wish to work in, I'm afraid I cannot support (AIV Is only one field of interest, I see only limited experience in other areas you wish to work as well).  This, combined with a fairly low number of CSD taggings and general inactivity (sub 20 edits a month for most months of the past year) these past few months leads me to [[User:Fastily/RfA Rationale|oppose]].  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' Again, lack of experience. I suggest waiting for several months and getting more involved in the areas noted above—what's the point of avoiding AIV when you want to be an admin? And I would like to see more activity each month, several hundred only sporadically does not "even it out" (it makes a large lump, actually). <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''', primarily per overall lack of experience. Well under 3K edits in total (for me around 5K would typically be needed for support). With such a limited overall number of edits I would want to see at least one area of clear excellence, but that is not the case here. The mainspace contribution record is too limited. Very little in terms of article creation. I looked up a few articles created by the candidate and was not impressed: [[George Boothby]] is a stub in rather poor shape; [[Park Side railway station]] and [[Winteregg]] are very short and completely unreferenced stubs. I understand that article-writing may not be your strong suit, but really, you need to bring up the articles that you do create to a better shape. Most other mainspace contributions seem to consist in vandalism reverts, maintenance tags and minor edits (correcting misspellings and the like). Gnome work is fine, but I would need to see a great deal more of it, especially in the absence of substantial article-writing. Projectspace contrib record is also fairly limited. Only 125 edits total to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Speedy deletion tagging is also far from perfect. Among your CSD tags declined within last week are [[Student Choice high school]] (a degree granting institution) and [[CSU Buccaneers]] (NCAA Division I team). There are other signs showing that the candidate is not sufficiently experienced for the moment. E.g. you have uploaded a file File:Grütshalp.jpg without providing evidence of copyright permission. You apparently did not know the meaning of the abbreviation AIV. The first version of this RfA transculded by the candidate earlier today[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=345283682] was badly malformated and had to be untranscluded and then deleted. A good contributor but not ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose''' per Nsk92. To otherleft - Rollback is handed out to people who have proven they can go a week or so without writing "poopy" on the hallway walls.
'''Oppose''' per Nsk92. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSU_Buccaneers&oldid=344721528 This] is an awful CSD tag, and was done less than 48 hours before this RFA.
'''Oppose''': this editor show little understanding of Wikipedia and these edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJezhotwells&action=historysubmit&diff=344718481&oldid=344619042], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osarius#WP:DTTR] show that they are clearly not mature enough to be trusted with admin rights. Editor contribution records show  limited experience of creating and editing artciles and no articles improved to GA status.
'''Oppose''': Not experienced enough. Maybe in six months. -
'''Oppose''', but with moral support. I see a clearly willing and constructive contributor, but I just don't see enough experience to convince me the candidate has sufficient understanding of relevant policies. Blocks on IPs for example - troublesome ones really do get blocked for much longer than a few hours (many are static or in ranges whose ownership - eg schools - can be determined), which I would really expect a candidate with admin-quality experience to know --
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of experience. '''
'''Oppose''': Good contributor, just don't see enough experience to work in intended areas. I would definitely consider supporting down the line, though.
'''Oppose'''"It is best to block the IP for no more than a few hours."  From what I've seen, most schools have an IP address for a long time, even spanning 2 years or longer.  In those cases a 6 month or 1 year block can be acceptable, rather than a 12 or 24 hour block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphony_No._6_%28Schubert%29&oldid=264934372] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northeast_Division&oldid=264767424] (barely over a month ago) show that the user doesn't understand CSD criteria. Very few of user's manual edits contain edit summaries. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and overall inactivity. <font face="Courier New"> [
'''Oppose''', I agree with other people's concerns who voted opposed.--
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' concerns about experience and understanding of policy, as above. In particular, the answer to question #12 worries me -- an admin does not issue a ban on his/her own will. That is a community decision. --
'''[[User:Airplaneman/RFA|Oppose]]''' per Fastily and Shirik. Please come back in a few months with more experience under your belt; I will then be more compelled to support.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Not enough experience overall on Wikipedia. Just regurgitating information from policy pages does not mean you know policy very well. After some more time on Wikipedia (say ~5 or 6 months) you'll have the experience to know policy well enough that you don't have to copy what a policy says. But good work so far! I look forward to supporting you in the future. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's lack of experience, especially in the areas he intends to work in, sporadic editing patterns, low edit summary percentage, and an insufficient understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' - Candidate just isn't experienced enough. I'd like to see probably another 1500-2500 edits, along with more edits in policy space. Reports like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&direction=next&oldid=344808936 these], along with the general lack of edits to [[WP:AIV]], suggest that the candidate needs a little more experience in dealing with vandals, which was stated to be one activity he wants to engage in. Further, the diffs raised by TheWeakWilled are both recent and very concerning, so I'd like to see some more CSD tagging as well. The answers to questions 9 and 12 are also concerning, and suggest unfortunate holes in the user's knowledge of policy. I'd just generally like to see more experience, which would essentially solve all of these issues. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
'''Oppose''' Would suggest Osarius get more involved in dispute resolution (edit wars) without the admin tools, to see that many disputes can be sorted through discussion rather than blocking. Try [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests]] first, and then [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]]. But read through a few cases first, to see how disputes are handled. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, I don't think your a bad editor but you don't meet my minimum criteria.  --'''
'''Oppose''' not because I would automatically oppose a candidate with 2558 edits but with this low number of edits I would wish to see more demonstration of experience and ability in admin areas. Only 109 edits in the wikipedia namespace is not sufficient to demonstate that you have had the chance to pick up the experience. I don't consider CSD tagging alone to be enough. I would expect evidence of a better more rounded understanding of XfD I don't even see evidence of one AfD nomination. I don't understand how someone can CSD tag 200 articles, new page patrol over 400, then never nominate an article for AfD.
'''Oppose''' per Nsk92 and others. While I applaud the candidate's enthusiasm and wish him well in the future, candidates need to demonstrate more experience in admin-related areas. On a somewhat related note, I find the candidate's signature to be somewhat ostentatious and unnecessary, I'd suggest a reduction.
'''Oppose''' I have to be blunt here. I don't think you have understanding of the policy. You nominated multiple articles for CSD recently that have failed. <s>You had nominated a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaulaMoffett&diff=prev&oldid=344473768 Userpage] for CSD A7.</s> And all your recent edits. Also there are a few AIV reports that have failed. And there has been a lack of other admin activities. Also, you have been off editing wikipedia for quite a bit during January (meaning that you have had no experience during that time). Sorry to have to oppose. (See [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
Far too green, a little too "keen".
'''Oppose'''. Not confident in the user's experience level. Plus poor edit summary usage, which is something I tend to be a stickler on. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience and understanding of Wiki processes particularly in the fields of CSD. →
'''Oppose''' - generally needs more experience overall, and needs to take more time reviewing CSD tags. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns per above.  Sorry to pile on, but you have a ways to go.  I do thank you for the work for have done to date for Wikipedia.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per answer to Glass Cobra @23.
'''Oppose''' One doesn't have to be an admin to help solve edit wars.
'''Oppose''' per Fastily and Nsk92. The number of recent incorrect CSD tags makes me doubt whether Osarius would do a good job with the ability to delete pages, and the dearth of edits by the candidate to [[WP:AIV]], an area in which he hopes to work, also gives me doubts. Given this RfA's tally, I would normally elect to vote in the "neutral" section to avoid [[WP:PILEON|piling on]]; however, Q15 compels me to oppose. The most prominent admin tools are the block, protect, and delete buttons, but admins also have the [[WP:AUTOREVIEW|autoreviewer]] tool, which means articles and redirects they create are automatically marked patrolled when they are created. Just recently, Osarius created an article ([[Bamford Youth Club]]) which was correctly deleted under [[WP:CSD#A7]]; he also created another article, [[George Boothby]], which has been in alarmingly terrible shape for some time now. I'm sorry to vote this way &ndash; it's nice to see that some vandals do reform &ndash; but I think it would be best if your new pages were still reviewed by other editors.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience + eagerness for adminship = worrisome.
'''Neutral''' - You seem to be level headed and have the ability to communicate well, however I'm !voting neutral for now as <s>I would have really preferred at least ''some'' introduction as opposed to just having your signature,</s> I'm not entirely satisfied with the number of edits you have to the Wikipedia project space (I usually look for around 350+ from an RfA candidate) and I am somewhat concerned with you having been blocked in the past for vandalism. As I said, I'm !voting neutral ''for now'' but I will be watching over this RfA during its course and may change my !vote at a later date. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''Neutral''' Doesn't seem to be too bad for an admin, but the answer to Q8 was sloppy, as the content was copied from two or three articles.
'''Neutral''' Come back with more experience in the areas above and I will likely support.
'''Neutral''' Lots of activity in [[WP:CSD]], but very little in [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]]. --
'''Neutral''' - not piling on, but ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Osarius&diff=345449788&oldid=345449076 That was probably tagged when I was using WikiAlerter, which is still in BETA development and only shows the criteria identity]'' (see discussion under current oppose #12) isn't right for any editor, admin or otherwise. A user is ultimately responsible for his own edits, regardless of the tool used. Anyone who misuses rollback can have it removed; Huggle (rollback again) and Twinkle are treated similarly. That a tool is in beta is beside the point...if you find you've done something wrong, you do something about it, rather than trying to disclaim responsibility and blame the tool. Nobody expects perfection; most of us expect evidence of responsibility. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''' to avoid piling-on. As Frank says, making a mistake is not a problem - but seeing it and correcting it is important. Blaming the tool is not an adequate response: firstly, most tools include a note saying that you are responsible for your actions; secondly I feel that a user who says "it wasn't really my fault" is unlikely to accept responsibility for any admin mistakes which they will make (and we all make mistakes), instead finding excuses. I would suggest that Osarius uses this RfA as a learning experience - and hope that I will see you at RfA in the future, when hopefully I will be able to support. -- '''''
'''Neutral''', also to avoid pile-on. You seem willing to learn and have coped well with this RfA, showing that you probably have the required temperament for admin work. However, I found your nom statement uninformative (for example, what does "sorting Edit wars" involve?) and some of your subsequent answers have been shaky. If you have an interest in anti-vandalism work, it might help to drop in on [[WP:AIV]] every now and then and follow the page history and related reports to see how different situations are treated (again for example, earlier I blocked an IP address for one year; per Boing! said Zebedee's oppose there are occasions when a few hours just won't cut it). Some article work would also be a big positive - perhaps trying to get one up to [[WP:GA|GA]] standard? Hope this helps,
I wasn't going to !vote on this (I think you'll do fine as an admin but do need a bit more under your belt) but have to weigh in with a thumbs down on your signature - way too long and the roller coaster makes me dizzy! --
Seems to be experienced and should do fine with the tools.
'''Support'''. Editor sounds like someone who understands the Wikipedia ethos well, appears to be humble and considerate, has plenty of experience over a number of areas (I'm not too worried about work <strike>level</strike> frequency - even if an admin should only do a relatively small number of things a month, that's still a lot more than none and a positive contribution), and worthy of a mop. I've also had a look through the user's Talk, and it all seems pretty constructive (and even the 'poor boy' comment was pretty mild considering the abuse it was in reply to ;-)
An admin only occasionally active is still better than no admin at all.  Seems to be sensible enough and have a good head on their shoulders.
'''Support''' A thoughtful editor who should be given the admin tools to help make this a better place.
'''Weak Support:'''   Some good work for this project, but  edit count makes me a bit uncomfortable. -
As nom. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' Happy with what I see here, can be trusted, editing activity is just fine
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around making clueful contributions. I have no problem with the level of editing per month, and the total activity is more than enough for a prospective admin. ''
'''Support''' I find the oppose rationale's unconvincing and I think that the editor would make positive contributions to the project as an admin
'''Support''' Tenured user that shows a strong understanding of policy. I'm not willing to oppose based on lack of ''frequency'' of edits because I cannot see how this candidate will be anything but a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]]. --
'''Support''' I feel that this candidate would be trustworthy. I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}.. -- '''''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Has made over a 100 edits per month since September, so unconvinced by arguments regarding lack of activity.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems.  I'm not opposed to the promotion of someone purely based on ideological differences ... nor do I think that there's anything wrong with taking breaks or making only a few hundred edits per month when active.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Editor shows clue when it comes to BLPs.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate shared my opinions in any AfD or RfA discussion in which we both participated and as candidate has never been blocked.  Nevertheless, DGG makes a valid point below that does give me some pause.  Sincerely, --
'''Mild support'''. Rosatti's AfD rubbed me the wrong way, but Otherlleft still has formidable policy knowledge.
'''Support'''. I have read the opposes, and they do not concern me in the slightest. A good candidate. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Trust the judgement of JulianCotton and after checking the track see no concerns or any scope for misuse of tools.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per the answers to my questions as well as the nomination itself.--
'''Support'''. Not a "tick every box" nomination, for sure. But the weaknesses pointed out in the oppose or neutral sections, individually or taken together, do not convince me that the candidate will not be a net benefit to the project if given the tools. --
'''Support'''.  Frankly I could care less if you edit 100 times per month, some people have lives.  (!)  What matters is this: can you be trusted?  I think so.  <font color="#BA181F">
'''Weak Support''' - Some of the opposes give me pause but not enough to oppose, and I think that this editor's content contributions are enough to show familiarity with the article building process, and their AfD experience lets me trust that their participation in that area as an administrator will be helpful. I also mostly agree with the answers to the questions above. -- '''
'''Support'''. A clueful candidate. I've reviewed the opposes, and I remain unconcerned. Is Otherlleft experienced and acts sensibly? Yes. Do I trust him? Yes.
'''Support'''. Per BLP stance '''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - I am not persuaded by one single afd nomination or users with [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]]. You look fine to me! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''

'''Support''' per answers to questions. User seems to know his way around the administrative side of Wikipedia and while his editing is sporadic we have lots of semi-active admins who also do good work...  ''<B>--
Otherlleft has proven that he's a dedicated, hardworking editor in his time here. Sure, he may not make thousands of edits a month, but is that really a problem? As long as he shows that he has the proper knowledge of policies and he has clue, that's good enough for me. I do not think that the opinions raised in the oppose section are enough to warrent anything but a support. <small>(
'''Support''' I have run out of things to put after this, so I won't try.
'''Support''' Yeah, you're qualified enough. '''
Seems fine to me on balance.
'''Support''' Very helpful and I have not seen him engage in hardcore edit wars. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - To negate the opposes below. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Mulled it over, and while there's some issues raised, it's nothing too worrisome. Hopefully they will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Like NJA, not worried by opposes. Definitely a net positive to the project, and seemingly familiar with the relevant tasks and policies. —
'''Support''' Not worried about activity levels, nothing down in the oppose section is enough to convince me you will be a bad admin.
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, a thoughtful and calm editor who'll be able to help Wikipedia as an admin. Some of the opposers raise genuine issues, but none seem sufficient evidence that otherlleft will not be a good admin.
'''Support''' as net positive to the project. --
'''Support''' This user actually suggested that there are obnoxious admins??? (pause for dramatic gasp) I actually find this kind of honesty refreshing, I know a lot of really unpleasant admins too. I think this user will make a find admin and I have seen nothing to make me think differently.
'''Support''' After reviewing Other1left's contributions and prior interactions with other editors over the last few days, and taking into consideration the points raised below, I feel he has the potential and understanding to be a good administrator. A net positive.
'''Support''' Seems unlikely to abuse tools --
I thought I had supported... looks like I forgot.
'''Support.''' Has shown long-term attachment to the project, and his edits suggest he's someone we can trust.
'''Oppose'''.  You've done some good work for this project, but ~150 edits per month makes me a bit uncomfortable !voting support.  I'll re-evaluate in a few days but this is my !vote for now.  -'''
'''Oppose''' as per Fastily.
'''Oppose''' Any assessment is going to be fairly random. I dip into the edit and talk history and get a feel for a candidate, looking for a reason not to support (as my default is to support). There hasn't been a lot of talk, which means that there is even greater focus on what there is. Therefore the feeling I get from Otherlleft's off-hand response to a challenge - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Otherlleft/Archive_1#Who_are_you_and_where_did_you_come_from.3F], isn't comfortable. But hey, we all get sharp at times. However, then there's the request for other editors to get suite101 off the blacklist so Otherlleft can insert some of his own research - [[Talk:New_Paltz_(village),_New_York#Halloween_sources]]. Again, not by itself a huge thing, but the judgement is questionable, and there's not an awful lot of evidence of good judgment to balance against. Then there's odd discussions on Tolkien not being the author of his own works - [[Talk:Gandalf#Biography_.28Middle-earth.29]]; [[Talk:Christopher_Tolkien#Sources_needed]]. I think that when there are not many edits, as in Otherlleft's case, there is even greater pressure on finding good and solid evidence of judgement that can be trusted. My dips have not left me feeling confident that Otherlleft's judgement is sound enough. I'd like to see another 6 months or so of consensus building with evidence of good judgments before giving support. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' : This [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Rosatti_(2nd_nomination)|AfD nomination]] the candidate cited makes me worry. It was a nom for reasons that could have been solved, judging from the discussion and the closing rationale, with [[WP:ATD|editing, not deletion]]. --
'''Oppose''' It is not policy that "for BLPs it's more prudent to remove an entry if notability has not been clearly established. "  The candidate has confused recent action on clearing up  old unworked-on unsourced BLPs with a change in BLPs in general, and standard he wants--  ''clearly'' established -- is   drastically more restrictive than any that has been serious proposed by anyone else.  That he would consult with an other admin is no better, for the result would then depend on whom he consults with. Everyone involved on both sides is the recent débacle was an admin, and we don't need another admin like that.  The Rosatti was an instance where upon not getting the content he wanted in, he moved to delete the article; a better approach would have been to keep what there was left while looking for better sources--this is now harder to do than it otherwise would have been.  Deleting content and then the article is a tactic which is almost always destructive to the encyclopedia.   Given that his main interest is in closing AfD discussions this is utterly unacceptable. He is free to advocate changing policy, but he has to understand and accept   the present one. I have supported people with other view on what policy should be like than my own, but not if they are so clearly willing to act on what they merely hope will be policy. to be fair, however, perhaps his views are based on inexperience, and will be overcome by more --and more  varied-- activities in the months to come,and a future nomination might be reasonable.     '''
'''Oppose''' Fundamentally, if a C-class article is your best contribution to Wikipedia, you don't meet [[User:Jclemens/RFAStandards|my content-building expectations]].  The problematic answers and overall activity level don't provide me compelling reasons to overlook this concern.
'''Oppose''' per DGG. <strong>
'''Oppose'''. I am puzzled that someone whose standards of conduct are so high that they <s>consider nine out of ten admins to be "rude and unpleasant",</s> would place nine admins among "the ten rudest Wikipedians [they] have ever encountered",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=340919363] would not keep this to themselves, rather than proclaiming it on one of Wikipedia's most watched pages. Unsatisfied with A7 and A4. <tt>
'''Oppose''' per comment referenced by decltype above...which was from the day before the nomination?!
'''Oppose'''.  Contents of both [[WP:CNR]] and [[WP:Namespace]] should be enough to make a 2 to 1 close based on consensus suspect.
'''Oppose''' per decitype comments above, makes one wonder...
'''Oppose'''.  Rather few edits in the past year.
''''oppose''' Concerns per policy understanding, issues brought up by DGG, and concerns raised by Delirious in neutral #1. Also concerns regarding question 7.
'''Oppose''' per Fastily (not enough consistency in editing) and DGG (too deletionist). While being a sysop is "no big deal", I want to see more consistent work before handing over a mop to him.
'''Oppose''' mostly per decltype and Bearian.
'''Oppose''' per Q20. As you will likely work with deletion, practice tells that you'll receive daily emails asking why a page was deleted, what should be done to avoid that, and even how could you assist that. Those emails should ''not'' originate from your clients. I do believe you have honestly disclosed your COI and I respect that, but. It is still not compatible with the admin privileges.
I'm really sorry.  Per Fastily, SilkTork, decltype, Keepscases and Materialscientist, the problem for me isn't competence, it's that I can't feel confident about what motivates you, what you're doing here. - Dank (
'''Neutral''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rosatti (2nd nomination)|AfD]] of [[John Rosatti]]. Nominating it because a [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#John_Rosatti|BLP/N]] consensus seems to be swinging that way while yourself <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Rosatti_(2nd_nomination)&diff=335478660&oldid=335475869 not fully supporting deletion]</span> seems to be a bit like having each hand in each cookie jar. [[User:Crackofdawn|Crackofdawn]] had asked for my opinion on it before the AfD. I only found out about the AfD this morning (WP is such a big place). While i do agree that deletion is the best result for Mr Rosatti's article i do have concerns regarding your views on [[WP:RS]]. <font face="Georgia">
'''Neutral'''. That AfD doesn't worry me. I skimmed through and thought the candidate conducted himself fairly well. I'd like to support because the answers to the questions are good but I worry about experience and practical knowledge of policy. That said, I do not think you would make a "bad" admin by any means, so here I sit. If this RfA doesn't succeed, I hope you'll try again in a few months.
'''Neutral''' This candidate seems fine, but I would prefer more consistent editing, or at least a few more months. Right now [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Otherlleft&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia] shows a concentrated few months of activity, very little for about a year, and a smaller clump. I have no other issues, just would like a bit more time to see. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral''' per HJ Mitchell's concerns as well as per Q7. While I'm under the impression that the admin won't really help out much as far as vandalism is concerned, the number of warnings given is arbitrary, depending on the severity and frequency of the vandalism. –
'''Neutral''' but leaning towards support. Otherlleft, in my opinion, will be an excellent administrator should this RfA succeed. His answers to the questions &ndash; and especially his excellent answers to Q12, Q14, and Q15 &ndash; lead me to believe that such is the case. But Otherlleft has been on Wikipedia on sporadically over the course of the past year, which is something of a negative. And while [[Halloween around the world]], [[Survival of the Shawangunks]], [[Sound Ideas]], and [[Headless Horseman Hayrides]] are solid content contributions, the states of a couple of other articles he's created at the time of this vote &ndash; namely [[To come (publishing)]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_come_(publishing)&oldid=335792213 current rev]) and [[Eunuchus]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eunuchus&oldid=336166002 current rev]) &ndash; are sufficiently dubious to give me pause.
'''Neutral''' from oppose per thoughtful understanding of my issue.
'''Neutral''' Unsure about Wiki policy understanding & quite a few grey areas per my criterion. ([[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Neutral'''. While the candidate does seem to know and understand policy in most areas, I would like to see better content contribution, more edits, and a much more consistent editing pattern.
'''Moral Support''' this RfA is not going well but you are headed in the right direction. ''<B>--
'''Moral Support''' per PR459. I think you need more experience in admin areas (and more detailed answers to the questions) if you would like to have another try at RFA. Keep it up!
Almost dormant until December last year, when editing picked up probably in preparation for this RfA. There are quite enough blockhammers wandering around wikipedia already, don't need another one. --
'''Oppose''' While your anti-vandalism work is impressive, an admin needs experience in many areas of Wikipedia, and as far as I can tell you've never done anything but Huggle/Vandalism reversion except for some edits 3 years ago. Add to this the fact you've only been actively editing since December and I just don't think you're ready for the mop right now--
No real evidence of admin-like work to go on, and these A7 nominations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domnall_%C3%93_Cellaigh&diff=prev&oldid=344138430][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tadgh_%C3%93g_%C3%93_Cellaigh&diff=prev&oldid=344138334][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruaidri_%C3%93_Cellaigh&diff=prev&oldid=344138198] from a month ago are not good.
'''Oppose'''. Anti-vandalism work is commendable and is an essential part of the project. But with 75% of your 5,000 odd edits automated, I'm not seeing enough experience in other parts of the project (eg XfDs) to be confident to trust you with the broad range of administrative tools. I would also like to see a record of content-building as the best way to demonstrate an understanding of core policies such as [[WP:V]] and [[WP:BLP]].--
The A7 nominations that Kevin brings up are concerning.
'''Oppose''' - The speedy deletion nominations that Kevin pointed out cause me to believe that you should not have the delete button. Sorry, mate. But please keep contributing to wikipedia. Will an admin please [[WP:SNOW|close this RfA early]]? -
Not seeing enough activity to judge the knowledge of a wide range of policies that an admin should have. Great vandalism work, but you're not just requesting a block button. I would like to see that someone has enough knowledge and experience to be trusted with access to all the tools, not just the block privilege.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, breadth of exposure, and high proportion of automated to non-automated edits.  -'''
'''Oppose''', but do keep at it. I'm concerned that your responses here (and in your last RfA) are very short and lacking in detail; the deletion taggings noted above are also concerning, and there isn't enough here to indicate that you fully understand all the policies involved. Keep at it - do some proper article work as well, and involve yourself in other areas of adminship, including AfD, discussions on AN and ANI, and similar areas. If you keep this pace up, and learn from what mistakes you make (such as the ones Kevin points out), then you'll probably be good for another run in four to six months. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose'''.  Lack of sound judgment and understanding of basic Wikipedia speedy deletion policy.  It makes me wonder what other aspects of Wikipedia policy he doesn't understand.  It looks like he couldn't be bothered to check and see if the assertion of notability really was credible for those edits Kevin pointed out, or even put the right template on the page for the person article speedy deletion candidate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruaidri_%C3%93_Cellaigh&diff=prev&oldid=344138198], putting a club/group one instead.
'''Neutral''' Consider this moral support. Answers 1-3 need a bit more ''meat'' to them since your edit history is largely automated with Huggle. Suggest you increase involvement with article writing. Consider writing a few DYKs. Thats a good place to start. Content building is a must if your going to undertsnad when and when not to use the tools. Alos accorsding to your last RFA which was about 3 months ago, there were suggestions to run again in about a year. I would highly suggest holding off on any future RFAs until youve dealt with the concerns the other users have raised in the opposition. Happy editing.
'''Neutral''' I looked back at your last 3,000 edits (including the deleted ones), which is going back to 18th December last years. I found that only 104 edits were *not* automated. Only 25 of these were edits to articles (and they were all minor edits, even if not labelled as such). 54 of them were to talk pages (others' or your own), 9 of those were to User pages (others' or your own), 5 were to article talk, and the remaining 11 were to the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Much as I admire the anti-vandalism work, I see hardly any evidence of "admin-type" activity in the last 4 months (all the reports to AIV, for example, were automated). There are a couple of AfDs back in December, but nothing since, for example. I don't want to pile on the opposes, but I cannot support you at this time. My advice would be to work on articles (not just anti-vandalism work); to get involved in RfA discussions (it gives you a good feel of what the community are looking for in their admins); get involved with AfDs/MfDs. -- '''''
'''Support''' <s>longterm</s> 14 months of contributions, civil editor, clean block log, deleted contributions show a nicely varied mix of CSD Prod and AFD - all looks good to me. ''
'''Weak Support''' per OTRS work and AfD participation. I'd like to see more noticeboard participation / interactions on-wiki though.
Bar the unlikely case something comes up. <small><span style="border:2px solid #660000;">
<s>'''Support''' '''Weak Support'''</s>'''Moral Support''' Good answers to questions. Hoping to see some edit summary improvement, though. <tt>
There are a few editors who deserve the tools even with a low edit count - it takes lots of clue, intelligence, and a chipper attitude - and I feel this user meets that bar. '''
'''Support''' per nom. <!-- {{subst:Om nom nom}} --> <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' I find opposition based mainly on a mental health condition unpersuasive. There's an option in your preferences to force you to use an edit summary, even an automated one. I recommend you turn it on. There's a lot of concerns here, a couple concerning, but in the end analysis I believe anyone who can handle OTRS without blowing a gasket can intelligently wield a mop.
To help outweigh the very thoughtless opposes based on their medical condition. This user is obviously competent as shown by their OTRS work, and is able to function perfectly well. &ndash;'''
'''Support''' partly per Juliancolton, but primarily because the candidate is extremely experienced in an underpopulated area of the project.
'''Support''' No concerns with this user. Good OTRS work, satisfactory edits. Will make a nice admin if promoted. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' moved from neutral, my ''spidey sense'' was wrong and the ''laptop incident'' was nothing (see conversation in neutral below with explanation from Baloonman), I have no problems with this editor.
Strong support.
'''Weak support''', qualified user. Experience is good, and the questions are not too far off. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong support''' Give it up people. Opposing because of metal illness only serves the purpose of showing us how naive we are as a species.--
'''Strong Support'''. Support per selfless OTRS work, strong support per trash in the oppose section. "''Unfortunately, every one of the symptoms is the opposite of what I would want''..." That sort of thing certainly ''is'' unfortunate, but not for the reasons Gigs et al. intended.
'''Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Last minute support''' before the withdrawal above is confirmed.  -- ''<B>
'''Weak Support''' I don't see any reason for notnow, the user exhibits commons sense.  The user should however work more with edit summaries.  I wish you luck in the future. ''<I>
'''Weak Support''' - Just because he only has 2929 edits is not enough reason for a notnow. Good candidate, and it's a shame that this won't pass due to him not having the magic 3000 edit count...--
'''Oppose'''. A good editor and OTRS work is very much appreciated, but too early for adminship as the overall contrib record here at en-wiki is too limited for now. With <3K total edits, I would want to see at least one area of clearly pronounced excellence, and this does not appear to be the case here yet. In particular, I would really like to see a more substantial mainspace contrib record, including at least a few articles created from scratch. For now the most number of edits you made to any individual article is 7 and the most number of edits to an article talk page is 3. You mention [[MarHedge]] as example of your best contributions to Wikipedia. The article itself is basically a stub and you have made 2 edits to it. You did make good arguments in the AfD for this article and it was kept; but still I would want to see something more impressive in terms of best contributions. The projectspace contribution record is also fairly limited, judging from [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Panyd]]. There are no edits listed there to policy talk pages, wikiprojects, ANI, AIV, UAA, etc. While I do not mean to suggest that you should be spending too much time there, I would like to see something. Overall, as I said, a good editor and an asset for the project, but a bit too early for adminship, IMO.
'''Strong oppose''' per answer to number 4. The article as it stood,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prohibited_degree_of_kinship&oldid=337559218] when you stated it should be speedy deleted,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FProhibited_degree_of_kinship&action=historysubmit&diff=337584092&oldid=337568243] was not a speedy A10. It is not the same as "incest" and "consanguinity," but rather a specific look at the legal aspects of consanguinity in the face of the law. Even as a stub, it seemed to me that it stood as an article that needed expanded, not deleted. I'm concerned that you would delete an article that is obviously, to me, an important topic, but also to a quick google search an important topic.[http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Prohibited+degree+of+kinship%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=df82d86320cf60e9] However, a strong oppose is you mention expansion as a reason for no speedy, and you changed your vote due to the expansion, but you clearly did not look at the article history before you voted in the AfD, and you might not do so as an administrator. [[User:Khin2718]] deleted or moved most of the article before nominating it for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prohibited_degree_of_kinship&oldid=312822553 Here's] the article before he started working on it. Note that he nominates the article for deletion based upon, "This doesn't appear notable (WP:N). Incest is notable, but I can't find any direct coverage of this as stated." Did you do a google search to confirm his nomination before deciding the article should be speedy deleted?[http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Prohibited+degree+of+kinship%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=df82d86320cf60e9]  User:Khin2718's [[User:Khin2718|user page]] indicates a possible [[WP:OR]] agenda account, and you missed this, particularly the state of the article ''before'' it was AfD'ed. In my opinion, you lack a primary skill for being an administrator: you're not considering your actions before you take them, and you're not basing them on the evidence readily available, and you're going to miss vandalism of articles and just speedy them according to a nomination when checking the evidence should have stopped you. Not now, in my opinion. --
'''Oppose''' For starters, the editor says their best work is these two edits to [[MarHedge]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MarHedge&action=historysubmit&diff=323751936&oldid=323425678] which included the creation of the following obscure sentence "After leaving the magazine, former managing editor Michael Ocrant said that he and the magazine's staff were misled by industry insiders regarding many accounts, including Bernie Madoff's." No article creation whatsoever, so the candidate can't have much knowledge about what goes in to that. Only 79 deleted edits from someone who says they're interested in AFD. This recent keep vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDavid_Owens&action=historysubmit&diff=337797031&oldid=337778809] that shows she didn't understand what she'd read in the article. No evidence of sustained work on any topic, anywhere. Her single greatest number of edits to any article is 7 edits made to [[MTV Cribs]] according to this. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Panyd&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]. (The edits included the creation of a "controversy" section that, leaving the issue of such sections aside, demonstrated a limited grasp on what a controversy really is, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTV_Cribs&action=historysubmit&diff=321323730&oldid=318659535]. Also, the discolosure of a [[schizotypal personality disorder]] diganosis on their userpage gives me pause. If wikipedia's article on this malady is to be believed, symptoms include "Odd beliefs or magical thinking that influences behavior and is inconsistent with subcultural norms (e.g., superstitiousness, bizarre fantasies or preoccupations); Unusual perceptual experiences, including bodily illusions. Odd thinking and speech (e.g., vague, circumstantial, metaphorical, overelaborate, or stereotyped)." While that's a good description of many of wikipedia's admins, i don't think we need one more. To sum up, no real demonstration of strong researching and article writing skills, which leads me to doubt good judgement and understanding will be shown in a wide variety of areas relevant to this website.
'''Oppose''' - Looks like a classic example of Not Now to me. Much of what I see is fine, but there's not that much to see. Under 1300 edits to content. Wikignoming is fine (I hope, I do a lot) but I expect to see substantially more edits in that case. Almost no involvement at ANI.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' administrators should be of sound mind. Delusions and paranoia are the opposite of what we need.
'''Oppose''' - User does not manifest the thoughtfulness and experience I like to see in admin candidates. In particular, I am put off by your "speedy delete" !vote from question 4. At this time I do not believe I can trust you to use the delete button properly. Maybe in a few months I'd reconsider.
Parking here, but I could be swayed after the candidate answers the questions. - Dank (
Sorry, but your userpage says that you have [[Schizotypal personality disorder]], which according to its Wikipedia article may manifest as "inappropriate or constricted affect (the individual appears cold and aloof); behaviour or appearance that is odd, eccentric, or peculiar; poor rapport with others and a tendency to social withdrawal" and so forth. These are not characteristics that administrators should exhibit, and I'd rather not run the risk that they may appear in the future even if they have not so far. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I have to oppose.  When I first saw you up for Adminship, I was excited, OTRS is always an area where volunteers are needed.  But you have fewer than 3K edits.  While counting edits isn't the key, the primary focus of most of your article work has been to add TV Boxes to articles... an issue which you received a warning about 2 months ago for using IMBD and TV.COM as sources.  There isn't a single article where you've made more than 7 edits, and there are only nine articles where you've even made 4 edits.  This indicates a complete lack of experience in the primary focus of this project.  You have very little to no experience with CSD outside of OTRS work.  Now this would normally not be a problem, except you explicitly mention it as something you want to do.  You've only made 5 edits to your own talk page and only have more than 3 edits to 3 other people's pages.  As indicated on your Editor Review, almost all of your talk page edits are mechanical in nature.  There is little to see interpersonal dispute resolution. In short, there isn't enough here to let me see how you think.  I do think you are on the right path your AFD work may be limited but it is solid  I liked how your rationalized your reasoning. At this point I cannot support.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Also per Q4.  There is no way that article should be speedily deleted.  Even under A10---A10, which is new crieria, is only for recently created articles.  EG articles that were created in error or as an attempt to create a content fork.  This article has been around for years.---'''
'''Oppose for now''' Every time I start to actually become confident that nominator and candidate really are two different people, another red flag comes up.  I'll support, or at least move to neutral, and offer my apologies if their story happens to check out.
'''Oppose''' </s>I cannot accurately judge this candidate's knowledge of admin functions at this time, though</s> I will say that A9 does not match to the question, and A8 clearly demonstrates candidates unfamiliarity/inexperience with AIV.<s>and A8 remains unanswered(?!?)</s>.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' There are a few concerns I have about policy here, primarily that the candidate may not have a full understanding of policy in certain areas yet. Primarily, the answer to question #11 concerns me. It is not an administrator's job to judge notability. I assume the referenced [[WP:CSD|CSD]] criterion is [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]], which does not ask for notability. What it asks for is a ''claim'' of notability. This is a much stricter requirement than [[WP:GNG]] and a non-notable topic can still pass A7 if it makes a claim (but an insufficient claim) of notability. --
'''Oppose''' I have concerns with the lack of answers to some of the answers to your questions. I am sorry, I cannot support you at this time.
'''Oppose'' responses to questions do not reflect depth of admin skills and knowledge at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Per above.  Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and answers to questions.  -'''
'''Oppose'''. Too deletionist for me trust with the delete button.
'''Oppose''' - I find it strange the editor's being called "deletionist", but even without that, too low of an edit count, and too low of a page patrol count (2). If you're going to do CSD work you have to have seen what new page patrol looks like. I find it a little strange that the user misspelled [[Lexis Nexis]], although that is the phonetic spelling of it (in the U.S. at least). I imagine this is a lexis universe user, not legal or journalism user.
'''Oppose'''- A good civil editor but not good enough to be an admin.i personally did not like the responses.try  again next year panyd is what i would say.
'''Oppose'''- A bit early, yet. Not seasoned enough.--
'''Oppose''' for two reasons. First, I'm concerned about the edit another user made on your computer during this nomination; the explanation sounded odd. Secondly, I would oppose because of the lack of content contributions alone. <font color="purple">
Getting tired of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Panyd&diff=next&oldid=338035604 this] sort of thing.  Gimme a break. --
'''Oppose''' It looks like this candidate doesn't understand the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]]. In the answer to Q4, she explains that she voted to speedily delete [[Prohibited degree of kinship]] per [[WP:CSD#A10]] when it was clearly not eligible. Another editor had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prohibited_degree_of_kinship&action=historysubmit&diff=337559157&oldid=312822553 gutted the article] before nominating for deletion, and apparently the candidate never bothered to check before recommending an A10 speedy deletion. A10 is explicitly only applicable to "recently created article[s] with no relevant page history." The answer to Q11 and the candidate's note at Q16a also make me unsure that the candidate understands the difference between the lack of an indication of notability, which is A7-able, and the lack of notability, which is not. As documented by IP69 and Bali ultimate above, there have been instances where the candidate was nothing short of careless. Moreover, I agree with Bali's concern that the candidate has little to no experience with article creation and improvement; I'm surprised that the candidate cited two edits to [[MarHedge]] as their best work. For all these reasons, I don't trust Panyd with the delete button, nor (more broadly) with adminship. A few months of good OTRS work cannot overcome her general lack of experience and her tendency towards carelessness.
'''Oppose''' I do not believe admins should use pseudonyms '''
'''Oppose''' <small>(switched from support)</small> I must admit that my first review of the candidate did not find the same problems that others have noticed but I have to agree that the candidate's approach to a number of questions answered after my initial !vote, while maybe not bad at the first glance, reveals a lack of understanding of policy. The answer to Q11 explains [[WP:A7|A7]] wrong, it does not require notability at all, neither indicated nor demonstrated. I also second Balloonman's concerns above. I don't like to see my !vote in this section because I think the candidate has potential and could be a good admin but after thinking about it, I feel it's for the best in this case. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per Q11 and Q16a, which were answered after my initial support vote. The answers to those questions together suggest to me that the candidate does not understand the important distinction between A7, and notability generally. For a candidate who states an intention to work on CSDs, this is concerning enough for me to switch support as A7 is probably the most widely tagged CSD criterion, where admins need to exercise restraint and properly understand the difference between a credible claim of notability, and actual notability. --
'''Strong Oppose''' This candidate lacks experience, has a very low edit count, little activity in general admin-related areas, a complete lack of contributions to content and user talk pages, not enough knowledge of policy, and poor answers to multiple questions (particularly questions 4, 11, and 16a).
'''Oppose''' per lack of significant content work.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience and content work. '''
'''Oppose''', the laptop incident and other questions aside, I don't feel that the user displays a thorough enough knowledge of policy at this time.  Maybe after getting a bit more experience I would support.
'''Oppose''' Contra Balloonman, I do think a declared personality disorder is a perfectly fine reason to oppose you.  1) You declared it, no one outed you; 2) vandals and trolls will be able to use that against you, casting doubt (legitimate or not) and pushing buttons (effectively or not) on that basis.  It's not because you have a chink in your armor, but that you decided to point a neon sign at it.  Aside from that, I share the concerns of several other opposers.
'''Weak oppose''' due to low edit-count. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Oppose'''. Agree with Balloonman. If [[MarHedge]] is you best contrib, then likely you are disconnected from article writers. I don't really care about disorders, but respect OTRS work, and hope with time and experience you will someday be a fine admin.
'''Neutral'''. "The laptop incident" concerns me, but the foolishness of the nominator is not a reason to oppose the candidate. However, what I think is probably more important is your experience or lack thereof. I have no problem in principle with an editor with 3k (or even 2k) edits getting the tools, but, as other editors have pointed out above me, I cannot see any substantive editing of anything. I would like to see some work with articles that actually substantially builds content and/or perhaps some participation in ANI or some of the other noticeboards so the community can gain an insight into your dispute resolution. My gut (and it's rarely wrong) tells me that, at worst, you'd do no harm and you have the potential to do great good with the tools, but given that they're so hard to remove, my gut would be a lot happier in 3-6 months time, when you've clearly distinguished yourself in a given area. As an aside, I hope Chase Me will be a little more careful in his editing after a glass or two of wine.
'''Neutral veering to oppose''' I'm not impressed with the answer to my first question (Q11), and I was going to !vote 'Oppose'. However, I will await the reply to my follow-up question (Q16a/b) in the hopes that it will show that the candidate misread my original question. -- '''''
'''Neutral'''. You are another editor that I believe was put up on RfA far too soon, and the edit summary thing doesn't exactly thrill me, but there's some good work on OTRS and a good editing track record. The laptop incident doesn't concern me in the slightest. I would very strongly suggest you come back with a few more edits under your belt and assuming the calibre of your edits remains constant I promise you my full support. —
'''Neutral''' As Per 3. Around 1500 edits probably isn't enough to Wikipedia, but at least her contributions are quite good. In my opinion I think the quality of the edits are more important than the quantity, so I might be able to support Panyd if she keeps it up.
'''Neutral''' Seems generally ok, but 4 makes me wonder.
'''Avoiding a pile-on Neutral''' I have no concerns about medical abilities, and in fact I appreciate honesty.  I have more concerns about [[WP:NOTNOW]] based on edit counts, and the responses to a number of the answers provided.  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' A good editor, but 1,500 edits is on the low side.
'''Neutral''' You're a good editor, but the experience isn't wholy there. Try again in a few months and this will likely be different. I think the year suggestion is a bit extreme though as you could end up sitting around being fully qualified for a long time.
'''Neutral''' - I feel like a rope in [[tug-o-war]] in this one. I see some good reasons to oppose this editor (and I could seriously care less about edit counts) but I also see good reasons to support. I think I'll just stay right here... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''' - I really like the experience level of this candidate. He would do no harm with the mop. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Support''' Net positive. Meets my "standards." And the CSD experience is fine. I don't think the CSD criteria are that forgettable. Creation experience is fine and of course he has a lot of automated edits- he reverts vandalism. Assuming he werereverting vandals the old fashioned way, and had 1500 non-automated reverts plus 1500 non automated builder edits, then he'd still meet my 3,000 edit threshold. 10 months experience is more than enough.
'''Support'''-I'm not one to judge a candidate on their ratio of semi-automated to non-automated edits like some of those below do. Seems to have good experience in admin areas and will make a fine admin overall.--'''''
Sadly, oppose because candidate does not have a great deal of experience in adminey areas and has only about 1.5k not automated edits. Sorry, insufficient experience for me.
Awesome vandal fighter but not yet ready for the mop, I would suggest more experience in Admin related areas. ''<B>--
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - I don't like the deleted edit numbers. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose'''. Would like to see a bit more experience, in multiple capacities. -- '''
'''Oppose''': solid editor, but I'd like to see some more experience in many areas. With [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=pepperpiggle 60% automated edits], this makes the non-auto edit count low, at around 1700. Maybe with a few more months of experience (I'm not concerned about percentage of automated edits, just the number of non-auto edits and therefore experience) I'll be motivated to support. Regards,
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with judgement, experience, breadth of exposure, policy knowledge, and high proportion of automated to non-automated edits.  -'''
'''Oppose''': It looks like your edits in the mainspace and talkpages are primarily related to reverting. Autoedit count is high. Unsure on knowledge of policy & lack of evidence to support this user. (See [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Oppose'''. Not because of any weakness in anything the candidate has done; vandal-fighting and page patrolling are essential contributions to the project. But I do feel that an administrator needs a wider range of experience to get a full understanding of the project and its policies. That experience would, for example, include some (but not all) of XfD, DRV and content work. I'd suggest coming back in a few months with a broader range of experience. --
'''Oppose''' - per experience in admin-related areas and lots of automated contributions.
OK on the cooling aspect, User not being admin coached makes me wonder why I shouldn't support, yet the experience on Wikipedia is long enough to be worth the wait so that I can't really oppose on this vote either. Neutral as it stands for me.
'''Comment'''The two show case articles with the most edits of Pepperpiggle [[Seth Low Pierrepont State  Park Reserve|1]] and [[Titicus River|2]]need both wikfy-ing and the references and links are both not up to the standard, this makes me feel that the experinece in the mainspace is not enough.--
Just concerned about breadth of experience. They're a dedicated vandal fighter, which I truly appreciate, but that alone isn't enough to make me support, and I'm not seeing much else to go on. I would like to see either more admin-related work or more (non-reverting) article work. Neutral for now; I want to lean ''support'', but I haven't seen any convincing reason to do so.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' I hate to be the first, but unfortunately, [[WP:NOTNOW|I cannot support you at this time]]. Aside from the low edit count (I generally try to avoid that argument when I can), I see very little experience in the Wikipedia namespace. I can't tell exactly how much because you haven't opted in to the edit counter tool, but I don't see much experience in [[WP:AFD|AFD]], little experience with vandal fighting (though you said you do that, could you point this out to me? I may have missed it), and overall little experience in administrative areas as a whole. You do have 130 deleted edits, though I can't see what they're for, but I see no [[WP:CSD|CSD]] warnings given to editors, so I have to assume either they are edits not relevant to CSD tagging or editors haven't been notified that their page is tagged for deletion, which, in my mind, is a must. With all of these combined together I have to say [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]]. Get some experience in administrative areas and I will be glad to support you in a future RFA. --
At this stage you don't have enough experience for me to be confident of you having the tools, I'm afraid. I would need to see more contributions in admin-like areas, such as [[WP:AFD|AfD]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:CSD|CSD]], and about 6 months and 3,000 edits more experience, to have that confidence. Most of the matters you list in Question 1 are things for which you don't need to be an admin (eg reverting vandalism). And for re-opening your own RFA with the edit summary "revert vandalism", well, now I've seen it all. --
A good balance of editing in different areas, but just over 1,000 is not enough experience for me to offer you my support at this time. Also, you have very little action in the areas you say you wish to work in. For example, despite showing an interest in [[WP:UAA]] in Q1, I cannot see any usernames you have reported on that page. Like Shirik above, I can't see any evidence of vandal fighting (I wouldn't usually bring that up, but it is an area you claimed to be interested in). Come back with some more experience and I'll consider supporting in the future.
Too nice. I would like to see how well you handle some of the stress and conflict imposed on Admins. At least I'd like to be sure you know what you are getting yourself into.

'''Strong Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=355849281 Clueless abuse of the word vandalism]. Misguided early close, yes, but not vandalism. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
If you hadn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow_2&action=historysubmit&diff=355849148&oldid=355843446 insisted on reopening this] I wouldn't have piled on, but the stubbornness of keeping this open when it obviously has no chance of passing is IMO a ''prima facie'' sign of bad judgement.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&action=historysubmit&diff=355849281&oldid=355843326]. Whatever NerdyScienceDude closing your RFA per NOTNOW was, it wasn't vandalism. That you intentionally chose to call it such proves yu aren't ready.
'''Pile on Oppose''' per Pedro.--
'''Oppose''', I would recommend that you take on the advice given earlier here rather than struggle against the fact this is unlikely to succeed. --
'''Oppose''', actions here show you are not ready for adminship, along with saying you would block someone that you are having a conflict with.  '''
'''Strong oppose''' - for calling my closure "vandalism". ~'''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Oppose''' Calling NSD's closure 'vandalism' didn't earn brownie points from me. Neither does the fact that the only real "admin"-type stuff you seem to mention is UAA, but there being no reports from you at UAA, I see no evidence that can show me that you have any understanding of this area. My advice would be to withdraw this RfA, as to have ''any'' chance of succeeding, you need a minimum of 31 supports with no further opposes - and as you currently have ''none'', I don't think that's too likely. -- '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<font color="#000080">contribs</font>]]\ 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) ''ps: and if you were involved in a dispute as per my question, saying that you would block the other editor for 3RR is not the way to go - I would count that as an abuse of your admin tool'' -- '''''
Not enough experience. Very small percentage of article-space edits; more to user-space than anything else. ~~
Sorry I don't have to pore too far back through your edits to see that your judgment - which comes from experience - isn't there yet. For example, trains are not A7-eligible[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WAGR_Pm_and_Pmr_classes&oldid=395501642] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armbrust&diff=prev&oldid=387056598 this] RfA close - NOTNOW for someone with about 40,000 edits - was ill-advised and correctly reverted.--
You are right to say that your edits were mistakes--[[WP:Antiquette]] was a fundamental mistake in both the right way to make new policy at Wikipedia ''and'' proper ways of interacting with others. It was first unanimously shown to be a bad plan (it would have created another WQA like board, except that only members could hand out judgments), and then deleted (see the deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Antiquette]]). I think Boing! said Zebedee put it best: "Delete as a failed proposal - well, it wasn't even a proper proposal. A single-user forum for bitching about other people, which was summarily (and properly) dismissed as an idea by the community? No thank you." Anyone who thought that Antiquette was a good idea will not make a good admin. Until I see Porchcrop showing a clear understanding why that was a bad proposal, I couldn't possibly trust this user with the tools.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you need some more practice with deletions, especially A1. I remember from you contributions that you tagged [[Panconnectivity]] for speedy deletion per A1. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panconnectivity&action=historysubmit&diff=392748351&oldid=392744415]) The subject of that article is a graph, and therefore I agree with Tikiwont, the admin who originally declined the deletion.
Inexperience as exemplified by Antiquette, which was only a month ago and was completely ridiculous.
'''Oppose.''' Way premature. While your enthusiasm to help Wikipedia is there, you simply don't have the knowledge or skill expected from an administrator...''yet''. Keep working at it.
I'm not going to pile on, but your constant rebuttals to the opposers above seems to be an [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] mentality. The incidences raised, coupled with the fact you simply don't appear to even basically understand ''what admins do'', leads me here. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
While you may have good intentions, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. Adminship is not how you get yourself "known in the community", that comes through editing articles, discussing, vandal fighting, gnome work, and various other means. Adminship is something that people who have been here for a while, who have already made themselves known can achieve. It is an end, not a mean. I would advise you to read [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[User:X!/notnow]] for guides on where to continue from here. You have potential, but adminship is not the right thing for you at the moment. <small>(
'''Oppose''' Low edit count, (not even 600), looks like you removed the questions and several other things. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
Sorry, not enough experience. '''
'''Oppose''' You don't even appear to know what adminship is. [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but blatant [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Spend some time to find out what admin is and how to go about it, and come back after you've got a lot more experience.
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] – Not enough experience. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•

'''Oppose''' [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|My criterion]] is not yet met. Have left a comment on your talk page. --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of answers to questions and not a lot of experience. I would recommend withdrawing from this RFA. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Neutral''' I know about the lack of experience, but he's created a pretty good number of articles. He should be a good candidate for the future if he keeps this up.
Moral Support. Clearly a [[WP:NOTNOW]], and thanks very much for your efforts so far. I'm afraid your opening statement shows your lack of experiene about the "norms" around Adminsip on Wikipedia - Adminship is not about ''"getting your name known"'' whatever your worthy intentions in that regard. Have a look a the notnow essay and I suggest withdrawal with my honest hope to see you back here soon enough. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Hate to be the first one, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Raaggio/List_of_World_Heavyweight_Champions this] clearly shows you have no understanding of how deletion works and from your 4000 edits you have hardly any contributions at all to the Wikipedia namespace. I'm afraid that you need more understanding of admin type areas before you have any chance at RFA.
'''Oppose''' - The above diff is worrying, but I'm honestly more concerned about your sugary sounding answers to the questions, particularly question 4 where you completely dance around what IAR really means.
'''Oppose''' Review of candidate's contributions to the Wikipedia namespace within the last year sees precisely 4 XfD contributions:  2 AfD contributions, both nominations that failed on procedural grounds: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/!!!Fuck You!!! (2nd nomination)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling]]. There is also an additional MfD nomination from the user's own userspace (another speedy U1 delete), evincing a pattern with Spartaz's example, and a noncontroversial TfD nom. During the last year, I found no contributions to ANI. Given that these are precisely the areas where the candidate proposes to work, I conclude that he has insufficient consensus-building experience, and knowledge of procedure, in his proposed areas to be entrusted with enforcing and determining consensus. <strong>
'''Oppose'''.  Serious concerns with judgement, policy knowledge, breadth of exposure, lack of recent activity, and incorrect/questionable answers to questions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRaaggio&action=historysubmit&diff=354675425&oldid=354675412 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRaaggio&action=historysubmit&diff=354677934&oldid=354677881 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRaaggio&action=historysubmit&diff=354682414&oldid=354680421 7, and 8].  -'''
'''Oppose''', sorry. For a candidate who has identified AfD as an area of interest as an administrator (which must mean an intention to close AfDs), AfD experience is far too thin. We have to go back to early 2009 to see AfD participation, and the examples there are not inspiring. I understand that the candidate may have experience in consensus-building, but AfD closures require a sound knowledge and understanding of deletion policy. I'm just not seeing that here. I have no doubt that the candidate has been a valuable contributor within the purview of his wikiproject, but I just don't see the breadth of experience that would enable me to be confident of the candidate having the tools. If the candidate proceeds to make some solid contributions in a wider range of admin-like areas, I'd probably be happy to support in a few months. --
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about experience, activity, answers to the questions. In particular experience in varied capacities. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in admin areas.
'''Oppose''' per his nomination at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosalie_Cadron-Jett%C3%A9|this AfD]], which appears to betray a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia deletion policy, AfD process, and poor judgement generally. I stand open to changing my position if I'm shown to have drawn the wrong conclusions about that nomination. -
Don't have a problem with the MfD issue, but I do with some of your AfD activity. In my opinion you just haven't got enough experience to be given the administrator tools.
As DustFormsWords pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosalie_Cadron-Jett%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=354683785 this] is too recent and shows too little understanding of wiki policy. I recommend installing [[wp:Hotcat]] and categorising a few articles rather than seeing uncategorised as a possible reason for deletion. I'm not so bothered at the questions, I see an assumption that all vandals should be warned as sign of inexperience rather than tolerance of the sort of behaviour that merits an instant block. Hope to be able to support in three or four months, if you learn from this process. ''
'''Oppose''' With less than 5000 edits and upon reading the above comments being concerned about the AFD handlings, I even have my own, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Cadron-Jetté|this RFA]]'s article was nominated for deletion only an hour after it's creation, too early for an article to go into the stages of RFA, I don't think you're entirely ready, maybe come back in 4-7 months, handle AFD better and break the 5000 edits mark. --
'''Oppose''': I'd intended to vote neutral, because I think your answers above reflect a great attitude toward Wikipedia and the responsibilities of adminship, but I too am concerned about your understanding of deletion policy. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Cadron-Jetté]] is clearly a notable person: consider more precise notability searches (e.g. in Google News or Books) before nominating for deletion on notability grounds). With more experience at XFD and ANI I would be open to supporting next time around.
Overall I think it is [[WP:NOTNOW|too soon for you]].  You've been here a while but could benefit from more experience in some areas germane to admin work.  However, '''Strong Moral Support''' to avoid piling on above.   First of all - XFDing one of your own userpages by accident is no worry at all.  I too did it when I first got the twinkle buttons and other scripts.  Secondly, your answer to IAR is okay by me.  You weren't asked what IAR is, you were asked when to use it and you gave an example.  Stick with it and broaden your experience and it'll happen eventually.
'''Neutral'''- I approve of your attitude and demeanour, but you probably haven't got enough experience yet- or a thorough enough understanding of deletion policy. You should definitely run again in a few months' time.
'''Support''' Experience is reasonably varied with vandal fighting, AfD experience, also takes part in policy discussion. A polite and intelligent editor. A little light on the content building but I think there is enough other stuff here for a support.
'''Support.''' - This user has plenty of experience. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Support''' Sure, no reason not to.
'''Support''' Good candidate, good answers.
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Suppport]]'''. I'd like to see a higher edit count and perhaps a little more experience in the project space, but at the end of the day, this is a long term, obviously dedicated, intelligent editor who knows what they're doing and is willing to help. The answers to the questions show that the candidate has enough clue not to do anything stupid like delete the Main Page. As long as they tread carefully and ask for help when needed, I'm sure Rami R will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' I see nothing problematic here. Seems to be a good user and will likely do well as an admin.
'''Support''' per above. Seems to be ready. Helpful, polite, well versed. Takes part in policy discussions. No indications on talk page of errors in CSD tagging or policy application. Did not see any declined CSD's. No evidence of recklessness. Cheers,
'''Support'''. No reasons to oppose. Answers to questions are sound (especially CSDs). --
Low-profile, modest editor with no obvious history of quarrels or mistrust. This is exactly the type of editor I want as an admin. &ndash;'''
Level-headed editor working in a contentious area. Best of luck,
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Looks fine.
'''Support'''. Sure, looks good to me.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' If he can handle life in I/P threads he can handle anything.
'''Support''' very enthusiastically.
'''Support'''. All I require from an admin is the ability to apply consensus or policy, and where the two conflict to make the appropriate judgement call. Rami passes that test as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support''' no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' On first glance, I thought I was going to oppose this candidate due to relatively low experience, but after a bit more digging that's not the case. I've looked at quite a bit of the candidate's work, and I see a calm and level-headed person who understands how Wikipedia works. Looking at comments on past RfAs, I see understanding of what's needed to be an admin too. The candidate clearly isn't going to do anything contentious (eg in RFPP) without gaining more experience first. I'm also not worried about a low monthly edit count, as it's quality that counts, and quality is what I see. I'd be happy to hand over a mop. --
'''Support''' So far the opposers didn't come up with anything so I'd like to throw my little weight to this side. many edits ≠ clue, many edits ≠ experience. --
'''Support''' Has enough experience for me, and displays sufficient clue.
'''Support''' - Clearly knowledgeable about policies and where to find which ones apply in a given situation, and displays excellent communication skills. Will be a further asset as an admin. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' even though he doesn't make 15,000 edits per month.  God forbid someone have a life outside Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Rami R has demonstrated his cluefulness and trustworthiness through his contributions and answers above. He is also level-headed, which is definitely a plus.
'''Support''' Looks good, and yes, we ''do'' need more admins in certain time zones. <strong>
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' While your experience in the WP area is generally lower than I would prefer, I see very good things from you; [[User:Atama]] put it well. I see nothing to indicate you will misuse the tools, so [[WP:WTHN]]. --
'''Support''', as I see nothing to suggest any issues. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' based on the evaluations of others above. I have not looked into the candidate's contributions in detail, but taking the supports and opposes at face value want to affirm that 3 years presence and 3000 edits, with some minimal participation in admin related areas, is more than adequate to judge whether he will break the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' There are some experience issues and a nod to the opposers. However I am inspired by the answers to the questions and think you would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] with the tools. Also, unlikely to delete the main page.... or indeed the talk page of [[WP:BN]] *cough* :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I understand the experience issues raised by the opposers, however from what I see from Rami is positive and the contributions he has made to administrative fora is significant and enough for me to support and that he will make a constructive admin.
'''Support''' Has been around since Aug 2006 and do not any scope for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' This user has built enough, dealt with contentious editors in a firm but fair manner, and gosh darn it, I like them! --'''''
'''Support''' Seems experienced enough and has good answers to questions. --[[User:Banana04131|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana04131|talk]]) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Would like to see an explanation for the edits mentioned in the oppose section.--
'''Support''' Just learn how to spell "Summary" right!  =D  (Just search for "Sumery" in this page!)  <small style="border:1px solid #444;background:grey">
'''Support''' We need admins who do the small and little-noticed jobs of Wikipedia as well as those who do the large and highly-publicised jobs of Wikipedia.  Yes, it's good to be able to get highly-recognised content, but you don't need any GAs or FAs to do a good job as an admin.  Three years of doing good work is definitely enough experience to be an admin.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' I don't think this editor would [[WP:IDIOT|delete the main page]] or {{plainlinks|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AJimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|name=block Jimbo}}. -- '''''
'''Support''' sure.--
Should be fine.
OK. Him be fine.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
Why not? Looks unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck.
'''Support'''.  You have enough experience that I am not particularly concerned that you will make a mistake or abuse the tools.  Good Luck!
'''Support'''. This isn't a candidate who's been racking up thousands of edits over a few months in preparation for an RfA, but has consistently been contributing for several years. I'm sure they have sufficient experience for the tools.

'''Support'''- why not? Seems to be a responsible and sensible user.
'''Support'''- I offer my full support for this candidate, someone with knowledge and experience in my opinion would make a better administrator then someone whose sole goal is to have a huge edit count. -<strong><font style="color:#007474">
'''Support''', I do not view a massive edit count as a necessary prerequisite for being a thoughtful and competent administrator.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' While the edit count is low, the actions appear thoughtful. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Excellent answer to #10.
'''Support''' longterm user, seems civil and clueful. ''
'''Support''' The candidate appears to have a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies, and the answer to Q10 in particular impressed me. Rami R seems thoughtful, articulate, humble, and dedicated. Even with only ten edits to [[WP:UAA]], the candidate appears to understand [[WP:U]] just fine, so that's not concerning. 38 edits to [[WP:AIV]] is plenty; [[WP:VANDAL]] is not a tough policy to comprehend. His response to SilkTork below shows that he can recognize when he is wrong &ndash; a good quality to see in an admin. I encourage him to keep up the good work.
'''Support''' per great discussion on CSD, admin conflict of interest, admitting lacking knowledge in some areas, and seemed to have no problem expressing him or herself in any of the essays. Edit count might be low per month as a whole but that in no way disqualifies the candidate on the "can we trust them?" flag. I would be extremely disappointed if this ended up unsuccessful per things like GA/FA content since the major focus is to see if the user has earned community trust. To say, I have no problem saying 'yes'. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. I'd normally be wary of supporting a candidate with a relatively low level of content-building (and fully understand why those who have, have), but looking through your contributions I see a thoughtful, level-headed editor with a sound understanding of Wikipedia policy, the desire and ability to de-escalate conflict, and the self-awareness to review your own decisions and learn from them. On balance I believe you'd be a fine asset to the admin team.
'''Support:'''  A net positive. -
'''Support''', looks fine to me. Experience is on the low side but it's clear you know what you're doing; and while there are a few concerns in the oppose section I don't view any of them as particularly major. Definitely a net positive. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''.  Trustworthy, knowledgeable and aware of his limitations.  --
'''Support''' -- ''<B>
'''Strong Support''' SmokeyJoe said it all.--
'''Support''' Strong candidate, see no issues here.
'''Support''' No one is experienced in admin work until he becomes one, because all the scripts (+rollback permission) aren't the real thing (in my opinion). The main questions, in my opinion, is whether the user will be helpful and whether he will do some admin work. I got the impression that the answer for both question is yes, so therefore I support this nomination.
'''Oppose''' Sorry about being the first to oppose you, but I see very little experience in admin , such as [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], and [[WP:UAA|UAA]]. I suggest you withdraw and try again when you have gained more experience. --
'''Oppose''' - Per above. You fall short of my expectations of RfA hopefuls in regards to experience.
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  You're a great editor and quite knowledgeable, but you fall short of my [[User:Fastily/RfA Rationale|RfA expecations]] in terms of experience.  Making ~150 edits a most months this past year and then sub-100 most months the year before isn't enough experience for me to support.  On top of that, I see that you have indicated you wish to work in [[WP:RFPP]]; however, you have made a grand total of 6 edits to the page.  The same goes for [[WP:CSD]] (according to your [[Special:DeletedContributions/Rami_R|deleted contributions]], you have made 26 CSD taggings, the vast majority being [[WP:CSD#G8]] and [[WP:CSD#G7]] taggings.) and [[WP:UAA]] (you have made 10 edits to the page).  I don't mean to be overly critical or anything, and rest assured, it's nothing personal. I believe you're on the right track, but you just need a little more time on the project.  Sorry, '''
'''Weak Oppose''' per Fastily. I'd like to see a bit more experience.
'''Oppose''' - I don't think you have enough experience.  Would be willing to reconsider at another RfA later on.   --'''
'''Regretful [[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - Per Fastily. Sorry... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose''' Very much per Fastily, unfortunately. While I see you as a good user, I just don't see the experience in the desired areas. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' but not because of anything I see particularly wrong. It's more a concern over experience in some admin related areas. I like the editing patterns I see generally, and I'm not especially worried about the volume of recent edits, but I think there is a lack of volume in the requisite areas right now. Obviously at a later RfA I would be inclined to support.
'''Not yet (weak oppose)''' Trend seems to be fine, but the lack of admin areas AND the lack of content creation are not compelling.  Come back in a month or three with a GA and some more activity (what's there seems fine, just not sufficient) in admin-related areas and I'll likely support.
I agree with everyone above me. I don't believe you have enough experience yet. Sorry, '''
'''<s>weak</s> oppose/not yet''' worry about experience and policy knowledge.  Yes, you can (and will) learn on the job, but I'd like to see more before being given the bit.  I foresee this candidate being successful in 3-6 months if not this time.
'''Oppose'''. When there is little material to look at because the editor has made few contributions, there is greater pressure on that material to be good, or at least, not negative. I was a bit concerned that there are a number of messages in Rami R's archive - [[User_talk:Rami_R/Archive_1]] in which the user has assumed bad faith, or has engaged in little edit wars - he accuses a good faith editor, Emesz, of vandalism, and handles Furtive admirer's edits on [[Jonathan Pollard]] in a hostile and heated manner, which creates heat and ugliness - threatening Furtive admirer with being blocked, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rami_R&diff=221240923&oldid=221229114] and escalating the matter by taking it to ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Personal_attacks_and_general_disruption_by_User:Furtive_admirer]. I prefer to see editors dealing with such matters in a calm and reasonable manner. And I was then even more concerned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=next&oldid=293537978 this talkpage edit war] in which Rami R needlessly suppresses another user's comment. In random dips into Rami R's edit history I see a tendency to remove comments from talkpages, such as  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel&diff=prev&oldid=263363185 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jerusalem&diff=prev&oldid=262728633 here] - I find such comments can be useful as a reflection of the views of other readers and editors toward potential POV in an article. The Israel - Palestine situation is complex and carries potential for disruption, hence the need for sensitivity in what is being suppressed on a talkpage. While the examples may be considered old, or small, it is what I turned up in my search, and I didn't find contrasting evidence of friendly, co-operative, helpful consensus building. Such is the nature of a random dip into someone's edit history. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - per SilkTork's analysis, which I find convincing.
'''Oppose''' I am reluctant to oppose on just a single issue where the candidate says he won't be particualrly active in, but I think the general frame of thought that would rather close a borderline disputed AfD   as keep or delete than close as non-consensus is the sort of approach, that, however well meant, will ineivtably result in increased conflict within the project.  '''
'''Oppose''' Per Silktork and the observation from the talk page history that the candidate seems a little bit short fused. Admins need to be able to keep cool in the face of provocation.
'''Oppose''' Anybody who believes in a "borderline consensus" should be required to read [[WP:Consensus]] until she understands it. This is not just an AfD point; an admin's job is to enforce consensus where it exists. This cannot be done by someone who does not know what it is.
'''oppose''' per DGG, Silktork and Pmanderson. I'm not convinced that the user in general has enough grasp of policy and general procedures.
'''Weak oppose''' - almost there, but not quite per [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]].
'''Weak oppose''' per the somewhat limited overall contrib record. Only 308 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk in more than 3.5 years of editing seems rather thin. Also, DGG raises a valid point.
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's incivility and hotheadedness (as shown by the diffs provided by SilkTork), a lack of experience in the general admin areas, and a low monthly edit count rate.
'''Oppose''' The talk page comment removal issue is alarming. It's hardly indicative of a poor attitude, but it may be indicative of poor judgment, and when that poor judgment is in the context of removing other editors' contributions, that is of significant concern when evaluating someone's prospects as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per limited experience.
'''Oppose''' This one may be borderline in the percentages, but I think the opposers have it.  This candidate lacks the experience to properly demonstrate policy knowledge.  His talk page experience is limited and frankly not stellar as pointed out above.  When a candidate comes to us with limited demonstrated experience, you want to have your socks knocked off. I don't see that here.---'''
'''Oppose''' - I had given a weak support before, as I was just on the edge between supporting and staying neutral. SilkTork's findings pushed me over into oppose territory. I don't see good judgment in removing those talk page comments. I myself have removed comments from talk pages that were inappropriate per [[WP:NOT#FORUM]], but the comments removed ''were'' discussing the article. The idea that hot subjects like Israel/Palestine should have stricter talk page enforcement in the way that Rami R suggests is a very poor one; tensions are already high, and removing others' comments is a tactic likely to only inflame people. -- '''
'''Neutral''' I have no reason to oppose. I am though concerned with experince (edit count though does not to me qualify as a reason to oppose). Twinkle work is admirable and there is times in the day that we need more admins checking this at AIV. But i do expect admins to have content building skills. There is some here, but not enough i think. I believe article writing allows you to understand others positions in the event of a conflict which certainlty as an admin you will be asked to resolve. Just not enough here to support yet, but I certaintly do not oppose you as being an admin, I just cant support (at this time, but your almost there I think).
'''Neutral'''  User has a clue, but I don't feel they have enough experience.  My apologies I really wanted to support this RfA but cannot :(  ''<B>--
'''Neutral'''. Like the neutrals above, I don't see a compelling reason to oppose, although the edits raised by SilkTork do create some reservations. But mostly the nominee's limited experience keeps me from supporting. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Neutral]]''' - Rami seemed to beat around the bush on all three answers to my questions. I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
'''Neutral/Support''' - First of all welcome to Wikipedia.  Second, welcome to RFA :-).  With that said, I would be more than happy to move to the support column if your edit count was a little higher than 3,300 edits.  Am I one to look at edit count as the sole source to express an opinion of Aye or Nah?  No!  However, an edit count does give me, and others, an opportunity to see how a candidate deals with different situations over an extended time period.  Especially when an editor is active.  Looking over your edit history, I see an editor that is not only committed to the virtues and ideals of Wikipedia, but an editor who takes what they do as a personal affirmation of those virtues and ideals.  However, a few edits here and a few edits there, does not give the community an idea of what you may think or do in a situation where a instantaneous response is necessary in an administrative role.  Look closely at the advice given in the Oppose column, from the more established and respected editors here at Wikipedia, take it to heart, and hopefully either way this consensus comes out you will be a better editor.  The aspect of being an administrator here at Wikipedia is over blown, the lowly editor is actually a more valuable asset :-).  Good luck to you.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''': For what you said you planned to contribute to as an admin, I think you have experience. Though you might be lacking in mainspace edits, and therefore experience in the issues arising from disputes in that space and how to handle them. Overall though, I don't think this is a reason to outright oppose you. Good luck, and regardless of the outcome thanks for your work!
'''Weak Support:''' Experience issues are my main cause of concern. -
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] more so than [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], i.e. I am going only on what I have seen thus far and on the positive side of things, we have had no memorable negative interactions and you have never been blocked.  While I suspect this candidacy will not succeed due primarily to having less than a certain number of contributions, I encourage you to consider some of the following ideas over say the next several months before trying again: 1) rescue articles for [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron]] as doing simultaneously improves our content while earning the appreciation of those editors and article creators whose articles you improve; 2) help make Wikipedia a pleasant place through [[Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee]] and [[Wikipedia:KC]], which are also sound ways to avoid conflict (although every once in a while you run into someone who acts miffed over being welcomed...); 3) consider joining [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User]] where an established editor can walk you through and assist you with the many complexities of Wikipedia; and 4) get as many DYKs and GAs as you can.  Good luck!  Sincerely, --
'''Moral support''' I like the answers to the questions, but agree that more diversity is needed in your edits. However, I refuse to pile on and hope you don't let this RfA discourage you.
'''Moral support'''. I've seen RandomStringOfCharacters doing a lot of very good anti-vandalism work, and it always appears effective and efficient. I can't comment on other issues regarding this particular RfA because I haven't checked, but I do see admin material here - if perhaps not this time, then certainly in the future. --
'''Support''' He has experience in the areas he wished to work. The admin tools don't help with writing pages, they help with maintenance. This user will do a fine job.--
'''Support''' The only issue I can really find is experience, and Nihonjoe's looking into your former account is good enough to satisfy that for me.
'''Support per nom''' If Nihonjoe has no concerns to report then that will satisfy me. You do have experience in the admin areas you plan to contribute to. Best wishes. <font face="Georgia">
'''Weak support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits, interesting user page, and Rollback rights.  I'd like more information, but will go with my gut.
'''Support'''. None of the opposes worry me one bit, and you have exactly the level of experience I would expect in the areas where you wish to apply the tools. —
'''Oppose''' 165 edits in the Wikispace?  Sorry, but with that low of a number I cannot accurately judge your experience in that area.  While I see a lot of file work, and a bit less than 600 deleted edits, I would feel more comfortable if you had more edits to Wikispace.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience. '''
'''Oppose'''.  While you've done some great work for the project (especially those non-free resizes!), I must agree with the above that you have rather limited recent experience in the Wikipedia namespace.  My ideal RfA candinate would have at least 700-9000 edits in this namespace with lots of discussion.  Hope to see you back here in a few more thousand edits and  several months.  -'''
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but your edit summary does not indicate a great deal of experience in consensus building or working with other editors on resolving disputes.  Your user talk edits appear to be mainly vandal tags, and you have negligible WP talk and article talk edits.  Were you to become more active in the content creation side of things, and had a demonstrated history of working with other editors to resolve differences, I would be more than happy to support.  From one Comp Sci major to another, good luck, and hope to see you back here in a few months once these issues are addressed.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I've asked this a bunch of times, and keep getting ignored. Why in hell is it so easy for poorly-considered RfAs like this to get transcluded?
'''Oppose''' Clearly insufficient edits in the wikipedia namespace. A very quick look and I cannot find any experience at [[WP:AfD]] how can someone be trusted to do admin work with no evidence of experience in admin areas?
'''Oppose''' Sorry, mate but they're not going to take you if you have less that 5,000 active edits (as has happened with me before) also the lack of expirence in the admin areas makes me oppose
'''Oppose''' - You show enough mainspace experience for me to trust you know your way around the encyclopedia, but I'd like to see more evidence of good communication abilities and dispute handling. I'm not worried about your ability to properly delete CSDs, but what will happen when someone gets in your face about deleting "their" article? I don't just want an answer to the question, but actual evidence, and I don't see it. -- '''
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Weak oppose]]'''. I'm sorry, I just don't feel you have the experience I'd like to see. I see no evidence of article building (rewrites, expansions, maybe an ITN or DYK, perhaps a GA or even FA are all nice to see)- you've never made (at the time of writing) more than 11 edits to a single article in the mainspace. I would also like to see more experience in project space- the number of edits to AIV shows me you're a proficient vandal fighter, but the lack to places like ANI, UAA or RPP doesn't show me that you'd be up to the job of handling anything more serious than petty vandals (though they do need dealing with) or that you keep an eye on pages that you know are vandal targets. I'd be more comfortable supporting in a few months when you have a little more experience, sorry.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' Lack of content creation. Perhaps you should just write up a quick article and nominate it for a DYK? Low amount of namespace edits as well. I would love to support you but you lack alot of major "requirements" that most people have (Includeing me). I guess that my oppose can be sumed up as "per [[WP:NOTNOW]]". Come back in say April-May with alot more content creation and edits to articles as well as participation in other areas such as the AN or ANI and then I'll be more that happy to support. Good luck in your current RFA none-the-less!--
'''Oppose''', lack of experience in administrator-based tasks in the Wikipidia-space. Otherwise a great editor. I'm totally willing to support of you make those improvements. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' The candidate's anti-vandalism efforts and CSD tagging look fine; however, I don't feel the candidate has enough experience in the project and project talk namespaces for me to judge whether she would make a good administrator outside of the aforementioned areas. The lack of article work is not her favor, either.
'''Nope''' Disclose your prior account or forego my support. Evasion of scrutiny is not compatible with my trust, while admitting mistakes and saying what you've learned from them is.
'''Oppose''', would like to see more experience.--
'''Neutral''' You do have lots of experience, but I'm not sure if I consider the tool you use as "mainspace" editing.
'''Neutral''' I am unsure whether you are ready for adminship for the reasons given by the opposers, but I do not feel strongly enough to oppose. -- '''''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Neutral]]''' leaning support - Although this user has a clue, anti-vandal work requires [[WP:AIAV]] for example, and that number in the Wikipediaspace is a bit low.... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Neutral]]''' Insufficient visible evidence in the WP namespace for me to go either way. I would advise getting a little more experience on this account. --
'''Neutral''' I am on the fence and am not sure the user has enough experience in all facets of Wikipedia to be trusted with the mop yet. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''' You are a great editor, but I don't see the sufficient experience. Don't get me wrong...you haven't done anything wrong yet, but I'd like to see some further experience before I support.
'''Neutral''' per those above. Keep on editing though and I will surely support next time.
'''Neutral''' Just looking for a bit more experience, as is almost every previous commenter. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Seems a little short of experience, I'm afraid.
Bit of a plie on neutral if such a thing exists. You're well on the way, but you're not quite there yet.
Neutral for the moment. There's a solid commitment to removing vandalism and newly created articles that meet the Speedy delete criteria. However, there's little evidence of anything else, and given the relatively short time the user has been here, and the lack of evidence of wider experience and knowledge of Wikipedia it is difficult to form a judgement on the user's abilities or character. Some opinion can be formed from this being the second self-nominated RfA in less than 6 months, and in both the community have expressed NOTNOW concerns. One can either admire the boldness, or feel it's a lack of good judgement. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Neutral''' due to the answer to Q9. It may be a question of semantics, but personally I do feel that Wikimedians have at least one right, that of privacy. The irony is that the user is using this right in not declaring the prior account.
I think this is the first time I've been the first to support an RfA. In any case, WSC has never given any reason for us to doubt his judgment, and this candidate demonstrates the attitude and experience one should expect from an adminship candidate.
'''Support''' I see no red flags. This user would make a very good admin. <font color="Darkorange">
'''Support''' Looks good. I don't see any major issues.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA standards|my standards]]: in particular - 3 years' experience, reviewer, and rollbacker, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Redthoreau].  Has an interesting user page/talk page.
'''Support''' - looks intelligent and skilled as an editor, level-headed and thoughtful. Good responses. Should make an effective admin.
'''Support''' <span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #F4A460"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>
'''Support''' Originally I was going to nominate you, however I think that your current nominator is more qualified. After reviewing your edits in preparation for suggesting a nomination, I was ready to support the moment this went up, however your answer to question 1, which was slightly ambiguous on RevDel, gave me pause. Your answer to question 4 has satisfied my concerns. If you do get the mop, I think you'll do fine. <span style="text-shadow:#2f4f4f 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
Was going to hold off !voting for a while but in light of the opposes and neutrals I can't. The key to Q5 is its final sentence. Unless there is any reason to suspect that the candidate's personal views would actually affect his use of the tools the opposes on q5 are weak to the point of being 'crat-disregardable. Answer to q6 was solid and covered all the relevant issues. I've seen all I need to see to land here.--
'''Support''' primarily to balance silly opposes. I see no reason to think Redthoreau would be a poor admin, and opposing on the basis of the answer to Q5 is ''silly''. I do disagree with the answer, but it's irrelevant to the issue of giving Redthoreau the mop. I mean, really, those opposing on the basis of Q5 should stop and remind themselves that admins have no more say in policy discussions than anyone else. So however vociferously Redthoreau ''might'' argue for his belief when the occasion arises, that is simply irrelevant at RFA.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' admire the way he buried the hatchet with Mattisse; other people buried the hatchet with Mattisse too, problem was that they buried Mattisse in the process.  Guess they thought the chance of having the hatchet rust undrground was worth it.--
'''Support''' - Some may disagree to the answer to number 5, but I see no reason this would interfere with the way they would act as an admin. Redthoreau has shown to be a civil editor with plenty of experience. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' He has opinions. '''
'''Support''' as Nominator. I did notice the Userbox about IP editing when I did my review,  but ignored it as irrelevant to RFA. I think Redthoreau would do a good job of administering the site according to policy. If this was an election to a policy making body then I would be concerned as we are on opposite sides of the IP editing debate. But if we were to turn RFA from a discussion about whether an editor can be trusted with the tools to a WikiPolitics election about their view on policy development then I think it would be bad for the site, both in terms of the way we choose admins and the way we develop policy. Also there are many policy discussions that take place on this site, I often find that editors who disagree with me on one issue agree with me on another. So if this did degenerate into an election for policy makers I expect I'd still have to vote for people who disagreed with me on some policy issues.  ''
'''Support''' - per WereSpielChequers, the opposition fail to raise any real concerns. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
'''Support''' – Although some of the opposers' concerns are valid, I believe that promoting Redthoreau to a sysop would be a net plus to the project. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support''' An honest, intelligent, knowledgeable, and productive contributor. It seems to me he would function well as an administrator. I disagree with some of his positions, but this shouldn't be politics.
'''Weak Support''' The opposition raises valid concerns. I had thought about whether declaring your academic backgrounds is necessarily bad on an RFA. If there is conflicts of interest in articles you write declaring it is not a bad thing, But there are asscoiated issues with this, ie not identifying yourself and only your background, maybe you could to a trusted senior editor/beurocrat etc or so? and they can vouch for it. But again does this really matter so long as youve stated you have a conflict of interest? A can of worms so to be with the statement, and COI can be quite serious in many cases. So Im more neutral on that avenue (willing to elaborate if need be) but thats why my support is weak. WereSpiel above makes a good point about views on policy views. Its only opinions the editor states and they are not forcing one to edit by those rules (at least thats what i beleive). So I see Were's view on this and his endorsement/nomination statement combined with the editors wealth of editing history and experience as reason to belive that the editor would be a net benefit to the project as an admin. As for yourself the editor, I hope that you dont take the RFA too harshly and continue to advance on the project, keep at it and in the future of course give it another shot. Happy editing
'''Oppose'''<s>, although I may switch to Neutral if {{user|Jbmurray}} weighs in</s>.  I am very uneasy about this RFA for several reasons.  First, presenting oneself as a PhD in whatever (without attaching a real, verifiable name) is sliding down the slippery [[Essjay]] slope.  I'm the Queen of Sheba-- this is the internet, anyone can be anyone; we're judged by our edits, not our alleged credentials.  I'm not saying I don't believe Red but it's his edits that we should judge.  Second, I'm concerned about the way Redthoreau invokes the names of absent editors; on the [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1|Che Guevara FAR]], Jbmurray, Mattisse, Ling.Nut and myself were all in agreement that there were problems that Redthoreau argued didn't exist.  Third, if Red is an "an academic with a Ph.D", why did he fail to see those problems?  I'm sorry, I don't trust this editor's neutrality, and don't appreciate the way in which this RFA was presented.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 5 <s>and the block log</s>.
'''Oppose''' Absolutely not, per question 5. Sorry, wrong attitude.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but the attitude reflected in the answer to Q5 leaves me feeling quite uneasy. --
'''Oppose''', per Q5. I don't know what the current figures are, but in 2004 and 2007, although 80% of vandalism is by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered editors were ''not'' vandalism - in Feb 2007, 62.5% of edits were constructive ones by registered editors, 29.4% were constructive IP edits, 6.5% were unconstructive edits by IPs and 1.6% were unconstructive edits by registered editors. If you removed all the good IP edits, we'd have a much much poorer encyclopedia (see the essay [[Wikipedia:IPs are human too]] -- '''''
'''Oppose'''.  The Guevara articles (especially [[Che Guevara in popular culture]]) are political hagiographies.  I can't support a candidate who cites these as their best content contributions.  I am also troubled by the "name-drop" of a PhD in order to advance an RFA, per SG.
As per the answer to Q6. Administrators should not be shown any special consideration in 3RR disputes, or in any other disputes come to that.
Per question 5. Just this morning, I logged on and found  that five seperate IP users had made  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Final_Frontier_World_Tour&action=historysubmit&diff=394466759&oldid=393825967 nothing but constructive contributions] to one of the articles on my watchlist, far quicker and just as effectively as any registered user.  Denying IP users the right to edit denies us contributions that are just as valuable as those from us with accounts; I think it's completely the wrong mentality.
'''Oppose''' - I was ready to support until I saw [[Che Guevara in popular culture]]. Yikes. That article is an alarming demonstration of everything that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]]. (In particular, from [[WP:POPCULTURE]]:'Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged'.) Sorry to oppose over it, but I just don't feel you have a strong understanding of what Wikipedia is for.
'''Oppose''' based on a number of factors. First off, you have a very...colourful user talk. I don't wish to debate its aesthetic merits, but it does make it rather difficult to communicate with you, especially for a newer user (75% of the page is non-discussion material!). Second, [[Che Guevara in popular culture]], which you list as one of your "best contributions", really should be shortened significantly if not deleted - echoing concerns above, it falls under [[WP:NOT]]. Third, concerns about IPs, while understandable given your experience base, are generally not helpful given our claimed dedication to open editing. Fourth, looking through your user contributions I come across pages like [[Talk:Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance|this one]], in which a number of problems with your discussion style present themselves - potential [[WP:BITE|biteyness]], lack of awareness of what the NPOV tag requires, lack of AGF while demanding it of another editor, "pulling rank" on a newer editor, etc. I could go on, but this is already TL;DR. '''Short version''': multiple factors in combination make me unable to support.
'''Oppose''' This guy is a communist POV pusher '''
Q5 is a red flag, numerous past blocks are red flags regardless of age, user page and talk page are Myspace.
'''Oppose'''. My general impression of his edits has been that they are skewed towards giving undue weight to particular POVs, to the point of stretching guidelines such as [[WP:UNDUE]]. As documented [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism and primitivism|here]], he created an entire sub-article for a topic that other editors found didn't have enough coverage to merit even a section in the main article. I'm also uncomfortable with his use of very close paraphrasing of source material in edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&diff=next&oldid=369561924 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&diff=next&oldid=369688908 this] (but to his credit, he does cite the sources). So while I don't hold old blocks against him, I'm not comfortable that his present-day perspective is balanced enough or close enough to the WP norm (not just on the registration issue) to make an even-handed admin. --
'''Oppose''' (from neutral) per conduct at this RfA, specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Redthoreau&diff=394704048&oldid=394703676] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Redthoreau&diff=394701617&oldid=394699504].  I understand some of these concerns are frustrating, but they are genuine, and unfortunately reactions such as this raise almost insurmountable concerns about the ability of the candidate to stay cool under pressure.  Combined with the concerns in my struck neutral below, I must oppose.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Oppose''' [[Civility|Temperamental]] issues. Will not be able to withstand slights with [[User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria#Tolerance|high degrees of civility]], given the current responses. Regret opposing. With WSC nominating, 90% of the job to become an admin was done - as I believe WSC is one of the few admins who stand against 'gaming the system' to gain adminship. I suspect if the editor hadn't answered any questions, leave the compulsory ones, they would have passed with ease, SG notwithstanding.
'''Oppose''' I'm very disappointed with the block log you've just had. Sadly, I have no intention supporting candidates with 5 blocks in a year for edit warring. Also, that's way too many administrative actions you plan to take in terms of your answer to Q1. Like all admins, they should start slowly.
'''Oppose''' due to an inability to maintain decorum and respect toward other editors, as reflected in this discussion. It matters little that comments made by other editors have been a bit snarky. One snide remark does not require or indicate the need for another in return. The RfA process is a reflection of how an editor may respond in similar discussions, once receiving the bit. Administrators are responsible to diffuse situations such as these, rather than feed into and/or foster them to the hilt. That said, I think comments regarding an individual's political and/or social bent is inappropriate and immaterial. I welcome Communists, Republicans, Muslims, Democrats, and the Amish. What I don't appreciate are editors pushing a particular point of view, while dismissing and disregarding the views of others.
'''Oppose''' because of Q1 and a lot of little things. I don't see why the mop is needed. But not at all because they listed a PhD, and only slightly because of question 5. Question 5 betrays to me a superficial familiarity with vandalism patrolling (I see no AIV edits) but good intentions. Vandalism patrolling is easier because of anon edits, and without it we'd have less silly vandalism and more persistent, harder to track vandalism. Of the few AfD opinions that are there, the most recent seems to be broadly out of consensus ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism and primitivism]]), and I don't see a large history of policy edits or discussions. I don't require that in an admin. The only suggestions of admin activities in Question 1 are anti-vandal activities, of which I see almost no experience of this admin. Moreover, the 7 article creations (other editors have been rejected having more content creations) have a focus, and combined with the concerns above, I don't see a need for the tools, and I see some real concern over other issues, although they may be minor on their own.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with judgement and temperament. -'''
'''Oppose''' with apologies to WereSpiel.  Re: the PhD...I think I even have a userbox that says that's irrelevant - <small>but this is the internet, and I have a 12" penis</small>.  Re: IP editors - wrong, wrong, wrong and more wrong. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' as per answer to question 7.  Admins should be treated absolutely no differently to any other editor, and relying on the judgement of other admins would, I'm sure, see the matter casually brushed under the carpet. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' - Q7 is a major no-no, and the user seems to have a blatant POV and doesn't work well with other uses in that sphere.
'''Neutral''' per Q5. Not sure I approve of your opinions on IP editors.
'''Neutral.'''  At this point.  Q5.  Could change my mind; it's a long time before the RFA closes.  "''You can edit this page right now'' is a core giding check on everything that we do.  We must respect this principle as sacred."  Even for IPs.
Per Sandy, will change to support if confirmed, as question 5 is a personal opinion.
'''Neutral''' – A few of the late oppose reasons give me cause to hesitate, including temperament issues, RfA conduct, and the quality of content leaves something more to be desired. OTOH, I'm willing to forgive old blocks, and the answers to the questions are fine, so far; I'm not worried about Q5. I'm sure many admins now have strong opinions on things, but that doesn't imply partiality in admin (or even editorial) decisions. –
'''Neutral'''.  This is a placeholder vote, as I see I've been invoked in this RFA.  I'm in Barcelona right now (at the Drumbeat Festival, as it happens).  Will check back in later.  --
'''Oppose''' The content of your userpage is concerning to me... "Reenem rules. The rest of you suck" "Hi, Im here to prove that I'm much smarter than you are."... those statements don't put me at ease about the attitude that you would have as an administrator. <span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print;">[[User talk:TTTSNB|<font color=#05C>Th<font color=#07A>e T<font color=#098>hi<font color=#0B6>ng]]
I thank you for submitting an RfA. However, I fail to see the requisite experience necessary to become an administrator. I see you only have 17 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, which is not enough for me to judge how well you'll respond to disputes, or even how you interact with other users. I would advise that you look into getting more experience in the maintenance-related areas if you want to be an admin. Additionally, I would like to point out that you do not need to be an admin to welcome users, nor fight vandalism. Anyone can welcome users, and anyone can fight vandalism. You may want to look into [[WP:TWINKLE|twinkle]] for helping revert vandalism, as that makes it much easier. Happy Editing! <small>(
'''Oppose''' per userpage. It displays all the features of someone who considers himself to be better than everyone else. Also seems to think that adminship is an honour, and that "winning the original barnstar" [paraphrasing] is something particularly special. Also I can't fathom any tasks related to newbies which would necessitate admin tools, or be made easier with access to the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. I had to block this user only a few days ago for serial failure to provide sourcing to his edits. Sorry, but that makes it a no-no at this time. I have no doubt he is otherwise a well-meaning editor, but it will take some time until I can trust him to have a reliable grasp of all the central policies.
'''Close''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] you're just not ready--
'''Oppose''' For welcoming newbies, you may want to see [[Wikipedia:Friendly]]. Before this RFA, you have 11 edits to the Wikipedia namespace- 6 of which are to a [[Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you|joke essay]]. Your userpage is either a bad joke or the height of arrogance- "Hi, Im here to prove that I'm much smarter than you are." You may be smarter than me. You are '''not''' the smartest person on Wikipedia, I promise you. Your list of people you hate is clearly not appropriate. You were blocked ''last week''. You need a lot more maturity before running another RfA.
'''Oppose''' Per your userpage.
'''Oppose''' Based on your upload history (via [[Special:Log/Reenem]]), you don't appear to understand what [[fair use]] means. That's a non-starter for an admin. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose'''. Most important reason being atrocious copyright record, notices of which you appear to ignore and wipe from your talk page. --
'''Oppose'''.  [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Your contributions might be very helpful, but the attitude you display on your user page is very troublesome.  ''Very'' recent block is also a no-no.  Lack of participation in project areas also a non-starter.  Try becoming active in RfCs, XfDs, AN/I, policy discussions, etc.  An admin is expected to be a source of knowledge on all things policy, and you can't be that source if you have no policy experience.
'''Strong Oppose''' per obvious.
'''Oppose''' From what I can see, the article work is fine.  Edit count to articles is fine.  New article creation is fine.  Length of time is fine.  [[User:Reenem|This]] will never, ever be fine.  A lack of work in administrative areas is also problematic.  At this point, if welcoming and vandal-fighting is the goal, this can be readily achieved without Admin tools - [[WP:Friendly]] is a great tool for welcoming (I use it myself), and everybody on Wikipedia can fight vandalism. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose''' as you currently do NOT have the right attitude to be an admin.  To wit - "Hi, Im here to prove that I'm much smarter than you are".
'''Oppose''' I'm not that bothered about your userpage, although it is very childish and cast doubts on your maturity for the admin role. 17 edits in the wikipedia namespace shows that there is no way you could have gained the experience needed to appreciate what an admin does and certainly provides no means of judging your efforts. Take part in some [[WP:AfD]] disscusions.
'''Strong Oppose''' suggest candidate reads [[wp:userpage]]. Unsourced attacks, copyright violations, unsourced contributions, and a recent blocks are all reasons to oppose. Would be willing to reconsider a future application if you come back with those issues resolved and a block log that has been clean for twelve months. ''
Unsourced contributions.  Icky!
'''Oppose''' The user's attitude, as demonstrated by his userpage and the fact that he's been blocked several times, demonstrates to me an inability, or an unwillingness to, adhere to Wikipedia's simplest guidelines. An admin should be a guide to others as to how best to behave on Wikipedia, and quite frankly, I don't see that out of the user's contributions here.
'''Oppose'''. User page shows a serious attitude problem and lack of knowledge concerning our userpage and BLP policies. Extremely unqualified user.--
'''Strong oppose''' "I don't make personal attacks when editing articles, but this is my user page, and I can write whatever I want. Wikipedia says so." from his userpage. Obviously hasn't read [[WP:USERPAGE]] or [[WP:NPA]]. "People I hate" is certainly a personal attack, regardless of whether it's Osama bin laden or your teacher. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Pile-on oppose''', clearly immature.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the block is too recent for me to give you a support.
'''Strong oppose''' I normally avoid pile-ons, but the candidate has no understanding of the importance of [[WP:V]]. I blocked them for this last January after getting nowhere on their talk page, and am very concerned to see that 12 months later they are still apparently having the same issues. Admins must uphold our core policies themselves before they can even think about policing others.
'''Neutral''' Not to pile on, but probably falls under WP:NotNow and Snow. To Reenem, your user page as ''the thing'' points out is alarming and would be a good first step for improvement.
'''Neutral''' - I cannot support you this time round Reenem but I'll have no problem supporting a future RfA once the above issues have been addressed, with that said, I would strongly encourage you to reevaluate what you'd like to do with the tools, both things you listed under Q1 can be done without the aid of extra tools. Regards, <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''Neutral''' Same as above mostly. When you improve your attitude, and remove some of the more worse stuff on your page, and wait a year or so for all those blocks to fade away (on the way maybe aquiring even more edits), Your'e going to get a support from me.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Moral Support''' candidate has been editing since May 2008, has a clean block log and is a civil and useful editor. Contributions at 3,300 are more than enough for my support (yes a huggler could achieve that in a weekend, but I think this editor isn't a particularly automated one). ''
Per WereSpielChequers. ···
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Strong Support]]''' per Phantomsteve's comment and per WereSpielChequers. While 3,300 edits is a little low, I trust you and Im sure that you'll not break anything :) Good luck!--
'''Support''' I originally landed in the Neutral section thinking I'd support this in a month or two without reservation.  But, really, if I'm already thinking that, there's no reason not to just support right now.  You have a clue, and while lacking the project-space experience I normally look for, clue is more important than lots of experience.
'''Weak Support:''' Just not enough experience.
'''Support.''' per WereSpielChequers and good work improving our power station coverage.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that I do not recall having any negative interactions with the candidate, the candidate was trusted with rollback, and the candidate has never been blocked, so, per [[WP:AGF]], I will support.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' per Were. It's not brain surgery, it's janitorial work, so brag most of wikipedia's administrators, and you can learn the deal with AfD and everything else. The learning curve may be steep, but you'll be polite while learning, I think. That I think you'll remain civil as an administrator is, more importantly, something that can't be learned. I am tired of brash, cheap-shot administrators at AN/I who have nothing to do but pile on at the latest drama-fest over the same 12 editors. Maybe requiring "Experience" over civility is a problem at RfA. Stay civil. --
'''Support''' We need a few 'more' funny and polite admins --
'''Support'''. Seems experienced anough to me.
'''Support''' - seems very level-headed and I really doubt he would abuse the tools.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' - I'm just not seeing the experience in the project space that I've come to expect from admin hopefuls.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough experience across the Wikipedia and usertalk areas. Vast majority of experience is in the last two months alone. You have to get more significant experience in admin related areas so that we are able to judge whether you can handle the tools.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Insufficient experience as of yet. What I've seen so far looks pretty good, but I want to see some more before I'm comfortable with your knowledge of policies and procedures. As a side note, I'd recommend capitalizing "I", it would be more professional.

'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and the fact that the user has very few edits in the administrative areas of the project.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Concerned about lack of experience, keep up the work and try again in 3 months... ''<B>--
'''Oppose'''. I have mainly had contact with Rehman at [[Talk:List of onshore wind farms#Restructuring]], where he did not take kindly to my mention of his inexperience, and the matter eventually went to WQA at [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive79#User:Rehman]].
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience in multiple different capacities, including content work. '''
'''Oppose''' - Your edit count isn't low enough to concern me. My concern is the lack of participation in the non-article space, in particular if one of your reasons for requesting adminship is to delete articles, I want evidence that you have knowledge and experience in what should and shouldn't be deleted, and I'm not seeing it. My other big concern is a request for the admin bit in order to participate in mediation; mediation doesn't require being an admin at all, and in fact being an admin doesn't really give you any advantage at all as a mediator. -- '''
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Oppose]]''' Answers to questions 6B and 9 lead me to believe there is a lack of full understanding of the [[WP:CSD|CSD]] criteria, especially with regards to [[WP:CSD#A7|criterion A7]]. I would advise getting a thorough overview in this area, participating in [[WP:NPP|new page patrolling]] for a bit to practice this, and come back with a fuller understanding. --
'''Oppose''', with Moral support - Simply not enough relevant experience. Might be quite willing to support in the future. I'd rather see more automated edits, which are hardly meaningless, than this few in general. Automated edits, or nearly automated edits, are quite easy to get without leaving a (TW) or (HG) tag on the end. I'm not accusing this editor of this, but I'm bothered by the general trend of mindlessly looking at the "Automated Edit" tool and discounting that number. I would worry severely about an anti-vandalism editor that hadn't used huggle, or something very similar.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 8: "I would say its all typos." Admins can't afford to make so many typos. —<small> <span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' AFD concerns.  There is no majority rules here.  Instances where they has been off-site canvassing, if there are (and there has been) 30+ keeps, and 8 deletes, the article gets deleted. "'''I would relist such an AfD if the votes are near equal on both sides (propose - oppose)''' or if there is only a few votes itself." would be closed as no-consensus.  '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Oppose''' Questions 4, 7 and 9 suggest a lack of understanding of the CSDs and the ways in which AfDs should be closed. For example, a guitar is not covered by A7 at all, notable or not. As deletion is one of the candidate's nominates areas of activity, I cannot support at this time. --
'''Oppose''' This candidate doesn't appear to understand all of the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]], at least not enough for me to trust you with the delete button. For example, A7 definitely cannot apply to guitars or songs, and an article duplicating Wiktionary content can be speedily deleted per A5. In addition, the answer to Q7b is wrong; [[WP:CONS|consensus]] is determined based on strength of arguments, [[WP:NOTAVOTE|not a head-count]]. Also, it appears that he's only participated in two AfDs during his entire time on Wikipedia, and his vote in [[WP:Articles for deletion/Cyclone Storm Bijli|this one]] didn't add much to the debate. [[WP:NOTNOW|Now's not the time]]; sorry.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - My questions were not answered too well in my opinion. First of all, as Willoughby said above,  you can delete a transwikied article by a {{tl|db-a5}} deletion (question 13). Then, on question 11, the article is completely illegible and incoherent. And on top of that, your deleted edit count struck me a wee too low to be working in deletion (question 1). Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
I want to support, but the answers to 7 indiciate an alarming misunderstanding of consensus, especially if they want to close AfDs. I would recommend 1) participating in more AfDs, and 2) watching over the closes of the longer ones; they're often a good indication of the stuff admins have to consider at AfD. Come back in 6 months, maybe 4, and I'll support.
Q7, Q11.
'''Oppose''' - Clearly a good-faith editor, but the answers to 4 (the key is ''assertion''), most of 7 (in general, [[WP:CONSENSUS]] appears nowhere in this answer, and what is a ''known IP with bad history''?), 11 (patent nonsense is specifically described in the criterion), and 12 (A9 does not imply the artist is non-notable, merely that the artist has no article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not ''establish'' notability; it uses it as a criterion for inclusion) show a lack of understanding of policy that would be problematic in an individual given the admin bit. No prejudice against a future RfA...just not while these misunderstandings of policy exist. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - I'm really not comfortable with some of the answers, specifically to Question 7. I'd suggest coming back in 5-7 months. In the meantime work on the concerns raised here, and do some reading up on [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I like how you see the importance of humour and politeness, but some more experience would definitely help. Sorry, I think you could pass RfA one day, but not just yet,
'''Strong Oppose''' Incorrect answers to Q7 and Q11 show a lack of understanding of how consensus is determined in Afds and our speedy deletion policies, and just a lack of common sense, which is especially concerning when the user states they want to work in deletion. --
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per experience in admin-related areas. Spongefrog, I did not look at your contributions.
'''Oppose''' per astonishingly bad answer to Q7b.
'''Oppose''' per above. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' also per Q7b. The candidate fails to grasp the most basic aspect of [[WP:NOTVOTE]] as it applies to Afds.
Nothing in your contribs makes me want to oppose, but you mention getting involved in deletions, and I'm not seeing a lot of participation in AFDs.
Per DC. 80 project space edits in 2 and a half years isn't admin material.
'''Neutral''' I'm not going to pile on, but I feel that you need a bit more experience before you can get the tools.
'''Neutral''' I feel that the answers to the questions show that you do not have a deep understanding of the deletion policy at this time. I feel that you need to understand these more completely (especially with regard to CSD A7/A10 and AfDs) before I would feel confident with you having the bit. -- '''''
'''Neutral''' per Doc Quintana. Just more experience throughout more aspects of the project. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral'''. In essence, per DC. It wouldn't be right to oppose because nothing I've seen makes me think you couldn't be trusted with a few extra tools, but I would like to see a greater comprehension of the deletion policies, and, since you mention it, particularly the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and a bit more AfD participation if you want to work in deletions. The answers to the questions on these areas show you understand the basic principles well, but being able to judge the borderline cases is the mark of a good admin. To sum it up? Spend a bit more time in project space, on [[special:newpages|new page]] patrol and a few GA/FA/DYKs wouldn't hurt.
I can't oppose, but I'm not too comfortable supporting right at this time. I'm concerned that Rehman may not have a sufficient understanding of [[WP:DP|deletion]] quite yet. I suggest accumulating just a bit more experience in deletion-related areas and returning in just a few months. Otherwise, I think he's fine - 3300 edits over 2.5 years is not general inexperience (I have less than that).
'''Neutral''', and though I have a lot of respect for this self-nomination and a lot of what the candidate has working in his/her favor, the almost total lack of experience in "Wikipedia areas" and namespace forces a learning curve too steep to climb for after a successful nomination and this should be handled first. Though I have no specific reason that I'd oppose beyond this communications issue and a somewhat worrying view on AfD, it's for those same reasons that I can't think of a specific reason to support. Gaps in knowledge or need for further research are just what they are, and neither good nor bad, but aren't admin-like qualities. This isn't a [[WP:NOTNOW]] with a fair edit count and evident enthusiasm to the community... just that the candidate has chosen to spend time in certain areas and not others leading up to this nomination. Would love to support in the future.  <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral''', in what is essentially an open-book exam, user ''still'' got Q11 very wrong.  With that said, seems to have a level head and with a few more months of experience should be ready for the mop.
'''Neutral''' I believe from what I see that this is a candidate with ''potential''.  The responses to the question are not all that great because they don't seem to spend the time in areas where those questions come up.  This can be gained by (*gasp*) admin coaching, spending time around [[WP:AFD]] to see the discussions and how they are closed, and heck, sometimes just watching [[WP:ANI]] for awhile.  What I'm saying is keep up the current good work, take a lot of positives from this RFA, accept and understand the gentle critiques, and then set out to learn.  Adminship is no big deal, but you seem to have many of the required qualities.  Come back to RFA in a few thousand more edits/6 months or more - but ''not'' until you feel you have a good amount of quality work in the areas that people say you're lacking.  This RFA is ''not'' a "never", it's an "almost". ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
Sorry, but I don't feel you have nearly enough projectspace edits. Over several years, you have less than 300 edits to WP/WT pages. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
Doesn't meet my RfA criteria.
'''Oppose''' Pretty vague answer to Q5.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits in the admin-related area: no edits on AIV or on ANI or on AN or on SPI and only 16 on RFPP and 6 on RM. Frankly, I don't think you have enough experience. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms. Adminship requires more experience with project space.
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms and Salvio. What I'd really like to see in a candidate is someone who really gets involved in admin-related tasks and areas to prove to the community that you need admin access in order to increase your quality of contributions to the encyclopedia overall. At this point, you can do that without admin status. As mentioned by Fetchcomms, participation in the project namespace is critical. Getting involved in that area helps one gain understanding of the policies and inner workings of WP. At this point, I do not feel that you have the experience necessary.
'''Oppose''' per Fetchcomms. --
'''Oppose''', not enough experience in the project-space and admin-related areas. Get involved in some of these and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - per above.  Don't be discouraged, take the good advice offered.  Focus hard on areas that will bolster your knowlege and experience, and then come back next year.  One further concrete thing I can offer now for your consideration if you try again - '''look for a strong nominator''', as many here see a self-nom as a red flag.  Best wishes! (Note: suggest we close asap per [[WP:SNOW]] to avoid a pile-on, thanks.)
'''Oppose''' per above comments, but don't think this is the end of the road. Many of our administrators failed more than once before finally passing. I agree with Jusdafax; this should be closed a.s.a.p. per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - I feel you don't have enough experience to get my support since you have very few project space edits. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Oppose''' - Sorry - I can't support, due to lack of admin related experience. I strongly suggest you consider withdrawing this application, and following the good advice given by other editors commenting here before trying again, later. &nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. I'll have to review this nomination more carefully later, but for now I'll have to park in the Neutral column. You seem like a very conscientious editor, dedicated to improving the project. But looking at your contribs for the last 3-4 months, I get a somewhat strange impression. You say in answering Q1 that one of your intended areas of admin work is CSD. Yet, looking back to March, I saw maybe one or two CSD taggings that you did yourself (well, to be more accurate: I am not an admin so I can't see your deleted contributions record. But I only saw one or two author notifications about CSD tags that you did during that time).  Speedy deletion is a high precision area where pretty solid understanding of CSD criteria is needed by the admin reviewing a CSD tag, and I would really like to see some significant positive evidence that you understand them well. Regarding images and files. That is definitely an area where additional admins are very much needed. However, again looking at your contrib record for the last three months, I don't see a whole lot of activity on your part in files for deletion discussions, PUF discussions etc (most of what I have seen are "delete, per nom" brief !votes). In particular, I would have really like to see more instances where you yourself listed files for deletion or at PUF of CSD tagged them. I found very few such examples, the latest occurring in very early May. In fact, one of these examples worries me a bit. First you tagged an image as speedy with a pretty strange justification[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wtc2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=359391576], which clearly did not correspond to any of the CSD criteria. Of course, the speedy was declined. You then listed the same file for deletion. That particular discussion was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_May_2#File:Wtc2.jpg closed as "keep"]. I looked at the image, File:Wtc2.jpg, rather closely, and I still don't understand why you thought that the image was obtained by joining two images, "of which its copyright status is unknown". You certainly did not provide any justification for that in the discussion. I normally would not concentrate on an episode from that far back, but that was, it would appear, your second to last files for deletion nomination to date (the last one occurred on the same day, May 2). So there are things here that give me pause....
'''Neutral'''. I admire the self-nom.. because it shows a willingness to take that extra step in maintaining Wikipedia.. when you've reached the point where you know that the tools and tasks available to you at your current status is just not enough, and you have an honest desire to do more.. and not because you feel you deserve a "promotion" and once you've "graduated" and earned your "trophy" you can sit back and relax, enjoy your reward for a bit, then quietly retire while your newly acquired tools just collect dust. So I assume good faith and respect your decision to become an admin and would never let a self-nom influence my !vote. HOWEVER... (I bet you were just waiting for that ;) although you feel you may have the necessary experience, your contribution history, or rather my own personal evaluation of it, shows that you don't. I think you need a bit more time and experience behind your belt. But don't be afraid to self-nom again in 3-6 months! --
'''Support''' - Is this really necessary, you did not leave under a cloud as far as I can see.
'''Support''' Being desysopped per your own request doesn't concern me. Equally had the same trust in comparison to 2006, so I'll support.
'''Support'''. I've seen a lot of this user's contributions as we both seem to edit Australia-related articles and, having seen his demeanour at [[WT:AFL]] and at other AFL-related articles, I think he would be an exceptional admin, even if this was his first time. Not being around in '08, I looked over the reasons why he resigned and I don't see a problem with that at all. Also, the fact that he could have simply asked for +sysop back, but has instead decided to go through RfA, shows that he truly has the community's interest at heart and would therefore make an excellent admin.
'''Moral Support'''<small> change from support rationale elaborated below original comment </small> User has earned trust (at least from me). Well versed/exp. Things are very much in the past i feel about resigning.
'''Support''' Good Track and choose voluntary desysopping which is explained and see no concerns.
'''Support''' No reason to think theyll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I don't see your comment on that RfA as an issue, I just see it as a little bit discouraging but not to the extent where you should resign your adminship. I hope you will become an admin again and I'm sure you'll be great! --<b><font color=red>
For better or worse, I have no litmus tests; nor am I concerned with something that happened two years ago.
'''support''' Could have just gotten the bit back.  Not seeing how his opinions on BLPs have been shown to have an impact on his being an admin (of which we have plenty of examples...)
Weak supprt. It seems this is unlikely to pass. I implored you not to resign the bit, and I stand by that. I'm not in-tune with your more "controversial" view points in terms of BLP by any stretch. Having said that I can't parse that this translates into you not being able to use the tools within policy and guidelines (which seems to be the main concern of the opposers). "I disagree with some of your rules but I'll follow them whilst I'm your guest" is my interpretation of your stance - and an admirable stance that is. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. You appear to have been a good admin, and could most likely have got your bit back just by asking. That your attitudes to BLP are now out of sync with community consensus means only that you need to review current policies, and so long as you are willing to abide by those should not stop your re-adminship.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Moral Support''' this is just a bloodbath that no editor, especially a former adminstrator who gave up his tools in good faith should go through. Withdraw the RFA, heed the concerns of the oppose votes and try again in six months.
'''Support'''.  Have reviewed the links, and the accusations of "drama-mongering."  Find them to be unconvincing.  The resignation likely was not necessary, and the 'crat in question overreacted.  That was a long time ago.  The editor appeared to be a good administrator then, and will likely make a good one now.
'''Weak Support:'''  Trustworthy and  has the right attitude but must deal with some of the concerns raised below. -
'''Support'''. Reasonable editor that would make a good admin.--''
'''Support'''. Says he needs the tools for a specific task, I have no problem granting the tools to a trusted former admin. --
'''Moral support''' Work on the concerns addressed below and try again in a few months. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Support''' for the sake of logical consistency. I don't particularly agree with the way that administrators can simply ask for the bit back after extended periods of time away, but that's the way the system presently works, and as others have pointed out the candidate could simply have done what so many others have done and would now be an administrator again. Thus it seems absurd to punish him for demonstrating some integrity.
'''Weak Support''' per Pedro. Admins need to understand that their tools are for use in accordance with the policies and norms of the community; It is perfectly in order for an admin to advocate change to policy, and of course to choose where they volunteer their time for Wikipedia as admins, where they participate as editors and where they don't get involved. Based on this RFA and my survey of the candidate's actions I'm comfortable with the candidate in this regard. My question 4 has somewhat derailed this RFA, I've had some involvement in Dashbot's program of gently chiding editors of unreferenced BLPs that they may have long forgotten, and when I asked the question I was hoping for the sort of answer that was one part of the candidate's reply - he no longer edits those articles because he considers himself to have a COI. I'd have been equally reassured with a response along the lines of "I've changed musical tastes and no longer have access to the relevant reference material". It is nice if editors help tidy up their earliest work, but I believe we should judge admin candidates on what they are capable of now. Weak because I suspect the candidate thinks that Adminship endows one with status or authority - a harmless attitude in a non-admin but not desirable in an Admin, also because of the adding of an unverifiable full name to a BLP. ''
'''Moral Support''' per the candidate's classy concession statement and acknowledgment of other editors' concerns.
'''Oppose''' Drama mongering concerns per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3]]
'''Weak oppose''' A4 might have been acceptable in 2006, but I personally cannot support any editor today who has the philosophy of "unsourced information in BLPs is OK if it is accurate." '''<font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' per NuclearWarfare.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I find your opinions on BLP inadequate. Inserting information on a subject you know personally without a source is [[WP:OR|original research]], however true it may be. After all, it is only your word on that; that is unacceptable practice. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' ''I know Josie personally and most of the information in my contributions to her biography is from my own personal knowledge'' about covers it. Doesn't respect even wikipedia's minimal checks, and could cause harm as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Per concerns about attitude to BLPs, and use of sources in general, plus circumstances surrounding the resignation.
Something feels off to me. I don't know whether it is the issues that surrounded your resignation, or your views on BLP that seem to indicate you don't care about [[WP:V]] and [[WP:VNT]]/[[WP:TRUTH]]. I have seen much good writing and other associated work, but your views seem to directly contradict the [[WP:5P|5P]]. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose'''  Concerns with attitudes towards BLP. -'''
'''Oppose''' <small>(changed from '''support''')</small> I have re-read the BLP answer: ''I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it. Her notability may be in doubt, I admit. I believe that BLPs should not contain information that is untrue or unfair.'' - how can anyone else know it is correct information if it is unsourced and so unverifiable? If you doubt her notability, why should anyone else (who do not know her) think she is notable? Without sources for verification, how can we know what is ''untrue'' or ''unfair''? Sorry, I cannot support someone who has such a blatent disregard for the [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:V]] or [[WP:N]] -- '''''
'''Oppose''' I appreciate the openness but, although it was some time ago, the resignation does not seem to show the maturity and thick skin that I would like to see in an admin
Q4, and prior forfeiture of the tools for the apparent purpose of making a statement - that's not what the tools are for.
'''Oppose''' - I was going to go with neutral originally. The tools were voluntarily resigned, and whatever behavior occurred at the time seems irrelevant to me, it's well in the past. But the BLP issue just seems to show a real disconnect with community norms today. Also, I'm wondering how familiar Richard is with our [[WP:COI|conflict of interest guideline]]. I don't have a concern with Richard as a whole, but I strongly suggest that he re-familiarize himself with our policies and guidelines before requesting the tools again. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Verifiability should be non-negotiable in articles about living persons. --
'''Oppose''' - although you voluntarily gave up your tools, the standards for and expectations from admins seem to have risen considerably in the last 4 years. Based on your answer to Q4 and the note on your talk page regarding removal of unsourced controversial content from [[Peter Hollingworth]], I'm not convinced you are fully aware of our policies at the moment, especially BLP. I'm also unsure why admin tools are needed to reorganise a category, but maybe I've missed something there. <s>I was just checking your contribs and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Lewis&action=historysubmit&diff=388161165&oldid=387534755 your most recent edit] confirms my concerns.</s>
'''Oppose''' per BLP sourcing concerns. --
'''Oppose''' - We currently have 24,785 articles in [[:Category:All unreferenced BLPs]], yet this user apparently has no problem [[User_talk:Richardcavell#Unreferenced_BLPs|adding to that number]].
'''Oppose''' BLP issues. VictorianMutant and NW make fine points as well.--
'''Oppose''' Attitude towards BLP's and standards of sourcing is unacceptable.
'''Oppose''', leaning towards ''strong'' oppose. Mainly per the rather poor interpretation and usage of our verifiability policy, and not just with regards to BLPs. –
'''Oppose'''. Richard Cavell erred in his reasoning and commentary at that RFA, but that doesn't unduly bother me now. I am concerned about this sentence in the answer to question 4: "''I guess I'd rather include correct information unsourced than fail to include it.''" This is not acceptable in Wikipedia, particularly in a BLP.
'''Oppose'''. I see on your talk page that several people respect you and wish for you to be an administrator again, but I think I'm going to have to agree with Axl. If any content is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|likely to be challenged]], it should not be included in the encyclopedia without a citation. What you included is [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], and original research is, by policy, not allowed on Wikipedia, whether it's true or not.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I didn't think the resignation was necessary and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richardcavell&diff=252370504&oldid=252366502 said so at the time], and would not have questioned a 'crat re-sysop had that route been chosen. But having read the BLP question on this page, and especially the clarification, I find oppose the only option. The clarification puts forth [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halt_and_Catch_Fire&action=historysubmit&diff=372734030&oldid=372729988 this] as a point to consider; "personal communication" falls way short of [[WP:RS]]. If the community has changed, it is toward ''more strict'' adherence to BLP concerns, not less, and I expect admins to get that one right pretty much every time. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - per BLP concerns. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' - per question 4, especially adding the cite to a personal conversation directly violating [[WP:V]]. The approach to this RfA seems to be looking for validation of his methods, but I'm not able to concur. '''Comment to the closer:''' If this RfA fails, please clarify if he can still ask for his bit back as if the RfA had never taken place. —
'''Oppose''' (with regret) - I wish I could support you, as you seem trustworthy and to have the right attitude, but your approach to [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:V]] is completely wrong: unverifiable material should not be added, particularly not to BLPs, and ''particularly'' not when you know the subject personally. I advise you to withdraw this RFA, and take the time to understand those fundamental issues; if you can bring your editing into line with Wikipedia policy, I would be willing to support you at another RFA in future.
'''Oppose''' Per Fastily
'''Oppose'''. I'm  sorry  Richard, but  a random  stab at  your creations convinced me that  I  needed to  visit a bigger selection of the  100 on  X's tool. The majority  are  dab pages, some of which  in  my  opinion have dubious function, but  I  have deeper concerns about  your knowledge of the fundamental  principles of article creation.  I  have said on  RfA before, that  while an impressive creation  count is not  paramount, I  do  feel that  anyone wanting  to  police other authors should at  least demonstrate goodwill  and  clean up  their own sub standard creations before running  for offiec -  however old they  are. Some of the more striking  poor creations are: [[Peter Taylor (composer)]];  the very short [[List of Big Band Musicians]] that  hasn't had an edit  since it was created 10 months ago, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_big_band_musicians&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_artery], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_McCracken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalsneak], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_upper_quadrant_(abdomen)], I'm  not  sure of the usefulness of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agro-] (maybe there's a guideline  I  have missed),  and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_iliac_fossa], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcuate_line_of_rectus_sheath], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medial_umbilical_ligament], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_to_coast_goal], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_atmosphere], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_bodybuilding], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_manager]. I only  came across two that  were  reasonable  BLP, but  they  were the work  of a great  many  other editors after the two-line unreferenced stubs  you  made and never returned to, and  I am  particularly  concerned about  BLP  stubs such  as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Serevetas], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Astburyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Vella_(boxer)], and this, tagged for notability  two  years ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People's_Chip], and finally  the fairly  recent  bot  report  at [[User talk:Richardcavell#Unreferenced BLPs]]. BLP  is one of Wikipedia's most  critical  issues; deletionist  or inclusionist  apart, admins need to  understand the policies  and be objective in  their implementation.--
'''Oppose''' You have views that are contrary to current policies; that's absolutely fine. The problem is, you have chosen to disregard the policies and act according to your own views. You know the consensus regarding [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:BLP|BLPs]], but you choose to disregard it. That is not acceptable. By all means, suggest changes to the policies - but if you refuse to abide by consensus in your actions, I cannot support your candidacy.<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately I must oppose this user becoming an admin due to his views and actions on [[WP:BLP]] articles. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' for the by now well-known BLP and V reasons. Sorry for piling it on.
'''Oppose''' Absolutely not. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable.  There's sometimes leniency, but never on BLP.  I'm also appalled that you would think that a "personal communication" would qualify as a reliable source.  --'''
'''Oppose''' - Circumstances under which adminship was resigned seem to indicate immaturity.  You had one chance and you gave it up, despite dozens of editors asking you to reconsider.  This was your choice, and now you must live with it.
'''Oppose''' - "I am nominating myself for administrator status." You clearly do not understand the role of an administrator. Also per above arguments.
Oppose, BLP issue is too serious. If there is no source how do we know whether it be true?
'''Oppose''' per all the people that have said stuff about your opinion on [[WP:BLP|BLPs]]. While I get that writing about an ancestor without using sources ''is'' tempting, it really isn't okay per a bunch of policies. If not for the BLP thing I'd support. Sorry,
This is completely unnecessary.
'''Neutral''' for now, although I might switch to support later, depending on him expounding his BLP statement.
'''Neutral'''. (moved from Support) <strike>I see a very experienced editor, and an ex-admin who I really don't think had any cause to resign in the first place. --
'''Neutral''' I find no compelling reason to oppose, particularly considering that the candidate's first sysop nomination passed with flying colors; however, I find the way he voluntarily resigned after getting his feathers ruffled by a 'crat to be problematic. I hope that I'll be able to switch this to 'support' after being convinced that this second nomination comes with a little backbone.--
'''Neutral''' I've moved here due to the comments brought up in the opposes.
'''Neutral''' Agree with [[User:Hokeman|Hokeman]]. --<font color="black">
'''Neutral''' per the above opposes I cannot support at this time.  The BLP issue cannot be overstated and is one of the most important on Wikipedia today. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''' -Per issues on BLP, but candidate was still a good admin back then. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Derild4921|Derild4921]] ([[User talk:Derild4921|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|contribs]]) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
'''Neutral''' moved from support per my reasoning above on why I changed my mind. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
'''Neutral''' due to BLP concerns, but given your past editing history, I'm unwilling to oppose. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Neutral'''. I would support, but cannot in light of your views on BLP. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
<small>Moved from support</small> '''Neutral''' in agreement with concerns raised with the BLP policy. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I can't decide whether you are opposed to BLP policy to the extent that you would ignore it (as appears to be the case in the Josie article) or whether you are simply expressing disagreement with a policy but still willing to go along with it (which would be absolutely a-ok!). I hope that this is cleared up by yourself later, preferably with some evidence to back your statements up.
'''Neutral''' Withdraw the <s>AfD</s>RfA and ask for the bit back while you still can get it back, or withdraw the <s>AfD</s>RfA and don't ask for it back.  This is a pointless RfA, and the "mood" of RfA has turned back into a lynch mob, where it will remain for a while until someone else starts whining about how we need many many more administrators regardless of quality.  Had you started this RfA last month, you undoubtedly would have been endorsed, but your timing appears to be poor.  Oh, and you didn't need to do this anyways, so the fact that you did is a mark of poor judgment.
Neutral, would have liked you to have just requested the bit back... I think you would have gotten it back without an issue.  But now, you've tied the hands of the 'crats.  Don't want to dig in to this to give a "real" !vote one way or another as it appears to be doomed due to BLP issues... but I'm not going to oppose as I think this was unnecessary to begin with.  (Which is actually an argument for admin recall/reconfirmation.)---'''
'''Neutral''' Richard, if you come out with an open and strong statement that clarifies that yes, you accept some of your views were/are mistaken when compared to our policies/guidelines, then I can assure you that my vote will be yours in your next RfA where you prove your commitment to the words through your contributions. Why can't I oppose you now? Because I respect the fact that you were an administrator contributing to the mop-bit. Why can't I support you? Because it would indicate  approval, to whatever extent, to your stands on certain issues - and I really do not stand in that quarter. Do consider this Richard. I've seen this community being extremely forgiving. Especially to editors who believe they can come up and accept their issues to the community. If you believe I'm wrong, it's all right, it's your view. If you believe I'm right, then do it. With sincere regards and hopes that I see you as an administrator with us soon.
'''Neutral''' You should have just requested your bit back without an RFA. It's bizarre, but true - had you done so, quite possibly, nobody would have blinked twice, and I presume you would have been careful enough with the BLP policy as it is now to not cause any issues. But now you've asked to be assessed again, and BLP issues are enough to prevent me supporting. There's an obvious problem with a system that allows me to say what I just did, and it's not your fault at all - but asked the question I am, in the situation as it is, I can't support. I am genuinely sorry. You've fallen foul of a system that seems, here, to penalise your honesty. I wish I could vote otherwise - but the situation doesn't permit me to. &nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. I've seen a lot of good work in randomly trawling through edits, and I have no objection at all to somebody with a past record of creating stubby or incomplete articles - it can even be seen as making opportunities for other editors, as the first step is the toughest, and by creating an article that is good enough to survive new page patrol, you've got it "over the hump". On the other hand I cannot support the implication that "''but I know it's true''" trumps what the sources say; whch is not just an issue for BLPs, but for articles in general. Apart from the pure vandals, a lot of the folk who come here and make bad changes that get reverted ''genuinely believe'' what they're saying - they really believe that astrology makes useful predictions, or that xbox is vastly superior to PS3, or that political party X is way better than political party Y; and this is a problematic approach that should be addressed wherever it is found. Since we do not have a mechanism for ensuring that editors themselves are reliable sources, the only way to build encyclopaedic content is to build it on external reliable sources. On another point, I agree with UncleDouggie above, to an extent; I think that the candidate would have easily got the bit back by asking for it directly; it might be meaningful to say that the "community" scuppered this, but that's just the proximal cause and it seems to be widely acknowledged that RfA is tough these days - I think the root cause is the candidate setting higher standards for themself. Setting higher standards is often good, but we have to accept that there's a chance of failing to meet them (if there's ''no'' chance of failing to meet a toughened standard then there's something seriously wrong with the toughening). Sorry for the TLDR rant.
'''Neutral''' Has lots of great contributions, but I am concerned about this user's perception of [[WP:BLP]].
I see no issues here. Richwales should make a great admin.
Per nom. &nbsp; <b>
'''Strong Support''' Still awaiting answer to Q7, but answer to Q5 and Q6 are spot on. Excellent balance of vandal fighting and content work.
'''Support''' Thank you for your payment to my bank account.  I received the contribution.  I support your candidacy. :p
Q4 was aced, in my view. I suggest that anyone who disagrees with the block (I don't) nonetheless considers that all important points were covered, and the candidate showed he knows admin misconduct when he sees it. Otherwise, everything looks great. The candidate is clearly an excellent communicator (see edit summaries) which will serve him well with the tools. --
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers to the questions, no problems that I could find in the edit history; seems to have a good temperament and understanding of policy.
'''Support''' per answers to Q1-7, which show a responsible and considered attitude to the use of the tools.
'''Support'''. Good contributions and a good history of interactions with other editors. A bold response to questions 4 & 5. It is true that admins are expected to have a higher standard of conduct.
'''Support''' Has clue... and knowledge... and a clean block log after 5 years... I think it's time for me to go ahead and support this nomination.
Good answers to the questions and has more than enough experience. I have only seen good contributions from Rich and the mop will help him make even more of them.
Why not? — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;">
Your response to question nine was well done.  In response to your answer to question four, I would advise you to perhaps contact the admin first, directly, and demand that they revert their own edit.  As an administrator, you can do the right thing in this situation without using your button.  It would not be wrong to block the admin, but it would possibly be more correct to take a less drastic method.  Nonetheless, it appears that you are qualified to do administrative work.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' He has a lot of experience, so he should be fine.
'''Strong Support''' per answers to questions. Not even looking at the relatively low edit count (by today's RfA standards), this user has a great understanding of policies and dispute resolution. '''
<strong>
'''Support''' very longterm user with a clean blocklog and no real negatives that I could see. Technically yes Malleus is right in that Admins shouldn't get fewer warnings than other editors, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that we should be setting an example, and therefore will not oppose for his views on that. ''
'''Support''' Good answer to Q4, and the diff LoveMonkey cites below is the kind to aspire to. :-) --
'''Support''' Not seeing any issues. ➜[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:maroon; font-family:'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, sans-serif;">Gƒoley</span>]][[User talk:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen; font-family:papyrus;">Four</span>]]
'''Support'''. I like the answers to the optional questions.
'''Support''' Per #1 & #2.
'''Support''' Canceling out some of the ridiculous opposes, I don't see a problem with you.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' Good answers and sustained effort throughout.
'''Support''' – Good answers to the questions. <span style="font-family:Verdana; font-color:#000000;">—'''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions. As someone who [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikiFanatic|became an admin]] with a good deal of time experience, but arguably limited editing experience, I have confidence that you can do what is expected of an admin without four thousand edits being a concern.
'''Support'''. This editor's history convince me he would have a steady and unbiased hand on the tiller. Criticism as to number of edits is just silly since any drone can accumulate thousands of brainless edits. I see an attempt to create quality rather than acquire quantity. --
'''Strong Support''' - Answers to the questions above, as well as a review of some recent contributions show me that Richwales won't abuse the tools. Definitely a good candidate!
'''Support''' Cerebral answers to questions combined with the candidate's long-term commitment to the project make a strong case for support; however, I do have to confess that I'm somewhat stunned at the level of opposition to this nom.--
'''Support'''. I believe he is a experienced editor, who has proven himself to be ready for the role of becoming an admin. --
'''Support'''. I can appreciate what some of the opposes say about wanting more contributions, and ideally, I would have preferred that too, but other factors make me support. I think that the answers to questions here have been very strong. I see an impressive ability to conduct himself in the ways that I want administrators to act, in areas where there are strong content disputes, and these things taken together give me confidence to support. In fact, I'm concerned that a big part (not all) of the opposition is simply what comes with doing good editing in areas where opinions run high, and I don't want to see that scuttle this RfA. Specifically, I'm very interested in building NPOV at pages dealing with religious controversies, and so I've just spent some time reviewing at length the page histories concerning the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox subjects that are discussed in some of the opposes. I've had a lot of experience working closely with Esoglou/Lima at [[Crucifixion]] for as long as I've been editing here, and more recently with Taiwan boi at [[Christianity and violence]], and I've found both of them to be very good editors to work with, so it caught my attention to see how they regard this RfA so differently. I've very carefully reviewed Richwales' comments at the talk pages of the involved editors, and, bottom line, I think Rich has been spot on. Oh, and that high dudgeon about whether decapitation is medically reversible (something quite different from spinal cord regrowth, I assure you!) is hardly worth discussing. --
'''support''' This editor seems to me to both skilled and careful. If he does not have as high an edit frequency as many other editors, then so be it. Surely quality is better than quantity. Many of the oppose votes seem to me to be excessively superficial, and having read them all and followed the relevant links I personally find them unconvincing.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I see no issues. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' - while I understand the concerns about activity, I simply can't see opposing someone for having a real life. Perhaps that shows more restraint than most of us! In consideration of the possibility of Rich being a bit fast/heavy with the blocks, Lovemonkey's link balances that out for me. For the record, I agree with his answer to Q4 and theoretical block of the theoretical Mkativerata. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''. Lots of clue, even temperament, displays a strong disposition towards administrative work. Will be a net positive overall I believe. --
'''Support'''  no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - Although some editors have raised concerns about his edit count, consistent activity levels proves his dedication and perseverance to the project even after five years. I think he can improve on his referencing skillset given time. He understands WP:MOP is a privilege and not a god given right or trophy from his answers to the questions. I don't think he will tear the house down given the tools as he is a level headed, methodical and logical operator of reasons and persuasion for content disputes and actions of other editors.--
'''Support''' The track record is impressive, editing count is low, but seems to have a general quality to edits. I think him trustworthy, valiant attempt at queries, Net benefit.
'''Support''' I normally avoid RfAs like the plague, but I've interacted with Richwales for some time now, and I know him to be a solid, even-keeled contributor with good judgment. No danger of misusing the tools.--
'''Support''' I see he is an experienced wikipedian. –
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. I trust you would use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' - No problems that I can see, and I don't consider a small edit count to deny someone who would clearly use the tools access to them.
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions, no other problems that I think are major factors.
'''Weak Support:''' Not quite there yet. -
'''support''' Some concerns but overall looks good.
'''Support''' Has shown that he would be a helpful and polite administrator. I think edit count is not of the highest importance, since adding content is not the principal task of an administrator.
'''Support''' To keep up his faith in applying again...
'''Support.''' Not terribly concerned about edit count. Candidate contributes regularly and diligently (which is really all that should matter), and would be a net positive. ~~
'''Support.''' Dispute resolution is a very important thing here.  It allows dissenting editors to move on and improve the articles they had been battling on.  But it requires a lot of homework, and it doesn't do much for the edit count, so many editors (me included) often back away when things get hot and heavy.  We all have all strengths and weaknesses in our editing patterns, but I think a strong skill in mediation outweighs the content-creation weakness mentioned in many of the opposing votes.  If Richwales will make this a focus of his adminship, I think he would be a valuable addition to the admin ranks.
'''Support''' - as per [[WP:Net Positive]].
'''Support'''. I had every intention of voting to oppose based on number of edits. These exercises seem to turn on answering arcane questions of policy sometimes. But they are often about watching the way the candidate handles himself/herself, and the way he/she can handle constructive criticism and suggestions. So I'm going out on a limb, in spite of a low edit count, based on this candidate's response to questions. This candidate has the attitude, flexibility and humility I seek in an admin. Hope you make it.
'''Support''' - spending 24/7 on Wikipedia is not a requirement for adminship. --
'''Support''' - Welcome to RFA (Requisite For Abuse) before getting those extra buttons.  All to often, we hear the phrase "...Administration privileges are no big deal".  However, in the RFA process, it seems like this is a motto that is more often mouthed than followed. After reading the Oppose opinions, looking at your edit history, reviewing the requirements for administration privileges, I have to come down on the side of support. Your edit count is low, when compared to a user that who utilizes automated tools.  However, all your edits where done manually.  This shows me that you take the time  to review what you are doing and I can find no technical faults with your edits other than ones based on opinion, such as the one pointed out by [[User:Colonel Warden| Colonel Warden]] and question 9  Both clearly an opinion call, unless we call in the Wikilawyers, and there I guareentee you, it would be a split decision.  Overall, I find your edits clearly a net positive that far outweigh any negatives expressed so far.   I trust this will carry over to the availabilty of those extra buttons.   Good luck. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - ShoesssS's answer is persuasive to me.
'''Support'''  I've known Rich sometime now and I have always been impressed with his fastidiously neutral attitude in certain article hotspots. This implies a steady hand, a nice attribute when you hold the block button. As far as his content work is concerned, adminning is really not a content creation-oriented activity anyway. Why then should we demand content experience for admins? I am not convinced with this line of reasoning. So support it is.
'''Support''' I think he knows what he's doing; even if he's not 100% perfect, I don't see any indication that he would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No one can be perfect, and though flaws are evident, he would be a great admin. '''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124;
'''Support''' - sufficiently experienced to know what he would be doing with the tools and sufficiently clueful to use them properly. I'm not convinced by the opposes; he was tripped up by a tricky question and misused the word 'vandalism' in an edit summary, but I don't think either of those indicate serious long-term problems.
'''Support'''.  I am not convinced by the opposes either.  Rich will do fine with the tools.
'''Oppose'''. This candidate appears to have no significant content experience; the last thing wikipedia needs right now is yet more career administrators lording it over those who are actually trying to produce some decent content. The candidate mentions ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'', to which he has 75 edits, as one his biggest and best pieces of work, yet it is almost completely uncited and has contained two request for citation tags since June. This does not seem to be setting a good example. I'm also troubled by the answer to Q4. Administrators should be held to exactly the same standards as any other editor, neither higher nor lower. That and the answers to several other questions give me the distinct impression that this candidate might be altogether too keen to be handed the block hammer.
'''Oppose'''. This person should not be an administrator. This person has been defending [[User:Esoglou]] and covering for this biased and POV pushing editor while not once publicly criticizing Esoglou for his various edit wars and wiki hounding behavior go look at Esoglou's talkpage and thats only the tip of the iceberg. This person is hypercritical and blinded and therefore will just contribute to making even more editors leave the project because of administrator protecting their their pet editors and those pet editors edit warring activities. The fact this person is up for administrator is proof of just how mess up wikipedia has become. Richwales already acts like and administrator as the inappropriate comments he posted to my talkpage today shows. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALoveMonkey&action=historysubmit&diff=401680337&oldid=399819880]
'''Oppose''' – I can't see why he needs the tools. One of the stated uses would be vandlaism fighting; but looking at his <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Richwales&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia edit figures]</span>, he has made less than five reports to WP:AIV. (WP:AIV doesn't show up on his most edited pages in the Wikipedia name space while the last, and least edited, one on the list has five edits.) If he's rolled back "far more edits than [he] can count", but has only made at most 5 AIV reports then he either misunderstands what vandalism is, or misunderstand AIV. Over a six year period that isn't a lot at all. From a content point of view, well, five new articles in six years isn't what I'd expect. I'd like to see more experience ''at the coal face'' before giving anyone a promotion. I counted ten months, out of the last 70, where the user made more than 100 edits per month, i.e. more than four a day. The activity levels just aren't high enough. We need someone who's around, in touch and contributing. If he gains more experience in AIV, increase his involvement in the project, and produce more content then I would happily reconsider. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">—
'''Oppose''' For multiple reasons, primarily because they have a huge lack of experience. User only has 4,000 edits, and in six years time that shows a lack of activity that isn't desirable for an admin. First, I agree with Malleus about the lack of content experience. In addition, doesn't seem to have experience in the areas they intend to work. Virtually ''no'' experience in the Wikipedia namespace whatsoever (less than 200 edits!). Only ten edits at [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]], and apparently less than five reports at [[WP:AIV]]! Are any of the 'why nots' actually looking at this user, or do they just not care? Although I disdain [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS]], the edit counts alone show a lack of experience that I can't trust in. Response to Q7 gives me the impression that user is unfamiliar with [[WP:No vested contributors]]. Some of their other answers are unsatisfying to me as well, but my real issue is the huge lack of experience. Also per their answers to Q4 and Q9. ''
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience, lack of activity, inadequate use of citations, and I have seen him observe an edit war without significant intervention or contributions towards resolution. On the "Theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox" page Catholic editor [[User:Esoglou]] repeatedly made POV edits misrepresenting the Orthodox position (improperly sourced edits, misrepresentation of sources), and engaged in extended edit warring. Several times I made the suggestion that the [[User:Esoglou]] confine himself to edits which discuss the Catholic position, and that [[User:LoveMonkey]] confine himself to those which discuss the Orthodox position (which he was mostly doing anyway), in order to try and reduce the friction. I also opposed [[User:Esoglou]]'s disruptive editing. Richard observed the edit warring but made very few attempts to resolve the situation, other than a couple of requests that people stop edit warring. Richard rightly commented that the article needed to be reduced drastically in size, but didn't do anything about it. I made some bold edits, removing extensive material on specific subjects to the respective subject pages, which finally defused the edit warring on the page, a move which Richard supported. I would have liked to have seen Richard take active steps to resolving the problem, especially since the entire issue was the result of one consistently disruptive editor, [[User:Esoglou]].--
'''Oppose''' - User just doesn't have enough ''involvement'' or ''experience'' for me to support at this time.
'''Oppose''' I sample his contributions and immediately find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decapitation&diff=prev&oldid=358551297 this edit] to [[decapitation]].  These are quite assertive statements of fact and yet no reference is provided to verify or substantiate them.  The candidate does not seem to have relevant qualifications or expertise which would make him an authority on this topic and so is presenting his own opinion of the topic in an improper way.
(Moved from neutral) Well, no wonder you state in question 4 that you're willing to block a user for "edit warring" because they repeatedly removed unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially [[Wikipedia:Libel|libelous]] material about an organization: you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself! "It's obvious" is an inadequate excuse: if the truth of the material were plainly apparent, there would be no purpose in inflicting such useless banalities upon the reader.
'''Oppose''' I'm generally inclined to be more liberal in supporting RFAs, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anchor_baby&diff=prev&oldid=401012483 this edit] (the one Sandstein referenced) clearly isn't vandalism.  I wasn't convinced by the answer you gave to his question either.
'''Oppose''' Low content experience is never a good thing. Plus most edits to the pages indicated seem to be routine Vadalism Reverts. Articles s/he is proud of lack sources.
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. Level-headed editor with [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|clue]] and a long history of contributing, but the following concerns accumulate and make me feel uneasy (see also my conversation with [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] above): <small><!--Copying sig for the RFA bot to parse authorship. --> --
'''Oppose''' The answers to question 4 and 5 are a failure. Immediately blocking an administrator? Administrators are expected to lead by example, but it is also understood they are human and make occasional mistakes. That's from [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]. That policy page does NOT indicate that administrators should be blocked without warning because they are expected to know proper behavior and being an administrator have already, in effect, been warned. Acting in this manner is far more likely to result in a serious problem than attempting to calm the situation via other means. This elevation of administrators to a higher standard, a higher status is upsetting. Participate more in Wikipedia space, learn the ropes, understand what administrators contend with on a routine basis, and learn to appreciate they aren't any more or less of an editor than anyone else here. --
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 4 is extremely concerning to me. A 24 hour block for what reason? Punitive, preventative? Because the user is an admin and "should know better"? I just loath this sort of admining of wikipedia and do not wish to see more of it. A very dubious block with no discussion, no warning, no taking the issue to ANI etc. We have enough admins doing that sort of thing we do not need another.
<s>Dreadful</s> Not the best answer to Q4. Admins should be <u>no more</u> and <u>no less</u> subject to blocks and due process around them - half the whining that goes on around here is about "the cabal" after all. It ''should'' be a level playing field - whatever your user rights you get the same treatment. Immediate blocks without notice are used in only rare cases, mostly post checkuser evidence. Blocking people on the basis that they "should know better" treats us all like seven year olds. Naughty step anyone? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Sounds much too block happy, and despite his good qualities, we don't need block-happy admins.
'''Oppose''' – I am concerned about the lack of quality contributions made so far. Work on the mainspace some more and make sure you understand what [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] entails, and I'd be willing to support in the future. –
'''Oppose''' per Q4 answer.  Admins should be treated no differently to any other user, regardless of experience. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience with content, deletion, or the stated area of work, AIV. You don't have to make a layover at FAC before coming back here, but I do think you need more general "hand in the machine" experience.
'''Oppose'''. I have read through the responses to questions and while I do believe admins have a responsibility to set a good example, that does not mean they are or should be better editors, or be treated differently when it comes to misconduct. The answer to question 4 is problematic on many levels. First there is a willingness to block without warning, when other approaches might diffuse disagreement. Second, while the candidate believes blocks are preventative rather than punitive, there is no clear indication here exactly what harm is being prevented and indeed significant suggestion of punishment for being a bad admin. Third, and most seriously for me, the candidate then proposes to suggest to the blocked admin that they "''use some of that time looking for the kind of acceptable sources that the other editor is apparently having trouble locating''"! This shows absolutely no tact or "clue" whatsoever, and suggests an "I know better than you" attitude that is very unhealthy in adminship. ''
'''Oppose''' The idea of warning people that one dislikes their conduct seems to have entirely escaped this candidate; yet sometimes it works.
'''Oppose'''. Per question 9. Sick of seeing these accusations of 'vandalism' from non-admins, the last thing I want is an admin doing it. Answer is completely unconvincing.
'''Oppose''' - you don't need to be at the top of [[WP:WBFAN]] to be an admin, but you do need to have an idea of the work involved in developing an article. Q4 is also concerning. Candidate needs more experience with the day-to-day affairs of Wikipedia before being granted the tools.
'''Oppose''' This is a candidate who I think has the potential to be an admin at some point in the future, but who does not appear to have the experience and editing history to justify handing over the reins. More experience editing in mainspace is one of the factors that would sway my opinion in the future.
'''Oppose''' Per Q4 and Q9. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' due to a lack of content contributions, and also poor answers to questions as alluded above.
'''Oppose''' Lack of good judgement and too little actual experience. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''. Lack of good judgement, experience in admin areas and some answers which left me with no option but to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. In my opinion, admins should present a bit more commitment to the project, along with demonstrated knowledge, rather than showing that they are able to answer the questions to (almost) everybody's satisfaction. I would prefer to see practical demonstration of the appropriate action in content development, article deletion, and dispute resolution. I don't expect perfection, just experience in various areas of the project in which admins generally lend their support on a daily basis. I would give it at least another six months with focused efforts in gaining some practical experience and knowledge. This candidate leaves me with no idea how the tools would be used. That said, thanks for throwing your hat in the ring. Try again in six months. Best regards, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">
'''Weak oppose''' for a number of things highlighted above. Mainly inexperience that is 'obvious', lack of content, Q4, Q9. I would support at a later time but not yet. Regards,
'''Oppose''', concerns about content experience, and temperament. -- '''
Sorry, but I find the answer to my question, no. 9, unsatisfactory. The correct response would have been something like: "sorry, I know that obstinately disagreeing with me about matters of content is not the same as vandalism, it was a slip of the keyboard and it won't happen again." Also I share some of the concerns above about the lack of substantial article writing. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. I see the potential for you to be an excellent admin (not least in the way you've handled criticism at this RfA): but I do not think that potential will be realised if you pass this RfA. Get some more experience, and try again when you're ready.
'''Oppose.''' It's all been said above, but I also found the answer to No. 9 to be off the mark. That's not the only reason, but again, it's all been said, supra. Perhaps try again in a year.
'''Oppose''' - I don't have confidence in this candidate.  Mainly because of lack of experience and their answers to several of the questions as other users have pointed out.  --'''
'''Oppose'''.  Unfortunately, per above.  Concerns with judgment and policy knowledge.  Maybe next time. -'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry.  You specifically state that you want to do anti-vandalism work, yet just up until this week you've had a mistaken assumption on what vandalism is and is not.  You need more experience in this work before being able to block vandals. '''
'''Oppose'''. Serious concerns about answers to questions. Candidate appears to not understand the accepted definition of vandalism, and is too eager to resort to blocking.
'''Oppose''' per Q9.  For someone who wants to use the mop to fight vandalism, this user should know that "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring" ([[WP:VAND]]).  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 &#124;
'''Oppose''' I appreciate the second addendum to q9, although in some sense it goes too far; now you don't appear to be willing to call vandalism what it is and deal with it appropriately. While not treating nonvandals like vandals is arguably more important, I think being able to confidently and correctly distinguish vandalism from other problematic kinds of edits is also very important - especially for an admin who intends to focus on dealing with edit warring and vandalism. Wrt q4, from your comments to Mkativerata on your user page, you seem to think that KMalaysia has crossed the 3rr line, but KMalaysia has not. I don't know if this was a counting mistake or a misunderstanding of the rule, and in any case your plan to use {{tl|uw-3rr}} and not block is correct, but "for the wrong reasons" as they say. Also I don't read [[WP:ADMIN#Administrator conduct]] as saying they are "more blockable". I don't necessarily think the block was completely wrong, but I think admins should be blocked exactly when others are blocked; to have a different standard means that you are essentially using the blocks as a punitive measure rather than a preventative one, I think.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I rarely weigh in on these, and never oppose, but not enough experience for me. <font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Oppose'''. Very little content experience considering that Rich has been editing for four years, and there are too many problems in the material zie seems most proud of.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club, and admins  should have demonstrated a sustained ability to build the encyclopedia in accordance with policy ... but I don't see that here.  Plus, the answers to questions suggest that Richwales would be far too trigger-happy with the block button. --
'''Oppose''' - per concerns over experience and judgment. —<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-variant:small-caps;">'''[[User:Ancapp|<font color=red>Ancient Apparition</font>]] •
'''Oppose''' Lack of significant amount of content building with proper referencing. I hate to pile on since some of the opposition here is piling on with stuff I don't agree with, but I cannot trust your judgment at this time. '''
'''Oppose''' In my view admins ''must'' have a strong history of content creation. Without this experience, I don't think it is possible to understand the effort that goes into building the encyclopaedia, and the hard work, difficulties and frustrations involved. I don't want to see admins solely acting as the "managers" of all our precious content creators. Most readers come to Wikipedia to read our articles. This is not Facebook. To see so little content creation in so many years is not good.
I don't think you'll be a ''bad'' administrator, but I see several things that I usually don't like seeing at RfA: relatively low activity levels since 2005 (your "record" was 368 edits in one month, and your average is around 100 edits/month), relatively low number of edits to projectspace/projecttalkspace, few edits to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] (as you want to work in vandalism patrol), and relatively low number of edits in general (relative to most RfA candidates that I support, that is). The attitude I have seen from you is something I like, even though I disagree a bit with your answer to Q4. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
The concerns over inactivity etc are concerning, but not enough on their own to prevent me from supporting. However, Malleus raises a valid point about the zeal with which Rich might swing the banhammer, though I probably would have blocked the hypothetical Mkativerata because I tend to prefer blocks to shutting all editors out of an article. I get the impression that there are some situations in which you might act without considering all the options. Those concerns are enough to prevent me from supporting, but, like Fetch, I don't think you'd be a "bad" admin, so I'm not opposing.
Not convinced either way. The candidate seems trustworthy, but their lack of experience and inactivity worry me. '''
Very great candidate, but the lack of activity bothers me. -
'''Neutral''' -- Not now --
I'm not sure, so I'll place my !vote here. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Strong Neutral''' (Moved from support) From all the things I read from the question to the oppose content I'm not having a good feeling about this user. He doesn't seem fit to handle the mop.
'''Neutral''' <small>(Moved from support)</small> The opposes raises valid concerns, which prevent me from supporting with a clear conscience - however, they are not strong enough to change my !vote to an oppose, hence I'm sitting on this sofa instead. -- '''''
'''Neutral''' Definitely clueful, but needs more experience in more areas. --
'''Oppose'''  Just 122 edits. Sorry, nowhere near enough experience to be an admin. '''
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]'''  Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience or understanding of policy. [[WP:NOTNOW|Maybe later]]. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience to wield the mop safely. ''<B>--

'''Oppose''' Sorry, I'd like to see a bit more experience. 600 edits is too low for me.
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Try again later... I want to see more edits and experience.
'''Oppose''' - I don't want to come off as too harsh here, but as I approach 40 ''thousand'' edits I only now begin to fully comprehend how complex an admin's job really is.  And you not only have to have a solid grasp of policy here - you have to have proven moral authority and world-class patience.  Since an admin appointment is forever, this particular Rfa won't attract much support.  Suggest a minimum of six months of growth and involvement before trying again.  Also suggest candidate withdraw, or that this Rfa be closed asap under [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' not enough experience in admin related section of Wikipedia. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]], [[User:Davidwr/Administration_is_not_for_new_users|Administration isn't for New Users (Essay)]] and Only 575 Live Edits.  Try again In about 6 Months - Year [[User:Floul1|Floul1]] | [[User_Talk:Floul1|My Talkpage]] |
'''Oppose''' 600 edits is quite low but not too low (I usually care more of the quality of edits than of quantity), and speaking of a poor answer to Q1, I highly suggest that [[WP:Admin Coaching]] is a good place to start before becoming an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[Wikipedia:NOTNOW]]. Please read the guide to current practice on [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] & [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]], and try again after some months with more experience.
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not yet]]. not even 300 edits, answers to questions aren't very good, and over half of the edits are to userspace. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Your heart appears to be in the right place, but you need a lot more time and experience before you can be seriously considered for adminship.  Spend more time and effort familiarizing yourself with the various aspects of Wikipedia, and consider another RfA after several months and a few thousand more edits.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, but it is just too early. You have less than 50 contributions in article namespace. --
'''Oppose''' way, way too early. I like the candidate's enthusiasm for the project; however 240 edits, 41 to articlespace simply isn't enough time invested in the project--
'''Neutral''' - I'm happy that you're enthusiastic about the project, but you might want to read [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I don't think you have enough experience, particularly in admin-related areas. Get involved with AfD, CSD, RfA, AIV, etc and come back in a year with many thousands of edits under your belt and you might be ready for the tools. Regards,
'''Comment''' - Not opposing, because I'd prefer to encourage you. I can't support you, because you don't have enough experience to be seeking adminship right now. Your contributions are not enough to demonstrate that you have the knowledge and experience required. I'd also reiterate the recommendation to read [[WP:NOTNOW]], and a great idea would be to look through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to carry on and increase your involvement, and try again when you have those levels of experience. '''N'''ot '''C'''apitalising '''E'''very '''W'''ord '''I'''n '''A''' '''S'''entence may be something to consider, too - in all seriousness, this is a project to build an encyclopedia, which follows a [[WP:MOS|manual of style]]. Whilst it is certainly not necessary to post everything in project space and talk space according to the MOS, it is likely to raise a few eyebrows and cause a little concern if something like an RFA is so oddly formatted.  &nbsp;
'''Beat-the-nom support''' - Good candidate. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
Extremely sensible user.
'''Support'''.  Have noticed this user a lot around DRV/AfD and was a little shocked when I found out they weren't already an admin.  Recent more direct dealings have only reinforced my view that they are ready for the tools.
'''Wait a minute''' - he isn't already? (no, seriously, I thought he was one already) {{ec}}--
'''Support''' Per last time. Regards '''
Cautious, conscientious, sensible, experienced.  Also, I'm feeling guilty that I gave you a bit of a hard time the last time around :) - Dank (
Yeah, of course.
Oh, wow.  You're the guy I !voted neutral on last time simply because you didn't seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for being an admin.  While my !vote didn't really affect the RfA since it was neutral, I've regretted it ever since.  Good admins are always a net positive regardless of their activity level. You'll be a great administrator. '''
'''Support''',
'''Support'''; I've seen this user making cogent comments at AfD. S/He shows ample evidence of having spent time in the Wikipedia trenches, kept a cool head, and demonstrated respect for policy and consensus.
'''Support''' ready for the mop. ''<B>--
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Only concern I found is not enough action taken against vandalism, but that's not much to worry about on top all the good things. --
'''Support''' S Marshall is an excellent candidate for admin.  --
'''Support''' S Marshall is one of the most thoughtful contributors on Wikipedia. Displays sensible judgment while remaining respectful and calm in discussions. Has a great amount of experience and should have been an administrator long ago.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' AfD decisions can clearly be quite tricky sometimes, and itneeds people with a good head for evaluating consensus with respect to policy and who will act in an unbiased and uninvolved manner. I think S Marshall fulfills those criteria admirably --
'''Support''' to, hopefully, offset oppose number 1's logical fallacy. S Marshall has an almost unreasonably cool head, something the admin corps always needs.
'''Support.''' Long-term editor with decent content contributions and thoughtful contributions to the AfD process.
'''Support''' No issues. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
Seems to be a good candidate. No problems that I have seen.
Support as co-nom. Obviously.
'''Support''' A very good candidate. I am always impressed (even on the occasions I don't agree) with S Marshall's thoughtfulness on matters of deletion. Having the tools will be a significant benefit to the project in this area. Also impressed with backing up a failed FAC with an RFA. S Marshall is clearly a sucker for rigorous community scrutiny...! I have considered the opposes below and will consider any more that follow, but they don't - and are unlikely to - change my mind. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' with cautions in matters of [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. The candidate's early ''Keep'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politicide&diff=363231625&oldid=363228793 closure] on [[Politicide]], (in which the candidate had ![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politicide&diff=363104731&oldid=363104056 voted]), resulted in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politicide&diff=prev&oldid=363232023 soft-redirect] to Wiktionary by the candidate. I approve of this solution, but this sort of early closure and non-keep ''Keep'' might stoke controversy. Please be careful. /
'''Support''' IIRC I first encountered S Marshall when I turned up on his talk page asking for a translation of a French source. He was very helpful, and subsequent interactions confirmed my initial good impression. As others have commented, I believe S Marshall to be a thoughtful editor, as demonstrated by his decision not to get involved in a content discussion when I asked him to provide a translation; I think in that instance stating he had no interest in getting involved in the discussion and that the translation would be his only contribution was a smart move. Using discretion when wielding the tools and knowing which areas you are comfortable to use them in is important. In my opinion content work is a big plus for someone who wants to be an administrator as it shows the candidate is here for the right reasons, ie: writing an encyclopedia. Question 4 suggests a great deal of maturity to me and that S Marshall understands the importance of consensus. As for archiving-box-gate below, I'm not convinced it's worth an oppose, but it does perhaps bear commenting on. The action – while perhaps not the best course – appears to have been taken to stem an unhelpful discussion (something RfA is renowned for, although it wasn't the worst by a long shot); it didn't work out that way and perhaps wasn't necessary, but admins aren't meant to be infallible and if you find one who claims to be they're either joking or deluded. People make mistakes, what's important is learning from them and I'm sure S Marshall will take on Pedro's point about unnecessarily curtailing discussion. Overall, my interactions with S Marshall have left me with the impression of a level-headed, intelligent user who will use the tools sensibly.
'''Weak support''' Perfect combination of humor, mainspace contributions, specialty contributions, and interwiki translations. Yes, the collapsable did push me a little closer to the fence, but c'mon: Are we really going to jump from Support to Oppose because of one mistake out of an otherwise brilliant handling of his RFA? I think not. Cheers. <b><font color="brown">
'''Support''' Outstanding editor.
'''Support'''- (a) Clear reason to have the tools, (b) Sufficient experience to use tools with minimum of mistakes, (c) Acceptable conflict resolution skills and ability to learn from mistakes, (d) No reason to believe he will deliberately misuse the tools. -
'''Support''' - solely because he has a [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] logo on his user page.  I would just like to cancel out Keepscases' equally ridiculous !vote rationale with my own.  I am an active Pastafarian, and I find it ''extremely'' offensive that someone would label it is as "absurd".
The [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] is a mockery of people's deeply held religious beliefs.  It is possible to not believe in religion, and/or not want it to be any part of government, without pretending to believe in something absurd, ready to pounce with the "it's just as likely as Jesus!" confrontation.  You want religion out of government?  I want fake religion out of Wikipedia government.
'''Oppose''' 1) Rfa is not a vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S_Marshall_2&diff=364168654&oldid=364159325] 2) Heading off discussion by collapse box at your own RFA seems extremly wrong headed and way to forthright 3) I can only assume you'll use similar tricks with the admin tools to quell commentary and to achieve consensus by counting numbers. No thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Per above comments.  Also I don't think he has enough content focus, only about 50% of his edits are to articles and their talkpages.  --'''
'''Oppose''' the last thing we need is another admin who is weak regarding BLPs.  Absolutely not.
Regretfully per Pedro's oppose. Could've at least moved it to the talk page or something rather than just hide it, leaving the impression that the discussion is closed. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Neutral''', as per the collapsing incident here, and the response to it. I am concerned that you would think that collapsing a discussion with the rationale that there is no purpose to further discussion/argument, especially one which you are involved in/that pertains to you, is a good idea. However, on the most part, you seem to be a good candidate for adminship, thus I am not lead to oppose. However, I feel uncomfortable supporting here. Whilst badgering is something to avoid, stifling discussion with the sole reason of avoiding drama on a legitimate comment could be problematic with some areas of the project. Wikipedia only works because consensus is gained through discussions, and even if they may become heated, passionate, and involve users views, they should still be allowed to take place if they are constructive in any way. Apologies if I am over-reacting, but this does worry me somewhat. --'''
'''Neutral''' Waiting to fully investigate candidates contributions, currently leaning towards support.
No hesitation.
I don't know anything about the drama of May, so I'll base my support on non-admin contributions since then, whilst bearing in mind all contributions. I can't see a good reason to oppose, and lots of good ones to support.
Per Ged UK.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
I wasn't around for the events that led to the necessity of recall/this confirmation, so, like Ged and Giants, I'll base my opinion on what I'm seeing since then, which, for me, is sufficient for my support.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' I know a little bit about the drama in May as someone put a related attack page up for rescue by the ARS.  Id much rather trust someone with good intentions even if they havent always played with a straight bat than a 100% upstanding zealot.
People make mistakes. Sometimes, they even make big ones. Forgiving them isn't a strong suit of Wikipedia, for some reason. I think this place would be a better one if it were more forgiving, so I'm supporting on that principle alone. Give him another chance, see what happens. --
'''Support''' I'm confident Sam will be a fine administrator going forward. Obviously he needs to avoid using his tools in relation to political subjects.
'''Support'''  I am willing to give this editor another chance, from the above they have learned from their mistakes and I think will make a good admin going forward.
'''Support''', no particular concerns in recent months and quite a lot of good contributions. In my view enough time has passed to overlook past transgressions. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strongest possible support''' – The comments in the oppose section are not only entirely unpersuasive, but also hypocritical ''at best''. Sam should not have resigned in the first place, neither from ArbCom nor from adminship — there was never a reason at all for doing so. Sam has my ''unconditional'' confidence. This RfA should be closed as successful, completely regardless of the %-result: Wikipedia will nothing but profit from Sam having the tools, and that's — or at least should be — the ''only'' decisive determinant. --
'''Support''' Sam left his original account it was messy with blocks, he didn't tell anyone and then went off and became an admin and an arbcom, he was well respected as an arbitrator and as an admin, all he did was leave behind a ''dirty'' account and went on to be a very good editor which he is now and could again be a very good admin, there is nothing left to worry about this editor, I strongly support a bit of forgiveness.
'''AGF Support'''. Sam has made serious mistakes in the past, and he understands that. Given the amount he suffered as a result of his misdeeds, I can't believe he would ever do something similar again - he knows now just how bad the consequences can be. So when he says he's learned his lesson, I believe him. In addition, he was a valuable and productive admin and arbitrator, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't be again. For those reasons, I'm happy to give him my support. One of the principles of Wikipedia ought to be that if someone truly recognises and apologises for their mistakes, we should be prepared to accept that and give them the chance to make amends.
'''Support''' as per [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23332&st=160&p=174697&#entry174697].
'''Moral support'''. While I'm loathe to vote near Aitias' troll support, I believe Sam did well as an administrator. I appreciate the way he's handling himself in this RFA, which is not going well for him at all. I also appreciate his restraint and well-considered responses to others. I don't presume all editors keep track of who've they've been blocked by in years past, nor do I believe everyone remembers every editor they've been in some sort of conflict or disagreement with. I've come to believe that users have a right to a fresh start. Regardless, he's applying for adminship, not ArbCom, and his history of use of administrative tools is good. I do find it concerning that full disclosure was not made with the start of this RFA. The numbered list gives some basic information, but there are no links or previous account names to follow. For those who were previously unaware of the situations being mentioned, it doesn't give a sufficient detailing of the significance of what happened. Further, I'm not seeing a clear promise not to repeat mistakes, but I do see where it's noted it would be risky for someone identified to act inappropriately, and I think I can take it as given that he doesn't intend to be deceitful again. I further appreciate his candid answers to my questions. The one serious admin actions that seems to have come into question was four years ago. I can't bring myself to care about something that happened so long ago. And while I found the overlap between the two accounts a bit troubling, without evidence that there was abusive sockpuppetry, rather than a desire to keep suspicion away as Sam has expressed, then I'm no longer concerned with it. When it comes down to it, do I trust him with the admin tools? That's the important question to ask in RFAs. While I do understand the concerns of many of those in the oppose section, for me, all considered (his past admin history, the drama he's dealt with in the fallout of his actions, and the fact that he'd have people watching him like hawks), I do trust him with this particular set of tools. <big>
'''Support''' I strongly believe in man's infinite capacity for recreating himself. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason not to support you. Should you succeed (which I don't think will happen this time, but perhaps in the future), I will warn you that you will face an extra degree of scrutiny, so just remember to keep your nose twice as clean as everyone else. As for this particular RfA, do keep in mind that broken trust takes quite a while to heal. Some people may never forgive you, but if you really deserve it, most will come around. Ultimately, forgiveness is given, not earned, and there's not too much you can do about those not inclined to give it. Good Luck.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - my view here (as someone who was a colleague of Sam for a few months on the arbitration committee before he resigned) is that while Sam's returning under a new account and failing to disclose that is incompatible with the levels of trust required of an arbitrator, adminship should not be as big a deal as long as the issues related to full disclosure have been worked through (as I think they have). I will also say that the work he did as an arbitrator was at the least above-average, if not more, and the impression gained from working with him for several months (and his previous use of the tools) is that he is not someone who would abuse the admin tools. I think Sam could make good use of the tools, and making this RFA a community verdict on his past conduct is not the right way to proceed here (there are other venues to raise those issues).
I think he's owned his mistake, there's no evidence of ''other'' misconduct under the username Sam Blacketer, and he has my trust as an administrator. I find it easy, then, to support.  <small>(Further note for whatever its worth, I wouldn't vote for him for ArbCom. But the tools given via RfA are pretty limited, in my view, and I don't believe he would misuse them).</small>
'''Support''' Sam did fine as an admin and will do so again, though it seems unlikely he will be given the chance.
'''Moral support''' There is little prospect of this RfA succeeding but, for the record, Sam did a fine job as an admin and as an arbitrator; and he acted promptly and honorably when his past was exposed. I do not believe for a moment that, as some opposers below assert, he set out to mislead the community in this RfA: as he is fully aware, the back story is incredibly well known (it was even reported in the British press) and it would inevitably be raised. Sam does have a valuable contribution to make and I do not believe that his misjudgments of the past should be held against him in perpetuity. &nbsp;
<small>[[User:Redvers/SN|⇦]]'''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]'''
A lost cause at this time, but for what it's worth: What scares me is the apparent level of sophistication and cunningness of the past deception and opportunism, when I read e.g. Q6b. What reassures me is that you've apparently come completely clean with it, that the worst parts of it are now two years in the past, and that I believe that you are aiming for openness and transparency now (but I agree with O51 Dweller about how this RfA could have used a better introduction with a very brief description of the core issue, and lessons learned).<br>Your wikilife and adminship as Sam Blacketer was a benefit. You are tried with the tools, you'd be under additional scrutiny, I find abuse of them unlikely. You've made it hard to trust you personally, but I would trust you with the tools.
A difficult case, but per Amalthea, whose argument I found persuasive.
--''
'''Support'''. 'Sam' is a good editor and was a good admin and arb. People make mistakes and it is wrong to hold their past against them indefinitely. It's clear that this is too soon, however, as a bunch of the opposition from people I respect indicates. Best wishes,
'''Support''' I am aware of the history here.  However, I do believe in rehabilitation after a period of time and that Sam can be trusted with the tools going into the future. --
'''Support'''. Definitely brings a lot of experience to the table, something Wikipedia always could use more of. I'm unaware of the prior history, but seems sincere enough in the nom statement for me to trust them. --
'''Oppose'''. With some reluctance but strongly nevertheless. I am sorry, but I simply don't trust you. You were quite happy to mislead the community for some considerable time when it suited your purposes previously and I believe you would do so again. You didn't disclose your previous identity when running first for RfA under this username. You didn't disclose it when you ran for ArbCom. You then felt no need to own up to your past history to  Jimbo or your colleagues once appointed. You then didn't recuse from hearing cases involving users where conflicts of interest arose from the time you edited under your previous names. I am sorry, but I am unconfortable with someone having admin rights who was willing to deceive the community in that way to suit his own ends.<br />I also don't think you're being particular open in making this request - I see no links to your RfA as Dbiv, or contributions as Fys (or indeed the block log of both those accounts).<sup>1</sup> I would take someone coming to this request not knowing the history a bit of digging to work out what past behaviour it was you were trying to avoid. Your answer to question 3 seems conveniently confined to your editing as Sam Blacketer. Are there conflicts you regret under your past identities?<br />Finally, although you acknowledge you may have caused the project "embarassment", I see no real acknowledgement from you that running for adminship and then ArbCom without informing the community about your past accounts was an abuse of trust and that you regret it (on the contrary you rely on your appointment to ArbCom to advance this very request at point 6). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''', essentially per WJBScribe. Any current "honest" activity must be taken in context, that context being that Sam Blacketer, under various names, knowingly and repeatedly lied to the community and violated the trust it held him in. This RfA is an extension of that; it seems very well formatted to hide almost any direct reference to ''why'' you were desysopped. Arguing that somebody in the public sphere is unlikely to play around is an awful argument; you've played around in the past. Every moment as an arbitrator and administrator you didn't tell the community was violating its trust in you; every moment ''post-identification''. If identified people are unlikely to violate trust, why did you do so in the past? I see no evidence that we can trust you with the tools, and more importantly I see no recognition that you know what you did was wrong. Almost every point in your nomination statement regarding your "unmasking" is an excuse or justification.
No. Lost my trust, forever. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per WJBscribe mostly. There have been other cases of former admins/banned users returning under new names (viz. Law/The Undertow), but I think the ''level'' of the deceit here is too great. Adminship is one thing (and you were a fine admin as far as I can tell) but taken all the way to arbcom is too much for me. You got greedy. Also, I still see attempts to hide the truth on this RFA, such as the lack of links (originally) to former accounts. You don't seem at all remorseful/regretful either. '''
'''Oppose'''. Like some of the supporters, much of what happened was before my time. But I just looked at some history linked above, and I see Fys unblocking Dbiv. A single person unblocking oneself? Wikipedia needs to move on, and this user does not need to be an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. I did not know anything about the controversy leading to the May resignation, but now, after reading through the relevant pages, I don't believe that trusting the candidate with admin tools is warranted. The  Dbiv/Fys account has an extensive block log and history of disruption. Fys was desysopped by arbcom for serious abuse of admin tools. The Fys account and the Sam Blacketer account have an overlap of almost a year: Sam Blacketer started editing on December 13, 2006 while Fys continued editing until Nov 10, 2007. So this was not the case of an editor vanishing and then making a clean start. Yet Sam did not disclose his Fys history during his original April 2007 RfA (at the time when Fys was still editing), or during the ArbCom elections later (in fact, the nominating process for [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007]] started on Nov 1, 2007, while Fys was still editing). I don't see any apologies for this abuse of trust in Sam's nominating statement above. As an arb, Sam accepted and voted in the W.M. Connolley RFAR, even though Fys filed an RFC against WMC in 2006. Although Fys had been blocked by Tango in 2006, Sam made extensive comments in Tango's RFAR in 2008. Given these kinds of serious breaches of trust in the past, I don't think that seven months of good behaviour since the May resignation is nearly long enough for the candidate to ask for the tools back.  Even for a brand new user starting from scratch with a clean slate I would want to see at least 9-10 months of editing before asking for the sysop button; for somebody with as extensive history of problems and abuse of trust as we have in this case, that period should certainly be much longer.
'''Oppose''' I am a great believer that people can change; I believe that the worst vandal can return as a honest editor and can be granted adminship; People can learn from their mistakes and, unlike others, I believe that trust can be re-earned. That said, I also know that this requires time and work and the more trust you lose, the more you need to work to re-earn it. Considering the amount and severity of the mistakes this candidate made in the past, I don't think 8 months without the mop are enough time to re-earn the community's trust. Regards '''
'''Strong oppose''' With a nod to the candidate’s extensive content contributions, I do not think he has earned the right to re-gain the tools of adminship.  This candidate has deeply abused the community’s trust, and I certainly don’t think he has it now.  First of all, this account was not a legitimate “clean start” account due to a year-long editing overlap between the Fys and Blacketer accounts, and due to the failure to disclose this history during the Blacketer RfA, during the relevant ArbCom election, and even upon election to ArbCom.  The Fys account had been desysopped for abuse of admin powers, which is absolutely something that the candidate should have disclosed.  The worst offense was failing to recuse from voting on ArbCom sanctions against editors by whom the Fys account had been blocked or with whom “Fys” had otherwise interacted negatively.  His actions regarding JzG and Viridae at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV]] and regarding William M. Connolley at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley]], in particular, seem improper. Bottom line: Sam Blacketer abused the community’s trust and has not earned it back.
Out of retirement '''oppose'''. As those who know my history are aware, I'm obviously in favor of allowing people to quietly return under new accounts whatever their history. However, I don't trust you in the least; you weren't someone who made a mistake and tried to cover it up, you were someone who systematically lied and manipulated the good faith of other users over a period of years. One of my very few "never" users.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''', basically per WJB's reasoning.
'''Oppose''' after such a grand deception I don't think sweeping it all under the rug is warranted by granting special privileges and responsibilities. You are a good editor, leave it there...
No acknowledgement, no repentance, no change.
Behavioral issues are not my strong suit, but we're talking about lack of openness at the ArbCom level, which ought to be a concern for all good wiki-citizens.  The most generous position I could possibly adopt here would be SoWhy's. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' per above. Not acceptable.
'''oppose''' per unrepentant serial liars can't be trusted.
'''WP:NOTEVER Opppose''' We are lucky here. Usually we have to use all the evidence to evaluate just how good the candidate's judgement is. But we know here. The candidate abused their position in order to further their own political party and ideology. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia and, rather than an RFA, the candidate should be facing a proposal for a community ban, in my opinion. '''
'''Strong Oppose'''. This “confirmation of administrator status” submission and the economical with the truth manner of its presentation (long on words, cleverly disregarding notable key events to suit the motives of the applicant) should be deprecated. With thanks to [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] for revealing the true, full facts, I echo the statement by WJBScribe (the only word of which I would disagree with is “reluctance”) and others in strongly opposing this candidate.
I don't think this would be a good idea, to say the least. The COI issues were never resolved to my personal satisfaction. Plus per the many objections raised by other opposers such as WJBScribe, Iridescent, et al. Sorry. ++
There's no need to take a chance here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', per WJBScribe, and Ironholds. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per WJBScribe, and Ironholds also.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but this is a position of trust. I believe in second chances, but I think a longer period of time as a quality editor is warranted. I'm thinking 24 months, not three. I haven't reviewed your editing contributions, but I've read enough positive that I hope you will continue to be a productive editor. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' WJBscribe, Ironholds and A Stop at Willoughby have laid out a compelling case against entrusting this editor with admin powers. The failure to disclose past desysopping is of concern. Also, the candidate's refusal to properly answer q4 is unsatisfactory: regardless of WJBscribe's !vote the question was valid.
'''Oppose'''. Long history of alternate bad hand accounts (per Nsk92) that had a real-world impact on the credibility of this site (per [[Criticism of Wikipedia]]).
'''Oppose''' I was going to support when I first saw this RfA, figuring whatever led to you being desysopped must not have been a big deal.  Now that I see the full story I have to oppose. -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''', per previous abuses of the community's trust.
'''Oppose''' Although you lost the community trust for your inappropriate conducts for a quite a while, your voluntary resignation from adminship in the end was a right thing to do. I really appreciate that at least since many corrupt admins do not recall themselves unlike their in turn "bogus pledge" over recalling to the community at their RFA. Many of them retain the tool or only a few was desysoped by ArbCom. However, you should've posted "your official apology statement" at least here or right before you run for adminship and post your all past accounts and the background of your resignation for honesty sake. Therefore, I don't think you're ready for regaining the tool and trust.--
Per WJBscribe, with regret. &ndash;'''
'''Oppose''' - Sadly, after what you did last year, there's not much trust I can possibly even ''try'' to muster up for you. The way you went behind the community's and ArbCom's back to become an Arb, then (as WJBscribe said) even reviewed cases which you had an apparent conflict of interest in, simply leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Second chances are one thing, your editing history is another. This RFA shows even more game playing on your part, as it seems you tried to mask from the community the real reason you got desysopped in the first place. Just from looking over this RFA, I cannot honestly say that I think you wouldn't do it again, if given the chance. Therefore I can do nothing other than oppose you, and I can surely say I will '''never''' support you. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Strong Oppose''' per Soap, and the fact what he did broke the trust of everyone in this community. ''<I>
'''Oppose''' - And I thought my RfA was amusing!
{{ec}} I agree with what WJBscribe (oppose #1) and Nsk92 (oppose #6) have already said. I do agree with SoWhy that trust can be re-gained - however, what Sam did was indeed far beyond the pale. I may support giving Sam another go with the mop a while down the road (perhaps a year from now), but not yet. --'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I don't trust you. '''
'''Regrettably'''.  Per above.  You have my respect as an previous arbitrator but the offenses noted above are too pressing to ignore.  Sorry Sam.  -'''
'''Oppose''' I don't trust you, sorry. --
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per the !votes above.
I like Sam, but he has quite certainly lost my trust.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent, being that I'm one of her other "never" folks. :) I went through the RFA process four times, and it wasn't worth it. I believed in second chances, but others did not. I argued that I could have started over and gained adminship that way, but that did not count in my favor. In retrospect, I see it from the majority perspective. To grant adminship to Sam Blacketer is to condone what he did. If we allow it, then any disgraced-but-not-banned user will feel empowered to do likewise, and anarchy will prevail. Sure, we've approved admin candidates who turned out to be banned users - and we sent them back to oblivion. Despite my full confidence that Sam Blacketer can fulfill the admin responsibilities faithfully, as he has done, I cannot support giving him the permission.
'''Oppose''' No. The past editing behaviour is alarming. The editor needs to spend more time earning the communities trust back before an succesful rfa.
'''Oppose''' No need to be repetitive. Per above and specifically WJBscribe. <span style="border:1px solid;">
No, never. Your crime was far greater than many others who have failed RFAs for past transgressions. I don't think you should get off either. And for what it's worth, i don't trust politicians. <font face="Forte">
'''Strong Oppose''' Sorry, but I do not trust you, for what should be obvious reasons... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per Soap.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''.  While sockpuppeting into an arbcom seat is an impressive display of social skills, it is also incompatible with any future position of trust.
'''Strong oppose'''.  I think others have already explained it; you socked into a position of trust and I cannot bring myself to trust you again at this time.
'''Oppose''' I see a lot of reasons for concern.  I don't think you should have the tools.  Is is so bad being a normal editor?  --'''
'''Oppose.'''  Not that this pile-on needs more, but I feel a need to register my view after having sought clarification on [[:Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer 2#Question about another account]].  —
'''Strong oppose'''. This user's conduct has been outrageous.
'''Regretfully'''. Wounds are still raw. Not that I'd necessarily support an RfA in a year's time, but I'd give it stronger consideration.<small> And a tip to all RfA candidates coming back here after controversy - why not spell out the controversy in simple terms (your own simple terms is fine) as well as your justifications for why we should overlook the problems. If you avoid too much POV you stand a better chance of seeming penitent. It's also dang helpful.</small> --
Not given the history of abuse.
'''Nay''' You had two runs at it and both ended with levels of disgrace. I am normally a supporter but here i think the inverse applies, [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|why?]]. I don't think any RfA candidate has had me review their participation on ''and'' sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=291843515&oldid=291286246 Declaring previous accounts in a resignation from ArbComm]</span>, <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship&diff=prev&oldid=328333403 the de-sysop page stating you intended to try for a 3rd time]</span> and <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Dbiv unblocking yourself on your old account]</span> are too much for me. <font face="Georgia">
I don't think so. RFA demands a certain level of deviousness but really, the history here is one of taking that ''way'' too far.
'''Oppose''' per many of the comments above.--
'''Oppose'''. I agree with most of what was already said above in the comment by {{user|Coffee}}. '''
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. I'm not keen on opposing RfAs; I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I don't feel able to do so here just yet. The incident is still a bit too recent in the collective minds of many here and is used by our detractors to this day to point out the flaws in Wikipedia's structure and system of governance. The fact that you stand for such a flaw could be a serious detriment to both the credentials of the project at large and harm your ability to act in a sysop capacity. I could give you a second chance a year or few down the line when the details of the incident stop being so vivid in my memory, and I look forward to a new RfA then. —

'''Oppose''' - no, most definitely not. For reasons described repeatedly above.
'''Oppose''' Too much baggage, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Because you said "Despite some stresses and strains, some of which have tried my patience" I don't think that is going to help you grant administration. Try not to go too deep into the past mate.
'''Oppose''' WJBScribe makes too compelling of a case.  But like SoWhy, I do believe in redemption, unfortunately; 8 months in this case is not long enough.  After 2 years, I may consider it, but now?  No.  You abused the communities trust and faith in you.  If you had reclused yourself from cases where COI potentials existed, I MIGHT have a different view, but to act on cases in secret where you may or may not have held a grudge/stance, sorry, you have to re-earn your trust.---'''
'''Oppose''' Excellent content contributer, but a hidden good hand / bad hand sockpuppeteer who decided to retire the bad hand, hid it, and advanced to arb before being thrown down... At this time, despite your good record as an admin and arb under your present name, you should be content with being a productive editor. --'''''
'''Oppose''': per the reasons above.
'''Strong Oppose'''  Hmm, I remember you and this whole episode.  I don’t normally comment on RFA’s but I’ll make an exception in this case.  I personally don’t think your actions damaged Wikipedia as much as the press and other editors believed (regardless of the accuracy of the reports), they did more damage to yourself and your organisation.  However I do think it would damage Wikipedia if we then turned around and promoted you again.  Wikipedia would be a laughing stock.  I suppose of course this RFA should be based on your personal suitability  for the role (not the reaction of the real world press), but I’m afraid there I must give an even stronger oppose.  Your past behaviour and attitude were worthy of a ban, and as your attitude doesn’t seem to have changed (based on your lack of clarity above) I don’t have much hope that your behaviour will either.
'''Strong oppose''' per WJBscribe and others, but not the press articles. Just too much drama and too much future potential. How about a couple of clean years, under one account, first, then maybe A. --
'''Oppose'''. Sam is hoping that if he agrees to tons of restrictions, he'll get the tools again. How about we promote an admin who isn't going to need all the effort that's going to come with hammering out the restrictions and making sure they're followed/enforced?
'''Oppose''' leopards, spots etc. --
'''Oppose''' - I believe in letting someone redeem themselves if they make a real effort to do so, even if their previous infractions were extremely bad. But as has been pointed out by others, even in this RfA the candidate did not openly declare the problems they've had in the past, and some of the answers to questions are evasive. Without showing complete transparency, an observable awareness of the seriousness of their past transgressions, and a willingness to totally own up to it, I can't even think about supporting adminship. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. This user has betrayed the trust of the community and has a very poor history, which he refuses to openly acknowledge and has avoided throughout this RfA.
'''Oppose''' Having carefully read (several times) the candidate's statements and those of the !votes here (support, oppose and neutral), I do not feel that I can support this candidate. I was not aware of the events detailed here before this RfA, but from what I see here, I do not feel that I can trust this candidate. Where possible, I try to avoid pile-on voting, but in this case, I feel that either !voting neutral, or not !voting at all are not possible. -- '''''
'''Oppose'''  Per WJBscribe.  No trust, and your answers seem to take great lengths to downplay your actions.  I would always be wondering what ations we did not know about, or what was being hidden.  Trust is gone for a long, long time.
'''Oppose''' Mainly per WJBscribe,but also seems too soon after one of the most prominent Wikipedia reputation hits. --
No. As in not ever. You're not to be trusted.
'''Oppose''' Per WJBscribe, essentially. I simply cannot bring myself to trust you with the tools at this time.
In full agreement with a few of the above opposers, specifically WJB. '''
'''Oppose''' for the reasons outlined above. I would not trust this person to dispassionately judge issues where he has a POV, or to stand back form such areas. Rather the opposite: I see a history including at least two name changes used to evade scrutiny without acknowledgement of issues found with prior accounts. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
I am open to supporting in the future, but not yet.  And I must say Aitias's comment seems designed to be so ridiculous as to discourage anyone from signing their name beneath his.  I see no hypocrisy ''whatsoever'' in the oppose section. --
Unfortunately, it is clear that the trust of the community has been violated. Because I am not familiar with the issue at hand, and because I don't believe piling on is a good idea, I can't bring myself to oppose, but I also cannot support this candidate at this time. I am certainly open to support in the future, however, should the candidate prove that it is warranted. --
'''Neutral''' While I was unfamiliar with your situation, I have read over what WJB wrote and while I cannot support you per your past behavior, I also believe that piling-on isn't the best response either, so my !vote is neutral.  I believe the community has sent the message that you are simply not trusted with the tools at this point in time, if ever again.
Before I even begin to state my opinion on the Sam Blacketer/Dbiv (a.k.a. Fys) issue, I want to make it clear that I am not saying this as a supporter of evasive sockpuppetry, nor am I trying to create any sense of paranoia. But every now and then, there will be people who will game the system &mdash; nothing is flawless, and it never will be. There will be editors who are clever enough to create a sockpuppet, keep it hidden from scrutiny, and remain undetected long enough to gain adminship &mdash; and in this exceptional case, ArbCom membership. And cases like [[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]], [[User:Law|Law]], and Sam are just ''known'' incidents of this happening; I'm sure there are a number of other editors who have made a successful clean start under a new username, changed their editing habits, and have gained community trust without any suspicion whatsoever. It hardly matters whether anyone's in favour of it or not, it's going to happen. Sam was one such editor who wanted to make a clean start, and was successful in doing so for over two years &mdash; it wasn't until May of last year when everything came to light. I personally would like to support Sam, I really would, because I strongly believe in giving second chances and he's done a lot of good for ArbCom. But the fact is, he's done so under the guise of who we believed to be a different editor. Now we have to evaluate his suitability for this role based on what we know, and we know he has used deception to gain and keep one of the site's highest positions of trust. This sort of thing just can't be ignored.
... on the fence and waiting for more answers.  I quite liked the person who I have known as Sam Blacketer, and think that Fsys/Dbiv belongs in a bygone era of the project.  My gut tells me that you have not used other accounts since Sam Blacketer, however I can't support until you answer the direct question.  My guess is that Jimbo never asked you to identify yourself, which means you never lied directly, however I can't support until you answer the direct question.  I'd like to believe that you had planned to retire from Arbcom anyway, but I expect that your plan to retire was due to being aware that this was going to blow up soon.<br/>p.s. I ''really'' don't like the second half of point 12.  Had you identified yourself fully (a prerequisite for [[WP:OVER|oversight]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency|Arbcom]]), the link between the accounts would have been known to the committee.  If you had used oversight to remove some really old & troublesome diffs in order to prevent the public learning of this, your action would have only highlighted it, and you should have been stripped of all tools for inappropriate usage. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral'''. I'm all for giving editors second (and third...) chances. And the candidate has done good work recently, so they would certainly be worth a look. I'll be honest, though - the instant this RFA was filed without links to all previous accounts, you lost my support. For all that adminship is not a big deal, it is a position that relies entirely on trust. When you block someone, the uninvolved editor (or reader, or observer, or what have you) has to know that you did so for the good of the project. An RFA that included full disclosure of what happened, with which accounts, would have been much more successful. Some repentance would've been helpful, as well. This RFA seems unlikely to pass - and your next attempt, perhaps in Fall 2010 or Winter 2011, will be opposed by many citing RFA/Sam Blacketer 2. Which is a shame, as you've done a great deal for the project over several years. So, for your good work, I can't oppose - but can't support, either. Best,
'''Neutral.''' I'm a strong supporter of admins being open to recall and I'd like to see more admins do it (and a firmer consensus for a proceddure) and, based on that alone, I'd be tempted to support. In addition, your answers to most of the questions show you obviously know what you're doing with the tools and I don't think you would abuse the tools if you were re-appointed. However, I'm afraid many of the opposers raise enough reasoanble doubt that it leaves me uncertain. Thus, while I do not feel compelled to oppose, I cannot support you.
'''Neutral''' – I'm really not sure here. Has Sam misused the trust of the community through sock puppetry? Yes. Has he demonstrated, while sitting on the Arbitration Committee or as an administrator for that matter, that he was not burned down the site or otherwise caused any other huge uproar (besides the normal flack admins and Arbitrators get)? Yes. –
'''Neutral''' Leaning oppose, but see no point in piling on.--
'''Neutral''' - there are compelling arguments for both sides. Ultimately I might have supported if you'd laid the whole saga out from the get-go, but the fact you didn't, and I don't get a flavour of remorse here but rather justification. That more than anything shifts me into a doubt-zone. Sorry. I think you might be better off withdrawing.
'''Neutral'''. Probably can do the tasks standing on his head, but he doesn't seem sufficiently aware of the damage caused by abusing multiple accounts and standing for ArbCom at the same time. Basically, he took the piss and should have known better. More time and further acknowledgement of wrongdoings is needed before I'll support.
'''Neutral'''  Definitely capable.    Rituals sought by some are meaningless, to be sure.   And anyone who wants power is always to be mistrusted.   Misleading folks was not good either.  I can not quite reach "support" but I am a long way from "oppose."
'''Neutral''': Technically neutral, but 0% support or respect. There has been something of a (voluntary) bar established by many oppose !votes of being longer-term editors more familiar with the matter that it's out of my league to discuss further. Is the candidate qualified? Yes... but given the ridiculously silly things many RfAs get opposed to now, knowing someone with tools had performed some basic cardinal sins such as unblocking their puppet and deliberately misleading ArbCom continuously? These are honest-to-god worries based in policy that are pointing at countless violation of basic policies. Makes me ill, honesty. If any single admin or user today attempted any ''one'' of the multiple layers of deception and subversion seen here we'd likely see an indef block. Period. Most de-sysop requests are over matters completely trivial compared to this all and I'm glad I've learned about this for the highest end of the sense of entitlement seemingly held by many in the admin community. Perhaps this RfA can be a good place to point to in the archives as a case of what lost community trust can do.  <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy enough to handle the tools, irrespective of whether he actually "needs" them or not. '''
'''Moral Support''' I am glad to see that you want to help but you may want to familiarize yourself more with Wikipedia's [[WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]]. Particularly the [[WP:Block|blocking policy]]. Seeing that your have not recently edited here since last year, your clearly not going to be familiar with [[WP:Pending Changes]]. I do not want you to see these apposes negatively, as I hope you learn a lot from this. You should actively edit here for few months with some more knowledge with Wikipedia's policies.
'''Oppose''' Welcome to rfa! it seems that everything you want to do you don't need admin tools for.  Also I woulod encourage you to use edit summaries.  There is an option in your preferences that will require you to fill it in, then you will not neglect it.  I will look at more of what you have done next up. -- OK looking at what you did, you seem to have edited nothing for 1.5 years before making this RFA.  You need far more recent experience. I would encourage you to withdraw your nomination and practice editing and helping out instead.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]].--
'''Oppose''' - I'm glad you want to help out, but as Graeme Bartlett points out, you don't need the admin tools to do the things you've indicated. You also don't have nearly enough experience to show that you can handle the tools properly. Check out [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Best regards,
'''Oppose''' Way, way too early. Candidate has only 172 edits.--
'''Oppose'''. It's admirable that you want to uphold balance and neutral judgment, but you don't need to be an admin to do that - it's what ordinary editors do all the time. In fact, nothing you've said you want to do needs admin tools. And also, with just a few hundred edits, you don't have enough experience yet. I suggest you do another six months of editing and get a few thousand edits under your belt, keeping articles neutral and balanced. While you're doing that, keep a watch on what admins actually do and what tools they use to do it - and when you have a clearer feel for what admin tools are available and what the admin role actually entails, you'll be better able to decide if being an admin is for you and whether the time is right. --
'''Oppose'''/'''Comment'''.  I am sorry, from the answer to the question I asked, but also general, I don't think you have enough grasp of policy and guideline here, and I doubt as well if you have enough editing experience ... yet.  Please stick around, get more edits, and see what is going on on the different discussion pages in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. the pages where policy and guidelines are discussed, or where specific administrative actions are discussed; maybe you can even help out there).  --
'''Oppose''' Too early, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' since you have little experience and few edits. You're welcome to try again in six months when you have gained some more experience. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Oppose''' I just want to encourage you to follow the advice of the other opposers and aim to come back in the future after spending some time seeing what admin work you might wish to do. Spend some time contributing at [[WP:AfD]] or [[WP:New pages patrol]] or even the horror that is [[WP:WQA]] to get more experience!!! But more importantly for a newish user keep editing and looking to help get articles to [[WP:GA]] or [[WP:FA]] level.
Yes. Positive interactions, and from what I've seen of their contributions, they're knowledgable and competent. I have no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. Good luck,
It's about time.
'''[[WP:AGF]] Support'''. After the circumstances surrounding your desysopping, I was extremely reluctant to support, but it's been a while and you were a great asset when you were an admin. I'm going to assume good faith and hope that the issues of the past are behind you and there will be no such issues in the future.
All mortal men make the occasional stupid decision, and Secret was among them. ''
'''Support''' Was an admin before, learnt the mistake he made earlier, so nothing wrong here.
'''Support''' was intending to co-nom but got sidetracked by RL busyness. Wizardman sums it up succinctly as I would have.
'''Super Secret Support''' <font face="Segoe Print">
I have long been a supporter of Secret, including at some of the less happy times he notes above. I trust that the password for the account will stay secure. I admire your dedication and desire to help despite your illness (an illness which is not really our business, however I appreciate your candour). Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' Everyone have their ups and downs in RL, and it's good to see Secret still here despite his personal problems.
'''Support''' - trusted user, has learnt from past mistakes and I highly doubt his password will be an issue now. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Per Trusilver. I think that the arbcom action has taught you a lesson, and by the looks of your contribs, it has. Good luck.
'''Suppport''' I see no reason why not to support <small>But it's a [[User:Secret|Secret!]]</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Support''' morally surely. I believe that an editor (and a former administrator), who has the wherewithal to own up to past intransigent occurrences and has the honesty to provide details of current personal issues in the way Secret has, has my complete moral support. Secret, I hope you take time off to answer the questions above; take your time if you wish, but do well. Even though, editorially, I would not agree with some of your past actions, I'd go a long way to defend your right to undertake them.
I understand health issues are very difficult to juggle with Wikipedia, but Secret knows the ropes and has been very open about his editing history. I, for one, have trusted him for a long time. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, this editor has shown that they have an understanding of policy and procedure.
I think I can support this.
Sorry to be the first. I admire your dedication to Wikipedia, and your article work. I don't think you'd be a particularly good admin though. First off, I can barely read a sentence of yours without finding some sort of spelling or grammatical error. What is "desyropping"? A simple spell-checker will help you here if your spelling isn't up to scratch - nothing to be ashamed of! The rather long history of flip-flopping between usernames, accounts, adminship and so on doesn't give me much confidence. I understand that you were harassed, but you took it very poorly indeed. I can't understand ''why'' you'd want to risk yourself again, particularly with your illness. You even say in your Q1 answer you don't intend to do much work as an admin. Well, I think that in a case like yours, there ought to be a more compelling reason for you to get the tools back. Because, frankly, I think remaining an ordinary editor is in your best interests.
While we have an administrator shortage, for me, your nomination says enough for me. "For better or worse". Unfortunately, you've been an administrator twice before, and you've been in enough controversy, that the chances of 'worse' are too high. For me, it may be better to simply remain a regular editor, I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' I look at the history of your own userpage, and I see a lot of recent drama and mess.  I wish you well, but I believe restoring you as an administrator would be a bad move for yourself and also possibly for Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. I'm really sorry to be here, because I admire your dedication to Wikipedia and your contributions; however, I can't really bring myself to trust your judgement... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selena&diff=384671856&oldid=384671723 Knowingly] violated [[WP:3RR]]. As Secret was a former admin, he should know better. —
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't pass my basic grammar/spelling accuracy threshold for admins.  This user has been desysopped twice now, I think that should be the limit.  Answers to the questions above and a brief look into their contributions reveals a history chock full of [[WP:DRAMA|drama]].  I think this user helps WP far more as an editor than as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Regardless of whether or not I agree with your stances, your constant involvement in drama on this site cannot allow me to support at this time. I feel promotion would be a detriment to Wikiepdia.
'''Oppose''' You're generally a good editor, however in the past you have been too quick on the gun with some of your actions, and then left the project for unknown periods of time. The tools are not a necessity, please continue your good work as an editor.
'''Oppose''' per Explicit, and the candidate's response. Multiple reverts going over 3RR wasn't the most appropriate response.
'''Comment''' I thought {{user|Secret}} was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Andrevan&page=User%3ASecret&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= already admin]? Or did I miss something here? [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TCNSV|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]]
Waiting for more answers. There are some things about this RfA I'm not thrilled about while other aspects make me quite respectful of you for your commitment as well as dealing with harassment and seeking help. It's commendable but I have to be neutral for now.
'''Comment''': I need to check some more past work, and give it a little longer perhaps for some more questions, but I just though I'd like to highly commend the candidate for being so open and honest about issues that have affected past spells here. --
'''Neutral'''. I took the time to trawl through a load of random old edits and found a lot of good changes, but... occasionally slightly impulsive or not written clearly. Not ''bad'', per se (I will not oppose this rfa) but perhaps not always at the high standard that wikipedians seem to expect from admins. That's just my judgement, though, which may or may not be worth much. On the other hand, I really appreciate honesty about previous problems and that alone nearly swung me to support. I've seen a lot of good content work so Secret could, presumably, continue to make valuable contributions to wikipedia even without a mop.
'''Neutral''' I've seen Secret around a fair bit in the last few months and have thought highly of his contributions. I also looked at the history and issues and nothing there looks like a good reason to oppose.  But Explicit's comments indicate that some issues continue. Not enough to oppose on, but enough to prevent my support given past issues.
'''Neutral''' Nice contributions, but seems too unstable for an important job. Especially considering past events. Glad to have you on Wikipedia though. :)--
'''Oppose''' I hate to be the first, and I added my question before checking the candidate's contributions - but I cannot support someone who has a total of 166 edits (including 3 deleted ones) - I do not see sufficient evidence that the candidate has an understanding of the policies and guidelines in use on Wikipedia. This looks like a [[WP:NOTNOW]] case to me -- '''''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits to properly judge you. What is there looks fine though. Try again later.--
'''Oppose''' - Absolutely not.

'''Oppose''' - I am opposing, but let me say that you seem to have made a good start as a contributor and I am sure that if you keep up the good work you will become an admin some day. Cheers, <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Moral support''' &ndash; but from your answers to the questions, it doesn't seem that you quite know what an admin is for to be honest. Sorry. :) – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Oppose''' – I am sorry, but IMHO you are not experienced enough yet. --
'''Support''', as co-nominator. -- '''
As nom
'''Support''' How can I not support when he's using [[:User:Jclemens/Rescues|my userbox]] more effectively than I am?  Seriously, rescuing articles is one of the worst jobs around here: it's time-bound, thankless, and subject to abuse from nominators who want to get their way more than see an article improved to actually meet inclusion criteria.
'''Support''' - I have frequently seen him at AfD rescuing articles and putting forth good arguments. A little bit inclusionist, but overall a net positive. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers, particularly question 2.
'''Support'''. I like the article rescue work; fixing articles that are on death row (rather than just saying "keep") is commendable and requires a broad knowledge of policies &c.
'''Support'''. Strong contributions and a reasonable level of policy knowledge. Answer to Q1 in particular is exemplary.
'''Support''' per Secret's nomination. Rescuing articles shows that he has always been a helpful, trusted & valuable contributor.
'''Support'''. Good work on making bad articles better.
'''Support'''. I think adminship here would be an overall net positive to the project. If the candidate keeps a close eye on policy, and takes care not to ignore the GNG, there should be no problem. The judgement issues noted below seem to be good-faith attempts to improve the project, and don't bother me as much as they probably should, but I believe this candidate can properly handle the mop. And that's what RFA seeks to determine.
'''Support''' - per above. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Support''' - No red flags. None of the oppose arguments (to date) concern me. Good faith user, motivated, is able to refine his understanding of wikipedia policies in an ongoing way. I'm one who see this editor as an admin being a net positive. --
'''Support''' - I don't find the opposes convincing enough to keep me from supporting. This user is a net-positive to the project, and I'm sure he'll use the mop well. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''  - net positive.
'''Support''' longterm experienced user with a clean blocklog. And kudos for Secret's nomination. Rescuing articles by referencing them is one valid way of building the Pedia, the trick is to know which articles are worth rescuing. ''
'''Strong support''' Talented, helpful and collegial – just the sort we need more of.
'''Support''' - I am not sure I agree with Silver on a number of things.  Notability is one area I might well have a higher threshhold for... but after looking over this editor's contributions, I conclude that ''I don't have to agree with everything Silver thinks.  This is strong user who is deeply involved with the project.'' Having the tools will be a net plus, and I am happy to extend support.  With all due respect to opposers, in my view their case has not been convincingly made. My best wishes to the candidate.
'''Support''' When everything is weighed out, the positives have it.
'''Support''' --<font color="black">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Article building contributions are clearly a positive to the project, and I consider content building to be a huge part of the qualification for being as Admin. Most of the opposes below boil down to a difference in the interpretation of guidelines. All of our policies and guidelines are obviously subject to interpretation, and different opinions should be valued when brought to the discussion. I do not see how giving Silver seren the mop could possibly be detrimental to the project, so gladly give my support. '''
'''Support''' huge net positive
'''Support'''
Concerned about so-called "inclusionism", but I like your response to the IAR question. '''Support'''. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Weak Support''' - I think that Silver seren is doing a great job in improving articles as well as in AFD. I see a limited number of reverts. However the editor appears to know how to warn users. --
'''Support''' Good answers to a lot of difficult questions.  Good nomination statements. '''
'''Support''' - The opposes below caused a few doubts in me, but Silver seren knows these problems now and will keep to parts s/he is confident in. In the end, the editor has shown experience to not abuse the tools. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' - Very productive editor with experience in a lot of areas of the project. Cordial and honest. Could use the mop in [[WP:REFUND]] and related areas. - <span style="background:#FF0000;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background:#00FF00;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background:#0000FF;">&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Support''' A net benefit in my opinion. Switched from neutral so mores down there. But I think Silver's well intentioned and would be dedicated. Plus one.
'''Support''' – A content contributor who from my experience seems to understand subtleties of policy.
'''Support''' An article improver and content creator who is a net benefit to the project. I think it troubling that so many who oppose feel that someone so willing to work to make Wikipedia a better place for the readers refer to a content creator/improver as "inclusionist" as if it were a dirty word.  I believe he would properly and fairly enforce all policies and guidelines in using the mop, and would not let a personal opinion deter him from those duties. '''
'''Support'''. I have interacted with this user and found them to be friendly and very approachable. Silverseren noticed that the article that I had nominated for deletion should be kept and they were right. I had wrongly jumped to conclusions that a therapy was advertising when it was legitamate. I have considered the opposes below and think the problems raised are not serious enough to oppose. People seem to be focusing on imperfections rather than the net positive attributes to this candidate. An inclusionist is less likely to damage the encyclopedia as they are less likely to delete, so don't see this as a reason for opposing but others below may disagree.--
'''Support'''. being  nominated by  a sysop  who  has a well  studded belt  of FA stars, and the positive voting  from  other aédmins, confirms that  I  am  not  wrong  in  lending  my  support too. --
'''Weak Support:''' Article rescue experience is invaluable but has issues to work out before his RfA. -
'''Support''':  Its too bad this looks like it won't be a successful nomination right now, because Silver really does some good work.  He's no more perfect than deletionist-minded admins who get overturned from time to time--both have their hearts in the right place -- a dedication to improving the project.  We need more people like that.--'''
'''Support''' Reasonable editor that would make a good admin.--''
'''Support''' Wonderful editor who has worked at improving many articles.
Have witnessed a preponderance of evidence that tells me this editor does not have the right kind of judgment to be an effective administrator.
Based on my interactions on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monica_Foster]. Does not seem to recognise [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]] for my taste.
I do this reluctantly, because I've got the utmost respect for people that ensure that articles that are notable are saved. But the likes of [[WP:PORNBIO]] and [[WP:NFOOTBALL]] are not alternatives to the GNG, they merely help people evaluate at a glance whether someone is likely to meet the GNG. From what I've seen of your contributions I have doubts over whether you have fully grasped this. —
Sorry, but a number of things don't allow me to Support at this time. Firstly, you acknowledge at length your past problems with conflict, and end by saying that it is still a problem, citing a recent example. The disclosure is admirable, but since, in your own opinion, you have not conquered the problem yet, it might be advisable to wait at least until you are confident yourself about it. Nobody is perfect, but the ability not to become emotionally aroused as an admin seems paramount to me. Secondly, you have about the same level of contributions as I do, many from a good while ago, and I would oppose myself for lack of experience :=) I am also concerned about the general impression I got from reading the [[User:Silver_seren/How_I_Feel_About_The_Project|first userspace essay]] linked in the question above. I am assuming you still stand by it, since you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Silver_seren/How_I_Feel_About_The_Project&diff=387655794&oldid=352993244 edited it] at the same time as you removed the {{tlx|User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} userbox from your User Page just before posting this RFA. As above, I also feel that, while the work you have done rescuing articles is admirable, you seem to veer close to the edge, or even over it, on policies such as notability quite often. As I said, I'm sorry, I don't like to oppose RFAs, but in this case I have too many concerns to be able to Support. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' (ec)- Sorry, but what little I have seen of you has not impressed me. I have seen you canvass for keep votes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=next&oldid=351866147],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=next&oldid=352095813]), attempt to pass off paid advertisements as proper sources [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xlear_Nasal_Spray|here]] and generally fail to distinguish between reliable coverage and insubstantial fluff. I do not trust your judgment enough to support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Overly keen on preventing articles being deleted, at the expense of proper sourcing.
Disdain for Wikipedia's rules structure reflected in the How I Feel essay + admitted emotionality about the project + vested time and interest in inclusionism = red flags abundant.
'''Oppose''' Editor is clearly a net benefit to the project, but I fear making the editor an admin would detract rather than add to the value the editor contributes. The links above (especially the ones in the past year) convince me that, however polite and friendly, he has very strong opinions and disregard for the rules when it comes to AfDs, and should not be given the power to close them. <strong>
'''Sad oppose'''. You're a great contributor, but I'm afraid that, given Begoon, Reyk and Townlake's opposes, I'd feel uncomfortable trusting your judgement as an admin, when it comes to AFDs; I'm really sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - per "[[User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project|This is the greatest reason why I believe the project will fail.]]"  I'd rather not have someone be made an admin if they think the project will fail.--
'''Oppose'''. I'm not going to oppose over what rethorical devices the candidate uses in a userspace essay (frankly, I think the people who get worked up over this sorta stuff are the same ones who think that [[A Modest Proposal|Swift eats babies]]). But the concerns raised by Reyk, Epbr123, and Townlake ring true with me. When a group of people cannot have their thoughts challenged without calling it "abuse" (JClemens, support #3), I become quite reluctant to entrust one of their number with the tools, for concern that no matter how well-intentioned, said person may end up becoming little more than a "sockpuppet" (in the classic, off-wiki sense!) for their views - I can imagine a situation where S. is torn between either doing what administrators should be doing or doing what his friends want him to be doing, a recipe for intense drama (as I'm sure [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Apology_from_Casliber|some supporters will be the first to attest to]]).
I'm very sorry. SS is one of the most pleasant editors I have come across on the project. I'm not opposing because SS is an inclusionist per se - I've supported equally firm inclusionists in the past. But AfDs like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source)]] indicate that there remain issues with recognising reliable sources (SS proposed, amongst other things, a wikipedia mirror as a source). On the other hand, I also recognise that these issues have, to some extent, subsided over time (ie since Reyk's example, which came at a time that SS was throwing just about anything at an article). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSteven_Slater&action=historysubmit&diff=378754462&oldid=378752981 This diff ] is recent evidence indicating that SS would employ raw headcounting in closing an AfD, which is of course concerning: headcounting is a technique that invariably results in inclusion. The article rescue experience is invaluable, but article rescue just isn't something related to administratorship so it has to carry less weight than my aforementioned concerns. --
'''Oppose''' A candidate for RfA should not have a userpage declaring he is on a wikibreak.  I also do not trust the judgment of the nominator.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Concerns with judgement.  -'''
'''Oppose''' With his low standards in regards to notability, I cannot support this candidate becoming an administrator. He has also indicated that he wants to work in deletion areas, though not AfD, and I simply do not trust his judgment enough for him to be making those kinds of calls.
'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite, Reyk and Epbr123 - concerns of excessive inclusionism. Admins with deletionist/inclusionist tendencies generally don't make very good admins, nor have very good judgement. Editors should look at each article without a prejudice, and admins especially should.
'''Oppose'''. The user space essay does not inspire me with faith in the candidate.
'''Oppose''', regretfully, at this time. Principally for the persuasive cases made by Reyk and Mkativerata. Too many such issues, too recently, for my mind, at this time.
'''Oppose''', with regret.  Participation in the "Article Rescue Squadron" and associated canvassing shows a well-intentioned editor, but one with questionable judgement in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' "Admins are one of the greatest sources of destruction of the project. They are not helpful, not instructive, not wanting to assume good faith. They kick new users, revert everything they do because they did it wrong, even though they're still learning."  This was your view right up until the moment someone offered to nominate you. --
'''Oppose''' Userpage essay and anti-admin userbox plus the [[Talk:Billy_Connolly#Spam_fritters.3F|discussion]] linked to above mean I must regretfully oppose
'''Oppose''' A rather sad oppose but I find several of the earlier opposes compelling. Some of your attempted article rescues stretch notability and sourcing beyond the limits.
'''Oppose''' per Stephen. Do not trust at this time.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but all the red flags I see all are in the category of judgement. Your low standards of notability also is a red flag here. I'm sorry.
'''Oppose''' Looking at the Energon and Monica Foster AfDs mentioned above in Oppose 1 & 2, Silverseren seems to be concerned with saving articles simply to save them (that is, that saving articles is, in and of itself, our main goal, rather than the goal of ''improving the encyclopedia'').  I am happy with the existence of such ''editors'', as their zeal can be a great force for preserving and improving that which others don't care to, but I am worried about giving an editor with such a goal the admin tools, as there are numerous admin functions (blocking, non-obvious AfD closures, etc.) where an admin must have a more nuanced approach.  When added to the personal essay, I'm worried that Silverseren focuses on an overly simplistic interpretation of "the greatest source of human knowledge," without looking at that catchphrase through the lens of policy, guidelines, and community consensus.
'''Oppose''' per MJ94 --> it's all about red flags in the category of judgement--
'''Oppose'''. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energon (power source)|this recent AfD]] the candidate shows a lack of understanding of policy and guidelines.
'''Oppose''' No Thanks, we don't need admins with as an extreme view of deletion as this user. I'm generally disappointed with the poor understanding of policy shown in AFD contributions.
'''Oppose''' per numerous concerns raised above me.
Too many concerns, sorry.
'''Oppose''' SS, I have had past encounters with you and I belive that you have this project's best interests at heart. However there are simply too many red flags that would prevent me from supporting. On a side note: If I recall correctly, you said that you would not ever want to be an admin and yet I see you here at RFA.... This perplexes me the most yet it is not a reason for my opposition. Come back in a few months and I'm sure that RFA number 2 would be much better :)--
Regretful '''Oppose''', but with strong moral support. I found this one hard to decide, but what swung it was "''I am hoping that I will eventually get to the point where I will be able to explain my point or my side in an issue, but I will be able to keep myself completely calm, no matter the arguments that come my way, and will be able to also calmly respond to those arguments. I'm still a bit too emotional, but it is something I will continue to work on.''" I really think you have to reach that point before becoming an admin - admins can potentially get a lot more abuse than the rest of us, and I think being able to approach things in a detached and unemotional manner is essential, and if you're finding it hard to stay calm as an editor, I really don't think you're ready for admin yet. But that's my only reason for not supporting - if you work on it, and try again when you're sure you can approach things calmly and can show a clean stretch with no unnecessary emotion, I'll be delighted to support you. --
'''Weak oppose'''. Your 'best work' includes expanding small stubs into larger stubs. Your best article is a "B" class article, which in itself isn't bad, but when a nominee mentions article creation as their best contribution to the encyclopedia, I look for ''at least'' one [[WP:GA|good article]]. While your contributions look good otherwise, I'm going to have to oppose.
'''Weak oppose''' - Your weak arguements on Transformers ADF's don't convince me you would be a good adminstrator.
'''Oppose''' for the many reasons above; in particular, for his canvassing in blatant violation of [[WP:CANVASS]], his apparent view of AFD as a headcount or a battle to be won, and his self-admitted difficulty in having a calm discussion without descending into angry argument. I do see signs of improvement in recent months, but not enough to convince me; at present, I do not think this user has the judgement or policy knowledge required to be an admin.
'''Weak oppose'''.  Per the above reasons.  Concern about canvassing mentioned above.  Would be very open to a reapplication in the future.
'''Oppose''' As someone on the deletionist side, I don't have a problem with those of the opposite view being admins (indeed I even [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fences and windows|nominated one]]), but even given the ARS/canvassing-related stuff - and to be fair even on that point he ''is'' one of the ARS members that actually tries to rescue articles rather than just voting Keep on them - I can't honestly support this editor given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSteven_Slater&action=historysubmit&diff=378754462&oldid=378752981 this edit] which just raises so many flags about misunderstanding the idea of judging consensus, which is something sysops have to do all the time even if you don't go anywhere near AfD.  Sorry.
'''Weak Oppose''' Just haven't seen enough yet. You'll get there eventually.
'''Oppose''' - Per the above. If you are an inclusionist then create some content or make bad articles into acceptable ones; I like that inclusionism; but I don't want a philosophy that suports a proxy war of numbers on new articles.
'''Oppose''' XfDs would be fine, but the editor edits in "clumps" on articles - up to 25 or more in rapid order, all of which are minor, making it hard to determine actual material edits. My big problem is BLPs, where I find the examples in the edit history to be of very uneven sourcing quality.  ARS, in my opinion, is a poor reason for opposing - the folks there, by and large, are sincere about improving the project, and an asset to WP.
'''Oppose'''. Rescuing articles is just fine with me, and I applaud you (and the ARS) for that work. But [[User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project|the essay]], with such exclamations as "Do we not want the truth on Wikipedia?", displays a fundamental disagreement with the basic set-up of the system: verifiability, not truth. I have no major problem with regular editors saying that, but for administrators I'd like to see more adherence to some of our tenets.
'''Neutral''' per [[Talk:Billy Connolly#Spam fritters?]]. It's my only dealing with him, as far as I'm aware. He came across as slightly lacking in clue; not in a really harmful or untrustworthy way, just not admin material for me yet. Sorry. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Just read [[User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project]] for the first time. Moving to '''Oppose'''. --
Sorry, I'm not comfortable with supporting someone with such extreme views about article sourcing. I'm also not very fond of the personal attacks posted in your essay about [[User:Ryulong]] (which you only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=352993244 refactored] after the concern was raised on your talkpage, and even then only removed the name of the editor).
'''Oppose''' - Fails to understand the purpose of third-party sourcing and seems to be too open with what sources are considered reliable.  I agree with his user essay opinion that some people are grabbing for power rather than taking up the tools for the betterment of the project, however I don't like the doom-and-gloom ''failure is almost inevitable'' vibe.  I also recognize some of his AfD work and I don't think he is neutral enough in the inclusion/deletion philosophy for me to feel comfortable letting him close AfD's.  I'm sure he's a good contributor, but cannot support giving him the tools at this time.  --'''
'''Neutral''' Some of the issues raised above make me suspect this editor isn't quite ready yet, though I think most are being blown out of proportion.  Not noticing a site is a Wikipedia mirror when adding it to an article is certainly a problem, but not enough to oppose on (for example), at least in my opinion.  But there are enough different issues including the user space essay which implies a bit too much of a battleground mentality for me to be comfortable.
'''Neutral''' I would have supported, based on how I have seen him at AfD, but the opposes have given me a lot to think about. The userspace essay doesn't help either.
'''Neutral''' Too hard to decide in this case. --
'''Neutral''' Silver seren did not add themselves to the WP:RFA, which may indicate lack of confidence, or overenthusiasm by nominators, however I do want to encourage those that like to include material in Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' – I do agree with a couple of Silver seren's views, personally, and I know he's got his heart in the right place, but a few of the opposes do justifiably bring up some red flags. –
This won't pass. And I wanted to support (thoughtful answer to Q4, and [[User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project]] is actually quite interesting to read), but I'm not sure yet. Your dedication is excellent, even if you have doubts on the project's success. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Neutral''' Agree with [[User:MuZemike|MuZemike]].
<s>'''Tentative oppose''' per [[User:Silver seren/How I Feel About The Project]], convince me you are part of the solution to ARS, as opposed to part of the problem. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)</s> Yes, they did. I don't typically support RFA candidates who I can't personally vouch for, so '''neutral''' without reservations. Best of luck!
Neutral but really '''Moral Support'''. I think it unlikely that this RfA will pass, but I want to encourage you to learn from the feedback here, stick with this project, and try again in the future. My heart goes out to you for your answer to Q8. I've interacted with this editor a lot in the aftermath of the most recent AfD for [[Criticism of Judaism]]. SS was civil and clueful in the face of some very obnoxious comments from others; see for example [[Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 8#Progress on consensus-building]]. I hope that editors will look at that thread, and recognize that this editor has a lot of potential for Wikipedia. --
'''Neutral''' I can't support but I can't oppose, keep up the good work! --<b><font color=red>
'''Neutral''' I recently met Silver seren at (where else?) an [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Africoid_peoples | AfD discussion]]. He was thoughtful and civil there, but did identify a number of sources that were plainly not reliable sources that he apparently rapidly searched up on Google without evaluation. Because most of the articles on my watch list are articles that have been marred by POV-pushers (as stated in the findings of a recent [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence | Arbitration Committee case]], I'm acutely aware of the importance of [[WP:V | Wikipedia verifiability policy]] for the integrity of Wikipedia. Sources shouldn't just be kind-of, sort-of reliable sources, but plainly reliable sources. The candidate's forthrightness in admitting disputes with other users is commendable, but of course this kind of dispute while not holding the mop doesn't bode well for wielding the mop dispassionately. As a non-administrator, I figure one of the most important qualities in an administrator is keeping cool when trouble-makers start pressing buttons. (I have had moderator or sysop powers on various other online forums since 1993.) The candidate has some good qualities, but is somewhat reluctant about accepting the nomination, and my advice would be to wait, become well established in the scholarly community of college, and try RfA again after more maturity and seasoning. Best wishes for successful, challenging studies. --
'''Neutral''' sorry while being on a wikibreak at the start of an RfA might not seem like much it does not allow me to support at this time. ''<B>--
'''Neutral''' Well he's a long-time contributor, but there has been inactive seasons as well. This one is just too hard to decide. '''''
'''Neutral''' - The essay and the ARS membership seals the deal for me, but I do strongly support requiring registration to edit as well, so that tips it into neutral.  Barely.
'''Neutral''' per Fetchcomms. I would like to support, but I'm not comfortable doing so with the opposing reasons. Sorry. '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">:</span>]]
Extremely longterm user, clean block log and diverse editing. Edit count is on the low side, but doesn't seem to have prevented the candidate from demonstrating clue and understanding of the wiki. However I would recommend issuing warnings to more of the vandals who you revert - aside from any deterrent effect it brings their subsequent edits to the attention of the hugglers. ''
'''Weak Support: '''Longterm user, clean block log. Only issue is edit count which should be rectified before next RfA. -
'''Support''' this isn't supposed to be that big of a deal; based on a link posted on [[WT:RFA]] recently, if this candidate had asked for the sysop flag back in 2002, I think he'd have been given it and no one would have noticed. So, support, even if it's almost moral the way this RfA is trending.
'''Support''' Despite my impulse to oppose due to edit count, my sense is that this user will not abuse/misuse the tools. In any event, you might find [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]] usefull. Cheers,
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate makes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_Roe&diff=191819944&oldid=190665340 reasonable arguments] in AfDs and has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Yes, recent activity may be down a bit, but that doesn't mean that the user won't make a good admin.
'''Support''' User was around early, has clue, and answered questions well. ''<I>
'''Regretful Oppose''', my apologies, but your recent activity is very low, and have very few edits to the project space. Even in the long term your edit count is a little on the low side, and whilst that isn't a big deal, having a low edit count in both the short and long term makes it rather difficult to analyse experience. My recommendation would be to put a few solid months of work to both the article and project space to show and gain further experience. Best of luck, --
'''Oppose'''. SJK provides a variety of helpful, albeit relatively minor, contributions in various areas, most obviously religious articles. However I don't see any consistency towards specific article building. This is particularly poignant in SJK's disappointing answer to question 2. From the answer to question 1, SJK is interested in closing XFDs. SJK contributed to a series of AFDs in September 2008. Since then, SJK has only contributed to four XFDs: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Länder|1]], [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 18|2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Sanchez (sexual act) (4th nomination)|3]], & [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant)|4]].
'''Oppose'''. Would like to see a bit more experience overall, and in particular in content quality work, as well as other areas of the project. '''
'''Oppose''' - I try to avoid [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]], and there are circumstances in which I'd support an editor with fewer than 3,000 edits. But there should be something really compelling, and there's nothing to compel me, unfortunately. Rather than go down a list of issues, I'd rather just offer some advice. Get involved in AfDs a bit more, try to demonstrate some good arguments in deletion discussions using policies and guidelines. Pick one or two articles (or create one) and try to build it up to at least a decent, sourced stub (or bring an article past being a stub). Find some area of Wikipedia space where you feel comfortable helping out other editors, perhaps one of the [[WP:PNB|noticeboards]], or [[WP:MEDCAB|informal mediation]], or the [[WP:RD|reference desk]]. Doing so will not only show that you are good at helping others, but may show how you can handle disputes and your communication skills. After putting in some effort in that way I think people will be more willing to support you. Good luck! -- '''
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I wish you hadn't started this RfA, and would recommend you withdraw it ASAP so it has minimal impact on your next, hopefully successful, one.
'''Oppose''' I was going to list my reasons and some advice, but it would look a lot like Atama's post, so I'll just say per Atama.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' - Long term user perhaps, but I don't see a whole lot of general experience. I echo Tan's statement above.
'''Oppose'''.  Serious concerns with experience and policy knowledge.  Longtime editor sure, but 0 edits during the three year stretch from '02-'05, and then the occasional editing which maxes out at ~20 edits a month per most months doesn't cut it.  -'''
'''Oppose''', more experience required. Regards,
'''Oppose''': way too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''':Very little experience.--
'''neutral'''speedy delete nominations seemed to have peaked around 2008, and there have been few since, also the upload log is blank, could some uploads have happened om commons>
'''Neutral''' for now. Torn between supporting a candidate who I think is unlikely to cause any problems, and opposing because of lack of experience. I'd really like to see substantially more recent XfD work in particular, but answers to the optional questions (and any feedback on points raised so far) might well sway me - I'll hold off my final !vote for now. --
'''Neutral''' for now. The candidate looks promising, but the edit count is too low. I would like to see a little more experience in order to get my support. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Neutral''' Am inclined to support due to apparent constructive long-term record of editing, but in the absence of much recent experience in admin areas (particularly CSD and XfD) I need more evidence of policy understanding and clue in those policy areas. Hence my question.--
'''Neutral''' lots of activity in XfDs, but very little in RfPPs. --
'''Neutral''' Too few recent edits for me to support whatever the answers to the questions may be. However, after a quick look over a few of this user's edits I am not inclined to oppose either.
I've looked at your recent edits and see that you do a lot of good work here and I believe you would be a good administrator.  '''
'''Support.''' This user would definitely be trusted with the mop. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green"><big>N</big>ERDY</span><span style="color:#0F0"><big>S</big>CIENCE</span><span style="color:#8bd877"><big>D</big>UDE</span>]]''' (
'''Support''' - Probably won't pass, and the experience is definitely on the low side, but I've seen this user around for a while and I don't have any reason to think that they would misuse the tools, or otherwise question their judgment.
'''Support''' - It saddens me to see this RFA isn't going better. With our past dealings, I'd trust you implicitly with the mop.  --
'''Support''' This user is well trustworthy and experienced enough to obtain the mop. ~
'''Support''' based on ''recent improvement'', he fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article creator, great user page, etc.  I am not ageist.
'''Support'''  Valid looking reasons in the oppose section, but not supporting weakly as from an admittedly quick random sample of your contribs Im not seeing a temperament issue, if anything you seem to have a nice collaborative attitude.  Good stub creations, I like how you invariably have a template and an image.  Good defense work against vandals.
'''Moral Support''' Looks like a well-meaning user, and to counteract certain opposes below which I find problematic. <strong>
'''per above''' Per A6, A7 and A10, and I think he's learned from A5. Particularly, I like the level of perception from A10. He looked beyond the empty text to the info box.  Didn't read all the opposes. If some are based on age, well, I judge a candidate's readiness by their contribs. Some young people are mature enough to mop up and some not so young people will never be mature enough. (Oh, God. One day will be looking the age issue from the other end, as mental flexibility and judgment eventually deteriorate with age. Though I guess that's still a few decades off?)
'''Support''' per Keepscases. That and the fact that I see nothing wrong with this guy IMHO.--
Yes. He has a good amount of edits, and is a good contributor.--
'''Support''' per White Shadows and Keepscases. Good luck!
'''Moral support''' You clearly have good intentions.
'''Weak support:''' You are a good contributor. Give it time. -
'''Regretful Oppose'''  Appears to be under 18.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I really am, because you were pleasant to deal with in our one encounter, but someone who wants to work in speedy deletion with only 300 deleted edits worries me.  I also find 80 edits to AIV to be somewhat on the low side.  I know you were told in your last RFA to come back around February, but with three months of minimal activity, I think you should have waited a while longer.  In my view, this is the ultimate not now case- in a few more months I would seriously consider supporting.
'''Oppose''' I'll admit that I have not had much interaction with Skater, but all of it has been of a fairly volatile and rash nature. (My major interaction involved Skater nominating a page I had created for deletion because a wikipedia user he knew pointed out the page to him. That page got almost all Keep votes at AfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metalchicks]. Another concern is that Skater did not endeavor to list the page in the music-related discussions, which I think is important for someone to do - I did not even know about those discussions at that point). There has been a general tendency to get dragged into arguments and have quick-fire responses when they weren't all that helpful[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_libs/Archive]. Also, Skater seems to quickly establish views on a user, and these seem to be hard to change, and in my opinion are somewhat rash. My strongest reason for the oppose, though, is that Skater decided to retire in what I can only call a rash decision based on a single user being caught for sockpuppting (see the details here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Skater&action=history]. When that user was eventually unblocked with the promise of not doing it again, Skater came back to wikipedia. I don't know what kind of administrative decisions to expect from someone who operates so rashly. Also, I wonder why Skater keeps requesting administratorship - I feel like he thinks it's either a badge of honor, or he wants to do things differently from the existing administrators - but that's a personal feeling. Skater, I hope when you read this you don't automatically get angry at me, and instead try to see where I'm coming from.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament. Also, lack of experience. -- '''
Per the answer to question 5, the second one is a definite deletion under [[WP:CSD#G10]]. --
The Q5 answer is troubling, this kind of material should be deleted on sight, and most definitely not be userfied.
'''Oppose''' for a combination of factors that would not, on their own, sway me to oppose, but taken together, do. Those factors are: a limited record of content contribution; a limited number of manual edits (automated edits aren't bad, its just that manual edits are a better gauge of experience); and Q5 (per BigDom above, overlooking the BLP concern). As I said on my talk page, you are a very good editor. I think you should continue being a very good editor for a while. Adminship is a thorny crown and I do wonder why you want it at this stage: the number of admins who retire or voluntarily desysop show that it is obviously a title that many consider not to be worth the effort. I'd suggest enjoying the freedom of ''not'' being an administrator and broaden your engagement in the project and you'll probably come back here soon enough and sail through.--
'''Oppose'''  I don’t know if I can trust this editor with the mop for the simple reason that he has insufficient experience in what WP is all about—creating and contributing to articles.  Article clean-up, reverting vandalism and nominating stuff for deletion is important, we all do it, but if you are going to mentor new editors in the ways of WP (answer 6 above), you really need strong article space experience—creating, improving and sourcing articles.  This candidate has done very, very little of that.  Put the mop away for a while and write some WP articles.--
'''Oppose''' Lacks temperament.
'''Oppose''' regretfully, but with moral support. I was going to go for a neutral with a view to reconsidering as things progress (largely based on narrow experience), but the answers to Q5 both seem wrong to me (the first one asserts notability, so it's not an A7, and the second one makes unsourced allegations of criminality against named individuals, so it's a G10). And as CSD is where the nominator plans to work, that's not something I can overlook. I think more experience is needed in CSD - watch new CSD noms, decide how you'd deal with them yourself, and see what the closing admins do (and think on which ones get it wrong - they sometimes do) --
'''Oppose''' I'm not bothered about your age, or that you took a wiki break; I would prefer to see a bit more content building, but my real concern is that you haven't yet got it quite right at CSD. Missing the G10 in the question was concerning - the information itself could have been correct and I'd be happy with either a G10, or an attempt to source the article or deleting it as G10 with a friendly note to the editor explaining that articles of that nature absolutely need reliable sources and offering to restore it if they supply a source. Your other tagging seems a tad hasty at times, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Juanita+andrews&timestamp=20100318234018&diff=prev this A7] was after just three minutes; so we'll likely never know what that editor would have expanded it to if they hadn't been tagged so quickly. I would suggest you try working at the back of the unpatrolled queue and maybe help some newbies get their articles through DYK or install [[wp:hotcat]] and categorise that which isn't obviously speediable. I hope you treat this as a learning opportunity, and if we are both still around in three months feel free to email me for advice as to whether I think you are ready to run again. ''
I don't think you're experienced enough to hold the role.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 5 very poor. Coupled with a generally low level of experience I think this is a case of please come back later.
'''Oppose''' I think you will be  a fine sysop one day, but not quite yet. You definitely missed the problem in q5, and that’s important. I agree with your q4 point that item c is important, but those things can be done by any editor with experience; there’s almost nothing in the admins tools which will help you be a mentor to others. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' Apart from CSD, I also have concerns of cooling issues from this user, which in my opinion he just isn't the right trait for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per temperment and experience concerns above, but suggest the candidate try again in 6-12 months after additional work.  Here again I find myself in the position of having to ask that this Rfa be closed under the provisions of [[WP:SNOW]]; let's not drag this out.
'''Regretful oppose''' Candidate is on the right track but answer to Q5 is worrisome. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' I would normally simply avoid commenting, given the consensus that's already established, or perhaps !vote neutral as a moral support, but this candidate fails [[User:Jclemens/RFAStandards|my criteria]] in about every possible way: temperament, content creation, policy knowledge, dispute resolution experience, and (apparently) age. There's really a lot to fix here, and redoing question 5 wouldn't change my position.
'''Oppose''' per answer to q5. As the candidate says CSD is one of the main areas they would want to use the tools in, a better understanding of CSD criteria is absolutely necessary. Maybe after more experience in that area. I also can't help but wonder if candidate is over 18.
'''Oppose''' - Thank you very much for your kind answers to my additional questions, Skater.  As far as I can tell you are an excellent Wikipedian.  Given the areas you have indicated you wish to work in, my only three criteria are (1) Will the nominee deliberately misuse the tools? (Absolutely no suggestion that you will), (2) Can the nominee demonstrate high-level skills in both avoiding and resolving conflicts with other editors? (Close enough; I'm happy with the answers you've given in that area), and (3) Does the nominee have a strong understanding of the policies relevant to their chosen areas of work?  It's (3) where I have a problem, in that your grasp on the speedy deletion criteria as evidenced by questions 5 and 6 does not appear to be strong.  Speedy deletions in general are only for the most blatantly uncontroversial deletions; the answers should either have been an unambiguous delete for well explained reasons in line with CSD policy, a declining of the CSD, or a referral to another admin for a second opinion.  Your answer to 6 - which I asked to give you a second chance at question 5, and must confess I don't have a definitive answer to myself - is certainly technically correct but I was hoping for an answer that demonstrated a deeper understanding of either the CSD policy or the processes and procedures of deletion. Nevertheless I have huge respect for your contributions to the project and hope to see you back at RfA in six months if you're still interested. -
'''Oppose''' I think the answers demonstrate insufficient experience to become an administrator at present, especially for someone wishing to work in the area of deletion and vandalism. Nothing personal and Skater seems like a nice enough, well meaning fellow but I just feel he needs more experience. Also, to be entirely frank, his userpage doesn't give me a great impression of maturity with the "proud" announcement he has never vandalised, the references to supposedly funny diffs (which are really just crude juvenile comments) and the userbox references to being a pyromaniac. None of these matter for an editor but it's just not the sort of maturity level I'm looking for in an admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Users (and admins especially) need to remember that Wikipedia does not exist solely for its editors. It exists for the readers (who outnumber editors by several orders of magnitude) and it is a service provided by the foundation. The "retirement" issue over the fundraising banner makes me question whether Skater realizes that. That incident, combined with some of the other comments here (Sarah's in particular) make me question maturity and temperament. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
Well meaning editor who would be an asset to the project with more experience and knowledge. As this is the second self-nom within Skater's patchy 12 month involvement in the project, I would suggest that Skater gets more involved in Wikipedia, becoming familiar and confident with our guidelines and policies, especially those that cause the most drama - CSD and BLP, and wait at least 12 months before applying again. Indeed, it might make sense to ask the opinion of an experienced contributor before nominating again. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience in admin-related areas.
'''Neutral'''.  Concerns with sporadic editing, the wikibreak (the wikimedia foundation office is free to do whatever it wants, regardless of the userbase's opinions), high ratio of automated to manual edits, (37%; 1652 of 4470 are automated), and a lack of personalized [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Skater&namespace=3 interaction] with other users. On top of that, you state you wish to work in CSD and UAA, but I see little evidence of extensive experience in either field (300 deleted edits and <6 edits at UAA simply isn't going to cut it). I know this is a long list, but please don't be discouraged. You're a fantastic user, and definitely on the right track; I'm positive you'll make an excellent sysop someday.  But for now, I think you'd benefit from more experience first before becoming an admin.  Sorry mate.  -'''
'''Neutral''' Sorry. With only 2,000 over non-automated edits, I can't support this RFA. I would like to see more participation in not only CSD-related areas but also other areas an admin should be familiar in, like [[WP:AN/I]] and [[WP:RS/N]].
'''Neutral close to support''' 304 [[Special:DeletedContributions/Skater|Deleted Contributions]] looks pretty good (which would cause me to vote support), but only 80 [[WP:AIV|AIV]] edits (neutral) and six [[WP:UAA|UAA]] edits (oppose). Altogether, it balances out to neutral. --
'''Neutral''' I'm really not sure what to say on this one, I don't think I should go for either ''Support'' or ''Oppose'', there's just not enough postives and not enough negatives to tip the scale to make me vote on one side. --
'''Neutral leaning Support''', solid editor, plenty of experience, good faith contributor.  Unfortunately, the answer to Q5 is flat out wrong, and I can't bring myself to support because of it.  I'd encourage you to have another try in a couple of months.
A cursory review of contributions suggests inadequate experience (still) and insufficient familiarity with WP conventions. I have no reason to expect Skater would abuse admin tools. With further persuasion, I could go either way. Since Skater is generally a good editor and a dedicated vandal-fighter, I would encourage this editor to hang in there. /
'''Neutral'''. It pains me to do this, since everything I've seen makes me think you're a great editor with the potential to be a great administrator one day in the not-too-distant future. I probably would have gone for a weak support if it weren't for question 5- unsourced controversial material about living persons needs to go. Immediately. I'm afraid that's probably sunk this RfA. I'll address the age thing, but only briefly: it's the third stupidest oppose rationale I have '''''ever''''' heard in an RfA- this is RfA, not the arbcom elections. If it was thought that those under 18 would be unable to handle the admin responsibilities, there'd be a policy. If you want to work in CSD, I suggest you spend a bit of time lurking around [[C:SD]], maybe de-tag a few non-speediables or replace them with more appropriate tags. There's also a lot to see at the back of [[special:NewPages]] as well as at the front and it can lead to new, interesting articles or bring you into contact with less experienced editors whom you can help. As WereSpielChequers, whom I greatly respect, says above, do feel free to drop me an email if you have a query or in a few months' time when you can show the world what you've done with this feedback. I feel strongly that you could be a great admin one day, so I might even be willing to nominate you! I'm sorry I couldn't support, I really would have liked to.
'''Neutral''' Waiting a few months and a bit of help for an administrator would help you a lot next time.
'''Neutral''' Not right now. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral'''<small>'''(from Oppose)'''</small> I'm not convinced that the candidate has enough understanding of the CSD at the moment - the first one could be declined as it makes a claim of importance; the second one, though, is a clear BLP issue - and should be deleted on sight. I can't support at this time when the candidate would allow such a BLP article to survive, given the defamation involved. However, I don't feel strong enough for a pile-on oppose, hence moving to this sofa instead. Incidently, if you want to contact me after the RfA is closed, I'm quite happy to discuss what I would have expected to see for Q5! -- '''''
Q5. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' - Although I can see that you're a good editor and I would have no problem supporting you in the future, I just can't do so at the moment - the CSD issues are just too much of a cause for concern. 6 months and more CSD work from now, and I'll have no problem supporting. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
'''Neutral''' The timing for this RfA is premature.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, Skater, but I don't think you have sufficient experience with content creation and improvement. You mentioned that you've created multiple articles that have been deleted for lack of notability; that's concerning because part of the admin package is [[WP:AUTOREV|autoreviewer]].
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Neutral]]''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  CSD is a tricky area and the candidate should study it more since that's an area of particular interest to him.  I expect any concerns I may have about the ability to keep a cool head will be long-resolved once CSD is mastered, and I don't have any other concerns at this time.--'''~
'''Moral support'''. Well intentioned, certainly and I trust you, but I'm afraid you don't have sufficient experience for the community to determine that you know what you're doing. Besides, adminship isn't as fun as it looks, trust me.
{{Ec}} '''Moral support''': Continue editing well and you'll be ready later.--<big><font face="Papyrus">
'''Moral Support''' Largely per HJ and Mono. Give it a few more months and you'll pass. RFA is about if the community trusts you to have the extra buttons. I do trust you now but I'm afraid that you'll need just a bit more experience before you should go up for adminship again. Try at the end of summer like September-October and then you'll be a <s>good</s> better candidate :)--
'''Oppose''' insufficient experience in admin related portions of Wikipedia for me to support at this time. ''<B>--
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]; not enough experience so far on Wikipedia. I look forward to supporting you in a future RFA, however. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' at this point the candidate needs to have more idea about notability per [[Frantic Assembly]] and [[Bigshot Hotshot]], also has not had much experience in tagging for deletion. Also for this page: [[Slon02]].
not yet, but keep up the good work —<font color="black">'''''
'''Oppose''' but with moral support. Great contributor, but fewer than 2,000 edits just isn't enough experience, so [[WP:NOTNOW]] - I look forward to supporting a future RfA --
'''Oppose''' at this time. User seems to have good intent, but not enough experience. [[WP:NOTNOW]]
Well I offered moral support last time, and I'm afraid moral support is all I can really offer this time. I think you've greatly improved since your last RfA, but that wasn't very long ago by RfA standards and I think you'd still benefit from some more experience.
Moral support- not quite yet, but would be happy to support in the future.
In my opinion, you need a little more experience before we hand you the sysop tools. Before nominating yourself again, though, give it time. Be patient. You don't ''have'' to have the tools now. My RfA failed because I wasn't ready, and I'm not going to try again until December, maybe even a bit later. So I think you should give it another six months, as I was told, and reapply then.
I've gone through a few of your contributions and I think you are a very good editor who will sail through RfA in a few months. You seem to have recently started to contribute to AfDs and your contributions are looking really promising there. But you haven't been doing it long enough for me to be confident of you having the depth of experience to close debates. I was also really impressed with the way that you handled the little stoush you mentioned in question 3. You're on a rapid upwards trajectory and it's an unfortunate tactical error that you've nominated yourself now, just two months after your last RfA. But I'm not opposing becuase of that; I'm opposing because I don't think you have the experience yet to use the tools in the areas that you nominate. I suggest waiting a few more months (I suggest at least 4), and perhaps seek some advice before running again (you might even have offers to nominate you in that time). --
'''Oppose''' Per above. Concerns with experience and policy knowledge.  -'''
{{ec}}'''Oppose''' with moral support per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slon02&oldid=371616931#Regards_to_my_blanking Issues respecting automated tool misuse] are still fairly recent, not sure why you're in such a hurry to become an admin.
'''Oppose''', [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Last RfA less than 3 months ago. -
'''Oppose''', concerns regarding experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]], and this very premature self-nom gives me concerns about your judgement and patience. If you've observed RfA at all, you'd have known that this would have very little chance of passing even before trying. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. '''
'''Neutral''' - I don't see anything that worries me other than the you needing more experience. This is a little too soon given that your last RfA was just a couple months ago. I think if you keep up the good work you'll be ready by December (you'll have a full year of experience under your belt then). Best regards,
'''Neutral leaning support'''. You aren't quite ready for the tools. I'm sure you'll make a fine candidate in the future. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
Moral support, but oppose, so neutral.
'''Neutral''' per fetchcomms to avoid pile-on in the oppose section. Don't be discouraged!
'''Neutral'''- in four to six months you'll be in with a very good chance.
'''Moral Support Neutral''' I don't feel right opposing because the candidate is well intentioned, but definitely not ready.
'''Neutral''' Well intentioned but not there yet, my apologies. ''<B>--
Pre-transclusion nominator support, as I'm about to go to bed. Please will the first person here after transclusion "un-hide" this, so the datestamp follows it...  --
'''Support''' per nom. Per GlassCobra, I do not see anything oppose-worthy in some diffs from 2006 and 2007. Neither does letting a couple of people know of your RfA qualify as canvassing, in my opinion. Without wanting to cast doubt on the good faith of the opposers, I really think that to oppose over these issues is straining. This is the janitor's mop we are talking about here, not the keys to the crown jewels. --
'''Support''', per my nomination.--
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' Long-tenured and dedicated editor, nominated by well-known and respected peers. Opposers are quite unconvincing, to the point of seeming to hold a vindictive grudge. Petty arguments from 2007 (which are not "recent") and "but he types too much!" are rather poor reasons to deny someone the tools to cleanup the project and block vandals. Notices on the talk pages seem to be mostly neutrally worded, which does not violate WP:CANVASS; disappointing to see people already locking onto that. Best wishes to the candidate,
'''Support'''.  GlassCobra says it very well above.  We need dedicated and tenured editors like SMcC with the buttons, and I'm disappointed that this seems to be getting sidetracked.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''': glad to find out about this. I haven't always agreed with SMcCandlish, but I think he's a fine editor and talks a lot of sense. I note SV's complaint under ''Oppose'', but suspect the candidate has changed a lot in 3–4 years. He's very experienced.
'''Support''' No significant worries. I'm not convinced that SMcCandlish actually crossed the line with canvassing, although I bet he now regrets not being more careful. If I was convinced there was an attempt to bias the RfA with canvassing I would automatically oppose.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' - The way this RfA is going, my vote probably won't make a difference but I find myself supporting anyway. None of the opposes are remotely convincing; while "verbose", this candidate does show much reason in his arguments. The canvassing claims are about messages that clearly aren't canvassing. My only concern at this point is that he seems to be not very welcoming to new editors, and that should be improved upon, but I see no evidence that he is actually ''hostile'' so I will still support. -- '''
'''Support'''. Of course. -
'''Support''' I had a touch of hestitation over the canvass issue. But The co-nominators response clarifies it to me and the back ground to it. I think regardless its best not to practice this method even if it means bringing people of nuetral standing, but alternatively it shows not trying to hide things which is a good quality. So if any hesiations exist its over that event; howver, theres quality experience and time here building the project. I have to trust that the tools will not be abused.
'''Support'''.  While I am a supporter of [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]], in this case I really have no worries; as long ago as August '08 I was surprised he wasn't already an administrator!  If I'd known about this sooner, I'd have probably co-nominated him.  Cheers!  --''
'''Support''' I am not sufficiently convinced by the opposers to be unable to support this candidate, and the work the candidate does here is sufficient to make this a support rather than a neutral. -- '''''
'''Support''' Many of the concerns brought up in the oppose crowd seem to be focused on either minor details like sending a couple of messages to users about this RFA to concerns stemming from a nearly three year old rfa. Overall, SMcCandlish seems like a good editor with a  good grounding on how Wikipedia generally works. I am sure he will be able to use admin tools effectively. --
'''Support''' What Hdt83 said. Admins are held to a high standard but it seems, to this completely impartial observer, rather like this nominee is being held to a standard approaching perfection. The nominee is not flawless. He is clearly a bit process-wonky. His canvassing flirted with exceeding acceptable boundaries. He might even be slightly argumentative, but as far as I can tell he maintains a polite, balanced tone when making his point, and his point is generally well backed up. Most importantly, I see no reason to think the tools granted would be abused, and I see some reason to think that the nominee would benefit from access.
'''Support'''. Perfectly suitable for the officially sanctioned brand of admins.
'''Support'''. Always found him to be trustworthy and helpful.
'''Support''' May I just say that this entire canvassing affair is just silly — SMc has not violated [[WP:CANVASS]] (which is one of many WP policies that is far too POV dependent). May I just advise reducing the verbosity (when speaking, I am often overtly verbose, which does not help me in arguments!)
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_Roe&diff=192165317&oldid=192163396 this suggestion] is a reasonable compromise stance, Yes, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture]] was misguided and some might suppose it would be cause enough for me to oppose; however, to be fair, it is currently 2010 and that nomination was back in 2007.  Similarly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Womanizer_(2nd_nomination)&diff=143381255&oldid=143348757 this vote provides no rationale] and so might seem like a cause for me to oppose, but again, I am keeping the time frame and growth of the editor in consideration here.  So, when we get down to it, the candidate is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Nobody&diff=338586916&oldid=338371408 nice to me], has never been blocked, has rollback, has autoreview, has over 50,000 edits, and has earned [[User:SMcCandlish#Wikawards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Per Glass Cobra's statement.
'''Support''' Long Term User with good track and previous RFA was nearly 3 years and the user has waited long for the next RFA and overcame the points raised in previous RFA.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools and see no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' good answer to my question. - [[User:Tbsdy lives|Tbsdy]] (formerly
'''Support''' - good answers, meets my standards, has rollback, great editor, will be safe with the buttons, etc.  Minus: too much drama.
'''Oppose'''. My only experience of SMcCandlish was in 2007, but it left its mark. It was during a poll to propose the adoption of [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. I can't remember whether McCandlish opposed the proposal itself or simply the process. All I recall is that it was one rules-lawyering post after another&mdash;several hundreds of them (I counted at the time close to 1,000) on various talk pages in around two weeks, many of them about protection, and tags about protection, and the protection of protection tags&mdash;all meta meta issues. It was the most draining thing I've experienced in the five years I've been editing.<p> It seems it wasn't an isolated event. In [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish's first RfA]], Radiant wrote: "SMC has a tendency to drown out discussions through sheer sesquipedalian verbosity," [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSMcCandlish&action=historysubmit&diff=107582311&oldid=107571811] giving as an example [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 5]], 250 kb long, with over 80 posts from McCandlish in the space of three days. The way this RfA has been prepared may be another example. It was created in July last year, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SMcCandlish_2&action=history] then SMcCandlish started fiddling with it on January 4, because he was "trying to coordinate all co-nominators into one draft page," [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSMcCandlish_2&action=historysubmit&diff=335739769&oldid=310235488] posting about its development in various places until it finally opens over two weeks later, a process that could have been completed in a few hours. Also note SM's long explanation today to NuclearWarfare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=prev&oldid=339045633] about he wasn't really canvassing when he was ... canvassing. :) I fear he would spend his adminship focusing on detail, all the while missing the point. I'm sorry, SM. <font color="purple">
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about canvassing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=339042768&oldid=338993188]. Also, concerns about temperament - as seen both in historical behavior pattern and recent diffs shown by both {{user|SlimVirgin}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSMcCandlish&action=historysubmit&diff=107582311&oldid=107571811] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_5] and {{user|Richardcavell}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Taylor&diff=prev&oldid=338836932], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_17&diff=prev&oldid=338542795#Template:Avatar_.28film.29]. '''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=prev&oldid=339040777 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=prev&oldid=339041064 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant!&diff=prev&oldid=339046130 this] and <s>[[User_talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 38#Gosh|this]]</s>([[epic fail|FAIL]]), I will oppose because of [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]]. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose'''.  I came here to support, but I found the diffs presented above concerning.  Canvassing or not, the whole notification of RfA issue doesn't sit well with me.  I'll re-evaluate in a few days but this is my !vote for now.  -'''
'''Oppose''' for many, many, reasons. Deletion work has a very spotty track record:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Future_records&diff=prev&oldid=338294597] [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don't_poke_the_bear_(2nd_nomination)|this MfD]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DuPont_Registry|this Afd]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vanessa_Lee_Evigan|this AfD]], and I'm sure lots of others.  I concur with the earlier accusations about being argumentative, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TenPoundHammer&diff=prev&oldid=285413660] and numerous other interactions.  Going through recent history, I see way too many confrontational comments in edit summaries.  Bold, revert, discuss doesn't work very well if the discussion is happening inside of edit summaries.  A recent example of this can be found in the edit war over at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ]].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brunswick_Boat_Group&action=history Here] he's jumping all over a newbie in the form of edit summaries, a newbie who still hasn't even been welcomed!  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28people%29&oldid=334717091 Here] quite a few experienced editors seem frustrated with the candidate and indicate that he was engaged in or bordering on tendentious editing or at least had a bad case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]].  The striking thing here is that one doesn't need to go very far through the history to find conflict after conflict after conflict.  The TLDR wall of text in his answer to question 3 is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of conflict.  A lot of these aren't "lets figure out the right thing to do or figure out what the community consensus is" type of conflicts, they tend to escalate very often.
'''Oppose''' per all the above, recent and quite worrying diffs. I am particularly disappointed by the canvassing ones, and I'm sorry but that is such a fundamental guideline that I cannot support an editor who either doesn't comprehend or respect it. —
'''Oppose''' the lack of knowledge that even good faith attempts at notification look awfully like canvassing when running for RFA concerns me about this user's judgment. '''
'''Oppose''', mostly per SV. User seems overly process-wonky based on what I've seen. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Weak oppose''' for excessive verboseness in his arguments as illustrated in the diffs above. (on re-reading this seems lame but it is honestly why I am opposing...) ''<B>--
'''Oppose:''' My own recent experience with the nominee is [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Should_naming_conventions_for_people_apply_regardless_of_topic.2Fproject.3F|here]], a recent debate with roots over a year before, where SMC claimed a consensus in his favor which in fact ran strongly ''against'' his position.  He debated the point in exhausting length and detail, claiming consensus once again for his views even in the teeth of overwhelming opposition.  His language was often confrontational.  But here's the capper, IMHO: "I can't win with you or the handful of other people flaming me incessantly here, no matter what I do, so I'm not trying."  What the hell?  "Win?"  When are policy discussions zero-sum competitions?  We are trying to work out sensible and workable solutions here, not playing some geeky MMORPG with the aim of vanquishing our opponents.  Obviously SMC's contributed a lot to the encyclopedia, but nothing I've seen leaves me with much faith as to SMC's capacity for impartiality or accepting consensus against his POV.
'''Oppose:''' Bad attitude for an editor, let alone an admin.<br/>—
'''Oppose''' - I'm worried that the user comes across as self-righteous and argumentative. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Taylor&diff=prev&oldid=338836932], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_17&diff=prev&oldid=338542795#Template:Avatar_.28film.29]. -
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry. It pains me to oppose any candidate, let a lone an obviously competent, long term editor but I just do not feel comfortable with you having the tools at this moment in time. The way this RfA has been conducted and the diffs provided by opposers above me appear to portray an editor with an argumentative attitude who does not take kindly to constructive criticism and, perhaps more importantly, is incapable or unwilling to provide concise and succinct rationales for his actions. Especially for a potential XfD closer, communication is a ''vital'' skill for administrators, who often have to justify their actions (for example, in closing a heated XfD or to ArbCom [where there's a word limit]) in very little space. I did wonder about the canvassing, but, while raising an eyebrow, it was not a deciding factor in placing my !vote. Please don't take it personally, I don't doubt you're a good editor and I see no reason you couldn't be a fine administrator in the future, but I just cannot support you now.
'''Oppose''', as someone who is herself excessively patient towards bumbling new editors, the last thing I feel the encyclopaedia needs is an admin with apparently no patience towards the same. Richard Cavell's diffs are quite persuasive.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''', I've had the advantage of reading the diffs and !votes above, I agree with the position of [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJMitchell'''</font>]]
'''Oppose:''' Disappointed because we really need good Admins. Clearly this candidate has been weighed, measured,  and found wanting. This is not a personal attack as my comment equally is true of me.
'''Oppose''' It is good that an editor is willing to explain decisions, and to engage in discussion, and SMcCandlish does that; however, there is a point at which explanation and discussion tips over into persuasion, and it starts to appear as though the editor is attempting to convince others of their point of view rather than engage in reaching a consensual decision. The evidence presented in diffs, and in SMcCandlish's involvement in this AfD, tends to point toward SMcCandlish not being consensual enough for the role of a neutral admin. At this point there are enough concerns about SMcCandlish's judgement that the community is having difficulty in giving the candidate their trust. An appropriate action now might be to stop debating about about people's observations, take on board the drift of the AfD, withdraw for now, address the concerns raised and reapply in 6 months time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose'''  My only interaction leaves me with questions of his suitability to be an an admin, that along with the concerns raised above leave me here.  A move was requested at [[Talk:Pool_(cue_sports)#Requested_move|Talk:Pocket billiards]] to move the article to [[Pool (cue sports)]].  There wasn't much participation in the 7 days it was open but good arguments were made as to why the move should occur and no one stated that the move shouldn't occur.  Almost a month later [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] states that he has no problem with the move. which he later retracts and says that the move should be [[Talk:Pool_(cue_sports)#Clean_up_after_the_move.2C_or_undo_it|undone unless a massive cleanup is done]].  I tried discussing with him as to why a cleanup needed to be done but instead of trying to explain he only restates what he has said before.  When I don't understand his explanation he says "If you "still don't understand" then just don't worry about it and move on."  This is not the attitude I think is necessary to be an admin.  Admins need to be able to explain their decisions and not try to push people away.  <s>When no one sides with him he goes to [[WP:RM]] and says that it is</s>He also requested an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=328095974&oldid=328094463 uncontroversial] move it back to the original name.  This raises a concern that he would do things that he wants to do without concern to consensus.  '''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per  HJMitchell.--
'''Oppose''' You nominated an article for deletion. Sources upon sources were provided, and the AfD closed as keep. Fine and dandy- this happens every single day; sometimes we need to discuss notability in order to establish it. However, on the talk page of this RFA, you say, "I'm unaware of any admins on the system who have never lost an XfD debate". Lost? I'm struggling to figure out how getting notability established for an article and having it kept is seen as losing- AfD is not a zero-sum game; a good discussion that leads to sources being uncovered benefits everyone. Some of the other diffs pointed out above are concerning, as well.
'''Oppose''' for the canvassing issue, and replying to all the Opposers is a bit odd.
'''Strong Oppose''' sorry, but this isn't a fair RfA with the way its been advertised. '''
'''Oppose''' Canvassing is worrisome, and I strongly disagree with this editor's views expressed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people]]. I don't think we need a new administrator who is unconcerned about unsourced BLPs.
'''Oppose''' Canvassing.
'''Oppose''' - Per many/most of the above. I feel hypocritical about opposing a user with this level of experience, and bad about opposing with the MOS contribs. I couldn't function without MOS. But neither would I be comfortable supporting with the concerns above evident. Sorry. Nice signature, though :)
'''Oppose''' - Per Richard Cavell, candidate shows a propensity for stubborn arguments and we already have enough admins using the tools to get their way.
'''Oppose''' - Overly bureaucracy-oriented. Going over this user's past contributions, it seems obvious to me that he is far more interested in the process, rather than the end result. In my experience, that doesn't create good admins, it creates people who treat Wikipedia as an experiment in governmental procedure. Sorry, we have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many of those already.
'''Neutral''' Per Richardcavell.
'''Neutral''' I will not oppose, because SMcCandlish is a veteran editor with a good deal of excellent article work under his belt (particularly articles about cue sports), an ability to reason and debate thoughtfully, and an ideal participant in CfDs. I think he would do an excellent job closing CfDs and TfDs, and in most other areas he cited. But I also think he can be far too much of a "process wonk," to borrow Wizardman's description above. My experience with the candidate at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)|this MfD]] originally put that thought in my mind. There, SMcCandlish argued that the page in question, long tagged and treated as a guideline, could not be considered a guideline because it had not gone through the [[WP:PROPOSAL|proposal process]] and therefore was not eligible for a [[WP:SK|speedy keep]]. Although there was a lot of disagreement over this issue, and I would not hold it against SMcCandlish normally, it seems that it's part of a pattern, supported by evidence in the "oppose" section above. There's nothing wrong with being loquacious or often arguing for adhering to policy (I myself do those things), but this candidate sometimes takes that too far. I won't oppose based on that, but I'm not comfortable supporting either.
Sorry, I don't see any experience and I don't see a reason for your need of admin tools. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
Per NSD. Hardly any experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns with experience, judgement, maturity, breadth of exposure. -'''
'''Oppose''' It seems that the candidate has not yet renamed a page.  Also there was a lot of trouble in the past with copyright on pictures so I would like to see recent correct uploading before giving the responsibility to clean up other copyvios.
Premature.
'''Oppose''' You seem to be a net positive to the project, but I don't think you have enough experience to be an admin.  Please remember that being an admin doesn't add any additional editorial authority. If I were you'd I just focus on improving the encyclopedia and not worry about adminship for a while.  --'''
'''Oppose''': Mostly [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Although the supporter is an admitted [[WP:MEAT|meat puppet]], both seem to be innocently unaware of basic policy which is crucial to being an administrator. Come back in about 4,000 varied edits, at ''least'' six months, and a basic understanding of WP policy and you'll have my support.--
Sorry, I don't see sufficient admin-related work experience to be able to hold confidence in you having access to the tools. Please don't be discouraged if this RfA doesn't pass! I think if you spend 6 months to a year more writing content as well as delving into administrative areas, I'll support.
'''Support''' No issues with the lack of recent edits.  Seems trustworthy.
per Bastique, who is always right.--
'''Support''' to cancel out some of the frankly absurd opposes based on silly things like [[WP:ITIS|editcountitis]] or the candidate not meeting some arbitrary criteria. At the end of the day, while this RfA may be a little premature, I think T is sufficiently competent not to break anything and sufficiently sensible to ask for advice if given the mop.
'''Support''' OK <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. [[User:T|The candidate self-identifies as a]] [[Pittsburgh Pirates|Pittsburgh Pirates fan]] and therefore needs all the support he can get in more ways than one. More seriously, I think it is highly likely he would perform acceptably as an administrator. Having said that, I think prudence suggests that T should withdraw this RfA for now, continue his good work as an editor, and return for a strong second attempt when he is more likely to succeed.
{{ec}}'''Support'''—
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. I have no problem with recent inactivity, as T possesses the awareness necessary to go read current policy if he's unsure.--
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry to be the one to start this list, but I would like to see more contributions to the wiki, it's just too early.
I love your username, but I can't really put aside the worries I have against putting someone with so few recent edits, aside from Huggle and other anti-vandalism work, into the position of administrator.  I can see that you mean well but unless you can show us that you really have kept in touch with all the changes that have taken place on Wikipedia recently and are familiar with the aspects of work that you'd need to do as an administrator I can't really support an RfA at this time. '''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] and per Soap :)--
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and lack of recent activity.  -'''
'''Oppose''' For a vandal fighter, I would have expected more edits to AIV. You have eight. Not nearly enough experience, in my book. In addition, with only 400-some user talk edits, that's rather low for vandalism patrol, especially with all the automated tools today. I'm assuming that you are warning vandals, so that is a lowish number. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
{{ec}}'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you have far too little experience in admin-related areas to be handed the mop — only 8 edits to [[WP:AIV]], an area you'd like to work in... —; too sum it up, it's a [[WP:NOTNOW]] RFA, in my opinion... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' I'm very sorry, but I have to agree with everyone above. You don't have enough experience in areas where admin work is required. Also, you seem to mostly revert vandalism, yet you only have 8 [[WP:AIV|AIV]] reports. I'm sure as you continue to contribute, you will gain more knowledge of the policies, admin related areas, etc. When you do, that will be the time to consider adminship. Again, I'm sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW|now is not the time.]].
'''Oppose''' I think you need more experience in policy-heavy areas like AIV, AfD, CSD, UAA, etc. It seems like your edits have made an overall positive impact on the project, so I bet if you gain some experience in these areas you'd be ready for admin tools in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Your edits seem more or less good. I'm surprised at how few there are, seeing as you're a Huggler, but that's not enough to shift me either way. My concerns rest mostly with the very low number of edits to AIV when you say that that is the area in which you intend to do most of your work. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Pepper&action=historysubmit&diff=378782467&oldid=378781925 this !vote] you made at AfD shows that you're unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's important policies, such as [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. Knowledge of policy is an important attribute in editors. You definitely show potential, but I'd say come back in a little while when you're more experienced. <span style="font-family: Verdana">—
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience in areas you wish to work in, 8 [[WP:AIV]] reports is not nearly enough. You're edits aren't my concern, you're inexperience in key policy areas is my key concern. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Oppose''' Adminship is a permanent appointment, so we have to be confident you will not abuse the tools. You don't have a sufficient track record for me to determine one way or the other. Therefore, must oppose.
I'm sorry, you simply do not have enough edits.
'''Oppose''' - a long-time Wikipedian, the candidate has been dormant for much of the last year (except for the current month). Very minimal portfolio in AIV, CSD, AfD and other administrative areas. I see a promising future as a sysop, but more experience is needed--
Not enough experience in the areas you wish to work in ~~
'''Oppose''' Not ready yet.
'''Neutral''' I think it is too early for you to be considered for adminship, for pretty much the same reasons as given in the oppose section. However, I am not going to pile-on - although I would recommend that T withdraws this RfA -- '''''
'''Neutral''' You should try out some more of the features, such as the [[help:move|move]] button as an administrator will be expected to know their way around the system so as to help out users.
'''Neutral''': I can easily deal with a candidate who's been here five years, but... --
'''Neutral''' per Phantomsteve. ~[[User:NerdyScienceDude|<span style="border:1px solid blue;background:white;color:green"><font face="Mistral">'''N<font color="#0F0">S</font><font color="#8d7">D</font>'''</font></span>]] (
Waiting for more answers.
'''Oppose''' Your nomination ends with the statement ''" I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship."'' It's not an award or an honor that is simply handed out to those that "deserve it.". Your answers to the standard questions are severely lacking as well. [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' Too little experience, even taking the former account into account.
'''Oppose.''' Q1 asks about "administrative work" and neither of the tasks in the answer are primarily/solely administrative. Taking into account all answers and low edit count, I'd recommend quick close per NOTNOW or to avoid [[WP:SNOW]].
{{ec|2}} '''Oppose''' - Your answers to questions aren't spectacular and your edit count and experience is a bit lacking. You're welcome to try again in six months when you have gained more experience. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but a total of 1,800 edits is nowhere near enough to have gained the necessary experience, and the answers to the questions are seriously lacking in depth. Spend some more time here, rack up a good few thousand edits covering a variety of admin-related areas, and be able to explain what you wish to do a bit better - and I'll look forward to supporting you in a future nomination.
'''Oppose''' per above. '''
'''Oppose''' – Unfortunately, as having only 1,800 edits is not enough to have enough experience here. (I'm not trying to be [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|use edit count alone]], but most people at RFAs that pass have at the minimum around 5,000 edits.) The answers to the questions are lacking in depth. I'd recommend closing this per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' - Sorry - I cannot support - lack of admin related experience and experience in general, along with superficial answers to the basic questions force me to suggest that you should withdraw this, and try again later, after addressing these issues. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' With relatively few edits, only about 230 on actual articles, I do not feel that this user is ready to be a sysop. Agree with above; user doesn't have the experience, recommend close per NOTNOW.
'''Strong oppose''' per the last statement in the nom. You obviously don't know what adminship is. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' per ''I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship.''.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]], i'm not a big fan of ''I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship.''
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' (sorry for the pile-on). 1800 edits is a bit on the low side and your answers are definitely not remarkable; in particular, #3 sounds like a canned answer and doesn't really mean much. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience. Answers to questions are very short. "''I think I deserve the honorable privilege of adminship''" didn't make me want to support. Should be closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. [[User:Coasterlover1994|<font color="red"><b>Coasterlover</b></font>]][[User talk:Coasterlover1994|<font color="black"><b>1994</b></font>]]
Candidate seems to have a good head on their shoulders but would definitely benefit from additional experience in admin-related areas. Terrasidius, please accept my moral support and sincere thanks for your offer to serve as administrator. –
Why not. Per Xeno.
'''Support''' been here long enough to know whats OK and what's not.  If this is successful I would caution the candidate to start slow. ''<B>--
'''Support''' per Xeno, while the candidate may be slightly inexperienced, they're a good faith user and I'm sure would contribute positively to the project and be willing to learn. <b>[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' candidate is a longterm clueful user with a clean block log and diverse contributions. Experience is nicely diverse and more than adequate, if rather more spread out than is fashionable at RFA, however I'm not convinced that that is a problem. Answers to questions imply that the candidate might make an overcautious admin, but I don't see a particular problem in that, and I'm not convinced of the value of that question. When I became an admin I'd probably have said that all vandals merit multiple warnings, that hasn't stopped me doing the occasional block with zero warnings; I think its difficult to judge that sort of behaviour until someone has actually been in the appropriate situation. ''
Terrasidius appears to be well-meaning and willing to learn, and that's a good combination. The edit count is not too low in my opinion, although perhaps he could perhaps use a bit more experience in some admin-related areas. Can't foresee any problems if the user became an admin.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Weak Support:''' Not quite there yet, but don't give up!  -

Moral support, per Xeno.
Moral support, also per Xeno.
Sorry to be the first one to oppose. You seem like a good faith editor but the answers to the questions shows lack of experience, also your last 50 edits go back to March. [[WP:NOTNOW]] applies here I recommend withdraw and try again in several months, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Adminship is a permanent appointment, and you don't have enough of a track record or apparent familiarity with adminship for me to determine how you'd do with the tools. I'd certainly encourage you to try again in the future.
'''Oppose''' None of the reasons cited for being an admin actually require the tools. Very very low activity levels recently; not sure how well you've kept up with the slew of policy changes that accompanied the winter and summer months. You also have only about 100 edits to projectspace and projecttalkspace combined. The last AfD you participated in was in mid-2008. You have 125 user talk edits, which also seems low if you wish to be patrolling recent changes (in which case you should warn all vandals). Everything else you listed can be done without the tools (they shouldn't be used much in dispute resolution anyway). '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and lack of recent activity.  -'''

I'd have to say not now, maybe later. I congratulate the candidate for stepping up to volunteer. I like the fact that most of the 3000+ edits have been to main article space. However, from the somewhat vague unqualified answers to questions (particularly 9 and 12), I am not seeing a demonstration of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or experience working in the areas that admins tend to be involved in (article protection, blocking, dispute resolution, deletion discussions, prods and CSD, etc). That may be the fault of the questions; most aren't really specific. In any case, I don't see activity that requires the use of administrative tools. I recommend some actual experience in dispute resolution (like [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]]) and try again in six months or so. ~
'''Oppose''', concerns about breadth of experience, and answers to the questions. -- '''
Not enough experience. ~~
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about the lack of detail on Q12. Also not enough experience or activity. I know you've been on Wikipedia for quite a while now, as fetchcomms mentioned that you last AfD was back in 2008.
Sorry, the answers to the questions confirm the lack of experience necessary to be confident of giving the candidate to the tools. --
Though candidate has been around a long time, there is little or no evidence of sufficient knowledge or experience of policies, guidelines, the community and the general ethos of Wikipedia. The nomination and answers to questions are very thin, and the nomination is mainly asking the community for feedback. [[Wikipedia:Editor review]], [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User]], and [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]] would be useful for the candidate, along with some time spent becoming familiar with various areas that admins might get involved with - [[WP:AfD]], [[WP:Dispute resolution]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia backlog]] for example. A period, say 6 months, of useful and committed engagement with the project as a whole, with evidence of consensus building, good judgement and a basic grasp of ethos and guidelines would mean the next RfA should be more likely to succeed. Not everyone passes first time (I didn't). Good luck. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but your answers to the above questions are enough to convince me that you do not have sufficient knowledge of the various policies and guidelines to justify giving you the admin tools at this time. --
'''Oppose''' - A long-time Wikipedian, but relatively dormant for the last 2 years. Not enough experience in the administrative areas.--
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and because I think you lack experience in admin-related areas. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' - Extra buttons don't seem to be required in order to do what this editor enjoys doing here? As far as I can tell, closing AfDs is the one specific administration activity this editor is interested in doing, and per q9 I'd rather not see this editor working on AfD backlogs. ''Usually'', but not always, the outcome of an AfD is very clear long before 20 !votes.
'''Oppose''' - per ErikHaugen. Yeah, the answer to Q9 jumped out at me. Suggest a [[WP:SNOW]] close, with all due respect to the candidate. Let's not drag this out.
'''Oppose''' - Q7 & Q9 show some fundamental misunderstandings. Content work is also a bit iffy - Goldenthel article isn't sourced too well and has "not in source" tags. Come back in a few months when you're more experienced and know policy better.
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't appear to need the tools, or know what he would do with them if he had them.  If this user had as much experience in AfD's as he/she claims, then he/she would know that having 20 or 30 !votes is not typical.  Needs more experience with policy-related matters.
'''Oppose''' - Overall the candidate seems willing to help and has made a positive impact on the project, but the answers to the questions above indicate that the candidate doesn't really know what being an admin is about. I would recommend spending several months at AfD, AIV, NPP, etc and gain more experience. Also, it can be helpful to hang out around RfA and see who's succeeding and who's not.
'''Oppose''' I am sure that you are ready and willing to help, but your answers to the questions, especially 7 8 and 9, indicate a significant lack of knowledge of policy. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' simply too soon :) I look forward to a future nomination though :)--
'''Oppose''' - I really hate to pile on but I have to agree that there is a serious lack of experience. Just one example, suggesting that 20-30 comments would be a good minimum amount of participation before determining that an AfD has had enough participation for a consensus shows that you must not have been in many AfDs (personally, I think that if 3 people agree that an article should be kept or deleted and they have good arguments that it would be enough to close it). This is a big problem if you want to close AfDs as an administrator. You did mention above that you're ''"a pretty good listener and understanding"''... Have you considered [[WP:MEDCAB|MEDCAB]]? You don't have to be an admin to participate there and they could always use help. It's also a good place to get experience in solving disputes, if you still have a desire to be an administrator in the future, it's a good place to get experience in handling problems between editors. -- '''
'''Oppose''' – You are a great editor, no doubt about it. I, however, find a lack of experience in admin-related areas, given your answers to your questions. You do not need to be an admin to participate in many areas of Wikipedia; being a sysop just gives you a few extra tools (although powerful) that you can use. I suggest getting some more experience in admin-related areas and have a future nomination in about 4-6 months. I look forward to supporting you in the future. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' A good attitutde and a willingness to learn but more evidence of policy knowledge in admin areas is needed to be trusted with the admin tools. Please help out around the place e.g. give opinions at [[WP:AfD]], help out with new page patrolling or any number of other things and come back here in a few months if you get on well with it.
Long term contributor with plenty of article contributions, but less than 40 edits every month since October of last year. Haven't decided which way to side. '''
'''Moral support'''. We deeply appreciate your offer of help, but you're not quite ready. '''''Yet'''''. A few months and a bit more experience and I look forward to your long and productive future as an administrator, but I can't fully support right now. Sorry.
Not really active, but in my situation now, I'm not the one to be talking. Lots of article edits, that's a good, but very few Wikipedia-space edits. Those are the ones involved in most admin work. I again, am at around the same edit count as you (by a long stretch of fancy on my part), so take this as a grain of salt. Good luck in the future.
'''Moral support''' - I admire your courage and your article contributions, but low activity lately plus shaky answers to questions prevent me from supporting at this time. Give it a few months of increased activity, and I'd be happy to support.--
'''Neutral.''' Due to relative recent inactivity.  I would like to see a future nomination as I believe this editor would be an asset with a bit more activity.
'''Moral support''' per HJ and Unionhawk. I'd be happy to support when you've gained some more experience. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Moral support'''. It's great to have an offer to help in the admin department, but I don't think you have enough experience of admin-related things or enough knowledge of related policies just yet. I'd suggest doing some work at AfD, watch some CSDs, do some anti-vandalism work, etc - and I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. --
'''Neutral''': Four and a half years may be enough, but your activity has recently been dormant. --
'''Moral Support''' I see no indication that the user would abuse the tools; however, I would happily fully support the candidate after they obtain broader experience.
No objections in principle but lack of activity and relevant experience makes me say "not yet". Do please reapply in future, however, because your mindset seems to be in the right place.
I'd advise applying again in a few months when you can satisfy voters that you have more recent activity, and some additional experience in the areas where you wish to work as an admin. You seem like a fine editor, and I'm sure I'd have no difficulty supporting in those circumstances. &nbsp;
Impressive contributions, certainly, and I expect I will support at some point in the future... but you need more experience in admin-related areas before you can become one. 64 edits to project space just isn't enough, and you need more evidence of sustained activity rather than sporadic periods.
'''Moral Support''' Good temperament, great contributions, and i respect the interest in making a Wikipedia a better place. My only concern is a admin-related/project-related experience, and I hope you will look at a few areas, participate and come back, so that I can give you my full support in the future. --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Moral Support''' You only have about 2000 edit and only about 250 edit to articles, but I don't want to discourage you. Keep editing ,preferably with more article edits, and come back in 6 months to a year. <small class="ad-sig" style="background:#800;border:1px solid black;color:white;">'''
'''Moral support''' per Access Denied. I'm sure you'll make good admin material in the future. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Only 253 edits to articles, show that despite your length of time here, you don't have the content experience for administrative work yet.
Unfortunately, I do not think that you are experienced enough to become an admin at this point. ~~
Your contributions are excellent and being a coordinator of two wikiprijects shows that you have dedication, however, I just don't think you're quite ready for adminhsip. Adminship is a role that requires one to call upon a depth and breadth of experience but, with almost three quarters of your edits being to the user and user talk namespaces and little substantial contribution to the project space, not to mention activity levels which seem to have been declining in recent months, I'm just not sure you have that requisite experience. I look forward to supporting a second request in around 6 months' time. Sorry.
You have good experience in your current Wikiprojects, but haven't done much work in the areas you've expressed interest in. While the current work is good, you do not have enough experience. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:green">21</span>]]
'''Oppose''' 253 mainspace edits and 1,460 user and usertalk edits? In over a year? Sorry, this RfA is doomed without you being able to show some experience of article building and admin related tasks.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] While I often find lack of content editing to be a weak reason to oppose, you have almost none at all, and since you have never been in a conflict with another user your skills at resolving conflict are essentially untested and unquantifiable. You mention numerous areas of admin work you would participate in, but do you actually have experience with any of them? Get some work with [[WP:CSD]] and the other areas you intend to do admin tasks in, so we can see that if you have the judgement and impartiality expected of an admin, and work on some actual content.  The best thing you can do right now is withdraw this RFA.
'''Moral neutral''', just for a change. I don't doubt that you're a good person and that you want to contribute to wikipedia, but I expect that most !voters here would want to see more experience in certain areas. Some of them will offer constructive advice; there may be valuable pointers in case you decide to RfA again in a few months.
'''Strong support''' per nom. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Oppose''' per your actions which led to [[Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FEcw.technoid.dweeb|this thread]] just a few days ago.  It indicates to me that you have poor judgment skills and may have a poor knowledge of our policies as well.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise but for now my blank-slate opinion is that you would not be a good administrator.  '''
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ecw.technoid.dweeb&oldid=349125440 This] was really bad judgement and demonstrated an over-eagerness to exercise admin-like tools. Responding to blatant canvassing [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale#Need !votes|here]] for [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hawaii_hotspot/archive3|here]] without so much as a word is not good.--
Does not have the judgement or experience expected of an administrator. Answers to the questions are frankly, lacking in any depth. The response to Q3 is meaningless, "No, I have not had any major editing conflicts. If, however, I get into a dispute, I would resolve it on the talk page.". The question did not ask you ''where'' you will deal with it. It asks you ''how'' you will deal with it. Your most successful article is also tagged with {{tl|cleanup}}. &mdash;
Sorry, but you're just not ready. I hate to be so succinct, but there's nothing more to be said. '''
'''Oppose''', concerns about judgment, temperament, and experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''': concerns about judgement, such as the RfA close only a few days ago. I'd say come back in a few months with more experience. Sorry,
'''Neutral leaning support''' I am on the fence with this RfA, I have seen this user do good work in the past but am unsure they are ready for the mop at this time.  I reserve my judgement...   ''<B>--
A little bit of this, and a little bit of that. All for the better. '''[[WP:NETPOS|Net Positive]]'''{{=)}}--
Your last edit to ''[[Pholiota squarrosa]]'' left it as [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Pholiota_squarrosa&oldid=389592342 this], and yet you still take credit for the article being a GA. In addition, the vast majority of your [[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale/Awards and contributions|127 articles]], from the sample that I selected, are either a few sentence stubs, which is not bad by itself, or [[Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM lens|do]] [[Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro|nothing]] [[Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG lens|to]] [[Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR|indicate]] [[Nikon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR|notability]] [[Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM lens|or]] [[Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM lens|the]] [[Sigma 180mm F3.5 EX DG lens|existence]] [[Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 DG lens|of]] [[Fujifilm FinePix Z33WP|third-party]] [[Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR|sources]]. '''<font color="navy">
About to say the same as NW but he beat me to it. Lack of content contributions is one thing and can be explained away if you want to concentrate on something else and have a good reason for wanting RFA. Claiming the credit for someone else's work is an instant fail as far as I'm concerned when you're applying for a position of trust.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Was also going to make the above point. Sure, you deserve the credit for making a stub/start class article but if that's your best contribution it's somewhat concerning
Sorry, I cannot trust this candidate. To claim recognition for a GA based on two early edits is not the behaviour expected of an admin.
No experience in any article review process gets an oppose from me. The GA note above is at best dishonest; you can't take credit on a Ga for an article you didn't really touch. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support''', he's earned it. Excellent vandal fighter.. a real asset to Wikipedia. Can be trusted to not misuse the tools. --
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Support]]''' I know there are people that won't support without article content, but I'll be blunt for a second: the admin tools are (primarily) not about creating content. This candidate does a great job managing vandalism and there is absolutely no indication the tools will be misused; I totally expect that half of the tools will never even be used, but I feel this candidate will be nothing but a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] with the bit. --
'''Support''' - ditto from last RFA in which I supported him.
'''Strong support''' - Strong support doesn't even begin to address how valuable this editor is. I've seen him for the majority of my tenure here; in all that time I've never seen a serious complaint. This is exactly the kind of admin we need a lot more of. This is someone who knows, with nuance, what vandalism looks like, and who can distinguish between the honest test, or new user and the committed vandal. Also over 8,000 new page patrols, and 112,149 regular edits. This isn't a plus because it's a big number; edit count is not some comparison game, but it is a tremendous demonstration of a level of experience. A lesser editor with that much exposure would be bound to pick up some very valuable traits. I know this editor to be much more than that. This is an exceptional candidate.
'''Support''' Having seen this user in action many times I can only say yes.
'''Support''' User has been since Aug 2007 and has over 112000 edits and feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools.
I recently gave the candidate a barnstar for CSD work ... not just for making the right calls, but for his patience with new users and communication skills.  I totally understand if people oppose for lack of article work or have a bad reaction to Q4, but I'm impressed when someone says, in effect, "There are some things I can't do that some people expect, and my reaction to that is to work harder and ask for the support of the community anyway, knowing that people will grade off for things I really can't change."  That attitude shows a lot of maturity and self-confidence.  Yes, what this candidate doesn't know might be a problem some day, but if he hasn't gotten off-track over the last 112K edits, the risk is low that it will happen over the next 112K. - Dank (
[[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC) The candidate is doing what he's good at, and for all I know he's doing it well. His talk contributions consistently suggest that he isn't just a Hugglebot, but someone who has something useful to say.
'''Support''' - I see the arguments against, below, but I have never been able to agree.  We need admins to do many admin tasks...if we require every admin to do every task we will deprive ourselves of many good admins.  I have been watching this editor's talk page for some time, seen a lot of good work and reasonable handling of problems.-
'''Strong Support''' - I see this user constantly reverting vandalism. This user would be a great admin, since he would really benefit using the block and delete tools because of the CSD and anti-vandal work. -'''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - No problems here, although I would have liked to see more manual edits. But all I see is solid vandalism reverts, so I don't see much of a problem... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Weak support''' Experienced in his field, but I really would like to see more involvement elsewhere as well. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support'''. Ultimately, what we have here is a user who is dedicated to, and good at, what he does. I have no particular reason to believe that, given admin tools, he'd suddenly go wading drunkenly into areas he's unfamiliar with - so I trust him to use the tools responsibly in the anti-vandalism area he is demonstrably competent in, and to move cautiously in others. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Per Mazca.
'''Support''' Switched on candidate per low error rate with his anti vandalism work, also seems to be a good communicator who has positive things to add to discussions.
All things considered, I think the benefits of promoting this user outweigh the potential issues. I opposed his last one largely due to behavioral issues, and in a way, I'm still not convinced the candidate is the most professional and mature editor we have. That said, The Thing is obviously dedicated and very knowledgeable in his field of work: vandal-fighting. Bearing in mind that adminship is not a reward for being a content writer, I trust the candidate to block vandals and delete spam with care. &ndash;'''
'''[[User:Otherlleft/RfA|Support]]''.  Thought you were one, which is always a good sign.  You have a focus and plan to stick to it, and you've demonstrated skill in that area.  There focus on article writing as a criterion isn't going to much more than make the best article writers too busy to write articles.  I'd prefer people have the best set of tools available to do the job they're best at doing.--
'''Support''' Specializing doesn't bother me, as long as they are good at it. Those in opposition admit this is the case, so I can only support &ndash; there are many admins who specialize in particular areas, so it's not a problem at all. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' I don't understand the concerns about lack of article content since he has over 50,000 article space edits. No concerns otherwise.
'''Support'''. It takes all sorts. The "only content contributors should become admins, as only content contributors understand what it's like to contribute content" line of thinking is, in a nutshell, just as fucking daft as the notion that only people who have been in automobile accidents as the result of another driver speeding should become policemen, as only those people could possibly know the serious potential consequences of speeding. Direct, first-person experience isn't the only teacher, or even the best teacher, in the eternal high school of life. In fact, quite often the contrary, as one is too busy having the experience to learn about it. TTTSNB seems to be a relatively clueful gentleman, with decent written communication skills. Net benefit, let's not be daft here.
'''Support''' Considering all that you have done, giving you the tools wouldn't hurt.
'''Support'''; having the tools would be beneficial and there is no indication that it is likely they would be misused.  The rest is editcountitis.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Strongest possible 'cannot emphasise it enough' {{big|support}}]]'''. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised by the opposers but, at the end of the day, TTNSB wants to be an "anti-vandal admin". The need for another such admin watching AIV is obvious (as a humble editor who occasionally patrols recent changes) and I trust TTNSB without reservation to block vandals when the need arises- if I had a penny for every time I've had a "rollback failed" message because of TTNSB, I'd be a rich man! Best of ;luck to you, my friend!
'''Support''' Although there hasn't been a huge amount of work in all of the WP mainspace and in talk pages which admins are often involved with, that which I have seen I am satisfied with, in that I am sure this editor can be trusted to use the tools effectively in an anti-vandalism role, and not to mess about with things he isn't as familiar with.  He is clearly extremely committed to this project, and his presence as an admin would make vandal-fighting on WP more effective.
'''Full support''' Impressive edit count (110,296), completely trustworthy. Plus, we need more sysops at [[WP:AIV]]. --
'''Support''' The strong nomination given by JD would sum it up for me. His niche is vandal fighting, the tools here will only help him out further with this. Very responsible and mature editor.
'''Weak Support''' I'm standing by my previous arguments, although I will note that I think it has not been long enough. I would recommend Thing to be less persistent, and therefore seem more patient, but I do trust him with the tools.--
'''Strong Support''' We have here an editor with an astounding record of positive contributions, a concrete, limited, and highly specific purpose for which he ''needs'' administrative access, and ''no doubt whatever'' that he will be a positive in the role he proposes to undertake.  <strong>
'''Support'''I feel that the candidate will do well with using the tool to fight vandalism, as they appear to have a good track record from what I can see. I would recommend that they pay attention to the opposes and any recommendation in the supports, and use this to continue to improve their mindset and their approach to Wikipedia as a whole. -- '''''
[[WP:DENY|'''an rud nár chóir go mbeadh a dhiúltú''']] <small>translation: the thing that should not be denied</small> <font face="Georgia">
'''Very Strong Support''' I would trust The Thing That Should Not Be with my life (If I had one). I'm am shocked to know that he is not an admin yet.--
'''Support''' Has my support.  Will be a valuable addition. ''<B>--
He sticks to what he's good at (vandalism fighting, csd) and avoids areas where he isn't strong (content building). How is this a bad thing? Wikipedia needs both types of contributions.
'''Support''' He is a great vandal fighter ,will make a cool admin --
'''Weak Support''' - supported last time, supported again. It would be nice to see some contributions in other areas, but I don't have a problem with giving him the tools solely for vandal fighting, as long as this is all he uses them for.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] (to be objective, I am not looking at what I may or may or may not have said in previous RfAs so that I focus fresh here).  Anyway, such arguments as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seek_%26_Destroy&diff=160635094&oldid=160418600 this] seem reasonable, the candidate's current account has no blocks, the candidate is a veteran editor, and the candidate did get at least six awards under the current name and a bunch more previously listed at [[User:The Thing That Should Not Be/Awards]].  Best, --
'''Support''' A net positive.
I do not believe anything has changed since his last RfA. The concerns in that RfA have not been addressed. The consensus of the last RfA was that anti-vandalism patrol and automated edits, while helpful, do not indicate the experience needed for administrative work. I do not think the community perspective on this has changed since your last RfA. Furthermore, I feel the answer to Q4 is rather concerning. If you do not have the concentration level to handle article contribution and do not have experience in article building, how will you handle complex problems in BLP articles? Given the recent RfC on BLPs, I feel that BLPs will be a major task for admins. I do not feel you have enough experience in these area, besides simple vandalism and deletion patrol, therefore I must '''oppose'''. Of course, this is not set in stone. If evidence to the contrary is suggested, I will rethink this. &mdash;
I'm sorry, but I still have not seen much that indicates to me that much of your maturity issues have been solved. Additionally, Q4 is a real downer for me. If you don't have the concentration to edit articles, you shouldn't have the concentration to revert vandalism (something that should require more concentration). <small>(
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Per DarkFalls. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash;
Largely for the same reasons as last time.  I don't want to diminish the value of this user's contributions in the form of dedicated vandal-fighting, which is of immeasurable worth to the project, but I am not comfortable supporting a candidate with such a pointedly narrow range of experience in Wikipedia.  That, coupled with a heavy reliance upon automated tools and scripts, leads me unable to support.  A lot more comes with the admin bit than a "block user" button, and while I trust the user in their stated desire to only work within the realm of vandal-fighting, it's just that I am uncomfortable giving a whole toolbox to someone who hasn't demonstrated that they would use all the tools correctly.
I'd have to agree with those that see at least some article contribution as important. It is such a fundamental aspect of the project that an admin who does no creation and admits to problems with concentration levels is to me especially concerning.
'''Oppose''' - Essentially the same rationale from the previous RfA. Tens of thousands of automated edits is almost entirely a turn off. Thank you for your anti-vandalism, but I do not feel this user is admin material.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not keen on the gaps in his early history&mdash;account created one year before it was used properly. I'd also want to see some content contributions; without them, it would be difficult to deal with content disputes that might require admin assistance. No content contribs also implies no familiarity with our most importance policies. <font color="purple">
'''Oppose''', because it's probably prudent not to give the tools to someone who restricts themselves to one aspect of the project. As evidenced by my previous oppose, I really want to support this candidate, but they have no interest in addressing many editor concerns. If vandal-fighting is all you really want to do, then keep it up; no real need for the tools. AIV is hardly overrun.
'''Oppose'''. Essentially, nothing has changed since the previous request. This user still lacks the necessary experience that any admin will likely face. It isn't just about vandal-fighting (although that is by no means to diminish Thing's role in this). I also have maturity concerns, partly based on off-wiki encounters, and also silly lapses in judgement such as [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Until It Sleeps/A secret page for Roux to MFD|this silliness]]. While that was in September, I'm concerned that I have not seen any sign of change to suggest that maturity or sense of judgement has improved since the previous requests. Until I see some change to allay my concerns, which I've expressed in previous requests, I cannot support. Sorry. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' - This may seem like a slightly ridiculous opposition, but a user whose main (and possibly only) intent is to work in the anti-vandalism field is just ''not enough''. I've had ''magnificent'' interactions with this user, and I trust him on Wikipedia. However, I have some concerns with his contributions compared to his last RfA. Here comes the "slightly ridiculous" part - By deciphering his contributions from the beginning of last month to now, it appears that he has built up his edit count tremendously, making bunches of reverts with Huggle '''every day'''. The candidate also hasn't conducted enough article-building work, which is one of the core aspects of being trusted for the mop by the community. I just think that making over 5,000 edits within one month doesn't show enough experience in the administrator field. I know that this user has been a great aspect to the community with his anti-vandalism work, and I encourage him to continue, but everything pointed out above doesn't make me feel that you're ready yet. Also, I am concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be&diff=337758843&oldid=337210246 this edit summary].
'''Oppose''', per PeterSymonds.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I opposed in your last RfA because I believe that every administrator should have ''some'' content work under their belt in order to have a greater empathy and understanding of the work that other editors are doing. I don't expect FAs, GAs, or even DYKs (and I would be a hypocrite if I did because I'm an admin who doesn't have any of those either). But some example of experience in content creation or at least fixing is necessary for me before I support, and there has been none since then. In fact, your answer to question 4 causes me to oppose stronger than last time; I want someone who ''can'' put thought into their communications with other people, that's critical if you've blocked someone and they want to know what they did wrong. If you lose your train of thought in the middle of a reply, I can't trust that you'll be capable of doing this. I still appreciate reverting vandals, and your quick approach is obviously very successful there, but I'm uncomfortable with you using admin tools in that manner. -- '''
When I asked Q7, I kind of expected some links to discussions where you did something especially helpful. Questions like that are your chance to post diffs that show how good you are. Instead I just got a reply to read your talk archives (hint: If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have asked the question). I did that (back a few weeks at least) and wasn't especially impressed. Most of the discussions consisted of someone giving you a compliment and you saying "Thanks." I'm not really seeing any answers to difficult questions or extended discussions. As for content work, personally I don't think its especially important for admin candidates, but other people do, and telling them that you aren't even going to really try isn't very good. There are ways to make content contributions that are in between "adding paragraphs of content" and "script-assisted editing." <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose'''. I want to acknowledge that users such as TTSNB are a necessary and valuable part of the project. Without them, Wikipedia would surely drown in a sea of test edits, [[4chan]]-type attacks and the like; bots can only do so much. I appreciate your commitment. Further, there is some truth to the perennial argument that "[[User:J.delanoy|J.delanoy]]'s nomination would be different today because standards are different." But this is not about RfA standards and what-ifs; it's about whether TTSNB should be an admin. There's a fundamental level of trust and respect that's missing here, and while I encourage you to continue your anti-vandalism work and appreciate it, [[Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy|you're no j.delanoy]].
'''Oppose'''.  per all the above.  You do some great work for this project, but your lack of edits outside vandal fighting raises a major red flag.  Also, per concerns with judgement, experience, and maturity.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, per all of the above, I'm going to have to agree with [[User:PeterSymonds]]. Just patrolling and CSD are not enough qualifications to do janitorial work. I'm sorry man, i'm going to oppose. But better luck next time! :) --<strong>
'''Strong Oppose'''. I have no problem, most of the time, with a user who does not focus on content work. What I ''do'' have a problem with is a user who is told to change his behaviour and ignores community consensus. If you want to pass RfA, you need content work; this ''very RfA'' is evidence that he cannot get a clue, and I certainly don't want somebody unwilling to take suggestions with the buttons.
'''Oppose''' - Maturity issues.
I really doubt whether you are mature enough for the mop.
'''Oppose''', would like to see some additional experience, particularly in more varied capacities. Perhaps at another point in time. '''
Ironholds sums it up for me: if you get so much advice to work on content and completely ignore it, I can see you doing the same with advice after potential mistakes. <small><span style="border:2px solid #000000;">

'''Oppose''' I don't really care about content work.  Some can write FA's with apparent ease, some have to struggle to write a DYK- that's not the issue that makes me oppose.  TTTSNB, you've been told in no uncertain terms in two prior RFA's that if you wanted to pass, more content work and broader experience would be required.  In six months, you could have easily addressed these concerns, and instead you're back here saying what was requested of you is "boring".  Doing the same thing and expecting a different result just doesn't make sense, so take the advice in this section, follow it this time, and I look forward to supporting the next one.
'''Neutral''':  I'm torn, because I would really, really like this candidate to be an admin.  As [[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]] said above, if I had a dollar for the number of times my revert has failed because The Thing got their first, I would be a rich man.  With the admin tools at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:CSD]], this candidate could do a huge amount of good.  However, I'm still a little uneasy.  Even though I have confidence that The Thing won't ''seek out'' situations where they may need to deal with things beyond vandal fighing, ''they may seek out The Thing''.  If an admin gets asked, on their talk page, to deal with something like a unclosed [[WP:AFD]], a bad username or a content dispute that's getting nasty, they should have the expertise to deal with it, and should not be limited by commitments to only deal with CSDs and blocks at their RFA.  As someone who is vastly less experienced than The Thing, I would say this: if I had The Thing's bredth of experience, I'm not sure whether I'd think I was ready to be an admin.<span style="padding-left: 1em;">&nbsp;</span>-- '''''
'''Neutral''' TTTSNB is an extremely prolific vandal-fighter, and he knows how to use the [[WP:RBK|rollback tool]] wisely. His experience in that area makes me confident that he would do a fine job with the block button at [[WP:AIV]] (or even [[WP:UAA]]). But there's more to adminship than just blocking vandals. While I recognize TTTSNB's potential usefulness in a "specialist admin" capacity, the lack of article work is a genuine problem. I am tempted to support only because of TTTSNB's lengthy vandal-fighting experience and because I trust him in general. However, per my preceding comments and the excellent points made by Lear's Fool immediately above, I think I'll stay neutral on this one.
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' Even though he does like to be an admin, I'm not sure if he was admin coached. If he was, then he would get a great feel of when and where to use the tools.
'''Strong support''' as nom. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]

{{ec}}'''Super support'''
'''Support''' - Excellent vandal-fighter, content creation is not that important for vandal-fighters. '''
'''Strong support''': Fought a lot of vandalism with Huggle. <b>
'''Weak support'''. Your content editing isn't up to the standards it should be, but based on your answers to the questions in this RfA, I'm going to support.
'''Support''' as nominator. '''
'''Support''' per Eagles, mainly.  Not every admin has to be a top-notch content contributor (and incidentally I doubt I'm the only admin who has written much more audited content since being given the mop than I had before I got it). I can see the point of view that says that admins need to have content experience before getting involved with the tools in sorting out content-based disruption, but I don't get the impression that TTTSNB is going to wade into that territory like a bull in a china shop anyway.
'''Support''', The Thing's help is sorely needed.
'''Support''': User is a very active vandal fighter.  <font color="blue">[[User:Feinoha|Fei<font color="red">noh</font><font color="green">a</font> ]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Feinoha|Talk]],
CAT:CSD and AIV get more and more backlogged lately. Promoting this candidate will obviously help the project in that respect. The opposes don't explain how their reasons for opposing relate to the candidate's competence as an admin, except for a vague reference to dealing with edit-warring.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Earlier in my Wiki-career, my opinion was to support good vandal fighters at RfA simply on the grounds that they can make good contributions as administrators, even without content experience. Now—and I say this for the benefit of those who will oppose for lack of content work—I actually have come to think that there is, indeed, the need for candidates to demonstrate that they can deal with arguments in a thoughtful, civil, and articulate way, not simply to be grumpy mouse-clickers. But that doesn't mean that a candidate who hasn't plumbed the depths of the FA process will be unable to be a good administrator. It depends on the candidate, whether or not they communicate intelligently when the IPs complain about being reverted and templated. I need to see that the candidate can be depended upon to reply politely, patiently, and based on policy. So I looked through the candidate's talk page and talk archives. And I support enthusiastically. And opposers who conclude from the lack of content work that this person lacks the temperament to be an administrator haven't done their homework. --
'''Support''' Even if he doesn't create content, his contributions here are very helpful. If he created a ton of content and had no experience in administrative issues, I would be more inclined to oppose, because we want our best content contributors to keep creating content, not deal with vandalism and the behind-the-scenes tasks.
'''Support'''- does a lot of work in admin-related areas and does a good job. Giving him the tools would be a net positive.
'''Strong support''': Regardless of how you put it, TTTSNB would make great use of the admin tools, specially by blocking users. I would've liked to be the one that nominated him, though. <nowiki>;)</nowiki> —
'''Go, baby, go!''' He is THE anti-vandal...
'''Strong support''' - Quite a few vandlism fighters passed in the past few, I see no reason why The Thing should not join them. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Fo' sho'''.  I thought you weren't going to attempt RfA again. Best of luck, '''
'''Support.''' Yes.
It seems like the immaturity comments come from IRC, that's not a reason to oppose someone, supporting to cancel out these votes.
I am opening an art museum and need a curator and some guards. Applicants should have painted at least three museum quality masterpieces so that they have a thorough understanding of what went into the items they will be working with. That or they could know how to do the job they are actually applying for.
'''Support''', user knows his anti-vandalism stuff, and as apparent from the answer to Q11, his deletion stuff too. Who says candidates must have a GA, FA, etc.? All good faith contributions, be they vandal fighting, [[WP:GNOME|gnoming]], locating sources, or writing FAs, are valid and valuable&mdash;they help make the encyclopedia ''better''. To "prioritize" one type of contribution over another is contrary to the spirit of a project with many volunteers, all of whom may contribute more strongly in some areas than others. I see no reason to believe the candidate will act abusively or poorly with the tools. (And per Beeblebrox, who I just EC'd with and who says it exceedingly well.)
'''Support'''Good user, great antivandalism, but honestly I [[WP:DGAF|DGAF]] about content creation. Mop and bucket != pen and paper, as Thing stated on Bsadowski1's RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:gold;">
Seems like a great candidate. ~~
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support.''' Excellent vandal fighter. Has experience in the places they want to work at which is always a plus. In general, a net positive. Also, the opposes are really unconvincing. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
Offered to nom nultiple times, but never did :P ''
'''Support''' {{ec}} Have seen editor around on RC and I trust their judgement.
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, seems well rounded enough to become an admin. Btw: I agree with TTTSNB on his stance about Huggle/Twinkle being not so automated as people make them out to be.
'''Support''' You Go TTSNB! -
'''Support''' Supported last time, and nothing has changed as far as I can tell.
'''Weak support''' Writing articles isn't as hard as one would imagine. The hard part is getting oneself to actually jump in and start. I think the concerns over judgment are valid, but I'm really hoping that, as this is yet another RfA for you, you will not disappoint. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the vandal fighting tools. <b>
'''Strong support.''' I am thrilled you decided to run- show em what adminship is all about!
'''Strong Support''' Awesome editor. Beats me to me almost every revert though. <font color="Darkorange">
'''Strongest possible support''' Excellent anti-vandal work, good CSD and UAA patrolling, and doesn't let the /b/-tards get to him.
Has contributed more content than I have or ever will. I guess I'm a bad admin :( --
'''Support''' A distinguished vandal fighter, the candidate's answer to Q2 speaks to a compelling need for the tools.--
'''Support''' Purely for his vandal fighting and purely because I feel trite guilty asking a pile-on question. This is irrespective of the fact that I would implore The Thing to slow down in vandal fighting. I do not believe it is humanly possible to handle such levels of vandal fighting without losing relevance of the quality of content and without erring. One reason why some issues of immaturity might have cropped up could be due to the impulsive orientation of The Thing. But that's purely my opinion. For now, support.
'''Support'''. Leaning towards strong support, given the rationales of the opposes. I've never seen anything but good things from this candidate.
'''Support''', vandal-fighting is a valid route to adminship.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
hell yes. :)[[User talk:intelati|<font color="#FD0000">Talk</font><font color="#FFBF00">tome</font>]]<sup>(
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter, past interactions with user have all been positive and user seems to be very kind and good faith assuming. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">'''
On balance. I was just never able to convince myself that a breadth of content contributions should be considered a prerequisite for adminship. I admit that the opposition regarding a potential lack of maturity has me somewhat concerned, especially considering how they are allegedly based off of incidents that occured off-wiki - leaving me no way of knowing what has been said, and therefore no way to disregard the claims being made (which I find to be almost unduly harsh, in all honesty). However, in the absence of evidence which indicates that this user will not be an overall benefit to the site as an administrator, I am supporting.
'''Support''' Good track and truly committed user and the user has extensive experience in [[WP:UAA]],[[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:CSD]] where the user plans to work and the project stands only to gain with the user having tools.
'''Weak support'''. This would probably have been stronger but I'm not impressed by some of the comments in response to the opposes. However, these are clearly the exception rather than the rule. Outside of RfA, TTTNSB's contributions are almost always excellent, even if they aren't the most varied in nature. Lack of content creation doesn't worry me unduly (poor content creation is far worse IMHO), and there's just enough there to convince me that I don't need to concerned. I can't support as fully as I want to becaus some of the opposes are rather convincing, but I'm still going to support.
'''Strong Support''' Need I explain?--
'''Support''' Had noted (and appreciated) TTTSNB's contributions before I knew of this RfA. --
'''Support''' - knows his way around ANI, should make a good admin providing he takes it easy to start with.
'''Strong Support''' Always the wingman for me while I fight vandalism.
'''Support''' Come on, it's going to happen at some point, might as well make it now.  Seems qualified enough for me.
'''Strong Support''' Due to exceptional track record. For an open access project anti vandalism is just as essential as content creation. Some candidates who lack article building experience might be at risk of misusing the tools in areas like article protection, but I dont this applies here due to candidates good clue level and that fact he seems to understand content (Im thinking of Ottava who in a previous RfA said even he was found the candidates advice on writing of great help, so its not that The Thing lacks skill just motivation.) Writing and researching articles will develop valuable skills much more than vandal fighting, but it his choice and because The Thing and others puts in so much time defending others work, those who like to spend 90% of their wiki time writing articles are free to do so. Please take WSCs advice on board about hasty CSD tagging and thanks for your much appreaciated work.
'''Support''' as an outstanding vandal fighter. I would trust The Thing with the mop. There are a lot of different jobs to be done on wikipedia, but there are lots of people who might do them; we need people who are great at ''each'' job, not people who are great at ''all'' jobs. (As an aside; there are thousands of neglected articles that came from Google Translate or from ESL authors which need some cleanup, and thousands more on other wikipedias that could be brought over to en. Shall we restrict the mop only to those who have shown fluency in a couple of other languages?)
'''Strongest possible support''' Fantastic vandal fighter, the project would benefit hugely from having The Thing as an admin, I trust the user given the amount of time he has already given to the project.
'''Support''' the lack of content creation isn't a problem to me as Beeblebrox has eloquently justified. Beeblebrox looks to be a good admin but has only just learnt how to use named references in articles, clearly demonstrating that being an admin doesn't require an in depth knowledge of article creation. Personally I couldn't spend forever reverting on huggle, so if TTTSNB is happy to do this, then I see no reason not to support him. Giving him a mop will cut down on other admin's work if they can block vandals immediately.
'''Support'''. Just give him the bit already, he's earned it. Let's not forsake our valuable vandal fighters. --
'''Support'''. Thing has worked hard here for a long time, and while more content creation would be a definite plus, I think even without it he has demonstrated sufficient experience and maturity to handle the admin tasks he seeks to do.
'''Support'''. I value vandalism fighting highly and see that this editor would use the admin tools to continue working in that area. --
'''Strong Support''' Tireless and highly effective anti-vandal. I believe that the qualms raised about a scarcity of content contributions are outweighed by the diligence displayed in vandalism control. A specialisation of jobs is, after all, an important thing in a civilised society... ~~
'''Strong Support''' The Thing is a great vandal fighter, always looking for ways to help. Active user in CVN among other things. --
'''Super Strong Support''' One of the best vandal fighters on wikipedia and can be trusted with the mop, if he becomes an admin vandals would be blocked super fast! <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
'''Strong Support''' The Thing sits on Wikipedia and lives off of it. Granting sysop tools to someone who is ever so vigilant on this wiki would help "eliminate" the a majority of problems seen in the anti vandalism area. The English Wikipedia is one of the top visited sites on the internet and from that The Thing would greatly help maintain a better quality of content, safe from the constant destruction of vandals. As a side note, opposing due to lack of content seems wrong, There are other people approved aside from that fact and admins who has stopped adding content to maintain. Anyways, give The Thing some sysop tools already. An additional note, Most the people opposing him right now have a personal dislike to him. I think some of the opposes should be ignored because of that fact. '''
'''Support''' Thought he had the mop already!!! --<b><font color=red>
'''Support''' I have seen no evidence that he cannot be trusted.
Support seems to be an esteemed anti vandal patroller, having the tools would make a real difference in that area.  We can't all be der first violiner in der orchestra you know, some of us has to push der vind through der trombone.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' that should not be. We need more good admins patrolling [[WP:AIV]].  <span style="background-color: #0000FF">
'''Strong Support''' The Thing is a very good contributer who I quite familiar with. Usually I see his username in huggle, something along the lines of "Error already reverted by User:The Thing That Should Not Be". He is a excellent vandal fighter. With over 165,000 edits and three years of experience I see no issues of incivility I support. I don't see the big deal about lack of featured articles. The administrator tools are not a big deal. If there is no signs of likely abuse, the user is experienced, and they have a need for the tools I don't have a problem with supporting a candidate. The administrators would be quite helpful to The Thing That Should Not Be. He does quite a bit of vandal fighting. The tools would help him do this work. I remember Tide Rolls RFA passed. Tide Rolls is also a very good antivandal fighter and passed partially because of it. Why is this RFA any different? --
'''Strong Support''' - I'm quite familiar with The Thing's vandal fighting and am unaware of any immaturity concerns. This is exactly the kind of editor the mop is for. Net advantage to the project doesn't even to begin to describe the potential benefit of the Thing's adminship.
'''Firm Support'''. I do not believe that one needs to have a certain number of FAs, GAs, and DYKs to be a good administrator. Moreover, the more such persons who become admins, the less content contribution we will get from them. There is nothing inherently wrong with an admin who wants to only work in a narrowly defined area as does TTTSNB. I believe that he knows in what areas lie his strengths and weaknesses. I take him at his word when he says that he would defer to other admins in areas beyond his ken until he develops more understanding in those areas. Also, he would not be the only admin who works primarily in vandal fighting (e.g., Tide rolls, a vandal fighter whose elevation to admin was a step in the right directon). Finally, I concur with Shadowjams point that TTTSNB [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|would produce more help than harm]]. — '''
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. You seems like a reasonable, level headed fellow and so I give you my support.
'''Firm Support''' I have supported him in the past and will continue to do so again. he is a strong net benefit for his skills at fighting vandlaism. Heck can we not say the amount of work he does fighting vandalsim allow us to improve articles without having to worry about it so much? Plus one all the way.
'''Stront support''' Really experienced, very active user with huge editcount, who has greatly contributed to Wikipedia for years and extensively fought against vandalism. '''''
I don't think you need to write articles to be a good janitor. This is a dedicated user and I respect that. —
'''Support''', since several opposes are relying on a single quotation which is, indeed, accurate (if content creators vanished people, albeit fewer people over time, would still read the site, which is not true if it were overrun with vandalism).  Personally I don't think such hyperbolic hypotheticals mean much, but I also don't think it says what those opposing are reading it as saying.
'''Strong Support''' Thing is one of the most level headed editors I've met here since I started editing "seriously". When tempers get frayed Thing can always be relied upon to attempt to keep it civil.  Thing is also one of the most helpful; on numerous occasions I have seen him (her?) respond with excellent advices to newbies (myself included) seeking more information.  Also, Thing is the epitome of how one should use the various anti-vandal tools on the site (a problem I personally run into frequently).
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Great editor, great track record, except for a few mistakes here and there.  I see a lot of people complaining about the accidental reporting of NW.  There's no reason to oppose because of that.  I mean, he has apologized, and I'm pretty sure NW has forgiven him.  Very strong support. <font color="#990000"><strong><em>
'''Support''' Since picking up again on AIV I have noticed that TTTSNB is one of those filing reports where a review invariably indicates that all boxes are ticked and the buttons just need pushing. Outside of AIV I see a lot of thoughtful comments on the drama boards - I don't always agree, but that is not the issue; application is. Per this Request I notice an applicant who considers it part of the process to make mistakes, recognise them and put them right; if taken into the admin remit this would be a refreshing approach in handling the mop, ''because admins do make mistakes''. So, yup!
'''Support, leaning towards neutral''' I think that many of those in the oppose section should view this objectively and the unreasonable opposes are the reason for my support. I find the "hounding" of supporters very, very distasteful. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, no need to bug those who support just because you feel otherwise. Besides, the major point is whether TTTSNB will abuse the tools, and I don't think so.
'''For crying out ''loud'' YES'''! Simply allowing him to block the vandals he encounters would massively reduce the workload on AIV. I understand many of the concerns raised in the oppose column, but we ''need'' more admins and if we keep turning down good offers of help, the shortage is only going to get worse, which means things like AIV response times will get worse and an ever-increasing workload will fall on the shoulders of an ever-decreasing number of active admins. I can think of few non-admins more capable or more knowledgeable than The Thing That Should Be an Admin!
'''Support''' User will not abuse admin tools imo. --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' There is no pattern of behavior that indicates future problems.
I see no problem with this candidate. Experienced user and great vandal fighter. (and seems like someone beat me to nominating this candidate) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
Finally decided '''Support''' - the issues brought up (mainly maturity and no articles) were not enough to sway me - but were pretty close to doing so.... but you have my support. Good luck! '''''<span style="font-family:Garamond;font-size:100%;">[[Special:Contributions/Pepper|<span style="color:black">∙:∙:.:</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' - Checked out the diffs.  The "content vs vandalfighter" comment I don't agree with, but understand the thought.  As far as immaturity goes, I disagree with how severe it was.  In fact, I see maturity issues for several others, not Thing.
<s>Weak</s> '''Support''' Changed from oppose. My concern was that there was no track record of positive creative interactions with the wider WP community, only vandal fighting, but the more I think about this there is nothing to suggest that this means he will suddenly turn tyrant on the community if given a block button.
'''Support''' - moved from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=prev&oldid=392159464 neutral] to cancel out some of the more egregious opposes.
'''+S''' Let me invite everyone to step back a bit. This editor needs to be whacked with a veritable gauntlet line of trout-wielding editors for personalizing the debate (the "how mature is this?" comment is a completely unacceptable example of personalizing a debate, of course). Admins should make an attempt to be bland and polite all the time, and never personalize their interaction that occur in an adminly context... But who doesn't need to be trout-whacked? Off hand, in all of Wikipedia, I can think of a small handful of extremely exceptional exceptions. Some Opposers cite a lack of maturity, but all I see are accusations. Do I see any blocks in TTSNB's log? Do I see him standing tall before ArbCom for incidents of dickery? Not that I can see. Other Opposers state that he hasn't learned from previous RfAs. Well... he has very clearly said that he is not a content contributor. Why is this a sin? Admins are... admins. They sweep the floors and fix the handrails; they don't paint the paintings. Some Opposers cite a lack of communication with the community. This is more troubling, but I couldn't find myself believing that it outweighs the positive. Let TTSNB whack vandals. Let TTSNB '''stick''' to whacking vandals; if he wants to branch out into other areas, let TTSNB find a mentor to help him/her (not "them", shudder, and fie) learn how to handle the various challenges and interpersonal interactions involved. The worst thing I see here is the yapping of The Thing That Should Not Be's '''friends''', some of whom need to be whacked with even more vigor. &bull;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Switching from oppose per discussion on talkpage. A great vandal fighter will be a real asset at bocking vandals. I still have concerns about use of deletion button, but am reassured by the candidates comments on this talkpage. As for the issue of contributions, the candidate has now furnished examples on the talkpage where they've added referenced material to the pedia, so my concern about never having contributed content has been resolved. ''
'''Support''' (from neutral).  Upon re-consideration, I feel that the remarks made by The Thing at this RfA that prevented me from supporting were missteps, rather than being symptomatic of broader judgment issues.  Indeed, whatever concerns I might have had in that area have been allayed by impressive way in which The Thing has handled what has been a difficult and oftentimes unnecessarily mean RfA.  Some concerns regarding deletion philosophy remain, but given there have been no examples of particularly concerning taggings, ''and'' The Thing's stated intention to move into the speedy deletion area slowly, I don't feel these concerns warrant an oppose. I would also point out that I find the opposes based on the lack of response to concerns raised at previous RfAs unconvincing: [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]], and what could be seen as ignoring consensus could also be seen as re-testing it.  That said, I would ''implore'' The Thing to try to write a couple of small articles: you'll find it a whole lot easier and more enjoyable than you might think.&nbsp; -- '''''
'''Support'''. [[WP:NETPOS|I believe that, with more tools, The thing would be a net positive]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Support'''  Was a bit conflicted on this, but (as per GwenChan) I see a fair bit of indication that this user will not become a tyrant-with-a-block-button. My concerns about deletion were partially ameliorated by some of the diffs the candidate provided (as per WereSpielCheckers). I don't read the "X is more important than Y" diffs the same way some other editors do in context, but I certainly understand and sympathize with why those comments are problematic for many editors. To balance out these negatives, the candidate appears to be a serious force for good here in vandal fighting, you can't "build an encyclopedia" when people are shooting holes in your construction faster than you can build. I'm also glad that the candidate recognizes the problems with the bundling all admin rights not only through his words but through his actions (working on a vandal fighting mini-admin proposal). In the end, I always ask "Do I think I can trust this editor?".  My answer is "yes."  --<font color='#66dd44'>
'''Support''' based on my experiences with the user. He is a vigilant vandal fighter and I believe the tools would be beneficial to him. As for the content creation thing...I just don't see it as that big of an issue. Not everyone is cut out to write content, and if he's happy keeping his work in anti-vandalism then fine by me! I don't believe The Thing would be the sort of admin that would unsympathetically make life difficult for the content writers.
'''Support''' If this RfA goes well, good for you. If not, forget Wikipedia and start thinking about your real life (if you have one). --
'''Support''' Often been seen around. I'm sure he would use the tools constructively. '''
'''Support''' - This user should already have sysop access. --'''
'''Support''' - After a bit of think about it, I have decided to support per my [[User:CT Cooper/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]], with the candidate passing all my key RfA criteria. For key criterion 4, there have been concerns raised of maturity off Wikipedia, though I only consider this if the evidence is "substantial and solid". I don't consider the candidate's views on the importance of content creates vs. non-content creates as relevant to their suitability for adminship, since it is a political issue (non-criterion 8). This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391755265&oldid=391754968 one diff] is probably the most concerning, though I will regard it as a one off incident in a tough RfA. While I stated earlier that if I was in TTTSNB's shoes I would have diversified my editing a bit more before coming back to RfA, that's because there is a large enough minority at RfA to bring a request down due on content creation issues, not because I think it is necessary. In fact, I believe TTTSNB has learnt and done enough as it is to be an admin, and unless I think they were justified, addressing the concerns raised in a previous RfA are not a requirement for me to support a subsequent one. While I expect admins to stick to policies and guidelines, and respect community consensus in general, TTTSNB's previous RfAs (with the possible exception of the first one) failed as consensus was not reached, even if more people supported than opposed, and the views of the opposition in these RfAs did not equate to a community consensus.
'''Support'''. Some of the opposers have made reasonable points, but I believe the candidate would do good work within the scope of his stated areas of interest, and as such make a valid contibution as an administrator.
'''Support''' I appreciate The Thing's anti-vandalism work, but was waiting for more information about his content contributions before voting. Now that some examples have been provided, I am satisfied with his ability to create and improve content. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of it in the future.
'''Support''' - As per NYB, there are some issues as the opposes have commented but I also believe  that the user will do a good job in the areas he has offered to use the tools in.
'''Support''' Although I have been on holiday, I have been following this RfA closely (aren't mobile phones wonderful things...?) and have had a lot of time to weigh up my opinion. I feel that the candidate meets [[User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards|my standards]] and would advise The Thing to bear in mind the criticisms and advice given at this RfA -- '''''
'''Support (from oppose)''' - I am switching my vote out of sheer blinding ''disgust'' at the repeated opposes who are deliberately misinterpreting a single statement, when that statement has been explained repeatedly here. →&nbsp;
'''Support (from neutral)''' - for maturity throughout this RfA. Some of the opposes have reasonable concerns, but not enough that he should have to go through this whole mess. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''. The Oppose comments are, basically, based on two points: not enough content creation, and something about off-wiki behavior. As to the first, hey, so what? His jones is for fighting vandals. Let's focus on what people ''can'' do for us, not what they ''can't'' do. You known, his comment to the effect that would you rather have all the content creators take two weeks off or all the vandal fighters is, actually, spot on. As to the second, I don't know what is being spoken of, but there are two kinds of bad character markers, those which ''indicate'' a problem and those which ''constitute'' a problem. If his off-wiki behavior was beating up members of the Foundation or strafing the building housing the servers, well, OK; that would constitute a problem. But if his off-wiki behavior was skinning squirrels alive or walking naked in downtown Tulsa, well, who hasn't done that at one time or another? That is only an indicator, and these indicators are often miscontrused. I trust him.
'''Support''': supported last time, would support again. The Thing isn't perfect, but few candidates are; he's made mistakes, but I believe he'd be a net benefit to Wikipedia with the tools. Yes, I would have preferred to see some more content contribution after he was criticised for lacking it in his previous RFAs, but I don't make it a condition for my support.
'''Support''' I switched from oppose, because after watching you vandal fight today, it would most definitely be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] for you to have the tools. We have enough backlogs, and I don't see you going rogue. :)
'''Support''' the candidate can clearly be trusted to use the administrative tools appropriately, as their vast experience demonstrates. I've checked the candidates (numerous) AIV reports in the last few weeks and they all resulted in a block apart from one (where a bot accidentally removed the report, the vandal was clearly blockable). There don't seem to be major issues regarding speedy deletion, though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rat_King_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=388925709] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_rippers_victims&action=historysubmit&diff=392054853&oldid=392054405] are questionable. The opposes are primarily based on lack of content contributions, though given the areas the candidate intends to work on I don't think making them write more articles would make them a better administrator. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''. I'm sorry, sir, but I am afraid I'm unable to hire you, as I have word from a reliable source that your personal attire on weekends does not meet company dress-code standards. The opposes here are pretty ridiculous. Also, per Beeblebrox (Support #22 at the time of this comment).

'''Might as well support'''.
'''Weak support''' Ordinarily, I don't support any candidate that doesn't have content work.  However, considering how exceptionally dedicated this Wikipedia is to his anti-vandalism work, I know that the tools would be put to good work.  But one caution, please avoid any controversial deletions; someone who doesn't work with content shouldn't be making the final call in XfD's.  --'''
Switching from Neutral to '''Weak support''' based on the contributions the candidate has linked to just above the "Support" section, particularly the media uploads. Demonstrated commitment to Wikipedia. (More content work would still be nice.)
'''Strong support''' An excellent contributor. Among the "oppose" arguments we have the inevitable "not enough article creation" over and over again, but there are many first rate admins with no more article creation background. Oddly enough we also have "Adminship is not necessary for vandal fighting". Well, I suppose it's not "necessary" in the sense that you can contribute to vandal fighting without it, but admin tools are '''a very important''' contribution to vandal fighting, and I am certain that The Thing That Should Not Be's contribution would benefit from those tools.
'''Support''' per testimony above re: the accuracy of Thing's Huggle work. It's easy to mess up with huggle, so if he's doing it right, let him do all the work. :-) --
'''Support'''. Successful organizations have a diversity of people types; if The Thing doesn't want to do content himself, and instead protect the content others create, that's perfectly valid specialization. And at least in this instance we know that adminship won't lose us a prolific content creator diverted to janitorial tasks.
'''Support'''. I understand that content creation/improvement is key to the project, and hence a number of people have opposed due to this candidate's decision to work in other areas of the project. However, I believe that the project also needs people to remove the vandalism and block those responsible, delete some of the inappropriate articles that get brought to CSD and perform other rather boring tasks without which the project's content would be worthless. That someone is willing to dedicate their time to ensuring that other people's hard sweat is preserved with such accuracy and diligence, thus freeing up content-oriented editors to work on content, is a good enough reason for me to support this candidate.
Oh, let the guy fight vandalism.  It's useful work, somebody's got to do it, etc --
'''Support'''. per RD232's and Alexandr Dmitri's rationales. He is a vandalism fighter, and a prolific, conscientious one. While I understand that content generation is very important to some people, being a content ''protector'' rather than ''creator'' should not count against someone who wants to volunteer his time to mop some floors.
'''Support''' - I don't believe he would be a detriment to the cause at all. Maturity issues have been brought up; but I think since his last RfA he has matured vastly. Net-positive.
'''Support.''' In my first-ever RfA involvement, I am supporting The Thing.  He is an excellent candidate, [[User:Thorncrag/On_RfA_content-building|and because the word "content" was used 198 times on this page which is utterly ludicrous]].  The Thing is incontrovertibly a good candidate here, ''clearly'' demonstrated by his contribution history.  <span style="position:relative;overflow:hidden;"> <span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:5px;background:#eee">&nbsp;</span>
'''Storng Support''' - Per Thorncrag.
'''Weak oppose''' I really hate to do this, as you seem to be an excelant vandal fighter. However, I cannot support an editor with this few content edits. I cannot trust you without some content work, as it helps with issues like edit wars etc. I don't subscribe to the 10 FA standard, but I need a little more than this. ~<strong>'''''
'''99% Strong Oppose combined with a 1% very weak support.''' Candidate was only exclusively partcipating in vandal fighting, not constructive article building. I see that he started to nominate articles to delete... I mean, he doesn't have any GA, FA... The only I feel that this is not the time yet as i feel he's quite immature at some times. Altough he earns this right to be a admin due to the past oversight drama... Blame it on [[User:Drini]] for this shit. I'm just expressing my opinion on this. I'm sorry man, but i'm going to decline my support. Good luck next time!
'''<s>Weak</s> Strong Oppose''' This time around (Yes, I supported him last RfA), I feel I have to express my serious concerns over maturity, as well as concerns with contributions. I've found that although Thing's intentions are undoubtedly in good faith, but I would not necessarily trust him with admin tools. I feel a conflict with an editor/IP vandal could result in abuse of admin tools, as I've found that this user can be exceptionally quick tempered, irrational, and generally immature while in a conflict ([edit]as demonstrated throughout this very RfA). Due to this, I think abstaining from admin tools would be appropriate at the present time, especially seeing as he's doing a fine job as it is without admin tools. Also, I do have to express my concern over lack on content contributions. Seeing as this is a collaborative encyclopedic effort, I'd like to see a bit more of content work. I understand that Thing enjoys Huggling (let's leave that in the context of wiki), however- as stated- I'd like to see a few more attempts at content work. I understand that admin tools would definitely be beneficial to this user, however I presently find that I cannot bring myself to support. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Oppose''' While I believe vandalism fighting is important, I cannot support for adminship anyone who does not have sufficient experience with other functions. Your answers to questions 1, 2, and 7 show me that your skill is too narrow. While being an account creator for a time was a good sign, recent activity has all been deletions (vandal fighting is included in this) of one type or another. You're a good editor though, which is why it pains me to cast the vote this way. <span style="text-shadow:#0099ff 0.10em 0.10em 0.10em"><font color="black">
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong Oppose''' Maturity and temperament concerns per IShadowed. We have quite enough current admins with these traits already, and it more often than not leads to the exact scenario IShadowed described involving abuse of tools in conflicts. I won't take the chance in supporting the addition of another potential problem admin to the drama pile.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons I did last time.  The candidate's returning here for a '''''fourth''''' time with the same problems (no content work) that got him rejected three prior times is a major "I didn't hear that".  When you've been told three times what the community wanted to see and willfully decide to ignore it, in the hopes of getting through, there's no way I can support.  If this is how you respond to concerns as an admin hopeful, I shudder to think how you would act if you already had the tools.
'''Oppose''' - pretty much in the same vein as Ishadowed.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391745137&oldid=391744952 this comment]. We do not need admins who do not work on content believing they are more important than content creators.
'''Regretful oppose''' Per Courcelles. Try contributing some content and I'd be happy to support. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">
'''Oppose''' Although I've supported The Thing at RfA previously, a number of things have changed my mind since then... I believe there are some maturity concerns here, and don’t think The Thing has the right maturity or mentality for adminship. These aren’t only based on off-wiki actions. For example, The Thing seems to concentrate way too much on his edit count, and numbers, rather than the actual quality of the work he is doing, just see [[User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be/Archive_7#Damn.21]] (also I don’t like that, as displayed here, The Thing is always a bit too keen to show off their work) or Q2. I think administrators should be more concerned about how well they do their work, than how much they can get done. As to maturity, his response to his last RfA (saying he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be&diff=343146009&oldid=343145244 not going to run again] which he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be&diff=368719693&oldid=368717147 confirmed in June]) was slightly disappointing, especially considering he is now running (on the subject of his previous RfAs, I find it poor form to repeatedly submit RfAs when nothing has changed, especially when his last RfA partly failed because nothing had changed even then. One of the concerns back then was also maturity, I particularly agree with PeterSymond’s oppose from that RfA). Also I wasn’t impressed by his response to the accidental oversighting of his edits – he knew it was being sorted out, and it would have been better for him to simply sign out, and wait until they were back, ignoring Wikipedia in the meantime. Instead he seemed to contribute to the small amount of drama which surrounded that incident (this, among other things such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be&diff=337758843&oldid=337210246 this] edit mentioned in the previous RfA, seem to suggest he doesn't handle stress particularly well). Also the response to IShadowed’s concern was immature, ironic considering that the concern was about his maturity.<br />These kinds of behavioural issues aside, I will just firstly say I (obviously) think The Thing does extremely important and generally good anti-vandalism work. But really, this is all he does. As I mentioned in Q6, none of the work he does regularly actually involves collaboration or consensus building, and this working together is extremely important for administrators in particular. Also I see no evidence of him demonstrating an ability to judge consensus, also important for an administrator. Of course, there are those users who will say "but he only wants the tools for his anti-vandalism work". True as this may be, I think there is more difference between blocking a user, and reporting them to AIV, or deleting a page and tagging it (the admin side of thing normally involve more explanations and justifications). Besides which, if he’s not going to use the tools for these things which actually need more administrators at the moment (AIV and CSD are well manned) then I don’t see that he needs them. He does good enough work at the moment, I say leave it at that. <br /> But really the problem for me, is I don’t trust this user to make the right decisions as an administrator, I trust that he wants to do the best for the project, but I don’t always agree with his method of doing this. It’s a real shame he hasn’t contributed any real content to the project, because doing so would allow him to much better understand the way this works, and empathise better with other users (which as mentioned earlier I see a lack of). Also the semi-automated edits are a bit of a problem, ''not'' because he is using a program, but simply because he’s allowing it to make him go a bit too fast (yes, speed is important in AV, but you need to find a balance). Making stupid mistakes and sacrificing quality for quantity as mentioned earlier (just a few examples out of many: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=377695762 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Not_now&diff=391435590&oldid=391435448 this] [[User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be/Archive_5#Sam_burn|and this]]). Of course, some mistakes are inevitable, but I feel these are due to a fundamental problem with the way The Thing works, rather than brief lapse of concentration. Sorry for the long rationale :/ -
'''Oppose''' Absent anything more than a lot of deletion work and reverts of vandals - ''neither of which require one to be an admin'', there are no reasons to support.  Add to that an apparent emphasis on ''number'' of CSDs and a lack of any response to the issues raised in some questions (Yes - I find the absence of any comment at all to my question 4 to be troubling) and I can not offer support.
Concerns I have expressed in your last RfA still apply. &mdash;
As far as I can see, you've completely ignored the concerns raised in your last three RFAs, and keep coming back here expecting a different result. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. Kingpin and Vodello above put it best; despite your edit count, I don't think you really understand how the internal dynamics of Wikipedia actually work. You fall squarely into that group whom I'd support if we had a working and binding recall process, but not otherwise; as it stands, there seems too much risk we'd just be adding another trigger-happy block-first-and-ask-questions-later problematic admin to the pile.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Maturity concerns, as well as lack of content contribution...off-wiki activities questionable (again, maturity). And this is, like, the 5th RfA?
'''Oppose''' The content issue concerned me, then this interaction solidifies my oppose.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391755265&oldid=391754968]--
'''Oppose''' Immaturity.  Seems a little too anxious to gain adminship without taking previous failures into account.
From neutral. Kingpin basically sums up what I'm thinking. RfA is a question: Do you trust this user as an admin? Quite frankly, after considering it, I don't. My impression of him has been that he seems to be unable to handle stress well, and insists on being able to edit. Additionally, his refusal to make a full effort to improve for his next RfA shows lack of maturity and refusal to respect consensus, something which is essential in an admin. <small>(
'''Absolutely goddamned not'''. The Thing came to RfA. He was told, by the community, "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". He went away, came back, and was again told "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". He went away, and now he's come back. My response? "go away and don't come back until you've touched an article with more than AWB". This is no longer about content edits; it wasn't, for me, when the second RfA came around. This is about a user who, when faced with community consensus about his behaviour and actions in relation to community trust, chooses ignoring it and biding his time as a preferable option to listening. Any RfA is based, as X! says, around the question "do you trust this user as an admin?", and the answer has to be "no". Why? Because an admin has to listen to the community. Because an admin has to be able to accept when he's wrong, or when his opinions on a block, or delete, or article protection, are different from those of everyone else in the room. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that The Thing is capable of that; on the contrary, as I have shown, the only evidence is that he ignores community consensus. I do not want an admin who does that. I particularly do not want an admin who does that on issues of trust.
'''Oppose''' But perhaps not as vehemently as some above me. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391745137&oldid=391744952 diff] has been badly misconstrued - it's a view I have peronally also long advocated - for I believe over two years in fact; TTTSNB has perhaps being less than articulate in the way he's expressed it, but he's simply '''not''' saying vandal fighters are more important than content contributors and it's a shame that people have interpreted it that way. I'm still not happy to support however. I note that the candidate acknowledges his odd mistake, and indeed rectifies them (I commented to this effect on his talk just a few days ago regaring this very odd revert/self reversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Not_now&diff=391435590&oldid=391435448]) with automated tools; nevertheless this worries me. The almost desperate desire (IMHO) for the admin bit also puts me off. The lack of content I could live with, but really something would help. Sorry, and I totally respect and value your hard work - I'm just not convinced you're right for the bits at the moment. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', with regret. The candidate's work overall is fine, but the concerns raised by Pedro and Ironholds persuaded me to oppose. As Ironholds notes, this is RFA #5 and there has been very little change in editing patterns from RFA #4 - which speaks to the candidates willingness to take community criticism on board and adjust behavior accordingly. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' again, with regret. This user is an excellent vandal-fighter, and I would be more than happy with them entering into that field as an administrator if it weren't for the fact that they've been told multiple times now to edit content by the community, and multiple times they've ignored this advice. I don't mind someone with such outstanding contributions not having a GA or an FA but administrators need to respect the authority and suggestions of the community and I just don't see that reflected in this user's conduct.
'''Strong Oppose''': More than willing to do what he wants with vandal-fighting, but shows a lack of interest with community matters and community opinion. Diversify your portfolio.
'''Oppose'''. Great vandal fighters (and we have one under consideration) don't necessarily need buttons to do their work. I like my admins to have more experience with and love for the other aspects of building an encyclopedia--writing, discussing, consensus building, etc.
Regretful '''Oppose'''. This one was a very tough decision for me, and I really don't like having to oppose. I've encountered The Thing around the place a lot, and what I see is an extremely prolific vandal fighter who has contributed an enormous amount of good work to the project - I'm another who often gets beaten to reverting vandalism, and seeing The Thing start a session makes me feel OK to knock off and go get some rest. I don't insist on lots of content creation in order to make my decisions, and I have no objection to admins whose focus is essentially anti-vandalism only. However, I do think that admin requires a different approach to what I have been seeing. Rather than the "hit them as fast as possible" approach, admins need to be able to look at things slowly and carefully, ponder decisions carefully, and explain and discuss things with people they anger by blocking and deleting (because admins will inevitably anger other people - it comes with the job). And while I'm not saying that The Thing isn't capable of that, my problem is that I really have no way of knowing. Tens of thousands of rapid semi-auto vandal reversions, AIV reports and CSDs are great (though I do think that a lot of people are often too trigger-happy with CSDs), but that doesn't really touch on what I want to see in an admin candidate. I want to see discussion, negotiation, compromise, consensus-building, support, encouragement, sympathy - in short, I want to see a significant amount of person-to-person interaction. What I suggest is that The Thing should spend some time engaging in some other activities, perhaps [[WP:Wikignome]] things, AfD discussions, typo/spelling corrections, a bit of Wikification, maybe even some copy editing - just a general spread of things that will help us to evaluate interaction abilities. Or just forget about admin and carry on with the great anti-vandalism work. And, erm, sorry for waffling so much. --
'''Oppose''' on the answer to 7.  You can find the time to click buttons, but not to write articles?  We need admins who understand and sympathise with editors watching articles they've written be turned into battlegrounds, not admins who block people for adding "TUCKER JENKINS IS GAY LOL".  I don't think its possible for you to be that person if you haven't written at least one article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''', IMO, the answer to question two must include content work. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' for the fact that you've been asked 5 times to work on one, just one, article and develop some content.  Also is doesn't matter a jot if an article survives for 1 hour 23 minutes before being deleted (copyvios and attack pages aside.) --
'''Oppose''' because of his stated intention to delete articles unilaterally. This is something which is as it should be, strongly discouraged in most cases. As I see the long discussions on this, the main reason it is not out-and-out forbidden is because it is actually needed in some special cases, and nobody has been able to clearly delineate them--so it has to be left to good judgment. I would certainly vote for the recall of any admin who does so delete routinely, and most certainly not add to their number.   '''
Maturity and temperament.
'''Oppose''', concerns over temperament, and lack of quality content experience. -- '''
'''Oppose.'''  I share the views posted above by [[:Special:Contributions/Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] at 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC), so I won't repeat all that.  –
'''Oppose.''' The criteria for a repeat nominee at an Rfa is different than a first time nominee, IMO. Did the nominee pay attention to the '''"opposes"''' at the previous three Rfa's? Did they listen to the "If they do 'x', I'll support next time" ? Nope. <font face="Verdana">
Administrators should have substantial content creation experience. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' with regret. I'm sorry, dear The Thing That Should Not Be. I know how hard vandal-fighting can be, and you really do it excellently, but it ''would'' be nice if you had a bit more article work (as users said in the previous request). <small>I know - that said, I should take my own advice and try to write some more real content.. :P</small> So many unsuccessful RFAs are rather troubling as well. However, it isn't so much these concern as the concerns of maturity I'm worried about. Your reply to IShadowed on your talk page, while understandable, was a rather ''[[tu quoque]]'' response which could have been more politely and kindly worded. I'm very sorry, but because of all these reasons, I must sadly oppose. You are obviously a great and valuable asset to Wikipedia, so if this RFA fails, I sincerely hope you'll continue your lovely work. There are better ways to help Wikipedia than being an admin, remember! :) Love,
'''Oppose''' - not foreman material.
'''Oppose''' Firstly, because content matters. I don't see anyone here asking for a string of FAs or GAs, but given your past feedback, it would be nice to see you put some effort (and concentration) into demonstrating that you think content matters. Comments from you here and elsewhere seem to suggest the opposite.  As an administrator you will have the ability to delete pages, protect/unprotect pages and block editors involved in content disputes, so it's important that you have some experience here. I find it hard to believe that there is no article on anything you are interested that needs work. Again, not necessarily looking for FA standard, but how about adding references to a completely unreferenced article?<br />Secondly, I'm not sure I trust you with the extra buttons, because I think you may be a little trigger-happy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=377695762 Edits like this] are alarming, or would be if you had the block button. I've not looked extensively through your CSD work, but only this month you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rat_King_%28album%29&action=historysubmit&diff=388925709&oldid=388925278 tagged an article about an album] for A7 ({{tl|db-band}}). This was two minutes after creation. Did you think that A7 applies to albums, or did you not read the article properly?<br />Finally, [[User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be/Archive_7#Damn.21|this interaction]] does not show the kind of attitude I think an administrator should have. Given the fact that you don't really ''need'' the tools (not normally a reason to oppose, let's face it, most of us don't ''need'' the tools), the fact that this is your 4th (?) RFA makes me wonder why you want it so badly and worry that you might be a little power-hungry. If that's not the case, I apologise, but that's how it's looking to me.--
'''Oppose'''  Dear Thing: You've worked admirably at vandal-fighting but it has been made clear over your several failed RfAs that there is (to put it mildly) considerably more going on around here and your reluctance to contribute has been ''inter alia''  a deal-breaker for many. Questionable temperament and maturity are also regular issues raised and these concerns are well-founded IMO. That it is necessary to point this stuff out [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|yet again]] shows that little or nothing seems to get taken in, not a trait that inspires confidence either. Everything about your RfAs suggests to me that you view Wikipedia as some sort of MMORPG and adminship as a bad-guy-buster weapon and award combined - and that you'll get it by wearing down/outlasting the opposers and a sympathy/aww-give-him-a-chance !vote by your similarly-inclined peers. That's the impression I get and its a shame because you do work hard and mean well.
'''Oppose'''; I simply don't trust that you've sufficient common sense to an effective admin, given that this is the fourth RfA you've gone through, while changing nothing based on the feedback from previous ones. Basically what [[User:Ironholds]] said, except he put it more eloquently.
nothing new to add, so oppose per DGG, Townlake, John Vandenberg, Sandstein, and probably others but this is enough. -
'''Oppose''': Per all other reasons brought up.
'''Oppose''' ~ per Courcelles' reasoning. Cheers, '''
'''Oppose'''&mdash;while I agree that anti-vandalism activities are important and necessary, the creation of new encyclopedic content is the fundamental mission of this website.  I worry about that the attitude expressed [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391745137&oldid=391744952 here] on the importance of new content creation.  I worry this candidate would be too trigger-happy in his decisions and would potentially drive off content contributors because he does not understand their importance.  It would be helpful if the candidate attempted to improve even one article to GA or FA status, just to better understand the concerns of high-quality content contributors.  <i>
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=377695762 this], lack of content creation, and immaturity, among other reasons mentioned above.
'''Strong Oppose''' When Nihonjoe ran for 'crat for the 3rd time he hadn't acted upon previous guidance from 2 prior RfB's.  So I wrote ''I was going to pose it as a question, why? But I decided that if you really wanted to work in these areas, then you would have gained a some experience therein. You would have taken to heart the comments from previous RfB's questioning your preparation for the tasks at hand. You would have taken to heart the objections posed to others who have failed their RfB's. The fact that you have not done so says that you didn't listen to the community's voice when it speaks or you don't care.''  The same holds true for you Thing... the fact that you haven't followed the advice in your previous RFA's indicates that you don't listen to the community's voice or you don't care.  Now I bring Joe up not to drag up old skeletons, but rather to use him as an example.  Joe failed his 3rd attempt at becoming a 'crat, but he took the criticisms there to heart, acted upon them, and passed his 4th attempt.  If you want to have ANY hope of passing the next time... act upon the guidance provided!---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User  talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Changing to strong oppose per Explicit below.---'''
'''Oppose''' insufficient evidence of the judgement and content evaluation tools that need to be seen in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Concerns over temperament, maturity, lack of content creation. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Regretful oppose''' A good user, has reverted my userpage several times, does great anti-vandalism work across the board and will, I'm sure, continue to do so. However, having watched his talk page for some time Thing does not have the detachment and calm needed by an admin, a discussion with Gurch about the - in my view - unnecessary (Custom) appended to every HG revert springs to mind as an example
'''Oppose'''. I couldn't agree more with Courcelles's analysis regarding the last three RFAs. As Ironholds stated above, it isn't even about the lack of content work, it's the candidate's failure to take the community's concerns to heart and attempting to address the issues. Additionally, the following line from the answer to question one worries me: ''I've found the average amount of time it takes for them to be deleted is 1 hour and 23 minutes, last I checked around 2 months ago. To me, that's far from "Speedy".'' Speedy deletion has ''never'' been about length of time of time a page gets deleted, and racing through CSD is what leads to careless and flat-out wrong deletion decisions. —
'''Oppose'''. I agree with [[user:X!|X!]] above. While I appreciate and give a nod of approval to the vandal fighting and other contributions, I believe that TTTSNB doesn't have the patience and appropriate maturity to deal with disputes with others. --
'''Oppose''', given concerns about maturity/judgment.
Oppose The Thing That Should Not Be An Admin. -
'''Oppose''' Adminship is not necessary for vandal fighting, it seems the candidates' behavior would cause more problem than it solves.
'''Strong Oppose'''. The candidate is either quite daft or lacks the communication skills needed to be a good admin. A good admin doesn't need to have extensive content-building experience, but I don't appreciate TTTSNB's content-be-damned comment and refusal to heed the community's advice following the last RfA.
'''Oppose''' based on lack of contributions to the key element of this project: the content. I appreciate that vandal-fighting is important, but I don't think that a pure vandal-fighter is capable of judging and acting on consensus, as is required of admins.
'''Oppose''' We already have way too many professional Wikipoliticians who contribute little or nothing to content. Sadly, there's no reasonable mechanism to get rid of them, but the least we can do is to keep from appointing more. Moreover the arrogance and immaturity present in some of the diffs given above are not the qualities we need in admins.
'''Oppose:''' I am not going to put content creation or one little error in for my oppose, but it is a combo of little content creation (Which I think only a bit is needed, not a massive amount, like a GA or 2), the strike back another editor comment made from somewhere around oppose number 15, and a little to fast huggling (concerns of not reading the page enough to do a revert, like the night of the 15th I think it was). --
'''Oppose''' per all the reasons above. -
'''Oppose''' - I was actually kind of hoping to not oppose this one, but this RFA is scheduled to close in <1 hour, and the candidate hasn't yet answered my question from more than 3 days ago. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''', questionable maturity and little article work. --
I don't know. I supported his last RfA, but the answer to question 4 in the last one is rather worrisome. If someone doesn't have the patience to edit articles, I don't know that adminship is for them. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
No articles.
I could care less about the lack of articles, but I do have concerns about maturiry. Will mull it over. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
I greatly support the user when it comes to his ingenious vandal-fighting skills, but his maturity is still kind of an issue. Also, has The Thing ever made RFPP requests since he became highly active? I haven't specifically been searching for those in his contribs.
I do value vandal fighters, and I have no problem with the majority of edits being automated, anti-vandal work. It's important stuff. But I cannot support a user having the block, delete and protect buttons who places ''such'' little value on content work, both in actions and words. I don't rule out an oppose, but cannot oppose in good faith without being more familiar with a candidate's contributions than I currently am. —
'''Neutral''' Yep, he's been around for a while, and all the administrative areas he intends to take are irrelevant to content creation.  So that's why I would have supported in the first place. However, all the tools he plans to take reverse the actions of other editors, especially rollback and delete, which I know he's done for a long time. I wish him good luck if he does get the tools, otherwise, I wish he could contribute to bring our encyclopaedia one step forward.
Maturity concerns, but not going to be a dick and pile on.
'''Neutral''' - It takes all kinds of people to maintain this project.  Editors who are willing to perform maintenance functions are no less important than content creators.  However, the maturity concerns noted in some of the oppose discussions prevent me from supporting at this time.
'''Neutral''' I'm going to have to agree with Snotty here and a few others in that you are a wonderful person but there are some nagging issues that prevent me from supporting at this time. Please create content and I will support you next time.
'''Neutral''' I can't really see what way I should go.
'''Neutral'''. You've been here three times, you've been told no three times and you're still knocking this door. Why? I don't understand.
'''Neutral'''. I don't agree that "1 hour 23 minutes" isn't speedy enough. Also, I'm disappointed by the lack of content creation.
'''Neutral''' After contemplating this for a day and a half...I still can't decide. On the one hand, your contributions ''are'' valuable and important, and the vandalism fighting, speedy tagging, etc. that you do seems to be accomplished at a generally satisfactory level. I do not think that it is necessary to have extensive content contributions in order to justify administrative privileges. On the other hand, I'm actually rather disappointed in your response to Q11: this was an opportunity to demonstrate a thoughtful approach to a gray area, and ''many, many'' admin actions occur within those gray areas. You had a chance to discuss the possible relevance of [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and/or [[WP:NOTPAPER]], to demonstrate that multiple sources meeting [[WP:RS]] are available (I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_United_States_tomato_shortage&diff=391752024&oldid=391552943 added some] from ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' & ''[[The Republican (Springfield)|The Republican]]'', for example), and prehaps a chance to offer possible merge or expansion ideas (some of which are under discussion at the article's [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 United States tomato shortage|AfD]]). Furthermore, I actually find Ironhold's oppose (#20) to be compelling, if a bit forceful. Administrative actions ''and'' content improvements require thoughtful consideration of divergent opinions and the internalization of community input. I think it likely that you have the capacity for this, but have yet to demonstrate it clearly. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' Great user, but lack of content experience concerns me.
'''Neutral''' - Great counter-vandalism work. You clearly are dedicated to Wikipedia, and I think that you'd make good use of the sysop tools. However, I'm not so sure about your judgment. You have failed four RfAs before this one, and that shows me that you don't have a very good sense of the community. I'm also not convinced that you truely know what the role of an administrator is. Sorry,
'''neutral''' - not a fan of automated editing that is not a bot that can be reviewed and reversed easily.  Also, user doesn't seem to need administrative tools for increased participation in the project.  Also, the lack of response to folks concerns on the past '''5''' rfa's.  --
'''Neutral''' (moved from oppose moved from neutral). Still don't like the underlying tone of [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391745137&oldid=391744952 this edit] which caused me to switch from neutral in the first place and my point above in the oppose section (which I've chosen to merely indent and not strike out) still stands. That said, I don't think leaving my !vote in a pile-on oppose section does any good. I'd like to, as many others have done, encourage you to work more in article space – hit me up if you want any guidance or anything on where to start. It doesn't even have to be an area you know about—I created [[American Samoa constitutional referendum, 2010]] from scratch without knowing any background to it. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
'''What is wrong with you people?''' Wasn't going to comment, but I'm very irked by the complete misunderstanding of the meaning and truth of [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be_2&diff=391745137&oldid=391744952 this]. People took it as some sort of arrogant declaration, but it is a simple truth. If all the big "hugglers" left, Wikipedia would have major, possibly lasting problems within hours. Still, I'm sorry to say I can't support, mainly per the various concerns raised by IShadowed.--
'''neutral''' concerns over speedying potentially good articles, also no content work despite more than one reminder, leading me to worry about communication.
'''Neutral''' I don't feel sufficiently vehemently either way about this to join one of the warring factions, so: (i) I am unconcerned about the lack of content creation when you have such evident and useful skills elsewhere. And, even as someone much more on the content creation side, I think what you've said about the importance of vandal fighting is perfectly fair enough. (ii) I am nonetheless slightly sympathetic to the argument that after four prior RfAs returned a consensus that you should do more, you should probably either have done some or expressed up-front why you didn't intend to. (iii) The evidence provided of "immaturity" looks pretty storm-in-a-teacup to me; not strong enough grounds for me to oppose. (iv) My feelings about your response to the speedy deletion question are more or less the same as those Boing! said Zebedee reports. So... on balance, I've ended up down here.
'''Moving from oppose''', as I simply can't justify opposing this editor.
'''Support''' Looks like this user will make a good admin. --
'''Moral support.''' You seem to be on the right track, but I think it's a little too soon. I noticed that you went back and cleaned up the articles you created earlier, which is good. Also, your CSD work is mostly okay, although you haven't really tagged many pages yet. I'm kind of ambivalent regarding your answer to Q3, which may have been going a little too far. Overall I feel that you need a bit more experience, so I suggest trying again at a later date. <code>
Moral support. Not quite the [[WP:DUCK|answer]] I was looking for. Keep up the good work but not quite yet. <s>The answer I was looking for was an automatic (block evasion) block, and for bonus points, leaving a message on the user talk page explaining that if he wants to contribute wikipedia he must use the {{tlx|unblock|reason}} on the original account, explaining how he must convince admins that he will not vandalize and not create new accounts.</s> <small>I have more to learn</small> A for effort. &nbsp;&ndash;
Moral Support to avoid pile on.  You seem on the right track please take the comments generated form this RfA to heart and come back in 3-6 months. ''<B>--
'''Support.''' Not much for me to say, and this is the first time I've ever "!vote"d here, but I do support.
'''Moral support'''. There are statements in the answers to the questions that are technically wrong; but the answers demonstrate obvious thoughtfulness. The canddiate's experience is a little thin, but the record looks very good. --
'''Oppose''' - Per talk page discussion listed in #3. I'm glad that you assumed good faith at first, but when that IP linked you to fake websites that were meant to attack you, you should have known that the user was acting in bad faith. They even admitted that they were just trolling you, and you still [[WP:DNFTT|fed the troll]]. Also, in question 1, you said that you would ban vandals who vandalized one too many pages. As an admin, you would need to know the difference between a [[WP:BAN|ban]] and a [[WP:BLOCK|block]]. Keep up the good anti-vandalism work, and come back here in about 6 months or so when you've understood policies better. '''
{{ec}}{{ec}}'''Oppose''' — Not enough experience for an admin, however, there is potential in the future. I think accepting a nomination for a rather new editor is a bad idea, especially when the nom is <s>two</s> one sentence<s>s</s> long. <font face="Papyrus" size="4">—<span style="cursor:crosshair">
'''Oppose''' - At just over 3,000 edits, and most of those in the last month, this seems a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I wish this candidate the best, but strongly feel it should take more experience than this to get the mop.
'''Oppose''' I think that doing some two thirds of your total editing in the current month has not allowed you time to become adequately conversant with wikipedia policy details. for example, in your comment above you are describing a "topic ban" which is not the sam as a "ban" --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - I agree that one month of heavy editing does not give the experience that speading out the editing would give.  I think the lack of experience is shown in the answers to the questions.  The original block v ban mistake, the topic ban v ban, and a editor who has a similar name to a blocked vandal that is editing constructively should not be subjected to a sockpuppet investigation.  There is no basis to suspect other than a similar username.  I do not think you are ready at this time.  '''
'''Oppose''' but with strong '''Moral support'''. Only 1 month of real editing experience, and that's nowhere near long enough. Candidate has done some impressive work in that time, and I feel sure that a future RfA will succeed after they get some deeper and wider experience in various areas of Wikipedia policy. I'd suggest giving it another 6 months and then think again.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]; give it a little more time and you'll make an excellent admin. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''.  Per above and weak nom.  -'''
Regretfully '''oppose''' -- a bit too early, like the above editors said.  If you keep it up and try again in 6 months or so, I think you'll have a good shot.
'''Oppose''' You've got a great username, but this looks like a [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] to me. You may make a good admin someday, but as now, you simply lack the experience. Sorry, --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
Answer to question 4 isn't good, nobody cares (or certainly shouldn't care) if someone vandalises and comes back 3 months later with a new account and contributes constructively, by all means keep an eye on the account, perhaps check a few edits if it looks like there's something dubious going on, but only block if there's damage being inflicted on the encyclopedia. We don't undertake punitive blocks, we don't punish people or block accounts any more than is necessary. You'll get a feel for when to block and when not to block though, so I wouldn't worry too much.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience in multiple capacities. -- '''
'''Strong oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] and accepting a poor nomination. Just the fact that you agreed to run with that nomination statement makes me oppose. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' - you shouldn't really have accepted this nomination. The opening <strike>paragraph</strike> line that has been written for you isn't brilliant in the slightest. Being a fast vandal-fighter is by no means a key to adminship. You need some more time to get used to the various areas which admins operate in. More experience will also render better answers to the questions. ([[WP:NOTNOW]]) All the very best,
'''Neutral''' This isn't too bad. Good work on the rollbacking, but also I would like to see a few more articles created. I am just not sure if this user understands all the Wikipedia policies, like every admin should do.
'''Neutral''' As per Minimac, you should probably get in some more article work as well as vandalism. Good job on vandalism though! [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Support''' as nom
'''Support''' I have no reason to oppose, no blocks, automated edit percentages are reasonable, edit summary usage is good, enough content work. I did not find any civility issues at first glance. Good luck with the rest of your Hell week!
'''Support''' Great user, totally ready for tools, plus [[WP:AIV]] would stay clean with their help. <span style="background-color: #0000FF">
'''Support''' Definitely. Fantastic user. Very ready for the tools.
All looks good - I remarked in your first RfA that despite your inexperience you were doing very well and that seems to have continued and I think you're now up for the tools. The answer to Q4 was good, in my view. I'm not so sure about the general "magazines are unreliable" statement, but in this context the sourcing was insufficient and you were right to take the view that the admin was exempt from 3RR because of the BLP issues. I would have pointed out though that the admin's behaviour was far from good: he stopped engaging the new user on the talk page and just kept reverting with arrogant edit summaries while leaving templated warnings on the user's talk page. However you're certainly right that there was nothing actionable about that behaviour. --
'''Support''' A hard working, mature user with many skills. --
'''Support''' Willing to help.--[[User talk:intelati|<font color="blue">Talk</font><font color="green">ToMe</font>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Intelati|c]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Friendly, hard working user, great anti-vandalism work. I don't see any reason to oppose. '''''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you got question 4 totally wrong, IMO.
'''Oppose''', while vandal fighting is good and necessary, it's not necessary to have the admin tools to do that.  This editor does not evidence enough policy or Wiki knowledge to demonstrate he would use the tools effectively, per: excellence in knowing when to "press the big red button on Huggle" does not confer requisite experience for adminship; getting DYKs requires only a few words and one verifiable source and doesn't confer article writing and conflict resolution experience per se (and churning out DYKs just before an RFA doesn't evidence long-term editing experience); no evidence of conflict resolution skills; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=393312718#New_RfA_procedure_proposal this conversation;] but more importantly, all of this lack of experience is reflected in his statement above on Q4: "a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source, as they can, and usually do, contain gossip".  This is quite simply wrong.  ''Time'', ''Newsweek'' and many others are magazines that are reliable sources and apt for many BLPs.  Also does not know what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=355349254&oldid=355318332 plagiarism] is.  Further, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant&diff=391953012&oldid=391912148 nominating] an [[Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA3|ill-prepared article for GA]] shortly before an RFA run, and then doing nothing to correct the issues could lead to the impression of trying to rack up "prizes" for RFA. Each time an article is nominated for a content review process, another editor invests time in that review, and nominators should be willing and prepared to correct the issues.  Further, the level of problems in that article put the GOCE in context; any one can sign up at GOCE. Sorry, adminship isn't a prize; it's a responsibility for which editors must be prepared.  And, last RFA was only four months ago.  All together, I see a lack of maturity and experience here.  Please do some serious article work and you may be better prepared next time.

[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#New_RfA_procedure_proposal|This candidate does not sufficiently respect other volunteers' opinions.]]
Answer to question 4 indicates a misunderstanding of [[WP:RS]]: magazines of high editorial quality can meet our standards of reliability (of course, a dubious allegation against a living person supported only by a purported offline source might be ''temporarily'' removed pending verification.)
Back again? Since the last RfA, you quit, came back again, wasted everyone's time with that, and clicked Huggle's "big red button" (a lot).
'''Oppose''' per SandyGeorgia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=355349254&oldid=355318332 This] also indicates immaturity and temperamental problems.
'''Oppose''' - per SandyGeorgia, and [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#New_RfA_procedure_proposal|general lack of clue]] when it comes to how things actually work around here. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Townlake and close paraphrasing issues. [[User:StrPby|Str]]
'''Oppose''' The fact that you set up a proposal to reform RFA by lowering standards and then ran two days later shows a general lack of clue about how things work. From my perspective, it seems as if you knew that this road would be rocky, so you shot out a proposal to make it easier for you and then seeing that it wasn't going well, threw your hat into the ring anyways. Come back later and I might support but you need more experience and clue first.
I'm not too terribly fond of his answer to question #4. ~~
Not impressed with maturity in last couple days. Seems like a hat. ''
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about maturity and experience. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Malleus Fatuorum. I can't support candidates who haven't been much different within their previous RfA. While I'm not concerned by the maturity, I am more concerned about his article building ability. At least 1 Good article expansion would be sufficient to demonstrate the Wikipedia policies.
'''Oppose''' per Sandy.  Though, I'll also note that there are many others (including those with buttons) who don't know what plagiarism is (and libel, for that matter), but it doesn't seem to deter them from opining.  Still, we have non-lawyers construing legal principles, so perhaps it is expected ... but we have to start somewhere in fixing this.--
Reluctant '''Oppose''' this time. Great vandal work and great work at [[WP:GOCE]], but Q4 (wrong in a couple of ways, as people have already pointed out), the RfA proposal (with no realistic desysop, we shouldn't be making it easier), and the lack of any real difference since last RfA, all suggest that a deeper knowledge of Wikipedia policies is needed. I look forward to being able to Support a future run. --
'''Opose'''. I too think that you have done a lot of good work for the project, and vandal-fighting ''is'' important. However, there are a number of concerns that have been mentioned above. I disagree with your adminship analogy, likening it to being a school janitor. I would probably trust you with the "cleaning" part (eg. deleting articles that say "I like pie!!!!!! lulz") and perhaps a bit of "security work (eg. blocking blatant and persistent vandalism-only accounts), but there is more to the role than that. I presume you wouldn't expect your janitor to put students in [[School punishment#Detention|detention]] or suspend them, or to decide when they can come back to school, or to fire teachers or to go through students' work and get rid of some of it. To move away from the analogy, adminship is a bit more complicated (blocking and protecting during content disputes for example). Content work is important not just for the sake of it, not just to show that you care about the project, but because it helps to show that you understand policies & guidelines and that you can work effectively with editors you disagree with. That can be demonstrated in other ways, but I'm not seeing any overwhelming evidence here. It also helps you to understand better the context within which content disputes arise. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=355349254&oldid=355318332 This outburst] is from six months ago, but it is still a concern. Also, as this is already long, per the comments from Sandy, Malleus, Peter Karlsen and others. As an editor, you are a net positive to the project so I hope you take these comments as constructive criticism and not let them put you off contributing here.--
Only four days since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&action=historysubmit&diff=392619049&oldid=392562584 you were lecturing me on how the DYK process "demonstrates the ability to provide a reliable source"], and here you are claiming something sourced from "A Travel Site for the Nostalgic & Historic Minded" as one of your best contributions? Sorry; I don't trust your judgement in the least. As per many others above, [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#New RfA procedure proposal|this conversation]] shows to me that you don't understand either what it is that a Wikipedia admin actually does, nor the broader issues affecting Wikipedia's governance, both of which are unavoidable if you have sysop status.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
"a magazine is not normally considered a reliable source" - Uhm, that's completely wrong. I don't think you're quite up to it. Try again in a few months to a year.
Wait at least six more months, and learn your policy before coming back. I am seeing some good work and a significant amount of policy misunderstandings, as evidenced by the comments above. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=355349254&oldid=355318332 Temperament and maturity concerns]. Also, "magazine is not normally considered a reliable source" is [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY wrong wrong wrong.]
'''Oppose''' If we unbundled the block button so that good vandalfighters like yourself could block IPs and autoconfirmed accounts I'm confident that you'd use that well. But admins also several other tools including the delete button, and as Fox and SandyGeorgia explained I don't think you are ready for that yet. Happy to see you here again in a few months once you've resolved those issues. ''
'''Oppose''' Q4.
'''Oppose''' per your "school janitor" statement on talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=393103329]. A very unfortunate statement for someone who applies to be a janitor, a schoolmaster, a censor and an executioner all at once. I'd be more than satisfied to hand you the broom, but not the noose nor the [[book burning]] license.
'''Oppose''' Q4. Dear oh dear...
'''Oppose''' Q4. I do think though, that bashing of DYK belongs elsewhere. I for one don't think much of it at all and believe it should be replaced with good articles instead, but that's for another place.
'''Oppose'''. The Utahraptor is clearly a committed, conscientious and enthusiastic editor ... but the answer to Q4 completely misunderstands [[WP:V]]. I suggest that before any further RFA, this editor takes time to gain both a deeper understanding of policy issues and much more experience of how content disputes are handled. --
'''Oppose''' A Wikipedian for less than a year, and really only in high gear since June, the candidate is on the right path but lacks experience. Get some mentoring help and come back in six to 12 months.--
'''Neutral''' – I am split on my vote here. On the one hand, you are an excellent vandal fighter with decent article edits. On the other hand, question 4 was a bit off, and your attitude concerning other users is questionable. For those reasons, I have chosen to be with the neutral lot. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. Should have gone with [[User_talk:Access_Denied#I.27m_beginning_to_think...|your first instinct]] on this one. <font face="Verdana">
Frankly, I was surprised to see this here.
'''Neutral''' - I'm not in the mood to pile-on, but you probably should have waited a little bit longer since your previous RfA.
I must agree with the above Opposes and Neutrals. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. MC10, above, captures my thoughts well. You've done a lot of good work so far, and I look forward to seeing you have some success at RFA... but recent concerns plus Question 4 mean that I cannot support at this time. Best,
Quite frankly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=335529710 this] ridiculous and battleground stand to the climate change probation makes me seriously question Thegoodlocust's judgment. On top of that, you then go and call another editor's contributions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisO&diff=prev&oldid=335223270 tripe] - sorry but you haven't got the right attitude for an administrator. '''
'''Oppose'''. Inexperienced editor (under 1000 edits) with a spotty/spurty contribution history who appears to be [[WP:POINT|pointy]].
'''Moral Support but [[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - Although you come here with good judgement and a good faith, I don't think you are ready yet. Also, the edits you have are very scattered and "on-and-off" and there aren't that many in the first place. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Concerns with judgement, experience, and temperament.  I get the feeling the candidate would use the tools as a badge and gun as opposed to mop and bucket. -'''
'''Oppose''' - Due to your low edit count, not to be [[WP:ITIS]]ish here but "''Anyway, I'm supremely qualified to be an admin''", I can honestly say this has really has put me off !voting in favour. Maybe later on when you're a bit more experienced can I support you, but not this time. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''
'''Oppose'''. Judging by the talkpage, this is a disruptive editor who has issues regarding Barack Obama. He has been blocked five times, though he has been here less than two years. His most recent block was 3 days ago. This RfA should be closed as having [[WP:SNOW|no chance of success]], and as being a waste of people's time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' Blocked last week?  You need a lot of seasoning before coming back here with that block log.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, [[WP:NOTNOW]].  I applaud your enthusiasm and boldness, though.  Perhaps some day.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Oppose'''.  Per all the above.--
'''Strong Oppose but moral Support''' Per his attitude and his response to criticism.  His response to Ryan Postlethwaite's oppose shows that he currently lacks the qualities needed for an administrator to be neutral and unbiased.  I'd be happy to support down the line as the user becomes more experienced and he interacts better with other users.  Best,
'''Oppose'''. As above. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' per above. [[WP:SNOW]] time.
'''Neutral''' Not enough time on Wikipedia but has balls to try this approach, so I am not opposing.
'''Yes.'''. Short tenure, but made up for by the fast learning. Makes himself useful in admin areas and offers sensible input on reports at various venues. He knows what he's doing and it be more efficient just to give him his own mop.
[[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •


'''Support''' Good Vandal fighting and  content writing feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
We need admins to go to town on AIV not write FAs. There is enough content creation to be confident that content policy knowledge is sufficient. Outbursts look fine. --
'''Support''' IMO, admins do not need to be authors. Tommy looks like a great user who would be unlikely to abuse the tools, and a net positive to the project..
'''Support'''. I've encountered Tommy a number of times, and he seems to be a pretty dedicated Wikipedian - and I'm sure his motivation is only positive. Some people do seem to oppose candidates who are largely vandal fighters, but I think we need them - when you're reverting and reporting large amounts of vandalism, you can save valuable time for other admins by being able to block and protect yourself. --
'''Oppose''' You've listed DYKs and a rapidly-accrued plethora of automated edits as your best contributions to Wikipedia.  I see absolutely nothing in this nomination to convince me that you're looking for anything than a level-up.  I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but until you put forth enough substance to convince me you're here to ''build an encyclopedia'' instead of wanting the block button to play whack-a-mole with vandals with more authority, I see no reason to support.
'''Oppose''' Temperament problems per Q3, as well as IMO unsatisfactory content building as noted by Jclemens leads me to not trust the user at this time.
Excellent vandal fighter, but not a whole lot more Seems level uppey to me as well, although this is a fairly gut reaction, I man change it. ''
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I had a look at your rollback contributions and saw that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruth_Stout&diff=prev&oldid=387154253 this] edit recently (which was a diff originally shown by Wayne Olajuwon) was not called vandalism. Also, I haven't seen a lot of article promoting (Even though you've got a couple of DYKs, which isn't a bad thing). Per the diff I've shown, whether he's trigger happy or not, I'm worried about his judgement in relation to keeping the encyclopaedia neat and tidy. Also <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_Party_protests&diff=prev&oldid=387756986]</span> this edit summary could be summed up a lot better than "utter shit".
'''Oppose'''.  Per temperament issues.  Inconsistent w/admin status.--
'''Oppose''', share the same reservations as Native Foreigner. -
'''Oppose''' No. Per past interaction with the user in question. Also per Epeefleche's & NativeForeigner's oppose. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Weak oppose''' The candidate has been a Wikipedian for only 7 months. Vandal-fighting creds are impressive; however, the candidate needs more seasoning in other areas. Keep editing and learning. Come back in 6 months to a year.--
'''Oppose''' Candidate seems to be more involved with quantity of edits over quality of edits. --
'''Neutral''' This really pains me to do this. You are a great editor and I have seen you in a lot of places. That being said, those outbursts were rather recent. If you had fudged around with afd or something more minor, I would be willing to forgive and forget but emotions are a big thing when dealing with the crap that goes on around here. Come back in a few months and I will be more than willing to support, barring anything bad happening. Good luck!
'''neutral''' seems to have not yet enough around experience yet, such as dealing with a fair use situation yet.
You seem to have done little content building work, and have far more user talk page edits then you do mainspace edits. While this may be attributed to vandalism work, I personally do not consider 1400 mainspace edits, many of which would be using tools/scripts, a good indicator of having worked much with developing articles. Of course, saving pages from deletion is commendable, but it still seems like a very small part of what you do. If you plan to work in AfD, I would be expecting either a high level in involvement there already, especially in the administrative processes (closing, relisting, etc.), or a lot of writing to show that you better understand arguments presented in AfDs. You also have only about 50 article talk page edits, which seems to indicate a low level of collaboration with others in article work. In addition, you have only become recently active after over two years of inactivity (excepting a few periods of brief activity). I cannot tell if you have kept up with recent policy changes (such as pending changes, etc.), so I'm looking for a few more months of active participation so that is evident. More recently, as you mentioned in Q3, I was surprised that you took your minor dispute with Mono to ANI when he didn't even reply to your talk page message yet. That was very recent, and I don't yet see any evidence of you being more patient and discussing issues with a user first. Your CSD work seems fine, however, but I don't think now is the time for you to become an admin. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
As per the comments made by Fetchcomms above, and in particular your recent unseemly haste to take your dispute with Mono to  AN/I without any real attempt to resolve your differences.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]; you're a good editor, but I don't think you're experienced enough for the mop. And I agree with Malleus: that dispute should not have been taken to ANI so fast. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry - but I too believe the ANI dispute was premature. Mainly, though I have to oppose on levels of recent, relevant experience, and the answer to Q5 per [[Wikipedia:CONTESTED#Objecting]]. My oppose doesn't mean I don't believe you have made valuable contributions, or that I don't think you would, in time, be a good admin, it just means I can't support now, for those concerns. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I think you have the potential to be a fine admin, but at the moment, there are serious gaps in your knowledge of policy.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Strong oppose'''. Not enough experience, too many red flags raised by opposers above. Also, running to ANI over a mistaken warning instead of removing it and/or discussing it with the editor (not leaving them an outraged message and taking it to ANI before they have chance to respond) raises serious questions about your maturity and communication skills. Finally, Q4 (what hell does "CSD the article under BLP status" mean?) and Q5 which is just plain wrong.
'''Reluctant oppose''' Nice contributions, but as others pointed out, the AN/I was rushed and unneeded.  Wait a couple of months then retry.--
'''Oppose''' – Have concerns with this editor. Q5 worries me; we need more constructive editors here. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose. I have not yet had time to look at the candidate's contrib record in detail, but I do remember one encounter with him from less than a month ago which raises some red flags. This concerns [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wagner's first love]] and the related AN/I thread [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Organizing AfD comments]]. Basically, Torchwoodwho decided that it was a good idea to re-arrange the AfD comments into "keep"/"delete"/"other" sections and started moving around the AfD comments of other users accordingly. When it was pointed out to him that this went against well established conventions, he took the matter to the AN/I and started the above mentioned AN/I thread. At AN/I it was explained to him that what he was doing was both against a well established convention and against [[WP:AFDEQ]] which says: "Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count." To be fair, Torchwoodwho was certainly motivated by the desire to improve the process and after the AN/I comments by others he quickly conceded the point and was perfectly nice about it. Still, to me the episode demonstrates a lack of experience and understanding of how the AfD process works. There is a place for being bold, but with something like a significant revision of an AfD format he really should have asked first, say at [[WT:AFD]]. As it was, he created a bit of a mess in the Wagner AfD, which had to be untangled.
Can't really support, but you're a good enough editor that I don't want to oppose either, despite the prod replacement above. Will probably support next time around, if there is a next time... --
'''Support''' see my co-nom above. --
'''Support'''. I see no reason why not.
'''Support''' I don't see why not to support, seems to have experience all across the board. --<font color="black">
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''; honestly thought this user was already an administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Despite [[Pont-y-Cafnau]] being one of the shortest GA I've seen, the user seems to have a good grounding in policy <small>(edit:despite not being perfect)</small>
'''Support''' - Mature and honest. Respects the policies and guidelines, especially [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BITE]]. Would be a valuable asset to new users that need administrative help. - <span style="background:#FF0000;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background:#00FF00;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background:#0000FF;">&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Support''' nothing wrong here that would stop me from supporting. ''<B>--
'''Support''' - Always had positive interactions, and his work on [[WP:3O]] convinces me that he has both the good judgment and temperament to make a fine admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' looks to be a good all rounder.
'''Support''' - Per good answer to my question. I don't see anything wrong with the candidate in their contribs. --
'''Support''' I don't find the tagging deviance sufficiently worrisome to overcome the fact that TM is a long-term asset to 3O, entirely levelheaded, and isn't going to abuse anything. Other policy knowledge seems sufficient.
'''Support'''. I appreciated the candidate's well-thought-out answer to my Q7 instead of ducking it. No reason not to trust user. [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|c]] •
'''Support''' per Jclemens. I cannot speak highly enough of people who help resolve disputes and can deal with people in a level-headed, responsible way.
'''Oppose''' Works with CSD yet doesn't properly understand criteria A1.  Edit is deleted, however any admin should be able to verify in the previous version of [[Buckhorn middle school]].--
'''Oppose''' He may be civil, but he only made 2 articles, which is quite low for what I really expect to see in terms of demonstrating the <s>policies</s> deletion criteria.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buckhorn_middle_school&oldid=387594621 This] is simply awful use of A1.  How can  something with an address, name, town, phone number, and zip code EVER be insufficient context to identify the subject?  It can't, end of story.  As you also left the G11 tag, I'm going to hold you accountable for that poor decision as well, as that article wasn't a G11 candidate either.
'''Oppose''' You do a lot of good work, but our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia. You have minimal content contributions. The most you've ever edited an article is 18 times. Go back, do some more article building, and I'll be happy to support you.
'''Oppose'''.  Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge.  Additionally, on a side note, I'm not very confident in TM's dispute resolution work; the one dispute I saw you attempt to resolve between BQzip01-Hammersoft could have been better handled. You do good work, but I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. -'''
Per Fastily, I always trusted Quarl's judgement, but there is concerns about CSD tagging, I also think he's a bit  inexperienced. '''Oppose'''
The CSD concerns don't seem to be very major. And the temperament seems well-suited for an administrator. But I always look for some amount of content work from admin candidates with only a few exceptions (certain "line" of work, very experienced, etc.) [[Pont-y-Cafnau]] is a stubby GA. I can't see much else you've worked heavily on. And not to be an editcountitis-freak, but you have less than 1000 edits in every namespace. I'm not sure how much I can evaluate you on, as there's not much, and none of it is extremely stand-outish right now. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/
'''Oppose''' per concerns with policy knowledge. I'm sure you'll make an excellent administrator in the future. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - per above concerns above with policy knowledge. —<span style="font-family:Tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' with moral support. A lot of good work and an excellent temperament, but I'd like to see the CSD concerns sorted quickly. A little more content work would be useful too Come back in six months time with a stronger record on both fronts and you've got a good chance.
'''Oppose''' Clearly poor CSD tagging very recently. This is too poor to pass off as a silly mistake, more work is needed.
'''Oppose''' per CSD work, specifically, for example: [[AGN International]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AGN_International&oldid=385205477 here]), [[Lowy Institute for International Policy]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lowy_Institute_for_International_Policy&oldid=379822106 here]), and [[Virtual Observatory India]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtual_Observatory_India&oldid=377189401 here]). (All three tags in August and September 2010.) We don't <s>expect</s> require perfection, but there is a clear delineation between [[WP:N|notability]] and the ''assertion'' of notability. Clearly the latter is a far lower standard, and one presumes that an editor who would tag those three articles (among others) as A7 would delete them if granted the admin bit; that would be a no-no in my opinion. On the positive side, I expect this is an area that can be improved upon and that a future appearance here at <s>AfD</s> RfA will have a much better chance of success; there are definitely contributions and demonstration of ability to work with here. However, the candidate specifically expresses desire to work in deletion in the answer to Q1. In addition, I note that a very high percentage of CSD-tagged articles wind up deleted (without any analysis of whether the tag was a correct one), and there are definitely ones that were tagged and the articles still exist, but that's OK because the tags were correct at the time and the articles have been re-created and/or improved. So, again - I see positives pointing toward another candidacy in the future.<small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' CSD and content building concerns per above.
Sorry, Frank's examples tipped it for me. They are well outside the boundaries of A7 (even accepting that editors can have reasonable different interpretations of A7). It won't take long to fix the CSD issues, so this oppose is far from a "not ever". --
'''Oppose''' - Was thinking about abstaining from voting, but the CSD issues were just too much. [[User:Derild4921|<span style="color:green">Derild</span>]][[User talk:Derild4921|<span style="color:red">49</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Derild4921|<span style="color:blue">21</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to oppose, but you do not meet my [[User:MJ94/RFA Rationale|standards]] yet. I am specifically opposing due to #^: CSD tagging. Unfortunately, the CSD issues concern me. Keep up your hard work, and I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors someday. :)
'''Oppose''' The candidate has been highly active for less than a year. Two article creations and eight redirects --->"That don't impress me much". There are also CSD mistagging and policy knowledge issues. Keep editing and learning because someday you'll be a fine sysop.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the A7s are not tagged properly, and with that being the most tagged CSD (IMO), I don't feel that it's a good idea for the tools to be given to you at this time. --
'''Oppose''', per Courcelles-
'''Oppose''' per Frank and candidate's response to Frank. Notability is a matter for AFD, the test for speedy deletion via {{tl|A7}} is the much lower hurdle of whether it lacks "a credible assertion of importance or significance". I fear the candidate has not yet grasped that many articles which one would support deletion of at AFD do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Happy to reconsider in a few months when the candidate has learned to be a little more diplomatic when dealing with Good faith contributors. ''
'''Oppose''' - I think you're on the right track but there have been too many CSD concerns raised for me to vote support. Keep plugging away (I'm not too worried about the content contributions but some more of those wouldn't go amiss) and I'll happily support you later.
'''Oppose''' Concerns raised by Frank and others about CSD taggings are concerning and, as WSC correctly points out, the candidate's reaction to Frank's !vote is as well. Either he has not grasped that A7 simply does not apply if there is ''any'' credible indication of importance or significance or he is unable to accept that he was wrong about those taggings. Either way, the candidate does not seem ready to be trusted with the ability to delete articles if those taggings reflect his understanding of [[WP:CSD]]. Regards '''
'''Neutral'''. Whether TransporterMan would be a good admin I cannot say. My one interaction with him was at the [[Michael Levin]] article, which came after I posted a request for a third opinion; take a look at that article's talk page if you want to see what happened. TransporterMan's intervention was basically helpful, since it did resolve a dispute over article content between myself and another editor. It seemed to me, however, that TransporterMan was much too quick to comment on the situation, and frankly didn't properly understand what the dispute was about; he could and should have made an effort to clearly understand the particulars of the dispute before commenting. I suppose that if you give third opinions regularly you wind up commenting on a very large number of disputes, which may make things difficult to follow; the more disputes you take an interest in, the less time you have to focus on each one of them. We obviously need editors to give third opinions, but if you do so much of it that your understanding of individual cases is somewhat off, then that could potentially defeat the purpose of the exercise.
'''Moral support'''. I'm sorry, because you're a very good contributor; however, given the various valid concerns raised in the oppose section, I feel uncomfortable supporting you at the moment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
Sorry without discussion on temporay adminship, i have to oppose.
Per Secret, and temporary adminship for such a short length of time is a bad idea. (Also, why someone would want to go through the torture that is modern RFA for only 30 days of adminship is beyond me). --'''
'''Nope'''. Moral support for trying to achieve something, but this isn't the way to do it. I might support a temporary admin appointment, but only for a sensible reason (eg bringing expertise to a specific backlog) for a sensible period of time, but just an arbitrary "30 days, for no special reason other than to have a go" just isn't going to fly, I don't think. --
'''Oppose''' Pledge is completely unenforceable, and because the candidate has such a visible interest in Wikiprocess, I can easily imagine the candidate later abandoning the pledge just to see what will happen. This isn't an [[WP:AGF|AGF]] issue, it's just a question of whether I can trust the user with the tools issue, and I'm not sure I can.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry Triona, I would probably not oppose a normal request if you made it but this is almost [[WP:POINT]]y. An RFA, with its limited community participation, is not the correct way to establish any kind of temporary adminship. That's what [[WP:RFC]] is for. I do not doubt that you act in good faith but you have mixed up the correct way to handle such a proposal: First discussion, ''then'' implementation. Not the other way round. Regards '''
{{ec}}'''Oppose''' Without a discussion and agreement on temporary adminship, I can't support. There would be no way to enforce this (in theory, a steward could say "Oh, the consensus was to remove it after 30 days *click*" but there is no way to ensure this happens. What if they contact you and you say "No, everyone else gets it for life, I have changed my mind"? It is too uncertain as to what would/could/should happen. This just seems like a [[WP:POINT]]y RfA. -- '''''
'''Weak Support.''' Not a fan of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12Minutes_to_10pm_on_May_9th,08&diff=prev&oldid=359515612 this edit summary], but he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12Minutes_to_10pm_on_May_9th,08&diff=prev&oldid=359522982 seemed] apologetic. Seems cordial aside from that incident. Not a fan of the maturity demonstrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Talk%3AVera+Baker&timestamp=20100502034259&diff=prev this deleted edit summary]. Appears to have a solid grasp of policy from my poking through his contribs. Seems to know the speedy deletion criteria pretty well. Overall, he's not infallible, but seems pretty good. It's getting kind of late, so I'll probably just come back to this later.
I've seen him around, and what I've seen has been good. <strong>
'''Strong support'''. In the few months I've been his admin coach, I have found him to be a reasonable and trustworthy person. I have to apologize to you for going inactive the past winter (I was kind of busy in real life); sorry for having left you hanging. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''c'è una luce, una speranza''' I too poked through contributions and Unionhawk is helpful. That Useight censored the cited edit summary in including it here for non-admins is not so favourable. Having seen Unionhawk around and allowing everyone a bad day i still offer a modest support. Sometimes it is better to ponder an edit than rush to get it in in the heat of the moment.  <font face="Georgia">
'''Normal support''' - a teenager can be very addicted to Wikipedia. So let him/her addicted to this Wikipedia. '''<span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; background-color: #fff">
'''Weak support.''' Concerned about this editor's maturity levels, but that kind of thing usually improves with time. Nonetheless I'd counsel the candidate to avoid such odd edits as the ones that have been linked in this and the oppose section. With respect to the concerns about opportunistic timing: hardly an issue. RfA used to receive a burst of nominations precisely because there were no candidates. Shall we just write off those requests because they were opportunistic? Honest answer to Q3 too. I'd like more experience but I think Unionhawk is good enough for the tools.
'''Support''' More politeness would be nice, yes, because some of us are really sensitive, but I'm sure you would be a net positive as an administrator and that's all that matters to me.  Besides, i'm sure you can control your use of edit summaries when you know that people are watching.  '''
'''Support''' Whilst I've taken into consideration the many concerns (which are by no means trivial), I haven't seen any evidence that this editor would abuse the mop. Reviewing Unionhawk's contributions may show a few instances of a poor choice of words or an "attitude" - but really, intent, tone and attitude are impossible to determine through a a font on a computer screen. Unionhawk has demonstrated, overall, long-term positive contributions to the wellbeing of Wikipedia. In future, just think twice when choosing words and interacting with other editors - that's something I've too had to learn the hard way. --'''
'''[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA|Support]]''' - after looking more closely I see an intelligent and knowledgeable editor who can look at issues with reasonable neutrality.  He has been less active of late, but not so much so that he has lost his grasp of policy; I have no concerns in that area after reviewing the answer to question 8.  The flippant edit summaries are in a gray area between sardonic wit and sarcastic smackdown, but I'm pretty sure that he will err on the side of caution no matter which way this RfA goes - he gets it.--'''~
'''Support'''. I am confident that whether or not the RfA succeeds, the candidate will take everyone's comments below into account in his future editing. Realistically, though, it would probably be sensible to withdraw the current request, and seek adminship at a later time when you have a more recent record of active contributions and some distance from the loss of temper that is concerning the opposers.
'''Weak Support''' Recent editing activity is below what id like, however; i can go +1 on this based on the editors past (but input of mine is to be considered weak and borderline neutral in this particular case).
'''Support''' I'm just saying that people are capable of learning from their mistakes and regardless of whether he may have lost his temper in the past, I trust him enough to not do it again, especially considering that he had practically nothing else wrong that I can see. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Seems alright to me. I've seen the edit summaries above and the LA one seems tongue in cheek so I'll forgive the f word. My main concern is the editor's age and I share some of the concerns expressed regarding not having reached the 'age of majority in their jurisdiction' thing, but, as long as we don't have a policy reason to vote against young editors, I'm not going to use that as a reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' The issues mentioned in the oppose section are just minor details, and what's done is done.  <font color="blue">[[User:Feinoha|Fei<font color="red">noh</font><font color="green">a</font> ]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Feinoha|Talk]],
'''Weak Support''' - For A6 - at least he's being honest; at this point, I think he needs some good comments instead of pile-on opposes. '''
'''Oppose''' - User appears petulant. Sorry, but no.
'''Oppose'''. User has not made significant contributions in 6 months. While that isn't an indicator of a problem, it's harder to tell if this position is sought for a trophy or because the user would make significant contributions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Talk%3AVera+Baker&timestamp=20100502034259&diff=prev This contribution] is not a good sign of maturity (at any age!) either. That's not to say the changes on [[RuneScape]] aren't appreciated.
'''Oppose''' Seems like he knows what he is doing, but having an edit summary like that, from only nine days ago... I don't think someone with that level of immaturity should get the mop.
'''Oppose''' - I admire Unionhawk's bravery and enthusiasmfor his selfnom. He's contributed to  a lot  of RfAs and he knows what  he's got coming. At first  view, a balance of allround participation although  perhaps not  enough  on Wikipedia talk. Understands the need for edit summaries but  tends to  use the summaries as a substitute for article/user talk  page comment.  Very, very  low on  creations, which  are mostly  very  short stubs, or even unreferenced articles. Low traffic on  his talk  page and an annoyingly monthly  archiving of just  one or two  posts.  30% automated edits does not  demonstrate a solid knowledge of policy and significantly  reduces the real edit  count. There's really  no  substitute for the kind of experience that  can gained through making  and discussing major contributions over a longer period of time, and more participation  in Wiki  talk and policy making.  And that  is what  is needed here. He appears very  polite, helpful, and civil. but  it  is marred by  too  many  [[WP:BITE]] and snarky  comments. Reading  between the lines,  I'm sure his intentions are good, but  I'm opposing because I believe he can do just  as much good work  with  the editing  tools already  at  his disposal until  he has more experience.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry I'm a big fan of Edit summary's ( my pet peeve ). You need to change your current habits on that issue.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I'm a big fan of people finding a way to express themselves on Wikipedia using words other than F**K. There are lots of other good words in my dictionary that haven't been worn out yet. And yep -- it's against policy. Wouldn't want someone walking around w/a mop, flinging that word about. This isn't San Quentin. We just lost a sysop for his use of the word; can't see making one who already exhibits that tendency.--
'''Oppose''': Deleted edit summary, but also misjudgement of launching an RfA just before a deadline in RL. Timing seems opportunistic, but unfortunately not appropriate.
'''Oppose'''.  Per Stephen B Streater.  The timing is indeed regrettable.  Use this time to focus on APUSH ;) -'''
I don't think the user's maturity quite reaches the threshold for adminship quite yet.
'''Oppose''' - I think everyone above me recognizes too that the "edit summary" issue is a red herring. Nothing wrong with it, and even if there was, it's not a reason to oppose. The reason to oppose is a lack of maturity, lack of content creation, <strike>lack of non-automated edits (around 2,500)</strike>, and other ethereal qualities. But don't blame it on a single "mistake" (that I don't think was one).
'''Weak oppose''', primarily because of the fairly low level of activity in the last 6 months.
The good things I said about the candidate in the support section stand, but I'm switching to oppose over the low activity over the last 6 months, sorry. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' You don't meet my [[User:Kraftlos/admin_criteria|minimum criteria]].  I'm also concerned about the sporadic activity levels.  I'd like to think that someone who gets the tools would be someone who's already online quite a bit and doesn't drop off for months at a time.  Also edit summary, because it's pretty much required to do any serious editing.  --'''
'''Oppose''' I do not feel we should be having teenage administrators, as I feel that they cannot handle the responsibility. I also have major concerns about lack of content contributions, irregular month counts.
'''Oppose''': It’s all about the right kind of experience and you don’t have it yet.  You said ''I would work with deletion'' yet you’ve only created 4 new articles in your entire WP experience.  Three of those are still stubs and one has been tagged for notability and references for a year [[Blue_Ridge_Mountains_Council|here]]. Yet, you believe you are qualified to delete other editor’s work when you haven’t proven you even know how to create a quality WP article.  Frankly you've have not demonstrated through content creation that you understand how WP works and will give new editors the benefit of the doubt when judging their early creations.   An admin’s role is part of the quality improvement cycle of the encyclopedia and that role is far more encompassing than merely deleting stuff.    This may seem harsh, but I suspect you are reacting to these comments exactly the way many new editors react when their first article is nominated for deletion immediately after they’ve created it.  Sustain your passion for WP, but spend some serious time creating serious content.--
'''Neutral''' Good number of [[Special:DeletedContributions/Unionhawk|Deleted Contributions]], however, only 71 reports at [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and only 13 to [[WP:UAA|UAA]]. --
'''Neutral''' - I can't support at this time due to the deleted edit summary. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Neutral''' Has clue, sure, and knows policies. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about temperament. Probably one of the most important qualities in an administrator is patience (one several of our ''current'' ones could use a little more of). All administrators are going to get into stressful situations, especially those where the party on the other end either doesn't get it or refuses to get it. I've been an admin for, what, two weeks now? And it's already happened to me several times. However, in dealing with those people, sudden loss of patience like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12Minutes_to_10pm_on_May_9th,08&diff=prev&oldid=359497771 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12Minutes_to_10pm_on_May_9th,08&diff=next&oldid=359513317 this] is only going to escalate a situation. I realize that whole situation was stupid, and I agree a namechange was best for everyone, but the manner in which it was dealt with I am not entirely satisfied with. I find that to be of utmost importance in an administrator, and for that reason right now I can't support. --
'''neutral'''– Cluefulness and contribs are mostly fine, so I don't feel that I can oppose based on tact alone. But even this RfA itself gives me a feeling that it was put together with a "what the hell, I'll just wing it" attitude. (Which works fine for me in real life... but is not reassuring in a position that requires a high level of prudence. That said, it was a very brave self-nom.) <span style="font-family:Garamond">{&#123;
'''Neutral''' Good number of edits, but I can't support the edit summaries. --
'''Neutral''' - Good initiative, but a bit quick on the trigger. Bold isn't necessarily bad, but I'm honestly not seeing enough to back that boldness. --
'''Neutral''' − I'm stuck between [[User:Pumpmeup|Pumpmeup]] in the support section and [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] in the oppose group. Wholeheartedly agree to both and am therefore neutral. Generally though [[User:Pgallert/RfA voting criteria|my requirement]] is met, so I'll be happy to support in three months' time.--
'''Neutral leaning support''' per Sonia. The careless attitude is a bit too much of the 'no big deal' for me. You should not be running with your main reason being that there are no current nominations. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Neutral''' - I love his/her edit count but i cannot support right now due to the edit summary.
'''Neutral'''. A brave self-nomination, and many useful contributions. However the edit summary is a little concerning.
'''Neutral''' I see a young and energetic editor who is not quite ready for the mop.  Not willing to pile on in the oppose category.  ''<B>--
At least moral '''support''' per [[WP:AGF]] more so than [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that I do not want to see a new editor discouraged.  On the bright side of things, you have not yet made any Afd comments I can fault you for, you have not had any memorable negative interactions with me, and you have not been blocked.  So, while most likely this request will be closed per "not now," please look to any suggestions those who oppose make as to how to improve and do not be discouraged.  You will find many, many fun, enjoyable, rewarding, and constructive ways to contribute without being an administrator.  Some of the most rewarding that I suggest include joining some productive projects.  Consider, for example, [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron]], which is a terrific opportunity to assist fellow editors in improving content and thus a good way to make friends while helping others and improving our catalogging of human knowledge.  [[Wikipedia:KC]] and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee]] are usually non-controversial venues to help make Wikipedia a more pleasant environment.  Finally, something that many new users benefit from is [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User]], in which an experienced editor can help walk you through the many intricacies of the project.  Anyway, have a nice night!  Sincerely, --
'''Moral support''' I see you have good intentions but being an administrator is not needed to work on articles. Generally somewhere about 3000 edits and at least 6 months of experience in various areas in addition to article work are needed for your fellow editors to support a request for administrator rights. A Nobody made some good suggestions on things to start with in getting more involved. Cheers. <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW|sorry, I just don't think you're ready]]. The deleted pages you'd mentioned raises a concern of your understanding of the policies. As for the question about your administrative work you intend to take part in, you are free to make page improvements, without the admin tools. Better luck next time!
'''Oppose''' As above, you do not have enough experience at this point for the administrative tools. I'd recommend at least few months of solid experience first. Look forward to seeing you around. --
'''Oppose''' — Sorry, too early, hope to see you around in the near future. —'''
'''Oppose'''
I read your application more as a request for editorship than a request for adminship. Editorship is of course granted, welcome to Wikipedia! But adminship requires you to have been round long enough to have learned the jargon and made enough edits to pass this test. Very few make admin in less than a year, or less than 3,000 edits. I suggest that when you are no longer grounded you read some  of the articles related to your schoolwork and maybe see if there is anything you can expand, reference or otherwise improve. ''
'''Oppose''' I hope to see you here in a few months time with some real experience. See above. Can someone close this RfA quickly.
'''[[User:Shirik/RFA|Neutral]]''' (Refusing to pile-on). What you have stated in question #1 does not require administrative rights. I strongly encourage you to edit articles where you see fit; remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just administrators! I wish you luck in your future editing and look forward to seeing your contributions. --
'''Neutral''' Come back with some more article writing/policy involvment later so that I and others can access you properly for adminship. 35 edits isnt enough to go by. Good luck, Happy editing
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Non pile-on neutral]]'''  I do not discriminate by age, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVenomcuz&action=historysubmit&diff=340845526&oldid=340833894 the wikibreak due to being grounded] means you might not be available when needed.  Also, although I encourage enthusiasm, adminship is no big deal, and it's vital to have a) a great knowledge of wikipedia policies, b) a firm grasp of language, c) the trust of the community.  Become a good editor! ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Joining the non-pile-on pile-on.
As nom.--

'''Support''' – I've seen White Shadows around the wiki, and he has been a clueful and useful editor. I trust him with the mop. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Weak Support'''. No recent red flags, but old problems last in my opinion. <font color="#FF0000">
As co-nominator. '''
'''Support''' - I was the GA reviewer for WS's nomination of [[World War II]]. Despite being faced with a huge topic and and equally huge list of things to be fixed, WS persevered and (with some support from Wiki-friends) managed to bring the article up to GA status, an achievement for which I awarded him a well-earned barnstar. I have seen some issues with maturity, but a) none recently, and more importantly b) I have also seen evidence of him learning from his mis-steps and striving to be a better editor.
This RFA is premature.  But I have to question whether it is premature as a matter of ''tactics'' or a matter of ''substance''.  I am certain that it is tactically premature but far from convinced that the candidate is not actually ready to be an admin.  In addition to the contributions and answers to questions, I am confident because of the respected editors who have vouched for the candidate's rapid improvement as an editor (especially the nom and co-nom).  In this respect I think the candidate's young age is a positive - because of that age it is more likely that the early editing problems were down to immaturity and there has been genuinely rapid progress.--
Wow, I expected this RfA to turn out a lot better.  I have formed my opinion, though, and the opposes are not bringing up anything I didn't already know.  I can see why people may be uncomfortable with having someone with your editing history as an administrator, but that's pretty much what the opposes are about ... history.  I don't believe you would seek out conflicts as an administrator or hold grudges against those who you've had conflicts with in the past, and that is why I am supporting.  '''
I concur with the Soap's sentiment right above me, as I do with the logged-out JC in the neutral section. At the end of the day, WS has his heart in the right place and I see no reason why he couldn't make a fine admin with guidance from those more experienced in the role. The risk of him deliberately abusing the tools is nil. The risk of negligent use is absolutely minimal and he wants to work in areas which are short of admins and where he has already done brilliant work. He has already made a dramatic turnaround from a myspacer to a prolific content writer and I see no reason why that tranformation would not continue, producing an even better editor and administrator. Quite frankly, if he'd retired the Coldplay Expert account and started the White Shadows account as a new one, although not strictly legit, the connection would be near unrecognisable and this RfA would almost certainly be going the other way.
per above.
I am pleasantly surprised by the strides WS has made in these last few months, and am impressed with his dedication to content work.  But he's not ready for adminship.  The old problems were based on issues of judgment and maturity, which do not resolve themselves overnight; I still have significant current concerns in this area, and they are an important facet of adminship.  These issues will disappear slowly with time, but it is too soon. --
'''Oppose''' - Atrocious spelling is of concern, especially when simple words ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=371246376 "makeing"?]) are spelled wrong on a continuous basis. Vandals do not take admins seriously when immaturity shows. Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATanthalas39&action=historysubmit&diff=359963400&oldid=359963264 this one] during the Tanthalas39 situation are extremely unproductive and add nothing to the discussion. Aside from the above, your answer to question 1 does not show a large enough range of admin areas you'd be willing to work in. For someone who is not very active in warning vandals (as far as I can see), 32.81% of all edits dedicated to user talk pages is very concerning. '''
As per Floquenbeam and as per what I said earlier on White Shadows's talk page. I also think that the nominators have demonstrated rather poor judgement in putting White Shadows forward for this "trophy" too soon.
'''Oppose''' per those above me. I pointed out your spelling problem to you last year yet nothing has been done on your part towards correcting it. [[WP:DYK]] and [[WP:ERRORS]] also don't require a lot of administrative attentions so I also fail to see your need for the tools. Unproductive comments are also worrying. Eagles247, Floquenbeam and Malleus sum up my feelings perfectly in this case.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Editors who cannot communicate intelligently really shouldn't be administrators.
'''Oppose''' He's doing much, ''much'' better, but real maturity takes time. The spelling is still an issue as well.
'''Oppose''' - in the nomination, it is mentioned that WS has "25 good articles, three good topics, and 41 DYKs." While those are good numbers, I'm concerned that's all you were doing it for&mdash;the sheer numbers. From what I've read of your articles and various reviews, it appears that you do the absolute minimum to get articles to GA or past DYK's 5x expansion rule. This is most often expressed in a comparatively long "Design" section (ex. [[French battleship Gaulois (1896)]]) where basic characteristics of a ship&mdash;often already available in the infobox or the [[ship class|class]] article&mdash;is restated in prose so that the article is long enough for DYK. In [[SMS Babenburg|other]] [[SMS Árpád|articles]], you have simply copied over a ''five''-paragraph-long design section and added a lead + two/three paragraphs on the ships' service lives. Yes, these articles technically meet the GA requirements, but they really aren't up to par IMHO. While I appreciate that information on some of these ships is scarce, you have never attempted to get any of the definitive works on the Austro-Hungarian Navy through inter-library loan or any other means ([[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Austria-Hungary/archive1|most recent attempt to get you to do this]]), and using general works like ''Conway's'' or ''Battleships of World War I'' is just not enough to make a comprehensive entry on ''any'' battleship. <small>Possible COI note&mdash;both White Shadows and I are members of [[WP:OMT|Operation Majestic Titan]]</small> —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Oppose''' but leaning toward neutral. Sorry, too much drama in the past <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
Sorry, I really don't feel comfortable with supporting or even going neutral here. WS is a very helpful editor, but I am concerned with his/her maturity and spelling, as mentioned above, I really don't see vandals or problematic users taking him/her seriously at this time. Sorry, I hope I can feel comfortable voting support in a future RfA, with all concern taken into consideration.  <font color="#ff0000"><span style="font-family:Calibri">
'''Oppose'''.  In an encyclopedia, spelling is too important an issue to downplay.  I'm uncomfortable that such a small proportion of edits have been made to article talk pages (an important indicator of how well, or not so well, an editor has learned to collaborate with peers).  And if the nominator really meant to say that this candidate is under 18, that's a showstopper in my view.
'''Oppose''' I think you're a great editor, but I'm afraid I cannot support per your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AWhite+Shadows block log] which contains several fairly recent blocks.  Keep up the good work and I'll look to support in the future.  -'''
'''Oppose''' - That block log is way too active, with two just this year and five total. The editor has come a long way but I strongly suggest withdrawing from this Rfa now or as soon as you are comfortable with that, working hard at some of the issues raised including spelling (I keep a dictionary next to the keyboard at all times, not being a good speller myself) and staying unblocked - and then come back in 6-12 months. Best wishes! (NOTE: This feels like it is trending [[WP:SNOW]], suggest early closure if it turns into a pile-on.)
I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to oppose at this time. Although I'm impressed by your progress in the last few months, I don't think your quite ready yet. Floquenbeam brings up some good points, and [[User_talk:White_Shadows/Archive_9#User:White_Shadows.2FGerman_U-boat_bases_in_occupied_France|this]] particular conversation (a follow up to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Shadows&oldid=349636012#Copyright_violation_in_German_U-boat_bases_in_occupied_France this]) from three months ago is a bit worrying. I'd like to see some more experience before I can support.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I think this RfA is premature. The range of concerns raised above indicates that although you've indeed come a long way, there's still further to go before you're ready for adminship. Spelling is obviously an issue but it's not the major one for me (installing a spell-checker in your browser might help if you haven't already done so). What are issues are your recent(ish) blocks, your relatively short tenure on WP, your age as hinted at in the nom statement (not necessarily as a child/adult thing but in terms of your probable experience of dealing with a wide range of people and situations in RL), Ed's note about the way you develop articles, and some of the sentiments expressed in your essay linked in Q9. You should definitely be encouraged by the progress you've made and deserve full credit for it, but I believe you should have realised you're not ready for RfA. That you accepted the nom calls your judgement into question, and that for me is the single biggest factor in opposing. I hope this isn't too discouraging and wish you well if you decide to  try again (though like Judasfax I'd recommend leaving it at least 6-12 months). Best,
'''Oppose''', but with strong moral support. Firstly, much respect to White Shadows for coming so far so quickly - what I'm seeing is an extremely valuable and committed editor with a much improved attitude. However, I'm going to have to reluctantly oppose because I think it's still too soon. Blocks in January and February were just too recent, especially considering the reasons for them, and I'd need to see more clear water after the immaturity issues. I'd also like to see more attention paid to details like spelling - use your browser's spell-checker before you submit, and it will catch things like "makeing" and "takeing" every time. If you come back in around <s>six</s> 6-12 months time, with no further blocks and no further immaturity issues, I expect you'll do much better here - I look forward to supporting you in the future.
{{ec|3}} Per practically everyone else, without wanting to re-iterate. Spelling is frankly dire (a good answer to question 7 might sway my opinion here) and leads me to think the user is fairly young - while this obviously is not a bad thing, I can't see vandals feeling threatened over an incorrectly typed warning (if a manual one is used at all). I also share Ed's concerns over article quality, but that's something I'm guilty of, too.
{{ec|4}} '''Oppose''' – with regret. Five months without a block is long enough to show you have improved in general editing, but not nearly enough time to prove suitability for adminship. It just doesn't follow. Also, we all make spelling errors, but if it's what you are remembered for, that's when it's a problem. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Oppose'''. I am disappointed with White Shadows' response to Q6. There is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's core policies taking place and RunOff, the person attempting to clean up, is not making headway, and people are ganging up on RunOff so things are getting stressed. White Shadows decides to escalate the drama by publicly tackling RunOff on assumed AGF issues rather than backing up RunOff on violations of core policy. You cannot AGF regarding unsubstantiated accusations. The statement needs sourcing or removing - that is the priority. The drama can be eased with a few soft words and a gentle but firm explanation of policy. And if it is felt that RunOff had got a little over-heated with some comments, then that can happen at times, and a quiet conversation - perhaps off-wiki - along the lines of: "I note that you got a bit stressed there - if you need help in future, give me a call" would be helpful. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' Lacks basic self-awareness.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I can't support with the maturity concerns I have, and what I see in very recent contributions as a tendency to rush "feet first" into commenting. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and I'm also sure you could be a good admin one day. That's not yet, though, imo.
'''Oppose''' per Floquenbeam & Eagles. I'm sorry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry to make my first contribution to RFA like this, but I am regretfully in the oppose camp on this one. I have come across White Shadows in a number of venues, mostly related to Did You Know where he puts in a lot of time and effort. Besides this I see from his contributions that he does a lot of anti-vandal work and his editing in the area of ships and submarines is laudable, even if, as Ed has pointed out above, the work is usually sufficient to just pass at DYK or GA. Overall his edits show a definite positive trend away from the blocks of his early career. However, I believe that this improvement was down to a number of respected editors (gently and not so gently) pushing White Shadows away from areas of drama, and encouraging him to spend more time building the encyclopedia. White Shadows, as Begoon says above, has a tendency to jump in "feet first", particularly when there is some sort of drama going on (besides the Tan incident mentioned above, this also manifests itself in his poor spelling which could easily be addressed if White Shadows paused for a minute or two to read back a comment, rather than rushing in and hitting the save button) and this leads to escalation of the situation and increasing conflict. By becoming an admin, White Shadows would be pushed back directly into the path of high drama, whether he wanted to be or not. An admin should <s>diffuse</s> defuse a situation, not make it worse, and this is where White Shadows would fall down. I believe that this will very quickly result in White Shadows getting into the same kind of trouble as earlier in the year. White Shadows is a promising editor but I think becoming an admin at this time is too early and would cause too many problems (both for WS and for en.wikipedia). tl;dr You are doing a good job and improving month on month. Focus on your content-related skills, improving the encyclopedia and working on "looking before you leap" and leave the distractions of adminship for another day.
'''Strong oppose''' Blocks for personal attacks, abusing multiple accounts, and edit warring, which is ''not'' what we want to see in a administrator. ''

'''Oppose''' per Q10. It's great that you recognize that was against policy -- I just want to see you establish more time without similar bad moves so that I can support in the future.--
'''Oppose''' Had this RfA been say six months ago, it would have been a straightforward decision for me to oppose. Back then it seemed that WhiteShadows spent more time editing his talk page than writing articles, and when he got into disputes just couldn't let things go. Since then, WhiteShadows has come a long way and has demonstrated he's here to build the encyclopaedia by writing [[WP:GA|Good Articles]] on submarines. This transformation is encouraging, but I don't think WhiteShadows is ready yet for the tools. It's not been an easy ride, in March there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:White_Shadows&oldid=349636012 problems] with copyright violations. WhiteShadows seemed to have changed after that, but to me it speaks of an editor who is still learning about Wikipedia. Of course, it's not a pre-requisite to know everything before becoming an admin, but in the absence of familiarity with admin areas there needs to be aptitude to adapt and understand situations. I'm not convinced that's been demonstrated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:White_Shadows/Archive_10#Friends_with_RJ This situation] was not a good idea and I'd like admin candidates to demonstrate a more circumspect approach. As much as I applaud WhiteShadows for his work in changing his attitude, long may the GAs keep coming and keep working at DYK, but I don't think now is the time for adminship.
I'm on the fence here (leaning support). On the one hand, your work since your issues multiple months ago has been spectacular. On the other hand, I'm not sure I can overlook the issues even after this time. It was a pretty large mess, and I'm not sure I can let it go. From that whole get-go, it seemed like you were on a race to get adminship, but I haven't seen much to substantiate that recently. Since I haven't worked in the same area as you for many months, I'm going to have to look into your contribs more to make a decision. <small>(
Your contributions are definitely great, and I really try not to judge by time, but between the one year time here and myspacing until just 6 months ago, that's enough to have me a little worried. Good luck and you've definitely done good work, but I just cannot support for adminship yet. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
I'm sorry to say that I can't support right now, per the two above me. Perhaps in just another few months, but right now is too early for me. Sorry, '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
If I'm perfectly honest, I'm extremely surprised to see this nomination. I wasn't sure what to expect when I saw the name in the RfA TOC, but Wehwalt's signature is reassuring. With that said, as someone who has (maybe?) helped him get his bearings, it seems like just yesterday WS spent much of his time engaging in highly unnecessary disputes with respected users or unnecessary chatter on his talk page. He has made one of the most spectacular turnarounds I've ever seen in my three years on Wikipedia, but yet I feel he needs several more months to detach himself from his checkered past. I have no reason to believe he would deliberately misuse the admin bit, nor do I believe he would accidentally induce mayhem, but I don't yet think of WS as "admin material", however vague that may be. My advice would be to continue to establish yourself as a solid article creator. I'm well aware that one can literally change his ways in an instant, but in a community like ours, where every last mistake and quarrel is forever etched into multiple historical records, a consistent track record is necessary to pass RfA. On a more down-to-earth level, I agree that you need to work on sounding more professional in your talk page comments. "Your" and "you're" are not interchangeable, for example. Don't worry about achieving adminship so much – it's more a burden than anything. [[Special:Contributions/69.121.245.182|69.121.245.182]] (
I really don't like opposing people, and you've made a fantastic turnaround, but it's ''just too soon''. Reading through your talk page archives from as recent as April gives me a really uneasy feeling about you going anywhere near the mop, and whilst you've improved drastically I just don't feel comfortable supporting. You know enough that you wouldn't abuse the admin bit, but accidental ''misuse'' due to hastiness is still a concern in my mind. I certainly am not one to speak, but the overall impression I get from you is that a few more months will mean a lot more stability.
I'm not going to oppose, as I think that given time you will make an admin. However, I think that this RfA is a bit too early. Keep up the good work, learn from this RfA and take on board the comments made by all parties. The opposers will show you in which areas you need to improve.
Pending answer to Q9. --
I cannot support.  Three blocks in the last ten months for three different problems, that is to much to recent.  Continue down the path you are on for the last 5-6 months and come back in 6-12 months.  '''
Along similer lines to GB. Before someone else makes the opposite point, while your post in question 10 deserves strong criticism and should not be repeated, I think it was understandable given the circumstances of her departure.
'''Neutral leaning support''' good editor but the block in February means I cannot support at this time, 3 months from now I would love to move to the support section. ''<B>--
{{Ec}}I woke up and logged on this morning and was, frankly, surprised to see this up. I think it's a bit too soon, and agree with everyone above in the neutral section. I'm not going to oppose, though, as you are a great user who is on the right track; I'm just not comfortable supporting right now. Q10 worries me, especially. Please keep it up!
'''Neutral leaning support''' - I have seen some extremely wonderful work from White Shadows, and my experience and collaboration with WS has been excellent. This RfA is a bit too soon in my opinion. The typos, however, don't concern me since everyone makes mistakes. Even admins make typos. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="color:green; font-family:mistral">Nerdy<font color="#0F0">Science</font><font color="#8d7">Dude</font></span>''']] ([[User:NSD/t|✉]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|✐]] •
Neutral leaning oppose, per Julian, Ed, and candidate's comments in his current [[WP:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_battleships_of_Austria-Hungary/archive1#List_of_battleships_of_Austria-Hungary]]. - Dank (
I need the money, my children are sick. I don't know why everyone's opposing, I guess their cheques were lost in the mail? --
'''Strong Oppose''' per WGB's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wiki_Greek_Basketball disastrous] first RfA that closed less than two weeks ago. That RfA closed at an unprecedented '''1 support, 38 oppose, 4 neutral''', with the only support coming from a known troll who almost certainly wasn't serious. This second try feels really, really cynical, so let's quick close per <s>WP:NOTNOW</s> [[WP:SNOW]]. What's sad about this is that, with a little effort in behind-the-scenes stuff, this guy could have turned into a genuine candidate.
'''Strong Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AWiki+Greek+Basketball see block log]. ~
'''Hell no'''. The drama that's occurred over the past month is enough to make me sick... Plus your answer to question 1 makes me think that this is all an attempt to get your way against [[User:Coffee]]... "help control the abuse issues where certain members (this can also include admin) are harassing and being rude to others." <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' I hope you take Prodego's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Greek_Basketball&curid=15792810&diff=335415014&oldid=335413535 advice] instead of just deleting that post from your talk page. -
'''Strong Oppose''' as above and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive587#User:Wiki_Greek_Basketball].  Open the collapsed thread, read his comments on his ''own ANI thread''.  Has been off the block resulting from that and other events for all of 2 days.  --
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' Based on the behavior of WGB after posting his first RfA, there is [[WP:SNOW|no way in hell]] I would ever support him for adminship.  This should be snow closed with<s>out</s> prejudice and WGB be topic banned from RfA.
'''Oppose''' We offer a special program for editors of your caliber. It's called [[WP:VANISH]]. Why don't you go do it?
'''Oppose''' Disruptive behaviour following very recent failed RfA shows unsuitability for this role at this point in time. You need to show a turnaround in attitude over a much much longer period of time.
'''Oppose''' - When it's an obvious SNOW or NOTNOW case I usually refrain from piling on. However, in this particular case I feel compelled to voice a very blunt opinion. This user simply does not have the demeanor or maturity necessary to be an admin. Ever.
'''Oppose''' for fairly obvious reasons. Can't we just [[WP:SNOW]] this? --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Coffee's Most Extreme Oppose Ever]]''' - WGB, created this RFA to troll just 2 days after his block expiring. There's no chance of him being an admin at all now, even if there was a chance before. The door is that way --->. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''No''', '''No''', and for the last time '''''NO!!!''''' – I am seriously starting to wonder whether something gave way here, the user is deliberately engaging in [[WP:POINT]], or if this user's account has in fact been compromised. –
'''Not a chance''' After that last RFA, to come back from a block and decide to run again?  No way.
'''Support...''' some sort of sanction. No. This is my strongest oppose ever, and I've made some pretty strong opposes ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ComputerGuy890100|1]] for example). --'''
'''Moral support''' Sorry, but I don't think that you're experienced enough right now. Try again in  6 months or so, and keep up the good work! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;background:#FFFF00;">
'''Moral support''' I have to agree with pilif12p. Try again later, 6 months, maybe nine if you want. I wish you good luck, and look forword to supporting you.
'''Support''' from a fellow airman :). I was, frankly, surprised to see this up, but I don't think you'll delete the main page or block Jimbo! {{=)|wink}} More experience couldn't hurt. Please keep it up,
'''Weak Support:''' Not quite there yet but has potential! -
'''Oppose''' Not yet. Just 413 edits according to X!'s edit counter. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience aside, did not fully answer the three questions posed. Not enough information available to really know whether this editor will be an asset to the mop. <big>
'''Moral support'''. Sorry, good editor, but no. [[User:Mono|<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em"><font face="Papyrus"><big>&nbsp;'''ℳ'''</big><font color="white">ono</font>&nbsp;</font></span>]]
Inexperience.
Regretfully, per [[WP:NOTNOW]], I have to '''oppose''' this as not having enough experience.
'''Oppose''', per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience and policy knowledge. -'''
'''Moral Support, but Oppose'''. Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW|'''''not yet''''']]. <b><b>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. I have no doubt that you're a nice person but I'd like to see more/broader experience in an admin candidate. This should not really be measured in terms of raw edit counts (I think it's possible to rack up a million edits in one narrow area, say typo fixes or reverting blatant vandalism, without ever really scratching the surface of wikipedia), but if you came back here in a few months with experience of different aspects of wikipedia, and kept a clean sheet in the meantime, I would happily support.

'''Oppose'''. You're a very good editor, but I'm sorry I cannot support you right now, as I think you're [[WP:NOTNOW|not ready]] for adminship at the moment. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose'''[[WP:NOTNOW]] <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">
'''Oppose''', concerns about breadth and depth of experience. -- '''
'''Comment''' - I'm not going to oppose, because I don't want to discourage you. You seem to have made a good start. However, I can't support you, because you just don't seem to have enough experience to be seeking adminship right now. I'm sure that, further along, with more experience, you could make a good admin, but I'm afraid I don't think you're at that point yet. I'd recommend reading [[WP:NOTNOW]], and looking through some previous [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|unsuccessful]] and [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|successful]] RFAs to understand the high levels of contribution and experience editors expect to see in an Admin candidate. I do encourage you to keep up the good work you are doing. &nbsp;
'''Echoing''' Begoon - don't get discouraged, you just need more experience in the intricacies of Wiki, getting a broader experience in all of the "odd" areas in which sysops are called to assist ;0
'''Neutral''' You aren't too bad at article writing, and I know from the logs that you are a reviewer and have a clean block log. But if you're going to try [[WP:AIV]] you need some experience with rollback. My suggestion for working in WP:AIV during your RfA week is to practice reverting vandalism at the Recent changes page using undo or Twinkle.
'''Neutral''' - Echoing the above users. You have my moral support, I'm abstaining from opposing or supporting at this time as your contributions are positive but you don't have sufficient experience in AIV, admin candidates should generally be active participants in the administrative areas they wish to work in. I was not satisfied with your answers to the questions. While edit count is important, I would like to see a few more contributions from candidates so that I have solid ground with which to base my vote upon. I'm not going to base my whole vote on edit count since that encourages editcountitis in RfX votes. '''[[User:FD|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
'''Neutral''' candidate does not have enough time active on Wikipedia to evaluate if the candidate is ready for the mop. ''<B>--
{{ec}} '''Neutral leaning support'''. You don't quite have enough experience to become an administrator, but you have potential. I'm sure you'll be good admin material in six months to a year from now. ~<span style="border:2px solid blue;background:beige;font-family:Mistral">'''[[User:NSD|<font color="green">Nerdy</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and he's always been helpful. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. ···
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' I have no problems with this request.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, has edited for over 4 years, and has received multiple stars.  Best, --
'''Support''' The time spent in the project is enough to earn my trust. I have a few concerns, but nothing severe enough that requires me to go neutral or oppose at this stage.
Candidate was asked too many questions, '''Support'''. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''[[User:HJ Mitchell/RfA Criteria|Support]]'''. Although there are a few issues, at the end of the day, I think you can be trusted. Just ask for help when you need it and don't delete the Main Page!
'''Support''' No concerns, and per above.
'''Support''' Judging by the number of [[Special:DeletedContributions/Wikiwoohoo|Deleted Contributions]], he seems to have a lot of knowledge of the deletion process. --
Competent and ''obviously'', willing. '''
Looks okay to me.
'''Support''' Has been around 4+ years, and is well motivated. Even if there are issues with this editor's understanding of deletion policies, I think he'll get it right within a reasonable amount of time.
'''Support''' I see no evidence that this user would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' There are certainly concerns, but I see this user as exhibiting common sense.  I'll support unless there is real solid evidence they would harm Wikipedia. ''<I>
'''Support''' Is this user perfect? '''No'''. Will they be a good responsible admin? '''Yes'''.  I see nothing from the questions above that this user will abuse the mop or venture into portions of the wiki where they are inexperienced without learning first. ''<B>--
'''Support''': Yes, there are areas of weak policy knowledge, but I'm confident the candidate will not make any judgments in such areas without learning the ropes first --
'''[[User:Otherlleft/RfA|Support]]''' - does the candidate understand every policy cold?  Nope.  Is he willing to learn?  Yes.  Trustworthy?  Seems it to me.  Question 7's response seems to be representative of a lack of understanding of specific lingo, and I'm confident that he understands that consensus is based on the strength of arguments.  The response looks to me to be answering a different question than I believe was being asked - specifically the answer was to, "When should comments at an AfD be completely ignored?"  Candidate will do fine once through new admin school, I'm sure.--
'''Support''' &ndash; Although some of the concerns brought up by the opposers are valid, I'm still confident that this candidate will be a good and trustworthy admin. The opposers bring up the concern that they don't see much work with [[WP:CSD|CSD]]. If I had the deleted contributions logs, I might be able to verify whether that was true or not, but I'll base my opinion on current facts. Given his excellent work in [[WP:FfD]], I would not be terribly worried about his work if he stayed within the range of images/files and not to articles. And even if he did, he could still learn more about the area if he worked more in the area, a point brought up by many of the supporters above. Yes, question 7 was a bit off, but given some more experience in the area, I assume that he would be able to answer the question right. And about question 8: He answers that he doesn't know much about blocking and wouldn't participate in the area very much. Although his answer to question 4 was a bit off, it still has the correct general idea. Though he may not know policy as best as an adminship candidate could, because this editor is willing to learn from mistakes, and also seems to be a very civil editor, I support his request for adminship. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Support.''' He's clearly qualified to do the thing. Give him the shot.
'''Support'''. Content creator. Many years with the project. Possesses relevant XfD experience I'm looking for.  Displays ability to perform independent analysis leading to clearly understandable logical conclusion.
'''Support'''. I did consider the concerns brought up... but at the end of the day, this is simply a user I would trust with the tools. They've shown enough dedication towards the project and have a good background.
'''Support'''. May be weak in some areas, but he's an experienced editor. '''[[User:NSD|<span style="color:green">Nerdy</span><span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8bd877">Dude :)</span>]]''' ([[User:NSD/t|✉ click to talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerdyScienceDude|my edits]] •
'''Weak support''' - on the issue of trust, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe there would be an intentional abuse of the tools.  Answers to some the questions, etc. produce some concern, but I weakly support this candidate on good faith and perseverance.  <strong><font color="maroon">
no hay problema. -
'''Weak support'''. While the issues raised below are legitimate, I feel that this user is a good editor overall and would benefit from use of the tools; I trust that he'll learn from the opposes as he has before. (Besides, the more RfAs, the more stigma; I think he's pretty brave to keep trying.) <span style="font-family:Tahoma">
'''Support''' - admins can learn on the job. The only question is whether or not they will abuse the tools.
Sure. Won't break wikipedia if this user is made an admin. --
'''Support''' The candidate is a longtime editor who seems trustworthy to me. The lack of XfD and CSD experience outside of images is a bit concerning, as are the incorrect answers to the second part of Shirik's question (would not be eligible for A7) and Q7 (IPs most certainly ''are'' allowed to vote at AfD). However, based on the answers to Q14 and Q23, among others, I think the candidate would be a fine admin. With a decent amount of content work and a tendency to ask questions when unsure about what to do, Wikiwoohoo has earned my support. "Number of retirements" seems like a trivial reason to oppose; burnout is not uncommon, and use of the "retired" template rather than one of those "wikibreak" ones hardly matters.
'''Oppose''' I know this is going to sound harsh. I was about to give a support because of persistence but the candidate has suggested that the two main reasons for adminship are XfD and speedy deletion. Yet I cannot see anything in the last two years of this candidate's edits that show any real clue in the area of AfD, in fact quite the opposite. Giving the tools to someone lacking the basic level of competence needed in an area they are suggesting that they work in is not a good way to go.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - Looking through your contributions, I don't see much good with CSD, and that is looking back five months. Saying you will backlog [[C:SD]], I don't see any removing of bad templates, and not one nomination with a notification to the author (which is flat out unfair to them). I can't support somebody who hasn't had proper CSD experience in 5 months; it could be dangerous. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose'''.  [[User:Fastily/RfA Rationale|Unfortunately]].  Like smithers here, I see little to no CSD work in the last few months (see [[Special:DeletedContributions/Wikiwoohoo|here]] - admin only), which is the area you have stated you wish to work in.  I'm sorry, but this combined with your relatively low level of activity these past few months and your runabout answers to the questions raises a red flag for me.  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' - Mostly per above, but also the answers to some of the questions are just perfunctory, terse and vague. Lastly, I don't feel you communicate your thoughts very well.
'''Oppose''' - While I realise that Wikiwoohoo is a dedicated editor and that he has been somewhat overloaded with questions, the answers to questions 7 and 8 in particular do not fill me with confidence about the candidate's readiness for adminship. I share the concerns expressed above about Wikiwoohoo's experience with XfD and the answer to question 7 does little to reassure me about their ability to determine consensus in line with policy. I would support in future if Wikiwoohoo demonstrates greater experience in XfD and CSD and a greater knowledge of the blocking policy.
'''Oppose'''. No doubt this candidate is trustworthy in terms of ''motive''. However, I don't see nearly enough policy knowledge to indicate trustworthiness by ''competence''. Too much potential for inadvertent misuse of the tool, and in sensitive areas of the project like CSD. Like Wisdom, I also see communication issues (your fifth RfA is not the place to give one-line answers to questions designed to ferret out your expertise).
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWikiwoohoo&action=historysubmit&diff=339036219&oldid=338072196 this].  I don't think that editors who retire and then return at the drop of a hat have the required maturity to take on the administrator role.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per answers (or lack there off) to most of the questions. You would assume that after about 5 years on this project and 5 RFA's that someone would know how to answer admin-related questions.....--
'''Oppose''', concerns about breadth of level of experience. '''
'''Oppose''', candidate still misses the point of question 11, despite a second try, and answer to question 7 is just wrong.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' (changed from Neutral) - Although I can see many edits working in this user's favour, some stick out to me that I would like to see addressed. Firstly, Wikiwoohoo states that they would like to participate in XfDs, but I can only see 22 pages contributed to across all XfDs, (excluding the [[WP:Association of Members' Advocates|Association of Members' Advocates]] MfD contributions). In addition, for a candidate that wants to work on the [[C:SD]] backlog, their lack CSD tagging is a concern to me. That's what caused me to change neutral -> oppose.
'''Oppose''' per the concerns raised above. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' given that one of the user's main contributions to Wikipedia is [[History of BBC television idents|this collection of NFCC-violating image abuse]], giving them admin tools is not a clever idea.  Apart from that, answers to quite a few of the questions are shaky or just plain wrong.  No. <b>
'''Oppose:''' Polargeo's points pushed unhappily to a reluctant oppose. -
'''Oppose:''' I find the answers to the questions a little vague. Do not understand for example: "I like to be able to make a big change".  This implies future tense?  Would appreciate diffs / links of significant contributions.  The main topic area is the BBC would be useful for this editor to branch out.
'''Oppose''' It seems like you've been a lot more active in editing in the past than now, would like to see a higher and/or more consistent level edits.  I'd like to see more engagement with the community (Wikipedia space, talk pages, Wikiprojects, etc.) as that sort of interaction is important to admin work.  It doesn't bother me that you keep trying RfA, persistence is a good trait.  --'''
'''Oppose''' You know, [[User:Jclemens/RFAStandards|my normal auto-fail criterion]] (4th or subsequent nomination) needn't even apply here, because all the above !voters make pretty compelling arguments that you're not well aligned with the project's expectations and goals.
'''Oppose''' I have been unsure, mainly because of some of the reasons given above (lack of non-file-CSD experience, lack of xfD experience, answers which I don't find authoritative enough), but when I read ''With this account I have my username and password on a post-it next to the PC screen so that it won't happen again'', my mind was made up. This may well be on their home PC, and so presumed to be safe - but I couldn't support anyone with such a large potential security risk. Unless the candidate never has anyone visiting them (or the PC is in a room which is always locked unless the candidate is actually in there), then the potential for someone else being able to obtain these account details makes me unable to support, and too concerned to be neutral. -- '''''
I am sorry to pile on, especially after you answered my question above (I think it is fine to say you have no experience with blocks and plan not to use the tools for that), but I am concerned by your rationale for wanting to be an admin.  I am specifically referring to the fact that you have retired at least 4 times since 2007 from what I can count: Mar 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwoohoo&diff=119105769&oldid=118031150], Jul 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwoohoo&diff=143497304&oldid=142448244], Mar 2009 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwoohoo&diff=274977678&oldid=274974063], and one month ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwoohoo&diff=338072196&oldid=337640120].  My concern is that the frustration which has led you to retire so many times may also be driving you to think that you '''need''' these tools in order to edit or maintain the encyclopedia how you want it to be.  While it may be a tempting thought to use the tools that way - the admin bit is not a license to bend the rules or to shortcut procedures to get what you want, but rather it's a requirement to clean up the place and give the community what it wants (even when it differs with your opinion).  Please do keep contributing and don't stress to the point that you feel you need to retire.
I was actually planning to support but I find the answer to question 21 alarming and cannot support a candidate who keeps their username and password stuck next to their computer screen.
This nomination (4th, 5th, whatever) just gives me no confidence in you at all. I see you've responded to Sarah and destroyed the note, but dude, can you not see how totally foolish that was in the first place? It completely defeats the point of having a password. I'm sorry, but not everyone is suited to be an administrator. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Oppose''' - Based on the numerous concerns mentioned in the oppose section above. Security problems, frequently "retiring", numerous self-noms at RfA, lack of CSD experience, vague answers to questions. Not one specific thing leads me to oppose, it's just the wide variety of valid oppose reasons that add up for me. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Too many nagging concerns; your password security habits, Question 4; four retirements- though I don't care about 5 RFA's. I know you got hit with tons of questions, but some of them just don't look like you put a lot of thought into them.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry but I see way too many lapses in judgement and other concerns which have been raised above. Having a password written next to your computer is a really bad idea and after so many retirements does not leave me with any confidence.
'''Oppose''' The answers to shirik's CSD quiz reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of a popular CSD criteria, and CSD patrolling sounds like it is the main thing the candidate is interested in doing. I must say the concerns about the post-it are kind of silly, though.
'''Oppose''' per too many concerns raised above.  I do however thank you for your work in service to the project.
'''Oppose'''. I simply do not have confidence in this candidate, mainly due to the lapses in judgment (particularly the whole having-a-Post-It-with-your-password-next-to-the-computer thing, which is a very poor decision, in my opinion), frequent retirement (an average of one per year), relatively low editing activity (an average of 124 edits per month), and incorrect answers to multiple questions.
'''Neutral <s>holding pattern for now</s>'''. Examined contribs back a few thou, saw no attacks or much drama. Seems to be good-faith editor. <s>Waiting on some questions.</s> Needs a bit more seasoning. Better luck in your next run. --'''''
'''Neutral leaning support'''. "I wouldn't discount !votes unless they were obvious sock puppets or '''anonymous IP addresses'''".  Why should an IP address be discounted, unless it is a sock puppet? '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Neutral''' I simply don't feel confident supporting right now. I'm looking for more CSD work, and the IP remark as noted above—IPs [[WP:HUMAN|cannot vote in RfAs or ArbCom elections]], etc., but they sure can participate in deletion discussions, and their !votes should not be discounted. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Neutral''' Not sure about "cooling" skills. Lots of experience (4+ years) is worth it, but I do agree with Fastily's decision on not taking part in any or many <s>AfDs</s> My mistake, CSDs.
'''Neutral'''. The candidate is a long-term contributor but lacks much experience in admin-related areas such as XfDs. The candidate's nomination statements aren't particularly compelling.
'''Neutral''' – waiting for some more answers to come up, which I think will be relevant with regards to what he'll he doing as an admin (mainly working with images). I will note that he has had some fairly competent CSD work as far as images are concerned (assuming many users are just looking for mainspace CSD work). –
'''Neutral''' - I'm waiting for the responses to some questions before I make a final decision. Although I'm pleased with the candidate's long history and work in images, the lack of non-file CSD and XfD is somewhat concerning. I'm prepared to strike this and go either way on this one, I'm just waiting for a little more information. '''''&mdash;<font color="black">
'''Neutral''' for now. Your edits seem good (I'm only lightly basing this off of [[User:Buggie111/Rfa criteria]]), and I feel that you look ok. but, could you tell us the name of your old account (Sorry, I was diving into the archives). If your edits on that one are just like the ones here, then I will heavily think about supporting. Also, your file deletion tagging is good, as it is somthing most people that I know of do not do since it's boring. Good Luck!
'''Neutral''' <s>for now. Until you answer question #4, I cannot be sure of your [[WP:CSD|CSD]] knowledge, sorry.</s> --
'''Neutral''' Bad answer to number 8, I was ok with the answer to my question. I'd say try again in a few months.
'''Neutral''' After reviewing this editor & the questions, I don't think he is ready for adminship. I can see that he has a basic understanding of policy, but at the same time it might be to basic for an admin. He has my support in quite a few areas, but also my opposition in quite a few areas. This is a good editor overall, but I don't see the full need for admin tools yet. (See [[User:MWOAP/RfA voting]]) -- <font color="green">&#47;
'''Neutral''' Answering all 24 questions takes some guts. I don't want to pile up on the opposes too. Maybe you should take sometime to look through this RFA later and pick up from the advice here? Don't get discourage.
'''Support'''  Well intentioned user who will not in my opinion abuse the mop. ''<B>--
'''Support''' You look good to me; I'm surprised at the lack of activity in this RfA so far, aside from the question section.  But I've looked through your contribution history and though you definitely had some problems with stressful situations in the past, it looks like you've improved a lot since then and would be a net positive as an administrator.  '''
'''Support''', if the blocks were last week I could understand the concerns, but they were two years ago.  I'm satisfied that the user has learnt and grown in that time.
'''Support''' as she handled the uncalled for block in May 2008 quite well. 25 subsequent months of good contributions is enough to let go of the April 2008 block. I agree with Soap that she would be a benefit to the project as an admin. <font face="Georgia">
'''Weak oppose'''. I've no doubt your intentions are good, but your block log is somewhat concerning, though I note those blocks were 2 years ago. You're certainly trustworthy if you've been granted rollback and autoreviewer rights, but I'm afraid your nomination statement and the answer to Q1 seem to show a lack of understanding of what an administrator does and no real use for the toolset. Nothing personal, sorry.
(ec) Sorry. I don't care about the blocks or the DYK topic ban. Those were 2 years ago and it seems a clean break has been made. However, there's not enough experience since then for me to be confident in your capabilities with the admin tools ''at this stage''. Two examples: (1) for an active DYK admin I would like to see more experience reviewing and verifying DYK hooks; (2) for blocking vandals I would like to see more [[WP:AIV]] reports to demonstrate an understanding of our vandalism and blocking policies. All that would be needed for my clear support later is firm experience in those kinds of admin areas, or more all-round experience of a general basis.  --
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about experience and temperament. -- '''
'''Oppose'''.  Essentially per Cirt - Concerns with experience and temperament.  -'''
'''Oppose'''-Adminship is not the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG|"Next level"]] of editing, the blocks don't really matter to me, experience is an issue.--'''''
'''Oppose''' Not sure you're approaching this with the right attitude, and Q1 leads me to think that you don't have that much of a need for the mop. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
Per Fetchcomms above. I had the same idea even before coming to this section. —<font color="black">'''''
'''Oppose''' The candidate has made nearly 13,000 edits on Wikipedia, which shows that he/she is an active contributor. Despite this, there are a number of other factors preventing me from supporting the user's adminship request. The amount of blocks the candidate has received is a bit hard to overlook and, after reading Q1, it appears that the user doesn't plan to use administrative tools for much.
'''Weak oppose''' Not much experience in areas he has specified he would like to work in. Sorry. --[[User:The High Fin Sperm Whale|The]] [[User talk:The High Fin Sperm Whale|High]] [[Special:Contributions/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Fin]] [[Special:EmailUser/The High Fin Sperm Whale|Sperm]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, even though the blocks were two year ago, they are still worrying.
'''Oppose'''. I see a well meaning candidate, though I don't see much that gives me confidence - especially in terms of the candidate's knowledge and judgement. The blocks are a while ago, so are not a major issue, though they are a factor to be considered, especially when there's not much to offer in compensation. I see little to actively admire in the candidate's contributions - there's some friendly chit chat here and there, but no significant drive to build Wikipedia, and no evidence of sound knowledge of our policies. Indeed, I am concerned about the low overall activity over the past year and a half, and the comments [[User:Wilhelmina_Will/RfA_review|here]], while they are quite old, are still linked to from the candidate's userpage and a statement that admins should be "domineering over lesser users" makes me feel uncomfortable; no matter that it's from 2008, it's a mind set that I don't appreciate someone having. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''', but with moral support for the future. I'm happy that the candidate's motivation is honourable, but I'm not convinced they're doing enough to justify the tools just now. Also, those blocks may be two years ago, but the candidate hasn't really done a lot since late 2008, and so there really isn't enough recent work on which to judge. I'd suggest do some more work in the admin areas of interest, get the recent edit count up, and perhaps try again in another six months? --
Sorry, but I'm not sure you understand what exactly an admin can and should do, from Q1.
'''Oppose''', due to the answer to Q7 "[I] generally try to keep out of interactions altogether." Unfortunately, admins generally bear the brunt of abuse on WP, and need to be able to take that abuse without responding in-kind.  Avoidance is not a good option, IMHO. &nbsp;--
'''Oppose''' as per LiberalFascist: I was about to write just that. Admins should be open to interacting with others and explaining why they did something — also accepting polite and civil criticism —. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''
'''Oppose''' I to have reservations as to Attitude
'''Oppose''' A Well Meaning Candidate and Even when [[WP:AGF|Assuming Good Faith]] The first block is a bit hard to ignore. I would also wonder about the True Intentions of the use of the use of the Admin Tools (Reviewing DYK isn't a Really big need to Have the Admin. [[User:Floul1|Floul1]] | [[User_Talk:Floul1|My Talkpage]] |
'''Oppose''' I only support mature and calm candidates. Unfortunately I can't support those who were blocked for harassment or personal attacks, even though that was two years ago.
'''Oppose''' per the candidate's lack of a calm and mature temperament, answers to Q1 and Q7 (in which the candidate expresses a lack of knowledge of what an administrator does and the amount of stress put on admins), and multiple blocks for harassment and personal attacks.
'''Oppose''' – per previous blocks, answer to Q1, and activity reasons. Also, an admin needs to be able to deal with stress, and unfortunately, your answers show that you cannot do so calmly or maturely. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
'''Oppose''', for the first time ever. I don't think a "clean slate" is mandatory for an Admin, but I do expect the ability to support one's position with logic and facts instead of passion, and I do expect those who have erred in the past to clearly demonstrate having learned from their mistakes. Unfortunately, I don't see that here. --
'''Oppose''' More time and experience will be needed to help clean early flaws.
Its a ''not sure'' for me.
I'm also not sure if this user really needs the admin tools yet (per other comments) — though I don't see a strong enough reason to oppose the request.  I would suggest, though, that she should strongly consider adopting a more conventional signature that includes her real account name — otherwise, people are likely to be confused and think that "And, action!" is her account name rather than a cutesy pseudo-sig.  <s>[[User:Richwales|Richwales]] ([[User talk:Richwales|talk]]) 03:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)</s> I see this as a variant of the "elaborate signatures" issue mentioned in [[WP:GRFA]], and I personally would tend to recommend an unambiguous signature for all editors, but especially in the case of admins.
'''Eh.''' Per everybody voting oppose; I just don't know enough about the past to make a strong enough judgment for an oppose vote.
A net benefit for the project. I remember dramatic times when she was making a huge collection of DYKs from the AFC material back in 2008 and then suddenly stopped when the anons created their own talk pages to start off articles.  Also why does WW think that the image policy is unfair?  What would an administrator do in this field?  See [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wilhelmina_Will/Wikipedia]] for the userbox collection.
'''Neutral ''leaning support''''' &ndash; waiting for answer to Q11. <sup><font color="orange">
'''Support''' Last block was nearly 9 months ago... I believe he's learned from any mistakes he's made. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Strong support''' as "suggester" - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_S._Saturn&diff=381337082&oldid=381215614].  He fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - in for over 3 years, very-high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, Barnstars, etc.  He is a good and long-time editor, who "gets it"; he has worked on many FAs and GAs, and created many new articles.  I note that his blocks were short-term and erroneous. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. He's also a reviewer and a rollbacker, and FWIW, has over 6,000 edits to his credit. He can be trusted with "the mop".
'''Support'''—competent and trustworthy editor.
Pro forma support, to cancel out one of the most ridiculous opposes I've seen for a long time.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' support self.--
'''Support''' Sure. <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' - 9 edits to UAA and no edits to AIV in the last month. I'm unconvinced that you have the experience needed to avoid costly mistakes. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #73C2FB">
'''Oppose''' Hell no. This candidate's temperament is just not good enough to become an administrator. I've had discrepancies with him on a sister project before, and I'm glad I'm not running an RfA ''here'' now, because he would oppose with a reason something like [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/Diego_Grez "Your inflammatory comment crossed a line in my book."]
'''Oppose''' The latest block for edit warring was legitimate, regardless of how quickly it was lifted. Further issues of poor judgement evidenced by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tcncv&diff=prev&oldid=335245808 this statement] (which in fairness was later retracted), other diffs disclosed at [[User talk:William Saturn/2010#List of terrorist incidents, 2009 continued]], and a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright versus trademark, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/June#Possible copyright violation|here]] and [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFlaggedRevs-2-1.svg&action=historysubmit&diff=40589911&oldid=18917417 here].
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' – Although you state that you would work in UAA and AIV, you have less than 15 edits to both of them, according to X!'s tool. Also, not to be picky about edit count, but I would expect more than 6k edits out of a vandalism reverter. Sorry, but I just cannot support right now. <span class="plainlinks">—'''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|MC10]]</font> <small><font color="#4169E1">([[User talk:MC10|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|C]]•
Not enough experience in the areas that he would like to work, in my opinion. ~~
'''Oppose''' Odd statements in self-nom (part of which I fundamentally disagree with), allergy to using edit summaries does not speak well to cooperative spirit, insufficiently-explained series of user names raises additional caution. I can't tell whether or not the candidate would use the tools to the community's benefit.
'''Oppose''' Overturned or not, the fact that there are multiple blocks indicate a pattern behavior that is significantly beyond what I would expect of and admin or a candidate.
'''Oppose''' - One day this candidate will probably be a fine administrator; however, at this point in time, the profound lack of experience compels me to vote thumbs down--
I'm returning to the Oppose section because the candidate is arguing with nearly all of the opposers, which is something I don't like in an RfA candidate.
'''Oppose''' Concerns with experience in administrative areas and fairly recent block.  -'''
<s>I cannot support someone blocked for sockpuppetry.</s> There are legitimate concerns regarding experience in the administrative areas.
'''Oppose'''. I think you have too little experience in the ares you'd like to work in and, personally, I don't think you're right for adminship at the moment, especially considering your block log. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">  '''

'''Oppose''' - Too many recent problems with this editor. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#William S. Saturn|Edit warring and POV issues]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#User:William S. Saturn|more POV issues]], and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592#User:William S. Saturn bogus "vandalism" claims & out of policy "warning" threats|bogus vandalism warnings]] are among some of the problems found in a quick perusal of the archives at [[WP:ANI]]. The last problem was less than 6 months ago. I don't believe this editor has the temperament nor the experience to be an administrator. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. User does not seem to be clueful enough of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but the (now retracted) stated desire to work in AIV and UAA with little no no experience in those areas, as well as what seems to be a borderline combative tone in some of your responses, doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have the right temperment for an admin, or are approaching it for the right reasons.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but my oppose is largely per Atama and Throwaway. Give it a few months to fix your issues that have been brought up and try again. There are simply too many red flags that I'm seeing here. I'm sorry :(--
'''Oppose''' Per Atama et al. The general temperament does not seem appropriate at times, and the tone used in this RfA is a little off-putting. Not sure how to explain it, but he's had to strike several items and almost seems argumentative at points. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">—
'''Oppose''' The need to work collegially with others is doubly important for an admin. The attitude to edit summaries, temperament displayed here and elsewhere in my review, and history of behavioural problems does not encourage me in that area. Throw in the lack of experience in professed preferred areas, and the other concerns raised by editors above, and there is far too much concern for me to support, sorry. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' because as soon as I read the opening statement, I was discouraged. I feel ''very'' tentative supporting a user who says that he is only nominating himself because he beels "obligated" to. It is your own choice if you want to run or not. Sorry. '''<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:85%;">"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWilliam_S._Saturn&action=historysubmit&diff=381383937&oldid=381383866 Oh dear]. Plus per the substandard answers and apparent dodgy history with edit warring and so on. '''<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">
'''Oppose''' Sorry to be the first, but with under 300 total edits to Wikipedia, I am unconvinced that you are a) aware of how Wikipedia works (by which I mean how it actually works, and not what is parroted in alleged policy), and b) capable of entering, being involved in, and/or resolving disputes. That being said... enthusiasm is ''good'', and if we had a robust and quick method of removing admin rights from users who don't know what they are doing I would support in principle. Please keep working here and come back in a year or so.→&nbsp;
Thanks for offering to help Wikipedia in this capacity. However, please do note that the Wikipedia community prefers that admins have significant experience in the areas they intend to work in. In looking over your edits, you don't appear to have any AfD experience, nor a significant amount with vandals. As these are the areas in which you intend to work, this is a worry. Also, you are very new to this place- and users generally need to have been around for at least three months, if not six or more, before becoming admins. I'd suggest you withdraw this request and submit it again at a later time, as [[WP:NOTNOW|now is not the right time]]. Don't take this personally. Cheers.
Alas, I agree with Sonia. Please bear in mind that finding vandalism, warning vandals, and reporting to AIV is routinely done by non-admins (I've done quite a bit of it, and I'm not admin) so there's nothing stopping you getting on with that now - if you need a hand with the tools, just ask, and I or others would be happy to help. As well as building up more experience of wikipedia, I would suggest using edit summaries more often, so people can get a quick view of what you've been doing.
You have my thanks for your offer too (and also for your contributions), and I look forward to being able to support a future run for admin when you have got a decent amount of experience under your belt - the admin role really is quite a demanding and often stressful one, and you really do need to spend a fair bit of time as an editor and helping out with admin-related tasks (like reverting and reporting vandals, participating in [[WP:AfD]] discussions, etc) before you're really suitable for it. As others have said, if there's anything you need help with, my Talk page is always open. Best regards --
I'm not a chemist, but your contributions to articles in that field appear to be very helpful - however, as others have said, you haven't got experience in admin-areas: I would suggest that if you want to work on fighting combatting vandalism as an admin, you need to show experience in that as an editor! I notice that you have only left 1 warning (and that was about 1/2 hour ago!) - and then reported it at AIV (the fact that you did this incorrectly is irrelevant - the idea was there, and I would just advise you to carefully read the instructions at the top of the page which explain how to report on that page - incidentally, before reporting an editor/IP, please check: that IP had been blocked on 3rd September! Leaving a message almost 2 weeks after the event is not the most useful move, even if the IP hadn't already been blocked!). Enthusiasm is great, but realism is also important: you are not ready for adminship at this time (see [[WP:NOTNOW]]). -- '''''
'''Neutral''' - your contributions are well appreciated, however, you don't seem to have much experience in the administrative areas of Wikipedia, which is primarily what administrators need some experience in. I believe that you are [[WP:NOTNOW|not yet ready]] for adminship. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia thus far and I hope you continue to contribute your knowledge to the 'pedia. '''[[User:Fridae'sDoom|<font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм</font>]] &#124;
To counteract Sluggo's personal attack, below. --
'''Strong oppose''' - No reason given why they want the admin tools. Try again in 6 months when you have more experience. ~[[User:NSD|'''<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color:green; font-family:trebuchet ms">Nerdy<span style="color:#0F0">Science</span><span style="color:#8d7">Dude</span></span>''']] (
'''Strong oppose'''. Nice job transcluding vandalism, Fastily.
'''Strong oppose''' per answer to Q3. --
'''Oppose''' - It's pretty clear you're not serious about this.
'''Speedy Oppose''' <-- Is that legal?
'''Oppose''': unsatisfactory answers to questions. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:16px"><b><font color="#4682B4">
'''Oppose''' - I do not see the evidence that you have the experience necessary.  With only 17 edits to the Wikipedia namespace there just isn't enough to evaluate your understanding of policies and guidelines.  '''
'''Oppose''' - Seems more like a prank than a serious Rfa. Please close asap per: [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Poor Fastily'''...  What else can I say? The answers (or lack of) says everything.  Snowball close, please. <big><font face="Papyrus">—
'''Oppose''' — [[WP:NOTYET]].  You need to interact with other editors far, far more than you have done so far (you currently have almost no edits at all on article talk pages).  You should also develop the habit of '''always''' using meaningful edit summaries.  And just in general, think about what adminship means and be ready to offer more detailed and thoughtful answers to the questions.  I'd strongly suggest taking some time to read past RfA's and try to get an idea of what issues are important and what being an admin is about.  Once you've expanded and refined your editing habits and have a better idea of what would be expected of you, please consider trying again in 6+ months.
'''Oppose''' - I would suggest  closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]] & [[WP:SNOW]]. This RfA may  be an expression  of humour in  GA, but  IMHO it's a time waster.--
'''Oppose''' - ahh No
'''Oppose''' Apparently he considers this RfA some sort of joke. No indication of a reason to request admin rights. Needs at least 6+ months of experience at related areas.
'''Moral support''' I see Youndbuckerz around doing good work on rugby league articles. But to be confident handing over the wide range of administrative tools, when the candidate stipulates "anything" as areas of likely admin involvement, I would need to see substantially more experience in admin-like areas, such as [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AIV]].--
This candidate, from the extremely short answers given, may very well have good intentions.  However, extremely short answers and leaving YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER in the nomination section are problematic.  The latter may be an honest mistake (of the sort I make all the time), but without more substantial answers from the candidate little things like that tend to garner opposes.  This week would probably be better spent reviewing the various instructions and examples of how successful candidates proceed.--'''~
'''Oppose'''. I was going to offer moral support, but it looks like you didn't take your last RfA to heart. I have serious concerns about potential admins who don't learn from experience. Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Only 43 edits is not enough to judge suitability for adminship. Everything you have identified in Question 1 you can do already; you don't need to be an admin to edit articles. --
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] I tend to not even consider supporting editors with less than 2000 edits.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but just not enough experience. And the answer to question Q1 means he doesn't even need the tools. I advise you to withdraw, as it looks like [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]]. Better luck next time. --
'''Oppose''' the  candidate does not need the tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that I really hate to see anyone who is not say a ban evading sock getting a unanimous oppose.  On the positive side of things, the candidate has rollback and has never been blocked.  Please take the suggestions of those who oppose into consideration as to how to improve as an editor and do not let this ruin your week.  There are many ways to enjoy contributing here without being an admin, so please do not lose sleep over this.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ZooPro&diff=prev&oldid=328561623 this], which I believe is the dispute mentioned in Q3. While this isn't ''terribly'' recent, it indicates ZooPro may move to settle grudges once s/he gets the bit.
It's not your fault, as you were only following advice, but I can't support you coming here only five months after your last RfA with little evidence to suggest you won't behave in the near future as you have in the recent past.  I'm also not confident in a candidate who promises to work only in "non-controversial" areas as you have stated in your response to Question 1, as it suggests you are not confident in your own judgment abilities either.  I have nothing against you personally, but I cannot support putting you into a position of power at this time.  '''
'''Oppose''' Very little experience in admin areas and only 403 article edits is too low for me.
'''Oppose'''. I debated even participating here for awhile; it's my opinion that this RfA is gonna tank hard. But the answer to Q3 is so disingenuous that I decided to go on record to say so. With my one interaction with this editor - and I realize it's typically hard to draw accurate conclusions from one interaction - he behaved the ''opposite'' of the image portrayed in the answer to Q3. Bad faith was assumed. Nothing was "discussed", and certainly no compromises were made as he retired in a huff and stormed away from the project. I feel a bit bad; I recently tried to subtly discourage him from running on his talk page, but this was apparently interpreted as support by the nominator. If the editor had a good track record and the requisite experience, I might be able to overlook this one transgression. As it is, I cannot.
'''Oppose''' (and {{ec}} from Tan) per Polargeo. In general, just more experience, but I'd like to see better CSD work (less than 150 deleted edits right now), certainly more mainspace edits, and more project space edits, something I always want to see out of a potential admin. Also noted by Soap, I don't feel confident if you don't feel confident in yourself. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - ZooPro mentioned that bad speedy link, and in the edit summary it sounds like you had a lot of declined speedies. Not to mention, on your userpage until just ten days ago, you said "TOUCH THIS PAGE AND I WILL ENSURE YOU REGRET IT FOR THE REST OR YOUR WIKIPEDIA LIFE, I WILL NOT TOLERATE VANDALISM." And Fetchcomms mentioned the low deleted edit count. Work on getting those better. Sorry. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Oppose''' because of the concerns already raised, and also because the answers to the questions have a number of minor typos and simple grammatical errors - nothing serious, but this is stuff that shouldn't appear in article, so it appears a little sloppy in a RfA. I applaud ZooPro's enthusiasm, especially in getting involved in the portal and the projects, though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Animals&diff=next&oldid=324994553 statements like this] are off-putting, and Intelligentsium was quite right in removing it. I feel that ZooPro is keen to get involved in Wikipedia, and that should be encouraged. I hope that ZooPro will spend the next 12 months working in various areas on Wikipedia - dispute resolution, maintenance, AfD, and content building - and show evidence of building consensus on talkpages, and handling hot incidents with a calm manner, and then come back and try again. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' per Tanthalas and SilkTork.
'''Oppose''' - Per Polargeo, and per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZooPro/Archive/2010/January&diff=prev&oldid=336995076 this]. That's a deal-killer for me, someone who wants to work with page deletion per the answer to Q1, but with such a poor grasp of our deletion criteria there's no way I could trust this person with the tools. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork's diff above. Asserting [[WP:OWN|ownership]] over articles (or portals) is not good behaviour for prospective admins.
'''Neutral''' Not to pile on, neutral. I cannot support what was on the user page of yours (As smithers pointed out). To me its feeding the trolls and admins shouldnt do that. Im aware its been removed recently but its still to soon afterwards. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' I've interacted with this editor at various animal-related pages, and our interactions have always been quite pleasant, so I don't want to pile on. However, I feel that the opposers have raised some valid points, and I do not see a compelling reason to justify giving the tools. --
'''Neutral''' Although we do need more admins in [[WP:AIV]], I see very little activity in admin areas - 7 edits to [[WP:AN/I]] and 6 to [[WP:AIV]]. --
As nominator. Good luck! :) '''

Work in the archives at [[Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience]] is just outstanding (search under both usernames). - Dank (
Very strong support. Goes the extra mile (1.6km) to solve a problem without compromising the goals of the project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">

I trust MastCell's instincts.--
'''Strong support''' - Same as Tznkai, I trust the nominator completely. Initial look at contributions shows impressive work, and I find no reason to believe this user will be anything but a net positive. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
And another one of my watchlisted redlinks finally goes blue. Very good work in collaboration, solid communication skills, and a willingness to learn and grow from experience.
I'm not personally familiar with this user, but their answers were amazingly thorough, which caught my attention. One of the best candidates we've had in a while, a very thoughtful editor with fantastic work and communication abilities; {{math|{{frac|2|0}}}} has my '''strong''' support. MastCell's endorsement only furthers my confidence.
Seems like an excellent candidate. Very impressed in particular by the answer to question three. <font color="navy">'''
Complete confidence.
'''Absolutely'''. Nice contribs, knows his way around here; great answers.
'''Aye''' - I like the cut of his jib.
'''Support''' While we have at times held differing opinions, and there have been times that I wished NaN would have stepped in to defuse a  situation, I trust that 2/0 will wield the mop with care and diligence. Best of luck :) I do hope that in the future you will take the time to respond to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&action=historysubmit&diff=280924902&oldid=280923812#Re_reverts_on_aspertame_controversy direct questions] regarding why you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=next&oldid=275923224 removed] material without partaking in the discussion on the talk page.
'''Support''' While I have never even heard of this user before, I see nothing to worry me in their contributions and their answers to the questions are very good as well. Regards '''
'''Support/Comment''' Handles contentious discussions with maturity and intelligence, and edits show a vigorous interest in the quality of the project.  Now my comment.  I trust 2/0 with the tools.  Do I trust the rest of WP editors to write good content in his absence, after he has used the tools in a contentious area?
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Eldereft.
'''Support''' I didn't know who "2over0" was until I saw MastCell call him "2/0" then I instantly recognized him as a person I've run into a few places (ANI and I believe some homeopathy-related article or another), and he's always showing great reasoning skills. Contributions seem very solid and the answers given are quite thoughtful. -- '''
'''Support''' - I've had no dealings with this user in the past, but I cannot find anything wrong with them. Good answers to questions. Very good answers. Won't abuse tools, so has my trust, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A pleasure to work with.
'''Support'''.  Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Surely you're doing something right here since you are here and have this many supports.
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' looks all very good and we need more admins with a solid science background '''<span style="color:#104E8B;font-size:80%;text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">
'''Support'''
'''Aye''' - no problems here at all. <b>
'''Support''' Good, level-headed user. Should be a good admin.
'''Support''' Sensible, helpful and well-informed. Despite these handicaps I think he may have a chance at passing RfA.
'''Support''' looks good.
I believe you're one of the few who I've clicked on expecting them to be a tenured admin, but saw they weren't, and nearly ran around like a headless chicken. '''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - Fine candidate indeed! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Strong Support''' - has my full trust.
'''Strong Support''': Everything needed to be an excellent administrator.--
'''Strong support''' In a recent encounter, I found 2over0 to have solid policy knowledge. Now that he's seeking adminship, I'm not seeing anything to change that impression. The candidate has respectable article work in a tough subject area to deal in, which merits further respect. Disputes with other editors have generally shown 2over0 to be calm, collected, and reasonable. It's good to see an admin candidate willing to work in the perpetual admin backlog and not just at AIV, CSD, etc. (though there's nothing wrong with that). I also think 2over0 will be a great addition to the admins at [[WP:ANEW]]. All these things combined, plus an absence of any reason to oppose, leads me to support strongly.
'''Support'''. I saw the candidate in action as a true wikipedian, protecting its articles from vandals, SPAM and hypes (not only reverting, but researching the subject and cleaning up). To add a note - vandalism has escalated these weeks. I don't know about others, but I'm getting overloaded at times with the routine (warning, Whois, blocks, ..) and believe an extra admin would be of much help.
'''Keep'''. WTF? Eldereft has never been an admin? He didn't look down on years of Wikipedia experience when I joined the project? In my mind he has always been an admin and I prefer him to stay one. From what I have seen of him in the pseudoscience area, I believe he is one of the few highly professional Blue Helmets who act like scientists, not like believers in science or in pseudoscience, in this war zone.
'''Support''' Per nom and his answers.
'''Strong support'''  This is an editor we can trust.  S/he can go to a disagreement and put the fires out.  I know this is a good candidate for administrator.  --
'''Support''' Yep. <small>
'''Support'''. Good contributions and sensible answers.

'''Support''' Very sensible answers to questions. Resolved my wariness about editors who admit to much experience in some of our nastiest and most controversial topics. <strong>
'''Support''' No complaints here. Good luck!
'''Support'''
I '''support''' this excellent candidate.—
'''Support''' - Net positive.  Nothing worries me, in fact, it does the opposite.  Everything seems in order.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Seems to be thoughtful and I trust him.
'''Yes''' &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Support'''. I cannot think of a reason not to support. 2/0 seems a very sensible, intelligent editor with a sound understanding of the key policies. Good luck.
'''Support''' Good luck, I'm sure you'll do well. ''
'''Support''': Sensible editor, good luck.
'''Support'''. Level-headed, well-versed in policy, fair-minded.
'''Support'''  No concerns, seems level headed and has made many quality additions to the wiki, will make a good admin.
'''Support''' per sensible answers to difficult questions. '''
'''Support'''.  Answered my questions to my satisfaction.  Only concern I had was that the candidate was a perfectionist and expected everyone else to be one.  Ability to acknowledge other ways of doing things dispels that concern.  Strong candidate.
'''Support'''. Seems like a great candidate! Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - per [[User:Airplaneman/RFA]]. 2over0 is a strong candidate and I'm happy to support.
'''Support''' per nom--
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Good answers. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, 2over0. —
Yes, why the hell not. :) '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Very thoughtful answers to questions, and I'm happy to support a scientist who is skillful at handling editors with POVs. --
'''Support''' - seems fully qualified to be an administrator.
'''Support''' Can never have enough of these kind of admins.
Thoughtful responses to questions.  Looks great to me.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''', convinced by MastCell's nomination that the user will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''', Seems like a great candidate!
'''Support''' The candidate seems level-headed, with good answers to the questions put to them. I see no reason to suppose that this candidate would not be as level-headed with the mop as they have been already without it. -- '''
'''Support''' Answers to questions and contributions show a level headed approach.  net positive.  '''
'''Support''' definitely a net positive to the project.  Good luck!
'''Support'''- Very clear and concise answers that seem to reflect the nature of his work well.

'''Sure!'''-Per nom. Deo Volente and Herzlichen Glueckwunsch, 2over0!----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' well im sure the 74 editors before me have it down.--
'''Support''' Good answers above. --
'''Support''' - looks good to me.--
'''Support'''. Level-headed, some good experience in dealing with controversial areas, and generally seems ready.

'''Support''' Best of Luck. :) '''\'''
'''Support''' Great editor with good admin potential. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' A positive contributor to the project. Also, answers to the first three questions. '''
'''Support'''. Easily meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Sure''' Good Luck --<b><font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' An excellent editor and asset to the project. <font face="Georgia">
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate. -
'''Support''' if Mastcell says he's okay then I guess he's okay... :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks like a very good admin to be.--
'''Support''' Seems like a good choice...
'''Support''' ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Good answers and edit history.  Happy to pile on in favor here at the end.
'''
'''Strong Support''' I second everything in the nominating statements, and then some. Abecedare is that rare Wikipedia editor who is an absolute delight to work with—supportive, positive, patient, friendly, knows all the policies, and enforces them firmly and fairly. I've seen him frequently in the volatile areas of religion and nation, and he has never wavered from the highest standards mentioned above. He will make a model admin.
'''Support''' Don't know Abecedare personally but the information presented so far is convincing. It appears Abecedare will make an excellent addition to the admin ranks. <font color="green">
'''Strong support''' - I have never encountered Abecedare in my editing. However, just reading through his question answers alone made me want to support. The answers (and noms) show exactly what I want to see in an admin; strong contributing and communication skills presented over a length of time (this seems long due), a general [[WP:COMMON|sense]] and [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and the ability to handle difficult or tendentious editors with calm. I've also reviewed his contribs some, and find no evident problems with granting adminship. Unless there's something I'm missing, this looks like a perfect candidate with a good attitude <s>who likely has a strong support from me</s>.
Seen them about, seems to know what they're doing :) <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
Calm & sensible. <font color="#f5fffa">RMHED</font>
No problems at all, all very solid and reliable. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' Why the heck not?![[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Support''' clean block log, good tagging, candidate looks good to me. ''
Thoughtful answers to questions.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' as co-nominator. -<span style="color:#B13E0F">SpacemanSpiff</span><sup>
'''Strong support'''. In addition to everything mentioned in the nominations and by Priyanath above, I must add that Abecedare is extraordinary helpful and encouraging to [[WP:DONTBITE|new users]], as with [[User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_6#Bhaṭṭikāvya|several]] [[User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_6#Dharmaśāstra_question|articles]] written by Wikipedia newcomers. He is also always sensible, reasoned, informed, and a pleasure to interact with. If there was just one editor I could trust to wield the admin tools with the utmost responsibility, it would be Abecedare.
'''Support''' - q4 answer was good, q5 answer was funny.  Little harm would happen if this user was given the tools.
'''Support''' have interacted with him and believe, has what an administrator got to have. --<b><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT"   Color="##003399">
'''Aye''' No problems at all here.  Sensible and helpful editor. <b>
'''Support''' (as nom). --
'''Support''' I don't see any problems here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The response to Q5 about sea mammals was a whale of an answer and seals the deal.
'''Support''' answered correctly, tagging looks good on deleted content.
'''Support''' A deserving candidate. A mature, cool headed, reasonable ,balanced and articulate editor. Has got all qualties to be an good administrator.
'''Support''' Move daughter article to parent article check yes on delete upon move move page delete purge cached undelete restore all revisions purge cache history find the one to be restored as the current revision restore done boom roasted.
'''Support''' and not just for the [[wikt:for the hell of it|halibut]]--
'''Strong support'''. Pleasantly surprised to see this. Glad that I didnt miss it because of my inactivity. Will make a great admin undoubtedly. —
'''Support'''. I'm impressed by the track record and good answers to questions. <tt>
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''': Impressed by the answer to my question.
'''Support''' - Great responses like Q4 show a straight-forward, well-balanced and self-aware editor. Perfect traits for an admin. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' <s>for his Lewis Carroll inspired pun</s> because someone who knows, understands and uses academic sources ''and'' seems to have a near-inexhaustible stock of patience is just about the ideal candidate for adminhood. --
Agreed, he seems like an ideal candidate.  I've turned to [[WT:INDIA]] many times for advice, and he (and others) have been patient and helpful with all inquiries.  Far from [[wikt:abecedarian|abecedarian]]. - Dank (
'''Support'''  Well versed editor with great communication skills.  Do not see anything that would indicate that they would miuse the tools.  '''
'''Support''', decent enough. --
'''Support'''  I would've rather seen a [[Hitchhiker's Guide]] reference as an answer to Q5, but a pun is fine too.  Although we haven't interacted, I have read Abecedare's incredibly helpful comments around all over the place.  This would be a huge boon, and I fully believe that in 7 days we'll have another top-notch admin in the crew. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Enthusiastic Support'''.   Abecedare, whom I have known for over two years, is superbly articulate, level-headed, and fair-minded&mdash;qualities that will stand him in good stead as an administrator.  Best wishes,
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], well qualified editor. –'''
'''Support''' A lot of nice work --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
Per Q5. If a representative of the dolphin community does come around, we'd best be prepared with an admin who understands them.
'''Support''' I would have appreciated a more thorough answer to my dolphin question, but trustworthy nominator and excellent answer to my other question.
'''Support''' Per Q5, although it could be more thorough. ;) Very qualified for the position.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' Very impressed with A6 as CSD's seem to be a contentious issue in RFA.  I largely ignored Q5 as dolphins, while I admit possess some intelligence, will never be granted the right to view Wikipedia, so the question is moot.  :P
'''Support''' per Q5, Garden, and NYB. Good luck. :)
'''Support'''-- I don't see anything wrong here, and I like that you see no porpoise in granting dolphins registration rights.  Amen to antianthropomorphism!
'''Support''' -- Great work at AfD especially the India related articles, already deals successfully in content disputes and defusing situations. Will make a great admin! --
'''Strong Support''' - I could have sworn Abecedare was an admin already? Anyway, a big yes, and I love the answer to question 5. -- '''
'''Support'''  Special delivery from FedEx, a new mop!  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Very trustable. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong Support'''. user appears to be dedicated, and level headed, something we could use more of here. :p Will make a great Administrator.

'''Spuport'''.
'''Support''' per JamieS93's comments above. Nominee seems to "get it" very well. -
'''Support''': I have had the opportunity to work with Abecedare in the past and he has the qualities req 2 b an admin. As a member of WP Swaminarayan (sub WP of Hinduism): His recent PR for [[Swaminarayan]] only proves his commitment to WP Hinduism and his knowledge of Wikipedia. <strong>
'''Support''' &mdash; For experience, edits, and most of all Question 5 —'''
'''Strong support''' per better understanding of deletion policies than I have. :-) --
'''Support''' Has a demonstrably clear understanding of wiki policies. I feel that discussion on Q.5 should be deferred until the development of a laptop that will work reliably under water. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' User has been on Wikipedia since 2006, and has moved lots of pages and uploading many images, and will make a great admin. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Abecedare</ref>
'''Strong Support''' Very good editor. '''
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]]--
'''Support''' I trust this user to not abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - A fine editor who can be trusted with the tools!
'''Support''', looks good. --
'''Support''' Abecedare is one of the finest editors that I have interacted with. A successful RfA would only be benefical to Wikipedia and its goals. <b><font color="teal">
Has a clue about what he's doing.
'''Strong Support''': Abecedare worked with me on the article [[Ganesha]], now a FA. I don't think it could have been a FA without him. I met him again recently on [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Swaminarayan/archive1]], a PR I have started. The comprehensive PR proves Abecedare's understanding of wiki policies. In the PR, Abecedare not only points problems but also suggests solutions, cutting out the job of Swaminarayan editors. --
'''Strong Support''': looks very solid. --
—
'''Strong Support''' A net positive.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' Very well qualified; I don't see any issues with Abecedare. '''
'''Support'''. The single oppose gives no substantive reasoning for the basis of the concern and I see no other indication the tools would be abused at all. ···
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
Seems to be a great candidate. The answer to Q5 definitely seals the deal. ;) --'''
'''Support''' a great contributor.
Happy Deepavali! May your home light up with the joy and may this Deepavali bring prosperity, peace, happiness and good health to you and your family.

'''Support''', can't oppose based on the evidence presented. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Nice answers.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' has very good knowledge of WP guidelines and a neutral editor as well.
'''Support''' Absolutely! His answer to the first question is a fine example of his cautious and unassuming approach. --
'''Support''': should be fine.
'''Strong support''' Absolutely! One of the finest editors around.--
'''Strong Support'''As per Dwaipaync. You are a great editor. --
'''Support''' - Good candidate, no concerns.
Weak support. Generally good contributions. Abecedare is unlikely to misuse the tools. However from the answer to question 1, I am unconvinced that he will be using the tools much.
'''Support''', see no issues.
'''Support''' After a review of Abecedare's contributions, I see no reason to oppose. Seems level-headed, thoughtful, and dedicated.  <small><span style="border:2px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;background:White;">&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Good answers, good work, good thoughts about policy   '''
'''Support.''' Seems like a fine candidate to me; the India project can use level-headed admins.
'''Support''': Clear-headed answers, ample experience, seems capable of handling all manner of <strike>cetaceans</strike> situations.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Abecedare. —
'''Strong Support''' Worked with him on Wikipedia on several occasions and knows that he is a gr8 editor, helpful and friendly... Will make a good admin --
'''Support''' Looks excellent. --
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} Fully qualified, good answers, and knows about the purposes of pourpoises on Wikipedia. A rarity to find in an RfA candidate indeed. <nowiki>[</nowiki>'''
'''Support''' It seems that he will make both a skilled and helpful admin.
'''Strong support:''' An ideal candidate! -
'''Support''' Good contributions, participated in deletions, will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent candidate. And the anon IP's anti-Indian statements -- and their validation in the Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven -- are objectionable.
'''Good enough'''.
Creeping towards [[WP:100]]...
'''Strong Support''' Qualities self-evident.
'''Support''' - Solid contributor.
'''Driven to Support''' I do not believe I have run into the candidate in my usual articles, but have seen them once or twice in other spots.  No issues based on the wide amount of reading.  Net positive. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' No problems that I can see.
'''Support''', no issues here.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I see no issues in this editor's contributions. Plenty of activity in other areas of the project, and no civility issues that I see. <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
Makes horrible dolphin puns. That aside, would be a worthwhile administrator. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Well qualified. ≈&nbsp;
[[WP:WTHN]] <strong>
'''Support'''  Has been around since Oct 2006.Good Track and see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Abecedare has shown a strong dedication to Wikipedia through regular editing over an extended period, good communication skills, and in general has no problematic traits. --
'''Support''' Don't see any reason not to.
'''Support''' per nom, co-nom and general working experience on [[WP:IND]].
No reason why not. :)
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' Looks like he can be trusted.
--
'''Support''' Nothing I can see.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' While your answer to the first question is a little cookie-cutter-ish, I don't see anything in your contributions or talk page history that concerns me. Good luck!
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Good, balanced editor who will do well with the tools from what I can see. Eight months is plenty long in my opinion. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Good work, '''
'''Support''' All's well with your contributions.  Sure, you don't post a hundred times a day, but the quality of your work is stellar. '''
'''Support''' I randomly spotchecked some of your edits (particularly articles created), and all I can say is, wow! <strong>
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support''' high activity in admin related fields like AIV and ANI. Also comes with mainspace contribs. Yay! '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''- a lot of good work in article writing, and in admin related areas, makes me very confident that you'll be a good admin.
This is an obvious one. AdjustShift will be an excellent administrator.
Article work is exemplary. I'm very impressed with their multiple DYKs, along with the numerous other article contributions. Vandal work seems OK, but does not base their contribs on it. I have confidence that AdjustShift will be a good admin.

'''Support''' Too many administrators, currently :) No seriously, I'm very impressed by your article building, would love to see some more vandal fighting but that being said, an asset to the community. Cheers! -'''
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. <small>And a good user, too.</small> --'''[[User:Dylan620|Dylan]]''' ([[User talk:Dylan620|chat]], [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|work]], [[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|ping]],
'''Support''' Good answers to questions &mdash;<font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Trustworthy, head appears to be screwed on the correct way.
'''Support''' Will handle the tools well.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - Hell yes, good contributor, has clue, good temperament. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
With pleasure, and thanks for responding to my Q4. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - good article work and a calm, rational approach to some controversial topics. Looks fine to me.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has no block, but what the candidate does have is over 25 Did You Know credits, which shows that candidate has avoided serious conflict while contributing to our project.  Best, --
'''Support''' I can't believe you've been here the same amount of time as me; I always thought you had been around forever! <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' Good article and WP work + good answers = good admin. '''''
'''Support''', can't think of any reason not and can't understand this ongoing and repetitive idea that there are too many admins. It makes it sound like an exclusive club which I've always been led to believe it is not. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' - Dan
'''Support''' - Candidate has a grasp on the BLP problem.
'''Support''' Vandal-fighter with a good record of content contribution (29 DYKs!).  That's basically an ideal admin candidate.
'''Support''' Good experiences with the candidate, consider him/her/it to be trustworthy and mopworthy. '''
'''Support''' Answers to questions show a significant amount of clue.
'''Support''' Definitely.--
'''Support''' I've known AdjustShift since his newbiehood in Wikipedia, and to be honest I was surprised to see this RfA so soon. However, he's obviously learned a lot during the 7 months being here, as evidenced by his answers (I agree with GlassCobra). Sensible editor, no reason to think that he'd misuse the mop. Best,
'''Support'''. Skilled editor, will do a good admin. -
'''Support''' Has a good understanding of most of the WP, and i see no alarms. --
'''Support''' Sure. —
'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - meets my standards at [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]]; no good reason to oppose; we need more admins with sports/pop culture knowledge.
I'm
'''Support''' On balance.  I would have preferred more full answers to my questions, but I did emphasize that they were optional.  My advice to the candidate is to explore other areas of the admin bit because you '''will''' be asked to take some action regarding them at some point.  Hell, you may find yourself focusing on them.  I figured (and so did most of the ppl voting) that I would focus on AfD and avoid CSD and AIV (since I had very few edits there prior to becoming an admin).  As it turns out, that's not really the case.  I have closed less than 100 (i think) AfDs but I have made thousands of CSD decisions and blocked scores of ppl at AIV.  Working well there has required that I pick up on different norms and procedures and I would have fared better had I been more open to the prospect of doing so prior to getting the bit.  The RFPP questions were an attempt to engage you in a specific question on page protection without just asking you to quote [[WP:PROTECT]].  I had hoped that the answers there would shed some light on where you fit on the "consensus vs. the right answer" spectrum (because not everyone is on the same place) and what goes on in your head when you undertake an action by proxy.  You will probably never be asked to edit the spam or abuse filters or asked to process the DYK queue, but I can predict with almost 100% certainty that someone is going to ask you to protect a page or make an edit to a protected page.  Just be sure that you aren't closing off paths for yourself.
'''Support'''. Seems alright. — '''''
Seems fine.
'''Support'''. Seen you around, you'll do fine.  I like your strong response (and stance) regarding optional question #4 above.
'''Support''' shouldn't misuse the tools.
'''Support'''&mdash;not likely to abuse the tools. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Yep''', has the sense to take it slowly and become familiar with policy before diving in. Good answers (esp Q4!)
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!--<font face="papyrus">
I have only seen good things from AdjustShift.
Some concerns raised in Oppose sound weak, so I '''support''' the candidate per AGF and his fair answers.--
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I am slightly concerned at the use of superlatives such as "never" in contexts that might not be appropriate, but on the other hand, I like the last part of your answer to Q12: "As an admin, I'll not do anything that I don't properly understand." Please stick to that - if only all contributors to Wikipedia (editors and admins alike) felt this way! I see an editor who will continue to be an asset. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Great user, might as well support.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. Also user has been here less than a year.
'''Oppose''': Unfortunately I have to oppose for lack of experience. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience all over.
'''Oppose''', less than 10k edits, has not been a registered editor for even a year yet, and far too inactive in that time with seeming heavy decline in participation rather than the increase one might expect for one wanting administrative rights. Just not enough experience at all.  Seems to have good potential as the candidate understands some basic Wiki guidelines and policies, but still does not fully grasp the relevant ones, such as the incorrect statement that an AfD can only close as keep or delete. No consensus (which is not the same as keep), merge, and redirect are all also possibles (as is userfy, on some occasions). I'd recommend candidate first be an active editor for at least a year, and being sure this is the place for them, as such sever declines in edits usually indicate one is getting ready to leave, not increase their dedication. --
'''Oppose''' I found multiple answers to questions troubling. Sorry, but these are key issues and give insight into if you would make an effective admin or not.
'''Neutral, Leaning Support''' Although you have done lots of great for Wikipedia, I feel you would be more qualified with more experience in other areas.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Neutral:'''  It certainly isn't enough to bring me to oppose, but I think the answers to the questions are very weak.
'''Neutral''' I think your answers are rather weak, also, as Maedin says, particularly in areas where aggressive attitudes toward new editors are concerned, as in DGG's concern above.  I won't go with "oppose" as you at least said you're look it up first, but why not give a new editor time and assistance in writing an article, time to show notability, and assistance as a welcome to wikipedia.  Other answers are not particularly well-thought out; imo, this is probably just due to lack of experience.  --
'''Neutral''' changed from oppose. Though the approach to new editors is a concern, I agree with KP that you will probably learn from experience, but not confident enough to support. '''
'''My Very First BTM Support!'''. Great contributor, no reason not to give him the mop.
Absolutely.
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
'''Support''' - Hell Yeah!. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' &ndash; has a long history which reveals the qualities and reflects the dedication needed of an administrator.
'''Support''' No problems.--
'''Support'''. Took a sizeable random sample of his XFD and CSD contributions. The only one I had any minor qualms with was that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit this] (admin only, sorry) should have been tagged as an attack page, rather than pure vandalism, but I'm not one to nitpick over excruciating minutiae.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - Seems good, not found any major issues so far. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Does good work both in mainspace and behind the scenes, and has a head on his shoulders. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' Can't find any legitimate issues. User is unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Shows good faith and seems open to criticism, that all works for me.
'''Support''' Will do well with the tools.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' Wide range of good work, don't see any red flags. <b>'''
'''
'''Support''' <s>I trust Bilbiomaniac's judgement.</s>  Looks fine.
'''Support''' --
It took you this long to run why :) I kept anticipating this RfA for ages. <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose, and certain advantages to having an administrator with an interest in Balkan topics. --
'''Support''', Wikipedia can always use more competent admins who focus on the often difficult area of articles relating to the Balkans, and as such I feel Admiral Norton can be a great asset.  No evidence he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''', I've seen AN and his work in several areas, and those experiences have always been positive. '''
'''Support''' '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''Support''' Net positive. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - Good user, trusted.
'''Support''' - It's a good sign when your nom is a bureaucrat. Seriously, though, I've seen your work in various places, and as far as I can tell, you seem to be a nearly perfect candidate.
If [[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">Bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]] (who is a [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrat]] that can actually upgrade other user accounts to admin status) supports him, he must be a very good editor :)  &ndash;
'''Support''' - this editor appears to be genuinely interested in admin work and seems to have a solid reputation.  --'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Maybe he doesn't need the tools, but he won't delete the main page if we give them to him.
'''Support''' Seems to be a sensible and well balanced editor. If this passes though, needs to be careful about using the mop around the Balkan area articles to avoid accusations of favouritism. --
'''Support''' Answered my questions to my satisfaction. I feel he won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''': As per conflict resolutions he has been involved in. There is also no apparent reason why Admiral Norton would misuse or abuse the mop, and a lack of subjectively decided need is ridiculous (as no one NEEDS the mop) --<font style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 10px;"><b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' User has been around since Aug 2007 and while the user has heavily edited Croatia  which is a high dispute area.I [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]] that the user will not user his tools in any dispute involving Croatia and will use uninvolved admins
'''Support''', but recommend steering well clear of Eastern European/Balkans topics with the admin buttons.
'''Support''' Solid contributor and I trust biobliomatic's judgment. I see no reason to oppose and opposes based on [[WP:NONEED]] do not convince me. '''
'''Support''' I work in Croatia-related articles a fair bit and thus have seen the Admiral around. I've got no doubts that he'll make a fine admin. Regarding the concerns expressed at the top, I'll also add that I've never noticed a strong 'Croatian nationalist' or any other POV in the candidate.
'''Support''' Have fun! :)
'''Support''' -- Qualified candidate, will benefit from tools.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' Looks good to me. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' Seems to be a qualified candidate. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Looks good (i.e. - doesn't look bad!).
{{User:IMatthew/V}} <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Clearly should be able to use the tools, works at contentious areas without problems, dedicated and clueful. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Will be even more helpful with the bit.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. --
'''Support''' very good contributor. I don't think he'll abuse the admin tools. Best,
'''Support'''.  Solid record of contributing.  I always like to see an admin candidate who's written a lot of articles, and has shown an understanding of dealing with conflict.
'''Support''' No serious concerns, has earned community trust, appears well qualified.
'''Support''' Woooooooooooooooh! <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is a good article contributor who makes [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omni Consumer Products|good arguments]] and has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', fully qualified candidate, no issues. The first opposer's rationale is without merit and the second appears to have been superseded by the candidate's answer to Q6.
'''Support''' per the answers to the questions.  They show that this user has good foundations in the policies required for administrator here and they definitely show that this editor knows the policies here.  Cheers,
'''Support''' Nothing concerning discovered, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' with a note that, in my opinion, your English is indistinguishable from that of a native speaker.
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong with holding strong position on some topics as long as they don't interfere with admin work. Good work so far so I believe admin tools can only benefit. Cheers! --'''
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I haven't run across the Admiral before, but the reasonable answers to questions show little reason for worry here.
'''Support''' - Everything looks good.
'''Support'''. Candidate will be a benefit with the tools.
'''support''' I have slight concerns about how he might use the tools in regard to Croatia articles and related articles. However, as long as he is careful about not using the tools when he is involved or has a strong POV there shouldn't be any issue.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]. I've run across this user, and while very opinionated, he(?) can be logical.
'''Support''' - not sure he understands the dangers of neologisms (and, [[Semi-highway]] worries me!) but everything else that I see shows a reasonable and dedicated editor so that doesn't worry me a whole lot and I'm sure he'll be a fine admin. (Thank you for answering my questions.) --
'''Support''' - impressive record and very satisfactory answers to questions. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Support''' As always, I read and considered the non-supporting voters, but the supporters are persuasive. - Dan
'''Support''' <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I've encountered Admiral Norton a few times now on a particular, recurring, somewhat controversial issue. He remained civil with those with whom he disagreed. I also suggest to refrain from using the admin buttons on Balkans-related articles.
Excellent editor; I too, thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''' -excellent, neutral editor with required qualities.--
'''Support:''' Clearly aware that he has a conflict of interest in certain areas and I trust that he will refrain from exercising administrator power in those areas.  I liked the thoughtful answers to the questions and recognise a very intelligent, dedicated contributor.  I also find the translation abilities a huuuge plus.
'''Support''' (moved from neutral) After sending more time in looking into his contribution, I'm convinced that he is a sensible editor and would be a good admin far from abusing the admin tool.--
Sure. <small><span style="border:1px solid #333399;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' All adds up for me. —
'''Support''' yep. <b>
'''Oppose''' Dispute resolution doesn't require tools. This seems to be the primary "goal" area of interest, so tools wont be needed for this user at all.
'''Oppose''' Intelligent, solid contributor, but I don't think user has a need for the tools.  Very strong interest in Croatia articles is concerning for COI, and can probably help Wikipedia better as a contributor rather than being an admin. Doesn't seem particularly interested in general admin work - little admin related work so far, and [[User:Admiral_Norton/Admin_coaching|apparently]] never mediated or acted as a neutral party in a dispute, which is odd and concerning considering his stated desire to use the tools for that.  The timings in this situation ([[User_talk:124.170.105.121|user]],[[Special:Contributions/124.170.105.121|contribs]])  makes me wonder how he would handle something similar as an admin.  Looking through the edits, nothing bad sticks out, but I get a strong sense of ownership over Crotia related articles and facts (example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatia&diff=prev&oldid=271575986]), which probably isn't best for an admin who ultimately wants to intervene in the kind of insane disputes that happen in these topics.  I'd need to see FAR more admin related work, evidence of good dispute work, and indications of broader interests.
'''Strong support''' - anyone who can write about Middle Eastern while not getting into serious editing disputes ''and'' get a controversial article like Arafat to be featured has my respect. According to him, he has kept his cool in any conflicts whether they directly involved him or he was just a "middleman"; this leads me to think that he can be a capable admin and survive in this wacky drama-filled world we have. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''' per Ed.  ''<FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>
'''Support''' as a strong candidate with a level head already working in sensitive areas with a degree of skill and diplomacy.  -
'''Support''' Not my fault Editcounter's screwing up xD Cheers. '''''
'''Support''' One of the (very) few editors involved in Israeli/Palestinian articles who knows how to stick to NPOV. If he can manage that, anything else is a doddle.
'''Support''' Very encouraging and productive talk page correspondence, impressive experience, no red flags, will make a good administrator.
'''Support'''; no reason to assume he wouldn't be a capable admin.
'''Strong Support''' Impressed by the candidate's excellent contribution to [[Yasser Arafat]], [[Palestinian cuisine]] and many others. You seem to be able to remain civil and keep cool with logical approach in any circumstance[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_fedayeen/Archive_1#Notes][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasser_Arafat#Deletions_by_Al_Ameer_son], and get respect from colleague editors. Although you are not that active in Gnome areas, I don't have any doubt that you misuse the tool. So why not? --
'''Support''' - Well-qualified candidate. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Seems like a good, well qualified candidate with clue. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per [[User:the_ed17|the_ed17's]] excellent almost nom. :-) --
'''Support''' Has made many good contributions.
'''Support''' -having seen a few thousand of Al Ameer son´s edits, and having worked with him for several GAs, I cannot in my wildest imagination imagine that he will ever misuse the tools. Regards,
'''Support''' Candidate made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia (while sticking to NPOV, and extensively references his work).  He takes extra care not to be involved in edit warring, and calmly and rationally debates if an issue arises.  He's taken on mediation roles. [[User:Al Ameer son|Al Ameer son]] is very active on Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Over 18,000 edits, a clean block log despite working in a contentious area and a civil talk page - an excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' I've had excellent experiences with Al Ameer son, and I found him to be helpful and friendly. '''
'''Support''' Looks good. <em style="font-family:Impact"><font color="Black">
'''Support''', passes the clue test.
'''Support''' based on answer to my question and exemplary recent contributions. I've seen a lot of great responses to many heated issues, specifically in relation to the [[Talk:Yasser Arafat|Talk Page of Yasser Arafat]].
'''Support''' Very impressive! Able to walk a tightrope - neutral articles on contentious topics. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Suport''' User is very qualified and has done great work.  We also need more admins from different parts and cultures of the world.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' No problems. Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems here <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' more inclusionist than many, but knows his stuff. And of course having another admin with geography interests is always a plus.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash; Has a good head on his shoulders and is well qualified for adminship.
'''Support''' per above. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''  &mdash; Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per [[User:the_ed17|the_ed17]].--
'''Strong support''' - per Ed 17.
'''Strong support''' He's a very pleasant, sensible and hardworking editor. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Not finding anything to oppose on, and editors in whom I have placed much trust vouch for you, so I will add my support. Good luck.
'''Support''' Ed17 hits the nail on the head in support 1; To be able to work in one of the most sensitive areas on WP shows the necessary inter-personal skills needed to be an admin. --
'''Support''' Over 67% of edits on articles, I can't possibly oppose. :) '''
'''Support''', we desperately need more admins who can not only keep a cool head in articles related to the Middle East, but who have a good knowledge of the topic as well.  The candidate here seems to be both.  No evidence that they will abuse the tools.
'''Strong support'''
'''zOMG support''' The most impressive candidate I've seen in a long time. <strong>
'''Support''' Royalbroil and many others above sum my thoughts up perfectly. Very impressive indeed.
'''Support''' A knowledgeable and productive editor that understands neutrality, who helps preserve calm in a fractious area and could help more with administrative tools.
'''Support''', reading through your contributions really was a pleasant surprise - my previous experience with Israel/Palestine related articles has always been with various degrees of PoV-pushing editor: it is very nice to see someone as well-versed and dedicated to real article neutrality. Clear dispute resolution skills, abilities to deal with new and/or angry editors, and thoughtful question answers lead me to believe you'd make an even better contribution with admin tools, even if direct contributions in "admin areas" seem a little sparse. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Good user, no reason not to trust them.
'''Support'''. I've seen Al Ameer son's work and trust his judgement.
'''Support''' I am impressed! You are a good editor and will make a great admin!
<font color="navy">
Sure. Long-term experience, good contributions, healthy namespace mix. &mdash;<strong>

'''Support''' Good user, working in a difficult area. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' A good, level-headed editor.
'''Support''' per the ed17, Number 57 and my own experience appreciating his work. --
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' user deserving of trust.
'''Support''' - superb article work, keeps a cool head while working in a topic area that is often a nationalist edit-war just waiting to happen, strong blend of policy knowledge and common sense.
'''Support''' Oh my goodness, yes. I've been highly inactive lately, and I wish there was a way that I could have known about this earlier. I definitely would have conommed. I've worked with Al Ammer son in the past, particularly on [[Bethlehem]], [[Pied-Noir]], [[Beirut]], and [[Nablus]]. Throughout, he was always a pleasure to work with and his committment to research and encyclopedic style was evident. Al Ameer son works on areas that are not always highly visible; yet, he is willing to diligently research, take/give criticism, and sincerely improve the encyclopeida. I have absolutely no reservations in supporting his request for the tools. This is one of the best editors that I have run across during my time on Wikipedia. Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder and net positive.
I'm
'''Support''' Concerns allayed, looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' No issues I see.
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having never been blocked and by having contributed to good and featured articles and having received numerous barnstars.  Good job on all three fronts!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - Very level-headed editor who is able to write excellent articles without conflict on topics that could be controversial. Mature and sensible.   &mdash;
'''Support'''.  We need more neutral and intelligent admins.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Fine contributions. Al Ameer son will undertake useful administrative tasks in this controversial area.
'''Support'''. Looks great, and another person from a different background like me. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''; from the contribs, is a mature, responsible editor who has the credibility and integrity to be a voice of reason in a difficult editing area. Best of luck ;)
'''Support''' good candidate.
'''Support''' I've been watching his edits for a while, and I beleive he would do a very good as an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Keep up the good work. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support w/ broadband''' Tried to do this a few days ago over a dial-up connection, couldn't get it through, but anyway, [[User:The_ed17|ed]] says it all.--
'''Support''' per above. It's all been said.
'''Support''' User has been around since March 2007 and is a great editor and edits with npov in a area with a minefield of disputes.I also [[WP:AGF|Assume good Faith]] that the user will not use his tools in Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute in his Middle East articles where he is editing and will use [[WP:UNINVOLVED]] in that area.
'''Support''' Impressive candidate, and the answear to q8 bodes well.
'''Support''' - sounds good, no good reason to oppose.
'''Support''' -- Good editor who will not abuse the tools.--Best, '''''<small>
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Support''' I'm way late to this party, but nonetheless, hooray!  It will be great to another admin so skilled at dealing with controversy in subjects prone to it. '''
'''Support''' per ''Not enough administrators currently''  <small>(plus I think this candidate would be a good admin)</small> —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Dan
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support:''' Think he will make a good admin and I'm impressed by the article work.
'''Support''' While this user and I have disagreed over issues in the past, to the best of my knowledge (and refreshing my memory over the past 10-12 thousand edits) it has always been cordial and respectful, and in the spirit of wikipedia consensus building. Overall, I believe this user's editing method and interpersonal style is one that serves to benefit the project, and I believe the user will be a valued addition to the wikipedia sysop corps. --
'''Support''' Seems like all the reasons have already been said, but any user who can edit in that subject area and gain the respect of those who disagree with him has the temperament and attitude that would make for an excellent admin.
Impressive editor.
'''Support''' &mdash; Would make a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' The overwhelming response of support to this candidacy definitely sways my opinion with a user that I haven't otherwise had enough interaction with to say.  The articles are impressive, the tal page more so, and I'd be thrilled if this user eventually became an admin here. --
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
Seems to be a great editor and reasonable fellow, but there is really scarce participation in activities related to adminship. The answerers to the questions do not reassure me either, but I can't pin the reason down right now.--
'''Neutral''' mostly per Tikiwont above. While this user has a few deleted contribs, I see no indication of CSD or XFD knowledge within those nor within the normal contribs I checked. I cannot determine whether this user has the necessary knowledge in those areas. Regards '''
What the above said, and a few notes.  The answer to Q1 is what bothers me, because administrators are not a part of the dispute resolution process.  Those that are mediating should have the editor hat on, not the admin one unless enforcing ArbCom decisions.  These are simple tools for maintenance, and whilst I trust the user to engage in them wisely, I caution to not use them as a mediator.
Looks fantastic so far. - Dan
Support for Notre Dame, the Packers, and the Yankees notwithstanding, seems like a quality editor. Doesn't use IRC, doesn't use Huggle or Twinkle. Slightly partial to [[:File:Cook'sThirdVoyage58.png]]. Will continue researching, but doesn't appear to be an ass-kisser, and seems to have a clue. Mahalo. --
'''Oppose''' - Supports the Yankees. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Supports the Yankees. <!-- per excellent article work, primarily; the nom said it all --> &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' - Who are the Yankees, again? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' good range of edits. Nothing adverse recorded. I do not believe I have ever interacted with him, but look forward to doing so. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' per nom (and nominator), edits, answers, and vague recollection of positive impression of this editor in the past. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Per everyone else.--
'''Support''' Very good editor, would be a benefit to the mop. Best,
'''Red Sox''' I mean, er '''Support'''  —
'''Support''' Definitely. '''''
'''Support''' Looks trusted.
'''Neutral''' - Supports the Yankees. :P [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Absolutely - Why has this taken so long?  Let's snow this thing and <s>put him in the line of fire</s>, I mean <s>put him to work</s> .. ahhh .. allow him to become acquainted with the tools. —
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; no issues or concerns. The opposer's position is shockingly devoid of merit.
'''Strong Support''' Highly qualitfied.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Growth in editors dictates we add qualified, sensible admins. Contribs, knowledge, attitude all line up. --'''''
'''Support''' I do believe I've seen you around plenty of places, working diligently. Trustworthy for sure. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' despite support for Green Bay Packers.  (A very great fault, but slightly outweighed by the excellence of his contributions to Wikipedia, esp. article building.)
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, though for #4 I meant that the user was degrading the article content for the purpose of trying to get it deleted, perhaps I should have been more clear. <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Per Julian. j/k, a fine candidate. --

'''Strong support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great edit history. An asset to the community.
'''Support''' Quality editor. Will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' Couldn't really ask for a more ideal contributor. Will handle the mop well.
'''Support'''. Not enough administrators currently.
'''Support'''.  Looks good from here.  The fact that he is a Yankees fan raises some questions about his judgement though.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; no reason to suggest it would be a bad idea.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Yes''' No problems here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view 25k edits over a span of 2 and a half years as ''prima facie'' evidence of [[WP:HOLIC|Wikipediholicism]].<!-- April Fools -->
'''Support''' Looks Fine! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', will make excellent admin.
'''Support''' All of my interactions with AH have been positive, we need more like him. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, some good content work, and contributions to other areas of the project as well. Thanks for agreeing to help out in this added capacity. '''
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder.
'''Support'''. AlexiusHoratius, you are an excellent mop and bucket candidate, with 25K+ edits, over 2.5 years.  You have earned my trust! --
'''Support''' I don't think I've ever come across AH, but having looked thorugh contributions and general wikiwork, I can see no reason to oppose, especially if he add [[WP:CSD]] to his work list as that can back up horribly. --
'''Support''' I've come across AH in my work and have always found him to be levelheaded as well as hard-working and efficient. -
'''Oppose'''. I'll come back to you when I have a reason.
'''Support''' I couldn't find userboxen to agree with.  Minnesota?  Sports?  80's music?  Hmm.  I suppose I'll just have to support because you're an excellent editor or something. '''
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Strong support''' despite poor judgment IRL (being a Yankees fan). :) '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Per nominator.
'''Support''' File under "thought they were already an admin." No qualms. <b>
'''Support''': Not enough Administrators currently. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:17px;">
'''Support''' Has been around since September 2006 and track is good and see no concerns.
'''A-Roooooid... A-Rooooooid''' Let's go Boston! That said, opposing over teams isn't a good idea, and nothing else leads me to oppose.
'''Support''' thoughtful answers to the questions (hypothetical as they were) :-) No reason to suspect that s/he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems a strong candidate.
'''Support''' Whenever I've seen you around, you've been doing good work. I see no reason not to support. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''. No problems except for Notre Dame fandom which is disappointing ;).  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - User displays some clue in answers to my questions. Some understanding that policy can change through action would have made this a strong support.
'''Support''' Seems to be up to the task. --
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' Answered my question, and all the others well and good history overall. I think the barnstar is fine mate.
'''Support'''. Candidate has clue, looks like a net positive. — '''''
I've seen Alexius Horatius around, and I think he does a good job. He'll be fine.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is a good article contributor who has received multiple barnstars and has never been blocked.  Sincerley, --
'''Support''' - what a name!!!!! --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support:'''  A strong contributor, intelligent, stays away from drama, and will do well with the tools.
'''Support:'''
'''Support''' seems like a capable candidate...
'''Support''' Wait, what the hell? He isn't an admin already?! He has the experience in necessary areas and the right attitude for the job and to be a productive admin. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Pile-on support''' No concerns to raise.--
'''Support''' for non-baiting, mild manner with IP vandals.  Now treat everyone that way ''after'' you become an administrator and you'll be even more of an asset to en.wiki.  --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/AlexiusHoratius&diff=281070102&oldid=281056913 answer to q6.] --
'''Support''' Certainly. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' pending no problems discovered by anyone else. I haven't got the time to check right now, but I ''fully'' trust both nominators and every encounter I've had with Amalthea in the past was fine. —'''
'''Support''' - Helpful and clueful, two things that make for an excellent admin. <em style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">
'''Support''' of course. :) Though I'd ask SoWhy to get the admin-highlighter or something. ;) <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' a good candidate. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Co-nominator support'''. Wish I could make it stronger than that ;-) '''
'''Strong Support''' 9,000 edits, no blocks, sensible user page and I get a very good feel from the talk page. '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<font color="800080">Were</font>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<font color="FFA500">Spiel</font>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<font color="FFC0CB">Chequers</font>]]''' 13:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Reviewed the RFA per various relevant threads and upgrading to strong support. '''
Yep.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #339933;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin. --
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Support''' I think that Cyclonenim said it best.
'''Support'''. Amalthea has demonstrated their trustworthiness and will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - thought Amalthea was already, actually. //
'''Support''' - no reason not to. &ndash;
'''Support''' On strength of nom statements and my review of CSD work makes me think user knows it's better to improve than delete. Not that the candidate lacks empathy, but I've never seen empathy as a requirement for recognizing CSD candidates-- the template messages exist for a reason, in so far as the feelings involved are concerned. Nor have I seen a connection between being a super article creator and understanding what it's like to have your first article deleted per CSD. (Kinda lack a slap in the face, if no one bothers to let you know why. Like I said, those template messages exist for a reason.)
SoWhyNot --
'''Support''': Seen him around Wiki numerous times, always well impressed. —
'''Strong support'''.  Many contribs like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Saddle_Club&diff=prev&oldid=270659359 this one] that show precise, broad, guideline- and policy-based knowledge about what does and doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles.  The lack of extensive work on "his own" articles is not a problem for me; in fact, I'm more impressed that this editor is confident enough to apply what he knows to other people's articles, especially people who need a helping hand starting out. - Dan
'''Support''', decent all-round editor. --
'''Support''', seems fine.
"Thought he was already" indeed. I was surprised to see their name up here. Give this guy the mop and be done with it.
'''Support''' User has been around since September 2005 and great track.
'''Weak support'''.  Support as candidate has never been blocked and per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends)]] (deleting per lack of verifiability is indeed the right call; however, one bit of caution is that [[WP:N]] is NOT our “inclusion guidelines” plural.  We have multiple inclusion guidelines.  Notice that [[Wikipedia:Inclusion guidelines]] is a red link and where [[Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria]] redirects to (some place other [[WP:N]].  And WPN is currently [[Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation|disputed]] in terms of should it be demoted, renamed, etc.), but neutral per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugnaughts]] (a call to merge is not unreasonable, but subsequent reply to another editor cites [[WP:FICT]], which is of course a disputed essay) and per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk]] (again, merge not totally unreasonable, but well, y'all know how I stand...).  Anyway, almost meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]], so weak support.  Happy Valentine's Day!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - without question.
Strongly: I've interacted with Amalthea on more than one occasion, and my interactions have always been positive. Amalthea is an excellent editor, is a good voice in discussion, and a friendly person. Had I been more aware of them being interested in becoming an admin, I would have been a nominator.
'''Support''' - Don't remember where I encountered this editor, but the interaction was good IIRC. Reviewed contribution history, edit count, block log, etc. and it seems to satisfy my personal criteria. Could use more article work though. --
'''Support''' - I trust this editor & welcome the inevitable pax wikipedia his adminship would surely usher in.  Incidentally, his account was created on 9/11... I'll be working on my conspiracy theory in sandbox. <b>'''
'''Support''' - Very nice. Trust BM when it comes to someone wanting to work in CSD.
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support'''. Have come across this editor before and liked him. '''
'''Hell Yeah'''. What started off as a indifferent and distracted search through talk pages and contributions to get an idea of who this candidate is quickly just left me with the question "Why has nobody nominated this editor before now?"
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Should make a good admin, any time I have seen Amalthea around my impression has been positive.
'''Strong support''' - All the way. Dedicated contributor, any every time I have seen them they have constantly had a positive and productive effect on the discussion. I trust Amalthea with the tools, and therefore support. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
Looks good.  Best of luck, Amalthea. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' trust the nom, trust the user.--
'''
'''Support''', yes yes yes yes ''yes''. The fact that you are not already an admin says bad things about the RfA community (well, ''more'' bad things).
'''Support''' No issue.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and has clue. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Appears trustworthy as this is a long-time editor, with thousands of edits, and no blocks.
I'm
'''Support''' I see nothing of concern, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' net positive
'''Support''' Very pleased with the answer to my question.  Covers all the points I had in mind.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Nothing but positive interactions (mostly at AfD I believe), contribs show has been ready for the mop for some time.
'''Support''' Wha...?? Amalthea is not an admin? It's not April 1 is it?
'''Support''' - Only see good things from this user. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' seems to be a no brainer :) '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' I think that this project needs more editors as admins who may not be the ones with all the featured articles, and other such content creating things.  --
'''Support''' My observations of this editor's work have been positive.
'''Strong support'''.
Sure. After a review of contributions and log, as well as the answers to questions, I don't see a problem here. Active in the right areas, good quality contributions and actions. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' I like the thought put into the answers, and while I don't subscribe to the "won't break the wiki" argument, I do believe in the intent of the candidate to "improve" the wiki.  That seems to be the case here. The contribs seem to be in order, and the intent genuine.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' - seems as if the user knows what the tools of admin are intended for and will be able to use them in good faith.--'''''<small>
'''Support'''- The  edit history shows that the candidate is civil in his interactions with other users and has knowledge of our policies. --
'''Support'''
'''Support:''' Knowledgeable, intelligent, level, dedicated, able to learn, able to think, does really good work.  Everything to say yes.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' See no problems.
'''Support''' Per oppose #2.
'''Support''' on user's own merits, and, yes, oppose #2 smacks of pure bigotry.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]; being an atheist is not a disqualifyer for me.
'''Support''' I know it's overused, but I seriously thought the bit was already on. Will definitely be an asset to the project.  --
'''Very, ''VERY'' strong support''' - Wow, I thought you already were one for sure! --<font face="script MT bold">
'''Pile on Support''' still scratching my head, as I thought you already had the bit!
'''Utter and total 100% way over the top support''' I couldn't actually think of a better editor to be an admin that isn't already. Balanced, helpful, trustworthy, communicative.
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support'''.—
'''''<s> OPPOSE </s>''''' I trust this editor not to abuse the tools. Also, gnomes are good. <small>Partial disclosure: I may be a gnome myself.</small>  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' - an experienced wikignome, and adminship is primarily about wikignome-type activity.
'''Support''' Seems reasonable enough. No blocks, many edits, no drama (so far!). --
'''Support''' - I wasn't going to pile on, but then I saw the Opposes below... OK, the first one is somewhat justifiable, but opposing over a userbox that was removed six months ago (and wasn't even offensive to begin with) is totally unfair. I have little doubt that Amalthea will make an excellent admin, regardless of his opinions on the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Was borderline because of the lack of natural encyclopedia building, but answers to questions show candidate capable and ready, and otherwise there are no concerns.
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. Keep up the good work! <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' with pleasure. I've seen Amalthea at various points and been impressed. I don't find the incident referred to in oppose a matter of major concern. Dealing with tendentious editors can be difficult for anyone, and I believe Amalthea's claim to have learned from the incident. In fact, that experience could well prove useful in handling the tools, as it will serve to remind to seek feedback when cases are less clearcut. I believe in general Amalthea demonstrates patience and plenty of clue, and I think those are among the essential elements of an admin. --
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. The 3RR doesn't bother me too much (we all trip over that one at least once), and I'm not even going ''near'' that userbox discussion. I think this candidate will make a fine admin. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions, and a good understanding of policies.
'''Support'''. Great candidate. I have no reason to believe Amalthea will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Seems good to me.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. I like the answers to the questions, particularly #7 and 8, and Amalthea seems like he'll use the tools to good effect. Also, opposes #1 and 2 are so unreasonable that I would support this candidate simply to counteract those opposes.
'''Strong Support'''. I've seen you before around Wikipedia, and thought you were already an admin... but that is still not the main reason. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/K50 Dude|On my failed RfA]] which was some three months ago, you used very good words to describe something I did wrong, instead of just saying [[WP:NOTNOW]] like almost everyone else. Much more adminy. Good luck with the mop! '''<font face="Tahoma">
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Per Akhilleus. --
'''Support''' Everything I see leads me to believe you'd be very trustable as an admin.
'''Support''', gnomish admin ---> –<font face="Verdana">
Someone trout me if I had already supported; I meant to do this ages ago. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Indirectly dealt with this user while dealing with a particularly problematic user; Amalthea's patience and professionalism displayed to me a cool mind that would be perfect in an admin.
'''Support''' per nom. —'''''
'''Support''' None of the opposes concern me enough to oppose. &bull;
'''Strong Oppose''' (current statement) - After reading through the diffs for the reverting and discussing the original warning, I believe that the user in question reverted improperly, avoided the process of consensus, and possibly abused rollbacking ability. As such, I believe that the rollbacking should have been stripped and that the warning means something serious, even if it was not followed by a block. Admin should be held to a higher standard, and 3 months distance is not enough time for the lessons of this event to have sunk in and trust with the community re-established.
'''Strong Oppose''' based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amalthea&oldid=228662657| userbox history] and nomination from SoWhy.  Enjoy your upcoming adminship, just know that some of us think there are too many of you around here already--and just to be clear, I mean the smug atheists who want to unnecessarily put down others' long-standing beliefs for the sake of looking very very intelligent.  Yes we know--your flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as the biblical God.  Charming.
Per Ottava Rima, abusing rollback only results in hurt feelings.  Also, I'm not thrilled with the answer to question #12.  For one, the question answered "why", not "what".  You answered part of "why" on the first part (why is BLP exempt from 3RR) but only answered "what" on the second part (NOR, NPOV, etc, can be taken to talk.  Why?)  But that aside, the answer bothers me that you are being too literal on BLP.  BLP, if anything, should be broadly interpreted (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons|special enforcement]]).  If, for example, you are considering a 3RR complaint where one user has reverted a sourced, but tangential rant about a person (ie, Bob was a member of organization X in college last year.  Organization X's leader was convicted of a crime last year.  Here are 37 other things organization X has done over the years), that doesn't fall under "libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material" (because we're presupposing that every individual statement in there is sourced) but it darn well should be removed and no wikilawyering should result in it being a part of the article. [[Wikipedia:Coatrack]] is a good read.  The point is, we should err far on the side of protecting BLPs.  That's where IAR comes in.  That's where the special enforcement provisions come in. --
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I must oppose for the exact same reason as Ottava Rima. This just worries me a tad bit too much, especially since it was so recent. If it were, say 3 months ago, I wouldn't have thought about it, but it's too soon for me to support. '''
'''Neutral''' Name recognition is a big thing to me. I haven't even heard of him (her?), although I don't get out much... Answer to block/ban Q is good, but no mention of a topic ban. <font face="terminal">
'''Neutral''' per nominators' introduction; ''"While he has contributed to a number of articles, he '''can't''' point to scores of GAs/FAs or '''even DYKs'''"'' and ''"Amalthea may not be a perfect content creator but rather more of a '''WikiGnome'''."'' Am I the only one thinking that in recent RfAs, WikiGonmes have tried to acquire an adminship rather than content creators have? Even with the nominator's humble introduction does not convince supporter's claims like "Fully qualified" --
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' unreservedly - Amory is one of the best candidates I've known in a while.
'''Support''', no problems here whatsoever. &mdash;
'''Support''' - passes muster in my ivory tower.
'''Support'''-No real reason not too.--'''''
'''Support''', looks good. --
About time. '''
'''Support''' - it appears he has a plan and is well-versed in the topic.
'''Support'''.  I always thought you were a she!!! D: I'm very sorry Amory.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''', appears reasonable and knowledgeable.
'''Support''' Looks more than clueful enough to wield a few extra buttons. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Clueful, knowledgeable. In fact I'm wondering why you're not an admin already... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' Has obvious insight into wikipedia policies and procedures. Not initiating an article is of no significance in terms of admin work. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''', great candidate, no problems with giving Amory adminship. I was recently wondering when he would run an RfA.
'''Support'''. Over the...well...months, I have formed a favorable impression of Amory, and a review of his deleted contributions a few weeks ago didn't change that. Significant content contributions are always a positive, but this candidate has my support regardless. <tt>
'''Support''' most certainly. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Solid candidate and per Pedro. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', appears to have the requisite experience and clue, outweighing opposition concerns. --
'''Support''' - no problems here.  If he's good enough for Ched, he's good enough for me.  [[WP:NEIA|Not everyone is an artist]].  I don't see that giving him a few extra buttons would pose any problems.  <strong><font color="maroon">
Support like whoah.
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support''' Good communication skills.
'''Support''' Everything appears to check out.
'''Weak Support'''. Now, I am not exactly one of those who thinks a admin must have huge amounts of content creation, but I feel it is clearly beneficial to have some experience of the GA/FA process as this helps give experience of some areas of admin duties. DYK can also help with this too. The lack of this (as shown in question 4) as well as the answer to question 6 gives me pause in this RFA. In spite of this I am a great believer of as long as the person in question will be unlikely to misuse the tools and has decent experience in the areas they wish to go into, there is no reason to oppose, therefore a weak support in this case is called for. Regards. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], trusted and experienced editor. –'''
'''Strong Support'''.  Thoughtful reasoned response to question 7.  All else looks good as well.  Look forward to a new thoughtful admin.--
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]; large number of edits, Rollback, good sense of humor.
'''Support''' as being sensible, courteous, and drama-free. Although it doesn't change my support, I do want to say that I disagree with the part of the answer to Q7 about admiring AOR&mdash;it works for the admins who don't need it! As for the opposes, it seems to me that the admin tools are not about content creation. --
'''Support''' - strong and steady - no reason not to support.
'''Support''' - Good insight into policy and procedure.  Article creation issue not a huge concern to me as long as good understanding of the use of the mop/tools of admin work is there.  <span style="border-top:3px solid black;-moz-border-radius: 1em;font-size:11px;border-bottom:3px solid black;border-right:3px solid black; border-left:3px solid black; display:inline">
Admin tasks and article writing are two entirely separate skill sets.
While I'm worried about article contributions, being a OTRS member is a easy support for me.
Solid candidate. - Dank (
Duh.
'''Support''' - I'm familiar with Amory's work on Wikipedia in non-article space, and I've been impressed. He's done enough article work to satisfy me (I don't think GA/FA/DYK is needed). -- '''
'''Support''' Though some worry over the lack of content creation, carrying the mop entails being able to dedicate onself to Admin duities... and in this, the candidate appears reasonable and knowledgeable. '''
Yes, sure. '''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Amorymeltzer. —
'''Support''' Only good interactions, a keen eye this user has. Good luck!
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Excellent answers to my questions. Good luck with the tools! --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Strong Support:''' This is a near perfect Candidate -
'''Support'''. This candidate is a good editor. I wasn't big on article contributions, either, until I went for RFA, and I'd like to see the candidate pitch in a bit and help with some of the light work, but I'm not going to fail to support a good faith editor who wants to help out with other areas of the project. Plenty to be done, as they say. Good luck,
'''Support'''. I have seen many of her contributions, I'm sure that she will do great as an admin.--
'''''
'''Support''' - a great editor who can be entrusted with the tools.
'''Support''' per my nom statement — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''.  I can see no objections! —<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>[[User:Finn Casey/Public|<font color=" #660033">Finn</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Finn Casey|<font color=" #660033">Casey</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support'''. While I would like to see more content contributions, I think Amory has a solid grasp of the various admin areas and therefore is unlikely to cause any problems. Additionally, as he has not worked much in the article creation side, he may be seen as an eminently neutral admin in just about any dispute. This may be quite useful. ···
I don't see why not.
'''Support'''  I can see that this user is dedicated to be an admin.  He took some time to answer these questions and would be beneficial to this project.
'''Support''' per Ched. The candidates has made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earwig&action=historysubmit&diff=298507853&oldid=297077291 useful contributions] to the encyclopaedia. FAs and Gas are not required to become an admin, and it would in my view be potentially damaging to the FA process if they were. ''
'''Support''' I can find no reasons why they should not have the mop. -- '''
'''Strong support''' per WereSpielChequers. Clearly qualified and trustworthy. More OTRS admins are always a help. For those who want content experience, [[WP:AFC]] seems much more valuable than GAs or FAs. As administrators we are much more likely to deal with with the dregs of new articledom, improving them to be "good enough" than dealing with disputes on the cream of the crop.
'''Oppose''' - While I have been the first to support a candidate, this is the first time I have been the starting opposer; I am sorry to be the first here, and in the face of nine supports at the time of this writing.  As I have said before, I am a big believer in Wikipedia administrators having had ''at least some meaningful experience in the field of article writing, the GA/FA process, and starting new articles.''  This candidate does great work in the areas already mentioned in the opening statements, but the focus is narrow. I strongly feel that personal experience of actually writing and/or substantially improving an article, including conflicts over content and working out compromise is very important, in that an admin may encounter a variety of situations in this area.  Suggest the editor, regardless of the outcome here, give it a try.  Thanks for your work, which is indeed is in important areas, and my best wishes. <font color="green">
Some experience in audited content work is a requirement for me, and in this case CSD work and the candidate's other contributions don't outweigh that concern. ([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|more info]]) <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per question 11. Default to delete on BLPs has just been discussed extensively, and there was no consensus to allow it beyond times when the subject is requesting deletion. Absent that, that option is not available, the last misunderstanding on that caused enough trouble.
Per [[User:Jusdafax]] oppose. Looks to be a good candidate but I am also a strong believer in some sort of content. '''
I'm struggling to decide at the moment.  I'm not one of the "must have a FA" crowd, but supporting someone who's never produced audited content and never started a page either, strikes a false chord with me.  But in fairness to the candidate, I'm not sure whether this is entirely rational, so I'm reserving my vote while I decide about that.—
'''Neutral''' per the answer to question 6. I feel that admins must have some valued work that proves that they are a good editor not just vandal fighting ect. Feel free to sway me though as I will continue to watch this RFA and I may change my vote.--<big>
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral leaning Weak Support'''. Per S Marshall and Coldplay Expert and particularly per answer to question 4. I think the RfA's focus tends to be solely on technical aspects, but I think it's also vital to have a considerable experience in contributing to the encyclopedic aspect of WP. I think that being the creator of an article is much tougher than editing an existing one because it is you who has to defend the notability, etc. and face CSD and the like. Creating an article that stands this test might demonstrate an even better understanding of the rules of CSD than being the person who nominates for deletion! You are active in Articles for Creation, why not create an article by yourself? That being said I like your other contributions so If there is anything else that particularly impresses me about your RfA I may move to support but for now I am neutral.
'''Neutral leaning Support''' It looks like Amory's RfA is likely to pass, which is part of the reason why I'm putting a wishy-washy vote in the neutral section rather than voicing "weak support," which has always sounded like [[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/damn_with_faint_praise damning with faint praise]] to me. Anyway, Amory will be a good admin, no doubt; I trust him with the mop, and expect his possession of it to be a benefit to the community. Reviewing Amory's history, I see he has a solid record at [[WP:AfC]], [[WP:RfD]], and [[WP:RD]], all of which would compel me to support. He also has a clear idea of what he wants to do with the tools and where he would be most needed &ndash; another thing that would compel me to support. His minor work copy-editing and sourcing articles also looks pretty good, not to mention his successful proposals in the MediaWiki Talk namespace. All these things would make Amory a fantastic candidate for adminship &ndash; if he had some article work under his belt. Understanding article-building, at least in my opinion, is absolutely crucial. Amory may well understand article-building enough even without creating a single non-redirect, but I'm not sure of that. Regardless, I'm sure he will be an excellent administrator and wish him well, with a promise to switch my vote to support if this RfA becomes a closer call.
'''Neutral''', only because I am relatively new to this area of Wikipedia, otherwise I would list support.  I'm commenting because I posed a question. Was hoping for examples related to content creation in answer to my question but answer would be thorough enough to overcome my disappointment in that aspect. —
'''Neutral''' I do not like the candidates answer to Q11, but understand that has has added the caveat that he will not be working in closing BLP AFDs.

As nom. –'''
Seen  them around, seems well suited. '''
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support'''. Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' - Everything seems to be in order.  I respect Juliancolton's opinion.  My vote is not cast Arbitrarily though!  <strong><font color="maroon">
Seen them about, does good work. Good luck! <small><span style="border:2px solid #000066;">
Positive interactions. </big><strong>
'''Support''' - Completely un-arbitrarily supporting this RfA. ~
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, and glancing at his contribs, I trust this user with the tools. Good luck
'''Support'''. No problems here at all. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Very good answers to questions, fine contributions, seems to have a good handle on policy. -- '''
'''Strong Support''' - User has very good intentions. You clearly understand areas for deletion that some people would not know and would destroy their RfA. You have exceptional contributions to articles related to deletion and speedy deletion and I feel you deserve the broom. Good luck! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Support''' per the answer to my question.--<big>
'''Magnificently Strong Support''' I'm happy with the way he answers each question. Besides, I always support anyone who is ''really, really'' positive with the decision to become an administrator and have a go.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. Seen him around.. good contributions, positive attitude.. has potential to be a valuable admin. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Arbitrarily0. —
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' I see no reason for oppose. --
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} Have had nothing but positive interactions with this user. I'm a bit surprised this user is not an admin. <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>
'''Support''' Finally, the guy who helps me most on Wikipedia is nominated.
'''Support''' Reasoned answers. No real concerns here.
'''support''' per nom--
'''Support''' Excellent answers to all of the questions demonstrates extensive policy knowledge. Seems to be very level-headed in interactions with other users. I couldn't find any troubling issues in his history.  '''
'''Strongest possible support'''  we need more editors like this one.
'''Support''' An all-around excellent candidate. I'm impressed with most everything about this candidate, from their answers to the questions (and solid policy knowledge) to their article work. Trustworthy, level-headed user who can make good use of the tools.
'''Support''', good editing so far, and your answers certainly demonstrate thoughtfulness.
'''Arbitrary support'''.
'''Support''' No concerns, a very trustworthy editor. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' per  Question 8. Absences are too often neglected by editors and can have real value to perspective. Only mild concerns regarding inclusionism.
Solid candidate. - Dank (
'''Support'''.  Fine candidate! —<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>[[User:Finn Casey/Public|<font color=" #660033">Finn</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Finn Casey|<font color=" #660033">Casey</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' - [[User:Airplaneman/RFA|All clear!]] Looks like a great editor in general that will benefit from the "mop".
'''Support''' - good, solid editor with more than satisfactory answers to the questions. I've seen the user at ACC where this candidate's professionnalism and dedication to the good of Wikipedia have been confirmed.
'''Support'''. Seen the good editing while around. I don't see any issues here, and I agree with the nomination statement. ···
'''Support''' Per Nihon Joe.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has never been blocked and also as I am persuaded by the unanimous support above from my colleagues.  I also appreciate that candidate is a fellow adopter, i.e. interested in and willing to help other editors which is something admins generally need to do.  Best, --
<insert a sentence using the word "arbitrary" here>
'''Support'''
<small>Not so</small> arbitrarily '''Support'''ing this RfA. Good Luck with the mop!
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Good answer to Q11, good luck with the tools! --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support'''. It's a green light from me.
'''Support''' I'm happy that the candidate would use the tools wisely, given the answers to the questions. -- '''
'''Strong Support:'''  per Juliancolton. A great candidate -
'''Support'''. Looks like a solid, well-rounded admin candidate.
'''Support'''  An asset to this project!
'''Support''' I set aside my usual grumpy comments (on insufficient article achievements and activity) and give a full support here - I have crossed with the candidate at the DYK and have only good recollections. From replies to questions, I see dedication to WP, solid judgment and knowledge of WP policies, and, importantly for a new admin, careful approach. Good luck.
'''Support'''. No concerns with this candidate! Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. No concerns. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''', images aare one of Wikipedia's weakest areas, and I see great work in this field.
Mop well! No alarms for me.
'''Support'''. Great editor. --
'''Weak Support''' - no complaints, really. Only thing that bothers me is the preference toward inclusionism. Wikipedia has more litter than the New Jersey Turnpike. --
'''Support''' - an overall good candidate, would make a good admin. [[User:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="lime">*Pepper</font>]][[User talk:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="grey">piggle*</font>]]
'''Support'''-- No problems here [[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support''' - I like his sense of humour when i said i would vote in opposition just to not have it 100% at the last moment. Very well rounded contribs and a pleasure to work with @ ACC. Would be an excellent admin. <font face="Georgia">
Oh, you're not not already? Gotta remedy that oversight....
Strictly from his interaction on [[Talk:World of Warcraft]], I trust his knowledge of policy and his ability to cope with the tasks that adminship would set on him. --
Sure. From what I've seen, Atama will be a great admin! --
Easy support. -
Absolutely.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - I certainly don't see any reason not to give you the mop. Good luck! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Support''' - From what i have read over the last two hours of Atama's contributions, he is the ideal admin. Cheers! <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''.  I can see no objections! —<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>[[User:Finn Casey/Public|<font color=" #660033">Finn</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Finn Casey|<font color=" #660033">Casey</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' - seen you around a lot, fixing things and commenting in discussions.  No reason to doubt your judgement, and I especially like the answer to question 4.
'''Support''' I thought you were one already. I guess I was wrong.
'''Support''' I can trust this candidate with the tools after reviewing their contributions.
'''Support'''.  Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' per the answers to my questions--
'''Support''' - Great user!
'''Double edit-conflict Support''' Clearly highly qualified for adminship. Surprise he's not an admin is a cliché. The cliché is not true, because I had been contemplating nominating him for adminship. Because, well, I thought he was an admin already...and...oh, wait...
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Good answers to my questions, I think you'll make a good administrator. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' Some people are just quick learners and dive right in! Good luck
'''Support''' - Very impressed by the answer to question 4, will make a great admin. &mdash;
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]], seen him around, no major issues. I've got no reason to believe they'd misuse the bit. –'''
'''Support''' I thought this editor was an admin already.  I am 100% support.  I've seen them around and they clearly have policy knowledge and can be trusted with the tools.--
<insert standard expression of surprise that Atama is not an admin here>
'''Support'''. Has a good head, 頭. ···
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful, intelligent candidate.--
'''Support'''. Have noticed excellent attitude at [[WP:COIN]] and more.
'''Support''' Looks good, don't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' as nominator. Regards '''
'''Support''' per good work at [[WP:COI/N]].
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' Pleasure to add my support for this fine candidate
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Definately. --'''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' per SoWhy ''
'''Strong Support'''  Trustworthy editor, great answers, will be an awesome admin. I have encountered this editor numerous times before and have always been impressed.
'''Support''' -- Impressed by his work at [[WP:COIN]]. I was hoping he would apply for adminship.
'''Strong Support''' Your assistance at [[WP:COIN]] has been great, it would be very useful to have an admin checking the noticeboard more often!
'''Support''' G'luck! <strong>
'''Support''' Great work at the COI noticeboard.

Looks good. '''
'''Support''' I've often seen this user doing good work. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' I have seen exemplary behavior in terms of controlling personal bias and dialing with trolls.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' Good luck!--
'''Support''' I see no problems, good case where editcountis needs to be avoided. Willing to be bold and try to improve the Wikipedia experience for new editors is a big plus. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Strong support'''. Of course. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - like some others, I thought you already had the mop! I've come across the candidate a few times, and they seem level-headed, and I believe that they will make good use of the mop. -- '''
'''Support''', not a huge fan a WP:NEWT but I have previously [[User_talk:Atama#Hello.21|grilled the candidate thoroughly]] and find him to be in possession of a refined pallete, an acceptable taste in music, and entirely free of any delusions of being a sandwich. And a pretty good editor to boot.
'''Strong support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - have seen some very good work and careful thought by this editor at WP:COI - good mop-wielding qualities on show there.
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' - a hard working editor with a substantial contribution record and a rigorous attention to detail.
'''Support'''. Thought he was already. --
'''Support''' an excellent candidate.
Total beenfit to the project, adding the mop will only enhance that.
'''Support''' - Although don't lose sight of the fact we are here to build an encyclopedia.  More edits to articles would be a plus, but I'll support anyway since there seems to be a net benefit here.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' All my interactions with Atama have been positive, and reviewing his edits, everything there is good.
''' Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate -
'''Support''' - Whenever I see him about he's [[WP:CLUE|Doing the Right Thing]].
'''Support''' Atama is, overall, an excellent candidate. I'm impressed with his answer to Q4, as well as his work as a proposed deletion patroller and at [[WP:COIN]]. I deeply oppose [[WP:NEWT]] for the many reasons stated here and elsewhere, but that's not community consensus. Therefore, I think opposing Atama on that basis would be inappropriate.
Thought he was an admin already.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Atama.—
'''Support''' First person to attempt my question.
'''Support''' No one is perfect.  We need good, competent admins for many kinds of work.  Edit count "low" means the editor doesn't yack as much as (say) I do... and this is bad?  I haven't been able to support every edit, but then... I can't support all MY edits after I read them again later.  I understand the desire to have every admin be an excellent editor in every way but I don't find this to be a reason to say no either.  The NEWT thing seems off, but not fatal. Competent editor willing to do important specific work.  If our trust is misplaced we'll see it.-
'''Support'''. Candidate appears to be a good and reasonable editor willing to work in an underserved area of the project, to their credit. The NEWT thing is the only issue that kept this from being a '''Strong Support''', as it's off-putting in general. But the candidate's discussion of the issue, above and below in the opposes, is enough for me to overlook that glaring pot of drama. Good luck.
'''Support'''
'''Aye''' - apart from [[WP:NEWT]], this editor is doing The Right Thing<sup>TM</sup> wherever I see him/her, even when I disagree.  Strong support. <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''. I think that the editors who have drawn attention to NEWT have done the community a service by shining a light on it. However, this is an RfA on Atama, not an RfC on NEWT. I looked carefully at Atama's report on NEWT and have thought about it carefully, and what I see is a user who was actually very careful about not pointing fingers at the editors involved in tagging the Chatters page etc., and who treated them very considerately. Some of the complaints about harm done strike me as factually untrue. --
'''Support''' - I have seen this user do a great job in mediation and and been helpful in discussions.
'''Support''' - Yeah NEWT was a bad idea.  It wasn't Atama's idea.  I see no reason to refuse the bit here.
'''Support''' per consistently good contributions, and thoughtful participation in discussions. I have missed feelings about NEWT myself, but we should not discourage good-faith innovations, even if their flaws become apparent in hindsight - as long as the right lessons are drawn from the attempt.
'''Support''', for warming my heart with many {{tl|Prod-2}}s over the years. <font face="Cambria">
'''Support''' Good work at COIN and mediation. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' To unite all Wikipedians with meditation.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' NEWT stuff seems fine (I don't see it a BLP issue here as topics meet WP:N.) Other opposes equally unworrying.
'''Support''' I don't want to oppose based on NEWT. Everything else is strong and he already has an experience on a Cabal -- Mediation. (However [[WP:TINC|There Is No Cabal]])...
'''Support'''. Seems like a level-headed candidate. And NEWT seems like a laudable attempt to try to make WP a more welcoming place for newbies. It's an urgent issue with many WP user metrics now in decline, and the candidate should be credited for caring enough to ''try'' to address the problem.
'''Support''', per participation in [[WP:NEWT]].
'''Support''' - a good editor who should have the tools. I don't agree that the NEWT project was [[WP:POINT]]y; it didn't disrupt Wikipedia, and if anything helped to improve it.
'''Support'''. Understands policy, cares about newbies.
'''Support''' Yep. --
'''Support''' Great user!
'''Support''' Seems willing to be creative...
'''Support''': How could I oppose, when your actions were apparently already refined toward those of an admin sliding around the crowd and making sure everyone's having a good time at their party. Seems many other were also fooled! Even on NEWT where I loudly grumbled for a few days, I know your actions were in good faith with all intentions of improving the community. I must also respect your contributions being in areas of low fame and proof that good candidates shouldn't need to show a list of article awards at the door. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. An experienced editor who clearly and accurately explains policy issues.
'''Support'''. Was impressed at his decorum and patience at [[Talk:Jon Butcher]]; further research of contributions reveals no red flags. --
'''Oppose''' - I think my, and others concerns are enough to move to the oppose column (most of my comment moved from below, as noted). I sincerely like the editor, but RfAs have been denied on much less. [[WP:NEWT]] is controversial, and I think unknown to most of the community. This isn't the place to discuss the relative merits of that project (although I imagine it is headed for a community wide discussion), but I cannot support a new admin that has participated in that project in this way. Atama, to his[/her?] credit, has been reflective about it. But there's also too much zeal to pushing a particular vision of CSD. Reasonable people can disagree on csd in practice, but the nature of this project makes the sysop bit bother me.
The NEWT program is really just advanced trolling for many, but whatever. Atama's NEWT account, however, made iffy bios of questionably notable living people. This is not acceptable behavior, regardless of whatever breaching experiment is being conducted at the moment.
'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite. I'm willing to AGF that Atama is simply unfamiliar with the concept of research ethics (in particular, the idea that you don't conduct experiments on non-consenting people), but creating unsourced BLPs for marginally notable non-public figures, known only for [[WP:BLP1E|one event]] is just completely inappropriate. From reading some of the related discussions, I'm also not sure that Atama understands that notability is [[WP:INHERIT|not inherited]]. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
Amazingly, per Hypocrite. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point that was already proven was bad enough, but creating bios that met the one event criteria? I think that is simply not appropriate. We have enough problems, without established editors causing more, and making hassle for our new page patrollers who are very valuable. '''
'''Oppose''' game playing with socks to create crappy articles... why? Out of greater concern for "new" users who can't be arsed to learn how to write an article before they put a lousy article in Wikipedia? Doesn't have the right priorities.
'''NEWT'''
'''Oppose''' per Bali ultimate and Hipocrite.
'''Oppose''', like Aunt Entropy, just learned of the NEWT bit, and I don't think we do things through [[sting operation]]s. This is an unacceptable method and participation does not show good judgment.
'''Oppose''' - the breaching experiment that is [[WP:NEWT]] has done damage to Wikipedia. <small>⬅ [[User:Redvers/SN|❝]]'''[[User talk:Redvers|Redvers]]'''
'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite. While I disagree with [[WP:NEWT]] I generally wouldn't had opposed just for that, but creating crappy BLPs for such testing is unacceptable.--
'''Neutral''' While I respect the work that Atama has done, I have some very strong reservations on the whole [[WP:NEWT]] project.  I'll need to think about this for a bit.  We start some major dramaz over "sock" issues, and yet here is a project that encourages a "behind the back" style of editing that I simply can not feel comfortable with.  There are a great many participants that I greatly respect, but I think it is a very ill advised attempt to prove a [[wp:point]].  That we often are too [[WP:BITE|bitey]] isn't the question, I wholly agree on that, hence my attention to Julian Colton's project.  The issue for me is the whole "sneaky" aspect of it that actually led to an apology (and I do commend Atama for taking that step.)  Sorry, I just can't offer my support at this time. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
I'm very worried about baiting at [[WP:NEWT]].
'''Neutral'''. While his deletion work is superb, I cannot this candidate based upon his lack of any good or featured material, his relatively low edit count, and, especially, the whole [[WP:NEWT]] thing, which I feel is just wrong.
'''Neutral'''. Edits are great, but too low of an edit count for me. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Neutral''' <small>(moved from support)</small>. Atama is a good candidate for adminship in many ways, and I wish I could support. The questionable BLPs created using the NEWT account was quite poor judgement, however. I'm not particularly opposed to promotion, especially due to the otherwise positive factors present, but I feel the need to withdraw my support. This request will likely pass, so please take these comments into consideration, and learn a lesson from it. Best,
'''Support''' - No concerns here. Candidate is willing to clear the backlog, and a look at the contributions shows a lot of speedy work. (Whether the tagging was done correctly is for an admin to see)
'''Support''' Why not? —
'''Support''' I say yes.
'''Support''' Excellent CSD work, from what I remember. - Dank (
'''Support''':See no reason why not-can be trusted.
'''Support''' knows limits. Has requisite experience in requested area.
'''Support''' Candidate has clearly read the detail of their last RFA and learnt from it - that initself is a good start. I've enjoyed only positive encounters with Backslash Forwardslash who strikes me as civil and communicative. Well defined answers to the Q's. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. You should've passed in February.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The retronym in the username is a distinguishing feature.
'''Support''' He would be a strong asset at DYK.
'''Support''' Candidate seems to be clueful and I see no cause for concern. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' I'm glad that the candidate realized his mistakes at UAA and recognizes that the area may not be appropriate to work in. Anybody who can admit blunders and put himself before the community again has my support.
'''Strong support''' \/ should have passed in February for sure. Since then, I have talked with him on and off since then and have gotten the sense of his civility, solid communication skills, and dedication to the project. All of those would make him a great administrator. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' He will definitely be a good admin. <font color="#3300ff">
Strong support as his nominator last time around. –'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Excellent user, three months ''can be'' plenty enough time to improve. Will do fine. '''
Per my nomination last time and then some. '''
'''Support''' No issues I see.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' User has shown great commitment and improved since last RFA.
'''Support''' The user has improved since the last RFA and I trust them if they say they will not handle UAA despite these improvements. The candidate also exhibits a good clue when it comes to deletion related matters. What taints this impression is that they seem too hasty at times. There are cases all over the candidate's contributions where they tagged an article for deletion before realizing that this was a mistake. While I do not think they will delete articles before realizing their mistake, less hastiness when tagging and/or deleting articles can be strongly advised. Even a mistaken and reverted tag might bite a newbie if they see it before one realizes the mistake and reverts it. Regards '''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has received barnstars and is a good article contributor whose two blocks resulted in unblocks.  Best, --
'''Support''' Contributions are good, temperament is good. The editor will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' I see no recent problems.--
'''Support''' Should do well with the tools. --Happy editing!
'''Support''' I agree with NVO, you should've passed last time, even if you are only four. :) '''''
'''Support''' 4-year admins FTW.
I see no reason why User would misuse mop.--(
'''Support''' Per marked changes and lessons learned from first RfA.
'''Support''' What!?  Not an admin already!? :O -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
\/ is an excellent vandal-fighter who's proficiency would be greatly enhanced with the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong with a self-nom (my RfA was a rare self-nom as well). Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valley2city&oldid=292305472 recently pointed out] that buggy ctrl-click thing to me without a warning which indicates that \/ has the restraint necessary for an admin.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Strong support''' has written a FA and checkfs DYK articles for compliance. He knows how to work out if something satsfies RS, POV, V etc, which many admins who are supposedly great according to some, cannot. '''
'''BackSupportForwardSupport''' ''<font color="green">
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Supported last time no reason not to this time.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support''' - Improved from last time. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''OK'''
'''Support''' Great work at DYK, admin tools will help \ be much more productive. Discussions clearly show \ is far older than 4 years old. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - a strong content editor who has worked hard at addressing issues raised in the last RfA and is significantly improved in both UAA and CSD. Seems fine to me. And really, does anyone seriously believe this editor is 4?
'''Support''' - per YellowMonkey.
'''Support''' as an improved editor with solid contributions.
'''Support'''. <s>We need more Kindergarden admins.</s> Seen him around, always solid. Contributions look fine to me, can't think of any reason to even mildly oppose. Give the kid the bit.
'''Weak support'''. I supported last time, but now it has only been three months since your last RfA.  This is a bit worrying, but not worrying enough to get me to comment anywhere but in the support section. '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' - I for one welcome our DYK-working overlords. <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Support'''. I can't see any reason not to. User is clueful and won't abuse the tools. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support''' Yes! - <big>'''
'''Support''' based on my history of interaction with this user (mostly at DYK) plus the answers to the RfA questions here. With the notable exception of the "4 years old" claim, in my interactions I have found Backslash Forwardslash to display good judgment. (I supported last time, too.) --
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''', great work at DYK. Gained experience since last RfA, and overall I see nothing that tells me he'd cause problems with admin tools. Promoting kindergarten editors to adminship is a step in the right direction for this project. </sarcasm>

'''Support''' Per above
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' I believe "Slash" has the clue part, I believe he/she is dedicated to the improvement of the 'pedia, and I can't find anything to suggest that they would mis-use the tools.  — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
I supported \ /'s last RfA, too. As far as I remember, the only big problem with that one was his UAA activity, and since then he seems to have more than rectified anything that people had problems with. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' - supported last time, supporting this time as well. I trust that this user will be a successful administrator.
'''Support''' - I supported last time, and do the same now. Backslash Forwardslash is a good editor who has displayed sound judgement in admin related areas. I believe he will utilise the tools well. Cheers,
'''Support''' - we need more sysops, so my only real requirement for RFAs is having clue and not winding people up.
'''Support''' - perhaps I'd agree with the opposers' assertion that 3 months isn't long enough... if I didn't think you were ready last time. I still see no problems that put me off supporting; you're a sensible and knowledgeable user who I trust to operate the admin tools effectively. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' – seems like a good user. <b>
'''Support''' per  above. --
'''Support''' Dug through your contributions, saw nothing of major concern, !voting supporting, and wishing you good luck and happy editting regardless of the outcome of this rfa :)
'''Support''', No reason to suspect tool abuse, good answers to questions, socking concerns seem to be moot, clearly ''not'' four years old. --
Weakly. per Ottava Rima and YellowMonkey. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. I think it's high time we had a young admin. "Out of the mouth of babes" and all that. Seriously, though, I see no evidence the tools would be abused, and I don't find the oppose reasons to be convincing. ···
'''Support'''.  Has a good head on his shoulders, from what I have interacted with him. --
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Is he underage? I don't know and I don't care.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' and by the way, my four year old nephew has six FA's, so there.--
'''Support''' - worked with user in past, no doubt will make great admin. -<strong><font style="color:#228B22">
'''Support''' - solid reliable contributor with a good grasp of policy. &nbsp;
Lots of cream, lots of sugar. '''
'''Support''' - great candidate who does very helpful work at DYK; Q5 is loaded (I wouldn't have answered it, because you will get on peoples' bad sides no matter if you say yes or no...), there is absolutely no way he is four unless he is a child genius, not worried about the lack of policy/guideline involvement, and (as an aside) support #36 made me laugh...props to him/her. :) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
Just another editor that falls within my criteria (it's on my userpage).  Someone that's willing to focus more on the project in relation to articles more that of dealing with annoying editors, has a sense of humour and (at least I think he is) willing to only block as a last resort.  Have fun.  &ndash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm
'''Support''' I dont see any reasons to oppose. Best wishes --
'''Support''' The opposes are even less convincing and more nitpicky than usual. There is no valid reason I can see to oppose. The answer to the "rights" question is succinct but no less correct for that and the response to the question about recall is the simplest and clearest explanation I have read about the terribly flawed recall procedure. I would, however, recommend editing Wikipedia while enjoying a tipple or two! --
'''Support''' Knows Wikipedia policy. Will be a good admin. I liked his/her responses to questions. --
'''Support''' Can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' – the user's got enough experience, already. Age should be a non-factor in regards to adminship.
Three months is easily enough time between RfAs: there was slightly less than three months between my two RfAs. I'm amazed at the opposes based on age: do some people actually believe that Backslash Forwardslash is ''four years old''?
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  ''[[All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten]]'' is true for admins too.  So if Backslash Forwardslash is 4 years old that's good enough for me, but in all seriousness, I think he's a good user and the problems from the last RfA appear to be resolved.
'''Support''' As I did last time.  Folks can look back to my old comments for some detailed discussion of the candidate's CSD tagging (which I feel is accurate, by and large).
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Haven't had any interaction of late, but has always been friendly and a keen learner. '''
'''Absolutely''' - nearly missed this one - but I whole-heartedly support your request.  Best of luck.--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, and has been extremely helpful and professional in my dealings with him. Best of luck. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''', will do a great job and looks trustworthy to me.
Sure. --
'''Support''' I agree with everyone above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Weak Support'''. As I said during his last RfA, Backslash Forwardslash has the potential to be a good admin. I would have preferred he acquire a bit more experience since then, but he's done much to address my prior concerns.
|No reason not to. Excellent user. <strong>
'''Support''' - I've seen you around WP a lot and I like your answers to the questions.  I wish you a favorable statistical outcome on this RfA!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |


'''[[WP:100]]''' - looks like he'll be fine admin. <b>
No actual problems raised in the opposition (more like scraping the barrel and clutching at straws, desperate for some reason to oppose). A fine candidate. '''
'''Support'''. I can't find a single reason to oppose. — '''''
'''Support'''. These opposes are crap.
Happy to '''support''', I see nothing of real concern in the opposes (that the candidate can laugh at himself is a promising sign; it's when we take ourselves too seriously I start to worry).
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  ''<B>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Honestly, some of the opposes are pretty lame.
'''Support''': per above. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
I would still like to see more experience in dispute resolution and noticeboard activity, and I'm not entirely convinced that three months or so is enough time to prove a true commitment to fixing issues in RfA rather than just sprucing up for the RfA's sake. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' I do not support granting adminship to users who are under 18.
'''Oppose''' A fresh coat of paint since his last RFA, but problems raised there have not been fixed, or even addressed.  I see limited non-automated and talk page edits indicating I can place my trust in this user.
'''Reluctant oppose''' per [[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]]—three months is too little time since the last RfA for you to have entirely cleared up, save for "glossing over" (my version of his phrase "spruced up"...) Sorry. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose''' I agree. Also all the backtracking and ''I can't remembers'' in the candidate's answer to Rootology's questions, sets my Spidey sense A-Tingling.--
'''Oppose''': I have no inclination to award power or authority to anyone who does not believe that other people have rights.
'''Oppose''' per underage thing
'''Weak Oppose'''- Only on the basis that Wikipedians do no have rights. My opinion other then that is that this person is a very fine editor at Wikipedia. This will most likely be a futile vote but hopes the editor realizes that this doesn't help his case.
'''Oppose'''. Self nominated, less than 6 months since last attempt. Immature. (
'''Weak Oppose'''. I don't care for this "I'm 4 years old" bit. So it's a joke &ndash; why would any mature person say that about him/herself? Or expect to be taken seriously? Cannot support for admin as long as you self-identify as a child &ndash; as an admin, your user page will be viewed by many Wikipedians and having an admin who says he's a 4-year old is unbecoming. Candidate has not addressed this concern and userpage remains unchanged, so I've moved from Neutral to Oppose, accordingly. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - I don't care enough to oppose, but your signature is potentially very confusing for a new user. --
'''Neutral''' — Someone who can't think of a specific change they'd like to make to a policy, probably hasn't spent enough time thinking about Wikipedia's policies.  I'm also not seeing enough participation in collaborative or contentious areas such as DRV, AfD, dispute resolution etc. for my taste... but I don't feel I can oppose because I do think this candidate has the right temparament and attitude for adminship.—
'''Newt''' I pre-apologize for this, but I'm going to have to use your initials '''B'''ackslash '''F'''orwardslash and refer to you as my BF. It would help to get a signature change. Your current one, as stated by B, is potentially confusing. If you could just add some text in there or something... eh. I'll stop here since I haven't been active <s>much</s> at all since your last RfA, and have had nothing to go by in the "improvement" category, and a M*A*S*H marathon is preventing me from looking any further into your contribs. Have a great time with the tools if you get 'em, don't worry about it if you don't. <span style="font-family:monospace">[&#8203;
'''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose''' per all of the comments here. Portraying immaturity when maturity is expected isn't something we should encourage. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Neutral'''. Would support, but I have a policy of not supporting candidates under the age of 85.
Solid editor that has established he can be trusted with the tools. A fleeting lapse of imperfect judgment should not be held against him. --''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]], I trust him. I can only attribute that troublesome edit summary to the presumed presence of Beeblebrox's [[WP:BELLY|belly button]]. –'''
'''Support'''. I cant see any problems or reasons why this user should not become an admin. Also, it seems theyt have learnt from their mistake from their last RFA. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Beeblebrox has learnt from his mistakes. He also has significant content contribution.
'''Support''' Agree with AtheWeatehrman, and Axl. He has learned from his mistakes. It was a few months ago, and I believe it can be [[WP:FORGIVE|forgiven]]. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support'''. One edit summary in response to a banned chronic vandal is not a reason to oppose. I see 24K edits, great work, a mature demeanor, and a trustworthy user. I don't need [[June Cleaver]] wielding a mop; I want [[George Washington]] - who occasionally told little shits to stay off his talk page.
'''Support'''.  I'm happy now.—
'''Support''' I would prefer [[Thomas Jefferson]] rather than [[George Washington]], but since neither man is available I am very happy to support Beeblebrox.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Even the best of editors is allowed a slip up or two. Where Bambifan is concerned, I have great sympathy. I see no evidence that you would not be able to handle the tools, and therefore, you have my blessing. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''' - Candidate has learned his lesson. We all make mistakes every now and then. Would make another good admin.--
'''Support''' - My own interaction with this candidate has been positive and looking over his contributions/talk pages I think he'll do well.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' I thought he should've passed last time. <strong>
'''Support''' Of Course! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
→<font style="color:#4682b4">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' - I'm confident that Beeblebrox will benefit from the tools and use them well. As for the 1 edit summary out of tens of thousands of edits, he has shown that he learns from his mistakes. Also, Tan put it together perfectly, although I would be more comfortable with [[Abraham Lincoln]], who had to deal with many "shits" while behind the wheel :). Good luck!
I don't see why not. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support fully''' And here I thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' - A shame the first RfA descended into Wikidrama
'''Support''', the candidate will make a fine administrator. No concerns on my end. &ndash;
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|I was going]] to support last time around. Now I can.--
'''Support''' And a note regarding Francium12's comment above. The last RFA did not descend into wikidrama at all. Rereading it, a great many of the oppose / neutral comments were "per Pedro" or similar - all around the "infamous" edit summary. I don't see any drama at all, and indeed respect to the candidate in the way he handled the RFA and respect to all those who commented in it. Anyhow, the key thing is that the community fairly clearly said "one bad edit summary does not mean you'll never pass RFA, but it's to recent to be overlooked.". The candidate clearly took the message on board and has learnt from it. Further Beeblebrox did not become discouraged but has worked ever harder. Both excellent traits, and I have full confidence that it was indeed a minor aberation. As there are no other concerns I'm happy to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' The candidate's speedy deletion work reveals some hastiness in taggings before trying to fix the problems (e.g. this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destinee_Monroe&diff=prev&oldid=307973997 A1 without checking history] and several G11 and A7 where they declined themselves afterwards which they should address if this request is successful since any tagging, no matter if removed afterwards, can be quite bitey. Also, the candidate exhibits a misunderstanding of criterion [[WP:A3|A3]] (for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Aviation_Museum&diff=prev&oldid=309735425 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pueblo,_San_Juan,_Puerto_Rico&diff=prev&oldid=304205094 here]) as A3 explicitly says that infoboxes count as content and it's usually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Aviation_Museum&diff=prev&oldid=309774936 very easy] to add text if you have an infobox to draw from. That said, the candidate's other work is quite solid and unlike many, they show a willingness to fix problematic articles, even if only after tagging them. But if they can continue to fix before deletion as an admin, I see no problems and I am convinced that they will be able to be less hasty in future handling of CSD. As for the other concerns of the first RFA - well, Pedro says it best. Regards '''
'''Support''', looks like a good candidate that would have a positive effect on the project if given the tools. --
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
I didn't get to say "per Pedro" last time, but I am now. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Spent some time going through your contribs. I see nothing major to worry about, just don't bite newcomers.
'''Support'''.  Looks like a fine admin candidate, on balance.  Any disappointment with the candidate's views re: Steely Dan did not factor into my decision.
'''Support''' Yes, Benjamin Franklin is the correct choice.  Good luck!
'''Support ''' Good content creation. No other problems rising to level of oppose.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''', problems I've found are minor and are strongly outweighed by Beeblebrox's excellent contributions and attitude. I'm generally getting the impression of a user who works hard to rectify issues, both with articles and with his own editing. Good admin material, in my view. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' The misapplied speedy deletion templates are a sufficient cause for concern and I hope Beeblebrox will be more careful in the future. But I've had numerous experiences with him and all have been positive. His article contributions are certainly sufficient and I think he's addressed the concerns from the previous RfA. -- '''
'''Support''' As per track and concerns of earlier RFA overcame.
'''Support''', but try and be careful with those CSD's.
'''Support''', good maintenance work, more editors like this are needed. --
'''Support'''. The main reason your first RfA failed was Pedro's diff. You've clearly matured since then; even Pedro supports you now. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I supported last time, I think you would have been a good admin if you'd had the mop then and see no reason to change my mind now. ''
'''Support''' While I would have liked a more decisive answer to my UAA question (IMO an apparent single-purpose promotional account should be blocked once promotional edits are made), the conservative route chosen is OK with me as well.   I see no reason to oppose.
Moved from Neutral. Good editor, and would likely be [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|beneficial]] as an admin. I had unsure inklings previously, but it's good to see that the primary issue at RfA #1 won't be repeated. I no longer have concerns, and the answers are reasonable, so here's my support.
'''Support''' Clearly learned from past mistakes, and no reason to think that Beeblebrox will abuse the tools.--
<--- Ha.
Need more sysops.
Got good heads on his shoulders.  Mild incivility long past, our last perfect admin retired long since anyway.  Mistakes in tagging don't worry me, people learn and they do better.  This ought to pass.--
'''Support''':  I supported the last time around, and I haven't seen anything that persuades me to alter my views.  Beebs appears to be a polite, knowledgeable, and dedicated Wikipedian.  I've found nothing to indicate that they would mis-use the tools.   Best of luck Beebs. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Opposed last time, '''support''' this time. The answer to my question (#11) could not have been better for me; I'm convinced they will not make the same mistake again. The slightly BITEy interactions with new users mentioned in the Oppose section aren't exactly ideal, but I'm encouraged by the measures they have taken to correct. Should be a good admin. -
'''Support''' per the positive comments above.
'''Support''' based on candidate's track record and interaction with editors at this RfA.
'''Support''' Like any editor, Beeblebrox has room for improvement. But he has a good head on his shoulders and I trust him to wield the mop properly. He'll be fine.
'''Support'''. I remember your RfA from last time. Though I opposed last time over the civility issue, that is obviously in the past and you have vastly improved. Best of luck.
'''Support''' Read through this entire thing.  Can't see any reason why he wouldn't make a fine admin. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Not perfect, but improving. Sincere. Learns from mistakes. Examined contribs, and see lots of value and encyclopedia-building. --'''''
'''Support''' Beeblebrox has clearly learned from his mistake, and I have no problem granting him access to the admin tools.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Beeblebrox. —
Sufficient improvement since last time.
In my humble opinion, evidence of common sense and a willingness to learn say more than no one having caught you out in the months prior to RfA. We need more admins and Beeblebrox strikes me as a sensible choice. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
It has been three months, and since you've kept your [[WP:COOL|cool]] for three months I don't see any reason to oppose.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Not perfect, but will be a good addition to the project. '''
'''Support'''. Admins do not have to be perfect. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Solid contributor.
(Moved from neutral) [[The Lorax|Beeblebrox speaks]] for the [[Jean Keene|bird lady]]. Some content work, so I'm giving you the BOTD. '''
'''Support''', per reason No.1 above mostly, but the other ones as well. [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. This editor seems like a trustworthy editor to me. <span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-size: 12" ><span style="color:#008080">
'''Support''', don't see any problems.
'''Support''' - Seems to have learned his lesson. --'''
'''Oppose''' I consider the many mistakes in speedy tagging noted above as unacceptable.  <s>When that is added to the frequent failure to notify beginning editors,</s> I conclude he's nowhere near ready in at least one key area, & one in which he wishes to work.  It surprises me that people find them, and still say support. Nobody is perfect, but too many of these are blatant and recent. The best test of how someone will do in the future is how they have done in the past. RfAdmin is not a test of general editor quality, but rather of knowledge and ability to apply it in certain areas essential on the one hand to maintaining quality, on the other to not discouraging new editors.  '''
'''Weak oppose'''  I had a really [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ikip&diff=263307080&oldid=263295445#Newfoundland_Trail fruitful conversation with Beeb] a few months ago, when he put something up for deletion.  He then [[User:Ikip/AfD on average day|picked a day for an AFD study]] I did.  Beeb was very courteous and seemed like a really nice guy. I came to support, and was about too, but DGG's comments gave me pause, moving me to neutral, but Graeme Bartlett comments above were what moved me to oppose:<br>"Also [[Erik Lyle Waldahl]] is the classic case of an article only consisting of an underconstruction template, being labeled for deletion by our candidate within one minute of creation."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBeeblebrox_2&diff=309753323&oldid=309750560]<br>We lose editors this way. Sorry Beeb, not this time.
'''Oppose''' As per DGG. Although his answer to question 4 was pretty cool, my vote goes to oppose. No more incivil admins please; I believe there are still some months to go to learn from his mistakes.
'''Oppose''' - User wants to work in CSD, so concerns like those expressed by DGG have a lot of weight in regards to this application.
'''Weak oppose''' - I like how the candidate proactively brought up the last RfA's problem. But his behavior towards new editors strikes me as impatient, at least in the Hazara Democratic Party article and the Erik Lyle Waldahl article (see copies of edit history [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox 2#From the deleted contributions|here]]): In the first case, the new user does a commendable effort in improving the article at 18:13, May 3, 2009 and adds ".::Under construction::.". Two minutes later, Beeblebrox writes "fine, but it better get good soon", then improves the article a bit, and less than 6 hours later requests speedy deletion. Just as I wrote at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7#Oppose]], I think it would have been more appropriate to help the new user, who comes from an area that is underrepresented here. But the candidate helped with version 2 of that article, and there are other examples for such help, which is a good sign. <small>After the experience of some previous RfAs, I want to say that I generally consider it as a good sign when a candidate replies to an oppose vote.</small> &mdash;
'''Weak oppose''' Per above, really. In addition, Q6 kind of worried me. There might be a chance that he simply forgot about page protection as an alternative, which is perfectly reasonable, but the fact that his mind at least subconsciously thought of warnings and blocks over page protection seems troubling. However, the candidate is still overall, fairly good, and so I shall be watching to see how this RfA develops. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose'''. I'm not fully convinced the candidate has full grasp of the CSD criteria. <s>On August 17, Beeblebrox tagged [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenda_Hatfield&oldid=308509708 Brenda Hatfield] for speedy deletion, despite the fact that there was a claim of notability.</s> A more recent one, a speedy was declined just [[User talk:Beeblebrox#Speedy deletion declined: National Aviation Museum|over a day ago]]. I would like to see a better understanding of the CSD criteria before I can comfortably support. — '''''
'''Oppose''' - Cannot support with the answer to Q7. Basic copyright knowledge is something I see as essential for an admimistrator. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''opppose''' Concerns by DGG are serious. I'm also concerned by the answer to Q7. "I don't know, I'll look it up" or something similar would have been fine. I am however deeply concerned that someone would answer this way where they think they have understanding of something and clearly do not.
'''Oppose''' Per DGG.
'''Oppose''': Q1 - If you don't think you're ready for so many things, get some experience ''before'' applying. Q6 - Besides not considering protection, a template warning rarely defuses anything and often makes things worse. Q7 - Public display ≠ public domain. Q10 - Even if the user isn't blocked, if they create the article, they're still clearly here for promotional purposes and should, at minimum, be warned about COI and they should be asked to change username so as not to imply any authority over the content or a role account. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
Not entirely convinced that the concerns from RfA 1 have been addressed completely. Will watch the RfA and possibly support or oppose later. '''
I am not convinced with the answer to the question about the sign in public view. Speedy deletion tagging for everything apart from the no context ones is OK.
I don't know. I really don't know.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
Not sure yet.  Leaning support.  answer to Q7 is flat out wrong, btw.
Leaning to support, but I noticed the same thing that [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] just pointed out (no other big concerns)
Really unsure. Seems like a collection of some really good editing, and some pretty bad editing. I don't want to oppose, so I'll stake my tent here.
Pending answer to q.13; if an editor has a 'mix of good and bad edits', I tend to lean towards opposing in RfA - but I see here mostly good, so I could perhaps be persuaded if they are prepared to exercise the tools with caution. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
Switched to '''neutral''' per valid criticism of my original oppose by candidate.  Sincerely, --
I have some concerns over a possible hastiness to delete new articles before they have a chance to develop.  However, the answers to my questions were sufficient to push me from oppose to neutral.  If this passes (which seems extremely likely at this point), I urge Beeblebrox to stick by his statement that he won't delete article as fast as he has historical tagged them (except for attacks & copyvios).  There is a real danger of scaring away valuable new contributors who have "their" highly imperfect but good faith attempt at an article deleted 2 minutes after they create it.  It is far better to personally notify the user of the problems and at least give them some chance to correct them before deleting.  There is no urgent need to remove (most) bad articles instantly and a little human interaction can go a long way towards turning someone who starts off wrong with a junk article into a valuable long term contributor. New contributors don't arrive knowing our policies and shouldn't be expected to create perfect articles on their first tries. --
'''Obvious support''' as nominator. —
'''Strongest support''' - amazing work with content and categories, from a guy who is one of the most polite editors I have ever met. If Bellhalla doesn't deserve the mop, then I don't know who else does. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' per Ed. --
'''Support''' Elected as a coordinator of WPMilHist is pretty much all the nominator needed to say.  Still, Bellhalla's contributions show a deep, deep commitment and understanding.  I for one don't believe that nonsense about "not having the time" so I see no reason not to push this through. <small>My words of praise are failing me atm, but... hot damn!</small> ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - per Ed.--
'''Support''' I really can identify with you in a lot of aspects and I can see you being a good administrator.
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]] Regards '''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - A very helpful and productive editor who could provide even more help with the tools, and doesn't give any indication that the tools would be misused. -- '''
'''Support''' Excellent editor, very helpful. See absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be an admin.
'''Support''' - Looks very good on the first read. Here's hoping your Rfa goes smoothly. <font color="green">
'''Support''', great nom statement that makes the case very well - and I've had plenty of cause to agree with it after a review of contribs. Low-drama, high-work-ethic editor who would make competent use of the tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. I like what I see if the candidate's edits, and election to Milhist's Coordinator seat is high praise indeed. This looks like an easy call. Good luck,
'''Support''' I have worked closely with Bellhalla and have nothing but high regard for his devotion, common sense, and integrity. He will make an outstanding administrator. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - First, Bellhalla's contributions to Wikipedia are by any measure very impressive. Second, I too have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AParsecboy&action=historysubmit&diff=206162914&oldid=205975291 poked] by Bellhalla [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AParsecboy&action=historysubmit&diff=244346379&oldid=243917375 on occasion] for admin help; clearly he could make use of the tools, and I see no reason why we shouldn't trust him with them. Also, per several comments above on his politeness and helpfulness. Good luck!
'''Strong support'''. A very hardworking, helpful MILHIST member. <small>Hey, that project seems to turn out good editors. ;)</small>  Competent for the admin tools.
Holy cow yes. '''
'''Strong support''' - an extremely safe "vote" considering Bellhalla's longevity, edit count, and productivity in creating articles.
'''Support'''. But of course.
'''Support''' Per Ceranthor :) '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Belhalla demonstrates all that is good about Wikipedia. Give him the [[:File:Admin mop.PNG|mop]] and he'll be a more able <s>janitor</s> administrator.
'''Support''' Despite my deep-seated concerns over the number of cats.... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''- easy call.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' - this editor who has family and school commitments makes more edits in the last 3 months than I have in total! He has created more than 100 articles, with good work on them. I feel that this candidate is an ideal one for the mop -- '''
'''Support''' - throughout all of my interactions with the editor, there has never been any doubt in my mind of how phenomenal an admin they would be. Their content contributions speak for themselves, notwithstanding being the first editor to be awarded multiple tiers of the MILHIST A-Class medals and being elected as a coordinator of the project. The longevity, dedication, alone are enough but everything else is just icing on the proverbial cake! -'''
'''Support''' Bellhalla is an outstanding, friendly and highly responsible editor who has played an important role in both the military history and ships wikiprojects. In doing so he's demonstrated a great deal of policy knowledge and a clear understanding of consensus-based approaches to instituting reforms. In regards to his answer to question 1, Bellhalla has contacted me on a number of occasions asking that I do something admin-related, and all of these requests were fully justified so I have no doubt that he'll use the admin tools wisely and productively. In short, I can't think of a better candidate for administrator status.
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Seems to be an extraordinary editor. Good luck!
'''Support''' Looks good to me, too.
'''Support'''. Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' - Seems like a reliable and dedicated person to me. - <font color="green">
'''Super Strong Support'''. Why not? We always accept another guy with the mop.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Dedicated, motivated, mature, and productive editor who will benefit the project as an administrator.
'''Support''' nothing wrong here... good luck. ~
'''Support''' Great choice! Good luck with the mop!
Absolutely '''Support'''.
'''Support''' 81k and 2004 says a lot...
'''Support''' I've always enjoyed working with this editor when reviewing his GA nominations, and think that he is more than worthy to be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Support''': Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' per work at MILHIST, all those A-class articles, etc '''
'''Support''': "Impressive" is an understatement. Surprised he already isn't an admin though. ≈&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Excellent editor who has lots of clue, a cool head and a thorough grasp of policy and guidelines. Also supprised that he isn't an admin already. Cheers,
'''Support'''. clear net positive.
If only there were five more editors like this user. –'''
'''Strong Support'''. Bellhalla is an excellent editor, and I think he would make an excellent admin. I have no reservations at all with this user's admin bit being twiddled. ···
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support''' Always happy to welcome another drama-free admin into the fold. The Anonymous Administrator Cabal gains a new member! Kidding aside, great article work and he has good head on his shoulders. He's been around forever and I had never seen him around - that alone suggests he'll be fine.
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent article work and appears to have a good grasp of policy and guidelines. '''
'''
Weak '''support'''.  Diff. in q. 3 is bit too heated IMO.
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support'''. A fine editor and will make a quality addition to the admin corps.
Excellent editor. - Dank (
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor in all meanings of the term and will make a fine administrator.--
'''Support''' without question. Cannot believe Bellhalla wasn't made an admin ages ago. I'm not put off by the diff in Q3 either, that was over a year ago and the points raised were valid, even it the manner was a tad curt.
'''Strong Support'''. Massively huge portfolio of contributions. Great answers. My only concern is this: Why did you wait this long for RfA[[?!|‽]]
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} I'm pretty impressed with the user; I'm sure they'll do well with the mop. <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>
'''Support''' All of my experiences with Bellhalla working in the ships project have been positive. He is the only editor in recent memory that has had enough nerve to tackle the ships category tree! I just hope he doesn't regret becoming an admin. --
'''Support''' It is a good sign that Bellhalla has made notable contributions to 13 FAs, 34 A-Class articles, and 137 Good articles, as well as started so many quality articles. Also, I don't see a reason to oppose allowing Bellhalla to edit protected articles and templates, as he seems to make reasonable requests. Good candidate for adminship. <span style="font: 13pt 'Arial';">«</span>&nbsp;'''
'''Strong Support''' per the amazing contributions for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history]]. Good job!--<big>
'''Support''' Of course, a no-brainer. I thought Bellhalla was an admin a long time ago. It's about time! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' -- Great stuff.
Of course! Belhalla's one of MilHist's most outstanding editors (in a credential sense; this is not undervaluing the achievements of the other MilHist editors, all of whom are awesome). I was considering whether or not to participate in this yesterday on account of promising myself to focus what little activity I have on more important areas of Wikipedia (i.e. article work, vandal fighting), but I guess one more RfA wouldn't hurt, now will it?
'''Support''' Nothing wrong that I can see.
- Great contributor who will only be better with the extra bit.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - No problems here.  The diff above about the unit converting thing was a bit over the top, in my opinion.  Undoubtedly a net gain here though.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' No brainer really.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' the lack of article work concerns me (like to see at least 250 good articles and 50,000 edits), but not enough to move from support. :) Illegitimi non carborundum and use it well.
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks alright.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Bellhalla. —
'''Support''' Looks great.--
'''Support''' Sure.
Oppose: not enough edits. (Just kidding.) '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Not exactly the type of answer I was looking for, but your answer regarding BLPs further up leads me to support. And per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support'''  as per nom, this editor will make a good admin
'''Support''' - Per long time article work and lack of drama.  Seems very levelheaded and calm.  —
'''Support''' - Looks good. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Has good experience in XfD processes and shows clear dedication to the project. I'm particularly impressed by the willingness to actively participate in one of the less glamorous/visible tasks on Wikipedia: Categories for discussion. Seems to be a top notch candidate.
'''Support''' - an excellent contributor who'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''', clearly a valuable addition to the corps. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Strong Support:''' A great candidate on all levels of Wikipedia. -
'''Support'''.  Belhalla has an excellent grasp of content policies and in all our interactions I've never found him anything but polite and cooperative.  I have full confidence in his judgement.
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy and reliable; no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' – Looks really good. The answers to the questions are solid, the mainspace contribs are great, and a good grasp of the XFD process. Lots of clue.
'''Support''', per nom and answers to the first three questions. Also, content work is most impressive. '''
'''Support'''. Content work is pretty impressive, I agree, I obviously find no problems in Bellhalla's adminship. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="black">
'''Support'''. Impressive candidate with matching contributions.
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support''' - Looks good!
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''', ninety-seven other Wikipedians can't be wrong.  Probably.  If you go [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin|rouge]], I'll be blaming them.
'''Support''' "a level head,..mindful of the other person's POV, and attempt to address the situation in a constructive manner". Sounds like a plan.--
'''Support''', great user! --
'''Support''' Truly a fantastic candidate for adminship. A very hard worker with lots of experience in many areas, including excellent, substantive article contributions. I agree with others that Bellhalla could be an even more productive, helpful user with access to these tools, particularly in areas which could always use more administrator attention. By the way, I very much enjoyed reading some of your featured content, especially {{USS|Princess Matoika|ID-2290}}. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' My support at this point doesn't really matter =).
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as after 100 editors commented in this RfA, not one has said to oppose; candidate is a veteran editor with 84 DYK, 137 Good, 34 A, and 13 Featured credits across over 75,000 eidts; and has never been even accidentally blocked.  Best, --
'''Strong support''' without any reservations or hesitations, as based on past interactions with this excellent editor.  —
'''Support'''. Though I'm basically pile-on at this point. —
'''Strong Support''' I have been very much impressed with the body of work of this editor, and hard work should be rightfully rewarded. No oppose votes is extremely telling here!

'''Strong Support''' Of course! Way overdue. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' - I was going to put "Industrial Strength Support" but that seems to be a bit much. I've had good dealings with Bellhalla and think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Per neutral section and answers to questions.
'''Support''', must be good if the neutral section is the worst that can be found at this stage! :) --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I had to do some research here, as I wasn't that familiar with the candidate - ''that's a good thing!''  Full support. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Support'''. Seriously glad to support such an outstanding candidate.--
'''Clear support''' absolutely no concerns. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;

'''Neutral''' - I have no clue who Bellhalla is, and, although (s)he appears that they will make a good admin, I cannot truthfully cast a support or an oppose vote. Good luck Bellhalla, however your RfA goes.
Beat-the-nom '''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' Having crossed paths with Bettia on several occasions, I believe he would be a great asset as an admin.
Weakly '''Support'''ed last time but I see no reason not to support '''strongly''' this time. Excellent nomination statement, nothing further to add. A good all-rounder who will use the tools actively and wisely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I supported last time and I see no reason not to do the same now, just more so. His speedy work is impressive (the last decline is from December[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republican_Leadership_Council&diff=257041074&oldid=257034048]) and he seems competent and helpful. Regards '''
'''Support''', Bettia's contributions seen at the last RfA were very good, with the primary objection from many people being that there weren't enough of them. They're still very good, and I am happy to support - I really can't see any reason at all not to. Best of luck! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', yeah, he was perfect last time too
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. I spent about 15 minutes looking over Bettia's speedy deletion history. It looks like he's getting at least 98% of his nominations deleted which is a very good track record. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
Impressive <font color="navy">
Awesome work. '''
'''Support''' Loved the userbox in the candidate's profile (you can guess which one).  Also enjoyed getting a chuckle out of the bizarre vandalism examples (I don't think it encourages vandalism to have a laugh about it now and then).
'''Support''' Great work in a variety of areas. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' The answers to all of the questions indicate a very high level of clue. This is what we need.
'''Support''' Like the AfD work, like the CSD work, like the anti-vand work... really, nothing I didn't like.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me; rather, the candidate does have some barnstars and did you know credits on userpage.  Best, --
'''Support''' - Great attitude, dedicated, good work in admin areas. What do you call a suitable admin candidate from Cardiff? <s>Leisure centre</s> Bettia. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I like everything I see here - particularly seemingly level-headed maturity, both in answers and in edits. <b>'''
'''Support''' Trust? Yes, Problems?, no, Will he delete the main page?, probably not, support.--
'''Support''' I have seen him around, a trustworthy editor with a good knowledge of policy.
I know it may seem a bit cliche, but I kind of thought Bettia already had the bit. Excellent candidate and excellent nomination, I sincerely doubt he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good to me! I don't think he'll abuse the admin tools. Best,
'''Support''' Very good editor, has large amounts of clue, won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''' --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate, knowledgeable and clueful. You do have a misspelled word on your userpage, though, that you might want to fix.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' -- Great user who knows how to use the admin tools and has the attitude of an admin. Upon seeing his experience in vandal fighting and at AfD, he will benefit from these tools, as will the community.--'''''<small>
'''Strong Support''' Per above comments. No reason to think that he would abuse the tools. '''
As Pedro notes, answers to questions are particularly revealing. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' Anybody who can merge West Country English and Welsh into an acceptance of nomination gets my vote! More seriously, excellent answers to questions, has certainly taken on board concerns from last RfA and developed as an editor; an ability to listen is a vital skill of an admin. --
'''Support''', I supported last time, and as far as I can see this candidate has only gotten better!
'''Support''', very helpful and constructive on Wales articles with which I've been involved.
'''Support''', Browsing through his contributions and from his in-depth answers to the questions it is obvious, to me and all previous voters, that Bettia is a highly trustworthy candidate and will benefit wikipedia with the mop. '''<font size="2">
'''Support''', will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Seems like a nicely rounded candidate who was easy to work with during [[Andover F. C.]]'s GA review. --
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Lean Support''' nomination was tl;dr. The individual in question seems to be okay.
'''Support''' good answers to questions.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' [[Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_number_42 |of course]], as nom. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' What else need I say???? '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
Modern renaissance man (Aka EVula the second ;-))--
'''Support''' Has been around since Nov 2007 and concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.
'''Support'''. Last time I opposed for lack of experience and activity. This time around, the candidate has shown much improvement and I can comfortably support this time around.
'''Support''' Seems a very good candidate, good luck.
'''Support''' Answers reflect on good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Cheers. '''
'''Support''', obviously. Such a dedicated Wikipedian cannot possibly be denied adminship. &ndash;
'''
'''Support''' Very good editor, will make a Great admin.
'''Support''' I see nothing of concern, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' solid work!
'''Strong Support''' Keep up the good work! '''
'''Strong Support''' A very good editor...Good luck! '''<span style="border: 1px Orange solid;background:gold;font-family: Tahoma">
'''Full Support''' per the above comments.  [[Good luck]]!  :) &ndash;
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]. I opposed the last time. I now support in part due to great AfD work.
'''Support''' as if there could be any doubt! (Except one. Would you trust someone to make wise decisions if they turned down a million euros offer for deleting the main page? The correct answer is, of course, "I'd delete the page, take the million euros, restore the page, and share the money with my good buddy RegentsPark!") --
'''Highly Strong Support''' Agreed with everyone else. You'd make a great sysop.
'''Support''' per good answers. I'm also glad you're a content builder too.--
'''Strong Support''' - good answers to questions and good editing. You'll do great as a sysop! Cheers, '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''—
'''Support''' Per good reputation. '''
'''Support''' because you're lacking in the support column. '''
'''Support''', as you obviously need it. Good candidate all round, I think. Faultless. -
'''Support'''.
I'm
{{User:IMatthew/V}} <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support:''' Everyone else has said it well enough.
'''Support''' No issues. Looks good. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here.--
'''Support''' undoubtedly '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, passes [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria]] with no concerns. Good answers to many questions too I must say.
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support'''.  No problems.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Even if I did find something wrong, I'd be scared of the 80 editors above me =p <small><b><span style="padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support'''. Excellent nom, excellent experience, and a excellent job with Andover F.C..
'''Pile-On Support''' Got into this one late, but I see no reason not to give this candidate the mop.
If you ever ''do'' get the opportunity to delete the mainpage for one million euros (if that were technically possible) ''do it'' without hesitation and donate all those funds to the WMF. Yes, it would spark a huge drama-fest and thousands of our visitors would be met with a blank page few minutes and our reputation might take a hit but the benefits outweigh the negatives so ridiculously there is no question. The foundation needs money and doing without our mainpage for a few minutes would be an easy way to raise it.
I've looked through this candidate's history and to be honest I was bored.  There is very little there other than vandalism reverts - I'm sure I've seen this user around but can't place him (or her) on a particular article right now.  I'm not knocking the anti-vandalism stuff, it is of course valuable work, but in most cases it hardly demonstrates sounds judgement.  Similarly I find the cases presented in the nomination less than compelling.  There is nothing wrong with them but a simple application of policy with no real ''judgement'' required doesn't really impress me. <br />There's no evidence he would do any harm but on the flip side there is little evidence of good judgement.  I've no grounds to oppose him but at the same time I am not comfortable supporting him.
No reservations. None. Billinghurst isn't the most active candidate, but you couldn't ask for a more trustworthy and reliable one. Interactions on the English Wikisource lead me to believe he is a truly great Wikimedian. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''':Seems dedicated, trustworthy & civil.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''.  Per above.
'''Support'''. Contribs on WM projects show reason to trust.
'''Support'''.  In my experience he is reliable and I have no concerns about him.--<i><font color="#9966FF">
Per AnonDiss. '''
'''Support'''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. User does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' No reason not to!
'''Support''' &ndash; Trusted user, will not abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' As per Jayvdb and track is good and see no concerns.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has never been blocked and as I do not recall us ever having any memorable negative interactions (I tend to [[WP:AGF]] with those with whom I am not all that familiar with, but in any event, nothing overwhelming has jumped out at me upon reviewing this RfA).  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', per Jayvdb's nomination.
'''Support''' per answer to #11 and for being a good user. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  ''<B>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' - seems like a good contributor, who knows his stuff, with no problems in his history. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  I forgot this step. :-)  Mr. Billinghurst has my complete confidence; I wouldn't nominate someone otherwise.  He has learnt the ropes on Wikisource exceptionally fast, and I have full confidence that his maturity and experience in moderating online communities will be as much an asset to English Wikipedia as it has to English Wikisource.  My only regret is that he will spend more time here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' I don't think I've come across this candidate before, but having checked amongst other things the candidates talk page, block log, recent deleted contributions as well as reading this page I'm happy for Billinghurst to take up the mop. 7,000 edits in varied areas, a clean block log, clue and civility IMHO outweigh a couple of the answers being weak, especially as the weaknesses are not in areas where the candidate intends to concentrate. I'm curious as to the motivation for some of the questions, one or two of which look almost like  fishing to me, and I will revisit this RFA as it progresses to see how things develop. ''
'''Support''' meets my standards. already admin on wiki source. so far opposers have not presented anything for me to oppose over. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Has done well enough here on Wikipedia, and has experience elsewhere that should be good enough to ensure competence.  Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''', no serious concerns for me.
'''Support'''. Qualifies to be an Admin. Experience is very good too. Cheers!--
'''Support''' Looks to be a valued, if limited-purpose, admin, as he is already a valued editor. <strong>
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Looked over contribs, editor would be a good admin, has performed similar functions in other online realms. --'''''
'''Support''' I see no reason why not, 6000+ contributions since 2007 is more than enough for me, maintenance work is excellent. - <big>'''
Seems good to me: he's been asked ''25'' questions, and hasn't done that bad a job of answering them. Only 7,000 edits since 2007...that's more than enough, and edit count doesn't translate to trustworthiness or suitability for adminship. GAs/FAs/DYKs are irrelevant if there is other article work to compensate for them. More than 90% of Billinghurst's edits are to articles, which shows dedication to article-building.
'''Support''', seems reasonable, cautious and amenable to advice.
'''Support''' Reasoned and logical answers given, clean log, proved suitability elsewhere. To those who say that ''only'' 7,000 edits are not enough I would argue that numbers are deceptive (one could make 20,000 minor typo edits as opposed to 7,000 more substanstial edits - quality not quantity). Idem remark about number of contributions having no relation to administrative duties which require other skill sets. To those who say that his replies are vague in some areas, is it not preferable to have someone highly competent in some areas, as opposed to a "Jack of all trades, master of none"? User can grow in areas where he is less experienced.
'''Support''' Definitely.--
'''Support''' Good faith editor, should be great asset
'''Support''' No reason to not trust him with the tools. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support'''. Maturity. Self-knowledge. Communication skills. Steady improvement of existing articles, an area that is sorely lacking now. Ability to collaborate. A very fine candidate.
'''Support''' Appears (to me) to have proper level of [[WP:CLUE]], and dedicated to the improvement of our site. I'd offer that Billinghurst is welcome to "dab" my reasoning. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Yes, please.
'''Support'''; if only more of our admins were like Billinghurst.<p>But I see RFA is more broken than ever. Note for 'crat: those who actually ''know'' this guy support giving him the bit; the opposes are from people who don't know him, but think they can cover for their lack of ''actual interaction'' with a few arbitrary metrics and ten minutes snooping around.
'''Support'''. He has his head screwed on the right way.
'''Support''' — Completely trusted, will do work with the tools. They're called ''tools'' because they are to aid in the performance of work. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Never met the guy but his answers and contributions look fine to me. To-the-point, dedicated, both feet firmly on the ground, plenty of clue. I have no reason to assume he'll mess things up or cause dramas.
'''Support''' Admin on sister project and able to communicate. \
'''Support'''. Does the candidate know how to use the tools? Yes. Is there any evidence to suggest they would misuse the tools? No. Billinghurst has an obvious use and need for the tools, and has demonstrated an appropriate level of trust, so this is fine by me. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Candidate has proven themselves in another project that, though smaller, is very serious. After personally having fought vandalism over there before (a vandal bot and some smaller things), I've had experience with what kinds of problems happen and I feel Billinghurst as able to make the appropriate block choice for the circumstance.
'''Support'''. Good communication skills, mature attitude.Great candidate. (
'''Support'''Demonstrated experience and skill are more than adequate. Answers to an extensive range of questions, some somewhat hostile, are good. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' &mdash; A good admin on Wikisource, why distrust him here? '''{{#if:[[user:mynameinc|my]][[user talk:mynameinc|name]][[special:contributions/mynameinc|inc]]|<span style="background-color:orange;color:;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No major concerns here. You most certainly seem to be trustworthy and someone we could rely on as an administrator. None of the opposes seem to worry me enough to oppose you. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''', opposes aren't convincing to me.
'''Support''', mostly per Jayvdb's response to Oppose #14.  Questions 13 & 14 are not a problem for me. - Dank (
'''Support''' per above. Good luck! --
'''Support''' No issues here, clearly a trusted Wikimedian.
'''Support''' I think the user will think through a problem rationally and come to good conclusion when the time comes to use or not use any tools. He has my full support at this time
'''Strong Support'''. None of the concerns raised by anyone appear to be valid concerns to me. I see no evidence any of the tools would be abused, and plenty which shows they would be used to good effect and improve the project. ···
'''Support''' Would do well with the tools. Not worried about edit count - I just hit 6k.
'''Support''' - I've decided to support Billinghurst. He hasn't contributed any DYKs/GAs/FAs, but his other edits seems good. I also analyzed his edits on Wikisource, and they are pretty good. Success on other Wikimedia projects does not guarantee success here, but he has over 7k edits here on en.wikipedia. Two A++ Wikimedians, Anonymous Dissident and Jayvdb, are also supporting Billinghurst. This has also slightly influenced my !vote.
'''Support''' - If he had no other experience on other WM projects, I might have some concerns.  However, he does have that experience plus the experience mentioned in "Nominee's response to Oppose commentary".  I think he'll do just fine. --
Per Jayvdb, AnonymousDissident and many other users I respect. Also, have seen B in action on WS, liked what I saw. Also, I find David Fuchs' arguments singularly uncompelling. With all due respect, adminship should not be something granted based on recipe, so many edits of type A, so many of type B, so many of type C, so much time spent on board X, so much on board Y, and so much on board Zed. Rather, the question should be, is it likely the candidate will be a good admin? The answer is yes; WS is not en:wp but success at WS (which has, as noted, 4 stewards and many en:wp admins among the WS admins, and which had me as well until I stepped down) is highly indicative of success here. '''Strong support''' ++
'''Strong support''' per many of the other support reasons that I read.  It could use repeating but it's late at night here.  The candidate's answers resonate with me as an administrator on other projects, and he seems to have his head about him.  The fact that AnonDiss and Jayvdb are supporting this simply helps me in being pretty sure that this is an RfA that I want to support.  Again, this is one of those places where I keep feeling like we don't ''need'' for admins to have contributed DYKs or whatever the else wikipedia content thingies that there are.  Judge editors for what they do, and Billinghurst does what he does do very well.  --
'''Support''' Has a clue. Experience on other wikis is ''very'' relevant: the culture and procedures vary from wiki to wiki but that's easy to adjust to. If you can use the tools responsibly on wikisource, you can do the same here. It's not rocket science.
'''Strong Support''' Questions answered thoughtfully and reasonably, I especially liked answer 24a, Admin are human and as long as he remembers this (this doesn't mean all admin are baby eating fiends, on the contrary it just helps make the person approachable!) I think he will be a very fine Admin.
'''Support''' Having had the pleasure of working alongside this user at Wikisource, I firmly believe they will be able to use the tools at en.wiki as competently as they have at wikisource.
'''Support''' A trustworthy user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - technically meets my standards, and I have no serious concerns.
'''Support''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' I like his answers to the questions.
'''Weak Support''', Seems like a good canidate, has extensive experience elsewhere, no reason to suspect tool abuse, my only concern is that answers to questions are not great, but they are acceptable. --
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Support''': WTHN ? --
'''Support''': Good answers. Suitably considered and collegiate.
'''Support''' - I see no problem here.
'''Support'''-The answers to the questions are not unique, but there's nothing wrong with a generic admin.
'''Support''' - seems a well balanced user who is unlikely to abuse tools or engage in drama. Good candidate.
'''Support''' sufficient work with articles and with process to show suitability as an admin.  One needs to know about how to write articles to be an admin, one does not need to frequently create new ones. In fact, the more active one is as an admin, the less chance one is likely to have to do so. '''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' I am not entirely without worry here, and I can't say that some of the answers to the questions don't leave me unsatisfied (or at least not wholly satisfied), but the whole of the record permits me to conclude with a good deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''': <s>Per response to questions 13 and 14. I would expect any administrator to take some kind of action, even if if it was a quick post on ANI about a threat of violence.
Lack of audited content contributions, no observed conflict resolution experience, no meaningful noticeboard activities, little AfD participation, very generic answers to questions 1-3. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> -
'''Weak Oppose''' Most edits are from AWB and needs more work in collaborative areas.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Weak oppose''' per David Fuchs. Experience gained on other wikis does not automatically guarantee success here. --
'''Weak oppose''' per David Fuchs.
'''Weak oppose''' Per David Fuchs.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Oppose''' Don't like the answer to #13 and #14. User might be a great admin on other websites, but supplemental answer to #14 shows they are not ready here yet. No evidence of how they would handle under difficult circumstances, does not have my trust.
'''Weak oppose''' - I'm not very impressed by the answers to the questions. I may change my !vote if they are elaborated on more. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''', rather generic answers to the templated questions.
'''Oppose''' - question #7 concerns me.  Admins have all of the admin buttons, so it would be a good idea to find out about the block button at some point. --
'''Oppose''' - only 6,000 edits to article mainspace since 2007; more article work needed. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Oppose''' Agreed, needs more <s>cowbell<s> article work. Also seems to be a bit trigger happy with the block baton.--
'''Not yet'''.  Grounds: 1) Little evidence of participation in contentious areas such as AfD or dispute resolution, so I can't satisfy myself this candidate would consistently act in an appropriate way in a contentious situation; 2) I found the answers to the questions not just generic, but actually evasive; 3) I think that anyone who can't think of a single edit they'd like to make to a Wikipedia policy, hasn't spent enough time thinking about policy to be an admin.<p>I'll happily reconsider at any future RFA.—
'''Oppose''' - per -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs.
'''Oppose'''.  This candidate's lack of experience in the en:Wikipedia administrative arena portends a very rough beginning if given the tools at this time.  —
'''Oppose'''. per content issues.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, minimal content contributions, and tenor of answers didn't inspire my confidence.
'''Oppose''' Echoing Mr. Fuchs up there, sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. I'm not impressed by the answers given to questions, but not enough to oppose.
'''Neutral''', basically per [[User:One|One]] — <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Neutral''' Can't make up my mind.
'''Neutral''' – I'm split down the middle between supporting and opposing. The big pro is that you have extensive admin experience elsewhere. However, the cons do include the answers in some of the questions, (I will admit, however, that IS a LOT of questions that were fired at you.) and the lack needed experience in these admin-related fields such as AIV, UAA, or XFD. Even though admin roles are more or less transparent across other project surely en.wiki is their  own little rules and procedures that might be different from other projects.
My first beat the nom '''support''', I think!  Anyway, candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that he has never been blocked, but has received rollback and multiple barnstars.  Sincerely, --
The brevity of his statement may be off-putting, but he is nonetheless a dedicated Wikipedian who will probably do good things with adminship. As I see it, the tools are simply that; tools. They are not a badge that only some Wikipedians are worthy of (or at least, they shouldn't be).
A dedicated editor, with over three years under the belt. Having never been blocked is a big-time plus. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Sure]]. Reasonable editor, and though he's not very prominent, I doubt he'll misuse the tools. –'''
Gut feeling gone. Will do well in conflicts.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Good answers. Seems competent.
'''Support'''. Seems good enough to me, very competent and unlikely to misuse the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
Tentative support; the "extended wikibreak" notice and the userbox that says you're close to WikiDeath turn me off, but your current activity level seems fine to me, and your many areas of competence turn me back on again.  Can you say a little more about how you "promote" Wikipedia? - Dank (
Looks ok to me. Good answers. <strong>
Going with instinct. Until someone proves otherwise, this is a fine candidate. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Need more sysops.
'''Support''' interacts positively with other people, handles setbacks without drama, improves with time.
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
Seems sane. '''
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Weak support'''. Maybe could use more projectspace edits, but sound altogether.  '''
Answer 7 made me laugh.
'''Support''' It looks like he'll make a fine admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Nothing to concern me. Good luck.
Not a problem! :) '''
'''Support''' I see no problems here. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. I do not see a likelihood of problems from this editor should the bit be twiddled. I do recommend moving cautiously at first, however, in areas where a lack of experience may exist. Ask a lot of questions in those cases. ···
'''Support''' Can't imagine him creating any sort of trouble as an admin.
'''Weak support''' due to the poor and unimpressive self-introduction (looks lazy for the RFA preparation), but generally like the answers and contributions.--
'''Support''' everything looks good to me here...
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. --
See him around and believe he'll do well as a sysop. <small><span style="border:2px solid #006600;">
Nother '''support''' from yours truly.—
'''Support''' I don't usually show up if an RfA is above 90%, but I'm coming to support because I'm impressed with your edits, especially your work with wiki markup.  I know I can come to you if I have trouble getting something in wiki code to display properly.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Everything seems fine to me. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Excellent and very well grounded answers to the questions, especially #9 - shows your head is definitely in the right place.  Granted, I'd probably support any gnomish biologist running, but still... ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' I don't see any issues with this candidate that would make me think they would break anything.
'''Support''': seems ok!..
'''Support''' - I decided to support after reading the questions and my opinion was only solidified after reading all of the above comments. Good luck, Bob :).
'''Suport''' Excellent candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Strong Support''' Per being helpfull and tech savvy, per Editor A Nobody and per having a cool sounding name.
'''Strong Support''' does not seem to be a wanker or a bullyboy and therefore meetings my minimum standards for Admin role. --
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Sensible.
'''Support''', sensible user with excellent contributions.
'''Support''' I've had a good encounter with this user in the past. He has a Clean block log and is a civil and useful contributor with varied contributions that indicate to me the sort of breadth of knowledge of this place that an admin should have. ''
'''Support'''. Good content and talk contributions, intelligent, knowledgeable, affable ... good is good enough. <b><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Technical competence demonstrated, and shows calm rationality in his answers. --
'''Support''' Looks great!
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''  <small><span style="border:2px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;background:White;">&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' I am not aware of any problems here. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. Well-reasoned answers to the questions. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Bob the Wikipedian. —
'''Support''' Everything I was able to detect indicates a clueful, helpful person that would do well with a couple extra abilities.  Best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
{{edit conflict}} '''Support''' - I have no problem with Q4, as it pretty much summarises every admin-related policy.--
'''Support''' Good experiences with you at TOL, I'm glad to use my first ever vote for an admin up on you!
'''Support''' No problems here, answers to the questions show a thorough understanding of policy, a level head, and considerable clue.
'''Support''' <small> My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see [[WT:RFA]]</small> BobtW gave an answer that is pretty by the book, and thus lends itself to an easy support. It showed a level head and concrete thinking, however, BobtW did not address the BLP issue at all, which was a critical aspect of all of this. (To BobtW's credit, he pointed out the RS issue) Administrators must keep the end goal (the production of good content) in mind when dealing with poor conduct. Recent months have shown fairly conclusively that BLP errors are ticking time bombs. I still vote to support because I believe BobtW will take my advice on this manner and accept it as a learning moment and has demonstrated traits that suggests that he is dedicated to keeping things in proper perspective.--
'''Support''', good [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] user with no problems granting them adminship. I'm not bothered by kotra's oppose. In fact I don't quite agree with it; Bob's definition merely seems like a different one, rather than a wrong one.
'''Support'''--'''''<sup>
'''Support'''. Looks good from what I've seen.
'''Support:''' Very constructive.  -
'''Support''' Constructive, civil, engages in discussions and is willing to accept mistakes and to learn.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I like the candidate's answers, and I'm seeing a lot of good work on the project. No concerns here.
'''Support''' moved from opposed, in view of further explanations given.   '''
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits, great Userboxen, ''very'' interesting user pages and links, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' A great addition to the admin ranks; good to have you aboard. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. No reason to believe that the candidate will misuse the tools. —
'''Support''' - '''
'''Support''' significantly large chance of being a useful admin, hence worth a trial with the mop :)
'''Weak Support''' Looks okay, but as this adminship request hopefully is also about feedback I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=315569221 this] to be <s>arrogant</s> less than optimal, and demonstrative of a lack of understanding about discussion as opposed to voting. This resonates with some comments in oppose regarding communication concerns. Nevertheless Bob is likely to use the admin tools well, but I suggest a slight removal of the chip on the shoulder as this request will cleraly pass. Admins are simply users with additional technical access. Nothing more, nothing less. Fuzzy warm feelings are ''not'' what this is about.
'''Support''' - Good editor, answers to questions especially Q5 and Q9 impress. All-round contribs are fine and no glaring errors, will be good as a sysop! --
'''Support'''  I particularly like his honest answer to Q11 - an admin should be chosen if we trust him or her to use the additional tools responsibly, and ''not to use'' them when he/she is unsure or conflicted. I have confidence that Bob will live up to that standard. All the best.
'''Oppose''' (moving from neutral) - A4, its "postscript", and the discussion between me and Bob in the Neutral section lead me to conclude that the candidate views adminship as a managerial role that accords greater respect. This is not how the access level is described in [[WP:ADMIN]] or how I have seen admins treated in practice. Admins' views are often treated with less respect simply because they come from admins, and a sure way to fall on your face is to expect the opposite to occur and bring that expectation into adminship. As the candidate views the role now, I see it as likely they would display some of the poor traits critics of Wikipedia associate with the user group. -
Oppose per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bob_the_Wikipedian#Additional_optional_questions_from_Daniel|my question]]; if this is simply a misread on my part, I will happily change to neutral or support, but that's something that can be re-evaluated when the candidate answers the question.
'''Oppose''' Q5 is a strong oppose reason. Plus Q1 is a cop-opt answer. Once an admin all areas are open. I don't like that RfA is at the point where that matters, but that's where it is. Q4 is awesome, and I think Bob shouldn't back off from that sentiment. Q12 though is interesting with a slight negative. I don't agree, but if you're going to be intellectually honest why make this statement within the same time-frame. That's off the map.
'''Neutral''' Editor doesn't appear to have many XfD discussions over the past year.  <s>His experience with the File namespace is limited to 4 edits to 2 files.  [[:File:Microsoft Office 97 Professional Box Art.jpg|One file]] being uploaded in last June at a resolution above the norm.</s>  Apparent lack of experience in these is why I am neutral for now.--
'''Neutral''' Would like to see more policy-based edits, though everything else seems good. Sort of a weak support/neutral kind of thing.
'''Neutral''' per Kotra.
'''Neutral''' - I share DGG's concerns in his opposition vote above, but I don't feel strongly enough to oppose. Bob's contributions and other answers seem well-put (though I'm also a bit uneasy about the admin/government analogy). -- '''
'''Neutral'''. Moving here from oppose. He isn't as bad as the first impression he made on me (and DGG), but I find no compelling reason to support, in particular because of the muddled communication.
'''Support''' - BOZ is a dedicated contributor with good contributions and temperament. Pending any serious issues coming up, I see no reason not to support. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - as co-nom. –
'''Support''' Has made good contributions and there is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I've worked with BOZ on a number of occasions, and I feel completely confident in supporting him. He handles stressful situations well, is a solid editor with plenty of experience, and I have no problems trusting him with the bit. -
Not enough administrators currently.--
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' I see no issue not too. And also per Patton:).
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' Clean block log, very longterm user, ample XPs,  we need more admins and BOZ  looks ready for the bit. ''
'''Strong support''' as candidate is a [[User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts|nice Wikipedian]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Good experiences with the user, seems to handle pressure well and do great work. '''
'''Support''', after carefully studying Boz' contributions (especially at [[WP:AN/I]]), I believe this user will keep a cool head, defer to consensus, and use his tools appropriately. &ndash;
'''Strong support''' no problems whatsoever, would make a good solid admin.
'''Support''' I've seen BOZ's work in the DnD project and at the Gavin Collin's RfC where he helped steer a potentially messy discussion into a slightly less messy outcome.  Seems like faint praise, but it isn't.  that was hard work and doubly hard because most of the work he did was on behalf of Gavin.  He would have 'benefited' from letting gavin twist in the wind, but he and Drilnoth (who is running at the same time?) didn't want that to happen.  I'm also happy to say that I can support him ''despite'' my disputes on content issues with him.
'''Support''' in agreement with [[User:Drilnoth]]. Seems willing to be a steady and stable influences for Wikipedia. '''
'''Support''' Well-qualified candidate.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support'''. Capable, collegial and level-headed. Don't think there's a significant probability of BOZ going rouge on us. Having more trustworthy pro-fiction admins will hopefully help temper certain elements of that ideological bent too, which can only be a good thing.
'''Support'''. User with a long, positive edit history.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Cool-headed, definitely qualified. Will make a good admin. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good natured...can't use my 'level' up joke as already did so yesterday and it would look really naff -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Why Not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. I have worked with BOZ on ''D&D'' related material and feel he would make a fantastic administrator. Organised, committed, intelligent and a great contributor to the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' the clueful contributor.—
'''Support''' Thankyou for a clueful answer to my queries, and good luck. <b>
'''Support''' Has been around since Feb 2006 and has used rollback very well and  has a excellent track and the project will only benefit with the user having tools.

{{ec}} '''Support''' per all the above. '''''
'''Support''' one of the most level headed editors I've seen.  Also does great work with article improvement and cleaning up borderline D&D articles by referencing and redirecting. -
'''Strong Support''' - BOZ is a fine example of the wikipedian and editor.  He has worked tirelessly on a multitude of articles include many GA candidates.  He is fair and listens to others.
'''Support''' enthusiastic and knowledgeable (in a number of areas). (
'''Support''' outstanding editor in areas that could use more outstanding editors.  Has managed to calm me down in the past.  Will do a great job.
'''Support''' per positive past interactions and collaborations.  I don't see the BLP policy knowledge weakness as a big deal, given his past contribution areas--I trust him to find help to shore up his weak spots as a natural extension of his demonstrated track record at collaborating on articles.
'''Support''' - Absolutely. —  <small><b><span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' - per above
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support''', solid answers to the questions, good editing history, thoughtful and cautious.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Weak Support''' Seems unlikely to break the wiki; while I note Jennavecia and DGG's comments, it seems that BLP/AFD work will not be the primary arena of this candidate, and he stated plainly that he will defer to other admins in areas not his forté.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Can't see any problems. Editor seems to have a good grasp of what he knows and what he needs to learn. Can't ask for anything better. --
'''Support''' No alarms here. Seems to have their head screwed on. --
'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Weak support''' - meets my standards at [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]]; no good reason to oppose; but I share DGG's concerns that a broader background is better.
'''Support''' oh yes. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' - While I supported BOZ running, I honestly wasn't sure about supporting (was somewhat neutral, with a few supportive leanings); as (most) of my interactions with him involved content, and not so much the "other" areas that admins typically end up getting involved in (whether they want to or not : ) - But I have to say, answers to my questions were well above average. And in my opinion, far better than the typical "summarise the policy". And your answer to 10 was one of the better ones I've seen. You seem to admit in 9 that while you seem to understand the fundamentals, you aren't "sure" about [[WP:CON]] in "practice". But I also know that you work closely with several people who I think '''''do''''' "get it". So you should pick up the practical aspects even if only by osmosis. And I like your strightforward sense to answering questions, and that you still have your sense of humour. The only reason this isn't a "strong support", is that they're currently complaining about adjectives at WT:RFA : ) -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''&mdash;unlikely to abuse the tools. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. No problems at all. — '''''
'''Support''' - He has helped to resolve conflicts, and seems even-tempered. His experience in fiction issues will be an asset.
'''Lean Support''' - the DGG stuff would put me as a neutral, but I am leaning support because I liked your willingness to help those restore deleted pages as one part of building up the encyclopedia. Too many people are willing to remove and few are willing to help restore and fix problems.
'''Support''' - Can't believe I ''just'' noticed this thread. Well, BOZ is a great user - he's smart, ambitious and very knowledgeable. -- <font face="Trebuchet MS" >
'''Support''' The answers to my questions remove any concerns I had, also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Good luck with the bit.
'''Support:''' The answers to the questions are what I like to see.  Boz (sorry, I can't bring myself to type that in caps!) is clearly a dedicated, intelligent, and thoughtful editor.  Certainly should do well.
'''Support''' - excellent, clued-in user.
'''Support''' - would seem to be a sensible addition to the ranks.
'''Support''', per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and great contributions to the project in varied capacities. '''
'''Support''' - '''
'''Support''' - Answers show a careful, thoughtful approach that we need more of. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' if this editor cannot forsee using the delete button, editor probably doesn't need it. It's OK to be an inclusionist, but not being willing to delete BLP violations or attack pages while gleefully undeleting PRODs upon request is not what I'd like to see in an admin. Gotta do both.
'''Strongest oppose''' What's up with the edit summaries on articles?  In general, your edits look fine, you seem to interact okay with other editors, and I would like to support an RfA for an editor who edits heavily in pop culture articles to spite others who denigrate editors who edit heavily in pop culture articles (an important area on wikipedia which needs more responsible admins).  Imagine my disappointment to click through 500 or your recent article edits and see so incredibly many empty edit summaries.  What's the deal?  --
After some discussion on my talk page, I see no reason to oppose, but I do not support because I  think it is good for a candidate to be at least a little comfortable with all major areas. '''
Not quite as much edit summary usage as I would like, but otherwise, a good editor.
'''Neutral''' - It's disappointing to see that the candidate shows no interest in helping improve the BLP situation, which really needs everyone's help, but I believe he'll be a good admin, thus there was no good reason for me to hang out in the smelly oppose section.
...as nom.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' and strongly!  Can't find anything in edit history that is even slightly concerning, answers to opening questions are perhaps the best I've ever seen.  ''This'' is exactly the type of attitude and demeanor I'd love to see in all admins. (also per nom Keegan) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' looks good to me. Even the declined A7 for the fictional character (I declined that one btw) was only a mistake in that sense that it was taged 4 minutes after creation, before the creator had time to establish the context. But other than that, the speedy work, the answers here and the candidate's overall contributions look fine. And I salute any user who wants to help with [[WP:SCV]]. Regards '''
'''Support''' - contribs look good.
'''Support''', I love your approach to editing and your answer to question 2 was great.
Seen him around, practically flawless work. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[WP:WHYNOT]]? Looks good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' OK.
Per Shappy and hmwith. <strong>
To many administrators currently...lol just kidding. Your a pretty good candidate, a really good writer(when I read your reply on Keegan's page I thought I was reading a book), no major disputes(I don't think) and good little man work. But even as a little man, I would love to see a good candidate like you write a GA or FA.--(
--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support'''. Looks really good. '''
Cactus writer on Danish topics? Reminds me of an [[User:Ynhockey|Ice hockey player from Israel]]. Go ahead, '''support'''.
'''Oppose''' too interested in building 'pedia. Way too many editors like that around here. <joke; irony />
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. The user has enough experience and should use the tools responsibly and effectively.
'''Support'''.  Happy to see this RFA, I'm a big fan of CW's writing and copyediting skills, and the answers to the questions are very good. - Dank (
'''Weak support''' I wish you had more article work. A few DYK's is good, but some GA's or FA's would have helped. But you seem like a fine candidate otherwise. <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
I can '''support''' this editor.
'''Support''' Well-rounded experience with nothing adverse in past history. Appears competent. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - <s>[[WP:WTHN]]?--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup> 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)</s> Solid answers to questions, not too many automated edits, overall, good editor, and would make a fantastic administrator--
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' Quick review of user talk page and recent contribs, as well as solid answers to RFA questions, demonstrate exceptional clue. Good luck. :)
'''Support''' Absolutely -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Great answers to questions.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Per Keegan's nomination. '''
'''Support'''. Limited content creation, but generally good quality edits. Good interactions with other editors.
'''Support''' – I, too, appreciate the good answers to the questions.
Liked what I saw in a quick review, like the answers to the questions.  CSD tagging was solid and I liked how he handles different scenarios there (including declining at least two of his own CSD tags over the past month where he decided another option was better.)  The fact that he will reconsider his own tags and reverse himself is a positive, not a negative, especially when dealing with CSD.---'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me.--
'''Support''' - Seems very solid, readily admits mistakes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACactusWriter&diff=287783302&oldid=287731775] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACactusWriter&diff=271360047&oldid=271352211], and seems singlemindedly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Scanned over most of their edits from March 2009, found no problems. -
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' See no reason at all to oppose.
'''Support''' --
Actually I'll say '''strong support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that per the candidate's userpage, the candidate is an article rescuer who has earned some DYK credits in addition to having never been blocked. Also, good argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Julius Trumpler]] in which the candidate not only expresses an opinion, but also points to an external link, i.e. went beyond just glancing at the article and other comments in the AfD and demonstrated evidence of having looked for sources himself.  Kudos!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - Levelheaded, trustworthy, and hardworking editor. I see no reason to oppose that.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' &ndash; Excellent user, will do fine with the tools. '''
'''Support''' Answers are great and nothing in contribs to be concerned about. '''
'''Support''' looks good with a good history, He'll do well.
'''Support''', Can't see any major disputes, edit wars, or blocks. Hasn't created an astounding amount of content, but what he has created seems to be of good quality. I support.
'''Support''', Looks like a fantastic editor.
Clearly has an interest in article work, per q2. Otherwise, no apparent issues. '''
Can't see why not.
'''Solid'''
I came across CactusWriter during a GA reassessment of [[Haraldskær Woman]]. (S)he responded politely and promptly to a situation that many react to defensively, and worked to save that article's GA status. Without that personal experience I might have been inclined to oppose based on a lack of content building, and in particular exposure to the independent review processes, but I'm satisfied the candidate knows what (s)he's doing, so no worries. --

'''Support''' As per track and nom.See no concerns.
'''Oppose''' Too many admins currently. Oops, I mean '''Support''', fine editor, good answers to questions, no indication of tool-abuse. In short, good candidate. [[Help:Edit conflict|(EC)]]
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support'''. The candidate strikes me as helpful, experienced and level-headed.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a reasonable user. So why not? --
'''Support''' Impressive afd work. Would be a good help in the Xfd arena.--
'''Support''' Keep it up :).
'''Support''' - No problems seen. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10#top|M]][[User talk:MC10#top|C]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[Special:Contributions/MC10|10]]</font>&nbsp;<font color="#1E90FF">&#124;</font>&nbsp;<font color="#4169E1">
'''Support''' seeing as I have found no problems whatsoever.  CW seems to have been a constructive and competent editor from the start. I also like the way of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willuconquer&diff=next&oldid=290917982 dealing] with [[User:Willuconquer]] in the recent copyright incident referenced above.
'''Support''', as all that was mentioned in the nom was true. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Weak Support''': As I dont see anything alarming! --
Can't see any reason why not.
'''Support''' I like the succinct nomination statement in which the nominator clearly shows that the candidate has a good grasp of what admin do, and should do.--
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - Why only now? You should be an admin since last six months.
'''Support''' Cactus has alleviated my concerns and provided ample evidence that he has the good judgement, a sense of humor, and the demeanor of an effective Admin. Malleus also made a good case.
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable user, a little more experience would have been desirable, but not a necessity.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Love the way they go on BLPs, reasons for wanting adminship, good clean record on edits and talk.  Has my trust.
'''Support''' - per (a) content skills and experience demonstrated in approximately 78 new articles; (b) audited content contributions through DYK credits; (c) peer review of others’ contributions at AfD and CSD; and (d) participation in nuts and bolts areas such as SPI, AIV, UAA, and CV.  You appear trustworthy; I think you'll do fine with the mop. --
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support''' No reason not to. '''''
'''Support''' not a drama magnet - yay!
Overall contributions look good to me, and I was personally impressed by the level of responsibility and follow-through with [[User talk:Willuconquer|User:Willuconquer]]'s additions of text to various Catholic related articles. Said user was confused about the pd status of government works (believing they applied to all governments). CactusWriter sensibly researched it himself, sought additional feedback, and followed through after the CP listing time had passed, with good communication to the user. This kind of thing makes me sit up and take notice, and I'm glad it did, because I also noticed this RfA in time to offer my '''strong support'''. We need that kind of admin responsibility. :) --
'''Support''' Answers seem good, not seeing any problems.--
'''Support''' per Moonriddengirl.—
'''Support''' Per nom. A good user.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Checks out okay. — '''''
'''Support''' largely due to answer to Q1. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. <sup>[[:Category:Administrative backlog|see here]]</sup> -
'''Support''' Seems fine - any candidate gutsy enough to drop the "F-bomb" in the nomination process should do well as an admin. :-)
'''Support for sure''' <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
The answer the question 8 gives me confidence.  &ndash;
'''Support''' Project space looks solid, no harm in a good AfD admin joining the ranks.--
'''Support''' Have crossed CW's path in discussions and have found him to be exceedingly courteous and helpful. His leadersip through example makes Wikipedia a welcome place to edit. '''
'''Support''', good answer to Q10.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No obvious concern. A strong candidate.
'''Strong Support''' This is one of the times when I give such a support, out of two or three other times. I cannot find anything wrong with this user, and I would love to see Cactus become Admin. (I see the symbolism in your name, quite amusing!)
50%+ article work, and the edits in the other namespaces are primarily focused on discussing content.  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Morley (Garda Síochána officer)|This]] was a sensible and proactive approach; I like what I see. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' as I see nothing which raises any flags or causes me to believe this editor would abuse the tools. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Oppose''' Lack of audited content contribs, little in the way of noticeboard edits that would show a lack of/ability to deal with disputes. Also, browsing the top AfDs he's contributed to, I'm not convinced of a strong knowledge of policies and his arguments aren't the clearest or best-presented. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> -
'''Oppose''' the content contribs showed nothing really spectacular, and the answers seemed below par. I don't see anything in the above that convinces me supporting this user.
'''Support'''. I am going to have a closer look at your contributions later, but I'm very happy with what I've seen so far. I have no problem with primarily huggle-based editors becoming admins, providing that the huggle work is of a generally high standard of accuracy. In your case I haven't seen any mistakes as yet, and generally you seem to handle it very effectively - and from the number of AIV reports that ended up being submitted (and subsequently blocked, allowing you to block directly would free up a lot of time for other admins. Your contributions to AfD debates have also generally seemed intelligent, logical and in many cases add new arguments or sources to the discussion rather than just jumping on a delete bandwagon. Combine that with some very good question answers and enough content work to at least demonstrate you know this is an encyclopedia -  I feel very happy to support at this time. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Everything I've looked at so far has been good.  I love the intelligent talk page correspondence, I applaud the project-focused user page, I'm glad you aren't eager to jump into deletion areas where you don't have lots of experience.  I think you'd be a good administrator.
'''Strong support'''. So he uses huggle, no big deal.
'''Support''' <small>([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCamw&diff=274962819&oldid=274960758 Moved] from oppose.)</small> Camw's answers both to my questions and their comments in the neutral section are impressive. They clearly indicate that the candidate has the most important thing —[[WP:COMMON|common sense]]—. Thus, I'm happy to support. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support'''. Per Aitias. Surely this user has clue shown by the answers. --
'''Weak support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, but does have a barnstar on the userpage.  "Weak", however, because while we both agreed in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Warriors Trial]], i.e. deletion was the right call in that case, please do not use [[WP:JNN]] per [[User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Sure, you huggle a lot, but your messages to other users on their talk page and yours show me that you're clueful and intelligent.  Such people are capable of learning administrative areas.  I see no reason not to support. <b>'''
'''Support'''. We need more admins, and automated edits show experience too.
'''Support'''. This is quite an edit rate... keep it, and you will be able to delete [[Make Love, Not Warcraft|Jimbo, crats, sysops and all the users]] and start a brave new wikipedia the way we want it. Seriously, the community gains a new admin without losing an article builder. [[Monty Python|Stop that! it's silly!]], but you've got my voice.
'''Support''' - Clueful and active. Huggle isn't a problem. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Look at my automated edits prior to gaining the mop, and after gaining the mop... support'''
'''Support''' No issue not to.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems.--
'''Support''' Huggle use doesn't scare me, and he has large amounts of clue.
'''Weak Support''' -- great editor, would benefit with the tools, as long as you try to stay away from strictly using HG.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
No issues here.
'''Support'''  has been around since Jan 2005 and vandal fighter and see no scope for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' No reason not to.--
'''Support''' - Will type out a rationale in a bit. &ndash;
'''Strong Support'''.  You've been here since [[2005]] and are near the 10000th edit milestone.  Certainly you'll do well with the tools.  &ndash;
'''Support''' per Juliancolton's last paragraph. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support'''.  Julian makes a convincing argument, and I loved the candidate's answers and replies.  I often oppose when someone hasn't had broad enough experience, but when the reason is that they were too busy improving the encyclopedia, that works for me. - Dan
'''Support''' - I'm impressed with [[User:Camw|Camw's]] answers and I see nothing to cause me to believe that the editor would disrupt the viscous flow of continuity of [[Wikipedia|The Wiki]].  Though I myself have no authority to give advice for up-and-coming admins, I would suggest perhaps a bit more participation in other areas of Wikipedia&mdash;if for no other reason than to acknowledge the existence of the inner cogs, wheels, and gremlins that make the system work.  Good luck!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' - From my experience, Camw does an excellent job with anti-vandal work, and s/he has said that vandal-patrol would be the focus of his/her admin work.
'''Support''', is clearly a user who does a good job in vandal fighting, and any user who does that and is sufficiently experienced is, for me, a very good candidate for adminship. Refer to the "Discussion" section for a further point regarding the direction this RFA is taking.
'''Support''' Fast and accurate vandal fighter. Surely this counts as positive experience.
'''Support''' I think admins with a limited focus are fine, and you've certainly put in good work.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', An editor who is intelligent, supports the goals of the encyclopedia, and is good with tools. Give them a few more. --'''''
If an user is an excellent patroller (even thought he hasn't got many experience), I think he may be a good admin --
'''Support''' Per above '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
'''Support''' Great work so far.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' The questions above seem to indicate a user with solid policy knowledge and an appropriate temperament, which are the primary things I'm looking for.  Edit counts don't concern me necessarily, though the small number of talk edits (the user talk edits are probably almost all warnings) is slightly troubling.  No other red flags though, so I support.
'''Support''' Although most of your created articles have just one sentence (your longest written "stub" is [[Campbell Mattinson]]), your "
'''Support''' reasonably competent in the areas he wants to work. About content building, I agree with Caspian blue.
'''Support''', vandalism fighting is solid, image contributions are good, and no reason to believe user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - net positive.
'''Strong support''' Huggle work is extremely good.
'''Support''' - Huggle contributions are ''good'', it shows they're willing to help out on vandalism patrol.
'''Support''' 10,000 edits with an aid is really like 5,000 edits manually, but that's still ok. Don't see any problems otherwise.
'''Support''' - This was another difficult one, but after reviewing [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria]], I have decided to support. You clearly love Huggle, I have nothing against that, and have made many many good edits with it. You have shown yourself to have the right attitude in disputes (key criteria 7), and seem to me to have sufficient knowledge of policy (key criteria 8/9), with a good record overall (key criteria 1-4). The only concern I had was your communication concerns (key criteria 5) as brought up by {{user|Coppertwig}}, and I also noticed in your user talk archives. However, your response to these concerns demonstrates important skills of an administrator, and of which not having is a common reason for people loosing the tools, these are: 1) Being willing to admit you are wrong, and 2) Learning from mistakes (key criteria 6). So overall, I think you have plenty of need for the tools and should benefit the project as an admin.
'''Support''' Opposes are imposing too high a standard.  I see no problems with handing Camw the mop.  Cleanup in aisle 4, excuse me.--
'''Support.''' With that many edits, he probably isn't here to delete the main page.
'''Support.''' On balance, what very little risk is involved here (and I think it's quite low, after - among other things - reading the candidate's reasoned responses) is more than offset by the value of having him as an admin ''now''.  I understand why some editors are opposing; while they also are not expecting perfection in a candidate, they're looking for something closer to that than I am.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
I looked at a reply Camw made regarding one of his edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobin_Whittle&diff=270368135&oldid=270354638 here]), and was impressed by his demeanor. In another edit, ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A18.138.1.34&diff=268428711&oldid=268427201 here]) I found that he also does not have a problem with admitting he is wrong or with trying to fix his mistakes.  From what I can see, Camw has a decent head on his shoulders, and despite his heavy huggle use he should do well as an administrator.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support.'''  This candidate is reasonable and conscientious, provided excellent answers to the questions, and is ready for the tools.  —
'''Support'''. You know what you're doing. By the way, good answers. <font face="Verdana">
'''Whole Hearted Support''' I see an admin's eye already, great contributions, excellent vandal fighting, basically everything that's already been said! :) '''
'''Support''' Good contributions, excellent answers to questions and good vandal fighting (yes I'm counting photos as contributions) '''
'''Support''' Great answers, good contributions, hope this puts you over the top.
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' good answers to the questions has swayed me.
'''Support''' I'm very impressed with the user's answers and level of maturity and respect in this RfA. Arguments above seem to outweigh those below, so I can't oppose. Good luck with the tools if this pulls through! ~ '''<font size="2">
Camw will be okay: just take it slow, and don't hesitate to ask more experienced users for help.
'''Support'''  has sufficient experience and tact.
''' Support''' am persuaded that candidate will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good contributions and looks like he/she can be trusted with admin tools.
'''Support''' Sufficiently qualified. '''
'''Support''' - no reason to believe that this soccer fan cannot be trusted.
'''Support''' Broader experience would be a plus. But seems to have enough of a clue.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. --''
'''Support'''. Leave out the automated edits and you still have a good contributor.
'''Support''' I see nothing lacking with his experience. He uses Huggle. So what?
'''Support''' Experienced, Good contributions and vandalism reverts. --
'''Support''' Thoughtful and serious..I think will do well...
'''Oppose''' 7500 out of 9000 of your edits are Huggle-based[http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Camw&auto=auto]  and they all are from the last two months, 1600 of them in the last three days. While Huggle users are needed to maintain the encyclopedia, they do not indicate any knowledge of administrative duties. Your contributions to Talk: and Wikipedia: namespaces are virtually nil. I suggest you work on Wikipedia actively for another 3-4 months, not only with Huggle or such, and then retry RFA (if this fails). Your current contributions just don't allow me to trust you with the tools. Regards '''
'''Weak Oppose'''. Pretty much the same thing I said at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mikaey|Mikaey's concurrent RFA]], you're on your way, but I need to see more than Huggling. Adminship requires knowledge of policy, civility, clue, and so forth, and you may have tons of each, but it is difficult to tell with your contributions as they currently stand. For example, you say in Q1 you want to work on RFPP, but you have only four edits there. Get some more experience in the project space and I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy.
'''Somewhat oppose''' I would give you merit for your edits, but your edits in Huggle are a tad much.
'''Oppose''' - Automaticity makes it nearly impossible for me to gauge your knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose'''. Too dependent on automated tools. There is no way to fully acknowledge that the candidate has a grasped our policies.
'''Oppose'''. You have virtually no experience in writing articles [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Camw&l=all], and you were hardly involved in any article talk page discussions. I cannot trust you to make decision regarding deletion or establishing consensus.
'''Oppose'''. Per SoWhy, Useight, and Xasodfuih.  Try to get some more experience in those areas noted above first.  Sorry. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose'''. Per Xasodfuih. I like to see admins with some experience in content and consensus building.
'''Regretful Oppose'''. Good answers, a level-headed and friendly editor. But, as others have said before me, you need more experience in other areas first.
'''Oppose''' as we need real people who have a good understanding of the rules and not some "Huggle bots". 1600 non-Huggle edits are simply not enough for me to come to the understanding that you know your way around the 'pedia. '''
'''Oppose'''. Limited experience (few edits before January) and little <s>or no</s> article building experience.
'''Oppose'''. Camw has done some good work in a short time. Keep up the good work, round out experience (substantive article edits / WP projects other than WP:AIV) and come back in a few months and I will support.
'''Oppose'''. Little activity until very recently. Given that the vast majority of edits have been made with automated tools, more time is needed to assess this candidate's suitability for adminship. A potentially a good future candidate.
'''Oppose''' Like most every opposer here, I feel you are too reliant on automated tools for me to feel comfortable with you as an admin.  Come back when you have more manual edits, and more mainspace contributions.
'''Oppose''' Sorry mate but you need some time to develop and edit Wikipedia so that you get a sense of the overall experience. As demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Camw/Archives/2009/February#Deleting_an_edit_without_proper_explanation_.28now_resolved.29 here], if you had more experience in developing articles you'd likely be more mindful of contributions made by others. I think with some time and more experience I'd support you.
Sorry I'm one of those editors who thinks some article work should be required for adminship unless there are special exceptions, and I don't see one here. And note creating articles such as [[Grace Gill-McGrath]] doesn't count as writing experience for me
'''Oppose'''. While I ''don't'' oppose based on edit counts, you had less than 1000 edits until two months ago. Involvement over time is one of the ways to earn the trust of the community, and I don't believe there is enough evidence to evaluate your request or adequately determine how you would react in a variety of situations. As a side note, I hope you are remembering to eat and sleep. Is a rate of editing like the 2000 edits in the five days leading up to this RfA a sustainable rate for you? Are you going to [[hit the wall]]?
'''Oppose''' Article editing experience isn't a huge deal for me given your other good qualities.  But you lack any Wikipedia: namespace edits beyond AIV and AfD, which makes it hard to judge your ability to think about and solve issues, know policy, or be sufficiently careful.  What tipped it for me was reading all of your AfD !!votes.  Nearly all of them are "per nom" or "not notable" or similar.  There is rarely extra reasoning, sources, or evidence.  While this may be a function of choosing uncontroversial AfDs, it also doesn't give any basis to judge your ability to make difficult decisions.  I'm reluctantly opposing so I'd like to ask an informal question to judge your reasoning if I may (you are under zero obligation to respond since it's time consuming).  How would ou close [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veljko_Milković_(2nd_nomination)|this AfD]] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ternit/Veljko_Milkovi%C4%87&oldid=274119092 this article] as an admin, and why?
'''Oppose'''. I like your attitude but would need to see more of it in 'action' over a wider area and over a more sustained period than a quarter of a year.--
I just don't feel that three months using Huggle or AWB cuts it for me. Of your last 1,000 contributions only one was manual that I could see. Okay, you've made some improvements to [[Sydney FC]] but I don't see much article writing. Very little talk page interaction makes me wonder as well (eg. interacting with editors to gain consensus). Having said that you seem very accurate with the automated tools, and you are clearly here for the right reasons. Reasonable level of AFD work which is where you want to focus. Photography work is always appreciated but I don't see how it links to +sysop. I can't oppose an honest dedicated Wikipedian (particularly one I granted rollback too ''':)'''), but I'm not sure I can support. Do you perhaps have any contributions showing decisions based on consensus? I couldn't really see any - and AFD is the last place for unilateral action of course. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Neutral here too. Like [[User:Pedro|Pedro]] and [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] I am unable to discern how you will choose to use the tools. I am not so troubled by the automated edits, rather, it's the lack of edits showing <s>who</s> how you would use the tools at your discretion, or apply policy. Your AfD work is a bit light for me to determine the depth of your policy knowledge, and if you had any RFPP work I missed it in my review. If you intend to work at AfD, I'd like to see you weigh in on cases that can go either way, in which your position might be challenged. Most of those I saw were straight deletes with no voices in dissent. You are accurate in your CSD tagging and vandalism reverting, which tends to help my comfort level, and I would expect to support if the other issues could be addressed.
'''Neutral'''. Generally good contributions. However Camw should work on more content creation and demonstrate good interactions with other editors.
I have no problem with Huggle-only administrators. However, I would ask for at least an ''attempt'' into looking at other parts of the encyclopedia, preferably in a GA attempt or a DYK if primarily anti-vandal based. Also, a few months just really doesn't cut it; I would like to see a bit more than that. Cam, you are a generally solid user though, from what I can tell. Please do keep up the good work; just consider branching out a bit. <font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' for now. I'd oppose based on experience, but I like his answers and it seems like he has a good temperament. Go get some more experience where you can demonstrate judgement -- either deletion discussions or working on controversial articles. I think you'll do well at these tasks and a second RfA (if needed) will pass handily. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral''' for now. Similar feeling here. Seems like a fine candidate for admin, but it would be nice to see a bit more history and more participation in AfD's, RfC's, etc. I'll be happy to support another RfA in a few months time.
'''Neutral''' Gah, I'm flitting between Neutral and Support, but in the end that indecision itself is swaying me to neutral, and I've certainly no reason to oppose. Just yesterday Camw and I were (independently) chasing vandals around football related pages, and I actually thought he already had the mop until I saw him requesting blocks at [[WP:AIV]]. Whilst a big chunk of his edits have been in 2009, I know I've seen him around way before that and never had any problem with him that I remember. The lack of contributions at places like XfD and [[WP:ANI]] and the surprisingly low number at AIV are making me hesitate. I would just like to see a bit more evidence of knowledge of stuff beyond vandalism fighting. I've no problem with Huggling, nor Twinkling for that matter, and there's enough article work there for me. For me, spend some time at AfD because I think that's a great place to really get familiar with a whole range of policies and how they practically interact with articles. --
'''Neutral''' I was originally going to oppose. Then I realized that I couldn't come up with a good enough excuse that wouldn't have lots of people badgering. I'm sure people have put forth other things. I don't really see the need for every vandal fighter to be an admin, by the way. What was the old expression? "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians"?
'''Neutral''' per Pedro and Ottava Rima.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good candidate, but there aren't enough non-hg edits to judge how they would use the tools.  For the candidate, this is easy to fix!  I agree with several other editors here that if you spend some time on noticeboards (especially the underserved ones, not AN & AN/I), policy talk pages and article work (specifically, pick something and see if you can bring it to GA or FA), you will do well.  This may seem like checking boxes or "leveling up", but it isn't.  If you are genuinely interested in learning how this place works and judging how consensus, dispute resolution and content improvement are helped or hindered by the tools, those are all valuable processes to undergo.  Even if the ''process'' itself doesn't enlighten you, you will meet new people and discover new corners of the wiki ([[Wikipedia:Database reports]] is a good place to work, or [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]], or any of the peer review systems).  You will run into conflicts, resolve them, help users, shepherd newbies, and by the time you are done, people will wonder why you aren't an admin.  So please, if this RfA doesn't succeed, take it as some constructive feedback from a community that wants and needs your help across all of the encyclopedia.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> <s>'''Weak oppose'''</s> <s>'''Neutral'''</s> <s>'''Weak oppose'''</s> '''Neutral''', with regret because when I came to this RfA because of the uncertain percentages, I hoped I would be able to support.  I appreciate the valuable contributions the candidate makes to the project, for example in the form of reversion of vandalism, and I appreciate the quick response to my request for a list of articles created.  The candidate seems to be a productive editor and I would like to encourage him/her to continue contributing.  I examined the situations surrounding three messages which the candidate deleted from his/her talk page.  All three were complaints from editors whose edits had been reverted as vandalism by the candidate. Administrators, even more than ordinary editors, need to be open to discussing complaints about their actions. In one case, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camw&diff=274656789&oldid=274656727 1A], the candidate provided [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.124.188.243&diff=274657038&oldid=274656451 1B] a helpful and communicative reply to the user, so that's fine, although I would prefer to see consistent archiving of talk page messages, and although immediate deletion of messages may also impede further communication with the user.  In another case [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camw&diff=270439811&oldid=270439794 2A], I'm concerned that communication with the user seems to have been cut off [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:160.94.28.163&diff=270439815&oldid=270439632 1B] by calling the posting of a talk page edit "vandalism". Although the user's initial edits seem to be clear vandalism, I disagree that the posting of the talk page comment was vandalism.  In a third case, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Camw&diff=270168919&oldid=270168863 3A], after deleting the user talk page comment, as far as I found the candidate didn't reply with any talk page comment but carried on a discussion via edit summary only while repeatedly reverting: not the best practice. (A revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1918_Vancouver_general_strike&diff=prev&oldid=270169063]; page history showing total of 3 reverts by Camw: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1918_Vancouver_general_strike&action=history 1C]) In the candidate's favour, the candidate did say something in an edit summary about using a talk page, and remained civil while the other user was not. The original edit in this case does not seem to me to have been vandalism.   <span style="color:Orange; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>
'''Neutral''' -- Great editor who would use the tools well, however, lack of manual editing puzzles me and how well this user would serve as an admin, since all edits are mainly made with scripts.--'''''<small>
'''Neutral Leaning to Oppose'''. After seeing you're count, I'm very.....confused I guess you could say. You have been here for four years...but you had done nothing over a quater of the time. You had a couple edits here and there and then all of a sudden you started reverting vandalism. Also, you have done over 10,000 edits in just 3 months, but the number means nothing, it's about the experience, and right now you're just the same as a person who has been here for 3 moths posting an RFA. But at the same time, you didn't have dumb answers. It looked and sounded like you actually knew what you were talking about. But 3 months of editing just isn't right to me.
I'd love to see more content contribution from you, be it a GA/DYK/FA. I believe it will greatly benefit you in having a well-rounded perspective when you receive the mop. Looking forward to supporting in future, -
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Of course. Very friendly user. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Had this pre-watchlisted after reviewing the user with the plan of asking them whether they want to run. Does good work at DYK where we can always need more people. Regards '''
'''Strong support''' as one of the co-noms. Good luck, Chamal! --'''
'''Support''' answered my questions in a suitable and careful way suggesting that Chamal N will be careful as an administrator.
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Prove]] me wrong. looks great.--
'''Strong Support''' I've had this watchlisted for a while. :) Great user, great contribs, and I'm sure Chamal will be a great admin. Good luck! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] per SoWhy. –'''
'''Support''' worthy candidate —
'''Support''' Another nice candidate.
'''Support''' Very good work at DYK, works to reach a conclusion instead of being divisive on the more troublesome noms.
As a co-nominator, per [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Support_as_.28co-.29_nominator.3F|majority opinion]]. &mdash;
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is an article creator with dozens of DYK credits as well as rollback as well as having never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''.  A review of this candidate's contributions show him to be qualified according to my [[User:Matheuler/adminship|criteria]]. --
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around at DYK and other venues and is always helpful and friendly. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Quality candidate.
'''Support'''; smart and sensible candidate with a wide range of competent contributions. I do not find the opposes over Q5 convincing; while it's technically incorrect in places, it generally shows a good attitude and sensible thought processes. It's not like the candidate expressed a wish to do a lot of work in images, so specific, precise knowledge of a fairly obscure corner of copyright law really strikes me as a minor issue. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor. I don't consider his lack of eagerness to nominate an image on the commons for deletion to be a reason to oppose his adminship here.
'''Support''' Having spent some time at the help desk - I've seen Chamal quite a bit. Very helpful. I'll request that s/he review [[wp|agf]], particularly the copyright section, which does not permit assuming that a person with a photo owns it. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Good candidate, cannot see anything that makes me think they will misuse the tools. I also endorse Mazca's view about question 5.
'''F***ing Strong Support''' &mdash; God, I've seen this one coming for a ''long'' time. Chamal is an exceptional editor and writer, he is a great help over at [[WP:HD|the help desk]], and he'll make a fantastic administrator. ''WAY'' overdue!
Absolutely. Yes. Obviously. Of course. Duh! '''
'''Support''' A friend of The Ed is a friend of mine (and before you all ask, yes I did in fact look through everything before arriving to this conclusion).
'''Strongest support''' - per the co-nom. Good luck, my friend. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Strong support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Strong support'''. I found your answer to question five to be very thorough, and I understand your reasoning.  I see no problems with giving you the admin bit.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Excellent, vetted contributions to improving DYK as well as the content, and major work at the help desk make this an easy support.  Should make fine use of the tools, and is more than trustworthy. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
Chamal N has answered my question reasonably and I am not convinced by the oppose votes. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Yep, regional allocation is considered.--
'''Support''' but I urge you to avoid image issues until you learn a lot more.
'''Support'''. We have our images admins when we need them. He hasn't expressed an interest in that area, so to put him on the spot isn't fair, IMO. He obviously isn't going to answer "I don't know" in an RfA, but we can't conclude that he won't refer image issues to another admin when necessary. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Good contributions, no problems.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Qualified. Enough said. '''\'''
'''Support''', unconvinced by opposes. Whilst I can see their point, the candidate has not as far as I can see expressed that he is going to be working alot in this area. Admins have time to learn. If we only accepted admins who would be perfect in all areas of admin work, there would be alot more opposes on every RfA. As was stated previously, the admins are a team, and they can ask each other for help, or refer things outside their area to relevant admins. --
'''Support'''.  I think it likely this candidate will have a very clear understanding of image use after this RFA, and I'm comfortable with the rest of it.—
''' Strong support''' - Solid candidate. My knowledge about the image policy is not that great, so should I resign? It is not important for an admin to know everything. Chamal N has contributed positively to the encyclopedia; he will not do anything silly with the tools. Chamal N is from Sri Lanka; as a non-native speaker of [[English-language|English]], I strongly believe that we need more qualified editors, who are non-native speakers of English, in our admin team. The only language the Americans can speak is [[American English|American]], but in our case (Chamal N and me), it is different! :-)
'''Support'''. Great editor and will make a fine admin. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. I am an admin, I know ''virtually nothing'' about image copyright, and have no plans to learn. I am not interested in it, and amazingly, I haven't broken teh wiki yet. Copyright law is a complex entity. Ironholds et al might be experts, and that's great - we need experts in this area. Expecting admin candidates to be experts, however, is completely unreasonable. Is he going to work in this area? The issue should be about ''trust'', not ''expertise''. Theoretically, I would !vote "support" for a candidate with a handful of edits if it was crystal clear that he/she could be trusted with the bit. I realize in practice this situation would probably never happen, but it illustrates that we shouldn't be expecting candidates to work in all areas of the project. User looks competent, reasonable, and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - Had the candidate expressed heavy interest in working with images, then the opposition might have a case. They don't.
'''Support''' per Wisdom and Tan. User never said he'd work ''at all'' with image copyrights. That, plus great contributions, gives a support. :) Cheers, '''''
'''Support'''. Clueful editor, seems trustworthy. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''' His answers to questions satisfy me, and I think that will be fine with the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support.''' I've reviewed the oppose reasonings, but I still think overall that Chamal is a fitting "candidate" for adminship. Good luck!
'''Support''' I can't see anything worth opposing over. Chamal would be a definite net positive as an admin.
Gotta go with the supporters here, the copyright flub doesn't seem like a stopper to me. - Dank (
'''Support''' clean block log, good mix of building and defending, plus I've had good encounters with this candidate (and I also steer clear of copyright stuff). ''
'''Support''' - Such an awesome field of experience for only one year registered. You have my support.--
'''Strong support''' for keeping cool head and strong adherence to NPOV in one of the most heated areas in Wikipedia, [[Sri Lankan civil war]]-related articles. As he going to work in WP:AIV this quality of his going to be very handy. Good article writer too. (I came here through his intriguing Harry Potter quote on his userpage, LOL). All the best with this RfA. Regards!--
'''Support''' - Switching from Neutral after reading candidate's answer to Question 6. Having had unpleasant experience with the "prison guard"-type of admin who jumps at every chance to punish someone, it is refreshing to see someone who pledges to treat editors as adults, with respect, and to choose other measures such as page protection over blocking people if at all possible.
I suppose one fault isn't enough not to support; I can probably rest assure they'll read up on that now!! <small><span style="border:2px solid #006600;">
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. The answer to question 5 isn't quite right, but not that big a deal.
'''Support''' Q5 doesn't seem nearly as bad as people are making it out to be; the candidate is explaining his thought process very clearly, and it makes sense to me. The statement that most people seem to be taking issue with, "it is very possible that he owns the copyright of the image, which means he has the right to release it into public domain if he wishes," is merely a hypothetical and is balanced out by the next sentence, "Further looking at his talk page, I see that he has a history of providing information insufficiently or incorrectly on files he has uploaded." This shows me clearly that Chamal knows that asking the user for more information is clearly necessary, a fact which many of the opposers seem to be overlooking. His thought process, which includes noticing that the image is scanned, which is relevant, adding the (correct) hypothetical that the image is allowed to be released into the public domain if the uploader holds the copyright, and doing the actual detective work himself to see if the image is a blatant copy shows me that Chamal does indeed have a good basic grasp on the policy and is willing to do the legwork where most admins would not. The other questions are answered thoughtfully and also indicate a sold knowledge of policy and reveal an encouraging trend on Chamal's part to use dispute resolution and mediation to solve problems, and I have no issues lending my voice to those asking for Chamal to be granted the admin tools.
'''Support''' - Chamal is an excellent editor.  In my experiences with him, I have found him to be level-headed and reliable.  I think he would make a good Admin.
'''Strong Support''' - No need of telling about Chamal,he is simply awesome. A very kind, helpful and one of the best! He'll 150% be a good administrator.

'''Support''' Active, friendly editor who is here to help. I'm guessing he'll be asking for advice on any policy issue he's not certain about after the [[kerfuffle]] here about image copyright. --'''''
'''Support''' Useful editor, will become (imo) a very good administrator. RFA is a tough enviroment and I don't think we need to be too hard over what is perhaps a dubious reply to one question which he has explained. Diversity is strength and this editor will be a very useful addition to the wiki in areas where we perhaps have limited coverage.
'''Support''' No problems that I can see.--
'''Support'''. DYK? Oh yes, could do with the admins. Think I've seen you there. Nothing negative to report and the rest of the supports are fairly convincing. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Chamal N. —
'''Support''', though I strongly recommend that you always ask first about something if you're not clear on the applicable policy or guideline. ···
'''Support''' Everything that I've seen at DYK indicates that Chamal is ready for the mop. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''  I've seen the editor around, and have had a positive impression from their efforts.  I'm willing to [[WP:AGF|assume]] the [[WP:BELLY|presence]]. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' - I am willing to assume that the copyright problem is a one-off issue, and if he is anything like I am, he has probably exhaustively reviewed the relevant pages as a result of the criticism he has received in this RfA. No issues besides that.
'''Support''' - Having had the opportunity to observe Chamal's behaviour for some time at DYK, my impression is that he is a calm, mature and sensible user who is unlikely to abuse the tools - and as another supporter noted above, trust is, I think, the key issue for adminship. His fudging of the question regarding image copyright is not enough to oppose someone who appears to be a suitable candidate in every other respect. Image copyright is something of a specialist area, and obviously not one he intends to do much work in.
'''Support''' as a good admin candidate in many ways. He's reasonable ([[WP:COMMON|common sense]] is something I look for in admins) and has the ability to remain calm. I was one of the editors who was worried about the image copyright question, so I initially went neutral. However, if anything, I'm sure the candidate has learned that he should do a bit of research (or just acknowledge that copyright is not his strongest area). One answer is not enough to withhold an otherwise supportive !vote, and I believe it would be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] if he received +sysop.
'''Support''' Per JamieS93 above.
'''Support''' candidate can learn more about images as he goes. Worth a shot with the mop if that is the biggest reason raised thus far.
'''Support''' Another good candidate. We have several currently good candidates! Good luck.
'''Support''', one of many great editors out there.
'''Support''', I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', Chamal is a great asset to Wikipedia and I have seen his work through our membership of WikiProject Sri Lanka where he has made many valuable contributions and articles. He is also very good with settling disputes and giving out advice on Wikipedia. He will be a valuable admin.
'''Support'''. Image uses and sussing copyrights certainly is important but really mistakes are made and can be fixed. I trust this user to move cautiously in areas of mopping where they are less than certain.
'''Support'''. He never said he was going to do images, so an image deleting concern is really no biggie.
'''Support'''.  Opposes have valid points which I expect the candidate will take to heart.  Native speakers of languages other than English, who also have excellent command of English, are very useful to have on board.
'''Support''' Okay, so he's not a lawyer practicing in the field of copyrights.  Obviously he now realizes this is something he needs to learn more about.  Until he is more comfortable with this area he obviously has enough sense to be wary of it.  So there is zero reason to oppose.  Good luck.
'''Late Support''' As above. Not likely to go so wrong with admin tools as to [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|become a liability]] with them. Last time I checked admins did not need to be copyright lawyers. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
''' Support''' Fully trust the nom by Sebestian and Rvelse who awarded him a day as a awesome Wikipedian and  fully agree  with the user and follow [[WP:1RR]] and also feel the need to be  followed strictly in edits other than vandalism in particular in areas in Sri Lanka,A-Aand other areas where there is a real content issues.Every user has a right to his/her POV and  sadly We do not find many admins coming from areas of editing conflict even good editors get involved in disputes and either have blocks ,socking complaints and or severe disputes which get can cited if they try to be an admin.
'''Support''' as I too feel it will be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]].
'''Support''' Chamal has shown a strong commitment to Wikipedia through consistent editing over an extended period of time and excellent communication skills.  The answers to must questions were both thoughtful and where applicable correct.  The Q5 incident might have led to an oppose if Chamal showed any desire to work in images, but none has been demonstrated.  As such, I think the only real problem was answering the question based on his incomplete knowledge of the rules - a mistake I trust he won't be repeating. --
'''Support''' I thought I knew the name. Per SoWhy, and a [[WP:Article Rescue Squadron]] member.
'''Support''' I "know" Chamal from DYK, where he has contributed some interesting hooks and makes sensible contributions to administrative discussions. I have confidence in him (Q5 notwithstanding), and I think that Wikipedia will benefit from having a sysop who can help build content and a community in far-flung Sri Lanka. --
'''Support''' Expect a net positive effect on the community by promoting to admin. &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Support''' per 7, seems like a good wikipedian
'''Oppose''' per the incorrect answer to question five. If he's not old enough to have taken the picture, he almost ''certainly'' doesn't own the copyright to it, regardless of familial links. The uploading of copyvios in both text and image form is a large problem on Wikipedia, and I'd rather not have an administrator who doesn't understand the rules/law relating to copyright.
'''Oppose''' - Basically as above. The answer to question five seems very clumsy and shows a lack of understanding of a very important part of Wikipedia. In my opinion, these are the things admins should know to a tee.
'''Oppose''' - I agree completely with Ironholds. Would write a rationale here but he took the words right out of my mouth. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - same reason. [[WP:C]] in practice suspends the benefit of doubt. In order to protect the project we have to work under the assumption that any contribution not explicitly demonstrated as free to use / licensed / PD or acceptable Fair Use is in fact infringing, and act accordingly to remove it from view first, clarify second. This does, in practice, go against the spirit of [[WP:AGF]] quite a bit, only limiting you to assume the uploader did not act out of malice but ignorance or misunderstanding. Grasping this distinction is quite important for an admin. I unfortunately cannot support because of that.
'''Oppose''': It's not just question 5 now (where, as I've said before), my concern was not the lack of knowledge, but attempting an answer based on that lack of knowledge.  The answer to question 10 is almost entirely wrong - screencaps and non-free publicity stills are frequently preferable to poorer quality free images, both for actors in character and for the cast of a show, so there are numerous occasions where a non-free image of a living person might be used.  I'm also concerned with the answer to question 7, as he seems to have somewhat confused [[WP:V]] and [[WP:N]].  If content has no reliable sources, it does not belong in the encyclopaedia.  If there are no reliable sources that even demonstrate that there are (say) highways in Sri Lanka, then an article on the subject should not be attempted, as it could not contain any verifiable content.  If content has no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, there are circumstances already defined in the guidelines in which an article may still be appropriate (eg high schools, where it is only necessary to demonstrate that the establishment exists as a high school).  Also, I am not completely convinced of the first component of the answer to question 8.  If the account really is in bad faith and just disruptive - why has it never had even a warning.  In most cases, I would have expected in such a situation that a warning would be appropriate first.
<del>'''Neutral''' pending consensus on question five.  If his answer is accurate (and I will leave it to others more familiar with policy to determine that) I will support; if not, I will oppose at this time. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)</del> I changed my mind and am just going to stay neutral.
I don't know the user so I'll abstain until I take a better look at the contribs but if this fails on the sole ground of the answer to Q5 then I'll have lost the little bit of faith I still had in RfA. Chamal N has expressed no interest in the delicate area of image copyright and while his answer to Q5 may be incorrect, it's not scandalously clueless. I suspect many admins would come up short but I don't see anyone suggesting we desysop them. Current opposers should read this week's Signpost and the debate around the growing insularity of the wiki community... You want perfect admins? Well you'll have nobody left. The "I won't compromise on a candidate's grasp of copyrights" is just grandstanding. There's no evidence that Chamal N doesn't care or doesn't understand the fundamentals. Ok, he's missing a grasp of finer details, that's why we have [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup]], [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] and a number of competent admins dedicated to the more subtle cases. Will denying Chamal N's adminship have any effect on the endemic problems of image copyrights? No, but you sure sound like a cool defender of the wiki if you pretend so.
'''Neutral''' Answer to Q5 isn't enough to make me oppose, but it is enough to push me away from support.
'''Neutral'''.  Good editor, great contribs, but after reading Q5, I'm afraid I'll have to vote neutral.  It's not enough for me to oppose but I can't support a candidate who wishes to work with image copyright yet is unfamiliar with the area.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Neutral''', I want to !vote support, but I can not do so with a clean conscience. His answer to Q5 worries me that he does not possess sufficient knowledge of copyright law. Because he would not be dealing with images during his administrative work, this was not enough to make me oppose. &ndash;'''
'''Neutral''' for now, pending the answer to ThaddeusB's questions and others. I'm a bit concerned with his answer to question 4, and his discomfort and professed unfamiliarity with the AfD process makes me worried that he might not understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria which I consider very important for an administrator, whether or not he plans on getting involved in AfDs. -- '''
'''Neutral''' weigh the ups and downs.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
Copyright knowledge is extremely important for admins these days.
'''Neutral''' The copyright concerns are troubling, but not enough to make me oppose. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
Per my nomination and the right thing to do. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - I wrote up a long and TLDR support a moment ago, but to be honest, all I need to say is this. Ched rocks, and on weekends (and special occasions) rules. He's considerate, kind, knowledgeable, and possesses the exact sort of attributes that I like to see in any admin candidate.<br /><small>You're not allowed to fail now&nbsp;— I stayed up for an hour to save this... and then couldn't stay up any longer! ;) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; ''**** yeah!'' –'''
'''Support'''. Great noms, solid editor, and I've had at least remote contact with him on various pages. We need more solid Ched types.
'''Support''', although the long winded answers to the questions sort of put me off :P. Ched will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Yes he should be. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns noted.
'''Support''' Ideal candidate, no reason at all not to support. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' I've had to deal with Ched's incessant prattling for...oh wait, this is a support. I meant, I've been working with Ched since shortly after he joined the site, and I find him to be one of the best, most consistent, and most competent editors I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. I have zero doubt he will make a top-notch star admin. Even if it isn't a big deal :) <small>Damnit, I wasn't fast enough to get the second support spot!</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap">—
I genuinely thought Ched was already an admin. His comments to other users show that he is extremely kind and will make an exemplary admin.
'''Support'''. I also thought Ched was already an admin.  I couldn't think of a better person for the job.
'''Support'''.  Strikes me as a top notch guy, has plenty of common sense, and is funny and pleasant to deal with.  He will make a fine admin.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' Very level headed, eager to improve himself, excellent at discussions, involvement in policy discussions. Overall solid candidate that will make an excellent admin. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Yup. \
'''Support'''. I just spent a half hour trawling Ched's edit history confirming what I already thought from interaction with him: A thoughtful adult; helpful and reasonable; windmill tilting adverse; involved; smart enough to know when he doesn't know and to instruct when he does; not a potted plant; probably won't delete the main page.--
[[wikt:Cluebat|Cluebat]]
'''Support''', a quick bit of research shows no major issues.
'''Support''', seems to have a good handle on policy and no problem asking when he's not sure.  Communicates well and gets on with all sorts of people, manages to encourage folks even when differences arise - someone ought to have forced him into mopdom earlier.
'''Support''' &mdash; in my limited time here I've seen only good things from Ched and would trust him as an admin. I can only find one criticism: [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&format=html&img_user_text=Ched+Davis no images uploaded]..!
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Support''' Ched is an awesome Wikipedian who will continue that as an admin.  Good luck! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per my badgering him to go for adminship just yesterday(?). Ched is one of the most helpful and clueful editors that became active at the beginning of this year and has proven time and time again that he will do nothing but the best for the project and never do anything before making sure he knows what he does. Regards '''
May as well.
Good work. '''
The oppose section doesn't give me any pause.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:WikiSpeak/Decoding RfA|per all those above]]. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Happy to support as a cluefull editor. I've noticed Ched in a number of discussions on Wiki, and always found his views worth paying attention to. If I ever got round to writing up one of those "if any three of the following request it I will give up the bit" lists, his name would be on it.  I might expand on this if the percentage drops below 90%  ''
'''Support''', absolutely. I can tell you're a content builder just by looking at the length of your answers! Tried to find a dark secret in your contributions, but failed. Apparently, I'm not the only one.
Well, if you've got 10,000 edits you look ready.  Good luck with the tools.  &ndash;
Dangerously clueful. Constructive contributions at the newly minted [[WP:ADMREV]]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''make it so'''
'''Support''' sensible candidate. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FChed_Davis&diff=295876483&oldid=295876203 me]. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I have seen them around and their comments have a high signal to noise ratio.
'''Support''' - I can't find anything not to like. <b>
'''Sure''' why not? '''
'''Support''' - I've seen Ched around, and have always felt that comments were in line with expectations of admins. (It was indeed a little surprising to find that he wasn't one already.) Although I'd prefer a more direct answer to Q1, the latter part of Q3 (in particular) impressed. So yes, lots of positives and few discernible negatives. -
'''Support'''.  After careful consideration of the oppos... - Dank (
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Great answers to questions and from reading his past comments, Ched seems to understand the encyclopedia very well. '''
'''Support'''. No problems here. Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Ched is a top notch candidate, Neuro hit the nail right on the head with his description.--
'''Support'''. Not sure we've crossed paths (although my signature did resemble yours [[April Fools' Day|a few months back]]) but your edits and responses look great. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Especially liked the answers to questions 6 and 11.
'''Support.''' I don't see any evidence Ched would abuse the tools. '''
'''Support.''' I've interacted with Ched, and found him to be very polite, calm, and sensible, and to be committed to the good of the project. Best wishes. --
'''Support'''No question. --
'''Support''' You've always seemed thoughtful and well-spoken when I've encountered you, and I trust that you won't start doing a whole lot of admin backlog work until you've gotten some experience (for example, with CSD), as you suggested in your answers above. Some people below mentioned no need for the tools, but personally I believe there's no harm in giving the mop to every editor who has a brain in their head and won't abuse the tools...especially in easy stuff like blocking vandals, even if you don't plan on spending your life clearing up admin backlogs, if you run across a vandal while doing your regular edit work and you have the tools to block him, that's one less thing for other admins to have to deal with. <b class="Unicode">
Some resarvations, but overall, this user seems like they have a [[WP:CLUE|clue]], which is my standard for support. As far as CSD goes, I encourage you to talk to [[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|Spartacus]] or [[User talk:SoWhy|SoWhy]] or any other adminstrator who is highly active in teaching proper CSD, as there is a lot of things that one really needs to learn properly before starting. In addition, perhaps you could just tag articles instead of deleting them straight off for your first several hundred new pages? However, I wish to support because that the user seems to be know what he is doing, that I have always found him helpful to new editors, and that his [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Ched+Davis earliest contributions] show that he is willing to take the time to learn things properly before diving into things. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' No issues that I see. Good Luck!!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Strong support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has never been blocked, is a DYK contributor, makes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(2nd_nomination)&diff=279330601&oldid=279329182 exceptionally thoughtful comments in AfDs], and has made other nice and intelligent comments that earned him a place on [[User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts]].  Good luck!  Sincerely, --
'''Strong support''' - Ched is one of the few users left that uses [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] and has an abundance of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. After many positive interactions, I am confident Ched will put the tools to good use.
'''Reluctant support''' I'm tempted to oppose as there's a distinct lack of excitement and drama for this RfA so far. I would like to see Ched forged into an admin through a real trial by fire. There's still time so hope remains...
'''Support''' - Good understanding of policy. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
No reason why not to. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Clueful editor, does good work, has a pretty good handle on policies and procedures. It's a green light from me.
'''Support''' Good luck! <strong>
'''Support''' Of course; fantastic candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Good candidate.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' No doubts here. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
I'm
'''Strong Support''' as I find none of the oppose arguments to hold any water (especially not the accusation of "being too social", whatever that's supposed to mean). I see a lot which makes me think that Ched will use the tools wisely and do a lot more to improve the encyclopedia overall. ···
Why the hell not? <strong>
Definitely. Would support this candidate any day, and while I note the opposers have reasons, I don't agree with them at all, and personally find their reasons to oppose to be weak and without merit. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
Ched's a great user, who very evidently puts a lot of thought into his actions here. His cluefulness, courtesy and contributions make me confident he'll make a great admin. And the number of "c" words in the previous sentence was completely unintended. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Level-headed editor, who's always willing to learn. Can be trusted. --
'''Support''' Definitely! '''''
'''Support''', good answer to Q10.
'''Support''' Certainly a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] to the project. '''<font face="times new roman">
I've had good interactions with this user and trust him. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' I have full confidence in this user. --
'''Weak support''', don't see anything that would give me a bad feeling, though some of the opposers and being forced to play 20Q worry me.
'''Support''' For awhile I thought this user ''was'' an admin.  Glad to see they're finally earning the flag.  Also: Not enough admins currently(just kidding folks).— '''
'''Support''' - I see no reason that this user shouldn't be an admin, to be honest, I think he was already. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' User has been around since Nov 2008 and see no misuse of tools and rollback has been used well.Through I agree with some of the concerns in both oppose and neutral sections feel the project will only gain with the user having tools and user will show discretion while using the tools.
'''Weak Support''' I was going to write just "strong support, meets all my standards," but some of the issues raised below (opposes) give me pause.  Best of luck.
'''Support''' Good luck
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate to me.
'''Support''' Polite and cautious user who doesn't hesitate to seek input from others in case of doubt.
'''Support''' better than even chance of being a net positive. If not, there are channels as always these days - good luck Ched :)
'''Support''' OMG! Another Petro look like :P ''Petro'', Do you ask your nominees to adopt your signature for an RFA nom ? Just kidding.. I dont see something that concerns to trouble the project in future,altough I wish the user has been around for longer time !  --
Haven't seen anything bad from Ched Davis. Whenever I've seen his name he's come across as sensible and having good judgment. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Acalamari|<b>Acalamari</b>]] :
I'm not sure there's another regular participant at RFA whose opposition gives me greater pause in supporting a candidate than iridescent's does, but in this case I don't find her reasons compelling.  I've seen a Ched around and been impressed, and an examination of his record leads me to support.
'''Support''' Ched is a good guy.  I'm sorry I didn't support this sooner.  Please be careful when diving in Ched and remember, ''people want to help you!''.  So if you mess up, there is a whole community of folks willing to dig you out if you but ask for it.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seems he'll do well with the tools.
'''Support''' a competent editor, with good evidence of involvement in admin-related areas. I like his answers to the questions, including the <strike>silly</strike> less relevant ones. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. I don't see why not. — '''''
'''Support'''. — Per answers to questions 4a,b,c, 8, 9, 12, and 22, and general approach I've seen so far. ++
'''rotpupS'''I saw the sig and thought you were an admin already, or possibly more than one. Seriously, I cannot imagine Ched abusing the tools. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' I don't find reason to beleive this user will abuse the tools.--
'''Extremely strong support''' for a sensible, kind, intelligent, dedicated editor. '''
Pile on '''Support'''. Good user —
'''Support''' outstanding editor.
'''Support''', although I can't understand all the fuss about sigs... <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''[[WP:100|WP:99 (was WP:100) but someone voted twice on accident]] Support!''' - Excellent candidate. – ('''
'''Support''' :) <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Strong Support''' I have interacted with this editor, and am impressed by their aptitude and breadth of comprehension in how this site works. In some ways a thinker who is unafraid to explore options and, where necessary, speak candidly and without favour. In other ways a hard worker who gets stuff done, and someone who generally interacts well with whomever they are communicating with. This is not to say this candidate is perfect, but they have a better understanding of how to work within their limits (and what they might be) than others who are perhaps more enthusiastic in their approach to situations.
Last-minute support; seeing Ched around has definitely left a good taste in my mouth. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
'''Support''' No reason to believe he'd misuse the bit. <font color="green">
"''I'm not going to take part in any "Civility Police crusade", but I'll also expect others to adhere by our core civility guidelines as long as they are in place.''" That a broken policy is in place should be an encouragement to change it, not an excuse to enforce it. --
His edit account is over 10,455 which includes "his rollback usage" during the past 8 months. The candidate seems civil and kind, however, I have an impression that he seems to think Wikipedia is a social gathering with a light heart. I want serious and dedicated admins, so sorry. I have nothing personal.--
My sole interaction (as far as I can recall) with the candidate was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&diff=290565315&oldid=290558705#explanation this] mix of tl;dr rambling, borderline personal attacks and patronising guff. Since it was less than a month ago, it's certainly recent enough for me not to give any benefit of the doubt here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' based on my [[User:Coldmachine/RfA Expectations|expectations]] of candidates which includes, as a minimum, ~1 year of active participation for true 'Wikiwideview' to be obtained (candidate registered November 2008); article edit count seems high on first glance but [http://stable.toolserver.org/editcount/contributions;jsessionid=8b9709282fbf305655c4a70ffc7a?username=Ched+Davis&projectname=enwiki&namespace=0 this] suggests it's probably mostly made up of automated edits? <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Oppose'''. It was a sure support vote until I checked your user page. First there are complaints of "delete police" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ched_Davis&direction=next&oldid=271929026] then some emotional vent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ched_Davis&direction=next&oldid=272032581] then a menacing "Editing at Wikipedia is a privilege ... not a right." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ched_Davis&direction=next&oldid=275978291] which is still there. All in the course of a month or two (January-March, "yesterday" in wiki-time). Sorry, you're not up to deciding who has the "privilege" and who doesn't.
Per the above concerns, especially Iridescent.
'''Oppose'''. As per [[User:NVO|NVO]] and less than a year contributions, and [[User:Caspian blue]] comments. Lately Ched seems to have been on some kind of ''friendly'' campaign(
Q1 demonstrates no real need for the tools and no particular desire to use them, which leads me to assume this is one of those golden biscuit approval seeking thingies. I don't expect Ched will do anything to bring the walls in but I've come to believe adminship shouldn't be granted under these circumstances, those not ready to behave in an adminly manner shouldn't request the flag. (I'm aware of the essay, before anyone points it at me.)
'''Oppose'''—mentioning "[[WP:CABAL|delete police]]" is never going to help things run along smoothly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIridescent&diff=290565315&oldid=290558705#explanation This] isn't impressive, particularly given how recently it was generated. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Oppose''' The candidate hasn't the breadth and depth of experience to confidently and reliably discharge admin duties. He appears aware of some of these limitations but the relatively short length of involvement does preclude knowledge by experience and he hasn't demonstrated a compensatory level of judgment in the answers to the questions. Simply put, he doesn't appear ready: the application is premature, the motivation unclear and the confidence uncertain. He won't break the wiki but I'm concerned he's still at the tentative involvement stage, and any decision-making will need hand-holding and risks echoing the assistance. The potential certainly is there, however.
'''Neutral'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Limited contributions to AfD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSam_Blacketer_controversy&diff=295353707&oldid=295352633 This comment] misquotes [[WP:BLP1E]]. Well-reasoned comments are made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRobert_I._Sherman&diff=292841258&oldid=292839659 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNatalya_Rudakova_(3rd_nomination)&diff=294922214&oldid=294834115 here]. I don't see evidence of warning vandals or referral to AIV. Otherwise, generally good collaboration with other editors.
'''Neutral''': Good editor, but doubtful about actually performing administrator tasks.. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Neutral''' Insufficient experience in AIV and AfD (as claimed in the nomination statement). Not enough to oppose though. '''
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Support as co-nom''' --
'''Support''' Absolutely. Editor's varied contributions to the project indicate a deep understanding of Wikipedia's process and goals. The candidate demonstrates essential admin qualities. (on a side note: should this be untranscluded until the ?s are answered?)
'''Complete support''' As a fellow Milhist coord I have seen an awful lot of Cam and what I have seen indicates that he will do just fine with a few extra tools. He is diligent, hard-working, communicative and very willing to help where needed. I completely support Cam for the tools. Regards,
'''Strong support''' as this user is one of the best admin candidates I have ever seen. His attitude and contributions are perfect. Perfect I tells ya! Good luck :-) '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support'''. I do not see much experience in administrative tasks, but you appear intelligent and your Milhist work has been good. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I've seen Cam around; he's a good user, who'll make a good admin. Best, <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Darn, I should have supported ''while'' I was unarchiving it. I checked Cam out while this was stalled ; looks like no problems :) <font color="navy">
'''Support''' due to awards listed on user page, as the candidate has never been blocked, and due to no memorable negative interactions.  I also think it's nice that the candidate lists other admired editors on the candidate's userpage.  It is nice to see editors appreciate and honor each other.  This list like the awards demonstrate effectiveness in working with others, which is a helpful quality in admininistrators.  Best, --
'''Support''', although I would suggest using edit summaries more often. &ndash;
'''Support''' - as a fellow MILHIST coordinator, I have only seen positive things that indicate to me that Cam will make an excellent admin. -'''
'''Would have offered a co-nom if I had known this was going to go up so fast support.''' Here's to the first milhist editor to make admin in '09!
'''Support''', per nom. ;-)
'''Support''' Great user and fellow miliary history buff. Will make a great admin.--
'''Support'''.  Appears highly proficient with everything that matters. --
'''Support''' Very excellent. '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Great user! <font face="cursive">'''
No reason not to. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' Looks like a good wikignomer with extensive knowledge in a few areas.  Full speed ahead! <b>'''
'''Strong support''' with a number of reasons. Cam is a content beast (see the upper-right corner of his userpage for details), has VERY impressive noms (both of whom are arbitrators), and is diligent, responsible, careful; complete net positive. --<font face="verdana">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] ([[User:Dylan620/C|<font color="blue">Contribs</font>]] ·
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.  With respect to Sceptre's Oppose below, I see it as a good thing that this user has stayed out of the AN/I soap opera so long, and has avoided getting themselves into any controversy.
'''Support''' - great editor who always appears cool, calm and collected; prefect qualities when dealing with some of the peskier admin problems. Cheers,
'''Support''' All though I've never heard of the nominee, I have heard of his nominators and they are top notch editors so for them to be nominating someone it must be a top notch editor too so yes.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support'''.  Hell yes. - Dan
'''Support'''; excellent work and satisfactory answers. Thanks to Sceptre for giving me an additional reason.
'''Double Edit-conflict Support'''. Best candidate I've seen in a while. Everything checks out. <font color="777777">
'''Very strong support''' experienced in a variety of areas, co-nomination from two editors whose judgement I highly trust (good arbcom members, what more is there to add?), has experience resolving disputes, appears to be highly civil, and the answers to the questions indicate a strong synthesis of policy knowledge and common sense that Wikipedia is seriously lacking. We need more editors like Climie.ca.
'''Support''' - of course. Has clue, good contributor, absolutely nothing wrong with specialisation--indeed, much to celebrate about it. Donnez le mop. //&nbsp;
Hello, I'm here for my Botox injections...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: '''Support''' for a trusted editor who won't be sticking any unwanted needles into the project.
'''Support'''  excellent work for milhist
'''Support''' - Cam should of been an admin a long time ago.
'''Support''' Thought he was one already?--
The role in Milhist, high-quality article contributions, maturity and avoidance of drama make this an easy call, despite the lack of policy knowledge demonstrated in A.4; in other words, support as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3|worthy of trust]]. <font color="404040">
—

'''Support''' And shame on me for forgetting to support until after my question was answered (making it seem as though support was being held in abeyance).  I haven't seen climie around too much, but where I have (some interactions with MILHIST), the 'feel' has been overwhelmingly positive.  Also kudos to unpacking "processes" from my inarticulate shoehorning of FAC/FLC/FPC into "process" :)
'''
Sure, no issues here. :)
'''Support''' - article contributions are excellent, and Milhist has good experience in dispute resolution via Milhist co-ordinator role. Calm, civil, hardworking and a good writer - sounds pretty good to me.
'''Support''' - without question. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Cam's an excellent editor and coordinator and I have no doubt that he'll use the admin tools responsibly (I actually thought that he was already an admin!).
'''Support'''.  Surprised he is not an admin already.  Excellent responses to questions to boot. --
'''Support''' - abuse/negligent use unlikely. Positive use likely.
'''Support''' Everything looks good, see nothing that suggests will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Cam has been friendly, encouraging and extremely helpful to me since I started wikiedpai eight months ago, always being there to give me an encouraging word or helping hand. He'd make an excellent admin.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. →
I'm
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' will be fine. Clearly dedicated and clueful. Cheers,
'''Support''' I had never heard of this user until a minute ago, so I can be pretty sure he hasn't been involved in any drama. Good contributors spend their time writing quality articles, not making a name for themselves in the project space.
'''Weak support''' - The moment someone mentioned Bedford I was wary, but whilst I don't know the candidate I can happily say that I have not seen anything to suggest that they will abuse the tools. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Great editor and has done good work in Military and War related articles.Has been around since March 2007.Trust the judgement of Roger Davies.After checking track carefully see no scope for misuse of tools and with tools will only contribute to the project.
'''Support''' Most definitely! <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
Support. Nothing of major concern here.
'''Weak Support''' I've never heard of the user up until I saw it on the RfA status on my userpage. He looks like a good user but after reading thru Oppose #2, I think I'm going to stay at a weak support. He looks great to me... '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support'''. Not a lot of mainspace content edits, but they are of good quality. Cam appears to have a reasonable understanding of policy/guidelines.
'''Strong Support'''-Excellent user, helpful. Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' Good user. I have no doubt as to this user's ability!
'''Support'''. Worked a lot together with this user and i'm sure he will make good use of the admin tools. --
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Absolute yes'''.
Positive contributor. Friendly. Good content contributor, plus personal interactions are very nice. All NPs IMO, good luck. [[WP:QUAKE|₪]]<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support'''. [[User:Reliableforever|<font color="blue">Reliable</font>]]
'''Support'''--I'm impressed by his answers to my questions. I have no doubt user will be calm under stress when using the administrative tools.--
'''Pile on support''' Candidate seems well-adjusted and well-prepared for the role.
'''Support''' - No reason to expect this user will change radically from his daily positive influence in project spaces and pagespaces.
'''Support'''. —<sub>
'''Strong Support''' - per my viewing of him in [[WP:MILHIST]] and [[Talk:World War II]]. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Strong support''', excellent writer, harder worker, doesn't do "jobs for the boys", not corrupt, always punctual and polite. Intelligent, not a loose cannon and level headed. '''
'''Support''' per all of the above. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''support''' user has earned a reputation of having sound judgment, engaging others in a civil fashion, and will undoubtedly exercise the mop-tools judiciously. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤ [[User:Jerry/Count|kangaroo]]</small> 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC) <s> Converting to neutral based on concerns of opposers and answer to Q6. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤
'''Support''' per much of the above. Cam has always been a helpful, polite team worker who's not afraid to roll up his sleeves and get the work done.
'''Absolute support''', and a kick for Roger (who I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoger_Davies&diff=250301749&oldid=250222553 specifically asked] to let me know when this RfA was due because I wanted to provide a co-nom <small>...not that I don't think a co-nom from Kirill is better :P</small>). Anyway, I'm really glad I stumbled across this; through being involved with Cam's flagship article, the [[Battle of Verrières Ridge]], from inception through GA to FA, I've watched Cam mature from an enthusiastic newbie to a competent, experienced and extremely clueful editor, and have complete confidence in his ability to exercise sound judgement as an administrator.
'''Support''' - seems like a win-win situation to promote this candidate.  <b>
'''Support''' ran into this by accident after coming across Climie at DYK. Great contributions, great attitude, no problems - give him the mop.
'''Support''' good answers to the questions, good rationales from fellow supporters, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' &ndash; Fine editor who would make a fine administrator. Nominators show good points about this user's work around the encyclopedia and how s/he will do as an admin. The opposes don't concern me at all. &mdash;
'''Support''' :) --
'''Support''' He's trusted not to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - Contribs show careful diligence in coordination of a project. I have no problem with supporting admins with a particular area of editing interest, although I would encourage this candidate to slowly develop their capabilities. Although I understand the oppose rationales, I do not find them compelling enough to agree with to such a degree. This is a wiki - we are all prone to making mistakes occasionally, but are luckily able to revert them quickly. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Support'''.  Adminship is overrated.  You don't suck, you seem to want the extra buttons.  Anything else is invented self-important jibberish.  Support.
'''Support'''.  I've come across the user many times. Definitely an asset to the project. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Anybody who has been anywhere near MILHIST would have noticed this editor. Well experienced and perfectly qualified to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Weak support''' - technically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but I'm a bit concerned about lack of admin function experience.
'''Support''' - nothing more to say. (
'''Support'''. I would have preferred a bit more experience in admin areas, but am impressed with his mainspace contributions and thoughtful involvement at MilHist. Climie is a net positive and possesses both the necessary aptitude and intelligence needed to be a good admin.
'''Conditional Support''' I think the candidate would be a good admin since I can't see anything that can cause mistrust. However, I don't beleive that adminship is a "good citizen" award. I beleive that the candidate should be guided first, an obstacle which they should graduate with flying colors. This support should only be treated as such if the candidate is willing to be an apprentice to one of more experienced and wiser<sup>[[citation needed]] :)</sup> admins [[WP:Admin coaching|here]]. --
'''Support''': Seems like a trustworthy user but I hope he continues to concentrate on mainspace.--
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN]]
'''Support'''. I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' - I like the diversity of the the editor's contributions and I think Climie is knowledgeable in [[WP:MILHIST]].  I think this user would be a useful administrator to WP.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' - good all round candidate.
'''Support''' Trustworthy established editor. Very unlikely to cause harm to the project with admin tools. --
'''Support''' Good choice. '''
'''Support''' - I've analyzed his edits; there is nothing to worry about.
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, per excellent quality contributions to the project. '''
'''Support''' sure. ''
'''Support''' - Very good choice for adminship.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate, capable...
'''Support'''
'''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry. He looks like a great user, but he has very little experience in admin-related areas. There's too high a risk of him accidentally misusing the tools.
'''Oppose''' Seems too gullible.--
'''Oppose''' 6000 edits over the course of a year is usually enough to know what kind of editor someone is, but I don't think there is enough information in this case.  There is almost no history of any admin related tasks and I have no knowledge of how he would deal with them.  Also I could find no example of his remaining calm under pressure.  Avoiding conflict is not a bad thing - but it doesn't give me any information to know how he would act as an admin.  Combined with his young age and limited field of interest - which in itself would not be enough for me to oppose - I do not have confidence that adminship would be used responsibly by this user.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I've re-evaluated my support and must now oppose; based upon a deeper review of your contributions (I discovered you have next to nothing in respect to deleted contributions) and the fact you have practically zero editing outside MILHIST topics. Whilst admin duties can be familiarised with fairly easy, I would like to see some evidence of understanding before hand.
Geo guy has convinced me.
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wikipedia experience. Good editor to one Wikiproject but I need proof and experience in other areas. ''
'''Oppose''' Agree with Geometry Guy.
'''Neutral''' Oh me oh my. I don't think I've ever said Neutral before (maybe I have), because I tend to think thought doing so is pointless. With that in mind: I had looked at this nom a day or two ago, and was quite content with my firm decision to Pretend I Hadn't Seen It. You see, there's a quandary: If not for the nominators, this would very likely be an Oppose in my book. But the noms of Kirill and Roger carry a huge amount of weight&mdash; perhaps the most weight possible among potential nominators. What to do? As I said, I was gonna say nothing, 'til G-guy boldly went where no Ling had gone before and Opposed. So, I share G-guy's concerns, but cannot +O due to the weight of the noms. That's all. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Doesn't really change things, but Cam suggested indef blocking an IP address with a single edit, a personal attack.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGimmetrow&diff=263473895&oldid=263413585]  Long term I might see, but I'm not entirely comfortable with someone suggesting indef blocks of IP addresses so easily. I hope Cam takes is slow at AIV.
'''Support''' As nom. '''
'''Support''' As more sexy nom.
'''Support''' Yes, totally. More gnomeish admins must be good. --
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' absolutely - longterm good user with a clean block log and a sense of humour. ''
'''Support''', he's a great user and I've often seen him around displaying it :). Good choice -
Absolutely.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' I've seen him active in image areas and he seems fine.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC) - (addendum) The mocking move summary of a Blp article is inappropriate but I hope it is an isolated incident and not happen again.--
'''Support''' Certainly. —
'''Support''' Duh. '''
'''Support''' I trust this user to act responsibly. &lowast;
'''Support''' per MBisanz.

'''Support''' Per nom/above.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. Yes, I'm surprised he didn't try this before. --
'''Strong support''' - I, unfortunately (heh), know this user from elsewhere, and know that he is funny, well intentioned, and is a great person to be able to work alongside. Definitely. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - no issues.
'''Strong support'''
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' per MBisanz. - Dan
'''Support'''. Strikes me as a mature and reasonable person. I want someone with a sense of humour to have the tools, not some tightarsed twerp. I'm fine with administrators having a sense of humour; I wasn't aware there was an exchange policy "give up your sense of humour today and win a shiny new banhammer!". Not to go stereotypical or anything, but lol I thought he wuz one already. I'm done, now where's my coffee.
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Looks fine to me. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' avoids drama. Would use tools well without abuse. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - obviously. Has clue, will use it, zero chance of tool abuse. //
'''Support''' Good clueful editor, I believe he will use the tools well.
'''Strong support''' Reasonable person with whom I have had nothing but positive interactions.  I do hope that being an admin won't change the pleasant person that I occasionally see on IRC. —
'''Strong support''' - strong candidate, and not a newbie biter either, helping out newbies on IRC when they need help. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' - Told him to run a few months ago, has gone out of his way to help me several times. —
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Support'''. No problems - as I said in the oppose section, I don't like that userbox very much but it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Overall your edits are excellent and you seem to have a good clue of what you're doing and how admin tools will help you. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong support''' - clueful editor.
'''Support''' - A clueful CSD tagger, a very seldom kind of candidate here (just two mistaggings in the last month, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bluestar%27s_Prophecy&diff=prev&oldid=274080703] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modepalast&diff=prev&oldid=277199674]). We need more admins at CSD and I feel Closedmouth will make a fine addition to the "team". Regards '''
'''Support''' Although he should [[User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion/Previous discussions#Closedmouth|open his mouth]].--
'''Support''' Per nom. <!-- which one, which one... :-) -->
'''Support''' seen him/her around a bunch and seems fine.
'''Support''' got a good sense of policy and nothing leads me to believe that you'll abuse the tools.  What happened in the past was an unfortunate, but honest, mistake. '''
'''Support''' don't like the userboxes, but have never seen a bad edit which is far more important.
'''Support''' - Grasps the BLP problem and is willing to work to fix it.
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' per King of the North East. '''''
'''Support''' per MBisanz and a look through the candidate's contributions.  --
'''Support''' - Has done good work, and shown a need for the tools. I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe me may misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support''' What!? not an admin O[]O didn't know that. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' primarily per [[WP:AGF]], i.e. no memorable negative interactions, no blocks, etc.  I can honestly see where the user below is coming from to some extent with regards to the userboxes, but again, I'm willing to assume good faith here.  Best, --
'''Support''' No reason to believe that this editor would abuse the tools. None of the opposes are in any way persuasive. --
'''Support'''. Indeed. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks great!
'''Support''' I thought I did this already. Oh well, good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' - per nom. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Weak support'''. Despite his long history here, I can't find any evidence of how he would react if he were in a serious disagreement with a highly annoying editor. I hope he wouldn't misuse the tools. But on the other hand, he's stayed the hell out of conflicts so far, despite his userboxes, and seems likely to make a good dent on the backlogs. &ndash;
'''Support'''  —
'''Strong Support''': Excellent recent changes and new page patroller. Knows what he's doing, and should have got the tools long ago.
Damn right I support.
'''Support''' Nothing convincing in oppose section, good contributions; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. No real problems, but I would watch the edit summaries and block reasons you use as an administrator. The one brought up in the oppose section is not too bad, but as an admin your behavior will reflect on the entire encyclopedia.  Other than that, there are no other problems I can see. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
''''Support''' - yes, the curved quotation marks are problematic, but we shouldn't use descriptives like that. However, I am sure that wont ever be a problem in the future, right?
'''Support''' I'd like a somewhat wider knowledge of various admin functions, but I think he's close enough. '''
'''Support''' Looks good. :O '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''': Closedmouth has demonstrated that they are hardworking, have huge dedication to the project and that above all have a good sense of judgment, all qualities needed in an admin
'''Strong support''' - far surpasses [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' Congratulations on your work so far - I'm sure you'll work well with the mop.
'''Support'''. Net positive to the project. — '''''
Yeah, why not :) <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support:'''  I like his approach to editing, and his sense of humour.  I don't see a problem with the userboxes, though I can understand that one of them is borderline.  Overall, though, I think the clue and intelligence and disregard for the drama boards speak well for his ability to be a fine admin.
'''Support''', per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to multiple areas of the project. '''
'''Support''' per the other nominations as well his answers to the displayed questions.
'''Support''' I don't care for the picture his choice of userboxes has painted, but the contributions indicate a strong net positive. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' User has been around since Sept 2005 and track is outstanding.
'''Support''' Looks like a good guy to me.
'''Support''' Nearly 100,000 edits, how can anyone possibly say no? '''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
Closedmouth is a fantastic user who will do well with a few extra tools. '''
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' - yes, absolutely
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions.
'''Support''' No concerns for me. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Support''' No worries after taking a few quick looks at random contributions. I find the opposes to be really shaky. That edit summary wasn't the kindest thing ever, but it'd take somebody with excessively thin skin to be seriously offended by it. <strong>
'''Support''' Good answers, good edit work, level head. Good admin candidate.
Much clue, and I admire the BLP work. Keep it up and good luck, <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Good answers to questions (particularly q. 3 :-)) and can't see why not. --
'''Support''' Hardworking editor that has shown calm, mature, and intelligent contributions to the encyclopedia.  Admin hat would allow for an increase in productivity.  Noted his concise, yet kind mannerism in correcting new editors. <small>
'''Support''' - seems to do good work. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' - looks good to me. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Per above.'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
Good candidate, no reason to oppose. (Just at the last moment though). <strong>
This is only a weak oppose, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akhlaq_Mohammed_Khan_%E2%80%98Shahryar%E2%80%99&diff=prev&oldid=279963306 this] move summary disturbs me. It's innapropriate. I also don't see many edits at all outside of vandal fighitng.--
'''Oppose''' Candidate's selected userboxes paint a far different picture of him than what the nominators claim: that of a pompous, unprofessional and disrespectful user.  No thanks.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
Some say their are too many administrators and some say their are not enough administrators.  Also I seem to find contradictory stuff from both sides.
'''Strong Support''' - Prodego's nomination put it quite well. Cobi has been here a while, and he is trusted with far more than just adminship at the moment (Abuse Filter Editor, ClueNet hosting). Cobi has a clue <small>No pun intended, really</small>, and is as suited for the role as anyone that I have seen come through RfA. Good luck! <font color="navy">'''
'''Strongest Possible Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Cobi will make a terrific addition the the admin team. No reservations whatsoever. →<font style="color:black">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; a bit inactive for my liking, but extremely knowledgeable. –'''
Had no clue you weren't. Can we just SNOW close this as successful? →&nbsp;
'''Support''' As nominator.
'''Support''' without hesitation. Despite three past unsuccessful RfAs, you have truly shown that you will make a fine admin. Good luck!
'''Strong Support'''.  Cobi has earned a great deal of trust, and has imparted clue over a million times already.  &nbsp; — [[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]] (
'''support'''. Nice guy, definitely admin material due to his non-articlespace work.
'''Support''' Just like I supported the last time, I have no reason to oppose him.--
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support'''
Of course. I would have nominated Cobi myself, had I not been on vacation yesterday. From what I see, Cobi is not our average user. He is not an avid article writer, but that should be overlooked for this RfA. He is incredibly well versed in technical skills, and this allows him to understand more esoteric parts of the admin toolset, such as open proxies and the abuse filter. He will definitely benefit from receiving the tools. <small>(

User has been around long enough that we know they won't be messing around with mainspace so the lack of content building isnt an issue for anotherwise great user.
'''Support''' Cobi obviously knows a lot about vandal fighting, and BAG. Writing Cluebot must be time-consuming, so I have no problem supporting.--
'''Support''' Easily ready for the mop and bucket, but I ''would'' like to see a bit of "nitty-gritty" article creation/maintenance.  But that's far outweighed by excellent vandal fighting.
'''Strong Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>

Like always.  Didn't we promote a sysop from another wiki with under 75 edits for a specific function?  I trust Cobi.
'''Support''' Proven trusted user, and he knows his way around... I think he will do a great job with the mop and bucket... -
'''Support''' Heck, if Cluebot wanted admin status, I'd support that too. Supporting Cluebot's creator is a no-brainer. <strong>
'''Support''' The brain behind ClueBot obviously deserves the mop. I don't find his alleged "sparse activity" on Wikipedia to be any cause for concern--the point is that we can trust him to use his admin powers wisely.
'''Strong Support''' Will be a very strong addition to the admin team ,great track and find the project will only gain with Cobi having tools.
'''support'''.
'''Support''' Obviously has the clue level to be an awesome vandal fighting admin.
'''support''' I support giving adminship to any user who I believe will be a benefit with them, regardless of edit count, article experience etc.
'''Support''' Clean blocklog, highly clueful longterm user. ''
'''Support''' I've nominated him previously, and I remain a strong supporter of him.  Being an admin isn't a reward for running a bot or for writing articles or for whatever.  It's simply a way to make it easier to maintain and improve the encyclopedia.  This is what Cobi does, as well as or better than many of us.  We should have way, way more administrators than we do, but that's a discussion for elsewhere, I guess.  :)
'''Support'''.  Adminship is not a reward for prolific content contributors.  It's an extra toolset for people who would have a use for them and can be trusted with them.  The opposes so far are for reasons unrelated to this candidate's suitability for the role.—
'''Support'''. Cobi has the necessary experience to help out. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' because I see an editor who comes here with a very good track record and has proven himself trustworthy. Serial FA creators are awesome, but bot-programmers are of just as much value to Wikipedia, in my opinion.
'''Support''', a trustworthy admin asset. --
'''Support'''; hard working editor that can really use the tools to great effect.  Cobi has been working on infrastructure since he's been around, and giving him the maintenance tools is consistent with this.  &mdash;&nbsp;
&mdash;
'''Support''' I opposed last time, but I was really nit-picking, and in all honesty probably shouldn't have. The guy has done more to improve Wikipedia than just about any other single editor. He can be trusted with a few extra buttons.
'''
{{ec}} '''Support''' His work on Wikipedia may be specialist but RFA is not a competition to elect the candidates who are perfect in every way. His bot work and coding skills have saved the editors of this project thousands of hours they would have had to spend cleaning up after vandals and I see nothing bad happening if he gets the tools. His answer to question #5 does not mean he claims to be an article writer, it means that he has shown to know how to do it which just serves to assure me that he understands the effort that goes into writing articles (which is essential for anyone who has the technical power to delete such pages). In short, Cobi is clueful, technically skilled and knows his way around the project without any reason to assume that he will misuse the tools (I had pre-watchlisted this RFA in fact). Regards '''
'''Strong Support''', granting the tools will benefit him, and in turn benefit the project. --
'''Support'''
Edit conflict '''Support''' --
Another {{ec}} '''Support''' Highly trustworthy,
'''Support''' - why ever not? Adminship is just another job, a set of tools, that Cobi can clearly make good use of. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Cobi is trustworthy and has made a significant contribution to the project. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
I like the way SoWhy put it.  Cobi has been friendly and responsive to my bug reports.  If we can't trust Cobi, we're already screwed, so he might as well be an admin. - Dank (
I supported last time. I support this time.
'''Support'''. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Sounds like a case of WTHN.
'''Support'''. No problems here.  Good luck!

'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
Per nom, and I have no reason to believe he will abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I think Cobi would be a fine addition. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Cobi has amply demonstrated his commitment to the encyclopedia through his bots, if nothing else. Plenty of evidence that he’s smart, sensible, and would use admin tools maturely. Beyond applying some kind of bright-line requirement for article work (something I always disagree with, but particularly strongly in the case of this candidate), I can see absolutely no reason to oppose and many reasons to support. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''.  This can only help the project.  --
'''Support'''- An asset to the community.
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Strong Support''' [[User:Cobi|Cobi]] is definetly ready for adminship.
'''Late support''' as co-nom and member of the "You aren't one already?!" club. ≈ '''
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA Rationale|Support]] Has a clue and is trustworthy.
{{ec}}'''Support''' Cobi has already greatly improved Wikipedia through ClueBot, and I trust him fully with the tools. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' I supported each of the last three; why stop now?
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Doesn't look like he'll abuse the tools in any way, and he seems to know his stuff.
'''Support''' - Of course. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]

With added experience, I find I can fully support you this time around.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' a candidate who has done a lot of valuable work in the unfashionable areas of Wikipedia - fighting vandals, making sure everything runs smoothly.
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support''', ah, another classic RfA nominee. My full support as always! --
'''Support'''. About time... let's hope 4th time is the charm.
'''Support''' Sure, why not?
'''Support'''. Positives outweigh any negatives which have been raised. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' - trusted user, heck, he's already got the keys to the abuse filter. There is more to building an online encyclopedia than writing articles. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' of course :) <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support'''. Normally, I choose not to !vote on RfAs where I haven't personally interacted with the candidate, but I see the good that ClueBot does every day. Tools would be benefit to the project, and no downside. --
'''Support''' – trusted user who will no doubt make good use of the tools.

'''Support''':[[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale| Looks good]].--
'''Strong Support''' - Cobi will definitely benefit from the tools. Wikipedia is lucky to have someone like him! Good luck.
'''Support''' I'm usually wary of a lack of content work, but his work with one of the most helpful bots that help content editors and maintainers convinced me.
Old-school user support. To clarify, this means that this user has been around long enough that they know what goes on and they have the patience to stick around for 2+ years. &mdash;
'''Support''' I like the answer to 3.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''-He wrote cluebot which has a million+ edits. He certainly can be trusted with the tools and has been a great help through his various bots(which are no doubt time-consuming themselves.)
'''Support''' Per trust he will not mess up and clubot's history. '''
'''Support''' I understand the reluctance to support someone without a background in content building (I normally share that view), but I think Cobi is pretty clearly an exceptional case.  There's a big difference between using Huggle and ''writing ClueBot''.  Cobi's paper on ClueBot (the link on your page isn't working, Cobi!) demonstrates precisely the right attitude toward bots, in my opinion. --
I for one welcome our robot-operating overlords. <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Strong Support''' Duh.  —
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente and Deo Juvente, Cobi 4. —
'''Support''' Cobi is plenty trustworthy enough for me. He also knows policies and his way around. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Has the patience to learn from earlier RFAs and keeps working to improve the project.
'''Support''', no indication whatsoever that the user will misuse the tools.
Thought he already was one.

Weakly, only due to a lack of article edits (that are non existent since September 08) but nonetheless, you do good work, so I can't oppose you for being a specialist editor. Best of luck, <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' any lack of conflict-handling skills would have been made apparent during false-positive bot resolutions. Please edit an article about bots.
'''Support'''. I am proud to support the creator of a bot which has made our lives a bit easier.
'''Support''' while I acknowledge the fact that Cobi does not have much experience in areas that ''some'' administrators do. He has contributed to wikipedia in some ways that edits cannot. I do not believe that someone should automatically be opposed because of automated edits, edit counts, or any quantity factor in the persons contributions. I believe it's how the edits (or contributions such as creating one of the most used/best bots out there) impact wikipedia, and Cobi has done that. There are administrators that do not use their tools, nor do they have any experience/use for them (will not mention names here to prevent a conflict), but I see instances where Cobi has the potential to use these tools greatly. Good luck <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Support'''. I have no reason to believe Cobi will abuse the tools, particularly given that he already has access to the abuse filter.
'''Support''' per my rationale at his previous RfA. I understand that he isn't that interested in the writing or policy sides of the encyclopedia, but he clearly is dedicated to the project, and great benefit to it. The tools will allow him to do more.
—&nbsp;
Trustworthy; supporting per the same rationale as Xymmax. I already thought that you were an administrator.  Lack of article-writing work does not bother me much as long as the editor has [[WP:CLUE|clue]] <small>(no pun intended)</small> and otherwise is knowledgeable about Wikipedia's processes; I have no doubt about the latter, and the former is obviously present, too. There are some awesome article-writers who would be terrible administrators, and vice versa. Article work is not necessary, as long as an admin is calm, aware of norms and policies, and has a general sense about what's the wisest choice in a given situation. That's what I look for in RfA candidates.
[[WP:NETPOSITIVE|Support]] Clearly here to ''create'' an enyclopedia. ''Writing'' an encyclopedia is not the same as ''creating'' one. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' The community has clearly trusted the bot to do a number of tasks, so I am fine assuming the creator can be trusted as well.
'''support''' —
'''Support''' — Cobi's need for the admin tools is rather specialized, and I'm happy with the other work he has done thus far. I am not judging his ability to create good articles or his conflict resolution skills, since I don't imagine he will do much work in those areas. Giving him unquestioned access to the abuse filter (via adminship) is obviously a plus, since he does so much anti-vandalism work, and the abuse filter is intended to fight vandalism.
'''VERY VERY VERY...hehehe strong support''' - He needs the tools. Also, ClueBot's 1.1 million edits are very useful and Cobi's answers to the RfA questions are well-written. Cheers,
'''Strong support'''. Sad how this process had to be repeated so often for an editor who was obviously up to the task a long time ago. '''''
'''support''' There's no reason to think the user will abuse the tools. Cobi is clearly committed to the project and the project seems likely to benefit from him having the tools. Incidentally, the level of experience he has in terms of direct article editing would have been considered more than enough 2 or 3 years ago. This general inflation of admin requirements is really not healthy.
'''Support''' All admins don't have to be cut from the same mold.  I have no doubts Cobi will be a solid admin in his areas of focus. -
I have read the opposes and find them unpersuasive. —'''
'''Strong support''' Per above, thought he was one already.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' I disagree with the claims made below that RfA candidates should have considerable content work under their belt.
'''Support''' as I did last time.
'''Support''' Yep, while it's always nice to have "content editors" enter the ranks, it is also a great benefit to have the "techs" help us out as well.  I can see a need for the tools here, and have no reason to believe that Cobi would misuse the buttons. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. Several of the opposers correctly point out that Cobi has not done much direct work in writing articles, but I find Roux's counterpoint convincing here. Cobi's work has significantly improved the encyclopedia on technical aspects and helped in the encyclopedia building. If the lack of article writing were because Cobi runs around like a self-important bureaucratic busybody who engages in more WikiPolitics than WikiPedia, while getting in the way of the article writers, I would be opposing quite strongly, but that is not the case here. The efforts here show a commitment to encyclopedia building as strong as many article writers, and his counter-vandalism efforts have freed up a lot of time and effort for people who want to write article instead of patrolling them.
'''Support'''.  Article work is a good thing to do, but there are other ways to contribute too.  Cobi is level headed and does great things for the encyclopedia.  On balance giving him the sysop bit will make things better.
'''Support''', as explained above.
Per TimVickers.
'''Support''' - per Tim Vickers. Excellent rationale, Dr. Vickers!
'''Support''' - no content contribs but I get the distinct impression that Cobi wouldn't be doing too much in the area of dispute resolution, and if he does decide to he has the required judgement. \
'''Support''' I have no question that Cobi will not abuse the tools and any lingering doubts I may have had about his lack of non-automated editing are laid to rest by the fact that both SandyGeorgia and Dr. Vickers are supporting him. Good luck! <font color="#3300ff">
I see Cobi abusing the admin tools in vandalism-related areas pretty unlikely. Inactive, yes, but has definitely demonstrated knowledge of policies and guidelines in the area they're going to work in.
'''Strong support''' - I see no chance of abusing the tools, and this is a user with a very technical understanding not only of how to manage the tools, but of what forms vandalism takes on WP. I find opposing based solely on the lack of content contributions a poor argument. As I've heard said before, if no new content was added ever again, wikipedia would continue to be useful. But if vandal patrolling stopped tomorrow, it would quickly become worthless.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I would love to see more content contributions, and I do hope that he makes more in the future to round out his experience, but Cobi does great work and I trust him not to delete the main page. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support''': absolutely..
'''Support''' per nom and many of the other comments above.
Since being an admin has nothing to do with writing articles, there is no reason to oppose over this. Cobi clearly understands how Wikipedia works and edits it in its best interests, and that's all there is to it. Not one opposer has managed to give a solid reason as to why Cobi would make Wikipedia worse as an administrator. '''
'''Weak Support''' Some concerns have been raised about the lack of demonstrated interactions skills. But hopefully you'll do a good job. Don't ever block without a warning and discussion to try to resolve the issues amicably. Thanks.
'''Support'''—OK, I'm satisfied. Buuuut, do try to get a little content experience.
'''Support''' This is definitely someone whose use of admin tools will benefit the project.  There's no indication that they will be misused. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|L]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' I'd say he does enjoy the supermajority support already, but let me lend mine: different sysops bring different strengths. Not ''every'' admin has to have a focus on article creation. ClueBot has made Wikipedia a vastly better place and if this is the brainiac behind it and he wants the mop, let him mop, with thanks.
Normally, I would not support on the grounds of Cluebot alone. Fortunately, you seem to be sensible, and I trust the judgment of the noms. '''
'''Support'''. I trust this user to step back and ask for help. It would be smart of them to target an article to bring to GA status just to see the praise and pitfalls that go with the territory, this will likely make them a better admin.
'''Support''' Fundamentally sensible, and -- based on what he has done so far -- will work on what he knows how to work with.   '''
'''Support''' as per above.
'''Support'''. While I understand the concerns of opposer related to the lack of content contributions, I still believe that giving sysop accesss to Cobi will benefit the project.
'''support'''safe enough.©
'''Strong Oppose''' - Nothing or very little has changed since the last RfA. User is relatively inactive and doesn't contribute to articles beyond huggle/AWB.
'''Oppose''' as a 4th nomination. Yes, time has passed, but in almost a year and a half since #3, you boast about turning a redlink into a DYK? That's a pretty paltry contribution to article work.  Make no mistake, I love ClueBot, and was ''looking'' for a reason to bend my own rule, but a single DYK is not "street cred" in content creation, and touting it like it is, is almost worse than not having any.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I view article contributions as integral to this project and cannot support anyone with scarce contributions to the aforementioned area. Best of luck. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
In my opinion, though ClueBot has helped out Wikipedia significantly and though this use has been given a great honor by the community already, I think giving this user the mop based off of what ''ClueBot'' has done would be like giving him the mop as a award not as a tool. Also, i would have liked to see more work in the mainspace.--''
Why does he need it?
'''Oppose'''. As much as Cluebot is amazing and one of the most valuable bots out there, there is a major lack of content building. The last non-automated edit to the article space by the candidate was on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080909004630&contribs=user&target=Cobi&namespace=0 August 18, '''2008''']. Even ignoring that, the candidate hasn't edited to [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]] for over a year. I really do appreciate all the hard work that his bot(s) have done, but the reputation of the bot can not be inherited to the owner. — '''''
'''Oppose''' Cobi's lack of interaction in the "Normal" encyclopaedia leads me to question his experience. Cluebot is very good, but we expect admins to be able to identify behaviours which are not simply codifiable. For example, (nearly) anyone can identify a simple 3RR, but this does not approach the full scope of edit warring behaviours. There is no question about the value of Cobi's contributions within his narrow scope, but I don't think he even approaches enough experience to become an admin. I would like to see at least one serious banging of heads over content to show that he is aware of the "Normal" to-and-fro of hotheadedness which accompanies article editing.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient article work.  Thus, I don't feel comfortable about how he will act when faced with a conflict between article editors, which is part of an admin's work.  He needs more experience on the article side of things, however qualified he may be in the back office.--
'''Strong oppose''', for the same reasons as I have opposed the last three times, which still hold true.  You are not seeking adminship for a well defined and limited purpose like [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/lustiger_seth|lustiger_seth]] did.  Experience should tell you that admins candidates (even [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2|Werdna]]!), are expected to have demonstrated stills in content work and conflict resolution.  And time you have had.  You only have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UnrealIRCd&diff=prev&oldid=217280094 single] edit in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Cobi&namespace=1&limit=40 Talk:] namespace that isnt about "ClueNet". <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose'''. Minimal content creation. I am also disappointed by Cobi's response [[User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/August#Unhelpful edit by the bot|here]].
Cobi doesn't seem to get involved in normal content work or interaction with other editors, as evidenced by his answers to questions and as noted by others in this section. --
'''Strong oppose''' lack of anything except machine edits. No article editign '''
Most of his edits are from Cluebot. He is not that active.
'''Oppose''' - yes, I know my oppose wont matter to any closing crat, and that it will just be ignored. However, I am use to it. Content work is important as it reveals one's understanding of policies. I might as well show solidarity with those above who believe the same thing, even if we will all just be ignored.
'''Oppose''' - lack of content work.
'''Oppose''' - we write articles, create content, thats the point...
I love the bot and all, but I expect any admin to do at least some serious content work, and there's nothing in the user's recent contribs that amounts to that. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Weak oppose''' - ironically, I came here thinking to support.  I'm usually quite supportive of "technical" contributors like Cobi and I'm not too hung up on the lack of mainspace contributions ''per se''.  However, most of what I am finding in the recent conributions are minor and/or automated edits or again, work on the technical side of the 'pedia.  It is proving quite difficult to find anything in upon which to judge how this user would behave or function as an administrator.  In all likelihood this RfA will pass and Cobi will prove to be a good administrator, but at this point I'm not seeing a lot to instill confidence.  I hate to re-state what has already been said, but while the contributions via bot have been ''invaluable'', they do nothing to prepare one for administrative work.
'''Oppose''' - this was a tough decision for me to make.  On the one hand, I truly admire Cobi's programming skills and [[WP:AGF|doubt]] he would abuse the tools. I believe him when he says he would stick to vandalism fighting.  On the other hand, I see little experience in any area outside of vandal fighting.  I don't expect an admin to have experience in every area, but more than one would be nice.  His communication style also bothers me, as "short and to the point" might get the job done, but administrators are expected to be excellent communicators.  Ultimately, I ended up on the oppose side because I don't see much need for the tools (Cobi is not personally very active even in his limited area of focus) and I can't justify giving someone the ability to delete pages who has no experience in deletion issues. --
'''Oppose'''. more than the lack of content creation what bothers me is the lack of interaction. Wikipedia is an experiment in community based creation and admins are supposed to be the oil that makes the machinery work. Many (probably the majority) of the problems that an admin will be expected to solve requires some degree of social skills - as long as he has no such experience there is not way to know how he will respond when he gets confronted with that kind of problems. I need to see some evidence of commitment to the collaborative part of the pedia (ideally evidence of appropriate behaviour in a conflict) before I can support.
'''Oppose''' Per John Vandenberg and others. I am not a believer in the notion that an editor must be an article writer to be trustworthy, but I don't trust someone whose contribs are almost entirely automated edits. A large part of adminship is people skills, and I don't see any evidence of that. Feel free to respond and convince me otherwise, and I might switch to support. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
'''Oppose''' no indication of significant article work or even community interaction; two factors which I consider key to the adminship position. '''
'''Oppose''' per John and Yellow Monkey.
'''Oppose''', lack of content development and debate. Being well-rounded is one of my prerequisites for RfA support, and sadly, I do not see that in the candidate. &ndash;<font face="georgia" color="black">
'''Oppose''' I worry about having admins who don't seem to have any history of discussing problems with others. John Vandenberg makes a good point.
'''Oppose''' limited evidence of content interactions --
At [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_2]], I wrote that I would support in the next RfA, and I missed [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_3]], so I was ready to support now. But I am disappointed by the answer to question 5 ("What has changed since your last RfA?"). "Time" by itself is not an argument, and "experience" is conspicuously vague, with  - and the only example given, the article [[UnrealIRCd]], is still only a stub. &mdash;
I still don't see why Cobi's not made some more effort to work on the encyclopedia, especially after this has come up in previous RFAs. I'm not talking about writing an FA, just some occasional little improvements in wording or spelling (other than simple AWB work) to articles or even getting involved in article discussions. The lack thereof isn't enough to make me willing to oppose, but it is enough to make me unwilling to support.
Impressed by the bots but article work seems to be lacking. '''
I know that Cobi's a helpful editor when it comes to bots, but doesn't seem to have enough experiance with disputes. Most new users and such turn to admins for help and dispute resolving, but I don't know if Cobi is ready. Sorry.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'Per Ottava Rima, and my personal belief that admins need ''some'' experience in article creation, not just deletion. I hope that you will understand this logic, and not take it the wrong way; I utterly appreciate your great work - I just don't see a clear need for the mop. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
For now, not really impressed by lack of non-automated contributions.
'''Neutral''' – while I don't care how many admin trips it takes to get the tools personally, and that you've had some particularly good contributions in the technical aspect, the lack of content work and more importantly interaction with others do concern me.
'''Neutral''' I came here to support because of the amazing bot work. But one of my criteria is good communication with other editors, and there's just not a lot of it for me to judge. (Kind of surprising, because I thought that cluebot would generate some conversations). Every time the mop gets used there's either a frustrated editor involved or one who is about to get frustrated because of the admin action. It's essential that an admin can communicate well with that editor, and I'm not seeing enough evidence one way or the other to let me say yes or no. Sorry.--
'''Neutral''' Is "trustworthy" code for "tow the admin cabal line"? Anyway, neutral per MuZemike.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. A few borderline CSDs from several months ago don't bother me. –'''
'''Support''', I believe he would be a good administrator. As another editor active in his main area of interest, I run into him quite frequently, and I think I have only ever had [[User talk:Colds7ream/Archive 1#Americanisation - WP:ENGVAR|one serious issue]] with his editing (which was a unilateral page move made over a year ago and which has now been resolved). His work on the ISS article demonstrates commitment and attention to detail, which I feel are important qualities for administrators. --'''''
'''Support''' He has a couple iffy CSD's early, but those are long ago, and he has to have learned tons more by now... <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' per my comments at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Colds7ream]] (my opinion is largely the same).  Best, --
'''Support''' I'll [[WP:Belly|assume the presence of a belly button]].
'''Support''' as I see no evidence the tools would be abused or misused. I recommend taking it slowly at first, though, until you are sure of yourself in situations you may not completely understand. ···
'''Support'''.  Looks good, just be careful on speedy deletions in the beginning.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' No reason to think he would misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - Per exchange below and Mal's diffs that I trust are fine.
'''Support''' OK.
'''Support''' Looks great! '''''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck.
'''Support''', candidate looks fine.
'''Support'''. I see no issues that will impede Colds7ream's ability or willingness to correctly use the tools.
'''Support'''. Colds7ream having use of admin tools will improve the flow of work on articles where we share an interest. (
'''Support''' Needs to get a better grasp on some CSD issues ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Lyon_%28The_City%29&diff=294001517&oldid=294001280 A7 for actor in notable show], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rate_ratio&diff=prev&oldid=294000391 A1 with context], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Bilal_Zafar_Shaheed&diff=prev&oldid=293921564 G3 on non-obvious hoax (probably just non-notable)], and of course as mentioned from 2 months ago, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lombardo%E2%80%99s_Function_Facility&diff=prev&oldid=280902833 A7 with reliable sources] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arshad_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=280842257 A7 on professor at notable university]). Judging from the other contributions though, I trust the user to learn from those mistakes and to read some of the CSD related essays (like [[WP:FIELD]], [[WP:WIHS]], [[WP:10CSD]] or [[WP:A7M]]) before venturing in that area (and asking more experienced admins in that area for advice when needed). Regards '''
'''Support''' Air force? Enemy air force? guess [[architecture|my topics]] will be on the [[carpet bombing|receiving end]]. Anyway, go ahead.
'''Support'''. excellent editor, I see no evidence the tools would be abused or misused by the user. --
[[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] <strong>
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support'''Has the experience. --
Passes the clue test.
'''Support'''.  Going from memory, CSD work has been very good.  Agreed with SoWhy. - Dank (
'''Support''' No reason to believe the tools will be abused and what Stifle said. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' good editor, sound of mind. will not abuse the tools. —
'''Strong Support''' per above. Good answers. meets my standards. See no reason not to.
Sure. '''
'''Support''' – Answers to the questions look good, and a spot check of recent contribs also look good. Break a leg!
'''Support'''-Reliable, trustworthy contributor, good luck! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', good background and has enough experience with policy to get started, and is willing to learn from mistakes.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
I'm
'''Support'''. He's not perfect, but nobody is. My recommendation is that you don't dive in too fast, though.
'''Support''', excellent answer to my question.  No indication that user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', lots of experience, calm and collected.  Looks like they will learn the ropes quite well. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' per above, should make a great asset, no reason to think he would be a bad admin
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''', No reason to Oppose.
I remember him clearly, very friendly and has a excellent temperament. '''
'''Support''' &ndash; I haven't had any interactions with the user, but he appears to be trustworthy and I see no reason why s/he would misuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' Definitely.--
'''Support''', People learn from their mistakes, I trust this user with the tools. --
'''Support''' I can support. '''
'''Support''' SoWhy has brought some legitimate concerns, but the candidate's contribution generally looks good to me.--
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Weak Support''' I dont see a reason for not supporting --
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. Holler if you have questions...there's plenty of advice to be had if you need it. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Looks ok to me too.
'''Support''' - From my interactions with ColdReam, I'm glad to support him in his request for adminship. <small>(
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Looks good. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>([[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|Many otters]] • [[:User talk:TenPoundHammer|One bat]] •
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions. I see a net positive. — '''''
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support'''. Good candidate. --
'''Support.''' Have come across several times, good edits, impressed with answers to the questions. <span style="color:#808080">
'''support''' Things seem to be in order here.
'''Support''' per my prior interactions with the editor. He will make an excellent admin, just be sure to read the manual first. -'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He was always busy on anti vandalism which is a real problem these days.
'''Support''' Overall track record looks good, though I concur with the recommendations to take it slow at first.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Good grounding and sense of the role everyday users play.  I don't necessarily agree with every word, but I like where he ends up. ~
'''Support''' Some pretty good answers to questions. I like him.
'''Support''' User has been around since March 2006,civil and believe user will show more discretion in CSD in future.See no scope for misuse of tools and feel project will only gain with user having tools.
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. Just please brush up on CSD criteria.
'''Support''' Took the words out of my mouth, Fastily :)
'''Support'''.  You'll do fine, solid track record.
'''Support''' - Colds7ream has only about 1200 article edits, but some of them are high quality edits. I analyzed his edits to [[Shuttle-Mir Program]], and some of them are pretty good.
'''Support''' You don't learn without making some mistakes and acknowledging them. He'll do fine.
'''Support''' I'll admit that I'd rather see more edits to work with, but what I can see looks like quality.  Candidate appears to have a good grasp of policy and guidelines, and the answers to the questions were very good.  I can't find a reason to oppose. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' - would make a great admin. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', will do a great job.
<small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Can't say we've met before, but you seem like a good candidate, no reason not to support. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' - nothing wrong here. \
'''Symbolic Oppose''' for CSD issues. To be honest, I think Colds7ream knows his stuff and is likely to make a good admin; but since this is passing anyway, I hope he won't mind me registering my concern here about his judgement with speedy deletions. The CSD criteria are extremely clear and precise for good reason, and it's essential that any admin who intends to work in this area knows them well enough not to make mistakes; as a bad speedy-deletion may not be noticed by anyone but the creator of the article, and they may not know how to contest it. The links provided by Wisdom89 above and Kingpin13 don't give me sufficient confidence that Colds7ream knows exactly what he's doing in this area. I apologise for my lack of trust, and very much hope it will prove mistaken. In the meantime, I would suggest that Colds7ream makes sure he's certain of all the CSD criteria before he gets the chance to press the delete button.
'''Symbolic Oppose'''. Although it is not a requirement, I like to see a respected member of the community prepared to nominate the candidate. As far as ''Unopposed'' goes, please go slowly and remember that 60 or 70 '''votes''' here is in no way a ''mandate''. Best of luck. (
'''Oppose''' Numbers 10 and up should be written as numerals, not spelled out.
'''Neutral''' Will not abuse the tools, but needs a few months more experience.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Neutral''' - Switched to neutral after the candidate corrected his answer, will take a further look at contribs before supporting or opposing.
I probably would have supported, but the answer to Q6, while not "wrong," is missing the key part. Yes, lawsuits and PR are important, but the real people we affect with our articles and the idea of "basic human decency" are the most important reasons behind the BLP policy. <font face="Broadway">
'''Neutral''' for now, mostly per SoWhy and Mr.Z-man. How we affect the lives of real people is an order of magnitude more important than the public image of "the project". On the positive side, candidate seems to have the right temperament, and has contributed positively for a long time. Unfortunately, the answer to Q19 was not quite what I wanted. <tt>
'''Neutral''' I was the one who asked FunPika to check out the [[WP:ACC|account creation tool]] problems, and I would suggest that in the future Colds7ream makes sure to read the rules and guidelines before doing whatever he may be doing.
'''Neutral''' , per some of his CSD-related work, not having looked over much of his other stuff, and mainly because I can't see deleted edits to view his other work in this area, I'm goin' neutral, rather then oppose, but thought I should bring it up for the benefit of the nommed and "reviewers". CSD area is quite important (to me), especially if the user plans to work around there, so here goes: (all three recent) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Widecombe_primary_school&action=history This is slightly disappointing, CSD#A7 makes it clear that A7 doesn't apply to schools, he removed this after another user pointed this out]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rate_ratio&diff=294000391&oldid=294000284 This page clearly does not meet CSD#A1, which only applies to very short articles, which this isn't]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Bilal_Zafar_Shaheed&action=history Not as bad (in my opinion) as the other two, but CSD#G3 does only apply to ''blatant'' hoaxes/vandalism]. If the user plans to "delete" under speedy deletion, I suggest they read the whole [[WP:CSD|CSD]] page (again). I was also put off by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AnomieBOT&diff=prev&oldid=291204655 this is] where he removed "vandalism" using HotCats, without checking the page history (which if he had done he would have realised the the bot owner wanted that category there). -
'''Beat-the-Nom Support''' Has experience with content building, and has experience in an administrative area (AFD).  Best of luck!
'''Support''' Excellent user; I believe that Cool3 would be an excellent addition to the admin corps.
Very helpful editor + dedicated content builder + active vandal fighter = [[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|support]]. –'''
'''Eh''' I'd like to see more "time served", but the quality and breadth of your work seems to be good.
'''Support''' Very dedicated, very coolheaded editor. I'm glad to support. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' Definitely!  And not ''just'' because of the strong nom.  I remember Cool3s last RfA, and I was very critical in the oppose section (likely overly so).  The grace, maturity, dignity, and integrity with which Cool3 handled the situation impressed me tremendously, and I've quietly watched his dedicated efforts to learn the ropes since that time.  Exceptional [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and I have no doubt that WP would benefit greatly if this editor had a few extra tools to work with. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India%E2%80%93Malta_relations&diff=285897261&oldid=285875977 excellent arguments] and no blocks.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. As per nominators recommendation, and mature attitude of Cool3 and his willingness to learn, grow. Also respect to his article building. User will be an asset, good nomination. (
'''Support''', although the sporadic activity may indicate a potential for concern, looking into the way this user has edited and handled AfDs and such shows to me personally that this user would be able to use the tools. As previously stated, willingness to learn and mature attitude are excellent. The user also has a decent balance of edits across namespace, which further re-assures me of any concern regarding the sporadic activity. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - As nominator.
'''Support''' I supported three years ago, and I see nothing (save perhaps the profoundly misguided response to question four, which does not, one is happy to note, implicate any admin actions) to suggest that I shouldn't now; I am able to conclude with a good measure of confidence, in fact, that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' - excellent article contribs; [[Hastings Ismay]] is one ''great'' article. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support'''. No ongoing issues.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Good luck as an admin.
'''Support''' It's about time.  Good work in a wide range of areas.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Good enough for me. – ('''
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
'''Support'''.  [[User:Cool3/Desysop]] was an interesting study.  I didn't see anything of concern in his contributions.—
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''' I really liked your answers to the questions; they outweigh my experience concerns.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. -
Support as [[WP:Net Positive]]. Though I wish the candidate had done a bit of extra work in project space, but if article space is their calling, there is no reason to let project space drag them away. Also, I thought the answer to Wizardman's question was well-done, and I am convinced from that and the other questions and a scan of Cool3's contributions that they know what they are doing and have a [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor and nothing to indicate potential tool abuse. In fact, I think Cool3 would be a great benefit as an admin. The extended break doesn't bother me. ···
Make it so.
'''Support''' - Although I give you a month before you decide that rights sometimes get in the way of common sense!
'''Support''', looks good, though tentative pending answer to my follow-up question.
'''Support''' This user can be trusted. --
'''Support'''. No reason not to support. Also, I lol'd at "when Wikipedia truly stresses me out, I [...] go back to doing what I'm paid for if I'm at work. Then after twenty minutes or half an hour, I come back".
'''Support'''. Enough recent activity; I'm satisfied you will do well with the administrative tools.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' There is a solid understanding of policy's here and growth as an editor. I have no issues with voting support this time around.

'''Tentative support'''. From what I have seen at [[WT:WTA]], Cool3 is a level headed and well intentioned editor (aka, tends to agree with me :) I haven't had time to make a closer evaluation, but we need more admins like that. ''
'''Support''' Can't find anything worth opposing over. '''
Seems OK.
—&nbsp;
Excellent editor: opposition in past RfAs were bogus.
'''Support''' User  has been around since Oct 2005 and see enough recent activity in 2009 and understanding of policy is good.See no concerns.
'''Support''' Level-headed and all signs indicate a good content creator. We need more of this.
'''Support''' should be fine.
'''Support''' looking fine.--
'''Support''' per above.
The opposition makes valid points, but he's got a long enough history that I'm comfortable supporting. - Dank (
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''',
'''Support''' - Very well thought-out responses. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', I see no reason not to support at this time.
Pleased to offer full support after a slightly "moral" support in the last RFA. Delighted you kept the article building focus. More than sufficent [[WP:CLUE]]. Okay, some more stuff in project space might be good but [[WP:NETPOS|on balance this is not likely to cause any issues with using the extra tools]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I felt odd to be one of the few people supporting your last RfA; but I saw only minor problems then. Now you really do look like a pretty exemplary candidate - a look through recent contributions give me no concerns and reveals many intelligent and useful edits. Good luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I don't see why not. — '''''
'''Last-minute support''' - Seeing Cool3 around has left a great taste in my mouth; he's much improved from his last RfA. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
'''Support''' -
'''Weak oppose''' - while I laud the user for his content building, I'm not sure that experience prior to Feb 2009 provides much background, and the few months since then may not provide quite enough currency with policies/guidelines/norms as presently practiced. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and I must point out that the majority of Cool's edits are to article space. (This is a good thing, of course!) //
'''Oppose''' - Some good content work, but not enough to inspire confidence given the flimsy track record in the project space. Also, considering the sporadic activity, I'd like to see a few more months in several other areas before I can be comfortable supporting.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''':Not enough contributions historically to inspire confidence or trust!
I have niggling concerns that this editor is too into Wiki-politics, which has generally proven quite harmful.  He's apparently been trying to become an admin all along, which is a minor concern.  He was involved in coaching, which is another minor concern.  And the answer to the question about rights is truly awful.
'''Oppose''' An admin should be an editor who can make several edits daily over a long period of time. I hate to say it, but with less than 7,000 edits (barely over counting deleted edits), I don't quite know if you are ready. If you came back to RfA later with 10,000 or so edits, my view would probably be different.--
'''Oppose''' an editor should have a longer history than a year before 2006 and a couple of months this year before getting admin tools.
Pending dip through contribs. The previous RfA's didn't bring up any worrying issues (not enough experience, not enough recent experience) and I have seen the user's dedication to high quality content first hand. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Beat the nom support''' - Not seen any issues so far, not really sure of what is going on in Wily's diff - if someone can explain why it is so bad to me it would be much appreciated, I might be missing the context. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''', if only all users were like CRGreathouse! --
'''Support''' Contributions seem sound. —'''
'''Support''' because of my experiences with GRGreathouse. --
<s>'''Support''' for now, based solely upon the math joke. Mind may be changed later, depending on your answers to questions. <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
'''Support''' I have no doubt in my mind that he won't use the tools the correctly.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' Based on candidate's answers to questions and AGF.--
'''Support''' the math jokes are great, and the opposition just doesn't add up.--
Hello, I'm [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]] and I just split the atom...anyone want half an atom? Oh, wrong queue.  But while I'm here: '''Support''' for someone who knows 2+2 and then some!
'''Support''' - Great candidate, unlike to abuse the tools.
(e/c) Why not.
'''Support''' as nom. By the way, am I just being dense, are you a bit addled from too many questions, or are we supposed to catch at some point that that's not Fermat's Last Theorem at all?
'''Support''' Established editor, good contributions, good interactions with others, no problems as a general editor. I see no indication that the admin tools would be misused to harm the project. --
'''Support''' good contributor, sole oppose vote does not sound at all convincing, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Looks great! '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">

'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor and seems trustable. Low activity, but can make up with commons sense. Take it easy with speedy deletions though. Do read on other policies and practices too, there are plenty of (almost intentional) traps for new admins. --
'''Support'''. Some of the answers to policy questions above are slightly off the mark, but policy can easily be learned post-promotion, common sense cannot.
'''Support''' based on my experience with CRGreathouse on other forums.
'''Support''' Candidate displays a great deal of maturity. His answers to questions are very good, and his explanation for a relatively low edit-count makes sense. Good luck.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate with the intellectual acumen necessary for adminship :)
Sensible, it seems. Regularly has ideas outside of the RFA mainstream, and nothing he's done is enough to give me pause.
'''Support'''.  The candidate's history is a good one of substantial edits.  I see a few opposes based on "low" recent activity but in my opinion that doesn't hold water: this user has more than enough edits to establish a track record and I'd much rather see a user like this one with healthy complement of real, constructive edits than an editor with tens of thousands of vandalism reverts, or worse, yet another incessant AWB fiddler.
'''Support''' - I thing CR would be an good choice for admin as this user seems unlikely to abuse the tools granted to him.  In regard to the dissenters, I think that a knowledge of the tools is what primarily counts.  Far too often we tend to forget that edit counts mean little to the efficacy of an individual.  Heck, every time I try to use AfD, UAA, AN/I, etc.  I'm usually beaten to the punch anyway.  Therefore, I don't think that a lack of their use in his contributions listing should be weighted negatively.  Good luck!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' - Excellent editor. Also a trustworthy user unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - We need good and solid people.  This individual has been editing Wikipedia since 2006.  The editor is not a fireball with 3000 edits per month... more like 40 to 150 most months (595 one month, 420 another).  I don't see this as a disadvantage.  I read the Opposes and I despair.  Most of us who are going to fall in love with Wikipedia already have.  We need to stop <s>looking for</s> insisting on those(they are magnificent... but how many are there, really?), and start looking for the over-the-long-haul admins who are going to chug along for the next 20 years or so.  I'll fall out of love, at some point, and I bet that this editor is still here, making 40 edits a month, putting out fires, zapping bad edits and bad articles.
'''Weak support''' &ndash; whilst answer to #26 might have been on the poor side, he is generally good in other aspects. I would encourage CRGreathouse to ask before doing anything borderline at CSD or XfD &ndash; I would usually oppose because of the low number of contributions he has in these areas, but I feel that he would make a good administrator due to the net positive of other aspects that I should take into consideration.
'''Support''' Smart, responsible contributor. The deletion circuit is easy to unravel and doesn't require the sort of experience demanded by some of the oppose rationales. ˉˉ<sup>
'''support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' User is experienced over a large timeframe, and I don't see a whole lot of fire to the opposition's arguments. <b>'''
'''Support''' Experienced user, sense of humor, no sense that he will abuse the tools. Also no sense that he'll be using [[WP:PERNOM]] in the near future. :-) I expect that he'll pick up the rest of the [[WP:CSD]] in short order.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Upgraded to '''Really Really Strong Support''' after reading Q24. :-)--
'''Support'''.  Switched from ''oppose''.  To pass RFA, it's my sense that candidates have to 1. show competence (and there's evidence that voters will give you wiggle-room on general wiki-competence vs. competence at specific admin tasks, to some extent), 2. "play well with others", and 3. show emotional and intellectual connection to this community, and there's evidence that voters will give you some wiggle-room here, too; some candidates really get into "being an admin", some feel more at home in wikiprojects or review processes.  A candidate who comes across as rarely venturing out into the "wilds" (as they perceive it) of Wikipedia may wind up failing all 3 tests, and these kinds of concerns are what I'm seeing from the opposition.  But I'm switching my vote after seeing his willingness to answer a lot of questions, and good answers to many of them, and after reading this: ''I'm an introvert, and this kind of process is both painful and tiring for me.''  The big question for me was whether this candidate was willing to push himself past his comfort zone, to talk with more people in more forums than he is apparently comfortable doing, as much as is required to make sure that others don't get hurt by his actions as an admin.  I never doubted that he didn't ''want'' to hurt anyone.  He understands now, if he didn't before, that he has to supplement his knowledge of subject matter with more knowledge of what the community expects before he does the deed himself.  When he's willing to speak up, his voice is a knowledgeable and calming influence, and I'd like to see him with the mop in the hope that this form of acceptance will help him overcome his wiki-shyness, which will be a great benefit to the wikiprojects he enjoys.  On the technical point of most of the opposition, that he said that he wants to do CSD but isn't good at it: he didn't say he wants to do CSD, he said he wanted to review CSD decisions ... presumably to pull articles out of the fire when his expert knowledge tells him the articles can be saved.  There's a difference. - Dan
'''Support'''. Can see nothing to suggest that they will be anything other than an excellent admin. (
'''Support''' from neutral, and from previous oppose.  Sure, I still have some concerns, notably about CSD.  But the candidate is clearly open to feedback, and it seems like he's more interested in consensus-building than being right, which is a pretty big deal for an admin.  He might make some mistakes now and then, but who doesn't?  He won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has clue and will do just fine.
'''Support''' I've encountered CRGreathouse in AfD discussions related to schools and education topics. While we don't always agree (on occasions I thought he was dead wrong), I have found him to be consistently reasonable, and I fully expect him to use admin tools responsibly. --
'''Support''' We need more responsible, thoughtful, intelligent admins.  --
'''Support'''. In a [[WP:Requests for adminship/Climie.ca|recent RfA]], an excellent editor with limited administrative experience passed comfortably for being thoroughly trusted and showing good judgement. Indeed I went to some effort to test whether the lack of such experience was an issue for the community, and it was found not to be so. Here we have another excellent editor of the same mold. In that light, there is nothing obvious to oppose here. Too few edits per month recently? So what? Often contributes to AfD with "per user" !votes? What is wrong with consensus building? Indeed the nomination demonstrates the benefits of it. These might be grounds not to support, or to vote neutral, but they are hardly grounds to oppose. The questions, answered thoughtfully and concisely, show every sign of an editor who will take advice and familiarize himself with policy before taking administrative actions in new areas.
'''Despite, my reservations, I think the candidate will be careful enough to be a net positive. per townlake and orlady, among others'''
Good user. Twenty-seven additional questions?
Though I disagree with you on the .9999 thing: 1/3*3=1, not .9999.... Then again, I'm not a mathematician. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' x 0.9999999... Good contributor and seems to be able to cope with flak. '''
'''Support''' As far as I can tell the editor is reasonable, mature, and dedicated to the Wikipedia Project. Excellent work so far, and good luck as an admin! The .999 thing always blows my mind, btw. I had tremendous difficulty grasping that when I was younger. Regards,
'''Support''' - I take Useight and DGGs opposes on board (and the comments of those who echoed similar concerns). The relative inactivity is somewhat concerning, and the issue of experience in some areas is not to be dismissed. On the other hand, this guy's conduct in this particular request has been perfect. I know people say that candidates are on their best behavior during the request, and for the most part I think that's true -- but you still tend to see the true colors of people when they're subjected to the stress this process can produce. That he answered all the questions faithfully, and responded thoughtfully to the opposes with substantive concerns, speaks well for his ability to function as an administrator. I do think he needs some experience in CSD before he starts responding to tags, and I'd also like to see a bit more detailed contributions to AfD. But I think with experience he'll do fine, and he's reasonable enough that he won't delete the main page (metaphorically, since you can't now) before he's up to speed.
'''Support''' I have not seen a valid reason given to oppose this candidate, but plenty of poor ones. The candidate is civil, can be trusted not to abuse the tools, is unlikely to go whacko and start jumping into fields where he is lacking experience. Being an administrator is not rocket surgery and the basics can be picked up fairly quickly. A good temperament and mature disposition is much more valuable than any "experience" in the dramaz of AN/I or 100s of !votes at AfD. If the candidate is not highly active with the tools, so what? It's not like there is a limited amount of admin spots and he/she would be taking up a position that could go to a more active administrator. Any correct use of the tools, no matter how minor, is something another administrator does not have to do. --
'''Support'''.  Burnout, IMO, is directly proportional to frequency and repetitiveness of editing.  At the rate you are going, your personal burn out should be in the year 2018 or so.  You are civil, clueful, and generally speaking, you don't suck.  The rest is simply overly self-important jibberish. In my opinion.  You aren't going to break anything.  Because of this and other reasons, I've determined that you are one of the better candidates to come around in a long while, ironically and ''precisely'' for reasons that some have listed below in the oppose section.
'''Support''' per stupid oppose reasons.
'''Support''' - Not convinced by the oppose arguments. I was impressed by the [[User_talk:Rspeer/Archive_7#VoteFair|link]] given by the nominator, Rspeer, showing Greathouse planning a way to get good contributions to an article from editors who seemed highly opinionated and affected by personal COIs.
'''Support''' I wasn't going to comment on this RFA but I see that it is close. On balance a net positive, but I would urge the candidate, if this passes, to tread carefuly and feel no embarassment about asking for help with the admin tools if needed. If in doubt, don't. However I think that there is enough evidence that this candidate will not go rushing in anywhere, and will be considered and measured if they do need to use the extra bits, to offer support. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' After reading all questions, answers and comments I found no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Seems like CRGreathouse can be trusted with the tools and no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' For the excellent answer to question 20. I think it worthwhile to point out that the lack of involvement with 'adminly' areas can be viewed as a positive. The candidate seems more interested in the encyclopedia than in working to became an administrator. Nothing wrong with that - IMO - and combined with what seems to be an even temperament, I can't see him/her behaving precipitously.--
'''Strong Support''' - Net positive, won't misuse the tools. Normally, this would warrant just a "support", but 31 questions and no anger from CRG makes this strong. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''' I like the cut of his jib.  You don't need to be an expert on every single Wiki-policy before becoming an admin.  You can teach a person Wikipedia rules.  You can't teach editing manner and personality.
'''Support'''. Some dodgy AfD work initially made me plan on opposing, but I pulled myself up. From an overall view of CRG's contributions, combined with his behaviour at this RfA, I really get the feeling that he's easily mature and smart enough not to do the old wade-into-CSD-with-an-ill-informed-machete trick. I'm very confident he won't intentionally misuse the tools, and more than confident enough that he won't do so by ignorance either - he appears sensible enough to look before leaping. Clear net-positive. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''  I would prefer to see a bit more admin area experience, but I don't see you acting rashly and breaking anything.  In short, I see your contributions and attitude as more convincing than the oppose reasons cited.  Plus, like Tool2Die4, I like the cut of your jib.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''.  I think this editor is highly likely to do well as an admin because it's clear that he's very intelligent and even-keeled (even under considerable pressure and intense questioning, it would seem). --
'''Support'''. ''Selectively'' quoting an opposer: "Wikipedia needs admins like you." The logical thing to do, if RfA was in fact a logical process, is make you an admin. I'm not too chuffed by the diff Useight provided, but if that's all that can be dug up from such a long term contributor then I don't have any significant concerns. Active editing on 728 of the last 1,037 days indicate a commitment far outweighing the low edit rate. No idea why you want to work with CSD, but from your reasoned comments on article talk pages and the way you have handled this RfA, I find it hard to imagine that you will (accidentally) do anything illogical to the detriment of Wikipedia in speedy deletion, or elsewhere.
'''Support''' Dedicated editor. Reasonable, cooperative, detailed, well-thought out, wants to help. No indication of mischief or high jinks.
'''Support'''. I've been mulling over this RfA for a few days now, and have decided that my first instinct to support was correct. With little in the way of project space contribution outside AfD (what rspεεr refers to in his nom as the "admin track"), I don't see a particular problem with a rigorous treatment of the candidate; !voters need some indication of how he handles himself under pressure. Having observed his calm, reasoned and thoughtful responses, and coupled with his excellent mainspace work, I have no doubt that CRGreathouse would make a fine addition to the janitorial corps. For me, intimate policy knowledge is largely irrelevant - it only takes a few clicks to obtain this. Clue, however, is not so easy to come by, and this candidate appears to have plenty.
'''Support''' per [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] and no good reason to oppose.  <font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
Per [[WP:It ain’t rocket science]].  Seems to be mature and clueful, and doesn’t seem to thrive on unnecessary conflict.  95% of the time, problems with admins occur when they get too cocky and think they can do anything they want, not because they are "unfamiliar with policy" in some area.  This does not appear to be the case here.  Someone who appears to want to get it right, who appears likely to learn quickly from any mistakes, and who appears willing to go slow at first, can only be a net benefit. --
'''Support''' Seems to have enough clue & trustworthiness. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' per Barneca, by way of eVula Avenue.
'''Support''' - seems like a sensible user with a good attitude; I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. I'm particularly impressed with the way he's calmly put up with a frankly ridiculous amount of questioning in this RFA. As for the lack of deletion experience, it's not a great concern for me, as there's no evidence that he would show ''bad'' judgement in such areas; I would simply advise him to be sure of the policies before making any speedy deletions.
'''Strong Support''' for this obviously well-qualified candidate. Common-sense answers to the questions (for just one example, Q21), obvious dedication to the project, humility, and expertise in esoteric areas. Of course I checked contributions as well, and because of some opposes, I specifically looked at AfD work; I see nuanced opinions expressed which are in line with policy and common sense. Great editor, will be a great admin - my only regret here is I didn't support ''earlier''. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Strong support''' - Generally, I don't support candidates who have little experience in admin-related areas, but this is an exceptional case. After analyzing his edits, I found out that he has made high-quality edits to mathematics-related articles. I not convinced by the arguments in the oppose section. If you can make high-quality edits to subjects like mathematics, you can easily understand the duties of admins.
'''Support''', seems sound and trustworthy.
'''Support''' Seems reasonable enough for admin.  Doesn't meet perfection standards but many admins don't.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Candidate shows compelling evidence of maturity, reflection, intelligence, and patience. Good skills. What we require of admins is that they have judgement, the ability to stay cool under stress and are not dishonest. I think that has been proved on this AfD. People will always have personal issues with where an individual has or has not worked on the project, if an individual can recite their favourite policy backwards, and the way an individual votes at AfD. And I understand that. But these personal issues are colouring. The basic structure here is very sound. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. Answer to Q30 doesn't show a lot of awareness of the issues I would hope an admin would look for, but I would rather see non-actions than bad blocks.
'''Support:''' Admin is no big deal. We need more people here other than computer professionals and Wizkids at Wikipedia. I hope you keep up my trust . Best wishes to you --
'''Oppose''' - We can't afford more admins who simply don't think about the consequences of their actions/our actions.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey&diff=prev&oldid=260496452 This] has to make the candidacy a non-starter.
'''Oppose.''' After looking at your contributions, you haven't worked with a speedy deletion related article and I looked thru August 2008. That is 5 and a half months. I don't know if you did some work before that, however without recent activity in an area of focus, I can't support. I didn't even have an account on Wikipedia back then! I appreciate your work in [[WP:DELETION|AfD's]] but still... [[WP:CSD]] is what you said and you clearly don't have experience in the last couple months of that to what I saw. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Weak Oppose''' for now. I'm on the fence with this one. The first thing I noticed about the candidate was that his talk page goes back a year and a half, a sign of little communication with other editors. (Actually, the first thing I noticed was that he knows C++, as per his userpage, but that was pretty irrelevant). I was also put off because of his lack of communication [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CRGreathouse&diff=prev&oldid=226308996 here], when a new editor of only a month and a half came to him with a legitimate question regarding a particular individual's behavior and its relation to policy. CRGreathouse did not attempt to answer the question, give the new editor a policy link, or even point him to someone who he thought could help, instead responding, "I'm not an admin", which was completely unhelpful. Now, obviously that diff is from six months ago, but it was within the candidate's last 50 User Talk edits. Next, CRGreathouse's last 500 edits go back over five months, so that makes me question whether he remains all that current on the goings-on here on Wikipedia. Of course, I'm aware of real-life, but having so few recent edits gives me the feeling that maybe he's a little "rusty". I was also not a fan of his edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CRGreathouse&diff=262017055&oldid=261167982 here], where he said, "I shouldn't have to do it [RFA] more than once." To me, that came off extremely cocky. Also, looking through his project space contribs, I see that he works nearly exclusively in AFD (now don't get me wrong, his work there looks good), so I'd be comfortable with him working there, but he doesn't mention it in Q1, unless that was included by "many parts of page management", but he instead speaks of CSD, an area in which he appears to have little experience. I'm probably going to be coming back to this repeatedly over the next week, but that's what I'm seeing at the moment.
'''Weak Oppose.''' There are several very obvious reasons to oppose this candidate.  First, this user has fewer than 800 edits over the past 8 months.  In only two months has he had more than 100 edits.  While a lot of edits doesn't mean anything, a dearth of edits is a concern.  The nominator may try to rationalize this away, but fewer than 100 edits in 6 of the past 8 months?  I want to see people who are more active as admins---plus the lack of edits makes it hard to gauge. His last 50 talk space edits takes us all the way back to Jun 08.  His last 50 user talk takes us back to early May of last year.  That's about 6-7 edits per month in those key areas for admins.  Second, with the exception of AFD and Wikiproject Math, he has virtually zero experience in ''adminly areas.'' So how does he vote in AfD's?  These are from his last 100 Wikispace edits (so probably less than 50 AFD's):[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antonio_park_primary_school&diff=prev&oldid=259795432 Redirect or delete][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JJS_Karate_Dojo&diff=prev&oldid=252261103 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&diff=prev&oldid=247875494 Per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ridley_Rockin_R&diff=prev&oldid=247261344 Per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Affective_tutoring_systems&diff=prev&oldid=247261184 Per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antonio_park_primary_school&diff=prev&oldid=259795432 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hoof_%27n%27_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=236091021 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Duke_University_a_cappella_groups&diff=prev&oldid=236090887 per][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_high_schools_in_Washington_by_WIAA_league_alignment&diff=prev&oldid=231442732 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St_Augustine%27s_RC_Primary&diff=prev&oldid=228437815 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blountville_Middle_School&diff=prev&oldid=228307210 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duality_(mathematics)&diff=prev&oldid=227631180 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blanchard_Valley_Conference_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=226289585 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hong_Kong_Joint_School_Electronics_and_Computer_Society&diff=prev&oldid=225709618 merge else delete] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Good_Shepherd_(Edmonton)&diff=prev&oldid=225040240 per]  He does provide more elaborate reasons when dealing with schools, but for the most part, his AFD !voting doesn't really stand out as exemplary.  Which brings me to my third, and most important reason for opposing. GRC indicates a desire to work with CSD. This is an explicit reason he gave in answer number 1, but he has zero experience there.  If somebody wants to work in CSD they need to have ample experience there.  That is one area where we can't afford to let others learn on the job.  Mistakes there can have dire consequences. I MIGHT be able to over look this lack if his AFD work was top notch, but as he defers to others so much, I can't.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>[[User:Balloonman/CSD Survey|CSD Survey Results]]</small> 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Made it a weak oppose.  I can't bring myself to support, but I've been impressed with his demeanor and attitude... and his supporters.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>
'''Oppose''' - The lack of activity isn't necessarily that much of a concern - advanced and esoteric subjects sometimes require intense research, so the candidate obviously puts considerable thought into each edit. In other words, it isn't wikignome work. However, that being said, I am concerned by the distinct lack of communication cited above, as well as the paucity of experience in the deletion area. The candidate indicates right off the bat - CSD, yet CSD is one, if not ''the'' area where we want careful, capable and qualified administrators. At this point in time I am not comfortable supporting this candidate.
'''Oppose''' - I will have to oppose too, as I just can't overlook the fact that you haven't been active in CSD (or much at all) in quite a few months. I agree with Wisdom and Balloonman, CSD is one of those places where we can't be promoting administrators who learn while working on it. In addition, the lack of communication shown above is even more of an offputter. Surely you could have pointed him ''somewhere''. If I were a new editor in those shoes, I would see that as exceedingly unfriendly. Put together with the many "per" links by Balloonman, I will have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Lack of admin-related experience.
'''Oppose''' Per awful AfD commentary which Balloonman highlighted. I don't think inactivity is a reason to oppose though; I seldom make more than 150 edits a month but I log in and edit every day.--
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Very Regretful Oppose''' User is a true gentleman ,civil and do not see the user misusing the tools.The user can clearly be a good admin.I really appreciate  the user for answering 26 questions so far.But adminship is also about experience and I have agree with what User Balloonman has said  .I would earnestly appeal you to try again if this RFA fails because Wikipedia needs admins like you.Really very sorry.
'''Strong oppose''' An excellent editor, and for the time being, that's what he should stick to. First, with respect to Speedy deletion, he does not seem to understand that deletion is the last resort, that alternatives to deletion should be examined, that thee are many reasons for speedy besides copyvio--which is far from the most frequent reason-- and that for copyvio one does not speedy delete if there is a noncopyvio version, if the copyvio material can be removed, or if the material was not introduced at the same time by a single person. second, the only way to demonstrate understanding of process is to participate in them, and, as mentioned, his AfD participation gives insufficient evidence to judge his understanding & there's nothing specifically related to speedy.  When asked about this, he answered (in essence) that he wanted the authority first and that he would learn afterwards. Third, his approach to problematic situations with other admins seems a little odd---if one actually encountered a situation as extraordinary as Q8, my first thought after an email to the admin would be an email to arb com. Forth, his attitude that adminship is no big deal, is compatible with his casual attitude to the actual tasks involved, which matter very much to the people concerned with the articles. How we treat newbies is a big deal for the future of Wikipedia, and immediately deleting every article that is on its face unsatisfactory is not the way to go with them. (and his unawareness of the degree to which we need newcomers as shown by the answer to Q 16.  I would suggest a thorough reading of Wikipedia polices, some experience at the various boards, and then perhaps an application after some demonstrated knowledge and involvement. Intellectual or logical capacity in the abstract is not really what's needed for an admin--rather the intellectual capacity as applied to the problems here, with actual knowledge of how we do handle problems here. '''
'''Oppose'''. Balloonman, Dlohcierekim & DGG have stated it much better than I can. A fine editor but not yet experienced enough in admin-related areas. The answer to Q26 in particular was disquietening.
'''Oppose''', the user is a fantastic editor, and I do hope that they'll consider running again in the future, despite what they said above.  However, the complete lack of CSD experience and patchy XfD work are a bit of a worry.
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm very very sorry, but I have to agree with Pharoah of the Wizards here. You're clearly a great editor, but I'm just not sure adminship is right at the moment. I would strongly encourage you to run in the future, though; you've clearly got enough clue for the job, all that's lacking is a bit of experience.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman. I do say that if you follow the concerns of the other editors, perhaps you will be an admin! Good luck.
'''Weak oppose''' - almost there as far as [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] are concerned.  Interesting user page.
'''Weak Oppose''' - per Balloonman.  I don't like to pile on, but in this particular instance the link dump of "Pers" and evaluation of contributions lead me to believe this user may be a good editor, just not experienced to become an admin, yet.  To nominee - I've gone through this process twice, don't give up.  Best of luck.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Reluctant oppose.''' I'm sorry, but working on AfD has given me a strong aversion to the practice of treating AfD discussions as votes instead of, well, discussions. Voting "per nom" or "per so-and-so" doesn't contribute anything and reduces the process to a show of hands rather than a meaningful exchange. It's troubling coming from a potential admin's recent activity because it shows that the editor doesn't understand the deletion process. I cringe every time I see a pile of "per" votes on an AfD discussion - it just shows that the editors "voting" are too lazy to add anything of their own. This is especially important when the article was created by a new user; it may be obvious to a seasoned editor why a page should be deleted, but it's important to give the newbies something to go on. ''Fantastic'' editor otherwise, but I'd like to see more and better experience with deletion in general before I give my support.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman, Useeight, and DGG.  Lack of experience is not a good thing for an administrator to have when he or she wants to become one and as Balloonman has pointed out, lack of good reasoning for AfD reasonings is not a good thing either.  Good luck in the future!
'''Neutral''' for now. Answer to Q7 is wrong, blocks should not be used to allow people to calm down. This shows a lack of key policy knowledge by the candidate. <s>I'll wait a while before making any further decision</s>. '''John Sloan''' (
I'm sticking with neutral.  Balloonman's comment influenced me the most on this one, especially the bit about your AfD contributions.  The comments about your edits per month do not hold much sway with me, but I do think that you need to make higher quality edits in the deletion area if you wish to go into it as an administrator. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral''' <small>(switched from oppose)</small> per {{user|John254}} who convinced me that no signs of CSD knowledge does not mean that the candidate will make mistakes but that I just cannot judge how he will behave. Regards '''
'''Neutral.''' As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer supporting any candidates with more than 3500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a "support" if this RfA enters the discretionary range.
'''Neutral'''. CRGreathouse is undoubtedly a great editor. However, his answers to questions above question his knowledge of policy; something required for RfA. I have no reason to oppose on the basis that I do not believe he will negatively affect Wikipedia as an admin, but I also cannot support. <font color="777777">
'''Neutral.'''  Support as candidate has never been blocked and per 6 reasonable AfD arguments in discussions in which we both commented in, but oppose per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westland High School (Galloway, Ohio)]] (use of [[WP:PERNOM]] and vote out of touch with close), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tough guy (2nd nomination)]] (another [[WP:PERNOM]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School]] (a [[WP:JNN]] inconsistent with the close), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nowlin Middle School]] (another per nom inconsistent with the close), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSA in fiction]] (again, a per nom inconsistent with the close), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of advertising slogans]] (again, no argument, just a vote, really), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xenosaga cast members]] ([[WP:PERNOM]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination)]] (weak), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo]] (again, need more why), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Hawkins Elementary School (2nd)]] (more per votes), etc., i.e. these comments do not reflect careful enough consideration, which I look for in admin candidates.  So, not really enough to move me one way or the other, thus neutral, i.e. some good, some concerns.  Sincerley, --
'''Neutral'''. CRGreathouse is a good editor. However I'm not convinced that he has the required experience in admin-related areas.
'''Neutral''' {{user|Balloonman}}'s comments makes me unable to support, but I just can't support because of a lot of the supports (not the number, but the reasons), so I'm neutral for now. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but unimpressive AfD work.
Obvious support as nom. –'''
'''Support''' This user has shown nothing but maturity in his actions on Wiki and IRC. --'''
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support.''' A fine contributor and a pleasure to work with.
'''Definite support''' - I've worked with Dave many times and the interactions between us leaves no doubt for me that he would make an exemplary administrator. He does well serving as peacekeeper whenever there is a dispute at the US Roads project, and I think those skills could translate well into all areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Even though we have just passed by here and there, he is a striving force in my view of Wikipedia, mainly centered on roads. &ndash;
'''Support''' A fine editor... no reason to see that he will abuse the tools. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support'''.  No problems here.
'''Support''' in large part because you've got a good ratio of article edits and FAs on what I find to be boring topics.  The encyclopedia doesn't need people who've set out to become administrators, and article creation content counts more than "administrator wannabe" edit areas (ANI, AFD, etc.) in my book.
'''Support''', though I would encourage you to move slowly with admin tools - I can see pretty sparse contributions to the deletion areas that you mention in question 1. Having said that though, all the edits I've reviewed give the impression of a very clued-up editor with the best interests of Wikipedia very much at heart. Even if you just use the admin tools for various noncontroversial stuff in the course of your regular editing, I'm confident you'll be a net positive to the project in doing so. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. I have dealt with Dave many times through the U.S. Roads project and I feel he could definitely benefit the project by having the tools. Dave has proven himself to be a level-headed editor time and again, so I foresee no problems with promoting him. —
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Yup yup.
'''Support''' Fully comfortable with having you behind the controls!  --'''
'''Support''' per my RfA [[User:Aditya/RfA|criteria]]. '''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' per nom and above. No issues here.
'''Strong support''' - He definitely deserves this. As for the two major opposes here - you guys are opposing over '''1''' article? <font color="red">''
'''Support''' I see nothing that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools and am unpersuaded by the opposes.
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' — As an editor that has worked with Dave for over a year and a half now working on articles, I find his contributions to the encyclopedia to be valuable. As a comment to the bureaucrat that's reviewing this, please note something about one of the opposition below. {{user|Mgillfr}} is currently the subject of [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mgillfr]] in which Dave is a party. As is being demonstrated there, Dave's been patient in trying to mentor this editor, but his efforts get rebuffed. If the opposition takes issue with articles, the proper forum for that discussion is [[WP:FARC]], not here.
'''Strong support''' It's a collaborative wiki, so perfection is not required. It's all about fixing each others mistakes and combining our strengths. Thanks for your contributions.
'''Support''', I agree with ChildofMidnight. '''''
'''Support''' He seems like an intelligent guy. I can trust him to run things.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Good luck.
<s>'''Support''' </s> '''Weak Support''' Adequate knowledge of admin function, and has made it evident during this discussion that he has sufficient patience to do them calmly. Some klnowledge of article writing is necessary in an admin, but not particular skill at every part of it. '''
'''Support''' If the opposers are correct, then hopefully he can modify his writing style. However, I don't consider this to be a valid reason not to give him a mop.
'''Support''' - per ChildofMidnight.
'''Support''' Handles opposes reasonably well. Writing imperfect, but perfect prose and no OR are unattainable goals. What is important is that the principles are understood. Their application is always debatable.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' in direct contrast to OR's oppose. I personally see nothing wrong with Dave's edits and we need more people like him because he is not afraid to make contributions to the projects. Nobody is perfect and we don't need people nitpicking their contributions to find any reason to oppose. Besides, I don't think any of that would hurt somebody's ability to function as an ''admin''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' The  candidate has a clean block log and as this RFA shows can handle himself under fire. I've gone through the opposes and taken part in the discussion on this talk page. The plagiarism discussion seems to be unrelated to this candidate, other than in terms of RFA !voters coordinating what they are checking for. The rest seems to be largely a misunderstanding amongst some of the opposers as to our policy on verifiability. [[wp:verifiability]] currently says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If editors wish to change the policy to "Editors shall provide reliable sources for all material that they write" this RFA is not the place to change policy. The issue here is can we trust this candidate to wield the mop in accordance with policy, in the absence of any reason not to trust the candidate and with plenty of reasons to trust him I support. ''
'''Support''' Looks like a good user to me (the opposes are unpersuasive as to his likely administrative ability). I am concerned by relative lack of AfD experience, as this is one of the areas Dave proposes to work in, but I don't think RfA is so much about demonstrated administrative competence as demonstrated trust (and lack of demonstrated ''incompetence''), so I'm happy to support. <strong>
'''Support''' I am primarily looking two things in an admin: dedication to the project and a strong ability to reason.  Dave's dedication to the project is apparent from his steady contributions to the project for 2+ years (plus intermittent contributions from before that).  His reasoning abilities are demonstrated by his thoughtful answers to my questions.  Thus I am happy to support his candidacy. --
'''Support''', looks fine. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''- Looks great to me.
'''Support''' The oppose votes appear to be a petty witchhunt of some kind. I've known Dave from his USRD work and he's one who has the temperament to be an admin. He's one who will always make sure he's doing something right by consulting with others in cases where he's unsure. Ability to work with others is, in my opinion, one of the main characteristics one should look for in an admin. --
'''Support''' I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more admin-type experience, but above all I don't want to see the sorts of opposes we have here determining an RFA.  And after all I don't have any real concerns.
'''Support'''  per ChildofMidnight.
'''Support.'''  Diffs such as the one offered in the 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC) oppose, far from supporting the notion that this nominee's writing skills are under par, actually illustrate the contrary.  I am disturbed by the sideshow of opposition strategy which has little to do with Davemeistermoab's readiness to take up the tools.  He is ready.  He'll use them well.   —
'''Support.''' Does it really matter if his prose aren't brilliant? I can't see him stuffing anything up in admin areas. '''
'''Support'''. I agree with ChildOfMidnight. I see nothing in the oppose section that suggests that you'd be a bad administrator. Your calm and civil responses here and on the talk page suggest the opposite. Good luck.
'''Support''' I have only actively noticed this user around in recent weeks, and I have observed nothing but good contributions and balanced discussion. I feel he would use the tools well :) <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support'''; mature, dependable, and appears to have a good understanding of policy, in addition to displaying admirable coolness under fire.
Tactical '''support''', after some thought.  I find some of the more vocal opposers' debating tactics dubious and in one case based on questionable motives, and I wish to partly counteract them for this reason.—
'''Support''' It looks to me like you are quite capable of doing this job...
'''Support''' Appears to be a worthwhile member of our wiki's team. Welcome aboard. --
'''Support''' I'll take a risk on him, he doesn't look too dangerous. A few issues have been fairly raised, but personally I feel this User will move ahead slowly and with care as he gains experience in the fields where he might be a little lacking. (
'''Support''' based on answers. Problems raised below don't look like an overwhelming no-no.
'''Support''' - the ability to write and copy-edit FA quality articles is not a prerequisite to being a good administrator.  This user has had his article contributions dissected to a level I don't often see here at RFA and has reacted in a calm and reasonable manner - the type of quality that I ''do'' look for in potential admins.  Answers to the questions check out.  I have no reason to suspect this user will not make a good administrator.
'''Support''' I wasn't intending to !vote on this RfA but the drama does make for interesting reading (perhaps not for the candidate!). Anyway, I looked over the I-70 concerns section and, while I agree that the sourcing is of poor quality (tangential sources, unclear connection to the statement being referred to, and requiring a great deal of work on the part of the reader to verify cited statements, and I cannot see myself using the dinosaur source), I don't see evidence of 'forging references', 'manipulation of sources' and other examples of academic dishonesty. Perhaps these can be found in other examples but I don't have the time to look at everything and assume that the I-70 article is fairly representative of the concerns of the opposers. (I do agree with PeterDamian about the importance of 'writing quality' but don't see that as a killer.) For example, the first concern about Pavant ranges refers to two sentences with a citation at the end of the second sentence. The cited reference appears to agree with the content of the second sentence and there is no reason to believe that the author deliberately intended that the citation supports the facts in both sentences. The second concern about the brake check area and runaway truck ramps is improper, IMO. I do find the use of maps to support the third concern a bit odd but, if [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] certifies that this is the normal practice in interstate route articles then that's good enough for me and I see no reason to penalize the candidate for doing something that is standard practice in a project. I couldn't get reference 2 (the San Rafael Swell thing) but reference 15 is quite clear that the roadway is included as an engineering marvel. The boring through and the dinosaur quarry are again separate sentences and I suggest tagging the first sentence since no reliable source has been provided but prefer to assume that the author did not intend the reference to be used to support the construction statement. I wouldn't use the quarry 'visitors' website as a citation and this, IMO, is the biggest transgression that I can see (and hardly worth getting worked up about). Personally, I can't see how one can write an FA quality article on a roadway because how the heck is one supposed to cite features that are obvious but not verifiable through a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. But, there seem to be many FA quality roadway articles around and I'd be surprised if they didn't suffer from similar referencing issues. Given that, I think it unfair to dump on the candidate for working within the accepted norms of his chosen project. Add the support of at least two well known members of the project, and I have no qualms about offering my support. --

'''Support''' Good and original answers to all of the questions asked so far.  --  ''<B>
'''Support''' Opposes are weak in my opinion, and no evidence that user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I really don't see what the fuss is all about. I really could not find the intestinal fortitude to go through all the discussions, but let's assume he became overenthusiastic and painted a rosier picture of a few highways than the citations warranted. Yawn. So what? That's why we have an open editing environment. In an open editing environment everything we do is minutely, relentlessly and eternally scrutinized. It would be naive to expect that any faulty use of references would never be discovered in such an environment and I don't think anyone is that naive. If anything happened it must have happened because of simple human error or, at worst, overenthusiasm. Both of these faults are utterly reversible and redeemable. Eventually other editors will step in and fix the contested edits. In the process the editor in question will learn and improve and I'm sure he will not repeat this mistake. Isn't there a place for redemption in the RfA system? No second chances? No learning from mistakes? Why so much mistrust? Why so little leeway for people to overcome their faults? Let's give this editor the benefit of [[WP:AGF|a second chance]].
'''Support''' Everything that I've seen from Dave has been done right. I used to be a member of one of the US Highways WikiProjects. He's been a long-term asset to the project. I don't expect someone to have done a Featured Article before becoming an administrator. If someone had some FA experience but didn't do a good job with the sources, I'm going to assume in good faith that he wasn't deliberately doing something wrong. If these articles were constructed so poorly, how come they weren't caught by the eagle eyes at FAC? They found many issues were I didn't see any at my last FAC. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. I agree with iridescent's retraction comments below, and I don't believe that Dave would abuse the tools. While I do think some in-depth review of policies and guidelines regarding proper citation and usage of sources needs to be done, I think that Dave will be making sure he is very familiar with all of them. I think that Dave receiving the bit would be a net positive for the site. ···
'''Support'''.  I wanted to oppose per the cited "editing concerns" page below and lack of experience in areas where the candidate states he wishes to use the tools (question 1), but answers to q4 and q8 are fairly redeeming.  Furthermore, the editor's implication that he can abstain from these areas until he is ready is believable enough, and I see a decent amount of [[WP:DGAF|dgaf]] in almost all 14 questions answered so far. '''
'''Support''' per response to question 14, (and other questions)Two opinions are always better than one. Well thought out response. Clear to the point Im not confused as a user to follow how to respond. I think this editor is ready beyond any doubt. Good Luck!
'''Support''' I trust the candidate to responsibly use the tools.  The concerns displayed in the Oppose section, while not trifles, do not necessarily weigh heavily on my opinion.  Merely raising them is hopefuly enough. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - looks good in the usual ways for me.  I am slightly concerned about lack of well-roundedness, but am confident he will do no harm.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Stinks like fresh drama down below. Seems you can take a beating, and your content work is good: that's the kind of experience needed. The force be with you, may it. '''
'''Support''' even tempermant and willingness to take on new duties.
'''Support''' I have thought long and hard on this, and the opposers have an interesting technical case, but seem to have overplayed their hand - see the various talk page blurbs where various accusations seem to have been retracted. On balance, I come down to the fundamental question: do I think that this editor will misuse the tools? And I see no opposition really explaining why they think he would and I don't think he will. So.. support.
'''Weak support'''. I understand where the opposition's coming from, but I'll give the candidate a shot.
'''Support''', editing concerns are overblown and I don't see any major problems, moreover I don't think it is at all reasonable to object to candidates based on quibbles about their grammar and syntax.
'''Strong oppose''' - sorry. I looked at your contributions, including "The now two lane US50 crosses remote terrain, crossing many instances of the geographical [[Basin and Range]] construct. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada&diff=278811158&oldid=277447136].  There are many things wrong with that sentence.  We are here to build a comprehensive, accurate and ''readable'' reference work.
'''Oppose''' per Ottava, mostly. If it were simply a matter of misattribution here or there, I could brush it off as honest mistakes (I know I'd made similar in research, and as long as he fixes them, no foul.) However the manipulation of references suggests the candidate is unfamiliar with [[WP:NOR]], a serious editorial issue as well as an area admins should be expected to know about when evaluating ANI reports or the like. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors]] - it explains it all. I see problems with grammatical (and a bit of spelling) structures throughout Davemeistermoab's work on multiple articles. Check history on [[U.S. Route 395 in California]], [[Four Corners Monument]], and [[U.S. Route 50 in Nevada]].
'''Oppose'''. I don't see experience in the administrative areas you say you would be involved in, and while prose problems in the mainspace are of secondary concern, it is vital that administrators be able to communicate with other editors effectively. I don't see evidence of that in your writing here, and you've made several errors in your answers to Q1 and Q2. I think you have also erred in your treatment of those who raised concerns on the talk page. Your responses seem to be alternatively combative and dismissive, rather than collaborative. None of this means that I think you have a negative effect on the project in your current capacity. I hope that you will continue to add content, as long as it is verifiable.
'''Strong Oppose''' User has been around since Jan 2006 but did not find the user involving him/her in Deletions that is[[WP:AFD]] or [[WP:CSD]] or [[WP:IFD]] or[[WP:PROD]] where you wish to work in .But as the answer to Quesion 1 the user wants to be involved in deletion.But clearly has no experience.Deletion in particular [[WP:CSD]] is a very sensitive area and for example only 2 users are involved the recent page patroller and the Admin and most proably a new user creating his/her first page(which is not an attack page or copyright violation} whether the page is to be deleted within (it is marked in many cases within minutes of its creation) or not is a decision taken by the admin and I feel in areas like this experience is required and moreover [[WP:CSD]] deletion unlike Protection of Pages or even [[WP:UAA]] or Blocks another admin and other users see it and if is wrong or questionable raise it and change it .But in [[WP:CSD]] normarlly no one checks which  new page has been deleted by another admin and whether is correct or wrong.Hence if he/she wishes to be involved in deletions he/she needs to be experienced.Hence feel alone involved in [[WP:CSD]] Sorry
'''Oppose'''. Davemeistermoab says he wants to work in areas such as dealing with images and AFD, but I have concerns about his lack of experience in those areas. He has only contributed to a total of 6 AFDs in the three years he's been around (although his AFD contributions themselves were unproblematic, he just doesn't have many of them). And I can't seem to find ''any'' edits of his to specifically image-related pages like [[WP:IFD]]. I apologise in advance if I've missed something here - Dave, feel free to correct me and point me to where you've had experience in this area. But as it is, I just don't feel confident enough in the user's experience in these areas to give him the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' The editor says he wants to work with (among other things) images if he becomes an admin.  Right now, he only has 2 edits to the file namespace.  Normally when I come across an RFA like this I suggest on the editor's talk page that they get more experience with images before using the tools.  I do not normally oppose for this reason though.  This RFA is an exception.  He only has 2 edits to the file namespace.  Assuming his 41 deleted edits were also in the file namespace, he'd still have less than 1% of his edits there.  I think that is too low.--
'''Oppose''' Per the above concerns regarding lack of experience in deletion areas. I'd prefer to see more edits in those areas before supporting.--
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors]]; I also find the lack of experience in the areas the nominee in interested. I usually ony care if the person is wise, mature and polite enough to do the job (and not just knowing the tech aspect), but these problems as presented in talk are deeply disconcerting. -
'''Oppose'''. We're not electing moderators for a web forum, but people who will be the custodians of article space. We all understand that you sometimes have to use poor sources, but introducing sources which do not pertain to the subject at all shows, at the very best, a poor grasp of [[WP:RS]]. How many deletion discussions, PRODs or CSDs revolve around evaluating sources to verify an article? A great many. The nominee's grasp of [[WP:RS]] appears inadequate to judge consensus on these matters at present. If admin roles were separated into different areas and the tools accordingly limited, I'd probably support for non-mainspace adminship, but as such, not now.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Interstate_70_concerns]]
'''Weak oppose''' (from neutral). See there for why was was there. I Q7 unclear, and Q8 worrying - clear lack of experience which is something the nominee could get and come back in a couple of months. That would also give time to improve understanding of the policy issues underlining the problems on the talk. Q6 is also lacking the clarity of argument which could have helped convince me. -
'''Oppose''' per Ottava's and iridescent's concerns. Using sources badly is a problem that can be overcome, but I see a disturbing pattern, especially when it crosses into using sources to back up a claim that simply doesn't exist in the source. I'm willing to assume good faith, and my interactions with Dave have been positive, but at the least these concerns point to a lack of attention to detail. This can be a problem when working with admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Interstate_70_concerns]]--
'''Oppose''' I have not had time to read through the long talk page arguments. I have, however, read through the oppose rationales and looked at the evidence. Frequent improper use of sources is a serious problem, and while I know there is some debate over it, I  believe it would be best for you to read through and understand [[WP:V]] and especially [[WP:OR]]. I'm assuming good faith here and thinking you have the best interests of the project in mind, but the noted incidents don't give me much confidence in your knowledge of and ability to abide by core content policies. Correct your mistakes and show you've learned from them and I'll support another attempt in a few months.
'''Strong Oppose''' - the fact that 49 people would lend their support to someone not only of questionable article-writing talent, but who also forges references to those poorly-written articles, and who would do this (lend their support, that is) simply to spite some occasionally-incendiary personalities (cutting off their noses to spite their faces - how very mature), is very troubling. ''Almost'' as troubling as imagining Dave channel said writing skills when trying to explain, through writing, an administrative action. Sorry, but poor writing alone is recipe for drama on a text-based medium. Wouldn't hire a blind man to drive a bus, don't want an admin on an online encyclopedia who can't write. The ref forgery is the second layer of this putrid German [[Coprophilia|scat]] cake - I'm guessing it was done mostly to herd articles through the DYK/GA/FA process to collect those precious stars - which incidentially highlights just how meaningless those processes are. I would consider it admirable dedication if this were a RPG, but this is, in theory at least, an encyclopedia. Regardless of intent, the bottom line is that this sort of trickery is perhaps even '''more''' damaging to an encyclopedia's reputation than if he were forging references to support wonky POV - wonky POV tends to be self-identifying, sourced or not, but it can be hard to figure out what is strange, but true information, and what is mere urban legend.
'''Oppose''' - The mis-use of sources was enough to swing it for me.
'''Oppose''' because the concerns noted above are downright scary.
'''Oppose'''.  FlyingToaster part deux.
'''Oppose''' Per the above concerns, and the misuse of sources in articles.  All the Best,
'''Oppose'''—The response to Q11 on [[User:Tony1/AdminReview|AdminReview]] showed that the candidate did not absorb basic aspects of the process, such as are set out in the "Nutshell" at the top. The response to Q12 on non-free content did not answer the question and showed little acquaintance with how the experts probe editors about their (non-)compliance. Concern about skills in administrative writing.
'''Oppose''' per Q.11. --
'''Oppose''' I like and trust Dave; he makes the Internet suck less. But as an editor who wants to avoid drama, I don't think he should get the mop. Stick to contributing good content.
'''Oppose'''. Before my explanation, I wish to say that the opposes based on sourcing and article work do not really bother me, and that my oppose has nothing to do with those.  Your mainspace contributions are very good, but I do not see much experience in the areas you wish to go into.  I can see from your answers to questions and from your edits that you are an intelligent editor, but I am afraid that this is not always enough for areas such as AfD. In this area, one must be familiar with the process front to back because article deletion is one of the "touchiest" areas on Wikipedia (perhaps behind CSD).  If an editor's article is wrongly deleted because consensus is wrongly interpreted, it can be enough to drive that user away from the project altogether.  For the average editor, AfD week can be as stressful as RfA week and can result in a "falling out" as I stated earlier.  Also, one major aspect of AfD is interpretation of policies and guidelines, most specifically [[WP:NOTABILITY|notability guidelines]].  If you do not have a high amount of experience with even the base application of these policies and guidelines, it will be nearly impossible to understand the more subtle aspects and finer points of the policy. Lastly, your comment "If an article is truly notable, it should be able to be defended as such to a reasonable audience," somewhat bothers me.  A subject such as a notable event in a non-english speaking country would possibly not have a "reasonable audience" by english speaking editors. This sort of thinking makes me even more nervous to support your candidacy if you have plans to work at AfD.  Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Oppose''' - No [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&contribs=user&target=Davemeistermoab&namespace=4 AfD participation] at all. If you plan on doing AfD work (Q1), you should get more experience in AfD. I have nothing against the grammatical mistakes though, since nobody's perfect. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose, with regret'''. I think that you may one day make a fine admin, but you need additional experience. It is concerning enough that you want to work with deletions yet have minimal experience in those project space areas. I'm also concerned that you didn't realize that this would prompt opposition, which speaks to an overall unreadiness for the sysop gig. With time and effort you'll gain experience and will have our confidence. Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' Its been quite a while since the "cookie-cutter admin-coaching candidates" trope was an issue (viz. certain former prolific nommers) but I feel it coming on again. Pals of Julian's make me nervous. I get the impression that if one attends to Julian and his socialite sphere on IRC - or feeds his interests - he'll put you forward with the accumulated chorus of likeminded chatter chums to rack up the "Looks good to me!" (and good enough for closing bureaucrat!) supports and you'll be more happy admins together. Now Dave and Julian are guys after my heart in that I'm a tarmac maven too - but as a reader rather than writer when it comes to WP, prefering to let loose the lyricism elsewhere. Knowing when adding to what's already there would not be doing so within guidelines, would not be contributing constructively, would essentially be doing so for "Lookit me, I wrote here!" approval. The niggles and problems with Dave's content contributions (I ignored the PeterDamian circus about 10 lines in FWIW) do not inspire confidence when it comes to assessing his ability to communicate policy and decisions. But its mostly the huge gulf between experience and intended areas of engagement (viz. AFD). <s>Seven months is no way long enough for any but the most improbably clued in and faultless.</s> (Wrong RFA - see below). These require substantially more experience than he can offer. Reassurances of appreciating one's current limitations and proceeding cautiously mean nothing when any such understanding should have precluded accepting a nom in the first place. I expect RFA candidates to be ready to be admins and not inchoate 'gaining experience' echoes.
'''Oppose'''I'm sorry but looking at the comments above it is clear that you might not be ready for the areas that you want to work in as an administrator. However, become a bit more experienced and come back to RfA in a few months and maybe then you'll have my support.--
'''Oppose''' for the reason that [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] expressed.
'''Oppose''' I'm really sorry, but there are too many concerns floating about to make me comfortable with your promotion. I wish you all the best, and would be happy supporting in three months. \
'''Oppose''' 5,000 edits spread out over the period of several years and "keeping a low profile" is not good. Very unimpressed. Whilst avoiding wiki drama is recommendable, I believe admins need to be actively involved in wikipedia over a prolonged period. 5,000 edits is a very low edit count in a few years, not admin material. Admins need to be dependable and there when you need them.
'''Oppose'''. I am impressed by Dave's content contribution. However I am concerned by his eagerness to close AfDs given his rather limited participation. Dave provides valuable contributions to Wikipedia. This would not be enhanced by adminship.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate wishes to work in AfD, but has little participation in the area. I'd like to see a bit more experience, enough for me to feel comfortable supporting the candidate. — '''''
The sheer number of problems pointed out in the talk page makes me worried that the candidate may not be able to enforce Wikipedia's content guidelines (not being able to write well or interested in writing well is one thing, but an admin should at least understand these things even if he doesn't plan on spending much time in the article namespace himself). While I don't know much about editing road articles and I'm not really qualified to comment on most of the content issues raised raised by Ottava Rima at the talk page; Ottava is known for being a very thorough quality controller and I think his points should be paid attention to, even if some might find them nitpicky. Staying neutral since I'm not really familiar with the candidate's contributions outside this area and I can't think very critically about the particular article in question, but leaning towards oppose because of the article-writing problems (like I said, even if an admin doesn't plan on spending most of his time article-writing, he should at least understand it well--just about everything else at Wikipedia is secondary to it). <b class="Unicode">
'''Neutral''' moved from Oppose, my reason for landing here is stated on the section.--
'''Neutral''' for now. I have read through this and relevant points linked a couple of times now, and I just cannot bring myself down yet. Leaning towards support at the moment, pending more thought/discussion. Also, some of these opposes are ridiculous. --
'''Neutral''' from support. Wants to work in deletion, but has only ever participated in 6 AFDs. Wants to work with images, but has only two file contributions. Sourcing and OR are peripheral issues, but weighed together I am unable to support.
'''Strong Support''' Per high quality nomination statements :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Pedro above {{=)|wink}} Regards '''
'''Strong Support''' Excellent candidate! – ('''
'''Support''' I like what I am seeing. '''
'''Support''' has clue, and to say it short: would benefit our community. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' Looks good to me. -- ''<B>
Make it so. Knew this was one of Pedro's nom statements before I got to the sig.
'''Support'''. Contribs back up noms' high praise.
Support per nom and per Maxim's oppose.  Caution at CSD is by no means a bad trait, and between our many deletion options, no one user can prevent a consensus deletion (nor even long delay it).  This contrasts strongly with the potential results of an admin who favors more lenient CSD standards. &mdash;
Decltype is a net positive in my eyes for sure. He knows what he is doing and is willing to help out those who wish for some additional guidance, which is especially important for an administrator.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_15#Conflict_of_Interest][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_15#Cool_script][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&oldid=298233624#CSDH_bug] His work indicates to me that he is both polite and clueful, and I believe that he willing be an excellent benefit to the project as a sysop. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''. Some seriously glowing nomination statements from two editors I very much respect the opinions of are a good start, and a review of contributions reveals a dedicated and sensible user who could make effective use of the tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
The candidate's speedy work has been very good when I've seen it.  The first article that Maxim cites includes "[This card game] was invented by Christopher Lauzon ... on June 10, 2009."  It's true that many think that this should be sufficient reason to speedy an article (it sure wouldn't bother me), but the consensus currently leans in the other direction; see for instance [[Wikipedia_talk:CSD#Früctan]].  And of course, the best evidence that decltype's speedy tags are in line with present consensus is [[WP:CSD]] itself, which doesn't have that speedy criterion; that's what policy pages are for, to record consensus. - Dank (
'''Support''', great user, answer to question is good.
'''Support''' - Great user. My interactions with him have been very positive. <b>
I explicitly looked at the oppose raised by Maxim, and have say that it is the reason why I am supporting.  [[Michael J. Levine]] which Dec tagged for prod, and Maxim claims should have been deleted A7 does make a credible claim to significance.  It claims that Levine was the star in a viral video.  A7 does not require that the claim be true or even sourced, it only has to be credible. The viral video, made the following claim, ''The film won the award for Best Comedy [at the [[Campus MovieFest]] national competition] and has had continued success as a viral video on YouTube.'' [[Hong Kong Trade Centre]] is clearly about the building, not a business as Maxim claims.  As for [[Rajko Purovic]] the article included two sources, [http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/boro-fc/boro-fc-news/2009/06/10/boro-close-in-on-serbian-striker-84229-23834702/][http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/boro-fc/boro-fc-news/2009/06/09/future-may-lie-at-home-for-huth-84229-23822782/] both of which reference Rajko.  Two days AFTER dec worked on the article, it was discovered taht Rajko was a hoax and that the sources were duped.  How you can blame Dec for this I don't know, because he never edited the article after it was deleted---once let alone three times as claimed in the oppose.  (Dec's last edit 12:42 on June 12, first of 3 deletions 23:58 on June 12.)  How about [[Statian Rummy]] Maxim says this was a clear hoax, but according to [[WP:Hoax]] [[Wikipedia:HOAX#Dealing_with_hoaxes|Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax.]]  While this may have been a hoax, it was not such blatant vandalism that having it around for a few days (tagged for deletion) would cause problems.  The article, at least when Dec edited, gave the rules for a variation of Rummy.  Even if made up, it is in no way a CSD candidate.  As for [[Business Development Centre (Hong Kong)]] and [[Deep central]], yes they probably are CSD candidates, but I would much rather haver a person err on the side of caution than go off half cocked and delete everything under the sun.  Deep Central did make a vague claim to significance, but not one that generally would save from most CSD'ers (including myself). There is a reason [[WP:WIHSD|Why I Hate Speedy Deleters]].  (I will admit, the answer to number 6 is a concern, if an article is mistagged, assume it was tagged wrong by mistake, you WILL delete articles with the wrong rationale, it happens.)---'''
'''Weak support''' per my struck neutral !vote and amended Q6. I see a lot of fence-sitting; I prefer admins with stronger convictions. Preferably that match my convictions :-)
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Weak support]]; yeah, the answer to Q6 is disappointing, but cluefullness is generally suppressed by the stress of RfA. –'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a good and clueful contributor.
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Strong Support''' would make a great admin. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' decltype is one of those editors that somehow seems to pop up everywhere I seem to go with the right answers.  dec's work has always been excellent in my opinion, and seems to often hit the proverbial nail on the head.  I am unswayed by the Opposes, but rather remain confident in the above answers.  Caution, they say, is the better part of valor, and decltype's head seems to be in the right place. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. I see plenty of clue and no evidence the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support'''. The opposes are not convincing. Even if you only use the admin tools once, there will be a benefit to Wikipedia.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Excellent user with excellent judgment.
'''Support''' - good user: helpful for CSD, where more hands are always useful. I also disagree with Maxim that articles that don't meet the criteria should be speedied anyway. IAR can go to far, and if in doubt for CSD, we go through AFD - you don;t just make a unilateral decision to delete under your own criteria.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Good candidate, am not impressed with the opposes, caution in the use of the tools should be encouraged not discouraged.
'''Support''' The points stated in the oppose section appear to be (partly) valid; though, altogether not enough to oppose. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Per noms and great work.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''. My finger was already on the Support button when Maxim posted his oppose, and I decided to wait for a while to see if the opposers came up with something I might have missed. I'm still pretty confident you won't abuse the tools, especially after the correction to question 6.
--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]|
'''Support''' due to the candidate's view on speedy deletions. Carelessly performed speedy deletions for poor reasons are one of the major ways Wikipedia drives away newcomers. We need more admins willing to challenge dubious speedy claims. Also, decltype seems to be clueful and dedicated to the project.
'''Support'''.
Seems like a sensible editor. I've seen no problems in my interactions with the candidate. --
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' I like a man who's had a go at some articles. Unconcerned by the opposing arguments. --
'''Support''' As per track and see no concerns nd feel the rpoject will gain with the user having tools .The user has been in the project since Dec 2005.
'''Support''' - Unconvinced by the opposition - also, I trust Pedro's judgment more than most.
''''Support''' better to err on the side of caution when using the tools. \
'''Support''' no problems, no reason to expect abuse.
'''Support''' this clueful candidate.—
'''Support''' 100% yes. Good luck.
'''Support''' Even though your answer to Q6 is a complete disaster. As I think about it, as much as I dislike the answer, it will only be a hindrance to you as an admin... but it won't cause you to be a hindrance to others. In other words, I don't see it as a problem, so much as a self imposed limitation, and that poses no harm.
'''Support''' [[User talk:Decltype/Archive 2#CSD tagging|I noticed Decltype's good CSD tagging]] a while back. (For non admins, in this particular incident he retagged a couple of A7s as G10s). ''
'''Support'''. The candidate appears to be trustworthy, hard-working and thoughtful. From what I can see decltype is both a good content builder and has a good track record in xxD space.
'''support''' much better that we have admins who are restrained in their use of CSD than those who are over-expansive. '''
'''Support''' I have formed a positive impression of this user's contributions (which I've seen in various places) and (like several other !voters here) I'm impressed with the way decltype "errs on the side of caution" in dealing with articles that are candidates for deletion. --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, but by contrast has [[User:Decltype/Awards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Looks like long tenure is spotty until late 2008, but solid work in the time since then.  Solid AIV work.  Fantastic work on NPP! (+700)  Good article contribs. (esp. C++ related material) with collaboration on talk page.  Have seen some helpful work at HD and RefDesk/Computing.  I think Q6 (both question and response can be taken in several ways), and I think the more positive aspects of that exchange are not enough to oppose.   I believe this candidate will add strength to the admin. corps. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' I see no issue with your CSD tagging and everything else looks good as well. '''
'''Support''' per above.
Answers show clue; also seems clueful enough not to get too anal about verbiage over meaning; hopefully will IAR if necessary; support.
'''Support''' Should have happened years ago (
'''Support'''. I sympathize with the oppose votes. If something is obviously inappropriate, we should be abiding by the [[WP:RAP|spirit of the rules]], rather than contrained by the [[WP:LAWYER|letter]]. Additionally, I'm particularly concerned about a "weak" deletion position on noncompliant non-free content. Since the software allows undeletion of images, less harm is caused by deleting such images (which can be undone if someone is willing to provide a reasonable rationale) than by leaving copyright infringing material in place. Also, I'm wary of a "soft" approach to non-free material in the context of our free content material and mission. However, these are matters of wikiphilosophy. As much as I may disagree, that is not a reason to oppose. This is about whether or not this editor is suited to the mop and bucket, not whether this editor will bend a knee to my wikipolitics. --
'''Support''' per excellent knowledge of the CSD.
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions, including CSD work. However I am slightly concerned by this comment in the answer to question 6: "''I would of course delete if it was mistagged, but met a different criterion.''" The best approach should be to remove the incorrect tag and replace it with the correct tag. Prior to speedy deletion, both the tagger and the deleting admin should agree on the criterion used.
'''Support''' good answers to questions (including q 6).
'''Support'''. Solid candidate. — '''''
'''Support''', very good answers to questions 12a and 12b. --
'''Støtte'''
'''Support''' Good AIV, CSD work. Would make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' I share Vassyana's concerns esp. regarding somewhat diffident approach towards nonfree image abuse, but overall answers are excellent. I have every confidence that Decl will be an excellent admin. Best wishes, <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Does very good work, always polite and helpful. I'd be more than happy to have decltype helping in admin areas, esp. deleting pages. And his work in other areas seems pretty good according to other !voters and a quick glance. Whole-hearted support -
'''Support'''. Seems clueful indeed.
'''Support''' - Good work; will do well as an admin. --~
'''Support''' for another programmer :P ... Not really, but I trust you with the tools --
'''Support'''. Does great work, and I see absolutely no reason that he will abuse the tools. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Give him the tools. :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''', sorry for being late but I definitely think decltype can be trusted.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. —
'''Oppose''' per CSD work. We don't need more admins who are going to stick by the exact letter of the rule, or worse, adopt a stance more lenient than even exact letter of the rule of CSD. Examples: [[Statian Rummy]] was a blatant hoax—this article would have been deleted on the spot if you tagged it as such; we didn't need to go through the hoops with PROD and AfD. [[Rajko Purovic]] was a hoax too, and deleted three times, yet decltype didn't tag even though he reviewed it. [[Hong Kong Trade Centre]] should have been a db-corp candidate: the article is about the business, and not the building itself; I wonder if any extra homework was done here: the first 10 of the 809 G-hits for "Hong Kong Trade Centre" yield no useful information to establish importance, and the only link to the article on WP is from [[Business Development Centre (Hong Kong)]], which should be deleted too. (Since I want non-admins to review this too, I have not deleted these two articles). [[Michael J. Levine]] was tagged as a PROD, yet it met [[WP:CSD#A7]]. [[Deep central]] is another clear A7, from today, which was deleted as such yet not tagged by decltype. To resume, I feel that the candidate doesn't put attention to his CSD work, and I'm sensing him as someone who'd decline to delete something that really should be deleted, based on a technicality. Something borderline spammy and non-notable as the Hong Kong Trade Centre is still hanging around there, and the related article, when both should not be included in WP. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Maxim|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 14:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Strongly disagree with answer to Q6. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q6. According to the nom, he has plenty of clue, but if he's not going to use it, what's the point? <font face="Broadway">
Per Mr.Z-man. <strong>
'''Oppose''' He looks clueful and his Norwegian language ability enables to expand related articles and to help Norwegian editors but I have to agree with Maxim and Z-man. Aside from it, he has been very "vigorous" only in the latest 4 months and that does not make him simply labeled as a "long-term editor". That implies that he's undergone every possible experience within Wikipedia, which is not. I'm not sure the candidate fully pre-discussed with the nominators about his adminship because some of the flowery introduction does not match to what the candidate wants to dedicate with the bits such as DYKs. The candidate is not highly active in the field (also 1/5 edits there is for his DYK nominations), and he's never participated in discussion for improving DYK policies or general situation. I think I can support him if he come back at least 4 months past after the RfA.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) <small>The nomination statement is a stark opposite to Balloonman's, that is interesting.--
'''Oppose''', per Mr.Z-man.
Too much fence-sitting in questions.
I've thought about which way to go long and hard, and I still can't decide. A part of me feels that since I asked such a difficult question that I myself, at this stage, would struggle to answer, I feel that I shouldn't oppose. However, I do feel that administrators are elected because after going through RFA, they have proven to the community that we can trust their judgment, so I feel that when in doubt, administrators should use their judgment rather than worrying too much about whether it fits within a certain rulebook that they have to follow. I feel that admins should use [[WP:SENSE|common sense]]. For example, while an article may not fit a certain speedy criteria, if it's clearly a problematic article, that while doesn't meet a CSD criteria, clearly needs deletion and would be deleted if it were to go to AFD, then isn't it more effective to simply delete it? Some may disagree, and say that process must be followed, but process can be a thorn in the side at times. I'm not saying all admins should start breaking policy, or speedying articles that clearly should go through AFD, but admins are given some leeway. We call it discretion, and I feel that you wouldn't use it. Many of the above editors have commented that you have clue, and I agree. My advice, if this RFA does pass, would be to use it. So..yeah. I can't support because of my above concerns, however I feel it would be hypocritical to oppose...which leaves me here, I guess. Best, <font face="Forte">
'''Neutral''' I don't see anything particularly convincing one way or the other at this point.  Don't see any need for him to have admin tools.  I have not had experience with this editor.  Without a clear reason to support and without a clear reason to oppose, I guess that makes me neutral.
Wait, you mean he isn't actually an administrator? I've seen him around for ages, and have just always assumed that he was one. We'll let's fix that now. Dinoguy would be a definite positive to the project as an administrator. '''Support''' <font color="navy">
—
'''Support''' I'm impressed that the candidate willingly points out situations where he shouldn't have said something in such a manner.  I trust him.
'''Support''' - No reason not to. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. If that edit summary is what he considers uncivil, this guy is a saint.
'''Support''' based on my (rather limited) experience with him. He seems quite civil and intelligent. [[WP:WTHN]]? –
'''Support''' - looks like he knows what he's doing. I trust him with the tools. -
'''Solid'''.  Good find, MBisanz.  Nice technical work, Dino - best of luck to you!
'''Support''' Tenure, experience, clean block log and civility, OK I don't understand  all the technical stuff dino wants to do but I'm happy to have him do it. ''
'''Support.''' We need more people who care about the Wikipedia's technical side and 11,000 edits is certainly good enough. —
'''Support'''.  I'm really impressed by his contributions at [[Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs]] and the most recent archive; people who can do that work and also communicate about it in a clear and friendly manner are exceptional.  People who do it for free are priceless. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
'''Support'''. Very good editor, the only thing I see that bugs me is your signature. You don't have to change it, but it is confusing. '''
Need more template admins, and this one seems to be suitable. '''
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' no indication he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - well of course the "Ruler of the World" should have a mop!  But seriously, plenty of good contributions, great temperament, has experience at admining another wiki - my only question is: What took you so long to step up and ask for the tools? Best of luck. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Full support''' from me. I've seen this editor around and have every confidence in him. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support'''. Like his content contributions, work at [[WP:ANIME]], the template work, and the cool head. Also, now he can stop bothering me for history merges ;) — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' As nom. '''
Support, but agree with Malinaccer and Useight that you should probably change your sig so people can better know what to call you.  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having funky characters in your sig (I know I do), but it probably shouldn't be your entire sig, because it gets difficult people who can't read it (either because they don't have the fonts installed or don't know Japanese). <b class="Unicode">
Both of users accounts make good contributions and clearly does good work in the Anime Wikiproject. Users been here for a good period of time and done a good number of edits through numerous IPs, and 2 different accounts. Also excellent answers and excellent nom.--(
'''Solid Support''' Of course.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' on strength of contributions but I agree that he should change his sig.  I don't like sigs that I have to mouse over to see who it is -- it wastes my time.
'''Per nom''' too few admins, alrighty?
'''Support''' solid credentials in the field that you want to work in. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' per overall record and comments above. No concerns noted.
'''Support''' I met the candidate once. Just like everyone have noticed, he is a civil and sensible editor with a great contribution history. I have no concern about him having the admin bits. Best wishes for him and our community.--
'''Support''', good user, and currently not enough administrators.
'''Support''', as per nom.
'''Support''' Too few admins currently :)! Also a fine canidate, if that edit summary is the most uncivil thing he has done, then he is reasonably civil. Respectfully suggest he change that sig to something more computers have the font for (or make the latin name at the end bigger)
'''Support''' Generally (ignoring tiny blemishes we all have) civil, professional, and cool-headed. Excellent templating skills. Would be a good addition to the mop-wielders. &mdash;
'''Support''' Why not no flags here good luck. -- [[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support'''Can see no reason why not-please change the sig though!
'''Support''' No concerns here. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' <s>Too many admins currently</s>. Great user, will make good admin.
I'm
'''Support''' see no problems in the last year, good answers.
'''Support''' When Dinoguy and I got into a bit of a disagreement about a page name, he was very nice and civil about the whole thing. So, yes, I think he would make a good admin. :)
Of course. Great user. <strong>
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' Looks great! - <big>'''
- <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' Definitely! '''''

'''Support'''Excellent user, tool access will be not only of benefit to the users daily activities, but to the improvement of wikipedia in general
'''Support'''. net positive.
'''Support'''. I admire your honesty in answering question #5. It's important to know policy but I think it is also important to admit you don't have all the answers but you know where to look it up or whom to ask. The latter makes a more humble administrator.
'''Support''' Please become an admin --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per MBisanz. <span title="Ganbatte; Japanese 'go for it'">[[#|がんばって]]</span> <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' mainly per MBisanz nomination and answer to Q4. I'm glad this user sees adminship as a ''complement to'', not a ''substitute for'', ordinary editing. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' No reason no to.
'''Full Support''' He does really good work and giving these tools would allow him to expand his abilities to help wikipedia.  --'''
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''.  Only positive, constructive and friendly editing to be found.  Dinoguy1000 communicates and builds consensus as he [[Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Anime_and_manga#Rename_to_include_.22manga.22|improves]] the encyclopedia.  With a demonstrated need for system operator permissions he has met my [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|criteria]] to be trusted with Adminship. <small>
'''Support''' - Excellent user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
No reason not to support.
'''Support''' shows good sense and reticence. . .
'''Support''', no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support.''' Answers given to questions and site experience both make me confident that this user would do well as an administrator. Good luck!
'''Support''' - good contributor, likely to make a good admin; a slightly-annoying signature is no reason to oppose. :)
'''Strong Support''' - if I was ever fit to be an administrator, Dinoguy1000 certainly is. He has improved Wikipedia and would be a great admin. [[User:Sjones23|Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] -
'''Support'''. Fit for the tools. — '''''
'''Support'''. Dinoguy1000 has extensive know-how about template coding, and it would be a net gain if he were to edit them to add new features, or clean up code when needed.
'''Support''' Certainly, no alarms seen here. --
'''Support''', as though you need it.  Experienced and trustworthy editor. '''
'''Support''' - everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' - good contributor with good track record. I see no problem here. —
'''Support'''. For being honest and open to criticism.
'''Support''' Trust the judgement of Mbisanz and user has been around since October 2006 and track is good.
'''Support''' A welcome addition to the ranks.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Strong Support''' as he has been an excellent contributor to [[WP:ANIME]] for a good long while, and is generally all-around helpful. I see nothing which would lead me to believe the tools would be abused, and plenty of instances where the tools would prove useful to him. ···
'''Support''' - veteran editor with 10,000 edits, rollback rights, no issues.
'''ダイノガイ>九千!''' —
'''Support''' DinoGuy1000 should be an asset on wikipedia; Good contrib, mainspace edits, and rollback rights used maturely.
'''Support''' will do fine.
'''Strong support'''. No problems. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  On the oppose aspect, although I won't oppose per one diff, but I can't support when I see comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beyblade_timeline&diff=218213554&oldid=218195717 this] in which 1) who knows why anyone creates a particular article and if we're going to make assumptions, we should [[WP:AGF]] and 2) that's not really a reason for deletion anyway, i.e. a blend of a [[WP:PERNOM]] followed by an unproven assumption about the motivations' of the article's creator.  Anyway, I would like to see more thoughtfulness and considerateness from those who have the means of closing such discussions.  On the positive side of things are that the candidate has never been blocked and [[User:Dinoguy1000#Awards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral''' - Candidate has no idea what the BLP problem is, much less a desire to help fix it. I would oppose, but I've decided it's counter-productive to the cause.
Not enough administrators currently.--
<s>Not enough administrators currently.</s> Sense of humor fail. I have no reason to not trust him.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #465945;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''', as co-nom, natch. :)
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' sensible - I think Drilnoth has amassed enough experience points to [[WP:ADMIN|level up]]
'''Support''' The user looks trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
Quite honestly, I thought he already was an administrator. <font color="navy">
'''Support'''.—
Why not?
'''Weak Support'''. Some CSD mistakes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Sterling_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=278591355][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nokdong_Station&diff=prev&oldid=278435428][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hattaway_Communications&diff=prev&oldid=278418179][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_of_marvel_trading_cards&diff=prev&oldid=280539263][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Arellano_Nu%C3%B1o&diff=280850332&oldid=280850186]) but I think this candidate is mature enough to learn from them should they decide to venture into that area. The other contributions look fine enough to assume that they will. Regards '''
'''Support''' I don't have no reason not to, but I have a question. I personally have no issue in doing it, but should two people with RFA's open being co-noming each other?? Anyway, support.
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. Disclaimer: I granted Drilnoth rollback a few days ago. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, no problems &mdash;<font color="maroon">
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has been nominated by a [[User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts|nice Wikipedian]], makes reasonable arguments in AfDs, understands [[WP:BEFORE]], and is a Good Article contributor.  Two good candidates in a row!  :)  Best, --
'''Support''' Seems to be a good candidate with a head full of clue. '''
'''Strong support''' solid editor, would make a wonderful admin.
'''Support''' For reasons similar to BOZ.  I'm cheating here, because I know the both of them from the same places...but since they both nominated each other (!) at the same time, I feel justified in doing so.  I feel that Drinloth is a capable mediator, is willing to learn from mistakes, and will use the tools appropriately.  Just as w/ BOZ, I'm certain that editors can put aside their content disputes with this editor and support him on his merits.  That would be the right thing to do.
'''Support'''. I like the answers above and can definitely approve someone who wishes to both stay away from controversy (less drama) and yet willing to handle the more mundane admin tasks. '''
'''Support''' Per above. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' - Calm, reasonable , fair-minded editor, receptive to new information and willing to learn. All my interactions with him have been pleasant and constructive. Communicates clearly and not overly wordy. I have no fears that he will abuse.  &mdash;
'''Support'''. Level-headed, proactive in engaging those he disagrees with, increasingly talented at dispute resolution and buidling consensus. I was very critical of his earlier treatment of Gavin Collins, but he's grown considerably as an editor since then. Can be trusted not to abuse the tools, which is really all RfA is about once you lose the lame purity tests.
'''Support''' Has the right attitude: constructive and cooperative.
'''Support'''. No problems I can see. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Level-headed, calm editor. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''. For his great work on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009|2009 Spring GAN backlog elimination drive]], I see Drilnoth as a hardworking and trustworthy candidate. — '''''
'''Support''' Per [[User:Patton123|Patton]].--
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' No reasons not to. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' Someone you can normally communicate with, even after I reverted most of one of his edits.
'''Support''' this excellent contributor.—
'''Support''' Seems to be trustworthy. --
'''Yep''' '''''
'''Support'''- Sure, why not? I noticed Drilnoth because he sometimes wanders by some of the numerous notability-related discussions. Although Drilnoth is on the other side of that dispute from me, I've been impressed with his ability to keep a level head and see things from the other side's point of view. That's a virtue that's not so common in those discussions, and makes me very confident that he'll be a competent and responsible admin.
'''Support''' - Drilnoth already does tons for the wiki, and with the tools they can do even more. -
'''Strong Support''' - Drilnoth has proven to me to be a excellent wikipeidian and editor.  He has acted fair and always has worked to make sure there is consensus.  He his bent over backwards to help others including those with opposing points of view.
'''Support''' work in the D&D arena is superb. Outstanding editor, fair.
'''Support''' per positive past interactions and collaborations.
'''Support''' WikiProject Vital Articles. Nuff said. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate, all-around. —  <small><b><span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' I've seen him around a fair bit, works for me. '''
'''Support''' Trust him with the tools

'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support''' Seems to have the right idea, does good work here. Good luck!
'''Support''' Looks great.--
'''Support''' This individual seems civil and reasonable.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Seen him around and seems a hardworking and reasonable minded editor. No tension. --
'''Support''' Yes, certainly. Seems balanced and sane (as sane as any of us). --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - Candidate has a decent grasp of the BLP problem and is willing to take steps in the direction of improvement.
'''Support''' - meets my standards at [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]]; no good reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, should do well with the tools. --
'''Support''' Has already shown responsibility and yada yada in my interactions with him in the past. (I was about to say "responsibility and leadership skills," but that sounds like a cover letter for class president.)  <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' for defined reasons. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
Seems fine.
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' Have always seen fine work.
'''Support'''.  Drilnoth, you appear to be a reasonable, experienced, and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' good answers to questions.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' An OK from me; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' &ndash; excellent user, will do just fine. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Lean Support''' - Your justifications for being an admin and your experience is light, but some of your responses (especially in regards to block) are great. Now, will you be staying true to them? I hope.
'''Support''': firstly, because I think his answers to questions show a great deal of common sense; secondly, because his contributions to writing articles and his work with Vital Articles is commendable, and, perhaps more importantly, a good indicator of integrity; and thirdly, because my own interactions with Drilnoth lead me to believe that he is both helpful (kindly giving me some pointers on how to improve articles when I was still new and inexperienced) and open to suggestions (the first to sign up for what was then very much a beta [[User:LivingBot/ProjectSignup|WP:ANN signup scheme]]). So yes, I'm a very much a supporter. -
'''Support''' A lot of strong candidates on the page at the moment, but you may be the best. Pleasant, helpful, knowledgable, excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - per the discussion under neutral, below. -
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Strong Support''' Great user. I have worked with him on several occasions, most notably when he helped me redesign the [[WP:Norse]] assessment template. One thing I would like to see is perfect edit summary usage, but 99% for major edits is fine for me. He's human, after all, so I can certainly overlook a few mistakes.
'''Support''' - Per the many positive comments and neutral discussion.

Clearly the 'crats are taunting me with that "Promote Drilnoth" link. :) For me this is one of those "Wait, {{gender|Drilnoth}}'s not an admin yet?" nominations. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support''' on balance, reasonably ready for the job. We may have too many admins, but not enough acticve ones. I think he'll be active. '''
'''Support''', per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and great contributions to the project in varied capacities. '''
'''Support:''' Good answers to the questions; clearly dedicated, thoughtful, and intelligent.  I like knowing that he's going to head to neglected backlogs instead of dramamongering elsewhere, :-)
'''Support''' Seems mop-worthy to me from our limited encounters and the answers to questions
'''Support''' Good track and user Rollback well.
'''Support''' Keep up the good work! :) '''
'''Support''' Late vote, when seems clearly headed to be acceptance as adminstrator.  I don't vote in RfAs often.  Drilnoth was responsive, reasonable in response to [[User talk:Drilnoth/Archive 3#edit change br/ -> br|a problem i posed]] about some recent AWB edits by him/her, which I pointed out could cause problems in large list-articles.  Given relatively short experience in wikipedia, please don't be overconfident in any judgmental type actions at AfD or elsewhere (no evidence you would, but please be careful).  Glad to have you on board with your technical skills.
'''Support''' as nom. Do I get the ''last'' support? [[Image:Face-smile-big.svg|35px]] &ndash;
'''Support''' - nope, at least one more squeaking in under the wire. I see level-headed answers and the right approach to adminship. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Weak oppose'''. I admit Drilnoth seems like a very reasonable person and his answers to the questions make a lot of sense. However all of his content edits that I've found in his contribs have been minor tweaks, mainly using an impressive arsenal of tools. An admin is eventually going to get involved in controversial activities like AfD, dispute resolution & blocking. These generally arise in connection with content creation (new or significantly changed main text or images), and Drilnoth seems to have done very little of that, and therefore does not have much experience of the potential battlegrounds. --
'''Support''' - Your virtues, as stated, are clear, and browsing through your last year of work was educational. A few cautionary words, if I may presume. It appears you have been largely occupied in some of the further reaches of the project. This is not a bad thing; Wikipedia needs editors like you, and with the tools you will be faster and more effective.  The crunch will come when you go up against someone in a heated, controversial topic.  If you should reach a point where you are under attack from one or more sources, it may be useful to walk away and/or seek advice elsewhere. It is always a special honor to be the first one to support a new candidate, and I wish you the very best in all you do. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Very constructive contributions and no worries with regards to abuse of the mop!
'''Support'''. A great asset to ITN. <small> <span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I've seen Dumelow around and he has always been doing something beneficial to the project. I have absolutely no issues with supporting this bid for the bits. ···
'''Strong support'''. Content editor with no conflict history that I can find.
'''Support.'''Yep, No problems here at all. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Great work at ITN. We need more admins there. And since there are no issues outside this field, I am glad to support. --'''
'''Support'''. Not enough admins at ITN. This is the perfect candidate to help solve that problem. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; trusted and valuable contributor. Reasonable answer to my question as an added bonus. –'''
I'm impressed by the range of skills: engineering, writing, consensus-building. - Dank (
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support'''. The candidate is a helpful, level-headed editor.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support'''. Looks good. Lack of conflict handling experience, but editing history seems to indicate a user that isn't very likely to abuse tools in a conflict.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Everything is good here. Good luck. ~
Competent, clueful editor. Allowing Dumelow to continue his work with the extra buttons that the sysop user group supplies will only benefit the project. :) Good luck!
'''Support'''  Will make a good admin, no concerns.
'''Support''' He needs the tools in ITN.

'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Just took a quick look at his past 1,000 edits, and the only thing that stuck out was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_civil_engineers&diff=prev&oldid=308300322 this], and it stuck out in a positive way.
'''Support''' - [[WP:ITN]] seems like it can be tough sometimes.  I'm impressed by your 114 articles, and I see no reason to be concerned at all.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. Pleased to support. I recognize this candidate from work at [[WP:ITN/C]]. -
'''Support'''-From what i read...He appears to be eligible for the admin crown...
'''Support''' The nom and a quick review of contributions makes a strong case that Dumelow will be an immediately useful admin. --
'''Support''' - An excellent contributor who can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' This user would make an excellent admin. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:blue;">
'''Support''' This may be unanimous.
'''Support''' Good, helpful editor. Positive track record includes collaboration with other editors at the FA level and lots of content contributed. Good luck,
'''Support''' - Fantastic contributions, clear idea of what they would use the tools for. It would take a strong negative to get me to oppose and I don't see even a weak one. -- '''
'''Support''' Should be a straightforward choice. Good luck ! '''
'''Support''' - Awesome contributions.--
'''Support''' – I'm not really that concerned about how Q7 is answered. (It's likely it will be a good answer.) I don't see any problems with this user not getting the tools.
'''Support''' Per your talk page&mdash;look at all those ITNs! That tells me you're both a productive contributor and have places where you'll the tools to good use. <b class="Unicode">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Dumelow. —
'''Support''' - can't say I've run into this user before, but all evidence available on a quick review suggests that admin tools would be well-deserved and well-used here. Great question answers, in particular. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Good editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - not a whole lot to say that hasn't been said. ---
'''Support''' - Looks good!
'''Support''' Great contributions, thoughtful answers, calm temperament and cogent need for admin tools; has my trust.
'''Support''' - Friendly editor, we need more of this kind.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support''' He is a very impressive editor.
'''Support''' This user's good work at ITN, an area that badly needs more admin assistance, shows he can be trusted with the tools.
Yup.
What can I say that hasn't already been said? <small><span style="border:2px solid #999933;">
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate. Request that a sample of DNA be sent to Wikipedia for cloning purposes. -
'''Support:''' Clearly an intelligent and able editor who will surely not misuse the tools.  Pleasure to support.  Oh, and he works in the same RL field as me, :-)
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that as it is my favorite holiday (Halloween), I am loathe to oppose, and in any event, candidate has significantly contributed to 7 good articles and written or expanded 45 DYKs (is here to build an encyclopedia and appreciates the work that goes into that).  The candidate has also never even been accidentally blocked.  While use of "[[WP:JNN|non-notable]]" in an Afd is never compelling, the candidate is by and large correct in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Chapman (construction)]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. Wikipedian with a good editing credit. -
'''Support'''- easily passes my usual standards; 3 years plus and no major issues; safe support.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support''': Seems impressive and extraordinary.
'''Support''' - a good Wikipedian who I think will do well as an admin -- '''
Yet another toothless recall pledge.
'''Neutral''' I'm glad that recently several strong content contributors have run for adminship, and impressed by the candidate's good accomplishment with several GA and many DYKs. However, the editor was barely active for the past three month from June to August, and he dose not seem to use discussion very much in contrast of his article edits. Since adminship requires significant engagement and responsive attitudes with a good communication for editors here, I'm a bit worried as to whether he would effectively perform administrative actions with the mops. So I'm sticking here.--
'''Support''' I've been waiting on this for a long time. '''
As co-nom. ++
'''Support''' I believe he's learned a lot from the previous RfA.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (addendum) The accusation of "bias" almost swayed me enough to switch my vote. However, from my observation, whenever the candidate faces "accusations" from others, he seems to be capable of handling disputes in moderate ways, so I'm still sticking here.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' WAY overdue. Should have been an admin after first nom.
'''Support''' Very happy to see you getting back on the horse after falling off a couple of times. - Dank (
'''Support''' Definitely.--
Enigmaman should have passed his last RfA: he does great work in dealing with sockpuppets, and I've been happy to answer the block (of vandals and socks) and protection requests he's sent to me. He'll make a great admin and I'm happy to support.
(ec)'''Support''' I note past history. Will be, I believe, a trustworthy admin. --<font color="Red">

Per my support on his previous RfA.
'''Support''' My views since RFA #2 haven't changed. Good on you for having the stones and commitment to come back. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Enigmaman definitely has the experience and temperament to handle the tools well, and he certainly could use them. 649 vandals reported and 238 requests for page protection? He will be a huge asset to the encyclopedia with the extra tools.
'''Oppose''' - no Mediawiki namespace edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Enigmaman&namespace=8&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1]. <!-- I kid --> –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) <small>This is, of course, a joke, being that no one who has not previously had adminrights could have Mediawiki namespace edits (unless they had an admin do some pagemove jiggerypokery) '''Support''', per general cluefulness and my support of his last RFA. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' No problems. Good luck!
'''Support''' as nominator.--
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. –'''
'''Support''' &ndash; didn't get the chance last time. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support'''. No reason to Oppose.
'''Support'''. My opinion has not changed since I supported your first RfA. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - no problems that I can see.
'''Support'''. Despite the ultimate lack of success, I was generally impressed with Enigmaman's behaviour at his previous RfA. The primary point of contention (a few ill-advised IP edits) was presented to the RfA in a way that seemed to completely maximise the drama involved. The RfA rapidly spiraled into a particularly malodorous drama toilet; but the candidate generally kept his head well and handled the situation in the mature and sensible manner I would expect from an administrator. His contributions have been generally excellent, and I've seen no further items to concern me: Enigmaman is a smart and clued-up editor who is long overdue a set of admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support'''. No further drama since the last RfA.
'''Support''' A hard-worker with a common-sense approach to BLP problems.
'''Support'''. I supported the last one, and I see nothing since to change my opinion. I'm happy to less-verbosely support again. We need admins who are [[User:Enigmaman/Admin|committed]] to quickly taking care of things such as RFPP and AIV.
'''Support'''--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
—
'''Strong Support''' I supported last time and held my support despite the "IP thing". Nothing to indicate I should not continue to offer support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - excellent editor with a good temperament.  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David</font> '''
'''Strong support''' Heck yes!  Helpful, kind user who will do nothing but good with the tools. :-)
'''Support''' Excellent user
Are you kidding?  I actually thought that your last RfA would pass and I stopped watching it.  Here's to that, have a mop and work.
'''Support''' 5 words. "He-know-what-he's-doing"
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' I just can't conjure up a reason not to support.--
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' He knows what he's doing.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support'''. Intelligent, clueful editor. He'll do good with the mop.
'''Support''' as I do not find the allegations in the Oppose section to be convincing. I don't see any evidence the admin tools would be used to promote a POV or that they would be abused. ···
'''Strongest support''' &mdash; Enigmaman's previous RfA failed due to an incident that was way out of character. My opinion of him that I expressed at that RfA has not diminished with time, and I think he is eminently qualified for the role.
'''Support''': Plenty of tenure,  contributes to a wide variety of article space, and to Wikipedia areas.  Lots of [[WP:NPP]] work, dedicated vandal fighting, contributions look like quality work, answers to questions indicate high level of clue.  Strong support from me. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Bring him on! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
Clueful. —
'''Support'''. You deserved it six months ago. The way the last RfA was handled was unfortunate to say the least.
'''Support'''. Impressive.
'''Support'''. Glad I caught this when live.  I've always been impressed with Enigmaman's approach to Wikipedia - fair, steady, and with positive contributions in many facets of the community's overall efforts.  Will be a strong asset to the project with the techical abilities that come with adminship, and has the temperament and demeanor to handle them well.
'''Support''' I opposed the first RfA because of lack of depth with policy--an objection no longer the least relevant. I supported the second, in part because he handled the situation as well as a person could in the circumstances. Cerrtainlu I  support now, on the basis of present work and understanding of WP. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Third is the one :) --
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. —
Better watch out, you are likely to end up on Friday's essay as an example wherein the opposes grew tired of opposing... but I wanted to nominate you for your last (failed) attempt, thus I guess that should be good enough for support today.---'''
'''Support''' Would make an excellent admin. -
'''Support''' Competent.
'''Support''' I like most of the answers to the question and see nothing to indicate the user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good Candidate. \
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Yes, definitely, especially per your response to Q10. Sure, [[WP:AOR|AOR]] can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but I dislike the idea of saying "Sure, I'll be open to recall" just to get support. Enigma can know that when he passes, it's because the community trusts him, not because of making, what he quite correctly called an "empty campaign promise". So kudos to you there. And, another thing. {{User|Kasaalan}} alleges you have a bias, well, based on their edits to this RFA and a quick glance at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kasaalan&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 contributions] makes me think that this user is just snotty because Enigma disagreed with them over a few edits. Maybe that's not the whole story, but in my opinion, Kasaalan should take the log out of their own eye before they try to take the splinter our of EnigmaMan's. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Support''' per last RFA and my support there (#65). Should have passed that one.
'''Support'''.  A decent editor, who has committed himself well after his [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion|second chance]]. No answers to questions suggest any issues with being granted adminship. I'm just sorry that this again threatens to be taken over by drama. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support per nom again''' (increase to strong see below.)
'''Support''' and good luck $).
'''Support. Excellent candidate, insightful answers to questions.
'''Support''' - editor has said s/he would not be comfortable with making difficult blocks and we need more admins like this who are instead willing to take a consultative and holistic approach. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Support''' Per my Support in candidate's previous RfA.--
'''Support''' I've seen him around AfD, there is nothing that concerns me here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' a decent edit count -shouldn't have problems being trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - Unconvinced by the oppose arguments, OK with his answers to the questions, no further concerns.
'''Support''' Incredibly unconvincing opposes as usual, so supporting. '''
'''Strong support:''' Yes, I am back at RfA, with my annoyingly long, complex, and useless logs. Anyway, support per [[User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Enigmaman (2)]].
'''Support''' purely to counteract David Fuchs' oppose.  Adminship should not be seen as an award for prolific content contributors.—
Per my response to Fuchs below, as well as per Majorly and S Marshall. '''
'''Support''' - I've further reviewed the candidate, and I'm sure I can trust him. Good luck, <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
I acknowledge, but am unconvinced by, the opposition offered below. I've no other concerns. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' No reason to believe the tools would be abused and the opposes do not appear to me to be convincing, indeed they read like more of the same. --
'''Support''' per S Marshall and Garden.
Good editor. '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''', good candidate. Also noting that 19 questions is ''really'' pushing it guys. Please don't start playing 20Q with the candidates again.
'''Strong Support''' I was truly impressed by how Enigmaman handled his previous RfA, and am pleased to see that he's improved even more since. '''''
'''Support''' No-brainer (I don't mean the candidate!) --
'''Support''' - per much of the above; allegations of pro-Israeli bias are IMO unfounded. I too would have substantially cut down the content of the article in question due to the [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] given.
'''Support'''. I co-nomed Enigmaman last time and I will be supporting him this time again.
'''Support''' Great user commited to Wikipedia and has an outstanding track  and had actually supported him in his previous RFA but later changed to oppose .The user has shown great commitment and has only improved since the  last RFA.I assume [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]] that the user will not user his tools his Isreal-Palestine content disputes and  will use [[WP:UNINVOLVED|Unvolved admins ]] in these disputes and  every user has a POV whether it is  in Chemistry,History,AA,India-Pakistan,China-Tibet and so on  and hence opposes cannot be based on POV as  than everyone  editing in conflict areas  will get excluded.
'''Support'''.  Looks to me like the candidate is patient and willing to learn from mistakes. '''
'''Support'''. Nice answers. I think he is ready for the mop!
'''Support'''.  Gifted with clue and cool under pressure - a very good combo for the mop.
'''Support''' I think Enigma's been around long enough for us to have a sneaking suspicion he's dedicated to the project, and warrants a mop, which I think will prove to be a net positive. I do share Fuch's concerns about audited content but not enough to oppose.
'''Support''' - Supported last time around. —
'''Support''' - I believe he has clarified his response to Q15 in his reply to Nakon. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' Looks great. Good luck! <strong>
'''support''' I have some slight concerns about him maybe letting his POV get in the way but overall things look good.
'''[[WP:100]] time!'''
'''Support''' Thank you for clarification. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Too-bad-I-couldn't-have-nominated''', non-hesitant <big>SUPPORT</big>: Long overdue. Good luck with the tools!--
'''Support''' absolutely. Have interacted with MysteryMan on many occasions, all positive. <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">
'''Support''' grace under pressure. He's earned his mop.
'''Support''' Strong user who will use the tools for their prescribed purpose and to help clean house. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Weak support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  On the positive side, the candidate has never been blocked and as stance in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza delivery in popular culture (second nomination)]] was reasonable, but I am not sure what to make of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination)]] in which the candidate nominated the article and then a couple of hours and posts later also adds a bolded "delete" comment.  Was that an accident or something?  Plus, being a "target for vandalism" cannot be a valid reason for deletion, because then pretty much any article on any major politician (not to mention many many pages) would have to be deleted as a target for vandalism.  But hey that was a year ago, so, I'll give the candidate the benefit of the doubt due to the above-mentioned positives.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Am confident any potentially marginal edges of shadows of hints of POV will get jumped on ''basta''.
'''Support''' Don't see any problems here. '''
'''Support''' - answer to Q15 is no big deal - it was a rather open-ended question, so we can't expect him to not miss/not think of something. We all miss stuff, guys; cut him some slack. There were ''only'' 21 questions there for him to answer. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' Bit of a pile-on perhaps, but good answers to the better questions, good all-round editor and no indication of likelyhood to go mop-mad.
'''Support''' No issue that would make me oppose
'''Support''' per nom. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''(Could have sworn I already did but don't see a !vote up here!) Of course. Hardworking editor who will make a fine admin. No worries from this corner. --
'''Support''' A great all-around editor and good answers to the questions. No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''', very helpful user. This is, as stated before, a ''looooong'' time coming.
'''Support''' - change from weakly in the last RfA.  As long as he reveals this POV or bias, I am confident he will be a fair admin.
'''Support''' What can I say that hasn't been said? Enigma's a good, helpful user, and his adminship is long overdue. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns. I find the opposers' rationales unpersuasive.
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support""" I love the answer to number 21. Shows a clear level head, and focus on the contributions.  --
'''Support''' Always have trusted Enigmaman, always will trust him to be a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Support''' - new name to me (because I still retain some of my shiny-newness), but I would trust this editor as an admin. Don't see anything to worry about in the opposes.
'''Support''' Per S Marshall's idea [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kingpin13&diff=295936885&oldid=295935834 here]. To counteract David Fuchs' oppose. (This vote probably isn't needed now, so this is just a symbolic gesture) I wouldn't have opposed anyway (probably would have been neutral). '''
'''Support''', a bit late and I doubt you need it now, but I believe you'll do a good job.
'''Support''' I'm pleased to support someone who I consider to be a truly dedicated wikipedian, committed to improving the site, who will make the most of adminship, and can be trusted with the tools.
jumping on the top of the pile-on '''support''' -
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''' Late to the party, yadda yadda ydadda. He'll be a great admin. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' It's about time! <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' (again). <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and diligent.
'''Support'''. I supported last time, so that's my default position this time. The issues raised by Kasaalan in the oppose section gave me pause, but having looked through Enigmaman's recent edits, I don't see any real evidence that's he's some kind of POV pusher; his only bias seems to be against vandalism and in favour of improving Wikipedia. I believe we can trust him with the admin tools.
'''Support'''. I was neutral last time with the hope of being able to support without reservation on the next go. I'm happy to have that chance. --
'''Support''' assuming I have not done so already.
'''Support''' No problems here! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A decent editor and a dedicated fighter against vandalism. Good luck !!
Why the hell not? <strong>
'''Support''' per myself last time. I just noticed I had not !voted here before, which explains why I'm this late ;-) Regards '''
--''
'''Support''' I trust Enigmaman to not let his personal views affect his judgment as an admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' as I do not have any concerns that Enigmaman would abuse the tools.  —
'''Strong Support''' Enigmaman is a conscientious editor who sorely deserves the tools. There's no such thing as a pile on after the last RfA.
'''Support''' - Thought the user was an admin to begin with.  I see no reason that a mop and bucket shouldn't be issued to this user. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' It is definitely time! Enigma has shown he has the knowledge, and the experience to become an excellent administrator. Learning from past errors is something everyone has done along the way, and Enigma has shown he's addressed all concerns voiced in the past. Kasaalan's objections and talk page discussion honestly come across to me as some sort of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kasaalan&diff=prev&oldid=287288717 vendetta] against Enigma; I have seen nothing that proves Enigma has pushed any sort of point of view, and the "serious conflict" Kasaalan claims to have had with Enigma seems to be ''his'' conflict, not a mutual conflict. One of the edits Kasaalan claims is biased, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Finkelstein&diff=288582459&oldid=288374143 this], is actually a valid [[WP:BLP]] removal. That information had no source (and wasn't relevant to the article anyway), and the person is still alive, so Enigma did the correct thing in removing it. I have absolutely no qualms about entrusting Enigma with adminship, and I believe he will make a most excellent addition to the current administration team. <small>
'''Final day of Rfa support''' My second pile-on of the day, unusual, but I don't hang out here at Rfa much. I supported in Rfa #2, both pre and post drama, and since then Enigma only has gotten better. Congrats in advance.
'''Strong Support''' Should already be an administrator. Well-rounded editor; one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. ''

'''Weak Oppose''', per Q15. If someone creates an article, for example [[John Q. rapes children]], they should be immediately blocked without warning. [[WP:AGF|AGF]] only goes so far.
'''Oppose''' per lack of strong audited article contributions. [[1964 Gabon coup d'état]], which the user listed above, [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive2|quick-failed its FAC]] because hunks of the article were run through Google Translator. That kind of ad-hoc scholarship is not a quality I would like to see in an admin, and while Enig is not a significant contributor listing such a possibly erroneous article as a prime contribution gives me pause. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Per evidence of bias presented [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_3#Content_discussion_forked_from_Kasaalan.27s_opppose here]. We already have too many admins who stand by and do nothing about POV issues in articles, as long as the material suits their POV, [[WP:IAR]]. Enough.
'''Oppose''' Bias issues. Cannot trust or support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Bias issues + POV concerns = does not have my trust with the tools granted to admins.
'''Neutral for now''' - I came to this page ready to immediately support based on my knowledge of this user, but the terrible answer to Q15 (especially from someone who wants to help at SPI, how can you not think of indef blocking an obvious sockpuppet) leaves me neutral for now.
'''Would like to wait and watch for now'''
'''Neutral <s>for now''' - probable support, but would appreciate further clarification on A15 by way of A19. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</s> - regretfully remain neutral due to several minor nitpicks, particularly terseness of explanations (in editing, not just in these RFA questions), the events leading to the last RFA's failure, and other minor qualms. Also would have preferred some mention of how/if they would deal with the compromised admin accounts in A19. Nothing big that leads me to oppose, though, and I wish them the best of luck with their obviously impending <s>doom</s> adminship!. -
'''Neutral''', because of a poor answer to Q15, compounded by an even poorer answer to [[User:Nakon]]'s Oppose; we ought not to be cutting any slack at all to those who create blatant, obvious attack pages against living people, period.  The answer to Q21 was somewhat better, but not good enough to bring me all the way into the Support column.
'''Neutral'''. It's not very often that I place myself in this section, but I simply can not make up my mind in this RfA. I wasn't too satisfied with the answer my question (number 15). For example, an account with [[Special:Contributions/Vulcan Hephaestus|these contributions]] should be blocked on sight, without a single prior warning, as it's nothing more than a [[User:Grawp|Grawp]] sock. I'm also a bit concerned about the bias issues brought up in the oppose section. I do feel that Enigmaman has contributed plenty to Wikipedia and has more to offer, but these issues are things I simply can't ignore. — '''''
'''Support'''. Excellent editor who will make a good admin. It's about time. <tt>
'''Beat the nom Support'''. From what I see will make a good admin. Has really been all around wikipedia.
'''Support''' per great nomination statement {{=)|wink}} Regards '''
'''Support''' Answer to Q3 a bit vague, but seems to be a competent editor. Additionally, plans to work in an area currently understaffed by admins. Good luck, Explicit!
I've always been impressed by their cluefulness. - Dank (
'''Support ''' I see no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' - Fantastic contributions, clear idea of what they would use the tools for. It would take a strong negative to get me to oppose and I don't see even a weak one. -- '''
'''Support''' - looks good to me.--
The rather poor nomination statement notwithstanding, I'm happy to support this editor. <tt>:)</tt> –'''
'''Support''' - clueful user with great contributions and a solid record. Yep, he's very suitable for adminship.
'''Support''' I have run into this editor and all I have seen is exemplary work.
'''Support''' Great editor!
'''Support''' Yep. <strong>
'''Support''' I too have run into this user and found that the user gave very acurate information when asked. I dont see why there would be a problem giving the admin tools.
'''Support''' because there's nothing wrong with being an atheist.
'''About Time''' -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Best Candidate in a long time.--
'''Support''' per his great GA review work and only positive interactions with him.
'''Support''' – Excellent contributions especially in the images venue, where we do need more admins. Same good contribs in the mainspace as well as in negotiation with others. I can't find a reason not to support this user.
'''Strong Support'''.  Looks good.  I especially liked his thoughtful COI analysis in question 14.--
'''Support''' I remember thinking that DiverseMentality would have been a good admin some time ago.

'''Support''' Good editor, deserves the tools.
'''Support''' Can't believe that Diverse is still not an admin. I have never before seen such a cool-headed and good-faith assuming editor like him/her. A great day for the community to provide him with the administrative tools. <font color="blue">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Explicit. —
'''Support''' Outstanding answers to questions, lots of supports from folks I trust.
'''Support''' I don't see a reason not to support.
'''Support''' No reason not to trust with the tools.  --
'''Support''' Outstanding work, should be a quality admin. Best wishes, <font color="green">
'''Support''' Operates in an admin-like fashion all ready, should be fine.
Hell, yes. <strong>
'''Support''' - Trustworthy individual. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]
'''Support''' but would expect a more definitive answer as an admin to questions 5 & 6 like, "yes if they were in my province/state/country etc." or "no".
'''Support''' No reason to suspect that they will be anything other than a net positive with the tools.  '''
'''Support''' - Seen him around quite a bit, no concerns at all. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Always been impressed with your efforts. I highly support!
'''Support''' Per nominator and seeing the user around, doing some good things. '''
'''Support''' - A great editor. I have run into his comments/contributions a few times in the past and they have all been constructive and kind. Explicit is definitely ready to be an administrator.
'''Support''' Good grasp of policies.
I thought he is already an admin.--
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and have no problem with handing him the mop and bucket. Definitely a valuable contributor who will become more valuable as an admin. ···
'''Support''' No reason not to.

'''Support.'''  Impressive number of contributions, but--more importantly--handled the questions very well, and appears to be quite civil and experienced.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Good content work. '''''
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Good candidate for adminship. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Heh, thought I had already. Anyway, great contributions and I see no reason why to oppose. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' Strong answers to questions show that this user knows what they know what they are doing. No problems here. Good luck. ~
'''Support''' May as well add in my support. I've only seen good stuff from Explicit.
I could have sworn you already were one.
'''Support''' per the above notes and per Stifle's excellent reasoning.
'''Strong Support:''' You will be a great admin. Thanks for making yourself available for the job -
'''Support''' Great contributor. I probably envy him. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor with a lot of experience.
'''Support''' He does a GREAT job, and will make a GREAT admin.
'''Support''' -another easy call: rollback rts., over 30,000 edits; good article work, no issues.
'''Support''' I can't find anything wrong here.
'''Support''' I am comfortable with Explicit having the tools.--
'''Support''' Looks like a good Wikipedian who I think will likewise make a good admin -- '''
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} Per nom and per good answers to the questions. Color me impressed. I'm sure you'll make a great admin. <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>
'''Support''' This user has demonstrated an excellent understanding of policy and also has a terrific record of mainspace contributions. I trust Explicit to perform well in the administrative areas they mentioned above.
'''Support'''-Normally I'd provide a rationale as to why I agree/disagree with the points brought up by those in the oppose section...but the section is vacant=D. A good wikipedian who assumes AGF and with 30k edits...he can be trusted.
'''Support''' Why the heck not?[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Support''' Obviously. Excellent editor, should have applied for the tools long ago. Will do well. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate to me! Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. Can never remember everyone's new names... '''''

'''Support''' Looks better than good enough.  --
'''Support''' - Looks great. '''
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Pile-on Support''' Definitely! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' - We need more admins who are willing to work with images. \
'''Support''' Per \ / and I like your user talk page edits, lots of discussion.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' see no problem.--
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]]. –'''
Cue OMGZ I THOUGHT HE WUZ UN ADMIN LUL. Excellent editor, should do fine.
AGF --
'''Support''' Contribs and interactions look good.
'''Support''' Most definitely! Good luck!
''''Support''' the lack of mainspace edits, especially with featured content is a slight concern, but I really don't see much that would be a negative to you as a potential administrator. Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I have no problem at all with supporting this RfA; I completely trust the user to use the bit responsibly, and well. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Definitely. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''[[User:Aditya/RfA|Strong support]]''' Been waiting for this one. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' As per Track and see no concerns and user used roolback well
'''Support''' I do not see a reason for opposing. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Photo contributions and copy-editing are also important to content. Seems like a solid editor.
'''Support''' I have seen this user around, and have seen no issues. Good luck.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this guy.
To help counteract some of the silly opposes.
Moved from oppose. Your photo contributions make up for the limited experience in article writing. No reason to suspect you'd misuse the tools.
Image work seems good, which makes up for lack of content contributions (though I'd say that images are content and contributions in themselves, as they add to articles), and things like GAs/FAs are not necessary for adminship anyway. As for question seven, while there are times to block users without warning, it's ''not a bad thing'' for admins to issue at least one warning, and it's not a reason to oppose because not using the tools is not a form of abuse.
'''Support''', I am impressed by this person although this probably means nothing. I will support though because that is what has to be done and I do not see any major reason to oppose. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''- Great answers to the questions. I really think that you should participate more though in some speedy deletions before you go around deleting pages though.
'''Support''' Very good work; good dealings as well.  :)  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' I've had some good interactions with this candidate, and I like the pictures. ''
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' purely to counteract, in some measure, David Fuch's oppose.  Adminship should not be an award for prolific audited content creators.—
'''Support''' Oh, please. Fastily's one of the many admins who we need to help clean this wikipedia; I admit he's not Ottava or JC in terms of article writing, but I'd honestly prefer a user who does purely gnome work over a purely-article editor. C'mon, there are way more clean-up tools than there are writing-related (if any). Cheers, '''''
Why should you have to have a bronze star or two on your userpage to delete pages or block users?  Besides,
'''Support''', we are evaluating the users potential to contribute as an admin, not an FA writer. --
'''Support'''. We need more image admins. Even if the user did no article work i'd still support.
'''Support''' per strong work in images (an area which definitely needs help). ···
'''Support''', everything I've seen shows a sensible and mature user who responds well to criticism and stays cool under pressure. Sounds like good admin material to me. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Gnomish contributions probably prepare an editor for being a sysop more than huge dragon-esque edits.  Fastily's eye would be a welcome addition in my oh-so-humble opinion. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. I've seen your edits here and there.  Concerns about content contribution do not bother me.  Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''.  Just for the funny comments from vandals.
'''Support'''. Great experience with images. We have many great admins who do mainly procedural work and not so much editing articles. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. At first, I wasn't too pleased with the answer to question number seven, but I'm satisfied with the addendum. — '''''
'''Support''' Am not all that worried about limited article work, as the mop requires an ability and willingness to clean up all over the project.
'''Support''' I dont see a good enough reason to oppose your RFA, Question 10a & 10b were of slight concern but at the end of the day we all make mistakes! I think given the mop, you will be of good use to this project.
'''Support''' Zero concerns.
'''Support''' will get the job done.
Per /\.
'''Support''' - we always need more gnome-admins. Not concerned by anything in the Oppose section.
'''Support''' Not persuaded by the opposes. See nothing that makes me think you will misuse the tools. Also very much like the answer to question 9.
'''Support''' I would have likely to see a bit more thorough answer to a few questions, but overall Fastily has shown the ability to reason with his answers and a dedication to the project through his consistent editing over the last ~9months. --
'''Support''' per nom and [[WP:GEEZER]]. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Solid. Lack of audited content is not an issue for me. <strong>
'''Support''': Good luck with the mop..
'''support''' Has a good understanding of policy. My ideal candidate would have more article work but that's a minor issue. Other oppose reasons run the gamut from unpersuasive to extremely unpersuasive.
'''Support''' No need to oppose, and per Q 9. -<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Weak oppose''' - Per flimsy and scant article work [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Fastily&namespace=0]. Being a gnome is one thing, but I'd expect a little bit more content work for a potential admin.
'''Strong oppose''' - very poor on article work (as far as I can see) which is or should be the main business of this project.  Sorry.
'''Weak oppose''' lack of audited (PR/FA/GA) contributions <sup>([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|more info]])</sup> --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''', per answer to Q7.
'''Oppose''' - I am truly sorry, but I feel that not working on articles is detrimental to the project. If you find some experience here, I'd be more willing to support in future. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose'''. I don't see any substantive contributions to articlespace to date.  I think it is important to generate mainspace content before taking on administrative tasks here --
'''Weak oppose'''—I think the candidate needs more experience in the admin duties s/he is interested in performing (NFC et al.). Concern over the response to Q7; concern about whether there's sufficient knowledge of policies.
'''Oppose''' for the reasons expressed by [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]].
'''Oppose''' Your article work needs improvement...
'''Oppose.''' The non-answer to question nine causes me to proceed under the assumption that the candidate is a minor. Because adminship can occasionally cause high-stress situations that adults tend to be better suited to handling, and because the actions of administrators can have very substantial real-world impact, I do not believe that minors should be admins absent indications of exceptional maturity. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
His most edited article is List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series. He does little to improve real encyclopedic content on here, I prefer admins to at least build some content on here.
"I do not wish to state my age (for security reasons)" (see candidate's response to Sandstein's oppose, #10 at the time of this writing). Seriously? What "security concerns" could there '''possibly be''' here? "Congratulations, by knowing the age of this pseudonym, we can narrow it down to one of roughly 400,000,000 people on the planet! Soon the world will be ours!". To put it bluntly: this, er, "position" shows definite [[Crank (person)|kookiness]]. Whether this is kookiness due to being kooky like most kids, or the more entrenched nuttiness of age doesn't matter: It is incompatible with a position of responsibility. That is, of course, [[WP:AGF|Assuming Good Faith®]] and taking the candidate's statement at face value. Were I to read into the statement, I might conclude that the candidate is using trumped-up "security concerns" as a cover for the fact that, for some reason - perhaps due to youth - he is actually ''ashamed'' of his age. I would then still oppose, partially due to maturity concerns, partially to the unmigitated audacity displayed by the candidate honestly expecting anybody here to swallow such a far-fetched yarn. But, again, I strive to Assume Good Faith wherever possible - hence, I will assume kookiness, rather than juvenile embarrassment.
'''Oppose''' Q.9 --
'''I'm afraid not'''.  I generally like to see either substantial content work (on the level of a GA or two) or ''a lot'' of anti-vandalism work; neither of these is quite met.  Furthermore, I find several of the question answers either wrong or unconvincing.  I certainly don't see any red flags though, and my advice for the future to the candidate is: If this passes, remember we're here to build an encyclopedia and best of luck; if this fails then I'd look forward to seeing you again in October (maybe with a GA under your belt :)).
I have had a nagging concern in the back of my mind for several hours, and the link to your article contributions seal the deal for me. I'll reevaluate in a few days, but right now, I'm leaning oppose. <font color="navy">'''
Pending the answer to Q10. Whilst the editor does good work with images where the issues are missing sources, rationales, etc, I'm a little concerned about xes knowledge of our non-free policies. <b>
Lack of article contributions doesn't really bother me. However, although I've seen Fastily doing work in many areas, something tells me that I got a negative impression about him once. Apologies about my memory, and I could be mixing you up with another user. ;-) But I think I read some comments of yours once that didn't give me a good impression. Otherwise decent editor.
I haven't done a review - I stopped after looking at some of your barnstars. They seem to mostly be about fun. Sure, fun is acceptable. However, it just gives the appearances that you seem to care more about that aspect than the encyclopedic aspect. Think of RfA like a job interview - is it better to come in with a suit and tie or in a concert t-shirt and jeans with holes in them?
'''Neutral'''. Weak content contribution. Otherwise generally good contributions.
As nominator.—
Easy and '''strong support''', I watchlisted this the minute Marshall posted the link on F&W's tp as I wanted to be an early supporter. F&W is one of the most thoughtful editors I have come across. -
'''Support''' - has some excellent contribs, seems friendly. &mdash;
Absolutely.
'''Support''': Great editor.
'''Support''' I think I have disagreed with F&W as often as agreed, but even when they are wrong it is for good reasons :). -
'''Support''' as co-nominator. <b>
Great candidate.
'''Support''' Contrary to popular belief, I am always happy when I have the opportunity to support a self-proclaimed atheist at RfA.
'''Strong support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''' Good contributor, with a good attitude. I think they would be a good mop-wielder. -- '''
'''Support'''. This contributor does a great job in facilitating cooperation with his editing.
'''Strong support''' This one falls under the "they weren't an admin already?" category. As the nominator said, Fences and windows is well-known to AfD regulars, and I support him based on my observations of him there. He's a terrific mainspace contributor in addition to his excellent work at AfD and with PROD and CSD &ndash; and a trustworthy longtime editor. Giving him the mop will absolutely be a benefit to the community.
'''Support''' - A great editor, and I've participated in policy discussions with them and find their arguments reasonable. -- '''
'''Support'''. Duh.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Sterling work&mdash; creating content, sourcing and improving articles coupled with sound grasp of policy. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Support''' Without reservation.
'''Support'''. I too like what I've seen of this user.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' We've "bumped heads" occasionally, and each and every time I've come away with an appreciation for this editor's willingness to engage in meaningful discussion and for his acumen with matters dealing with policy, guideline, and process. He has my full suport. '''
'''Support''' I have never heard of you knowningly before, but you seem very qualified.
'''Support''' A thoughtful editor, respected on both sides of the aisle at AfD.  --
'''Support'''. (triple edit-conflict) Have seen the candidate around, and the impressions have been positive. Reviewing the candidate's history, I was especially impressed with the AfD work (including deletion sorting). I trust the judgment of both the nominators, so I have no reservations here.
'''Support''' I don't see any reason not to.
'''Support''' Qualified.
'''Support''' his AfD record appears strong, and judging from his contributions I think that his rescue work, cleanup and sourcing meet my standards for contributions. <font color="#cc6600">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Sure]]; I've disagreed with the candidate on numerous occasions, and while I'd appreciate if they would make better use of edit summaries, I've got no reason to believe they wouldn't handle the bit with particular care. –'''
'''Strong support''', yes. F&W is an excellent, experienced editor who ''gets it''.
'''Support'''.  Fought the good fight on the Richard Gere gerbil issue.  Obviously understands the importance of BLP.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  AfD is an important area of Wikipedia where the administrative tools make a major difference.  Judging by the comments about him, F & W is probably one of Wikipedia's most seasoned editors in this area.  My own experience with F & W has been very positive--in the deletion discussion we were in together, he worked hard to find verifiable references to substitute for the hate sites that were used as references for the article in question.  Although the article was eventually judged unsalvageable and the references he found were not added, I was impressed with his reasoned analysis of the issues at hand and the labor he put into trying a new approach to this very heated discussion.  AfD is a very contentious part of Wikipedia and it's difficult to always agree with a particular editor, but F & W should be good at making sensible decisions and keeping the heat down.  Plus, I think F & W is one of Wikipedia's more modest top editors.  --
'''Support''' Fences and windows is a calm, reasonable and dedicated wikipedian working on various projects for the benefit of wikipedia who has lots of experience and knowledge of wikipedia and its various policies and guidelines.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Well thought out response to my question and spent the time to research the answer. Once you get to be an experienced admin, it gets so easy to just hit delete. We need admins who spend some time to analyze marginal cases. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I very often disagree with Fences & Windows, however, "The bearer of a slighted message, cannot be justified in considering himself offended, if he be treated with politeness; because the character of his friend is a mere matter of opinion, upon which two very estimatable gentlemen may differ, and it must always be a censurable intolerance, which would attempt to force upon one man's mind, even the correct opinion of another."
'''Support'''.  Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' - You may want to work on XfD stuff per the opposes below, but I've seen enough good work to support.  Keep it up. -
'''Strong Support''' You may need to work something out on the AfD, but you're good enough to support Wikipedia in the near future. Good luck! - --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Fences and windows. —
'''Support''' I have no reason to believe that F&W is unwilling to learn from mistakes and I think A Nobody's examples will serve as a reminder he will learn from. The only negative thing about this candidate as far as I can see is their signature. I really don't like sigs that use a different background color, it makes them stick out in discussions. But that's just my personal opinion and certainly no reason to oppose ;-) Regards '''
'''Support'''. A fine addition to the admin corps. I already was impressed with his AfD work, but I took to the time to review the areas mentioned in the opposes. None of the discussions mentioned concern me, and I quite appreciate the editor's attempts to the strike a moderate tone at [[User%3AFeydHuxtable%2FAfD_is_not_a_war_zone|this essay on AFD participation]]. Should have the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here.
Solid candidate. - Dank (
'''Support''' - I first encountered Fences and windows after seeing an edit that led me to think that this user was a "shoot first and ask questions later" deletionist. However, after an amicable follow-up discussion I realized that my initial judgment had been wrong (although that one edit had been a mistake). Based on my subsequent observations and review of the some contributions history, F&W is a careful and helpful contributor who would I expect would use admin tools responsibly and productively. --
'''Support''' - he isn't already?--
'''Support''' generally seems to get it, even when i disagree with him (which is often) his views are reasonable, doesn't play games, and appears healthily disinterested in questions of ideological purity.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - seems like a reasonable person, should do a good job with the tools.
'''Support''' With some very minor reservations.  I do want to note the breadth of impressions this candidate has left on voters vis a vis his "deletion" stance.  That should be a cautionary note for anyone interested in painting candidates with broad strokes--one person's deletionist is another person's inclusionist.
'''Support'''. Clear and concise judgment across the board. --
'''Support''' – I don't see a reason to oppose here (unlike the oppose reasons so far, which seem to smack of bitter wiki-political infighting as usual). He'll do a fine job as an administrator.
Yes, why not? '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Total Support''' despite the very valid oppose reasons from Editors ANobody, UA & Ikip; per all the above the candidate warrants full support.
'''Support''' I have encountered this editor before at AFD, and while he was sometimes on the other side of the !votes I have nothing but respect for this editor.  Clear, concise and levelheaded, will make a good admin.
'''Sure'''. S/he'll do fine. '''
'''Support''' Good editor.--
'''Support''' Very good contributor.
'''Support''' I've had good interactions with this editor, find them to be reasonable, and see nothing that bothers me greatly in the oppose section.
'''Support''' I like the question answers, cursory sampling of edits looks good, as have the few times I've seen the editor around. Frankly, I think the arguments linked by the opposes are, if not the most articulate I've ever seen, decent and supportable and net positives to the discussions wherein they occurred. <strong>
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Frankly the opposes convinced me.
'''Support'''. The opposes seem to be arguing on the basis of disagreement regarding the merits of a few articles. Quite frankly, if that is to be used to oppose then no one who participated in AfD would ever become an admin. As it happens, I probably disagree with fences and windows as much as I agree, but the reasons given are normally articulate and well thought out.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' — A reasonable editor; 'nuf said. *nod* @ AniMate ;) Sincerely,
'''Support''' - [[User:Airplaneman/RFA|Looks good]] - a great user who will definitely benefit from the mop.
'''Support''' User seems to make fair arguments in AFD's and has put forth a good effort in that area. Could have been clearer on notability and deletion, but otherwise answers are satisfactory.
'''Strong Support'''. Will be a great AfD closer 1) because of his huge amount of experience 2) because he seems to be quite in the middle between inclusionism and deletionism, allowing for a fair reading of the discussions. Good luck! [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - Have encountered this user in several places and have always seen positive contributions to every area that I've run across.
'''Support''' No reservations here.  I don't believe the candidate will break anything, and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Excellent answers to questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He has 2048 edits in a single month!!!This itself shows how dedicated he is to Wikipedia.He will make a great admin. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' per nom.  [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124;
'''Support.''' Always resonable at AfD, willing to reconsider his !vote, recall one instance when he recommended [[WP:INCUBATE]] which tells me he has the best interests of the project at heart. <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I am satisfied by the user's contributions as a whole and by his/her responses to questions.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' My interactions with this editor have been almost entirely positive and always rational/civil.  Overall, I would say giving him/her "keys to the mop" would be a net positive.
'''Support''' Decent answers to questions, I find the opposes wholly unconvincing and reading them actually helped me be sure I wanted to support. That he left the ARS after seeing problems there shows he does have good judgement.
'''Support''' - Happy to pile on.  When I read Black Kite's co-nom I was convinced, but I already had a good impression of this editor. <font color="green">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Weak Support]]''' - While all my experiences with this editor have not been the best, and I don't entirely agree with his stance on BLPs, he still seems level headed enough to be a good admin. Good luck with the tools! --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' - Fences & Windows has been an excellent contributor at AfD, and I fully trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. Well-thought answers, and I don't feel the need to agree with every word of the answers to support a candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive.
'''Support''' per nom, good answers, good edits. --
'''Support''' This is an easy one! Do live up to your answer to question 1 and lend a hand at AIV, RPP, and other underserved areas; you'll be an asset.
'''Support'''  Has done a good job so far.
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fences_and_windows&diff=prev&oldid=326232342 A Nobody].
'''Support'''. Fences and windows is an excellent ''editor'' and an insightful ''researcher''. <font face="Cambria">
'''Strong support'''. I've seen good work showing good judgement by this editor. His answers both above and to ''Oppose'' voters all hit the mark. Should be an excellent Admin. /
Got a good feeling.  The opposes don't really persuade me. <small><span style="border:2px solid #000066;">
'''Support''' after review of solid contribs.  You'll do just fine.
Support. I've spotted F&W's comments on a few occasions recently and they seemed well thought through and balanced. That's the sort of person we need as an administrator. Answers to the questions are good too.
'''Support''' per noms. '''''
'''Support''' Seems to be solid...
'''Support'''- very clueful editor.
'''Support'''. Seems a very thoughtful editor and excellent answers to the questions. I've no concerns with Fences and windows taking on an admin's role in AfD discussions based on the well reasoned responses to some specific questions above. I've also recently been impressed by the effort to get [[Wikipedia:Notability (events)]] to guideline level and this editor has played a key role in that. The concerns of those opposing really do not convince me, and in fact Fences and windows seems to have comported himself well in most all of the situations discussed. Should do well as an administrator and I'm happy to support. --

'''Support'''. I have met the candidate occasionally and got a very good impression overall. Excellent answers to the questions, and excellent judgement in all the borderline AfD cases that were featured by some opposers.
It's not difficult to close AFDs, even if your arguments are weak. Voting and closing are two entirely different things. '''
By and large pleased with what I have seen from this editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', in confidence of good sense and care,
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, seems a sensible editor who has the experience, both in number of edits and in the breadth of areas covered to be very effective and trustworthy with the mop.
'''Support'''  I don't see any problems.  I appreciate the arguements about deletion; it is a sensitive issue to have an article deleted.  However, this type of fighting is why turn-out is often so low - why get involved?  It is only going to haunt you.  No problems in judgement, and I am not going to try to separate a possibly less than perfect statement from an imperfectly cited answer from a minutely reworded response.  Look at the body of the work, not playing "gotcha".
'''Support''' indeed. Checks out well (including and especially AfD: I cannot agree with the complaints cited by Opps), admirable answers, positive contributions and a pleasure to work with.
'''Support''' Another sane admin candidate actually moving toward approval?  If this keeps up I may lose my jaded and cynical view of this place.
'''Strong support''' - trustworthy - thought s/he was already.
'''Support'''. I checked through the candidate's edit history yesterday and liked what  saw. Fences and windows is a thoughtful, experienced, helpful editor.
'''Support'''. I've seen the candidate around, and wanted to refresh my memory, so I looked at F&W's contributions at [[Talk:Abortion]], and I like what I saw: thoughtful research and good people skills under difficult conditions. --
'''Support'''. This is a user that I have a lot of respect for. We drafted [[WP:EVENT]] together, and I believe I also handled a MedCab case in which he conducted himself in a manner that I would expect of an admin. I believe F&W will make a good sysop, as he appears to have the decorum that I believe is necessary for the flag. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, good nom and great answers. Extremely unconvincing opposes.
'''Support:''' Constructive Editor who is a net positive. I have no doubt that he will listen to the concerns raised by those who oppose.  -
'''Support''' - Net positive, no reason I can find to make me oppose, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Great user who works to improve Wikipedia.
Looks good. '''
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' per A.Nobody. <small>
'''Suppert'''WTHN?[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''If you would ''</font>]]
'''Support''' <s>Per not finding a reason to block or oppose</s> per the good responces to the questions above--
'''Yep''' - Great editor.

'''Yes''' because I've had good experience of this person, and because I've looked at the Oppose comments below and find I agree with Fences and windows that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (2nd nomination)|Rusty Ryan]] should have been deleted. I am somewhat surprised that it survived the AfD! Also, the harmless statement in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol]] appears to be correct. And, having looked at the deleted [[Children of Michael Jackson]] I agree with Fences in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Michael Jackson]] that the article met our guidelines and had put forward a good argument for the children having acquired enough notability for a standalone article. Sometimes notable people have notable relatives - [[WP:NOTINHERITED]] makes that clear. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. I see a lot of reasonableness from this candidate, which speaks well to their ability to properly use the tools, if and when.
'''Support''' Helpful editor, good contribs, reasonable decision-making history. --'''''
'''Strong support''' An excellent editor with thoughtful contributions to discussion, even when we don't agree.  Opposes appear to be frivolous and partisan. '''
'''Support'''.  Everything that I reviewed indicates a very competent, friendly, and thoughtful editor.  I think our project would benefit by more research and forethought prior to hitting a "save" button, rather than much of the "off-the-top-their-head" types of efforts that are often seen on WP.  F&W appears to me to be just such an editor, and the admin. corps could certainly benefit by the style of research and objectivity that I see from F&W. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Strong support''' Without any reservation. I'm dissapointed with the opposes by the usual suspects from my ARS colleagues below, to my mind their arguments show this candidate deserves the tools (and I don't mean as punishment!) <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support'''. Any perceived judgment issues seem part of the natural learning curves, i trust this editor to make good decisions and ask for help when needed.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  On the positive side of things, the candidate has never been blocked, does have some barnstars on his userpage, and has made some reasonable arguments in AfDs as at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar (Ultima)]] (although I said to keep, and he said to merge, this merge was expressed in a reasonable manner), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Mexico relations]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean (2nd nomination)]].  With that said, the candidate has also made some frustratingly weak arguments elsewhere: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (2nd nomination)]] (the delete "vote" was enough to make someone say to "keep" per the candidate's delete...), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Vampire Folk lore)]] (a clear "no consensus" discussion in which the candidate did not follow [[WP:PRESERVE]], redlinking in this case was simply unreasonable; I can respectfully disagree, but in one like this I cannot trust that judgment as reflective of the actual value of the content under discussion), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)]] (again, not following [[WP:BEFORE]], [[WP:PRESERVE]], etc., i.e. not getting that deletion is an extreme last resort), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot]] (no reason/rationale provided, just a vote), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley]] (a [[WP:PERNOM]] style "vote"), etc.  Some of these delete votes seem to against common sense even and are dug in without a willingness to accept a compromise and that is particularly disheartening.  This candidate is someone who at times I had hopes/faith in, but more so than anything else, really lost me over the "Lamia" article and the overreation of quiting the ARS over it is not the kind of calmness and composure I look for in admins.  I hope to see more of the first few positive examples I list above that would maybe change my mind down the road, but I do not have confidence in reasonability and calmness at this time.  Sincerely, --
I '''strongly oppose''' this nomination, even though I normally simply sit out these things. I definitely share A Nobody's concerns, as the arguments I've seen from this user at AFD's are simply weak, and I haven't been impressed with how s/he supports opinions proffered there. I'm particularly unimpressed by [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol|this]] "keep" recommendation, which offered no real rationale other than basically "it's really not hurting anyone." Also, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Michael Jackson|this]] rationale, where s/he argues for keeping an article on minor children, with a one line rationale. It's not ''just'' that I disagree with these recommendations, it's that I find the ''judgment'' behind them ''very'' questionable. Enough so that I bookmarked this redlink, which I rarely do, just in case this person ever stood for adminship.
'''Oppose''', per [[User_talk:Fences_and_windows/Archive_7#Confused]] editor appeared to counsel other editors with action he himself did. Seems like double standards. Plus wavering views <s>per [[WP:ARS]]</s> on where he stands on articles.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Telepathy_and_war&diff=next&oldid=295842926][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&diff=314805107&oldid=314795453] From my view, editor seems to want to appease all sides, flip flopping from one polar opposite to the other, while taking no firm stand.
I must '''oppose''', because his interpretation of the username policy seems to endorse religiously-motivated username blocks. Names that have religious connotations should not be conflated with being "offensive". It's a bad idea. The policy doesn't really support this, and when people have placed username blocks for religious reasons in the past, it has been done unevenly. The net result of religiously-motivated username blocks is to favor religious beliefs that are well-regarded in English-speaking countries and penalize those that are distrusted minorities.
'''Oppose''' His comments throughout this AFD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_Ryan_(2nd_nomination)] make me concern how he'll close AFDs in the future.  An administrator should be able to make rational decisions based on a good reasoning skill, not just mindlessly follow the suggested guidelines.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Neutral]]''' just oh so very slightly leaning support - A Nobody states a very good point, however I can't oppose. But I can't support at the moment either.   '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Neutral''' - Like the editor's contributions, but would like to see more New Page Patrolling (currently only 225 patrolled), and no real history of vandalism fighting.
Something about his comments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination)]] bothers me. It's not Wikihounding to nominate articles for deletion in good faith... even if someone  who worked on the article has been in trouble lately. While I doubt he truly would block someone for Wikihounding for starting a legitimate AFD (which, rightfully, ended in a deletion) to me, his words in the AFD implied he would. I attribute this more to poor word choice than anything else, but I did feel I should drop a note in the RFA just because it's a good chance to be heard. --
'''Support''' - as nominator. Regards '''
'''Support'''.  In addition to all the great things people said about her last time, and the new information above, I can testify that she's been one of the most reliable CSD taggers over the past few months. - Dank (
We use to fight often (I'm not around anymore) and I am 99% sure she hates me, but she always seems to do a great job, gets involved a lot, helps out when people need it, etc. So, personally feelings pushed aside, she seems like she is quite capable and would be a good addition.
'''Support'''. Took a sizeable sample of speedy deletion tags, AIV reports, and UAA reports. Found nothing of concern. She has improved since her last RFA, and I think she'll do fine as an admin.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' - supported last time, nothing has changed to make me change my mind. //
I don't believe it matters how long it has been since the most recent RfA, but whether the candidate has learned since then. I believe the candidate has, so I support. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' seen her around, she's always polite and helpful. Looking at her editing stats, she seems to do good work at [[WP:Usernames for administrator attention]] and I've seen her doing [[WP:NPP|new page patrolling]]. If this passes I'm sure she will make a great admin -
Excellent user who will make a great admin. '''
The correct time to run for adminship again after an unsuccessful bid is "after you have rectified the concerns of most of the opposers". This has most definitely happened. I wasn't convinced either way last time; but with the great contributions continuing and the deletion problems clearly solved, I am happy to support. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] I don't much care about the time between consecutive RfAs, ''as long as you have improved significantly'', which you have.
'''Support''' per above -
'''Support''' - Like last time, a good candidate that has the right attitude and can learn from mistakes.
'''Would-have-happily-nommed-again support''' - You bitch, starting the party without me. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Sure. —
'''Support'''. She's okay. ;) <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' due to marked improvement in the areas which plagued her last time. Also, the 3 months time frame is a guideline, and as it's been almost three months (just shy of it by about 10 days), I think that's long enough. There is nothing anywhere that says you ''must'' wait 3 months to try again. I see no evidence the tools would be abused. ···
'''Supported before, support again'''. I just miss the dragon story... But seriously, I didn't see CSD a problem last time and it has improved even more. I also want to note that it took 3 edit conflicts for me to submit my !vote.
'''Supported before, support again'''. I stand by what I said the first time, which is why I'll just copy and paste that opinion. I'm not happy about the sloppy tagging but I still believe sysoping would be a net positive. I know this may be a weak excuse but FT does a lot of newpage patrol and mistakes are inevitable. I also trust that she understands that speedy tagging and speedy deleting are different things. Sloppy tagging is basically newbie biting. Sloppy deleting is newbie biting, chewing and spitting out.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate helps out new users as an adopter in the adopt a user program (being helpful and a mentor is a great asset for admins whom editors regularly turn to for assistance and experience) and as the candidate has never been blocked, not even accidentally! :) Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I thought she was ready before, and I think she's even more ready now.
'''Support''' From the I already thought she was an admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' - Concerns alleviated from last time - unless there's a bunch of admin links I can't see.
'''Strong Support''' no worries here, fly high little toaster. Nice mix of contributions and vandalfighting and great behaviour in this RFA ''
'''Support''' No reason to believe she'd abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' User has been around since March 2006 and checked the track and find the concerns of the previous RFA have been overcame.The user has overcame the concerns like in deletion tagging and further the conerns raised by  User Sowhy which made the previous RFA fail is the nom of this RFA shows the user has worked extremely positively towards overcaming the concerns  .Further fully trust the judgement of Acaramari who is the co nom.
'''Support'''-Supported the 1st RFA<!--apparently it didn't go through-->, can't see why I shouldn't support the user's 2nd attempt.
'''Support''' Sure, why not? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong support''' A strong record of good judgement, collegiality and a willingness to help out. Will be an excellent administrator.
I'm
'''Support''' I feel comfortable offering my support. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support''' per the answer to my question (number 5).  This candidate displays a subtle, nuanced and clueful understanding of policy and consensus.—
'''Support''' I thought you already was an admin. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' I supported last time and nothing has changed since then.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]] and per {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster|273572412|273570438|my !vote last time around}}. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Definitely! I still think you'll be a great admin. '''''
'''Support'''. Learned something about [[Morgan_"Bill"_Evans|Disneyland]], thanks to the candidate.  Great contributions, Friendly and drama free.  The community told FlyingToaster to work on her skills at her first RfA; She has convinced her nominator and meets my [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|opinion]] of what it takes. <small>--
'''Support''' Sounds good, we need sysops like flying toaster.
'''Support''' per SoWhy, and my comments at her [[Wikipedia:Editor review/FlyingToaster|recent editor review]].
'''Strong support''' - FlyingToaster's edits are praiseworthy. :-)
'''Support''' per arguments above. meets my standards. need more ''qualified, civil, helpful'' sysops. recall positive encounters in past.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Absolutely -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' this time around. Improved where she needed to be. I'm glad I had not discouraged her. '''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' I'd have been an oppose in the last one, in which I didn't !vote, the RfA's being not too close, but, per, most prominently, SoWhy, I now conclude that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
Just like last time.
'''You should have bloody told me''' you were running! Strong Support. User needs to work on her communications skills in future, though :P.
'''Support''' I've looked at your recent edits and previous RfA; I think you should be speedily promoted
'''Support''' FlyingToaster is by far one of the best CSD taggers I have seen. &lowast;
'''Support'''--
'''Delete''', clearly nn :) <!-- this is a support -->
'''Support''' this time. No lingering concerns. I believe she'll use the tools well. --
'''Support''': As my [[WP:ADOPT]]ive parent FT has been unfailingly knowledgeable, kind, wise, and good-looking. In all sincerity, through the adoption program I've benefited from her excellent policy understanding and very clear style (a great bonus in communicating with all users), boundless energy and good will, and the proven resilience and adaptability that her recovery from those CSD objections demonstrates.
Per last time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Notable improvement since the last RfA.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' mainly due to being impressed with answers to questions 5, 7b, and 10. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''  —
Strongly: and no, I hadn't forgotten to support earlier. :)
But of course, '''Support''' - How could I not? FT will be an excellent addition to the admin corps and will only benefit en.wiki.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, no reason not to trust this user with the tools.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - If Moonriddengirl sees no CSD problems, then there's likely no problems. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xenocidic#Neutral|She has a knack for uncovering these things...]] ;> –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' My support from last time carries over. Intelligent, strong reasoning skills, thoughtful, excellent researcher, and incredibly trustworthy. Everything one wants in an admin.
'''Support''' But of course. Don't know how I missed RfA #1!) --
'''Support''' We need more good looking admins for WikiMania, among other things.
'''Support''': Solid.
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support'''—concerns from the last RfA seem to have been alleviated. —
'''Support''' - Great user; demonstrates good understanding of policy in the questions. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - I am impressed by alot of the responses the user made. I am paticularily impressed by the personal touch the user describes when addressing users in trouble rather than using a template. best of luck
'''Support''' Oui. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''', per the testimonials about improved CSD work (the reason I opposed last time).--
But of course!
'''E/c'ed Support''' - seriously per {{User|Camaron}} and sort-of-not-really-jokingly per {{User|The Inedible Bulk}} (a.k.a. TIB). ;D —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
Yep, I find this users attitude confident in many aspects and I belive that her attitude towards to the Wikimedia foundation positive and genuine. all thumbs up from here :D
'''Support''', I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Pretty Weak Support''' Would allow a user to make sausages out of Rush Limbaugh.
'''Support'''. I'm glad to be able to move out of the oppose column I was in last time.--
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''. Answers quite well thought out. '''''
'''Support'''.  Per [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-05-05-ruthginsburg_N.htm] diversity among decision makers is needed.  In wikipedia we need more female administrators [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/16/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/] so that diverse viewpoints can be understood.
'''Support'''. Hey! He makes constructive edits, so it's no big deal :) --
'''Support''', without a doubt. --
'''Support''' Everything looks good; no problems. '''
'''Support''' All of my experience with Flying Toaster has been positive. --
Beat me to reverting some vandalism about 15 minutes ago. Can't think of anything bad... --
'''Support''' Every reason to believe she would be a good administrator. I also liked her answers to some of the questions above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seen him here, there, and everywhere on deletion areas and AIV. He's qualified, definitely.
'''Support''' &ndash; Good user, opposes are unconvincing. '''
'''Support''' there are a few nominators who I truly trust, but the combo above does the trick---'''
'''Support''' --
Great user. And I do trust SoWhy. <strong>
'''Wanted to be #100 but damn it I missed strong support''' - Supported the last RfA, support again. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Support'''.  I trust FlyingToaster with the mop as: (a) I like the answers to the questions; (b) her deletion tagging has improved since her last RfA; (c) her new article examples demonstrate content building; and (d) the opposes aren't convincing. --
'''Support''' by default.  Have seen some of the work, all positive in regards to making WP a better site.  I trust the noms.  Looked through the oppose section, can't find enough there to sway me.  Best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Answers to the questions seem sound and appears to have a good amount of mainspace edits.  --'''
'''Mild support''' seems somewhat clued and reasonable amount of content work. Opposes seem mainly to be petty political score settling based on her support of someone who'd pissed off some powerful people - wikipolitics at it worst.--
'''Support''' convinced me.
'''Support''' No problems here. An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Never had any problems with FT. I believe that she is a good wikipedia editor, and will make a fantastic admin. --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Strong support'''   Support is the default position for those Ive encountered before who have made good edits.  This editor is strong support as the user seems to have rare good nature. Also she's clearly a learner who responds well to criticism, so her judgment  will likely continue to improve and is already easily good enough to be an admin.
'''Support''' Yes, ready now :) --
'''Support''' Yessir... ready to go. <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' Fine candidate, will not abuse tools, previous principal opposer is now nom, answer to Q5 is absolutely brilliant, and great answers to the rest. No reason to oppose here. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''CABAL! CABAL! CABAL!''' I have never spoken to ''Boriss'' through the Internet Relay Cabal protocol but based on the responses to the questions I will support this candidate. '''
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. Someone who communicates too much? I've been accused of the same and much worse - if that's the worst thing to be said about a prospective admin then Wikipedia will be lucky to have someone willing to discuss issues.
'''Support''' - I find the IRC based objections not very convincing and think a cross-section of this user's edits suggest a very competent and civil editor. I do think there's some primping for RfA but that's a pretty hollow accusation. The focus should be on quality.
'''Support''' - No reason not to.

'''support''' - appears to have the correct enemies
'''Support''' FlyingToaster has always been enthusiastic and helpful when I or someone else has needed help.  ''<B>
'''Support''' Excellent responses to questions. Well argued. He will make a good admin. I think I supported him in his first RFA. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Strong support.'''  Excellent responses to the questions, thoughtful and thorough, really impressive.  Particular strengths: grokking that this collaborative encyclopedia is more than a cluster of fiefdoms; being firm with new editors without driving them away.  (Note: I did not participate in the previous RfA and have no comment on it.  I don't hang out on IRC and have no comment on that, either.)  —
'''Support again''' I don't know or care what happens on IRC, this is a solid editor and I see no convincing reasons in the oppose section.
'''Support''' I did last time, I'm pretty sure. Nothing new has come up. <strong>
'''Support'''. Responsible and productive edits, nothing particularily concerning.
'''Support''' Good answers and plenty of experience. I've read the opinions of the opposition, and they do not convince me that she would make a poor admin.
Last RfA was less than three months ago, almost half of this user's edits are to User talk, and although registered for over three years this editor only really became active towards the end of last year, presumably in preparation for his/her first RfA. --
Little in the way of audited content work, WPspace editing. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
A very poor idea. This editor is naive, uniformed and has an appalling record regarding content. One wonders why these people come here, any fool can sit and talk all day, and many do.
'''Oppose''' This user doesn't seem overly qualified or extensively engaged in serious editing. Just my 2 cents.
'''Oppose''' misunderstands the [[WP:CSD]] criteria - many of our "no content" or "no context" deletions are one-liners or no-liners with or without under construction or hangon tags - if you want the mop, you need to help clean the floors, not let people have a week's free advertising here.
'''Oppose''':  I get a sense of why the person thinks, "why not," but not "why?"  Why now?  Why RFA again so soon?  What is the ''need'' for the project and the candidate?  CSD always lags, of course, but CSD isn't really a very compelling argument.  The "powers" of being an admin are relatively few, and there was more of a need in past years than today.  Therefore, I simply do not see a good argument put forward for promotion.  This is not to say that I see a reason to ''deny,'' except that the default for all users is to deny (to not go forward to RFA).  It's getting weird around here, when RFA is somehow expected to be a normal part of any user's life cycle at Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per reasons above, mainly no visible content contribution.
Judgement concerns, per previous RFA and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neurolysis]].  I can't figure out why this RFA is going so different than previous one.. Maybe this editor has been hanging out in a chat room, making friends?
'''Oppose''' Per my oppose in the first RFA.  Although It appears those concerns have been addressed, I'd like to see a longer time pass to be sure.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Friday]].--
Not a long enough track record, per Cube lurker. Too much chatting, per several other editors.
'''weak oppose''' Most things look good but concerns in the previous AfD especially in regard to CSD issues have not been adequately dealt with.
'''Oppose''' per the reason I stated in the last RfA. Like Cube Lurker, I think the candidate needs a bit more time.
'''Oppose'''. Another sysop from a chat room? No, thanks, we have enough of them. --
'''Oppose''' Another IRC buddy buddy is about as welcome as a fart in a hot-tub. Normally I'd just let these go, but the unseemly barracking of the opposers from the other IRC buddies compels me. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree with [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] and she  seems to have a lot of chat buddie barracking friends hunting in packs.I also feel that when candidates come to Rfa they should come clear of any contraversy as that tension makes me nervous and makes me want to say , wait some more time and two or three months between requests is imo also not long enough for any real change.I would like to see good strong well rounded admins with plenty of article writing experiance and perhaps some experiance of conflict resolution and the maturity to tell her friends when they are wrong. (
The crats will no doubt discount this, but switching to oppose. Nothing particularly against the candidate, but this will at least cancel out some of the inane "support as default" comments in the support percentages.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'''<font style="font-family: Courier"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose'''. The IRC effect and the spin-off from the more belligerent contingent is predictable and unpleasant but incidental. Candidate lacks appropriate focus on article content e.g. [[Six Magics|this]], listed by Flying Toaster above, was created six months ago but remains poorly written (despite a <s>bot</s> visit to fix a link just 4 days ago). The answers to Q.8 and Q.9 confidently asserting unilateral tracing and interventionist actions based upon a one-size-fits-all personal perception template (and with the contradictory/covering the bases WP:AN alert at the end of 8), where subjective touchy-feely supercedes the recommendations of the collective experience of several years and numerous incidents (imperfect as these things always will be, its the nature of the problem...). I'm not wanting to find out where else the candidate may feel she knows best and so acts accordingly: concerns over problem-solving having been raised already.
'''Oppose''' The IRC concerns me too and I am not happy with what appears to be pack attacks on any oppose that is listed. <strong>
'''Oppose''' - Not thrilled about IRC-related drama. --
'''Oppose''': I'm not at all supportive of a user that lacks article contributions, and one that is only seeking RFA through this IRC buddies. No thanks, we can do without your drama. <small>
'''Semi-Weak Oppose''' per Friday, Plutonium and the fact that it has only been 3 months since last RfA. I think she needs a little bit more time before I can support her. Good luck though! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Serious concerns over non-transparent communication methods.  It should not be this easy for the IRC crowd to promote one of their own.
'''Oppose.''' Too soon after the last RFA, and not enough experience of content work. Yes, I want to see hands-on article-writing ''experience'' from any admin who is going to work with edit warriors and vandals; not just admins who know rules. It's not the same thing. Please note that I'm here on this page to give my opinion about FlyingToaster, not to squabble with the candidate's friends, who are kindly requested not to argufy or badger below my Oppose.
'''Oppose''' Has not done much of substance and spends way too much time chatterin' away.
'''Very reluctant oppose''' With more work on content and less time spent on IRC, I can see no reason not support later should this RfA fail.
'''Oppose''' per Friday.
'''Oppose''' per Giano --
'''Oppose''' per Giano.
'''Oppose'''. I'm glad FT sees a role as content protection (Q2), rather than simply anti-vandalism. Doing content protection well takes an understanding of how articles are built, from creation to development to sourcing to fine-tuning. While FT has good experience creating articles, I don't see enough of the rest yet. At this point in time FT only has 20 or more edits to four articles (max 27). I would hope for more depth in a couple articles. Coupled with really only nine months of activity, less than three months since a previous RFA, and what seems to be 40% automatic edits[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=FlyingToaster], and I can't support at this time. It would have been better if FT waited a couple months and spent that time helping to get an article to WP:GA. I would also suggest taking a few new articles to WP:DYK; the feedback would be valuable, I think. Kudos for a couple classy responses here.
'''Oppose''' per Giano and Seicer. --
'''Neutral''' This second RfA seems too early given that the first one was just held 2 months and a half ago. SoWhy's long opposing rationale at that time was undoubtedly a hammering factor to fail FryingToaster's adminship, but he is the nominator this time. That is a very positive sign that FlyingToaster has improved herself. I have no doubt that FryingToaster is a good editor, but is she changed in such the short time? I would like see some visible evidences from the nominators.--
'''Neutral''' Awaiting answers to questions. I worry that FlyingToaster is too much of a "button-pusher" --
'''Neutral''' per Caspian blue.
'''Neutral'''. I would lose sleep if I opposed but, from what I can see from FT's contributions and MediaWiki edit counter I can;t support unreservedly, either. My main concern is the lack of constructive content building. I like what I see in the vandal patrolling but an average of less than 2 edit per page ''combined'' with the sizeable majority of edits being to user talk designations. The improvement in CSD tagging is good to see- having taken the time to review FT's contributions, there are a lot or red links with the Twinkle edit summary. However, this feeds in to my next point, which is the large quantity of edits made using Twinkle. It's an excellent tool and very useful in time saving and vandal patrolling but it's not designed to aid in constructive content building. There are just too many edit summaries with the (HotCat) and (TW) marks and not enough of the expanding stubs, wikifying and other, time consuming tasks which are equally important, if not more so. Sorry.
Scary IRC cabal vs equally-scary anti-IRC cabal = Daniel scared.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' I thought Foxy should be an admin, when patrolling [[WP:SPI]] the other day, but figured he (she?) already was.--
'''Support''' seems to be a good contributor and I think they would be a good admin as well.
Sure. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' he has improved since his last RfA.
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=281603001&oldid=281602847 Vorpal Support +5]''' - Excellent SPI clerk, all-around great user, will make a wonderful admin! --'''[[User:Dylan620|Dylan]]''' ([[User talk:Dylan620|chat]], [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|work]], [[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|ping]],
'''Support''' No reason not to.
You had a rocky start here with your original RfAs.  All seems to have worked out well though - good luck
A pretty good editor with plenty of contributions that are spread throughout the entire wiki. Cheers. '''''
I supported last October because I thought you were ready and could be trusted with the tools; I see no reason not to support again ''
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' Looks great. '''''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''.  I see a lot of improvement, and I've read through the opposes from the aborted first RfA and the full second RfA, and don't see anything now in the candidate that's relevant to those opposes ... I could be wrong, of course. - Dan
'''Support''' Seems to have improved greatly since the last two, and i see no alarms. --
'''Support''' - I disagree with the opposers, and see no reason not to give such a clearly dedicated, knowledgeable and friendly user the mop and bucket. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''', I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would break the encyclopedia. <small><span style="border:1px solid #00FF00;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Unless somebody provides concrete proof of FL's current "maturity issues".
'''Support''' I don't see any reason he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Clearly needs the tools, every interaction I have had with him has given me the impression that he is a reasonable editor.
'''Support''' Minor maturity issues do exist, but I get the feeling your still very trustworthy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good Luck
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Good luck from me also.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support'''. His answers to Q3 and Q4 show good sense and good temperament for the job. I've looked over his past RfAs and contributions, and he seems to have learned a lot. &ndash;
'''Support'''  Nothing but good interactions with this user.  Good luck!  —
'''Support''' Looks fine to me!
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' on balance.
'''Support'''- I supported last time and I have seen nothing since that would make me change my mind.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Oppose section is unconvincing. —
'''Support'''. No problems really. Looks to have improved from last RfA, so why not? <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' I don't believe he will abuse the tools. I have dealt with him as a fellow [[WP:SPI/Clerks|SPI clerk]] and he has shown good judgement and general clue. I have read the opposes, but based on my own interactions with Foxy Loxy, I haven't seen enough to cast a different opinion. Good luck, <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools, IMO, and, in my one experience with him, did good work. --
'''Support''' I can't truly find a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Changed from oppose. Essentially on the reasoning of Wisdom89.
'''Support''' I have a concern that the editor seems a little eager to find reasons to delete, but he also seems to learn from mistakes and have a good grasp of policy. I'm sure he will prove a good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Yep!
No reasons given not to - six months ago isn't current. '''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Great candidate. Like the SPI work and although you don't have the ''number'' of content contributions I'm looking for, I'm satisfied with the quality content that has been created. — <font face="Segoe Script">
Personally, I'd support purely for answering all the questions above (Guys, we aren't playing [[20 Questions]]. But mainly, my support is for the fact you're a mediator, a good one at that, and too few admins are any good at solving disputes. Maturity issues? Pah. If you can solve a dispute like [[Bates method]], that's good enough for me. (And to the admins opposing, could you solve a dispute like that? If the answer is Yes, then my question to you is, why are you here opposing when you could be solving disputes. [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases|Go ahead. We need as much help as possible]]. But if the answer is No, ask, why are you opposing? This user has a quality you lack. Consider that.) <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''^.^'''
'''Support''' Supported his last RFA, still support him now. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' A great contributor, and definitely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' I have had positive interactions with this user and nothing to complain about.
'''Support''', agree with many of the comments by supporters above that this user has shown some significant positive improvements over time. '''
'''Support''' Seems to understand his limits, good work at SPI. '''
'''Support'''. My main concern is that your signature persistently annoys me for some reason, and gives me the impression that you're about nine years old. That is, I'm sure you'll agree, a spectacularly poor reason to oppose an RfA! :D I've had no other concerns about your editing in the past few months, there's been a wide variety of generally intelligent and well-thought-out contributions to various aspects of the encyclopedia and to the project space. I think you'd do well with the tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - I see you as a friendly and trusted user who should make a good admin, I supported you at your last RfA and I see no reason not do so again. I do think the main oppose issue at your last RfA, based upon deciding to re-start it, was heavily overblown. The opposes in this RfA are not very convincing either.
'''Support''' - No concerns. I checked some of this editor's clerk comments at [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations]], and thought he showed judgment and experience there. You can see a list of his SPI comments with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&redirs=0&search=foxy+loxy+prefix%3AWikipedia%3ASockpuppet+investigations&limit=100&offset=0 this search].
'''Support''' Certainly. —
'''Support''' per <s>IRC cabal</s> good experience, no concerns '''
Huge improvements over the last two times.
'''Support'''. He'll do well and I wish him luck in this RFA.
'''Support''' Experienced enough, although it's a little concerning that only 30% of your edits are on the article mainspace. '''
'''Support''' On balance, I'd say this candidate will be a net positive.  More to the point, is saying "on balance" and then saying "net positive" a grievous sin against the language? :)
'''Support'''. Level-headed contributions, and solid article work. I have no major concerns here.
'''Support'''. I remember your old RfA going down, Foxy, and I must admit it was a shame for it to do so in such fashion. Happily, people are finally aligning themselves for the proper reasons now. I'd like to offer you my backing, as I think you'd make an ''excellent'' admin if bestowed with the responsibilities. [[User:Ayrton Prost|<font color="#FF4500" face="">'''Ayrton'''</font>]] [[User talk:Ayrton Prost|<font color="DarkOrange" face="">'''Prost'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support'''. Significant improvement since October.
'''Support''' On balance, support arguments convince me more than oppose arguments. No specific-enough reasons given to oppose.--
'''Support''' I have read over the previous RfA's and I feel that the user has made the necessary changes. Very unlikely to delete the mainpage or break the Wiki.
'''Support'''.  A strong record of content contribution (GAs and a future FA).  I think outstanding issues from the previous RfAs have been resolved.  There is an unfortunate tendency for a past RfA to poison future RfAs that would have passed easily if the earlier RfA had never taken place.  What I see here is a good editor, and not someone who will delete the mainpage or use the tools in a content dispute.
'''Support'''. Seems a solid candidate, with a good record of article work and sockpuppet tracking.
'''Support'''. All-around good editor with whom I've had pleasant encounters. —'''''
'''Support''' Shows good judgement at [[WP:SPI]]. Has certainly made mistakes in the past, but I'm happy that the lessons have been learned, and that the mop will be wielded properly.
'''Support''' - cut-and-paste from the last RfA: "I was inclined to oppose, but realized that an oppose merely perpetuates some of the "problems" of RfA today - opposes for procedural reasons, naming conventions, etc. Do I trust this candidate with the tools? Yes."
'''Support''' - Looks fine from here. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. Not a problem in sight. — '''''
'''Support''' - no real reason to oppose. The biggest problem shown here is the edit-warring on [[Country]], and I trust Foxy when he says he will avoid such conflicts in future.
'''Support'''- Potential to be a great admin.
'''Support''' After deep consideration do feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools. Do not see misuse of tools. Great commitment through.
'''Support'''. I trust this user. '''
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and committed. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I see someone who will benefit the ranks and will work to mitigate problems rather than cause them.
'''Support'''. I am impressed with the well written/referenced [[Xgrid]] and [[BootX_(Apple)|Bootx]](more please!).  Participation at SPI, CSD and RfA[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BOZ&diff=282945587&oldid=282924603] demonstrates dedication and a desire to work with the community.  My [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|humble opinion]] solidified when edit sampling revealed consistent efforts to help others[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&diff=prev&oldid=259685770].  Foxy has met his own RfA criteria[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Foxy_Loxy/RfA_criteria] and has proven that he will be able to manage the buttons responsibly and to the benefit to the project. <small>
'''Support''' Yes, just think things out before pressing the fancy buttons.
'''Support'''
Very good admin candidate. <strong>
Per maturity and judgement concerns brought up before.  These kinds of problems don't magically go away in a few months.
Agree with my colleagues above. Repeat nominations of this sort put me more on edge because it's more likely the candidate is just trying to get adminship and muting flaws each go around. As such I would like to see a greater gap. Other than that I would like to see more content work. --<font color="#cc6600">
Question three looks more like a content dispute than vandalism, and their actions in such were inappropriate. The first revert is okay, but any afterward should have brought others into it and seek a third party. The candidate does not seem to consciously follow this, which makes me not feel secure in their ability to handle these situations, which come up often as an admin.
I've been good friends with FoxLox for a while, but I'm going to have to oppose this. From what I see, {{gender|Foxy Loxy}} is still a little immature at times, and I would prefer to see a little more time before I can support.
'''WEAK Oppose''' ( changed from Oppose. I see <s>very little article work, and </s> and zero contributions to policy discussions. '''
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Weak oppose''' I am not left with much comfort about the candidate's maturity and experience. I also think the candidate missed with thinking the "He is married" in uncontentious - put the line in the biography of a Roman Catholic priest, or someone engaged to be married.
'''Oppose''' I'm not too vested in this particular RfA, but I think that a basic assumption of good faith up front would go a long way in interactions with other users.  I'm disappointed in how Foxy Loxy handled the exchange with the IP in the example above, and I believe that it could have been avoided by a preliminary assumption that an IP may have something to offer en.wiki.  Whether you get admin or not, please weigh content when assuming editors are vandals.  --
'''Oppose'''This editor has shown poor judgement and failed to assume good faith which will only worsen with the extra power, not ready.(
'''Oppose''' - per [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. Other concerns aside, the answer to #11 just sets me to oppose. I strongly oppose any sort of "vote" counting, and/or assessing primarily due to enboldened text, per [[WP:CON]]. -
'''Oppose''' I know FL only from FL's frequent votes here at RfA (usually Supports). The quality of FL's reasoning in those votes is appallingly low.--
'''Oppose''' Sadly, I'm afraid I can't see the candidate as being a completely trustworthy admin. Most people are fine during day-to-day life, and FL could definitely be a competent admin. However, under stress, when the tools actually make a difference and things are actually going to have major repurcussions, I'm not completely sure that FL will do the 'right' thing. Sorry again, mate!
'''Oppose''' - I think you're a great contributor and your article work is top notch... but... the concerns brought up by Off2riorob and MoP are too strong to ignore.
'''Weak oppose''' - the last RFA and a half left me with a uneasy feeling. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - fails my [[User:Collectonian#RfAs|criteria]]: only really active for just over a year, less than 10,000 edits, not nearly active enough in the project, and particularly in the last few months and signs of a declining not increasing participation. Seems like the candidate is well on their way, but not there yet. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Drifting between Neutral and Oppose, but I have to side with the issues brought up by MoP and Collectonian above.
'''Neutral'''.  I initially opposed, but on further inspection of the candidate's edit history, there are more positives than negative.  I do note that some others also offer reasons to oppose and would like to see how these are addressed further before deciding if I should move to support.  In any event, Happy Easter!  Sincerely, --
'''Let's get this party started right support''' as conominator.
'''Support''' - no doubt about it.
'''Support'''. I've seen Franamax around and I have no concerns that the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions - shows awareness of strengths and weaknesses.  Am certain Franamax will make good use of the tools to improve the encyclopedia, and will continue to dispense excellent advice and help to others where needed.
'''Support''' Good sense and judgment are the core components of a good administrator, and dedication helps a lot. Franamax has shown a level head. In particular his answer to the trap that is standard question 3 suggests Franamax hold himself in the proper regard. We are all better off when admins are cognizant of their own fallibility and ultimate insignificance in the grand scheme of things.--
'''Support as nominator'''.
'''Support''' I have seen Franamax's work over an extended period of time and have no issues with him being an administrator. '''
My God, when I saw the name I literally thought "I see somebody's up for reconfirmation." Just one of those moments that makes you feel stupid you didn't realize they might not already be an administrator. I'll note that I've read through Durova's oppose - I'm still supporting, just keep an eye on your temper, OK? =)
'''Support'''.  Based on your track record, I believe it's fair to expect that you will make wise, considered decisions (and be willing to reevaluate should facts change or new information come to light).  This is always a question of trust, and I believe you have the trust of the community.  '''
Anything for Risker! <3 &mdash;
As a potential nominator, I think Franamax knows where he will work and that is that. Just because he is not a content person does not reflect on his abilities as a janitor. '''
'''Strong support'''. Based on work I've done with Franamax, I believe he has great good sense and a thorough understanding of the Wikipedia environment. Personally, I hope to beguile him into some copyright work; after our collaboration on [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]], I know he's good for it. I've seen him debate. I was around for the conflict he linked above; I decided not to return to the conversation after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2009-04-13%2FDispatches&action=historysubmit&diff=284591701&oldid=284561978 this post], but I ''did'' see Franamax's later note, and I have not observed it to be characteristic of him. Finally, I heartily second [[User:Ceranthor|Ceranthor]]. --
'''Support'''. Risker has it just right, I think - this candidate is involved in several tasks that a lot of admins won't touch, and that's a good thing. As noted, above, admins who will calm situations down, or who will attempt to do so, are a net positive for the project, and I believe that's the sort of admin that Franamax will be. Good luck,
I've read all the links and answers to questions, and there's nothing here that seems like a stopper.  I don't need someone to have arrived at the end of their wiki-journey to pass RfA.  Franamax has been very helpful on a number of occasions, and I like the answers to the questions. - Dank (
'''Support''' Positive memories from working on [[WP:Plagiarism]] together. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''.
'''weak support'''. I too would like to see more content work. At the end of the day, it's what matters at this place. Having some grounding in that will help you make the right decisions. <strong>
Well suited for adminship.
'''Support''' Long-tenured editor, seems to be well-suited for the mop.
'''Support''' Franamax is a trusted and helpful user, he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I too have seen Franamax's work over a long period of time and am confident he would be an asset as sysop.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' despite the fact that the acronym in "has created featured content FA/GA/DYK" really seems like some kind of homophobic slur
'''Support''' He'll do fine.  Humans lose their temper and he's done enough work that I'm not too concerned about limited audited content.  Arguably Durova's oppose is the strongest of the bunch, but her followup inadvertently makes mincemeat of it.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Reviewing contributions, no history of disruption, seems to be well versed in policies, and takes extreme care with every edit to get it right (including a flawless 100% edit summary record). The cynicism in me feels compelled to ask, ''“What's wrong with you?”'' but I will assume good faith. Lack of article development work bothers me only a little. •
'''Support''' despite the supposed lack of article work, Franamax appears to be deticated to helping newcomers and anyone else that needs help. The user has also stated that s/he will help out the huge backlog problems that plague many pages on Wikipedia. That is a huge + for me. You've got my !vote.--<big>
'''Support''' - Generally I want to see some evidence of actual content work, I don't expect much, you seem to have done enough for me. I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the complaints about being argumentative, but nothing strong enough for me to oppose. Your work has been great and I admit that I'm also swayed by the nominations as well. -- '''
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support'''. I've found Franamax to be a very helpful editor willing to lend a hand to another. I think the mop would be in good hands.
'''Support'''. As above. Friendly, helpful editor, and an asset to wikipedia.
'''support''' I would normally be somewhat reluctant to support without more actual   content work, but for this candidate I;ve observed the quallty of the other work, and it seems clear that the tools will be used properly, and that the general Wikipedia knowledge is sufficient.   '''
'''Support'''.  You'll do just fine.
Prevailingly sensible. —<strong>
'''Support''' fair minded fellow and a peace maker, as shown by the very diverse group of editors from all spectrums who support him above. I am also impressed by his negotiation talents.
'''Support''' without equivocation. Franamax has been one of the most welcoming and level-headed editors I have ever seen. His knowledge of Wikipedia is superior. He would be a tremendous asset as admin. '''
No problems here. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''  Knows the difference between user-generated content and plagiarism, and will be able to assist in copyright issues.  The "diffs" cited in the oppose should be read in context; they were part of a robust, give-and-take discussion.  They are not indicative of a likelihood to abuse administrative powers.
'''Support''' No concerns.
Belated and negligent '''Support'''.  I once offered to nom Franamax, and then I got busy, and that fell through the cracks (I'm embarrassed).  I am usually here supporting top content contributors because they are the editors I know best; in spite of his low content contributions, his input on plagiarism and his dedicated work in the software area are worthy of support.  I'm unconvinced by the opposes.
'''Support''' No issues. Diffs given in oppose section seem to be exceptions, rather than the norm, in terms of Franamax's attitude/self control.
'''Weak support.'''  While the article percentages are a bit disappointing, that alone should not disqualify you.  Make sure to keep a level head in disputes.  Opposes are noted, but I think there is a net gain here.  Best, <strong><font color="maroon">
Per nom, I don't write articles.  Doesn't mean I don't do other stuff, or understand or appreciate the stress involved.  Doing anything serious is stressful.
'''Support''' Suggest that you add quality content to your editing repertoire in the future...
Adminship is not an award for article writing. Article writing has nothing to do with being an admin. I don't see the real issues raised by others as serious, so, I support. '''
'''Support''' The tools that he devises are helpful, as is he.  He's also one of the few Wikipedians I've met in person, so I can vouch that he's a good sort.  --
'''Support''' I believe this person will make a good additional to the Wikipedia staff of administrators.
'''Support''' 12,000 edits???  Holy guacamole
'''Weak support'''
'''Support'''—Good combination of content editing and process, tools.
'''Support''' I don't see anything that makes me think Franamax will misuse the tools. Also the answer to question 10 made me smile.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Good Luck. —
[[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
Seen him around doing the right thing and not breaking stuff. IMHO the opposes are only peripherally related to run-of-the-mill administrative work. ~
No reason to expect abuse.
We need more admins protecting copyright and fighting plagiarism on WP. (And, for people who might be worried that an anti-plagiarism admin would be too deletion-happy and drive away new contributors... well, from my experience Franamax is much less unforgiving with copied text than I am, and has shown willingness to work with new editors and help them fix articles and stuff, not just delete on sight.) Lack of article experience doesn't concern me, there's more to this encyclopedia than just ''writing'' articles&mdash;maintaining articles, and maintaining the policies that help us maintain them, is also important. <b class="Unicode">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Waffle Induced Support]]''' - Franamax made a good, thought out answer to question 10. The fact is BLPs need to have extra special care given to them, that other articles don't typically need. And there are a good amount of editors who don't see this. It looks as though Franamax has been a good contributor thus far to Wikipedia, even if he hasn't gotten anything to GA or FA status. It's been my opinion for a long time that an editor doesn't need any huge article work to be able to use the tools. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' - the occasional minor snarkiness doesn't seem to be reflective of the entire sum of contributions, and a consistent dedication to the tedium of anti-vandalism is worth supporting with some additional tools. In my view the reason why admins should show proficiency with article work is (a) to demonstrate they have an understanding of how the editing rules work in practice as opposed to simply reading the policy pages, (b) to show they are first and foremost here to build an encyclopedia, and (c) to indicate they have some appreciation of the attachment good-faith contributors have to their work and therefore the sensitivity to address concerns re those contributions without unnecessarily offending people. Franamax has comparatively little article-building experience, but the extensive contribution record over the years satisfies me about (a), having regard for the anti-vandalism efforts I have no especial reason to doubt (b), and there are enough testimonials about co-operation with others that I am at least tolerably happy with (c). Others might disagree, but I can't see anything that would disqualify Franamax from adminship, and I see a fair bit that supports the contention that he would continue his good work with the aid of a couple of extra buttons. As a postscript though, feel free to do more content work in amongst your other useful activities. :)
'''Support''' per nom and co-nom, and with the expectation that the user's rougher edges will be sanded down a bit as an admin.
'''Support''' Concerns by opposers about lack of content contributions is worrisome but there seems to be enough that I'm willing to give him the tools.
'''Support''' I usually like to see solid content work by potential admins but I'm willing to make an exception for an otherwise fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Seems to be organised well enough.
'''S+1'''
As Spartaz before me, I trust Franamax. <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">
'''Support''' Franamax being an admin will be an overall net positive to the project.--
'''Weak support''' Franamax seems to be trustworthy and is unlikely to misuse admin tools.  The discussions/diffs linked by Gordonrox24 and Robofish are slightly concerning, but the positives outweigh the negatives enough for me to support.
'''Strong Support'''  No issues at all with this candidacy. I'm sure that Franamax will make good use of the  tools and we need more admins with his dedication and common sense.
'''Weak Support:''' You seem to spend too much time feeding trolls. Constructive Edits  instead of wasting even one moment with those users would be good.  Civility issues raise concerns. However, you have done good work and I believe your weaknesses will be remedied. If you view this AfD as a "teachable moment" you will make a great Admin. -
'''Strong support'''.  I've seen far worse incivility from many of the people who have presented diffs here and, due to the concerns over mainspace editing, I found plenty of high [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Franamax#quality_article_work|quality article work]] and contributions that help our project grow.  ''Esse quam videri.'' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' I'm impressed with the way you have handled this RfA, as well as with your reasonable considerations of the points raised in oppose. My feelings stand, but I don't see them getting in the way of you performing the type of admin duties that you want to be involved in, so those concerns are moot.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has never even been accidentally blocked, but mainly per [[WP:AGF]], i.e. no memorable negative interactions between us.  Best, --
'''Support''' - The page at [[User:Franamax/Igorberger]] convinced me he can do the day-to-day work of adminning, which requires a lot of diplomacy. He showed great patience with this editor, and (at least in this case) remained civil where it must not have been easy to do.
'''Support''' As A Nobody says, two years on wikipedia, no blocks, no significant negative interactions. Add a general feeling that the editor will be a good work-a-day admin, throw in a dose of [[WP:AGF|AGF]], and you get [[WP:WTHN|why the heck not]]! --
'''[[User:Islanders27/Voting|Support]]'''. -- '''
'''Support''' Franamax is a fine Wikipedian with a sense of humor. I don't see any problems here.
'''Support''' Lack of content building is a problem. But giving Franamax the bit is still very likely to have a positive net effect.
'''Support''' (switched from Oppose): on further consideration, and having read Franamax's comments on the talk page, I think I was being unfairly harsh to him. There really isn't enough evidence of civility to oppose over, and he's provided considerable evidence that the vast majority of his interactions with other users are friendly and helpful. There's no reason to think he's 'presenting a facade of civility', rather than ''actually being civil'' - that was a failure of [[WP:AGF]] on my part.
'''Support''' regards,
'''Support''' Some of the oppose comments concern me, some do not, but I think on balance, you'll be a good addition.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Weak Support'''. I am concerned about civility but I'm willing to forgive the diffs presented by Durova as they are from over a year ago and focus instead on the good Franamax has and could do for wikipedia. Net positive.
'''Support''' I would have likely passed on !voting on this RfA had it not been for the noms.  Not that I had reservations, just that I hadn't researched it.  I'm not really concerned with any of the "content" issues, as there are plenty of tasks that need to be taken care of here.  Durova has brought up something I do feel strongly about however.  If this is successful, I would urge Franamax to exercise great caution in how they phrase things.  Not that I see any [[WP:NPA]] in what I read, and I don't have a problem with [[WP:SPADE|calling it like you see it]], but civility is a very subjective thing here - and I think admins need to take care to always stay well clear of testing those boundaries.  All that said, I appreciate all your work and dedication here - and I think that you can aid the project with the couple extra abilities that come with the bit.  I support this RfA. Best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Our raw written words are often open to misinterpretation -- especially on a international site like WP. Therefore, we Assume Good Faith on individual phrasing, and read one another's comments within the context of the discussion. In my review of Franamax, I found that their overall thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss far outweighed any perceived bluntness of particular phrases. They have been a positive contributor for two years -- and I expect will be the same as an administrator. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Strong Support'''  Content contributions are important, but so are other skills.  We should have a diversity of administrators and Franamax is highly talented and trustworthy.
'''Support''' per SandyGeorgia. Also admins don't need to have FAs or GAs, and it would be a very retrograde step if RFA did require them. ''
'''Support:'''  I read through the opposes and was leaning towards the same sentiments until I read Franamax's answers to the questions and his comments on the talk page.  I think his behaviour in this RfA has been exemplary, considering the nature of some of the opposes, and I appreciate his sense of humour and his ability to express himself well.  As has already been pointed out, Franamax's vandalism watch goes deeper than most and involves investigating and sorting out the kind of "border-line" edits that a lot of Hugglers just ignore.  However, I admit to not being a fan of the sometimes brusque attidue and the somewhat argumentative/confrontational nature of his more questionable posts.  I'd like to see him think thrice before clicking "save page" at any drama board; there, less really is more.
'''Support''' I was on the fence for a while, considering the civility concerns brought up below, but in reading the answer to question 16 above, since Franamax is not arguing "I did nothing wrong" or "I talk the way I talk and I don't care if anyone takes offense" as we have seen too many times in admins, I think he will be a fine admin and won't break the Wiki. I just hope he follows through and does carefully consider his words in all future disputes. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Support'''. A good editor. Content creation isn't for everyone & nor need it be.
'''Support''', a great editor who would make good use of the tools. Neither of the prominent oppose reasons concern me particularly: I have never considered content-building particularly relevant to prospective admins, and the civility problems generally strike me as quite sparse and minor. I have no major concerns here, and wish Franamax the best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Content creation isn't everything, and I'm not too worried about civility (and the answer to Q16 helps too).
'''Support''' - does good work. I read the concerns and the discussion, and feel that the candidate's responses are reasonable.
'''Support'''. Candidate shows a considerable knowledge of policy, and a willingness to respond more thoroughly than the average to problem situations. Having reviewed several of the oppose !votes, I see mostly situations where the oppose !votes,at worst,  cite examples of reasonably differing views on applicable policies, if not situations where the candidate is probably right about policy and the !opposer probably wrong.  With a long track record of good work, I can't find the opose arguments convincing enough.
'''Support on the balance'''. Arguments presented to oppose include (a) lack of (audited) article contributions, and (b) temper/civility concerns. Factor (a) is a concern, but not a deal killer. Factor (b), were it true, could be a deal killer for me. However, looking at the diffs presented, I see perhaps slighly overly forceful and vigorous debate, but in the context of each discussion not bothersome. Normally, this would not be reason enough for me to support, but support from people I trust combined with quite distateful stridency by some of the opposes, leads me to register support. Of course, the fact that as I looked over the putative incivil diffs I found myself in agreement with Franamax opinions does not hurt either!
'''Support''' Definitely a net positive.  I took the time to read the opposes, and I don't agree with most of them, though Gordonrox points out a good counter-argument. I do think Franamax was trying to be kind, but the words may have come out wrong.  That alone isn't enough to make me feel that Franamax would be a bad administrator.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' I agree with [[User:Ched Davis|Ched Davis's]] comments (#82 above) and since I've long respected [[User:Durova|Durova]] I've looked seriously at the concerns she raised in her !oppose. On balance, though, I think Franamax should have the mop. I saw xem at work on the ''[[Talk:London/Archive_9#New_York_vs._London:_Largest_financial_center.3F| New York vs. London: Largest financial center?]]'' debate (May 2009) where xe did a good job protecting content standards while staying the right side of conflict. Re: Durova's [[Number the Stars]] example, at first sight it's absurd that anyone could edit the article 77 times yet leave only two references, but IMO it's excusable in this case because most of the content is plot summary/list of characters—and a lot of Franamax's edits were reverts after vandalism. -
'''Support''' Net positive, adminship is no big deal. I have no concerns over this editor's ability to be civil or to perform simple administrative chores without causing damage. <strong>
'''Support'''. Wikipedia is better with Franamax as an admin. Wikipedia would also be better if Franamax was involved in more mainspace writing. --
'''Support''' - This is probably too late, but what the heck. He's hard-working and seems sensible. He'll do fine. --
'''Strong oppose'''.  Appears to have done little or no serious content work.  Among his most heavily edited articles,[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Franamax&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia] he made 77 edits to [[Number the Stars|an article]] that remains stub-class with only two references, after 65 edits to [[Cosmetology|another]] it remains tagged for multiple issues with only four references, and [[Nail (anatomy)|one more]] of his top ten most edited articles is list-heavy and tagged for cleanup.  Also, conduct issues in admin board discussions: less than six weeks ago Franamax wrote "Well yeah Floydian, not to put too fine a point on it, but I really do think it's time for you to shut up now;"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=316065101] going back farther,  comparing experienced editors to Stalin,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber_ban_discussion&diff=prev&oldid=239932483] writing "bullshit...put up or shut up",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber_ban_discussion&diff=prev&oldid=239941761] and raising accusations of "collective hysteria" when consensus doesn't go his way.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber_ban_discussion&diff=prev&oldid=239957317]  No editor needs the tools to be productive at the reference desk and with mentorship; he doesn't have the right experience or temperament for the bit. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak oppose'''. Not enough article work, sorry. '''
'''+O''' As one who has long held the torch for "more content required" in RfAs, I am here to tell one and all that that argument is unquestionably irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is an online community. No content work required, except to the extent that one needs to be familiar with ''how'' to edit an article, and has been around long enough to know the rules and norms of behavior. I hope I can persuade others to drop their O's if that is all the prob they see. Franamax has been around long enough to know how to edit etc... OTOH, I oppose on temperamental grounds. I'm not at all on board with Risker's "wisely and calmly" comment. In my exp., Franamax is argumentative. Not well-suited for the bit.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:BITE]]. When I first started editing, I made an obviously stupid moved and Prodded an article. Instead of being redirected and helped, I just got grief. It would be a lie to say that I handled the situation well, I can honestly say that I was probably acting like a bitch, but I think that If I was in franamax's shoes now, and saw a new editor behaving like I was, I would have tried a little nicer to be helpful. Also per his augmentative attitude. A while back, a user asked me why the time stamp in my signature was in bold. I didn't have an answer, and responded with a question of my own. The user who I was communicating with was fine with this, yet Franamax was not satisfied and had to get his unneeded two cents in. All of this is saved in my talk page archived.--
'''Oppose''' I don't like your answer to the [[WP:BLP|BLP]]. BLP is a policy which should be treated with extra caution. Also, your lack of article work and experience with CSD, AIV, etc. will not help when you are called to mediate disputes or block users. '''
'''Oppose''' not enough content work '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket]]''</font>) (
Quality content work is a requirement for me. ([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|more info]]) <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Agree that familiarity with the problems of content work is a prerequisite, as many disputes, requests for blocks, etc.,  have a content issue at the core.  Regards,  —
'''Oppose''' Seems to think that well-established users and adminstrators should get special treatment, because they've "earned that right". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGordonrox24&action=historysubmit&diff=306462329&oldid=306449911]
'''Oppose''' per lack of content work as outlined by Durova.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Weak oppose''' I'd like to see more focus on content, since we're here to build an encyclopedia. Spend some more time in article space and less in Wikipedia space, and I'll be happy to support next time, should this fail.
'''Oppose''' per nom. ''His focus isn't on article writing'' -- gee, I thought that's what we were supposed to be doing here. I don't expect admins to have FAs and GAs under their belt. But I do expect them to have enough experience with actual content to give them an appreciation of what it's like for those in the trenches.
'''Oppose''' <small>move from neutral</small> per above (lack of content building, and civility issue), and his brief mentorship of
'''Oppose''' per Durova's diffs. Civility is key for an admin. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' feel that admins need more than trivial article work.  Admins apply WP policies to articles that people care about, and have sweated over.  I want an admin to have cared about an article to improve it significantly.--
'''Oppose''' – user needs more mainspace work and content-building/maintenance. ''Knowing'' Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is one thing; ''applying'' them is another. Having such experience gives you firsthand experience in how to apply said policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose'''.  Per Durova.  We simply can't tolerate admins who can't edit without being civil to other editors.--
Weak '''oppose'''.  However, I think your answer to the question about BLP is thoughtful.
'''Oppose''' As per Durova's diffs. Repeatedly telling people to "shut up" suggests an immature temperament.
'''Oppose''' since we need fewer admins with anger problems, not more.
'''Oppose''' Seems to feed the popular trolls too much. Expanding articles instead of wasting even one moment with those people would be great. However, even if your attitude does improve and you avoid these folks, it's clearly been shown that just one of them can pull enough weight and influence to make sure you ''never'' gain adminship. I can be swayed, but they won't. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I've been on the fence on this one for some time, but I'm not comfortable supporting for several reasons.  For one, the civility issues raise red flags.  Also, in an odd juxtaposition with some other oppose votes, I see a lack of ''Wikipedia''-related contributions in areas where you will use the tools. You participate in about one deletion debate per month, your last posting on DRV was in 2008, and you have only made three edits to AIV in 2009. I understand that you can't be everywhere at all times, but I don't really have a feel for your interpretation of our policy or a sense in when it is proper to block or delete and I'm not comfortable supporting until I do. '''
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament and civility, and lack of content work experience. '''
'''Oppose''' There are way too many concerns here, not the least of which is civility. Reviewing Franamax's history, it seems to me that he has something of a short fuse and a penchant for sarcasm. The diffs highlighted by Durova and his brief mentorship of [[User:Igorberger]] demonstrated that, in my opinion. While Igor was stunningly clueless, I personally think Franamax was overly sarcastic and too quick to lose his temper in dealing with him. He also seems rather argumentative. he other concern, of course, is Franamax's lack of experience in content work. I wouldn't hold a lack of DYKs, FAs, or GAs against a user, but a lack of almost any article-writing experience at all (two articles created, most contributions in article space are vandalism reversions) really concerns me. Article-writing is what Wikipedia is about; while Franamax's activities serve an important function here, I'm concerned that his lack of article-writing experience might result in a lack of appreciation for the problems faced by those who do write articles. Even ignoring the lack of experience in the mainspace, there's the whole issue of lack of experience in administrative areas of the Wikipedia namespace, which Franamax readily admits in his preamble. Franamax says he'd be dipping his toes into these areas once he gains adminship; I say, why should we grant adminship to someone who'd be mainly learning on the job? This is not to say that Franamax would be a poor administrator &ndash; I think he can be trusted not to abuse the tools &ndash; but I don't think he's got enough experience for the job, even with 12,000 edits. As others have said above, you don't need these tools to be a vandalism-reverter, nor do you need them to work the reference desk or the help desk, nor even to mentor users. Sorry, but I oppose.
'''Oppose''' Not quite ready yet. Some more article work needed.
'''Oppose''' Sarcasm and strong opinions are not the real problems to me, to be honest. Wikipedia needs more experienced contributors to articles as admins, not more police types as admins. I am sure that with a solid base of article contributions and article creation in the future, it would be a support down the line.
'''Oppose''' - Civility concerns, also would like to see more of an effort with content.  Nothing teaches the vital basics of Wikipedia like working to upgrade an article. I realize with the vote currently at around 75% that mine is a crucial ballot, but after reading through the Rfa I must conclude that there is not enough of a case made for this editor having the tools.  There is good work in the resume.  Suggest another try in six months or so; with a sincere effort to address the concerns expresed here, an Rfa will be easier going. Whatever the outcome, good luck.  <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' In deference to the concerns raised about lack of article experience, can I suggest you consider this [[WP:Admin_coaching]] and come back, more rounded, in a few months and you will likely sail through.
'''Oppose'''. I would like to support...I really would...and maybe some day I can. But for now let's not take the chance. Content creators should have the luxury of occasional incivility, they have earned it, but admins should not. Failure to hold them to higher standards of conduct is one of Wikipedia's major deficiencies.--
It looks like the closing bureaucrat for this RfA will have to make a very tough decision, and when I saw how close this one was, percentage-wise, I decided to look into the candidate. Franamax, I know this whole experience at RfA, especially when your percentage is hovering in the very middle of the bureaucrat discretionary zone, can be very stressful, even harrowing. However, I'm here to basically agree with the concerns brought up by the other opposers, specifically the lack of experience in content building, which I think is essential for knowledge on how to resolve editing conflicts and other issues in areas where you wish to work. In addition, Gordonrox's link to your conversation with him at his talk page shows me you may need to work out some things with your attitude toward newcomers and your idea of what an experienced admin really is and what one has "earned" by making many constructive edits. If this RfA fails, please don't be discouraged from trying again in a few months, and if you've worked on the issues brought up here, I'm sure you'll be successful then. If it passes, good luck with the admin tools, and I hope you use them wisely. But, based on my aforementioned points and the rationales of others, I must '''oppose''' this RfA. Again, please don't let this bring you down if it fails, and maybe you could try and practice some article writing. You never know; maybe you'll enjoy it!
Was going to support, but Durova's diffs are quite concerning.
'''Oppose'''. Per concerns over temperament / civility issues. <tt>
'''Oppose''' per concerns about temparament and the issues raised by Durova. I don't mind people specialising in areas outside FA/GA content and can overlook the content issue but I'm not happy to support when there's concerns about temperament. We have enough problems with snarky admins and I don't think it's worth taking the risk at this point. I will also note that there's something I find a bit odd about this RFA (but I'm not holding it against the candidate as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with them directly so it doesn't have anything to do with my oppose) and I can't help but feel there's been some kind of push going on.
'''Neutral Leaning Oppose''' I'm not too sure. I'm going to have to take a closer look...--
Your name seems familiar but I haven't a clue how I know you. That is puzzling.
Also '''neutral''' for now. Some of the diffs above raise concerns, but this user has many contributions, so still reviewing the whole picture.
Seems like a nice guy with very respected nominators and reasonable answers to the questions. However, I don't think I'd be able to comfortably support given the concerns raised by some in the oppose section, namely Durova and Boris. Good luck regardless. :) –'''
'''Neutral'''  Editor will likely do no harm but I did not like the answer with regards to BLP, the editor did mention that that is not his strong suit, but still as an admin he will be called upon to deal with problems there...
'''Neutral'''.  Too many concerns raised above, not to mention the incivility.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Neutral'''You are Good and rude.
'''Neutral''' - Civility is the only concern I have. I don't think article writing is that important for adminship. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Neutral''': However much I'd like to say support, my POV is a bit off given my frustration of half the opposes speaking solely of lack of content. It's like a collection of things on the "what not to say" part of the RfA procedure guideline. Really, just go down the list. We might be here indeed by here to write an Encyclopedia, but the place can't run itself. If they want to dedicate themselves to the janitor part of being a janitor, how does that hurt everyone else? <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
Good editor, but I have temperament concerns.
'''From neutral to strong oppose back to neutral.''' Franamax kindly approached me in response to my opinion. As an act of good faith, I am moving to neutral - I appreciate any candidate who is willing to talk to me about my opinion. However my opinion about the candidate, as such, still stands as it was. <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>
'''Neutral''' - you have a good basis, but sorry, but I'd like to see more content work so that you know ''why'' you have the buttons.
'''Support'''
Oh, why not. You're slightly inactive for my tastes, but you seem to know what you are doing. I was tempted to oppose per edit count, but perhaps my standards have simply grown too high. 4000 edits, several DYKs, good CSD knowledge, ref desk work, etc. would have been fine for me last year; I don't know why I'm so skeptical now. <font color="navy">'''
While you are a bit inactive, I can see that you are knowledgeable and intelligent enough to do a good job as an administrator.  Your work at the reference desks and the help desk looks good, and like NuclearWarfare said, you would have passed an RfA using standards from a year ago (probably more like a year and a half, but you get the drift).  Your answer to the fourth question was good and it shows that you understand A7 much better than most (the whole "assertion" deal throws them off for some reason).  Therefore, I can't do much less than support you. Best of luck, '''
'''Weak Support''' You have a clean block log and a nice combination of article building and janitorial work. I don't think that adminship should be restricted to those who edit here daily, so the fact that you've taken quite a time to get to four thousand edits is OK by me. I trust Balloonman's judgment of your CSD nominations and I liked the answer to q4, but weak because your answer q1 left me concerned that you might be tempted to stretch the boundaries of CSD and delete stuff that would be bound to fail AFD even if it didn't really qualify under CSD. ''
'''Support''' per NW&mdash;4000, DYK work, CSD's ok, ref desk = okay for me. Cheers, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''', overall I like what I see, with a nice variety of smart contributions. Certainly more regular activity would reassure me further, but I've seen nothing to suggest your somewhat sparse contributions result in being out of touch. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; nothing to suggest user would misuse the tools, therefore I support. –'''
Moved to '''support''' per the good CSD and DYK work. --'''
'''
'''Support''' Not concerned about activity levels. \
'''Weak Support''' Slightly inactive, but contributions seem good to me. Good luck :) '''
My question was actually made in response to Q1, which seemed to imply that everything in [[CAT:CSD]] should be deleted on sight. Your answer was good, except that A7 is not about notability but an indication of importance or significance, a lower standard than notability. You seem to understand the distinction even if your wording wasn't spot on. As for your other CSD work, apart from the taggings pointed out by Balloonman, there were a few more I wasn't happy about, but overall it seemed good. Lastly, you do not seem to have had anything but positive interactions with other users. I think you will make a good administrator. Regards, <tt>
'''Support''' Your policy knowledge is fine and you seem to have enough experience, so the inactivity doesn't concern me.
'''Support''' Wish he had more experience, but clearly would be a net positive as an admin.--
'''Support''' I am not without concern, basically per the inestimable Balloonman (although the candidate's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFribbler&diff=306492574&oldid=306487529 response] to Bm reassures, evidencing fine thinking generally, an appreciation for the presumption against speedy deletion specifically, and, quite significantly, an inclination to be circumspect in using the tools, especially at the outset) but I find that the candidate's record is sufficient, if just, to provide a basis on which to rest the finding that he possesses the sound judgment, deliberative temperament, civil demeanor, and conversance with policy and practice that one hopes to find in a prospective admin, and so I can conclude with the bare requisite degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Clear, correct answers above, and your contrib history shows wide-ranging, methodical, undramatic work to improve Wikipedia.
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Fine work; no problems here. As I've said on many occasions, inactivity does ''not'' mean that the user is bad.
'''Support''' We need more good CSD taggers who aren't afraid to make tough calls. Nothing here gives me any pause. Good to have an expert look at medical articles/debates too.
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' How active a candidate is has no weight on my decision. If the user is trustworthy, he/she can have adminship. I don't think that Fribbler will abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. Good enough for me. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': why not..
'''Strong Support''' Collegial. Respectful. Seems to be quite reasonable. I don't see anything to cause concern. Good luck.
'''Support''' No problems here.
The contribs create an impression of someone who is hardworking, mature, intelligent, and here for the right reasons, with  expert knowledge to contribute. - Dank (
Helpful, fair-, open-, and encyclopedia-minded editor, in my experience. Absolutely trustworthy. I don't see low or irregular activity as a problem, on the contrary: it could indicate a lower risk of burning out while performing the thankless duty of adminship. ---
'''Support''' Looks good to me. (unsigned by
'''Support''' Thoughtful responses to questions. Good track record. No cause at all for concern.
'''Support''' I think you definitely need to be more active to be an effective sysop, and I hope success in this RfA will spur some activity.  Your RD work is very impressive, and I think you'll do great with the tools.  All in all I have very high hopes! ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''', and don't listen to the people who tell you you need to be "more active". Do what you can for Wikipedia, when you enjoy doing it, and don't get pressured into burning out.
'''Support''' Good luck. No issues.
'''Support''' Good luck with the tools... You obviously have knowledge in CSD. <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Weak Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Low activity is more than counterbalanced by mature, self-aware attitude evidenced in statements like this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFribbler&diff=306492574&oldid=306487529]
'''Support''', a sensible person who only occasionally uses the tools is still an asset... Fribbler seems sensible enough to me, so I have to support.
'''Support''' You seem to be active in the needed areas. The fact that you've overcome great odds to edit this is also a plus.
'''Support''' per reasoned answers to questions and level-headedness. I see no reason to oppose at all. ···
'''Support''', I am convinced that the candidate has good motives for seeking the administrator privileges.  Further, his collection of work indicates that there is no significant reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' I've come across Fribbler on a couple of occasions recently and contributions have been level-headed. This combined with a clean block log gives me every indication that the candidate deserves adminship.
'''Support''' Support, seems to have enough time, the needed skills and the drive to do what is needed.
'''Support''' I feel he has enough experience based on the accuracy of his CSD tagging to be a capable administrator. If this RfA is successful (and it looks like it will be within at least the discretionary area), I would recommend you take it slow at first with admin tasks other than CSD, but I have no doubt you will be as excellent at that as an admin as you are currently. Also, I'd like to compliment you on your excellent answers to the questions. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - while I respect the concerns below, I don't see sufficient cause for me to oppose. --
'''Support''' Seems to be clueful and knowledgeable. Would recommend that the candidate start out slowly to get a feel for the tools. Good luck!
'''Weak support''' – looking briefly at the mainspace contribs, the user definitely has some sort of clue, even though I would have liked to see more individual content building. However, that's not a sure reason for me personally to oppose. I also get a good indication that the user does a good job with CSD.
'''Support''' Having someone help with CSDs would be helpful, I see nothing to disqualify you as an admin, and your answers to questions are well-put. -- '''
'''Weak support'''. Not very active, but I don't really see anything wrong so I'll take a gamble.

'''Support'''.  I see periods of limited activity as [[Special:Contributions/Cool3|no big deal]].  Looks like good CSD work from here, and I think the user seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' Yes, Fribbler looks trustworthy and is doing some good work so should grow into the role.
'''Support''' per Wizardman. I would like to see a little more activity, but that alone does not warrant an oppose. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' as per Little Mountain 5.
'''Support''' should be a net positive.
'''Oppose''' The good: Your CSD work is definitely above average.  You might want to reveiw [[WP:NONSENSE]] as you've mistagged a few articles as G1 when they weren't (but in both cases they needed to be deleted.)  You might also want to review [[WP:WIHSD]].  I also liked the fact that you help out at the help desk/reference desk.  The bad: Over the past nine months there have only been 3 months where you've made 100 edits---and you used twinkle to do so!  I can appreciate the fact that you might have been travelling, but the fact that you have such a sparse edit history for the most recent nine months and what you do have is mostly cosmetics, I can't support at this time.  It's not a matter of not enough edits, but rather not enough subsinative edits to let me assess your temperament and knowledge of wikipedia.  For example, looking at your last [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&contribs=user&target=Fribbler&namespace=3 250 talk page edits], I would estimate that 90%+ are templates via Twinkle or Friendly.  Since January 1, you've made a total of 10 edits to wikipedia talk space, and 5 were to one RfA.  Most of your communication is in the form of templates and via automated tools, which considering how little you've edited over the past 9 months makes it hard to assess.  And for a person with the explicit desire to work at CSD, there is surprisingly little input at AFD.  Give us a few months of solid edit history and I strongly suspect that your RfA will fly through.  What I see I like, unfortunately, there just isn't enough to make a valid assessment.---'''
'''Oppose''': I think that his edits show that he doesn't have enough experience. He isn't that active and most of his edits are automated.
'''Oppose'''.  You do some very good work around the project - namely CSD taggings.  However, I must agree with the above opposes that you don't have enough experience in interacting with other users or edits in the Wikipedia namespace.  Not only that, a significant portion of your edits are all automated which indeed, does not give me an adequate assessment of your knowledge of policy and whatnot.  A few months more experience and a more personal level of interaction with other users wouldn't hurt.  Hope to see you here again in several months if this rfa doesn't pass.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Maybe]] if you had waited one more month I would support. [[WP:NOTNOW]]--
'''Not yet'''.  Firstly there's the ambition to work in CSD; I think of all the areas of Wikipedia, that's the one that requires the most care.  Even a small number of recent mistaggings is enough to give me pause.  Secondly, there's content contributions, and while I appreciate [[Polish minority in Ireland]] as a workmanlike basic article, there's really not very many other examples.  Now, I've often said that adminship shouldn't be an award for prolific content creators, and I also think process-focused people tend to have more need for the tools than content-focused ones, but, I think at least a basic grounding in article creation has to be a prerequisite for someone who's working in CSD.  If you decide on another RFA later, I'll be looking for a few more articles of your own and a near-flawless recent tagging record.—
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman, would like to see a bit more interaction with other editors.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman.
'''Oppose'''Per Balloonman. I seem to be late to RFA's now. I wonder why?[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman.
'''Oppose''' not consistently active enough, and the lack of experience will lead to possible errors. '''
'''Oppose''' - I judge RfA candidates on three criteria: their commitment to Wikipedia/experience, their clue level, and their interaction with other users. While I see no major issues in any area, Fribbler's relative inactivity is bothersome.  Additionally, the answers to the questions were accurate but failed to demonstrate an understanding of why policy is the way it is. I don't doubt his intelligence, nor has he made any serious errors in the past.  However, the culture and expectations of Wikipedia change over time and I don't see someone of his activity level being aware of the changing cultural standards.  That relative inactivity combined with a desire to work in speedy deletion causes me to oppose.  Practically speaking, there are nearly no checks and balances on an admin's speedy deletions.  A bad speedy can scare away a potential contributor and it just isn't worth the risk giving that ability to someone who has so little use of the tools anyway. (I.e., because he won't be around that often).  --
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman's cited inactivity. I think that while sticklers can debate G1 vs. G3 taggings - the result is the same, so I don't see a significant problem of mistagging.

Per Balloonman.
'''Neutral''' Your answer to Question 5 is a bit troubling to me.  Your first reason for leaving it is not a good idea.  An admin possibly could have come along, not looked closely and deleted it.  Other editor’s don't need to see it "in the wild".  They could look in the history and see if they agreed with your assessment.  Your second reason makes it appear you do not want to look bad while being evaluated.  Nothing bad comes from removing a CSD tag that you believe is wrong.  You say you are ready to make the decision as to whether that article should be deleted or not, but when given the opportunity to take a stand and do what you believe to be the right thing, you don’t.  Since you didn't stand up for what you thought was right when people are watching, it makes me question if you will stand up for what you think is right when people aren't watching as close.  This isn't enough for me to oppose but I am not sure you are ready.
'''Neutral''' per Keepscases. If positive behavior continues to be exhibited in the next few months, then I'd be happy to support a second RfA.
Definitely a suitable candidate, but spend some more time learning about different nooks and crannies of Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' May well do just fine if this passes, but a couple of things keep me from supporting. The answers to question 4 and 11 make me wonder if Fribbler understands that A7 uses the lower standard of importance rather than notability. Normally that would put me in the oppose column, but the actual CSD tagging seems good. Also, I'm not seeing a lot of non-automated communication with other editors. The little I see is good, but I'm not getting a feel for how Fribbler handles frustrated editors, which you encounter every time you pull out the mop.--
'''Support''' Solid record at CSD, AIV and UAA as far as I can see.
I think I'll support. The backlogs are only increasing, and he seems to be able to help in general. He'll make a good janitor-admin. '''
'''Support''' decent answers to questions, with strong deletion experience. I haven't personally encountered this editor, but he looks suited for adminship. I agree with Q2 that major article contribs aren't as important as the ability see potential in new articles and rewrite them into proper little stubs, which for me is a positive.
'''Support''' Looks like an affable user. No sign of any problems.
'''Support''' - Looks fine. I found one recent declined speedy but nothing worrying. [[WP:SB]] leads to the sandbox, though;) --
Good admins needed./This candidate makes the grade./The mop should be his.
'''Support''' User has demonstrated a comitment to the porject through the creation of 200+ articles. Very impressed.--<big>
'''Support''' I think he does admin related things well, and article writing also,   and is ready generally. The article mentioned above was [[Global Environmental Institute]], & I was the admin who declined it . This was a relatively tricky one, which merely shows the advisability of having people review one's deletion proposals, rather than doing them single handed. It's not reason to oppose. All his other speedy tagging I've seen patrolling CSD, I've deleted the articles just as he suggested. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
Encountered their work; no issues. --
'''Support''' --
Nothing to suggest user will misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' To me this user seems mature and experienced. <font color="green">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Great answer to Q7, you seem to be a great editor, you'll do a great job as an admin. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' Cannot find a reason to oppose. You have a fine speedy deletion nomination record, but you also show that you are capable of recognising your own errors (few though they may be), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Linde&action=historysubmit&diff=324283041&oldid=324282674 fixing] them. As a side note, I hope the [http://www.shikadi.net/keenwiki/Fribbulus_Xax Bloogs] are treating you well. :) '''\'''
'''Support''' Have never seen this guy, but everything looks great!
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Does good work, good SD record. <strong>
'''Support''' Very nice work. and a really awesome username too. [[Commander Keen|really brings back some good times]] :D <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Great answers to questions.
'''Support''': good answers to questions and rescuing articles is an admirable thing to do. I also particularly like the fact that the user works for the [[WP:AFRICA]] project, of which I am not ''yet'' a member, though that is soon to be rectified. <small>Disclaimer: I am an expat who lives in Africa so am probably slightly biased towards anyone trying to combat systematic bias in that area, though not enough as to cloud my judgement.</small>
'''Moderate-ever-so-close-to-weak Support''' No reason to oppose. Besides, questions above are answered correctly.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' has consigned a lot of CSD fodder to the admins. Though some of the tag reasons are dubious [[Kuppanasaripatti]] tagged as a no context, but clearly the name of a village in some named area, and [[William On Wheels]] as G1 patent nonsense, when it was a copy of [[William]], probably should have been marked as a test page. Upload logs looked mostly good.  [[File:SlowNorris.png]] had a fair use rationale without reason. (I suspect my speedy delete tagging may be dodgy too).
'''Support''' Everything appears to be in order.
'''Support''' Hardworking, productive editor with an excellent record as far as I can see; their work on articles pertaining to Berkshire and to Africa is solid, and their efforts to fix systemic bias are commendable. I trust this user with the mop.
'''Support''' Will be a good addition, we always need more people in new pages to help with the backlog and this user seems to have the right stuff.
'''Strong Support'''<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' Qualified.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Edits, answers, and general attitude seem OK to me.
'''Support''' - sure.  I think the questions are answered well, and there is a lot to like in the article creation area.  I don't have any concerns.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. No problems here at all. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. His username reminds me of the [[Commander Keen]] games which I enjoyed tremendously as a kid. Also, he seems like a good chap.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - tens of thousands of edits including high-quality article work, Rollback rights, and even a [[WP:BARN|Barnstar]].
'''Support''' Nothing concerning, I'm sure you'll put the mop to good use. '''
AGF-support; user hasn't come to my attention good or bad, and we need more sysops.
Solid candidate. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Great contributions, good answers to questions, no problems that I see. -- '''
'''Support''' Sure, looks good. Impressive edit count, good work around the project, displays knowledge of policy.
Not-that-you-really-need-it-Support '''
'''Support''' A trial by fire and brimstone is always a good thing on this site though.

'''Support''' Checking through a slice of edit history as well as the answers to the questions show you to be thoughtful and deliberate whenever possible but quick witted when necessary. Can't argue with that.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Fribbulus Xax. —
'''Support'''. What else is there to add? Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. All around good candidate.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. Lots of good vandalism and patrolling work.
'''Strong Support:''' This is a near perfect Candidate -
'''Support''' I liked his answer regarding CSD and the importance of attempting to rescue articles when it's clear they ''can'' be notable, with a little effort. Though I note that the diff he pointed to has since been PRODDED, so it may not be the greatest example.
Nice answers. ''
'''Support''' - per [[User:Airplaneman/RFA|my criteria]]. Great answers to the questions, and a solid editor in general.
'''Support''' Great user.  No problems here.
'''Support'''  Never heard of this editor.  Given the places on Wikipedia I tend to hang out, that's a good thing.
'''Support'''. I don't see any potential issues with this one. Seems to have his head on straight, too. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Support''' Yup.
Seems fine. '''
Even though SoWhy said that soccer is the real football, I still feel that Ged UK has what it takes to be a quality admin.--
You look like a good user. Mostly anti vandalism work though, I would like some article building too ;-). Youdon't have to have recognised content, just do a bit of expanding here and there ;-).--
'''Support'''. Yes, very sound-minded. --
'''Support''' as nominator, obviously meets [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support''', and yes "soccer" is the real football. Not your [[American Football|Rugby-for-Nancies]] game :P.
'''Support''' - Looks fine to me. &ndash;
(ec) '''Support''' Great editor. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' as nominator. '''
'''Support''', looks like I made [[WP:100|WP:10]]. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''.  Broad experience in admin tasks, solid reviews in his editor review, and I've seen his clueful contributions all over the place, including at RFA. - Dan
'''Support''' Even though I don't know him that well through Wikipedia, I know that he's a jolly good fellow via IRC. In addition, his contributions speak for himself :P Cheers. '''
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Definitely.
'''Support''' Our paths have crossed a few times on Wikipedia and I admire his contributions.
'''Strong Support''' - Ged's demonstrated clear-headedness and clueful-headedness (cluededness?) on every occasion our paths have crossed.  I trust his judgment & know he'll make one helluva admin. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. You look like a fine editor.
'''Support''', doesn't seem to be any reason not to.
'''Support''' - see no obvious concerns, I like the answer to my question--though I'd rather see you develop a similarly robust process now, so it's in place for when (presumably) the bit is applied to your account. //
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Looks good.  Best of luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I see nothing of concern, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. Has the clearheadedness, the good judgment and the patience needed in an admin imo. --
'''Support''' - No problems here.
'''Support''' - Good all-around editor. He'll do fine with being admin.
'''Support'''Excellent contribs and a good attitude all around. Good luck mate!
'''Strong support''' - I only met this editor for the first time a few months ago, but after having looked through his last few month's contributions, I am happy to support due to his good attitude, judgment, and contributions. Seeing no issues whatsoever. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - would seem to be a good addition to the ranks.
'''Support''' - Of course! Always happy to support someone with a cool head and broad experience.
'''Support''' - Sure.
'''Support'''. I am very satisfied with the answers to the questions.
'''Support'''-- Good contributor and [[wp:civil|civil]] when interacting with others. --
'''Support'''. Appears to be a good editor (and polite, too!), and provided well-reasoned answers to all the questions asked. I see nothing which would indicate this editor wouldn't be a good admin. ···
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You aren't one already? <strong>
'''Support''' From nomination over questions to my own review of edits it looks fine.--
'''Support''' Looks good <font color="maroon">
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' I think he will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' I've seen Ged's work in a number of areas and I'm impressed. His mediation and contribution to the Dirk Kuyt/Kuijt discussion stand out in my memory. I think he'll make a good administrator.
'''Support''' Thought he already was one -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' -- excellent user who will benefit from the tools, as will the WP Com.--Best, '''''<small>
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Can find no fault. Good luck! <span style="border:1px solid #1E90FF;font:15px Monotype Corsiva">Fredrik • Wilhelm</span>
'''Support''' seems fine to me. In recent RFA trend, it's hard to see that candidates eager to work in XfD are content builders and civil editors--
'''Support'''. His consensus-building efforts in the [[Dirk Kuyt]] affair deserve a lot a credit, especially in the face of some nasty name-calling and vandalism of his userpage.
'''Support''' Your answer to my question was a little lackluster, but we both respect the same spirit of the OR policy.  Everything else that you've done more than makes up for it. '''
'''Support''' – en.wikipedia needs more WikiGnomes as sysops, as they tend to pay greater attention to detail for the smallest things, whether it be fixing templates, placement, etc. Also per solid, sensible contribs at AFD. Whether the focus is on CSD or closing AFD discussions, user would be nothing short of an asset in either.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Does a good job.
'''Support''' - I had a good oppose the other day and I was edit conflicted. My internet died and I don't remember what the oppose was.... so... whatever. I'm feeling generous today.
Absolutely, in favour of a whole bunch of controversial topics. <small>That was a joke.</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #333399;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. No spam, please. --
'''Support''' &mdash; Thought I !voted already (yes, I'm now using "!vote", whatever). No problems here, user is experienced. It's mop and bucket time!
'''Support'''. The candidate seems OK; I have found no reason to oppose.
'''Weak support'''.  I raised some concerns in the candidate's Editor review; however, I liked the reaction at [[User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_10#My_editor_review]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Seen GedUK around; looks good from that and above. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' looks good on paper and I trust Sowhy.
'''Support''' as a strong candidate who will be a net positive to the mop brigade. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good answers to questions.
'''Support''' The community would benefit from this users "enmoppage".
'''Support''' With 11,000 edits, and the majority of them good contribs, couldn't possibly oppose. '''
'''Support''' - This support is based wholly on your music listening habits from your last.fm profile. I saw a load of Johnny Cash, Pinky Floyd, Dresden Dolls, and David Bowie. So they're all pluses. I also saw you "loved" Nirvana [[Smells Like Teen Spirit]]... may I ask if you were trying to buy my vote? I don't appreciate bribes, Ged. But fine! By the way, listen to ''more'' Nirvana; not just their most notable song. Others include [[Come As You Are]], [[Serve the Servants]], [[You Know You're Right]], and [[In Bloom]] etc. etc. On the down side I see that you support Liverpool. Are you trying to change my mind whilst I'm ''writing'' my support? You're tearing me in half, Ged! *Sighs* I guess I'm going to have to judge your candidacy based on your ''contributions''... But who the hell does that anymore?! I like your WikiGnome work. Whilst I may not remember, I've probably dealt with your 3RR reports at some point and found them great (I assume)! Also, SoWhy nominated you and he's from Munich and I've probably met him at some point (You were that drunk guy on the U-Bahn on the way home from Oktoberfest that said to me: "England ist schizer!" right?)... Anyway, point is you'll probably make a great bureaucrat... or ArbCom clerk... or whatever this page is for.
'''support'''
'''Support''' I am impressed by his contributions and interactions with other users, and am not at all swayed by the opposing arguments. If he wants to be open to recall that is his problem; it does not have any bearing on his effectiveness or trustworthiness. I don't see a problem with claiming a controversial position on your user page as long as it doesn't keep you from editing neutrally. This one was clearly in jest, anyway. Ged UK understands what Wikipedia is about and will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. I have come across the user in passing a few times and would be comfortable with him as an admin. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' - fully meets all [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - great answers to ''all'' the questions, lots of useful edits, great Userboxen, and has rollback.
'''Support'''.  While not a lot of article building, the candidate is attentive to anti vandalism.  Seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' Seems satisfactory. Good luck!
'''Support''' Would make a great sysop and is very useful towards wikipedia. [[User:Staffwaterboy|<b><span style="color:red">Staffwaterboy</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support''' - an excellent contributor with experience in a number of key areas. Will be fine with the tools. '''
'''Support''' Don't know him that well, but record looks ok. '''
'''Support''', per noms, per answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to varied areas of the project. '''
'''Support''' In my interactions with Ged UK, I noticed him to be very civil and very patient with newbies, which is an important quality in administrators (since it basically determines whether the newbies will see us as a nice community or an exclusive cabal). <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' Seems trusted to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has been around since Nov 2007 and used rollback well.As per track see no concerns and feel giving the user tools will only contribute to the project.Through I disagree with some of the userboxes I support your right to your views.
Friendly enough chap, sensible responses, had positive interactions and see nothing amiss in a random sampling of contribs. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' - I have seen some of this editor's football related contributions and see no reasons for concern. As for some of the opposes below, I don't like userboxes at all, but editors should be judged on their edits not the way they choose to decorate their userpage.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers.
'''Strong support''' <font face="cursive">'''
I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.  Recall promises are made <i>ad captandum vulgus</i> and are unenforceable, and have a vanishingly small chance of removing problem admins given the historical record.
'''Oppose''' Removed userboxes just for this RfA.  "This user loves abortion"?  I don't care which side of the abortion debate you're on, that's simply not funny.
'''Oppose''' "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work."
'''Oppose''' per Q9 '''
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' per both recent userbox whitewashing and the sheer number of political userboxes, which speak of a user who is too eager to stake out positions on controversial subjects to be viewed as an admin with the proper level of detachment.
I think being open to recall compromises an admins ability to do their job. I think that admins are plenty accountable without recall. As such I choose not to support where I would have otherwise.
At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Island (Connecticut)]], Ged UK said he thought all places were inherently notable, even though the subject of the article was an insignificant spit of land for which no sources could be found online or off (and I looked) that offered detailed information. It will be a permanent stub of a few lines, turning Wikipedia into a kind of third-rate gazeteer. I responded at length to Ged UK's comment, citing three separate parts of policy and guidelines, but received no reply. Participating in AfDs without looking at policy, ignoring objections to your comments and contributing to the retention of an article for which there is absolutely no justification in either policy, the facts or common sense -- is disappointing, but not enough to vote against a candidate. If Ged UK typically does this, other editors should have similar accounts and that might be worth considering. If not, maybe I'll vote for the candidate myself. In any event, Ged UK's activity at the AfD was disappointing and I hope won't be repeated. --
'''First to support''' - Impressive statement and answers. I suppose we can give Geni another chance. --<font face="verdana">
'''Support''', it's been nearly two years, willing to give him another chance :)
'''Support''' Apparently, the problem was not with policy knowledge but with wheel warring over an article deletion. Although there was an edit war notice as recently as last August, I see no recent evidence of edit warring. Hopefully, the candidate's remopping will be a net positive. And I'm sure the candidate understands that the community is very reluctant to return the bit once lost, and that past problems will not recur. The answer to my CSD question <s>was </s>is not <s>initially</s> to my liking, but I've grown beyond Litmus tests. On second thought, anyone who would get into this much trouble trying to undelete an article will probably not go nuts deleting salvageable new articles.
'''Thupport''' (It was only three undeletes. Well, actually, it was 3 undeletes and a firm history of getting involved in edit wars. I see their reasoning behind desysopping now. He's learned his lesson through cold-turkey abstinence [no nicotine patches for you!] and I'll bet it doesn't happen again. Well, actually it might, but I trust this dude. Kind of. Enough to warrant this vote.) <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
Meh, you know, I'm not gonna bother opposing for what i did in the past. Yes, i disagree with the idea, but it's a stupid oppose reason, so '''support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''support'''
Certainly. Per my reasons last time. '''
'''Support''', as I did last August.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' Geni was a fine admin and would continue to do so. The Brandt Wheel War was an error in my methods of decision making and not Geni's. All that blame should be towards me and not Geni; it is time to turn the tide and rightfully give back the tools to this former admin.
'''Support''' per good faith and a fair chance. '''
'''Support''' --<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
Knows his shit pretty well, I'd say, on a variety of topics. Doubt ArbCom will hesitate to drop him again if he screws up.
Let he who is without sin cast the next oppose.(number 5 if anyone is interested)--
I agree with the nomination, the answers are good, and the wheel-warring and other history that led to the desysop happened two years ago. As a side note, the oppose votes leave me unconvinced.
'''Support''' - though I vehemently disagreed with Geni's actions during the Brandt affair, a permanent dysopping was a horrible overreaction that needs to be remedied. Geni did a lot of the "dirty work" with the image backlogs and returning the bit would be a strong benefit to the project.  --
'''Support'''. He is a fine admin, and the desysoping (IMO) was a mistake. '''[[User:MathCool10#top|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MathCool10#top|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''', I have never had a problem with this user, either while he was an admin or after the desysopping. Can't at least one person involuntarily demopped earn it back?
'''Support''' I'm happy to let recent behaviour outweigh stuff from over a year ago. '''
'''Support''' - I had to think for some time over this one. Yeah, the Brandt undelete war was a ''monumental'' mistake. However, I think from your recent history that you've come a long way on the BLP front now, and that you've realized the ramifications of doing what you did. It's been almost two years and there has to be redemption some time. IMO, that time is now -
Forgiveness has to come at some stage.
Geni having administrator tools would greatly benefit Wikipedia, especially through his work with [[WP:OTRS]].
As I wrote in the previous RfA, "Net positive: Geni's contributions as an admin outweigh possible damage if Geni wheel-wars again."
Sure, I don't like what he's done in the past, but I don't see a good reason not to sysop now.

'''Support... again''' Supported Geni last time, support Geni this time. In short: Admin longer than most of us have been editors. Spent some time in the wilderness and remained valuable to the project. Clearly dedicated to Wikipedia. Clearly aware of how they ended up in the wilderness. Clearly aware they will be closely scrutinized.
Hello, I'm [[Sasquatch|Bigfoot]] and I'm here for my podiatrist appointment...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for an editor who won't be sticking his foot in his mouth.
'''Support''' Was leaning support last time except for a few niggling concerns, but it's been several months since the last time around and Geni's done fine work. We could use the help, too.
'''Definitely'''<s>, maybe</s> →
'''Automatic support''' in protest against a broken process. '''
'''Support'''. What happened to [[WP:AGF]] and regaining trust? He's been working hard to regain that trust and opposing him right off the bat without reconsidering him isn't really fair, in my opinion. <font color="777777">
'''Support'''. The editor has been well and truly punished for the events of two years ago. Since then, a clean slate. It's clear the editor has contributed well since and did a lot of good work when they did have the bit. Let's not continue to punish the editor - the sentence has been served. More to the point, let's not punish Wikipedia.
'''Weak support''' I opposed last time, after I got some evasive answers to questions about his desysopping.  I've seen him around and am willing to AGF this time.
'''Sure'''.  --
'''Support'''. Good hard working editor, both here and on commons. Goto person for copyright problems. --
'''Support''' History, be damned. Everyone deserves a second chance. —'''
'''Support''' A net positive IMO.
+
'''Support''' per my own arguments at the increasingly quoted [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive essay]]. Risk / Reward seems somewhat slanted to the reward section here. A nod to the opposers however. Please don't let the supporters down.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Long history of dedicated excellent work for the project, and in addition, this user has a particularly strong need for admin tools given his activity around OTRS/copyvio stuff.  Like Geni I've been here for just about five years, and in that time being an admin has gone from "oh, whatever, no big deal" to "Yes, it's a big deal, even though we say it isn't, and now ''[[bring me a shrubbery]]!''"  Folks, Geni can help us out more ''with'' admin tools more than he can without them.  Thanks,
'''Support'''. Meets with my approval. --
'''Support''' The desysopping took place nearly ''two years'' ago. I think Geni deserves another chance. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. Can't believe the desysopping was almost two years ago.
'''Support''' based on his previous usage of administrator tools.  Too much has been made of Geni's last three administrative actions, and too little of the 1,000+ deletions prior to that unfortunate incident.  I reviewed Geni's deletion log for the last 1,000 pages in February 2007.  In every case, a clear deletion rationale was presented.  In the many cases where the file was blue-linked, i.e. it had been created again after it was deleted, I was able to determine without difficulty what the problem had been, and what had been done to fix the problem.  In at least one instance Geni links to an external page to illustrate a copyright violation.  Geni's current contribution log shows a continuing involvement with image copyright compliance.  I am more than willing to trust Geni with access to delete images with copyright or other problems.  I trust that he will avoid whatever problem got him in trouble two years ago.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - acted poorly and was punished for it. Looked ok before the episode, and good since. Geni seems to enjoy the administrative chores and is good at them - time to turn the bit back on again -
Okay.
Yes, this time.
'''Support'''. In my experience, Geni has generally been respectful of the community and consensus, and I have seen people get away with worse things than what he was desysopped over.
'''Support''': [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]] (IMHO we might as well get rid of AGF if we can't use it in a situation like this). Geni's contributions have been and will be valuable and I strongly believe the mistakes won't be repeated again. If anything, it'll be a reason to be more careful now.
'''Support''' Per Sceptre, and because I love comebacks, and because [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Support''', Adminship is no big deal.--
'''Support''' - knows what he's doing, net positive. <b>
'''Support'''.  I believe you've learned from your mistakes and can be trusted with the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I see no reason to not to. He has shown himself trustworthy to regain the tools.—
Absolutely! Geni was a great admin, albeit with a tendency to be a bit too headstrong in action (much like myself, I daresay <tt>:-P</tt>). But I believe his period in the wilderness has had much the same effect that my long span of inactivity did &mdash; developing a healthier respect for process and a philosophical outlook that values discussion over brash action. So, I say, definitely return the mop to Geni. --
'''Support''' I've had many disagreements with Geni over the years, but I've always found working with him to be a productive use of my time. Providing Geni with the tools (once more) is a practical and risk free decision. --
'''Support''' Has been around since March 2004 and a admin in commons and good track and user has learnt from a unfortunate episode and returned to be a better editor and admin and it is a clear case of [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]] and returning the tools .
'''Support''' per OTRS. '''
'''Support''' - no real reason to oppose --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support.''' I think it is time to have him back and I would welcome him as an admin even though I do not always agree him. --
'''Support''' - Geni has been involved in some very problematic behaviour in the past (mainly, edit-warring). I can't blame people for opposing his earlier RFAs on those grounds. However, he seems to have changed his act lately; he doesn't seem to have been involved in any disputes in the past year, and I think it's now been long enough since the desysopping that the community should forgive him his earlier mistakes, and give him back our trust. Geni's recent record suggests that he'd be a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin, and as such I'm willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt and support.
'''Support''' - and I was one of those that voted to desysop him.  Significant improvements in behavior suggest another chance is justified.
<font face="Broadway">
'''Strong support''' as I explained at length in the last RFA[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Geni_3&diff=234117072&oldid=234116020] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
Back in the bottle with you. —
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' &ndash; significant improvements from candidate.
'''Support''' - Net positive.
'''Support''' Geni misused his tools on BLP issues. His desysopping was a righteous part of arbcom tightening up in that area. However, I think we've now got an atmosphere (and Geni knows it) where admins causing BLP problems will be desysopped in 10min. I'm thus up for giving him another chance, and I am reasonably confident that although he holds views on BLP that I and many will find problematic, he sensible enough not to use the tools controversially in this area. There won't be a third chance and he knows that too.--
'''Support'''.  Some mild concerns per Lar (except the comment about Flagged Revisions ... I don't support or oppose based on contentious issues) and per my reading of candidate's WT-space contributions, but nothing serious, and RFA seems to be mellowing in its old age. - Dan
'''Support'''. No serious concerns recently.
'''Very Strong Support''' per Axl.
'''Support'''.  As many others have said, he seems to have learned from his mistake and I feel that he can be trusted again.
'''Support''' - the best of us make mistakes.
'''Support''' - Probably net positive, I have been shown that my worries are unfounded by the way that this user has acted and continues to act. Everyone makes mistakes. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' I see no reason to be concerned.
I supported the previous two RfAs: I don't think we have anything to worry about regarding abuse from Geni; if he did abuse the tools, he wouldn't keep them for very long.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The Brandt Wheel War was approximately two years ago. Adminship today is infinitely more fluid and the Arbcom is much more willing to strip tools from bad users. Support. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support'''.  Two years is  long time, and I think Geni can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Cyclonenim. &ndash;
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong here, Geni made a mistake, and I think that nearly 2 years afterwards, Geni has learned her lesson and deserves the tools back :).  All the Best,
'''Support''' I have not had a run-in with this editor and I like the responses to the questions.
'''Support'''
<s>'''Oppose''' overqualified ˉˉ<sup>[[User:Anetode|'''anetode''']]</sup>[[User_talk:Anetode|╦╩]] 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Support''' ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' now as I always have in the past. Geni has a very extensive understanding of the project and its values.
'''Support''' with caution. I've always believed that it's important to place the past in proper context. A lot of people went bonkers over the Daniel Brandt issue. That doesn't absolve Geni but it's enough for me to turn the page. I haven't been in conflict with Geni so I might be underestimating the risk but I really think sysoping would be a net positive.
'''Weak support'''.  I felt a bit hesitant to comment in any of these RfAs after what happened in the last RfA I commented in, which was totally demoralizing.  In any event, I did not see anything overly distressing from any AfDs in which we both commented and I am pleased that the candidate is an article creator.  I am a bit concerned with the four blocks, only two of which were unblocked, but even so, these were back in 2006 and 2007, i.e. 3 to 2 years ago and forgiveness is important, not to mention that they were not for anything egregious, such as trying to out an editor or harassment.  I do not see any issues with alternate account.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' per Yanksox --
I'm another editor who had plenty of conflects with Geni. I consider him aggressive and hard to back down from a conflict, but wise enough not to use the tools for these purposes. Also his copyright work is rare among editors, and for that I'm willing to '''Support''', but with caution.
'''Support''' - I like your answers to the questions and I like the fact that many of the editors/admins that I respect support you.  Gook Luck.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support'''
I like his answering style and copyright work. We allow second chances. ~<strong>'''''
'''Oppose''' Nice chap but nowhere near conservative enough when it comes to tricky blp articles. Thanks,
'''Oppose''' Hard to gain back trust once lost. Conclusions at [[WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Geni.2C_with_history]] "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools" are pretty damning. --
'''Oppose''' - I opposed last time due to the history of edit and wheel warring, and I'm opposing again.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't seem to realise how Wikipedia can cause real-world harm to people '''
'''Oppose''' - I don't normally get involved in these sort of discussions, but my personal experience has been that Geni is extremely quick to edit-war without discussion (or, if an active dispute is taking place on the talk page, simply declare one side to be right and revert any opposing edits repeatedly, even venturing into 3RR territory).  It is simply dangerous and unproductive to give editors with these tendencies the ability to administratively override the normal course of editing or even block users that they disagree with.  Considering that Geni was once an admin but lost those privileges for using the tools inappropriately, it would be a terrible mistake to give those privileges back when there has been no real change of habit.  --
'''Oppose''' Without commenting on the validity of the desysoping, pursuing multiple, unsuccessful RfAs after desysoping suggests pathology: You're either looking for some sort of vindication or unwilling to take "no" for an answer.  I don't know which, and there is always the possibility I'm wrong, but the probability that I'm right is so large that I'm willing to strongly oppose your RfA even though I've never interacted with you at all.
'''Oppose'''. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Geni.2C_with_history]]  Sorry Chap,
'''Oppose''' per Mailer diablo at 3rd RfA: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 3]]. Wheel warring to revert another administrator's action, and on a consistent basis is a heavy crime; being desysopped for it is an obvious enough problem. <s>Using a sockpuppet to engage in an edit war? That's the kind of things that could get someone banned. And Geni's answers do not do enough to satisfy my worry that it could repeat.</s>
'''Oppose'''  Two reasons.  One per Lar's neutral vote.  Two, someone who has tried for an adminship 5 times (I'm assuming the sock should be counted as one) means they want to be an admin so badly.  And please, I don't want to discuss it further.
'''Oppose''' on account of the generally unsatisfactory and rather superficial answers to the questions, combined with the ArbCom finding that "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. I think Sandstein said it better directly above me. Your answers are not that great. The admin actions, for instance, start drifting into commons and OTRS, with minimal description of what you plan to do here, on this wiki. I then spotted, in the answer to question 7 that an oppose in your RfA would be legitimate, but not "right", and was taken aback. What drove the steak in, sort of speak, was BLP (question 8). Most of your answer deals with what "other people think", when the question is for ''what you think''. BITE and coatrack are great, but there are lots more thing to concider when it comes to BLP's, none of which you meantion. Overall, I think you are a little out of touch with adminship. And bare in mind, I haven't even read the ArbCom issue. '''
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I'm not swayed by the answers to most questions, unfortunately. I'm also disenchanted from the desysoping incident, and the numerous, unsuccessful RFAs, which may indicate that you either really, really want adminship, or that you seek a certain status. Not inferring either as the case. <small>
I do not trust Geni with the tools. Per the evidence of edit warring I provided last time, his apparent belief that edit warring is appropriate if other editors are doing it too, his not abstaining from using the tools in areas related to images and fiction, and the finding by ArbCom that when he had to tools, he had a pattern of abusing them. The last item was indeed two years ago, but I do not see his behavior as having changed. He has indicated (rather indirectly, like most his other answers, makes me worry how he will respond to people who question him about administrator actions) that he will not be open to recall, leaving only ArbCom as the means to remove him. I personally anticipate he will need to be recalled at some point, and I do not trust our ArbCom to desysop him. '''
'''Oppose'''. I believe that Geni has done excellent work on behalf of the project, and do not wish to minimize his contribution. However, I have a concern about his ability to treat people he disagrees in a respectful and productive manner. I worked with Geni in the discussion of image placeholders that took place in April 2008. Or rather, I tried -- very hard -- to work with him. There were many difficulties in that discussion, and I certainly wouldn't blame him for them all; but I did not come away with the impression of an editor I would want to have access to the admin tools. Geni clearly had a greater familiarity with the technical nature of the topic than most participants, but my impression was that he would use that knowledge in a way to elevate his own importance in the discussion -- rather than attempting to educate others in the discussion, or break down complex subjects. He would speak in a kind of technical shorthand that I could generally follow, because I was somewhat familiar the technology; but despite his very active role in the discussion, he would simply ignore requests to clarify what he had said. By the end of the discussion, I found that I did not entirely disagree with a lot of what he had said, but feeling that he had wasted my time, and that of the many other participants, and brought the quality of discussion down, by the nature of the way he participated. In my view, the ability to carry on a reasoned and respectful discourse with people you disagree with is a vital quality in an administrator; and I saw Geni pretty consistently go the other way. I do not feel that he was uncivil or disrespectful in any single comment; this was not a terrible transgression. Rather, it was an opportunity to demonstrate some leadership qualities, and use them for the betterment of the project; and he fell short. Here are two pieces of the discussion that may illustrate what I've said: [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 8. What ideas can be suggested for the modification of the image placeholder?]] and [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/An overview of the history, context, and technical aspects of image placeholders and the related upload system]] Once again, I recognize in Geni someone who has done many good things for Wikipedia. Although I firmly oppose his selection as an administrator, I thank him for his service, and look forward to working with him in the future; hopefully under better circumstances. -
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Geni.2C_with_history]].
'''Oppose''' just like last time. No need to guess how you would use your tools.
'''Oppose''' I think Geni's is not a useful voice during the heated issues I have seen him take part in.  Plus the answer to number 11.  The fait accompli tactic does effective counters, especially here, where there is no deadline here and consensus can change.  Impatience is no justification for escalating a dispute.  I don't think impatient administrators who can't simply acknowledge their own mistakes without reminding everyone "the other guy did bad too" are helpful here.--<i><font color="#9966FF">
'''Oppose''' due to continuing lack of insight regarding BLP matters.--
Per a number of neutrals that cited me, suggesting my unease isn't just me. Per more reflection on wheel warring behaviour (wheel warring just isn't on) Per snarky answer to Seresin's last question about recall (don't want to be recallable, fine, say so, but save the snark). Per BirgitteSB's discomfort about approach to issues, which I share. Per TFMWNCB's discomfort about approach to BLP, which I share. I could have let one or two of these slide but in total, no. Note that at this point I believe it's likely, or at least possible, that Geni will pass. But I want these matters to remain in Geni's awareness, in the hope that by having this awareness... that there ARE issues... that there ARE concerns that others have... will moderate his approach and temper his actions with caution. ++
'''Oppose''' After weighing the arguments and looking at the evolving opposition, it is clear that "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Geni, with history|a history of inappropriate use of admin tools]]" is not something likely to change if we grant them to Geni again. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Mostly because I don't believe Geni has changed much since [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Geni|a past incident]]. For me, Geni comes off as much too abrasive.
'''Neutral''' The supporters are compelling, so are the opposes. Arbcom sanctions are hard to shake off.
'''Neutral.''' I support Geni's resysopping, but I refuse to support the RfA process as it stands currently, and therefore choose not to participate. ''¡Viva le revolución!''
'''Neutral''' - I really, ''really'' want to support. The ArbCom case was a long time ago and you seem to have learned...but Lar pretty much said the rest of my position. Sorry... —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
per Lar - and I sincerely hope that if this passes, as it appears it will, that you will use caution in your actions with the stated concerns here in mind, for the good of the community and the project. I speak also of the concerns mentioned in the Oppose section, which I find so compelling I nearly opposed. I list no details myself because its really all been said.
Essentially per Lar.  While not necessarily deal breakers by themselves, Geni's attitudes towards BLP and wheelwarring are still such that I am not certain a repeat of the behavior that lead to the desysop wouldn't occur.  But two years of positive contributions are also hard to ignore, hence the neutral.
'''Neutral''' Would fully support, except for previous ArbComm sanctions. All the best,
'''Neutral''' I would have opposed but some of the opposed votes seem really inappropriate or that I cannot feel like being associated with via proximity. There is a lot to worry about, but there is a lot of benefit. Net benefit, but that seems to be a strong reason to keep you as an editor. Let me summarize as follows: sigh.
'''Support''' - Seen the editor around, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Policy knowledge seems sound. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks like exactly the right kind of guy for the job.   ''<B>
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' No reason not to. Will make a good admin. <small>That RFA candidate void didn't last long. :)</small>
'''Support''' Of course.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' a strong, longstanding editor.&mdash;
'''Support''' After a quick check of your past contributions, you seem to be a civil user who is knowledgeable on policy and could get good use out of the bit. I see plenty of reasons to support you here. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
Master&Expert hereby endorses Graeme for adminship.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I know this guy from AfC and he does some brilliant work. Is very suited for the mop.
'''Overall experience is more than satisfactory.''' The MfD discussions I sampled showed nuanced thought amd understanding of relevamt policies. Answers to Benon questions range from "OK" to what I wanted/needed to support. Talk page sampling showed a thoughtful, polite, helpful user.
'''Support''' Will make a good addition to the admin team. No objections. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support.'''  Surprised this nominee is not already an admin.  —
'''Support''' - looks like a good contributor and would be an asset to the admin group.
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Never met him/her before, but seems like a good and trustable user. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' - serious contributor to WP, handles him/herself with dignity, level-headed
'''Support''' An impressive nom and candidate.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' Nice job doing that grueling work. User's been here for about three years(editing wise)and have done a lot of hard work with requested articles. But some of your answers to your questions make me question your knowledge of a bunch of policies. But really other than that no reason to oppose. Good luck and cheers(excellent nom) :)--
'''Support''' per Neurolysis.
'''Support''' I looked, and I can't find a single reason not to support. I think he'll make fine use of the tools. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' I don't see where he'd need the tools (since Graeme is mainly a content contributor), but for that reason alone I will support.
'''Support''' Graeme is a great editor who'll use the admin tools responsibly.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Exceeds all standards that I use to form an [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|opinion]].  His main space
'''Yep!''' - Your edits to Australia-related articles are praiseworthy. Good luck, mate!
'''Hellsyes'''. Excellent editor.
'''Support''' - Graeme does excellent work at AfC as well as at the drawing board. We can always use another admin who is willing to help new editors. <font color="darkorange">
Little who are more suited to the role. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Candidate is an extremely valuable contributor per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oil_cleansing_method&diff=prev&oldid=279016803 good] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Robles&diff=prev&oldid=275278302 article] work (including tons of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Motor_Co&diff=prev&oldid=276589032 redirect creation]), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frisians&diff=prev&oldid=270077190 works well with others] while insisting core policies be upheld. Poor judgment (in my opinion) is shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FC_de_Rakt_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=284884821 here], but after looking through candidates further deletion review participation (mostly in MfD, I see), I don't see any real systemic issues. There is absolutely nothing I saw that shows any sort of predilection for theatrics or evidence he/she will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Another old-timer whose mop is long overdue. --
'''Support''' the fact that Graeme is intending to work on the backlogs is reason enough to support. Also history looks great.
'''Support''' Impressive work at AfC. - Dan
''' Weak Support''' weak because on q4 he should block the socks indefinite and then block or warn the main account. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' - I can't ever recall seeing this user before, which means at least the user isn't wrapped up in drama that is ANI/Arbcom/Rfc. I've went over the user's edit history. I've read the user's answers above. There are a couple of answers that are contradictory, as has been pointed out by others but nothing a little tutoring from a current admin won't fix. '''-''' ℅ <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] due to no blocks and per good arguments as seen at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SingStar_(PlayStation_2)]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Great answers above, I see lots of experience, common sense, and somebody who has their head on straight. Use the mop wisely! - <big>'''
'''Support'''. Looks good. Cleared up my concerns with your answer.  Best of luck, '''
Answers, talkpage and contribs check out and your blocklog is clean. Re Q12 I would point out that copyvios don't have to be speedied. An admin or anyone else can rewrite and salvage - or even just stubbify the offending article (hint to potential RFA candidates reading this, stubbifying and detagging copyright violations is one way to show you'd not just be a deletionist at CSD). ''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' All of our interactions have been positive. Graeme has been a great asset at Articles for Creation! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - the answer to question 4 is a bit weak, but apart from that, there's no obvious problems with this candidate.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I have reviewed the opposers' comments and find them unpersuasive.
Yep, most definitely. Great user, does tireless work at [[WP:AFC]]. Has my support. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' Answer to question 4 gave me pause, but then, in retrospect, life is a game in which you constantly learn. While warning them may be the first step, there are others. First of all, the question was vague. If this was a ''confirmed'' sockpuppeteer, then they already should have been blocked. If it was a suspicion, I'd send it to a checkuser to confirm and list at [[WP:SSP]]. In either case an appropriate warning on the page would certainly be a first step with notification/action based upon results. In short, I don't think it was a realistic question and the answer was incomplete. But so what? Even if a rookie admin doesn't stop abuse on site, it doesn't mean abuse won't be stopped in another admin venue. It certainly doesn't preclude other admins from stopping him. I trust enough that the lesson this question was intended to teach has been clearly shown and the candidate here won't make that mistake in the future. Best of luck! You have my support. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">

'''Support''' Most definitely a good candidate. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' - I see no problem here.

'''Support''' Not sure I've seen you in the field, but the contributions and experience all look fantastic. '''
'''Support'''. In addition, I wouldn't let objections to the Q4 answer bother me too much. It shows the intention to act with an abundance of caution, which is rarely a bad thing.
Q4 answer bit short but not too bothersome. Excellent RfA candidate. <strong>
'''Support''' I agree with Ottava on Q4  -  an editor using abusive socks is more likely to have an intractable character problem if he's generally well like. When used by someone who feels  rejected its a more understandable reaction which might have easy solutions.  Still its generally good to be lenient IMO and other answers plus editing history looks fine .
'''Support''', wants to improve the encyclopedia and will use the tools to do so.
Overqualified if anything.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Capable and productive editor, will not misuse the tools. --'''''
[[WP:AGF]]--
'''Support''' The answer to question 4 was a little too weak for my taste but it's nothing worth opposing over as you have a great editing record. '''
'''Support'''. Graeme, Your edit history appears responsible over a considerable period of time.  I think you'd be trustworthy with the tools.
'''Support''' Someone willing to put that much time into AfC obviously cares deeply about the project. Should make a good addition to the admin team. <big><font color="black">
'''Support''' Looks like a great canidate, no big reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Perfect match
'''support''' Interesting points made by the opposes but nothing overwhelming. Overall, the candidate looks good.
Absolutely.  All is well here.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' Exactly what we need. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' My initial reaction to #4 was that the candidate would open a dialogue first. Although I find the opposes to be valid concerns, I think that opening a dialogue seems a reasonable gut reaction to a problem.
'''Support''' You will definitely become admin because so many people support you

'''Support''' Generally good answers to questions, none I found objectionable anyway, and looks like a good edit history.
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A good knowledge of policies & guidelines.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' — I see no reason to believe that Graeme Bartlett isn't ready, User is trusted--<font face="papyrus">
'''Support''' Makes useful contributions and does good work. I cannot see any problems--
'''Support''' unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Plus one'''
'''Support''' Detailed, well-written answers for all of my questions (questions 14a-14d). I can find nothing wrong with your answers. I hope to see you at [[CAT:CSD]], since you are an excellent CSD'er. Many admins would have wrongly speedied the articles listed in my questions. Good luck with the tools!
'''Support''' Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Answers to questions show that you're cautious and willing to use common sense and learn from experience. I think that that, and a perusal of your contributions, show you can be trusted. - '''
Support. Meets my standards. Good answers. ''
'''Suppport''' - meets all of my usual standards - longtime user with rollback rights, useful user page, etc.
'''Support'''. Nothing to worry about. — '''''
'''Support''', we need more users like Graeme Bartlett.
'''Support''' Certainly. No alarms here. --
'''Support''' I see no problems, no reason to think you can't be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' Good luck [[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support''' Seems sound to me, no problems. Seems to know what he's doing and would make appropriate use of the tools.
'''Support''' Seems worthy. The answer to q4 was wanting and the elaboration is a tad confusing but the editor seems to have a feel for nuances so no worries from me. --
'''Support''' Looks good. The points brought up in the oppose section aren't really major issues, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. Having looked through his contributions history from 2008, Graeme strikes me as a very consistent editor. Even when he was going slow (July through mid-August) I can tell he put a fair amount of effort into article maintenance, checking AFC, etc.
Answer to number four, "warn them", is unacceptable. If a "liked" member of the community was doing that, then the situation is even worse because the lies and deceit have completely destroyed the community's trust. Simply warning them and not following the proper process only compounds the problem and shows that you can't be trusted.
Based in part on my criteria for more audited mainspace contribs, and answer to question 3, where apparently he and another user warred it out in edit summaries rather than taking it to talk. That's not a productive method. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Support''' — Intelligent contributor of content; about 60% of edits in article space and 11% in article talk; collegial.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', very good mainspace editor. --
'''Strong support'''. This editor has contributed so much to Wikipedia under the auspices of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject Military History]], and his handling of strong disagreements in [[Talk:Albert Kesselring|Albert Kesselring]] is a great example of his abilities outside of article writing.
Wikipedia needs little more at the moment than dedicated mainspace contributors; while adminship isn't and shouldn't be a reward for such editors, I find it hard to imagine that the user will go berserk with the bit. Edit summaries are a very minor aspect of the project, though please do try to provide explanations for anything less than routine! Support with full confidence. –'''
He's here for only the right reasons. '''
'''Support''' No concerns, but work on the summaries.
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent contribs - please work on edit summaries though. '''
'''Strong support''' also a lot of admins stop using edit summaries anyway when they become admins, or leave fake ones '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket]]''</font>) (
'''Support''' Hawkeye is an excellent editor who has a good history of working cooperatively with other editors and providing advice. As such, he can clearly be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Strong would have been a nominator support'''  - if a low percentage of edit summaries is what is holding you back from supporting... well, doesn't that seem a wee bit trivial in view of the many other positives? Hawkeye is a polite editor with awesome content contributions; this is combined with an answer of "yes" to the question "would I trust him with the tools". —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support'''.  While the circa 10% edit summary usage is ''shocking'' to say the least, there is a net benefit here, I feel.  There's nothing here to make me feel concerned that the tools would be abused.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. No concerns, net positive. <strong>
'''Full Support'''. Hawkeye is a friendly, helpful and communiactive editor who I think would make an excellent administrator. The lack of edit summaries is a minor concern at best, and one I'm sure he'll pick up on.
'''Support''' per above and question 9. I trust this user from what I have seen.
{{anchor|Dank}}There's been a small shift over the course of this year in the direction of a 6-month wait after a failed RfA; three months used to be not uncommon.  That's fine with me, but that trend is influencing my vote and my rationale.  I'd like to see more edit summaries from Hawkeye and a clearer idea of what kind of admin tasks he has prepared to take on, and I'd be tempted to oppose or go neutral if I thought that the net effect of a failed RfA would be positive: that is, Hawkeye would be motivated to address our concerns, and come back quickly, get the mop, and get to work.  But six months is a long time away, and this candidate has already found his niche, his way of contributing, on Wikipedia; it's unlikely that he's going to cut back on the article work that he does so well just to address concerns of RfA voters, in the hope that 6 months from now, we'll change our minds.  So for me, the trend towards 6-month lag times between RfAs means that I'm not so interested in using my vote or rationale in the hope that it will have some impact; I'm just voting to either accept the candidate in their current state, warts and all, or reject them.  Hawkeye is clearly here for the right reasons, and he's trustworthy and competent.  So, on balance, yes. - Dank (
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Weak Support''' - The relatively low amount of communication and lack of edit summary usage gives me pause in my support and I gave a lot of thought before offering it. I would very strongly encourage Hawkeye7 to improve that in the future. Since the editor proposes to use the tools for gnoming and non-controversial purposes, I'll tentatively suggest that it should be okay. -- '''
Are people really making a big deal that this user doesn't use edit summaries? That's funny. '''
Not persuaded over the opposes, you should use edit summaries but I'm not going to oppose over it alone.
'''Strong support''' Clueful, experienced editor. Opposers arguments are just plain sad. I'd like them to realize that a) copy-pasting policy to answer the question "what's the policy on X" is a very reasonable thing to do; b) Hawkeye can check the "force edit summaries" box in his preferences; c) editors are volunteers and actually have a real life so they can't be expected to have a steady monthly edit-count; d) the project needs admins. I hope the bcrats will see through the insanity of rejecting a candidate because he's not jumping through the RfA hoops.
Support. Copy pasting a boilerplate answer to a boilerplate question is stylish, and shows you know how to process many queries an admin gets, I'm happy to judge your ability to answer tailored questions from other parts of the question section. Q9 shows a commendable innocence, I'll take it on faith that when you see behaviour that merits an instant block you'll act appropriately. As for edit summary, I would seriously suggest setting your options to force it. Edit summaries in your own userspace can feel like your talking to yourself, but though sometimes seen as a sign of madness it can be quite useful. If you are trying to work out which book a fact was sourced from having  edit summary notes to remind you what you were doing in various edits can be useful, especially if they are along the lines of update after reading x. ''
Per WereSpielChequers, and the fact that I see no major flaws with Hawkeye after a quick review of his contributions. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Looks good. The stock answers to stock questions are ''funny,'' not a reason to vote against, barring any sign the editor actually has trouble understanding plain English. The questions in this case, are not of policies frequently subject to misinterpretation. <strong>
'''Support''' Impressive contributor, seems unlikely to abuse the tools. The answer to Q13 established that a) (s)he'll now use edit summaries in future - it seems unnecessary to wait the traditional 3-6 months if we trust Hawkeye to stick to the change - and b) Hawkeye is willing to make changes based on feedback and consensus even in areas where (s)he doesn't personally see a problem. That's the sort of thing we need from admins especially.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Hawkeye is an asset to the Military history project. —
'''Support'''  We need more admins who approach things from an article writing point of view.   Is more interested in content than edit summaries?  Spends his time writing articles rather than chatting about the bureaucracy?  Well, that's why I'm supporting him.
'''Support''' - trusted user, valued contributor, not seeing any good reason to oppose. The lack of edit summaries is unfortunate, but Hawkeye7 has pledged to always use them from now on.
'''Strong Support:''' This is a near perfect Candidate -
'''Support'''. Olaf Davis captures my sentiments, here. I think the candidate is a good editor who will bea net positive to the project as an admin, and I agree that having another article-focused admin is helpful. Good luck,
'''Support''' per Olaf Davis and WereSpielChequers. If Hawkeye7 is not doing deletion work now, and - as far as I can see - is not planning to work there, I don't see a big problem with lack of XfD and CSDs.
I reviewed this user's talk page and contributions and found no evidence of incivility and all first class work.  After doing this review it's clear to me that the user has no trouble communicating with others and works closely with some, and has no problem understanding policy (at least the ones I saw discussed in looking over the contribs).  I can't figure out what the big deal is about copy pasting answers or about not using edit summaries in your own userspace.
As far as I know, no one has been desysopped for not knowing policy enough: as Pascal.Tesson said below, the people who have been desysopped knew policy but just didn't care about it. I'm not bothered about copying-and-pasting of answers either: that shows (1) Hawkeye7 is not an RfA regular, and (2) he actually read the policies and copy-and-pasted the appropriate parts. Lack of edit summaries isn't too much of a big deal either: it really is no more annoying than something like "+1" or "+o".
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''', User seems to have great intentions. Hawkeye have tremendous contributions to articles related to military history.
'''Support'''; all the elements discussed below can easily be improved by a clueful editor, dedicated to the main purpose of this place. This person fits the bill. --
Strong editor, good answers to questions. No serious issues raised by opposition.
'''Support''' I have thoroughly gone through the opposes and believe that there is little substance to really oppose on. I hope this candidate gets enough support so that a crat who can see the weakness of the opposes can pass this. This is obviously an editor who is well able to obtain the answers (e.g. question 5) even if they haven't memorised all of the policies in advance. As Juliancolton says I cannot see this editor running wild in AfD.
'''Support'''- No worries here. Obviously clueful editor who does a lot of good work, and who I cannot imagine going berserk with the tools.
'''Support''' - No issues apart from the edit summaries. Not enough to oppose, though. User has my trust, and has a good grasp of policy, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Don't see anything to not support. -
'''Support'''.  Opposes are not fully convincing.  Opposing adminship because of ''too many'' mainspace edits is not a rationale is see often. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>[[User:Finn Casey/Public|<font color=" #660033">Finn</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Finn Casey|<font color=" #660033">Casey</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Does not behave like a dick and seems unlikely to do so. Quality editor that is amply intelligent and mature enough to work out how to use the buttons well, and has been around long enough to know most of the right usage already.
'''Support''' Basically agree with WereSpielChequers.
'''Support''' Keep working on improving your communication skills, good user name...
'''Support''' Good editor, and knows many of the Wikipedia policies.
'''Support'''. I have seen only good from Hawkeye7. While the lack of edit summaries is not wonderful, I agree with others that it's something which can be changed easily (there's even a preference setting so the system will remind you if you forget). Adminship is not a big deal, and I foresee no issues here with abuse of the tools. I think there will be much more than a net-positive with the twiddled bit here. ···

'''Support''', the thing that put me over on this was the willingness to accept constructive criticism and improve regarding the edit summaries. The ability to listen to others just may be the most valuable skill an adminstrator (or any editor here, for that matter) can possess.

'''Support''' good editor.--
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as I like what I see at [[User:Hawkeye7#My_Contributions]] (a host of DYK, FA, GA, etc. credits, which means editor is here to build an encyclopedia and therefore understands/appreciates what goes into accomplishing that objective) and as candidate has not even been accidentally blocked.  Moreover, the candidate has a PhD which takes a good deal of hard work and approval from fellow academics and demonstrates a degree of expertise.  Best, --
'''Support''' A wonderful content contributor who has indicated that the tools will be used sparingly.
'''Support''' per Seraphimblade.--
'''Support'''. Good content contributor. I'd happily trust them with the tools. --
'''Support'''. I fought my side, but my mind was changed by arguments on this page and some comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#The_Drought_at_RFA here], especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=325910991&oldid=325892041 this comment] by Hydnjo. Good candidate, will advance the aims of the project.
'''Support''' - Good contributor who I feel will use the tools wisely. -- '''
'''Support''' per above, notably WereSpielChequers.
'''Support'''. I notice that among the list of current nominees Hawkeye7 is unique in that he is primarily a content creator.  All the others are editors mainly in the sense that they make generally minor modifications or are primarily outright deletionists.  Denying Hawkeye7 basically sends the signal that people who are primarily editor creators need not apply for administratorship and that full editing is a separate and completely different skill set from administratorship.  The flak Hawkeye7 is getting for his low edit summaries is symptomatic of a bias against editor creators and in favor or editor modifiers or editor deletionists seen in this RfA approval process.
'''Support'''  Why not?  Looks good to me.
'''support''' Content is good. Answers to questions are good although he may want to review the details of the blocking policy.
'''Support''' I trust that user will use the admin tools conservatively and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. About the issues raised by the opposes: I too suggest that the Hawkeye7 should use edit-summaries more regularly, but that's not reason enough for me not to trust his abilities or judgment. And as for the cut-and-paste answer: I have no concerns that an academic who has ''written'' FAs on wikipedia, will not be able to ''read'' and follow our written policies as and when needed (if indeed that were not the case, it's are policies that need to be rewritten!)
'''Support''' Now using edit summaries (and where many sequential edits are made in building an article, the efficacy of summaries is uncertain, in any case). Strong contributor.  As for using article talk-space v. number of edits,  when building an article it seems very few writers find controversies needing lots of talk edits. In his last 6K edits, moreover, he has a 15% rate of article talk space edits.  And we need more folks as admins who are interested in articles, and not in authority. From what I see, he is unlikely to become an "authority figure" in WP, which is a "good thing."
'''Support''' Can't see why not. A large number of opposes seem to be bothered by the copy-paste from policy pages but, in a sense, the copy paste is the only correct answer. If there is a 'spirit' rather than a 'letter' to the policy, then that accurately interpreting that 'spirit' would depend on the circumstances. Since no circumstances are provided, copy-pasted policy is not a bad answer. Other than that, I'm sure other issues (edit summaries, for example) will disappear over time. Politeness, over almost anything else, is a good quality in an admin. --
'''Support''' Basically a case of the positives outweighing the negatives. I'll also note that the candidate's edit summary usage been much improved over the past few days.
'''Support''' I look at the answers, and the opposes, and I just don't see anything objectionable.  Edit summary use? Might be a realistic oppose if the editor has made [[WP:REICHSTAG]] statements about the evil of edit summaries, but his response seems quite reasonable and consistent with people simply not hassling him about it before.
'''Support''' Opposes aren't convincing, given the positive aspects that I see in the candidate.
'''Support''' Candidate will be net positive to the project. --
'''Support''' - good mainspace editor who will benefit from toolery. Fears about copy/paste Q5 issue do not concern me. If this editor cocks it up, what hath been giveth can easily be taken away. This editor seems to want to focus on the content-creation side of things, rather than blockery and drama. --
'''Oppose'''. User doesn't use edit summaries and doesn't appear to spend much/any time on talk pages (10% on article talk pages, a trivial amount of time on other talk namespaces). Certainly a very valuable contributor, but being an admin is mostly about conversations, not mainspace edits.
'''Oppose.''' Per: [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Hawkeye7&lang=en], Hawkeye7 uses edit summaries less than 10% of the time. This is a very low rate, especially for an admin, for whom it is empirical to effectively communicate their actions. The fact that it took '''months''' to get their sandbox moved back into their userspace is also troubling, as that would not have been particularly difficult to accomplish, especially for an editor with the tenure of Hawkeye7. That this did not take at most an hour to accomplish, brings into question how well this candidate understands how Wikipedia works, and thus I cannot support this user gaining the bit. The recent fluctuations in monthly edit counts, with no accompanying explanations on the user or user talk pages is a more minor issue. You're an amazing content creator though.  --
Answer to Q5 is copied word-for-word from [[WP:CDB]]. Sure, questions 4 & 5 are stock questions and often get stock answers, but copying-and-pasting doesn't demonstrate to me that the candidate actually understands the policy he's copying-and-pasting. <b class="Unicode">
'''Oppose''' Per Rjanag and SoWhy. Copy-pasting answers, and lack of edit summaries worry me.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Per Rjanag.  Copy and paste answers  and a lack of edit summaries are never a good sign. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. The copy and paste answer to Q5 shows a lack of experience and knowledge in my opinion and coupled wirh the low edit summary usage, I am not certain that Hawkeye can be trusted with the tools, due to the lack of communication in this. Sorry. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
You're a benefit to this place, don't get this wrong, but blatantly copying some text to answer a question posed to check for your understanding should obviously not be done... we're not checking whether candidates are computer literate and know how to use ctrl-c, or necessarily whether they know how to find the information needed, although that's indispensable with a site this big. Also, I don't think you know exactly what adminship entails; deletion, blocking, and protection are the main tools that assist admins, and you didn't say you needed any of them. Q1 is vague at best, and when it mentions specifics it's still vaguely admin-ish. --
'''Oppose''' per Tedder and for your sporadic edit summary usage (for an admin, this is a VERY important step), and for your copy-paste A5.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - None of the editor's answers are satisfactory to me, especially the answers to mine. Cut and paste answers don't show if you actually understand the policies. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose'''  I cannot support someone who does not use edit summaries essentially all of the time.
'''Oppose'''  No offense to the candidate, you appear to be a solid contributor.  But the lack of edit summaries, talk page conversation (aka collaboration), and policy experience don't see fitting for an admin.  I'm impressed at the solid portion of articlespace edits, but a higher edit count would be nice too, you've had your account since 2005.  No prejudice at another RfA down the road.  --'''
'''Oppose''', concerns about lack of edit summaries and talk page experience, and questionable answers. '''
'''Strong oppose'''  Absolutely love this editor, strong content contribution, and I have no qualms whatsoever for not wasting time not using edit summaries when working solo on article drafts in own sandbox.  However, if you become an admin, you are also given privileges to speedy articles and to close XfDs.  Scanning your contributions for 2009, I see no XfD contributions or CSD work at all.  I'm simply unable to judge if I can trust you in these critical and conflict-ridden areas. Sorry.  Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' because I can do nothing but LOL at copying/pasting.
'''Oppose''' with great regret. Hawkeye7 is a seminal contributor, and the encyclopedia is absolutely better off thanks to his great article work. For me, the edit summary issue is no big deal, and while the copy-and-paste answer to Q5 certainly doesn't look good, I can tell from his later responses that he ''understands'' the policy on cool-down blocks, and copy-and-paste wasn't a dealbreaker. But I have to oppose because Hawkeye7 has yet to give a convincing reason for why he wants adminship. He hasn't indicated an interest in working in any admin areas, and his experience with CSD and deletion discussions is minimal. His tools would merely be self-serving, and while there's nothing wrong with that ''per se'', I would much rather see the mop given to a candidate that is going to use it in admin areas on behalf of the community. If Hawkeye7 is that candidate, he ought to have a gameplan ready by now. If he did so, it would be my pleasure to support his RfA.
'''Oppose''' BLP answer is wrong.
'''Oppose'''. While the edit summary issue strikes me as trivial in context, the candidate's answers to most questions are just too generic and uninformative to satisfy me, and some appear inappropriate -- eg, in Q9 the candidate would not summarily block an apparently hijacked account.
'''Oppose''' Admin tools are granted to editors to help the community as a whole, and while it may benefit this editor to have access to the privileges, there simply aren't enough cases where we can look at this editor's record to see how those tools will be used if granted and what benefit it will have to the community at large. This user has great contribs to mainspace, but that will not be greatly affected by adminship.
'''Oppose''' I was ready to support despite the less-than-inspiring answers to some of the questions (especially the BLP question). But answering a question by copying text from a policy page is incompatible with what we expect from admins. I like the fact that you're content oriented, but feel you lack the depth of understanding needed for an admin.
'''Oppose''', mainly per Hipocrite and Boris.
'''Oppose''' Candidate has only given personal reasons to become admin, ("I intend to use the tools to allow me to continue to improving the encyclopaedia without having to bug the admins") instead of community-based reasons. Also, copy and pasting of policy is disturbing, since we, and especially admins, are supposed to respect the spirit of the policies more than the letter of them.
'''Neutral''' I do not mind that this user has varying degrees of activity or the lack of any need for admin tools but I cannot support a candidate who doesn't use edit summaries. Communication and transparency and vital for any editor and much more so for admins. Editors who do not use edit summaries force others to review their contributions individually to find out what changes they made, thus creating more work for no rational reason. Regards '''
Answer to Q1 is disturbing; <s>firstly, not even admins can rename images here (unless they've changed it very recently)</s>, and secondly, I am failing to understand the userspace issue.
'''Neutral''' Per SoWhy. I'd prefer an admin who utilized edit summaries.
'''Neutral.''' Per the above, and cursory response to questions.--
'''Regretful Neutral''' - SoWhy said it; You have to use edit summaries. '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
<s>'''Leaning Oppose''' pending answer to Q14.--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] <sup>[[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]]</sup> <sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Unionhawk (2)|Review]]</sup> 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Neutral''' - Q14 has been answered to my satisfaction, but edit summaries are really important in the mainspace, even if you're the only one who edits the article.--
'''Neutral <s>leaning support</s>''' I like you contributions alot but your copy and paste method of answering question 5 scares me.--<big>
'''Neutral''' Seems like a pretty nice guy. Would support, but I feel that the user lacks a fine-tuned understanding of policy and procedure. Would oppose, but fine-tuned understanding of policy and procedure can (and, with this guy, I think will) be learned on the job. <span style="font-family:monospace">[&#65279;
'''Neutral''' - great article work, and I too have been guilty sometimes of cut-and-paste.  But the edit sumamry issue rankles me.  I've long been an advocate that edit summary usage is essential.
'''Neutral''' - I'm leaning towards support, but the lack of edit summaries (they are used roughly half the time in the mainspace, even) worries me about how well communications are going to go, especially while performing admin duties. Hawkeye7, don't get me wrong; you're a great editor. Please come back in a few months if your RfA doesn't pass. For now, good luck :).
'''Neutral''', I don't feel I can oppose such a wonderful content editor, but the lack of edit summaries and the response to my question don't exactly inspire confidence.
'''Neutral'''. While I think many of the opposes are a bit silly—in my opinion, a "copy-paste question" at RfA ''almost'' deserves a copy-paste answer—the sincere responsiveness to criticism is definitely a positive (however off-base I may think those particular opposes to be). I'm still a bit worried about the nearly complete lack of XfD participation, or participation in any other admin-related activity.
'''Neutral, leaning Oppose'''. Sorry, but barely any XfD participation, less than 10% edit summaries, the copy-and-paste answer to Q5, relatively little participation in admin-related activities, lack of any good or featured material, and showing little need for the tools in Q1 are enough to prevent me from supporting this candidacy. Good luck though, and make sure you ''always'' use edit summaries and get some experience in admin-related capacities. --
'''Support''' Has good motivations and good reasons for running.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Demonstrated expertise in CfD/RfD, and extensive participation in discussions shows Jafeluv knows what {{gender|Jafeluv}}'s doing, and I trust him with the tools.
Seen him around, seems capable. '''
'''Support''', on the condition that they begin archiving their talk page (waiting for question five). User has plenty of [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and will make a fine administrator. &ndash;
'''Support''', definitely. I've seen Jafeluv around Wikipedia, and he seems to have a good grasp on consensus in the areas that he's active in (RM, CfD), is kind and considerate towards others, acts reasonable, doesn't cause drama, and has sufficient experience. Everything I'd like to see in an admin candidate. And taking time to help and clearly communicate with editors is a big plus ([[User_talk:Jackie_ohlsen#Your_article|see here]]). It'd be nice if Jafeluv started archiving his talk page, but otherwise judging his editing, I think he'd be a great admin.
'''Support''', everything I've seen has revealed a sensible and dedicated editor who knows what they're doing and interacts well with others. Jafeluv does good work in various backwaters of the project that could greatly benefit from another active admin, and as a result I support this request with enthusiasm. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and I can't see any problems or why jafeluv should not be an admin. I agree with Mazca and Jamie. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
I support as the nominator. (Jafeluv accepted after I went to bed). [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Looks good]]--
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' No need for me to ask questions of this candidate since I can find ZERO autobot edits to his credit, which is a credit to him since it makes him look like he knows WP inside and out - which I have no doubt he does.
'''Support''', excellent user.
'''Support''' Spotcheck looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' per Ironholds ;-) Seriously though, this is a great candidate and with my eye on speedy deletion questions, I have to say that I am truly impressed with the accuracy of their taggings and I like it that they have already been removing incorrect speedy tags from other articles. Will be a good addition to the "corps". Regards '''
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' &ndash; I had a very nice and civil discussion with him on a page move where we completely disagreed. He is an excellent role model as to how to handle yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and is also a very good contributor in general. Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Yes yes yes yes yes.  Jafeluv's edits are top-notch, and there is plenty of evidence for a lot of thought behind each one.  Been waiting for this since seeing Jafeluv at RfD. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
No problem. Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' A good breadth of contributions combined with a clear focus in what they would do with the tools. I also like the answers to the questions given so far. -- '''
'''Weak support''' Candidate's contributions look good.  My last recent experience w/ them was very positive.  I haven't (yet) looked through their CSD tagging or XfD participation.  The answer to Q5 is not as good as I would have hoped.  An RfA is a chance to present yourself to the community, explain your methods and motivations, and take feedback onboard.  It is not the best time to accept immediate changes in how you do business simply because someone says that your current methods belie a lack of seriousness.  But hey, what do I know.  I'm just a guy offering an opinion about how you should immediately change your methods because they belie a lack of seriousness. :P
Good CSD work, and per SoWhy, it's great that you remove inappropriate CSD tags.  The easiest way to spot a future good admin is someone who's already doing the work. - Dank (
'''Pile on support''' I've only seen good things from this editor.
'''[[User:Matheuler/adminship|Support]]. —
'''Support''' - I like what I see.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; seems trustworthy. I'll revisit once my question is answered, but it is highly unlikely to influence my decision. –'''
'''Support'''. I've run into Jafeluv a number of times on RM discussions. Always reasonable, always calm, always cordial, usually right. Should be a good addition.
'''Support''' I see no reason to not trust this user with the tools. Everything looks good. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Maintenance work.. My kinda editor. --
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
'''Support''' I'm all for maintenance admins, we need more and it's surprising what you find out and about when merely adding categories and such like that could benefit from some [[:WP:CSD#G6|G6]] work to make the place more presentable. I'm impressed with Jafeluv's commitment to the project in that respect (doing that sort of thing a lot myself when doing the rounds for [[:WP:ALBUM]]). Also has a good handle on other areas. However, my sticking point is the answer to question 4: I was, only the other day, considering creating an article with the text "horse leftovers pistol running euphemism" &ndash; those plans will now be scuppered if Jafeluv becomes an admin, but I suppose I will have to put my personal POV aside for the good of the project. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
Something of an unknown quantity, but I have encountered this editor on CSD patrol and been impressed at their willingness to engage patiently and non-condescendingly with inexperienced contributors. Slightly concerned at the (apparent) lack of high-end peer-reviewed work that often indicates a less than full understanding of difficult content policies, but this is mitigated by the clue and conscientiousness of the candidate. No reason to think that Jafeluv would be anything other than a fine asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Clearly this user could use the tools to the benefit of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' I haven't encountered this editor much, but I'm liking what I see here. Answers are clueful, communication on user talk pages is clueful '''and''' helpful. I don't have any worries about the mop in this case.--
Looks good to me. Meets my [[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|criteria]].
'''Support''' (from Neutral) with one word of advice (which was why I waited until the questions were answered): try not to judge the content of an article when closing an AFD as an admin; closing admins are just supposed to determine whether a rough consensus for deletion has occurred given the circumstances. If you start judging the content, then you might as well !vote in the AFD. Good luck,
'''Support''' per demonstrating seriousness by demonstrating seriousness by demo.... --
'''Support'''  no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - <s>I was contemplating nominating the other day. He beat me to it!--
'''Support''' Seen the editor around on RM and find that he/she seems well able to figure out which side of the stick has the fuse. Would obviously help keep that move backlog in check and the lack of a user page is an unexpected bonus! No worries here. --
'''
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' satisfied with the answer to my question.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support'''I'll gladly support a RFA in which the admin won't break under the pressure of a conflict. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''From the top now!''</font>]]
'''Support'''. No worries here. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''.  This candidate presents an intelligent point of view and defends it well when challenged.—
'''Support''' handles questions OK, I could find no upload problems, or lack of experience in the use of non admin buttons.  Though I still think a user page is very desirable, even if all it says is the users id.  If Jafeluv becomes an admin then it should at least announce that fact.
'''Support''' Trustworthy for sure. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' I can't see any problems. Good luck.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - No concerns raised here. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
{{worksforme}} <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''' per SoWhy ''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Jafeluv. —
'''Support''' Trustworthy user. Seen him around, and always had a positive impression. --
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''': '''Constructive Edits'''  (He does not spend all his time '''reverting''' or '''deleting''' edits and he takes the time to '''improve''' poor edits) And taking time to help and clearly communicate with editors is a big plus He is kind and considerate towards others, acts reasonable, doesn't cause drama, and has sufficient experience. A sensible and dedicated editor who interacts well with others. Good Luck and Happy Editing -
'''Support'''. No concerns here although the banter in the neutral section was amusing.
'''Support''' Good contributions. '''''
'''Support''' I know this editor's work from CfD and s/he will make a fine admin. As for the answer to question #4, there was nothing wrong IMO. The example offered was a ''clear'' case of A7 ("I wish I had gotten to know her better but It's too late because she's married with four kids..."). Admins cannot be expected to rewrite all the crap they'll find on Wikipedia. If one wishes to replace this with a stub, fine. Most admins won't, nor should we expect them to.
'''Support'''. Don't know much about the user but seems alright.
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support''' would be a good addition, IMO. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Better-than-even chance of net positive.
'''Support''' Good user - no issues. —
AGF--
'''Support''' like nom say. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' unequivocally. I hadn't realized that Jafeluv was in the middle of an RfA! Anyway, I completely agree with harej's assessment. In my dealings with him he's always been levelheaded and very even tempered, which is precicely what I think we all expect from an admin. Good luck, Jafe!<br/>—
'''Support''' Pile-on, can't find any issues.--
'''Support''' Doesnt seem to be any serious issues here, By all means my support is here
'''Support''' No reasons why not.--
'''Support''', appears to be a good candidate, no indication they will abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''', seems perfectly fine to me.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="green">
I would have done this earlier but I was lazy, plus I have a lot of my plate right now in meat space. Still, better late than never. =)
'''Oppose''' - meets some of [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but not others.  I'd like to know more about the candidate before supporting.
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' for now.  Communication is vital.  Lack of archiving makes it almost impossible to know the types of interactions.  Yes, I could follow thousands of diff's, but that just shows the difficulties.  Most work looks good, but I'd like to know simple things like interaction styles, the types of "disagreements", the good, the bad ''and'' the ugly. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
Jafeluv has chosen not to answer my Qs (as his his right), and thus I am unable to evaluate his clue level as thoroughly as I'd like.  I see no major issues in his record so I have nothing to oppose over. Thus, I land in neutral. --
'''Strong support''', great user, clearly deserving.
'''Support''' A fine contributor. Good luck, Jake!
'''Strong support''' - Finally! '''
My first interaction with Jake was sometime in January, and I remember asking him then when he was going to run for adminship. I was truly shocked when he said that he had only been around for about a month; with his knowledge of policy, even at that time, I thought he had been around for at least twelve. Whenever I have worked with Jake, &ndash;  whether it be writing DYKs or cleaning out a backlog at SPI &ndash; I can only ever recall pleasant experiences. Jake would be a wonderful help to the project as an administrator, and I '''strongly support''' this RfA. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' as nominator. <font face="Arial">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; this user is already an admin who just needs the +sysop flag. Good luck! –'''
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' This RFA should have been sooner, and would have more than happily nomned the user myself. Clued up, active and drama free are the three qualities that should be seen in an admin, all of which are present in this editor. He will make a fine addition to the janitor ranks and will use the tools wisely. Ladies and gentleman I present to you Jake Wartenberg. '''
'''Support''' should be a net positive.
'''Support'''[[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Looks]] great. No worries here.--
'''Support''' I first noticed this user very early this year, and everything I've seen has been full of clue, considerate, and aimed at improving the 'pedia.  I don't recall ever ''directly'' interacting with Jake, but I had also wondered recently why he hadn't picked up the couple extra tools.  I'm very glad to see this RFA, and I hope it goes through without a hitch.  Best of luck Jake. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Support, good user
'''Support''' -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Seeing as we are both SPI clerks, I will need to recuse as a crat here, but I must voice my support for Jake as someone with a considerable amount of clue and dedication to WP. '''
'''Support''' Nothing not to like in contribs, the strongest candidate I've reviewed in quite a while.

'''Support''' but there should be more reviews at FAC and GAN. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor all-around. Experienced and knowledgeable in many areas. More than qualified for adminship duties. --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. Absolutely. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' strong canidate. no worries at this time
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]

'''Support''' - Per Seddon.
'''Support''', has done nothing, recently, that would lead me to believe he would abuse the tools. Seems like a fine candidate, and a good person. &ndash;'''
'''Pile on Support'''
'''Support''' Sensible user, does good work and will be a benefit to the project with the mop. I see nothing that should concern us. Regards '''
Thought he already was one.
'''Strong Support''' Fine contributor. '''
Would be very good to have helping in the admin parts of SPI - an area regularly needing attention. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339933;">


'''Strong support''' - Would make a great administrator. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Heh, finally! Will be a fine admin! '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
At last? Of course. Will be a great admin.
Damn, late to the party. - Dank (
I'm
'''Support''' '''''
'''Strong support''' - I've been hoping that Jake would run for some time now. I'm glad the time has finally come. --'''
'''Support''' Decent work at DYK, very friendly.
'''Support''' Everything looks (more than) solid and I think your answer to question 8 was top-notch. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' An excellent and competant candidate --
''' Support''' Per all of the above comments.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.

'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. Nicely written. :-) [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong support''', definitely. Not much else I can say, really. Good work all around. And per NYB. :-)
'''Support''' Great user, great contributions. Definite support :) Cheers, '''''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Good work, good answers.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' – I cannot find too many other current non-admins, if any, that are more qualified to use the admin tools.
'''Yep!''' - Solid candidate.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as currently no one is opposing the candidate, the candidate has rollback (so some admin trusted him enough to give it to him), the candidate has over 15,000 edits and is thus experienced, the candidate has 16 DYKs and 6 FPs so he is here to contribute to content and thus does so effectively, two editors thought enough of the candidate to give him barnstars, and the candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
Cliche #1.
'''Support''' Great candidate. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Great Track and see no Concerns.
'''Support''' Great work! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, everything is good. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- '''
'''Strong Support''' - Reliable editor, interactions have all been good, everything looks great.--
'''Strong Support''' <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJake_Wartenberg&diff=308050053&oldid=307324215  Heh!] '''
'''Strong Support''' <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Absolutely.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
User has a proven record and would serve well as an administrator. [[User talk:harej|@]]
'''Support'''. It took me a second to realize Jake wasn't already a sysop. Take the tools, good sir! <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Obvious Support''' Best of luck.
'''support'''
'''Support''' Jake will be a fantastic sysop. TBH, I could have sworn he was one already. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Support''' We have met the Admin... and he is Us. ''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Possibly just on the basis of the haiku. Looks good. <font color="green">
I don't see any problems. '''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - He wasn't already?
'''Support''' Looks good to me! He could definitely use the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' There should be plenty other 'crats to close this, and from my work with Jake at [[WP:SPI]], I am confident that he will not abuse the tools. (Note: shameless attampt at Bradmimicry above) --
'''Support'''. Hang on, so you telling me he wasn't an admin?!
'''Support''', with annoyance.
'''Support''' pile-on. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per all of the above!
'''Clear Support'''.  No feasible reasons to oppose, and candidate's responses demonstrate good temperament. --
'''Support''', Glowing. I am certain that Jake would be an excellent admin; He's a wonderful, polite editor. I've run into him now & again,  mainly doing [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit|CVU]] stuff.. <span style ="color:navy">
'''Support''', he'll do a fine job.
'''Support''' Excellent experiences with Jake at [[WP:FPC|FPC]]. '''
'''Support''' An honorable knight to stand against the vandals.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Duh.
'''Support''' Seen him around, no reason to oppose.
'''Strong support''' Nudging this one closer to [[WP:100]].  Combines all the traits we look for in a good admin.  A great candidate for the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''One before [[WP:100]] Support!'''
[[WP:100|Woot]]
'''Support'''. No reason to think Jake will abuse the tools.
Was neutral before, but what the heck, let's just pile it on.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support'''.  I trust this editor.--

I've no issues with JW at all. Long overdue, I'd say. '''''<font color="darkgreen">
More than satisfied to support. Glad to see this is a "nice" rfa, free from the common nastiness. Though the hoedown above is a bit lame 9_9. <font face="Forte">
'''Strong Support''' - Would make an awesome admin.--
'''Strong Support''' - Definitely :) -
'''
'''Support''' The ''only'' concern is lack of audited content contributions, which I don't care about. Good luck with the mop.
'''Support''' Actually, he has several [[WP:FP|Featured pictures]], all of which, I believe, are restorations, and hence well deserving of the "audited content" title.
'''Support''' - great candidate. <b>
'''Support''' Awesome candidate.
Strong candidacy. No obvious problems.
'''Support''' just following the herd...
Per astute answer to Q6. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' per nom. --
I don't usually vote in RfAs for editors I don't know, but between the nominators' statement, the answers to the questions and the general consensus, I think it's safe to chip in here.
'''support''' —
'''Support''' has clue.
'''+S''' I no longer believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' I have a feeling my vote won't make a big difference at this point :) '''<span style="color:#104E8B;font-size:80%">
'''Support''', agree with SPLETTE but since I'm here I'll report a lack of negative experiences with this user as well. No concerns. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a good choice...
'''Supportalicious'''
'''Support.''' I have seen this user contributing positively in many parts of the encyclopedia.--
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Jake Wartenberg. —
'''Strong Support'''. I think Jake would make an excellent admin. I've seen him around, and have been impressed by his work and interactions. Also, good job on the Featured Pictures. :) ···

'''Support''' per much of the above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Jake has a sufficient edit history, sufficient clue level, and no blemishes on his recent record that I could find. --
'''Support]]]''' One of those "He isn't already an admin?" moments. Great users, good history, only remember positive interactions. --
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' Hell yes.  I can't think of anyone else more qualified for the job.
'''Strong Support'''--
Strong candidate: he'll be fine as an administrator.
'''Support''' <s>I am voting as the other arbs have done out of consensus, so we don't look like a fractured committee</s>. Just kidding. Should be fine.
'''Support'''. No problems at all. — '''''
'''Support''' Piling on. Use the tools well. '''\'''
I'm in the company of lunatics... &mdash;
'''Support''' ...although I feel I'm unfairly piling on here :-P ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' - Hell, I thought he already was an admin.  Give this guy a mop already. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No issues I see. Good luck, although at this point, you really don't need it! =)
'''Support'''Per above. Yes! Most defiantly! Although the song above scares me. (You know I'm kidding, right?)[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]

'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Lack of obvious problems and less importantly, lack of opposition/neutrals <code>;)</code>
'''Pile-on''' —'''
<s>'''Oppose'''. I suspect Jake is the sockpuppet of a previous user, possibly a desysopped one. See some of my reasoning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJake_Wartenberg&diff=309697817&oldid=309697011 here]. <font color="green">
I am recusing myself from this RfA due to my blocking of one of the participants for their behavior here. That being said I do support the nominee in spirit, if not in !vote.
A good candidate who I'm confident will use the tools wisely. '''
Per nomination. - ''Cheers'',
'''Support per nom's and'''  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJamieS93&diff=234128580&oldid=234126744 as per last time.]
Good work at DYK, not only reviewing nominations, but also preparing updates and alerting admins when an update's needed.
Very good interactions lead me to believe that Jamie is a thoughtful and friendly user who will do well with extra tools. (Not to mention the four edit conflicts.) <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
JamieS93 is a wonderful user who I believe will make an excellent administrator. She should have passed RfA last time around.
Of course. Mature, intelligent, dedicated; all traits I look for in admin candidates. –'''
Hell yes. '''
'''Support''' JamieS93 will make an awesome admin.--
'''Support''' Good experience, seems like a good asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' JamieS93 is both civil and helpful, and has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind.  I'm glad to see she plans on working at CSD, and think she will be valuable there.  All my interactions with her have been very positive and, while I'm too familiar with her namespace contributions, lead me to default support. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' per [[User:JamieS93/Awards]] and [[User:JamieS93/DYKs]] in addition to the candidate being a Good Article contributor who has never been blocked.  Thus, candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' No reservations at all. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
Should have passed last time, of course. '''
'''Support''' - Sufficient improvement since last RfA, I support this time around. —
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Net positive.--
'''Weak Support''' Satisfied with her answer to my question and her last RfA failed, in part, for actions outside of her control.  Like I said, I've been watching her for a few months and thinking, "she just might be ready for a nom now."---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to weak support: Jenna makes some valid arguments in the oppose section.  AS for maturity, I do see signs of maturity throughout this and her last RfA.  Last time her RfA was hampered by an over active defense---which ended up hurting Jamie as much as issues related to Jamie herself.  Throughout the last RfA and this one, she has responded very positively and politely to the opposes---even commending them for their strength of argument.  An immature person does not tell somebody that they made a strong argument against them---especially during the RfA.  They may respond afterwards, but Jamie has shown the ability to listen to harsh criticism, take it in, and adapt.  I think that is about as good of a sign of maturity as we are likely to find.<small>I don't want to ressurect the dead, so keep in mind I'm commenting on Jamie's behavior, not others.  As far as I'm concerned the behaviors involved by the other party have been dealt with and are in the past.</small>---'''
'''Plus one.'''
'''Strong support''' Of course! No second thought that Jamie will use the tools wisely, actively, and with solid judgement. A fine candidate. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. The two things I opposed for last time (uninsightful bandwagoning AfD votes and some dubious AIV reports) seem to have been rectified - while neither of those areas are exactly high-activity ones for you, what you have done in the last few months there seems vastly improved and generally very good. I've seen no other red flags on a review of your contributions, so I have no reason to oppose this time! Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Same as last time.  Come back on IRC! :P
'''Support''' Of course, Juliancolton sums it up.--
'''Support'''  —
'''Support'''; good answers to questions and an overall qualified candidate. From one young Wikipedia administrator to a prospective one, I'm confident that you'll do well. :-)
'''Support'''. She's always impressed me by how assiduous she is. --
'''Support''' again. Great contribs, very mature, net positive. '''''
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Weak Support'''. What? Me supporting when there are CSD issues? It's a strange world we live it apparently. Yes, the mistakes WSC mentions are stupid. As IS! says on the talk page, getting it right matters here more than otherwise because attack pages get deleted much faster and thus should not be mistagged. But I will have faith that you will learn from your mistakes and read up on the related essays on the topic to avoid such mistakes in future. The same goes for the G1 of course, that was simply incorrect (even if someone deleted it) but 6 months ago is long past and I doubt you will do it again after getting a mild "beating" for it here. But the last really declined speedy is from January (even if it was another incorrect G1[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Brittainalford&diff=prev&oldid=266164816] (looks more like a A7 to me or, as {{User|Bearian}} correctly guessed, a userpage created in article space)). So, Support for the reasons I had last time, for those above and for your overall great contributions. Weak for the concerns raised by WSC and the flaws in your grasp of CSD. Regards '''
'''Support''' She seems very mature, and I see no reason she'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; Great user, fully trusted by me, will do finely. '''
'''Support''' Good work. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' - CSD is not the be all and end all of adminship. The most important thing is that the user at hand learns from their mistakes, and I trust Jamie to do such. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Strong Support''' per "prematurely mature", and per the noms.  I've followed Jamie's progression for a bit now (silently), and have noticed an ability to listen, observe, and to use common sense and good judgment in her actions.  I couldn't ask for more from anyone in the admin. corps. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' You seem like a calm, mature person despite your age. A reasonable amount of time has past since your CSD mistakes so I'm pretty sure you've learned better since then. So far your answers to the questions have been good enough and they show how you've improved over time. Overall, a good candidate who would be a great help as an admin. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' <font color="#3300ff">

'''Support''' She seems a very good genuine person who'll be a credit to the project with a few more buttons at her disposal and I'm sure she'll ask for help from more experienced admins where needed at the start.
'''Support''' per Majorly. '''''
Your'e a good user, and yes, you've made a few mistakes regarding CSD/AFD, but really. Haven't we all made a mistake before? If there's anyone on Wikipedia who has ''never'' made a mistake, we should promote them to admin just for that...wait no. Having never made a mistake is similar to never getting sick until a certain time, it will be worse when it does happen. Additionally, supporting to counteract the inevitable ageism vote. If you supported AnonDiss's RFA/B, no reason to oppose here because of age. Best, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Support''' - I know Jamie since my newbiehood on WP. She is civil, helpful, and her article work is good.
'''Strong suppoert''' '''
'''Support''' ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support''' as a good contributor, helpful editor, and has proven she can learn from both adversity and mistakes. -
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJamieS93&diff=233999384&oldid=233996507 last time]. Over the last 8 months, Jamie has grown even more experienced with Wikipedia and the DYK process. I enjoyed reading her answers to all of the questions, particularly 5a and 5e. As long as she uses discretion when deleting the articles at [[CAT:CSD]], I have no reservations with her receiving the tools. Best of luck,
'''Strong Support''' - zomfg the first day back on Wiki from finals week and I see JamieS93 on here... OF COURSE I'll support!  Awesome editor - would love to have to the admin staff. :)  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Support'''
'''Support''', same as last time.  No evidence that user will abuse the tools, and by my observation a lot more mature and level-headed than a great many older editors here that should know better.  Just the sort of characteristics that I want to see in an admin.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
No reason not to.
'''Support'''&nbsp;The famed "No reason not to" helps me here. <strong>
'''Support.'''

Looks good and impressive answers to the speedy deletion questions.
'''Support'''. I would prefer Wikipedia be run as a meritocracy instead of a whatever-form-of-government-is-run-by-only-elders (I'm going to make up the term Presbytocracy). I think declining based on age as the only factor is almost as ridiculous as DougsTech's opposes. JamieS93 has improved drastically since her last RfA and would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' – <b>
'''Support''' - This is an out of exam wikibreak support thanks to a pre-emptive entry on my watchlist. I think JamieS93 would make a good admin and that is why I supported <s>his</s> her [sorry, I keep forgetting your a girl] request last time, and I am doing so again this time. The opposition are not convincing per [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria#Non-criteria]].
'''Weak support'''. Some issues, but overall not too bad.
'''Support'''.  I can see no validity in any of the oppose arguments, particularly not the one-liners.  ''<B>
'''Support''': Great work at DYK.
'''Support''': '''
'''Support''':  If the worst that can be said about someone is "OMG she's still in high school", then she gets my vote.--
'''Strong support'''. Fully qualified candidate; I see no issues or concerns. I have reviewed all of the opposers' rationales carefully and they are uniformly and in some cases shockingly without any merit.
'''Strong Support'''. I supported last time, and I am happy to support this time! Best of luck :). '''
'''Support'''.  My age related comment is from the other end of the spectrum:  The editor's potential.  Jamie has overcome the concerns of her first RfA, she exceeds the qualities that she looks for when [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/index.php?name=JamieS93 commenting] at the RfA of others, and she has earned the communities trust. <small>
'''support''' The candidate looks well rounded and ready. The main oppose concerns are apparently a) that they used what is arguably not the best CSD tag in a few cases and b) that the user is too young. In regard to a, I simply don't find the concern serious although I agree that it is important to tag possible attack pages as attack pages in preference to other CSD tags(since attack pages will get deleted faster). In regards to b- I  dislike age based judgements of editors. If an editor appears to be mature enough then the editor likely is mature enough.
'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder
'''Strong Support''' as I think this editor would be an excellent asset as an admin. I see nothing which would indicate potential abuse of the tools, and a plethora of indicators the tools would be put to frequent and good use. ···
'''Support''' - JamieS93 should have passed RFA last time, and would have done so but for circumstances beyond her control. Better late than never, I say.
'''Support''' - I did not !vote last time (but would have been neutral).  I see a lot of good things from this editor and a real growth, especially with DYK's and rollback rights.
'''Support''' - per noms.
'''Support''' - This is a support to off-set Friday's ageist !vote.
'''Support''' Not likely to cause damage, or become an inconvenience through misuse of the tools. Impresive contribution record indicates solid knowledge of policy and clearly has addresed many concerns from RFA 1. Unlikely to be rude, bullying or think admins are in anyway "better" than non-admins. I'm tempted to support per "editor is female" to spite some of the oposition but I won't. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. Cheers, --
'''Support''' Looks like a reasonable person with a cool head and should make a good admin. I was planning on !!voting because of the age thing but I mulled over the recent adult drama events and concluded that I was wrong. That using age as a predictor of maturity is wrong in this setting. In addition to things like age there are other physical characteristics, intrinsic psychological and emotional factors, as well as socio-economic and cultural factors that determine the maturity level of a person and we, on wikipedia, have little, if any, access to these other characteristics. Therefore, while age may be a reasonable heuristic in the real world (such as when employing a person) where access to other information about a person is better (school grades, recommendation letters, face-to-face interviews), using age in an environment where all we can see of a person is the words they type unreasonably overweights that single factor. Far better to focus entirely on the typed words. --
'''Strong support'''. The oppose votes, if anything, lean me to support a bit more.
'''Support''' No issues that stand out, and no negative memories.
'''Support'''. Great contributions. Good understanding of policy. Finding out that she is a minor only increases my respect for her.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Not the the BLP views are identical to my own opinions, but they are well within the bounds of consensus here.  Incidentally, I have often downgraded what could be called attack pages to some lesser  reason when deleting them, in order to WP:DENY the vandal satisfaction. '''
'''Strong support''' Spotted at DYK. I don't think age is an issue. And I see many other familiar signatures from DYK [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] as well. They can't all be wrong, can they? Also, I'm now beginning to consider maturity when faced with Doug as a good example of a decent admin in waiting... ;) --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Strong support''' IMO maturity should be judged individually on content and not on basis of a number.  I say this because I personally have met many high school students who are more mature and indeed more worldly than people twice and even three times their age.  Jamie provides me with more than enough evidence to indicate that she is part of the future of wikipedia - and the evidence displayed in her edits (as opposed to her biological age) - particularly the front line work that DYK is, is more than enough to win my strong support.--
'''Support''', not that familiar with the candidate, and I don't even like DYK as it exists, but the nom by Mailer Diablo and comments by various other supporters, particularly Newyorkbrad, convince me to support. Quite unconvinced by the opposes.
'''Support''' - I do not care how old you are, because based on my review of your last 600-700 edits you seem very mature. People need not associate one's age with their level of maturity, as that can be very misleading. You seem to have a good understanding of policy and appear to work well with others, both very important qualities for an admin to have. You also do very good work in the Christian music area of the project. Good luck with the mop, not to jinx you, but this will clearly succeed. I trust you will be a very good admin.
'''Support''' I was surprised when I saw in the Oppose section that Jamie is a high school student. She sounds much more poised and mature than many people I know 10 years older. I think she will do well with the tools, and it is good to have a variety of ages, genders, and other diversities on the admin team. &mdash;
'''Support''' This user has the experience, knowledge, maturity, and temperament to be a good administrator here.
'''Support''' User has been around since Nov 2007 and track and contributions are good and see no concerns.User has used rollback very well and has substantial content contributins.Also as per Mailer Diablo and Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''', and always have supported from the start. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' - I have known Jamie since she joined Wikipedia, hardworking and trustworthy, and people that oppose based on age are immature themselves and should be taken to a secluded place and shot..enuf said!!.. good luck..--
'''Support''' - Royalbroil and Mailer? That's good enough for me (and DYK work). <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''A thousand times, yes!''' —
'''Support''': per above. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Strong Support'''. Good answers to questions. Very good content contributions too. This is the best candidate I've seen in a long time. Jamie is exactly what an admin should be.
'''Support''' Certainly. —
'''Strong support''' Worked with me in [[WP:SPOTLIGHT|Spotlight]], great article contributions evidenced by a number of DYKs, very good with new page patrolling/speedy deletion, extremely civil. I would have nominated her last time, but she did not canvass in the least bit (in fact, I didn't even know it was going on until later).
'''100 Support!''' Trustworthy editor with a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice.  Great answers to the questions also. '''
'''[[IT'S OVER 9000|IT'S OVER 100!!!]]''' Trustworthy, I see no reason to oppose. <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''. Candidate will do fine with the tools. — '''''
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
''Fine.''
'''Support:''' I thought the way that Jamie's first RfA went was a huge shame.  I watched it develop and felt truly sorry that so much unnecessary drama was hauled in where it didn't belong.  I did, however, think that Jamie handled it admirably.  Since then, I've seen her around and at DYK and I'm confident that she will make an excellent admin.   She is clearly intelligent, thoughtful, and dedicated.
'''Strong support:''' If I judge from the help she gave me at the [[René Dagron]] DYK she would be a very helpful, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and extremely polite admin. What else could one ask from an admin? Or from anyone for that matter?
'''Support'''.  Quite ridiculously helpful, kind, knowledgeable, and resourceful.  I have no doubt she'll use the tools wisely given the common sense and judgment evident throughout her contributions.
The user has made strides in good content work, which I applaud, but reading through the previous RfA (which I do feel was derailed for some minor reasons) I'm not comfortable supporting when it's been (in my opinion) a relatively short period of time since the last RfA. In addition, my concerns about AfD's are not assuaged by a look at recent XfD activity. Non-admin closures to SNOW pages does not demonstrate judgement, poor or no, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Au_Revoir&diff=283234968&oldid=282970577 this kind] of close is definitely not what we need. The user has actually commented very little on AfDs, and when she does I am rather unimpressed with the rationales. --<font color="#cc6600">
Evidence has not been presented to offset concerns from the first RFA, less than one year ago.  This editor is still a young kid, so I'd want to see evidence of unusual maturity beyond her years.  All I see here is a bunch of hand-waving and people claiming the first RFA was really awful.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
Sorry, but I can't support anyone still at high school. If there was a subset of buttons available to help you in your excellent work at DYK then I'd have no hesitation in supporting, but unfortunately there isn't. --
'''Oppose''' per Friday and Malleus. --
'''Oppose''' - User mentions DYK as one of their areas to work in. To be a DYK is a different set of attributes and requirements to be a CSD, AFD, etc, admin. You work on the mainpage and you select things that can have great ramifications. This requires a high level of maturity, an intimate understanding of the selection process, and an understanding of templates. I have no confidence that this user can perform the job adequately, and I cannot support in any way as they have expressed their intentions in this area and I think that it will be a harm to the Wiki.
'''Oppose''' - I have a few concerns. First, I think there's a bit of pandering in her answers. This is, of course, only my opinion, so don't jump my rump about it. In particular, the answers to my (asked by GlassCobra) BLP questions, seem noncommittal. That to me is probably my biggest concern. We need help in the area of BLP, not editors who are sort of indifferent about the whole thing. However, minors are not the best to be handing such sensitive matters anyway. The more time I spend as an admin, the more I realize just how many unseemly things come across my screen, and there is much I don't think Jamie would do well to handle. As others have justifiably pointed out, Jamie is young. Requests for examples of extraordinary maturity have been met with arguments, not diffs. Unfortunately, we can't assume all teenagers here are AnonymousDissidents. There has been too many examples of problematic admins with poor histories (in this RFA even) who make it obvious that caution is necessary when promoting young admins. Do I think Jamie would have the sort of meltdown that we've seen in some others? Not at all, but I don't feel that adminship would benefit Jamie. Net positive? Maybe for the project, but I think Jamie would be better off as an editor, not an admin. I have additional concerns regarding the areas she plans to work and the diffs posted above showing some questionable edits in those areas.
'''Weak oppose''' - This RfA is on the road to success, so this weak oppose is intended mainly to get Jamie's attention -- to encourage her future improvement. I have "seen" Jamie at DYK and have been positively impressed by her productivity and good nature. I had no inkling that she was young, and in fact I find her to be far more mature in her behavior than many Wikipedians who are apparently a good deal older. I think she has demonstrated the personal maturity necessary for the admin role -- including the good judgment to stay away from matters she doesn't understand. I have, however, been vaguely bothered by an apparent high tolerance for bad writing, both in sources (for example, illustrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=286652726 this DKY nom], which she rescued nicely after the issue was discussed) and (as indicated by the fact that she has inserted them into hook sets) in poorly worded hooks nominated by others. Now that I know that she is young, I recognize this (particularly the tolerance for meaningless blather found in music reviews) as youthful inexperience, and I hope Jamie will recognize that this is an area for future growth. --
As scanning through [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JamieS93]], I'm not convinced that the concern over the candidate's "maturity" issue is cleared this time. So I remain here for a while.--
'''Neutral''' Per Caspian blue. --
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''' There is the odd issue raised in the oppose section that for the time being is holding me back from supporting but i get the feeling too many of those oppose votes are motivated by other reasons than the quality of the candidate or even thier age so I refuse to be seen as possibly being part of that so for the time being, neutral. '''
As nom, &ndash;
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; seen him around, will do a fine job. –'''
Support as co-nom.
'''Support''' Good bot op. '''
I've seen nothing but good things from Jarry, he's a very sensible member of the community who would do well with the tools. Pending no major skeletons in his contributions, I'm very happy to support. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Looks great! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Knowledgeable. Clean block log. Deleted contributions look good, and even show a few instances of trying to clean up articles to avoid deletion, suggesting he won't haphazardly swing the mop around.
'''Support''' - Should be a fine admin.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' I've never supported someone in an RFA before, but I am supporting this editor.  The editor has never been blocked, has a good number of edits in WP/WP talk namespaces, is willing to help editors and is quite polite while doing it.  I cannot think of any reason why this editor might abuse the tools that come with being an admin.--
'''Support''' I like the answers to the questions. Also, looking at Jarry's contribs, I see nothing that would suggest he would misuse the tools. Good luck.
'''Support'''  Very useful contributor to Wikipedia, no evidence that he will abuse the tools, polite and helpful.
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with the candidate, but also because the oppose by {{user|CWii 3}} really irritated me. '''
'''Sure''' I see no issues.
'''Support'''.  Jarry1250 does great work with the BAG, and like many others, I already thought he was an admin.
'''Support''' - Sure! :) – ('''
'''Strong Support'''-reliable trustworthy user-good for stalking! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support'''. I think Jarry1250 would make an excellent admin, and his skill set would be enhanced by having access to the admin tools. I don't see anything which leads me to believe the tools would be abused, and a lot which indicates they tools would be used for a lot of good. ···
[[WP:Net positive|Support]]. <font color="navy">'''
'''Sure''' —
'''Weak support''' Good work in all areas.  However, you should have a higher manual edit count.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
The first time I saw his note at WT:RFA, I knew he was going to be a really, really good admin. Civil, intelligent, and very talented with bots. '''
Liked Answer 12. seems unlikely to hastily delete.
'''Support'''. Trusted as BAG-member, speedy-work looks good, seems like a sensible candidate for the mop, I see no concerns. Regards '''
'''Support''' Big fan of Jarry's work all around, but especially relating to bots and BAG.  True desire to make the place better and more amenable, and I see the  administrator tools as the next, logical extension of the interests of the candidate.  We had a very (brief) agreeable disagreement which lends strongly to my !vote. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. An excellent user. '''''
'''Support'''. Dependable bot-operator --
'''Support'''. I was a little considered about your deletion work, but couldn't find any problems in your recent AfDs. The answer to Q5 is what I was looking for, and your bot work seems top notch. No reason not to trust you with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Treat this as a co-nom. I have interacted with him at BAG and Botrequests and found him to be a very sensible and polite person. I trust him with the bots ( oh yea, mop here ! ) --
Why not?
'''Support''' <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''A++++++''', would buy from again.
Bot-knowledgeable admin equals win. '''
'''Support'''. BAG work means a lot to me at RFA. - Dank (
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''': highly intelligent, tech-savvy, administratively savvy, good people skills. I like his bot and I like the way the bot page is documented—sets a good standard. BAG will be increasingly important at WP, so his adminship is a step forward. Well done.
'''Support''': All of my interaction with Jarry1250 has been greatly positive and I have no doubt that he will make good use of the tools. –
'''Support'''. I don't agree with all of his opinions. However he gives considered comments and collaborates well.
'''Support''' but do some more work on AfD please. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support''' No major(or minor) issues.
—&nbsp;
'''Solid''' candidate, per Rod Hull, ''and'' Emu.
'''Support''' - Trust nominators judgment. —
'''Support:''' My authority on the subject has declared his speedy work is ok so far, so that's that important box ticked for me.  And he clearly has what is (to me) the most important attributes of any potential admin: intelligence, the application of said intelligence, self-awareness, and the ability (nay, preference) to back away from drama.  What could go wrong?
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''', more admins needed, good candidate for this. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Erudite and sensible. Clue present.
I'm
'''Support''' Has clue.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', read quite a few RfAs without commenting, this one just strikes me as a strong case of "Why not?"  --
[[WP:AGF]]--
'''Support''' – having ran into this user at the village pump several times, is very knowledgeable and willing user who goes out of his way to help out.
'''Support''' and ''[[Mrs. Slocombe|I am unanimous in this]].'' '''-'''
'''Support''' 7/8 months not enough? To me, this user has demonstrated that he can be trusted. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' No problems here. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seems solid and trustworthy.
'''Support''' I've encountered Jarry in several areas, and the editor always bring calm, well-reasoned, and considerate posts to the the table.  Strong answers to the questions (even keyboard ones), and a dedicated Wikipedian who can bring good things to the project with a couple extra buttons. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having never been blocked or having had any memorable negative interactions with me.  Best, --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate. — '''''
'''Support''' per 20Q.
'''Support''' I've had positive interactions with Jarry1250 in the past, and believe he would do well with the tools. --Happy editing!
'''Support'''. Good editor. '''
'''Support''' - no worries. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''', no reasons to oppose at all.
'''Support''' seems to know what s/he's doing and good answers to questions.
'''Support''' - looks good: sufficient time, edit count, and article work.  We could use an admin who is a member of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject.  No major concerns.
'''Support''' Seems capable, good luck...
'''Support''' - he has been reliable and very helpful with the [[WP:POST|Signpost]] &mdash; traits that I think would also make him a good admin. --
'''Support''';;; He has been reliable and has demonstrated a clear and thorough knowledge of his subjects, namely heraldry and history, even though he has only been here awhile, and writes in a clear and coherent style. He is sysop material.
'''Support''' knows what he is doing. <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' - From what I've seen, he's a reliable user with a lot of experience for such a short time of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing him as an admin.
'''Qualified Support''' - Has been a good contributor to the discussion on renaming [[Conservative Party (UK)]]. Bit dismissive at first, but is now really mediating well.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Oppose''' It's probably better by most people's standards to be alone in the Oppose section than have your only proponent be a banned user, but hopefully this won't discredit my opinion too much. I just don't see enough experience in relevant project areas to trust you with the tools at this point.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
He's got some decent contributions, including a GA or two, but I am concerned about how long he has been here. There's no bright line for how long is long enough, but to me he's on the wrong side. That said, there were no glaring answers or contributions I saw that would substantiate my fears, so I am going neutral. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Support ''' per above.--
'''Support''' Based on positive previous interactions. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' John is one of our very best users in deletion areas. He always uses accurate CSD, and is kind towards newbies. I trust him not to abuse the tools, and think he would use them very well in deletion and blocking. I agree with the nominations, and think it would be a great benefit to a number of areas if John got the admin buttons. -
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Clueful user who has demonstrated a lot of skill in different areas. I am aware that he has not got good or featured articles to his credit but improving the small things, sourcing and cleaning up articles otherwise doomed to be speedy deleted and helping new users writing articles is just as important to the continued growth of this project. John has shown that he is knowledgeable in many areas of the project, polite and civil when dealing with other users, especially newbies and that he is willing to learn and improve what he does not already know. In short, I think we can all agree that he is a great candidate for the mop. :-) Regards '''
'''Support''', per my nom and all others. --
'''Support''' per noms and SoWhy. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], trusted and experienced editor with a well-written series of nominations. –'''
'''Support''' - A commitment to both the encyclopedia and communication with other editors, a good grasp of the relevant policies, several years of diligent application of them, and a courteous and constructive approach with others. Highly successful work over two years in anti-vandalism, anti-hoax and various gnomish activities. Some more article contributions would have been nice, but not the end of the world and nothing compared with the hard work over the years.
Sounds like a great candidate! Glad to '''Support'''!
'''Support'''. Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' The anti-hoax work is impressive.  I kinda wish I could see what those pages looked like.
'''Support''' SoWhy took the words out of my mouth.--<big>
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' - Everyone knows how I like strong article work; however this editor has done great work and I'm inclined to look past the lack of article content. '''
'''Support''' - I like how you work with authors to improve new articles, rather than consigning them to the [[Inferno (Dante)|flames]] of deletion.  Keep up the good work!  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Excellent work related to new pages. --
Why not.
'''Weak support''' not the heavy content work I would hope for, however does have above-average CSD work, a level head on his shoulders, good answers to the questions and no immediate issues on browsing his recent AfD and general contribs. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' &ndash; – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support'''
Solid candidate. - Dank (
'''Support''' I am happy to support this wonderful editor.
On examining this user's contributions, it's a straight support from yours truly.—
'''Strong Support''' - From personal experience, I'll say that JohnCD is an awesome Wikipedian, incredibly helpful, and would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. -- '''
'''Support''' Impressive tenure and edit count, satisfactory answers to questions, clearly has clue.
Another experienced maintenance worker, who will make a good admin. '''
'''Support.'''  Intelligent, thoughtful candidate.--
'''Support''' from numerous favorable experiences with his editing, temperment, and knowledge. '''
'''

--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Amazingly Super Strong Elastic Support''' I'm happy with this editor. He is positive of having a go, as I have seen with his contributions.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Shows strong knowledge and experience in the areas mentioned and does great work. Excellent candidate, no doubt for adminship. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' - Have had very positive interactions, and see him around a lot. Looks good to me.

[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, JohnCD. —
'''Support''' – This user is not an admin, yet?
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Why not?
'''Support''': Great editor.
'''Support''', thank you for clarifying, and that's a well considered position on something that's been very problematic recently.
'''Support''': Not familiar with him but he seems like an excellent candidate. I was especially impressed with some of his observations about the BLP process. ''54,000''! Sheesh.
Yup.
Ran into him [[Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/Riana|here]], checked out some of his work on hoaxes and new page patrolling, wondered why he isn't an admin. Quite literally stumbled across this RfA - how fortuitous! All the best. ~

'''Strong Support:''' This is a near perfect Candidate -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good work overall - an impressive candidate. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  Not the most exciting editor, but meets my standards.
'''Support''': User is ready to be an admin. [[User:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="lime">*Pepper</font>]][[User talk:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="grey">piggle*</font>]]
'''Support''' -- No concerns.
'''Support''' I see no problems here. Impressive record.
'''Support''' JohnCD is truly a wonderful candidate. I've seen him at AfD before, and I'm routinely impressed by his well-reasoned arguments. In examining his RfA and his contributions, I think his anti-hoax work stood out to me more than anything else. His expansion and sourcing of stubs also impressed me. No complaints here; adminship for JohnCD can only be a benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - an excellent editor who blows [[User:Airplaneman/RFA|my requirements]] away! Also, per MuZemike :).
'''Support''' – has been behaving like an admin in many ways for a long time, despite not yet having the tools. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''support''' While I often feel that admins should have great contributions to main articles GA's, FA's, and such, there is something to be said for the amount of work this editor does with less-rewarding projects and helping new users.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Very experienced user, no real issues apparent. Will likely excel in administrative functions and put the tools to good use, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - not an admin already? [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. I haven't had any direct interactions that I recall, but I have seen JohnCD around and I have no issues at all with his contributions, etc. Based on what I have seen, I anticipate no problems with abuse of the tools. ···
'''Support''' Good rounded editor. Have personal experience of his speedy tagging which IIRC I have never had reason to decline.
I'm
'''Three thumbs up''' (extra thumb due to a cloning-related incident) --
'''Support''' per the opposer. If that's the best "dirt" that can be found in looking at every comment the candidate ever made at AFD, I see no problem with them as an admin. --
'''Support''' no question. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor, who will make a good admin from what I can see -- '''
'''Support''' John is an exceptionally impressive candidate and I have no doubt he will make an equally great administrator.--
'''Support''', no obvious concerns.
'''Support''' Like [[User:Aaroncrick]], I would have preferred seeing a more active record of article editing, but John's long-term and  clueful contributions to deletion debates and new-page-patrol have convinced me to add my support.
Isn't already? That can't be right!
'''Support'''. Seems like a fine editor with the appropriate knowledge and understanding of policy. The hoax spotting is particularly impressive. I'm sure JohnCD would make a fine administrator and would make good use of the tools.
'''Strong Support'''. All answers satisfactory, in my opinion 1 & 2 especially... no concerns with this user. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  Now the following are by themselves supportable as reasonable stances: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Slagle&diff=206670227&oldid=205878288], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W.I.T.C.H._The_Movie:_The_Ultimate_War&diff=204279799&oldid=204212798], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chihuahua_heights&diff=280640496&oldid=280552040], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Scott_Hilk&diff=278137520&oldid=278129312], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jieming_Unit&diff=183029499&oldid=182981653], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regular_coffee_for_a_regular_guy&diff=206567736&oldid=206035276], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runescape_secret_letters&diff=213106194&oldid=213054638], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sesis&diff=196983531&oldid=196927801], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Patrick_Star_Show&diff=223898652&oldid=223897961], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_musical_parody&diff=227469320&oldid=227468431], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/W.I.T.C.H._The_Movie:_The_Ultimate_War&diff=204279799&oldid=204212798]; however, the next batch are opposable for the indicated reasons: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlanta_in_fiction&diff=173968771&oldid=173932877] per [[Wikipedia:Merge and delete]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eve_Carson&diff=196875269&oldid=196873379] (verifiability is sufficient), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_Admiral_(Honorverse)&diff=197937664&oldid=197932796] per [[WP:PERNOM]] and [[WP:PRESERVE]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icelandic%E2%80%93Kosovan_relations_(2nd_nomination)&diff=294348268&oldid=293961301] per [[WP:PERNOM]], [[WP:JNN]], and [[Wikipedia:Merge and delete]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ctrl%2BAlt%2BDel_characters&diff=230019871&oldid=229996615] as Plot is disputed, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pop_100_Airplay_number-one_hits_of_2005&diff=197984619&oldid=197972114] per [[WP:PERNOM]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pete_Olson&diff=214496016&oldid=214494531] per [[WP:JNN]] and [[WP:V]] being all that really matters, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof_Jacqueline_Eales&diff=195583210&oldid=195582208] per not indicating how, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sesis&diff=196983531&oldid=196927801] per [[WP:ITSCRUFT]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivian_S%C3%B8rmeland&diff=210079465&oldid=210077827] per [[WP:PERNOM]] and [[WP:JNN]].  I give the candidate credit for having never been blocked, but as the above suggests he seems much too inclined to delete rather than to improve per [[WP:BEFORE]] and [[WP:PRESERVE]] and as such I do not trust the judgment/unbias in closing AFDs.  Sincerely, --
I cannot support a user who gives a block-evading abusive user a platform to continue their antics. Administrators are supposed to stem this type of behavior, not encourage it. See question 7.--
'''Strong Support''' Per my nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I do not always agree with how he does things, but he's very active, and we can do with more active admins. '''
'''Strong support''' per my excellent personal interactions. He will do great work. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - If only because of image specialty.
'''Support''' though the guy stole my signature.--
'''Support''' <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' per my co-nom. '''
'''Support''': If it means he'll stop asking me to do things ;-). -
'''Support'''Per excellent nominators, edits, count and summary. Basically, why not! :)
'''Support''' - per Rjd0060 :P
'''Strong Support''': I've had the pleasure of working with this user on Commons, and I believe that he would make a great administrator especially with his experience working with Images :).  All the Best,
I seriously thought you were already an admin. I don't say that lightly. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''': And if you become an admin, make sure you ask me for the script that deletes Grawp redirects too, so you stop move conflicting with me and getting there first!
'''Support''' Tested and true. '''
'''Support''' Per positive long-term interaction.&mdash;
'''Support'''. Most definitely. <font  face="georgia">'''
Fuck yes.
'''Support''' I have worked with Kanonkas a fair amount at different times and have found him a competent and trustworthy editor. I believe he would make a good admin and will greatly help the project particularly with respect to image issues. My first impression was from the conversation we had as noted in question 3 and while he pushed back hard I considered his reactions reasonable and he demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt, which I strongly appreciate. As an admin I expect he will continue to act competently in whatever areas he chooses to get involved with.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate - will make a great admin.
'''Support''' '''
'''Yes'''
'''Support'''. No problem here. --'''
Saw this while it was in the subpage form. Excellent user, no need to worry. [[WP:QUAKE|₪]]<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Complete support'''
Can't really say this anymore, as the admin highlight script stops that, but ''I thought he already was one!'' '''Support''' a clueful user, who has a good grip of policy.
'''Support'''. Personal interactions on Commons, I'm comfortable with the candidate.
'''per nom's'''
'''Strong support''' - You probably don't know me, but I sure know you and the great work you do. As an admin I'm sure you'll do even better. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I have to say thanks for your contributions, Kanonkas.  I think an established editor and sister-project admin would be a conducive addition as an admin to WP.  Good luck!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' Haven't been on Commons much, but the noms show that he will make a great sysop!
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' per Nrdg
'''Support''' - Everything looks good. No problems here.
'''Support''' My neutral vote's concerns got cleared up pretty quickly :) <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
'''Support'''--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and per the fact that {{user|Kanonkas}} has shown himself to be a trustworthy, level-headed user here, and admin at the Commons. '''
'''Support''' per his good contributions on Commons. Actually, I have no idea about his contribution here, but he is one of civil and decent admins on Commons, so I don't have any doubt on his admin tool here too.--
'''Support''' this is what our last other-wiki admin could have been had he not been new to the English Wikipedia.
'''Support''' good answers to questions, 100%/100% edit summary usage, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. This user works in lots of admin-y areas. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Strong support''' - I have had the honor of knowing Kanonkas as a en.wiki contributor. After seeing his work on commons, I too was thinking of nominating him for adminship. In a nutshell he is a helpful editor who's edits have been a net positive bother here and at commons. I have no doubt he will make a great addition to the administrative team.
'''Support''' - an understanding of image policy, a calm and helpful demeanour. Seems like an excellent candidate. Good answers to questions, also.
'''Support''' Everything looks good, confident he won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Not a single reason to oppose at all, will make a fine addition and we always can use more admins in the File:-mainspace. '''
'''Support''' ''
An excellent editor who is as active as I'd want an adminstrator candidate to be.
'''Support''' Nothing to add. —'''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' I've known Kanonkas for a few months, and I think he knows what he's doing. :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''', yes. --
'''Support''' we need more image specialists, but I would like for you to spend some of the time over at FAC helping out, or helping those prep images for FAC. It would be nice, and an admin at both here and commons would make transwikis and other things go smoother.
'''Last ever !vote in a RfA support''' - This is John Sloan here, I am not going to involve myself with RfA anymore as I believe it to be a severely broken process. Some people call it a discussion, some people call it a vote. Both seem to be wrong. I find it fitting that my last contribution here is made using my alternate account. Anyway, i'm delighted that my last act here is to support a fantastic user like Kanonkas. You will certainly make a fine sysop on en.wikipedia, of that there can be no doubts. '''
'''Support''' Don't know him but have seen his work here and a little bit on commons and think he will do fine.—
'''Support''' Solid contributor, good answers to questions, no red flags.
'''Support''' I would have co nomed i i had the chance. 110% support <font color="blue">'''
'''
'''Support''' Extremely trustworthy. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' User has been around since July 2007 and is an admin in Commons.Do not see any misuse of tools and think giving tools will only be a net positive to the project.
'''No doubt strong support''' <font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Support''' as candidate is an admin elsewhere (i.e. admin experience), has never been blocked, and due to no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Seems to be an upstanding user. Good luck,
I haven't much else to say. —
'''Support''' Yes! '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Also, help with image backlogs would be appreciated.
'''Support'''. A very able user. '''''
'''Support''' - I know his work on commons, and have great faith that he will use the admin tools responsibly. -''
Yes, definitely.
'''Support''' A very strong candidate - good luck with the mop.
'''Support''' No problems here, seems to be a good editor. <b>'''
'''Support''' - Good guy. →
'''Support'''. Image work? Hell yeah.
'''Support'''. Piling on like all the rest... What's not to like? <font color="777777">
'''Support''' - Positive interactions and observations from the Commons.  I have every confidence that Kanonkas will be a responsible admin here as well.
'''Support''' - respected admin on Commons and all the indications are that he will be equally respected on this Project.  Having a friendly admin with competences in images looks a great idea!
'''Support''' After looking at contribs, Support!
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support''': Helpful and active editor. <sup><small>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' I would have liked to see more article development. However, I was impressed by his admin work on Commons. He seems to understand the policies here as well. I think he will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. —<sub>
'''Joining Bandwagon Support'''.--
Early in Kanonkas' [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Kanonkas adminship tenure] at Commons, I and other more seasoned admins had a concern that K might be a bit quick to "[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Kanonkas&page=&year=&month=-1 block] first and ask questions later"... typically we like Commons to be a bit on the [[Commons:COM:MELLOW|mellow]] side. Kanonkas got some feedback about it, and while I would still urge him to be deliberate in carrying out any blocks, the ''way'' K responded to the feedback, with grace and genuine interest in self improvement, and concern for the views of fellow admins and other users, convinces me that my '''support''' is completely justified. I think K will do fine. ++
'''Support''' Definitely. Looks like a very good candidate. Already has experience as an admin too.
'''Support''' Can be trusted. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' as per Lar.  When a steward votes in an RfA and even votes in support of a candidate, I think that that goes to show something good for a user ;).  Good luck!  Cheers,
'''Support''' No problems here, well-rounded user. '''
'''Support''' Looks good from here. '''<font face="times new roman">
Conduct inspires trust. <font color="404040">
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support'''. Good addition to admins. '''[[User:MathCool10#top|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MathCool10#top|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' – Solid. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - of course! Kanonkas will be a fine admin :) -
'''Support''' --
May as well.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Yep!
Hello, I'm Keanu Reeves and I'm here to promote my new book "How to Be a Movie Star Without Being Able to Act"...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for someone who is definitely a star among editors!
'''Support''' success...and good luck..
'''Support'''. Good analysis for Q13. Shows awareness of nearly all the factors I think relevant to these two cases.
'''Support''' Sure :) --
'''Support''' Sure!--
'''Oppose''' This user's signature is too good. *Jealous* <small>This a support by the way, just a note in case some B'crat is up in the middle of the night closing this Rfa when he/she should asleep.</small> --
'''Support''' Of Course!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Neutral.''' As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer supporting any candidates with more than 3500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a "support" if this RfA enters the discretionary range.
'''Support'''. A glowing nomination statement from someone I trust; good question answers, and nothing dodgy from a review of recent contribs. Looks like a great candidate. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Seems to have clue.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
Normally this is one I'd oppose for lack of work on large-scale articles, but I've seen enough of KS4B about to agree that this is someone who understands how things ought to work around here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' Appears to be a trustworthy editor and a net positive.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' I don't see any problems. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
"Kate, short for Bob"? That wouldn't be a reference to ''The Black Adder'', would it? Anyway, I'm ready to trust you even though you only have about 1k edits after April last year. You're by no means inexperienced, and I can find no problems looking at your contribs. Also, what Mazca said.
'''Support''' Can't find anything wrong, oppose isn't nearly enough, great project work...[[WP:WHYNOT]]? Cheers, '''''
'''Support''' For strong work in copyright.  Lack of audited contributions really is not and should not be a problem.  Will make a good sysop.  Good Luck.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' as I see nothing which indicates the tools would be abused, and quite a lot which shows they would be put to good use. Net positive by a wide margin, I believe. ···
'''Support'''. I was going to go neutral over lack of, well, stuff, but then realised that 8000 is actually more than enough to judge whether this person is a good admin candidate (and I realised I was being hypocritical). All my interactions with the user have been positive (although not particularly numerous), so I've no doubt the the nominee will be a respectful admin. A bit liberal on the "minor edit" button, though. Should this pass, the canidate should also tread a bit more carefully than most because of lack of recent "janitorial" contributions (deletions, par exemple). -
'''Support''' - Will make good use of the tools. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Good editor. Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' seems to be a good editor who could make good use of the tools. Article work presented shows an understanding of core [[WP:POLICY|policies]] of [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:V|verifiability]].
'''Support''' -- the IAR answer worried me, but its heart was definitely in the right place. Definitely appears to have a good handle on how things are done. Hmm, I think it's time for my first optional question. :-) --
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; yeah, article work would be good, but the school needs janitors just as much as it does teachers. –'''
'''Support''', after a fair bit of thought.—
'''Support''' I thought about this hard. I was concerned about the lack of article work on the merit that you shouldnt delete something if you havent developed an article on your own (but whats the basis?). But The previous csd work counteracts this. A helpful tone on the help desk and a dedication to the project are all reasons to support. I have no doubt Kate will be a fine admin.
'''Support'''.Hmm, tough this one with the lack of article experience (I cant talk lol!), but I think there is no specific reason not to support.
'''Support''' I don't see a problem in supporting Kate. Good luck!
'''Support''' Where are people getting the idea that Kate hasn't created any articles?  The RfA toolbox shows 5 articles created by Kate, most of them more or less singlehandedly, and they all look pretty good to me (no stubs or OR or "needs improvement" tags).  Feel free to show me if I've made a mistake.  (Note: to prevent others from running the (apparently rather resource-intensive) script again, here is the list of five: [[ASIL Lysi]], [[SCIF Kyiv]], [[Yilishen Tianxi Group]], [[Downhill House]], [[Noel Carroll (runner)]].)  -- ''<B>
'''Support'''.  Solid, helpful editors generally make solid, helpful adminstrators.  No logical reason to believe otherwise, IMO.
[[WP:AGF|AGF]] in spite of incorrect answer to question as JC pointed out.
'''Support''', no reason not to. I quite like the Blackadder reference as well :P
'''Support''' please follow the suggestion to re-read [[WP:IAR]], because your understanding their is incomplete. But this should not affect your efficianr handling of the tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. Okay, the IAR answer was not accurate, and it'd be nice to see more article work. However, here is an editor who is helpful and mature. To me, content contributions are not directly related to adminship. It helps to have hands-on experience in article improvement, though, and knowing how to work with issues such as BLP violations, promotional material, and sourcing articles. Thus giving the admin a better sense with AFD discussions, edit war page-protection, and the like. As long as an editor has good underlying [[WP:COMMON|common sense]], I have no worries if they lack GA/FAs. Kate will most likely do a great job with the admin tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]]'s comment above and discussion under "neutral" below.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive.
Always happy to support someone who's willing to work on copyvio categories and taking out the trash. Answers to Kingpin's CSD questions are good, and I any editor who doesn't hesitate to tag or delete copyvio with impunity gets an A (or an S, as it were) in my book. <b class="Unicode">
The evidence in the oppose section doesn't bother me. I feel Kateshortforbob adequately knows the policies related to the areas in which he/she plans to work as an admin, and communication is fine. Therefore, I'm happy to '''support''' this request.
Looks good to me.  Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' per several above, including Jamie and NYB. Good luck!
'''Support''' You are worthy enough to use the tools in my eyes.
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' I will support this one, given that no bogus or dressed-up claims about content contribution have been made.  People who support the project in this way deserve recognition and help and - unless any further digging reveals something deeply unpleasant - I am pleased to support this one.
'''Weak Support''' I've thought about this for a while and I would like to see more content building but hopefully Kate can become a good admin. '''
'''Support''', despite weak clarification of a patently wrong Q4a answer. While I like to see admin candidates know policy inside and out, I don't think this swing-and-a-miss is cause for alarm. Article work is up to my standards; net positive for the project.
'''Support''': A few minor errors. Nothing to make me want to scream and run away. He has a clue.--
'''Support''' as nominator. \
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' See no concerns and user track is okay and user has used rollback well.
'''Support''' Everything that I've seen has been done right, good luck with the tools! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - That 9b answer impressed me, a lot of editors aren't familiar with Wikipedia's noncommercial restrictions to this level of detail. --
'''Support''' without reservation. Candidate's record builds confidence that xe will use the tools well; the answers above are unusually thoughtful. --
'''Support''' Great answers.
'''Support''', no issues.
Odd, I thought I supported a few days ago. I've reviewed their talk page and a decent sample of their recent edits, and find no problems. Also, I have hope that someday, wikignoming, category work, and copyright work will be considered "real" article work too. --
'''Support'''. All looks well. &mdash;
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}'''—
'''Support'''. Article work is important but so is the incredible and thankless work of the networking of those articles to each other that make this project organic and dynamic. We need category workers and kind people to help newbies - who are so very easily abused - as well as those who can talk knuckleheads off the ledge. We each offer what we can and I see someone trustworthy to handle a mop.
'''Support'''.  You will make a very fine admin; I have had this page watchlisted since before you went on your break and am so happy to see it pop-up at last.
'''Support''' - Good editor with great judgement. Admin tools will certainly come in handy. What else can I say? Good luck!
'''Support''' - I appreciate the thoughtful answers to the questions above.
I'm in agreement with Peter Damian here actually.  Good luck... '''<font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedour[[WP:NODRAMA|<font style="color:#99CC99;">drama</font>]]</font>
'''Support''' - anyone who tries to save copyvio articles and fix them is a good user, and would no doubt be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - "Kate" has shown a reasonable level of dedication to the project, excellent reasoning skills, and an overall good temperament.  I am sure he/she will make a thoughtful and overall excellent admin. --
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions, exhibits maturity and good judgment.
'''Support'''  <font color="blue">[[User:Feinoha|Fei<font color="red">noh</font><font color="green">a</font> ]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Feinoha|Talk]],
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I sense no major reason to be concerned. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
I remember when I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AKateshortforbob&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 granted you rollback]: I'm delighted to see you running for adminship.
'''Support''' [[user:Javert/RfA|No problems here]]. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">
'''Weak Support:'''Let me AGF here because I dont see any reason for concern for abuse of tools.Yes, Please concentrate more time for article development also. Thats what we are all here for --
'''Oppose''' per lack of content contributions and I didn't like the answer given on 4a, especially the first part. [[WP:IAR]] has to do with ignoring a rule if it prevents one from improving the encyclopedia. That has nothing to do with not knowing the rules in the first place. While I agree that one shouldn't have to know all the rules in the first place (I don't know if anyone knows ''all'' the rules), I don't think IAR has to do with knowledge of the rules. Sorry! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - No more admin hopefuls with only a modicum of real article work.
I'm sorry. With your lack of content work I'm not prepared to support - even though I have to say I like the [[Blackadder|user name]] :). Wikipedia is, at a fundamental level, based on work to the mainspace. There is no question that in reality admin tools do not apply to creating content - but one would expect a reasonable level of experience before granting the ability to remove others from having the ability to add to said content - eg. through BLOCK and PROTECT.
'''Oppose''' per poor article building and lack of talk page usages.--
'''Oppose''' the lack of work on articles and talk pages makes it difficult to know whether you have full knowledge of Wikipedia policies which regard content contributions (which an admin is called upon to apply in many administrative decisions) and actually apply them in practice, not just in answering questions.  Thus, I do not know whether I can trust you as an admin.  I understand that you may only to intend to use the tools to further your reference and category work, but we don't hand out limited adminships.  In addition, talk page measures communication skills, utterly necessary to an admin.  I just don't have enough, so I have to oppose.--
'''Uncertain''' I'm wimping out on my oppose for now and moving to neutral pending further discussion. I have concerns about the limited experience shown in content building, dispute resolution and demonstrating you will exercise restraint and good judgment. But you seem decent and nice enough maybe to do the job. I'd hate to hold the crappy admins that have snuck through in the past against you. :)
Well, per your answer to Q9c consider this a "gentle nudge in the right direction". I disagree with your answer to Q9a; Basically, deleting as [[WP:CSD#A7]] is the worse option, and could likely be challenged, since it's a judgement call, whereas, since it's an obvious hoax (i.e. misinformation) I think G3 would be more appropriate (the page is obvious misinformation, as the person hasn't saved the earth from aliens 10 times). Also, per your understanding of [[WP:IAR|IAR]]. But I don't think this is sufficient to oppose on because (a) your CSD work is, in practice, ''very'' good (I checked a most of your taggings since mid-March), (b) you do do '''a lot''' of G12 noms, and we need more admins working there, and (c) you seem helpful to new editors (you seem to have interacted with some new editors who have had "their" page deleted). I'd like to see this pass, but I'm not going to push either way. And since I feel I should point out your error in your answer to my question, here I am in '''neutral''' :) -
I usually oppose based on lack of content creation/contributions, but you're an otherwise exemplary candidate. Please find some experience in this area, and I'll be happy to support you in future. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Yeah, neutral per lack of article creation/development work.  A single GA is not too high a bar for someone with your other contributions. No real concerns, I just prefer to see every admin have walked a mile in the hypothetical average content creator's shoes.
'''Neutral'''. I, too, am concerned by the mediocre content creation. Otherwise, Kateshortforbob has good contributions.
'''Neutral''' I too am  not satisfied with the answer to Q9a. To me,  " I have saved the earth 10 times"  is utter nonsense, though the words do form an English sentence. I would unhesitatingly and even singlehandedly (& I'm very hesitant about singlehanded deletions--but not for junk like that) delete such an article as Vandalism. It is not a good faith attempt to add content to the encyclopedia. An admin has to know what is appropriate to keep, but also what is worth getting rid of in the strongest way. I think some more experience would be helpful. I see this just as Kingpin does, and like him, I'm not willing to actually oppose. '''
'''Support''' as one of the nominators.
'''Support''' per nom. I see nothing really concerning. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' like a jockstrap
'''Support''' Been around, has a clue.  Good nom statement, should be a good admin.
'''Support''' No reason to think he is unworthy. '''
'''Support''' My review of KV5’s history on Wikipedia turned up no real concerns; rather, it made me think, “Wow! This guy is great!” His work on 32 [[WP:FL|featured list]]s, as well as numerous [[WP:DYK|DYK]]s and several [[WP:GA|GA]]s and [[WP:FT|FT]]s is nothing short of impressive. His content work is certainly among the best I’ve seen. It’s also good to see solid experience with [[WP:NPP|NPP]] and Mediation, even if he’s drifted away from the former recently (I can’t blame him…it’s rough). The only problematic edit I noticed was an incorrect closure at [[WP:PR]], which is no big deal. His lack of XfD experience is a minor concern. That said, KV5 is trustworthy, and I think he’d be just as helpful as an admin as he has been (and hopefully will continue to be) as a content contributor.
'''Support'''. Huh, though KV5 was already one.--
'''Strong Support''' Hard working, sensible editor and easily one of the finest non-admins around.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I particularly am impressed with his answers. I looked into his edit history and contributions to find numerous projects he has collaborated on. It's clear that this editor tries his best, and does a fine job, of staying calm and though there are a few examples of heated debate, he's only human and did a stand up job handling them. I don't see any reason why KV5 wouldn't be a strong addition to the Admin.
'''Support'''.  Very sad to see Kurt allowed back here.  I will make an attempt to cancel out all his absurd, agenda-driven votes.
'''Support''', Impressed by his answers and his contributions. &mdash;
'''Support''' a sound nomination.
Good content work and well-rounded, adequately trustworthy.  –'''
Nothing concerning that I can see.
Certainly seems more than capable. A definite +1 from me.
'''Support'''
Support <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''', calm and capable.
'''Support''' Clean block log, very longterm contributor, and I couldn't see anything wrong in his contributions. ''
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per nom. Metts my standards :)--
Duh! '''
'''Support''' - great contributions.
'''Support''' - I absolutely do not see any problems.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good candidate to me! Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' I've always had a positive view of Killer... although I just wish he wouldn't kill those birds!---'''
'''Support'''. "Content editor".
'''Support''' his candidacy but '''Oppose''' his choice of baseball team to support. The Dodgers wouldn't have let the Yankees win... grumble grumble. But seriously, I think KV is qualified for the tools. I hope I didn't throw off SoxBot's tally with this.
'''Support'''. The candidate has solid contributions and is capable.
'''Support'''.  Only real problem here is the user seems to be a [[Philadelphia Phillies]] fan.<!-- That was a joke, for those who take these things literally -->  Good amount of article contributions, and appears to be a trustworthy user. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support:''' The candidate has solid contributions and takes Wikipedia rules and guidelines seriously. -
'''Support''' - solid article writer and good answers
'''Oppose''' Phillies fan. But in all honestly, his content work is outstanding (providing templates for other FLs). I was considering going neutral over a lack of effective dispute resolution, but the great job done at [[Talk:Pete Rose]] clears up that concern. Cheers,
'''Support''' Has clue, will do. Clearly focused on improving the encyclopedia, and has a good knowledge of Wiki policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' (even though he's a Phillies fan).  Content work is without question of high quality.  His answers to the questions tell me that he will proceed cautiously with the tools and his comment that he will accept tutelage from an experienced admin (Soap) sealed the deal for me.  Good luck <font face="Century Gothic">
'''Strong Support'''. I've seen him around and worked with him before, I can attest that this is a great user!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Has been around for a while and has made good solid contributions. Gets my support. --
'''Support''' No issues. Go Phillies! '''
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here.
'''Support''', knows what he's doing, and I'd much rather see this degree of caution about admin tools than not — it shows he's aware of what can be done if he misuses them, so he's clearly going to be as careful as possible to use them properly.  There's nothing wrong with an admin who doesn't use admin tools too often; after all, we don't have a limit on the number of admins.
'''Support''', good balance between creating content and helping in the project space, clearly trustworthy.
'''Strong support''' - Fantastic candidate, very well-rounded in experience as well as having exceptional contributions to article space. -- '''
'''Support'''. As to the question of how little or much he intends to use these tools, that's entirely up to him. Seems like a great candidate.
'''Support''' Not much more to say. Great candidate and I trust his judgement to be able to use the tools well.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': non-dramatic, well-established, productive content editor; we can always use more admins like that.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] due to the following Top Five Reasons to Support KillervogelI5's Candidacy: 1) no memorbale negative interactions between us; 2) [[User:Killervogel5/Promoted_content]] towers above even all of mine at [[User:A Nobody/awards]]; 3) [[User:Killervogel5/Awards]] is good to see; 4) according to [[User:Killervogel5/Userboxen]], he "helps out newcomers";  and 5) has never been blocked.  Thus, collectively we have someone who has dedicated considerable time to building content while working well with and assisting his colleagues.  Put simply as far as I can tell, Killervogel5 is here to improve mainspace and therefore appreciates the work that goes into that, which is key when considering whether to destroy others' work by deletion and has yet to get into a conflict requiring a block, but rather has impressed his fellow editors enough to receive multiple barnstars.  I do not have ''anything'' negative to say here.  As far as suggestions, we can always use such talents at [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron]].  In any event, good work thus far on our project and good luck as an admin (yes, I know this discussion is not over yet, but it seems pretty clear where this election is headed).  Finally, kudos to [[User:Staxringold]] and [[User:Secret]] for selecting what appears a sound candidate to nominate.  Bravo!  Best, --
Strong content work = net positive. I have no doubt, from seeing this user around, that they when they have reservations they will ask for foresight. '''
'''Support''' - His efforts at [[Talk:Pete Rose]] show that he has the right instincts to help resolve article disputes. He's obviously a good contributor of content. I have no doubt he would make proper use of admin tools.
'''Support.'''  Solid, level-headed, long-standing editor who deserves the mop.  Even if he does support the wrong team.--
'''Support''' Excellent user.
I'm
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Strong Support]]''' - Excellent user, and meets all of my RfA standards.

I like the candidate's honest and humble statements, and that he tried his hand at mediation. The oppose and neutral votes show no basis for their allegations. &mdash;
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Killervogel5. —
'''Support''': Though scratching my head a little about adminship for what they admit would be mostly-AIV related with a large watchlist and use of "rules" since the only thing closet to calling such is IAR... editor seems ridiculously experienced in matters of articles and all things related related to articles in any imaginable way, and probably even more on top of that... Would have no problems with tools. With the self-admission of where they'd use tools, could this be an opening for looking at an RfA process for specalists in certain area. Good luck! <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, awards, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' – Looks solid for me. I don't see any glaring problems here.
'''Support''' Seems to be a competent editor, pleasure to work with at [[WP:BASEBALL]].
'''Support''' Candidate is strong in many areas. The answer to Question 7 pushed me over the edge by ensuring me that, should stress levels rise (as they are likely to for any admin), he/she would make the right decision to step back and take a short break rather than abuse the tools at his/her disposal. Perhaps a little more dramatic than I would have liked, but we all have our off-days, and the overwhelming evidence from other competencies severely outweighs that. --
'''Support''': Seems like a good sensible editor.
'''Home run''' —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' should be fine.
'''Support''' Can't seem to find any flaws, [[#Oppose|oppose]] and [[#Neutral|neutral]] are very weak, seems to fit the part, serious about the project while maintaining a sense of humor, which demonstrates great restraint and temper  '''~
'''Support''' per answer to question 4, and ability to communicate well and not get flustered. --
'''Support'''Great contributions to articles, and answers are refreshingly candid and show good judgment and attitude towards Wikipedia policies.
'''Support''' for Killervogel5. Great article work, even though it's not very broad in scope.
'''Support''' Great contributor; no reason this user should not be trusted. --<b><font color=red>
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - I don't see any big problems. Good luck! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''
'''Support''', no reason to believe user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I am happy with this editor's contributions, and answers to the questions. -- '''''
'''Support''' Very good editor.--
'''Support''' Good luck! --'''<font color="navy" face="Matisse ITC" size="2">
'''Support''' Civility FTW.
'''Weak Support''' I'd like to see more contributions outside of baseball.
'''Support''' A very sensible person to have at least on call as an admin when needed, and I hope his experiences will lead to his greater involvement. I didn't expect to use mine much either, but there were so many things that I kept seeing that needed a speedy-delete.  '''
Here we have a very well-rounded contributor. Not only do they have many content contributions, which is always a plus, but there is abundant evidence that this person has contributed positively to the admin areas of Wikipedia. They have tons of clue, and they're one of the most civil editors out there. This is an obvious support. <small>(
'''Support'''.  I've worked with KV on several pages, and have always found him to have the temperament and patience to make an excellent admin.  Would've supported earlier except I just noticed the nom now.  --
'''Support'''. Looks good!
'''Support'''--<span style="font-family: impact; font-size: larger">
'''Support''' of course! <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' Clueful enough for my standards. In regards to your answer to question 7, I do hope that becoming an administrator will further strengthen your motivation to stay and continue contributing. Wikipedia always needs good content contributors that specialize in certain subjects, and thanks to you and others like you Wikipedia's coverage of baseball-related topics is something to be proud of. (Now all we need is a jack-of-all-trades [[polymath]] to bring everything else up to par :) Good luck! --
'''Support''' - No problems here.
'''Support''' - No reason not to, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The opposer's concern, while less blatantly absurd than usual, is unpersuasive.
'''Support''' per editor A Nobody.
'''Support''' – I've seen this editor's work at FLC, both as a nominator and reviewer. He has always impressed me in both areas, and everything I've seen indicates that he would be a real asset for the admin corps. '''
I thought I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AKillervogel5&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1 saw the name before]. Fine editor.
'''Oppose''': claims to "take rules seriously," which is a major problem and indicates a total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates.  We don't have rules; we have our own judgment as to what is best in any given situation, possibly guided by precedent but ultimately deciding based on the situation at hand.
'''Neutral'''. Although I would feel comfortable with this user as an admin, the answer the Question #1 leads me to believe that said user may not use the admin tools much. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Neutral''' While I believe this editor would probably not abuse his tools and most of my interactions have leaned towards the positive side, there have been cases where I have been concerned about a bent towards ownership issues of articles. This leads me to wonder if the editor might try and use the "perceived power" admins have to exert more sway over certain articles. While not nearly enough for me to oppose, it is enough for me to not support. -
'''Neutral''' This editor looks good, however I am always uncertain whether or not he will abuse the powers.--<font color="759652">

'''Support''' I know Killiondude very well, both on-wiki and from his work on the IRC help channel. He has always been courteous and helpful, calm in the face of adversity, and prepared to ask for advice when he needs it. I think he'll make a great admin. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support'''. Very good edits, summaries, cotribs etc. Trusted user by me, so I can't see any reason why not. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. I've seen him about whilst helping editors in [[CAT:HM]]. He is a trustworthy candidate and will make a great admin.
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA_rationale]] Meets my criteria.
Helpful candidate, knows what he's doing. No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.
Looks good. Best of luck. '''
'''
Without reservation, yes. →&nbsp;
'''Support''' User has clue and is trustworthy. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - Great editor.
You've always come across as sensible, and you're getting some strong support here from people I respect, so it's very likely I'm going to support.  OTOH, you haven't answered any of the optional questions yet, so I'll check back from time to time. - Dank (
'''Support''', I've respected his work for quite a while. I assumed he was either an admin/had some serious character flaw like slaughtering puppies that would kill a perpetual RfA, because his editing work is brilliant and I couldn't see why he hadn't gone up for RfA before.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' yea. Good noms.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' - beat the nom? Candidate looks great. Please don't slaughter any puppies.
'''Support''' - Killiondude is definitely ready to be an admin. Good luck!
'''Support'''. I believe I saw Killiondude's edits somewhere and was impressed--though I'm not sure where. No problems I can see after a quick check. Good luck, '''
Absolutely. Not only is his anti-vandal work very impressive, he's constantly a civil, reasonable, and helpful editor to have around the Wiki. <small>(
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' No-brainer.  Qualified candidate.
'''Support''', for the Killions! --
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He won't go on a mass deleting spree. Has clue. Has my support.--
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' Always liked this guy.
'''Support''' One of the few non-controversial soon-to-be admins. No problem here! ;) Cheers, '''''
'''Support''' per Ironholds, my own interactions, and apparent lack of puppy slaughtering. '''
'''Support''' I have never had a negative encounter with Killiondude, and can't think of any other reason to oppose. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support''' as nom. (What's a watchlist do?)
'''Support''' - Very reasonable, supportive, and helpful. Would perform and function well as an administrator.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] per excellent editing history, admirable demeanor, and trustworthy nominators. –'''
'''Support'''. Why Not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''' It's harder to review candidates without toolserver working, but all indications are that he'd be a good admin.
[[WP:AGF]]--
I know Killiondude from IRC, Wikipedia, really anywhere, he's very nice, and understands policy and guidelines very well. Good luck.
'''Support''' and happy to do it.  Killiondude does a lot to help users requesting it, and I think wanting to use the tools for that purpose is extremely admirable. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' See no concerns and good track.
'''Support''' Yes, absolutely. →<font style="color:black">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' - looks to be a good contributor.
May as well add to the unanimous pile-on. =)
'''Support''' Absolutely,
'''Support''' Good track record, good contribs. Will definitely make a good administrator. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Definitely! ≈ '''
'''Support''' - Highly trustworthy user. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
You have done a very good job in many areas of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' I trust this user. &mdash;
'''Support''' Although I have never knowingly run into you, you seem like the right user for this "job".
'''Support'''.  I've been impressed with Killiondude's manner of conduct, both on and off-wiki.  Killiondude has been a huge help in dealing with some of the maintenance backlogs that I've created, and I'm confident he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' This editor seems like he is very dedicated to the cause, and is very involved in the community. I belive he has a good track record. GL [[Killiondude]]
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente and Deo Juvente, Killiondude. —
No concerns.
'''Support'''. My only major objections are [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-waste village|this]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DontGo&diff=prev&oldid=283731001 this]. The first demonstrated that you were at the time unfamiliar with attribution requirements, the second is one of your more serious misapplications of [[WP:CSD#A7|speedy deletion criterion A7]]. However, these are from some time back, and in my opinion outweighed by positive contributions. I trust that you will not repeat those mistakes. I thought your answer to Q14 was very good. <tt>
'''Strong support''', oh hell yes. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - (a) I know Killion from IRC, where he is consistently helpful to any and every user seeking help. (b) I honestly thought he was already an admin... —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' Not an admin? Huh.
'''Support'''. I like the answers and like the attitude.
'''Support''' should be a net positive.

Seeing the identity of the nominators is more than sufficient for me to support.
Bit young for my personal taste, but I have a good feeling about this one.—
'''Support''' – we already have too many shady and/or inactive users with the mop. Don't let us down.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Sensible.
'''Support''' No issues trusting this user to perform. '''
'''Support''' – <small>I feel late!</small> Great editor, no reservations about giving him the admin tools.
'''Support''' Insert boilerplate expression of surprise this editor isn't already an admin.--
'''Support''' No worries, will be a net positive to the project.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
Your content and communication look good.  As a result, I'm confident that you'll be a great admin. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''. No issues here. — '''''
'''Support''' - Killion has shown a dedication to Wikipedia through consistent editing over an extended period and has exhibited a calm and thoughtful demeanor on this RfA and on Wikipedia in general.  The answers to the questions were good and I see no serious issues in his past.  Should make a fine addition to the ranks of administrators. --
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions posed in this AfD. -
'''Support''' has clue, and I like the answers to the questions above. Seems a net positive. '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Yeppers - I've seen his work - no doubts here. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Of course. Per everyone else, nothing left for me to say. ≈&nbsp;
''''''<font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF4400>a</font><font color=#FF8800>i</font><font color=#FFBB00>n</font><font color=#FFFF00>b</font><font color=#BBFF00>o</font><font color=#88FF00>w</font> <font color=#44FF00>S</font><font color=#00FF00>u</font><font color=#00FF44>p</font><font color=#00FF88>p</font><font color=#00FFBB>o</font><font color=#00FFFF>r</font><font color=#00BBFF>t</font>''' --<strong>
'''Support''' - Great candidate.  When I saw someone with 100% positive I had to look and see if I could find what others were missing.  I have been unable to find it.  While your answer to Q8 worried me a bit (because we don't want admins or editors to guess how to do things without doing a bit of research) it was years ago, and your answer to #6 is so perfect I've forgotten about #8 already.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Support''' I've come back just to vote for The Transhumanist and Killiondude.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Support''' Cordial and intelligent. Can be counted on. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good. I'd prefer to have some conflicts to look at for how you would handle the stress, but it's hard to fault you for not getting involved in drama. Otherwise nothing but positive interactions with Killiondude. Stays focused on content, good at assisting users via helpme, requests for feedback, and other forums. -
'''Support''' - I think this candidate will do a good job as an administrator
'''Support''' - Yep!

'''Support''' - No reason to oppose.
No problems here. Now I'm just wondering if we can get a unanimous [[WP:100]]... --'''
'''Support''' per pretty much everything above.
Of course. '''
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' However I am afraid that this might be a [[WP:Snow]] :D <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Support''' great work to date, expect even more...
If '''[[User_talk:Kotra#Misuse_of_rollback|this]]''' is a general indicator of your calm and thoughtful approach I'm in. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' One of the most civil and neutral editors on wikipedia. Kotra has my undying love and support.
Consistent contributor and [[Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement#Alternative_picture|isn't afraid to be bold and find consensus on difficult articles]].
Good communication skills; competent enough for the low-complexity, small workload he plans to take on; excellent mainspace contributor. No reason to not grant the tools to the candidate. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' He is very civil and has good editing experience. He won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Per Pedro and rest.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support'''.  My brief personal observations of kotra on the project left me with no hesitation as to his ability to quickly evaluate an issue and respond reasonably.  I don't doubt that he will use the tools responsibly and competently.
'''Support''' - I see Kotra at RFCN all the time. I trust him completely.
'''Support''' I've seen kotra around and trust their judgement.
'''Support'''.  I really like all the diffs and his userpage.  Seems committed to [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]]. - Dank (
'''Support''' I like the initiative on the help desk to learn new information on how wikipedia works. Fairly consistent edits. Id support for now
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' Per Pedro and the answer to Q1. Cheers and good luck, --
'''Support''' - Certainly. Good editor, good natured, and I see no reason not to. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Unqualified support primarily based my interactions with Kotra and his comments and judgments in those areas.  As well as on his answers here, all the comments here so far, and my quick viewing of his edit history. RfA is more about trust and temperament than knowledge, as that can be learned on the job.  In fact, we all grow into our jobs. I have found Kotra to be very even tempered, fair, neutral, reasonable, and helpful. I highly trust him with the tools and believe he has the temperament in spades. Edit counts don't impress me much, past a few thousand or so. Length of experience is more important IMO. I would rather see civil and constructive interactions with others, ability to read policy and interpret it in the spirit it was intended, participation in more than one area of WP, and other evidence of the ability to be a good admin. If I had come to this RfA early enough, I would have co-nominated him, as Kotra acts like an admin already. —
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in a [[WP:AGF]] mold, i.e. not an editor I am that familiar with, but we don't seem to have had any glaring negative interactions and as canidate has never been blocked, I am willing to give the candidate a chance.  Best, --
'''Support''' - Pedro brought out a great example of civility.
'''Weak support'''. I would prefer a higher knowledge of key policies, but as far as I can tell you are an intelligent editor who will learn quickly.  Make sure you look at [[WP:ARL]]. Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''. Willing to work though tough situations and work toward the bigger goals of improving the project. Admin need to respect not just the letter but the spirit of policies and I see this candidiate doing that.
'''Support''' &ndash; No problems here. :D '''
I appreciate the confident and straightforward tone established by Kotra's nomination statement &mdash; what I initially perceived as slight hypocrisy in him referring to himself as being "incredibly modest", I believe that this claim is entirely warranted in considering the attitude he usually bears toward his fellow editors. Kotra will not abuse the mop.
'''Support''' per above.
I am concerned by the inexperience in article writing and deletion, and would normally oppose on those grounds. Out of a suspicion that attitude is more important than experience, I support instead.
'''Support''' a good contributor and knows what they're going. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' having reviewed Kotra's contributions I would put the policy knowledge comment down to modesty - from what I've seen the candidate works in a number of areas of the pedia and demonstrates good policy knowledge by their actions. ''
'''Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotra&diff=280725204&oldid=280713055 this] seems to me to be the kind of civil and courteous behaviour we need on wikipedia, especially in a volatile discussion that could quite easily have gone sour. I'd like to see more activity in AfD, for example, but that shouldn't stand in the way! Good luck.
'''Support per arguments already presented''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Tyrenius|Is requesting the tools for a limited area]], apart from the traditional "big three", in which user has the experience and temperament needed. Experience and temperament make up for overall lack of experience in the "big three" areas. Answers to questions show reasonableness and understanding in areas not concerned with user's request. Certainly a higher activity level would be desirable, and DGG makes a very good point. Even in light of such of the ''well reasoned'' opposes presented, I believe user will be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]].
'''Strong Support''' Highly active since 2005. Pedro gives a great example of civility.--
Per above. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' I don't think you'd abuse the tools, and your [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] does you credit.
'''Support''' Per above
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' &mdash; answer to Q1 seems fine to me: s/he's just saying s/he will tread cautiously. Admins don't know everything on day 1 of their adminship, the candidate's recognition of this is admirable in my opinion. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Strong Support''' I've had the pleasure of meeting Kotra in real life through WikiWednesdays and WikiProject Oregon (as he mentioned, he's a sysop on [http://pdx.wiki.org the wiki for this meetup]), and he's clearly trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''', opposes not convincing.
'''Support''' Great editor.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
Balance of pros and cons is in favour.
'''Support''' this good candidate.—
'''Support''' I have interacted with kotra a number of times, both on-wiki and in person. He is a dedicated volunteer and values community. I have not yet read through the nomination materials -- and I will -- but the strong impression I have of kotra and his role in this community is unlikely to change. Excellent admin material. -
'''Support''' See my neutral vote discussion. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Weak support''' - While your answer to Q1 is still a bit troubling even with the addendum, I feel that you could be trusted with the tools. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' thoughtful answers to questions, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' - We certainly had our fair share of conflicts, but the opposition thus far is entirely unconvincingly. Kotra is a kind, warm and welcoming editor. He/she has the patience of a saint and a brilliant temperament. Will Kotra might not be the most experienced editor we have, he/she will ask before acting hastily. I trust Kotra with the tools and am sure this Wikipedian has good judgment. Good luck. —
'''Support''' Enough experience, no danger signs, and a good temperament, which is more important than anything else.
'''Support''' bueno.
'''Support''', opposes so far are weak, and I don't see any reason not to trust this user.

'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' However, this editor should definitely reconsider her support for citation templates.  Free form is much better.  Citation templates are evil.
'''Support''' Your epic civility won me over, coupled with an ability to confidently make tough decisions. '''
'''Ab.So.Lu.Te.Ly.''' Looks good to me. Very good, even. Calm, reasonable, trustworthy. Go mop.
'''Support'''. I've seen you participating in a few discussions, and together with the ones people have linked to above they portray you as someone who'll look before you leap, admit when you've made a mistake, and generally work on writing an encyclopedia instead of perpetuating arguments. Best of luck!
'''Support''' As per track and user has been around since 2005 and see no concerns.
'''Support''' As per track record. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', some aspects of policy knowledge seem a little dubious; but there's every reason to believe Kotra is aware of this; and won't go wading into areas without reading up on them. Overall, contributions and question answers suggest a user who is sensible, dedicated and trustworthy. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. --('''
'''Support'''. I'm in too. I especially like the answer to the question 1. Kotra shows a lot of maturity and seems extremly civil. I'm sure he will be make a very fair admin.  (
'''Support'''. The candidate is not clueless of policy; Kotra will start off slow and try his best to avoid mistakes (that come along when one misunderstands policy, but unpreventable of course), and I don't see a problem with that. — '''''
The only interaction I can remember having with Kotra was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acalamari&diff=next&oldid=273931688#Notifying_on_talk_page_after_block here], and I found him to be very polite and knowledgeable. In addition, since Steven Walling and Peteforsyth have met Kotra in person and know that he's a good guy from their face-to-face encounters, then that only adds to my support.
'''Support''' - seems civil, and is prepared to admit that he has gaps in his knowledge, and won't use the tools in areas he isn't familiar with. I respect that attitude.
'''Plus one'''. Reasonable, thoughtful editors generally make reasonable, thoughtful admins.  No reason to doubt that in this instance.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''support''' - looks OK to me
'''Last-minute support.''' --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Support''' I don't see issues, and I'm not convinced by the opposes. '''
Little in the way of audited content work, and per my belief you should understand what being an admin entails and all the rules and regs ''before'' you get the sysop status. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose'''.  I would prefer that someone "understand the related policies, guidelines, and etiquette" before being given the mop.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of inexperience in writing articles and lack of demonstrated knowledge of administrative functions (as admitted in Q1). It is advisable to learn at least something beforehand, and show it by participation in policy related areas. An extremely valuable editor, but not adequately prepared. The way to become prepared tis to participate in deletion discussions, or policy discussions, or administrative boards, so we can see the way you think about the application of policy. '''
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Oppose''' I agree with Nakon.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose'''. While adminship is no big deal, I expect at least a basic understanding of the applicable policies, guidelines, and procedures (even if the understanding requires referencing them regularly). Based on the various answers given above, I do not believe kotra has this understanding right now, and I would suggest spending some time learning those policies, guidelines, and procedures for a few months and then coming back at that point. ···
'''Oppose''' per DGG and answer to Stifle's <s>BLP</s> ''picture of living people'' question.  Largely got the question right, but I'd expect an admin to be able to hunt down the relevant policies and cite them the first time around. It's a minor point, but part-and-parcel with what DGG commented on.  Suspect I'd support in the future with a bit more policy/guideline experience.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 1.  An admin needs to have a thorough understanding of a good deal of policy.  Its one thing to be unfamiliar with certain areas, and no one can know everything; nevertheless an admin needs to have experience with policy and guidelines, this isn't something you learn after getting the tools.  --'''
'''Opppose''' per question 1.A.  My advice is not to buy a pig in a poke and find out what being an administrator entails prior to requesting to be one.  I would give the same advice and opinion of oppose to anyone who answered the question that way, neither is not a criticism of you as an individual.
'''Opppose''' - little evidence of content work.  We should not be we rewarding 'vandal-reversion', we should be working towards a proper registration policy.
'''Neutral leaning toward oppose''' Sorry I <s>don't want "inactive with low experience</s> do want admins who can spend more time for Wikipedia with more experience. Your edit count "6800" is pretty low in "my expectation" given that your activity began in 2005. I don't see any "strong needs" as to why you should have to tools.<small>clarified, satisfied?</small>-
'''Neutral'''. Contributions are okay, but would beneft from more content creation.
'''Neutral.''' I'm okay with answers to most of the questions but can't shake the answer to Q1, which I interpret to mean he doesn't have a full understanding of policy/etiquette. I was going to oppose but the answer to Q1 demonstrates a willingness to learn, which is good. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Neutral''' Candidate seems civil and thoughtful, but I would expect that s/he would have a clearer demonstrated understanding of policy before asking for the mop.  I do want to say I laughed at the "modest" joke.  I suspect this will pass, so good luck to you.
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''--
I never participate in RfAs, but Laser brain is just too good to pass up.
{{ec}}'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' From a brief review they are a great editor with lots of positive contributions to the project and I think they would make a valuable administrator.
'''Support''' Can see no issues. [[User:Slashsock|&lowast;]]
A good, hard-working, and conscientious editor. --
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, this user is helpful and civil, and understands Wikipedia policies. No issues that I can see. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. The candidate is bright and helpful. I see little risk in giving Laser brain the sysop buttons.
User is here to build an encyclopedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=282211260&oldid=282210822 nicely bold and focused], has perfect edit summary usage, and has broad experience from WP:FAC to a good number of helpful mainspace edits. User without a doubt deserves the mop.--(
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''
'''Support''' - Two wonderful things, lasers and brains, merging into one entity? It would be disastrous not to. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support''' - All the makings of a good admin.
'''Support''' per above. '''''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has never been blocked nor he the candidate had any memorable negative interactions with me.  One thing, though, I don't know if it's my browser or what, but the text of the userboxes on the candidate's userpage seem cut off of the right side of the screen.  Not sure what that is about?  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' A great leader and mediator, just the kind of person who would be a great administrator.  ''<B>
'''Support''' Good contributions, good reviewing, should be a great sysop on wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Oh well someone ''has to'' sort out the copyvio/fairuse pileup, good luck.
'''Support'''. Civil, has clue, improves the encyclopedia, solid knowledge of policy. It's a green light from me.
'''Support'''. no-brainer this decision, plenty qualified and unequivocal net positive.
'''Support'''. Someone who is willing to jump into the backlogs has my !vote. Also a good history and knowledge make me confident  that Laser brain will use the tools well.
{{worksforme}}, er, '''Support'''. Excellent work at FAC. The content review areas always need more editors.
Watched Laser Brain around and like the work, attitude, etc... -
'''Support''' without any reservations. Hopefully this doesn't take away too much time from your FAC commentary. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --AWESOME
'''Support''' - I analyzed the edits of Laser brain, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' No question; love your work. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
—
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Weak Support''' I would've liked to see a little more work in administrative areas, but you'll do fine.
'''Support''' experienced user, has clue, is civil, deserves mop. ''
'''Support''' all of my experiences with this user and the answers to qustions make me beleive Laser brain is eminently mop-worthy
'''Wtf Support?!''' How did I miss this going live? I should have voted while it was inactive... --
<font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support''' The couple of times I've seen this editor around, I've been impressed by the laser like brainy comments :-) And, with noms like that, ..... --
'''Support''', a great candidate.--
'''Strong Support'''.  Been impressed by everything I've seen from this editor for a long time.  I have no doubt Laser Brain will be a top notch admin. --
'''Support''', per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and an excellent array of contributions to this project in multiple capacities. '''
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' good answers to questions. No concerns, <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''. Good user, will not abuse tools, no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Absolutely and unreservedly. LB is civil, sensible, intelligent and a brilliant FAC reviewer. I have learnt a lot form Laser.
'''Support''' per reasons well articulated above.
'''Support'''.  Good content work. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
<font color="404040">
'''Support''' mainly due to answer to Q1 and work on FAC. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' No issues I see.
'''Support'''; have seen the editor participate in FAC processes and have been impressed with his advice and his attitude. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">
Saw this way before it went live. Absolutely the right temperament, definite support from me. '''
'''Support'''. Impressed by everything I've seen of Laser brain's contributions at [[WP:FAC]], to the point that I've taken to emulating several aspects of his reviewing method. Thorough and articulate, this editor is respected by the community and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - An ideal candidate to handle copyright-related matters, given how often they are discussed at FAC. Laser is easily one of the best FAC reviewers, and I echo previous supporters in saying that I've learned much from Laser's many reviews. I have full trust that the tools would be put to good use. '''
'''[[WP:AGF]]''' I don't know the candidate at all and right now am too lazy to do research, but the nominator, SandyGeorgia's high credibility give me a warranty for the candidate.--
'''Support''' Looks good. '''<font face="times new roman">
Support because Sandy told me to... I mean, the candidate is swell. :P But seriously, he would help out a lot as an admin.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support'''.  Per two very well written co-nominations(above), consistently positive edits, and the untold hundreds of hours of review, improvement and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hurricanehink&diff=prev&oldid=190246969 encouragement] this fine author has made.  Laser has a demonstrated need for administrative tools. <small>
'''Support''' per noms. Will make a fine admin.
'''Very strong support''' &mdash; I kid you not, I had already thought of Laser Brain as an administrator. Let's give him the mop.
<generic thought he was an admin bit here>. Strong content work and dedication to the encyclopedia based on personal interactions. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' Wished I could have given a nomination. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
Strong editor, nom from two editors I highly respect, and plans to work in one of the most critical areas of the encyclopedia (dealing copyright issues and non-free content). <b class="Unicode">
Laser Brain <small>zap!</small> appears from my checking to be an extremely capable candidate. He is extremely dedicated to the encyclopedia, and doesn't lose his head. {{worksforme}}, he'll make a good admin.
'''Pile on'''.
'''Strong support'''
'''Yep''' Does excellent work. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Nothing but positive interactions with Laser brain...  how on earth do you not already have the tools?
'''Support''' Nothing really to add to what has already been said. Ideal candidate. --
'''Support''' per above; in addition, solid answers to questions given.
'''Support'''; excellent and diligent FA reviewer.
'''Support''' Of course.
'''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Strong support''' '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Strongest support''' Excellent analytical skills and attention to detail. '''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' Laser is an outstanding reviewer at FAC, and I am confident that his content experience, attention to detail and excellent communication skills will serve him well as an admin.
'''Support''' No alarms here, highly competent content builder willing to tackle admin backlogs. --
<big><big><big><big>'''Enormous Support'''</big></big></big></big>--
'''Support''', especially per excellent work on FAC and copyright. '''
'''Support''' – <b>
'''Support''' - I honestly thought you already were.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A sound candidate, it makes sense...
'''Support''' - impressive candidate, willing to work in areas where it's much needed (like copyright problems). Good luck.
'''Easy support'''. No problem.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''  excelent contributions, and needed experience with copyright issues. --'''
'''Pile-on support''', great looking editor from a quick glance, no real need to look further with the 94/0 turnout so far.
'''Support''', how can I not support a candidate named "Laser brain"?
'''Support''' Admins who are well-versed in FA issues and see the wisdom in supporting positive contributors  certainly seems like a win-win situation.
'''Support''' - created FA's/DYKs, lots of edits, good knowledge, fun user page.
'''S'''
'''Support'''. Strong candidate. — '''''
'''Strong Support'''. No brainer. ;) Seriously, I see no reason to oppose and every reason to support. No potential abuse as far as I can see. ···
Go out for the day and miss the chance to be #100, '''co-nom support'''.
'''Support'''. [[Swish (basketball)|Nothing but net]].
'''+S''': Oi, why didn't you tell me you were slumming at RfA? [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Support''' - gees, I missed this. No reason to think he'd missue the tools, but I have to worry that the ranks of non-admin folks who frequent FAC keeps diminishing!
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support'''. I have every reason to believe that this user will be an ideal admin. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Strong support'''. Go you! --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' - seen the candidate around and no reason to not support; also per {{User|Firestorm}}. Interesting noms with both FAC delegates. :) —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support'''. Good communicator and content editor.

'''Support''' Has got his priorities in order. -- '''
Definitely. An excellent candidate. <strong>
No brainer.  --
'''Support'''. Superb work at FAC as a skilled reviewer.
'''Support''' Trust the nom by SandyGeorgia and excellent candidate with great work in FAC and track is outstanding.
'''Strong Support''' no reason not to support - <span style="border:1px solid black;">
'''Please zap my brain with lasers''' err, I mean '''support'''. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' – seems good to me! '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Pile-on support''' Looks good to me, and nobody has opposed yet.--
'''Support''' No problems here.
No time to check out the candidate but with noms SandyGeorgia and Karanacs, candidate is probably O.K.--
'''Did you know...''' ... that [[User:Law|Law]] makes helpful edits, has [[Wikipedia:Civility|polite]] interactions with other [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|users]], and would make a good [[WP:admin|admin]]? '''
'''Did you know...''' ... that the highly persuasive and quality nomination from GC, coupled with exceptional answers to the questions, persuaded Pedro to [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|support this request]]?. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Did you know...''' ... that this user is extremely trustworthy, and doesn't give off any reason to not support them? <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Did you know...''' ... that Law is a [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] user who would be a benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator?
Someone had to break the above chain. Seems to combine vandal-fighting with a decent amount of mainspace work and working with articles in the form of DYK. Net positive to the project, why the hell not. —<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Did you know...''' ... that [[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] is a combo breaker? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Did you know...''' ... that Law has a good contribution history, is always courteous when communicating with other users, and can be trusted with the admin tools? --
'''Did you know...''' ... that the rule of [[User:Law|Law]] is better than the rule of any individual? And how could anyone dare oppose that? --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Did you know...''' that I support this request as the nominator?
'''Did you know''' that Law has a clean block log and one of Law's barnstars is for rescuing an article? ''
'''Did you know'''... that Law is obviously a quiet and competent contributor, can be trusted to wield the mop sanely, and more importantly can be trusted to not use the mop in areas he is not familiar with? //
'''Did you know'''... that this is getting out of hand.  But srsly, Law has been a net positive to the project, and I think we can only benefit from having another set of hands here as an admin.  --
'''Did you know'''... That Law does both article work and countervandalism?--
'''Did you know'''... [[WP:PEDRO|that Pedro is right?]] <small>At least in this case. ;)</small> —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Did you know'''... that I'm happy with the candidate's answers to my questions?  (There are things I could quibble--in question 4b, more than two !votes contribute to the strength of the argument, and in question 4c the candidate is arguably no longer an uninvolved administrator so perhaps should not delete himself; but I find the thought processes behind his answers clear and clueful.)—
'''Did you know'''... that I can't believe I'm continuing this ridiculous trend? Did you also know that I've had nothing but positive experiences with Law, and that I think he'd make an extra administrator due to his maturity and good knowledge of how Wikipedia works? And did you also know that I feel like I'm talking in the [[Australian Questioning Intonation]]? ~ <font color="#228b22">
Does good work, and no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''No I did not''' but hell why not? Go-ahead from me.
'''Did you know...''' that Law has done excellent work on a number of articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as [[Wisconsin_Department_of_Revenue_v._William_Wrigley,_Jr.,_Co.]], [[Golsen_v._Commissioner_of_Internal_Revenue]] and [[Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady]]? - Dan
'''Did you know...''' that [[User:Law|Law]] participates in the [[WP:SCOTUS|WikiProject: Supreme Court of the United States]]? '''
'''Did you know...''' that starting their !votes with "Did you know..." was probably the most predictable way people will do it in this RFA?^^ Not that this will stop me from doing it myself. The oppose reasoning does not convince me, people can easily get knowledgeable in 7 months. Hell, I may have been registered for 4 years before my RFA but I did not start getting involved before May 2008. And I passed RFA in October, which is much shorter than Law was really involved here. And I have seen him around often, not once in a negative way. Will make a fine admin. Regards '''
'''Did you know...''' that
'''Did you know...''' that I have no idea what to write? But seriously, though the user has only been active for seven months, I've seen editors applying for RFA who have been around for years who have created huge amounts of drama and chaos. As such, and given that I fail to see any drama-making in Law's edits, I have no hesitation in applying AGF and supporting the user.
'''Did you Know''' I'm still around? And '''did you know''' that I cant see anything wrong here and I found the guy very funny :)(not the reason I voted for him I hasten to add :D)? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Did you know...''' that laws, unlike rules, cannot be ignored?  Good find, GlassCobra.
'''Support''', passes the clue test.
'''Did you know...''' that I didn't know he wasn't an admin already? '''''
'''Did you know...''' that a user doesn't have to be on wikipedia for years to make a good admin. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Did you know...''' That law is cool. LAWL. '''
'''Support''' No reason not to support Law. Good luck.
'''C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!'''  —
'''Did you know...''' that I am happy to support Law's bid for adminship?
'''Support''' because there can only be a certain amount of "Did you know..."s before the joke gets old. <small><span style="border:1px solid #00FF00;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  No concerns about "not enough experience" for me.
'''Support''' Consistently solid talk page correspondence and contributions / collaboration.  The dispute resolution abilities exhibited [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Law/January_2009 here] are reassuring to me.  One thing - a major reason WP has administrators is because conflicts come up that require resolution, so I hope you realize what you're signing up for.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Answer to question 9 resolved my doubts.
'''Did you know...''' ... that I want to start this ball rolling again? Law has proven himself to me not only from the content he has developed, but also from the great answers he's given in the questions above. Obviously has a clue about things, and is willing to help.
I have no reason to oppose this.  However, could we stop with the stupid DYK jokes?  It's not funny and could be harming the candidate's chances.  It's really pissing me off.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - looks fine to me, good answers to questions and a good contribution history.
'''Support''' Good answers to a particularly demanding set of questions, and a satisfactory degree of experience across the project. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' on strength of answers and general tone of maturity. This will be a fine Admin. Good luck! /
'''Support'''. Eight months is long enough experience in my opinion, and for what he plans on doing as an administrator, I see no problem with giving Law the mop. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Support''' - Candidate understands the BLP problem; gave thoughtful answers to my questions, explaining his views in detail, which I appreciate; and appears to have the temperament and knowledge to be a successful admin. Hopefully taking some time to attempt to change the policy he doesn't agree with. [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 16:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) '''Upgraded to strong''' considering how well he handled the unnecessary dramatics in being taken to AN/I over his sig being small in IE8, and the fact that he's being opposed over something so epically stupid.
I agree with Black Kite on the image question, Malinaccier on the time issue, and like what DFS454 notes. Law doesn't seem to be a dramamonger/attention whore. No thank you spam, please. Mahalo. --
'''Support''' I don't find many of the points brought up in the oppose section very convincing.  So why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Did you know''' that a user with 5000+ edits to Wikipedia and no real objections should not be barred from adminship simply because 7 months isn't "enough time" for some people? <strong>
'''Support''' while I have deep respect for Dr. Blofeld in the oppose, I think that some admins are content to not use their adminship to try to resolve conflict - there's lots of other work to be done. And given this candidate's choice to not seek out conflicts to solve them, I think we can tolerate the lack of battle-scars or peace prizes. Of course, nothing prevents the candidate once approved from working in those areas, but I will [[WP:AGF]] that the first few admin tasks won't be solving the Scientology tangle or Middle East peace.
'''Did you know'''... his answer to Q6 demonstrates a good understanding of the Non-free policy?
'''Support''', as a fellow member of the Halloween wikiproject, per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has [[User:Law/Awards]] and as candidate has never been blocked.  Best, --
'''Strong support'''
'''Know do you...''' I like the gnomes, and this clearly isn't someone who's going to cause problems.
'''Support''', excellent user.
'''Strong support''' Law will make a fine admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' -- thanks for answering my questions.  Good luck.
'''Support''' We can always use another pair of admin eyes at DYK. Experience is no concern for me - Law has 5,000 edits (which is the number I usually like to see) and two more months of eperience than I had when I became an admin. He has room to grow, but there are no glaring concerns here.
'''Support.'''  I was inclined to oppose at first, with an expectation that I'd probably support six months from now, but further reading of Law's responses changed my mind.  —
FGJ&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' We need more admins. We especially need help with DYK backlogs. Excellent answers. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Strong mature reasonable candidate who will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''', no evidence this candidate would abuse the tools.
I did ''not'' know that [[Chocolate-covered bacon]] even existed, but the images this user created makes me want go out and eat some and share with the BF.  Seriously folks, I '''support''', because we need many more admins adept at [[law]], especially [[SCOTUS]] matters, and images; and he fully meets my usual [[User:Bearian/Standards|standards]].
'''Support''', although my personal opinion is that DYK is highly overrated and actually serves to ''discount'' Wikipedia's reputation by pointing out trivialities as credible knowledge bits. At any rate, that's not the issue - the issue here is that we have a fine editor who has clue and clearly wants to help the project.
7 months is plenty of experience. For goodness sake... '''
'''Did you know...''' That Law would make a great admin?
'''Did you know...''' That this is the first RfA of a DYK specialist where I've seen the supporters making a bunch of comical supporting comments prefixing with '''Did you know...''' Being serious, I have seen Law around a good deal, and have had a good impression. He seems to have sufficient experience around several areas of the encyclopedia, and I have no doubt he'd be a great admin. The opposers leave me unconvinced that he lacks overall experience. If he's been here since September, then he'd have 7 months under his belt, which to me is plenty enough time to have gotten to know policy.
Good answers to a huge number of questions.
This "Did you know..." Support business is kinda silly, but this user looks fine for me. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Not the strongest candidate but should be a net positive despite limited experience.
'''Support''' Critical question for me is understanding of recusal and dispute resolution. The rest can be learned, mistakes can be fixed, etc. --
'''Support''' – (switched from neutral) candidate seem very knowledgeable with the applicable policies and guidelines. Ensuing adminship would surely be more of an asset to the community as a whole.
'''Support''': I know that in years past more tenure was desired, but given the current speed of this RfA revolving door, I'll offer this:  If I doubled the tenure, doubled the edit counts, I still doubt I'd find a reason to oppose. Law seems to learn quickly, and just because he/she doesn't go searching for drama and confrontation is no reason to doubt his abilities to use admin. tools in the areas he/she is interested in.  Net positive? ... yep. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' He has enough experience.
'''Support''' per above.  Has been here for over 7 months and has 5000 edits.   &ndash;
'''Did you know...''' that this editor is fit for admin duties, but this joke is turning into a boring cliché? —
'''Did you know...''' that if RfA was determining membership to [[Mermaid_Tavern|this]], the ability to do [[Prizefighting|that]], or success in attaining the [[Large_numbers#Astronomically_large_numbers|other]], I would have to post below. My [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|thoughts]] of Law's Sysop potential, are that he has proven himself time and again, the man for the job.  Specifically his maturity and calmness under fire continue to be demonstrated as recently as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Law&diff=284588695&oldid=283552253]here. <small>
'''
'''Support'''. Good luck. -
Knows policies of the areas he works in well enough... hope this will pass! '''
'''Support'''. Experienced enough and sensible.
'''Support'''. Has good judgment.
'''Did you know''' ...that it was [[Aunty Entity]] who said: "You think I don't know the Law?  Wasn't it me who wrote it?"
Being a sysop would be a benefit to the project - always good to have people willing to work on DYK.  I am very impressed in his ability to deal with the signature issue in a way that killed the drama.
'''Did you know''' that a lack of conflicts in one's history is a ''good'' sign in a would-be administrator? And that's why I'm supporting.
'''Did you know...''' That im supporting this? -
'''Did you know...''' that, unlike the opposes below, I think September 2008&ndash;April 2009 is plenty of time to gain enough experience for adminship. It isn't a huge deal. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' for constructively dealing with the nonsense over your signature gracefully, despite the fact that there was no consensus to modify your signature. <small>
'''Did you know...''' that I support this? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''  Solid contributions,  good knowledge of policy and civil in his interactions. '''
'''Support''' Quiescent, civil and clueful editor. <tt>
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''' (from Oppose) Though his edits to DYK and other wikispaces are relatively low compared to his peers, his corresponding rationale is very good and persuasive.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLaw&diff=284588695&oldid=283552253]. His humble and civil attitude to the request for changing his signature is impressive enough for me to change my vote. Personally, I like the candidate's sense of humor
'''Support''' - Has the temperament and experience we need in administrators.  --
'''Support''' I've seen the user around here and there, and he's left me with the impression of an editor who's careful, thoughtful, polite and helpful. All good things to have in an admin. His lack of conflicts only tell me that he will do his best to keep a cool head and encourage that in any disputes he comes across. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' - I've noticed Law at DYK while browsing and learning about the DYK process. His low conflicts suggest that he is cool-headed and able to deal with others well. Seems like he'd be a great admin. <big><font color="black">
'''Support''' - I've read after him a good deal since this RfA, and I see a level-headed editor. Law is a sensible communicator and especially experienced for his amount time on Wikipedia, and I personally have been impressed with his apparent ability to remain composed while under fire; including his comments where he reasons why this would be true. His lack of conflicts I actually see as a positive - fights, and differences of opinion that don't escalate, are separate things. I've taken a good look through oppose section, and nothing hits me as a problem.
'''Support''' - Candidate looks fine to me, seems rational and polite. 5,000 edits and 7-8 months is plenty of experience, in my opinion.
'''Support''' - I see no problems here. On a side note, my RFA passed with 99% after 6 months of activity. Has that much changed in six months? <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Support''' - Good canidate, although he has never been in a conflict he will most likely help wikiipedia and improve it.
'''Did you know''' that Law is one of the most impressive content contributers that I have ever met? Seriously impressive content contributions that improve Wikipedia. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Did you know''' that I managed to sneak in a last-minute support? <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' per many comments above. And also, because the opposes are against the Law.
Sorry to spoil the silliness. Not enough experience. I find it difficult to see how anybody can make a statement that the editor can be highly trusted when he has only been here since September and has not been presented with any real difficult situations to evaluate from.
'''Oppose''' Per Dr. Blofeld.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose''' Experience concerns. User has been in no real conflicts here. Also per Dr. Blofeld. I'd support another attempt in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
''''Oppose''' per Blofeld, editor has not IMO been here long enough and for want of a better word ''bloodied'' Not enough experience. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Just slightly unconvinced as to admin-related experience, would almost certainly support a few months down the line. Non-free image answer was sound. <b>
'''oppose''' per question 6: "Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia? A. If it is a living person, I wouldn't advise the use of any non-free image." There is already too much disruption caused by editor lawmen who feel they have the authority to interpret copyright law for all of wikipedia.
Would like to see a longer term on Wiki, and perhaps more audited article content building. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per Q4  and 5, not yet ready with respect to the admin policies and procedures. Unfortunately, we cant give permission just for DYK. '''
I don't think you have enough experience in XFD related discussions. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in my opinion, has only been here since September.'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Oppose''' Answers were troubling. Having a user follow the standard 6 month pattern, involved in very little, and keep to "vandal fighting" is also well known pattern given on guides to become an admin. I'm not saying that this user followed them, but in such situations we need to take a closer look. We've had too many people slip by.
'''Oppose''' Not only lacks experience in terms of time and breadth of area (which aren't killer in my mind), but I feel that many of the answers were superficial and showed a lack of understanding of nuance. Strongly suspect I'll support at a later point.  So basically [[WP:NOTNOW| not now]].
I really don't like his answers to (among others) S. Marshall's questions, and thus I must '''oppose'''. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Does seem like more experience and more time is required....
'''Weak Oppose''' Concerned by his answers, esp to #6.  I'd be likely to neutral or support in a further RfA, but not yet.--
'''Oppose''', concerns about experience and answers to some of the questions. Also, agree with points raised by {{user|Dr. Blofeld}} and {{user|DGG}}. Without prejudice to consider supporting at a future RfA - candidate indeed has some strong positive contributions to the project in varied capacities. '''
'''Oppose''. Only here since autumn 2008. Response to standard questions show a general approach that looks reasonable, but little actual knowledge of policies. Some of the answers also struck me as both hurried and flippant, and an earlier "oppose" complained about a flippant remark elsewhere. OTOH in 6-12 months Law might be a good candidate for admin, since his off-the-top answers to the standard questions were so reasonable. --
'''Oppose'''.  I have concerns about the level of eagerness this candidate shows (high) vs. the demonstrated knowledge of policy outside of simple vandal fighting (regrettably low).  It shouldn't be this easy to get the bit.
'''Oppose''' per Blofeld and DougsTech, and due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Law#Your_sig lack of community spirit]. <b><i>
'''Weak oppose''' Not enough experience, and the signature is a problem.
'''Oppose''', fails my [[User:AnmaFinotera#RfAs|criteria]], particularly lack of overall experience and "time served". Less than 10k edits, not even active a full year, and not nearly enough activity in the Wiki namespace beyond the AIVs. Beyond that, really not seeing a true need or desire to be an admin, as only seeming admin desire is to help more at DYK. Needs to learn how discern consensus, get more experience with conflict resolution (maybe by getting involved in [[WP:30]] or [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]]), get more comfortable with the concept of deleting/tagging articles, and just, overall, more activity in the Wiki. Also, not entirely satisfied with some of the answers given above, and just not enough evidence would not "abuse" the tools, even if no sign the candidate would. --
'''Weak oppose''' My [[OCD]]-driven love for [[round number]]s, and, more seriously, my general affection for the candidate, my (passive) encounters with whom have been universally positive, disposes me to be the [[WP:100]]th support, but even as I find that the candidate's demeanor, temperament, and sense of judgment (on the whole) well equip him for adminship, I am not convinced that his conversance with policy is such that he is unlikely to misuse the tools unintentionally by acting whereof he does not know, and I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]] (I should, though, as others who oppose here, be happy to reconsider the issue in the not-too-distant future, when I hope to be able to support).
Law does great work, and I see no indication he would misuse his admin tools. But I don't see enough indication that he ''wouldn't''. For Q3, he didn't provide a link, and I can't find links on how he has dealt with difficult users. He gave a good answer to Q8... but I can't be sure that if consensus went against him, that he would keep a level head. If Law or anyone could provide diffs of him dealing with tough situations that might cause a bad admin to act badly, let me know and I'm open to changing my !vote. All the best, &ndash;
'''Neutral''' (for now) - I have issues with several of the candidate's answers. Though I'm hoping that this is merely a case of "not explained enough". Would they be willing to further clarify. Though all seem at least a bit "terse" (to quote the candidate), and could use some clarification, The ones concerning consensus, and IAR in partucular could use clarifying. That, and "how" they expect having the tools would help them at DYK. And whether they "plan" to be involved in AfD seems immaterial, especially since the candidate also has said they intend to help with the backlog, so an expanded answer to those related questions would also be helpful. And I am not as enamoured with the answer to #9 as others seem to be, indications and the candidate's "tone" leave me with concerns. That said, I think further clarification should hopefully clear this up. -
'''Neutral''' Per the opposes on experience.  You seem to be a good candidate, and I wish you'd gotten a bit more breadth and depth before applying.  I don't have any heartburn if you pass, but nor am I willing to support quite yet.
Changed from Oppose.  The answers to some of the questions are still a bit vague for my liking, but Law's comment at the talk page is good&mdash;while he hasn't reviewed a ton of DYK noms and hasn't participated much at WT:DYK, he does review each nom more carefully, and takes reviewing more seriously, than many of us there (including me); as DYK is increasingly losing respect among Wikipedians and people are having more and more conversations about raising the standards, we will probably need more reviewers like Law.  So anyway, while some things still make me think Law is not ''quite'' ready, his response about DYK shows good judgment and I can't oppose anymore. <b class="Unicode">
As nominator, I support this.—
The candidate appears to be willing to accept this at this time despite not signing the acceptance indicator yet. So I figure, why the hell not support right now? The point is, LinguistAtLarge is evidently civil and helpful, and would probably make for an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' because the candidate is one of impressive article savors from AFDs, whom I've ever seen. The candidate has the ability to expand endangered articles as adding reliable sources timely, and to persuade others with plausible logic. Moreover, the user is civil, clueful and understands various policies pretty well. LinguistAtLarge is not a vandal fighter, but contributes his asset to one of the hottest zones in Wiki with his cool head. He will be a great admin with the tool.--
'''Support''' per Caspian blue. Awesome AfD work, awesome editor in general. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' Per Caspian blue.--
'''Support''' per Caspian blue. Deletion is unfortunately  a necessary evil. However, we should be looking for reasons to keep articles and Linguist does that. --
I was reading some of LinguistAtLarge's talk page earlier, and saw that he does work with article-saving, so I too, agree with Caspian blue.
'''Support''' As Caspian well sets out, LAL possesses a variety of skills the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, and I think it clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' - a great editor who is more than ready for the extra tools.
'''Support''' - no reason to believe he/she would not be a good admin.
'''Support''' per Caspian Blue.
'''Support''' Caspian Blue said it best. Good luck!
'''Weak Support''' Has done good work, but needs more experience in other areas.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' I think Caspian Blue's nailed it, I have nothing to add. '''
'''Support''' A great editor who has earned respect and trust. Always collegial and helpful. Has done a lot of good work on the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - I truly ''hate'' per arguments, so I'll use a different word. By means of Caspian Blue.
I really like your style.  You aren't ''anti'' deletion, but you aren't so obviously biased as to go to an AfD and unfairly interpret consensus as "keep" based on your personal agenda.  This shows you will apply yourself neutrally to your work while trying to improve new articles rather than trim them.  Also, there are no real red flags here that could offset your chances in my boooks.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Great editor always willing to improve an article. --
'''Support'''  —
'''Weak support''' - Experience seems concentrated in one area, but concentrated is better than dilute. I trust the user will achieve the right molarity once they become an admin, won't break the conical flask. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  The candidate made some really solid arguments in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(2nd_nomination)&diff=278358539&oldid=278358469] (thoughtful, detailed argument rather than a mere vote) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_terms_of_endearment_(3rd_nomination)&diff=266464930&oldid=266451945] (again, thought out and non-copy and paste argument); however, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.J. Stryver|this nomination]] does give me some cause for concern as it is essentially a [[WP:JNN]] and worst yet as the consensus in the discussion and improvements to the article demonstrated, the character actually does have some notability.  Yet, it is the only memorable negative AfD experience I recall with the candidate and as the candidate has never been blocked, I see at least three positives I can cite to only one negative and as such, well cast my stance in the support column.  Best, --
Certainly. Good nom; good contributor. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Someone who steps up to the plate to save articles like [[Tourism in Bolivia]] during an AFD shows they know how to write an encyclopedia. No problems.
'''Support''' apart from some speedy mistakes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volumetry&diff=prev&oldid=270175283 G11 on dictionary entry], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mokattam&diff=prev&oldid=268700565 A1 with context], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongolia_project&diff=prev&oldid=278592360 G2 on school project]) which I think the candidate will learn from judging by his contributions, I didn't find any reason to think that this candidate would be anything but good for the project if given the mop. Regards '''
'''Support''' - Linguist is among the best candidates we've had in months; I fully agree with the nomination. &ndash;
'''Support''' We've both agreed and disagreed in the past of AfD I think, but LaL always explains their  rationale, and that has to be a good sign for an admin. Everything else indicates good mop wielding ability. --
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Seen him around [[WP:AFD]], always civil and argues with reason. Definitely a user I would trust with the tools.
'''Support''' Looking at the contribs, user definitely has a clue and is able to have patient, courteous interactions with other editors, has been around long enough to understand the culture of the en wiki. My only reservation has to do with the fact that activity is concentrated in the last five months (see my question above) but even then, sysoping will be a net positive.
'''Support''' There's every sign the candidate will make an excellent admin. Caspian Blue sums it up.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' User generally converses with other users, an unusual trait on Wikipedia that should be increased in the admin group.  --
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support''' I don't even remember what my past interactions with this user were about, but they have left me with a good impression. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' More than merely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''', slightly wishy-washy answer to Q8, but still good enough.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
I'm
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''', I've seen Linguist at AfD a lot, and I saw nothing wrong from what I've seen. I trust Linguist with the mop. '''
'''Support'''. I see no issues. Keep up the good work! <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks good for adminship.
'''Support''' -- Great editor.--Best, '''''<small>
'''Support''' Seen them around AFD a bunch. '''
'''Support''' seen around afd - a bit more inclusionist than the average, but knows the policies and guidelines and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''': Este usuário é bem qualificado para usar os instrumentos adminstered.
With pleasure. Plenty of [[WP:CLUE]], AFD work indicates sound policy knowledge. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Strong support''' - exceeds [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], seems like an interesting person. Will surely make a fine admin.
'''Support''', seen L A L around, no worry of unwise mop wielding.
'''Support''' &ndash; Of course. &mdash;
'''Support''' per Caspian blue.  This user will make a great admin and the answers to the questions by this user shows that he will use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''' despite the fact that this user just completely dissected my last AfD nomination ([[WP:AfD/List of fictional turtles]]) and blew it out of the water. User's answers to questions 1 and 2 make him sound a lot like the type of admin I think we need more of - someone who, if given the tools, would use them to ''supplement'' his ordinary editing, not ''become'' his ordinary editing. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support'''.  Good user, I've had good interactions the few times I've seen him around.  Won't delete the main page.
'''Support'''.  Creates articles, works on translations, helps at Afd.  All in all, seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' Good contribs. '''
'''Support:''' Trustworthy, obviously intelligent, reserved, civil, and I think he will exhibit sound judgement as an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' disinclined to fly off the handle, and smart as two whips. -
'''Support''' '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support'''Brilliant editor, Would do brilliantly as a admin -
'''Support''' net positive.
'''Support''' nothing wrong, won't abuse the tools. Good luck,
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A good understanding of policies & guidelines.
'''Merge''' with [[WP:ADMIN|admin]]. :-D Consistently fair and reasonable at [[WP:AFD|AFD]], and has a proven record of working for WP's betterment. I never !vote in these, so you should feel special. ''
'''Support''' [[Special:Contributions/Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]<sup>
'''Support''' as positive contributor to the encyclopedia with reasonable plans for the tools. -
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Neutral, slightly leaning to Support''' Meh...I spent quite a while considering this RfA. While the editor in question seems to be a good negotiator at WP:AFD and such, he has very little work at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], and [[WP:ANI]]. <s>In addition, although not terrible, 68 deleted edits is not that much.</s> However, he does have some good article contributions so yeah... <lyrics of ''I Can't Decide''> :P Cheers. '''''
Heck yes - intelligent, with good judgment, plus two great noms. How can I say otherwise? '''
Per Ceranthor. Totally agree with the noms. Oh, and <cue "ZOMG NEW GIRL ADMIN" comments> '''
'''Support''' as nom. Good luck :-) Regards '''

'''Support''', all of my concerns predate this RfA by over two months, ''ergo'' I see no reason why they would abuse the tools or act in a disruptive manner. &ndash;
No problems here so '''support''' from me. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' To be honest, I was hoping to see more in the line of contributions; but, all that I do see appears to be very positive.  I also have a great deal of faith in SoWhy and Wade, and I am ''definitely'' in favor of more [[Female|soft curvy types]]. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' For a cool head while dealing with [[User:Tennis Expert]]. I had to deal with a Wikilawyering, open proxy using, sockpuppet of his and know how difficult it can be to keep your cool
Yes, an excellent candidate and kudos to the well researched and useful nomination statements. Maedin is a prime example of why [[WP:EDITCOUNT|editcount]] should not be part of RFA. 3,500 cautious considered contributions seems to me ample evidence of being able to use the extra tools wisely and with prudence. A pleasure to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - No problems here, she would make a very good admin.
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong support''' - I have worked with Maedin extensively at [[WP:ACC]], and I have no qualms saying that she is one of the kindest and most helpful people on the project. Good luck! <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' I can't see any reason to oppose. I've seen Maedin around, and I have no doubt she'll be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Make me]] oppose. All looks great.--
'''Of course'''. I was wondering when this would happen.--
'''Support'''; glowing statements from two nominators I trust; and nothing but positive experiences with her myself. A quick review of contributions reinforces my initial impression, and I am very happy to support. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]], excellent candidate. –'''
'''Support''' per Francium12.
'''Support''' for a level-headed user with vetted-contributions who creates over 1000 accounts! ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' For a Civil friendly editor. I actually had this one watchlisted. ''
'''Support''' as the co-nom. Good luck, Maedin! '''
'''Support''' Excellent answers to rigorous questioning. Seems to have good judgment. Limited experience/ edit count is a concern. But I trust that, like Rumi, you are prepared to handle the things you know you don't know, and the unknown unknowns, the things you don't know you don't know. :)
'''Support'''. Very civil user, prolific contributor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Can't say anything other than what the noms said. --'''
'''Support''' - Will obviously make a good admin, per nom and per above.
'''Support'''. Why not? She seems intelligent, amicable, and experienced. Should make a fine admin. --
I'm
'''Support''' Seems to employ a large dose of “common sense” to her approach to dispute resolution.
'''Support''' aside from being a strong candidate (in terms of contributions to the project) she will give a much needed boost to the female admin. demographics.
'''Support''' I don't see the relatively small number of total edits as a problem considering the ''quality'' of the edits made. Everything else seems positive, including a willingness to acknowledge and correct (somewhat minor) mistakes. -- '''
'''[[User:Matheuler/adminship|Support]]'''. No significant drawbacks.
33-0 makes it an easy call, but I also trust both noms and like the answers. - Dank (
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' As as Track.See no concerns.
'''Support'''—Excellent candidate; the project needs more of her in positions of responsibility.
For the second RfA in a row now, I am also joining the unanimous '''support'''!  The candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] by having never been blocked, being trusted enough by some admin to have rollback, has an interesting username explanation on her userpage and per her userbox is named Julie (a name I have always found pretty; in the totally unrealistic chance I ever had a daughter, it is up there on names I would go with; I like Kimberly also, but anyway...), the candidate has 8 DYK credits on top of her userpage and so is here to build the encyclopedia, no memorable negative interactions with me, and impressed other editors enough to earn five barnstars and one award.  And yes, interesting flicky pages to link to from userpage as after all, in addition to finding snakes cool, I like green eyes as well... :)  (I am trying to be original here!)  Best, --
Well, how can I possibly follow such a colorful tribute? All I can give is just a simple '''Support'''. :)
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' because I can't see why I should oppose.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Strong support''' - I've seen her here and there; I trust her.
'''Strong support''', no problems here. Looks like a helpful, intelligent user and another excellent choice in our slew of good admin candidates recently. <small>And [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93_2#Support|actually]] (see #75), people seem to think there are benefits from having us females as admins. :)</small> I appreciate people who are both hardworking and kind to newbies, and overall I like her method of handling disputes in Q3. Some disagreements have happened, and a couple of mistakes have been made. She is able to lead tiffs to a decent and concluded resolution, though. The attitude here is perfect: ''just stop, and think. Walk away. Do something else! Come back later. I very rarely find myself getting "worked up" about something, and when I do, I just try to make sure that I'm calm and collected when I finally make a reply.'' I wasn't too familiar with Maedin, but that is a mindset I love to see in admins, so she's now got my "strong" support.
'''Support''' Never heard any serious drama from this candidate :-) '''<font color="navy" face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. Excellent AFC work.  Best of luck, '''
'''Strong Support''' Great work at the ACC tool, no problems at all. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">
Fully qualified candidate. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' <s>per [[Title IX]] concerns</s>. Questions look good, and a quick spot-check on the contribs look pretty good. But remember the drama only ''starts'' once you get the tools.
Of course. Great user with great work at ACC.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' this excellent candidate.—
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' — I have a sneaking suspicion this person will be a net positive to the project. :)
'''Support''' - No concerns. '''\'''
'''Support''' No problems here. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
No doubts whatsoever - from mutual experiences at ACC I know this user is very hardworking and should make a brilliant addition to the admin ranks. <small><span style="border:2px solid #999933;">
'''Support''' - What's not to like? '''
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
Fine with me.
'''Support'''Why the heck not?[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Support''' High respect for her, and the noms. Good luck.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor who would make an excellent admin. I see nothing which worries me here. ···
'''Support''' - user looks fine, ''excellent'' nominations from SoWhy and Wadester. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">

'''Support''' per reasonable and well considered answers.
'''Support''' ZOMG NEW GIRL ADMIN o.O--
'''Support'''. No issues and currently no opposes to even consult. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Enthusiastic support''' for a candidate who has the right temperament for the admin role.  She is habitually pleasant and friendly, but willing to offer detailed criticism where that's appropriate, and to stand up for herself when necessary (an interaction on her Commons talk page supports this point.)  This user is well organized, hard-working, and not reluctant to admit mistakes.  I was also very pleased to see that she plays the music of the chronically underrated [[Muzio Clementi]].  In summary, and keeping in mind her answer to Q8, if I were a much younger man I would be tempted to emigrate.
'''Support''' looks to be helpful, and also does good work on the commons too. I could find no problems with image copyrights!
'''Support''' good answers & history! :)
'''Support''' Yep.
'''Support''' Great answers; nice to see common sense. Friendly, good contribs, and...well, all the other stuff above. Best of luck. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy, obviously knowledgeable . <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Maedin. —
'''Support''', nothing worrying found
'''Support''', good work at DYK, and FPC, I like your talk page; you always seem polite enough, and have good interactions with others. ''But'', I would like to see you warning users when you revert their edits. Good answers to questions. And over all; trustworthy. -
'''Support''', no concerns here.
'''Support'''. Pile on in hopes of [[WP:100]]. :-) <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support'''
A good name that I have seen around. Happy to support.
'''Support''' - Maedin has shown dedication to the project through consistent editing over an extended period of time, strong communication skills, and has given extremely thoughtful answers to all questions.  --
'''Support'''. See no serious issues.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy candidate. — '''''
'''Support''', 84 other Wikipedians can't be wrong.
'''Support''' I like the answers to your questions, and currently, I have no reason to believe that you will do anything wrong witht the tools.
'''Support''' - I like your honesty about conflict. That seems to be a useful experience to have been through.
'''Support''' - Seen you around [[WP:ANI]] and elsewhere and see you doing well. Your qualifications are impressive and you answered the questions well. -- '''
'''Support''' - level headed editor and would make for a good admin. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' - Intelligent contributor of content; collaborative in resolving disputes.
'''Support''' - Malik Shabazz is an outstanding editor and content contributor on a diverse range of topics, as well as a stalwart adversary of vandalism and tendentious editing.  A person of avowed principles, in my experience Malik Shabazz has done an exceptional job of maintaining an open mind and neutral point of view, a commitment made at [[User:Malik Shabazz]].  I could point to many examples; just today I could admiringly cite Malik's measured and thoughtful contribution[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malcolm_X&diff=321234423&oldid=321184226][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malcolm_X&diff=321235326&oldid=321234423] to a potentially difficult discussion at [[Talk: Malcolm X]].--
'''Support''' - I have been appreciative of his efforts for a long, long time. It was a surprise to me that this hadn't already happened.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], great user; trustworthy and active, should be fine with the bit. –'''
Excellent work. Deserves the tools. '''
'''Support''' Great user. Will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Very level-headed, has an excellent understanding of Wikipolicy. Great admin potential.--
A thousand times yes. Malik is a fantastic asset to the encyclopaedia, author of highest-quality articles, always composed in temperament and adept at detecting a neutral point of view and deviations from it. No reservations whatsoever. <font face="New York"><span style="background-color:black; color:gray;">
'''Yep'''.  Been familiar with his work for a while.  We need more like this editor.
'''Support''' Great work around the place.  Your answer to question four (especially the first sentence) shows that you can accept the bit without losing sight of the larger goal (i.e. building an encyclopedia).  The (very) recent dispute is a little worrying, but you largely kept a cool head in frustrating circumstance and I respect that - very forgivable.  Active behavior in talk namespace shows a desire and ability to collaborate with editors. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' as I can see no reason to not provide the mop and bucket. ···
'''Support''' (Belated) nom support. That's right, go transclude this while I'm away from a PC [[file:face-grin.svg|25px]]. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' per the answer to question 4. A lot of people would A7 that, and I like that you both understand the speedy guidelines and are committed to helping to improve the encyclopedia, rather than a drive-by tagger or deleter. Regards, <font color="green">
'''Support''' absolutely. He always remembers that we are meant to be building an encyclopedia. Wiki needs more Malik Shabazz. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' strongly. Great editor, and nothing indicates that he would cause problems with the tools.
'''Support''' based on this User's long history of making valuable contributions, and the level-headedness and intelligence I've seen from this User on more than one occasion.  --
'''Support'''. Good editor, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' I like your answers and think you'll use the tools well. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Darn, I wish I could have been here earlier, to be on top of the list. Malik is a great content contributor. Few of us here have the equanimity to handle the abuse hurled his way, and few of those who can handle it with such grace. Can I call for WP:SNOW? Good luck in this process, Malik.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' First encountered Malik on the [[Emma Goldman]] article (one of Wikipedia's finest articles) and have been impressed every time I've ever seen his edits. --
'''Support''' - Excellent, knowledgeable, civil editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]

'''Support''' I found the answer to my question to be near perfect (I think WP:ADMIN offers up different possiblities in addition to ANI).  Good enough for a support vote.--
'''Support'''. For the record, I'm one of the Polish editors that Malik refers to in #3. It was a very emotional topic and some of us responded a little too emotionally at the time. However, in the end, we resolved our disputes, worked cooperatively on some articles and developed friendly relations. In fact, I support Malik's nomination even more strongly *because* I had disagreements with him in the past and as a result I've seen how well he deals with these. Of course, Malik deserves the mop for many other reasons as well, which have already been mentioned above.
'''Support''' Genuinely surprised that Malik wasn't an admin already. One of the very few editors who contributes to Israel-related articles who is able to maintain NPOV, and if he can do that, then adminship will be a breeze.
Why not.
'''Support''' Yes, definitely. Seen his work on actuarial and Israel-Palestine articles, and am impressed by his fair approach and strict upholding of NPOV. Also like to see good article-building experience in an admin. He'll not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Great candidate, clean block log, loads of experience and good contributions. ''
His answers to the questions as well as his contributions in general show a great deal of thought and also a willingness to admit mistakes (Q3). I am very impressed with his article work &ndash; he is able to take controversial topics (Malcolm X, Israel-Palestine) and work on them neutrally. Malik should do fine as an administrator. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''. I see good work and good interactions from this user. [[User:Radeksz|Radek]] sold me, quite honestly - you don't see praise like that very often at RFA. Good luck,
'''Strong support''' - agree with other supporters about his upholding of NPOV.
'''Support''' A capable, seasoned voice with considerable expertise and experience here. Good luck...
'''Support''' - Wow... awesome answers...--
'''Support''' I don't see much activity with CSD in the last months but the answer to Q4 confirms that the candidate has the necessary clue to know that it's better to [[WP:BSD|try and fix stuff before tagging for speedy deletion]] and as such, I think they will do fine. On a side note: I never received a flamethrower with my mop. Who do I have to complain to? {{=)|wink}} Regards '''
'''Support''' Seems fine. --
'''Support''' Good answers, and a lot of good work, notably in areas of potential contention. I cringed when I saw someone request that be be blocked [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive95#Malik_Shabazz_reported_by_CENSEI_.28Result:_no_vios.29|ANI Report]] for uncivil commentary, but when I looked into the issue I came away more convinced I should support.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Very impressive.
'''Support'''  Can't come up with a variant of "excellent candidate" that hasn't already been used above.
'''Support''' Good and honest answers.
'''unwavering support'''  we haven't always agreed, but i dig his style.
'''Support''' - Looks fine.--
'''Support''' I like the answers and respect and admire his excellent work on the frontlines.
I'm
Getting any article, let alone one on a controversial subject, to [[WP:FA?|featured]] status is a mighty achievement.  This plus &#8220;I don&rsquo;t see a reason to oppose&#8221; (the latter being an absolute requirement for me) yields '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Glad I saw this, Malik Shabazz and I seem to have several of the same articles on our watchlists so I've run across his edits a number of times, and he's always struck me as a thoughtful and conscientious editor with excellent judgment. I've actually considered nomming him for adminship before even though we don't know one another and RfA noms are not really something I do. His experience level is great and his answers above are terrific, and I'm always extra impressed by admin candidates that admit they have been in conflict before (it's not as though adminship will do anything to alleviate that!) and more importantly demonstrate that they handle conflict well and mostly with a cool head, since that's arguably the most critical skill for any administrator. Supporting Malik Shabazz for adminship is a no-brainer, and I'm sure he'll do excellent work in that capacity once this RfA sails through. --
Trusted. </big><strong>
'''Support'''—we've had a few interactions, and I can find no problems with this user. —
'''Support'''. I respect this user for his earnest effort at Malcolm X and the lack of reaction to what appear to be abusive posts to his talk page. --
'''Support''' I often don't bother to comment when it's a fait accompli, but I frequently have seen this editor, and always been favorably impressed.
'''Support''' Solid.
'''Support'''.  I'm a bit surprised he isn't an admin already!  I've seen some of his stuff around before, and I am comfortable with supporting him.  Joining the Polish WikiProject shows a great degree of willingness to step across the aisle and develop better relations.  <strong><font color="maroon">
Per Drmies (both of his comments). - Dank (
'''Yes''' Not much to be said here, good luck mate. ~
'''Support''' Good answers and a trustworthy user.
'''Support'''. Definitely!
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">

'''Support''' It appears you will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. Good fortunes in all you do. <font color="green">
'''Support''' good answers.
'''Support'''. No problems, good answers and trustworthy. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Good answers, honest, impressive history.
'''Support''' No worries. Good luck,--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've seen Malik around for some time and I respect his work and temperment. He has the potential to be one of our better admins.
'''Suupport'''. This editor has exhibited tremendous growth as an editor over his time here. I believe that he has the judgment and temperament for the job.  —
'''Support'''  I have never seen this user make an edit I did not respect or find constructive.  No matter how busy I am, when Malik makes an edit to a page on my watchlist I always check it out - if it an edit to the article, I am curious to see how it was improved (confident that it was indeed improved) and if an edit to the talk page, I know it is a comment worth reading.  I'm actually surprised he is not already a sysop.  I am confident he will always be level headed, a moderating force, and use good judgment.
'''Support''' - 70 supports and no opposes? Do I even need to review the contribs? (I did anyway), [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Unconditional support for this candidate, I have run into him throughout my time here on Wikipedia and have never had a problem with him, I am very glad he has put himself out there to be an admin.
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate --
'''Support'''. Experienced, mature and knowledgable. I believe this editor to be a great asset to Wikipedia and am delighted to have him as an administrator. --
'''Support'''. Well qualified. I wanted to nominate him about two years ago.
No problems here. I trust you with the tools. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' - I trust this user with the tools.  I believe this user will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''', no problems.
'''Support''' - Candidate is more than qualified. I am confident that he will use the tools well.
'''Support''' - Obviously Malik should be punished with Adminship. More than qualified. Also, Soap? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''': superb candidate..
'''Strong Support''', I was not familiar with this candidate before this RFA, but after reviewing their contribs and their answer to Q6, I am convinced they'll make a fine admin.
'''
'''Support''' Nothing new I can contribute outside of an echo of the above. Congratulations.
'''Support''' He's a level-headed contributor and a great asset to the project. It's highly unlikely he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' The 'fan mail' gives me all the more reason to support. Well done for rising above it all.
'''Support''' in the fullest sense of the word. I'm delighted that this editor has accepted the nomination as I consider Malik Shabazz to be an exemplar of the ideal Wikipedian. This should be a "slam dunk" (although I don't mean this in the WMD sense of the phrase), as far as I'm concerned. --

'''Support'''. Besides the qualifications, I'm glad to support a fellow [[Columbia University|Columbian]] (and fellow JTSer too according to your userboxes). Roar Lion Roar.
'''Support''' per response to first neutral vote.
'''Support''', an excellent and patient editor with a thorough understanding of policy. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Excellent editor and content-provider over many subject areas, knows Wiki-policy, keeps a level head and shows NPOV.
'''Aye Ναι'''
'''Support''', no apparent problems here. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' – I've seen nothing but good from this editor. Don't let us down.
'''Support''' based on all aspects of his work   '''
'''Support'''.  I've been impressed by your work, and I think you would do well.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''[[WP:100]] Support'''. Great user.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Malik Shabazz. —
'''Support'''.  Absolutely.  Very capable, excellent judgment.
'''Strong Support:''' When examining your history at Wikipedia, I read through some of the  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Shabazz/Fan_mail abuse] that has been thrown your way. I must say I found it a little unsettling. You have handled yourself well. You <s>will be</s> are a great asset to Wikipedia. -
'''Support'''. I've always respected Malik for his ability to keep his cool in controversial disputes, and learn from past errors. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I have not encountered Malik before, but from everything I see here he is clearly an experienced, calm and clueful editor, and will be a valuable admin. '''PS''' If offered the option, choose the Shield over the Flamethrower. ;-)
'''AGF''' Never heard of the candidate, but given that his most active editing areas are controversial subjects within Wikipedia, and none appears to oppose his candidacy, I will assume good faith on him.--
'''Support''' No doubts here. <font style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">
'''Support''' - from what I've seen before and now, he clearly meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]]. We do ''not'' agree on everything, but that's O.K.
'''Support''' Looks good. The abuse seems to be from all sides (a good sign!) and the exchange in neutral #2 solidifies my support. --
'''Support''' - I hate to pile on, but it looks like he deserves it.  <b>

'''Support''' - I've seen Malik around, and I have a good overall impression from various level-headed edits, for example, on [[Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.]] <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Good contributions all round, and good answers to questions. --
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' I would normally not bother when the vote is so one-sided, but I've encountered this editor in battlefield articles such as [[JIDF|this one]] and he has managed to remain calm and even-handed throughout.--
'''Oppose'''. Sort of. I'd like to remind the admin-to-be that no-one is perfect, and that 99% support in your RfA does not mean you're automatically a good administrator. You can act differently when you become a sysop, and in any case, you'll need to be careful like everyone else: just because you don't seem to have any flaws, that doesn't mean you don't have any, it just means they haven't been shown up yet. <small> One another point, you nee a more distinctive signature. (I don't have anything against the candidate, just such a warning - which applies to every admin - may not be heard otherwise.) </small> -
'''Oppose'''. I looked through this editors disputes earlier in the week and thought there were issues around temperament and I am adding this here now to encourage the nominee to take his time with the new tools and to not use the tools in any situation where he is involved.
I'm a bit concerned about your username, which according to your userpage is a byname of Malcolm X.  While I'm aware that it was neither his birth name nor his most famous name, it still seems to me that you're appropriating his identity as your own.  Also, I trust that you are good at maintaining a neutral PoV when editing controversial articles, but it seems that associating yourself with a controversial real-life person may make that difficult, especially now that you'll have the authority of an administrator.  I notice that you seem to get an inordinate share of hate mail and wonder how much that might increase in the future. -- ''<B>

'''Support''' You seem like my kind of candidate, heavy on the content side. Brilliant record in the article upgrade department. My review of your qualifications seems a bit thin in time spent here and overall edit count, but your stellar writing work causes me to look past those somewhat minor facts and give you my approval.  And may I add it is an honor to be the first to do so!  Best wishes, <font color="green">
Materialscientist's work at [[T:TDYK|DYK]] is invaluable, would be that much more helpful with the admin tools. Very nice content work, as well. Good luck. :)
'''Support'''. I am impressed by the candidate's strong content work. But that was not my first impression of the candidate. My first impression of the candidate was at [[WP:FAR]] - an area (most unfortunately) not always known for its congenial atmosphere. The candidate was in the process of attempting to improve an article at [[WP:FAR]]. The manner in which {{user|Materialscientist}} conducted his behavior at [[WP:FAR]] was admirable, professional, and most appreciated. If Materialscientist can conduct himself with this demeanor as an admin, it will be a significant helpful contribution to the project. Also, [[science]]. :) '''
'''Support'''. Heads-down candidate who has really focused on issues, not drama. [[User:TedderBot/Bacon Results‎#Wikibacon: Materialscientist, tedder|We've crossed paths before]], but not much; Materialscientist, [[WP:MULTI]] is a suggestion, but centralizing the discussion makes it easier, especially when people are stalking you during a RfA. As an admin, it's especially important to be communicative. Just sayin'.
'''Support'''. The user's judgments have been consistently sound. --
'''Strong Support''' — Extremely impressed by candidates article work. Make sure if you get the tools, keep up your article work. '''
'''Support''' I saw him act in a very complicated discussion about a science topic, and with his attitude towards the involved users and his dedication to create a balanced view makes me feel he will be a good admin. His helpful and friendly advices made me do some work for DYK. --
'''support'''
Per Cirt and Katerenka. </big><strong>
'''support''' for a careful, dedicated editor who has been of great assistance to me in the past.  I am impressed by Materialscientist's willingness to go the extra mile in helping others and calm demeanour when things get hot.  He has a good knowledge of the obscure workings of Wikipedia and will make a good admin.  I just hope we are not losing an even better content provider.
'''Support''' Dedicated vandal-fighter, positive content contributor, demonstrated good judgment. --
'''Temporarily breaking a swine flu induced wiki-break to say, ''<u>support</u>''.'''
As nominator. --'''
He's awesome. '''
'''Support''' Every time I see Materialscientist pop up on my watchlist, I know that there is one less article for me to worry about. They have a liberal and welcoming approach to newcomers, and take to the sources at the first hint of disagreement. -
Perfect candidate. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' I see nothing to concern me enough to oppose (although I remember once thinking that they were too harsh in a comment at DYK) and DYK desperately needs more admins working there anyway. Regards '''
'''Support'''—I see a lot of great work by Materialscientist. I was recently quite surprised when I noticed some use of the undo feature to revert vandalism—I was surprised that someone who had done such good work hadn't yet been given the relatively trivial ability to roll back changes. I immediately offered rollback then: I immediately support adminship now. I see no reason that Materialscientist can't be trusted with the tools. :) {&#123;
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this user around, remarks are civil, great content contributor, and good judgement. Will display the same qualities with the mop :) --
'''Support'''. I have had only positive experience with this editor. I think he has the judgment and maturity required for an administrator. I hope he will become a good sysop.
'''Strongest possible support''' - Materialscientist is one of the best content contributors on en.wikipedia; he has contributed to lots of scientific articles. We need more people like Materialscientist on our admin team. I've supported many RFA candidates, but this one is the strongest support I've ever given to an RFA candidate so far!
Considering that no one really informed him of the username policy until May 2009[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&oldid=291743127#Usernames] (the only person who did so before was blocked soon after[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&oldid=291743127#Hello][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lambmeat]), and that he renamed soon after learning about the username policy[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=291765884&oldid=291743127], it is hard to hold that against him. In addition, it seems that the committee behind the account abandoned it to one person much earlier than that.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Materialscientist&diff=265250255&oldid=264205270] But besides that whole issue, Materialscientist is a wonderful editor who will do great with the mop. At my [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nikita_Zotov/archive1|first FAC on Nikita Zotov]], he gave a review that essentially said, "You must find far more sources in Russian, or this article should not pass FAC". As I had no knowledge of the Russian language at all, Materialscientist kindly took a great deal of time to find sources[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikita_Zotov#Possible_sources] and do translations of some old works that Google was useless for[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikita_Zotov#Translation_requested]. From what I have observed, this is no different than how he acts all everywhere else. He would be a definitely positive as a sysop. <font color="navy">'''
To go against the likely onslaught of "ZOMG canvassing" opposes. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems to have the right mentality for an administrator. Not concerned with canvassing unless it was hostile or disruptive.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], great editor who's well-worthy of the bit. Not convinced by canvassing concerns although I will revisit over coming days to see if that goes anywhere. –'''
Looks okay, and I agree with Majorly, Doc Quintana, and Juliancolton: from what I saw, the canvassing was neutrally-worded and inviting people to vote here...not necessarily in support (and it was most certainly not canvassing done to sink someone's RfA, so I don't believe it can be compared to canvassing done by someone trying to sink a candidate they don't like). Besides, what Materialscientist did shows he's not an RfA regular (I don't remember coming across him until now), therefore, his behavior here will be genuine, not puffed-up to please RfA regulars and/or to trick those who like opposing because a candidate got one of their templated stock questions wrong. No concerns here.
'''Support''' I've worked with Materialscientist extensively in the past. He is an excellent worker. His writing skill isn't perfect, but not to the point that it would inhibit communication. Works for me! --'''
'''Strongest possible support''' I have worked with Materialscientist on Wikipedia's element articles for about a year. In that time, this user has proven a magnificent track record of quality contributions and an ability to work well with others, even when those other users were less than cordial. As far as the supposed "canvassing", well, not everybody who actually contributes content to the encyclopaedia frequents the cesspool of policy wonkery that RFA has become. So ''neutrally'' expanding comment in the spirit of[[WP: IAR| IAR]] outside of the RFA regulars does more good than harm, IMO.  --
'''Strong Support''' remember this guy from a challenging rescue operation for a plastic deformation article. Hes able to contribute with good advice on talk page disputes in addition to his excellent content building. Also per Mav - i raised the idead of attracting more participation by neutral notification of a candidates fellow project members on RFA talk and there was only one objector.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - A pretty reasonable user. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strongest possible support''' This editor is perhaps one of the most able to maintain a balanced view of any conflict in editing. He has literally mentored me through some contentious  conflicts on articles where communication had totally broken down. I was literally able to shift my point of view due to his communications. One of my first impressions of him was a totally self-directed, perhaps thankless, grunt job, of rewriting 70 references on an aritcle that I wrote. And, the quality and style of that job was impressive, besides the tedious mechanics of rewriting 70 references.  I was a WP newbie at the time and didn't understand the best way to write references. Through his mentoring I learned more effective ways to create referecnces and citations for an article. Similar to the mechanics of referencing articles for WP, I learned to use the best sources that were more reliable than others, because of this user's suggestions. He appears to have a naturally effective writing style. For awhile, I provided content while he provided editing that provided clarity. So he is definitely able to confer and collaborate on editing. IMHO he has a clear understanding of other editors' point of view and is able to see both sides of a situation. He has also, lately, mentored me on improving the quality of the articles, which I have authored at WP. He will be an effective administrator, of this I am sure.
'''Support''' - Editor has shown concern for article content quality and effort in composition, much beyond the trivial housekeeping, anti-vandalism, and other mechanical efforts by others.
'''Support''' Wikipedia desperately needs scientifically literate admins.
Tikiwont's oppose isn't a problem for me; the userpage said "This user is associated with ..."  Even though it later said "we", I think the user was representing themselves as one editor, not as a role account for a business.  If notices of this RFA were posted on the pages of just admins and scientists, then the closing crat should take that into account ... a poll from a year ago showed admins are significantly more likely to support at RFA than non-admins, and scientists are of course likely to be more supportive of this candidate than the average voter.  However, the odds are that this candidate didn't know about the old poll, and anyway, discounting the solicited votes is enough of a penalty.  I don't care if candidates don't know how things are done at RFA, I care what they've been doing before they got here, and the supports above look very strong.  Good scientific writing is a huge plus for me. - Dank (
'''Support''' Good editor, nice attitude, seems trustworthy to me. <small><span style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:#FF6600;">~~&nbsp;
'''Support''' I do dislike canvassing. What he/she did was neutrally worded and not much different (in my opinion) the userbox that RFA candidates frequently put on their userpage to attract attention (both good and bad opinions) to their RFA. We need quality effective people like Materialscientist to have the tools, so I support this adminship. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. I don't think the "canvassing" was actual canvassing as the notices were quite neutrally worded. Adminship is no big deal, and nothing has been presented which leads me to believe the tools would be abused in any way. I think having Materialscientist as an admin would be far more than a net positive for the project.  ···
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Materialscientist. —
'''Strong support''' excellent work on science articles, attention to detail etc '''
'''Support''': I've seen Materialscientist mostly at DYK, and he's a big help there. He is a good editor, and I believe he's ready for the extra buttons. Knowing RFA, I thought he'd be accused for canvassing when I saw that message my talk page. But as Julian quite correctly points out below he was not exactly asking for support, and I'm ready to accept the candidate's explanation for that (which seems quite plausible to me, and [[WP:AGF]] still does exist on Wikipedia). ≈&nbsp;
'''Support''' Excellent content contributions, especially (as the nominator points out) on key articles.  That's not something to necessarily push me here, though - I must say I really like your answers, especially seven and nine.  It seems you have already been through the worst that an admin could hope to experience and come out the other side, so you definitely have the temperament.  Based on that, really, there's absolutely no reason to expect you'd do anything aside from continuing to produce excellent quality stuff. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' I have seen much useful work from this editor.
'''Support''' after much review of the strong contribution history, and clarification of the issues with respect to the previous account name. --
'''Support''' ''switched from neutral'' I'm satisfied with the answer to A8 that I was waiting on, and other things look great. I think the "canvassing" issue was an honest mistake.--
'''Support'''. The work I've seen MaterialScientist do has been first class.
'''Support''' per candidate's compliance with [[WP:CANVASS]]; if all the opposes based on the alleged canvassing are thrown out by the bureaucrats, then this !vote should be as well.
'''Support''' because of the [[WP:GA]] work.
'''Support''', looks like a solid and useful contributor.  I'm particularly impressed by the fact that this user has contributed so much to so many Top-importance articles.  Best of luck!
'''Support'''. Candidate is a good editor with quality contributions and good common sense. That said, the canvassing thing was a moment of Epic fail; do be careful during your adminship. Good luck,
'''Support'''. User was a bit hard to deal with in his/her first few months on wikipedia, but as he/she picked up experience became as easy to get along with as any other editor. I was one of the editors who was 'canvassed', (see question #14 of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb_3|my RFA]] for my full feelings on this). Since I interact with MS relatively often, I have a lot to lose by placing him/her in power if I thought he/she would make a bad admin. His/her advice about potentially COI editors is pretty much exactly what I did when I first met him/her (under the name NIMSOffice) (on [[Optical properties of carbon nanotubes]]). I reviewed each article he/she edited and found a refreshing respect of [[WP:NPOV]]. I may or may not have given him/her editing advice (I don't recall) early on. There's no reason to suspect that he/she will abuse them, can be trusted to revert his/her bad calls and mistakes, and per 'adminship is no big deal', '''support'''.
'''Support''' Solid contributor, honest answers to questions about past username issues. I agree that expert retention is very important, especially in areas such as those MS involves himself. As a final note, neutrally worded messages are not canvassing.
'''Support''' - Editor is dedicated and knowledgeable.  He/she made some non-trivial mistakes in the first six months of editing - COI stuff and (IMHO) arrogant edits - but lessons were learned.--
'''Support'''. I see no problems. I just hope that if this passes you continue to contribute to articles along with your moppy duties.
'''Support''' Moved from Oppose. I can accept the apology for the "canvassing" confusion, we all make mistakes. I agree that MS is a good editor.
Your impertinent questions about my brilliant contributions to DYK are somewhat annoying - and the encyclopedia is much the better for them :). Good luck.
'''Support'''. Valuable contributor who shows common sense. --
'''Support''' My only encounter with Materialscientist was at my first DYK in a long time. Both the candidate and I became a bit testy over some formatting issues, but MS remained civil, calm, and the encounter turned out positive. As a recent participant at DYK I note that the process does have considerable backlog, and could use another Admin, and Materialscientists states the intention of continuing work here. Reviewing the candidate's work, I notice a good variety of article & image work/creation, article review, AfD work with no strong ideology... Opposes seem to focus around COI/"expert" claims and allegations of canvassing. The only problem I can see with an "expert" editor is if s/he were to edit as an authority-- citing no sources, and believing that his/her own word were sufficient for an edit. The candidate, so far as I see, cites sources appropriately, so this is not an issue... As someone recently involved in an RfA involving canvassing issues, I find WP's attitude towards this childish and insulting. Childish, because it implies the WP community is too immature to have participated in an actual election, which always involves solicitations to vote one way or another. Insulting because it implies the WP community does not trust its editors to evaluate the issues and make up their own minds despite this sort of solicitation. This is all the more insulting when these are simply notifications of a discussion-- as in this case-- rather than solicitations to vote a particular way... I see no problems with the editor's attitude, and only good work. Should be a fine Admin.
'''Support''' Strong writer, and tools will only aid Materialscientist in DYK. An asset to the project, no concerns at this time
'''Support'''.  Sensible answers to difficult questions.  I have no personal experience with this editor AFAIK but everything I see indicates someone who will use the tools well and work hard to improve WP.
'''Support'''.  I appreciate the honesty, and frankly the ability to recognize when one has taken an action that others believe to be a mistake and accept that and learn from it reaffirms to me what others have said above: that [[User:Materialscientist]] is a calm, collected contributor who assumes (and deserves the assumption of) good faith of others.  (As a side note, while I wouldn't have personally notified other users of this discussion, I believe he was doing so neutrally and in good faith, and I '''do not''' believe it's an example of improper canvassing, bad judgment, or anything of that nature.)  '''
'''Support'''. You seem to be sensible, helpful and productive. I would have preferred that you gained additional experience outside DYK, particularly in admin-related functions, before standing for sysop. But that said, I trust your judgment and think you'll be a positive force with the mop.
'''Support''' - I think there are a number of good qualities from this editor, but the answer to Q8b is the kind of thing I want to see out of an administrator. -- '''
'''Support''' to cancel out any one of the absurd opposes.
'''Support:''' I tend to agree with Crotchety. (By the way, I might be old but I am not crotchety) -
'''Support'''. Seems a good and worthwhile candidate. While the notes to peoples' talk pages were perhaps not ideal, seems a tempest in a teapot and not worth missing out on a likely good admin as a result. We need admins with clue, good temperament, and good reactions to evolving situations. That is much more important than how familiar they are with the plethora of policies, guidelines, and essays.
'''Support''' The canvassing thing was a simple, silly mistake, made in good faith. No reason to believe the user will break the wiki. They are now intimately familiar with the policy and why many believe their actions were inappropriate, and I have yet to see indication that the candidate is not familiar with any other vital policies. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Support''' per high quality answers.  Canvasing issue gave me pause however.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Has a clue and will do just fine. Canvassing issue is completely overblown.
'''Support''' I have worked with the candidate, so based on that I support. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a useful contriutor who'd use the tools sensibly.  the opposes don't concern me.
'''Support''' no actual problems here - good candidate who does great work. The "canvassing" here is not what its term belies; neutral wording which doesn't appear to be aimed at a particular crowd, such as the candidate's "friends", is not canvassing. To be frank, it was a kind of dumb move to make, although I'm not bothered by the literal action. Material is otherwise suited for adminship, and should do just fine in that role.
'''Support'''. Canvassing and [[WP:NOSHARE|multi-user]] concerns aside, the wealth of evidence that Materialscientist is a valuable member of the community is enough to persuade me to vote in favor.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. The canvassing I've seen falls easily within the word and spirit of WP:CANVASS. A note to the nominator, however; I do not give a flying fig if the candidate has a PhD in physics, economics, quantum mechanics or cookery. I don't care if he's unqualified or not. Your inclusion of that fact is completely irrelevant and unrelated to his editing skills. RFA is ''not'' a job interview.
'''Strong support''' - have interacted with MS at DYK and have only seen good work from him around the place. Love the article contribs. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support'''. I saw Material do well with an editor who attempted to compromise their real life on WP&mdash;so I am comfortable with granting them additional authority. -
'''Support''' - an effective editor who's been incredibly helpful over at DYK.
'''Support''' per nominator.  Materialscientist doesn't appear to be a nuanced editor who has carefully studied all WP policy, but that WP will be better off with him as an admin seems clear. I hope that he keeps up some content work, in addition to recent changes patrol, protection, etc.
'''Support''' User has been an nothing but an asset over at DYK with his contributions. Not only by being thorough, but also by the constructive manner in which he interacts with the other contributors. Have no reason to believe MS would abuse the added tools or admin-related functions.
'''Support''', very good content contributor. --
'''Support''' I have seen the editor's work ([[Diamond]]) and comments at FAR/FAC, and trust his abilities and judgment (he may not yet be well versed with every sub-clause of every policy and guideline but that, unlike judgment or temperament issues, is easy to fix). ''About canvassing'': Given how the messages the editor posted were worded neutrally, and that there was no attempt to hide the invitations, I am confident that they were a genuine attempt to invite reviews from editors he knows and respects, rather than an attempt to sway the RFA. Even if this was an error, it is one that Materialscientist can learn from, and not a determinative flaw in my opinion. Lets not lose sight of the forest for the trees.
'''Support''' – excellent contributor with well thought out answers. The extra buttons will enhance his abilility to contribute to WP. --
'''Support''', I think you would be a very good administrator. You have done a lot of work in mainspace. --Samwb123<sup>
'''Support'''. Very good user, and no major concerns, unlikely to misuse the tools. Also, I echo the support votes above, that the canvassing issue has been completly overblown. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose, as I agree the canvassing thing is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Good luck!
'''Support''' Contribs are excellent, and is here to build the encyclopedia. --'''''
'''Support''' Good candidate, I don't think the canvassing is something to be concerned about.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions - I have faith that this editor would not abuse the mop. -- '''
'''Support''' - Great contributions to this encyclopedia. He could definitely use the tools.
'''Support''' an excellent editor and writer who should make an excellent, reasonable admin.
'''Support''' strong answers to questions, meets all my basic criteria. :) good luck. ~
'''Support''': Under Wikipedia statute 44 there is no substantial evidence against him nor do I see a reason to object. Good luck.
'''Support''' Net positive contributions, good attitude, and an ability to facilitate working collaboration. <font style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">
'''Support''' A really nice guy who knows his stuff! :)[[User:Accdude92|Accdude92]] ([[User talk:Accdude92|talk]]) (
'''Support''' In my opinion MS deserves an adminship for all the work that he has done. '''
'''Support''' Absolutely. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''' Per YellowMonkey's say-so and content contributions.  —
'''support''' —
'''Support''' Lemme see. Admin shortage. Solid content candidate. Major canvassing mistake (ouch!) but not done in bad faith or under the wraps. Worth forgiving. Seems like a no brainer - the support, not the candidate :) --
[[File:Symbol strong support vote.svg|20px]] '''Strong Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''' - In edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know&action=historysubmit&diff=321482438&oldid=321479855 this], the candidate shows a sensitivity to fairness in content.
'''Support''' - Good candidate and a no-brainer vote. I see no substance to the CANVASS charge either. "Canvass" (to me) implies an element of bad faith, and there was no evidence of that. Looking forward to having MS on the team.
'''Support''' - no issues, solid content contributor, knows our policies and can apply them. -
'''Support''' - Absolutely. <strong>
''''Support''' – for a good candidate.
Big help at DYK, with the admin bit he can become even more important to the process. No problems, so '''Support'''.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' – I've seen this user contribute in several productive ways, and am convinced he will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - I trust this user with the extra tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''  I look forward to working with this editor as an admin, he is friendly courteous and knows his stuff.  We need more like him.
'''Oppose''' - Of the the year where they provided contributions they did so for more than half a year with an account name indicating a [[WP:COI]] conflict of interest with the [[National Institute for Materials Science]] administration and several months with a user page that actually indicated several users on  a role account.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Materialscientist&oldid=262856742]. This does not diminish the value of their contributions in gneral but makes me wary here with respect to the admin position as this was a rather long period for an account name that on the surface violates [[WP:NOSHARE]], was not that long ago and has not be disclosed up front or clarified. A convincing explanation of what has changed when and why, say under question 8, where the subsequent name change is raised might sway me or at least help subsequent !voters to judge this better.--
'''Oppose''' Come back when you have <s>the slightest</s> a better understanding of [[WP:CANVASS]]. Sure, we'd all like to solicit opinions from well known and experienced Wikipedians whose name might lend some weight at RFA, but you simply can't do that. Administrators are expected to understand our basic policies.
'''Oppose''' per Astronominov and Beeblebrox.
'''Oppose'''. I note your positive contributions in many areas of the project, but I am worried that you assign your own judgment higher precedence than norms established by long-term community consensus. A recent example is your statement about GA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=318411389 here]. ''" I myself simply quick-fail nominations submitted without contacting main contributors ... as a clear abuse of [the] GA system."'' (See diff for context). As for the perceived canvassing, I'll AGF that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to skew the RfA, but it was a lapse in judgement nonetheless. <tt>
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' - Editor appears to be competent and have a solid grounding in mainspace edits, but I'd like to see a little more experience before he gets the tools.  --'''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry and I hate to do this to you, but the canvassing was too inappropriate to ignore. Your messages clearly were to be discouraged by our canvassing guideline as they obviously weren't sent to encourage oppose votes.  Although you may now understand why this was wrong, the issue is that you didn't understand the policy while you were up for RfA and that raises some red flags in my book. Basic policies and guidelines such as canvassing should be familiar long before a run at RfA and knowledge of the correct application of them is a bare minimum for adminship.  I would overlook this if I were satisfied that you had an understanding of our policies in other places, but it is hard to assertain that from a glance at your editing record: I don't see many times where you participated in discussions about the meaning of our policies and guidelines. '''
'''Weak Oppose''', mostly for the canvassing. It's not a policy, true, but it's one of the fundamental givens that has to be protected, as Wikipedia's definition of consensus depends on neutral notification of all parties. A neutrally worded invitation is as you will now know, regarded as canvassing due to the selection of editors (or, invariably, by omission of certain editors.) The candidate's AFD record seems reasonable, and he's certainly worked at building the encyclopedia, and I probably would have supported had I not read the opposes, but I think the issue at hand is just too blatant to be ignored. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q14 indicates hesitancy which is worrying. The article on recall shouldn’t “stun” anyone. It’s a set of linked pages setting out various options and much less complicated than many of our detailed policy pages. As an Admin. he will be expected to interpret complex issues quickly and to make decisions based on a thorough knowledge of much more detailed areas. Together with his lack of awareness on canvassing (contained in the guide to would be admins.) and the rather convoluted answers to some questions, raises concern about potential communication issues and ability to interpret policy.
'''Weak oppose''' per John above (on both counts). -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' - primarily because of what I see as fence sitting in the answer to many questions.  Yes every situation is unique, but I can't really get much of an insight to how you would do things when you say "I'd have to see the actual situation to decide" to every question.  Secondarily, I think admins should have very strong communication skills since they will often be called upon to explain their actions to people who may not understand Wikipedia very well.  A large of your talk comments (including here) are difficult to read & may cause confusion.  (I do understand you aren't a native speaker, so I understand why this is the case.)  Your article work, however, is very strong and much appreciated (and interestingly uses much better English on average).  If adminship was a reward, you'd have earned it, but of course it isn't. Finally, since this seems very likely to pass I would just like to make sure that you are now aware that something like [[open source optics]] (your only recent speedy tag) doesn't really fit the definition of [[WP:CSD#G3|G3 - Hoax]], which only for blatantly ridiculous stuff not merely untruly stuff. --
<s>(Move to Oppose)</s> Sorry, but I am not satisfied with your answer to my question. There are many editors and admins whose background are in science, but the main problem in their tendentious conflicts that I consider is not that ''"often intolerant to those not accepting or even not understanding their views."'' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for announcing or arguing for scientists' thesis and belief to their peers, but your comment like "non-experts are disrupting and preventing experts from making fine science articles". Well, articles can not be written from scratch, but with reliable sources and consensus. Science fields are one of most frequent disputes brought to ARBCOM along with religion, and ethnic and international disputes, so I think the answer is somewhat evasive from the point. However, I don't find any compelling reason to oppose you yet and you have archived great contributions to Wikipedia, so I'll be here from now.--
Great content contributor.. but there's just.. something.. that doesn't seem quite right about this candidate.. can't put my finger on it just yet.. neutral for now. --
Was going to support, but the canvassing is worrisome.
'''Neutral'''.  I came here to support but the diffs noted in the oppose section are troubling.  You've done some great work for the project and I encourage you to keep it up.   If this RfA passes (I'm assuming it will), for future reference, please don't canvass.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Neutral''' - was going to support, but, canvassing is a big NO.--
'''Neutral''', for now--not because of this 'canvassing' thing, which I think is a bit overblown, but because of a past interaction I had with this editor at DYK, in which I felt they were a bit too judgmental and hard-headed (and, pardon my French, a prude). Above, there is some occasional mention of terseness, and I like my administrators more encouraging and diplomatic. So far it looks like the scientist will make it, and either way I wish them well--xe does not seem likely to abuse the power, and xe has done a lot of good work producing content and volunteering at DYK. Still, my past experience with this editor prevents me from wholeheartedly supporting their nomination.
'''Neutral'''. I've interacted with Materialscientist at DYK and found him to be smart and sensible. However, seeing that he is interested in working at AfD, I reviewed some of his AfD contributions, and I do not perceive them as indicating the desired level of cluefulness regarding Wikipedia policies. A few examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2015_hurricane_season&action=historysubmit&diff=310873796&oldid=310853554 2015 hurricane season] - superficial comment focusing on the fact that topic is a future hurricane season, not addressing the content of the article (which other AfD participants discussed); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGlobal_Warming_Hysteria&action=historysubmit&diff=307899069&oldid=307508393 Global Warming Hysteria] - comment is only about the title of the article (not particularly helpful to the AfD process); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNeuroquantology&action=historysubmit&diff=319599185&oldid=319193332 Neuroquantology] - comment was very helpful and relevant to the AfD, but was not particularly civil toward the nominator. --
'''Neutral''' I was going to support, but after re-reading candidate's acceptance paragraph, decided not to. It sounds like a request for a review.
'''Neutral''' Although I am aware that it does not affect your prospects. I would have supported, because you will be a great admin, and my not doing so will also not affect your chances. Whatever other editors say, you were canvassing; no candidate would send those messages which you unarguably did send if he expected anything other than a support !vote. --<font color="Red">
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|Using [[mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions|ParserFunctions]], I get to be '''first'''! [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support,''' as nominator.--
'''Support''' Although we've never interacted much, I spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia and I've always been impressed with Maunus' research and dedication to getting things right. Maunus will make a great administrator.  -- ''<B>
That crappy template didn't work, so I'm #3 behind [[User:Soap|Soap]]. Anyhow. '''Crank it up to 11 Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' - He has shown himself to be fair and judicious in his examinations of both articles and editor conflicts. He would be a great asset to the overall project. &nbsp;&nbsp;
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; I've never heard of you to be honest, but given your long history, I expect that's a good thing. Nothing concerning as far as I can see. –'''
'''Support''' - I do not see anything that concerns me. I have confidence in an editor that is as established as you are. I had a bunch more written, however I read it over and it seems like I was babbling much like I am now... <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Support''' - Looks fine. '''

'''Support''', you seem great at dealing with disputes. I'd encourage you to use edit summaries more; it seems like you don't use them for talk pages as much but they can be useful there too (they help one find things in page histories).
'''Support''' Has been around since July 2005 and this is first RFA and user track is good and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Piling on per AdjustShift's oppose, see my comment there. I see no problems, and I see a particular clear understanding of policy. --
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Nothing of great concern, seems to be Ok.
'''Support'''. It's a real shame when editors retire into administration, but you can always return.
'''Support''' per Juliancolton. Never heard of you either, but you seem like a fine candidate. '''
'''Support''' Julian sums it up best: I have never heard of you but your contributions do not show anything that would want to make me oppose or go neutral. AdjustShift's oppose is a cause for some minor reflection though but nothing suggests that Maunus is unable to learn from such things. Regards '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Regarding the first oppose, Maunus's conduct in [[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_Ban|this]] discussion seems ok, and I'm not going to oppose a candidate for a single exasperated comment.
'''Yes'''.  Sensible, mature, level-headed.  No problems here.  That you are able to remain sensible and level-headed after dealing with contentious areas is an even stronger reason to support; we need more administrators like this.
'''Support''' Trustworthy, meets my
Very good communication skills. - Dank (
'''Support''' all the way.
'''Support''' Level-headed editor. Also per Keepscases' oppose over a userbox... '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Manus is an asset to Wikipedia with a demonstrated record. In my opinion the first oppose is more wiki-drama than anything else
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Support''' - I'm not thrilled with the userbox mentioned below, but he removed it, so that shows a willingness to respond appropriately to criticism.  I think Maunus brings a lot to the table and his areas of expertise are certainly most impressive. --
'''Support''' - Evaluating solely on administrator-qualification criteria yields no significant reason to withhold support. --
'''Support''' - while I sometimes find him brusk and offensive, I think he's qualified to be an admin.
'''Support''' - Agree that his language in expressing opinions is sometimes a bit harsher than would be ideal but we can't all be saints.   He'll make a fine admin.  We need admins who understand what good, scholarly writing is so that Wikipedia can be respected as a quality project, not something put together by monkeys banging away on a typewriter.  Maunus is one of those who can help us get there.  --
'''Support''' Richard took the words out of my mouth: we can't all be saints - though I think that sounds less partisan coming from Richard! :) Seriously, I have no problems with Maunus becoming an admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' A superb editor with a wide range of experience who seems level-headed and courteous. -- '''
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Clue]] check turns up positive.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The incidents raised by the opposers strike me as relatively minor, but as an administrator Maunus may want to work on smoothing his occasionally sharper edges.
'''Support''', he's not already one?  Reading through the candidate's contributions to various WT: pages has convinced me that not only does he understand policy, he's able to think through its ''implications'' in a very refined way.  This is important. --
'''Support''' The answers seems a little '''bold''' for me, but the candidate seems honest, straightforward and collegial. I think they will make a good admin.
'''Support''' I've been hoping that Maunus would be nominated - sure, he has some rough edges, but so do most of us at timesm and Maunus clearly understands both editing and policy and as Deville says above can think things through.
'''Support''' a reeasonable editor who is open to discussion and temperate behavior.  His experience and contributions convince.
'''Support''' After deliberations, support arguments outweigh opposes.
'''Support''' find opposes unconvincing, default to support.--
'''Support''' As Wehwalt notes above, I have not seen any compelling reasons to oppose what seems like a valuable and qualified candidate.
'''Support''' A competent editor. Would use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' I don't see that the opposes are wholly unmeritorious, and I can't say that I regard this as so clear a case as apparently do many in this number.  On the whole, though, the candidate, with whom I have had a few passive encounters, each of which was positive, seems to possess sound judgment, a deliberative and collegial temperament, a fine demeanor, and a fair conversance with policy, and so I can conclude with a degree of confidence sufficient to merit support that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''', per Jahiegel, and thank you to Uncle G for his excellent questions, which swayed me in the candidate's favour from a previously wavering position.—
'''Support''' per Schmidt.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Maunus. —
'''Support''' Impressive. Once you obtain the bit, you could be an inner voice among the admin group, to speak out and to try to correct when obviously egregious things occur.--
'''Support'''
I particularly like the straightforward reply to Q3. The oppose votes either do not hold water or are not something I'm concerned about. (The editor who alleged the candidate to be a "constant source of drama and disputes" did not meet my request to provide diffs for the allegation. The "administrative arrogance" accusations AdjustShift brought up were certainly not a sign of being calm, but they seem to be an exception. Moreover, it is a good combination if an administrator is aware of administrative arrogance, provided {{genderneutral|ey}} is willing to apply that critical view to {{genderneutral|emself}}. In my impression, he seems to be sufficiently self-critical.) &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Generally good judgement.
'''Support''' Checks out just fine: good answers, hard working, dedicated and intelligent. I consider his arguably more 'direct' tone to be a bonus, which makes his humble <s>but futile</s> attempt to both forestall the inevitable Keepscases userbox shitstorm and to appease the actual Keepscases userbox shitstorm all the more admirable. And a bitter indictment of the RfA system. And the last straw from that user within it.
'''Support''' as user meets [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] by being a professional writer with a post-graduate degree, has created, expanded, and translated multiple articles (these sorts of edits really show that Maunus is indeed here to build an encyclopedia), has contributed to numerous DYKs and a couple FA articles, has received barnstars in recognition of his edits, has never been blocked, and I do not recall us having any memorable negative interactions.  Really, all sorts of good things and I am persuaded further by seeing the first couple of editors to have initially opposed below to have changed stances as well.  Best, --
'''Support.''' I can't see any glaring problems to be fair and I cant see any misuse of the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Maunus has shown a strong commitment to Wikipedia through consistent editing, and a high degree of [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]] through thoughtful answers to the questions posed.  The temperament based opposes would potentially be of concern, but thus far no one has provided any diffs that I find truly troubling. My only concern would be the minimal CSD experience, but I have [[WP:AGF|no reason to doubt]] Maunus' pledge to take it slow in that area.  Just remember that A7 doesn't apply to all subjects, that a article only has to make a weak claim of importance (not notability) to avoid A7 deletion, and that G1/G3 aren't a license to delete junk that doesn't fit into another speedy category. --
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Regrettable Support''' &mdash; It saddens me to see content writers move on to administratorship, since that means they will no longer be writing articles. Alas, I cannot oppose a perfectly eligible candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' All round well experienced user, seems sensible and appropriate for the job.
'''Support''' Per Ijanderson.
'''Support''' Good content writer; supportive, helpful, and collegial to newer editors -- all good qualities.
'''Support''', with some reservations.  Take heed of the opposes and neutrals.  I don't fault you for responding as you did to Uncle G's question, but the followup should be instructive.
'''Support'''. Experienced, thoughtful, civil, intelligent. A valuable editor from what I've seen of his contributions. Should make a fine administrator. --
'''Support''' - I'm not personally familiar with this editor, but upon a good deal browsing and reading through his question answers (which I liked, they show good [[WP:CLUE]] and generally wise choice-making), I'm convinced to support. It looks like he's worked in some areas/disputes prone to contention, as evidenced by stuff in the oppose section, such as AdjustShift's comments. Yes, Maunus has made some slightly harsh remarks under certain circumstances. Overall, however, he seems very willing to discuss differences and talk out issues in a calm and reasonable manner, which is a thumbs-up to me.
'''Support'''Has nothing I would directly oppose to. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
As for myself, I have commited my editing to a very big accomplishment and I feel I can be part of the Wikimedia Foundation community if I act in a very good way and welcome users and editors of Wikipedia, and help users with creating accounts.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Seems level headed and willing to learn.
'''Support''', but there is another difference between an expired prod and an article deleted through AfD; one can be recreated or restored immediately by anyone who wants to, and the other is eligible for speedy deletion if recreated in the same form.

---'''
'''Support''', looks well rounded in the way of the wiki. Should make a fine admin.
'''Weak support'''. Not too fond of the closures where the result was no consensus or delete, but overall, I don't see any major problems. — '''''
'''Support''' Seems fine. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' - I see no problems. --'''
'''Oppose''' Your contributions are commendable. However, there are some serious issues. The incident AdjustShift brought up concerns me. Also, I strongly dislike the drama-inciting tone and behavior exhibited on the noticeboards and the apparent need to do non-admin closures on AfDs that are not nearly unanimous keeps or even keeps at all. In addition, the level of research you put into the few AfD !votes you've made is concerning. You !voted on three AfDs in just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20090804215554&contribs=user&target=Maunus&namespace=4 six minutes] just a few days ago. Disregarding all that, I would still like to see more experience in the areas in which you wish to work, especially dispute resolution.
'''Oppose''' - I cannot trust this user, there is no real need for the tools, and some of his statements here and on other places make me concern about his ability to act neutrally or fairly. A recent example where his "diplomacy" is more inflammatory than diplomatic is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=307445779 here], on a page that he cited as one of his examples of his good conduct. Such derogatory comments are not neutral nor are they used by those trying to mediate or come to terms with others. These are partisan terms, and the user has a really bad habit of getting himself into many POV battles and acting as a partisan and not a mediator.
Poor AFD closures.
'''Weak Oppose'''; some things regarding question 1 made me uncomfortable. "And although I hope I will not have to use them, the ability to block or topic ban disruptive editors, or at least threaten to do it..." seems a bit overly confrontational. Also, the candidate has no experience in CSD, yet wishes to work there. Still leaning between Oppose and Neutral though, and I'll watch the RfA closely for future developments. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' Admins need to keep their cool when tempers get hot, and to refrain from personalizing disputes.  I'm not seeing that here.
'''Strong oppose for cause with evidence''' Maunus (1) displayed serious lack of core policy knowledge and/or inability to obtain it; (2) demonstrated unsound judgment in refereeing a dispute; (3) wrote an un-admin-like statement of constructional disregard for WP:BRD consensus editing. Add to these, ''in my personal opinion'', he handled criticism poorly, and displayed a part-time, little-noticed, arrogant aggression. That's an overall recipe for an admin who may too frequently make bad decisions and/or become abusive when he is challenged for any reason.<p>An editor who apparently has not thoroughly read [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], and seemingly refuses to read it again when asked, or can't comprehend it, or somehow fails to act on his reading of it, is an unlikely candidate for adminship. Maunus' ability to handle a dispute was incautious  and blundering. When he was challenged, he persisted in fallacious policy positions after he had been asked to read correct policy. Engaging in irrational [[escalation of commitment]] by an admin candidate, who should be on his best behavior, is unacceptable.<p>The locus of the dispute was [[Talk:Cult#Counter-Cult, Anti-Cult, and Cult Apology|here]] (seems to be ended).<p>Maunus charged in to help an ally of his content dispute, but then he casually blundered over the policy line into a PA-by-unevidenced accusation. Initially he didn't know what he had done wrong – which happens to many – but then he aggravated his lack of knowledge by repeatedly ignoring WP:NPA policy reference to his mistakes:  <blockquote>• <small>[[WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents]]: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks"</small></blockquote><blockquote>• <small>[[WP:NPA#Avoiding personal attacks]]: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."</small></blockquote><p>Maunus made an accusation of ''"personal attacks"'', and foolishly entered an accusation into the edit summary, where he can't strike it if wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308221227&oldid=308220045], persisted the accusation, with WP:NPA unread or not comprehended or not acted on: ''"You also cannot back up personal attacks with evidence since that is irrelevant..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308235102&oldid=308233842], even after that charge was declared as wrong with reference to WP:NPA: ''"accusation of PA is prohibited without evidence per WP:NPA"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308233412&oldid=308231670], followed by a more insistent request to read WP:NPA ''"[[WP:NPA]] says that evidenced statements are not considered PAs."'' <small><small>(because ''"describe an editor's actions"'' implicitly requires evidence)</small></small> ... ''"You can't casually throw around the words "personal attacks"."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308252439&oldid=308251792]. Yet he persisted with a ''third'' accusation of violating the ''"letter of WP:NPA"'', plus a co-accusation of ''"WP:CIVIL"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308288252&oldid=308287856] , also proved wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308335288&oldid=308334237].<p>Note the failure of good judgment and loss of emotional control in his re-edit of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308287856&oldid=308256615 Maunus 12:26, 16 August 2009 (original diff)] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=next&oldid=308287856 Maunus 12:30, 16 August 2009 (re-edit diff)]. In the first diff he mutes the previous overt PA accusations to ''"disparaging remark"'', though that's still covertly a PA accusation. Unfortunately, four minutes later he couldn't resist twisting the knife by persistently adding back in a third overt PA accusation: ''"clearly in conflict with both the spirit and letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL."''<p>Both accusations referred to an evident statement of fact, in response to a calumny by a third party, as explained in considerable detail [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308335288&oldid=308334237]. <p>That Maunus seemed unfamiliar with [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], and had a questionable understanding of it, casts further doubt on his readiness for adminship.<p>How many other policies has he not read well, or does not clearly understand? WP:CONSENSUS? Note his unqualified claim that ''"Major changes may be made to any article without discussion..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308221227&oldid=308220045],  which is consistent with his lack of regard for WP:BRD editing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308221227&oldid=308220045]<p>WP:BRD is not required by guide or policy, but it is widely regarded as a model editing practice that good editors, and especially admins, should emulate. I requested that Maunus observe it: ''"...will you honor a WP:BRD revert and discussion or not?"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308233412&oldid=308231670] , to which he replied ''"I am honoring the BRD cycle by discussing this with you."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308235102&oldid=308233842].  In response I wrote, ''"I see a "B" (bold), and a preamble to a "D" (discuss), but no "R" (revert). In short, you are constructionally refusing BRD editing cooperation."'' Maunus' "honoring" reply is notable for its glossy failure to accept editing cooperation in a BRD cycle, coupled with a disturbingly un-admin-like morph of the facts ("BRD cycle" with no actual revert), to lightly cover what he seems to know makes him look bad (constructionally refusing BRD). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cult&diff=308252439&oldid=308251792]<p>Maunus has a different, more controlled self that he projects much of the time. I've seen that controlled, well-mannered self, but then I've known other editors who seemed outstanding as long as one didn't oppose them. A well-mannered self is civilized behavior, and good manners is sometimes a necessary polite fiction, but good manners isn't enough when a non-controlled self emerges under unexpected pressure. Admins face unexpected pressures frequently. As is often said, some people have the temperament to be editors, but not admins. My judgment of this editor is: not ready to be an admin.<p>Whatever, it looks like this nomination will sail through, so I'm serving notice of a personal dispute. Maunus is not to use his tools, or suggest his possible use of them in regard to any situation involving me.<p>I apologize for the page bloat of this oppose, but future victims of poor judgment, if any, deserve to know that there was a precursor to their plight. Hopefully, some other knowing admin would step in to help them.
'''Neutral'''. Seems to be a good editor, but I'm concerned about the first strong oppose and could likely be swayed either way.
This isn't really a "vote", more of a discussion contribution.  But there's no section for that.<p>As always, my 3 AFD discussions question was a complex test.  It doesn't reveal any such problems as alluded to by [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] above (Any pointers to specific discussions of concern, Stifle?), but it does suggest a need for a pointer from experience.  Therefore I offer this advice:  Maunus, if you get administrator tools, as seems likely at this point, remember that ''you're still an editor as well''.  Ignore what NVO implies above; it's not true.  &#9786;  As administrators we still have editor hats, and we still have all of the tools that editors have.  Sometimes the right response is to ''just be an editor''.  Sometimes it's an ordinary editor tool that is the right tool for the job.  Your responses to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese language]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trifectant]] indicate that you automatically view your r&ocirc;le as being the closing administrator.  (Note that I worded the question quite carefully.  The discussions weren't chosen completely at random, either.  &#9786;)  Whilst that's admirable enthusiasm for a new administrator, from your responses to the question it is clear that the right courses of action, that would have helped AFD and Wikipedia ''more'', would have been for you to ''chime in as an ordinary editor'' and add your opinions to the discussions.  [[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]]  seems to have the same concern, that you are perhaps ''too'' willing to always wear an administrator hat.  You clearly have views on the articles in question ("like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability" and "The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic") and those views would actually help the next person to come along, and any future discussion closer, ''more'' than just a mere re-listing would have.  (You do, after all, claim some knowledge of the field in the case of one of those discussions.)<p>So here's a tip based upon experience:  Remember that we can often help AFD and other processes by just being ordinary editors.  We aren't forced always to be discussion closers and arbiters.  The administrator tools are not the only tools in our toolboxes; and it's sometimes a far more useful and productive contribution to a discussion to ''edit'', to ''write'', and to ''find, read, and evaluate sources'', than to simply be a person wielding a rubber stamp.  You'll find that those are useful principles to remember outside of deletion discussions as well.
'''Neutral''' - I've decided to switch my !vote to neutral. The above discussion I had with Maunus indicates that he will not use the admin tools inappropriately, so there is no reason to oppose.
'''Neutral'''. Stifle's closure and the other temperament issues are concerning. Will have to look more closely.
'''Support''' Seems like a sound candidate.--
'''Support''' per nom. Absolutely.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. Should have co-nomed. :( –'''
Thought he was already an admin support. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
<small>(5 (!) edit conflicts)</small> Good luck! :) —&nbsp;
Per Xeno.
'''Strong Support''', this user's comments on previous RFAs lead me to believe that they possess a high level of Clue, something that is in short supply around here today.
Easiest choice I've made all day. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support.''' Well-rounded, civil user. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason Mazca would misuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Trustworthy editor who I've seen around.  Good luck! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">
I really did think he was a (good) administrator for the longest time. I have no problems with Mazca, and would be happy to see him as an administrator. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Sensible & trustworthy.
Thought you were an admin, quite honestly.  Doing a great job at the minute, I'm sure that will continue. '''
'''Support''' Bam! I vote for thing I like. :P
{{ec}} '''Support''' per Garden. '''''
'''Support''' per above. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' - Without hesitation.
Has the experience and clue to work as an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''' Well, the pair of noms is going to be tough to beat I'd think, but I thought I dig around a bit anyway.  Couldn't find anything negative.  I think we need more quality admins., and I think this candidate will be one. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' per nomination (though EVula's was too long). <font face="Arial">
I thought the candidate is already an admin (this sentence has two meanings, but this is good one).--
'''Strong Support''' User has been around since May 2006 and as per nom of  Aitias and EVula.Good track and see no concerns.
'''Support''' The oppose section doesn't give me cause for concern.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Very knowledgeable editor, I'm surprised you aren't an administrator already! Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Impressed. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Make it so'''
'''Support''' You have enough experience to do the job right. :) \

'''Support''' Excellent user.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Yay for mopness.
'''Genuine-fall-off-the-couch-thought-he-was-one-moment'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. No reason to believe he'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - reasoned (and reassuring) answer to the question I posed, and meets [[User:Coldmachine/RfA Expectations|my expectations]] for candidacy. Best of luck with the RfA. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I always thought Mazca was an admin. Not sure why, but that's a good thing, I suppose, because I didn't think he was a crappy admin. That said, the fact that I trust EVula implicitly and based on the candidates answers to my questions, which I very much appreciate his view on each, I fully support this candidate.
'''Support''' per xeno and J.delanoy. -
'''Oppose''' &mdash; [[User:EVula|EVula Cabalist]] =p ... OK, pardon my French, but it's about fucking time. I was thinking Mazca would make a good admin months ago, I even said so on his talk page. Nothing has come to my attention to make me change my mind.
Doesn't look like a bad candidate to me.  &ndash;
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. I must express my concern that the number of questions posed to candidates may be becoming excessive.
'''Support'''. Good grasp on policy and excellent demeanor; I'm sure he will be an asset with the mop.
'''Support''' Absolutely! Per above. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Great user. Well-reasoned, moderated, responsible: suitable for the job. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' Net positive.—
'''Support''' Qualified candidate. Unconvincing opposes. You'll do well with the mop. =) '''
'''Support''' Good candidate, will make a fine addition to our "ranks" with the mop. His speedy work is exemplary at many times and when I [[User_talk:SoWhy/Archive_13#CSD_review|reviewed it 2 months ago at his request]], I did not find any serious errors. Regards '''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support'''- Cliched- but genuinely thought this user was an admin :)
'''Support''', generally agree with all of the above.  Also agreed with NYB, KT and many others that the number and difficulty of the questions is a bit of an issue.  If for some reason we can't get consensus on a guideline, then at the least I suggest we make the case to prospective candidates in the Guide that it's not usually in their interest to answer every question. - Dank (
'''Support''' Has clue, temperament, tenure and experience. Also I like to see a speedy tagger who also uses prod when appropriate. ''
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support'''. Innocent until proven guilty, and no problems as far as I can see.
'''Support''' - I thought you were an admin already! [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' People with the temperament and skill to do audits are exactly what we need in syops.
I always thought he was rational. --
'''Support''' as I see no evidence the tools would be abused and I find the oppose opinions to be unconvincing. ···
'''Support'''. Always been a sensible voice in my experience.
'''Support'''. No issues, seen you around, can be trusted with tools. --
'''Oh, heck yeah'''.  Seriously, it's about time, mazca.
'''Support''', no problems with this user, good edits.
I'm
'''Support''', I recognize the signature and I'm not recalling anything negative about it. You have good answers to the questions (15 in particular I like - this position will put you outside of your comfort zone at times, but you have a good idea of how to handle it), and I don't see any reason to oppose. Article work is helpful, but not everything; all I ask for is clue and good responsibility. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''. I agree with Hersfold's first statement. I think I'm starting to associate the user with the format of their signature. I seem to remember positive interaction with Mazca. I am comfortable with him having a mop.
'''Support''' I don't see why there would be any issues. '''<font face="times new roman">
Another Ambrosian asking to join the sysop ranks? How can I say no? :)
'''Late to the party support''' Typically I won't pile on when the outcome no longer is in doubt, but I have been favorably impressed by this user repeatedly, and I wanted to absolutely confirm my confidence for granting use of the tools.
'''Even later to the support''' An extremely [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] user whom I've had pleasant experience after experience. Again, not to pile on the support, but this is one support I just can't bear to delay. Cheers. '''''
'''Support''' - I was reviewing him, but then I just got so busy IRL; everything I've reviewed of him seems good, so I'll '''support'''. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - over 4,000 edits, sufficient time on board, at least 400 edits in Wikipedia, good barnstars, etc.  C-nom by a person I respect.  No concerns.
'''Support''' "just sufficient time" on board :) --
I've always thought that Mazca is a decent and sensible peron.
'''Support''' Definitely in the "thought he already was" category.--
'''Support''' Good record. '''
'''Support'''. Looks good. — '''''
'''Support'''. Yep, looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Good luck! I see every reason (look at the 84 above) to support and none to oppose. --
'''Support''' - seen mazca around, like what I see; answers and nom statements look good too. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' will do well with the tools.
'''Last minute support''', even thought it's unnecessary. You'll make a good admin.
'''Weak oppose''' Lack of audited content contributions. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' I'm not confident that this editor has sufficient experience to be empowered with Admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough article work. Except [[Iron Maiden]], the candidate hasn't edited any other article heavily. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a social club. Those who don't do much article work shouldn't be in a position to tell others what to do and what not to do.
'''Oppose''' - Anyone who allows himself to be nominated by admin Aitias, a vicious abuser of editors providing valuable content, cannot earn my trust.--
Per erotic discussion in the support section. '''
On the fence per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  It is good that the candidate has a few barnstars and looking through [http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=4&user1=A+Nobody&user2=Mazca&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= discussions in which we both participated], usually even when we disagree, the candidate seems reasonable or open to changes, but just a couple of the DRV experiences, such as one concerning a pretty clearly "no consensus" bilateral relation that closed as delete, which he endorsed, has me somewhat reluctant as to how he could read consensus when closing such discussions.  Again, only a handful of instances, somewhat cancelled out by other more pleasant encounters, so not enough to really oppose on, but enough to give me a pause for saying to support.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I accept that we have many anti-vandal Admins already, but we still need far, far more. Vandalism and innapropriate pages remain a real problem on Wikipæpedia.
'''Support''' I've seen Mentifisto reverting vandalism a lot.  He really deserves adminship and will use the tools well.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Strong support''' - We need more anti-vandalism admins. &ndash;
'''Support'''  —
'''Strong support as nominator''' Best of luck! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' - I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. I have seen numerous positive contributions to the project from this user and I'm sure he would be a great administrator as well.
'''Very strong support''' Can be trusted with the tools, I have no problems about giving the tools to this user. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Is this one of those reconfirmation RFAs? :) Good luck.--
'''Support''', has an obvious need for the tools. Suitable personality and sufficent experience.
'''Very strong support''' (after two edit conflicts) &mdash; The fact that Mentifisto is not an administrator yet is in itself a negative to the project. Quite simply, Wikipedia ''needs'' to give the mop to this editor.
'''Support''' - Positive contributions, will strongly benefit from the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - per Julian. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support'''. Likes a candidate that exercises [[WP:BOLD]] without being over the wall by improving the overall readability of comments via fixing typos.
'''Support''': He will gratify many wikipedians.
'''Support''' I can't remember a negative interaction with this user. I've seen him around at the Help Desk and was impressed when (he? she?) asked a question and also took time to respond to a few. Helpfulness like that is a great trait. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' Becoming an admin is[[WP:DEAL|"No Big Deal"]]. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
'''Support''' - thought he already was one -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''': Have seen the user responsibly Huggling several times. Good luck - just don't correct my grammar! <sup><small>
'''Support''' I see from your contributions and how you answer these questions that you'll make a great admin!
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Trusted. '''
'''Support'''. Moved from oppose; concerns allayed.
'''Support'''. A great and dedicated editor that will make a great admin.--
'''Isn't already? support''' And, go gnomes! --
'''Support''' - I see no reason why not. Speedy work is fine (which is, as usual, what I look at first ;-)). I do advise you to take Q4 and the oppose by Caspian Blue to heart and do not edit other people's comments and try to be more careful when posting such opinions. I am though convinced you will do that, so it's nothing to stop me from supporting. Regards '''
'''Support''' Clean block logs, plenty of experience and no concerns from user and talk pages. Plus I find the opposes unconvincing. '''
'''Support.''' I like the idea that someone will help take care of the AIV and CSD backlogs. I've <s>fun</s> come across this user in passing several times and have no issue with sysop status. I was also impressed with the answer to question 7, where it would have been very easy for the user to take a side instead of remaining neutral. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' Great editor, however, I have to agree with Ottava below. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' A trust editor. All that I needed was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMentifisto&diff=278402758&oldid=278398837 Mentifisto's word] that he/she wouldn't refactor others' comments. Thanks for the quick response, '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support''' From all that I've seen - he does good work...
'''Support''' Superb work; adminship will only help the project, so [[WP:WHYNOT|why the bloody hell not]]? Cheers. '''''
'''Support''' A user who has demonstrated a commitment to improving Wikipedia.
'''Support'''- I see no reason not to trust this user with the mop.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''', a review of contributions has thrown up absolutely nothing that concerns me and a lot to recommend you; generally very good work with Huggle and elsewhere. I do not find any of the opposes particularly convincing to me, problem incidents mostly seem very minor and/or isolated, and I remain very skeptical of requiring content contributions from our admin candidates. For me, substantial contributions in some form to the overall reliability, stability and/or comprehensiveness of Wikipedia is enough of a demonstration of good intentions. Widespread and competent anti-vandalism work assuredly demonstrates this. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', as a Huggler myself, I have no problem with anti-vandal admins. I have seen no issues with you becoming an admin, except for the Caspian Blue incident, but I believe that that won't happen again. Thanks, '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Genius101|<font color="red">Genius</font>]][[User talk:Genius101|<font color="blue">101</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''', editor that [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]] most of the time, and is a big help on [[WP:Huggle|huggle]] and in other areas, I think the user is ready for the admin tools. :) Best,
'''Support''' Great editor, thoughtful answers, and diligent anti-vandal fighting.  As I've said before, clueful admins who predominately use Huggle and/or vandal-fight I view as total assets to the project. '''
'''Support'''.  While I have seen you around the wiki and know your edits to be high quality, I will caution you that people will be very offended when an administrator edits their comments.  I would discontinue this practice immediately--though I am sure there is no sinister motive here.  Other than this, I have no problems with Mentifisto becoming an administrator. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' spotty activity, not much article building, but very strong vandal fighting.  The editing of others comments ... BIG NO-NO ...BAD!  The bottom line though is - I believe he takes this '''don't do it anymore''' advice seriously, and I believe that he'll restrain himself in the future.  Give him a mop, and let him take out the trash. — [[User:Ched Davis|Ched]] ~ <sup><i> [[User talk:Ched Davis|(yes?)]]</i></sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ched Davis|©]]</sub> 06:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)  PS - don't ''ever'' edit ''my'' comments - make your own to address my faults (of which there are many). —
'''Support''' <font color="maroon">
'''Weak support'''  switch from neutral after assuring that Mentifisto will not be editing other's comments.
Sure.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I like this guy.
'''Support'''.  Someone's got to hold the vandals at bay, and I'm particularly impressed with the helpdesk participation.  Shows a good attitude to Wikipedia.—
'''Support''' Seems fine.
'''Strong Support''' If only because with more tools at Mentifisto's disposal, I should be able to get more edits in on [[WP:HUG|Huggle]] rather than always being beaten.  On a serious note, edits have always seemed to be correct, or corrected if they're initially incorrect.  When I speak with people in my life about WP, I ask them to tell me how often they actually see vandalism, and they respond that it's not very often.  I take that as a sign that editors like Mentifisto are performing a valuable service, because as any experienced user knows, vandalism is rampant.  This is a well-deserved nomination, and I look forward to its passage. <font color="green">
'''Support''', good answer to Q15.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''',Will make a great admin good luck [[User:Staffwaterboy|<b><span style="color:red">Staffwaterboy</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support''' A wonderful person, who will make a great admin, and is always a help -- even when what I'm asking for help on isn't by rights part of this project in the first place.  Great attitude that we need to see  more of around Wikipedia.  As well, it's good to see people getting nominated who work on vandalism, and the year of edits from public computers is certainly impressive as heck. --
'''Support''' The supporters are many, and specific, and emphatic.  There are no diffs in the oppose section that counter anything the supporters are saying. - Dan
'''Support''':  Mentifisto seems to have the experience, knowledge and temperament necessary to be good admin.
'''Support''' Yes, experience, knowledge, and temperament are all there.
'''Support''' &ndash; [[WP:WTHN]]? Am I right? &mdash;
'''Support''' Candidate looks good, and the opposes tend to be stretching for reasons on why to do so.
'''Support''' per Juliancolton. The tools would likely be a great aid to MF, and would help him extend his reach in the areas of vandal-fighting. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support''' - good candidate who needs the tools, and would not abuse them. Not convinced by the arguments given in the Oppose section - we should not stop a potentially useful vandal-fighter from getting the tools because they haven't contributed enough articles.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Mentifisto will use the tools appropriately and will use them for the benefit of the English Wikipedia.  Good luck in the future!
'''Support''' I don't think you will break the wiki, but I would encourage you to ease yourself into adminship slowly, and don't try to do everything all at once.
'''Support'''.  A great vandal-fighter who's beaten me to quite a few reverts.  He has contributed enough content to satisfy me (a DYK) when combined with his impressive record elsewhere.  Also, editing others comments is a breach of etiquette, but it's not egregious and I don't think he'll do it again.
'''Support'''. No question. --
I've only seen good things from Mentifisto.
'''Support''' <font face="cursive">'''
'''Oppose''' After looking at this candidate's contributions, I do not feel comfortable with him having the tools because he seems to rely on Huggle a great deal.  Less than 3.4% of candidates edits on this account have been to the Wikispace, which for me means that he might make a mistake in mis-tagging something with the autotool and <i>may not</i> be familiar enough with the policies in the areas candidate wishes to work in.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' - editing other's comments should be done in only rare and extreme cases. Treating it so trivially shows a mindset that is inappropriate for adminship. The possibility for bad actions is exponentially increased.
'''Oppose''' as I can't support anyone who overuses Huggle. It is really hard to look through your contributions as it is all huggle nonsense. '''
'''Oppose''' great at anti-vandal, great person, helpful, but lack of broad experience of editing articles; also some contribs I looked into, stats, and some talk comments that didn't demonstrate exemplary negotiation skills. And admins should be exemplary, right? --<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Oppose''' - User seems to be a great person, and is great at the stuff they do. I'm not convinced that they have the experience needed to grant adminship though. Based on the user's answer that the most article writing they've done is something from several days ago shows that perhaps they need to spend some more time here--broaden their experience in other aspects.
'''Oppose'''. Minimal content creation. Poor interaction with Caspian Blue.
'''Oppose''' - The exchange between Mentisto and Caspian Blue worries me. Good communication skills and ability to keep civility are key for admins. Was neutral at first, now I have decided to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - I'm also worried about communication skills, and lack of content work.
'''Oppose''' while I'm fine with admins spending time on vandal work and other drudge tasks if that's where they find their niche, I'd like to see more article work as well. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' - insufficient article writing experience (that is, after all, why we're here.  I wouldn't hire a vegan to run my steakhouse either).  Too much pestering of opposers also makes me uncomfortable.
'''Oppose''' answers to questions show that this editor does not have the experience at this time to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' - No offence intended, but upon reading all the questions and answers, I'm just not filled with confidence. Editing others comments and being so laid back about it doesn't seem very appropriate to me. The article writing experience is also a concern. At the moment I really don't feel you have the right qualities, but given a few months, I'm sure this could change. <span style="border:1px solid deeppink;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Oppose''' - I strongly oppose this candidate; as a relative newcomer to wikipedia, I obeject to administrarotship rights being given to a user who has yet do demonstrate credentials in editing. Indeed, I am dismayed that others have not examined the log files to discover that said user had made almost no contributions to the main article area. --
'''Oppose''' I think this person has too little experience  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' Little real article development.  Little understanding of policy ("show me where the community consensus says not to edit other's comments" still has my mouth hanging open). I believe you're on the right path, with the right ''overall'' attitude. (
'''Neutral leaning support''' - I don't know. I've had conversations with Mentifisto in the past (mostly on IRC), and whist he has always come across as a friendly and helpful individual and editor, I have often wondered about his knowledge of policy (I can't cite any specific issues, my mind has decided to lock them away in an inaccessible vault). On one hand, he won't break the Wiki, on the other hand, my memory is telling me that I've seen something which should make me wary. If I can't remember what it was, I'll probably support in the next few days. If I don't change in the next few days, please interpret this neutral as a support. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' I'd like to see more article building and a more consistent contribution track record before supporting.
'''Neutral''' per FingersOnRoids. Excessive use of Huggle makes for one-dimensional Wikipedians. Furthermore, editing others' comments is just not done here.
'''Neutral''' I want to support you but I don't have any grasp on your interpretation of policies and guidelines not dealing with vandalism.  Looking back through the past several thousand contributions, the only ones to any Wikipedia: page were to the huggle whitelist and AIV. Being tough on vandalism is a good thing, but admins should have knowledge of other aspects of the encyclopedia as well. '''
'''Neutral''' (move from Oppose). Since the indiscreet comment seems like one time thing and I highly respect Hersfold's administrative conducts, so I switch my vote. Also, I saw you got a DYK badge yesterday which tells me that ''you can write articles'', not just remain as one of bunch of hugglers (though that effort seems like preparation for this RFA). Moreover there are many bad admins who can not learn anything from mistakes unlike you did, so opposing you at this point for the matter would be meaningless. However I still think that you need to work more building contents and be wary when you say something sensitive issues to others, so this is at my best of assuming good faith. Best of luck--
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as I am happy candidate has never been blocked, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008&diff=180166972&oldid=180164589 this] is essentially a [[WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC]].  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral''' -- A great editor who will not abuse the tools, but not editing articles without a script is a problem. --Best, '''''<small>
'''Neutral:''' I can understand why he fixed those typos/grammar errors . . . I sometimes have an almost unbearable impulse to do the same thing myself.  But even as a true newbie, I somehow knew that correcting the typos of others . . . or even ''mentioning'' them, was bad form.  Maybe it shouldn't be a big no-no, but it is.  Part of me says, "yay, he fixed those damn annoying errors" and the other part of me says, "that doesn't bode very well for his judgement . . ."  Hence neutral.  Otherwise, I think his activity looks quite solid, but I do get an overall impression of communication difficulties.
'''Neutral''' - I can certainly see most of the arguments on both sides (although we do need more admins), but I think that I can not oppose.
'''Support''' Will he delete the main page? No. Will he block anyone he disagrees with? No. Will he use the tools the right way? Yes. Support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Beat the nom''' - Has a clear head, knows what to do. Will not abuse tools. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Has clue.
'''Support''' - Long-term editor with plenty of experience. We need more admins in the field of images, as well. &ndash;
'''Support''' Per Juliancolton, absolutely. Also, a quick glance at the user's talk page reveals a calm and collected tone in the face of contention.
'''Support''' A steady record of excellent edits and a history of cluefullness and experience.  Also, it would be great to have more admins who are image experts and creators.  Good luck! <b>'''
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' as nom. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Nice experience including a little bit of everything: editor assistance, spam fighting, copyvio hunting, project involvement, featured content debates, gnome work, vandal fighting, content contribution, speedy tagging and, obviously, image work and involvement at Commons.
'''Support''' - Has clue, seems like a good candidate. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to have the clue that is needed. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Definitely.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
[[Image:Cscr-featured.svg|18px]] '''FPC Support Star''' Great experiences with this user at FPC. Couldn't help myself with a FP star, but it really does apply (I won't do it in the future :-) ). Seriously though, excellent user, positive history, trustworthy, and not expected to abuse the tools. Exceeds my [[User:Wadester16/RfACriteria|criteria]]. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support'''. Didn't find any problems in his contributions.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. --
'''Support''', seems fine.
No reason to believe Mfield will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good answers to the questions, good contributions, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' Very balanced and calm editor, who copes well with the junk thrown at him as an editor, so should do fine as a mop user.
'''Support''' -- A good faith user who will use the tools in the same way to improve Wikipedia.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' Looks good. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''Seems like a v. good user. --
'''Support''' per above.
As the person who has closed the majority of FPCs over the past year, I'd say his comments are very much appreciated.
'''Support''' Enough experience with policy to find his way around admin areas, and a reasonable voice in contentious discussions. No negative interactions in my memory.
[[Image:Emoticon_glad.svg|20px]]'''Support'''...see above. :) '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' - I've analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''' - good contributions to article space and excellent responses to questions.
'''Support''' Certainly. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support'''. A very good contributor and the answers clearly demonstrate his trustworthiness.
'''Support'''.  There are no problems here.  The oppose does not bother me.  With the number of administrators retiring these days we definitely need new and experienced ones to step up and take their place. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Has been around since Feb 2006 and has rollback and see no concerns.After checking track.
'''Support''' I don't see any red flags in  user contributions. The answers to the questions indicates knowledge of policy. --
'''Support''' I see nothing harmful in this candidate's behavior to indicate they would not do bad things with the mop.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support.''' The answers leave a good impression. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px|link=Support]] '''Strong oppose''' - Too good a contributor.
'''Support''' Well-qualified. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support'''. A good editor; nothing to lose and everything to gain! '''[[User:MC10#top|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10#top|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' No bad faith negative input to Wikipedia, and some brilliant contribs.
'''Support''' . Looks fine.--
'''Support''' - The main, and usually only, issue with new Administrators is '''Do We Trust Them'''. Pretty obvious what the reply to that is for this bloke...Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Support''' --
'''Suport''' Everything is fine here.
'''Support'''. I fully trust Mfield with the tools.
'''Support''' Outstanding and active Wikipedia contributor. you would make a very good administrator
'''Support''' Excellent experiences with Mfield at FPC. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose so my position is always to support! '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Great contributions, and I can't find any real reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' Good contribs.
{{fishing}} per answer to optional question.--
'''Support''' - Good contributions, could find no problems at all. You pass [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] well and should make a good admin.
'''Support''' - The Oppose and Neutral rationales are not a concern for me. - Dan
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]; concerns below are not my concerns - the Userboxen in particular do not offend me, a confirmed Christian.
'''Support''', Seems to be a decent editor...nothing wrong there
'''Support'''. Very unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Excellent contribution history and yes.... like Bearian stated above: I am a Christian and the userbox does not ruffle my feathers one way or another.
'''Support'''. Don't see any major issues.
especially impressed with recent commentary on BLP at [[WP:EAR]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A good understanding of policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' Need I say more? '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
'''Support''' - Builds the encyclopedia. Works with Commons. Strong on policy. Doesn't have a big head. They're a keeper. --'''''
'''Support'''.  I trust this editor.--
'''Support''' Great editor <font color="maroon">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
An admin involved in images is certainly an admin we are in need of. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' because I can't find a reason not to.
'''Support''' Mfield will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Let's see, been here over 2 years, dedicated editing since early 08 with quality, knows policy, doesn't show any bias.  I admit to ''strongly'' dis-agreeing with the religious beliefs, but that has nothing to do with the admin abilities.  It's ''his'' user page, not mine.  My only concern would be that the admin duties may limit his quality edits. :) .. Good Luck
'''Support''' Great editor. Fully support.
'''Support''' Fine candidate for admin. We need more people dealing with [[WP:SPI]] and images.
'''Support''' The answers to each of the questions shows that he does indeed know the policies here on this site and definitely could do much more good with the mop.  Cheers,
'''Strong Support''' excellent part of the community, can't wait to see what they do with the tools! '''
'''Support'''. It's not like my vote really matters, more like a reassurance. '''
'''Support''' - Reviewed answers and contributions... great editor!
'''Support''' per pretty much everything above. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I find the opposer's view to be wholly without merit and the reservations of the neutral commenters also unpersuasive.
'''Support''' No reason not to, good answers to questions, unconvincing <s>opposes</s> ''oppose'', so I support.
'''Support'''.  6k edits, active for a good amount of time, apparent knowledge of policy, what's not to like?
Excellent editor.
'''Oppose''' - I don't see any real need for the tools. It seems more of a status symbol than something important. We have plenty of admin now in the area and probably too many at that.
'''Neutral''' - Honestly, I'm really not crazy about the picture with "GOD" crossed out in the candidate's atheist userbox...that seems unnecessary...but it's not one of the more offensive userboxes I've seen, and it's not bad enough for me to oppose.  As always, the candidate's apparent atheism is certainly not the issue in and of itself.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]], i.e. scores points for not being blocked, but I like to see barnstars and such on userpages (shows pride in work, appreciation from colleagues) and I was a little turned off by [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordine Zouareg]]; however, that is only one discussion, so, won't oppose based on just that.  Good luck in any event.  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral''' - I've seen him on image areas, and he knows image policy pretty well. So if he ran for adminship on Commons, I would have definitely support him. However, I'm not sure he needs the tool here because unless fair images, editors are encouraged to upload files to Commons. As looking through his SSp fies which he claims as his specialty and intents to dedicate to (so far only 6 and 7 files?), his rationales for his accusations are just "obvious sockpuppeter" with one or two lines. The reports on vandals are like simple AIV files. Besides, I'm not happy about his poor article creation and edits on building up articles. I don't find him done wrong, so I can't either support or oppose him to become an admin at this time.--
'''Neutral'''. Candidate is making some wonderful contributions to the 'pedia and the community, but I'd like to see more well-roundedness since admin tools are being requested for all areas of the encyclopedia. My main concern is that it appears the candidate has not made any significant content contributions. The top three articles to which the candidate has contributed ([[Alligator]] (100), [[Los Angeles]] (89), and [[Berlin Wall]] (80)) are only B-class, and I don't see any article reviewer activity for the user (e.g., in GAN, FAC, FAR, etc.). —'''''
'''Support'''. As nominator.  Best of luck, Mifter! :) '''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. No reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already. :-)
I see no reason to suggest that user will misuse tools.--(
'''Support''' No worries.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
More than happy to support you. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, I think he will help the project with the bits. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''
trust nominator. meets my standards. liked answers for my questions. primary area of interest is area where more admin support is needed, and in which candidate has experience. review turned up nothing troubling.
'''Support''' as work at DYK has been excellent and they need more help. I see no evidence the editor would abuse the tools. ···
'''Go for it!''' I'm satisfied with your answer to #6.  A wave to [[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]] for entrusting me with the rollback :)  &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Per Q7, this candidate doesn't understand AfD, and those weren't the actions I would expect, but what they do show is, when in doubt, this candidate shows a desire to seek consensus before performing an administrative action.—
'''Support.''' →
'''Support''' '''<font face="verdana">
'''Support''':Candidate seems reliable, trustworthy & dependable & the more people helping at DYK the better I say.  Good luck Mifter.
'''Support''' No indication Mifter would misuse the tools, and my question was answered satisfactorily.
'''Support''' Will be an asset with the tools.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Great contributor, though I don't care for the answer to Q6 personally.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
Brilliant interactions with this user lend me to believe he will make a great administrator.  Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Certainly. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is an article creator who has received multiple barnstars (demonstrates that candidate works well with others and is here to improve our project) while having never even been accidentally blocked.  I noticed a userbox about being slapped by a trout; while I am not open to being slapped by a fish, a fun variation might be for me that is if anyone know how to create these things, being open to be slapped by a pretty girl perhaps, but anyway, though, candidate seems good overall.  Good luck!  Best, --
'''Support''': Great editor and very civil. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Support'''. No negative impressions, to be honest I thought he already was one.
'''Support'''. Especially impressed by answer to Q5. This indicates a careful, well-reasoned approach to using the admin buttons, keeping in mind "what's best for the project" at all times. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No issuies here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - meets my standards, no major issues, has rollback rights, and we could use another person with experince in law enforcement issues who is an admin.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Weak support'''. On the lower end in experience terms, but we've got rather a lot of admin backlogs that need to be cleared out.
'''Weak support''' Would be stronger, but [http://stable.toolserver.org/editcount/result?username=Mifter&projectname=enwiki&showgraphs=2d needs to make sure that s/he has mainspace as the namespace with the highest number of edits.]
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''weak Support''' Everything appears to be in order here. The oppose concerns are not compelling (If an admin is more likely to wait before blocking someone it really isn't the end of the world). Changing viewpoint slightly having now looked at the CSD issues in more detail. Thus have changed to weak support. I'm willing to support as long as the user understands that they shouldn't use the deletion features until they spend further time familiarizing themselves with the deletion policies (especially the CSD policy).
'''Support''' Go for it.
No reason not to. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Of Jamie's 4 diffs in the neutral section, the first is awful but the other 3 are judgment calls.  We all make occasional mistakes at CSD, and I don't see anything in the oppose section that seems like an outright disqualification. - Dank (
'''Support''' Candidate wants to help at CSD and DYK, areas which he seems to understand based on his contributions.
'''Support''' - Candidate's drive for DYK have been extremely helpful. The admin tools will really help him a lot. --
'''Support''' - A couple of bots, DYK work including 2 DYKs, good article work...what's not to support? Regarding Q7, I would say these two things: 1) there's no need to suspend an AfD; just let it ride if you don't feel it's a consensus, and 2) I have been an admin for almost a year and when I spend any time at AfD (infrequently), I routinely skip AfDs that look either difficult or not quite done. I haven't "broke teh wiki" yet. Cherry picking? Perhaps, but we do (and the ''project'' does) best when we contribute according to our ability rather than according to an external formula. And there would be nothing wrong with checking with someone else before taking an action one is unsure of; I still do that and will continue to. Also, I am perfectly happy to have someone with experience working as an admin in the swamps that image work represent. The CSD concerns are minor and in fact I am not sure I see even the assertion (let alone demonstration) of notability in [[G-Technology]] five months later. It's a company that was bought by another company...so? <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' No real issues, per above
'''Support''', No reason to Oppose.
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen him/her around, fully trusted. '''
'''Support''' fact he doesn't drink a major problem as he will not well tolerate the endless tedium here on WP, but that's his problem.  I liked his answer to number 8, tends to show he won't be a cowboy admin who boldly goes where no admin has gone before and blocks while there's a discussion going on at AN/I.  We've lost editors on account of such actions.--
'''Support''' No worries here. '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support''' I think admins who "specialize in specific area is okay such as DYK where many reviewers are needed.--
'''Support''' I find some of the answers on the weak side, but that is not so relevant as those areas are not the focus of the candidate. Experience in the fields of choice is what matters.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Wider experience would be nice so not the perfect candidate but most likely a net positive.
'''Support'''  Looks very likely to focus on using tools in the area they specialise in. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''  Looks like Mifter will be a fine admin.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Support''' Satisfactory answers to the questions. Seems level-headed and rational. Would make a capable administrator. --
'''Support''' I have trust in this editor to use the tools wisely and get help when needed.
'''Support''' trustworthy in my opinion. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I don't see any reason he would abuse the tools and know =s what to do. --
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q6.  The response sounds like the editor would be counting warning "levels" and waiting for the "magic number" before issuing what would be an obvious block.
little in the way of noticeboard contributions or dispute resolution experience, little audited content contributions. --<font color="#cc6600">
Per Fuchs above.
Weak Oppose switched because I see nothing in the answers given that would support giving this editor sysop sts. I will review again before thread closes to see if I still adhere but at this point I see nothing that warrants inclusion to Sysop.
'''Oppose.'''  From reviewing Mifter's contributions, I think he does a lot of good work; the admin tools would be helpful for him at DYK but I cannot support his adminship because of his extreme lack of involvement in substantive discussion with others, including AfD discussions.  Insufficient evidence that he has a good knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose'''  I could support in the future but you don't seem to need the tools nor do you plan to use them immediately and question #7 is not making me very happy.  Come back when you have time to use the tools and are ready to use them.  (The basic idea of cautious use at first is a good plan when you're ready.)
'''Oppose''': candidate states an intent to help out with WP:CSD in Q1 but provides a vague answer to Q7 which lacks depth in understanding AfD policy - which is a potential bleed-in from CSD - and also shows a lack of conviction in the response given: the answer the candidate was looking for is "AfD is not cleanup". <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Weak oppose''' I don't see much in your content contributions at all. I feel you may be a good candidate later with some more content in your hands. <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but I have to oppose based on the CSD nominations linked by [[User:JamieS93]] in the neutral section below. At least three out of those four CSD taggings were wrong, and all four were rejected; I don't feel I can trust this user to implement the speedy-deletion criteria correctly. If this does pass, I advise him to be ''very'' careful with deleting pages under [[WP:CSD#A7|criterion A7]] - it should only be used for those pages which contain absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever.
'''Oppose''' per Q7 as well as some shaky speedy deletion nominees noted above. I recommend brushing up more on the [[WP:DEL|deletion policy]] as well as the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and get some more practice CSD-tagging.
'''Oppose'''' on the basis of  first, almost no work to demonstrate understand of policy in discussions at AfD or policy talk, and second, poor speedy deletions--especially in rushing to nominate pages the moment they are created. I  checked some taggings that were deleted, but the article re-created. Placed an AfD tag on [[Japanese armour]] at a time when it just had a heading for references, & no other content, but within 6o seconds of it first being written (I blame the admin who deleted it as well 3 minutes later). Fortunately the user was not discouraged and went on to write a stub and another used developed the article to an acceptable one,  but the first ed. hasn;t been seen since.   For [[Fraud of feminism]] he tagged a  clear but unencyclopedic essay as "nonsense"--it was subsequently deleted correctly as copyvio, and the title used for a redirect of a book having that title to a notable author. erhaps he knows better now, but there's no way to tell. We need some way to judge, and there just isn't any.  I expect he'll be ok a few months from now after some work in these areas. '''
'''Oppose''' - I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall pledges are made <i>ad captandum vulgus</i> and can be retracted or ignored post-RFA.
I haven't reviewed the candidate's contributions fully, but I am concerned that their talkpage contributions ([[User_talk:Mifter|editor]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080310213427&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Mifter&namespace=1 article], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Mifter&namespace=5 project], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Mifter&namespace=3 user]) show almost no experience in editorial discussions. For an editor who has been active for over a year, that is quite unusual. How are we to assess Mifter's judgement with so little to go on?
'''Neutral'''. Nice DYK work, it would be good to have another helping admin on board. Helpful editor, and would probably be fine with extra tools. However, I'm not sure at this point, mainly because I haven't reviewed the candidate's AIV and CSD work, two areas that need to be treated with care as an admin. Best,
'''Neutral'''; support and oppose rationales leave me somewhere in the middle.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; seen his work, should do fine as an admin. –'''
'''Weak Support''' Candidate seems to have worked to address concerns raised at the previous RFA. While I think it's still a bit soon for the second RFA, I will not oppose it for those reasons. The candidate has shown that he is able to both reflect on criticism and work on issues that were raised, both skills invaluable to an admin. While I still have my concerns about this user's knowledge (especially when it comes to speedy deletion), I think overall it will be to our benefit to make him an admin. One can learn on "the job" after all. Regards '''
'''Support'''. It's hard to figure out a scenario where Mikaey would be able to build great bots, yet can't be trusted with the mop.
'''Weak Support''', seen them around, they do plenty of good work; They're polite, helpful, run a nice bot, do better work in CSD then they make out. I trust them to use the bit properly, and put it to it's best uses -
'''Support'''. You do have a lot of automated edits (over 50%), but that's no reason not to support. Your bots are a valuable contribution to the project, and ''someone'' has to take care of the history merge backlog! I have no doubt that you'll learn the areas you're less familiar with "on the job".
Strong support, per the mature and sensible behaviour exhibited at [[User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3]] where the user dealt very responsibly with concerns about his bot. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
Never encountered this user, but nothing to suggest {{gender|Mikaey}} won't use the tools properly.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Deo Volente.—
'''Support''' --[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' Bonne chance!
'''Support''' Has shown he's quite good at things outside vandalism reverting, I'm especially impressed with the bots. Good work! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''
'''Support'''-He looks great to me, barring that I'm missing something.
'''Support''' No issues. Good luck as an admin!
'''Support''' - Best of luck. &nbsp;
I really like what I see here. You have improved from your last request, and your work with coding looks spectacular. You will be a great addition to the admin team. Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' despite not liking the answer to question 10. Little expectation would abuse the tools. Saw no evidence of potential abuse.
'''Support''' Here to help, clueful, trustworthy. No major concerns. Peter Damian's laughable "have something unpleasant" comment is truly that of an editor whose obsession is damaging him more than Wikipedia, and who has blown this whole process out of all proportion to reality. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per Peter Damian. ;-) Never run across him before, but I see nothing in the first RfA to cause concerns; good, clueful policy statements; and a general feeling that this editor would be a good guy to sit down over a beer with and chat about programming.
'''Support''', a great user and valuable contributor. Please do ignore Peter Damian. --
'''Support''' Good Contributor and the user has improved since last RFA.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support'''. The candidate is quite helpful and productive and he seems to have a clue. His article-building experience is light, but he's cautious and unlikely to be a risk.
'''Support''' Extremely good answers, without necessarily saying I would have answered the same way.   I hope he won't be so cautious as to delay too much his helping out where an admin is needed, using his very good understand of the basic rules.  '''
'''Support''' Has shown sufficient dedication to the project and has given satisfactory answers to the questions posed. --
'''Support''' Good constructive editor. Has created some useful additions to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' No reason not to.

'''Support'''. Has done good work with the bots, though doesn't always take good advice given by multiple people which would allow for easier access and tracking by admins seeking to do the work. However, I don't think the tools would be abused, and the advice not taken is not something which violates any guideline or policy, just a difference of opinion in the best method. ···
'''Support''' - won't abuse the tools. I particularly like the [[Wikipedia:New histmerge list|list of history merge candidates]]. '''
'''Weak Support'''. The error rate is a bit high on your CSD work, but good work with the many G12's, so I believe the concerns from the previous RfA have been remedied. A10 is a little bit off in my opinion, otherwise good replies to many questions. Thus weak support. <tt>
'''Support''' - I was neutral last time as although I got a good impression of you I was not convinced you were experienced enough for adminship at that time. I think three to six months is a good time between RfAs and I am happy to see you back here again. I am impressed by your bot work and [[User:Mikaey/WikiBiff|WikiBliff]], the latter I may try out some time. I have looked at how you operate your bots and I have not noticed anything particularly wrong. Your page move fixing work and [[Wikipedia:New histmerge list]] is also good.  I have also scanned your speedy deletions and they seem okay. Overall, I think you pass [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] fine.
'''Support''' No issues here. A great candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Editor answered questions well, and seems to do useful work. --
'''Support''' Glad to see you back at the RFA Mikaey, I supported last time, and I see no reason not to this time. Mikaey has a calm temperament and supreme understanding of policy, no reason not to support,
'''Support''' - Per nom, and previous interactions with user. Nothing obviously wrong with answers to questions.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Support''' More than happy with his work (and I think you should thank your parents for giving you such a great name!) ;) '''
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;User's bots are valuable contribution to this project, and help clean up backlogs. Also appreciate answers to questions, and reasonable caution shown. --'''''
'''Support''' per reasons expressed at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mikaey#Support]], i.e. my opinion has not changed for the worse.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' As usual, the above people have already said what I would like to say. Good luck!
'''[[user:T'Shael/RfA|Support]]''' per his snazzy user page. Seriously, though, after reviewing his contribs and reading through all the !votes on this RfA, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would make a fine admin. -<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Able to handle the role. '''
'''Support''' Seems to be a quality candidate, unlikely to break the wiki.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' User has a clue, and won't break the wiki. Complete gain by having him as an admin.
—&nbsp;
Just don't delete the main page please =)--
'''Support''' I agree. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
Nother '''support''' from S Marshall.  We've got a good crop of candidates at the moment, I think.—
'''Middling support'''. The oppose points are not too compelling and we frankly will need a lot more editors doing uncontentious maintenance editing for those like myself who make easily fixable mistakes in speling and otherwise. I'm not wowwed but neither am I highly concerned therefore support for trusting you with the tools.
'''Support''' Oppose points too nitpicky, I would have been denied adminship with those kinda scruples
'''Support''' —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
If the only opposes are because of your "monstrous robots" and your personal views on our civility policy then I have no hesitation to support.  '''
'''Support''', no concerns.
AGF. Yeah, we need more skillful bot operators with the admin bit since many people seem to miss an uncivil banned user who has a talent on programming bots. Although I find your answers to Tony1 are a bit unsatisfactory, I will assume good faith on your dedication to the community.--
'''Weak support'''. I'd like to see more content writing, but I can't see a reason to oppose. — '''''
'''Support''', per answer to Q11.
'''Support''' I've seen him around, he does good work. Also, seems like a reasonable and polite person. And, very good answers to all the questions. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per Benjeboi and for having a bot with a cool sounding name.
'''Support''' should do well.
'''Support''' will be a net positive.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you seem mainly to be involved in the sort of highly automated editing where you will never need the extra tools. I am also not entirely happy with the tenor of your responses to people complaining about defaultsortbot [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADefaultsortBot&diff=298413710&oldid=298412865], (since I think that it is important to understand that absolute error rates should be low for bots, not just relative error rates) but its nothing that I would oppose for, of itself. I wasn't able to see any article contributions in your last 2000 edits, but maybe I've missed something. Have you edited enough articles to have bashed heads with a stubborn (non-vandal) user and know how to handle it? Overall, I'm not seeing that the experience problems from the last <s>AFD</s> RFA have been resolved. You seem like a good and valuable editor, but not one who needs to be an admin at this point. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' 'AarghBot' is a very appropriate name.  These monstrous robots are a nightmare and anyone who uses them should have something unpleasant done to them (like fail an RfA, say).
'''Oppose''' - I wanted to support last time, but I thought that you needed more time to show that you could handle adminship. Instead of working on articles, dealing with topics, etc, you continued your same pattern. Adminship requires a strong understanding of all policies and guidelines, and the knowledge of how to apply them. I feel that you have devoted your time to pushing buttons and lack the experience required to deal with situations that will arise as an admin. Sorry, but your prospects have seriously diminished in my eyes because of a lack of trying to improve in areas that were obvious weaknesses before.
'''Oppose''', because of the lack of insight demonstrated in the answer to Q17. --
'''Oppose''' per Ottava and Malleus.
'''Oppose'''. As per my unwritten conditions. Less than 4 months since his last failed RFA, issues brought up there still unresolved. Also,candidate is self nominated, unwritten condition, candidate should have a long term User who is prepared to put his name on the line and nominate.(
'''Neutral''' IMO administrators' signatures should match their usernames. '''
Seen him around. Sure. '''
'''Support''' Works for me. Cheers, '''''
'''Support''' - Happy to see a content editor step up to plate! Best of luck. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' - I've come across Mjroots contributions many times and I've had no problems with Mjroots where we've crossed paths.
'''Support'''. An excellent long-term content contributor (100+ DYKs!) with exactly the right temperament for an administrator. I trust that he will approach the admin areas he is unfamiliar with carefully and judiciously. For instance, he has never before commented at an RfA, which is rather refreshing. But make no mistake, Mjroots is no stranger to the WP namespace, and a defining characteristic of his comments is a desire to resolve conflicts rather than escalate them. <tt>
'''Support''' per Decltype's well-written support. I agree.
'''Support''' per Decltype. Excellent content contributor. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Intelligent, clueful, cool-headed, impressive content contributions. No reason to oppose. Should make a superb admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Decltype.
'''Support''' - per decltype. I see no problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' Given the amount of contributions this candidate has, I feel confident he is well-versed in policy and won't harm the project.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate, can't see anything that make me think you will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - usefully engaged with DYK, but does need to read up on the deletion policies.
'''Support''' - Seen him around, and I've noticed that he is always willing to discuss patiently to resolve a problem. ≈&nbsp;
Yep, no reason to oppose. <strong>
'''Support'''. Wide range of experience. The answers to the questions above show a good mix of AGF and a conciliatory mindset with carefully thought through responses, while edits on various areas of Wikipedia show comprehensive knowledge of policies and procedures. In short, I feel this user would do the right things with the admin tools. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' Good luck. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Support''', excellent looking user. No reason to suggest he'll be anything but a benefit to the project if given the tools.
Need more sysops.
'''Support''' Civil and useful editor who has been very active for a couple of years. ''
'''Support''' My only issue is for him to know that admins should never use their admin tools when involved, not just him particularly. However, I don't see that becoming an issue, because he'll err on the safe side himself. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, fine answers to most questions.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' I usually don't like to support "per X" but this is a prime example where "per decltype" simply sums up what I would have said :-) Regards '''
Go for it I says. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''. Plenty of solid and varied contributions; good answers to questions (trick questions being "not quite cricket" in my book, and hence disregarded). <b><font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom. Excellent content contributions, and 100 DYKs are very impressive. '''''
'''Support'''. No reason why not.
'''Support'''.  Very good editor. --
'''Support'''. A good, solid editor. I have no problems with the bit being twiddled in this case. ···
'''Support''' Good user. See no trust issues.
Character, experience, here for the right reasons.
'''+'''
'''Support'''.  Although I don't like it when policies are the only method someone uses for defending the wiki (as policies can be changed), I can tell your intentions are good.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Irbisgreif|Irbisgreif]]. Outstanding contributions, fine demeanor, and a willingness to endure "tricky" RfA questions.
'''Support''' I haven't run into you here, but you look alright to me.
'''Support'''. The candidate is a solid content builder and seems to work well with others.
'''Support''' Excellent content contributions. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' I really like his work on ship articles, and find his windmills interesting. An area he's almost single-handedly vastly improved over time. Impressive too that he's worked on Dutch and German Wikipedias. I trust him with the power.
'''Support'''. Great contributor, reasonable answers to the questions. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Mjroots. —
'''Support''' - a really valuable contributor to the project and one who engages positively with other editors. I see no problem with him being given the tools to clean up!
'''Support''' - looks good to me. No reason to believe that he will misuse the tools.--
'''Support''', also per decltype, though Irbisgreif raises some valid points. I've seen Mjroots around, worked with them a little bit, and found them to be very pleasurable and cordial. A lot of content edits, as evidenced by the DYKs, that's good news. I have faith that Mjroots will be a careful and cautious. Their knowledge of Dutch is a bonus--one can never have too many Dutchies and Dutch sympathizers in the higher echelons. Succes ermee, Mjroots!
'''Strong support''' - Solid contributor.
'''Support''' Satisfactory answers to the questions, trust the nominator.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], trusted, active, and experienced user. Nothing to suggest misuse of tools is likely from this editor. –'''
'''Support''' <small> My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see [[WT:RFA]]</small> A good answer. Please avoid using alphabet soup when addressing these sorts of problems, if they are ever really presented to you, it really helps to spell things out. Mjroots was clearly aware of the major concerns, and dealt with them well.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Solid contributor whom I've seen around a lot.  Appears trustworthy. --
'''support''' for all the normal good reasons, and because they bothered to answer a fucking ridiculous quantity of questions from one editor.
'''Support''' Solid candidate in terms of contributions, in addition he seem to to have the trust of the community.
'''Support''' On reflection, my concerns are really trivial.
'''Support''' Nice, solid user
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' Very good candidate. '''
'''Support'''  Diligent and civil.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]]
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and competent candidate.
'''Support''' - Good, no-nonsense answers to questions, and no reasons to oppose. -- '''
'''Support''' My interactions with Mjroots, while not extensive, have been positive. My impression is of a user who has the nous to reach compromises and discusses issues cogently. Also a good article writer who I'm sure will show diligence in use of the tools.
'''Support''' I don't find the NFCC bit disconcerting.  Editors aren't required to hold some set of opinions about free content in order to edit here.  Admins are expected to understand the NFCC and help folks get along with it (where helping requires the bit) but they don't have to agree with it.  the basics of our policy: no bylines, free release and preference for free content aren't endangered by that.
'''Support''' This editor has many interest overlaps with mine so I've seen them around a lot. Many good contributions, has provided useful support to me as a novice editor and seems to have a rounded and positive approach. Would happily see as admin.
'''Support''' Looks good. Good luck.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' - No reason for objection.
'''Support''' per consensus, and congrats. Easy call. <font color="green">
'''Support''' good steady editor with the skills to expand into admin tasks.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. Lots of experience.
'''Support''' Good user and after rereading the answers they seem fine.
'''Support''' Clearly a hard worker, chasing windmills is a good sign...
'''Me too support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A lot of experience.
'''Strong support''' - - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, excellent record of creating interesting articles (over 100 DYKs), good Userboxen, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' Looks good, me too! <strong>
'''Support''' Good contributor, quite knowledgeable in policy matters, and has a suitable personality.
'''Support''', a tireless contributor and where knowledge of policy may be incomplete, it can equally be gained. No qualms about him having the tools.
'''Support''' a solid editor. -
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''': Absolutely exceptional candidate..
'''Support''' Ready for the mop, high quality editor! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - worked with this user in various areas, without any problems.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support:''' see above
'''Support''' Good content contributor, great to see a candidate with a decent number of edits unlike your usual "been here six months have a meagre 2,000 edits gimme those tools now" kinda person. Seems to be a bit of a perfectionist to me, which is a good thing as he is always striving for perfection and to improve things.
'''Support'''. Good content contributor and experienced editor. -
'''Support'''. Per all reasons above. Even a quick look at his contribs and talk page (which I didn't do, I had a very long studious look) prove he is qualified. Good balance of contribs. Will make a responsible, knowledgable, maybe even a model admin. Unless, however, he goes berserk for some reason and makes random deletions and blocks, but that is extrememly unlikely to happen, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. (Made comments back when I was still neutral.) --
'''Support''' Per nom, Contributions to content such as DYK is good, and will be a great admin helping out at AIV. Answers to questions seem sound. --
'''Support''' To comment on different area, I was impressed by Mjroots' collegial and professional participation in administrative process towards creating what became separate wikiproject [[wp:MILLS]].  Mjroots showed polite restraint when it appeared there was possibly not enough support at the new Wikiprojects proposal page.  Much later, he was patient and helpful in consideration of whether it could be a Task Force of [[wt:HSITES]].  Mjroots is a consensus-builder in support processes, in addition to making impressive direct contributions in mainspace.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' Fine combination of mainspace contributions and good temperament.
'''Support''' no reason not to. <b>
'''Support''': very sane responses and an excellent history of commitment to the project.
'''Support'''.Nothing else to say other than per above really! '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' given the answer to Q11(a), and the non-answer to 11(c) yet.  Answer to 11c is a non-answer. Shame, because without pre-judging the issue, the last thing the project needs is an admin with a ''laissez-faire'' attitude to non-free media. Candiate should not go anywhere near IfD or related issues.  Given that, I support on other details. (Edit: retaining oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&diff=315572976&oldid=315559150 this, which misses the point].  This is going to pass though, so good luck. <b>
'''Oppose'''. I am particularly unhappy with the answer to question 13. "[[Your momma]]" and "[[Jane Smith]]" could potentially be legitimate articles that have been vandalized. (Actually "[[Your momma]]" is a redirect to "[[Mother insult]]" and "[[Jane Smith]]" is a disambiguation page.) The first step should be to review the article's history and see if a legitimate article was previously present. I also disagree with Mjroots' characterization of the statement as "an attack page". I suppose that this description could (tenuously) be applied to the article entitled "Jane Smith". However I don't regard the phrase as "an attack" on the article named "Your momma", nor on the userspace test page. The user in question may be a genuine editor who is beginning to edit. Mjroots' CSD tag does not assume good faith. Indeed speedy deletion of the user's test page may irritate the user and discourage an otherwise potentially valuable contributor.
'''Oppose''', I'm not generally impressed by the answer to Q14 - while you would be within your rights to A7 speedy delete these articles within seconds of creation as far as policy goes, doing so is extremely [[WP:BITE]]y and does a lot to turn interested new contributors off of the site.
'''Oppose''' - love the article contributions&mdash;especially to ships!&mdash;but the answer to q14 bothers me. Per Lankiveil. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Oppose''' - per answers to Q13, Q14, & others.  A page isn't an attack unless there is a target.  As such, "Jane Smith" could be considered an attack page, but the others definitely are not.  The answers to several questions, and Q14 appear to lack insight in my opinion.  Sure a newly created page that says "John Smith is an actor" fits the definition of A7, but deleting (or tagging it) it 1 minute after creation doesn't give the (likely brand new) user a chance to finish the article.  Most articles, especially those made by new users, don't appear in a completed state instantly.  A brand new user will often "test" the system by hitting save very early in the process.  If someone then comes along and tags it for deletion before the new user even writes their second sentence, there is a substantial risk of that person saying "screw it" and leaving.  This is true regardless of how "correct" the tagging was, and also regardless of how polite the "warning" is worded. --
'''Support'''. As nominator. '''
The candidate's CSD work is good.  He works as a copyeditor during the day, which is probably why he doesn't come home at night and copyedit featured articles on Wikipedia.  AFAIK, he has just the one (hopefully) featured list, but I'll let him slide </humor> based on the quality of what I've seen of his 48,000 non-deleted articlespace edits. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Well qualified.
'''Support'''. I very much like what I see. No concerns noted at all from a brief review. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Can't see anything that would make me oppose.  Good luck! '''
'''Strong Support''' - Mlaffs would make an excellent admin.  He has already shown that he can do quality work with other users and admin.  I see no concerns. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Not a name I knew, but a perusal of his contributions and his answers above show a hardworking behind-the-scenes editor with a sensible approach to adminship; the tools will be of use, and used sensibly, I'm sure.
'''Support''' No reason not to, as far as I can see. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Great user.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; seem them around, should do fine as an admin. –'''
--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]|
'''Support'''. Does good work building the encyclopedia and doesn't seem to be too involved in the drama. We need more administrators (and editors) like that.
'''Support'''. Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Oh for goodness sake David, you're saying that at every RFA.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strong support'''. Was on my old shortlist for a while, great user.
'''Support''' I actually just discovered Mlaffs a couple days ago and was planning on nominating him myself, pending the conclusion of my own RFA and a more in-depth review of his contribs. It seems Malinaccier beat me to the punch. Mlaffs will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' As per Malinaccier and feel that giving the user tools will only benefit the project and see no scope for misuse of tools.
'''Support''' No problems here, [[WP:Net Positive|net positive]]. -
'''Support''' Uh... yep! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I've seen Mlaffs around and have never seen anything which causes concern. I don't see anything which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. This is a clueful editor who would make a great admin. ···
'''Support'''. Hard-working, thoughtful, and drama-free. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''—I'm impressed with his technical queries at [[Wikipedia_talk:Full-date_unlinking_bot|the full-date unlinking bot RFC]], which show a valuable skill-base along with his gnoming and copy-editing interests. Good answers above thus far.
'''Support''' He seemed very knowledgeable in my only main encounter with him: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KCTJ]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Experienced. Solid contributor.
'''Support''' I can't find any concerns.
'''Support''' Per nom, no issues I can see. '''
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Weak support''', purely to counteract David Fuchs' "weak oppose".  Adminship is not reserved for prolific audited content contributors.—
'''Strong Support''' as I've worked closely with the candidate on structural and other issues over many months and feel strongly that he'll wield the mop well. -
I'd rather you be open and honest about your wiki-beliefs than try to appease me or everyone else. And you were. The fact you've had experience in real life in dispute resolutuion, so that's a bonus, but you seem to be a fine Wikipedian and I have no hesitation in supporting you. Best of luck. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Not even vaguely likely to abuse the extra "tools" through abuse or more aptly misuse. Clearly competent. A pleasure to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''God Bless the Gnomes'''.  Excellent, quiet contrib history.  Certainly highly qualified to continue on your trek of improving Wikipedia one byt at a time with a few extra buttons.
'''Support''' Is poised/competent, around for the long term. '''<font color="#000000">
Malaffs' answers and contributions mark him as a reasonable contributor who knows what to do with the tools, but more importantly, they show a reasonable attitude towards editing that shows they know when to stop using the tools as well. That's wonderful. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Hmph, I thought he was one. '''
'''Support'''. Good, balanced answers.
Almost a strong '''support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as this candidate has several good things going, including having never been blocked, making strong arguments rather than just votes in such discussions as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Girls in Training]], being an article creator per [[User:Mlaffs#Articles_I.27ve_started]], and for receiving [[User:Mlaffs/Awards]].  So, with at least four distinctive positives that demonstrate recognition by fellow editors, persuasive arguing skills, and evidence of being here to indeed contribute to our compendium of knowledge, I feel reasonably good about this candidate.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Definitely.  You do a lot of good gnome work here and nothing in your contribution record gives me any hint that you'd misuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' Seems like you'll be a great admin. <font color="green">
Support. Clueful, and has a sense of light-hearted humor too!
'''Support.''' Good luck!
'''Support''' no one could do it better (
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose; many to support. --
'''Support''' good answers to questions and a willingness to venture closs to the third rail ;-)
'''Support'''. Good contributions & good answers.
'''Support''' Nothing holds me back from supporting this candidate. '''
'''Support''', decent editor. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]].
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Absolutely ridiculous opposes, though maybe that should be left unsaid. '''
'''Support''' I'd normally be neutral (or oppose) on lack of audited content, but in the absence of anything else, I think you're worth a shot with the mop.
'''Support''' Although article-writing is not all that strong, the candidate clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, along with sound judgment, good disposition, and understanding of policy, to be an effective admin. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A great editor, very encouraging candidate for adminship. Already does good work for Wikipedia, shows a convincing motive for wanting the mop, and has thoughtful answers to the problems. The right stuff!
'''support'''
'''Support'''. No concerns to warrant opposing.
'''Unexpected support'''. I am normally skeptical of would-be admins whose only or primary encyclopedic contributions are vast numbers of gnome-like edits. However, your answers to questions and your clarity on what you would want to achieve with the bit makes me support.
'''Support'''. Looks fine to me. — '''''
'''Support''' A good editor, will probably be a responsible admin. --~
'''Support''' for "very low" edit counts and experience :P --
'''Support''' Looks good! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Have Fun :) \
'''Support''' Great responses to the questions, and with less than 9 hours left in the RfA no opposes have shown up that would make me worry.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">

'''Support''' - per Malinaccier.
'''Weak oppose''' per lack of significant audited content contributions <sup>([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|more info]])</sup> --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per lack of significant audited content contributions
'''Oppose''' Gnomes with tools are too great a risk, sorry. All admins must have either content or dispute resolution experience.
I have to admit that if you do not make [[List of Toronto Blue Jays seasons]] up to [[WP:FL]] nomination[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Toronto_Blue_Jays_seasons&diff=298233126&oldid=283043943], I would've definitely landed to Oppose for your non-inline sourcing to your 4 created list articles and lack of article building.[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Mlaffs&namespace=0] Although I am impressed by your 68,058 edits by hand, clueful answers and civil attitude, I believe admins exist to help editors build articles, so they need to fully acknowledge and experience our core content policy [[WP:V]]. I do not require FA/GA/ or even DYK to candidates, and I've appreciated WikiGnomes and fairies and elves, but except the list that could be a FL, I can not be convinced about your content building. I think your candidateship would be successful, so I raise my small concern.--
'''Support''' - MLauba is a friendly user who does great work at [[WP:SCV]]. Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' as nom. :) --
Seen him once or twice... not completely sure but noms convinced me. '''
'''Support''' as co-nom. :-) Regards '''
'''Support''' not a moment too soon. MLauba's invaluable work at the ever-undermanned [[WP:SCV]] would be helped enormously by access to the tools. I have no doubt he can be trusted to wield responsibly.–&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Support''' per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]], MLauba looks like he'll make a great admin. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' Good luck, no issues I see.
I'm familiar with his work, he's an outstanding candidate, and we need more admins who are this dedicated and clueful about copyvio in preparation for [[WP:FPPR]]. - Dank (
'''Support''' -  I have been impressed by MLauba's efforts for several months. This editor is a workhorse on investigating copyright violation reports -- an area which requires knowledge of complicated (often esoteric) policy as well as the willingness to discuss solutions with both new and experienced editors. I find MLauba to be diligent, responsible and communicative -- fundamental qualities I expect of WP admins. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''', why not? Excellent work in their area. Beneficial to the project to promote. --
'''Support''' I applaud your work regarding copyright matters.
I'll bypass my usual one-year-time-commitment rule this time, considering that Lauba has been around for 10 months anyway. Lauba understands the workings of Wikipedia and would use administrative tools well. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A Nobody/RfA]] in that candidate made a compelling argument [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_units_in_the_Age_of_Mythology_series_(2nd_nomination)&diff=270474179&oldid=270442993 here], has received The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar and The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar as verified on his userpage, and has never been blocked, i.e. no glaring negatives, but several positives.  Best, --
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''', per no-reason-not-to. --
'''Yes please''' - I see nothing that obstructs and we could do with a copyright maven wielding the tools.
'''Support''' - No major issues, really. Has the diligence and dedication to solve countless copyright issues, and we need more administrators working on that kind of stuff. At least I ''think'' we do,
'''Support'''. I see nothing which concerns me, and nothing which indicates the tools would be abused. The concerns raised by those opposing do not appear substantial to me, either. There will be much more than a net positive on this one. ···
'''Support''' Clear understanding of policy, calm demeanor, and strong desire to use the tools toward a very, very excellent goal. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' deleted contribs show accurate nominations, explanation of problems, although I am still in the dark about the question I asked, at least an admission of something not known rather than a mistake.
'''Support''' Graeme alleviated my concerns.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] – No significant issues AFAICT. RegentsPark's concerns are valid, but I think the candidate is trustworthy. –'''
'''Support''' more [[WP:ADMIN|admins]] who are willing to follow through with [[WP:G12|G12]]s would be a definite plus. Has [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]]'s endorsement to work in the area.
'''Support''' I understand the comment below about accepting relatively new editors as admins but I am going to [[WP:AGF]] and assume that you are not [[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo Number Two]]--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
'''Support''' I am impressed with his [[WP:SCV]] work, and I feel he could be valuable as an administrator.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''', looks like an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.  I only see this as a positive.  '''
'''Strong support''' – Very knowledgeable and clueful. A spot-check on some of his articles tagged for CSD also look very well. Very dedicated to protecting Wikipedia from copyright troubles.
'''Support''' Candidate will be a fine administrator.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MLauba. —
'''Support''' - Per nom. We need more admins dealing with copyright violations. There are not that many who do, and some sort of get burned out from it. Looks in mirror..
'''Support'''. Great and convincing support from the nominators, great answers to the questions, will put the tools to good use in his work. This editor as an admin will be a net positive to the project. --
'''Support'''. Convinced by the noms, and I see no problems.
'''Support''' Good contributions in an area that is understaffed, and makes for thankless work. Also impressed with MLauba's [[User_talk:MLauba/Archive_4#Exinda_Page|civility, temperament, and helpfulness]]. ''Aside'': I think you undersell yourself when you say, "English being my third language, I don't have the skills to write good prose ..." If that is an honest self-assessment, I dread to hear your French or German. :-)

'''Support''' - Looks good!
'''Support''' - I love people who love copyright problems. [wait, that didn't come out right... ;-)] -
'''Support'''.
More sysops needed.
'''Support'''. good chance of being a net positive.
'''Support''' - Great answers to questions, good awareness of CSD, reasonable amount of article work (WikiGnomes do important if not always noticeable article space work), and the copyright expertise is a real bonus in an admin. I also see someone who is reasonable and civil. -- '''
'''Support''' - Fantastic editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' per Moonriddengirl's nomination statement and candidate's careful work.
'''Support''' seems ok to me.
'''Support''', smart and dedicated user who could make good use of the tools in an often-backlogged area. No issues here, best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Dedicated and hard-working user. [[User:RegentsPark]]'s comment resonated with me. However, MLauba self-identifies as a speaker of French, English and German (his French is excellent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMLauba&action=historysubmit&diff=319631528&oldid=319626349 from what I can tell]). Very few users have this kind of proficiency. I am therefore fully confident in my support. <tt>
'''Support''' This took a little work for me: MLauba is not an editor that I believe that I have ever run into before, so I had no knowledge of "attitude".  From what I have seen, I can say this is a net positive.  This editor has been around for almost a year - long enough (I think) to not be someone else's sock - they meet my 9-month criteria.  Edit count is around what I had when I went through my first RfA :-)  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Per Bwilkins, they said all I had to say. :) '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' - After analyzing the edits of the candidate, I would say, he/she will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' per questions and generally good impression of candidate from the past---'''
'''Support''' awesome, dedicated editor. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MLauba&diff=319324534&oldid=319307584 I love people who love copyright problems]. {{=)|smile}}
'''Support''' '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' per noms.  Short time on Wikipedia is not a strong oppose.--
'''Strong Support:''' Not nearly experienced enough, and fails my criteria. He has been active for less than a year, but has great understanding of copyright issues, and that alone is enough. He is a constructive editor who will be a great asset to Wikipedia. -
I'm
'''Support''' Meets the criteria.
'''Support''' Great work in dealing with copyvios and all-round good editor, no harm in giving them the tools. --
'''Support'''  Length on the project and number of edits are just indicators for competence and maturity, which can also be demonstrated otherwise.  Such is the case here.
'''Support'''. Prettttttttay Pretttttttay good.
'''Support''' Another strong candidate, with copyright experience. Relative newness is not a concern for me.
'''Support'''.  Just the sort of new admin we need.--
'''Strong Support''' - Have just come across this editor while looking at CSD's, and was instantly impressed by the civility used when talking to editors with copyright issues. Having looked through their contributions I see an extremely dedicated editor who would be an asset to the project. Also per the nominators statements and intelligent response to the questions. All the best <sup>

'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - sufficient WP edits, ncie User page, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]]. We really can use another Admin to work on copyvio issues.  My only concern is some history of overenthusiastic tagging articles for deletion.
'''Weak Support''', I'm not overly impressed by the answer to Q8, but I don't see any great potential for deliberate misuse of the tools, either.
'''Support'''.  Your experience is definitely sufficient.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' Good candidate all round but I thought the answer to question 8 particularly good.
'''Support''' Good work with SCV, and enough experience with AfD for me to support. No reason to oppose. Looks like a good admin.
'''Support''' I've run across MLauba from time to time when patrolling [[:Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion]]; he/she is a valuable, constructive user who would make a great admin! --
'''support''' Mlauba has shown a dedication to Wikipedia through consistent editing over a sufficient time period, generally helpful behavior, and most importantly a strong [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]] level as evidenced by thoughtful answers to the provided questions.  --
'''Oppose''' not nearly experienced enough to be an admin, and fails my [[User:Collectonian#RfAs|criteria]]. Has less than 5000 edits, with just over 1500 in the article space, over 33% in user space/talk, and has been active for less than a year. Only started becoming active in March, and barely does any editing at all. In the last month, what little editing is done appears to show a sharp decline. Not enough history to be able to really evaluate actual understanding of the core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nor ability to handle real conflict and issues. Great understanding of copyright issues, but that alone isn't really enough and while they do good work in SCV, it doesn't require the tools. --
I've seen the user around and am generally favorable to granting adminship. However, after the recent two fiascos with short-term users being made admins and then found to be socks of formerly problematic editors, I've decided on a personal 'one year waiting policy' (hopefully long enough!). --
'''Support''', does excellent work in delsorting and AfD, with a few extra tools the candidate would be able to aid the project even further. --
'''<s>Support</s>''' '''Weak Support''' Concerns I had from previous RFA no longer exist. So go for it.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per nom, and history.--
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - The user already solved all of the concerns from the last RfA, and his history is great.
'''Support''' - MrKIA11 is a cool guy, eh sorts AfDs and doesn't afraid of anything.
'''Support''', I nominated him last year, and he's been really amazing in his consistant and quality maintenance work for WP:VG throughout the year. <small><font color="AE1C28">
I see no alarms.
'''Support''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MrKIA11&diff=prev&oldid=229094148 Like last time], I believe MrKIA11 having an extra set of tools will only help Wikipedia. He took the last nomination in stride and has only improved since. My interactions with him have given me a lot of faith in his ability to use the tools properly. (
I supported [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMrKIA11&action=historysubmit&diff=228830448&oldid=228828989 last time] and support again. Excellent editor.
'''Support''' &mdash; diligent and hardworking editor with a demonstrable need for the tools. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support'''. Great work thus far, excellent answers to additional questions, and I trust the candidate to use the tools responsibly. --
'''Support''' Seems alright to me.
'''Support''' Looking forward to seeing your work at AfD.
'''Support''' Haven't personally interacted or recall seeing him around, but I trust he'll do just fine. '''
'''Support''' – I was thinking about nominating myself. Does very good "behind the scenes" work that people readily won't notice. We would benefit with him having the admin tools.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' – I have no concerns about this editor. -- '''
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support''' The response to question 8 in particular was encouraging.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''-can someone realy tell why not!?--
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - Good answers to my question. What I wanted! Good luck with your RfA. '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Support'''- balance of evidence suggests will be net positive.
'''Support''' MrKIA11 seems like a trustworthy, conscientious editor who would use the mop wisely. His work at WikiProject Video Games may be "gnoming," but it's important nonetheless and a job that doesn't get enough appreciation. The candidate also did an excellent job of answering the questions and fixed the issues raised at the last RfA. Thanks for your hard work, MrKIA11, and good luck.
<small>
'''Support'''. MrKIA11 has a good understanding of the policies and has experience in the relevant areas.
'''Support''' Taking your word that you will help vandal fighters such as me on wp:rpp, wp:aiv and wp:uaa when you get the tools down.
'''Support''' Thought this guy was a bot for the longest time... ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' Was said above, might be somewhat gnomeish? I'd make a case that can be good for admin to mostly keep to him/herself and remain a relative unknown. End result is less biases and a substantial distance kept from the larger chunks of drama. I'd like to look at this as allowing the nominee to swoop in and respond when the [[Bat signal]] is projected somewhere over the encyclopedia. ...Sounds a bit more heroic that way, at least. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' I like what I see in the edits the candidate has made, and with the answers given. -- '''''
'''Support'''. '''''
Despite not having many interactions with this user in the past, I'm going to have to support this. I'm extremely impressed by the well reasoned answers, especially number 8. Looking over the contributions, I'm convinced that this user will use the tools wisely. <small>(
'''Support''' - no problems here, seems to have provided suitable answers.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''[[User:Airplaneman/RFA|Support]]''' - Great candidate; nothing tells me that I can't trust this user with the tools!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  Good answerers to the questions...
'''Support''' of course! <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support:''' Is now ready. A net positive -
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Weak support''' This is a tough one for me.  I see no reason to oppose, but I also had trouble supporting.  I wish the candidate had more experience in other areas of the Wiki.  The problem is that Wikipedia is a volunteer community and if the user has no interest in other areas of the 'pedia, how can we ask them to participate elsewhere?  We need admins everywhere and this candidate seems quite focused.  However, the candidate has expressed that they would try to participate elsewhere and if they do so voluntarily, than I suppose I can support them.  I am also concerned about the very limited conflicts because conflict resolution is an important part of being an admin.  Someone mentioned Q5 as not being completely correct but I'd like to empasize that the user did say "'''almost''' any complete sentance" which is a valid answer.  And if the strongest oppose for this candidate is slightly weak answers, low conflict resolution, and a small perceived inaccuracy in his response to G1, well adminship is no big deal and so I support.--v/r -
'''Support''' as now ready to have the mop. Plenty of edits, good answers above, and resolved issues.
'''Support''' this strangely low traffic request for the bits. Nod to the opposers but a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' While this user hasn't produced any large amount of audited content, I have seen firsthand how many grinding, gnomish edits he makes and what a benefit they are to [[WP:VG]]. All my interactions with him have been positive, so I see no reason not to give the benefit of the doubt and support. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' Seems capable and ready...
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Per answer to Q10. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' I guess --'''<font color="navy" face="Matisse ITC" size="2">
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user's work and remember being impressed with his forbearance and diligence.  Plus, good answers.
'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support'' logs and contributions show the skills are there.
'''Support'''.  Good luck as sysop! '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Oppose''' I don't support one focus administrators. I saw this where an editor was granted adminship for being able to unblock his bots, then used his tools to unblock his bot that had been blocked with community consensus. If you're doing multiple things with your tools and you make a mistake by abusing the community's faith in granting you those tools, it's maybe not so bad a thing this one time, this one area, but the risk, imo, when you have only one community function for those tools is simply too great. If you need the tools only to do one task that you're involved in, you need someone else to be the administrator for that task, im my experience and opinion. Administrator on wikipedia isn't a one function job. --
'''Oppose''' Candidate seems very weak on content contributions and dispute resolution experience. Those are critical areas for admins and I think more well-rounded experience is needed. I don't recall seeing you helping at ANI or really in any other area of the 'Pedia. If tools could be split up for gnomic work that would be okay, but interpersonal skills and experience are needed when they can be used and abused to make improper blocks of content contributors. Cheers.
'''Weak oppose''' – answer to Q3 is so vague that I half wonder if it intended to convey no information whatsoever. Q1 doesn't inspire me with huge confidence either, unfortunately. (I'll watch this page, and am quite prepared to change my position if so persuaded!) <font color="#7026DF">╟─

'''Neutral''' - Not sure yet. Editors that show an interest in CSD should have a healthy page patrol contribution, which shows they've seen a fair share of articles and understand how pages start out, both good and bad. This user has almost 900 [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=MrKIA11&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia] which is more than most, but for over 29,000 edits it's not huge percentage. Answer to 5A isn't completely correct, for instance an article that just said "[[Colorless green ideas sleep furiously]]" wouldn't qualify, but "Colorless orange ideas sleep furiously" would (I wouldn't oppose on that).
'''Neutral''' Per Q4. Cool down blocks only have the opposite effect. Would oppose, but otherwise the candidate seems fine.
I originally opposed because of the lack of conflict resolution experience per Q13. (See also my reply to Amory above.) But I do appreciate his work with CSD; in the last 2000 edits I could not find a single wrong tag. Also, working with CSD can often get emotional, so it's a good sign that the candidate hasn't been involved in any conflicts in that time. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' Having worked with him at AFC and knowing what a good job he does over there, I have no problems supporting.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
{{worksforme}} &ndash;
'''Support'''. Large number of edits on many different pages.  Seems helpful and friendly at AFC.  Be on the lookout for both "MSGJ" and "Martin" in sigs, guys. - Dan
'''Support''' Can't find anything disturbing. —'''
'''Support''' Looks real good from my quick review. Noms are very persuasive as well. Helpful established editor. I like the help the creation of articles emphasis. Strong trust Msgj will be a good reliable admin. --
'''Support''' Very good editor, and useful in many different parts of WP. No concerns here. <b>'''
'''At last I can do it without fear''' of my talkpage and watchlist being flooded with AWB template crap ;-)--
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, no reason not to.--
{{worksforme}} - Proud to be #10. Msgj should do good with the tools. :-) --<font face="script MT bold">
'''Support''' - A weird username, but I can see that he is a worthy candidate. '''<font face="Verdana">
{{User:IMatthew/V}} <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Unless I missed something appalling, this user should do quite well where they wish to work.
'''Support''' Based on my experiences with Martin, mainly at AfC. --
[[Image:Symbol declined.svg|20px]] '''Support''' - speedy tagging looks generally good.  Not afraid of PROD, AFD - which results in a lot less errors.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Islamia_College_Of_Science_And_Commerce,Srinagar probably could've been stubbed rather than speedied], but that's the clostest I can find to a bad choice, which isn't bad at all.
'''Pile-on support''' - don't see any problems here. Seems a highly productive user, who should make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - a civil editor to the community, will do good with the tools.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' Looks good. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
[[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' - I trist MSGJ, and hopes that he does good at adminship.
[[File:Red button.png|20px]] '''Support''' - As long as you promise to push the big red button. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
What's with the weird symbols? <font color="navy">
[[Image:Crystal 128 babelfish.png|20px]] '''Checkuser is not for fishing''' I mean, '''support.'''
'''Support w/o graphic, but with question''' - Happy-melon screws up? :O —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
Nothing to suggest this user will misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good luck!
[[File:Cyberduck icon.png|25px]]. We need more template coders.  Review of some contributions looks good.  More later as needed.

'''Support''' - As co-nom. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support'''. Bizarre-looking RFA, but the candidate is far from bizarre. Quite a bit of experience, good answers to questions, has a handle on policies and procedures.
'''Absolute support''' seen user around [[WP:AFC]] and has had good experience with user. <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Have seen around and always in a good way - low drama quotient and solid worker.
[[File:BulbgraphOnOff.gif|22px]] '''This user has a clue support''' Looks like a clean past, clueful user, and will be a good addition to the admin cohort. And don't even ''think'' about facepalming me :-) ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support''' - clueful editor and per past interactions '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support''', looks like an excellent candidate who has made a major contribution to Wikipedia and could make an even better one with additional tools. No concerns noted. Imagine this vote has a large, flashing, explicit image with it just to upstage the various icons above. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[File:Symbol note.svg|20px]] '''Note:''' Decorate this RFA more, then take a break, eat some cheese and..... Huh? What? Oh, right.. '''Support''', per above. :) <small>Colourful RFA, by the way. :P</small> --
'''Support''' I see no problem with this user (although I am wondering why his RfA attracts the childish behavior above {{=)|6}}) '''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''', can't see any reason not to.
'''Support''' User has been around since Feb 2004 and outstanding track.
'''Strong support''' the candidate, neutral on above graphics.
'''Support''' per answers to questions, clearly recognizes that WP is not a webhost and the undercontruction template does not create a homestead here.
{{worksforme}} No reasons not to support this user at this time.
'''Support''' - helper of article creation and various experiences? Good to go for adminship. --
'''Support''' - has clue, will travel.
'''Support''' No issue.
<s>'''Oppose'''. Answers to questions suggest user is a sock of
'''
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having barnstars on userpage, no blocks, and due to no memorable negative interactions elsewhere.  Wow, unanimous so far?  Is that rare?  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - I feel comfortable entrusting this user with the responsibilities of adminship.
Oi, who stopped using the silly vote templates? This level of seriousness cannot be tolerated <tt>:D</tt>. Accordingly, I shall at this point take the opportunity to say how {{great}} I think this candidate is... <font color="forestgreen">
'''Shupport''' ...who among us can't be ''pleased'' by a friendly set of handcuffs?  (
'''Support''' - I don't often bother with a support in the 50-0 RFAs (maybe it's a natural aversion to [[running up the score]]), but the response to #10 is just great. Absolutely outstanding. --
'''Support''' Clearly a trustworthy and knowledgeable candidate.
'''Support'''  Candidate shows strong knowledge of policy and civil interaction with others users. --
'''Support'''. The amount of colorful images in this section lead me to support! <small>(Well, not really… mostly because the candidate is trustworthy and all.)</small>
[[File:Gamepad.svg|20px]] ↑, ↓, ←, →, A+Start.... Oh, I mean '''Support''', obviously. I'm sure Martin will do fine. '''''<font color="green">
[[Image:Symbol divide vote.svg|20px]] '''Divided between Support and Strong Support''' '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
'''Strong Support''' first time I didn't dig as deep into edit history - answers to questions are the best I've seen yet. Very solid concept of what this site is about.
'''Support'''. Very constructive. --
'''Support''' Yes, please.
[[Image:Smiley_green_alien_cool.svg|22px]] '''Heading RIGHT to [[WP:100]] supports support'''... What's with the smilies? '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' I fully support this editor gaining access to the mop.
'''Support''' Knowledgeable. Experienced. Worthy. [[User_talk:Spidern|<font color="darkred">←</font>]]<font color="green">
[[Image:Nuvola gnome-fs-trash-full.svg|25px]] '''Rejected''' ... I mean support, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' The answers to the questions were spot-on and you seem very responsible.  Also, Brendel's Mozart is laced with gold, so no argument there!
'''Support'''. Born to be an admin :) —'''''
'''Support''' Looks like one of the ''‘good guys’'' to me - I'm sure he'll make a ''great'' administrator :) --
'''Support'''.  A no brainer.  Good luck, Msgj! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I can see [[WP:WTHN|no good reason]] why this candidate cannot have the mop.
'''Support''' I've encountered this editor before; seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' Well qualified. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' Solution happy, minimal ego overload.  --
'''Support''', although taking up Majorly's challenge below, I see that you are somewhat vague about your folk music tastes. If you are a fan of [[The Incredible String Band|The Incredibles]] I think we should be told :)
'''Support''' Positive interaction on [[WP:AFC]]. Very kind user.--
<table style="display:inline; line-height:75%; text-align:center; font-family:serif; background:transparent;"><tr><td /><td rowspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid black;"><span style="color:red; font-size:larger;">♥</span> − 0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" style="font-size:large;">lim</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">''x''</td><tr><td style="font-size:small;">''x'' → +∞</td></tr></table> Extreme folk-rock support. —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' One of the best candidates I've seen.
Support. —<sub>
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
[[File:Choco_chip_cookie.jpg|20px]]  &mdash;
This user is always striving to improve wikipedia.
'''Support''' Excellent user and outstanding editor. Good luck
'''Support''' per non-wimpy answers to the questions and demonstrated history of encyclopedia building.
'''Strong Support''' Can see this user becoming a very good admin :) '''
'''Support:''' Dedicated, intelligent, will ask when he's not certain.
'''Support''' - Yes you are a good candidate, you meet [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] with no trouble. You should make a good admin.
'''Support''' per everything I see here and in the user's actions.
'''Strong Support''' Perhaps won't make a perfect admin, but we need more, and he'll do good.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
マーチンよ、大志をいだけ！
'''Support''' – looks good, especially the template-coding credentials. '''
'''Support''' Excessive icons on the support page notwithstanding (and obviously not really relevant to my thinking!) this is a clearly experienced editor who gave some really good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support'''<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' – <b>
'''Support''' - Great editor, polite to rude people on user talk, lots of backstage work already.--
{{later}} The [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Msgj&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia number of edits in 2004] scares me a bit; wikiholics have been known to be infamous admins... {{ttt|:)}} I'll wait for an answer to my Q's before finalizing this, but my gut tells me to go neutral (as usual) and I think that's where I'll stay based upon my prediction of his answers to my questions. <font face="terminal">
'''Neutral''' I do not support a potential administrator, or any user for that matter, having a signature that does not match his or her actual username.
Breaking the ice support.--
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor.  I liked seeing lots of friendly and helpful talk page communication with newer users in your contribs. <b>'''
'''Support''' Odds are that you're not going to delete the main page or go crazy and block everyone who you hate, so support.--
'''Support''' Will use the tools well; good contributions so far.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Not found any issues so far. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Concerns of previous RFA overcame and user has been around since Nov 2006 and see no concerns as per track.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' -- Seems like the editor has learned from past RfA, especially seeing your answer to the last question about conflicts.--'''''<small>
'''Support'''
I'm
'''Support''' - Support (per Giants27) :) -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Weak support'''. Low content worries me, but besides that looks great at the boring lame admin tasks.
'''Weak support''' per Bsimmons. I think Mufka will be ok.
I trust him to do good admin work, though I suggest he get more article writing experience.--
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
Agreed with nominator.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #333399;padding:1px;">
I liked the response to Question 5. Those going for a future RfA, take note. :P
'''Support''' Also agree with nominator. This is a very helpful user to Wikipedia. Best,
'''Support''' "Content" criterion doesn't bother me. It's a different field from admin work. And admin work is where this user is suited.
'''Support''' Caspian's neutral logic has merit, but on the whole I like the candidate's contributions; I don't care about DYK at all, and I know Mufka's created an article or two among the many, many other edits.  Also really like the direct-to-the-point talk page correspondence.
'''Support'''.  While I'd like to see more content-creation like a GA or FA, I find that more than 35k total edits and a strong record in other areas balances out the lack thereof.
'''Support''' I agree with Fribbler, article building doesn't have much to do with adminship. This is a great editor who will be a great admin. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' Good answers, good contributions, good editor. Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Also, good answers to my questions. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] (candidate has no blocks, does have various awards on userpage, and I do not recall any negative interactions between us).  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. User already acts like an admin
'''Support''' While I have had my disagreements with Mufka in AfD discussion, I respect the work he has done.  He seems to be fair in his approach and did help me (a novice editor) strengthen my articles through his criticism.
'''Support''' '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate based on overall record, no issues.
'''Support''' A review of your contributions turns up nothing bad, also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' The responses to the questions were spot on, and they show that you know the relevant policies here.  Cheers,
'''Support''' - Much improved from last RfA, will do well.
'''Support''' I'm running late. '''
'''Support'''
{{User:IMatthew/V}} Response to question 5 was key. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Sure! Why not. &lowast;
'''Support''' Very sensible answers to the questions, no apparent issues in editing. --
'''Support''' - His first RfA was one of the first I ever watched, and I saw how badly it went. It seems to me that Mufka has very much improved since then. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support''' - I see no problems. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Supported last time around, no reason to change'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Per great editing and thoughtful answers to an inane amount of questioning.
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - We can definitely trust this user to not abuse the tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' No issue from what I have seen.
'''Support''' I nominated him last time and was stunned at the outcome.  IMO, he would be a great admin.  Cool, calm, knowledgeable, meticulous, willing to take on endless tedious tasks.  At least for a while he was adhering to a self-imposed limit of 1000 edits per month indicating to me he is unlikely to get sucked in so much he'll burn out.  There is no requirement admins work on content.  I would personally vastly prefer users who can create great content to do that rather than spend their time here cleaning up after vandals. --
'''Support'''. This user would be a great admin and I'm suprised he wasn't successfully nominated before. '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' - After seeing Mufka's handing of a situation involving myself, I can do nothing but support! <span style="border:1px solid deeppink;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' Not every candidate needs article-building skill.  By requiring article-building, we severely limit the candidates for administrators who would otherwise be a benefit to the community.  Strong support. --
'''Weak Support'''Cotton gin, and Pearl Harbor satisfy my doubts on article editing (although talk pages are useful) - The ''Weak'' part of my support stems from answer 17 A.  While I appreciate the caution, Admin (WP:SELFPUB expert or not) is not a free pass to violate the basic rules.  A calm down block and conversation on the users talk page would be more in line. That said, I think Mufka will do fine with the mop. —
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''
Meant to do this earlier: very good user.
'''Support'''.  The supporters are more persuasive. - Dan
'''Weak support'''. Though [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Depenbusch|this AfD]] does bring concern, I see the candidate as a net positive.
'''Oppose'''. Building of articles is basic if not practised. More skill should be required to become an administrator.

'''Oppose for now''' on the basis of that deletion rationale at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Depenbusch]],  is clear contrary to established V and RS policy, and is only a month ago. What are the nominees current views on this? What are his views about finding out about policy in unfamiliar areas? Or about willingness to follow policy with which he disagrees?'''
'''Neutral''' per his poor article building. Since his claimed "expertise" is doing for CSD, I believe he should have more content-building. I don't require RFA candidates to acquire FA or GA. However, how come hasn't he even have any single DYK for over two years? He has created very short 9 stubs" and I see his top 10 edited articles are "date list"s except [[Cotton gin]] and [[Pearl_Harbor]]: [[November 5]], [[September 16]], [[September 1]] etc. In [[Cotton gin]], his 99 edits are mostly reverting vandalism. I'm leaning toward oppose, but have not founded any critical faults in his contribution ''yet'', so I stay here.--
'''Neutral''' per Hegvald (who opposed). I think the statement ''"I would think that if there are no English sources of information about it, perhaps it is not notable to English readers"'' was a little alarming in itself, but the moving in and incorrectly redirecting on a topic which Mufka admittedly knew little about is an error which, when all put together, makes me a little unsure as to whether serious damage could be caused once the ability to delete is also available. My decision to not oppose is because the level of support clearly shows that the user is a good editor, and with it being clear that the nomination will pass, I hope that these views are taken onboard for his adminship.
'''Strong Support''' - MuZemike has done excellent work at SPI and is one of the most active and hardworking clerks there. In every other place I have seen MuZemike working, the part about him doing excellent work does not change. Best of luck with this candidacy, <font color="navy">'''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]], productive, helpful, knowledgeable editor. Not likely to misuse the tools. –'''
'''Strong support''' - Excellent contributor at SPI, knows what he's doing. Nice guy too. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
Seems to know enough about SPI to do a good job applying the tools there.  Good luck! <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
'''Support''' I have seen his work on SPI and he is competent and useful.  I see no concerns in his record that would preclude adminship. '''
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin already. '''''
{{ec}}'''Support''' - I was honesty considering asking MuZemike to run myself. --'''
Fully qualified candidate. '''
I agree with everyone else. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' As somebody else said, I thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''' He'll make a good admin. Definite net positive.
'''Support'''. This causes me something of a problem as I ''persistently'' get you confused with MZMcBride due to your similar-length, fairly similar names and unadorned signatures. That said, I've had no bad experiences with either recently, and a skim through contributions makes me quite sure that you're doing some good work! Definitely a good admin candidate. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Yup''' tl;dr forces me to use NBD. - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]]&nbsp;<sup>[ <span style="font-style:italic">In the UK? Sign
'''Support''' Looks good. He (and we) definitely will benefit from the tools. :) Good luck!
'''Support''', no reasons why not. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Woefully late nominator support''' [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Strong Support''' MuZemike has done excellent work at SPI, and in other places. He would make an excellent administrator. '''<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print; text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><font color=blue>
Heh, per Hersfold.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good candidate. I like his speedy work (additionally to the other good work cited above), with  edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waze,_Ltd.&diff=prev&oldid=311394690 this one] (where he contested an invalid A7) and no obvious mistakes I could find. His idea to use a bot account to do AWB edits is great (I was about to suggest this here) and shows that he is mindful when it comes to thinking about what to improve. Regards '''
Strong nom statements, lots of admin-related work, and the CSD tags where I made the call were fine. - Dank (
'''Support''' Looks great!
'''Support''', absolutely. Fully qualified candidate, great work at SPI and other admin areas. I've been waiting for this.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this user around a bit ... always seems friendly, helpful, and clueful.  I'm good to go on this one. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)  Changed to "strong" support per [[User:Goodmorningworld]] — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
I agree with harej.
'''Support'''. Very thoughtful, clueful, input at [[Wikipedia talk:External links]], even when provoked by others. (So I agree with Nick.) --
'''Support'''. Excellent interactions over at [[WP:SPI|SPI]]. Should make a fine admin. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support''' An excellent editor who will become an excellent admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' Thoughtful & clueful. No second thoughts about him.
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin. <font color="green">
'''Strong support''', has a large amount of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. MuZemike is an exemplary candidate, and I feel he should have been an administrator long ago. &ndash;
'''Support''' I know it's been said before, just a little above me actually, but I though he was an admin already too. No doubt about it, he deserves adminship. <b><i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' Friendly, cooperative, helpful, understands policies and demonstrates this, and has made excellent contributions to articles. No hesitation in supporting. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
Another good editor that looks ready for the tools.  User has well over 25,000 edits, so I strongly '''support'''.  &ndash;
Looks really good.  I've seen him around and always had a good impression of his work.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' I trust MuZemike. The tools will allow him to block sockpuppets at SPI, instead of waiting for other administrators to do so. I do have some concerns about MuZemike's AfD contributions, such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treadmill Desk]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LuxembourgForBusiness]]. He voted speedy delete as advertising for both articles, even though neither were blatant spam. Both articles were eventually saved through the addition of sources. However, since both AfDs were more than half a year ago, these are minor issues. As long as MuZemike exercises caution when he closes an article at AfD as "speedy delete as advertising", I will be comfortable with him working at AfD.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I trust this user. He will make a great admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' He's already an admin, just flip the bit.
'''Support''' Trawling of edit history give me no reason to oppose.
'''Strong support''' - exemplary work at sockpuppet investigations.
'''Support'''. No-brainer. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - deleted contributions look fine, with speedy delete nominations good, and some nominations of others even corrected. Changed from neutral after seeing answer to Q4, sounds as if disruption will be minimised.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
I was waiting for this. '''
'''Strong support''', one of Wikipedia's best editors.—
'''Support''' - no concerns here--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Everything I have seen of MuZemike has been up to the highest standards. I believe Wikipedia will benefit greatly from his adminship.
'''Support''' It's about time, I already thought MuZemike was an admin. Everything that I've seen has been great. '''<font color="#000000">
The name is a familiar one, and I can't recall anything negative, so I default to support.
'''Support''' I've enjoyed working with the candidate at SPI.  Always cluefull.  Good luck (not that you need it).  —
'''Strong Support''' He's assisted with a couple of SPI's that I've been involved with, and I have nothing but good things to say.  He'll make a great Admin!
'''Speedy promote''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. Good article work, experience in the admin areas they want to work in, good (albeit long!) answers to questions. MuZemike is an cluefull user who can definitely handle a few extra buttons.
'''Support''', strong editor. ''don't'' speedy promote. Snow is one thing, throwing away proper practice is another.
'''Very strong support''', a user who is long overdue the tools.
'''Support''' odds are good at being a net positive.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per SPI work.
'''Support''' Not one already? :) <strong>
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Wests_Tigers_players&diff=prev&oldid=248558686 This] edit ''is'' worrying, but it's been a while since then and I can't find any similar diff since then. Good knowledge of policy, and lot's of admin related work, so I support.
'''Support''' per "You aren't already?!" <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support'''
Never heard of you, but if the worst anyone can find to say about you is "said fuck a year ago" you'll probably do.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' - Solid candidate.
'''Weak support''' - I'd strong support according to meeting my standards, but he has a potty mouth (or is that a potty keyboard?). Keep it clean and you'll be fine.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Iridescent.
'''Strong support''' excellent user
'''Strong support''' MuZemike is just awesome, he's helped me in the past and I've always found his judgment to be sound. -- '''
'''Cautious support''' per comments below in neutral section and on candidate's talk page.  Candidate has made many wortwhile contributions and most of our negative interactions were months ago.  Candidate is mostly balanced in AfDs, i.e. argues to keep, redirect, delete, etc. and does not merely tow any one inclusion philosophies line.  So in the interest of not holding a grudge, assuming good faith, and giving someone the benefit of the doubt, I will support.  I do have some dissastifaction with that not too distant ''Paper Mario'' AfD.  As an article rescuer, I for one do argue to delete on occasion and do recognize the importance in improving articles.  In many AFDs I comment in, I am the lone participant actually making edits to the article as well as comments to the discussion.  Thus, the members of the ARS are not monolithic and even if some accounts do routinely argue to keep without also improving the articles, I do not see that as much worse than the accounts who always say to delete without improving content either.  ALL of us should remember that we are building an encyclopedia.  With that, keep up the positives noted by our colleagues above, keep your cool, and best wishes (no daiquiris today, but getting ready for some [[cheeseburgers]]!).  Best, --
'''Support:''' My dealings with MuZemike have been pleasant and fruitful. The editor seems to genuinely want to help Wikipedia, and has been a big help organizing the Nintendo taskforce. Though he is certainly an asset to the Video games Project, MuZemike's track record has shown him to be the same elsewhere. I see an extra set of tools for him only helping Wikipedia. (
'''Support'''. Regarding that one diff, I can understand a certain amount of frustration, it happens to the best of us, but I wouldn't call this user a "hot-head" by any sense of the term. I've seen nothing but great work from this editor otherwise. And mature clueful responses such as [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_21#Purpose_of_Wikipedia|this]] do help to raise my confidence that this editor is meant to be an administrator. --
'''Support''' — No problems. '''
'''Support''': I've seen nothing but great work from him.
'''Support''': That diff was problematic, of course, but an isolated occurrence nonetheless - it happens to all of us. As to that DRV closure, I see nothing objectionable. The result is very clear from the discussion, and the discussion is turning into a soapbox. Perhaps it is more prudent to raise the matter at AN/I instead, but I don't think it's a problematic invocation of IAR. ''Full disclosure'': I !voted to speedy close that DRV.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good SPI work. MuZemike should be a fine admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': MuZemike has proven himself to be a thoughtful and knowledgeable editor. Definitely has a clue and I believe he would make a great admin.
'''Support''' - I find it embarrassing that some people are upset about a comment made a year ago.  Anyhow, I've seen MuZemike around and there's no reason for me to oppose. -
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to support this person and think he'll do a fine job.--
'''
'''Support''' Looks good. '''''
'''Support''': Absolutely..
'''Support''' Most definitely. Will expand if needed but this doesn't look like a contentious RfA. '''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MuZemike. —
'''Support''', per answers to my questions and lengthy record of solid contributions.  I would note that [[User:Caspian blue]] makes some good points below in the oppose section, and I'd encourage you to be doubly careful in what you say and do as an administrator, lest your words be misinterpreted.
'''Support''' Yes. Good luck.
'''Support''' I'm not familiar with this editor's work but he seems knowledgeable and trustworthy. While I have trouble getting too worked up over the use of an f-word in a comment or two, I guess you'll need to be more cautious in the future, when you bear the Heavy Weight of Office. Good luck,
'''Support''' basically per Lankiveil. I know it's been 10 months, and that's why I'm supporting, but be careful. :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' - I've looked at all the diffs in the oppose section. With the exception of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Wests_Tigers_players&diff=prev&oldid=248558686 this one] from nearly a year ago, they all look like examples of someone with plenty of common sense/clue. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. '''\'''
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
'''Support''': Only real concern is an year old diff, and the fact that there's nothing like that since then clearly shows MuZemike has improved on that. We can't expect perfection, and I don't think many will get closer than this. ≈&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' - Sure he once cursed at a user, but that was a while ago and no one is perfect.  MuZemike has shown a strong dedication to Wikipedia by editing consistantly for more than a year, good communication skills, and an ultra-high [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]] level.  The answers to the questions were superb.  Note to future RfA hopefuls - answers like the ones MuZemike has supplied are the best way to win my support.  (That is, the depth of thought involved, not the exact ideas expressed in them.) --
Candidate's demeanour, knowledge of and devotion to the encyclopaedia, and history of contributions instill confidence.
'''Support'''. No substantial concerns. — '''''
[[WP:100]] here you come '''support'''.
'''Support''' - His work is more than enough for him to be an administrator.
'''Support''' - although not without a nod to those opposing for language. Administrators should try to maintain a high standard of decorum. But that is an easy thing to fix, and from what I have seen, your work, especially in SPI, has been exemplary, and I believe you will be a fine admin. Good luck!
'''Support.''' Not insane. <small>But I won't hold that against him.</small>
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. That incivility was a long time ago and has not (I believe) been repeated.
'''sure, i guess'''.
'''Support''' – Someone who receives an “''Ultra Strong Industrial-Strength Oppose''” from a person like {{user|Goodmorningworld}} has ''clearly'' done something sensible. --
'''Support''' per his good work at SPI and the strong testimonials from Hersfold, Nathan and mazca. --
'''Support''' – I worked with MuZemike a bit on [[The Guardian Legend]]. As [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Guardian Legend/archive1|he has stated]], the article has changed a lot from a [[WP:NOTGUIDE|gameguide-ish]], "trivia"-muddled, near-stubby state; [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=The+Guardian+Legend much of the change is thanks to him]. It may never be [[WP:WIAFA|featurable]] for lack of available info, but he has done almost all he could to improve the article, and I now consider it by far the best resource on the history and reception of one of my favorite games.  His SPI work (etc.) shows a clear desire to deal with both behavioral and encyclopedic problems here.  The diffs of his past behavior concern me a bit, but I think he has learned from them and will continue to improve as more non-admins seek his help—he will have no choice but to keep cool, and I trust he will.  --
'''Support''' Seems to be fine, no real issues with the occasional obscenity.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' Some negative edits but a good guy!
'''Support''' He's a helpful editor and knows his way around.
'''Support''' Dont see a big problem with the cussing as it wasnt aimed at attacking an individual.
'''Support''' I am still concerned at how this editor does not use all of the tools and options available to him before putting an article up for deletion (redirect/merge/userfy) so I have stayed out of this discussion until now. But I just had an extremely pleasant conversation with MuZemike on his talk page, he was helpful, courteous, and compromising. Those are the halmarks of a good admin. I would just suggest to MuZemike that he utilize all the tools in his tool belt and be creative in his solutions to removing non-notable material.
'''Support''', comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301212360 this] raised elsewhere seem worrying but I'll presume it was a bad day or just badly phrased. The postitives seems to outweigh the negatives overall. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Suppport''' He is an amazingly positive contributor who always tries to see both sides in user conflict. I trust him. --
'''Support''' thought he was already.
'''Support''' See no concerns as per track and as per Juliancotton.
'''Support''', per noms by {{user|Hersfold}} and {{user|Nathan}}, who have some impressive words about the candidate. Also, quite an interesting bunch of [[WP:GA]]s and [[WP:DYK]]s. '''
'''Support'''. absolutely.
'''Support''', per noms, he has done amazing work across the wiki and it's time we give him more responsibility so that we can't walk away from us when we need him to do more.
'''Support''' ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''', absolutely! --
'''Oppose''' based on comments such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Wests_Tigers_players&diff=prev&oldid=248558686]. Good contributions is one thing, civility is another.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Oppose''' I was going to support you per your works in general, but the one strong diff presented above regretfully makes me land here. It does not matter the diff is about 10 months ago. It is still an very much inappropriate language that I do not totally want from admins. I'm also wondering whether the candidate have said things with the similar degree of such comment. Moreover, I'm curious as to why the candidate was not blocked for the comment. To people willing to defend him regardless such the incivility, unless the candidate had fully been warned for the comment by admins at that time, so he did retract it or apologize for it, please don't even think about saying to me like "it was just one diff and happened ages ago"--
'''Regretful oppose'''. Judging from the recent DRV and XfD contributions, this user clearly has a clue and has made good contributions as well. That said, I'm bothered by two facts. Neither of these would lead me to oppose on their own, but together they just make me a bit too wary. First off, the comment. Yes, it was a year ago, and lots of people have had some wiki-freak-out moments. It is more the fact that after he said what he said, and after he was warned, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_Wests_Tigers_players&diff=248627672&oldid=248613734 withdrew] his AfD nomination with an "I echo what I said above." He didn't cross out the uncivil remark, didn't apologize, but instead ''reiterated it''. I'm also a bit leery of admin candidates who think closing discussions is a good way get the admin bit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_September_1&diff=prev&oldid=311860598 Closing a DRV] makes me even more nervous. Yes, the ultimate result was pretty clear, but the issue was behaviorally difficult. It was not a "simple" close.
'''Ultra Strong Industrial-Strength Oppose'''. In one of WP's many time-wasting exercises, a user page was nominated for deletion. MuZeMike voted Delete based on this rationale which has to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SmashTheState&diff=268958281&oldid=268949663 seen to be believed]. No he wasn't kidding. Making this person an admin in my opinion would run the risk of making WP appear even more like the stomping ground of hysterical limp-wristed passive-aggressive ninnies than it looks already. --
'''Oppose''', based on attitude concerns. MuZemike seems to generally be a good contributor, but occasionally shows signs of a bad attitude, as shown in the diffs that have been provided; I could overlook the diff of October 30 2008 as a one-off 'snap', but the subsequent (though much less incivil) comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Paper_Mario_series_characters&diff=prev&oldid=304629192] <s>and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301212360]</s> give me cause for concern. And the MFD comment linked above, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SmashTheState&diff=268958281&oldid=268949663], is just frankly insulting (if unintentionally so). I sympathise with the sentiments MuZemike expresses there, but he expressed them very poorly; and I worry that if he finds attacks on 'nerds' as offensive as racism, he may be too thin-skinned to be an admin. All of these comments were some time ago, and he does seem to have improved in the time since - but at the moment, I just don't feel sufficiently confident in him to support.
'''Oppose''' some of the diffs provided are concerning enough for me to oppose.--
Good contributor, needs more seasoning and maturity. '''
'''Neutral''' per Sky and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Paper_Mario_series_characters&diff=prev&oldid=304629192] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=301212360]
'''Neutral''' User has some very good edits, but as Gigs and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:SmashTheState&diff=268958281&oldid=268949663 this] points out, I don't feel comfortable supporting.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. However some concerns raised by oppose and neutral comments make me unable to support. --
'''Support''' Its about time. MZMcBride's database reports are the main way I know of him, they're fantastic, and Wikipedia will be btter off if he has the tools again--
'''Strong support''' &mdash; MZMcBride and I didn't get on so well when we first met, but since then I've worked with him quite closely on a number of projects, including [[User:Xenobot/6]], where his patience and expertise were instrumental in completing my task. His ongoing tutoring of me in matters related to regex is what enabled me to complete [[User:Xenobot/6.1]], my most ambitious bot task to date, almost entirely without outside assistance. His database reports have been invaluable in supporting our 5 pillars and have also helped the Video games wikiProject keep their project space and member list clean and tidy. He is an expert on technical matters and restoring his administrative tools would be a net benefit to the project. I'm sure that he has learned from past experiences and would not repeat the same mistakes. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support'''. Reading through everything, I am convinced MZMcBride is sincere that he has learned from his past mistakes, and the work he does is simply outstanding. Take back the mop, my friend, and get back to work! <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support'''. After good cpnsideration, I feel MzMcbride has learnt from the mistakes of last time, and they are clearly a dedicated user, and so deserve the mop back, as I trust MzMcbride not to misuse the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. An otherwise excellent administrator, MZMcBride screwed up badly. However, since a) he's not made any mistakes along those lines since and b) is, I'm sure, aware that any screwups in that area this time around will make it almost impossible for him to regain the tools, I see no reason why he can't be trusted with them again.
'''Support'''. I echo Ironhold's statement. I trust that MZ has learned what the community expects from an administrator, and he'll be a positive force in the project again.
'''Support''' I believe MZM has acquired a better sense of what is expected and has shown a dedication to helping the project and would benefit and continue to help the project if granted the tools. '''
'''Support''' Although it was out of process, I did actually support your mass userpage deletion, although I think in hindsight that you could have managed the both the leadup and the fallout better. Wikipedia sometimes seems to be divided down the lines of the MUDDers and the writers, and while I appreciate the attraction of wikipedia as a social networking site, sometimes its nice to know that there a couple of people out there capable of acting as though that's not a particularly desirable long-term outcome. I hope that you have learned from the experience though, and can see the damage even the appearance of cabal-like actions behind the scenes can do.
'''Unqualified Strong Support''' Let bygones be bygones. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC) <small>(upgraded to strong support based on answer to q11
Per everyone else. &ndash;
Per Ironholds in particular. –'''
'''Support''', Ironholds said it well. An awesome BLP editor, dedicated user who's here for the long-term, and generally an over-qualified candidate for adminship again. The big point of concern is MZ's past mistakes; however, I believe he has learned from them, and I think it's time that he be trusted with the tools again.
'''Strong Support''' - Has always been a great asset to the project (particularly in an administrative role), and over the past several months seems to have handled himself extremely well regarding pretty much every single concern that was brought up at that time. Couldn't have done much more to alleviate any lingering concerns by this point, and I think he will go back to being one of our most productive administrators if given back the tools.
Per Ironholds, VegaDark. <font color="navy">'''
'''Strong Support''' MZMcBride is clearly here for the right reasons, is totally dedicated and works slavishly to help WP. Minor mistakes may have happened, but self evidently the wiki has not blown up. The guy is a major asset and regranting these extra bits only helps the encyclopedia. If you don't want to help the encyclopedia then oppose..... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. That anyone would be foolish enough to accept adminship is reason enough to question their judgement. However, MZM's commitment and dedication to doing what is right are almost impossible to dispute and his recent activity demonstrates that he still has the skills required to cooperate with others. --
'''Bleh'''. Give him back the tools already.
'''Strong Support'''. Of course. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' MZM made mistakes, learned from the mistakes, and has become a better editor for this.  I am glad to support MZM. Good luck!
I supported last time around and am happy to support again. MZMcBride is an immensely helpful editor and a very friendly person. He does great work for the project, and giving him back the admin tools will allow him to do more of what he already does. I think he's learned from his past mistakes, and I have no worries about any misuse of the tools from him: MZMcBride is fully aware that, should this RfA pass, he'll have to take extra care than last time. Just remember to take a break should you get stressed. ;) Good luck.
'''Strong support'''.
This is a no brainer. After past experiences with MZMcBride, I had thought that I would not support him in a million years. Us two have not had the best of relationships. I have changed my mind. Ever since MZMcBride was desysopped, I have constantly told him that it's a mistake. I feel that Wikipedia lost a great admin a few months ago, and I have always wanted him back on the team. (Additionally, I am spending my only 10 available minutes on the computer right now to support this RfA) <small>(
'''Strong support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''support''' I'm not sure I agree with the description of the user being an "awesome BLP editor". He has done a lot of work that has been very helpful in that regard but he does sometimes have an overly deletionist stance. However, disagreeing on such issues is a distinct issue from whether or not he will use the tools well. There were prior problems with his deleting things out of process in regards to the secret pages but that is only marginally related and it seems clear that he isn't going to repeat that sort of event.
I guess, tho somewhat less enthusaistically than the others here. I recall agreeing with you on most of the tasks you were criticized for, disagreeing with some, but being struck by your continual antagonism to discussion and tone-deafness to criticism. You're saying all the right things now, but they're fairly common sense, and were common sense before, when you weren't doing them.  Ultimately, I'm in this section because I believe in second chances, because the ArbCom remedies are fairly non-gameable, and because someone with your dedication and work ethic is just too useful to not to have as an admin. --
'''Support''' You certainly possess the knowledge, and I don't see any particularly good reasons not to support you. -- '''
'''Support''' '''[[User:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000080">iMatthew</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">[[User talk:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7"><sup>talk</sup>]]
'''
'''Support''' &nbsp;Strong technical user - previous major error was comitted in an effort to improve the encyclopedia - believe editor has learned from this, and should be allowed to regain the bit. --'''''
'''Support''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMZMcBride_2&diff=282631439&oldid=282630715 me].  Last time.  Several months ago. -
Obviously. The only reason he isn't one already is because some people had a weird idea of what does & doesn't constitute "abuse".&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
He still knows what he's doing. '''
'''Strong Support''' We lost one of our best admins when MZM was de-opped, and it's high time he got the tools back.
'''Support''' per Ironholds.
'''Support'''. It's about time.
'''Strong support''' - I think the time off was needed as I could see MZM was getting burnt out but I think now is the time to give him back the tools. He does invaluable service to this project with his technical knowledge and his work with BLP's is excellent - He can once again be one of our best administrators. '''
Per Gmaxwell. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Support''', but with some reservations. You've done good work and are clearly familiar with admin procedures. I'm inclined to give you another chance.
'''Support''' I remember quite heated arguments with the candidate a few months back, which I suspect he also recalls - however recently I needed help involving creating some script and made a request in some dusty part of WP; within hours MZM had created a sub-page for me with the information I wanted in a format even I could use. Indeed, most of my impressions of MZM's recent activities have been positive. While I doubt he and I will agree on a particular bone of contention I have no concerns that he would not use the flags for the betterment of the project. Time he had them back.
I went neutral last time because I felt that, while MZMcBride was a hard-working administrator, it was just too soon after the ArbCom case against him. Now it's been four months since, and I think it's time he got his sysop buttons back. =)
Always been a good editor and admin. I trust him not to run scripts on his account. Best of luck, '''
He pushed some boundaries too far.  Should have been slapped for deleting outside the rules.  Perhaps punished at the stocks for upsetting so many editors.  However, there was never a question of “deliberate abuse” or loss of trust of good intention.  He responded to complaints, altered behaviour, and contributed to the relevant policy discussions.  --
'''Support''' essentially per iridescent.
'''Support'''. Despite the arbcom desysop, I feel comfortable giving him back the tools. He's grown from the issues and he'll be fine as an admin.
'''Support''' Per everyone else.  Well...perhaps not ''everyone'' else, but most of them.  A good user, no concerns that he will abuse the tools.  --''
'''Support''' Sure.

'''Support''' - I wanted to neutral or oppose based on some reason about resigning and stuff like that. However, I probably have harassed you enough since then so that you probably wouldn't make the same comments. I guess dealing with me can be some form of penance.
'''Support''' - no brainer (even for a non-brainer like me!). --
'''Support''' Nobody's perfect. Please avoid rampaging crusades or get community support first.
'''Support''' No statement for now.  Before this closes I'll be back w/ more info and justification.
'''Support''' One of the complaints I've seen is that he's overzealous about BLPs.  How that can be a bad thing escapes me.
'''Support''' Was a great admin, has satisfactorily addressed problems that came up earlier, will be a great admin again. <strong>
The time off was good for MZMcBride; it gave him perspective and hindsight on how he messed up as an administrator. It's inevitable that someone who was an admin for as long as he got carried away, resulting in undesirable behavior. (I have noticed this in myself and try to restrain myself wherever possible). MZM is ready to resume his duty as an administrator. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' I like the answer to questions 1-3 there.
I take a nice nap and this is what I get?  To be support #57?  How cruel.
'''Strong support''' per all of the above, my comments last time, and more.
'''Support'''.  I'm confident in this user's integrity.--
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions. I believe he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MZMcBride. —
'''Support''': Pas de doute, il ferait bon administrateur..
Absolutely no reservations, although in part per Ironholds.  Welcome back, we need you.  Badly. - Dank (
'''More than Weak but less than full Support''' In the past I have definitely disagreed with MZM's CSD work as I've found him to be over eager to pull the trigger.  But agreeing with my position is not a requisite.  I am a firm believer in redemption and in the notion of moving in and out of adminship.  I think it should be easier to take the bit away and easier to restore it once it is taken away.  Thus, I support largely on philosophical grounds.  But that is not the only reason why I'm going to ignore my concerns about CSD here.  When MzM lost his bit, I told him, "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMZMcBride&diff=282768605&oldid=282752267 I know from my personal experience, how hard it can be to be rejected by your peers on a project you've put a lot of time into. I can also tell you from experience, the hurt does go away, and there are enough areas on the project that I hope you can find something new to be pationate about. I also wanted you to know that if (down the road) you chose to run again, *I* will not hold this against you. IMO you made a mistake by opening it, but you fixed the mistake by closing it. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to say, being an admin is not about the buttons... but about your attitude and commitment to the project. I firmly believe that you can be an admin without the tools or passing an RfA. An RfA is just the means to confir what, IMO, should already be evident through one's actions. If one is acting like an admin, one is an admin, regarless of whether or not they have a globy thingy on their page.]"  I think coming back here and redefining himself like he has takes incedible fortitude and strength of character and that is why I am supporting him.  I won't lie, I have some fears, at his last RfA some people called him one of the worst CSD'ers out there---and most of you know how I feel about sloppy CSD'ers.  But I am going with my guts here and support him.  He did what I hoped he would do.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 04:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to weak support due to arguments made in oppose section.  While they are convincing, I am keeping my !vote in the support section for two reasons.  1) The philosophical reason that I think it should be easier to move in and out of adminship than it currently is.  It is too much of a pain in the butt to remove the bit because people know that once it is removed it is virtually impossible to get back in most cases.  2) MzM did what I wanted him to do... redefine himself as a wikipedian without the tools.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 02:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Moved to more than weak but less than full support... MZM did what *I* asked of him at his last RfA.  While I recognize the concerns of the opposers as valid concerns, I find myself in a forgiving mood and willing to give MZM a second chance.  This isn't without concerns, but it is without reservations.---'''
'''Support''', assuming that he has a [[WP:BELLY|navel]]. MZMcBride made a mistake, and learned from it. I have confidence that he will not betray our trust. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' After looking through MZMcBride's contributions, I must say that he has done quite an impressive amount of contributing in Wikipedia. He strongly deserve a successful RFA this time round.
'''Support''', sexually attractive and also the best admin we ever did see. --
'''Support''' - Every time someone opposes this RfA, God kills a [[:File:Pug puppy.JPG|puppy]]. Please, think of the puppies. <small>The previous vote says MZMcBride is sexually attractive. I need to see a picture. "How ''you'' doin?"</small>
'''Support'''. While it's tempting to be amusing or flippant in this RFA for someone whom I personally like, I'll try to refrain.  MzMcBride has shown over the years a dedication not only to doing a lot of work to improve Wikipedia, but also a deep understanding of its principles as a wiki and as free content, which guides his actions.  That puts him way over my standard for being an admin, which is basically "don't be a vandal".
'''Support'''. Concerned about mistake but learned from it well. Good luck. '''
'''Support''', per Ironholds and many of the above. --
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor around (quite a bit) and they've got what it takes. -
'''Support''' - Weird, I thought I'd already voted. MZMcBride has been an asset to the project before, and no doubt he will be again if this RfA passes. It is evident to me that he has learnt from his mistakes, and will not repeat them. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' The events leading to the ArbCom case were unfortunate and a mistake but I am happy to see that MZM has seen this as well. The work he did was never thought to be anything but valuable to the project and only unfortunate decisions led to tarnish his contributions up to said ArbCom case and the unsuccessful second RFA. At that time, I would not have trusted him with the tools (anymore) and I have explicitly stated so multiple times. But in the last months, I have seen MZM at various places and he has, as far as I can see, really reflected on his mistakes and changed his approach where necessary. Trusting that he will not do anything as drama-prone again as he did half a year ago, I have no reason not to support this request this time. Regards '''
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' - has clearly worked hard in responding to the grievances expressed against him at the time of his resignation.  We need him back working on BLPs in an admin capacity, and I absolutely trust his judgement in not straying into further needless controversy.
'''Strong support'''. Valid questions about MZMcBride's judgement have been raised in the past, but even at the time of the arbitration case there was never any indication that he was doing anything other than what he believed was best for Wikipedia - the issues primarily revolved around him being too independent at times, as well as the widespread debate about automated admin scripts. He's amply demonstrated that he understands the concerns raised, and I am very confident that a user as knowledgeable and dedicated as he is will once again make excellent use of admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - I'm convinced that MZM has learned from his mistakes. --'''
Because, quite simply, it's the right thing to do. <small><span style="border:1px solid #339933;padding:1px;">
--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support'''. Candidates answer to question 8 and its follow up satisfies me, and I 100% agree with MZM's strong refusal of Q11. I'm willing to forgive and forget the secret page debacle. Just take CoM's suggestion above and you'll be a fantastic admin (again). <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - Time to move on.
'''Support''' - Moved from neutral. --
'''Support''' A good canidate with lots of experience. &mdash;
'''Support''' - per Fritzpoll
'''Weak support''', please don't make me regret this.
'''Support''' - please note, this comment is made in my role as an individual and an administrator on this proejct, not as a Foundation employee or on behalf of the strategy project. With that said, my very strong recommendation is that the community support MZMcBride in this RfA. My interactions with this user have been professional (if sometimes complicated by the user's strong voice and my unwillingness to get their generally very helpful advice through my own thick head), and to say that MzMcBride has been helpful would be the most severe understatment of the year. MzMcBride was instrumental in the creation of the Strategy Wiki, even when xe wasn't totally sure xe agreed with the project and/or the project goals. I can not state strongly enough my level of respect. It is my hope that the community will see fit to move forward with this. - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Support''' - Deleting 'secret' pages should never have been the straw that resulted in a desysop.
'''Support''' No question. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' No one with this many edits, and this strong a personality is going to have a spotless history. The positive contributions to this place are seriously impressive. Some of the non-so-positive contributions are troubling. Fair or unfair, negatives outweigh positives, in the sense that nine good edits followed by one bad edit is a net negative. I see recent positive signs helping me to discount some of the troubling history. The rethinking of the role of AFD is a positve. The acceptance of the need for bot approval is a positive. On the less positive side, the answer to question 1 was extremely offputting. OTOH, the answer to question 11 was excellent.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Golden Anus''' Because that's just funny.
''Well hello Marybelle, good bye crap''.
'''Stronger support'''. MZ does great things on the BLP front. Between database reports, various queries, and
'''Support''' - I supported your first RfA, and made what can fairly be described as a leap of faith and supported your second as well, despite an ArbCom about you still being open at the time. As I said last time, the ArbCom cases represented a serious lapse in judgement, but you have experience and have clearly learnt the lessons that needed to be learnt from your past, an [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria#Key criteria|important trait]] for an administrator. Your work with [[WP:BLP]] and in particular [[User:LaraBot]], should also be commended.
'''Support''' - I mean, duh. <b>
'''Strong Support''' —
Paid his dues, proven to the community that he deserves a second chance. -
'''Support''', and I hope I don't come to regret it.
'''Duh''', and because no one waits until 21 anymore, 69 was already taken, and 420 takes too long. '''
'''One off from 100''' While the ArbCom stuff is quite worrying, I'm sure that he's gotten over that. That, plus answer to A11, calls for a support. Cheers, '''''
'''Support.''' A helpful editor, and appropriately forceful and credible answers to the questions.
'''Support''', excellent user.
''''''<font color=#FF0000>R</font><font color=#FF4400>a</font><font color=#FF8800>i</font><font color=#FFBB00>n</font><font color=#FFFF00>b</font><font color=#BBFF00>o</font><font color=#88FF00>w</font> <font color=#44FF00>S</font><font color=#00FF00>u</font><font color=#00FF44>p</font><font color=#00FF88>p</font><font color=#00FFBB>o</font><font color=#00FFFF>r</font><font color=#00BBFF>t</font>''' ¡ʞɔnן pooƃ ɹǝsn ʇɐɥʇ ɥsıʍ ı ˙ɹǝdןǝɥ punoɹɐ-ןןɐ ʇɐǝɹƃ ɐ puɐ ןןoɹʇ ɔɹı 'ɹoʇıpǝ ǝɯosǝʍɐ --<strong>
'''Support''' With the hope that good sense and judgment will come through experience...
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support'''. Back in April I joined in urging MZMcBride "to give careful consideration to the principles expressed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride|this decision]] in his future editing, and especially if he reattains adminship at a future date". My status may have changed since then but that is still the relevant measure. I find it quite clear that not only has he done so, he has done so more comprehensively than I would have thought possible. I vote to support without any reservation.
'''Support''' My main concern was the deletion scripts, which seemed controversial enough to warrant a discussion. I'm not saying that I opposed or supported them, just that they seemed controversial. MZ's word that this will not happen again is enough for me. '''<font color="#000000">
MZMcBride? The eminent twenty-first century Wikipedian adminship applicant? '''
'''Support''' Sure. :) --
Shows the ability to learn from experience = '''Strong Support'''  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Per nom and becaus I'm sure that MZ will be thoughtful of the community when performing potentially controversial operations. --
'''Support'''. User has a clue, and my interactions with him over the years have been very positive. --<u>
'''Let him have the tools back.''' I supported his last RfA, despite my misgivings about its timing. I felt then, as now, that his adminship was a net positive for the project, despite some lapses in judgment. I also think he's learnt well from his errors.
'''Support''' - I don't like the idea that questioners request pledges from admin candidates and then oppose based on their refusal to agree. That sets a dangerous precedent in RfAs. Beyond that, I think MZM will reign it in, no reason to not trust.
'''Support''' Helpful user, trustworthy.
'''Support''' Fine.
'''Support''' (redundantly) per the second best nom statement ever presented here. ;).  Seriously though, 5 months ago I was one of the most outspoken, and harshest critics that MZ had.  As an IT guy, I ''do'' understand the satisfaction in relating to databases, scripts, programing languages and computers in general.  You only get back the information you put in.  With people, especially via the Internet where there is no voice inflection, no visual clues to intent, humans can be unpredictable, given to emotional and sometimes illogical responses. (see [[GIGO]]).  The fact that MZM has worked so hard to "communicate", and to seek community consensus over his own beliefs has impressed the hell out of me.  It would be foolish to question his strong desire to improve the Wikipedia project, or deny the devotion of his efforts here.  While human interaction may be a second language to MZ, his ability to master it, simply should not be ignored.  As an editor who may be on the opposing side of "deletion" discussions outside of BLP space, I believe that in the ''present'', to deny MZ the tools would effectively [[Hamstring#Injury|hamstring]] the entire project.  I'm not in favor of asking a person to work with one hand tied behind their back.  I applaud his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMZMcBride_3&diff=310475960&oldid=310475787 refusal to sell out], and his integrity of sticking to his beliefs.  We may never get "walls of text" from Mr. McBride, but there are a few folks here that can pick up that end of things. What we will get is an honest, and dedicated effort to improve our project, as well as a strong individual who can help us move forward in the years ahead. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' This decision took a lot of thought.  While I disagree with MZMcBride on a lot of issues, it would seem to me that he's been a very good editor for the past few months, and therefore probably would be a good administrator as well.  -- ''<B>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Has made plenty of mistakes including pretty bad ones as detailed in the ArbCom case (and don't even get me started on the timing of the last RfA). Still, I find it almost impossible to argue that resysoping MZMB is a net negative.
'''Support''' pending creation of Lawbot. Please do be careful this time around or else it gets the hose again.
'''Support'''. Dedicated and valuable editor, deserving of another chance. --
'''Support''' in the interest of balancing anus-related opposes.
'''Support''' I expected to oppose because I do believe the mass deletion of the secret pages was a particularly egregious abuse of admin powers. But reading through this whole page and all his answers, I find myself supporting. The various answers and responses are especially mature and thoughtful. I really believe he has learned from the past and has earned again the trust of the community. Good luck and thanks for all the great work you have done/will do.
'''Support''' Mainly per {{user|OlEnglish}} above.
'''Support''', Ironholds' thoughts on this are close to my own.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Everyone makes mistakes, but I fully trust his judgment, and I don't believe he will do anything inappropriate with the tools if the bits are again bestowed. '''<font face="times new roman">
Of course. Definitely.
Obvious support.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support'''; Arbitration remedies have as their primary objective the intent to allow someone to ''correct'' previously problematic behavior.  Given that MZMcBride has since corrected his aim, and that he is generally agreed to be a competent administrator, I see no reason to not support.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I probably know as much as anyone about the prior issues involving MZMcBride, and the widespread sense of exasperation felt with him by many by the end of his prior tenure as an administrator, from having been the drafting arbitrator in the two ArbCom cases he was a party to. As such, I am familiar with both the positive and the negative aspects of his work as an editor and an administrator. In the months since he resigned, I've seen him enhance the positive and drastically tone down the negative aspects of his comments and contributions. His conduct in recent months and the tenor of his answers to the questions in this RfA convince me that if resysopped, he will be an asset to the project and is not likely to repeat his prior mistakes. (I also note that MZMcBride could have requested resysopping directly from ArbCom, though I don't know what the outcome of such a request would have been, but chose to proceed with this RfA instead.)
'''Support''' Hopefully this time you will use the tools appropriately <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Support''', although I would have easily voted to desysop him twice (in fact, I fault last year's ArbCom for failing to do so in the Palin wheel war case). Adminship should be no big deal. That means that we shouldn't treat it as tenure&mdash;we should be more willing to remove the bit for misuse. At the same time, we should also grant it more liberally than RFA has in recent years. After thorough questioning, I'm convinced that MZMcBride will not make the ''same'' mistakes. If he makes wholly new ones, I think the community is prepared to deal with it. In the mean time, his adminship is a net positive. Sysop the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2#Bastard|bastard]].
'''Support''' MZMcBride has come a very long way and done a lot a lot of hard work.  He can certainly be trusted.
I am not as concerned as the opposers are. ''÷
'''Strong Support''' I have absolute confidence in MzMcBride's ability as administrator. <i><b>
'''Support''' per the comments of various Arbitration Committee colleagues. I have closely followed MZMcBride's progress since the April RFAR, and I note significant changes in both his behaviour and his perspective.
Had to think about this a bit, as some of the opposes I see below give me some pause, and are from editors I do hold in high regard (i.e Durova) but after considering carefully decided to support, mainly due to the fact that a) Everyone fucks up now and again b) MzMcBride appears to have learned from his mistakes and c) I'm willing to forgive past mistakes. Wikipedia too often fails good candidates due to past mistakes, regardless of whether they've learned from them or not. And I think an end should be put to it. Best of luck, <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' He's nearly as awesome as I am, and few can say that. I speak French in Russian, and can disarm a man with my looks, as well as my hands. So while it would be foolish to judge MZM against the likes of someone as capable as I, I can certify that MZM would be a high functioning admin. I know this because he was before, never really ceased to be, and shall continue to be so in the future.
Cautious '''Support''' - has mellowed alot, which was a prerequisite to this even getting of the ground I would have thought. Opposers raise valid concerns, but MZM will be being watched and there is a high likelihood that any further mishaps will come to arb committee's attention pretty quickly. Note to all ''(picks up megaphone yet again)'' I am hoping everyone is noting a more fluid sysop and desysop atmosphere this year....given this I see benefits outweighing risks.
'''Support''' I fully recognize all the very well worded arguments made in the Oppose section, as well as the complete history of the situation, however I must say that MZMcBride's answers to the many difficult questions were extremely persuasive and have convinced me this would be a prudent decision. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. I trust this user to wield the mop with integrity.
'''Support'''. His impulsiveness has toned down a lot and I think that was his key problem when he had adminship last time. I see no problems now.
'''Support''': Dedicated contributor, and I think he can now be trusted to use the tools responsibly. Also, I'm agreeing with Juliancolton's statement up there. ≈&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' Does-good-work. Give-back-mop. Pretty simple, methinks ;) Cheers,
'''Support'''. He's an asset to the project, and I'm happy to support him. <font color="green">

While I understand the too soon and agressiveness comments, he's too valued of a asset to reject the tools.
'''Support''' As [[User:Philippe|Philippe]] said earlier, MzMcBride started helping the [[strategy:Main Page|strategic planning Wiki]] even before he was sure it was the best possible thing. He embodied, "Assume Good Faith," and we wouldn't be anywhere close to where we are now if it hadn't been for his hard work and selfless contributions. --
'''Support''' I have a feeling that he'll be under way more scrutiny then other new admins.  He can make good use of the tools, and in my opinion will be a net positive to Wikipedia.  And if he isn't... well, I am sure Arbcom would be quite willing to deal with it.
'''Support''' - certainly valid opposes, but I don't agree. <b>
I believe he has learned from past mistakes and will be a net benefit as an admin.
support
'''Support''', Additional time is not going to change anything, either he's ready or he's not and why not find out now? I think he will perform well, so I give my full support.
'''Support''' - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Though there are definitely some thorny issues at work (particularly the script-assisted deletions), I still trust MZMcBride. Newyorkbrad's description of efforts to improve was particularly convincing. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
'''Strong support''' the opposers have raised two major issues -- judgement and timing. The incidents were a wheel war, which in MZM's case was one unfortunate unprotection, controversial adminbots, and deletion that were too bold. MZM now uses the BAG process and seek consensus for bot tasks, has promised to be more cautious when deleting, and I would be very surprised if he would enter into a wheel-war. Outside those incidents, his judgement was sound, and even without the bots, I think he was one of the most active admins. The judgement issues have been resolved, so there isn't much point in waiting another 3-4 months. I trusted MZM as admin before, and I continue to trust his abilities. '''<font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font><sub><small>
'''Support''' All of my interactions were positive. IMHO I think we can reentrust him with the tools again. Okay that was redundant, but he has done his repentance and I think he merits getting back the mop
&mdash;
'''Support''' experienced contributor, understands the importance of BLPs and appears to have learned from the sekrit page saga. I've read the oppose section and am not convinced by the oppose arguments, in particular I'm surprised that we still have RFA !votes using "no need for the tools" rationales. ''
'''Support''' He appears to have learned from his past mistakes and could make good use of the tools again,  Best of luck
'''Support'''—MZMcBride's history, and my interaction with him, leads me to believe that he can generally be trusted with the admin tools. {&#123;
'''Support''' Nothing major wrong here
While the opposition brings up salient points, I am willing to give this user the benefit of the doubt and say that he is ready for the tools again.  Please don't prove us wrong :)
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''' - I don't usually comment at RFA, but this case, and particularly the answer to Q17 makes me inclined to trust this user. At present, I'm in a similar position; due to other pressures I currently tend to only use the admin tools for non-controversial edit-protected, self-deletion of user pages etc. I can therefore understand how frustrating it would be for a former admin not to be able to do this. However, MZM would have to realise that this is not only a second chance, but a final chance.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Strong editor.
'''Support''' - per nom.
'''Strong support''' - I'm quick to trust those trusted on other Wikimedia sites.
'''Support''' We could use more admins who realize that crusading against our minor nuisances is wrong, and that we have process for a reason.
'''Support''' I am concerned that the candidate can be something of a loose cannon, but I agree with Maxim's assessment above. I admire the candidate's commitment to open editing – we need more oligarchs restricting the power of the oligarchy.
'''Support''' per Q 17 and the comments on the talk page. '''
'''Support'''
Mistakes were made, and some of us can't look past these mistakes (I shed a tear for you). MZM has always been a net positive in my mind. Marybelles actions and words may not be mainstream or conventional in the slightest but his intentions are inline with the project. Any other minuscule detail is random nitpicking and grudge bearing that corrodes this forum. Have a nice day. :) '''
Was opposed to him losing his rights initially. Support him regaining them. An MZMcBride with the tools is helpful to the encyclopedia. Mahalo. --
'''Support''' some serious concerns below; was considering casting my first oppose when I saw this yesterday.  On the other hand the candidates does a huge amount of valuable work and a great many editors I consider trustworthy have faith the candidate wont be re-donning  his  deletionist no 1  mantle.   I dont know the candidate but he must have excellent qualities to have so much passionate support. Net positive.
'''Support''' Did good work before and will continue to do good work with the mop.
'''Support''' Net-positive
He's controversial enough to make it work.
'''Support''' per the above 182.  Not convinced by the opposes.
'''Support from Neutral''' - I am not convinced that the candidate won't screw up badly again; I am convinced that this is [[WP:DEAL|No Big Deal]] and that we can fix anything he messes up (though through no small effort if he does it on a large scale).  I'm also encouraged by his answer to 12d and tend to object to the suggestion that mass unprotection is a bad thing.--
'''Support''' Excellent answers; good recall criteria. —
'''Support''' Not perfect, but good enough to pass at this time.
'''Support''' Net positive. Like Ali'i above, opposed him losing them in the first place - good faith editor and hard worker.
'''Support''' – if most of the ArbCom supports him in coming back after him resigning the bit, then why not?
MZMcBride did make some mistakes before he lost his adminship, especially in his communication. However, I think his behavior since then has demonstrated that he understands and owns up to these mistakes, and that he is capable of being responsive. I trust his judgment in adminship matters, and I think that he will turn out to be quite productive.
'''Support'''. Encouraged by the answers to the questions and his collegiality as he works through recent issues. I see no reason for a longer  wait before returning the tools. He can make good use of them now.
'''Support''' – I found this a difficult decision, hence my late-hour participation in the discussion despite following it and his previous RfA and Arb case. Although in the past he has had a tendency occasionally to substitute his own judgment (in admin actions) for community consensus, I think the risks of that now have been lessened—not just because of the increased scrutiny he is now under, but also because there is evidence in his communication that he is changing his approach. I also believe that adminship ought to be easier to move in and out of than it has in the past. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' Excellent answers to RFA questions, sufficient experience and expertise.  I think that mistakes such as those mentioned in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride|ArbCom case]] are unlikely to be repeated.
'''Support''' basically per Dominic. I believe MZMcBride learned from his mistakes, and will be [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] to the project. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Humans make mistakes.  Good humans learn from them.  Seems like a good human. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per Flonight. To be honest, MZMcBride has the potential to be a good admin, and I think that's sufficient to grant the tools again. I'd caution the candidate to please, for the love of all that is holy, be mindful of the communication issues discussed above (and below) - you'll have a much better time of things that way. Best to you,
—
'''Support''' &ndash; I thought he already was an admin! ...oh, hang on, I'll take my foot right out of the mouth there... Seriously don't think there'll be any problems here. With the candidate. Not taking my foot out of my mouth. Ahem. What was I doing? – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''support''' clear answer about bots/scripts.©
'''Support''' No reason to think there will be further problems. --
'''Support''' (Yay, #200!) Shouldn't be any further problems, and we need him back. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''...
agree with Lara, Cas, and Dmcdevit. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—
'''Support''' '''
'''Oppose''' - the lack of judgement with regards to the timing of your last RfA (resigning, the ArbCom case, etc), as well as ''apparent'' running of unapproved adminbots, is more than enough for me to oppose. →&nbsp;
'''Regretful Oppose''', sorry to oppose, you've always seemed like a great guy when I've seen you around, and I really hope you don't take this oppose personally. But there's a lot of things in you contributions, which, without a proper explanation (feel free to reply to anything), leaves me unsure. ArbCom disallowed any automated edits from your account, but there's a lot of ''seemingly'' automated (or possibly semi-automated) edits coming from your account, or (obviously there's no way to prove that you were/weren't observing these edits properly) improperly viewed; For example, in June you were going through a lot of redirects (50+) removing any text below the actual redirect (and in some cases replacing it with a redirect template, such as {{tl|R with possibilities}}), but in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six_axis&diff=prev&oldid=298191860 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhondo_Keshave_Karve&diff=prev&oldid=298192051 two] edits (and probably more) you didn't re-add the {{tl|R from misspelling}} template (even though in both examples it had apparently been incorrectly substed onto the page, rather then transcluded). I feel that if you were reviewing your edits properly, you should have spotted this. The second example is where you were adding [[:Category:Living people]] to a number of article (most of the times you added this it seems fine), but in one case (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_O%27Donoghue&diff=291743722&oldid=269350409 this edit]) you failed to remove [[:Category:deceased]] from the article, and even changed the deceased category (which doesn't exist and was (possibly incorrectly) added by a new user) to have an upper case "D". Yes, this change is correct in that categories should start with an uppercase, but why did you add the page to living people, ''and'' correct the deceased category? Also, I think your non-admin closure at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe]] was against both [[WP:AfD]] and [[WP:NAC]] (regardless of whether it should have been closed as delete or not), in that you should not close a discussion which you have been part of, and you (as a non admin) should not close a discussion as delete. As well as this, I think this is too soon after the ArbCom case and you're resignation of adminship (with good reason). All that said, when I've actually seen you, you seem really nice, helpful, and productive. If there are explanations for any of the reasons in my oppose, then please explain :D. I would be happier in the support section -
'''Oppose at the present time'''. This is a tough one. MZM has done and continues to do great stuff for the encyclopaedia. That being said, he exhibited real lack of judgement in April - just 4 months ago - leading to his resignation in real danger of being desysopped by Arbcom. To support someone with this history at RFA I'd like to see real solid evidence of increased wisdom, judgement and maturity. To be honest, if I were sure that MZM was an adult, I couldn't imagine such personal growth could happen over only a few months. However, I have the impression (maybe incorrect) that MZM is relatively young, and therefore I am willing to believe that such a change may have taken place. Ergo I was going to stay neutral (or not vote). However, then I reread his answer to Q1, where he basically says he has no great need for the bit right now. So there's also no urgency to give him the bit back. Therefore, let's wait another few months.
'''Oppose''' although I'm reassured by the answer to Q9 and attempts to redress grievances (a pity that the noble attempt to seek redress was thuggishly derailed by someone preemptively labeling everyone who might join the discussion as vexatious trolls -- robbing the candidate of honest feedback), the issue was always a failure to communicate and an inability to recognize not even the validity but sometimes the mere existence of objection to his behavior.  Unfortunately, someone who does good BLP work at Wikipedia often attracts an army of enablers who would defend a relapse into heavy-handedness, even on matters not pertaining to BLP.  As such, I think it's best the candidate continues the good BLP work without access to the admin tools that may tempt him into unrelated misadventures. --
'''Oppose''' per Roux
'''Oppose''' - I don't like you.!! (being honest here; unlike the others above me who gave dumb reasons for opposing you instead of coming out clean and saying what I just said) :)..--
'''Oppose.''' To the extent I have personal recollections of MZMcBride's admin work, they are good ones, but we are now in the rare position of discussing a candidate whose judgment as an administrator has been found to be flawed by ArbCom twice, at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride#Findings of fact]] (April 2009) and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war#Reduction of protection by MZMcBride]] ( October 2008). Under these circumstances, I am uncomfortable with supporting his candidacy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' &ndash; To be honest, after looking over your edit history I find there is something quite unlikeable about you. You seem to me, to have rather bad judgement. As well as this, the humour question 14 talks about I think is inappropriate. The "abusive sock" comments on the bot talk pages I don't like either. No, nothing I particularly like about this candidate - I would not trust him with the tools.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. Move aside and give others a chance. Maybe reapply in a year or so, either way it is too soon and the candidate seems to want the mop back for all the wrong reasons.--
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Relatively recent drama.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, MZMcBride, but I simply don't trust you with the delete button. If it was just using an unauthorised bot to delete pages in userspace, then I'd think hey, the man's a dedicated Wikipedian who made a mistake, give him another chance. But there were deletions against consensus at AfD too, and there was the self-desysopping followed by RFA 2 during the arbcom case: which I saw as evidence of unwillingness to submit to the normal processes. In short, I think you see rules and guidelines as obstacles that are stopping you doing "the right thing", and I think you tend to try to circumvent them. And I think you're too confident in your own judgment.—
'''Oppose''' Sorry. The oppose comments are very troubling.--
'''Oppose''', basically per S Marshall.  In the last RfA, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMZMcBride_2&diff=282604649&oldid=282604591 wrote] that I was unable to support, fearing that, qua admin, MZM would substitute his judgment for that of the community not infrequently, as he had during his first tour (I note now, as I did then, that I have no doubt that he acted in good faith in so doing), but offered that my position was not permanently fixed, and that I would support in the future were I convinced of his appreciation of the nature of adminship as ministerial; I am, I must say, as yet unconvinced.  I have no doubt that the candidate, whom I have known, even as I have disagreed with him, on substance and style, from time to time, to be well-meaning and good-hearted, is sincere in his profession that he understands where he erred in the past and will be circumspect in his use of the tools, but I am not sure his conception of the limits of adminship is the same as mine (or as that of the community).  Were he willing to adopt the restrictions outlined by S Marshall, I would (I think) support&mdash;his declination, though, is perfectly fair, and I understand entirely why he answers as he does&mdash;but on the whole I cannot now find that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|that the net effect on the project of the candidate’s being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''', per unsatisfactory answers to Q13 and Q14.  I could overlook the tangles with ArbCom in the past, but these two I think show rather poor judgement.  I'm all for a joke now and then, and I'm not personally offended by the "barnstar", but there are people who very easily might be.
'''Oppose'''. Honestly, I don't know if there's any way I could ever accept such a recent Arbcom incident. Also, I do think the 'abusive sock' bit is misleading; however, that does *not* (sorry for brainfart typo) factor into my oppose. Sorry :(
'''Oppose''' I originally supported you, but I have no choice but to automatically switch to oppose over your [[WP:ANUS]] business. I'm not very impressed.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
The scale of bad judgement shown in the relatively recent past, as well as your answers to CHL's questions and the "this is a wiki" unprotections all lead me to err on the side of caution and oppose this request.
'''Oppose''' I am one of those people who believes past actions are the best indicator of future behavior.  If the "secret page" deletions had been an isolated incident of poor judgment, I could overlook it, but MZ's history as a sysop was one of regularly pushing the boundaries of both the rules and social norms.  I won't repeat all the incidents here, but [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence|his ARBCOM case's evidence]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence|the Sarah Palin wheel war case]] outline most of them.  Perhaps he has genuinely changed, but I am uncomfortable with re-sysoping.  I see a significant possibility that he will slowly begin to push the boundaries again when he thinks he can get away with it.  I also find it hard to believe that one of the most active admins of all time is running "mostly to do routine maintenance." --
'''Oppose''' It is unfortunate that I oppose you, especially since I quoted three months in my oppose during RfA#2. The reason being that I still do not have trust in you having the tools. While it looks as though your "reformation" is genuine and I do commend you for your work in the BLP arena, the trust is still not there for me and your past actions still leave uneasiness in my mind. You have been found to have flawed judgment in ''two'' cases at ArbCom and I have sincere doubts to this day about your judgment (hopefully this viewpoint will change if this request is successful and there are no issues with your editing and adminship thereafter for some time). Also, your answer to Q1 is not impressive and leaves me questioning your motives, but I am impressed with your answer to Q11. <small>I will note that I was the filing party for [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride]] and therefore might still be biased against this user (this has been a courtesy note to the closing Bureaucrat).</small>-'''
'''Oppose''' for two reasons in addition to several brought up by previous opposers. The ArbCom case was not all that long ago, and you seem a bit too eager to get the tools back for my tastes. You started an RfA before the ArbCom case ended and only two days after you resigned the tools. Also, you state in this RfA that you have no real need for the tools, yet you accepted the nomination only four months after the ArbCom case ended. I feel it is still too early after all that controversy and your actions for me to support granting you the tools again without significant fear of possible misuse.
'''Oppose''' When the MZMcBride case was at RFAR I endeavored to resolve the situation amicably and avoid arbitration.  For a while the case on the verge of not happening until inopportune comments from MZ (and slowness to provide assurances requested by the arbitrators) forced the matter.  It was my hope that he would keep the tools, but as the case wore on it was quite disappointing to see him repeatedly grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.  He's hardworking, he means well, but have his communication skills really improved so swiftly?  He seems to want to assure people that he's ready to handle the tools again, yet I remain unconvinced that he understands why matters took the course they did in the first place.  It required a lot of the community's time and attention to manage that situation.  Talk to me; come back in six months.  I may even nominate you then.  But there's a measure of confidence that needs to be restored; this hasn't tipped the balance yet. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I guess I still haven't gotten the bad taste out of my mouth from the previous controversial deletions. Sorry.--
'''Oppose.'''  Tooling this candidate up again so soon would be premature.  Better to fail RFA3 now than seed the ground for another long drawn-out ArbCom case by rushing it (note: I was not involved in the ArbCom cases but reviewed them weekly while they were active).  Because Martinp, Sandstein, Viridae, ThaddeusB, MBK004, Timmeh, and Durova have all articulated reasons to oppose with which I strongly agree, I won't re-cap them here.  Suffice it to say that I share those concerns and see them as very serious.   I agree as well with JayHenry that MZMcBride should continue the good BLP work without the admin tools which "may tempt him into unrelated misadventures."  —
'''Oppose''' - per Sandstein, basically. In a few months, assuming this pattern of great editing continues, I'll support, but more time is needed to make sure that there will be no third arbcom case. Apologies, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Oppose'''. I do not trust his judgement. I didn't even trust his judgement ''before'' he was running unauthorized adminbots and taunting users with lolcat deletion summaries. en.wikipedia.org is the most visible public face of Wikimedia, and we do ourselves a great disservice when we promote people to administator with a temperament that leads them to insult contributors and ignore consensus.
Oppose—above arguments convincing.
'''Oppose'''. Like [[Napoleon]], an outstanding and strong-headed individual, with a large and dedicated crowd of supporters.  (refactored).  Like Napoleon, he seems to perceive himself as (self appointed) ''Emperor of Wikipedia'', lofty above ordinary men, defining, re-interpreting, or downright flouting rules as he finds suit.  Too much IAR and abuse of privileges to my taste.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but do not trust you with the delete button as raised above and as I said in the last RFA.
'''Oppose'''Too soon to see any change, in regards to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride| this]].
'''Oppose''' Too much defiance when previously in possession of the tools. I prefer admins to bring a bit more humility to the table - sorry.
'''Oppose:'''  Agree with ThaddeusB and S Marshall.  For a few of my own words: MZM has had plenty of opportunities to gain, or keep, the trust of the community, and more than once has behaved stubbornly or just blithely ignorantly and lost it.  From the wheel war to the mass, completely out-of-policy deletions (which continued even while the community discussed the appropriateness of his actions), to the running of unapproved bots, he has dissuaded me that he has the restraint, temperament, and communicativeness to be a good administrator.  A very active one, no doubt, but the community energy that has gone into admonishing him or questioning his actions means he has ''not'' been a net benefit so far.
'''Oppose''' This is all new to me, but the concerns above, plus apparently no burning need for the tools, say no.  It is hard to dislodge malfunctioning admins & I'm wary of then re-admitting them quickly.
'''Oppose'''. It's impossible to evaluate a candidate with four years of tenure and 60k+ edits by looking at Special:Contributions. I feel that the best I can do is to look at MZMcBride's former RfAs, the arbitration case, his answers to the questions in this RfA, and the testimonials of people who have interacted with him. Naturally, I do think that the mass deletions were very, very, unfortunate, and goes against every principle I have about how an administrator should conduct herself. However, it is clear from the amount of support, that MZMcBride does a lot of good work in various areas of the project, and is generally a friendly and helpful person. I still feel that it'd be better to appoint administrators that do not come with the sort of "baggage" that MZMcBride comes with. If I'm not mistaken, he is still under active restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Many supporters make good arguments for why he should regain the tools, not least the nominator, who[m] I very much respect. However, I cannot overlook the strong arguments brought forth by the opposition, in particular S Marshall, Joe Hiegel, ThaddeusB, Durova, and Maedin. If more people in the support column had given a more profound reason for supporting, their ¬votes could have swayed people like me, who do not know the candidate, and are initially on the fence. I did read it all, and I did take it all into consideration. <tt>
'''Regretful oppose''' per above and past actions. Sorry, but I just can't support at this point in time.
'''Oppose''' - Issues raised in Q13 and Q14 are disconcerting and candidate's answers only make me feel worse.  I'm all for appropriate humor and I can be sarcastic as hell in RL, but there's a time and a place for everything.  The barnstar is disturbing, despite the way it was well accepted/tolerated by the receiver and by the admin(s) who chimed in.  WP is not censored, but similarly WP does not have a goal to offend readers and clearly this is something that has a high probability of offending a good percentage of the people who saw it.  Perhaps this is a reminder that a certain category of in-jokes should remain off-WP.  The talk page comments of the bots are not funny, they are just confusing.  In my mind both of these set a very bad precedent of what a admin should do/say, let alone how we would expect a 60k editor to behave.  These issues, combined with the other issues raised and (recent) past controversy make me seriously question the candidate's judgment.  The candidate not having a clear reason for wanting the tools makes me wonder why we are here in the first place.
'''Oppose''' Two arbcom cases within the past ten months set a high bar for restoration of his adminship, to my mind. The responses to Q14 and Q15 are unconvincing and my previous oppose at RFA2 therefore still stands. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''—Too soon.
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure I like how the delete button has button has been handled in the past. Many other reasons to oppose in this section.
'''Oppose''' This RfA is too premature for my liking. Coupled with the controversial deletions, and the Arbcom case make me feel too uncomfortable to support you. I am sorry, but I must oppose. '''<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print; text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><font color=blue>
'''Oppose''' The '''This is a Wiki''' comments being brought up again makes me think that nothing has been learned from past issues, and thus, that I would not trust him with the tools.
'''Oppose''' because I can't stand the deletion-happy subset of Wikipedians.  Need less drama-causing admins, also.
'''Oppose''' I am reluctant to edit this section but feel that I must do so. Although I have seen MZM around and he seems like a nice guy, I am a bit queasy when it comes to handing him the mop.  RxS said it very well; I don't like how he has handled the "delete button" in the past. Excessive drama was created before when he had access to the "delete button", as can be confirmed in his talk archives. Therefore, for my reasons and practically all of the reasons above (except the "I don't like you" one), I reluctantly oppose. MZM is definitely here to improve the encyclopedia, but I think he needs a bit more time to settle down after the drama in April.
'''Oppose''' I feel that MZMcBride is too controversial a user. Four months is also not a very long time, and as MZMcBride does not plan on undertaking "substantial administrative work", and has been able to perform his valuable database tasks without administrative powers, I do not see the need for a return to admin status. Furthermore, I feel that over time the administrative powers would lead to more controversial actions and be to the detriment of the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' - I'm concerned that this nominee has a somewhat looser idea of "rough consensus" than would be optimal. --
Would like to support, but cannot in good conscience do so. There's far too many concerns, most notably your historical use of the deletion button, your one-eyedness to semi-protection, and your concept of consensus, which all lead me to oppose. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per response to question 17, which simply comes across to me as purposefully evasive. MZM should clearly and directly answer this important question.
'''Oppose''', per JGHowes, too close to the two ArbCom cases, and the image of the anus was crass.  Give it a bit more time.
'''Opppose''' As an admin returning from 'under a cloud', this Rfa not being a self-nomination wasn't a good start imho, and it hasn't got any better from answer A1 onwards, although there are some chinks of light. I then noticed what Ched wanted from this Rfa from MZM's talk page, and that worries me enough given my memory of past incidents to oppose, without prejudice to supporting a later self-nomination given a satisfactory and detailed run-down of lessons learned, from the horse's mouth. Despite the sentiments given by MZM that he wants to reduce other's workload, I'm not convinced he even wants the bit back, which is not a great way to approach a re-application such as this.
'''Oppose''', largely per Martinp and S Marshall. Also not thrilled by the issues raised in Q13/14 - they're not enough for an oppose by themselves but the maturity level displayed there isn't very impressive.
'''Oppose''', I was a little disturbed by the early opposes and decided to monitor the progress of this. However, several days later if anything I am still not satisfied enough to support based upon a lot of the above reasons and weighing them against the positives which your supporters focus upon. It is hard to ignore all these points. Maybe in future I would support but not right now. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Strong opppose''' - I've lost count of the times I had to restore things because delete-o-bots have wrongly deleted them.  I really don't want this guy near a delete button.
'''Reluctant oppose''' > tend to agree with Alan16, and particularly with SMarshall. Sorry. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Strong oppose'''. There is no need to restate all the evidence cited above. This user has shown ''time and again'' he cannot be trusted with the delete button. Period.
'''Weak oppose''' per the above concerns. I could not decide my vote until now because the little improvement of candidate did not sway me one way or the other. However, the closing of the RFA with a 77% support seems to be controversial and given past ArbCom cases on adminins' conducts, admins who had controversial RFAs tend to continue controversies. So well, I'm landing here.--
'''Oppose'''. Given the candidate's history, I am unable to confide in their judgment and overall use of the tools. — '''''
'''Oppose'''. I've had the same experience with invalid deletions as [[User:Fish and karate|Fish and karate]]. You do great work with database reports and BLP's, but I don't trust you with the delete button. '''
'''Oppose'''. More time needed to rebuild trust.
'''Oppose''' per ThaddeusB and others above.
'''Oppose''' per above '''
'''Opppose''' ThaddeusB does make a great case against this person.
'''Oppose''' People above have outlined the concerns.--
'''Oppose''' Serious judgment concerns.--
'''Oppose''' I view essentially all people with extra rights (checkuser, admin, bureaucrat, etc) as being servants to the greater community of editors, rather than the heirarchical structure of ArbCom and on down to the measely editors. So I think of candidates with the sense of "would I want this editor doing this servant work for the greater community?" The response I find myself thinking when viewing this entire RfA is no. Too many things wrong here. --
'''Oppose''' - I had missed this RfA until now. Roux, Axl and Durova make good points, as do many others. We do not need another administrator which a sharp tongue, nor do we need one with blunt judgement. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' - still have reservations about his last RFA, begun while facing an impending desysop.
'''Oppose'''. Still leaves a lot to be desired.
'''Oppose''' While I'm sincerely regretful for this, I'm afraid that previous actions (all thoroughly covered above) stop me from supporting. Maybe another time, after I'm convinced that there has been change.
'''Neutral''' given the answer to question 9. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral'''. I had some major concerns last time around, and your closure on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict|this AFD debate]] was part of the reason I opposed back then. Sure, many people who supported deletion would support your closure there, but your closing statement ''"This is one of those cases when we're reminded that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Ultimately, we must look at our core principles of inclusion. When doing so, it's clear that this article does not belong on this project."'' is a slap in the face of people who argued to keep the article in good faith, and looked like a closure according to your personal wishes rather than one reasoned in policy and consensus. A policy based rationale would point to what is deficient in the arguments for inclusion, and point out which parts of WP:NOT this so clearly violated. The fact that the deletion was overturned, and the article is online, indicates that these supposed violations were nowhere near as clear as you may have thought. A consensus based rationale would summarize the arguments made in the discussion. Your rationale didn't appear either policy based or consensus based, but opinion based. Even though that event renders me too uneasy to support, I am going neutral now. The incident was several months in the past, and it shouldn't derail all RFA applications for eternity. The "way to hasty renom" argument has also subsided by now. But if you close a contentious AFD, don't summarily dismiss arguments you don't agree with.
'''Neutral''' This user has made some very welcome contributions to law related articles - an area of huge systemic bias. However the concerns raised by the Opposers over bots are enough to make me neutral for this RfA. Am I correct in thinking this was the user who thought it was great idea to delete talk pages that only had the talk header template on them? If so it was most annoying as I had to go and recreate them!
'''Neutral''' Communication between new users and anyone, but especially admins, is important.  We must remember that written English is hard enough to understand even between people on the same continent, and that .en wiki has a multinational userbase.  I'm not convinced that this editor shows an understanding for the need for plain, clear, communication with users.  I'm not worried about the deletion of secret pages thing, but I'm gently concerned about how this editor would communicate in future similar clean-ups.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; While I appreciate the work that MZ could or would do (or has done) as an administrator, I do think it is slightly early given the events of the past year (in particular I reference the Arbitration Committee cases involving MZ). I do understand this nomination to be largely on the part of Ched, but it is disagreeable to me that it was accepted. In good faith, I leave these comments in the neutral section. --
'''Neutral''' - Great worker, but too much of a drama magnet.
'''Support''' I see no problems with the candidate and like the answers so support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Support''' - I see no problems. '''<font face="copperplate gothic light">
'''Support''' No problems here. User seems to understand the areas he wishes to work in.
'''Support''' Been here a while. Edits sufficient to show a good reliable established editor. I trust this person with the admin tools. --
I supported him the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nja247|last time]], and he's only improved since that point. Nja is a fantastic contributor, and exactiy the type of person we want as an administrator.
Naturally. <font face="Arial">
per my neutral &ndash;
'''Support''' <font color="navy">
'''Support''' While I question the judgment of a user who prefers [[Microsoft]], I trust his judgment as a wiki editor.  This is very confusing, but I'm dealing with it. <b>'''
'''Support'''-I see no reason why not to support.-
'''Oppose''' [[User_talk:Nja247#I_understand_you_prefer_Microsoft.3F|I understand he prefers Microsoft]]. <small><small>Support, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]</small></small>
'''Support''' reviews article.
'''Support''' - In recent years, it has become somewhat of an overused cliché, or some sort of standard saying or ideology to dislike or even hate Microsoft, both inside and out of intellectual circles. Linux is an overrated, overhyped, hypocritical and overcomplicated mess, especially in distros such as Ubuntu. Saying "I hate Microsoft" is kind of like saying "I hate George W. Bush" - it is "the cool thing to say", if you like. I say no more. Microsoft have a superb financial strategy, an active user base, a huge list of compatible applications for their Windows OS, and despite their dabblings in [[digital rights management|restricting their users]], they often act in appropriate ways to comments, complaints and other feedback. It's NetBSD and Windows XP for me, simply because they do what I ask them to do, albeit in different ways.<br /><br /><small>Shit, sorry, wrong queue.</small><font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' &mdash; Would make a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Support''' - would have supported his first RFA if I'd been following RFA then. No problems that I can see.
'''Support''' - yep. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Everything checks out fine.
'''Support''' - Trust this user, would makes a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Ditto with everyone else. You'd be a great sysop.
'''Support''' - see no reason not to. <em style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">
I'm
Slightly concerned over Protonk's question but I'm sure there's a viable explanation. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Nja247&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia from the edit count] and the contributions. 3,000 edits doesn't appall me, but looking at your contributions, you had several minor edits in the first 250 I looked at. After that, not as many, but the edits are also very scattered in the edit count. Between January and August 2008 you didn't have a month above 100 edits, and in August you didn't have any period. And in July you had one single edit. Besides that, I do like the user, and his work at [[WP:UAA]]. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' Looks great! '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
I hate per votes, but everything I've got to say has been said already. '''Support''' per everyone above. —'''
'''Support''' Per trust, and he's not likely to set fire to Wikipedia. And liking Microsoft is OK, since all the good games run best on it, and there's still not a mail client on *nix that comes close to the calendar firepower of Outlook. Don't be hating on the MS lovers, according to this Linux lover. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' per answers to the questions and the fact that he prefers Microsoft.
'''Support''' Seems competent enough.  --
'''Support''' Seems competent and calm.  Apologies for the quirky question.
'''
''' Sure.'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' We have both been involved in the [[MacBook]] article. Nja was very patient when dealing with users who kept trying to insert incorrect information, and got the article through it's GA review. A patient editor who I do not see abusing the tools. --
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] (never been blocked, no memorable negative interactions in AfDs, etc.).  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' All looks fine. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  You've done well here on Wikipedia, it's time to give you the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per [[User:Dank55/Admins#Support|my RFA criteria]] - Dan
'''Support''' - I think this editor could be trusted with the admin tools. From what I see, he seems clearheaded and rational—both positives IMHO. <small>On another note, did I just stumble into an OS war? Perhaps just an OS skirmish? I'll grab my [[Tux|Linux flag]].</small> —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' - I was originally going to either lean oppose or go neutral until I read your definition of "uninvolved" and "involved". You answered in a manner that, if you actually live up to it, would be one of the most important things needed in an admin. If only you could teach the rest of them. : P
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''
'''Support'''; no warning signs and an excellent, ''excellent'' answer to Q.10. Indeed, my only problem with supporting this user is that should they succeed their new tasks will leave them less time to do such excellent work.
'''Ironic Oppose Support''' OMG he looked forward to this RFA we cant have that now can we. '''
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''.  Seems trustworthy. --

'''Support''' I like your mainspace editing and believe that all Wikipedians should be mainspace editors first and foremost. I like you answer to the "who can oppose CSD" and I think that you'd show wisdom and restraint. Therefore, yes! Good luck, all the best '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''Support''' No objection.
'''support''' --
'''Support''' Why not? --<font style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 10px;"><b>
Huge improvement since the last time.
'''Support:'''  I really like the overall impression of fairness and neutrality, in his attitude and edits.
'''Support''' You have enough article work, you seem very qualified. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' As Acalamari puts it rightly there has been a lot of improvement since the last RFA when I was neutral. and the candidate has shown great dedication and commitment towards Wikipedia.Further feel that the project will only gain with the user getting tools.The user has been around since Feb 2006
'''Support''' Has a level of experience and tenure that would have been considered more than sufficient in the days when RFA worked properly, clean block log, sensible user and talk pages and I trust the nominator. :-) '''
'''Support'''. Good contributions and reasonable answers. However I'm concerned by this comment in Nja247's RfA acceptance: "''I look forward to this process''." This shows a lack of insight into the RfA process. ;-)
'''Support'''. —<sub>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Last minute support never hurt.
I believe Protonk's original question is a valid one and that gives me pause, and would like to see an answer to. I have my general ambivalence about admin coaching grooming candidates for what we ''want'' to see, which unfortunately happens to taint any candidate that I see here. I would like to see some content promotion on Nja's side, and question some of his edits which might suggest misunderstanding guidelines/policy, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ILife&diff=prev&oldid=266794204 this] and then this rather strange edit where he reverts fixes to make the English of a page standard and fix spelling[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mac_OS_X_v10.4&diff=prev&oldid=264639213], combined with some other diffs I saw, suggest he's more likely to hit the button and revert than take a careful look at edits. For someone with the ability to block, that worries me slightly more.  --<font color="#cc6600">
Seems a little light on general experience. Also concur with David Fuchs.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience. <b><i>
I still see the candidate's ''very'' low-level activities in admin-areas, and I'm not sure whether he is talking much with editors when a conflict is raised per his edit count at talk pages--
As nominator. '''
About time! I'm expecting a huge backlog soon. '''
'''Support''' Absolutely. '''
'''Support''' Having read through the oppose section of the previous RfA, I find the opposes unconvincing even for the time and would have !voted support then had I been active then.  -- ''<B>
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Oh yes. Why the hell not? Of course.
'''Strong Support''' When I started contributing to the project Nuke was already an established user.  He has always impressed me as a knowledgeable, trustworthy, and dedicated contributor.  —
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], one of the most qualified users I can think of. The nom pretty much covered it all. –'''
'''Strong support''' - Wow, we've been having a slew of awesome candidates lately! NW is one of the best possible candidates, period. Only 2 users (both of whom are running right now) have larger support from me. :D Cheers, '''
{{ec}} '''Support''' per last time. This time, I am even more ready to support. Past experience shows that NW is able to address concerns mentioned and rectify problems (refer to Q6 for example) and I have not seen any contribs to the contrary. Regards '''
'''Support''' Generally knowledgeable, has clue.
'''Support''', per Seddon. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - I'd pretty much managed to forget he'd failed his previous RfA, in my mind he's pretty much an admin already. A mature and sensible user who has repeatedly demonstrated his dedication to the project, NW is an excellent choice for adminship. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A qualified and great editor overall. NW will be a great admin.
'''Support''' Qualified and deserves it.  Huge net positive.--
'''Support''', qualified editor who's very familiar with the areas he works in (specifically [[WP:SPI|SPI]]). Positive contribs, clueful, would definitely put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' Great contributions and very friendly. '''''
'''Support''' - Excellent work in SPI, clueful.
'''Strong support'''. I offered him an unsolicited conomination, but Nuke has received so many offers that he turned it down politely and went with just one. Has all the right stuff: strong content, the patience for drudge work, and tact.  A class act.  Eminently moppable. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Per everything said above. Cheers! <font color="blue" face="georgia">
I, like many above, have been laboring under the mistaken belief that you were already a sysop.  A very strong '''Support''' to clear up my own confusion as you are incredibly deserving of the tools. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' definitely. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' I supported last time.  Had some conversations with the candidate in the intervening time and I think that he has learned what could be learned from the feedback generated there.  good luck.

'''Support'''. I've very little to say as the 24 supporters above me have covered it all. Good luck, though I doubt you'll need it. '''
'''Edit-conflicted Support''' Great candidate. Good luck with the tools, '''<font face="times new roman">
(edit conflict) '''Strong oppose''' as an attention-getting [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU 2|reconfirmation RfA]]. Wait - he wasn't an admin already? [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong oppose''' per King of Hearts. Having worked with him at [[WP:SPI]] and observing his admin-like conduct, I swore he was an admin :)
'''<s>Strong o</s> Support''' per above.
Agreed, a great candidate. - Dank (
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - Absolutely. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
How the hell are you not one already? Strongest possible support, and suggest lynching of any opposers (sarcasm alert). Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' Just like last time on my part, hopefully not on the part of the whole RFA. <strong>
'''Support''' Yes of course!
'''Support''' - He was invaluable in dozens of DYK and quite a few GAs that I have put together.
'''Support'''; my interactions with him were positive. --
'''<s>A rare Strong</s> Support'''  It's rare that I feel like I know a candidate well enough to simply support without looking through his edit history, but I feel strong enough about Nukes to do so.  He is a dedicated user and an asset to the community.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) NOTE: Moving down from strong support, while talking to Friday, I gave an [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friday&diff=prev&oldid=309125870 example] of how he could have worded his oppose better, it is frightenly similar to VirtualSteve's oppose.  I'm going to keep my !vote in Support.---'''
Previous interaction has been rather positive. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339933;">
NuclearYes. '''
'''Support''' Balloonman's strong support says it all.User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA.
'''Strong support'''. Iwondered when this one was coming! Anyway, user most definately has the clue an skills to be a great admin, and as stated, has overcome concerns raised in the last RFA. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Fully Qualified. '''\'''
'''Support''' Aye, as above.
'''Support''' should be a big net positive.
'''Support''' I've run into NW here and there and he's always been a reliable editor to work with. Plus he certainly has the "chops" to be an admin. -- '''
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Nuclear Support''' Why isn't he one already? Absolutely trustworthy. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
From his work at SPI -
Darn, I just missed out on being the fiftieth supporter.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
Well, it's about time! I could write up a lengthy support, but really, I hardly need a rationale for ''NuclearWarfare''. To put it in a few words, let's give this wonderful editor the mop he's so long deserved!
Nominator gives a convincing argument. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Bloody oath. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Bombs away! Good luck!
No issues here. Useful user. '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Way overdue. :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' - I've heard that it's bad practice to use WTHN as a reason for a RfA !vote, but, it seems appropriate to me in this case. Per [[WP:WTHN]].--
'''Support''', FWIW. One of the users I see around all the time, in numerous different areas. Fully trust this user to put the tools to good use. -
'''Weak support''', with recognition that I should not have opposed last time, I may have been feeling more belligerent that usual on that date. Weak though per the anal recall criteria, the complete silliness of the enforced wikibreak, and per Iridescent's concerns in the last RFA (a while ago, but they would seem to be long term personality traits). No reason to suspect that he will not be a net positive though.
Thought he already was one.
'''Strong support''' - Solid contributor.
Straight support from yours truly.—
'''Strong support''' I remember your editor review, where someone asked you to change your signature to "NW" instead of "Nuclear Warfare". I don't think your username needs changing. NW is fine. And I see nothing else that might possibly cause concern.
'''Strong support''' Very qualified. '''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions.
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Why not]]. All looks decent.--
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. Accepting we are all human, and therefore fallible.  --<font face="Celtic">
'''Support''' I have worked with NW at SPI and I do not think he will abuse the tools. Good Luck! --
–<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support:''' No doubt. '''
'''Support''' I can't say anything that hasn't been said. →<font style="color:#4682b4">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' No-brainer.--
'''Support''' per nom. No sonnet, though.
Meets [[User:Majorly/RfA/standards|standards]], and nothing has been brought up to suggest the candidate will be a problem. '''
'''Support''' per nom and positive interactions.--
'''Support''' I waited a bit because I wanted to give potential opposers a chance to offer something of substance to change my mind. Since nothing has appeared, why wait? I am impressed by NW's calm demeanor and his diverse range of contributions.
'''Support''' - To be honest I would have liked to have seen a bit more time between RfAs, but that does not change the fact that I feel NW is qualified for the tools. Keep up the good work at SPI by the way.
I see an improvement in overall knowledge and experience. Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''.  I do not see any [[User:Matheuler/adminship|significant reason]] justifying an oppose.
'''Support'''. Having been his admin coach, I can testify that NuclearWarfare has matured vastly in his editing and outlook since then. He's a pleasure to edit with, and I'm convinced that he'll do us good as an admin. '''''
'''Support''' While I know NW has been overeager in the past to help out, I think he has managed to temper his zeal and has always had the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. '''
'''Support''' Always got good impressions from the candidate's activity.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''support''' —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very qualified candidate.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' - I do not have any concerns that NuclearWarfare would abuse the tools.  —
'''Finally''' —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' as I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' A Fine candidate
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, NuclearWarfare. —
'''Support''' - per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lionelisbest|this]] among other noble acts.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Strong Support'''. I have seen nothing but good from NW, and I see him all over the place helping out. He's a good editor, and I think he'll make a fine admin. ···
'''Support'''. Unfortunately, I have not been (and probably won't be) able to review you as thoroughly as I would like. I therefore have to go with my gut feeling, and a clear recollection that my interactions with you have been very positive. Regards, <tt>
'''Weak Support'''  Saw in your contribs you sometimes argue for deletion a bit more strongly than im happy with. Otherwise excellent candidate, fully deserving your imminent WP:100.
'''Support'''. How did I miss this RfA?
'''Support''' I admit I have not had too much interaction with Nuke but I have found him friendly, helpful, and willing to get down and dirty in the areas that need some tough work ([[WP:FAC]] image reviews are truly a coalition of the willing.) Plenty of solid article contribs, and as that was the major issue at his last RfA I don't feel like there should be much in the way of lingering doubts. --<font color="#cc6600">

'''Support''' per all above. I don't see any problems.
'''Support''' plenty of experience. Just the sort of person needed for this laborious job.
I'm
'''support''' Yes. Excellent candidate. Will do a good job.
'''Support''' Thought he was one. Established, qualified candidate. Has made positive contributions as an editor and will as an admin, I am confident.

A definite '''Support''' for a great user. Regarding the username issue (and although I hate to sound corny), I think Shakespeare sums it up best, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". '''<font face="verdana">
'''Support''' Great user. Username issue will probably bring more laughs than problems (e.g. NuclearWarfare deleted [[article xyz]], or NuclearWarfare protected [[article zyx]]). No problems here. --
'''Support'''. Per Newyorkbrad.
<insert>[[Vogon poetry]]</insert>
'''Support'''
'''Oppose'''. Sends a wrong signal to EB and ED. Will spark off an arms race. (on second thought, that sounds kinda awesome!) ''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' Seems to have made positive steps since last RfA, can be trusted with the tools.
I've seen NuclearWarfare around often, and I think he does very good work.
'''Support''' clearly dedicated, worth a shot with the mop. Opposers' issues are not deal-breakers for me.
'''Support''' per Cas.
'''Strong Support''' - No poem here, just support :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''' No worries at all. --
'''Support''' Your not an admin already? Anyway, my reason for support is already written by the users ahead of me.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Support''' Looking back at the last RFA, and now this, I see enough improvement not to be concerned.
'''Support''', my interactions with this editor have been positive, and he knows when to compromise. Good admin qualities. &mdash;
I have read the opposes from this RfA and some of the opposes from the previous one, and I find them unpersuasive.  I can't say that I've ever had much of a reason to think of this editor negatively. —'''
'''Support''', but don't change your username. -
'''Support''', no worries here.
'''Support''' per myself, because i know the candidate is good.
'''Support''' - I could have sworn that I supported this nom already, but a CTRL-F reveals nothing.  <b>
'''Support''' Throwing another log on the nuclear fire. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">
'''Support''' Once again, I had no idea that this user was not yet an admin. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Wait... so you tell me he wasn't one?
I am not convinced by the oppose votes. The request for self block may be a bit odd, but that has no bearing on the candidate's behavior towards others, which is the main criterion for my votes. &mdash;
'''Support''' I have no worries about the candidate and I'm sure he'll make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. No major concerns. — '''''
'''Support''' - he has improved a great deal since his last RFA, and now seems thoroughly qualified for adminship.
'''Support''' - NuclearWarefare has shown a strong commitment to Wikipedia through consistent editing over a extended period of time, has answered all question well, and I have found no recent issues in his record. --
'''Support''' - I thought he already was an admin.--
'''Cautious support''' I'm disinclined to support any candidate known to spend an excessive amount of time on IRC, but NW generally seems clueful. Don't make me regret this by collaborating on blocks via IRC.
'''Support''' Pile-on support.
'''Support''' - Excellent editor. Quite frankly, poeple like this should be banned for not having a large sign saying "I'm not an admin yet" on their userpages. ≈&nbsp;
I see several valid concerns at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NuclearWarfare]].  What has changed in the months since then?  He's still a chat room <s>kid</s> young person, right?
'''Oppose''' I have noted your good work across the 'pedia however I am opposing on the basis of relatively recent request for self-blocking which you refer to in answer to your self-question 5 (and which for some reason you have collapsed making it less likely for people to open and read!). I note that blocking comes months after your first RfA.  I have read the detail provided by Dragonflysixtyseven and the reason for blocking provided seems to indicate further reason to pause before supporting. I add, that whilst I read the overall comment as a joke, your discussing of a most unusual self-block on IRC simply because you were unable to stop editing wikipedia, does however lead me to agree with the "chat room" part of Friday's oppose.  I hasten to add that I have no problem with Nuclear Warfare's age ''per se''.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I can't support any candidate who states they are open to recall.
'''Oppose''' Recall promises are made <i>ad captandum vulgaris</i>, and are completely unenforceable.  I must question the judgement of any candidate who commits to such a broken process.
'''Neutral''' I realize that I'm not taking the popular stance here, but I do have concerns.  Primarily my thoughts revolve around the late April incident, and my concerns for NW as a person, rather than a WP editor.  I think that NW does some great work, and I'm not normally one to !vote simply because of an ageism argument, but I do think it's important to have WP and real life in perspective, and to be able to maintain self-control.  School needs to come first, and I compliment you on realizing that.  WP is an important endeavor, but it is only a website.  Being able to walk away when either there are emotional involvements here, or duties to attend to in real life is important to your future success in the world.  I do think your work here is excellent, but please keep it in perspective.  I won't buck the community consensus on this ("oppose"), and I hope that you'll be able to separate yourself in the future without the need of scripts or assistance.  Best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Darn it, I was going to nominate him someday. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''

As nom. –'''
{{ec}} I trust Julian to make the right choices for adminship. --'''
'''Support''' OlEnglish has been an outstanding help in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, and his work on wiki has been similarly well executed. Best of luck! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
Good editor, giving him the tools will absolutely be a net positive :) ≈&nbsp;
'''Support''' A fine editor, who can certainly be trusted to use the tools positively. ∙&nbsp;
'''Support''' {{ec}}*3 [[International Talk Like a Pirate Day|With a yo ho ho and a bottle of rum]] - fantastic candidate, always very helpful, great at explaining things, very cooperative, great policy knowledge, and lots of other good stuff. I really hope this will sail through. Yarrrr! <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' Arr! Yo ho ho, and a bottle of rum. Wait, where's me rum?
'''Support''' - Knowledgeable user. We need more admin wikignomes (as evidenced by [[CAT:AB]]).
'''Support''' I thought you already were an admin. --
'''Support''' per excellent wikignoming and an excellent nomination. '''
'''Support'''. Always cheerful and helpful; the tools will allow him to perform his tasks more easily and be more helpful.
'''Provisional support''' I have had some minor disagreements w/ this candidate and I feel that audited content is somewhat important but plenty of areas where I have seen the candidate their work has been positive.
'''Yarr!''' Tis be a fine us-arr, I bin tinkin of askin them meself why they not be an admin already. Cannot see arr reason not to be supportin this fine scurvy sea dog even if they be a [[Pirates versus Ninjas|ninja]]. Avast! '''
'''Yo ho ho Support'''. Yarr I thinks hell be a goodon this one. Man I am useless at this! :D Anyway, seems a decent candidate with good gnoming and the like. Net positive. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
Great user, will be an asset.--
'''Support''' Positive interactions + enough clue
The wikignomery and #wikipedia-en-help work do it for me.  A safe bet. - Dank (
'''[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA Rationale|Arghh]]!'''<strong>
'''Support''' - based on my interactions with him, this is another Closedmouth, in that the first thought is "why isn't he already an admin"?
'''Support''' - I've never had any bad interactions with this user. No reason to believe they will misuse the tools. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Need more sysops.
'''Support'''- I wish to support OIEnglish. 1. He respondes, 2. He corrects, 3. He is cool, but firm.
'''Support''' - Very good editor, would make a great admin.
'''Support''' I've found OE's comments, especially at AfDs and talk pages, to be really quite thoughtful and well-grounded, in addition to almost always being very helpful and friendly. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - as per Cyclonenim  and BritishWatcher
'''Support''' Per Cycloneim.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
The epitome of a gnome. '''
'''Support''' - I have no problems wit' th' candidate. No reason to believe they gunna misuse th' admin tools. [[International Talk Like a Pirate Day|Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum]]!--
'''Weak Support''' - After looking through some contributions of his, tends to be civil and good for the project. No reason why not! --

Good editor. '''
'''Support'''. I've seen lots of "good" from this editor, no "bad", and nothing that indicates he'd be incompetent or unsuited as an admin.
'''Support''' - per what JamieS93 said above.
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Trust is key, and OlEnglish has earned it. Good luck! =)
'''Support''' Clueful, reasonable, fully qualified. '''
'''Support'''. OlEnglish is a wonderful editor, and would make an excellent admin. I have no concerns at all about twiddling this bit. ···
'''Support'''I've got nothing but good impression from the user's activities. The user could be a good asset for Wikipedia with the bit. (By the way, I've always assumed the candidate would be "she")-
'''Support''' I have met OlEnglish many times, and have seen nothing but good from him. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''', I honestly would have figured this guy already was an admin.
Obviously.  <small><span style="border:2px solid #999933;">
Yarr.—
'''Support''', I have to agree with [[User:Irbisgreif|Irbisgreif]] on his comment. I sincerely that OlEnglish was already an admin. He was very polite and professional when he commented on my edits to a [[ISS (disambiguation)|disambiguation]] page. After overviewing his [[Special:Contributions/OlEnglish|contributions]], my computer froze at the fifth page of 500 edits. This guy truly deserves to be an admin. Enough said. Congrats OlEnglish, hope you get the job. Best regards. '''
'''Support''' It looks as if OE is here to improve the encyclopedia.  I have not seen someone have so many userpages before (across many projects), but what else could you expect from a wikignome!  Anyway I look forward to yo doing history mergers, and old revisions of fair use images deletion - the behind the scenes admin gnome work.
'''Strong support'''. By what I've seen, I consider OE a very trustworthy editor that would make a <s>fine</s> sssawesome admin. I'm kind of disappointed about the answer to Q1, because I would like to see the candidate work at XfD, where they're always a voice of reason. I see I'm not the only one who thought that OE was already an admin. Helpful to new users, doesn't cause drama, and no problems with speedy deletion tagging that I could find. Definitely a net positive. Good luck.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' - A nice and knowledgeable user whom I have seen many times around the wiki. OlEnglish is definitely fit to become an administrator.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Cliche I thought you already were one Support'''.  An excellent candidate for the mop!
'''Support''' Good luck. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Support'''. Seems good editor, good answers to Q3-5 in particular show clue. By the way, I am unworried by Balloonman's oppose.
'''Support''', great contributions, great attitude, and some very clued-up answers to some nasty questions. I'm not concerned to any great extent by Balloonman's speedy-criteria oppose: I've opposed myself before based on poor speedy work, but in this case I find the main error being made is trying too hard to fit things that are clearly vandalism (and hence G3) into another criterion. While erring in the other direction (tagging good-faith crap articles as vandalism) is clearly unwelcoming and bitey, trying hard to interpret things as something other than vandalism is not a grave error in my view. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', no reason not to. --
'''<s>Weak </s>support'''. I remember the incident mentioned by decltype, below. I do not, however, think it justifies an oppose. Hypertechnical CSD distinctions do not concern me, but I don't think the first example Balloonman cited fall under any CSDs. <s>Hence the weak support. </s>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. The occasional mistake isn't enough to worry me, and I concur with Tim Song about hypertechnical speedy tagging distinctions.
'''Support''' Imagining this candidate with the mop fails to strike fear into my heart.
'''Support''' I haven't run into you here, but you look alright to me.
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and it looks like he'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' no apparent issues to worry about here. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' No issues that I consider relevant.--
'''Support''', don't see any issues.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, OlEnglish. —
'''Support'''  I've seen the editor around quite a bit, and even worked with him on a thing or two.  Always clue-filled, polite, and helpful.  I think this would be a great choice for allowing a couple extra functions.  No reservations on my end. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' <small> My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see [[WT:RFA]]</small> OlEnglish dealt with the main presented problem (BLP related edit war) well. I would have however, preferred a more complete answer that dealt with the other problems as well. An admin can do a fair amount of good in correcting bad behavior, even just by pointing it out by commenting in a thread instead of ignoring it, and marking it "resolved" after only addressing the main issue is slightly troubling, but I think OlEnglish is dedicated to use admin tools as the proper means to the right ends.--

'''Support'''. Looks pretty good to me. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Overall contributions are positive, and editor is polite and works to build the encyclopedia. --'''''
'''Support''' civil and useful editor, I think he'll do well with the mop. ''
I'll happily '''support'''.
'''Support''' - The answers to a couple of the questions aren't ideal (I share some concerns about the "all articles have potential" comment) but I have very good personal experiences with OE. Since RfA is primarily about whether or not to trust an editor with the tools, and I personally trust OE, I have to support. -- '''
'''Support'''. I've had one interaction with this user. They disagreed with me but was clear concise and civil in explaining where they percieved me to be wrong. I find these valuable qualities within an admin.
'''Weak support'''. I agree with ChildofMidnight's and Balloonman's concerns, and it seems to me this RfA is a bit premature. However, candidate is not afraid to admit mistakes, so I trust that {{genderneutral|ey}} will learn from them. There may be a few bumps initially, but we'll be fine eventually. &mdash;
'''Support''' in spite of the problems. First, because I think he shows a genuine willingness to learn--unlike so many admin candidates , who are quite sure they know everything and will defend any answer here, right or wrong.    '''
'''Support''' - Good work, and not afraid to approach controversial parts of the project effectively.
'''Support''' - Looks good. '''
'''Support'''. Overall good work.
'''Support''' Opposers raised some good issues, and OE acknowledged he made some mistakes. No one is perfect, and I think he's a better editor after learning from them. I believe he will make a valuable admin.  <small><span style="border:2px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;background:White;">&nbsp;'''
'''Support:''' Looks good. Constructive edits. Always very helpful, and great at explaining things... very cooperative and is civil. Will attract good editors to Wikipedia.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, interesting Userboxen, and has rollback rights.  Negative: thinks [[Pluto]] was never a planet.
'''Support''' Have seen this user around various places, seems helpful and knowledgeable, although (gasp) apparently not perfect. By the way, I hadn't yet noticed the conversation already underway about patent nonsense in the oppose section when I asked about it, but I left it up once I did, since it's usually better to ask someone directly rather than speculating about their motives.
'''Support'''. I am satisfied with the answers and explanations provided.
'''Support''' – I've seen OlEnglish around, and I feel confident in his ability to be an admin. He shows that he will take time to look at a NewPage before hitting the delete button; self-restraint is almost always a good thing as far as admin actions are concerned. As far as the response in Q7 is concerned, it's not a big deal; the right thing was that the copyvio was nuked. Just remember that, as an admin, many lay people who know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia will be coming to you, especially regarding misunderstandings as to what is and is not allowed here (like nothing that is under copyright by someone else).
'''Support''' Candidate is clearly qualified, rational, willing to admit mistakes and reasonably even-tempered...  the kind of person needed as an admin. Based on the above substantial support, congrats! <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. I'm sure he will do his administrative work well. All the edits that I've seen him do in the past have been very good. He has been a good editor (no blocks among other things) --
'''Support''' - worked with this user in various areas, without any problems.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Productive and polite candidate, with no behavioral concerns. I have no problem with his answer to Q4 since I read "every article has potential" as a (good) editing philosophy, rather than a proposed policy. However, I hope that the OlEnglish reviews the issue raised by Balloonman below; some errors in tagging or deletion can be inconsequential as far as wikipedia content is concerned, but can still nag and drive new editors away. All the best.
'''Support''' Trustworthy Editor. Will be a great admin. User has been editing since May 2008, and has lots of contributions.
When I first saw this RfA on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, I honestly thought that this was a reconfirmation RfA: I thought OlEnglish was already an admin. I see their name everywhere, I've always seen good work from them, and I think they'll do fine as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Every new article does not have potential. Also, I have difficulty taking seriously someone who says they "sincerely" value all their contributions equally. And determining the outcome of speedy noms based on whether there is a hangon tag or not doesn't seem right to me. If there is a hangon tag then that discussion needs to be engaged and those working on the article consulted. But indications of notability and a check for the abvailability of references would be the appropriate criteria for determining whether to keep or delete an article at the speedy nom stage (at least in my opinion). Cheers.

'''Oppose''' per Balloonman.
'''Oppose''', <s>[[WP:NOTNOW]]</s>. I think OlEnglish needs more experience with the deletion process(es) before I can trust him with the delete button. This is not a judgment of his other editorial skills.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions are weak and do not show evidence of careful thought. The statement "every new article has potential" is deeply disturbing: it does not acknowledge that articles may be on on [[WP:N|non-notable topics]], [[WP:MADEUP|fabrications]], or any number of things that have no "potential."
'''Support''' I have seen Orlady around doing good work. Should do fine as an admin. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
Orlady will make a great admin. She helps out at DYK by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=272423011 reviewing nominations], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Next_update&diff=prev&oldid=273133000 preparing] sets of hooks, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=273323408 alerting] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Royalbroil&diff=prev&oldid=273327956 admins] when the next update is due. She's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxhill_(Louisville)&diff=prev&oldid=272813185 polite, understanding, and helpful] with newcomers. And she's been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=272210846 invaluable] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shubinator&diff=prev&oldid=272566805 with] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shubinator&diff=prev&oldid=272975429 debugging] [[User:Shubinator/DYKcheck|DYKcheck]] (also shows she's willing to try out new things).
Lots of good edits<br />Vandal fighting for the win<br />So why the hell not? '''
Orlady finally running for adminship? That's excellent news. I remember her as an admin or whatever they call it of the [[Open Directory Project]], a bit less than 10 years ago, when I was active there. She absolutely had the right personality for her influential position there; and from all I have seen since I started watching her talk page about a year ago, I predict that she will be one of the best admins here as well. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) — Since there are a couple of oppose !votes, I think I should add: This is absolutely normal for an editor who has been an "admin without the tools" for a long time. --
'''Strong support'''.  Orlady guards Wikipedia articles like a mama bear guards her cubs.  She homes in on the singular goal of making the article better or more accurate, and doesn't relent until that end is achieved.  Giving her admin tools is long overdue.
'''Support'''.  I wish I could right a haiku, but that's not my thing.  So, I'll just say, looks good!
'''Support''' Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor. She should have gotten the tools long ago.
'''Support''' - my experiences with Orlady have all been positive, she's been here longer than most of us and has surely earned her chance.
'''Support''' I don't recall when I put this page on my watch list, but it was so that I could support this editor when and if the day came that they were nominated.  That day is today.  I've seen Orlady's work before and am supportive.
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy.
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy.
'''Support''', unequivocally.
<s>Orlady is an asset to DYK, no matter what the opposers here might try to claim.  Giving her admin tools will be a net benefit to the project and to the encyclopedia. <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Rjanag|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rjanag|contribs]]</sub></small> 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)</s> <s>Moved to Neutral. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' - In addition to default Tennessee support, I've always seen Orlady as a strong contributor that has unquestioned zeal for improving the encyclopedia. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''', good luck.
'''Strongest possible support''' -- #1 Orlady is an editor's editor. #2 She is judicious and diplomatic; in controversies, she always just takes the discussion back to encyclopedia-building and our editorial standards, thereby defusing behavioural issues. I've been asking her to stand for admin for a couple of years now. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' Has a clue, will travel.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' no worries here; longterm prolific and uncontentious editor with a  clean block log, (the only block was an accident in 2007 that was reverted within three minutes). ''
'''Support'''. I've often seen this editor doing good work. I trust her to improve the project with whatever tools she has. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' Everything I've seen indicates this editor works in good faith and is a major contributor to the Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - A valued colleague and s good spirit, unflagging in her efforts to improve this project; truly worthy to wield the Mop-and-Bucket. --
'''Support''' Net positive and should help, plus there aren't enough admins yet. :D--
'''Aye''' Long overdue. <b>
'''Sure'''- why not? Seems to have a good head on her shoulders.
'''Support''' I've been impressed with her work on diploma mil^H^H^H^H^H^H *cough* unaccredited institutions.
'''Strongest possible support''' Orlady is great improving articles as well as preventing vandals from degrading Wikipedia. My experience with Orlady is that she's very respectful when dealing with others and encouraging others to improve Wikipedia as well. Making her an admin will lead to making Wikipedia better. Regards,
'''Support''' - Dan
'''Support''' - Great work at SPI.
'''Support''' This is an easy one. '''
'''Support''' A tireless contributor and defender of Wikipedia policy.  —
'''Support''' - seems committed to the encyclopedia, patient in disputes, good contribution record.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Knowledgeable editor. The opposes are not persuasive. --
'''Support'''. Despite my shock that Doug is fourth opposer... --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support in the Strongest Terms Possible''' Orlady is a great editor, is a tireless proponent and advocate for Wikepedia policies, and is highly respectful of other editors.  Contrary to some of the arguments made below in opposition to her candidacy, she does indeed suffer fools gladly. She will make an outstanding administrator. [[User:Fladrif|Fladrif]] ([[User talk:Fladrif|talk]]) 17:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I've now taken a look at most of the examples cited by the small but vocal "oppose" group. The examples cited are laughable, and that's putting it charitably. If anything, these examples strengthen my conviction that Orlady would be a fabulous adminstrator.
'''Support''' I remember Orlady from the Open Directory Project, where she was invaluable as one of the more steady, patient, and even tempered editors, and eventually Meta-editors. Her work here seems to continue that trend. Probably the best evidence for that is the links her opponents seek to use against her, showing that she [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holy_Sepulchre_Cemetery_(New_Rochelle,_New_York)| is able to change her mind]] and is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2009_January_25&diff=prev&oldid=266694954 diligent] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=255543015#Forage_fish thorough]. If this is her worst, she'll make a fine admin. --
per above.  --
'''Support''' I've encountered Orlady in a couple of articles and article talk pages that are on my watchlist and have found her to be an impressive editor and is able to back up potentially controversial edits with sources. --
'''Support''' I haven't encountered Orlady much at Wikipedia.  Only once or twice.  However, the plaudits above seem persuasive.  I did nose around a bit regarding the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=281632533#Prior_steps Jvolkblum matter], and cannot see that she's done anything wrong.  Orlady may recall interacting with me quite a bit at DMOZ ages ago, and not in a very pleasant way, but that's water under the bridge, and anyway neither the water nor the bridge are at Wikipedia.  Good luck, Orlady.  :-)
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' excellent contributions and discussion at DYK. Your help will be appreciated! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Kaldari appears to have hit the nail on the head below -- Orlady "seems to have a gift for maintaining calm and patience in the face of persistent antagonism."  Indeed. --
'''Support''' DGG is fairly convincing, but thinking about it some more reminds me that it's okay for admins to do a bit of learning on the job. Orlady has definitely proven her basic trustworthiness and dedication to the project, and I assume that she'll ask someone or look something up before speedily deleting things she's unsure of. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' Partly because she [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|meets my criteria]], and partly because I'm just not finding any of the arguments from the Opposers to be convincing. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Weak Support''' The oppose votes do sway me a bit, but not seriously. I still think that having Orlady as an admin would be a net positive.
'''Support'''- Orlady has been very helpful specially in articles about educational institutions, which seem to be his expertise. I believe that we need an admin with that kind of inclination as Wikipedia is a primary resource relied upon by people who search for information in that field due the scarcity of inputs elsewhere. People are being deceived into spending thousands on useless "degrees" from [[unaccredited]] or completely bogus institutions of higher learning and in this he can help a lot by confronting head-on and putting through the acid test the POVs of PR men and women sent by such institutions to create or whitewash existing articles. Orlady is a decent Wikipedian with a consistent record of adhering to guidelines and policies, he has been with us for many years and have contributed a lot. I would feel more confident if we have more administrators like him and fewer of those who hardly know what they're doing. –
'''Weak Support'''. Some people in the oppose section do have some points against you, but I think that if you are careful about your work as an administrator, there will be no problems. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', an obviously qualified candidate.
'''Support''' vandal fighting in face of horrible abuse and handling it well shows she gets it.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Sheesh, she's been around long enough so she understands the culture. And if she's battled vandals, she's done more than me on this matter. We needn't talk about whether she gets sarcastic or snide -- everyone does it once in a while. The question is will she abuse the admin bit, for example block people for petty reasons? I think not. --
'''Support''' -- dedicated editor, smart and committed; she's impressed me as an editor in the past; I looked at diffs and wikilinks that opponents brought up, but didn't see problems with temperament --
'''Support''' good answers to the questions, and no indication that she'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' as in the six AFDs we both participated in, four of his arguments were strong, while only two were weak, but at least they were not “its cruft” in nature and four to two cancels out and supersedes the two.  Also, as candidate has multiple barnstars at [[User:Orlady]] and only was block was apparently a mistake (quickly unblocked).  Best, --
'''Support'''. Some concerns, but none with strike me as dangerous.
'''Support''' I've worked with this editor on several articles related to higher education and found him or her to be level-headed, knowledgeable, and trustworthy. His or her work related to unaccredited institutions (like [[List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning]]) is particularly commendable given the contentious nature of such articles.  --
She is a strong editor.
'''Strong support''', having personally offered to nominate Orlady for adminship myself in the past. A sensible and articulate user with a good understanding of the issues affecting Wikipedia's hosting of article on controversial topics, especially biographical material. Orlady also has valuable experience of sockpuppetry investigations - an area that is time consuming and unpopular with many/most admins. There are good reasons put forward above why she needs extra buttons. I am not convinced that "a bit abrasive" is a reason why someone shouldn't be an admin. Sometimes points have to be made firmly - adminship isn't social work. Orlady is competent and has shown herself capable of taking on the extra rights on this project. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support.''' Not insane. Patient in the face of ridiculous questions, in fact almost too patient.
'''Support'''. I randomly looked over some of her edits/comments/exchanges with others. They seem invariably in the best interests of the project, even when putting a nose out of joint here and there. Admins aren't expected to be perfect.
'''Support''', committed and hard-working, unlikely to damage the project with the tools (in fact, likely to be a net positive).
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' The few opposes that I consider legitimate - those based upon neutral observation rather than invested antipathy - need not make Orlady a poor sysop; Admins will make mistakes, as is evidenced by Orlady's block log ''..cough..'', but the primary criteria is trustworthiness. Orlady has demonstrated that trait to my satisfaction.
'''Support'''. Has a large quantity of clue. Yes, some of the oppose votes do say things that are worth saying -- and I'm grateful that they link to such stunning sights as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Political_Quarterly&diff=208001703&oldid=208001603 this] (blackly hilarious, though not by Orlady) -- yet the negatives seem overblown. --
'''Support'''.  Aftre reading this RfA ''extensively'', I do so for three main reasons: (1) she meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]]; (2) she's been "outed" -- as a Wikipedian and otherwise -- and I feel a great sense of empathy here; (3) she's made some mistakes on AfD nominations, but none so egregious that they cause me to wonder about her use of a few extra buttons.
'''Support''' - great work in sockpuppetry cases and at afd, has been around ''forever''.  Let's stop wasting her time by making her find an admin every time she needs a page protected or a sock blocked. --
'''Support''' Another fine contributor. The AfD problems cited below seem arguable rather than showing significant misunderstanding of policy.
'''Support''' - My review shows no cause for alarm.  AfD seems like a third rail for some - agree with above - arguable, not significant misunderstanding of policy.  Feel free to badger; made my comment, I'm done.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; I have never seen Orlady's signature and not had a good impression. I'm pleased to see they will be an administrator soon, this user deserves it.
'''Support''', per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per positive contributions to the project in multiple varied capacities. '''
I never take part in RfAs.  I certainly had no intention of doing so while my own RfA was ongoing, but looking through some of the diffs provided by the opposers, I found something rather different to the claimed incivility and contentiousness.  I found an editor arguing rationally and strongly from policy based positions for things to help and improve the 'pedia.  If that's what the opposition are saying, don't see much point in reviewing anything else. '''Support, yeah, strong support'''.
'''Support''' 66.28% of edits on the article main space, wow! '''
'''Support''' Multiple years of experience in the mainspace <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - Every user and admin has their own communication style. Some walk on eggshells and some tell it like it is.  True, the latter style may be taken more personally by users and those users can bring it up at the appropriate place if they wish.  In any case, I think it is clear that Orlady is a hard-working, highly experienced editor on Wikipedia and other places (her work on the [[Open Directory Project|ODP]] is also extensive and long standing). <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' I looked over the oppose !votes and couldn't really find much there that's worth opposing over.  Since when has speaking bluntly been a crime? Assume good faith doesn't mean you have to lie to people, after all.  Her contributions in SPI are stellar and she'd make a great admin there. '''
'''Support''' - Orlady is welcoming to new users and, in my experience, is a peacemaker in contentious editing spots. —'''''
'''Support''' We always need more vandal fighters, and her vandal fighting work is good. Comments are sometimes not as polite as they should be, but hopefully she will take the criticisms to heart, and refrain from any overly negative comments in the future.
'''Support'''. No problems here. One editor says in the oppose section that admins should somehow retain complete control in situations that "would make saints go ballistic". I refuse to think that a collaborative project needs such strict vetting standards. The ''White House'' doesn't do that.
'''Support''' The thoughtfulness with which she has answered the questions is impressive. And, clearly, anyone who involves herself so deeply in this project is going to make mistakes and upset some people so I'm not surprised at the oppose !votes but do feel that these !voters should consider what wikipedia's content would look like if everyone made nice all the time. I'm a little disappointed to see that this is a borderline RfA whereas those of other editors with less involvement with the project (mine included) were much clearer. --
'''Support'''  Even when I have found myself on the opposite side of an issue from Orlady, she has never failed to earn and keep my respect as a solid, knowledgeable, helpful, and trustworthy editor.  I believe she can and will use The Tools for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I feel wholly comfortable trusting that she will not misuse them, which is really what this RfA vetting process is all about.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers to questions, good responses to controversy on this page. Has clue. Seems to have picked up a small handful of opposers who are very vocal at this RFA, but many of whose points (like AFD reasoning objections, clearing self from sockpuppet allegations) do not stand up to scrutiny and are more heat than light. (By this I'm not asserting that no opposers' justifications hold water, just that in my opinion those of some of the most vocal opposers are not valid.)
I knew this editor at ODP. Strong-headed editor that has a clear idea of right and wrong, which means it can sometimes be annoying to be on the opposite side of an argument with her. But that doesn't mean she'd be a poor admin; in fact, the opposite in my opinion. I fully trust her with the extra tools. -
'''Support''' I spent a significant amount of time reading through the issues raised here, from a nomination that has raised far more heat than I would have expected based on my experience with the editor under discussion. The Orlady that I've seen has been a thorough editor, by expanding, improving and sourcing articles including many that many would be happy to toss off the cliff. Orlady has received a rather thorough grilling under the various questions listed, and I wish the artificial standards being set for her were observed by all administrators, including some of the admins asking these same questions. The issues that have been raised here are issues that can be addressed by Orlady, and I hope that these recommendations are taken seriously regardless of the success of this RfA.
'''Support''' Conditional based upon answers to #19, but, in general Orlady knows what is going on and how to handle the situations appropriately. People here need to realize that this user is involved in the seemy underbelly of Wikipedia where [[WP:OR]] and lack of citations lurk. Those wishing to game the system eventually run into editors that won't take "I want to do it this way" as an appropriate solution to a problem. Good/Great editors piss off people. Good/Great admins do the same because there are some people out there that just don't get it. Merely causing or being the source of drama is not a valid reason for opposition, IMHO. Orlady and I have disagreed and still do on some subjects, but that isn't a reason to oppose. This whole thing is like the Senate approval process in the U.S. for cabinet members. Senators who oppose someone's nomination should only do so if they have grave concerns about the person's ability to do their job, not the political views of the individual. Some of the best people out there caused a lot of disruption in their lives (like [[Elliot Ness]], [[Harry Truman]], [[Jesus Christ]], [[Mahatma Ghandi]]), but only to the betterment of society/niche. There is ''nothing'' wrong with being thorough. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Support''' She has a solid reputation for neutrality.  Although she can be mildly abrasive, it's more like Comet cleanser than sandpaper.  She always seems to be working from as genuinly neutral viewpoint as possible.  What some don't seem to realize is that to achieve neutrality, sometimes you have to lean the boat one way or the other.  Defending expression of different sides of a topic is not non-neutral - frankly, conducting a discussion in this way is an excellent way of reaching consensus.  My two cents - it's hard to imagine anyone wanting this job - it's thankless hours of self-sacrifice and hard work - I say let her do it!  --
'''Support''' Just because. -
'''Support''' - Whilst I am mildly concerned by the comments in opposition, that's how it is&nbsp;— a mild concern. I believe that Orlady would make a fine admin. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Orlady would be a tremendous asset to Wikipedia as an admin.  --
'''Support''' A little wikidrama provides experience=D. She's done a bit of vandal fighting, so that would cause slightly more "aggressive" behavior. I also like the fact that she's put up a tough fight in a number of cases. I believe this shows the user has a genuine interest.
'''Support''' I hadn't really clued into this until I came across the discussion on the RfA talk page this afternoon. I since took some time to look at the candidate, and I really have no major concerns. I prod'd an article that I think is ridiculous last night, and AFD'd it this morning. I could have just deleted it, but I'd be drop kicking a hornet's nest. Just because someone who nominates articles for deletion gets the mop doesn't mean they'll go nuts with the delete button.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;It took me a while to check out a significant sample of her contribs. Overall, very positive. Some worries about tone when communicating. Her volume of work outweighs this in my mind. --'''''
'''Support''', (initially distracted by the vocalness above, below and elsewhere) per the facts and my [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|humble opinion]].  Dedicated, consistant, responsible editor.  Communicates well with those that ask for help or clarification.  Far from concise, she is willing to fully explain the reasons for her actions.  The flag would be carried responsibly and effectively. <small>
'''Support''' (change from neutral) Off the fence and shooting.  I see nothing wrong with the responses Orlady has made in this RfA.  She looks to be a fine editor who will make a good admin, and at the worst, she's brusque.  Guess what, people, join the real world.  She has been civil, for all that.--
'''Support''': would be a great asset. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Support''': While I dont always agree with Orlady, I've never found her disagreeable.  I'm sad that she and other valued editors can't seem to get along, but so be it.  I trust her judgement but I would caution her that by gaining more power, she has also gained the responsibility of being more even-handed than she was before.
Unconvinced by opposers (actually some of the oppose reasons a ridiculous).
'''Strong Support''' User has been around since August 2004 and has shown commitment,dedication and user is track and checking and rechecking clearly feel the project will not lose anything with the user getting tools.If the user has waited nearly 5 years for the 1st RFA it clearly shows the user is not after tools.
'''Support''' I have been busy travelling and almost missed the chance to offer my support here.  Do not judge my tradiness as any hesitance.  Orlady can be depended upon to do necessary tedium.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Strong Oppose''' - From her comments at DYK, I have not seen anything to suggest that she respects standard consensus procedure, tradition within DYK, nor would I trust her having access to update the mainpage in any way, let alone having the ability to properly discern what could go on the mainpage especially in regards to fairness, appropriateness, or monitoring for articles with plagiarism. I will add other concerns for other areas shortly.
'''Oppose''' Saw her actions at a recent AFD, and reading what she wrote about recognizing invalid arguments and ignoring the opinions of anyone who disagrees with her when forming consensus for an AFD, is rather troublesome.  Is there a way to list every single AFD she has participated in?  I think that is the best way to judge someone's character in these things.  If the majority of editors in an AFD state something should be kept, they believing it meeting all requirements, would she ignore that simply because her opinion was different?  We need administrators who listen to the consensus formed by editors, not just decide on their own straight away what should be done, and dismiss anyone else's opinion as invalid.
'''Stong Oppose''' - I intended to stay out of controversial issues on Wikipedia. As my username is mentioned above in the Type 3 conflicts I will take a few minutes to describe why I am opposed to Orlady's adminship. First of all I must say that I appreciate her contributions to Wikipedia and see her as one of the best editors we have. I cherish her skill with words, she is an excellent writer. When it is about conflicts, however, she lacks what it takes for an admin, in my opinion, to solve a conflict in a fair and neutral fashion. She stated her common practice herself, if she has a conflict with a Wikipedia member who is established, she cannot "shrug them off", like she does with new editors who have not established many contacts on Wikipedia yet and therefore no-one to stand in for them and support their view. Those newbies are bombed with WP policies or are shrugged off as vandals, their edits reverted and they leave Wikipedia discouraged.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Strong oppose'''  Orlady routinely deals with newbies and less experienced editors in rude, sarcastic terms and with the opposite of AGF.  For one example, consider the treatment of relatively inexperienced editor who posted recently at [[User talk:Orlady#Suffield University]].  O's very first interaction was to assume bad faith and make an unjustified accusatory suggestion with this edit summary in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suffield_University&diff=281527334&oldid=281517393 this diff].  In followup at [[User talk:Rumblebee]] she used sarcasm "Perhaps you are clairvoyant, but I'm not...";  she accused the person of edit warring (unfair in my view, the person suggested a Prod and reverted Orlady's rude dismissal once).  In the [[Talk:Suffolk University]] exchange, O strongly objects to the editor posting some rewrite-needed-type tag, but, later in a separate section O acknowledges that some Yale Daily news material is indeed inappropriate to have included in the article (I agree with both Rumbletree and Orlady that the material should be removed).  However the removal of that material is done in a way to negate any credit to the Rumbletree editor, and the net effect is that the editor has been threatend by Orlady and chastised by someone else for not assuming good faith.  It is also ironic that Orlady's treatment of the editor is heavy-handed, while the editor explains he/she was trying to force some development/improvement of the article by a 5 day Prod, given that I have seen Orlady try to force changes of other articles by use of AfD nominations.  This is just one small example of Orlady's participation causing bad feelings and collateral damage. Orlady is a powerful person within wikipedia already, as she has writing skills and attention to detail in sourcing, etc., as well as skill bringing to bear Checkusers and others to support her in enforcement actions.  I consider her to be a bully, and while I don't myself need extraordinary protection to stand up to her occasional attacks at my Talk page or elsewhere, I think it would be a gross mistake to give her Administrative powers. Also, she is embroiled (as am I) in a running lowgrade war on articles concerning the New Rochelle, New York area, the subject of two recent [[wp:an]] discussions that i opened, here at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady]] and  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=281077493 here]) and a request for arbitration (that was denied as unsuitable for arbitration).  The situation was not fully discussed in any of those, but relates to what is reportedly the largest-ever sockpuppet case in wikipedia, which has consumed a large amount of Checkuser and other administrative resources and has cost a lot of good will.  Dispute about this has seems to have caused more than one good person to retire from wikipedia, at least temporarily.  Others opinions may differ, but I blame Orlady for a large share of responsibility of aggravating and extending the situation.  Her use of sarcasm and heavy-handedness and open scorn for the person or persons involved seems to encourage and perpetuate a big game.  After a year of involvement in New Rochelle area articles, an area which she states at my Talk page that she personally dislikes, it seems reasonable to conclude that she is enjoying playing the whack-the-mole game and is proud of being involved from the beginning.  The collateral damage involved seem unimportant to her and she seems to have disdain for whether or not there are more than one person unfairly caught up in it.  An arbitrator, while declining the case, cited [[wp:DENY]] (which has to do with downplaying rather than exalting in size of sockpuppet cases) and commented "it is dangerous for one person to spend too long hunting the socks of a single puppet master", which in context refers to Orlady's involvement.  The final arbitration discussion is available [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=281632533 here in this version of page] (next edit was clerk's removal as rejected).  I don't think it appropriate to promote her to Administrator at this time, without resolution of this problem, which she has, in my view, largely caused.
'''Weak oppose''' I've had disagreements with Orlady, but "disputes" that were just strong-yet-calm disagreements about how to describe different types of settlements on templates really aren't significant.  Granted, they're more significant than the "too many administrators already" argument above (why shouldn't everyone be an admin who is qualified to be one?), but that's no reason to oppose.  Orlady has been involved in enough situations that I've seen to make me uncertain: she seems to fit every positive bit that we need — experienced with Wikipedia in general, familiar with policy, firm in fighting vandalism, technically capable (probably more capable than I, an administrator, am), and likely to continue editing for a good while — but I'm uncertain about her being perhaps overeager/hasty to enforce policy.  As an outside occasional-observer in this long-running Jvolkblum sockpuppet case, I've been concerned about her manner of seeking to enforce a justly-imposed ban: no complaints about her motives, but I fear that her methods made it more likely that innocent new editors could have been caught in the crossfire.  Bear in mind that this is not a deep concern (otherwise I'd be opposing much more strongly), and I've not been closely enough involved myself to speak for certain, but everything that's occurred with this case has made me uneasy with enabling Orlady to have tools that '''might''' (I don't say "would") be misused.  In conclusion, the fact that this good editor is receiving such strong opposition from other good editors means that her administrative actions might be fraught with controversy, and I don't think it would help Wikipedia at this time.  If this case ever blows over, or if the disputes related to this case calm down, I'll be more open to a new RfA; but '''right now''' I don't think it's the best idea.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Unlike other opposing editors who have had long term experience of Orlady's style, I have had only one central encounter with her, which culminated with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orlady&oldid=282643840#A_question this exchange] (bottom half). So the exhanges I am reacting to can be followed though from there. I notice that defenders of Orlady are defending her '''actions'''. I don't think her actions are what is at issue here; it is her tone. She has an exceptionally confrontative style, the style of a zealot who becomes swept away with her cause and feels no holds are barred. Once she gets her head of steam, she tries to flatten everything in her path. Orlady is intelligent, and if she becomes an administrator, I do not doubt that she will pursue transgressors relentlessly and run them into the ground, and do it in a way that does not violate the Wikipedia guidelines. But I think, and this may be a minority view, that an administrator should also posses some pastoral and communication skills, including  core respect and sense of proportion when dealing with other people. I would support Orlady in a future RfA if she showed, in the intervening time, that she was aware of these issues and was making progress in that direction. In fact, if she developed more appropriate communication skills, she would make an excellent administrator. But as it stands, she would be a disaster, leaving a trail of unnecessary wreckage in her wake. --[[User:Geronimo20|Geronimo20]] ([[User talk:Geronimo20|talk]]) 03:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC). Addendum: Not to mention motivated sockpuppets. --
'''Weak oppose.''' I know this user does good work, and I believe she would defer to consensus when push comes to shove. But her abrasive and sometimes sarcastic style of communication make me worried she might misuse her tools if provoked. &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''' per comments above, does not appear to be admin material, nor have the temperment of a desired admin.
'''Oppose''' moved from neutral. <s>Three</s> ''Two'' reasons '''a/''' the totally unsatisfactory answer to my follow up Q at Q8. though she does not say she intends to work in that area, deleting articles by Speedy is such a basic function of any admin--because, do what ever you do, you will come across them. Rereading the discussion of the proposal for what areas the candidate plans to work in, I notice the "to be honest, I dont know what I will do."  -- a good indication of insufficient preparation for this role, regardless of the skill in article writing. <s> '''b/''' the exchange with another editor, O.R., in the "neutral" section in which the candidate does not recognize having had  any problems with him, though he keeps pointing them out--and I was quite aware of them myself as a bystander</s>   '''c/''' the various answers unfortunately do show a tendency to push other people a little too hard. '''
Aside from not meeting my personal criteria for content building, looking through some of the (occasionally overhyped) charges I do feel the user has a bit of an abrasive tone, and does not use proper discretion in being sarcastic or not. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose'''  In my view, an admin needs to be able to communicate with maturity and respect, even when dealing with people that could make the saints go ballistic. However, Orlady’s putdown of Geronimo20 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orlady&diff=274685059&oldid=274662995] and her insistence that Doncram is being played for a patsy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&diff=prev&oldid=282897717] are too obnoxious to be ignored.  I am also getting the impression that she is very uncomfortable being called to task for possible faults in judgment, as witnessed by the flippancy in her answer to Question #3 when she claims three of her Opposers “nurse deep grudges” – which is strange, since none of these individuals have Wiki-histories of antagonistic behavior – and in her continuing refusal (as of this writing) to answer Question #6 about putting forth [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School]] – which not only shows a lapse in understanding copyright violations, but also finds her nominating an article for deletion because it is Orphaned and Unreferenced. Furthermore, her launch of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)]] suggests she would rather delete worthy articles in order to one-up a persistent sockpuppeter.  I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA.
'''Oppose''' I just do not feel confident at this time that this candidate has the necessary understanding of guidelines and policies at this time. The answers to both mine and others questions above did not increase my confidence any. Of note, I feel the candidate needs both a better understanding off and a respect for [[WP:COPYVIO]] and its importance. I get the impress the they feel its really only relevant for commercial interests, which is a slap in the face to many creative individuals (such as myself) who may not be commercial intenties but are still the target of content thieves and still copyright holders (by law) nonetheless of anything they post. While I do not share the concerns  over some of the AfDs brought up above, particularly those where she was not the nominator, and outright over dramatization over the New Rochelle articles noted by others,  I do feel that she did go overboard in trying to clean up behind a persistent sock and should have made more effort to evaluate the individual articles before trying to delete, particularly when the CSDs were denied. The [[Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York)]] frequently cited above, would be an example of one where clean up/maintainence tags and appropriate project notifications requesting assistance would have been the better solution.--
'''Oppose''', mostly per Q4-Q6 and Q8b (full disclosure: I am guilty of the same things myself when on NewPage Patrol). Needs more improvement in the deletion area. Probably also bad timing due to the recent Jvolkblum debacle.
'''Oppose'''.  Whilst others have raised valid concerns, I'm more concern about the inability to respond to the questions about determining consensus and BLPs, both of which, in my mind, are crucial areas.
'''Oppose''' In interactions that I've been involved in or observed, Orlady exhibits arrogant disregard for views in oppostion of her own, and I've never seen her back down and admit that the position she started with wasn't the only "right" answer.
'''Oppose'''. I have had very little personal dealings with this editor, so I have had to go into her edit history to get a clear idea of who she is. That combined with the information presented above does not give me a great deal of optimism toward this editor. The majority of her edits are excellent, but she has a troubling tendency to get rude and condescending, almost to the point of sheer comedy. We have too many hot-headed admins as it is, we don't need another.
'''Oppose'''.  This is about speedy deletion—there's the fact that she started an RFA without a clear understanding of the way speedy deletion works, and there's the fact that she seems to have answered a direct question about it at her RFA before gaining that understanding.<p>I realise Orlady says she doesn't intend to do work with speedy deletion, but unfortunately, admins have tenure, it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a maverick one, and once given the tools, there's nothing restricting what work they do; so I feel it's only prudent to assess my !vote as if she were proposing to work with speedy deletion.<p>To me, the fact that Orlady is trying to answer speedy deletion-related questions without understanding the consensus about how it works doesn't bode well at all.  It suggests that as an admin, she would do as she feels is right rather than in accordance with the community's normal procedure, and I'm afraid that's a very grave concern to me.—
'''Oppose''' - Concerns about abrasiveness, sarcasm and arrogant attitude. My observations of her editorial judgment at DYK do not allay my concerns. Too many red flags in the comments of others on this page. I'm sorry.  &mdash;
'''Weak Oppose'''. I've been going back and forth on this one for some time, over whether the concerns outlined above are really worth opposing over; Orlady is clearly generally a good user, with a decent understanding of the rules and a history of useful contributions, and that counts for a lot. Moreover, she has faced some truly unreasonable opposition above, which I don't feel too happy about joining. But I just can't get over my reservations about this user's attitude and manner of communication, as shown in edits like this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orlady&diff=274685059&oldid=274662995]; that's really not how an admin should behave. I think Orlady could make a good admin at some point, but from what I've seen I just don't think she's ready yet.
'''oppose''' abrasiveness in writings on this page indicate to me a poor temperament for this role.
'''Oppose''' - Per above combativeness in this RfA, but also the lone interaction showed a lack of knowledge or lack of conforming to a well established guideline. Either one is not someone who should be given the admin tools.
'''Oppose''', changed from support, due to conduct in this RFA.
'''Oppose'''. I have to echo the concerns others have raised about abrasiveness. Administratorship on wikipedia  involves interacting with many new and troubled users, and it is very easy to escalate conflict unnecessarily or drive editors away permanently unless a patient and explanatory approach is taken. Orlady is a fabulous editor, so I feel bad about opposing, but I do not feel it would be in the best interest of the project to make her an admin at this point. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per above. Showing frequently rudeness, abrasiveness, arrogance is far from what I expect from admins. We have many such already.--
'''Oppose''' - per Stifle.
'''Oppose''', moved from Neutral. Per Stifle and Henrik, among others; Orlady clearly does good work, but may not have the temperament for adminship. I feel obligated to voice this concern since this RfA seems to be coming down to the wire.
'''Oppose''' - When I originally looked at this RfA I was not sure if I was going to go with an oppose, or a neutral. After looking over some of the other opposes, they seem to be concerned about the same things I am and as such I must oppose. Because this (like Cobra said) is coming down to the wire, I feel I needed to voice my opinion. Should this still be open when I get home today I will add more. For now, the basis for my oppose is based upon my overall impression of Orlady. That being, I fear she will be heavy handed when issuing blocks, protecting articles, and dealing with sockpuppets. Also, I get a feeling that she feels this site is a [[WP:BATTLE|battle ground]] and to be honest I am a bit curious as to why Orlady posted a link to attack page about herself. On top of that some of the concerns brought up about her AfD participation worries me, and leads me to believe there is a potential for drama surrounding closures that she would make. Finally, Stifle brings up a good point. The interaction with others in this RfA only reinforces others concerns about temperament and abrasiveness.
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about your abrasiveness and conduct during this RFA and before the RFA as well. The link that Robofish provided above is a major concern. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Oppose'''. Candidate doesn't have the attitude that I'd like to see in users, let alone an administrator. — '''''
'''Oppose''' While Orlady is an asset to Wikipedia as an editor, however, her responses to other editors during this RfA raise concerns about her temperament when dealing with other editors.
'''Oppose:''' Orlady does very, very good work and I have been vascillating for some time about where to voice opinion.  I have had to decide on this section, however.  I agree most with Pastor Theo, probably, and agree that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orlady&diff=274685059&oldid=274662995 this] exchange with Geronimo20 is excessively antagonistic.  Contrary to others who have said that Orlady was justified in responding testily to Geronimo20's "offensive" comment, the mistake Orlady made was in her assumption of what the problem was in the first place.  She could have started with a question, or even an apology, without the sarcasm (it wouldn't have cost her much, I promise).  I could have understood, perhaps, if her response were short, quick, and snappy.  It's easy to be uninentionally sharp if you're saving your first, quick reaction.  But her response is long, and she simply must have previewed, and searched for all of those diffs.  That she didn't, at some point during all of that, think, "maybe this is just a little bit of the wrong approach . . ." shows a lack of restraint and self-awareness, in my opinion.  Her answer to question 3 is troubling.  And, for the record, I find Kaldari's actions regarding this RfA disappointing.  I would like to support, but there is too much that doesn't seem right.
'''Oppose''' Some of the well reasoned opposes above concern me enough to oppose at this time.--
I can not seem to decide if she should be an administrator or not.  From the looks of it, it seems she would be a good one but then their are also things that others say that make me uncertin. so i am neutral.
I've seen impressive work from her and lean towards supporting, but some of the opposers allege incivility or heavy-handedness in incidents that look like they'll require a deeper investigation. So neutral until I get time to dig a little deeper there and see if there's anything worth being worried about.
'''Neutral''' - Though others seem very impressed with the nominee's content-related work, various drama situations at [[WP:AN]]/[[WP:AN/I]] leave me with questions (beyond my [[User:jc37/RfA/General questions|regular ones]]). <s>But as this RfA already looks like a run-away support, I won't bother asking.</s> I'll be content if those "voting" support, will be on hand to help coach/council the nominee in the future (presuming the nominee is receptive to such), should the need arise. -
'''Neutral''' - Orlady is excellent with controversial articles, and she should be commended for her work in those areas, but the abusive and sarcastic tone pointed out by the opposers is too much for me to consider supporting. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
(Changed from support) Orlady is a dedicated contributor, but the concerns brought up in the oppose section are too strong to ignore, I'm afraid. Remaining neutral so as not to pile on. –'''
'''Neutral''', having looked a bit further, the incivility appears to be isolated incidents rather than a constant feature of this user's editing.  I hope that if promoted they will take the concerns raised here to heart and be careful about what they say and think about how their words might be perceived by others.
'''Strong support'''. Most definitely. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''[[List of recurring characters in The Simpsons#Yes Guy|<span class="color:black;">Yeeeeeeeeeessssssss</span>]]''' I see no problems, would be a benefit to the community in that role.
'''Strong support'''. He has always been a very trustworthy figure to me. No qualms here, as any extra help from a trustworthy and clueful guy is always helpful. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Thought he already was one, etc. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Looks good, and I can trust Julian's judgment on the [[WP:ACC|ACC]] stuff and MBisanz's judgment on the [[WP:BOTS]] stuff. - Dan
'''Support''' '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' I can speak from the [[WP:ACC|ACC]] side of things, where I have never had a negative experience with him, and having another admin who is comfortable and responsible with bots would be an asset to the project. Never been blocked, and he has a better userpage than me too...--
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''': As a fellow member of the BAG, I have seen nothing that would make me think he was not perfectly suited to the role of administrator. -
'''Support''' I'm happy with Q and his work. '''
Contributions to articles may be lacking, but is fine otherwise and is unlikely to be a problem. '''
'''Support''', there is clear evidence that OverlordQ is trustworthy, sensible and has a good use for the tools in areas he is competent in. He's amply demonstrated a commitment to improving the encyclopedia, even if that was not in the form of article building - it's all good. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' No problems and a net positive.--
'''Support''' - Won't break the Wiki, every time I have interacted with him he has been nothing short of a delight. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy and I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' &mdash; At one point, I thought he was one already. After realizing that he wasn't, I wondered why he wasn't.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Looks good. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - Would have supported a long time ago.
'''Support''' As nom. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck.
'''Support''' No issues and good user.
'''Weak Support''' Has done well with anti-vandalism work, but needs to do more encyclopedic contributions.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' - wonder why he wasn't one already? Good editor in many ways, but also per [[User:download|download]]: more "meaty" edits. '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support.''' I'd trust OverlordQ with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Looks good. Admin is no big deal, and the candidate has a good idea what he wants/needs the admin bit for. <strong>
'''
'''Very Strong Support''' - I was considering nominating him myself!
'''Strong Support''' I was surprised he wasn't already one. :O
'''Support.''' User has demonstrated the capacity to be trusted with the admin tools.
I seem to remember having a reason to oppose, but I can't think of it. Because of that, I'm applying the clue test, and OverlordQ passes.
'''Support''' Lack of article work isn't an issue, candidate has demonstrated trustworthyness and clue.  He's not going to use the tools in any way that harms the project and there are many ways in which he can use them to benefit the project within his interests.  What more do you want in an admin?
'''Support''' - This user's work has been good. I agree with MBisanz on this! Best,
'''Support''' One of the sane BAG members.
'''Support''' - Writing articles isn't the only way to contribute, and I see no reason not to support. <em style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">
'''Support''' - Great contributor and will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Strongly.  Administrators don't need to be experts at article writing. That's why they're given a mop, not a pen. '''
'''Support''' Unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the main page.
'''Support''' No reason why not, while OverlordQ is not the most prolific article writer there is no reason to believe he can't do the job or would do poorly at it. —
'''Support''' - You have contributed a lot and I have not found anything that makes me think you will fail [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]]. Your editing patterns of using automated tools and not having overwhelming content contributions don't concern me. My thoughts on the AOR issue should be quite obvious with my membership and commitment to [[CAT:AOR]].
'''Support''' - per answer to my question & see no reason to think abuse of the tools is likely. I for one welcome our new OverlordQ...er...overlords. //
'''Support''' I see no big issues. The communication weakness has been acknowledged as a big learning point, and admins (especially!) need to be able to demonstrate willingness to learn. --
'''Support''' I don't see any reason why not
'''Support'' I think that he is qualified. Good previous edits, Coaching problem was resolved.
'''Support''' - no probs here -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' – I think many times Wikipedians overlook the efforts that go on at [[WP:BAG]] and all that automated mumbo-jumbo that those Wikipedians not versed in bots do not understand. User would make a good contribution as an admin at BAG and ACC.
'''Support.''' '''''
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order for you to make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Some people see a lack of communication. I see a lack of drama.
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Whichever side a candidate takes on a policy issue such as a recall system for admins I don't feel it appropriate to oppose them for this in an RFA. I also see some opposers are citing communication issues, perhaps if the candidate had a clearer link from their talk page to [[User talk:OverlordQ/Archive 2]] there would be fewer such opposes. '''
'''Strong support''' Very helpful and very resourceful when needed this user would make a great candidate. [[User:Staffwaterboy|<b><span style="color:red">Staffwaterboy</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support''' I cant steal his UI then oppose =p <small><b><span style="padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support'''
Absolutely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - long-time, safe User, awards from Users whom I respect, has used a Bot, and has rollback.
'''Support'''.  Appears trustworthy.
'''Support''' As nom from the first time around.
'''Weak support''' On balance, I feel he will be a <s>[[User:Pedro/Net Positive 2]]</s> [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] to Wikipedia and the admin corps at large. There are several concerns, but anyone who has been around a while will have some faults, as I can attest.
'''Oh hell yes'''. OQ is one of the most trusted users over at ACC, and has the highest access level possible over there. There have been no problems of trust, and he's technically competant, so I have absolutely no issues. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' You definitely seem to be sufficiently experienced in the areas you say you want to work in. Better mainspace contribs would make me more enthusiastic, but to each his own, and I trust the nom. Best of luck! <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' User has been around since April 2004 and had his/her last RFA in Feb 2008 and over 1 year ago and user has improved and overcame the concerns raised to large extent through some concerns do remain.After checking user track feel that the user will not misuse tools also trust the judgement of Mibanz.
'''Support''', user has clue --
'''Accepted''' User has many helpful bots. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
'''Support''' I don't think s/he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' A lack of encyclopedia-building is not an issue to me, as the user has demonstrated being trustworthy. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Will be a good administrator based on the positive work I've looked at in other areas.
'''Support''': During this critical juncture of wikipedia it is highly important that we elect this user, he will take us to places we cannot imagine and will oversee the successful expansion of wikipedia worldwide.
'''Weak support'''. There are some concerns, but overall, the candidate will be an asset to the community.
No major concerns.
'''Oppose''' I appreciate the technical know-how of the user, but even a cursory look at the article contributions reveals a distinct lack of collaboration for the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' No improvement to the encyclopedia. (i.e. no article creation, improvement, DYKs, GAs, or/and FAs). I said that I would support on the last RFA if he contributed to the encyclopedia, but I don't really see a change. '''
'''Oppose''' Use of talk pages is very poor. On article talk pages there are only three edits so far this year and only 10 since last August. On user talk pages, it's almost entirely warnings and templates. Admins need to be able to talk to people, to reason with them.
'''Oppose''' I've been thinking about this heavily tonight, and I initially stated that I wouldn't oppose this RfA, but I have since changed my mind—not because new evidence has come to light, but because of reasons already stated. I have general concerns, as stated in my neutral below, but I'm also struggling to get past the fact this user has no experience just improving articles. I'm usually fairly lenient with regards to this, but no article creation or improvements per Miranda is really worrying for me. I know everyone isn't in this camp, but I am. Regards, and best of luck. —'''
'''Oppose''' We need to end this bot centered madness before they rise up and overthrow humanity.... but seriously, I don't see enough adminy related experience nor anything to really trust you over. I don't really see much to be honest. I will keep an eye and if anything changes that really makes me feel as if there is any experience, sure, but it would have to be something new than what is provided here.
'''Oppose''' per all reasons stated above by others. There's not much article improvement/creation and just not much experience in the areas considered necessary for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall promises are made <i>ad captandum vulgus</i>, are unenforceable, and have a vanishingly small chance of removing problem admins given the historical record.
'''Oppose''' -- Due to the lack of article contributions, the techy stuff is great for an admin, but they must know how to edit articles when they must face edits that they need to address on articles, and lack of experience won't serve them well.--Best, '''''<small>
'''Oppose''' Per the reasons already stated above.  Just doesn't seem to be much communication, created articles, DYK, FA, etc.<span style="border:1px solid #1E90FF;font:15px Monotype Corsiva">Fredrik • Wilhelm</span>
'''Regretfully''' - you mention wanting to be involved in CSD, but I don't see too much recent experience there. Also, reviewing your contributions, it seems that perhaps 75-80% are vandal reversions. I'd prefer to see more demonstrable experience in admin-related areas. However, aside from these things, you seem to be a productive user and have a fine record here, so I'd consider a future support. &mdash;<strong>
'''Oppose''' "I won't support a candidate who is open to recall because it doesn't work."
'''Oppose'''  Would prefer to see more content contributions from the user.
'''Oppose'''. Mediocre articlespace content contribution. Limited collaboration with other editors.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89 and Fredrik Wilhelm and a lack of communication with others. Effectively communicating with other editors in a civil tone is far from making drama.--
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Neutral''' My only contact with OverlordQ has been at Requests for Bot Approval. Suffice to say that I think the bot approval group is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, with problematic bots regularly approved against protests from the community. Have a look at OverlordQ's contribution to the approval of Betacommand's last bot task [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot_Task_9]] (You'll need to search for "Q T C"). I will not oppose, because maybe you've improved in the last year, but I'm not impressed by either the judgment or the communication.
'''Neutral''' From glancing at [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=OverlordQ&l=all OverlordQ's editing history] (using wikichecker), I noticed his/her activity seems very sporadic...there are weeks at a time with no edits or only a couple edits, then several-day-long bursts with hundreds of automated HG/TW edits.  That isn't necessarily something to oppose for, since it just means the user has a life (and, besides, if he/she is planning to use admin tools to facilitate bot work and things like that, there's still a good case for giving him/her the tools), but it does at least make me wonder.  I know admins aren't required to devote their lives to Wikipedia or to even use the tools at all, but at the same time, should there be a certain level of dependability in when you can expect an admin to be around? <b class="Unicode">
I can't support someone who's barely touched newpage patrol.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has some nice barnstars, but oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cloverfield_(creature)&diff=186565066&oldid=186544657] (it is a discussion, not a vote and this article eventually reached Good status).  Thus, some positive, one cause for concern.  Best, --
Beat the nom support. Yes, definitely. I find you to be a clueful editor, and I feel that you will be an excellent credit to Wikipedia. RFA is a lot like [http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navytrng/a/sealhellweek.htm Hell Week], and sometimes RFA should stand for "Requests for Agony" but you're a strong editor. The RFA process will strengthen you. Basically, if you can succeed in this, you can succeed at anything. Best of luck, <font face="Forte">
Of course!
I was honestly surprised when I learned he had just been around since January; he seems so much more knowledgeable than that. I don't always agree with Pastor Theo in all discussions that I have seen him in, but I have always seen him discuss his point civilly and with justification behind his actions and words, which implies a strong sense of clue in the man. I'm happy to support him for adminship. <font color="navy">'''
'''No brainer'''. Sorry, Balloonman, I do not even need to read your nomination statement for the candidate. :) I've always thought of Pastor Theo as "the next administrator" (not American Idol :D) because of his civility and insightful commentaries on RFAs as well as other good contributions. (yes, I checked his contribution time to time in case somebody would nominate him) Well he clearly knows how things go within Wikipedia and is willing to help editors in trouble, so why not?--
'''Very pleased''' to see Pastor Theo here on RFA.  Everything's good here.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; I was considering nominating him myself. –'''
'''For sure''' Six months is enough to be clueful and show commitment to the project.  He is, he has.--
'''Yes indeed''' I've been very impressed by Pastor Theo's contributions and interactions about the place.--
'''Support''' As per Balloonman who is one of the best and intense judges of Candidates and would have spent hours before noming the candidate.Also as per track see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user geting tools.
'''Support''' - A review of Paster Theo's contribution history shows no reason not to support. This is backed up by my own (admittedly limited) interaction with him, in which I found him knowledgeable, courteous and happy to collaborate with other editors. Balloonman's CSD endorsement is a good sign also.
'''Support'''. Solid contributor. Solid principles.
'''Support''' Quality edits & trustworthy. I'm sure he'll make an excellent admin. Best of luck. --
'''Support''' - I'm very impressed by his contributions and the demeanor Pastor Theo has displayed. I think he'll make an excellent administrator.
Pastor Theo's only been here for 6 months? From what I've seen of him, I would have thought he was here a lot longer than that. Perhaps that's just the impression I've gotten from him as an smart, friendly, reasonable guy. Not a hard decision here.
'''Support''' Seen him around often. No reservations at all as candidate would most definitely be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] with the mop. <font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' per answers to my questions and my basic wikistalking of his edits & editsummary.
'''Support''' per answers to Tedder's questions. Had he not asked these, I would have asked similar ones myself. I am satisfied you will maintain NPOV and, as you say, Wikipedia's academic nature. You'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I was apprehensive at first but after reading answers #4 and #5 and checking out some of his contributions I rest assured this editor is here for the right reasons, and answer to #7 shows he's got a clue. --
'''Support'''.  I'm impressed with his answers.  Pastor Theo also was one of the few people who supported my first RfA, so I'd be a fool not to return the favor.
'''Support''' - your answer to my question shows thoughtfulness and rationality. More than happy to support. \
'''Support''' I've always been impressed, very trustworthy. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' regardless of said "major failing". I forgive thee; best of luck, Pastor! '''
'''Support''' Balloonman rather buries the lead in the nomination; the candidate's being a Yankee fan, which earns just a mention, is, of course, ''prima facie'' evidence of unfitness for adminship, and really for life as well.  Because I'm in need of good karma, starting a ton of Yankees tomorrow across my fantasy teams, looking for the team to rake against [[Jason Vargas]], though, and because it is clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysyop(p)ed should be positive]], I am compelled to support.
I've seen him making reasoned arguments in discussions. --
'''Strong Support''' You'll make a great admin. You're one of the most civil and insightful user around here. (In all honesty I was going to ask you if you wanted to run this month, looks like someone bet me to it :) ) <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Strong Support''' as I've seen nothing but good from Pastor Theo. He's doing nothing but good for the project, and the tools will only increase how useful he will be. I think he'll make a fine admin. ···
''÷
No need for words.
'''Support''' As the Mets are struggling to get over .500, it's okay to root for the Yankees. At least it's not a Boston team.
'''Support''' I've bumped into the Pastor a few times, and had already made a note to support this RFA when it came up. But I've also checked and glad to see the clean block log, civil talk page and archives. You might want to expand your answer to Q11 though - other  times when it can be OK to  edit a protected page  include when the warring parties  still can't agree on the artists genre or drug addictions but want an admin to make the changes they are agreed on ''
'''Support'''. No reason to believe you'd abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I think Pastor Theo's real-life experience would serve him well in the role of administrator. [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo|audit]] of deleted contribs shows nothing to worry about. However, I urge him to think about the implications of Q8. ''[[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]] blocked [[User:ThereIsNoGod|ThereIsNoGod]] (disruptive editing)'' may cause some eyebrows to be raised, even if the block is totally appropriate (as pointed out by ''dekimasu''). <tt>
'''Support''' An absolute pleasure to support a dedicated quality candidate. Per Ballonman's nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
No reason not to.
'''Support''' per Balloonman's nomination who says everything I could have considered to say. As a minor advice, you might want to use more descriptive edit summaries when tagging articles for speedy deletion, e.g. "requesting speedy deletion (A7)" instead of simply "A7". Regards '''
'''Support''' No problems here. A good candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Excellent contribs, even-tempered, clueful. --'''''
'''per nom, per above.''' I for one am not much of an article builder and seldom discuss policy. We need more admins who are not "hardasses," who "devote extra time in conversing with the editor," and who don't brawl. Cheers,
'''Support''' – I like the answers to the questions, and the run-ins with him at AFD indicates to me that he has good working knowledge of the deletion policy.
'''Support''' – I've only seen positive from this editor, and in general he possesses a nice level of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. I already thought PT was an admin by his demeanor, which is a good sign. IMO article-writing is nice but not a requirement for adminship, and if an editor has an exceptional sense of what is good judgement with potential content disputes, it overrides those pretty-looking GA/FA credits, or lack thereof.
'''Support''' – His edits are always sensible, NPOV, and completely adhering to WP policies and guidelines. We need more admins like
Easily one of my '''stronger supports''' as of late.  Candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in multiple ways: 1) candidate has never been blocked; 2) candidate is listed as a [[User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts|nice Wikipedian]]; 3) candidate is an article creator; 4) candidate is an article rescuer; 5) candidate has rollback (i.e. some admin trusted him enough to give him those tools); 5) candidate's fellows editors appreciate his edits as seen with [[User:Pastor_Theo#Wiki_Snacks]] and [[User:Pastor_Theo#Wiki_Honors]]; 6) candidate has earned some DYK credits; 7) candidate says to delete articles when it is reasonable to say so as at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisters of the Poor Child Ziko]]; and 7) candidate says to keep or merge articles when it is reasonable to argue as such as at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila (Peanuts)]] (one caution here is to remember it is not a vote and so a reason is prefereable to just a stance), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women in Shakespeare (2nd nomination)]], and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination)]].  Candidate is clearly not partisan or biased (again, good reasons to delete and good reasons to keep) so can be trusted to close AfDs based on these examples.  How often can I cite SEVEN unique positives as reasons for supporting?  Best, --
'''Support''' Seen him around AfD, seems like a reasonable guy.  Answers to my questions were sufficient.
'''About Time'''.  I have been waiting for this rfa for awhile.  Good Luck!  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong support'''.  Something I call a traditional candidate: ~5K edits, general article work in the mainspace, Wikiproject work, and some healthy work in an administrative area. '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
[[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
—&nbsp;
'''Support''', pretty obvious.
'''Strong support'''. Very active and responsible editor with enormous contribution.
'''Support''' &mdash; Answers to questions demonstrate competency.  If you had chosen a secular user name, with a few religious userboxes on your page, I suspect that you would not be questioned so much about hypotheticals.  And with regard to the issue in the Oppose section about his name, any claim of bias that uses a user's name as its foundation should be met with appropriate amounts of laughter. —
'''Support''' My encounter with this user tells me that he's civil and willing to learn.--
'''Support''': why not?
'''Support''' Only wish this RfA had been put forward sooner.  --
'''Strong support''' Very rational contributor; seems unbiased and dedicated to the project.  Also, being part of the civility police is a ''good'' thing. '''
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' Seems like a very reasonable person. While the declared Pastor-ness might have been a concern, it does seem to me that PastorTheo thinks about the separation of church and wikipedia which is good enough for me (we can't obviously leave our identities completely behind!). Of the various neutral concerns below, I think he/she pushed too hard on the Majorly RfA (it was rather unchristian, if I may be permitted the small joke!) but presumably that was a one time thing and I don't see a pattern here. The answers to the questions are excellent too. What's not to like? --
'''Support''' Solid contributor who has left me with a positive impression of them.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
[[User:Aditya/RfA|Support]] - I know you're a pastor, but it would keep things much simpler if you could keep religion out of discussions. '''
'''Support''' in spite of [[New York Yankees|the major flaw]]. Clueful and polite editor who seems to understand policy. (FWIW, as an atheist I've had no problems at all with his editing.)--
'''Support'''. Thought he was one already.
'''Support''' Was thinking of  opposing until I read Friday's and Peters comment which makes me think maybe Ive misjudged.  I have almost the opposite concern – that when you do criticise  you dont always take care to ensure your criticism is constructive -  as in the diff Majorly  posted and your comment on Mr Bloom's RFA  only yesterday.  Most wont mind, but some will find such comments gratuitous and offensive – all the more so as you're a very well respected editor.  For the encyclopaedia to be successful its important that folk are as nice as possible even when criticising – otherwise we'll never have the pleasant , collaborative atmosphere our work needs.   Changing to support now  looks like over 99% of  your work is positive and I remember you being very supportative  in the aftermath of unfortunate drama back in May.
'''Strong Support''' Definitely! I also think that being a 'civility cop' is a good thing, sometimes people need to be reminded. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Superman Strong Support''' He wasn't an admin already?
'''Support''', more admins are required that don't just pay lip service to our civility policies.
'''Support''' per Peter Damian.
'''Support''' Per nom and plus and even better he's a Yankee fan.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' an admin with interest in AfD who has support from all of the people above with such very different views is what we need. '''
Happy to support. I've noticed for some time that his mainspace edits consistently uphold npov, reflecting his answer to Q4, and his work at XfD, etc., shows he understands and can be trusted with the tools. I had to chuckle at his answer to Q7, as one who's been known to re-read instruction manuals myself{{spaced ndash}}even going so far as to add index tabs (sometimes).{{(:}} <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Theo has been helpful and productive. He knows his way around and provides thoughtful rationale. I see little risk in granting him sysop status.
'''Support''' Definitely an upstanding and trustworthy candidate, no worries.
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Very strong support''' You've helped me whenever I've requested an image for an article. Allow me to pay my respects by offering my support in return.--
'''Support''' - Pastor Theo has about 4k edits, but they are quality edits. He has also started about 40 articles. I also analyzed his other edits, and they are good.
'''Support''' – Contributions demonstrate article building, thoughtful additions to discussions; clueful. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' I have no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - Will be a reasonable person with the tools.
'''Support''' The pastor has class, style, and knows how to put a point across. And since when is it a crime to be a nice guy?
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' I don't see why not. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' The answer to question 3 did trouble me as disagreements will happen. (It's only a matter of time.) However, after looking at his contributions, I think that he would be able to handle any conflicts that may appear.
'''Weak support'''.  Your positive contributions to the growth of Wikipedia (dozens of articles) are the most important to me in deciding whether to support or not, and for the "tldr" crowd, I'm supporting because you do a dang good job making the encyclopedia better.  That said, I'll go on. :-) I think the diff provided by Iridescent (in the oppose section below from Majorly's most recent application for re-tooling), is very offputting to other editors, myself included.  So a quandary has presented itself.  I really don't think you'll be a "civility police" type person, nor do I think you'll hit people over the head as "morality police" because your username contains "pastor" in it.  You haven't shown any malice towards anyone, I don't see any inclination that you'll start, and the fact that the "diff" is from the Majorly RFA which was contentious all around and got the best of a lot of people,  I've decided to call it a one-off.  You went there to call someone out for calling someone a name (but not really, it turns out), and you came off rather poorly in a text-driven community: condescention.  But I don't believe that was specifically your intention.  ''However'', as an admin, you are going to get slammed with people deciding what you "mean" when you type things.  The nice card won't work as well as I think you think it will work.  Been there, bought the t-shirt.  Hence the "weak" in the support.  I think you'll do fine, but I also think you'll burn out, and start to become disillusioned (sp) with wikipedia and will slowly (or quickly) leave once an admin.  We need content builders, and you strike me as someone very good at it.  I think the tools will get in the way, actually.  I'm supporting because I want to be wrong and that you'll be a good, honest, and fair admin of this website.  I'm hoping you withdraw your request, to be honest, because I know it will drive you nuts to have the "extra tools", if in fact you use them.
'''Support''' I support his canidacy, but I also wonder about his low number of edits. Since he has shown a varied backround, that concern doesn't matter since he has a reputable image on this site.
'''Support''' Very solid contributions and good dealings with user.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' I was on the fence but Q16 threw me over. Very good answer. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
<s>'''Support'''</s>.  I'm eminently satisfied with this user's contributions, and I'm bewildered by the highly trivial nature of the opposes.—
'''Support'''. It's a long time since I felt the need to comment/vote at an RfA, but, as a confirmed and sometimes militant atheist, I must say that I don't see any evidence that the good pastor "pulls rank" or does anything else that the opposers have claimed. All I see are reasoned arguments with the occasional need to declare a possible conflict of interest as a Christian. We should welcome the fact that an editor declares any such conflict of interest, even when, as in all the cases I can find, it doesn't influence Theo's Wikipedia edits.
'''Support'''. I trust this user with extra rights - nuff said.
'''Support'''.  I had to think about this one for a while.  I would have liked to see more insight demonstrated in the answers to my questions and a couple others, and the initial answer to Q11 was technically wrong (although it aired on the side of caution, which is good).  Overall, however, the answers were solid and the answers the religion "conflict of interest type" questions were exceptional. Furthur, I can see Theo abusing the tools.  Thus, I ended up picking support. --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' This guy has very good contributions, and the opposes are just plain ridiculous... as X! said, it's a very sad day when people are opposed for being civil... <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Per above although I wouldn't exactly refer to him as "with enormous contribution". I would however like to see him continue his work in the mainspace particularly in the field of philately and not purely focus on closing afds etc.
'''Support''', will make a great admin.
'''Support''' We need more administrators who are mature and responsible.  Pastor Theo will be a strong asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --
'''Support'''.  per the nom and the above.
'''Support'''.  This was a tough one for me.  I thought there were a couple very valid opposes, as well as some very strong reasons to support - so for me it comes down to my own interactions with the good Pastor.  While not being a Pittsburgh sports fan might lead me to an oppose ;), in truth all my interactions have been very positive ones.  I've found Pastor Theo to be kind, considerate, and willing to work hard to achieve a solution that benefited the project.  I just don't envision him using the tools to go on some "civility crusade", but rather I see him as leading by example in how to interact with others in a positive and polite manner.  Best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' I feel I can trust Pastor Theo to use the admin tools to the benefit of the community. I am also influenced by A Nobody's comments above. --
'''Extremely Strong Support'''  Per epic contributions, experience, and above all humanity. '''
'''Support''' — nobody is perfect, the pastor makes a reasonable approximation.
'''Support''' - from what I've seen of his actions around Wikipedia, he would make a sensible, level-headed admin.  And because someone has to be 99th on the way to [[WP:100]](!)
'''Support''' per nom---'''
'''Support''' without equivocation. His work at AfD and his understanding of guideline has been instrumental in continued growth and improvement to the project.
'''Support''' I have been looking forward to supporting Pastor Theo's RfA for a while now, an excellent candidate.  --
'''Strong Support''' <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">
'''Support''' The opposes did weigh on my decision, but I still believe Pastor Theo will be a net positive.
'''Support'''. As for Irid's link, I agree that in general one should not act as the Civility Police. However, it is perfectly reasonable to point out instances of incivility in an RfA. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose'''. Few mainspace edits, and a large percentage of those appear to be adding tags and categories, or adding and removing AFD and PROD templates (especially since your second month or so). Can't find much evidence of policy knowledge outside of deletion because almost all Wikipedia space edits are concerned with it (or RFA); almost no edits to policy-related pages or discussion of policies. Sorry, I just don't see enough breadth of experience here, and there's little to indicate how you would react to conflict. [[User:Pastor Theo/Archive 1#File:0JohnXIIIVCstamp.jpg listed for deletion|This]] is a little disconcerting to me, because you appeared to be intent upon shifting the burden of proof to the person who nominated your image for deletion, rather than showing that the image was compliant. In such a deletion discussion, Wikipedia's copyright policies are what is in question, and you appear to have equated "royalty free" with "public domain".
Changing from support. I hadn't realised you were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=292563718&oldid=292563675 this user]. No more self-appointed Civility Police, thanks.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
I have concerns about his level of clue.  Specifically, he doesn't appear to understand that criticism is allowed.  We have too many admins already who think that being superficially ''nice'' is more important than doing what's right.  We don't need more of that.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) '''PS''' I specifically mean [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=prev&oldid=292561226 this diff].  If Majorly thinks I'm a poor admin who should step down, he absolutely should say so.  This emphasis on never being critical damages the project.
'''Oppose''' - very sorry but there are a number of reasons. Lack of awareness of an important issue that is tearing the community apart ('vested contributors' is a pejorative term applied to many content contributors - I have been called that a few times). Apparently thinking that being 'nice' is more important than doing what is right.  Sometimes severe criticism is needed.  And, no more 'self appointed civility police'.  Again, I am sorry about this as you seem a very decent person.
'''Oppose''' I am honestly not convinced, after reviewing this user's contributions and history, that they have the necessary tact and understanding of how Wikipedia policy works (rather than simply what it says) to perform effectively as an admin. I am generally in agreement with several of the other oppose votes above, especially after reading the diff presented by Iridescent. Given how many admin-related issues today involve BLP and other content issues, I would also like to see more content contributions.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns in the same vein as the those raised above. I've been a bit concerned for a while now about Theo's input to ban/block/unban/unblock discussions that have given me the impression he has a philosophical objection to banning and long term blocking and takes an almost obstructionist position to it without providing any realistic alternative solutions or addressing the rationale for the block or ban in the first place. For example, when we were considering the appeal of Eddie Segoura, the so-called "Exicornt Vandal", Theo advocated unbanning and referred to his ""day job"... provid[ing] counseling for individuals who have been released from prison and who are trying to navigate their way back into society" and advocated unblocking because "he has acknowledged his error," this regardless of the fact that Eddie refused to anser straight forward questions about recent activities and later admitted that he was also still socking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=285776667] As a qualified but non-practicing minister myself I appreciate Theo's position but I really believe that his attitude that "If [a user] is asking to return to the community, he should be welcomed" is impractical, unrealistic and potentially very disruptive, and having seen Theo participate in other ban/block/ discussions I fear that this is his general approach to Wikipedia. Certainly it is nice to be nice and to welcome back banned users who have reformed and sometimes it works out as a very positive thing (eg Root) but sadly not everyone is suited to this project, just as not everyone is suited to adminship, and to take a position that someone who has asked to return should be welcomed back as though they are a kind of[[Prodigal Son]], regardless of whether they've reformed or not or even show any sign of wanting to reform, is, IMHO, a recipe for disruption. As Peter Damian says above, "apparently thinking that being 'nice' is more important than doing what is right". I also agree with the concerns raised above about civility police, content experience and policy concerns (and not just understanding policy but a willingness to enforce it even when it's not "nice"), all of which appears to me to reflect an attempt to extend ministry to the project in a way that I don't think is helpful. Theo is a very nice fellow and I know that he means well, so I find it difficult to oppose his candidacy but I just don't think this nomination is a good idea. Though I'll be very happy to be proved wrong.
'''Oppose''' nothing personal, but he's only been editing a little over 7 months, with only about 4k edits.  I don't like to be picky about the edit count, but I don't feel he has the experienced enough.  I would be willing to reconsider after more edits and more time with the project.  As far as neutrality or appropriateness of his behavior; I'm not seeing any major problems.  You seem to be a respectable member of the community.  --'''
'''Oppose''' per lack of well-rounded experience writing articles, maybe down the road apiece...
'''Oppose''', per iridescent.
Completely agree with the points made by several above, escpecially Friday, Peter Damien, and Iridescent. There are already too many in positions of authority who see their role as forcing everyone else to be nice to each other. --
'''Oppose''' - Moved from Neutral after seeing the "Eddie Segoura" comment cited by Sarah, which causes me to think that this user has less "clue" than I gave him credit for. Less importantly, I'm also bothered by the lack of insight displayed by responses to Q11. Here's most of what I said earlier: I am bothered by what I see as a "holier than thou" judgmental attitude (including making reference to his credentials as a pastor) that I see this user expressing in various places, notably in the comments he made on RfAs for [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Orlady|me]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2|Majorly]] (noted above), [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]], and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Markhurd|Markhurd]]. I hope I'm over-reacting. ''Background:'' This user's name was familiar to me, so I looked to see where we have interacted. I smiled to see the diversity of the topics he's worked on. I see that he has done useful work in areas such as tagging useless new images for speedy deletion. I did see that he had made small contributions to several articles on my watchlist (like [[White Plains, New York]]) and I found that I am the one who promoted his first WP:DYK contribution (for a nice little article about a race horse). Then I found his RfA contributions, which are numerous. Most are perfunctory "support" !votes (seldom indicating reasons), but several of the opposes and neutrals strike me as "pulling rank' as a man of the cloth. That's a stance that Wikipedia doesn't need in administrators. --
'''Oppose''' per Iri's diff and a few above me. I also think you could do with a username change. I think the overtones are a bit much. '''
'''Oppose''' per the same comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=292563718&oldid=292563675] as the others.  Frankly, I would have taken that as a bit of silly humor except that apparently you were serious about it.  It doesn't seem to be a one-time  misunderstanding, either.  So no, we don't need that sort of non-nuanced viewpoint in an administrator who can block other editors.
'''Opose''' per the comments above about Theo's unforgiving attitude on civility and excessively forgiving attitude to vandals and disruptive editors. That is completely the wrong way round. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not counsel delinquents or opinionated ignoramuses. If that means telling "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GiacomoReturned&oldid=300315111 Randy from Boise]" that his comments and / or edits are stupid, so be it. --
'''Oppose''' - per Iridescent's diff. Project does not need another member of the Civility Brigade offering condescending self-righteous tsk-tsking during heated debate - especially not one armed with the tools. Hastily throwing cold water on any and every heated debate leaves us with nothing more than lukewarm results.
'''Oppose'''. The tipping balance for me was the two comments to Orlady's RFA, diffs for which were given by Orlady a couple of posts up.<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Oppose''' Sarah and Orlady's diffs put me over the edge. I think the reasons they don't please me are outlined clearly enough above. Since this RfA looks like it will pass, I hope you can learn from your mistakes and take the opposers' advice to heart when making tough decisions and comments as an admin.
'''Oppose''' per malleus, noting that such a statement may very well bring down a wikipocalypse upon us all.
'''Weak oppose'''—Per Malleus and Iridescent. I could be persuaded otherwise, but experience and sensitivity in interpreting [[WP:CIVIL]] is important.
'''Oppose'''  Seven months of active participation does not give a candidate a sufficient breadth and depth of experience to sufficiently wield adminship. Too many important and unresolved issues of the preceeding 12 months (for eg) risk being summarily assessed by secondhand evidence or subjective conclusion, instead of by participation or at least from the benefit of contemporaneous awareness. The Pastor may not break the Wiki but he appears to wish to use such overly-condensed experience and minimal content-building and high auto/tag ratio to push a [[Ned Flanders|Flanderisation]] of it. .
My only encounter with Pastor was at my RFA, where he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=292638723&oldid=292636406 misinterpreted] my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=292563718&oldid=292563675 comments] quite significantly. I did not like the way he tried to draw attention to his false conclusion of events by formatting it in bold. I'd have probably opposed because of this, but it's only one poor act of judgement and some would probably take delight in claiming an oppose was a "revenge" vote. So it's a neutral. Please don't try to talk about things you clearly don't understand, because as in this case, you got it wrong. And it's not fair on an RFA candidate when you're drawing the wrong conclusions and making them stand out so others will draw the wrong conclusion too. The comment "Don't blame Malleus for your bad manners" was particularly insulting, as I did nothing of the sort. '''
Simply put, I have some of the same concerns as the two above me, and I don't feel 100% comfortable giving him the tools. '''
'''Neutral''' My only interaction with Pastor Theo was during Majorly's RfA. In it, I became concerned by his interpretation that "berating a long-time contributor" was inappropriate. As well as his oversensitivity to the berating, I was also concerned about the mention of the subject being a "long-term contributor": all editors are equal regardless of longevity. Although Pastor Theo avoided referring to [[WP:CIVIL]], I am concerned about giving this user the ability to block others. However, competence at CSD and XfD attested to by Balloonman, PT's general cluefullness (which I think is demonstrated by his careful handling of religious articles to rule out suggestions of a conflict of interest), and his response to question one where he states his intention to work in areas of deletion rather than blocking means I do not think this a reason to oppose on its own. Despite this, I do not support giving the ability to block to someone apparently so sensitive. Since PT has apparently not been in any stressful run-ins with other users I cannot be certain how he would handle the situation were it to arise (and active admins do have to deal with a lot of abuse).
'''Wanting to support, but reluctantly having to be neutral''' I really want to say support; I do. But the concerns raised in the other Neutral votes cause me to have doubts. I partly think that my doubts are biased - I've had no real interaction with Pastor Theo. Whether that increases or decreases the bias in my vote, I am not sure. I just know that I feel a little uncomfortable saying that I support, but that I would be being way too harsh in a vote of oppose. So in the end, here's my vote. -
'''Neutral''' - most of the above doesn't bother me, but three of those actions I am uncomfortable with: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMajorly_2&diff=292561226&oldid=292561188 "long-time contributor"] is irrelevant in that situation and it worries me that this user is of a "seniority" mindset which is at odds with the Wikipedia community (in theory, anyway); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FOttava_Rima&diff=281416641&oldid=281412790 "...Matthew 7:3-5 -- I think some people in the Oppose and Neutral sections need to look that one up."] is pretty at odds with the candidate's above statement that he's not going to "set up the revival tent and [start] preaching." (pointing to Bible verses sounds pretty preachy to me); and [[User:Pastor Theo/Archive 1#File:0JohnXIIIVCstamp.jpg listed for deletion|the public domain stamp dispute]] just looks like stubbornness to me, the onus ''was'' on the candidate and that he never listened to this but continuously tried to put it on the other editor shows poor judgment in that instance. These are all minor mistakes, and I can't think of any editor who has had a better first 6 months (including me), but they're too recent for me to support. Success in this RfA looks likely right now, so I just ask that the candidate takes the oppose(s) and neutrals to heart. I encourage the candidate's response to my comments if he wishes, and won't consider it badgering. -
I almost want to oppose this RfA as I have several issues which other users have pointed out. I have never seen the diff Iridescent has presented before, but it's particularly concerning. I do, however, feel that you have made good contributions to this project and haven't been uncivil if we ignore the aforementioned diff, and those two qualities are the ones I tend to oppose on most. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
I don't know if a neutral vote is much use to anyone, but I have one anyway. I know Pastor Theo from their AfD work, which I appreciate greatly, and where I found them to be reasonable and well aware of the guidelines, though I find myself a bit less liberal with them than I would be. However, I feel that some 4,000 edits is not a lot, and I want a bit more writing experience from my administrators. But no prejudice against future nomination! (That was my obligatory redundant remark.) Regardless of how this goes, good luck Pastor.
'''Support''' As nom. '''
'''Support''' per nom, and discussions like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CardinalDan/Archive_6#CSD.23G3 this]. All evidence points towards a reasonable editor who has the interests of the project at heart.
'''Support''' Good find.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' Oh, why not?
'''Support''' Seems rational, open and honest. Good luck!
'''Support''' Patar is a solid editor who I'm sure will use the admin tools well.
'''Support''', I like the answer to my question.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; I trust the nom, and the candidate seems fine. –'''
'''Support''' The candidate has an extremely impressive history at [[WP:MILHIST]].  A strong record of assessing shows not only devotion to the project, but is a good indicator that the editor is familiar with a lot of the intricacies that can and will pop up during his tenure as an admin. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I think Patar knight would make a great admin based on his contributions to date, and I see nothing which indicates possible abuse of the tools. ···
'''Support''' I'm a bit wary when someone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Englert&diff=prev&oldid=297066251 tags an article as A7] and then ''after it was declined'' improves it to demonstrate that it would not have met A7 anyway. But it's the only problem that I saw when checking the last months of the candidate's contributions. Other than that, I see no problem with their speedy work and I have not found any other problems that would give me a reason to oppose. If you get the mop, just remember to rather make improvements like the one mentioned above before considering deletion. Regards '''
'''Support''' is helpful with userfication and speedy deletion nomination.  However has hardly uploaded any files!
'''Support''' mainly per SoWhy and for a clean block log and civil communication, also I had some positive discussions with the candidate in March ([[User talk:Patar knight/Archive 3#Ciera keyes]]). ''
MBisanz is quickly becoming, if he wasn't already, one of the best RFA nominators, and users like Patar are the reason why. :) '''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
Per well thought out answer to Q4. '''
I looked at the AfD brought up by Dlohcierekim, and while you had a misconception about the speedy deletion process, I'm sure you have learned from the experience now it has been brought up and clarified.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' My first time in contributing to these; I've looked at his logs and he seems to be the type of person one'd want.
'''Canadian, eh?''' I like the citations for article reviewing, he's given very good answers to the questions, and we need more admins working CSD.  On top of that, I trust SoWhy's review and Matt's nom. - Dank (
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor that would convince me he would abuse the tools. The answers to the questions are good as well.
'''Support''' Patar knight is a very expierenced editor, so he is the perfect choice to become an admin.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Seems fine.
'''Support''' excellent answer to Q4. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that you have [[User:Patar_knight#Honours_and_Decorations]], have never been blocked, no one is currently opposing you, and per good or reasonable arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsaber_combat_(6th_nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch City]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force lightning]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', good answers to questions. --
'''Support''' I find this user trustworthy enough for some extra buttons.--
'''Support''' ''Luke, come over to the dark side...'' :) In all seriousness though, good editor, good contributions, and good luck.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' reasonable chance of being a net positive :)
'''Support''' Couldn't think of a better candidate.
'''Support''' &ndash; The candidate seems to be mature and level-headed with a good understanding of policy. He also interacts well with others, which is very important for an administrator.
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' As per track and user has been around since Sept 2006.
'''Support''' In general I do not support candidates whose age is under 18. However, I believe the candidate can be trusted as an administrator because he is calm, highly mature, clueful, intelligent and civil. The answers that he gave us show his high understanding of Wiki policies and rules that need for administrators. So why not? --
Definitely trustworthy.
'''Support''' Solid candidate. I've seen some of his posts in various places, always clueful, well thought out, and friendly.  Easy to work with. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>

'''Support''' from one young'in to another. Good luck!
'''Support''', based on a real life acquaintance. Quite nice, supportive, trustworthy, all this compounded by his work in various projects on Wikipedia. Definitely a solid candidate who'd make a good admin. [[User:The Userboxer|The Userboxer]]<sup>[[User Talk:The Userboxer|Complain]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''', I've looked through this user's edits, and he's hardworking, polite, and sincerely wants to improve the 'pedia. &ndash;
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
I never knew Patar knight is as young as he is: I've seen him around many times before, and always thought that he has good judgment, and that he was older. Regarding "stressful adminship situations", the only people who find adminship stressful are admins who seek out drama: regular admin work has hardly brought about any stress in my own experience and in the experience of other admins I've asked about stress. He's been on Wikipedia for nearly three years it seems too, and he's familiar with what's going on here.
'''Support''' This user is a very friendly and helpful user that I meet a while ago. He is a user who understands policy and with the tools will be a very effective editor. I have no doubt he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' I have worked with this editor for a couple of years at Milhist and always found him unfailingly courteous, hardworking, and sensible. He's not going to rush around breaking things. With a wise head on young but broad shoulders, he'll make a fine addition to the admin corps. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. I was surprised to see you were under 18 - all contributions I've seen from you did not give me that impression. In the end, that's what matters to me - I will scrutinise younger RfA candidates more because there's a greater chance of immaturity; but if it all looks good (as it does with you) it causes me no issue. I'm very impressed with your contribution record and your question answers, and I'm confident you'll do well as an admin. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' No reason to believe that you would misuse the tools, and you seem to always have a clear, cool head on your shoulders. From one Canadian minor to another, <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Good trouble-shooter.
'''Support''' -
'''Support.'''  I have good respect for his work and wikignomic energy.  Like others, I was surprised to learn the candidate was only 16.  He has consistently come across as having more maturity and knowledgeability than many RfA candidates I’ve seen who are much older.  I don’t see the point behind those opposing his nom because of his youth; maturity is not conferred automatically at a particular age and absent prior to it.  On Wikipedia, his three years of commendable contributions play a more significant role and suggest he is ready for the bit.  Does he need to learn more about the in’s and out’s of Wikipedia?  Of course, so do we all, admins and non-admins alike.
'''Support'''  If he can do the work, we need him.  There's nothing magical about a birthday.--
'''Oppose'''
Sorry, but I believe that non-adults should not be administrators absent exceptional circumstances. This is because adminship can occasionally involve very high-stress situations, which have a potential to impact the real life of the administrator and other people, and it is significantly more likely that non-adults, who have comparatively less life experience than adults, will on occasion not be able to handle these situations well. I stress that this is a purely abstract consideration and not a personal assessment with respect to Patar knight, whom I would likely be glad to support as soon as he's a bit older. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">

'''Oppose''' - Sorry. It's the age thing. While we obviously have many excellent administrators who are under 18--several of whom I would consider friends--I don't believe Wikipedia should promote any more, period. Admins must, to a lesser extent than Oversighters, deal with potentially legally-sensitive information. Were that information to be leaked out of Wikipedia (as has happened at times, I don't have links handy), any legal ramifications (particularly civil suits( could fall upon the minor's parents. I don't think that's something we should be encouraging; people must be responsible for their edits here, and the capacity to view sensitive deleted information brings with it the capability to do something with that information. At least if an admin is over 18 they are legally responsible for their own actions, in both the criminal and civil sense. Don't get me wrong, you seem to be a fine contributor and not in the slightest bit prone to any rashness. I just think we should have a bright-line policy about anyone with extra buttons required to be over the age of majority in the jurisdictions in which Wikipedia is legally incorporated. Won't happen, of course, but still. //
'''Opposer'''—After such good answers to my questions (and others), unfortunately I have to agree about the age issue. There's a very promising candidate, but not for at least a year. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q13 is vague and doesn't give clue: here, as for most of the questions, it lacks examples (actual or hypothetical) and especially diffs, which would help to see beyond the somewhat by-rote and insubstantial responses. As for Q12, differentiating by age of a minor is ''not'' comparable to doing so by gender, race, religion etc - the reasons as outlined by Roux (and by other editors/admins elsewhere) explain why. Whereas the extent of these potential issues and risks are open to  interpretation and debate, it is ostrich-like - if not willfully and stubbornly dismissive - to insist that they don't exist at all and that to hold otherwise is unfairly discriminatory. That the candidate chooses to use this its-discrimination-like-all-the-others argument and then direct that such opposes be considered invalid is telling. Yes, it is frustrating but who should want adminship so much to run such risks anyway?
'''Oppose'''. The user incorrectly judged the situation during a move request at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&oldid=298811336#Requested_move], claiming that there was a consensus when in fact there was none (see my argumentation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Offliner#Re:RfA_concern]). Such mistakes are something that admins should not do, especially if he intends to close similar discussions in the future. Answer to question 13 was sufficient, but I'd like to have heard a more detailed answer. I'm also concerned about point 1 in the neutral section. Other than that, the candidate looks good, but I cannot support at this point.
I am concerned about the lack of understanding at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariofan110]]. Anyone can remove a CSD tag. Even if we believe it is obviously speediable. Even if we believe it's a sock.
Currently, he's beating around the bush in too many of the answers (q4,q6,q7). <s>I'll wait until more questions and answers trickle in.</s> --
'''Support''' Candidate appears to be solid and should be a net positive.--
'''Support''' - Clueful editor with varied experience. Will be a benefit. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Long on contributions; short on drama. No worries. --
'''Support''' -He is great guy, excellent contributor and has an excllent way of staying away from wikidrama. My only concern is that on occasions he is absent for a great deal of time and that his interest towards the project may waver. For instance he left for a whole year between November 11, 2007 and October 27, 2008. Since however he seems to have become a very consistent editor and seems to have taken encouragement from somewhere that the project is worthwhile.Not sure why he needs the tools though, although he may find them useful for certain tasks, I hope it won't affect his development of the Cambodian districts!.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', looks great. No concerns. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Can't beat the noms, can't beat the edits, can't beat the value of this editor having the bit. —
"Nukewar" ;) approves of this user. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Good experiences with this trustworthy editor, no reason for concern. '''
'''Support''' - Nothing but good experiences. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - excellent contributor.
'''Support''' he's an excellent contributor with a lot of experience.
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate. Content contributor, civil (despite dropping the F-bomb nine hours ago), and has a good grasp of policies and procedures. There are some sizeable gaps in editing history, but this is a volunteer project and real life gets hectic at times.
'''Support''' - a good candidate with no problems I can see. The answer to his absence is understandable and no reason for any concern. I cannot share the concerns of Wisdom's oppose; admins are perfectly allowed to perform admin actions within the scope of their interests, as long as they are not involved in the dispute that needs administrative intervention. Regards '''
'''
'''Support''' Excellent contributions.
'''Support''' Solid contributor.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' My sincerest condolences on your daughter.
'''Support'''. Not enough administrators currently.
'''Support'''.  I don't often give a straight support to someone I don't know from AfD, because normally I want to see the prospective admin's attitude to deletion, but in this case I find the contributions are sufficient for me to decide.—
'''Strong Support''' Clean block log, civil talk and edit summaries, lots of quality contributions, (over 12,000 manual edits as well as over 2,000 automated ones). As Tan pointed out we are short of admins and I think Paxse is a great candidate. ''
'''Support''' - Dan
'''Support''' - Changed from oppose. See below for details.
'''Support''' Sterling contributions in two much-needed spheres. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support:''' Having worked with Paxse at ACC and having stalked his contributions and talk page for a couple of months, I'm confident that he will make a superb administrator.
'''Support''' Great contribs, and per GlassCobra. '''''
'''Support''' As nom. '''
One need only look at his progress in the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] to know this user cares for the project in ways many current admins do not.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
Exactly per Garden. Absolutely impressed by work in WikiCup, clearly dedicated user. Good luck! <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Looks Good. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' No concerns on the horizon. I really liked the answer to #4.
'''Support''' per Tan. <small>And because I fully trust the candidate.</small> &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Looks like somebody I would trust.
'''Strong support''' Excellent user. It's great to see activity on Cambodia related articles. SE Asia is pretty much dead on WP, unfortunately, well done '''
'''Support''' per Dr. Blofeld --
'''Support''' per no objection found :) G'luck! <strong>
'''Support''' Nom says it all.... I like it! -'''
'''Support''' Per MBisanz and Synergy. --
'''Rather-astonished-he-wasn't-already-support''' - //
'''Support''' per nomination. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''', and may you get many more DYK Cambodian articles. ;-) --
'''Support'''. Short on the Wikipedia-space edits that I like to see, but clue outweighs that for the moment.
'''Support'''' Really helpful on ACC.
'''Absolutely''' Helped provide an outside opinion on [[Ice Wine]], nothing but great interactions with Paxse in the past (other than getting ACC requests sniped before I could get to them)--
'''Support''' No complaints.
'''Support''' Per nominator, excelent ACC work - it seems to me this editor keeps out of the drama boards and just does what keeps them happy - and that the tools will only help further. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concern. The opposer's comment is devoid of merit to an almost alarming extent.
'''Support'''.  Strong candidate doing great work.  --
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' User has been around since Oct 2005 and has used Rollback very well and good track in particular in Cambodia related articles.
'''Support'''. See no reason to think candidate will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per everyone else :D--
'''Support''' - Great editor, will definitely be a + to the Wikipedia community. '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' - Very nice contributions and a well-rounded candidate for adminship.  Good luck,
'''Support''' - Good head on shoulders.
'''Support''' I see no alarms. --
'''Support''' definite positive, no red flags.
''''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''- Maybe if we give him the mop, he'll stop hogging the ACC requests :)
'''Support''' because this person sounds like a real winner.
'''Support'''. Good communication skills particularly; is on IRC (re ACC) regularly; no other complaints. -
'''Strong support''' not only based on his legendary ACC work (nearly 900 accounts?!), the noms, and the enviable amount of DYK's, but also [[User talk:Paxse#ACC help|our first ]][[User talk:Dylan620#Hey Dylan|interaction]]; I asked Paxse for help and he kindly gave me what I wanted. He should be an admin both here '''and''' at ACC! [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent user <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, has numerous DYK credits, and as an adopter in adopt a user is dedicated to helping new editors (it is important that admins be helpful as they were be approached by many editors seeking help); in other words, the candidate is here to build a paperless encyclopedia and assist others here to do the same.  Best, --
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp; Steady growth in editors dictates we add qualified, sensible admins. This is such a candidate. --'''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ... but to set the record straight, MBisanz not only stole the nom from my suggestion (which is fine, because I'm a slakr), but he also didn't give me a heads up to be able to co-nom (which is total bollocks). :(  I shall therefore rightfully be entitled to render [[WP:TROUT|copious amounts of trout]] unto him at my leisure. By the way, this is my first, ever, !vote for an RFA (despite lurking and rarely commenting), and it would have been my first nom, but noooooo... *eyeroll*.  So yeah, Paxse. Totally don't know the person; haven't even had any interaction with him, but somehow I stumbled across him at wikicup, saw ridiculously good attitude+interpersonal skills+contribs, combined with a cheerful, fun rapport with fellow editors.  It's exactly the type of thing that I think needs to spread, infectiously, among the community as a whole.  Hopefully as a fellow admin that'll rub off on other admins as well. :P  Cheers =) --
'''Support''', per noms, per answers to the first three questions, per content work as well as contributions to the project in other areas. Thanks for agreeing to help out in this capacity. '''
'''Support''', good evidence mainspace work.
'''Support''', I trust this user. &lowast;
'''Support''', for the sake of Cambodia. '''
'''Support'''.  Looks like good admin material.  Good content contributor with a grasp of policy.
'''Support'''. Would be great admin.
'''Support''' - A stone among pebbles.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''': Превосходный кандидат. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">
'''Support'''—per MBisanz. [[Special:Contributions/Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]<sup>
'''Support''' Looks good to me; best of luck as an administrator! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''.  Paxse, you appear to be trustworthy.  Wishing you well with mop and bucket! --
'''Support'''.  You appear to be an intelligent and thoughtful editor that will do well as an administrator. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' ^_^
'''Support''' Don't see anything wrong with this user. --
'''[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#What_does_.22Strong_Oppose.22_signify.3F|Holy Sword of Support +10]]''' Solid editor, working in an area that needs all the editors it can get.  Good history as far as I can tell, and nothing in the Oppose section that concerns me. <b class="Unicode">


'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate will make a solid admin.  '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. Looks okay to me. — '''''
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' Quick to judge. Occasional uncontrolled temperament.   <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Paxse&diff=281299863&oldid=281203666 answer to q6]. The public I answered at [[m:OTRS]] didn't appreciate the childish and clearly false statements in the news section. --
'''Absolutely, no questions asked''' and here's my tl;dr AKA 3rd co nom: I knew Peter way before the incident happened and was impressed. As Pedro says, and others note, he was highly active (always around), accurate (with deletes, protects, and blocks) and someone you could ''really'' talk to (not just chit chat with). I have spent the last few months talking to Peter almost everyday. He has taught me so many different things about adminship and editing, not once loosing his patience. He never once gloated about what happened, and with every opportunity he had, he set the record straight and owned up to his actions no matter who questioned them. This is definitely one of the most powerful attributes an admin can have; admitting when you were wrong. Before he resigned his bit (disallowing any form of drama) he was an honest, responsible, and knowledgeable admin and I believe he will continue to be. I only wish I had the pleasure of nominating him myself (Pedro, IMatthew, and Julian you bastards :D ), as I do in fact '''trust''' him. '''
'''Strong Support''' for doing the right thing for Wikipedia - as nominator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Per Pedro'''
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Strong Support''' - It's about time he got it back. :)
'''Support''' - Yes.
'''Strong Support''' -  Would have to be insane to repeat this error.  I know from personal experience that he is not.  Great, trustworthy user.  --
'''Strong Support''' A great admin and I trust him to have learned from his mistakes. We all make them after all and Peter is one who earned his trust back through hard work, never complaining, just doing a great job. Regards '''
'''support''' great admin who messed up.--
One retarded error in judgment, but he's hardly likely to do it again...
'''Support'''. It reflects to Peter's credit that he accepted responsibility and voluntarily desysoped in last year's trouble; anyone can make a mistake and I think there is no realistic chance of it being repeated. His conduct since then has been exemplary.
'''Support''' I have no problem with him getting the tools back.
'''Support'''. I know that he will not repeat the error ever again. '''''
'''Strong support''' as co-nom. &ndash;

'''Support''' we had actually been discussing this case. Evidence suggests past mistakes have been learnt from and Peter has moved on.
'''Strong support''' I didn't know Peter from a hole in the ground prior to the OMGDRAMA thing. Let's just say I have got to know him a lot better since that incident, and I trust him not to do something so silly again. I think the desysop was necessary, but it's time for him to get the bit back. '''
'''Strong support''' I have interacted with Peter several times, all have been excellent. Well-rounded, and good user. '''
'''F**kingly strong edit-conflict 5x support''' - I was alarmed when I saw this. I most certainly thought that Peter already was an administrator. It's time he was given the tools back. --<font face="verdana">
'''Support''', quite certainly. --
'''Support''' He has attempted to regain our trust, and succeeded. It's about time that he came back. '''
'''Support''': Yes! --
'''Fuck yes''' (sorry Garden). Peter was an excellent admin who made a mistake. He did the absolutely correct and honourable thing in resigning the tools, and I should think it's obvious to anyone that any mistakes along those lines will never happen again. This should have happened a month or two ago, IMHO. //
'''Support''' I see no evil here. I am happy to believe that Peter has learned from his mistake.  <font color="006622">
'''Yuppers''' - I love a comeback! --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
So that was the August incident! Fine by me. --
'''Support'''. (edit conflict) PeterSymonds made a mistake. A big one. But he did his absolute best to fix it and I believe he has done enough to earn back my trust. I think he deserves a second chance.
I never knew he was desysopped.
'''Support''' Peter made a big mistake, but he has atoned for it and handled himself with good grace. There has never been a question in my mind about Peter's ability or knowledge to carry out admin tasks. His promotion would be of great benefit to the project.
'''Support''' - here's to having another vote from me that will be exactly opposite of the overall result. :P
'''Strong Support''' (ec) Peter is a great Wikipedian. I know him mostly from around the Simple Wikipedia. When I was knew and had a question Peter would always be there. Even know, after a year Peter is the same great Wikipedian. He makes great edits, he was a very good admin that just hit a bump in the road. He deserves a second chance and I trust him. Good luck buddy.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I thought he was one already.  Guess I was right.--
As one of his original noms I'm a little disappointed that I didn't know about this until now... but what the hey... when the incident went down I felt that Peter was the least culpable of the people involved and think he's learned his lesson.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>
Without doubt. I think it was right that Peter should have a time away without the tools for what went on - they need to be treated with complete respect and the community need to know that the person who uses the tools is the person the believe is using them. I think Peter has learnt his lesson now and I expect he won't give his password out again - he's a very decent guy and it was a small lapse in judgement that led to what happened. '''
Duh. No question. One lapse in judgment, lesson learned. Won't happen again. --
'''Support''' I always find it a tad unusual to see under-a-cloud admins at RfA, as I go to review their "near administrator actions" (NACs, AFDs etc) as I would a normal nominee and realize that they have already been tested by time in those aspects (and I don't believe that any drama has unfolded over those aspects of PeterSymonds' wikilife). Because of this I only have to look at what happened to cause the desysopping and post-desysopping. After looking at why he was desysopped, I don't believe that it is that serious a problem; we all make mistakes, and PeterSymonds has hopefully learned from his and his post-desysopping contributions seem to be of a good standard also. Good luck Peter.
'''Support''' per [[User:Dank55/Admins#Support|previous rationales]]. - Dan
'''Full support''' - Peter's gained my trust back.
'''Support''' per Useight. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. He has paid his due and is clearly and obviously suitable for the mop. Withholding it from him merely hurts the project. <font color="777777">
'''Support'''. You can haz mop back. <b>'''
'''Strong Support''' No wrong queue jokes today -- oh, yes, I am in the right queue here!
'''Support''' - Yes.
Of course.
'''Strong support''' I trust in PeterSymonds, and although he made a mistake, I still trust in him and I know that he will be a good sysop, just like before the mistake. —<sub>
I've worked with Peter elsewhere under the WMF umbrella, and don't think I could be particularly neutral when closing this RfA. As a result, I'm recusing myself from my bureaucrat duties so that I can support a solid candidate. Mistakes were made, but I trust that Peter understands that and won't squander the community's trust in the future. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. In truth, my initial reaction was to oppose, on the basis that the cannon-fodder regular editors who do the real work around here are frequently advised to wait for six months after far less egregious incidents than the one described here, and opposed because they have not. What changed my mind was the belief that having worked through the aftermath of "the August incident", PeterSymonds would probably the administrator least likely to do something like that again. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Riding Shotgun support''' '''
'''Support''' - He made a mistake. I think he did the right thing by stepping down at that time. He's did a lot of great work before becoming an admin, he did a lot of great work as an admin, and he's done a lot of great work since stepping down. I have no reservations about Peter regaining the bit, and I am confident that he has learned from his mistakes and will not repeat them.
'''Support''' - Roger that! :-)
'''Support''', although not in good company.
'''Support''' I think you've worked hard to re-establish the trust the community had in you before August, and I don't think you'll do something like that again. You were a good admin before, and I believe you'll be a good admin again. There's been a lot of admin resignations recetnyl, and giving you the mop back is a net positive. Best,
'''Support''' You'll be a janitor once again... <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
You did make a blunder, but you've learned from it. Therefore, I treat this as I would treat a reconfirmation RFA for any respectable user: '''Support'''. —
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' as co-nominator. My reasoning listed in the nomination statement. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support'''.  I was unfamiliar with the history before reading into it, but the documentation in the links is thorough.  Based on the information given and the discussion here, I see no reason to oppose and many reasons to support.
Dramallama...I mean, support. Just don't do anything rogue like that again :)
'''Support''' Yes. '''
'''Thought he was already an admin support'''.  Heh.  Keeper funny. <small> what, too soon? :-) </small>
'''Support''', clearly.
'''Support''' Mercy is clearly earned.--
'''Support''' stay on the case...
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Good editor who made a bizarre mistake, but has since re-earned our trust and is highly unlikely to make ''that'' mistake again. --
'''Support''' &mdash; Absolutely. Was actually going to co-nom myself, though, iMatthew up there took nominated before I did (no worries), so I'll just say what I have to say here. Yes, PeterSymonds caused a very big and unexpected incident in August, but after taking a month-long break, he continued editing like nothing ever happened. That shows true dedication to the project. Most users who made big mistakes and cause a large amount of controversy usually leave Wikipedia, use right to vanish, create socks, etc. (yes, I've seen several do so). But PeterSymonds did three things those people who left did not do: learned, apologized, and moved on, as if nothing happened. Heck, he's still apologizing for what he did up to today! Obviously, Peter is very sorrowful for what he did, and he's definitely not doing something like ''that'' again. PeterSymonds is probably the first person I've ever asked to nominate for adminship, so yes, I do think he is one of the most trusted editors I know out there. He is civil, helpful, always involved in discussions and adminly-areas, and an overall good candidate for another chance as an administrator. I '''trust''' PeterSymonds as an administrator, and I '''trust''' he will not make another ''stupid'' mistake like that again. '''Trust'''... it's that simple. &mdash;
'''Strong support''' Lesson learned. Good admin who deserves the tools back.
'''Yes, Yes, Yes''' - The guy rocks.  —
'''Support''' - Essentially agree with {{user|JayHenry}}. '''
'''Support''' Per my reasoning on Geni's RfA, everyone deserves a second chance and my only encounters with Peter have been positive. Cheers. —'''
Seems fair.
I'm
'''Support''' - Lapses in judgement happen, mistakes are made, but I'm sure he has learnt from them. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I believe in redemption. '''
'''Blind Support: ''' Mistakes do happens and it is highly important to appreciate people who learns from them.. --
He was always an asset to ~the project~
'''Support'''. He accepted his mistake and continued helping and positively contributing. Good signs. --
'''Support''' – Yep. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - He's learned from his mistakes in the past. I trust him with the tools.--
'''Strong Support''' Definitely. I see him all the time at the help desk and have seen him occasionally at DYK. Excellent contributor, has excellent knowledge of policy and very helpful. Just the kind of stuff that an admin should be made of IMO.
'''Support''' based on (a) his record and (b) his conduct since the incident.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' I have full faith in Peter that he will not make this mistake again. I hope i can trust him with sysop rights and not do this again. '''<font face="verdana">
Yeah, sure. I'm a little wary, but hopefully Peter's learned his lesson.
'''Support''' I've found him to be one of the most polite users. He has a good tone, is helpful and overall has the right attitude for an administrator. To err is human — I feel certain that he has learnt from his mistake. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' There is no question but that he will be a good administrator, because he already proved that. I am impressed with Peter's openness and honesty about this, and trust him absolutely not to make this kind of judgment error again. It would be detrimental to Wikipedia not to adminify him - waste of a good resource. --
–<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Everyone makes mistakes. It's what we do afterwards that matters and Peter seems committed to positive editing. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' - Peter made a mistake, but he is a human, not God. After analyzing his edits, I found that he is very polite, and helpful. And his article work is A+.
'''Support''' - everyone makes mistakes.  <b>
'''Strong Support''' - People will always make mistakes, and I definetly think Peter has learned from it. Great work as an admin previously, and my trust in him has not changed even after the August incident.
'''Support''' - Although he made an error in judgement, he [[WP:TROUT|ate his fish]] and tried to put the incident behind him by continuing to be an asset to the project. Will make a fine admin (again!) <em style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">
'''Support.''' →
'''Absolutely'''. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' it seems like I'm Peter's 100th supporter ''again''. It was a one time incident. I'm quite sure Peter will never do this here again. All in all, the community were just benefiting when Peter had the sysop status. Having him back is a positive move, despite the incident. He has my full trust. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - He's English, ergo, he makes one mistake and then conquers the World. He's a great guy and one mistake won't make me not trust him.
'''Strong support''' (ec) Well, I wanted [[WP:100]] but I guess Kanonkas got here before me! Oh well, [[WP:101]] will do ;). Peter is a very responsible user, who I have had many great interactions with. He is committed to the project and has even helped me (ironic I know) with some article building. The incident in August has passed now, and I'm 200% sure that he won't even dream of doing something like this again and Peter deserves the tools back. I hope to see you around back at your admin tasks soon Peter! :)
'''Strong Support'''  Peter's one of those few editors who I would still trust with the tools.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Strong Support''': Very helpful volunteer at [[WP:HELP]]. --
'''Weak Support'''. It's hard for me to trust you with the tools after the account sharing, but my interactions with you allow me to lend you another chance.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''support'''--
'''[redacted by PeterSymonds]''' <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong support''' per positive interactions back when we both used to work at [[WP:DYK]], and his other contributions I've seen about the place. Sometimes when sysops get in trouble they fight to the last to keep their bit, then start protracted 'right this injustice' campaigns when they lose. This tends to be far from helpful to the project ''whether they deserved de-sysopping or not''. Peter on the other hand gave up the tools without fuss, and then proceeded to demonstrate that he's worthy of our trust by just carrying on doing good work. I take this as a strong sign of his maturity and ability to regard adminship as the proverbial no big deal. Welcome back!
'''Weak support'''. Peter was a '''fabulous''' admin, and I'm sure will be again. Letting him have the bit back will be a net asset to the project, I'm sure. However, the fiasco that caused the loss of the bit still troubles me. If he's learned from it, and never does anything as bone-headed again, we all win. If he hasn't learned from it, I expect the hammer will be brought done quickly and firmly.--
'''Automatic support'''. '''
'''Support''' No real worries as he wasn't the one showing the lack of maturity when the schoolyard hijinks were uncovered '''
'''Uber support''' I've been bugging him on IRC forever trying to get him to do this.
Fuck yes.
I had been considering whether to raise the idea of resysopping this editor with my fellow arbitrators before someone else brought it up this week. It is clear that both the candidate and others familiar with the history have drawn the appropriate lessons from this incident. And apart from that one issue, there are no other concerns, as Peter's editing and prior administrator service make him a fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Am convinced that lesson has been learned and that we should be willing to give people another chance when that is evident.
'''Support''', but let it be known that I strongly dislike most of the comments (there are definitely exceptions, such as Pedro's) responding to opposers below. People are allowed to oppose for many reasons, and in this case, there is certainly (at least) one perfectly valid reason to do so. This isn't a Kurt Weber situation, people- let others voice their opinions without chastizing them for doing so. Now, with all of that said, I trust that Peter won't make the same mistake he made before, and I have no doubt that he will once again be a valuable admin- considerably more valuable, for example, than I am as an admin. But that's just my view. --
'''Support'''Why not, good contribs and seems he has learnt from his mistake.
'''Strong Support.''' We need him back again!
'''Strongest possible support ''' - what happeend is in the past and he regrets that moment of "stupidity" and its through their mistakes people learn a lesson and he has learnt his..Give him back the tools because now he can be trusted more than ever!! ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', I like to think that the candidate has learnt from their error, but they should be warned that I'll be out for their head if they make another poor judgement call like the one that previously got them desysopped.
'''
'''Support''' - I would hope that Peter knows better now...so a net positive to the project. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support'''. The past is in the past... would be great to have you back. ·
'''Support''' Sorry I'm so late to the party... Can't really say anything that hasn't been said. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - This user was a great admin before, despite the incident. Everyone deserves a second chance! :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Most of what needs to be said has been said. :) --
'''Support'''. While he made an error in judgment, it was not one that resulted in any real harm to the project. He'd have to be a spectacular fool to make that mistake again, and all his edits before and after the incident suggest he's anything but that. He's been de-sysopped for quite long enough and we could certainly benefit from his services again. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - per above. --
'''Support''' - events happen, circumstances change, life goes on. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' - As per the nominators, and I have had nothing but positive interactions with the candidate.
'''Support'''. As an [http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=PeterSymonds admin] on [[wikiquote:simple:Main Page|Simple English Wikiquote]], PeterSymonds is kind, helpful and civil and shows good judgement. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>
'''Support''' - [[Forrest Gump|Shit Happens]]. '''
'''Very Strong Support'''
'''S...Su...Sup...Supp...Suppo...Suppor...Support!''' - Got there in the end... just about.
'''<div style="text-decoration:blink">BLINKING ALL CAPS SUPPORT FOR HIM!!! </div> --<strong>
'''Support''' - If there is ever a next time, change your password!
'''Support'''. Peter has been a good admin in the past and he will be again. [In a year, I would support him for bureaucrat, if he applied.]
'''One hundred forty-first support is the Strongest''' In the oppose section, I see no reason why "I can't trust him with the tools anymore". During Peter's admin time, I saw no reason why he'd abuse the tools, as he didn't last time. Cheers! <font color="red">LucerneWorker</font><sup>
'''Support''' User PeterSymonds committed an indiscretion when he allowed his admin account to be used by another user  in Wikipedia in particular an admin or any user needs to be careful and misuse of one account is regarded seriously even editing from University IP address with fellow students or roommates who edit similar articles and vandalise has got users into trouble.But it also needs to be conceded that it was not a military project or it involved some state secret and the user regrets in lapse of judgment and the user has great track both as a editor and a Admin as far I could see.It is clear case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF| Assuming Good Faith] and trust the user not to repeat it again.
'''Yes'''. The majority of us know of Peter's past mistake - it was a clear error in judgement, and some would say, overall maturity. However, in his administrative tasks he was nothing less than excellent—well-trusted, due to consistently good decisions—and helpful overall. His response to the situation has made a greater difference than the size of the mistake itself; we didn't have a "defensive offender" syndrome here, but instead Peter attempted to be as open and honest as possible. I think EVula (below, in Oppose) summed it up perfectly. Mistakes happen to everybody, but I think this is one unique case where we can [[WP:FORGIVE|forgive]] and take a look at the trustworthiness he has continuously shown both before and after the incident. You never know when an admin may turn and do something obviously wrong after being trusted in the position for a while (it's happened more than a few times) - but at least we have a (former) one here who has obviously learned a big lesson from what he once did, and won't do it again. Strong support, good luck friend. :-)
Everyone makes mistakes, but we are defined by how we respond to them.  Peter's earnest response to his mistake -not to mention his excellent track record as an admin- makes '''Support''' of this RfA a no-brainer.  --
'''Support'''. The lesson was learned and the user is well trusted. --
'''Pile-on Support''' Pick up that mop and get back to work.
'''Support''' - the best of us make mistakes.
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why not? I saw no issue based on what I have read so far.
'''Support''' [[User:Reliableforever|<font color="008000">Reliable</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - PeterSymonds was an effective admin, and will be again. I'm convinced that his mistake was a one-off, which he has sufficiently apologised for; we can trust him not to make it again.
'''Strong support'''. Will be, and was, a great admin.
Never abused the tools when he had them, and my interactions with PeterSymonds were positive.
'''Support''' Has obviously learned from his mistake, was an admin in good standing before it and has acted creditably and to the project's benefit in the time since.
'''Support'''—If he makes another mistake, the mop will go away again. It's very simple… so let's give him the tools to continue demonstrating that he's generally a great administrator. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support'''. I have confidence that Peter will be an even better admin for the incident.
'''Support'''. per nom. Like Nihiltres said, if he makes a mistake, he'll be desysopped. [[WP:BIG|No big deal]].
'''Strong Support''' A great user, who was a great admin and could still make good use of the tools :). All the Best,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good user, always did great work at DYK. '''
'''Support''' was a great admin who's clearly learned from his mistake.
'''Support and trust''' People aren't infallible and aren't expected to be. Deserves another chance. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Strong Support'''  Although I have never directly interacted with Peter, I have seen and read many of his comments and contributions to Wikipedia.  I vote understanding that there was an incident some time ago (although I don't know the details).  All that I've read of Peter's contribution show that he is mature, thoughtful, civil, intelligent, and that he thinks things through before providing input.  I think Wikipedia needs this type of admin.  If there was a mistake made in the past, then I've seen nothing to indicate that he hasn't learned from it, and see no reason to believe that the same mistake would happen again.  Humans make mistakes, they should be forgiven.  I'd ask that you "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".  Wikipedia is in dire need of common sense, level headed thinking, and objective reasoning.  Peter exhibits these qualities, and I believe this should be a "snowball support" issue.  Thank you for your time.
Seems fine.  Poor judgment, but had engough sense to step down instead of digging in over it.
'''Support''' One mistake, but otherwise a great asset to the project.--
'''Strong Support''' It takes a big person to acknowledge a wrongdoing they have committed and then step down voluntarily. I would think that if it were to ever happen again, he not be up for another RFA for a decent while. I personally have gone through and looked over all of the edits made, something I don't ever do unless it is definitely needed, and from what I can tell, not only is this editor extremely beneficial to the project, they have demonstrated exceptional poise and grace.. CHEERS!--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good service and good experience.
'''Support''' Knows how to learn.
'''Support:''' It would be little short of dementia to deny the project the full use of Peter's demonstrated talent, energy and experience because of one screwup.  Mind you, I urge every single editor commenting on this who has ''never'' made a single mistake or lapse in judgment in his or her entire life to oppose; they, at least, would have grounds to hold such a POV.
'''Support''' - Everyone makes mistakes. What is important is that you learn from it. --
'''Strong support''' - of course :) -
'''Support''' - Everyone falls down. What mattes is how high you bounce. He's learned his lesson, and will be a better admin because of it. -
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; I have known him for a while and full support. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' Stupidity happens. I'm not even sure that the desysoping was the way to go in the first place.

'''Support'''. Need more admins.

'''Support''' - I'm going with the cabal on this one.  There are a number of the editors and admins that I respect who support you and that speaks volumes.  Everyone makes mistakes now and again (myself especially).  Without personally knowing him, I think Pete's learned from his mistake and would continue to positively contribute to WP.  Good luck.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Can I have your password?''' ≈ '''
Yep!
I always had thought you were a good administrator before the incident which resulted in your desysoping. What happened was series but I recognise you are human, so I am happy to move on now. Your attitude after the incident clearly shows you have learnt a lesson, you almost could not have handled it better, which helps show you have key skills of an administrator.
'''Support''' per NuclearWarfare.

'''Support'''. Pedro asked above ''What we now need to know is if we can trust him once more?"''  I know a good way of finding out. Also, reading many opposes to various RfA's you get the shock-horror impression it would be the end of the world if a new admin transgressed. Of course it wouldn't, it would simply be the end of his/her use of tools.
Hello, I'm Hansel, and I need some help with this old lady. She tried to put me in her oven...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: '''Support''' for an editor that won't be baked. [[User:Ecoleetage|Ecoleetage]] (
'''Support''' - Honestly, my initial inclination for this re-sysop was neutral-to-negative. Upon reflection, I am convinced by the support of editors above; I've read most comments and agree it's an appropriate move. I supported the first time, so I do know Peter's work already. I am not relying on anyone else's evaluation, but rather the commentary of why this is appropriate. The ''incident'' concerned me greatly - hence my delay here - but I can see only good things from Peter since. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Per nominators and Synergy.
'''Support''' as I believe in second chances when the person has proved worthy of it. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support''' - Great wikipedian. Great admin. One mistake (which no one can reasonably claim will ever happen again). [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] (
'''Support'''. PeterSymonds has learned from his mistake. The past is the past, and as long as history doesn't repeat itself, I'm sure he will be a great asset.
'''Support duh''' good user and there is no way that i could not not support :). He has already proved himself has made a mistake, but really everyone has the odd slip up <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' -- he's an excellent writer and was an excellent administrator, and an asset to the project.
'''Support''' - Very good candidate and definitely knows his way around the tools.  The answers to his questions denote his understanding of the policies required and he will be a great administrator.  Cheers,
'''Strong support''' -Because no one else would be number 195.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange"><sup>(
'''Support''' - I'll settle for support number 196.
'''Support''' All, right. He's a great person, and if anything, he's learned from whatever he's done in the past that wasn't very smart. I'm willing to believe that he deserves a second try at the tools, especially since it looks like this is going through.
'''Very regretful oppose''' that would otherwise be strong support. I've seen this guy around and he's a great editor and administrator and will eventually be a great insert-even-more-trusted-role person, except....  As to the question of trust:  Yes, I trust him.  Yes, ''by itself'' making him an admin again would be a very big net positive for the project.  But it's only been about 5 months.  We make new people wait longer than that before applying for their initial adminship. Re-admining him now sets a bad precedent.  I'm surprised ARBCOM didn't recommend he wait a certain period of time before re-applying, but I guess they wanted to leave that to the community.  As much as I'd love to co-nom, I can't even support him at this early date, and I can't even be neutral.  I'm sorry.  If you come back after Labor Day ''even with no edits at all'' I'll nominate you myself.  Of course, my hope is that you won't disappear and that you'll continue your fine editing until then.  At 5 months, I must oppose.  At 9 months I might be neutral.  At a year this would be history.  After 1.5-2 years I wouldn't hold this against you if you asked for a position requiring even more trust.  Do you see ARBCOM in your future? *hint*  I guess you could call this the opposite of a backhanded compliment.
I'm sorry, great guy as you are I could not trust you with the tools again.
'''Oppose'''. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''.  I have no doubt that Peter is a quality editor who makes a lot of good contriubtions to the encyclopedia.  I also have no doubt that he learned his lesson and will never repeat this mistake again.  However, the very fact that he would allow a non-admin user to repeatedly use his account and never saw anything wrong with that until it was explained to him makes me question his judgement in general.  I'm not ready yet to say that I think it unlikely he'll make a different large and stupid mistake - that type of growth in quality of judgement (judgement quality?) comes with time, experience, and greater maturity. Four months was likely not enough time to get there.
'''Regreful Oppose''' per Giggy. I don't doubt that Peter has learned from his mistake, but I just can't support anyone at RfA after that kind of mistake.
'''Oppose''' - too soon in my opinion.  This is obviously going to pass at this point, but I really don't think four months is long enough for such an error in judgment. --
'''Oppose''' Under no circumstances should anyone who did what he did be allowed near the tools ever again.  Please, nobody bother to ask me to change my opinion.  I don't believe that "learning from this incident" is sufficient.  His actions show a failure of judgment that is fatal to my trust.
'''Oppose'''. A remarkably fine contributor, and yes, the candidate now is clued in on this particular incident, but right now I'm not convinced there won't come other crises of clue in the future. I'm sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Evidently PeterSymonds is a fine editor, widely respected and well-liked, and a dedicated and helpful Wikipedian. However, as Malleus puts it just above, this was a staggeringly bad error of judgment, and I'm surprised to see so many rushing so soon to endorse re-adminship. I agree that Peter has done more than enough to apologise, recognise his error and make amends. He has clearly been forgiven by the community. However, I find it very hard to support someone who can even conceive that letting someone else use their admin tools is anywhere near the ballpark of "okay". Peter himself can't explain it: "''I was asked several times not to change it [my password], and for some reason I didn't; I can't say I'm fully sure of that reason myself. Maybe it was because he was a trusted user and considered admin material at the time. Maybe I didn't really see it as that much of a big deal. Or maybe a combination of both.''" This does not inspire confidence: I could possibly understand if it was a case of "I meant change my password, but nothing bad was happening and I didn't get round to it." Forgiven, yes, but re-tooled? In agreement with Karanacs and others here, I believe this is too soon. ''
'''Symbolic Oppose'''. This nom will pass with flying colors, and it's even true that the odds are reasonably high that the editor will never again repeat an error of this severity... The editor has made several protestations of remorse. But "Sorry is as sorry does." My question #8 is labeled Optional, and the wording is pointed and disapproving. However, I'm sitting here trying to imagine a more grievous error than this editor's, and the only things that come to mind are RL threats and harassment. If the editor in fact truly valued the community; if he were truly sorry for the damage (or potential damage) that his actions caused to the community, then no good-faith questions by the community&mdash;however uncomfortable or repetitive&mdash;would be left unanswered. I know if I had done something so severe, I would feel that every one who asks a question '''deserves''' an answer. Instead, the question has sat unanswered for 36 hours. The lack of response strikes me as the actions of someone who is showing the minimum amount of repentance  necessary to re-acquire the mop. I'm afraid  must wonder if the question  would remain unanswered if the vote tally were other than a landslide of Support. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Oppose''' &ndash; regretfully per Geometry guy and Aunt Entropy. Whilst I myself may not be in a position to oppose, as some incorrectly believe below, I believe that ''allowing'' someone to use your account is terrible judgement. I appreciate he was a good administrator before this incident, however that does not mitigate my concerns.
'''Oppose''' Errors in judgement about policy are easily forgivable, an occasional lapse from civility can be overlooked, but to knowingly allow other persons to use your admin account is a gross abuse of the trust placed in you by the community. I have no reason to doubt that the candidate's remorse for his actions and assurances that this would not happen again are genuine and indeed, I believe that to be the case. However, actions have consequences. In some way, rather than reflecting a lack of trust in this candidate, this oppose is intended to demonstrate to all administrators and candidates that such actions will not be tolerated and apologies, remorse and some time on the sidelines will not serve to repair all damage. Sorry,
'''Sorry''' That was one baaad move, man. It's not the same as yourself having a Wiki-Universe fracture moment over the idiocy and grief and pointless headbanging-the-desk over fools and so went fragmentarily IP rogue yourself, for eg. You let someone take over. You just sat there and let them. Not yet, at least.
'''Sorry''' What on earth were you thinking? It's way too soon for this. After such a huge mistake, I need to be more convinced.
'''Support''' as long as he lets me use his admin account, no seriously '''oppose''' I have rarely seen a stronger reason to oppose an RfA than such blatant abuse of process.
I have no doubt that Peter is a good editor, and I appreciate the work he has done. However, there was unfortunately a gross lapse of judgment. Over time, a long pattern of good judgment can be demonstrated; I don't think that five months is enough time. &ndash;
'''Neutral''', I think my main concerns have been assuaged, though on balance I cannot bring myself to actively support this nomination which looks likely to pass anyway. I'm only commenting here as I asked a question, otherwise I would probably not comment at all. --
I cannot oppose due to the obvious asset you bring as an admin, but I cannot fully support due to your past actions and the time between them and this RfA.  Had you waited another 3-4 months I would have easily supported, but for now I cannot.
'''Neutral'''. I believe that Peter has learned his lesson, and I'm teetering on weak support. My rationality on my neutral stance is that when Peter first lost his admin status, he stated that he would never seek to regain his admin status. My belief is that words do matter and that Peter should live up to his earlier claim. Anyway, it seems Peter will be successful in his RFA and I wish him the best.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards Support. I remember this user's name because recently I asked a question on WP:Help about the various types of blocks within Wikipedia. In my question I requested one-sentence explanations for each of four types of blocks. The first respondent simply gave me two links to WP policy pages, which was not what I had asked for. Peter then overwrote that reply with his own, which very neatly answered each of my four questions. I would express Support based on this experience plus AGF, but the password issue pushes me back to halfway between Support and Neutral.--
'''Neutral''' Made nothing to prevent the incident happening again, but he has been a value editor here, so I will plop myself here. (This vote is up for grabs)
Being the nom and all... '''support'''. –
Support, a very helpful user who will do well with the bit. I have been hoping for this for months. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' - Seems to have impressive technical know-how.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; trusted user, seen him around. –'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  —
'''Support''' Solid contribution history.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' WTHN?
'''Support'''. I've looked through Plastikspork's contributions, and it's clear that he understands policy, he's polite (even when people are rude to him), and he's dedicated to making Wikipedia better. &ndash;
'''AutoEd''' is quite impressive and shows a desire to help others be better editors, which is pretty much exactly what I like to see in an admin.  Koji, I have to apologize that I don't know enough to evaluate your links; I suck at vandal-warnings.  I know that in some cases a jump to level 3 or 4 is warranted, but I'm fuzzy on the details. - Dank (
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]|
'''Support''' Enough experienced user.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Go for it
'''Support''' Good judgement - the most important quality in an admin. Thanks for taking the time to answer the 2-part questions.
''' Support''' Usage of the warning templates isn't inherently clear, but most of the cases I see of not going linearly are skipping from vandal2 to vandal4 - that's appropriate in certain extreme cases since the implication is that vandal4 indicates what could potentially be a ''final'' warning.  The beauty of AIV is that it requires at least two people (usually a lot more given vandal tendencies) to agree.  If Ps is indeed "trigger happy" then it won't often come up unless another user also feels it is warranted (especially since initially it would only ever be a short, temporary block for such things).  Moreover, I feel the <nowiki>{{uw-bv}}</nowiki> template would be useful for some of the edits you've reverted, Plastik (I know I should use it more myself). ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. In Wikipedia, too much effort is placed in warning vandals, and not enough in actually dealing with them. '''''
'''Support''', no serious problems that I can see.
'''Support''', I took a look through his contributions and couldn't find anything too serious, so I'll support. Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', more admins needed, this user seems suitable for this purpose. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Can't find any reason to oppose.  The diffs brought up in the oppose section are too isolated to sway my opinion. '''
'''Support''' No major concern.
'''Support''' as none of the reasons given to oppose raise concerns for me (Plastikspork appears to have learned from any mistakes, we all make mistake, and he freely admits it), and lack of audited contributions is too weak a concern for me (not saying GA/FA content is a bad thing, but saying it really has nothing to do with being a good and effective admin). ···
'''Support''' Thank you for the time taken to answer my question and address my minor concerns in that regard. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Sure thing.  I feel the oppose from Fuchs, while his opinion is wrong but this is not purely to balance that out - you are a great editor and should make a great admin.  (as a side, there is a limit to AGF, and while you should assume good faith remember that that is not true in evidence of bad faith which vandalism is.) '''
'''Support''' Thank you for volunteering! – ('''
'''Support''' has demonstrated responding to questions, and reading the policy, and improving knowledge. I checked the deleted content and File contributions.
The diffs provided by the opposition look completely fine to me. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' I don't think he'll abuse the tools, and I think he's taken to heart the constructive criticism about his warnings and won't continue that behavior. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with a niche admin... guilty as charged. '''
'''Support''' Good candidate, unconvincing opposes. '''
'''Support''' Very excellent editor, usually in [[Survivor (TV series)|Survivor]] and other reality TV show articles. Good for the user to become an admin.
'''Support''' A very helpful user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Despite having proven fallibility. In the words of one wiser than I, "When in doubt, don't." Don't be afraid to develop greater patience and to hold off a bit before taking decisive action. Don't hesitate to hesitate. Take a second look, give an extra warning, engage in discussion to clarify, give the new weed looking article a chance to develop-- might turn into a flower after all. Cheers,
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. Good Luck.
'''Support''' Candidate has a clean block log, civil talk and user page, and is already getting others asking for advice. Looking at the recent deleted contributions I see a nice mix of use of CSD, Prod and AFD. Candidate also seems aware that whilst 4 levels of warning are the norm, {{tl|uw-vand4im}} and the other level 4 immediate templates exist because sadly they sometimes need to be used. ''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has no blocks, but does have three barnstars proudly displayed on the candidate's usepage.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I see no indication the editor will misuse the tools. The issues in the oppose section don't concern me.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. Opposes are unconvincing. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Little Mountain 5|<font color="black">Little</font>]][[User talk:Little Mountain 5|<font color="red">Mountain</font>]]
'''Support'''—But I was slightly concerned by the Oppose on "shoot first, ask questions later". You may be interested in reading [[Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Dealing_with_disputes|this excellent page]].
Seems fine.
'''Support''' WTHN ? --
'''Support''' - prodigious edit count, sufficient time on board, good article and Wikipedia work, Barnstars, no concerns.
'''Support''' The issues in the "oppose" list do not cause concern that this user will misuse the mop. Vandals need not be given all four graduated warnings in every case of blatant vandalism. No reason not to grant the admin bit.
'''Support''' seems to know what s/he is doing.
'''Support'''. I'm not swayed by the "oppose" issues raised that there is a quick-temper, etc.

'''Support''' -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I do not see anything that suggests Plastikspork would not make a good administrator.
'''Support''' - I have had some interaction with Plastikspork and from what I have noticed is that the nominee has one of the most important traits that all administrators should have and that is patience. Plastikspork is a level headed people person.
'''Support;''' - Would make a great, level-headed administrator. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' - As for the vandal warnings, uw-test4im is to be used with discretion; I believe he is justified in warning the user for such flagrant vandalism and hate-mongering. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' <u>To me</u>, the use of un-called for final and only warnings[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josephmansour&diff=prev&oldid=289335378][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.228.140.186&diff=prev&oldid=289369682][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikeyvach&diff=prev&oldid=289526792][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:124.181.142.177&diff=prev&oldid=293102561][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:123.243.211.153&diff=prev&oldid=295175997] gives the impression of a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of admin.--
'''Oppose''' These [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:124.181.142.177&diff=prev&oldid=293102561 two] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.228.140.186&diff=prev&oldid=289369682 diffs] are the two worst mistakes in my opinion, in the first he went from a level 1 warning to a level 4 warning with 2 days separation, which in many cases would render the warning stale, and in the second he went from a level 2 warning to a level 4 warning with 5 days in between (Which in many cases for a dynamic IP can be enough time for an IP to be switched to a new user which would render any previous warning stale and irrelevant for the new user) which really makes me think that this user as an admin could sometimes "Jump the gun" and issue blocks when they weren't necessary the best option or the most appropriate course of action.  All the Best,
Oppose per a lack of audited content contributions, noticeboard activity. <sup>([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|more info]])</sup> --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' I followed this RfA for a while. I was concerned about the apparent lack of content contributions. That's a big part of Wikipedia and a major role of admins is dealing with disputes related to that area. The mistaken CSD tagging, repeated again in your initial response, is also concerning. I'd like to see you do some article and AfD work and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. Unnecessary [[WP:BITE|bite]]. Incorrect CSD tagging. Limited content contribution.
'''Oppose''' - no shooting please.
Not due to bite, but to the CSD (mis)understandings -
'''Neutral''' I think you have what it takes to hold the mop.  But I'm a bit concerned about the use of final warnings on users that have only received one previous warning.  I know I make mistakes and jump the gun on warnings, but I think Final Warnings really should be used only in extreme circumstances; for example when a user has received a warning, then immediately retaliates by mass vandalism.  They should be given the courtesy of 1-4 as the language of each warning gets sterner and sterner.  I think it does a better job of trying to change the behavior.  Anyway, that's my opinion.  --'''
'''Neutral''' - Unlikely to abuse the tools, but with really only about 8 months of regular editing it is too difficult to really come to understand the nuances of and interplay of all the guidelines and polices, especially the reasonings behind these to begin with. Many guidelines are misunderstood, I would count myself among these in my early days, and thus misused. 16,000 edits is nice, but I'd rather see say 10,000 if those were spread out over a year of active editing.
No compelling reason to either support or oppose at this time.--
A lot of compelling arguments on both sides, but I am not opposed to seeing you with the mop and bucket. Best of luck either way, '''
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral'''. A high amount of caution and clue is needed when working with CSD- and disruption-related issues, both to protect the content and on the other hand not to needlessly drive away potential positive contributors. I share some of Mifter's concerns (in the oppose section). Can't really support, but don't want to oppose either because there's enough hope that you'll be a [[WP:Net positive|net positive]] as an admin (as opposed to a gross negative). Good luck,
Beat the nom support. No issues I can find with this candidate. —'''
I see no problems and think he'll make a great admin. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
My first Beat the Nom! Anyway, since eco has retired I will contiue the queue jokes, even if they are rubbish. :) Anyway, I cant see any problems here so '''Support'''.
'''Support''' I haven't seen a whole lot of page-protection work from him, but I still think he'll do alright.
'''Support''' Established editor, trusted with a well-used bot. No indications he will misuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''
'''Late-breaking nom support'''.
'''Support'''--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Support''' - no red flags in my review and an excellent nom. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''' &mdash; Seems like a fine candidate for adminship with reasonable answers to the questions and good contributions from a quick browse over them. &mdash;
'''Support''' — Honestly shocked that this user isn't an admin already. Masterful bot operator, does amazing work in a very gnomish area (which makes me feel warm in my funny places), will definitely be a net benefit for this user to have the tools.
'''Support''' Don't see why not. Also, it seems (from his editing record) that R'n'B has only been aroung for two years. Could he please clear up whether or not he has had previous accounts? This will not affect my vote, I would just like to know.
'''Support'''.  I've always been impressed with his work in the disambig area.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions, very trusted, and I think Russ will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - Excellent all-round contributor. I`m sure he`ll do great with the Admin tools. :)
'''Support''' because this user has no problems that I have seen YET. If someone brings one up, I may change my !vote, but until then, I like ya! '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Seems like a good contributor, no reason not to trust with the tools, and therefore no reason not to support, as far as I can see. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
I knew Russ by his original name some 2½ years ago, and I thought he as an admin even then. Hmmph. —
'''Confused by username support''' Yep, when I read "R'n'B" I was kind of confused who that user might be but seeing how he signs his posts, I understood that this was one of the best WikiGnomes I encountered, so I do not see a single problem with this candidate :-) '''
'''support''' per [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]]. While more of the standard "admin path" type of experience might be desirable, the user seems to be reasonable, able to reason and communicate clearly, able to discuss and work toward a meeting of the minds. He has more than enough experience in the project, and seems knowledgeable. His request is related to and will support work he is already doing. Clearly a net positive. I would recommend making the sig clearer, as it could cause confusion.
'''Support''' nothing wrong with user's contributions. —<sub>
'''Support''' Though I haven't seen him that often, his contributions speak for themselves, so [[WP:WHYNOT|Why not]]? Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
Don't see why not.
'''Very Strong Support'''
'''Support''' User has been around since Oct 2006 and good track and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' per my criteria. (My criteria = a good user)
Support; RussBot is excellent and I have been impressed by Russ' work in numerous areas. I trust him to use the tools well.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Reliable.
'''Support''' Very impressive. I'd write more, but Giggy seems to be hell-bent on haranguing supporters for the lulz, so I think I'll stop here just to spite him.
'''Support''' I feel that this user would make a good admin, and I see no red-flags on anything. Good luck.
'''Support''' I find nothing that would cause me concern to choose in giving R'n'B the trust to carry out the duties responsibly.
'''Support''' [[WP:WND|No reason not to]].—
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support''' I haven't found a reason not to.  Good contribs, just one thing... you may want to change your signature because it may lead to someone typing in [[User:Russ]] and finding out an admin may be an indef blocked sock of [[User:Artaxiad]].  :)  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''
Excellent editor, excellent contributions. Like the name too.
'''Support'''—no concerns. Many of my interactions with him have been through editprotected requests, where he consistently requests useful, well-thought-out changes and explains them nicely. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support'''. Good editor, good vandal fighter, good article writer, lots of experience—all-around asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Beginning to feel the issues is a bit snowy. Well established user, obviously hardworking, and no legitimate concerns.
'''Support''' This user is civil, mature and unlikely to abuse the tools. Thanks for all you have done to date and good luck for the future --
'''Support''' - Has a need for the tools and clue to use them wisely. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Knowledgeable and experienced.  Exactly what WP needs.  --'''
'''Support''': Excellent editor. And also it's nice to see someone without any opposes - if nobody could find nothing against you, then you are pretty much the perfect candidate for the mop here, I think :)
'''Support''' Having looked around this morning, I can't find any clear or obvious reason to not trust with the tools. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' per nom. Candidate is a good, helpful user. '''
'''Support''' Great editor, after looking at his contribs, I think he would be a great sysop :).  All the Best,
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. R'n'B isn't an admin already? (Specially for Giggy: I've had nothing but good encounters and seen nothing but positive work from the user, and I have no concerns about the user being an admin.)

'''Support''' per above. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''support''' Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest they will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I think Russ has made constructive contributions to WP and I think that he'd make a fine admin.  Good Luck.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits; there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. 2 years, 20,000 edits, no obvious problems.
'''Support''' Shows a need for the tools and the competency to use them responsibly. Good Contributions. No issues.
'''Support''' for the stuff written above and the lack of an apparent burning desire to use the extra tools to go around blocking people, deleting stuff, and all that. The oppose by the flaming lawyer below prompts this: Of course people have to be blocked and stuff has to be deleted, but I sense that there should be a much larger number of trusted people who become admins to do this incidentally while attending to their regular editing business and perhaps more care about candidates who seem to be waiting for the time when they can say "Make my day."
'''Support'''
'''Support''' with a note - If you ever feel that your action should be undone in regards to blocking someone, it is best to post at AN, ANI, etc, and state why you blocked and that you feel it should be undone. Don't do it yourself, because others in the community may think that the block should still stand. It would cut down on any possible complications if the individual is reblocked. Cheers and good luck. :)
'''Support''' per answer to Q11 and overall feeling of comfort with this user.
'''Support''' - I can not see a reason to not give this user the tools.  The opposes are just plain silly, IMHO.
'''Support''', I am sure the nominator was quite selective.
Support - As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer bolding my supports for any candidates. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as exactly what it is. Or something like that. :) ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' - Experienced, quality editor (for the win). <b>'''
'''Support'''.  No problems really. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''

'''Support''' - looks excellent, meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], run across him at [[WP:RFA]] and [[WP:LAW]].
'''Support'''. Looks like a solid candidate to me.
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''- reliable editor with little evidence of being a disruptive influence.
'''Support''' seems to be a good editor and won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Does not have any downfalls in any administratorly areas that I can see right off the bat and this user has done great work for this Wikipedia so far.  No issues means no reason why not to support.
'''Oppose''' Now I remember why I wanted to oppose this one so badly. In my opinion, he doesn't really need the tools. He's only stated one thing that he would use the tools for (something about disambiguations?), which really doesn't warrant having the tools. If that's all he needs them for, then he can just ask an admin dude to do it for him. As Ottava said, adminship is a packaged deal. It comes with blocking, deleting, undeleting, and (if you call within the next 10 minutes) we'll include page protection! The ability to correctly place misplaced disambigs doesn't seem to be at the top of the list for admin features. So I must oppose. <font face="terminal">
'''Oppose''' For Sparta.--
'''Neutral'''
'''Support''', excellent user
'''Support''' As nom. '''
'''Support''' - All interactions have been positive, and the content creation work is superb. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' per interactions with the user. They seem to have enough clue for the extra buttons. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Mainly for the name, but also appears to be competent, trustworthy, and experienced enough to wield the mop.
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support''' Haven't come across this editor before but, after a look around, seems competent and focused on articles. No worries from me. --
'''Support''', can't see why not.
'''Support'''. Seems to do good work, and is willing to admit to mistakes and move on. That's exactly what's needed.
'''Support as [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA|a specialist admin candidate]]''' seeking the tools for specific tasks. Article building, communication, and conflict resolution skills are such that I don't believe admin abuse will be a problem. Seems meticulous and careful in his edits, so I don't believe will misuse tools by delving into areas where experience is lacking. Agree with rationales offered above.
'''Support'''. Fine editor, and, if those comments are the most uncivil things he has done, he is quite civil. No worries.
'''Support'''. No apparent problems, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARambo%27s_Revenge&diff=281048135&oldid=280984245 this diff] says a lot about his approach.  (I'm just going to hope that his user name doesn't carry a hidden message.)  (The preceding was intended as humor.)
Per Julian. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' per nom. Good content work. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
'''Support''' My interactions with him at FLC have been nothing but positive. --
'''Support''' Seems fine. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Quick review triggers no concerns.---'''
'''Support''' per MBisanz nomination. Glad to see someone willing to tackle some of the lesser-visibility areas of adminship. <span style="color:#808080">
Per [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions/Rambo%27s_Revenge/Round_1_2009|this]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions/Rambo%27s_Revenge|this]], I'm happy to support.  Excellent content creator.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #333399;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per my comments at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Rambo's Revenge]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''--
Good enough. '''
For some reason I find it amazing that you have 13 FL with about 5,500 edits. Clearly your doing great stuff.--(
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to grant this editor the tools. He is doing some great work.
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' No problems. Good luck. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Excellent content work; he will definitely be a good admin and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck, Rambo! :)
'''Support''' Of course.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' - ''15'' Featured credits? Wow.--
'''Support''' - ''by default''.  Also checked contribs, healthy activity since March of 08, solid contributions to articles.  No reason to think Rambo's going to blow up the the wiki. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Answers to the questions look good, clearly dedicated user.
I '''support'''
No reason not to support.
In my interactions with the user during the O.C. article FAC and PR, he was cheerful, eager to improve and accepting of criticism—the qualities we need in an admin. Clearly here to work on quality content. Don't think this lets you off the hook for writing more, though :P --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' Poorly argued opposes as of this posting. Thus, little reason not to support. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
It's hard to say this with [[User:Ais523/adminrights.js|Ais's admin highlighter script]], but I seriously thought he was one. Rambo is a civil, mature, and extremely clueful editor. Their featured credits are amazing, and is properly balanced with other work. This RfA was long overdue, but I'm still glad to support.
'''Support''' - seems to be a good candidate for adminship based on my interaction with this user on FLC.—<font color="blue" face="Cambria" size="3">
'''Support'''...thought he was one already!
'''Support''' No reason no to.
'''Support''' Great work. '''''
'''Support''' Very good work at WP:FL, esp. reviewing. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''.  No drama here.  Rambo's Revenge has good reason for Admin rights, and the temperament to exercise those rights responsibly.  I found that he always [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nergaal&diff=prev&oldid=242356876 communicates] well with others as he improves the encyclopedia.  Rambo will meet  [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|the end goal]] for the community. <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I've been impressed with his work at FLC, in both reviewing and nominating. Definitely think Rambo will be an asset for the community as an admin. '''
'''Support''' Good experiences with clueful candidate whenever I run into him. '''
'''Support''' - everything seems to be in order.
'''Support'''.  Should do well in his areas.  No reason not to support. '''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' Answers to the questions above and edits to mainspace make me think he will be a great sysop.
'''Support''' clear evidence will be a net positive :)
'''Support''' - plenty enough edits/time on board, great contributions of high quality, interesting user page.
'''Strong support'''  - good luck!
'''Support''' as I see no valid reason to oppose. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no evidence the tools would be abused. Rather, I see instances where it's liekly they will be used for good purposes, as a benefit to Wikipedia. ···
'''Support'''. Superb user. Like the content contributions and his work at [[WP:FLC]] and [[WP:FLRC]] is greatly appreciated. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Strong support'''. Another recognisable user. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' no problems.
'''Support''' User has been around since April 2007 and great content contributions and see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Further as per MBisanz.
'''Support''' Sounds conscientious and does good work. Thanks for answering those remaining questions; they helped tip the scales. &mdash;
'''Big support''' -- I started to write my reasonings, but they became too long. If you want to read them, see [[User talk:Matthewedwards#RfA]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I see no problems at all. — '''''
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' Fine Wikipedian with a clear understanding of its ins and outs. He will do us well as an admin. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
I'm
'''Support''' Absolutely! No alarms here. --
'''Support''' No problems here and a net positive.
[[User talk:Rambo's Revenge#Happy Rambo's Revenge's Day!|Support.]] --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Support'''. Seems to be level headed and invested in improving content.
Personal experience with the individual leads me to have little confidence in his ability to interact with others in a manner that should be expected of an admin.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Neutral''' - Username concerns
Looks good enough for me :D  Good luck, <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">
<font color="navy">
'''Enthusiastic support'''.   RegentsPark is intelligent, calm, fair, and efficient.  What more can one ask for?
'''Beat the nom''' Yes, looks solid, and Pedro's neutral reason although reasonable, isn't big enough for a neutral or oppose. --<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Support'''. Best I can determine, a reasonable and knowledgeable editor who calms disputes, makes sensible arguments, and builds the 'pedia. While I would prefer more tool related work, I do not see it as essential given the candidate's other qualifications and experience. While we can quibble over the precise meaning of the acronym in question (I think we get the drift), I accept Regents's explanation that he keeps it around as a sort of cautionary tale. My feeling is adminship will easily be a net positive for the candidate with little potential for abuse through personality flaws or misuse through a lack of understanding. Should do fine and probably does not need to be reminded, "when in doubt, don't-- ask instead." Cheers,
'''Support'''. Looks good. Edit count and experience a bit shy of today's standards - but aren't we always saying those standards are BS anyways.
Could do with more, and name seems familiar positive. '''
[[Revolution (song)|Number nine... number nine... number nine...]] Anyway, '''support'''. I forget which user, but I've seen one user say that "we need admins like a fish needs water," and it seems to me that RP could be a good choice. --<font face="script MT bold">
'''Support''' I see no problems. :) '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' - Absolutely. I see no reason not to trust RP with the tools.
'''Support...for now''' - I thought you were already an admin. I'll keep an eye on this RfA, hopefully nothing bad jumps out... —
'''Support'''-I can find no reason why not to support so I will support.-
'''Support''' - Comes across as thoughtful and careful. Good record as an established editor. I am certain that he will not misuse the tools and will take care to use them appropriately when he needs to. --
Seen him around, does good work. I trust this user with sysop tools.
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable and trusted.
'''Support''' User has been around since July 2007 and over 4000 edits after checking track find no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Looks fine'''.  I share some (most) of Pedro's concerns, but not enough to not support a good candidate.  Your answer to question #1 above about your approach to new areas is evident in your editing habits, and I don't see that suddenly changing when delving into admin areas.  Hence, support.
'''Support''' Responsible, trustworthy editor unlikely to abuse the tools. Adminship is not particle physics and the candidate knows enough to know what he does not yet know (if that makes sense). I have every confidence the candidate will be a superb admin. Good luck! --
'''Support''' I have no direct experience with the editor myself, but his work seems good and conflict handling is clueful. <b>'''
'''Support''' I see nothing to raise my suspicions. Looks to be an excellent editor... give him the mop.
'''Strong support''' RegentsPark's name has appeared often on my watchlist and I have always found his article contributions and talk page discussions to be knowledgeable, and fair. I have also seen him participate in several (otherwise) contentious debates, and be a voice of reason and calm; giving informed opinion based on subject knowledge, wikipedia policies and common sense. Most impressively, I have seen him put in the time and effort to ''research and learn'' more about the discussed subject, in order to better understand the other participants' POVs.  I trust his judgment and I think the qualities he has displayed will serve him and wikipedia well in areas of adminship he plans to work in.
'''Support''' -&ndash;
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support'''. Making my RfA !voting debut here, BTW :) I first became aware of RegentsPark through his work at [[WP:3O]]. This guy has a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and is experienced at conflict resolution (or at the very least sticking his oar in where its actually wanted). Give him the mop and bucket, and it's unlikely there be any complaints.
'''Support''' Completely agree with flagged revs answer, we have to up our cred, but could lose out on the anon IPs that are so important here. Couldn't have worded it better myself. --
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor exercise good judgment in  difficult situations and believe in his willingness and ability to become a excellent admin.  &mdash;
'''Weak support''' - I did not like the answer to question 13 very much, however, the answers to the other questions show an understanding of the policies that administrators use most often.  You definitely will use the tools appropriately, and be civil about the situation, however, I would have liked to have seen a better answer to the 13th question.
'''Support''': Cool and intelligent. --&mdash;
'''Support''' - I've seen him around, and I think he'll do fine the the tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Good judgment, has clue. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' An intelligent being with solid judgment. This is what I perceive of RP from the past contributions. --
Good faith '''support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having barnstars and for having never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I don't know him too well, but looking through his contribs & history, he seems trustworthy enough for me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support.'''  All my encounters (primarily but not exclusively on [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|WP:3O]]-related matters) with RegentsPark reinforce my perception that this nominee will be a great asset to the admin corps.  —
'''Support.''' No problems, good judgement.
'''Support''' for helping with the Salak drama. '''
'''Support''' per nom and per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]

'''Strong Support''': Seen him around for a long time. Is a level headed and good contributor. I can care whether he really needs the buttons , ALL I care is that I trust him with the tools --
'''Strong support''' per, WP:USERWOULDBEOVERALLBETTERWITHTHETOOLS.
I'm not going to even look at the questions or other comments in this case because I know he is an outstanding candidate, and I personally wish to thank the nominator for bringing this RFA forward. On more than one occasion, the candidate has tried to diffuse conflict in problem areas, without resorting to calls for blocks (as blocks were not necessary). Additionally, when use of tools become absolutely necessary, he will use them so that they benefit for this project - I trust him. '''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''. A weak answer to question 13. However the answers to questions 8 & 9 are reasonable. The deciding factor is that RegentsPark has a good track record of consensus-building.
'''Support''', opposes are not convincing, and no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Seen him in loads of talk pages trying to achieve consensus with unbiased views. He would make an excellent admin. <font color="Orange"><b>
'''Support''' Very sensible editor who works to achieve consensus between editors whereever possible. Can't see future abuse of admin tools as very likely!
'''Support''' - clear concise edit summaries.  Appears to have a good handle on what's going on here, and still has his feet planted in the real world.  On a lighter note: Anyone who is older is more than welcomed to keep an eye on you young whippersnapper admins. (I say that with a smile - I think you guys and gals do fine).  And perhaps his best quality?  If he can swim like a fish - then maybe he can make friends with our trout -- which needs to be used much more frequently!
'''Support''' - I get the feeling that Regents is a knowledgeable and level-headed editor that would make a great admin.  If I may use a bit of metaphor: I whole-heartedly support anyone willing to accept that little is black-and-white and who is willing to debate the shade of gray.  May you have a favorable statistical outcome!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support'''. Seems like a reasonable, cool-headed editor.
'''Support''' Looks good to me; also, quite good answers to my questions. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' Several times I was able to witness the very careful and responsible way this user makes his opinions, and the civil way he approaches other users, all befitting of a trustworthy user and a great candidate. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' No problems.
--''
'''Support''' &mdash; Fine candidate for adminship. &mdash;
'''Support''' for RegentsPark, who, in my opinion, is a good mediator who communicates well, and who has done good work in WP articles that have tendentious contributors.

Excellent editor.
'''
'''Support''' - Trust here is not an issue. Article writing + calm demeanor only further enhance this candidate's likelihood of adminship. --'''
I've decided to change to neutral from oppose.  Going into this RfA you did not have enough experience in AfD to successfully work there as an administrator, but I can see that this has changed.  If you look at the answers given earlier on in the RfA, they really weren't that great.  As you move down to later questions, your answers start to get better and better.  The quality improves and your reasoning is much clearer and rooted in policy. Through the course of this RfA you have learned a lot, and it really shows.  I would still advise you to familiarize yourself with new administrative tasks before jumping in, but I think you'll do good in general.  Good luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. I firmly believe this candidate knows policy very well.
'''Support'''.  Candidate's temperament pushed it over the line. Too many admins with questionable temperament get supported because they've got tons of edits and have a string of GAs, FAs, DYKs, etc, which makes them great content contributors but not necessarily reliable admins.  The project is more drama filled and less a newbie friendly environment than ever, and I want admins with enough care and interpersonal skills to enhance collaboration and deescalate drama when they use the tools.  I'm convinced this candidate will learn quickly and be a big net positive afterward.  I'd request the he makes sure he's comfortable with his experience in particular areas such as AfD before doing admin work there.
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN]]
'''Support''' per answers to my Q's, and the rest of the standard support reasons. <font face="terminal">
'''Support''' Despite initial misgivings (see previous neutral below), I trust that you will expand your interests in to the administration areas more than you currently do. --
'''Support''' - I've analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I was ''very'' impressed by the answers to questions, and I can't find any issues searching through his edit history.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - I don't see anything in which this user would need admin tools to work in the areas that he wants, unless he is suggesting that he wants to close deletion pages and we already have plenty of admin there.
'''Oppose''' With so few edits to AFD, I feel this candidate needs more experience in this area to properly get a feel for that area. As it stands now this candidate has no use for the tools, in my view.
Have to '''oppose''' per the WTF section and little to no AFD experience.
'''Oppose''' - I'm not used to being in this category, as normally I tend to avoid RfAs where I cannot support. Having said that, I have a handful of concerns about this request that I'm not sure I can resolve easily. Firstly, the candidate does not have any GAs, FAs, DYKs etc. While it's a crude way of measuring an editor's capability, it does help to demonstrate a willingness to improve articles to an agreed standard. Per Pedro, the candidate's level of AfD work isn't high and ceases in mid-November last year. Combined with the candidate's responses to questions set by Dlohcierekim, I feel uneasy about them carrying out work in this area, and feel that they are unprepared for adminship in general. With respect to question 14, I am concerned that the candidate feels it is an "all or nothing" approach rather than a tool that can be selectively applied to problematic articles. I'm confident that the candidate has demonstrated a strong level of maturity and teamwork that is consistent with the aims for adminship and would be happy to support in the future, once these concerns are resolved. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Lack of AfD experience, as shown by Q13.
'''Oppose'''. Says he wants to work at AFD, but unfortunately, from the questions, has no clue about the process.
I draw the same conclusion as Stifle about his AfD knowledge. '''
'''Neutral''' Not sure here. You want to work at AFD but have less than 50 deleted edits, a handful of AFD noms and basically no CSD requests (well, one - a blatant one). I'm also a little confused as to the WTF link on your user page and I don't feel your reply to the question was adequate - surely you know what [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wtf WTF] is short for? I think you're pulling the wool over my eyes there, and I don't like that. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' RegentsPark is a good editor and I do think we can trust him, so I don't want to oppose, but I can't support either. The answer to Q7 is the most distressing thing for me. There are plenty of instances where it's appropriate to indefblock a user, and an administrator has to be ready, willing, and able to "pull the trigger" when necessary. In addition, the weird "WTF" thing from his userpage gives me pause, and for someone planning on working at AfD, his answers to the AfD-related questions were unimpressive. A quality editor with admin-potential, but I don't think you're quite ready. But as this RfA apears likely to be successful, I wish you good luck! :-)
'''Neutral, leaning toward Oppose''' per Pedro. I'm sure the candidate a great editor, but no AfD/CSD experience makes me a little uncomfortable. If this passes, I'd encourage him to take it very slow on AfD closures.
Well, you are better than most of the candidates that have passed lately, and you have a legitimate need. The area you would be working in primarily has tons of eyes on it and the screw up potential is not that damaging.
'''Support''' - He has the support of the guy he cites as having been his most recent Wikiconflict. He's technically capable, has a clean block log, and appears fairly self aware and willing to take advice. I see no problems.
'''Strong Support''' Not only an excellent content builder, but also one of the most prolific reviewers who keep the DYK system  running and a vandal fighter in the East Asia field. His profound knowledge of Chinese language is very helpful to induce editors to resolve content disputes in one of hot zones in Wikipedia. (<small>Hooah!, he has been acknowledged as "admin-material" by over 100 editors.23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)</small>)--
Support (I completely disagree lack of edit summaries is "alarming" - perhaps, if your child was missing, or there was a severe earthquake, or your house was on fire, I would agree with it being "alarming" (or an alarm "going off). But a lack of edit summaries? Some people obviously spend too much time on here.) '''
No issues here, seems responsible and dedicated. As mentioned, the need is strong, and there's little risk of breaking the wiki. Best of luck to you. :)
'''Support''' - Absolutely. Demonstrated need, and I don't see any reasons not to support. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Essentially per Majorly.
'''Support''' - I've had a lot of interaction with Rjanag in connection with DYK and I have found him to be careful, trustworthy, and congenial -- and I put his RfA on my watchlist because I thought it would be a good idea for him to be handed a mop. --
'''Support''' All of my interactions with this user and the material above convince me that Rjanag is very mop-worthy.
'''Support''', despite my opinion that DYK is a highly overrated facet of the project. Editor has clue, is not drama-prone, and seems mature.
'''Support'''. Ooh, a template coder. Yes, definite need for the tools. In response to GlassCobra there is a significant risk of breaking the wiki. Coders sometimes end up becoming Developers and then can just change a single thing in the core, not only can they delete the main page, they can make it look like it never existed. :)
'''Support''' - A multi-talented, constructive editor. Calming and soothing in inflammatory situations. Willingly takes on responsibility. Open minded; does not take the actions of others personally. &mdash;
'''Support''' No worries re the talk or user pages, clean block log, broad experience and will soon overtake me on the contributions front. The low edit summary worried me but I'm happy with the explanation,  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=286360896 Moah use of preview] would be nice but it would be lame to oppose over that. ''
'''Support''' User is trusted, is civil and polite, has good knowledge of policy = good admin candidate. <font face="Georgia">
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support'''  Good contributions in several areas, and always available to help. --'''
'''Support''' Good user
My notorious "This user did something bad and I can't remember what it was" alarm went off when I saw your name here. On further review, it appears my sieve-like brain was remembering some of your Ottava Rima drama from a few months ago. I wasn't particularly impressed with that, but as you say in your answer to Q3 it appears to be well behind you now. Everything else seems good; I've seen nothing more recent to concern me and many excellent contributions. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' under the condition that Rjanag gives his word to always use edit summaries (hint: turn on the automatic reminder in your preferences). '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support'''' - Not enough administrators, currently. Hahaha! :) Looks like an awesome contributor, see some great mop wielding in the near-future. - <big>'''
I rarely support candidates at RfA, but I have absolutely no compunctions about supporting this one. A fine editor. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' No spam, please.  --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has no blocks but is a good article contributor.  Best, --
'''Support''' - excellent user, and I can't see any issues or reasons to think that he's not capable of the extra bit. All I found was [[User talk:Rjanag#Jim Brandstatter|this]], but it really doesn't concern me. Otherwise, he has been a great asset and a positive influence at DYK. A [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]], if I may link that, myself. <tt>;)</tt> Good luck,
'''Support''' No issues.
My interactions with him (at [[Questionable Content]]) have always been positive, seems like a bright chap, and the user has significantly contributed to audited articles. He's here to improve the wiki, so I give my support. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' [[User:Politizer|Politizer]]. I have ''no'' idea who [[User:Rjanag]] is, but if Politizer is prepared to vouch for 'em, then that's good enough for me.
'''Support''' Impressive ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' per the flag guy. We could always some more help with keeping the sock drawers clean. —
'''Strong support for best answers I've seen on my questions.'''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Shows much by way of "clue".
"I just close my eyes and pretend that I'm dealing with someone else."  Heh, good answer.
'''Support''' mainly due to answers to questions 4-7. <span style="color:#808080">
Good lord yes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' because I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' <small>(switch from neutral)</small> I trust Rjanag's word that he will not do hundreds of edits without summary again. Other contributions, including CSD work, look fine to me. You might want to be a bit more informing on your summaries though, not only "db" but something like "tagging for speedy deletion X1 - etc." or "warning about speedy deletion of [[example]]", which will be very important as an admin (especially on declining speedies). Regards '''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Great work! '''''
'''Support''' Nom support. &lowast;
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''', excellent at DYK, good sense of humor, does content work, listed at [[WP:HAU|HAU]], and per Ottava. Need I say more?
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for thoughtful and encouraging answers to questions posed. --
'''Support''' Answers to questions are convincing.  No strong reason to oppose offered.  Always need more template admins!
A name that generally brings positive recollections to mind. Of course I support Rjanag.
'''Support''' Excellent answers. '''
'''Support''' I trust this user with the sysop tools.
'''Support''' Well developed answers show trustworthiness. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' contributions look good, and the admin tools will come in useful when editing those protected templates.  Hopefully Rjanag can get it right the first time!  Good feedback to others on talk pages.
'''Support'''. I've interacted with r-something-or-other-anaG at a number of forums recently, and he's always impressed me with his even temper, his work ethic, and his solid grasp of policy. A linguist, a hard-core citer, and a template programmer too? I'm a fan. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' Of course.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' absolutely no reason not to. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Rjanag has shown excellent discussion abilities and has been extremely helpful at DYK. Ready for the mop! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' He should have deserved this a long time ago.
'''Solid'''.
—
'''Support''' Great work at DYK.
'''Support''': Have worked with this user, and he knows enough to work well in the intended area. Though I noticed some heated discussions at the time he started working at DYK, he has improved a lot and you won't catch him doing that again.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;An impressive contributor. --'''''
'''Support'''&nbsp;A no nonsense editor. Perfect for stopping all kinds of vandalism. Just what we need. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''; overqualified. ;-) --
Good stuff. You will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Wow, the questions are getting pretty hard, and the answers are good.  Candidate has shown good judgment in discussions. - Dan
'''Support''' - No-brainier.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' can't find any reason not to support :-) --
'''Strong support''', not enough administrators currently :P. Seriously though, great contributions and a good attitude.
'''Support''' good and thoughtful answers to questions, should be fine.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. The opposer's behavior has become tiresome and should be discontinued.
'''Support''' Major contributor, collegial and has good judgement.
'''Definite support''' Rjanag asked me to give him a pre-RfA review a few weeks ago, and after looking him over, I asked via email, "Am I missing something?  I don't see any major issues."  He then told me about his encounters with Ottava and how they've adapted their working relationship with one another.  I told him that I didn't see anything to worry about, but warned him that I didn't know if Ottava might know something from personal experience that I didn't.  So now that Ottava was the first to support, how could I oppose?  (I even offered to nom him :( )---'''
'''Support'''. The right qualities.
'''Support''' per interactions on my talk page, and after a review of your account. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Since I met RJ, I knew right away he was the admin type. He pays meticulous attention to detail, but knows what he's doing along the way. '''
'''Strong support'''--
'''Support''' Good answers for all the questions I asked. While Rjanag's niche is at DYK, I hope that he can spend some time on [[CAT:CSD]], since he will be an accurate CSD'er and will provide much help with the CSD backlog. I wouldn't nominate [[Industrial and Financial Systems]] for AfD though (see Q15a), since the company passes [[WP:CORP]] after examining a [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&hl=en&q=%22Industrial+and+Financial+Systems%22&cf=all Google News Archive search]. Best of luck,
'''Support. Must. Pile. On.''' -  Seriously, looks like a fine candidate to me.
'''
I remember being concerned about your interactions with Ottava several months ago, though thinking back, I cannot remember who exactly was at "fault" there. As Ottava was the first to support, however, and you have both the experience and the clue, I see no reason not to support. <font color="navy">
'''Support'''Fine canidate, and, as Hiberniantears and NuclearWarfare have said, the first support is from the other party in his most recent conflict.
'''Strong support''' - one of the finest candidates at RfA I've seen in months.  This long-time user has 25,000 edits, experience creating good articles, rollback rights, great answers to questions above, and a fine user page.  We could use another sysop with an understanding of linguistics and "non-Western" languages.
'''Support''' I can't believe he's not an admin already. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' While you haven't been here that long, you've shown clear capability. --
'''Support''': why not. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Support'''. The candidate is helpful and seems to have a clue. I don't see much risk in granting Rjanag the sysop gig.
'''Support''' Great content contribs and very helpful wikipedian.
Brilliant work in all fields. <strong>
'''Support''' - You have a lot of good ideas, and I think you'd make a good admin.  --'''
'''Support''' Absolutely. No alarms, great content work, thorough understanding of the important policies and procedures. --
'''Support''' Have had only good experiences with him. Seen him around alot and he is definitely administrator material.--
'''Support''' Good Luck [[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support'''. Certainly doesn't sound any alarm bells for me. Would make good use of the tools and seems to be able to apply common sense. What more could you ask for?
'''Support''' - very strong candidate, obvious need for the tools, no worries.
'''Support''' &ndash; Good user, and suggest discounting the lone oppose (too many admins). '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' seen him round (more as Politizer), polite, helpful to the wiki. Although I would suggest reading the [[WP:NPP]] in more depth if you plan to work with CSD. Good luck :) -
'''Support''' - An incredible knowledge of template syntax, a great help at DYK, and a very collegial editor—my whole-hearted support. —'''''
'''Support'''. Seems like a fine candidate. Also, [[Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something|yay]]. — '''''
'''Support''' Good content-related work, will be useful. '''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate...
'''Support''' - As a template developer/editor, I completely understand how frustrating it can be to find those misplaced braces or missing colons. Your other answers are thoughtful, and you appear highly competent and reasonable. &mdash;
'''Support''' DougsTech is ruining a perfect RfA support.
'''Support'''. I only have had one encounter with this user, at my first DYK, and it was a very positive experience. He told me exactly what I would need to do for it to be approved, and was very friendly about it. Will make a great admin. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support'''. No problems here. '''
'''Support'''--Some of the best answers I've seen.
'''Support''' Nice answers, seems to have a good grasp of what's required. - '''
'''Support''' Seems very knowledgable and has a lot of experience under his belt. Another administrator would be welcomed! [[User Talk:Prospider|<font face="verdana" color="blue" size="1">talk</font>]]
'''Definitely''' Civil, hardworking commonsensical content editor - quick give the poor bugger the mop before he creates any more content! :)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Per 111 outstanding reasons and only [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|one possible conclusion]].<small>
'''Strong Support''' The edit summary issue is the only smudge on an otherwise excellent resume for the <s>thankless, exhausting</s> exciting job as a mopwielder. -
'''Support''' strongly per your answers.  Not only were they clear and precise, but they were made with a sense of honesty which shows that you have nothing to hide. '''
'''Support''' Stop having boring tuna.. stop having a boring life. ;] '''-''' ℅ <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">
'''Firm support''' due to being seen around (DYK, etc). I'm sure DYK needs more assistance, Wikipedia itself needs more assistance, I don't recall any negative encounters, one for the "isn't this user an admin already" category, really can't think of any reason why not, etc. etc. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''No doubt a support-good luck!
'''Support''' Participates at DYK, has 25,000 edits, helped fix and devolp a number of templates, and generally remains calm. Seems like a great candidate for adminship.
'''Oppose''', fails [[Wikipedia:HUMOUR|my RFA criteria]] by not having 100,000 edits, not having 100 pieces of featured content, and not having thirty years experience.  Might be willing to support sometime around 2028 if you keep up your current editing patterns though!
'''Pile-on support''' - Hardly need to add to what has already been said but Rjanag is friendly, helpful and sensible as a collaborator and is also a profilic contributor of quality content who I'm sure will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I would've supported earlier if I'd known about this. I was considering offering to nominate Rjanag (back then he was Politizer) for adminship near the end of the last year but then I took a break. His work on DYK has been invaluable and we certainly need more admins there. <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Support'''. Everything seems fine; the candidate should be a good administrator. I also strongly disagree with the only grounds for opposition presented, and I find no grounds myself.
'''Support'''. I notice very positive contributions to issues relating to non-free content and potential copyvio files, both areas that could use more admins.
'''Support''', per all above, basically. A highly qualified candidate for admin.
'''Support''' because the oppose vote (not !vote, vote) is ridiculous, and the neutral vote might be even stupider. Oh, and because Rjanag's an excellent editor who deserves the tools. Had I mentioned that? --
You have a good sense of humor, which not many people around here have, but I get a sense from you that you know that there's a time and a place to have fun, and a time to be serious. You've demonstrated adequately to me that you're capable to solve disputes between users, and that's good enough for me. Best of luck, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Support''' Very good potential as an administrator, answers to questions are substantial.
'''Support'''. Fairly unequivocal net positive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good contribs, good answers to the questions - which simultaneously demonstrates an ability to explain difficult issues in a clear manner. Some nice work in conflicts too.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' My interaction with Rjanag on street newspapers and other articles has been entirely positive. The answers to the questions are good too. I was not canvassed in any way either, I just saw him on the RfA list. --
Just figured out this was Politizer, Support.
'''Support''' ''by default''.  I only did a cursory vetting, but looks good to me.  Good Luck ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Neutral-gravity-to-support''' I see a bunch of "Yay let's support with the typical support reasons, I like him, support, blah" in the support section, and in the oppose I see that ever-present oppose that screams "ignore this oppose and treat me like a rebel." Oh boy, a template coder. Not like we have any of those around here. Oh boy, editcount. I even have one of those, although his is a bit shinier. Oh boy, well-formulated answers to questions. That is a plus, although not a huge one. [[That Don't Impress Me Much|Ok, so you're Brad Pitt]]. The sheer gravity of the support section is dragging me over there, but for me that equates to a TLDR. <span style="font-family:terminal">
'''Support''' without reservation as the nom.
'''Support''' I don't have any problem with the break as long as you are honest about it.
'''Support'''. Why not? -'''
'''Support'''.  I don't see any reason not to. '''
'''Support'''. Excellent, level-headed editor, from what I've seen.
'''Support''', clueful editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', no reason to oppose, but has only been active in recent months.  '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' [[WP:AGF]]--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="blue">
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' no problems in uploads, move logs or deleted contribs.
'''Support'': admins don't have to be proficient in every area before they start - for one, I cannot forsee any negative consequences of sysop status in this case, and secondly, the user has the right attitutude. In the real world, you cannot expect people to have every required skill whilst interviewing them. -
'''Support''' - Why oppose? Can't find a reason to do so! Oh, and Happy Holidays! '''
'''Support''', question answers reveal a sensible and clued-up user who would make good use of admin tools. A quick review of contributions reveals no concerns. I do not find the oppose rationales remotely convincing. Hence, I'm happy to support! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support:''' Looks Good. Happy Holidays -
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' There's a clear need for another administrator to help out regularly at TfD, and RL0919 fits the bill [http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-toa2.htm to a T]. He has an excellent history and there and a near-perfect record of T2 and T3 CSD taggings. His work on contentious articles, from [[Ayn Rand]] to [[Van Jones]], is also very impressive. The candidate seems trustworthy, thoughtful, and capable, and his answers to the questions all inspire confidence. His willingness to help out with oft-neglected areas of the admin backlog (TfD, [[WP:RM]]) also moves me to support.
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|18px]]'''Support''' I am very happy with what I've seen, and the answer to my question shows me that the candidate will have the right attitude towards adminship. -- '''''
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Weak Support]]''' - I would like to see more CSD work, but the answers to my questions prove to me you know what you are doing, although I am sort of playing [[Scout Law|scouts honor]] here. Hopefully it pays off. Good luck. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
Won't abuse the tools, and that what matters.
'''Support''' The answers are solid, and I like that this user also has a life off-wiki.
'''[[WP:NETPOS|Support]]''' - none of the oppose rationales seem sufficent to avert me from a default support.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Head seems to be in the right place, as does some good experience where adminship is likely to take place.  The concerns over a long "break" (clearly) don't dissuade me - active solidly since May is all I'm concerned with.  Before that who cares? ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - Given the user's stated intention regarding the tools (TFD and CSD), I feel perfectly comfortable supporting. Answers to the questions seem thoughtful and full of clue.
Certainly. Why registering an account early on can be held against you is beyond me, and it's not a "wikibreak" if all your edits amount to a couple days of edits. If anything I find it reassuring that you're not a sock. From what I can tell you're a calm editor who works in a niche, without issues on the talk page, are generally clueful, and are low on drama. Absolutely the kind of editor who should have admin rights.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - I've been going back and forth on this. You seem to have a great understanding of the BLP policy, and the AFD policy. You seem to be a great editor, who would be a great help as an admin. You seem to be rather uncontroversial (always a good thing). You have over 21% of your edits in the Wikipedia space (mostly in the TFD area), which means you don't just stick to articles (something I like to see in an admin). But one thing concerns me, you're understanding of IAR. You mentioned that you shouldn't close AFDs per your likes or dislikes, and that's all well and good. But it's when we get into the arena of BLPs that it becomes a little more important for admins to take certain situations into their own hands, not to thwart policy or the community consensus, but to give them a hand in deciding which way to go when they can't decide which direction the article should go. Now don't take this in the wrong way, I'm just asking you to keep certain things in mind while you go around Wikipedia. I think you'll do fine, and I hope you pass this RFA. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' - echoing Amalthea and A Stop at Willoughby.  I am not swayed by oppose arguments based on inexperience or a "wikibreak."  I'm inclined to discount the early edits entirely, just as I wouldn't hold a history of IP edits against a user who later registered.  And I think your answers to the questions demonstrate an astounding amount of clue; I'm confident that you will know how to navigate any areas of unfamiliarity that come up during your adminship.  Rock on. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'>
'''Support''' Good candidate. Nice mix of Prod, AFD and CSD in your deletion tagging. ''
'''Support''' Don't see anything that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Experienced candidate that knows Wikipedia well. Tries to solve conflicts in Wikipedia and few concerns are mentioned.
Unconcerned about arguments even taking into account his editing history before 2009; he wasn't a regular contributor then. He has only been actively editing since May 2009, which occasionally can be enough for an oppose, but I was very impressed with his contribution history and with the answers to the questions. Will definitely be a net positive as a sysop. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' I really like the answers to the questions, and even if I hadn't, ''per Bali ultimate'' would be appropriate here. Opposing a candidate due to a 4-year-old contribution that was clearly in line with Wikipedia style in that era, and is still okay for a stub now? Utterly unfair and needs to be cancelled out. <strong>
'''Support''' Definitely has a clue. Good content contributions and I like the fact that he started in 2005. Sure, there's the three-year break but it still gives him an interesting perspective on how the project has evolved.
'''Support'''. I have no idea what I'm doing in template space, thus I don't participate in TfD but I know that a lack of competent admins to close discussions is a problem in all XfD arenas and so to add one would be of great benefit to the area and the project as a whole. The opposes really don't hold water- so he had a nice long wikibreak, many editors could benefit from that, it shows perspective with the "real world" (never a bad thing) but does not make him any less trustworthy with the tools. Good luck to you!
'''Support''' I find the concerns about a long absence unconcerning; and have only looked at the candidate since this May.  I like what I see, and think this editor would make a fine sysop.
'''Support''' Good answers given, and I see nothing in the opposes that would change my mind. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seems an okay fellow, even though experience in some admin-related areas is a little shallow. Insistence at AfD that [[exploding trees]] is [[WP:SYNT]] was a little strange, but that's the worst I found about him. :-)
'''Support''' -- No concerns. I liked his answers to the questions, especially #8. Shows he is able to follow shifts in the community's thinking even when they not yet codified into policy.
'''Support''' per EdJohnston.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose; also per Amalthea. Regards '''
'''Support''' I'm not too worried about anything the oppose section has come up with so far - candidate looks fine to me.
'''Support''' I can see you obviously know what you're doing from the questions.
Qualified. No significant concerns seem to have been raised.
'''Support''' Nothing of concern in the oppose section or question answers.
'''Support''' - 8 months of solid contributions over a variety of places (almost half in article space), and almost 6,000 total edits, with around 90% non-automated, I don't see where the lack of experience comes into play. Some particularly nice article space contributions, good communication skills, a clean block log, no complaints of bad contributions or behavior. I don't see any reason to not support. -- '''
Yes, I think so. I actually think a wikibreak is a good thing; most of us get annoyed with this place sometimes, the judgement to step away rather than get involved in drama is a good one I think. And anyone who can help with template CSDs is good.
'''Support'''. It's a sad day when seven months of active editing is dismissed as inexperience. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Opposes don't raise issues I'm overly worried about, and as Atama shows, reasonable contribution rate.
'''Support''': I have not crossed paths with this editor, but the answers in this RfA are sensible and encouraging and give the impression of a considerate candidate who will use the tools wisely.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - meets my standards.
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions. Decent article work. Plans to help out backlogs in a sensible way, will be a good addition to the ranks.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support'''. No evidence to suggest that the candidate's adminship will be anything other than a net positive to the project.
Support per PeterSymonds. How dare someone have a life outside of WP? :) –'''
'''Weak support''' If the wikibreak is to be ignored, then I would question whether the candidate has enough experience. But what I've seen is very, very good.
'''Support'''. Looks to be a net positive. -
'''Support''' - Benefit of the doubt is warranted...
'''Support''' (moved from neutral) though I have high expectations! <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' The wikibreak seems to have been a good thing for him. <font face="Georgia">

'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]'''. s/he seems trustworthy enough.--
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], because it is the holiday season, but also as the user was trusted enough to be given both rollback and autoreviewer status, is an experienced editor of over 4 years and over 6,000 edits, [[User:RL0919#Awards]] are nice to see, and as candidate has never been blocked.  Good luck and Merry Christmas!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Impressed with his thoughtful replies (and his poise and maturity in the face of Bali ultimate's snarking).  Completely ''un''concerned about his wikibreak. This is a volunteer enterprise. If he had more important things to do, god bless him. Now that he's back, let's give him the tools.
'''Support''' Level-headed, mature. Knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' Per all the good reasons above. --
Have yourself a merry little '''support''' vote... No blocks, no drama to speak of, solid answers to questions, and I disagree with most of the opposes. Works for me...
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
Qualified and competent. Merry Christmas ~
'''Last minute support''' -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' While I see a lot of participation in TfD's and CfD's, I see less than 400 deleted edits, and none to the usual areas of UAA, AIV, RPP, and very few in AfD's.  Based on the lack of participation in those areas, I cannot accurately judge whether this candidate possesses the <s>repentant</s> requisite knowledge to make informed, accurate decisions at this time.  I would like to see the candidate KNOW a policy before applying it, rather than rapidly learning one before applying it.
'''Oppose''' per ArcAngel.
'''Oppose''' Regular contributing from only May 2009 onwards. I would like to see more experience first in certain areas that admins should be versatile in, ex. [[WP:AFD]] and others.
'''Oppose''' - perhaps more experience would be useful.
'''Oppose''' - glad to reconsider later but this user needs much more experience. Just as an example, his/her talk page has only been edited 135 times in total.  That really doesn't give us enough indication of how s/he will respond as an admin to the crap that will inevitably be hurled in his/her direction.
'''Oppose''' - too early, I am also slightly worried about the long wikibreak.
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about the long gap between edits, and that he's only been editing regularly since May. I'd like to see a bit more experience. <font color="purple">
'''Oppose''' per lack of recent track record to judge the candidate and [[Henry Oliver Walker]].
'''Oppose''' per BejinhanTalk.  Old account, but fairly new to today's Wikipedia.  Would like to see a longer track record.  I'm fairly confident that RL0919 wont misuse the tools, but would like to see more experience.  --'''
'''Oppose''' - moved from neutral; Nowhere near enough CSD or patrolling experience to approve a new page admin. Page patrolling is less than 2% of total edits, which are low in any case. Although I acknowledge TfD work is completely different that a lot of other parts of the project, we're talking about full rights, not just TfD rights. I still like and trust the editor, but would like to see more editing in some key areas. Not sure there's enough there fore me to be comfortable.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits deleted edits, little involvement in the usual areas of UAA, AIV, RPP, and AfD, and certainly not enough experience, particularly in regards to CSD and new page patrolling.
'''Oppose''' - with respect and appreciation for the candidate's work, there just doesn't seem to be enough experience yet to grant the tools.  I don't see any problems or warning signs, just not enough participation so far.  Looks like good potential though, and I encourage another RfA when the time is right. --
User [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RL0919&diff=prev&oldid=18555014 admits] that he edited anonymously before he created this account. Without knowing these edits we don't have a full record.  How can we support?  There might be vandalism! Heck, he might ''still'' be vandalizing today!!!!!
'''Oppose''' If I can't be accepted then neither should you. From now on I will oppose anyone being nominated if I feel they are equally or less deserving than I am. You are less deserving than I am, so no support for you. It's simple logic, since I was voted down. Otherwise the site is playing favorites and running a popularity contest and that must stop.[[User:Wiki Greek Basketball|Wiki Greek Basketball]] ([[User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball|talk]]) 07:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC) <s><small>Struck innaropriate and [[WP:POINT|pointy]] oppose. If anyone wants to revert me (not including Wiki Greek Basketball) feel free to do so. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">[[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#090">have a cup</font>]] // [[WP:ARK|<font color="#4682b4">ark</font>]] // </small> 08:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)</small></s> <small>Undid striking of another editor's !vote as bureaucrats are smart enough to consider all aspects of someone's !vote. ···
'''Oppose'''  No enough recent experience with '''modern Wikipedia'''  Otherwise a good candidate.
'''Oppose''' Although the edits from this user are constructive, I do not feel that this user is yet qualified for sysop permissions. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Neutral''' Another neutral I take. While he is very clueful and helpful to the project, s/he lacks experience at areas like AfD, which s/he should be familiar with if he is intending to help at CSD. While I am not quite supportive, I doubt he would misuse the Admin status. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Neutral''' Good work in Wikipedia, but long absence worries me.
'''Neutral''' - Certainly there are some worthwhile contributions here, and they would typically merit a support vote from me. However, given the relatively brief period of continuous editing, it makes it somewhat difficult for me to judge. I'm going neutral for now. <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral''' Seems trustworthy, and I appreciate the obvious thought put into his answers to the questions above.  Still, I think a greater demonstration of knowledge of policy would be usefull.
'''Neutral''' - He meets many of my standards, but I'm concerned about his lack of recent experience, in effect a newbie again. Sorry.
'''Support''' as nom
'''Support''' - Proud to be among the first. Ron's writing, by his own admission, is thin and I would have made an issue of that until recently, but since that is no longer as important as it used to be in an Rfa, I say hand this dude the mop! (And as a fellow vandal-fighter, I additionally beam with pleasure.  Good luck and best wishes on this.) <font color="green">
'''Support''' Looks alright to me.
'''Support''' He's an excellent vandal fighter and seems discreet enough. Though I would like to see more regular edits, I don't think that would be a real problem based on the work he intends to do. All-in-all, I think I would trust him with this line of duty.--
'''Support''' Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. --
'''Support''' Not every admin need to have written reams of prose before being appointed. As their primary role should be to facilitiate others to make contributions I don't see a problem with Ron's relative lack of article-writing experience. His work in fighting vandalism is enough to demonstrate he has the right temperament to continue doing that with some extra tools.--
'''Support''' - automated edits are not a problem. This user wants the tools primarily to fight vandals, and I see no evidence that he would do a bad job at that.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Per above, plus you have a clean block log and the tenure and editing experience needed for adminship. I've gone through quite a few of your deleted contributions and not spotted anything untoward. ''
'''Per above''' vandal fighters  don't need to be huge content creators.
'''Support'''. Candidate seems fine, has the necessary experience, no communication issues. The percentage-requirement for non-automated edits is completely illogical. Any one of the opposition down there - pick your favorite editor here. The one you look up to, the one you think would make the best admin. Now, that person goes - this week - and reverts 30,000 vandalism articles using some new automated tool that just slays the vandals. Would you now oppose them because their ''percentage'' of non-automated edits is too low? I can't believe that people latch on to this requirement as ''making any sense at all''. "Oppose, he's done too much work in an area I don't respect". That's really what you should say, because that's what it really means.
'''Strong Support''' per Tan, and per his post on the RfA talk page. Had he done everything manually, he'd have less vandalism work, but it seems like, more or less, he would have more supports... that is utterly illogical. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support'''. Will use the extra tools to help with vandals fighting by blocking repeated ones as their noticed and states he will expand out as he learns. Sound and ideal way to go. --
'''Support'''. Lots of good work here, and 17 articles is more than I've created. I see no evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per Tan and The Thing That Should Not Be. Honestly, percentage of automated edits is one of the shakier rationales I've seen here.
'''Support''' Pleasent interactions with this editor in the past. Though i think more activity on article development would be a plus. At anyrate, Fully trustworthy in my opinion. Good luck!
'''Support'''  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' I like how Tan framed it. Whether it is automated or manual, the work gets done correctly.
Uh, the opposes just don't get what adminship is about. We have admins who only do vandal fighting and we have not seen any problems with them. The oppose by Btilm is completely lopsided and nonsensical. '''
'''Support''' I see lots of good work and nothing problematic -- opposing because of the number of automated edits strikes me as wrong.  Does using Huggle disqualify an editor who would otherwise be okay from becoming an admin?
'''Support'''. Not convinced by the opposes. Per Tan et al.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with above regarding the quality of the oppose rationales.
'''Support''' Why not? The faster the vandals are gone, the better.
'''Support''' Good track record defending the encyclopaedia,  no  reason to think theyll  misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Glad to - no reason to think you'll abuse the admin tools, and in reply to the opposes: they really *can* be valuable on antivandal patrol (I suspect every one of us Hugglers has had the frustration of repeatedly rolling back some vandal's edits at 2am until some admin ''finally'' gets to the half-hour backlogged AIV page). Requiring familiarity with the ''full'' range of situations an admin is likely to encounter, when you've well indicated your limited purpose with the admin functions, is just going too far and likely to deprive us of a good productive admin. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Answered my questions to my satisfaction.
'''Support''' per the opposes based on automated edits. Hopefully the crats will acknowledge that such votes contain precisely zero substance.  [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' Can't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' I've seen him revert vandalism I think he can be trusted with the tools--
'''Support''' Has done well, will do well. As far as automated edits go, I'm in full agreement with Tan above and Jusdafax below.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose. The ability to identify and use tools is not a negative, and there is good content creation. '''
It's been stated that Ronhjones has some 5,000 or so edits that weren't made with an tool such as Huggle: 5,000 edits is easily enough to judge whether someone will make a bad admin or not. He's created 17 articles? That good! Never voted in an RfA before either? That's good as well: admins aren't required to participate in RfAs, and his answers are more likely to be genuine rather than puffed to pass RfA. Having a high percentage of automated edits doesn't make someone untrustworthy, especially when when they have several thousand non-automated edits in addition to the edits with tools. In addition, Ronhjones would have to make several thousand non-automated edits to have them be equal in percentage with automated ones, and then several thousand more for a 3-to-1 non_automated-to-automated ratio (and even 25% automated edits can still be too much for some people, and bear in mind he'd have to cease all automated editing to get those percentages). I think he'll be fine.
'''Support''' because the oppose rationale's are pathetic, IMHO. Since there is no good reason to oppose, I support. '''
'''Strong Support''': Indeed. Automatic or not, his edits are enough to convince me. ☆'''
'''Support''' Looking through edits and answers to the questions, I see no reason to suspect that Ron will be anything but a net positive to wikipedia.  '''
'''Support'''Ron has a clear understanding of right and wrong and has displayed professionalism that is expected of a future admin. Nothing in his edit history suggests that he would violate community trust and who really cares how he does the job (with regards to his automated edits), just as long as he does it without prejudice. Good luck Ron!! -
'''Support''', productive editor who will employ the tools usefully. No material issues presented below.
'''Strong support''' - Vandalism fighting is a plus. The percentage arguments below are absurd, and I see little that would lead me to oppose a positive editor.
'''Support''' I see nothing which would suggest this user cannot be trusted. Nothing raised by those in opposition in persuasive.
'''Support'''. I trust him with the tools. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''; per Acalamari's mathematical rationale. I think he's a mature, intelligent editor who is beneficial to the wiki <small>(and the fact he's used +rollback I assigned back in July so well :-)</small>. --
'''Support''', no reason to oppose. As many others, I would oppose a user who had made only automated edits, but that is not the case here: Ronhjones has made at least 5000 non-automated edits (about 2100 more than I had made when I passed RfA). --
'''Support''', I don't understand some of the rubbish in the oppose and neutral sections about having too many so-called automated edits.  If this candidacy fails, please don't reduce your anti-vandal activity on wikipedia in order to "improve" your automated/non-automated ratio.
'''Support'''. 5,000 non-automated edits is plenty to judge a candidate who has no other edits. Suggesting that someone is therefore unsuitable to be an admin merely because they also have significant experience in a different area is patently ridiculous and completely absurd. While contributions in other areas are always useful, we have many admins who restrict their activities into just one or two venues, and I see nothing to suggest that the candidate will not be able to branch out of this in the future. I also see nothing that troubles me with regards to their countenance or behaviour, and thus vote support.
'''Support''' Having a lot of automated edits is no problem, given that you have made c. 5000 manual ones, which is plenty. The only problem, mathematically, is that the large number of auto-edits shrinks the percentages of your other edits, so that the edits to wikipedia talk, for instance, which are perfectly adequate, come across as only a small percentage. But an adequate number. Will be a good admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I agree that 5,000 non-automated edits is great, not to mention all the automated anti-vandalism edits.
'''Support''' A competent and mature contributor of content.  As for all the automated vandalism reverts  — thank you. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.
'''Support'''. If you ignore all of Ron's automated-edits, you get a dedicated, clueful contributor. If you stop ignoring them, you get a dedicated, clueful contributor who does a hell of a lot of vandal fighting.
'''Support''' - Even if 85% of edits are automated, 5,000 non-automated edits is still good. [[User:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="lime">*Pepper</font>]][[User talk:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="grey">piggle*</font>]]
'''Definitely''', clearly very competent in his chosen area of work, and could greatly use admin tools to operate more efficiently. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' I have always supported the preference of looking at the quality of work rather than direct edit count. I agree with the work this editors does and adminship privileges would serve both him and Wikipedia.
'''Support''' We need more people like this.  Good luck.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' The automated thing is a red herring, vandal fighting it vandal fighting, automated or not. So he takes advantage of the tools provided, who is this a bad thing? What is the point of huggle and others if their use is seen as negative. I've seen his edits and he does good work, whether he has to do one click or two, the end result is the same.
'''Support''' None of us would   support a candidate who does only automated edits, but this is a  very different case. Good work and good understanding generally.   '''
'''Support''' I wouldn't mind you at all, even if you have the majority of automated edits. Infact, the quality of your edits matters the most. It's what's in the inside, rather than the outside.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I was just about to write an oppose because of his lack of experience.  However it does seem like in his specialty anti-vandalism, he seems to have a good grasp of the work and seems to enjoy it.  I say, let him have the mop and do what he does best.  --'''
'''Support''' Per Tan, and per Pepperpiggle's pointing out of the basic maths. Not likely to break the wiki with the bit. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter, some good CSD work, some article creation, and other work in admin-related areas. Good attitude. I like those percentages. --'''''
'''Support''' I hope you can handle this...
'''Support''', and Q13 partly explains why. I know very well, with my daily experience, how it feels to fight vandalism as a rollbacker or as an admin - there is a huge difference - and I do disagree that one can be efficient in that without the ability to block. I daily recover month-old sneaky vandalism which was missed simply because no-one followed and blocked a vandal, who frenzied on random articles (many of which are not watched enough). Vandalism is a problem, which does divert content contributors (including myself) from writing, and an extra experienced hand is more than welcome there.
'''Support'''.  Give this guy the banhammer to stomp out worthless, timewasting vandals.
'''Support''' after much thought, as net positive to the project. Another admin in the European timezone to help with AIV, UAA and CSD would be quite beneficial, and I am impressed with the way the candidate has responded to the opposes, some of which are not convincing at all. --
'''Support''' per question 9.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I don't agree with every single word the candidate wrote in response to the questions, but neither do I think it is necessary that I do so in order to support. Nor do I think that a candidate needs to have experience relating to every possible administrator task before being entrusted with the tools. The candidate has ample and positive experience in the primary areas within which he intends to work, which are important ones, and that is sufficient.
'''Support''', agree with the nom and per answers to the first three questions. Also essentially agree with {{user|Katerenka}}. '''
'''Support.'''  Ronhjones works in the best interest of Wikipedia and I would be shocked if misused or abused the tools. <font face="Century Gothic">
(switching from oppose) The issues here are different than in any previous RfA I've voted in (and that happens a lot, in fact.)  I didn't oppose because I saw something, I opposed because I couldn't find evidence of something and the candidate didn't provide it when asked.  But so many highly-respected supporters have been satisfied that I'm comfortable trusting them.  I wouldn't be switching my vote, of course, if I had seen something I really didn't like and the concern was not addressed ... that would not be the time to put my trust in the mob. - Dank (
'''Weak support''' - On one hand, he meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but all those automated edits make me a wee nervous.  I happen to agree with your comments about AfDs.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Weak Support]]''' per nom.--
'''Support''' --<b><font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Per Tan- 85% automated edits might be a problem against a thousand edits, or even 5 thousand.  But throw out every single automated edit- which I think is unfair; but do it for the sake of argument- there's still 5,000+ edits in this user's history.  Would we have someone use two accounts and make manual edits on one and automated edits on another, if they want to ever have an uncontroversial RfA?  Surely not.
'''Support''' I see two areas most folks are opposing: automated edits/focus on vandal fighting.  I think 5000 unautomated edits is significant and the automated edits are just not a factor for me.  In addition, if after so many automated edits the user hasn't had their ability to use automated tools revoked, it sounds like they are doing a sensible job.  As far as the focus on vandal fighting, I would never encourage a user to work outside of an area they enjoy in any volunteer community.  If that is what the user wants to do and they can provide a better job at it with the mop and can be trusted with it, then I support.  If they eventually break out into other areas, I would expect that I could also trust them to be cautious with the mop in those areas until they have a firm understanding of the relevant policies and procedures.  I have seen no evidence this user cannot be trusted and so I support.--
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions and in my opinion, would make a fine admin.. Best of luck!--<font color="629652">
'''Support''' per has sufficient experience that I'm confident he won't break the wiki, despite some weaknesses in areas I usually like to see in RfA candidates.  With thousands of manual edits, any add-on automated edits didn't sway me one way or the other.  If he'd only had a few hundred manual mainspace edits that would be different.  The only thing automated edits did was make it harder to wade through his edit history myself, so I did the lazy thing and waited until late in the RFA to crib off of others' work :).  I would've preferred to be able to look at a better sampling of his manual edits, but that's simply not practical with the logs flooded with automated ones.
'''Support''' - The opposes concerning "automated" or the percentage of "automated" edits are unconvincing, as I see nothing wrong in using tools to help maintain the encyclopedia. Ronhjones is an experienced user and I see no indication that he will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Excellent Huggler and should be commended for his work. He's paid his dues and has earned the bit in my view. I trust this user to put the tools to good use in fighting vandalism, something that Wikipedia always could use more of. --
'''Support'''. on the balance of evidence and probability likely to be a net positive, so worth a trial with tools.
Switched from oppose. I think you'll do fine actually, I didn't think you were unsuitable for the tools at all, just not ready. But other people here are adamant you are, so I'm supporting. '''
'''Support''' - can be trusted with the admin tools and has justified in his answer to Q13 how he can use them for the benefit of the project.
'''Support''' (moved from neutral) - although candidates that are primarily vandal-fighters are not always the best candidates for admins, a more thorough review of Ronhjones' contributions has convinced me that he is mature and well-balanced, and not the kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" vandal-fighter we all love to hate. Although he does have litte experience in other areas than vandal-fighting, I think he can get this experience after he has the flag, by immersing himself in these areas. I don't think he's going to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' seems like they would do work, don't see anything that would indicate that they would abuse or misuse the tools. Don't see much merit in opposition based on number of "automated" - but good - edits.
'''Support''', candidate has a need for the tools; ''clearly'', and is proficient in the area he intends to work.  As much as I would love to see ''all'' editors become well-rounded content editors, politicians, and janitors, I just don't think that's a necessary precondition to have access to simple set of tools.  This is simply someone who wants to help out, and has been doing so long enough to earn our trust that he won't blow up in the first day or so.  If he does, that mess can be mopped up as well.  I simply fail to see anything in the opposes that causes me concern.
'''Support''' Based on the contribs I have looked at and the answers to questions, I expect that the user would use the sysop tools productively and responsibly. --
'''Strong Support''' This guy tees me off something bad, as he always gets in there first to do a Huggle revert. What has he got, a supercomputer or something? Seriously, I can't think of a better candidate for administrator. --
'''Support'''Looks all right to me. Seems like a careful person who won't be out there shooting from the hip on day 1. Can't ask for more than that! --
'''Support''', you will do fine in my eyes. I would like to see admins with a bigger window of daily activity (you're usually active the same 2 hours a day), but I'd never oppose based on that. 0 edits to [[WP:ANI]] so far, so I guess that'll be 2 hours well spent. ;-) Like I stated below, many of the oppose voted are ridiculous. I suggest you take the BLP concerns some editors in the oppose section have to heart though.--
'''Support''' last moment
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - I respect your ability with vandalism and I would like to thank you for everything you have done. But the fact that 27,933 edits were automated disturbs me too much. And also, that is 85.25% out of the 32,766 edits you have ever done. Too much. Sorry. '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Oppose''' - Fighting vandalism is great, but I don't see good examples of dispute resolution or communication skills. In fact, much the opposite; the examples provided that are meant to show good explanations/arguments of policies or guidelines show the opposite. Especially when discussing matters with an inexperienced editor, it usually doesn't do more than confuse a person when you just link a policy page as a way of explaining yourself. Doing so is like telling someone "[[RTFM]]", and if these are your best examples of policy arguments then I have to oppose. -- '''
Have to agree, unfortunately. Vandal fighters are always needed, and their work often goes under-appreciated. However, I see little evidence of work outside of RC patrol. That isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. Additionally, vandal fighters have tools that enable them to preform nearly any task that a sysop can do, so if you're primarily an anti-vandalism editor, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more choosy. Don't let it discourage you though, and best of luck regardless of my opinion. :) –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)<p>FWIW, I considered supporting after reading Acalamari's well-written statement, but I find HJ Mitchell's argument sufficient to re-establish my oppose. Will reconsider periodically, though. –'''
'''With Regret, Strong Oppose'''.  You do some quality work fighting vandalism but with 85.25% of your total edit count as automated edits, I'm afraid I cannot support you.  The large number of automated edits makes it extremely difficult to evaluate your understanding of key principles and policies of the project.  Sysop's tools are not as simple to use as pushing the "q" and "space" keys on your keyboard.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' You have 85% automated edits.  You have only created 17 articles.  You have never voted in a RFA.  Yikes!
'''Oppose''' - Too many automated edits.
'''Not yet'''.  Admins have tenure and it's extremely difficult to rid the project of a bad one, and there's no way to restrict them to one area of the project, so I'm afraid I insist on seeing evidence of all the key administrative skills before I can support.  I'm not seeing the dispute resolution, talk-page work or discussion participation that enables me to reassure myself that this is an appropriate candidate.—
'''Oppose'''. I couldn't care less if 99% of edits were automated, to me that seems an absurd argument to make. However, what gravely concerns me is the lack of work outside vandal fighting- which I dabble in myself and I consider a very respectable field. However, I don't see any substantial work that shows what they would be like as an admin. If you were to come back in a few months with slightly greater breadth of experience on the project, I would certainly not oppose. I really hope this doesn't dampen your enthusiasm for the project.
'''Oppose'''  Admins will be called upon to do more that fight vandals, and while I also do alot of cleanup after vandals I think that any admin needs to be more well rounded within the community than this editor...
Per HJMitchell, with regret. <font color="navy">'''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - - Per your stance on no consensus BLP AFDs defaulting to keep. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Weak Oppose'''. I am not concerned about the number or ratio of automated edits. However, I am somewhat concerned about lack of experience in other areas. The candidate has limited experience outside of vandal fighting, limited interaction with other editor and a limited content/encyclopedia-building track record. With some additional experience in these areas the candidate will be ready for the sysop gig.
'''Oppose''' Although I have the utmost respect for the candidate's vandal fighting, I feel that the candidate has too little experience in other areas to be able to support at this time. I have no problems with automated edits - but I do expect an admin to have a more rounded experience, so I cannot support at this time. Hopefully, the candidate will learn from the comments here, and do another RfA when they have shown more experience in other admin-type areas. -- '''
Not very well-rounded. Admins do more than just rollbacks and vandal hunting.
'''Oppose''' I also agree that more article writing, and more wikipedia namespace edits are needed. Lack of experience. Also I don't like the question number 11. He mentioned that he created an article on [[Bunty Bailey]], but there is massive sourcing problems there. Imdb and Myspace, along with fan sites and such aren't [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Information in Imdb can be added by any fan, with little vertification required. And Imdb was used as a source for her dating the musician. It's clear with that article creation he needs more experience with sourcing and BLP.
While I can appreciate the fact you have become a poster child for the automated editing administrator, my concerns lie simply in the fact I don't really know you and I haven't seen enough to convince me that you have the qualities I hope administrators have. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more edits in other areas than only in vandalism-related areas.
'''Oppose'''. Far too many automated edits, not enough edits outside of vandalism-related areas, a lack of dispute resolution and communication skills, a lack of any good or featured content, and not enough experience or knowledge of policies and guidelines as I'd like to see.
'''Oppose'''.  If people who do nothing but make automated edits are elevated to admin-ship, then I should be too.  We don't want that.
'''Oppose''' Admins needs to be clear about what real-world damage can be caused by BLPs - and it's certainly far more than who someone may or may not be dating. Also the BLP default to keep issue. Just no, the BLP situation is a joke as it is without more admins supporting the way Wikipedia currently implements the policy '''
'''Oppose''' Automated tools do not an admin make.
'''Weak Oppose:'''    85% automated edits... Has never voted in a RFA... Not enough Constructive Edits (See my user page). -
'''Strong Oppose''': Before reading above oppossed users, there's too much explained my oppose.
'''Neutral''' You are not quite ready yet; however don't be discouraged as numerous opposes above are unfair to you.
'''Neutral''' - pending answers to questions.--
'''Neutral''' for now.  I don't really care about the automated edits, since I'd rather see 5,000 good contributions manually made and 1 million automated edits that were well-made instead of merely 5,000 manual edits.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral.''' 5000 non-automated edits is plenty, and ratios in this case have very little meaning. More compelling are the recommendations to get involved in other admin areas. If you have another RFA later, I would appreciate a [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices|friendly notice]]. ~
'''Neutral''' No real reason to oppose, but your views on BLPs prevent me from supporting.
I'm really not sure about this one.  While I do not automatically oppose based on automated edits, I do not see much experience elsewhere. '''
'''Neutral''' Ron is definitely a positive contributor, and trustworthy enough for adminship; however, 85% automated edits is way too high for me to support your candidacy at this time. Your anti-vandalism work is very respectable, of course, and your work on the templates mentioned above is stunningly commendable. Please don't take this the wrong way; you're an excellent editor and I think you would be an excellent administrator as well with more experience. I've moved to neutral from oppose per Btilm's unfair oppose, and because I decided that automated edits are not a reason for opposing, although I still think Ron lacks some of the experience I'd like to see in an admin. If he gets the mop, it will probably be a net positive for the project; nevertheless, I don't think it does any harm to leave a wishy-washy non-vote down here in the neutral section.
I disagree pretty strongly with some of the opposes and was tempted to support based on that (ratio of edits, BLP answer).  However you just don't have wide enough experience at this time for me to feel I can support.  Come back in 2-3 months after having spent more time in AfD, DrV, ANI, etc and I'll be happy to support.  I'd specifically direct you to work on the things pointed out by Atama.
Good anti-vandalism record, but I'm not seeing evidence of experience with dispute resolution, there's very little interaction on talk pages, and his content contributions are limited, e.g. the sourcing for [[Bunty Bailey]] is weak. I wonder if he has enough experience outside of Huggle. If he sticks to anti-vandalism tasks the tools may be useful, so I'm not opposing.
Neutral.  While I still don't see enough content, or enough policy/guideline work, or really much outside the vandal fighting alone to feel comfortable in supporting; I do have to reconsider my thoughts on this candidate.  Ron has responded to my concerns, and while I don't feel fully satisfied with what may perhaps be a bit of politicking, perhaps my question was too much of a no-win query.  I also had to consider that perhaps my views on a situation were influencing my thoughts on the candidate; and Ron has not expressed any outright lack of understanding of our current policies.   All that being said, I have too many concerns to outright support, but without any clear violations I feel it would be unfair of me to oppose as well.  Cheers and best to all. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' I was leaning toward oppose. I am concerned that this user wants to use a process he does not participate in to get himself elected. I don't like the high percentage of automated edits. Another user was promoted to admin who stated he wanted adminship to unblock his bots himself, and it was basically decided, why not? Well, why not is that he then abused his powers to inappropriately unblock his bot. I don't see what Ronhjones needs admin powers for in his edit history. I think he seriously misunderstands [[WP:Reliable]]. I cannot oppose, though, because, in spite of the lack of need for the tools, and misunderstanding of primary policies, Ronhjones allows himself to be the civil one in heated situations and this may seriously outweigh any detrimental qualities in him as an admin. I may change to support for just this reason. --
'''Support''' Good article work; will make a good admin.  However, I have concerns that most of your recent edits are adding {{tl|coord missing}} and notices to talk pages. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
I've seen Rosiestep around a lot. I think that she's a great user and I'm pleased she's running for adminship.
'''Support''' Will make good admin. --
'''Support''' She has excellent contributions and I am positive the tools would be put to good use. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I see no reason she'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Don't step on my roses. :( <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support'''--
No reason not to support.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Good contributions. Looks like a trustworthy candidate for adminship. Good Luck. --
'''Support''' Holy ****... looking through his contributions, he is the best mainspace contributor I have seen in a long, long while. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in the candidate has no blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me.  Regards, --
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
I don't feel like being extensive so I'm just gonna give you a link: [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not]].--(
From looking at their contributions, I see no problems, and I am very impressed by his contributions. I've never had any negative experiences, and I'm happy to support.
'''Support'''.  So far, this looks very solid; the AfD arguments (in the nom and below) seem fine to me, and the article work is overwhelming. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
'''Support''' as co-nom. '''
'''Support''' - Prolific content creation and DYK (even though the latter is something I am rarely impressed by). This is coupled with a solid knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''. Article creation is quite impressive. I looked at a sampling and she has created not stubs but substantial articles. I support your candidacy but please keep building the encyclopedia aspect if your RfA passes.
'''Net positive.''' We need more admins.
'''Support'''.  1849 new articles?  Extensive content contributions?  Lots of DYK work?  Yes, please.
'''Support'''. Skilled editor with good understanding of WP policies. -
'''Support''' GO! GO! GO!
'''Support'''. I've always found Rosie to be friendly, helpful and sensible, with a good grasp of policy, but I didn't know until now about her prolific content creation, and that's another plus in her favor.
'''Support''' - Article work is A+.
'''Support'''; solid contributions.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]]--
'''Support''' per GlassCobra and FlyingToaster nomination. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support'''; very impressed with her work at DYK.
'''Hell yeah''' Clueful, hardworking, diplomatic, creates great content and polite and friendly to boot. Too good for adminhood, but let's do it to her anyway.
'''Looks good''' I checked out the AfD diffs below and they seemed okay. Pointing to policy pages is okay with me if the logic is reasonable and it's not just knee jerk (which happens way too off and often shows a misunderstanding of what the policies actually say).
'''Support''' per GC and Flying. Also, I'd like to point out that Fuchs' view on AfDs and RfA candidates is amiss. Judging someone on how they participate in an AfD does not give you an idea on how they would close them. They are obvious distinctions not relevant to a candidate (much like a crat commenting as an editor, it doesn't provide a detailed rationale to suggest they would be impartial to closing). '''
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor's work in Canadian geography and think she will use the tools well.
'''Support''' 1849 articles created? 74 DYKs? Definitely! '''''
You're a great editor, so I have no problem supporting, but I encourage you to take into account David Fuch's oppose and see if you can better yourself at AfD. But through your work, I see clue, and have no problem supporting. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''[[WP:AGF]]'''--
'''Support''' No reason not to.  We need more admins who've actually created lots of articles on real subjects and helped build the project.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Spotted Rosiestep as potential admin material as early as July of last year and suggested the idea on her talk, so naturally I support. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good article work, has grasp of policy, does not seem like the candidate to rush into areas where she has not much experience. Regards '''
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
Seems fine.
I remember, she used to give cookies out to everyone who created a legitimate page. She appears to me as extremely kind, and her work otherwise seems stellar. '''
'''Support'''.  Other than the fact that Flying toaster had to fix a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_Hill_(Nevada_County,_California)&diff=next&oldid=258521833 misspelled] word in one of Rosiestep's articles in 2008...I see a picture perfect editor.  Responsible, polite, productive, drama free, with a valid need for Sysop tools.<small>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns noted.
'''Support'''.  Nothing wrong with this candidate at all.  I looked at the diffs brought up by David Fuchs, but they were nothing terribly bad, so I can see no reason not to support.  Best of luck, '''
''''Support''' -love this editor. She is as kind and thoughtful as one gets. I have no concerns about her.
''''Support''' clear net positive.
'''Strong support''' - one of the best I've seen in a while; huge number of high-quality edits, safe.
'''Strong Support''' as an editor with a strong grasp of what Wikipedia is all about. She works well with others, does nothing but improve the coverage of the encyclopedia, and there is no indication the tools would be abused. Twiddle that bit! :) ···
''' Support'''  Great Editor as per track and see no concerns the project will gain with the user having tools.
No reason given anywhere not to, so why not? '''
'''Strong Support''' Along with Jamie, Rosiestep is also a very good canidate, and i would not hesitate to vote for her. Good mainspace work, and should make a great sysop. Good luck.
'''Support''' Great editor. DYK admin help is always needed because it frequently gets delayed when no admins are around. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''', no major concerns.
'''Support''' Strong user, steady contributions, probably won't go nuts with the extra buttons, more than ready for adminship. --
'''Support''' I've had plenty of interact with this editor in Milhist and have seen nothing but good. I'm also sure that she's got enough common sense to recongnise controversial actions in AfD, CSD etc a mile off and will avoid tackling tackling them until she feels comfortable that she has the experience to do so. &nbsp;
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' should do fine.
'''Support''' Levelheaded and calm will make a fine administrator.
'''Strong support'''. Wow (on the content). DYK will benefit greatly. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]

'''Support''' I sense that Rosie is expedient, but careful, which explains the possible "alphabet soup" answers in AfDs. If there is a clear policy or guideline about something, and that article doesn't match, why waste time restating the obvious, when there is so much more work to still be done. Am I right, Rosie? Alphabet soup doesn't bother me, as long as they are linked to so that newbies can easily follow them, and even for experienced editors who occasionally forget what a particular combination means. :-) As to too many DYKers (or admins in general)… That's like saying there are too many templaters, FfDers, etc. Until every queue is regularly empty and admins start getting in trouble for not having enough to do, I don't think there can be "too many" if they are of the right mettle. &mdash;
'''Support'''. A definite net positive. — '''''
'''Support''' No problems here and a net positive.
'''Support'''. Prolific, willing to get second opinions and plays nice with others.
'''Holy Shit''', a user with more DYKs than me who isn't Ecoleetage. Seriously though, looks excellent. Strong support. FT, you are not to indent my post :P
'''Strong Support''', a highly experience user, tons of edits, deserves admin rights, good luck to you '''
'''Support''' - candidate is thoughtful and has clue.
'''Support''' - Judging by contributions, would be good admin.
'''Support''' Looks like a strong candidate.
'''Support''' clean block log, good CSD tagging civil and experienced. ''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
Per my general wish for more audited content work in candidates, as well as other concerns. Her supposed areas for admin work will be DYK and AfD... I dunno, it just seems like lots of DYK people have been coming through here chomping for the bit, but it's just not striking me as an area we really need people. I wouldn't oppose over that (I'm sure we can always use one more), I'm just not exactly enthused by her AfD comments, which don't strike me as the most thoughtful [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_E._Aufuldish&diff=prev&oldid=284316343][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brazil–Vietnam_relations&diff=prev&oldid=282899860][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kentee_Suone_Pasek&diff=prev&oldid=277726581][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Parmelee&diff=prev&oldid=277964529]. --<font color="#cc6600">
My interactions with the nominee have always been positive and I think she is clearly a net benefit to the encyclopedia.  But the AfD diffs David Fuchs pointed out do concern me a little, there seems to be an over-reliance on alphabet soup in a lot of the !votes.  I personally am not a fan of "fails/meets WP:___" !votes, but RfA is not the right place for me to push my beliefs on that kind of stuff, and I haven't looked super-closely at the nominee's AfD activity other than the diffs from David Fuchs, so staying neutral for now. <b class="Unicode">
Support per the excellent nomination statement. –'''
'''Support'''. I checked this guy out before the RfA started and I think he'd be a great administrator.  ''<B>
Excellent dedication on working on [[Tornado]] for over '''9 months''', good number of edits, good dedication to the project, very civil, and I would marvel to see what this kid could do with the mop. Good luck.--(
[[Image:Pictogram voting support.svg|18px]] '''Works for me''' Tho I'd say he ain't no kid; a physics degree shows maturity, intelligence, ''and extreme patience''. Plus he's a year older than me. :-) ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support''' Per above, good luck.--
'''Support'''.  No immediate problems I could see, and I trust the nominator.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''  Seems like he will make an exellent admin. --
Clearly here to help the project, and has done great work here. Per Soap. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, can be trusted, will put the bits to good use. No objections. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools. Will make a very good admin.
'''Strong support'''. Great user, and we need more admins.
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; Excellent editor, no concerns. '''
'''Support''' Per above.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as I see no evidence the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support''' No brainer.
'''Support''' Not only a strong candidate, but demonstrates a need for the tools.
'''Support''' per above and answers to questions.
'''Support''' The more admins we have who actually contribute content and therefore understand what we're here for, the better.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Liked the answers to my questions. Might want to revioew [[Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm]]. Cheers.
Yup. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Plenty of experience in both content creation and admin-related activities, and no red flags.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
Don't see why not.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has multiple good and featured credits while having never been blocked.  Best, --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per Juliancolton nomination and answer to Q8. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' I can't see any reason to oppose this candidate. <strong>
'''Support''' I can't see a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Impressive.
'''Strong Support'''-I don't see any problems here. He has never been blocked, has a number of featured/good articles and is very polite. I also would like to take the opportunity to say that I ''love'' your name...it stands for everything that is missing in today's society.<!--Corrected -->
'''Support'''.  Very good answers. - Dank (
'''Support''' Good answers as well. Could be a asset to wikipedia.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - clueful editor with sufficient edits, no issues.
'''[[WP:Assume good faith]]'''--
'''Support''': Solid, responsible. Like that you wouldn't hesitate to take action in such cases.
'''Support''' - Good-faith editor who's here to help; that's all there should be to it. <small>(Plus it's about time another editor from [[WP:WPTC]] ran...)</small> --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Support''' - 12,000 manual edits are really a lot; besides those contributions, he's been using the rollback feature effectively, showing he can be trusted with the tools. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I doubt this user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, good answers on questions.  I'm also impressed by the record of content-building. '''
'''Support''' User has been around since March 2006 and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.No concerns.
'''Support'''. Checks out okay. — '''''
'''Support'''. What's not to like? The candidate is a great content builder, is experienced, works well with others and has a clue.
'''Support''' Deserves to be an admin. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''  Why not? Solid contributor,  experienced, and civil.  --'''
'''Support'''. Seems reasonable and able.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Oppose''' He is not versatile enough and not very active. Sorry.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
Excellent article contributions, but a lack of substantial WP-space edits puts me off (only ~5% of total edits, and the most substantial to Wikiprojects and the like). I don't really think that just because something is going to require deletions, it means clear need for tools. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per David Fuchs.  I see very few contributions to the Wikipedia namespace outside of the reference desk.  I also see few recent deleted contributions which may suggest an unfamiliarity with the deletion process.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 6 indicates to me that patience would be a potential problem, the world won't end tomorrow.
'''Support''' No problems, certaintly not going to delete the main page, and should be a net positive, support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Support''' Per Giants27 and even if he deletes the main page it will provide some relief from the deadly tedium around here.  Hm.  Which way is the main page?--
<big>'''+'''</big>
Abso-sixeffsees-lutely.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. (edit conflict) From what I've seen, he knows policy and procedures well enough. A sample of his AFD contributions looked good. Does article work. Civil and clueful. It's a green light from me.
'''Strong support'''.
Great with video game articles, good AFD work. Seen him everywhere, but no interactions, so this is kind of a moral support... lol. [[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#000000">'''Ceran'''</font>]][[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#000080"><sup>→</sup>//</font>]]
'''Support'''. Had a good rummage through his contributions and found absolutely nothing worth complaining about and a lot to recommend him. Looks like a really excellent contributor who would wield admin tools effectively. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Excellent candidate. While he may not have the usual requisite experience in admin issues, he has enough common sense/CLUE to know what to do. Also, feel like making a userpage for me? <font color="navy">
'''Support''' A calm editor who has done lots of good work (in the video game area). A good role model. &ndash;
'''Well on the way to the 100 club support''' per the above. He is quite simply an editor who gets stuff done and keeps it cool. --
'''Support''' Will be a great administrator. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' Will be an asset to the community. Good AFD work.
'''Support''' - '''<font face="Verdana">
Did not describe entering a dispute as a "neutral third party." But at least he's willing to take a position, so '''tentative support.'''
'''Support''' Been here a while, lots of good contributions, a bit light on edit summary usage. Good nomination support. Admin tools will benefit project. --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - <SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: blink;"><font color="red">'''ARGH MATEY'''</font></span> <!-- You unblink this, you fail! (I just know someone is going to try and remove this) --> <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
I recognize his name from somewhere, and didn't have a "bad gut feeling". There isn't any real reason to oppose.
'''Support'''; no reason to oppose, and excellent answers to the questions. I don't agree with his answer to the civility question, since we have different standards of how we'd like people to treat us (some want people to be nice, some want people to tie them down, pour hot wax on their chests and beat them with rulers) but that is a problem of opinion, not judgement.<small> I'm a member of the first group, myself.</small>
'''Support''' – cool head, excellent content contributions, has clue. Net positive. — <font face="Segoe Script">
I think I clicked on him some time ago and I didn't warn him, so I guess I was impressed. Contribs look good, answers too and no warning signs flash, so '''Support''' from me. Oh and he does like [[Sam & Max]] judging by his recent contribs, which demonstrates very good taste indeed. In that spirit: &lt;I would add [[q:Sam & Max|some Sam & Max quote]] here but they are all too funny to select a single one {{=)|wink}}&gt;. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I've worked with S@bre on a handful of articles (most notably [[The Orange Box]] and I've always been impressed by his natural ability to work well with others both in WP:VG and elsewhere. I'm confident that he'll be careful and thoughtful in any actions he may take as an admin, just as he's been careful and thoughtful in the work I've carried out with him. The only dissapointment I have from this entire nomination is that he didn't contact me first, as I'd have offered to co-nom him! Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Thought-you-were-already-an-admin Support''' Wow, I did not see this rfa coming, as I always assumed you had adminship. Goes to show you how much attention I've been paying to the wiki lately. At any rate, good luck! :)
'''Here comes a [[WP:100]] supports support''' (sorry a bit random...) [[User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria|per my RfA Criteria]] and your contribs... I thought you were already an admin...! '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support'''. I'm trusting on the basis of the candidate's answer to my Q #5. --
—
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''': Good editor, knows what he's doing. No problems here.
'''Support''' per [[User:Dank55/Admins#Support|my RFA criteria]] - Dan
'''Of course''' - I see nothing wrong.
I'm
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gex enemies]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devouring One]].  Seems to have a good handle on notability criteria, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per [[User:A Nobody]] --
'''Support'''. No question at all.
'''Support''' - [[User:Agathoclea]] beat me to it. On top of that, demonstrates a level head and active involvement with the community. --
'''Support'''. Nothing but good experiences with this user. <b>'''
'''Support'''. Beneficial contributor, knows his way around the place well enough. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Strong support''' - Amazing amount of article work. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Great track and has been around since Dec 2005 and feel the project will benefit with the user getting the tools.
'''Support'''.  His track records makes him appear trustworthy.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Fine '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose. --'''
'''Support'''. Solid answers and contributions. '''
'''Support'''. Good interactions with this user in the past. '''
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support:''' Intelligent, helpful, dedicated, experienced; all looks good!
'''Support''' Seen and liked Sabre's work, seen and liked Sabre's answers. That's good enough for me. --
'''Support''' nothing wrong here. —<sub>
'''Support''' This candidate's views on AfD may differ from mine.  I don't think that difference means he will be a bad administrator.
'''Support''' I see no problems with the user's contributions and answers to questions. Clearly a net positive. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''support''' I do not see anything wrong. Everyone active in AfD says things other users disagree with--in practice, it's a place where  argumentative discussions, are acceptable. '''
'''Support''': I can appreciate a good cat analogy. I just felt bad for the cat. Great candidate. <sup><small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seen you around, thought you were an admin already. I really like your attitude in dealing with others, even when disagreeing. <small>p.s. I'm a dog kind of person, so the cat analogy is fine with me :)</small> --
'''Support''' I would normally oppose based on most of your status, answers, etc, but one thing stuck out - you stated that you wanted to be a neutral third party. Very few admin effectively do this, let alone want to do this. You do not seem to be involved in any partisan topics, ideas, etc, so you might actually be able to accomplish this. But remember, if you back down on this idea and start becoming a partisan hack, I will call for your head. :P
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''', will be a good administrator. --
'''Support''' No objections.
'''Support''' - I've seen him around, seems like a strong candidate; no objections.
'''Support''' - wow, what an answer to Q6. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''' - I trust the nominator's judgement.
'''Support''' Excellent and honest answers to questions 12-14. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' - Sabre knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - I've seen this user over at [[WT:VG]], he is a strong faithful editor in all areas of WP and would be able to execute the tools of an administrator to the advantage of Wikipedia.--'''''<small>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. The concerns raised by the opposer and by several of the neutral commenters are without merit.
'''Support''' - Sabre wants the tools.  I'm okay with that.  --
'''Support''' - Sabre, who has been on wikipedia for over two years, has made over 10,000 edits and although he has created less than a dozen articles, his edits show that he is here to contribute. He has contributed greatly to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games]] and has set an example of how video game articles should be written. In addition, the points brought up by the opposition are simply ludicrous. My only concern is the large number of deleted edits. I'm going to assume that we learn from our mistakes. ^.^
'''Support''' Q6 was OK, but I'm pretty confident he won't go and wreck Wikipedia once he gets the tools.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good answer to Q.11; there are really some trolls out there; don't feed them.
'''Support'''. Working to improve articles which might otherwise be deleted, exactly the sort of editor we need. Question answers show you're level headed, and in any event adminship should be given out unless there's a reason not to.
'''Support''' - excellent record, good answers especially to DGG's.
'''Support''' a solid understanding and level of experience in article writing, a cool head and a willingness to reach out to experienced admins makes Sabre an excellent candidate.
look good to me. --
Great editor, and gamers can be any age: I know a seventy-year old who likes the ''Quake'' series.
'''Strongest possible oppose'''  If you want to revert vandalism, you don't have to be an admin.  But if you're going to give bogus answers like you did to important issues confronting Admins today, then there's no reason for you to be an admin.  At least you answered honestly, but we don't need another kid who has a fetish for video games working around here.
'''Weak Neutral''' That's the first time I've ever seen that phrase, but it fits: The candidate is certainly a good one, so if I found something seriously wrong, I woudn't oppose, I just wouldn't vote at all (or would have a ''Strong Neutral''). His answer to Q6 (block vs. ban) isn't what I was looking for; the cat usage was less than stellar (although it would have been just as bad if he had used a person beating up another person). <font face="terminal">
Switched from "weak oppose" above per [[User_talk:A_Nobody#re:RfA]].  The candidate's reaction was mature and well-put and given the reasons for supporting mentioned in my oppose above are enough that I can consider a change of stance accordingly.  Good luck!  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral''' Q6 is decent, but doesn't signify the candidate's knowledge that a block is a technical tool, while bans are community constructions that are enforced by blocks when necessary. Also, Q11 isn't great -- admins shouldn't decline unblock requests on blocks they made; further, using {{tl|2nd chance}} would give the IP an opportunity to prove him or herself. I didn't want to oppose since the candidate generally seems to have clue, but I can't support in complete good faith at this time.
I can't support anyone who doesn't know the difference between "effect" and "affect". --
Per Q11. A bit too much of a hard line taken. Use {{tl|2nd chance}} in a situation like this. –<font face="Verdana">

'''Strong Support''' Absolutely. He's been ready for months.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
As co-nom.
'''Support'''. I've worked with Shubinator before; he's a good guy, trusted and reliable. <font face="Arial">
Great editor; works well with others. Has a need for the tools as evidenced by his at DYK especially. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shubinator&diff=314999691&oldid=314912571 Considering that I offered to nominate him a few months ago], I better offer my strong support for this request. <font color="navy">'''

'''Support''' Have noticed Shubinator around at DYK for a while (he's given me several DYK credits!) and have not noticed anything bad there and being an admin will certainly help there. If you decide to close AFDs in the future I urge you to remember that the closers job is to decide consensus based on policy, not to decide what content should be in articles - your statement that you will follow community consensus and my own observation of your edits give me confidence that you will do fine as an admin.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' your work at DYK is enough to make me support. You will be a great asset there.--
'''Support''' - I trust the nominator and his explanation that this user will make a great impression in the DYK area as an admin.
'''Support''' I think Shubinator will use the tools well and for the benefit of the project. The answers to questions 1 and 5, in my opinion, shows that Shubinator won't jump into the deep end and will stick to what they're best at. The handling of the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Icos/archive1|FAC discussion]] and the conversation with Nerdseeksblonde linked above demonstrate that Shubinator has the right temperament and leads me to believe they would make a fine admin.
Looks good to me.  '''
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - This user has lots of great DYK work, will make a good administrator.
Despite the weak answer to Q4, which indicates that the candidate isn't really familiar with the blocking process, I'm willing to support without reservation. A cool-headed, kind, individual, it seems to me. I doubt he will go into areas he doesn't know straightaway or without experience. '''
'''Support''' Why not? -'''
'''Support''' - Many positives from this editor, no negatives that I see, and while a couple of the answers (particularly to Q4) are awkward, I don't see anything completely incorrect. (The gist of the 4th answer, that I got, was that CDBs shouldn't be done, and that blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not cool people down, which should be the main point; and I give Shubinator credit for trying to answer in his own words.) -- '''
'''Support''' Definitely! Excellent DYK work, (especially DYKcheck). Also per Ceranthor. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|18px]] '''Support''' I am happy with the replies to the questions, and see no real cause of concern. -- '''''
'''[[ad vitam aut culpam]]''' <small>(NOTE this was to be support vote 2 before the rfa was un-transcluded pending the co-nom.)</small> We should welcome prospective admins who can dedicate their time to areas other than XfD. Comprehensive experience with [[WP:DYK|DYK]] and some experience in [[WP:SPI|SPI]] is nice to see. Answer to Q4 is good by me. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''', with a [[Bacon martini]] raised. '''
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.
'''Support''' I'm sure you'll have familiarized yourself with the blocking policy (question 4) before this is over. Overall, very excellent work indeed. Good job! <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' No concerns with this user. Happy Holidays!
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' -<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support'''. Definitely, helpful at DYK etc. More Main Page admins needed. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' should be fine with tools.
'''Support''' I can see no reason not to support. No credible oppose rationale offered (at the time I posted this).
'''Support''' DYK needs admin hands at the wheel, or the ship never goes anywhere. Good candidate, good history. Broader experience wouldn't be a bad idea before jumping into new areas, but every admin doesn't have to participate in XfD and the like to earn the mop.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], as it is nearly my second favorite holiday, the candidate contributed to a featured article and six DYKs, [[User:Shubinator/Awards]] is encouraging to see, candidate has never been blocked, and current support is at 96%. Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Wow, awesome editor will do good work with the mop.
As co-nominator. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support'''. Don't have personal communication with the candidate, but crossed quite a lot at DYK. Impressions: they don't say much but say things well, solid and to the point - focus at the issue rather than drama; skeptical mind. All actions I saw demonstrate strong dedication to WP, and the technical abilities were of great help to DYK. In fact, I don't recall any, even minor blunder by this user, though those are quite common at DYK. Q8 doesn't really bother me - I feel the candidate was simply intelligent and knowledgeable enough for editing before starting (note, their first edits were not that technically advanced and the candidate is skilled in coding). I do feel I can trust the candidate.
'''Strong Support'''. No personal experience with this user, but from what I've seen of his work he seems both dedicated and civil, and able to keep a level head while dealing with problematic users. Well suited for the mop.
Yes, I think so. I'm not seeing any alarms, answers seem sensible, should be an asset.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems.
Most certainly. He's among DYK's most valuable workers. --'''
'''Support''' A dedicated contributor, and a major asset to the DYK project. There is no evidence presented on socking (or even any blind guesses) and I'm not going to withhold my support based on anybody's gut feelings. All my interactions with this user has been good, and I believe giving him the tools will be a net positive. ≈&nbsp;
Yes.--
'''Support'''. The main page background areas definitely need more admins looking after them and Shubinator obviously knows what he's doing. Trustworthy and competent. The concerns over hosiery are totally absurd- that kind of thing could easily be learnt from surfing WP without editing. The lack of edits to the mainspace and project space concerned me at first but then I saw the edits to talk and template talk, of which 397 edits are to [[T:TDYK]] and he's managed a FA on the side! Impressive. Merry Christmas,
'''Support''' Shubinator's contributions to DYK have been valuable and knowledgeable (as Materialscientist noted). His DYKcheck tool is a very valuable tool that has saved me and others a lot of time. To me, this shows a good admin's attitude—he sees where he can help and does it. In fact, I'll have to enter the cliche that I actually thought you were already an admin—and a good one at that.<p>I don't completely agree with your way of handling BLPs, but your answers appear to be within the bounds of admin discretion supported in recent precedents. Opposing over differences in opinion, or in interpretation of policy (where the interpretation is reasonable) is unproductive, but I feel that this is what Seraphimblade is doing in his oppose. (Also, I think Seraphimblade should consider Shubinator's answer to Q7.)<p>RMHED's oppose is baseless without any supporting evidence. I haven't seen any reason not to trust Shubinator, but would urge any user who has evidence to the contrary to come forth with it instead of just asserting it.<p>I don't see the fault in the Q4 response that Doc Quintana and Smithers7 see. Shubinator is right that a cooldown block in itself is not acceptable, but that in cases where one would consider a cooldown block, a block for vandalism or general disruptiveness may often be appropriate anyway. Shubinator's answers are all succinct and to the point—an additional argument in favor of granting him adminship.<p>The concern expressed by Hobit and Friday doesn't seem well-founded. True, Shubinator showed a pretty good understanding of wikisyntax in his earliest few edits, but that's understandable for someone who has done some IP edits before and who has taken the time to get a bit familiar with the syntax. Note that his first edit was not as flawless as one would expect from a returning user, as shown by his use of third-level headers and bare-URL references.<p>In summary, Shubinator is a valued contributor who will undoubtedly also be a valued admin and the comments under "Oppose" and "Neutral" lack solid ground. I'll take this opportunity to correct the bad Latin introduced by one of the users who were so kind to support my RFA and say: ''Tribue virgam!''
'''Support''' Good DYK work. --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' I don't see any issues with this candidate.  I am confident that when it comes to BLP AFD's, candidate will do the right thing.
'''Support''' - No huge concerns. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Support''' - Looking at my own first (logged in) edits, they seemed pretty advanced too.  Not everyone comes to Wikipedia with no wiki-editing experience, or even with no wikipedia experience.   This might sound egotistical in light of my last statement, but I think the early advanced edits demonstrate a good sense of [[WP:CLUE]] more than anything.
'''Support''' Strong contributor to the project.
'''Support''' File this under "They weren't an admin already?!" Shubinator is a hardworking, experienced editor who seems trustworthy. I'd like to thank him for his useful [[WP:DYKcheck]] tool and his helpful bot. With his wealth of DYK experience, Shubinator surely will be a tremendous help at [[WP:DYK]], which is always in need of more administrators, and at [[WP:ERRORS]]. As for the whole "BLP no consensus" debate, I don't really like seeing either side use RfA as a battleground. Candidates for adminship, in my opinion, should not be judged on that issue alone &ndash; and besides, Shubinator closing an AfD as "no consensus, default to delete" would hardly be different from, say, [[User:Coffee|Coffee]] doing the same. The candidate's answer to Q12 leads me to believe that he would do just fine closing AfDs.
'''Support''' User has shown his continued dedication to the project and has shown via talk and project pages that the candidate has the mature, patient, and helpful attributes that will only serve to better Wikipedia. See no reason that the tools or responsiblities given will be misused.
'''Support''' I loved the questions/answers. --
'''Support''' per above comments. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'>

'''Support''' - Solid editor, even temperment, reasonable answers to questions, highly doubtful that they are likely to misuse tools.  Easy to pile on in support.  Happy holidays!
'''Support''' because the candidate is a frightful bore and therefore is more than suited to the role. Should be a bureaucrat.
'''Support:''' An asset at DYK and elsewhere, good temperament, positive lack of drama.  Concerns about "clueful" newbie are paranoid, I think.  Not everyone has to start off being an idiot; some of us read before leaping.
Yes, looks a good prospect. <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
Because you're a good editor, and the opposes (#1 and #2 in particular) are weak, baseless and irrelevant. '''
'''Support:''' Clearly an expert in the DYK area, and I think admins with specific areas of interest are very desirable. Possible lack of expertise in other areas doesn't worry me, because this looks like someone who would not take on specific admin tasks without acquiring appropriate knowledge first. Vague "I don't trust him" Opposes are very weak. Criticising someone for not appearing dumb enough when they first started contributing also seems weak.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns, looking to do useful work with administrator tasks that always could use additional staffing. The opposers' rationales are completely unpersuasive.
'''Support''', per <b class="Unicode">[[User:Rjanag|r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ</font>anaɢ]]</b> and my own observations of his work at DYK.  —
'''Support''' - meets my usual standards. Has rescued an article.  Is clueful.
'''Support''' Constructive, valuable edits. No concerns with this user. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Merry Christmas''' to a great candidate.
'''Support''' - Not much more needs to be said. Great editor who I can trust with the tools.
'''Support''' Have crossed paths with Shubinator many times. I see nothing that gives a worry, and much that gives confidence. '''
'''Support''' I found this a very interesting application. This editor has an extremely in depth contribution history outside of the article namespace and in areas that are in dire need of help. Providing this editor with the tools to bring about more profound improvements to Wikipedia would be in our best interest.
'''Support''' no reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' A year of solid contributions? {{y}}  Works smoothly with others? {{y}}  Demonstrated interest, skill, and potential for usefulness in sysop areas? {{y}}  Three checks and you're in! ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' as someone who will provide useful admin work in a few specialized areas where there is a real need, and who has shown a good administrative temperament in the relatively few instances of being in a conflict with other users. (I would suggest that you take it slow in moving into other, more contentious, areas of administrative work.) --
'''Support''' based on work at DYK
'''Support''' Good track and feel the project will only benefit with the user having tools.
- Great contributor to DYK, appears to have clue, genuine need for the tools due to his work on templates etc.
Hmmm. On looking at your earliest contributions, I get a {{User|Pastor Theo}} (aka {{User|Ecoleetage}})-like feeling&mdash;heh, you and PT began editing only ten days away from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Shubinator each] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Pastor+Theo other]&mdash;but I highly doubt that one account would [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady|vote support while the other opposes]] if that were the case. The excellent work you have done, especially at DYK, and your answer to question eight dissuade me from believing this line of thought, so '''support'''. <small>''Hypothetically speaking'', if you are a sock, I believe that you will continue the great editing you do and not get into trouble like your former account did. This would have a nice side effect of making you a big net positive. I just pray that you don't break this leap of faith I am making.</small> —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' As someone whose first edit led to an accusation of being a sockpuppet, you have my sympathies (and support). Does a fine job on DYK, has a clue, and seems very mop-worthy,
'''Support''' Three of the four opposes honestly make me laugh. Let us assume for a moment that you are a sockpuppet. Well... then you are a pretty damned useful sockpuppet and I would support you anyway. You have excellent conflict resolution skills, your knowledge of admin functions is very good. The chances that you will delete the mainpage or break the Wiki seems remote. That's pretty much fulfilled all of my requirements.
'''Support''' I've observed his nothing but good activities in DYK areas for a while, so I can easily say he earns my thrust.-
'''Support.'''  Plenty of skill and no sign of trouble.  I liked the answer to Q3 and the links there that showed clear thinking, calmness and positivity in a challenging situation. --
'''Support''' Seems like he knows his way around. '''<font color="#003366">
'''Support''' – I've seen Shubinator around for a bit, and I'm sure he'll do a fine job. –
I have nothing but good impressions of Shubinator from interactions at DYK, and they have sufficiently advanced understanding of high-content and enough clue to become involved in other administrative areas competently. Thank you for your very valuable contributions to the encyclopaedia, Shubinator.
'''Support''', after thinking on this further and examining the edit history, as well as getting a good answer in clarification, I can no longer see anything that would lead me not to support. And I don't like the idea of "WAY TOO COMPETENT INITIALLY!" opposes either. A lot of people cut their teeth editing as IPs and/or bothered to lurk and read up on things before wading in. I see those attributes as a positive, not a negative.
'''Support'''. Shubinator is a hard worker and has a cool user name. What more could we ask for? Oh yeah, that they don't cheat and lie--I'll assume good faith, and have no reason to think differently. Good luck, Shubinator! Not a stub anymore, haha!
'''Support'''—all the "oppose" rationales are so mind-bogglingly ''[insert Wikipedia-suitable description here]'' that I really have no option! <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Support'''. Recognize this candidate from DYK. -
Oh noes, someone who's read the rules and guidelines before he started editing! Must be someone's sock.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''. PeterSymonds pretty much says it. I'm certain Shubinator will be a good addition. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''[[WP:AGF|Support]]''', but first edits seems rather peculiar for a new user. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' After reading your questions and answers, I'll be honest, I'm still not exactly sure where you stand in regards to AFD's.  That said, there doesn't seem to be any complaints about your work in DYK.  I do hope that you follow through with your plans to use the tools in those areas you've mentioned, and not jump into new areas too quickly.--
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' Very qualified canidate.
[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] <sub>
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. I am unconcerned by the implication that he ''might'' have been experienced prior to creating this account.
'''Support'''. Great candidate with superb DYK work. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support.''' Long overdue.
'''Support.''' Shubinator is a trustworthy and helpful contributor whose access to administrative tools will benefit the project.  —
'''Support''', no problems here; obviously capable of reading documentation ''before'' jumping in and doing anything rash!
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Shubinator. —
'''Support''', nothing I can see to not trust the user with the tools. --
'''Support'''. Experienced, responsible editor who addresses policy issues clearly and accurately.
'''[[WP:100]] Support''' - Upon a second (last-minute) review. I believe I can trust you with the tools. Good luck! '''
'''Oppose''' I don't trust you, probably someones hosiery.
Early editing behavior is suspicious for someone claiming to be new.  This ''could'' be a real newbie, but evidence suggests otherwise.  So for me, this one does not pass the smell test.
'''Weak oppose''' per questions 5, 7, 12. No consensus defaults to keep, except for marginal BLPs where ''the subject has requested deletion.'' That's the way things are right now, and we don't need admins who would close contrary to existing policy. If you think consensus should change, the correct thing to do is not to close such discussions in the hopes of ramming changes through - it's to either argue to change the policy, or vote for deletions in those discussions. <strong>
'''Oppose''' on trust issues. Something is going on and with that feeling plus what Ray points out above I feel I need to oppose rather than declare neutrality or simply not voice an opinion. You really knew what you were going to do when you started editing, and how to go about it, but you're so uncertain about BLPs and consensus and what you'd do as an admin in those situations while declaring you want to be an admin. I have to ask myself, what is going on here? And I have to declare that I oppose your adminship based on that. --
'''Oppose''' It does not make sense to have as admin such a newcomer.
It's a straight "oppose" from me; I only got as far as Q5.—
'''Oppose.''' Unimpressed with DYK work. Seems too afraid of stepping into discussions concerning contentious subjects, as if there is something to hide. Seemed like he was a lackey to [[user: gatoclass]] (who imo runs the dyk suggestion line with an iron fist). Perhaps I'll come up with some diffs but the history of the DYK suggestion page is a bit unwieldy, as it gets hundreds of edits a day. --''
'''Neutral''' Those early edits, even the early questions, look like an old hand.  That said, I've no real evidence, it's impossible to prove one way or the other, and it appears this editor has been doing a great job thus far.  So here I sit.
'''Support'''. Every time I've encountered Skomorokh I've been impressed. Cheers,
'''Support'''.  Didn't think I'd see the day!  Outstanding, detailed, and careful content editor, unreservedly one of our better ones.  I've fulfilled many-a-request for admin help for Skomorokh (userfying deleted pages for him to work and improve and resubmit, for example) over the months.  I've even told him to run for adminship on at least one occasion.  I'm glad you finally see the benefits that Wikipedia will have by having you have the full button-set.  (that was a lot of haves, but I think the grammar holds).  Absolutely you should have the admin bit so you can, when you want to, do the small things that you now have to ask other admins for with your cap in hand when you have proven you are perfectly capable of making sound and meticulous judgments. It's a yes from me!
1) Been around a while, 2) Hasn't done anything that stood out as crazy or stupid, 3) Seems clueful.
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' Absolutely. Every so often we see a candidate and wonder why it has taken so long for a nomination to emerge. This is one of those. Should have had the tools months ago. Years, possibly.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''.  The very model of a modern Wikipedian. - Dank (
'''Support''' This user has my trust. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. I've seen him around a lot -- he's clueful, does good work, and civil. He'll make a fine admin.
Passes the clue test.
'''Support''' I trust Skomorokh.
'''Support'''.  To be honest, this is one I didn't research all that well - the reason being that I've seen enough first hand to feel confident in supporting.  I admire Skomorokhs ability to maintain a great balance between building the 'pedia, and still keeping that "fun factor" in refusing to get so wrapped up in individual items that he forgets we're all volunteers here.  Good level headed approach to the entire project, easy and polite to work with.  I'd welcome him into the <s>line of fire</s> ... ehhh ... admin corps. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. Of course.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; I'm in full agreement with Dank. –'''
'''Support''' '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
[[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|He sees to it that everything is quite correctly wikified!]]<small>Seriously, although I have disagreed with some actions that I have seen Skomorokh make around the wiki, he truly is a net positive for the encyclopedia.</small> <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' I might not share all of the candidate's views or stances but I was more than once impressed by their work here and have previously thought about why they are not an admin more than once. As such, you may read this as "Per Anthony.bradbury above". ;-) Regards '''
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support'''.  My interactions with Skomorokh have left me with a positive impression.--
'''Support''' - as per Ched Davis above, I can't recall seeing Skomorokh involved in anything problematic in any sphere. Will make a solid admin.
'''Support''' I'm confident this editor will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' the clueful contributor.—
'''Support''' I see no indication Skomorokh would misuse the tools. For some reason I thought he was an admin already.
Good work around UAA, very clueful. '''
'''Support''' No research necessary - I've seen him around a lot, and he's been a valued editor everywhere, even when I didn't agree with him. <strong>
'''Support''' - honestly, I thought you were one already. I've seen plenty of good work from you and nothing that overtly concerns me (see also my comments by Caspian_blue's neutral !vote). I was also particularly impressed with your self-nom statement - it combines a very cogent justification for why you want admin tools with a very amusing style. Overall I've been consistently impressed and have no real concerns that you'd misuse admin tools. Good luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong support''' - I wonder what took him so long! He probably doesn't remember interacting with me, but we did once, and it left me the impression that he would be a good admin.
'''Support''' Enthusiastic support, had a good impression from when seen you around (cliche but had thought you must already be an admin). Know of nothing to make me think you will misuse the tools. (Oh and nice nomination)
'''Support''' - Source of many valued contributions. Intelligent and clueful editor. Truly deserving of the tools, he earned it. --
As clichéd as it is, I thought that you were already an admin.  Good luck! '''
'''Support'''. Seen him around, and I don't have any problems with giving him the administrator right. Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support''' Great contributions and will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - a good content editor and unafraid to work on difficult topics despite the slings and arrows that brings. No reason not to support.
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support'''.  One of the oddest user pages I've seen since Her Ladyship passed away.
'''Support''' - <s>we've disagreed, but he's competent and responsible. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) neutral pending question below, [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)</s> Skomorokh's philosophy is shared by many editors, though it's at odds with my own. Still, He's competent and responsible, and there's every reason to expect he'll use the tools sensibly.
'''Support'''. I see nothing in his history which indicates the tools would be abused. I think making Skomorokh an admin would be a great benefit to the site. ···
'''Support''' High quality editor, copes with disagreement well and has good knowledge of WIkipedia --
'''Why aren't you one already?''' <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Sensible guy. Why has nobody nominated you before?--
'''Very strong support'''.  One of the smartest editors I've encountered in my time on Wikipedia.  Capable of working on a wide array of topics -- I think I first encountered him when he was working on bringing [[William Gibson]] on FA.  I've found him someone who can disagree strongly without being disrespectful (a skill I lack), can help pull sense from chaos, and provide fresh perspectives to entrenched arguments.  And he's never lost sight that the primary focus is the content.  Precisely the sort of admin we need, in my opinion. --
'''Support''' moved from Neutral. Seems enough for getting the bit.--
'''Support''' Seems eminently reasonable to be sure.
I can't think why, but I'd have probably opposed a year ago or so. I can't remember why, but I seem to remember some rather negative interaction between us, but can't remember. Since I can't remember or find any diffs, it would be daft to oppose with no evidence, so I support. '''
'''Support''' - Trusted editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Could have sworn he was one.
Not going to join in the "best editor ever" chorus above, but no obvious problems and would probably have a use for it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
Thought he was one, probably will wield the mop nicely, even though I had a [[User_talk:Skomorokh/ङ#Re:_Communism_and_religion_edits|~meh]] experience with him.
Per the "best editor ever" chorus above. Really wanted to find your dark secret, but sadly failed. Good luck. By the way, this goes straight into my quote book: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=293634426 incitements to terrorism I can appreciate, but the grammar and spacing are atrocious]". Classic.
'''Support''' This is one of the best editors that I have ever seen. I think this is one of the few editors who will get unanimous support.
God, so I've got everyone chatting about 'audited contributions', eh? :) Well, he's certainly got plenty of those, and looking at recent GA reviews he shows a strong willingness to improve articles beyond what he considers "ready", which is a major plus. His (rather limited) AfD contributions I've checked seem perfectly reasonable and inquisitive, and his answers at the help desk seem non-bitey, useful, and demonstrative of a grasp of general Wiki-knowledge. Full-on support. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''<s>Strong</s> Weak support''' per the opposition. Still supporting though.
'''Support'' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' One of the best. Clueful, friendly, and prolific. Hopefully won't spend too much time on admin actions, as his article improvements are of high value. --
'''Support'''.  I have seen lots of your good work around.  Further review suggests you are insightful and often witty.  That's good enough for me.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support'''. Civil, capable, and witty...a very rare breed. '''''
'''Support''' - I have been waiting for this one.
'''Support'''  I think [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] said it quite well: "I trust Skomorokh." ---<font face="Georgia">'''
'''Support''' From what I see you're a highly insightful and fair editor; even, per the neutral comment, towards ostracized groups of editors. I fully trust you with the tools. '''
This RfA just made my day. Skomorokh has been someone who's made a huge imprint on me, an imprint of a hard working, dedicated, civil, humble, clueful, prolific, capable, insightful, and reasonable editor (what a mouthful). His article contributions are simply outstanding, and he manages to combine his article contributions with his other edits very nicely. It appears that he's not easily burned out, and can be a good admin for a while. I have complete confidence in him, and as such, I'm supporting his RfA. <small>(
'''Support''' I wouldn't normally vote in a 62/0/0.999999 situation, but the quality of this production deserves my time to hit the edit button and pile on. '''
'''Support''' nothing but good for the project.
'''Support''' Per Peter Damian's probably impending oppose.
'''Support''' I remember the discussions about [[Stormfront (website)]] mentioned below. There have no bearing on Skomorokh's abilities as a potential administrator.

'''Support'''' Nothing but good raves. --
'''Suppoprt''' an editor with intergrity.
'''Support''' I have no reason to believe this wouldn't be a big net positive.
'''Support''' Yeah, go ahead and have a mop!  You do good work!  --'''
'''Support'''  Good Track has been around since Sept 2006.
I don't normally bother with pile-on '''Support'''s, but the nomination statement and [[WP:SIEGE]] demonstrate too much clue to pass over. Would it be going too far to say that no better candidate has ever sought the mop-pery, I wonder?
'''Support''' per position on postmodernism. And, you know, that quality clueful editor thing. -
'''Yes''' per all of the above - I will elaborate upon request
'''Support''' Persuasive name brand recognition. '''

Absolutely, positively, yes, '''support'''.—
'''Support''' - Wow, this is almost unanimous. --
'''Strong support''', per Plastikspork and my consistently good impression of Skomorokh. Very good overall demeanor, I have no concerns, and getting him admin'd will definitely be a net positive for us.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' I think Skomorokh will be an excellent admin, given what I've seen over the years. --
'''Support.''' Most entertaining self-nomination ever. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I think he'll be an excellent admin!
'''Support''', would be a great asset to the overall project. &nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Totally. Level headed, pragmatic editor who is clearly here for the right reasons. A pleasure to add to the pile on :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Already acts like one, might as well make it official ;-)
Why the hell not?
'''Support''' Per wadester16, an excellent essay, and actually everything else. --
It appears to be a foregone conclusion at this juncture but I felt compelled to voice my support nonetheless.  Candidate appears to have a firm grasp on policy, plenty of clue, a level head and pretty much everything an admin ought to be.
'''Support''' - S. is a good editor and will be a good administrator.
'''Support''' ... am I still in the first hundred? Enough said already.
'''Strong support''' - I've been working with Skomorokh for quite a while now; to the point that I can type out the name without going to check the spelling. :D We spent a great deal of time working on [[Maynard James Keenan]] which has left me impressed with the candidate's ability to collaborate. We've also spent a good deal of time on [[Jimmy Wales]] where the candidate makes good use of the talk page, but has also shown good judgment on making bold edits and demonstrated a strong grasp of content policies. Furthermore, although we don't always agree (in fact, often not) on issues that arise for discussion around the project, Skomorokh has shown consistency in clearly articulating his/her position and backing them with reasoned thought. The project needs more content admins who understand BLP.
'''Support''', without reservations. Levelheaded, witty, a net positive.
'''Support''' Good nom statement and answers to questions.  Will do fine. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support'''. The combination of mainspace contributions with interest in various admin areas show that the user will be good with the sysop abilities. Judging by the basis of their nomination, they have the ability to communicate clearly on the Wiki, and I'm glad to lend my support. --
'''Support'''. A consistent voice of reason on WikiProject Objectivism, which has to be one of the most problematic here. Has shown excellent judgment and is a strong worker towards consensus.
'''Support''' - Looks like I get to be #[[WP:100|100]]. Skomorokh's dedication to the project is beyond question and his ability to reason is clearly demonstrated by the recent AfD !votes and comments he has made.  Additionally, his quick response to my inquires show he will communicate effectively to resolve any complaints he receives about his admin tasks. --
'''Support''' I came accross the user on the wiki project vandalism studies and liked the thought he puts into his essays. I have not found a reason not to support. I think the user is very engaging and throughly thinks through problems. Full support
'''Support''' Great editor who is well qualified to be an administrator.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' —
''' Support''' &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' - I trust him to be a good admin.
'''Support''' – I thought he was one already. His conduct around the wiki, where i've encountered it, has been excellent. I can't recall any negative experiences that i've had with Skomorokh. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. ;) '''
'''Support''' Excellent user '''
This guy is great.  And the lone neutral is laughable at best.
'''Support'''. I recognize this candidate only from work on his or her successful [[William Gibson]] FA. Smart and great user. -
'''Support''' – I remember one time thinking that Skomorokh was an admin, then checked and was surprised to find 'twas not so. Not too long after that, I started making the same assumption and didn't check, and have since been carrying around the idea that this excellent communicator is an admin. Now I come across this RfA. It looks as if my confused little mind will soon be a little less confused. That's good. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' Civil, conscientious, courteous, well-informed, a consensus-builder – the editor has an great knack for “walking away from a fight" if the editing environment becomes too heated and personal. I wish that I had his patience. I admire him.
'''Support''' per TRMan.
'''Support''' Good content contributor and a decent amount of edits unlike the usual 4,000 been here 4 months lets grab some tools tyoe of candidates.
Support. The candidate appears to be here to do what is necessary, what is compatible with the goal of the project, and what is clueful. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' - Calm, conscientious, rational. And writes well too! Has the temperament and competencies for the job. Unreservedly trust him. &mdash;
'''Support''' Certainly.
'''Yes'''. No problems here.  A good, solid content contributor and apparent knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''— '''
'''Support''' Finally somebody stood up to the obnoxious copy and paste questions.
'''Obvious support''' for a super editor. I see below that some people have concerns about Skomorokh's views, opinions, and whatnot, but then again, who doesn't disagree with people now and then? I don't care about what Sk. believes about Ayn Rand or what her(?) WikiPhilosophy is.... I care that Skomorokh has an impressive understanding of WP policy and is a huge asset to the encyclopedia all over the place. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' - being [[WP:HONESTY|honest]] is the most important asset of an editor, and more so an admin. This guy reeks honesty. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Strong candidate, net positive. — '''''
'''Strong Support'''. About time! '''
'''Support''' per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''': Net positive. No harm ! --

I'm
'''Support'''. Definitely a net positive.
'''Support'''. net positive. If problems ''do'' occur, folks know where to come :)
'''Support'''.  Absolutely.  I've had nothing but good interaction with Skomorokh, who is among the smartest editors I know, and I like the way he is willing to think outside the box, however provocative that may be.  --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' —
'''Support'''. Good editor, levelheaded.  Tolerance is a good thing.
'''Oppose''' Accusations of "slander" against good faith editors aren't something I expect from an admin. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Oppose'''.  I prefer not to award powers and privileges to people who don't assign any importance to other editors' rights.
'''Oppose'''.  Back to oppose.  There is something very disturbing about this application.  My first instinct was correct.
'''Oppose''' Okay, this is entirely symbolic and I don't really want nor expect to see this fail, but I do have an uneasy feeling. I applaud you for not 'playing the game', taking control and initiative in the RfA and not being a doormat for fear of losing supporters. While self-confidence can be a fantastic quality, it also can lead to mistakes and an unwillingness to admit them. You are indeed experienced, and have an obvious legion of supporters compared to a modicum of opposers, and are not one I'd expect to go nuts, but I wanted to ensure you wouldn't get ahead of yourself. You are a fantastic editor who is probably more valuable than I, but everyone always reads the opposes, and I just wanted to voice that small concern. I look forward to seeing you wield the tools. :) \
'''Oppose''' - I cannot trust this user as a user let alone an admin from what I have seen in the manner in which they have expressed their views. I will probably not expand because my votes have already been declared invalid by at least one Crat so it would be a waste of time to bother.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, although this editor knows how to write, I don't quite trust him with the  tools.
'''Oppose''' Responses to questions seem guarded, non-forthcoming, vague, ambiguous, and leaves a few too many unanswered...
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I have to agree with people above--you're not a quality article generator, and you tend to generate [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25259&hl=Skomorokh dramah] instead.--
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Per reasons provided by Peter Damian, I don't trust this editor with admin tools.  Reminds me a little of
'''Oppose''' per whitewashing of neo-nazi website [[stormfront (website)]].  For the ANI thread, please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#Stormfront_.28website.29]]. --
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above, most notably by Damien, B. I anticipate this Rfa will result in a pass; if it does, I hope you will take into consideration these concerns in your future actions. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Oppose''' Per Peter Damian
'''Oppose''' Concerned that this would be an admin who performs like a robotic "policy wonk", never pausing to step outside the Wikiframe. Special thanks to Peter Damian for his research. --
'''Oppose''' Two reasons. First, the whole stormfront thing makes me wonder whether the editor knows the difference between neutral language and neutral point of view. Second, if the editor can't be bothered to answer most of the questions (I know, they are a pain) then one does wonder whether the editor would take the trouble necessary to perform admin duties in a more than perfunctory manner. --
I think Skomorokh is a smart editor, makes intelligent comments in discussions and has contributions commensurate with what I expect from an administrator. On the other hand, Skomorokh has (on one occasion that I've seen) criticised the blocking/banning of disruptive pro-pedophilia advocates and Holocaust deniers - describing the former (since banned) of [[ephebophilia]], and the latter (since banned) of having an ''epistemological'' difference of opinion on the Holocaust. Perhaps this will sound like sour grapes, as the comment I refer to was left on my own RfA over a year ago. I hope the fact that this is a neutral and that more than a year has passed will allay those concerns, but perhaps not. But for his position on these issues, which I still find troubling, I would support.
'''Support;''' what TheCoffee says is true.
Per the nomination statement and TheCoffee's response to Stephen below.
'''Support''', I'm strongly inclined to support someone who looks good if they are trusted at other Wiki's. What's good enough for Tagalog is good enough for me.
'''Support''' Great content contributions and the fair use rules did become more strict after 2005, per TheCoffee's rationale below. '''
'''Support'''. I find no merit in the complaint about the fair use image issues below. I also see a lot of very useful editing, and a decent understanding of how things work here. ···
'''Support''' Clean block log, good attitude, familiar with the role from other wiki. --'''''
Per nom, with a recommendation that certain information on your user page might be better of not there to be honest, but that's up to you. Fine candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA Rationale|Support]] Opposers not convincing.
'''Support''' - Opposers seem concerned by Orphaned imaged tags - This is because this user actually creates content!
'''Support''', basically per Nihonjoe.  It is not appropriate to hold incidents from the deep past against this candidate, particularly when said incidents occurred at a time when the rules were different.  We should be examining the candidate's recent contributions to evaluate their ability to judge consensus, resolve disputes and work in a collaborative way.  I have done so and I'm not just satisfied, I'm impressed.—
'''Strong Support''' per nom and per S Marshall
'''Suport'''. Very good contibs and nominator statement, and I remain unconvinced about the opposes and I agree with S Marhall, we should not hold events from the past aginst people. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Weak Support''' - There is currently a lack of actice Filipino admins, so okay...--
'''Support''', the candidate has a clean track record, and has done nothing that would lead me to believe that they would abuse the tools. The oppose !votes are highly unconvincing. &ndash;
'''Support''' The image questions have been adequately answered, and everything esle looks good.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''', image issue dealt with, and everything else is dandy.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No reason to believe the user will abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''', not seeing any reason to do otherwise.  Good luck!
'''Support''' You've certainly been here long enough, and, looking through your contributions, I can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|I can't see anything wrong here]].--
'''Support''' I don't see any major problems.--
'''Support''' You seem like exactly the right kind of person for the job.  I see the now-stricken "issues" with images as a boon rather than a fault, speaking to your understanding and responsibility toward changing policy. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. While a great content contributor, his WP: work is also not lacking. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' - Per the nom and all the above. SkyHarbor will make a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Intentions to make Wikipedia a better resource are pure. Good luck!
I'm
'''Support''' Seems like the right kind of editor to be an admin.
'''Support''' Has done great at the English Wikipedia and has the trust of the Tagolog Wikipedia, should definitely get the mop. -- '''
'''[[User:Matheuler/adminship|Support]]'''.  Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. –'''
'''Support''' Looks pretty good --
The low edits in recent months are counterbalanced for me by the long, solid history and cratship on the tagalog wikipedia. - Dank (
'''Support''' I salute this guy and his efforts in making Wikipedia a better and brighter place, so suppport.
I am going to join this so far unanimous '''support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] for excellent arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School]] and as I happy to see [[User:Sky Harbor/Awards]] and as the candidate has been around since 2006 without having ever been blocked.  Best, --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' also, good choice for the first word of your username.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support''' -Very active on the Filipino Wiki among others.--
'''Support''': absolutely..
'''Support'''. A good candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' User has been around since Oct 2005 and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - this one must be a veteran editor.
'''Support''' - Active and good candidate,
'''Support'''. Not the answer I was hoping for, but there's no indication that you'll consciously or inadvertently misuse the tools. <tt>
'''Support''' Good track record, satisfactory answers to questions, trusted user on other WMF projects.
No problems I can see. '''
A highly qualified candidate. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Thought I already did this, support. '''
'''Support'''Well researched answer to my question, and in general strong editing credentials.
'''Support''' — I have a sneaking suspicion this person will be a net positive to the project. :)
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. '''\'''
'''Support''' I was coming here to oppose, due to those imaging license issues I saw in his talk page archives, until I saw the comments in the oppose section. Since that's cleared up, I'll support, seeing as that was my one and only concern. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Looks great. '''
OK, I'm happy enough.
'''support''' Candidate seems very good. Has a good understanding of policy and has substantial content contributions.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' He has the standards of being an admin!
'''Support''' Notably good replies to questions.   '''
I've been waiting for this moment, and now is the time to do it. I'm giving my absolute '''support'''. And having known him on-wiki and off-wiki, I honestly believe this was long overdue. ---
Looks good---'''
'''Support''' with appreciation of the well-thought answers.
'''Support'''. One of the prolific Filipino Wikipedia users and a strong advocate of cleaning the wiki system from vandals and unverified sources, I am giving my all out support together with other language groups (tl, war, bcl, ceb, pam) --
'''Support'''. No worries here.
'''Support'''. Because there is a combination of good content work and a sound, mature, common sensical approach to policy and process issues in the answers.
'''Support'''—Impressive answers: good writer, thinker.
'''Support''' no reason to think there would be any problems. Excellent replies. Image issue not recent and seemingly not even intentional or malicious so can't hold the past against you forever. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' – I wasn't familiar with Sky Harbor when I first noticed this RfA. I did a look-over, though, and all I see is positive. Strong contribs, good demeanor. Excellent and interesting answers to the questions. Absolutely.
'''Support''' - no problems with the early image issues - that's the nature of progress here!  Good content work & answers.
'''Support''' – clear answers to questions, everything looks fine to me.
'''Support''' A good editor, although I did sway towards neutral because of what Axl said.
'''Support.''' I've always seen Sky Harbor having Wikipedia's best interest in mind. --
'''Support''' - Good answers, no concerns. It is beneficial to Wikipedia to have admins from many different parts of the world, so that disputes can be addressed by people who have some local knowledge.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Sky Harbor. —
'''Support''' per nom, no concerns.
'''Support'''. Seems like a fine candidate. — '''''
'''Support'''. Wield the mop well! <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support'''. Absolutely - a smart and safe pair of hands. Admirable answers ice the cake.
'''Neutral'''. Generally good contributions. However the reasons for seeking adminship are unconvincing.
'''Support'''. I interacted with this editor several times in the past (when dealt with editprotect requests), and I think that he is one best template coders here. Martin will be a great asset for the project, if he is given the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Smith609 has an excellent article-writing history, including FA experience.  I would like to see an opinion from Philcha, one of our best editors, with whom Smith609 has interacted very extensively, but barring any developments I see no reason not to support.
'''Support'''. No problems here. How he intends to use the tools isn't a concern.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Looie496|Looie596]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Weak Support'''. Could use edit summaries more, but that's not a reason to oppose/go neutral. The only intending to perform minor tasks isn't a problem, it isn't like we have a minimum level of administrative activity required.
'''Support''' - {{worksforme}}. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good enough <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' - good history + will be a net positive = support. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
I read the answer to question one a few times, and Smith609 didn't say he was just going to use the tools just to help out with his bots: he added in the second part that he would use the tools to help out with small tasks, and when other users need admin assistance. Even if he was just going to use them for his bots, then that would be useful as he wouldn't have to get admins to do what he needs doing (and have to explain things to them), but as he's said he will do other tasks, and him being able to do them would save time as, again, he wouldn't need to get hold of an admin to do them for him, then I think giving Smith609 the tools will be positive. In addition, Smith609 is a good content contributor, which is a bonus combined with him being a bot-owner.
'''Weak Support''' Good contributor, but lack of edit summaries kinda scares me.
'''Support''' - Sure, why not. Not seen anything worrying. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Whatever makes Wikipedia run more smoothly.
'''Support''' &mdash; He has a good reason to have the sysop tools.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked and I don't recall us having any negative interactions either.  Best, --
'''Support'''.  If he only uses the tools once, he will benefit the project and as such I have no problem supporting someone who plans to only do administrative duties casually.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' my rationale can be found at Oppose section--
'''Support''': per above.

'''Support''' Why not? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Everything I've seen says 'yes', nothing says 'no'. Smith will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''', I was happy with the work you did with AnyBot and fixing the various bugs with it, you were responsive and polite to the concerns that were raised and showed good sense. I can see how admin tools will be useful to you, even in a fairly minor way, and am happy for you to have them. I do acknowledge Toddst's concerns in the oppose section though - I'd definitely request that you improve your edit-summary usage and mark only genuinely minor edits as such. It's certainly a valid concern that I hope you'll take on board, but I don't personally consider it a deal-breaker to getting the admin toolset. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Good interaction with the user over the bugs in his bot while creating alga stubs. Someone I would trust with the tools.
'''Support''' for the botmaster.  Where would we be without them? '''
Due to the pretty clear and focused areas he'll use the tools in, which says to me "no abuse likely". <small><span style="border:1px solid #993333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --Best, '''''<small>
'''Support''' to balance out any one of the absurd opposes.
'''Support''' - unorthodox candidate, but he makes a reasonable case that he would benefit from having the tools, and there's no obvious evidence that he would misuse them. I would like to see him use more edit summaries, though.
'''Support''' - I used his Citation bot. Very nice thing.--
'''Support'''! I don't consider any of the oppose votes actionable. Also, excellent answer to question 5. —
'''Support''' Civil, and receptive to criticism. A niche admin candidate who will clearly make things run more smoothly.
'''Support''' Although I agree with the points made in opposition, and I don't think any harm would be done by giving this candidate 3 more months to work on edit summaries and broaden his knowledge of process a bit, I think he's dedicated, knowledgeable, helpful, and careful. - Dan
'''Support'''. No indication he will abuse the tools; no red flags. Take the suggestions regarding edit summaries to heart and you'll be fine.
'''Support'''  —
'''Weak support''' - He seems trustworthy and competant enough; [[WP:WTHN|I'll just go ahead and support as default]]. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' We get a clueful, quiet, responsible editor with significant content contributions, a history of efficient collaboration, three years of involvement in the project and we're going to deny him tools that would make his life easier and take some load off our dwindling corps of active admins because people don't see a need for the tools or because he has low edit summary usage... As one of the 920 remaining active admins, I find this very frustrating. Edit summaries can be forced with a tick in the preferences: so in less time than it takes to write this sentence, that part of the problem can be solved. As for the no need for tools argument, I thought that had been completely debunked before...
'''Support''' a good editor, with good reasons for using the tool. Now that he realises about minor edits, I see no serious objection. (And perhaps it is our fault, in letting the default be "minor"). Judging him unsuitable for that is taking it way out of proportion.'''
'''Support'''- This user appears not to have a great need for the tools so I wasn't going to support, but I generally only oppose if I think they shouldn't be trusted with them. So I wasn't going to !vote at all. But I find myself persuaded by Pascal.Tesson's reasoning.
'''Support''' Per above supports. Seems a sensible sort, with a genuine need for tools to help with his useful bots.  "Minor edit" concerns are pretty minor.
'''Support''' &ndash; He won't abuse the tools. No harm in Martin becoming an administrator. &mdash;
'''Support''' — Martin and I have come across each other many times over the years in the editing of the articles on [[Ediacaran biota]].  He has always acted in a mature responsible and cooperative way, and can handle intricately formatted templates and references.  So I can drop in a positive referee report on him.  He has taken action to improve use of edit summaries so I won't count tat a negative any more.  I guess it makes it harder for us to see what he has done!
'''Support''' — I see no issues. You would make a great admin. Good luck!--
'''Support''' I've pondered this for a few days. Initially, I wasn't sure whether there was a real desire for the tools beyond making his bot run smoother. However, in my first few days of my own adminship, and having really appreciated the backlog that builds up of uncontroversial moves, another user to help clear those at least can't be a bad thing. I see no reason that this user will misuse the tools, and his agreement to work on his edit summaries shows that he's prepared to listen to comnments from the community; thus, I support. --
'''Support'''. Initial need for the tools is not, in my opinion, something to be concerned about; if a candidate is good, mature, shows none of the normal problems that crop up and wants to do ''something'' helpful then there is no reason he shouldn't be given the tools. The oppose section is not convincing, and in some places is downright ridiculous (too many admins, for example. Nobody who has seen the backlogs we have in some admin-related areas would agree with that).
'''Support''', I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' With respect to the opposing editors, I feel that their reasons are not major problems; very few admins know it all at the start of their career. I am certain that this editor will not abuse the tools.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' due to lack of any logical reason to oppose. Edit summaries? ''REALLY?'' --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Support''' this editor seems to have a narrow focus on where he'll use the tools and given that, and taking him at his word, no worries - even the edit summaries and other issues by the "opposers" don't sway me.
'''Support'''  Why not? "The user didn't leave edit summaries" is a very weak reason to oppose. This is a good contributor to Wikipedia, no evidence that the user will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - no reason to believe he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - has a experience, has a clue and has a need for the tools. These are way more important than edit summaries and minor edits, which he can change with a click of mouse, as he has already shown himself willing to do.--
'''Support''' - a great user, and has shown himself to be responsive to the Wikipedia community in this very RfA. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  There is no reason to suppose he will misuse the tools and it seems they will be of use to him even if not in the conventional way. |→
'''Support''' - being able to unblock his bots '''after''' debugging should not be an issue, and he doesn't strike me as someone who'll be jumping in to resolve debates without reviewing the relevant policies first. (Why _do_ we have a "mark all edits as minor" option, anyway?)--
'''Support''' <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Martin does a lot of behind-the-scenes technical work that will be more efficient with the admin tools. He was very helpful and patient with my initial blundering about at [[Cambrian explosion]]. We've worked together on other articles, we've quite often started with different ideas, but we've always managed to resolve issues and often to have a laugh in the process. If / when Martin gets involved in the more controversial admin duties like AfD and blocking / unblocking, I'm sure the same qualities will be much appreciated by those involved. --
'''Support''' Looks fine as long as you use edit summaries more often. '''''
'''Support''' Stable editor, around for some time, no big concerns i see yet, so ill give myt support
'''Support''' I very much like your answer to Q3 in that the extra privledges of adminship mean that you are more responsible for you actions. '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' as a consistent and calm contributor with an obvious interest in improving Wikipedia. Please do something to improve your edit summary usage, and stop tagging so many edits as minor when they aren't. Other than that, fine by me.
'''Support''' with no hesitation.  Editor seems calm, collected, and fully capable.  --
'''Support''' per [[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]].&mdash;
'''Support''' opposes do not go to the issue of trust.  I'm sure Smith will do fine as an admin.--
'''Support''' No blocks, civil contributor, and I'm happy that edit summary use has now been resolved.  ''
'''Strong Support''' especially now that the edit summary/minor edit situations have been dealt with. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;believe editor is a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. --'''''
'''Support''' I appreciate his work on issues of academic interest. My limited experience interacting with him has been pleasant, and the answers he gave to the questions above confirm that impression.
'''Oppose''' While I can see it must be frustrating I can't agree that we give you all the tools just so you can fix your bot more quickly. There must be a better way of addressing your problem.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''', no compelling reason for granting for the tools based on answers to questions above.
'''Oppose''', per what I feel is not a compelling reason for granting tools, and also edit summary usage; being "pressed for time" and expecting others to add extensions so they can see what he has done is not helpful or constructive. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''', per answer to Q5.  Where there's been a discussion, the applicant's role is to determine what the consensus is and then implement it—not to form his own judgment in despite of the consensus.—
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q1. If nominee's bots are so disruptive that dealing with their blocks is inconvenient for him as the bot operator, the bots probably need more scrutiny, not a grant of special rights to the bot operator. My experience in other fields has been that if you need to report mistakes and problems to someone else, you're more careful to begin with and make fewer and less damaging mistakes. Admin rights aren't supposed to be given so editors can avoid scrutiny.
'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced that the tools are even needed in this case. And, even if I was, the poor use of edit summaries and the over-checking of edits as minor prevent me from considering supporting.
'''Oppose''' per reasons stated above. The edit summary usage and the marking of so many edits as minor are not desirable traits/habits. I'm not even sure if the candidate really needs the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' as I don't think the user really needs the tools yet, as it would be for the bots. Also, self-noms give me the feeling that the user wants the tools too badly. My suggestion is to wait a little bit and get more involved in the Wikipedia. '''
'''Weak oppose''' per the minor-edits issue. <font color="#A20846">╟─
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] makes a good point. I'd have looked over it but then I checked the logs for your bots. Anybot was blocked just once [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AAnybot&year=&month=-1] and that was for less than 20 minutes, and Citation Bot has also only been blocked once [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ACitation+bot&year=&month=-1] with what seems to be a serious concern. So I can't really see the time spent waiting for a bot to be unblocked argument is a valid one. I'm also personally of the opinion that bot owners should not unblock their own bots, rather like admins should not unblock themselves. In addition I'm not in agreement with your about your rationale for not using edit summaries when adding a fact or a reference. "+ref" takes next to no time to type, and admin actions are all about effective communication of actions - the edit or log summary being a key starting point for that communication <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per the statements above. Looking at this RFA, I don't see no need for the tools. I also see I am not the only one with that view.
I'm opposing per some of your answers to the questions, the optional ones in particular. The concerns that Pedro above outlines relating to your bot operation are also substantial. Please consider returning in several months, and try to remember to use edit summaries more often; they may at first seem pointless, but they're effective communication tools. &mdash;<strong>
'''Oppose''' Errmm what?  You're going to unblock your own bot? Although automated and semi-automated tools are often a benefit to Wikipedia, having admin rights simply to assist in the maintenance of those tools is not the idea. You shouldn't likely be unblocking your own bot anyway, after all, you're then no longer an uninvolved admin :-)  (
'''Oppose''' per bad edit summary usage and lack of policy knowledge. Also, I wouldn't like an admin who thinks unblocking his own bots is any different than unblocking themselves after another admin blocked them. '''
'''Oppose''' User isn't familiar enough with wikipedia (minor edits, no summaries, seems clueless on AfDs).  Seems like will be a good admin later though as these problems get addressed.
'''Reluctant oppose''' I hate !voting oppose, but in this case I feel I have to. I don't think there needs to be an overwhelmingly compelling reason to grant the tools to someone, but using edit summaries is a crucial communications tool that all editors and administrators must use. Sorry, but if you start using edit summaries I can see no reason why I wouldn't support a second RfA down the line.
'''Oppose''' - bot needs debugging first; poor edit sumamry usage; concerns raised make me nervous.
'''Oppose''' Your edit summary usage for minor edits is too low in my opinion.  It is fine for major edits though.  Also, I don't think an admin should unblock his own bot for any reason.  [[User_talk:Smith609#User:Anybot|Running your bot without it being flagged]] is also a factor.--
'''Oppose'''. Smith609 generally provides good quality contributions. However he should not be using admin tools to unblock his own bot.
'''Oppose''' as per his plans for the tools seem counterproductive and violation of the spirit of the community.  Poor communication and lack of edit summaries (and lack of ''concern'' over the lack of edit summaries) seal this one for me. -
'''Oppose''': From what's I've seen, if a bot is blocked and the operator says he wants to test it, another admin will easily unblock it to allow him to do so.  I don't see the need to be able to unblock your own bots yourself, and don't see any positive from adminship.  Your bot gets blocked, you acknowledge there's a problem, someone unblocks and then you can practice and resume editing.  Yes, you may have to wait a little while but even the vandalism protection bots don't get to be instantly put back into service.  No one's going to keep your bot blocked unless you've shown a pattern of not responding well to user requests.  To me, an operator unblocking his bot is no different than an admin unblocking himself.  It's still just a matter of them getting to do the edits they want, regardless of what others think.  I really don't see how a small delay in adding ISBN links is any concern at all, and I really don't want us back at ANI in six months debating whether to desysop you because you keep unblocking your bots on your judgment alone.  We've already seen that stupidity with one admin bot operator.  --
'''Neutral''':Formerly a fairly strong and vocal oppose, but after discussion with candidate have changed to neutral with a lean towards support. Best regards.
I can see the need for the tools, but I can also see the no need.  It's no hassle to find an admin to take care of the bot issue.  Less than 5 minutes and the bot will be blocked.  It's a toss up.  I'd support if you had more of a contributory value for the buttons.
'''Moved to Neutral''' per Question 7, Question 5, and Caspian Blue's initial reasoning. Come back in a few months and i'll likely support.
'''Support''' We need more AIV and CSD admins
'''Support''' I took a spin though his contributions, and this is a fine example of a worker bee with a clue. 216 AIV reports, and in looking at a sample of his earliest and most recent reports there, Someguy1221 would make a fine admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I don't see anything alarming.
'''Support''' - Sure, why not. Not found anything worrying. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Delete''' He's just some guy, not notable! :-) ... oh wait, wrong queue, '''support''' '''
'''Support''' - Contents building (2 DYKs) and sufficient amount of activities in wikispace -> seems fine to me. --
'''Support''' I've worked with Someguy at [[WP:AFC|AfC]] and have been very impressed with what I've seen. He's a user that makes Wikiprojects go. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' per Tnxman307.
'''Support''' looks good to me, no alarms, builds articles and fights vandals. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me; per [[User:Ged UK|Ged UK]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' Looks fine. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Weak Support''' taking short cuts on your edit summaries as relating to speedy deletions has me a little concerned... when you start deleting articles make sure you give good rational in your edit summary.---'''
'''Support''' - Would trust him with the mop. Seen him around [[WP:AFC]], a helpful editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Trusted user, will do good with the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
No reason not to.
'''Support''' - Looks good! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' I am very impressed with what I see. Support!
'''Support''' Don't see any problems, certainly see a lot of good in your substantial and numerous contributions.  Full speed ahead! '''
'''Support''' I approve of your answer to my creationism example question.  I'm sure this answer can be extrapolated to other situations as well.
'''Support''', why not.
'''Support'''. A trustworthy candidate, I do not foresee any problems.

'''Support''', positive contributor in many varied capacities. '''
'''Support''' - I see nothing that raises a red flag but I also see not much experience in CSD and XFD, although candidate claims to be active there. Looking through contributions, I can find only a handful of speedy taggings, but they seem to be without grave errors. But as the contributions here are limited, it's hard to judge the candidates knowledge in that area. In case this request is successful (and it looks like it) I advise the candidate to be open to let more experienced admins help him in those areas if needed. It's better to ask for help than to make mistakes here. Regards '''
'''Support''' You have a good grasp of policy and guidelines and you don't seem like a magnet for drama.  Nice work in AfC to boot. '''
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
I've seen '''Thisguy''' around '''1221''' times and never been deceived. --
'''Support''' Great responses to the first question. You've thought this one through impressively. <strong>
'''Support''' Good gatekeeper on poor articles. AfD's look solid.
I'm
'''Support''' even though numerical palindromes are kinda silly. -
'''Support''' Everything looks good.
'''Support''' - No red flags.
'''Support''' good answers to questions.
'''Support''' Seems fine.  I do join in the suggestion of Spartacus, which I hope and trust the candidate will consider.
'''Support'''.  I see no red flags or warning signs here, and A Nobody's two AfD links don't sway me.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' will be another useful addition to the ranks.
'''Support''' seems a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' has performed constructive work as well as the garbage removal side of the job.
'''Support''' keeps cool, hardworker, accurate judgements.
'''Support'''--Best, '''''<small>
'''Support'''. No worries.
'''Strong Support''' First it's tough to beat the nom.  While I've never worked directly with Someguy on any particular article, I ran into him while reverting vandalism.  I noticed that he had reverted a vandal edit - ''then'' went back, checked the article, and made additional improvements - that kind of attention to detail impressed me. Then looking at the answers here, seeing strong building skills, great efforts to protect the wiki from vandals, I simply don't see this strong a candidate often enough.  Please give him a mop, and any other tools, (well, OK, those ''are'' the tools).  No doubt what-so-ever that this is the type of admin we need. —
'''Support''' - Dan
'''Support:''' Looks like a really solid contributor and a great candidate.  Plus, SoWhy and I'm Spartacus! are happy with the CSD tags . . . what more could one want?  :-)
'''Strong support''' - clearly exceeds [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support:''' Has been since Jan 2007 and vandal fighter and used rollback well.
'''Support''' Would use the tools well.
'''Support''' &ndash; No problems here whatsoever. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good Luck. --
'''Support''' - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Über-Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000000;background:# 787878">
'''Support''' - Good answers, good edit history, bonus for being willing to take on AfD. Standard caution on the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]]. Good luck! /
'''Support''': +1 <small>
'''Support''' - The answers to the questions by this user shows that he knows what he is talking about and that he will use the tools to benefit the English Wikipedia.  Cheers,
'''Support'''.  Contributes content, helps others, civil.  No problems I can see.
'''Support''' as a sock of Jack Merridew. '''
Fine user.
'''Support''', I have seen him around AfD a little bit and have seen nothing wrong from there. '''
'''Support''' <humour>per Sceptre</humour>. Also, I've done some looking in the last day and have found nothing of concern. User seems here to do right and shows clue. Appropriate user for tools. Cheers,
'''Strong support''': OK, it's a pile-on, but I meant to do this a few days ago. Has demonstrated ample clue and will be an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''', as nominator. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  On the plus side of things, the candidate does have a barnstar and some DYK credits as well as having never been blocked.  With that said, I am torn with something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture_(second_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=151708114 this], i.e. is it more indicative of the positive quality of keeping an open mind or should the candidate have recognized that the article was improveable from the start?  I feel similarly with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogger (2nd nomination)]].   On one hand the candidate rightly challenges the call to speedy delete, but also the candidate's actual stance is essentially a [[WP:JNN]].  Thus, my concern is not adequately considering the merits of the articles in question from the get go.  Sincerely, --
(Nominator)
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Good contributor, clean block log, civil talk and user pages, and [[User talk:Somno#Quick Review|I'm very reassured by this]] '''
'''Support''' a review of your last 500 contributions turns up nothing bad, lots of good work in the article space, excellent edit summary usage, need for the tools, good nomination. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - Quick review of recent contributions turns up nothing worrying, and the review by Balloonman is reassuring. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Good luck.
--
'''Support''' Really liked the answer to #1 so you've got my vote.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
An outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' - having interacted with this editor since her starting I have been impressed by the level-headedness in dealing with issues  - I also have noticed a thoroughness and attention to detail, and knowing the range of contributions to WP Australia and Western Australia - I would consider adminship to be a further step in a positive presence on wikipedia
I interacted with Somno while (s)he worked on [[Sindy]] (and, I'm sure, in other places) and know I can trust them based on the good work done there.
absolute, a level headed contributor like all the people Hesperian suggests for RfA.
One of the most impressive RfA's I've seen in terms of answers to questions. I'd be delighted to see you with the tools. —'''
'''Support''' - Very persuasive nomination and I liked the maturity displayed in the answers to the questions. --
'''Support''' User has been around since October 2007 and after looking at contributions feel giving the user tools will only help the project.
'''Support'''. A very good candidate with a good nomination and excellent answers. I see there being no potential problems if Somno had the tools.
'''Strong Support''', very impressive candidate.
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having not been blocked, having received a couple barnstars, and due to no negative interactions in AfDs.  Best, --
'''Support'''. —<sub>
Strong candidate. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' - I don't foresee any problems/issues.
'''Strong Support''' - This is one candidate I can trust the mop with.  In going over her contributions, I see no issues.
Your answers look very good. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' A review of this users deleted contributions shows that s/he is a quick learner.  The first deleted edit reversed an author blanking a page (in order to re-insert an A7 tag), not really a practice that we like to see.  Later edits did not show this pattern.  An informative edit summary was used each time (even prior to the candidate installing some tools which automated the csd edit summary), as the policy demands.  there is a selection bias involved in checking deleted articles for proper speedy tagging, but keeping that in mind the overwhelming majority of the tags were appropriate.  Likewise their [http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Somno nose for AfD nominations] is dead-on.  The only one that looked out of whack was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Teenage Girl]], where the candidate did the right thing: withdrew the nomination when contrary information surfaced.  I can support this user.

'''Strong support''' A great all-round candidate who will make a superb administrator. Good luck! --
'''Switching from oppose Support''' per my [[User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria|RfA Criteria]]. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''. Rare patience in handling newbies (i.e. [[User_talk:Rcsadeh#Moving pages]]); human (humane?) explanations appending userpage templates, etc. signs of a good citizen. Uneventful and apparently safe deletion record, leaning to PRODs; hope you won't switch to shoot-first CSDs.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor! <font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per above. '''
Sure. <small><span style="border:1px solid #993333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Like, duh. <b>'''
Answers to questions show a level-headed candidate; I trust her to not jump into an area with the tools where she is not yet comfortable, if there are any such areas. Happy to support here.
'''Support''' per above fine arguments.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No reason not to trust him. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Fit for the job <font color="cyan" size="2">♣</font><font color="lime" face="georgia" size="2">
'''Support''' I see the user is sensible and has good intentions, is patient and friendly. One advice though: I'm still not fully satisfied by the answer to Q4. You need to be very careful with IAR and deletion because (imho) the reason WP:CSD was created was to limit the cases in which admins may delete pages; this means that if CSD does not fit, you should not delete. I understand it for pets and A7 for example, but with fictional characters you can easily incur the anger of other editors. After all, waiting for 5 days does not hurt us. But I think you will do fine :-) '''
'''Support''', good and level-headed contributor.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and sensible editor.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate with nothing that throws up any red flags for me. The answer to Q4 is icing on the cake.
'''Support''' - Seems good.
'''Support''': Conscientious editor. Good candidate.
Support, good new page patrol as far as I checked. The answer to Q4 is also good; anybody who always follows the letter of a policy isn't going to be a good admin.
'''DAMN IT!!!''' I was actually looking over Somno a week or so ago and was going to nominate him myself.  He came to me a few weeks ago for a CSD review, to which I gave him the following [[User_talk:Somno#Quick_Review|review.]]  He does a GREAT job with CSD and his interpersonal skills are excellent as well.  100% support from me... and yes, this does break my tradition of not supporting shoe in candidates, but I feel that strongly about Somno, that I have to support!---'''
'''Support''' - per Protonk and the guy right above me, though Balloonboy should calm down... ;) —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support'''. Good contributions. A fine candidate.
'''Support''' Per nom statement.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] and raises no concerns.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' Nothing done by this user makes me want to oppose him at this point in time.  Cheers,
'''Support''' Awesome user.
'''Support''' &mdash; Would make a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Support''' A good candidate - no problems at all. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''', unequivocal.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Strong Support''' - impressive! --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Support''' - User isn't going to break the wiki because they only have X number of project space edits. :) &ndash;
'''Support''' Aw schizz. The answers to my Q's (6 and 7) are amazing. You've got my vote. <font face="terminal">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' Sounds like a good candidate from the description. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
'''Support''' per all of above.
I'm
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', excellent contributor that definitely appears sensible and mature. Sounds like good admin material to me! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Holy shit''' - We have users who aren't complete policy wonks and are able to pass RFA now?! <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' &ndash; will do fine with the tools. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' and neutrals' concerns and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' looks excellent.  Impressive contributions to the encyclopedia.  Fantastic answers to the questions.  I would be happy to have her as an administrator here --
'''Support''': She welcome newbies nicely^^--
'''Support''': Wont break anything, I believe --
'''Support'''—while I do not remember ever interacting directly with this user, a general review, reviews others I trust have made, and the answers to the questions posed in this RfA lead me to believe that giving Somno the mop would be a good idea. I especially like the impression of common sense I got through these reviews. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support''': Seems like a very intelligent, quick-learning, thoughtful, and experienced candidate who will use the tools wisely and carefully.
'''Support''' - no problems or trust issues --'''
'''Support''' - I think Somno would be an excellent admin.  She seems level-headed, concise, and willing to think actions through rather than "shooting-from-the-hip".  I think she has answered the questions well and I think she'll continue to better the project.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' per [[User:Dank55/Admins#Support|my RFA criteria]] - Dan
'''Support'''. No problems at all.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, civil and even amusing (not often seen). Nothing more to be said. (
'''Support''' - Would be a very good asset and welcome addition to CSD. I also especially like the analogy made from Q6.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I've worked with this user in the past and found her to be intelligent, reasonable and level headed. No chance of abusing the tools.
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Strong Oppose''' - the desire to work New Page Patrol with only 500 edits in Wikipedia mainspace? Okay, now I can put my thumb on it. If you want to work the area, why aren't you working the area? There is a lot of stuff non-admin can do, and you can easily get over 100 edits in a day from new page patrol just from reverting vandalism, fixing nonsense, tagging things, etc. Lack of experience in the area, lack of familiarity, etc. If you want to do the administrative side, then you should really be showing up on the pages related to NPP administrative action - deletions, page protections, vandalism, etc.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4 - CSD is to be executed via the "spirit" of the guidelines?  Scary.
'''Neutral'''-I'm just not convinced that this user should have the tools, nor am I that they should not.-
'''Neutral''' - I have an unusual feeling that candidate is not ready for the full weight of the position. Adminship is not easy and should not be take lightly.
'''Neutral'''  I am neutral for now but could change to support.  I have a number of concerns, some which are difficult to discuss.  One easier one to discuss is that in question 6, Somno seems to be advocating breaking WP rules.  Isn't creating a new account evading a block and not permitted.  Or is he advocating that the ends justify the means (good editing takes priority so if you are blocked wrongly or rightly, you can try to evade the block)? If Somno discusses his response, maybe he meant something else  (but part of being an admin is communicating well).
'''Neutral''' unlikley to abuse tools, but no experience at all in dispute resolution. If you, in the future, ever wish to take an adminstrative role in dispute resolution, please consider assessing community support (or lack there-of) for your assumption of that role. Congratulations on your RFA.
Looks excellent. No alarms showing here
Based on prior experience with him and the fact that we need more admins around here with off-planet experience. The [[Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes)#Spaceman Spiff|Death Ray Zorcher]] could probably use a less inelegant name though.
'''Support''': Similarly, based on experience with Spaceman Spiff he looks like a prime candidate for adminship.
He is a great asset to Wikiproject India. As the nominators mention, his work in fighting POV pushers in caste and language articles is tremendous. It is a thankless job - the caste POV ers are legion,relentless, use socks and IPs to edit war and are generally quick to take offense(i wont be surprised if some turned up in the oppose column). His work in AFD is also thorough and thoughtful - he takes extra care to assess the article before making his recommendation. And he has helped me out immediately when i asked for help. To fight the Zorg better, spaceman spiff should be given admin privileges.--
'''Strong Support''' SpacemanSpiff will make a great admin. Spiff's willingness to wade into some very contentious areas (POV pushing, AfD, caste related articles, etc.), always showing civility and with very good results, has been impressive. Upgrade his Death Ray Zorcher and give him the mop.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' per nom and excellent history.--
Looks not bad. The only drawbacks might be 6,5 months of wiki-experience (the more &mdash; the better, imho) and lack of [[:sulutil:SpacemanSpiff|crosswiki]] activity (well, ditto). &mdash;&nbsp;
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] - Quality editor, seems like a good admin candidate. –'''
Always impressed with his judgment. - Dank (
'''Absolutely!''' very impressive work, excellent.
'''Support''' No concerns, yet.
'''Support'''  Have had nothing by excellent interactions with this editor and admire his knowledge and willingness to work against systemic bias. '''
'''Support''' For someone with whom I have very little common editing ground, I have encountered Spiff's sig and opinions quite a bit. I find the opinions to be sound, civil, and showing a good level of [[WP:CLUE]]. Even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=328861269 this comment] about my first GAN didn't bother me. A net positive to the project. No concerns about granting the bit. Plus, there is that [[Calvin and Hobbes|great username]]. '''[[User:JimMillerJr|<span style="color:green">Jim Miller</span>]]''' <sup> [[Special:Contributions/JimMillerJr|See me]] | [[User talk:JimMillerJr|Touch me]]</sup> 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) <small>reconsidering due to "default to delete" answer against policy and consensus to question 8</small> Satisified with further explanation that Spiff will abide by policy and consensus on BLP deletions. '''
'''Strong support''' '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket]]''</font>) (
'''Support''' per answers to my questions, candidate seems knowledgeable in policy and so I can find no fault in giving them the mop.
'''Strong support''' - Excellent work fighting POV pushers trolling around Indian articles. '''
'''Support''' a most suitable nominee.
'''Support''' - My interactions with Spiff have always been positive. A fantastic editor that will make a great admin. -- '''
'''Support''' I don't have any concerns that would make me oppose. Everything else seems to be good. <span style="font-family: Papyrus"><b><font color="DarkRed">
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' Consistently impressive. <small>
'''Support''' Clearly has the history behind them that the community can give firm trust in them.--
'''Support''' He discusses issues at AfD and with other editors about articles. I'd like to see you confine article discussions to article talk pages not raising issues at user talk pages, and spend less time discussing other users (focus: articles). But this is an area on wikipedia, Indian subcontinent articles, where it would be useful to have a good administrator. In addition SpacemanSpiff has a tendency to pay regard to input from others. --
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - This user has a great history.
will make a good one. --<b><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT"   Color="##003399">
'''Support''' As someone said at my RFA, "I thought you already were one!"  You seem to be quite the qualified editor, obviously knowledgeable about the ways of things here, and you're not at all likely to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-23/Robdurbar|block Jimbo and delete the Main Page]].
'''Support'''. Woohoo! Spiffy for admin! SpacemanSpiff can handle the responsibility and I believe they will use the tools and the unlimited power wisely. The Indian section needs good administrators; issues quickly get contentious and editors even more quickly get overheated--but not Spiffy. As an honorary Tamil, I may be biased, but I have worked with Spiff, know them to be dedicated to the project, and have only praise to offer.
'''Support''': I see his contributions a lot and I think that he does a lot of good work.
'''Support''' Good choice.
'''Support'''
Always seems reasonable and mature. '''
'''Strongest Possible Support (Treat this as co-nom)''': Worked with him on several occasions associated with WikiProject India. Very mature and helpful. All the qualities for an admin. Ha, the other co-nominators have said it all. All the best ! --
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' The fact that he's only 7 month here and already a strong nominee is impressive. I like meteors and I wish him success as an admin.--
'''Support'''I've seen Spaceman Revert vandalism and he is really good at it--
[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - Good Luck! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Strong support''' - Tinucherian and Aaroncrick said everything I wanted to say!
I see nothing wrong with this user, go for it!  &ndash;
worth a trial with the tools.
'''Support''' Per Gilisa. Also, near flawless edit summary usage [[File:Wink.png]] '''~
'''Strong support''' - Tremendously valuable editor. This editor with the tools would be a great asset.
'''Support''' So what if Spiff's only been here 7 months?
'''Support''' Good job
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''', excellent candidate from what I can see. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Great answers to my questions, I trust you with the tools. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''': looks like the project will benefit from the user having the tools.
'''Strong support''' The answers to all the questions are quite lovely... SpacemanSpiff is undoubtedly trustworthy. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Strong support''' I have seen little of SpacemanSpiff's edits but what I have seen till now impresses me. Has a great deal of maturity and commitment to NPOV-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="font-weight:normal" face="Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - as I continue to read, I'm becoming more convinced that this is a fantastic candidate, per many of the above who have stated it well. Thank you for striving to uphold NPOV. Your answers to the BLP questions (and comments, such as in the Neutral section) are thoughtful and intuitive.
'''Support''' If opposed by an editor with an unending appetite for deletionism, hypocrisy, gaming the system and acting without good faith, this request can only be viewed as a good thing.
'''Support''' Definitely. I've seen the good work he has done and I have no reason to think he will not be a good admin. His username is pretty awesome too. :D what else do we need to say? ;) <font color="#3300ff">
'''Strong Support''' SpacemanSpiff is a top-notch candidate for adminship. I've seen him before at AfD, where his reasoning is solid and demonstrates his excellent comprehension of policy. That's further demonstrated by his answers to the questions above. I'm also impressed by Spiff's article work, including his GA and two FLs (after only seven months?!), his work at [[WP:PNT]], and his dedication to countering systemic bias, POV-pushers, and sock-puppeteers. An excellent, drama-free editor like Spiff deserves a major pat on the back for his hard work, and can certainly be trusted with the mop. From one ''Calvin and Hobbes'' fan to another, good luck, Spiff!
'''Support''' A deserving candidate. Will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. Has a good head on his/her shoulders.
'''Support'''. If business was as good as my aim, I'd be on Easy Street.
Strong candidate.
'''Support''' I've noticed his work and been quite impressed. Would make an excellent admin, I believe.
'''Support'''. Of course. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Great editor.--

'''Support''' Per the reply to SoWhy and the answer to question 10. As long as someone is not going to use their admin tools to go against consensus/policy, then a difference of opinion is not grounds for me to not support an otherwise good candidate.
'''Support''' Great and Kind editor....
'''Support''' per Q8 and 10.
<font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Per Davewild (who wrote what I wanted to write, just much simpler and more elegant). Regards '''
'''Support''' A little iffy on the AfD part, but excellent in almost everything else. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Support''' Seems okay to me.
'''Support''' per Q8.
'''Support''' This is the first time I have ever knowingly supported a candidate who hold the view that BLP should default to delete. I do so because of his extremely sensible and realistic approach to dealing with areas of policy where he disagrees. (for example, I think some parts of the policy on non-free content images  are over-restrictive. I therefore not only avoid admin action where that is the issue,  but generally avoid the discussions as well.) I think there are many admins who do similarly with some policies or guidelines, and it is immensely better than an admin who acts based of their view of what it ought to be. Additionally, the response to 7.1 seemed the most sensible thing said anywhere with respect to that entire AfD. We do not have to think alike, but the final actions should be consistent. And in particular, I think his comment on 7.1 is the most sensible thing said anywhere about that particular AfD.    '''
'''Support'''. Very sensible editor. I've only had good experiences of SpacemanSpiff. I think the comments about BLP & AfD aren't quite right, but I don't want to make this candidate a casualty of the BLP Wars.
'''Support''' - Per many of the above; great editor.
Clearly a '''Support''' —
'''Support''' switching from oppose per [[User:DGG| DGG]]'s reasoned argument at #71 --
'''Support''' Based on answers to questions. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'>
Mainly per the answer to Question 8, and not necesarially because I agree with that view either. Asking these sorts of questions to candidates is somewhat unfair, because it gives them a no-win situation. Some will disagree with the default to keep reasoning, others would disagree with default to delete reasoning, and there are those that would oppose you for fence sitting. Your explanation behind your answer explained your point of view well enough in my opinion, and for this reason I support you. Best of luck, <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around, and am happy with his answers (I wasn't too sure, until I saw his response to SoWhy - if an admin disagrees with a particular aspect of a policy, but declares that they would not get involved in those decisions, I think that is a wise choice to make). Good luck! -- '''''
'''Support''' Good answerers specifically BLP related, I trust this editor.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Q4.
Yup --
'''Weakish Support''' - Sorry, I just couldn't put it to Support. While I applaud your contributions on the [[R. K. Narayan]] page, I don't believe the article needed a total of 248 edits. I know it is a small nitpickish comment, but I just thought I'd point it out. --<b><font color=red>
'''Support''' of course! <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Enthusiastic Support''' I keep seeing him around at AFD and other places, he will be great. Any concerns I might have had about defaulting to delete on BLPs are handled by his reply down in the neutral section. <strong>
'''Support''' - I have been thoroughly impressed with SpacemanSpiff's work on Wikipedia.  In my experience, he makes careful and meticulous edits and is eager to learn.  He is thoughtful and is never afraid to ask questions if he is unsure how to handle a situation.  I strongly disagree with his position of BLPs defaulting to delete, but as long as he is willing to respect community consensus on the matter it is not an issue for me.  I am sure Spaceman will make a fine admin.  I was happy to co-nominate, but there was no need due to the excellent nomination statement already made by Abecedare. --
'''Weak support''' On reflection, I realize that my objections are primarily about positions he would take in AfDs, and not on how he would close them. Looking at what he would do as an administrator, I largely agree with his position and would caution not to let your own opinions about notability factor too heavily into how you would judge consensus on an AfD. As to closing controversial AfDs... my advice is just don't do it. The grief isn't worth it.
'''Weak support''' Don't like answer to Q8, but no problems otherwise.
'''Support''', no problems here, and I enjoy the Calvin & Hobbes reference.
'''Support''' &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Weak Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] in many ways: lots of edits including sufficient WP edits, all those Userboxen, AfD work, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]]. Minuses include only 7 months' experience and answer to question 7.  As long as SpacemanSpiff stays away from things he doesn't know, he can wield the mop.
'''Support''' Editor's contributions show a consistent pattern of proper conduct while adding to the quality of the project. Answers to questions are all satisfactory, and I see no reason not to trust this user with admin tools.
'''Support''' Strong commitment and current contributions. The answers to questions indicate a strong understanding of policy and intelligence in decision-making. Fully trusted. --
'''Support''' as net positive: good answers to questions, and generally awesome username.
'''Support''' Good contributions, excellent answers and all-round sound judgment. Will do just fine.
'''Strong Support:''' An ideal candidate! <s>It's</s>  It is good <s>two</s> to <s>sea</s> see editors who <s>no</s> know <s>what they are speaking of</s> of what they speak. -
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, SpacemanSpiff. —
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. The opposers' view that the candidate should be denied adminship because of disagreement on an isolated, contentious issue of deletion relating to deletion policy, especially given the candidate's statement that he does not intend to focus on this area, is completely unpersuasive.
'''Support'''. Per [[User:Drmies|Drmies]]. --
'''Support''' The above 100 support comments are very persuasive. The nominators of this candidate should be commended for their evident wisdom and judgment.
'''Support''' Answered questions well and has great contributions.
'''Support''' - net benefit to Wikipedia here. Some questionable AfD responses, but nothing that troubles me to the point of opposing.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Generally applies policy well, good contributor, gets along well with other editors, shows a desire for peace while resolving conflicts. Deadly combination - all he needs now is the mop :-) Regards,
'''Strong Support''' Excellent user and track.
'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support'''. Answer to Q8 doesn't seem quite right, but I'll let it slide. Everything else seems good enough. And as a side note, this is the 150th time I've supported an RFA.
'''Support''' No problems here, and I trust him to be intelligent if/when he closes BLP AfDs.
'''Strong support''' More qualified than the overwhelming majority of existing administrators. I only hope that this editor retains a focus on content creation and improvement and treats the admin work as the boring drudgery that it is. --
'''Support'''. I see no problems.
'''Support'''. That I may disagree with some of the answers is no reason to oppose.
'''Strongest possible Support''' - No reason to oppose. Besides, you look clean enoug. Deo Volente! '''
'''Support''': Had several interactions and although Q8 may be a little off, overall, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' logs look good, deleted content seems OK, done patrols, though I am a little disappointed that our candidate only uploaded a first picture less than a month ago, on commons.  But by doing this becomes more suitable.
'''Support'''. Candidate with solid experience. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Oppose''' You have only been here for 7 months, which is not is enough to know all necessary knowledge and policies.--
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 8, where candidate says he will not follow established policy in closing AFDs. Also note that this answer is not really consistent with answer to 7.2, where an AFD on an article whose content is entirely BLP material and where determining consensus is not easy would be closed as a keep.  [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) ''Followup - while the candidate's response to q10 relieves some of my concern about the concerns I expressed, but at the same time raises other significant issues. When he says that he will only use admin authority/ability to act when he agrees with the policy/practice involved, I find that disturbing. Admins are supposed to act on behalf of the community, not to act only when they agree with the community.  While there's enough "breathing room" for admins who might strongly object to particular actions enforcing policy to step away, "I just disagree with community opinion" shouldn't be good enough. Admins should determine community consensus and act on it - not determine community consensus, then decide whether the community was right. ''
'''Oppose''' due to answer to question 8, 7.2 and a bit of a concern about total experience.
'''Oppose''' per Q8. ''No consensus, default to delete''? No, thanks.
'''Oppose''' per Q8.--
'''Oppose''' BLP default-to-delete arguments are primarily about people who are non-public figures--that is, they aren't notable and don't show any evidence of ''wanting'' to become notable.  Shankbone doesn't fit in that category by a long shot.
'''Weak oppose''' Spaceman is doing quality work but Q8 is a source of concern, even in the face of DGG's comments.
'''Regretful oppose''' Candidate seems generally good, but the answer to Q8 is troubling. We don't need more sysops circumventing policy because they feel that something should be deleted. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Oppose'''  The numbers are clear which way this RFA is headed.  This oppose is mainly to register my concern with Q8.  Your follow up comments do mitigate my concern to a degree.  However due to the fact that there's no process to hold candidates to RFA promises, the concern still remains a bit.--
'''Support'''.  Impressed with his work and his friendliness.  Also, per nom. - Dan
I'm impressed with Spinningspark overall. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks good, well thought out responses and from what I've seen the same goes for interactions with other users on talk pages. The mistake mentioned in the nomination is far enough in the past and Spinningspark seems to have learned the appropriate lessons from the incident.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' - He's both learnt his lesson, and is a polite, friendly, and considerate user whose time would no doubt be more effectively used with the bit. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' per Neurolysis.--
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. It seems clear that he learned from his mistake. &ndash;<strong>
I noted Spinningspark's Admin Coaching page when I traveled to ''Balloonman'''s talk page a while ago, and I checked out Spinningspark a little then. I was very impressed with what I saw, and I don't think he would have massively messed up in the two months since then. <font color="navy">
'''Weak support''' I have to admit, in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=277215151#Leptotrombidium interaction with SpinningStark at DYK] I found him a bit abrasive (but not egregiously so...and in his defense, I'm sure he found me abrasive as well) and wished he would have assumed more good faith.  But that is just one editorial disagreement, and looking at the above I don't see any significant concerns, and no evidence that he would abuse the tools or do damage to the project.  And he has a valid and noble use for the tools, with his work at EA. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Well-qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I trust I'm Balloonman!'s judgement and apart from that a bit too colorful signature for my taste, I cannot see a reason not to trust this candidate. Regards '''
'''Support''' I think we met at a London Meetup last year, sensible and thoughtful chap - will do well as an admin. ''
'''Support''' No problems.--
'''Support''' Reading through an AFD he participated in[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Schelle], his comments throughout show his character.  I think he'd be a great administrator.
'''Support''' per Spark's work at [[WP:EAR]]. --
'''Support''' Solid knowledge of Wikipedia, net positive. Also highly impressed with communication skills shown at editor assistance and the science reference desk. —<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. '''''
'''Support''' I'm satisfied with the answers and comfortable with him having the tools.  --
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Does plenty of work, image experienced admins are a big shortage, and certainly has leart from his mistake. I would strongly suggest that he makes it very clear on his talk page, as best as he can, when he is and isn't going to be available. --
'''Support''' - Trustworthy, friendly, helpful. I think he'll make a good admin. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] (
A really great and knowledgable user. He will be an even greater asset as an admin.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I quite liked that edit summary. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
Seems to have learned his lesson from the slipup a while ago. Answers look good; candidate appears to be smart, helpful, and dedicated. Looks good.
'''Support''' Of course. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' this excellent candidate.—
'''Support''' I remember offering my opinion in the sockpuppet/checkuser/vandalism case; I'm impressed with how you've handled things going forward. Good luck.
'''Support''' I've seen Spark around on various help desks, most recently [[WP:EAR]] and I know he is willing to take his time to help editors figure things out.  No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.  <i>'''
'''Support'''   —
'''Huge support''' Clueful image admin - more please. <b>
'''Support''' Know him from [[WP:EAR|EAR]], where he's done great work. Definitely capable, and will bust his ass to the project's benefit. &mdash;/
'''Support''' good answers to questions: well thought through and not cookie cutter. I like that!
'''Support''' Impressive and helpful user. '''
'''Support''' Nothing concerning, perfect edit summary usage; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. For some reason I recall seeing your work somewhere and thinking you would make a good administrator. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''support''' i think he's ready. '''
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - I liked the answers to the question I don't like being asked :))
'''Support''' per meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''
Of course, an easy decision. Spinningspark is a very friendly voice in any discussion with him in it (of what I've seen), and I think he'll do great as an administrator.
'''Huge Support''' Initially he responded with patience to my early frustrations w/newbie questions regarding using Commons. His rapport, knowledge and detailed  explanations are invaluable, and he remains consistently approachable for help.
'''Support''', per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per great contributions to the project in varied capacities. '''
'''Support'''. The candidate seems trustworthy, helpful and experienced.
'''Support''' - Can't disagree with your nominator ;) '''
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''': I'll admit that I haven't researched this candidate as fully as I have others; but from what I see in a cursory glance indicates a clueful editor, a friendly contributor, and a capable candidate who could benefit the community with a couple extra functions at their disposal. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. No reason to believe the candidate will misuse the tools. — '''''
'''Support''' (move from Neutral) I still disagree to the nominator's philosophy on the introduction and the candidate's acceptance speech (guys, first impression is very important). However, given the candidate's thoughtfully addressed answers, he proves his high understanding of various policies and seemed carefully re-examine them too. His responses on article talk pages are generally civil, so that meets my criteria. I'm concerned about his accessibility (he says he could be a only-weekend-active admin), but we have life too. To sum up, I think he can be a good admin to overcome past mistakes, and disadvantages. Good luck.--
'''Support''' No concerns for me. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Support'''.  Looks fine.  --
'''Support''' no objections <font face="Georgia">
'''No More beat the nom supports!'''---'''
'''Support''' Drilling down, [[User_talk:Spinningspark/Archive_2#Your_RFCU|this]] incident, appears to have ended as a non-issue.  I have to complement the nominee for his quick and full apology to the accused.  From Analogue filter to [[Wind_and_plant_growth|Thigmorphogenesis]], I find an outstanding combination of writing skills and referenced technical knowledge.  Mature, friendly member of the community that would employ the tools in a fair and positive manner. <small>
'''Support''': no objections, no concerns. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Support''' As per track.See no concerns.
'''Support''' - Candidates grasps the BLP issues. Otherwise looks good. No overwhelming concerns.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Half-hearted oppose'''. I like to pretend to myself that prospective admins just wake up one day and say "I think I could admin", then consult their wiki-friends, discover support, and then get nommed or self-nomm for adminship. I know it happens more than I realize, but I get profoundly uncomfortable with extended admin coaching and grooming processes - reminds me of politicians and their handlers rather than people who can be trusted with mops. I have little insight into the nominee's behavior and whether he is trustworthy, but I find the nom itself to be quite offputting and the discussion on the page around the purported misjudgement too focused (already at the time - Dec 2008) on to what extent this puts the nominee's trek to adminship at risk. If this nom were currently in the gray zone, I would not oppose on these grounds (rather stay silent or neutral), but since consensus seems to currently be very positive, I feel I am not being unfair in explicitly raising my concern. I wish the nominee all the best of luck, but would be much more comfortable with his having the mop if he stopped being coached, just acted his natural wiki-self for a few months, and then reapplied.
I looked at the questions and wanted to support. However, I looked at the nom to see who nom'd, out of curiosity. I'm sorry, but the nom statement -really- turns me off, and I would oppose because of those actions. A few months? I wouldn't be okay with such actions (especially with the immediate vanishing) after 9 months or so. An admin doing such things would be very bad. I'm not opposing as a courtesy to an excellent admin coach that was honest about their candidate.
'''Support''' - seems like the ordinary, plain flavoured, unflappable type we need at the moment.
Support, because you have the best name ever, oppose because you stole the username I wanted. :) <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Seems like a level-headed chap and (pending any drastic revelations of the type that seem to bedevil RfAs these days!) I see no reason why not. And who can say no to a pair of rhyming noms anyway! --
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' a good candidate, although the username leaves something to be desired. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. No problems here.  Good luck!
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]]
'''Support'''.  I have worked closely with Steve at WikiProject Films and its related articles, and he is exceedingly polite in his interactions with everyone.  He weighs in at discussions with thoughtful opinions that never runs afoul of tl;dr, and he is a quick learner.  He learned the ropes of being an editor of film articles, putting together the gold-standard FA ''[[Changeling (film)|Changeling]]'', and I'm happy to be working with him on ''[[American Beauty (film)|American Beauty]]''.  His move to WP:FAC shows a willingness to change things up, and even as he does so, he continues to make an impression in new quarters!  I cannot foresee him misusing the tools, and if he somehow does, he will probably apologize profusely. ;)  If there's anyone on Wikipedia that I've met and can trust to use the tools with a level head, it's him. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' — No concerns.
<s>Oppose per [[tl;dr]] answers.</s> [[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] for one of the most helpful and friendly editors on the project. Excellent nominations, as well. What's not to like? –'''
'''Support''' I have respect for anyone who works on articles.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' Either a sane person or a crazy person hiding his craziness so well that even he is fooled. --
'''Support''' Has all the attributes I think an admin should have, he has experienced article work, seems trustworthy enough. Complete support.
'''Support''' Great article work, seems fine to me. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
Obvious support. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Looks good.

'''Support''' - sensible, [[given name]] username, rhyming Andy-and-Sandy nomination...anything more needed? Oh, OK: noms and answers to the questions show just what we need. Glad to support. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' clean block log and good FA reviewer. ''
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support''' Excellent editor and good track see no concerns.
'''Support''' per nom, and per David Fuchs :-)
I can tell just from the writing style in his answers that he'll be great. Yes, my admin-dar really is that good. --
'''Support'''.[[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|looks good.]]--
'''Support'''. Good contributions and trustworthy.
'''Support''' While I sometimes am scared of wordy users since that can be an indication they are here more to [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE|talk]] than [[WP:ENC|work]], Steve's contributions to the featured process (as documented by Sandy), instill in me the confidence that he will perform appropriately as an admin. '''
The admin corps can always use more Steves.
'''Support''' That anyone even wishes the headaches that come with being an admin is amazing enough. I liked the responses to the answers and see no reason to keep the mop out of his hands.
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' For the reasons given by the nominators and based on a  personal and  pleasant experience while working with Steve on the review of a recently promoted featured article.
'''Support''' I've always been impressed with Steve's insights at discussions at WP:FILM as well as his contributions to the FAC process. He should do well dealing with the tools in whichever areas he plans on focusing on. --Happy editing!
An editor that has worked well in many parts of the encyclopedia and is able to handle conflicts by staying civil.
There's nothing that I can say that hasn't been said by those above me or by the nominators.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I don't see anything to be alarmed of.
''(decloak)'' &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' Looks good to me.--
'''Support'''.
Doesn't appear to be any problems here.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me!  --
'''Support''' as unquestionably here to build an encyclopedia.
'''Support''', one of my usual overly-verbose rationales seems entirely unnecessary here. Great user. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I could have sworn he already was.
Excellent user with good judgment.
'''Support''' Will make a great admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong Support''' - definitely!
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''—Here is an excellent candidate. I'm very glad he's putting himself forward.
'''Support''' Good candidate in various aspects to be an asset for Wikipedia
'''Support''' Haven't really noticed this editor much but seems level headed and should become a good admin. Good luck :) '''
'''Support''' Per many above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I can't think of any reason I would possibly want to oppose. Steve seems to be an ideal admin candidate, and it appears he'll pass with flying colours. I've never noticed him around the wiki, but a look through his contribs suggests that he's more than qualified for the role. We should have more admins like this. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
Yup.  This candidate's contribution history makes good reading.—
'''Support''' I'm not seeing any good reason not to.

'''Support''' - Excellent user. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I'm
'''Support''', per mazca, world+dog <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' good content contributions; the trait I really want to see in an admin. '''
'''Support''', seems fine. Haven't seen him around but I trust what's written.
'''Support''' - Great contributor, I personally see no reason to oppose. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' No worries.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Strong Support''' – It is my honor to support Steve's candidacy for administrator. I've had the pleasure of collaborating with Steve on the [[Changeling (film)]] article. Steve has proven himself to be an excellent editor and writer in maturing this featured article along with many others. He writes amazingly quickly and clearly, and continually demonstrates an understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is a valued member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films]]. Steve also has repeatedly shown that he has the temperament to be an administrator. He has a great record of tactfully dealing with less than stellar edits showing respect to the person while making it clear why the edit failed to improve the article. He also justly deals with people when they vandalize articles using the appropriate level of correction. --
'''Support''' Yea for him. Hurrah!. --
'''Support''' - In good company. A solid editor with a very admirable sense of humility. I've seen himself correct his own mistakes, which speaks volumes.
'''Support''' - Well, he is clearly better than most of the candidates I've seen in a long time. So, yeah.
'''Clear Support''' - Steve has produced some of the most thoughtful answers I've seen on RfA, has a long history of contributing productively to the project, and has an excellent temperament.  One of the easiest support votes I've made. --
'''Support''' per Fuchs.
'''Support''' per Casliber. '''
I've seen Steve around at FAC and he seems to a sensible enough sort. --
'''Support''' – The work I've seen him do at FAC gives me confidence that he will make good use of the admin tools. '''
'''Support''' No reason to believe he'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' – knowledgeable in many of the key content guidelines as evidenced by his work at FAC. Also, good answers to many of the questions.

'''Support''' per oppose.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Steve. —
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edit, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support'''. Looks fully qualified. — '''''
'''Support''' Mature, competent, good answers to the questions. See no reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support'''. I hardly ever take part at RfA, but an unrelated edit caught my eye, and this is a very impressive candidacy. Articulate and sensible answers to the questions.
'''Support''' per ThaddeusB. &mdash;
'''Support''' '''
Brad has decided. So shall it be. Long live Brad. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' Don't let us down. :)
'''Support''' on the strength of SandyGeorgia's co-nom. If she's willing to vouche for you then I am more than willing to support you.
'''Support''' Very impressive article work, and always seems like a fair and thoughtful guy.
'''Support'''. His name sounds familiar, but we really haven't crossed paths, so I barely knew anything about Steve upon seeing this RfA. However, his answers to questions, nice work and good attitude show that he's competent and quite suited for the duties of adminship.
'''Support''' per pretty much everything above.
A friendly, careful editor who is well-suited for adminship. '''
'''Support'''. Clue aplenty! The encyclopedia will be logarithmically better for his adminship!
'''Support''' as per above
There needs to be more administrators who are like Steve. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I think he is competant, he is able to make clear decisions on case by case basis. He has my full support.
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' per Andy Walsh and SandyGeorgia. Great content contributions, especially [[Changeling (film)]], which I enjoyed reading. '''''
'''Support''' Looks good. Your responses show copious helpings of [[WP:CLUE]]. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' demonstrated his carefulness and cluefulness in his answer to my question. (The answer about deleting the unused version of the fair use image was the correct one)
Grr. --

'''Oppose''', you're overqualified.
'''Unqualified support''', and thanks for the feedback -
'''Support''' - That was easy. <b>
'''Support''' Proud to support such a great candidate. --
'''Support''' as I see no evidence the tools would be abused. Seems well qualified for the twiddled bit. ···
'''Strong Support''' - This candidate is a very clear cut choice.  His body of work is free of any controversy and is of the highest caliber.  --
'''Support''' Seems like an experienced hand...
'''Support''' Surely a pile-on at this stage. As "teh interwebs" would say, good editor is good.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''Great answers to questions, user knows how to learn from mistakes, and will make a great admin. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Defaulting to support, seems like a good candidate. Not seen any issues in a quick rundown of your recent contributions. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' seems like he's already taken the mop on with his disambiguation work. Great contributor, trustworthy, let's see what he can do... -'''
'''Support''' no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', does good work, has a huge amount of edits and no problems on his talk page, no incorrect speedies in the last two months, and will make good use of the buttons. --
I really like what I see on the candidate's talk page, although that's the most minimalist userpage I've ever seen from an RFA candidate.  Everything about this candidate says "good worker, no drama".  Btw, for people wondering how to pronounce that username, I'm assuming it's "tasse de thé", "cup of tea" in French, roughly /tass d' tay/. - Dan
'''Support''', I'm a fan of his work. ;) -- '''
'''Strong support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Contribs look good, I see no problems. '''
'''Support''' - Extremely active editor (especially considering that only ~10,000 of their edits are [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Tassedethe automated]). No reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Support''' - an excellent editor with 61k edits who I have ''never noticed before''. Upon a review of contribs, it's because he's been busy doing excellent work competently and undramatically. Clearly someone who can be trusted with the admin tools to help them out in their everyday work on Wikipedia. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - More admins of this sort needed. Spacevezon<sup>
'''Support''' No issues here. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' Of course.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've often seen his contributions and found him totally trustworthy.
'''Support''' Here to improve the project w/o drama. Appears to have clue.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Hard working and productive. Looks good to me! --
'''Support''' Obviously a sensible, dedicated editor here for the encyclopedia, not the drama.
'''Support''' A very level headed editor who understands that discussion is paramount. I particularly liked your answer to question 7. I think you would make a great admin. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' Looks Fine! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' This user has 69,000 edits they must be a good user. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
'''Support''' Certainly. No issues showing up. --
'''Support'''Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Your answer to Q7 was very good, and I can see that you do have a legitimate need for the tools.  This one is a no-brainer. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Look good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' A dabber after my own heart. Quick scan of the recent contributions doesn't raise any flags, no block history, and a good communicator on their talk page. Can't see any reason not to support, and I know all too well how useful the tools could be for someone whose work involves page moves. I'll be watching this one closely, as a successful candidacy might push me over the top toward considering a run of my own.
'''Support''' Trustworthy? Definitely. Broader experience would be nice, but to each his/her own. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' and glad to do so. I can definitely appreciate the need for the tools to handle page moves to get things in better working order. Good luck!
'''Weak support''' - Candidate doesn't understand the severity of the BLP problem on this project, though it shouldn't take long to realize it upon performing admin tasks, as was pointed out in an answer to one of my questions. Candidate's willingness to support trials and tighten protection on BLPs does, however, inspire some hope; thus my support, albeit weak.
'''Support''' No strong reason to oppose. Can definitely trust him/her(?) with the tools.
'''Weak support''' I would like to have seen more drawn-out and in-depth work on a single article or set of articles, which I believe is important experience for an editor to have...but at the same time, the candidate seems to have an understanding of the basic policies anyway, and besides will probably mostly use the admin tools in areas like disambiguation, where I imagine this wouldn't be a problem.  (Also, if you do have some in-depth article work, please correct me; it's possible that I just didn't see it amidst the sea of dab and cleanup edits.)  Also, has a clear reason for wanting the tools&mdash;you can get by for only so long asking an admin friend to delete/edit a protected page for you, and eventually it gets annoying. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems I see with candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Almost 90% of his/her 69,611 edits are to the article namespace (which still leaves over 1,500 edits in the adminy area). Answers to the questions were thoughtful and on point demonstrating a knowledge of policy. No known civility problems. A value to the project. Good luck with the mop!--
'''Support''' I've had plenty of interaction with Tassedethe at Malplaced dab pages. He clearly knows what he is doing there and seems to have a good common sense for areas in which he may lack admin experience at the moment, so no worries from me at all. &ndash;
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
The user's enormous contributions to the dab pages is very impressive, and getting the admin tools will definitely benefit in his work there. As an aside, I've also seen him around, and I like his temperament, civility, etc. on talk pages.
'''Support''' I like his work and trust him.
'''Support'''. Not enough administrators currently. (You know, that's some f-ed up grammar there. If one was going to boilerplate something and use it indiscriminately, you'd think it'd be less awkward).
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]], i.e. no memorable negative interactions and no blocks, but I wish the candidate had more on the userpage.  There's something nice about knowing where admins are coming from when you deal with them and it kind of puts more of a "face" on them than feeling as if you are just dealing with an account.  Best, --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''', 49 supports is a good sign. And no, there are still not enough admins in my opinion. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Definite need for the tools (although he'll probably put me out of a job over at [[WP:MDP]])
'''Support''' I think ''de facto'' those userboxes would be deleted.  But policy doesn't seem to justify doing so, and he did a good job of researching and justifying the decision to leave them alone.  Good skills in an admin, see no other issues.
'''Support'''. 70,000 good edits without causing any trouble sounds good to me.

'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''. Though DGG did bring up a valuable point down in the oppose section, I don't necessarily believe the answer about the userboxes suggests bad judgment on Tassedethe's, as it's a matter of opinion, and probably won't effect other admin areas. — '''''
'''Support''' good answers to questions; seems to know policy.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose'''. Someone who has never been involved in a serious dispute probably doesn't care about anything other than passing an RfA. --
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I would really like to see some experience outside of these areas. There are a lot of tools and it is hard to really tell how you would use them besides some of the theoretical statements. Many admin start off "specializing" then end up abandoning that and performing deletions, blocks, and the rest. I think you just need more experience in some of those areas (discussions about the matters, AfD, AN/ANI, etc).
'''Oppose''' I disagree with you that the middle userbox is acceptable. The admiration alone might be, but not with the "wtc"  Perhaps you would get a better feel for this with some more experience in related matters. '''
'''Oppose''' While there is much that I like about you as a user, your answer to question 7 and less so to others indicates to me that you are not ready yet for the broom.
'''Neutral''' im currently going to stay Neutral i see many positives and some negatives that may concern me particular in some areas of the userpage.[[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Neutral''' - poor answres to questions.
'''Support'''.  Been around quite a while, great many contributions, seems to have need for the tools for AIV, no apparent red flags, seems to deal well with stress.  And I think bonus points should be in order for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tcncv&diff=prev&oldid=206818899 this] :) --
As nominator. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' - I see nothing but good here.
'''The Strongest of Supports - ever'''.  From looking at the stats and stuff on this user, and comparing to my own (from when I submitted my RfA), I can clearly see now why so many opposed my RfA.  This user is outstanding - someone who has got me inspired.
'''Support''' I want to oppose based on not recognizing your user name and not being totally convinced you're human. But I couldn't find anything to object to in your edit history or answers.
'''Support''' despite my strong belief that an admin should be well-rounded in writing and sourcing article content as well as vandal fighting and other important areas. Tcncv's straightforward manner in admitting shortcomings in that area (writing) wins me over. Answer to Q1 rings true, well said. Seems quite level-headed, vital for the job. All in all, a good choice for the post, and appears most unlikely to misuse the tools.  Wish the candidate the best of good fortune. <font color="green">
Looks [[User:Pmlinediter/RfA Rationale|fine]] to me. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' – Great demeanor, good knowledge of technical aspects, and researches before acting. Not a big contributor of new material, but has made plenty of constructive edits. Most importantly, one who focuses on the mission with absolutely no [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA|drama]]. I predict clear sailing for any such candidate this week who offers us a breath of fresh air. We need more people who don't see being an admin as a goal. [[User:Tcncv|User page]] is a good example of [[WP:OWB]] #5.
'''Support''' I see where Tan is coming from with his neutral, but the Q1 honesty also blances an "if in doubt - don't" attitude which I like. Further ''"Everybody has an opinion, and mine doesn't count for more than anybody else's"'' in Q3 was very impressive. Not much content work, to be true, but reference desk work is allways a plus. [[Wp:NETPOS|Net positive]] with the extra bits. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Agree with Pedro. Answer to Q1 shows willingness to be patient and to not do what one does not know how to do and thus is a sign of a candidate who probably will read up on anything they do not know before acting. I could not find anything particularly concerning with the candidate's contribution, only their somewhat fractured edit history is a bit concerning. But every good editor is better with the mop than without it, even if they do not wield the mop often. Regards '''
Patient, great track. '''
Question 1's answer kind of gives me a bit of pause (you should really be quite knowledgable of the policies related to admins ''before'' undertaking an RfA) but we all learn along the way.  I'd be lying if I said I knew all the policies pre-RfA.  Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #339933;padding:1px;">
We need more admins — badly.—
'''Strong Support''' - Awesome editor, great attitude... Will make a great admin. Strong comes from Saalstin's diff above.--
'''Support'''. I have a good feeling about this candidate. Q1 is a bit vague, and you ''did'' go over the edge with that comment in my opinion, but all in all it's a minor infraction. Seems to have above-average proficiency with the technological stuff, which is always a positive. <tt>
'''Support'''. The candidate is light in CSD work, but I'll take 1 correct, non-BITEy tagging over 10 iffy ones any day. Most good admins go easy in their first days and weeks, to make sure they have a handle on what's what - and I think this candidate would be well advised to do the same. But I like their candor and their attitude, and I concur that their adminship will be a net positive to the project. Good luck,
'''Support''' looks fine. --
'''Support''' - the answer to question one and the first paragraph of q2 answer was enough for me.  This editor will not cause havoc with the tools, and will probably do very much good.  (I also want to know if "tekunkvuh" is correct pronunciation)
'''Support''' No concerns right now.
'''Support''' - While not all of the questions have been answered, the answers to the questions given look fine and Tcncv does seem to have plenty of experience. -- '''
'''Support''' My concern have been alleviated, and based on A1, I do not believe the candidate will break anything.
'''Support''' per harej, who knows how to find clueful and reasonable people. ;) In all seriousness, Tcncv looks like a good guy, competent, calm, "gets it", all of that. I'd much rather have somebody who has a head on their shoulders and respects others, who isn't familiar with all the policies, than somebody who can recite policy yet lacks standalone judgement. The answers are a plus, especially Q1 and Q3 as Pedro pointed out - no problems here.
'''Support''' I have no issue with the username.  I was just curious.
'''Support''' Looks cautious, competant - plus we always need more admins. --
'''Support''' - Good user. In the absence of evidence that Q11 is anything but (nearly forgot the preceding two words myself) an honest mistake, we [[WP:AGF|assume]] that he is telling the truth. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong Support''' After reading the full set of questions and several links that were provided, I find it that Tcncv aka "Tom" would be a fine admin. His record is spotless and he seem to be a very good editor overall. While he has stated that he is clueless to several of the admin functions, I belive that he will quickally learn. PS: his comments are very civil and friendly as well. Not that that matters too much but still :)--<big>
'''Support'''.
You seem a little inexperienced, but I'm sure you'll do fine. Nothing wrong with learning on the job. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' I think the candidate wont break anything. --
'''Support''' Per the “net benefit” theory of whether to ¬vote to promote or not.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} '''in the strongest form possible.''' Good answers to my, and other's, questions. I like your answers on the AGF Challenge - I answered differently when challenged with it by [[User:Neurolysis|Neuro]], but you have a unique view that could prove an asset to this wiki as a sysop. ['''
The answers to the questions are just what I'm looking for, I'm impressed with the [[WP:HELPDESK]] experience, and I like that he's a self-starter, apparently since the first day he started editing.  Welcome, Tom. - Dank (
I've read through this entire RfA several times and am hugely impressed by the candidates answers to questions and his calm and civil nature. I think these are fine qualities for an admin, and see little reason why he can't use the mop. Consider this a strong support. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support'''—Tom will make an excellent admin; he has a valuable skill-base. ("Tom" would indeed be a good signature.)
'''Support''' see no concerns that indicate he will cause any harm to the encyclopedia, all evidence says he will be a net benefit with the tools. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Olympic Support''' - This is just the kind of people we need as admins; to block [[WP:VANDAL|dummies]]. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Support''' Looking through contributions and reading his answers I see nothing that would indicate that giving the tools to Tom would be anything other than positive.  '''
'''Weak support'''. Okay, to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tanthalas39&diff=197551773&oldid=197547252 quote Pedro] in my first (failed) RfA, "I'm buying this". I would have liked to see more evidence of collaboration and a bit more content work, but I can't deny that the demeanor of the candidate is impressive. Good answers, for the most part (although I disagree with one of the AGF answers - no need for detail, take somewhere else if the candidate is curious), and if the candidate just had stronger experience in administrative areas, I would have supported from the get-go. Lack of drama is a huge plus.
'''Support''' Seems to approach all-things-Wikipedia using a common-sense approach.
'''Support''' Solid editor, and the Q1 answer doesn't bother me at all.
'''Support''' per all of the above. Don't much care about content contributions.
'''Support''' - Candidate's answers to questions 5 and 8 particularly impressed me.  For 5, he demonstrated that he is ready and able to research policy questions and educate himself; Wikipedia's policies and procedures are endlessly expanding so that ability is critical to being an admin.  For 8, the candidate demonstrates the ability to look at criticism in a dispassionate manner, a standard to which most of us can only aspire.--
'''Support'''-Civility, common sense, and a lack of ignorance. You have my vote.
'''Support''' - the candidate is definitely ready to be an admin.
Couldn't agree more, would be a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Strong Support'''. (ec) I have seen nothing but good from Tcncv, and I expect no problems with the admin tools. I also do not find the issues raised in the oppose !votes to be convincing. ···
'''Support''' worth a run with the mop. Evidence suggests a better-than-even-chance of good.
'''Support''' Good candidate. Nice to see an experienced vandal fighter, since AIV could always use a few more eyes. ≈&nbsp;
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Tcncv. —
'''Support'''-Tcncv appears to be a dedicated editor.  While his experience isn't particularly broad, wikipedia will probably benefit from him being an admin.
'''Support''' seems to go about things in the right way, and does not blunder in making mistakes in areas unfamiliar.
'''Strong support'''. Per Saalstin and the rest of the comments above. Experience may be slightly lacking in a few areas, but I'm not sure how much closer you can get to "ideal admin candidate" in terms of attitude, candor and civility. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tcncv&diff=prev&oldid=206818899 This] is the best diff I've read all year.
'''Strong support''' - Plenty of experience, trustworthy. Good answers to questions, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''', cannot see a reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' - I analyzed the edits of Tcncv, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Strong Support''' per diff listed by Saalstin. Anything Tcncv needs to know that he doesn't know, he'll obviously learn pretty fast.
'''Support'''. I haven't seen you around but your answers are good and your contribution history is good. I would suggest gaining a little more experience with the CSD department but it seems you will pick that up pretty quickly.
'''Support'''. Someone's got to pass RfA this month..! Seriously though, it looks like you'd know what to do in the relevant areas and a review of contributions shows nothing problematic. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. I like your attitude and your answers. I wish you had a bit more experience in content building and interaction with other users, but you seem to be a level-headed editor who is unlikely to abuse the tools.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' - looks good.
Looks OK to me, I like the question answers. ''
'''Support''' We need more admins working in [[WP:AIAV]].
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Moderate support'''. I would like to see more content edits, and contributions in such places as XfD. But the editor's calm under personal attack (evidenced in many places on their talk page) is admirable, and that's a good quality.
'''Weak support''' - I'd like to know more about this editor, but from everything else I've read here, he appears to pass my usual standards.
Should do well from what I can see. '''
'''Support:''' Your statement   ''"I'm also a defender of the new contributor who might get unduly bitten by the Wikipedia establishment."''  won me over. At the very least you should be given an adminship, if not the Nobel Peace Prize!  -
'''+'''
'''Support''', per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]]; Tcncv seems to be a great editor so far, no problem with an admin ''learning'' during the first few months, as you typically do anyways. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' per comments above, and to express the view that creating an admin often means losing a content creator, so it's an advantage if that's not so much the case here - as long as the editor recognises consequent weaknesses in understanding the nuances of content policy and practice.
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support'''. You'll be fine so long as you steer clear of [[wp:cabals|administrator cabals]] and remember that WP isn't a [[MMORPG]] or a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTMYSPACE#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site|a social networking site]. Don't let yourself get sucked in.
'''Support''' more so per [[WP:AGF]] than [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that while we have not had many memorable interactions and the candidate's userpage is rather barebones (I usually look for barnstars, GA credits, etc.), candidate does have over 10,000 edits (is experienced) and has never been blocked, even accidentally!  Given that 74 of my colleagues, includings editors I am familiar with and respect/trust, believe in Tcncv, I also wish to give the candidate a chance as well.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]], nothing but good here. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' I don't see why not.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
'''Support''' Generally good answers to the questions, seems to have the judgement needed for the bit.
'''Strong Support''' When I first began editing on Wiki I really had no idea how to reference a page or do pretty basic things. But although Tcncv does not know me In this account he helped me quite a great deal as a beginner on my account such as ''Balto9902''. He willingly took a great deal of time to explain to me the basics of wikipedia, even though he did not befreiend me forst or know me for a long time. This shows what an Admin needs too be, someone who is delicate and helpfull but can also be strict when it's needed.--
'''Support''' Seems quite civil, and his patient approach appears valuable for an administrator, a position which I feel requires one to act coolly and with a level head. <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''', no reason to oppose, no apparent problems. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate.
'''Support''', can't see any serious issues.  Just try not to turn out to be a banned user, okay? :-).
'''Support''' Good editing record and temperament. I am particularly impressed with the honest and  ''thoughtful'' answer to the RFA questions.
'''
'''Support''' Can't believe I nearly missed this. He has all the qualities needed for an admin.
Need more sysops. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Should make a good admin. --
Should do the job well. --'''
'''Oppose''' The candidate seems civil, but I oppose him per the fact that the candidate is essentially unexperienced in most of fields that administrative attentions are required such as XfD, AN, AN/I, RFPP and others, and per the unsatisfactory answer to the Q1 as well as "too poor" article building. Only "one list article" and insufficient interactions for contents in one and half year does not convince me to believe that the candidate fully acknowledge core content policies. Plus, depending on what the candidate would answer my question or further answer to others' question raised, I would be sticking here or not.--
I'm rather new, so perhaps someone will post about how I'm completely rong and sway my decision, but it seems odd to promote someone to admin who admittedly doesn't work on improving content beyond reverting vandalism, but he's also chiming in on policy. I guess I think it's a matter of "doing, not talking", as it were. Per the user in the top of this section, it would be better if we had evidence of policy following in actual contributions, i guess.
'''Oppose'''. I expect (potential) admins to be familiar with policies prior to RfA. The non-committal answer about areas he will work in suggests to me that he will rarely, if ever, use the admin tools.
'''Neutral''' - I agree on Q1; familiarity with policies is assumed as a criteria, but then maybe you're being exceptionally honest, and I wouldn't want to discourage honesty. I'll stand out for now, review some more maybe.
Support as nom. -
'''Support''' excellent user with experience in many areas, and has the right demeanor.
'''Support''' Yay!! Never been third to support before :D  But anyways, Tedder is a good user, good contribs, I've seen this user's edits around, should do fine.  Good Luck!!! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' I looked through his contribs and saw no issues, barring a huge reason not to trust him, I'll be in support here
'''Support'''. I looked over some of his edits -- he seems reasonable, kind, and experienced, and he seems to have contributed a lot of good content. (I'll be sad to see his article contributions dwindle as he's swamped with admin tasks, which is what often happens to new admins, but that is no reason to oppose!)
'''Support''' Looking over his questions and contributions, I am confident that you will use the tools correctly. Good luck!
'''Support''' Hard working, great contributions, civil, trustworthy, the whole bit. Will be a great admin. Good luck! :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck.
'''Weak support''' You make me a little bit nervous and I've found the Oregon project to be insular and bitey. But hopefully you'll be responsible, tolerant and show restraint as an admin.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; can't admit to having seen him around before, but I'll support pending any major concerns. –'''
'''Support'''. Yes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  I can only recall working with the candidate on a few occasions (nothing big), but seeing him all over WikiProject Oregon pages and not having to worry about his contributions matters alot.  '''
'''Strong Support'''  Tedder has been a model Wikipedian for many months: tirelessly doing heavy lifting—like working on ''all'' the Oregon High School articles, traveled hundreds of miles with camera, photographed, and uploaded a zillion photos and added them to the appropriate articles, and demonstrated great judgment in dealing with fellow Wikipedians.  —
'''Support'''. I'm with Julian, I can see no real problems here, and no reason why they should not have the tools.
'''Support'''. No reason to believe you'd misuse the tools.
The oppose thing is a little concerning but seems only a small blemish on an otherwise very good record. '''<font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedour[[WP:NODRAMA|<font style="color:#99CC99;">drama</font>]]</font>
Not going to delete the main page or blow up Wikipedia, so support.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, can definitely be trusted with the tools. '''
'''Support'''.  I don't see any problems here (except the first oppose, but I trust you have learned from it).  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' - haven't noted anything from a contributions review that suggests anything but a sensible and well-intentioned editor who knows what he's doing. While the PROD mentioned by opposers was clearly a mistake, I see no pattern of such mistakes and I feel the candidate handled the aftermath of it fairly well. No concerns here. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' per Zab's diff; shows civility and willingness to work with others. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I do not see a reason for opposing. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Sensible answers, enough content contribs to make me feel comfortable supporting.  Wikiproject doesn't concern me, if it is that offensive, list it at MFD, if that is where you would.--
'''Support''' No qualms here. Seems trustworthy. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''.  I'll expand on the reasons when I have more time, but I think that Tedder would use a the couple extra functions in a very positive manner. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC) ... apologies to the candidate for not providing a more supportive !vote earlier.  I only met Tedder a couple months ago, but boy was I impressed.  Friendly, helpful, knowledgeable, and one of the finest Wikipedians I have the pleasure of knowing.  Fortunately I don't have to go dig out "diffs" to explain why at this point, but thank you Tedder for all you do here - and best of luck with your new tools. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Does not have significant audited contributions, but is a longtime and committed member who I believe makes comparable effort in other areas. No immediate red flags, and opposes as of yet do not sway me. Per Hegvald, though, be careful with the newbs :) --<font color="#cc6600">
I see no oppose-worthy problems. Just don't rush through AFD closures when you do them, and make sure you're absolutely sure about your verdicts.
'''Support'''. User is an excellent editor, and opposes are not enough to sway me, particularly when two of them come from editors who normally auto-oppose over particular issues.
'''Support''' - I have interacted with you at WikiProject Schools and I have got a good impression of you there. Your interactions at AfD seem to be good; I was impressed about how you handled a disruptive user at [[Corona del Sol High School]]. You remained civil despite the user not doing so and went to [[WP:AN3RR]] rather than edit war yourself. You also dealt with this attack okay [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tedder&diff=next&oldid=284139612]. By the way I have nothing against you keeping a record of this on your user page though over users might do. I don't think you did any worthy of note wrong with the PRODing or by being a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism]]. Overall, you look to me like a good candidate for adminship.
'''Support'''. No reason not to. Users should remember that this is a discussion of whether Tedder, if elected, will use the admin tools properly.
'''Support''' clean block log, haven't encountered the candidate before but everything I've seen here looks OK. Also its quite possible to be a member of a project without being deemed to support everything said by any member of that project. ''
'''Support''' I don't see why not. You could definitely use the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' Per nom statement.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' Has been around since 2005 and see that giving the tools to the user will only benefit the project.
'''Support''':User has a clue.--
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support''' - No problems for me. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Support''' Dug around for a while, searched for some muck to be raked, but found nothing. No worries! --
'''Support''' Tedder has shown a commitment to Wikipedia through regular editing over an extended period and handled himself well in a variety of situations.  I would have like to see more thoughtful answers to some of the earlier questions, but the answers to 11a & 11b were excellent and won me over, as they show a proper weighing of arguments as opposed to vote counting. --
'''Support''' See my previous neutral vote below though, please.  However I realized if I had to break a tie or make the decision alone it would be a definite yes without hesitation.  The large number of support votes shouldn't give me the luxury of being neutral just because I have a problem with the fact that you answered a particular question.
'''Support''' A long time editor with no problems that I can see.  If userboxes were a reason to deny adminship then there might be a few existing admins who lose the mop too.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Support'''. Looks fine to me.
'''Support'''. Solid user. Looks unlikely to do any harm with the mop.
'''Support''' - perfectly fine editor and vandal-fighter, sure to be a good admin.
'''Support''' Man, this new crop of admin candidates makes me feel small. :) Excellent editor.
'''Support'''. Lookin' good with great answers.
'''Support''' I work with Tedder quite a bit at [[WP:ORE|WikiProject Oregon]], but he also edits in many other areas, which is a great quality in an admin, as is his mix of involvement, including article creation, routine maintenance, vandal fighting, and talk page discussion. His dedication to Wikipedia is evident in his stick-to-itiveness, especially regarding his work with Oregon high schools, an area that can be thankless and/or aggravating. Though we have sometimes had to agree to disagree on the finer points of layout, wordsmithing, etc., since we both have [[wiktionary:perfectionism|strong opinions]] about these things, he readily concedes when he may be wrong, and I don't mind conceding a point to him as he is consistently thoughtful, civil, and willing to discuss and compromise.
'''Support''', seems an excellent candidate who knows their way around. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' We need more atheist admins. No, seriously, his answers seem perfectly reasonable -- and he gets brownie points from me for having maintained his civil demeanor even at question 13. What the heck was that?
'''Support''' Should be a net positive.
'''Support''' The PROD at issue below looks like a mistake, but not a terribly serious one. Other than that, a spot check of the record at AfD, vandal-fighting, etc., shows good dedication and judgement. Happy to support. <strong>
No serious issues and user seems to have a [[WP:CLUE]].
'''[[WP:AGF]]''' seems qualified for the bits.--
'''Support''' as I see nothing which causes me to believe the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support''' seems to do a decent job on AFDs, at least based on my observations. I also like the answers to the questions given.
'''Support''' Seems good. --
'''Support'''. No major concerns. — '''''
'''Support'''. Sensible and not too stiff, shows flexibility in understanding [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wiki's policies and guidelines]].--
'''Support'''. Great editor. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
Support - ''why not?''
'''Support''' An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
I could have sworn I supported already but I can't find it.  If I did and am just overlooking it, please feel free to apply [[WP:TROUT|trout]] as needed.  In any event, I have run in to Tedder a few times as of late and I've largely liked what I've seen.  Answers to the questions are fine, and nothing scary in the contrib history.  Should do a good job.
'''Support''' seems to be a decent sort, fair in editing and without bias regardless of issues involved--
'''Oppose'''. Hate to spoil the party, but I am disturbed by the way Tedder, in early May, proposed two articles by a new user for deletion ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Reed_Church&diff=287892783&oldid=282761371][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fanny_Baker_Ames&diff=287893021&oldid=287097032]), claiming in one case that the article was "Missing reliable sources to indicate notability of an individual", when this was clearly false. Both articles had references to entries on these individuals in the ''[[American National Biography]]'' (a reference work published by the [[Oxford University Press]]). Tedder's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHegvald&diff=298590215&oldid=295466059 explanation to me] was not satisfactory. Tedder seems to miss the point that not only is an entry in a major national dictionary of biography like this one a reliable source, but being selected for inclusion in such a work in the first place is also clear evidence of the person's notability. An additional point: the newbie "welcomed" through these deletion proposals has not (so far) returned to Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' No member of "WikiProject Atheism" should represent Wikipedia as an administrator.  As I have stated countless times before, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being an atheist, but when you see userboxes like "the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" and "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself", we're talking about something a lot different than that.  We're talking about people who enjoy patting themselves on the back about just how smart and enlightened they must be, and people who take pleasure in belittling others' beliefs.  No thanks.
'''No'''.  Unless there was a compelling reason for the PROD, but I haven't seen one.  I have been a victim of this myself.  If the subject or the article is ''obviously'' notable then don't PROD it.  If you are unable to determine this for yourself, don't even consider becoming an admin.  Edit: the remarks above about The Golden Bough were ''truly disturbing''.
'''Oppose''' - maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but from reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_SUClover this ANI discussion from today], I'm not sure that you're ready.  I don't agree with SoWhy's contention that article creation is never disruptive, but I do think that this situation should have been handled with an attempt to interact with the user other than templates and an ANI report.  A human conversation is an important thing to have if it's a good faith user.  If it's someone who just wants to create articles concerning the parentage and/or sexuality of their classmates, ok, template away, but with someone like this who really just needs to be informed of our policies, templating him to death isn't going to accomplish anything.  I come across this frequently dealing with copyvio images - when there are 100 image templates on their page, they probably ignore them because they have no idea what they are talking about, keep uploading the images, and just create more work for someone, but if you leave a human message explaining the policy, sometimes something useful comes out of it.  Your RFA is probably going to pass, but please, take this to heart and have human conversations with people. --
Per Q7.  I was looking for "Keep" or "Merge"; I'd have settled for "No consensus".  "Relist" isn't intolerable, but I'm more than a little concerned by the candidate's desire to "personally verify if the subject matter exists and is covered in depth". To me, these imply the candidate is assessing the article rather than the consensus.<p> Another worrying remark for me was "I don't have any idea where to even start researching such an issue".  That's why we have an AfD: the debaters track down sources.  What's the purpose of having a debate if the closer is just going to decide for themself anyway?<p>Another legitimate concern being unearthed could tip me over into "oppose".—
'''Neutral, leaning support''' Um... regarding my question, I ''was'' looking for a Rorschach test-style answer. I didn't actually have anything planned out for any of them other than bite, so I was looking for some creativity there... You've still got time to answer the remaining letters, but that's completely optional. Aside from the question: I see good things, but nothing really standing out. <span style="font-family:monospace">[&#65279;
'''Strong Support''', I have butted heads with thaddeus several times. He is consistently honest in his responses and knows how to resolve a conflict amicably. I think his work improving articles and knowledge and applications of Wiki policies alone make him aa fine candidate for syops.
Clueful user, talented botwriter, can only recall positive interactions in the past. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Strong Support''' excellent candidate, who does very good work (esp. with prods). I have had positive interactions with, and often see this user around (in numerous areas). The nom statements say it :). Good luck -
'''Strong support''' &ndash; ThaddeusB's  work on [[WP:PROD|prodded]] articles is very impressive. I have had a few conversations with ThaddeusB and always found him to be very courteous and civil, even when he was gently applying a well deserved [[WP:TROUT|trout]].
Has clue and great bot writer.
'''Strong support'''. Always been helpful in my interactions with him, is thorough in his assessment of situations and knowledgeable of all wikipolicies I care for. Looks like a duh! nomination to me.
'''Strong Support''' I have come across ThaddeusB on a variety of deletion related topics, PRODs and AfDs, and I have been impressed by his ability to research and present arguments for notability. He is a civil and helpful editor and I have no doubt that he will wield the admin tools wisely. -<span style="color:#B13E0F">SpacemanSpiff</span><sup>
I see nothing upsetting in the user's history. I've seen him around here and there and have been largely impressed with what I've seen. I can support.
'''Support''' I can support this bot op. '''
'''He isn't an admin already? Support''' [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Absolutely. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339999;">
'''Support''' I came across the user at the [[2009 swine flu]] related articles, which in April-May had attracted a slew of editors of all stripes and sparked of several panicked debates about article name, sources, NPOV, emphasis, original research, etc. ThaddeusB (along with a few other editors) helped organize the article/template contents and the related discussions, kept calm throughout and avoided biting the many new editors at those pages. Knowledge of policy and good demeanor are useful qualities for an admin to possess.
Support as co-nom. –'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Experienced bot operator and editor, no real controversy, what else needs be said? &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and I'm confident he won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Fo' sho'.
'''Support''' &ndash; most impressed with knowledge and abilities, especially even-handed attitude towards articles which would otherwise be deleted. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' His work here has been quite great as far as I can see and his bots are doing valuable work for this project. He will probably be an asset with the tools. Only mistake within the last month I could find was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stone_cricket_club&diff=296891713&oldid=296891566 this one] (re-tagging an already declined article) and I have no reason to believe that this is his ordinary way of handling such articles. Regards '''
'''Support''' Excellent nomination.  I trust ThaddeusB will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' ThaddeusB gets an A+ -- good luck!
'''Support''' [[user:Javert/RfA|Absolutely]]. No problems here. Good luck.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Great attitude toward editors and policies. Tools will help him and Wikipedia.
Thaddeus has always been an admin, he just doesn't have the tools yet. =)
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' without equivocation. A terrific editor.
'''Support''' I thought he already was one... :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Looks like a helpful person to have as an admin (looking at renaming and uploading logs)
'''Support''' I've seen you around and you seem trustworthy.
'''Support''' - thought he was already.  Responsible editor with good judgment.  My only hope (per q1) is that you are willing to help out with admin backlog anytime you can.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], in particular - sufficient edits and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Support''' - It is wise to solve issues by simplifying problems, he exhibits such qualities. Great job on the swine flu coverage. --
'''Support''': what an extraordinary editor?
'''Support''': Per all of the reasons above, I support. He will make a great administrator and will help Wikipedia even more with the tools he will gain. Good luck!
'''Support''' It seems clear to me that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I was particularly pleased with his role in the webcite issue.--
'''Support''' Yup. Everything looks to be in good order here. Good for you sir, well done, keeping the project going. Enjoy your mop. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente. —
'''Support''' No reason to think theyd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Quite the impressive resume!
'''Support''' He's not already?  We should fix that.  --
'''Support''' Looks good. Good luck!
'''Support''': ThaddeusB has saved many articles and is a civil user.
I see no issues with this candidate. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Support''' as a frequent expired PROD deleter, I've found his work in that space valuable and worthwhile.
'''Support''' I thought you'd already had an RfA... good luck! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/

'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. Appears to be a great editor who's ready to take on the role of admin! Congratulations, it looks like a landslide!. &mdash;
'''Support''' Have to support when I find an RFA of somebody I didn't know wasn't an admin already. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|L]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' Clever editor, who made good responses to questions. Good luck with the tools! :) '''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, strong support from editors I respect, a fairly diligent workhorse, and got OttavaRima to switch out of the oppose column! Perfection! --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Very good candidate.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Strong Support''' - I think this candidate is more than ready for the admin tasks, He shows a good understanding of policies & is a useful contributer to this project.
'''Strong Support''' This bot operator will be also an asset to admin related tasks. Best wishes --
'''Support''', but don't forget to work by consensus rather than your own opinion in appropriate areas.
'''Strong Support''' In my limited interaction with this user, I have been very impressed with his thoughtful and collaborative approach to sensitive editing issues and potentially sticky conflicts. I assumed that he was an admin already. He'll be a strong addition to the admin ranks.
'''Support''' Both as bot operator and user track is good.See no concerns.
'''Support''' I think ThaddeusB is a great admin candidate.--'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' per thoughtful answers to questions and amazing contribution history (including that of the three bots). ···
'''Support''' - as nomnomnom. <small>(
'''Support''' Everything that I have seen in the past, plus the amalgam presented here shows a net positive.  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Really looks like an exemplary candidate, with a large number of very intelligent contributions and some very clued-up question answers. Should make a great admin. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Since I'm an active admin at [[WP:PROD]], I've encountered Thaddeus many times with contesting deletions. Reading through and trying to rescue decent articles is time-consuming, and I really commend TB for that. I came here thinking of a few concerns I had, though; specifically, a couple of the articles I've seen him dePROD, and the "will source ASAP" promises. However, I read some discussion on his talkpage concerning this issue: his response, along with everything else I've seen of Thaddeus, is thoughtful, calm and [[WP:CLUE|clueful]]. Overall, Thaddeus is an excellent editor with intelligent answers which leads me to '''strongly support''' since I believe he'll be a net positive. Best of luck,
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' my interaction with Thaddeus have been uniformly positive, his answers to the questions are excellent, and none of the expressed concerns goes to his likelihood of abusing the tools.
'''Support''' based on answer to Question 10. --
'''Support''' as an asset to Wikipedia and someone who will be an overwhelming net positive with the mop. Makes most of us look "not worthy". [[User:TedderBot/Bacon_Results#Wikibacon:_Tedder.2C_ThaddeusB|We've been on the same AfDs]], and I respect Thaddeus's approach to things.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to the questions and no major concerns with your resume. '''
'''Support''' If I knew you were up for AfD I would of been supporting you sooner. A good candidate for the mop. Cheerio! <b><font color="Blue">
'''Support'''  Seems like a good trustworthy candidate. Can't see him abusing the tools.
'''Support''' - has clue, will use.
'''Support''' - the name space thing is No Big Deal. See you at the Prods.
'''Support''' as I can't see any major problems. '''
'''Support''' Didn't need such a long explanation though. ;)
'''Support'''. A sensible editor, does valuable work on PRODs that can be helped by giving him the mop, and he already knows his way around the admin noticeboard and vandalism reporting. Not every admin needs to be a master of article writing, indeed being an admin isn't about article writing.
'''Support'''. You seem like an excellent editor. Good luck.--
'''Strong support''' I am ''way'' too quick to make bad judgments. I made a huge mistake; one of the best candidates possible. See my talk page. I am sorry about that ThaddeusB =).
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' on the basis of [[WP:UCS]]...
'''Support'''. My dealings with him have shown him to be dedicated, mature and intelligent.
'''Support''' Sensible editor and will be a sensible administrator.'''
'''Support''' I usually like to see solid content creation be given priority at some stage of a candidate's time here but WP is now well into its 2.0 phase and the demands of maintenance and mopping-up grow ever larger. ThaddeusB's excellent work has more than enough ticky boxes covered to compensate for lacking the article writing talent.
'''Support''' No question that this is a move towards progress.
'''Support''' Answers to questions look good, and a look through contribs doesn't show anything to me alarming.  Primarily I support on the interaction with others during this RfA.  I see reason, understanding, level-headed thinking, calm demeanor, and a willingness to listen to other points of view.  All good qualities that every admin. should have. I know it's "pile-on" at this point, but I support. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''', even though this one's pretty much meaningless.
'''Sure, why not'''.
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Strong Support''' He's been very active and done consistently good work in a variety of areas, both as a contributer and helping to clean up wikipedia. If I had to pick one wikipedian to be an administrator based on what I've already seen from them, ThaddeusB would probably be my first pick.
'''Support''':
'''Support''', looks like they will make a good admin! --
'''Support'''.  Does excellent work with PRODs. - Dank (
I'm
'''It's over 100!''' Does excellent work, and would make a great admin. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Of course. :) '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. Looks just fine. — '''''
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, and I'm pretty sure they can be trusted with the tools. The opposes and neutrals do little to sway me.
Definite '''support'''.
'''Support''' - looks good to me; particularly impressed by demeanor in this RfA and AfD entries that I reviewed. Clearly understands how and why Wikipedia works and what it's about. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support''' for an editor who is interested in plumbing work and who I feel can be trusted with the tools he'll be given. -
'''Support''', no problems.  --
'''Support'''.  I believe he could be well trusted with the tools and authority.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; no concerns.
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
'''Support'''. I would be remiss if after reading these comments, and looking over your contribs I withheld my support. Good luck, and good (vandal) fighting!
'''Support''' Very clear and helpful editor willing to assist others when the time arises. has my support
'''Support''' Helpful, thoughtful, well versed in policy. Yes!
'''Support'''. No reason not to. Very good helpful editor who I trust to use the tools wisely. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' Good answers, well behaved in arguments, writes good bots... --
I'm one of those horrible people no one likes who prefers a fair amount of content work under one's belt before I can support. Sorry, but it's what we're here for and I'm a firm believer in it. For what it's worth, this will pass anyway, and if by some miracle it doesn't, I'd be happy to support in future if you do some more content work. Good luck, not that you need it. Lastly, if anyone feels the need to badger against this vote, please do it on my talk page. No use cluttering up this otherwise perfect candidate's RfA. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' - not really thrilled by Q7.  By the time you hit 4 reverts in a 24-hour period, the time for "let's talk this out" is over and the community consensus, as expressed in the [[WP:3RR|3RR]] policy, is that a block is an appropriate method to prevent further disruption.  The "backstory" of the question, I believe, was this: U<sub>1</sub> makes an edit to the article.  U<sub>2</sub> reverts that edit.  U<sub>1</sub> re-imposes the change and U<sub>2</sub> reverts this again.  At this point, both users have made their preferred edit twice, although only U<sub>2</sub> would be said to have two reverts.  Add two more revert pairs and U<sub>1</sub> has made 4 edits, 3 reverts; U<sub>2</sub> has made 4 edits, 4 reverts.  The question: should U<sub>1</sub>, who has not crossed that bright line, but has still made equally as many edits, be blocked along with co-edit-warrior U<sub>2</sub>?  My answer is "usually", but good people can disagree.  The answer you gave &mdash; that you wouldn't block anyone and would instead try to discuss it &mdash; potentially leads to increased disruption.  Knowing "I will be blocked if I make a fourth revert" slows down revert wars.  Knowing "all I have to do when it is pointed out that I have made a fourth revert is say I'm sorry" increases them. --
'''Neutral'''. It's fine if it goes either way. --
'''Neutral'''.  Seems qualified but minimal concentration on article building gives me pause.--
Neutral - I like the fact that this editor rescues other people's work.  So, really, this is a '''support''' from me.  I'm placing it in neutral because I'm a new editor with few edits.
Sufficently impressed by the candidates response to my oppose (left for visibility above and also see debate on this RFA's talk) to move to neutral. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. Minimal content creation. Otherwise generally good contributions.
'''Neutral'''. Like mentioned above, good contributions, 6 [[WP:BARNSTAR|Barnstar]]s, but on average does about 2 edits per page but has covered over 6,000 articles, which is more than I can say for myself. Does appear to have made incredible progress for a one year editor. <s>Only about a twentieth of edits deleted.</s> (I have been told they have been deleted because most of them come from [[Wikipedia:Template messages#Deletion / Renaming / Discussion|tags]] to deleted articles). Article edits take over 50% of edit count proving to me to be a strong editor, but hasn't really covered all namespaces '''<small>
'''Neutral'''. I do not want to raise this to the level of an oppose, but I am concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDelilah_DiCrescenzo&diff=304195914&oldid=304194113 this], because it seems to me to show a lack of understanding of bio notability criteria.--[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)  P.S.: I at least partially withdraw my concern per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDelilah_DiCrescenzo&diff=304213307&oldid=304202829 this]. Good luck with your admin work, since I'm sure this will pass! --
'''Full support''' per the reasons in my nomination statement. <span style="font-weight: bold; color: #404080">
Per nominator. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Strong support''' - Has my trust.
Support as nom. –'''
Per nom.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Strong support''' as one of the new users mentioned by JC. Earwig really helped me get my bearings around Wikipedia, and I believe that he would handle the mop very well. <font color="green">
'''Super strong support''' - over 1000 deleted contributions is evidence that he has a strong knowledge in deletion policies. I also note his work at [[WP:SCV]], and creating a CopyVio detection bot for [[WP:AFC]] shows that he is very diligent at upholding the policies of the wiki. With experience in Wikiprojects, to[[WP:GNOME|Gnoming]], to writing content, and scripting bots, I have no doubt that this user will not only benefit from the tools, but the wiki would benefit by giving The Earwig these tools.
'''Strong support''' (after e/c): editor is a great asset to Wikipedia, whether dealing with copyright problems (for which the bit would be more than useful), [[WP:AFC]] and [[WP:ACC]].
What's not to like?  Oodles of deletion work, bot work, and lots of gnomery.  Contribs seem civil and level-headed. - Dank (
'''Support''' <small>after e/c</small> phew... nearly thought <small>*gasp*</small> I wouldn't make it to the top 10... <small>*breath*</small> will make <small>*breath*</small> a good <small>*breath*</small> admin. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' – Another good editor I have seen around with a great amount of established trust and clue. Civility level, from my spot-check, is nearly spotless (let's hope that keeps going). Should be nothing but a net plus as an admin.
'''Moar support!'''<sup>and edit conflicts</sup> ≈ '''
'''Support''' The Earwig is nothing but a civil editor with the only purpose to improve the encyclopedia. He would never misuse the mop. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
Nice and helpful. '''
'''Support''' because it would be hilarious to say "You've been blocked by Wikipedia's Earwig" or "This page has been protected by The Earwig." Good user + good record = support. '''
'''Support''' No concerns.
—
'''Support''' Absolutely.  Earwig has done some great work at [[WP:AFC]] and has written several superbly helpful scripts. Promoting this user to sysop would be a net-positive.  Good Luck! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Support''' He deserves it greatly! Ditto with Leo. <font face="Comic Sans MS">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, The Earwig. —
'''Suppport''' works with others well, is here to build the encyclopedia. Appreciate the [[WP:AFC]] work and the bots.
'''Strong support''' Great work at AFC, etc. etc. Very good candidate. </big><strong>
'''Support''' - Was not familiar with this editor prior to this RFA, but a tour of the contrib log made me very confident of my support vote.
I've noticed your good work at WP:SCV over the last couple of days, and it would be nice to have more administrators there. :) '''''
'''Support''' Earwig is a kind and gentle editor who will work tirelessly to improve Wikipedia, whether the benefit is small or [[User:EarwigBot II|great]].  His work in areas such as AfC and deletion has given him a wide range of experiences, and should arm him well as a sysop.  Also, per IMatthew. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Strong support''', great editor, quite suited for adminship. I would have supported a few months ago when he declined an RfA nom. Earwig shows good communication skills with others, and I appreciate his dedicated [[WP:AFC]] and bot work.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support'''. Per above. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Strong support''' per nomination. '''<font color="#003366">
'''Support''', definitely. --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], which makes 3/4 candidates in two days supported by me! Anyway, lots of positives here: 1) unanimous support from my colleagues thus far (not even any neutrals!); 2) user was trusted with rollback, account creator, and autoreview rights; 3) user is experienced with over 7,000 edits; 4) user is helpful and nice as evidenced by being a member of adopt an editor and the welcoming committee; 5) user is here to build an encyclopedia as evidenced by having created many articles and even getting a couple DYK credits; 6) user works well with others as evidenced by his several barnstars and having never even been accidentally blocked. While we have never participated in any of the same AfDs, I am no longer relying too heavily on that criterium and want to be sure I take into account the totality of the editor, not simply whether the candidate is likely to agree with me and in this case it is apparent The Earwig is a good faith and trusted editor whom I believe will make a decent administrator. Best wishes! Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. The Earwig has a lot of experience in a wide range of areas, has shown a good grasp of the various policies and guidelines, and has a good track record. I don't see anything which indicates twiddling the bit would be a bad thing. Twiddle away! ···
'''Support''' I have worked with Earwig and my experience has been positive.
'''Support'''. Fully-qualified, helpful, intelligent editor. This one's a no-brainer. --
This editor has been a tremendous help to [[WP:WikiProject Articles for creation|WikiProject Articles for creation]] and I have no doubt he will make a fine addition to the pool of administrators. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Strong support''' per nomination. Good luck with the mop!
'''(Insert witty support here)''' I have worked with The Earwig before and am (or is it is?) proud to support. I've been waiting for this day.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' plenty of clue, and will have a similar use of the tools for [[WP:SCV]] work than I do :) Net positive, no second thoughts.
'''Support''' Looks good.
I looked through his recent contributions and saw what the nominators saw: a good worker who can benefit from the tools.
'''Support''' Have not seen anything real alarming (see !votes above), with good work at SCV and at deletion (last incorrect speedy tagging I found was an A7 for a game guide article on June 20, 2009 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Fishing+Quest+%28Zhu+Xian+Online%29&timestamp=20090619232952&diff=prev deleted diff] (admin only) and a G11 on June 14, 2009 that was not necessary ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A0_Ti%C3%AAn,_Ki%C3%AAn_Giang&diff=prev&oldid=296348831 diff], spammy parts could have been removed instead)). As such, I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. Regards '''
'''Support''' Experienced editor and great contributor to [[WP:ACC|ACC]]. I am confident that we can trust him with the mop. Best of luck! '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - he isn't an admin already?--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' I know Earwig very well, and would have nommed happily; I was mentioned re. a disagreement in Q3, and remember it - a storm-in-a-teacup; there will always be disagreement on wiki, but Earwig has amply demonstrated his ability to cope under pressure. He has, in [[WP:AFC|Articles For Creation]], shown a willingness to 'go the extra mile' and worked hard to help our newest users. He is not afraid to ask for help when required, has an excellent grasp of policy, uses common sense, and is an all-round top-notch candidate. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Support''' per nom and above, especially iMatthew at number 15.
'''Support'''.  That is an ugly creature on your homepage!  [[image:smiley.svg|14px]]
'''Support'''.
Sure.
'''Support''' A very helpful editor, who (from what I've seen of him) is considerate and kind in his interactions with others, and spends a lot of time working to clean-up the 'pedia. I see quite a bit of The Earwig when he is helping out with bots, and he behaves in the manner I would except of an admin when I've seen him around in that area. I'm confident that he will do a lot of good with the tools, and I trust him :) -
'''Support''' worth a trial with the mop an' bucket.
'''Support''' Wrote a highly useful bot to identify possible copyright vios at AFC. <font color="darkorange">
'''Strong Support''' - I have a lot of respect for someone who puts in a lot of time at AfC, and in its own way that shows as much of a willingness and ability to create content as someone with a couple of FAs and GAs. Copyright experience is great, and having the technical skills to have written useful bots is a big plus. -- '''
'''Support''' per good answers, nom statement, and contribution.--
'''Support''': Absolutely..
'''Support''' - Seen him around, friendly, civil. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Crafty cannot fault this nom./All requirements met./May clueful editor be given mop.
'''
'''Support''' - Yes, definitely!

'''Support'''.  RfA cliche #1, excellent answers to the questions, good interactions.  Plus we need more arthropod admins.
'''Yes''' --
'''Support''' per nomination and answers.
'''Support''' - Solid candidate.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, nothing glaringly bad shows up in contributions. Civil and will be good with the mop :) --
'''Support''' per te above.  Excellent answers and very thorough.--
'''Support''', knows his copyright. Will make a good administrator. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Excellent answers to a multitude of questions.  <strong><font color="maroon">
I'm
'''Support''' Meets the criteria.
'''Support''' - wholeheartedly.  Clueful editor and responses to the above questions show a great deal of sensibility.  Will use the tools well. <span style="font-family: fontin, serif;">
'''Support''' - great contributions great use of policy and has a genuine do good attitude to better Wiki. great candidate. <br />>>>> Posted By
'''Support''' Impressed with the answers given by the candidate, and feel that the candidate will use the tools well. -- '''
'''Support''' Impressed by previous work and answers. Would be happy to have earwig as an admin.--
'''Support''' great candidate, thought he was one already.
'''Weak Support:''' Normally I would not support an editor with all his deletions (See ConstEdit on my user page) but he has a very good attitude and is helpful to new users -
'''Strong Support:''' Helpful/thoughtful editor.--
'''Support''' with a name like The Earwig, how could you oppose? <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;

'''Support'''. He has "involved" "moving" and "backlog" in the same sentence. That's enough for a support!
'''Support''' Pile-on support!! =P
"...do my best to maintain a calm editing environment without any major drama," which is good enough for me. '''
'''Strongest possible support''' Great Candidate.
'''Support''' - From my brief interactions with him at AfC and using his bot, I think Earwig has what it takes to hold the mop!  --'''
'''Support''' Looks a good candidate, best of luck.
'''Support''' No issues,
per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy.
'''Support''' of course!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to be concerned.
'''Support''' The Earwig has shown dedication to Wikipedia through regular edits over an extended period of time, a friendly demeanor, strong communication skills, and the answers to questions indicate a high level of [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]].  In reviewing his contributions I found some cases where he had removed an invalid speedy tag or replaced it with a prod, which I consider to be a strong plus. --
'''Oppose''' Some of the answers make me think adminship here would not be a net-benefit.
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see more article work and dispute resolution experience.
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator. <font color="navy">'''
'''Strong Support''' as co - nominator.
'''Support''' Looks good to me!--
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|<small>Support.</small>]] Shiver me timbers! Ye sprog finally decided to set sail on the high seas that be RfA. Ye lily-livered landlubber better make me proud, else ye be keelhauled! –'''
'''Support'''. I've been impressed by his work. <font face="Arial">
A fine candidate indeed. --'''
All around good candidate with very strong wikiproject activity.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''': It's now an year since I first met Ed, and everything I have seen him do during that time here is impressive. Ed helps out a lot at DYK, and the new tools would be a benefit there (and desperately needed too, I might add). The extra tools will be nothing but a benefit to the project. ≈&nbsp;
'''Support''' Solid contributor, trust worthy in my thoughts would make a good addition esp for dyk.
'''Strong support''' Reliable, sensible and hardworking editor who can be trusted with the tools. &nbsp;
Excellent work at DYK.
Deserves the trust of the community, and probably deserved it back in January too.
While I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_ed17&diff=262354018&oldid=262353069 weak supported] last time, I cannot get over how pleased I am with the excellent to reasonable argument and stances at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Militaries_of_Ace_Combat&diff=226535890&oldid=226503184 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nations_of_Ace_Combat&diff=226107893&oldid=226064521 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ace_Combat_characters&diff=225083756&oldid=225077031 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Earth_(Ace_Combat)&diff=203293390&oldid=203255973 here].  Thus I am darn near going with a strong '''support''' this time around.  The candidate has a host of FA, A-class, GA, and Did you know…? credits on his user page, was identified as an Awesome Wikipedian by BOTH Dylan and Relevse, has 3+ years of experience under his belt, was kind enough to adopt two other users, not to mention has received [[User:The_ed17/Awards]], and the blocks were nearly three years ago.  Finally, the fact that it is unanimous support thus far is telling, i.e. none of my fellow colleagues have offered any reasons not to support either.  Sincerely, --
'''Strong support''' - I've known Ed for a while now, and have collaborated with him on several high-quality articles. He is a rational editor and can be trusted to use the tools with care. His work at DYK will be enhanced if he has the ability to directly process the update queues, which seem to be constantly backlogged.
I find the co-nominators to be convincing. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Strong support'''. A very trustworthy guy. '''''
'''Support''' - When I first met Ed, he had some content related difficulties. However, after discussing and fighting, he sure learned from his mistakes. :) It has been quite a long time since then, and I haven't noticed any of those problems in a very long time. His understanding of policies and guidelines has improved greatly and I trust him on his understanding of them.
'''Support''' Fine.
But of course! Ed is a very trustworthy and smart guy. He deserved the mop already! ;) '''

'''SUpport''' for ensuring that we won't go an entire calendar day without having an RfA candidate ;-)---'''
'''Support'''.  A regular worker for [[WP:DYK]] like yourself should be endowed with appropriate tools.  I don't see any evidence of exceptionally bad behavior.
'''Support''' Aye, good candidate. See him around all the time. He's helpful, dedicated to the project, I trust him not to misuse the tools. But would suggest more experience in areas not related to content building. Per above and nom -
'''Support''' [[user:Javert/RfA|Looks good]] to me. Regards,
'''Strong Support''' (I would have been a co-nom if it had not been for a power outage) - Ed is one of the finest Wikipedians I have worked with and he is a trusted member of the community already in the MILHIST project as a fellow coordinator. His content-building is exceptional, as is his work at DYK. I have no doubts that he would ''ever'' misuse the tools and the granting of the mop would be a huge net positive to the project. -'''
'''Support''' Looks good. Diffs below look fairly reasonable to me. We're human after all.
'''Support''' Had a look, can't see anything that makes me think that you will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. My usual argument here - net posotive so why not? '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
A very good editor who would make a fine admin.--
I remember being very impressed with The_Ed's attitude the last time around.  It looks like he's addressed the concerns we raised, as I expected he would. - Dank (
'''Weak Support''' Willing to make an exception to my general criteria, since Ed has been here for a very long time, and has demonstrated a lot of clue.
I remember first noticing Ed some years ago, and at the time thinking that here was another young 'myspace generation' editor  who probably wouldn't last the distance (sorry Ed!). Having had the pleasure of working with him at milhist and on various articles, I'm delighted to say that he's matured into a responsible, dedicated, collaborative content contributor. He has a sound grasp of policy, contributes thoughtfully to discussions, and importantly hasn't lost the sense of fun that was evident from the start. Over the years it's been tempered with clue<sup>TM</sup>, but I feel an ability not to take ''ourselves'' (as opposed to the role we've been entrusted with) too seriously is something that we often overlook in potential admins; it's candidates that can't do this that run into problems with ego later on. I trust Ed's judgement both in when to act and when to seek advice. I too would have been happy to co-nom, so yeah, full '''support''' :)
'''Oppose''' No edits in MediaWiki space makes me oppose. Otherwise, no problems. <tt>;)</tt> <strong>
About time! '''
I don't think I've had any personal interactions, but the contribs seem good and the guy seems mature enough to handle the tools. I trust the judgement of NW, too. Why not? Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Need more sysops.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per Shubinator and above.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' per Julian. ;) I've always been impressed with the_ed17's work, and basically have seen no negative behavior or judgement issues. The one oppose does not concern me, so I have no reason not to support a dedicated, reasonable user like this one.
'''Strong support''', good guy. We need more of them around here. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Solid contributor.
Looks good. '''
Content editor =  '''strong support'''.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' No brainier! Good luck with the MOP!!
'''Support''' ready for the mop. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I read the opposes from [[WP:Requests for adminship/The ed17|Round 1]] in detail, and see substantial improvement in questioned areas, including contributions to ANI and XfD. (As an aside, I note his questions in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo]]. Interesting, in light of recent events.)--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Strong Support''' basically per my rationale on the last RfA. Great article work, great all-around editor. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support'''. The concerns raised by opposers appear to be pretty weak. I see nothing which would indicate a likelihood of abusing the tools, and I see plenty which indicates the tools would be used in an appropriate manner. ···
'''Support''' - Good editor. '''\'''
'''Support''' Good content writer, steady contributor, more experienced than he was during the last RfA. Pretty clear net positive.
'''Support''' - exceptional candidate. Thorough contributor and enthusiastic editor.
'''Support''' - I don't care about age here, but I find it odd that some do. With that being the only concern...
'''Support'''. Great user, trustworthy, friendly. --
One-hundred-and-ten-percent-support (MO-what now?).  My rationale for opposing last time was completely baseless it would appear. I want to see that righted by this passing.  Good luck and apologies for my behaviour and comments last time. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339999;">
'''Support''' - User's contributions look good, well done with work at DYK and other areas, no problems :) --
'''Support''' An excellent contributor.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="green" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' - Don't see any problems, very helpful and polite.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Looks good. '''''
'''Support''' The ed17 is a great editor and coordinator of the Military History Wikiproject and I have confidence that he won't miss-use the admin tools. While we need more admins willing to do behind the scenes work at WP:DYK, I hope that ed considers expanding the scope of his admin activities once he finds his feet in the new role as we're also short of admins willing to help pursue disruptive editors.
'''Support''' I don't feel that article contributions and excellent writing skills are inherent reasons to support or oppose, but since you only say you want to work in the DYK area those contributions are highly relevant.  Your answer to question one is appreciated, thank you.  I'm also struck by your insistence (question 5) that you simply want to be a DYK admin.  No problems. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Suppport''' Excellent user.
'''Support'''. The ed17 is an excellent editor who, in my experience, is consistently civil, helpful, exemplifies great levels of maturity and displays sound levels of judgement. I have great confidence that he will utilise the tools wisely. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - No problems here. Cheers,
'''Support'''.  Dedicated, knowledgeable, and experienced editor who will add further value to the project as an admin.
'''Support''' - No qualms about this candidate. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' practically a legend.
'''Support''' I've had several positive encounters with this clueful editor. Personally I find it rather odd that I'm an admin and he isn't, this should resolve that situation. ''
'''Strong support''' Sorry to be so late, but I'm on tour, as usual.  I was one of the principal opposers who helped sink the nom last time, but Ed has lived down the episode, and his achievements speak for themselves.  Expect he will be a tremendous net positive as an admin.--
'''Support''' - Missed the opportunity to make an unfunny TLAPD comment. Meh. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Lots of good quality content, dedicated, eager, dynamic ... Sounds like he has the potential to make an equally decent admin. <b><font color="green">
'''Support''' Looks great!
'''Support''' Looking through edits and information presented here, I see no reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' Definitely. '''
'''Support''' A superb candidate. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' Definitely appears to be a suitable candidate. Lots of content. DYK always seems to need the help. Very little in the oppose section after several days to even persuade me to be there or consider otherwise at this moment in time. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Experienced, good editor, nom from a good admin. Also per Wehwalt&mdash;being supported by a former opposer is a good sign. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Strong support''' '''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, The ed17. —
'''Support''' Some excellent work. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  --[[User:Simon Harley|Simon Harley]] ([[User talk:Simon Harley|talk]] | [[User:Simon Harley/Library|library]] |
'''Support''' - looks good to me.--
'''Support''' &ndash; an excellent candidate. I was amazed initially when I was told he was not an admin.
'''Support''' Impressive progress since previous RfA.
'''Support''' <small> My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see [[WT:RFA]]</small> ed17 addressed the primary problems well: he addressed the BLP issue, had a good analysis of the pitfalls of checkuser as well as Users A, B and C. The edit warring was not addressed, and the COI issue was not touched on. In these sorts of situations in the future, I suggest making a separate effort to talk to both users in depth (via e-mail or talk page), explaining the proper use of edit summaries, the conflict of interest policy, avoiding edit wars, and the like. One additional piece of advice is to consider making some sort of statement on the ANI thread to users A,B, and C, explaining why you're ignoring their suggestions. Even if they never learn, someone else reading might. The answer however, showed solid thinking and I believe that the candidate will learn quickly.--
'''Support''', overwhelmingly positive interactions with this editor. --
'''Support''' Fantastic content contributor and a very responsible editor, especially in areas where access to administration tools can improve productivity, such as DYK.
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support''' '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support:''' He is friendly, helpful, with lots of Constructive Edits. -
'''Support''' I don't see anything particularly startling in a spot check of his contribs, and all my encounters with him have been positive. Will do well with the tools. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Support''' Awesome answers, fantastic contributions to the encylopedia, and a clear focus on what the tools will be used for. -- '''
'''Support''' Not a ton of contact with ed, but whenever I see him he's always doing good work. Actually have [[User:The ed17/Sandbox2|this user page of his]] watched because I just think it's an awesome project.
'''[[WP:100]] Support.''' Looks good.
'''Support''' I think he's ready this time.   '''
'''Support''' Awesome, and I don't use that word often or lightly. Good luck! <font color="green">
'''Support''' The ed17 has shown a strong dedication to Wikipedia through regular editing over an extended period of time, good communication & writing skills (and no civility problems), and most importantly a high level of [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]].  The answers to the questions were excellent, esp. Q8/8a. --
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers and a history of constructive edits; ed will be a great addition to the admin crew. --
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]
'''Strong support''' - <small>Happened to spot this on his talk page at the last minute, ha.</small> Nothing but good experiences with this user. Trustworthy, considerate, and thoughtful - very admin-tailored. ;) &mdash;''
'''Support'''. Looks fine. —
'''Support''' Looks good to  me.  Some great work on battleship articles, active in FA and GA areas.  Don't see a problem with him mopping up a few things around here. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' did not really answer my qauestion as I expected, but at least the candidate woun't be part of the problem.
'''Support''' - Ed meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen and user pages, having rollback, and he came back stronger after last RfA.
'''Support''': superb content editor, mature, and cool-headed. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''', obviously this candidate has a vast array of constructive contributions, and they'll clearly be a net positive with the mop.  Just try to remember that being punctual and quick to respond to queries from users is often important for an admin.
'''Support''' Per my rationale in the last RfA.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Great content contributions and no behavioral concerns. Hope you enjoy the additional mop duties.
'''Support''' Seen only helpful contributions by this editor, especially at DYK.  —
'''Support''' I was going to say 'I supported the last time around and ...' but discovered I hadn't !voted then. Per what I should have done 8 months ago. --
'''Oppose''' Although I've supported some candidates under 18, I'm not totally convinced to see exceptional maturity from this candidate. Seems quick to judge and accuse given this comments[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=291770412][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=291778051] at [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_46]].--
I can't make a solid determination here.  The candidate is in an age range where I'd want to see evidence of exceptional maturity.  I don't see it.  But, I also don't see him obviously acting like a typical teen.  The civility-based opposes from the last RFA I find pretty unconvincing.  But, the whole "he must have improved, he's been writing articles since last time" is very unconvincing as well.  Article writing and admin work are ''two separate jobs'', and I find it really unhelpful when people pretend otherwise.  So I don't have enough to go on yet, and could be swayed either way.  But, from the looks of the RFA it won't matter.
Same as Friday
Seems fine.  Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks good to me.--
Yes, I can't find any reason to not trust this user.
'''Support''' He has improved since last year.
'''Support''' - Don't see why not. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' - Good user, knows what they're doing, won't abuse the tools. Not sure about Q3, though. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' No reason not to trust, plus he created on of the best scripts.--
'''Support''' Obviously has use for the tools and can wield them wisely.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' - I can trust this guy no problem.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck.
'''Support''' <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''', has enough experiance.   Good luck.  &ndash;
'''Support''' - In all my experiences with TheDJ, I've always seen him as a smart, clueful user. I'm glad that he's running for RfA.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Has the skills and has been established long enough here. --
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' Clean block log, longterm editor with a civil talk page and diverse contributions. We're short of admins and I'm sure you'll make a worthy mopweilder ''
'''Support''' I see no concerns, and ++ for civil interactions with other users and good script work. '''
Good experience; no concerns here.
'''Support''' Has very good experience, and I see no reason he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason no to.

'''Support''' Ok <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' Will be just fine. '''<font color="navy" size="3" face="Westminster">
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' His/her responses make me believe that the user can undertake this responsibility. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''. The answer to Q3 concerns me a bit, but I will accept that the candidate did not try to be smug about other users with his answer. I like his answer to Q6 and his stance to deletion in general. I disagree with his approach to flagged revisions but I'm not !voting for popularity here but for an admin candidate. And as I am perfectly fine to support candidates who hold different views than I have, if they can be trusted with the mop. I'm convinced that the candidate can be. Regards '''
As I stated earlier, one or two unsettling responses to questions, but as I said many good edits. Another reason to support is his development of HotCat (which I use) and Popus (which I once used). <strong>
No reason not to: all of my concerns were answered in the neutral section. Thanks, '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Genius101|<font color="red">Genius</font>]][[User talk:Genius101|<font color="blue">101</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''', although I find the answer to Q5 a little evasive.
'''Support'''. No reason not to; I'm satisfied with answers to the questions asked. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' seems qualified; and what a refreshing sense of honesty without irony in the candidate. esp. q3.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Strong Support''' qualified, gained significantly more experience since last nom. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Although Q3 is a bit shaky, this user gives me an excellent overall impression in maturity and experience. Clearly knows the ropes. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. One of the most helpful and diligent users I've encountered. --
'''Support''', agreed with ϢereSpielChequers. - Dan
Of course. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Sounds like a good canidate
'''Support''' Decent bloke, met him once or twice at RfA, good edits. Cheers. '''''
'''Support''' OK, sure. :-)
'''Support''' in that I trust the candidate in areas for which he has stated a desire for the tools. Like answer to Q 6. Opposers have reacted to the candidate's "unkind" ''faux pas'', but I do not see links to specific instances of incivility for bellicosity. Candidate's opinion on BLP is irrelevant in that he has not stated a desire to work in that area.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate; if opposers put forth example of TheDJ being unkind to people, maybe I'd feel differently.  A comment in this two dimensional medium where humor and sarcasm are each often lost, just doesn't provoke me to oppose.--
'''Support'''.  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TheDJ|DJ's first RfA]] did not succeed due to weak answers concerning speedy deletions.  The community asked him to increase his knowledge base, he committed to it and succeeded.  The concerns on this RfA have focused on a single comment that could be interpreted as being mean spirited.  I suggest, that TheDJ is guilty of answering Q3 in what turned out to be an ambiguous manner, nothing more.  Pouring over his diffs confirms that his answer should be construed only in the most benign way.  My humble [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|opinion]] is that TheDJ has now met the community standards for a Sysop.  I encourage others to take the time to learn what a well rounded and positive influence TheDJ is to Wikipedia. <small>
'''Support''' A review of your answers and work demonstrates you'll make a great admin!
'''Reluctant Support''' Some of his comments worry me, but I see no indication that he'd abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Looks to have improved since last RFA, I really can't see him abusing the tools. Best of luck with your RFA! -
'''Support''' Seems qualified.  Haven't seen diffs that show Q3 to be a real behaviour issue as opposed to a poor choice of words for an RFA.--
'''Support'''. Generally good question answers and I haven't found anything objectionable in a review of contributions: Looks like TheDJ would make a sensible admin. I really do not find the issue shared by most of the opposers to be remotely a problem - to me this reads like a slightly poorly-phrased joke taken excessively seriously. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Answered the above questions well. -
'''Support''' – and they say “…the truth shall set you free”, unless you are running for [[WP:Administrator|administrator]].  Been around for just over three years – 16K+ edits – never been blocked, to be honest could not even find a warning on talk page,.  You’ll do a good job.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Seems helpful, reasonable, and knowledgeable of policies. His answer to Q3 was unfortunate but does not indicate an incivility problem.
'''Support''' Will in all likelihood be an excellent admin.
'''Strong support''' - hugely clueful and helpful user and, I believe, developer. His attempt at humor in Q3 was probably ill-advised but I've no recollection of ever seeing this user be unkind to anyone. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' No obvious problem. Reaction to Q3 is mind-boggling to me: clearly that answer was tongue in cheek. There was even a smiley included for anyone tempted to take the comment literally...
'''Support''' Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. I'm always amazed at the ability of Wikipedians to make mountains out of molehills at RfA, to take one inconsequential line and oppose solely because of it. No one has a spotless editing history, and latching on to these throwaway lines and holding them up as grievous offenses ''hurts'' Wikipedia. Besides, let's no shit ourselves, guys - there are plenty of people (read:vandals) out there who don't deserve to be treated kindly! I'm certainly not going to punish DJ (and, by extension, Wikipedia) for a moment of candor.
'''Support''', no evidence or indication that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', previous encounter with user tells me that he isn't mean spirited at all.--
'''Support''' - seems to have the right attitude; no good reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' Great candidate, recent work is excellent. A few comments he made awhile back worry me some, but there's nothing since then that makes me think he'd abuse the tools or new found !power. Best of luck! - <big>'''
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' - TheDJ is an excellent editor. --
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - Has done good work, has not shown any behavior that causes concern. Concerns about the candidate's civility are unnecessary, nothing wrong with a bit of honesty in answering questions.
'''Weak support'''. Concerns below make me reluctant to support, but I won't oppose based on one problem. — '''''
'''Support'''
After extensive thought and review.
'''Support''' per my net positive essay. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I think he'd do a good job with the tools and, contrary to popular opinion, I like the answer to question 3. A little honesty, a sense of humour and a pinch of salt is just what this world (and wikipedia, for that matter) needs. It would do him no harm to familiarise with AfD policy etc, but that can't be used in its own right to deny adminship.
'''Support''' &ndash; Seems like a good user. I take his answer to Q3 as a partial joke, not something to worry over. He'll do just fine. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as the candidate has never been blocked, makes thoughtful comments in XfD as seen at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruft portal]], and approaches his barnstars at [[User:TheDJ#People_being_nice]] as not merely a sign of the good reception he has had from others, but rather as making it more about how those editors are "nice," which is a nice gesture in its own right, i.e. a good show of appreciation.  As such, this editor strikes me like someone I could work pleasantly with in his capacity as an admin.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Seems very good to me. Answer three was clearly humour. --
'''Support''' - He is a good contributor. Q3 was a joke. —
'''Support'''. I'm a bit late to the party here, but I was on a nine-day Dougstech-free break and I feel much better now. Candidates AfD contribs look solid. The answer to Q3 didn't bother me one bit - I mean, gee, who ''hasn't'' felt like a persistent troll or vandal deserved a little backslap. Disturbing when the current RfA trend seems to be looking for perfection - one stumble on civility, perceived or real, and newer (and some older) editors jump on it, point it out over and over, "look, look, incivility". I often get the feeling that the editors are trying to shoot down the candidate simply to boost their own self-perception of "honor" or whatever on Wikipedia. At any rate, good god - this guy has helped the project immensely, will clearly continue to do so, and we should all be focusing on moving this project ''forward'', not stagnating it.
'''Support''' per Tanthalas39. Even if the candidate truly meant it on Q3, I think the positive far outweigh the small negatives in that the candidate will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Seems like a solid contributor all around. Answers given lead me to believe he would not abuse the tools to mop up. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Weak Oppose'''-I liked you at first-good experience, good edits, nice all around and I thought you could be awesome. But the I read this: "Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it and even if they did, I apologized to most of them afterwards."-just doesn't settle well with me. The smallest things can make the biggest difference.--
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' People deserve to be treated fairly not unkindly. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Weak oppose''' - I don't like "they deserved it" in answer for number three. Life doesn't work like that and it seems like quite a petty and immature stance to have. While I admire your work and enthusiasm, that little sentence ruined the deal I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''': I'm not a fan of the comments left above either (e.g. what was said above), but I'm not comfortable gaining an administrator who cans a response with "I'm not a big fan of deletion in general." (Question 10c) Administrators need and must remain neutral throughout the deletion processes and especially when closing them. Having prejudices that are not the result of an internal factor in the deletion discussion results in improperly closed debates. We need administrators who are willing to state that they are comfortable taking a non-partisan, non-biased view in closing debates, whether it is for deletion or keep. In relation, I'm not comfortable with an administrator who doesn't want to take the time to look up basic BLP and AFD procedure. If it is "no consensus," then a BLP is defaulted to keep but in the most extreme of cases. There have been instances of very poor, potentially liablous and unsourced BLP's being defaulted to keep via no consensus, but the correct procedure in that instance would have been to delete and restore sans the infractions. <small>
'''Oppose''' per Gears of War; and follow up answer is antagonistic and not much better for creating an atmosphere of cooperative editing of an encyclopedia.  "And people who 'deserve it', are definitely not newbies, and are expected to know how to deal with criticism."  Criticism isn't a tool to use against people you've decided "deserve it."  In fact, you're violating the guideline of "no personal attacks" when you focus on whether or not some''one'' deserves your criticism.  Criticism can, and should be, a constructive tool for discussion on how to create a better article.  An administrator should, imo, lead by example: show other editors that your focus is on writing the encyclopedia, not dividing users among those who can be criticized by you and those who can't be.  --
In part with Gears and KP; the answers give me pause and suggest a manner that is not conducive to solving disputes. Per my personal criteria I would like to see more audited article contributions as well. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Weak oppose'''.  Your edits look pretty good in general and there's not much to criticize, but like several of the others in this section, I have a problem with one of your statements. ("Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it and even if they did, I apologized to most of them afterwards.")  As an administrator, you will be representing the whole of Wikipedia, and being unkind to those you deem deserving will reflect upon the entire encyclopedia as a whole.  I just don't think this attitude is right for an administrator to have.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose''' Per "Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it."
'''Oppose''' Per they "deserved it" comment and then standing by it even after an issue was made of it. Very troubling.
'''Oppose''' - WP:CIVIL makes it clear that even if someone treats you like crap, it is not an excuse to return the same. This is a fundamental understanding needed by all admin and this user has demonstrated to not understand it.
'''Oppose''' - Per the 3 opposes before this one. <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Oppose''' Even in jest, "they deserved it" was [[WP:DICK|dickish]]. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Oppose''' Rather [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThumperward&diff=285841833&oldid=285484241 nasty] response to a question.
Too much fence-sitting in questions.
As Stifle mentions, there's a lot of political posturing in the answers that concerns me.  I like the long tenure, and from what I've looked at I like the contributions.  Supposedly, the admin. bit should be just a natural progression for an editor, and I like the idea of protecting pages, but the bit also has some rather powerful functions tied to it.  I get a sense that there's a "Don't push me, I'll push back" attitude that concerns me.  I have no strong reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support either. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
After looking  through the contribs I agree 100 % with Ched Davis' comments. Good contributor, not sure about adminship.
TheDJ is not a familiar name to me and I'm too busy/lazy to investigate, I'm afraid. Thus for now at least, I'm neutral. Hi, allow me to introduce myself: I have been unkind to some users, but usually they deserved it; and whether or not they deserved it I have seldom apologized afterwords. I am an admin, yet despite my occasional unkindness (and uninterest in denying this), neither Wikipedia nor the sky has fallen. I'm bemused by the way RFA has (I think since "my time") become an opportunity to judge how well nominees have pulled off the feat of responding to a great number of questions without expressing irritation or uninterest and also without any hint of being less than utterly virtuous. All in all I find that first answer to Q3 highly refreshing as a change from the usual pussyfooting response. --

Absolutely! It's way overdue. '''
Ceranthor beat me to it. Tinu is a tireless contributor who lives Wikipedia even outside of it. I'm only concerned this might push him even further. :-) --
'''Strong support'''Tinu is really helpful and will make a gr8 admin-
'''Support''' - overdue - '''
Way overdue. We need more Indian admins ;) <strong>
'''Strong Support''', wish I could have been a co-nom, Tinucherian will make a great administrator. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Strong Support''' Inspiring Wikipedian --
Strong candidate; will be a definite positive with the tools. <font color="navy">'''
I have been waiting to see this so that I could support.  Truly believe that this additional set of tools will help Tinu to further improve Wikipedia
{{ec}} '''Support''' - absolutely.--
'''Support''' Wow...how has this not happened before? I've run into Tinucherian a few times over the years...great editor, lots of initiative.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
Brilliant candidate, as per co-nom --
'''Support:'''  I've been waiting for this.  I even looked into nominating him a few months ago, but I saw that he had recently declined a request.  Excellent editor with a calm temperament and a friendly attitude.
Honestly though you'd already passed an RFA. Excellent contributions and demeanour. Trusted and strong nominators with the experience to know who will do well with the tools. A pleasure to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support:''' it's amazing the number of wikiprojects he has either helped out or is part of. the tools will come handy. Regards, <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Agreed, this is an easy one. One only need look to his well-reasoned and calm interactions to see the quality of adminship we can expect from the candidate. Good luck,
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], fully qualified; seems to be the "perfect" candidate as far as I'm concerned. –'''
'''Support''' long due, very suitable candidate. --<b><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT"   Color="##003399">
'''Support''' - happy to endorse this suitable candidate. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' - I have no concerns, been working with user for a long time. --
'''Support''' - Strong candidate, net positive. -
'''Support''': Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' - Tinu is one of the most dedicated Wikipedians I have seen. His efforts, both on and off wiki, are highly commendable. This RfA is long overdue. --
Pile-on support.  An amazing and dedicated editor. - Dank (
Obviously.
Yes. <font face="Arial">
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. No misgivings at all.
'''Support''' Clearly qualified. '''
'''
'''Support with awe''' Even with AutoWikiBrowser, 10000 edits in a single month is an incredible investment of lifespan. <strong>
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Seems to be an ideal candidate for adminship. -- '''
'''Support''' He will definitely be a good admin. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - Just an awesome candidate, the nomination itself explains why far better than I could. -- '''
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' (as nom) --
'''Support''' Tinu is a very perplexing editor; I have seen him around for years but still can't tell which nationalistic, regional, religious and sectarian cliques he belongs to - just look at the variety of wikiprojects, barnstars, and article-worked-on on his userpage! And he certainly works on some planet with more hours/day than the one I live on. I'll support him for adminship since he is a solid replacement for at least a dozen inactive/retired admins ... but I still have my suspicions and will keep looking for clues. :-)
'''Support''' Per Pedro, are you absolutely sure you aren't already an admin? Check your wallet, is there a little card in there that says "cabal member?"
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate.
'''Support''' His involvement here has been a big positive - the admin tools will make it more so.
Absolutely. The perfect candidate in so many ways.
'''Support''' Totally and completely.  I think Abecedare sums it up nicely - Tinu manages to do so much that giving the bit would really be a boom across many fronts.  Tinucherian is well overdue. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - editor has a need for the tools, appears to be trustworthy, and no opposes have raised any concerns that are serious enough for me to switch.  (There are no opposes as I write this.)
'''Support''' without reservation.
'''Support'''. Does excellent work; dedicated to the project; knows what he's doing. I trust him with the mop.
I can't remember if I've ever interacted with Tinucherian before, but I've seen his name around in many places, and I've always had a very good impression of him...I was thinking he would run for RfA this time last year, but he appears to have been patient and decided to wait for a while (as he said above, he has declined past offers). From what I've observed, Tinucherian is very helpful, experienced, civil, and also a positive person: I think he'll make a great administrator.
'''Support''' Seen him around, a nice person, a good editor, and almost definitely will be a great admin. --
'''Support'''- All round good guy. --
'''Support''' Heck yeah! Oh, per above.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good candidate, I'm sure he'll do well. ''
'''Support''' Of course. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Everything looks good and Tinucherian's answers to the questions are great (particularly the answer to #1; few RfA candidates (including myself when I successfully ran) articulate such clear reasons for wanting to be an admin).
'''Support''' I can find no problems.
'''Support'''  <font color="0000BB">[[User:Diderot's dreams|Diderot's]]</font>&nbsp;<font color="9999FF">
'''Thought-you-were Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''', why isn't he already? This should have been done earlier. &ndash;
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' A superb choice! Good luck with the mop!
'''Strongest possible support''' as co-nominator. Duh. :) But I wanted to add my name to the official count anyway because I very much believe that, based on how things are going, [[WP:100]] and/or [[WP:200]] are definite possibilities, maybe even unopposed at that, and I wanted to ensure that he didn't get "robbed" of my support if nominators aren't included in the final tally; I don't know about that one way or the other.
'''Support'''. Both needs and deserves the tools. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' I like what I see.
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support, definitely''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seen him around all over the place. Lots of good coming from this editor. --
'''Support''' I am sorry. I do in fact support, and my attempt to be humorous and ‘different’ with an oppose has created far too much misunderstanding.
'''Genuine surprise that he isn't an admin already support'''. Great contributor. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', decent enough. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to making a lot of useful contributions.  One statment of error I noticed on the user page, was the first actual edit of this user was made on the day the user was registered, but it got deleted. So there is a bit more experience than he claims!
'''Support''' '''
Need more admins.
'''Support''' without a doubt. I've asked Tinu to request adminship before, and am happy to see he's finally going through with it. He has a great compassion for his work here, and is extremely helpful to all who approach him. Best regards,
'''Support''' absolutely no reason to oppose this RFA, and it will obviously pass, so good luck with the tools. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''yup.'''
'''Strong support''' - Solid contributor.
'''Support''' obviously.
'''Support''' Just here for the pile on. Actually suprised to hear that Tin wasn't already one of 'them' anyway. Great candidate in both knowledge and attitude. And a hearty "Hear, Hear" to those who hunger for a roll. Depending on the bakery, they can be quite nice. '''
'''Support''' Excellent contributor and a Great Wikipedian. <span style="">
'''Support''' No issues.
Doesn't really need a rationale, does it. <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
'''Strongest possible support''' - Per nom and co-noms. Could have been an admin long ago. Almost pefect candidate,
'''Support''' I cannot find any reason why the candidate would be a bad admin. Regards '''
'''Support''' Looks good. '''''
I was considering nominating Tinu myself. --'''
Looks good. '''
<font color="darkorange">
'''Strongest possible support''' Great editor, and has been editing since 2007.
'''Support''' - ayup! No problems here :) -
'''Support'''. A fine chap. '''''
'''Support''', but perhaps overqualified... :) —[[User:Finn Casey|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color=" #660033"><b>Finn Casey]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Finn Casey|*]]&nbsp;[[User:Finn Casey/adminship|*]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' per lots of fine work on both maintenance and, more importantly, articles.
I'm
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''[[WP:100]] Support'''. No problems.
'''Support''' Good luck with the mop.
'''Support''' Boffo aces.
'''Support''' My question seems to be a bit tough to answer... never mind, I'll pile on here anyway. Good candidate, no worries, lots of clue. --
'''Support''' - I thought you had already ran for adminship and I had supported ... perhaps I am misremembering your RFBAG? Ah well, definite support.
This RfA seems very unbalanced with all the humour in the "Neutral" section, so naturally I feel compelled to support in order to circumvent User:Crafty's cunning plan. Or something.
'''me three''', or 106 or whatever. Not that there's much point at this stage! &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
'''Strong Support''' I can hardly think of anyone more qualified. A credit to the project in so many ways. <font style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">
'''Support''' - Great editor and certainly ready for the mop!
'''Support''' - I could find no reason to oppose. Also he appealed to my vanity on my talkpage in the most shameless manner. :)
'''Strong Support'''.  Get ready, Tinucherian, to be an administrator!  I like how you have created a few bots.  You are going to be a great addition to Wikipedia!  Keep up the good work.  <small><span style="background-color:green;border: 1px solid;">
'''Support'''. Great contributor. No concerns.
&mdash;
'''Support''' of course!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''. I should have done this on the day he was nominated. --
'''Support''' - very friendly and helpful guy in my experience.
'''Strong Support:''' Thanks for making yourself available to do this job. You handled some unfair comments in a calm and sensible fashion. I was particularly impressed with the comments you left on Crafty's home page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Craftyminion&diff=319815534&oldid=319815499] as opposed to mine. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Craftyminion&diff=320363721&oldid=320357479] You won his support while all I did was <s>piss him off</s>  upset him.  For me it was a  '''teachable moment'''. I plan to work at following your great example. -
'''Support''' Tools would compliment his role, also for his extensive experience and good judgement.
'''Support''' There is a dearth of admins in [[WP:IN]] with most of them having retired or less active. [[User:Tinucherian]] perfectly fills the void, with his sufficient experience in editing and a great deal in maintenance and bot creation.-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="font-weight:normal" face="Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' - ~
'''Support''' per [[User:Ottawa4ever|Ottawa4ever]].
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' '''\'''
'''Support''' Excellent experience, impressive list of accomplishments, level head. Yes!
'''Support''' Never came across you that I can recall, but a majority the admins I trust most (no names) voted in your support, and your list of accomplishments is impressive. You are the kind of person that can melt down all his awards and make a life sized statue of yourself, but you are much more the type of person that stashes the awards in a drawer for safekeeping (i.e. hardworking and powerful but not flashy or egotistical). I respect you for that. {{#if:_|<span style="background-color:Green;color:Green;">_</span>|<span style="color:Green;">Green</span>}}
'''Support''' I'll be happy to let another 'crat close this one. I've seen Tinucherian around a lot, and I admit, at first, I thought him to be somewhat role hungry. Over time; however, I have seen his work and his edits, and I am confident he will not abuse the tools. While we need to be careful of people who view adminship as a "prize", we DO want, nay need, enthusiastic, motivated people to handle our maintenance work, and I think Tinucherian will perform admirably. Good Luck. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - my first "that editor isn't already an admin?!" moment.
'''strong support''' per noms.
'''support''' A tireless contributor who'll use the tools well, and we clearly need more admins interested in South Asia. --
'''support''' Should be a net positive.
'''strong support''' he is a familiar one & i remember to have worked with him in a few articles & hence i extend my strong support cuz i feel tht his service would be even more under this new post ...good luck...--<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''  All the best!
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good contributor and helpful to others. He has my trust.
'''Support'''-A very courteous and modest candidate with fairly good answers for the above questions. I don't see why he can't be trusted...
'''Support'''. Tinu Cherian is an excellent contributor with an excellent track record. I have no qualms whatsoever in supporting this candidate. ···
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Tinucherian. —
'''Support'''.  I believe you have the necessary experience with creating content and with maintenance work.  You have my trust. --
'''Support'''. From his track record, clear communication is not an issue. Otherwise a great candidate. <tt>
'''Support'''. I see no problems. I don't see communication being an issue either. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Strong support.''' <small>It seems I'm late to the punch again from all the Diwali festivities. In any case,</small> Outstanding work across the board; most particularly he's been a pleasure to work with at WikiProject India. I've never had issues in English communication with him, and I see no indication that there will be in the future. A net positive to this project. Best wishes,
'''Support''' looking through edits and answers all I see is reasons to support '''
'''Yup''' Definitely a net-positive, and no risk with the tools that I can see. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Duh. Will make a great admin.
'''Strong support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: possibly the most over-qualified nominee in many months; huge edit counts including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits; rollback; great user page; etc.
'''Support'''.  I can't add much to all of the above, but everything I see indicates he works hard, plays well with others and will continue to do so.
'''Support'''. Much experience, little drama, good content editor in an area where some more administrative firepower is greatly appreciated.
'''Support'''.Way overdue. Tinu has been of great help with [[WP:INDIA]] and giving him admin will only increase his positive contributions to the project.
'''Support'''. See no reason to think Tinucherian will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. IMHO Tinucherian makes a perfectly good admin. May my arm fall off before my support waivers. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - looks perfectly qualified.
'''Support''', but the answers to some of the questions might benefit from minor copy-editing.
'''Support'''. Clearly qualified. —
'''Support''' An excellent editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Great Editor both in technical and non technical areas.Great Track and one of the most committed users to Wikipedia.
'''Strongest possible support'''. Lot of us have waited long enough to see Tinu become an admin. He has safest pair of hands for admin tools. --
'''Last Minute Support''', simply an all-around great candidate.
'''Support''' - this RfA should have occurred long back. Regards,
'''Strong Support''' - long overdue.--
'''Strong Support''' It took him long enough. lol. --
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} This user wasn't an admin? Give him the mop. Now, I say! <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>


Oh, you're not one already? --
'''Support''' <small> <span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  No issues or worries over knowledge, experience, dedication, or civility.  Will be fine admin.
'''Support''' Seems to be well-qualified.
'''Yep''' - 'bout time you got the mop. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
It's a no-brainer, says zombie
'''Support''' per the other 171.
'''Support''' largely per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tinucherian&diff=320899607&oldid=320893000 this].  Personally, I would prefer a bit strong English/communication skills, but Tinucherian's willingness to take criticism onboard easily overrides that.  Also the reluctance to run mentioned by several is a plus, and his dedication to Wikipedia is beyond question.  Overall a welcome addition to the admin team. --
'''Support''' per all above. -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' this "member of the WikiProject Council" and all other vanity self-appointers.
'''Oppose''' per "if I run across someone who is doing Wikipedia really bad" etc... Sounds like he's a good contributor with some technical skills that are useful, but the quality of written English is insufficient to have a position of responsibility at an English language encyclopedia.
'''Neutral''' I cannot support candidates who claim to be open to recall, but this editor's positive contributions leave me unable to oppose.
'''FIRST''' <small>I mean um...</small>'''Support'''  —
'''Support'''. An excellent help desk contributor, being nominated by an excellent help desk contributor &mdash; enough evidence of the proper temperament for me. Oh, and thought he was one already.
'''Looks good to me''' Great editor, will be a great admin.--
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support'''. I think he'll be an asset. --
'''Support''' - Noticed a few things which indicate that the candidate may not be the most policy knowledgeable candidate I've seen, but certainly a net positive. Don't feel the need to expand further - the issues I've seen are nothing to oppose over. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  No problems here that I can see.  Looks like he has the experience and helpfulness needed.
'''Weak Support''' I supported the last time around and I still do but your recent history shows a couple of bad CSD tags like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euroluna&diff=prev&oldid=276025549] (claims of notability), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_Refinery_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=273732460] (G11 where there was a previous non-promotional version to revert to), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Danielsdelhi/Sheethali_Chikithsa_draft&diff=prev&oldid=272133396] (essay tagged G11), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_at_war&diff=prev&oldid=272115694] (game tagged A7 - software is '''never''' A7), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STMA&diff=prev&oldid=271661856] (declined that myself, a clearly notable organization tagged A7). But as you have not expressed an desire to work in [[C:SD]] and those mistakes are in a span of 3 weeks, I will still support. I hope though that you will not make those mistakes again (especially the software one) and that you will make yourself familiar with [[WP:CSD]] should this request pass and should you decide to venture into [[C:SD]]. I'd be happy to provide guidance if needed. Regards '''
<font color="navy">
<s>'''Strong oppose''' for consistently stealing my work at UAA</s> '''Support''' - one of those users who already are admins without the technical  bit. &ndash;
'''Support''' Supported last time - Tman is another user I encountered during my clerking at UAA and I find him to be thorough, fair and clueful.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No issues this time around.
'''Support''' I've read all the opposes and neutrals and ... oh wait ... - Dan
'''Support''' as co-nominator.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' Net positive.--
'''Support'''. I looked at the previous RfA, and see the problems of lack of experience cited there have been overcome, especially with excellent and prolific work over on the [[WP:HELPDESK|Help Desk]].
'''Support''' looks good to me. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong support'''
Unless I get a reason not to, too lazy to look... <small><span style="border:1px solid #993333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Excellent work at [[WP:AFC]]!!! Good Luck -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' &mdash; I've been waiting for this one. I frequently see his signature at [[WP:UAA]], and I generally liked what I have seen. Apparently he has done good in other areas of the project, which indicates he has both the experience and adaptability to be a very effective admin. It's high time we gave this editor the mop.
'''Support''' – What? You mean you're ''not'' an admin, yet?
'''Support''' I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated previously.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' I supported him last time, and still think he'll be a great admin. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' What?! No problems?! '''
'''Support''' I have seen this editor at [[WP:UAA]] and I have been impressed by his work. Good luck!
'''Support''' - Sure, seems good.
'''Support''' Seems a good candidate for the mop, well intentioned, no problems seen.--
'''Support''' - long overdue.
'''Support''' No apparent reason to oppose. Keep up the good work ;) '''
'''Support''' Though I disagree on #6, if an image of the living person would not represent how they looked when they were active, such as post car crash and disfigurement, then a non-free image which better represents them should be used, since any images taken at this point would not accurately represent the person as they are commonly known. Having said that, we have both crossed paths a number of times at [[WP:AFC]], and you have done great work there, no reason to not support.--
'''Support''', never seen you make a bad edit.
'''Support''': Excellent at helping new users at the Help Desk and the New contributor's help page, very level temperament, always displays patience, would make a great Admin in my opinion, and everyone else's apparently.
'''Support''' Looks to be a well rounded editor, should be fine with the mop. --
'''Support''': Only good experiences with this editor, every reason to trust as admin.  Now stop being so downright disrespectful and pick up your pants you young whippersnapper. <b>'''
'''Support''' I see nothing of concern, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Good attitude, good work, no problems. However, I would disagree with you re: question 9. You should annoy as many people as possible by talking about wikipedia constantly. :-)
'''Support''' Gave me good assistance at the help desk. --
'''Support''' Clean block log, last RFA was long ago (and nearly succeeded) also we had an amicable discussion recently about a CSD case, details on candidates talk. '''
'''Support'''. Helpful editor, and he has my trust.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Strong Support''' I don't even have to look anything up for this one.  Worked with him on the Help Desk, have seen the work: Has a clue, very tactful, knowledgeable in many areas, always looking out for what's best for the wiki.  Also, considering that this candidate never seems to have a POV, I'm wondering if he's a real person or a bot - Good Luck TnXman. —
'''Support''' No qualms here. Good luck! :) '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Has made many helpful contributions and would make a very good admin.
'''Support'''Seems to be help all kind of editor.Hopefully,will be a good admin.
'''Support''' &ndash; will do finely as an admin. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' Seems like he'll make a great Admin!
'''Support''': has clue, will travel.
'''Support''' excellent answers, we can always use another good admin! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' net positive. go for it.
'''Support'''. No problems here. He should be a great addition to the Admins.--
'''Support'''. Does excellent work at UAA; will make a good admin that we need.
Certainly. Last time, perhaps not ready; now, for sure. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support'''. As last time.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Has been around since Nov 2007 and has overcame the concerns raised in previous RFA.
'''Support'''. Seems to be trustworthy, intelligent, respectful (and knowledgeable) of policy and a generally good contributor.
'''Support''' -- Great editor who knows Wiki's ways and would benefit from these tools.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' Yes. I've seen this user around, particularly at [[WP:HD]]. He's fast to respond, courteous, and all in all, a tremendous asset to the community.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' I am quite impressed with your edits and command of wikipedia. Support!
'''Support''' See him a lot on [[WP:HD]] and [[WP:NCHP]]. What I have seen is enough to tell me that he knows Wikipedia policies and guidelines very well. He is always civil and helpful, and will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Good editor. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''. Definitely an asset to the community.
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Strong Support.''' It has always been a pleasure dealing with this user and I have no qualms with him being an admin.
'''Support''' - Good editor. I think he's ready for the admin work challenge!
'''Support'''. Have been impressed by the work I've observed. I do not find answer #7 at all unclear on the use of admin tools. On the contrary, blocking such a vandal is clearly and frankly within admin scope as set out at [[Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED]]: "If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious ([[WP:VAND|genuinely vandalistic]] for example), then historically the community has endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion." Setting up hoops that prevent admins from blocking vandals who have vandalized their talk pages in the course of their destruction is just opening the door to [[WP:GAME|gaming]]. So, kudos to the candidate for sensibly responding within policy. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looked over his answers to the questions, and I trust him.
'''Support''' has been helpful and active over at [[WP:AFC]] and has a good record of interacting with users.  He should be a good administrator.
No issues here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I am very new here, but have learned a lot just from reading tnxman's comments on the help desk.
'''Support''' Can find no fault.  Good luck! <span style="border:1px solid #1E90FF;font:15px Monotype Corsiva">Fredrik • Wilhelm</span>
'''Support'''. Seems fine.
<small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Answer 7 shows an unwillingness to consider it as a possible CoI, which makes it impossible for me to trust them in such an area. We have enough borderline CoI problems among admin which cause problems. We should not promote new admin who already come in declaring that they will probably enter into such situations. Admin should not act unilaterally, so there is no real excuse.
'''Oppose''' from neutral because of the already mentioned reason and no response from the candidate. I think I gave enough time (3 days are past)--
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  Support per reasonable stance in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India]], as candidate has never been blocked, and per barnstars on userpage, but oppose per weaker argumnets at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP]].  So, that's three to three, i.e. neutral.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' As co-nom. --
'''Support''' - See no reason to do otherwise, seems like a good candidate. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I haven't vetted the candidate yet .. but considering the noms.. no problems. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - As co-nom.
'''Support''' Has been around since Nov 2006 and fully trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and good track.User has used rollback well and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Good candidate
'''Support''' Appears to be a good candidate. I will look at his contributions in more detail later.
'''Support''' I've looked at a sample of the user's non-automated edits, and consistently saw politeness and cordiality. That, together with MRG's opinion, leads me to believe that this user will not abuse the tools and should be extended the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community's trust]]. --
'''Strong support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Gave me some good advice when I needed it. --
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, good edits, trust the noms. '''
I've seen Toon around and I am confident he will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Seems like a good contributor, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]], no issues here.--
'''Support''' Sure. :)
One of my favorite editors. Can certainly be trusted. —
'''Support''' Looks well qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' Good contributor, long continuous history; and plentiful edits especially since June 2008 - plus two nominators whom I trust.--
'''Support'''.  I'm particularly enthusiastic about the possibility of another administrator with an interest in copyright.—
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' —[[Special:Contributions/Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]<sup>
'''Support''', my search of the talk page and contribs turned up nothing of concern. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!

'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Certainly. No issues showing up. --
'''Support'''.  The answer you provided to question seven was good in my opinion.  Many people do not understand this use of [[WP:IAR]], and I can see that you will interpret policy quite well as an administrator.  No other problems, so there is really no reason to oppose. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' A stellar candidate, who will lighten the load in a crucial area.  (And is there a basis for the belief that there are too many administrators in the highly-specialized and often-thankless field of enforcing compliance with intellectual property laws and ethical standards?)
'''Support''' - Toon knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support''' Good solid contributor to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I hadn't come across Toon05 before, but am impressed by his answers above and from what I have seen of his contribution history. I trust him to be a informed and responsible admin.
'''Strong support''' - Let me first say how refreshing it is that a replacement has been found for Kmweber. Speaking on the candidate, I'm impressed with the answers to my questions and also with 6-8, in particular. Toon05 shows considerable clue and I believe he will be an asset to the admin core, hopefully spending some of his time helping improve the problems we face in the area of BLP.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' Love the answers, love what I see in a quick look at your contribs. -'''
'''Strong Support''' Oops..I see I got a mention in the .. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?.. I was stumbling aroung in toons flower garden like newish editors do .. and toon helped me to grow and didn't push me away . I am grateful to him for that and I am sure he will make a worthy administrator.(
'''Support'''. I ran into Toon05 while we were both working at SCV.  An admin to help out Moonriddengirl at CP is just what we need. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] in that we had no memorable negative interactions, I don't see any blocks, etc.  Best, --
'''Support''' Looks great. '''''
'''Strong support''', why I was just examining your GAs quite randomly the other day! Well done! --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Trust Scarian and Moonriddengirl's judgement and user seems trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #465945;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Per nom and reasons given above.
'''Support'''. An asset to the community. — '''''
'''Support''' Definitely seems trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' No good opposes, and I don't have any problems with Toon05.--
'''Support''' - meets my standards at [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]]; respected co-nominators.
'''Support''': per above. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Support''': per all.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Support''' Long time editor with a reasonable attitude - [[WP:WTHN]]! --
'''Support'''. I'm glad Ucucha is running; this is an editor with a good work ethic, nice manners, and a positive attitude.
'''Support''' Attitude is very good, level-headed. I can see no problems. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support as nominator''' ...hey, that transcluded pretty fast! Anyway 'nuff said.
'''Support''' per need at DYK and nothing in the contribs there that make me feel this user could not handle the job.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - I see no problems with this user at the moment. Good luck! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Support as one who has previously volunteered to be the nominator'''.  I can't support this nomination strongly enough.  I've been editing just over 5 years and in that time I have not come across an editor that I would trust more with these tools.  We really need an admin at [[WP:Rodents]].  We have scads of simple, uncontroversial, moves to do over history-free redirects and deal with repeated instances of people jumping the gun and making copy and paste messes. [[WP:Mammals]], [[WP:TOL]], and the related projects in which Ucucha is involved will also greatly benefit from his status.  Ucucha knows this encyclopedia inside out.  As has been mentioned, he's an admin at Dutch wikipedia and he has run a bot over there.  He's a regular vandal fighter and major DYK contributor yet cautious and conscientious in dealing with other editors or coming to decisions.  And let no one argue that he's not contributing content.  He almost single-handedly took ''[[Lundomys]]'' from a bot-created stub to a featured article in just over a month.  ''[[Pseudoryzomys]]'' is on its way and his work on the the [[Oryzomyini|oryzomyines]] as a group has been excellent.  Many of these articles and articles like [[Mammals of the Caribbean]] and its subpages are actually better resources than the published literature.  If you want to know about these topics, go to an article Ucucha has worked on.  If there isn't one, learn Dutch or wait until he gets there.  He knows wikipedia, its community, and he certainly knows the topics on which he writes.  --
'''Support''' Literally nothing I can find that would lead me to believe this candidate can't be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' with no reservations whatsoever, per the nom, the answers to the questions, and Aranae's vote. Ucucha is an excellent content contributor (I very much enjoyed reading the FA ''[[Lundomys]]'') here, and he has admin experience on the Dutch Wikipedia. Those two attributes, plus his DYK experience and willingness to help at DYK, lead me to believe he would be an asset as an admin. Ucucha also seems trustworthy and thoughtful, which solidifies my support. Best of luck.
'''Support''' Has shown to be trustworthy in his judgement at while working at DYK and commitment to Wikipedia as a whole. Given the tools I believe his ability to give constructive criticism and help users in a nonconfrontational and postive approach will be a positive addition to the administration. User has shown well understanding of the policies needed. Ucucha contributions both behind the scenes and building content have only helped Wikipedia. No reason to believe the tools will be misused and this user can't be trusted by the community.
'''Support''' - I can't find any reason to suppose. [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Strongest possible support''' - a highly unusual vote for me, but here it comes. I've been unwillingly monitoring the candidate for weeks at DYK, as I had to approve their reviews and nominations, and I observe a number of qualities, which not only please my taste, but are invaluable for WP. Just to mention a few: dedicated to WP, calm, constructive, skeptical, hard working, well-balanced, ready to dig into any topic (forget the rodents; literally any) and help there (that is, not to point to the problem but to fix it for you). Gee, he beats mere in all that, and I am only glad about it. Not to forget, the candidate has been truly instrumental in operating DYK recently (i.e. I don't know what would we do without them). It is one of those cases where giving admin tools would greatly help WP.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''', already shown that he can be trusted with the tools on nl.Wiki so have no doubts that he can be trusted on en.Wiki.
'''Support'''. Ucucha is clearly a trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' I applaud what Ucucha has done recently at DYK. Time for the mop! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Seems both capable and knowledgeable...
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good candidate!
'''Support''' per Casliber nom, my cynicism about DYK notwithstanding. In other news, why anyone would want to be an admin on the Dutch wiki, I have no idea.
'''Support''' I found Ucucha willing to help, constructive and inventive on difficult DYKs! --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' No concerns, seems capable.
'''Support''' I also agree with almost everything that has been said above. —
'''Support''' Have seen this editor's work on DYK, and believe there are no true concerns regarding understanding of policies or character.
'''Support''' Seems to do excellent work in a collaborative manner.
'''Support'''. I've been very impressed with your work at DYK. Keep it up! <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Good solid editor who appears to be a trustworthy candidate.
yup
'''Support''' absolutely. (but for a reason, work on dyk)
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; entrusted with adminship on another project, long-term user on this wiki, good balance of content work and administrator maintenance. Overall a fantastic editor well deserving of the bit. –'''
'''Support'''. Long-term trustworthy editor, and a superb helper at DYK lately. :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - looks like a good candidate. <font face="Old English Text MT">
'''Support''' Dutch eh? Well, we're broad minded around here. I see no reason not to trust this editor with the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent user with excellent contributions (mainly seen him involved with DYKs). Will be a great admin, no doubt about it. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">[[User:SuperHamster|Super]]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">
'''Support''' DYK needs more admin help, we have a solid candidate who knows how to use the tools.  Hand him a mop.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' Well im sure that TAn and the Materialscientist prety much summed it up. Good job and I look forward to your conrtibutions to DYK. We really ned help there with the backlog and such.--
'''Strong Support''' - Deo Volente! <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - no issues whatsoever, from content to DYKs to questions, quite respectable.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' My experience at DYK with him has been positive.
Seems a sensible fellow.
'''Absolutely'''. Just want to add on to the fact that Ucucha is a fellow bureaucrat of mine at Wikispecies and I have no concerns about this candidate in here.
I can '''support''' this :)
'''Support''' Good candidates, good answers to questions, see nothing that makes me think the tools will be misused.
'''Strong Support''' I am happy with his answers, his contributions are excellent, he's an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia, he's a 'crat at WikiSpecies... it's the first time I've added a modifier to "support", which shows how much I rate this editor -- '''''
'''Support''' Looks like a solid and knowledgeable contributor. Geniet met de zwabber!
Certainly. I have no alarms; editor is experienced, calm and rational.
'''Support''' - I have no reason to feel that this editor will misuse the tools and having more admin help at DYK would be good. Coffee's opposition rationale is a valid concern but as this editor claims to not want to do anything with AfD I don't think it's a problem. -- '''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is nominated by an experienced and accomplished editor ([[User:Casliber]]), I do not recall the candidate and I having any memorable negative interactions, and as candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. I especially like the equilibrated position of the editor about BLPs, which is refreshing giving the amount of drama surrounding them. --
'''Support''' Only ever seen good things.  Looks like an excellent contributor with a tested level head and a desire for the best. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support'''. A quick review of the candidate's edit history revewals no concerns. Ucucha seems knowledgeable and mature.
'''Support''' Great contributor to the project as far as I can see.
'''Support''' Of course, need more like him. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' If he's already an admin on the dutch Wikipedia, I think hes qualified as an admin here.
'''Support''' I've encountered U's edits on many of the [[Felidae]] pages I watch, and he's OK in my book.
'''Support''' Very helpful editor to DYK.--
'''Support''' Nice contribs! --<b><font color=red>
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support'''. No problems that I can see.
'''support''' per nom.  No one has raised any issues that worry me.
'''Support''' per nomination & work/admin on Dutch wiki.
'''Support''' - FA + previous experience. Will be a net positive, and more DYK admins is always nice. Aranae's support statement also swayed my !vote. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support'''. Experienced editor, well-suited for admin duties. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Support''' Good job on [[Ross Casino]], helped to do it a Did you know article. --
'''Support''' Able to admit where he was wrong as shown [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Venting|here]]. We need more admins who can admit when they're wrong.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' NLWP loves him. We should consider ourselves better-off for the help here. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' to, hopefully, offset error in oppose #1.  [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - shows sound judgment and does plenty of anti-vandalism work. Plenty of experience, given Dutch adminship.
'''Support''' As per Casbiler. Trust the judgement of Casbiler and Newyorkbrad and the fact that you are a admin in Dutch Wikipedia and your track is outstanding and see no concerns and that the project will only gain with the user having tools after deep consideration.[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Ucucha&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia through nearly 75% of your edits are in last 3 months before this RFA] thorough you have been around since March 2005.
'''Support''' Looks like a really solid candidate. -
'''Support''' Excellent user

'''Support''', per consideration of who is opposing and why.
'''Strong Support''' Per Question 8 and the above support.
'''Support''' Does good work at WP:DYK and I see nothing to concern me. Since he has been active since August, I think that is enough time to know everything needed to get the mop (though not everything one needs to know for being an admin, I'm still learning after 14 months; but when I ran in October 08 I had only started seriously contributing here in June 08, so I know for a fact that one can prove their cluefulness in such a "short" time). Also, I think we can trust the Dutch and the guys at species not to give the mop to unsuitable people. ;-) Regards '''
'''Support''': I've seen your consistent, thorough work at DYK, and see nothing here to indicate likely problems.
'''Support''' seems to be a stable and articulate contributor with good judgment.
'''Support''' I can see no reason not to enthusiastically support; will be great to have him as an admin here in the English project, as well, I'm sure.
'''Support''': no problems here.  Nothing to show me that this editor should not get the tools.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Support]]''' - This user is very active and has been here since early 2005.
'''Support'''. I can't think of a reason not to and, from my own experience, I know that the admins who work in the main page areas (DYK and ITN in particular) could use quality help like Ucucha is offering.
'''Support'''. Seems very level-headed, good responses to the questions and prior adminship on Dutch Wikipedia is a bonus. p.s. Coffee, [[WP:STICK|lay off]] the BLP AfD activism at RfA, please. It is becoming disruptive.
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support''' Sensible and dedicated editor. Has proven his trustworthiness with the tools on sister projects, and will be a valuable addition here.
'''Support''', already has experience as an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia, a check through contribs shows good judgment and communication skills, and the answers to the questions (especially #6) were thoughtful and well considered.
'''Support'''; seem okay.
'''Support'''; several years of admin experience at the Dutch Wikipedia, and I don't see any issues there, so why shouldn't we trust the user with the tools here?
'''Support''' Very strong candidate. '''
'''Support''': Seem like a good candidate.
'''Support''':I've said in other places that it is unreasonable to judge admins on competency in every area at the start - instead we should have some system of accrediting competencies.  Guy says he wants to work in DYK not AFD, and has plenty of experience of same.
'''Support''' It's a pleasure to vote for someone already experienced in being an admin per above. The DYK's make it easy to pile on in favor.  I'm sure you will be a fine addition to the button-weilding ranks, and good fortunes to you!
'''Support''' deleted content looks good.
'''Support'''. Seems sensible, no reason to think Ucacha will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Good candidate who deserves the mop! Good luck with it!
Woo, 100th to support. --
I am! ~<strong>'''''
'''Support'''. Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' seems like a reasonable and sensible editor, with a good understanding of policy and thoughtful approach to admin functions.
'''Support:'''    I do have concerns about how ready you would be to close an AfD. However, I liked your honesty when you said, "First of all, I would not close it—I have little to no experience with AFD, and don't intend to change that anytime soon." Coffee said, "The idea of holding someone to what they said in an RFA is a joke, as is the recall process." After thinking about what Coffee said, I have to agree. Many Admins, after they have "power" become corrupt, and feel that they are above policy and there is little editors can do about it. Many editors are leaving  because of contempt for Wikipedia's so-called "policies"  During [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=330971199&oldid=330971039 The Great Coffee Debate] many Editors stated how disappointed they were with Admins in general. For an organization like Wikipedia that is dependent on volunteers and donations, wrong doing at the top is the kiss of death. I believe the candidate will follow policy and help clean up Wikipedia. _
Looks fine to me.  '''
'''Support''' – I've been him around at DYK when I'm there, and he seems very clueful. I don't see problems with him having the tools.
'''Support''' - Seems well-qualified, and getting more admin help at DYK would be beneficial.
'''Support''' I find no reason not to trust him. Has experience as an Administrator and seems well intended. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. The candidate is already an experienced administrator on another project, has made good contributions here, and offers no reason to believe that their adminship at en.wiki would not be a net positive for the project. Do tread lightly around BLP, though, as there is a great deal less discretion there for an admin than you might think. Good luck,
'''Support''' Seems very capable and willing to take on responsibility. His actions appear to be for the good of the encyclopedia. I don't think an admin has to be equally proficient in all areas, and it is refreshing to see a candidate honestly acknowledge that he is not and defer actions in some areas to others. —
I'm
'''Support:'''  Impressive work, good interactions.
'''Support''' – '''''
'''Support''' - ''Tribuo virga'': Give him the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' per #8.  Cool-down blocks are in fact appropriate at times.  Also, the wording of the answer indicates that the nominee believes Wikipedia's so-called "policies" are somehow binding when in fact they're anything but.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - I'm not at all satisfied with your answer to my question on BLP AFDs. You said that you would look over the AFD, but during your review you would have not complied with the BLP policy to remove this. This article was closed as Delete, brought to DRV, where it was (by consensus) decided to be kept as deleted. Your reading of that AFD, leads me to think you wouldn't be ready to close an AFD yet. Although as you said you won't close any yet. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Neutral Leaning Support'''  Good answers to questions except the BLP and AFD ones.  Do I trust this editor '''yes''' however I cannot endorse someone with these answers to BLP and AFD related questions, and yes I did notice that the editor has little to no experience in these areas.
'''Neutral but leaning to support''' per above concerns. Again, this editor doesn't plan to be involved with AfD yet, so I'm not opposing. However, everything else is satisfactory and I must say that all of this user's work is very nice. <span style="border:1px solid;">
First-glance of the self-nom convinces me that this editor is enthusiastic about the encyclopedia. I'll check the edits in a little bit (won't over-analyze though), but so far so good. Registering my opinion for now - doubt it'd change, but whatever, want to make sure. :)
'''Strong support''', looks great to me (aw, i wanted to be first).
'''Support''' User has been around since Nov 2005 and is a rollbacker and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' Seems qualified, and would be nice to see a self nom succeed.--
'''Support''' needs the tools, won't abuse them. Good enough for me '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Particularly impressed by the attitude [[User:Valley2city#Administrative_aspirations|here on your user page]] and the accuracy and attention to detail [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sowelu_The_Best_2002_-_2009&diff=prev&oldid=271983044 here] - although you may wish to read [[WP:CSD#A9]] as some music ''is'' deletable under CSD - although I am impressed by the inclusionist bias. Lots of good speedy work (for non admins who can't see I'm guestimating 300+ CSD tags). Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great edits and counter-vandal work. <b>'''
'''Support''' From everything I've seen so far (answers here, userpage and a brief check over contributions) doesn't give me any cause for concern. --
'''Support''' I see no problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' Out of all your great contributions, the one I'm most impressed by is your 27 requests for page protection, almost all of which were granted. This demonstrates that this user has the required [[WP:CLUE]] and experience with the matters in which he tends to deal with. Good luck! Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Support''' Excellent contributions and per answers to Q's 1-4 '''
I have confidence that this user will make a good administrator.--
'''Seriously Strong Support''' This seems to be an excellent user and while I've never come across the user before, his history, contributions, composure, and answers to the questions above have me '''very''' confident about his abilities to be a sysop. Regarding the concerns about CSD below, I think I have made my points clear in the Neutral section. This user not only helps other users, but fixes his mistakes, and keeps himself useful with regards to articles (why else be on WP? eh-hem). His lower activity levels as of late do not concern me; I too am a graduate student and am well aware of the time commitments that come with it and fully understand his reasoning. Cutting back on WP time does not lead to a user forgetting how to do things; it is very much like riding a bike, and I can't see this user's access to the tools causing stupid mistakes or major controversy. I'll also point out that while I am pretty apathetic to religion in general (and unimpressed by annoyingly preachy people outside of their respective houses of worship), the candidate's comments [[User:Valley2city#A Wikipedian Theology|here]] are no less inspiring to this otherwise not-impressed-by-religious-claims, -stories, or -theologies user. The tools should be yours; best of luck. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Support''' A few awful CSDs, a few dubious AfD votes, but they seem like simple mistakes or inexperience rather than systemic problems.  Candidate will make a good admin imo.
'''Support'''.  Looks like good contributions and a long history here.  I'm satisfied.
Good answers to the first three, to additional, and to templated questions; good attitude (appears to be a positive editor), honest, decent, knowledgeable, and hard-working. No problems here.
'''Support''' seems to know what he/she is doing.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''' Wait, he didn't have a mop yet? Met him while renovating his userpage per request; Vallley deffinetly knows what he is doing and would be a good admin. <b>
'''Support''' - See no problems. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Looks good. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' Net positive.--
'''Support''' User is a definite net positive, has a clue and is extremely unlikely to delete the name page. I see no problems here.
'''Support''' - I actually wasn't that impressed with the answers, especially coming from a self-nom (who would have more time to think of answers to standard questions). However, I have had several interactions with the candidate and also reviewed his contributions, and could not find a single edit to suggest that he might not make a good administrator. The user does both article work (not having GAs and FAs does not mean that he hasn't written content) and maintenance work. --
'''Strong Support''': ''Reason'' - I simply did the math, and it totals up to one of the best candidates I've seen walk down these halls in a while.  Good luck Valley, and the weather forecaster seems to be predicting snow in the near future. ;)
Experience in volumes, demonstrated patience, and questions seem to indicate that adminship won't be problematic. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' Good contribs, useful to the project. '''
'''Support''', Clean edits, good answers...whats not to like?
'''Strong Support''', This user has what it takes to be an administrator, This user puts there's soul into the edits and it is very obvious. Good Luck --
'''Support''' from the Death by Wikipedia incident. If not for the third section on that talk page, I would be opposing. I can respect someone who can admit they're wrong, that's the type of attitude necessary for an administrator.
'''Support''' Valley welcomed me to wikipedia and I know he is great enought to be an admin.!?
'''Support''' Will use tools well.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' - I trust this user with the tools --'''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions and no good opposes.
'''Support'''. Understands policy and appears to have no problems.
'''Support'''. Understands policy, answers questions reasonably well, no reason to believe he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', seems fine.
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - favorably impressed. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''', good answer to Q14, no indication user will abuse the tools.
'''Very strong support''' I can't believe that you have a single oppose!
'''Support:''' Glad you finally took the plunge with a self-nom.  I really like your attitude and your intelligence is evident.  I'm sure you'll go carefully and ask questions when you need to.
'''Support''' -- Excellent, qualified user and candidate for the tools. Wikipedia will most definitely benefit from this user as an admin.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' Looks good to me. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
{{User:IMatthew/V}} <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''.  Why he had to self-nom is a bit surprising. --''
'''Support''' Clearly qualified. Will do well.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] (candidate has no blocks, no memorable negative interactions with me, etc.).  Best, --
'''Support''' per the answers to the questions.  They show that this user has an understanding of the policies that admins have to worry about here and they definitely show that this is the right person for the mop.  Cheers,
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. I have considered the opposers' rationales and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' Very good contributions from a very good editor. --
'''Support''' no concerns, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - I like the look of him (figuratively speaking, of course).
'''Support''' - Positive attitude, good answers and according to my experience having a regular break is a stabilizing element.  --
'''Support''' - looks good to me. <b>
'''Support'''. See no significant issues.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' due to meeting all [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support'''.  This is the part of the day I like best, when I get to read RFAs like this one. - Dan
'''Support''' -- good user.
'''Pile-on support''' - No problems here.--
'''Oppose''' - characterizing blocks as a "scarlett letter" seems to show a lack of insight to what blocks actually mean and don't mean.
'''Neutral''' Your edit count to the MediaWiki namespace is a bit low. But seriously, I'm thinking neutral. Been around for a while, but I haven't seen you around. How did you get 500 edits in one day (2 May 2007 - [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Valley2city&l=all check it])? Quite a character already. As soon as I do some further analytical analyzing I'll be able to give better reasoning, but I'll probably stay neutral. <span style="font-family:terminal">
'''Neutral''' I hate to be the one who digs out such mistakes, but someone has to. Candidate wants to work in speedy deletion but makes bizarre mistaggings like[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThePeepShow&diff=271680107&oldid=271680046 Userpage tagged as G2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Hay%2C_Countess_of_Erroll&diff=271244938&oldid=271244551 A7 with clear indication of notability], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Molly_Emmons&diff=271053487&oldid=271052680 Another A7 with claims of notability] (appeared in notable magazines...), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Hughes&diff=269684335&oldid=269684126 A7 for a named professional that has a chair at an university]<br/>But as those are the only mistakes I could find in the last few months, I'm not opposing. But I have to remain neutral (unless further evidence proves me wrong) because the candidate has very few edits in the last year, virtually none that allow me to judge his abilities as an administrator. I simply cannot decide from what I see if this user will be a benefit if granted the tools. Regards '''
Good work, well-qualified. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' - I've seen Vianello around before, and I'm pretty sure that I remember him as someone who has a [[Wikipedia:Cluocracy|Clue]]. Having a clue is generally my main criteria for adminship, so I am happy with this user. <font color="navy">
'''Support'''.  I'm glad to see you've written some good content since the last RfA.  Looks good, good editing and countervandal work (and I'm impressed that you're upfront about having IP vandalized once upon a time).
You seem interesting, and I like your take on admining as janitors. It would make sense, as Wikiversity calls them custodians. :) I might change things later, but you seem promising.
'''Strong Support'''-See no reason not to. Strong anti-vandal which is something I love. Has a passion for it too. Knows exactly what he's talking about and from what I've looked at certainly improved since his last RFA and shows that he is also a god article writer. Exactly the type of admin the wiki needs.'''
'''Strong Support''' For excellent answers to questions. User has a willingness to learn and will definitly be very helpful in clearing backlogs at [[WP:AIV]] and [[CAT:CSD]]. Best of Luck -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Certainly. I see no alarms. --
Good admin candidate. <strong>
'''Support''', why not?
'''Support''' Why not, indeed?  No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''', looking through contribs, top edited articles, talk page, etc... I find no cause for complaint. Good user and would/will make a good admin :) -
Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support'''--
'''Weak Support''' did some digging around on your CSD noms and nothing major jumped out at me some I didn't quite agree with your rationale but not enough to warrant an oppose.---'''
'''Weak support''' per I'm Spartacus. Giving the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' because Vianello is a trustworthy editor. Also, not enough administrators currently.
'''Support''' I haven't had much experience with him (as well as other Wikipedia contributors, I usually am too busy trying to revert vandalism and still don't fully get how to work IRC), but I feel that he can be a good admin.--
'''Support''' good, solid contributor, will be a good addition to our administrator team. No reason to object. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Looks good..
'''Support''' Not seeing any cause for concern.--
'''Weak Support''' per I'm Spartacus! Some speedy mistakes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FastCat_Ryde&diff=prev&oldid=275690908 A1 with context], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Om-dar-ba-dar&diff=prev&oldid=275576847 A3 on what is clearly an attempt to create a redirect], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcel_Verhamme&diff=prev&oldid=274246744 A7 the same minute as the article was created], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndsay_Hammond&diff=prev&oldid=274234729 A7 with clear indication of notability] (meets [[WP:MUSIC]] even)) but not frequent or bad enough to oppose or go neutral. Just be a bit more careful if this succeeds and read some essays on speedy deletion (like [[WP:FIELD]], [[WP:WIHSD]] or [[WP:10CSD]]) to develop a feeling for it. Looks good otherwise. Regards '''
'''Support''' I've had Vianello's talk page on my watchlist for the past year and can vouch to his cool-headed responses to queries from new users whose articles have been speedy deleted. I also enjoyed reading [[Wikipedia:So your article has been nominated for deletion|his CSD essay]].
'''Support''' Could use the tools, and I see no reason to deny him them.
'''Да''', разбира се! Highly motivated, truly dedicated. No signs of civility issues. Knowledgable. Viel Glück!--
'''Support''' AGF --
'''Support''' nice article work, decent csd skills and good attitude.--
'''Support''' Definitely seems to be a trustworthy user and could most definitely help out the wiki as an admin. I disagree highly with the statement by [[User:DougsTech|DougsTech]] below: Wikipedia can never have too many admins. There is always work to be done; there are always things to do. The question that we ask our RfA candidates shouldn't be whether we need admins, it should be whether we trust this user&mdash; and I think that Vianello has certainly proved to us that they are qualified for this position. <span style="color:#008800">The</span> <span style="color:#004400">Earwig</span> <span style="font-family:Verdana"><sup>(
'''Support'''. - Dan
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' as Wikipedia needs more administrators like him and he seems to know exactly what to do in situations. I am honored to cast my vote as a support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Net positive.
'''Support''' User has been around since Feb 2008 and think the project will only gain with the user getting tools after checking track see no concerns.
'''Support''' - I see no problems.
'''Support''' I think you would be a great addition to the administrator team. Sure there are a few mistakes here or there with CSD tagging, but hasn't that happened to everyone at one point in time? While anyone can learn about wikipedia's policies and what not, your calm, civil demeanor is a vital asset to being an admin. Overall, your a user that has proven to be trusted with the tools and I'm glad to support you in your RFA.  <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support.'''   Friendly and constructive from the start[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.43.240.55&diff=prev&oldid=190568186], the nominee communicates well, and is quick to announce and correct his mistakes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacculina&diff=prev&oldid=192505193].  Things might have gone differently for [[Gaiseric|Gaiseric]] if Vianello had been in town.  The project will suffer no additional risk, but will benefit greatly with this editor as an Admin. <small>
'''Support''', no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''. Very intelligent question answers, which show someone who actually thinks about things rather than just following the crowd. A contributions rummage finds absolutely nothing to complain about. Hooray! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Weak Support'''. I looked at David Fuch's diffs, and only the second one had any problems in my opinion.  Other than that, I did not see any other problems, so one diff is no grounds for an oppose.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Support''' Good intentions, no indications that Vianello will abuse the tools, I see no reason not to.--

'''Support''' No reason to oppose; you appear trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' seems OK, more inclusionist than the norm but seems to recognize that - not a fault, just an observation - and seems to know policy and won't misuse tools to further his/her bias.
Solid, well-thought out answers to questions.  I think #12 is more important than #8 on my question, but eh, got to more-or-less the right place.
'''Strong Support''' Questions answered brilliantly. –
'''Support''' Seems good to me.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, good answers which are well thought out. The admin position is described as "a mop". such a person has experience with cleanup and will be suited for the sysop position. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy for the tools.
'''Support''' - looks good, just about meets my usual standards.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
I would like to see more audited article contributions. In addition, there's some diffs that I take issue with. For example here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Youth_Tube&diff=prev&oldid=283303905] the user appears to blank promotion off a user's page, but doesn't explain why with a note on their talk or warn them first. Also not entirely pleased with his rationales (or lack of them) at some AfD pages, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stunt_cock][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/@n1m0$!ty&diff=prev&oldid=281150650]. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' I'm not comfortable with the answers given. They seem to skirt issues and the descriptions of editing also seem narrowly focused in a way that causes me to wonder if you're getting the big picture on issues.
'''Neutral''': Not enough main space edits. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Neutral''' - Per answers to my questions. Doesn't grasp that there is a BLP problem, but I'm sure it will become apparent once the bit is received. Support of various proposals gives hope.
Support as nom. –'''
→
I'm
'''ever more solid''' than last time I supported.  '''Really''' like the answer to number 4, above. (and I generally don't read the Q&A).  Shoulda passed last time.
'''Yes!''' Great image work. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Wadester does good work in the file area. The file area is in need of more help by users who has the buttons, but with experience in licensing/files, etc. I speak as an admin working in the file area. My interactions with Wadester has been OK, and it has shown he has enough clue for the extra buttons. I think he will be fine. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - as I did last time. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. Last time you were "good enough" for me to support, though I had a few reservations. With a few months more experience and a better view of what you'll be doing with admin tools I am very happy to support again. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' The last time I assumed you'd be a good admin, this time I don't have to make that assumption! --
If I didn't support last time I was either away or very, very drunk. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
I supported Wadester16's previous RfA, as I believed back then that he would make a good admin.
'''
'''Support''' per work with images. I'm disappointed in that user did not gain more experience in CSD and AIV. I would recommend gaining much more experience in those areas before blocking vandals or deleting CSD's. Cheers,
'''Support''' I did last time. Nothing's changed that. <strong>
(e/c) '''Support.''' I first came across Wadester16 yesterday [[Talk:Troy High School (California)|here]]. No reason to oppose. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' I supported the last time. We need more admins working images. --
I've seen this editor in action at FPC and was impressed. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' No issues I can see. Good luck.
Enthusiastic support.  Wadester may not work in every area, but as far as I'm concerned, he has no weaknesses; he knows what he wants to do and does a lot of it, and he participates intelligently at RFA and elsewhere. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
'''Support''' per [[User:Wadester16/Awards]] and as candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I've seen this user around in many areas of the project, seems helpful and can be trusted. Will make an excellent sysop. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Seems sensible.
'''Support''' Per above.--
'''Support''' based on overall record and comments above.
'''
'''Support''' Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' '''''
Seems to have a clue. Contributions look fine. Support. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' per nom. Won't misuse the tools.

'''Support''' per nom.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Strong support''' - About bloody time, too. ;) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
Aww, I'm late to the party.  Wish I had noticed this before.  —
I had this RfA watchlisted for some reason... perhaps to support? :) I supported last time around, and Wade has only improved since then. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''[[WP:AGF]]''' --
'''Support''' Dependable as a person.  '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' In depth, well-thought-out answers to my CSD questions. You have improved greatly in your knowledge of CSD since your last RFA. For Q5d, I agree completely that that one sentence shouldn't mean the demise of the article. For Q5b, my wording is a little awkward; I meant that if the article didn't meet any of the criteria I listed, the article shouldn't be speedy deleted and should either be listed at AfD or left alone. However, {{tl|db-attack}} is also a valid choice, even though I would have used AfD since this non-BLP article isn't too disparaging. Since CSD is not your thing, good luck with the tools in the other areas of Wikipedia!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as I trust Juliancolton's judgment that the candidate is ready and per Cunard. Candidate seems to have improved on their CSD knowledge and seems to be both more informed and more careful in that area. Disagree with Q5b though, although I guess some admins will probably have deleted the page for equal reasons (I tagged it for PROD btw). Good answers to the other CSD questions and I think that if the candidate ever considers venturing into CSD, he will be mature enough to ask for advice of one of the CSD-savvy admins like Pedro or "the artist formely known as Balloonman". Regards '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
M&E gives his seal of approval.
'''Support'''ed then and supporting now. '''
'''Support'''. If Julian thinks you're ready, you're ready. The drastic improvement over the past few months also indicates to me this fact.
Seems fine.
'''Support'''. Per your nominator, who has worked [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Wadester16_2|closely]] with you the past few months.  On your first [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wadester16|RfA]], the community told you to that you that you lacked experience and to come back when you were ready.  You have clearly worked hard on meeting the communities request and I would suggest that you are now fully [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|qualified]]. <small>
'''Support'''. He's the person I run to everytime I have a question or dont know how to do anything and even though I probably bother him with that stuff way too much, he always has time to look something over, come up with a thoughtful insight, and get back to me quickly.
'''Support'''  Good knowledge of policy and experience with image work. --'''
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, I think he will be an asset to wikipedia.
'''Support''' tentatively. work suggests a greater-than-even chance can be trusted and hence a net positive.
'''Support''' as this editor has the potential to do a lot of good work more efficiently by using the tools. I see no indication the tools would be abused, and as adminship is no big  deal, support. ···
'''Support''' - experienced enough, admits to mistakes, good interaction with him.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Strong support'''. I found the honesty in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dinoguy1000&diff=prev&oldid=287767700 this move] exceptional. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
Man this user is pretty amazing to me. He is '''BOLD''', he's straight forward, has excellent image work and is an excellent photographer and can be very useful, good vandal fighter, and good civility. <s>But I would like to see you have written at least one GA or FA.</s>--(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Recognize him from some of his fine work at Commons where I am more active with images than here. I don't see any red flags or indicators of disruptive behaviors. &mdash;
'''Support''' as an adoptee.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' I can trust him. '''
'''Support''' User has been around since Aug 2006 and see no concerns as per track and do see concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.
'''Support''' Looks fine, seems like a helpful editor.
'''Support''' Sure. —
'''Support'''. Why not? — '''''
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' I'm familiar with Wadester16 as I see him around at FPC a lot.  I think he will make a good admin.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Oppose'''.  I know that I'm going to be jumped on by quite a few people for opposing this, but I am uneasy to lend my support.  It has only been about three months since Wadester's last RfA, and while this does not normally bother me, several other issues combined with this do make a large difference.  Wadester says he, "made an effort to take part in the areas I claimed I would during my last RfA," which to me means that he has been working hard to ''pass'' RfA and pacify past opposers rather than to be a good administrator.  This next bit might be sort of a stretch, but I feel I should bring it up anyway.  You've been going around RfA and placing a "toolbox" for editors to use when considering users, and while I think this is a good idea, I question your motives behind posting this on each and every request--it looks most like a way to boost your edit count to Namespace pages and to get your name out to regular RfA voters.  I am willing to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on this issue, but when I compare this to what I have already talked about, it just adds to my suspicions.  There's no problem with wanting to become an administrator, but when you spend most of your time working to pass an upcoming RfA I become hesitant to lend my support even when one of the editors I trust the most has nominated you.  This RfA was posted several months too early and I really do not know how well you have learned since your last one, especially when it looks as if most of your editing is geared toward passing.  Sorry, '''
I agree with Malinaccier. We've had admin who jumped hoops and the rest just to pass RfA, but were not really qualified. Although I want people to be good at admin coaching, I want them to get something out it that is substance, and not just use it as a checklist to pass RfA. We have enough gaming RfA, and if we have people like MyWikiBiz stating that he is keeping a clean account, and another stating that he has three admin account, I think we need to make sure that we just don't pass people who are simply checklist admins.
'''Oppose'''. Per DougsTech.
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning to support</s> leaning to Oppose. I am sorry to do this as candidate is one of the more likeable users in Wikipedia but his BLP answer in which he cited the article on [[John E. Sweeney]] concerns me. This is one of the worst articles I have read and I have just placed a tag on it. If candidate sees nothing wrong with the article then this may indicate problems with the treatment of BLP issues down the road. --
WSC and I are friendly, and he also does great work reviewing at FAC. Also have seen him at [[WP:NP|NPP]]; he deserves the bit. [[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#000000">'''Ceran'''</font>]][[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#000080"><sup>→</sup>//</font>]]
'''Support''' Supported the last time around and have only seen good things since. --
'''Support''' as co-nom. —'''
'''Support''' Answer to question 1, is awesome, you're planning on staying in areas that make you comfortable, support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Support''' - I remember you, my "RfA partner" from last time (our RfA's were closed one after another). I remember you then, and you've gotten so much better since. Cheers, <font face="cursive">'''
I looked over while the page was created (it was on my watchlist). No major problems. Administrators don't have to be superexcellent users, just solid ones. <font color="navy">
No, I'm Spartacus!!!!! WSC has made great improvement, and I am now trusting {{gender|WereSpielChequers}} with the tools.
Definitely. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
Nothing bad to see here. And we need more good CSD admins :-) '''
'''Sure'''.  I supported the first time for one of the more brilliant self-noms I've read.  Nothing but improvement since then.  No doubts or reservations for me.
<s>'''Weak Support''' (pending answer of my question). I thought {{gender|WereSpielChequers}} was one already, having seen them around in the usual admin-y locations. That being said, some of the UAA diffs provided by [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] in the Oppose section have me scratching my head. "Alan Workman" is worthy of being reported? Was there some other backstory behind that username (along with the others in the diffs below) that raised red flags? [[User:Hermione1980|Hermione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)</s> To heck with it, '''strong support''' for clue, adequate response to my (probably rather unclear) question, general good impression I've gotten from the candidate, and sense of humor (don't you dare leave that behind :-)
'''Support'''. After taking a sizeable random sample of his speedy tags and his AIV reports, everything that I saw looked good. I liked seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Monica_horner&timestamp=20090131095848&diff=prev this] (admin only, sorry), he revisited an attack page that hadn't yet been deleted and courtesy blanked it. He also handled [[User_talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive_1#user:Cbreseman|this]] well. As for the diffs raised by Wisdom, UAA was definitely not the place to report those incidents, instead the account should've probably been taken to AIV and the page taken to CSD. UAA is only for blatantly inappropriate usernames; accounts are not blocked solely for potentially being a real name. But, as you don't declare that you want to work at UAA, and given that those reports were good blocks, albeit for a different reason, I think you'll make a fine admin (but if you do end up doing some work at UAA, please keep my previous sentence in mind).
'''Support''' - per my comments in the "neutral" section.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, has not had weak AfD comments in the same discussions as me, and has [[User:WereSpielChequers/Barnstars]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - Balloonman likes his CSD'ing, my own random sampling shows appropriate CSDing, supports flagged revisions (i.e. is at least somewhat responsible).  Seems like a sensible candidate.
'''Support''', sufficient experience and thoughtfulness.
I've seen this editor around, and have built a generally good impression of the work they do. However, I am left with questions regarding their understanding of what should be reported to UAA per Wisdom - however, all of the accounts mentioned were subsequently (rightfully) blocked. Assuming he will take the criticisms in the oppose section in a constructive manner (I'm confident he will), I have very little qualms about supporting him for adminship.
'''Support'''. Good candidate, won't break the wiki. <small>Although, he might just do that if his FlaggedRevs are implemented...</small> &ndash;
'''Weak support''' - Isn't going to break the Wiki, net positive. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''. Looks good looking through (a limited glance of) contributions and talk page archives (I like the My Badz archive ;P). Concerns per Wisdom89 are unfounded, see WereSpielChequers' response.
'''Weak Support''' as per Neurolysis. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' for the same reasons as last time.  I'm happy to see that there are no cat pix. :)
'''Support'''.  Seen him all over the place, always full of clue.  Good call on not answering the Flagged Revs question! - Dan
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' - I'm almost disappointed at the lack of cats. :) <small>Just kidding.</small> Anyway, I thought that you'd be a net positive last time, and you've only gotten better since then. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''' I'm happy here (PS have we met at some meetup?) '''
'''Support''' He's been here a while, makes good contributions to the project, appears cautious and deliberate. I trust him to be a good admin as well. --
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' I liked him at the time of his first RfA, and have an even more favorable view now.
I think Wisdom's oppose is valid, in that UAA was the wrong venue, but the end result was the same. You CSD work looks pretty good (even by my standards) and there's nothing wrong with wiki-gnoming as article work. Net Positive. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' again. I thought you were ready last time, you just got sunk by a lolcat! I have no concerns at all, you seem to be sensible and clued-up. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Really, really don't like the username, but I must support.  Mainly due to the good experiences and cluefulness this user has, but also to at least partly balance ''those'' opposes.  Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' contributions all check out, and I seriously thought user was an admin already (didn't that old RfA pass?). Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''': I have seen him around, and know him to be a good editor who acts sensibly and with a lot of clue. Giving him the tools will be a benefit to Wikipedia. And frankly, have to agree with Gurch down in the neutral section.
'''Support:''' I supported the last time 'round and still have the same opinion.  I think he'll use the tools wisely and ask when he's not certain.  I thought it was a shame his last request failed, and for such a reason, as well!
'''Support'''. No problems here. Reasonable, well-seasoned. "Perfection" is not a requirement here, folks.
'''Support'''. Moved from neutral. I greatly appreciate the thoughtful and honest answers you have provided to my questions. I sincerely hope that you expand your areas of interest to include those that require the very type of thoughtful and measured response you have provided to me. The other administrative areas where you are not presently participating are no less important than the relatively rapid fire world of AIV and CSD, they always require those who are able to assist in dispute resolution, consensus building and policy discussions. Your statement to the admittedly difficult question regarding Flagged Revisions shows me that even though we may disagree, you do at least see both sides of the arguments that have been made. I am completely confident that you will make a good administrator. --
'''Support''' - always been impressed by the user's temperament when I've encountered them, whether I've agreed with them or not and I don't see anything that would cause me to oppose. If there's a question about how they interpret username [[WP:POLICY|policy]] then anyone can start a discussion, I'd imagine them taking any advise given to them and accepting any [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] reached, not rushing out and being reckless. [[WP:ADMIN|Admins]] are human and having the tools - in my opinion - should [[WP:NBD|not be a big deal]]. To me, if the user has shown themselves to have a dedication to the project and be reasonably competent, how I think they will react to and learn from the few mistakes that they will make, is more important that finding a few edits that point towards the fact that they may make them in the first place - everyone makes mistakes. No one's perfect and I think as an admin [[User:WereSpielChequers]] would help [[WP:IAR|improve and maintain Wikipedia]].
'''Support''' No question. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Good experiences with editor & good work, the win (for it). <b>'''
'''Suppport'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|specialist admin]] While article building is to be encouraged, time spent by non builders dealing with [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:AIV]] won't result in time taken away from article building. One does not need a high degree of empathy to delete [[Somebody's name here is gay]], or to block the vandal that has created a bunch of similar quality edits.
'''Support''' From my look at contribs, editor has a clue and will do fine. Gnomish admins are in need: we're not short on admins with ANI on their watchlist. I won't go and further edit the oppose section but I really must point out that the opposes surrounding the UAA issue have a cringe-inducing level of absurdity, as does the oppose based on the grounds that WSC's time would be better spent elsewhere (as if anyone has the right to determine the way in which an editor helps out).
'''Support''' - WSC has made good contributions and (IMHO) I think he'd make an excellent admin.  I've noticed that as I peruse the pages on WP, I see WSC in many areas and he's been honest, civil, and rational.  I also respect the fact that he is held in high esteem with many of the editors and admins that I respect.  Good Luck!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' again.
'''Support''' I'm pretty sure he has exactly the right attitude - serious and actually gives a shit about the content of Wikipedia and with some understanding of Wikipedia outside Wikipedia, yet not so serious that he'd suddenly blow up about it. Nothing's really changed since last time.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, good article participation + a creation pattern that will enable him to empathize with new editors, clearly learned a lot from the first RfA and took advice to heart.  A lot of articles he started are stubby, so I can completely understand why he'd look elsewhere in discussing his proudest contributions.
'''Support''' Everything I saw looks fine and am not persuaded by the opposes, should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''  User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA and has been around since April 2007 and after looking at contributions feel the project will only gain with the user  getting the tools.
'''Support''' WSC's edits pop up rather unnervingly often on my watchlist, and I've had good experiences with the candidate, including [[WP:CUP]]. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have never agreed that an editor must have experience in all, or nearly all of the various administrator-type activities in other to be ready for adminship, any more than we expect a given admin to use the tools in every area, and have seen this type of expectation of candidates seems to be applied haphazardly. I have carefully reviewed the concerns of the opposers and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''': excellent editor. His mainspace contributions are excellent, and whenever I see his (rather bright) signature it is always next to something well thought-out and constructive.
'''Support''' have found him to be helpful and positive in outlook - and good to have more reviewers of content around :)
'''Support''' - Gnomey editor, does a lot of behind the scenes work. I can understand where Wisdom89 is coming from (would have preffered AIV to UAA), but like others have said we're not in this game to run a [[WP:BURO]]. As long as the end result is the user being blocked sharpish, I don't see a problem with it. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' - After reviewing his contributions, I trust him with the admin tools --
'''Support''' Of course. <font face="Arial">
user OK. —<sub>
'''Support''' &mdash; Would make a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Support'''. The candidate is helpful and a good contributor, although he is a tad inexperienced in certain admin-related areas and in content-building. I am convinced, however, that he'll be a net positive and won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - ditto with Terraxos. I think you'd make a good admin.
'''Support.''' Solid contributor, extensive mainspace experience, no indication of drama or other such problems; overall positive for the project.  --
'''Support'''. The candidate shows no potential signs for future abuse. --
'''Support'''. I find the candidate's answers to the questions compelling enough to overlook the opposes below.
'''Support'''.  Good editor from what I've seen. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. I all ready was favorably disposed towards this user from seeing him around, a look into his contribs gives me no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. A-OK to me.

'''Support'''. I like what I see in contribs., I like the attitude, I like the involvement in new page patrol, I like the humor, actually, I don't see anything I ''don't'' like. I'm all for beefing up the admin. corps, and this seems like a good choice.
'''Good user'''.  Please, please, please, let's not discourage a good editor with petty objections.  I see no reason they would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I supported him last time. His contributions have improved since then.
'''Strongest Possible Support'''
Positives outweigh the negatives.
'''Support''' Like last time, I think he can has mop but should keep it away from the cat.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools.
'''Shupport''' Yesh...and didn't I support you ''last'' time too? (
'''Support'''.  Appears trustworthy. --
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' I've done much more digging and whilst I still think an admin should be in a position to grant <tt>rollbacker</tt> upon grant of the bit (not all tools, but this one yes) I think that WSC's other contributions to the project overrides this objection and I'll happily support now. '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' Okay user.
'''Support''': Seems trustworthy --
'''Support''' - I've got no concerns with WSC getting the mop - I think he'll make a fine addition to the team. '''
'''support'''  &mdash;
'''Support''' Per nom opening statement.
'''Support''' - per Cyclonenim's co-nom
'''Support''' The opposes are fairly unconvincing, looks like a great editor.
Seen WereSpielChequers around: excellent editor.
'''Support''' - not a complete deletionist, can use the tools.
'''Support''' I have had only positive impressions of this user, think his qualifications are sufficient, and did not find the opposing arguments compelling.
'''Support.''' WSC seems to be a genuinely productive, knowledgeable, and friendly member of the Wikipedia community.
'''Support''' After reading this page and reviewing candidate's contributions I found no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' We all contribute in different ways. The only real question is whether those contributions demonstrate a candidate's trustworthiness and good sense. In this case I think they do.
'''Oppose''' failed to meet my [[WP:100|expectations]]... and oh, no more beat the nom supports!---'''
'''Support''' - I have seen you around the wiki, you have my trust, I am sure you will make a good administrator.
Weak '''Support''' weak only because I don't have time to do a full investigation, but from the looks of things he could get my strong support if I did.  Only bothered to do this much because he's so close to [[WP:100]] and this closes in a matter of hours; I'd feel guilty if he didn't make that on my account.
'''Support''' - Good user, would do fine with the bit.
'''Oppose''' - your work seems primarily gnome work that would be best if you didn't have the tools to distract you from this. Anything else seems like you don't actually need this, and that you don't have enough experience in the areas outside of the occasional vandal to warrant it, let alone enough experiences in other areas that would led me to think that you would do more than simply just blocking and moving on, which is not really that great of an action.
'''Oppose''' - per Iridescent. It's good for admins who want to work on the deletion of articles to understand what's involved in article creation.
per Iridescent.
per Iridescent.
'''Oppose''' I don't think that they have the right attitude. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
I believe that a small amount of significant content building is necessary for admins, and I do not see that in this case. --<font color="#cc6600">
I prefer "creator-admins" (not "inclusionists") who have created valuable articles and have undergone many things and procedures relating contents disputes (or discussions), to "deletionist-admins" who do not contribute their time to care to create/edit articles. --
LOL 2 opposes for correctly reporting attack accounts --
'''Neutral'''-Unsure at this time.-
I see no problem. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' '''<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print; text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.1em"><font color=red>
'''Support''' Were it not for Willking, there would be literally tens of ACC requests that I would have forgotten to finish/close. A great person to work with at ACC and a fine candidate for adminship.
Sure. Unless something really bad comes up, I support you getting the tools. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No issues with this user at all. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' without question. I know Will from ACC and his work is top notch. It's a definite net positive giving him the mop. Regards,
'''Support''' You seem stable.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] - unlikely to misuse the tools. Trustworthy editor. –'''
'''Support'''. Supported last time, no reason not to now. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' without the slightest of a doubt. You're a great asset to Wikipedia - keep up the excellent work,
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - No problem. '''
'''Support'''.  With over 26,000 edits, why not?  &ndash;
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|I'm satisfied]].
'''Support''' Per all above.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Talk''</font>]]
Don't see any reason not to.
'''Support''' 20,000+ edits - no reasons not to be granted the tools
'''Support''' it looks like issues since the previous RfA have been addressed.
'''Support''' I thought this should've passed last time. <strong>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Meh, obviously. 25k edits and brilliant work at ACC. Definitely.
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' per the "You aren't already?!" argument. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''' - no concerns here.--
'''Support'''. Althought there are lots of auto edits, I dont see any glaring problems. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support; Willking1979 has answered the questions well, has contributed enough to articles in my opinion, and seems clear on what they would do with the tools. -- '''
'''Awesome Support''' This editor seems, so awesome, like kind of really awesome. They may have a few faults but in an awesomely awesome way which is awesome because even the best admin's aren't awesomely perfect. Isn't it awesome that he appplied for RfA and that some awesome people have viewed this page? How awesome is that? It is awesomely awesome. So, Willking1979, be awesome and accept this awesome support.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>[[User:Sky Attacker|<span style="color:red">'''''The Legendary'''''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Sky Attacker|<span style="color:blue">'''''Sky Attacker'''''</span>]]</sub></span> 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC) <small>(for those that remember "Very Serious Editor" this support is partly in tribute to him</small>--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support''' Solid contribs. Good answers.
'''Support''' Has a lot of good contributions in the areas in which he plans to work, and the answers to the questions show he knows the blocking and protection policies.
'''Support''' Support extends from voting yes on the user's previous rfa. I have always been impressed with this user. And fully support their effort to a be an admin
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''Weak support'''.  Make sure to check the ''article's history'' when deleting an article for no context.  Other than that, no problems. '''
'''Support''', I've seen Willking around, and nothing strikes me as a problem. Good editor, seems to know his stuff about policy and process with admin duties. And the one oppose is far from concerning IMO.
Weak '''support'''.  Would be stronger if you had any GAs... but I don't have any of my own (the only original contribution of mine that I submitted for [[WP:GAN]] was [[Toibb v. Radloff|quick-failed]]), so I can't complain.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Willking1979. —
{{agree|Pro}} --
'''Support''' - supported last time, happy to support again.
'''Support''' Great candidate! <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
'''Support''' solid contributions, great help at ACC, good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - [[Numberwang|That's numberwang!]]
'''Support'''. Better answers this time.
'''Support''' - Looks good :).
'''the 46th support''' - I thought I was promoted with low amount of support, good luck trying to beat 55.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Support''' – I know I !voted ''oppose'' last time, but I think he does show more clue than the last time I saw him that I'll think he'll do an OK job. Use the tools, and use them often. There is plenty of admin work out there to do.
'''Support''' why not? --
'''Support''', feel similarly to {{user|Irbisgreif}}. '''
'''Support''', yes, I see no difficulties. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]

'''Support''' Well if he becomes an admin maybe he won't beat me to as many account creations... but seriously looking over all your contributions I think you can be trusted with the tools and be more helpful to the project with them, hence you should have them
'''Support'''. Looking good. No reason not to support.
'''Support''', seems good.
'''Support''' There some obvious weaknesses but nothing that will stop him from being  a great admin! -
'''Support'''. I don't see why not. — '''''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Per above. Good luck with the mop!
'''Oppose''' Lack of article writing experience, only a few edits in Wikipedia Talk namespace.  Yet almost 1000 edits to [[User:Willking1979/Status]]?  The new article is a few tables of facts, not much of an article.  I'm concerned that the candidate may not have much perspective considering the lack of participation in both content and policy development.

'''Oppose''' The answer to my question was not what I would expect an admin to do.  For a "no context" CSD, you should make sure by looking at the history of the article that a vandal has not cut it back to what it is.  Also check whether there is enough context there to know what it is about.  For the second part, it probably should have been deleted as a [[CSD-A7]] or a prod if you half believed the claim made. Also I am treating the answers here as the kind you may give a user when they ask you to explain your actions.  They should be more explanatory and pointing to the more information that a new person needs to read. This does not mean that you would not eventually become an admin, but I suggest you read up on deleting, not just page protection and blocking. Vandals will often create stuff that needs deleting or alter stuff so that it looks as if it should be deleted, but should not be.
'''Oppose''' Moving from neutral. I too find it worrisome that a potential admin would apparently not know to check the edit history on a no-context speedy tag. This is basic stuff.
'''Oppose''': Basic lack of content creation and article building as well as name space edits..
'''Neutral''' I opposed your last RfA as most of your edits were automated (and I couldn't judge your knowledge of policy). I'll admit, I've only gone back about 10000 edits, but I ''still'' see mostly HotCat/Huggle edits. I'm going through the list, so I might support or oppose later. (I'm looking for noticeboard activity [Help desk, BLPN], Afd work, policy discussions, etc.)
I can't evaluate this candidate on the basis of a random sample of his edits, because the proportion of automated edits is so high that the samples are useless.—
'''Neutral''' Per the above.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Willking1979&namespace=4 this list] of automated edits is disconcerting.  But I don't see a strong reason to oppose the candidate.  FWIW I think the current congress is one of the worst in recent memory but likely for very different reasons than the candidate.
'''Neutral''', the answers to question's 7a and 7b aren't satisfactory for me. Otherwise alright candidate. &ndash;
Switched to '''neutral''' from support per answer to my question.  Improving actual contents is why we are here first and foremost, not bureaucracy wonkery.  If actual content relevant to hundreds or thousands of editors and readers can be improved, it takes precedence over some snapshot in time discussion in which maybe only a half dozen editors participate.  We cannot lose sight of that.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''.  20,000 edits, mostly to article space?  Communicative when you need to be, remain civil from everything I can tell?  Smart user, plenty of clue, around for 4 years without getting involved in the drama of this place?  A simple, direct self-nomination?  How refreshing.  Absolutely I support.
'''Support''' You'll get a load of flak for the empty nom, but I've seen him work on [[Vietnam War]] and related articles, and from his use of sources, it's clear he understands NPOV, especially with that article continually being used by POV pushers '''
'''Support''' 60% mainspace edits out of 20,000+ edits is quite impressive. You obviously know your way around Wikipedia, and you've been here long enough to see what is right on Wikipedia and what is wrong. I gladly support this RfA.
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. Looks good. The edit warring question 8 above is a bit strange; the candidate's only contribution to that "edit war" was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_British_Mark_8_Landing_Craft_Tank&diff=289385229&oldid=289385127 this edit], which I think anyone would agree is an appropriate removal of - well, whatever that material is.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; long-time, trustworthy contributor. –'''
'''Support''' as I see no reasons not to and as usual more admins are necessary. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Yep!''' - Support per Keeper76 and BL Nguyen. Very strong candidate.
'''Strong Support''' Looks to be highly qualified. It's wonderful to have a candidate that makes substantial article contributions. This is what the encyclopedia is all about and we need more Admins with this kind of experience!
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' User has been around since Nov 2004 and 1st RFA clearly shows the user is not after tools and is seeking them only after gaining the necessary experience and as per track the project will only gain with the user getting tools.
'''Support''' &mdash; long history of working with free content, well aligned with fundamental WP principles, good wiki interaction skills. &mdash; ''Charles Stewart'' <small>
'''Support''' Excellent user, experienced in many areas.
'''Oppose''', not enough drama ;)
'''Support''' Solid project and article work. Trustworthy, imo.--
'''Solid support'''. Wtmitchell is an excellent editor and a great contributor, and I see nothing which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support''' - Long-time, diligent, experienced contributor seeking the tools? Absolutely.
I'd like to see some more involvement in admin-type areas but you should be fine. '''
'''Support''' I can not recall where I encountered or saw him. However I've got a good impression that he is a sensible and responsive editor with a warm heart, so I have no reason to think that he would abuse his tool.--
'''Support''' The automated edit percentage is a bit high, and involvement in admin-related areas is a bit low, but I have seen no indication Wtmitchell would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' &mdash; Mitchell's nomination and record speak for themselves. I can't see a single thing anybody would oppose over that would have any relevance to adminship.
'''Support''' this clueful candidate.—
'''Support''' Wtmitchell has a clear will to help the project and should be given the tools to make that job a little easier.
'''Support''' has cared for a long time and is very trusted. Won't do anything thoughtless like delete the main page. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Level-headed, been around the block, knows policy well, as shown by (self-deprecating) comments on noticeboards like [[WP:RS/N]] and policy pages.
'''Support''' An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' This user has met my standards, a) Having significant content contributions and b) Having experience in an adminly area (vandal patrol).  Best of luck!
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - mainspace experience coupled with experience in admin-related areas and evident knowledge of policy. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
I'm
'''Support''' Looks great. <strong>
'''Support''' Clean block log, long term civil editor with clue. I disagree with you on question 9 as I think that admins should be ordinary users who can wield a mop when needed without the faff of logging in and out of different accounts. Your deleted edits look pretty good, though I spotted one CSD tag that merited a {{tl|db-attack}} rather than the {{tl|db-bio}} you flagged it with. Good luck ''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has four barnstars on userpage and zero blocks.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Good answers.
'''Support''': why not? <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Support''' for a mature and valued contributor.
'''Support''' Great work at the village pump and anti-vandalism.  Noticeboard work is not a must.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' – ('''
'''Support''' 20,000+ edits! Although I've only checked a few contibs I can't really find an obvious reason to oppose. With the Opposes being so convincing :) '''
'''Weak Support'''The only disagrement we had was resolved. but there was an issue over quesionable  sources http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&diff=next&oldid=290444952 & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&diff=next&oldid=290507675 (although he did eventualy find the right source) In additioon this argument was started due to misunderstanding about the point I was making. But as I said it was reolved, and I felt with out any acrimony. My only doubt is that by the users own admision he may have finding sources.
'''Support'''.  He's been doing high-quality work on guidelines talk pages for as long as I can remember.  Any lurking civility or judgment problems would have shown up already if they were going to show up. - Dank (
'''Support''' Good user, nice contributions. Consider changing the username. --
'''Support'''. I don't understand the answer to Q9 at all, but the question doesn't really bother me anyway. Short answers to questions and blank nomination could be interpreted as arrogance, but I'm inclined to think that it's because you just don't think it's a big deal. No reason to oppose.
'''Weak support'''. I don't like that your signature does not match your username, but this is no reason to oppose. Perhaps look into a username or signature change in the future.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''.  Someone we probably should have given the tools to several years ago.  Great user. --
'''Support''', although I do recommend changing your username or signature to match the other.
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose. — '''''
'''Support''' Seems like a trustworthy contributor.  [[User:Frehley|<font face="Old English" color="0d254c" size="4">Fre</font>]]
—&nbsp;
'''Support''' I see no reason for concern here.
'''Support''' should do well with the mop.
'''Support''', very trustworthy. <font color="green">

'''Support''' to someone that I honestly thought was an administrator already. Good luck!
'''Support''' I dont see anything alarming for the user. Net positive! user around since long time --
'''Support'''. I often see this user doing good work. &nbsp; <b>
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Looking through Wtmitchell's contributions I see nothing to show that the tools would be misused.
'''Support'''. To quote User:Keeper76, "20,000 edits, mostly to article space?  Communicative when you need to be, remain civil from everything I can tell?  Smart user, plenty of clue, around for 4 years without getting involved in the drama of this place?  A simple, direct self-nomination?  How refreshing.  Absolutely I support."
I'm more than satisfied with your answers to questions, and I appreciate your honesty in Question 18. I agree with the sentiments of the above supporters, you seem to be [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] and I am sure you will serve Wikipedia well as an administrator. Best of luck, <font face="Forte">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Three years of drama-free content building. --
'''Oppose''' This RfA is going to pass, but I just want to go on the record as saying I think it's important for administators' signatures to match their official usernames.
'''Neutral''': Lack of audited experience on the noticeboards and the vague issues and judgement calls required with dealing with issues on them.  Solid contributor and vandal fighter for sure.
'''Neutral''' (Shifted from Support) I absolutely agree with {{user|Keepscases}}. I won't oppose though. '''
'''Neutral'''. I'm on the fence about this one. While the editor has a solid record of contributions, I really don't like the answer to Question 13. What was asked was a fairly straightforward (if mildly irritating) question, and instead of a straight answer we got some philosophical rambling that didn't really answer the question at all. Seems more like dodging the question to me than an attempt to answer it. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Neutral''' per Q13. There are times where no consensus should default to delete, such as a BLP where subject requests deletion. They aren't often but they do exist. Not a big enough deal to oppose, but keep this in mind.
'''Support''' That was a long read.
'''Strong Support''' Dang, that nomination statement was loooooong... I hope nobody opposes for that... Anyways, you are a very fine editor. I can't see any reason to oppose you whatsoever. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support'''
'''Support''', nothing that would make me doubt their judgment, or lead me to believe that they would abuse the tools. &ndash;'''
'''Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TedderBot/Bacon_Results&curid=23735903&diff=307896979&oldid=307444831#Wikibacon:_7.2C_Tedder We've] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynden Middle School|crossed]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=281602633 paths] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=302539060 before]. S/he is a newish editor, but has made enough edits and been involved with enough non-trivial things that I trust them with the mop. More gnomish editors is always good.
'''Strong Support'''. Let's just say that was comprehensive. Good luck :) '''
'''Strong support''' Come across this user frequently at AIV and UAA. No problems whatsoever. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Strong Support'''. I see 7 around at UAA and in other places, and s/he is always being helpful. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. ···
6 months of real activity is about the minimum I would support, but I like the nomination statement and from their contributions I can't see a reason to oppose.--
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA Rationale|Support]] Helpful user and has a clue.
'''Support''', although note that there are some typos on the 'article creation' line ('that I that' and 'exits'). --
'''Support''' Nom statement was tl;dr, but I trust 7 and that's all that matters. →<font style="color:black">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' Go, 7! Good luck!
'''Weak Support'''  Long nom ... but strong. Good contribs. Only week support per my position that the ideal admin is moderately inclusionist.
Seen him around. Sure. '''
'''Support'''[[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Looks good.]] I have seen you at ACC and have never seen anything to make me want to oppose.--
Good reports at [[WP:UAA]] --
Agreed that UAA work is great, and so is the G11 CSD work.  Happy to support. - Dank (
'''Support'''.  Looks like they will make good use of the extra buttons in activities they are already doing.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; seen his work, and though I have minor concerns, I trust this editor to use the tools responsibly. –'''
'''Support''' No outstanding problems
'''Support''' I can't see any problems. It looks like 7 will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' because [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PNoJuP-mk my house is full of Sevens].
'''Support''' Seems fine. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' - He's not an admin already? [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Provisional support'''--
'''Provisional support''' The candidate has more edits to user talk than article space, and less than a thousand edits to policy pages.  He (?) doesn't have much audited content work (as David might like to say) and I haven't "seen him around".  However, as the last point could be a good thing (since I spend too much time at AN/I), I dug into the candidates CSD tagging.  For the past couple hundred or so tags, their tagging has been accurate and they haven't committed any common CSD errors (like reinstering a CSD tag after it has been removed by someone not the author).  I'm gonna dig through some more work of the candidate's and hopefully I will be as impressed by that as I was the CSD work.
'''Very Strong Support''' &ndash; Answers to the questions are written like you've been an admin for like a ''year''.
'''Strong Support''' I was very impressed by your "resume" and humble request for admin powers, and justification for requesting them. -- '''
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate. (Though he's not quite 40, so I'm a bit concerned about the lack of maturity. But what the heck. Give the kid a chance.)
'''Support''' I cant see no problems and the nomination was really excellent. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''', I don't see any indication that this user would misuse the admin tools.
Time for a real support reason. User:7 appears to be a dedicated person willing to make extensive use of the tools available through RFA. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. While I don't agree with everything this user has said, I see a user who can think things through and explain himself. '''''
'''Support''' I will not oppose a user for having views, even if they are controversial. I don't believe that 7 will abuse the tools, so I support.--
'''Support''' Good contributor. I don't see how his views are going to be a problem with the admin work; he's not likely to go on a mass deleting spree. ≈&nbsp;
'''Support''' over 200 username reports and 200 AIV reports is good evidence of experience for me that the user will be a competent admin.
'''Aye'''. I don't see anything major here. A couple of dubious CSDs?  Meh. <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - seems ok.
'''Support''' Good track and every editor has his POV and may have strong opinions both on content and non contents issues and feel each and every has a right to his/her opinion.One needs to be opposed on basis of his/her actions rather than opinions whether they are ,and  do not see him going on deleting spree.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' due to good work in administrative areas, but lack of content contributions.  —
'''Support''' he has fought vandalism diligently, and has some content building experience. He has plenty of deleted edits, and I note SoWhy's comment in oppose, however I believe it is a few mistakes, and everyone makes mistakes. I would recommend staying away from deleting CSD requests on articles that you are unsure about. The block was a concern, however a bureaucrat noted that it was probably a ghost account (or is a ghost account). I see no potential of abuse, and after looking through contributions I believe 7 will make a great admin. <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Support ''' I reviewed the opposes in detail, found a few mild reasons for concern (a very few CSDs with arguable reasoning) some opposes that were just misunderstandings (7 does not think 3 million is the upper limit on articles). Would like to see more article work, but the admin work proposed is needed, and I don't see compelling or even concern that the tools will be misused.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Originally I was opposed.  For the curious, the reasons are on 7's talk page.  I also wish 7 did more article writing and creation in order to learn how hard it is.  7's response to my concern is hopefully not a politician on their best pre-election behaviour but genuine kindness.  Let's give 7 the administrator's sword!
'''Support''' Possibly minor issues re. CSD deletions, but nothing that won't be fixed through greater experience.  Otherwise I see no legitimate suggestion that there is the slightest potential for abuse.  Some of the oppose comments seem to me to be bordering on the vexatious.  --
'''Support''' - Unconvinced by the opposes. --'''
'''Support''' has a clue, is responsible, will do fine. The opposes are not irrational but come on... RfA is getting more and more picky while our admin corps is dwindling fast (100 active admins lost over the last 18 months).  I just don't see how adminship can be a net negative in this case.
'''Strongest possible uber support''' - You appear to be the best candidate I've seen on here for a long time, and I wish you well! <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Strong support''' - A very trustworthy editor. Would do only good with the tools.
'''Weak support''' - My interactions with this user have been positive and I therefore had planned to support, but I am concerned by a few things: namely the lack of talk page contribs and some of the deletion examples posted by [[User:SoWhy]] below.  The talk concern is somewhat alleviated by the largely competent responses given in this RfA, and I trust that if this passes this user will be careful with the delete button until he becomes more familiar with the CSD.
'''Support''' just enough article work.  Opposes unconvincing.  Never fails to astound me how nomming for deletion under the wrong reason or having a speedy declined is considered massive red ink in the permanent record.--
'''Support''', opposes not convincing.
'''Support.''' I started out somewhat dubious and fence-sitting — there are both pluses and minuses here — but I see 7 is entitled to my '''extra self-nom points'''. That swings it for me.
'''Support''' per his work at AfD. I don't see any problems that would cause me to oppose and the opposers seem nitpicky on their opposes... Good Luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' from me as well. I've looked at the opposes and I can't see much that convinces me. I don't think a few CSD mistakes should punish someone so harshly.
'''Support''' - Too good of a candidate to sit out. Agree fully with Wehwalt's analysis too. CSD is a necessary part of the project. Making it toxic risks shifting the admin pool balance dramatically.
'''Support'''. The CSD mistakes cited by SoWhy are a mixed bag, but only a few of them are clearly mistakes. I can hardly blame someone putting a speedy tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nutkani&diff=prev&oldid=303488429] ("rulers of this place" is confusing precisely due to lack of context) and while "The Pacific shard is a shard on the computer game, Ultima Online" may have context, it certainly is lacking very badly in content, and I don't think we really would lose much by deleting that article, at present it is only a rather implausible redirect. Work and judgement otherwise seems solid and are in areas where admin tools are of benefit, and the minor mistakes cited are not so serious that there will be any significant disruption caused by giving 7 the admin tools.
'''Support'''. A reasonable editor, he will be a capable and fair administrator. &mdash;
'''Weak Support'''.  Opposition arguments are reasonable, but ultimately not enough in my [[User:Matheuler/adminship|opinion]].--
'''Support'''. A definite [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]]. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''' - my contacts with 7 have been good, and my contributions concerns are gone, looking at my own edit history...--
'''Weak Support''' I think the opposes make valid arguments, but I get a clue-ful vibe from 7.  Despite his relatively low article contributions, he doesn't strike me as a "ladder climber".
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, 7. —
'''Oppose''' I can't support an editor who apparently thinks 1) that 3 million articles on Wikipedia is enough; and who 2) makes a logical connection between limiting the creation of new articles in order to improve the "usability and relevance" of the present inventory of Wikipedia articles.  There is, of course, a finite number of possible Wikipedia articles, but the ambition and vision in "recording the world's knowledge" certainly go beyond a single digit number, and believing this monumental task could even be achieved within Wikipedia's present short life span reflects simplictic thinking. Wikipedia is the result of volunteer work, volunteers do what they like, and they seldom take orders.  The only way to improve the "usability and relevance" of Wikipedia is to recruit and retain expert content providers that can supply large coherent blocks of sourced knowledge.  Content is king.  MOS work etc. is very important, but it requires that content is there in the first place.  The road forward is not restricting content.
A candidate who thinks that the deletion process as a whole works well demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the present state of Wikipedia. (I am thinking as much of the bad articles we miss deleting as the ones we wrongly discard).  And other aspects of the reply show this. It is easily possible to figure out how many articles have been deleted--one just looks at the deletion log--at least recently, it has been about equal to the number of articles kept, with most of the ones removed being removed via speedy deletion.  The reason there are so few articles is because we do not yet have sufficient editors to cover most of the world, or sufficient sources of information about them, and not even sufficient editors to cover important topics nearer to us -- almost none of the members of the US National academy for medicine or engineering have articles, very few of the mayors and state legislators other than the present generation--or for some states, even the presently sitting members--see [[Kansas House of Representatives]] !   The candidate mentions a dispute over the  article on [[Howard Benedict]], and is correct that he is probably not notable. But the article has never been sent to AfD, and a PROD tag removal is not a community decision, unless nobody challenges it. And I do not see his involvement in any discussion of it either there on on the talk p. for the school article. I hsome of his other claims to experience are better supported.   '''
'''Weak oppose''' - Right now, all I see little article work, as well as little extensive communication (though from interactions with you, I do know that you are generally very kind and helpful). However, the little article work, combined with your short experience here (only about 4.5 to 5 months, it looks like, which generally isn't enough to learn the intricacies of policy, IMO),  as well as the above statements (I did read your replies, and will continue to monitor this RfA) lean me to opposing. <small>Feel free to reply; I won't regard anything as "badgering".</small> <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' Per DGG, and for the lack of solid accomplishments in article creation.  Vandal fighters and such are necessary, but I stronlgly believe that administrator candidates need to have walked in the shoes of the content creators.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of article-writing work doesn't really bother me as long as the candidate is otherwise very good and has a lot of [[WP:CLUE|this]] stuff. But one of the 7 articles you linked to above looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoebe_Dunn_(author)&oldid=241149689 this] only a couple of hours ago. It may sound nit picky, but I simply cannot support a candidate who doesn't seem to know the <s>basics of a [[WP:LEAD]] and</s> general standards of article quality. You created that page a while ago, yes, but surely there was enough time between then and now to improve it some. And actually, if it were a shorter article, Dunn's page could possibly have been [[WP:CSD#A1|speedied]]. Sorry, but I expect an admin candidate (who plans to work near CSD) to be familiar with A1/A3 and know how to make a [[Wikipedia:The perfect stub article|proper little stub]] that has context. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' The speedy deletion record is not very good imho. The candidate make very basic mistakes that can easily be avoided. Let me elaborate: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XPLR_Productions&diff=prev&oldid=308087077 A7 for a company founded by a notable person], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultima_Online_Pacific_Shard&diff=prev&oldid=307914501 A1 for an element in a PC game] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ultima_Online_Pacific_Shard&diff=next&oldid=307914501 context is very clear]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwin_A._Dark&diff=prev&oldid=307091283 A7 for a pseudonym used by a notable author], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chicago_cocktail&diff=prev&oldid=306513390 R3 for a plausible redirect], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polka_Floyd&diff=prev&oldid=306150009 A7 with reliable source covering the subject], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nutkani&diff=prev&oldid=303488429 A1 with context] (just missing wikilinks), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strata_management&diff=prev&oldid=303098382 A7 on a real estate term]. Also, I am uncomfortable with a candidate who takes stuff to AFD ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Shear Mixer|example 1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine musical instrument|example 2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Williamson Creek Greenbelt|example 3]]) instead of even attempting to rectify the problems (per [[WP:BEFORE]]). An admin should show at least willingness to fix stuff instead of deleting it. So I am sorry I cannot say that I trust this user to wield the delete button, at least not at the moment. I'd be willing to support a future RFA (if this fails) iff they show improvement in those areas. On a side note, I find the signature a bit too much eye-catching, you might want to use something without elaborate background coloring (especially since it takes up three lines in the editing window even on a resolution of 1680x1050). Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - Per SoWhy. User appears to have a profound misunderstanding of CSD criteria. Only a handful of examples, but it demonstrates perfectly the do's and don'ts of NPP.
Sorry, having declined a speedy nomination of yours yesterday and looked through your other nominations, I am not convinced the time is right. I appreciate the hard work at new page patrolling, and sympathise that one can't afford to spend a great deal of time examining each article given the backlogs, but the speed with which you are willing to give up on articles like [[Nutkani]] is concerning. Forgive me for saying so, but this is a prime example of a situation in which a relative paucity of article development in one's contributions compounds overeagerness in patrolling the creations of others to hamper the development of an understanding of the proper application of deletion. '''Tl;dr''': CSD, content. I hope you'll continue to expand your content contributions (I especially enjoyed [[Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo]]) and think this would give you a better grasp of judging borderline articles. Namaste,
'''Oppose'''. Mediocre content creation. Poor CSD tagging shown by SoWhy.
Thank you for your willingness to do the hard work, but I feel you are not ready yet. For me, it is important how we address newbies, and the {{al|Nutkani}} CSD is a case in point: If you had checked "What links here", you would have easily seen the context and added it yourself, instead of proposing it for speedy deletion. Let me explain why this important for me: We have a systemic bias here; we have articles for many hardly notable people in the Western world, but lack articles about whole peoples elsewhere. Therefore, I feel that we need to spend more time helping particularly those editors, for whom contributing is often harder than for us. (A nice example for what I mean was [[The Village Market]], which was speedily deleted earlier this year, and I only became aware of it when the creator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=275053311#Help_With_Deletion asked] about it at WP:HD.) So, I would have liked to see you help the newbie, instead of just templating {{genderneutral|em}}. In this context, it is also relevant that, as JamieS93 pointed out, some of the articles you cite as examples for your own creations were hardly above that level. (The article Jamie mentions is no outlier: Look at the state in which you left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coors_Cutter&oldid=269497705 Coors Cutter] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michel_Fournier_(adventurer)&oldid=214799649 Michel Fournier (adventurer)]. The first had only incomplete sentences, and the second no meaningful categories or stub templates, and both were/are of [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_27|questionable]] notability.) &mdash;
Anyone who believes that minors who "show the appropriate maturity in the community" by doing whatever they've learned to do is necessary to become administrators in the current climate shouldn't even be allowed out without supervision, much less be an administrator. --
I'll say not now, but perhaps later with a little more brushing up on CSD. You state you have a "strong record" there, but if there have been issues just within the last few days, I find this hard to believe, and think you ought to have been more careful since this is a self-nom. See my [[User:Majorly/RfA/standards|standards]] - basically, you meet the oppose point "A pattern of misreporting..." which covers speedy deletion too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who wades through hundreds of diffs in desperation to find a tiny mistake from months/years ago. I just think you could do with a little more time to improve this area, until you really do have a strong record. In the meantime, you can also work on more articles. '''
'''Oppose''' The candidate has an obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to both clear-cut policy (thinking specifically of the CSD example given by several already) and absolutely basic community norms when it comes to article creation and curation. Your heart's in the right place, but I wouldn't trust you as an administrator yet. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
I'm opposing mainly due to the comments by JamieS93, SoWhy, and Majorly. I'd likely support a future RfA though, as I do see a great future admin candidate, just not yet. '''
'''Oppose''' - Work on your XfC stuff and come back in a bit. -
'''Oppose''' per inappropriate requests for speedy deletion described by [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] above.
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  I feel 7 comes off as arrogant - just by reading the nomination statement.  This is potentially problematic as it is often sysops who act arrogantly that land themselves an arbitration cases.  I am quite sure that 7 works for the better of the project but his/her ego is getting in the way.  Apart from that, I have some concerns with 7's knowledge of policy and interactions with other users.  I see that a significant number of 7's 12,000 edits are automated making it hard for to judge the user's ability to work with others and judge the user's understanding of policy.  It's the faulty CSD taggings noted by SoWhy that seal the deal for me.  I can see you do some great work around the project and I urge you to keep it up.  If this rfa fails, get a few months more experience and do come try again.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I don't believe that [[User:7]] has had enough experince as of yet. 7 has had an account for over 18 months, however 7 remained only semi-active for the first part. I believe after another 6 months or so 7 will be more experinced and thus appropiate for Adminship. By then 7 should be more familiarised with policies etc. I think it is good that 7 has Rollback features. Keep up the good work and good luck for the future. However I'm sorry for this current opposistion. Regards
'''Oppose''' Exclusionist, Wikipedia already suffer from ?disease. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Mainly per SoWhy. You are almost there and I hope will make it before the year is out, but need to slightly change your approach at deletion. One of SoWhy's examples was [[Nutkani]] where I declined two speedy tags from you - though the second was a correct tag but easily salvagable. This isn't really about inclusionism re deletionism, its about helping newbies and giving their articles a chance based on the potential of the subject and not simply judging them on the typo ridden unwikified first draft. If I may make a suggestion, when you tag things take a few seconds to also fix some of the obvious stuff at the same time, and remember when on new page patrol, sometimes there will be ones you see as a close call if so categorise or wikify and let someone else make the call. ''
'''Oppose''' Concerns about the candidate's ability to apply the criteria for speedy deletion consistent with the consensus of the community (i.e., narrowly, with a presumption against deletion, lest, as Spiel and Protonk note, we should [[WP:BITE|bite]] or lose salvageable content) leave me unable to conclude with the requisite level of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].  I join, though, I should say, in the sentiments of many others opposing with respect to a willingness to reconsider the candidate in the not-too-distant future should he demonstrate a better understanding of CSD; the flaws here are not fatal (the article count comment does disquiet, but I've no problem supporting a candidate whose views about the fundamentals of the project differ from mine where it is clear that he/she appreciates that adminship is ministerial, i.e., that admins act to carry out the will of the community, irrespective of their views about what policy and practice ought to be), and there remains a good bit to (re)commend 7 for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Jamie and others. Come back again with improved skills, and I will reconsider.
'''Oppose''' per above comments. Candidate's past record shows that more experience is needed before they can be trusted with the tools.
Per Majorly and SoWhy.
'''Oppose'''. More article work and talk page involvement would be important, IMO.
'''Oppose'''. Per Jclemens and Malleus.
'''Oppose'''. I am not really an inclusionist myself, but I don't have confidence that the candidate would close deletion discussions and process speedy deletion candidates in line with established norms.
'''Oppose''' - Per deletion concerns.
'''Oppose''' on several of the grounds stated above. —
'''Oppose''' I'm really sorry (I actually came here to support you) but what I'm seeing in the oppose comments by other editors does not look very good. But next time, I'm sure I will support you.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Oppose''' not enough article work '''
'''Weak oppose''' - Overall, 7 has demonstrated a good deal of [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]] and a reasonable commitment to Wikipedia.  However, we are only talking about ~4.5 months of active editing and the concerns above are enough to make me pause.  I think 7 will make a good admin someday, but I would like to see a bit more experience before granting the tools. --
'''Oppose.''' I'm sorry, but the above concerns raised lead me to oppose this one.
'''Oppose'''. Per SoWhy.
'''Oppose''' - for reasons listed above.
'''Oppose'''. Unimpressive CSD work. I'd like the candidate to have a better grasp of the criteria if they intend to work in that area. — '''''
'''Oppose''', I have been impressed by a lot of your work, and would've probably supported in a month, but I just think the CSD work is a tad too recent. '''\'''
'''Neutral''' but leaning support.  (Reason it's not a full support is that users whose judgment I would tend to trust are opposing this candidate.)—
'''neutral''' - 7 works at UAA, but has a username that is not creatable now, and would either be instantly blocked or have a forced change after discussion.  I'm not sure that admins taking use of grandfathered exemptions to community driven guidelines is a useful thing.
I'm stuck on this one. While I usually won't oppose per article building concerns, JamieS93's comments (coupled with your CSD tagging errors) lead me to believe you do not understand the speedy deletion criteria. I'll come and check up on this to see whether I will go to support or oppose (or just stay neutral). '''
I'm worried whether giving the mop to someone who comes across as deletionist while thy have little article experience would be a wise idea. <small><span style="border:2px solid #999933;">
First of all, I don't see anything that resembles arrogance in the answers, who seem well researched/thought out. However, I couldn't help but notice the R3 -> R2 mistake in the nom, which is repeated in Q10. This, combined with a misunderstanding of notability wrt. A7, that would've been rectified simply by reading the criterion leads me to think that you have spent very little time reading the policy you're enforcing. While I do not take these things lightly, I still ended up here, in recognition of all the good taggings I've seen you do, and generally good answers. Regards, <tt>
'''Neutral''', I have read through this all over two days now and cannot bring myself to a decision either side. You do good work, but I agree with others concerns over deletion, and thus am unable to provide support. Good luck in this and any future RFAs, I will be happy to support when you have more experience with deletion. --
'''Neutral'''Per some above, and I think that new admins should experiance what we on Wikipeida call "Drama". Possibly try work on some drama things, more drama than RFA. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
I see concerns on the oppose side that I do not entirely agree with, but cannot ignore.
Needs more experience. Might support in future. -
'''Neutral''' - This is a hard one. I'm leaning towards support but am stuck in neutral because the opposes do hold some truth. -
'''Neutral'''—would be Support per Matheuler, but SoWhy does raise some good points. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral'''- I have been watching this unfold and have found it difficult to decide. I'm concerned by JamieS93's points and inclined to agree with Garden. I will therefore reside here as I don't think the candidate is deserving of an oppose either. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
Just keep in mind that you are an editor already.--
'''Support''' No evidence to suggest he's a threat to the project. Can't find any negative words spoken of or by him. In fact, I've found quite the opposite. Good worker, polite, and an asset to the project, even if he doesn't edit every day. So what if he has less than a thousand edits? since when did 5,000 robotic script edits actually increase someone's experience? This isn't a 'moral' support. This is a real support. Those opposing based on experience need to consider just what experience means. --
'''Weak Support''' You have a clean blocklog and a nice mixture of different contributions to the project, by the standards of a few years ago when RFA was working you would be admin material. As it is sadly you won't make it this time; weak support because I think you could do with a little more experience and because you haven't picked up the unwritten rules, such as not to go for RFA until you are way over qualified for it. I'm not greatly bothered by your frequently forgetting to leave an edit summary, but I suggest you set your system to default to prompt you for edit summary after this because its precisely the sort of petty thing that can derail an RFA (and edit summaries are often useful) ''
Moral '''support'''.  I've looked over quite a number of your edits, and they look good to me.  However, I think you ''may'' have put the wrong copyright tag on [[:File:Menu key screen.jpg]], so I have taken the liberty of changing it (but I did not know which version of Firefox you used, so please fix the link in the new license template).  Also, I should be appreciative if all candidates for RFA would please answer the question (#4) about alternate accounts.  (I understand you have a [[User:Jetthedog1195û|disclosed alternate account]]; correct?)

'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience first. '''
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Probable [[WP:SNOW]] closure.--
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' I'm sorry, but you need a little more experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per ArcAngel.
Oppose per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and in answer to Hammer above - experience on wikipedia is only quantifiable through edit quality and quantity. That does not mean an arbitary number of edits, but it does mean edits across the work, including both project and mainspace. Whilst technically in 300 edits one could write an FA, get an essay to Policy status, non admin close fifty AFD's accurately and report 80 vandals in reality this does not happen. Edits and tenure may be horribly rough metrics but they are often all we have to go on. To the candidate, NOTNOW is a useful guide, as is the advice above. Your hard work is not unappreciated but more ''evidence'' of your understanding of Wikipedia policy and norms is required, IMHO. Don't lose heart! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - While no administrator candidate should be expected to know everything about the job beforehand, and it's good to have a willingness to learn (and I'm sure there's a lot of on-the-job learning when you start) there's a certain amount of knowledge expected regarding policies and guidelines, and generally the community wants to see examples that you've been able to apply that knowledge during the RfA process. It's good that you have a humble approach and acknowledge your shortcomings, and think you might be a good prospect in the future. Perhaps you'd want to check out [[WP:ADCO|Admin Coaching]] if this RfA doesn't pass? -- '''
'''Oppose''' - More experience needed. Since there is little chance this request will pass muster, may I suggest you withdraw now, spend time working to learn more about the Wikipedia adminship role and what it requires, and try again next year? Best wishes, <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Try working in some place where your bound to run into "dramaz", such as vandal fighting. Admins are often dispute resolver, at least in the eye's of newer users, and having experiance in conflicts is something.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose'''-I generally dislike to oppose on the grounds of edits, but in your case...it appears as though you don't have the necessary "history" to sufficiently demonstrate your knowledge/dedication to the project. Consider making more contributions and reopening an rfa in a few months.
I was going to make a neutral comment, but looking a bit further, I'm going to have to oppose. 80-odd mainspace edits just isn't enough article experience and honestly, the article edits I looked at left me with a number of concerns. Leaving aside your various user subpages, you have nearly as many edits (73) to User:95jb14 than you do to articles! Neither is 80 project edits sufficient. Outside this RFA, all your project edits seem to be to wikiprojects with none in any admin-related areas. While you started editing in September 2008, until June this year you only averaged about 11 edits per month and then after June 2009, you've averaged about 115 edits a month (overall its about 48 per month). I'm not just looking strictly for edit numbers but also their quality, but this really is not enough for you to get sufficient experience or for me to get a good picture of you and evaluate your suitability for adminship. Also note that most "admin jobs" don't actually need access to admin tools and can be done by non-admins, and if you wish to be an admin, it would be good if you got some experience with that sort of work. Your answer to question 1 is a bit concerning and I suspect from it that you don't have a great understanding of the role of administrators on Wikipedia. You said: "I learn quickly and will enjoy the privilages". Adminship is just a maintenance-type job ("a janitor") rather than a privilege to be enjoyed. You also said you would like to fight vandalism, help new users and give advice, but you don't need to be an admin to do any of this work and you can do it now as a regular contributor. I feel you need much more and broader experience and I would encourage you to get more involved and join in community discussions, as well as doing a lot more article content work before returning to RFA. Addit: Sorry, I was going to be neutral, but I've noticed you also seem to be [[:File:Screenshot 95jb14.jpg|using]] non-free content (which includes the copyright WP logo and name, the Microsoft Windows logo and a bunch of other copyright logos at the bottom) decoratively on your userpage in violation of [[WP:NFCC]], and all up I feel there's enough reason to oppose.
Not yet have the experience to be an administrator, sorry. Maybe in the future. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' due to [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Unfortunately, the lack of mainspace edits is a killer. Echoing [[User:Sarah|Sarah]] above I don't know if you have an actual NEED for the tools at this point, you can do a lot without the tools and would definitely benefit from gaining more experience and trying out various sectors of Wikipedia to find your strengths. After establishing yourself some more I would say seek [[WP:Wikipedia:Admin coaching|Admin]] Coaching and then reapply.
'''Oppose''' Though I see you have put in some effort into anti-vandalism, I simply feel that your experience is far from what is expected. Also, the lack of WP mainspace edits is a big concern. I'd say you would make a good candidate in the future, after you get more experience on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' because of what you had in [[User talk:95jb14/My personal beliefs/my area]] which was visible for over a month till 12 August.  Admins can't go around insulting those they are trying to help out. Thanks for blanking it however!
'''Oppose''' per Graeme Bartlett. [[User talk:95jb14/My personal beliefs/my area]] was way out of line. <tt>
'''Oppose''' I have to oppose on grounds of lack of experience. With regard to Graeme's comment above, lack of civility and contempt among Admins. is a major issue for me and it seems to be an increasing trait. Keep your nose clean before your next RfA and always consider how you would like to be addressed and how you would feel if someone was uncivil towards you. It wouldn't be tolerated face to face and nor should it be across the ether. Keep up your efforts.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience alone should have made this a NOTNOW closure, I would have thought. Normally I wouldn't pile on, but "They are tits, idiotic twats who don't care for anyone but they're own shitty reputation and disrespect and corrupt everything that exists in wikipedia"? And now you want to ''be'' one of these twats?
'''Strong oppose''' I normally wouldn't pile on either, but Tan makes a very convincing argument. <span style="font-family:Segoe Print;">
'''Oppose''' per Graeme and Decltype. Not at this time. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. Although it is an unwritten rule, you generally want to be squeaky clean in the preceeding months before an RFA.
'''Oppose''' Looking for more experience, sorry. --
[[User talk:95jb14/My personal beliefs/my area]] ("They are tits, idiotic twats who don't care for anyone but they're own shitty reputation"), combined with a lack of experience, forces me to oppose. –'''
'''Oppose''' At the risk of piling on, I'm piling on.  You have less than 1000 edits total.  We have tremendous editors with 9000 edits that aren't passing RfA's.  Maybe you're above excellence, but how do we know with such little work?  Although being an admin is no big deal, there are some serious requirements and trust that need to be met. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
I find your enthusiasm and desire to help absolutely wonderful, and from what I can see you are learning about a number of different ways to do so around Wikipedia (e.g. improving articles, vandal fighting, working with templates).  Other editors here have expressed that you have a good record, and what you've done already is really the only way to judge how you would do with admin tools.  I believe a larger edit history under your belt will make it easier for people to support you, but to my knowledge there is no age requirement for this position.  Keep up the good work.--
'''Neutral''': Seems to have good intentions but needs more experience..
'''Neutral''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]], but thank you for your commitment and please do get a few more thousand edits under your belt. We need you!
'''Neutral''' Keep working against vandalism, but try doing more as well and an RfA shouldn't be a problem in the future. '''
'''Neutral''' as I don't want to pile on to the opposes. It's admirable that you created a WikiProject (I thought one for Latin already existed, but apparently not). I think you need to spend a little more time working in the various areas in which you'll work, especially given the low number of total edits you have. I suggest coming back in six months or so. ···
'''Neutral''' While I really appreciate your enthusiasm and contributions to the project, personally I feel you need more experience.If this RFA fails, please understand that it has nothing to do with your commitment or good intentions. Keep up the good work --
'''SUPER DUPER SUPPORT''' - Your world!, is my world!; and my fight is your fight! My breathe!, is your breathe! And your heartttt! --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Support''' I find it so rare to find a refreshing RfA candidate worthy of me to make a comment here.
Really? Really. <font color="green">
<s>'''Oppose''' per "Elisabeth Hasselbeck" vandalism.
'''Oppose''' because [[User:A3RO/Threats_and_Violence|this link]] (a template that you put on talkpages of vandals) really scares me.  I worry that would be far too eager to block vandals if you become an administrator. -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' Is this a joke?--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''So yeah''' - I think not.
'''Nice use of color in your nomination oppose'''.
[[User:A3RO/Threats and Violence|If you post ill meaning, harmful or violent messages to any user on Wikipedia, even anonymous users who edit without registering, you can face real life actions and consequences]]? Pile-on oppose.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' The only non minor edit in the last 1000 was to transclude the RfA. Speedy delete tagging is a bit rough.  eg A hoax labelled with G7 then G1.
'''Oppose''' On the bright side, after this, A3RO will have some new things to write about for question three. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose''' based on the fact that this RfA seems to have been made while under the influence. I would've just closed this, as it seems to simply be a mockery and a waste of everyone's time, but I've never closed an RfA before and couldn't find the appropriate templates. Recommend that anyone who is familiar with that process go ahead and do it now.
'''Oppose''', because friends shouldn't let friends drink and edit. - Dank (
Your responses to questions are not convincing. I would revise them.
Sure, I've worked with this editor before and think ANNO8 is a great editor, unless something big comes up.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Talk''</font>]]
Looks fine. '''
'''Support'''.  Has 30,000 edits, so why not?  &ndash;
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. Good luck! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' Per above. '''
'''Support''' - no problems here.--
I have absolutely no issues with someone having a large proportion of their edits in the area of vandal-fighting, so long as they've got some article building experience behind them. I'm hugely impressed by your answer to question 2, so I see little reason not to trust you with tools. Best of luck! Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Knowledge of policy + willingness to help + general cluefulness + ability to solve [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Junkers_Ju_87/Archive_3:_July_2008_-_January_2009#Trivia disputes] calmly = '''Support'''.
Why not? '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''', purely to counteract (in some measure) David Fuchs' oppose.  Content contributions are all very well, but I'm personally of the view that process-focussed users are more likely to need administrative tools than content-focussed ones (who receive all the tools they need upon becoming autoconfirmed).  Also, adminship should not be an award for prolific content contributors.—
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; trustworthy editor. –'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per S Marshall. I don't know that process-focused users are likely to need tools ''more'', but I don't like the discrimination against them/us. <strong>
'''Support'''. Fine contributions [[User:Matheuler/adminship|(my criteria)]]. —
'''Support'''. I think that it strains [[WP:AGF]] to assume that a candidate is hiding something nefarious in his/her past just because they fail to disclose a previous username. The editcounts caught my eye as well, and I was curious about the previous username (indeed, the candidate's current name highlights the fact that it's new). The answer to question 4 satisfies my curiousity on that point. As for the rest - I'm seeing good work overall, no concerns from me there. Overall, a quality candidate whom I'm pleased to support.
'''Support''' - I'm not familiar with this editor, but their answers to the questions seem fine. Even if you discount the old account, this person has 19,000 edits to their name and a cursory glance shows that at least many of the recent ones weren't automated. For those opposing because of the old account... There are many valid reasons not to reveal an old identity (personal privacy being one of them), so does this mean that A new name 2008 is forever barred from ever being an administrator, no matter their qualifications? That seems both unfair, and seems to be unduly robbing Wikipedia of a potentially great admin. -- '''
<s>Placeholder</s> <small>(confirmed)</small>, to remind myself to review contributions in more detail later and verify my initial instincts. Opposes based on the possibility that this is someone so untrustworthy that they shouldn't be an admin, and simultaneously so dumb that they would admit to a previous account, are singularly unconvincing. It would certainly have been easier to just say you've been here for 11 months and have 19,000 productive, useful edits, and sailed thru. Kudos for the honesty, ANN08, I suppose no good deed goes unpunished.    --
'''Support''' The rationale above clears up any lingering suspicions I had about the old account ... if it was that bad, why would he create a new name called "A new name" and then go on to clarify that he had had another account?  Having looked through the contribs and talkpages of this current account leaves me no worries.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' I take back what I said before. You're as good as gold as far as i'm concerned.
'''Support''' Mostly per juliancolton. I don't see why someone having an old account containing personal information should be counted against them. He could have ''very'' easily never disclosed that fact. If you can't [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], simply ignore the claim and judge his current contributions. Everything looks fine to me and adminship is NBD.
'''Support''' Looks like a trustworthy user. [[WP:RTV]], precedent [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt]], and privacy concerns allow for non-disclosure of previous username.
'''Support''' I'm happy to trust that this user will use the tools well.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
Qualified candidate, the oppose votes are not concerning to me. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Weak support''' - Weak because of lack of significant content contributions. We give a right to a fresh start, per [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Clean start under a new name]]. I would be happier if a [[WP:Functionary|functionary]] could look over the old edits, but I am largely satisfied with the edits on the new account, and sufficient time has passed that I likely wouldn't give any weight to the old account's edits anyway. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' - I would prefer more content contributions but I am satisfied with the answer to question 2 and this user's recent contributions. --
'''Support''' Per Julian.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
<s>Weak</s> '''support''' &ndash; <s>pending verification by an uninvolved administrator or functionary as described above.</s>
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy. Not everyone is an article writer. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
'''Support''' Your choice of user name has slightly complicated your clean start, but I'm happy with the reassurances offered and with the work you've done under this account. ''
'''Support''' (moved from neutral) due to account disclosure to Pastor Theo and Theo's confirmation of ANN2008's claims. Still a bit uncomfortable with not knowing the quality of the former account's edits, but I see the possibility of egregious past misconduct (which for me would be the only thing worth opposing over after 11 months) as remote now due to Theo's confirmation of ANN2008's claims. -
'''Support''' per [[User:A Nobody/RfA]].  In the lone AfD in which we both participated, the candidate did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toothing_(2nd_nomination)&diff=298576496&oldid=298571449 strike] his original "vote" following discussion, i.e. open-minded approach to a discussion rather than a vote.  The candidate also impressed two other editors enough to earn [[User:A_new_name_2008/User_Boxes#Barnstars]]. The candidate has furthermore never been blocked under the current username.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I have a few doubts about the candidate's level of experience, but I have to counter some opposes that seem very unreasonable, because they put the candidate in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" position.  Many people would have opposed if ''A new name'' had failed to discuss the prior account, so opposing because it ''was'' discussed is very unreasonable.
'''Support''' - no major concerns at this time. I would advise though, whether this RFA succeeds or fails, that you change your username - 'A new name 2008' draws attention to your prior account, and arguably implies that people are supposed to know which it is. If you want to make a truly fresh start, you need a username that reflects that.
'''Support''' - on the whole I believe ANN is ready for adminship, and trustworthy enough. At first I kind of sympathized with the opposes, but as I began to realize, we are stretching [[WP:AGF]] verry thin by opposing a candidate in the face of evidence which is contrary to the claims of unreliability.  The candidate had account that s/he make a bunch of (good) edits on; personal info was involved, and s/he makes the decision to leave the account to protect personal privacy, and edit exclusively under the new name. The candidate realizes that others would be concerned about this, so he adds a 4th question to be open and address the concerns (without publicly revealing the account for his/her personal privacy). An trusted functionary offers to privately confirm information, and by his word, it is true. Throughout this time, the candidate is attempting to be honest and good about the situation. Excuse me, how would one handle this any better? Still, I fail to see why having a previous account, and not publicly revealing it for personal reasons, is grounds for opposing. I look at ''this'' account, and don't see any real issues. ANN08 seems competent based on his contribs and Q answers, and I trust Thatcher, and this user's, word. If you disagree, I'd be happy to discuss this !vote.
'''Support''' Good luck. I really can't find any reason that concerns me.
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. The old account issue is resolved to my mind, and you seem well intentioned, so good luck to you.
'''Support''', and I have to say, I'll be upset if this doesn't pass because you won't reveal your old account, opposing for that reason alone seems a very nasty violation of [[WP:AGF]].
'''Support''' – Lack of substantial content contributions, but good answers to most questions, sufficient experience and no major concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I'm afraid that the mention of another account, despite your admission it was a privacy issue, is hindering your chances. I don't like to see any good editor punished for trying to be honest. I am disappointed by the opposes by virtue of the fact that we really don't know anything about anyone on this site, unless they verify information, which is not necessary for adminship or even editing in general. I'm a bit disheveled that while many admins (including myself) reveal no real-life information and pass, have to witness another potential candidate go through this scrutiny because a former account (which is not as important as real-life ethics and moral character) is one that was actually brought to the attention of the RFA regulars by the candidate himself. Our accounts are somewhat 'fake,' whereas there is no way to verify our information, our pictures, our personas are actually ours. By that same mentality, if we can promote an editor who has nothing on a userpage but a picture of a lolcat, we can most certainly promote an editor who had a former account in good-standing. Sad you would have suffered less opposes by not mentioning it, but refreshing that a glimpse of your real-life ethical standards can be seen by admitting information that could potentially spark controversy. Best of luck and sticking to your guns about not revealing issues which could damage your right to privacy, especially in light that we do not have to divulge private information, is something that I admire. You show good character.
'''Strong Support''' per Law and Pastor Theo.
'''Support''' the upload logs look OK, and I can trust Pastor Theo's judgement on the former account.  Not all the questions are answered how I would like, but the details on the rules and methods can be learned.
'''Weak Support''' Part of the speedy work is okay, even if it has some mistakes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SLH_Transport&diff=prev&oldid=311554656 A7 on company with notable owner], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_gorgonites&diff=prev&oldid=300488528 A7 for fictional elements]) but they have also shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One,_Two&diff=311379554&oldid=311379245 willingness to improve]  (even if it could have been a bit better and before tagging, but there is no need to be picky) . Unfortunately, the answer to Q10 is just plain wrong, while those to Q8 and Q17 show more understanding and a reflection of patience.  See MuZemike's oppose as well. I have no problem with this user wishing to preserve their privacy and I am trusting Pastor Theo not to blatantly lie to us about confirming it, so there is nothing wrong with that, although I echo Shereth's comment that the candidate should simply abandon those edits and not take credit for them anymore. JamieS93's and Law's support !votes (currently #36 and #41) echoe my thoughts on the whole matter well, so I will not comment further on that. With the somewhat weak grasp on policy rivaling a genuine willingness to be open, helping the project and to improve on mistakes, I will support nevertheless, trusting this user to improve on the areas mentioned by oppose and neutral !voters alike. The support comes weakly though because of those issues and, in case this request is successful, I would advise the user to seek an admin who has great experience in the areas they wish to work in as a mentor, who can help to assure that they will not make such mistakes on the "real job". Regards '''
'''Support''' Looks Perfect to me.
'''Support''' Since it was confirmed no abuse took place from the prior account.
'''Support''' (Moved from opposition.) Per <s>[[User:Pastor Theo|Pastor Theo]]</s> [[User:Thatcher|Thatcher]] and the principle of [[WP:AGF|AGF]]. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''', great answers to the questions. Also, agree with above comments by {{user|JamieS93}} and {{user|Law}}, and per review by {{user|Thatcher}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008&diff=314005597&oldid=314005311]. '''
'''Support''' See no problems.  I don't know if this will pass.  If it doesn't, the candidate my want to spend the cold winter months (if Northern Hemisphere) reassessing his position on disclosure of the prior account.  Unless there is a huge smoking gun in there, and Theo persuades me there isn't, you'd be an admin in a couple adays if you were willing to disclose.--
'''Support''' per Pastor Theo's review. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Per Pastor Theo's confirmation.
Looks good to me. We must AGF here.
Here for the right reasons, we need more active admins, and the Good Pastor has neatly, in my opinion, allayed concerns regarding the old account. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I trust <s>the Pastor</s> Thatcher, and see no reason not to trust this candidate with the tools. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Thatcher's confirmation is good enough for me. [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]] ([[User talk:Tim Song|talk]]) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) <small> tweaked to make clear that I'm aware of recent developments.
'''Support''' - it would have been better to have had somebody check the previous account first, but no harm done.  Will be a net positive to Wikipedia to have the user as an admin.
Well, I said I wasn't going to vote, but I'm seeing a shift of consensus on the issue of previous accounts, and since this seems to be a done deal (in this case), I'm happy to assent.  Clearly, it was important to people that Pastor Theo looked at the account; in the future, it would probably be a good idea for candidates to have more than one person look at the account and talk about any potential problems from that account (in a general, non-identifying way) on their talk page before they come to RfA.  I still don't like the idea of whoever-happens-to-be-handy in this role; it doesn't have to be crats, but crats would be ideal, if they're willing to respond to a request at [[WP:BN]] for this.  Anyway, this RFA is looking good now, and best of luck. - Dank (
'''Support''' - Review of contribs seems fine, willingness to learn is a plus, and doesn't seem power-hungry. Active in vandal fighting and is moving into admin tasks. --'''''
'''Support''' - The only issue with the previous account thing was trying to lay claim to those edits , which is only a minor mistake IMO.  Evaluating only the 11k edits of on this account, I find a strong dedication to Wikipedia and good communication skills.  The answer to Q10 is wrong, as noted, but reviewing new name's actual speedy tags I found only two errors since July: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_gorgonites&diff=prev&oldid=300488528][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SLH_Transport&diff=311554656&oldid=310967068].  I found many cases where he had removed or changed someone else's inaccurate speedy tag which is a definite positive.  Among these removals were evidence that he has corrected the error in his thought that led to speedy tagging a fictional element.  I also reviewed new name's AfD contributions and found them to be solid. --
'''Support''' Some concern over speedy deletions and the answer to question 10 give me pause, but other concerns raised do not bother me and ThaddeusB above makes a good argument so will support.
'''Support''' Although the answer to Question No. 10 and a few mistakes with speedy deletions are a tad disconcerting, I see no major problems or difficulties. You'll make a fine admin!
'''Support''' per [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]].  It is unfortunate that an innocuous and forthright disclosure has been met with suspicion.  The contributions, especially to content, suggest ANN2008 will be a valuable addition.
'''Support''' The user has my trust; he'd be a good addition. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' and go fight those vandals.  Just don't speedy anything incorrectly. -
'''Support''' Per Thatcher mostly confirming the account. I also believe that even if i had direct access to those edits it would be dificult to jusde the editor based on edits from that long ago. The recent work has gained a level of trust, and thus I support. (also per query 15) Happy editing
Normally I would stay out, or even oppose, I don't like name changes that hide one's past, and the part about trying to take extra credit sort of rubbed me the wrong way. But I'm supporting because no one should fail their vite purely due to bad luck and opposes that are built on that bad luck. ++
Opposes are unconvincing.
'''Support'''.  Sufficient experience under current name to be trusted with admin tools.  With Thatcher's confirmation, no concerns about the old account.
'''Support''' - has made reasonable attempts to address concerns about previous account, and Thatcher confirms claims made.  Certainly ANN2008 should not suffer for Pastor Theo's failings and the fact that opposes are building on that separate issue forces me to lodge a support !vote.  Whilst questions do raise some concerns, none are sufficient for me to doubt what is the just outcome of this RfA.
'''Support''' A lot of vandalism reversions under current account should be more than enough to establish that A new name can be trusted with admin tools. --
Happy to give the user the benefit of the doubt. '''
I wouldn't normally comment, but seeing some apparent "guilty by association" comments now in this RfA, I decided to take a look. First off, old undisclosed accounts tend to make me uncomfortable, but with Thatcher's vouching, your immediate disclosure (in your username even), and one year of contribs to look at with the new account, it's no longer an issue for me. Policy and CSD knowledge seems absolutely appropriate, your recent CSD declines and corrections like at [[Yummy FTP]], [[Te Ame]], and [[Bark graft]] leave me mostly confident. I fully trust you know when to improve instead of delete. Your recently reduced contributions had me worried at first that adminship is only one more step towards retirement, but that's quickly explained by your reduced RC patrolling.<br>I am convinced you'll do just fine with the additional buttons, and have no concerns. Thank you, and good luck.
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
'''Support''' - No reaason to Oppose.
'''Support''' Seems okay to me. I didn't see anything much from the opposes. And Arbcom seems more willing to remove tools if something untoward comes to light.
I wasn't going to participate, but have now decided to: I trust Thatcher with his confirmation that A new name 2008's old account was a good one and trouble-free. I don't like the way this RfA has suddenly received a ton of opposition thanks to Pastor Theo's antics: it's not this candidate's fault Pastor Theo wasn't who he appeared to be. However, I suppose it probably is better for this to have been revealed ''during'' the RfA rather than after, and some people then suddenly start demanding A new name 2008 to resign his adminship or face an arbitration case for something that wasn't even his fault. I disagree with transparency-based opposition: if A new name 2008 wasn't at least somewhat transparent he'd have never mentioned the old account and would have passed this with no major problems at all; and at least A new name 2008 has allowed someone highly trusted and respected to verify his claims.
'''Support'''. That the user chose to reveal that they had a previous account should be held for them not against. Given recent events, honesty is something to be valued.
'''Support''' I recall seeing A new name around a lot in recent changes and new pages. I can't remember having seen any new page tagging where I've thought "that's really bad", and I've seen a lot which I've thought is good. Also, a number of admins I highly respect have said up above that the candidate does good tagging. I have no problems with what I've seen of their work in RCP. Looking through your user talk, you seem to remain civil enough (although I feel you could take an extra minute to explain things in more depth for newbs). But naturally you're not perfect :D. I would like to see an improvement in article building. To really understand AfD, you need to create some good articles which get nominated for deletion, IMO (I saw you have one recent AfD warning on your usertalk, but you didn't take part in the AfD and I can't see how much you really edited the page). From their previous experience they should be able to manage in the areas they wish to take part in to start off with (deletion). And I also think they could cope with blocking (although I appreciated that you seem to want to start ff slow). Overall, I think you've done a lot for the 'pedia, and could do even more with the tools. And, previous account or not, I trust you :D. -
'''Support''' I trust Thatcher - if he trusts you to not be abusing the new account, so do I. As someone pointed out somewhere (can't remember if it was on WP, IRC, or email), you probably could have passed just on this account's edits if you'd chosen a less obvious name. However, I appreciate your honesty, and see no reason to punish you for falling for the con man. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''. Conscientious and sensible editor, who will make a good admin in a time when we could always use more.  Good editing history even without taking into account the previous account, which has now been confirmed to at least be non-controversial. Getting unwittingly drawn into drama caused by a socking banned user does not cause me concerns given that it was ''visibly'' no fault of the candidate.~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Can't see any reason why not. Especially now that the previous account has been verified and reported clean. --
'''Support'''.  Although I'd prefer greater disclosure about a past account (and it was clearly strategically foolish to mention its edits as qualification) I think on balance this is an okay editor.  The Pastor Theo thing is indeed a peculiar mishap.  But it's what swayed me to support, as ANN2008 has handled a bizarre situation with great aplomb and dignity -- really that's all we can hope for. --
'''Support''' I had to think about this for a while. Yes, ANN made a mistake by claiming contributions under a username they were not willing to disclose. However, that mistake would be an easy one to make, and does not reflect on administrator judgement. By contrast, nobody seems to doubt this editor is effective at vandal fighting. In my opinion, we need more vandal fighters, and vandal fighting admins.
Supporting, mainly to counteract some of the "Pastor Theo" opposes, which do not reflect on this candidate. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' Shows ability to learn from mistakes, which is an absolutely vital trait in an admin.--
'''Support''' - while I was initially unsatisfied with the first review, the more thorough look by Thatcher sets the mind at ease. The other concerns raised are noted, but admins learn on the job - I would just advise candidate to proceed with caution. Their head seems to be in the right place and they were forthcoming from the start. A new name 2008 would do well to rename to something less ambiguous regardless the result of this nomination. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' Looks good. The old account thing is not a problem. I often wish I'd chosen to edit under some mysterious nickname given the crap I take (for a good laugh, see [http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/43]) and Pastor Theo confirms that the previous account was used responsibly.
'''support''' There have been some obvious very serious issues in the past with this user. The user was also very unlucky to confide in Theo earlier which has created drama surrounding the situation which is no fault of the candidate at all. Evaluating the user's contributions, solely based on the contributions of this account, I'm willing to support.
'''Support''' Agree with consensus here that despite some issues, this will be a good person to join the admins.  I'd go so far as to add that if someone with a lonstanding record of dedication to Wikipedia can be tarred by a few questionable decisions that they rectify, then something is wrong here in Wikipedia.  By the way, I detect uncivil & openly hostile discussion not too far above.
'''Support''' We need more admins.  Also, I have seen this user engage in many valid vandalism revisions, and subsequent [[WP:AIV]] reports. We can never have enough anti-vandal admins. <font color="blue">[[User:Feinoha|Fei<font color="red">noh</font><font color="green">a</font> ]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Feinoha|Talk]],
{{ec}} '''Support:''' I am abandoning [[User:Dendodge/Admin criteria]] to support this RfA due to the fact that it is due to close soon, but also to help counter some of the less relevant oppose !votes. I agree with everything said above, and cannot really add any more. It seems unfair that a user should be penalised for exercising their right to vanish, or because of subsequent circumstances regarding the person who verified this. I don't see how this candidate could possibly be anything other than a net gain to the project.
'''Support''' per Thatcher and the fact that we need more admins. I feel that ANN2008 has been, in a way, let down Pastor's meddling and I hope to right this. --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. Every user has the right to vanish, and should not be declined adminship because of this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' RTV is widely recognized as an important part of our community. Either RTV remains available to editors or it doesn't. One shouldn't be penalized at RFA if independent, trustworthy verification can and has been obtained. I trust Thatcher.
'''Support''' - net positive and assuming good faith. Theo's involvement doesn't alter my opinion, not even by an inch. Good luck —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Last minute support'''.  I am unconcerned by the change of username, and I am sufficiently satisfied even without those contributions that the candidate is suitable.
"'Support"' This is a website, get over yourselves.
'''Support''': Per Hiberniantears. --
'''Support''' Per Cool3, and Hiberniantears. '''<span style="font-family:Segoe Print;text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">
'''Suppport''' I thought long and hard on this one, but have decided that based on the contribs under this name that he can be trusted with the tools. Thatcher's confirmation is all I need with respect to the prior account.
'''Support''' I've been following this RfA for a few days, and the privacy concerns do not worry me. Great work so far, and can be trusted with the tools. Anyone who keeps his cool during this stress can surely behave so when dealing with incidents. --
Per apparent lack of audited content contributions. Vandal fighting is great, but given that there's no evidence of substantial content building I'm going to have to oppose per [[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|my criteria]]. I'm also uncomfortable not knowing the original account of the candidate. <font color="#cc6600">
Per David Fuchs. WIll support if you come back after a while with some solid content contributions.--
'''Oppose''' The coyness and the secrecy are two things that I don't look for when trying to determine trust. It is bad enough when people unknowingly hide faults.

'''Oppose''' - I appreciate your desire and respect for privacy as is your right, but it also puts you in the awkward position of no-one being able to vet those contributions.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I don't mind the fact that this user has an old account they are not keen on disclosing; indeed, if someone has a spotted past but has since established sufficient trust with us under a new identity, the old identity is of little importance.  That said, I find it somewhat unsettling that the candidate is willing to lay claim to 10,000+ edits on an undisclosed account.  When someone wants a fresh start, they get just that - a [[tabula rasa]] does not enable one to hang on to past achievements, particularly when said achievements are to be taken on faith alone.  [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] does not mean that critical thinking must be abandoned in favor of taking one's word for it.  I don't want to put too much value in "feeling unsettled" but the whole thing leaves me just on the wrong side of being able to support. [[User:Shereth|<b><font color="#0000FF">Sher</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Shereth|eth]]</font></b> 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC) '''Note:''' Re-affirming myself here, after giving it a lot of thought; I'm just really uncomfortable with this one.  If nothing else the entire situation shows a lack of good judgement on the candidate's part; essentially per Roux below.
'''Oppose''' I share Ironholds' concerns
'''Oppose''' – while lack of content-building would make my !vote a weak support or weak oppose, the answers to the questions drive my !vote to a solid oppose. Go back through on those basic policies and guidelines, and make sure you get a better knowledge of them, including the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]].
'''Oppose''' <s>essentially for account concerns discussed above. I can't support someone who I know is not being transparent or open with the community. I also disagree with the suggestion that Cirt's controversial RfA is a "precedent". A failure to be honest and transparent with the community about one's activities on Wikipedia has always been a valid reason to decline access to administrator tools. I'm all for protecting privacy, but as I said during Cirt's RFA, I cannot support someone when I know that a not insignificant slab of the user's history on the project is knowingly and deliberately being hidden from the community, especially when that non-disclosed history is actively being paraded as part of the user's "qualifications" for adminship (project tenure, activities, blocks and warnings, edit count, etc). If the history is going to be included in the users "wiki-resume" for RFA purposes then it really needs to be able to examined and not simply stated as fact but then not open to being examined, questioned, etc. Aside from the account issue, I don't find the nomination or the answers at all convincing but rather strike me as rather weak and it's just not enough (in my eyes) to get over any doubts or concerns raised by the issue of a lack of openness and transparency. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 04:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</s> Just to add that I have seen the above discussion about the candidate identifying their prior account to Theo but I am standing by my oppose. I'm not satisfied with this whole idea of presenting "qualifications" from another account for RFA purposes yet not allowing the community to examine the contributions, question them, or evaluate them. If you don't want a prior account to be examined at RFA then you really shouldn't be citing it's contributions as part of your "qualifications" for adminship. I also find the very low article talk contributions as mentioned by Slim below to be alarming. Admins need to be able to communicate well and work effectively in content disputes and such low article talk contributions are rather concerning to me. I had a look through the candidate's article talk contributions and the bulk of them are talk page tagging and reversion of vandalism, so I'm just not convinced the user has the appropriate skills or experience in that regard. I also remain unsatisfied and unconvinced by the nomination statement and answers. So I shall be staying here in the oppose section. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I know this is very long but there's something I really feel I need to add. I came here this morning to withdraw my oppose and move to the neutral section as I'm really uncomfortable with the way this RFA has spiralled off with people seemingly supporting and opposing based on reasons that don't really have anything to do with the candidate's suitability, such as the most unfortunate and disgraceful behaviour of Ecoleetage/Theo which has entirely corrupted this RFA to an extent that I don't feel the candidate is getting a proper evaluation as an admin candidate, but rather, people are merely voting and voting based on their reaction to Theo's actions. I would really like to change to neutral because I see this RFA as hopelessly corrupted but I've reviewed the candidate's contributions with this account and I'm most sincerely not convinced that they have the requisite experience for adminship. So I'm going to stay here as an oppose on that basis but I just want to note that I'm really unsatisfied with this RFA and I think the best outcome all round would be a no consensus either way and the candidate taking a little time to consider and reflect on some of the more useful feedback they've received, possibly changing their username to something a little less of a red flag, and then resubmitting themselves for reconsideration.
'''Oppose''' for two reasons. First, the lack of transparency, yet the willingness to take credit for the extra 10,000 edits. Secondly, this account has around 12,000 article edits (reverting vandalism) compared to under 800 article talk, and under 400 to project and project talk, which shows almost no interaction with the community. <font color="green">
The candidate indicates an intention to work in content-focused areas ([[C:SD]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:RM]] and [[WP:RFPP]]), but has a weak record of developing and defending high-end content. The candidate has contributed significantly to no audited content, and appears to have created only two articles, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honeybee_Robotics&oldid=308782083 the strongest of which] does not instill confidence for a prospective administrator assessing articles up for deletion. With such a history, the candidate is not currently qualified for the task. I'm not seeing much in the way of policy discussion ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=A+new+name+2008&namespace=5&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 meagre WT edits]) or dispute resolution in the candidate's recent contributions either.
'''Oppose''' There seems to be certain gaps in quality content work and questions that undermine confidence...
'''Oppose''' Admins need to remember what it's like for those in the trenches. I'm not seeing enough content work to indicate that the candidate will be able to have such a perspective. While I admire conciseness, answers to the questions are weak and in particular do not show an appreciation for nuance. (The previous account doesn't bother me.)
'''Oppose''', with all due respect to [[User:Pastor Theo]], I don't like secrets and I don't like the idea of admins with undisclosed alt accounts running around.
'''Oppose''', primarily due to lack of transparency. Your new account lacks the level of experience needed to gain my confidence, and I am unwilling to take someone else's word about your previous experience.
'''Weak Oppose''' Even though the candidate did contact Pastor Theo (for which I commend them), it makes me uneasy to think that this was not done at the beginning, to clear out any confusion before '''Oppose''' votes came in due to the secrecy and discrepancy in edit counts. Will update later. --
'''Oppose''' based on the concerns that have been raised above.
'''Oppose''' because the privacy antics are very, very childish.
'''Oppose''' I have a really hard time conceiving of an innocuous reason to conceal the identity of an account used to make 11,000 edits.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''OPPOSE''' A past, secret account? And a ringing endorsement by "a pastor", cited by many as "trustworthy", and now also banned for sockpuppetry? This smells like lutefisk on the Fourth of July.
'''Oppose''' the shenanigans concerning verifications or lack thereof aside, even without all this weirdness I'd still lean toward oppose, per SlimVirgin. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Mainspace edits does an editor make, not tens of thousands of mostly minor vandalism reverts via Twinkle. That plus the lack of full, honest disclosure, which indicates this mysterious candidate has something to hide, just sets my spidey sense a tingling.--
'''Gut feeling oppose''' I have thought long and hard before voting on this one. Given the numerous neutral comments and the opposes in this section, my gut feeling is that I simply cannot trust this person with the tools. Something just doesnt sit right. The reasons are pretty much summed up by the various neutral votes and opposes. I wish you the best of luck in the future and if there is anything I can do to help you in a future rfa please do ask and ill do my best to help. '''
I will not support a user whose full record cannot be assessed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose''' basically per CrotchetyOldMan. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see some transparency here, and Pastor Theo, who is vouching for the user, has now been desysopped and banned for socking. I'm just not comfortable supporting here.
'''Oppose'''. Drama magnet before they even start.
'''Oppose''': Not enough Constructive Edits or Transparency. -
'''Oppose'''. The only thing we have to judge people on is their contribution history. This trend of breaking it makes a mockery of it, and harms Wikipedia's transparency.
'''Oppos''' Per concerns noted above.--
'''Oppose''', in the circumstances surrounding Pastor Theo, it's best that we not promote A new name 2008 at this time, bearing in mind how difficult it is to remove adminship.
'''Oppose''' - <s>Theo's support of this RfA makes me concerned.</s> If nothing else, it speaks volumes about the need for transparency between accounts. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Weak oppose'''. Unimpressed by answer to Q2. While I don't think a lot of article work is needed to be an admin, you need to have at least ''some'' experience in that area. Candidate says "saving these articles are my best contributions", with which I sympathize, but there are no references for that. I therefore need to take unreferenced criticism seriously, too. While I think the way candidate broached the old name issue was clumsy, I wouldn't oppose because of that. That is overrated by many, but it is to some extent balanced by those who vote support because of AGF: AGF means that in the event of no information, we assume the best. That works for our collaboration with other editors, but it's a bad criterion for RfA: We only end up promoting those who have never or seldom dared any tough task. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I have not problem with not disclosing the previous account as you've had an independent admin check it out privately.  But I think there's a lot more to having the tools then just vandal fighting.  I'm not a stickler for audited content work, but it would be nice to see a lot more content work in general.  --'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I was neutral before, but I opposed Pastor Theo's RfA because he just didn't seem right and his involvement here pushes me to oppose--it was finely balanced neutral before.  I understand that it may not be your fault but something just doesn't smell quite right.  Unlike fish, you may smell better in a few months.
Per Sarah and SlimVirgin; if you wish to use the contribs of a previous account to show your understanding of Wikipedia, fine. But the inability of the rest of us to truly evaluate them is a concern. Not that I don't trust Thatcher, but s/he may not be looking for the same things I would, or anyone else would. I recognise that this puts you in an uncomfortable Catch-22, but the alternative was simply to not mention the previous account... however, that would have been an instant uncategorical oppose from me, because I believe in transparency. Further, personally-incriminating information is best dealt with via [[WP:OS|oversight]], and not creating a wholly new account, then partially relying on the old account for credibility. I really do see the untenable position here, but there are a series of questionable judgement calls--not requesting oversight, creating the new account, relying on that account to bolster your bid for adminship, releasing information to a random admin instead of ArbCom or a CU--that lead me to worry about how you'd make judgement calls as an admin. Sorry. →&nbsp;
'''Opppse''' per Ottava Rima (I don't like coyness in interviews, and I would prefer honesty).
'''Opppse''' - There are some experience concerns if I only look at the current account. With respect to the previous one I would have expected candidate to realize at some time that partly due to his own contribution a situation has arisen that makes it hard for the community to assess what the actual consensus is. A withdrawal from an RfA that cannot really be repaired would have helped here more than rushing to remedy the situation and then later hang on once the initial remedy exploded. --
'''Oppose''' - per the Wub. I have to agree with Roux though on some things. Releasing information that is supposedly personal to some random person on the internet with no accountability was a rather questionable decision. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose'''. Per SlimVirgin's reasons which she   expressed eloquently above.  —
'''Oppose'''.  New starts are good, (although eternally screaming that you've done so from your new username was an interesting choice).  Regardless of the later checking-out, though, I have a problem with the thought process that led you to initially claim credit for 10k edits on an old account, whilst not doing anymore than claiming that account existed.  Abandoned accounts are just that, any kudos that accrued to them has to be abandoned at the same time as the identifying info you wanted to leave behind.  So really, regardless of anything else, even if the new account had been flawless, I would be concerned about your judgement, and there are enough concerns raised elsewhere that I think that that certainly needs to be flagged.  Wait a little longer, demonstrate more slow-down-and-thinking, and I'm sure you'll do better next time :) --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not just yet. '''\'''
No article content creation work '''
'''Oppose'''. I believe the concerns about one-third of the nominee's long edit history being unavailable are legitimate. If the nominee has made inappropriate personal information available in connection with the older account, there are ordinarily ways to remove that information and then allow examination of the older account -- or, if not, the nominee has provided no explanation of why that removal cannot be carried out.  Assuming no great technical problems, the old edits jeopardizing the nominee's privacy should be oversighted, removed, whatever (whether a second rfa is forthcoming or not); then, if the nominee stands at rfa again, his/her full edit history will be open for examination and, I expect, the rfa will succeed.
'''Neutral''' Per David, largely.  I think there is a concern with the unwillingness to reveal a past account, but that fact alone is not enough for me to oppose.  We have sysopped people before with highly controversial past accounts, and this has caused some trouble.  I don't ''know'' if the candidate's past account was controversial or not, and '''I don't like our options''' for certifying whether or not it is.  We may force the candidate to reveal the account, or place trust in some person to explore the account themselves and then report that the account was innocuous.  I prefer to AGF, but still remain neutral.
'''Suggest powerdown, wait ten seconds, and reboot'''. Dropping the metaphor, there is some opposition regarding the mere fact that you have a previous account the name of which you are not disclosing. This is unavoidable and your transparency is appreciated. There is however additional opposition regarding the manner - doubtness not ill-intended - in which you also wanted the community to give you credit for your prior tenure nevetheless in judging your suitability for adminship. That combined with other more typical RFA concerns I think has started your RFA down an unfortunate path. I'd suggest you withdraw now, wait a month or so, and then ideally find a respected administrator to nominate you, recommend people judge you on your by then doubtless 20+k edits and >1 year tenure in your current account, and assert as nominator that they have verified that your previous account does not have blocks, etc., as did Pastor Theo above. I think you will then have a much better chance of success. Even better if you also by then have more content contributions and somewhat more compelling answers to the questions.
'''Neutral'''. You seem reasonable enough to be an administrator. But if you wish to gain the trust of a community, it helps to not point a big blinking arrow to yourself that says "I AM HIDING SOMETHING", regardless of how innocuous the actual situation is. Your username does exactly that. Not every user you interact with will read this RfA, but they may just look at your name and saying "damn Wikipedia and its unaccountable shadowy administrators".<br/>My suggestion: get yourself a less sketchy-looking username, get people to know you under that name, and come back with an RfA based on the contributions you've made under "A new name 2008" and your new new name -- not under your old name.
'''Neutral'''. Limited content contributions. I am also a little disappointed by the answer to question 10. The answer is technically correct, but I would hope that A new name 2008 would make some attempt to establish/refute notability and look for additional information for the article.
I just can't lend my support if we don't know what you did under your older account. '''
'''Neutral'''. I'll assume good faith on the issue of the old account. But Q10 is incorrect; according to A3, "a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context." It tells us that it is a middle school in some town in Kansas, which is sufficient to identify the subject and allow expansion on it. What if it said "Roosevelt Middle School is a middle school in Centerville, KS"? It's essentially the same thing, but then it would not count as "a rephrasing of the title." Still, most of the other questions are satisfactory, so I won't oppose. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' Your vandal fighting contribs are great, but your lack of as David Fuchs would put it "audited contribs" combined with your previous accounts, leaves me a little wary to support but doesn't dissuade me enough to oppose.  Best,
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''' for now. Don't cite edits made by an account you're not willing to reveal. That's certainly not helpful.
Sorry, but not yet.  You indicate that one of your indended duties as an administrator would be to work at UAA, and while your reports there are largely very helpful there have been some recently that are somewhat questionable and didn't merit a report.  No outstanding problems but I just believe you need a little more time to refine yourself before picking up the mop.
'''No''' per answers to all questions above.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per incredibly dodgy work at UAA.
Way too many inappropriate UAA reports. Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't quite trust your judgment. –'''
'''Oppose''' per Julian. -
'''Oppose'''. Really sorry, I know you are a well meaning, and normally helpfull editor. So please don't let this put you off Wikipedia. But I have to oppose due to your mistakes in [[WP:CSD|CSD]] realated areas. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry .It is as per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try again later .

[[WP:NOTNOW]]. <strong>
Just a friendly addition to the above comments, try to get some article editing in, too. Welcoming new editors is important, but ultimately we're here to expand the encyclopedia. --
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]].--
'''Oppose''' - Would like to see a bit more experience. '''
'''Oppose'''. Agree with the above - love the enthusiasm, and I'm sure I'll be able to support your next RFA. Take some time around the project and get some good experience before re-applying, though - it'll help your chances here, and it'll make you a better editor & admin. Good luck to you.
'''Oppose''' While I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.You have 684 edits and would like more experience before you try again as per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Sorry and Best Wishes for the future.
'''Oppose''' Was this a joke? You want to remove all users from Wikipedia? How does that help? <span style="background-color:Green;">&nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Moral Support''' - I think the opposition makes some valid points, but I see potential for a successful RfA in the future.
'''Moral Support''' - Per Crafty ;).
'''Moral Support: '''Great potential for a successful RfA in the future.
Sorry, but at the moment, I feel you don't have sufficient experience. In your nomination statement, you say you have three years of experience, but you've only been editing since December 2007, or about two years, and during that time you only made 1,140 edits. While editcount is a poor indicator of competence, you often make only a handful of contributions each month. Additionally, [[User_talk:Adamfinmo#CSD_tagging|this]] leaves me concerned. Your work here is appreciated, and I'd happily reconsider in about four or five months if you become more active overall, but for now I don't feel comfortable supporting. Best of luck regardless. –'''
As Julian said. I dislike very much people who judge on edit account, but only one thousand edits for three years of experience just doesn't seem active enough. Thanks for coming here though.--
Keep up the good work, you'll get there!--
'''Oppose''' per Julian and I am just not comfortable with your current level of activity.
'''Moral Support but Oppose''' - You are a little unexperienced however the few contributions you do have are great. I thank you for your work you have done on the wiki. May I also suggest if you run for RfA later, you will get oppose votes for automated edits ([[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]]). Only 20% of your edits are Twinkle today, however that can rack up, and you will get oppose votes later. IT IS NOT BAD to use Twinkle. Keep working, and don't give up! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more in the way of edits and experience. '''
I do not feel that you have enough all-round experience. A lot of the edits I see are minor edits, even if they are not labelled as such - if I missed a few major edits, I apologise - just present some diffs to show them. I can't support you at this time, and I do not want to continue to pile on the opposes, hence my neutral. Get more experience, and try again in the future! -- '''''
From what I see, user has been around since 2007, but hasn't edited often enough to be considered worthy of the tools (onlt 1100+ edits in the past 2 years).  No reason for me to support or oppose this one.  &ndash;
'''Moral Support'''  I don't see anything to disqualify you.  I also don't see anything to qualify you.  Looking at the past few months, by month, your edits have been 8 in July, 1 in August, 11 in September, and 12 in October.  I think an RfA candidate needs to be more active recently before throwing their hat in the ring. You need a few months more seasoning with heaver activity, and then try again.
'''Neutral, with moral support''' Adam, you're a good editor with a respectable history on this site. There's no reason to oppose that I can see except for lack of experience, which you can easily fix with a few months of more active editing. That said, I recommend a non-bureaucrat closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Neutral''' Your heart is in the right place, so please do not be discouraged by this. If you come back with a few more thousand edits, I will most likely support you. Good luck in the meantime though!
'''Moral Support''' - you seem enthusiastic and I have no reason to believe you can't be trusted, however I suspect you may have jumped the gun a bit with this RfA. Consider the wisdom offered by those in opposition.
'''Moral Support''' - while I applaud your contributions on YPPedia, they hold no weight whatsoever on Wikipedia.--

'''Oppose''', with apologies. You seem to have the basics down, and do good work here. Please take a look at [[WP:NOTNOW]], and also carefully read the excellent advice given above. Best of luck to you, and we hope to see you here again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - As per above.
Per GlassCobra. Good on you for trying, but <200 edits is not nearly enough to demonstrate fluency with the intricacies of policies and site norms. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', sorry but every other editor in your position would be opposed and you are no exception.
'''Oppose''', Not sure what that other website is, but would want experience here, at this site. '''
'''Oppose''' Agree with all of the above, and respectfully suggest you withdraw for now. An admin needs a much larger amount of edits and experience, in my view. Would encourage you to try again next year, after more contributions. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' as experience on other wikis doesn't transfer here, it only matters what you do on THIS wiki.
Apologies but you are nowhere near ready enough to handle the mop.  I would like to see more experience in our policies and their enforcement, more article improvement and participation in deletion discussions before I can support you.  As a side, the wiki you refer to I have never heard of and likely has a very different method of operation. <small><span style="border:2px solid #006600;">
'''oppose'' - some advice for next time: Don't say that you want the mop so you can block people.  At least mention some kind of dispute resolution.
I'm concerned about someone who wants to delete and protect as '''they''' see appropriate. We have policies here and I believe administrators should use the tools in accordance with policy - by all means argue for changes to policy and of course you don't have to use the tools in areas where you disagree with the policy. If this prompts you to reconsider and expand on that statement I'd be happy to review my position. ''
'''Oppose''' - I just do not feel the candidate has the editting experience to determine his ability to resolve disputes with civility and good faith and his trustworthyness.  I would like to see at least 6 more months of edits and quite a few more of them.  I judge even myself at this standard because I am learning new things about Wikipedia consensus and policy every week.  It's important to know how all the policies work together, not just know what they are.--
'''Neutral''', You're off to a good start, and there's no reason to believe that you can't be trusted, but I'd like to see some more experience before I feel comfortable supporting an RFA for you.
Editor has the temperament to be an admin but currently lacks the skills.  Inability to find the three basic questions is pretty telling, but even more telling is making experimental edits that broke the db-g7 template less than two months ago, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Db-g7&action=history the history].
'''Strong oppose''' - Comments like "[liberal editors] seem to do more disruptive categorical editing and Talk page comments that slam shut the door on constructive debate" are completely unsuitable generalisations for a prospective administrator to make. I also highly disagree with the candidate's reliance on unverified real-life qualifications. The answers to Q2 and Q3 are some of the worst RfA answers that I have seen. <b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - per neuro and your answer to Q3.--
'''Oppose'''. No experience in administrative arenas. Gain some experience in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:ANI]], or really any administration-related areas in which you are interested (hard to tell, since you didn't answer Q1), and I will consider further.
'''Oppose''' - Agree with the above.  Weak in some areas an admin needs to be strong in, in my view. No answer to Q1 does not bode well. [UPDATE: Answer to Q1 has gone up after my original post, but does little to sway me.]  Self nomination does not feel right, and no one speaks in his favor as of this writing. Wish this applicant the best, however, if still interested in the future. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' due to weak answer to Q1 and bad answers to Q2 & 3. "Yes. I feel stressed when another user (or admin) seems to arbitrarily (without sufficient explanation) make a power play with an article in which I am invested." is worrying - this kind of behaviour will be abundant in administrator life. As far as I can tell, there is not a sufficient need for you to gain the tools and your areas of expertise (eg article writing) can be done without them. --
'''Oppose'''  Answers to questions leave me with the impression they do not even understand what a Wikipedia admin is.  No discussion in the questions about how any of the tools would be used or what experience they have in areas requiring tools.  There is not enough experience to show that this would be a net positive to the community. '''
'''Oppose''' per GB fan. Seems to think adminship is a given without knowing what it is, and that's odd.
'''Oppose''', Q3B. --

Sorry, but while I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to help, I'm afraid you've not yet demonstrated that you can be trusted with the tools. I suggest becoming active in vandal-fighting in the short term, which is a good place to start. After a few thousand edits and perhaps six months' experience, I'd be happy to support, barring any major issues. Best of luck! –'''
'''Oppose''' Come back when you have 3,000 more edits.  Recommend [[WP:SNOW|snow]] closure.
'''Oppose'''  You do not have enough experience to be granted the tools.  Come back in a few months after gaining experience in different areas.  --
'''Support''' Alan16 has worked hard to get the Novels wikiproject moving and has thus shown that he cares about building this encyclopedia. A net positive as far as I can see. --
'''Support''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Looks good]] so far.--
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]], moral or otherwise. I think you need a bit more experience to be honest, but I've seen you around, and you seem to know what you're doing. I'm confident you can learn on the job and prove to be a capable admin.
'''Support''' I have no problems with Alan as an admin. Good luck!
'''Support''', I am impressed with the user's attempts to explain any valid points raised in the oppose section and see no reason to be concerned so no reason to oppose at this stage. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''', mostly moral as it is unlikely this RfA will succeed at this point.  This is probably due to some concerns regarding lack of experience - and to be honest, the candidate could use some more refining in certain admin-intensive areas they have expressed an interest in - but overall I see a candidate who appears to have a good head on their shoulders and seems open to constructive criticism.  A good candidate even if the RfA is slightly premature.
'''Support''' Clean block log, civil editor with varied experience. 2,751 edits would not have been a problem a few years back when RFA was producing more admins than we were losing; now that RFA is sufficiently broken that our admin numbers are dwindling I suspect those who care about edit counts will be sufficient to make you wait three months or so (if so you might consider doing a few reviews at [[WP:FAC]], interesting stuff and doesn't require the mop). ''
'''Support''' Answers to the questions are thoughtful, open, and appear to be honest. Work is good, and one shouldn't be punished for not being as active as some of our 9000 edit/month members. Seems a net positive, which is fine in [[User:Wadester16/Admin#RFA Criteria|my book]]. '''
'''Support''' - per Regents, Alan as an admin would be a net positive. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Alan16. —
'''Oppose''' User scrubbed offensive userboxes, including "please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" directed at religious folks, in hopes of passing this RfA.
'''Oppose''' - I'm just not seeing the necessary experience that I've come to expect for RfA candidates and admin hopefuls. Also, for some reason, your answer to question 1 strikes an odd cord with me. Administrative powers? A half a dozen times to RFPP and you want to work there? Same with the drama-fest that is ANI? Sorry. I could see myself supporting in the future though.
'''Regretful Oppose for now''' First of all, I am on vacation, so I may not be able to completely review Alan's record. I must say, that hopefully time willing, I can switch, but at the moment, I think Wisdom hit the point directly. Again, give me a chance to hopefully review everything, but just in case, I do oppose per wisdom. Sorry, and good luck.
'''Oppose'''.  Alan16 does some very good work around the project.  However, the issues such as those noted by Keepscases and Wisdom89 could potentially problematic and prevent me from supporting.  I feel you need a few months more experience and some more edits in the administrative areas of the project.  Otherwise, keep up the good work and come back in several months.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''', per badgering of every other editor opposing.
'''Oppose'''.  Basically per Wisdom's commentary on the questions, with the additional comment that I didn't get the sense that the candidate has thought through exactly what they would do with the mop; also, just over 1000 mainspace edits strikes me as quite thin, especially as when I browse through the contributions, a few hundred or so seem to be automated. --
'''Oppose'''. Content contribution ''and'' housekeeping work, ''both'', are below RFA standard. You've been here for only half a year, after all, and at this rate of contribution gaining proper experience will take years. Example: opinions pulled "purely from memory" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Fry_in_America&diff=prev&oldid=306056075] - are you aware of [[WP:V]]? (although kudos for admitting the fact).
'''Not yet.''' When you come back, I'll be looking for evidence of some successes in dispute resolution (perhaps from WQA), evidence of further progress in your understanding of policy at AfD, and in view of your ambition to work at AN/I, evidence of successful drama-control in places such as EAR.—
'''Not yet'''.  Editors can start doing admin work at any time; 90% of the things admins do can be done by anyone.  I don't see evidence that you have significant experience with any of the things that admins do, but I'm impressed with your work at [[WP:NOVEL]].  I could see myself supporting in 3 months depending on what you do between now and then. - Dank (
'''Oppose'''. This editor is in fact fairly young, and my experience of him a few months ago showed him also to be rather immature. He needs to work on avoiding and defusing his own disputes. Only then will it be sensible to put him in a position where he has any power over other people's.
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Regretful Oppose]] Sorry Alan, but I feel that you are not yet ready. You've done great work at Novels and can make a great admin. But you need more experience for that. Please return after 1-3 months.
'''Weak oppose'''. The only problem I have with your editing is your experience in the projectspace.  You spend very little time editing there, and yet you wish to work there as an admin.  When you have more experience I will support. '''
'''Oppose''': per the comments above.
'''Oppose'''. Wisdom89 makes a good case against Alan16 being admin'd at the current time. I almost want to support, to cheese off the Christian activism winding itself serpentlike through this RfA, but that would not do anyone any good. Alan, show us what you've done to improve your standing and understanding again in 6 months, and let me know that you're running, I look forward to seeing the sort of gains that will make me pleased to vote you up.
I advise the oppose section to find a less flimsy rationale.
'''Neutral''' You're a great candidate, but you need more experience.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Neutral''' Terrific candidate and I wouldn't be terribly sad if they were given the tools. Keep up your current pace of editing, maybe clerk a little in the areas you mentioned you would be using the bit, and I'll be happy to support your next RfA.
'''Neutral''' You're a great candidate, but the whole 3RR breaking just days before you came here shows that you have more to learn. Come back in a few months and you might have my support.
Per Tan. '''
'''Neutral'''. I don't find the userboxes to be that big of an issue. However, per what Download said, you should get some more WP experience; that's there the admin tools are used. You'll have my support in a few months. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral'''. A little more experience is probably required before his likely temperament across a range of areas can be properly judged, but he shows promise. The answer to Q4 nudges me from the oppose camp to here, as it displayed an awareness of both self and the way the role is perceived that was lacking in the nomination statement. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Here at RfA, voters look for experience to show them that the candidate knows the policies and can be trusted with the tools. Please see [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]].

'''Oppose''' Only been editing since February, I'd like to see some more time.--
'''Moral support''' as to avoid piling on. The advice in oppose #3 can be very helpful. Cheers, '''
'''Moral Support''' - I would like to see a little more experience. I do applaud you for not using [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]] to obtain most of your edits. A little more experience is required, I think.--
'''Oppose'''. Very irregular activity, with less than a 100 edits in the past 4 months and about 1.5 years of inactivity before last March. I don't feel admins have to be highly active in terms of edit count, but at least they need to be around regularly. The nom statement doesn't impress me either. If all you want is feedback, then you could've started an editor review.--
'''Oppose''' &ndash; As above. You have just short of 5000 edits but less than 60 in the last 4 months. Your statement is very badly done as well, only one sentence for each of the 3 questions basically. Also, this isn't the place to "move on" from edit conflicts.

'''Oppose''' Sorry, I hate to pile on, but I just realized after reading the first 2 opposes, if you exclude the long period of inactivity, it's really only been a few months since you were last blocked.  I had planned to write those blocks off as being too long ago to matter, but I can't do that now.  Nonetheless, I think that you look like a good candidate and depending on how active you plan to me you could certainly look at running RfA in a few more months.  I would advise you to make sure you have good answers to the questions though.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' Soap summarized it well. I don't know whether I can trust you with the tools yet.
'''Oppose''' suggest close per [[WP:SNOW]]
'''Neutral''' As to not pile on. Pay close attention to iMatthew's oppose there's a lot of helpful info there.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' I believe, despite your edit count that you will excel at admin duties.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - Sorry, 1) < 500 edits, 2) your response to Q1 ''"incorrect edits on road articles (blocks)"'' is exceptionally alarming (you intend to block editors for "incorrect edits"?!). Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per above <font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' - per Pedro - try again perhaps in several months with more experience. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] perfectly applies here. Try working in the WP-namespace - experience and expertise is contagious. <span style="font-family:terminal">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you are not qualified enough.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Moral support''' --
'''[[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] oppose''' - Sorry, but you only have about 600 edits. While editcount isn't a decidign factor, most of those were simply rating school articles' importance. I'd like to see much more experience in an administrator. Please keep working for a few more months, and I'll reconsider.
'''Moral Support''' While your enthusiasm is commendable, I don't think that you're quite ready yet.
'''Oppose''' Per above <font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''', a little too soon.

Okay, I think a support here, but I have a horrible feeling [[WP:EDITCOUNT]] is going to spoil this RFA for you. I've a few concerns (some of your AFD comments seem fairly limited IMHO) but on the positive no blocks, good article writing, AIV reports look good, nothing worrying on your talk (although the lack of substantial talk page intreraction other than vandal warning is also a mild concern). Still, no glaring reason to oppose. <small>Oh, and you've adopted a great style for presenting your RFA *smiles*.</small> Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; nothing terribly concerning, won't blow up the wiki with the bit. –'''
'''Regretful Oppose'''. You seem like a good guy but I don't think you are quite ready for adminship. I would like to see more activity in AFD and CSD, as that is an area that you state you wish to participate in. Thanks anyway.--
'''Oppose'''. I don't think your ready yet. Try again once you gain more experience in the areas that you wish to help with.
'''Oppose''' per May creation of unsourced [[Upcoming River City Characters]]. You removed the PROD with a note that you were only using information from the official River City website, but never even linked to the main page, never mind one showing the info you added. This doesn't encourage me that you have as firm an understanding of policy as you claim above -- and you only claim understanding of policies which are actually enforced, anyhow. Add the conflict between good spelling and the typo "neear", and this definitely comes out as [[WP:NOTNOW]] for me.--
'''Oppose''' per SarekOfVulcan, Xymmax.
'''Oppose''': I'm sorry, but your CSD answer does not show enough experience to me. CSD is a tricky area; it looks simple, but it takes a lot of learning.
'''Oppose''' Per SarekofVulcan, lack of AfD work and answer to CSD question. Maybe next time.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' per SarekofVulcan. Your removal of the PROD and the answer to the CSD question is kind of troubling for an admin candidate -- you seem like a nice guy, but I just can't support right now. --
'''Oppose''' - Per lack of even minimal experience in the project space and total non-answers to questions four and five, which simply do not inspire confidence.
'''Oppose''' per SarekofVulcan.Please try again later .Good Luck.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I don't view you as active enough; you've made less than 50 edits over a span of 8 months or so. Also, the answers to your questions are vague, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maundy_Thursday&diff=prev&oldid=285316581 this edit summary] was quite arrogant, <s>and also included a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]</s>. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Oppose''' Thanks for offering to take up the mop but I don't think you are ready yet. 46 contributions is not really enough to demonstrate the depth of understanding of Wikipedia that we expect from our admins, also you seem to be leaving the edit summary field blank on most of your edits. ''
Not yet. Not ready.--
'''Strong Oppose'''  This user doesn't seem to be heartfelt in his nomination.  As a side note, you're supposed to replace the script "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" with a passage that will convince others that they should support your nomination.--
'''Neutral''' to avoid a pile-on of opposes. I would suggest that the candidate read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] for an idea of the minimum standards that are expected of admin candidates, and reapply later. <font face="Georgia">
Sorry, but [[User talk:Ant2387|every single post on your talkpage is a warning]].&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
Per [[User:Iridescent|iride]]</font><font color="#C1118C">[[User talk:Iridescent|scent]]</font>, and you have <s>been here for 5 weeks,</s> not even 200 edits. Suggest [[WP:SNOW|close because there is no chance this can succeed]]. →&nbsp;

'''Oppose''': I would like to see more experience in an admin. Try again in a few months.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Edits made under this account name are alright, but do not of themselves indicate enough experience in admin-related areas. Edits made as an IP cannot easily be assessed, given that we have no way of knowing which IP or IPs you have used. If this RfA fails, or indeed and especially if it succeeds, I suggest you make a habit of editing through your username. --<font color="Red">

'''Weak Oppose''', please do try again once you have a few more edits under your belt. Sadly, IP edits are difficult to verify. Good luck in any future RfA! --
{{ec}}'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I just don't think you have enough experience yet. Also per Anthony.bradbury. Thanks, '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Oppose''' Not enough editing experience (under your own username at least).  Also, if you want to be an admin, you need to better articulate the reasons why.  Your self-nom and answers to the questions don't demonstrate a very deep understanding of administrative tasks. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|L]]</font><font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Per lack of experience in admin areas. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Apteva]] -
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, there's just too few recent edits (under 300 this year) to really say anything about whether or not I trust your judgment.
'''neutral''' A weak one at that. Ive been torn to ask another question or leave it as it is. Im going to stay status quo. I liked most of the answer, however; What i didnt like was educating the blockee through a block. The purpose of any block is not to punish but to mitigate damage. In this case its a disruptive only account. Regardless of wether its a user page, mainspace the account is causing disruption and has only existed as such. that said i think most of the answer is thought out well. But Im just not able to switch over to support. That said consider this a moral support.
The diffs from Julian are concerning, but the answer to my Q was great, so I'll take a shot on ya.
As nominator. I see no indication from the opposes that trust is an issue, and that is the basis upon which the tools are supposed to be granted,
You're a pretty good editor, and the slap in the face from all of the opposes is harsh. '''
Once upon a time I offered to nominate this user (though I did have some reservations), so without looking too deeply into the opposes I would like to offer at the very least '''moral''' support because there's been quite a pile-on here. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
Generally, I liked the answers you gave to the questions. The diffs from Julian are indeed concerning, but '''support''' per [[wp:why the hell not?|why the hell not?]]. -<font face="bradley hand itc tt" color="black">
At least moral '''support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate does have a couple of barnstars, no memorable negative interactions with me, and is an article creator.  The block for incivility is of course a concern, although it was last year.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''[[wp:why the hell not?|Why the heck not?]] I've had little experiances with him, but none of the told me that this editor would not make a great admin.
'''Support''' As a project editor since 2004 with over 10,000 edits, I suspect that this candidate is able to comprehend policies. The diffs from Julian don’t particularly concern me – two isolated comments out of 10,000+ edits is hardly a reason for disqualification, and the notability of Pornsak Prajakwit is not difficult to confirm (though I assume there is more coverage in the Chinese-language media than the English-language media). I have no qualms offering my support. Good luck!
'''Support''' A very good contributor to the project with good answers to the questions. I understand the concern surrounding the diffs provided by Julian, it could have been handled much better than getting drawn into an edit war with sockpuppets, but I believe Arbiteroftruth had good intent with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Mistakes can be part of the learning process and I don't see any reason to believe that this style of editing has occurred since. If this RfA doesn't succeed I hope that you'll come back and have another go at some point in the future after having taken to heart some of the advice and comments given.
'''Support''' This is an editor of 5 years experience and a pretty clean nose - there's nothing in the opposes that makes me think the world will stop turning if the candidate was an admin. --
'''Support''' - for once I will support.  No reason why someone who has been around for that long and suffered everything Wikipedia has to give, should not be given a reward of sorts.  Not that I would call it a reward but there is no accounting for taste.  Good luck. Teh block for incivility is an added bonus in my book.
'''Support''' A long time wikipedia editor with a reasonably clean record. Excellent answers to questions. So he's got a bad AIV report or two and had an edit warring experience with an editor who turned out to be a sock - a moment of frustration that I can well understand. Nobody's perfect and, IMO, he'll make a fine admin. --
'''Weak Support''' I've been dithering on the sidelines for this and wouldn't normally support someone whose been blocked less than 12 months ago, but [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xidan]] gives some context - I'm less concerned about incivility from a writer protecting an article than I might be in other circumstances. Oh and I take the name change as a sign of being willing to respond appropriately to criticism ''
'''Oppose''' - I get the sense from Julian's diffs that this candidate has a rather poor understanding of what constitutes vandalism.
'''Oppose''' - the answers to my two questions did not fill me with confidence that the candidate will adequately enforce [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:Copyrights]] as an administrator. Contrary to the candidate's statements, both articles I mentioned contain unsourced statements that are not general knowledge, and interlanguage links do not count as attribution (by that logic, [[George W. Bush]] incorporates content from over 100 different Wikipedias). I can certainly see the candidate is a good editor who is committed and beneficial to the project, but these two policies, particularly verifiability, are becoming increasingly crucial as time goes on, and I expect administrators to understand and enforce them. -
Switched from neutral. Sorry, but Kotra's concerns, coupled with my previous comments, lead me to oppose. –'''
'''Oppose''' per concerns about policy and guideline knowledge (or lack thereof). I suggest becoming very familiar with all the major policies on the site (they can all be found [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|here]]), as well as the main guidelines on the site (listed [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines|here]]). Then come back in a few months. ···
'''Strong oppose'''. In my experience with this candidate, I consistently got the impression he/she has an extremely poor sense of what does and does not constitute vandalism. Dealt with attitudes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39&diff=229628919&oldid=229628708 this] from the candidate more than once.
'''Oppose''' While Arbiteroftruth has done some excellent work for the project, the issues brought up above are troubling.  I am concerned with Arbiteroftruth's level of maturity and civility,  traits a sysop must have.  Additionally, issues with understanding of Wikipedia policy are certainly not for the better.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''<s>Weak </s>oppose'''. On the limited available evidence, I am not convinced that adminship is appropriate for you right now.
'''Oppose''' per Julian's diffs which show a clear inability of understanding policy. I can't support someone who edit wars.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GeniusAcameldeSatosta&diff=prev&oldid=280027393 edit warring] on another user's talk page to restore an SPI notice, plus the edit warring at [[Flaming Butterfly]] and [[Housewives' Holiday]], plus questionable understanding of the difference between content dispute and vandalism. I can't support an admin candidate who seems to prefer reverting and using warning templates to discussion.
'''Oppose''' Per comments above; equally the username itself seems fairly dogmatic.
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament, might be a good idea to come back after a significant period of additional experience. '''
'''Oppose''', per the rather numerous concerns currently raised on this RfA. More experience is needed for the community to trust you here. Sorry. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
I don't have anything to add, I just get the sense that the candidate thinks that we're all a little sleepy and we'll wake up any day now and realize our mistake.  I don't think that's going to happen in this RFA, but I do see support for a future RFA ... as long as you pay attention to what's being said in this one. Btw, there's nothing wrong with your username, exactly, but be aware that asserting ownership of the "truth" on Wikipedia ... even in that mild form ... is like waving a cape in front of a bull, and there's a lot of bull around here. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - per above<s>, and per lack of understanding about personal information evidenced [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KennethCWong&diff=prev&oldid=299569613 here].</s> →&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' for having an incredibly inappropriate username for an administrator. Really.  All this nonsense about temperment and editwarring is rather silly in light of such a ''prima facie'' demonstration of poor judgement in a) picking such a username, and b) not changing it yet.
'''Oppose''' per what appears to be excessive badgering of opposes. The candidate's attitude convinces me he's not ready. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Oppose''' Per the candidates attitude, including the badgering of the opposers. Also, just to reinforce, this block in September 2008, which was not to long ago, for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Arbiteroftruth] Sorry.
'''Oppose,''' has been blocked for "Incivility, disruptive editing". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I can accept a distant block, and I can accept early examples of poor judgement. But I cannot accept an inability to properly creare a simple aricle only seven months ago, and I cannot see adequate evidence that this editor properly understands what is and is not vandalism. And a reply to almost every oppose !vote is neither a positive nor an expected contribution from the applicant. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' on the grounds of the username, which I consider unacceptable for an administrator. That the username has not been changed indicates to me that the user lacks sufficient judgement and clue to be an effective and responsible administrator.
Much as I hate to agree with Tan, I'm afraid that on this occasion I have to. RfA is a showcase, a popularity contest, and how you present yourself here does make a difference. I haven't bothered to count exactly how many oppose votes you've responded to; I stopped counting when I reached too many. The impression that gives is that you are unwilling to listen, and my reaction to that is that I am unwilling to support. --
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' You've done great work, but there are too many concerns for me to support.
'''Neutral''', I believe you are a very dedicated editor, but your signature seems particularly menacing. I understand your username and have no problems with that, it's the "Plead Your Case" part that can come across as rather intimidating. However, that's not enough for me to oppose you.
'''Neutral'''- per the reasons above. I can't oppose, for you are definitely a dedicated and diligent editor, but per the reasons above, I am reluctant to support. I wish you well in your future Wikiediting! --
'''Neutral''' because I've no wish to pile on.  I want to add that before your next RFA, you may want to give thought to asking for a username change, because "Arbiteroftruth" is a little too likely to get people's backs up when performing key administrative functions such as dispute resolution.—
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose based on name alone, per S. Marshall. If nothing else, think of the public repercussions: political storm on a BLP or a sensitive COI issue involving users new to wikipedia. An admin named Arbiteroftruth protects a version of the article to prevent ongoing disruption or blocks one of the SPAs. Someone else starts talking about NPOV or suggests dispute be taken to arbitration....think of how that will play in the press.
'''Neutral''' There are too many concerns for me to support, but I could support you in a future RfA in time (that is if you address the concerns). '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' To many strong points have been drawn up in the oppose section for me to support, whilst many of the opposing points are admittedly weak, there are some strong ones, and so I feel I cannot support, I hope that if this RfA fails you reapply in the future, after, as hmwith has said, you address the concerns,
I don't have a problem with your username, and I don't have a problem with your block (because it was so long ago).  I do have a problem with the little edit war you had, however.  I still would like to encourage you to run later on, and I urge you to keep up the good work.  Best of luck, '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Moral Support''' - as to avoid piling on. Work on your CSD and AfD reasoning, and I hope to see you back here again.--
'''Support''' CSD work, especially of BLP's, isn't great, but going through his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=ArcAngel&namespace=3 user talk contribs] seems to indicate that only about 5% of his CSD's are declined, which to me is not as great a problem as the opposers are making of it.  It's easy to make a few mistakes when you do 500 CSD's in a month.  Now, granted, an administrator whose deletions are good 95% of the time and wrong 5% of the time is a bit frightening, but if Arc passes and even if he doesn't I think he'll be more cautious about CSD from now on.  -- ''<B>
'''Moral Support''' Longterm user with a clean blocklog. The CSD mistakes do concern me as did the comment about speed of warning vandals - there's little point issuing warning faster than someone can read them, the idea is to escalate if someone is ignoring warnings. ''
'''Support'''  Per long record of quality contributions. Also impressed you're one of those too rare people with the flexibility to change their position in the light of new evidence as you did in NewName2008's RfA.  While I agree it important to give newbies a chance to improve their articles before tagging,  the only specific issue I saw in my checks was the user you tagged for having a dating site style page.   As it was a new user it might have been better to give her a chance to get used to wiki culture, which I guess is a culture shock to some used to other parts of the net. Or if you wanted to address the issue straight away it would have been nice to offer some specific advice on how she could achieve the same effect within policy  (e.g. saying shes single with a user box ,  talking a bit about her editing  intentions on wiki to balance out the personal stuff).
'''Support''' Collegial and collaborative contributor to Wikipedia who isn't embarassed to course correct after considering information pointed out by others.
Per WSQ and COM. '''
'''Support''' A misunderstanding led to my oppose, so my only concern has been addressed.
'''Strong support''' as this user is a mature editor who has demonstrated the will to learn from previous mistakes. I see that [[Chick magnet]] has been mentioned in the oppose section below, and as the creator of the article, I am not concerned over this action as they clearly pointed out their concern and why they nominated it for AfD. Even though they might have made a mistake, they still discussed his edits in a civil manner, something that many admins who use the mop right now, can't even do. I also appreciate the concerns of others about CSDs, however I am willing to trust that this user will make well-thought decisions in this area if given the tools. Give this user the tools, they can be trusted.. --<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
'''Oppose''' due to concerns over recent inappropriate CSD tagging (as detailed on [[User_talk:ArcAngel|the candidates talk page]]) and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chick magnet|this AfD]] . I think it's great that you are prepared to listen to the explanations of why your decisions were incorrect, but an administrator needs to have a more thorough knowledge of policy than you have recently demonstrated. I was particularly concerned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Starbuck2203&diff=prev&oldid=313703559 this] - it's the sort of thing that will put off a new user, and they had done nothing wrong by adding a few personal details to their user page. I'm sorry; I don't like opposing; I hope that you will continue to learn more about policies, and that you will return to RfA in a few months. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Starbuck2203&diff=prev&oldid=313703559 this diff] from chzz, as well as a few other things. About 40% of your edits are automated (according to [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=ArcAngel this tool], and most of the AfD votes i have seen have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAlan_Azar&diff=313519702&oldid=313466226 been] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FYou_Lie!&diff=313519650&oldid=313516741 generic] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFatjon_Muhameti&diff=313517598&oldid=313466486 per] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FShai_Bernstein&diff=313517496&oldid=313465605 noms]. Also in accordance with chzz above, you have 8 seperate warnings on your talk page for incorrect CSD tagging. If you had been an admin, that would be 8 inappropriately deleted pages. Work on your CSD tagging, develop some AfD reasoning, and try not to [[WP:BITE|bite]]. I don't normally oppose, and I hope to see you back soon. Regards, <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Poor work in CSD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynald_Seznec&oldid=313528807 A7 for a company president], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Chai&oldid=313504595 a fashion designer] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamebook&oldid=313498613 a website from the Wall Street Journal]. Please review the CSD criteria. '''\'''
I think you're definitely off to a good start, and you do great work here. In particular your maintenance work is certainly appreciated. However, the CSD issues pointed out by Backslash Forewardslash are too significant and common to overlook I'm afraid. I don't think it'll necessarily be bad if you're promoted, but the delete button is fairly powerful, and can result in all sorts of dramas and debates if used incorrectly. As these issues ''are'' relatively minor within the grand scheme of things, I think three months before your next nomination (should this particular discussion fail) is a sufficient period of time to gain my trust. Regards, –'''
'''Oppose''', I can see some strange stuff in the deleted logs, such as welcoming an image: [[:File talk:Hyatt Regency Atlanta Atrium.jpg]], Nominating a picture on commons for deletion on en.wikipedia [[:File:Nonni.jpg]].  They probably just indicate that a bit more carefulness is needed. Also the candidate was pretty inactive July to December last year, and May to July this year.  However the work on [[WP:AFC]] looks good. On the speedy delete front I see quite a few nominations for A7 no importance claimed when the article is only 1 minute old. Since these are not vandalism, there is not such a great hurry to get rid of them, and the writer should be given a chance to say something important about their topic.
'''Oppose''', <s>suggest closing per [[WP:SNOW]]</s>per above. The incorrect CSD noms worry me too much. <font face="Segoe print">
'''Oppose''' Moral Support and welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.Please try again later through you have been around since 2006 cannot support you and this time. Very Sorry and Best wishes.
Per poor CSD Tagging. Improve this and come back later.
'''Oppose''', primarily due to concerns raised above by {{user|Chzz}}, {{user|MacMed}}, and {{user|Backslash Forwardslash}}. '''
'''Weak Oppose''', poor CSD Tagging, although otherwise seems ok. Good luck with future editing. '''
'''Oppose''' per CSD (5% error rate is way too high) and very limited main space edit history. Clean up the CSD, edit a few more articles and I'll happily support.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' Per CSD Tagging.
'''Oppose''' Per work in CSD.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' - poor grasp of policy, concerns about [[WP:BITE]]yness. I just corrected ArcAngel at an AFD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le|here]], where he stated that contributions from anonymous IPs are to be ignored in deletion discussions (which is not the case, as far as I am aware). Combined with his incorrect CSD tagging, I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Mostly per chzz, Juliancolton, and Irbisgreif. I'm also concerned about you BITEing newbies. I'll support maybe when you have some more experience. It doesn't mean you're not an asset to the Wiki, though; you are! Keep up the vandal fighting but ''please'' be kind to the newbies. Watch your CSD tagging, and in a few months, I think you'll be ready to be an administrator. Best wishes,
'''Weak Oppose with Moral Support''' Per per CSD work. I can however see myself supporting in the future. =)
'''Oppose''' per \/ --
'''Oppose''' but I will support in the future with increased knowledge of policy and how things work, especially regarding deletion. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' Based on recent submissions (today) to AfD that have been unanimously opposed by the community and by relevant policy quoted, incorrectly in some cases, by ArcAngel in the nominations, I don't believe that this user is well-versed enough in policies relevant to their interest area to be trusted with the ability to perform deletions.  With more experience, especially centered around improvement of deletion policy knowledge, both CSD and AfD, I would likely support, but cannot do so yet.
'''Oppose.''' The CSD issues are mentioned above. I haven't gone through all the diffs mentioned above, so pardon me if you've heard this one before: I find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annie_Le&diff=313873472&oldid=313871945 this diff] troubling, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annie_Le&diff=next&oldid=313873788 explanation afterward] doesn't make the editing of others' comments more palatable. ArcAngel was incorrect in their reading of policy and admitted this later on, apologizing for it (comme il faut--bravo), but I am still bothered by the misreading of policy and the rather drastic action taken as a result. I'm also a bit troubled by the lack of article content, and by the claim that [[Francis Browne]] is held up as the best editing done--it's a fine article, but ArcAngel's contribution, if I read the history correctly, is limited to an infobox and a couple of sentences and a category. I've seen some of your work go by and think that for the most part you're doing a good job, showing promise, but I don't think you're ready for this position yet.
'''Oppose'''  Based on lack of Constructive Edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090907120702&limit=500&target=ArcAngel] -
'''Oppose''', I'm really sorry, but your CSD work is clearly not up to the standards I expect yet.
'''Oppose''' - IP editors are important to Wikipedia.  I'll happily oppose anyone who shows ignorance of founding principles by trying to discount the voice of IP editors.  Attempting to speedy delete a userpage just 7 minutes after creating is very bitey.  Editors attempted to discuss this, the result is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starbuck2203&oldid=313726677 here] - no further contribs from that editor.  Would they ever have made a useful contrib to wiki? AGF tells me they might have, if they hadn't been scared away by an aggressive delete happy editor.
'''Neutral'''. Candidate showed great personal integrity in [[WP:Articles for deletion/Chick magnet]]. ('''Disclosure''': I !voted in, and reworded the close of, that AfD.) However, the concerns over the CSD taggings are very substantial indeed. G1 and A7 tags appear to be overused, in particular. Candidate also appears to be confused over "bad faith" and "good faith". So neutral for now, but, if the CSD's improve substantially, I fully expect to support at the next RfA.
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a well intentioned editor, but the CSD concerns me some.  I just removed an A7 tag from a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yummy_FTP&diff=313742611&oldid=313742283 software product].  Will reevaluate, but neutral for now.  --
I'm not going to pile on because this won't pass and I have nothing to add to that of opposers, other than you are on the right track, you just need to be a little more thorough and careful with your CSD and AfD nominations. Best of luck, if you need any help/advice you're welcome to ask on my talk page. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Cyclonenim said it perfectly for me, great start but as with many, the CSD tags are dodgy , but overall you are a great editor. Good luck in the future! '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' - I've interacted with ArcAngel and they are a good editor with a lot of vandal-fighting experience. I don't think there is enough experience outside of that area for an administrator, but rather than add yet another oppose vote I'm going neutral as moral support. -- '''
'''Neutral''' - You have much potential to become a solid hard-working admin. Hopefully you'll learn from the comments written here and try again in the future. --
'''Neutral'''. Some good work, I see, but the CSD issue is troubling. Also, saw the exchange at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le|this AFD]], and found it problematic as well. If the candidate takes the advice from this RFA and applies it, and corrects the issues we have here, then I expect I'll support the next attempt. Best,
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - <font face="cursive">'''
'''Oppose''' - Yes, firstly, due to your edit count. Secondly, due to lack of experience in the project namespace. Thirdly, because you are injecting unnecessary criticism in your nomination, and lastly, your answer to question 1 is strange.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per Wisdom89. Everything I was going to say except [[WP:NPA]].--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Strong oppose''' - Per statement. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Per nom's statement. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Prior to posting this nom you had just eight edits in six months. I am not one to be obsessed by editcounts but that's just too few to judge whether you can be trusted. The nature of your statement which suggests you propose a crusade to counter alleged and unspecified wrongs also does little to help you.
'''Moral Support''' This isn't going to pass. Simply because your editing habits are, well, [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Until+It+Sleeps like mine]. '''<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print; text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><font color=blue>
Regretfully. I generally have respect for you, Andy, though I would prefer if you had more experience first. First of all, your edit count (at just under 3,500) may be regarded as a bit thin; while [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maedin|there's no overall problem with that]], you made just 226 edits since February (only 6.5% of your total editcount), so your activity could use a boost. In other areas, your article work is good and so is your anti-vandalism work, but only 95 or so deleted edits is just not enough IMO for a candidate who plans to help out at CSD. I'm not going to go as far as to apply [[WP:NOTNOW]] to you, Andy, though some more experience would be beneficial. Cheers, '''
'''Oppose''' I see a lot of "as above" in your AfD votes, a lot of Huggling, and a lot of grammatical (kind of) changes. Nothing that would show your knowledge of policy. I don't think you would intentionally misuse the tools, and I trust you, but unfortunately that's not enough here.
'''Oppose''' - I simply cannot support an candidate with 2/3 of their edits using Huggle.--
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I've interacted with you and you're very friendly. Not enough edits without Huggle, and barely any edits since New Year. Not good enough, sorry.
'''Neutral''' I have respect for you and know you'll make a great admin down the road. Thus I can't oppose, but 60%+ automated edits and AfD votes with nothing more than "Per above" and the like means I can't support either.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>

Sorry not experienced enough. '''
'''Oppose''' ah, no. Previous accounts?
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. 61 article edits is far too little. You need to have a lot more experience. Also, you keep saying "on this account"; You should list your other accounts.
I'm sorry, but the answer to question 3 ("I will warn them and protect the page") indicates you need more experience and knowledge of policy. And what are these other accounts (which I hope are not in violation of [[WP:SOCK]]) we are talking about? From your answers, I get the impression that you have got into trouble with them. ≈&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per not-even-three-digits article edits and also response to Q3 - "not on this account". -
'''Oppose'''. per the above.  Judging by your answers to the questions above, it seems like you have been editing with multiple accounts, otherwise known as [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppeting]].  In case you weren't aware before, Wikipedia policy dictates against having multiple, undeclared accounts registered to one user.  Because socking is considered a serious offense in the Wikipedia community, I'm afraid I cannot, in good conscious, support you in this rfa. Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''', have some concerns re above. Would also like to see more experience. '''
'''Oppose''', I think we need a more articulate person to be an admin.--
I advise this be closed…
Audi is [[User:YoMamma6188]] (obvious from the edits). Audi, I suggest you start a new undisclosed account; contribute usefully with it and [[WP:SIGNS|avoid getting caught as a sock]]. These folks will definitely oppose you if you disclose your alts. given the disruption you have done with the old accounts, no matter how good as an editor you behave with the new one. Sockpuppetry is one of the seven deadly wiki sins ya know.--
Per WP:WHYNOT. '''
'''Beat the nom''' Based on what Julian said (as I've never met \ / but have seen his signature), he sounds like the best non-admin around, support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
Would have written a co-nomination if Julian hadn't transcluded this so quickly.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #333399;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Very happy with everything I've seen from this user. Varied and intelligent contributions to a variety of areas, appears to be an excellent choice for an administrator. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Thought-he-was-one-already (edit conflict, too!) Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' <s>Support</s> The relatively short tenure - just over 6 months - is more than made up for by a lot of work, numerous awards, the nominators statements, etc.  I have not looked into his policy knowledge but the overall look of his talk pages and user sub-pages as well as the numerous requests to co-nom give me a good feeling either he knows policy or will learn it before applying it.  He's been a rollbacker and account-creator for longer than not, that shows responsibility.  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)  The concerns raised by opposers are eroding my support, but it's still above neutral.
Control-alt-delete-enter-space-shift-tab-capslock-backspace-numlock. (Also for my observations of this user, which have been nothing but positive.)
'''Strong support as nom''' &ndash;
A stellar candidate, no reason not to support! Good luck '''
'''Support''' Is not going to break the Wiki. Contributions look good, has large amount of clue. Isn't perfect, but none of us are. The opposes are less than convincing (and some appear to be axe grinding about the process rather than the candidate). --
'''Default support''' Opposes are unconvincing to me.--
'''Very strong support''' <small>(read: long-winded support)</small> Had been thinking of nominating \ / myself, but I was too oblivious around here and missed my chance to co-nom ;).  Anyway, \ / has been a huge asset to DYK for as long as I've known him, taking part in areas such as assessing nominations and maintaining the queues, as well as technical stuff like revamping nomination templates.  Furthermore, his strongest asset is his ability to build bridges with users and work constructively with just about anyone, as evidenced by the discussion linked <s>below in response to Ottava Rima's oppose</s> above in his response to Q3&mdash;rather than arguing with O R and fighting, \ / worked with O R to turn O R's concerns into a proposal and put it to a vote, which I think shows a strong ability to get things done even when working with people you disagree with.  (And, for what it's worth, I don't get along with Ottava Rima, so supporting a candidate who has gotten along with Ottava Rima in the past should be saying something.) '''
'''Support''' One of the first times I am sorely tempted to "support per oppose ABC" despite the tackiness of that type of comment.  Ironholds and iridescent note troubling marginal UAA calls.  Those are convincing and helpful (insofar as they inform the rest of us and might serve as constructive criticism to the candidate.  Not so the others (here excluding those opposing 'per' iridescent).  I've reviewed this candidate's deleted contributions and find that s/he is a competent and largely accurate CSD tagger.  There are a few misfires there, some borderline G11's and A7's, and a case where the candidate [[Special:Undelete/Caroline_kusmierz|reinsterted a speedy tag]] after it was removed by someone "other" than the author (although that could go either way, both accounts only edited that page, so one could easily see the second account as an SPA made to remove the speedy).  But these are ''not'' patterns.  They are exceptions to otherwise very competent tagging.  He appears (from a look at his non-deleted contributions) to be clear and diplomatic.  I would prefer to see more project space contributions, but I don't have much doubt that \/ will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - Anything to offset ''that'' guy. But still, appears to be a strong contributor and I enjoyed his FA!
'''Strong Support''' Has made many very good contributions to wikipedia and his work on the [[Melbourne Airport]] article seems to have flown under the radar. I'd defiantly trust this user with admin tools and see no reason to oppose. --'''
'''Support''', per my personal experience, as this person is a strong contributor who is willing and able to get vital tasks done. Giving him the mop and the tools will only be an improvement. -
'''Support''' Seems to be OK with AIV and CSD, though I would recommend turning the thermostat down a couple of notches before dealing with UAA. I would take on board  Iridescent's concerns about usernames. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20081022053042&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Backslash+Forwardslash&namespace=4 Had to go back to the second 500 Wikipedia space edits,] but in a sample of ten [[WP:AIV]] reports, I found none rejected. A review of deleted contribs shows lots of articles that were speedy tagged. Only found one that I felt was incorrect. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizle| tagged a nn neologism ]] for review at AFD so not in a hurry to  hastily delete. Granting rollback is not something I look at. I agree with Answer 7. What difference does it make if a vandal vandalizes you user page? It is not a conflict of interest, and why should an admin wait for the vandalism to continue before blocking? Blocking is for the purpose of protecting the 'pedia. AFD-- While Google test must be used with caution, and a rephrase is in order, if there are no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with [[WP:V|verifiable]] information, and if used for subjects for which it would be reasonable to find such, is that not a perfectly valid reason to delete? Article building is always a plus.
Response to me shows that his has "CLUE." Per Protonk and Dloh. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' I am happy to support a Triple Crown winner. Good luck!
'''Support''' I fail to see any serious problems with \ /, I would suggest to think more carefully about who you report to UAA, but besides that, I have no problems with this user; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBackslash_Forwardslash&diff=270556621&oldid=270556534 This] alleviates my UAA concerns. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
I've seen this editor around quite a bit, and always knew they would make a great sysop some day.
'''Support''' - Most certainly convinced by his reply to NuclearWarfare. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' - User seems to have a good record of positive edits and article writing.  I'm satisfied by \ /'s explanations for UAA concerns. <b>'''
'''Weak Support''' I don;t approve of using the Googletest except when it is actually appropriate. In the three instances cited as dubious, it was IMO appropriate, and they were correct AfD nominations.  As for usernames, I do not block promotional usernames right off, but just take the opportunity to explain & ask them to change, but many good admins do otherwise than I. '''
'''Support''' From what I've seen, he/she is a generally open minded and good spirited editor and not easily hassled. Both good qualities in an admin. Can't see him/her doing irrevocable damage so [[WP:WTHN]]. --
'''Support''' - I do recall thus user being good-natured somewhere that I interacted with them (I think).
'''Weak support''' Answers to my questions sound reasonable. Opposes are not convincing. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Weak support''' - See my old oppose and response to NuclearWarfare in Neutral. —'''
'''Support''' - I like the answers to questions, the only possible exception being "your own user page is vandalized after warning".  Quality edits from the ones I've looked at.  I don't see anything but "benefit to the community" in this one.
'''Support''' Nice, widespread array of contributions.  Won't hack the wiki.
'''Support''', good contributions. --
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]], i.e. candidate's two blocks were subsequently unblocked, candidate has barnstar and good article credits on userpage, and due to memorable negative interactions elsewhere.  Happy Valentine's Day!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - I have a very positive impression of this user from interactions, mostly related to [[WP:DYK]]. "could have sworn he was an admin already." --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Could use a little more experience but all in all I don't see much cause for concern. I don't find the UAA diffs that scandalous though perhaps it's just that I'm not familiar with that process. Likely a net positive to give him the mop.
'''Support''' - UAA mistakes do not persuade me. In my succesful RfA, I was opposed for UAA mistakes. I immediately learned from them, and have not made a mistake similar to the ones brought up. I think that \/ has learned about those requests, and will be a good admin.
'''Support''' I've had nothing but positive interactions with this user, and I think s/he would be a great admin.
'''Weak support'''.  Just be careful at [[WP:UAA]]. I'm sure you've learned from your mistakes. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''': I'm not convinced by the arguments brought up by the opposers. [[WP:UAA]] isn't my area of expertise, but I don't see anything wrong with the majority of your edits there; a few are questionable, but we all make mistakes. My only real negative comment is that you have a slightly annoying signature. :)
I'm
'''Support''' - good editor, always helpful and willing to lend a hand. Possibly a little green, but in my experience Backslash Forwardslash is both open to any advice and also a swift learner. Cheers,
'''Support''' Good editor, won't abuse tools.
'''Support''' - when people like a guy so much that the nom is support #8... but serious now. I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user, and I think that he will now be a good UAA person after the feedback he's gotten in the oppose section. Short version: net positive to the project. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''' I have reviewed your contribs, logs, and discussions with other editors (including the issues raised under opposes such as DYK closures, and UAA) and see nothing that personally concerns me and you have the support of many people I trust and respect including the nom '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' I've reviewed his contribs and many of the issues brought up by opposers. I think it's easy to say that his positive contributions greatly outweigh his past mistakes, which he honestly disclosed during this RfA (which I expect to see). Juliancolton's nom also weighs well with me. I don't see this user abusing the tools and the answer to Q 10 impresses me such that he will go it slow, study, and learn, and eventually branch out into more admin areas; exactly what a new admin should do. He easily passes [[User:Wadester16/RfACriteria|my criteria]]. ~ '''<font size="2">
Not at all convenced by the UAA mistake opposes. '''Support''' for someone who will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Seen hiswork on MILHIST an d I also presumed he already had the tools etc
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' - No-brainer. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' trakc record of hands on work and runs on the board speaks for itself. As for UAA, most of the borderline stuff that goes there are from users that don't become productive, so it's not like he provoked a riot among established editors. '''
'''Support'''.  Agree with nom, agree that he would be an asset as an admin.  Regarding iridescent's oppose below: the three AfD noms were three articles that absolutely should be deleted ([[Nizle]], [[Porkupus]] and [[Jimbobbing]]) which strikes me as good judgment as opposed to poor judgment. --
'''Support''' I've seen \/ around the anti-vandal world, He's not going to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully considered the opposers' comments, and find some of the concerns raised to be legitimate, but the candidate's responses convince me that he has learned from what has been pointed out. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope that the candidate will continue participating and try again in the future, as it has been a long time since we admitted a semi-[[retronym]] to the administrator corps.
'''Support''' - I fully agree with [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] above. I find this editor a calming, open-minded  presence, especially when dealing with difficult editors. Exhibits good judgment. Learns quickly. I believe in his ability to grow on the job and do not see a possibility of abuse.  &mdash;
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad
'''Support''' good enough to become an admin in my opinion. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - legitimate opposes, but not enough to sway me. <b>
'''Support'''.  Since most of the opposition cites UAA issues, and since crats are great with UAA issues, and since we're sitting at 69.8%. - Dan
'''Support''' I have absolutely no concerns about this candidate's ability to function well as an admin, and to remain a valuable member of the community.
'''Support''' - per [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]].
'''Support''' I accept that a few UAA noms are borderline, and might have qualified for a warning template  rather than a nomination; but this is nowhere near enough to offset his otherwise excellent work. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I've been impressed with Backslash Forwardslash's help at DYK. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' per Juliancolton and Davidwr. --<font face="script MT bold">
'''Oppose''' - The eagerness to close discussions prematurely seems to show a disregard for the fundamentals of consensus and a desire to hurry up and push an idea through before it can be thoroughly vetted by the community at large. This is not a good trait to have when wanting to be an admin.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=268420171], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=266734366], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=266502613], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=265492451] and that's just at first glance. No way would I trust someone this bitey at UAA given that you've specifically said that's where you intend to work. Your use of the Google test ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nizle&diff=prev&oldid=269741269], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porkupus&diff=prev&oldid=270294375], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimbobbing&diff=prev&oldid=269067454] in the last week alone – that is, 50% of your AFD comments in the period) also leaves me distinctly unimpressed.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Oppose''' per iridescent. If he can't work out what is and is not a disruptive/bad username when reporting them I hate to think what he'd do with the banhammer <small>actually considering he was reporting them to UAA I'm pretty sure I know what he would do </small>
'''No'''. --
'''Oppose''' per iridescent.  I'm not impressed with your UAA edits. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per iridescnet-
'''Oppose''' - after 6 months?  Needs more seasoning. <b><i>
'''Oppose''', for now.  I would like to see this user's enthusiasm tempered with a bit more thoughtfulness, I think this will come with more experience around the project.  I suggest becoming involved in some of the slow-running processes such as mediation. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
per Iridescent, Guy.
'''Oppose''' due to UAA reports that border on ludicrous.
Per above reationales, I don't think this user would make a good admin.--
'''Regretful oppose'''. I think that Backslash Forwardslash will prove to be a good admin one day. However, I don't think he's quite ready. I see too many poor decisions recently at UAA. He'll improve over time. Keep up the good work and please don't be discouraged if this RfA doesn't pass. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - Absolutely not. UAA is a very fragile area and requires a very collected and thoughtful touch. This user clearly doesn't have that.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom, to some degree. \ /'s work doesn't instill the right ammount of confidence in me, and doesn't strike me as someone who would do a fantasimal job with the tools.--
'''Oppose''' Per Wisdom89. I suggest spend a few more months of contribs and working on the concerns above. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom and Iridescent. Not the kind of approach we need at UAA.--
'''Oppose'''.  Inexperienced.  Lacks interest in consensus.  Per Ottava Riva.
'''Oppose''' Pointed in the right direction but the bitey username reports are far enough off base that they are worth an oppose by themselves. I won't go into a long [[wp:bite]] rant but new users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and any prospective Admin who doesn't ''already'' understand that needs to go back and put it into practice some more
'''Oppose''' per the incorrect UAA reports given by Iridescent.
'''Oppose''' per misinterpretation of policy/guidelins.  There's no google test on [[WP:Notability]].  I'm tired of watching hard science articles get deleted because editors who don't read science articles cite the failure of the google test.  Maybe you're not deleting hard science articles, but you need to read the policy on notability before you continue citing lack of notability = failed the google test.  --
'''Oppose''': per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose'''  I would like to see more experience, no need to rush things. --
'''Oppose''' per [[:User:Iridescent|Iridescent]]. '''
'''Oppose''' - per Iridscent, they bring up some strong points as to why Backslash wouldn't be able to hand the admin tools faithfully.--'''''<small>
Editor has clearly got on the wrong side of a an identifiable demographic whose concerns and judgments I and others trust. There's a clear experience problem too, so I'm gonna have to '''Oppose''' and ask the editor to come back at a future point.
'''Encouraging Oppose''' Ok, I've spent about an hour or two reviewing your CSD edits over the past 3 months.  Your work in February is excellent, there were some judgment calls where I would have preferred a different CSD rationale, but there wasn't anything that I would call wrong/bad.  In January, about 50% of what I saw was questionable.  In early December/late November, almost everything you tagged was mistagged---almost as if you didn't know what the criteria was or that it mattered.  In other words, I see definite improvement in what you are doing today as compared to what you were doing even a month ago.  But as CSD is such a crucial area, and your edit history indicates a person who wants to work in that area, I need to know that your work is going to be consistently at this higher level and that you won't revert back to your earlier levels once you pass.  Again, your work from February is solid and if you keep that up, I can't see how your CSD work will hinder you in a few months.  Unfortunately, I don't have to go back too far to find a different story.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>The artist formerly known as Balloonman</small></sup></b>]]'' 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)  EDIT, I just read through the opposes above, and wanted to point out another positive.  The opposes are all addressing issues that you can fix/rectify.  Eg, with a few months seasoning and solid work, you should have a better chance of passing.---'''
'''Oppose'''. A good editor, but one with insufficient experience as yet. Some of the issues brought up by Iridescent & I'm Spartacus also trouble me.
'''Strong oppose'''. His answer to question 8 rings false. He said, "If the user is a clearly disruptive vandal (Gwp and co.), or a confirmed sockpuppet, then warning would be a waste of time. Other than that, the standard warning routine should be adopted." However, we can see that Backslash Forwardslash has attempted to skip the standard warning routine dozens of times simply because he didn't like someone's name. He gives the fact that some of them were blocked as vandals (not as username violations, as he was reporting) as justification, when it really just highlights the fact that he was trying to block newbies faster than the usual process would let him by abusing an unrelated process (UAA). From that answer, I have to conclude that Backslash Forwardslash is either being dishonest or seriously misunderstanding the blocking and username policies.
'''Neutral''' the UAA material is troubling.  The AfD issues raised are not.  UAA might have involved a lack of understanding or a bad day.  Probably a good admin, but I'm worried about judgment.
'''Neutral''' -  I agree with Hobit above. I had originally intended to support, but the UAA issues in particular are troubling to me. In the majority of cases, poor judgment doesn't go away when the mop is given, it only solidifies. I would like to wait a few months and see if this candidate was only having a few bad days, or if his judgment is consistently bad. IF it turns out to be the former, I will happily support next time.
'''Comment''' - According to [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Backslash+Forwardslash SQL's bot page], Backslash has created 145 accounts. Why would anyone need to do that? Just curious. I also note that according to the same tool his total of 3,510 mainspace edits includes over 2,500 rollbacks. These statistics are currently giving me pause.
'''Neutral''' It works for Switzerland.
'''Neutral''' - boderline, sorry, see [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' (I'll assume the candidate has decided to accept since he's provided answers to questions).  Bugs has the ability to be blunt, but he also has the ability to be objective.  All the edit counts, experience, tenure questions are self-evident.  I believe that Bugs will be a great admin, and will not abuse sarcasm and humor to perform a serious task of maintenance within article space. He's a mature, intelligent editor, with the knowledge and ability to provide even more assistance to the community if given the admin. bit. —
'''Support''' Eminently fairminded,  other than on the Yankees, and should be a good admin for WP.  Knowledgeable about WP standards and practices,  and not too quick to jump to conclusions.
'''Support''' {{checkmark}} All I've seen from Bugs in my limited experience with him is quality edits and I know he'll do a great job. Good luck.--
'''Support''' Sharp, experienced, funny, tough. One of those editors that you assume is an administrator already.
'''Support''' - I have no concerns that Baseball Bugs would abuse the tools.   --
'''Support''' Has edited well for some time, values wikipedia.  Fairminded, informed, aware of the effect of soft answers on wrath.  Has the correct comprehension of the Yankees.
Strongly support: a sensible, fair, and very calm editor. I've known Baseball Bugs for a long time, and I am very pleased to see him run for adminship.
'''Support''' Looks very well-qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' - I'd be interested to see your answer to MBisanz's question, but I doubt it'll have an effect on my !vote. I've seen your work throughout the wiki, and I've been especially impressed by your participation at AN and ANI. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' As per Acalamari and has been around since May 2007 a regular contributor and used rollback well.
'''Support''' I've seen his work in various places, and I definitely agree that this user would benefit the project as an admin.
'''Support'''; of course.
'''Super Strong Support'''. I've seen how he deals with certain difficult users in certain difficult situations, and his answer to those situations is humor, not personal attacks or incivility. --<font face="comic sans">
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support'''. Good editor. I examined the diffs leading up to the December 2007 block and am satisfied by his answer to question 5; it certainly seems to be well in his past. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. Let's put it this way: when I came back from my extended Wikibreak, I thought he already was one. Providing relatively well-informed input on AN/I, along with a bit of levity that is sorely needed these days, are only some of the excellent qualities Bugs has exhibited.
'''Support''' &nbsp;Acerbic but almost always right. Fair even to those that attack him. Knowledgeable. Took a right turn at Albuquerque. Play Ball! --'''''
'''Strong support''' - I have had the utmost pleasure of working with Baseball Bugs on a number of occasions, mostly on the incidents noticeboard. His judgment is particularly good, as demonstrated when he said I was "{{plainlinks|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=274310162&oldid=274309957|2=a ruthless tyrant who takes no prisoners}}". <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' He's gained enough of my trust to have faith that he will not abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Very strong support'''.  It's been my privilege to serve in this asylum with Baseball Bugs.  Vandals and general morons will need to watch their backs for sure.  Finally someone else to block all the stupid [[User:Ron liebman]] socks.  —
'''Support''' A great editor with a great sense of humor and a hilarious userpage (you might want to remove that userbox though as it may confuse people).  ''<FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>
'''Support''' Seems sensible enough to handle the routine tasks that constitute being an administrator. The block and the resultant issues seem far enough in the past. --
'''Support''' I worry that this won't end well, given your sense of humor and willingness to stick your nose into topics that enrage other people. On the other hand, you're unquestionably bright and dedicated to Wikipedia, and you seem to have a good grasp of the ethics of responsibility ... so I'm hoping that if you crash and burn, you'll shine brightly first. <strong>
'''Support''' &mdash; Overdue. '''Addendum''' &mdash; I find some of the opposing points concerning, but not to the extent that I no longer support.
'''Support''' We need more candidness and willingness to work with hard topics and difficult people (in general). —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Have had good interactions in the past, no one has raised anything that scares me too much.  You do need to watch your sarcastic side when acting as an admin however.  Please be careful with the bit.
'''Support'''  —
'''Strong Support''': I've had nothing but positive interactions with Baseball Bugs over the years, and I strongly support the adminship of this trusted and rather humorous editor. The experience not only with handling cases at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]], and working with issues at [[WP:AFD]], makes him one of the strongest contenders for adminship in a long time. To add, he's not really 13 years of age. <small>
'''Support.''' Hah, sure.
'''Support''' – I hope I am not making a huge mistake here, but the user seems more than capable of getting his hands dirty and bloodied working with tough issues that others are more reluctant in doing. It takes a different type of editor to do those deal with problem situations, just as it took a special cynical meatball surgeon like [[Hawkeye Pierce]] to make it through the Korean War.
'''Support''' because Wikipedia cannot do without his powerful, paralyzing, perfect, pachydermous, percussion pitch. (And I say that as a Cardinals fan.)
'''Support'''. Combative and tough but fair nonetheless. I've personally disliked his opinions from time to time, but he presents them cogently. Not afraid to jump into the fray or confront problem-makers at the core of the issue. Net positive. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support'''. Knows where his towel is.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''', wondered when I'd see this user up here. Active, knowledgeable and likely to be a net positive with the tools.
'''Support''', sure.  --
'''Support a LOT'''.  I think too many people are getting confused between Bugs the editor and Bugs the admin. His ability to handle himself when required has shown me that he can understand the difference between these two people. When you oppose his nomination based on his editing contributions I feel that is a lack of understanding of the role of admins. Admins are not, and should never be expected to be, perfect. They will not agree with everyone on all edits all the time. Admins are to interject impartially into conflicts they are not personally involved in (a point Bugs has made quite evident in his answers above). To use engagements Bugs is intimately involved in as ammunition for a position that requires impartiality is more than a little silly to me.
I dealt with Baseball Bugs for years, and I agree with some of the opposer's that he's sometimes can be overaggressive and a pest at times in [[WP:AN/I]], but they forget that he's usually right there (with the exception of the 2007 block, which was over a user ago). He edits in good faith, and his work in baseball articles are invariable. He won't abuse the tools, and I'm '''Supporting''' because of prior experiences, but try to avoid the hellhole of [[WP:AN/I]] as much as possible please, that what's dragging what should have been an easy promote RFA.
'''Support''' From his work on AN/I I see someone who is capable of handling the tools well.
'''Support''' Has clue, has humour, knows policy.  Practically the only reason he gets into issues at ANI is that people hate being told when they're wrong. <b>
'''Support''' - An editor of great thoughtfulness and integrity.
Having supported a puppy, I see no problem with supporting a 13½ -year-old rabbit.  I am concerned about the other half of his username, since it suggests an interest in a perversion of [[cricket|The One True Sport]], but he seems to have good judgement...apart from the fact that he's willing to put himself through RFA in the current climate, which is almost certain evidence of poor judgement :)  Or, to put it otherwise, '''Support''' per Hip and Secret (and probably others, but having only read the opposes, I don't know what the rest of the supporters have to say...)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' has good knowledge of problematic users, and we need admins that are regulars at ANI as much as regular new page patrollers, XfD sorts, and others whose knowledge and experience allow us to scale with the project and not reinvent the wheel each time.
'''Strong support''' The editor has been going into the most difficult areas and trying to persuade people to behave better and work together by persuasion. That's what we want in an admin, someone who is prepared to TALK to people as a first option. Given that he isn't scared to get his hands dirty, he makes some enemies. But what do we want in an admin - someone who thinks being an admin is about pressing buttons and tools - or someone actually trying to explain policies, debate their application, provide REAL leadership. I don't expect Bugs to actually be appointed as an admin - but he is one of those who is already a leader in areas that many prefer to avoid.
'''Support''' - Whilst I was inclined to oppose BB for some things that are very cloudy/foggy in my memory (i.e. I'm sure he's said something to me that annoyed me), I'm delighted to support. 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of this support is being donated to the [[Anti-Ageist Foundation of Wikipedia]].
'''Support'''  I moving to support, just because I like people who stir up crap around here.  I'm tired of the admins who put on fake civility then stab anyone they want in the back. Bugs needs to bug out of the whole ANI crap, because it is a serious waste of time.  He needs to work on articles.  So my support might be a bit tepid, but it is support nevertheless.  And 13 year olds should not be admins.
<s>Oppose</s>, <s>Neutral</s>, '''VERY weak support''': however, if it weren't for [[WP:DEAL]] it would have been oppose. I am usually an inclusionist for admin requests as long as they minimally have over 1,000 mainspace edits and are knowledgeable about WP policies. Unfortunately, despite his "sense of humor", I feel that he many times doesn't adhere to [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:BITE]], or [[WP:AGF]] as can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Morgan&action=history here]. I have looked at the history RfA's for many current admins, but have never seen any live up to the reasons for their naysayer's opposition. So for that reason I will cautiously give a support. My request to Bugs is this: When the admin tools are given, try to cut the humor to established users (that can understand it), and take care not to [[WP:BITE|bite]] the n00bies. The community looks up to administrators; you're a WP grown-up now, not a WP adolescent. --
'''support''' Admin bit is no big deal (I thought I saw a puddy tat)
'''WOAH... he's 13?!''' - Except he's not, I've never met a 13 year old who could deal with [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#User:CadenS and incivility concerns|these]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#User:ParaGreen13|disputes]] as well as he did. —'''
'''Support'''  I've had plenty of dealings with Bugs, and he's a good guy whose sense of humor keeps things light around here.
'''Support''' - I often point out that we don't need more drama around Wikipedia, and that I am, in general, against things (and editors) that tend to increase it. My momma didn't raise no idiots, though, and of course I realize the drama will exist whether I "like it" or "encourage it" or not. Having said that, the interactions I have been witness to ''personally'' (rather than all the diffs on this page, and I've looked at some of both sides), I consider Bugs to be a net positive and therefore support. This does not indicate blind support for everything, but it certainly acknowledges that Bugs does some of the harder stuff around here, and it needs doing, even if it sometimes involves drama. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' = Bugs has several opinions that are opposed to mine, but manages to explain them in such a way that I comprehend them (even if I don't always agree) when I read what he's written.  Also, we rabbits need to stick together.  (''Surgeon General's Warning'': FM&C is only 2/3 [[The Tale of Peter Rabbit|rabbit]], and is 1/3 [[Agkistrodon piscivorus|deadly snake]].  Use with caution.)  --
'''Support''', tough he needs to be careful in his use of humour.  Alot of the opposes seem to be based on misreadings of jokes rather than substantial misbehaviour, but an admin (or editor) whose jokes are read as insults isn't a good thing either.
'''Support'''. Although I've had content disagreements with BB in the past, he's a reasonable and thoughtful editor. --''
'''Support'''. At this point it's mostly a moral support, but I genuinely believe Bugs when he says that he will endeavour to be more measured in his comments in the future. And I quite firmly believe he'll stick to that whether this RFA passes or not. His answer to my question about recall also gives me a good feeling. I'm also supporting to hopefully negate at least one of the opposes that complains he's only 13. I mean seriously, try reading the whole thing, eh? //
'''Support''', some excellent work with [[WP:AN/I]].
'''Weak support''' Won't abuse the tools.  Likely a net positive.  Lots of the opposes are strong and convincing.
'''Support''' Mainly per Cyclonenim. I'm surprising myself by being in the opposite camp to Jenna and some of the  others, but I've had positive experiences in my encounters with BB, also he has no blocks in more than 12 months. My involvement in the drama board is minor but we do need users there who will respond quickly and explain why replacing "African American" with Negro is really not helpful to the project.  '''
'''Support''': I'm familiar with this editor mainly through ANI and the Obama article (a [[WP:FA]]), and I've been impressed with the insight and humour expressed in both places. I have no reason to doubt that he'll make a fine admin. Also per Eldereft, LessHeard vanU, and *cough* HalfShadow.
'''Support''' I've run into Baseball Bugs on a number of projects, and I know he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and is very familiar with policy. My only hesitation is the communication style, which admins need to be ultra-careful about. However, I'd already noticed Baseball Bugs adjusting this, and I think after this RfA he'll temper it still more.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Cogent, dedicated, and [[Turing test|human]]. I probably would not vote for BB as a judge in RL, but I might hire you as a mediator. As the latter profession is much closer to the functions enabled by the mop, I think trusting them to use the tools appropriately is the proper course. Baseball Bugs, I know your namesake has a penchant for cross-dressing, but please do not go [[WP:ROUGE|rouge]]. -
'''Support''' Smart, funny, and a valuable asset to the project. I'm confident he'll make good use of the tools. <b>
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support''' - Thought you already were an admin, to be honest. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Not afraid to say what he thinks. We need more of that. Unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''SUPPORT'''Have encountered the editor on a couple of contentious pages (where I'm not always on my best behavior...) and he has been civil, and funny.
'''Support'''. A block is a block. Those blocks were in the past, but your edits prove worthy. I won't stand by and watch another editor slip by becasue of age. This has to stop.'''[[User:Next-Genn-Gamer/Sign|<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="Orange">N</font>]].[[User talk:Gears of War|<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="black">G</font>]].
'''Support'''  FOR GREAT JUSTICE...'''''AND A CHEESE SANDWICH!!!'''''
After reading the opposes, I say '''Absolutely!'''; we are haemorrhaging pro-active admins because of the burn out effects of tackling the difficult areas, and BB has the humour, self critical viewpoint, and backbone to do the difficult stuff (after getting to know the ropes). Will BB make mistakes? Hell, yes, because the only people who do not make mistakes do fuck all anyhoo. Should people get upset when he does? Yup, and BB will take it and learn from it. I came here to support, and by fuck I shall.
'''Support''' Some of the oppose votes contain some valid points, and a few are just downright vindictive. I believe that at the end of the day the project will benefit from Bug's having the tools. I may be wrong, but I don't think he will abuse them.
'''Support''' Bugs isn't perfect, but he is an excellent contributor with far more good points than bad. I have seen him do good work on difficult and controversial topics, all while maintaining a sense of humor that does a lot to make the atmosphere more congenial for everyone (well, everyone with a functional sense of humor). I think he will use Admin tools properly and well.
'''Oppose''' . Cubs fan. Have had some interactions with Bugs on various talk pages, and he comes across as someone willing to discuss issues relevant to improving Wikipedia and a good contributor. Never had any problems. <font face="Verdana"><font color="6600FF">
'''Support''' Has helped me out more times than I am man enough to ever admit. BBugs is approaching the level of Wikideity.(Can I get my money now BBugs?)--
'''Support''' maybe it's too late and futile (in this run at least) but I won't mind admin with an attitude; much better sterile, un-contributing button operators. And probably someone will (at last) explain to me what the game of baseball is all about (one guy throws, another strikes back, then what are the others waiting for ??)
'''Support''' I believe you will make a good admin as I have seen you demonstrate good knowledge of policy and guidelines.
'''Support''' as in "oppose some opposes" and "doing this as moral support since this one is clearly not gaining consensus." I like this guy, and I'm impressed by his work in article namespace because I understand that Wikipedia is about creating an encylopedia, not hanging at AN/I. But, I was troubled by this many opposes. Do I not know him as well as I think? ''Until'' ... I looked at some of the linked diffs and such.<p>For instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#User:_Exanimous|here] I see Bugs perfectly happy to drop it and let go, but the other user won't. [[Talk:Foie_gras#Images|Here]] I see Bugs, for the most part, calmly and politely sticking to policy, which is apparently considered a BITE. I see some opposes from some notorious drama hounds that show the same pattern of needing remedial reading of [[WP:STICK]].<p>Perhaps this is where they get payback. But with opposes like this he deserves a moral support. I see a user capable of keeping his ground, keeping cool and [[If (poem)|keeping his head while all about him are losing theirs]]. Bureaucrats, close as a failure but for Pete's sake don't let some of these oppose votes count as they are based on nothing but excessively thin skin.
'''Support''' I like his approach and I don't have any serious concerns about him.
'''Support''' There's a quote I like from one of Oscar Wilde's plays: ''The one advantage of playing with fire is that one never gets even singed. It is the people who don't know how to play with it who get burned up.''  Bugs has played with fire enough not to get burned any more.
'''Support''' I highly commend his familiarity with policy, trustworthiness, and level-headedness. Humor, including about oneself, is the best antidote to the many toxins that seem to build up around here. From what I've seen, he's managed to keep it despite a plethora of dealings that would have drained it out of most people. Enthusiasticallly support.
'''Support'''  I've edited with this editor in the past and have found him to be a well rounded editor who would be a fair-minded administrator.  His humor at times can be refreshing and has helped defuse some tense situations.
'''Cautious support''', mostly per LHvU and the opposite of Tznkai (in that most of the people I usually agree with are in the oppose camp).  Make him an admin, by fuck.
'''Support''' This serves only to try and get the candidate to 96-95, as he's clearly not going to pass.
'''Support''' because the user has a good sense of humor and has shown in the past the ability to keep a level head during heated arguments.
'''Support''' From what I have seen this user seems helpful and hard working. Also, as long as his sense of humor is not used in a malicious way, it can be a good thing, and I support him. Although, like others have said it wouldn't hurt to spend more time editing articles in the mainspace(other than that everything seems good).'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Support''' Too many of our admins are like [[Wonder Bread]] without the crust.
'''Support''' Some people need to lighten up. --
'''Support''', per OrangeMarlin.
'''Support''' I am going to add my support for some clear reasons here. (First, let me say, I will assume that whatever Buro closes this has an interesting "mess" - they will need to immediately remove any oppose !vote that says even partly that it's because of age).  One of the most interesting things, and one of the reason's I have waited was to review Bug's responses to the oppose !votes.  Sure, he has clearly tried to argue the opposes, but has done so using "real life" situations.  Indeed, when he found any oppose !votes that he considered valid, he has already taken them as constructive criticism. Having viewed a number of his recent edits (especially at ANI), one can readily see that he has adapted/adopted suggestions. I think this shows an editor who was already strong in many regards, but remains willing to '''learn''' - he realizes he's not perfect, so is willing to listen.  With his original strengths, plus the ability to adapt, I believe this more strongly shows his admin-ability. (
'''Über-Support''' per everyone above <span style="border:1px solid #000000;background:# 787878">
'''Support''' After observing how he handles himself, sensitive issues and his participation at [[WP:AN]] I'm highly surprised to find that he's ''not'' and administrator already.
'''Oppose'''  -> '''Strong Oppose''' (per
'''Oppose''' per personal experience. The only time I've [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#User:Tavix|encountered]] him, he seemed uncivil and I didn't think he assumed good faith on an issue that I had back in December '08. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' a professional drama monger.  3000 edits to ANI?  Even if those edits did not largely consist of baiting (which they largely do), even if every single one were a pearl of wisdom this would be a completely unacceptable addiction to drama. --
'''Oppose'''. Baseball Bugs is a rare breed around here in Wikipedia. As such, I think it's easy to get carried away in criticizing the way he edits and handles conflict. Although most of the time he's made good judgment, there were a few times where I felt he crossed the line. I've seen the fates of users who contributed in a style very similar to the way he has, and they have not been pretty. As a result, I don't feel I can fully trust him. '''''
'''Oppose''' - I do not know or care how old you are, but your actions ''today'' alone are enough for me to oppose. I asked questions 8 and 10 to see if there were logical reasons for your comments. While I am all for humor, your comment about admins being allowed to call users names shows poor judgment. You did this on Obama's talk page, while Wikipedia was being criticized for the Obama article, while the talk page was being linked directly from the front page of Fox News. At the time when I saw the comment I actually pulled up your users rights to see if you were an admin. The majority of people visiting that talk page are going to assume by your comment you are an admin. This reflects poorly not only on Wikipedia, but on all the admins who do good work here. The comment at question 10, and your reply really seal the deal. The correct answer to the question was a resounding yes, not that you assume the nomination was serious. I do not believe you are taking this seriously. For the foregoing reasons I oppose.
Per what used to be my Neutral (formerly #1) and questions 6, 7, 8. Also, per Biblio and KnightLago. <font color="navy">
'''Strong Oppose''' - Does not have the temperament, attitude or patience to be an admin. His posts at ANI are atrocious.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' - I've only seen the user at ANI. I have not looked into their contribs, their talk page, or anything else. What I have seen is why I am opposing. I figured that he was an admin. From his actions, he always seemed to me as not assuming good faith, quick to judge in an overly harsh way, condoning problematic administrative behavior, and doing everything that I absolutely oppose in an administrator. I always had in mind to run an RfC against him with a proposal of desysopping. This RfA actually made me happy because I realized that the user never actually had the sysop bits to go through with what I see as actions that would only damage this encyclopedia. Thus, I am opposing with the hope that he is never, ever, given ops because I 100% feel that this user cannot be trusted to use the tools in a way that is best for Wikipedia. This is from my experience viewing them only in their discussions and reactions at ANI over the course of a very long time.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate isn't ready yet. I've seen some of his talk page comments and am concerned that he doesn't yet have the judgement skills necessary to make a good admin. I think he'll get there, but it will take a bit more experience.
'''Oppose''' due to answer to Question 6 from Editor:A.B. Nominee seems to be caught in a non-truthful self-promotion. Also, not impressed with the 'ooppss! sorry, I'll try better" responses. I kind of remember Bugs from [[Talk:Sarah Palin]] but what I remember is a subtle sarcasm that was not helpful to the firestorm that existed. I think he needs to work on his humor...I think he would rather go for a good laff rather than a good edit. Also, a concerned editor uses the edit summary to assist future referencing and search. Summaries are important in seven places in Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose'''. per NuclearWarfare -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong oppose''' Has a strong tendency to add fuel to fires.
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#User:_Exanimous|personal experience]]. Did not AGF, does not apparently seek to diffuse situations, or resolve conflict, qualities I'd say are desirable in an admin.
'''Oppose''' I've done some digging, and from what I'm seeing (a lot of it highlighted above at ANI) I know that during a discussion I personally would not appreciate the attitude conveyed by him. Call it a sense of humour, but I wouldn't have time for it and must oppose as the last thing we need are more uncivil admins or admins that can't seem to balance their sarcasm correctly. Otherwise he's knowledgeable of policy, but I think he should come back after a couple months of demonstrating a more professional attitude. I also think this user would be too quick to judge at this stage.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Inadequate temperament. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Not right for the role.
'''Regretful Oppose''', I've never personally disagreed with this user, from what I can recall, but from the responses of others that I've seen on AN/ANI, they're far too divisive.  While I think that the user has the right intentions, I fear giving them the tools would be a dramabomb waiting to happen.
'''Oppose'''. On the plus side, candidate does come up with some good (read: bone-jarring) puns from time to time, which lighten up the atmosphere. On the minus side, candidate's contributions on AN/I skew very heavily in favor of admins in any conflict with editors. Candidate [[User_talk:TungstenCarbide#Civility_and_polite_editing|enjoys kicking editors who are blocked]] or are about to be, and likes to bait and poke editors who are already under attack (with predictable results). All in all, one of the most intensely annoying editors in the entire Wikipedia. With a name like "Bugs", it is perhaps understandable that every time I see his user name, I think of the buck-toothed actor in [[RoboCop]] whose favorite "line" was, "I'll buy THAT for a dollar!!!"--
I have a lot of admiration for the candidate's obvious intelligence, dedication and good intentions.  This candidate hasn't failed; Wikipedia has failed the candidate, in the sense that everyone has cheered him on as he happily and wittily kicks people who are about to be blocked.  It's great fun, but it hurts the encyclopedia, and I agree with Bibliomaniac that, on the current track, it's just a matter of time before it all goes wrong.  RFA is the perfect time to give him feedback that will help him avoid future problems, and if this RFA doesn't succeed, let's see in 3 months whether he was able to absorb the advice. - Dan
'''Oppose''' Probability of a drama bomb down the road is too high. We've got enough cowboy admins. Combined with user's stated ambivalence about adminship and potential to be a less than ideal ambassador to new users, not a big enough net positive to support.
'''Oppose'''. 3,000 edits to AN/I is appalling. Compulsive overindulgence in such places is admittedly fun but tends to make admins and admin wannabes hardened, rude and reflexively hostile to new or confused editors with a legitimate gripe.  My ideal candidate writes a lot, shuns needless conflict and does not support or associate with the "same old" crop of entrenched bullies and busybodies.--
'''Oppose'''. I find it curious that there are many editors I respect in the support column, and there are many editors I have had conflict with in the oppose, but I must lodge my vote here. Adminship is increasingly about dispute resolution, management, and related peace making and problem solving. My interactions and observations of Baseball bugs have all suggested a tendency to speak when silence was preferable, to take sides when impartial mediation is needed, and to pursue humor and insult over calm. Peacemakers are in short supply on ANI, and I feel that promoting Bugs would add an admin ''problem'' not an admin ''asset'' to that arena, and that is certainly where he is most likely to go. --
'''Oppose'''. Not a cool head. Good editor who should not be an admin.
'''Weak oppose''' - Phil153 and AKAF say it pretty well.  There's a lot that Bugs does that is very good for the project, but I'm not thrilled with the potential drama with him as an admin. Take some time off from ANI ... trust me, it feels good to get away from the place. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but as some have mentioned above I've just seen too many ANI comments that make me question if adminship is right for you right now.--
Oppose <s>per age</s> I fear another controversial admin. Too divisive and opiniated on sensitive issues on high traffic noticeboards, from what I've seen. '''
'''Oppose''' -  Doesn't know when to shut up and listen, or indeed, to stop listening and run away, as any sensible person would do with ANI.
'''Oppose''' - seems to spend the vast majority of his time hanging out at [[WP:ANI]], and barely a thread goes past there without a comment on it. Several instances of dealing with those whose opinions differ from his own indicate to me that he is not a suitable candidate for adminship. <small>
'''Strong Oppose'''. Bugs' recent behavior on AN/I in regards to me personally was appalling. Here's a dude who enjoys kicking editors who are under attack and there is no denying that. He's rude, immature and offensive. I can't and will not support this candidate. Oh and before I'm accused of being incivil or making personal attacks, I'm not. It's called honesty. <font face="Verdana">
I agree that this editor's mentality may not make for a suitable admin. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
<s>Sorry, I believe it is irresponsible of the WMF to allow minors to edit, and they certainly should not be admins. This is not for me so much to do with maturity, as with how responsible it is to expose children to the personal and legal risks of editing wikipedia. Nothing personal.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac (Doc)]] 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Oppose''' - not ready.--
'''Strong Oppose'''  I've given strong reasons to oppose people in the past, but I don't think I have ever felt as strongly about an oppose as I do with Baseball Bugs.  His behavior at (and around) [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Law Lord|Law Lord's RfC]] makes it unlikely that I will be able to support him any time in the near future.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>The artist formerly known as Balloonman</small></sup></b>]]'' 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)  EDIT: A synopsis of Baseball's behavior at the RfC can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FLaw_Lord&diff=259718155&oldid=259713128 here in Jennevecia's words.]---'''
'''Oppose''' - in my experience, Bugs's contributions tend to be either exceedingly mature, astoundingly insightful breakthroughs; lighthearted but off-topic jokes; or sarcastic, unhelpful digs at others (deserved, often, but not conducive to a collegial atmosphere). It's this last part that worries me. I get the impression that he follows drama wherever it crops up so that he can make fun of it. Which is borderline tolerable for non-admin editors, but admins aren't supposed to have so much ''fun'' with Wikipedia. Admins are supposed to be respectful, sober, unemotional, humorless robot zombies (okay, I went off the deep end there, but I think you get my meaning). If Bugs, like he says below, would "tone it down" if adminned, I think he'd quickly find Wikipedia boring. -
'''Oppose''' per Spartacus and Kotra.
'''Strong Oppose''' I ran into baseball bugs immediately after my very first editing experience here.  I was treated horribly by him.  Please take a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foie_gras#Images here] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive516#Foie_gras_2 and here](i am sko1221).  For a brand-new person, this was a brutal welcoming.  His methods of arguing a point are juvenile at best.  I would not feel comfortable with the Wikipedia Admin team if this person was on it, prior to a good bout of therapy, that is.<font face="Tempus Sans">
'''Strong Oppose'''. Ottava Rima summed it up well. There's been an improvement from 2007, when he was blocked twice (once for ''five'' days) for harassment; but he's still no where near the kind of editor this project needs as an administrator. His exchange with ChildofMidnight in oppose #12 is a perfect recent example, if posts to AN/I aren't enough. And User:I'm Spartacus! (your signature is awful by the way <3) brought up the only instance I recall having had any significant interaction with the candidate. Linked in that oppose (#34) is my summed up view of that situation. Sense of humor is awesome, but the addiction to drama is ridiculous. Non-admins don't need to comment on issues raised on admin boards unless they are somehow involved or in a position to weigh in with educated information. Poking, prodding and kicking editors involved in heated situations is unnecessary and inappropriate. The candidate is not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to feed his hunger for drama. I expected this request, as shown in the aforementioned link, and believe it's obvious that his relentless participation on admin boards has shown his desire to gain power on this website. Despite having told me "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord&diff=259668324&oldid=259666976 As far as my being an admin, I have no interest in the job, so you're safe.]" in late-December last year, here he is, just as I predicted. For all these reasons and those stated by others, it's a resounding '''NO.'''
'''Oppose''' - I have no reason to assume that this candidate will be able to radiate the calm and neutral judgment the community expects from an administrator nor is there any indication he will be able to control his use of the admin tools. Per all above who pointed to various examples why I think so. Regards '''
'''Oppose'''.  Recall promises are made <i>ad captandum vulgaris</i> and, given the historical record of recall attempts, have a vanishingly small chance of removing or at the very least affecting the behavior of problem admins.
'''Weak oppose''' -  too much drama on [[WP:ANI]].
'''Switched from Support to oppose''' - I came here supporting, but today I went back and looked at some of the opposing comments. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Request_permanent_block_and_talkpage_protection/ edit] made me have to oppose. This comment, made just a week or two before this RFA makes me agree with the comments above that we don't need more admins like this, admins that have made controversial comments, or have a temper. Had this happened early, I may have overlooked this, but this is too recent to overlook. Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Absofreakinlutely not.
'''Weak Oppose''' Too much drama. Looking over his contributions to [[WP:AN/I]], they're usually adding to the drama or really lame jokes that often derail serious conversations taking place there. Also, nothing makes me lean towards opposing more than when I see a candidate making unnecessary replies to oppose comments.
'''Oppose''' - The user seems to act on [[WP:ANI|ANI]] as an "admin-attack-dog", weighing in on discussions where an admin has been questioned or queried (the admins being blameless, Bugs acts unprovoked). Augmenting j'accusery and promoting witch-hunts. I would be concerned if this user got "the bit".
'''Oppose for now''' Unhelpful jokes/sarcasm on [[WP:AN/I]].  I'd like to see you tone it down before I support.
'''Oppose''' too young/lacks maturity, unsuitable temperament etc.
'''Oppose''' - too interested in politics, both real world politics and, more troubling, wiki politics. I fear he will just create more drama if given the tools.
'''Oppose''' The bluntness and directness referenced above don't especially offend me, but that stuff can be too bitey to new folks.  And, spending so much time engaging at ANI is a bad habit - one of those things where just because one can doesn't mean one should.  That stuff said, I've had no bad interactions with the candidate; this is just one of those cases where not every good editor is necessarily a good candidate for the admin role.  Thanks for volunteering all the same.
'''Oppose''' As bright as Bugs is and can be, this ain't the right job for him...
'''Strong Oppose''' Very rarely do I oppose people at RFA. I usually abstain from RFA of the people who have left a bad feel. But this is not much to be ignored. The user severely lacks maturity and temperament of an admin and I am sorry to say that he is highly uncivil , and rude to new users, horrible at ANI and handling of conflicts is pathetic --
'''Weak Oppose''' Don't normally oppose, but Bugs seems to occasionally fuel the fire, and doesn't quite seem ready. Best '''
'''Oppose'''.  Fans rather than douses flames.  --
'''Oppose''', per Jbmurray. <font color="#0000FF">
I don't care how old are you, your actions on [[WP:DRAMA|ANI]] scares me. Will go Sideways with mop. -
Calling the subject of an article a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=276037965 "baby factory"] is simply unacceptable, and I can't support as long as comments like that are being made. --
'''Strong oppose''' per JayHenry, give AN/ANI/AE/etc a miss for a long time.  Try [[WP:NPP]] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=Baseball+Bugs] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''', consistently bad attitude.
'''Oppose''' Does not possess temperament one would expect from an admin. Often funny, but can be a bit caustic and bitey at times. And (as noted by several users, including Jbmurray, comments on AN/I tend to inflame situations rather than defuse them. #'''
'''Strong Oppose''' with this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=AGK&page=User%3ABaseball+Bugs&year=&month=-1 December 2007]. I think harrasing other users might come back to him and he start doing it again when he gets in editing disputes etc. So my answer is a Strong NO as of now
'''Oppose''' Admins are supposed to cool down disputes, not heat them up.
'''Oppose''' per other comments re: ANI contributions.
'''Oppose''' Seems to have a fine temperment when not needed, but lacks discretion and calm when it is most needed, such as on contentious political articles.
'''Oppose''' Based on previous ANI behavior and comments, I do not believe he would make a good admin. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Moved From Support to Oppose''' his age doesn't bother me, but the comments about the drama worry me.
'''Weak oppose''' Despite how much I enjoy reading Bugs' comments, his somewhat antagonistic and indiscreet approach to volatile cases makes me believe that any positive benefit he could deliver as an administrator would be overshadowed by drama and its negative effects both within and outside of Wikipedia. Sorry, Bugs. &mdash;/
'''Oppose''' per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJauerback&diff=275839755&oldid=274983668 comment] left on my talk page after I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Bugs&diff=275836951&oldid=275650019 warned him about 3RR].  Admittedly, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jauerback&diff=275840463&oldid=275839755 quickly apologized] on his own, but I don't see how anyone could react that way to a simple warning (albeit, I didn't include a smiley faces or a plate of cookies or anything), which I thought was better than a templated warning, since I knew he wasn't a newbie.  Then, he says he's never been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jauerback&diff=275890398&oldid=275888122 been warned prior to reaching 3RR before]?  Sucks for him, I guess.  I thought I was being courteous.  <b>
'''Oppose''' Based on ANI behavior as well. Biting newbies, a lack of AGF, and less than civil discourse.
''''Oppose''' His [[escalator]] has no off button.
'''Very very strong oppose''' Have not even bothered to look at the user's contribs. He's bullying opposers on his own RFA. This is absolutly dispicable behaviour. RfA ''is'' a discussion, but rushing in and ridiculing people's opinions only entrenches that opinion more and enflames the situation. I've seen you at ANI and you seem to just enflame things. This is basically a not ever oppose, unless 18 months or so down the line you demonstrate that you are suitable to be an administrator.--
'''Oppose''' Utter lack of temperment to be an administrator. A lightning rod for controversy. I do not forsee this ever changing. Interestingly, there's still a userbox on his page that says "I am not a Wikipedia Administrator..... I would not run if nominated............... and if elected, I would not serve." --
I strongly oppose, but some of the reasons given by opposers are not compelling to me.  I see nothing wrong with speaking plainly- if someone's behavior is a problem and they need to stop, it's OK to say so.  However sometimes Bugs crosses the line from merely speaking plainly and starts actively fanning the flames.  The straw that broke the camel's back for me was someone removing Bug's useless and juvenile joke banner from his userpage, and Bugs just reverted it claiming that his userpage was HIS and should not be messed with.  This shows that he places more importance on his own whims than on making Wikipedia useful for others.  That, plus the flame-fanning tendencies lead me to believe his temperament is fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia.  Ideally, we don't want any editors who behave that way, but we can't fix that problem.  So we do the best which can, which is making sure we don't get admins like that.  So, you can chalk me down firmly in the "not now, not ever" camp.
'''Oppose''' per previous interaction on [[talk:Donald Duck]].
'''Oppose''', sarcasm and attempts at humor or wit does not have a place in admin's responses. There's nothing wrong with having some fun as long as it isn't rude or unhelpful, but being an admin isn't about fun, it's about taking on more responsibility. Basically, lots of people don't take Wikipedia too seriously, which is fine, but I think admins should take it seriously. (Also I'm helping you get to your goal of 96–95.)
'''Oppose'''. Don't get me wrong. I like Bugs and I appreciate his help. I just can't see how you get there from here. (In this case, "there" = Wikipedia admin, and "here" = self-appointed court jester of ANI.)  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' I don't mind how old the candidate is, but I am opposing him because for stating that he is ''"only 13 1/2 years old"'' on his user page. Many new editors will ask administrators to help them and if they think that an admin is only 13 and a half years old, it is likely that they will decide not to request help from that user.
'''Strong oppose'''. Candidate seems to have little understanding of/respect for non-free image policies. This alone is enough for which to oppose- the last thing we need is another admin who doesn't care about the fact we're a '''free''' encyclopedia. Three images have been uploaded in the last month, and none of them have anything close to a real fair use rationale. It seems clear the "rationale" has been added merely so that the images will not be speedy deleted, not as a genuine explanation of why they are needed in the article.
'''Oppose'''. There's too much of an attitude for me to trust him, and I couldn't even begin to link to all of the instances of that. I really think it would just make for a controversial adminship.
'''Oppose''' -- Per above, the editor needs to learn from his past mistakes. A admin should no polices well and how to handle situations without an attitude.--'''''<small>
'''Oppose''' Professional dramamonger. On top of that, the last thing Wikipedia needs is more 13 year old admins.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I just cannot support an editor for adminship where there is this much drama.  Administrators represent Wikipedia and to be a successful one, you need to handle tough situations.  Age has nothing to do with my decision, by the way. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''<s>Strong</s> oppose''' Age has nothing to do with this.  You generally cite opinion before policy in cases at ANI (where you spend far too much time) and at AfDs and other places I've seen you. Posts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alientraveller&diff=prev&oldid=275100173 like this] show either ignorance of, or blatant disregard of policies and guidelines such as [[Wikipedia:Notability (films)|this]].   As per A.B.'s question, your lack of cleanup in the fields that you say you'll work in is notable.  I've never seen anything from you (opinions or policy interpretion) regarding spam, promotion, external links, etc, so I have no idea how you'll be able to handle these.  Judging from what you say about articles in general, I have to say that you would let the flood gates open a little too widely for Wikipedia's own good.
'''Oppose''' It will be a net negative in Wikipedia based on the candidate's attitude on this RfA alone.--
'''Neutral''' for now, '''leaning to oppose'''. A variety of things unsettle me. Almost no use of edit summaries. My own [[User talk:A. B./October 2007#View-Master|vaguely unpleasant interaction]] with you in 2007; that's insignificant enough and old enough to not be a big factor, but it did get me to look at this RfA more closely.  This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soxwon&diff=prev&oldid=274684957#Limbaugh:_Your_favorite_page.21 Rush Limbaugh joke] earlier this month which shows poor BLP judgement for an admin; I doubt Limbaugh or most others care much about it, but we do need to bend over backwards on anything BLP-related. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Bugs&oldid=275901072#ANI  recent exchange] about an ANI case -- I don't have the full story, but what I read doesn't look great. I am worried that you will be one of that 5% of admins that cause 95% of our admin drama. Hopefully, as this RfA unfolds, I'll be more reassured. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  Good arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson]], but weak argment at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson]] (a case of [[WP:JNN]]).  So one good, one not so good.  Regarding the block log, on one hand they were all back in 2007; however, the two blocks were for harassment and I have a zero tolerance of harassment.  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral''' based on personal experience.  Will probably eventually switch to support, but found the editor a little overbearing in our discussions at [[Nolan Ryan]].  However, I'm probably going to conclude he's a net positive.--
'''Neutral''' I've only really come across Bugs at ANI, where he makes a lot of contributions, and displays plenty of knowledge, both of procedure, and of historical admin actions. As I've mentioned in other RfAs, I think humour is important to an admin. All that being said, I can't judge how Bugs will work on the non-ANI sections of the admin role that he said he will focus on, because I can't see much evidence of working at and around NPP, CSD, RPP, AIV etc. --
'''Neutral''' - I see Bugs around a lot at ANI and similar locations; his sense of humour has earned a chuckle from me now and again, but some of his comments when he's being more serious make me hesitate to think he'd do well with the tools. His comments [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#Need_help_with_article_patrollers|in this discussion]] make me wary of having him able to work on deletion discussions - referring to "deletionists" whose "whose mission in life here is to destroy rather than to create"... that kind of viewpoint concerns me.
'''Neutral''', (but a weak one). Don't wan't to "step on the rabbits' (big) feet by voting ''oppose''" and neither want to "kiss them with my ''support''" for just one [[Looney Tunes|lo(o)n(e)ly]] reason: I'm not really sure how his humor would affect his adminship but if he makes it, he (the carrot-eating-funny-thing) will have my support and maybe even a fresh carrot off and on.--
'''Neutral''' Recall is a hideous procedure that makes the encyclopedia worse. Neutral per pledge to be "open" to it.
'''Neutral''' Changing to neutral from oppose. Reasons given above.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; My interactions with Baseball Bugs in the past have been positive, but the opposes listed above are too heavy for me to support at this time. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' per Tony Fox. I like BB very much, having worked with him a good while back on the Apollo moon hoax article when he was still Wahkeenah. We do need more admins who are real people rather than clones. I wish I could support him. However some (not by any means all) of the opposers have made good points. I am confident BB will learn from these and I look forward to !voting support in June 2009 or thereabouts. --
'''Neutral''' <small>(switched from support)</small>.  After looking through the opposes in more detail, this user seems to cause a lot of drama and has had a few too many questionable comments/moments.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to support since I think your intent usually seems to be right and you do lots of good work, but there are just too many examples where your wording could be considered to be adding to the problem rather than helping toward a solution. I like your positive attitude toward the constructive criticism presented and hopefully down the track I'll be able to support a future RfA from you.
'''Sentimental Neutral'''  Baseball Bugs was one of the first editors I ever worked with on Wikipedia in a collaboration, along with W. marsh, nigh on three years ago in dealing with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Cooldc19 Matt Leinart Vandal].  I cannot support, but I cannot oppose, and I thank the user for helping me in getting involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' I try not to read the ANI page regularly to the point where I can pick out distinct personalities; I don't want to be able to pick out personalities on the ANI page. I think it should be for sincere discussion about editor and article problems, quickly and efficiently handled, not drawn out with all the hurt feelings and demands for apologies from users with fragile self-concepts. Baseball Bugs defies my efforts because he pipes in to add what appears he thinks is humor to discussions, giving him a distinct personality when it is not warranted. I understand this; I am a hoot to be sure, and some of the hardest lessons I have had to learn is that being a hoot is called for in limited circumstances. I get the impression that this is the only way Baseball Bugs can relate to people. He may not be 13 1/2 years old, but having that on one's user page and supporting that belief with behavior does not instill confidence in users. I would not go to him if I saw that. I would not think he would be able to understand my issues. I have had no interactions with this user, however, and remain neutral instead of opposing his RfA. This is a rough RfA to read. ''Mine'' was a rough RfA to read. I hope Baseball Bugs takes the commentary and uses it for sincere reflection, coming out a better editor for it. --
'''Oppose''' You want to work in CSD yet you only have 54 deleted edits, you'll need some more experience in that area if you intend to work there before I support.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
You do some good work here, and anyone who sticks around this place gets instant respect from me. You seem to do decent content work, and I certainly appreciate that; however, you seem to have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Basket+of+Puppies&namespace=4 little] experience with Wikipedia's maintenance, and I see little participation in community discussions. Your CSD work, while scarce seems to be accurate at first glance so I'm not too concerned about that. I don't see any major cause for concern in your editing history, and I'd bet you would do just fine with the mop. Unfortunately, I don't feel entirely confident supporting at this time. Wait two or three months, get a bit more experience at UAA, AIV, and XfD, and barring any significant issues that arise until then I'd be happy to support. I wish you good luck in your request. –'''
I remember running across you a few days ago at the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_31#Template:Dont_Hangon|Dont Hangon TfD]] and looked at a few of the other things you've done.  You like you're a great editor, but as the opposes above me state, it's really difficult to make a judgment call over whether you'll be good as an admin when there's so little to look back upon to see how you've been as an editor.  So, yes, this is just another "not enough edits" oppose, nothing new to be said, and there'll probably be more, but I would advise you not to get discouraged because you're definitely on the right path.  I can see that you've been watching a lot of RfA's lately and studying the questions, which is a good thing as well.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'd like to see ''at least'' 3k edits, and 1 year's experience. Hope to see you here later!--
'''Oppose''' - as per Giants27. You need some more work here.
'''Neutral''' at this time due to the concerns raised by Juliancolton, Giants27, and Soap above. I can't really comment on edit count as I recently [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MacMed|ran for adminship]] myself with about the same amount of edits and almost 8 months less time than you! :P I would recommend continuing to work with CSD and your other areas of stated admin involvement, and to keep up the good article work on articles like [[Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak]]. Come back with a bit more experience and I will happily support. Regards, <font color="green">
'''Support''' Dedicated editor who has certaintly improved since their last RfA.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' Though your last RfA was only 2.5 months ago, I don't think that you'll break anything if you have access to a few extra buttons. You're a kind and competent editor whose improvements have been consistent. <small>
'''Support''' Per above. You have improved since your last RfA, and I trust that you won't break anything. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] due to no memorable negative interactions, as candidate was trusted enough to be given Rollback Rights, candidate appreciates puppies (Napoleon once said something about people who like dogs appreciate faithfulness, or something to that effect), user has a good article credit under the belt, user has been editing for nearly a year, user has significantly contributed to or created dozens of articles, [[User:Basket_of_Puppies#Awards]] is nice to see, at the time of my supporting, no one has commented in the oppose section of this page, and has never even been accidentally blocked, which means NINE reasons I could come up with to support!  Bravo!  :)  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' balance of evidence suggests a net positive is a more than likely outcome, so worth a shot with the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You've made some great strides since your last RFA.
'''Support''', I can't see any real reason not to trust this candidate; as for his edit count, I passed RfA having made only 2900 edits myself. --
'''Support'''  Looks good to me.  Additionally I have no problem with the automated edits percentage that others have, it is not unreasonable especially with all the new tools out there to help with vandalism to have a significant portion of your edits being "automated" when working against vandals...
'''Support'''.  Looks fine.  More than enough experience by any rational standard. --
'''Support''' Answers look fine to me.
'''Support''' Have reviewed your previous RFA, contribs look good. I don't see why Automated edits are a problem, and your deleted edits don't appear to be an issue either.  I've had over 800 edits deleted through vandal fighting and CSD work. No blocks, no bans.... I think you'd make a great admin.
'''Support''' opposes not matter to me. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' The only thing stopping me from supporting you was Q15 :) --<b><font color=red>
Answers to questions are satisfactory, as well as contributions.
'''Support''', a useful contributor to [[WP:ANI]] and I am happy to support this candidate.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and enough experience.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Weak Support:''' I would never support such a candidate. Not enough time on Wikipedia,  the high level of CSD work with Twinkle, the state of several of the stubs created  without any references at all etc etc. Only 2 months in between RfAs plus use of automated editing make it impossible to support. However I basically like this candidate (must be the puppies) therefore I am going to give weak support. -
'''Support''' - ''Probably'' a net positive. I trust this user, and think they will be able to use the tools responsibly, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''': The opposes confuse me, and don't sway me in the least. A complete net positive.--
'''Provisional support''' I've reviewed the opposes and the bulk of them contain legitimate complaints.  However the answers to most questions are reasonable, what I recall of interactions with the candidate were favorable and s/he wants to help.  If this fails, please seek out an experienced admin and ask for help.  The advice you get there will greatly improve your understanding of processes and policies.
'''Support''': Despite the complaints, I feel that you can do most admin work without breaking the wiki.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' I see no reason to not trust you. THe encyclopedia will only benefit from you adminship :)--
'''Support'''
'''POINTy Support'''.  This place is getting slightly absurd.  Eighteen (as of my count, this moment) questions?  I'm not sure I would have passed this RfA.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Moral Support'''. I think we have good material here, and a definite future admin.  I do have to say that while I can certainly understand some of the experience concerns below, I also think a few of the questions were a bit over the top as well.  I'd likely suggest that waiting until early summer (May or so), might benefit the candidate.  I'd also like to extend my thanks to BoP for the work s/he's been putting into our project, please keep up the kind, helpful, and dedicated work you're doing - I look forward to seeing a strong consensus of giving you the tools in the future. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support'''. The candidate is qualified for the tasks he evinces an interest in performing. Whether or not this RfA is successful, I am sure he will carefully consider the feedback he has received here.
'''Support'''. Quality contributions to talk pages and article space,  does plenty of clean up work so has a clear need for the tools,  plus a very cute user page pic.
'''Strong Support''' We need admins to set an example of courtesy and collegiality. The oppose arguments are very weak. Keep up the good work BoP. We need more editors and admins like you.
'''Strong Support''' - We need [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Basket_of_Puppies_2&diff=330527392&oldid=330519155 courteous], quality admins. I trust BasketOfPuppies won't [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|break the wiki]]. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Looking through edits, previous RFA, answers and the opinions here I see nothing to indicate that BoP will be anything  but a net positive.  '''
'''Support'''. Lack of experience is a legitimate concern, but I see nothing troubling in a random spot-check of contribs. Editcountitis seems rampant here, but the solution is to urge BoP to learn everything he can about the tools and the conventions for using them ''before'' he uses them. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Support''' Wikipedia has a burnout problem and needs responsible new admins with their enthusiasm still intact.  I trust he will exercise due caution if granted tools.--
'''Support''' Looks good enough for me.
'''Support''' BoP seems to be competant and conscientious.
'''Strong Support''' Well-improved since previous RfA, Deo Volente! '''
'''Weak support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including starting articles and sufficient WP edits, and improvement in the past months.  Avoid self references in the third person.  No other qualms.  He can probably handle the mop.
'''Support''' - Excuse beginning with humor, but .. Tan's gut feeling  is to oppose, however Tan has scary hair&mdash;so my gut says support. :-) More seriously: Like that Puppies has the nerve to ask (again) with so few edits (acknowledging ip work). Like that with all the opposition, Puppies will not be likely to wield the bit with the swagger that a 90%+ approval might bring ... Now: Because I'm voting with my gut, I will back up this vote with a promise to observe result of this leap of faith ... and nudge, if necessary, toward the path of "the good administrator."
Looks like a reasonable candidate on my review.  I reviewed the past 200 edits and the past 100 WP space edits and was impressed.  Contributes to article space, reasonably experienced, and no egregious errors.  To be honest, I am somewhat perplexed by the level of opposition to this candidate.  Has my wholehearted '''support''' --
'''Support''' per answer 9.
'''Support''', BoP may be imperfect (unlike the rest of us, surely!), but from what I've seen is careful and thoughtful. I'm much less concerned about a knowledge of policy going in (after all, checking a policy one is unsure of requires only the ability to read), but with ability to interact civilly and think clearly. I don't see that lacking clearly. As to the rest of the opposes...who cares about the user awards, really, and what's with the editcountitis/wherearetheeditscountitis/howwastheeditmadecountitis? Using ''semi''automated tools (distinction is important!) to help with tasks that have repetitive components is a sign of intelligence and "working smarter", not laziness or lack of dedication, as long as the actions ultimately taken are correct.
'''Support'''. Per Newyorkbrad and Seraphimblade.
'''Support'''. I don't see why strong editorial contributions absolutely matter for this kind of work.
'''Support''': Dedicated editor. --
'''Support''' because I read the oppose section and half of it sounds like nitpicky bitching.
'''Support''' per Gurch's reason. I can find no reason to oppose, and believe that other people (at least seem to) enjoy doing so. Would make a great admin. Good luck. :) <span class="nounderlines">
For the lulz. --
'''Support'''- The RfA process is deplorable. It takes an act of Congress and a vote of the Cardinals in the Vatican to be given the royal decree of ''Administrator'' (said with loud booming voice as Moses would have heard it on top the mountain. I have seen BoP since his/her inception at WP. He/She was asking about how to do this and how to do that and just seemed to ''enjoy'' being a part of the project. So what he/she did whatever with the little "time-in-rate" self awards. Who cares about the huggle, the kissle or whatever automated process. He/She will obviously not abuse the phenomenal cosmic power of being an omnipitant [[Q (Star Trek)|Administrator]]. I gave up long ago on even attempting this insane process to become an Admin. My hats off to BoP for taking the punches. This whole thing is like being pelted with rocks and thanking all of the throwers. Good luck with your endeavors, BoP!--
'''Oppose'''. Argh. I hate to be the first oppose for this RfA, especially given the undoubtedly positive effect BoP has had on this project. I just cannot convince myself that this editor is ready for the mop; it's not a matter of there being a "net positive" - it's a matter of me thinking that there is too much of a chance for mistakes to be made. The contributions to admin-related areas I see as ''superficial'' - it's as if a lot of clerking, gnoming, and fringe-content has been done, with little "meat". The candidate's contributions give me little indication (Nobody's support notwithstanding) of how they will act in that arena. I typically react negatively towards editcountitis; however, in this case I think several more months of experience and double the edits would give me a better gauge for which to measure the candidate. I encourage other !voters to not vote "per Tan" without doing a lot of research - this oppose is more of a gut feeling than one I can back up with diffs.
'''Oppose''' insufficient evidence the editor understands what's at stake with the content in the encyclopedia.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  While I certainly believe that you are headed in the right direction and that you have made some extraordinary contributions to the project, I just don't think you have enough experience to be a sysop.  Sure, eight months is a long time, but making roughly  300-500 edits per month isn't nearly enough activity for me to support.  Not only that, about 700 of your 3,600 edits are automated.  You state you wish to work in anti-vandalism, yet I see you have made a grand total of 7 edits to [[WP:AIV]].  Also, I'd recommend being careful when working with images.  [[:File:Twinklefirefoxosxscreenshot.png]] is a copyright violation, deletable by [[WP:CSD#F9]].  Coming from someone who intends to work in [[WP:CSD]], I find this rather disturbing.  I'm sorry, but it really doesn't seem like much has changed since you previous RfA.  I don't mean to discourage you, but I just don't think you have what it takes to wield the mop just yet.  Perhaps in a few months and several thousand more edits.  -'''
'''Weak oppose''' You have only about a year's experience coupled with less than 4000 edits. This would be ok if you were a super-outstanding candidate with a good quality nomination by a trusted user, but the self nom seems a little inappropriate. <s>I'm also leery of anyone who manages to find and add Twinkle to their account four minutes after it was created.</s> With all of these factors put together, I just don't trust you. '''
'''<s>Very Weak</s> oppose'''  The answers to several of the questions give me pause.  <s>Question 15 is kind of wrong about bans vs blocks.</s>  I used to think that it's patronizing to ask people these basic questions, but the frequency that they are answered incorrectly has surprised me. Grasp of copyright seems a little weak, but he didn't claim to want to work in images, so I'm not sure all the image questions are necessarily fair.   One of the big issues is that he seems to be simply summarizing existing policy without having given them much thought prior to this.  His answers don't particularly inspire confidence that he could handle synthesizing the spirit of the policies needed for dealing with edge cases.  While none of these are big issues, they are just enough to edge me into oppose.  I get the feeling that the more questions he answers, the further I will be driven to opposition, but we'll see. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 03:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)  He amended the answer to 15, it's better now, still oppose for now though.
From a review of his edits to ANI, I get somewhat of the same impression as Tan; most of his edits to the page seem to consist of "clerical" notes rather than adding to the discussion. Decided to oppose after reading some of the answers to the questions. I don't like that BLP apparently didn't come into consideration at all in Q6. Q10 is just wrong; Its generally been accepted that, except in extreme cases like [[J.D. Salinger]], a free image could presumably be created for a notable living person and therefore a non-free one will never pass [[WP:NFCC#1]]. I also agree with Gigs that many of the answers seem to just be summaries of policy with no personal twist or interpretation. Knowing the wording of policy is not especially important. Knowing the reasoning for policies is, and from reviewing his recent contributions and the answers to the questions, I'm not convinced that BoP understands the reasoning behind enough of administrative policy and procedure. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' while I had hoped to support, I don't see the level of activity (read, uncomfortable with your level of experience) at AIV, UAA, and RPP as a strong indication, and I'd like to see more experience with CSD's.
'''Oppose''' Seems a little too eager for the bit in my tastes. And just not that confident in his experience level. --
'''Oppose'''. Not now.  The self-nomination rationale puts me off.  I reviewed some of the articles you created, many cite only primary sources [[Bryan E. Bledsoe]], [[Yitzchak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life]], even no sources [[Cerebrospinal fluid leak]], or were redirected [[Radiolucency]].  You obviously need more experience before I would trust you to delete other people's work.
'''Oppose'''.  2 months between RfAs?  Seriously?
Per Tan, OlEnglish. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' per Mr.Z-man and Power.corrupts.
'''Oppose''' While I disagree with Power.corrupts, and consequently GlassCobra (the diffs cited go way, way back) I believe you lack experience, confidence, and maturity. I would recommend more participation in dispute resolution (not necessarily through [[WP:DR]]) and more experience with content (not necessarily audited, and not necessarily creating new content). Additionally, I'd recommend you wait longer than 2<sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub> months for your next RfA. A minimum of 8-9 months would be better.
'''Oppose''' You seem to be fairly well experienced, but the high level of CSD work with Twinkle concerns me, as does the state of several of the stubs you created (as listed on your talk page). Specifically I mean stubs which you created without any references at all and other issues. Overeagerness (only 2 months in between RFAs?) plus use of automated editing and poor quality in some of your article writing all equals me feeling uneasy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">

'''Weak oppose''' I was very close to support here. I see a strong indication that you would use the tools responsibly and they would not be abused. Unfortunately, I also see an indication of lack of experience. Particularly what has me worried is that some of the answers to questions seem to indicate the potential for miss-closed AfDs, miss-deleted CSDs, etc. For example, the answer to question 1.3 re: edit warring has me worried because I strongly feel that using page protection is not a solution to edit warring. Page protection is a tool which is useful for widespread problems, not problems which can be pinned down to two users. Questions like these have lead me to believe that you might (admittedly unintentionally and [[WP:AGF|in good faith]]) misuse some of the tools. Further experience would pull me to support. --
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong Oppose''' An unsurprising (given the self-regard of RfA #1) quick-back self-nom that in itself raises maturity/wannabe alarms. Neither the answers nor checking through BoP's contribs has produced anything to overcome these misgivings. I don't see that BoP has the range and depth of project understanding and involvement necessary: the content contributions are marred by mediocrity and carelessness but its mostly that he hasn't regularly or reliably demonstrated the necessary judgment, relection and evaluation in adminesque wiki-situations.
'''Oppose''' I was initially put off by the phrasing of the nomination ''Hard working, kind, thoughtful and smart editor'' would sound good from another nominator, but from a self-nom, it sounds a bit egotistical. However, that is not the main reason for my Oppose: I'm a bit uncomfortable with a couple of the responses to the questions such as Fastily's questions - and I was surprised that for Question 17, you didn't seem to recognise that the user may have been the only provider of substantial contents, and so it could be a [[WP:CSD#G7|G7 Author requests deletion]] request. Hopefully, you will learn valuable lessons from this RfA, and I hope to see you back in the future, when hopefully I will be able to support you. -- '''''
'''Weak oppose''' Basket of Puppies is a good editor who has made a lot of positive contributions. The answer to Q2 contains several things of which the candidate is rightly proud. But although there has definitely been improvement since the last RfA (under three months ago!), I'm not sure this user has sufficient policy understanding and experience for adminship. The answers to the questions aren't all that inspiring, particularly Q10-Q13, which indicate an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia image policy. I was also surprised by the answer to Q17, which completely neglected to mention CSD G7. The statement that the candidate would use page protection rather than blocks to stop edit warring is also concerning. Basket of Puppies, ultimately, is a trustworthy editor who would have pros and cons upon receiving the mop. Unfortunately, there are enough cons here that I cannot support this RfA.
'''Oppose''', have some concerns about answers to the questions and experience. Also, agree with {{user|Phantomsteve}} and {{user|GlassCobra}}. '''
'''Oppose''' this time. I've noticed BoP around at ANI, and found them helpful, courteous, cooperative and friendly. Where I have reservations is in their overall experience and the nature of this self-nomination. I look for only two things in an ANI candidate: (1) evidence of good judgement; and (2) evidence that for them, adminship isn't a big deal. Personally I believe that adminship is a role best performed dutifully by those who never sought it, and I'm getting a sense of over-eagerness (and possibly even hubris, given the nom statement) about this candidacy.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't think this user has enough experiance on wikipedia to be a sysop.  While I don't like to base much on edit counts, the lack of knowledge on some of the guidelines outlined by questions above contribute to this oppose.  [[WP:AGF|I don't think BoP would be a bad admin]], I just think he/she needs more time here and more knowledge of guidelines. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, I'm just not sure that the threshold of experience has been crossed for me.  Don't get me wrong--you're an excellent editor and improving all the time, and I'm sure that sooner or later you'll pass an RfA.  However, PhantomSteve's comments, combined with some of my own misgivings between editing amount (although I hate [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|Editcountitis]]), questions, etc. have led me to oppose.  Keep your head up, keep working hard, and I'm sure you'll get there.  Best, <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' based on experience, award issue and quick return back to RfA.
'''<u>Strong</u> oppose''' – the fact that this user chooses to (almost disingenously) describe themselves in their self-nom in glowing terms in the third person doesn't surprise me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Basket_of_Puppies&oldid=317414197#Re_ANI_inform This] thread involves BoP acting in such a way that (at the time) made me want to bash my head against a wall more than almost any other experience on Wikipedia. Things seem to have changed little since September with the, "I am truly insulted" comment above, and the pretence (and I'm afraid I do think it is a pretence, though I wouldn't oppose based solely on that) of not understanding that an award for reaching a certain number of edits was an award for reaching a certain number of edits. In short, I think that the editor's style of communication needs some ''major'' modification before being unleashed on the admin tools. <font color="#A20846">╟─
Answers to the questions are not the most solid I have seen, and the candidate's reaction to various comments and questions that have come up as a result of discussion in/related to this RFA are not the quality that I would like to see of an administrator.  A few other red flags going up that I won't discuss, as it is primarily the candidate's handling of this RFA itself that leads me to oppose.
Per above and a gut feeling. I'd rather not go into what causes that.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''If you would ''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this user is looking up these answers to the questions after he's read them.
'''Oppose''': Per Tan, Kmweber and Mr. Z-Man. The answers to several questions are not encouraging, the time between RFA's is a little close IMO and the user seems to have ignored advice from his previous RFA.
'''Keep''' as non admin for now, logs show pretty light on activity, with more practice desirable for file uploads.  BoP does not seem to be around long enough yet to be the recipient of a barnstar, but on the positiove side has done patrolling.  I would suggest trying again in 6 months, but await for someone else to nominate! Maybe autopatroller could be considered.
'''Oppose''' per the nomination statement and other concerns also raised, such as apparent lack of knowledge in some important areas. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Oppose with advice:''' Don't worry so much about becoming an administrator - you are a valued editor with decent contributions. In a matter of a few months to a year, as your experience and increasing competence in admin areas becomes apparent, you will be approached to be nominated, and that time you will pass easily. Meantime, keep up the good work, and stand back a bit. Allow a natural evolution to take place. --'''''
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.  --'''
'''Oppose''' – less than 1000 mainspace edits. Take some time to build content.
'''Oppose''' I generally have a positive impression of BoP but I don't think the time is yet ripe for him to be an admin. My main concerns are with regards to his temperament (especially overeagerness to be an admin, and tendency to be defensive in face of even mild criticism) and policy knowledge (as reflected by changing answer to Q10; even the current answer is incomplete since it does not account for fair use of iconic images such as the ones in [[Phan Thị Kim Phúc]] and [[Lenna]]).
'''Strong oppose''' quite a few editors have expressed a gut feeling that has failed to convince them that you should have the mop at this time. Forced to say "Ditto", and while edit count is usually considered a reason to avoid using for opposing as per [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Editcountitis|]], I've found that editors under say 6000 edits more often than not show certain lacks of competence in the operation of being a sysop, and whether or not this rings true in your case, I must also agree with other editors that have been worried that your lack of experiences may affect your ability to use the tools at the level needed. Not this time.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="blue">
'''Oppose''' - with great respect - per various previously expressed concerns re: experience, self nom and too short a period between Rfa's.  BoP, you appear to me to be a sincere Wikipedian with a desire to help the project, but an admin candidate needs more than that to get the mop.  My suggestion: carry on with us in this effort, continue to learn as much as you can, and (if you really want to run this gauntlet a third time) try again next summer.  May I suggest some anti-vandal work, as one area you could roll up your sleeves in?  Regardless, my thanks to you for your time and energy, which are appreciated gifts.  Again, please don't be discouraged.  My best wishes,
As someone who opposed your last RfA, I'm glad to see you've followed the advice given by me and the other opposers.  However I wish we had given you more advice, because I think you could have used some.  It's been three months since then and you have more edits than some of the lowest-count administrators, so edit count itself isn't really an issue here.  But I don't see that you've done much work in the areas you plan to work on, except in CSD.  I don't see much evidence of anti-vandalism work or content dispute resolution, for example.  I think that my oppose rationale from last time still applies: you're definitely on the right path, but I don't have enough contribution history to make a proper judgment of how you would perform as an administrator right now.  I'm putting this in the Neutral section because I think that if this RfA does succeed that you will be careful and not make any great mistakes (as I don't see you making great mistakes as an editor either), but the concerns above keep me from supporting.  -- ''<B>
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Neutral]]''' - You have certainly improved since your last RfA, but the majority of your speedy deletion edits, to what I can see, are automated. Although I am waaaaay anti-automated, I am not opposing because of your quality CSD work that you have done nonetheless, but I can't support because of the percentages of that work. I guess I'll stay here. Good luck with your RfA! <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Neutral''' - Heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure if she's there yet.
Per above. Nothing to suggest this editor would abuse the tools, so normally I'd [[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|support]]. However, I just don't see any sort of substantial experience, and I agree that BoP does seem a bit too eager for the tools. As an aside, the nomination statement doesn't inspire a lot of confidence—it's great that you're enthusiastic, but an admin must never take themselves too seriously. :) Good luck and let me know if you have any questions. –'''
'''Neutral''' While I do not see any of your edits as particularly concerning, my reservations are more concentrated upon your response to Fastily's questions and the poor state of the references on some of the articles you credit yourself with. Normally, I would overlook these issues if the editor has a history of excellent contributions to articles, AfD, or some other area where he or she excels, but in this case, I can't find a strong enough reason to support the nomination. Excellent content is not a necessity for sysop tools, but I would like to see clearer indication that your edits reflect an understanding of at least one area you wish to work in.
'''Neutral very strongly leaning to Support''' - I have a lot of respect for BoP, I think that he has potential to be a great administrator. He is very helpful at ANI and has had a lot of good contributions all over Wikipedia, and I think he has the temperament that an administrator needs. He just needs more experience and a better familiarity with policy before he's ready. -- '''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Neutral]]''' - While your answer was rather thoughtful, and knowledgeable. You left out in your entire paragraph, that BLP was the most important policy to be used on that AFD. I'm not fully satisfied with your understanding of policy at this time. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Neutral''' While I think that some of this process has been hijacked with what can only be scientifically termed as "having a bug up one's ass", I think there is a lot of consensus that the applicant - while genuinely a good user - simply needs more experience. If that were the only reason to kick BoP down the well, then I can think of a few long-standing admins who should be recalled immediately, despite long and distinguished service to the Project. My main problem with RfA is that while the nomination process seems petty, removing a bad admin is like pulling teeth from Mount Rushmore. Once an admin is in the ranks, it's fairly impossible to get rid of them (assessment based on the comparison of admin removal to user removal). I expect admins to be smarter and more fair than the rest of us. If I go to an admin with a question, i expect them to know the answer or find one in short order. BoP strikes me as the sort who could do this, but if the clubhouse doesn't want him in the club, there ain't much we can say to change it. -
'''Neutral''' I think a little more experience may help - and in the current climate, keep away from automated tools to stop the [[wp:editcountitis|editcountitis]] going against you. '''
'''Neutral''' I would like to support but there are several issues that are preventing me from supporting, notably "''Hard working, kind, thoughtful and smart editor''" in this self nomination puts me off. The answer to my question was fair, although I would have preferred a mention of either [[WP:OUTING]] or [[WP:HARASS]] however, any '''intentional''' posting of somebody elses '''private''' information warrants an immediate block not simply a BLP-related talking to. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
Nuetral, I would like to see more experience in the above issues. Nothing stands out enough to oppose those so moving in the right direction...
'''Neutral'''. Generally good contributions. However I have some concerns about the answers, especially question 10.
'''Neutral''' Courteous, yes, but needs better knowledge of policies. For example, ''why'' would a disruptive editor be banned instead of blocked? Basket of Puppies' answer doesn't show understanding of that. <font color="#FF1493" face="sylfaen">[[User:LovesMacs|Loves]]</font><font color="#1E90FF" face="sylfaen">
I don't think you have enough experience at [[WP:AIV]], but I know you have the potential to be a good administrator in the future.  Keep up the good work. '''
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Neutral]]''' Leaning towards oppose, this user has only 3,000 edits since he first joined on January 1, 2009.
'''Neutral'''. I see no '''real''' reason to oppose- I'll AGF on the alleged "deception" (it's a picture of a medal FFS, I've got one on my page but I wouldn't expect anyone to !vote in a possible future RfA based on it) but, alas, it looks like a "support" would be drowned out by the opposers. If I might offer some advice? RfAs generally pass with a higher edit count (I'm not a fan of it but it's the way RfA is); Review your answers to the questions- don't "rehearse" them but know the answers- be familiar with key policies etc; spend some time on the recent changes when you get bored- aside from catching vandalism, it gives you a feel for what's going on in the project (heavily edited/ vandalised pages, AN/ANI threads and, most importantly, keep up your good work and don't be put off by the dramafest that is one RfA (or RfA in general) and if you still want the sysop bit in a few months, try again!
'''Weak Neutral''' I would have issued a vote of '''Pity Support''', but you have proven to be too mature to be given the equivalent of a half-assed [[WP:*|participation award]]. I haven't seen enough to give support, but will not oppose because you have accepted that this RFA for Basket of Puppies has become a Basket of Drama Mongering Primadonnas. If you are aware of the drama mongering that goes on, especially amongst admins themselves, then you should be smart enough to know that adminship is just not worth it. Please continue expanding Wikipedia and ignore the usual suspects. I would ask to withdraw, but to be honest, '''I REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT WITHDRAW'''. Wait and see just how many users, regular editors and admins alike, will come out of the woodwork to hobble your confidence [[Kathy Bates]]-''[[Misery (film)|style]]''. It'll mentally hurt like a [[WP:NOTCENSORED|muhfucka]], but you'll get over it, and it's a necessary course of inaction to take. You will learn a lot from this RfA. After you have learned how this site works and who has access to the tools that sure as hell doesn't deserve to keep them, please do not run for adminship again. This site's wikipoliticking, brown-nosing, and backstabbing all at the same time will never change. A man once said, ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive330&diff=prev&oldid=173346013 "...as long as some people like to pretend that our carrying out of policies against posting private emails on the wiki is an attempt 'to suppress discussion' '''then we will continue to allow drama mongers to control the discussion of things on the site.'''"]'' That was a quote from Wikipedia [[Larry Sanger|co]]-founder [[Jimbo Wales]] from November of 2007. The only thing that has changed since that day is that drama mongering is stronger and more prevalent than ever before, and it will remain until either the entire Wikipedia project '''dies''' or Jimmy throws up his arms one day and says, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFKRUGfJm78#t=0m3s "I'm sick of this drama shit. Knock it off or I'm stripping your tools. This is an encyclopedia, '''dammit!'''"]  Consider this RfA an eye-opening learning experience. Stick to expanding the project, not trying to get a bit-part on ''[[Days of our Lives]]''. Thank you.
Bazj clearly has the best interest of the project at heart. I agree with Wisdom89 in that more activity in the project space would be nice, though I'll support per [[WP:AGF]]. There is no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] as candidate has no blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me.  Best, --
'''Support''' based on the assumption that the user will look over the relevant administrative policies before using the tool, which is really common sense, plus we need more administrators due to many admins on the project going inactive.
'''Support''' Bazj appears to be a mature and intelligent editor. While some opposers are counting the quantity of his edits, I am measuring the quality of his work, and I see no problems. Good luck!
'''Support''' I have no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools.  —
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]. '''''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' By the standards of a couple of years ago when RFA was working well you'd be a shoe-in. ''
'''Support''' This user appears to me to have a perfectly well-rounded level of experience in wikipedia. He is predominantly an article-space editor, which I think is good, but some 25% of his edits are elsewhere in the project. I feel that if we are to set a minimum edit count (which we do not, and should not) then 3,000 is a reasonable figure which has, indeed, been generally accepted historically here. The suggestion, made below, of 10k is, IMHO and with all respect, ludicrous. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''.  I think we all know it would be ideal if every administrator had 50,000 edits and 5 featured articles, but this is the real world. With 3000 edits and about eight active months (not consecutive, but I don't see how that's relevant), Bazj looks like good admin material.  I am unconvinced by the opposes, and after all "adminship is no big deal".
'''Support''' Who hasn't made a few mistakes? You'll do fine.--
'''Support''' I trust him.
'''Support''' I'd prefer at least a year active on the project, but other than that I see no reason not to give him the tools. -'''
'''Support''' No alarms for me. --
'''Support''' I don't see this passing, but you seem like your intentions are well. Per your lack of experience though, I may oppose if it looks like this is going to pass later on. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''': still young in wiki-years but [[WP:DEAL|what the hell]]. Cursory investigation shows no [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] problems. A definite asset to the project nonetheless. Also there is a backlog of monotonous cleaning that needs to be done due to the problem of ''not enough adminstrators currently''. He'll be fine (and so will the project).--
'''Support''' although I can never think of anything original to say. It has already been said. Don't shoot the youngsters. There. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' No problems here as far as I can see. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Oppose''' - Per lack of experience in the project space.
'''Oppose''' Several more months of experience are needed.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
The disturbing lack of [[WP:CLUE]] in this reversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=280208531] is evidence of why you are not yet ready for the sysop tools. Please don't go around asserting edits are vandalism when they are not. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Some more experience needed.--
[[File:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] '''Regretful Oppose'''. I'm sorry I can't [[File:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' you, but I have a couple of points to mention. 1) You only have around 3k edits. Not to be such an Editcountis person, but I like administrators with at least 5k edits <s>and most likely at least 10k edits</s>. 2) You hardly have any edits to the Wikipedia namespace. 5.07% of your edits is not enough. Yes, the article space edits are good, but focus a bit more on Wikipedia pages. 3) You don't have a stable edit rate. Admins should have around 1k edits a month, except for when they are on vacation. A lot of Wikibreaks, and then an [[WP:RFA|RFA]], isn't what I'd like out of an [[WP:admin|admin]]. Admins should be active and have a consistant edit rate. I have to oppose you for now because of these points. I'd like to support you in a future RFA, but not now. I suggest for another [[WP:EDIAN|Wikipedian]] later on to nominate you because that shows you trusted in the community. Cheers, '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' per Pedro.  You have good intentions but.... perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' - First, the lack of answers to the questions causes me to pause and was the first red flag that maybe you are not quite ready for admninship. Second, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Adrian_IV&diff=prev&oldid=278832607 this] on top of the diff provided by Pedro raises the second red flag for me. While I do not feel that you are unsuitable for adminship I simply feel it is too early, and that you still have some learning to do and some experiences to gain. Please do not take any of the above oppose the wrong way, and come out of this with a better understanding of what you need to improve on so when your second RfA comes around you can show us all. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' On the right track, good mainspace contribs. But needs more experience in admin related areas like ANI and AIV. THose are critical to the sucess of admins. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' on the right track, but needs to get further down that track. The "spelt backward" that the candidate intended to revert pointed out by Pedro was indeed vandalism in my view. Reasonable views will differ, but I also note that another editor removed the same edit 1.5 hours after it was made.
'''Weak Oppose''' Candidate is going in the right direction, but needs a little more experience, especially in the Wikipedia space. '''
'''Oppose''' Some more experience needed to show he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''', not enough experience at this time. Less than 5,000 edits, with only a handful (relatively speaking) in the Wikipedia namespace. Also far too inactive for my comfort for a administrator. For most months, candidate has less than 500 edits in a single month, which isn't very much compared to more active users. From above, candidate has had to take several wikibreaks "when I felt WP was taking over my life". Administratorship would require far more dedication than regular editing does, and I'm not sure the candidate is ready/able to provide such a commitment. --
'''Oppose''' By the looks of your answer to question one, I don't feel that you're quite ready to become an admin. Get yourself familiar with a few things like AFD, AIV, Copyrights, etc. and find something that you can stick with for a bit. It's not a good idea to jump in without a general idea of what you plan on doing. Also, I'm a bit concerned about how you yourself were worried about wikipedia taking up too much of your time. Being an administrator is a '''big''' commitment. It takes up time and for some it has a degree of emotional/mental stress. I'm worried that if you become an admin you might not be able to handle all of the necessary responsibilities. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Oppose''', not conservative enough when using [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] tags.
'''Oppose''' based on Afd nomination of [[Henrik Heftye]].  Bazj attempted to Speedy a sourced article while it was still being worked on, which seems bitey and his Afd rationale shows he does not understand Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing or notability.
'''Oppose''' - switched from Support, per poor judgement at [[Henrik Heftye]]. That article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion, let alone taken to [[WP:CSD]], and the attempt to use {{tl|db-bio}} shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's speedy-deletion policies. Sorry, and I hope to be able to support a future RfA.
'''Strong oppose''' Recent misconduct with User:Punkmorten and clear will to want to gain power by first getting rollback and now RFA.
'''Oppose''' per Blofeld. That speedy nomination, and the subsequent AFD, shows a real lack of understanding of policy. It stuns me that someone would think that a man with entries in two major paper encyclopedias is a speedy candidate, and the AFD nom rationale is not grounded in policy at the least. And rather than apologizing and admitting his/her mistake (and learning something from the episode), Bazj accuses Blofeld of lacking a sense of humor? I'm not really sure what the joke is here.
'''Oppose''' per Dr. Blofield. Bazj has a little lack of experience and a bit of a civility problem after reading the interaction with Blofield. <small><span style="border:1px solid #00FF00;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I can't see a reason to oppose, but I can't find one to support. Sorry.
I would encourage more seasoning and activity. The answer to question one felt a bit nebulous to me, and the overall sense I get is one of not quite readiness. I appreciate the need to try to balance Wikipedia with everything else, and I acknowledge the recognition and apology over an error. We all make mistakes. How we deal with the fallout is something that decides our suitability for adminship. Adminship can be the toughest and most enjoyable volunteer job imaginable. It is very demanding of time and energy. You will need to maintain a fairly high activity level just to stay sharp and keep up with changes. If you can do this, take on board any growth recommendations from this RFA, and demonstrate sufficient policy knowledge, you will likely pass in another 3,000+ edits/6 months. Good luck and happy editing.
Experience a bit on the low side.
'''Oppose''', candidate has made only about 10 contributions to the encyclopedia.--
'''Strong Oppose''' This editor appears to have almost no experience on Wikipedia.

'''[[WP:NOTNOW|Give it some time]]''', mon frère. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
Looks like a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]] to me.  <strong><font color="maroon">
I'll support this one.  Honest answers to questions, good experience looking over contributions and deleted contributions.  A few soft spots but we all have those.  Plus he's so hip, he can barely see over his pelvis <sub><small>(If you don't get the joke, don't worry about it</small></sub>.  I trust the user.
'''Support'''. A knowledgeable, even-tempered, and fair-minded editor who has demonstrated serious commitment to the integrity of Wikipedia. As for "that edit summary", [[Jesus and the woman taken in adultery|let he who is without sin cast the first stone]]. If that's the worst behavior that has happened, it's better than many current admins.
'''Weak/Moral Support''' Beeblebrox has made many excellent contributions to the project.  I just feel that it's a shame that the user made those bad mistakes.  Following Juliancolton, [[User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button|Assume the presence of a belly-button]] -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Firm Support'''. Unfortunately, it appears this is going nowhere fast but, for what it's worth, this is about the editor and his likely use of the extra tools. I honestly do not think that he would make anything other than good use of the relevant tools and, after all, whatever happened to '''no big deal'''? We all make mistakes, but we can't drag our darkest moments around, forever overshadowing our finer hours. At the end of the day, it's a few extra buttons, which, I believe Beeblebrox is sufficiently qualified to press. We can't expect people- admins or otherwise- to be completely infallible. If that were the case, no RfA would ever succeed. Beeblebrox has been perfectly honest about his mistakes and his weaknesses and should be allowed to do a better job of making wikipedia a better place to be and a more reliable encyclopaedia.
'''Weak/mediocre support''' As Jesus (and Ward3001) said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Most of us have made uncivil edit summaries, or uncivil comments on talk pages, including myself. The editor seems knowledgeable. His bad actions may be due to his dedication towards Wikipedia's integrity, not certain. Weak/mediocre support, could change to neutral, and possibly, oppose. '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' I believe Ward3001 is stealing my material. :) Seriously, one off-balance comment should not disqualify a full body of work, and I have no reason to fear chaos if Beeblebrox gets a few extra buttons. Good luck!
'''Support''' This editor seems honest about his mistakes. I have no doubt that this editor would not abuse the admin tools given to him. Most of us have made mistakes and this is no different. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', the edit summary is not good, but that doesn't negate the good impression I have of this user. We all got a [[WP:BELLY|bellybutton]]. --
'''Support''', besides the Edit Summary the user is a sincere vandal fighter and we can always use another vandal fighting Admin.
'''Support''' - one mistake does not a bad administrator make. I like your work in every other area. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' I would have lost my temper also, and I know that I would make a fine administrator.
Changed my mind, '''Support'''. I have been thinking since yesterday if there is a need of a change of heart. As I said way back, I am neutral and I could not opposed as one single judgment error does not subdue a hundred good contributions. Moreover, I said to myself, '''"is the emotion of an anonymous user vandalizing this encyclopedia more important than keeping an organized, vandal-free wiki world that is being read by millions of people out there?"'''
'''Support''' There are some aspects here I'm not so sure of, but I just have to support somebody who is being opposed because of a single uncivil response to one of the worst vandals and sockpuppeteers Wikipedia has ever seen.
'''Support'''. Positives far outweigh one edit summary. --''
'''Support''', another RFA run off the rails by one comparatively minor error.  Sigh.  No evidence this user would maliciously misuse the tools.
One mistake isn't really enough to oppose over.
Support per Lankiveil, Looie and others. ''
'''Support''' as a valuable contributor. The quotes from Q.14c ''"I tend to focus on articles that are way down at the bottom, and I just try to get them to be basically functional as articles"'' and ''"I know we are all trying to make this the best encyclopedia it can be"'' are what did it for me. There may be alot of GA's and FA's and the more the better but someone's gotta maintain amd improve all that stuff that's accumulating at the bottom and help keep this encyclopedia higher quality overall. We need more contributors like him. About the edit summary, <shrug> we all get frustrated sometimes. No harm was done. -- '''
While the diff bothers me, it was aimed at an obvious pain in the neck of the project.  I'm pretty sure that he'll not do anything like that to someone who isn't Bambifan.
'''Support''' I recognize Pedro's concerns. I'm willing to give him a second chance.
'''Support''' - I understand the concerns, but I don't feel one edit summary should eclipse the thousands of positive contributions made by this editor.
'''Support''' - Fantastic answers to the questions!--
'''Support''' - Everyone needs a second chance. '''
'''Support''' per [[WP:BELLY]], [[WP:AGF]], and the belief that the project needs more admins. interested in improving the project.  After watching this RfA, and the candidates demeanor, reactions, and temperament - I've come to the conclusion that withholding my support would be my over-reaction to recent events, and an unfair assessment of the candidate.  I think the project comes first, and denying Beebs of a couple extra tools would have the effect of [[Hamstringing]] the ''project''.  I prefer not to think of adminship as an elite ruling class, but of people with a couple extra abilities who can help the project along the way. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Per Ched and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=292135443&oldid=292121177 this] edit to [[WT:RFA]].--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support''' Have seen candidate help upset users on [[WP:WQA]]. --
'''Support'''. Mostly harmless ;-) I know how frustrating it can be to clear up the endless mess that career vandals and their puppets leave behind. That ''one'' summary should not taint the rest of Beeblebrox's fine work here. He should not have said that, of course not, but when you're dealing with a vandal as ''[insert derogatory term here]'' as Bambifan, I'm willing to overlook that minor outburst. It never happened before and I don't believe it will happen again.
'''Support'''. I think some users are just picking on him over mistakes that any of us could make. For God's sake he has over 19K edits! --
'''Support''' Opposes are pretty unconvincing. Everybody who touches hard, unpleasant stuff like vandal and sockpuppet cleanup makes mistakes. On 18k+ edits, we don't have a pattern of behavior in the opposes, merely isolated incidents. <strong>
'''Support''', the opposes raised below were just noting a single incident and others agreeing with it. I believe Beeblebrox made a mistake; we all make mistakes, and his one error shouldn't be reason enough to prevent him from adminship. He seems like a trustworthy user, and I doubt that he would misuse any of the tools (or act uncivily towards others). Also, as [[User:RayAYang|Ray]] stated, out of eighteen thousand edits, you're bound to mess up eventually, right?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.146.254.25&diff=prev&oldid=288163202 Not Impressive]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per Pedro mostly. Here's my philosophy, somewhat inspired by one of the last lines of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFlyingToaster&diff=291444504&oldid=291301929 this]; editors are people, you know. Let's just say that an event in school went exactly like that edit summary by Beeblebrox; perhaps there was a school bully (Bambifan) who harassed other students a lot. Then another overly bold student (Beeblebrox) walks right up to him and calls him a shit. Beeblebrox's frustration was perfectly acceptable. The fact that he lashed out at Bambifan like that (''prima facie'' troll-[[WP:DFTT|feeding]]) was completely unacceptable. Hence, I '''oppose''' Beeblebrox's sysopping at this point in time. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Oppose''' - Precisely what we don't need. I trust that this RfA will go down in flames per Pedro's diff. Sigh.
'''Oppose''' per concerns brought up by Pedro and Dlohcierekim that I was not aware of when I originally supported.
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament as raised by {{user|Pedro}}. '''
'''Oppose'''. Per Pedro and Dlohcierekim. — '''''
'''Oppose''' Per concerns raised above. Specifically by Pedro and Dlohcierekim. --
'''Oppose''' per Pedro, especially as that edit was from under a month ago. '''
'''Oppose''' Pedro. You're not quite ready, but please stay at it. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' > I only got as far as seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.146.254.25&diff=prev&oldid=288163202 the diff] and it was enough to garner my immediate opposition. ''Way'' more time needed between now and the time of that edit before you can even be considered, I'm afraid. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose''' – I would normally grant some levity of the diff in question brought up by Pedro was a while back, but this is not such a case. Sorry.
'''Weak oppose''' - Per Dylan. I like this editor's thoughtful responses to questions and diversity of experience. In general, it looks like they'd be a great admin. However, that "one mistake" is exactly how admins ''shouldn't'' act, and the candidate's answer to #10, coupled with the frequency similar situations manifest themselves for admins that block, leads me to suspect that such hasty remarks are not unlikely to happen again. I sympathize with the candidate's frustration that lead to the outburst, but where stress is concerned, admins must not "let it out and be done with it", at least, not on-wiki. However, I would probably support in a few months, given no further incidents. -
'''Oppose''' I don't have a problem with the diff Pedro brought up, so much as I have a problem with the unnecessary drama that will come if you, as an administrator, repeat that kind of comment. I also think you need more experience with articles. Get some content, whatever it may be, featured or good, and you'd probably have a better shot at passing next time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' inexperienced, not ready yet.
'''Oppose'''. Not yet.  Per (a) edit summary issues (including your ES when transcluding into this RfA); and (b) not enough content creation, or emphasis on well-developed content skills. --
I don't think you're ready, per temperament. '''
'''Oppose''' - it's not so much the summary, more what that summary represents. It represents that you got angry enough, stressed enough that you made a hasty, ill-thought through action. While in this instance it was relatively harmless, I'd hate to see you dragged to RfC or ArbCom in 6 months time after an inappropriate block, as a result of you (from your answer to Q10) "just let it out and be done with it". I'd be more than happy to support in three months, provided you are able to control that little bit of stress that doesn't "roll right of you". :) &lowast;
'''Oppose''' per Pedro's diffs. Temperament issues. Per \/, you're a good editor and I don't want you to experience the business end of WP:ANI because someone [[WP:BAIT|easily manipulated you to do stupid things]]. Come back after a few months of training and I'll happily support you. On the interim, I suggest you get yourself some [[WP:GA|shiny]] [[WP:DYK|things]] and practice the art of [[Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism]].--
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> -
'''Oppose''' - The link Pedro has given tips it for me, I'm afraid; anyone who goes off like that shouldn't be an admin. Might support in six months or so if the user doesn't do anything else like that.
I am not pleased to see the diff Pedro provided or by the edit summaries. Perhaps, you could try to stay cool, be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] while editing. Maybe I'll support you in your next RfA (if this one doesn't pass). <strong>
'''Weak oppose''' I'm not supporter of self-nomination.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' per Pedro.
'''Oppose''' (mainly as per civility violation) I know people make mistakes, and I think Beeblebrox has excused himself for that outburst, however, that was kind of recent. So I think more activity from this user is needed so see if a change has taken place. I'd like to encourage Beeblebrox to re-summit his bid adminship once he's built a more solid contributions history.
Per {{user|Pedro}}. —
'''Oppose''' Good editor, knows his way around content, but temperament and judgement are off for an admin.  In short, does not have my trust.
Yes well at first, I saw absolutely no reason to oppose you, but like everyone else I saw those nasty links Pedro provided and it might now have bothered me if it was a while ago but it's pretty recent, I'm going with oppose.--(
'''Oppose''' No more uncivil admins please. If the user can't handle a user harassing him now, he won't be able to deal calmly with the issues and drama that come along with being an administrator. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' Per above, absolutely not.
'''Oppose'''. Wrong temperament. Lack of content contribution.
'''Oppose''' that diff presented by Pedro is a automatic fail in my book. In my opinion an admin (as well as any user in good standing) needs to be civil. I don't care how much someone pisses you off, you need to keep a cool head. There's a red flag here that I would unfortunately not be able to trust you with the tools.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]]. I might support sometime in the future, but in the meantime, you need to improve. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10#top|M]][[User talk:MC10#top|C]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[Special:Contributions/MC10|10]]</font>&nbsp;<font color="#1E90FF">&#124;</font>&nbsp;<font color="#4169E1">
'''Weak oppose.''' Beeble seems to have a good understanding of policy, and is obviously well-intentioned, but the temperament issue... eek.
'''Oppose''' Per Pedro, obviously does not have the correct attitude to be an admin if he/she is going to attack and swear at users, even if they are anonymous. Needs to be much more calm and civil. There are many other users out there who are much more suitable for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Per Pedro. My advice is to wait a few more months, and maybe it will go better. Sorry.
I don't want to oppose, but that diff from Pedro is ''not'' how admins act.
'''Neutral''' I'd have to agree with Pedro. I have no real interpretation for this user, but the sight of that basically killed my support.
'''Neutral''' The diff by Pedro is too recent to be overlooked.  Otherwise, I can not find any major issues.
'''Neutral'''.  Arg, you're killing me here, Beebs, I really wanted to support for your CSD and related work, which has been excellent when I've seen it, which is a lot.  The problem with leaving the infamous edit summary on an IP account is that there's no way of knowing that someone else won't be using that IP and see the message.  So I have to stay neutral this time, but if this fails, please try [[WP:RFA]] in 3 months; I would gladly support then, based on what I know right now. - Dank (
Pedro's diff is indeed concerning, though I'll {{User:Juliancolton/Belly-button}} Still, as an administrator you'll often find yourself in stressful situations, so I'm afraid I can't support. –'''

Due to the issues mentioned by your opposers, I don't think I can support you, but I'm not prepared to oppose either.
Needs more experience and knowledge of policy.  Keep up the good work!  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Neutral''' Probably you should consider withdrawing the RFA and coming back in a few months because of the edit summary.  I'm sure it will be forgiven but you have to prove that you aren't likely to do it again.  I think it speaks more to the power of trolls than to your momentary weakness or I wouldn't bother commenting.
'''Neutral''' Per Juliancolton.--
'''Neutral''' 14c worries me a bit. I would think to be adminstrator someone should be aware of the ratings system of an article and respect it. It is very easy for a small article to be curropted with misinformation becuase it isnt sourced well. This can cause issues regarding the attention of an admin from a content dispute.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''', the issues brought up do not concern me enough to get me in oppose (or even full-bore neutral), but enough to get me out of support, as the edit summary and other diffs are fairly recent.
'''Neutral'''. I'm apprehensive to support after the edit summary to the IP you accused of being bambifan, but I think you will make a good admin in the future.  Keep yourself clean and work on creating a more professional demeanor.  Best of luck, '''
Would support, but can't due to the diff.
'''Neutral''' — I think you are well on your way to becoming a good admin. But, obviously we need to allow some time to pass between the mistakes of the past and the mop of the future, and that time needs to be filled with plenty of good decisions along the way. I have confidence that you will eventually earn the mop. Thanks for the work you already do. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  '''Support''' per barnstars at [[User:Beeblebrox]] and reasonable arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jairus Frigate]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omni Consumer Products]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean (2nd nomination)]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon]], as well as in that candidate has never been blocked, but '''oppose''' per weak remarks in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulsinus (Heroscape)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2)]] (use of an [[WP:ITSCRUFT]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C'tan (2nd nomination)]].  Probably more positive than negative, but the community as well seems rather divided based on their comments above, so I am on the fence between '''neutral''' and '''weak support'''.  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral''', would support, but the diffs provided by Pedro concern me.
'''Neutral'''. I would have supported, but Pedro makes a good point. Still, I don't want to oppose. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' - liked everything until I read Pedro's diff.  <b>
'''Neutral''' per Juliancolton, see [[User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button]].
'''Moral support''' and then right back to the [[WP:NODRAMA|Dramaout]] for me (sorry, really felt like I had to say something here). I've seen Blake around, and he generally is a good editor, though I would recommend withdrawing per the concerns below. Cheers, '''
'''Oppose''' Admins must communicate well. A good grasp of written English is a must. This — "various attacks on me on and off-site '''has''' motivated me" and this — "Michael V, '''of''' which I made" and this — "Dual SIM, '''of''' which I extensively '''rewritten'''" and this — "controversial AfDs '''whom''' I spawned so much discussion" and this — "of note '''is''' my efforts" do not bode well in this regard. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has a weak grasp on speedy deletion matters, as evidenced from their contributions: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Global_Workforce&diff=prev&oldid=303276161 A1 with context], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fearless_Four&diff=302546472&oldid=302433411 A1 with context, already prodded ''and'' a declined speedy deletion in the history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zombie_Hunters:_City_Of_The_Dead&diff=prev&oldid=300365176 A7 for television series], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belstone_FC&diff=prev&oldid=300227641 A7 with claims of importance/significance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blueberry_Cheesecake_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=299088475 G5 on a tracking template for a suspected sock], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Kansas_Edwards_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=293208889 A7 for college]. I'm sorry but I cannot !vote to grant the deletion-button to a user that makes such basic and trivial mistakes time and time again, despite multiple notifications of declined deletions (see their talk page) and who is willing to tag articles without ever checking the history (or ignoring previous declines, which would be worse). Regards '''
'''Oppose''', I do not think you are ready to take the reins yet. Per GMW, your grammar skills seems a bit underdeveloped, and your lack of concern over the result of the RfA concerns me as well. And per SoWhy, your grasp on handling speedy deletions seems to need improving. In addition, the answers you've provided above seem quite unsatisfying and lacking effort. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I was going to go neutral to avoid pile-on; I removed one of your speedy tags as mentioned in SoWhy's diffs (the TV series one), but I also see some good tags, but what did it for me was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=303275307&oldid=303273619 this] report to AIV. Firstly, what did you mean by "edit pattern matches those of the banned user"? How can you make assumptions like that? If I'm missing something, please correct me &ndash; but it was actually removed from AIV as not vandalism. If you don't know what vandalism is, and make assumptions about people being socks of banned users, and of course don't understand what all the speedy criteria mean, then you shouldn't have the buttons. Sorry. Get a bit more practice in and come back in a few months. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Oppose''' &ndash; per the arguments above.  I think you have good intentions, but your skillset is lacking. <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't see the need for the tools. Also, per SoWhy.
The mind is strong but the body is weak.  (But thank you for answering my questions.)<small><span style="border:2px solid #339999;">
'''Strong oppose''' per all the reasons stated above. --
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy, as odd a statement as that is from me, and also per Bubba Hotep.
'''Oppose''', per SoWhy and concerns raised by Goodmorningworld. '''
'''Moral support''' Longtime user with a clean blocklog and varied contributions. SoWhy's examples are troubling, However  I'm not opposing because they aren't in the area that you intend to work in per q1. Hope to see you here again in three months or so, but please be a little more cautious at new page patrol - remember if in doubt categorise! ''
Do more work, and try to get a better hold on CSD, it's something every admin (or aspiring admin) should know. '''
greater than 50% to the real work would normally mean instant support from me. [[User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11|NotAnIP83:149:66:11]] ([[User talk:NotAnIP83:149:66:11|talk]]) 12:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)<br/><small>''note that this is a new account, with few edits, some to RfA.''
I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with someone learning admin processes on the job.
Neutral because of the CSD-related issues pointed out by SoWhy. –'''
'''Neutral''' due to issues regarding CSD and AIV. I suggest working in those areas and becoming more familiar with them and how they work, then coming back in 4 months or so. ···
'''Neutral''' You really remind me of myself year ago. I was once (and an some ways still am) an aspiring Wikipedian, not knowing all that went on here. I do know from your statement that your heart is in the right place. The problem is that you have had a few issues which were discussed above. I know that you will probably never give up after this nomination, and come back to try another RFA. In that sense, I am behind you all the way. I do believe that you will someday be successful, but you first have to sort out those issues. Try also getting involved in RFAs if you aren't already, so that you can see some of the good, bad, and the ugly of what goes on here. All in all, I think that you should also seek the help of an administrator who can coach you, and then let them nominate you when they see it fit. A good user who could help you is [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]. The reason that i'm not opposing you is that I can sympathize with you. When you do come back, I will support you all the way. Good luck with the next few months, and don't hesistate to ask.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry dude, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too soon. --<font face="script MT bold">
'''Support'''.  I think you're a good editor and you won't break the wiki or delete the main page.  Nonetheless, I'm afraid that you probably won't succeed with this RfA, and I'd just like to say don't let that discourage you.  All of the editors here are really just looking for a little more experience and knowledge about policy.  Stick around a while, and in a few months you might well succeed easily.
Sorry, but at this time, I'm afraid I must oppose. It's only been six months since your block, and I see little evidence that you've improved significantly enough to become an administrator. In addition, you seldom use edit summaries, which I view as an important aspect to editing. Regards, &ndash;
'''Oppose''' due to overall lacks of content building and understanding of policies such as V, RS, and Fair image. In your most edited article (actually "list"), I don't see any "source" provided. The article, [[Harry J. Lincoln]] that you created has big signs of "problems". I think you're not ready yet.--
'''Oppose''' Per Julian and semi Caspian blue. Disagree with the content building part, you don't need to be a content builder but you do need to understand policy.--
'''Oppose''' Per the comments above sorry. Please also note in regards to Q1 that you don't have to be an administrator to have rollback permissions. If this doesn't go through you might like to check [[Wikipedia:Rollback_feature|the rollback page]] on instructions for application.
'''Oppose''' Per above comments. I'm afraid you don't have enough experience and a good grasp of policies yet.  Perhaps next time -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' largely per the above. Your answers to the above questions show me that you do not fully understand what being an administrator involves, and in my dealings with you I'm still not convinced you have enough of a grasp of policies, and still treat Wikipedia as a [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE|social site]] to some degree. I would recommend you spend several months (at least four-five, preferably more) involving yourself not only in article work, but also in administrative and "backstage" type areas such as [[WP:XFD|deletion discussions]], [[WP:NPP|new page patrols]], and [[WP:BACKLOG|backlogs]], among others. As Giants27 noted, I feel article writing is a somewhat secondary concern to policy knowledge and demonstrating responsibility, which is what editors look for in prospective admin candidates. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with much of what was said above. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Oppose''' - Concur with Julian and Giants, also, user was recently at AN/I for sharing an account between three users. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per a bunch of small problems that combined make think you need a bit more experience: the block six months ago, not much experience in content creation, few edit summaries, answers to questions that don't imply enough policy knowledge (for example, rollback isn't an administrative function), some strange contributions such as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MAN_MUSIC&diff=next&oldid=278979362 urgent appeal for an editor review] which makes me think you're not wholly aware of the RfA process - any one of these could be surmountable, but combined lead me to encourage you to wait and try again later.  BlueCaper, I think you're an excellent starting editor and your heart is surely in the right place - I see a lot of politeness and good nature in your interactions with other users, which speaks very well of you.  My oppose is not on your character, but a request for a bit more experience.  I hope to see you back here again - don't give up! '''
'''Oppose''', doesn't seem to possess the level of experience necessary for adminship. The rollback permission would be sufficient for what you seem to want to do.
'''Weak Oppose''' Based on your response to Q1. But I hope that you will continue to offer a positive contribution here.  Good luck!
'''Oppose''', you appear to be a good editor, but it is too soon after your block. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MAN_MUSIC&diff=next&oldid=278979362 this] is at best misguided, but at worst canvassing. I'm sure that in the future you'll have a bit more luck at RfA, just unfortunately your experience isn't quite there. &lowast;
It's finally transcluded. Great! Clueful user, does good work. Support. <font color="navy">'''
Of course, great work.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
Sure. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Unless someone can find something irresponsible, disruptive, or uncivil that this user did since his last RfA, I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. He has also done good article work.
'''Support'''.  Although I started as a neutral the last time around, the candidate has some really impressive things since like a spot on argument in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (2nd nomination)]].  Best, --
'''Support'''. I got to know BQZip a bit during one of the Michael Q Schmidt AfD discussions--where things got hot and tempers flared, and Zip kept a much cooler head than I did, I'm embarrassed to admit. And by the way, MQS, nice to see you co-nominating this editor--plus, I'm happy to see I'm proven wrong and your notability is firmly established ;) In my experience with this editor, which has been somewhat limited, I admit, I found them to be level-headed and agreeable, and a firm believer in WP guidelines--and we firmly disagreed in that discussion. Good luck, Zip.
'''Support''' – very knowledgeable user and an excellent content editor. He knows the rules well and is more than able to apply them while using the admin tools.
'''Support''' - He's been around, he knows what he's doing, he's not going to break the Wiki. Why not? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' I am happy to support this editor's candidacy.  Good luck! :)
'''Support''' &ndash; Great user, trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' I've reviewed your past contributions and feel like you know what you're doing. I would feel comfortable having you as an admin. Cheers, --
'''co-Nom support'''. We know what we're getting with this one. I'm more inclined to trust a user which has shown some bad sides and learned from mistakes than a candidate that has never built articles or been in serious disputes. I have complete faith in this user. <strong>
'''Support''', worked with this editor before, has a good grasp of the policies and a good head on his shoulders.  Will make a fine admin.

'''Support''', I have been a major contributor of military topic articles including compiling the [[List of C-130 Hercules crashes]] and writing the initial version of the [[56th Fighter Group]], and over the past few years I have known BQZip to be a dedicated and reasonable voice in several tempestuous issues on the Wiki. I deeply respect his dedicated efforts to the improvement of multiple Wikipedia articles, and recognize his dispassionate voice in helping resolve several edit wars over the duration of his Wiki involvement. I would also add, apropos to nothing, that he is a member of our armed forces, and as such, has a professional approach to articles of military history that only a person who has served in the service of his country's defense can properly appreciate. It is one thing to be an armchair quarterback when discussing military topics, but quite another when you are committed to laying down your life for the good of the nation. I hold him in the highest esteem, and can only lend my highest recommendation that he be confirmed by the Wiki community for this position. [[User:Mark Sublette|Mark Sublette]] ([[User talk:Mark Sublette|talk]]) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Mark Sublette
'''Support''', appears to know what he is doing.
'''Support''', I can't see any good reason to oppose.
'''Support''', although the opposes are absolutely right about the importance of understanding fair use policy if you're going to be involved in image deletion. I am supporting in spite of those concerns because the general quality of the user's work still leads me to trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Tempered Support''' per IFD work and Henrik's nom statement assurance that the issues that caused me to strike my support in the last RFA are resolved. I like that the user sought input from former opposers. This shows a willingness to grow and learn. I urge him to tread softly, and to remember, "When in doubt, don't. Better to seek the wisdom of colleagues than to learn from one's own mistakes." Cheers,
'''Weak support''' After rereading his questions and personal belifs (which I congrat him on, i wish other canidates would do that), i decided to move my position to a state of weak support. Although his past RFA's and their opposition reasons still raise a concern, I belive that the maturity and the potential of this user has increased dramatically scince the last RFA, to the point that I belive he would be a usefull asset if he wants to.
'''Support''' clearly dedicated and should be net positive. Any issues can be raised in appropriate venues (AN/I or arbcom) which act as safety valves.
'''Support''' More info later.
A review of contributions reveals nothing to concern me and some very intelligent contributions; and BQZip01 clearly has Wikipedia's best interests at heart even if I don't always agree with his opinions. I'm sufficiently confident that he'd use admin tools sensibly - some of the opposes do have valid points, but none which worry me to the extent that I'm unwilling to support. Good luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' on the basis of his willingness to take a stand on disputed positions. I agree with him 100% about taking into account of the wishes of subjects of articles, and I point out that there is no policy saying otherwise: whether to do so is optional, there being no consensus.  I agree with him that fair-use content should be used as extensively as the Foundation will let us. I nonetheless respect the consensus of the present NFCC rules, and enforce them, and I'm sure he would also.  I don't think of him as particularly radical about article inclusion. He's learned to do things right. Mostofthe opposes are about earlier times when he didn;t , not current matters. '''
'''Support''' as I can see no valid reason for opposing. BQZip01 has shown considerable improvement since the previous noms, and I don't see any indication that the tools would be misused. ···
'''Support''' - he's had problems in the past, but I'm convinced BQZip01 has learned from previous mistakes and now has the good sense and temperament to be an administrator. I remember regretting my oppose on his last RFA after seeing his editing elsewhere; I'm happy to have the chance to support this time.
'''Support''' - "I am an inclusionist", read no further. Give him the light saber.
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' - I trust him with the tools. I believe he will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' dedicated editor, I think he will do a fine job.
'''Support''' seems to care about wikipedia and honest about, well, everything. I think he'll make a fine no-nonsense admin. --
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Believe this user has evolved and matured, without losing the fire. Contributions are excellent and numerous. --'''''
'''Support''' fully as co-nominator. Sheesh. How could I forget to chime in here. Just as BQ has "watched" over me in my formative times on Wiki, I have myself been watching him in order to learn. To those opposing because of concerns from the distant past, I might suggest looking to the present and the future. BQ shows a decent understanding of the ins and outs of wikidom, a willingness to listen and learn, an even-handedness in discussions, and is a terrirfic conselor to new users. He has had his baptism of fire and his steel is well tempered. Too many adminitrators?? Nope. Not nearly enough to handle the many mops. We need BQ. '''
'''Support''' - Very well stated...statement. -
'''Support'''.  Okay, I think I can make the call now.  The two things that concern me most at this point are the "taunting" from Oppose #2 and the "slander" incident in Oppose #8, and those two things aren't enough to withhold the mop for me.  (This seems to be one of those rare cases where long-term semi-protection of the talk page, without a separate talk page for IPs, has been justified.)  Also, I've eased up just a little recently in what I'm looking for at RFA (as long as someone looks like they're here to get some work done, and BQZip is a solid worker), in part because we really need the admins to match our growth. - Dank (
'''Support''' We need admins who appreciate the trials content creators go through sometimes.
'''Support''' Not persuaded by the opposes, my impression is that he will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''  Those who are passionate about some of the topics they edit but nevertheless give proper weighting to policy and consensus can make fine mediators, as this editor has already demonstrated. Looks like BQzip01 would contribute solidly as an administrator in a number of areas.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' This guy has been nit-picked to death, and I'm unconvinced. Get in there mate.
'''Support'''.  BQZip01 has been one of the people who has been there with me thick and thin throughout my Wikipedia editing experience. <s>It would be a huge conflict of interest for me vote any opinion on his adminship.</s> But he has been there for me when have needed him, and has been a huge asset to all the stuff we have worked on together. Thus, I want to voice my support for him. [[User:Oldag07|Oldag07]] ([[User talk:Oldag07|talk]]) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I have decided to change my position from comment to support. So long as you all know that I have biases, than I should have the right to voice vote in this process.
[[User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button|Assume the presence of a belly-button.]] –'''
'''Support''' We need more balls-out admins.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions.  ''<B>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', particularly after reading his reply to Q B (2). So he's got attitude. So have a lot of admins. I don't think he will self destruct, but if he does, fire him. It happens every day in the real world.
'''Support'''. I'm impressed with the work this user has done. Something irks me about this user however, but I'm willing to write that down to a lack of familiarity and discourse with the user rather than a bad temperament. Good Luck :) &lowast;
'''Support'''. He would do a fine job. <span style="font-family:Chalkboard">
'''Support'''.  The candidate demonstrates in his answers a willingness to be supportive of WikiPedia policies (4A is a good "learning from my mistakes").  The former RfAs also indicate a persistance that cannot come from frustration, so I have no reason to think adminship would be mishandled.
'''Support''' Nothing to add that hasn't been said above. A solid contributor who knows his stuff.
'''Support''' - My principal interaction with this user has been the [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1|sports logo discussion]], which was generally a trainwreck.  However, among all of the administrators and users that were involved and all the bickering, Zip was the voice in the middle and constantly proposing compromises.  The demeanor shown in that discussion by this user tells me all I need to know about this user's fitness to be an admin.
'''Strong Support as Co-nom''' sorry for the long delay in getting here, I've been digging myself out from under a rather large pile of paperwork for a variety of different classes. At any rate, like I said above in my co-nom, I whole heartedly believe BQZip will make an excelent admin. I therefore offer my support and my best wishes to him during this rfa.
'''Support''' - BQZip01's article work is A++. I analyzed his edits, and the project will benefit if he becomes an admin.
'''Support''' Good understanding of policy, no problems with civility jumped out at me, and good judgement. I appreciate your efforts to be thourough and methodical (which some people seem to think this is a disadvantage??). I think some people are pushing a grudge regarding some of your past, but you've effectively moved on and provided a reasonable response to any concerns I have had. '''
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, knowledgeable of policies, balanced in view, and showed a slavish dedication to build consensus in fair-use RFC (which failed only because there really is no middle-ground acceptable to both sides). Oppose arguments don't hold much weight in my opinion.
'''Strong Support''' Has a very balanced view and is always open to [[Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Petition link|discussion]]. He has contributed quite a bit, and while he has a number of failed RFAs, that doesn't mean that he hasn't improved as an editor. I also support his inclusion POV regarding articles as I have found an increasing number of well sourced articles up for [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Truth_(painting)|AFD]].
'''Support''' Pakatuan wo Pakalawiran.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate who possesses the unique ability to learn from mistakes. Great work! '''
'''Support''' After all the thoughtful consideration that BQZip01 has put into this RfA, he will be better prepared for the responsibility of the mop than most new admins. --
'''Support''' Reading through the discourse above, and reviewing this user's history, I am definitely impressed, especially with a view of the users he has taken under his wing and supported. He would be an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I believe he would do well and should be trusted.
'''Support''' on balance, I say "yes". BQZip has been through many hoops and has apparently learned from his mistakes; admin areas in which he is inexperienced can be developed or left to those more interested. I see nothing to convince me that, if given the mop, he would misuse it.
'''Support''' What i like in the response to 16 is the immediate inclination and encouragement to help improve the article. And a good thought process through the situation
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' someone who has the heart of a true wikipedian.
'''Support''' Clearly learned from past mistakes. ''
'''Support''' Understands there are huge differences between trademark law and copyright law and doesn't confuse the two.  A very important issue and it would nice to have more admins who understood this.
'''Support''' <S>He has helped me be a better Wikipedia contributor by giving me useful advice and criticism.<S> He has a balanced insight and is open to constructive discussion.
'''Support''' per Rodhullandemu. '''''
(Added/moved by BQZip01 IAW wishes stated below in the oppose section) Move to '''Support'''.
'''''Weak'' Support''' per neutral below. Moving from there on a gut feeling.
'''Support''' Non-free images can be a real problem, and we need more admins focused in on this. Users answers to questions indicates he gets it and has the requisite maturity.
'''Support''' - He is an asset to Wikipedia, no reason for me to oppose.
No need for another tenured admin with potential <s>civility</s> temperament and judgement issues.
'''Oppose'''.  Review of recent edits finds past RfAs concerns are still unresolved.  Hard working and very strong willed editor that makes significant improvements to the encyclopedia when focused on content. <small>
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Oppose''', it's a few months since I last actively encountered this user, but what I saw at the time still doesn't allow me any confidence in the soundness of his judgment.
'''Oppose''', weakly per David Fuchs on image use policy but more strongly on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kimchi.sg&diff=288468427&oldid=288421798 rapid user talk page response] which I find a bit intimidating. It may well be "damned if you clarify, damned if you don't", but for me I'd rather such clarifications remain confined to the RfA page. Lastly, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos&diff=prev&oldid=262255315], he does not seem to understand (at least back in early January) that Arbcom does not arbitrate policy disputes which also makes me reluctant to support.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q#3: AIV is not for reporting content disputes/disagreements.
'''Oppose''' For reasons '''(1)BQZ's position on fair use on Wikipedia is that if it's legal, it's ok.'''  BQZ does not understand the free content mission of the encyclopedia. See 06:04 20 December 2008 comment from him [[Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1|here]]. The crux of that debate was weather it was permissible to allow hundreds of uses of a single fair use image or not. He staunchly supported such use. I do ''not'' wish to start this debate again in this venue. I do wish to state I found his opinion to be completely unacceptable given our mission.  This position of his is further highlighted by his response to a voter on this RfA. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=prev&oldid=288468546]. In particular, he fails to understand that our polices are more restrictive than fair use. We don't need to consider fair use law. It's irrelevant if we follow policy, since if the policy is followed it would be legal under fair use anyway. '''(2) BQZ believes polls = consensus.''' See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ESkog&diff=prev&oldid=262409985 "a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus"] and various comments by him [[Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1|here]] regarding polling. Unacceptable. A 63-1 decision in favor of keeping something can still violate consensus to delete, and a poll will NEVER get past that. This is very disturbing with regards to potential work in deletion closures. BQZ fails to understand [[Wikipedia:POLLS#Polling_discourages_consensus]]. '''(3) BQZ unduly pressured me to participate in his polls''', insisting that silence = consensus when I refused to participate in his polls. '''(4) Tossing "slander" out in accusations and going to [[WP:WQA]]''' See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=263694061#Distortions.2Fslander_by_User:ESkog_and_User:Hammersoft here]. Bwilkins' 12:22, 9 January 2009 comment regarding BQZ's behavior was spot on. This candidate lacks the maturity and comportment required of an administrator. I further agree with other's comments above that he equates fair use law with Wikipedia policy (if it's legal, it's ok). Lastly, his lack of understanding of consensus building is quite troubling, given his Q1 answer that he intends to work in XfD. --
'''Oppose''' I opposed BQZip01’s [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2|second request for adminship]] for many reasons, but chiefly over his overly argumentative and inflexible attitude. I will not rehash here the arguments made by myself and others: they are easy enough to find by following the above link. In any case, his behavior at that time made a strong enough negative impression that when I saw him running again, I thought I ought to weigh in. After reviewing BQZip01’s contributions over the past several months, I admit that he seems to have reigned in his aggression considerably. That said, I still have concerns: his initial draft of an answer to question 3 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BQZip01/RfA4&diff=next&oldid=282017465] regarding the events with [[User:Cumulus Clouds]], written just over a month ago, to me shows the same inability to walk away from arguments. The much-edited final answer still shows him rehashing the same arguments and still laying the bulk of the blame on an editor who is dead and cannot reply. As I recall, neither party in that dispute acted impeccably, but BQZip01’s steadfast refusal to admit a share of the blame – “probably should have reacted better” doesn’t quite cut it – is disturbing. In sum: I am not confident that this user has genuinely resolved the issues of temperament and problems working with others that concerned me in the first place.
'''Oppose'''.  Per his positions during the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1]].   I believe that Wikipedia must tread carefully with respect to ''trademarked'' images, even though current policy is poorly written (as it focuses strongly around ''copyright'' issues only).  I do not think any administrator should look for opportunities to exploit holes or weaknesses in policy, but should be conservative, in the interests of protecting this encyclopedia.  —
'''Oppose''': Temperament problems as well as five previous failed RFA. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Weak oppose''' Primarily on the issue of protection of articles.  I support flagged revisions, and that is quite antithetical to his position. I am an 85% "inclusionist" (even saving some articles) so this is not a major issue in itself.
'''Oppose''', per the concerns outlined above by Hammersoft.
Actions and attitudes held by this user make me unable to trust him with any position of power.
'''Oppose''' not suitable temperment for admin. We have many strong-willed and mouthy admins - some of the best of them in fact fit that category IMHO - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but one has to have a sense of the limit and not stray (too far) beyond it. But one has to be open to criticism and one of the most important places for that to occur is one's talk page - to protect it, forecloses conversation, criticism, opportunity to be contacted by editors (as is highly recommended in situations such as [[WP:DRV]]) for redress, etc. The more you are willing to work close to the line, the more you need to be able to receive the criticism (rightly or wrongly your due) that comes with that. Since you are unwilling, I think we should not enable you.
'''Oppose''' Per several of the opposes above, escpically per Xeno.
'''Oppose''' per each of the answers to my questions, and I have concerns from other opposers as well.
'''Oppose''' I don't think this user has the temperament to be an admin. Some of the behavior in this request alone make me doubt his suitability.
'''Oppose''' - Several reasons: 1) Those outlined by Hammersoft with regard to fair use policies and the sports logos RFC. 2) One thing I cannot stand is the "inclusionist vs. deletionist" battle. Any editor who is truly a complete inclusionist or a complete deletionist would likely be banned as a troll for pushing views so totally out of line with community norms. The fact that the user feels the need to self-identify as an inclusionist in his opening statement is rather disconcerting. Combined with what I recall from the logos RFC, I would not trust him at all to fairly close FFDs or other XFDs. 3) The answer to question 8a, specifically "the [BLP] problem is no more significant than other issues." <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' for now. I could ignore the past blemishes and support BQZip01, except there is something that comes through as… slightly immature in actions perhaps? Maybe it is just a bit of defensiveness due to the past attacks he's received. Whatever it is, it's not something I expect or want to feel coming from an admin. This is something that I think can only be overcome with some more time, another 6 months perhaps? &mdash;
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>  Last thing we need is another self-labelled inclusionist/deletionist admin.  (On the deletionist/inclusionist axis, I'd accept [[:m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists|this]] or [[:m:Association of Mergist Wikipedians|this]] but not an outright deletionist or inclusionist stance.)<p>In an admin, I'm looking for a more balanced and subtle viewpoint than "deletionist" or "inclusionist".—
'''Oppose'''.  Looking back at the user's interactions with other editors, and based on the comments above and the prior RFAs, I don't think this user has the temperament needed to be an effective administrator.
'''Oppose''' on concerns about temperament, augmented by personal beliefs 2 and 3 in the Optional Statement, which seems designed to justify actions that I wouldn't approve of.
'''Oppose.''' I have been aware of BQZip01 for some time and followed his last two RfAs as a casual observer. I had had no first-hand experience of his much-discussed judgement issues until a few months after his third RfA, when he commented at an RfC ostensibly devoted to one editor's handling of image policy. BQZip01 signed off on an unfocused laundry list of complaints motivated not by policy but a personal grudge stemming from a nationalist POV push.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=244291343&oldid=244290844] The fact that he had not taken the time to get to acquaint himself with the underlying issue but seeming followed a policy of [[The enemy of my enemy is my friend|my enemy's enemy]] troubled me. Nationalism is a [[User:Moreschi/The Plague|serious problem]] on Wikipedia, and such issues need to be handled with more thought and better judgement. This issue, taken together with BQZip01's heavy-handedness and enthusiasm for argument, convinces me that he ought to spend his time creating and improving articles rather than mediating others.
While I commend BQZip01 for attempts to create a policy on sports team logos {[[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos|see here]]}, I have to say '''Oppose''' per Jennavecia. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">
'''Oppose'''. Not much I can add to the other opposes, I feel the temperament isn't quite there.  What concerns me is self labelling as an inclusionist early in his personal beliefs and stating intends to work on XfD's. Yes, the XfD part is qualified, but still leaves me feeling uneasy.
'''Oppose''' Concerns about candidates seeming inability to observe his actions from the perspective of another, and why there might be objections to his chosen courses.
'''Oppose'''.  A few issues with demeanor, not really professional acting and perhaps too argumentative to be an administrator.  These things are important because (and I find myself saying this a lot to the candidates I rarely oppose) as an administrator, you will be representing all of Wikipedia and how you act will reflect upon the site as a whole. '''
'''Oppose''' --<font face="papyrus">
'''Oppose''' as a >3rd RfA.  If by thrice you don't succeed....
'''Oppose''' per Optional Statement #4 (more admins who would have problems with semiprotection of BLPs is, in my opinion, a bad thing) and per the problem commented on by Dank at 18:40, 7 May 2009 (tweaking the answers to a test because they're "polling" badly is not a good idea).
'''Oppose''' per temperament and other issues outlined above.  Plus, too many previous RfAs for my liking, and I hate oppose badgering.

'''Oppose''' per the pathetic [[BQ]] edit warring --

'''Oppose''' Rootology sums it up for me. This is ironic, since I opposed Rootology's RfA for essentially the same reasons. I would add that I have no issues as such with the user's editing style; I think the more the merrier with smart people who err on the side of not backing off where the truth is concerned. But that's not the temperament we want where admins are concerned. <strong>
'''Oppose'''. Per Ottava Rima. I'm unable to trust the candidate at this time. — '''''
'''Oppose''', sorry. I find BQZip01 too argumentative, too defensive, and I see his sig way too often in this Oppose section.
Sorry, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=289775050 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Groomtech&diff=prev&oldid=289776121 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bongomatic&diff=prev&oldid=289790015 this] are canvassing. --
I greatly appreciated his attitude, willingness and eagerness to compromise [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1|here]]. That said, the past RfAs give me enough pause that I'm not really to support yet. '''
The candidate's answer to question four does not show a great deal of self-awareness or insight. I'm not sure they understand the significant opposition to their previous RfAs, or how to ameliorate concerns of inappropriate conduct or poor-decision making. I view these sorts of skills as of crucial importance in an administrator. I have not researched the candidate, so I will not pass judgement for now. <font color="404040">
For several reasons, not least of which that I've begun commenting on various !votes, I'll declare myself avowedly '''neutral'''! I may expand at length, or maybe not. Neutral.
I'm concerned that this user seems to be unable to adequately handle harassment and disruption from trolls, his talk page having been indefinitely semi-protected for three months now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=User+talk%3ABQZip01&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1]. He has no visible alternate talk page for IPs to contact him in good faith. Obviously, administrators need to be easily reachable by all users regardless of their auto-confirmed status. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''', good attitude by showing that he is willing to change. But not ready yet. Needs more time to develop as a person. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. While his AfD comments aren't exactly what I'd like from an admin, he does have solid audited content work, which goes a long way in convincing me a user is here to improve the 'pedia and can learn. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral''' User has good intentions but diffs and reasons brought up in the oppose section are causes for question.  Perhaps in a few months and some more experience. Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' I would probably support but his hounding of the oppose !voters here leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.  This supports the notion that this user doesn't have the temperment needed for the tools.  It's not enough to oppose over but its enough to not support. '''
Moved from oppose; still some causes for concern but user has made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issues during this RFA.
Absolutely. Polite, helpful, reduces drama. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Yes, without a doubt.  I've seen plenty of Bwilkins' work at [[WP:WQA]]; so, even without the NHL or Trinidad and Tobago work, I'm confident that his/her maturity, common sense, and level headed approach to Wikipedia will bring us a strong net positive in the end.  As Sheffield mentions, "reduces drams", and I'm all for that! — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' Per SheffieldSteel.--
'''Support'''. Per SheffieldSteel, my nom above, and may I add resourceful.
'''Support''' I can be a bit of a hot head sometimes, and BMW's friendly comments to me in the past have led me to take a step back from conflicts and reflect on a more constructive approach. The difs below demonstrate that he is prone to get a bit prickly in tense situations, but on balance he does more to keep the peace here than I or many other admins do. A net positive by far.
'''Weak Support''' The diffs pointed out in the oppose section are rather unsettling, but these edits were all made roughly all about 7 months ago.  Bwilkins has done a significant amount of excellent for the project and I believe that in 7 months, Bwilkins has perhaps changed for the better.  I am certainly willing to give this user another chance to improve.  Regards, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', a single questionable event six months ago does not particularly trouble me.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
[[User:Ben/Assume the presence of a belly-button|Assume the presence of a belly button]]. I acknowledge the opposition, but remain unpersuaded. In general, I feel that Bwilkins can be trusted to use the tools properly. –'''
'''Support'''.  This candidate is willing to roll up his sleeves (or hold his nose) and get involved in the drama side of Wikipedia, and he overwhelmingly shows good judgment.  I do see the edits that are causing concern, but given the sheer amount of drama he's seen and tried to help with, they're a tiny fraction of the total.<p>We have hundreds of vandal-fighting admins but relatively few drama-defusing ones, so I think it's particularly important to support Bwilkins.—
'''Support''' No concerns. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' The high quality of Bwilkins' total contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the very occasional lapses of insouciance being overemphasized by the other side of the debate. I have no problems with his work. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Heaven forbid the candidate have a personality. I see no reason not to trust Bwilkins with the bit.
'''Support''' I think he'll do a fine job as Admin despite his human qualities.
'''Support''' Trust; it is all about trust.
'''Support'''. Admins are not required to be all chipper all the time. So what if he's a little curmudgeonly every once in a while...who isn't? --
'''Support'''. May not make a difference, but I still support. I read the negative comments provided by some of the people who opposed, and they do not trouble me at all. People lose their temper from time to time. No big deal.
'''Support'''.   Bwilkins stepped in to help resolve some very sticky situations that I was facing and the professionalism of Bwilkins was much appreciated.  This is a person with the patience to deal with a highly charged situation and do so promptly and with professionalism.
BMW: '''''You screwed up.''''' You actually did a lot of hard, useful work in a very contentious, and very thankless, area. You should have racked up 5000 AWB edits and hung out at AfD, chiming in on obvious cases, instead. That way you would have burnished your reputation and not made any enemies. Of course, you wouldn't have been NEARLY as much help to the project that way, but the number one criterion for adminship on en:wp is how well you play the game... (play it safe and don't make any waves), not how helpful to the project you are. Drop, and give us 10,000 meaningless edits with Twinkle as penance. Oh ya... '''Strongest possible support'''. ++
'''Support''' Sure we need admins to be civil, but I'd much rather we got fully rounded people who are what they seem than people who put on a veneer of civility to get through RFA.
'''Support''' - per Lar. You shouldn't be denied adminship just because you have pissed off some people. You've many positive edits to WP.
Quite frankly, we don't expect admins to be perfect, we expect them to be ''good enough''.  Sure, if you dig up a few diffs and spin them the right way, you can create a caricature that makes a person look horrible.  Even there, most of Cool3's diffs don't strike me as evidence of anything problematic.  Looking at the body of his work at WQA over the last year, I'm very impressed.  I think that BWilkins is clearly not only ''good enough'', he's actually a very good candidate.  More than that, in my opinion, he's someone who's willing to listen to advice, he's someone who seeks out advice...in other words, he's exactly what we want of an admin.  Without hesitation, I '''support'''.
'''Support''', decent bloke, open to constructive criticism, seems to have plenty of time and energy for the project.  Where he has ventured an opinion on the noticeboards it has been worth reading, and enough of the human side comes out to persuade me that what you see is what you get, this is not someone playing out a role or persona. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
I'm
'''Support''' This is not how I would have expected this to go.  Most of the time I see BMW on the drama boards it isn't because he is lurking (of course that is usually why I am there) but because some issue on WQA has brought him there.  And a number of times I have seen him there he has offered some opinion or proposed some solution that has rankled me.  In fact, I have found myself remarking "Who is this guy, and how the hell did he become an admin?!"  But most of those cases I settled down and determined that he made a compelling case and (important to me) didn't fill up the page with useless pap--as Guy says, when he made a comment it was worth reading.  He makes mistakes.  he holds opinions on things (and has even voiced them before getting "[[WP:ADMIN|tenure]]").  ''He settles disputes''.  Also, per Lar.
'''Support''' From the stream of concerns I thought BMW must have been using [[The_Dog_Whisperer#Criticism|Cesar’s]]  [[Alpha_roll|technique]] at WQA.  What I found was a member of the community who was willing to try and help resolve disputes whenever possible.  The problem is that when the conflict turns out to be a slugfest of professional wrestlers, everyone, including the ref. is fair game.  BMW has in fact been less than gracious as he avoids the verbal head butts…go figure?  I have not been here long at Wikipedia and am not sure how much the project pays for someone to moderate at WQA, but it must be a great deal for him to hang in there.  There are plenty of links for all to explore, but use of a tool [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=rev_user_text&page=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&max=1000&ofs=2000&max=1000 here] might put the occasional wrestling matches into better perspective.  BMW has met my [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|opinion]] of what is needed in an Admin.  I want to personally thank him for his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teenly&diff=prev&oldid=248679846 kindness] to our sorely missed Teenly.  Unfortunately, it is not always clear until after the fact, how important it can be to welcome a new user, encourage them and let them know that they are an important part of this project.  Thank you BMW<small>
'''Strong support''' Even if you're a saint 99% of the time you'll invariably screw up occasionally if you spend enough time in the contentious thankless area of conflict resolution and give enough diffs for someone to pounce on. I think BMW would be an exemplary admin and am not convinced at all by the opposers. (Also per Guy and Lar) <strong>
'''support'''
'''Strong support''' for good sense, helpfulness and general wisdom. Per henrik, have to accept that this is a 99% record rather than showing infallibility, but a little more caution can be learnt, the generally exemplary work shows a great base for that relatively minor improvement. . .
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;User is a strong contributor to and defender of Wikipedia. --'''''
'''Support''' :) .
'''Support''' I am quite impressed with your work at [[WP:WQA]] and find you to be someone worthy of the admin flag.
Perhaps the unseemly saga described by Goodmorningworld below was out of character, but it happened too recently, to be dismissed as such. --
'''Oppose'''.  The tone of some of his comments is a little troubling. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=next&oldid=250699738] "Wow you egg him on, then seem surprised that he got a little upset? "  It's not egregious, but it's not a great comment.  This is another impolite comment, with a highly uncivil edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=224457255&oldid=224448834] directed at a good editor.  This is another uncivil remark in the same discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=224447131&oldid=224445328] (this was a while back though).  Another unpleasant exchange [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=240877571&oldid=240855336].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=243657102&oldid=243656845]: Another rather unpleasant edit summary "response to discorteous reply" (is that really necessary?), also in that diff: "a cursory glace at which will speak volumes of his misuse of Huggle and misunderstanding of policy".  That seems rather harsh and unnecessary.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=261722842] More borderline rudeness.  I'd expect a better record of civility out of someone who works at [[WP:WQA]] and expects to do so as an admin.  On the AfD front, I'm finding a lot of closes as "no consensus" which isn't a problem in and of it itself, but I'd rather see an admin close those.  Per [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure]], non admins really shouldn't be closing controversial AfDs.  Furthermore, as a regular editor, it seems that it would be more useful to provide an opinion and work towards consensus than make a non-admin no consensus closure([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Baramova (2nd nomination)|for example]]).  He's had several non-admin closures challenged at DRV, such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artivist Film Festival & Awards]] (ultimately closed as no consensus).  What bothers me most about his AfD record is that I've been through the contribs all the way back to January 1, and while I've found a number of non-admin closures, I can't find a single instance of actual participation in an AfD discussion. I'd like to support, but I'm just finding too many diffs that bother me.
'''Oppose''' The diffs provided by Cool3 and Goodmorningworld's comment show that his way of speaking is way over "saying too outspoken" and breach our incivility policy. Calling a name like "useless editor"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=224457255&oldid=224448834] to {{User|Collectonian}} is totally inappropriate and against his own preaches to editors at WQA.--
'''Oppose''' Per the neutral comment by Goodmorningworld.
'''Oppose''' - doesn't handle criticism well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=240877571&oldid=240855336]
'''Oppose''' Needs a few months more experience.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
Name appears too frequently at ANI where I feel his interjections are unhelpful at times. Smacks of someone out to get adminship, rather than do the best for the project, and the nomination acceptance statement above is grounds for a strong oppose on its own, it's a while since I've seen such sickly sweet self serving nonsense.
'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced that he would not abuse the tools, seeing his remarks linked above and a not-so-extensive edit history and number.
Oppose per [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive521#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FNadya_Suleman_.282nd_nomination.29|this]]. Your comments in a public forum were horrendous, and your defence of them showed a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the BLP policy.
'''Oppose''' Concerns about temperament, as described above. '''
'''Oppose''' per Nick and Goodmorningworld.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as Daniel.
'''Oppose''' users above pointed out the diffs that troubled me before I posted them. not exactly the cool head I would prefer. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
Personal recollections of the individual were not favorable and I was not predisposed to want to support. However, I intended to stay neutral until I read the neutral and saw things there and things above which concern me. I cannot trust this user with the tools nor his understanding of our principles here.
'''Oppose''', not impressed by the diffs posted elsewhere in this section. Bwilkins does not always communicate civilly, which is a must for an administrator - they are likely to get into disputes, and they are there to settle them, not provoke them further.
'''Oppose''' The civility comments by Cool3 and Goodmorningworld are concerning. While most of your work at WQA is stellar, if you want to be an admin in dispute resolution you have to be less biased and much more civil. The answers to questions 1 and 3 (both dealing with conflicts in the past) are in a haughty tone that isn't befitting of an admin working with dispute resolution. Also, as noted above, some of your AfD closings were much too contentious for a non-admin to handle. One such close was overturned at DRV and several weeks later another went there where you closed an 8-6 debate per WP:SNOW. These two concerns put together lead me to question your judgement and at this point in time I can't trust you to make sound AfD closes or neutral blocks. '''
'''Oppose''' - per Nick (although I don't agree with his description "sickly sweet self serving nonsense", I do see what he means) and per Daniel. Your "messed-up idiot" remark on the ANI board last month is beyond the pale. Your defense that others have said it as well is, in my opinion, extremely poor. Furthermore I find the tone of a lot of your replies, both on ANI and your Talkpage, harsh and bordering on arrogant ("It disgusts me that you even have the nerve to suggest..." for example). That's not the kind of wording I expect from an admin. If these are "written flourishes" as well, I strongly suggest you 'flourish down' a little. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Weak oppose''' &ndash; a good user, but some of the talk page comments are troubling. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Hell no''' He displayed HUGE civility issues during my only encounter with him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tavix/Archive_2#ANI_pt_2 see here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&oldid=261032884#Editing here] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#User:Bwilkins and an AN/I I filed]. I got into a little edit war with him, and although I apologized afterward for my part in it, he refused to apologize to me and told me to stop. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABwilkins&diff=261068035&oldid=261032884 diff]. This is behavior that should not be displayed in an admin and such behavior towards other people could scare off people. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' My own interactions with this user have been mixed. I acknowledge their good faith attempts to help but feel they are not yet ready to become an admin, per [[User talk:Bwilkins/Archive 1#WP:CIVIL|this]], [[User talk:Bwilkins/Archive 1#Then let's find some middle ground|this]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=252993464 this] original edit which started the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive494#WP:UP#NOT|conversation]], where he accused me of mounting a [[jihad]] because I was trying to get a user to remove an attack link from their user page and later evinced that it is ok to link to an attack page to defend oneself. Wrong approach, wrong word. Albeit that it was 6 months ago, and kudos for good intentions, but I need to see evidence of real learning from that incident. Offering to "mediate" after using such inflammatory language, then closing and archiving with the comment ''"Good luck with your future interactions with the human race"'' is unlikely to be a productive approach. Sorry again. --
'''Oppose''' Some of the highlighted comments, especially the tone of them cause me concern.
'''Strong Oppose''' I have really bad memories of the episode when I met you. I do not want to insist on it as many things have already been said and as the trend of this election is unlikely to change. Even though I'm pretty sure you perfectly understand my opinion, I'm ready to develop if needed.
'''Oppose''' Based on interaction with this editor on ANI. My opinion only.
I wanted to support this, but looking at some of the comments you have made brought up in diffs is quite a downer.  As an administrator, you represent all of Wikipedia--this means that any flippant remark (and especially comments made specifically to insult) will reflect upon Wikipedia as a whole. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong oppose''' per Daniel and BLP issue.  Don't use en.wiki as a vehicle for your personal insults against people with bios on en.wiki.  --
'''Oppose''' Serious concerns about temperament
'''Oppose''': My question above was replied to in detail, but the problem I was bothered with was merely confirmed. The use of foul language or bluntness per se was not the issue; what bothered me was that I was told to suck it up while the other party got away without barely a hint of a reprimand despite repeated auto-reverts, ownership behavior, obstructive argumentativeness and some very personal accusations against me. I'll agree that there was a consensus against my complaints on the subpage where I tried to deal with the dispute, but I found most of it exceedingly personal hostility and almost none of it seemed like particularly valid criticism. Most of it appeared to center on the fact that the user I was in dispute with should be considered permanently immune from blame because of previous work on articles and an oddly brittle emotional state. Anyone who sides so unequivocally with a problematic user because they cry and whine loud enough is in my opinion not fit for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per BLP issues. Civility is also a problem. I am willing to support a future RfA should you change substantially. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per --[[User:Marlith|Marlith]] '''
'''Neutral''' Until a few months ago, I had BMW's name on my mental list as the editor to whom I would give my most automatic Support ever in his upcoming RfA. There is no question that candidate possesses intelligence and maturity, qualities that are sorely lacking in most of the people coming here asking to be made admin. His <u>conflict resolution work</u> at [[WP:WQA]], using nothing but the power of reasoned argument, has been mostly top-notch. There, BMW has shown what an editor can accomplish even without any of the admin buttons, simply by talking to people, respecting them as human beings, dialing down drama, and even using humor when appropriate.<br />Except… for his inexplicable, out-of-character actions at [[WP:WQA]] and [[WP:ANI]] regarding [[user:Greg L]] and [[user:Tony1]].<br />At [[WP:WQA]] he kept open a stale complaint against Greg L for far too long, and when that didn't bring about the results that BMW wanted, he recruited one of Wikipedia's <s>most block happy</s> admins known for being quick to block established editors to weigh in on his side, with a predictable outcome: she blocked Greg L. Then when Tony1 showed in on that admin's page to defend Greg, and [[user:Daedalus969]] went into a ballistic trajectory of frenzied rage in support of the admin, BMW did not ask Daedalus to shut up. Instead, he tried his damnedest to get Tony1 blocked. (Diffs for the above on request.)<br />The experience has left me with lingering bitterness about BMW. Because Tony1 and Greg L are Wikifriends of mine, I feel unable to give a fair and unbiased opinion here, hence my Neutral. --
'''Neutral''' - I believe that people should not be judged over single incidents which may be out of character, but do believe that the above incident is of concern. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Neutral for now''' - Like Goodmorningworld, BMW was on my list of people to support as soon as he decided to request adminship, and looking back through the [[WP:ANI]] archives, I agreed with the majority of his comments.  However, I found the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=276038350&oldid=276038269 diff we've already heard about] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=276479814&oldid=276475927 your later response] to Risker's warning to be troubling.  Not enough for me to switch to oppose, but enough to keep me from supporting at this time.
'''Neutral''' probably won't misuse the tools, but the diffs highlighted by the opposers give me some pause but not enough to actually oppose.
'''Neutral'''. <s>Unable to determine whether to support or not on the available evidence. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)</s> Now happy to go neutral, some positives and some negatives.
'''Neutral''' Switched from oppose.--
'''Not sure''' Looks good except for the convincing arguments of the opposers.--
'''Neutral.''' There will always be exceptions, and always unhappy users when people try to effectively resolve disputes; most of my interactions with him have been positive, and I would've supported given his general good work at WQA. What has stopped me from supporting was solely the BLP issue (raised in the oppose section by Daniel) - the comment BMW made on-wiki was troublingly inappropriate and counterproductive, given the spirit of BLP policy and how complaints about BLPs should be handled.
'''Neutral''' Neurolysis described my interpretation of Goodmorningworld's unsettling diffs. I would never oppose based on one situation, but it can keep me from supporting at this time. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' per Res2216firestar. '''''
'''Support''' Absolutely. I've encountered Ceran at UAA many times in the past. He has the clue needed to work there, and anywhere else for that matter.
'''Support''' Haven't seen much of him/her, but looks ''very'' well qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
Yup, even if the last contact I remember was an argument :P <small><span style="border:1px solid #339933;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
Good user from what I have seen.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
Good candidate who has the experience to make a fine admin - good work! '''
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' Per all above.
'''Support''' Ceranthor, or LordSunday? *), knows his way around Wikipedia better then some admins do (no ffense intented). plus, he's got a venerable history of contributions to Wikipedia. <b>
'''Support''' Per above.--
'''Support''', well, it's unanimous thus far, bravo!  Anyway, I support per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as you have never been blocked, obviously impressed our colleagues as seen above, are a good article contributor, and I do not recall us having any negtaive interactions.  Best, --
'''Very strong support''' &mdash; Absolutely. Ceranthor's reputable anti-vandalism efforts and article writing/collaboration skills should precede themselves for all who've seen his signature. A very thoughtful, trustworthy, considerate and kind Wikipedian; he is exemplary of the sort of people we should hope to have as administrators. This whole process is a formality; one that should have happened long, long ago.
'''
'''Support''' -- Great editor who would benefit from the use of the tools.--'''''<small>
'''Support''' Not sure I have direct experience with this editor, but the contribs and interaction with others looks great and clueful. <b>'''
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support''': User has experience in areas in which they want to participate as an admin. Contribs look good. <sup><small>
'''Suppport'''. I know you have a good handle on how stuff works and you're both clueful and civil. Reviewing your work, I must say that it looks good, but I want to make a suggestion: please re-read the speedy deletion criteria, particularly [[Wikipedia:CSD#G1|G1]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Disses&timestamp=20081213002238&diff=prev This], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Brimacombe_anne&timestamp=20081213002621&diff=prev this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Conrad_Edgar&timestamp=20090225193802&diff=prev this] are not patent nonsense, and I would say that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Sophie_neil&timestamp=20090225170059&diff=prev this] isn't either, but that one is debatable, I suppose. I must apologize, though, because those links are admin only, so you won't be able to see them for a week, or if you'd like, I could temporarily repost the content for your personal edification.
'''Suppport'''. I see no reason why not. Ceran would make a very good admin. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Hell yes! '''
'''Suppport''' [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' as Nominator '''
'''Support''' Ceranthor is an excellent content contributor, who has worked on a wide range of scientific articles. He is always civil, and always ready to help other editors. Ceranthor has sufficient knowledge of Wiki policies, and experience in admin related areas. I also want to point to his summary usage, which is 100% (nearly impossible number), and to the clean block log.
'''Strong support'''
'''Thought he was already an admin''' would make a darn good one ;-)--
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''.  I've always liked Ceran, and I'm glad to see him passing so easily.  The opinions below aren't a concern for me; I'm a little less strict on CSD than some (especially as long as we don't have clear CSD-at-RFA guidelines; I've ''never'' seen consensus on any broad CSD argument, anywhere).  And retiring from RFA seems pretty sane to me, I would never grade off for that :) - Dan
'''Strong support''' [redacted by PeterSymonds] yes! <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' I truly thought he already was one! ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Support''' - Not perfect, but he should do fine with the tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' As per Juliancolton and see no concerns as per track and feel the project will only gain with the user getting tools.
'''Support'''. An excellent user. '''''
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Strong support''' A trustworthy, responsible editor who will be a superb admin. It is not our place to decide/direct where volunteer editors spend their time. Should Ceranthor choose to concentrate on admin tasks at the expense of reviewing that is entirely his/her choice. The idea that we should not give the tools to an otherwise suitable candidate on the basis that he/she may spend less time on non-admin tasks is nonsensical (and is based on a hypothetical situation, given we have no way of knowing what Ceranthor will choose to do after being given the tools) not to mention antithetical to a volunteer project. --
'''Support'''. I've seen Ceranthor at work and I trust him. I am slightly concerned with the mentoring page - but that was some time ago.
'''Support.'''  Because I cannot find a single reason to consider otherwise.
'''Support''' -- As Spinach Dip put it! Overall looking good (ie experience, civil, and all those wonderful things that make me tingly in a completely platonic fashion). Good luck mate.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' clearly this editor can be trusted.
'''Strong Support" Good answers to question and the most ridiculous oppose I've ever seen. Seems fine to me!
'''Support''' Awesome editor, awesome experience, no blocks and very civil.'''[[User:Next-Genn-Gamer/Sign|<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="Orange">N</font>]].[[User talk:Gears of War|<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="black">G</font>]].
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Has made many useful contributions and looks like he/she can be trusted to become an admin.
'''Support''' this user looks to be a trusted administrator
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
Weakly - please take it slowly if you pass. '''
'''Support''' I am willing to give Ceranthor a go; he has the best interests of the 'pedia at heart.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Good appreciation of guidelines & policies.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per answers to questions.
'''Support''' I believe you are ready to be an admin. Take to heart all the issues raised here and you certainly will succeed! :)
'''Support''' I've seen you around and you do good work. You have a great history and make a great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' I am unconvinced. We have a lot of people in these areas already and I do not see enough to justify adding another. We need more people doing the non-admin related tasks there than the admin tasks, so this would take away from the user doing just that anyway.
Reluctant '''oppose'''.  LordSunday/Meldshal42/Ceranthor (and I too wonder about the frequent changes in name) is an enthusiastic editor, who is well-motivated.  But too often I find that this enthusiasm means that his judgement is compromised.  The fact that he has chopped and changed so often about RFA (at various times saying he would never run, at others signing up for mentorship etc.) is one symptom of this inconstancy.  I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for more.  Again, however, I want to stress that I think that this editor is very well-motivated, and sincerely wants to help out with the project.   --
'''Oppose''' until questions 10a and 10b are answered. My deepest concerns are with jbmurrary about Ceranthor's enthusiasm while good judgment is sacrificed. This manifested itself in working with [[User:Editorofthewiki]] to pass articles at GA that were not up to standard <s>because they were participating in Sharkface's Awards Center</s>. I was hoping Ceranthor would have either divulged this information or answered the questions as soon as it came up, but as time lags and the date of the RfA to close nears, this does not look like it will be discussed. <s>Now, I must apologize because the details of this situation are not readily available because my memory is notoriously bad.</s> I seem to recall two articles discussed between Ceranthor and Editorofthewiki: [[Trumpet]] (link to [[User:Laser brain]]'s talk page about [[User_talk:Laser_brain/Archive_1#Trumpet|nominating so he can pass the article]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorofthewiki&diff=prev&oldid=219266804 an earthquake article] and [[Talk:1556_Shaanxi_earthquake|the first GA review on the talk page]]. Please see the GA review for [[Talk:Hell's Gate National Park/GA1|Hell's Gate National Park]]. The issues are discussed at length on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_10#Funny_goings-on_at_GA|GAN talk page, here]]. Again, I wanted Ceranthor to give the details. <s>I may do some poking around to find the information myself, but it may take me a while.</s> In a related issue, the act of not answering questions is troublesome. Balloonman/I'm Spartacus! (another name change...) kind of rapped my knuckles with a ruler about answering questions as soon as they came up when I was preparing for my RfA. --
Agree with the positives offered by those above me but must oppose. A number of months back [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ceranthor/Archive_9#Quick_question I noticed] [[User:Ceranthor/bragsheet|your bragsheet]] and saw that you had taken a lot of credit for work that you did not do. Whilst you are a friendly person and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphim/Archive_9#RE:Quick_question reacted politely] when I enquired about it, the situation left a sour taste in my mouth and I feel it shows poor judgement.
I very rarely, if ever, comment on RFAs, but this user has always stuck out -- and not in a positive way.  I'm sure they mean well, but as Moni pointed out above, their reviewing has been less than stellar, and that continues to this day; this makes me question whether they are capable of and/or willing to assess an article's quality, or if they are just simply more concerned with earning barnstars.  When [[Hell's Gate National Park]] was erroneously passed as GA, I commented on the talk page with my concerns and received no reply from them.  Then, when the same article was taken to GAR in January of this year, still in very poor shape, Ceranthor stated that they "kind of pass[ed] the article in AGF. Honestly as the primary reviewer I felt it was rather borderline myself, and I'd be glad to participate in bringing it so that it is not quite so close to the edge."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHell%27s_Gate_National_Park%2FGA2&diff=262172707&oldid=261971724]  A few weeks later the article was delisted due to inactivity.  To me, this shows a lack of initiative.  Besides, what does [[WP:AGF|good faith]] have to do with the GA criteria?  Last summer I left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACeranthor&diff=229093264&oldid=229090845 a note] on their talk page about their brief review for [[Farthest South]], which lasted all of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=229088896 two minutes]; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFarthest_South&diff=229094050&oldid=229002451 review] looks it, too.  Less than two months ago I saw that they suddenly dropped their review for [[Talk:Capella (star)/GA1|Capella (star)]] after nearly a month of inactivity (according to their contribs he/she was editing actively elsewhere).  They left a cryptic edit summary ("[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=273242253 withdrawing review]") at the GAN page, but no notice elsewhere.  The review was finished by someone else, and the article ultimately passed, but despite a message on their talk page that is still there now, there was no explanation for Ceranthor's delay or lack of communication.  Bad form; even if they were busy, a quick, apologetic note would have been common courtesy.  If Ceranthor is given the administrator tools, will they continue to be uncommunicative or willing to take initiative? <span style="font-family:verdana">
'''Oppose''', but hope to say otherwise in a few months. I think it's better to get some policy experience before becoming an admin. The response to my first question was disappointing: He seemed to think he ought to close AfDs on the basis of his own view of notability from his own investigation, which is plain wrong--the role is to judge what the community things, to the extent they are using rational Wikipedia criteria. I note that a very experienced closer (who I do not always agree with, btw), closed it I think correctly as no-consensus. It was brave to select WP:FICT as the policy question, and he is right there is not enough apparent consensus. (the real question though is whether this is due to focused propaganda on one or both sides, and whether this should not be one of the things which we have to keep trying to compromise to avoid disruption.)  The last sentence was self- contradictory:  ". The fiction notability guidelines, if really needed, should not be posed on a separate page than the main notability page (since fiction is somewhat different from RL articles)." --to me, that would be a ''good'' reason for separating it. But I am not opposing for having a view different than mine, but for a general lack of depth about policy. '''
'''Oppose.'''  I agree with others here that Ceranthor is a very active and energetic Wikipedian, and I hope he continues to be.  I have serious concerns, however, over whether he has the required maturity to be a good administrator - and I think he is likely too young and/or immature to even recorgnize that he may sometimes lack good judgement.  At the end of December he mentioned that he would never be an administrator, and also commented that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=260702871&oldid=260700647 I'm rather young and haven't done anything incredibly immature].  I pointed out an example of immaturity (from June 2008), where he asked someone else to nominate an article he had worked on for GA so that he could pass it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALaser_brain&diff=220014609&oldid=219945475]; his response was that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=260727241&oldid=260720939 that is merely a lack of experience, not maturity].  I found this reply very worrisome; it would be a lack of experience to promote your own article, perhaps not realizing that you shouldn't have unilaterally changed the criteria, but asking an uninvolved editor to nominate your article goes well beyond that - it is an attempt to trick the system, which implies that the user is already somewhat familiar with said system.   (I do believe that Ceranthor is sorry for and that he would not repeat '''that specific''' action.)  I've also noticed, as others have noted here, that he has exaggerated his on-wiki activities to make himself look good.  He's also displayed a tendency to be overly touchy.  For example, at one point he accuses [[User:SandyGeorgia]] of "despising" him and states that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nevado_del_Ruiz&diff=prev&oldid=244756350  tried numerous times to resolve the conflict but nothing seems to work].  SandyGeorgia [[User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch43#Despising_Ceranthor.3F|had no idea what he was talking about]].  I believe that Ceranthor will likely make a good administrator one day, but at the present time I do not have adequate confidence that he has the appropriate judgement.  In my opinion this is very definitely a maturity issue, and generally only time can resolve those.
'''Oppose''' This doesn't seem to be the right time for this, especially in the light of all the above...which raise troubling questions...
'''Oppose'''; the "credit for work you didn't do" oppose leaves a bad taste in my mouth. '''
'''Oppose''' I am not confident in your judgement.  On 20 September you opened [[Wikipedia:Editor review/LordSunday|an editor review]] with the statement "I want to know what I need to become an admin", yet you closed the review shortly thereafter with "I don't really want to be an admin". Everyone is entitled to change their minds, but this kind of reversal ''within 24 hours'' is worrisome, especially in light of [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Meldshal42|a previous editor review]] with the same goal where you just stopped answering questions, and the unimpressive showing at coaching. I don't see a strong commitment to learning the ropes in those repeated, abortive efforts at gaining adminship. I am also not comfortable with the lack of openness here; I would have expected to see full disclosure of all prior usernames, editor reviews, coaching, and significant disputes in your ''own'' statements.
'''Oppose''' per Seraphim and taking credit for work you did not do. Also, per your weak answer to question 6.
'''Oppose''' sorry, per some of the arguments above, per failing to mention your previous usernames right at the beginning of the RfA, and per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ceranthor&diff=prev&oldid=264128355 this strange opinion] (should the supporters above be written off unless they previously knew the candidate?). <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Too many recent usernames. Might be better to settle on one for longer, then re-apply. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per now answered questions. I share DGG's concern with Q5a because it does sound like he thinks the closing admin should make a decision rather than to evaluate the arguments. Also per weak answer to Q6 (bans can mean you are not allowed to edit anything, community bans for example) and answer to Q7 - I delete my fair share of pages despite hangon tags, but I do it when I know the creator had time to explain it, not because I fail to verify the notability (and A7 is not about establishing notability anyway but about indication it might meet inclusion criteria). The answer to Q8 is correct but the explanation incorrect: If the consensus is to delete, an admin cannot decide to ignore it. The question was not about an AFD discussion as far as I can understand it but generally about consensus. Answer to Q9c is just wrong, 3RR says it's only a violation if you ''revert'' a fourth time within 24 hours. In this example both editors were still within 3RR. Together with my previous neutral reasonings, I think the candidate needs to work on his policy knowledge. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' <small>(Moved from support)</small> Sorry, too many valid concerns have been raised above. —
I was going to oppose this, but only now do I remember what for: taking credit for other's work per Seraphim. He has learned from his [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German train wreck, World War I|rather disasterous week at FPC]], where of ten nominations none were closed according to the instructions. That, and these ([[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Napoleon's exile to Elba]]/[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Venus Animation]]/[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/German train wreck, World War I]]) make me a bit nervous about him closing any sort of debate, let alone FPCs, in the future.
'''Oppose''' taking ''big'' credits for what you have not ''significantly'' contributed? (added words in ''italics'') This is a serious problem regarding integrity and honesty. --
'''Oppose''' My analysis tracks closely with those of DGG, SoWhy, and Maralia, and I am finally unable to conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''' I did support initially but the answers to the questions are just not clear enough and often appear perfunctory. For example, in 5a the editor would first look for notability and then 'go with delete'. Why look for anything if you've already decided to delete the article? The last sentence of 5b seems inconsistent to me. If fiction is different from RL (real life?) then wouldn't that support the need for a separate notability page? The response to 8 is too, [[Barkis]] like, telegraphic for me (no one is willing to what?) The responses to the remaining questions are brief and, at least that's the way it seems to me, not been re-read by the editor. (For example, in 9a I assume you mean 'inactive, or active but not adding content'. Everyone is automatically covered by your phrasing of 'active or inactive'.) Sorry! --
'''Oppose''' per unimpressive answers, as explained above. '''''
'''Oppose''' per jbmurray and DGG. A disconcerting pattern of edits in regards to policy application leads me to think this candidate just isn't ready to be trusted with the tools. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Oppose'''. DGG and Karanacs above raised all the concerns I had with the candidate.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions (particularly 5a and 5b - candidate doesn't understand why those notability subpages are important); multiple identity changes are also a red flag.
'''Oppose''' - Leaving out the discussion about contribution significance, I am not convinced about policy <s>firmness</s> comprehension and possible decisions. --
'''Oppose''' Per SoWhy
Reluctant neutral. I have worked with Ceranthor immensely, and have enjoyed his presense since I met him. However, the recent "retiring" from RFA is worrying. ~<strong>'''''
Neutral for now. Pedro's mentoring page has raised some issues for me, and I'd need to see the responses to the questions above before committing one way or the other. --
Neutral for now.  I'm not so happy with the answer to the "disputes" question.  An admin shouldn't be too assertive, but needs to be more assertive than ''that''.  I'll wait to see answers to more questions.  Certainly plenty of experience.
'''Neutral''' <s>(for now) - Will move to support or oppose depending on how the remaining questions are answered...-<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS"> [[User:Fastily|Fastily]] </span> <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Fastily|(talk)]] </span> 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)</s> While I really do like the contributions Ceranthor has made to Wikipedia, the answer to question #7 and points brought up by the users who voted oppose concern me. These problems are not severe enough for me to vote oppose, but are too problematic for me to vote support.  With that being said, I remain neutral. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' - Would like to see more assurance that the candidate has filled up the gaps in their policy knowledge before supporting. Errors made at the candidate's mentoring page indicate to me that it is entirely possible that there are gaps that we will remain unaware of until after the candidate is promoted, and I have seen nothing that demonstrates to me that the candidate has moved on from that prior lack of policy knowledge, and has reacquainted themselves with at least the crucial policies and guidelines. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral:''' I don't feel confident supporting with the issues that have been raised by those opposing and those remaining neutral.  I am not certain it is enough to oppose over, though, especially as I have not personally delved into the candidate's history.
'''Neutral''' Eh... I've seen him around a bit; he hasn't done anything awesome/amazing recently/at all; he hasn't done anything horrible recently/at all. As far as I can tell, no reason to support, yet no reason to jump to oppose. The complete lack of CSD-related opposes tells me one of two things: either you're not a NP patroller, or you do a good job. <span style="font-family:terminal">
'''Neutral''' - This is a difficult one after looking at [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]]. You are a good contributor with experience, and while concerns raised do not make me oppose, that stack up enough to prevent me supporting. The issues with [[User:Ceranthor/bragsheet]] does not concern me itself, different editors have different opinions on what "substantial" means, though your response on this RfA (i.e. "annoy me") does slightly (key criteria 5/6), you should try and remain calm. The answer to question 5b is an opinion over what policy/guidelines should be, so no issue there (non-criterion 7). 5a is fine, although it is more an answer on how to give an opinion than actually close a discussion. The answer to question 6 is technically wrong, bans can mean an end to editing altogether, including user talk pages in some circumstances (key criteria 9), but this might be more the way you have worded the answer rather than a lack of policy knowledge.
Support as nom. –'''
'''Support''' - Per my feelings last time around - Extremely clueful editor.
'''Support'''.  Despite rather infrequent visits to AfD, I find that Ceranthor's comments there did not raise any issues with me.  Other than this, there were no problems I could find.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' Great editor.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''', per above, and for the fact that his improvement shows that he has the potential for being a great editor.
'''Support''' as I've found his contributions to be very good and I don't see any indication the tools would be abused. ···
First reaction is to support based on many previous interactions.  I'll go see if I can dig up some dirt :) - Dank (
'''Support'''. I supported your last request, despite a few then-recent incorrect G1 taggings. I checked your deleted contribs, hoping to see an improvement in G1 understanding, but you haven't tagged a single article as G1 since your previous RFA, so I couldn't tell. However, that was just minor niggling before, and it's minor now. You're a clueful editor, I think you'll do fine.
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Aye''' This is an editor I have known since almost their very first edits. I had concerns previously, but Ceranthor has worked hard, demonstrated both knowledge and a <s>clam</s> calm approach, and would be of a great benefit with the tool set. I would, however, still advise one thing - ''If in doubt - don't''. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I think I remember supporting his last RfA. No reason not to now.
Support. Btw, your ans to q 5 is a bit wrong - it's not ''"It is appropriate to edit the page after an ''uninvolved'' (IMHO) admin..."'' but rather after '''any''' editor requests a simple, not complex, edit on the talk page and the suggested edit finds consensus (no objections to the edit.) See {{tl|editprotected}} and the related category [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]] for such requests, btw.
'''Strong Support''' Has done great work.
'''Support''' I was his nominator last time, I have no qualms about supporting again per my previous nom and a further three months of good contributions. ''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' I've been waiting for this. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I was in favor of the previous RfA and I am glad to back this one. Good luck!
'''Support''', per Perdo.  I mean, Pedro.
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy to me. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' Excellent user
'''Support''' I support by the reasons outlined in the previous RFA.
'''Support''' Good solid work. Also, polite and helpful.
'''Support''' - I went neutral last time, looking back it was a bit of a harsh neutral and I was certainly leaning more towards supporting than opposing. This re-run is in good time and I have not detected anything that makes me think you do not pass [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]], instead I see lots of good contributions. Though it is a trivial point, you may want to think about setting up archiving on your user talk page some time soon. While not directly related to Wikipedia I note you are a sysop and bureaucrat on two [[Wikia]] projects, which is another good sign. I have also taken a look at deleted contribs, don't see anything of big concern.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support''' - Can't see why not! <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
<s>'''Support'''</s>, excellent candidate. I find little to no issues, and nothing that indicates inexperience, bad judgement, or incivility—I'm sure that Ceranthor will use the mop well. Decent CSD contribs, but I agree with the above piece of wisdom: ''If in doubt, don't''. You'll thank yourself later for not doing something you regret. :)
'''support''' - keep up the good work (
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' Much improvement from last rfa.  There's no reason this shouldn't pass.  Keep up the good work! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Moved from oppose. I don't think that one little concern should hold me back from supporting Ceranthor. You're a pretty good candidate, so good luck. :) – ('''
'''Support''' Good editor and user.
'''Support''' good response to the CSD questions. '''
'''Support''' only encountered this user once before, he was very friendly and helpful to new editors.
'''Support''' per nom, I wanna T shirt too (see neutrals)--
'''Support''' Excellent contributions. <b>
'''Support''', so long as the answer to my Q isn't awful :P
Net positive. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' per good answers to questions. Entrusting this editor with the mop would be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]]. -
'''Support''', I can see no reason why this user should not be trusted with adminship. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]].
'''Support''' Was borderline until I saw the opposes.
'''Support''' [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|Net positive.]] <font color="green">
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' I see no valid reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder and can learn on the job ;)
I accept the answer to my question: one thing I've not liked is dismissing other people's questions and responses as "badgering" when it's clearly not so. I dislike it even more when admins do it. Thank you for answering and clarifying.
'''Weak Support''' net positive.
'''Support''': Quel grand et fabuleux rédacteur..
Seems to have clue.
Isn't he an admin? ;)
'''Support'''. I thought Ceranthor was an admin too. Better make him one.
'''Support''' per reason I said at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceranthor#Support]]; my opinion has not changed.  Best, --
'''Support''' I supported before, and I'll support again. Ceranthor is a great candidate. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' I trust Julian and I've seen this user around. Hopefully nobody [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wadester16&diff=prev&oldid=270311020 badgers] my support vote, though. :-P '''
'''Weak Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael93555&diff=prev&oldid=283350969] is too recent to be overlooked.
'''Oppose''' I very much want to support (see talk page for my comments there), but I just don't think it would be appropriate to give you the tools without more reassurance. Once adminship is granted it is very difficult to keep someone who isn't in full command of the needed patience and maturity in check, and there are some very serious concerns over your preparedness. Your level of support is impressive and whether you succeed or not in this nomination I hope you will continue to contribute and to enjoy working here. Please don't take my or anyone else's opposition personally. Your many enthusiastic supporters and your good work here say a lot about your editing talent and good nature.
'''Oppose''' per [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=e755efa50930b9902a787acc01523693&showtopic=25010&st=20&p=180061&#entry180061 this].
'''Oppose''' Not enough questions answered above for me to trust this editor, might re consider if they answer more. <strong>
'''Oppose''' due to concerns about candidate's answers already noted by others and questionable maturity to be an admin at this time, e.g.,  childish "I thought SandyGeorgia hated me". <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
The candidate admits in Q7 to having had "maturity issues" as recently as two months ago, and some of the answers to questions seem to be at best rather shallow. The childishness evident in the answer to Q3, coupled with the candidate's age, persuade me that this editor is not ready to be an administrator. --
'''Regretful oppose'''. However promising the candidate may be, I just can't convince myself they are ready to be an administrator. Answers lack depth and show a bit of immaturity, despite it being clear that Ceran is giving them a lot of thought. Too many red flags too recently - IMHO, this second RfA should have waited at ''least'' another three months. I'm not a fan of arbitrary wait times, but maturity was one of the main concerns of the last RfA - and no one grows up overnight. Regretful oppose because the potential is obviously there - keep up the good work, keep the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and adminship should come naturally.
'''Oppose''' due to maturity concerns. The Trumpet incident described in Q4 sticks firmly in my mind. I do think enough time has passed that the candidate's more recent contributions should be audited for signs of change—but, I'm not convinced. Answers to Q3 and Q7 show me that he's not ready. --
'''Oppose.''' I generally do not support candidates who are minors, absent indications of exceptional maturity, and these are not present here. On the contrary, the content and style of his userpage alone causes me to call his maturity into question. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Candidate's own statement in response to Q3: "I would say that all but one [''conflict''] in the past were very, very minor, and didn't cause me stress. The only [''exception''] would be the nonexistent hatred I thought that SandyGeorgia . . .". Candidate's statement in response to Q7: "At the time, I was a little heated, having felt that the user [''not SandyGeorgia, but a different user''] had bitten me". [[Document (album)|There's something going on that's not quite right, uh-uh]]. To make matters worse, the very notion that a soon-to-be repeat admin hopeful could be "bitten" by an editor who's been around for less than a month is utterly absurd - either doesn't understand [[WP:BITE]] or is simply a bit too thin-skinned/sensitive/drama-prone (choose yer poison) to do well as an admin - maturity issues, the root of either one of those possibilities. To continue with answer to Q7, "I actually was still trying to fix maturity issues from my previous RfA". Maturity issues will, in most cases, fix themselves over time - like poison ivy, there's not much one can do except simply wait out the storm. "Trying to" fix maturity issues is both counterproductive and indicative of a journey towards maturation that is still a bit shy of the promised land. Some slightly vague wording in Q6 ("I would close the AfD as merge to main article") - what's the "main article"? Of course, one would assume you speak of the hypothetical "event" article, but communication of this nature is confusing, and, in the course of administrative functions, has a tendency to provoke (unwarranted) drama, and a tendency to either unintentionally fan flames, or, at best, do absolutely nothing to resolve situations. More time is needed, and I can't say how much, beyond a vague "months/years, more of the former than the latter, I'll know it when I see it".
'''Weak oppose''' - the answers to the questions leave me feeling somewhat underwhelmed.  I believe the candidate to be largely trustworthy and knowledeable, but the somewhat weak answers to the questions - and some of the issues raised above - provide me with ''just enough'' reservations to withhold support at this time.
'''Regretful oppose''' per Malleus. The "regretful" part comes from browsing your user talk page, where (at least if taken at face value) it seems it's your nom who arrived out of the blue and encouraged you to run again since he felt 3 mos was enough. Unfortunately, unlike him, I and other opposers are still leery at this time. So my moral support for the future and regret that you are getting opposes like mine that must sting a bit.
'''Oppose''' for your own good.  The other day I looked this over and was neutral leaning a bit to support despite the age issue which would normally cause me to lean towards oppose but I think you already have a lot on your plate in daily life and self-assessed "maturity problems" don't get solved in two months.  Note that I don't think your "maturity problems" are severe or abnormal but it worries me that you think they were quickly resolved.  It may not make sense but from what I can see here you just don't need the added stress and you won't enjoy being an administrator (even though you think you will) so for your own benefit I oppose.  You're more useful to Wikipedia as-is and you just don't need the hassle.  If this doesn't make sense to anyone else, well, then, my !vote won't be counted.
'''Not yet''', basically per 14a, 14b and particularly 14c.  I'd encourage this candidate to think a bit harder about policies, guidelines and essays; I think his answers show he doesn't yet understand clearly enough the rules he's signing up to enforce.—
'''Oppose''' You are a good editor overall, but I must oppose after reading the answers to several of the questions. I suggest you read up on the policies/guidelines related to the areas in which you wish to work as an admin and then expose yourself to those areas for a few months. The maturity issues mentioned above are also a bit haunting but are a relatively minor problem. Also, I am open to supporting a future RFA in three months.
'''Oppose''' per maturity concerns.--
'''Oppose''' the answer to question 8 and particularly the statement "Articles with NPOV issues, which often corresponds with a lack of sources for some reason, can be deleted after a no consensus close" do not give me confidence in your ability to close AFDs particularly as this is an area where you say you would like to work in.
'''Oppose''' Too soon after previous rfa.  Three months is too short a time to address concerns previously raised.
'''Oppose''' <small>(switch from Neutral)</small> I must have been sleepy still when I reviewed this RFA (sorry!) but I honestly do not know how I could miss the point Davewild raised. If an AFD is closed as "No consensus [to delete]", then it cannot be deleted anyway for any article issues. Yes, there might be reasons to delete it (particularly copyvio or BLP) but ''never'' NPOV or missing sources. Those are things that can (and should!) be solved through editing, not through deleting. If there is no consensus to delete an article, then simple article issues cannot override consensus and I'm sorry to say but I cannot support a candidate who is willing to delete even without consensus or policy reasons to do so. Admins should evaluate community consensus at AFD, ''not'' make their own decisions. Regards '''
'''Oppose'''. I find a few of the answers a bit vague. A8 however, is fundamentally wrong. The way I read it, the candidate seems to think that no-consensus BLP AfD's defaults to delete (currently, at least, they don't). The reasons presented for deleting an article after a close are not valid, either. That said, I liked the answers to Q2 and Q10a, candidate is clearly doing good work in other areas of Wikipedia. May support in the future, but not at this time, sorry. <tt>
'''Oppose''' The answer to Question 8 is just plain wrong.  A 'no consensus' result cannot mean deleting an article just because someone thinks it lacks a neutral point of view.  That's an editing issue, not one of notability.
'''Oppose'''. The editor's heart is in the right place but the answers to the questions are disappointing. For example, I don't think you mean to use 'tedious' for FAC (Q3) (and the response to Q13 is hard to understand). I am also concerned about the effect that events at your school have on your editing. --
'''oppose''' Severe misunderstanding of basic policies at multiple levels. A8 is the most serious example. Some people do on occasion close no consensus BLPs as deletes. No consensus for such a policy has ever existed. No such policy does exist and thinking that it must occur for BLPs in that form indicates that the user has at minimum not been paying serious attention to one of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia today.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 8. NPOV is not a reason to delete an article, but to improve it. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm really sorry, you seem like a great candidate, but I find your answers... unusual. I know the stress you're feeling and that you're desperate to try and please everyone (politics eh? :) ) but I am a bit nervous for some reason. Would have no hesitation in supporting next time, it's just I'm not completely comfortable at the moment. \
'''Oppose'''. To be quite honest, I have no confidence in Ceranthor. Back in December 2008, he claimed that he would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&diff=260702871&oldid=260700647 "never run for adminship"]. A month later, he said that the RfA process is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ceranthor&diff=264128355&oldid=263914173 "full of people who just support without actually evaluating the candidate"]. Then, in March of this year, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceranthor|he ran an unsuccessful RfA]], only to continue saying he doesn't want to be an admin. I wouldn't feel comfortable to support a candidate with such views that change so dramatically. — '''''
'''Oppose.'''  Mostly per Explicit.  Candidate's statements mentioned above suggest a sense of bitterness and raise great cause for concern.
'''Neutral'''. I don't like your answer to question 4. What you should have learned, in my opinion, is that it's not helpful to go to GA (or FA, or FL, or whatever) simply in order to pass the GA, as if it was some kind of trophy. The point of the GA and FA processes is to improve articles, not to collect awards that help at RfA or the WikiCup. (Please note that I'm not implying that you collect them as trophies, I'm simply saying that I'm not convinced that you've learned your lesson.) You say you've reviewed the criteria and that you review articles on a regular basis, and that's good. However, looking at your reviews, they're very often just "pass, nothing to fix" (examples: [[Talk:Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?/GA1|1]], [[Talk:Volcano (South Park)/GA1|2]], [[Talk:Pine Island Glacier/GA1|3]], [[Talk:Bart Gets an F/GA2|4]] or even [[Talk:Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield/GA1|5]] and [[Talk:HD 2039/GA1|6]]). Your FA reviews are better, but still contain a lot of simple supports with no feedback provided (examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battersea_Bridge/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=294393696], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FRumford_Prize%2Farchive1&diff=297832544&oldid=297795894], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FGregorian_mission%2Farchive1&diff=297719887&oldid=297543827]). I found no problems with your AfDs, and I do like your content building work with earthquakes and volcanos. My concerns aren't really admin-related per se, so I might be persuaded to switch to support, but for now I can't say I'm convinced I fully trust your judgment.
I'm a little concerned you are not mature enough for adminship. I'm not going to be a dick and oppose over it, but it's just a little worry that you'll get the tools and retire before long. I'm pretty certain you have retired before, been renamed, got the t-shirt etc... and there are plenty of people around doing that already, and admins should be setting an example. Adminship can be quite stressful, even if you avoid certain areas. If you pass, please take it easy with your tools, and resign them if you feel you're burning out, or stressed when using them. '''
Per Jafeluv. Your admin-related experience seems solid and you've got some good FA/GA contribs under your belt, but there are some niggling concerns, just nothing to flat out oppose over. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral''', I'd like to support; you do good work, seem civil enough, and we need more admins who understand [[WP:CSD#G1|CSD G1]] :). But, on the negative side: you seem to get stressed out to often, you make mistakes, your "excuse" here seems to be that you were having a hard time (in RL or WP). It seems you edit Wikipedia when you're stressed out, unless you can do it with a cool-head, don't -
'''Neutral'''. I too get stressed out and make mistakes. That alone is no reason to oppose however. I'm more concerned that you'll get continually targeted and questioned because of your age and that will distract from the work to be done. Also not a reason to oppose. I guess the quibbly bits about some of the maturity issues combined with your userpage's esoteric tone just gives me a gut instinct of caution here. I could be swayed but I'm unlikely to oppose.
'''Neutral, leaning towards Support.''' Yes, you do darn good work, but the stress issues are a little concerning. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>

'''Oppose''' – You great contributions and awards in real life do not necessarily equate to the same on Wikipedia. You have to build trust here that you are able to take certain actions without "burning the place down" in the process. Start ''editing'' first – which is the first and foremost objective of Wikipedia, regardless of being an editor or administrator – and then come back here when you have experience.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Recommend [[WP:SNOW]] closure.
'''Support''' Has done good work despite the topic bans.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' ChildofMidnight is an intelligent and sensible editor whose strength is building contents on cuisine and cultural subjects (look at his shinny 28 DYKs). He also has a decent sense of humor and suave/persuasive communication skills that could be de-escalating squally situations. He has meditated some cases with patience on difficult editors. (look at how he got the nomination from the rising RfA star) Although he took some straightforward approaches in dealing with tough editors for Oh! OMG Obama cases, I strongly believe that Midnight would not abuse the admin bits because he is a sensible editor. He is not afraid of getting himself muddy for disputes that need immediate attention. I think he is a qualified candidate than dramaboard residents who just sit and judge others.--
'''Support''' This is a tough one but, on the balance, I think COM will make a good admin. That COM has faith in the encyclopedia is well evidenced by the strong positions taken on balance in contentious articles. The answers to questions are excellent and I don't think that he/she will abuse the tools (see responses to q 16 an 17 in particular). --
'''Strong Oppose''' Experience with this user, in particular their actions at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama]] and comments at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jerusalem21]] and seeing their comments all over [[Talk:Barack Obama]] indicate that Child of Midnight would be a disruptive administrator, not follow the rules and guidelines, and let personal biases influence administrative judgments.  He is too much of a loose cannon to trust with any significant power or authority, there would be nothing gained from having COM as an admin, and much to be lost.
'''Yeah, no''' - way too much drama, way too much pointiness, topicban, way too much editwarring, and utter non-answer to my question. Also the very odd asking for a nom, stating in various places that he had 'stumbled into' a nomination, then delaying it for weeks. Not admin criteria by any stretch of the imagination. //
''"We need to be vigilant to prevent character assasination and damaging content that violates our guidelines from being put into biographies. I think the guidelines are appropriate, but I understand there are major concerns about enforcement and supervision. My only personal experience with difficulty in reigning in edits that seem inappropriate is on Irfan Yusuf."'' Need I say more? --
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AScienceApologist&diff=282902466&oldid=277273465 No]. That was completely unnecessary and I could never support someone who goes about with this sort of mentality. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Beat the nom oppose''' Your answers to the questions were sufficient for me to oppose, particularly:  ''No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :) Can I just let the opposes speak for themselves?''  I need not get into your tendentious editing style or your infatuation with drama. '''
'''Not a chance''' —
'''Oppose:''' [[Talk:Tina_Turner#Lead_section_issues|Based on this circular argument at Tina Turner]], followed by [[Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_22#Businessman|a similar dispute at Michael Jackson]] (in which CoM [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&diff=271942608&oldid=271856252 attempted to gain the support of Raul to delist Michael Jackson as FA because they found "the procedure on the FAR page...very complicated"]) I am mortified by this user's conduct with other editors as well as their approach to biographies of living people. The user has shown an [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22michael+jackson%22+%22businessman%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0 incapability to distinguish the verifiable definition of a single word] from [[User_talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult#Yay|their own personal opinion]]. As such, I have no faith the user is capable of properly interpreting broadly worded policies such as [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:PEACOCK]], [[WP:NPOV]], and most importantly [[WP:OWN]]. Due to a lack of understanding on how to open something as basic as [[WP:FAR]] and their history of aggressive, habitually Condescending attitudes, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust this user with administrative tools. In my 2-3 years on wikipedia I have '''never''' felt so strongly about opposing anyone.
'''Oppose'''. The issues with POV-pushing and warring are disconcerting and enough for me to oppose. Besides this you also didn't do yourself any favors by having DougsTech nominate you.
'''Oppose''' - As a productive editor frequently at the receiving end of ChildofMidnight's vexatious misrepresentations, edit warring, obstruction of process, accusations of bad faith, incitement and shielding of problem editors, and calls for my being banned or blocked, I hate to think what ChildofMidnight would do if actually given the power to do what he/she frequently advocates.  COM <s>edit wars</s> <u>has edit warred</u> articles to the point of edit protection again and again, claims as a justification consensus that does not exist, accuses article regulars of disruption for disagreeing, and jump<s>s</s><u>ed</u> onto pages of blocked and warned users to praise the problem editors while berating in harsh language the administrators trying to deal with them.  <s>I have seen editors do worse, but most of those editors are now indeffed or banned.  Of those that remain,</s> <u>Of all the good faith editors here</u> this one has without doubt been since the day they joined the <s>most disagreeable</s> <u>biggest</u> thorn in my side and waster of productive time here on the project.  <s>All in all, an utter misunderstanding or refusal to come to terms with Wikipedia's behavior policies.</s>  ChildofMidnight is a capable, intelligent editor with the skills to be a good Wikipedian.  And I think ChildofMidnight could be a very good admin too.  That he/she <s>chooses</s> <u>has sometimes done<u> otherwise, and the history and evidence of that, are best reserved for the ongoing Arbcom case in which <s>they are a party</s><u>we are both parties</u>.
'''Oppose''' - Based on statements such as calling the leads of several [[WP:FA|featured]] and [[WP:GA|good articles]] "crap" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tina_Turner&diff=270843705&oldid=270839820] and terrible [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tina_Turner&diff=271211224&oldid=271065198], pronouncing other performers/producers to be peons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tina_Turner&diff=270818546&oldid=270811265], insisting that the article contents supported an unsourced use of the descriptor "icon" regarding a singer coupled with posting google search pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tina_Turner&diff=271256933&oldid=271256245] suggesting other editors use it to source the content he/she added. He/she then took the same issues to other FA/GA articles, including [[Michael Jackson]], and even approached one of the heads of the [[WP:FA]] team to do a runabout to getting the Jackson article [[User:Raul654/archive19#FA review|delisted]]. Much obstinance and refusal to cooperate, displaying even a basic grasp of citation formatting, and in the end, only getting around to an [[Talk:Tina Turner#Apology|apology regarding behavior]] after the RfA began. What may have been the icing on the cake was the post made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tina_Turner&diff=271647195&oldid=271551284 here], which ignored the points made by every person who commented on the issues, including that we challenged ChildofMidnight's insertion of the word "icon", not based on our personal opinion, but on lack of sourcing, and the dismissal of the entire issue because he/she "had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!)" - including the aforementioned attempted [[Michael Jackson]] delisting. He/she then proceeded to encourage us to read [[WP:LEAD]], "so we're all on the same page as far as policy goes", despite our having tried for 4 days to make clear his/her changes were not in accordance with that. It all ended with encouragement to open a [[WP:RfC|request for comment]] to resolve the issues - although it was only ChildofMidnight who was on one side, because "I can't do all the work myself after all". I'm still trying to figure that one out. One of my first impressions was "POV warrior" and I've seen nothing in the time since to change that opinion. Did I say oppose?? No? Oppose.
'''Strong Oppose''' -  Firstly I'm concerned about the user ({{user|DougsTech}}) that nominated ChildofMidnight. For the user to think that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2&diff=prev&oldid=282661573 we already have too many admins], it's absurd that the user would then nominate someone. As to this nomination, secondly, I'm opposing this due to the blatant canvassing by ChildofMidnight not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=282826934&oldid=282764397 once] but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ScienceApologist&diff=prev&oldid=282902466 twice]. How does one "stumble" into a possible run for Admin when one is '''THE''' one that asked someone else to nominate them? Additionally, ChildofMidnight's recent and multiple violations of [[WP:REFACTOR]] (on user talk pages; he calls it spelling corrections but when you change around someone's comment to something totally different than what they said.. well..), [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], [[WP:POV]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:POINT]], [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:3RR]] as shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=282885963#ChildofMidnight_on_Barney_Frank_BLP here] prevent me from supporting this nomination. Tendentious and disruptive editing is unacceptable, even more so by an Admin. I have sooooooo much more I want to say about this user but I'll just leave it at this.'''-''' ℅ <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">
'''Strong Oppose''' - I only ever comment here if I feel strongly, and I feel strongly about this nomination.  I've only encountered the candidate at [[Tina Turner]] and [[Talk:Tina Turner]] and found the editing style tendentious and the conversation at the talk page very evasive in that the candidate did not particularly address the specific concerns of other editors.   This editor continued to push a highly biased viewpoint which was opposed by 4 other editors, who all gave clear reasons which cited examples and relevant policies.   This editor's responses demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise or any understanding of [[WP:CONSENSUS]] or for that matter [[WP:NPOV]].   The comment regarding [[WP:GA]] standards - "Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass." does not give me any faith that this editor respects other editors.  Then, after this RfA began - a pseudo apology appears in the [[Talk:Tina Turner]] page in which the editor says sorry for the behaviour but maintains the POV stance.  Usually I assume good faith, and I would like to here, but I see nothing to give me confidence.    Question: "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past....."  Answer: "No. Never. Well... maybe once or twice. :)"  - the short and correct answer to the question is obviously "yes".  I can't take this candidate seriously when even a simple and direct question isn't given a serious and honest answer.
'''Oppose''' - My one interaction with the candidate was at an AfD a little over a week ago, where he did not seem to have examined the matter very carefully before commenting.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SYNC_(webcomic)&diff=prev&oldid=284447576][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SYNC_(webcomic)&diff=next&oldid=284447576]  That's not a particularly big deal, but the issues other users have raised are harder to ignore.  I'm also perplexed by his answer to question 18: I can't see any way to read the diff that doesn't indicate that he directly accused another user of homophobia. —
'''Strong Oppose''' - This editor, from what I have seen of his interactions with the community, produces a great deal of unneccessary drama, and I believe granting him the admin tools would only exarcebate this drama.
'''Oppose''' per nom.  But I do appreciate your thoughtful answer to my question. '''
There are lots of things that I like about this candidacy. I think that asking Dougstech for a nomination despite not sharing his  views on adminship was an interesting and amusing ploy; I respect having a clean block log despite some controversial work. But "[[Talk:Tina_Turner#Lead_section_issues|Whoever is designating them as GA, if this statement is to be believed, is totally incompetent or has their head in their ass]]" was only in February and I don't want admins who talk about fellow editors that way. Also re Political editing, a classic political tactic is to stereotype an opponent as primarily representing one ethnic, gender or geographic community and by implication not representing a large part of the electorate that elected them. If you're going to work on Political biographies you need to be able to spot subtle attacks like that. ''
'''Oppose'''  CoM's statemnt above "My statement escalated the conflict and wasn't helpful. I was frustrated and I should have stepped away from the dispute." could apply equally to his/her involvement in the various Ayn Rand debates.  There is no evidence that admin powers would not be used in support of a very clear political agenda or the trivial (the bacon cabal).  The last thing you want is a player of games to have access to more tools.  --
'''Oppose''' - But absolutely not bothered in the least by the nom, and I see absolutely no reason why anyone else should be. Seems drama-prone, and the diffs and comments above lead me to believe that this candidate would be an inappropriate candidate for the bit at this time. If you were to come back and demonstrate that you had a good understanding of consensus, had moved away from the drama, had better policy knowledge, had improved your temperament, and generally moved on from the issues being presented here, I would consider supporting a future request. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose''' - Drama prone user who changes others talk page comments. As Neurolysis says, the diffs and comments make me feel that for the time being, he can't be trusted with the mop. I would suggest that he again reads Wikipedia's rules, understands them and probably re-nominates himself within 6-12 months. <strong>
As above. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' I am not going to fill up these pages with diffs, so I am simply going to state that the candidate has not shown either the maturity or discipline to be trusted with the tools. Their judgement would also appear to be faulty in that they are proceeding with this request despite the obvious antipathy to them gaining the mop at this time.
'''Strong Oppose''' per nom.
'''No thank you''' - drama central as it is - would be even worse if granted the tools.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I have serious concerns over your ability to remain neutral when using admin tools - you haven't had a great record of that as a regular editor, and the amount of drama that seems to follow you everywhere causes further worries. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' Recent events convince me this editor is not suitable. I had hoped that this RfA wouldn't take place as there has been enough drama in which this editor has been involved, and the outcome was never in question, even by the candidate. I'm not sure if this is faulty judgement as suggested by LessHeard vanU, or something else, but whatever, this RfA is unnecessary.
'''<s>BWAHAHAH<s>'''...er, '''Oppose''' - But in all seriousness, really, no.  Even if we set aside the questionable nomination by a controversial AfD participant and the nominee going about his merry business while the nomination festered for weeks before accepting, we're down to the main issue of behavior as an editor, which is IMO atrocious.  Numerous AN/I filings on the nominee...and equally numerous, petty counter-filings in retaliation, the incessant edit warring in Barack Obama-related article space, leaping to the defense of some of the worst now-banned POV vandals.  To avoid reinventing the wheel, many many links to diffs can be found [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence|at the active ArbCom case]] many of us are involved in.  It appears that the nominee can be a productive editor in non-political areas, but even if we did not have all of the above self-created wiki-drama, I do not see a real rationale for why admin tools are necessary.  This is not a user I would ever trust in a position of authority, one who regular users embroiled in disputes could turn to in good faith that they would be heard before an objective admin.
'''Oppose''', Comments above by {{user|Wildhartlivie}} and {{user|WereSpielChequers}} raise some concerns, among others, however like {{user|Neurolysis}} I agree that the user does some positive work on this project in multiple capacities, and I'd consider supporting at a future RFA at some point. '''
'''Oppose''' Per above.--
Serious concerns about this user's judgement due to the two direct approaches to users the community obviously does not hold in good standing.  I do not believe it would be wise to have an administrator who sees nothing wrong with an RfA nomination from DougsTech, Giano or ScienceApologist, all three of which have had genuinely worrying run-ins with the community.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. From my own, limited experience with CoM, from reading the links provided here, checking CoM's credentials, contributions and from reading the contents of this page, I would not have confidence in CoM's ability to effectively wield the mop. Amongst my most serious concerns are CoM's involvement in the disputes listed above, in which CoM has taken a rather heated part, as shown in the links above- particularly as regards the [[Barney Frank]] article, where, without looking for consensus, CoM has repeatedly added in material known to be controversial. Next, the trivial attitude shown through comments such as ''let the opposers speak for themselves'' and the answer to the question concerning disputes leads me to believe that CoM has set out, at best, with no real interest in becoming an admin and, at worst, with the deliberate intention to deceive the community in the hope that nobody would bother to check credentials before commenting- in direct defiance of the guidelines which state that administrators "must have gained the trust of the community". One need look no further than the answer to question 3 in order to gauge the  contempt in which this user holds the community whose trust has supposedly been earned. Further examples of the frivolity with which CoM treats this process are the blatant approaches of users canvassing for support and asking (of all people) DougsTech who is conspicuous at this debate only by absence for the nomination. Above all, CoM has deliberately avoided giving any solid answer to almost all of the questions, in particular the ones dealing with his editing. As such, I'm afraid I cannot possibly endorse this nomination- perhaps if CoM could keep his nose clean for a months, without causing major conflict and run for the right reasons, rather than the kudos, I could consider advocating his adminship.
'''Oppose''' According to some of the other opposes you have been very disruptive in the past. Maybe if you had a time of about 9 months of no conflicts and then went to RFA maybe. You seem like a strong vandal fighter and have done lots of article work but like lots of editors have told me, it's not about the [[Count Dracula|count]].--(
'''Oppose''' per the above opposes. Sorry, but I can't trust you with the tools.
'''Oh, Come On'''  Joke nom from the start.
Well now. After reading the brouhaha that ensued over this ''before'' transclusion, I am surprised this went live-- bad judgment? 19-- admitted bad judgment just this month. Too soon. 18 dropped the "troll" bomb. Too likely to fuel rather than extinguish a blaze. 1. Running through CSD to unilaterally reverse CSD's? We have DRV for that-- too likely to wheel war.  I could be wrong, but I have the impression that the candidate is someone whose ''temperament is unsuited for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  Research of the above comments and even a quick glance at the [[User_talk:ChildofMidnight|Nominee's talk page]] produces a result contrary to the [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|end goal]].  I give ChildofMidnight by strongest support to continue where he does
'''Oppose'''. Extremely poor choice of nominator.
'''Oppose''' - Yes, I'm piling on. I am utterly baffled by the choice of nominator - and the nominator's willingness to boot.
'''Oppose''' — silly nomination in the first place.
The judgment and behavioral issues are one thing, but the nomination leads me to question how seriously CoM takes this. –'''
'''Neutral''' Already seeing from these supports and opposes, I cannot go either way. On one end, he has done good work, but his attitude leaves much to be desired. <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Weak neutral''' - I came here to support, but the oppose arguments have me worried. Will return in a few days. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Neutral'''. I realise some editors hate this section, but I hate piling on with opposes to RFAs that are obviously going to fail. I don't think ChildofMidnight should be an admin at this time, but I don't think he deserves the fiercely negative reception he's got so far either. When I saw how many opposes this RFA was getting, I assumed ChildofMidnight must be some kind of vandal or tendentious editor; but having taken a look at his edits, that doesn't seem to be the case. What I see is a user who has good intentions and does genuinely want to improve Wikipedia, but keeps getting into disputes and isn't very good at resolving them. Those disputes - for example, the edit-warring at [[Barney Frank]] - are enough to stop me from supporting this time. However, I recognise that ChildofMidnight has apologised for his past mistakes, and seems to be making improvements already - as shown, I think, by his answers to the questions. My advice to him would be: don't get too put off by the level of opposition here, but understand that you don't need to be an admin to be an effective contributor to Wikipedia. Moreover, not everyone who might make a good admin passes RFA. Basically, I think ChildofMidnight has a low chance of passing RFA, based on his previous behaviour; but that shouldn't stop him trying to be a good editor. What's important is not who has the tools, but who ''acts'' like an admin, in a calm, reasonable and collaborative manner. If you keep up to admin levels of behaviour, then people will admire and respect you accordingly; and who knows, maybe you'll eventually pass RFA after all. You're not there yet, but if you take the time to learn the rules and skills of working cooperatively, one day you might be.
'''Moral Support''' Basically [[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]]. I like the breath of fresh air, I like the devotion and full-steam-ahead boldness, and indeed I intended to fully support the candidate in the beginning.  I'll try to avoid a "tldr" post, and simply say that Child's response to Black Kite's deletion of the RfA, and a few of the ensuing comments left me doubtful of Child's judgment.  I admire the desire to improve articles, and I think the project has benefited from your addition to our collective; however, I think you need to learn how to work from ''within'' the community more.  It's good that you stick up for others, and that you don't get vindictive, but I think you need to learn that when the community as a whole has achieved consensus on a matter - it's best to accept that.  We're not here to provide an amusement park, or your own personal fun-house.  It's good that you enjoy what you do, as volunteers, we all should do likewise; but this isn't a project designed as a playground, and I think your lack of experience clouds your judgment at times.  I encourage you to continue, and I won't pile-on oppose, but I think it's obvious that you're not ready to be an admin. yet.  You don't have to ''go-along'' just to ''get along'' Child, but you do need to learn how to avoid going against the grain.  I understand that your's is not the path of least resistance, but you don't have to alienate folks just to get to where you're going.  Best of luck, and I look forward to working with you in the future. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' This is obviously not going to pass so I'm not going to oppose, but I don't feel that he would make a suitable administrator.
I'm uncomfortable with the level of drama, that's all. '''
'''Neutral'''  I would certainly have preferred a more absolute answer to my question, and WP definitely needs admins,  and some of the opposes are not necessarily based on the issues we ought to be considering.
'''Neutral''' Opposes give me pause.
'''Neutral''' - Even if a miracle were to take place, this RFA will fail. So, I'm not going to oppose. Please work on your problem areas.
'''Support''' Great user. One of the most helpful to newbies. I personally have mainly seen him in bot areas, where he interacts with others well. Also I've had a look at a few of his edits on admin areas, such as deletion, and am impressed. Fully trust this user with the tools. I'll expand if need be :) -
'''Support'''. Looking through the candidate's deleted contribs (back a month or so), I see a lot of good CSD tags. I agree that there were some questionable tags, as noted, and I'd like to see the candidate take more caution before actually hitting the delete button, but I think this is more of a volume issue than a quality issue - with as many tags as I'm seeing, surely a few will be questionable. Looking at the <s>250+</s> 150+ CSD tags from this candidate over the last month, if only half a dozen were bad, I'll take it. I also see some thoughtful nominations to AFD, which speaks well for the candidate. In short, I'm unconcerned. No objection to granting the tools. Good luck, [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 12:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC) <small>Some of those aren't csd tags. Revised number is more accurate, pending a line-by-line count - which I guess could be done if questions remain.
'''He isn't already?''' except I knew he wasn't. Chzz is helpful at [[WP:AFC|AfC]], answers those ever-important {{tl|helpme}} questions and is a great article contributor. <span style="font-weight: bold; color: #404080">
'''Weak Support''' I think Chzz will be a good administrator if he can stay away from things that push his buttons. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone deserves the opportunity to learn and grow from them. Hopefully we can be supportive of him if things get too hot, as hopefully he would if we find ourselves in a contenuous position.
'''Support''' Other than being one of the single most helpful people I've come across on here, Chzz displays a very good understanding of the intricacies of policies. I totally take on board SoWhy's concerns below, and would suggest that, should this RfA pass (and probably even if it doesn't) is go slow and steady with CSD. I remember when I used to tag for CSD that it's easy to get carried away with getting things done as fast as possible, and I certainly see admins deleting faster than I do to blast through the 100 page backlog that builds up. Tag, use the preview, check the article meets the requirements on the template, '''then''' tag it. Avoid using Twinkle when it could be borderline.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]—Peter's oppose is concerning, but I still feel that Chzz is likely to be a net positive if granted +sysop. As others have mentioned, Chzz dedicates their time to helping newcomers, something that's more important than ever at this point. –'''
'''Support''' - the response to SoWhy's concerns is thoughtful and detailed, so I think overall he'll make a good admin.
'''Strong Support''' Very helpful to new people. I just can't see a valid reason for why (s)he shouldn't be an admin. I give my full support for him/her. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color: blue;">
'''Support''' without hesitation. I reviewed the opposition, and don't see much to be concerned about. Why? Because Chzz has been incredibly open to constructive criticism and has shown the willingness and ability to improve. All of us make mistakes from time to time. Chzz shows maturity and good form by acknowledging mistakes. That's a huge plus for an admin. Additionally, I have witnessed Chzz in action just recently. We had a guy ([[Jon Butcher]]) come in with his PR agent and write a big fluffy article. When people started removing the content as unsourced POV, both the artist and his agent started asking for help at [[Talk:Jon Butcher]]. Rather than biting, Chzz calmly helped them by giving them relevant information and help [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckandthor#RE:_Jon_Butcher_Wiki_page-_help_.21_2 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JBAxis here]. Many editors would have just templated them to death until they finally gave up in disgust. As seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chzz/Archive_16#Jon_Butcher here], Chzz even remained calm in the face of more hostile rhetoric from the PR agent. As a result, we still have a useful dialog going with those people and we might yet salvage a useful article out of it. Net positive, for sure. --
'''Support''' Seems good.
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Support''' - the concerns about his AFD tagging remind me of my RFA. Remember that CSD taggers may fall back on the experience and judgment of the reviewing admins. Reviewing admins need to be spot on - CSD taggers are allowed a few mistakes here and there. I'm sure that as a reviewing admin, Chzz will use a very discerning eye. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''YES, PLEASE'''
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more administrators like Chzz. He works tirelessly to help new users become accustomed to the project and feel welcomed. God knows we all make mistakes occasionally, and I've never seen anything in him that would make me believe he would use admin tools to force his opinion, however right he feels it is. '''''
'''Support''' - he/she is very knowledgeable about policies, follows through, patient, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz&diff=322323172&oldid=322323046 admittedly imperfect] which is perfectly human (and refreshing), and a very devoted regular at [http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help wikipedia-en-help]. In fact, his/her efforts there at the front line of new editors is something that I think all admins should spend time doing.
'''Support''' Neuro and I have something in common, in that I also recall similar concerns at my second RFA, and I believe as he does that Chzz can and probably already has learned from these tagging errors. Every interaction I have ever had with Chzz leads me to believe he has a strong understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works, and we could use more admins who are willing and able to help other users.
'''Support''' Not concerned with the alleged errors. In fact, I dispute that tagging [[The Queen Project]] was inappropriate: weasel words and wikilinks are not assertions of notability.
Moved from neutral. '''
'''Support''' Per above and WTHN?.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Chzz does an excellent job of working with new Wikipedians; this particular skill is quite rare in administrators, and I believe this is a talent we need to encourage. Communication and collaboration is solid here; adding the administrator tools will just help him be that much more proficient in what he is already doing.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''. Confident that the editor will take on board legitimate concerns raised by opposes.
'''Strongest possible support'''. An excellent user. The CSD work highlighted by SoWhy and Chzz's responses to his points show nothing except a user willing to learn from his mistakes.
'''Strong Support''': Chzz is one of the most friendly users I've worked with from the time I am active on Wiki. He would definitely make a very good administrator. '''<font color="#003366">
'''Support''' This guy knows his stuff bro, if it was up to me I'd say make this guy da president of wikipedia. I'm new to this though an cant figure out where da sandbox is and I dont wanna be messing around on real pages so could someone help me out. I tried posting on my talk but nobody has responded. Thanks, peace and good luck on ur Admin request bro {{
'''Support''' After carefully considering the opposes below, and examining the candidate's work in welcoming newbies and expanding content, have decided that Chzz would make a good admin. --'''''
'''Support''' Chzz seems to be a wonderful contributor and I hope that he will be a fine administrator.
'''Support''' No doubts here! <span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Strong Support''' - Chzz is very active in the Wikipedia channels and is very helpful to new users and others who need help sorting out article issues. He's an excellent contributor and the Wikipedia community would largely benefit from his patience and skill.
'''Strong Support''' - extremely helpful user, and, [[WP:BELLY|assuming the presence of a belly button]], the CSD tags mentioned below were simply mistakes out of the so very many times he got it right too.--
'''Support''' Your ready, great user. Good luck. ~
'''Support''' Helpful, trustworthy user. [[User:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="lime">*Pepper</font>]][[User talk:Pepperpiggle#top|<font color="grey">piggle*</font>]]
Support per Risker. Hopefully Chzz takes the opposition below on board; he seems the sort to do so.
'''Support''' User has been here since 2008.
'''Strong Support''': This user is really good. He actually had to become an admin long ago but never mind, it is never too late! <span style="border:1px solid #000075">

'''Support''' I trust this user, having had a look at his contributions and general conduct. '''
'''Support''' Opposes below are not enough to prevent supporting this candidate. Having a 6% error rate (6 "wrong" out of 100+ taggings) in CSD is not a problem in my opinion; if we required perfection nothing would be done. The fact that Chzz recognizes the mistakes is enough for me. Judgement issues mentioned below are also not a major concern to me, I would just encourage the candidate to be less "bold" with admin actions that he was with the actions brought up below. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Super Strong Support'''. There's nothing wrong with that. Anyways, this user is delicate in helping ouy newbies. I trust him to be a mop-holder with full responsibilities, on any project cope of the Wikimedia Foundation.-
'''Support''' I notice SoWhy's highlights in the oppose have swayed several editors. Firstly a few minor errors in judgement during extensive CSD tagging are not to my mind a reason to believe Chzz will do anything other than a good job. Also PeterSymonds arguments are pushing the limits. If we take the two opposes together we would wish all of our admins to be [[automaton]]s with no strong oppinions on anything. If that is the way wikipedia is to go then I would prefer not to be involved. Then we come to the complaint of JamieS93, well what to say? Some even more incorrect speedy tagging which if it was last month I would say 'oppose' but Chzz has over 4 months and 14,000 edits since then and in counter argument, although those articles should not have been speedy tagged they should also not have been added in the state they were added in. Reahad was not a new user and could have been expected to know better at the time.
I haven't dug deep into Chzz's history the way most of you have, and since I'm not an admin I'm not even sure if I'm qualified to post anything here, but I just wanted to say that Chzz was extraordinarily helpful and pleasant during my recent interaction with him/her, and from my standpoint as a casual Wikipedian, it's always really nice to come across an admin like that. –
'''Support''' This would have been strong, but I think the concerns that PeterSymonds raised are a bit concerning. ≈ '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Here from neutral, Chzz is a great editor and would be a net benefit to the project with the tools. I think he understands fully the concerns of the opposers and I trust that he will apply stricter qualifications for speedy deletes, and not use the tools when he is involved in disputes. '''
'''Support''', with reservations. Concern, like others, about CSD tagging, but cautiously confident Chzz will take the admonitions to heart. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' Chzz helped me settle in to Wikipedia back in February, and I couldn't contribute ass well to this encyclopedia without him.
'''Support''' I've had a few encounters with Chzz, and all of them were positive. It's good that he's willing to reply rationally to any questions about his history editing Wikipedia.
'''Support''' based upon my interaction with him, I feel he would be an asset as an admin. '''
'''Support''' Helpful user with whom I have had many positive interactions. Opposes below are admittedly weak.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Chzz. —
'''Weak support''' Would be stronger if it wasn't for CSD concerns (see oppose section).
Delayed. No brainer. '''
'''Support'''.  We need the admins.  Chzz has a quick mind and in a little more time he'll have clue.—
'''Strong support'''. Very helpful to newbies like me. For me he is already an admin....--
'''Support'''. I had a few concerns about the incidents mentioned below.  However, the candidate seems to have a very positive and reasonable attitude on the whole.  We shouldn't make this process impossible - administrators don't have to be perfect! —[[User:Finn Casey|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color=" #660033"><b>Finn Casey]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Finn Casey|*]]&nbsp;[[User:Finn Casey/adminship|*]]&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Though there are a number of concerns elsewhere on this page, Chzz's net gain for the project far outweighs his/her errors. Additionally, Chzz is extremely open to feedback, and appears eager to learn from one's own mistakes (Chzz's openness and level-headedness with regards to the discussion of his/her own mistakes itself is commendable). -'''
'''Support''' - Been watching for a while and have decided to support. '''
'''Support''' : a supportive and mature editor; will be a helpful sysop. - <font color="green">
'''Very Strong Support''' I have been acquainted with Wikipedia for several years, and have been contributing for about a year. I am based in Thailand part of the year, and can report that very many Thai university students use Wiki when writing English term papers. In my editing, I have had to rely on Chzz several times for assistance, advice, and direction. I have found him to be a perfect gentleman, very courteous, and extremely knowlegeable. His services are a huge asset to Wikipedia, and he will be among the best administrators if he is so appointed.

'''Support. I think (s)he deserves it.''' I think it would be good to let him/her have the mop. Besides, the right can always be taken away, but I doubt that. Good luck buddy! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Weak Oppose''' A good candidate but their work in CAT:CSD, an area they expressed to wish to work at as an admin, suffers from beginner's mistakes, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanayu_Ashitaba&diff=prev&oldid=315006537 A7 for fictional character], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everything_%28software%29&diff=prev&oldid=320255879 G11 for an article that even contains criticism of the subject], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badener_Greifs&diff=prev&oldid=317779139 A7 for a club that played at the highest level of its sport], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bright_Eyes_Sunglasses&diff=prev&oldid=317250136 G11 without advertising content], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMFJ&diff=prev&oldid=316887895 A7 with claims of importance and a reliable source] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Queen_Project&diff=prev&oldid=316845629 A7 for a band consisting of notable musicians]. Those taggings (all declined within the last month) demonstrate that the candidate has not yet the necessary grasp on the speedy deletion criteria (especially G11 and A7) to be trusted with the deletion button - which is a shame because he has shown to a be very good candidate for adminship otherwise. Regards '''
'''Oppose'''. Chzz is a helpful editor, but is not level-headed when discussing things close to him. I remember [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_47#Appropriate for the main page?|this discussion]] regarding censorship on the main page. Despite the obvious opposition to that hook, Chzz continued to force his own opinion by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=295564893 approving the hook] against consensus, regarding his own position as the legitimate one ("...it's clear from the discussion that there is no policy reason to prevent this from going ahead."). A similar discussion occurred [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=307910299#Fuckin.27_.27Ell_It.27s_Fred_Titmus here], again regarding his own opinion as the only legitimate one ("''This sort of thing that is decided by the community via agreed policy. If you think that policy needs to change, then suggest changing it. In the meantime, please adhere to the policy.''") I find Chzz too quick to consider his own opinion, or interpretation of policy, as a legitimate reason to act without consensus, and this is quite alarming for a potential administrator. I am thus opposed for now. <font face="Arial">
'''<s>Very Weak</s> <s>Very Strong Oppose</s> Hell No'''.  I came here to support but, well, several of the issues noted above are, regrettably,  concerning.  Chzz has made some excellent contributions to the project, with a particular emphasis on excellent.  However, the recent CSD mistaggings noted by SoWhy are a cause for concern, especially since Chzz intends to work in that administrative area.  On top of that, the diffs noted by PeterSymonds, are definitely not a plus, but I guess we all have our own opinions - just try not to press them on others in the future.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong oppose''', I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=323193487&oldid=323193109 don't] need to explain myself further. <small><s>'''Oppose'''</s> There is no denying that Chzz is a very helpful editor - and this is not to negate his boundless efforts with the welcoming and helping of newbies. However, I have several concerns and am agreeing with PeterSymonds. Some fairly recent actions, such the DYK hook, seem to indicate his underlying tendency to consider his own opinion higher than others. This could be problematic if he gains admin tools and starts making decisions contrary to consensus. I also have a general concern about his view on speedy deletion. Although it was a few months ago, I can't help but remember [[User talk:Reahad#Your new articles|this incident]]. To give some background, new user [[User talk:Reahad|Reahad]] created several one-line articles (I believe six) about notable individuals; Chzz tagged all of these pages under A1/A3. The application of "no context" in this case was questionable, and along with that, the author was actively starting to expand the articles, as promised in his edit summaries. I decided to decline the CSD tags and keep an eye on the situation, because it only made sense to let the author continue to expand his pages. During this time I had an off-wiki conversation where Chzz considered my use of "admin discretion" as bothersome, which [[User:Cubs197/chzz left|in part]] led a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chzz&diff=296438827&oldid=296392060 wikibreak]. This whole case, as an example, causes me to question his judgement and reactive tendencies. This is not meant as retaliation - rather, I'm just judging based on my past experiences with him, and it leads me to oppose.</small>
'''Oppose'''.  The responses to SoWhy show that the candidate has not grasped some important principles of speedy delete despite having his errors pointed out and could not currently be trusted with the tools.  You cannot determine that something is "exclusively promotional" because it contains spammy phrases.  Speedy delete requires it to be ''entirely spam''.  If you remove the spam and the article still contains anything at all it is not a speedy candidate (at least not under G11). A deal more experience is required and some indication that the candidate understands the effect these decisions have on article contributors, especially new ones. I am also concerned that he seems to think that a long list of correctly tagged speedies makes up for the errors - it does not, it is better to let 100 bad articles live on for a little longer than to lose a single good new editor.
'''Oppose''' - Per CSD concerns and especially the specific responses. Candidate doesn't appear to approach CSD cautiously.
'''Oppose''' Per CSD concerns, especially the ones raised by SoWhy. If you plan on working with CSD, you'll have to fine tune your tagging.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Strong oppose''' - While there's nothing inherently wrong with having strong opinions and not always "going with the flow", I'm concerned that Chzz doesn't always know when to back off and defer to others, as evidenced by the discussion Peter referenced. I'm also concerned about the "''there is no policy reason to prevent this''" attitude - policy does not trump common sense. Comments like this make me wonder whether or not Chzz looks at situations from a practical, common sense point of view, or only "Policy says this, so do it." At one point in the discussion, another editor claims that he's applying common sense and Chzz dismisses it as [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] (which is, somewhat ironically, only an essay). Also, while it may have been worded differently in June (I didn't check), its not at all clear from the current wording that NOT#CENSORED would even apply to DYK hooks (calling into question Chzz's interpretation of it). <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' per evasion of what I would consider the appropriate procedure to get the AbuseFilter editor right.
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy's diffs on candidates CSD work.
'''Oppose:''' I often disagree with ArcAngel but he is right on this call. -
'''Oppose''' Judgment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=295564893 issues] + CSD concerns.
'''Oppose''' I like the candidate, but the only way to know if someone understands the use of  speedy deletion is to see how they work with them in real situations. The mistakes made are simply too many, and are in due both  to misunderstanding of the rules and also to not carefully reading the article. Rules can be learned quickly, but a tendency to work too hastily can be a sticky problem. I would not want to support without seeing evidence that there has actually been improvement, in say, 3 or 4 months from now.   '''
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' per CSD concerns.  You say you have good "stats" with respect to CSD tagging?  Could not believe you would seriously say that in an RfA. Ouch. <s>Furthermore, Question 19 casts a dark, dark shadow over this RFA, and calls the whole thing into question.</s> You flat out lied. Wow.
'''Strong Oppose''' I wrote the [[Everything (software)]] article, my first. I was astonished at how quickly the thing was tagged for destruction, two days, but what really floored me was that two days after he lost his bid for Speedy Deletion, he returned and reduced the article to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everything_%28software%29&diff=next&oldid=320537305 one sentence, a link to the publisher's website, and some intra-Wikipedia links], then recommended that it be deleted for lack of notability and for blatant advertising. [[Talk:Everything_(software)#Regarding_editorial_vandalism | I called it vandalism then]], and I stand by that statement. Today he returned and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everything_%28software%29&diff=next&oldid=320969357 tagged it as Original Research], deciding perhaps that the author of the software should say more and not less, and marking his addition as a [[Help:Minor edit|Minor Edit]] to avoid review. This is clearly a guy that stops at nothing to get his own way, an editorial Alexander slicing through his Wikipedian knot. Too quick to cut really, for a collaborative publication that depends at least in part on the participation of amateur writers. It would be a serious mistake to trust this individual to judiciously exercise any authority given him. Perhaps he was only plumping for his upcoming election, but is that really better than petty vindictiveness?
'''Oppose''', per PeterSymonds. Concerns over policy interpretation as a result of previous interactions. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per CSD concerns. Too many mistakes too recently. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]


'''Oppose''' Too many issues involving potential secondary account influence here, per Soap and Q19, together with Q15 issues. In a word –trust.
'''Oppose''' per Soap and I don't believe your answers to questions 15 and 19.
Sorry, too many concerns have been brought up in opposition. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Something fishy is going on with this user and other accounts.  With no adequate attempt by Chzz to explain what's going on I cannot support. --
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz&diff=prev&oldid=323069656 Pending a very good explanation for what appears to be abusive socks]. Likewise, you're hamfisted attempt to cover it up explain it away convinces me that you're probably dishonest.
'''Oppose''' per CSD tagging concerns which I've now had a chance to review in detail, and other concerns raised above.--
'''Oppose''' per sock concerns per above. --
'''Oppose'''Seems to be ''unanswered questions'' concerning alternative accounts brought up by opposers.
Crap, sorry Chzz, I have to move to oppose "per WTF from co-nom" (see Q19), Q15, Soap, and also partly per TwilligToves.  <s>Conceivably a checkuser/crat could help sort out the mess, but it's probably too late in the game for that.  I would have no trouble at all voting for you after 6 months if there are no future similar issues, assuming you're cooperative in giving the voters the information they need in the next RfA, and I'm sure you will be. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)</s>  ... And now also per the SPI.  Oops.  Not looking good. - Dank (
Per (i) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=295564893 this] DYK diff by PeterSymonds. Putting that hook on the ''main page'' might surely discredit wikipedia and clearly ''pushing'' to do that was against all formal and informal policies. Thinking about well-being of WP is a must and one fault of this kind could cost too much. Per (ii)  unexplained Q19. I've slept over this and realized that with all my admire to Chzz's enormous dedication and hard work for WP, I can't advise admin privileges until the case is explained.
'''Oppose''' per concerns voiced by other users above. --
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but the CU evidence destroyed it. I really wanted to support but, yeah.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FChzz_.28Moved_from_Talk:RfA.29]] and the answer to Q5.
'''Oppose''' (move from support) We have recently two sockpuppetry incidents of administrators, no more drama with that needed.--
'''Oppose''' - Chzz spends a considerable amount of time trying to help new contributors, but after reading and finding out about his 龗 account, I'm going to have to oppose. He double voted in a few occasions that I found, such as [[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]'s RFA and [[User:Keegan|Keegan]]'s OS election (at least attempted in that one, but wasn't able to due to the requirements for accounts to vote).
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chzz]].  Am willing to await the editor's explanation before making other comments, but further action outside RFA may be appropriate here. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Obviously.  I would probably support a community ban here, too.  —
Per checkuser findings. Undisclosed sockpuppetry. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per sock issues. Would be willing to change if there's a convincing explanation, but until then opposing. --
'''Oppose''', per sockpuppetry, and more. On this very page you have declared "guess I'm not very good at 'socking' :-)", "I have never made any other edits with any other accounts", "Nothing to hide here; I appreciate how important this is", and even when tackled, you brush it off as "wonderfully ironic". Assuming this sudden row is not all a tragic misunderstanding, that is audiacious dishonesty and betrayal of trust, and obviously, totally unbecoming of an administrator. I can't support an admin who would consider themself quietly above the rules (though I like [[WP:ROUGE]] and the rest, which are all in good fun). Before this, I was watching this RfA and have been quietly dismayed by your drive-by truncations of articles without trying to add to them (e.g., [{{fullurl:Brickwork|diff=281472281}}]). Sorry. :-( I will change to a weak oppose if there is a convincing explanation for your connection with 龗, though I'm not foreseeing one. •
I was not planning on participating in any RfA's for the next month unless I felt strongly for/against a candidate (or I simply couldn't resist a pile-on). My gut reaction would have been to support; I've seen Chzz's name around and I thought he'd be good for the role. But given the socking evidence, particularly the double voting, I have to oppose. His response and further evidence proving his identity to be the same as that of [[User:龗|龗]] (Hiberniantears's question, the vote at Keegan's OS election) demonstrate that it is very unlikely to be anybody other than him. If Chzz has indeed socked, then I would hope that he admits to it, apologizes, and promises not to do it again. I oppose a site ban in this case because other than this debacle, he's done great work and I hope he continues.
Move from support. Sorry, but having alternate accounts is one thing. Lying about them when directly asked is another issue. Sorry. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive]]
'''Oppose''' due to socking issues. I was ready to support, but then this happens. Abuse of undisclosed sockpuppets is absolutely not to be tolerated, especially for an admin. Chzz has done some great work around the project, but this is a dealbreaker. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Oppose''': CSD, close paraphrasing, etc. - all these can be fixed with experience. What can't be fixed is the betrayal felt if a candidate fails to disclose socking. I've reviewed the contributions of both users and it is clear that 龗's edits occur in blocks that exactly fit into gaps in Chzz's edits. It means that the two accounts never edited at the same time, making the possibility of internet café or library, etc. very unlikely. --
'''Oppose''' per socking issues.
'''Oppose'''. Has gone out of his way to show that he cannot be trusted.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' <small>moved from support</small> The recent sock issues just killed it for me. Particularly with the recent higher-profile sockings and all. And you dug yourself into a deeper hole by apparently lied about it. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Oppose''' (originally support, then neutral) for the sockpuppetry.
'''Oppose''' Mostly per the socking issues, but also PeterSymonds' concerns, and the CSD problems.--
'''Oppose''' - Per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. Absolutely not, I'm rather happy that you accidentally edited with 龗 so that this was able to come out. Good luck with trying to run again. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' The possible socking does not augur well. --
'''Oppose''', the failure to address the sockpuppetry issue is not acceptable.
On account of the sockpuppetry. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Moved from Support to '''Strong Oppose''' due to sockpuppetry.
'''Oppose''' Regretful oppose per the socking concern - we don't want that in an admin. </big><strong>
'''Oppose''' - Very disappointed about this, but I have to oppose. We've had too many problems with sockpuppetry among new administrators. -- '''
Infinitely sorry ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose''' - When I saw Chzz's name here, I thought that I might be able to support (I've come across the candidate quite often on the Help Desk when answering questions), but the sockpuppetry concerns prevent me from supporting. The fact that the candidate appears to be lying about alternate accounts, and some of the edits involved means that I just cannot support this candidate ''without a very good explanation (which I can find acceptable) from Chzz'' -- '''
'''Oppose''' Echo concerns of sockpuppetry above. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' removed my support earlier hoping for a logical explanation of the sockpuppet issue.  After reviewing all the information Chzz's explanation does not give a logical explanation of the issue.  SpinningSpark does a great job of summarizing the issues, there are to many unexplained issues left.  '''
'''Oppose''' One editor, one vote. Anything less subverts fairness (Justice) which should be an administrators bedrock. Not a good beginning.--
'''Strong Oppose''' I don't recall ever voting oppose on an RFA before. But I am deeply concerned about the almost certain (in my mind) illegal use of a sockpuppet account in the vote for an oversighter (both Chzz and the sock 龗 voted the same way on the vote page, HUGE no-no). The explanation that Chzz shares a private computer with somebody that Chzz doesn't know well, simply smells funny to me. Since I can't trust Chzz because of this, I can not support. I do note that this user has done great work and I hope tries RFA again after a year of more good work w/o socks or other issues. --
'''Strong oppose''' I am concerned over the 龗 account.  I don't feel answers have been straight forward or complete.  They are simply "He is someone else who used my computer."  The user claims their account is secure and always logs out, however that would imply they always log in.  I don't see how if they are so used to logging in that when they returned to their computer and tried to login they would not notice already being logged in as 龗.  Even if the user proves they are not 龗, that still would not alleviate my concerns.  I could have stayed neutral pending the outcome of checkuser if the security concerns were not present.  Granted there is no evidence that their account has been compromised, but it is hard to prove it has and it is hard to prove it won't happen in the future.  The user has admitted to unsecure habits and has given poor answers attempting to suggest some security mindset.  However, if the user manages to prove (unknown how) that they can keep their account secure, I may reconsider.--
'''Strong Oppose'''. Yikes. When I last looked at this RFA, I was unsure how to vote; there were some concerns with CSD issues and treatment of newbies, but it didn't seem quite strong enough to demand an oppose, so I decided to wait and come back later. Now the candidate's the subject of a sockpuppet investigation! Whatever's going on there, combined with the prior issues, that tips it right into Strong Oppose for me. I cannot say I trust this user.
'''Oppose''' per the sockpuppet incident.
'''Very reluctant oppose'''. I'm sorry Chzz - I came here to offer my utmost support once I saw that you were running for adminship, but after seeing the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chzz/Archive|sockpuppet investigation]], I have to oppose your adminship. I'm truly sorry, and I wish the best of luck to you. <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>
'''Strong oppose''' There's no doubt that Chzz has been an excellent contributor and hopefully will continue to be a good editor. That said, the entire sockpuppetry issue has basically resulted in a significant lack of community trust in Chzz, and community trust is necessary for adminship. At this point, I think the trust issue has crossed the line from "fishiness" to completely disbelieving some of Chzz's contrived explanations. Chzz claims that [[User:龗]] is an individual he doesn't know very well, but one with whom he has had conversations concerning Wikipedia. In spite of this, the 龗 account was [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive|confirmed]] by Rlevse as a sock &ndash; i.e. connected to Chzz at more than just that one point in time (the questioned edit to this Rfa, where Chzz changed the signature to a response). In fact, Rlevse has said, "What I found on CU goes way, way beyond chance level." Chzz's explanations for these issues are not convincing in the least. TParis00ap also makes an excellent point above. Just one of the many holes in Chzz's story:  If he was used to logging in and logging out rather than staying logged in, why didn't he notice that his computer (to wit, his ''private'' computer) was already logged in as 龗? Furthermore, if he doesn't know 龗 very well, why is the 龗 account based off of Chzz's private computer? As Spinningspark wisely noted, 龗 shows a lot of the signs of a sockpuppet: editing within gaps in Chzz's editing, participating only in areas that Chzz was also interested in. I'm not convinced at all by Chzz's attempts at explaining himself, and I'm disappointed to learn that a generally positive contributor like Chzz is involved in such behavior. Chzz's explanation regarding [[User:Jdzooks]] (see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chzz#Jdzooks here]]) is also extremely contrived and unconvincing. In light of all of the above, his answers to questions 15, 19, and 21 are apparently untruthful; I thus deem Chzz untrustworthy and cannot support his RfA.
'''Oppose''' per the sockpuppetry concerns and results of CheckUser. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per sock issues and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive|CU results]]. ···
'''Oppose''' for confirmed abusive sockpuppetry (see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive|SPI]] and comments by CU Rlevse [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz#Input_from_CU|here]]). Clearly this RFA shouldn't and won't pass; the only question is whether further action is required for betrayal of community trust and  that of good-faith RFA supporters.
'''Oppose'''. The explanation provided by Chzz is insufficient and leaves far too many questions unanswered. There are far too many coincidences here to be explained away by "it's someone I know, although not very well, who happens to use my computer A LOT". The fact that Chzz did not mention this before hand and tried to cover it up by switching the signatures is also not convincing in a forum where you are trying to demonstrate that you hold the community's trust. Based on Rlevse's findings, and the timing and editing style reports provided by other users on the talk page, this would be an easy {{confirmed}} result at SPI, where the sockmaster would likely be blocked for a few weeks if not indefinitely. I know Chzz does good work here, and I would very much like to be convinced that this isn't a case of abusive sockpuppetry, but the evidence against Chzz is making a lot more sense than Chzz's defense, and I still have a nagging feeling there's something we're not being told. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose''' Again, (as I comment in removing my support above) I suggest Chzz withdraw asap.  Even given the extra time extended to this Rfa, it is obviously going to fail due to concerns around sockpuppeting. Innocent or not, it ''looks'' real bad. Chzz, if innocent, should make an effort in clearing his name, and working to rebuild community trust. As of now, my own reaction is one of shock.  Few people enjoy being wrong; it is clear to me I was way off-base in my support. This will have the long-term effect of making me much more suspicious re: Rfa votes in the future. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' over sockpuppetry concerns. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' A few minutes checking out [[Everything (software)]] edit history and saw this is not a person you want as an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' The socks are enough to warrant a strong oppose, but the [[Swiss cheese (generic)|swiss cheese]]-like explanation is insulting.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too many concerns.
'''Neutral''': Chzz is a superb editor, and I am a great admirer of their work.  I was thrilled when I heard they'd finally agreed to stand for adminship, and saw myself supporting in a heartbeat.  However, the objections raised by SoWhy are difficult to ignore. I've come across many pages tagged for deletion by Chzz, and don't usually see problems, so would guess that valid taggings far outweigh the errors.  In spite of the errors, Chzz would almost certainly be a huge net-positive, but I think I will wait a while and see what other comments arise, before deciding whether to move to support. <span style="font-family: fontin, serif;">
'''Neutral'''. Really would like to support here.  Chzz is very dedicated as many have noted, but the first part of Peter's oppose is a sticking point for me.  I'm afraid there may be some problems with Chzz's sometimes rigid approach to things.
'''Neutral''': While I have not interacted much with Chzz in recent months, my extended interaction with him back in March related to the article [[OnMobile]] and other editors concerns about his CSD tagging has me concerned that he will be a little too quick on the delete button.  The OnMobile issue came up when he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OnMobile&diff=275334795&oldid=263792633 tagged the article as spam].  I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OnMobile&diff=275350309&oldid=275334795 declined the speedy] as I thought that the article was a mess, but not blatant spam.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OnMobile&action=historysubmit&diff=275350779&oldid=275350309 I cleaned up the article a little and tagged it for additional cleanup].  I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gogo_Dodo&diff=275363111&oldid=275244459 received a message] from Chzz asking me to reconsider my decline citing [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] which I found a bit odd.  My exchange with Chzz about the tag and decline is a bit easier to follow reading his [[User_talk:Chzz/Archive_2#Re: OnMobile|archive]].  After this, we both ended up editing the article and I felt that Chzz was being overly aggressive in trying to lead the article towards failing to meet notability requirements or removing what he perceived as spam. I point to the article history and the [[Talk:OnMobile|talk page for details]]. --
'''Neutral''' - I have only seen Chzz as helpful, but the CSD stuff worries me. Also, some of the links suggest that Chzz might become a bit hot-headed at times. If Chzz works on the two issues stated above, he will make a fine admin.
'''Neutral''' I've not run across Chzz for quite a while, but I always found him to be a joy to interact with.  The issues raised by SoWhy and others indicte that perhaps a few more months are needed before becoming an admin.  Fix those problems and I'll support the next time around!
'''Neutral''' Ditto Unionhawk and Airplaneman.  --''
Can't support with the concerns raised but I don't feel my opinion warrants an oppose either. <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
'''Neutral''' I have some worries over csd but they repreasent a small number compared to the other excellent work that is done, especiilay with the help provided to new comers. I do not think i will oppose the nomination for adminship.

'''Neutral'''. Questionable CSD work. Otherwise, generally good contributions.
'''Neutral''' He's a great editor, and helped me out on IRC when it really wasn't something he was into, but after looking through the above decision and especially the CSD stuff, I don't know which side to really take.--
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Hersfold|Hersfold]] et. al. Too many concerns here, and I don't think he explained his connection with 龗 well enough. Similarities between the timing of edits, the [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz|SPI]], and the [[WP:BN#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FChzz_.28Moved_from_Talk:RfA.29|BN]] thread are concerning. I will continue to follow this over the night; I may support if he can adequately explain what happened here, and will oppose otherwise. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' (moved from weak support, now leaning to oppose) - Too many concerns regarding his relationship with 龗.  I was supporting (weakly) and this is the straw that has broken the camel's back, so to speak.  Apparently, the CU evidence is "very convincing," enough to persuade me to go neutral.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral''': Moving from support until a better explanation is available on the sock issues. ≈&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Moved from support. I came here with a '''STRONG STRONG SUPPORT''' attitude, and voted in that manner. I just don't know what to say anymore. Disappointing.--
'''Support'''— No issues, good content contribution and AfD work. I'm not concerned about your wikibreak - it will be a net+ even if you use the tools rarely. –[[Special:Contributions/Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]<sup>
The RFA is evidently not likely to pass, but a few comments. L@@K - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bubble_(30_Rock)&action=history article work]! - nice to see someone who is not another mindless huggler (although I'm not sure about the NFC image on that article, but that's not a debate for here). A good well referenced well written article is worth many thousand vandalism reverts. Excellent responses below, calm, mature, not throwing your toys around because the RFA is failing. My misgiving is the jusgement in running when you were advised not to - but I think you'll learn from that. I feel confident in thinking an admin [[WP:NOTNOW|for the future]] but there are (albiet uncodified) standards at RFA on en.wikipedia and a great big editing gap is one that fits the criteria for many to oppose, as we see below. Happy editing - see you back here July time? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - Look, everyone, he's a user who writes featured content, and does more than revert vandalism. He even updates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:NATO/NATO_news&diff=prev&oldid=280160262 portals]. Has a good temperament, and apparently, a good head on his shoulders. Adminship is no big deal, and I personally think he would make a tremendous administrator. Opposes below aren't very convincing. There really are no problems here. Much luck,
'''Support'''. Knows what he's talking about, produces excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, and answers to questions and a review of his admin coaching page demonstrate he's got a clue about policies too. Considering RfA is a process that has, in the past, penalised candidates for using an admin coach in the first place I find it distinctly strange for somebody to get pile-on opposes for deciding the coaching process wasn't really getting him anywhere. Yes, KnightLago had an excellent point that Cool3 may not pass an RfA yet but I really feel that might be a problem with arbitrary RfA standards rather than the candidate. I can't see any evidence to suggest Cool3 would misuse admin tools at this point, whether by incompetence, inexperience or malice - and as such I am happy to support. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' Only two months of recent activity, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool3#Re:_Admin_Coach an admin coach who doesn't think you're ready], and eagerness to apply the tools in at least one deletion area.  I think your intentions are good but I think you need to establish a stronger reputation as a collaborator before requesting the tools.  Thanks for volunteering all the same.
'''Oppose''' - Your admin coach told you to wait, and yet you ran anyway. I'm sorry, but I just can't support. Not really looked at contribs in depth, but this shows a judgment problem in my opinion. As an aside, what happened to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3]]? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose at this time''' - Your failure to follow through with your ''commitment'' to [[User:KnightLago]] troubles me.  If you disregard his advice and your promise so easily, I'm concerned that you'll not take the admin. position with the type of ''commitment'' that is required.  Over-eager candidates concern me in that they may have an agenda, and lack the patience that is often required with the bit.  I'm open to review of my !vote once I've heard KnightLago's response to this RfA, if there are communications and agreements that I'm unaware of - I would consider a change in my position. —
'''Oppose''' Per Neuro. Never go against your admin coach, it doesn't [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 2|work]].--
'''Oppose''' per everybody above except for DougsTech. Recommend [[WP:SNOW]] closure/withdrawal. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per almost everybody.
'''Oppose''' Not yet ready and bad commitment to admin coach.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Weak Oppose''' I think your admin coach is bang on. I think as you entered into an agreement with him you should follow it. I do however commend your recent edits to the last two months, your on 'fire' great job ;)
'''Oppose''' Two things. First your admin coach has said your not ready. Second, per most of the other comments above, but the comment by DougsTech is not one of them.
Don't wish to pile on.
'''Oppose''' - Lack of project space experience and history of tendentious editing. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knowledge_Seeker&diff=next&oldid=69691893 This] concerns me deeply (the original diff, not you removing it, although that does pose more questions). Despite it being 3 years ago, you seem to have broken several rules around here by being blocked ''numerous'' times and having used a sockpuppet to try and get round it. When realising Knowledge Seeker was inactive, why did you remove the comment you left? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but until I know for sure I think I'm going to have to oppose this. Feel free to explain, it won't be considered "badgering". Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose'''Per Above.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Seem like a good editor, but your view on [[WP:NPOV]] ([[Talk:Common_Era#lack_of_consistency|as seen here]]) worries me.
For a user with such a tarnished history, I don't see any compelling reason to take the dive and give you the mop. You don't appear to have an urgent need for the tools, and don't plan on doing anything really special with them. You can still be a good editor without being an admin, and you can report vandals to AIV, lurk at AN3 and help give opinions in the more difficult disputes, etc. But unfortunately, I don't know if a user with your history can have the community's trust with admin tools. <b class="Unicode">
'''Oppose''' due to Cyclonenim's diff. The use of sock puppets concerns me, as any administrator should know that sockpuppeting for the purposes of block evasion is completely unacceptable. (edit conflict) <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per MacMed. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per the gut feeling I got when I looked at the block log. Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' so I can get a few words in before someone SNOWs this closed.  You're controversial and have a pretty bad block log, while at the same time being only moderately active, and only contributing in marginal ways to the encyclopedia.  For me to support you in a future RfA, you would have to be 1) Nominated by someone respectable, 2) have a great track record of recent activity and contributions, to include at least a few GA-level work, 3) have a good track record of recent contributions to administrative areas, so we can see what you'd do if given the tools, and 4) have no recent issues of incivility, controversy, or the like.
'''Moral Support''' Here for the moment, am waiting for some question answers and may move either way in response to them. I'm prepared to disregard blocks and other problems from more than a year ago, both because I believe in redemption and because pragmatically I'd rather that a user with a problematic history redeems themself than starts clean. However the BC/BCE discussion mentioned above indicates to me that you may still have some intolerance to some of your fellow editors. Also not quite happy about the F word userbox. ''
'''Oppose.'''Just over 500 edits. Maybe later.
Vandalizing [[holocaust denial]] two days before submitting an RfA makes it pretty unlikely to pass.
'''Strong Oppose''' Your block for Vandalism was only just over two months ago, I like to see much longer gaps between blocks and RFAs. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=321877476 this] is not the sort of edit I would expect from someone who might one day become an admin. ''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]], You don't have enough experience to understand policies and implement them.  '''
Recent vandalism = no. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' per vandalism and the tasteless Holocaust denial thing.
'''Oppose''', for the recent vandalism, lack of experience, and lack of pretty much any substantial statement of purpose above. It's not for me to judge who's tasteless, but vandalism is vandalism.
'''Oppose''' based on lack of visible experience with policies and recent vandalism.
'''Strong oppose'''. I especially find the answer to Question Five disturbing. Why would we possibly want to give you additional powers and responsibilities if that is your explanation for the edit you made just four days ago??
'''Strong support'''. ''Hell'' yes. Good experience, no red flags, clearly states why he needs the admin tools and how he will use them. I disagree with Pedro's assessment below - either the statement is sarcastic, in which case I don't care; or he likes to brag, in which case I don't care. It's probably the former, but either way, I don't see how this impacts whether or not we trust him with the bit.
Totally agree with Tan. '''
Count me as in agreement with Tan (and Miranda). No problems that I can see here. --
Seems fine to me. I read the statement on the userpage, and I interpreted it as humorous. I don't see how it's arrogant or why it indicates that Cryptic C62 will turn into a bully upon being granted adminship.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. The line that worked Pedro up i took to be humour, which i think is invaluable in an admin. Nothing indicates any likelihood to go nuts with the tools, no blocks and looks like he expects to avoid the hotspots, at least to start with. --
'''Support''' per Tan. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' No worries. '''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked and has various awards on userpage.  Best, --
{{User:IMatthew/V}} <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Serious scientific contributions, good use of edit summaries and communicates well. Some personal banter and braggadacio that seems a bit brash and American to me, but the clean block log and my trawl through the candidates contributions, talk page and talk archive reassure me that the editing attitude is OK, a quick look through your deleted contributions didn't unearth any skeletons either. As for the opposes, a reassurance from the candidate that links to potentially offensive sites will be more appropriately labelled in future would be appreciated. '''
'''Support''' I have no problems supporting this Triple Crown winner. Good luck!
'''Support''' - I find that statement on his userpage to be nothing more than humorous, but regardless, Cryptic C62 should be a fine administrator. As always, we have to ask ourselves if we can trust the user not to abuse the tools, and the answer is yes. &ndash;
'''Lean Support''' - I'm leaning support because I somehow didn't bite your head off during our dispute, which means that I didn't find a reason to not like you then. So, if that was then, and this is now, well, yeah. Plus, you know about ''Candide'', so that is a bonus.
'''Support''' per Juliancolton. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
I see no major red flags to suggest that this user will abuse or even misuse the tools.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' User has good edits and a good distribution over many areas of WP.  I'm not worried if Cryptic (or any potential admin) won't be using tools their fullest potential or doesn't "need" them - clueful editors like this benefit from having the tools, even if they're not 24/7 wiki addicts like (we know who we are).  <b>'''
'''Support''' Won't delete main page. Might poke fun at Most Glorious Revered Founder if provoked. Would do good work, I feel. Not stuffy. --'''''
'''Support'''.  He may put some humor on his user page, but I don't think he'd do it on the Main Page (except maybe on April 1).  Good record of contributions, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.
'''Strong support'''.  The oppositions appear to be flimsy and petty.  I am quite sure this user can be trusted and we should take the first step toward reforming the RFA process right here by promoting this candidate.
Absolutely.  One of the best workmates I've had the pleasure of collaborating with in ages.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
I think so. I think we need admins that keep a low profile.
'''support''' because my [[WP:NONEED]] oppose '''was''' a poor argument after all :) '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Strong Support:''' I know Cryptic in real life and can say quite assuredly that he can be trusted with all of the admin tools. Cryptic is a dedicated and responsible editor who will only be able to help our project more with a "mop" in hand. It's that simple: giving him adminship will help the project. Cryptic does not act in an "arrogant" fashion beyond posting witty sayings on his user page. He is a quirky person, but his editorship is impeccable, and admins are not supposed to be boring, which is what the oppose votes are asking him to be. --
'''Support'''—while on the one hand it would be nice if Cryptic C62 phrased some things in different ways, I don't see a significant chance that he will use the tools inappropriately. I don't see any evidence of significant misconduct, so I trust that that will continue to be the case, mop in hand. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support''' Should do nothing but good with the new tools. User seems sound of mind and can write content with the best of them. No prior incidents that would leave me to vote otherwise.
'''Support''' User is extremely unlikely to break the Wiki or delete the mainpage. Other than that, the user is civil, clueful and shows no negative character traits that I associate with poor admin candidates. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Strong Support''' User is extremely competent, know what he is doing, and will be a great addition to wikipedia.
Support.  Experience is in question, but I am supporting solely to make up for the couple of opposes based on a userpage joke, which I believe they have misconstrued.
'''Support''' -- cheerful, does useful things around here. --
'''Support''' userpage content doesn't bother me in the slightest (I understand it is a matter of interpretation, and AGF with the 'With the right amount of work, I can achieve any goal' one), edit summary usage is fine, also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. Valuable contributor, good answers to questions. The opposes, some of which are barely articulate, focus on perceived character flaws based on misinterpreted humour and cultural differences.
'''Support''' per Nihiltres.
'''Support''' Poses no threat to the project.
'''Support''' There are some very legitimate concerns in the Oppose section, but I think granting Cryptic C62 the tools would be a net gain for the project, as long as he (and don't take this the wrong way) grows up a bit. This RfA seems unlikely to pass at this point, but that might actually be a blessing in disguise. If it doesn't, Cryptic can take a few months and prove to everyone that the maturity concerns are overstated.
While lack of project space edits are a concern, but strong article writing is key, as it gives editors a perspective on all of the key wikipedia policies that vandal fighters and AFDers who usually pass a RFA without much problem lacks. I really want the oppose section to reconsider, we need more article writers administrators. Also the userpage thing isn't a big deal.
'''Support''' - I'd recommend that must of the opposers go read the [[humor]] article.  Multiple times if necessary.  Neither the "featured players" business nor the "I can do anything" should have any bearing on this.  I'm not sure why people are being so uppity.  The user appears intelligent, well-meaning, and willing to learn.  The user also appears to want the mop as a matter of practicality and I have no reason to believe this user will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' No red flags, I think yes for Cryptic to be a sysop.
'''Support''' - I agree with [[User:WereSpielChequers|WSC]].  I doubt that Cryptic's adminship would detrimentally add to the entropic processes within [[Wikipedia|The Wiki]]; I think it may be a net positive, actually.  I wish you a favorable statistical outcome.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not yet.  Also per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Oppose''' The opening on his user page makes him sound egosticital (I know I spelled that wrong).--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Oppose''' Not sure candidate understands the CSD process, based on nom statement and answer to Q1.
'''Oppose''' You want to work at <s>AFD and</s> CSD, but you have little experience <s>with either</s> there. Your work is good so far; when you've got more experience in those areas, I look forward to supporting.
'''Oppose '''per pedro. Arrogance and dismissiveness is your off-wiki personality? All right, I can buy that. Oh wait, you have a "raccoon-like ability to adapt" as well now? What happened to keeping it off-wiki? It is completely impossible to entirely seperate off- and on-wiki personalities, and if elements of your "off-wiki" personality as described on your userpage are going to leak into your "on-wiki" actions (which they eventually will) then you would not make an appropriate administrator.
I really like some of his recent work.  But he has a "listen to me, I'm always right" way of talking that really causes problems when it's coming out of the mouth of an admin.  I'm not saying he has a character flaw, and I might support him next time he runs, if he has worked hard in the meantime. - Dan
'''Oppose''' Hmm, I think it is interesting to note that Cryptic said he has no intention of working at AfD when [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ciraldo|this]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPeriodic_table_(extended)&diff=266977336&oldid=266949883 this] seems to say otherwise. Also, if the only reason Cryptic wants the tools for is because of CSD, I really don't see much experience with the process to show that he is ready for them. '''
'''Oppose''' I could make a glib comment or a 'per above' but I won't. The userpage is worrying enough that I would want to see more from him than than the spurt of editing in the last month (Indeed, the last few days, before the self nom). The user seems to indicate he wants to use the mop to 'sweep' up infront of him, and with such concerns and such a minor use of tools, combined it makes me say 'Not quite yet'. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --
'''Regretful Oppose''' You seem an eager and good editor, but for someone who says he wants to do speedy deletions as the only thing he wants the mop at all, you have virtually no experience in that area I could judge from. I simply cannot evaluate how you will use the tools if granted and, sorry for that but, I don't like to support someone I cannot predict at all. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' Even though you appear to be a decent article contributor, I noticed a problem with your lack of participation in the Wikipedia area. For example, edit count doesn't show me a single policy with more than 13 edits. I suggest withdrawal and re-nominating after 2-3 months in which you have had participation in [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AIV]], and others. Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Oppose'''; your statement "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cryptic_C62&oldid=272781141 I am one of the few Wikipedians to have improved an article to Featured status and maintained a relationship with a real person ''at the same time'']" is insulting to the entire [[WP:FA]] community; and, indeed, to the entire Wikipedia community as a whole. Hence, you do not show an attitude becoming of an administrator. '''
'''Regretful Oppose''' Excellent contributions, but I don't see enough administrative/ maintenance/ policy experience. His attitude worries me a little bit, "I love myself. I can do anything... I am one of the few Wikipedians to have improved an article to Featured status and maintained a relationship with a real person at the same time" rings of arrogance, sysops are  ambassadors for Wikipedia, and that type of attitude might come off as [[WP:BITE|bitey]] or [[WP:CIVILITY|uncivil]]. Branch out into XFD's, vandal fighting, and whatnot, give it a few more months and I will be very enthusiastic to support. '''
'''Oppose''' - Not to cause anyone to get "bumned out", but "anywho", this is one of the weakest and most self-serving arguments for adminship I have ever seen. He/she may othewise be a good editor, but definitely not admin material.
'''Oppose''' - Not seeing enough experience in the areas the candidate wants to work in. That said, <s>I take the 'insults' quoted above to be jokes, to be honest, but if they aren't</s> I think this user has the complete wrong attitude. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - I believe that you have good intentions, Cryptic C62, but arrogance (per Pedro) and low experience will not do if you want to become an admin.  Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - There is nothing more I can comment on than that I share the sentiments of others who have opposed your nomination. I do not feel you are ready yet to handle the admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too many valid concerns raised above. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' Per Fastily.--
Per inexperience concerns and Ironholds. Also concerned by q 11, where [[User:Pocopocopocopoco]] is pursuing a grudge against Jehochman who warned him for forum shopping ("asks for a second set of eyes"). That the admin candidate here may have "fallen" for this is concerning, but obviously Cryptic's answer is wrong in any case, as if a user asks for a second set of eyes '''and also''' does blockable things, blocking is appropriate.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I go with the many valid opposition comments above. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Arrogance.  Heaven knows we don't need more BITEy admins.
<cite id = yarg></cite>'''Unfortunate Oppose''' The sentence ''"I came to the conclusion that, for my own convenience and for the efficiency of the project as a whole, '''I should be granted administrator privileges'''''" is just way outside of the humility and maturity I would want/expect from the candidate. (
'''Oppose''' per question 7 and some other concerns above.
'''Oppose''' per It Is Me Here. Shameful.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above arrogancy issuses and lack of experience in mose administrative areas.
'''Oppose''' Per arrogance, lack  of experience and [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' -- Mainly due to his arrogance, a an admin should not have that.--'''''<small>
'''Oppose''' Like [[User:WereSpielChequers]], I couldn't find any skeletons in this editor's deleted contributions either. The problem is though, I couldn't find any experience. I cannot endorse a user getting the delete button with just 3 CSD taggings - ''whatever'' the user page. Simple as that really, sorry.
'''Oppose'''. "(...)for my own convenience (...)I should be granted administrator privileges". I think it is problematic that the candidate didn't immediately realize that this may come off as arrogant to some. <tt>
I'm sorry, but CSD is the main area you refer to in the first question, and I really can't see enough activity there to support your adminship. Consider reapplying in several months time when you have more experience in this area and others relating to the tools, and I know I'll give pause to re-consider. &mdash;<strong>
'''Oppose''' I hope it is just a question of inexperience, but anyone who really does think that administrators simply should routinely delete by Speedy rather than place tags for other admins to reviews has an unrealistic idea of his own accuracy and good judgment. Obviously there are some really necessary times to do it, but they're not all that common. '''
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but not yet ready for the mop, perhaps another time. I'm very nervous about the user's deletionist tendencies.
'''Oppose''' on the grounds of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cryptic_C62&diff=273697714&oldid=272781141 comments] on userpage. The actual unpleasantness itself is one thing, but that Cryptic didn't think to delete the comment long before an RfA suggests even poorer judgement than would be required to have written it in the first place. Also, not too happy with the "I only want the tools in case I need them" line, combined with lack of experience in administrative role-y areas. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose'''  for now based on lack of of more rounded experience. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral''' <s>Interesting candidacy. Opposes have reasonably good arguments, supports... not so much. Seems a bit overeager. [[User talk:Cryptic C62/Featured Players|What is this page for]]?</s> <span style="font-family:terminal">
Not mental. 850 active admins = need some more. However after sleeping on it I can't get over that user page comment. Also the FA comment and sub-page are less than impressive. Neutral it is. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - After seeing this RfA in its early stages, I was strongly inclined to vote a strong oppose.  However, given that text does not convey the "tone" of voice, and that it's often a fine line between arrogance and confidence - I decided to post a couple questions.  I appreciate the answers, and have decided not to oppose - however, I still believe that the candidate would benefit from a little more wiki-seasoning before receiving the tools.  In any event, I wish you luck Cryptic. ;)
'''Neutral''' Because of the attitude which others in the oppose section have described as 'arrogant'. I don't know if this is exactly arrogance but this is certainly not something I'd like to see in an admin. Even a new an inexperienced user should be able to approach an admin without being afraid of blown apart for making some mistake. This kind of attitude will do just the opposite. An admin should always have a helpful and inviting manner; if you step out of that line even a bit, people are likely to find that intimidating. This is a user I would have supported if not for this matter. Also as someone in the discussion said, maybe it's a cultural thing and I find it more troubling than others. So for these two reasons, I prefer being neutral than actually opposing.
'''Neutral leaning support''' A great user who just needs more experience in the admin related areas and/or more substantial article building. I saw only a few edits to the admin areas. Username related work is of no interest me in a candidate who wants to do CSD work. AFD work dovetails into CSD. AIV does as well, because you sometimes wind up blocking article creators that are creating vandalism and other problem articles. There are two broad paths one can go by to win my trust for RFA. One is the article builder/creator specialist who has done a substantial amount of encyclopedia building and also demonstrates knowledge of the block/protect/delete  policies or enough common sense to trust with the tools. (I see a hint of this, see question below. Most of what I saw was Wikignoming.)  The other is the admin related specialist who has substantial experience in the admin related areas and has also done wikignome and/or article building to a lesser degree. (Your user page says you've created 16 article. I only saw three. You also list some FA's/GA's there. Can you point me to significant edits to those?) Cheers,
'''Neutral'''. Some of the opposes give me cause for concern, and policy knowledge isn't especially good as indicated by the answers to questions.
Sorry, but your block was only four months ago in time and less than a thousand edits ago in experience. ''
'''Strong oppose''' This user has proven time and time again on [[Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder]] that they don't possess the maturity, patience, or common sense to become an administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I believe you are not yet experienced enough. Your answers above were not satisfactory. I would recommend to [[WP:SNOW|snow]] this. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Strong oppose''' Blocked for edit warring too recently, doesn't have nearly enough experience. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Please don't take this as a discouragement for the future, but you simply do not have enough edits currently to pass a request for adminship. Most successful candidates have at least 4,000 edits under their belt. If I were you I'd withdraw your candidacy, as really nobody has a chance with only 800 edits. -
'''Strong support''' as nominator. Good luck, CB! --'''[[User:Dylan620|Dylan]]''' ([[User talk:Dylan620|chat]], [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|work]], [[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|ping]],
'''Strong support''' Cyclonebiskit is a good editor who is always so enthusatic about Tropical cyclones.
'''Cautious support''' because I feel you're not going to run wild immediately, and you will use your tools to your advantage as an editor, not simply as an administrator blocking people. I must caution you to take things very slowly as you've shown very, very little experience, but this in itself is not always a killer thing. Read up on the role of being an administrator, and take each case at a time requesting the advice of others, and I think you'll be fine. I'm worried that some of the opposers are verging on [[WP:NONEED]], which in my opinion is a bad reason to oppose someone, because I feel you can pick up on things slowly. That said, I don't believe that this will pass, so consider this a form of moral support for next time. I encourage you to get some more experience if this doesn't pass, and come back in a few months! Cheers. —<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' Although he hasn't done much work in admin-related areas, it is clear that he is well-qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Weak Support''' a clean block log and over 10,000 edits is enough to get you my support, but weakly for reasons in the oppose section. ''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, but has in fact contributed to many Good, Featured, and DYK articles.  Best, --
Cyclonebiskit, you've done excellent work for the tropical cyclones WikiProject, and I've had plenty of positive encounters with you. However, I don't feel you're ready for adminship. As far as I know, you've never made a report to UAA or AIV, and you've never participated in deletion discussions. While I usually don't mind lack of experience in admin-related areas, you have a habit of edit warring, as evidenced [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_Depression_Sixteen_(2008)&offset=20081121223052&limit=10&action=history here]. As well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Linda_(1997)&diff=next&oldid=275484009 this] is inappropriate use of rollback. Sorry, –'''
'''Oppose''' Per the lack of experience in conventinal admin areas. Also, per what Juliancolton said. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I'm slightly inclined to believe you'd be in a little over your head with the admin tools, per Juliancolton's comment. You also have almost no experience in admin-related areas. Your content building is really good and I applaud you for it, but you need at least a little experience in admin-related areas such as AIV, ANI, RPP, AFD, etc.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you have little to no experience in admin related areas. A quick skim of edits to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces shows that almost every edit there relates to Wikiprojects, or stuff like FAs and GAs. The only exceptions I see are a couple reports to AIV/RFPP at a couple points, a request for rollback, and your edits to this very page.
'''Weak oppose''' - I'd need to see more evidence that you know your stuff in the areas you have asserted that you would like to work in before supporting, sorry. Obviously a well intentioned user, though, and I would not hesitate to support a future request if there was more evidence of relevant policy knowledge. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per the above. I don't feel you have enough experience yet. Sorry! <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Seem's to have lack of experience in admin-related areas also as per all above [[Wikipedia:NOTYET]]
'''Oppose''' Looking through this user's recent contributions, there is not one edit to an admin related area. Even if they were not going to use the tools in the 'classic admin areas' regularly, I'd still like to see some evidence that this user has experience in those areas. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Oppose''' per Juliancolton. While I do believe Cyclonebiskit has made some excellent contributions to the project, a lack of experience in admim-related areas is enough for me to vote oppose.  Get a more experience in the areas mentioned above and I will be happy to support next time. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' Per Julian, needs a little (not a lot) more experience in adminy areas.--
'''Oppose''' – needs more experience in those relevant fields the candidate intends to work in. I suggest going over to [[WP:RFPP]] as well as [[WP:AN3]] to get a good feel on how page-protection is implemented. Contributing at [[WP:XFD]] will also give you good experience on the deletion side, as well – something I didn't see much participation in. Otherwise, an excellent mainspace contributor, but watch on the edit warring a little. Back off sometimes and negotiate.
'''Regretful Oppose''' You are too young.  Come back when you are 18.
'''Oppose''' - hasn't shown a need or desire for the tools. ♬♩
'''Oppose'''  Per Juliancolton, lack of admin related experience. Plus, Cyclonebiskit is a minor, and I unfortuntely think that admins should be at least 18 years of age. '''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Strong Oppose''' - His area of interests are areas which need the most experienced admin who understands policies fully or will lead to many, many problems. Blocking and protections are not things that can experience accidents or mistakes without having major ramifications.
'''Oppose''' per above. I was hoping that this wouldn't go live; unfortunately, to see both the nominator and nominee both passing over the advice given by Dlohcierekim [[User talk:Cyclonebiskit#RFA|here]] is a bad idea.
'''Oppose''', per above.  Specifically per Julian and Ottava.  --
Leaning oppose. I haven't researched you yet, and to be honest won't bother unless the supports pick up and this looks like it could go either way, but if the ''best'' your nominator can find to say about you is "will be able to use the tools to his own advantage", something is seriously wrong somewhere.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'''<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Neutral''' It seems unlikely that he will abuse the tools, but the edit warring is concerning.
'''Neutral''' editor does not seem to have enough experience in admin related areas, although I totally disagree with the [[ageism|ageist]] opposers. If he spends some time working in admin related areas and reading up on policy, he will have a much greater chance of success next time around.
'''<redacted by PeterSymonds> yes!''' I've been waiting for this one! --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
--
'''Support''' Cyclo has a clean block log and is a cluefull contributor. I've reviewed the candidates AIV reports for September to December last year and they all seem good calls that resulted in blocks; I don't think that things at AIV have changed so radically in the last few months as to render that experience out of date. As for the oppose, well perhaps there are some circumstances on Wikipedia where it is appropriate to use the word ''Negro'', but this is probably the first time I've typed it and I hope it will be the last. I'm happy to support a candidate who is concerned about use of that word. ''
'''Strong Support''', as nom, obviously.
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support'''. I would have been a third co-nom but today is my g/f's birthday and so I chose to spend the day until now with her instead of here and now it already started. Anyway, first of all, I might be biased, as Cyclonenim nominated me for adminship in October 2008 but I think I can still make an impartial judgment. CN has shown a real cluefulness when it comes to Wikipedia matters and has enough experience in admin related matters. His CSD work is almost perfect too, something we know I really look for in a candidate. So are his contributions to AIV, ANI, UAA and other admin-y areas. He has really shown maturity since his last RFA, a change that one might not have expected. As for the opposes, they are not convincing. The conflict in Q3 is not a sign of lack of maturity, rather one of lack of patience with people who are trying to insert their personal interpretation of "neutral wording" into articles, after they were told that others are disagreeing with the alleged neutrality of those edits and especially when their "arguments" start consisting of personal attacks (one must read both sides to understand why CN reacted this way). I have seen senior admins who reacted much worse to such a situation. But if one reads the whole incident chronologically, one must admin that CN understood that those editors were only baiting him - not at once, but he did. His behavior afterwards shows no similar problems, so I am confident he has learned the lesson of this incident and will not let himself be baited like that anymore. As for Caspian's oppose, he clearly states he wants to work in CSD, UAA and RM. As for Q5, most admins, myself included, are hesitant to venture into file related CSD. But I see nothing wrong with his answer, just his honest admission that his knowledge is not perfect. But then, whose is? Pastor Theo's oppose strikes me as illogical, to say the least. Asking people who have opposed you in the past to review your actions to see whether you have improved rather shows honest desire to work on one's flaws and to reflect on mistakes pointed out by others. I don't think a "fairly obvious desire to become an admin" is evident, if one remembers that the last one was more than 9 months ago and that this RFA is the result of multiple people asking him to run again. So, the opposes are not convincing enough to make me hesitate to support this request. Regards '''
'''Support''' Definitely. Much improved since your previous RfA, which was nearly nine months ago. '''''
'''Support'''. As nominator. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Opposes hold no water to me. I urge future !voters to do their own research on this one - Cyclonenim is an excellent candidate and will be a huge asset to the administrative team.
No reason to believe he will abuse the tools. Cyclonenim is not a perfect candidate, but we're not looking for perfect administrators, just decent ones who won't disrupt the writing of the encyclopedia and who will help with the backlogs. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' per answer to my question. He won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''', although I'm happy to continue the conversation with the opposition and be influenced by them ... I can tell that something is bugging people, I just don't have a firm grasp on what it is yet. - Dan
'''Support''' - I understand the concerns in opposition, but this user has clue, and that's enough for me to put me firmly over here, really. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - The concerns raised below are understandable, but nothing so egregious that I am forced to oppose. Cyclo's knowledge of medicine is also a plus (maybe that's my own bias though). Nevertheless, he's a prolific contributor with a good head on his shoulders and an asset to the community. I can't foresee him abusing the tools.
'''Support''' Absolutely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having never been blocked, but rather by having contributed to multiple Good and Featured articles.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Clearly this editor has made mistakes in the past. Who has not? But he has shown an ability to learn and a committment to the project which I feel qualifies him comfortably for the mop and bucket. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' An excellent contributor to the project. He's shown willingness to learn and understand where others are coming from and I believe he will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Besides, in an ideal world, terms such as "negro" would be made illegal. —
'''Support''' - not convinced by the issues raised by the opposers. While Cyclonenim's behaviour over the 'negro case' wasn't perfect, his intentions were right, and he apologised for his mistakes afterwards. It seems to me that he has learned since his last RFA failed, and as long as he brushes up on our policies like 3RR, he would make a successful admin.
I ran into Cyclonenim a few months ago, and he was helpful and seemed a decent sort. He's been here long enough to convince nearly everyone (even several opposers) that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. I do note, with some surprise, the ''"using 'negro' is illegal"'' incident, and do kind of wonder, if he had had the tools at the time, if he would have made a mistake with them.  Many of the opposes seem to be based on this incident being an indicator of poor judgment. Since, on occasion, I have actually made a few mistakes in my life myself, I tend to allow others to do the same, and don't think we should be insisting on perfection.  I am convinced by a review of his talk page contributions the last few months that he is open to constructive criticism, and learns from his mistakes. I don't think it's reasonable to insist on more than that.  If Cyclonenim can assure us that, until he gets his bearings, he will err on the side of inaction when he's not 100% sure what to do, and will check with other admins frequently until he's very comfortable with the ins and outs of adminning, then I think he deserves our support. --
'''Support''' a productive editor. He made a mistake but I don't think it's one that necessarily implies he'd be bad with the tools. He says (in his second comment on Nick mallory's oppose) that he'd have acted more cautiously with the tools and that we can only take his word on that; I for one am inclined to do so.
'''S'''upport. Keen contributor to important topics, been around for a while, unlikely to abuse the tools and in fact likely to use them constructively.
'''Support''' - My impressions of this user in the past have been good. -<strong><font style="color:#228B22">
'''
'''Support''' - Quick review shows he has a clue; I'm not willing to require perfection.  Yeah, he has made a few errors, who hasn't?  Seems willing to learn from them, much more important than complete understanding of each and every policy and admin tool.
I have seen Cyclonenim around and have had a positive impression, and am glad he is running for RfA. He is adequately experienced in several important areas of Wikipedia, and he is generally civil in his dealings with others. I liked reading his answers to the standard RfA question; they were honest, straightforward, and thoughtful, which are good qualities for administrators to have. He has demonstrated a willingness to admit to and learn from his past blunders, and his answer to Q3 (in my mind) refutes what I see as the major opposing point below; he recognizes his misjudgment, and I trust he will not make the same mistake again. Regarding the opposers, while I understand their concerns, I feel that their arguments are not sufficiently convincing to me that Cyclonenim will abuse or frequently misuse the tools; and were he to make a mistake, the simple way to handle it is to discuss it, and change it. We need more admins with the humility that Cyclonenim has.
'''Support'''- I suppose I'm a little bit troubled by some of the opposes, but on the whole I think Cyclonenim will be a net positive with the tools.
'''Support''' - because of the sheer amount of completely stupid questions being asked that get asked every time, you might as well have a free support. The fact that I recognize the name helps as well and i've only been here a short time.
'''Support''' Unconvinced by opposition. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', I acknowledge that there are some continued concerns as highlighted by the opposers, but I don't view any of them as being major. No admin is perfect, and I think you'd be a clear net positive with the tools, as in general you are sensible, mature and knowledgeable. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''.
I think that Cyclonenim will be fine. I've never had any problems with him.
'''Support''' Of course. —
'''Support'''.  I've read the opposes very carefully, but none of them seem fatal to Cyclonenim's RFA to me and I struggle to take some of them seriously; so I'm !voting support out of a sense of fair play.—
'''Weak Support''' Mature and knowledgable enough for the job. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;My review of the editor's contribs show a desire to build the encyclopedia, sufficient knowledge of rules and policies, and in the recent incident cited by the opposes, contrition and self-examination. I see much benefit and little risk in giving the bit. --'''''
'''Oppose'''. The question remains from previous RfAs why an editor who is barely active in the various areas which require the tools can be trusted with them. Despite the nominator's having stated that Cyclonenim "''works extensively in the AIV, CSD and XFD spaces''", I do not see a ''single'' edit on AIV or XfD in the last two months - Cyclonenim [[User talk:Cyclonenim/Archive Feb09#Advice for Cyclonemin's coaches|said himself]] that he wasn't ready at that time - where's the evidence that this has changed? [[User talk:Cyclonenim/Archive Mar09#Stop your personal attacks|this exchange]] also displays an immaturity, and more importantly a rather serious misunderstanding of policy. That was only a month ago.
'''Oppose''' per A1  (does not look clear to me what he wants with the new bit), A3 (poor communication skills with incivility), A5 (lack of understanding image policy), especially A3. Although I have no interaction with him, I've happened to disagree with his view and opinion on RFA discussions. --
'''Oppose.'''  I am in agreement with Mr. Cunningham on the points that he raised. I am also concerned about Cyclonenim’s fairly obvious desire to become an admin, as witnessed by the mass of inquiries sent out between February 8-11 to opposers of his last RfA – this could be seen as gaming the system to see whether the Opposers of RfA #2 will be back in  RfA #3. This message from February 9 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=269640359] asks someone to watchlist this page while acknowledging he is running the risk of canvassing – two months before this RfA went live. The full exchange between Cyclonenim and CadenS  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CadenS#RE:_User:Cyclonenim.27s_personal_attacks] shows Cyclonenim pouring gas on a fiery situation, especially when Cyclonenim keeps promising to stop posting messages and then returns for more. I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA.
'''Oppose.'''   I read, with some incredulity, the exchange about the use of 'negro' which happened just a month ago.  Cyclonenim wrote "The term 'negro' is racist, and therefore not allowed by law, not just by our policy. The foundation could get sued for placement of that term on articles, so adding it into articles when you know is wrong is downright unacceptable, and I will get anyone who does it blocked from editing."  To be so ignorant of the language and the law is bad enough, but to fly off the handle like that and threaten to block people who have done no wrong without pausing for a moment to think or do even a modicum on research on the matter is not the sort of rash, bullying and self righteous behaviour a would be administrator should be indulging in.  As to those who think the word 'negro' is racist outside of a historical use, perhaps they should sue the good people of [[The National Council of Negro Women]] with money from the [[United Negro College Fund]]?
'''Oppose''' Per questions 1 and 3. Also, per Chris Cunningham. As Chris said, the nom was incorrect with his info concerning AIV and Xfd. I can't support. Sorry
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' I would love to see another admin paying attention to neurology, and I'm sure Cyclonenim's heart is in the right place, but there is a combination here of willingness to block and lack of understanding of when blocking is appropriate that is a big red flag for me.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4. Saying that one cannot block for edit warring if the user hasn't done more than 3 reverts is [[WP:EW|not correct]]. This and the initial mistake in the answer shows a significant lack of policy knowledge. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - User shows a poor understanding of fair use and legal matters in general. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyclonenim/Archive_Mar09#Stop_your_personal_attacks The statements] about the word "negro" ("The term 'negro' is racist, and therefore not allowed by ''law'', not just by our policy") show an inability to act objectively, act calmly, and make statements that were appropriate to Wikipedia. The justifications for need of tools or activeness in areas he would use tools does not match what I have seen looking through their contribs. Sorry, but I do not think you are nearly qualified and your behavior is inappropriate.
'''Oppose''' Mr. Cunningham has found one strong reason to oppose; having one's heart in the right place doesn't excuse having one's head in the wrong place. Placing messages like that on people's pages serves as a [[chilling effect]] and reflects poorly on the candidate. If the candidate had the block button, I have no doubt it would have been (mis-)used (if one isn't going to block for something one feels is '''illegal''' pray tell what would one block for?)
'''Oppose''' I think we all agree that ParaGreen13 was a vandal and that he deserved his block.  As an administrator, you'll no doubt be coming into contact with many more such people, and I'm afraid that the evidence posted by others leads me to feel that you might make more such mistakes in the future.  Especially considering the ParaGreen13 incident was only a month ago.  Making a mistake and then apologizing for it shows that you can admit when you're wrong, but there may be many cases where the other person will not stick around to hear an apology.  Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=275269060 this diff] makes it look like you're admitting to having been editing other people's comments, although I searched forward and backward in the edit history of that page and could not find evidence that you'd done so.  That is not the reason for my oppose; I only wanted to bring it to the attention of the others.  --- ''<B>
'''Oppose''': My main concern is the inability shown by the candidate to detach from an issue and walk away - it's really not pleasant to watch administrators trying to get the last word in on an issue and it only ever leads to situations escalating out of control. I also believe that the candidate is presently making too many errors to be trusted with the tools, now you're never going to get perfection from our admin corps, but I believe the error rate is excessive at the moment and ultimately, there would be a problem to deal with in the future. The high probability of unintentional misuse of the tools together with a stand-offish approach makes this candidate unsuited to being an administrator at this time.
'''Weak Oppose''' per judgment concerns raised by those above.
'''Oppose''' The first oppose is complete hogwash as reasoning, but there are other examples of extremely poor judgment listed above and in the answers to questions. Learning on a the job is okay, but only if you can demonstrate a capacity to do so while remaining basically trustworthy. I don't see that currently. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
Sorry, but I have concerns about your judgment, as many of the above opposers have elaborated on. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Oppose''', Agree with concerns about judgment as brought up by {{user|Pastor Theo}}, {{user|Nick mallory}}, {{user|Nick}}, and others, above. '''
A lot of my ideas have been brought up already, but here goes. I most agree with Nick, I think that your judgment is not so much the problem rather than your over-focus on issues that have already ended. It's like a WP:GRUDGE; you just won't walk away from it. Also, per your poor judgment, though it worries me considerably less. '''
Per the above concerns, particularly Nick mallory's, I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. I would glady support in three or four months if it appears you've taken them to heart. :-)--
'''Regretful Oppose''' per above. While I believe Cyclonenim has made some excellent contributions to the project, the issues brought up by multiple other users, especially Nick mallory, are causes for concern.  However, I would be happy to support in the future and some more experience.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' based on A3 and A4. While Cyclonenim is a valued contributor, he lacks both the knowledge and the temperment to be trusted with sysop status.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. Though I have several concerns, the answers to #11 and #15, in particular, were severely problematic. "Vote" counting of any sort in an XfD discussion is simply contrary to the wiki model. And the example that the candidate chose, or rather their reasoning thereof, leaves me even greater concerns. They gave their opinion  about the list page (and supporting the nominator) rather than saying '''anything''' about how they would assess the '''''discussion'''''. While an admin indeed is allowed to be (and ''should'' be) mindful of current policy (the "broader" consensus), and may close solely based upon that under certain circumstances, the question of the applicability of NOTDIR was definitely not clear, and so at least ''some'' reliance on (and assessment of), the discussion at hand might have been at least somewhat appropriate? I think that the statement (concerning determining consensus) that most strikes me is: ''"...you essentially have to use common sense to determine who is correct in their opinion."'' - No. no. no. no. no. -
Cannot decide.
'''Neutral''' I was going to support, but, after reading the opposes, I am unable to do so at the moment. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' As with [[User:hmwith]] I was going to support but after reading the opposes carefully I now can't decide. Don't think any damage would be done with the tools though. '''
Strong Support. Where does it say that I can't not support myself?!
'''Strong oppose'''. I appreciate the user's content edits, but he's shown a completely inappropriate attitude, with comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADAFMM&diff=300444363&oldid=300444196 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADAFMM&diff=303373779&oldid=303373624 this], a complete failure to deal with the complaints of others as illustrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DAFMM#talk_pages_2 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DAFMM#Post-nominal_titles here] and edit-warring on several articles. In addition the answers to the questions are not satisfactory, particularly the third one. If I wasn't [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] (it is your first time at RfA, you might not know the detail required for answers) I'd say the answer to question 3 is deliberately vague in an attempt to hide your past actions. 3,000 edits or so is also not really enough for me to judge you accurately for an RfA, although those examples I've pulled out above suggest more edits wouldn't necessarily improve your chances by much. Your use of [[User:HandyTips]] suggests inexperience with the way Wikipedia works - userpages are not indexed by google, not immediately visible to people visiting the site and not the sort of thing people look for when they need help; they have [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet]] or [[WP:MOS]], for example. So why have it? Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DAFMM&diff=prev&oldid=307750410 this] imply that you don't take the process seriously, which isn't really a good way to start off.
'''Oppose''' per Ironholds.
I think Ironholds has it covered there. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
If you don't think we can trust you, why should we trust you? ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose'''. Ironholds' arguments are strong - I would add to his comments that the edit count is also inflated by a high number of minor edits over a short space of time (e.g. edits to the [[MSN]] article).
'''Oppose''' per Ironholds.  I didn't look any further. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose'''Per Ironholds.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]

'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]] - not enough activity yet to accurately determine readiness for administrator privileges. Thank you for your good work around the project. Happy editing, <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Great vandal work though and with a few more edits and work, we may be seeing you again in a few months. I also would like to propose an early close per [[WP:SNOW]]. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. -
'''Oppose'''  I'm sorry, but you're still nowhere near ready.  I'd recommend withdrawing this under [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Your account has been around for years, but you've only made around 600 edits- rather than the several thousand most participants will want to see to seriousily consider you for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  per general lack of experience.  Recommend early closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' - I try to avoid [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]], but just over 500 non-automated edits is very low. You want to have the authority to close RfAs, but I see participation in less than 20 of them throughout your Wikipedia career. Your answer to question 3, if nothing else, indicates your lack of experience. Sorry, but way too soon for this. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Bradjamesbrown, and [[WP:NOTNOW]] applies here.  Recommend [[WP:SNOW|snow]] closure to avoid further grief.
[[File:Symbol wait.svg|18px]] '''Not Yet''' I applaud your enthusiasm, but for me, you have too few edits for me to be able to judge if you would make a good admin: I'd suggest not coming back until you've got at least 3000 edits. -- '''''
[[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Given the difficulty you had transcluding your RfA I don't think giving you the tools is in anyone's interests right now. Try again when you have more experience.

'''Oppose'''  With only 147 edits, I don't think you're anywhere near ready for Adminship. The prior user covered that perfectly well.  Let me talk about something else.  Your answers to the questions are quite short.  For me to support you in the future, I would like to see much longer, more detailed answers that show your understanding of Wikipedia and its policies.  Maybe in a few months you'll be ready, but not right now.
'''Neutral''' I do not feel that you are ready for adminship. For someone to get my support, I would expect them to have been an editor for a bit longer than 4 months, with quite a lot more edits than the 147 that you currently have. I also want to see more rounded experience - some experience of SD, PRODs, AfDs, MfDs - plus contributing on AN, ANI, AIV and other RfAs. To be honest, I'm not even confident that you would know what all those acronyms are - and that is the main problem. I do not have evidence that you have enough knowledge of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:N, RS, NPOV, COI, AGF, BLP... I could go on! It's good to see enthusiasm, but it's far too early for you to be considering adminship. -- '''''
I know people might raise their eyebrows if they see someone has had multiple RfAs. Howver, IMO, Dendodge is a deserving candidate for the mop. He is trusted and will get my Support.
'''Support'''. I believe multiple RfAs are only concerning if the editor seems too eager for the mop, to the extent that his/her other work becomes secondary. This is not the case here. Dendodge appears to be a fine, experienced user with the trust of a respected admin, so I am placing my !vote here. Good luck! <font color="blue" face="georgia">
As nominator. –'''
I know this user pretty well, and he is no doubt knowledgeable or responsible enough to have the mop.
No reason not to. I read ''this'' RfA, and not one from last year, just so you know. He is certainly nothing like what the opposer falsely describes him as. '''
A good editor who has the best interests of Wikipedia's content at heart. He knows what he is doing and will put the tools to good use quietly, ''sans'' drama. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' I am convinced he will be a net benefit. '''
'''Support''' I'd trust you with the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
Previous interaction has been incredibly positive, although I think age could be the factor to decide this RfA I'm afraid. A net positive for the project despite that. <small><span style="border:2px solid #000000;">
'''Strong support''' - Age is a very poor indicator of maturity or suitability. Dendodge will make a great administrator. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''', nothing wrong here. He'll make a fine administrator. &ndash;
'''Support''' If Julian trusts this editor to the point of nomination how can I oppose. I trust Julian's judgment, and looking closely at this users, I see no issues that raise a huge red flag. I hate ageism. I don't care about age. I wish people would just keep it to themselves. All it does it make people make biased decisions.--
'''Support'''. No problems here, will be a net positive, no concerns about age, since this is a poor indicitor of maturity. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
Not much interaction, but I trust Julian's judgment. '''
{{ec}} So Dendodge is a teenager. I don't give a crap. All I care about is whether or not Dendodge has improved since his last RfA, and whether or not he'd be a net positive if promoted. Let's see; more mature, more experienced, so {{tick}} on the improvement. DYKs, featured content, GAs, and clear editing experience? {{tick}} Net positive. If you ask me, rejecting a clearly capable teenager for adminship is like failing a 10 year-old who gets every question right on their SAT's. Young does not equal incapable, and for these reasons I '''support''' Dendodge for adminship. --'''
'''Support''' Seems capable.
'''Support'''--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' After seeing the answers to the questions, and seeing the candidate handle some contention in the neutral section, I feel I can trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' A great candidate. He would make a fine sysop.
'''Support''' - No reason not to. Dendoge is ready for adminship now, and I'd trust him. Sure, there's a connection between age/maturity, no doubt. However, I hold the opinion "assume reasonable unless there's evidence of judgement problems" rather than "assume immaturity unless proven by some who-knows-what evidence/standard". I know some that are in between those sides of opinion, but when I see a young user who seems suited for adminship, I'll be happy to support and as long as there's no forseeable issues with him/her in that position. I'm familiar with Dendoge's work, and the opposes are not concerning either.
'''Support''' Dendodge appears to be an excellent candidate and a valued contributor to Wikipedia's editorial contents. His sincere dedication to the project is commendable, and his ability to maintain a state of grace in view of certain ridiculous opposition comments should offer a reminder that maturity is not measured by the number of candles on your birthday cake. I am happy to support Dendodge's candidacy. Good luck!
Decent answers to questions, oppose votes are not convincing. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Strong Support'''. I have found Dendodge to be an extremely intelligent and mature editor.  There is no reason not to grant his request for the tools. '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Strong Support''' - cut the ageism people. Dendodge is ready to wield the mop, and his age has nothing to do with his maturity.--
'''Support''' —
'''Strong support'''. Personal attacks are still personal attacks, even if they are hidden behind the wiki-correct guise of ageism. Frankly, I am disappointed with some of the opposers (I'm looking at you Goodmorningworld and Sky Attacker).
'''Weak support''' Some valid criticisms have been raised, but for now I don't see a problem with letting someone old enough to [[Horatio_Nelson,_1st_Viscount_Nelson#Early_naval_career|command men under the British Flag]] log some admin actions.  Sorry if this support invites some complaints that I'm just balancing things out, but sometimes things need to be balanced out.
'''Support''' I do not see any compelling evidence that [[User:Dendodge]] would abuse the tools and if - to a degree when, everybody's human - they did unintentionally misuse them I think they would learn from the mistake made.
'''Support''' As a definite net positive. The age-based opposes, especially those by Roux and Sky Attacker, almost made me want to support without taking a look at the candidate's contributions at all. Can't we judge a candidate based on his contributions to the project and how he's handled disputes, rather than demand exceptional maturity just because he's under 18? I've seen plenty of adult admins that act more childish than Dendodge. Opposing based solely on age goes against everything RfA is about, and opposing based on maturity in conjunction with age is really no better unless you have some concrete evidence.
'''Strong Support'''. Yes I read the opposes, hence the strong. For crying out loud RfA...
'''Support''', with the caveat that I understand the opposers. I understand the concern with a fifteen-year-old candidate - hell, thinking back, there's no way I would have made a good admin at fifteen. Too volatile, too wishy-washy, zero confidence. However, Dendodge has not exhibited ''any'' of these traits - and really, that's all I can judge by. I don't subscribe to the whole "stop the ageism" babble, and I have to have ''some'' evidence that the candidate is mature, even-keeled, and thoughtful. I've looked through more than enough contributions, and I really can't find a damn thing that concerns me. The other oppose I can understand is the admin experience issue, per SoWhy. My thoughts on this are probably not standard - I don't put as much stock in airtight-accurate CSD tagging as most people do. I am not judging other people, and there are probably several reasons why I should consider changing this opinion. However, as it is, I think that ensuring that a deletable article fits snugly into an arbitrary category is secondary to ensuring that Wikipedia contains good, solid, notable, verifiable articles. If an article is spam, but tagged A7, I couldn't give a shit. From what I see, 98% (at least 95%, if we don't want to be exaggerating) of Dendodge's tagging is accurate. From my experience, admins are typically a lot more careful when ''actually deleting'' than when they were just CSD tagging. I just can't see any potential of Dendodge becoming an admin who is wantonly deleting articles - and really, that's the sort of thing by which we should be judging a candidate. Therefore, for want of reasons to oppose, I hereby support.
'''Support''' - I've always found him communicable and open minded, even though we have bickered quite a bit. His care for attention, even if limited to only one subject area, is enough when included with the prior attributes.
'''Support''' I know enough teenagers in real life to understand that they are not "little children" and that some are trustworthy and responsible. From what I've seen Dendodge would do well with the mop, but please take the CSD comments onboard, and remember IRC isn't the only place to ask for advice. ''
'''Support''' Ageism is worse than editcountitis. To quote one of the above users I think this user will be a "net benefit" with the mop.
'''Support'''. Qualified candidate. While some of the opposers raise valid issues that I know the candidate will take into account, the rationale of many of the oppose !votes is shockingly bad, to a degree that I don't recall having seen before on any other RfA.
'''Support''', if only to dispel the absolutely nonsensical opposes of ''some''. --
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' normally I would also balk at supporting very young editors for adminship, but if only to balance out some of the spectacularly poor oppose rationales, plus the fact that I don't see any glaring red flags, I support. <b>
'''Support''' Looks good. Seriously, Admin is no big deal, it's merely a sign that an editor is trusted, and this one is. Age is far less useful an indicator of maturity than a solid record, which Dendodge has. <strong>
'''Support''' - I've read the oppose section, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments presented. From what I've seen he's a calm and helpful editor.
'''Support''' - The rampant ageism of the opposes does not convince me, the nomination does.
'''Support''' Seems okay to me. I don't think it's good to pigeonhole people. If there are particular conerns about some kind of age limiting factor then a restriction can be put in place so we don't have to broadly discriminate against people based on a number. You seem reasonable and responsible. Have fun and thanks for your good contributions.
'''Strong support''' Real-life age fences and other forms of uncalled-for prejudice, for editors who have clearly proven themselves, are wrong and should never be used as an excuse to oppose an otherwise acceptable editor at an RfA. My comments regarding you in the opposition section were truly beyond character and were also ill-reasoned. Recent Wikievents that have not reflected me as an editor, but have involved editors I have increasing respect for, have emotionally stretched me, and unfortunatley, it would look as though I have allowed it to affect my editing here as of late. This negativity has been used against you, an editor who has done good things here for Wikipedia, and I should've known better. I am truly sorry that you had to be the victim to all of that and I really hope that your RfA does pass, because I've looked at your contributions and age has proven to be irrelevant (in this case anyway) and there was no reason to oppose you because your only 15. Just so you are aware, my decision to cut my oppose and strong support you was not influenced by the comments made by other editors, but my own guilt for my actions against a trusting editor. Hopefully my poor lack of judgement can be looked past and forgiven. I openly apologise to you for my actions on this page and I also support you because you are a good editor and you have been waiting too long for the mop. Fully support. You deserve it. You're comments to others prove that you are a very mature and reasonable editor. Seriously, pray that this RfA passes, because that mop is rightfully yours.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support'''. I'm seeing good work on the project, and the candidate takes time to assist others (as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmiles1107&diff=306450039&oldid=303183474 here]), which is what I like to see in an admin. Not concerned about the age; there are mature and immature editors of all ages here, a number doesn't indicate anything except how long the candidate has been alive. Good luck,
'''Support''' Switched from oppose. After reconsidering, I think you'll be fine. '''

'''Support''' - As promised I have re-considered, particularly given this RfA is going to be a close one between passing and failing, and I have decided to support. It is clear you have done a lot of work for Wikipedia and you have waited nine months, a pretty long period, between RfAs before applying again. You don't have any particular plans on where to do admin actions should you get the mop, that's fine, you can still help the project by being a less specialised admin. I will take this request through my key [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]. For KC 1 you clearly have enough general experience of Wikipedia, with over 12,000 edits and lots of article building. For KC 2 your username and signature is fine, nice in fact! For KC 3 your user pages are fine, and the content on them bars a striking resemblance to mine in places, so I can't complain! No problems with offline activities (KC 4). Your communication is good (KC 5), you use edit summaries and are willing to discuss with users any issues that come-up (KC 7), you have also shown during this RfA that you can learn from mistakes (KC 6). The only potential issue is with KC 8 / 9, but I think you have enough core knowledge to pass here. [[The Beatles Complete on Ukulele]] was a slight blip, it was good of you to request other opinions, but isn't that what AfD is for? If a page does not meet a criterion it should not be deleted under that criterion, regardless of the amount of discussion which happens somewhere. I accept that this is not really your fault, incorrect deletion through A7 by some admins has sent a confusing message to admin candidates and it is easy to hold the candidates to account, but not the administrators who are ultimately responsible. You however recognised your mistake, so I hope you become part of the admin group which is getting out there the correct use of A7. The original Q11 answer is not of concern either, I didn't know about that either to a few months ago, I am not expecting you to know everything that you can do as an administrator. So yes the clear conclusion to me is support, and no I have little concern over age (Non-criteria 7).
'''Support'''. The age doesn't scare me, in fact I think it's an asset. The most plugged in and over-informed generation ever is required to be wifi'd in school and the more our admins can relate to and overcome generational culture divides the better. I encourage you to buddy up and have a mentor or two for a while as you get the hang of each area. Use your inexperience to boldly ask for help; I trust you to wield the mop including mopping your own mistakes should you make any.
My concerns in the neutral section do persist to a point. Ultimately some sensible comments made above, combined with the fact that we ''really do need more administrators'', sway me to support. I'm not convinced Dendodge is absolutely ready, but who is? He's close enough to be an asset with admin tools, and I trust him to generally operate them effectively and clean up any mistakes he does make - his commitment to ask for help before wading into unfamiliar territory is obviously reassuring. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
After working with him on a few articles I have found him to be very sensible and patient; two qualities needed in adminship. '''
'''Weak support''' - technically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but as some opposes have pointed out, he may need more training before deleting articles.
Still very young, same as on previous RFAs.  Yes, there are some exceptionally mature young people out there.  But reading through [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_3]] indicates that this is not an exceptionally mature young person, but rather a young teenager who acts just like a young teenager.  Wikipedia needs to grow up now, and promoting childish admins will not help with this goal.
Oh great, I'm on the same side as Friday... age isn't an issue with me, and the user has done some audited content work. But there are other niggling issues.  I can't find evidence of any AfD participation since before his last RfA. Considering the user is saying he would participate in that area if there was a need, that worries me a tad. In the above questions the candidate said he was moving away from XfDs to focus on article work. But he's done relatively little since his last RfA; 88% of his total contributions are represented by the period before then, and the [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Dendodge&l=500 vast plurality] of his recent edits have been to the project namespace. In fact, the dropoff suggests that he might have "stopped trying" after his last RfA. His short answers to the questions above (and very little elaboration or change, upon checking his previous RfAs) don't suggest he's gained any more experience or wisdom in the intervening time. --<font color="#cc6600">
prefer admin candidates that generate content. Having less then 25% of your contributions in mainspace isn't anywhere near enough for me.
'''Oppose'''.I remember when I was fifteen; I would have been incensed at anyone who tried to bar me from editing Wikipedia articles, had there been a Wikipedia then. The notion of becoming an admin, however, would never have entered my mind. I knew better than to presume I should hold the power of ending someone's hobby. I am well aware that few of the RfA regulars will agree with me, but I am completely stymied for an explanation that a fifteen-year-old could want this for himself.
'''Oppose''' The candidate wants to work in deletion areas, especially CSD but has almost no record there and the few examples I found were less than thrilling. For example, he tagged [[The Beatles Complete on Ukulele]] for A7 ''after'' I had declined the same tag previously, which means that he either did not review the history or deliberately wanted to find an admin who will ignore the previous decision (a wish that was, unfortunately, granted). Both interpretations are not exactly good ones. His taggings also include a foreign-language article ([[La Macachuera]]) as G2. Since his last RFA, the candidate has participated in exactly three XFDs and has requested speedy deletion eleven times, five of which were G7s, one was U1, two were incorrect (see above), one was a correct A7 and two were F8s (duplicate on Commons). As such, there is nothing to indicate that this candidate can be trusted with the delete button, which is especially problematic as he indicated to want to work in exactly that area. I came here expecting to support or at least neutral but I cannot overlook this lack of activity or knowledge in that area. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - Per wishing to work in deletion areas and for failing to demonstrate competency or adequate experience.
'''Moved from support to oppose''' &ndash; I came back after a detailed look to say that I had switched to oppose, but rather than ramble on, it is per SoWhy and Wisdowm89.
'''Bangs head against wall'''.  I've always been a fan of Dendodge's enthusiasm for article work, intelligence at RFA, and maturity (for any age).  I came here expecting to support, but averaging around 2.5 edits per day for 4 out of the last 6 months suggests that he doesn't feel the same connection to Wikipedia that he used to, and his statement that he will probably work in deletion areas is a red flag.  Curse you, SoWhy, I wanted to vote for this guy!  If this one succeeds, you probably won't let us down, but I just can't support with that record.  If it fails, get your ass back here in 3 months with solid experience in ''any'' admin area, and enough recent article work to show me that you still care, and you'll gladly have my vote. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - under the age of majority. Sorry. →&nbsp;
I think you're going along the right lines, but I'm going to oppose for the moment, I'm afraid.  On going through your contributions, certain failures to assume good faith such as [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Until_It_Sleeps/Archive|this]] sockpuppet investigation, are still a little too recent for comfort; for my support, all of your recent edits would need to show an assumption of good faith.  Also, you have created only 16 mainspace pages (plus a number of redirects) in 12,000 edits.  Those 16 are for the most part solid pieces of work, and I liked the Beatles timeline in particular; I'm not one of those who usually oppose for lack of content contributions, but I think in your case the situation is quite extreme.  I do think you need a little more experience in that area to prepare you for the dispute resolution part of a sysop's work, and I think 16 page creations in 12,000 edits is quite un-productive.  I would suggest paying some attention to [[WP:AFC]], [[WP:MEA]] or some other constructive, collaborative area in which you could build at least a few more article credits of your own.—
'''Oppose''' - mostly due to my [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|RFA criteria]], but also per [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] and [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]]. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Oppose''' I'm a big believer in letting youth handle responsibility on Wikipedia. Shoot, I was even co-nominated at my own RfA by a teen admin. But disregarding your age in meatspace, I think you need some more experience in order for us to trust you with the mop, particularly along the lines S Marshall describes. If you can give me some more concrete evidence of experience in those areas, then I may switch to support. <font style="font-family: Hoefler Text">
Oppose per Friday.
'''Oppose''' Not due to age or maturity, but due to concerns raised by [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]].  Get more (recent) experience in administrative areas, and come back.  I like that you are very open to asking more experienced admins for help and advice, but you seem to be using that as a crutch.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in XfDs (read: very, very little), where Dendodge wishes to work.
Previous RFAs and age don't really upset me, but I am seeing a lack of demonstrable experience in admin-type work.  Not that such things really upset me ''either'', but they do leave me unable to say with confidence that this candidate has what it takes.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Minimal AfD contributions. Inadequate understanding of CSD (as demonstrated by SoWhy). [For what it's worth, I regard Dendodge's age as irrelevant.]
'''Oppose''' per Axl.
'''Oppose''' per Axl as well. Again Dendodge wants to work with AfDs and CSDs but hasn't shown the knowledge or experience to give us confidence in his judgement of such matters. -- '''
'''Regretful Oppose''' Though I'm not in the same bandwagon as those opposing due to age concerns. Put simply, I dont think this user is ready for the tools. Although the article contribs he has are good, I do not believe that they are extensive enough to make up for the apparently severe lack of experience in key admin areas. Get that experience and I'll support you, but I think your gonna have to wait 12-18 months at least before the community will appoint you as an admin. Good luck, and if there is any way I can help you, you know where my talk page is. '''
'''Oppose'''. I couldn't care less about the age issue. But minimal participation in AfD is a bad sign when it is an area that you said you would be interested in. Overall activity is not too bad, but not great either. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' - For several of the reasons stated above by others.
'''Oppose''' I expect someone to first learn the difference between Speedy criteria and WP:N criteria, and demonstrate this in practice , before applying to become an admin. To get it wrong here, with everyone watching, is not a good sign for reliable deletions subsequently. (FWIW, I  think age is irrelevant.) .  '''
'''Oppose''' per DGG and SoWhy and inasmuch as my concerns about the candidate's conversance with policy and ability to evaluate consensus-based discussions correctly prevent me from concluding with sufficient confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].  Sorry.
'''Oposse''' partially based upon the reply to Q9, but also due to a number of concerns raised here. I would expect a potential admin, especially one who has failed previous RFAs, to be working more in administrative areas before accepting a nomination, not stepping away from them. Whilst I understand the spirit of the reply where the candidate he / she would double-check on Skype, it makes me uneasy.
'''Neutral''' because of the response you just posted under Friday's oppose where you say you'll consult with a more experienced administrator when you don't know what to do.  Which is good ... we all need a little help from our friends sometimes, but it makes me wonder what you'd do when you have to make a tough decision by yourself.    -- ''<B>
'''Neutral''' mostly based on A5: it would be best if the admin lets someone else do the actual blocking when they're directly involved like that, if nothing else than to avoid the troll-feeding ''appearance'' of retaliation. Otherwise, the user's age and their past RFAs (over 9 months old) do not concern me; this user seems as mentally mature, reasonable, and experienced as many adequate admins, and they seem to improve rapidly. If this RFA is unsuccessful, I would be happy to support with a few months of good editing and slightly better understanding of blocking etiquette. -
'''Neutral'''. On the plus side, what communication I see is great. Polite, helpful, really I couldn't ask for more. On the negative side, I like to see admins around more. I see quite a few gaps of several weeks with no edits. While I don't expect '''anyone''' to be here every day, any time the mop is pulled out, there's a potential for a frustrated editor. Asking that editor to wait weeks for an answer on a regular basis (because most of them don't email) is not something I'm comfortable with. Also the CSD issues brought up by SoWhy trouble me. Not checking history is a mistake anyone can make, but the article version that was nominated just wasn't an A7 candidate. (And a wet noodle to the admin who deleted it.) If the tools are granted, everything will probably be just fine. Dendodge seems to be a level headed editor who will take all these criticisms to heart. But I just can't work up enough enthusiasm to put myself in the support column.--
Not convinced either way at this point.
'''Neutral''' I am pleased that you are learning during this RfA, but I am still concerned that you may have jumped in with the initial wrong answer to Q11 too soon before checking the facts that you needed to know, and figured out yourself.
'''Neutral'''. More XfD experience is needed. Otherwise this is a great candidate.
Keep up the good work
[[WP:NOTNOW]]: not enough editing experience, [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=DotComCairney&lang=en poor use of edit summaries], only [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=DotComCairney&l=all 12 days of editing experience], lack of depth in content experience, etc.
Oppose, but with moral support.  I had to fix the transclusion for this RfA, you mistakenly put it at the bottom.  Overall this is not a big deal, I make mistakes all the time even with my experience here, but it is a good indicator that you need a bit more practice before requesting to be an administrator.  Keep up the good work in helping build and maintain the 'pedia.

'''Oppose''', sorry, but per above. Not enough experience, with only 150 edits not including userpage edits, I can not trust you with these tools yet. You show little need for the admin tools (yet). Now, most of the work you do seems to be vandalism reverting. So here's a few tips: Did you know you can report persistent vandals/spammers at [[WP:AIV]]? Isee you've never edited there and it's a good quick(ish) way to get vandals blocked. Also, I see you're using Lupins Anti-Vandal tool, it's a good way to find vandalism, and [[WP:TW|Twinkle]], which makes it easier to revert, warn, and report users (this is reporting them to [[WP:AIV]] as I mentioned before). These tools are good, but make sure you don't seem [[WP:BITE|cold or "mean"]] to new users. Also, there are many Wikipedia pages you can take part in (I see most of your WP space edits are project), search around for things you can help with. Good luck in the future -
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try again later.Good Luck.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. Keep working hard and learn the various areas as mentioned by others. ···
Sorry, but with 200 edits, you just aren't ready. But keep up the good work, don't let this discourage you from editing :) <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' I checked to see if the candidate was an admin or not. --
'''Support''' Very friendly user, who will be an asset with the mop. Good luck.--
'''Support''' ''by default''.  I've noticed Download around in a lot of different areas.  Always adds insight to discussions.  Over a year and 20,000 edits?  Of course I'm going to support.  I trust download to use the tools wisely. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen this user everywhere, s/he is very helpful and friendly, and would no-doubt be a net positive the the project as admin. No major concerns here. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' As nominator. '''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, seems to understand policy and can be trusted. No concerns. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' As nom. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10#top|M]][[User talk:MC10#top|C]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[Special:Contributions/MC10|10]]</font>&nbsp;<font color="#1E90FF">&#124;</font>&nbsp;<font color="#4169E1">
Answers are satisfactory, seems to have a better knowledge of policy than the opposers seem to suggest. This probably won't pass now, but you will hopefully be an admin one day. '''
'''Support''' &mdash; Overall, a great guy who has the best interests of the project in mind. Martin's opposing point brings up what I consider a valid argument, but I don't want to oppose an otherwise solid candidate over lack of "wiki-maturity" (to use Martin's word, I can't think of another term that fits better into context) &mdash; especially considering the lack of administrators lately.
'''Support''' Appears competent and collegial. I don't see anything especially worrying in the oppose arguments.
'''Support''' Friendly and civil user. Would be good in conflict resolution. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Friendly and helpful. I reviewed the opposes as of this writing, and I don't find anything seriously contrary to the spirit of policy. A little confusion on the fine points of copyright law is not exactly uncommon among our admins. As he's not planning to work in CSD or AfD closure right away, I see no issues. <strong>
'''Support''' per my comments in [[Wikipedia:Editor review/download]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Download is a civil, patient, pleasant and intelligent editor. Attempts by his opposers to disqualify him based on isolated AfD arguments smells of mean spirited overkill.  I have no problems with his contributions.  Good luck, Download!
'''Support'''. I've seen Download around and he does good work. I'm not concerned with the opposes here as he seems to be a net positive.
'''Support''', but could use admin coaching.
Offset spurious oppose. Hope to see this user try again with more experience.
'''Support''' - Good user. On a different note I like your bubble tea template.
'''Support''' Net positive, opposes are well meaning but not convincing to me.  Even if Download fails here, I think he will get through next time.  Why not have him now?  He won't block Jimbo or delete the main page.--
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' Download has been a great benefit to Wikipedia, from helping users in wiki text and adopting users to updating and monitoring several Wikipedia pages daily and reverting vandalism. He also helped me out when I needed to know Wikipedia guidelines. He used his rollback privileges maturely, and I believe that him as a sysop will be a great asset and benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Definately, I see that download is extremely active and so would make a great admin.
'''Support''' - the opposes raise some valid concerns, however looking at the links provided, I'm impressed by the civil way you've handled criticism. If this request isn't successful, hopefully you'll try again in 6-8 weeks.
'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''. Have good sense in general, but needs to be more careful with following guidelines and policies.
'''Support''' - nothing more to say
'''Support''' - I see nothing wrong with Download being an admin....full support. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Per [[user:American_Eagle|TheAE]]. I thought s/he was already an admin. Cheers, --
'''Support''' as per [[User:Earlypsychosis|Earlypsychosis]] ([[User talk:Earlypsychosis|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC).  Provided sound advice and [[User:Download/Adopt/Earlypsychosis|formal support]] to me as a new user in a considered and balanced manner.  Is making a positive contribution.  Clearly has strenghts (e.g. high volume simple edits, good sound technical editing knowledge) and weakness (?limited article contributions, some concerns about focus on his local/knowledge base).  Support as per the criteria ''There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates'' [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA]].  No risk here. He will be a positive addition to the admin group
'''Support''' tentatively - clearly dedicated, as long as is careful should be okay. Note that we do have safety valves to discuss admin behaviour at [[WP:AN/I]] or even arbcom.
'''Weak Support'''. While there appear to be some minor issues with misunderstanding of exact details, I think there should be no problems as there is no indication the tools would be abused. Adminship is no big deal, so as long as Download is careful and ask questions before doing things about which he is unsure, I don't foresee any problems. ···
'''Support''' - great editor. --
'''Support''' helps a lot of people by adopting them. --
'''Support''': Fabulous editor. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Weak support'''. The opposes are concerning, but I see them as more he'd misuse the tools rather than abuse them, worst case scenario. He'll grow as he learns the position, I don't think he's gonna try a controversial unblock in his first month or anything like that.
'''Very weak support''' I have only met him once, when he signed my guestbook. I signed his in return, and was rewarded with a barnstar "reading the small print" and making a pun with the word download.  I have seen no signs that he will abuse the tools, but this social aspect makes me a bit uncomfortable. Thanks, '''
'''Support'''.  I believe that the editor genuinely wants to assist WikiPedia and that he generally takes his time in making decisions.  I am not impressed by the huge edit counts only because I had a very hard time finding decent examples to list in my support.  A small part of me says that the candidate is looking to improve the gene pool of the wikipedia admins so to speak, but I do not think he is applying out of frustration.
'''Support'''. Another one I've spotted around. Since this is supposedly no big deal I see no reason to oppose. It would be inappropriate to assume users ought to act like robots and even robots are likely to make mistakes. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''. After reviewing this user's work here, I believe that he is ready to be given the tools. I don't see how he'll abuse them, and even if he accidentally misuses them early in his adminship, I'm sure that certain mistakes can quickly be fixed and that he can learn from them. I highly doubt he'll do something stupid with them, so I'm willing to let him have a chance. He appears to meet all of the [[WP:GRFA#What RFA contributors look for and hope to see|expected criteria]] for an admin, and has stayed away from [[WP:GRFA#What RFA contributors look for and hope not to see|areas that are controversial]].--<FONT COLOR="blue">[[User:DisturbedNerd999|Disturbed]]</FONT><FONT COLOR="green">[[User talk:DisturbedNerd999|Nerd999]]</FONT> <FONT COLOR="red">
This doesn't look like it's going to pass this time around, but don't let that discourage you, and I'd like to add my support. You're a good user, and after addressing the concerns raised in the oppose section, you should be ready for adminship in a few months time. Good luck.
'''Support''' - the diffs raised by opposing editors show me that Download is occasionally less than perfect, but he seems entirely trustworthy.  He has consistently avoided aggression, aimed to protect the content of wikipedia, and tried to reach consensus in those diffs. -
'''Support''' I agree with you. We need more expirienced anti-vandalism users as admins.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - Have only had good interactions with download. Would become a great admin :) '''
'''Support'''. Knows what he's doing, seems to have a sound understanding of WP Policy and would be assisting in the much needed nitty gritty. I think he'd do a good job.
'''Support'''. This user would make a great sysop,very trusted.[[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
This user is unquestionably a net positive benefit to Wikipedia. He is friendly, welcoming, and readily admits to mistakes. These are the makings of a great admin. I have concerns however about whether he has reached the level of required wiki-maturity yet. There are a lot of edits to his userspace, making me wonder about whether he views this as some kind a social club. There is evidence of some inappropriate behaviour here and there; nothing too alarming. I find the comment ''"... adopted several adoptees and taught them ... how to stay away from vandalism"'' really quite odd: it should go without saying that you are not coaching vandals! Anyhow, keep up the good work and don't be discouraged however this nomination goes. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' per the userspace edits and his answer to question four. He seemed to have grasped completely the wrong end of the stick in regards to the poll; firstly the flagged revisions trial is solely for BLPs, and secondly the edits ''do'' appear instantaneously to the user who makes them.
User does not have a good grasp on basic copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines and policies as expressed through his arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Mathematics Championship]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math is Cool Championships]].  He continuously asserts that there is notability, yet, provides no sources.  Download also edits consistently in areas where he has a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] which may be an issue when adding admin tools into the mix.
'''Weak Oppose''' Download has had his account since April '08, yes, but he's really only been active since the beginning of this year, with the vast majority of his edits coming in the last three months. That, combined with the evidence from Juliancolton and Either way, lead me to believe that this user still needs more time before being granted the bit. However, I look forward to seeing this editor again and supporting.
Sorry, I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy about supporting. [[User_talk:Download/Archives/2009/April#User:Arknascar44.2FLove_Cabal|This worries me a bit]], as well as AWB issues [[User_talk:Download/Archives/2009/April#AWB:_Slow_down|like this]], [[User_talk:Download/Archives/2009/April#Wrong._Please_don.27t_revert_constructive_edits.|RC patrol issues like this]], heavy userspace editing and lack of recent editing activity (before a few months ago), and issues with core policies as demonstrated by the diffs {{User|Either way}} has presented. I also wasn't satisfied that you have the adequate skills in [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] to be an admin, and your answer to my question didn't sway my opinion there. Sorry. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
Though user is helpful and civil, I with the help of others found that theres is no proof that User is familiar with guidelines and policies because 68.83 percent(over 15,000/22,000+)of his edits are automated. Also per eitherway.--(
I'm sorry but I must '''Oppose'''.  I was involved in a discussion regarding an article Download created:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor]].  My observation is that Download is polite and well-meaning and tenacious but doesn't fully understand some basics such as copyright, reliable references, verifiability, notability, original research, and synthesis, which are crucial to the encyclopedia.  In the end I don't trust him to use administrator tools to close a deletion discussion or address copyright violation notices, to give two examples, at this time.  I would certainly be willing to change my opinion later.
'''Oppose''' The recent AFD with the copyright issue shows a lack of understanding with policy. I would recommend that you hold off a bit on the AWB edits and focus on trying things by hand for a bit. When you slow down and look at things by hand it forces you to think about policies and gets you familiar with these sort of things. Get involved in some typical admin areas AIV, RFPP, AFD, UAA, etc. and get a feel for how things are done. Your heart is in the right place and you seem to have good intentions, I just think you need a bit more time to get a grasp of policy. If I might make a suggestion, why not seek out another admin who would be willing to be an admin coach for you? Best wishes, <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Weak Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor]]. The user does not know what a copyvio is, and though has a good intent, I'm not sure the user knows such things good enough to be an admin. The above people put forth valid points that I cannot ignore, although I've seen download around a lot and have been pleased with some of the user's contributions. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Regretful oppose''' Download is friendly and helpful, and my interactions with him have been positive, but the issues raised about the recent AfD make me feel he's not quite ready for the mop; copyvio in particular is very serious and I think admins need to be pretty unapologetic about removing it.  I will almost certainly support if you run again in several months and can show that you've gained some more knowledge of this and related content policies.  Best, <b class="Unicode">
'''Oppose'''.  I've always liked your comments, and I like what I see of your work and dedication.  My sense is you got serious about Wikipedia starting around December, and 6 months of serious work is sort of a minimum requirement for me.  If you don't pass this time around, try [[WP:ER]] 3 months from now.  Please get a better grasp on [[WP:COI]]. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
'''Oppose''' Have concerns after reading above about issues including  copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines, and [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:COI]] issues. '''
Per cluefulness concerns brought up by others.  I also get a niggling sense of immaturity here.
'''Opppose''': poor understanding of Wikipedia policy shown at the linked AFDs. I suggest brushing up on your policy knowledge, specifically areas such as [[WP:Notability]] and [[WP:Copyright]], before submitting another RFA in future.
'''Oppose''' largely due to dissatisfaction with Q9 and Q10. Would prefer that an admin have more experience writing articles. I'm also concerned with the arguments brought up by MSGJ and either way. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Oppose''' Lack of clue - "Original research can be a very useful source in some cases." No, it can't.
Regretfully.  Much of the opposers raise points that both worry and lend me to believe the user is not ready for the tools.  I do however believe that, after learning some more about core policies and guidelines, that they'll be blocking and deleting in around half a year. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per the comment posted by Friday above. I'm sorry, and I would likely support in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Does not understand notability policies evidenced by comments at AFD. <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">
There are too many issues that make me think you are not yet going to be a net positive as an admin. Come back soon. '''
'''Oppose.''' As demonstrated by the AfDs given by either way, Download does not understand core wikipedia policies. '''''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I don't have a good feeling about this. The links that Either way provided above are problematic, particularly regarding copyright and verifiability issues. I am also greatly concerned by the answer to question 6. [[WP:NOR|No original research]] is a core content policy, and the answer reads like the user was prepared to ignore it if Citadel Broadcasting had responded. If information has not been published in reliable sources, it shouldn't be included in an article. '''
'''Oppose''' per above concerns with your grasp on such policies as [[WP:COI]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:COPYVIO]].  An admin needs to know these like the back of his hand. '''
'''Oppose''' for now. Candidate seems polite, but needs to better understand how Wikipedia works before being given the tools. To be clear, a combination of clue and policy knowledge is needed. I would suggest spending less time fighting vandals and more time discussing content disputes with those involved.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose'''.  Outstanding contributor especially in vandal fighting.  Thousands of quick thinking automated edits to improve the encyclopedia.  If you want to mop up with the stronger tools, you will need to show the community how you make decisions that require research and a firm grasp on policy.  Please continue to do what you do best.  <small>
'''Oppose''' posts such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=288367534&oldid=288366949 this] show concern about how user will handle stressful situations as an admin. Not talking the evil <small>age</small> word, but maturity does not appear to be there. Also arguments at AfD (as referenced above) do not show clear understanding of policy. <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">
The answer to Q6 WRT original research is pretty ridiculous. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=288357587 This] comment is also poor—it demonstrates, among other things, that he clearly misunderstands canvassing. The edit from the same conversation provided by StarM above also reflects poorly on the candidate. As noted by Friday and StarMf, maturity seems to be lacking. '''
'''Oppose''' - I like the candidate as both an editor and a friend, but I am unwilling to support this request at this time due to numerous issues which have been brought up. It is clear to me that the candidate is not ready for the extra responsibilities of adminship at this particular point in time, but I more than happy to support a future request on the assumption that the kinds of issues being brought up have been resolved by then. You will face an awful lot more in the way of abuse or whatever than you claim to have recieved by Either way, and even in that situation you claim that you have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=288367534&oldid=288366949 "seriously considered retiring"]. I find this to indicate that you could not handle the sort of people you will be dealing with on a frequent, if not daily basis. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Download&diff=288393376&oldid=288392092 This] reply to Seresin is also very concering, and fails to allay the concerns brought up in the previous diff. I also find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=288357587 this] to be of particular concern &mdash; it illustrates that among other things, the candidate does not understand the nature and actions that pertain to [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]], and also that (it appears) only believes that support !voters should be allowed to comment on opposes, and not the other way around. This is completely against the nature of RfA being a discussion (whether it is or not is irrelevant, it should be, and this goes against that ideal). As for the comment that "Download doesn't plan on working in AFD yet", adminship does not come in parts, it comes as one complete package. Once you have it you can (and I'm not saying that you will) disregard absolutely anything that has been said here, and work at whichever administrative areas that you wish to work at. This, of course, includes AfD, and whilst I am willing to believe that if the candidate says that they will not work at AfD until they are ready that they will not work there until they ''believe'' that they are ready, the very nature of this request for adminship gives me a slight concern about that judgment, and I'd like for Download to be reassessed at that point. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor]] also brings some concern, as it seems to indicate that Download does not, at this point in time, understand core policies pertaining to copyright violations (and what one is, it would appear) and notability. I would also like to know what makes you feel more 'ready for adminship' now than a month ago, when you [[User_talk:Download/Archives/2009/April#Adminship|told GT5162]] that you wanted to perform more non-admin work and that you wanted to gain more experience prior to going through the RfA process. In summary, I am usually willing to support good-faith editors (which Download undeniably is) outright, but simply cannot support this particular request for adminship due to the numerous concerning issues brought to light during it. Best of luck at any future requests, assuming that you allay the concerns brought up during this request (and ones which may crop up at a later point in time), I look forward to supporting your next request for adminship, assuming that you will wish to run for adminship again. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', user is "way too addicted to Wikipedia".
Just far, far too many problems. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Download does not have a good enough understanding of deletion policy.
'''Oppose'''.  It's quite apparent to me this candidate is not yet ready.<p>As an aside: RFAs like this irritate me, because they highlight the fundamental issues with our current RFA process.  I don't feel I can support someone unless I can see evidence of very high standards of conduct, because admins have tenure.  Many editors feel as I do.  Therefore RFA is very difficult to pass.  But the fact that RFA is so hard to pass, then ''justifies'' the fact that admins have tenure.  The whole thing's a horrible vicious circle.<p>If it were easier to remove adminship, I'd vote "support" more often (as would many others), and we'd actually have more admins (and more active ones).—
'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately, the candidate doesn't seem to quite grasp some of out policies, including the concern of [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. There are times to [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|ignore all rules]], but this just isn't the case. — '''''
'''Oppose''' We have [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] for a reason.
'''Oppose''' From what I have seen of the user they just don't seem to understand core issues like copyright. -
'''Strong oppose''' His comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Either_way here] show an unacceptable lack of maturity and clue.
No, sorry, per [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Either way]]. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' per lack of understanding of copyright issues shown at the "Seven Ways" [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seven_ways_to_greet_a_neighbor|AFD]]. This user does not yet have the breadth of experience needed.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=286166236&oldid=285648538 This] was very odd, and a bit inappropriate. Neutral for now, <s>though this is only a temporary position</s>. –'''
'''Neutral''' Userspaces are not toxic.
'''Neutral''' No terribly bad signs but the answers to questions 6 and 10 worry me.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a helpful and productive user (Edits to spaces outside mainspace don't bother me).  I worry at the responses to the questions, though.  Q4 doesn't seem off when you consider that Download may not have been referring to the very specific trial we are conducting but instead referring to the idea of flagged revisions in general.  Q6 is the editor's opinion on a policy, so I am hesitant to declare it "wrong".  I will say that it appears to be coming from a troubling set of assumptions. I think you need to spend some time looking over core admin and content policies.  Feel free to ask for help!
'''Neutral''', a good user who has made many useful contributions, and I believe that they wouldn't deliberately misuse the tools, but the AFD discussed in Tavix' oppose worries me a little.  An admin should be able to spot and deal with a copyvio appropriately.
'''Neutral'''; arguments for support and opposition leave me in the middle on this user's RfA.
Mostly OK, but nominating an article for AFD and !voting to keep it is a bit muddled.
I think you just need a bit more time on Wikipedia to get more experience and to reach the height of your maturity.  Best of luck, '''
I think you have the potential to persuade me to support in the future, but not at this time - I'd like to see how you will address the feedback you've been given here.
'''Support''' good candidate
This is still malformed, but eh. [[WP:NOTNOW|You're just not ready yet]]. Sorry. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Learn what an admin does (somebody strike this if he answers Q4 correctly), gain more contributions, and come back later.--
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry Doc, you'll need a little more experience first. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' One of the more <s>amusing</s> interesting RfAs I've seen. Someone SNOW this please. ''3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? A. No. I will lose the edit wars unless the other person is violating wikipedia policy.Dr. Szląchski (talk) 5:29 pm, Today (UTC−7)''
'''Support''' per nom. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Moral Support''' - Dr.Szląchedzki - I've seen you at WP:ACC and all over the place and you do good work, but as the opposes below are saying I think you may need to give your self [[WP:NOTNOW|some more time]].  I can sympathize with your situation... it is very easy to come here and see the Admin role and think of that is the ultimate goal and to do whatever you possibly can to get the rights as quickly as possible.  After all, we all help do things but we feel like we could help just a bit more and do things just a bit quicker if only we had the access to do things ourselves.  Unfortunately, like anything worth doing, it takes time to do it right.  Just like a marriage proposal, you don't want to rush in to this doing only what you expect the other party wants to see from you because when you finally get what you want you won't know how to act.  Better to be yourself, try a bunch of different things, even fail at some of them and learn from your mistakes, and show the community how valuable you are over time.  Good luck, both this time and in the future.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience; 3 months isn't really long enough for me. Answers to the questions above also seem rather short. It's hard to determine much from them. Edit stats look good, perhaps try again later.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in the various places necessary for being an admin. I recommend working in some of those areas and then coming back in 4-5 months. Also, you gave no statement about why you want to be an administrator (see the other current RfAs for an example of a statement), and your answers to the few questions above give barely any information about who you are and why you would be a good admin choice. [[WP:NOTNOW]]. ···
'''Oppose'''. I haven't seen any significant changes from [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dr._Szląchski|your RFA]] dated September 24, 2009. This looks like a first RfA because of the name change I guess, but at this point I'd suggest developing more experience in different parts of the project and come back after a few months. -
'''Oppose''' Too soon since last RFA, also, while I refrain from commenting on whether or not the following ''should'' be an issue, anyone posting an opinion in their own RfX indicates someone who has not [[grok]]ed the wiki way, where such behavior is not the norm. Personally, I want the sysops of this project to have a better understanding of what makes this project tick, and thus must respectfully oppose until such time as Dr.Szląchedzki gets a better feel for the project and its members. Good Luck! --
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. Strongly suggest you close this RfA, work hard in areas that you love to work in, and come back no sooner than six months. Wishing you the best, <font color="green">
'''Weak Oppose''' Come back in couple of months. Be patient and you will become a great admin some day. Have fun fighting vandalism. Remember to try again after some more experience :) <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:blue;">
'''Oppose''' per the unsigned vote you cast in favour of your own nomination. Also too many recent uses of the <nowiki>{{{helpme}}}</nowiki> tag. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Szląchedzki/Archive_1#Brits_site] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Szl%C4%85chedzki/Archive_1#.7B.7Bhelpme.7D.7D] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Szl%C4%85chedzki/Archive_1#.7B.7Bhelpme.7D.7D_2] An admin should be able to respond to requests for help, not be the one asking for it in those matters. Also per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dr._Szl%C4%85chski your RfA from last month]. Take the time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia and how it works. <s>Also your customised signature links to your former user page which then redirects to your current userpage. I would suggest updating your signature to your current username.</s> Sorry i missed that you have already changed that.  <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose'''.  You state you wish to work with [[WP:NFC|non-free]] images but you've only made a grand total of three edits in the file namespace.  I'd recommend getting some more experience first and perhaps coming back in a few months.  Recommend early close per [[WP:SNOW]] or [[WP:NOTNOW]]. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''.  Not yet enough Wiki experience.--
'''Oppose''' - What Avi said.
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]  --'''
'''Oppose'''. Can become an administrator after he gathers more experience and makes more Wiki contacts...
I'm afraid that 2 RFAs in two months and, in particular, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.Szl%C4%85chedzki&diff=prev&oldid=316204575 this "help me" question] indicates a misguided focus on adminship. Although it is a common misconception among new editors, adminship is not a goal. Wikipedia is not a contest. My best advice is to focus on content, policies and helping to build an encyclopedia -- and to consider adminship only when experienced editors suggest it. Good luck with your continued editing. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
I've seen a lot of Dylan's work and I'll be very surprised if something turns up that changes my vote, but I'll keep an eye on it.  The comments about Ottava are regrettable, but they're a long time ago and I'm positive Dylan takes a different approach at RfA now. - Dank (
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Support]]''' I have to say Dylan. You had a pretty shaky past but you have learned quickaly. You have done wonders in all areas that you have contributed in and furthermore you have have admited to your own mistakes. It takes guts to admit that you were wrong...even if it can fail your RFA. More admins these days need to be humble and realize that they are admins, not supermen. If everyone here was like you then the project would be a better place. Im proud to !vote support for you. Good job and Good luck.--
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' Pleased with the well-thought out answer that Dylan gave to the first half of my question, and seriously doubt that he could say anything in the response to the second half that would negate the opinion I have from seeing him around. Smart, competent, and clueful editor, who takes the time to help out people who need it. I have no reservations about giving him a few extra buttons to push, as him assuming the role of administrator would be a net positive for the project. <small>
'''Support''' Looking at your contributions and how well you've been teaching your adoptees (I've actually started borrowing your method =P), I'd say that your initial immaturity is behind you now. Keep up the good work. Cheers!--
'''Support''' Recent contribs look good. Ignoring the past and anticipating the future, I would love to see you as an admin.--
'''Support'''.  While [[WP:UP#NOT]] 4/11 would apply to Q8 better (images of naked people can't be fair use, and Commons doesn't host fair use), I feel that Dylan will be a great sysop. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' You remind me of me when I was younger on here, and we have both learned from our mistakes while editing here. I admire your enthusiasm. Good luck.
'''Support''' Great user.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''[[Illegitimi non carborundum]]''' I must admit that I'm a tad annoyed about the "gut instinct" and "perception" opposes, It must be the school/weekday banner on your user page... many ageist rednecks hang round RFA so dont be too disheartened. To the opposes I wish to note that my gut feeling is that negative gut feelings based on no evidence is a reason not to support, but '''not''' a reason to oppose - especially when you cite no reasons or evidence that justifies it. RFA should be the candidate and not omens, mythology, astrology or other pathetic things such as gut feelings (Just imagine it "Oh its a solar eclipse, bad energies, better oppose everyones RFA today"). All jokes asside, from what I can see Dylan is a helpful contributor who does good and means well, accordingly I wish him the best of luck with his RFA.
'''Weak Support:'''Dylan is a helpful contributor who does good work and means well. Some of the opposes caused me concern, but over all a net positive -
'''[[ad vitam aut culpam]]''' - Some concerns per nom statement. Creating 71 accounts @ [[WP:ACC]] and then going inactive for nigh 6 months [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=newusers&user=Dylan620&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1] is not a strong selling point and is especially not worth mentioning twice. That being said i find that Dylan620 would be a net-positive admin so [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|why not]]. <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Concerns over the user's maturity and types of contributions. Perhaps a little more time, and possibly more work in article mainspace :) <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Weak oppose''', still concerned about maturity, though a lot of the issues are dated.
Sorry, but I have maturity concerns here. Adminship is a big role and I don't feel you are quite ready for it, sorry. Additionally, your answer to Question 6, where the question says, "...is more important to abide by and enforce the letter '''or''' the spirit of...", as opposed to "will you abide by and enforce X", to me, neither shows sufficient thought or understanding. I do have strong opinions on how admins should act, and the characteristics they should posses, and I am afraid you have showed you do not posses those qualities. <small>Updated at 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)</small> <font face="Forte">
It's very clear you're here to help. I've seen you all around the project, and it's obvious that you're trying to be as helpful as possible. It is also clear you're here for all the right reasons- you seem to have stuck your head into the wrong places early in your time here-and therefore, would be a net positive. Nevertheless, as many have said earlier, the real question at RfA is "do I really trust this candidate with the tools?" At this point, I don't think I could fully say that I could trust you, Dylan. You do seem to be a bit immature, and seem to be prone to rely on others for decisions. Maturity comes with experience and I am sure that you will eventually make an excellent admin candidate, just not at this time. Best, '''
Weakest of weak opposes - going with my gut.  Don't think the candidate is suited to the tools.  Really sorry. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339999;">
'''Oppose''' Maturity concerns.  I also don't feel it's appropriate for you to take credit for [[William Thompson Lusk]], as you did in your nomination statement.  ⇌
Your contributions to "building" [[William Thompson Lusk]] was converting some notes into prose and adding headers. It was not worth mentioning in the opening statement. Also, I've noticed this user demonstrate poor judgement on numerous occasions. It's fine wanting to be an admin, but being an admin wannabe definitely is not. '''
I agree with everything ceranthor said. To avoid repetition, I'll leave you with "per ceranthor." '''
I think you are a great guy, but I'm unsure whether you would be suited for adminship because of maturity.  Best of luck anyway, '''
'''Oppose''' - Whilst Dylan has always been polite and kind to myself i dont think nows the time for him to get the mop as ifear he wouldnt be able to handle it.
'''Oppose''' - I am concerned by the user's grasp of the policies admins must implement.  Specifically, I see two issues with the answer to question 8.  First of all, the link to [[WP:UP#Images on user pages]] discusses ''images'', not ''links to images'' -- a subtle but important distinction.  More worrying is the willingness expressed to engage in unilateral deletion of the user page without going through [[WP:MFD|the MfD process]] to determine community consensus on the question.  I'm also underwhelmed by the answer to question 6.  <small>I strongly suspect that the word "or" was missed by the candidate, or possibly interpreted as an inclusive or.  My interpretation of the question is that it presents an exclusive disjunction.</small>  A generalization like the one put forward -- that policies are about protection -- should showcase a structure to the candidate's views on policy, preferably one that allows voters to understand how the candidate will act in the admin role.  However, what is there is unhelpful in this regard, and merely provides a lightly annotated list of some WP policies.  For these reasons, I must oppose this nomination. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'>
'''Oppose''' - Per Q8; summary deletion wouldn't be the answer, even ''if'' deletion were eventually decided as the community response. (Such result is far from certain.) I don't think the fabric of the universe would necessarily be rent asunder, but this judgment doesn't sit well with me, and it doesn't inspire confidence that admin tools would be used in a net-positive way. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Question 8 really killed it for me. That would be a drama filled DRV if he really did do something like that to a constructive editor without discussion. Adminship seems to be a big goal for Dylan, which seems to be particularly common among less mature users. When adminship itself becomes the goal instead of improving Wikipedia, then we have a problem.
'''Oppose''' per A8.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough mainspace work. Most of the work has been on community related pages. A very rough estimate of article space edits that aren't twinkle or huggle (Article edits - (Huggle + Twinkle) / 2 (one for main one for talk)) leaves less than one thousand main article edits, which could be fine, but it doesn't count the numerous whitespace edits I see in the history. Compare that to over 1,000 user page edits. ''I have no problem with those kinds of edits'' and those are good things, but I think they need to be discounted appropriately and I don't see a lot of broad based article work. I could support in the future, but not yet.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - He needs more mainspace work, and many of his edits are from [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] and [[WP:HG|Huggle]].
'''Oppose''', concerns about maturity, knowledge of policy, and breadth of overall experience. '''
'''Oppose''' A record of tactless behavior is the deal killer.
'''Oppose''' Maturity concerns along with the answer to Q8.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'm undecided for the moment. The incident with Ottava makes me reluctant, but the incident being so long ago is what's preventing me from opposing. I'm planning on deciding once I get to see the answers to any subsequent questions that might be asked... <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Neural''' - I just have too many issues in the maturity department that I don't want to support. I don't want to be harsh and oppose, so I am neutral.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
Also currently undecided. Consider this a placeholder, I will make an oppose or support comment soon. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
I think Dylan is a very nice person, has nothing but good intentions, and I doubt he would abuse the tools. What sets him apart is his high level of enthusiasm, which of course is sometimes taken for callowness. Admins need to be held to a high standard of maturity, and while Dylan may or may not quite meet that standard, the perception he gives is not particularly compatible with adminship, unfortunately. I appreciate all the work he does in making the Wikipedia community a more welcoming one.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Neutral]]''' - I am a little stuck on this one. I feel the opposers aren't giving enough evidence but I feel a support isn't right, unfortunately. Good luck nonetheless. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Neutral'''. I like you but I just have a few niggling doubts at the back of my mind that won't let me support. However, come back in a few months and address some of the concerns raised by those above me and I see no reason why you shouldn't be successful. Oh, and since we're all quoting Latin- [[per ardua ad astra]].
'''Neutral''' (switch from support) The answer to Q8 is highly worrying. I cannot support anyone for adminship who would delete out of process without a very good reason to do so (I have no problem with IAR deletions when needed). As Gigs says in their oppose, such an action, apart from being against policy and without discussion, would also very likely cause drama on a large scale. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' Dylan is getting close to the point where I would support. Some of the answers should be tweaked a bit, especially Q8 (why not get consensus or at most just remove the content without deleting the page?). '''<font color="#000000">
'''Moral support''' Would have opposed but supporting per [[WP:AGF]]. Keep up the hard work. <strong>

'''Oppose''' per iMatthew (I was actually going to submit a NOTNOW !vote myself when I saw his in the edit box!). --[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
Yes I have to agree with those above. Insufficient amount of time editing and not enough contributions. But please, do keep up the good work, in another year or so, renominate yourself, I'm sure you'll be the perfect candidate by then.--(
'''Oppose''' I respect your clean block log, and as the photographs you loaded that were subsequently deleted as copyright violations were some months ago I'm happy to accept your assurance that you learned [[wp:COPYVIO]] as a result. However [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AAvrolinerSWISS.jpg&timestamp=20090314222033&diff=prev  this diff] is only from March and seems to show you removing a speedy tag from a photo you loaded without asserting that you are in a position to release the copyright. I'd also like an explanation as to what you've learned about copy paste moves since the Brussels incident. So overall I'm afraid I don't think you are ready yet, but I hope we will see you here again after a further three months editing. ''
'''Oppose''', answer to Q1 does not show why this editor needs access to the tools.
Not going to pile on, keep up the good work and come back in 4-6 months.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
Per above, sorry. :-(  You seem like a good guy, keep it up.
'''per giant, werespiel and Imatthew.''' I do support Wikignomes, but you need '' a lot'' of wikignoming. Find some articles to expand. There are still notable subjects lacking articles. I don't require FA, GA, or DYK, but a lot of RFA-ers do. Once you've made a bunch of substantial additions to the 'pedia, look at page patrolling, vandalism reversion, etc. Look for articles to improve, but know when to tag for deletion too. Build a reputation for knowing polices for article building and the tool related areas. The  more familiarity you gain with all the policies, the more the community will trust you with the Mop. Cheers, and good luck for the future.
<s>'''Easy decision'''</s> '''Weak Support'''  —
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support''' as co-nom.
'''Support.'''  Heck yeah, and twice, too!  —
Honestly, whenever I see a "thought he was one" comment I usually think it's just an extra compliment. Yet I have to admit the moment I saw this RfA up, I was shocked. I have always thought of Enigmaman as an administrator, and I cannot believe he isn't one yet. His signature has become a symbol of the reason and clue that our site is sorely lacking. He deserves the tools like few other candidates that come here do, and I'm honoured to sign my name here.
'''Support''' &ndash; Definitely. I've known Enigmamna for many months, and yes, he's a fine admin candidate who has done very much to help our encyclopedia. What I'm most impressed of is that Enigmaman helped clear a huge backlog of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets&oldid=229020916 48 cases] at [[WP:SUSPSOCK]] which eventually got [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets&oldid=229174731 archived] (as noted on his user page). Since then, he has cleared quite a bit more of them. Enigmaman will be a fine administrator to help work at pages such as [[WP:SUSPSOCK]] with the extra help from the buttons. I've also seen his work at [[WP:AIV]] (537 edits) and [[WP:RFPP]] (137 edits), so he help out there and do the needed actions himself without having to report. He can also take care of other user's reports. I have no concerns about him abusing the tools. &mdash;
(ec) '''Strong Support''' per Master & Expert. I had no idea he wasn't already an admin! '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''<s> When Dweller offered to nominate him a few months ago, we contacted one of the leading voices of the opposition at Enigma's last RfA to ask him what he thought.  He responded, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dweller&diff=next&oldid=243636532  I've kept my eye on him. He is competent at handling complex information and the boring stuff that would make him a productive admin. I think he will probably use the tools well, and I would just assume that failing the last RfA would have brought the most important lessons about community opinion home to him.]  I have to agree.  I think the issues that killed his first candidacy are in his past.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>[[User:Balloonman/CSD Survey|CSD Survey Results]]</small> 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Haven't decided based on new evidence.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>[[User:Balloonman/CSD Survey|CSD Survey Results]]</small> 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</s> Ok, I've given this enough time to sink in and to think about it.  Enigma made a mistake, but for the most part those edits were not completely over the top.  The only real cause for concern was when he realized that he was logged out he pretended that he was a newbie.  Editing while logged out is not a problem.  It is only a problem if you are acting differently than you do when logged in or you are representing yourself as a different person in various discussions that you've partaken in while logged on.  Enigma did neither of those.  It is also a problem if you log out deliberately to make an edit anonymously because you don't want to be traced and log back in.  Enigma did not do that.  None of the edits in and of themself was worthy of an oppose, so I can't oppose on those edits.  Mbiz has made loose allegations about another IP that he suspected back in February of being Enigma.  I've looked at the edits and they can be pretty damming---there are 4 cases of vandalism on pages that Enigma was working on within an hour of the vandalism.  I can't use these against Enigma for several reasons.  First, he denies them, that may not weigh much in some peoples book, but I've not known Enigma to be a liar.  He could have tried to wiggle out of the allegations the other day, but owned up to them.  Second, they supposedly come from a different geographical area.  Third, one of the cases of vandalism would be very difficult with one of Enigma's edits.  Enigma edited a page 2 minutes before the vandalism, during the same minute the vandalism occured, and a third page a minute later.  While this is possible, it would require such venom for me to accept that this alleged IP was in fact Enigma.  Finally, while some people have been critical of Enigma not devulging this IP immediately, that is his perjogative.  It is a shame that some people felt compelled to force him to do so... and by forced, I do mean forced.  Through some detective work they figured out what his edits were and then provided a road map so that others could similarly figure them out, despite his saying he'd like to keep it a secret for privacy sake.  This whole case was botched from the very beginning.  But I think Enigma handled it with class (as did Deskana after realizing his mistake.)  I think a number of people are opposing with their heart not their mind.  He is the same person who was at 46-0-0 2 days ago.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>
'''Support'''. I didn't get a chance to completely finish my nomination. I also wanted to mention his excellent work with suspected sockpuppets. Other than that, supporting as per my nomination.
'''Support'''.  Reviewed the negatives from Enigma's last RfA, and I can't find anything to be concerned about in light of everything above.  Really impressive candidate. - Dan
Hello, I'm [[Puss in Boots (fairy tale)|Puss in Boots]] and I need to get on the next coach to London in order to warn good King Henry about...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: <s>'''Support'''</s>'''Very Strong Support''' for a fine editor who won't turn Wikipedia into a furball clogged litterbox.
'''Support'''. I'd support based on the supporters above alone, but upon further research, everything checks out too. <font color="777777">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. An exemplary editor, thoughtful and rational. —
'''Support'''. Certainly.
'''Really Strong Support''' A very competent editor.  The project would benefit by having him as an administrator.  I might also add that I had every intention to co-nom. Sorry I missed the opportunity (back at work and can only just get back and forth to WP at the moment).--
'''Logged in just to support'''.  Off again. Glad I didn't miss this.  Excellent editor, will do just fine.  Overdue.
'''Support'''. I've had limited but very good interactions with Enigma. After reviewing his information, I have no concerns and am convinced he'll be a great admin.
'''Strong Support''' As last time - entirely positive interactions, great user, here for the right reasons. Maliciously launched this RFA whilst I was in bed, but I'll let you off this once :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Plenty of experience and has demonstrated his aptitude in admin-related areas.
'''Support.''' I can think of very few people whom I would trust more than Enigma for adminship. Good luck. ·
'''Support'''. Like GlassCobra said, this is overdue. We could have used his help mopping up a long time ago.
'''Jawohl'''(<small>Reaffirmed after CU discussion. <font face="Arial"> [[User:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">Peter</font><font color="#02b"><b>Symonds</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:PeterSymonds|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)</small>) <font face="Arial">
'''Strong Support''' About time you ran.
'''Strong Support''' [[WP:WHYNOT|Why not]]? He has almost ''too'' much expertise in almost every subject-articles ''and'' reversion of vandalism! Seems too good to be true...jk. Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
Yes, I trust this user.
'''Support''' Have come across him a few times. Good person to deal with. [[WP:CIVIL|Civility]] counts topmost for me!
'''Support''' - responsible[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Protecting_BLP_articles_feeler_survey&diff=prev&oldid=260509289].  Just updating to say I still stand here.  Silliness, though the attacks on Deskana are troubling, they're not coming from Enigmanman, as far as I can see.
'''Support''' - Looking over his track record, I believe he would make a great admin.
'''Weak support''' seems to meet most of [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards|my standards]], i.e. no blocks for example; however, stuff like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisco Centennial High School (2nd nomination)]] gives me some pause (notice there's the nomination and then the candidate "votes" again further down in the discussion aside from being inconsistent with the community's consensus there where there's only one other call to delete that includes a personal attack against another user).  Best, --
'''Support''' - Has [[WP:CLUE|clue]] by the bucketload. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;">
'''Support'''Why not!? Good contribs, answers to questions and overall good user, net positive. [[User:AtheWeatherman|Andy]] ([[User talk:AtheWeatherman|talk]]) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC) After the recent drama, I still have decided to support, I thought I would go to neutral but the situation itself was not greatly handled but the way Enigma handled it was supreme, calm and composed, I still think he will be a great contributor and positive to the project. I also believe he has learned from his mistakes and will not do this again.
'''Support''' [[User:Icewedge|Icewedge]] ([[User talk:Icewedge|talk]]) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC) '''weak ''' in light of IP edits
'''Support''' →
'''Support'''.  Looks okay to me.
'''Strong Support''' - TYPED BEFORE DRAMA: To be honest, when I saw in my watchlist that Enigma was listing a request for adminship, I fully expected to see him as the nominator. I was shocked when I saw that he was in fact the one up for adminship. I genuinely thought he was already an administrator. His answer to question five is one of the best answers I have ever seen for that question. His answers to the other questions are also brillient. AFTER DRAMA: I am not put off in the slightest by what has recently come to light. Enigma still has my support 100% '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''' Hello, I understand you sell galoshes here? I'll be walking in the rain all day and...sorry, wrong queue.
'''Strong support''' Was happy before the unnecessary well poisoning; am still happy, even more so (with the candidate). '''
Support, downgraded from the very strong support I would have given him before the IP thing, but support nonetheless.  I actually don’t have a problem with him editing as an IP; it doesn’t look like he was trying to evade scrutiny on anything serious to me.  I don’t have a problem with how he handled the mess last night; he was understandably trying to figure out, quickly and under a lot of pressure, how to prevent his IP address from being broadcast.  I do have a problem with the apparent chip on his shoulder he had when he made some of those IP edits, almost as if he was kind of looking for a fight, or looking for ammunition in a “look how we treat IP editors” discussion.  Still, I’m chalking it up to the fact that [[WP:BELLY|he’s human]].  He’s demonstrated many times that his heart is in the right place, he’s been a tremendous benefit to the project, I trust him to use the tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I trust him when he says something like this won’t ever happen again. --
'''Support''' For privacy reasons, we can't see what these edits were, and the IP cannot be disclosed by anyone, even privately. There is conflicting opinions about how severe the edits were. Some people are calling them trivial; some people are saying they were a generic avoiding scrutiny sort of thing. There was apparently a light edit war about a speedy delete tag. I'm inclined to support as we judge by the overall body of experience and contributions, and the likelihood of abuse of the tools, not for the one-off incidents. None of us are perfect, and it's unfair to expect admins to be perfect. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
Normally, if this were to happen, I would be opposing the RfA. However, Enigmaman's conduct on the talk page shows that he is a Wikipedian that, while he may have made some bad decisions in the past, does not try to hide it, and acts in a civil manner. Scarian said on the talk page that Enigma is very dedicated to the project, and works hard for it. Despite the IP concerns, I am very impressed with how he stayed civil in a manner that would cause some people to be entirely uncivil. That's exactly what I want in an admin. As such, I am '''Strong Support'''ing.
'''Strong support''' For reasons noted on the CU discussion page.
'''Strong support''' per Majorly. &ndash;
'''Support'''. While I normally avoid drama like the [[Black Death|plague]], it is important to register a post-drama support of this candidate. I am sympathetic to the opposers' (currently 6) concerns, but I just don't see that one burst as indicative of an editor who is suddenly not an asset to the project. If more evidence showed up, that would be a different story, but we had plenty of time for that...and nothing came of it. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Really? Support.
'''Support'''. Temporary lapses of judgment happen. ;) --
'''Support'''. A worthy editor with a history of being involved in encyclopedic issues. About the whole ip editing issue, there almost certainly was a lapse in judgement there. But, admins are people too and, on the balance, I'd rather deal with an admin who occasionally succumbs to baser temptations than with one who is always above it all. It's not as if there is a consistent history of using ips to avoid scrutiny.  --
I've had about 10 minutes to absorb the rest of the discussion that took place after 1am last night and I only have about 5 more minutes to spend on wiki. I've probably wasted that time reading since I could have spent it writing a better statement of support. But here goes: I support Enigmaman. He made a mistake, we all do. The mistake wasn't that severe and whilst admins are supposed to be role models for good behaviour, no one can be perfect all of the time. He stated it won't happen again, I trust that. Also, SSP *needs* someone like E-man (diligent, hard-working, good attention-to-detail).
'''Support''' - despite the drama. <b>

'''Support'''. We're appointing someone to delete stubs on bands and prevent people writing "poooop!" on articles, not electing the Pope. Despite all the sound and fury I can't see any ''systematic'' pattern of problem behaviour. If "sometimes loses his temper and does stupid things" was a desysop criteria we'd have two admins left. And they'd be too bland and unconfrontational to get anything done.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Strong Support''' - Throughout this ordeal, Enigma has shown the composure of an admin. I can overlook the incident because it appears to be a isolated case.
'''Support''' -The logged out editing/incivility was something done under a sense of anonymity and Enigmaman surely regrets doing that. The edits weren't that bad either. Support for being a prolific editor otherwise, with an assumption that there will be no more IP-edits in the future, specially now that issue is public.--
'''Support''' Handled the drama with non-dramatics, what we need. Lots of good work.
'''Strong support''' <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' I'm not happy about the IP edits, but editor has a strong record, and I believe he will be a net positive.  I saw a church sign once, "Perfect people not wanted".  I think that he's learned his lesson, and is unlikely to do any such thing again.  --
'''Strong Support''' - One of the greatest contributors I have ever met. Sterling guy and a sterline editor. Has made some errors in the past, but haven't we all? Look at this contributions on his account, not his IP, and you'll see the pure '''dedication''' to the well-being of this project.
'''Strong Support'''. I don't normally !vote on RfAs for users with whom I have not interacted, but I must make an exception here. Enigmaman's response to "Teh Dramaz" has been nothing but calm and mature &mdash; qualities that are extremely valuable for an admin to have. Additionally, the IP edits don't worry me much. We all have off days, and we all make mistakes, but unless an ongoing pattern of incivility and rudeness is established, we shouldn't hold it against an editor.
'''Support.''' The logged-out edits aren't particularly concerning.
Candidates get no damn leniancy nowadays. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' I originally came to vote on this RfA when it was <del>locked down</del>"on hold", and I found out about all this drama on the talk page, but even after all that has happened I don't believe that Enigmaman made any edits of consequence while logged out. Everyone gets a little mad sometimes (and sometimes the Wikipedia environment doesn't help to calm you down) but when you look at the bigger picture, that small edit war only makes up a microscopic part of who Enigmaman is, and when I look at the bigger picture I still believe that he is worthy of the tools. Good luck Enigmaman, and don't let the opposes get you down.
'''Strong Support''' If that's the worst you've ever done then it does not warrant the associated drama, which was more to do with the clumsy way it was revealed than the content itself.  Admins have been created with far worse past transgressions.  --
'''Support'''. After all that buildup, the edits were utterly fine. Any loss of trust in Enigmaman would be based on the insinuation that he was doing something malicious, which is not borne out by the edits.
Soley because of the way he handled himself in ths RfA.
'''Strong support''' - My fully detailed opinion of this shameful matter can be found [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2/CU_discussion#It.27s_amazing.|here]]. Any concern I may have drawn from the edits in question are completely disregarded at this point. Equate it to police mishandling evidence and the courts ruling it inadmissible. The manner in which is was presented, the misrepresentation, accusations, speculation, and badgering from some of the members of this community (and they know who they are... and if they don't, I list most of them in that link) was just pathetic. Enigmaman was all but forced to release his IP against his wishes and did so only after others (particularly RyanPostlethwaite) all but typed it out for everyone. I don't find the edits particularly troubling, and were they made logged in, I wouldn't care at all. This whole situation was ridiculous, yet typical. It wasn't even extraordinary or exceptional. Just a different variation of the now all too common "zOMG DRAMA IN RFA/SELF-IMPORTANT WIKIPOLITICAL BULLSHIT". Top it off with E-man's impressive handling of the situation and he's just looking even better.
'''Support''' mainly because of the way he handled the drama - an ability needed as admin. also per above reasoning of [[User:Balloonman]] whichever way he !voted in the end.
'''Strong support''': Grace under fire. <sup><small>
'''Strong Support''' per Jennavecia, Agathoclea, and Law.
'''Support''' I don't think that ~10 questionable edits under an anon IP can outweigh 18,000 useful contributions of an editor in good standing. Who Opposes an RfA over ''one'' instance of screwing around on a boring Tuesday?--
'''Über Support''' I've known Enigma for a long time on WP, working with him on several occasions, and he's proven himself (to me, at least) that he is worthy of adminship. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' per WTHN essentially. I've seen E-man around and interacted with him in various places on wiki going back six months or so. No reason to to doubt his abilities as an admin. <font face="Verdana"><font color="6600FF">
While it's been a tough decision in consideration of recent events, I can't help but overlook the fact that it's an isolated occasion and wasn't really that far "over the line" as far as behaviour goes. Overall net positive to the project. Enigmaman has a good head on his shoulders and won't use the tools foolishly. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Sympathetically Strong Support''' - per WTHN, net positive, Enigma's handling of this mess, and some of the hell this guy just went through (saying this after reading through all the drama and oppose #1 below). —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support'''. Any concerns about the IP edits have been considerable outweighed by his manner regarding the issue. &raquo;
'''Strong Support''' - [[user:Enigmaman|Enigmaman]] has a long history of maintaining and improving wikipedia, in particular in fighting vandalism. As an administrator he will definitely be able to contribute much more !!
'''Unequivocal Support''': I have some experience in American law and [[due process]]. As far as the IP issue, it's a [[WP:DEAL|non-issue]]. As of right now, it is not admitted evidence and should not be considered, pondered, or talked about. Perhaps the "Judge" could have spoken to Enigma first then made a decision of the admissibility of the "evidence" but that is now a moot point. I personally have seen Enigma around the wiki-scene for the past 14 months that I have been here. He has always been knowledgeable of WP policy, tactful yet firm with vandals that weren't worthy of such restraint, and has used good common sense.--
'''Support''' - I realize (and almost expect) that my !vote will be thrown out because I'm a very new editor. But last night I saw the drama unfold, and I can't stay silent. If Enigma had unanimous support before, this shouldn't change that. Enigma has handled the situation well. If this is the worst he's done, he should be an admin.
'''Support''' - While I am slightly more experienced than [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]], I could not agree more. Seriously guys, he runs at 100%, no-one has any problem with him, and then all of a sudden we discover that he made some mildly uncivil edits as an IP? And people think that giving him the mop will be ''a net negative to the project''? Because that's what an RFA is, isn't it? If you believe that this guy, who by all reports is an amazing Wikipedian, should not be allowed to help the project in other areas simply because he made a mistake while blowing off steam, then you should get some perspective. <font face="Impact">

'''Strong support''' - Excellent editor.--<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Support'''.  After having read up on all this drama regarding logged-out edits, I maintain my support for this user.  If there's one thing that's certain, he'll never edit logged out again.  In all seriousness, though, a few small comments made logged out do not outweigh a body of significant and positive contributions to the project.
Enigma is not the most prolific content contributor on wikipedia, but is a work horse in certain boring admin-related tasks which will turn his sysoping into a net benefit. Enigma exaggerates the extent of our apparent disagreement; the only thing I was concerned about afterwards was his interpretation of WP:VANDALISM, which he has since clarified to me. Regarding the IP. Give us all a break, please guys! Talk about mountains and mole hills. The "edit war" on Tex could be something, but all I see at worst is an established user wanting to relax for a bit; nothing would have happened if there were no blind reverts of IPs there. Absolutely nothing was done in the edits that brings him into disrepute, and so I conclude that there were no bad intentions. Nothing to be concerned about in that regard.
'''Support''' All editors ought to have the right to edit via anonymous IP without fear of harassment.
'''Support''' though not enthusiastically. The IP edits are a severe lapse in judgement but all things considered, I still think his sysoping would be a net positive.
'''Support''' good under pressure.
'''Strong support''' Not only no problems in my experience, has actually been a valuable assistant in dealing with a user who's been harassing me over the last year. Showed very adminlike qualities in the process.
'''Support''' -even more so after taking all the flak with grace. (
Mostly per iridescent; sure, it wasn't the best thing to do, but if he was an admin already everybody would treat it as a minor issue, especially stuff like changing warnings on your own talk page. I mean, seriously. He seems like a pretty intelligent and good candidate in all other respects.
'''Strong support''' Will make a good admin in my opinion. We all have our off days, unless I'm missing something I see nothing worthy of an oppose in the IP diffs that were released. After all the bad decisions that were made he handled the situation very well and kept his cool throughout the entire process. It's rather sickening how some of you drew a road map to his IP, and he had no choice but to release it.
'''Weak Support''' Mainly per Balloonman and Jennavecia, '''
'''Weak Support''' per several of the above and opposes.  Loggin off and editing may have been reckless.  I've done it myself a couple of times.  Enigma seems to have learned a lesson.  In any case, Engima meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] basically.  I would give him [[WP:AGF|the benefit of the doubt]].
'''Support'''. Ohnoes, sarcasm! And then we have endless threads on [[WT:RFA]] pondering why there are so few admins promoted these days...
I found this via a [[Wikipedia Review:BADSITE]]. Enigmaman looks like a great editor to me and it looks like a few of the in crowd are trying to railroad this RfA off the charts by finding some bad edits. '''Very strong support''' ''
I've sat quiet through all of this, and carefully come to the decision that I really can trust you to administrate this site. As Iridescent said, we're not electing a new Pope here. I trust you. —'''
'''Strong support''' per [[User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Enigmaman]]. '''
'''Support''' The IP nonsense doesn't worry me at all, I'm sure you'll do just fine as an admin.
'''Support''' The IP stuff was worrying...until I saw E-man's reaction to it. He was really under pressure there and he was more behaved then most others talking about it, he kept it cool and he apologized multiple times. I trust him to not repeat those mistakes again. '''
'''Support'''. I was a little concerned by the IP stuff, but I'm happy to call it an isolated lapse in judgment. Enigmaman is an excellent contributor who has generally shown he has the right knowledge and temperament for an admin, and one incident does not change that for me. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Enigmaman made a mistake over the IP editing, but I'm willing to overlook that when balancing it against his long history of productive editing, which indicates that he would make good use of the tools and be a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin. We all screw up sometimes, but what differentiates us is how we react to those mistakes; I'm willing to believe that Enigmaman, after this experience, has learned from his, and will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I, Jim Boon, have reviewed this person's contribs, and think he would be a Cracking administrator.
'''Support''' Enigmaman has made overall good contributions to Wikipedia, a lapse of judgment notwithstanding. I don't feel said lapse of judgment mars his ability to be a good administrator in the future, especially seeing how well he has responded in a stressful situation. He's been civil, calm, honest, and most of all willing to apologize for mistakes. These are all criteria that are needed in admins. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Honest, straightforward. Something other Wikipedia Users might like. Despite this candidate's RFA being poisoned heavily by Deskana, a move I think is controversial as any "normal" user puts their comments in their VOTE. But certain users are "more better" users than other... thus can stop the whole thing and shout MEMEMEME as well. I hope this still passes, good luck Enigma. And lol @ all the bandwagon naysayers.

'''Strong Support''' People on here oppose for absolutely stupid reasons in my view. So what? He's mucked around without being logged in. It doesn't mean everyone should blanket oppose right away - base him on his merits. There isn't a chance that he's going to muck around with his admin tools in the future. He has been an overall help to this project. Somehow 18,000 high quality edits are trumped by ~10 bad ones. 0.005 failure rate? The stats speak for themselves. People applying to adminship are looking to help the community, and Enigmaman is no exception here.
'''Support''', I approve. --
'''Support''' - In the end, I think having gone through this will make him a better admin.  The IP edits are a negative, but overall he has been a big positive for the project.  --
'''Support''' - I think Enigmaman would make a fine admin.  I think that the good that he's done outweighs any negatives.  Denying him smacks of the fallible "permanent record" rubbish that parents use to scare children.  That's just my 2KB.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Support''' I can't say no.
'''Support''' Ok, you have made a few mistakes. That proves beyond all reasonable doubt that you are in fact human and thus not perfect. We all have our little weaknesses, and we all deserve a second chance to atone for our errors. In the spirit of AGF I therefore forgive you for any past mistakes you made since I firmly believe in offering people second chances. Good luck with your rfa, and know that if it doesn't pass I will be there to support the next one whenever it may come.
'''Support'''. I believe that Enigmaman will be a well-rounded administrator.
'''Mild''' (but not weak..) '''support''' . This is a tough one, but an important one.  The way this RfA was handled was less than ideal, both in how the drama was whipped up, and also in the same vein as Lankiveil and Giggy.  The IP only geolocates the user to a very large population, so the person risks associated with disclosure are almost non-existent, and it is a "reasonable" amount of private information being disclosed.  All this talk of "privacy" is a worry from someone involved in SSP.  It should be expected that contentious editing anonymously or from an alternate account in the month running up to an RFA will likely lead to disclosure in order that the community can evaluate the person rather than just the account.  The candidate knows they are going to be under scrutiny, so they should be extra careful.  If someone who considers themself ready for the role of administrator makes ~20 anon edits over an ~8 hours, the most probable explanations are that they a) were intentional (probably spurred on by the first few edits whilst logged out unintentionally), or b) displayed a minor incompetence.  Either way, he owned up to them, realises that they were stupid, so I see this as a lesson learnt.  Enigmaman ''does'' have sufficient experience to be able to admin Wikipedia.  Hopefully the rest of the lessons are learnt without this much drama. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Strong Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' Enigmaman is a fully committed editor to Wikipedia, whose edits have greatly benefitted the project. The IP edits were a misjudgement, but there are very few editors who have not, at one time or another, acted impetuously, and it would be difficult for me to oppose considering that there are not many admins or active editors who have not been uncivil in a moment of weakness; everyone is human. Enigma held up his hands and admitted his mistake, and he will no doubt have taken into account the community's opinion on the edits. Given his work at SSP and other areas, on balance he is a large net benefit to the project as an administrator.
'''Very Weak Support'''.  I'll trust you after the whole IP edits, but please be careful if you do get the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' Well yeh, there's the IP thing, but we're not giving the mop to your IP, are we? Hehe... Just don't screw up, kid. <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
'''Support''' Good editor, much improved in experience from the previous application. Better knowledge of admin functions. Anyone can occasionally edit from an ip, and the actual edits there. though some of them not all that great, were not disgraceful and would not have been much of a disadvantage if under his own username.  I can think of many ways in which the otherwise reliable crat could have handled the situation better; had xe done so, there would have still been some opposes over it, but not many. Managed to keep calm, and had the courage to continue--more than I would have had in the circumstances. I think we can trust him with the buttons, and I'm not apt to say that if I think the candidate is at all dubious.  '''
'''Strong Support''' and good on you for not closing this RfA.--
'''Support''' &mdash; Really, I should check user permissions more often. —
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; Has been really kind to me, and I matter more than anything. :) '''
'''Strong''' Good experiences with editor.  The wise are made better for their mistakes, I believe this is one of the wise. <b>'''
'''Support''' per learning from experience.--
It's unfortunate what's happened: Enigmaman has improved greatly since his previous RfA, and I think he'll make a fine administrator.
'''Strong support''' I have encountered this user in the past. Enigmaman is a civil, helpful and conscientious contributor and I find many of the opposes to be frivolous and in bad faith.
'''Support'''.  After reading through this page, I do not see a negative issue that cancels out the mass of constructive edits. -
'''Support''' If VS is willing to give strong support to this candidature, that is good enough for me. --
'''Support''' I just spent the past hour reading over the veritable cornucopia of discussion on the talk page in regards to CU and the edits that Enigma made while logged out. I agree with many people that some of those edits are highly questionable. I do however respectfully disagree with those who oppose because of this reason. All told, we're looking at a tiny fraction of the edits that Enigma has made in his time here. We ALL make mistakes, a few transgressions are forgivable. We desperately need good dedicated administrators. Enigma would be a good one. Hence why I support. --
'''Support''' - Learning to learn from mistakes is an essential life skill.
'''Support'''. No worries.  --
I wasn't going to participate in this RfA. Candidate's main topic interest – military history – is not in short supply among the admin population. For all I knew he could be one of the countless bland and seemingly personality-less candidates who, with inhuman self-control, "hold it all in" until the day their RfA passes, until then never making any comment that could possibly be interpreted by the freaks who haunt RfAs as moderately "uncivil", and as soon as they get the admin bit feel free to lord it over lowly editors, barking ''Who the hell are you'' at any editor who dares to question any of their royal actions, bullying and intimidating and blocking and declining unblock requests with merry abandon. However, this past week candidate has been subjected to an appalling abuse of power from someone in a position to make his life miserable. He has been put through the wringer over a fairly minor infraction of his, been subjected to an avalanche of pile-on opposes from rubberneckers, been through a [[trial by ordeal]], has had his hand pushed into the kettle of boiling water, and for all the pain and suffering may well have come out of it a better person in the end, if he even needed to be taught tbis lesson, which I don't know, but on the assumption that he either already was or has now become a humane person, the candidate has my '''Support'''.--
'''Strong support''' You'll be a really good admin, good luck and I hope so much weight dosen't stress you!
'''Support''' I think lessons have been learned and this user would be trustworthy with the tools. I've certainly found nothing in my interactions with him of late to suggest otherwise.
'''Support'''. Seems within acceptable limits.
Sorry, not after the logged out edits fiasco. Whilst I believe the initial edits were a genuine mistake, the ones after were clearly not. Perhaps you were just blowing off a bit of steam, but you did get into an edit war and being logged out avoided scrutiny on your main account. '''
'''Oppose''' - Ryan said it best. All users occasionally forget to log in. The disruptive edits, however, were clearly intended to be anonymous and clandestine. I was going to support your RfA until this information was revealed. Total lapse in judgment.
<span class="plainlinks">'''Regretful oppose''' &ndash; whilst I supported last time round, I don't share that same conviction now. Some of the answers to the questions are particularly worrying or confusing, I am not sure which, since they leave me feeling like I have to make a note of it either way. On number 9 you state that if you had have had a successful RfA a few months ago, you "would've cut down on [your] article work, that's for sure" (which makes me concerned at your dedication to things, and also leads one to think all this article work has been done specifically for this RfA), then on 10 you proceed to state that "it's not something I would want to do because it affects all editors, not just the editors involved in the edit war" &ndash; don't you understand that protection is necessary when there is a case of multiple editors being involved in edit wars? Blocks fail to remove the 'threat' when dealing with cases where there are known sockpuppeteers or other affinities which also suggest the integrity of the article is at stake. I also came across a curious incident at [[Elijah Dukes]] from about three weeks ago; you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elijah_Dukes&diff=next&oldid=257783969 removed] the content added by a user (JMWhiteIV) without any reason at all (I'm failing to understand why at this point), White comes back to your talk page and makes a perfectly reasonable note as to why he changed the content he did, to which you replied [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=next&oldid=257787931 with an unhelpful response] at best. Whilst he might have been a little disruptive more recently, at that point you should have assumed good faith given there was no reason for you no to. This isn't the only occasion I can find either, [[User_talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2008/October#You|in other archives]] some of your other responses are uncommunicative, short and don't demonstrate the insight or investigative nature needed in an administrator. Furthermore, despite what you state above about Huggle "not being used since early 2008" and are now using 'manual revisions', which could give the impression that they are far and few between, out of the last 500 edits or so the article mainspace a vast majority are the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Enigmaman&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 use of rollback], or just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Librado_Andrade&diff=prev&oldid=262128644 minor cleanups] (that are practically redundant anyway), which is contrary to the impression gained from [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2|the talk page]] that you've started to work significantly in the mainspace area. I appreciate that you have improved somewhat since your last RfA, however, with my opppose above in mind, I will not be supporting it this time round. </span>
'''Oppose''' per [[User talk:Catgut#Q]]. If that comment was made a year or so ago, it wouldn't look so bad, but the fact you said it a month ago "can I vandalize my own page" makes me suggest that if you had the tools, you could abuse them if you're having an "off day".
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't mind if he had made only one questionable edit while he was logged out, but during that brief time he engaged in two edit wars and made two "uncivil" comments.
<s>Tentatively</s> '''Oppose''' I actually came here to support the candidate yesterday. However, the fiasco regarding log-out edits confuses me a lot and I still don't figure out what is the real beef on the matter. Sadly, we have a lot of uncivil admins (saying more rude comments than the "idiot" comment by the candidate) who made edit wars, so I think the deleted links should be explained. Since it is reopened, the b'crat in charge of the hold should notify all previous voters about the case and at least summarize it at the top of this page? (I'm not gonna spend my time reading all lengthy arguing over "what is a problem"? at the talk page.) Not nothing happened, and people who later come to vote should equally have a chance to acknowledge the case as well. Until I see a clean explanation presented, my position is at here. --
'''Oppose'''. You changed another editor's warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=177365843 13 months ago], and you did so again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.232.11.55&diff=prev&oldid=255496785 one month ago]. You were questioned about just that kind of edit in your last RfA, now I can only conclude that you have not learned from it. I know that you can do great work here, and that you can conduct yourself very well, but at this point, I don't think you have the maturity I want to see in an admin, and think you need more time. --
'''Oppose''' - Transparency issues. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' -- Yep, transparency issues.
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite]],  too much drama and edits such as these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=177365843], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.232.11.55&diff=prev&oldid=255496785] make me feel you are not ready for the bit yet.—
'''Oppose''' <small> – (Moved from support.) </small> Well, how to start — actually I'm left a bit speechless. Bluntly, I do not see a justification for having logged out to do [[Special:Contributions/96.232.11.55|such edits]] — I deem this behaviour absolutely inappropriate. Also, it shows an attitude which is not right for an administrator at all. I expect every administrator to maintain complete honesty — Lying and attempts to cheat the community are entirely unacceptable. Sock puppetry is awful and unjustifiable. Therefore I can no longer trust the candidate. I think he has given enough reason for distrust. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' Issues make me do this. Sorry.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Weak oppose''' - Per questions 12 and 13. Because your talk page has been selectively deleted, I am unsure whether or not [[User:Chubbennaitor|Chubbennaitor]] was the original Huggle warner, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chubbennaitor/Graah&diff=prev&oldid=255582486 this edit] came a full '''eight hours''' after the original incident. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catgut&diff=prev&oldid=255503581 this edit] indicates that you were completely aware of the fact that you were editing while logged out, which gives me even greater suspicions about the incident. It troubles me to oppose you, because I recognize that you are a great contributor, but I really feel this incident is too recent to ignore. If it is was greater than 6 months ago, I could have ignored it, but I feel like I have no choice but to oppose now. In maybe a few more months time, I will be ready to support, but not until then. I'm sorry, <font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' I opposed last time, for other reasons. Yesterday, I reviewed his contribs since the last RfA fairly extensively, and found little wanting. I was at least not going to vote. I might have supported. But, with Ryan's revelations on the conduct, I must oppose. Even if the IP was given out in duress, we don't have a code of inadmissible evidence here. I have to consider it now that it is in the open. It wasn't just one day in which the nominee had a brain lapse. It was over two days from that IP. Further, the behavior mirrors behavior from a year ago from his regular account. That strikes me as unwilling/unable to learn from past mistakes. Combine this with the fact that the user intentionally edited main space to increase his chances of passing RfA, and telling us he wouldn't have done so had he passed RfA before, leads me to believe that his 'good' behavior of the last few months has been a facade. I don't want to think of the kind of behavior we'd have to tangle with should this person pass RfA. Instead of just tagging things speedy, he'd delete them right off [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chubbennaitor/Graah&diff=prev&oldid=255582486]. Not good. Not good. Not to mention intentionally trying to avoid scrutiny for controversial edits. --
'''Oppose''' Too much history of him making bad decisions--
'''Oppose'''. I'm not able to trust an admin candidate who deliberately makes edits anonymously. (I looked at this RfA before it was put on hold and was not able to support, but this incident has made me move from neutral to oppose.)
'''oppose'''- having a go at someone (especially someone innocently using huggle), via IP, just sounds too familiar. It seems two faced to do one thing under your main name, and another as an IP, and lacks consistency, maturity and trustworthiness.
'''Oppose''' - sorry; the logged-out edits are troubling and are too recent to discount (I normally ignore issues after 6 months).
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose'''. Unfortunately this incident takes away my trust of this user, so I must oppose. <s>However, it was correct for him to eventually offer up the full IP contributions, which is why this oppose is only weak.</s> Also, after an event such as this, I believe withdrawing the RfA would have been a wiser decision (or at the very least a restart to prevent votes from people who are unaware of this incident.) '''[[User:Artichoker|<span style="color:#064">Artichoker</span>]]'''<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>'''[[User talk:Artichoker|<span style="color:#000">talk</span>]]'''<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Changed to regular oppose after rethinking. '''
'''Oppose''' - I feel that my position is well known, and as to [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|not beat the dead horse]] I will leave it at that.
'''Strong Oppose''' knowingly logging out to make edits that you would not make under your account shows deceit. I also have my suspicions about prior similar incidents.
I for one think Deskana acted correctly in bringing these edits to our attention even if he did so without being impartial or first consulting Enigmaman. They are recent, and show a user without the maturity to act as an administrator were he to make similar edits. That said, there is some merit to an administrator who would log out to make edits without the clout of an admin, and I would not argue that making logged out edits is itself the problem here. It is the content of the edits and incivility that creates an issue. '''
I'm really not all that concerned with the contents of the edits themselves (not enough to oppose), but the reaction and comments during the discussion, such as only releasing some of the edits initially, that seemed, at best, ignorant of the actual concerns, at worst, intentionally deceptive. <font face="Broadway">
<s>'''Regretful Oppose'''...UH! It hurts so bad to do this! I can't support after what has been said above. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite]] gave me a reason to oppose on the last RfA I did as well. However [[User:Aitias]] also has a good reason to oppose, as well as [[User:Amalthea]]. I would of given you a weak support... But with what has been said and with what has been true, I can't support. I'm sorry!</s> Switching to '''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=177365843 this edit] a while ago. Jokes are always great, but crap like this is most certainly not. And then you do it again making fun of yourself and your non-understandablity of [[WP:Huggle|Huggle]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.232.11.55&diff=prev&oldid=255496785 here] much more recently. After looking at these more in depth, I cannot let this user become admin. For the most part, he is good, but he makes critical mistakes that cannot be of administrator quality. '''<font face="Tahoma">
Oi, is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.232.11.55&diff=prev&oldid=255496785 this one] what it looks like? Putting words in someone's mouth? Modifying their edit to completely alter its meaning? No no no. Not acceptable. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
Editing other people's comments while knowingly editing logged out, calling another editor an idiot while logged out, and edit-warring while knowingly logged out.
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:96.232.11.55&diff=prev&oldid=255496785 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=177365843 this edit] are combative, inflammatory and sarcastic. Editing while knowingly logged out is deceitful. No way. -
'''Oppose''' - To many laxes in judgement for my liking as detailed above.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  We all make mistakes.  I'm fine with admins making mistakes, so long as they can come clean about them and take the consequences on the chin.  However, in "the drama", you ducked and weaved like a dodgeball champion, selectively quoting some of the offending edits, changing your story (to one that I still don't find particularly plausible, incidentally), and generally stalling, delaying, and doing everything except admitting to what exactly happened, until it reached the point where it was all going to come out anyway.  These are not the activities of someone who wants to remain open and accountable for their actions, as I believe all admins must be.  If you'd just linked to the edits to start with, I probably would have supported, but now, I simply do not trust you.
Regretful '''Oppose'''. Trust is a fragile thing, it takes a long time to be gained but can be lost in moment. Without trust I cannot support. Lankiveil puts it well.
What Lankiveil said. Not that I really trusted you to begin with, but (a) childish and combatative edits made whilst logged out combined with (b) the evasiveness and attempts to stall coming clean about those edits, show that you are not trustworthy enough to be an administrator at this time. I could have lived with (a), but (b) was really unnecessary. '''
'''Regretful oppose''' - I'm sorry, but your handling of the matter leaves a lot to be desired. Quite apart from the content of the IP edits (and your admission that you logged out specifically to evade scrutiny), you claimed you had placed the sum total of the edits in your userspace, when you knew that there were more, ''and'' that the ones you hadn't included were more troubling. That is an enormous issue for me; I would expect that when an admin is called on something that they have done, that they immediately come clean. Coming partially clean is a huge red flag to me. I'm sorry. I can't support after that. Lankiveil probably said it better. //
'''Oppose''', in view of the IP episode itself and poor handling of it subsequently.
'''Oppose''' This is some 'lapse in judgment' that lasted for over eight hours, rather than a few quick posts. Current admins and the candidate can downplay this all they want while shitting all over the opposers, but the fact remains that I cannot trust this one.
'''Oppose''' Thinking it through what concerns me most is that the behaviour logged-out is so different to the logged-in behaviour. So, which of the two is the real Enigmaman? I'm very concerned that you have been putting on a facade simply to ensure that you pass an RFA. That's not really the kind of behaviour I like to see from admin candidates.
'''Oppose''' for the [[WP:SOCK|logging out to make edits]], and then the changing story afterwards about the number of those edits.
'''Oppose'''. It is unfortunate what has happened here, but I can't bridge the gap from "I'm pretty sure I now understand guidelines and policies as well as I ever will" to "it was monumentally stupid and inappropriate... I will change my Wikipedia skin" nor can I support an RfA just because others may have screwed up. The predominance of RfA pages in Wikipedia space edits, the early first RfA (Enigmaman's substantial contributions only began about a year ago) and the answers to questions do not inspire further confidence. Sorry, ''
'''Oppose''' - Insuffienct percentage of edits to mainspace. <b><i>
Per multiple concerns expressed above, almost all revolving in one way or another around the IP edits fiasco. There was the "oops" then there was the later not-oops; the Jeckyll/Hyde persona of logged-in vs. logged-out; the subsequent versions of what happened; the gradual admitting (aka teeth being pulled) and finally, I am sorry to say, spin control since. I cannot support; had there been an oops, fine. More edits? I'm concerned. Admitting only some of it? Uh, this is a tendency, if nothing more, to try to whitewash one's own behavior. There is more, but I will limit myself to merely saying, read the opposes carefully, and with respect - those voicing their concerns do not do so lightly nor frivolously.
''' Oppose'''<small> – (Moved from support.) </small> As Aitias puts is up rightly.I am really speechless I would have accepted had it been before the earlier RFA but not now.But still maintain you can be a good admin.But please try again later and you will have my support but not now. Very Sorry
Contrary to numerous supporters, I think the candidate's response to what Deskana raised was terrible. I invite supporters to explain what they found so positive about his response to the situation, because I'm not seeing it.
'''Oppose'''. I can't comfortably support the candidate after the ordeal with the logged out edits.
'''Oppose''' I have read the discussion in the talk page and came to the conclusion that I can't trust the candidate with the tools after the IP incident.--
'''Oppose''' per abusive sockpuppetry.
'''Oppose''' due to sockpuppetry. While the candidate's contributions are solid, the candidate needs some time to show that he can be trusted with the tools.
Regretful '''Oppose'''. I was looking at the RfA beforehand and was preparing to support &mdash; then it was put on hold. After the revelation of the IP issue, I cannot support the candidate. There are other issues that were mentioned by other opposers, but I feel I must currently oppose based upon this issue and [[WP:SOCK]], as well as the fact that I do not believe something such as this, so recent, should be seen from an admin or admin candidate. Down the road, I would definitely be willing to support, so long as he shows his maturity and not lack-thereof. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' It's not the IP edits, rather the obfuscation after the event which seems strange.  I can't imagine why someone so paranoid over their IP address happily edits using it in such a way.  I'm sure he's a good editor but this is too close to the RfA to ignore.  Allowing this to pass would create a precedent we don't want to set.
'''Oppose''' Lack of trust. --
'''Oppose''' The IP edits would make it hard for me  to trust this editor with the tools. <strong>
'''Oppose''' This is a difficult decision for me. I read all the comments here, archive of the IP edit discussion and the edits themselves. I too see a bit of a [[Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde|Jekyll/Hyde]] dichotomy here. The RfA originally saw just the Dr Jekyll side and that persona would be a great admin. We got a sneaky glimpse at the Mr Hyde persona through what might be considered misuse of privacy protected tools but the glimpse is valid non-the-less. The question here is who is the real underlying person - the one up for a job on their best behavior, or the private hidden one. I tend in general to believe that how you behave when nobody is watching is the real underlying person. That person could cause significant harm to the project with admin tools. --
Bad timing on the incident, but it was never going to work after that.
'''Oppose''' Apologies to the candidate, but with the difficulties in removing bad admins after the fact, when there are questions like this it's better to hold off on giving out the tools.--
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. I've been tempted to make a not-very-nice point anonymously many times, who hasn't? I've never even considered going through with it though. I feel it's not right for any editor in good standing to do so, much less a admin-worthy one. It doesn't seem fair, I know; I'm sure there have been successful RFAs where IP secrets stay secret, but I still can't ignore gained knowledge. I'm sorry.
'''Oppose''', mainly per Nick Mallory. The IP edits aren't a major problem, although I suspect that if they had been made under the account instead of pseudo-anonymously, this RfA might not be happening at all at the moment. Time and a number of edits will help reassure editors as to your personality and behaviour in that respect. The real problem is the behaviour that led to the edits having to be announced by a checkuser and not by the candidate. I can't prove that the candidate deliberately tried to keep those edits secret to pass this RfA as opposed to keeping them secret to protect their privacy, and given the somewhat rushed manner in which those edits were announced, it might not have been the most sensible idea to announce you had made edits whilst logged out but not link to them, but keeping them totally secret and accepting this RfA just doesn't seem to be completely acceptable. I would have preferred to see the candidate do something to make the edits under their own username and have the edits made under the IP address removed, thereby making everything transparent. I again don't know if the candidate tried to re-attribute the edits in anyway, but the fact that something could be done but wasn't is troubling. I'm therefore left with a slightly disconcerting feeling that at the moment, Enigmaman isn't entirely ready to be an administrator (because of the edits themselves and the lack of initiative/knowledge on trying to re-attribute the edits, use pastebin, anything really) and more importantly, I don't feel I can entirely trust the candidate (because the edits weren't raised by the candidate themselves in some way or other).
'''Oppose''' - While I think that this editor will make an excellent admin, I want to wait a little bit longer. I would like to see six months of excellent behavior after the IP incident. After that I will be more than happy to support.
'''Oppose''' - Too many issues with this candidate.
'''Oppose''' - The editor doesn't seem bad, but the RfA process has a lot to do with whether the community can trust a user with administrative tools, and I unfortunately believe that maybe in time you may be able to.  Just not now.  Won't pile on with repeated reasons.  Best of luck.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Oppose''' This took me awhile to think over.  The IP incident itself isn't that concerning, nor is the initial response of being upset, but what I still haven't been able to get past, after several days of thinking, is why Enigma decided only to release part of the IP edits when he decided to release them.  I could see releasing none of them citing privacy and I could see releasing all of them citing transparency, but the judgment choice in releasing some and not others, until pressured to, highly concerns me and leads to this oppose. '''
'''Oppose'''. Worrying, all too recent concerns. If Enigmaman maintains good quality edits for the next few months, I would be prepared to support.
This one's coming down to the wire, and I feel obligated to express my displeasure with Enigmaman's actions and this situation in general. Deskana's mode of action was unfortunate, but Enigmaman's choice of making harassing and unkind edits while knowingly logged out, and then being evasive about revealing the edits make me supremely uncomfortable in giving the tools to him.
A regrettable '''Neutral'''. You are a good editor, Enigma, which has been my opinion ever since I first encountered you &ndash; which was, as it happens, at your first RfA, after it had hit the point of (mostly unfair) pile-on opposition. While many of the oppose reasons back then were questionable in my opinion, the oppose !votes this time raise valid questions about whether or not you should be given the tools right now. A bit of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catgut&diff=prev&oldid=255497404 "harmless" IP role-play] is one thing, but a similar lapse in judgement by a user with the sysop flag has the potential to be far more damaging, and the "incident" is just too recent to be negligible. I wish you all the best, though. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Neutral''' (switched from oppose) A valuable contributor made a significant mistake that precludes my personal support... but I place a tremendous amount of value on people's willingness to admit their mistakes, as Enigmaman has done here in spades.  Likewise, as my initial oppose was more a reaction to the process than the candidate, it was a mistake.  If this doesn't pass, I hope Enigmaman will run again in the future.
'''neutral''' Need to think more about this.
'''Neutral''' The "incident" raises some questions in my mind, but they are nowhere near as bad as the original "drama" seemed to imply.
'''Neutral''' I had been thinking I would have to oppose based on the IP edits. I find that disquieting behavior, particularly borderline edit warring & incivility over what seems to me a proper reversion based on unexplained blanking that left a fragment (I don't mean to be vague, but I don't see the need to belabor this, either. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_2/CU_discussion#Here_you_go|here]] for more on my thoughts if perchance you lack context to understand my remark) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catgut&diff=prev&oldid=255497404 an inexplicable exchange with another contributor] where he evidently pretended to be a [[WP:BITE|bitten n00b]]. Still, I have been hesitant to oppose on the basis of the candidate's other contributions and my observations of him and on the trust he has inspired in some other editors whose judgment I generally find to be very sound. I have been swayed from that opposition by the comments of [[User:Xymmax]] in reaffirmation. I agree with almost everything said there, except "I wouldn't have opposed over these edits in the first instance when weighed against his full body of work."—I wouldn't either, if they had not been done logged out, and so recently. People's behavior when they believe they are safe from scrutiny is sometimes worth close evaluation. I am inclined to agree with the other points. ''If'' this RfA does not pass, I hope to be able to support without reservation next time. --

'''Neutral.''' I've seen you around, Enigma, and what I've seen has been positive, collaborative and helpful. You look like a good editor, someone who generally wants to help the project and fellow editors. I am concerned, however, by the behaviour when you were logged out; I think it demonstrates simply a lack of judgement, something that seemed funny at the time, but when looked at as a bigger picture, creates discontent and disquiet for others. I don't think, by any means that you have shown yourself as disruptive, but I can't support your RfA just yet. Better luck next time, though, should this fail, and I hope that I'll be able to support an RfA of yours in the future. –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Neutral''' Sees a lot of careless mistakes, but your honesty saves you from an oppose.
'''Neutral''' Imagine that... I log in right quick to see whats going on after not editing for such a long time, and I see Eman up for RFA again.  Iiintersting.  Neutral per personal interaction last time, although his friendship with such an abrasive person as Scarian scares me.  Wanna know more?  Check my archives... (#4 in particular).  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral leaning Oppose'''. per Ryan.
'''Neutral''' - while I am aware that the candidate does care deeply about the project and works tirelessly for it, I am also mindful that some editors look to admins as role models. With these two things in the balance, I am regrettably unable to provide a commitment in either direction at this time. '''''<font color="green">
'''Strong Oppose''' per nominee's edit count.  Just way too low for an admin.--
'''Oppose''', would like to see some more experience. '''
'''Oppose''' per low edit count. Keep up the good work and come back in six months ([[WP:NOTNOW]]).
'''Oppose''' per edit count --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
This RFA has the huge advantage of no guessing being required.  We already know how he'd use the tools, and there was nothing wrong with it.  Quite frankly, the desysopping appears to have been fueled by paranoia. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) '''PS''' Yes, question 5 is way off base.  But, this is a fine philosophical point, and I doubt it would hurt anything.  The question of getting the right answer versus doing what's popular comes up in far more important areas then AFD, and editors have vastly differing opinions.
Yep. –<font face="verdana" color="black">

'''Support'''. Encyclopedic contributions have always been exemplary, and whatever behavioral problems there are long gone. The desysop was in my view a mistake, since there was no misuse of the admin tools. I disagree slightly with his view on the amount of discretion an admin has on AFD closures in that there is a duty to uphold the verifiability policy, but the times this comes into conflict with consensus are actually very rare. Even so, Everyking rarely (if ever) closes discussions, so I cannot see that mattering.
If the worst anyone can find to say is "inconsistent use of edit summaries", I can't see a problem here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
One of the most prolific and productive contributors in the history of the project, and his history of use of administrative tools has been exemplary.  That's all that matters.
'''Net-Positive'''
I supported last time and though better edit summary use would be preferable I buy the explanation. ''
I'm
If there was ever an emergency to desysop (I don't think there was) it has long since evaporated. Any less-vilified admin would have been reinstated within 1–4 weeks at most. —
Absolutely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per excellent arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series]] and as I believe in second chances.  My experiences is that Everyking is a helpful and usually wise editor.  I have ''not'' always agreed with him, but the positives outweigh the negatives.  Best, --
'''support''' —

Everyone deserves a second chance.
'''Support''' It's been quite a long time since Everyking's last RFA, even longer since any sort of drama. His record's been very impressive since then, and I trust him to uphold his promise not to close any AFDs. If he wants the tools to whack a couple vandals and help out, I'm more than happy to have him get them back.
'''Support''' I hate the answer to question 5, but since he hasn't and won't close AfDs, I don't see that as a problem.
'''Support''', is known not to misuse tools, and shouldn't have been perma-desysopped for the reason he was desysopped for anyway.
'''Support'''. I certainly don't agree with his answer to #5, but I frankly think that the pile-on illustrates the fallacies of those opposing. Their opposition has latched so quickly onto the one answer they didn't like, that they didn't consider the nuances of the response (i.e., he said he is ''not ever going to close XfDs''). Instead of a rational discussion, this has turned into an "OMG-he-like-vote-counting!" pile-on bloodbath. I frankly would consider this as suspect evidence of judgment as a simple vote-counter. His history of contributions shows that Everyking has been a net positive to the project.
'''Support'''. I don't agree with Everyking's ''numbers vs consensus'' view but I can see where he comes from. His answer to Spartacus' question (7) explains everything quite clearly. The fact that he doesn't agree with this AfD policy does not in ''any way'' suggest that he would mess up AfDs, abuse the tools, break the project, or otherwise be a bad admin. The man is entitled to his own opinion, isn't he? His past contributions look fine, not to say impressive, and he's been around for years. Opposing just because of his "wikitically incorrect" answer to question 5 smells of short-sighted GroupThink, if you don't mind me saying so. I believe all current admins can think of a WP policy or guideline they don't agree with. Does that make them bad admins? Of course not.
'''Support''' Not bothering to attempt to reconcile the candidate's answer to question five with prevailing policy (although noting that they are not as far apart as some imagine and that it is not at all clear that the candidate misunderstands policy; a disagreement with policy and practice, of course, is no grand evil, especially where he who disagrees is committed, as the candidate, to avoiding the substitution of his views for those of the community) because the candidate avers that he will not partake of the tools vis-à-vis AfD, in the truthfulness of which commitment I have no reason to doubt, I offer that I continue to hold to the body of the position I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEveryking_3&diff=107241892&oldid=107234718 set forth] at RfA 3, believing that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of EK's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''. Everyking has been around for five years. He knows the project inside out, and he paid a heavy price for his mistakes, which he learned from. That editing and admin experience makes him a valuable asset. As for his AfD answer, it really doesn't matter because he has said he won't get involved in it. <font color="green">
I nominated last time around, as was pleased to. The answer to question five is irrelevant: Everyking has said that he won't close AfDs, and he never closed AfDs when he was an administrator, and he has stated this ''many'' times. I'm disappointed to see people opposing based on Everyking's personal opinion: ''Everyking is a strong believer in admins separating their personal views from their admin work'', so the chances of him abusing the tools is non-existent. Everyking is neither abusive nor a liar. Besides, if he changed he's views simply to appease RfA voters, he would be opposed for that instead. Everyking has been around Wikipedia longer than most active Wikipedians and has been a strong, productive editor in his time here. Give him back the tools.
'''Support'''. I see no evidence showing the admin tools would be ever abused. I also find it unnerving that some people are in the mindset that if someone says something negative about Jimbo, Wikipedia, etc., that somehow disqualifies them from being able to be a good admin. Frankly, I'd be more worried about those who do nothing but grovel. At least Everyking is honest about his opinions. Again, I see nothing here or at any of the myriad links posted by others here that indicates Everyking would abuse the admin tools. Nothing. '''Adminship is no big deal''', and if there is no evidence of the tools being abused (or evidence or hint of possible abuse), I see no valid reason to keep those tools out of reach of someone who has been a huge help and much-more-than-just-net benefit to the project. That he's stuck around for three years after The Incident and continued being an excellent contributor says a lot about his character. ···
Agree with Friday.
Don't agree with his answer to Q5, but if he sticks to the activities listed in his Q1 response, I don't envisage any problems.
'''Support''' Supported the last one and havn't been convinced to change my mind.--
'''Support''', what happened to [[WP:AGF|AGF]]? He has responded by saying he won't involve himself in the Q5 activity and has sought to clarify his views. As someone who this week has been misunderstood once or twice I can understand this. Edits and years of contributions are certainly not in question. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support'''.  My thoughts are not significantly different than last time.  Shame on the editors either kneejerk opposing or, it appears in most cases, illiterately opposing on the grounds of Q5. --
'''Support''' I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he seems to willing to operate according to consensus.
'''Support''' He's honest about his opinions and he has said that he won't place his opinions above the established set of rules.  Does every admin agree with every rule on Wikipedia? Surely not, and that hasn't ever been a problem in and of itself.  ''<B>
'''Support''' There is no reason to suspect that he will misuse administrative tools, none of his critics have said that he did when he had them before.  They can always be taken away if he misuses them.  I like the fact that he is willing to hold an unpopular opinion but not try to impose it on others or indulge it in a way that offends them.
'''Support'''. I have little to add to comments I made last time. I think it amazing that Everyking remains committed to this project - I feel he has at times been treated rather poorly and am disapointed to see that he remains subject to rather pointless sanctions. It is important to have people around willing to challenge entrenched views. To those opposing due to the answer to question 5 who supported last time: do Everyking's view as to how consensus is assessed really surprise you? As last time, I take him at his word that he does not plan to involve himself in closing deletion discussions. I think it is time he had the tools back so he can be judged on how he uses them now rather than on alleged past mistakes and predictions about the future. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Yes, the answer to Q5 can raise an eyebrow. However, adminship does not hinge on scoring a 100% grade on a test, and one wacky answer is an inadequate reason for rejecting his bid. Good luck, Everyking!
'''Support'''. His opinion on Q5 does not bother me at all.  This is his opinion on how things should work here on Wikipedia, not how he plans on acting.  Best of luck, '''
Per WJBScribe. However, I reserve the right to regret my vote if Everyking starts closing AfDs... :) ++
'''Support'''; the opposes mostly come from old grudges I don't agree with.
'''Support''' Both [[user:Malinaccier]] and [[user:Drawn Some]] bring up good points here. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' clearly dedicated. Will be net positive. A general note is that we have means of reviewing conduct via AN/I and arbcom, which I think will be unneeded in this case.
'''Support'''  I don't agree with the candidate's position on AFD closings, but I do respect it, as he's clearly given the matter a great deal of thought.   His answer to Q5, especially his second followup dated 18:44, 8 May ("I would refrain from imposing my opinions on others and would act as merely a janitor") shows that he understands that his position is not supported by the community at the moment, and his stated intention to steer clear of AFD closings (rather than 'toe the line' and act in a way that doesn't jibe with his own sense of what 'consensus' means) absolutely seals the deal.  More than anything, Everyking's comments show that he strongly supports the 'wisdom of crowds' and has an aversion to imposing his own will (as opposed to the will of the community) on anyone.  So why so much fear that, once he's gotten the bit, he'll go rogue and start closing AFDs his way?  If we're going to refuse to trust anyone who respectfully disagrees with the way any one particular part of the project is currently run, how are we ever going to move forward?  --
'''Support'''. EK is truly dedicated to the encyclopedia, and will not be closing AFDs. No reason to oppose. <font color="#0000FF">
Switched from oppose; Malinaccier's comments were convincing. –'''
Everybody deserves a second chance. I understand the answer to Q5 (not sure whether I 100% agree or not), and I appreciate Everyking's honesty.
'''Support''' I am glad that regarding the answer to Q5 the clarification (based on the controversy generated here) is a commitment not to close AFDs, there are many other equally thankless tasks requiring constant attention. I would prompt those voting here, however, to consider which is ultimately more neutral? An editor enforcing according to personal perceptions of "quality" of argument (which may not be well informed) or an editor enforcing strictly according to consensus as defined by majority vote? Neither is the optimal solution, but the latter solution is at least transparent and auditable, and as a transparent decision can easily be revisited in the future (with no recriminations). The former is not.
'''Support''' Well-qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support'''. Smart. Excellent content editor.
'''Support''', as I have in his previous RFAs.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' Per Q 7....it's a very thoughtful answer. Even Q5 is fine if you assume both sides present arguments that stay within policy. I disagree with almost everything he says (when he talks about policy changes he's like to see), but he isn't likely to abuse the tools and he does actually have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And that's something that's becoming rarer and rarer these days here.
'''Support''',
'''Support'''
'''Support''': EK's had his problems, to be sure, but I'm still going to have to go with "net positive" here, especially since his interactions with others have improved (should he keep working on them? Probably. Still.) I also continue to object to how his desysopping was handled in that he had no chance to defend himself, not even after the fact (if the committee had reason for concern about privacy violations, OK, carry out the the emergency desysop, but then have a proper hearing. Not that I really think EK planned to publish any private info.) So, all told, support. Would appreciate not being badgered about this support, by the way.
'''Support''' I read the off-wiki posts, and they seem reasonable. Stuff that happens off-site doesn't concern me as much as all the good he's done on-site. He has been a good, helpful, and productive admin in the past, and likely will be in the future. His initial answer to Q5 was worrisome, but his follow-up responses tell me he's got basically the right idea, even if I would prefer to see less emphasis placed on "raw numbers" (the micro aspect) and more intent on trying to gauge the overall consensus behind the numbers (the macro aspect). But, as he plans not to engage in those particular activities, it's not a worry to me. So, I say give him the tools back and stop trying to dream up scary scenarios in which he might abuse his power. Look instead at what he did with them in the past. &mdash;
Good enough chap, I think en.wiki would be better off with him having a few extra buttons... no big deal and such [[User talk:Ocee|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''ocee'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' Someone who is clearly working to make the encyclopedia better.  I see nothing to suggest he would not be a good admin. And yes, I have read the off wiki comments. Diversity of opinion is not such a bad thing.
'''Strong support'''.  His AFD philosophy has nothing to do with his ability to be a good admin in the areas he wishes to focus on; his long dedication to the project and its ideals do. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - I supported last time, and I have decided to do so again. I don't generally do idealogical opposes unless I am convinced that they will interfere in effective use of the admin tools, I am not convinced in this case. Nor do I oppose over Wikipedia Review (see also: [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria#Non-criteria]]). I see Everyking as a long-term contributor who previously used the admin tools "superlatively", and the project would likely benefit if the user had the tools back.
'''Support''' - I did last time, and it would by hypocritical for me not to again.  Of course, the answer to Q5 is still completely wrong, but since I'm sure EK wouldn't be closing AfDs anyway, that wouldn't be a problem.  What EK has failed to take into account, unfortunately, is the that the current problems with co-ordinated voting etc. at deletion discussions recently has gained him a lot more opposes for that answer than would've been the case recently. <b>
'''Support''' per Varytalk and others who made the same point. --
'''Support'''. I still maintain that desysopping in the first place was an overreaction. As for Q5/Q7, Everyking is entitled to his own opinions as much as any one of us. I can certainly see his point: [[WP:CONSENSUS]] appears to have come to mean something subtly different from simple [[consensus]]. But his "weak admin" take is a good one, after all it's supposed to be "no big deal".
'''Support''' I never thought I would do this because I fundamentally disagree with pretty much all of Everyking's wiki-philosophy but I'm appalled by the shallow thinking of some of the oppose votes. Obviously Everyking doesn't reflect the midpoint on community thinking on consensus but how is that going to affect them as an admin? I can't see any situation where their philosophy is going to lead them into a dispute where their skewed thinking on consensus is going to lead them into a rash action.  They certainly won't be blocking established users through it and no AFD closed that way is going to survive review at DRV so I simply can't see the harm that giving them the tools will create. Its also fallacious to suggest that being an admin gives you extra weight in a discussion - its the validity of the comment that counts and I strongly dispute that a consensus of average editors is going to be swayed by some of the more crackpot ideas espoused by Everyking. So what does that leave us? An experienced, technically able editor committed to the project who isn't going to misuse the powers that being made an admin will give them but who will be able to contribute to the project in a broader way. I guess that makes me a support although my intention when I came to this discussion was to oppose.
'''Strong support'''.  (First time in my life I've ever !voted "strong" support in an RFA.)  I'm perplexed by Arbcom's decision, which I find almost inexplicable in view of their reluctance to de-sysop for offences that I find much harder to forgive; and I find this candidate's approach to the admin role admirable.  This candidate perceives admins as clerks to the consensus, not judges of it, and Wikipedia ''badly'' needs more admins who understand this.—
'''Support''' 5 years of activity in any type of project is true dedication, but even more so after being desysopped, and having some views that others don't agree with. Dedication like that gives me the trust that I like to have in an admin. A lapse in judgement 3 years ago is not a problem for me. Having opinions that not every Wikipedian has is a good thing, as long as you work within the rules. Good behaviour in the past year. I see no problem. —
A little light ArbCom reading, and I'm comfortable supporting. Most of the problems some people had/have with Everyking seem to relate more to his opinions and actions as a member of the community (and a fear of something they thought he was going to do with the tools, not what he did do), not his actual actions as an admin. He has remained a member of the community for a long time, so whatever problems were occurring haven't resumed. And we have a long history of his previous admin actions to judge how he would handle the tools; no guesswork. --
'''Support''' - I don't particularly like Everyking. He's rude to me elsewhere, but I don't think he was a poor admin before, I don't think he should have been desysopped, and I don't think he'll break the wiki if he gets the bit back. I find his answer to question 5 to be completely backward from the standard, but I also don't foresee him closing AFDs, which are reversible anyway. He's been here for years, does great content work, has been an admin before... he knows what's up. We need more admins who know what they're doing.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Segoe UI">
'''Support''' EK is a really ''great'' content editor, and I believe in second chances.
'''Reluctant support''' While he deserves a second chance (as does everyone who lost the bit), A5 is rather offputting. Consensus is not a votecount.
I don't find the oppose arguments convincing and am willing to assume good faith and give this editor a second chance. His application of consensus-by-numbers, while inaccurate, is irrelevant because he believes in "weak admins" and as such would not try to propagate his interpretation. '''
'''Support''' Some major philosophical differences aside, I think this would be a good thing. Forgiveness is a virtue, and one we're too rarely willing to embrace. Does he disagree with a lot of the governance of this website? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Does he possibly have a view of some forms of consensus that differs from what a lot of people see? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Is he someone that is sometimes willing to air alternate views from the mainstream groupthink? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Was he good in his use of the tools previously? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Given how much easier it is today to lose the sysop bit for acting bad--even, apparently now, per one running RFAR, the things like Checkuser and Oversight--is giving him the basic tools again good thing? Yes. Is that a good thing? Absolutely, yes. I could be proven wrong. Maybe we all could be. Or maybe, like my own RFA--I'm still sometimes rattling cages, I hope, as much as I was ''before'' the RFA--we'll just give another user the tools to help out on the trivial junk that needs doing again. We've honestly nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain. Are those decent odds? Absolutely, yes. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' I've never taken an interest in such things before.  Three things motivated me.  One: I saw on Everyking's talk page this was going on.  He reverted some of my edits based on my failure to provide adequate sourcing.  I was a bit miffed, as I was in the process of editing, but Everyking was polite, factual, and not prejudicial in his actions or response.  He defused conflict before it even began by his general tenor and a clear expression -- in words and action -- that he was motivated by the desire to create verifiable and evenhanded articles.   Two: the contentious nature of this page.  Despite the constant protestations by Wikipedia that Administrationship is a technical matter, there is a general impression that the "community" (i.e. users who focus their involvement on the administrative aspects of Wikipedia) is nominating someone for sainthood.  This seems one more dysfunctional aspect of the sprawling non-writing or researching side of Wikipedia.  This is a community I generally avoid.  Three: Everyking writes and researches articles, articles that I find valuable, and on topics (contemporary African politics) which I have repeatedly noted as crucial to the relevancy on this encyclopedia.  Articles, that if they were not here, would cause people who visit  Wikipedia to dismiss the project as a collection of white North American middle class centered minutiae.  In short this guy is building Wikipedia: something surprisingly rare amongst the chattering classes which clog this place.  That he does it in a calm, evenhanded, and immensely productive fashion would suggest to me he should be given as many tools as possible.
'''Strongest possible support'''.  Whilst I've misgivings about the answer to Q5, it only becomes an issue should EK go against the norm.  Given he's said he won't be closing AfD's, to me, it's not a concern.  AfD is an area he can avoid whilst still contributing positively as an admin.  I'm also concerned at the conduct in this RfA, which to my untrained eye, seems to have the appearance of a witchhunt at times.
'''Strong Support''' Everyking has made mistakes in the past, but has since improved, and from what I've seen it's time the community forgave him. I'm aware of his posts at WR, and I have no problem with them - as Rootology says above, we shouldn't bar someone from adminship because they disagree with the current political structure of Wikipedia. The issue should be whether they will serve as a good admin, and I believe Everyking will. The only issue here is his answer to Q5, but since he's said he won't close any AFDs that's not a problem - and in any case, I think the opposers have already made it more of an issue than it is.
'''Support'''; great long-term contributor who has shown dedication through his persistence. His answer to number 5 strikes me as wrong, but also irrelevant. User is not going to be closing RFAs <small>*ahem* OR AFDs!</small>
'''Support''' - Everyking has contributed to WP for five years, making over 100k edits. He is dedicated to en.wikipedia, and the project will benefit if he becomes an admin.
'''Support''' Everyking has been an asset to this site for many years. He's not going to throw all of his hard work away by doing something stupid. And I don't understand why his answer to A5 is so horrible. Yeah, we say that AFD is not a vote, but numbers ''do'' matter. An article will never be kept if a single person is arguing to keep it, even if his arguments are clear, insightful, and grounded in the relevant policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' Has worked to try to resolve issues people have, whilst remaining true to his beliefs and desires.
'''Support''' I have occasionally seen Everyking around Wikipedia. One of those times I was impressed by his willingness to consider assisting an editor, who was on his way out of the project by way of getting banned. By trying to extend a few final courtesies to a rather unpopular editor, Everyking showed a human quality that I really like. To answer question 5 is difficult and complex. There are so many constraints. [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY]], voting is evil etc. etc. On the other hand between equals, in an ideal situation and always assuming [[WP:AGF]], all editors deserve equal treatment, hence Everyking's respect for the numerical evaluation of the vote results. His interpretation of the role of an admin in closing an AFD is rather minimalist. This is a good thing, under ideal conditions. Ordinarily, I wouldn't like an admin to decide the outcome of an AFD based, not on numbers, but the admin's own POV. Of course in a world full of socks and other ills one has to be careful. Everyking's further qualification of his reply assures me that his intent was, obviously, never to allow non-kosher editors to be counted. To make a long story short, Everyking, in my opinion will make an excellent administrator.
I just realised I neglected to place my support in tis section itself. '''Strong support''' per my nom. &mdash;<strong>
'''support''' based in considerable part on the answer to Q5, which has been challenged by some in the oppose section: I think he is right that the role of an admin is to determine what the community wants, and then do it, not decide what the community ought to want. As for  past problems, being open to recall answers them '''
'''Support:''' I am not convinced about the comments on XfD closures, in part because there have been cases where a majority view has triumphed over a minority view that is supported by policy and so there are already too many who take the approach Everyking is suggesting.  I am also unconvinced that DRv does much to correct these errors.  However, Everyking's undertaking to not make XfD closures is reassuring.  In addition, having watched ArbCom for a while and read history, I think that Everyking's case is another where ArbCom's decisions (plural) have resulted in an injustice - and this makes me inclined towards support.  The clinching argument that makes this !vote easy for me is that no one has yet presented any real suggestion of misconduct when he was an administrator in the past - including in the findings of the original ArbCom case.  In short, the return of the administrator tools to Everyking is overdue.
'''support''' an asset to this site.
'''Weak support''' Not convinced by opposers, see little reason why Everyking cannot make a good admin under close observation (which, let's face it, will be applied scrutinously). Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' Opposers are remarkably unconvincing. --
'''Support''' Everyking is experienced enough to recognise that his standing on consensus is a minority opinion. I trust he won't force it upon others, and I admire his decision to stand by what he said. --
'''Support''', I really can't see a good reason not to. I've never had any negative interactions with Everyking; and he's made excellent contributions to many areas. I do not agree with several of his opinions (including the contentious ones about Arbcom and AfD closes) but I see no reason to believe that those are anything other than ''opinions''. We have many competent admins with strong opinions, and the whole reason they're competent is that that keep their opinions separated from their admin actions. I have seen nothing to suggest Everyking should be any different. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I wasn't going to vote at first, but I have now felt compelled to. First off, is the answer to Q5 wrong? Absolutely. But you know what? I see many opposes just for that, and it got me to thinking. Everyking could have just as easily lied to you guys about his thoughts on that question, so you're opposing ''because'' he was honest. That just make absolutely no sense, so you can say that I'm supporting ''because'' of the opposition, and maybe I am. As I've stated before, yes he's had problems in the past, but he's a user in good standing, and to deny someone adminship because they took the high road and didn't lie in their answers just makes me disappointed in many of you. He even states he's not going to bother closing AfDs, which I believe if he was willing to say what he said on Q5. '''Support''', and this RfA has knocked off the respect I was regaining for the process.
'''Support''', as per last time around.  I don't see the harm, and he's one of the most prolific and dedicated editors.  Give him the bit already.  --
'''Support'''.  Dedicated and committed editor who is very knowledgeable about the rules and policies.
Strongly. It's about time. (Q5 notwithstanding: I disagree with him there, but it's not relevant since he doesn't participate in AFD.) &mdash;
'''Support'''.  I trust Everyking.  Question 5 is not an issue, since he doesn't have any interest in closing AfDs.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I'm sure he will be an excellent admin again, as he was back when Arbcom wrongfully de-sysoped him.
'''Support''' No problems found '''
'''Support''' Per Leithp and Cla68. I gladly endorse this candidate and will do so again. Which will be necessary, it seems, since some mofos here are incapable of forgiving and forgetting minor and ancient mistakes.--
'''Support'''.—
'''Strong Support''' Good user, good knowledge of tools, should be a great admin.
'''Support''' - In general I don't agree with him often, but I also don't believe he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' See no evidence that he will abuse the tools.  Q5 answer is wrong, but some admins turn "strength  of argument" into "arguments I agree with", so this is not significantly worse (though certainly different) than the problems we have now.  Toss in the agreement not to close AfDs and we're fine.
'''Support'''! Everyking Now, Everyking Tomorrow, Everyking forever! I was opposed toe the desysopping and I feel he has proven he won't abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Support''' I find the arguments brought up in the oppose section rather unconvincing - This user wishes to improve (and has shown improvement), definitely deserving a second chance.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''.  I believe in second chances, but responses to [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Waddle|this afd]] give me pause with the "because I said so" atmosphere (from a user with lots of [[WP:BLP]] edits) along with [[Talk:Ashlee_Simpson|this discussion]] which has the [[google test]] being cited over and over.  Almost a ''neutral''; the answer to question 1A was the expected one, but in this case it does not sound as hollow coming from this candidate so I bumped it to ''support''.
'''Support''': I am delighted to see Everyking here.  I don't always agree with him and he has made mistakes in the past - who has not? However,  I am convinced he has the best intentions for the project at all times. When an editor has been around for as long as he has, taken all the knocks and still supports the project, then Adminship should now  be honorary and unopposed. Wikipedia is fortunate such people exist.  I have seen too many editors come, be adminned within 5 minutes, without a clue of really what is what, damage the project and then disappear. Everyking fits every requirement I have for an Admin worthy of trust and  respect. I think this is the strongest endorsement I have ever mad for a candidate, so I hope it's not also the kiss of death.
'''Conditional support''' I'm hoping he sticks to his word and doesn't try closing AfDs/interpreting consensus. (Moved from oppose) Oh, and let me just say what Ottava's doing is pretty pathetic.
'''Support'''  I think the original stripping was unfair, essentially a "conspiring with the enemy" charge which wikipedia shouldn't have (though was understandable).  There is no question wikipedia review crossed the line; but there was no alternative forum given for redress of grievances; in other words something like a dual hierarchy or even an office of omnibudsmen.   No one has ever questioned that EveryKing has done tremendous tremendous work for the project, even after getting his ferocious beating.  To not confirm now is arguing that losing a political struggle is punished for a lifetime and the only alternative after discipline is to leave wikipedia forever.  He knows how to be an admin and he has done good work.
Support. I don't agree with the answer to question 5 but, since I haven't cornered the market on right and wrong, am happy enough to see another view that gets tossed into the wikipedia mix. Other than that, I see a former admin who bore himself well, a prodigious and long time contributer, and a de-sysopping for what appears to be based on an honest mistake and was a long time ago. This should be easy. --
'''Support''' - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' (move from oppose).  A5 no longer concerns me.  --
'''Support''' You've converted me from an oppose to an abso f---ing lutely support for getting through this drama and generally being cool about it.
'''Support''': Mostly per Ottava Rima's oppose. That kind of witch hunt is exactly wrong. We don't all have to agree with Jimbo and his loyal cadre. &mdash;
'''Support''' had a think about this, but remain supportive as I was on the last RFA last year as I think Everyking's dedication to the project will make a good admin.
I don't agree with you at all on the consensus issue but you were fine with the tolls before. —
'''Weak support'''
'''Support''' --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Here we go again. To put up with this 5 times, this guy may be the most committed Wikipedian you've ever seen. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]]
'''Support'''. Everyking has attacked me frequently over the years, but I'll support him per Ottava Rima's hot aspersions in this RFA, and EK's cool replies to them. Also per EK's independent stance towards the ArbCom. Ottava Rima, I advise you to stop shouting at the opposers. You need to let people express their opinions without your put-downs and denunciations. See especially the talk page.
'''Support''' - enough said.
<<ec>> '''Support''' I frankly find it hard to trust based on the WR activity. However, people whose judgment I respect over my own are supporting, people with a longer history with the candidate and the project than I. I read somewhere the candidate is willing to stand for recall. That takes guts.  And very frankly, Ottava's shrillness is so grating as to make me want to switch. Advice to the candidate-- forget about who did what in the past. Let it go. Doing good work here is more important, and the community's trust is more valuable than any other matter. Let go.
'''Support''' Why is this even a question? 2 years as admin without a hint of misuse of tools, followed by an extraordinary breach of process in desysopping where the desysoppers themselves admit that no harm was done. <strong>
'''Support''' I can see no reason to not trust Everyking with the tools despite the protestations of Ottava also per Giano above. <strong>
'''Support'''-At over 100,000 edits (mostly in article space), including ~1000 edits with admin tools, Everyking has shown that he knows what he is doing. His desosysopping is a drama show put on but gardners who [[Folie à deux|share delusions]] with an absurd grudge. Everyking has been on wikipedia for years and having him as an admin again would be a boon to the wikipedian community.<!-- I also find the opposing arguments quite weak, actions taken years ago do not represent his future actions.-->
'''Support''' - After all he's done to help Wikipedia, Everyking deserves a second chance 100%. He doesn't deserve the shit Ottava's putting him through, and neither does anybody IMO. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Support''' - editor seems to have learned lessons from previous mistake, no reason to believe will misuse tools (again (although he didn't actually misuse them last time)). And Ottava Rima's utter misconstrual of the answer to #15 tips me over to strong support.--
'''Support''' - like last time, the desysoping was despite doing nothing wrong. Your answer to question 5 is somewhat... alarming, but as you do not wish to go about judging consensus, it's not something I see as a problem. You were a good admin, and you will be a good admin. That's it. –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''weak support''' Unlike many of the other supporters, I'm not sure the initial desyssoping was unreasonable. I also think that Raul and Flonight raise very serious issues which must give any sane supporter pause. However, I'm more than willing to give Everyking another shot. He clearly did a very good job as an admin.
'''Support''' as much in protest of the abuse of process (I don't have to specify by whom, do I?) as out of a strong opinion on EK.  Personally, I think adminship is highly overrated, and this farce is evidence as to why.  RfA becomes a playground for axe-grinding in place of any legitimate discussion.  Consider this a vote for reforming the whole process. -
'''Support''': Previous mistakes are previous mistakes. No need to keep dragging it through the mud. Are people seriously opposing because he is on WR? Get a life people. <small>
'''Support'''. Haven't voted on an RfA in a [[blue moon]], but I'll support this one.
'''Support''': Primarily due to Ottava Rima's oppose.
'''Support''' You hold a controversial view regarding AfDs, but you defended it in the face of opposition, and I respect that.  Though I disagree with your view, I see some merit in your argument and am impressed by your personal conviction.  What your view doesn't suggest is that you would abuse the tools, and that is much more important to me than conforming to the community-accepted view of what an admin should be.  Diversity of opinion among admins I believe is valuable and benefits the encyclopedia, and your views certainly differ.  I think you'd do a great job.  I also believe that you're an editor who learns and grows from mistakes, which is something I look for in candidates. '''
'''Support''' The blatant hypocrisy of the opposers is reason enough to support. Besides anybody who receives this level of vitriol from the likes of them must be doing something right.
'''Support'''. Every king deserves some tools, doesn't he? As for the unorthodox AFD proposal, ''if'' it's implemented in real life, there are appropriate venues for postmortem beating. Some common sense applies: why would a new admin twist the rules blatantly if they know the must pay for the wrong move?
'''Support'''. per Giano and hell yes!
'''Support''', unlike many of these other support votes, I think that the desysopping was justified, but I think that enough time has now passed that you've learned your lesson.
'''Support''', has paid his dues. deserves a second chance. -- '''
'''Support.''' His views may be eccentric, but they are correct. I realise I haven't been around much lately and that my opinion is unlikely to be taken as seriously as it would once have been, but he merits my support.
'''Support''' The lapse in judgment a very long time ago was a serious one, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will not happen again. I disagree with his view on consensus, but his view is not entirely wrong, and disagreeing with me should not disqualify him (''wink''). Finally, I have a certain sympathy with anyone whose RfA is being vehemently opposed for questionable reasons. --
'''Support''' - coming briefly out of retirement to do this.  Great content contributor<s>, and I particularly liked the 'He hates Jimbo. He hates ArbCom.' line</s> (silly).
'''Support''' - experienced, and people can change.--
Long ago and far away I opined that the deadminning was fair enough, but was a long time ago. It's even longer ago now than it was at RfA number 4. And EK is still a decent enough bloke.
'''Support''' Excellent content contributor.  Highly unlikely to misuse the administrator tools.
'''Support''' Sky will not fall if he gets the tools.  Really.--
'''Support''' This is kind of a "moral support" !vote since this RFA looks like it's going to go down in flames.  I agree with various other supporters who argue that he is unlikely to misuse the admin tools.  I notice that I supported him on his 3rd RFA so it seems natural to support him again.  I do have these reservations and comments though.  I am concerned about his critical attitude of ARBCOM.  Granted, he feels that he got a raw deal from them but I think that colors his overall assessment and that is not a good thing.  An admin needs to espect ARBCOM's decisions and stand ready to enforce them.  Contempt for ARBCOM and its decisions is a bad thing.  Finally, although I personally think an admin should use judgment when closing an AFD, I fully understand his desire to eschew judgment that might be vulnerable to criticsm and hide behind the safety of the raw numbers.  In a somewhat analogous situation, the bureaucrats were harshly excoriated for granting Carnildo the admin bit when his RFA (#3) didn't muster the requisite level of support.  It is the perversity of Wikipedia that sometimes we want it to be a democracy and sometimes we don't.  Pity the poor editor who gets on the wrong side of the bandwagon.  --
'''Support''' Per Joshua Issac, Everyone needs a second chance in life.

'''Support''', Always have, always will.
'''Support''', 120,000 edits, over 90% of them to the mainspace. Former admin. De-sysop didnt make sense. Enuff said.
'''Moral Support''' This RfA is almost certain to fail.  That being said, I don't find many of the opposes compelling.  Most of the stuff that people are pointing to are over 3 years old.  If the issues were ongoing/current, then they would consitute an obvious oppose, but 3+ years old?  There are then allegations about "hate speech" and comments about the Catholic Church.  Unfortunately, without references, it is impossible to validate the merits of that criticism.  Unfortunately, while I generally respect Ottava, when he gets going on a crusade, I find that his objectivity tends to go out the window---which makes it impossible for me to accept his assessment of the conflict.  The fact that people are not citing more recent problems is  an indicator that issues are not ongoing.  Raul's criticism is extremely concerning, but it is still old.  Yes, Q5 is of some concern, but he says that he never closed and AFD and doesn't intend to.  While I might not accept this from a candidate with no admin history, the fact that he didn't close AfD's while an admin and hasn't since shows a lack of desire to do so.  He also indicated that this view of consensus is not to be applied to all of wikipedia.---'''
Not that I very much care to have Everyking as an admin, but the punishment was way out of proportion with the crime and should be overturned. --
per Agathoclea.
'''Support'''Pretty good admin and AFD tends to be a regulars only thing due to the hastle of finding the closeing templates.
'''Support'''; have opposed in the past, but has done enough to earn the trust of the community.
'''Support'''; Looking at the diffs, I'm not convinced he is evil incarnate.  Has Everyking made some dumb moves - yes.  But, I see improvement.  I don't demand perfection.  Regarding Q5, I'm not thrilled, but I think it is closer to reality than most of us are willing to admit.  Actually, I was going to sit out, but after seeing the hoopla, I decided to investigate.  After cutting out the temper tantrums, nothing seems as bad as made out to be.  As far as "too much drama", that seems to be coming from others, not Everyking.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' Usually I'm an IP editor, but I'm logging in for this.  As with Rootology, this is someone who has paid any dues they owed.
'''Support'''.  Neither past problems, nor impolitic statements on Wikipedia Review, nor being wrong about how to determine "consensus" at AfD are sufficient reasons to oppose, either separately or together, because none of them suggest to me a likelihood of misusing the tools.
'''Support''' - should never have been de-sysopped in the first place. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. I supported the 4th one but I have to oppose this one now. Not for the reasons of the desysop or anything. But I'm someone who believes that edit summaries are very important in communicating with other users and to allow them to understand what someone was doing. I think this is especially important for admins whose actions often need explaining (for example, if one removes a tag (like a speedy one), one should explain to everyone ''why'' they did so). I supported last time because I hoped he would improve this behvaviour, but it has become even worse, with not even 10% of all edits. I know there are some users and admins who believe they are not needed but I think they are. So I regret to have to oppose this RFA but I don't want any more admins where other users have to read every diff to understand what they did. Regards '''
'''Never''' - His constant attacks on those like Jimbo, Foundation members, and other things at Wikipedia Review that are extremely incivil and slanderous show that he has not changed nor can ever be trusted. He should be banned, not given power.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 5.
Answer to question 5 is... simply incorrect, and I could not trust you to close an AFD with that outlook. '''
'''Oppose''' - Changed from Support above..per Majorly. A very dangerous way to approach AFD closing.
'''Oppose''' after reading the contents of above links.
'''Oppose''' - Per Q5. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Even without Q5 (which violates one of our core policies - [[WP:CON]]), the answers to the other questions leave me to doubt about trusting the user's usage of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship. The answer to 6d (or lack thereof - there is a difference between how often, and upon what circumstance), in particular, considering the user's previous desysopping. -
'''Oppose''' - The idea behind Q5 doesn't sit well with me. Even [[WP:AGF|given]] that Everyking would "never" close an AfD, [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] doesn't only apply to AfD. It doesn't matter what one thinks of consensus; what matters is [[WP:5|that is how things are run around here]]. Giving the admin bit to an editor who doesn't find that compelling would not benefit the project, and might well harm it. I don't suppose it's any consolation to mention that this oppose is difficult given Everyking's contributions to the project, but I can't get past the Q5 answer. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Never''' per my previous rationales on his RfAs, per personal interactions, per the answer to Q5, per Ottava Rima. I have no doubt that people can change, but I also have no evidence that I can trust Everyking. --
'''Oppose''' I think the philosophy displayed in Q5 is dead wrong, and actually represents one of the greatest threats to this project... that being [[WP:PLAGUE|the plague]]. While it is unreasonable and dangerous to expect admins to be the arbiters of truth, we most certainly can be the ones to wade into discussions and call bull shit when necessary. I realize the question was specific to AFD, but you answered it more broadly. Application of "by the numbers" thinking across Wikipedia undermines the project by undermining the admin corps.
Agreed with pretty much everything above, especially answers to 5 and 6c. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but per Majorly. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', also per Q5.  I'm not really concerned that there will be some kind of disaster at AfD due to this editor should they be given the mop again, as they have stated in no uncertain terms that they are disinterested in closing AfD discussions.  Nevertheless, the candidate's answer demonstrates a misunderstanding of consensus, and an administrator should never, ever operate "by the numbers".  The philosophy of "majority rule" being embodied by the candidate's answer is alone enough to compel me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Per Question 5. Hiberniantears says it best. This sounds like abandoning attempts at rationality in favour of mob rule. --
'''Oppose''' per the Q5 concerns brought up above. Completely at odds with [[WP:CON]] and definitely not the approach an admin should take into any situation. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Strong oppose''' due to ''I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers''.  Even stronger oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=73659720&oldid=73657229 this].
Err... '''oppose'''? Honestly, answer to Q5 is just wrong. [[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] appears more than just at AfD, so even he said he never closed AfD for last 5 years, he could have negative influences on areas outside of AfD. Oh yeah, throw in the drama part carried over from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 4|his 4th RfA]] as part of my oppose.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q5.
'''Oppose''' per Ottava Rima and Kicking222.  We three make a trio worthy of [[Homeward Bound]].  Anyway, I consider the WR diffs and Mike's argument compelling.  James, you do spectacular work in content contribution, I think we should keep it that way.  Having been a sysop you should be well acquainted with the concept of a mop and bucket, not a badge and gun.  I don't see that familiarity, nor have I ever in regard to your approach to adminship both in 2005 and now.  Seriously though, fantastic work in general.
'''Oppose''' per the arguments presented by those above.
'''Strong oppose''' mostly per Q5. XFDs are not votes, and every admin candidate should know that. Also incivility towards others as well as the tendency to take stuff off-wiki (i.e. to Wikipedia Review) is also of a blaring concern.
I was going to support this time around, but then I saw his response to question 5 and felt like this would potentially encourage vote stacking by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at deletion discussions.
'''Oppose'''.  I expect an admin to have an understanding of how consensus works.  Even if he doesn't go to AfD, the idea doesn't sit well with me that someone with such a numbers-based view of decision making would be given more authority.  What about [[WP:VOTE]] and [[WP:DEMOCRACY]]?  --'''
'''Oppose''' per Q5, XfD are discussions not votes.--
'''Oppose'''  mostly because of the answer to question 5.
'''Oppose.''' This user means well, but has a history of lapses of horrifyingly bad judgement.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 5. That's not how consensus works here.
Rebecca puts it succinctly above. <font color="404040">
'''Oppose''' per Q5 --
'''Oppose'''. Too confrontational. Starts pointless fights with ArbCom and Jimbo. Also, answers to the questions (not just #5) indicate that he either 1) doesn't know policies and community norms very well, 2) hasn't kept up on changes during the past few years, or 3) greatly disagrees with current consensus. 3 is not necessarily a problem, but then he should explain his reasoning more. Also, not being an admin is not a punishment. --
Per your answer to question 5. I don't agree with your beliefs, and your promise not to do tasks that you have unconventional beliefs in makes me wonder why you're requesting the tools at all. Why do you want them if you're hardly going to be doing any admin work?--
'''Oppose''' EK has made many positive contribution to WP. But WP adminship is not a reward for dedication or high edit counts. The users needs to have the skills and temperament that enable them to do the job well. 1) Would not be comfortable with EK closing consensus discussion which is part of an admin job. 2) Reread the threads on WR and still do not think that EK understands why taking actions towards Wikipeians that could have a negative real life consequence are absolutely wrong. So I don't trust him to have access to information that may be used against people in real life. 3) He is holding grudges against people that he perceives are in conflict with them and openly makes ABF comments against them. I don't want to risk additional conflicts when the situation is stable now so I prefer that EK stay in his role as an editor now.
'''Oppose''' I'm willing to forgive and forget when it comes to being de-sysopped, but the answer to Q5 is 100% wrong. Anyone with your level of experience who thinks AFDs are closed based on votes and not consensus is not trustworthy as an administrator. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Oppose''' as a >3rd RfA.  If by thrice you don't succeed....
'''Oppose''' - per everything he has ever posted on WR (and per Ottava, above). <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Oppose''' - as per [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] comments ..and his views on consensus and offline comments on wikireview  (
'''Oppose''' - Regretfully.  I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.  Recall pledges are made <i>ad captandum vulgus</i> and can be retracted or ignored post-RFA.
'''Oppose''' - I recognize and appreciate Everyking being honest and forthright in his answer to Q5, but the approach described in the answer is still wrong.  Per Q5 and other concerns mentioned above.
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia will be swamped with stuff with no RS soon '''
EK [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Failure_to_familiarize_himself_with_the_facts_before_commenting|often jumps into situtations without properly investigating them]], which was the direct cause of his desysopping. He [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Uncivil_behavior|has a history of harassing others]], including but not limited to myself, Renee (who quit Wikipedia over it), Calton, and Phil Sandifer. On WikipediaReview he suggested a way to harass Phil in real life would be to contact the police about Phil's fictional writings on his website, which someone then did. Categorically should not be an admin.
'''Oppose''' <small>Moved from support</small> per {{User|FloNight}} and {{User|Raul654}}, among others. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Oppose'''. Per DougsTech.
'''Oppose''' There has been enough drama. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia where we all can contribute. For that, we don't all need to be administrators, particularly not those who have been a focus for issues in the past. Adminship is not an award, and not having it is not a punishment.
'''Oppose''', hard-working Wikipedian, but does not have the temperament (or judgment) for adminship. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Even (for the moment) setting aside past poor judgements, incivility, and constant drama, the questions here (particularly Q5) show me an editor far, far out-of-step with current community standards and expectations.
'''Oppose''' per Q5.  Not weighing arguments is absurd.  Plus, anyone running this many times irks me.
'''Oppose''' Sorry to react to content on an external site (Wikipedia Review), but the candidate's posts there give the impression of a temperament I wouldn't want in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Q5. Several projects tend to react vehemently towards the inclusion of cited material that opposes the general viewpoint of their project. To decided consensus without weighing the value of the information added would turn nearly all discussions into polls and would harm arbitration in matter ranging from talk pages, AfD, and nearly all facets of wikipedia that require consensus among editors with differing viewpoints. Whether or not the admin claims he or she will use his or her tools should not affect the discussing to grant them. Likewise, I feel the editor has brough the WR discussions into relevence, though I would normally discount anything not on wikipedia, and I feel that the methodology presented in his arguments there runs contrary to many principles I would look for in an effective admin.
I've observed too many problems over the years that lead me to '''oppose''' this, sorry.
Answer to question 5 is an automatic oppose. We aren't a democracy. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Weak Oppose''' To me there is a limit on what I can forgive, and considering the length of his block log, I would take some more time on what I can forgive.  3 arbitration requests are a bit much for me also.--
'''Oppose'''. The candidate carries a lot of history with him. He has a long list of fine contributions but also drama and controversy. --
'''Oppose''' per Q5 and block log. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  Too many concerns.
'''Oppose'''.  Per question 5.  I don't think you're ready for the mop and its powers. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' too much drama. --
'''Oppose''' Not until him and Ottava Rima make peace.
'''Oppose''' Block log is too long.--
'''Oppose''' Given his record, I can think of few people who are worse suited for getting the tools who arn't already banned.
'''Oppose''' Adminship always has been a big deal, desyopping via ArbCom has been a "bigger deal" and re-adminship has been a bigger bigger deal. (what is the biggest deal? That is Wikipedia).--
The "hate speech" comment above in response to Q15 demonstrates extremely poor judgement, and indicates to me an unacceptable intolerance of alternative viewpoints, whether they are "right" or "wrong". To suggest that another editor is attempting to stir up religious or homophobic hatred requires some serious evidence that I have not seen from the discussions surrounding Ottava's ban from WR, which was ''not'' unanimously agreed it appears, and seemed rather petulant. Everyking's part in that, and his attempt to resuscitate that ill feeling with his "hate speech" remark in this RfA, is beyond the pale. --
'''Oppose'''. Half-cocked hilarity has long been a staple of the EveryKing brand, at least as it pertains to administrative threads. A fine and diligent enough article writer, it's a pity he doesn't take the time to find citations before commenting on noticeboards and the like. The absolute deal-clincher here is his failure to grasp the concept of artistic expression in the case of Phil Sandifer (see Raul's oppose, #42 at the time of this writing). This speaks towards an unnervingly juvenile "revenge" mentality, or perhaps a complete lack of wit. Or, and perhaps most likely, it could just be yet another case of EK deciding to throw in another half-baked, uninformed two cents before making even the most rudimentary of investigations into the matter at hand. He can continue to think aloud and work on articles without the tools, and I'm quite wary of the potential for tool-related half-cocked hilarity.
On balance, per Malleus above. Likely to cause too much grief IMO to outway benefits. Net negative with +sysop. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per Malleus.
I didn't want to comment here, but I'm not comfortable that a daring bureaucrat wouldn't promote given the current numbers, so here I am. Q5 is a problem. I know many commenters here are not worried, because Everyking won't be closing AfDs. The problem is that the answer in Q5 is not his approach to AfD. It's his approach to ''consensus''. Admins make rulings on consensus in places other than AfD. Plus, I remain unconvinced that the past issues have gone away. '''
'''Oppose''' we need the return of another self-obsessed old-hand drama-queen like Everyking about as much as we need an ice-cream research department. Even in general, no one who's been a sysop before should ever be restored by RfA, the track record of such resysopping is extremely poor and, on average, the sound to noise ratio upon their return is way too high. This is true particularly of EK. Take Q5, I'm untroubled by the AfD closing, but the idiosyncratic answer shows that either by good-faith naivete or trollish attention seeking, Everyking will always be divisive and disruptive. There's really plenty more fish in the sea for RfAs.--
Too controversial at the moment. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' Mostly because of Q5 and that's enough for me. Regardless of whether or not the user ''says'' he won't ever close an Afd, he still will have that power to do so and I am uncomfortable with even having the power to do so based on the answer to Q5. The answer also speaks to intentions when it comes to other sorts of !votes such as file deletion, consensus discussions, etc. outside of Afds. '''-'''
'''Oppose''' Because of the answer to Q5 and what it says about the nominee's lack of understanding of how things work here and the responsibilities and judgement required of an admin, per Oppose #42 for what it says about past behaviour and other comments which make it difficult to give trust to the nominee: if he wants to do good work, the admin bit isn't necessary. --
'''Oppose'''. Even if the candidate doesn't work in AfD, I'm still not comfortable with the logic he has behind question five. If Everyking feels that numbers decide the outcome of that specfic process, then I can't trust him with the tools. — '''''
Noting especially that the nominator's explanation of how the tools were originally lost is rather deficient.  The deleted content incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, the latest in a string of poor decisions and problematic actions.  While I do believe Everyking's manner and approach are much improved from that time, I do not believe the substantive issues (especially his dealing with disagreement) are corrected such that I could support this RFA.
'''Oppose''':  Not all dissent is the same.  Some dissenters are on principle, some are on pride, and some are on personality.  I regard Everyking as an illustration of how Wikipedia has gone wrong, because he ''was'' treated atrociously by a group of people who are largely gone, now.  They, however, spoke as the voices of power, as the people with "clue," as the people who were "important to the project," and they swarmed.  After enough time, they managed to create the image in Everyking they desired.  '''However,''' Everyking stayed that way.  He has, in my observation, remained reflexively and emotionally reactive, not philosophically.  At this point, he has advocated actions and principles that would be against practice and usage, in my view.  N.b. I speak for myself alone, so no one needs to ask me for footnotes.
'''Oppose''', partly because of an apparent lack of understanding of why it's necessary for XfD (and by extension WP) to operate according to consensus, and partly because of the WR threads that indicate a temperament unsuited to dealing with the idiots we sometimes have to deal with.
'''Oppose''' Q5
'''Oppose''' - This is an interesting one.  On the one hand, this user appears to be devoted to the project and seems to have put in a lot of useful work.  On the other hand, we have Q5 (which, even if the user never closes XfDs, indicates to me a troublingly incorrect view of what consensus means), the block log, and the insane amount of drama that seems imminent if this user becomes an admin again.  It's a matter of risk versus reward: I think that the risk to the project of this user's adminship outweighs the potential benefit of an admin who will occasionally block a vandal or perform housekeeping.  The article work has apparently been solid, why not just keep at that?
'''Oppose''' due to the wrong-headed answer to Q5 and the continued drama.
'''Oppose'''. He's an archetype of wrongheadedness, and I see nothing that's changed that over the years. --
'''Oppose'''. Regardless of other problems, Q5 is a killer.
'''Oppose''' per Q5. This user has an interpretation of consensus that isn't befitting of administrators. '''
'''Oppose:''' Complete lack of interest in promoting someone with an affinity for aggressive, drama-inducing behaviour and an unwillingness to be communicative through edit summaries.  The number of RfAs alone leave a bad taste in the mouth, but the opposes here say enough otherwise.  Everyking is still valued and capable within the project, without being an administrator, and I have to wonder if there isn't a tinge of power lust in his requests.  I'm not suggesting it's true, just that it is how Everyking comes across to me.
I'm sorry Everyking, I first came here to support but I think that although we need admins with the best of the project at heart (and I don't doubt you are one of these people), we also need people that are not too controversial. Each of your actions as an admin will be scrutinized and dissected and I think it the end it will be a burden to the project. --
'''Oppose''' regretfully.  I really do appreciate all the great contributions that Everyking has made; but, Pedro, Flonight, Malleus, and others (along with the answer to Q5, and the WR drama) push me away from my default support.  The kicker for me though is the answer to Q-17.  It just gives ''me'' the impression of "If I can't play with the big red truck, I don't want to play at all".  That's just not a mindset I'm comfortable with in what I expect from an editor who has access to block, delete, and protect functions.  Sorry. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' Per Question 5, but not wishing to pile on.
'''Neutral''' again, per question 5, but very impressed otherwise. Incredible vandal fighting!  I will be doing more research and '''hoping''' that Everyking revisits the question that is causing all of the comments.  Not to late to go back to the books and reformulate an answer.  I for one would consider it a positive trait for a candidate in error to correct oneself when challenged. And if you find that you are correct with Q5, elaborate, and show us your reasoning, provide links.  Good luck! <small>
I'm willing to go along with the candidate's argument that he thinks AfD's ought to be closed based on numbers along, but that he recognises that the community rejects this philosophy and that he will therefore refrain from working deletion discussions closure duty if elected an administrator. Furthermore, he is a not unappealing candidates in a number of other respects—namely sizable experience with the project. However, the prospect that the candidate ''could'', at some juncture after being appointed, begin to close AfD's worries me; and, unless he agrees to be desysopped by a steward if he closes an AfD, I cannot support his candidacy. A ''de facto'' restriction on his closing AfD's is simply not good enough for me.
'''Neutral'''. Everyking is all-around a good user, but Question 5 shows a misinterpretation of [[WP:CON|consensus]] that prevents me from supporting. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' per the answer to Q5.  Don't want to burden the user with too many opposes for this, as I do not think that he should be penalized for it.
Q5. If arguments are invalid per policy and practice, they have considerably less weight.
'''Neutral''' I have read this entire page. I was wondering if Everyking was a young person who might have made some mistakes on Wikipedia in his early days but perhaps grew up since then. As a Catholic who works on Catholic pages and has endured my share of dealing with negative opinions and anti-Catholic POV's from editors whose hatred for the Church is evident, I can sympathize with Ottava Rima's position. I certainly don't need another admin with a chip on his shoulder for the Church! Raul654 has also provided some very condemning evidence to rout this candidate's chances of adminship. It would be easier to support if I knew there would be some kind of review of this persons adminship at a later date to ensure that he does not embark on negative activities and abuse his power. I have often felt that many admins abuse their power making it hard for article creators like me to function. Lately, I have met some decent admins so I can't say they are all bad but there are certainly MANY admins whose powers should be revoked immediately. If Wikipedia wants decent articles on subjects that Readers want to see, like controversial subjects, it needs a review process for existing admins to weed out those who use their power to harrass legitimate editors just trying to put referenced facts on a page. They also need to weed out those admins who do nothing to help a legitimate editor when it is clear they are being harrassed by someone who should be blocked.

Need a few thousand more edits. Also, as a friendly note and with all due respect, you might want to review the definition of "[[compromise]]".
None of the things you want to do require being an admin.  Very rarely are admins approved who have less than 5000 total edits -- it isn't a criterion, but it's a reasonable marker.  Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' because beating Neuro to an edit is ''fun''. Seriously though: Good contributions, excellent answer to q.3 and I trust the nom (although probably not with my wallet :P).
'''Support''' - As nom, and occasional Ironholds hater. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' because beating Neuro is ''fun'' (edit-conflicting with him less so), '''and''' because she let me sleep in her apartment once. Oh yeah, and trustworthy and all that, too. &mdash;
'''Suppport''' - clue and trust are there, no reason not to support. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Well qualified candidate, clean block log and a nice mix of defending the wiki and improving it. '''
'''Support''' Very good editor, knows what they're doing, works hard to put good stuff in, and flag rubbish stuff to be taken out. Good mix as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support''' > helpful and pleasant. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''[redacted by Petersymonds] yes''' - //
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing, even Homer nodded.  Everyone makes mistakes, and given the volume of tagging this editor does, don't see that an occasional slip is a big problem.--
'''Support''' No worries everyone makes mistakes so certaintly support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' -Easy choice '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - User is very unlikely to break the encyclopedia and/or delete the mainpage.
'''Support''' But please be a little more careful when tagging stuff for deletion. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' I'm not happy about the sloppy tagging but I still believe sysoping would be a net positive. I know this may be a weak excuse but FT does a ''lot'' of newpage patrol and mistakes are inevitable. I also trust that he understands that speedy tagging and speedy deleting are different things. Sloppy tagging is basically newbie biting. Sloppy deleting is newbie biting, chewing and spitting out.
'''Support''' with disclosure that FT is my [[WP:ADOPT|wikiadoptive]] mum: she has been unfailingly clueful, knowledgeable, and welcoming in that capacity, and I am sure would do the same as an admin.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, userpage suggests a nice and helpful attitude, and due to no memorable negative interactions elsewhere.  Best, --
'''Support'''. SoWhy probably successfully derailed this, but opposes are unconvincing to me. A user with clue, definite net positive.
'''Support''' Mo negative issues.
'''Support''' per Tanthalas. &ndash;
'''Weak Support''' - looks good to me, but CSD tagging should be done with a lighter touch.
'''Support''' as the questions answered met my thoughts and are backed up by actions. An editor who is willing to be a little [[WP:BOLD]] in improving wiki is to be cherished. I'd hate that anything I contributed got speedied... but then, I try to be careful. '''
'''Very, Very Weak Support'''
I have no problem with the tags that SoWhy has pointed out.  I would have (and do agree with) 75% of the taggings.  Create articles in userspace or elsewhere, don't use the mainspace as a test pond.   That clutters up orphaned articles.  Delete and inform the creator of the best way to create a cultural contribution that they can be proud of.  Even if it's only been a minute; hell, they'll get the new message that way.  Differences of opinion of what is and is not encyclopedic in policy is discretionary in a sysop's judgment, and I would never call for the head of an admin who deleted those pages that have ''nothing'' to do with the dissemination of knowledge.  I see that SoWhy's comment has drummed up support of opposition, but I fundamentally disagree with the idea of what Wikipedia is about.  He owns newspapers?  Big deal.  Following some of those standards ''I'' am notable, and I am not.  I'd like this comment to be taken at face value, I will have little time to follow the issue on the talk page.  Must respect in disagreement, that's what makes this project intellectually fun.  Happy editing to all.
'''Support''' I believe the total positive input from this lady (which goes far beyond a handful of hasty CSD tags) justifies support. Good luck!
'''Lean Support''' - she seems nice and hard to annoy or to provoke. Such a trait is something needed in the admin pool.
'''Support''' per Paster Theo. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
I like her positive attitude.
'''Slightly Hesitant Support''' Despite her <small>'''over'''</small>enthusiastic attitude at CSD, I believe that other editors can help her judgment when (if) necessary. Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Full Support''' SoWhy raised completely valid points. However I think the most important thing he said was "'I left out most of those where she realized her mistake.'" Far too often we tend to look for perfection in those we wish to entrust power. Everyone is human and everyone will make mistakes. I find it far more reassuring to find someone who can admit to and learn from their mistakes than someone who never makes any. I've spoken with FT at length outside of WP about many trivial and non-trivial topics, and I find her to be a very thoughtful, conscientious, and well reasoned person who carefully and appropriately contemplates the consequences of her actions. While some of her tags in the past ''may'' have been misplaced, tagging is not a permanent action, and I don't think for a moment she would have acted on any of them without first reviewing the article and the reasoning behind it's existence and potential deletion. I also find she is eager to search out the advice and knowledge of those around her, and that she values the experiences of others as learning tools to help her make the right choices. I have no reason to believe that as an admin she would suddenly change that course and not reach out for other opinions. Like any promotion, you can't know for certain how a person will act once they have new powers and responsibilities. Only time will tell if she turns out to be a good admin, but I'm more than willing to take that risk, and support her nomination, for whatever that's worth.
'''Support''' most of the CSDs below really are articles without meaningful content... which is what CSD is meant to deal with. Yes, there are some bad CSD A7 taggings... but the candidate's responses indicate they understand the error. This RFA will probably fail... but don't be too discouraged. People tend to understand if you lay down a few months of uncontroversial taggings moreso than they believe RFA-time apologies and admissions of mistakes. --
'''Weak Support''' Certainly, the concerns raised below in the oppose section are mostly valid. However the answers to my questions suggest that the candidate has both policy knowledge and, much more important, uses [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] — something very important for an administrator. Taking everything into account I believe that FlyingToaster will be of benefit for the project as an administrator. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''', no problems at all to me. Some of SoWhy's diffs show issues, but some of them are perfectly fine. If it's the wrong number but still a speedy then at least it's being tagged.
'''Support'''.  I've looked at FlyingToaster's contributions previously, and I've also reviewed reasons to Oppose that have been brought up at this RfA.  While some of her new page patrol tags had issues, probably made in haste, the majority of contributions, including content wise, and the wikignome work, give me no reason not to support the RfA.  In addition, she comes across as a positive member of the community, she mentors others, and I don't see any indication that she would abuse the tools.  In my mind, this makes her trustworthy with mop and bucket.
A couple of SoWhy's diffs are a bit concerning, but not all of them are that bad, and I think I can trust FlyingToaster to be a cautious and helpful administrator.
'''''Ding ding ding!''''' [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] gets the ''Right-on-the-nose Award''. "''Everyone makes mistakes, and given the volume of tagging this editor does, don't see that an occasional slip is a big problem.''" '''Support.'''
'''Support'''. I agree with Wehwalt, and would add that if you're not making any mistakes, you are probably not learning. FlyingToaster seems to be dedicated and hard-working. I don't see anything that would detract from this editor becoming a competent admin.
'''Support''' There's a difference between ''asking'' for a speedy and actually ''deleting an article''. I should think the beating at this RFA would have driven home that line to FT by now, if there ever really was a problem. That speedy tags were added quickly is unconvincing. Lots and lots of CSD tags are applied under the 2 minute mark from creation, and most of them are valid. A solid contributor otherwise, and, frankly I thought she already was an admin.
'''Support''' Very friendly editor. The CSD issue doesn't bother me much. Remember that everyone make mistakes (as seen in '''my''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AVersus22 block log]), and they learn from them.
'''Support''' - Man, am I everywhere on this RfA?! :P FT has proven herself to be a very friendly, helpful, and clueful user. SoWhy's diffs are a tad concerning, but her other service tips that off. :) [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support''' I've had good dealings with her. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' Really good work.
Per original answer to 4.  Excellent. <small><span style="border:1px solid #999933;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - ''DING!'' the toast is <s>done</s> ready for promotion. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''SUPPORT''' Excellent user, awesome name too! Deserves to be an admin. Good luck
'''Strong support''' - Yes, yeah, ja, oui yep and every other possible yes available. The FT is one of those few users that I 100% respect full-stop and period!! '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Strong support''' Couldn't possibly oppose. '''
'''Support:''' Intelligent, clearly dedicated, great contributions, ready.  I realise that SoWhy has brought up valid points (on quite a serious issue), but ''because'' FlyingToaster is intelligent and cares about the wiki, I think the damage/repair/lessons learned/etc is already being taken care of, as hinted at by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlyingToaster&diff=272177974&oldid=272156880 this gracious response].  Also, I wonder how many of those opposing based on the CSD tagging are, were, or would be slightly careless CSD-ers, too?  We know SoWhy does stellar work in this area: what about the rest?  I doubt it myself.
'''Support''' - A difficult one, but I have decided to support you in the end. The issue of speedy deletion that has come up is certainly not a trivial issue, but you gain credit in other areas which allows me to overlook this. Looking at [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]], you display the ability to learn from mistakes and communicate effectively (k.c. 5/6/7), and that is very important in my view. Your answer to the questions are good and your attitude is right, I think you having adminship would be overall a benefit for the project.
'''Support''' - Good-faith editor, even-headed, and I'm sure I could think of more compliments with hyphens in them. Still on learning curve, but seems to understand the concerns noted in the opposes. --'''''
'''Support''' I've watched this user's good work in many areas and am confident that the CSD concerns voiced here will be taken to heart by FT. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' The comments in the support from Aitias reflect my thoughts as well.
'''Support'''.  I think the RfA itself has probably taught the necessary lesson: be careful with speedy deletes, and I have little concern about abuse.
[[File:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support'''. Per Stanistani. '''[[User:MC10#top|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10#top|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' per above. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' User can be trusted, and will learn from any mistakes she makes. --
'''Strong support''' -- see my analysis of her last 15 days of deletions: [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster#Flying Toaster's detailed record of successful vs. unsuccessful deletions|Flying Toaster's detailed record of successful vs. unsuccessful deletions]]. 327 successful deletions vs. 11 flatly declined; most of the declines were early in the period and not in the most recent 200 deletion taggings. Note that there were also 41 more taggings in the "other category" (for example: tags removed by author or FlyingToaster herself, etc) --<font face="Futura">
'''Weak Support''' Knows [[WP:AGF]] perfectly, but I must say she is a little ''too'' kind. Be a little more logical, and you should be fine.
'''Support''' Per good answers to questions --
'''Support''' - I see no problem here.
'''Support''' Has been around since March 2006 and see no real concerns.
'''Support''' Per [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. Also, we could use more admins. He won't break the wiki.
'''Support''' I'm not convinced by the opposes, and I think the candidate can handle the mop. '''
'''Support''' I'm a little perturbed by the tendency to blackball people over a few CSD mistags. The user has admitted to some degree of error among many many tags (humanity is not yet a disqualifying criterion at RfA, so far as I know), and a lot of them seem to be no big deal. As for the rest, the user appears to be a valued contributor Wikipedia, and it's a shame that as of this writing it seems the RfA will not pass.
'''Support''' Full support. ♨ --<strong>
'''Support''' Struck my neutral, and now vote to support per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFlyingToaster&diff=273307370&oldid=273294216 this]  Showed me plenty about the editor!
'''Support''' - I'm happy to cast what I think is my first RFA vote in support of FlyingToaster. Despte not naming Eroica as he/she/its favourite bit of classical music, the answers given and based on some past experience, I think the tools will be in safe hands. I see no reason to bar access to them. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --
'''Support''' <b>
'''Support''' We need more sysops willing to dedicate themselves to CSD and XFD's. Just don't make deletion decisions hastily, breathe a little bit and be careful not to become [[WP:BITE|bitey]]! '''
'''Support''' Per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]], A.B.'s analysis, and her ability to stay cool under pressure (this RFA). Nobody is perfect; what matters is what you do ''after'' you've made a mistake. Sadly, it looks like this isn't going to pass, but there's always next time.
Moving to '''Support'''.  Great answer to my question today; great responses all week.  I don't want to minimize the concerns of the opposition, because on rare occasions, she forgets things that she usually knows ... and that can really be a problem, especially with CSD.  Her [[WP:CSD A7]] and [[WP:CSD G11]] tagging isn't great ... but neither is mine.  In theory, A7 is supposed to be a simple question, but good A7 taggers try not to delete articles that might meet the notability standard whether notability was asserted or not, which means they're trying to decide quickly what normally takes the work of many people over 5 days.  It's not surprising that A7 taggers get confusing advice.  [[WP:CSD G12]], copyright violation tagging, is often done wrong, but you'll see on the talk page of this RFA that she's done a phenomenal amount of tagging in the last 15 days or so, and got all of these right.  I'm not happy about some of the A3 decisions, but thjtaggers are rarely getting any feedback about A1, A3 and G1.  It's my fault that I didn't look more closely at her tagging contributions before now, and that I didn't know more about what goes on at CSD, but now I have and I do, and I'd really like her help as an admin at CSD. - Dan
'''Support'''. Though she made a few mistakes with CSD (has anyone not made a mistake in CSD?) she is a strong candidate with great answers to the questions. And I liked the dragon story.
'''Support''' some CSD problems (I had the same problem myself), but notwithstanding, I am confident that there will be no misuse of the tools.
'''Support''' User should be trusted with the mop, and adminship is a learning process anyway.

Oppose per SoWhy.
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. Especially worrying for me is the one minute tag. It demonstrates lack of an attempt to research and/or improve the article first, and comes of as [[WP:BITE]]y. '''''
'''Oppose''' - SoWhy's diffs are troubling.  FlyingToaster's response is doubly so - it convinces me that FT won't improve their practice once they're an admin.  Newpage patrolling, especially speedy deletion, is where we drive away new contributors the most.  Here we have someone who is already biting the content creators, the new users - and seems to have no intention of, or interest in, stopping.  Giving them sharper teeth is a bad idea until the behaviour is fixed.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per dodgy CSD work. This absolutely cannot be overlooked. The responses are troubling too. The A7 and A1 responses in particular.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too many recent questionable speedy deletion nominations. The occasional mistake we all make or if these were from a few months ago then I could understand (the learning process). However nominating articles for speedy deletion can drive off editors from contributing further (and especially newcomers) and incorrect actual speedy deletions are even worse in driving off new editors. I accept FlyingToaster says that he would be more careful in deleting but I can only judge from nominations at the moment and I am not convinced by the response over these deletions. Come back in a few months with a record of good speedy deletion nominations and I will be happy to support then.
'''Oppose''' per [[:User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] and daft answers to Q 4 + 5. '''
'''Oppose''' Both per [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] and the responses to SoWhy's diffs.--

'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' Those bad CSDs are not close calls.
'''Oppose''' without even reviewing you further. Sorry, but the moment I saw the words "tagged within one minute of creation" and checked the link to confirm that was indeed the case, (and that the article wasn't an attack page or copyvio, where hairtrigger biteyness ''is'' acceptable) trust instantly goes out the window.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Oppose'''. SoWhy's quoted edits make it clear that FlyingToaster needs more experience with the deletion process before being granted adminship.
'''Oppose''' - SoWhy rightfully presents the necessary information to be shared with voters, so I appreciate that and agree with his assessment. That diffs pretty much convinces me that the approval of the admin tool to the candidate at this time is not the good choice. --
'''Regretful Oppose'''. You are a great user, but just a single mistake in [[WP:CSD]] can nail you in an RfA. Unfortunatley, if you look at Oppose #1, everything is there. However, I would of opposed anyway. Looking at your edit count, you have about a gazillion edits on User Talk pages (???), more than mainspace pages. You also don't have too many manual edits. The verdict is per SoWhy... like about everyone else...... '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough of an encyclopdia editor, relatively too much outside the mainspace.  --
'''Oppose''' Uses "open to recall" as a response to concerns. "Open to recall" is non-binding, and using it to allay concerns makes this candidate unsuitable.
'''Weak oppose'''.  While I really like the work you've done as an editor, I cannot support you with the incorrect speedy taggings hanging over your head.  Once you've cleared this up, you'll do fine--but as of now it's a problem. Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy's dissertation.
'''Oppose'''I really try to go beyond SoWhy observations but the actions are too recent. Many of the request for speedy where related to international topics, every wikipedian should try to help to counter this encyclopedia natural bias, [[WP:BIAS]]. I have no doubt about the quality of the user contributions, I just want to see more experience dealing with deletion. --
'''Oppose''' anyone who would make speedy nominations one minute after an article was started when it is too early to tell if it might be notable,  and intends to continue doing so, or who would think [[Indian Express Group]]   borderline notability enough to speedy is clearly not to be trusted with the buttons. I don't think she accepts WP:Deletion policy. '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough policy awareness, particularly shown by the comment at [[Indian Express Group]] talk [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndian_Express_Group&diff=271784197&oldid=271783813] after the speedy.  Admins need to make lots of difficult decisions and while a misreading of one criteria is ok, I think this shows a lack of understanding of speedy deletion in general and the rationales and balances involved in the community's decision to allow it.  Admins working in difficult areas need to understand things from first principles because criteria only go so far.  I say this to be positive; FlyingToaster is a great contributor and even went on to more than right her mistakes by substantially contributing to the article afterwards.  I just think she needs to delve a bit deeper into the inner workings of policy.  I'm sure she can do that and come back for a successful RfA in a little while because everything else seems suitable for adminship :).
'''Oppose'''. Dubious deletion tags and article work is unimpressive.
'''Regretful oppose'''. I love the polite, rational responses, even in the face of pressure. But even before the RfA I had concerns about the quality of this editor's speedy tagging (both in amount of time elapsed and the correctness of speedy tags). The replies to SoWhy's diffs give me concern -- I don't see that FT truly grasps the criteria. Get that straightened out, and I'd love to change to support in a future RfA.--
'''Oppose''' Per SoWhy and apparent fundamental misunderstanding of CSD policy. -
'''Oppose'''. Tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bravo_Location_Rentals&diff=prev&oldid=270984207 this] for deletion after it's only been around for one minute? That's reason enough for not to trust your judgement.
'''Oppose'''. Too many newbies are bitten on their first article. <nowiki>{{Notability}}</nowiki> is an alternative to A7. Good manners!
'''Oppose'''. I certainly agree with Neuro that this candidate is cordial and collegial in conversation. However, I think there needs to be time to process and work as the "different editor" she indicates to DGG that she will now become. I acknowledge that she is hardly alone in the rapid-fire tagging of articles for speedy deletion that are obviously incomplete, but our policy ''does'' explain why this is a bad idea, and I believe that an admin should demonstrate understanding of the policy...not only what it says, but why. We need to welcome new contributors not only through one-on-one mentoring, but in a general sense by explaining "the policies, guidelines and community standards of Wikipedia" (as per [[WP:BITE]]). CSD is not meant to wipe out incomplete articles with potential; it's meant to summarily remove material that does not and cannot belong. I think this nom demonstrates that she has a clue; I'm glad that she reconsidered this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anal_dysplasia&diff=272423400&oldid=272422404 vandalism CSD requested, placed on the 22nd]. She certainly left the article in better shape than she found it. But the initial tag was hasty, given the results of a simple google test--11,600 hits for the term. I'd encourage the nom to slow down as she moves forward and to consider alternatives, as the policy says, "''[b]efore'' nominating an article for speedy deletion...." (my emphasis). I must also note for the record that I am also uncertain how well this contributor understands [[WP:C|copyright]], [[WP:CITE]] and [[plagiarism]]. As recently as October, she cleaned up the article Army Worm by pasting extensive material from [http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/field/fall_armyworm.htm this source]. Admins only can view the selectively deleted version, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Army_worm%2Fdeleted_revisions_2009-02-16&timestamp=20081019213925 here]. Non-admins, for one single example, compare one sentence she placed in the article: "For example, Pitre and Hogg (1983) studied winter survival of the pupal stage in Florida, and found 51 percent survival in southern Florida, but only 27.5 percent survival in central Florida, and 11.6 percent survival in northern Florida. <ref>{{cite journal|last=Pitre|first=HN|coauthors=Hogg DB|date=1983|title=Development of the fall armyworm on cotton, soybean and corn|journal=ournal of the Georgia Entomological Society|issue=18|pages=187-194}}</ref>" The citation there (which is to the Pitre and Hogg article) would seem to suggest that she had viewed the Pitre & Hogg article and crafted a sentence noting their work herself, but in fact that sentence, as with ''multiple'' sentences and paragraphs, was copied directly or with minimal change from the University of Florida profile. This text is not only not public domain, but clearly marked "Copyright 1999-2005". In one paragraph, she cited the copied page (though without any indicator that her text was placed verbatim). At best, this contributor did not know as recently as October of last year that she could not paste content from copyright sources to Wikipedia--which would suggest at least one pretty serious gap in policy understanding for a person whose userpage indicates that she has been editing for nearly three years. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> per Moonriddengirl (as a change from all the others opposing per SoWhy). --
'''Oppose'''.  My own experience with FlyingToaster mirrors those incidents noted by SoWhy.  Last month, she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killian%27s_Angels&diff=255584670&oldid=255584429 tagged] [[Killian's Angels]] for speedy deletion two minutes after it was created.  After the deletion, an article about it came out in the ''Las Vegas Sun'': [http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/13/bands-millions-homes-not-wikipedia/ Band is in millions of homes but not on Wikipedia], a textbook example of why newcomers often find Wikipedia bewildering and hostile.  FlyingToaster should spend a few months continuing to work on whatever areas she wants to contribute to, to demonstrate that she can be more conscientious about her work than she has been recently.--
'''Weak Oppose.''' I completely approve of the work FlyingToaster has done, but, SoWhy and Moonriddengirl bring up some very strong points. Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose'''. As Ragesoss highlights, this kind of attitude to new articles gives the encyclopedia a bad name.
'''Oppose''' mainly per SoWhy. Although I would agree that we need more admins doing speedy deletion, I believe FlyingToaster needs some more time to mature and fully understand the process first. Sorry. '''
I'm afraid that I can't support either, entirely because of the far too rapid speedy deletion tagging. Editors, especially new editors, have to be given reasonable time to construct their articles without harassment. I myself prefer to build articles incrementally in mainspace rather than userspace, and it's certainly what most new editors will automatically choose to do. Evidence of a little less rushing at CSD tagging could well persuade me to support at a later RfA. --
'''Regretful oppose''' - Based on the candidate's good answers to the questions (except Q11), I immediately prepared to support, but then scrolled down and saw SoWhy's comments. Doing more research, and reading the candidate's responses to SoWhy, it is clear that the candidate does not understand the whole point of CSD and what it was created for. I happen to work on the CSD backlog as an administrator, and have seen countless trigger-happy users tagging clearly-notable articles, or other articles that obviously don't satisfy CSD criteria. From my experience, A7 and G11 are by far the most misunderstood criteria, and it appears that the candidate is one of those users who completely misunderstand them, based on the taggings and answers to SoWhy, which I encourage other users to read. I'm not saying that trigger-happy taggers are harming the encyclopedia (although making the backlog bigger for no reason isn't helpful), just that they should not be administrators until they fully understand CSD, especially if they intend to work in that area. In addition, the fact that the candidate has argued many opposes does not play in their favor in my eyes. --
'''Oppose''' I can only echo some other comments. Getting speedy deletions is bad for content and often bites new users. I'm sure the message is clear to FT, but I'd like to see a longer track record of more moderate CSD activity. It's more important that new users find a welcoming atmosphere here than it is to get rid of borderline content ''immediately''.
'''Oppose''' for above concerns. If some of the raised problems date back to her 'early' time, that also means that she is effectively not that long around and while there is an impressive number of good edits, I'd simply prefer to be sure that deletion (and copyright) policy have sunk in and then there shouldn't be any trouble next time. --
'''Neutral''' Currently both sides are convincing, if anything new comes up I could tilt either way.
'''Neutral''' -- Flyingtoaster seems like a good-faith editor who could use the tools for good, but the misuse of tags leads mead to wonder whether her decision making as an admin with the tools could end up being misused as well.--'''''<small>
'''Neutral''' Honestly, I think a full minute was too long for tagging that article. It had no content whatsoever, so it did obviously fit the CSD criterion. And as for the concern about that being BITEy: I've found that if the (presumably) new user actually wants to make an article about something, then he'll do a bit of research and not click "Save page" until there's actually some content there. If they're not serious about making an article (i.e., if they're just making a hoax, spam, or just some random article like "John Johnson is awesome!!!!!!1"), then it usually gets them off our back (for a while, at least). <font face="terminal">
'''Neutral''' Moral of this RfA?  You want to run for adminship, don't touch newpage CSD with a bargepole.  Even if 99% of your tagging is spot on, you'll still piss someone off.  Keep doing what you're doing, be very careful with CSD if you keep on working on it, and come back here in a few months. <b>
'''Neutral'''. FlyingToaster means well, but doesn't quite have a good enough grasp of CSD.
'''Neutral''' because of speedy deletion tagging issues. However, I can be swayed either way with more evidence.
'''Moral support''' per [[WP:AGF]].  Why make it unanimous and discouraging?  I agree with the reasons below, but don't want you to feel discouraged.  Please take the advice below, however.  Sincerely, --
I very rarely oppose, but 4 edits is unusually low for an RFA candidate - though I'm watchlisting this and will happily reassess if you disclose the IPs you've edited from. Also the redlink in your question answers makes me suspect that your knowledge of this place is not yet at admin levels. But thanks for offering to take up the mop, we are desperately short of admins and I hope you come back later this year when you have a bit more experience. ''
'''Oppose, for now''' Sorry, but there is no way to know who is behind an IP's edits. Make some solid contribs at this account, come back in a few months and we can talk then. Until then, there is no concrete means to tell what your contribs have been in the past. Note that I would not hold any prejudice in a future RfA based on the outcome of this one, and encourage you to run again once you have some edits that we can concretely link to you.--
'''Oppose''' 4 edits is too few.
'''Oppose''' because of a serious lack of contributions. Make some good contributions for a few months, and I'll support after that.
Per above. - Dan
'''Oppose''', needs more experience. '''
I don't want to pile on, but I agree with the opposition—there is no way to confirm that you've been contributing under an IP. Sorry, –'''
Recommend withdrawal.  There's no record we can use to determine if you can be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. You show a promising Wikipedia career, but you have just over 1000 edits. You might have started editing 1 year and 8 months ago, but you had about a year with zero edits and about 95% of your edits were in May 2009. I also see no experience in content building, admin-related areas (excluding AIV), or collaboration evidence. Recommend another couple thousand edits, concentrating on article building.
'''Oppose''' for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=290746877 recent vandalism]. Seems to be on the right track now, though. Keep it up. <tt>
'''Oppose''' per the above; in addition (a) [[User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage/Requests#User:Frozen4322_2|you've been considered too inexperienced at CSD]] to be allowed to use NPWatcher; (b) article creations such as [[Nasal Drip (Band)]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Moparscape.org&timestamp=20090516001938 Moparscape.org] don't inspire confidence that you have sufficient knowledge yet of how WP operates.  Don't be deterred, though - gain more experience and try again when you're more established.
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns. You need to learn a lot more about how Wikipedia works and show you can be trusted with the tools before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per ↑↑↑↑ more experience is needed in article building.
'''Weak oppose''' &ndash; You seem to be becoming a great editor, but you don't quite have enough experience. If you continue to improve, I see no reason you won't be qualified in a few more months, but just not yet. :) '''
'''Strong Oppose'''-user just started today.
'''Oppose''' As per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try after sometime.Good Luck
Thank you for wanting to volunteer your time to Wikipedia, but in order to be an administrator you need some more time here. Please do not feel discouraged, and try again in 5-7 months. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Couple dozen edits, total. Needs a couple thousand more and several more months of content-building ''and'' admin-related experience. Apparently unfamiliar with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=279597048 our policies of citing sources]. Basically, a "not now" case.
'''Oppose''' per [[wp:notnow|not now]].  Thanks for the enthusiasm Fuzzyhair, but you'll need a lot more experience at Wikipedia before applying for adminship.  Please see [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|this page]] for more information.  All the best, '''
'''Oppose''' [[wp:notnow|Not now]]. --
'''Oppose''' per "I just wandered across RfA and I have a compulsion to vote". Get a better feel for the place before you decide that adminship is what you really want :-)
'''Oppose''' You created two RfA pages: "Fuzzyhair2" and "fuzzyhair2", so you obviously don't understand how this process works. You need to get a few more months of experience before applying.
'''Oppose''': the lack of experience worries me, too. -
'''Oppose'''. With a grand total of 11 edits to your name before you started putting up your name as an administrator, you have some way to go. Though I am mildly amused by your statement above that ''"I have done my level best to make sure that the information that I edited was indeed not true".'' --
'''Strong Oppose'''. 17 edits? That is FAR too few. There's no way to evaluate you.
'''Oppose'''. Uploading stills from a commercial TV show on commons? ([[:File:Tom_Quinn.jpg]]) No thanks.
'''Oppose''' While I welcome your desire to contribute more to Wikipedia.It is [[WP:NOTNOW]] please try again after a few months.Sorry and Best Wishes for the future.
'''Oppose''' but not keen on the first 3 opposes above per [[WP:BITE]]. On this RFA though, it is just far too little experience and [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I can see where this is going so I will suggest a close per [[WP:SNOW]]. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">

'''Moral Support''', please do not be discouraged. Many of our best administrators failed at their early RfAs. Try to find an adopter or an admin coach who is willing to show you the ropes, and return full of knowledge in 4-9 months time. '''\'''
'''Support'''.  Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' - I don't see what harm it can do.
'''Moral Support''' - as to avoid piling on. Get some more contributions and come back later. You can do it!--
Conditional '''support''' &ndash; pending your thoughtful and well-reasoned response to my question #6, above.
'''Oppose''' Not enough mainspace edits and very few edits to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CSD]], and [[WP:RfPP]].  Simply put - you don't have the experience others are looking for.  Plus, it's only been a month since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaelen S.|your last RFA]].
'''Oppose''' Let me say that while I admire your work fighting vandals, there is much much more to being an Wikipedia admin than being a vandal cop.  The process of writing well-sourced articles, especially on hot-button topics, gives one a good idea of what is involved in being an admin.  The position requires a complex combination of patience, knowledge, and wisdom that comes from long hours of dealing with Wikipedians who have strong and often opposing views, which sometimes lead to edit wars. Add to your inexperience the fact that, as noted above, you have only waited a month since your last RfA. There are other areas of participation lacking as well. Please look at some of the recent candidates that have been approved, and why people voted for them. Strongly suggest you withdraw, continue your existing good work and expand the areas you are weak in, and then try again next year. My best wishes to you! <font color="green">
'''Oppose'''. Little interaction with other users beyond vandalism reversion. Minimal content creation.
'''Oppose'''. Very few article talk edits. This is a very important part of community interaction. Also a bit green, six months with relatively few mainspace edits, and little interaction, does not instill trust, for me at least. Self nominations for RfA are also a red flag for me. -
'''Super-Absolutely Strong Oppose"''' Lack of interaction with administrators. Not much of a use to the Huggle tool.--
'''Oppose''' Per Axl. Someday though, just not now.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' too soon, you need to work on article writing skills and develop these skills further. all that aside you have very good intentions here. and i think in do time youll past quickly through one of these. Consider admin coaching if you can.
'''Oppose''' I see more time is needed. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' This probably comes across as a bit harsh, but I'm honestly a bit surprised that you have rollbacker rights. You have only been editing under this account for a month. Were you editing under a different account, or an IP prior to August that would have led you to receive rollbacker rights? I do not mean this dismissively... if you have a greater body of contributions that would demonstrate your qualifications for the mop, I would like to see them. [[User:Hiberniantears|Hiberniantears]] ([[User talk:Hiberniantears|talk]]) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC). I also find it a bit strange that this page was actually deleted earlier this week on your request, and that you received specific, and helpful advice on pursuing admin tools at that time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaelen_S.&diff=prev&oldid=315578660 here].
'''Oppose''' per above, and your last RfA was a month ago. Something smells fishy. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per above, please wait 6-12 months until you reapply.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' You have very little experience in admin-related topics, and limited experience in article work. Automated edits are of only minor significance IMHO. I urge you to withdraw, and to try again after making one or two thousand manual edits across the whole range of the encyclopedia. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' Per above. You should also let one process run its course before you move on. You applied at Editor Review, but did not give it time to complete. Come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience, and in some well-rounded areas. '''
The kerfuffle with the rollback tool was too recent for me.  <small><span style="border:2px solid #000000;">
'''Oppose'''. You're way too hasty to report users prematurely, and even after some people communicate that to you, you still persist. --
'''Oppose'''. User wants to work with edit filters, but totally drops the ball on the regex question.
'''Oppose''' per above comments, not ready yet. (Aside - Shadowjams, where do I claim my b33r[[Interrobang|‽]]) <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Oppose''' - Only a month of editing means that I simply can't judge how you would be as an administrator. Two RfAs within such a period (I would only support such things in certain circumstances (saying this to cover my ass, yes)) also suggests desperation for adminship, which is something I don't really want to see in an administrator. As I say though, everything you've done in the last month holds a huge weight because there is so little to go on because of the length of time that you have been contributing. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' Weak because you have a clean block log and I appreciate editors who can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:194.158.79.70&diff=prev&oldid=315436457 do this], but Oppose because I don't think you are ready yet. Admins don't need to be writers let alone have featured content, but they should have varied contributions to show they understand the pedia and the community that they want to help administer, so far you seem to be almost exclusively a vandal fighter, and while that is useful and shows a need for the tools I like to see activity in at least one other area - photography, adding alt text to images, GA or FA reviewing or indeed article writing - there are loads of things that need doing.   In my opinion admins should also understand the unwritten rules here such as waiting at least 3 months between RFAs, as well as the written policies. I'm also intrigued as to why an account created two months ago has a userbox proclaiming they've been a wikipedian for 2.5 years. ''
'''Weak Oppose''' concerned about the keenness to get tools demonstrated in some of those answers. --
'''Oppose''' Just had an RFA a month ago. Per [[WP:NOTNOW]].--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose'''. I just think that one month of editing is not enough. ''Please'' do not be discouraged, keep on editing and soon you will be an admin. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pileon. Come back with more experience especially in areas such as AIV and AFD, in a few months time :) You look like a good editor with solid contributions. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid the pile-on. Per above. Please don't be discouraged! Happy editing,
'''Neutral leaning Support''', all indications are that the candidate is a good-faith user who wants the tools for the right reasons.  Q4 gave me a little pause, but not enough to oppose.  I highly encourage you to come back in a few months, with a bit more experience under your belt, because I see the makings of a fine admin in your contribs.
Not piling on the oppose.
'''Support''' I really like the answer to Q3, support.--
'''Support''' per [[User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Awards]], good argument in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutler Beckett]], and as candidate has never been blocked.  Best, --
'''Support''' Good answers to questions show a good level of knowledge in policy matters, can be trusted. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Weak Support''' I do not agree with this user's positions on singular "they", usage of quotation marks, and spacing between sentences.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal; I see no reason to believe this user would use tools incorrectly.
'''Moral Support''' I look forward to the next time. Please heed my advice and reapply. Cheers,
'''Moral Support'''. This RFA was probably a bit premature, but I don't really see any serious issues with the candidate; she lacks experience, but her intentions are good and she's on the right track. Assuming this RFA fails, I would advise her to gain more experience in 'admin areas' such as AFD and AIV before applying again; most voters here want to see evidence that she knows what she's doing in those areas before they can support.
'''Moral Support'''.  The less than stellar start to her RfA might be an indicator of a need for a more informative nomination.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaia_Octavia_Agrippa/Adoption adminable] accomplishments abound with this candidate, but with her modesty, require a bit of research to uncover.  Outstanding vandal fighter.  Please address the concerns below and return with a bold pronouncement of your accomplishments. <small>
'''Moral support'''. Candidate would probably have passed on first run a few years back; It's unfortunate that filling up the job application form matters just as much as his/her contributions. I really do hope to see him/her back here in a few months, with more experience by then. -
'''Support'''. Granting the admin bit should not rest on the candidate's ability to wax poetic or verbose in their responses. Being concise is a virtue in many cases. Adminship is no big deal, and I see nothing which indicates this editor would abuse the tools. Rather, it appears the tools would be put to good use. ···
'''Weak Support''' - technically meets my standards, but I'm not 100 % happy about the AfD work.
'''Strong moral support''' From my interactions with Gaia Octavia Agrippa at Milhist, I know her to be a steady, reliable editor who will make a great admin once she has more experience under her belt. &nbsp;
'''Real Support'''. The candidate has a history of civil interactions with other contributors, and has shown extreme willingness to help out new editors. This indicates possession of fundamental traits that, to me, are more important than policy knowledge. <tt>
'''Weak support.''' I see no indication that the user would abuse their tools or do something terribly wrong, so [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not?]] The answers are not impressive, though, (although I support the answer to their most recent question from me) so I am not extremely supportive of them.
'''Support''' Why not. I would trust that if the user is successful that they would carefully evaluate their understanding of consensus. I can certainly recall discussions about perfectly notable articles which I've been in where if it were a vote I'd be a little worried if this user was closing the discussion. But this has been pointed out and I'm willing to [[WP:AGF|assume]] said user will study points raised by other editors be it win or lose. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Nothing wrong with brevity.
'''Support''' - The awnsers appeared to be given truthfully and properly, certain factors are made due to human opinion and social incidents but these could not effect constructive editing or administritive (is this even a word) actions but possibly increase them due to certain views could be used, like in most places in the pedia, as benifits for the article at hand (if this makes any sense). Also she has only had 56 edits reverted and/or deleted meaning that the majority of the edits made were in some way constructive and helpful. My only original concern was the lack of proof that guidence had been given to/or with any given user, but other users appear to remember such times so this is a removed concern, and with the responsibilities I am sure that she will make an effort to guide people and be a good admin. Sorry for the novel I just wrote.
'''Weak support''', I generally don't care about answers to questions if the editor seems good.
'''Support'''- She is good. She has adopted me and knows a lot about Wikipedia. --
Absolutely no reason to oppose. Though his answers are short, they are to the point and proves he knows what he's talking about. Never been blocked, very civil, and I see a youthful glow a good thing :)--(
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions are not impressive, and I see little sign of preparation to become an admin -- a bit of Huggling, a few AfD noms, hardly anything more.  I could support after a few months more of experience with admin-related matters.
'''Oppose''' - While I applaud the user's boldness to request adminship, I do not think they are ready. They have virtually no contributions in both Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces; despite the user wanting to work in both deletion and blocking, there are no edits to AIV to speak of (5 according to [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Gaia+Octavia+Agrippa&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia X!'s counter], no AFD nominations, no edits to policy talk pages. The only recent speedy tagging was a [[WP:G7|G7]] to a page where the creator replaced the content with an external URL (would have been an A3) and in March a A1 to foreign language material. The answer to Q4 is hazy - we do not block established users any other way than all other vandals: If they break the rules and a block is needed to stop them, we block them. They don't need to do it regularly to be blocked, they just need to continue after being given warnings to stop. Answer to Q6 sounds like the user believes that consensus is more of a vote than a !vote (see comment in neutral). So, to sum it up, I believe this user means well, I really do. But I do not think they grasp policy enough for the mop just yet. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. Additionally, with Wikignome users that most of the community is not familiar with, it's especially important to have detailed answers to the questions, which this candidate does not supply. Qs 1 and 6 are exceedingly vague, and Q7 reveals that this user has not had enough interaction with others to demonstrably prove that he/she has the proper temperament for the tools.
'''Oppose''' Per non-impressive answers to questions.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy and GlassCobra. The answers to the questions in general weren't that great.
Don't see a pressing need for tools or experience in preparation for using them, no audited content work. --<font color="#cc6600">
Per answer to my question, #7. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (
'''Tentative oppose''' - I dislike both the manner and nature of the answers to the questions, and I find that guestbooks are minor violations of [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE]], but violations nonetheless. I am willing to be convinced the other way, though, as all of these concerns can be allayed. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Concern about experience, and answers to the questions. '''
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. The user means well but I do not think they are ready yet. [[User:Frehley|<font face="Old English" color="0d254c" size="4">Fre</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Cirt.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> --
'''Oppose''' per all but one in this section.
'''Oppose''' Vague answers to questions. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' over concerns about the answers given above and the issue of experience.  I'm not looking for a dozen FAs or a thousand vandals taken down but the contributions to date seem only somewhat substantial.  Perhaps in six months after more thought on the process, but not yet. -
'''Oppose''' - I don't like to "per editor" people, but SoWhy sums up exactly what i'm thinking here. Good luck,
'''Oppose''', next to no experience in deletion, and that's one of the main areas in which you plan to work.
'''Oppose''' - I held off voting for a while, as I remember seeing your name and was trying to remember where I saw it, and now remember seeing it in Editor Reviews.  The review you had had stated that you should work on deletion some more before requesting adminship, and you seem to not have done much of that.--
Wishes to block users and IPs but has little contribution to [[WP:AIV]].  Very ambiguous answers to questions; I'm worried how the answer to seven appears to contradict three, I don't like four or six either.  I do not believe the user ready.  Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  More experience with [[WP:CSD]]; I don't agree with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instinct_(Team)&oldid=288331613 this] edit summary particularly, but the [[WP:CLUB]] tag ok.  It appears as if the candidate is applying with an undertone of frustration, which looking at the [[Special:Contributions/Gaia_Octavia_Agrippa|contributions]] of the user makes sense, but the short answers 1A and 4A reflect a bit of impatience.  I do not think trust is an issue here, nor is the ability to "use" the tools.  The issue is ''when'' the tools should be used, something the candidate can surely improve.
'''Oppose''' - Answers to questions are not good enough.--
'''Oppose''' - Per [[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] and [[user:download|download]]. Cheers, --
'''Oppose''', per inadequate answers to the questions.
'''Strong Oppose''' The answers are totally inadequate to become admin <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' Per the answers to the questions. Sorry.
Gives the impression of being a kid.
'''Strong oppose''' per three things. First, rather lackluster answers to the questions. Second, not enough experience in the deletion field; that is, you need to have more experience in XFDs and more participation in the deletion process as a whole. You can build experience and knowledge in this by participating in [[WP:XFD|XFD]]s, utilizing [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]], watching [[Special:NewPages]] for pages that fall under the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] (this is where most speedy deletions happen), and participating in [[WP:DRV|deletion review]]. Third, while wikignomery can be a good thing, you need to build knowledge in the article building process—be a good ''content'' editor. Build up and improve existing articles and cleanup substandard articles. This will definitely help you familiarize yourself with the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines that admins need to understand well in order to utilize the tools. Hopefully, this helps, especially if you wish to go for RFA again.
'''Regretful Oppose''' User has good intentions but skimpy answers to questions indicate a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policies.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
I can't see any reason to not support but I tend to put a lot of weight on the answers to the questions and these responses are, um, spotty. Some 'meat' in the answers (a diff here and there and a little passion in the 'greatest contributions' would be nice). Meanwhile, I'm parking in the neutral section. --
'''Neutral.''' I've come across Gaia a few times in her Wikignoming and appreciate her contributions; however, I am largely unimpressed with her answers to the questions. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Neutral''' per RegentsPark and KuyaBriBri. '''''
'''Neutral''' No reason to oppose, but I cannot yet support.--
'''Neutral''' I am in agreement with John on this candidacy.
I'm with {{user|John}} here. There's nothing to suggest that the candidate would misuse the tools, but I can't quite support at this time. –'''
You have a bit of improvement to do, but this is nothing that will stop you from passing a future RfA.  If you have addressed all the concerns here in about six months, please run again and have another go. '''
The answers to the questions above concern me, I would tend to sway to oppose, but wikignomes may be neccesary in the future, especially with the upgoing rates of vandilism.
'''Neutral''', avoiding pile-on. While mindless repetition of policy is not a requirement, answers show a [[wikt:paucity|paucity]] of engagement with them. Alas, one of the most important things an admin can do is put his or her finger on relevant explanation of policy in order to keep things running smoothly around here; not sure there's enough of that in this candidate at this time. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Comment''' In response to  Gaia Octavia Agrippa's request for more specific answers, my comment is that that is our concern. I don't expect perfect answers, but these questions, your contributions, and your stats are the only way we have to know you if we haven't personally interacted with you in the past. Your answers are very brief and to the point, but they also don't tell us much about you. What is your thought process? How are you likely to perform as an admin? You may be a person who evaluates everything on a case-by-case basis, so it is difficult to speak in generalities about possible future events. If that's the case, let us know. After reading most RfA Q&A's, I've got at least some kind of a mental image of the person created in my head (and probably completely unlike the real person), but at least I have some feeling about the person. After reading, and now re-reading your answers, you are still mostly a blank slate. Maybe a general sense of a quiet gnome working away, not causing any drama, and just trying to do a good job well out of the limelight. That's an admin nominee I would gladly support! But if that's you, please try to express that, or whatever it is that you are. We can't see you, hear you, or interact except through a screen and a keyboard. You've got to give us more before we can feel comfortable giving you more. At least, that's how I see it. I hope that helps. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''.  I see ~50% of her edits are in the mainspace (plus point to me), and [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Gaia+Octavia+Agrippa only around 1000] of her edits were automated (another plus point to me).  However, what I don't yet see is evidence of dispute resolution skills, nor do I yet see evidence of a clear understanding of policy.—
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but your answer to question 8 seriously worries me.
I refuse to oppose RfA's that are certain to fail.  But you only have 800 edits, which is not just a little below the recommended minimum, but significantly below the general guideline of 3000.  To make matters worse, only once in the past 15 months have you had 100 edits in a given month and in almost all of those 15 months you had zero edits.  Based on your nom it looks like your heart is in the right place, it's just that you don't have the experience necessary yet.  I'm also concerned about the answer to my questions.  You should never block somebody or protect a page that you are involved with, you should always leave that to an uninvolved admin.  Your entire nom seems as if you are seeking the buttons to use exclusively in a corner of the project where virtually nobody else roams.  While working in niches is commendable, it leads to bigger potentials for abuse.  Again, I think your heart is in the right place, but for now I think you should withdraw as this RfA will be closed per [[wp:NOTNOW]]---'''
My questions notwithstanding, I refuse to jump on the oppose bandwagon, but I can not "morally support" this candidate either.
I'm not going to oppose this RfA, as it has no chance of passing. That being said, your answer to question 8 was flat out incorrect. Please re-read [[WP:COOLDOWN]]. →<font style="color:#4682b4">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
Has matured significantly over recent months, and is a quality contributor well worthy of the mop. –'''
'''Support''' - I have full confidence in [[User:Giants27|Giants27]] that he will make a great admin. He has helped me become the editor I am now, and I don't think I would still be around here if it was not for him. He seems to be well-versed when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he helps out new users who need assistance, and he has never really had any issues with other users. '''
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' <small>
Net positive, absolutely. ''Although'' learning how to control swearing is a must, but I am going on a limb here because it is apparent to me that this user will most likely be a good admin.
'''Support'''--Excellent editor.--
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Strong Support]]''' per nom, DYK work, GA's, overall civility (we need that), great editor over all. Overall, Giants27 as an admin would be a huge benefit to the project. His work to the DYK section can be improved as well (editing the actuall template). Good luck!--
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Strong Support]]''' - Giants27 is an absolutely phenomenal contributor; I am beside myself that he wasn't an admin already. '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no concerns. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''' - Obvious concern; however Giants is a very good content editor. '''
'''Support''' It's a tough one. That diff was hardly appropriate, but I understand that everyone is human and that we are bound to lash out at some point. Yes, we all enjoy candidates who have no record of arguments with other users but in reality most of us aren't pure in that sense. This candidate has experience all around with content writing, vandalism, and communication. Surely all this, over countless months, is worth more than a single diff from two months ago? Come on people. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Weak Support''' Regarding the infamous diff: I've seen worse. Losing your cool happens. I really hate it when an admin (or a candidate for that matter) does it, which is why this is a weak/tentative support.  If more examples of those types of outbursts come forward, then I'd likely go neutral or oppose, as the last thing Wikipedia needs is another touchy admin who doesn't understand how to be tactful when under pressure.Overall that one cock up isn't the end of the world to me and overall I reckon you'd do a lovely job. Good luck.
'''Support'''  per Cyclonenim,  and users quality edits both to content and well balanced contributions to AfDs.
'''Weak Support''' A net positive. Weak support rather than neutral I've seen no evidence of similar behavior anywhere else, and because it wasn't in an area where an angry admin could have caused problems. That diff may prove costly in this RfA, but assuming it was a one-off this candidate will make a great admin in future.
'''Weak Support <s>Support</s>''' per Julian and Cyclonenim. The diff is worrisome, no doubt about it. If that is the only time something like that happened, it is no evidence that the candidate has a pattern of rude behavior which would be a bad trait in an admin. Instead, it seems like an isolated incident which the candidate has learned from and compared to the great work this candidate has done, I think granting them the mop will be a net positive, even counting in that diff. Regards '''
'''Support''' as per SoWhy. I've been hovering between support and neutral-for-now, and have decided that, worrying as that diff is, hopefully it's a one-off, and the candidates response in the question, namely to step away from the keyboard when necessary, does show a lesson learnt. None of us are perfect.
'''Support''' I think Giants wont repeat what happened in September and will take the time to cool down before responding, also I think that 1 bad edit two months ago out of 27,000 edits at this time is not enough for me to oppose what could be a great addition to the admins
'''Support''' This is a no-brainer. Hes a great editor, hes never been blocked, always handles disagreements perfectly. One problem should not hurt his chances.--
'''Support''' This user is a great contributer to the encylopedia, and is willing to help out users who need it.  he is a great editor, and really disorves adminship. regards--[[User:Orangesodakid|<font color="DarkOrange" face="Snap ITC">Orange</font>]][[User talk:Orangesodakid|<font color="Black" face="Snap ITC">soda</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I was planning on nominating him, but King of Hearts beat me. I understand the concerns of that edit, but it was one minor mishap out of 27,000 edits! The other party wasn't innocent as well (i saw the CFD debate), and he apologized for the action soon afterwards. We need to learn [[WP:AGF|how to assume good faith]] and not punish an editor for one simple mistake. All my contacts with him as been positive, and he deals with a subject that is so underrated in this project. Trust me many of the sports contributors aren't easy to deal with, and with that one exception, he been [[WP:C|civil]] to them. He clearly has a need for the tools, and I wish the opposers will reconsider. Thanks
'''Support''' - If that diff (and he shortly afterwards apologized!) is the biggest thing stopping some people, then that's sad in my view.  Agree with Secret that some opposers should reconsider. Good contributor, participates, and would be good to hand a mop.
'''Support''' This whole scenario feels [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox|rather familiar to me]]. I trust the candidate to resist [[WP:BAIT|taking the bait]] in the future, one incident does not a pattern make.
'''Weak support''' – Yeah, that diff does sort of raise a yellow flag, ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MuZemike|I should know about that.]]) but if getting the admin tools instills more of a willing to not fly off the handle, I don't know if I can oppose based on that. I just hope I'm right.
'''Weak support:''' Re contribution level and activity,  but diff does raise a yellow flag. -
There seems to be only one serious objection; at least all oppose votes so far mention nothing but the September clanger. In the 2 months and 25 days since, the editor has done several thousand edits[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Giants27&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia], including hundreds in talk pages. If nobody could find any sign that the candidate lapsed again, then we have to conclude that the candidate has done a great job learning from his mistake. I also doubt the objectivity of oppose votes that focus only on the elapsed time,  especially when 2 months and 25 days are downplayed to "2 months". I feel an urge to vote support just to counterbalance that, but I'll wait for answer to my Q5. &mdash;
'''Support''' per my comments at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27]]. My opinion has not degraded since then. In fact, my suggestion about improving the userpage actually seems to have eventually been folowed. Fantastic! Moreover, as seen at [[User:Giants27]], this editor is experienced with over 20,000 edits, rollback rights, 54 DYKs, 7 Good articles, a veritable [[cornucopia]] of barnstars, wikilove, and thanks at [[User:Giants27/Awards]], and no blocks on his log. The last RfA I commented in had a top five reasons for supporting.  This time, I found six (Who will challenge me to find seven?). Therefore, the candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  With that said, please do avoid using "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiants27&action=historysubmit&diff=312693028&oldid=312691036 asshole]" in future discussions per [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. Believe me, I have encountered plenty whom I have been tempted to tell off, but why give them that satisfication?  Do not allow Wikipedia to get you that flustered.  Good luck!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Per Shawn of Montreal - if he is not offended, why should I be?
'''Support'''. One diff out of 27,000 is 0.0037%. So maybe he's not infallible, but how many admin candidates are? Taking the whole picture into account, he's good enough for me.
'''Support''' Net positive. There's no pattern of abuse.
'''Support''' per Pascal. That's the bottom line, I guess.
Looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGiants27&action=historysubmit&diff=329346385&oldid=329345284 this diff] where Giants27 answered question 3, he mentioned the diff and discussion cited below, and before the opposes were even made. It should be noted that had Giants27 not been honest and disclosed it, either (1) he might have passed with the diff being buried, or (2) someone else would have found his comment and his RfA would be going down heavily for "not disclosing the comment" or for "trying to hide the comment" ''in addition'' to the reasons he is being opposed for now. Granted, his comment shouldn't have been made and was very inappropriate, but I disagree with the implication that Giants27 is somehow a really uncivil editor for a one-off comment that he knows was wrong. He has a good record otherwise and has a good amount of experience, and as long as he doesn't repeat the mistake (don't prove the supporters wrong!), he'll be fine.
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASluggoOne&action=historysubmit&diff=321684703&oldid=321119354 this]. Seriously, though, if Shawn's here saying he believes 27 behaved straight down the middle, the problematic dispute is non-existent. The content work is outstanding, and the opposers don't have a real quantity of evidence that 27 wouldn't use the tools well.  [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124;
'''Support''' See him around plenty, trust his judgment. So he made one rude comment a few months back - so what? He was honest enough to be the first one to bring it up, and the target of the insult not only forgave him but is supporting this RfA. Just another example of people at RfA finding any small, irrelevant thing to oppose over. What happened to NBD?
'''Support''' -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Feelings and views can change dramatically after a few months '''~
'''Support''' to address concerns of those in the below section we ''do'' have mecahnisms to review misuse of tools. I had hoped folks had noticed the arb committee's stance on that this year. Contribs show dedication.
'''Seriously?''' - we aren't perfect. One diff where Giants snapped at a user shouldn't sink his RfA; it happens to the best of us at times. Might I add that the user in question, Shawn in Montreal, has supported? Great work in articlespace and DYK, among other places. My impression is that he will be a net positive with the mop. Giants, if this fails, keep your head up and have no regrets&mdash;you're a fine editor. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Support''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Giants27&diff=329519871&oldid=329518260 this] regarding Q3's answer. [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|Net positive]]. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' Response to question 8 and revised answer to question 6 allays most of my concerns. This shows a willingness to respond to feedback. Other oppose reasons are not sufficient in my opinion to prevent me from supporting.
'''Support''' You're definitely not a useless fucking cunting bastard, therefore I gotta say why the fuck not.
'''Support''' Just saw the candidate on an FAC. we need more admins who focus on content. He called someone an asshole once and it looks like he now knows never to do that again here. I think that makes him an even better choice. I'm also under the impression that even admins are continuously learning so missing one question up above isn't a huge problem.
'''Support''' as nom. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' strong article space contributions.  --
'''Support''' - Thought he was an admin already. Good contributions, has my trust, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
Thought it over, and I believe that Giants27 would be a net positive as a sysop. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' That diff is worrying, but I'll support on the off chance that you might default to delete anyway. =)
'''Support''' I've had a few encounters with Giants over the last year and always found him civil, so I'm minded to treat the September diff as proof of presence of a belly button. Going through his recent deleted contributions I like the fact that he uses prod as well as, and possibly more often than speedies. ''
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. Good luck.
'''Support''' Ready for the mop. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. If that one diff is all there is to worry about in all the work he's done, I'm fine moving it aside and not worrying about it.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiants27&action=historysubmit&diff=312693028&oldid=312691036 this]. I see in Question 3 you said that you've learned from this, but I'm not confident that two months is enough time to make sure that you have the self control to not make comments like this again. One deals with a lot more stressful situations as an administrator, and I don't completely trust that you can handle it calmly after reading that. '''
'''Oppose''' September was not that long ago.  We don't know yet whether or not this is going to be an eternal September.
'''oppose''' That Sept. diff is a bit scary and recent.
'''Oppose'''.  Kurt gets one right.  That diff is a derailer.
'''Oppose''' per iMatthew. Bad language and aggressive tones less than three months ago. <small><span style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:#FF6600;">~~&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' not for the swearing, but rather the exchange in September suggests this editor is not ready. Try again in a few months. Possibly 12.
'''Oppose''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiants27&action=historysubmit&diff=312693028&oldid=312691036 this]. It looked like a personal attack, and it was from September, not so long ago.
'''Oppose''' per '''[[User:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000080">iMatthew</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7"></span>'''.  Given more time I might support, but now is not the time.
'''Oppose'''.  The candidate's content work is laudable but I fear that much of the support for this candidacy is of the "reward for lots of FA/GA/DYK medals" nature rather than any reflection on his suitability to admin tasks.  Candidate has demonstrated some temperament issues in the not so distant past that has me questioning that suitability.
'''Oppose'''. I was going to support as the contribution level and activity within the WP namespace seems to be there, but I can't in good faith support based on the posted diffs from talk pages. The candidate seems to show a overly aggressive nature that needs to be toned down slightly; it will take time for me to gain full confidence that this has been addressed. --
'''Strong oppose''' Afd requires consensus, the sept. diff shows you're not big on consensus. enough admins already willling to call other editors assholes, so that's not going to get my support, either. --
'''Strong oppose''' I don't care if this was resolved with peace. Last thing we need is yet another admin with an attitude problem, especially around XfD.
Behavior indicates he's probably a kid.  I don't really care whether he ''is'' a kid or merely acts like one - that distinction is not important.
I don't like your opinions on [[WP:CENSORED]], and the arguments you made at various DYK discussions when 'censorship' comes up. ([[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_47#Appropriate_for_the_main_page?|Here]]). I can't support an editor with a view so contrasting to mine. '''\'''
'''Oppose''', IP69.226.103.13 sums it up nicely, in his/her oppose and in the comment right above here. Answering questions in an RfA is one thing but acting according to policy is what matters more. --
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 6 & 7. If a BLP is reliably sourced per your answer to question 7, why would you go against policy and default to delete in AfD just because the notability is borderline? Since you "almost only work with BLPs" I think your answers to these questions are significant and I can't see a justification for you intending to ignore policy. --
'''Oppose''' I disagree with some of the positions on XfDs, and find a a willingness to "merge" when a "no consensus" close is obvious to be disturbing. "Merge" is generally considered to be a specific outcome just short of an outright Delete, but where there are strong arguments for Keep, it is not a normal nor desired choice.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned with the user's conflict resolution, specifically the recent 'asshole' event.  Also, I don't think the user has a good grasp of [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].  I also agree with [[User:Collect]] about the XfDs.--
'''Oppose''' Due to a couple things. I've noticed Giants27 to use harsh language (like the diff provided in one of the first few opposes here) which isn't the best quality in an admin. The other concern of mine is what \/ brought up, which is the outlook that Giants has on NOTCENSORED.
'''Oppose''' Questionable judgment concerning choice of language. OK perhaps for an editor, not ok for a representative of the community..
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament and lack of restraint. '''
'''Oppose''' - Lacks temperament and tact.
'''Oppose''' I have concerns about this user's communication skills and maturity (beyond the diff that was presented).  I also don't see much understanding of policy: he said "I almost only work with BLPs," yet reversed his answer for Q6 at the drop of a hat. —
'''Oppose''' First of all, for someone who works primarily on BLPs to not know correctly what is the current  policy for dealing with non-consensus BLP AFds is not good; for them not to even know there is conflict about the issue is worse, since the question comes up almost daily here. An admin should know both the actual policy, and the major challenges, in the specialty he wishes to work on.   More important, not to disclose an RfA under another name is inexcusable. Having not realized or forgotten is a very sad excuse. It is not the sort of  thing most people would rapidly  forget . Not knowing to put it here seems to idnicate not having followed previous RfAs. Not realizing it would matter is of course even worse, as it shows no recognition of the need for  the community to have confidence in their admins.   '''
'''Oppose''' - I don't like the fact that you changed your answer, just because "it's not currently in policy"; and the more I think about it your temper isn't all that great. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose'''. The reading of consensus on two of those AfD discussions is flawed, and the candidate needs to think through their statements more as evidenced by their flip-flopping on whether no consensus BLP debates default to keep. Some signs of poor judgement in standing early for RfA and not disclosing it, in quoting an IP vandal prominently on their userpage, opinions at DYK, civility issues. Could be an admin in future if they learn from the opposing votes.
I'm really not sure with this candidate yet. '''
Can't support for that diff.  Can't oppose due to the all-round good audited content.  Can neutral because I'm a lazy bastard. :) <small><span style="border:2px solid #339933;">
'''Neutral''' - I still have concerns about temperament, but those concerns aren't as strong as they were. My biggest worry is how recent some of the behavior is. If Giants27 didn't also have great contributions I'd definitely oppose. -- '''
'''Neutral''' I want to support, because my impression of Giants27 is in general a very positive one, what with his extensive DYK, GA, and AfD experience. But his conduct [[User talk:Giants27/Archives/2009/September#African American players of Canadian football|here]] and at the subsequent CfD was entirely inappropriate. I'm glad he realizes that, and that he's learned from it, but that was less than three months ago. I trust Giants27 in general, but that behavior makes me unsure enough to withhold my support.
'''Neutral''' I came here expecting to support, and I am still leaning toward supporting. I "know" Giants27 from DYK, where he is hard-working and sensible. It's the September incident at CfD makes me hesitate to !vote "support". On the one hand, Giants27 deserves credit for remembering and owning up to those incidents in which he behaved badly -- that's a sign of maturity and self-awareness, which are valuable attributes for an administrator to have. On the other hand, that lapse in judgment at CfD happened just 2-1/2 months ago... --
'''Neutral''' Like others, the September incident makes me pause. If it had happened 6, 9, 12 months ago, I would have been more inclined to support, but as it was only 3 months ago, I feel more time is needed to show that this is not an underlying problem. I hope to see the candidate re-apply in a few months time, where hopefully I can feel more comfortable in supporting them. -- '''''
'''Neutral''' Fences&Windows makes a compelling case that this may be a NOTNOW RfA (with the notable exception of my spat with the candidate in September, for which I take responsibility). But even that aside, there are, for me, enough reasons to withdraw support. I cannot bring myself to oppose, though.
'''Support''' beat the nom; friendly and experienced user <font color="maroon">
Not active enough, same with experience. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Oppose -- <500 edits to date. --<font face="Futura">
Suggest [[WP:SNOW]] closure, unfortunately. &ndash;
'''oppose''' inactivity, 60 odd edits in the last 12 months and 6 non bot edits to you talk page since yur account was created in 2006.
I think you need more overal experience - your current contributions are simply insufficent to demonstrate your aptitude. That's not to say you'd not be a good admin - more that I have little to base a support on and at RFA support is not, in my opinion, the default position. I also think you could do with using edit summaries more - clear communication of the nature of edits is vital, particularly given some of the areas you edit in - many are topice with many people watching the pages (Bible, Jews, Holocaust etc.). [[WP:NOTNOW]] has some useful links. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
You've been here a very long time, but your level of activity is such that I wonder if you have the width as opposed to length of experience to be an admin yet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=98477408 For example ] I only had to go back a hundred or so of your edits to find  you correctly reverting recent vandalism, but leaving the vandal unwarned. Your talk page doesn't show sufficient interaction with other editors for me to judge whether you are ready for admin yet. However your ability to operate in one of our most contentious areas without ever being blocked is commendable. So I'm neutral leaning to oppose at present, though I will watchlist this and may shift as the discussion proceeds, for example I'd be much more comfortable if you also had experience on say commons. '''
'''Oppose''' I need to see more work in the article space before I can support.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] Of your 1,700 edits some 300 are to your own user space. Of the remainder there is insufficent evidence of policy understading, article writing, consensus building and collaborative effort that would demonstrate you understanding of what may and is required. Don't think you work isn't valued - it is - but alas without demonstrable evidence of the above I'm not able to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
<small>([[Help:Edit conflict|Edit conflict]])</small> '''Oppose'''. Out of your 1900~ edits, a majority of them are on talk pages. You only have a nudge over 300 edits in article space, which means there's a lack of article content building. I'm not asking for [[WP:GA|good]] or [[WP:FA|featured articles]], but I'd like to see more than 300 edits to actual articles. — '''''
'''Oppose''' per everyone above. [[WP:NOTNOW]], as only around 17% of your edits are to article space. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''', I would prefer more than two months of regular editing.  Please feel free to reapply in a few months.
Pedro puts it well. It seems you have the best interests of the project at heart, but I cannot support due to lack of experience. Best of luck in the future, –'''

'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Under 2000 edits and only 4 months of experience is by no means enough. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]]. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' You seem to be knowning what you're doing. With the edit counters being down, I trust that you have been doing what is asked. You've also been fairly active, which is helpful for this. Good luck with the RFA.
'''Support'''. Not a lot of content building and a little heavy on the automated edits for my taste, but you seem to be more active in vandal-fighting, and your CSD work seems very good.
'''Support''' 4,000 edits is usually a bit low for me, but you seem to be perfectly clueful with plenty of work in vandal fighting and deletion, so I have no problem supporting.--
'''Support''', can certainly handle being opposed well and seems like a good candidate right now. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Is ready for the mop now. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Weak Support''' I am not one to advocate editcountitis, but the decisions that he has made thusfar have been great. Huggle may be automated, but it is truly helpful in preventing vandalism. He has improved articles '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''', I see nothing to indicate this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I am not convinced by the opposers.
'''Support''' based on Keepscases's oppose. You defended another editor. Although you are a little short on experience, this shows me you aren't afraid to tackle people. --
'''Support''' Support based on Keepscases's oppose. (Refer to support above)
'''Support''' I believe this editor can be trusted with the tools and as such his promotion will be a positive thing.
'''Support''' your continued good contributions to Wikipedia. I think you will make a fine admin, even more so with a bit more seasoning.
'''Support''' He has done good work and can be trusted with the extra tools, and because I strongly believe that defending a fellow Wikipedian's right to freedom of conscience, and freedom from religious persecution, is at the heart of building a more civil, democratic and inclusive Wikipedia. Whether an admin or not, he has my respect, and my thanks.
'''Support''', I feel that I can honestly trust Gordonrox with the tools: I strongly believe they will not abuse the tools, Gordonrox always seems kind to users (e.g. [[User_talk:Thesavagenorwegian#Help.21|Thesavagenorwegian]]), and shows civility on their talk page, even when other users are correcting his mistakes (e.g. [[User_talk:Gordonrox24/Archive_3#Altered_Speedy_Deletion_rationale:_The_galkin_venue|altered speedy]], and on this page :D). I also believe they will use the tools to help clean-up the 'pedia (they seem pretty savvy with [[WP:CSD|CSD]], and I recall having seen articles tagged by them. And most of their reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] seem sensible, although I think Gordonrox should bear in mind that AIV is for users who are vandalising persistently ''at the time'' they are reported), and help other users to help clean-up the 'pedia :D (something their civility, and interaction with other users shows they are capable of). I'm also encouraged by the fact that Gordonrox has both [[WP:autoreviewer|autoreviewer]] ''and'' [[WP:ROLLBACK|rollbacker]] rights, has never been blocked, and takes part in many discussions (e.g. RfA and [[WP:AfD|AfD]])<br /> All that said, there are some faults, nothing major enough to lead me to oppose, but that I feel Gordonrox should aim to do the following; Cut down on automated editing; there's ''nothing at all'' wrong with it, I just believe that if you do, you will find yourself becoming much more involved in community processes (I'm finding this for myself anyhow). Become more involved in AIV if you plan to work there; watch what happens to your reports (e.g. how long user's are blocked for, when they aren't blocked, and what actions (if any) are taken instead of blocking). <s>Sort out your archives; the last two (archive 4 and 3) are named "archive 3" and "archive3"</s>. Get more experience; something which is going to happen no matter what =D.<br /> Overall, I think Gordonrox is ready for the tools. Unfortunately, it looks like the community is going the other way. But bear in mind that most of the opposes are concerns over lack of experience, and the so called "drama" at tedder's RfA. Both of these will fade with time, and so if you come to RfA again (should this one fail) it will likely be a much more pleasant experience. To sum up Gordonrox; a helpful user, with some minor flaws (just like all of us), who I think would greatly help the 'pedia with the tools. Best -
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience; didn't look further. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=200&target=Gordonrox24 Your 200<sup>th</sup> edit] goes back to April 2 &ndash; only 4 months ago. Maybe in a few more months, but I had some memories of your actions in a few places, and would have to look closer at your contributions at a future RfA. <font color="navy">'''
'''Weak Oppose'''.  I agree with Nuclear Warfare that you don't quite have enough experience yet.  4,000 edits with a significant chunk consisting of automated edits gives me the feeling that you may be inexperienced with the inner workings of the project.  Also, I am mildly uneasy with your question answers namely Q5 and 6.  However, you do good work and combined with a few months more experience, you will have my full support. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. First, I think Gordonrox would be a good candidate in the future. However, attention to detail is important in administrators; when looking through his contributions from yesterday, I had to fix [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques_Couture&diff=305576719&oldid=305385362 several errors] in one of his new stubs. I can forgive missing the final ''n'' in "known" and not fixing the caps in the links, but [[Jacques Couture]] was not inducted into the Hall of Fame in 200, and the piping method for "North America's" indicates a lack of experience with Wikipedia markup. The article wasn't marked as a BLP, and incoming links intending the person with this name written about at [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Couture the French Wikipedia] were not fixed. I am not opposing on the basis of this example alone, but it's symptomatic of a lack of experience that will be overcome in time. If anyone objects to the scope of the objection, I'll post another example when I have more time later today.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' Repeatedly accused me of "racism" because I took issue with an intentionally offensive userbox (which, I might note, had nothing to do with race).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tedder
'''Oppose''' [[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] An admin will encounter many situations that will require a broad base of experience and knowledge. This user has not sufficently demonstrated that s/he has that. A vandal fighter alone will have to deal with some nasty and unruly users; how do we know that the canidate can handle them in the correct way? --
Compelled to oppose - I don't think you have attained the maturity required to be a sysop. I know you from seWP as well and there too, you've failed to satisfy my criteria. Please return after some time.
I believe you need a little more time and experience on Wikipedia before you can become an administrator. Keep up the good work, though! '''
Sorry. Not enough manual experience. Huggling/etc is useful and good, but you simply do not have enough experience to understand nuances of policy and guidelines as they are applied on the ground. →&nbsp;
A little short of experience, I think.
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament and candidate could use a bit more experience. '''
I'm opposing because you didn't follow the advice you got in your first RFA to get "a few" or "three" months more experience before your next RFA; it's been two months and a week.  Three months is a fairly standard minimum at RFA.  My position is that the community is being generous with their time and advice; it isn't generally held against candidates that they showed up early at their first RFA, and voters seem to be more than willing to devote time to giving good advice, which makes the whole thing work.  I think we owe the voters the right to decide how often they're willing to provide this service.  Also, although I support [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY]], there's a risk in letting the time-between-RFAs slide below 3 months, unless there's something special going on; a risk that it becomes a competition with some to see how fast they can nail their RFA, and a risk that different treatment for different candidates will be or be perceived as special treatment. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' per Keepscases diffs. Racism? Indenting his vote? Weird, weird stuff, and very recent.
'''Oppose''' - Per Tan and Keepcases - from what I am reading, it calls into question this user's judgment. A blatant misunderstanding of what constitutes racism is just plain worrying in and of itself. I also get the sense that this user is seeking adminship for status.
'''Oppose''' You have potential. But more experience would have caused you to quickly realize that arguing with Keepcases is akin to trying to convince the crazy guy on the train that he wasn't abducted by aliens. Some things simply aren't worth the key strokes; like trying to fight an editor who's vote is very likely ignored by the crats on a regular basis. I think that a competent editor with the potential to have the mop is easy to identify. You strike me as someone in that category. I do tend to believe that in order to effectively wield the mop, you need to have been around long enough to discern patterns of behavior so that you can mitigate the frequency with which you get duped by the crazies. Wikipedia is enormous, but we admins are really only needed to deal with a very small percentage of the project. That small percentage, however, is a magnet for drama groupies, vain glories, and imbeciles. From time to time, members of one of these groups gets elected to the admin corps and causes all kinds of problems. If you hang around for another year, that will provide a pretty quality data set on your behavior patterns and competence, and if it is positive, you'll have my support.
He's making progress, but not yet. '''Oppose'''
'''Not yet'''.  I'm not seeing evidence of essential admin qualities, and because admins have tenure and are hard to remove, I have to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  Try more participation in dispute resolution, AfD, or other discussion-related areas.—
My general experiences with Gordonrox24 have suggested someone with decent knowledge of Wikipedia and the best of intentions, but who is rather hasty and quick to jump to conclusions without adequate thought or evidence. Enthusiasm is good in an admin, but it needs to be tempered with more consideration and thought - I suspect he’ll make a good admin at some point, but right now I think he could benefit from some additional experience and maturity. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose'''.  Was going to come with a "Neutral: not yet" but that whole userbox argument pushed me into this column.  Woolly thinking and sloppy arguments are two very bad properties for an admin to have.  That being said, I'm not closing the door here; a future RfA from this candidate might gain my support.  --
'''Oppose''': inadequate experience and hasty demeanor..
based on the little bit of reading of diffs presented I can say that I will probably '''never''' support and always give a '''strong oppose'''.  I try and imagine how I'd react if candidate ever needed to communicate with me.  It's not a fun imagining.
'''Oppose''' per Mazca's rationale.
'''Oppose'''. Ugly drama exacerbated at Tedder's RfA, in addition to poor arguments.
'''Oppose''' per some of the above concerns. I am always concerned with those that race to adminship and/or a second RFA when being told they should wait awhile before going again. -
'''Oppose''' Should be fine in 6 months but lack of article work is concerning. Other issues raised are also of concern. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' My opposition is related to your lack of edits; you only have 4k of which quite a few are automated(though Huggle does require that you be there for the edit). You will nonetheless make an excellent candidate in the future (a few months from now)...for now keep up the great work(and rack up some more edit points=P).
'''Oppose''' Per Keepscases' diffs.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' – sorry, but the temperament issues, as well as the lack of understanding of the CSD policy and criteria take it for me. Work more on looking through [[Special:NewPages]] to get a working knowledge on speedy deletions as well as read the policy to help that knowledge along. Work on colloboration more with other editors to help build good relations with others. Hope this helps,
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry, but I can't support a candidate who got [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gordonrox24&oldid=306515642 blocked] during his own RfA. I am sure there was [[WP:AGF|no malicious intent]], and I will not hold it against you in a future RfA, but it's nevertheless an error in judgment that indicates that you are not quite ready. Regards, <tt>

Hmm. Agree with most of the opposes with not quite enough article building/experience for me. However, I dont think this is enough to oppose as they are a very good user and seems to have learnt from his mistakes. Bit more experience needed. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' This has nothing to do with editcountis, but I just haven't seen enough discussion and involvement in admin-related areas from Gordonrox24 to demonstrate that he knows how everything works or has clue. I could be swayed if provided with convincing evidence that he does, however. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' This one hard. I think he could be good, but maybe more experience good before him admin.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
Some of the opposes are a bit unconvincing, but I do have a series of concerns that prevent me from supporting. –'''
'''Neutral''' Sorry! I can't bring myself to support at this time due to compelling arguments from all sides- Support, Neutral, and Oppose. Gordonrox24 is definitely a good, faithful editor, but really think he should gain some more experience first.
While I think 6 months is enough time to gain the experience needed of an administrator, if a majority of the time is spent huggling and using automated tools you will not get the full range of experience.  I encourage you to try again for adminship later--maybe try getting more experience in different areas. Best of luck, '''
'''Neutral''', sorry, but I feel you need more experience with manual edits before I can support. Keep up the excellent work though, and good luck in this and any future RfAs! --
'''Neutral''' Good user, but more experience needed.
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, but I can't support.
'''Neutral, but Moral Support''' Sorry, but I don't think your ready for the sysop tools yet, but I think you could make a good admin in the future with more experience.  Best,
'''Undecided''' at this point.  I expected you to come up with some more imaginative options on what to do with the shock picture vandalism such as [[:MediaWiki:Bad image list]] and edit filters.  Also your experience with uploads is pretty minimal, though I found one image upload on commons! Though on the other hand I have been happy enough to delete your speedy delete taggings.
'''Moral Support''' - Get a little more experience, and I'm sure you'll do great next time. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Undecided''' You know many rules, but I remember you added [[Blockland]] for deletion just because you play [[Roblox]]. '''
I have seen a lot of good work from you, but I don't think that you handled the userbox discussion well.
I've seen a few questionable patrolling actions, but my main concern is lack of article development work.  Your NASCAR articles are mostly stubs or even sub-stubs.  I'm awaiting answers to the questions. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
Support.--
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
Looks good for the most part. CSD tagging and thin projectspace contributions aren't a major negative for me at the moment, but may keep this RfA from passing. If it fails or is withdrawn, advice is to wait 6 months or so (no rush really) and get a nominator who has had past successful noms.
'''Support''' [[User:Graymornings/Somebody's bored at work]] shows a level of cluefulness that I haven't seen in a RfA candidate in well... at least a a couple weeks. I would like to see the candidate get some more experience and try again in a few months, but I think that he is on the right track.
'''Support''' I think you're a great editor, and although this RfA probably won't pass, you would be a great administrator. I'll be looking forward to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graymornings 2|RfA #2]]. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' Your first few edits show cluefulness and clear-headedness.  A bit more work in the Wikipedia and content spaces and I believe RfA #2 will pass. <b>'''
'''Support'''.  You're a great editor and definitely on the right track.  I am sure you will do well with the tools despite being active only three months.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I have faith in your abilities. Good luck!
'''Moral Support'''. First of all, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TextAloud&diff=prev&oldid=269723982 bad speedy] very recently; you said you will be working in that area (read the criteria VERY closely; you'll see why). Secondly, little experience... technically you've only been here three months. Finally, your contributions with your edit count. I saw several edits that weren't manual ([[WP:TWINKLE|twinkle]], [[WP:FRIENDLY|friendly]], [[WP:HOTCAT|hotcat]], etc.). That was all in the first 250 edits. You haven't done anything wrong, it's just experience. Remember, it's [[WP:NBD|no biggie]] if this fails (sorry for the pessimism, but it probably will). '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Snyder|this]] closure, the fact that you only have 2542 edits, only 1000 of which are to the mainspace (sorry to go all editcountitis on you, but there is a point at which it becomes necessary) and the fact that you have only been properly editing since December 2008. You seem to be going about it the right way, though; my advice would be wait 3-4 months and apply again. Assuming nothing major turns up I'd be happy to support then.
'''Oppose''' Per Ironholds, and per lack of project space contributions outside of AfD - since you wish to essentially work all over, according to Q1.
'''Oppose''' - The mainspace edits don't matter to me so much, I just don't think you have enough policy knowledge. AfD is good, but it isn't the be all and end all of projectspace areas - I'd need to see you branching out more before I could !vote support. If you were to come back in the timeframe which Ironholds suggested, I would probably support, so long as no major issues cropped up. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Weak oppose''' Wishes to work with CSD but the CSD work is somewhat faulty, see these declines: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rehan_Danish&diff=269745128&oldid=269743223] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TextAloud&diff=269734922&oldid=269723982] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_and_Your_Stupid_Mate&diff=261873224&oldid=261873136] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramakrishna_Sarada_Math&diff=261452468&oldid=261431821] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breath_of_Life_(film)&diff=258823363&oldid=258764069]. Has many deleted speedy taggings though, so I am just weak but mistakes like applying A7 to software are a red flag for me. I suggest you brush up your admin-y knowledge and try again in a few months. '''
'''Weak oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You've only been truly active for about three months, and Wisdom89 brings up a good point, as well. &ndash;

'''Moral support but weak oppose''' per only 3 months with active editing without superstar-performance to offset it, plus demonstrated recent weak policy knowledge that would make me neutral even if you had the experience.  Keep editing, keep learning, and come back after mid-year.  You do seem to have a clue and a good attitude, as demonstrated by [[User:Graymornings/Somebody's bored at work]].  Will be an asset with the bit soon enough, but not quite now.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough time and edits to be able make an evaluation of whether or not to trust with the admin tools. There is no hurry here. Spend some more time editing, build up a reputation and a history. --
'''Oppose''' Simply not enough experience. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' No need to rush, get more experience and then come back. --
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.  Also, I took at look at some of the editor's contributions. [[Sexually-induced sneezing]] is the article which is listed as the one with the third most of his edits, and he's the editor with the most edits to it.  The article was pretty much a mess, quite sloppy, with stuff that could easily have been fixed.  I know it's not a widely-held precept, but I believe admins should be, first of all, good editors, and I'm not seeing that here. <b><i>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, this is one of those "way too soon, far too few edits".  A few other issues noted above, but overall on the right track. I might avoid self-nom next time if I were you - you've expressed the interest, and someone will (hopefully) let you know when you're a little closer to ready.  (
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. —<sub>
'''Neutral''' since I don't know the user, but I think some of the oppose votes are rather misguided. He closed one of his own AFD nominations in good faith, without much controversy arising, so I can't see where the problem is. Saying that 2500 edits is not enough indicates to me a ridiculous inflation in experience standards (a few years ago we routinely considered 1000-2000 edits as enough, and you need to look at the quality and work required to make the edits.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breath_of_Life_(film)&diff=next&oldid=258766576 This] diff was cited as one of the improper speedy tags, but if you look at the context, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breath_of_Life_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=258764069 this] is where the tag was actually added, on an article with content "Starring Amir Korangy and Moshe Ivgi" which is something I would speedy. That someone rescued the article after the speedy tag was added is not something which I can hold against Graymornings. The only reason I'm not in the support column is that I don't know him.
'''Neutral''' Only 3 months of active editing, so come back in 2-3 months and I'll support, but for now, I'll be neutral.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Neutral''' 3 months, to me, is a short amount of time to be editing WP. We all have that feeling of "Hey, I've been around here a while. I know everything. I should be one of the senior editors here, and should be given tools to prove it." [[WP:Requests for adminship/Flaminglawyer|I did too]], and so did most everybody else. You aren't the typical "Give me the tools because I know how to use them" guy; you actually ''could'' use them, and probably wouldn't be much of a bother. You wouldn't delete the main page, you wouldn't block Jimbo, you probably wouldn't do anything stupid. In short, you have common sense, which most "Give me the tools" people don't have. The questionable thing here is your understanding of policy. While you clearly understand (for the most part) deletion vs. keep policy, there are ''so'' many different areas of work to be done. Sure, there's XfD's, AIV and other vandalism-related things, such as blocking, page protection, etc. (which you mentioned); but there's so much other stuff to do with your brand-spanking-new admin tools. Before doing any of this, however, you really should know the policy behind that feature. Learning policy can be a long and tedious task: You can study at [[WP:BLOCK]] for years, but you'll never really understand it until you've seen it in action (this is just an example; I'm not saying that you failed Q4). Come back in a little while when you've gathered a bit more experience points, and maybe you'll have learned some new moves, have battled a couple more gym leaders, and have evolved into a more knowledgeable-on-policy creature. And if you didn't catch those subtle references, you haven't played enough Pokemon games. Try doing some more of that. <font face="terminal">
'''Neutral''' Too early, and I don't want to pile on.  I'd advise two to three months, finding a respected editor willing to nominate you, and hanging around admin areas.--
'''(Moral) support''', if for no other reason than to ensure you don't feel [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CrazyInSane|as unwanted]] as me :(, since it's unlikely you'll succeed, unfortunately. &mdash;
'''Moral Support''' <s>I believe based on their edits that this editor has indeed edited between the two year gap as they claim. They seem perfectly proficient at fighting vandalism.
'''Support''' there's something about this editor that I like. I never usually participate in these RFA's but I stumbled across this one today. I looked over his edits, and I believe he would make a fine administrator. The gap does not concern me because I believe wikipedia operated better in 2007. I can't really put my finger on why, but I feel it was easier to edit back then, and it would be nice if just a hint of that was brought back. I think that having this editor as an administrator would be a breath of fresh air for the project. --
'''Support'''
'''Moral support''' - You've done good work in the past, seem to have a good knowledge of how things work around here and have been civil in the face of many, many opposes. I have no reason to believe you'd misuse the tools, so I think you should come back in a few months with a bit more experience so I can support you again, without it being in vain! Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' Looks alright to me. The only question is the quick rfa after the long gap (will you be around 6 months from now sort of thing) but not a biggie. --
'''Support'''

'''Support''' While the concerns raised in the oppose section appear to be valid, they are not enough for me to oppose and the candidate seems to be a reasonable and trustworthy one. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''
Prior to five days ago, you had not edited since 21 September 2007. →&nbsp;
For the same reason as Roux. Wikipedia's changed a lot in 2 years. I'm afraid that you don't know all the differences, and can make mistakes. However, keep editing, and you'll get my support next time. <small>(
Yeah, 22 month hiatus is pretty long.  Please come back in a few months when you've had more time around the 2009 Wikipedia.
'''Reluctant oppose''' due to the 2-year gap. Be active for a few more months, and I'll support you then. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Also reluctantly. I really hate opposing anybody, but a lot has changed over the past two years (hell, things have changed over the past few hours!). You seem like a decent Wikipedian who generally knows what he's doing, but the fact that you've only been editing for a few days since your two-year break is too significant to overlook. On the other hand, as I said, you're definitely a promising candidate; I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in two or three months. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, –'''
'''Oppose''' Right now, I can't support your request, as I don't have enough ''recent'' contributions to look over to determine whether or not you'll use the tools correctly. However, you seem like a good editor, and if you continue actively contributing to the encyclopedia for a few (at least 3) more months, it looks like everyone who commented in this column would gladly support another RFA.
'''Oppose''' per above. Please continue to actively contribute and come back in a few months if you are still interested. Thank you for your contributions.
'''Oppose''', too big a time gap for my tastes.
'''Oppose''' per above.  You are certainly a seasoned editor but the two year wikibreak and very few edits since that date are a cause for concern.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' Long time away, hard to know if you will stay now with or without adminship, and how you would use the tools. Give it two months and show the same effort as before and I would change to support.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I rarely oppose anybody but I unfortunately will have to this time. You've only contributed 517 edits (15.97%) to articles. [[Manitoba]] your most edited article, has only 32 edits by you, which in my books isn't enough, even though I regard quality above quantity. You have also barely contributed since September 2007. '''
Oppose: Per above. Recent inactivity. Come back in a few months and it will most likely be a support.--
I waited until seeing an answer to my questions before opposing.... but I see no strong reason for inactivity, and no good response to the point Roux raised (that WP has changed in the past 2 years). Furthermore, the mainspace contributions (517 edits--not a lot at all, even if you consider them to be "good"/"major" edits, and since the user says he spends a lot of time vandal-fighting I bet many of the edits were not major) are not much. I think all admins need to have a strong understanding of content areas and the article-building and article-maintaining process, because ultimately that is what we're here for. All policy questions ultimately boil down to the question of "will X help us write good articles?" <b class="Unicode">
'''Oppose''': Unfortunately I have to oppose for your inactivity, draggy, idle and ossified lack of edits.
I don't believe that the Wikipedia of 2007 - that you are likely used to - is the same kettle of fish as in 2009, and thus, with only a toe in the pond of today's Wikipedia I can't trust you to make accurate judgements where you'll have to. '''<font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedour[[WP:NODRAMA|<font style="color:#99CC99;">drama</font>]]</font>
'''Moral Support''' Per Roux. Thats a long period of inactivity.
'''Oppose''' for reasons stated by [[User:Roux|Roux]] and similarly by other editors.
'''Oppose''' Like Roux said.
'''Oppose''' Just so it doesn't look like this is all about the wikibreak, I would like to say that even if this RfA were taking place in late 2007 I would have to be really skeptical.  You only have 500 mainspace edits, spread out over only 4 months.  That is really much too little for me to be able to make any kind of judgment based on what I think you'd be like as an administrator.  So basically, I agree with Rjanag. Also, I know you want this to stay open for 7 days, but I doubt that much else is going to happen from here on.  If you are interested in getting more constructive criticism I would recommend coming back to full time editing for a few months so that people will have an idea of where your strengths and weaknesses lie. -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' Per Roux.
'''Oppose''' <s>per lack of</s> not enough [[WP:DGAF]].  I looked at almost every diff between August 2007 and today.  Candidate  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status&diff=prev&oldid=154225415 started] admin coaching back in August 2007 (support page [[User:GrooveDog/Admin coaching|deleted]] recently so I can't read further) but was inactive within a couple weeks.  Candidate returns and almost right away self-nom RFA.  '''
'''Oppose''' on the ground of trying to become an [[WP:SPI]] clerk to win votes.
'''Oppose''' per the two year gap and the low amount of mainspace edits, and per Soap. Sorry, '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Oppose''' Hi, GrooveDog. At [[WP:BN]], I mentioned that one benefit of leaving known failing RfX's open is to get as much constructive criticism/advice as possible, so it would be downright rude of me not to practice what I preach, so here goes [[file:face-smile.svg|25px]]. One of the things that are most important to me when I consider whether or not I would [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust a candidates judgment]] is how they interact with other editors. In a project the size of English wikiepdia, with the diversity of its editors and their backgrounds and cultures, I consider it very important for a sysop to have demonstrated a clear track record of courtesy and respect. Looking at your editing history, I see many [[WP:Wikignome]] type edits such as grouping, categorizing, tagging, etc. These are important, and without them the project would function much less smoothly. However, as part of being an administrator is policy enforcement, the "flamethrower" part of the mop-and-flamethrower™ as it were, I look for someone who, over time and not while "on display", has demonstrated the courtesy and respect that one person must have for another, and realizes that the text on the screen was not generated by a bot, but by a living, thinking person with feelings and emotions. Your prior editing (2007 etc.) does not demonstrate enough of that to me, and thus the note of opposition. I understand your statement about being a "metapedia," and as someone who engages in wikignoming, I appreciate your work, but we don't split the mop from the flamethrower. My advice to you, for what it is worth, would be to engage fellow wikipedians in discourse beyond Twinkle/Huggle. Edit an article or two, get involved with other editors. You may find yourself becoming frustrated easily; if so, perhaps being an admin is not the best thing for you. An admin who gets frustrated and applies an improper user block, for example, is dealt with more harshly than a regular editor (I forget which ArbCom rulings say that, but there is more than one). If you are able to handle it with aplomb, it wil serve you well on your next RfA, whenever it is. Good luck! --
You have a clean block log and I like the way you answered my question and others. Also I'm not overly concerned about the long gap; partly because the way we currently run things someone who passed RFA three years ago and then went on wikibreak could come back now with out even a refresher course, whilst you have at least promised to proceed with caution. Also in  part because while the users change I don't see things like blocking changing that much. However I'm not sure that you were quite ready for adminship before your Wiki break, your comments re [[Meatball:DefendEachOther]] on your admin coaching page in my view indicate a lack of experience of conflict. Whilst the now deleted August 2007 [[User:GrooveDog/CQCQ]] about conquering other people's user pages is a tad myspacey and is less than 2 months ago in your wikitime. I do think you are on the right path, and if you come back in three months with a bit more experience I hope to be able to support you then. ''
Per Roux.
I was going to say per Roux, but I like Soap's rationale better. <span style="font-family:monospace">[&#65279;
'''Oppose'''. Significant period of inactivity. Could use some more recent experience. '''
Great prior work with mediation cabal, NPP, welcoming / warning, etc...  However this is too soon after a 2 year hiatus.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Oppose''' - I dont mean to "Go with the flow" here but I must oppose due to the large time gap specified in the above opposes. Come Back another time after some more experiance and edits and maybe then you can be considered for "sysop" status, Happy Editing!
Per the two year gap. Seriously, WP changes a lot in 6 months and 2 years seem to be a hell lot of time.
Oppose - [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=302893282]] this diff show twinkle being used to report a name to UAA before any attempt to discuss with user.  That's not very welcoming, eh?  Even if the name is a clear vio new users need to be welcomed with real people talking to them rather than semi-auto reports to admin notice boards.
I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing. <font face="Forte">
It appears that we have a fine potential admin here.  Given the long stretch of inactivity however, I rather see you spend a couple months getting back into the swing of things before I support.  Perhaps even bump up some of the mainspace edits.  I won't pile-on oppose, but I think a bit of time reviewing the changes would be best at this time.  You may want to have a look at [[WP:UPDATE]] for a quick "get up to speed" bit of reading. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' I don't want to do a pile-on oppose, but I can't support you either. Your edits are good, but the 2-year gap just kills it, because Wikipedia has changed considerably since then. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Neutral''' To avoid to pile on but that gap just isn't good. Come back in 6-12 months and I'll think about supporting. In the time between now and then keep contributing and I know you'll succeed.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Observation''' I too was an active contributor who left in mid-2007 and have only recently considered returning. Even if your memory is better than mine - and even though the new bickering looks a lot like the old bickering - there's an awful lot to catch up on. I wouldn't take any non-trivial admin actions now, and would need a month or two to get back into things.
'''Neutral''' I disappeared for a long time, too, so I know what that's like. When I came back, Wikipedia was an entirely different place. Its taken me a while to learn the ropes again, and i'm just now starting to assert myself with regards to important things. I know i'm not ready for adminship, nor will I be for a while. I didn't see any abuse in your edit history, so I have no reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support just yet. If you try again in, say, 6 months and demonstrate familiarity with our policies and culture as it is now, I would give an enthusiastic support. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Neutral''' The only thing you need is more experience and more time.  Give it some more time and edits.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Neutral''' with moral support to continue productive Wikipedian activities, gain a bit more experience in article space, and perhaps a successful nom next year.  —
'''Neutral''' I will support a second RfA in a few months if you continue to edit and become more familiar with Wikipedia. Good luck, and enjoy yourself in the meantime. '''<font face="times new roman">

'''Neutral''' per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.
'''Neutral'''. Hmm, tough one this one. I do like the candidate, with his variety of edits, over a lot of the wiki, but I disappeared for a couple of months, and I'm still catching up after the week Ive been here! Come back in a couple of months, and I will gladly support.
'''Neutral''' Overall, you are a great editor, and you had superb answers to some of the questions. I would like to see you try a bit more editing in the mainspace. In 6 months to a year, you will be a better editor, barring any gaps in editing. I would suggest when the time comes, and only you can tell, that you get an administrator like [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] and [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] to help you. They have provided me with many useful tips on how to succeed in this, and I think that you will greatly benefit from them. You have wonderful intentions, and frankly, you remind me of me last year when I last did an RFA. I am afraid that you might possibly be temporarily discouraged should your nomination fail, and I know that you will probably run again in the future. I think that if you could find an IP address or two by looking over the pages that you edited and searching for IP addresses around the time that you last edited, you might be able to find a few of them, and help to win over those who believe that you are not good material because you are "hiding" them. I too thought that you were until I read another answer, and I agree that it is nearly impossible to track down all the edits that you have made with IP addresses. Looking at all the opposes, it seems like you have the chance to get the administratorship in a few months, as they are correct in saying that the site has changed. Sadly, people have gotten ruder over the years and this has shown on some of the editors. In the end, it comes down to your break and mainspace edits. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I wish you the best of luck, and you have my unconditional support for your next RFA.
'''Neutral''' A tough one. I'd like to support based on the quality of your edits but the Oppose arguments have me too undecided. --
'''Neutral aka Moral Support''': Please come back after 6 months of "serious activity" at wikipedia. --
'''Neutral''', sorry.
'''Neutral''', as you really seem like a suitable candidate but I am a bit discouraged by the complete absence of recent editing issue. Perhaps when that is resolved... in a few months maybe? --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. No recent data. Please try again another time.
'''Neutral'''.  Fine contributions and answers, and I liked the AFC backlog drive back in the day.  Don't be discouraged, and please try again in a bit.
'''Support''' In my interactions with Grsz, despite some disagreements I believe he's very capable and would make a solid administrator.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support'''. No concerns. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
I kind of thought Grsz was already an admin. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' any new editor can accidentally break 3rr.  He looks like a solid mainspace editor and should be allowed to hold the mop.  --'''
'''Support''' I think this editor's article contributions are impressive and agree with most of his answers to the questions. Given the heated nature of the articles that spurred the 3RR blocks, as well as the time that has passed, I feel safe in assuming that the editor has learned proper behavior in that area. [[User:Mrathel|Mrathel]] ([[User talk:Mrathel|talk]]) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) '''Addition''' I would like to add that having reviewed Grsz11's edits thoroughly before voting, I did notice that his political views do appear to be on the liberal side, which is why I am able to take the controversy regarding the supportive edit on Dixie's talk page with a grain of salt. Being able to put his own views aside and agree that the situation was mishandled even if he would otherwise disagree with the content is a sign that this editor will use the sysop tools fairly. Given the fact that this user has made 16k edits, I see this issue as minor and reject the idea that anyone can be guilty by association.
'''Support'''. Quality editor who deserves the mop. Good luck with it!
'''Weak Support'''. Quality editor and 3RR blocks are no big deal. -
'''Strong support'''. Although he has been blocked for 3RR, I've reviewed his contributions and he's clearly reformed and responsible. Great contribs! --<b><font color=red>
'''Strong Support''' The politeness is a big plus for me.
'''Support.''' Has shown that he is not afraid to comment on controversial topics, seems to strive to improve the project, excellent content contributions.  Good luck <font face="Century Gothic">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Support]]''' - Great answers to questions, I've seen you around a lot, you'll do great! --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' 3RR concerns are nonexistant practically... they were so long ago, and he was new. I fully trust this editor. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Yep]]; good balance of content work and administrative stuff. Seems trustworthy and experienced. –'''
'''[[User:Airplaneman/RFA|Support]]''' No concerns here! Great content contributions.
Per above.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''If you would ''</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like very good admin material to me --
'''Support very close to Strong Support''' - No concerns here, will make a good admin.
'''Strong Support''' I particularly like your views on BLPs.
'''Support''' Grsz11 is an excellent contributor and he has shown a capacity to learn from his mistakes - a creditable trait in an admin candidate.
'''Support''' A well-rounded candidate with good dispute resolution skills, policy knowledge, and fantastic article contributions. -- '''
'''Support''' Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. <small>
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support''' per above--<font color="759652">
'''Strong Support''' An editor well versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines who also provides a fair, balanced perspective to discussions. --
'''Support''' The opposes aren't anything to worry about.  <s>Grsz11 seems to have a good grasp on the full ramifications of [[WP:NOTCENSOR]].<s> Editors shouldn't be blocked for their views but their contributions. No other issues; candidate has clue. '''
IMHO, Grsz11 is wrong about what to do with [[User:Iloveadolfhitler]], but I don't demand [[Hal 9000|perfection]] in an admin; I prefer [[WP:BELLYBUTTON|humans]] instead.  Everything else about this candidate looks OK, so I see no harm in overlooking one small (and, note, long-term harmless) error and giving him the tools. To those opposing over his answer to this question: do you have any other concerns, or are you really opposing over one single thing that you disagree with?  If my opinion changes after a more in-depth review later, I'll update this comment. --
'''Support''' per William S. Saturn. <b>
Despite the answer to one question, I've seen all around great work from Grsz and thus I have no reservations in supporting him. I hope you pass. '''
'''Support''' I may disagree with the usernames issue but it is not unreasonable enough to be a big deal. Also, the blocks were too long ago.
'''Support''' Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, much appreciated.  I think you will make a very good administrator.  Good luck, --
'''Support''' Had considered an oppose due to the block log, but then I realised if such a troubled editor could turn around and actually become a productive member of the Wikipedia community, then perhaps, given the chance, he can lead and guide those in similar positions currently to become productive themselves. Further, username policy enforcement can be a delicate exercise, and therefore the questionable answers come down to (in)experience more than anything. Good luck.
UAA is fiddly, and if the user hasn't edited, I don't see the problem with the name; the only time another user will see it is if they visit UAA or the new user list. The blocks were a long enough time ago to discount, and I like Nja247's thought above. Overall, should be a net benefit.
'''Weak Support''' Blocks over a year ago are concerning. But they are over a year ago. I will assume good faith that the editor has turned over a new leaf, sides Micheal cane put it best in Batman, we have to fall to pick ourselves up. Otherwise recent work as far as i can tell is decent.
'''Support'''. Overall he showed good judgement in the past. I'm sure he'll make a good admin.
'''Weak support''' - I see some reason to withhold the extra buttons (3RR), but overall a good editor.  He meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, etc.  I don't like to paint broad strokes, so a year without a block is fine.  3RR is not a [[mortal sin]].  We need more admins.
'''Support''' - I see no problems here.
'''Oppose''': As someone who unblocked this editor. I think the multiple 3RR blocks are problematic. The editor may be a fine contributor these day but admins are held to much higher standards.  Yes it's been a while ago, but it's more than one occurrence.
'''Oppose''': user has a problematic view of BLP, especially surrounding the [[Fort Hood terrorist attack]]. --
'''Oppose.''' For several reasons, including opposing a block for egregious disruption ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADie4Dixie&action=historysubmit&diff=318543879&oldid=318542632]) and the multiple edit warring blocks, I've got a bad feeling about this nomination. These issues might not derail a nomination on their own, but taken together they raise plenty of red flags for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' reluctantly per answer to User:Iloveadolfhitler. This is, to me, a blatantly disruptive and offensive username and I would want an admin to move swiftly to block it, regardless of whether or not contributions were "disruptive." Sorry,
'''Oppose''' Sorry, when people make an offensive username like "ilovehitler" and "Fagwithaguitar" (which actually was a real username) they should automatically be blocked. People with ridiculous usernames like such are not here to help write an encyclopedia. Also, the extensive block log history is ridiculous. No way.
'''oppose''' Just don't trust user with tools per association with should-be-banned Die4Dixie.
'''Weakish oppose''' I've seen Grz11 around and he displays a definite sense of clue. However, deffending Die4Dixie's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Die4Dixie&diff=prev&oldid=317566477 user page], where he gloated over the death of a political figure and hoped that more "leftists" would die, doesn't fill me with confidence. The iloveadolfhitler user name question was a gimme, and he blew it. Badly. I respect this user, but cannot support at this time.
'''Weak oppose''' At first glance, Grsz11 is a terrific candidate for adminship. His article work is impressive (I very much enjoyed reading his FA, [[Idlewild and Soak Zone]]), his project namespace experience (particularly his AfD work) is good, and he generally seems to be polite. The edit warring blocks are so far in the past that they shouldn't even be considered here. But there are definitely some significant causes for concern. The first part of the candidate's answer to Q9 was fundamentally wrong; that user could be blocked on sight. His answer to Q10, which I asked, left a lot to be desired; it was a short, plain-vanilla response which, while not incorrect, didn't give much insight into his policy knowledge. His answer to Q11 is also very troubling. No disrespect intended, but it made me wonder how this could not be construed as a "real problem," as the blatantly polemical statement on [[User:Die4Dixie]]'s userpage clearly violated [[WP:UP#NOT]]. I don't want to hold the user's association with Die4Dixie against him too much, but it certainly is unfortunate to have a proposed community ban of that user being voted on while this RfA is still ongoing. Despite the bad timing, I don't think it can be completely ignored. All things considered, I commend Grsz11 for his excellent contributions to and work on the encyclopedia, but his policy knowledge has some apparent gaps that are causing me to ultimately oppose this nomination.
Sorry, too many red flags popped up for me to be comfortable in supporting, namely the iloveadolfhitler username. That either demonstrates a lack of, or insufficient amount of clue, or alternatively, lack of understanding of policy. Either the former or latter are concerns enough for me to oppose, sorry. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose.''' <s>Block for egregious disruption</s> '''Opposing block for egregious disruption''', 3RR blocks '''(I think three, but perhaps I'm wrong on the number)''', answer to user:iloveadophhitler, Die4Dixie position '''(relates in part to my first point)''' ... just <s>way,</s> way too many warning signs for me to trust him with the mop.  Sorry.--
'''Strong Oppose.''' Guilt by association, and the block history is unbecoming. After reading a bit more on the D4D situation, you '''really''' hitched your horse to the wrong wagon on that one.  Wow.
'''Oppose''' I can't support an editor who has multiple(not one) blocks.
'''Oppose''' per the username issues. This editor is lacking sufficient clue to be given the tools.
'''Oppose''' Largely per Steven Zhang and Epeefleche above. None of these concerns ''singly'' would be enough to disqualify, but the accumulated weight of them give an impression of questionable judgment and lack of sufficient familiarity with policy.
'''Oppose''' Previous blocks for 3RR give me pause, but answers to questions 9 in particular leaves me unable to support this candidate...
'''Oppose''' Overall I get a sense of questionable judgment.  The (old) blocks indicate an old judgment problem. The answers to 9 and 12 indicate a lack of understanding of policy and when to use one's own judgment and when to follow the rules. Some of the issues with D4D reinforce my sense of poor judgment (though I think that was much more of a mixed bag).  Nothing overwhelming, but put together are enough to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Per Bejinha (willing to change my vote if convinced otherwise by the nominee).----
'''Oppose''' per A9 and A11, and the guilt by association through Die4Dixie.  Though the candidate seems to have learned a lesson from his edit warring, I just don't feel comfortable with this candidates level of policy knowledge with regards to [[WP:UAA]].
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I'm sorry, I really am, but 'iloveadolfhitler' is an instant block on any respectable network.  No matter how productive the user may actually be that user name is will attract controversy where ever it goes except the blocked list.  The blocks are also a concern, as you were blocked three times for similar incidents- all were edit warring.  Anyone- and I do mean '''anyone'''- could fall prey to that once in the heat of the moment; but three times indicates an ability to get too caught up in the moment.  Again, I really am sorry.
'''Oppose''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaker_Elsayed&action=historysubmit&diff=325726162&oldid=325725780 Here] Grsz11 inserted a POV tag on an article on an Islamic extremist (or a person with links to terrorism) and he didnt explain ''at all'' what exactly the problem was on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaker_Elsayed talk] page. In addition to that, it looks like someone defending extremism and that makes you no different from similiar editors. Sorry but this isnt going to work. You'll have to work very hard until your next nomination if it happens. --
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q11 partly, and especially per answer to Q4.
'''Oppose'''. As various other oppose !voters have noted, the candidate's answers to too many questions are off-base, superficial, or otherwise never really address the central issues involved. Admins must be ready to give clear and cogent justifications for their actions, and the overall set of answers gives me pause here.
'''Oppose''' – along with the concerns brought forth above, some of the answers to the questions doesn't instill me much confidence here, especially <s>Q4 (which doesn't go into any insight or anything) and</s> Q9 (for the "Hitler" account, such accounts should be immediately (soft)blocked). There are differences between "what the rules say" and "what is general practice"; the two are not always in sync with each other.
'''Oppose''' - Re: above reasons. --
'''Weak Oppose''' This seems like one of those editors that is a great contributor as an editor, but questionable as an admin.  I have to oppose for several reasons.  One of the reasons is the blocks.  I am a firm believer in forgiveness and second chances but I just don't feel this user has really understood the problem.  Their description of the Barack Obama article doesn't seem to show remorse for their actions.  Also, I don't feel their answers about [[WP:UAA]] are correct and the user has expressed interest in working that area.  I'll keep an eye on this RfA because my mind can change.--
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says it well. An example of that is the situation of Q13 and the answer to the question: It already shows a lack of care to give no better explanation than "i think this is fairly evident" when tagging a whole article. Q13 provided a chance to make up for the mistake by explaining what he felt was wrong with the article so that we all can understand what he meant. Instead, the candidate only focuses on "the same editors" - which indicates <s>a complete lack of understanding of</s>that you did not think of the first principle of Dispute Resolution: [[WP:FOC|Focus on content, not on other editors]]. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', concerns about answers to the questions. '''
'''Oppose''': sorry, but the answers to Q9 leave me with concerns about someone who wants to work at [[WP:UAA]]
'''Oppose''' per Q9, defending Die4Dixie against a block w/ an implied argument that users have a right to freely express their opinions (not exactly inline with [[WP:UP]] and [[WP:SOAP]]), and an overall feeling that Grsz11 priorities are unideal for a wikipedia admin <s>(to say the least)</s>. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I was not happy with some of the answers to the questions - especially those for Q9 from someone who specifically said they wanted to work on UAA. Overall, I feel uncomfortable with the thought of this candidate having the mop. -- '''''
'''Firm Oppose''' Candidate has not shown the judgment, respectful communication skills, or sense of fairness that is required to be an effective admin.
'''Oppose''' because of the answer on Q7. I do not necessarily mind if someone has a view that policy is wrong, but saying they would deal with it by interpreting the results to fit their own view of what policy ought to be, is not acceptable--or at least that's how aI understand the somewhat confused responses   here about BLP issues.   '''
Not entirely satisfied with the answers to the questions.  Not to the point of opposing, as I doubt this user will explode the 'pedia as an admin, but enough to cause me to withhold support.
'''Neutral.''' I think the candidate is well suited to the areas indicated. If it were possible to give him tools for the purposes of those areas exclusively, I would most certainly support. However, I'm not comfortable with the user getting involved with actually deleting articles. I'd question the suggestion that he did anything to diffuse the situation at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)|this AfD]] with remarks such as "Sorry, but characterizing it as a "diplomatic incident" is '''outrageous'''" and "It's important to a lot of pissed off Irishmen right now, sure,...". I accept that MickMacNee was going out of his way to provoke a reaction, and that you had a valid deletion argument, but I'd be uncomfortable giving the deletion and block buttons to you just yet.
'''Neutral''' for now: still reading, still thinking. But I'll say now that I reject "guilt by association" and am appalled by some of the commentary in the "oppose" section above. --
'''Neutral'''. The contributions and work lead me to support, but two red flags stand out: the answers to questions are OK but not detailed enough to give me a strong basis upon which to judge how the candidate would do. In fact, some answers lead me to believe the candidate would avoid controversial situations, which are the primary times an admin is needed. Additionally, the block log is concerning, but it's over a year ago and I'm willing to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in that the candidate has turned this around. While these issues are not significant enough for me to oppose this candidate, I cannot support this candidate without more assertive answers indicating true judgement skills. --
'''Neutral''': concerned about the multiple blocks.
'''Neutral.''' placeholder really. Need to think about this one.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Neutral]]''' - You have been blocked more then once for the same action, even though you knew [[WP:3RR]] looking at your contributions. And either way, you were blocked more then once, which means you didn't really read why you were blocked. Can't support. But can't oppose. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Moral Support''' - Please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a few months or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will likely fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. <font color="navy">
Suggest [[WP:SNOW]] close. &ndash;

'''Weak Support''' Support as Candidate has a block free record since they started editing in 2005. Weak because of a lack of activity in areas where they intend to use the mop. I am also concerned about knowledge of fair use policy as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AKp2.jpg&timestamp=20080811005351&diff=prev this deleted image] was loaded last August. ''
Mainly moral '''support''' per [[WP:AGF]], although per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]], candidate does not have any blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me.  Sincerely, --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong oppose''' - It's fantastic that 90% of you're contributions are in the article space, but the low number of edits in other areas worries me quite a bit. You say that you plan to work at [[WP:AIV]], but looking through [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Harish89&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 your Wikipedia space edits], the creation of this RfA was your first edit ever to this name space. You apparently have commendable article experience, but do the math; roughly 2,000 edits, of which roughly 90% are in the article space. Slash 2,000 edits by a tenth, and you only have roughly 200 edits outside of the article space &ndash; that's a huge red flag at RfA. Don't get me wrong, article building is important, but you need to show experience in other areas before you can make a suitable admin. I am sorry that I must oppose you, Harish, and I look forward to watching you learn from any subsequent opposers' concerns, and passing RfA at a later date. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Oppose''' per Dylan620.  And really because of the answer to Question 1.  For an admin candidate, as a bare minimum, you should know the terminology used around Wikipedia.  [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:CSD]] do not refer to tools.  Not only that, you do not need Administrators' tools to cleanup vandalism or improve articles - As an [[WP:AUTOCONFIRMED|established]] user, you have the ability to edit nearly all the articles in the mainspace.  Additionally, reviewing your contribs, I see little to no anti-vandal work - and instead, multiple edits (usually successive edits) to single pages with no edit summary.  I agree with Dylan620 that you will need to get experience in other areas of the site other than editing articles/templates.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience, I would support.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. (ec) Good work on articles, but you'll need much more experience in the other areas of Wikipedia before I'm convinced of your knowledge of policies and procedures. You say you want to work in CSD and AIV, but you have yet to report a vandal or, based solely on your deleted contribs, tagged an article for deletion. All eight of your edits to the Wikipedia namespace are in respect to this RFA. While you may have a solid handle of how everything works behind the scenes, I need to see some more evidence of that.
'''Oppose''', would like to see some more experience in varied areas of the project. '''
'''Oppose''', does not seem to understand what an admin does. You said that you are "mostly interested in improving Indian elections", which does not require admin tools. You have zero edits to the Wikipedia namespace outside of this RFA which also suggests that you are unfamiliar with an admin's role on the project.  I would recommend withdrawing this request and trying again in a few months after you have gained more experience.
Agreed with Nakon. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  I think that if you availed yourself of our resources which detail our policies and guidelines, focused on the underlying principles that Wikipedia is founded on, and continued to be a valuable contributer of content, ... then you would quickly get up to speed enough to fly through an RfA process.  Please don't be discouraged, and take to heart the suggestions offered by the community.  Best — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' - Whilst the problems listed above were enough, the huge list of copyrighted image problems on the users talkpage was enough to tip me over.
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. An admin must be experienced in interaction with users. You have been around for an amazing time and have 1800 edits in the mainspace. But seriously, only 2 edits to User talk? You have been doing a great job but you need to do some vandal warning, CSD work and other administrative edits. <strong>
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm not supporter of self-nomination.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Opppose''' I have the distincy impression that you do not understand the function of an admin; your nomination statement and your answers to the questions reveal both a lack of knowledge of the workings of admin-related pages, and a lack of need for admin tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' You don't have the experience I'd like to see in a candidate, sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Although I don't want to pile on, I oppose per the above arguments.
I would be greatly glad to support you in the future; however, you need ''much'' more work in the Wikipedia namespace.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
I worked with Harish89 recently on {{t1|Indian general election results 2009}} and saw his work at [[Indian general election, 2009]], and came to admire his drama-free quiet efficiency. However the user is yet unfamiliar with many of the operational norms and practices on wikipedia that would be required for an admin.<small>(for example he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Indian_general_election_results_2009&diff=prev&oldid=290998521 blanked] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_general_election,_2009&diff=prev&oldid=290998701 copied] the template content into the article, instead of transcluding/substituting it, which would be preferable to be GFDL compliant)</small> However  I should emphasize that these knowledge holes are easily filled with experience, and the user will likely make a good admin at some later date. I hope he is not discouraged by the probable outcome of this RFA and continues making positive contributions to wikipedia. All the best.
Your work is very clean and neat and quite professional. However, like other users I'm worried on your namespace edits. You only have 2 User Talk pages so I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume]] that your editor interaction somewhat is limited; unless your a regular in IRC (which somebody could possibly hint for me if he is). Get a little more involved with other things as well. Don't cling to just one topic. Try to branch out and be [[WP:BOLD|creative]]. If you look like a fool (which I can boast about a many times), well--welcome to life. At least it shows that your are branching out and exploring new ways to further expand Wikipedia.
'''Moral Support''', your mainspace contributions, as far as I can see, are excellent.  With a bit more work in the project space, I would be very happy to support you in a future RFA run.
The problem with your contribution record (apart from the fact that it's only two months of <very> active editing) is that I just cannot see your present and predict your future attitudes as an admin in ''administrative'' matters. Inclusion/deletion, free speech/"civility", BLP tolerance, flagged revision etc. Your article work ''may'' be a good indicator, but who has the patience of browsing through unfamiliar topic of local Indian politics? Wikipedia also has its politics, and candidates' stance in critical administrative areas ''must'' be at least declared.
'''Neutral''' In appreciation of your interest to help Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' - mostly the right attitudes; not enough experience to support. I will look more thoroughly at contributions in a future RfA, once there's more to see in the other namespaces. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' good user. Trust them. And never come across anything which would lead me to oppose (will expand on my support should it look like things are going to other way :D)-
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I didn't find anything that would lead me to question your judgment (e.g. incivility, misunderstanding of policy, etc.). -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I recall that when I once asked a question about sourcing on the [[WP:Content Noticeboard|Content noticeboard]], not only did you answer my  question very helpfully, but you also went out of your way, unasked, to help copy edit the article that I had mentioned, pointing out grammatical flaws, inconsistencies, and the like. That kind of helpful attitude, in addition to your other collaborative work on the project, indicates to me that you will be a very helpful sysop. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' What exquisite timing.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. –'''
'''Support''' Bombs away! :) Good luck!
I'm toying with making "not a drama queen" my only RFA criterion, but in this case, there's a whole lot more to like here as well, so I can hold off for now. More admin candidates like this one, please. --
'''Support'''. I know, like and trust this user. --
A fine candidate; I'm not worried by the lack of a nomination statement either: Headbomb appears to have a sense of humor, and odd nomination statements make RfA more interesting.
'''Support''' Good user, who is terse.
'''Support'''—Very good candidate.
'''Support'''— I like his level-headed and no-nonsense approach.
'''Support'''— Helpful and level headed, as he said above it would be better for him to have the tools then for him not to.
'''Support''' User has been around since May 2006 and has good contributions in Physics and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' - not having the tired old guff that many RfAs have is, IMO, a good not bad thing. This suggests to me that the editor will be a common-sense admin.  <small>'''it'd be useful if opposers could provide diffs'''</small>
The candidate has made some mistakes, but IMO that is outweighed by their devotion to Wikipedia and expert knowledge.  There has always been a certain friction between the Wikipedian culture and scientific and technical cultures, and I favor adapting over rejecting, in general. - Dank (
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Opposes not convincing.
Meets my [[User:Majorly/RfA/standards|standards]]. '''
Full '''support''' —
'''Support''' has a need for the tools and will most likely put them to good use. '''
'''Support''' I was just about to log off from Wikipedia, glad I checked RfA. This is one of the most emphatic Supports I'll ever make at RfAs. Surely the constant influx of anti-science, anti-rational nonsense has to be one of the top three problems of WP. Every scientist who devotes a chunk of his time to improving articles on science topics and keeping out nonsense should be welcomed with open arms. As a non-scientist myself, I can say from experience, having worked on articles with the candidate, that he shows no trace of arrogance or condescension towards non-scientists, does not take himself too seriously, yet is firm and courageous when it comes to standing up for high scientific standards and making sure that cranks and marginal figures do not use WP as a platform of self-promotion. I have full confidence that Headbomb will not abuse the tools in cases where the scientific community has not yet fully settled on a consensus. As a purely hypothetical example, we would not need to fear that he pushes string theory over loop quantum gravity. However, having him on the admin corps would mean that the people whose web sites are cataloged at Crank Dot Net will find their Wikilives suddenly getting more difficult, and that's a good thing.
'''Support'''. I was worried by the opposes, but as far as I can tell, he's only "brusque" when dealing with cranks. That's a perfectly good time to be brusque, not to back off and let information and misinformation have an edit war. WP needs more of that.
This looks to be a close RfA in the running. I've seen you around, and, since you seem capable, I'm willing to support. '''
'''Support''' I'm always a bit biased against self-noms, but everything from the support as per above, his responses to questions, and of course, the quality of his work to date, tips the scale definitely in his favor. Great work headbomb3!
Headbomb would make a fine admin, I'm sure. Over the months we've spent working together on the Quark article, Headbomb has repeatedly demonstrated a deep care for the encyclopedia's content, which I find an attractive quality in a prospective admin. —<strong>
Well-articulated answers to the question; indicative of an intelligent potential administrator. &mdash;
'''Support''' Yep, looks like a very competent and trustworthy admin candidate.  -
'''Support'''. Fine candidate, level headed and sensible.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Based purely on his history, which demonstrates competence.
'''Support''' As an arrogant individual, I think I would know arrogance. I don't really see him as arrogant. There are other reasons, but yeah, I'm devoting this to what I see below.
'''Support''', I see zero reason to oppose.
'''[[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Support]]'''. I have no problems with the user being frank in giving responses to people or being a little sharp. A little bit of Arrogance doesn't bug me either as it shows me the editor has an opinion and isn't afraid to state it and back it up.--
'''Support''' Not insane.
'''Strong support''' great editor, knows a lot as demonstrated by his track record '''
'''Support''' Great experienced editor, good luck ;) '''
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.
'''Support'''You look great, and unless you're hiding something, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I've read the opposes, and looking through Headbomb's contribs I think they go a bit too far.  Surely if he were that bad he would have lots of warnings, maybe even a few blocks by now, and all in all would not be doing any better as an editor than he would be as an administrator.  So I am going to put myself in the support column this time.  Best of luck, Headbomb.  -- ''<B>
'''Support'''; yes, please.
'''Support''' Having reviewed the candidate's impressive body of work, there is no definite reason to oppose.  I recognize the concerns of users who feel the candidate is overly harsh, however I believe an assumption of good faith is in order here.  As a note however, perhaps the candidate could continue to be mindful of the importance of coming across in a cordial way. --
'''Support'''. The opposes haven't convinced me, and I see nothing else wrong. Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''. I do not find the oppose arguments convincing enough to support them. I also agree with the comments by Rspeer. I see no reason his bits shouldn't be twiddled. ···
'''Support''' (moved from oppose) After having a one-on-one conversation with Headbomb, I see that he is very friendly and open to discussion. He wants confusion to be avoided, and I trust that he can deal with [[WP:Why was my page deleted?]]-type posts. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''support''': Looks fine to me, and per various opposes. ''comments to be terse and cold'' - what more can you ask for?
'''Support'''. Should be ok with the tasks mentioned in his response to Q1. Also, per William M. Connolley - terse and cold - what's not to like?
'''Support''' Fine.
'''Support''' Physicist, competent, and knows when to be serious - meets my criteria. -
'''Support''' - Solid content work.
'''Support'''. Consistently acts in a professional manner, working to improve Wikipedia (or at least the parts I've seen him edit). Will think before acting and respond in an appropriate manner when users start doing strange things to articles (the ones I've seen in [[WP:PHYS]]'s domain, at least). Can be trusted with admin tools. --
'''Support'''. I've been wavering on this, because some of the opposes seemed plausible, and some of the candidate's responses to the opposes seem thin-skinned. I hope that, if confirmed, Headbomb will think seriously about that. But, having said that, I found the answer to Q13 to reveal an editor who was very fair when challenged, and that pushes me into discounting the opposes. On close examination, I don't think that the opposes have convincingly made their cases so far. I also very much like what Goodmorningworld (support 22) said. --
'''Support'''. First, almost all the other oppose voters are edit warriors on the politics pages, they clearly ave an agenda to keep good Admins out. But they are actually mistaken about Headbomb as he doesn't intent to get involved in the politics sector of wikipedia. The closing Admin here must discard all these oppose votes.<br><br>As an editor of physics articles, I have had first hand experience with Headbomb. He would be an excellent Admin. He intends to mostly work on the "physics sector" of wikipedia, and any Admin who intends to do that must have a very good working knowledge of physics. E.g., in order to decide whether a dispute is "just another content dispute" or a case in which a "kook" is editing nonsense in an article, you need to know a lot about physics.<br><br>Now, Headbomb can be trusted to recuse himself if there is even the slightest possiblility that his POV is a factor. But I think we do need to keep in mind here that physics and other science articles are different from politics articles. In case of politics articles, you either have clear vandalism or content (POV) disputes. In case of science articles there does exist something like "clear nonsense".<br><br>Then just like an Admin who works on politics pages has to at least be able to see if an editor is vandalizing a page or if he is editing his POV (perhaps against the consensus), it is helpful if an Admin can see for himself if an editor is editing in "clear nonsense" in a physics article. It is not good enough for an Admin to always have to depend on the good judgement of others to be able to make that judgment.<br><br>I know this sounds contrary to the neutrality an Admin has to have, but an Admin who cannot see that a physics article is crap, is similar to an Admin who has such poor mastery of the English language that he doesn't see that some article is being vandized.
'''Support''', seems sensible and trustworthy. No reason to think he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - This was a difficult one, but in the end I decided to support. I will rationale this one through [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|my criteria]] (KC = Key criteria, EC = Extra criteria). Your an established user (KC1) and I have no problem with your username (KC2) or user page (KC3), and no dodgy offline activities as far as I know (KC4). You have a personality which perhaps can be described as controversial, however you seem to be civil and use edit summaries effectively so that should be no issue for adminship (KC5). The speedy deletion concerns below were perhaps the biggest red flag to me, but the mistakes were not severe and you seem to learn from criticism (KC6). Your dispute resolution abilities seem to fine to me, I don't think higher level mediation skills are needed for adminship (KC7). You seem to respect (KC8) and follow policy (KC9) well enough. I also notice you already have some permissions and seem to have used these well (EC6). So in conclusion, you have my support.
'''Support''' Looks fine, seems smart, takes time, user will not make the wiki wheels fall off.
'''Support''' ''with caveats'' DGG's oppose gave me concern, but I have had good interactions with headbomb and we have as of the 2009 arbitration committee (hopefully) a more dynamic way to review admin behaviour. So Headbomb please be careful.
'''Support'''. While I think this user may need to manage his temperament  better, I still believe that he will be a good administrator. I interacted with him on several occasions in the past and it was good experience for me. (I am also granted him rollback in the past.)
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''<small>moved from neutral</small> Candidate seems perfect qualified, and nomination statement seems great. Best of luck, '''''
'''Support''', I am more moved by the positives than the negatives. Net positive. --
'''Support''', Boopity. Good editor, needs a 3rd strike or he's out :P --<strong>
'''Support''' Seems like this user will be mostly positive for Wikipedia if promoted, despite concerns below.
'''Support''' per above seems very much a net positve , please take on board the concerns below.
'''Support''' I said I'd reconsider based on what DGG said.  I think that despite my concerns about his overindulgence in replies to opposes at this RfA, that he is an outstanding editor and would be a net positive as an admin.  I will assume good faith and that once he has the tools, he will continue to strive for civil discourse.--
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Headbomb 3. —
'''Support''' has some bitey issues, but has a good and reasonable perspective on things. Would be a fine admin but needs to work on personal interaction skills a bit.
'''Support'''  (Changing from "reluctant oppose" to "support")...  After further reflection and re-reading the Q/As and later discussions, I think giving Headbomb the bit will be a net positive.  I stand by my concerns mentioned below, but my current assessment is that the positives will be larger. --
(Moved from Neutral - see discussion there.) &mdash;
'''Support''' Displays a valid need for the tools and I believe will put them to good use. Capable and willing to learn from his mistakes. Net positive. --
Temperamentally unsuited to adminship; will be a bossy, rules-mongering admin, of the sort we have far too many of as it is.
'''Oppose''' - The user strikes me as arrogant and brusque. We don't need anymore admins like that.
'''Oppose - moved from support''' - Per the comments above, and the more I looked at your contributions, the more I became doubtful that I could trust you with the tools.
'''Oppose''' moved from neutral - my rationale is written in the neutral section.--
'''Oppose''' Headbomb, I'm finding your responses and interactions with editors in this RfA candidacy bears out the concerns expressed above. You seem to be a bit defensive and unwilling to see things from the perspective of other editors when they express a concern. This make me very wary of granting you the tools.
'''Oppose''' The revelations of Q6. You chose to not bother with a "boring or drab" nomination statement/intoduction, instead believing that linking to a blog by punning a well-worn meme would suffice. The blog in question uses this phrase for nothing more than as a catchphrase headline intro, so examining it for a reference to your RfA turned out to be an complete waste of time. Presumably it didn't occur to you that using a link in your opener like this suggests some kind of statement may actually be found there. Nor that explaining your intentions only when someone asks you a question pertaining to them may be too late - and lazy. Expecting pertinent info to be revealed by questions is expecting us to do the hard work for you by asking. Your judgment of when originality = irritation is seriously lacking. Immature self-styled comedians with level ''n'' self-regard we don't need.
'''Oppose''' I possibly see a potential candidate, but only once he gets more experience in areas such as mediation, and other policies that an admin needs to be well versed in. I don't think he takes this request seriously (there is a lack of quality to the question answering and the nomnomnom, while I do like the humorous aspect of it, I do not feel that it should be used at a Rfa. This is a time to be serious). If I have over looked his experience in the adminship areas, please feel free to comment my oppose. I hate to oppose, but I feel this time you are not ready. <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Strong Oppose''', per ChildofMidnight.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]. Questions 8 and 9 also bother me. I don't see a consistent deletion rationale emerging here, which is a problem.
'''Oppose''' Reading through all 3 RFAs I see a very arrogant attitude.  The previous 2 more so than this one, but the attitude is still there.  I believe the intentions are good, but the attitude leads me to question if the tools will be used in a levelheaded manner as they should be.
'''Oppose''' Just seems not to be able to understand where other people are coming from and this encyclopaedia is a collaborative exercise. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Speaking as a major editor of Wikipedia's Manual of Style ([[WP:MOS]]), I have to report a mixed experience of Headbomb's work. I am impressed with his technical ability, but dismayed by his failure to consult, and generally to respect Wikipedian norms of transparency and due process. A few of us initiated a move to highlight text using a template, and Headbomb took up the task. The result was <nowiki>{{xt|}}</nowiki>: quite useful for exhibiting examples in the guidelines at [[WP:MOS]] {{xt|with distinctive styling like this}}. But Headbomb did not wait for consultation and refinement to be completed; he began implementing the template at [[WP:MOS]]. At first I reverted this, providing a sandbox instead and urging patience, but to no avail: see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_107#Using_color_and_typeface_to_set_off_example_text_on_MOS_and_MOSNUM archived discussion], starting at the words "MOSNUM is locked down". A couple of days later another in the "act now" faction unceremonially removed the last chunk of the discussion and pasted it as the beginning of a talkpage for the template itself: [[Template_talk:Xt]]. See my comment at the bottom of that talkpage. (Protocols for the new highlighting are still not settled at MOS, so it is still not uniformly applied.) I noticed that editors began staying away; I suppose they felt as I did. In any case, soon after, because of such difficulties (in particular involving another editor), I absented myself from MOS editing for six months, feeling that it had become unconsultative and unproductive. I do not think that Headbomb has shown proper consideration and restraint, or the sort of collaborative orientation that we should expect in our admins. A definite oppose, for now at least.–<font color="blue"><sub>'''[[User_talk:Noetica |⊥]]'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>
'''Oppose''' per ChildOfMidnight. I don't usually oppose "per someone," but he wrote it perfectly. '''
'''Oppose''' per CoM.  No-brainer.
'''Oppose'''.  I do not have diffs at this time but what I have seen from this editor in the past matches up with the concerns brought up earlier (opposes #1 and #2 and numerous in agreement with them).  The concerns regarding temperment are worrisome but when combined with the underwhelming (lack of a) nomination statement, as well as answers to the questions that are not entirely confidence inspiring, all add up to a lack of faith in how this candidate would perform as an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. I was undecided until I saw your invitation to examine your deleted contribs log. My findings made me end up in this section. While it is true that you are usually able to identify inappropriate pages (I would expect nothing less from an editor with your track record), I find many of your taggings to be arbitrary, incorrect, and often [[WP:BITE]]y, and I fear that you would continue this habit if you were to delete those pages personally. Take for instance [[Mind reading technology]], which you tagged as "patent nonsense". The lead sentence, "'''Mind reading''' refers to the ability to discern the thoughts of others without the normal means of communication." is clearly not incoherent nor gibberish. [[WP:CSD G1]] is unambiguously clear that "... implausible theories, or hoaxes" are '''not''' patent nonsense.<br/> Then there's [[Stickfigure story]], an article detailing the author's "stick figure stories", with elaborate plot summaries, which according to you "Epically fails [[WP:N]] / [[WP:CSD A9]]", re-tagged by you after a speedy had previously been declined. Clearly, A9 is inappropriate since it is not a musical recording. While the subject could be said to fall short of [[WP:N]], this is a non-criterion, and I for one would prefer to keep "deleted per [[internet meme]]" out of the deletion log.<br/>Another example, [[David Baker (Physics Professor)]], your reason for deletion is "Patent Hoax (link given are bunks crap)". I would expect an administrator to be able to suppress his actual thoughts on the matter, and formulate himself a bit more diplomatically.<br/>My conclusion is that while your deletion tagging is probably a net positive, I am worried that your actual deletion work would not be, for the reasons outlined above. I am confident that you will be able to amend these issues fairly easily by reading up on [[WP:CSD]], but I would have expected you to have done so before standing for RfA. Regards, <tt>
I have never mett this user, but I am worried by the other opposers' commnets.
'''Oppose''' Based on the answer to my question above, and to other matters brought up above, I do not think he should have the tools. The problem is occasional ill-considered and non-consultative decision-making .  I was very reluctant to oppose such an excellent editor, but  I simply do not trust him to follow the rules, and not following the rules while having the admin powers to delete & protect -- the very fields he intends to work in--is very worrisome.   He prefers to do what he thinks is right, using whatever rationale is at hand.  '''One''' As for my qy, removing a mis-spelling  or mis-formatting is good work, but given that the mistake is made fairly frequently--not that people think it right, I suspect it's simply a mechanical mistake in letting go of the shift key too soon-- so it will be searched for, too. Redirecting to the right form is sufficient to teach the lesson. It is against policy to remove redirects from spelling errors,  unless they are one-time freaks. That's the right policy, too. Our primary goal is to get  people to the information they want, not teach them to type or spell. We're an encyclopedia, not a tutoring service.  '''Two''' Anyone prepared to become an admin should recognize the inadvisability of making major changes--even formatting changes-- in the MOS or other policy without prior agreement.  '''Three''' over-expansive use of delete as nonsense G1, has caused errors, when people don't recognize that something unfamiliar actually makes sense.   '''Four''' deleting because of the "spirit of A7" instead of the actual way A7 is worded, is a thoroughly improper  use of the buttons ..  '''Five'''--  today's [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum genesis]]-- an AfD on a one sentence article 5 days after it was created, instead of asking for expansion and references.  the nom statement reads: "neutral, listing to generate discussion". Misuse of AfD--I've suggested a speedy keep there. I apologize for what may seem like hostility on my part here, as I think very highly of Headbomb ''as an editor''. I hope he forgives me, but  it's only fair to explain in some detail why I'm opposing.'''
'''Oppose''' per many others here. You seem to be generally a good and productive editor, but you put [[WP:IAR]] on far too high a pedestal for my taste. Admins need to shoot from the hip sometimes, but I would hope that there would be a general feeling at an RFA that community norms are generally understood and followed by the editor in question. For instance [[WP:BOLD]] is fine, but not all the time or on disputed pages. I don't get the feeling that civility is otherwise a major problem, with the few exceptions noted above, since everyone will slip up a few times with your number of edits. In summary, I am opposing because admins need to be predictable.
'''Oppose''' Enough concerns have been raised that I have to oppose at this time.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry, but per Wisdom89. I hope to change, but honestly, Wisdom is right, so oppose now. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' per the speedies brought up by decltype. Misuse of patent nonsense is a pet peeve of mine, and I just can't support a candidate who mistagged an article just a week ago yet wants to work in CSD.--
'''Oppose''' Although the candidate has shown to be an asset to Wikipedia, I don't think he's ready to be an admin. some interactions (including his answer to almost all oppose votes) seem to be somewhat worrisome.
'''Weak oppose''' - probably could do a good job, but the concerns raised here make me worry about the drama potential. --
'''Oppose''' The candidate has definitely been an asset to Wikipedia and my opposition shouldn't be seen as a lack of gratitude in that area. But I don't see evidence that their communication skills and conflict resolution is up to the standards we would hold an administrator to. Headbomb is curt (by admission) and does seem defensive in this RfA (as noted by others). I'm also uncomfortable with their opposition to the proposed deletion process. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you just seem too "argumentative" to be an admin, based on past experience and what has been raised here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">
'''Oppose''' per issues with tagging for speedy deletion and approach towards prodding (and yes, prods get checked and rechecked).
For badgering oppose views, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=307743928&oldid=307741021 this] aggressive challenge. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Oppose''' I concur entirely with the analysis of decltype, and largely with that of DGG.  I should note that I, too, am generally a great fan of the candidate's participation qua editor, especially qua content editor, and that even as I do hold certain of the concerns about temperament of Wisdom, et al., I can imagine that I might support a future RfA upon the candidate's demonstrating a better understanding of our criteria for speedy deletion and, crucially, an appreciation of the presumption against speedying, consistent with a narrow construction of the CSD.
'''Oppose''' I was not impressed with your initial request documentation but sat back to see what effects the comments of others would impress upon you in relation to that area.  I note your change of heart but in truth it appears to have come too late. That said, I find myself very concerned by your tendency towards argumentative behaviour - particularly with regards the badgering of !voters at this RfA.  These concerns are diffed by others above, and I concur broadly with the views of editors such as KillerChihuahua.--
'''Oppose''' I don't doubt for a second your work ethic, nor your commitment, but I don't feel you are quite ready to cope with the overwhelmingly annoying people you may come across as an admin. I'd certainly be happy to support next time, but for now, sorry. :( \
'''Oppose''' per Backslash Forwardslash and VirtualSteve. You appear to be a great editor, but I have concerns with how you react to annoying people, and your response to some of the opposes.
'''Oppose''' mostly per ChildofMidnight, as well as per DGG.
Sorry but cannot support, the concerns raised in this RFA just do not give me enough confidence to support you becoming an admin at this time. Attitude concerns combined with those relating to deletion make me concerned enough to not be sure about how you would behave as an admin. A lesser concern for me (which I would not have opposed only over) is over the userbox saying "This user votes Delete regularly for the Article Deletion Squadron." which I would be concerned if an admin displayed as inexperienced editors who come to the user page to query a deletion may very well be put off by this sentiment without clicking the link to see that the page refered to is humorous.
Too many concerns listed above.
'''Oppose''', per the argument by decltype and DGG, alongside the apparent badgering of opposes. &ndash;'''
'''Neutral''' I am not persuaded by his self-nomination rationale, or lack of, or his answer to my question on this matter (which I thought was clear; apparently not). This could be a useful admin, but his decision to stay away from more "situations that are not well-defined" would be well advised, I think. best of luck,
'''Neutral''' per above.
I don't think this candidate has done enough thinking about the rules he wishes to enforce.  But I do trust him to seek consensus and implement it (he won't be a loose cannon), so I'm going with neutral rather than oppose.—
'''Neutral''' - I don't know enough about him to make a comment, but I have an issue that should be considered - he recently deleted a post I made to the content dispute board because he felt it had no business being moved from the ANI board. I have always read that removing or re-factoring other contributor's posts was bad form and a violation of policy. He was civil about it, but isn't this one of the simple basics of WP? --
'''Neutral''' for now.  In my very brief work with Headbomb on a recent issue, I must say that I am impressed with his efforts.  When I expressed a concern, he addressed the issues in a calm, rational, and professional manner.  Upon reflection, I ''do'' recall how hectic and trying an RFA can be, and can certainly understand items that slip through the cracks.  I believe that some improvements can be made in the communication areas, but his work in addressing any and all issues that I raised sufficiently impressed me that I am no longer willing to oppose this RFA.  I will continue to monitor this until closing, and I wish Headbomb the best of luck. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral'''.  I think you have made some excellent contributions to the project, however the concerns noted above are potentially problematic.  I still think you would definitely be a plus to the project as a sysop, especially with a few months more experience along with some better interactions with others.  Hope to see you back here in a few months if this doesn't pass.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Neutral'''Per above in neutral and oppose.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I have a generally positive impression of Headbomb, but understand how some editors could have found their interactions less positive. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope Headbomb will consider carefully concerns raised, some of which may be valid and help him to interact better with the spirit of the encyclopedia. Some may prove to be unfounded. I do not share the view that Headbomb is temperamentally unsuited for adminship, and I will not oppose this RfA. ''
Both sides raise good issues.
Headbomb is clearly an intelligent user and has a strong dedication to Wikipedia.  His contributions as an editor are excellent.  I think he'd most likely make a positive contribution as an admin as well, but I don't have enough evidence to be sure.  I don't view any of the oppose concerns as a disqualifier, so I won't support.  However, there are enough minor concerns that I can't support either.  Writing a nomination statement after realizing people wanted one was a plus, but the tendency to question most opposes what a minus.  Overall, I am completely ''neutral'' but hope to support in the event of a future RfA. --
'''Weak Support''' Candidate is close to the current minimum for edits and tenure, though I suspect would have been a shoo in a couple of years ago with this record. I like the clean block log, and I especially like the very diverse edit history, - account creation, templates, and stuff I understand; seems to be doing bits of almost everything. Talk page and other comments all seems very civil, sadly your Question answers and other bits of this RFA are not at present as impressive as your contributions. '''
'''Weak support''' - agree with WereSpielChequers, a few years ago your experience would have been more than enough. However, I suggest you withdraw, and re-apply in 6-8 weeks.
'''Support''' Why not?  It's not gonna pass.  And if it does, this guy will probably delete the main page or block Jimbo, which will relieve the boredom around here.  And maybe he will learn the joy of complete sentences.--
'''Weak Oppose'''  Sorry Hereford, I just don't think you're ready. :(
'''Weak Oppose''' You've been here 4 months longer yet I have double the edits (no tools) and your article edits are only 15% of your total edits which is really low. Come back in a couple months.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Oppose''' - I immediately recognized your name from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protected_editing_rights#Rollbackers_who_have_had_the_permission_involuntarily_removed this list] I made yesterday of rollbackers who had the right removed, but in your case it was a mistake and you got the rollback again.  I do have to wonder if you have edited before you registered your account in May 2007.  I'm perplexed by the fact that of your first 40 edits, not one of them is a substantive article edit (one is a removal of deletion template, and two are to a template transcluded in articles).  In that time, you asked for help on the help desk and looked for experienced folks to "adopt" you.  I guess that's okay, but it kind of looks weird that you would not just start editing articles sometime in your first four days here.  The concern raised above that you don't have enough article edits in general is consistent with this issue. <br>Another issue for me is that you don't have good communications skills in English.  Either you are young (probably, given your interest in video games) or you speak English as a second language.  The "age and adminship" debate (I just noticed it while sorting through archives yesterday) need not be rehashed here, but I can see that your writing does not show me the level of maturity I normally expect to see on a viable request.  I won't say "come back in a few months", not to be mean, but I don't know if you can improve your language skills in a few months for general admin tasks - maybe for specific things like vandal-blocking that don't require you to know English all that well.
'''Oppose''' Answers to all questions (Q1, Q2 and Q3) are insufficient. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose'''Though I see you making good edits, and dealing well with the anon who was unhappy about being warned (per your talkpage), but I still think a bit more time would be better. In addition, things like this edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=prev&oldid=265334447] make me hesitant to support you as an admin at this time. I have made my mistakes before, breaking [[WP:DTTR]] with speedy notices, but Collectonian is a respected user, and leaving that notice requires you to view their talkpage, which should have made you realize they were a regular. Leaving them a templated warning to use the preview button is honestly a waste of both users' time. Also, the typo up top, about the mediation cable, please change that to cabal, it's bugging me.--
'''Oppose''' Doesn't seem to be taking the care I would expect to set a good impression for a self-nom. Proofreading lacking and answers don't show any thought going into them.  This is like a resume for a job and carelessness here reflects general lack of attention to detail and a level of maturity which I do expect from an admin. Edit summary usage is minimal - can't figure out why edits were made without viewing diffs. I expect an admin candidate would get the basics right as a regular editor. I think you need more time to bake. Not ready yet. --
'''Oppose''' - Almost all answers to questions are inadequate.
'''Oppose''' - Answers to questions show lack of thought and reasoning&mdash;you need to show people why giving you the tools would be a positive thing for Wikipedia, and one-sentence answers do not do that. <em style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">
'''Oppose''' - 9A shows the user is nowhere near ready to handle the mop.  As an administrator there are much tougher questions asked, and the failure to understand how to answer one of the easier questions on this RFA was the dealbreaker for me.
'''Oppose''' - Answers to almost every question are insufficient, confusing, and/or wrong, especially the questions by Stwalkerster. Doesn't show the level of judgment/reasoning that I would like to see in an admin. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - Your answers to your questions are too short. One thing you can do what I saw is that one user who had a RFA did short answers and then below that, put in the longer answers.
<s>'''Strong oppose''' - Per [[User talk:Hereford/Vand]]. Grossly inappropriate, sorry. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Your answer to Q10 scares me. Well, actually it's Q10, and Q9. And Q8. And just about every other question on here. Your answers are terse, your policy knowledge is minimal, and your nom is discouraging, to say the least. <font face="terminal">
'''Slightly Weak Oppose'''. Contributor is a good editor, and I can sympathize with not having very many edits in articlespace, but 15% is just too low, man. Answer to Q2 is not promising.
'''Not support''' - I don't think you'd intentionally do any harm to the project with the tools, and you do really seem to be making generally good contributions. However, I'm concerned at your lack of understanding of policies as evidenced by answers above (2, 4, 8, 9, [[WP:CDB|11]], 12, 13), the issue raised by question 6 (this week), the low level of effort in even answering the questions, and a relatively low level of effort in [[WP:RFPP]] although you cite that as one of your "very active" areas. Then there is question 7, which isn't really funny in this arena; there's a time and a place for humor, and that doesn't display an understanding of when it is - and is not - appropriate. Since I feel the lack of knowledge would be disruptive and harmful to the project, I must place myself in this section. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - Your work is appreciated, but I can't find enough meaningful article contributions, and the answers to the questions are either wrong, don't answer the question or are bad jokes. Focus on improving some articles, take some time to reread the relevant policy, and install a spell checker to your browser.&raquo;
'''Not Support''', as Frank has, and for the general same reasons. I don't think you would do harm, but the answers to 11-13 leave me wary. --
I have to admit, you seem to have bombed out on your answers to the questions. You aren't proud of anything you've done on the Wiki? It seems doubtful that you'd get much time as an admin to do such stuff, so I suggest that you go and find yourself a nice topic, and invest in it. I'd have no problems with you coming through RfA again, but before you do, it'd be a good idea to spend a bit of time looking at other users' RfAs, just so that you know what is expected from candidates. See you in six months :) –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Oppose''' The community expects detailed answers to the questions asked during an RfA, so that we can try to determine your ability to become an administrator. Your answers to many of the questions, and several which I find to be important, are undetailed at best. In question 1 you said that you would participate in ''Typical Administrative Duties'' but when asked in question 9 by Stwalkerster what that means, you admit you don't know, which is unsettling. Also answers to questions 10 and 11 are completely incorrect and indicate that you did not commit any time to researching your answers in policy and guideline pages. As suggested by [[Dr. Phil|some famous psychologist]] past decisions can be indicative of future actions (thanks random RfA candidate for that bit of info), and if you cannot be bothered to research your answers to administrative questions, I have my doubts as to if you would research the correct actions in situations where the admin tools are involved.
'''Oppose''' Working on the cApitAlizaTion would certainly help a lot; ''i'' think that you'll not be a good enough admin '''yet'''. Also, same thing with some of the above votes; detailed replies to questions are important.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I just don't think you're ready yet. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. The answers to all of the questions are inadequate. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Answers to questions are insufficient, and in some cases, flat out wrong, like Q10 and Q11.
I've gone and "copyedited" your statements. I recommend that you expand all the answers to the questions, as well as your nomination, and use a decent [[spell checker]]. How about copying it into [[Microsoft Word]], pressing F7 and pasting it back again? Good luck, <b>
Barely tried at answering the questions, and, you appear to have a really weak grasp on how we do things here... I can't support, but, I don't see anything that really makes me want to oppose (i.e. I don't think you will go right out and delete [[WP:ANI]] as soon as you were promoted, or other such abuse... Wait, would deleting ANI '''really''' be abuse? :) ). I will check back, to see if you re-do your answers to the questions posed thusfar later.
'''Neutral''' - Wehwalt had a very convincing argument for support, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Sorry.
[[File:Symbol support vote.svg|18px]] '''Support''' I've seen this editor around in my journeys, I'm happy with their contributions and their answers to the questions. Good luck! I am happy to be able to be the first 'support' after the nominator! -- '''''
'''Support''' For constant, constructive edits and no concerns with this user. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, interested in helping in areas that could use additional staffing.
'''Support''' per DC's ITN comments. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•
'''Support'''.  Polite, courteous, and knows where to go when he has questions.  Net positive.  Good Luck! -'''
'''Support''' As a balanced editor. Has experience on critical areas and seems clueful of the rules and usage of the tools. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Support'''. Candidate gives helpful advice and answers to any queries/questions asked. Very qualified, able to help out with a wide range of topics. -
I was wondering whether you were ready yet; I think that this nomination could have waited a bit longer - but he's an excellent candidate with a cool head, experience, and intelligence. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No qualms about this editor. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Has my '''Support'''. In crossing pages with him I see nothing that worries and much that gives confidence. '''
'''Support'''. A balanced and courteous editor who, in my experience, has always open and responsive to discussions. Great candidate. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Support''' - Really nice edit history (from my initial review) and also a very nice edit contribution distribution. It's not a massive number of edits, but nearly half are mainspace, and a nice page patrol count. The CSD concerns are not compelling. At least two of the A7 ones have since been deleted, the other three that I can see, the government agency one was a mistake but the other two are pretty borderline. The one is in pretty bad shape even now.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Good thoughtful editor, am confident he can be trusted to be cautious at first in any areas where he lacks experience.
With a nod to the opposition, I think this user seems trustworthy. Seem their work and I have no doubts as to their competence. &ndash;'''
'''Strong day after Christmas support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  The candidate was trusted enough to get rollback.  Five editors thought enough of his edits to give barnstars/awards.  He has some Good article and DYK credits.  He has never been blocked.  He approaches Afds with an open-mind and in a manner that recognizes the work of his colleagues as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Switzerland%E2%80%93Uruguay_relations&diff=289853839&oldid=289851188 here].  He approaches Afds as discussions rather than votes as he does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars_(2nd_nomination)&diff=324688305&oldid=324686837 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars_(2nd_nomination)&diff=324720208&oldid=324719398 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_Star_Wars_(2nd_nomination)&diff=324941136&oldid=324922782 here].  He also evaluates sources as he does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bulgaria%E2%80%93Indonesia_relations&diff=289702629&oldid=289637187 here].  Really, I think we need to give him a nice late Christmas gift of adminship!  :)  Best, --
'''Support''' Obviously has a clue. Good record of contributions and critical thinking.
'''Support''' I'll come up with a rationale later.
'''Support''' Yet another good editor with another good nominator.

'''Support''' Trustworthy.
'''Weak support'''. I agree with the opposers that hasty tagging like that isn't good to see. But let's take a step back: where will HJ be using the tools? ITN, the main page, and the bad content stuff (G10/11/12). He seems to be a trustworthy, solid person. I'd advise him to be careful with rapid A1-type tagging (I'm sure he's already received such feedback at this point ;)), but still am willing to support him given his general good, [[WP:COMMON|common sense]]-driven demeanor.
'''Support''' I think HJ Mitchell is an excellent candidate for adminship, especially given the need for another administrator's help at [[WP:ITN]]. Sure, he hasn't been around for as long as a few other potential administrators, but I'd rather look at quality over quantity. It's always good to see a candidate for administrator with a lot of good article work; HJ Mitchell has created several well-written articles and has brought two articles up to GA level (I particularly enjoyed reading one of those GAs, [[The Bill]]). He's done a lot of good work at [[WP:GAN]], [[WP:ITN]], and [[Portal:Current events]] already, and my impression is that he's hardworking and trustworthy. I appreciate his thorough answer to Q6, but would add that [[WP:PG]] states that essays with a point of view that contradicts widespread consensus should be userfied. As for the speedy deletion issues, the misapplications of G1, A1, and A7 aren't encouraging, but the answers to the questions give me the impression that this candidate will be cautious with the delete button &ndash; and if he errs, there's always [[WP:DRV]].
'''Support''' RFA is becoming a hell hole like no other. The standards are getting more and more extravagant (not necessarily on this RFA, but it recent RFAs in general) and for that reason alone I am willing to support most candidates coming through. It doesn't hurt that he is a great editor either.--
&ndash;
{{ec}}'''Support''' Yes, you have tagged some things as nonsense that clearly are not [[WP:Patent Nonsense]], but I believe you are both well-intentioned and intelligent enough that after having a gander over that guideline, you won't make the same mistakes again. Your work at ITN is good; your article work is good; I've read a few AfD's you participated in where your commentary was useful.  In short, you have [[WP:CLUE|clue]], so I'll support. You're not perfect, but we have seventeen hundred admins- I'd submit that ''none'' are perfect.
'''Support'''. We have a dedicated and sensible user here. More admins are needed and once again I feel we are being poorly-served by people opposing over very minor and picky mistakes: its undeniable that certain errors have occurred, but I think people need to take a step back and view them in the context of his generally excellent performance. I've had great experiences with HJ Mitchell's thoughtful behind-the-scenes work and I think he'd make an above-average administrator given the opportunity. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Seems to be here for the right reasons. A little review of general rules and he'll be fit for the job. Best wishes for the future. <small> <span style="border:2px solid #000;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - He has a clue. Everybody makes an occasional mistake from time to time. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Support''' Candidate is always very helpful with all questions and queries no matter what is asked.  I came across this editor when I nominated [[The Bill]] for good article status.  The editor was extremely helpful even going to the point of buying one of The Bill's books so we could reference some of the info on the Wikipedia page.  I think that HJ Mitchell would make an excellent administrator --
'''Support''' per mazca.
'''Support''' - this user has earned my trust based on what I've seen.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Weak support'''. Should be okay, despite the valid concerns raised below.
'''Support''' on the basis that the community sees fit to trust Coffee with the same office. Hey, how bad can he be? :)
'''Support'''; out of 300+ speedy-deleted articles, the handful of examples cited in opposes below are not particularly illustrative of anything.  Newpage patrol is a thankless and never-ending task, but it is also essential to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' - I share concerns with others about the candidate's CSD mistakes, and I agree that the candidate hasn't been around for a long time. But I've seen his comments at [[WP:ANI|ANI]] that show that the editor has enough [[WP:CLUE|clue]] that I'll give my support. -- '''
'''Support''' Looks ok to me. Stay away from CSD for a while - somehow I think you will :) - and I don't see anything to worry about. --
'''Support'''—occasional mistaken CSD tagging is not the end of the world, and improves with practice/experience. Otherwise sound in every respect, as far as I can tell. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Support''' per
'''Support''' It seems to me that he would use the tools of an Admin wisley.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Recognize this candidate from ITN. -
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry, but I do not feel comfortable with your level of experience and you don't have much experience (if any) in the UAA and AIV areas which I feel are vital for helping to decide if editors fit the requirements for blocking.  You definately don't have enough experience in the CSD area, and it can become contentious at times but with only 318 deleted edits so far, I feel you need more experience in this area to really get a feel for it.  Also A4 is not quite adequate in my book as CDB's should NEVER be used.
'''Oppose''' Quite a few misapplications of {{tl|db-nonsense}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Zompire&timestamp=20091116014247][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Grene+Inc&timestamp=20091211171158][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Theanarcho+Communism&timestamp=20091206162155][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Richest+Footballers&timestamp=20091206150318] and (perhaps more importantly) {{tl|db-nocontext}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Emfada&timestamp=20091207023919][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Sick+city+nightlife&timestamp=20091204224020][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Love+Handel&timestamp=20091115205447], combined with a quick trigger finger for the narrow [[WP:CSD#A7|criterion A7]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_Europe&oldid=326744014][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_C._Pack&oldid=326192970][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeowner_Crisis_Resource_Center&direction=prev&oldid=321026325][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Daniel+%C3%98rum&timestamp=20091212014302][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Jen+Dawson&timestamp=20091116180613] leads me to oppose this otherwise fine editor. It should be noted that HJ Mitchell has been tagging a lot of pages recently, and most of the taggings are correct. Still, a bit more time is needed before I'm comfortable with him having the delete button. <tt>
'''Oppose''' Essentially per <tt>decltype</tt> ···
'''Oppose:''' Not quite there yet. See ArcAngel -
'''Regretful Oppose'''  Overall an editor who will eventually be a good admin but does not have enough '''Time''' with only 4-5 months of editing I cannot see how the editor can be up to speed on enough of the minutiae of wikipedia to be an admin.  A few more months and I can support.
There are some aspects of admiship where you have to rely on your judgement about the candidate; but there are others such as CSD tagging where you can look at the tags and presume that if the candidate were an admin they would be deleting as they now tag. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Spikey+the+hedgehog&timestamp=20091215200828&diff=prev This (tagged as A3 the same minute it was created)] makes me think that this candidate is not yet ready. [[:Special:NewPages]] has a reminder that ''articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation'' . Overhasty speedy deletion tagging can be very bitey, especially to new users - and who can say if an admin who makes mistakes at CSD won't make mistakes elsewhere?  ''
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 7 and 9. Candidate makes serious, elementary mistakes in interpreting A7 and A9, which are not, as his answers would have it, about "notability," but relate to "significance," clearly and explicitly described as "a lower standard than notablity." As other !voters have pointed out, related aspects of the candidate's speedy tagging have been problematic. And the answer to Q7 raises more problems than it resolves: while the article as then written had several other claims to significance that the candidate ignored, settling on the subject's winning a zero-visibility, buy-your-nomination "award" as a sign of actual notability, is quite wrong.  The candidate also missed the fact that the article was a pretty clear copyvio [http://bottomofthesky.com/About_the_Author.html], something that should be checked for when an article is so clearly promotional.
'''Oppose''' per NOTNOW. This is a relatively inexperienced candidate with just a few months under his belt who still seems to be learning the ropes when it comes to CSD criteria, yet plans to "patrol CAT:SD on a regular basis." (He seems to back off that pledge a little in his answer to Q7, however.) As I believe one of the more serious threats to WP right now is too-hasty speedy deleting, in regards to both article growth and new editor retention, I would rather wait to see some consistency in CSD work. Adminship should not be a place to learn basics.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per <tt>Decltype</tt>. He has some incorrect CSD tagging.
'''Weak Oppose''' It's just too soon. The problematic A7 tagging referenced in the questions up above was only a bit more than a month ago, and there are all these other taggings the previous opposes brought up. I'm willing to hope for the best on a lot of things, but a demonstrated trigger-happiness with speedy deletion and a stated desire to work in that area are not a good combination. Check back in 2 or 3 months, and if your speedy taggings since then have been unproblematic, then I'll be happy to support. <strong>
<s>'''Strong oppose'''</s> '''Strongest possible oppose: not in my lifetime type per ''nominator''''' per decltype, the few I can see as a non-admin were well-written attempts at articles. In these instances, where the user is attempting to write an encyclopedic article, the correct thing to do, in order to show your support for a community-written encyclopedia, is to help the new editor out, not to go for an A7 speedy. An A7 speedy is a matter of judgment, again, this is just my opinion, when an article shows an attempt at including encyclopedic material, even if a specific assertation of importance is not made, and the editor is new to wikipedia, erring on the side of assisting the editor rather than stomping the article out could gain two things: an appropriate article and a new editor. A7 kicks them both out the door. In addition, oppose per ϢereSpielChequers, Shawn, and Hullaballoo. You're just too fast and inconsiderate to newbie or struggling editors, imo. There is no reward for deleting articles quickly. And I've had an article tagged for speedy within seconds of creating it. It just says: go away newbie editor this isn't a place for anyone to edit, wikipedia is for established editors only. It also says you're not willing to give someone a minute to breathe. I really don't like biting newbies in this way. Please, stop competing for the fast/most deleted articles award, consider other means of dealing with bad articles, such as assisting the new editor when the article is well-written but lacking a criterion for inclusion, rewriting part of the article, looking for copyright violations (serious issue, that), then come back for adminship showing you consider wikipedia something anyone is welcome to edit. That's my opinion. --

'''Strong Oppose''': Recent edit warring and apparent misuse of rollback on [[Eleventh night]]. Clearly not reverting [[WP:VAN]], the editor should have rollback rights examined.
'''weak oppose''' per Ray and others.  Basically the lack of time in service and mainly CSD problems.  I suggest fixing those problem identified above and coming back in 4 months.
'''Oppose''' - Per time and CSD.  Good luck next time. -
'''Oppose''' - Per misapplication of CSDs found on talk page. There seems to be a stark discrepancy between practically applying the knowledge of CSD and the candidate's apparent theoretical understanding. From what I can tell, the user seems to be able to regurgitate instructions well, but isn't meticulous or careful enough. I'd very much like to see some improvement in this area upon a followup RfA in the not too distant future.
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't seem to have enough experience.  Doesn't appear to have any glaring errors, so no prejudice against another RfA later on.  --'''
'''Oppose''' -  more experience needed.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience. '''
'''Very Weak Oppose''' The experience issue doesn't bother me at all, honestly.  However with a few recent miscues, I'd be more open to an RfA in even a month, when it is more obvious the editor understands these rules. When it comes down to it though I'd support mitchell once his discretion is shown.
'''Oppose''' per lack of knowledge of a policy that all administrators should be familiar with.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=334623520] <font color="navy">'''
'''Very Strong Oppose''' user has failed to do basic legwork before commenting on a community banned user, and complete lack of understanding of [[WP:SOCK]] and [[WP:BAN]]. I cannot in good conscious support an admin who comments on a subject without having a clue to the background of the situation and taking the side of a banned user without bothering to do the background research.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=334654544#User:John254_socks_question this discussion]: current thread about socks of a ban evading sockpuppeteer.  HJ Mitchell says he "can't have flawless knowledge of every policy", but how hard can it be to look up the list of banned editors and compare that to the banning policy?  That banned editor was someone who had caused several kinds of problems including disrupting an arbitration case.  I worry about any RFA candidate who doesn't feel obligated to look up the circumstances before posting an opinion: it's a red flag that the person would be lax on followup too. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per the comment I just posted in reply to your reply to NuclearWarfare's oppose (oppose #21) ... though you're quoting the WP:SOCK policy correctly, it's really the wrong situation to use it.  -- ''<B>
I don't have an opinion yet. I did notice that the candidate's earliest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Marines_Base_Chivenor&diff=prev&oldid=280649523| edit] has an edit summary noting "a new beginning". Does this indicate an earlier persona? If yes, does the history of the earlier persona have any bearing on what might be determined in this asessment?
'''Neutral''' per stated concerns. Im kind of in the middle here.--
'''Neutral''' Coffee is correct, a few mistaggings are nothing to worry about (I had them as well when I ran for admin). But as decltype points out, in this case the question can be raised whether the candidate has really understood speedy deletion criteria. Tagging a page with "hello" as G1 instead of G2 seems like a trivial mistake but to a newbie contributor there is a difference whether their edits are called "patent nonsense" or simply "test edits". The former is far more bitey. Combine this with really basic errors when applying A1 (do you really think "Emfada is an Irish Music Pop Artist" or "Nightlife is one of sick city's albums" is not enough context to identify the subject?) The argument, that they were deleted and as such tagging was correct is flawed. Two of those A1 mistakes were deleted as A1 by admins who apparently don't know what A1 is for either. The candidate's otherwise good contributions stop me from opposing over those mistakes but I would ''really'' advise them to seek mentorship from an admin experienced in that area if this request is successful (i.e. have that admin check their deletions to avoid mistakes). Regards '''
SoWhy is correct. Quite a few of those mistaggings could be seen as a harsh attack to a new users, and would be a net negative for Wikipedia. However, I do not think that these mistaggings are serious enough to warrent an oppose. <small>(
'''Neutral''' per A4 and SoWhy. HJ seems overall good, but those things concern me.
'''Neutral''' when User:WereSpielChequers, the editor who brought to light problems with speedy deletion !votes "oppose", this makes me second guess my !support vote. My personal interactions with this editor have been very pleasant, but speedy deletions are the fist interaction that many editors have with wikipedia, and these interactions are almost always negative. We need more admins who see deletion as the [[WP:INTROTODELETE|last resort]], and that how we are treating our new editors is hurting our retention on wikipedia. Come back in 6 months showing a deeper understanding of these problems HJ, and I will be your strongest supporter.
'''Neutral''' A few stumbles in CSD tagging is not a show stopper for me but a month or so doing new, demonstrably improved, CSD work with the information gleaned here would wrap this up nicely.
'''Neutral''' Currently I cannot form a final opinion. The candidate seems like a very good editor, but there is a little lacking. Everyone is going on about the CSD issues, but anyone could make an error at CSD. I am more concerned about the edit warring. I don't know the details, so sorry if I am wrong. Maybe I could change me vote later. After another few months of experience I believe the candidate would definitely make a good admin, if not now. '''<font color="#003366">
'''Neutral''' &mdash; X! put it quite nicely. I think a bit more time and experience with CSD will help clear things up.
'''Neutral''' This appears to be a premature RfA.
'''Neutral''' Can't support because multiple recent deletion tags have been bad calls, don't want to oppose because I'm confident this candidate will be a great assett to the main page. Ultimately this person will make a great admin, but I think a little more time would help.
I had supported, but this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coffee&diff=334163194&oldid=334132347 comment] made me change my mind.  See you back here in a few months.  ~
'''Oppose''' Sorry, way too few contributions <font color="maroon">
'''Moral support''' Please take the advice of the opposers and come back in three months and I'm sure you'll pass.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Oppose''', You've only been here a little over a month which suggests that you do not have sufficient experience at this time to be given access the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per above. If you keep editing, learning more about how Wikipedia works, and helping out, especially in admin-related areas, I'll support another RfA in a few months.

'''Oppose'''.  I see several signs here that make me say that you're not ready.  First, your contribution history tells me that you don't know how to use the "Show preview" button, and while your contributions have been generally positive, the fact that you're saving your changes after ''every little change'' really clogs up the history of the article, and inflates your edit counts.  Second, you only started editing less than two months ago, and I really have to question how well you know the guidelines/policies.  Keep at it and try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and the short answers to questions which show little understanding of the adminship role and other Wikipedia processes. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need some more experience here before you should consider adminship - you need to demonstrate that you can hold the trust of the community first, and with only a few weeks tenure that isn't possible. See you in a few months. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
Your user page and your name makes it seem like you are less serious about working on the encyclopedia. You might want to tone down the user page and be renamed if you honestly want to pass a future RfA.
Unfortunately, [[WP:NOTNOW|you're not ready]]. While I have no doubt that you have admirable intentions, you have only just over 500 edits, and you've only been here since December 2008 &ndash; that's just not enough for RfA. After working hard to improve yourself over the next few months, please feel free to re-submit yourself for adminship. Also, with regards to your answer to Q1; you don't have to be an administrator to fight vandalism. :) Consider this a '''moral support''', but an '''oppose''' based on technical grounds. Cheers, <font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
Per Dylan.  I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia, and that you'll keep up the good work. - Dank (
Your article work is good except for some difficulites with images, but with only 500 edits, none to talk or Wikipedia pages (other than RFA!), you will need a lot more experience to be ready to be an admin.
Sorry, but an intermediate level of English is not good enough for the English wikipedia. --

'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''Extremely strong support''' as nom <small><span style="border:1px solid #999933;padding:1px;">
'''E/c'ed should have been first support''' - the noms say it all. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
You can count this as my co-nom I guess. In all my interactions with iMatthew, I have found him to be a curtious, good-natured person. He's apt at article writing and there's no way he'll abuse the tools. He goes out of his way (or at least goes out of his way to help me ;) ) others and will be a fine addition to the admins we have already. In short, I think that iMatthew is someone who will not abuse the tools and is definitely a net positive -the qualities we need in administrators. I hope that was good enough :)
'''Strong Support''': should already be a Supercalifragilisticadminalidocious.
'''Support''' <font face="Arial">
'''Weak support''' Not the most qualified candidate I've ever seen, but good enough.  Net positive for the project.--
'''Strong support''', of course. &ndash;
'''Support''' '''

'''Support''' Definitely. --
'''Support''' No problems here.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Support''' - See my nom above for details.
'''Weak support''' Issues of incivility are not enough to make me want to oppose this candidate at this time, because looking at his other contributions, they all seem to be very well made and if this user was to become an administrator, I feel that it would be a net positive for this Wikipedia.
'''Support''' '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Good user, opposes are unconvincing. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' See my oppose below.
'''Strong support''' God yes, I've often wondered why he isn't an admin already. —'''
'''Strong Support'''. Very easy choice.
'''Support'''. I have had very little dealings with this editor myself, but I don't see any serious problems and Garden has shown to have pretty good judgment when it comes to RfA candidates. I'm all for giving him the mop.
'''Support''' No major issues, and the incivility to be is not enough to oppose.
'''Support'''. I was originally going to do a co-nom, but I suppose it's poor form to show up so late when the other nominators have covered IMatt so well. All I can say is I've seen him mature greatly since I first met him. He's learned to have a cooler state of mind and addressed the problems that plagued him in his last RFA. I daresay he was a bit hesitant to undertake this again, but we managed to convince him otherwise. '''''
'''Support''' Good Editor and I [[WP:AGF|Assume good Faith]] that the user will overcame the concerns raised and do not see any scope for misuse of tools and the candidate has shown improvement since the last RFA.The user has been around since July 2007.
'''Support''' Behavioral problems aside, I do not believe this candidate will break anything.
'''Support''' The more ''hockey interested'' Administrators, the better.
'''Support''' I can't say it much better than Cyclonenim. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Strong support''' - Despite some concerns in the oppose and neutral sections, my impression of Matt is that he is highly trustworthy and capable, and will take the concerns of the opposers to heart.
'''Support''' Going off of some of the candidate's hockey related edits, this user is a New York Islanders fan. Frankly, if this user can handle the ups and downs of the Islanders, then he can sure as hell handle administrator duties. All kidding aside, he may have a rough edge at times, but I don't consider that a bad thing. The major thing I've noticed when I've run into him is how efficient he is. These days, efficiency is what we need most around here with all the backlogs we have. – <font color="black">
'''Support''' – <b>
'''Slightly hesitant but mainly Support''' - Haven't met the fellow in question, but his contributions speak up for himself. I sure that he's learned a whole lot since his previous RfA. However, I disapprove of actions on the IRC, as they reflect upon one's behavior... (Why do the best editors have the most controversy in their RfAs?!) Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Support''' Per all of the above. <span style="color:purple;font-size:medium;;font-family:Cezanne;">'''astatine'''
'''Net Positive Support''' - Concerns about maturity and quickness-to-judge. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' A great editor with a great sense of humor.  ''<FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>
'''Support'''. I find myself somewhat concerned by a few diffs raised - I get a general feeling of occasional immaturity and hastiness to act; and that ANI report about the page moves was downright odd. But balancing this I see a lot of good contributions and intelligent additions to discussions that suggest a user who's sufficiently sensible and familiar with policy not to go too far wrong with admin tools. I see this as a clear net-positive situation, best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - with a caution to try to be careful if you find your temper rising. Often, when I am getting angry, I just type out my reply and leave it on preview while I do something else for ten minutes or so. Then when I come back to it, I usually find that I am very happy I did not write what I was originally going to. (seriously, you have no idea...)
'''Support''' I support him, I believe he could be a good admin, and he is nice and helpful when I have a conversation with him <B><font color="red">SparksBoy (Counter Vandalism)</font></B>(
'''Support''' While I do note what has been said in the opposes, I still believe that giving iMatthew the tools will be a definite positive. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. Think twice before accusing people of anything in the future, and seek help on that IRC habit.
'''Support'''. All-around great editor. --
'''Support''' - smart, clueful, introspective when mistakes are pointed out. Donnez le mop, tout de suite. //
'''Support''', most definitely. Nothing but good interactions with this user. &mdash;<font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' &ndash; I've always been a supporter of iMatthew. Would make a fine administrator. &mdash;
'''Weak Support''' I'm a bit torn because I usually see iMatthew in good ways but opposes and neutrals raise valid concerns (and the withdrawal and un-withdrawal was weird as well). But I am willing to assume that you have matured since the last RFA and so I'll support, mostly per J.delanoy. I suggest you take his advice, I too like to preview comments multiple times sometimes and then decide not to save them. Sometimes reflection helps us all. Regards '''
'''Support''', because I can see no reason not to. --
'''Support'''
Having looked over the last RFA, this editor seems pretty immature.  That's a ''very'' bad quality for an admin.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)  '''PS''' For those that wanted me to clarify.. I'm looking at the previous RFA and some things linked to from there. You'll either see it or you won't.  From what I see, it seems pretty clear that IMatthew acts just like a little kid.  I don't want admins who act just like little kids.  I doubt any debate over specifics will change anyone's mind, so I don't see much point to going there.
'''Oppose''' - Whilst copyediting these answers upon request earlier, I noticed massive misunderstandings, and occasionally completely and utterly incorrect answers to questions, especially on page protection, the roles of blocks and bans, and various others. I would usually be wary of opposing this RfA on the premise that Matthew wouldn't break the Wiki, but the evident gaps in his knowledge of policy leave me wary that Matthew is, at this point, an unsuitable candidate for adminship. Some of the earlier answers have now been brought in line with policy (as I did notify him that the ban/block one in particular was particularly incorrect, not just aesthetically either) - but I am extremely worried that the gaps demonstrated in his knowledge of policy through these answers is an indication that there are many more gaps in his knowledge which !voters at RfA are simply not going to know about, and will only find out when it is too late. People can wave [[WP:WTHN]] and whatever at me all they like, but there is no reason why he cannot try again when his knowledge is more firmly cemented. His editing of the questions for me indicates a want to answer to what people want to hear as opposed to what he actually believes (which is what he met strong opposition for at his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IMatthew|last RfA]]). Again, sorry. I really didn't want to do this, but I would be speaking against my mind if I were to !vote in support of this request. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - 2 months ago, I would have supported him, no questions asked. He is a fantastic editor, with many FAs, and whatnot, but recent events make me oppose. Matthew shows a lack of AGF at times, as shown [[User talk:wwehurricane1|here]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_62#Lockdown_.282008.29.23Results here]. It makes me wonder what would have happened if he was an admin. I am certain that he will not break Wikipedia, but I am certain that his lack of AGF will drive away editors. '''<font face="Verdana">
Weakly opposed to this nomination: our mutual involvement with one or two problem users leads me to agree with Friday, and I'm concerned your participation as an admin in noticeboard/warning/blocking type issues might do more harm than good.  Not so strongly that I’ll gouge my eyes out if this succeeds, but not so harmless that I’m willing to support or remain silent.  If [[:File:AmericanBadger.JPG|pressed]], I’m not sure if I could provide specific diffs or not, it’s more a gut feel after some brief interactions. The way you dealt with [[User:Kalajan]] seemed a bit overbearing and generally unhelpful, for example; although in that particular case I suspect the end result would have been the same no matter how that problem editor was handled, it could have actually been counterproductive with a borderline editor.  On the plus side, it’s certainly nice to see all those FA and GA icons on your talk page; helps to average out my 0 GA 0 FA.  And you seem like a nice guy, so I feel guilty being in this section.  But I'm left feeling too uncomfortable to do anything except oppose. --
'''Oppose''' There are some awfully questionable and peculiar diffs cropping up in the neutral section (the ANI report is extremely distressing and not actionable). I was torn when I initially arrived at this RfA. I honestly thought I'd be supporting, but, from what I'm seeing, coupled to my disdain for what transpires behind the scenes on IRC, I'm going with my gut here. I'm just not at all comfortable supporting.
'''Oppose''' It's unacceptable how the user dealt with [[User:Kalajan]]. Maybe this is an isolated incident, but is too recent to ignore it. --
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns have been raised both above and in the neutral section. They can not be ignored. Sorry. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' per [[User_talk:Wwehurricane1#I.27m_going_to_give_you_one_chance|incident with User:Wwehurricane1]] - I won't support a candidate who tries to bully a user into confessing like he did, far too recent, and his immaturity, shown in [[User talk:IMatthew/Archive 11#Hardy Boyz|this converstion]] I had with him with at the end of December where he basically accused me of being out to get him. I've known Matt on wikipedia for quite a while (check my archives) and I'm of the opinion that he is nowhere near ready for adminship. ♥

'''Oppose''' Answer to Q9 practically copied and pasted from [[WP:BAN]] (and if we're being picky, part of answer to Q10 paraphrased from [[WP:IAR]]). Answer to Q8 is thin.  Last part of answer to Q6 is hideously wrong.  Just a general feeling of being unconvinced here, I'm afraid. <b>
'''Oppose''' - not ready yet based on the diffs that have been presented. If it's any consolation, it took me quite a while before I felt I was ready for adminship. I'd wait another 6 months at least. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose''' - Per Aitias. I'm sorry to do this ''again'', but its for the best. Seeing how people above me and below me, are showing evidence on his edits/actions, this is some really troubling stuff, especially with someone trying to gain trust from the community. Matt your a great guy and you've done some good here, but I just don't feel that you are ready to receive the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
I can not imagine having admins who have a tendency of childish behaviors just like the candidate acted in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_4|a RFA page]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_4&diff=250327253&oldid=250327087][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_4&diff=250327859&oldid=250327758][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_4&diff=250329344&oldid=250329280]--
I don't like the taint of IRC around this editor. He also comes across as a bitter person (see his answer to Q12, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Truco&diff=prev&oldid=267700795 this]). The discussions noted by NiciVampire and J.Mundo are also unacceptable. '''
'''Oppose'''. He lacks maturity. Furthermore, he tends to assume bad faith ''too often''. Do not ask me to elaborate on this. Any questions from his supporters regarding my oppose will go unanswered. <font face="Verdana">
I'm going to have to oppose this one.  Whilst iMatthew is a nice and helpful user, I agree with the above criticism on the adequacy of the mop.  Good guy, I actually don't think he should even have the mop based on nature.  That's a personal aside.
'''Oppose''', based on the diffs brought up in this and the Neutral sections - I have concerns about the maturity of this user, and his ability to work with others in a constructive way. Please note that this is ''not'' an age-based oppose - I don't know, or care, how old IMatthew is, I simply don't feel he has the right temperament to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' The bullying and false accusations against Wwehurricane1 took place five days ago. The nasty exchange with Truco, cited in the Neutral section (where iMatthew called Truco's comments "childish and stupid"), took place two weeks ago. I am sorry, but these incidents are too recent to be overlooked.
'''Oppose''' incidents of incivility too recent.
'''Oppose''' Q12.
'''Neutral''' - I wont go oppose or support unless something major happens. However, I have seen him act immature, and X's own comments about his actions during coaching is problematic, regardless if it was a few months ago or not.
'''Neutral''' - Matt is a good faith user, at times, and contributes well to Wikipedia. He tends to let his professional wrestling edits go to waste by not acknowledging them, but he is a good writer and editor overall. Though, his immaturity sometimes stands out and as an admin would not cope well. Matt and [[User:Garden]] run the [[WP:CUP|Wikicup]]. Now, Garden nominated [[Black Eyed Peas discography]] for FLC, and Matt hasn't reviewed an [[WP:FLC]] in a while, yet all of a sudden he supports this nomination by Garden. I told him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Black_Eyed_Peas_discography&oldid=268816906 that his vote was COI] since he and Garden have close ties and speak to each other often, even outside of Wikipedia. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FBlack_Eyed_Peas_discography&diff=268897491&oldid=268892462 response here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FBlack_Eyed_Peas_discography&diff=269130449&oldid=269024333 here] show how he avoids using GF at times. In addition, an admin should be able to determine whether a user is a sock; not everyone is perfect, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kalajan/Archive#Report_date_February_12_2009.2C_01:04_.28UTC.29 this report] shows me that Matt needs more experience in such areas. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=268600714 This also puzzles me]. In addition to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Truco&diff=prev&oldid=267700795 grudge].--'''''<small>
'''Neutral''' - '''comment''' - it's very hard to get a handle on this editor.  Lots of social edits, some listwork or busywork stuff, but not much is evident with regards to "how would they behave as an admin?"  I'm troubled by this recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=263061078 report to AN/I], where they singled out an editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090109221236&limit=500&target=Fram] for correcting the capitalisation of page titles].  The lack of a  User:IMatthew in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram&offset=20090120150229&action=history that user's talk history at that time] is also troublesome ...
Anyway, I came here looking to support. He was # 2 on my admins-to-be list (after Gary King). But, IMO, civility is required in an admin, and you need to show it better. Not saying you're not a nice person, I know you are Matthew, but... [[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#000000">'''Ceran'''</font>]][[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#000080"><sup>→</sup>//</font>]]
'''Neutral''' for now. I had planned on supporting, when I first saw this RFA. Then after seeing some of the puzzling stuff brought up in the opposes, I'm moving to neutral until I can do some more scrounging around. I had attempted to go neutral earlier, but the RFA closed while I was typing my comments, so I didn't bother. But since it's back, I'll post. I am concerned by [[User_talk:IMatthew/Archive_11#Hardy_Boyz]], fighting for "credit" on an article. I will not comment on whether or not "credit" is due, as that is irrelevant, but as per [[WP:OWN]], what's the point?
'''Neutral''' for now, because of too many occurrences of the word ([[Acronym and initialism|initialism]]) '''IRC''' on this RfA. Ordinarily I'd oppose on that basis, because I can't stand the drama (I still have 3 teenagers at home, thank you). However, IMatthew - an editor of whom I have a favorable opinion otherwise - has sensibly pointed out that this shouldn't be a referendum on IRC, and I suppose I have to grudgingly acknowledge that point. Since I don't frequent IRC (ever), I can't properly oppose on that basis. Yet. But I can't ignore it totally, either. Yet. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''' For now.  Although I note is has to be excruciating to go through this RfA and the last one.  I have a great deal of sympathy for iMatthew.
'''Neutral''' I've known Matt for a little while and we've had our ups and downs, but I feel he would be a great admin if he could control a few aspects of his personality on here. However, I feel if he is given this power that alot of problems would come from it. So I'm 50/50. He would be a decent admin, but then again the power might go straight to his head, figuratively speaking. I want to support considering the valuable contributions he has made and that he understands alot of the guidelines and is very active. Though I can't bring myself to support or oppose. So for now, I'm neutral.--
iMatthew has been very friendly towards me and I believe he would make a good administrator. Good luck! '''''
He has improved, maturity wise, since the last RfA, and is a net positive. '''
'''Support''', no significant concerns. iMatthew is a sensible and dedicated user who I trust to operate admin tools sensibly. While maturity concerns do exist, I have noted nothing since his previous RfA that I find particularly egregious. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - iMatthew has been involved in many disputes between content editors and served as a neutral decision maker that was able to calm conflicting egos. Being one such ego, I can say that he was able to do a good job in getting people focused on writing content instead of attacking each other. This is very important, and I wish that there were many more people like him out there, as such could possibly solve one of the worse problems at Wikipedia.
'''Strong support''' - Hard working, mature user. The oppose below does not convince me, especially seeing how Ottava summarised his participation in that RfB. I don't think questioning opposer rationales is a good enough reason to excuse all the hard work he's done around here. Ultimately, we should ask if he'd abuse the tools, and I find that highly, highly unlikely. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Has my support. He's been here long enough, probably won't abuse the tools.
{{ec}}x10 '''[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Arghh! Yes, matey!]]''' Opposes not good enough for me, I'm going to support per my interactions. <strong>
'''Support''' - I've seen the user here and there, and he will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' I trust him to not abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Willing to work with the community. '''
'''Support''' Per my support on the previous RfA, and my observation that I don't see any major complaints about iMatthew as an editor, and so I have no reason to expect he would be problematic as an administrator.  -- ''<B>
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; yes, he can be immature at times. Yes, he can be a bit... err, stern at times. But there's no doubt in my mind that iMatthew isn't acting with only the best of intentions. Per Ottava's well-written nomination, I trust the candidate to handle the tools responsibly. –'''
'''Support''' -- I opposed/was neutral in his past RfAs due to his behavior and confrontations he had with me, however, since his last RfA, I believe he has improved. He has worked his way into becoming a respected user, just as he is at WP:FLRC as the delegate. People are bringing up some actions which are very old, which should be put in the past. He is a new user. Like Julian said, yes he can have a temper or be immature at times, but I see it less now and see him having admin tools useful. I trust him with the responsibility.--'''''<small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''' as iMatthew has been extremely helpful across a wide range of areas, and I see nothing which leads me to believe that the tools would be abused. I think this is far more than a simple net-positive for the project. I expect great things to happen. :) ···
'''Support''' Looks fine although he does appear to be human.
What hmwith said. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
Although I understand some of the opposes, I'm basically agreed with Julian and Nihonjoe.  Plus, I just like him, I think he's gone through some tough times and handled it well. - Dank (
'''Support''' trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''', pretty much per Nom. I really don't see any “immaturity”.
Hadn't noticed said retirement, but in all the time I've known Matt he's proven to be a friendly and helpful user how is easy to get on with. <small><span style="border:2px solid #000066;">
Excellent usre (:P) with great attitude. I've interacted with him in the past, and I'm convinced that he will make a great admin. Acalamari makes some valid, and somewhat worrying, points, but I'm prepared to overlook those few instances in favour of all the great work (not necessarily article work) he's done for this wiki and the fact that he can change. Cheers, '''''
'''Weak Support'''. Recent retirement does cause some concern, but this is a trustworthy and knowledgeable user who could benefit from the tools.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="green" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support'''.  You seem to be a great person with good attributes and I would readily trust you.  I also have a great deal of respect for editors who realize areas they may not be qualified to moderate, such as you have expressed about copyrighted images.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I watched you grow as an editor, and you are definitely someone who I think should have been an admin a year ago. <font face=jokerman>
'''Strong Support'''. A very sensible person, in my opinion.  --
'''Strong support''' - Excellent candidate. Very dedicated to the project -- what happened at my RfA happened a good six months ago, and no doubt was probably deserved. Do I trust this user to have the bit? Yes. Definitely. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. His recent systematic badgering of opposers on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Juliancolton|this RfB]] makes it clear the immature, confrontational behaviour mentioned in his previous two RfAs hasn't changed at all.
'''No.'''. I have had many experiences with iMatthew, and during all of the stuff he has done for me, I have to oppose sadly. What it seems to me is that even though he is competent in what he does, I echo JamieS93, and believe that maturity should be important, and a lot of the behavior outside of Wikipedia especially, have really made me think this out. Sorry man.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Opposed'''. Does not appear to have changed his behavior substantially since the previous RfA(s).
'''Oppose''' I am sorry to oppose, but I truly don't see much improvement since the last RFA. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I share many of the concerns of the opposes and neutrals, but particularly all the points of JamieS93. --
My vote and impression still remain the same as his last RFA.--
'''Oppose''' - mainly per the "retirement" thing. If you need a break, just stop editing; "retirement" mostly just draws attention and causes drama. And in reply to Juliancolton's support, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." <span style="font-family:Broadway">
One of the things I base a candidate on is how they act in the RfAs of other people. For example, in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IMatthew 2]], IMatthew was opposed quite a bit for immaturity and IRC issues, and recently he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_4&diff=prev&oldid=311162403 opposed] another candidate for similar issues to what he was opposed for, and I don't like seeing things such as that (granted, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dendodge_4&diff=prev&oldid=311389266 ultimately supported], but the fact he was originally opposing on that rationale is concerning and comes across as hypocritical). I wasn't impressed with [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neurolysis#Oppose|his conduct on Neurolysis' last RfA]] (shows IMatthew is willing to bring off-Wiki battles onto Wikipedia and into RfAs). I have smaller concerns too, such as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kingpin13&diff=prev&oldid=296266878 totally unhelpful oppose] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=313724061 opposing an RfB] transcluded by an unrelated user while the candidate hadn't even accepted the nomination (IMatthew should have noticed that). I'm not bothered about his responding to people in RfAs, and actually consider that to be a plus (I dislike the term "badgering" or "harassment" being thrown around), but not enough to overcome my concerns. There's also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith/Amazing_Race_Wikipedia&oldid=299961293#Withdrawing this thread], where IMatthew again appears to be bringing off-Wiki battles into Wikipedia, and he was criticized by one person in that thread for generating drama (and he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Wordsmith%2FAmazing_Race_Wikipedia&diff=299961696&oldid=299961293 removed the thread], acknowledging that it was creating drama). Lastly, I noticed below that GaryColemanFan mentioned that IMatthew [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IMatthew&diff=prev&oldid=310817722 retired nearly three weeks ago]: I came across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Until_It_Sleeps_3&diff=prev&oldid=309140987 this oppose] from roughly a month ago, where he opposed someone and mentioned their semi-retirement, yet a little over a week later, IMatthew retires, comes back immediately, and is now running for RfA. As he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Until_It_Sleeps_3&diff=prev&oldid=309152419 asked that candidate], how do we know you're not going to retire again? I'm not convinced that IMatthew has addressed all concerns from his past RfAs and have to agree that there are still maturity/immaturity issues. If I have misinterpreted anything I have listed above, feel free to discuss it and correct me.
Acalamari sums it up for me. '''
'''[[Brett Favre]] Oppose''' I can't get beyond the very recent retirement thing. Believe me, we all have our moments, and there are days when this seems pointless, but Wikipedia is confined to your computer, whereas you are merely confined to the planet. There is always room to walk away and do something else for a few days. Example; I flew into a tizzy earlier this week over ArbCom decisions. I'm on the losing end of an argument I started, big time. I could have made better arguments, but I did not, so I take my licks and move on. What I don't do is retire in a dramatic moment, and then return and seek an elite position within the project. You might still get the position, and indeed there will always be people who want you back, but you undermine the respect people have for your judgement.
'''Oppose''', agreeing completely with Acalamari's points. I've seen him bring off-wiki disputes on-wiki, and continue off-wiki disputes far past the point they become relevant. I don't want someone nursing grudges to be given the "block" button, thanks - it doesn't lend itself to nonpartisan actions.

'''Oppose''' per the immature attitude I've seen from the candidate on RFAs and RFBs. We need admins know how to handle and reduce conflict in a calm and mature manner and I don't see that coming from this editor.
'''Oppose''' - Per wishy washy ambivalent UAA attitude. Rspeer says it perfectly.
'''Oppose''' Per Rspeer and Wisdom.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' The answer to the UAA question is enough for me to oppose.
Per Acalamari, specifically the oppose vote for someone having retired and then come back and gone up for an RfA. And then you did exactly the same thing. Hypocrisy amongst the bad parts of the current admin corps is bad enough, we don't need to add to it. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per Acalamari, and Roux. I'm sorry, but hypocrisy, and instability are certainly not among the best admin attributes... '''<span style="font-family:Segoe Print;text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">
'''Oppose''' based on a few things. 1) Immaturity or lack of general judgement and knowing when/how to keep calm, 2) the unfortunate hypocrisy diffs per Acalamari and Roux (that's kind of a big point to me now), and 3) the UAA answer, particularly because Matt intends to work there. The answer was noncommittal, and I'm agreeing with Rspeer to a degree. Something that I value highly is [[WP:CLUE]], and I'm not seeing that here. However, I feel the need to point out that, first, your answer to the fair use question was fine although that's not my concern anymore, and second, Ottava is not an influence on my decision either way, and never was much. I just don't think Matt has the administrative maturity and reason within him at this point, and there's some solid evidence of that within this oppose section. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''. Not the correct temperament for an admin.  Good guy, but I'm not sure if he's ready. '''
'''Neutral''' for now. Edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=275715973 this] don't give me a lot of confidence in iMatthew's ability to stay calm under pressure. After leaving the professional wrestling project, he returned every few weeks with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=274244062 sniping comments], including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:D.M.N.&diff=prev&oldid=274241455 a statement] that the project as a whole should be taken to MfD. He seems to be making some efforts to rebuild bridges, but I would want a guarantee that he would not use administrative powers in a dispute with WP:PW members. I am also concerned by this user's numerous one-day retirements, including two this year, one of which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IMatthew&diff=prev&oldid=310817722 only 19 days ago].
[[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Neutral''' Somewhat per Jamie, though I tend to think that OR has pretty good judgment in admins. Will revisit later.
I originally opposed, but the fact that Matthew's coach has supported this RfA strikes me as a good sign. Neutral for now. --'''
'''Support''' He is a very helpful user.
'''Support''' Nobody's perfect. If his [[WP:CSD|policy]] knowledge isn't that good, I'm confident that he will work on this concern (i.e. improve his knowledge in this area) before he starts helping out there as an admin. After all, I believe that ImperatorExercitus will be a good administrator and of benefit for the project. —
'''Support''' working antivandalism and newpages is difficult (and imperfect), and IE seems to have the temperament necessary. Specifics about CSD templates can be improved, right?
'''Support''' Meets my admin candidate criteria: is trusted, is polite and civil, and has at least a decent understanding of policy. Incorrect CSD usage may be a concern, but not a large one, because the most important thing is that the articles he is tagging get deleted; use of the wrong criterion isn't as bad as tagging articles that shouldn't be speedy deleted at all in the first place. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''.  He has sufficient experience and edit count.  6 DYKs and involvement (even if the degree is disputed) with 5 GAs shows that he knows what we're trying to do here and how to write content.  I'd be concerned about CSD tagging if he were tagging articles that shouldn't be deleted, but putting the wrong CSD tag on a speediable article certainly isn't the end of the world.  At the end of the day, there are only two questions in RfA.  Can we trust the candidate and would the candidate be a net positive.  I have no doubt that the answer to both of these is affirmative.
'''Weak Support''' This user has edits that are very good, and if he were to uphold his promises, then he should be a very great admin. --'''''
'''Support''' Friendly editor with a good and healthy attitude. Won't abuse the tools, IMO. --
'''Weak Support''' mainly per Cool3, Tedder and Tempo. The candidate is now aware of mistagging issues at CSD, and I'm supporting partly as a response to the way they've handled that matter in this RFA. ''
'''Support.''' Come across a few times at AfD; always civil, no reason to oppose. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] on the grounds that he did cleanup the article before bringing it to [[WP:GAN]]
'''Support.''' We've crossed our paths a few times and I really regret that this is going the wrong way. However, you should definitely re-apply in a few months, once you gain more experience in CSD-ing. —
'''Support''' per RegentsPark and Cool3. Keep up the good work, IE! —<b>
'''Support''' - Sure. Should definitely pass in a few months.
'''Support''' I can't oppose someone for something that they should have been made aware of, that's why IE's talk page exists. Almost everyone is happy with IE's conduct. DYK needs dedicated help from good-intentioned people like IE. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - Sounds like he has the right temperament, also sounds reliable. From what I see, I don't get the feeling that this person will abuse the position of administrator.'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Support''' per WereSpielChequers - I agree his tagging isn't perfect, however the candidate at least accepts there is room for improvement.
'''Support''' &mdash; I've seen Imperator around and I feel he would make a good admin. I have read over Spartacus's CSD concerns, and as much as I agree that CSD is a place where potential newcomers could be turned off by tagging things the wrong way, I personally consider the G1 Patent Nonsense tag to be an occasional exception to the rule, if it deals with vandalism (though vandalism is explicitly excluded). Very few vandals are going to be able to tell the difference between calling their disruptive new article "vandalism" or calling it "nonsense", and neither is more off-putting than the other. Occasional mistakes are part of being human &mdash; I've seen many admins delete pages under what would be defined as "incorrect tagging" and nobody was hurt by it. The only times I would oppose over CSD work is if the speedy tagger uses G1, G3, etc. to try deleting a good-faith attempt at starting an actual article; none of the examples on the talk page strike me as particlularly[[WP:BITE|bitey]]. Additionally, his answer to Q1 does not indicate a significant desire to work in new page patrol, and Imperator isn't particularly active there anyways. On another note, I consider 6 months and significant involvement in project space to be evident of an overall satisfactory understanding of policy. This won't pass, but I just wanted to register my opinion.
'''Support''' He is very helpful to the wikipedia--
'''Strong Oppose''' strongly suggest that you review the meaning of [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense|nonsense]] as it applies to CSD.  You are using it way too frequently and in ''every'' case incorrectly.  You might also want to review [[WP:WIHSD]], [[WP:FIELD]], and [[WP:10CSD]].  But I cannot support somebody who fails to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, yet works in that area and indicates a desire to work there.---'''
'''Oppose''' - Per Sparticus. Unfotunately, [[WP:CSD]] is a splendid place to turn away new users. It requires finesse and a thorough understanding of policy.
'''Oppose'''. As often I'm Spartacus! is correct. You used G1 five times in the last 3 days alone, each time to an article that was clearly not notable. Yes, they were deleted but with correct reasoning instead. Point is, I have to assume that if you were an admin, you'd use this incorrect reasoning instead, this biting new users (because G1 carries a much harsher assumption than some other tags like A7). An admin who wants to work in deletion should not make such elemental mistakes. Also elemental A7 mistakes like tagging a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22B&diff=277413089&oldid=277411844 product]. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - Regretfully, CSD is the one area where I don't believe you can fix your mistakes in policy knowledge ''after'' passing RfA. If it were AfD, or RFPP, I'd ask you to take things slowly and recover certain topics. But in CSD you don't really get to take things that slowly. I'm pleased to see your work at AfD (listing, nominations etc.) but again, today alone, I've seen several mistakes in your nominations. I'll diff if you'd like. Keep up your work on articles, I hope you choose to run again in future after reworking some of your policy knowledge at CSD. Also per Sparticus. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Per above, if you want to work in [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] you're going to have to know which tag is right for which article.--
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' - Likely to make poor judgment calls on article space content, like he/she did when expressing recent opposition to the DYK nomination of [[Richmond Bridge, London]], because he/she did not understand the method of citation (a method used on numerous FA's). Troubles me greatly. —
'''Oppose''' Per I'm Spartacus. Let me say this though...you are off to a good start. Come back in a few months, with more experience, and I will be happy to support.
Understanding of key guidelines and policies are important to both admin and content related work. I share in the concerns that you don't have a strong enough understanding and have even put forth things (like CSD) that contradict what is good practice at Wikipedia. I hope that you go back and take careful notice of these, as an unclear understanding is damaging even without administrative tools.
'''Oppose for now''' Made a simple process error in AfD - no problem, we all make mistakes, and this was very minor, but when I pointed it out he still didn't get it and felt he was right, and I had to explain it again. Making mistakes is not a problem, it's how people handle mistakes that mark them out. I feel confident when people reflect quickly and appropriately on matters that are brought to their attention; I feel less confident when people argue they are right about their mistakes. To his credit he has now corrected the matter, and that suggests he will do well in future. My feeling is that ImperatorExercitus needs a little more experience -  6 months is rather a short time to have a firm grasp on our policies and procedures, and not long enough to have gained the trust of most Wikipedians. Suggest ImperatorExercitus applies again in 6 months. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' Per Spartacus, needs a bit more experience.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose''' per Spartacus, and failing my [[User:Collectonian#RfAs|RfA]] criteria: too inexperienced having only been here six months, plenty of AIV action but not enough anywhere else in the Wikisphere, self-nomination, and I do not feel the candidate has a clear and firm understanding of the core Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and behavioral guidelines. Also, as someone who has taken articles to GA, I can't help be find it mildly aggrieving that the candidate claims GAs without giving clear credit to other involved editors. --
'''Oppose''' per R<sup>2</sup> and Spartacus. Also, from nought to admin in 6 months is a bit too fast to my liking. You claim "I've demonstrated a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policies" but I'm afraid I don't agree with you (yet).
'''Oppose''' as the user has issues with CSD and needs to be solved before becoming admin. Try again when you have more familarity with policy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Recent inappropriate tagging for speedy deletion isn't too big of a deal, but multiple speedy deletions for the wrong reasons leaves me wondering about the user's knowledge in other areas of policy and guidelines. He's only been here 6 months and, while some have been this experienced, they also have a better grasp on policies and guidelines. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Oppose''' 6 months seems like a short timespace to apply for adminship. I also don't like the fact that you don't seem to know as much as you should about Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines -
'''Oppose''', was planning to support, but looking at the pages on the talk page... I've got to agree with the other opposes. It's very easy to [[WP:BITE]] new editors while tagging pages they've created for speedy. But I like your other work, if you manage to go a few months without incorrect CSD tagging issues I'd be happy to support -
'''Regretful Oppose''' I wanted to support, but based on the improper CSD tagging I feel you need some more time to learn policy better. Will gladly support in 6 months. Do keep up all the good work though.
'''Oppose''', would normally be inclined to Support, but the issues with CSD tagging above are too serious to ignore.  I don't expect a 100% success rate, but far too many of this user's recent tagging have been poorly done.  Because CSD is often, unfortunately, one of the first areas that new editors brush up against, it's important that we get it ''right''.  Suggest the candidate thoroughly review the existing speedy criteria, and if taggings improve, I would be delighted to support in the future.
'''Oppose''' <small>from neutral</small> I checked out the incident I'm Spartacus! alluded to above, and he has a legitimate concern - that was poor form at best.  That plus the previously discussed CSD stuff is enough to oppose at this time.
'''Neutral'''-Man this is tough. I like you GA and DYK work is very impressive, good work at AIV and I would love to see with the mop, if it wasn't for you actual time here. You've only been here about like 6 months and don't which tag is proper for an article in a CSD, not sure about this one.--'''
'''Neutral, leaning support''' I like his nomination speech a good deal: he seems to have good potential as an admin and is unlikely to abuse the tools. However, I think it's best if he waits a few months. He is very active, but I know from my own experience that just because your active, that doesn't mean you are qualified enough for the job. I'd most likely support him if he'd requested adminship in a few more months and kept up the same level of contributions, and would most definitely support him if he waited for a full year. Sorry, but I'm a little worried that he might quit; a user needs to be here long enough to prove that they won't drop out and get bored with Wikipedia. <span style="color:#008800">The</span> <span style="color:#004400">Earwig</span> <span style="font-family:Verdana"><sup>(
'''Neutral''' - You are a well meaning user with good intentions, but I don't think you're ready yet, especially due to the CSD issues. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
You're a great [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMentifisto&diff=278392262&oldid=278392119 usre] and I've seen many things I like. It shouldn't be difficult to tone down your aggressive speedy deletion tagging; and that's all that's keeping me from supporting at this time. :) ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral''' - not going to pile on, but I can't support here if what Spartacus and others say about your CSD nominations is true. (I can't see the deleted contribs myself, but I'll take their word on that.) I suggest you consider withdrawing this RFA, and trying again in a little while once you've got some more experience with CSD.
'''Neutral''' Per Sparta.
'''Neutral''' The user has done some really good content work which is most appreciated, but at this point in time it'd be best to gain some experience in other areas and reconsider an RfA perhaps within a few months. '''
'''Neutral''' Since I cannot confirm whether the previously stated CSD concerns are on target or exaggerated, I will need to weigh in as neutral for now.
'''Neutral''' per R<sup>2</sup> and Balloonman.  The GA and DYK work is impressive but concerns brought up in the oppose section are definitely issues.  Perhaps in a few months and a bit more experience, I would be glad to support.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Moral Support''' I do like your editing skills but your csd skills might need tuning first. I hope that this RfA won't discourage you in improving both yourself and Wikipedia in the future.--
Understanding of deletion policy is probably the most essential trait for an admin.
'''Neutral''' Having crashed and burned at RFA myself over the wrong CSD issue, I won't pile on with the opposers, because CSD errors are the one mistake that you can make that are certain to leave you with a horribly skewed failed RFA out of all proportion to the extent that they are affected by other problems! This RFA is probably going to fail, but take it as a valued pointer as to what you need to fix, and fix it (like I'm doing!}
I see potential admin material here, candidate just needs more time to orientate himself better with deletion policies. Would support in future, -
'''Neutral, could be support''' I really want to support, however I strongly suggest you consider what Spartacus said. I will support if you could thoroughly ensure by way of example that you understand deletion criterion. Whilst adminship is 'no big deal', going around and improperly deleting pages is.
'''Neutral'''. I've seen your work around Wikipedia, and while you're on the right track, I believe you need more experience.  Keep up the good work and perhaps take a look at [[WP:ARL]]. <font  face="georgia">'''
No need to pile on at Oppose, but if you are using {{tl|db-nonsense}} as much as the people above say (I can't see the deleted edits, but I'll take their word for it) I can't support now; CSD tagging should be done with great care. [[User:I'm Spartacus!/CSD G1 survey|This]] essay by I'm Spartacus! is pretty much my bible when it comes to G1, and you might find it helpful (if you haven't read it already). <b class="Unicode">
The CSD tagging issue forced me out of my planned support, but I don't see that as enough to oppose.--
I've seen him around at DYK approving nominations. However, he says he ''could aid by adding the approved DYK hooks to the queue'', but he's never assembled queues at [[T:DYK/N|next update]] or [[T:DYK/NN|next next update]]. It hints at a lack of knowledge on how DYK works. I'd be more willing to support after he's gained experience.
As nom. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
{{worksforme}} '''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. - [[Special:Contributions/154.20.253.177|154.20.253.177]] (
'''Support''' Your last RFA didn't succeed because of some CSD issues, and I remember only giving weak support then. I noticed a month ago that your CSD tagging had improved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Misty+%28guinea+pig%29&timestamp=20090809194921&diff=prev and I liked this], (sorry admins only) when you made sure the author got their {{tl|hangon}} in even though you stopped them removing the tag. ''
'''Supprot''' No problems.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
Opposers seemed to be in agreement at his last RFA that he was almost there, he needed to take a little more time and learn CSD.  He's done that, and also participated helpfully at RFA and done a lot of article work. - Dank (
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Joining the unanimous '''support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has [[User:ImperatorExercitus/Awards]], which shows appreciation from colleagues as well as DYK and Good credits (candidate is here indeed to build an encyclopedia), the candidate was trusted enough by an admin to get rollback, seems reasonable at AfDs even though probably argues to delete more frequently than I do, and has never even been accidentally blocked. So, nothing really jumping out as a negative here. Most of the opposes back in April seemed to be about being inexperienced and I believe that the additional months since then has been sufficient as evidenced by the DYKs, etc. and thus far no one seems to be identifying any serious issues since then. Best, --
'''Support''' Looks good :).

'''Support''' I've seen Imperator around AfD a lot with valuable contributions. I was surprised when I realized he wasn't an admin.
'''Support''' Candidate seems knowledgeable on policy per answers to my questions.
'''Support''' The user looks knowledgeable and trustworthy, although he could use some more work with copyright. It can come with experience. He seems like he has enough clue to know not to work in those areas for now, like he has stated. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' With the CSD issues in the past, I no longer see any reason not to support.--
'''Weak Support''' - Image problems are of a concern, but seems fine elsewhere. '''
'''Support''' User has improved considerably since their last RFA, most notably in the CSD area, with only one mistagging in the past three months ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purex_Complete_3-in-1&diff=prev&oldid=299577753 this G11] which was not really unambiguously advertising) I could find. Since I can notice the candidate's ability to reflect and improve on criticism and mistakes, I see no reason to oppose. NW's oppose is concerning at the first look but I am assuming good faith that they just made a simple mistake as claimed. Regards '''
'''Support''' Improved since last rfa. P.S. Please assess based on area the user wishes to work in! We need as many people working at DYK as possible!
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. Good usre. :) –'''
'''Support''' - I have collaborated with ImperatorExercitus on a few GAs and he's been very helpful and friendly. NW's oppose is a bit worrying but I'm sure it was just a simple mistake (see [[User_talk:ImperatorExercitus/Archives/2009/August#Agaricus_benesii|here]]). Also, great answer to Q6. :) '''''
'''Support''' Looks great. Since working with copyright is not required or essential to most of an admin's tools or the candidate's proposed role, previous problems with copyright policy carry no weight with me. <strong>
'''Support'''. Strong candidate with quality contributions to the project, and growth and experience in other areas as well. '''
'''Support'''
I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. Good editor, seems reliable and helpful. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - Trusted editor with a nice variety of experience.
'''Support''' I almost opposed, but you seem to have learned your lesson.
'''Support''' Per Ktr101, also I see no intent to break rules or be dishonest.  WP is a complicated place, and it is not required of an admin that he know every bit of it, just that he be trustworthy.--
'''Support''' An excellent all-around editor -- with an emphasis on ''all-around''. I am very happy to support IE. Good luck!
'''Weak support''' The previous image problems are worrying, but he has stated that he doesn't intend to work in that area. He does great work in other areas, so I can only support, if weakly. '''<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print; text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.1em"><font color=red>
'''Support''', we need more admins and ImperatorExercitus has repeatedly demonstrated that he's sensible, dedicated and willing to improve. I am not convinced by the opposes over image copyright: while undoubtedly mistakes were made, I personally find bandwagon opposing over an area the candidate specifically intends ''not'' to work in to be highly counterproductive. Imperator can clearly make many productive contributions to many areas, and I trust him not to wade inexpertly into the wrong ones. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Looks good except for the image problems, but it is fairly obvious that he has learned to ''at least'' be extremely cautious when approaching images (if he even choses to approach them at all).  Other than that there are no problems, and he has a strong track record in article writing. '''
'''Support''' – Without hesitation. --
There are many admins who get along fine without knowing the first thing about image policy. Opposing will achieve nothing more than a kick in the teeth - he admits his errors, he has said he won't work with images, so what's the issue? Therefore, opposing for this reason is nonsensical. '''
'''Support''' a trustworthy candidate who has worked hard on making Wikipedia a better place, especially as most opposers seem only to be attempting to make Wiki-political points.
'''Support''' I find the opposition unconvincing: It's mainly about one bigger mistake, from which the candidate obviously learned, in an area in which candidate said he isn't planning to work, and one or two extremely minor ones that are blown out of proportion. (The fact that he candidly wrote he hesitated before making the right decision is, if notable at all, rather a sign to trust the candidate.) In short, I see no reason to fear that candidate would abuse the tools. &mdash;
I '''support''', as while copyright issues may be important, we need good admins and this is clearly one. Nobody is perfect or can have an understanding of everything.
'''Support'''.  Image copyright issues are worrisome but the user has otherwise demonstrated a good understanding of policy and would, I believe, make a valuable addition as an admin.
'''Support''' per SlimVirgin and IronHolds.
'''Support''' Looks okay to me. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' My experiences with IE have been positive and I appreciate his thoughtful (and knowledgeable) answers to the questions asked. I don't consider the lack of copyright knowledge a problem, I've seen other recent RfAs where even established admins have commented that they don't understand all the copyright rules, and IE has expressed a desire to avoid those areas anyway. -- '''
'''Support''' I don't see any major problems with this. Go for it.
'''Support''' I should have !voted sooner.  I think IE would make a great administrator and it's a shame to see how this RfA is going (but 62% isn't really that far from passing).  -- ''<B>
I'm concerned about the images you have uploaded and their licensing status. You've had images deleted, images that contain contrary licensing information, and images whose license tag doesn't seem to match the source given. —
'''Strong oppose''' per [[:File:Agaricus_benesii.JPG]] (and possibly more; will update). I cannot support a candidate for adminship who is willing to falsify copyright information in order to use images on Wikipedia. Feel free to respond here if I made some sort of mistake. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' per NW.
'''Oppose''' per NW. Moreoever Admins should be prepared to work in all areas of the encyclopedia. I don't think you're serious about the task at hand.
'''Oppose''': I was ready to oppose with a hammer due to the copyright violations. However, I see you have learned from your mistakes, and genuinely mean it about keeping out of image issues, and have not uploaded/edited any images since. However, I still lie very, very uneasy due to that, and certainly cannot support. In anticipation of iMatthew's response, if a hypothetical admin hopeful does not intend to deal with civility issues, that doesn't mean that anyone opposing based on the fact he is abusive and aggressive is behaving illogically. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that ImperatorExercitus will not drift into areas other than which he professes an interest. If I'm honest, my current actions have nothing to do with what I discussed on my RfA.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised on talk page. There are problems ranging from faking sources to down right copy and paste of sources. These are articles used to show off the user's knowledge of content and content policies, but show many violations of standards and serious policies. I cannot support such a user at this time, as I have no confidence in their ability to understand the core policies that admin are supposed to uphold. A person should be judged against what they consider their best work, and I do not think this work gives a favourable view of the user.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, man, you're a good guy, you really are. You do a great job around here, but I consider basic copyright knowledge essential for all prospective administrators regardless of where they intend to spend their time -- it is too important of an issue not to be particularly careful of it. Supporters, feel free to try to persuade me otherwise, this is a discussion after all -- it's pretty much only this issue that is drawing me away from supporting. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Versatile_%28sex%29&curid=23840650&diff=307010137&oldid=306552509 This AfD close] tells me all I need to know. This editor saw an even split between "Keep" and "Merge", and had a hard time deciding on how to close the AfD; the obvious "no consensus" didn't even occur to him. Also, while I'm not a deletionist, a comment such as "''I believe that this encylopedia is based off the fact that we should improve an article, rather than do away with it.''" says more about him than any of his answers to the questions above. We need admins who know, understand and apply our existing policies, rather than come up with their own.
Oppose per Nuke. Perhaps this is just the battle-in-the-trenches hardened mentality one gets after sifting through image reviews at [[WP:FAC]]. I fully believe that the candidate won't intentionally traipse through image issues as an admin with all the subtlety of the bull in the china closet. But I feel that for an admin, an overall base level of competence in all areas of the wiki should be required. This falls under that umbrella. --<font color="#cc6600">
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Versatile_%28sex%29&curid=23840650&diff=307010137&oldid=306552509 This] closure mentioned above shows particular cluelessness.
Candidate states that he intends to work as an administrator in the area of deletion; but the discussion closure linked above makes me doubt his ability in this area, or at least his ability to consistently do the right thing. It's not that the closure was incorrect, it wasn't - but the rationale made no sense.
'''Oppose''', one month is too early for me. Please review our [[WP:DP|deletion policy]] and related pages, if you have not already done so. &ndash;
Per NW, Friday. →&nbsp;
General concerns with regard to judgment and understanding of policy. In particular the problems with copyright are a dealbreaker.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but for an admin who works in AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Versatile_%28sex%29&curid=23840650&diff=307010137&oldid=306552509 this] just isn't good enough. '''\'''
'''Oppose''', per NW and \/.

'''Oppose''' per Owen.
I have doubts about Imperator now, thanks to the good points brought up by NW. Even if you don't plan to work in an area, you should at least have a good knowledge of core policies. There aren't that many, it's not too hard to read them all. I don't doubt that you've looked over the copyright policies now, but I would like to see proof before I support. Additionally, as a non-admin closer, you need to understand that NAC's are for ''non-controversial'' closures. I appreciate that there's a rationale, but taking action in a place that non-admins are not intended to work shows a lack of clue. I'm sorry, but I just can't support you this time 'round. <small>(
Per the concerns raised by NW, Friday and, X!. Regards,
'''Oppose''' per copyright and AfD concerns. Sorry, but right now I can't trust you to correctly close AfDs, and I feel that a basic, elementary knowledge of copyright policy is essential in an admin. I think it may be prudent to read up on the related policies, guidelines, and essays.
'''Oppose'''. We don't hand out partial adminships, and the candidate's demonstrated thickness with regards to copyright policy is a dealbreaker. The AfD close mentioned above is, additionally, pretty bad. I'm also not a fan of "cultural reference" sections (the [[Towelie]] contribution the candidate mentions in Q3) - if a cultural reference cannot be elegantly mentioned in the main article text, it is all but definitely a superfluous association of the Tarantino variety.
'''Oppose''' While there have been problems with images and copyright, I concede that they have been a learning experience. But in my view, while it is accepted that non-admin closures of AfDs exist, they should only be performed if the consensus is quite overwhelmingly obvious. To look at an AfD, state in the posted rationale that it is a difficult one, and then to go ahead and make a decision indicates to me a lack of judgement, and perhaps a tendency to go beyond the limit of delegated authority. --<font color="Red">
[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Contra''' bad feeling at this point of time. --
'''Oppose''' per NW, X!, and most of all, Friday.--
'''Oppose''' too many recent issues to support at this time.  Hopefully by RfA #3 Imperator will have a good understanding of our copyright policy, and a better understanding of policy in general.  The "BLPs default to delete" comment in particular leaves me with the impression that he is relying on things he has heard people say rather than reading our actual policy documents. --
'''Oppose''' Per Ottava and NW. Don't be too discouraged, should this not pass these mistakes are correctable, given time. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
I am not sure on Imperator, though he seems capable of stemming drama before it gets out of hand, which is why this is a neutral and not an oppose. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Not neccessarily a bad candidate, though I'm not entirely convinced either.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
I have some concern about the candidate's record on image permissions, but I am prepared to accept that he will not work with images for the time being, so I won't oppose over that.  I'm prepared to overlook Ottava Rima's concerns on the talk page.  But I'm more seriously concerned about the candidate's apparent belief that AfDs for living people default to "delete" on a "no consensus" outcome, which I think speaks to a failure to understand [[WP:BURDEN]]; XfDs of almost all kinds default to "keep" on a "no consensus".  (There was a proposal that such AfDs should default to delete but it failed to gain consensus.)<p>I think it's pretty much essential that a prospective admin should have a clear understanding of the deletion criteria for articles, so I don't feel I can support at this time; but I'm happy enough with this candidate not to oppose.—
'''neutral''' - comments about UAA are worrying.  Why do you need to see deleted content to make a username block?  Either block for the username, or block for the behaviour, but don't issue a username block instead of a ehaviour block.
'''Neutral''' - per Ottava Rima. I want to support, but the knowledge about the copyright issues are important.
Hmmm, very tough, opposes are valid and concerning, with the image problems, but particuarly the dodgy AFD's here too. However, I do trust imperator not to misuse the tools, and these are minor concerns on a very good user. However, they are big enough to stop me supporting. May change either way, but I will have to consider further. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' (from support), possibly leaning toward oppose. Sorry Imperator, in general I like you, but the opposers raise some definite concerns. Not enough for me to oppose by right now, but I can no longer support.
'''Neutral'''. None of the individual concerns would be enough to sway my support, but altogether, they can not be overlooked. I'm thinking of the image issues, controversial NACs, and in particular the notion that BLP defaults to delete. <tt>
'''Neutral'''. The image issues and the AfDs are problematic but ultimately insufficient to justify an oppose, IMO. Everyone makes mistakes. But I'm not prepared at this time to support. In a few months, perhaps.
Support as nominator.
'''Strong (and First) Support''' Cheers. '''''
I know of Ironholds as a good, solid net positive candidate, which is the important thing for a RfA. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Has made strong and solid contributions to Wikipedia. Will use tools well. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Even though he thinks soccer is the real football support''' That alone is not enough to make me oppose. Ironholds should be a net positive and will not delete the main page or cause the servers to crash. Support and good luck.--
'''Support''' There is no real football (tinrf) --
'''Support''' More full rationale to come.  I trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' - Does good work; no reason not to support. &ndash;
'''Support''' - see no likelihood of abuse, excellent answer to my question, give the poncy git a mop already. //
It was my oppose last time around that made Ironholds' last RfA unsuccessful. I've watched him since then, and he's improved greatly. As long as he doesn't resume past behavior when granted adminship, then as far as I'm concerned, he's learnt from his mistakes and can be made an admin. Good luck.
'''Weak support''' Except if conduct is egregious, I consider six months to be a statute of limitations.  I'll take Ironholds word in good faith.--
It's time.
'''Support''' -- Ive seen this user at [[WP:FLC]] and I feel that he will benefit from the tools, as will WP. --Best, '''''<small>
'''Strong support''' - Basically per Daniel. I did write a conom, but it was a load of poncy bollocks, and frankly Daniel said everything I was going to. He's consistently funny, dedicated, knowledgeable, and blatantly bereft of worthwhile activities (hence why he edits so much). Anyone who can interact with me as much as he does and not become a genocidal maniac can handle anything, including the responsibilities of adminship. But really, this support is a load of bollocks. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I'm not swayed by the diff that's bothering Fastily (and Scarian).  FAC can be stressful; this was a case where Ironholds believed that someone edited his article while it was at FAC, made it worse, and shouted at him in the edit summary.  His response didn't help, but he immediately apologized and found something to thank the editor for.  That diff doesn't outweigh all the good work he's done, for me, especially at CSD. - Dan
'''Support'''. A bit of sanity in an overwhelmingly bullshit project.
'''Weak support''' Taking into consideration '''Scarian's''' argument, I still believe that the good you've done overshadows that to a certain extent.  You're clearly dedicated to WP, despite being active for just under a year, and I hope you'll learn to be a bit more civil in the future.  <span style="border:1px solid #1E90FF;font:15px Monotype Corsiva">Fredrik • Wilhelm</span>
'''Strong Support''' Much to this Ironholds's chagrin, I work with him nearly every day and feel like I have a good sense of his character as a person and editor.  What I see is an editor who's prolific, good-natured, exceptionally clueful, helpful off the charts, and lol-full as well.  I also don't find the opposes convincing.  In Scarian's first diff I see a harsh response followed by a rational apology.  That's exactly what I want admins to do when they make mistakes - take responsibility and apologize maturely.  Not exactly to a new user either.  The nonsense of low-self esteem I find irrelevant at best and offensive at worst.  Everyone has a bad day - and not to go editcountitis, but we're talking about a candidate with 24,000 edits here and tons of great content. '''
'''Support'''- I've seen Ironholds around in many places, and have always been impressed with this user's clue levels.
'''Strongest possible support''' —'''
'''Support''', Ironholds seems to have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, has put a lot of effort into improving it, and generally seems sensible. While I can see Scarian's diff being somewhat objectionable, I certainly don't consider it anywhere near enough to oppose on given all the other good things I've seen. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' I've worked with Ironholds on several articles and talked to him at several London meetups and I believe he is dedicated to Wikipedia and would use the mop well. '''
'''Support''' I don't see why not, everyone has their bad days.
'''Support''' Excellent contributing editor, but when mop wieldling needs to remember to take a breath and bite his tongue to avoid unneccesary dramas. --
'''Strong support''' - based on my interactions with this editor, he is a valuable asset to Wikipedia, and should continue to show his value as an admin. <span style="border:1px solid deeppink;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' While I acknowledge the diffs presented in the oppose section, I'm just not convinced that they demonstrate a net negative. Yes, one of the diffs was sarcastic and condescending, but we all step out of line once or twice.
I have immense respect for Ironholds as an editor and as a friend. The nominator sums up Ironholds' excellent work in a variety of areas. Admittedly, the opposing side do have some points about an apparent 'short fuse' (evidenced by one thread; two responses by IH), all I can say about that there are always times when something happens in real life (you get fired, your wife cheats on you with your best friend, you win $100,000 in the lottery only to find you put the ticket through the wash) that just make you '''''RRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!''''' <code>:)</code> and that these moments are inevitable (Don't deny it, you're telling me that you haven't gone a bit [[crazy|skitso]] once?). IH appears to have had '''one''' or two bad days; nothing repetitive and nothing really too serious (I mean, he used caps and perhaps came across as a bit angry, but, putting that into context with what [[User:JarlaxleArtemis|some]] [[User:Archtransit|people]] did). And that is why I forgive him for a that lapse in civility. For these reasons, I say '''Yes''' to Ironholds, yet again.
'''Support''' - per Foxy and to attempt to counter the ridiculous oppose of {{User|Sceptre}} below. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">

'''Support''' I'm particularly impressed by the candidate's very genuine and humble [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amandajm&diff=next&oldid=277192063 apology] for the comment brought up in Scarian's oppose.  Anyone can say things they later regret on a rough day, not everyone can swallow their pride and make it right.  --
'''Support''' - great nom statement, Daniel. <b>
'''Support'''. I've met Ironholds. He strikes me as sane and unlikely to blow up the wiki. It appears he does plenty of useful stuff around the place and can use some extra buttons. There are some concerns amongst those opposing that suggest he should take it slow, keep calm and would benefit from colleagues keeping a watchful eye - at least as he gets started. I'm not sure that prohibiting anyone who occasionally loses their temper in discussions with other users is a positive step (such a rule applied rhetrospectively would rather reduce our pool of admins...!). A nomination from Daniel (no comment on how he'd fare under a "angry comments disqualify users from being admins" regime btw) counts for a lot in my book. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Weak Support''' why not.
'''Support''' The opposers make good points but the candidate always seems to come back from the brink and appears good at second guessing himself. I'm not worried at all. --
'''Support''' I am sure he is suited for the job
Trustworthy nominator.
'''Support''' as an editor who builds the encyclopedia, and who asks that people be accountable to that goal. Suggest he sit back at this point and let his contributions be his best argument. --'''''
'''Support''' - I don't support many RfAs. I'm supporting now. I have talked to Ironholds over many months, and, even when he makes a mistake or picks a fight, he has always shown that he is willing to talk to others and correct himself. He has admitted when he overstepped and when he has done or said something wrong many times. This is a rare trait within adminship. If he ever causes a problem, I am sure that he is willing to actually do what it takes to correct it. I cannot say that for many.
About fucking time.  Although it is a short time since the very interesting last RfA I still believe Irony is more than capable of welding the mop, as it were.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #993333;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''  —
'''Weak support''' <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support the Emo-Potter''' He is a good egg and he won't misuse the tools. Might be part of a zioist conspiracy though. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --
'''Support''' per Skinwalker and WP:AGF. No reason why not. --
'''
'''Support''': I have seen this user around and the opposes don't outweigh my own feeling that this is a good contributor. <sup><small>
'''Support'''. The oppose difs do not convince me.
'''Support''' Outstanding contributor and user ,further no one can question his dedication towards the project or  that he will misuse the tools or question his policy knowledge .He has used rollback well.Do feel we need to [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]] towards contributors who contribute immensely and here to stay for years and Acarmari rightly points this user has improved since the last RFA.
'''Support''' - the user clearly knows what it means to build the encyclopedia, and I have no doubt he will use the tools effectively, especially, as he promises, by applying CSD. The diff where he shouted is a complete non-issue: probably within the bounds of WP:CIV (certainly of WP:NPA), apology issued two hours later, and writing those three lines ''positively does not'' constitute reason to forget or obviate a year's worth of solid work. The open-to-recall business is becoming a bit like the Medieval flotation test at witch-hunts (if she couldn't float, she drowned, and if she could, she was a witch and hence burned): either way some people will be unhappy. Rather than nixing Ironholds' bid on those grounds alone, we should have more thorough reform of the process and not penalise him alone for the difficulty of desysopping. -
'''Support''' He knows what he's doing. Sure, he may have made a bad decision or two, but he has acknowledged it and apologized.
'''Support''' While Scarian's diff is troubling, I believe that the benefits of granting Ironholds adminship outweigh the risks.
'''Support''' For the same reasons as last time.
'''Weak support'''. Scarian's evidence is quite strong, and it took me a while to decide if I was going to support. In the end though, we need more admins.
The candidate generally meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  Thus, '''support''' as candidate’s lone block was rapidly overturned, [[User:Ironholds/Awards]] is always good to see, and per reasonable stances in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (church)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizha James]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptosporidium (Destroy All Humans!)]], but oppose per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breuner Airfield]].  Nevertheless, the positives overwhelm the lone negative.  Sincerely, --
I can't remember ever noticing any problems with Ironholds; everything I remember seeing has been okay. Furthermore, I'm not swayed by the opposers. Lastly, Will, above, says that he's met Ironholds and trusts that he won't blow up the wiki, and I trust Will's judgment here. Best of luck. Cheers,
'''Support''' I've not personally had any contact with this editor but I have seen him/her around.  I don't see any reason not to allow this editor to get the bit.  The editors editing history says a lot in my opinion and what I have seen around doesn't change the fact that this editor cares about the project thus I think would be good for an administrator.  Good luck to you, --
'''Support'''  Good editor, I've had limited but positive interactions with him.  The diff about the CAPS was troubling, but not so bad as to move me from support as taking in a good light was an attempt at humor.  That said, it isn't the best evidence that this user will have the level of interaction with others that I'd ideally like to see in a user.  But this is about trust, and he has mine.
'''Support'''. After carefully reading over all issues brought up, I think this is worth a support; I do believe you would be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I came accross Ironholds a while ago and had he raise a valid concern over an edit style i was doing. I found his discussion to be in line, and raised some points which at the time i wasnt considering. Ive come to understand more about wikipedia since our discussion and am trying to be a better editor in large part to his advice (which to me is what an admin is about), my thanks to him is my support here
'''Support''' I acknowledge the matters raised in the oppose section are non-trivial. The bottom line for me, though, is he's clearly dedicated to the project. He acknowledges and attempts to address his errors. He appears to genuinely care about the community's standards and mores. As such I believe he will attempt to improve the encyclopedia with the tools.
'''Support''' per my support in his last RFA.
'''Strong Support'''. I have had nothing but great interactions with this editor, and he won't abuse the tools. Additionally, the whole flap with the recall situation seems nonsensical, as there is no correct answer. If he said yes, he is open to recall, the response would be (and is) "Well, how do we know you'll keep that promise?" If he said no, people would oppose because he's not willing to be subject to recall. I don't get it. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support''' - I trust Ironholds.
I'm
'''Support''' You deserve a strong support for your overall contributions, but a weak oppose for your recent incivility. Just promise you'll keep any testiness to a minimum, and I can be proud of my support here. ~ '''<font size="2">
You've been around and shown commendable dedication to the encyclopaedia; I'm not entirely confident you won't be an abusive administrator, but I'm supporting now on faith. I hope you'll repay the trust shown to you in this discussion after your misadventures. Best, <font color="404040">
'''Strong Support''': A very wise editor indeed and I have had great personal experiences with him. Though we didn't exactly get along, he was always civil and fair so I strongly support.'''[[User:Next-Genn-Gamer/Sign|<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="Orange">N</font>]].[[User talk:Gears of War|<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="black">G</font>]].
'''Support''' &ndash; I read through the opposes, and that talk page message, and nothing stands out to me. Adminship doesn't require ''perfection'' (name me that user), and I think Ironholds will do fine as an admin. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''support''' The primary objection seems to be that the user has sarcastically used all caps to explain to another user why not to use them. That's hardly compelling grounds for opposition. The other concerns about civility are either not major enough, not frequent enough or not recent enough to be a concern. I'm also perplexed by opposes  based on the worry that he might leave the project. If he leaves that's not the end of the world. We don't lose anything by having him as an admin for while he's here.

'''Support''' as I am happy that Ironholds will be a net positive as an admin.
Concerns below noted, but I believe Ironholds has the necessary skills to make a good admin. '''
'''Support''': He will bring us into a new millenium.
'''
'''Support''': Civility concerns aren't of sufficient seriousness to Oppose, and to be fair, I'd rather we promoted a few users with minor civility concerns that we can work with to knock into shape, rather than promote so called Squeaky Clean administrators that turn out to be completely against the best interests of the project - it is (or certainly was) always the 100% support admins that end up being desysopped.
'''Support''' I briefly reviewed contributions of Ironholds (including deleted) and found nothing that would cause me to oppose. This editor has a wide experience in the deletion area and vast majority of his CSD taggings are correct. The summary usaged is 100% and other concernes from the previous RFAs seems to have been addresed. So I decided to support. Ironholds obviously wants to be an administrator and, I think, he will be an asset for the project.
'''Strong Support''' Outstanding answer to my question.  You showed sensitivity, yet still explained where my error was.  I'm confident you'll be a good admin.

'''Support''' The CAPITALIZATION incident CLEARLY was MEANT to be IRONIC / EDUCATIONAL. Also, low self-esteem is a sign of quality.
'''Cautious Support''' - we need more admins, especially in difficult areas such as policing pages and subjects under arb sanctions. Person shows dedication and a bit of article wirting is a big enough plus for me to consider a net positive despite opposes.
'''Support''' no issues among our interactions <font face="Verdana"><font color="6600FF">
'''Support''' While I understand the position of some of the below opposition, I don't find the arguments compelling. I've looked through a lot of Ironholds edits over quite a while. I see an editor who gets what the site is about and seems to have its best interests at heart. I can't see that giving Ironholds the few extra buttons is risking damaging the site and think that the admin bit would be a net positive for the site -
'''Support''' I've never encountered any problems with Ironholds' edits, and he's always been (imo) a friendly, approachable and knowledgeable editor.
'''Support''' I would have co-nominated him if my internet connection hadn't wonked out last week. This is a fantastic and clueful editor who has apparently made a few enemies judging by the multitude of downright ridiculous oppose reasons.
'''Support''' - we always need more administrators, and Ironholds is a good candidate.
'''Support''' - Good work in mainspace, seems fine.
'''Support''' - Seems to pass [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] well - you are experienced, has many contributions, and has a net positive history. The now infamous comment you made in part caps does not concern me, you were just trying to get an idea across and it was not really incivil. You decision to be open to recall, nor this been one of several RfAs you have had, does not concern me either.
'''Weak Support''' while some of the oppose issues concern me, I'm going to support.
'''Weak support''' Although the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FIronholds_2&diff=244728294&oldid=244727100 concerns] I expressed in the last RfA are largely allayed, I am not without worry here, per, mainly, Jclemens, Goodmorningworld, Scarian, and Pascal.  There is enough to (re)commend Ironholds, though, that I conclude that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]]; the relative lack of confidence I have in that conclusion would otherwise push me to "neutral", but I, perhaps dumbly, believe that the candidate has fleshed out his criteria for recall sufficiently that the community will have real recourse should he prove a problematic admin.
'''suppport'''. Intelligent. Committed. I will yell at if they can't stay polite in admin taks.
'''Strong support''' per Daniel's nom, Imperiator, and Foxy Loxy. Many, many admins act uncivil at some point in time or another, so I don't see why we should oppose IH for a one-off incident! Any user as helpful as IH is more than welcome to be an admin, IMO. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I reseve the right to disagree with him (and likely will), but that does not mean he would not be a decent admin by any means.    Count is on the cusp at this point - I hope this puts him over.
Will the editor become a good admin? Dunno. Can I <u>trust</u> that the admin will not purposely use the tools to disrupt the encyclopedia. Absolutely, hence '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Helpful and fair. I am sure he would make a good admin. Sure could use a little more civility, but he'll learn :) '''
'''Support''' I'm surprised to see the diff on Oppose #1, but it's been my experience that Ironholds is a cool head who can handle even the most stressful conflicts gracefully.  ''<FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>
'''Support''' No reason to see that he will abuse the tools. May be uncivil at times, but he'll get over that. '''
'''Support''' If this succeeds there are going to be a lot of eyes on Ironholds, which will make it very unlikely that he'll be misusing or abusing the tools. Clearly dedicated to the project, and I like that the candidate has continued to be himself and not some watered down version just to pass RfA.
'''Support'''.  and I don't care what number shows up when I hit "save".  Ironholds seems to operate mostly on common sense and logic whilst not being afraid to point out flaws in other's senses or logic.  That certainly tends to draw out some claws on Wikipedia, true.
'''Support'''. Despite all the RfAs, these are not of great concern to me, and I feel that this user will not misuse the tools. Much luck,
'''Support'''. Impressive mainspace work. Opposes are not of too great a concern to me. '''
'''Support''' Seen him around the 'pedia. Contributes good work. Unlikely to abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' I've been waffling on this one for a while... the opposes have valid reasons to oppose, but in the end, I do think IH would do a decent job as an admin.  I can't point to any salient point to prove it, it is more of a gut feeling here.  But I'm going to go with it.---'''
'''Strong oppose''' - User, despite his answer to question 3, is '''not''' the sort of person to calm down disputes. Looking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amandajm&diff=prev&oldid=277178109 here] (and his apology [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amandajm&diff=prev&oldid=277198995 here] which shows how he jumped to conclusions with: "Ahh, I see what you mean.") shows his tendency to ''still'' [[WP:BITE|bite]]. <s>Amandajm has been here for four months.</s> I'd bet everything I own that Ironholds '''should have''' acted better on that. In his apology he notes that he's had a bad day; I shudder to think what sort of wrath a '''really''' bad day would bring ('''Note''' - I don't think that this diff is the most important; candidate has defended himself strongly on this one, and AGF'ing, it wouldn't be as prominent). Along the lines of bad days is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=275974976 this] (Notice the heading of "Your semi-retirement"); so, Ironholds, you felt like the community couldn't trust you a few days ago and now you wish to have an RfA? While I admit I do not know the backstory it seems like you are very prone to "burnout", low self-esteem (that can adversely affect your editing ability), and civility issues that you have not resolved since your last RfA. Re: The Real American thing: You got a bit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Real_American&diff=prev&oldid=271362414 "sardonic"]? That sounds like baiting to me; you referred to it as if it "was dreamt up by a twelve year old"? Did you think that would make him even more calm? Despite the fact that he was an obvious troll you still fed and teased him. That's just not how things work. And show diffs that you're not proud of in question 3; honesty is the best policy. In summary, I'm afraid I believe that this user would be prone to burnout and "edit fatigue", which could lead to some really bad decisions.
'''Oppose''' per Scarian. While I do like the contributions that Ironholds made to the project, the behavior that Scarian brought up is ridiculous, especially for an rfa candidate.  If it were not for this rude comment, especially since it was made 2 days ago, I would have strongly supported.  Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Absolutely not at this stage''' Sorry Ironholds, 2 days ago (diffs provided by Scarian above) you thought it was okay to yell at another editor to prove your point that editors shouldn't yell at others; your response above detailing that this had nothing to do with your temperament is incorrect by your own words in return to Admandajm  which included, ''I've had a bad day (although that really shouldn't excuse it).''  This thread occurred despite the fact that you only 5 days earlier understood enough about your current level of participation to have come to the decision that you would semi-retire using the words about yourself to another editor's request for help in their RfA nomination - ''I won't be going ahead with it, I'm afraid; not to worry, I'm sure you can find someone tne community respects a bit more who would be willing to help you out''.  Today I am left with the overwhelming feeling also that you are not quite sure of your readiness when you question above, ''I don't see how a low self esteem can affect my editing''. With the utmost respect, I think you should perhaps take the time to consider Adminship quite a while longer and see if this is really something you are ready for.--
Per Scarian. The burnout issue more than the civility issue. We're already losing admins, and I really don't want to see that number of admins who are leaving raise more than it should. '''
'''Oppose''' I've opposed you in the past, and I'm opposing you again today, yet I still have tremendous respect for you as an editor. That said, I just think you are a guaranteed ticking time bomb as an admin.
'''Oppose''' 6 times running for adminship (including experimental one, but I consider it an independent one that should've gone to Editor's review) and recent incivility case are pretty much good reason to oppose. No thanks. We don't need more ''such'' admins. --
'''Oppose''' There's nothing necessarily wrong with three RFA runs in nine months, but that pattern will understandably raise eyebrows and make people wonder why you're so eager for the bit.  The frequency, coupled with continued civility concerns (infrequent though they may be), unfortunately raises a red flag.  Not all good editors are well suited for adminship.
'''Oppose''' I do not trust him. —
Oppose — Primarily per the concerns and points raised by Scarian and Townlake.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amandajm&diff=prev&oldid=277178109 one incident that everybody is referring to] was just two days ago.  -
'''Oppose''' per Scarian and Rjd.
'''Oppose''' regretfully. Great contributions, but there are some significant temperament/civility issues that need to be addressed.
'''Oppose'''. Serious concerns raised by Scarian.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I would be scared if you had the tools, I find you somewhat intimidating. —
'''Oppose''' While I have respect for you, I have a major trust issue. Per Scarian.
'''Oppose''' Due to the fact that it appears that you haven't learned anything from your four previous RFA's, so I do not feel comfortable with you having the mop.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above opposes. The issues raised by Scarian, <s>the 5 previous RfAs,</s> I just don't think you're ready. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Oppose''' 6th RFA?  Is this a joke?
'''Oppose''' Based on points raised by Scarian, Fastily and Pascal Tesson regarding incivility and problems with PROD tagging.
'''Oppose''' I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall promises are made <i>ad captandum vulgus</i>, are unenforceable, and have a vanishingly small chance of removing problem admins given the historical record.
'''Oppose''' - Pascal's deletion evidence aside, my biggest reason is the recent incivility.  The candidate's sassy responses on this RfA aren't helping.  Also, considering semi-retirement and adminship in the same week doesn't make me feel particularly confident about the candidate's staying power. —  <small><b><span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' per Scarian.
'''Oppose''' - Points already raised in this discussion, to me, show a temper which the candidate has to deal with first. Some responses seem to be "spur of the moment", rather raw statements that should not be given by an administrator. Also, some of the candidate's responses on this page make me feel uneasy. Ironholds however is a teriffic editor, and would, I think, make a good admin once the issues on the fringes are worked out. ~&nbsp;<span style="color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">|&nbsp;<small>
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' The shouting spree and the weird deletions would hold up on their own but together they just don't paint a picture of what we expect from our admins. '''
'''Oppose''' over answer to question 7.  Fails to understand size of BLP problem and that "vandalism" is by no means the main part of it.
'''Oppose''' Clearly not administrator material.
'''Oppose''' Good editor but emotions might get the better of them.--
'''Oppose''' per Scarian and Pascal. Seems to be a good editor overall, but some just aren't suited for the mop. I also take issue with Seddon's comment about the previous RfA not counting merely because it was experimental. If it had succeeded, would Ironholds have merely said "no no, this one doesn't count, we were just running a test"?
'''Oppose''' Seems to be a good editor, but I am troubled by the recent semi-retirement and some talk page edits which do not appear to reflect a significant improvement since the last RfA. Having a lot of RfAs ''can'' be a bad sign, but it doesn't have to be. Coupled with the other evidence I see here, especially in the Neutral section, I feel I must oppose for now. One final thought: I hope BLP stance will not become a cause for another RfA battleground, and I will not oppose solely because of what I view as a weaker than optimal BLP stance, but it certainly factors into the decision.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' Does not seem to take the role seriously enough as evidenced in the answers to questions at the top.
'''Oppose''' as I do anyone who tries this many runs at RfA.  Anyone who wants to be an admin ''that badly'' should on no account be selected.
'''Oppose'''. This editor has been rejected by the community how many times? Now, he's trying a fifth time. How many times does the community need to say "no", before the message gets through?--
'''Oppose''' per {{user|Scarian}} and {{user|Rjd0060}}. '''
'''Oppose''' based on candidate's [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SmashTheState|nomination of a user page for deletion]]. The nomination was landslided out of Wikipedia but not before causing needless drama and disruption.--
'''Oppose''' Although this user is very knowledgeable and capable, I am extremely uncomfortable giving the mop to someone who cannot consistently demonstrate the ability to stay cool and civil. Outbursts such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alan_De_Smet&diff=247936163&oldid=247934542 this] instance of calling an RfA candidate "at best an idiot...and at worst a very poor liar" stand in stark contrast to Wikipedia's core value of operating as a civilized and collaborative environment.
'''Oppose'''. He has a tendency to patronize other editors as pointed out above.
'''Oppose''' Ironholds is a great editor, but comments within the last 24 hours to me indicate some kind of desperation to be an admin - a desperation I'm not able to interpret as wholy positive. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per a lot of the concerns above. A good stretch at editing mindful of those concerns will need to elapse before I'd support.--
'''Oppose'''. Per Scarian above and Pascal.Tesson below.
'''Oppose''' - underestimates the size of the BLP issue, lacks calmness, too many outbursts, as listed in many of the opposes above '''
'''Oppose''' - Ironholds is a great content editor, one who's tireless contributions have left the project with lots of good content (as outlined by Daniel's nomination), something everyone should emulate. That said, I do not feel he has the temperament required of the tools and the diffs cited above make me feel that there is a potential for more harm than good should we grant him those tools. Also the number of RfAs in such a short period of time gives me the impression of a editor whom is unwilling to take the communities constructive criticism and improve upon it, something that ''all'' administrators must be willing and able to do.
'''Strong Oppose'''. User seems too "topsy-turvy". I get the impression that the stresses of adminship would be too much for them to be an effective addition to the administrative team. Furthermore, their answers to the questions and general demeanor concern me - I think we'd end up worse off, I'm afraid, if the user were to gain adminship. I probably shouldn't add this, but I see the user being the type who'd end up at arbitration being remedied and slapped on the wrist a lot. <s>And that's not to mention the apparent ageism - ''"Just like under-age users, a few bad apples"'' being an example from the RFA answers.</s> [[User:Esteffect|Esteffect]] ([[User talk:Esteffect|talk]]) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' Mostly in two areas. The prods really bother me, I'm always worried about knee-jerk deletions. Deletions shouldn't be the first oprion when coming across an article you're concerned about. Secondly, the temperment issue is a real one. The comment about caps, sarcastic and slappy comments to a long term productive editor show poor judgement and we have enough of that as it is. There's other good reasons to oppose but they've been covered.
'''Strong oppose''' Open to recall and wants to be an admin much too badly (5th RfA in a little over a year). Past experiences with such candidates have not been good.
Switch to '''oppose'''. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=278570390&oldid=278570170 this] is the kind of thing you feel is okay to say when you're under scrutiny at RFA, I shudder to think what you'd say if you actually got the mop. That, plus the biting newbies linked in my previous support, brings the phrase "tempermentally unsuited" to mind. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Oppose'''—Conduct towards other users is a bit too disrespectful.—
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=278865464 this] followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=278867173&oldid=278866665 this] compel me to withdraw my support.  I like you Ironholds, and admire your candor, but an administrator must have the ability to use diplomacy and display a degree of tactfulness in their posts. 1.)As not all users have the ability or desire to use IRC, perceptions of another editor in IRC should not be brought to WP. 2.) The choice to make such comments on the ''actual RfA talk page'', while ''your'' RfA is ongoing, indicates a lack of judgment.  Since there are times that an administrator must show a degree of restraint in delicate situations, and you've chosen this particular time to make comments like this, I'm now of the opinion that you need a little more "wiki-seasoning" if you're wanting to wield the admin. mop.  I don't make this switch from support lightly, and I slept on the matter prior to actually making my changes.  While one might contest that these are not direct "[[Ad hominem]]" attacks, they are thinly veiled implications about an editor; and I just don't find that acceptable in an "Administrator" that I want to support. —
'''Oppose (switched from neutral)''' I stand by what I said in the neutral section. But two other things really bother me. First, Ironholds' attitude during this RfA is a cause for concern. A few diffs are given above but these two [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_3&curid=21975860&diff=278801207&oldid=278799994][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds_3&curid=21975860&diff=278798608&oldid=278795299] stand out as uselessly snarky. (And it reminded me of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itsmejudith&diff=265581561&oldid=265581079 this unnecessary message to an RfA candidate he had opposed]) My second concern is that, from what I can gather, Ironholds is an IRC regular and I've seen too many incidents resulting from admins making decisions on IRC.
I agree with what Pascal said both up above and below.  And no, I don't need any other reason for that to oppose, despite the badgering the opposition is receiving.  Aggression is not a mark of character; it will get you killed.
'''Oppose'''. I do not feel confident that this user has the necessary calm demeanor a good administratorship requires. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Per Scarian, Rjd, Hiberniantears, and many of the comments about temperament.  From what I can see, just too much of those comments made for me to be comfortable.  Those comments only confirm my initial assessment of the user from interaction on IRC, and while IRC is not wikipedia, my interactions with editors there helps to form my opinions of them.  Nice person, but just doesn't strike me as admin material in the overall. --
'''Oppose'''. Though I do think that Ironholds has the experience and skills beneficial to an admin candidate, as well as the fact that I appreciate his persistance in RfAs, I unfortunately must oppose. I share the sentiments of many of the above when I express my alarm at the many examples of Ironholds' persistant berating of people with whom he differs (as seen from the examples above). There are far more constructive ways to respond. For now and previously, his tone and temperment seem unbecoming of someone entrusted to wield the mop. These negatives unfortunately eclipse the positives, and therefore I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - while I appreciate Ironhold's extensive contributions to Wikipedia, most of which have been very positive, I'm simply not convinced he has the right character to be an admin. Some people do, some people don't, and what I've read on this RFA suggests he's one of the latter. I also have concerns about his judgement when it comes to notability (see links in the 'Neutral' section below).
'''Oppose''' - I've watched this fairly closely and was undecided at first, but comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=278570390&oldid=278570170 this] made during an RfA are concerning enough that I will have to oppose. Regardless of your history with or opinion of an editor or their comments, that is not the kind of statementthat is likely to help in any situation. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Comments such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chubbennaitor&diff=prev&oldid=279015241 this] (just a few hours ago) concern me. Regardless of what preceded that comment, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a little more control from an admin. This, as well as the diffs cited above, seems to indicate a continuing problem with temperament under pressure which should be rectified as soon as possible. <font face="Impact">
'''Neutral''' Ironholds does a lot of work on the wiki, but Scarian does bring some concerns diffs to light, I'm still thinking on this one. '''
'''Neutral.''' Whatever interactions I've had with him off-wiki have been good, and similar to MBisanz comment, he does a lot for the wiki. But, the concerns raised in the oppose section make me pause. Still thinking on this one.
'''Neutral.''' Per MBisanz. Helps out a lot but temperament is important. --
'''Neutral''' from oppose.
'''Neutral''' I have a gut feel that making too many campaign promises in the area of admin recall does make one more timid where some derring-do may be required. Again, not all admins need to be the sort who stick their noses in where they're likely to get punched, but I am left with a lingering concern that this admin has promised more than most in the recall arena.
'''Neutral'''. There are some good and some bad things about Ironholds.
'''Neutral''' Stifle, you worded this exactly as I was about to. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral'''. Flippy posts by an admin can stir up kilobytes of needless kerfuffle. A semi-retirement only a few days before this RfA makes me wonder how much admin tasks would be swayed by mood.
I can't decide either way. As an administrator, you would be representing the entire project and your behavior would affect the project as a whole.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''. I've supported you each time, but this time the issues brought up from the opposition are very valid points. I really like you, but I'm afraid not this time. '''''
'''Neutral''' Great contributions and reasons for concern are roughly equal so I will camp neutral on this one, like I did on the last. I hope you will be able to curb your temper so I can support your next request if this fails. Regards '''
Both sides have good arguments.  I can't oppose. '''Neutral'''.
I've had some very good interactions with this user, but the oppose comments indicate that these may not have been the norm. I'll go with '''neutral'''.
'''Support''', as nom. :) '''
'''Support''', as co-nom.
'''Support''', as non-nom. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - those in opposition offer no compelling reason(s) to refuse this editor the tools.
I'm not sure yet what admin work he's good at, so this is weak support for now.  I've opposed in part over "world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" before ... but as his 200th userbox, next to "respect for religions"?  He's a fan of comedy.  Comedy in the Western World juxtaposes contradictory and out-of-place ideas, including quite a lot of jabs at religion.  The assumption of bad faith is misplaced here. - Dank (
'''Weak Support:''' A number of issues have been raised, but not enough to warrant "oppose" -
'''Strong Oppose''' "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion."  And apparently has a blog called "The Bible Basher".  And yet, has the audacity to have a different userbox stating he "respects the beliefs and religions of others."  Yeah, I'm calling BS on that one.  Users who think disrespectful userboxes are a good idea should not serve as administrators on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''': user recently [[WP:OUTING|attempted to out]] a user who has not self-identified.
'''Oppose''' provisionally, because if Zzuuzz is correct in Question 4 that ISD has done minimal work with CSD and anti-vandalism then I don't think he's really ready to be an administrator who works in those areas.  Also, per the oppose above, unless it turns out that Senex Iracundus was OK with  being added to the page.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' Your content work has been stellar and you've been here for quite some time, but I don't think you have enough experience in areas relevant to the administrative tools.  You have only participated in three AfDs since 2007, and you have only made one edit to AIV.  Looking through your contributions, I can see that you haven't been involved in many discussions about policy and guidelines, which administrators are required to be well familiar with. You should try to participate more in these fields before requesting adminship. '''
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned about both your lack of experience in admin areas and what appears to be a misunderstanding of policy. As mentioned, you have minimal experience in AfD and AIV, yet you say that you plan to work with deletions and vandal-fighting. I'm also concerned that you say in one of your responses that you "banned" an editor "from the site". Your use of the term ban indicates that you are either unfamiliar with Wikipedia banning policy or that you were careless in your answer. You've been a great contributor and will likely be a good admin once you have the right experience.
'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced the candidate has necessary policy knowledge and understanding to be granted access to admin tools. The answer to question 3 where he states he "banned [a user] from the site" sets off major alarm bells. I had a poke around his edits and his talk page archives are stuffed with image notices. I could overlook a lot of this if it were just old issues and there was a sign that he had since learned about and accepted Wikipedia's policies but that does not seem to be the case. [[:File:DurhamFlag.gif]] which the candidate uploaded a month ago was deleted a couple of weeks ago as an F9 (an unambiguous copyright violation) and [[:File:Mark_Steel_Walsall_Hippo.jpg]] uploaded a couple of months ago was deleted as F11 (no evidence of permission). Also, there's really limited user talk edits (the last 20 user talk edits go all the way back to April) and while I'm very happy he's not here to be a social butterfly, it's hard to get an idea of how he will deal with vandals and problematic users etc and to see that he understands and can apply the relevant policies and communicate them effectvely to such users. The candidate's answers above say that if he becomes an admin, he would work with "Three-revert rule and edit warring violations, anti-vandalism, copyright problems and speedy deletion requests", which are all areas that he appears to lack experience with and more so, at least with image copyright issues, his history appears to show that he really doesn't understand Wikipedia policy and I would be concerned about him acting as an administrator in these areas. ISD said he wants to work with CSD, so I had a look through his deleted edits log back to 2006, but I could only find two CSD nominations, an article in November 2007 and a category in July 2006, with the bulk of his deleted edits being his own articles, redirects and other edits that were deleted. I'm sorry to oppose someone well meaning who works on content but I'm just not comfortable that ISD has sufficient knowledge and experience in related areas and so I'm not able to support at this time.
While the nominee says he wants to do anti-vandalism work, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=190363851 most recent AIV] report someone dug up (which is a year and a half old) is incorrect&mdash;see [[WP:VAND#NOT]]. While the co-nominator says ISD will work on DYK admin work, ISD doesn't seem to have any experience there&mdash;while he has contributed to many DYK ''articles'', I have never seen him involved in discussions at [[WT:DYK]] or other maintenance sides of the project, even reviewing other DYKs. Overall, I'm getting the impression that the nominee is mainly a content editor, with little to no experience in administrative work. There's nothing wrong with being that kind of editor (indeed, content is the absolute most important thing here), but it means that I see no need for the tools. The nominee's communication also seems offputting, particularly in the answer to Q3: "I get annoyed when people don't do what I want" doesn't seem like a good attitude for an administrator, and the claim that "I banned him from the site" belies a serious misunderstanding of how bans work. <b class="Unicode">
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in AIV and Sarah's concerns about images. While the content work is undoubtedly good, the fact that an image deleted for copyvio was created less than a month ago and the lack of edits to key admin areas such as AIV and RPP in areas which the candidate wants to work concerns me. I will revisit this later once many of the questions have been answered. --
'''Oppose''' I can see very few questions answered in a satisfactory manner.  ISD needs to spend more time reading the policies before answering, as particularly in the copyright area, and blocking there needs to be improved knowledge before answering or acting as an admin. There are only a few rights for users, but ISD should be aware of what they are.  Though I actually like the collection of userboxes, the negative on the user page is the no barnstars request!  There should be a barnstar for those that don't want them. <small>perhaps a very small one.</small>[[File:Original Barnstar.png|24px]]
I'm sorry but I'm going to oppose. A reasonable, all though unexpansive answer to my question isn't a big issue for me - however Q14 makes me very nervous that you really don't understand the technical elements of a "block", your lack of knoweldge re: [[WP:OUTING]] also belies a general lack of policy knowledge in my opinion and the overall rush at a number of the questions also concerns me. I appreciate this was probably not what you wanted to see this morning, and the number of questions is extensive. I do however think every single question has been asked to tease out better understanding of your knowledge and attitude, and you have not really provided much clarity in many of your answers. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I'm sorry but while a good faith editor doesn't have to know the policies, in order to use the tools in accordance with policy you have to have a good understanding of those policies. I hope this doesn't dishearten you, and I would be delighted to reconsider you if you come back after three months. ''
'''Oppose''', a good faith user I'm sure, but the answers to the questions are quite poor and I just wouldn't feel comfortable giving you the tools at this time.
'''Oppose''' per lack of sufficient policy knowledge, as shown on this RfA.
The answers to the questions make me seriously question whether you understand the policies.  Also some answers don't seem to address the questions that are asked.  As an example, your answer to Q6 only explains what you believe a cool down block is, not when it should be used and why.  This makes me question your ability to communicate your decisions to other editors.  '''
{{ec}}There are a lot of questions, and they all appeared out of the blue while you were most likely sleeping, so I can understand quick responses to a few of them, but yours go beyond hasty.  Nearly every answer is a vague concept that doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence - at best, it's hard not to feel like you're avoiding the (admittedly complex) issues in each one.  A number of them are quite good and would be very helpful to you if you gave solid answers, but you missed that chance, instead giving what you did for 6 and 8. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose''' for many of the reasons stated above regarding lack of policy knowledge. Somewhat in line with Sarah, I wouldn't mind mistakes if there was a clear indication that you were learning from them, but I just don't see that at the moment. I think we need all the admin help we can get, so I do want to encourage you to bone up on policy a bit, and then try for RfA again in a few months (I failed my first one, not a big deal).
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions (Arc Angels in particular) seem to underline my feeling of inexperience in admin related areas, and even with ISD's good heart, I think these issues (and other issues raised in the opposes) are pretty serious, and enough to make me oppose. Sorry. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' strongly unfortunately, because of a lack of experience in the areas that you want to work in, and per Sarah, Pedro, Rjanag and others. You're clearly a good faith editor, but just the answers to the questions are very concerning. Q5, Q6 and Q11 are not correct, and show a major lack of knowledge in general areas of admin policy. And I agree that Q14 and Q15 are alarming; either the candidate is misreading the questions <s>or possibly holds an alternate account.</s> Disclosing details (if any) to a bureaucrat or [[WP:Functionary|functionary]] would be helpful. Anyway, issues like the question answers and images bring up strong concerns. Sorry, and best of luck with the rest of your editing.
'''Oppose'''. Many apologies, as you're quite a good editor as far as content goes, but your understanding of policy needs a bit of work. See especially Questions 5 and 6. Don't get discouraged, though - I look forward to supporting your next RFA in a few months, if and when. Best to you,
'''Oppose''' due to non-familiarity with image policies, as evidenced by response to Q11.
'''Strong Oppose''' ''Very'' poor knowledge of policy and poor answers to questions. <strong>
'''Oppose''' - Fantastic editor, but I'm certain that he would make major mistakes as an administrator. Some very basic Wikipedia policy knowledge is missing, as evident in the answers to questions. It's possible that some of the garbled answers are due as much to poor communication skills as a lack of knowledge (either in the way ISD read the question or the way he answered it) but that is just as troubling, as it is key for an admin to be able to communicate clearly and helpfully to other editors. Perhaps with a lot of coaching ISD would be a suitable admin. Again, I do applaud him for his contributions to the encyclopedia outside of this RfA. -- '''
Answers to questions are rather weak, suggesting either an unfamiliarity with community norms/policies or answers made without adequate forethought. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Strong oppose''' - "I should explain the mian reason I get stressed is because I suffer from Asperger's Syndrome." -- I realise there are varying levels, but as someone with AS, I remind you that Wikipedia is a voluntary project. The reason that I (and others with similar conditions) receive different treatment in places such as schools is because they are compulsory. I do not believe the same the same leeway should carry over to a voluntary project, so if the statement was intended to ask for more leeway, then I outright disagree with the idea. The answers to the questions half of the time are wrong, like Q11, and half of the time completely miss what the question is asking, for example Q5, Q6, and Q7. I expect administrators to have communication skills, and the answers to the questions indicate otherwise. Sorry. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Several concerning issues, notably the answers about "blocks", "bans" and "cool down blocks". Ian does not have a good understanding of these policies, yet he seems to be keen on anti-vandalism work.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm a bit frustrated with the nominating editors.  RfA is known to be an unpleasant experience.  They really should have checked this candidate more carefully.  Letting the candidate know what's expected at an RfA would have been the minimum.  To the candidate: adminship is worthless, and means nothing.  Sure, if you find that you need the tools then come back an re-appy.  There are plenty of people who'll give you friendly advice.  Please read the good things that people are saying about you - you appear to be trustworthy, etc.  Kind regards.
'''Oppose''', does not seem to understand policy well enough. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral to Oppose''' I am switching to neutral because the concerns I listed below have not changed, and in fact, I am more worried now then I was yesterday.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15. One or two off-base answers ''may'' be overlooked but not this many, and not answers that are explicitly incorrect. The answers to these questions show a clear lack of knowledge of community policy. One cannot enforce '''and advise others''' - the more important responsibility of an admin, in my opinion - regarding policy that one does not display clear understanding of, and that one does not display the ability to find  the correct answers to. I have not examined article contributions; I understand they may be many and high-quality, and I hope that work will continue. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' a fine editor, but you don't appear to be doing anything that would require admin tools at all - and the ones you say you'd want to use, you're not currently doing anything anywhere near them.  I'm also deeply unnerved about not knowing about [[WP:OUTING]], the repeated talk page concerns over image copyright, and your confusion over banning, blocking, and whether you've done them or merely asked someone else to.  All that said, these can be solved - policies are simply looking for them and reading, confusion should be worked out at the same time, need for tools can be demonstrated by working more in areas where you get stopped by software (e.g. reviewing DYKs instead of just contributing, reporting CSDs and then wanting to action them).  No reason why I wouldn't support in a few months.  I would just note, I am quite unhappy about opposes based solely on a userbox - all Wikipedians have their biases, that one is hardly uncommon in Europe, and at least acknowledging it means everything's in the open. --
'''Neutral''' pending answers to questions.
'''Neutral''', pending answers to Zzuuzz's questions.
'''Neutral''' - looked good to me, but, I simply cannot support due to severe ideological differences, but I don't want to oppose over them either.--
'''Neutral''' Although I would usually support people with your history, some of the issues brought up in the opposes concern me.
Looks good.
'''Support''' Good contributions at the noticeboards, clear evidence of positive consensus-building, good contributions to AfD, right attitude about adminship, no obvious reasons to oppose. I strongly suggest that Moreschi delete the thoroughly unnecessary mockery of Q4-Q8; I don't like stock questions either, but those are up to candidates to handle how they see fit.
'''Support''', despite the rather shabby nomination, I see no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' As I said once before as one of many urging her to go up for RfA: I think anyone who has had the pleasure of reading Itsmejudith's insightful contributions could not help but feel that she would be just the kind of admin that Wikipedia needs. Her contributions to the noticeboards, AfD and many articles show thorough, detailed and intelligent understanding of our intricate and often confusing policies, and courteous, thoughtful and neutral work developing consensus.
Of course - great article writer with clue. '''
Let's see... half-assed answers to the questions that are mostly wrong signifies that adminship is not a big deal to this user, which means that this user's not viewing it as a trophy at all. Ergo, this is a very good candidate.
(EC) '''Support''' Great editor, but I don't like how nominator [[User:Moreschi]] is handling the RfA. (Especially replying to the questions). '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. We need more editors with good heads on their shoulders. Despite past conflicts, I think this particular user is at least trying to stay above the fray and is not diametrically opposed to such ideas as [[WP:MAINSTREAM]] and [[Wikipedia:Scientific standards]] which are my arbitrary criteria for supporting admin candidates. :)
'''Support''' because Judith would be a fine admin from every bit of evidence I've yet seen, and by the way, whether or not the candidate would be a good administrator should be the only thing people are thinking about when they "vote" here.  By the way, I like the way Wizardman put it.  Thanks,
'''Support'''. Things seem to be in order - judith has demonstrated ample clue in article and project-space contributions, which I generally value more than her feelings about a {{tl|hangon}} tag. It's unfortunate that many of the opposes seem to concern the nominator rather than the nominee. Itsmejudith would be a fine addition to the admin corps; I recognize that this RfA has not started out well, but I hope it will turn around or, failing that, at least not discourage her excellent participation on Wikipedia. '''
'''Support'''. I support the candidate, who is an excellent contributor and would be a sane addition to the admin pool, but I really do not care for the way that this RfA has been conducted.
Support. Parking myself here based on the candidate's phenomenal work on the noticeboards, while I wait for a more proper introduction from Wizardman and others.  Shame on you, Moreschi; this is Judith's night to shine, not your night to whine. - Dan
'''Support'''. I reviewed contributions and Itsmejudith seems to do well in contentious subject areas with well thought out contributions. There is sufficient involvement in admin related areas that I am comfortable that she will not use the tools in any way that would prove harmful to the project - I trust her judgment. For me that is sufficient to support an established editor. I find the answers to the questions reasonable and I don't expect expert knowledge of the totality of admin responsibilities. I trust that Judith will find whatever areas of admin she would like to get involved with and become competent as necessary. As an aside I am unhappy the way this RfA is being presented and conducted. This is about Itsmejudith. It is not about making a point. I strongly hope that people will overlook the side dramas and concentrate on evaluating Itsmejudith, not the circumstances of this RfA presentation. --
No indication, through my eyes, that the editor will misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. My interactions with Judith have generally been positive. Her answers to the questions above indicate a certain common-sensical and non-bureaucratic way of dealing with things. We need more admins with this mindset. --''
'''Enthusiastically support''' My experience with Itsmejudith has been, so far as I recall, primarily on the several noticeboards. Her comments have been uniformly well-considered and polite. Checking her contributions reveals no problems that I can find, instead revealing well-balanced attention to sourcing and general conduct becoming of an administrator. I find no indication that Itsmejudith might abuse the tools or be unresponsive to criticism, nor any other reason not to support. -
'''Support''' Good luck and thanks for your work so far.
'''Support'''. I think the answers to your questions could be stronger, but you have had solidly good contributions and I believe that policy can be learned. <b>'''
'''Support''' The short answers to #4-6 don't worry me at all. Excellent contributions, good sense, the ability to see the big picture, an admin I'd trust to find a good solution to whatever problem she encounters, including asking more experienced editors for help. This is a collaborative project and we need admins who know their limits and aren't shy to admit when someone else needs to be asked. We need them more than admins who think they already have all the answers. Who cares whether she intends to hand out rollback or not? Besides, if asked for rollback, I'm sure she'd either refer to another admin, or other admins might even jump in on their own, given that several of them will probably be watching her talk page. Ditto with page deletions. Not everyone has to do everything themselves. If given the choice, I'd rather uncork my wine with a butler's friend  and slice my bread with a bread knife, rather than doing everything with one Swiss Army knife. Anyway, good luck! ---
'''Support''' Great candidate. PS: Hoary's comments below are both funny and wise and I would urge the closing bureaucrat to consider them carefully.--
'''Support''', has been very helpful at [[WP:PNT]]. We should judge the candidate, and not the nominator. I really don't see that she will screw up big time as an admin.
Trustworthy candidate, good contributions. No reason to think tools will be used poorly.
Support, you have excellent knowledge as demonstrated by your contributions, but I think you shot yourself in the foot by taking this process too lightly. Have you spent time at [[WP:RfA]] before? I'd suspect that anyone who has will notice the process is brutal, and making a joke of it inevitably kills the RfA. —'''
Cliché, yes, but I thought she was an admin. The easiest way to resolve this would be to make her an admin. Her work at the reliable sources and fringe theories pages has always impressed. Seems to me that Itsmejudith gets the big picture: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game of nomic or an MMORPG. That's really all I need to see.
'''Support'''. Itsmejudith is an excellent, levelheaded candidate. Some of the oppose votes are making wish I could vote twice.
'''Support'''. I trust Itsmejudith. I have seen nothing to make me doubt that Itsmejudith will use the tools in anything other than a considered manner and that if she ever decides to work in areas she is currently unsure about she will take steps to understand them before actually doing anything.
'''Support''' Some of the oppose votes seem to be opposing not because of actions taken or statements made by the editor in question, and I would hope whoever closes struck such opposes from consideration. Also, adminship is no big deal.
'''Support'''. This is about the candidate, not the nominator. I see great work, lots of clue, willingness to wade into areas most admins run away from, and maturity. Some mistakes were made with this RfA - Moreschi's inexcusable behavior for one; timing (don't schedule RfAs when you have to say, "I'm busy for the next few days") - but per Sluzzelin, I think we can trust the candidate with the admin tools.
'''Support per Tan, -Sluzzelin, -NrDg, and John Z  ''' It's a pity that those who pushed the candidate to run did not do a better job of preparing her.  The instruction by the nominators to refrain from asking questions is most unsatisfactory. Be that as it may. The answer to 10, while expanisve, seems off the track and unclear. The answer to 9 does not show a good understanding of the difference betweena a ban and a block. The other answers are acceptable to me. Review of user talk contrib does not show anything alarming. Saw a smattering of successful deletion tags. I would have preferred greater strength in admin related areas.  However, the candidate seems reasonsable and unprone to rashness. Her work as a builder of articles and in working toward consensus, in seeking to de-escalate conflict show her to be be clueful. If she focuses on developing and acting on consensus, and is not overly bold in acting on discussions at [[WP:AN/I]], then she should be OK. It's a pity that some of the oppose comments have been so caustic.
'''Weak Support'''The candidate has tenure, contributions and usually sufficient clue to earn my support. The answers to questions are not ideal, however I'm going to take AGF that she will only use tools after genning up on appropriate policies. '''
'''Support''', Easy one for me - I ask myself, will this user abuse the tools? NO, Is this user going to help the project? YES, That's enough for me.--
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and has received numerours barnstars.  Plus, a fellow member of the Kindness Campaign.  :)  Best, --
This user has always struck me as thoughtful and prudent; to borrow a phrase from carpentry, a user who will "discuss twice, edit once".  In my mind these types of users are not likely to impulsively perform admin tasks that they don't understand, but rather are the type we can '''trust with the tools'''.
'''Support''' Why not?? Not bad contribs.
i seriously don't understand the opposes and couldn't give a shit if she got policy questions wrong anyway, policy questions are bollocks. more sane admins who think of things other than whatever the rfa regulars think is always better
Good luck.
Excellent editor: it's unfortunate that over the last 6-9 months RfA turned into a quiz, rather than an evaluation of contributions, and any wrong answer to any question leads to (often heavy) opposition. At least by getting an answer or two wrong, it shows that the candidate is not an RfA regular and didn't use the "right" answers to get support votes (templated questions copied from RfA to RfA are ''rarely'' a good method of evaluating a candidate, unique questions are better). Finally, while I personally found Moreschi's comments here amusing, I see some people had a problem with them, and I hope that other participants judge ''the candidate'' rather than anything by the nominator. Good luck.
You've had to endore ridiculous questions, and while the answers may not be perfect (we are human) you're notgoing to break anything. AGF '''Support'''. ~<strong>'''''
'''Strong support'''. Wikipedia would be lucky to have Itsmejudith empowered with admin tools as I've seen only thoughtful editing and answers to vexatious situations and questions on noticeboards. We don't expect admins to be perfect but to base their decisions in community consensus and policies. When in doubt I have no concerns that they will look to doing the best course of action even if that means getting more eyes on a  situation or apologizing and reverting themselves if any mistakes were made. That they are specialists in RS and content disputes only makes them more of a net gain for the admin pool. We need calm and level-headedness in admin matters.
'''Support''' The obtrusive comments from [[user:Moreschi|Moreschi]] have seriously damaged the prospects of this editor, which is a shame because she would/will clearly make a good admin. If this RfA does not pass please reapply after a decent interval with a different nominator who does not have a personal agenda to push. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong support'''. Good, sensible, editor who has gained much experience in many relevant areas.
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose. It's s sad that RFA has become into this idiotic witchhunt over the past eighteen months. RFC/U is jealous. '''
'''Support''' per Sceptre. <font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Support''' reasonably sensible.
'''Weak Support''' - I think that we all agree that Judith was wrong in allowing Moreschi to nom her, but we are going to crucify Judith over something that was out of her control? —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''' Itsmejudith is not an editor who I find myself agreeing with most of the time, not by a long shot. For my taste she is too far left on the political spectrum, too multicultural. Her terse replies to questions are representative of her customary editing. If Itsmejudith were an animal she'd be a hummingbird - hovering over a place, quickly dipping in her beak, then darting away to the next place. This means that sometimes in article discussions she will home in on a problem with breathtaking speed, make excellent points, but if a tendentious editor waits her out, she does not have the stamina to keep on pounding him until he's [[dead, dead, dead]]. On the plus side, she is very bright, is forthright about where she's coming from, and sincerely cares about combating non-rational, anti-science edits. We have too many admins who are so dumb they could not find their ass with both hands and a compass provided. Itsmejudith will singlehandedly raise the avg. admin IQ by a few notches. I believe she is smart enough and honest enough to abstract from her personal biases when wielding the blockhammer. She has a personality and has edited in contentious areas, which automatically disqualifies her in the eyes of some from being an admin, but I say she will be O.K., and we can't all be elephants.--
'''Support'''. I was initially put off by the high edit count, but upon review found that it is simply due to the user's longevity at Wikipedia, not the usual obsessive button-clicking undertaken by those planning to run for adminship. She also paid exactly as much attention to the "gotcha" questions as they deserved.
'''Support''' As for the "questions" bit, I find that it is hazardous to express a commonly held opinion about silly things while at RfA.  We seem to (in our haste to treat this like a job interview) be put off by anyone deflating the ''seriousness'' of these proceedings.  I also agree with the first sentence from [[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]]'s support.  Good admin candidates are those who can earn respect from opponents, not just cultivate fans.
'''Support''' Thoughtful editor who doesn't want to be all things to all editors, but makes certain to do her things very well.
'''Support''' as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith&diff=263863115&oldid=263859872 post-transclusion co-nominator]. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' after reading Frank's post-transclusion co-nom-like analysis.  She's not perfect but no candidate is.  A net positive to hand her the mop.
'''Strong support''' one of the best consensus-seekers we got. She's also very good at research work. And whenever she is not sure she asks (according to my talk archives). A very good candidate. --
'''Support'''. I've occasionally noticed good work, and never bad work. The candidate may not be familiar with all intricacies of the wikipedia ruleocracy, but he/she/it has good common sense. Rules can be learned, or, in a pinch, ignored. Common sense is rare. I trust her not to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per nominators. Has made many sensible and well-judged statements on [[WP:FTN]].
'''Support''' I think the oppose section has this one mostly all messed up.  We really need more admins with the skills necessary to helpfully deal with [[WP:FTN|fringe theories]].  It's not about memorizing the alphabet soup ''du jour'', or learning all the pointless rules of RFA etiquette (shrimp fork on the outside, or else you might god forbid bump the salad fork before the salad actually arrives).  Since she has skills in an area where we need skilled admins I'm willing to overlook things that are, compared to the importance of not having the encyclopedia packed with fringey stuff, completely trifling. --
'''Support''' - Not persuaded by the oppose votes, and sensing that this editor has the basic good will and patience to pick up the correct handling of CSDs and other admin tasks.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Sensible, adaptable, open to correction and eager to learn. I have no reason to believe she will use the tools blindly or has any gross misconceptions of policy. I have seen her around the noticeboards and she does good work there. Admins don't need to be capable of performing every task or knowing every policy out the gate. Plus, she's part of the Taoist cabal and I cannot turn my back on the Way. :-D
'''Support'''. I've seen her around; she does good work; she seems sensible; why not? &para; I skimread the oppose votes and I understand that, ''first,'' a number of people are most upset about something a nominator did. I tried to read about this terrible act but it all sounded too silly; I dozed off. So anyway Moreschi did the nominator equivalent of dropping his chopsticks in the soup or farting in public, and thus his nominee should be turned down -- Uh, is this what passes for "critical thinking" hereabouts? &para; ''Secondly,'' the nominee sneakily [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=263573421&oldid=263573315 changed] certain responses from their earlier, short state. Brevity of course reveals a lack of deference and humility; you have to kowtow to your inquisitors so that they know you suffer (or at least appear to suffer, for surely the genius of capitalism will soon create a website via which working stiffs in Bangalore or somewhere will sell solemn, longwinded, policy-abiding responses to all these and more questions). Not being an inquisitor myself, I'm unfazed by brevity. &para; Oh, and the first answers were allegedly terrible. So let's look at these terrible answers, later rewritten. ''First terrible answer:'' our Judith couldn't think of "any circumstance in which [she] would delete a page despite a Hangon tag". Well of course there are circumstances in which she should delete them. Let's pretend what I don't actually imagine for a moment: that when she wrote that response she really thought that "Hangon" was an amulet against deletion of libel, copyvio, kiddy "grooming" or whatever. She'd therefore leave such material undeleted, thereby (a) doing no worse than what she does now as a non-admin, and (b) doing nothing to prevent its deletion by any of the other hundreds (thousands?) of admins. No problem there. ''Second terrible answer:'' she thought that there were "not many" circumstances in which "a non-free photograph of a living person [could] be used on Wikipedia". This of course is absolutely correct (if incomplete). She added that she'd check. Excellent answer! Except of course that the authoritarian personalities hereabouts want long, deferential, solemn answers toot sweet. Oh dear. &para; So anyway, Moreschi may or may not have done something naughty but it's not him who's up for the "!vote"; Judith's answers are and were good enough. So yes, give her a mop. Meanwhile, the way in which some participants in these RfAs are affronted by trivial perceived lapses is sporadically farcical; I must visit more often. --
'''Support'''—Oh heck, it amazes me how small things snowball into incredibly large distortions here. I think the applicant is worthy and that this process needs decent, sensitive, skilled mediation (and a few tighter evidentiary rules please).
'''Support''' The opposes aren't even making a prima facie case, as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support''' Has a clue. Adminship is not rocket science and RfA questions are not the best way to judge a candidate. Of course, reading the RfA answers is faster than going through the contributions history but RfA would work a whole lot better if people were a little less lazy. No indication that the user will abuse the tools, demonstrated experience in mediation, demonstrated experience in newbie-friendly places like the reference desk, almost three years on the project and yet people want the candidate to jump through the hoops and find ways to oppose on grounds like "does not understand NFCC". Jeez, whatever happened to "net positive"?
Someone told me this RFA ''raises a lot of questions''. I've read it top-to-bottom and aside from "Are you there, God?", none have come to mind. —
Per [[WP:It ain’t rocket science]].  Seems to be mature and clueful, and doesn’t seem to thrive on unnecessary conflict.  95% of the time, problems with admins occur when they get too cocky and think they can do anything they want, not because they are "unfamiliar with policy" in some area.  This does not appear to be the case here.  Someone who appears to want to get it right, who appears likely to learn quickly from any mistakes, and who appears willing to go slow at first, can only be a net benefit. --
'''Support''' Per Barneca
'''Support'''. Experienced and sensible editor.
'''Support'''. She's not responsible for the sins of the farter.
'''Support''' I agree with CharlotteWebb. This seems to have been made into a bigger deal than it is. I see nothing that makes me think Ismejudith is untrustworthy. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - this candidate seems trustworthy, and I have no reason to believe she would abuse the tools. As for the opposes, I don't see anything wrong with the answers to her questions, even in their original versions - non-free content criteria isn't something that every admin needs to know, and would it be so bad to have an admin who would give certain speedy-deletion candidates a chance to improve rather than deleting them? I don't think so.
'''Weak support''' I trust Judith and that she will work cautiously in areas she is new to, but the great amount of heat around this RFA makes me question if there are facts I cannot see or am missing, hence the weak support. '''
'''Support''', the impression is that she is trustworthy for the role.
'''Support''' a net positive contributor.
'''Support'''. First, it makes no sense to oppose this RfA because of the [[WP:POINT|pointy]] behaviour of one of the nominators. Second, all my impressions of the candidate are of a cautious, thoughtful editor. Third, some of the answers to questions show inexperience or lack of knowledge. For instance, the reason US copyright law is so relevant to Wikipedia is that (from memory) the servers are based in Florida, and the organisation is registered in San Francisco. However, ideally, most of Wikipedia's image (file) content should be on Commons, and hence compatible with copyright laws worldwide, so the candidate has good instincts. The candidate has raised the idea of [[ZPD]] here, and I, among others I hope, would be glad to help. Overall: a net positive. ''
Definitely '''Support''' Hard-working contributor with large amounts of clue. This is a no-brainer.
'''Support''' I think she will make a very good administrator; she seems careful and reliable. '''
I see no issues and trust Moreschi's judgement.
'''Support''', yes, we do need more admins. --
'''Support'''.  And I'm tired of the RfA attitude of 'if you don't sufficiently treat the RFA process and in-crowd with deference, we'll vote you down.'
'''Support'''. I'd prefer the candidate to have more experience in admin areas. That said, I trust Judith. She's both thoughful and helpful.
'''Support'''. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I see no disqualifying issues here, IMJ should do just fine.
'''Support''', based on thoughtful comments at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] and at energy-related topics.
'''Support'''. Good, sensible and helpful editor. I have read the opposes, and don't find them convincing (nobody's perfect). I am confident she won't abuse the tools, which is what matters here.
'''Support'''. A thoughtful and clueful editor. I trust she will use the mop and bucket with care; and make a useful admin.
'''Support'''. After deep consideration user has been around since May 2006 and has over considerable mainspace contributions with over 49 articles and see no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - good candidate.
'''Weak support''' —
'''Support''' - An RFA candidate who knows enough to take her time, to ask questions, to verify her actions are within policy. Every time I have seen her name in a discussion, I have always been impressed with the reasonable and sensible comment it has been attached to. Also per Morven, barneca, Vassyana, Hoary, Tony1, Novickas, DGG, and Pascal.Tesson.  Not a bad mix of people who've said it better than I can.
'''Support''' I think that this candidate is a valuable asset and this candidacy should succeed...
'''Oppose''' - Candidate seems thoughtful, but checking the contribution history I see no participation in admin areas - and while some might view that as a plus, I do not, at least not when it's this bare. Secondly, the answer to question 1 is...well..unsatisfactory when it comes to the tools.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions all Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q8 provide undeniable evidence of a complete lack of policy knowledge. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' for inadequate responses to optional questions --
'''Oppose''' - While I respect both of the co-noms, the answers to questions become quite sloppy from Q4 onward. Or in other words, per Aitias. --<font face="verdana">
'''Oppose''' Following reconsideration since I made my original comment above (and commented upon by Moreshi below) I have reached the conclusion that I do not believe the candidate is quite ready at this time.--
'''Weak Oppose for now'''. (ec x2) I don't like the way this RFA has been handled so far; answers to optional questions are quite terse and choppy. I'm really hungry right now, so I'm going to get something to eat before I take the time to really dig into the candidate's contributions, but my initial thought is a weak oppose, although I would not be surprised if I end up switching to support.
'''Oppose''' - Terse answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Per VirtualSteve and here's a question for you is this Judith's RFA or Moreschi's, I mean there are answers to every question written by him/her  and almost every oppose has a comment by Moreschi. It just bugs me.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Weak Oppose''' because your answers to the optional questions make me a little nervous. There are times which you will need to delete a page with a [[Template:hangon|<nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki>]] on it. If you aren't working with rollback, don't answer the question. Questions 7 is correct 100% and 8 is mostly correct too. I am not saying you'll be a bad admin, I'm just nervous that you will go someplace like rollback just "to explore it" and make a critical mistake... '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Sadly obvious oppose''': The answers to questions, especially #4 and #6, indicate a stark lack of policy knowledge.  You can never "think of any" circumstance where you'd delete a page with a hangon tag?  Attack page, copyvio, random scribbles, the hangon tag has been on the page for a long time, in any of these cases you wouldn't delete the page just because of the tag?  Also, it feels a tad like this user is being pushed into an adminship that the user might not even want.  Almost nothing listed in Q1 requires the tools and the fact that the nom seems to feel the need to "defend" the admin from each question is troubling.
'''Oppose''' - I am not convinced that the candidate has an adequate knowledge of policy. The answers to questions 4-6, for example, show a lack of thought around policy issues.
'''Oppose''': I am concerned about the answer to Q4. Copyright violations and attack pages don't deserve consideration. These types of articles are a liability and the 'hangon' tag need not stop the clock. Great edits, and great editor. It's not even matter of memorizing policy, just a few glances should improve your answers. <sup><small>
'''Weak Oppose''' per Atias. Your answers to the subsequent questions either demonstrate a disturbing lack of policy knowledge or a rushed attitude - neither of which are a good thing IMO for an admin. I also agree that there are many, many times that speedy deletion can be done with a hang-on tag in place. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but per the answers to Aitias' questions, I don't have confidence in your understanding of policy knowledge. In the cases of a hangon tag, yes, it's generally polite to hang on ''if'' the page is not a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]], [[WP:ATTACK|attack page]], [[WP:SPAM|blatant advertising]], clear [[WP:CSD#G1|nonsense]]. Remember that a hangon tag can be abused as well; it does ''not'' give a guarantee that the page will be kept. As for non-free images, those may only be used when there is [[WP:NFCC|no free equivalent]], so in the case of BLPs, such images can be used exceptionally rarely because there is usually a free image obtainable. Not knowing this (what I consider) basic admin policy knowledge, I don't think adminship is appropriate for you at this time, sorry. Best, <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' Lack of admin-related experience.
'''Oppose''' The answers Itsmejudith have given are short on detail, and as others have mentioned they seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding of policy, the most obvious being the hangon and NFCC questions. The interjections by Moreschi, apart from being entirely inappropriate, have derailed the process, and have made it appear to myself that he is making up for the lack of knowledge of policy on Itsmejudith by deriding perfectly legitimate questions. It is our right as a community to know whether Itsmejudith will grant rollback rights, and under what circumstances. This process is not about Moreschi and how he would answer the questions, but about whether we as a community feel comfortable in granting Itsmejudith admin rights. A firm and swift "Thanks Moreschi, but I will answer the questions asked of me myself" from Itsmejudith would have been entirely appropriate, and would have shown one of the main qualities that I feel an admin should have; independence and a willingness to answer legit questions asked of them. At this stage, given this, I don't believe Itsmejudith is ready for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of understanding of policies. The answer to question 6 is of particular concern, as it mixes up the concept of copyright with the Wikipedia fair use policies. And non-free images of living people are (almost) never permitted.
'''Oppose''' - I stopped reading after question 4. <b>
I'm well aware that the initial answers to the questions were jokes; however, this demonstrates to me the precisely wrong attitude for a potential admin. The air of "anyone who's anyone already knows this candidate's the tops" gives a cabalish and clique-ish feel, which is exactly what we're trying to dispel. The questions, both stock and from other users, are intended to help those that are unfamiliar with the candidate to help vet their positions and abilities, and it was ''highly'' inappropriate for both the candidate and nominator to ridicule them so.
'''Oppose''' per lack of policy understanding, flippant attitude and constant interference by the nominator, who should know that the one thing that will ''definitely'' derail an RfA is a nominator or candidate who consistently badgers opposition and takes the attitude (as GlassCobra so eloquently puts it) of suggesting that anyone 'in the know' is aware the candidate is excellent and any suggestions to the contrary are simply the result of people not doing their research properly. I appreciate he'll probably come up with some reply to this, further enforcing my point.
'''Oppose''' User seems to need to have a better understanding of important aspects of Wikipedia, such as weight, reliable source, and the rest, which, during various conversations, their views on the matter are lacking. These are important content based standards that would be vital to have a clear and confident grasp before this user can be trusted, especially with the areas of Wikipedia that they frequent. Also, participation in multiple areas with the same group of people gives the possible appearance of "backing up" a friend and portrays the possibility of not being neutral, another feature necessary to be an effective administrator.
'''Oppose''' Have to go with oppose based upon our sole, short interaction. You found a serial vandal that was stalking me when they decided to forum shop at [[WP:RSN]]. That's okay- vandals do that. However, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Humanity&action=history history of the article] they brought up should have revealed what they were doing (not to mention what that person posted on my userpage). Their editing pattern is pretty easy to identify; it should have been pretty clear that 90% of the IP edits to that article were the same person. That aside, when I brought up that it was a person that had been stalking me for months, you basically gave them a pat on the back. I'm all for assuming good faith, especially of IP editors, but there's a point at which you need to invoke [[WP:RBI]] and move on, not provide encouragement. I worry of future judgment in dealing with long-term abusers.
'''Oppose''' Protect the tools like jewels, I'll have a fit if Judith gets the bit.  Stop the mop and don't let her have nuttin' to do with the extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' I regret to oppose this request, I really do. You seem to be a great candidate, who wants to help, but as stated before, the answers to Aitias' questions reveal some serious lack of patience and policy knowledge. The way you gave short answers before expanding was disturbing, as it raises quite some questions if you were to act like that as an admin, too. Rather than giving short answers which are incorrect and/or can easily be misinterpreted, you should rather have taken your time and answer them later. Also, the answer to Q4 is incorrect as PeterSymonds points out correctly (hangon does not mean you cannot delete, it just means that you should give the creator time to explain why they feel the tag is incorrect, otherwise hangons would effectively hinder speedy deletion) and the answer to Q7 sounds like you think [[WP:CDB|cool-down blocks are acceptable]] (I know you probably do not mean it but that's what I mean by short answers that can be misinterpreted). As people said above, your nominator did not help matters as well but I'd be damned if I used that as a reason to oppose, I rather find it very sad that your RfA was damaged in this way. I really hope you will retry RfA soon if this fails. Regards '''
'''Weak Oppose''' - The candidate's current renditions of the questions are considerably better than the earlier versions.  In my opinion, this shows that she has grown a bit in terms of WP policies.  I would support the candidate in a later RfA, due to this exemplification; however I can't bring myself to support her at this time.  I appreciate the effort on the other aspects of WP and hope she continues her work there.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Oppose''' I cannot support her nomination.-
Regretful '''oppose''' - problematic answers to Q3 and Q6. Having been in a lot of wiki-conflicts myself, I am extremely wary of editors who claim to be NPOV in areas they are involved in, and Q3 in this case implies a wrong (IMO) approach to dispute resolution. In addition, after my first RfA in 2006, I eventually came to take copyrights quite seriously, and Q6 shows a clear lack of knowledge in this matter, which is worrying as this is one of the few policies which have legal implications for Wikipedia, and having at least a basic understanding is a must for adminship. --
I don't see an activity in RC Patrolling in the candidate's contributions, and s/he seems to be not very very active. I don't like some of his/er answers, too. --
'''Oppose''' per Atias. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - per Peter, per Atias, per Ottava. Not much admin related experience here nor good question answers.
<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Per atias. Does not seem to have a good enough understanding of policy to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' - Questions 4 and over seem to indicate lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Inadequate understanding of policy. Disingenuous changing of answers.
'''Oppose''' per X, Erik.--
'''Absolutely Not''' - Changed from Neutral.  This process was manipulated by users who wanted to canvass to change neutral votes.  It is absolutely uncalled for and defeats the purpose of an unbiased RfA.  This process was supposed to see if the community ''trusts'' the candidate to be competent and responsible.  Frankly, from what I've seen, I haven't seen either.  See comments in Neutral section for original discussion.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Oppose'''. I was completely unhappy with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith&oldid=263523914 this version] of the RfA. The unacceptable answers, the ''change'' of the answers and <s>the canvassing by the co-nominator</s> the unnecessary answers provided by [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] to the questions push me over to oppose.
'''Oppose''', if you can't take the time to properly answer a question, don't answer at all. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Itsmejudith&oldid=263506832] This applies not only to RfA, but everything an admin does, where it is important one doesn't start something one can't finish.
'''Neutral.''' As a protest against ridiculous standards at RfA I am no longer supporting candidates with more than 3,500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a '''Strong Support''' when closing this RfA. BTW, you seem like a really good candidate though - lots of participation in difficult areas.
'''Neutral''' (but I would have been a support) Choose your nominators more carefully next time. This time, you're screwed because of a bad choice. I don't fully blame this on the nominee, but I'm guessing that since you know Moreschi well enough to let him/her nom you, you would know that s/he would do something like this. But it's a possibility that this is a first, so I don't ''fully'' blame you. <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
''''Neutral from Oppose'''. Her answers are better, but the fact that she had to change her answers is iffy. I'd like to [[WP:AGF]] and assume that she wasn't entirely serious with her answers and that she realistically knew the correct answers, but then that would lead me to think that she was blowing off the questions, which isn't good either... In any event, I will stay here at neutral. <font color="777777">
'''Beat the nom support''' - I've seen this guy around and wow... he should really have a mop. --'''
'''Support''' - I've seen excellent work from J04n on various articles. He's a trustworthy, dedicated and sensible Wikipedian who does a lot of excellent behind-the-scenes work too - good admin material. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong support''' &ndash; would make very good use of the tools on his rounds. He deals with several hundred articles a day and some of them could do with some [[:WP:CSD#G6|G6]] work. A maintenance admin after my own heart, and knows how to write, too. Was hoping to be #1 by the way as I have been watching this all night. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Support''' per nom and B.hotep. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - J04n is a fantastic content contributor and all I want to see is some admin related experience which he(?) has from contributing to various deletion discussions. I'm sure he'll be fine with the buttons. '''
I trust Dekimasu to pick out the right people for adminship. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' I must confess to having never heard of you. However, after a very brief perusal of your contributions as well as noting that you have the support of several editors that I trust without question, I come to the conclusion to support your RfA. Good luck!
'''Support''' Looks good and meets my [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Criteria]]--
'''Support''' per excellent taste in music.  He's done some excellent work keeping this place clean, and we'd all benefit from him having the bit. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' per Bubba, Dylan and Mazca. Mop away! <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support'''. An analysis reveals the candidate to be qualified by my [[User:Matheuler/adminship|criteria]]. —
'''Support'''.  While the J04n has very few projectspace contributions, he does not plan to work in an administrative area requiring such experience.  He also appears to be intelligent and clueful.  Best of luck, '''
35K edits, friendly and competent. - Dank (
'''Support''', no reason to oppose. Lack of familiarity with some areas of the wiki is countered by a willingness to learn before acting, as his answer to Q4 indicates.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] per Ironholds. High quality contributor, trustworthy and deserving of adminship. –'''
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. He appears to be a solid, trustworthy contributor.
I'm
'''Support'''. No reasons why not. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Based on level of contributions I think the user would be of benefit to the project with the mop
'''Support''' You've done a lot of good for the pedia, have a clean block log and your question answers are refreshing (though if there are any admin wannabees reading this I would strongly advise reading the admin reading list before starting an RFA). I think you have the sense to only use tools after reading the relevant policies and would strongly suggest that after this RFA you gen up on the relevant parts of [[WP:NAS|new admin school]] before using the tools. Good Luck ''
'''Support''' He is ready to be an admin, per nom and the above.
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] by having never been even accidentally blocked, being a Good Article contributor, being a fan of ABC's ''Lost'' (shows good taste), having [[User:J04n/Barnstars]] (impressed fellow eidtors), and also for [[User:J04n/Articles created]] (here to build an encyclopedia, i.e. right priorities).  Sincerely, --
Due to the answers to questions 4 and 9, and I'll explain why: I especially like the answer to question 4 because it shows that if J04n is unsure about something, he'll look it up (or ask someone else about it) rather than do something silly; and the answer to question 9 is how many people seem (to me anyway) to feel about AOR. With the answer to question 6, most blocks are "cool down blocks" anyway, so that's just a matter of terminology. In addition, these answers show that J04n is not an RfA regular, and his answers are more "genuine", rather than reworded versions of other people's answers. With "need" of the tools, nobody really "needs" them, and if someone is trustworthy, then there is no reason not to give adminship to them (I thought that "need" and "cool down blocks" had been discussed so many times...). Just take it slow, and if you need help, ask a more experienced editor for help.
'''Support''' - I'm satisfied with the answers to the questions. - '''
'''Support'''. J04n seems to be a good contributor who is committed to improving Wikipedia and would make effective use of the admin tools. Nothing in the Oppose section so far convinces me he wouldn't make a good admin; in particular, I don't agree with the suggestion that would-be admins should spend their time observing RFA and memorising the 'correct' answers to trick questions. RFA is supposed to be about assessing whether someone has the clue to use the admin tools correctly, not some kind of secret ritual for keeping out outsiders.
'''Support''' - Satisfied the user will become and good admin. '''
'''Support''' you significantly improved the article for [[Black Sabbath|the greatest heavy metal band of all time]]? I cannot oppose for that.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support'''. There are valid criticisms about lack of experience in areas related to using the extra buttons, however in all honesty, I think you'll be ok.
This look like a pretty good user to me, so I '''support'''.  &ndash;

'''Weak support'''. Seems good, though I don't like e-mail not being enabled.
'''Strong support''' Has definitely shown that he's a responsible, clueful editor. As for the answer to Q4, Newyorkbrad's comment below should be required reading for anyone who finds it a compelling reason to oppose. Moreover the distinction is irrelevant for the vast majority of admins: if you don't hang out at ANI, there's simply no reason to care. Adminship is not rocket science and we're doing a disservice to the project by pretending otherwise. Great candidate, clearly a net positive. I know that no bureaucrat will close this RfA as successful but this is really an instance where "not a vote" should be invoked.
'''Support''': RfA is about trust, and in my book, the answer to Q4 is a big plus: A candidate who ''candid''ly admits to not knowing everything and then provides an answer that works for all practical purposes is clearly trustworthy. I fail to understand how this can be held against him. &mdash;
'''Support''' per user A Nobody.
'''Support''' (Moral at this point). In recognition of your valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. <tt>
'''Support''': Some of the opposes are quite sound, but others show quite clearly how overrated adminship is. As Pascal.Tesson said, it's not rocket science. This editor has shown more than enough dedication and can be trusted to perform well. Anybody with half a brain will understand that if they are going to work in a specific area they need to know how things should be done there. I'm pretty certain this editor has much more than half a brain, which means he will familiarize himself with any policy that will be needed for his admin activities. I don't see any major mess-up in his editing history, and have no reason to beleieve he will run wild when he gets the admin tools. ≈&nbsp;
'''Comment to Closing Bureaucrat:''' This is an unusual case where the overwhelming  ''consensus'' is that the candidate would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. Even his strongest opponent ''Alan16'' states  "Oppose  –  J04n seems like a reasonable editor who makes good article edits. On that front I have no problems." Where there is  ''no consensus''  is on whether or not he has enough admin. related experience. A very slight majority agree with ''Pascal.Tesson'' who explains that Adminship is not rocket science and we're doing a disservice to the project by pretending otherwise. Great candidate, clearly a net positive. On the other hand a substantial minority do not believe he has the experience or knowledge to be able to do the job that will be required of him. I do believe that this is an important decision where''' "not a vote"''' should be invoked.
'''Oppose''' Thousands of disambig edits, and content creation are all I see. Your edits don't give me much opportunity to judge your knowledge of policy.
'''Strong Oppose''' Admins ''should'' know basic policies, and per A6 and the opening of A9, this leads me to believe that the candidate doesn't have the knowledge required to be trusted with the tools.  Also, A8 doesn't seem to relate to Q8 at all.  My strong comes from A7, however in that the candidate flatly states that he will block anyone that repeats vandalicious behavior.
'''Oppose''' - per J04n's answers to questions. His answers to multiple questions are troubling. His answer to Q4, for example, is ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J04n&diff=311939410&oldid=311939047 I have to admit that I just read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK because I did not know that a difference existed. To answer the question; a block prevents an editor from editing anything in Wikipedia and a ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia].'' That's not the right answer. Anyone can check [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AdjustShift|my RFA]] to get the right answer. J04n, I think you should analyze the WP policies, and re-apply for adminship after sometime.
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' for now.  Knowing ban ''vs'' block before being nom'd is essential.  Recommend hanging around some basic admin functional areas.  Good article development, appears some use of automation.  In other words ... '''almost there, so keep it up'''. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' &ndash; J04n seems like a reasonable editor who makes good article edits. On that front I have no problems. What just strikes me is that you don't need the admin tools for what you do, and have no idea what you'd do were you to get them. I'd have no problem supporting you if you gained some experience at [[WP:FAC]], [[WP:AFD]], or [[WP:ANI]].
'''Strong oppose'''. The answer to question six is simply unacceptable. It's a trick question, and you clearly didn't do the research needed to properly answer a question here, the kind of research an admin needs to do before taking action.
'''Weak oppose''' Checking your contribs, <s>about 90%</s>many of your edits are automated. <s>That makes your so called "normal" count stand at 3k. While this is perfectly Ok, </s>I'm not too impressed by your answers to support you. I don't see much experience in AFD/ANI or GA/FAC. Sorry, but I can't support you atm. Please come back later.
I think maybe a little more research is needed with the policies you'll be heavily involved in before you start enforcing them.  I do think that with that research you'll be a great administrator.  <small><span style="border:2px solid #333399;">
'''Oppose''' I was actually planning on supporting before I saw the answers to the questions. Incorrect answers for two very important questions are what most concern me. I suggest reading the admin-related policies and getting involved in the Wikipedia namespace more if this fails and you wish to run again. I think the lack of edits outside the article namespace is the cause of your lack of knowledge of admin-related policies.
'''Weak Oppose''' I think I understand the rationale behind the analogy of the janitor and a mop, but I don't see it as the best analogy. I see a better analogy as a referee. Many people feel that it is important to have played the sport to be a good referee; there are referees who have never played the sport, and some are quite good at it, but you start with a strike against you. I see the candidate as an excellent contributor to the encyclopedia—but to abuse my analogy, somewhat of a special teams player. Not intended to be a negative, I'm a big fan of special teams players, but one doesn't assume a complete understanding of all facets of the game by such a player. One doesn't even assume this of other positions—I think Tom Brady is an excellent quarterback, but I don't know if he would automatically be a good referee. I am fairly confident if you told him he had to ref a game later in the season, he would start paying attention to things in a different way than he would as a player. I think we've done a bit of a disservice to the candidate by nominating for the position without giving a proper heads up. The position absolutely (and appropriately) requires a solid understanding of a wide range of policies, some of which you may not have encountered as a editor. The position also requires a mastering of jargon, so that certain terms have special meaning, such as cool-down blocks. I see nothing wrong with blocking a disruptive editor, but that isn't exactly an example of a cool-down block. I I'm confident that if candidate is interested in the position, and spends a few moths reviewing policy, that the support level will be extremely high. I know, I took a lot of bytes to say come back in three months.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
Per Soap, Sphilbrick, Bjwilkins. Mix those three together equally and you pretty much land exactly where I am. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' Admins need to know how to research and apply policies, guidelines, and common practice. They need to be able to know where to look for things, which this user didn't do in his RfA answers (see A6 about cool down blocks). Also, I'd expect an editor to know about blocks and bans before getting the tools. I could definitely support in the future, however. The candidate can improve with more experience and review of policies. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' Would like to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace (other than [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links]]). --
'''Oppose''' - The answers to the questions are at best terse, and at worst entirely wrong. Uncomfortable with supporting this request at the current time. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Reluctant Oppose''', your work looks good, and I've no doubt that you only have the very best of intentions.  However, you have made some pretty elementary errors in the questions posed to you above, which gives me pause.  With a bit more practice and experience in the administrative side of the project, I'm sure you'll make an exemplary admin in the near future though!
'''Oppose''' - Due to overt lack of experience and activity in the project space outside of DA pages. Makes it very difficult for me to assess admin-related abilities. Sorry.
(Moved from neutral) '''Oppose''' Great overall user and editor, great edits, and seems trustworthy, but the answer to Q4 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J04n&diff=311939410&oldid=311939047] is concerning. It shows that until the candidate was asked that question, they were not even knowledgeable of the difference between two key Wikipedia policies. Combined with minute concerns over lack of extensive Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and User talk edits, as well as a bad gut feeling over the more recent answers (up to 14) moves me into oppose. Sorry. --
'''Opppose''' not know policies enough. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Oppose''' Per Adjust Shift and HMWITH. You are definitely on the right path, and have a proven record as a great contributor. I nearly supported because I see in your answers that while you are unfamiliar with many of the admin nooks and crannies, you are clearly not someone who would abuse the mop, and you show a willingness to learn the correct answers. To be perfectly honest, if you spend the next month reading up on policy, I would very willingly support you in another RfA. I do not like opposing good users who will be good admins. You will be a good admin, and just need to get up to speed on the admin rights and responsibilities.
'''Oppose''', questions show a lack of familiarity with current policies and feelings on major admin issues.
'''Oppose''' - answers to questions show that the candidate does not know policy as well as an admin should.--
''' Unwilling Oppose''' I originally supported you, but your answers show a lack of knowledge in certain areas. Better luck next time.
'''Oppose''' Per answers to questions, and per Neuro.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' You're missing some very fundamental policy knowledge, and I have other concerns based on your answers. An RfA candidate should know the difference between bans and blocks, and that cool-down blocks are never used (yes, CPB does say that disruptive users can be blocked, but they should be getting blocked because they're disruptive, not because they need a "time out"). Several of your answers (#13 in particular) are lacking in detail, which doesn't give me any additional confidence that you know your stuff. Lastly, while this doesn't factor much into my oppose, I do understand your reluctance to be contacted by email, particularly a personal address. What you may want to consider doing is setting up a throw-away gmail account specifically for receiving and responding to Wikipedia emails. I do this, as do many other administrators, and it significantly reduces your chances of being outed or attacked by email. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose''' J04n shows a dedication to Wikipedia and a lot of positive traits (as outlined in the nomination statement).  Unfortunately, the answers to several questions do not lead me to believe he has enough admin related experience at this time.  If a future run at adminship is desired, I suggest both reading up on policy and hanging around admin related areas. --
'''Oppose'''.  Uninspiring answers to the questions and a lack of demonstrable experience in admin-related areas leave me unable to support; this is clearly a valuable editor but there is nothing to say they would make a good administrator.  If they are genuinely interested in contributing to the admin workload I would suggest taking a bigger interest in related areas of the project prior to accepting another nomination.
'''Oppose''' J04n is an admirable editor but seems to lack the knowledge expected out of a potential administrator. Whatever NYB says, answer 4 is incorrect and doesn't address the most important difference between a block and a ban (blocks can be made and removed by a single administrator, bans can't). Answer 6 is also incorrect, ironically shown by the link that J04n used to defend the answer. I think J04n isn't ready for RfA and was surprised to be nominated, so there shouldn't be any surprise that he wasn't prepared. If he has a true interest in being an admin then some familiarity with admin responsibilities then I might support a future nomination. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Frankly, I'm a little shocked by the attitude some editors have that it's okay for an admin to be grossly ignorant of basic policy.  I will be more than willing to support in the future when more knowledge is demonstrated regarding being an admin.  Some on-the-job training is expected but there must be a basic understanding of the rules and demonstration of good decision-making and dispute-settling abilities prior to receiving my support. Not now.
'''Oppose''', good contributions but could use more experience and familiarity in areas of policy. Would be willing to support at a later date after some more experience in these areas. '''
'''Neutral'''. My only concern is that you don't appear to have too much need for the tools. Is there any "big" area that you would like to work with? [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:CSD|CSD]], [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], perhaps? (Feel free to reply, of course it won't be considered "badgering" when my !vote is phrased as a question.) [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
(moved from support) A basic understanding of basic policies is absolutely required for an admin, and I'm not sure you know all the basic policies. Mostly per A6. <s>There's nothing really wrong with it fundamentally, but it's just too short for me to tell if you really understand it or not.</s> '''
Question 4, 6, and 9 make me believe you don't know some of Wikipedia's basic policies. '''
'''Neutral''' because of poor answers to the questions, but I've gone through your talkpage archives (which, admittedly, are surprisingly thin for someone with 35K edits) and not seen you getting any warnings other than a few deletion notices.  So I can conclude that you aren't the type to make rash decisions on sparse knowledge.  -- ''<B>
'''Neutral''', and review [[WP:ARL]] if you haven't. I'll be more than happy to support the next time around, but not now. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' I'm generally of the "admin is no big deal" school and favor giving it to all more or less trusted editors who want it, but this particular editor's answers to the questions suggest that this editor not only has little or no experience where admin areas are concerned, this editor has an aggressive ''lack'' of interest in policy and how admins are expected to behave. The ban/block question, the "cool-down" block option, etc., are all staples of RfA, and a basic amount of due diligence would have let the editor answer. Unless I get an indicator that this editor will take being an admin, and the responsibilities that come with it, seriously, I can't support. <strong>
'''Neutral''' The same concern as above; the breadth of editing areas isn't all that wide.  The lack of knowledge on the questions tell me that it's just a matter of a bit more education/reading and time... So probably support the next time around.
'''Neutral (from support)''' Eh... ''If'' you get voted onto the Admin Island, do read up on policies before enforcing them. I'm not going to support, but if the rest of the community is behind you, then I'm not going to oppose you either. Or even if the rest of the community isn't behind you. I'm gonna stay neutral. You do have a clear lack of policy understanding, though, and since most of your 35k edits seem to be (semi?)automated... You seem to have a positive, content-building mindset, but you just don't have experience. <span style="font-family:monospace">[&#65279;
'''Neutral''' Cant suppurt per query 6. But I dont oppose either. I think this editor is promising though, so my neutral can be viewed as weak.
'''Neutral''': Basically the editors answers to the questions above were not answered to a high degree of sophistication which indicates among other things the editors lack of basic knowledge of the criteria expected by of all wikipedia admins.
'''Neutral''' A fine editor, but the hazy answers regarding admin policies doesn't inspire confidence.
'''Neutral''' <s>Oppose for now. It is important for an admin to be contactable.  People often have something they would like to tell an admin in private.  Putting your email on Wikipedia does not disclose it to any one, but does enable you to receive messages. Since this is an easy thing to fix, my vote could be reconsidered.</s> However I am impressed by the amount of disambiguation you have done.  It shows commitment.  (I have tried this, and only spelling fixing seems more tedious).  If you still want to take on the unwatched, you can email me, and tell me how I can send you the list.  Vote reconsidered.  Since  responding to my concern it shows that the candidate can improve. It would have been a good idea to read the previous RfAs to get an idea of the questions and what is needed to be known to pass.
'''Neutral''' Per the concerns listed above.
'''Support''' if an incomplete RfA is going to go ahead then [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|why not]]. <font face="Georgia">
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' mainly per deliriousandlost. Additionally, I don't think you're likely to break anything. Best of luck. ···
'''Support''' because I fell that James Frankcom understands the [[Wikipedia:Advice_for_new_administrators|duties and responsibilities of an admin]], is prepared to take the role serious and will continue make worthwhile contributions. We have collaborated on a few articles; he has always been supportive of my work and responsive to my questions.  I wish him the best of luck should he be granted adminship.  Dymuniadau gorau. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> ~
'''Anyone who doesn't support James Frankcom for administrator does not understand the role of an administrator'''. JF has thousands of edits massively skewed toward building the content and improving the credibility of the encyclopedia. That, in a nutshell, is the only reason any of us should be here in the first place. He has been here since 2005, and thus proves he sees this as a long term intellectual commitment. He has never been blocked, thus proving he understands the norms of responsible behavior within the project. Most importantly, he's made no effort to do the traditional admin ass kissing campaign in preparation for an RfA, thus proving he is genuinely seeking a few extra buttons to do a few extra things that will inevitably help build the encyclopedia. Show the man some respect.
[[WP:POINT|Pointy]] support. He's trustworthy and no more likely than anyone else to f**k things up. You're not quite ready yet, though. Try spending a few months familiarising yourself with some admin areas (pick one that interests you- if you like dispute resolution, try [[WP:AfD]] or [[WP:ANI]]) so you can tell the community "this is what I'm doing now" and "this is what I'd like to do with a few extra tools.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Not enough edits outside of the article space for me to think that this person is safe with the tools. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' - Partly per coffee, but mainly because you don't need to be an administrator to do any of those things.
'''Oppose''' Having a sporadic editing history, and having few edits outside of article space so I cannot accurately judge this candidate's experience in the admin related areas.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' It pains me to do so, as my [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|opinion on adminship]] makes me very reluctant to oppose anyone who seems unlikely to, either through malice or ignorance, misuse the tools. James Frankcom also seems capable of keeping his cool under pressure, my favorite trait for potential admins. Still I oppose, because quite simply, he doesn't need it. As many above have pointed out, both his past edits and his Q1 answer show a strong focus on article content. ''And there's nothing wrong with that.'' Admins aren't a better kind of Wikipedian, they're just a different kind. James Frankcom just doesn't seem like an admin. He's an editor, and there's no shame in that.
'''Strong oppose'''—of your self-nom statement, well over a quarter (I did a word-count, it's just under 28%) is irrelevant preening of your academic standing. You then devote about half of one sentence to your article-contributions to Wikipedia. I can't even begin to imagine what the phrase, "I have become concerned that too many people with Admin controls are career-editors rather than contributing editors," actually means. So, sorry, no. <font color="#7026DF">╟─
'''Oppose''' I hate opposition over 'no need for the tools', but in this case, your answer to Q1 leads me to believe you don't even know what sysops do on Wikipedia.  Fixing broken links is a task that anyone with 10 edits and 4 days tenure can do.  Conflict resolution, likewise, can be done by any editor with the temperament for it- the "mop and bucket" is not [[Captain (Royal Navy)|four stripes on your sleeve]] with some kind of authority in dispute resolution. If I thought you'd use the tools sparingly, but correctly, that would be one thing. When I can't perceive that you even understand what you're asking for, I'm forced to oppose.
'''Oppose''' largely over the fact that he adds reams and reams of unsourced information to the website (and much of this of questionable notability). Doesn't seem to have a grasp on basic researching skills and as such, should not be in a position of responsibility over content. The unreferenced BLP [[Gennady Alamia]], created in November, is a case in point.
'''Strong oppose''' Per Q1 and I have to see more experience in areas an admin has to be versatile in.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Weak Oppose]]''' per Coffee and your answer to Q1. Sorry. However I will be open to persuasion. Good luck!--
'''Oppose''' With under 400 edits outside of article space I do not think that this editor can '''understand''' the ins and outs of Wikipedia sufficiently to be an admin.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' - You really don't do things that you require the tools. You can handle disputes without the tools, and it doesn't look like you have gave out too many [[WP:UW|warnings]] with less than 100 user talk edits. Per WFCforlife. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Oppose'''. Way too few edits outside of the article space, lack of experience in admin-related areas, and per response to Q1. You just don't seem to understand what adminship is, let alone demonstrate a need for it.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Oppose]]''' - per Q1. Adminship isn't needed to do the things that you listed on Q1.
'''Oppose''' Not enough work  out of the mainspace, doesn't really provide a good reason for needing the tools. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' I don't understand the role of an administrator according to James Frankcom's supporters, so I'm required to oppose. --
'''Oppose''' The real life credentials would indicate the type of person who very much ''should'' be an admin. The arrogant way they have been presented however - very much not. I would suggest the candidate may have had enough feedback now, and this should be [[WP:SNOW|snow closed]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per "''It is important to remember the time and effort taken by contributing editors to add content and how quick, easy and often unfair it can be when people delete their work.''" This is an arguably true point, but here, it comes off like JF will use his adminship to get revenge on people who've crossed him. Please close per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' No admin history, edit summary count low, not enough expirence outside mainspace. --
'''Oppose''' In this case, I see no reason why this user needs the tools.  True, he has contributed to the content building of the project, but he has no significant history of performing any maintenance that would require him to access the tools. ''Opposition is not a bad thing.'' There is simply not enough evidence to suggest this user needs sysop tools.
'''Oppose'''  Maybe you can reapply in a few weeks if you learn to use all the tools that non-admins use and when you find more of a need for admin tools.  Also try to do more article work.
'''Oppose''' on heavy concerns of lack of understanding in large vital areas of policies and guidelines. Though I respect the boldness of nominating oneself on the very generic "suggestions" listed for a presumably good candidate (vs much higher ones used by some editors), my oppose is firmly rooted in the lack of time spent in vital areas. No time on patrols, almost no user interaction, essentially zero contributions in the "Wikipediaspace". A burden of meeting the "can be trusted with the tools" standard insurmountable. Also, I'm left a bit confused by the admin as "career contributors"-- not because I disagree with the idea, but because the nominee has no time spent in NPP or RCP, next to none in XfD and none in DRV CSD or ANI. I'm not sure how this alternate view of administrator actions could be offered if even the normal view is an unknown? With that as the core reason given for becoming an admin, I can't say nominee has shown evidence that I feel it could benefit the community overall in any way to have tools  <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' As this editor doesn't seem to be malicious or nonconstructive I was leaning toward a neutral position barring some extraordinary revelation in his answers to concerns raised. Unfortunately this editor can't seem to be bothered to keep up on his own self nom by answering ''any'' concerns raised so far. This should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]] as no one seems to be getting anything else out of keeping this open.
'''Oppose''', unfortunetly I recall seeing this user upload some copyvio images he had found on Google (armorial), and passing them off as if he created them himself. I agree much with the sentiment in Bali ultimate's comment. Not admin material IMHO. -
'''Oppose''' - Not active enough, barely any experience outside article space.   And you can resolve editorial disputes without being an admin.  Having the tools doesn't give you any additional authority over content disputes.  --'''
I am taking the neutral per Q1. These activities the candidate wants to perform as an Admin do not necessarily require Adminship. And Adminship doesn't give him any more authority to perform these "better" than other editors. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Neutral''' The candidate does not require adminship to perform the tasks stated in Q1. They also have almost no activity in "admin" areas (such as CSDs, PRODs, AfDs, AN/ANI, etc), so I cannot judge if they would use the tools wisely. -- '''''
'''Neutral''' Mainly per Phantomsteve. '''<font color="#003366">
'''Neutral''' - One of the most legit edit histories I've ever seen, 0 page patrols, but a standard non-assisted edit history for nearly 5 years. That's nuts. In a good way. I don't want to discourage anyone this dedicated. I like to see some editing of the variety that is required of admins these days. There's not a lot of that. A few years ago someone like this would be a shoe-in. I think this editor is probably an amazing candidate, but I would like to know more about their disposition towards those all-important admins quantities.
'''Neutral''' per RUL3R. &mdash;
Not going to bother opposing. James, you seem well-intended and a good contributor which is always a great start. But looking at your edit distribution on the talk page, I see you have no experience in admin related areas which makes it very hard to get an idea of how you would handle situations as an admin and how you interpret policy in dealing with admin matters. For example, you have only 17 edits to the Wikipedia space, including edits to this page. And 8 edits to Wikipedia talk. All your Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits seem to be to Wikiprojects you're involved with and you don't seem to have ever touched any admin noticeboards or particapated in any community discussions. You also have only 96 edits to User talk and 119 to article talk. It's great that you're a content contributor but I don't think you have sufficient experience in other areas and there's just not enough there to get an idea of how you would be as an admin. I think you just need more much broader experience.
'''Neutral''' I have no concerns other than the James' lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, a look at their editorial stats on the talk page shows that they've only 17 edits to the Wikipedia namespace which has lead me to vote neutral this time round as I feel that the candidate is just simply not experienced enough as of yet in the Administrative areas of Wikipedia to handle the tools efficiently at the moment. I'd be glad to support the candidate in a future RfA however, once the above issues have been addressed. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
In agreement with the above comment by Sarah. I've got no reason to doubt you're a trustworthy editor, and you've certainly done good work thus far. I just think a few more months of exploring various adminy areas like AIV and ANI would be a good idea. &ndash;'''
You are just a few steps away from becoming a reliable, solid contributor. In getting there, you'll come across and be involved with all kinds of pertinent WP issues that'll invariably lead to an active involvement in the admin side of things. This is the best introduction to the complexities, understanding and interpretation of policies and guidelines, and you'll know its started to really happen when your in-and-out Talk Page rate threatens to go through the roof. You'll find out if you truly have a taste and aptitude for the swab-count side of things. There's a wealth of help and hints on offer here. Make the most of them. And enjoy yourself. All the best.

'''Neutral''' per above. Good luck though!
'''Support''' - Seen him about, seems cool-headed and civil. Has done some great work. &mdash;
'''Support''' You seem competent.
'''Weak Support''' You have a clean blocklog, and even if one completely discounted your huggle edits, IMHO you have more than enough contributions for adminship. I've gone through your deleted contributions for the last month and I liked most of what I saw. Judging from your tagging of attack pages for deletion I think you've imbibed the spirit of our BLP policy regardless of your comment to the BLP question. Weak because you've been here less than 6 months, and I was concerned that when you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Rene+davila&timestamp=20091113211423&diff=prev tagged this as A7] you left [[User talk:Orange gatorade]] as a redlink, however that was the only one of your tags where I spotted a lack of communication with the newbie. I also noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Kyle+Conway&timestamp=20091015160240&diff=prev two] articles you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Shane+Mckinnon&timestamp=20091101032900&diff=prev tagged as A7] that would have been deleted quicker if tagged as G10. ''
'''Support''' As we have plenty of administrators who do little or no work with BLP's already, and they are still great at what they do work on, I think it unfair to oppose a candidate for not being an expert in that area.  I have <s>opposed</s> !voted neutral on candidates in the past for saying that they would consult with a more experienced admin if faced with a conflict they are unsure how to handle, but now I have come to feel that <s>opposing</s>withholding support for that is unfair, and hence I support promoting Jeffrey Mall to administrator.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' per Jamie and other Q5 opposes. So the editor is trustworthy, and has a concrete, definite, specific, and useful purpose for the admin utilities, but we're going to oppose because he doesn't have an opinion about a subject he's not planning on running across? And people wonder why there's an admin shortage. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' A5 notwithstanding, I see no reason to oppose this candidate.  His policy knowledge is good per his answers to those related questions.  I wasn't aware one had to have an opinion on a certain policy to be an admin.  Addendum: Changed to <b>Srong Support</b> I don't think this candidates percentage of automated edits is an issue, and like has been stated, precedent HAS been set for this very issue.
'''Weak Support:''' I agree with ArcAngel: A5 notwithstanding, I see no reason to oppose this candidate.  His policy knowledge is good per his answers to those related questions.  I wasn't aware one had to have an opinion on a certain policy to be an admin. He is making some great contributions to the project and I encourage him to keep it up but, perhaps in a few months and more edits. . . -
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as I find [[User:Jeffrey Mall/Awards]] pleasing if not impressive, candidate has over 12,000 edits, was made "Wikipedian of the Day" for 31 July 2009, and as candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' After being on the fence for a few days, I have decided to support. I ran into Jeffrey a few months ago when he reverted some vandalism (greatly appreciated) on a [[WP:PJTF|Percy Jackson]] page. I've seen nothing but good from this user and he will make a fine admin. The opposes are unconvincing. Also, not everyone works on articles (content-building wise). I'm sure he'll consult with a more experienced admin about those should an issue come up in that area. We are certainly not here to tell someone where exactly to work during the free time they give to maintaining this encyclopedia; that I find quite insensitive. This user's strength is obviously in the realm of vandal-fighting. With the tools he'll be able to block users, delete pages among other things, tools that he clearly needs because he is a vandal-fighting user. His answers to all of the questions not including #5 demonstrate a firm grasp in policy. In a nutshell, I am convinced that giving Jeffrey the tools will be a net positive for the community. Good luck, Jeffrey!
'''Support''' based on the commonsense attitude shown in the answers to the question and the fact that RFA standards inflation is becoming very unfair. This is a candidate that would have been a shoe-in 3 years ago and the 'pedia hasn't become that hard to admin in the intervening time. We can't all write but maintenance men who know what they can and cant do properly are really hard to find.
'''Strong support''' - five months, user wants to help the encyclopedia, and he shows a decent knowledge of policy. Shouldn't that be all that we ask from candidates? —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Strong support'''. Looks like a good admin candidate, with well-rounded experience in administrative areas. Jeffery Mall seems to understand BLP policy and agrees to enforce it (see his ''clarification per Question 5''). I had gotten the nuance of "not having a strong opinion on something" versus "not understanding something/not enforcing something" already, but hopefully this clarification will [[WP:TROUT|clue-in]] the oppose !voters.
'''Support'''. Seems clueful to me. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I like the new answer to Q5.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy and unlikely to misuse the tools. We can always use more help clearing the admin backlogs. (Although [[CAT:TWU]] is one of the least important ones.)
I have no reason to mistrust this user or suspect that they will do any harm as an administrator.
'''Over 3,700 contributions to Wikipedia and gathered over 8,000 edits SUPPORT''' Who in their right mind thinks 3,700+ content contributions in five months is isignificant because of the ratio of 3700contentedits/8000totaledits? That's insane. I've made some pretty stupid oppose votes before, even one in the last few weeks. I have, upon a little meditation, reversed my most ignorant decisions. Hopefully some of the opposes will reconsider. I'm not sure I even had 3,700 total edits when I passed RfA in 2007.
'''Support''' all the good reasons already taken, so it's hard to come up with a new one.
'''Support''', I don't see any serious issues with this user, and I'm quite convinced that they wouldn't intentionally misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Re my question: 5/6 Ain't bad - I disagree that it is always ''A civil and welcoming community'' - possibly an area where the current Admins fall short.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I find the opposes to be so without merit (lack of opinion on BLPs is a reason to oppose?  Ratio of automated edits rather than total number of non-automated edits? Ick) I feel the need to support. I'd prefer more experience, but enough to support here.
'''Support''' Overall, it would be a net positive to have Jeffrey as an admin. <span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:deeppink">–Katerenka</span> <sup>
'''Support''' - I've seen him around a bit at AfD, and I think he has the right stuff for adminship. Has my trust, and a good knowledge of policy. Would be nice if his edits were a bit less automated, and a bit more experience would help, but I don't really think it's bad enough to oppose. [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - I completely disagree that FA or/and GA are needed to be an admin. Writers should write; contribute with your strengths rather than dilute your work by having a finger in '''every''' cookie jar. His contributions show he understands what WP is about. Understanding and having an opinion are not the same thing. His automated edits show familiarity with tool useage. His self nomination shows that he has the confidence in his work to stand up to the scrutiny of an RfA. <font face="Georgia">
Not everyone has to deal with BLPs constantly. There are many policies on Wikipedia I couldn't care less about, and it is wrong to slam someone for their honest opinion (or lack of one) of a policy. The candidate did not say "I think the BLP policy is a silly one and we should not care about living people", or anything to that effect. Adminship involves many tasks, and I'm sure the user will find their way easily. Afterall, it's not rocket science. '''
'''Support'''I believe I can lend support now. 3000 edits to me is substantial. 8000+ edits vandal fighting is still a signifigant time in fighting vandalism. Both of which are pluses to me and are not reasons to oppose. The BLP issue and my previous concern is addressed.

'''Support''', even if you won't pass, would like to see you back in a few months. I find your answers to the questions reasonable and thoughtful, and the opposes largely a version of "Not enough Portal Talk edits!" I'm interested in quality of edits and thoughtfulness of the editor, not where or how the edits were made.
'''Oppose'''. Out of your total of 12530 edits, 70% are [[WP:HG|Huggle]]/automated edits.  This makes it difficult to determine your how well you can engage in discussion with other users.  Sysop's tools are not nearly as simple to use as pushing the "space" and "q" buttons are.  Not only that, I feel that five months of experience isn't nearly enough experience to be a sysop.  You're making some great contributions to the project and I encourage you to keep it up but, perhaps in a few months and more edits. Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. Question 5 is concerning. I would expect all admins to have a much stronger attitude to BLP than that. Like it or not, all active admins will likely have to encounter BLP issues that need rectifying, and I would expect them to know, understand, and be willing to deal with them. <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' no substantive mainspace contributions --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Answer to Q5 not satisfactory. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' The BLP policy is one of the basic policies within wikipedia, which an admin must be aware of. If you have no opinion on it, I do not understand how you could make decisions based on it. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose'''. Whether or not you consider yourself to be a writer, as an admin you would need to be able to enforce BLP. I could not support any candidate who does not appear either to understand BLP or recognise its importance. You are clearly hard-working and trustworthy, this is probably down to a lack of editing experience. I will be happy to support you in the future if you demonstrate a firmer grasp of policy.
'''Oppose''' <small>(moved from support)</small> - The answer to Q5 is concerning, and 70% of your edits are Huggle edits. You should have an opinion on the BLP policy which an admin is aware of, and you should stop using Huggle and edit articles.
Although the answers to my questions are satisfactory, I am still forced to '''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Oppose]]''' because of the speedy deletion topic. You have made a grand total of only 18 speedy deletions and your first one was a month ago (October 15). I appreciate your other work here and wish you luck on this, however it is unfortunate I cannot support you here. '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, just way too many automated edits, not enough article writing experience (lack of any good or featured material), and a very poor answer to Q5.
'''Oppose''' Recall pledges are made ad captandum vulgaris, and as such demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness.
'''Oppose''' - But moral support. Automated edits are fine, but they're discounted appropriately (because they're so quick). Given that, there's just not enough history to really feel fully comfortable. Would be very happy if you came back in a few months.
'''Oppose''', In my opinion the automated edit count is far too high <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Oppose''', due to answer to question five. Yes, I have seen the expanded answer, but I still have concerns.
'''Oppose''' The editor does important anti-vandalism and cleanup work, and IMO will not ''intentionally'' harm wikipedia if given the tools. However, I don't think he has sufficient familiarity with wikipedia's content policies, which for me is a pre-requisite for adminship. In addition to issues referenced by some other opposers, in response to Q15, he spotted the verifiability issues, but missed the non-reliable fansite source [http://nancy-drew.mysterynet.com/nancydrew/grownups/books/0689865716-action.shtml], unencyclopedic tone, (borderline) [[WP:PLAGIARISM|plagiarism]], and questionable [[WP:NB|notability]] (the last two issues can be disputed, and I would have been satisfied if he had simply commented upon them either way). I'll perhaps be able to support in another 6-12 months, if the editor engages more with the content side of wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about answers, and would like to see a bit more quality content experience. '''
'''Oppose'''. Per edits.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - sorry, there are just too many concerns. Maybe experience and time will ease those concerns and a later RfA will be more successful.
'''Oppose''' Q5, especially the last part
'''Neutral''' While I understand that the editor is not a ''writer'' I do not like his answer to Q5, an admin will have to deal with BLP issues during their tenure and should likely have an opinion on the topic.
'''Neutral''' I want to support this user, he seems like a nice asset to Wikipedia with a nice sense of humor. However, BLP is a big part of Wikipedia and, in my opinion, it's neutral point of view here (especially) towards living people is what makes Wikipedia respectable. An admin should be aware of it.
Answer to Q's 4 and 5 aren't particularly satisfying, but it's entirely possible to be indifferent towards a policy whilst still upholding and enforcing said policy. I therefore don't feel it's necessary to oppose at the moment. –'''
'''Neutral''' I respect the answer to my question but the fact that about 70% of your edits are automated is a little odd. Perhaps you should work a little more an articles.--
'''Neutral''': Based on BLP issues and the number of automated edits.
'''Neutral''' - Due to the high percentage of automated edits and unsatisfactory response to [[WP:BLP]] questioning leads me to remain neutral.  <strong><font color="maroon">
BLPs are an issue that no admin will avoid.
I asked Jeffrey to expound upon his answer to Q5, and his follow-up leaves me without the previous concerns; it's not an offense to have ''nothing to add'' to a policy, although his initial blase response to the Q comes from a lack of [[WP:CLUE|awareness]] that can be mended over time. I believe that he needs some more all-around experience (continued working on articles, participating in WP-related disussions) and spend a few more months working on the website before being ready for the role. Jeff has some real potential, but I'm not convinced that he's competent for the tools and making those decisions yet.
'''Neutral''' Although I feel the candidate has potential, I do not feel that they are ready for the mop ''yet''. I would suggest reading the comments on this AfD, and trying again in the future. -- '''
'''Neutral''' I like a lot of what I'm seeing in this candidate's history, from their work on de-orphaning and wikifying articles to their anti-vandalism efforts. I also like the clear plan Jeffrey has for how he will use his admin tools. That said, there are an awful lot of automated edits in his history, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I don't think he's demonstrated the requisite policy knowledge or experience. I'd gladly support a future RfA, however.
'''Neutral''' - I've waited some time to make a decision whether to support or oppose, and finally decided that neither was appropriate. I don't have any big concerns about this editor, the expanded answer to question 5 shows awareness of the importance of [[WP:BLP]] so I'm not worried about that. The non-automated edit count is low but not dramatically low (not the sub-3,000 you see on some self-noms). I suppose the combination of low contributions and not-strong answers leads me to not have enough confidence to recommend the mop at this time. -- '''
'''Support''' as nom.
First look seems rather concerning (skimpy answers to questions being the first red flag) but further investigation shows that the user is on the whole a very constructive one.  I was going to go neutral but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  <s>(also a tad worried over age but nowadays who cares?)</s> <small><span style="border:2px solid #999933;">
Trustworthy editor with good contributions. Your brief answers to the questions and the fact that you've been around since 2006 and this is your first RfA indicate that you probably don't consider adminship to be such a big deal (do correct me if I'm wrong). I see you didn't even mention your GA contributions ([[Burger King]] and [[Burger King legal issues]], at least) in your answer to Q2. This may be just plain modesty or a conscious omission based on how candidates' "audited contributions" have been handled in RfA recently, but in either case I like it. Good luck.
'''Support''' &rarr; prior interactions with this user have been both positive & productive. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' His contributions to Wikipedia and its various projects has shown Jeremy to be an effective editor and overall contributor.  The additional tools will only serve to help him to continue the quest to improve our space here.--
'''Support''' He looks like a good contributor to me. &ndash; [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks like a very solid editor. Thousands upon thousands of edits on a broad sample of topics.
'''Support''' Definitely... <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' — this user is a bit tetchy, but he knows his stuff and can judge consensus intelligently.—
'''Support''' Good Track and user has been around since Sept 2006.
'''Moral support''' I've been working with Jeremy as a [[WP:FOOD]] member for years, and I can trust him as an admin in the desired areas he wants to contribute to with the bits.--
'''Support''' Solid editor, not perfect but good enough, long running snipe wars don't worry be since appears contained, and I'm certainly not going to castigate him over calling another editors' comment "crap" after I did much the same thing not long before my own RfA, mine cost me 15 of my 24 opposes.  I passed, but looks like Jeremy won't be that lucky.  Oh well, there's next time.  Clean up the things that are annoying people here before you bring it back, fella, though.--
'''Support''' A major contributor to Wikipedia. Sometimes a bit confrontational, but otherwise trustworthy and collaborative. I'm confident he wouldn't abuse the tools.
&ndash;
Support - ''why not''
'''Support''' I think its more a moral support. I think Jeremy is promising and my kudos do go out to him as an editor.
'''Support''' A solid and good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''  Hope you continue to improve your diplomatic skills, but Im not seeing enough issues to oppose a good contributor.
Positive interactions with this user in the past. Seems dedicated and helpful. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' I thought it was an excellent answer to Q7. Shows a lack of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' for now, see comment above; I think admins should know basic rules of how to create disambig. pages. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' for now.  Jeremy, it looks like you have a habit of making careless mistakes and then not looking back to fix them. Yesterday you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melt_sandwich&diff=prev&oldid=302356679 created an AfD] with an odd edit summary (a mistake, I assume) which didn't mention that it was an AfD.  And then you turned [[Ham Sandwich]] into a dab page without fixing 40+ links to it which had previously gone directly to the page about the rock band ... not to mention the fact that the dab template was out of place and the title of the dab page didn't follow WP:DAB policy (though, I mention that last because I think there should be exceptions for "likely typo" scenarios).  Looking through your recent talkpage archives I'm a bit troubled by sections such as [[User_talk:Jerem43/Archive_5#Censorship|this]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerem43#userboxes_.26_template_space this] and the edit history of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:It_icon&action=history Template talk:it icon].  I won't comment on the issue being raised by 152.16.10.191 because I don't really know the whole story.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose'''. I have to agree with Soap above.  When you created the dab page without cleaning up after yourself, it shows that you are not as thorough as you should be as an administrator.  Admins must be thorough when deleting pages (switching links and checking redirects to the deleted page which are bothe things similar to what you skipped out on the dab creation), investigating vandalism reports, investigating page histories at [[WP:RFPP]], and during dispute resolution.  Also, I agree with Floquenbeam about your demeanor at [[User talk:Jerem43#Re: Message regarding Natick Collection]], and your lack of dispute resolution with the IP you were in an argument with.  If you receive the tools it will not be a terrible thing for Wikipedia, but I hope that my oppose will help you remember to be thorough in your work and to have a professional demeanor. '''
'''Oppose''' - I analyzed your edits. You've some nice edits, but I've to oppose per Soap and Malinaccier.
'''Oppose''' The above opposes really don't bother me all that much. However, I've taken a more thorough look over the [[master franchise]] situation which was mentioned in the discussion section. First, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_franchise&diff=301875386&oldid=301874538 labeling] of the IP's edits as vandalism was inappropriate. His view was definitely valid, and he wasn't intentionally causing disruption. In fact, he was discussing the issue with you on the talk page. Although he may not be aware of what a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] is, he was making the edits in good faith, and the text added using that source didn't look all that non-neutral. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:152.16.10.191&oldid=301875805 warning on his talk] page was also inappropriate, as the added material wasn't promotional. Even if it were, the addition of it would not be vandalism. Based on the above evidence, I get the feeling you would be a bit block happy, especially when you become engaged in an edit war with an editor you don't agree with. In addition, the vague answer to Q1 doesn't give me the specifics on where you plan to work as an admin. I'd like to see the specific areas so that I can evaluate whether or not you have sufficient experience in those areas. Please note that I would be willing to support a future RFA if, during the next few months, you consistently show that you've learned from your mistakes.
'''Weak oppose''' - Overall the candidate's contributions look to be solid but I'm not finding much to help me judge his fitness as an administrator.  Normally that'd not be enough to bother me but the answers to the questions presented thus far are not very confidence inspiring; they seem a bit on the shallow side.  They also appear to be attempts at staking out a "safe" stance - if the answer to Q8 is any indication, it looks like the candidate would be the type of administrator who defers to process for its own sake, even when the end result is obvious.  Administrators should not be afraid to make common-sense decisiosn even when process dictates otherwise.  I am open to reconsidering my !vote based upon further review of the candidate's edits and answers to subsequent questions but for now I just don't have the confidence level I'm looking for.
'''Oppose''' per Plastikspork's diffs. The sudden jumps in warnings make me feel that he will be too block-happy if he gets the tools. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' Moving to oppose because of incorrect answers to questions 7 and 8, and problematic answers to questions 4 and 5.  These indicate a lack of sufficient policy understanding at this time.  I don't see any outstanding conduct or personality problems, so I would probably be prepared to support once Jerem43 gained more familiarity with how admins do things.
'''Oppose''' for the time being. If you can come back in 6 months with improvements and no major issues, then you'll have my vote.
'''Oppose.'''  Conspicuously heavy-handed now (and turning a deaf ear to legitimate complaints, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=prev&oldid=302517136 ''e.g.'' here]) without the tools; it would be worse with extra buttons.  —
(Edit conflict) I have several concerns (shown in the oppose and neutral sections), but the one that really struck was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerem43&diff=next&oldid=302516955 this diff] given by [[User talk:152.16.10.191|152.16.10.191]]. IP editors can be valid contributors as well, and to remove a seemingly legitimate question, even if you believe the IP might be a sockpuppet, does not seem appropriate to me. Please feel to follow up with me if you feel that I made a mistake in my interpretation, but for now, I feel like I have no choice but to oppose for the time being. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' Your answers are shallow and provide a lack of insight, but I'm not under this section heading because of that. I am concerned that you aren't overly aware of new users,  the difficulty facing them and indeed, contributing IPs. A lot of new users need a hand to work things out, and it is important that administrators are, at the very least, willing to assist these users. \
'''Oppose'''. While it's unfortunate to keep harping on a single disambiguation page, you also moved the original contents of [[Ham Sandwich]] to the new title by cut-and-paste when you created the new dab. That's [[Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves|a pain to fix]] and implies that you aren't aware of correct move procedures and/or that you don't know what information needs to be retained under our licensing policies. These are things that are absolutely necessary knowledge for administrators.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm very underwhelmed by the answers above but this wouldn't necessarily put me in this section.  However, the candidate's approach to dispute resolution (per Timmeh, Athaenara, Floquenbeam) is very much not acceptable from an admin or someone wishing to be one.  And it should be noted that this all happened in the last few days. --
'''Oppose''', candidate could use a bit more experience. Also, Soap as well as Malinaccier and Timmeh raise valid concerns. '''
Too many concerns raised above, sorry. Please come back in ~6 months. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  This was tough - I hate to go back on my first !vote but the concerns raised above are potentially problematic.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Way too many concerns.
'''Oppose''', per answer to Q7.
'''Oppose''' Per the sudden jump in warnings and the dab pages come back in 3-6 months.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, question seven alone pushes me to this side. I think a few months more experience is needed here. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Weak Oppose''' per Dekimasu and others. While Jerem43's contributions are generally good, there are several niggly bits pointed out here which cause me to believe there is a lack of understanding regarding some basic editing guidelines and procedures. Perhaps in a few months. ···
Changed to oppose per the answer to Q7; AGF only goes so far, and sysops in particular need to understand that. It won't necessarily be "bad" if you're promoted, but I can't support due to the concerns raised. On the other hand, it seems you're receiving plenty of constructive criticism, so if you take these comments to heart and work on areas you're lacking in, you should pass no problem in a few months. –'''
Per Q7.
'''Regretful Oppose from Support''' I went back like I do everyday to all RFA's to see what has been going on, and when I saw the answer to question 7, I had to oppose. Sorry.
Per concerns raised above, especially answers to Q8 and Q7. —&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - would like to see some mediation experience. I think it would help address a lot of the issues above, as well.
Sorry, but a quick glance at above and your answers to questions demonstrate a lack of thought. RFA is a big thing, and you should have thought your answers out more carefully. I'm also seeing that you're not cautious enough in editing, and while, yes, Wikipedia encourages people to be bold, however not reckless, and I get senses that your style of editing is reckless at times. Sorry. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose'''Per 7 and 8.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per Giants27. --
'''Oppose''' per the concerns raised by others. --
'''Oppose''' per the diff in the comments section, concerning the removal of a talk page post. Simply because a user is an IP does not mean that they should be treated with contempt, and their concerns ignored. This is, after all, supposed to be the encyclopedia everyone can edit. <font color="green">
'''Oppose'''; no need for me to pile on with the concerns. &mdash; <tt>
'''Oppose''' Yea ... ahhh .. no.  Not at this time.  While several of the "opposes" above I think are overly harsh, I think you need to address and improve upon the items mentioned.  Please don't stop trying, but you'll need some improvement to succeed at an RfA.  Sorry. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''', too many concerns listed.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per comments listed above. More experience is required. --
'''Oppose'''. In my view too confrontational, heavy-handed, and dismissive of others' views to make a good admin. --
'''Oppose''' per answers and above mentioned diffs <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Oppose''' You do seem to be on the right track, but (as with many others) the questions show me you're not quite there yet. Q7: Straight-off indef blocks shouldn't be handed out like candy, and good faith should be assumed, but AGF isn't a suicide pact. If someone's obviously not here to help, block them. It's not uncommon (not common either, though) for an account to be blocked indef before it's edited simply because it has a highly offensive username. Q8: Generally userpage vandalism doesn't put you into the "involved" category. Smack 'em with a warning if it wasn't too bad or was amusing, otherwise, feel free to send them to time-out. Anyway, like I said, you're on your way, and I hope to see you here again in a few months with some lessons learned. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
I see lots of barnstars and thank you's on your talk page, and the following concern is not enough, in itself, to oppose over anyway, and I can't spend the time to review enough contributions to see if this is a one-off problem or not.  So, I'll stick this down here in the Neutral section, as a data point for people to consider. I'm somewhat concerned by the situation at [[Natick Collection]] and [[Talk:Natick Collection]]. It appears that you are having a long-running content dispute with an IP editor, but have never attempted to pursue any of the options available to you at [[WP:DR]], and are instead just reverting each other and talking past each other on various talk pages.  I'm concerned about both the dismissive attitude at [[User talk:Jerem43#Re: Message regarding Natick Collection]] ("''I will defer to their knowledge of the English language over that of a WPI college student.''"), and the fact that a couple of days ago, after an admittedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoppers_World_(Framingham%2C_Massachusetts)&action=history vandalistic edit to make a point] by the IP editor (worthy of perhaps a warning) you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=302251482 reported] the IP editor you're in dispute with to [[WP:AIV]]. I'm curious why no other attempts at [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] have been tried. The IP editor's edits to [[Shoppers World (Framingham, Massachusetts)]] can be considered vandalism, but all of his other edits are in good faith, yet you're calling them all vandalism when you revert them. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, but I'd welcome some comment by you as to how you plan on approaching this situation if it continues, and how you would have handled that request at AIV if you were an uninvolved admin. --
'''Neutral''' while I figure out what's going on with the IP in the comments section. It seems to me that the IP made a statement about possible violation of copyright laws and about enforcing those laws (admittedly rather earnestly) which you seem to have interpreted as a personal attack, as an accusation of plagiarism, and as a legal threat. I don't see anything like that in the IP's comment. Hopefully this is a one-off thing but I'm going to watch from here for now. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Master_franchise], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:152.16.10.191]) --
'''Neutral ''' for now. Not great answers to the questions and along with civility issues raised by the IP, and by Soap, makes me slightly unsure. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' for the moment. I'm not sure why [{{fullurl:index.php|title=User_talk:173.76.13.99&diff=next&oldid=302126498}} this] required a jump from level 1 to level 3, or a [{{fullurl:index.php|title=User_talk:74.167.230.179&oldid=300939776}} uw-vandalism4] here. I will have to think about it some more.
'''Neutral''' per Q 5 (I disagree with Jerem43's rationale), per the IP's diff, and per [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerem43#Re:_Message_regarding_Natick_Collection]] (not going to pile on though)
'''Neutral''': you seem to have reasonable answers to the question above, but still debating your editing?
'''Neutral''':However, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bennigan%27s&diff=prev&oldid=299461297] article talk page edit should be pointed out.
'''Neutral''' - I have some concerns, but not so serious as to oppose.
'''Neutral''' - No single admin knows all the rules and guidelines, so a few misplaced templates don't bother me too much.  But they all should have a very good idea (gut feeling) of when there might be a guideline or policy on a specific type of edit, and how to search for that guideline to educate themselves.  I think if we see a little more of that ability to branch out, and to do something correctly the first time you try it after having researched it and seen examples of other uses (and to stay away from a topic if it just isn't your area of expertise) then it will be a much easier RFA.  Just my $.02.  &nbsp;<span style="padding:2px;background: #cccccc; color: #0000cc; BORDER-RIGHT: #6699cc 3px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #6699cc 3px solid;">
'''Neutral''' - Not wishing to "pile on," but I too have concerns about the depth of your policy knowledge as shown by the answers to several questions.  I would strongly encourage you to continue your article work (which is quite solid from what I've seen) and not let this RfA bother you.  If you want to run again in the future, I suggest you take some time and read a lot of policy documents and possibly also ask questions/make suggestions on the corresponding talk pages.  However, I would like to point out that being an admin is "nothing special" really, so if you are content to work on articles please do so and don't worry about RfA. --
'''Neutral''' ( Read as moral support) : While all my personal interactions with Jerem43 were always good and pleasing , there are some concerns that doesnt allow me to jump to support section. Nevertheless, he is a very good editor at wikipedia and his contributions to WP:Food is something really appreciable --


'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, you have less than 100 edits to your name.  Please come back when you have more experience.
Incomplete nomination. Nominator offered to nominate on their first edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John-joe123&diff=prev&oldid=262078015]. Recently warned for 3RR? I'd recommend you just untransclude this - in fact it's probably deleteable as it's malformed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', sorry. 127 edits is not nearly enough to properly get Wikipedia policy. Also rather concerning is the nomination by a user whose only edits are to nominate you for RFA. //&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' and strongly suspect that Theplaystation3dude is a [[WP:Sock|sock puppet]]. '''''<font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK</font>''''' - <small>
'''Strongest oppose I will probably ever make''' since this RfA hasn't even been made correctly and the user nominmated for adminship has very little experience, a histroy of edit warring and disruption. Also, the possibility of [[WP:SOCK|sock puppetry]] is a big negative! Suggest [[WP:SNOW]]. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Weak Support''' While the whole thing about the previous account is kind of strange to me, and this account only has two months of editing... I feel as though there isn't much concern to the point where I think you would abuse the tools. Good luck. ~
'''Support''' -  I have followed Javert/Katerenka's contributions over the two accounts, and have consistently been impressed. Even though her editing time has been shorter than normal, Kat has thorough experience in administrative areas and has shown the ability to remain calm and be helpful. I'm confident that she will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' -
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] per below. Nice userpage. :) <!-- Productive, friendly, and willing to help at all times; should do fine with the tools. --> –'''
'''Support''', I've been very impressed by Katerenka and her previous accounts' edits. She is kind and helpful to others, takes part in a number of admin areas, especially DYK, CHU and CSD. I can only recall seeing any nontrivial mistake in these two areas when she first joined. A well as that, she does take the time to create/expand articles, and is clearly dedicated to the project. She responds appropriately to put-out newbies, as well as established users. Excellent candidate, trustworthy, and will do great with the mop :) -
'''Support''' Per above. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]

'''Support''' - I've known J/Kat for a long time and I think Katerenka will make a good admin--
'''Strong support''' &ndash; absolutely. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Strong support''' Has my full trust, very good work in different areas of the project. Opposers don't concern me. <strong>
'''Support''' Trusted you as Javert and thought you'd make a great admin, nothing has changed.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' - I knew this user since s/he was T'Shael. She is always, ''always'', civil, and her knowledge of policy is beyond her years...or in this case months. You know what I mean. As someone said "A great man can achieve more in one day than a fool can in an entire lifetime". I can't imagine a situation that Kat couldn't handle. Solid contributor in almost all areas of the project. I always thought Javert would be a great candidate, and nothing's changed, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I have followed the contributions of (formerly) T'Shael, Javert and Katerenka and been impressed. I trust this user. It doesn't matter to me how many edits the user has made or the no. of months old he/she is. All that matters is a good knowledge of WP policies and guidelines, a willingness to help, and above all, trust. '''
'''Support''' I've looked at your entire edit history and don't see anything that makes you look untrustworthy or incompetent.  You handle stressful situations well.  You're dedicated to doing good.  While some opposers seem to think you spend too much time socializing with other editors, I see that you are eager to help people and don't run away from them when they find themselves in trouble.  I wish you the best of luck in this RfA.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' I would've supported her as Javert and I absolutely will now.  Definite use for the tools and a proven calm head. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Strong Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Open, honest and trustworthy. Have no reservations with giving her a few extra buttons. Everyone's off-wiki lives are different and these differing circumstances sometimes affect what happens on wiki, despite all that this user displays an attitude of wanting to help improve Wikipedia and that's what matters the most. Net positive. --
'''Strongest Support Possible''' this user is a VERY civil erperianced and inteligent person. Has proved time and time again that she can be trusted with the tools. Very helpfull to several new or semi-new users like myself even in the simplest of ways. (like helping me out with my signature). I have full confidence that Kat is Javert. I cannot see any other candidate that is more qualified for this job. Based off of the comment left on [[User:Javert]] I would assume that most people would have left wikipedia forever. However she did not and on the same day as retireing from javert, she created Katerenka. This proves that this user is deticated to WP.--<big>
'''Support''': Comes down to whether you trust Katerenka or not. I do, so I support. She is a good, helpful editor and is not likely to misuse the tools. I don't see any violation of [[WP:SOCK]], and as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive203#Possible_sockpuppet.3F this] says ArbCom had been informed about the old and new accounts. Unless ArbCom is covering up any unconstructive edits made with a previous account (in which case I really don't see any point in holding RFAs or anything else anymore ;)), that is good enough for me. ≈&nbsp;
'''Weak support''' Pending a look at the old account's contributions.  Renames (whatever the motivations) aren't nefarious and it isn't unheard of that editors botch renames or misjudge how much or how little they might like to participate on wikipedia.  That said, the concerns listed in the oppose section are not vacant.  Good or bad, there is considerable ''gravity'' associated with names and personas and judgment doesn't transfer over seamlessly.  Good luck.
'''Strong support''' She has my full trust, does quality work throughout the project, and is friendly to work with. With approximately 6000 edits excluding user talk [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Javert〈=en&wiki=wikipedia] [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Katerenka〈=en&wiki=wikipedia] she has experience. As to the user name changes they are not a concern. Everything was done through proper channels and is available to anyone should they look at the various page histories and edit summaries. I spent about ten hours reviewing everything about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Javert Javert's] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Katerenka Katerenka's] contributions and interactions that are accessible to a user before co-nominating her. I am confident in my decision. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' I think this user would be a great admin.  she is helpful, cares about wikipedia, and is a nice person.  I trust her, and think she will do a great job as an admin. regards --[[User:Orangesodakid|<font color="DarkOrange" face="Snap ITC">Orange</font>]][[User talk:Orangesodakid|<font color="Black" face="Snap ITC">soda</font>]]
'''Support''' I agree with all of the above. You are so full of potential, and the opposes are mostly baseless.
'''Support''' I think this user would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Having known Katerenka almost since their very first edits (under ThoseStarsBurnsLikeDiamonds), I feel that they are fully trustworthy and competent to be an administrator. <tt>
'''Support'''. Overall, it would be a net positive to have her as admin. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Weak Support''' A nice mix of protecting the wiki and building it, weak because you have less than 6 months tenure, and I think that some lessons take experience of how this place and the moods and fads of the community change over time. PS plz don't change your username for a few months. ''
'''Support'''. Now, yes, I am confused here! However I think changing of usernames is fine and to oppose over this is a bit pendantic IMO, and other than this issue there is nothing that leads me to oppose. I also like the way giants put it, great as Javert, still great now! '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support!''' Very helpful. <font color="darkblue">'''A8UDI'''</font>
'''Support''' <small>(move from neutral)</small>  With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKaterenka&diff=321830295 this edit], my paranoia has been addressed enough to convince me that Javert = Katerenka is indeed the case. I think Katerenka is a helpful user who wants the best for the project and has shown to have a decent level of clue and policy knowledge as well as the right the temper to handle problems. While the constant changes of usernames might indicate a lack of stability, the reasoning is imho good enough to justify them. Regards '''
As per my co-nom. --'''
'''Strongest Support'''. As per my co-nom. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Moral Support''' Not nearly enough experience. Also more focus on ConstEdits would be good. I hope you have a thick skin and persevere. -
'''Support''' I trust this user. Yes from me. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:blue;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I find the quality of article writing satisfactory, and I am supporting primarily on that basis. There is good work on [[Jonathan Edwards]] and his various writings , including [[The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners]] & more recently [[A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World]], and [[ The Nature of True Virtue]]; there is also good work on unrelated substantial  topics, such as [[Scott Boerma]] &  [[Ruthie Henshall]]     I need to infer her knowledge of policy from the many corrections & reverts she has made, and it seems satisfactory, though additional specific experience discussing policy would be helpful.    It might have been wiser to have foreseen the complications and planned better how to handle them, but I see nothing wrong, merely an exceedingly awkward situation. I have greatest respect for someone resolving such a difficulty by straightforward courageous honesty -- though given the nature of Wikipedia, I was somewhat disconcerted to see it--it's so rare around here.   '''
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Good Luck. —
'''Support''' per JamieS93, OlEnglish, DGG et al. Net positive. The renames do not concern me.
'''Strong Support''' Useful mix of contributions, good attention to detail.  Has the excellent helpful and friendly attitude which I associate with successful projects, both professional and voluntary.
'''Support''' - was surprised when I saw Javert's abrupt exit; I'm glad that they are back. It looks like this RFA is a little too early after the rename, but would encourage the user to stand again in the future. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' - the username history is a bit confusing, and the candidate could use some refinement (answers to questions a bit weak, could use more evidence of collaborative editing) but these are niggling issues that do not reflect on the candidate's trustworthiness.  I have no reason to suspect they would misuse the mop.  If anything, their extremely open nature regarding the username issue is a sign of implicit trustworthiness ...
'''Support''', good editor, and the candid explanation is something to be appreciated. If you exclude the honest people and the bad liars, the only people you're left with are the good liars.
'''Support''' Have had brief interactions with Javert, generally helpful editor and see nothing that will change with the new user name. -
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy, honest, and has a record of good contributions. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Helpful and trustworthy, and patient enough to do gruntwork (as evidenced by clerking). '''''
'''Support''' I was a little torn on this, not so much based on the account name issue.  I do think that you should have gone through the proper rename channels, especially since you were open to disclosing your previous account here and are familiar with the rename process.  But all that is beside the point, and I get the gist of why you were doing it, [[Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)|que sera, sera]].  My primary concern would be the time as a registered user here, (since May), which is somewhat less than what I would normally require for support, however I am familiar with the work that you do, and am comfortable enough with your overall experience with the project to believe that you will be a net positive with the tools.--
'''Support''' - I trust you, a net positive and good editor.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that I am reluctant to oppose anyone on Halloween (favorite holiday!), the user has received at least eight barnstars, the user has rollback rights, a sound wiki philosophy, and has never been blocked.  Best, --
Assuming Javert was your first account, you've only been here a few months. We really don't need more inexperienced admins. --
The type of personality I'd like to see from an administrator is a calm and confident, even slightly boring demeanor. If I'm not mistaken, you've edited under at least 5 different account names in 6 months, have fairly few content edits and seems to be a bit too focused on the social aspects of Wikipedia rather than it's core mission and seem fairly keen on getting administratorship. I'm sorry to say that this doesn't fill me with confidence, and thus I must oppose at this time. Best of luck though, <strong>
'''Oppose''' I don't trust this user because I don't believe this user. If your story is true, I commend you and wish you the best in a tough social transition. However, I see signs of immaturity, specifically concerning a MySpace approach to the project, which leads me to believe you do not have the maturity for the mop. I need to see signs that you can handle scrutiny and often very personal criticisms before I lend my support. I also need to see signs that you can avoid changing your user name every few months, regardless of the reasons for the change. You've only been here since April, and it took some detective work to confirm that, even though you said as much, because you failed to disclose all of your other account names. There is nothing wrong with the way you used multiple accounts, however, the amount of real life personal information that you gave up willingly contrasts sharply with the amount of Wikipedia personal information that you appeared initially hesitant to disclose, which makes it very difficult to trust you at this point.
Per the two above me. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4. The answer doesn't seem to tell the whole truth, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lauryn_Ashby&action=history a quick check shows]. Serious trust issues here '''
Sorry, too many issues here. The whole vanishing and coming back thing and attracting attention to yourself was a really bad idea. If you had stayed as Javert, I probably wouldn't be inclined this way. I am troubled that you went out of your way to abandon your old account, and then come back and immediately dive into discussions that new users obviously wouldn't care about, not just here but on Meta and Simple WP too. It just seemed like attention seeking for no good reason. '''
'''Oppose'''. There was a recent case that briefly touched on the concerns presented by the use of social interfaces prefered by some editors. That tendency, togther with your "schizophrenic" history is worrying.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly --
'''Oppose''' per Majorly (ha!).  The coy attitude of "I've had a previous account, but I won't tell you what it is" is obnoxious and inspires no confidence in this editor's potential adminship.  If you're making a clean start, don't brag in public places about your previous exploits.  This is just needless drama.
'''Oppose''' Too many recent usernames. WP's administrative side has too much unintelligible goofydrama as it is.
'''Oppose''' - Agree with much of the above.  Learn from this, work hard, keep a clean nose, and come back next spring with work on GA/FA articles, and more experience in general, and I think you will have a much higher percentage of support. Sincere best wishes, <font color="green">
Substantially more time needed. --
'''Oppose'''  Due to question 4, I don't know if I could trust you.  You need to be honest all of the time.  I agree with much of the above opposes, too.  <small><span style="background-color:green;border: 1px solid;">
'''Oppose'''.  per the above.  Too many recent usernames and serious trust issues with Q4.  Integrity and openness are key in a sysop's work.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' per Majorly.  If you really wanted to run for adminship, I would've suggested that you wait a while longer, because of the fact that vanishing and reappearing seems to show that you lack stability, as well as judgement.  I would be more comfortable with you requesting the tools at a later point in time, but currently, I do not trust you enough to grant you the tools.
Needs more experience and a longer record of stability before I can support.
'''Oppose''' I find myself slightly ashamed to be in the same section as such tactless and insensitive people as have weighed in thus far. I do believe this user's explanation, and the facts have been verified by ArbCom; so in truth, many of the opposes here are invalid. To characterize this fine user as "schizophrenic" or dramamongering is rude and absolutely untrue, and quite needlessly hostile. Katerenka has shared personal details about her situation, including precisely why she has abandoned her previous account, and we are condemning her for it? So what if she's changed her name a few times? Now, that being said, I do believe that Katerenka is not yet qualified to be an admin at this time. I have checked the [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Javert&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia contributions of Javert], and notice that there is a heavy skew towards the user talk space. These consist mostly of warnings for CSDs and vandalism reversions, but what is left can mostly be categorized as socialization. Further, there are over a thousand edits to the namespace, but once the reports to AIV, UAA, the Huggle whitelist, and the clerking at CHU are all removed, that number becomes quite small. I do not mean to belittle Katerenka's contributions, but merely suggest that we have yet to truly "meet" this user, as there is not much in the way of examples of collaborative editing or participation in policy discussions. Indeed, she is having a "meet"ing problem of her own as she struggles with her identity. She is still in the middle of an extremely volatile period of her life, and I believe that the inherent stress that comes with the tools may not be good for her personal health. Katerenka, you are very obviously a helpful and exemplary editor who will one day be a fine addition to the admin corps, but I would ask you to branch out a little more and gain experience in other areas of the encyclopedia. I hope to see you back here in a few months.
The amount of switching between accounts and names makes me uncomfortable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Per Closedmouth and Sandstein. Both the worries about inexperience and the whole account switching thing make me uncomfortable.
Per some of the above. '''
per Trust issue.--
'''Oppose''' - not at this time. GlassCobra has the goods on this one.
'''Oppose''' per several above, too many issues, too much going on here.--
'''Oppose''' No brainer. I can only judge on Katerenka and there is just completely insufficient evidence to judge one way or the other. The previous username was even less tham 6 months old. No way Jose.
Needs time to really settle down. Gaining more experience and then coming back doesn't hurt here. -
'''Oppose''' As has been commented here, the user appears to be part of a group that treats Wikipedia as some kind of social networking or personal web host site.  I'm concerned that if the focus isn't on the encyclopedia, it will instead be on non-encyclopedic interpersonal drama.  Extra buttons to someone involved in those kind of activities is asking for trouble.
'''Oppose''' I would've supported - probably even nominated you as Javert, but it's clear you are going through some trying times and don't need the added stress of having a contentious RfA passing. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' - I very rarely cast an oppose vote, but admins need to be "dull and unexciting". Your dramatic past can be overcome by putting your head down and staying off the drama radar for 6+ months, at which point another RFA would be worthwhile.
'''Oppose''' - Too little experience.--
'''Oppose''' - Too little experience (on both user names).  No prejudice against future RfA's after you've gained more experience.  --'''
'''Oppose for now'''. Experience somewhat on the low side, convoluted recent series of accounts and renames, unusual after-the-fact conominations, answers to questions that aren't necessarily bad but don't inspire confidence either. None of these is a dealbreaker, but together it suggests getting a few more months trajectory before considering for the mop again.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience coupled with a MySpace approach to Wikipedia drives me to oppose.
I don't believe you have enough experience for the role, sorry. <small><span style="border:2px solid #333399;">
'''Strong Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' - I don't have a problem with the username changes, Katarenka has been totally up-front about that, in fact even more transparent than she should be in my opinion (giving out personal info). But the experience issues that GlassCobra brought up are troubling. Consider this a suggestion to retry again in the future after more contributions. -- '''
'''Oppose'''.  The fact that 40% of this account's contributions - and 58% of the previous account's contributions -are to user talk pages bothers me quite a bit.  You need to demonstrate a much greater knowledge of mainspace than has been shown so far.  You also need to better demonstrate how you've dealt with conflict with other Wikipedia users, and how you can collaborate with others.  Take 6 months or more to build these skills and then come back.
'''Oppose''' – While I do sympathize with the users who do support you, a few things raise red flags in my view. First, the rapid username changes which I think have already been driven into the ground by the other opposers above. Second, I'm not seeing much in mainspace work (unless I'm missing something), also noted above in the percent-wise contributions across namespaces and after a quick spot-check in your user contribs. Try to build some experience by working on making good articles and improving those that are not so good. This will give valuable experience in how the wiki-process works, which will allow you to more competently handle disputes that admins normally deal with.
'''Oppose.''' More experience needed.
'''Oppose.''' I don't believe that this and other immediately seen accounts of this person (by the  way, not disclosed here, hence questionable integrity) are the only ones. user:Javert's first several hundreds (or may be thousands; I didn't bother to look at all) are reverts. I find it difficult to believe that this is a pattern for a new wikipedian. Even if it is not a doppelganger of someone else, but a really new one, I don't believe that admin powers must be entrusted to a person whose primary purpose is not creating content, but rather policing others. Judging from recent screams in media, wikipedia is in dire need of quality content growth, not in more peace officers. - Altenmann
'''Oppose''' Per Majorly. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I have been conflicted, weighing the good contributions of the user (under various accounts) against the relative inexperience and the events surrounding the changing account identity. However I am pushed to oppose by the fact that the user has not edited for the last 5 days while this RFA has been open, and has not even responded to several RFA questions. I realize that there may be various real-life circumstances justifying this absence, but this suggests to me that adminship (with its associated pressure and responsibilities) is not a good fit for Katerenka at the moment.
'''Oppose''' per GlassCobra, but moral support. Hope you are seen back in some months with more experience in other areas and not so much userspace edits
'''Oppose''' per answer to my second question. --
I'm so confused. '''
Slightly too low on experience for me.
per iMatthew. - Dank (
Per iMatthew--
Per iMatthew. When I'm confused at RfA, I find it best to be a neutral here. If I haven't got certainty to warrant a support, it's not worth the risk. Sorry. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Neutral''' - looks like some good contributions, however, possible/likely alternate accounts keep coming in, as GTD pointed out, which makes me quite wary.  While changing as username is perfectly acceptable (I myself usurped this name) the frequent changes over a relatively short period of time strikes me as problematic.  I don't see any reason why this wouldn't pass in the future, though.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Neutral leaning Support''', the account renaming and the reasons behind it don't bother me, but I'd like to see some more actual contributions to the encyclopaedia itself before taking the plunge and supporting.
'''Moved to Neutral'''. I want to see Katerenka become an administrator, but I think too many concerns have been given to justify a supporting vote at this time. I hope Katerenka comes back in a few months so I can offer a support vote then.
'''Neutral'''. Not enough experience yet, I think, but I don't think opposing would be good. I disagree with many of the "reasons" given by opposers. If you come back in a few months after having done a broad spectrum of work across the mainspace and such, I would likely support at that time. Too much confusion, though, to support at this time. ···
'''Neutral''' (move from oppose) AGF that Katerenka she did not fully understood question 7. Also, 'poor' as a very general subjective term that could encompase a large variety of edits. Found edits in the user's contributions that show user has indeed undid edits that needed addressed with appropriate edit summaries. User has showed sound judgement, knowledgement of rules, and the ability to inact them with DYK. Would ask you to expand on how you would deal with non-vandalism edits not meeting wikipedia's five pillars to the main space in general to Question 7.
'''Neutral''' In my interactions with her, I've alwayas found Katerenka helpful, friendly, and enthusiastic about the project. But unfortunately, a few of the oppose votes raise legitimate concerns (but certainly not all of the oppose votes! don't take them to heart), especially GlassCobra and Karanacs. I would probably support 3ish months from now. <b class="Unicode">
'''Neutral''', both supporters and opposers raise good points. <font color="#FF1493" face="sylfaen">[[User:LovesMacs|Loves]]</font><font color="#1E90FF" face="sylfaen">
'''Neutral''' Per iMatthew. Also, I'm shocked at the tone of some of the opposes, which leave me with a dark cloud hanging over my head. I've interacted with Katerenka at least once before under her Javert account and she was helpful and friendly as well as knowledgeable. Although I am nowhere close to opposing, I do not think Katerenka is ready for the role of adminship due to the many legitimate concerns raised by some of the opposers (especially GlassCobra) as well as the neutral voters. Given time, say, three or four months, I think you'll make a great administrator, Katerenka. Best of luck,
'''Neutral'''.  Katerenka might make a good admin, but honestly, I don't know yet.  I think that several months of stable, productive contribution including mainspace and demonstration of understanding of policy, would be sufficient to allay most concerns--hope to see you again.
avoiding pile-on. Give it some more time and more contributions demonstrating policy knowledge and stability, and I will support. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. I don't think that shortly after posting that one is going through an incredibly tough time in her life is the best time to be taking on being an admin. You are quite likely to face situations where angry users can be abusive. Come back in a few months when you feel more settled with how the rest of your life is going.--
'''Neutral'''. I like this editor, and I like her edits. Carry on editing the way you are going and there will be a lot more support in a few months.
'''Neutral''' <s>until my questions are answered.</s>  Was inclined to oppose due to not answering my questions, especially since the candidate hasn't edited on the RFA in 5 days (unusual?), but feel that wouldn't have been a fair oppose, but I cannot support.
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with this user. He will make a great administrator :).
'''Support per nom.''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#.22standards.22_chart|Meets my standards.]] Article building/DYK work indicates ability to create content and work well with others. Review of talk page shows civil, helpful, clueful editor whose temperament is unlikely to lead to trouble with the tools. Review of CSD taggings showed overall good work. Answer to Q3 shows editor solves disputes through discussion, consensus seeking, and learning.
DYK needs more admins who are actively involved there. '''
Absolutely no reason found that would suggest user would misuse administrative tools. I would love to have seen him right at least GA or FA but user seems to like to jump around a lot and help where it's needed which is cool with me.--(
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Per above.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support''' - Looks quite good.
'''Support''' I see no reason Kelapstick would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason to see anything bad.
'''Support''' - The thorough answer to Q3 shows that as an admin, Kelapstick will be ready to explain his actions as well as acknowledge any possible errors in judgment. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. Productive and collegial editor. Good temperament to be an admin. <font color="green">
'''Support''' A wonderfully supportive editor.  Good luck!
'''Support'''Per my [[User:Dottydotdot/rfa|basic guidelines]]
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' I like the answers (esp. to Q4) and if [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] is the nominator then consider Kelapstick already well whetted (pun intended)! --
Joining the thus far unanimous '''support''' (bravo!) per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate's lone block was almost immediately undone by the blocking admin, I did not notice anything glaring in deletion discussions, userpage seems inviting, etc.  Really, I have not located anything to jump out and in the absence of any opposes below suggesting my review of the candidate's edits is off, I am pleased to endorse this request for adminship.  Best, --
The bacon articles were fun. - Dank (
'''Support''' ''"I read the explanation about what I had done wrong, understood it, and went to bed"'' - from your Q3. Yes, I'd do well to remember that from time to time. Fantastic contributions - brilliant stuff. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Doesn't look like this user will be abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' > you look very sound and have good answers to questions. Good luck! <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' good contributor who I do not think will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per excellent answer to question 7.
'''Support''' We need more admins who will shrink the backlogs.--
'''Support''' this excellent candidate.—
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Positive contributions to the project. One has to wonder what the moaners in the oppose section are on about!
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. I think you still have a lot to learn before you're ready for the admin tools, but you'll be OK learning on the job. Just go slow eh. --
'''Support''' Eased my concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Will not abuse the tools. '''
'''Weak Support''' User has been around since Feb 2007 and is dedicated and commited to the project and feel giving the user tools will only be a net positive through I do agree with some of the concerns in the opposes .But do not see the user misuing the tools.
'''Support''' without equivocation. I have had nothing but positive interactions with the editor. His temperance and good nature are terrific qualities that benefit the project.  '''
'''Weak support''' I trust the user with the tools which seems to be the idea here but care should be taken to address any content issues to keep articles policy-compliant.

'''support''' I'm not finding the problems listed in the on the talk page to be problematic and see no other reason to oppose.
'''Strong Support''' Definitely meets [[User:2#RfA_Standards|my standards]]. - <big>'''
'''Strong support''' Outstanding candidate who is an asset to Wikipedia and who can be trusted absolutely not to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Answers indicate a calm, rational, collegial approach, qualities required for administrative actions
'''Support''' Looks good, no major problems. Plagiarism is a very serious accusation in academia. For matters outside serious academic work, I regard it as akin to spitting on the sidewalk, and an iffy accusation of plagiarism doesn't even rate. <strong>
'''Support''' hesitantly.  I believe the items brought to light by Durova are very important, but the candidate appears to be addressing these issues in a calm and professional manner. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 05:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)  ''addendum'' Perhaps I should note that I've worked with Kelapstick once and found him/her to be friendly and enjoyable to work with.  I was also impressed with his/her ability to think outside the box in search of solutions to resolve an issue. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>

'''Support''' Seems to have clue. Answers to questions are commendable, particularly Q8, and indicate a solid foundation of knowledge of our policies. Plagiarism concerns, while somewhat valid, seem to be mostly resolved: the primary opposer for this reason has rescinded, plus the answers to the Q17 series are solid and alleviate any possibility that any possible plagiarism was done purposely.
Weakly support.  They say they will be open to recall, and just undertook a crash course in plagiarism at the school of hard knocks. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''
Lack of audited content contributions. The user suggests they will be clearing backlogs relating to images, but there is no indication of substantial experience in those areas. Little in the way of demonstrated conflict resolution/noticeboard activity. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per Ottava Rima.  In over three and a half years as a Wikipedian this is only my third RFA oppose (later conominated one of the two previous).  Yet in light of the examples at <s>FPC</s> talk it's clear that this editor has either insufficient understanding or insufficient concern for the issue of plagiarism.  Plagiarism is not mere lack of attribution; it's the failure to either paraphrase or set in quotation marks passages that are direct quotes.  Competence in other areas cannnot compensate: this candidate clearly is not ready.  Writing this oppose as the editor who promoted [[WP:PLAGIARISM]] to guideline.  To the candidate: please correct the mistakes and return after a suitable interim. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''.  First, let me say I applaud your willingness to work on topics that might otherwise not be covered adequately (mmmm...bacon).  At this time, though, I can't support this nomination. I'm troubled by the plagiarism problems (which I've also verified in a few articles listed on your DYK page), which indicates that your knowledge of content issues might need a little refining.  I also don't see a lot of evidence that you have much experience in the area (image backlog) that you'd like to work in (if I've overlooked this, which is entirely possible, please let me know). I would recommend more experience in both images and content creation, and then come back again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> -
Per Durova - this will probably pass, so this is more of a comment if anything. Please be careful when using sources. It's not easy by any means, but plagiarism is basically theft. It can disqualify you at college/university and on an academic level. At my university, for example, you can fail the entire course if plagiarism is discovered in your work. It is the fact it is that serious that I have to oppose this request. '''
<small>Switching from support.</small> Also per Durova. These are serious concerns, so please be careful if you pass. –'''
Per Durova, subtle plagiarism is a big problem and we don't need it from an admin. --

'''Neutral'''.  Plagiarism concerns are worrying, but I don't see enough evidence either way to support or oppose. '''
'''Comment regarding the nomination statement:''' The nom statement indicates that Kelapstick created [[Steamed clams]]. In fact, however, Kelapstick only nominated this article for DYK. Regardless, I recall concerns about this article in the DYK discussion, as the article appeared to confound a type of clam (steamer clams) with a method of cooking clams (steamed). Reading the article in its current form, I find that it still seems to confuse these two concepts, and it looks to be sloppily researched. If Kelapstick had been the author rather than the nominator, I would be opposing this <s>AfD</s>RfA. For now, though, I'm not sure what I think. --
(moved from support) I don't feel that plagiarism of content is relevant to how a user will properly use admin tools, but it does raise trust issues.
'''Neutral''' (moved from support) I like your helpful editing to cuisine-related articles and civil attitude (so could not go to oppose), but we already have a serious issue on plagiarism just recently, so I can not support you until you fix the problem.
'''Neutral''', from support per plagiarism issues.  Not enough to oppose.
'''Neutral''' The very verbose questions I like a lot. The stuff from Durova etc has me on the line for now. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' - No reason to believe Kingpin will abuse the tools. Lack of content contribution does not worry me at all. Might I ask what your criteria for granting NPWatcher will be? I don't want to add this to the optional question list, I'm just curious. '''
'''Support''' I keep running across Kingpin at CSD where Kingpin is one of our best CSD taggers, with hundreds of tags in the months since the incorrect tags mentioned in the oppose section. As one of those who in the past pointed out an incorrect tag to this candidate,  I would be delighted to have Kingpin as a fellow admin at CSD. ''
'''Support''' I can't see opposing someone for having experience in the tool related areas. "Can't evaluate your edits"? How's the candidate doing in knowledge of speedy deletion? Content building is not essential  to deleting CSD candidates or blocking vandals.
'''Support''' Can't see the user going crazy with the tools, although I'd like to see more content to the mainspace. I can see Kingpin helping out at [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]. '''
'''Support''' If a user is happy to do the background tasks, and has helped considerably in the past, I can't see why major article contributions are required. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Support'''. Some people are anti-vandals and some are content builders. s/he just happens to be a very successful anti vandal.
'''Support''', not enough admins currently. Oppose !votes not convincing. Good outweighs bad to me.
'''Support'''.  A good content builder does not necessarily make a good administrator, and the reverse is true.  A short article-building resume does not concern me and I like the rest of what I see.
'''Support''' Agree with above, also good answers to questions. <font face="Georgia">
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. And yes, I'd be happy to help. :) –'''
'''Support''' I see no problems.--
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has never been blocked, but mostly per [[WP:AGF]] in that we have no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Anti-vandal fighters are key to the encyclopedia, and this user is no different.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support'''.  Good editor. While content contributions are nice, they are not necessary to be a good administrator as long as you have empathy. '''
<s>'''Support'''</s> We ''need'' more vandal-fighting admins. As Aditya said as a comment in the Oppose section, "Sitting around reverting a single IP that's vandalising past the 4 warnings while waiting for an admin to clear the AIV backlog is very annoying.". While it still impedes the vandal from keeping his edits from view, a viewer could still happen to go to a vandalized version of a page... (BTW, although I haven't really stated on the wiki until now, my views on FlaggedRevs have changed.) You would make a great admin. In fact I'm changing to '''Strong support'''. ...also I'm signing my edit :P <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' I've had only positive interactions with Kingpin and his CSD work is generally very good. The lack of content creation really doesn't bother me enough to oppose. The good outweighs the not as good. -
'''Support''' (switched from neutral) Kingpin13 has done valuable work, and would be even better as an admin.
'''Weak Support''' Kingpin13 has done some amazing anti-vandal work, however, the concerns expressed in the oppose section are somewhat troubling.  However, I still believe that Kingpin13 will be  eager to learn and ultimately make a great admin. Good Luck -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' purely to counteract David Fuchs' oppose.  Adminship should not be an award for prolific content contributors; it should be for those who would use the tools in discussion-related areas.—
'''Support''' In view of Kingpin's positive contributions to Wikipedia, I am happy to support this RfA. Good luck!
'''Support''' to counteract opposes. This insistence on content building is silly. Wikipedia has plenty of need for admins who do ''administrative'' work. Arguably, that's more important in an admin than the other. <strong>
'''Support''' I sympathize with the opposition idea that lack of certain types of work can be a problem, but it just doesn't look like a problem here.  "Automated" in no way means "trivial"; this candidate's work is hard, and I see no sign that he's flubbed it or that he hasn't been welcoming when appropriate and open to criticism. - Dank (
'''Support''' - slightly low on experience, but probably would be ok carrying out the tasks outlined in his response to Q1.
'''Support''' as a fellow vandal fighter. He shows no signs of abusing the tools.
'''Support''' Even thought there is lack of content building to show experience in a wide variety of areas, this user's conduct so far shows no indication that he would misuse adminship.
'''Support''' - All we are concerned with here is whether he can be trusted with the tools. What matters is not age, but maturity; he has not shown himself to be incivil or immature at all. Also, there are many admins (I'll admit I'm that type) who do a lot more insider work than content editing, but that's exactly what admins are for. You do not need the tools to edit pages, but you do need them to delete them. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - Their willingness to learn from previous CSD tagging errors/criticism lends me to support his ability to use the tools in a responsible manner. With hundreds of CSD taggings, errors are easy to make early on since we are all [[WP:BELLY|human]].
'''Support'''. While he hasn't been here for long, he has shown a lot of diligence in the work completed, even if done with the help of some tools which make tedious work much quicker. I see nothing which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. I do recommend taking things slowly at first, though, until you are sure of how to use the tools correctly.  ···
Excellent vandal fighter whom I want to see as a sysop. Pretty good work despite the very low article building. <strong>
'''Support'''; I've always thought he was good at what he does. --
'''Weak support'''. Has a sufficient number of non-automated edits. Undoubtably very dedicated, the bot is excellent, too. The positive slightly outweighs legitimate concerns over CSD and a general lack of content contributions. <tt>
'''Weak support'''. Would prefer more article work, but supporting per 20Q.
'''Support''' per the solid responses the the questions.--''
'''Support''' Kingpin13 will appropriately use the tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia.  Percentages don't bother me, but good intent convinces me. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - lots of non-automated edits too; user seems to have a clue and will unlikely abuse the tools.  <b>
'''Moral Support:''' The question is whether you will abuse the tools, and nobody responds ! --
'''Support'''.  What everyone seems to forget is, if we selected only candidates that had made significant contributions to article building, we'd have administrative backlogs up the wazoo.  Most people are either going to be good admins or good article builders.  The people who are good at both are going to be few and far between.
'''Support''' A good and familiar face. Cheers.
'''Support''' Kingpin won't abuse the tools. Kingpin's already trusted enough to run a bot and I see a net positive. So what if 80% of edits were automated if over 6000 were not. Kingpin probably embraces technology and uses it to his/her advantage. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' - I'm really sorry, I hate opposing candidates, but the amount of automated edits alongside the lack of significant article contributions (if you think I've missed an article, don't hesitate to reply!) make me concerned. \
'''Oppose''' - Excellent vandal fighting and very helpful to new users.  Unfortunately there's not much else so its difficult to determine competence with policy.  The one bit I could find wasn't good - as recent as March of this year there were several cautions about inappropriate speedy tagging - I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable giving the delete button just yet.  Definitely on the right track though and I look forward to supporting later.
'''Oppose''' - I believe that administrators should have a familiarity with the creation side of Wikipedia; the position of responsibility confers a certain degree of power (whether it should or not), and I feel that people who are largely fighting vandalism have a tendency to forget that we're here to write an encyclopaedia. I realize that not everyone wants to write articles, but I would expect an admin candidate to have had more involvement in the process than you have - perhaps you could participate in some GA reviews or something like that, to broaden your knowledge. I wish you the best of luck, and hope that you will come back to RfA later. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Strong Oppose''' - While I appreciate the assiduous work in anti-vandalism, I am afraid that I cannot in good conscience support this RfA. You have only been active for a few months and in that time you've been virtually automated, racking up 10+K edits a month. I cannot judge adequately whether you understand policy. I don't require FA or GAs, but I like to see some dedication to the project in the form of written work.
'''Oppose''', rather reluctant, due to lack of article building, great that he does lots of auto vandalism fighting, but I think at least some experience (i.e., more than he has) in building an encyclopedia is needed for an admin.--
'''Oppose'''. I am wary of candidates who are perhaps too caught up in the minutiae and red tape at the expense of collaboratively creating the world’s greatest encyclopedia.  Administrators need a certain level of camaraderie and teamwork skills that has yet to be demonstrated here.  Of total edits, only 1.1% are article talk and 0.2% Wikipedia talk.  The copious user talk edits consist primarily of telling other editors what they have done wrong. I suggest taking Chzz’s advice and spending some quality time with GA reviews or one of the various Wikiprojects. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Oppose''' lack of audited content contributions. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' editor more or less says he's not interested in building encyclopedia content, no evidence in any of his contributions that he has the judgement one would expect (no evidence that he doesn't have judgement either, of course. THere's just, well, no evidence) and he doesn't need to be an admin to run his bot.
'''Oppose''' per lack of substantial content contributions. Like the other opposers, I cannot adequately judge your understanding of policy. I need a few months of non-automated contributions, to different areas of the project to determine that you will not abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Oppose'''. Limited collaboration with other editors. Minimal content creation.
Per Shell and Axl.
That wikipedia's way of working demands an army of vandal fighters is not a reason to ignore the fundamental importance of administrators having a clear understanding of the problems encountered in content creation. If more understood that, then perhaps we might begin to see fewer destructively punitive blocks being applied to established and productive editors. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of article building.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but per the comments above.
Sounds like he's probably a kid, and with nothing to help me gauge his level of clue, I'm going to oppose.  Kids ''in general'' are poorly suited to positions requiring good judgement.  Those complaining that "age is irrelevant" here are making the same error we've seen over and over:  Exceptional individuals ''do'' exist, but only a total bonehead would assume that a ''particular'' individual is exceptional, without evidence.  But I'm also going to call out the "not enough writing" opposes for being boneheaded also.  We can use admins who function more like janitors than like writers.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Everyone contributes in their own way, according to their skill set and preferences.  If someone enjoys doing nothing but fixing vandalism all day, let them do their thing- it's a net gain for the project.
'''Oppose''' I just got the impression that this editor was too indecisive with question #5. I understand that the question wasn't too detailed, but legal threats are a very serious matter, and I'm not sure I can trust the tools to someone without a way of properly gauging their level of maturity in dealing with these kinds of issues. --
'''Oppose''' I don't think you are ready yet. I can tell you will get the tools one day, but just not yet. Sorry! ('''
'''Oppose''', per {{user|Axl}} and {{user|Vodello}}, would like to see additional experience in varied capacities. '''
'''Oppose''' Too many automated edits, bro. Doesn't give me any confidence.--
'''Oppose''' Does not understand the advisability of the alternatives to deletion. It's not just a matter of his tagging earlier, but his current tagging, and the way he defends it here. We do not need more admins likely to  drive away newcomers by not giving them a chance. Some understanding of this could perhaps be gaining by actually communicating informally with them instead of using notices. I do not thing an admin need be a content expert, but  it would help to do some more work in content creation himself. Wehwalt has it right, a little above.   '''
'''Oppose''' There are not enough manual edits for me to judge whether or not the candidate knows policy and common practice to the degree expected of an admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' for several reasons. There are a lot of automated edits and the non-automated ones don't really strike me as much more than required for CSD and minor housekeeping. There's nothing here to show me how the user will react when things go south. I am not a big fan of inclusionism, but some of theses CSD's are just, I'm sorry, flat out bad and show bad judgment. If you'll flag one when it shouldn't be, you'll delete it. Not enough work in Wikipedia talk, policy pages. Lack of solid participation in building articles --  I don't require a GA or FA but I want to see enough that you know when the editing gets hot what it actually feels like. Not really enough time, and finally? I just get the feeling the user isn't ready. It's not any one thing, it's all the things taken together. Good contributor and vandal fighter. But not feeling it for admin, sorry. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
What BSFS said. In the tiny sliver of a review that I did, it was the automated edit count that drove me away from a possible nomination. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
'''Oppose''' per concerns noted above.  The constant oppose-badgering is also annoying and sad.
'''Regretful oppose''' per the concerns raised by AmusedRepose.
'''Another regretful oppose''' you seem like a person who honestly wants to help the project, but I also think you need more core-content experience and at least another year on WP.  --'''
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure on this one. I like your bot and I see that you dedicated much time to the project. On the other hand, the high automated count split your edits evenly between reverting in article-space and warning in user-space. Except for the bot-related edits, I have not seen your name in Wikipedia: or Talk: namespaces at all (at least I cannot remember you anywhere there). Also, you have only started to be highly active 3 months ago and while your CSD work is usually correct, two things bother me: 1.) You use "db XX" as an edit summary, which is not at all helpful to the creators of the article or others reviewing the edit history and 2.) you are often quite hasty in tagging pages and make mistakes with A1 and A3 tags (see these examples:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Scolaro&diff=prev&oldid=294444344 A1 one minute after creation and the context was clear already]. Would have been an A7 maybe but too hasty nevertheless.; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Invitational_Model_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=291348762 A3 two minutes after creation]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weightlifting_Weight_Classes&diff=prev&oldid=290786352 A1 with context] (if one reads the article name, it's quite clear, what this is about);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mammals_described_in_21st_century&diff=prev&oldid=289261523 Another A3 one minute after creation]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VIACK&diff=prev&oldid=284372835 A1 with context] (would have been A7)). I think hasty taggings are quite harmful to the goal of this project and might seem BITEy. I'm concerned that you will start deleting those pages if you gain the mop rather than allowing people time to work on them. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' - I've seen you in the recent changes while I edit, which is quite good really. But, a balance with non-automated huggle edits would be quite better. As per above, I would like a little bit of editing in other namespaces. But I must say your current work so far is quite impressive, hence I shall neither oppose or support yet. This does not mean I cannot trust you with the tools.
'''Neutral''' - I originally opposed due to concerns with [[WP:CSD]] and then moved to support based on a reassuring to my optional question 6 but I'd failed to check the period of time this user has been active on the project; the account was only registered in September 2008 so I cannot, in good conscience, support this RfA on that basis even if the candidate might be demonstrating good qualities at present. It's a deal breaker for me, unfortunately: I feel it's simply too short a span of time to be assured that this candidate is 'qualified' to take on admin responsibilities in my view when we don't even know how long s/he intends to stick around or even why s/he feels the need for the bit at such an early stage in his/her Wikipedia 'career'. We don't need "more admins". We need more ''active'' admins. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Neutral''' - I found a few CSD issues, but given the ''sheer volume'', a few issues are bound to come up. As a percentage, they are minor. Still, there is the possibility that new users will be turned off by immediate CSD noms, and I do echo some others' concerns about the dizzying rate of automated edits. I am inclined to think that similar percentages of error with blocking, protecting, and the like would not sit well. Still - I don't feel strongly enough to oppose. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral'''. Kingpin13 is doing some good work, but I'm not currently convinced that the following (in no particular order) are being prioritised as they would need to be to garner my support for adminship: policy, content, procedure, noobs. I would recommend some more experience with building content and more importantly anything else which isn't speedy deletion or vandalism reversion. Further, I am not convinced that the answer to question 5 indicates a broad enough experience with problematic content, as admins are called on to make and enforce judgments about these kinds of problems all the time. Your absolute first priority should be to consider why the content is being removed and to ensure that no one is being libelled. I think you've almost got the right answer above, but it wasn't produced in a way that would make me comfortable supporting at this time - perhaps the result is a little too much emphasis on blocking policy and procedure over content. An understandable response in an RfA, but even allowing for this I find there's still something lacking. Experience methinks. Some time away from templates and automated tools may help with this. --
'''Neutral'''. I really can't decide either way. That you may have made mistakes at CSD is not important to me, proves you're human. That you seem to do mainly task-related activities is not a problem &mdash; it leaves others to crack on with content without having to do ''loads'' of anti-vandal work. But your answers to the questions and your responses to comments give me pause. I think the responses by Aditya and WereSpielChequers are exceptional but only show the ''thing'' that's missing in your answers/replies. I'm sorry if that's vague. Put down Huggle (I'll go do some vandal-hunting), spend some time interacting with other editors (Helpdesk, [[WP:3O]], etc) to prove you can interact with editors beyond short exchanges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=285371506 This conversation] encourages me but I need a bit more, more civility in the face of provocation and more negotiation and reaching consensus with others. You may never need these skills as an admin in your particular field, but it's important you can act appropriately. Happy to change if you can show what I'm looking for. Apologies for the verbosity.
Although it's not really applicable to how you would use the tools, please take a look at [[comma splice]]. Using more periods will make you sound much more professional. It'll make what you write much easier for readers to follow, too. I think some of the people in the oppose section may be having trouble with your writing style.
'''Neutral''' - many plusses, a few minuses.  Rollback rights, many edits, good awards. Could use more time [[WP:BITE|dealing better with newbies]], learning the art of when to hit the delete button.  Good luck, and try again if you don't make it this time.
'''Neutral''' - Kingpin13 makes valuable contributions as a tech-savvy tool creator and operator (I have seen the user's work), and I trust the user to use the tools responsibly. I lean toward support, but hesitate to lend support because the user's participation in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Buxton]] (recommending redirection to an article that had no hint of notability and was subsequently speedy-deleted for that reason) makes me wonder if this user appreciates WP policy and guidelines well enough to make delete/keep decisions as an administrator. --

Per [[User:X!|X!]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
I'm sorry, I too have to agree with X. Please don't be disheartened, given more time and experience, I'm sure you may make a great admin! <span style="border:1px solid deeppink;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
Sorry, I also agree with X for now. I hope to support you in a future RfA.
Hey Koman - thanks for your enthusiasm for editing.  As far as waiting until later to apply for adminship, I think X pretty much covered what I was going to say.  I did want to mention something else that you may want to work on before reapplying for adminship.  Though many admins focus on technical areas such as image tagging, the community generally wants its admins to be proficient at writing and grammar.  Thus, even in a future RfA, the random capitalization that you've used in your answers would likely be a problem.  I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I hope you feel welcome to ask the experienced editors here for help in punctuation and writing style.  Getting feedback from the community is a great way to improve your writing.  Feedback has definitely gone a long way towards improving my own contributions.  All the best, '''
Support wholeheartedly for adminship.
I changed my !vote to support because of the new info you added to his first answer. It shows that you know of [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:ANI]] and that you want to participate in them. I think that the answer to the conflicts question shows that you will be able to solve conflicts by being civil.
'''Support''' –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I see nothing so far which would suggest I should oppose. The edit conflict seems to be a misunderstanding, the user is referring to conflict so I see no reason to make a mountain out of a molehill. The flirtation question seems a bit unusual (or is that just me?) and the user cannot view a deleted edit... user appears calm, cool and willing to assist. Name seems familiar but in the way of seeing it around Wikipedia (which is good) and not for any purely negative reasons. Good luck! --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''': Absolutely..
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Moral Support''' I do not believe you are ready, but you're a far better candidate than the current totals would suggest.
'''Support''', the only question I ask myself when I comment on RFA discussions is "Will the user use the tools disruptively?".  Despite some poor answers to the questions, I am convinced that the answer in this user's case is "No".  I even quite like his responses to Q4 and Q5.
'''Support''' I am interested in Mr. Rutherford's full contributions to Wikipedia, not on the clever turns of phrase he puts forth as part of the RfA pageant. I have no problems supporting this RfA.  The nitpicking of the Oppose section isn't convincing. Good luck!
Sorry, but just actions and posts in general that I have seen the candidateu make at various places and discussions on Wikipedia give me doubts as to his suitability as a sysop. I can't think of any particular cases at the moment; it is somewhere in the back of my mind. If I can remember, of course I will post it here for the candidate and everyone else to see. <font color="navy">'''
I don't really like the looks of [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_27#Template:Uw-cite|this]] ([[Special:Undelete/Template:Uw-cite|undelete link for admins]]). It says to me that the candidate is unfamiliar with what constitutes disruptive editing, which is exceedingly important for an administrator to be able to recognize. I'd let it slide, but he created it two days ago, which makes me think he needs some more time before he gets sysopped. --
I'm unhappy with a candidate who clearly has little understanding or experience of the administrator's role attempting to solicit support from high-profile editors who (s)he hopes will enhance his/her case. --
'''Oppose''' - answers to the questions are entirely unsatisfactory, particularly the first one.
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions do nothing to allay concerns about the candidate's conversance with policy and practice (and, most crucially, his ability to know whereof he does not know, lest he should inadvertently misuse the tools) and sense of judgment that one might reasonably have at the outset, and notwithstanding Kevin's evident good faith and apparently acceptable temperament and cordial demeanor, I cannot conclude with any confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]]; not regarding the question as a close one, neither can I be a "neutral".  I'm no grand fan of admin coaching, but I imagine that it would be appropriate here, and I am glad, I think, to see that it is something the candidate will consider pursuing.
'''Oppose''', agree with some of the concerns raised above by {{user|Jahiegel}}, {{user|Ironholds}}, and others. '''
"However, adding citation templates are considered disruptive edits and are disliked by the community." - Indeed. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per weak, and sometimes patently wrong, answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' - Question 1 just ruined it for me. The need for an urgent noticeboard seems to miss what ANI is about. Having people receive notices would be very problematic and cause more drama than necessary. I am confused how "edit conflicts" are conflicts in question 3. The question is about disputes on talk pages dealing with content. Sigh.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but per the answer to question 1.
'''Oppose''' User still seems unfamiliar with the basic terminology of Wikipedia, demonstrated by his confusion regarding [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflicts]]. Admins must know their way around and be able to explain concepts to newer, confused editors. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q1 is confusing and the answer to Q3 is just plain wrong. [[Help:Edit conflict|Edit conflicts]] have nothing to do with [[WP:EW|conflicts]]. Come back in about six months when you have more experience, and I might reconsider. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Oppose at this time''' I believe that more time needs to be spent in the "admin-type" areas in order to expand your understanding.  So far, things are ''generally'' good - don't be dismayed by this process.  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Kevin has misunderstood the meaning of question 3. Although to be fair, now that I think about it, the question is ambiguously worded. "Conflicts over editing" could legitimately be interpreted as "edit conflicts". Unfortunately Kevin appears to have conflated these two separate meanings.
'''Oppose''' per answers to question. Hint, on question 9, there's no claim to notability there, no context, and barely any content - if you don't understand Spanish, leave it to someone who does. Deleting it was proper, IMHO.
'''Oppose''' per {{tl|uw-cite}} and other things, but that's more than enough.  When I first saw that, I thought it ''had'' to be a parody (e.g. one could imagine someone putting such a template on a subpage of their user page for laughs).  I don't insist on a candidate knowing ''every'' detail of ''every'' policy, but not understanding [[WP:V]] is problematic.  --
'''Oppose''' Per answers to many of the questions and the {{tl|uw-cite}} thing.--
'''Oppose''' - Q1 is bad enough, even with the explanation (imagine if he got so caught up in adding a "resolved" template that he forgot to finish a block with a User Talk notice), but Q3? I don't believe "conflicts in editing" can be legitimately confused with "edit conflicts" for the simple reason that a candidate should have the basic insight required to step back and ask, "wait... ''why'' is it asking me about relatively trivial edit conflicts? Why would this be a concern? Hmm... mayhaps there is more to this question than I originally thought". I mean, it's not like there's hundreds of other RfAs where the candidate managed to ''not'' completely misinterpret this question. Learn by others' example, if nothing else. Lack of on-the-spot insightfulness and a tendacy to get distracted before adequately finishing the task at hand are not compatible with adminship. The icing on the cake is the {{tl|uw-cite}} issue - we already have enough admins who either can't or won't distinguish their own views from the views of the community, we do not need one more.
'''Oppose''': "For example, if a user is vandalizing a page and some user wants to stop this, they have to either post it on the board or find an active administrator who will swiftly deal with the situation." This sentence (as well as most of Q1) shows that the candidate isn't yet familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. And to answer what to do in that situation, you bring it to [[WP:AIV]]. I don't even look at answers to questions that often, but yeah, my confidence is rather low.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]] --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' per Badger. Also, certain phrases used in the answers, for example (in <s>Q4</s> Q5) "(t)hen this is obnoxious" and (Q6) "I went under the philanthropy section", show a somewhat...erm...carefree choice of words. Such a tendency to elaborate and imprecise phrasing would cause all manner of misunderstandings for an admin. Writing clearly and fluently under pressure isn't easy but it is essential.
'''Oppose'''. A candidate who cannot tell the difference between edit conflict and edit war leaves a lot to be desired.
'''Oppose''' Q1 is a bit odd. Q3 and Q7 (No use of the two pages, WP:AIV and WP:ANI) are worse.
I disagree entirely that it would necessarily be a net negative if you were promoted, but I'm afraid you don't quite have enough experience. For example, your answer to Q #1 suggests to me that you're unaware of [[WP:AIV]]'s existence. You're generally a good user, however; keep up the good work! –'''
'''Neutral'''.  I like the fixes being made to the question answers, but I still think a few months more experience wouldn't hurt.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
Your original answer made me say "Bless" out loud.  I don't see any harm being done with the tools in your hands, but I don't see any benefit either.  Sorry, but you need more experience. <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
Neutral for now. I like your answers, but not your practical use of them.--
'''Neutral'''. A generally good candidate, so normally I would be forgiving of minor errors. The questions are fixed, so I don't have an issue with them. However, the {{tl|uw-cite}} does show a misunderstanding of policy that prevents me from supporting. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' because I don't want to pile on. However I have a comment, which is that admins are not just policemen but should also have a general awareness of what is going on around them. You say above you have created stubs and taken them to GA nomination, such as [[102nd Intelligence Wing]]. So I read the article, and noted the embarrassingly poor writing/spelling etc. The lead says ''"the 102nd was helped patrol the Northeastern United States from foreign attack"''. Some other examples include...... ''"these buildings include the hangers that the F-15s formally occupied"''...... ''"it was a participant in"''......''"guard units without their own aircraft units would need units"''......''"Otis Field was named in after 1st Lt Frank J. Otis"''......''"it lost the every unit"''.....''"including the for the Seventh Army"''.....''"The wing also patrolled the skys"''. There are also inconsistencies, such as as "102nd" and "102d" in the space of eight words! Kevin, I don't say you are responsible, but you must be unaware it is what it is. That is the awareness I think admins should have.
'''Neutral''' for now as there are some concerns, but not enough to be considered a net negative (as Julian said). I would encourage you to come back again in a few months.
'''Support''' Deserves the tools.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' - Provided nothing serious crops up. Knowledgeable, a quick review of Kww's contributions doesn't give me too much cause for worry, easily a net positive with the tools. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks good from here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' yes please! Kww is a great editor. I am sure he will benefit the administrator tools. I also believe, that he can stay neutral with the tools. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''- no worries here. From what I've had to do with Kww in the past, I believe they're intelligent and hrad-working. I see no danger of Kww misusing the tools.
'''Support'''; per not contradicting myself.  :-)  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' - Hmm, I always thought you were an admin... --'''[[User:Dylan620|Dylan]]''' ([[User talk:Dylan620|chat]], [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|work]], [[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|ping]],
'''Aye''' per my comment on the previous RfA, and his excellent work since then. <b>
'''Support''' from the most controversial candidate to hit this page.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support'''. The only possible issue I had was the situation about the temple garment images, and you've cleared that up for me.  Thanks for your quick response. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Great editor, cool head, will use the tools well. — <font face="Segoe Script">
--
'''Support''' I found A Nobody's oppose to be unconvincing, and I have no issues with this candidate. Good luck! :) &lowast;
'''Support'''. I've seen this guy in action, and I have to say that he is an excellent at handling BLPs. Definitely someone we want as an admin. '''''
'''Support'''. I regret my oppose from last time. I've watched the candidate closely since the last RFA and I realized that the diff cited by me in the previous RFA and linked by A Nobody below was blown ridiculously out of proportion and is now ancient history as well. The deletionism does sadden me, but it's clear to me that Kww is a good Wikipedian. --
'''Support''' No question, none at all.  Fine editor, who I worked with on [[Natalee Holloway]] which became TFA last October, and I see all the hard work he does keeping the music area under some kind of control.  Deserved it last time, deserves it now.--
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. '''''
'''Support''', I do not believe there are too many admins at the moment for this candidate to be sacrificed or burnt at the stake. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Yes''' I'm sure it is unavoidable that folks will come in here and let their view on content determine whether or not we should make someone an administrator.  I hope that doesn't happen again here.  If it does, I hope those of us who aren't intent on [[WP:BATTLE|fighting the great content wars]] will have the maturity to look past opposes like that and support or oppose this candidate based on his merits, which are many.  KWW is a good content contributor, working in areas of the wiki that sometimes lack a calming hand.  He deals with new users constantly and has handled most situations with them that I have seen with aplomb.  He is also very capable of identifying serial copyright vio. uploaders, sockpuppets and sly vandals in his content areas.  His posts about those folks to AIV, AN and AN/I are always informative, clear and neutral.  He is also willing to work on the project side, at deletion discussions and in deletion work in a manner that I consider quite helpful.  I am also '''certain''' that whatever his opinion on content, he is fully aware of [[WP:INVOLVED]] and is capable of rendering decisions about where and when he can use the tools.  I think that giving Kww the tools will be a net positive for wikipedia.  Please support him.
'''Strong support''' I have no reason whatsoever to believe this use would abuse the tools, I trust them completely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - call it a ''content-based'' support, yes, I side with Kww's take on checking pop-crap proliferation. Not to mention Kww's stubborn, dependable personality.
I haven't been to the "I thought he was one already" file before, so I didn't know he was one of those people until I saw his name up here and realized he really wasn't an admin. Kww is a fantastic editor wherever he goes, and indeed, it is long past time to give him a mop.
'''Support''' - While there have been times that I feel Kww has acted a bit heavy handed when responding to sockpuppetry (which did make me pause when deciding to support or oppose), overall he has shown admin qualities. Also, we could use more administrators who are willing and able to help at [[WP:SPI]].
'''Support''' — Kevin is here to do good work and will make good use of the tools. I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Attempts to elicit pledges re specific tool usages are antithetical to the concept of adminship. Kevin knows what articles he has strong views on and that AfDs concerning them might be better handled by someone else; I trust him to make such calls appropriately. Ditto for issues involving certain other editors. This sort of judgement is something that folks watch for in new admins (and the not-so-new). Advancing hypothetical concerns as cause for opposition, is [[WP:AGF|bad faith]]. G'day,
'''Support''', having known him for a long time.
'''Support'''. Seeing Kww around a lot, I see he drives to keep Wikipedia at its best. He works long and hard, specifically in music related articles where I've seen him. I have nothing but utmost confidence and trust in him being able to use the tools correctly. — '''''
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;I have examined the candidate's contributions and issues; I believe he would be a forceful, unafraid admin. For those who would question me further, beware, for I am a small, tubular canine of German descent, specialized to hunt a particular member of the family Mustelidae. --'''''
'''Strong support''' as an adept spam fighter who knows policy well and expects only the best results from this project. '''
'''Support''' I know KWW mainly from the fiction area, and I can see where perceptions of him being a controversial editor come from (i.e. he doesn't shy away from making his opinion heard). Having said that, I've paid closer attention to his way of interaction since the last failed RfA, and he seems have have tamed down and is not as quick to take the bait and risk making content disputes (appear to be) personal. I'd want him to think twice before swinging the mop in controversial areas (judging by his replies, he seems to already know that), but he seems to be a good admin candidate otherwise. &ndash;
Why not?  (And pre-emptively, don't say "see below", it's the usual stuff I disagree with.) <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Easy call, we don't have enough Admins and in my view Kww has the attributes to become a good one. I'm happy with the explanation of the only block in the last twelve months, and like the example of Kwww's conduct re temple garments. ''
'''Strong Support'''. An excellent, dedicated and responsible editor who cares deeply about the project and is fully deserving. It is highly unfortunate that the opposition to KWW is derived largely from those who do not share his wikiphilosophy and (admittedly as I read it) are engaging in wikilawyerly and backhanded attempts to impugn his good faith and his ability to learn from his actions. Simply put, "doesn't agree with me on fiction-related articles" (regardless of the framework around which such a position is built) is not compelling grounds for opposing his adminship.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per no big deal, and having read the concerns of A Nobody below.
'''Support''' with reservations. In the end, should be a net positive but I'd be more comfortable if Kww changed his answer to Q8. Not that RfA pledges mean anything but I'd like him to understand that in areas where one is viewed as having strong and controversial opinions, taking administrative actions (no matter how benign) is a recipe for drama. It's a simple rule of thumb that every sensible admin should follow and in fact bad admins are characterized by their refusal or incapacity to understand it.
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin.
'''Yes''' —
'''Strong Support''', which is highly ironic given my recent comments about the pointlessness of "strong" votes at RfA. Kww is an immensely dedicated Wikipedian that has worked very hard for the benefit of the project. His opinions are sometimes strong and I don't always fully agree with them, but what I do know is that I completely trust that he (a) has the best interests of the project at heart and (b) is fully aware of the abilities and responsibilities inherent with becoming an administrator. I have full confidence that he will make good use of the tools - any contentious edits he has made are ''dwarfed'' by the volume of sensible contributions and well-thought-out arguments. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''.  Has clue.
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' with no reservations. I've worked with Kww extensively both in areas of article development and admin related tasks such as sockpuppet investigations, page protections, and blocks. He has a strong grasp of policy in all areas where we have interacted and my personal experience leads me to believe Kww will make an excellent admin. Kww openly acknowledges his mistakes, learns from them, and has a history of asking for outside opinions on his actions. That is exactly what we want in an admin. We all have strong opinions on one issue or another, and Kww is no different. I have no doubt these are the areas where Kww will ask for outside opinions before acting and accept input afterward. Good luck! --
'''Support''' I'm a bit on the fence, but ultimately I think this user can be trusted.
'''Support''' Solid answers, and has proven trustworthiness. '''
'''Weak support''' - I was going to oppose for use of the word !vote, but I thought that might cause a rather lengthy discussion I don't feel like reading. ;) Seriously, for my questions, I was impressed with 'a', felt pretty good about 'b', but 'c' sort of lost me, particularly the last sentence, which sort of killed it. Marginally notable people who object to having a biography here should not be ignored. At the ''very least'', their opinion should be given consideration.
'''Cautious support'''...alright, I can see you are dedicated, and that folks of my ilk (i.e. inclusionists) will be watching for any misuse of tools. Ironically this gives you a safety valve as far as I am concerned so I am prepared to give this a whirl. Good luck, and keep up with the content contributions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' - absolutely. -
'''Support''' won't misuse the tools, and extra ++ for denying those attempting to get blanket pardons as campaign promises.
'''Support''' I've come across KWW at some AfDs, and whilst I can't remember the details, I do remember that he argued his points well, showed a clear understanding of policies. --
'''Support''': Of course! <small>
'''Strong support''': At first, I couldn't remember where I had come across you, but then I remembered working with you on NFC issues. A good editor, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per my last AfD comments and lessons learned; meets my standards at [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]]; no good reason to oppose.
'''Strong support''' - Stubborn in the right sense of the word, not afraid to get his hands dirty, and has an extensive knowledge of policies. Will be a fine admin, I'm sure. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Strong support''' Good editor, will be good with the tools, and although I do see the problems, the answers to the questions go a long way towards my opinion on this RfA. —
'''Support'''; he may be deletionist, but he isn't evil. '''
'''Strong support''' per various arguments laid out in the Oppose section.
'''Support''' per all the above and that down below, too.
'''Support''' to counteract some of the frivolous opposes.
'''Net positive''' Most of the opposes do not deal with the areas for which the candidate has requested the tools, and many deal with occurrences far enough in the past that I'm willing to leave them there. I would recommend the candidate reviewing his views on some matters and the way he comes across to others. An effort should be made to mend fences before trying again.
'''Strong Support''' because of help in the past. --(
'''Support''' meets all of my [[User:Collectonian#RfAs|basic criteria]]. Shows a solid understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. Dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Far too many issues of late with people just bulk saying keep for everything while claiming "ignore the guidelines they aren't important/real/relevant." Can be abrasive, but seems to recognize this and has done well at dealing with it. None of us are perfect, and I don't believe Kww would abuse his tools even while dealing with some particularly aggrieving folks and people he has had conflicts with before. Some opposes seem to feel he's too "tenacious", but we need more admins who are, and who are willing to take a harder line with some issues. --
'''Support'''. All my encounters with this user have been positive and lead me to believe he will use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' I see nothing of concern, opposes aren't convincing, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''- It is my pleasure to uphold this nomination as I have reviewed the recent works of the editor and found them to be consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He is uncompromising and non-political, though he may have some personal biases, as I believe all of us do, it doesn't usually show in his edits given the fact that he has been with us for quite some time and has contributed loads. We need more people like him and less those that propagate a ''"you scratch my back"'' culture in Wikipedia. Please, let us give Kww a chance to prove himself. –
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Per above editors.'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Support''' per my previous nom.
'''Support''', controversial, but I believe that they will do a good job.
'''Support''', even though things don't look promising.
'''Support''' - This one took a while, but the final analysis shows he is a benefit.  Agree with his positions on many things.
'''Support''' Done it before and I'll do it again. So much of the oppositional kicking-up seems to be so much incidental  butthurt IMO.
'''Support''' after a careful review of contributions, I believe Kww will make an excellent administrator.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww#Oppose]].  Candidate has played a major role in perpetuating a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] atmosphere in discussions pertaining to fictional characters and television episodes and was nearly sanctioned by ArbCom for role in these disputes (see for example [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive145#Topic Ban for Kww]]).  In addition to the diff in the previous RfA in which the candidate referred to editors of opposing wikiphilosophy as "vandals" or for calling for blocks for anyone who expressed concern over TTN, a user who was sanctioned by arbcom, and as much as I am reluctant to even bring this diff up, the candidate has say for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)&diff=265550698&oldid=265549945 mockingly] referred to my old username in a discussion.  Regardless of what you think of someone and I know some have their concerns over why I changed names, but what does that accomplish?  Why needlessly add to the tension?  Moreover, in the admittedly high tension effort to compromise, i.e. where editors concede a little ground, on a fiction notability guideline, please notice such edit summaries as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)/Deckiller-Sandifer&diff=268940366&oldid=268938952 here], in which the candidate dismisses an effort at concession because in his words he (note the "I") does not agree (in many other instances, I notice a lot of not using any edit summaries a la [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)&diff=274810224&oldid=274809628] for example and is it really necessary to act so disgusted at others' ideas as if one will vomit?).  Now I don't know the average age of Wikipedia contributors (do any of us?), but the candidate asserts that many articles are simply "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation&diff=prev&oldid=271178743 created by 8-year-olds one Saturday afternoon, and that 8-year-old had an 8-year-old's attention span]."  Sure many editors do indeed start articles and leave, but why dismis them all as children?  Other concerns include that the candidate had strange [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww&diff=prev&oldid=242871234 support] in the previous AfD and has twice been blocked for edit warring.  I am concerned that candidate could abuse tools when dealing with the various editors on the opposite side of the fiction discussions and would not trust to be unbiased when it comes to closing fiction and episode related AfDs.  While I could find few to no instances of arguing to keep articles on fictional characters or television episodes (in fact the candidate argued to delete even in such cases as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)!]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Third Time)!]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Back (Demi Lovato song)]], all of which had near [[WP:SNOW]] support for being kept), the candidate has by contrast argued to keep such things as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fancruft&diff=215058577&oldid=215057825 Wikiproject Fancruft], which was decisively deleted due to overwhelming consensus against the project.  Moreover, candidate holds a grudge against [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Casliber&diff=257351591&oldid=257306578 those who opposed] his previous RfA.  Now, he criticizes Casliber for his interpretation of not a democracy and yet uses votes (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raccoon_City&diff=181698160&oldid=181691006] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arklay_Research_Facility&diff=181698414&oldid=181664788], for example) with no arguments in AfDs.  Finally, candidate is behaving during the RfA, but apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=283309185 the gloves can come off afterwards], i.e. we are being treated to one persona while the RfA goes on versus when it is closed.  [Barring a pledge to never use admin tools with those with whom the candidate has disputes in these fiction discussions and to never close AFDs for which a potential bias exists, I cannot support. Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose'''  Compare his answers to Q8 and 9 above with my answer to questions about closeing afds at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG]], and the fact that i have in fact never closed keep on a fiction or academic topic ever, or closed keep at all except for SNOW or withdrawn nomination or technical reasons.   I had no difficulty fulfilling my promise, and the very few people who have ever complained about a close of mine, are when I close Delete.  That Kww is not even willing to promise says something for his honesty, but not for his intentions.  I have usually not supported A Nobody when he complains about candidates who are too deletionist, because I don't judge on that basis. This time for once he's right.  '''
'''Oppose''' <s>I've had very negative personal interactions with Kww in the past and</s> I don't trust this editor to be <s>fair</s> unbiased in issues related to fiction in specific and inclusion/deletionism debates in specific.  Given his unwillingness to step away from those areas, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''', per this answer in question 3: "That whole surreal arbcom experience, where Kirill Lokshin proposed topic banning me from all fiction articles, apparently because I dared question people using E&C2 as justification for blocks on TTN that went well beyond the penalties outlined in E&C2 for edits that didn't violate the restrictions imposed." This indicates to me that Kww ''still'' doesn't get it. The proposed topic ban was because he declared that he wanted to treat people who worked on articles like [[Bulbasaur]] as "vandals, as opposed to editors".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_(fiction)&diff=202544073&oldid=202542955] The fact that he ''still'' tries to gloss over that outrageous statement as merely "daring to question" is in my mind a very poor indicator of suitability for a position with block buttons.
'''Oppose''', mostly for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Casliber&diff=257351591&oldid=257306578 the Arbcom election !vote] pointed out by A Nobody. No matter what one might think of Casliber's !vote in Kww's first RFA, I think it's an assumption of bad-faith to say that Casliber does not "grasp [[WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY]]" based on that and honestly it sounds more like a grudge against Casliber for opposing rather than a genuine concern. Also, per Sjakkalle, who points out that Kirill Lokshin stated clearly why they proposed the ArbCom sanction and Kww still seems to misunderstand this. Also, his rollback-use is problematic, he uses it often to revert good-faith IP edits that violate [[WP:BADCHARTS]] or are unsourced (see for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnival_Ride&diff=prev&oldid=279927972] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_%28Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles_song%29&diff=279708849&oldid=279706784]), although rollback is clearly for bad-faith edits only. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' The previous comments in this section (excluding DougsTech) raise very serious concerns regarding immature and reckless behavior that are difficult to overlook. Sorry, but I cannot support Kww.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the troubling concerns above, and the 40 opposes in the last RfC only 6 months ago.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww#Oppose] Battleground mentality, I don't see how the candidates behavior could have radically changed in 6 short months. May of the editors opposed KWW's admonship because of what KWW wrote last year on the Wikipedia:talk notability page, regarding "Acceptable spinouts": ''I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case.'' This is not the type of uncomprimising battle mentality that wikipedia needs in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' This user did seem like an excellent candidate at first but I just don't have enough assurance that they won't abuse admin privileges given their belligerent mentality. &mdash;<font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but [[User:Tom Butler#A perfict quote|this]] kind of comment sets off alarm bells. I have very little knowledge on any of these kinds of topics. However, if a topic has been considered notable enough for Wikipedia, then all significant viewpoints on that topic must be considered and editors who consider any of those points must be extended "good faith", and  cannot be considered candidates for blocks or bans because they consider and perhaps add those points. Having an admin with such an opinion and the tools to enforce that opinion is highly problematic in my opinion(
'''Oppose''' at this time... as I see the grave potential for more future drama and not less. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but as well as the above, a comment where you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=259799198 called for editors to be blocked for bringing an issue back to Arbcom again] has stuck in my memory. Such comments especially from admins have a chilling effect and Kww's strong opinions on this area do not let me have confidence in him becoming an admin.
''''Oppose''' <s>Seems to misread things. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Protonk#The_definition_of_canvassing].</s>  Looking through his contributions[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=240066845&oldid=240061552], I don't think I want him as an administrator.
'''Strong Oppose''' Pretty much per all of the above, I am not comfortable with adminship for this person.
'''Oppose'''.  Simply too much drama in this candidate's history for my taste.—
'''Oppose''' per olive. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">
'''Strong Oppose''', per the above, an editor who holds grudges, exhibits a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, shows bias and does not abide by [[WP:NPOV]].  He defends his block for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&diff=172472911&oldid=172458012][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&diff=172475893&oldid=172475752][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&diff=172547435&oldid=172542834][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&diff=172578049&oldid=172576800] by saying he technically didn't violate [[WP:3RR]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww/04022009&diff=172609748&oldid=172609251]  In that edit war he was adding incorrect content into the Bleep article, (that the documentary portion should be called “fiction” because he believed that the interviewees were lying.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F/Archive3#Fiction_vs_non-fictiom]), wanting to add material that he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&diff=181181543&oldid=181180977 clearly knew was WP:OR].
'''Oppose''' at times, confrontational. Give yourself some time to develop as an editor, and I will be more open to supporting you. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''oppose''' Moved from neutral. Too many issues especially as laid out by  DGG, Sjakkalle.
'''Oppose''' per DGG.  Shocked to find myself agreeing with A Nobody, too.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strongest possible oppose''' per DGG and answer to 11c. Changed to strongest possible per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civility&diff=203422773&oldid=203417717 this] diff which shows serious misunderstanding of our mission and how we work. We do not need admins who think like this on the project. Thank you Tom Butler for pulling that one out. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (amended --
'''Oppose''' I'm not really comfortable with his oppose vote for Casliber; he probably has a better grasp of Not#Democracy than any of us. Generally his combative attitude isn't becoming of a potential administrator and, as noted above, is quite prone to drama.
'''Oppose''' per DGG.
'''Oppose''' per A Nobody, DGG, Dreadstar, and Scarian. I found myself very much regretting my support in this candidate's previous RfA after it closed, and so far this candidate seems to have done nothing to attempt to address the grievances from last time around. Combative and unnecessarily hostile in many situations. The answer to Q8 really sealed the deal for me. While it is of course not required for RfA candidates to make "campaign promises," as it were, Kww asked to be evaluated on his "suitability as an admin based on...how [he] would perform in all aspects"; when it comes down it, the answer is that I do not trust him to be impartial in all aspects of admin work.
'''Strong Oppose''' Kww has made it clear that he considers a person with an alternative point of view to be a charlatan or an idiot. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civility&diff=203422773&oldid=203417717] Wikipedia needs centralists, not proponents of a radically skeptical point of view.
'''Oppose''' Enough valid concerns have been raised so that I must oppose.--
'''Regretful Oppose''' per just about all the above. While I really do believe Kww 2 has made excellent contributions to the project, the points brought up by users John, A Nobody, DGG, Dreadstar, and Scarian are, unfortunately, enough to reason for me to vote oppose.  Perhaps next time - Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' strongly. I consider his recently cited statement even less defensible than that of the bulbasaur. <span style="font-size:xx-small; line-height:100%;">Also: "''I would have no objections to semi-protecting all BLPs. This would go a long way towards encouraging account creation as well… Anything that encourages pop culture editors to get an account and use it is a good thing.''" ← surely we'd all like to believe that this will magically improve the quality of their edits—as this is the only thing that would outweigh the disadvantages of a "you must be '''''this''''' tall to edit BLPs" system (for maximum effect, repeat this 3–4 times with your finger and thumb almost touching)—but I do not believe the criteria are enough to make a practical difference. Consider how many pages on your watchlist have seen page-move vandalism in the last week or month, then try telling me with a straight face that the same criteria will stop anyone with the knowledge and determination to add content that would credibly defame a person. On top of that you'd have the arrogance to expect the subject of an article to wait four days and make ten edits to pages they don't care about (bulbasaur perhaps) before being able to remove libelous statements introduced in the eleventh edit of some other user who registered four days earlier. You would also eliminate the possibility that a particularly bad edit can be traced to an ISP without the need for checkusury and subpoenas, and increase the likelihood that the same content would instead be added to a non-BLP article closely related to the subject, just like any burglar would try the windows and the cat-flap too after finding the door locked. I can sense already that you don't like my metaphors but FlaggedRevs would at least provide a "leave it on the doorstep" mechanism if the person has instead come to deliver gifts, such as… I don't know… ''human knowledge''.</span><br/> —
'''Oppose''' We absolutely don't need another admin who would happily treat good faith editors as vandals. We have enough of that attitude already. This would be a receipe for drama and conflict.
'''Oppose.''' Sorry to oppose, but that's what's needed based on the significant concerns raised by several others here, in particular, DGG, A Nobody, and the succinct summary by GlassCobra. Also, the candidate's answer to question 15 is less than reassuring. Willingness to accept and learn from community feedback is an important quality for administrators, and that reply showed a lack of openness to or understanding of the feedback on his behavior offered during his prior RfA. --
'''Oppose''' due to all the drama outlined above.
'''Oppose''' - switched from Support. Having read the 'Oppose' arguments more carefully, I'm not convinced Kww has the right attitude to be an administrator after all, and I can't in good conscience let this one pass. The diffs brought up by A Nobody are more troubling than I first realised, and there's a difference between 'believes in strict enforcement of the rules' and 'stretches the application of the rules beyond what is reasonable in order to enforce a particular POV' - I think now Kww is more of the latter. I was supporting because, frankly, I agree with his stance on pseudoscience and pop culture topics, but on further thought his stubborn, combative approach is not the one desired in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Robofish and DGG primarily.  If it were possible, I'd be willing to let this editor use the protection tool, but definitely not the block tool.  I'm uncertain on the deletion tool.  Since it is a package deal, this is the outcome.
'''Strongest oppose''' Strong oppose for "Anything that encourages pop culture editors to get an account and use it is a good thing."  Why the antagonism towards pop culture editors?  This is one of en.wiki's strong areas with some good admins watching over pop culture articles.  Whenever I find a BLP that concerns me and, imo, it needs more watching I ask one of the pop culture editors to watch it--this includes articles about scienctists, heart surgeons, chefs, race car drivers, and cricket players.  And, I trust they'll do a good job because I watch their care with edits on the article they watch, and, I watch that they treat well-intended IP editors in their areas with respect.  I'm overdone with signalling out pop culture editors on en.wiki, no matter how irritated I myself get that a minor biography of a scientist is up for deletion while every character ever thought of for the latest Amererican prime time cartoon show is a solid keep.  But I'm not running for A, and Kww is.<br />Even stronger oppose for this, "I think requests by the target of an article to delete the article (and !votes stemming from that) should be ignored at all stages of an AFD."  The most offensive thing I've ever seen on en.wiki is a woman trying to get a smear campaign about her removed from en.wiki and an admin forcing it to stay up there based on one lame source, because the admin smugly was going to "ignore the target of the article" at all stages of discussion.  "'''Target of the article'''?"  WTF?  BLPs aren't hit pieces.  Oh, by the way, I emailed an admin and got that issue taken care of immediately--my current method, since the likes of Kww are over at AfD protecting hit pieces from their targets.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Sadly.  I had really wanted to support especially since I find many of the issues raised either non-problematic or surmountable.  But I really don't like the quote found by [[User:Tom Butler|Tom Butler]].  Reliably sourced nonsense is still reliable sourced and the standard is verifiability not truth.  I don't think he would abuse the admin tools, but I just don't have the certainty I need to support at RfA at this time.
'''Oppose''' [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] said exactly what I wanted to. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Oppose''' Many of the above sentiments mirror my own, especially those of A Nobody and DGG. His !vote against Casliber is particularly damning.
'''Strong Opposition'''. The nominee's crude attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=240066845&oldid=240061552] and his uncivil haranguing (indicating a failure to assume good faith) here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=213573334#Request_for_clarification.E2.80.93Episodes_and_characters_2] and his harassment of/personal attacks on an administrator whose efforts to defuse a content dispute rankled him, see here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=186849856], demonstrate that this abusive user is unfit to exercise authority over others.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. He does good work, but alongside other opposers, I just don't have a good gut feeling about this. I was on the fence and didn't vote for a while, but i have to come down on this side.
'''Oppose''' not a good candidate for adminship.
'''Strong oppose''' Considering that the user said that I, along with Hans Adler, Tom Butler, and Levine211, should be banned for life [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Workshop&diff=255836518&oldid=255822025], I suppose I'm not unbiased. I'm surprised that such a bad-faith editor is getting the support he is getting. Seems to weigh in on discussions which he has little understanding of with authoritative statements, muddling discussions. Since he contributes mainly on movies and music, perhaps he should restrict his comments to those areas. Further, his "bulbusaur" comment shows that even in his field of expertise, pop culture, he has a very wrong approach. It's interesting that he states that he "doesn't work on pseudoscience articles much, but it disliked by that crowd". In fact, he seems to not work on science articles in general (much less fringe science) basically ''at all'', which suggests that he's not interested in science, one of our most important topics. Reviewing his contributions for the past year or so, I cannot find an edit to a scientific article. As a sidenote, his introduction statement reflects the irritating habit of using undefined acronyms. I don't know what [[WTB]] is (or which one of the pages at the disambig, although I'm guessing ''[[With the Beatles]]''). While one might think this is minor, it reflects a shallowness in the presentation of one's thoughts which would be irritating from an admin. The most important characteristic an admin can have is the ability to do the research and get things right before making a statement or a decision.
'''Oppose''' mostly per the demonstrations of bad faith and per A Nobody. '''
'''Oppose''' per all above--particularly DGG.
'''Oppose''' DGG makes a very strong case.
'''Oppose''' Too stubborn and aggressive.
'''Oppose''' Never had any encounter with this editor, until he removed a sourced fact I had added to an article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaoru_Kuroki&diff=282636317&oldid=278091640] I reverted it, and gave him the sourcing before he requested it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaoru_Kuroki&diff=282640370&oldid=282636317] When he then requested a source, I pointed out that I have supplied it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKww&diff=282642079&oldid=282633228] He did not respond to me, made a huge assumption of bad faith, basically reporting me to an Admin and requesting that all my articles be put on review.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AA_Man_In_Black&diff=282784717&oldid=282388876] This is hugely inappropriate behaviour for an Admin, but, unfortunately, seemingly typical of the way the "leadership" here is heading, to the harm of the project.
I hate to pile on, but I want to be sure this will fail (Yeah, that sounds harsh). I'm just not comfortable handing you a [[WP:ADMIN|mop]] when I feel at times you'd use it like a [[WP:BATTLE|pitchfork]]. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Oppose''', valid concerns raised by {{user|A Nobody}}, {{user|Sjakkalle}}, {{user|SoWhy}}, among others above. '''
'''Oppose''' Kww's "I'm not heavy on the content-creation side of Wikipedia" (above) means he sees himself as a wiki-cop. He's a very bright guy, but that's not such a good thing in a fairly extreme deletionist. --
'''On the fence.''' I've been rethinking my oppose from last time because I've seen signs that Kww actually is much more capable of getting along with others than I thought. Still, he seems just a bit, well, heavy-handed for my taste, particularly against coverage of fiction (disclosure of own bias: I support the inclusion of extensive coverage of fiction on Wikipedia). On the off-chance I have any free time this week, I'll have a close look at his most recent contribs to see if I can support this time.
Solid opposes from A Nobody and DGG, but the supporters are also persuasive. - Dan
Both sides raise valid arguments, so for now I'm left undecided. &ndash;<strong>
There's something here that compels me to vote oppose, but until I can put my finger on something a little more concrete, I feel obliged to remain neutral. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) While I haven't found any outright incivility, or even lack of clue - I question the candidate's practices of AGF.  DGG and A Nobody bring strong arguments to the table, and I much prefer admins who contribute content than those who make a habit of looking for things to delete.  I don't care for big egos, and condescending rhetoric; It isn't always ''what'' is said, it's ''how'' it's said. So, while my personal preference would be to oppose, I can't see enough ''objective'' evidence to do so, and I'll AGF myself and hope that some agenda campaign isn't waged should Kww get the tools.  Bottom line? ... I won't oppose, but I sure can't support either. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
I really want to support, but the opposers raise too many issues.--
I just realized I was mistaking some diffs for Kww's when they were in fact another editor, I'm terribly sorry. I am troubled by the diffs above, but my own issues were unsubstantiated and cannot oppose without any personal grounds to do so. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral'''&mdash;compelling arguments on the oppose side, though not enough to suggest certain misuse of the tools. &mdash; '''
'''Cop-out Neutral''' - I really try to come up with a real up/down yes/no in any RfA I comment on, but after spending quite a bit of time on this one, I don't find enough compelling on either side. I am barely inclined (like 51%/49%) to support based on objective evidence; I am more than barely inclined to oppose based on what many have indicated in the oppose section. But I give more weight to what I see than to conclusions others draw from what ''they'' see, so I (unhelpfully) land in this section. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''' - I am on the fence on this one, I sense that some of the oppose arguments are a little overblown. However there are genuine concerns about attitude and conduct that were not that long ago and hence I cannot ignore.
As nom.--
Should've been granted +sysop back in April. --'''
Kww is capable of showing responsibility for his actions. He out in the open explains what he did wrong, instead of trying to bury it. Well done. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' per nom. I supported the first one, and somehow missed the second.
'''Support''' Per Harej, don't know you well but the your statement and answer to Q3 make me feel as though you won't make the same mistake and will be a net positive as a sysop.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' I agree with harej. I knew that Kww had issues in the past, although the details missed me. His acceptance statement and Q3 laid out the past conflicts very nicely, and I appreciate the simple open honesty about it. He's learned from mistakes, and to put it into perspective, the two main incidents happened a long time ago (the first in late 2007, and the second in May 2008). That's plenty of time for one to learn and prove themselves through positive contribs and good judgement. Kww has accomplished just that.
'''Support''' - I've seen some of Kww's work, and I think I've even worked with him on one thing or another and don't remember anything negative. The "essay" written above is honest and open about past mistakes and I don't hold the past against him. The answers to questions are concise and accurate. I'll support unless someone gives a very good reason not to later in the RfA. -- '''
'''Without reservation''' A more full explanation later (as needed), but Kww is sincere, dedicated and knowledgeable.  He understands how to go about improving articles both directly and indirectly and he is reflective on his mistakes when he makes them.  This is what we need.  An admin who is forthright, helpful and not brittle.
'''Support''' No present concerns.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I encourage anyone who opposed the first two RFAs to join me in changing their mind -- I will admit I felt at the time of the first RFA that he had something of a battleground mentality, but I see ''no'' evidence that this is still the case.  [[WP:GOODCHARTS]] and [[WP:BADCHARTS]] is a brilliant example of someone working to find a third road.  It is an effort that is neither deletionist nor inclusionist, but one that creatively, constructively and non-partisanly addressed a problem across thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of articles.  It is the sort of effort we should applaud and Kww is the sort of editor we should have as admin. --
I went neutral last time in response to points made by DGG and A Nobody, but those aren't issues now.  Good work. - Dank (
'''Support'''. Easily one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable users around. Kww has become a great asset to the community and I believe he will become even more so with the tools. —
'''Support''' per the improvements noted by others in support and also per the diffs provided by Ikip.
I'm trying to take a Wiki-break and have seen some success so far, but one simple support won't hurt, will it? Kww will do just fine.
I ''still'' wonder why he didn't pass the last one! '''
Should have passed previously. <strong>
No recent causes for concern. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">[[User:Pablomismo|&nbsp;pablo]]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablomismo|hablo]].</sub> 11:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) <br />I believe that this is the first RfA that I have participated in. My original comment was "no recent causes for concern, " and I am amending that slightly. Jack Merridew's concern is, I think, the only valid one here. <br />Even taking that into account, however, I think that Kww will make a good admin. If you look into the diffs supplied plentifully here by all hands and concentrate on the substance of the debate in each case, I think you will agree that he tends to argue his case logically and is prepared to listen to, and be convinced by, the opposing point of view. When unconvinced he 'agrees to differ' and goes and works on something else. <br />We are told that we need more admins. Kww will be a good one. I am saying that not because I expect to agree with all of his decisions, but because I trust him to make them honestly and use the admin tools responsibly. (There are other admins making decisions with which I disagree every day - doesn't make them bad at their job).<br />(Note - wrt DGG below - I have also been contacted and exhorted to change my position. I read nothing into that apart from the fact that a lot of people seem to care a lot about this RfA.)<small> amended &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">
Anything recent, opposers? Almost a year is a ''long'' time in wiki-standards. Otherwise, I have to default to support. '''
'''Support''' again.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] because there's really no compelling reason to oppose. The objections below seem largely based on speculation and other various flimsy arguments rather than definitive evidence, so in the spirit of AGF I support. –'''
'''Support''' per Harej.
'''Support''' per my last support. KWW meets [[User:Collectonian# RfAs|my criteria for an admin]]. Kww shows a solid understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. His dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Yes, he can abrasive at times, but he has continued to work on improving this and I have no problems with an admin who is human so long as they work on correcting that flaw ;-) None of us are perfect, and I don't believe Kww would abuse his tools. Certainly having more admins willing to deal with anything Disney is an extra perk, and recognizing the serious problem with have with that sock puppet is a perk. --
'''Support''' - I misread those diffs as being from 09, if nothing more recent can be found, I can do nothing but conclude that such issues are resolved. <b>—&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Good answers to Q1 &4.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. I don't care what happened in 2008. 2009 looks good enough for me.
'''Support''' I am satisfied that this candidate will not break anything, and am satisfied with the answers to my questions - candidate seems knowledgeable, and we need more peeps like that around.
Is being opposed by all the right people.
'''Support''' per Badger Drink. Ya'll tried this same tactic of dredging up ancient history from before a previous RFA on me, and it is '''not cool.''' Some users have the perseverance to actually listen to the criticisms from their previous RFAs and learn from them. How is it that a certain crowd is willing to assume good faith and keep almost any article, but perpetually oppose someone they have had a disagreement with. KWW seems to have a strong understanding of the admin approach to decision making, which is based on an understanding of Wikipedia policies and current consensus, not personal feelings. I trust him to use the tools.
'''Support''' One or two opposes make a reasonable point.  Most, however, don't - dragging up diffs from over a year ago assumes bad faith that the user can modify their editing - and some don't give any reasons at all, and can be safely ignored.  In the end - does Kww have a solid grasp of policy, and would Kww abuse the tools?  To the first, I believe so, and to the second, I very much doubt it. <b>
'''Support'''. I see nothing which leads me to believe that Kww would abuse the tools (in fact, quite the opposite). The reasons given in the various oppose opinions are not convincing. Kww has shown a solid grasp of policies and guidelines, and I think would do a good job as an admin. ···
'''Support''' because some of the oppose votes are ludicrously unfair.
'''Support''', a thoughtful, seasoned contributer. <font face="Cambria">
'''Support'''. I opposed the last RFA, but on careful examination I believe Kww has improved a great deal as an editor since then. His contributions to the noticeboards (ANI, AIV, RPP etc) are positive and useful, and his attitudes towards other users are generally civil; he no longer seems to hold the 'battleground' approach for which I opposed him before. Based on what I have seen, I trust him with the tools. The worst I could say about him is that he tends to prefer indefinite semiprotection of highly vandalised articles - but then, I support [[WP:FR|Flagged Revisions]], which is essentially that. I see nothing concerning in the opposes thus far - the only diffs which raise a few problems are from a long time ago.
'''Support'''
Badger Drink has it right. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' As a known fact Kww has been my probation officer for the past 3 months because of my prior vandalism and sockpuppetry. And to all those who bash Kww about being unjust or harsh, let me tell your wrong. He has patiently waited and mentored me for almost 4 months until my mentorship is complete. In the initial arrangements seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petergriffin9901 Here]I was supposed to be blocked from even 1 false edit, and as you see Ive had my fair share of mistakes and have gotten some chances. This proves that Kww is not 'too harsh' or 'quick to block' because he's fair and is does compromise, and just because of past mistakes doesnt mean he hasnt learned from them, or else 'where would I be'?.--
'''Support'''. Definitely someone I'd like to see as an admin. Note, I'll be ignoring responses that are merely badgering or simple repetition of the below opposes.
'''Support''' based on my experience of this editor's article edits, discussion comments, and answers in this RfA, all of which demonstrate experience and good priorities. Would be a fine admin. /
'''Support''' I believe his receiving the tools will be a net positive to the project.  '''
'''Support'''. Having opinions does not disqualify one from adminship. A candidate should be opposed only if there is evidence that he or she would use the tools improperly to advance those opinions, and I see no such evidence in this case. From what I've seen of Kww, he would hold off and seek consensus before using the tools in any manner that might be construed as controversial.
'''Support''': I'm impressed by his contributions.
'''Support''' I believe he would make a good admin. I believe he wouldn't have made a good admin in 2008, but that was a while ago - people do learn from their mistakes and I see sufficient evidence that this one has.
'''Support''' per Ikip.  If the worst that you can dredge up is comments that are over a year old, then the candidate can't be too bad.
'''Support''' Having opposed the last times over the April 2008 "vandal" statement, I think Kww has gotten it this time. Moreover [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC#Statement by Kww.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29|this posting]] about the need to keep the speedy deletion criteria tight is so good that I'm putting myself in this column this time round.
'''Support'''. Recent contributions are of good quality. Kww has a good understanding of policies/guidelines. I think that he is unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Per lankevil, and the fact that Kww will be a net positive. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support''', Kww is a dedicated and sensible user who could make excellent use of the tools. He has indeed been controversial at times but has generally acquitted himself well, and will be an enormous net positive. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' We canl make mistakes, and most of us have. And we can learn from them, and I believe this editor has. Too many of the oppose comments relate to behaviour before the last RfA, which IMHO is water under the bridge. Let us move on; this editor will be a great admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' there appears to be quite a past history motivating lots of opinions here, but judging by ''recent'' contributions, seems like someone I could trust and who wouldn't abuse the tools. It seems a little bizarre to continually go back to past RfAs; people can improve, and inmy opintion this person has.
'''Support''' User has clue.
Yep.  Per harej mainly. <small><span style="border:2px solid #000066;">
'''Support'''. I see nothing ''recent'' that would make me pause.
'''Support'''. You may call it a political vote (as I share a lot with Kww's agenda).
'''Support''' as per Balloonman and Crafty. '''
'''Strong support''' Not your typical bland RfA candidate -- and that's a ''good'' thing. RfA has deteriorated to the point that the main qualification is not to have done anything controversial or to have held any views that anyone could disagree with. How about promoting someone who will ''make Wikipedia a better place?'' Even -- or especially -- if they sometimes speak their mind?
Kww is honest and open. You always have the best intentions at heart for the encyclopedia and I think you would be an effective admin.
Yes, of course. The opposers give some pretty lame reasons, so I don't see any major problems. '''
'''Support'''. As I have said previously, I support this nomination with no reservations. Having worked with Kww in many areas of the project, I have no doubts he will make a great admin. Best of luck! --
'''Support''' from a (rather long) break. Not always perfect (none of us are), but, especially as shown by answers like the one to #11, certainly willing to consider needed changes, and enforce policy even if it involves a few stepped on toes.
'''Support''' I see no issues, as, strong opinions and all, the Kww has recognized that it isn't a good idea to use the admin bit to carry out those opinions. <strong>
'''Support'''. Many opposes, but nothing there that's worth opposing over.
Thought he was already one, blah blah blah hoopla. '''
Good outweighs the bad, in my opinion.
'''Support, support, support'''. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy individual. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]
At first glance, I expected to oppose this.  However, I've read the diffs in the oppose section now, and the things people are saying are problems are not actual problems.  We need more admins who are willing to express their actual opinions, rather than just doing what's easy or popular.  I believe criticism is necessary and helpful, and I don't like to see people being all mealy-mouthed in a misguided effort to never offend anyone.  He apparently pissed off a bunch of kids who want to fill Wikipedia with fancruft, but that's OK.  He seems clueful, and the willingness to speak his mind plainly is an asset, not a deficiency.
'''Support''' - per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]], and because I find the opposes to be unconvincing. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
'''Strong support''' Due to the way you are taking all of this with a level-head. Your calm and reasoned participation in this mostly contentious RfA, along with your acceptance that your opinions will not guide your use of the tools lead me to believe that you will be an excellent admin. All of the evidence on display here points out that you have a thorough understanding of our policies and guidelines, ''especially'' when it comes to deletion. The points brought up by the opposers don't amount to anything as long as you judge consensus from the community and not from yourself, which you have promised to do. The diffs are all attacks on your opinions, but admins are allowed to have their own opinions as long as they don't use the tools to promote them. '''
'''Support'''
<p>'''Support''' — This is a change from ''oppose''. The concern I expressed in the oppose section ''is'' of concern as is attested by some of the opposes per it. I have supported Kevin in the past and do believe he can be a successful admin if he takes valid concerns on board. It is my hope that he will do so. This RfA should pass; part of why I'm revising my 'stance' is that I consider a fair chunk of the opposition to it to be pure tosh; this is also part of why I'm moving all the way to support instead of to neutral. Factor out the battleground opposition and we're left with an admin candidate with better than 80% support and some feedback on offer.</p><p>Editors such as Ikip and A Nobody are endlessly disruptive as is shown by their tag-team approach and the endless distractions from core issues and their attempts to entangle threads with other issues. I, for one, do not wish to be associated with their aggressive effort to scuttle Kevin's candidacy and would hope that those who opposed for the reason that I initially did, will take another look. I hope that Kevin will take another look, too. Editors ''are'' known by the company they keep and I feel more comfortable up here.</p><p>A degree of 'hard-ass' is needed to be an effective admin; there are many editors with which no other approach will be effective. But adminship is not a cop's badge or a gun with which to put down the rabid. Too many wannabe admins are only after the block and deleted functions. Adminship changes the way you see the wiki. One of the obvious ways is all the 'block' links on offer; really, there are too many, as is shown by folks occasionally blocking themselves, Jimbo, or some innocent by mistake. But it also brings a sense of responsibility. Adminship is 'tools' on a technical level, but it is about 'voice' on a social level. The best admins are people who listen and are listened to. Sincerely,
'''Support'''.  I thought that I had supported last time, but find that I did not.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2&action=historysubmit&diff=282920137&oldid=282915871]  While I still don't agree with Kww about the best way of dealing with advocacy (of pseudoscience or other topics), I don't think he would abuse the admin tools.  Both his answers to the questions and his behaviour since RfA2 lead me to conclude that he understands consensus and the proper role of admins in implementing it.  Also, while DGG raises some valid concerns about how best to proceed in AfD, I don't think that he call for a broad recusal is either wise nor necessary.  Kww will close AfD's (when he does so) in line with his reading of consensus not his own personal beliefs, just as DGG does.  (I likewise view DGG's self-imposed recusal as unnecessary and overly limiting.)  One should avoid closing AfD's in an area where one has advocated an opinion that is the equivalent of a vote on the AfD, but general opinions (even if strenuously advocated do not create a COI or a reasonable appearance of one.
'''Support'''. Kww is patient, fair, reasonable and helpful, making many useful edits.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' mostly due to answers to questions 14a-d and 15. No evidence that Kww will start deleting anything against policy, and I don't see any other real concerns that are current that have been brought up. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Answers to questions show level headedness.
'''Support''' as Kww seems to have a grip on policy and process, as well as being responsive to both sides of any argument. --
Kww knows what he is doing. There are several valid points in the Oppose section (in particular, the aggressive over-reaction on the Meursault2004 / BambiFan ANI thread, which left a bad taste and ''almost'' kept me from participating here), which I hope and expect Kww will take on board. Ultimately, I am swayed by his answers to the questions, the way he's handling this RFA, and his overall pattern of helpful, clueful behavior. Net positive, assuming he takes on the constructive criticism below. --
'''Support''' – I have to chuckle, we currently have 5 RFA’s ongoing.  2 are definite shoo-ins, two are definitely not going to succeed and [[USER:Kww|Kww]] that is borderline.  Interesting to note that the two shoo-ins have a grand total of just over 10,000 edits combined (one at just over 6,000 and one at slightly over 4,000), while the candidates in each of the failing candidacies individually surpasses the grand total of the passing individuals combined.  We look to [[User:Kww|Kww]] contributions that exceed 31, 000 edits (3 times the amount of contributions of the combined 2 other successful candidates) and we pick out this edit in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=229241602&oldid=229236116|Aug ,2008]] or this edit [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Workshop&diff=255836518&oldid=255822025|Dec 2008]] (both over a year ago)  and hold them up as examples of his intolerance.  My question is did any of the opposes read Kww statements and the circumstances they were delivered in?  “…we have editors that want to treat haunted microphones and useless nostrums as being legitimate” or  “…"Suffering fools gladly" is an important skill, and one that I agree that SA is deficient in.”.  Where I ask is the intolerance.  In fact we have all run across similar situations, or should I say only, editors that have contributed over 10,000 edits have come across those situations?  Yes are the remarks a little biting, yes, so? Sometimes the truth hurts.  Does that mean we should not speak the truth now?  Because it may hurt someone’s feelings.  I didn’t realize that [[Wikipedia]] was now a social network site where we all sit around the campfire and sing.  I have always believed we were building an encyclopedia.  Best of luck to you [[User:Kww|Kww]] you not only have earned the extra buttons, I fully trust you with the added responsibility. <font face="Times New Roman">
Full '''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Yes, he's a deletionist. Yes, he's occasionally too abrasive. Yes, I trust that he will use the tools fairly. I will say that I gave the oppose camp a good long look, and I consider the concerns raised there to be non-trivial; I just consider that KWW is capable and willing to lay aside his advocacy when using the tools.
The Meursault2004 thing could have been handled better, but admin candidates are not expected to be perfect. Kww's strong intolerance of socks, and users who abuse community-imposed sanctions, is a perfectly acceptable opinion for an editor in good standing to hold. I don't have a problem trusting that he'd be able to recuse himself in cases where he's personally involved. Anyway, he's more than competent and the current situation where you're better having less than 10k edits when running for adminship because after that you're going to make too many enemies is far more likely to lead to poor decisions by admins than handing the mop out here. I'd hope that whoever the closing 'crat is has the sense to ignore the more obviously retaliatory opposes, which should be trivial to identify given any familiarity with Kww.
Yes, we need more admins who work in the field of music. I respect and admire Kww's efforts in overhauling [[WP:CHARTS]]. —
-
'''Support''' from me.  I've always seem him as a responsible, valuable user, and his work in [[WP:CHARTS]] and related fields is clear evidence of that.  I know there are a few issues that have been brought up, but Kevin appears to be an editor who will admit previous mistakes/issues and learn from them.
'''Support'''. Kww has been around and he understands the inner workings of the project so he could be a capable admin. The question is basically: will he? I'm not 100% certain but I am 100% certain that we need admins. Badly. So I'll take my chances. A word of advice if the RfA does succeed: "take no hostages", however tempting, never works too well around here. Things move excruciatingly slow but they do move eventually. More to the point, overreaction and grandstanding slow things down further, block or delete buttons used impulsively make it even worse.
'''Support'''. in my opinion the statute of limitations has passed on anything negative from Kww's past. Kww has worked to improve and has made strides.
'''Support''' I'm not seeing any kind of conclusive evidence of an attitude problem, especially not one that would make it seem like Kww is honestly untrustworthy. Otherwise the candidate is obviously experienced and would be of great help to the project. <font style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">
'''Support''' - I believe he has the wisdom to use the tools properly. -
'''Support''' - Weighed past behavior against present behavior. Contribs and actions convince me that this editor has reached a point where giving them the tools would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. --'''''
Having taken two homeopathic tablets and consulted a psychic, supporting seems the right thing to do. Sometimes, reformed gunslingers make the best [[Marshal#Law enforcement|marshals]].
'''Support''' per my vote in his last RFA.  I find the oppose rationales to be wholly unconvincing.
Will be a useful sysop.
'''Support''' per well-reasoned answers above. --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' a changed user <font face=jokerman>
'''Support''' In answers to questions he has shown an awareness of where it would be a bad idea to exercise his admin powers. I've not seen anything to convince me among the opposes.--
'''Support'''. Candidate seems to have strong opinions and argue them rationally and politely. Examplary behavior at this RFA and nuanced answers to questions. Most opposers seem to fall in the category of either "you did something I didn't like in 2008" or "I don't agree with your views and therefore don't trust you with the buttons". However, candidate has responded to 1st concern well and not shown questionable behavior since then, and I trust him to keep his views and his janitor actions separate if there would be a conflict.
Definitely a good choice for admin. Always sorts issues out quickly and is very knowlagable to have when dealing with charts. It would be handy if Kww was an administrator
'''Weak support'''.  At your last RfA I saw that you can deal with situations calmly and carefully. I am going to assume you will be able to in the future.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' Net positive.--
His answers are thoughtful, frank, and to the point. He's worked on improving the wiki in demonstrable ways. This support is a show of confidence that he's learned from past mistakes and can be trusted with the tools. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support'''. I trust this user.
'''Support''' A nod to the opposers, but I'm confident we are not going to see abuse or misuse of the extra tools. Net positive. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support''' - Direct language is a ''good'' trait, not a bad one. I don't find this editor's conduct inappropriate.
'''Support''' - Having gone through the previous RFAs and reviewed Kww's edits, I think this user should be granted adminship now. I see no risk of abuse. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] (
The [[User talk:Amalthea/Archive 1#Say OK|first time I talked to Kww]] was when he was helping an, at the time,
'''Support''' but not without reservations. The "hardliner" and "strong opinions" oppositions are not only not issues for me, they're a reason to support. The issue I find problematic is the "no campaign promises" statement I've seen the candidate use at least twice here. Treating RfA as a campaign is bad; we don't need "politicians" as administrators. Also, "no method to hold any admin candidate to any promise he makes" is no reason to avoid promises (the cynic in me says that's actually a good reason to promise stuff). A promise is a sort of moral guarantee; If it is not technically binding, it is morally. '''''[[User_talk:Rami R|<font color="black">Rami</font>]]
'''Support''' No worries - will make a fine admin, IMO.  --
'''Support''' - Changed from oppose to support. After further reading I don't find the whole bambifan drama sufficient to warrant an oppose.
'''Support''' a trusted user who looks out for the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - I see no evidence that Kww treats wikipedia as a game or any other signs of the tendentious game players who do so much harm here: Faux civility, indirect attacks, swirling group think to get "them" are just a few of the poisonous behaviors/traits that he shows no signs of. Kept his cool well here. The McCarthy-esque approach of a few of the opposers is thorougly unconvincing. It's clear this fellow, whatever his personal views, will take his community responsibilities seriously and in the spirit in which they are granted.
I opposed Kww's first RfA and withdrew my opposition, I supported his second RfA and withdrew my support in that one. This time, I've decided to wait for most of the RfA before making a decision: I've come across Kww many times, he does excellent work, and is experienced in the places he works in. Overall, I've had positive observations of Kww (I'm impressed with how he's handled this RfA) and my interactions with him have not been negative as far as I can remember, and I think that giving him the tools will be a benefit.
'''Support''' Giving you the benefit of the doubt, although you probably need some more time...
'''Support''' If late supports count, this one goes for keeping cool under pressure in the face of what appears to be a nasty canvassing campaign.  Whatever way this turns out, you've earned my respect with your aplomb. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''

'''Strong oppose'''  From failed Kww 2 This intolerant statement[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=229241602&oldid=229236116] displays the type of temperament that wikipedia should not have in an admin. Kww called for editors to be blocked for bringing an issue back to Arbcom again.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=259799198] "Suffering fools gladly" is an important skill, and one that I agree that SA is deficient in. It always helps to see a clear path towards being rid of the fools, and that's the most important thing we lack."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion/Workshop&diff=255836518&oldid=255822025] <br>From failed Kww 1, more quotes about Kww's unwillingness to comprimise: "I'm pretty a much a "take no hostages" kind of guy on that topic. No exceptions. I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors, and honestly believe that to be the case."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29&diff=202544073&oldid=202542955] These uncompromising views make Kww have a major unwillingness to step away from fiction in specific and inclusion/deletionism debates.<br>This intolerant behavior and battleground mentality shows there was very good reasons why Kww's first two RFAs failed.
'''Oppose''' per Ikip. (And Bravo Ikip for pointing it out.) Utterly agree with reasoning and conclusion, but I was convinced after reading the first quote.  Strongly urge anyone who has not voted for this candidate to read Ikip's links and reasoning. ''Yes, we need more empowered vandal-fightin' admins, but the self-congratulatory hostility the candidate has expressed toward those he terms 'vandals' is shocking, as is his call for punishment of those who speak out.'' Again, please read the above post before you vote; I will be surprised and horrified if more  oppose votes don't surface soon. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' That was the reason most were against his attempt to become an administrator last year.  This is third attempt now.  Is there a limit, or can you keep on trying?
'''Oppose''' -
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Ikip. While I find the links disturbing, I also have to say i'm inpressed with the way Kww is not trying to hide the past. So it's 51-49 to me leaning opposed. Sorry, but at this moment, I must oppose.
'''Weak oppose''' I think Kww  A) is trying to do the best he can for Wikipedia and B) has greatly improved as an editor over the last year or so.  That said, I think he is too firm in his own convictions and those convictions are generally opposed to my "too firm" convictions (I'd likely not make a good admin either...) for me to be comfortable with him as an admin overseeing related disputes.  I'd say it's not unlikely (50-60%?) he'd be a good admin.  Unfortunately the risk of him being another AMiB is too high for my taste.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Jack Merridew, I don't like how trigger happy he is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar&diff=317162094&oldid=317150285], not a bad candidate overall, but still seems to want to do things ''his'' way. That's not the way things work here though, everything works by consensus, and to not correctly understand policy or have the common sense to know that you don't block someone to force them to say they won't do something again, just isn't acceptable as an admin. We only block if the actual offense was bad enough to warrant it, and if we fear they'll do it again; the instance linked in Jack's oppose is a pretty straightforward mistake by someone who doesn't quite understand what's what on the english version of Wikipedia, Kww seemed in favor of blocking without giving Meursault2004 enough time to say that he wouldn't commit the act again. I'm sorry but your unwillingness to listen makes me unable to trust you to have the tools and use them effectively. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Strong oppose''' as the behavior in which editors expressed concern at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2#Oppose]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww#Oppose]] have not dissipated.  The candidate continues to promote a battleground environment and I would not trust with block ability with regards to his opponents nor with deletion ability with regards to fiction related discussions.  Notice, for example, the bad faith and haughtiness in "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Last_One_(Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force)&diff=prev&oldid=317569715 There is a small group of editors that believes they can ignore it. I suggest that you ignore them.]"  He dismisses and disregards those with whom he disagrees as if they don't matter.  That view of pro-fiction and episode editors being vandals has hardly diminished. And with regards to specific editors who opposed him in the past, rather than try to resolve disputes with them will even canvass against them as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eusebeus&diff=prev&oldid=286571063 here].  How nice it would have been if I could say instead, "You know I opposed Kww last time, but he really made an effort to address my and others concern and to patch things up with me and others."  Instead, it's let get rid of A Nobody and disregard altogether the viewpoints of those who like plot heavy articles.  Moreover, he does not always provide edit summaries a la [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stealth_Banjo&diff=prev&oldid=317460279].  Finally, thinking that "Remember deleting is a last resort. Always see if an article can be improved first." is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=312195263 unnecessary and intrusive]" is particularly disheartening. Trying to improve content first is hardly "unnecessary and intrusive", rather it is "courteous" and why we are here in the first place, i.e. to build an encyclopedia.  Anyway, fails [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29&diff=202544073&oldid=202542955] is unacceptable. --
'''Oppose'''.  per the above. Kww has made some excellent contributions to the project, but I find the diffs and links noted above to be rather disturbing.  Looking back at the previous two rfas, it doesn't seem like much has changed.  Sorry.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' per Ikip et al.--
'''Strong oppose'''. changing back to original '''Strong oppose''' in view of concerns raised about the candidates hardline approach and judgement. Coupled with his vanilla approach to admin. recall, does not inspire confidence.
'''Oppose''' per Jack Merridew. Too many instances of not assuming good faith. This is an editor that plays himself off as some kind of hard-ass and is too unwilling to compromise and work with others. In my experience, this has always led to bad things when someone of this nature is given the mop.
'''Oppose''' You can be good editor. But that's that. An EDITOR not an ADMIN. Per Ikip I have to oppose. Sure, those examples may be from a year ago, but until I see some diffs that your attitude has changed , I will not be convinced to support.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
'''Oppose''' at this time, with acknowledgement of the concerns voiced by Jack Merridew and Ikip.  Past examples of not assuming good faith are indeed worrisome.
Per previous. —
'''Oppose''' – the guy's been around and has had some good contributions, but the comments brought up by both Jack and Ikip are hard to avoid and do raise some red flags still. I don't think such a mentality displayed rubs well with many Wikipedians as displayed, and the time and effort that would be spent by the community having to deal with similar things while an admin would only exacerbate the current state of things on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per the diffs above, plus some more... it seems that when an ANI discussion closes, Kww begins badgering on the talkpages of editors who disagreed with him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar&diff=prev&oldid=317145093] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PMDrive1061&diff=prev&oldid=317106757] – also possible [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kikkokalabud&diff=prev&oldid=316042685 attempt] to gang up on another user, etc. Just generally not entirely desirable modes of communication. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose''' Candidate seems to often (not always) have difficultly collaborating with others. Having strong views is fine but it must be tempered with the ability to compromise and be thoughtful before reacting, especially when reacting using the admin tool. At the moment I think he would be better suited to focusing on contributing rather than having the buttons, which I still do not think he is yet suitable for.
'''Strong Oppose:''' He is a great editor but does not have the people skills necessary to be an Admin. -
'''Oppose''' Too much the  hardliner and too aggressive. <s> One of several  recent examples is on this very page.  Badger drink  supports  on account  of the opposers.     Beeblebrox supports per badger, and even  emphases  his low regard for the opposers with a thinly veiled attack.  Poor judgement considering Beeblebrox is an admin, yet KWW trys to argue in support of Beeblebrox , further contributing to the combative nature of this discussion. </s>
'''Oppose''' I continue to feel as I did in the past. It's partly about my general feeling of confidence. I waiting to see if my comment on Q4 would be answered, but it seems it will not. I hope that declining to   make a commitment there is not an indication that the candidate avoids doing so because he intends not to follow it. I notice that among the recent AfDs on his user page, he has voted keep on 1% of them  (the one I found, curiously was against the consensus). I cannot judge the issues for most of these articles & almost never !voted in the same AfDs as he did--but from what I can judge, I would have agreed with him at least 80% of the time, for it seems he was most of the time making an appropriate concentrated attack on a particularly bad type of articles. However, there's a hugh difference between a keep percentage  of 10% and 1%; one is the proper response to the large amount of junk we have here, the other illustrates dogmatism.  But I do not think this is only about deletionism/inclusionism. I think his attitude towards Fringe science shows a similar dogmatism. And, after all,  Jack Merridew, who profoundly disagrees with me  on that issue,  also is opposing this AfD nomination; there is a common element in our two reasons--an unsuitable persistence in the rightness of his position on things)   I think Kww a very valuable person to have on the project. I admire his work in his subject, and his effort at finding articles worth a delete discussion. He should let others judge them, though.   '''
'''Oppose''': borderline behavioral issues..
'''Oppose''', hostile attitude.
'''Oppose''' per what Jack Merridew wrote in his oppose. You're too confrontational and over eager. That's not always a bad thing if you're a regular editor and not the guy making the final decision but when you're an admin you need to be able to step back and look at things without getting carried away. Judging from what I've seen and from what Jack wrote above you're not able to do that.
'''Oppose''' Per DGG and Jack Merridew. From what I have seen previously and at this RFA, I am having great doubts that the candidate is able to handle the tools in the necessary calm manner and to use them without bias. I think Kww is a great editor, no doubt about it, but sadly there are some editors who are simply better as non-admins because sometimes they tend to overreact, to be overly aggressive or impulsive and in those situations, they should not be able to make administrative decisions. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per above. Too many concerns remain from prior commenters.
'''oppose''' per difs given earlier it appears that Kww is still intent on treating people he disagrees with as "vandals" and feeling free to tell people to "ignore" them. (His words not mine from difs linked to earlier in the oppose section). This view hasn't changed substantially.
'''Oppose''' per DGG and per my own less-than-stellar experiences with KWW's approach in AfDs.
'''Oppose''' - The oppose side have raised some valid concerns.
'''Oppose'''  I've been going back and forth in my mind, should I oppose or just sit this one out.  I believe that KWW has all the best intentions with regards to his editing here.  But I keep coming to the same place, with all the facts on the table, I feel nervous about this RFA passing.  So i feel I need to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' Per DGG and even more per SoWhy. While I admit that Kww has produced some fine article work, I do not feel confident that they will use the tools in a calm manner. It's clear from the candidate's responses that they have strong opinions about various events, and I am concerned that those opinions will translate negatively into administrator actions should they gain the tools. What I would suggets to the candidate is to consider developing dispute resolution skills, either through offering to mediate cases for the Mediation Cabal or some other similar activity. Rather than vocalising their own opinions, I feel that Kww would benefit from the experience of learning to understand and balance the conficting opinions of others. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' While it seems Kww has contributed fine articles, I am concerned with his prejudice against his opponents.  I am afraid that if he is given the tools, he will further his own agenda instead of the community agenda.  No offense intended, it just seems like a trend.  I applaud you for your strong convictions, we need people on both sides of any disagreement, but we also need nuetral parties and those are the admins.  I just don't think [[WP:DGAF]] is applied enough.--
'''Oppose''' Not much seems to have a changed from the last RfA. The candidate still does not possess the type of temperament I would like to see in an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' The answers regarding pseudoscience articles and NPOV concern me considerably.  Contradicting theories should be discussed in proportion to the existing verifiable sources - what other policy is needed?  If I'm editing the article on homeopathy, I am probably going to find considerable verifiable sources in support of the discipline - nothing in Wikipedia's policies suggest that those sources must be developed via the scientific method, so in my mind as long as they're verifiable and reliable, they're good to go.  The example given about five editors ganging up on the one who believes in science is a bit tough to swallow - Wikipedia already has tools for addressing content disputes, and one doesn't have to revert three times to use them.  Requests for comment, an area of Wikipedia that the candidate is already familiar with, would probably be an excellent place to start if outnumbered five to one in a content dispute.  This candidate appears far too hasty to use criteria other than neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliability to evaluate sources and how they should be used.  I am not forming this opinion based upon past behavior, but that behavior appears also to be based upon this mindset, and could be problematic if the mop is granted.--
'''Oppose''' I don't believe that Kww is even a good candidate for adminminship. I find him to be far too rigid in his views.
Desperately though we need admins at the moment, in the current environment admins have tenure and it is much too difficult to rid ourselves of a problematic one.  This means that with an RFA, I need to be ''certain'', and having read and considered this one, I'm simply not.—
With regret, but I feel I must oppose. I am concerned about some of the issues raised above. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Oppose''' Although I feel that Kww has much to offer, I feel that the candidate does not assume Good Faith enough, and is too harsh (I'm not sure that's the word I'm looking for, but can't think of another one at the moment) towards those who oppose his point of view on subjects. I feel that more time needs to elapse, with evidence of a change to some of the attitudes and temperament the candidate has shown in the above diffs, before I would feel that the candidate is ready for the mop. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per DGG et al.  I supported Kww the 2nd time, but not now, due to continuing [[WP:BITE|bitey]] behavior. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per DGG and others. Kww continues to exhibit confrontational behavior not conducive to a collegial encyclopedia.
'''Reluctant oppose''' - I have given this a great deal of thought.  On the one hand, I don't believe in "punishing" people for having controversial opinions - I only expect people to be able to explain their positions well.  In that regard, the answers to Q14-15 were quite excellent and make we want to support.  However, I am bothered by a few things: 1) the implicit refusal to give clear reassurance about not closing fiction AfDs.  I don't doubt that Kww could close them accurately, but if they are truly guaranteed to head to DRV as his answer suggests, there is no need to close them himself.  The attitude that as long as it will hold in DRV there is no problem closing it is less than ideal.  If a hypothetic fiction close were truly accurate, the next admin would make the same close, but without the unnecessary drama.  2) What I view as an occasional tendency to snap judgment/biteness.  I think that L1 warnings should be used the majority of the time, because L1 is quite friendly about it and you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. 3) The large number of responses/talk page follow-ups by Kww during this RfA leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I most certainly do understand the desire to defend one's self and do note that this has been an unusally contentious RfA (on both sides).  However, I am bothered by the assertion on DGG's talk page and elsewhere that Kww's low "keep" !vote % was due to mostly only participating as nominator or on CRYSTAL/HOAX violations.  By my count 7 of the last 20 AfDs Kww expressed an opinion on fell into neither category (mostly songs that never charted). To be clear, I don't view the votes themselves as problematic (although they really should be redirects not deletes), but rather the slight mis-categorization as why so many votes were delete. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I want to be positive and support anyone willing to take up extra work. However the me vs. them battle attitude - while unfortunately common on Wikipedia - should be shelved altogether. We have a problem with many admins who creep into abuse and I'm afraid I think this would be another case of that likely happening. I wish them all the best and would likely support if a clean track record showed a change of approach. I also hope that although this process likely has been frustrating they will take the criticisms offered up as that people care enough to speak their views to actually help and not discourage.
'''Strong Oppose''', per DGG, SoWhy, and many of the other concerns raised above.  Kww does indeed display an unsuitable persistence in the rightness of his position on things; and he continues to show a confrontational, battlefield mindset which make me very concerned that his strongly held opinions would negatively impact his actions as an administrator.  At this point in time, I do not trust this editor with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Per evidence of battleground mentality, proud, stubborn hardline stances, etc. evidenced in various diffs above. And also, ironically, touted as a reason to support the candidate in an emailed solicitation. Just the sort of thing we ''don't'' need in more Admins, who, in my humble opinion, should be teachers and guides, rather than battle-hungry authoritarians.
'''Strong Oppose''', per the edit history. I'm so over sysops with these tendencies befouling the 'pedia.
'''Oppose''' per Ikip, Jack Merridew but in particular DGG. Problems with people skills. (I do trust DGG with an excellent judgement and balanced views.)
'''Oppose''' need to practice being nice.
'''Oppose''' The hostile comments in the links offered by Ikip confirmed that this man is not suited for this type of work.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but still issues that are concerns. (
'''Oppose''', reluctantly; KWW is an editor I find myself usually agreeing with. I'm particularly bothered by the answer to 18c, which suggests the tendency to the combative that other editors have expressed concerns over.  The candidate didn't express any willingness to step back for a minute and weigh whether pressing the issue, after being discouraged by other admins, would be worth the time and trouble involved. And as someone who's been badly burned by admins who reached snap judgements, then refused to back down despite being proved wrong (even after intervention by Jimbo), I'm sensitive to the concerns in that regard as well.
'''Oppose''' per Ikip, DGG, SoWhy, and many others here.  From what I've read by following the links in this RfA, there are strong repeated indications in his comments that he places his own ideas above community consensus about how Wikipedia should be run, and that there would likely be significant problems from what appears to be a tendency to a short fuse.  There also seems to have been no in depth learning or changes based on the previous RfAs.   --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, inclined to oppose per DGG, whose judgment I've come to trust.
'''Oppose''' The candidate's judgement seems too weak for this position.  As an example, please see this [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh!|AFD]].  The topic was a double-platinum, number 1, hit single produced by Simon Cowell.  As popular music is the candidate's specialist area, one would expect him to have no difficulty with this.  But, alone of the editors who opined on this matter, he was unable to agree to keep this article.  Why was he marching to the beat of a different drummer?  I cannot say but it causes me to lack confidence in the candidate's ability to decide such matters.
'''Oppose''' Not crazy about some deletion issues above and attitude.
'''Oppose'''. ''Shoot first, ask questions later'' is generally the wrong attitude for an admin. The details have been spelled by others above, including DGG.
'''Neutral''' - I respect Kww a lot, and he does great work.  But, he's too sure of his opinions. -
'''Neutral''' - Very worried by Jack Merridew's and Coffee's opposes, seemed too eager to block without asking for confirmation beforehand. However, most of his edits have been positive and help keep content safe. Will revisit later, and am able to be swayed either way. --
Looks promising in general, but the answer to Q11 reveals a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground mentality]] with respect to fringe science topics that I believe is at odds with [[WP:NPOV]], even though I, too, have what I believe is a healthy skepticism with respect to that subject matter. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - I am with Casmith 789 on this one. I am willing to move on from Kww's mistakes from a long time ago, but Kww's handling of the Bambifan affair which was very recent leaves me rather concerned on his eagerness to rush straight into serious admin actions. The additional statement from Kww on the issue does not alleviate my concerns. However, I recognise that this is only one incident and Kww has done many good things for the project. I am going to give this a good think about, review the evidence even more, and decide if to stay neutral or move into supporting or opposing.
We disagree on way too much for me to support (namely fiction). But he does a lot of good work outside of those areas where we disagree, so I won't oppose.
'''Neutral'''. KWW is a good editor whose contributions are a net positive for the project, and I'm inclined to support - but want to look into the Bambifan thing, since I missed it. The fact that multiple editors complain about a Battleground mentality from the candidate, and yet we have multiple editors badgering supports and opposes, is bothersome.
'''Neutral''' - Kww has shown civility issues in the past. It seems he might have improved during this time, but I don't have enough confidence to support. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Ugh, Neutral''' This one's tough for me.  The few times I have run into KWW, I have been impressed overall.  Dredging items up from a year ago in order to strengthen opposes is generally revolting: we all [[WP:AGF]] that people can ''improve'' based on positive commentary - especially from a previous RfA.  The occasional "outburst" happens, and as long as it's not a regular pattern, that too is okay.  I see a hell of a lot of positive change - but there's a niggling pattern that I'm less than comfortable with, but it's '''not''' one that I can oppose over, nor can I provide the 55% support to.  I believe that KWW is a net positive, but this little pattern is just unfortunately enough for me to stay neutral, even though I believe this ''should'' be overall successful. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
Moved to neutral per DGG and SoWhy's comments.  Leaning towards oppose, but won't put myself there unless I validate their comments myself.---'''
'''Not so neutral''' – I have given the matter much thought, and I am removing my oppose vote at this time as a sign of AGF. This is far from an endorsement for the candidate, of course. Kww is a man of strong opinions, which is fine, even though many of his opinions seem to differ strongly from mine. The fear seems to be that as soon as he gets his hands on the tools he will run amok trying to use them to impose his beliefs on others. Naturally, there are systems in place to prevent such abuse, but then the concerns trickle down to the idea that he may try to further his own agenda in more subtle ways.  I do not at this time have sufficient cause to believe that any of this will be the case. His answers to my questions show me that he is at least capable of being more thoughtful than that. In the end, he is only one man and he must bend to consensus like the rest of us rather than his own personal desires – in fact, even more so than regular editors if he becomes an admin.  ArbCom has a way of smacking down any admins who get too big for themselves. I am certainly not imploring anyone else to change their vote; if your convictions are stronger than mine were then you should stick to that.  What I will implore is for Kww to pay strong attention to the more sensible criticisms laid out in the Neutral and Oppose sections, such as the part about making snap judgments to which he has acceded needs improvement, as well as any issues that arise from what is perceived as his quick temperament, confrontational aggressiveness, and sometime lack of tolerance. Sometimes honest criticism is more helpful than generic compliments. I would urge Kww, whether or not this nomination succeeds, to seek a more experienced and willing administrator to show him the ropes and function as a mentor for situations where he may need guidance.  An absolute must for an admin is the ability to be patient, to listen to others with an open mind, and to know that you do not always know what is right; stirring up controversy only makes it that much harder for an admin to do his job, and can even lead to losing the bit, so avoid it like the plague. In my opinion, the blocking tool is best held by a person who does not seek to use it, because you can trust that this person will not use it lightly. If Kww is sincere in his stated intentions then he would made a fine admin; if he turns out to be less sincere than he sounds, then it may be a train wreck waiting to happen. Regardless, if there is a Kww 4 I have no intention of speaking again unless there is some substantial new thing which occurs between now and then, as I have already said a lot. So prove us wrong; show us that we really had nothing to worry about to begin with. Best of luck, whatever the outcome.
Neutral. Responsibility can bring out the best in people. Equally, power can bring out the worst. Without a working recall procedure, it's a risk to see what might happen in this case.

'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but you are [[WP:NOTNOW|not yet ready]] for adminship. You only have 88 edits. Usually the community desires candidates to have at least 3,000 edits, and even then it can be a bit iffy. You also need to have your edits spread around a larger area of the Wiki, and to gain more experience in other areas.(Ironically I'm having a similar problem at my RfA...) Please don't take this personally, but you are not ready yet. Try coming back when you have around 3,000 or more edits spread across about, say, 3 or 4 months. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:IMatthew]]
'''Oppose''' for the reasons listed by iMatthew. You only have about 90 edits, which isn't enough experience for an administrator. As a general rule of thumb, administrators usually need have at least <s>5,000</s> 3,000 edits and 7 or 8 months of active editing experience. This RfA will most likely [[WP:NOTNOW|not pass at this time]], but you may wish to review past [[WP:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)|unsuccessful RfAs]] and [[WP:Successful requests for adminship|successful RfAs]] to get a feel for what the community wants to see in admin candidates. Try coming back after another few months of experience in various areas of Wikipedia, and let me know if you have any questions. :)
'''Oppose'''. While I do love your willingness, yu are just not ready for the role of an admin, as highlighted above. Come back soon (say 6 months) with more edits (say 5000) and we will go from there. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' Sorry not yet. Suggesting a closure per [[WP:NOTYET]] and [[WP:SNOW]].--
'''Not now''': I'm sorry but I can't find any experience with administrative function/duties. Additionally, you say you want to work in dispute resolution, but that's an area non-admins can get involved in. Lots of good edits to transport related articles, though, but nothing from which to judge whether you'd be a good admin or not. -
'''Not now'''  Per [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Moral support''' A little more than 1,000 edits, more edits to your userpage than to articles. Moral support per [[WP:NOTNOW]].--
[[WP:NOTNOW]] contains some great links and should not be avoided as a reference page in RFA discussion such as this. I'm sorry but the broken English in the answers to the standard questions is concerning, your Q1 indicates nothing that you can't do already and you have little expereince in the maintenance areas of this work. Your hard efforts so far are, of course, appreciated so please don't take the likely negative outcome of this RFA as anything but a request to keep on with your good work. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose''' per above - try again perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
I'm going to support this. Yes, he's made mistakes in [[WP:CSD|CSD]], but I believe that he is capable of learning from this. He's obviously dedicated to the project, although I'm disgruntled by the vandalism brought up in the first RfA (one year ago). I think he can be ''trusted'' with the bit. Does work in [[WP:AfD|AfD]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:CSD|CSD]], [[WP:RCP|RCP]], and article building, he's also polite, and I've had good interactions with him, etc. And coupled with the disappointing oppose reasoning (that sort of stuff belongs in neutral if you ask me), this leads me to '''Support''', despite the mistakes -
I don't think that a few mistakes are enough to make me say oppose. We have all made mistakes and we all will learn from them. I would think that he would be a bit more cautious about when to delete and when to keep when using the bit, but overall he seems to be a good editor. Just as a side note, reading through the discussion down in the neutral section I think we are seeing a very diplomatic person willing to work through conflict and cooperate with other editors. This just solidifies my support.--
I'm supporting mainly per the reason that the candidate is an experienced user that has made a few mistakes, but most importantly owns up to them.  Admins are not supposed to be perfect; if they were, a passed RFA would only happen once in a blue moon.  I would trust Leo as an admin, just in the hope that he is more careful with the "delete" button when working with CSDs.
I am also going to support the user's application. He has shown a willingness to learn and to take on the broom. As far as my interaction with the user, I have nothing negative to remark. --
'''Support''' Only weakly as looks like you might be too quick to delete. Otherwise fine admin material.  I thought your nom was rather charming. It needs to be read slowly to be appreciated though – a cardinal sin for some.  And mentioning sadism always risk setting off  alarm bells with folk you don't know.   If you need another RFA write your nom like your talk page posts for an easier passage :-).
'''Support''', god forbid we have an admin who tries to lighten up our internal processes.  Just go a bit more carefully on the A7s, ok?
'''Sorry'''. Per your CSD tagging, which you indentify as one of the areas you intend to work in. Some examples: A7's with indication of importance ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darth_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=299764769] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kupski_most&diff=next&oldid=299220492], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qari_Mohammad_Ibrahim_Mir_Mohammadi&diff=297610642&oldid=297610550]); A1 with context ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_at_first_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=295805627]); A1 on a (malformed) redirect 1 minute after creation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tootle_the_Train&diff=next&oldid=297823074&]). Some of those were tagged only 1 or 2 minutes after creation, which in my opinion shouldn't be done unless the article is an attack page, copyvio or blatant vandalism. I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built|this essay]] and see what you can learn from it.
'''Not ready yet, but looking forward to next time per Jafeluv ''' Please remember that to qualify for speedy deletion under A7, a subject should make no claim to any significance. It might be helpful to take a few minutes to search for notability, context, and sourcing for a subject before tagging for deletion. One of my favorite examples of having done so is [[Eunice (genus)]]. At first, I thought it was a cleverly veiled attack. By the time I was done, I had a nice stub. New editors don't always do a good job of creating a new article and need the help of the more experienced users.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I have only to read the nomination statement to know that I don't want to have to read any more communications written in that style.
'''Oppose'''—I have to agree with Looei: it's not the dignified, focused style I want to see in an application for promotion: far too informal and discursive in a way that suggests the candidate is unprepared for the responsibilities. Sorry. I'd like to see more content editing, and perhaps a learning curve for technical activities such as [[WP:NFC]] as an introduction to the potential to serve the project in an administrative capacity.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with the previous two statements.  Writing an encyclopedia is serious business, and being an admin even more so.  Based on your writing, I do not have confidence that you would take the admin job seriously. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' per the three above me. Sorry, but to be frank I didn't feel the need to go past "To my homies on huggle" in your statement. While we're here, in light of your talk about "adding appropriate descriptions to images", care to explain what was going on [[:File:FredericPorterVinton-FPVedit.gif|here]]?&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the concerns listed above sway me to oppose. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' One of the worst nominations I've read for what is a serious position of responsibility.  Not a lot seems to have changed since your last attempt; you are still badly tagging articles, probably to 'sadistically cherish the moment when [you] tag it to be deleted', which is hardly the proper reason. --
'''Oppose''' After searching through more of your contributions, re-reading your nom statement and then reading all of the other !votes, I regret that I must oppose per [[user:T'Shael/RfA]]. -<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, brevity and economy of style are close to godliness, and I don't see any of that.
'''Oppose''' If the candidate is going to be writing block rationales with the same standard of communication as his nomination, we'd have a serious problem. --
'''Oppose''' Per Jafeluv.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' - for now - due to the wretched nomination soliloquy and CSD concerns. Leonard, you can do better.
Leaning to support. I like a lot of it, but I have concerns on your speedy tags. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Sears&diff=prev&oldid=299757163][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darth_Jackson&diff=299764769&oldid=299764602][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_thwaite&diff=298827818&oldid=298826717][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tootle_the_Train&diff=297823139&oldid=297823074]. The last one in particular was a little odd as it was clearly a redirect. Flip side is lots of good stuff, GA, AIV, pleasent demeanour. I'll revisit this RFA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Liking what I see, but when the first thing I check, [[:File:Volga-937-1.jpg]], doesn't have OTRS permission (which I'd expect an admin to know) ... I get a little wary. Apologies, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
Being a little trigger happy raises concern.  If there is concern with frivolous tagging then unnecessary blocks might follow.  Read the article first, then decide. &ndash;
Leaning to support. Will check back later. '''
Not sure what's up with your nom statement, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. –'''
'''Neutral''' Julian took the words out of my mouth, though the bad taste is still there.
'''Neutral'''. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the statement doesn't sit well with me. Because I can't be more specific, I'm neutral until I can figure out exactly what about it is bothering me. ···
'''Neutral'''.  per all the above.  While Leonard^Bloom has clearly done some good work for the project, the issues with CSD tagging and the nom statement are making me a bit edgy about supporting.  Yet, I have seen this user around [[WP:AFC]] and this user's work for that project.  I know that Leonard^Bloom would make a good sysop with a little more experience so I !vote neutral for now. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
I don't have a problem with your comments in the nomination statement (because after our interactions I know you to be a mature and intelligent person), but your mis-taggings are a little worrying. Work on those, and on your demeanor a bit, and I believe a future request would most definitely be successful. '''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral'''Human beings are not robots, they can learn from their mistakes, as robots just keep running into lawn gnomes and hitting each other.  It's just that those CSD issues are a little too recent, don't let this deter you from learning editing.  I know that you eventualy will make a great admin.
'''Neutral''' per most of the above. Some small errors lead me to believe that you may be a little quick on the delete button at this point, but I do strongly encourage you to come back to RfA soon, as you do appear to be a dedicated, helpful, and genuinely nice person who clearly has the best interests of the wiki at heart. The LotR reference certainly helps as well. ;)
I'll have a cup.--
Pass the sweetener.
Where's my tea bag?--
Herbal for me, thanks.--
[[Darjeeling tea]], very dark, with a teaspoon of honey for me, please. :)
'''Weak support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked and per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Aarons (2nd nomination)]] (now obviously use "cruft" is why my support is weak; however, the editor kept an open-minded and changed his stance after new information was presented in the AfD, i.e. actually approached it as a discussion rather than a vote).  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' My experiences with this editor have been good - clueful, diligent, and a fast learner.  The opposing votes will point out some mistakes made in haste, but I'm of the firm (possibly biased?) belief that getting some feedback such as this is all good editors need to improve.  More than absolute perfection, I'm concerned with an editor's overall character and intelligence and the ability to learn from mistakes - with Letsdrinktea I have had no reason to question it. <b>'''
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Sufficiently experienced, shows an interest in helping with administrative backlogs, no reason to think he'll delete the main page.
Don't forget the [[Hong Kong-style milk tea|milk]], too. -
I'll '''support''' and sit down.
'''Regretful Oppose''' You could use more experience in other areas of Wikipedia.  I'm sure another RfA would succeed after some more work.  Maybe do more work in the article namespace?  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Oppose''' Good work, but you need to be around for awhile longer, in my opinion.  Keep up the good work though and I'm sure you'll pass easily in a couple of months,
'''Oppose'''. This account's first edits were in 2008. It was substantially inactive until Feb 2009. After a couple weeks of editing they want to be an admin. Assuming good faith, the user has insufficient experience. While anonymous editing is allowed, if you want to be an admin you need to have a transparent history that we can inspect. You say you have experience, but I am not willing to hand over the tools on your say so. How do we know that you haven't caused problems with prior accounts? Come back after you have a documented track record.
'''Oppose''' - While I don't necessarily doubt this candidate's anonymous past activity, adminship requires a degree of clarity and a history of perceptible editing.
'''Oppose'''.  I almost supported, but decided to check your speedy taggings just in case, and I found a number of errors in tagging (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snow_Brand_Milk_Products&diff=prev&oldid=275489650 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrian_Nala%E1%B9%ADi&diff=274467851&oldid=274467769 this]. All can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Letsdrinktea&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 here]).  While I think you will make a good administrator in the future, I do not think you are ready yet based on the taggings. Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''

'''Oppose''' -- needs more exposure in other areas of Wikipedia, and lack of A7 knowledge (which is what the editor should be able to do since that is what they planned on using the admin tools for) puzzles me.--'''''<small>
Agreed with Jehochman, and I've posted the edit count on the talk page. - Dan
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I agree with Wisdom89. Not to harp, as personally I don't try to harp on editcount, you have only truely been active for two months. But that is not the main reason. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy and Jehochman.  Try again perhaps in a few months and more experience. Sorry. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' I'm generally not a stickler for edit counts, but as far as I can see, you have 1339 edits of which 1329 of them have been in the last six weeks, I just don't feel that this is enough experience. Great contributions so far, if you keep up the enthuasim you've shown over the past month and a half, I'm going to really want to support you in a few months when you have a bit more experience. Take care, '''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I will invoke [[WP:NOTNOW]] and advise you to come back when you have at minimum tripled your number of edits working in the areas as noted by [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] above.
Just a bit too soon. [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Letsdrinktea&l=all Your wikichecker results] show that the vast bulk (all bar about 10) of your edits have been in about 3 weeks. That's just not enough experience of WP as a whole. Turn on the edit summary reminder in preferences, and work a little more on article creation. Great start though, come back in a few months and I expect to support you :) --
'''Oppose'''. Sketchy CSD work forces me to oppose, especially when the subject is clearly notable and subjects don't fall under the speedy criteria.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with Wisdom89 and SoWhy brings up some valid points, too.
'''Oppose''' To gain my support in the future, Letsdrinktea needs to gain more experience in the fields where he/she intends to  work in order to keep from making the easily-avoidable mistakes made in mass tagging pointed out by SoWhy. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose'''. Limited mainspace content contributions. Letsdrinktea also requires a better understanding of the deletion process.
'''Oppose''' - Well intentioned user, hesitant to support with so little active time editing, though. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
You've done good work, but I'm afraid I must agree with Jehochman. &ndash;
<s>[[Wikipedia:Not Now|Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that the community will never have confidence in you.]]</s> Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines that is enough to attempt adminship. While it is possible to pass with below that, nominees have very rarely done so in recent times. My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 4 months and 2-3000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|Editor Review]] or to receive [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|Admin coaching]] before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. <font color="navy">
'''Neutral leaning support''' - While I tend to support most RfAs per [[WP:WTHN?]], I will have to think about it before supporting this one, per the fact that you have only been very active since last month, and general lack of experience.
Mmm, mmm, mmmmm....I ''almost'' !voted support. I've seen Letsdrinktea around, and s/he seems to have a level head. Additionally, I can't stand raw editcountitis, and 1,000 edits is generally enough for me. However, when reviewing [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Letsdrinktea&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia his/her summary contribs], I see a few things that give me pause. The percentage of Article edits is slightly lower than what I would like to see, but not significant enough to oppose. But less than 1% of his/her contribs are to the Talk namespace. That, to me, does not show enough community interaction to judge suitability for adminship. I do acknowledge that Letsdrinktea has a higher percentage of User talk edits, and maybe all issues s/he has been involved with have been resolved by communicating via that namespace. I also like to see at least six months of steady activity (not necessarily high-level activity all the time, but a minimum of 30 edits each month). All things considered, though, I cannot !vote oppose, because I have not seen anything extremely negative from the candidate to this point, but neither can I !vote support. Best of luck.
'''Neutral''': You're going the right way, but you will need more experience to be an admin I think. Maybe in a few more months...


Per X!.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
Per X!.--
'''Strong oppose''' because 1.) most of [[User talk:Llampadari|your talk page]] consists of warnings for copyright violations, 2.) you're nominating yourself for adminship fairly soon after an approx. 3-week break from editing, 3.) you only have about 60 edits overall, 4.) extremely vague answers to the questions, and 5.) per X! above. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Oppose''' due to warnings.
'''Oppose''' and suggest closure as NOTNOW. I used to wonder whether X! made a template for those sorta opposes...Cheers. '''''
Per the opposes, not wishing to pile on.
'''Moral support''' I do have some concerns though. You say you patrol New Pages yet you have only 90 deleted edits. Also your edits distribution by namespace is of concern; 30% in user space? Also, only 10 reports to AIV is concerning given that you want to work with vandal reversions.
'''Moral Support''' Keep at it. Thanks for contributing.
'''Support''' [[Tounge in cheek|WTHN?]].--
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate is an article creator with no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me, i.e. per [[WP:AGF]].  Best, --
'''Moral Support''' I suspect this RfA is not going to get airborne, but I will check in here due to your excellent article creation skills and your good faith dedication to the project.  Keep up the fine work -- you'll only get better!
'''Support''', there's no reason ''not'' to support as far as I can see, even if it's unlikely this will pass.
'''Moral support''' Per ChildofMidnight, keep contributing in the same fashion and you'll eventually get the "tools".--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]|
As others have noted at [[WT:RFA]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALouriePieterse&diff=298385636&oldid=298384340 this] was very impressive. Another "moral support" but I'm sure we'll see you back here soon. I actually feel quite comfortable you're a pretty [[WP:CLUE|clued up]] editor but this needs to be better demonstrated through edits across the "expected areas" of Wikipedia. This is most certainly not a "[[WP:NOTNOW|not now]]" RFA but the links on that page will probably help as well. Think of this as a [[WP:LIKELYLATER]] comment. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Moral support per pedro.
'''Moral support''' also per Pedro. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
Assuming good faith - this is another moral support moved from the Neutral section. Keep up your work and come back later. --
'''Moral Support''' I've been very, very impressed by your attitude on this RfA. It's the correct attitude for an administrator to have, and I look forward to closing your next RfA as successful. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
"Moral" support - I'm very pleased with your overall behaviour in this RfA and I'm glad to see you're looking for feedback.  I believe that if you improve with the oppose comments you'll be fine as an admin in maybe three to six months time.  Good luck, '''
'''Moral Support''' You've done a great job keeping your head up.  Keep up the hard work. :-)
'''Support''' [[WP:NOTNOW|While I do think that now is not the time]], I like your positive attitude. You do seem to be a promising editor, and if this RFA is unsuccessful, you do have potential to be a good editor. You really should try again in a few months time if that happens. '''<font face="verdana">
'''Moral support''' I look forward to supporting once you've gained more experience in the areas you wish to work in. '''
Weak oppose, sorry. You've done quite a bit of good work here, in the form of both content creation and maintenance. However, judging by your talk page, your CSD work seems to be a bit shaky. The speedy deletion criteria are strict for a reason; a misguided deletion could easily [[WP:BITE|drive]] a potential contributor off the project. Nonetheless, this might simply be a result of language issues, hence my weak support. Also, you have very little experience in the project space, and while I don't usually focus on namespace distribution, I'd like to see some more experience at AIV, UAA, AfD, etc. Good luck, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. –'''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and the concerns raised about lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines regularly used and applied by admins. If you continue to work in the areas mentioned by Juliancolton, then I would likely support in several months. ···
'''Oppose''' You are on the right track.You have rollback and have used it well and your commitment and dedication towards the project is good and would surely like you to be an admin.But not at this point As per Juliancolton.It is as per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try again later and you would have my support.Sorry and Good luck for the future.
'''Oppose''' You don't have the experience I look for in a candidate. Sorry, – ('''
'''Regretful weak(ish) oppose'''. Sorry, but per your CSD mistakes which I've commented on on your talk page. You're a really great editor, seemingly willing to help, and you're certainly on the right track. Everybody makes mistakes when they're starting off (I did), and eventually you'll be much better for it. So don't let this put you off. You're just not ready at this stage, but I'd be more than happy to support you in the future, if you've improved. Please keep up your work around here -
'''Sorry'''. The recent mistakes with speedy deletion force me to oppose. A mistaken speedy tag is quickly corrected, but if an admin makes a misguided deletion based on their understanding of the speedy deletion criteria, it takes another admin to correct and might never be corrected if nobody notices. (By the way, individual admins don't usually [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|ban]] users, as you said in your answer to question 1. You probably meant [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]].)
'''Moral Oppose''' You need some more contributions and per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I think you as a user are promising. I think in another 2 months maybe that a solid RFA may go through. But right now I dont think you are quite ready. Some more experience will help a great deal. And a good string of time on patrolling. You just got your rollback so it should help alot with seeing things and gaining expereince with policy. Per the response to number 5 I have a bit of feedback for you. I think its good that you are willing to engage in talks prior to blocking its important to establish whether the user actually realizes what he/she is doing. However a high level of disruption and potentially a disruptive only account needs to be dealt with very carefully. The primary goal of a block is to decide the best course to mitigate damage now and in the future and not to punish the user. The above answer is not so clear on this. That said I think you are well intentioned and will no doubt continue to improve, I have no doubt that you will one day be an admin at your current pace and a succesful one at that too :) Keep it up!
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but there is a lack of experience. I do say though, keep up the good work, and possibly next time around, your RFA then will pass. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' LouriePieterse is clearly a good-faith editor but lacks the appropriate experience to be an administrator, and sometimes acts too quickly. This is not a desirable quality when one has the extra bit. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - I also want to encourage [[user:LouriePieterse]] in his good-faith editing, and appreciate the overwhelming majority of his work on wikipedia. However, I too believe he lacks the experience I look for in an administrator, and have myself been the subject of his occasional careless tagging of articles before properly investigating, as he did with [[User_talk:Kilbad#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Papillary_eccrine_adenoma|my creation of the Papillary eccrine adenoma stub]].  Again, I think overall [[user:LouriePieterse]] is a good editor, but needs some more experience before I can consider him for adminship. ---
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a good user, but hasn't really gotten his hands dirty enough. (aka not enough experience in areas where it would be very useful)
'''Oppose''' mostly per Julian. -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', the user could use some more experience. '''
'''Oppose''', per concerns about a general lack of experience.
'''Oppose''', mostly due to a lack of experience. I'll be willing to review a future candidacy in the future, however.
Too soon, I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' per Juliancolton. '''<font face="verdana">
'''Oppose'''--
Per JC and also due to high Userspace edits. <strong>
'''Oppose''' due to a lack of experience and understanding of how the project functions.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Regards, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' CSD problems and a general lack of experience. I do, however, like your answers to the questions. My advice is to do more work in the mainspace and perhaps seek guidance about the proper way to go about an RfA. I believe there are still a few [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|admins coaches]] around.
'''Oppose'''—Sorry, too young, insufficient experience. Two months I see above; no, I believe about a year. Please consider getting much more experience in content writing, and in observing how best-practice admins go about their duties. Good luck.
'''Oppose''', per Tony. I want you to know that I was also in your position a year ago. I want you to know that you should focus on bringing up your edit count, but don't just edit to increase the number. Come back here in 6 months, and see what the reviewers have to say. I would also like you to consider administrator coaching in the future, as today the backlog is really long. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask, as I know exactly how you might be feeling right now.
'''Oppose''' '''-'''
'''Oppose''' Manifestly inexperienced and immature candidate keeping open a can't-pass RFA for a so-far editor review.  Copious guidelines and advice exists for aspiring admins (as pointed out by others above - all worth taking on board) which have been either ignored or not assimilated. Find articles to help, articles needing creation and areas you enjoy participating in, learn from issues arising from your direct involvement and forget about adminship the while. Suggestions and nominations will come if you've shown you're able.
'''oppose''' due to concerns over experience.
'''Oppose''' Too young, not enough experience, simple mistakes made.  That, and self-nomination give no confidence that continued mistakes won't occur with the mop.
'''Neutral''' Basically, Caspian blue says it well.  To be honest, I'm surprised that this hasn't been closed yet.  I certainly see a good future, and you're headed in the right direction, but I'd need to see more contributions to evaluate your knowledge of policy better before I could support. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' Treat this as moral support and do remember to come back with lots of "experience" --
'''Neutral''', One of my ''unwritten conditions'' is at least a years experiance. (
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; despite their low level of experience and thin editcount, I know this user to be knowledgeable and responsible. I have no problem trusting them with the mop. –'''
'''Support''' per Julian, this isn't going to pass but I see nothing wrong with the user other than time here.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' - I remain unconvinced when all of the opposition is "I just want you to pass some arbitrary limit." Still, you should get some more experience under your belt.
'''Support''' Per JC. This looks like it's going to SNOW close, unfortunately. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Moral Support''' Under no circumstances should this be SNOW-closed.  While this RfA will not pass, this editor deserves to have this RfA stand until if and when he decides to withdraw.
'''Support''' It doesn't matter how long the editor has been here or how many edits he/she has made. Rather, it matters whether or not the editor has my trust. MacMed does. I hate to see this RfA going the way that it is. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' i see no reason why we should refuse him to be an admin. he is well organised, answers with greeat thoughts, will be a great video game and medical wiki editor. He has interest of defending '''KNOWLEDGE''' at heart. I invite you also to support him. Freshymail-
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that we have no memorable negative interactions, candidate has never been blocked, candidate already has rollback, and candidate has received some [[User:MacMed/Awards]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''—This would normally be a case of opposing/neutralling the candidate for lack of general experience (only been around for 3.5 months), even if there are no major issues. However, I've seen MacMed around and I know him to be a decent editor. So I spent some time digging into his contribs, particularly his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=200&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MacMed&namespace=4&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 WP-space edits]. There are some negatives: for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=299374674 this GAN] which was quick-failed (the associated FAC, too), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Striders|closing an AfD you voted in]]. Those were a bit of time ago, and, based on the rest of MM's contribs, I'll assume they were learning mistakes. He has thin experience in the areas he said he plans to work in per Q1. However, all of his present experience (reports and such) seem to be good, and a quick review of his [[Special:DeletedContributions/MacMed|deleted contribs]] [admin only] reveals reasonable CSD tagging. He responds well in the face of opposition or correcting personal mistakes, which I see as a positive. The sheer lack of time spent on Wikipedia likely means that you're not sufficiently familiar with processes, so I can't say that this is fully a "real support" for adminship. Instead, since this RfA is not going to pass, I felt obligated to offer a theoretical support. I honestly am not finding any problems, however, so most likely he ''would'' do fine with the mop. Come back in a few months with more experience, keep your nose clean, and I'm guessing that the community will be supportive of a second RfA. Best wishes,
'''Support''', somewhat low level of experience, but can be trusted 99.98%. I don't think edit count is all that important, so long as the editor has proved s/he can edit responsibly and knows what s/he's doing. [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Looks good. I'm not blinded by the low edit count. MacMed has done some fine work for this encyclopedia and is ready to wield the mop.
'''Support''' Although I am usually neutral with someone like him, the support of others with extremely great standing is enough to convince me to support him.
'''Support''' MacMed is an intelligent, sincere and dedicated editor. The fact he has only been here 3.5 months does not dilute his positive attributes -- we need to pay attention to the person, not the calendar. I am happy to support MacMed.  Good luck!
→<font style="color:#4682b4">'''javért'''</font> <sup>
'''Moral Support'''. I have moved up here because you have the confidence of many users I trust, and I cannot see any evidence you would misuses the tools. I still am concerned about the lack of experience, however, and my suggestion to get dirty still stands. This RfA will likely not succeed, but I wanted to register my support for your good work so far, and hope to see you back here again real soon. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
'''Support''', I don't see any reason that MacMed would ''not'' make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' There's enough of a record to discern that the user's trustworthy, and if the user's slightly unfamiliar with policy in certain areas, the user seems aware of this. Since I believe adminship is no big deal, I'm pleased to support. <strong>
I got admin rights after only five months, and the first month had under 50 contribs. I don't see a problem here.
'''Weak support''' According to MacMed his brother, CanadianNine introduced him to WP, told him about some of the more obscure parts of its backend but didn't explain syntax?  Also according to MacMed, he became so familiar with the backend by reading the policies, but he didn't bother reading the syntax pages as well?  I'm not buying it. HOWEVER, because there doesn't appear to be anything really ''wrong'' with either MacMed or CanadianNine's editing habits, I will grant this nomination my weak support.--
'''Weak Support''' Partly for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A143.106.55.172&diff=310173677&oldid=310170084|this], and the promise that you will take things slowly. But you have been here long enough to establish that you have clue and and civility and won't break the pedia. Weak because you are only just ready. ''
'''I'm sick of having unofficial limits on when we should give out adminship'''. Quite frankly, I don't think the fact you've only been here for 3.5 months has anything to do with how well you can handle the mop. So far you have showed a lot of clue, civility, good-faith and intelligence with how you edit here, both in regards to content editing and behind-the-scenes work. Since you've demonstrated maturity and sensibility in your time here, I see no reason why time should be a limiting factor. There is an, albeit inefficient, system to remove disruptive administrators, and I doubt we'd need to in this case anyway. I doubt this will pass, merely because people will oppose based on the little time you've spent here, but in all honesty I cannot follow those concerns. Best of luck, if you need anything feel free to ask. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
[[User:HappyAndrew1994/RfA rationale|Support]]; While the candidate could perhaps use a bit more experience, I think his answers to the questions asked, along with the quality of the edits he has made, make him a good prospect for adminship. I hope to see the user run again in a couple of months. –'''
You know, I doubt the wiki would break if we made MacMed an admin. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
MacMed seems okay, and 3.5 months is more than enough time to get past the basics and a bit more: I've been here nearly three years, have been a reader for even longer, and am still finding out new things about the project. In addition, I do not believe that [[WP:NOTNOW]] applies to MacMed, and don't like that some opposes cite that essay as their opposition: WP:NOTNOW is for obvious snow candidacies, which MacMed isn't (this RfA is still open, and is running at roughly 50/50 support-to-opposition). I believe this is a case of "not right now" rather than "WP:NOTNOW".
'''Moral support''' I think some more experience will be beneficial. Good luck.
'''Support''' per WJBscribe.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' 3.5 months just isn't enough.  Come back in November, we'll talk.--
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <s>I could see this one being closed under [[WP:SNOW|the snowball clause]].</s>--
'''Oppose'''.  I appreciate anyone who is willing to get their feet wet with mediation, as well as the desire to serve in the capacity as an administrator, but the candidate's relative thin contribution history in the stated areas of intended admin activity leave me unable to support at this time.  I'm no fan of editcountitis but I need to see more to go on prior to being able to judge a candidate's abilities/knowledge and must oppose at this time.
'''Oppose''' although working if [[WP:AFC]] is a good start, a copyright violation was accepted with [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Immunology of pregnancy]] and the Fair use rationales need some more work eg [[:File:Laser ghost screenshot.jpg]] [[:File:Laser ghost.jpg]].  Also [[Curse of Chick Hearn]] was closed as merge in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Chick Hearn]], yet the candidate tagged it for deletion.  Merge is not delete per GFDL history requirements.
'''Moral Support, but not now''' I've had some degree of contact with you, and you seem to be a perfectly good guy. However, slightly more than 1300 edits, without many "extensive" edits (ie No FAs or GAs) and Huggle, just doesn't provide enough for me to judge you with. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia, but this just isn't enough. Cheers, '''''
'''Oppose''' Keep up the good work and come back in about three to six months; as stated below, it's not all about time, but about wanting to see more contributions as well.

'''Oppose''' Unfortunatley.  MacMed does good work around the project but a few months more experience wouldn't hurt.  Suggesting early closure per [[WP:SNOW]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]] -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits/experience for me to make an accurate assessment of trustworthiness or knowledge.
Wehwalt, Shereth and Graeme say it well.  On the subject of SNOW, you can always revert a SNOW closure.  The only downsides to having a full-on RFA are that this RFA has gone on long enough that you'll probably have to wait 3 months in order to succeed the next time around, and a full RFA gives people a chance to tell you what they want to see ... which may not be what you want to do, and negotiation is fine, but if you get a lot of advice and don't follow any of it, the next RFA will almost certainly fail. - Dank (
'''Oppose''': [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Not now.]] Come back in three months time and I will have no problem supporting. My oppose is not about edit counts, it is about personal experience. My first RFA was at a similar time in my Wiki career, and I too thought that I knew the policies well enough that I could wield the mop. I was mistaken. Since then I have learned so much more then I could have ever imagined. I would love for you to spend more time working, watching and learning. Per your answers to the questions I feel I should be supporting. If you decide to follow through and come back later on, I will be happy to support, even nominate you.--
'''Oppose'''. Would consider supporting after some time and a bit more experience. '''
Very weak oppose .... because I largely wrote [[WP:NOTNOW]] I would like to think I know what it's intended for :) Clearly a good editor, but as Tan rightly points out just not quite enough material to review for me to confident in offering support. As per the notnow page I trust the opposes will provide good feedback for you, and that we will see you back at RFA later in the year. No particular issues but some more experience/tenure needed I think. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Oppose''' per Pedro and others. A couple months just isn't enough time for us to get to know you and figure out if we can trust you with the tools; unfortunately, it isn't enough to just take your word for it. Hang around for a couple more months and prove you have the dedication, write some good articles and get a feel for the collaborative process that goes along with getting an article to GA or FA. Get involved in some discussions, show that you can keep a cool head under fire. If you come back to RFA with all that under your belt, I'm sure people will have no problem supporting.
'''Sorry Oppose''' Sorry, I dont feel 3 1/2 months is enough time to fully now how to use the tools. Sorry.
'''Opppose''' Way too soon.  No prejudice against a later RfA.
'''Oppose''' It takes a while to really, ''really'' understand how Wikipedia works. This editor is too new, and doesn't have a history with dispute resolution. Coming into a major conflict is when having the tools can be most dangerous, and until you've demonstrated your ability to navigate contentious situations, I'm not willing to trust you with the tools. Now I'm not saying you have to get into a drama-fest to be a good admin, but your lack of experience doesn't give me a clear reading on how you'd actually react.
'''Oppose'''  It's not for the candidate to tell people the basis on which they're allowed to oppose him.  Even thinking that that's acceptable shows a fatal lack of experience with how this place works.  You've started exactly one article, that's no basis for judging a stream of articles begun by others.
'''Oppose''' Q6 notwithstanding I just don't understand the current support this request is getting. Don't get me wrong, I've long advocated against the ever rising standards of experience for RfA candidates. But I still find it hard to argue that MacMed has accumulated sufficient experience. MacMed wants to work at AIV but he has a total of 5 AIV reports, only 3 of which resulted in blocks (but at least, they were the last 3). Wants to work at UAA but has a total of 7 UAA reports. Wants to work at RFPP but has only 5 edits to that page including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=298690206 this one two days after the last edit to the article] and another one which was declined. Wants to work at SPP but has participated in 4 cases there. Wants to work at AfD but his limited experience with AfD is mostly in relisting or sorting debates and a couple of non-admin closures, at least one of which is dubious because he had participated in it. By my count (let me know if I'm wrong) he's commented on 6 AfD debates, including the ill-advised nomination [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Solis]]. Content contribution is also very limited: if one takes out the vandalism reverts and AWB-like edits, there are at the very most 150 mainspace edits left. In the various Talk namespaces, I don't find enough instances of interaction to evaluate how well he does in that respect.
'''Oppose''' because it takes longer than 3.5 months to learn the culture of this large, sprawling, and heterogeneous community.  --
'''Oppose'''. Reasonable contributions ... so far. I would like to see more collaboration with other editors, and more content creation.
'''Oppose'''. Because of lack of contributions. '''
'''Oppose''': per [[WP:NOTNOW]]..
being eager to try out various roles (mediator, admin) is fine, but as Gordonrox24 indicated above, sometimes more experience is needed to appreciate how important experience is. fortunately there are abundant opportunities around here to gain the experience the candidate's expressed an interest in, so ... go forth and do that! and enjoy the process
'''Oppose''' I'm opposing basically per [[WP:NOTNOW]] like most others, but I think this deserves a bit more explanation. I think that it takes time to develop the empathy necessary to handle the tools properly. In particular, a person who hasn't contributed much to articles might not understand the ramifications of applying those tools in a punitive/preventative manner. This oppose isn't based on any glaring mistakes or incorrect behavior so I think some time "in the trenches" would show that you're ready. -- '''
'''With regrets''' because I'd like to think such enthusiasm contains plenty of constructive potential. But rushing an adminship candidature this rapidly suggests a dedication to schmoozing influences rather than the necessarily carefully-built and considered assessment and incremental experience in areas of particular interest and need. I'm sick of having to say this here but peer-group-pleasuring nods cannot compensate for a fundamental lack of experience within the pedia itself, never mind the increasingly complex requirements and knowledge-base needed for adminship. A pass at this stage <s>suggests</s> screams well-meaning puppet-pal.
'''Oppose''' Two things. One, I would like any canadate to have year round experiance editing, and 2, admins are usually conflict resolvers, so not having experianced one, as you said on Q3, is also a factor in my oppose.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per iMatthew.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; You're a nice enough guy, but 427 article edits is simply not enough to know whether or not I can trust you with the mop. [[Wikipedia:Not now|Not now]].
Per Alan. While I don't believe in editcounts, 415 edits to the mainspace wouldn't even give you AWB access. Please come back later.
'''Oppose''' - sorry just far too soon to become an admin, wait a couple of months and im sure it will be accepted then, also i always worry about self nominations.
'''Oppose''' Too short time in Wikipedia and edit count is not enough to merit my !vote. I will only support candidate if his edit count is 2,000+ and has at least 5 or 6 months experience in Wiki-editing.
'''Oppose''' The [[Curse of Chick Hearn]] is a good example of why more experience is needed.  Wikipedia is a large and complicated place & it takes a long time to learn enough to be an effective admin.  I also note that while the decision on the AfD was likely correct, it shouldn't have been a non-admin closure as it didn't fit into any of the criteria of [[WP:NAC]]. --
'''Oppose''' - Per above, and the fact that you were on Wikipedia for only 3.5 months, isn't really enough to be an admin. I mistakenly had my first RfA only two months after I joined, but I immediately withdrew after it was clear that users posted oppose (or at least oppose comments) on my RfA immediately. I would suggest, wait at least three more months and get some more experience. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose.''' Far too soon.
'''Oppose''' Anyone who thinks 1500 edits is insignificant is completely out of touch, so I want MacMed to view such opposition with a grain of salt. For me, 3 1/2 months is not long enough to judge your patterns of behavior though (and some probably think that I am out of touch for that). I'll be honest, I like to see at least six months, and preferably more, but there are cases where I would support 3.5 months or less. This is not one of those instances, although you are very much on track to gain my support in a short time if you maintain your current contributions. Find something here that you like doing, do it well, and do it for a good period of time. Three things it takes to be an admin here, and you have 2 out of 3 already. Not bad at all.
'''Neutral''' because I'd like to support, but really can't do so with so little to look through.  This isn't just a meaningless "wait a few months, we ancients don't let you newbies run RfA" kind of oppose.  It's just ... you're asking us to support this RfA because you haven't made any major screwups in the time you've been here.  But, the thing is, someone with 50 edits could make the same argument, as could someone with 50,000 botlike edits but no experience dealing with content disputes.  There are editors with 6 years of experience and gigantic edit counts that would get a "not enough experience" oppose from me; it's not just about time spent or raw edit count.  It really takes more than "I haven't done anything bad" to convince me that someone will make a good admin.  That said, I have seen you around and I do think you would be good with just a little more experience first.  -- ''<B>
'''Neutral''' While I am unhappy with only 3.5 months can anyone highlight where this users lack of experience has been problematic. Otherwise it looks as we are rejecting based on editcountitis
Definitely a worthwhile user, especially for someone who has not been here for very long. However, I typically expect admin candidates to be here for a longer period of time, since I need evidence of time commitment. Otherwise, I would support. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Moral Support''' While contributions are good, with c. 3009 edits, I don't see much of a 'breadth' of knowledge with article creation or building (such as FAs or GAs), project collaboration, images, templates, and many of the other areas that an admin would be called on to help on without "the tools"!  Not editcounting, but just not a lot of time. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but would like to see more working/experience with various aspects of the site.
'''Neutral''' - Won't pass, so it is pointless to oppose the candidate. Please concentrate on content contributions.
'''Neutral''' Seems ok on the surface, but quacks a bit. Anyone checkusered this candidate?
I think you need a bit more experience before adminship. Maybe try reading through [[WP:ARL]] for a start. Best of luck, '''
'''Encouragement''' I would like to support you because you said you want to go into mediation, and some of the admin powers certainly help with that. What I've seen so far is promising. However, per my reply to Francium12 above I can not support you at this time. Pls drop me a note when you're running again. &mdash;
My second beat the nom '''support''' of recent memory per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate was trusted enough to have rollback, is educated enough to have received a higher education degree that is in computer science which is always beneficial when moderating a website, is an article creator, and has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
Deleted contributions look OK to me. Also I'm glad to see your clean block record, and civil talkpage. ''
Admins do not need to be content creators.
Appears to know what they are doing with regards to CSD tagging and so on.  No reason to suspect they would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Magog clearly understands what he is doing, as evidenced by his thoughtful answers, and solid contribution history. He hasn't been around for a while, but tenure is no substitute for competence.
'''Support''' competent.
'''Support''' - I see no issues. Audited content creation does not indicate suitability for adminship, and neither does the lack thereof imply lack of suitability. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Civilized and a good vandal fighter. This is defiantly '''not''' a not-now case since you've been editing for a while now. Good luck. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
Only three mainspace to which you've made more than nine edits, and all but two of the articles on the "[[User:Magog the Ogre#Created pages|created pages]]" list on your userpage appear to be unsourced biographies of living people. Quite aside from the issues I have with a potential admin who doesn't see the problem with unsourced BLPs, I'm reluctant to give someone with virtually no apparent content experience deletion powers. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
I don't feel you are ready yet. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Oppose''' per comments left on talk page of user.
'''Mild oppose'''. The only reason I'm opposing is because I don't feel like you've experienced Wikipedia yet enough to understand all the complex issues that arise. I congratulate you on your vandal-swatting, image licensing awareness, and help desk activity, all of which speak loudly, but as Iridescent stated, you haven't contributed very much to the article namespace.  I do hope that you become more involved with direct editing to the articles and come back in a year or so.  I would not be surprised if your new-ness is what's keeping you from administrator training adoption as well.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think you have the experience working in mainspace (as others have stated here). I suggest continuing to work as you have been for several more months, then come back and try again. If there are no issues then, I would likely support at that time.  ···
Per the BLP problems. I don't think that you have sufficient article writing experience. <strong>
'''Mild oppose'''. Work on images, vandalism; etc, certainly add value to your RfA: well done. However, too little experience of mainspace editing. BLP articles created are mostly stubs without Notes or References sections (except for maybe an imdb entry in external links) and though only three had been templated for single source, notability or additional citations, these templates remain after several months. Don't be disheartened: work on it and try again later or have a look at Commons admin, maybe? <b><font color="green">
'''Oppose:''' Not enough constructive edits. -
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit of additional experience in more varied capacities. '''
'''Oppose''' Per the lack of experience noted above. Sorry.
'''Regretful Oppose''' As stated above, you need a little more content contribution. Sorry.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="green" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' Per LAAFan.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Very weak oppose''' based on dearth of content contributions. Sometimes we have admins who work only in the janitorial areas, but your experience with policy is not enough for me to support without article writing. Sorry. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' - I have to agree with everyone above-I don't think you have enough experience to become an administrator yet. Please don't be disheartened; I'm sure you'll do better in a couple months!
'''Oppose''' lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and should work.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience before having administrator tools.
This candidacy seems to me to be premature: Magog doesn't yet have the experience needed to be an administrator. More as a remark than as a criticism or as a rationale for this oppose !vote: the answer the question 6 is a tad wide of the mark; banning isn't "the" process for blocking somebody (although it does admittedly, in most cases, lead to a block), primarily because not all blocks are applied as the result of a banning discussion. If you get substantially more experience, especially in interacting with other editors and in working in the mainspace, then I'm sure you'll have a good chance of passing a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' User has the tenure; however, needs more experience, as noted by Iridescent and others. Q6 is also a bit off, I'd suggest another reading of [[WP:BAN]].
'''Neutral''' <s>Pending answers to questions and admin report on CSD work since that was an area candidate stated they would work.  [[User:ArcAngel|ArcAngel]] ([[User talk:ArcAngel|talk]]) 01:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)</s>Though CSD work is fine, Q7 was not a trick question.  I see enough that I cannot oppose, but I cannot support at this time.
'''Neutral''' - I'm not entirely sure you are ready yet, but I'm going to think up a couple questions for you and come back.--
'''Neutral'''. I'm going to go with ArcAngel on this; I'm seeing a good candidate, but I want to take some more time to look into it. I see no overt evidence of shenanigans, though.
'''Neutral''' - More article work is needed.
Agreeing with Iridescent, but also agreeing with Shereth. More content work and overall experience is needed, but I have no reason to believe this user would misuse the tools. –'''
'''Neutral''' I don't know if I can judge from the candidate's content whether or not I can trust him with the tools. I could be swayed to support, however. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' - question 2 ''Much of academia (unwisely, IMO) prohibits the use of this encyclopedia for exactly this reason.'' Come off it, even Wikipedia tells people not to use wikipedia as a source.  You read the articles, you follow back to the reliable verifiable sources and use those instead.  I'll probably move to support in a few days.
'''Neutral''' I'm inclined to support but the issues about policy experience seem to be reasonable. I'll wait until he's done answering the questions to make a decision.
'''Neutral''': Per the concerns above..
Good luck. You were a good admin, and time off was all you needed. '''
I believe the time away has done Majorly some good and he can once again be an effective administrator. '''
'''Support''', echoing Ryan and especially Synergy's statement.
(ec x4) What Synergy said. Not much to explain here; most people know of the work you have done. I think that you will be a net positive to the project as an administrator; therefore I support. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Sure why not?  Majorly has obviously learned from past mistakes.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
—
--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
I'd like to echo what's said above. Back when Majorly resigned, I was one of the one who wanted him to lose adminship. Since then, I've been impressed at how much his conduct with other editors has improved. I'm sure that some time off was all that was needed to bring the good Majorly back, and I'm glad to support now.
I've noticed a real change in Majorly's contribs over the last months. And his XfD work was excellent and would be a strong net benefit if he were resysopped. --
'''Support''' - Majorly is sometimes rough around the edges, but his intentions are almost universally good and his knowledge of the Wikia is extensive. He is a net-positive through and through.
I've had some kind of interaction with the user(not sure if good or negative)but regardless of that, perfect candidate.--(
(ec x3)'''Support''' I've found Majorly to be an honest person, eager to do the right thing. He wants what's best for the project, and with his knowledge of policy I believe that giving this user the tools will benefit wikipedia. I believe he's learnt from his past mistakes and is ready to be an admin again. And keep up the good article work, we'll never have enough GAs!
'''Support'''. Over the last few months I've really got the impression that you figured out why people were having a problem with you; and have fixed it. I've noted nothing objectionable recently in the way of over-the-top comments or histrionics; and you have a demonstrable record of making excellent contributions. Majorly minus the excess drama is an excellent choice for an admin. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' While I wasn't involved with the resignation, the fact that Majorly is willing to listen to others goes a long way with me.  I believe that Majorly has the best interests of the community at heart, and I believe that the couple extra functions would add benefit to the community.  Hence I shall support strongly in the belief that it would ''Majorly'' improve our project. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
This is indeed a pleasant surprise. Since his desysop, Majorly has continued to be an effective admin at simplewiki, so I'm confident he'll handle the tools wisely once again. <small>Also, it's a good sign when you edit conflict three times trying to get a support in.</small> –'''
'''Support''', seems like he just needed some time off; his skills could be widely used in an administrative position. Has ample amount of edits and experience.
&ndash;
'''Support''', should have been done ages ago. //
Majorly is a good, hard working guy; it would be nice to get him back as an admin here. '''
'''Support''' Every time Majorly requests for an admin, someone tells him to go for RFA, I've told him myself on occasions too! I believe that he will make a good admin (I've had this page watch listed for so long, I can't even remember that I watchlisted it!).
<font face="Arial">
'''Weak Support'''. He may be a little rough around the edges, but I still think he'd be a net positive as an admin. I don't believe he'd regress into an RFC situation again. I'd also like to recommend [[WP:COOL]].
'''Yes'''.
It may surprise some to see me in the support column, as I was probably as vocal as anyone in calling for Majorly to be desysopped last year. He and I will probably never agree about most things, and probably ''never'' about child administrators, but what he's demonstrated to me since then is that he has honesty and integrity, and that his primary concern is the encyclopedia. I'm willing to risk it. --
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Weak support'''. I like Majorly, but sadly agree that he deserved to be de-sysopped last year. He had engaged in too much bad behavior. Since then he has been -- by and large -- on better behavior. I'd like to give him one more chance with the buttons.
'''Strong support''' - We have enough needlessly rude and childish administrators. It is therefore a good thing that Majorly isn't one. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
If Majorly was surprised by Malleus's support, he'll probably turn purple and choke over this one. To steal a phrase, Majorly can beyond any reasonable doubt be a dick of porn star proportions. But unlike many of his buddies, he's not a misguided gamer who gives the impression that they think they've wandered into Facebook; he has a view of how Wikipedia ought to work that's pretty much diametrically opposed to mine, but he's honest and consistent about applying it. And unlike certain others, having been desysopped he's taken the time to think about what he's done wrong and then come here and laid it on the line, rather than run off quoting obscure policies to try to regain his role by the back door, and that's something I can only admire.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' I have complete confidence in Majorly's ability to handle the tools well. My interactions with him have shown me his abilities.
Weak support. Back during the Malleus issue, I saw Majorly attack Malleus quite harshly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=288677093  But they made up, at least supposedly :), and at the moment I'm satisfied for a weak support. '''
'''Support''' &mdash; while I do understand some of the opposing concerns regarding occasional temperament issues, I had always thought of Majorly as an administrator (didn't know he resigned under a cloud in August) and he is generally very civil and knowledgeable. There are very few users I've met with quite the level of clue that Majorly has.
In my early days on Wikipedia, I looked to Majorly as a role model and someone who could be approached for help, and he was kind to me, as I was a new/ish user at the time. I'm not worried about "incivility" from Majorly: he is, under no circumstances, a bully towards new users (quite the opposite in fact), which is ''very'' important, and I would be concerned if he did that but he doesn't. He is also polite and helpful towards those who are interested in building the encyclopedia rather than interested in fighting around teh' Wiki, and is willing to discuss peacefully with people who disagree with him. This all being said, standing up to ''abusive or disruptive established users'' is not "incivility", "rudeness", nor "childish": it's something that more good users need to do. Majorly was a decent admin when he was one, and his experiences since his resignation will only make him a better administrator than he was before.
'''Support''', per Malleus, Iridescent, and Acalamari, who've each convinced me that this will work.  I wasn't sure, I've seen a lot of things that have made me roll my eyes.  But dislodged retinas notwithstanding, you'll be fine.  Self-ban yourself from AN/I and RFC for a while, stay away from other accounts, stay on-wiki with communications.  Just advice, not mandatory for my support.  Just advice.
'''Support'''. Majorly and I frequently disagree and I often find myself wishing he'd dial back his abrasiveness a couple of notches but I have no doubt about his commitment to the project and in weighing up the pros and cons, ultimately I do feel comfortable trusting him with the tools again.
{{edit conflict}} '''Support'''. Shock of the year, I know (perhaps greater than that of Malleus' or even Iridescent's support). It only gets better, just read on. I noticed over the past few weeks that I've been agreeing with Majorly more and more. I've seen his comments here on en-wiki and elsewhere and thought "that's a good point". I've watched, at least in my view, Majorly mature significantly in the past few months. I swear on all that is precious to me in the world that not five minutes ago, Majorly popped into my mind and I thought "He may actually be ready for adminship now," and I literally clicked over to his contribs to vet him with the intention of possibly offering to nom or co-nom him for adminship. As one of the&mdash;if not ''the''&mdash;loudest voices of opposition of Majorly on this project in the past (having been a major contributor of the RFC and the one that threatened both it and the RFAR; loudly calling for his resignation or desysop; and a strong opposer to his previous requests here and on sister projects), I figured it may carry some weight. Anyway, when I clicked his contribs, this page was the first entry. Talk about "WTF? moments". I doubled-taked, twice. Ha! So yea, I believe Majorly has matured, and I hope that he's taken at least some of my criticisms to heart. I would really like to see him ease off with the RFA edits, but as far as administrative actions go, I'm putting good faith in him that he won't repeat previous mistakes, and will take the necessary moments to consider situations fully before jumping in with admin tools. Maybe taking a minute to consult with others before making potentially controversial actions. Good luck, Majorly. I hope this one succeeds.
'''Support''' No reason not to :-) -
'''Support''' Impressed that the user has improved since the RFC. Having seen his work I can tell he cares a great deal about what goes on here.
'''Support''' a very net positive --
'''Support''' good luck.
'''Support'''. Majorly despite his flaws has always been an asset to Wikipedia, and I think he will do good work as an admin. --
'''Strong Support''' Majorly can be a right royal pain in the butt - but he has the projects best interest at heart and I believe now knows when - and most importantly when not - to use the tools. I have total confidence in supporting this request. [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]] and then some. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
<s>Fuck yes.</s> '''
'''Seriously Support''' : I support him for a second chance. Majorly had issues dealing with many users and sometimes his RFA comments was really "flawed". Majorly and Balloonman (I'm Spartacus) had serious issues in the past and if "I'm Spartacus" thinks Majorly deserves a second chance, that is the strongest support he can get. Nevertheless, Majorly still remains an asset to Wikipedia. Best wishes --
'''Major Support''' :&nbsp;-&nbsp;There is no requirement for the competent to be bland. --'''''
A few months ago, I would probably have said "hell no" to this.  Maybe I would have been wrong to say that then, but what I do know is that recently I have been extremely impressed by your competence, sense and maturity.
'''Support'''; Majorly is stubborn, opinionated and vocal.  Also competent, dedicated and smart.  He acted like a fool, but he since ''realized'' he did and changed tack.  I see no reason to deprive Wikipedia of a good admin because of past errors.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''', Experience is a major asset. -- '''
'''Support''' - fine by me.
'''Support''' '''<font face="verdana">
I'm
'''Support''' The WR stuff is concerning only in that I regard it as extremely lame. There are tactful, civil ways to express a lack of respect on Wikipedia for another editor that do not get you blocked for civility issues. Were it not for that, I would regard this as an extremely enthusiastic and strong support, and in any event, I am by no means a saint in my civility at times. We can all work on that. I've always respected Majorly, and was sad to see him give up the mop last year. A welcome addition in my book.
'''Support''' I have been working with Majorly recently, I haven't seen any reasons why I shouldn't support him in this! <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">

'''Support'''
'''Support''' User has [[WP:CLUE|clue]] and the best interests of the project at heart. I trust him. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''', very experienced. --
Based on recent contribs, which have been discussed to death elsewhere, I am pretty much convinced that Majorly will behave like a complete nobhead at some point in the near future, probably violating our personal attack and /or civility guidelines and/or contributing enormously to some unnecessary drama or other. However, I'm quite sure that by this time he's accumulated enough sense not to actually abuse the admin tools, so although I am somewhat '''surprised''', I support this request. <font color="006622">
Per iridescent. --
'''Support''' I have seen this user around [[WP:AN/I]] and though he could do better with dealing with other users, that doesn't have much to do with deleting spam pages and blocking obvious vandals.--
'''Support'''- Yes. Majorly is an asset to the community.
'''Support.'''  I believe Majorly will use the tools responsibly.  '''
'''Support.''' Has clue, has guts. Calls a duck a duck. I read opposers' diffs in disbelief. You call ''these'' incivility? Then I'm a King of Thailand.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I believe Majorly would be a net positive with the tools based on what I've seen. Nothing I've seen makes me think he would misuse them.--
'''Happy To Support''' Anyone who voluntarily hands in the mop without the steam roller of ''controversial circumstances'' bearing down upon them, and who admits to, apologizes for and learns from past mistakes, deserves a second chance in my book.--
'''Support''' Ten months is more than enough to think over your wrongs. Just keep common sense in your mind and anybody can be a great administrator. :)
If only because we need more admins who will actually call a troll a troll. I often disagree with Majorly; we've gone head-to-head more than once. However, I don't think he'd abuse the tools. He might abuse the ''tools'', but not the tools. Even more than for those reasons, though, is that we need more admins willing to do the right thing with BLPs.
'''Support''' I have confidence that you won't abuse the tools. Sure he jokes around a bit, but he's also well aware of when to set the jokes aside. Time has passed and he's learned from his past errors. I think it's time to hand him back the mop. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' I went back through that RFC rather carefully. Dramaprone and intemperate, yes. Likely to challenge other admin actions he regards as unjust, yes. Likely to actually abuse admin tools? No. Dedicated to Wikipedia? Surely yes. Willing to accept consensus even when it's against him? Demonstrated. I'm glad to support. <strong>
'''Support''' - Nice editor. I read his blog sometime ago. He wrote ''who cares who Majorly is''. I care who Majorly is. I like Majorly. That's not the reason why I'm supporting him; I don't support people because I personally like them. I'm supporting him because he will be a net positive as an admin. He will make blunders, but he will be a net positive.
'''Support''' I trust Majorly to do what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if it may not be right, because too many admins won't do anything for fear of being wrong.
'''Sure'''.
'''Support''' will be a welcome re-addition to the ranks.
'''Support''' without doubt , i know him for long time i really think  he is one the rare persons who deeply understand what is AGF and does his best in keeeping it --
Clearly means well. Also per his increasing maturity and increasing focus on content creation. But this is the last time, no more resigning, please. :) ++
'''Weak Support'''--
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Majorly is flawed (as are we all), but the drama has passed and i'm willing to give him a second chance. I've seen him all over the wiki, and he seems to be extremely clueful. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support'''. Most definitely. '''
'''Strong Support'''. Huge net positive. Majorly knows that the priority of this project is to create an encyclopedia, not posture amongst one another on who can be the most "civil" to trolls. I'd rather have an admin that tells the occasional troll to go fuck themselves, then some civil-police jerkoff who lets them run rampant.
[[Image:Support-filled.svg|15px]]'''Support''' You were desysopped and rightly so. But unlike other admins who get desysopped and decide to go watch paint dry, you continued participating in this project and I believe have since learned from your mistakes. You have made blunders, but you have learned from them, and anyone who learns from their mistakes and has shown progress, maturity, and civility following a desysop deserves to be an admin again.
'''Support''' per Sarah and Lar. --
'''Support'''. I trust him. <font color="green">
'''Support''' You certainly seem to have matured since the 'incident'. Deserves to be trusted with the tools once again.
'''Support''' for strong dedication to the project and substantial experience. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Per Grace Note. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]]
'''Support'''. I am not without reservations, but my feeling is that Majorly's commitment, personal growth and clue tip the scale to support.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Thanks for your reassuring answer to my question. I've read and reread the Opposes and not found them convincing, though I've requested some diffs which have yet to arrive. I'm partly supporting because of those who sought your desysopping and now support your RFA. Plus I've done an extensive trawl through certain parts of your contributions, and whilst your language may at times be stronger than mine, You certainly have [[wp:Clue|Clue]], I trust your judgement and would be happy for you to get the mop back. Though a little surprised at the number of times you revert vandalism without subsequently warning the vandal. ''
'''Support''' — Will do a lot of work. Experienced and cares (even when wrong;). Cheers,
➲<span style="font-family:arial narrow;"> '''[[User talk:Redvers|redvers]]''' <sup><u>
'''Support''' as said earlier there are reasons to think both ways. While the answer to A Nobody has leaned be to Support checking the volume of deletions has certainly done so. Judging a previous admin must be different to to a blank sheet. We know what she is going to do. We might be a bit worried how she goes about it but I think a lot of her major opposers in the past have expressed support at this moment due to a maturing that happened since the de-sysop.
'''Support''' <font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David</font> '''
'''Support''' per Pedro. Majorly gets can be a pain, but overall, he's trustworthy and a net gain as admin. '''
'''Support''' per Jennavecia. Since she was one of the most notable voices against at the RfC, if she's reconsidered, no reason not to re-sysop.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' All <u>I</u> have seen from this editor has been positive, although learning of the alternate accounts (now) almost made me abstain.
'''Strong support''' in every sense. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support'''Fairly solid admin.
'''Support''' Majorly got up to some nonsense as Al Tally but as what irked me was a year + ago and I've had positive dealings with him since then, I'll take the explanations above at face value as to why things unfolded as they did. I think Majorly learnt a lot from the RfC and associated drama and thaose lessons will help him be a better admin this time. <font face="Verdana" color="6633FF">
'''Support''' Being occasionally hard to handle, outspoken, or even rude is not synonymous with being untrustworthy. Majorly and I both joined the project in the summer of 2006, and in all that time, not once have I seriously thought that the encyclopedia would be better off with him. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support''' &mdash; I must admit, I was surprised to read what you wrote about me, but I understand what you mean about WR being a far different place. "For teh lulz", even? I thought your spirited defense of me wrt to the DT incident was a little much, but it seems you weren't far off the mark. Oh, and per Tan - I lol'd. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &mdash; The more time I spend on Wikipedia the sillier it looks. However, this Oppose comment from admin Aitias — who should be desysopped already — stands out in its hypocrisy: ''"should stop to abuse rollback"''. LOL, this is the poster child for [[WP:KETTLE]]. Although, hey, you never know with these non-native speakers: I interpreted the above as meaning, "should stop abusing rollback". But maybe Aitias intended for Majorly ''to start'', as in, "you should stop to smell the roses." In that case he would have written perfectly grammatical English and my charge of hypocrisy would not apply; incitement, then.
Weak support.  --
'''Support''' &ndash; for the Majorly I knew of old, who I would dearly like to see return. Where it went wrong for you, I don't know (well, yes I do), but as it stands now, I don't think my support will make a blind bit of difference, sorry. But it's there anyway. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Oppose''' In the past few weeks, Majorly has been extremely generous with his insults; maybe he thinks he is funny, but I would hate to be on the receiving end of these comments. Dylan’s diff from Simple Wikipedia [http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChristianMan16&diff=1514697&oldid=1514689] shows him going on the attack ''against a blocked editor.'' This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friday&diff=prev&oldid=284649230] has him openly berating a long-time contributor, calling him a “poor admin” and demanding that he “step down.” This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=prev&oldid=282660064] has him going ballistic against DougsTech, responding to Doug's complaint of harassment by stating, “You think this is harrassment? You wouldn't know harrassment if it hit you in the face.” And this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=prev&oldid=288306865] has him calling DougsTech a “bastard.” While Doug’s RfA logic may escape many of us, calling him a “bastard” is atrocious and beyond the pale. I am extremely uncomfortable giving support to this editor at this time. Sorry.
We have enough needlessly rude and childish administrators, and people who are as prone to witch-hunts and obsessive behavior as Majorly is should not be given the tools. ''÷
'''Oppose''' I do not think Majorly has the patience required for the buttons. As an admin you should be the person who stands up as someone with an appropriate language. Instead what I've seen from Majorly is him causing more drama, and not the civility I'd like to see in an admin. An admin is not supposed to add more fuel to the fire, not at all. But that's something he has done for a long time, even as recent as in May 2009 (see the diffs by Pastor Theo above for some examples). This role is one that requires trust, and you don't have mine. Adminship is something that requires a calm balanced person, not someone who does the opposite. I agree partially with Pastor Theo too. My advice to Majorly would be to relax a bit more, and stop going into nonsense discussions that are going nowhere. When Majorly can control his temperament, and those concerns of mine, I  will support him. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Looks like I'll be in the minority on this one.   Majorly, I share your supporters' faith in your dedication to the project, but I'm surprised that your dedication is enough for them.  There are a couple of other RFA's going on right now for people whose dedication to the project isn't questioned, but who are not going to succeed because of "temperment" concerns - worries about how they will react in stressful situations.  Your multiple, relentless attacks on DougsTech at every opportunity, as well as the snide comments about anyone who thought that blocking/banning wasn't the solution, lead me to wonder what you would have done if you'd had access to the block button at that time. IMHO, that crossed the line from disagreement, into full battlefield mode. Perhaps you can explain how this is different from the behavior described in the RFC? I mean, don't we already have evidence of how you'll behave in stressful situations?  I admire the pledge in your nomination to avoid needless drama, and I believe you that this is your ''intent'', but I see evidence that you can't resist getting sucked into these situations, and then inflaming rather than helping. --
'''Oppose''' Lacks the maturity. DougsTech fiasco was overboard ruleslawyering. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC) And IRC vote retribution threats.
Absolutely not. We have the luxury here of knowing exactly how the candidate acts as an administrator.  Temperamental, abrasive, immature, quick-to-judge, slow-to-think, arrogant, entitled, belligerent, vicious, vindictive and obsessive.  His antics, tantrums and vendettas at RFA are a decent part of what makes RFA such a miserable environment.  He has a history of dubious sockpuppetry, dubious explanations of the puppets' purposes, and is apparently keeping more accounts secret on reasons that can't be shared? -- grounds enough there to oppose in my opinion.  Answer to Q7 suggests to me he hasn't learned a thing.  Is this a harsh oppose?  Frankly, I think it's mild compared to the sustained campaigns I've seen from Majorly. --
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. I like Majorly as a person, and think he's a net positive as an editor, but I'm just not convinced his temperament is right for adminship. I think his previous history provides good evidence of that.
'''Weak oppose''' if the account on Wikipedia Review that claims "Majorly" as its Wikipedia user page is indeed the same person, i.e. per asking, "I mean, what have Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno or Prodego done lately to improve Wikipedia?" which given that I have even some recent DYK credit is a bit insulting if not out of nowhere as I was actually considering supporting here, so coming across that is like WTH?.  Sincerely, --
This oppose doesn't reflect my respect for your dedication to the encyclopedia and its content. My only concern is your lack of self-censorship when you're angry, but it is a strong concern. Edits showing the inability to let things go rather than pursue trifles with a burning passion are far too recent. I'm worried about re-adding the block button to your temperament. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=227293342#Request_for_a_block_review There was a bad block of a regular contributor] shortly before you gave up your tools. Since then, you have demonstrated more of this ''Furor Majorlicus'' but without the possibility of exacerbating the situation by making poor adminstrative actions in the heat of the moment. Until you control your reactions and show more consideration of how your contributions might affect a dispute, I think we're better off keeping it that way. If there were a lighter set of tools to be had, one without the block button, I wouldn't oppose. ---
'''Oppose''' Do not want more incivil/sarcastic admins. Majorly doesn't have the temperament I expect in WP administrators. --
'''Strong oppose'''. Weak diplomacy skills, which in my opinion are important in an Admin. The links given by Hammersoft are indisputable, user is rude and egocentric.(
'''Oppose''' Extremely unable to work in a diplomatic manor which is importantof an admin. Often sarcastic and quite rude. Has the inability to censor himself which I believe an admin needs to function well. He is a positive as an editor but would be a net-negative as an admin. -
'''''Weak'' Oppose''' per A Nobody. I was also coming here to support until I read that. Also, I view the position of regular contributor to WR as incompatible with adminship.
He's a drama queen.  It's OK to speak plainly, but he goes out of his way to look for trouble.
'''Strong oppose''' as Majorly completely lacks the composure needed to be an administrator. Calling me a bastard, and then trying to blow it off is unconscionable for a potential administrator. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hammersoft&diff=prev&oldid=288313072 Dripping sarcasm]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=prev&oldid=288174024 More of it]. Majorly also does not assume good faith. Look [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta%3ABabel&diff=1331747&oldid=1331744 at this diff] on meta. It's not enough to debate a point raised by someone; he has to go out of his way and attack the contributor. Majorly then [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta%3ABabel&diff=1332732&oldid=1332730 threatens another poster with a block]. Keep in mind Majorly is an admin on Meta. If he tried that stunt on Wikipedia (using his status as an administrator to threaten users out of a discussion he is involved in), he'd be roundly criticized. Refers to DougsTech [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech/RFAreason&diff=prev&oldid=288352243 as a waste of space]. Continues to call DougsTech a troll until he does what Majorly says [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=prev&oldid=289130391]. Here's another case where he's mad at someone for not behaving the way he expects them too [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&diff=prev&oldid=287671045]. Sarcastically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friday&diff=prev&oldid=284649230 attacks User:Friday]. Goes on to attack Friday again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friday/Ageism&diff=prev&oldid=283286822 claiming he's not interested in building the encyclopedia] yet Friday has more than a dozen article starts to his credit and thousands of edits to mainspace. Majorly says it well "Abuse does not always involve misuse of tools. It can involve abuse of other editors." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=288677093]. It's too bad he doesn't practice what he preaches. In his answer to Q3 he says "I've had a lot of conflicts, many of which I have handled poorly." The introspection is good, but the behavior hasn't changed. --
'''Oppose''', without prejudice. Majorly is a good editor, but seems not to be able to de-escalate, which is a primary skill in an admin. This is not so say that he's disruptive (most of the time), but a cool head is an advantage both for the daily work with the mop and for the role-model function of an admin. Majorly seems always to be simmering on the edge of a snarky comment, and I would not be able to support without a long history (more than one year) of changing this behaviour.
'''Oppose''', per Robofish.
'''Oppose''' > I've seen some huge improvement since you were last an admin (which is itself an indication that you're a better contributor without a mop), but I can't get past some of the diffs that Hammersoft provides above (though I tend to agree with you on others!), and the fact that you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ATreasuryTag&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= removed my rollback-right] while I was in a content dispute with you and a close acquaintance of yours. I don't want to argue that specific point, but it's a [[WP:COI|niggling concern]]. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose'''. Your content work is good, and certainly you have made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. However, I have concerns about your demeanour and the amount of amateur theatricals which seem to accompany your actions. The incident which springs to mind is that surrounding DougsTech and his votes at RfA. I was concerned by how much of a storm was whipped up by youself and others, and that you ended up edit warring on RfAs to remove his opinion, despite the lack of consensus for a topic ban. In reality this was something which should never have escalated so, and it leaves me with doubts over your judgement and temperament. Certainly you do a lot of good in the community, but Adminship isn't a reward for that and you can continue to help without the tools. Sorry, but I can't support you right now. –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Oppose'''. I echo many of the sentiments above. I personally haven't ''seen'' any of the contributions mentioned above, but my interactions and recollections of the user (mostly as Al Tally) have been universally poor. The DougsTech issue is just one example of a tendency I have seen to get up in others' grilles, as it were, and seemingly trawl for drama. If that is a misrepresentation, then I am sorry, but it's my impression. --<font color="#cc6600">
Mostly per [[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]]. I'm not questioning the level of dedication or commitment here. I'm sure there would be some positives associated with restoring the tools to Majorly. But someone who handles conflict this poorly should not be an admin, for his own sake as much as for ours. It's a recipe for trouble. The single quality most lacking in the current admin corps is ''maturity'', and I don't see this as a step in the right direction. I suspect this RfA will succeed, so I suppose I'll just ask Majorly to take all of this under advisement. '''
'''Oppose''' Seasoned and prolific drama monger. Giving Majorly tools would not be a net gain for Wikipedia.
[[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': This is only the second edit {{user|Pzrmd}} has made.
Now, hold on a minute.  I absolutely think Majorly should be an admin <small>some day</small>, but I'm concerned about his apparent position (Tiptoety's question) that he doesn't need to reveal socks that had significant edits, and I'm concerned about the insult to Stifle, A Nobody, Xeno and Prodego.  I don't care if WR is a different environment; do you still believe what you said?  Are you willing to at least do a little research on these guys before your RFA is over, and either back up the claim that they haven't been very useful lately, or withdraw it and apologize? - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - is clearly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=207242688 totally useless, pointless, and probably clueless when it comes to making decisions].
'''Weak oppose''' I originally came to support him because ever since our first bad encounter at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2|the RfA]] for
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I don't doubt as to you wanting to help Wikipedia, but the incivility issues brought out pulls me to oppose this RFA. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Q15. As seen, we have more than enough admins who won't do anything already. The fact you commented on the situation, but would not have done anything about it either, is simply trolling.
Overpoliticized editor with a taste for the dramatic. '''
'''Oppose''' Not at all the type of editor that should be serving in this role. He's quite happy to throw gas on a fire when some water would be preferred. No need for specific descriptors at this point, but he would be a really bad choice for the tools.
RFA + history of sockpuppetry + refusal to disclose identities of socks = oppose.  Sorry, Majorly, but no way, no how.—
'''Oppose''' Reading through the RFC I'm struck by Majorly's defensiveness, repeated accusations of socking and other behavior that just doesn't jive with adminship. I'd like to have a little more time go by before I could support for getting the buttons back.
This is a rather tough decision for me to make, but '''weak oppose'''. Sorry, Majorly. I've had plenty of interactions with you on Wikipedia and IRC and know that your intentions are good, but the concerns raised above compel me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Editing with a bunch of sock puppets is bad enough but refusing to reveal details about two of them is very strange and, in my mind, not acceptable.  If there's nothing to hide, then be honest about them.  If there is something to hide then adminship is problematic.
'''Oppose'''  Conduct on 8-9 April regarding DougsTech, including removing DT's ''oppose'' votes from RfAs, was not the appropriate way to handle the situation.
'''Strong Oppose''' Will abuse the tools, without a doubt.
'''oppose''' -frequent bursts of annoyance towards others and wiki in general.
'''Strong oppose''' - While I previously !voted neutral, Pastor Theo's, Hammersoft's, and Kablammo's opposes combine with the WR thread to easily tip me over the fence. Plus, Majorly should know far better than to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2&diff=282661693&oldid=282661573 roll back] a !vote made by DougsTech. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
'''Oppose''' Civility issues and the running of an unapproved adminbot.--
'''Oppose''' Does not possess requisite maturity.  Lots to lose, nothing to gain from having this user as an admin again.
'''Strongly oppose.''' If reasons given by previous opposers were not enough, I oppose empowering any contributor to Wikipedia Review in the strongest terms.
'''Oppose'''. Sockpuppetry, and lying/selective memory concerning it, was blatantly proven in the first RFA. Also, his hysteria over unused b'crat/admin functions show he sees them as trophies... not a good attitude in an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Ugh.--
'''Reluctant oppose''' - He was a good admin, but he needs to show more civility. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I don't think things have changed.
'''Oppose''' per Robofish.
'''Oppose''' Majorly has been a much better editor than he ever was an admin. The humility suits him.
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more [[WP:DGAF]]; answers about past are solid at first then its "I don't remember" or "not really sure" which is a little scary when the nomination hinges on "learning from mistakes".  Perhaps a bit more time... '''[[User:ZabMilenko|Zab]]'''''
'''Extremely Reluctant Oppose'''.  I came here to support, but having reviewed your postings on WR, as well as some of the diffs linked to above, I just don't think you're just ready yet.  You can still be valuable in discussing policy, and I don't think there's any dispute that your contributions in the article space are exemplary.  I just feel you are a little too volatile to be given the tools again at this time.
'''Oppose''', for similar reasons to the majority of the above (and esp. per Friday). Majorly's a decent guy, but I'm alarmed at the number of comments by him that raise the drama level of the surrounding discussion. I'm also seeing little improvement since the RfC. If he could rectify his approach to meta discussions, I'd probably be inclined to support what with Majorly's record as a diligent and competent editor; but definitely not now.
'''Reluctant oppose''' due to a foul interation on ANI where he basically told me my opinion wasn't welcome in a banning discussion when I disagreed with him. Since other behavioural problems have been evidenced here I can't believe this was just a slip of the tongue.  This is a shame because Majorly has excellent answers to the questions and has a firm grasp of the magnitude of the BLP situation while being levelheaded enough not to support foolhardy measures aimed at protecting them. '''
'''Oppose''' There are several considerable points, which do prevent me from supporting. <br> Firstly, Majorly should learn that other users may have feelings that can be hurt by his harsh comments. Generally speaking, Majorly is quite quick with judging, especially on people; for instance: “''[...] his blatant deceiving of the community; his abusing sockpuppeting; his COI voting as an arbitrator.''” ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=291905827 diff]). <br> Secondly, he should treat others, especially those he dislikes, in a more respectful way; exempli gratia, Majorly regularly calls others [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech/RFAreason&diff=prev&oldid=288352243 trolls]. <br> An even more important point is that accusing others of sockpuppetry (whilst those claims are absolutely baseless) is entirely inacceptable — especially considering Majorly’s own, long history of sockpuppetry. Two examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=next&oldid=288306390 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2&diff=prev&oldid=282554092 2]. <br> Also, Majorly’s [http://wikipediareview.com/ WR] contributions are indeed worrying; apart from the examples named already above by others, another few instances: (1) Suggests I would “''sound like a kid.''” ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23332&st=20 link]); (2) “''Aitias has barely done anything useful in the long term.''” ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23332&st=60 link]); (3) “''Luckily he's lost the little credibility he had completely, and people just look at him [comment: him = Aitias] as a bitter troll.''” ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23332&st=60 link]) <br> Furthermore, Majorly should stop to abuse rollback — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2&diff=282661693&oldid=282661573 this] is an insolence and unbecoming to an administrator. <br> Finally, I have no doubt he'd abuse the tools straigt away, cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DougsTech&diff=next&oldid=288306390]: “''The only "bastards" around here are sockpuppets like Hammersoft, and game players like DougsTech. It's a disgrace such people are tolerated here. <u> Nothing I can do about it though unfortunately</u>.''” (comment: underlining by me, not by Majorly). <br> Taking all these points into account, I cannot trust Majorly and thus, I have to oppose. —
'''Oppose''': erratic, bad attitude.
'''Oppose'''.  Rude, incivil, and throws fits when people state reasonable disagreements with him.  Has openly stated that he wishes to ban editors with opinions he dislikes from RFA.
'''Oppose'''.  In my experience, his continuation of disputes past the point when a reasonable person would disengage goes beyond what I find acceptable in an admin.--<i><font color="#9966FF">
'''Oppose'''. My view is one person, one account. I don't like the thought of a potential future SSP report of mine being handled by someone who has used multiple accounts him/herself. Sorry.
'''Oppose''': Majorly has not, in my opinion, got the kind of temperament that is expected, and required, in an administrator, the insults listed by Pastor Theo (1st oppose) are blatant evidence of this, sorry
'''Oppose''': I have no inclination to award power or authority to anyone who appears not to understand that other people have rights.
'''Oppose''' - I like you, but I can't support you, per diffs on incivility presented by Pastor Theo, Hammersoft, and Aitias, as well as issues with  drama, temperament, off-site conduct, etc etc. I can't, in confidence, support you, when I know that it's possible you will '''snap''' at a perhaps new editor, and drive them away from Wikipedia. Sorry. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Oppose''' Desysoped, not sure editor needs privileges again. '''{{#if:[[user:mynameinc|my]][[user talk:mynameinc|name]][[special:contributions/mynameinc|inc]]|<span style="background-color:orange;color:;">
'''Oppose'''. As I've said before on an RFC pertaining to a well-known admin, in my view there is ''never an excuse for an admin to insult a user''. Retaliation and responding in kind? no. Putting down tendentious editors? no. I do not accept that if you're provoked first, then it's ok to respond in-kind, which I infer from Majorly's answers is his rationale. Especially troubling is that Majorly insulted an already blocked user on that user's talk page as recently as three weeks ago &ndash; this, to my mind, indicates definitely that he still has temperament issues. Admins should exemplify the very best conduct for the wider community as a whole and, on that count alone, I don't believe that restoring his adminship is desirable, for the present. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. I'm incivility-intolerant. Apparently, a recurring issue with the candidate. — '''''
Too much drama --
'''Oppose'''.  The answer to Question 22 suggests that Majorly still does not have the patience or temperment to properly execute adminship duties. <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Defensive, argumentative, rude. The diffs Hammersoft and Pastor Theo provided are good examples. I can overlook the odd outburst, we're all human, but this is way too much. Every admin that resigns under a cloud should show ''outstanding'' behaviour before (s)he gets the bit back. Majorly hasn't.
'''Oppose''' - seems to be plagued by frequent outbursts, and reading responses to oppose comments which follow the theme of "sorry about that" isn't encouraging. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Oppose''' - constantly gets involved in drama, overreacts to minor issues, inflames situations. Essentially; per arbcom. <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:90%;'>~
'''Neutral''' per Dylan620 and Pastor Theo. Great user, but the civility issues are concerning. '''''
The trip hasn't been long enough to see enough of the baggage fall out of the boot yet.
'''Regretful Neutral''' I really appreciate Majorly's dedication and work here, so I regret that I cannot support this request. The various comments he made (as shown by multiple diffs here now) paint the picture of an user who means well but repeatedly uses language that he should know can be seen as attacking. For example, he is using words like "troll" to describe someone whose behavior might seem tiresome but is perfectly legitimate and he should know better than doing so. While the concerns of abuse from the previous RFC seem rectified, these concerns still exist in his day-to-day behavior on this project and they really need to be addressed if he wants to be a good admin. Adminship is after all not only about skills and knowledge but also about patience to deal with any user in a polite and controlled way. Unfortunately, when it comes to some users, his language does not express the capability to be able to do so; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friday&diff=prev&oldid=284649230 comment to Friday] (mentioned in oppose #1) is a perfect example. While the comment is certainly correct with regards to content (Friday did indeed ignore consensus in this case and abuse his admin tools to do so and it's not the only time when Friday's use of the mop has been described as problematic) contained unneeded aggressive language ("constantly (...) causing a fuss", "poor admin", "launching (...) into drama") that was unlikely to sway Friday to really consider Majorly's request, i.e. to consider his admin behavior and take the necessary steps. Majorly really needs to control his language in order to be an effective admin and as I do not see any indication for that, I fear that I cannot support him at this time. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' &mdash; Some have pointed out above that Majorly, at least in their opinions, is dramatic, but even if that's the case, I think that there's sufficient precedent in RfA that "teh dramaz," alone, aren't enough of a reason to bar someone from regaining a bit they've resigned voluntarily. <br/>However, I ''highly'' agree with one thing, in particular, that {{User|Sluzzelin}} mentioned and that others echoed here: "...[Majorly's] lack of self-censorship when [he's] angry."  That cannot be over-emphasized enough as a very serious concern of mine, as well. For example, one of the most important qualities of being an admin&mdash;arguably ''the'' most important quality&mdash;is being able to translate the phrase that our subconscious might want to say into something that someone else's subconscious will be okay with hearing.  That is, as a pure hypothetical, a good admin should be able to turn something like "you're wrong, so deal with it or gtfo" into "I think that in this situation your actions could be seen as contradicting policy x," because the former is The Wrong Answer&trade; and will only exacerbate conflict.  ''That said'' I think that if Majorly decides to follow [[User:Slakr/Admin coaching|my general admin coaching advice]] as well as approach on-wiki interactions with a professional demeanor as he claims he'll do in this RfA, then things might be ok.  Apart from that, I defer to everyone else.<br/>--
Good guy, but there are a few civility concerns preventing me from supporting. '''
I have certainly seen some good stuff from Majorly, but some concerns brought up prevent me from supporting as of yet. I will give it a good think about.
A quote which I find as a perfect rationale for my Neutral: "A total dramamongerer, and would probably be disasterous as an admin. But I have had numerous pleasant encounters, so no need to pile on. I think he knew how this would go anyway." :)
I am fairly certain that Majorly would know the tools, but I've little trust in his ability to remain civil, per the many diffs already brought. --
Spent some time thinking about this and think I'd support at a later time if mellows out a bit more.  I found what little interaction I had with you to be a net positive for certain, but issues raised by others concern me.
While Majorly certainly has the ability and know-how, his temperament is perhaps no longer suited to a Wikipedia administrator.
I don't feel I'm able to give an objective view, so I shall refrain from any further comment, but I wish Alex all the best however this goes.
I really want to support, I like Majorly and think that he brings a tremendous amount to this project.  I am also a fan of making it easier to move in and out of adminship.  Unfortunately, while I would like to see him regain the bit, the opposition raises too many valid concerns from the recent past.  I wanted to overlook them, but if I did so it would be for the wrong reasons.  I won't oppose, but I've decided that I can't support at this juncture.---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)  EDIT:  I should note, and I've said this before, to Majorly in fact, being an admin is not about passing an RfA it is about attitude and respect.  I think most people who have supported you have done so because they see you as an admin but are cautious because of your temper, and I think most people who oppose you acknowledge the fact that you are a hell of an asset and often act like an admin.  Your contributions are appreciated by most on both sides of the aisle, you do act like an admin, unfortunately, you get caught up in your crusades.  Take a step back and realize that this is just a stupid project.  Not everybody is going to agree with you and no single decision that we are involved in will bring this place down.  NOTHING that happens here is in the end all that important.  Just continue to act like an admin and most people will think you are an admin---albeit with some temperment issues.---'''
''Good Granny!'' I can't Oppose anyone who confesses his faults so clearly and humbly, but can't Support someone with such a storied history... this RfA is running much more to the Support side than I would have expected (Malleus? is that you I see up there, buddy?), though it still might fail... so if it fails, you can try again in a few more months. Please do prove to us that as an admin you won't lay low a few months then start slapping people around again. I love happy endings.
Oppose per civility and drama issues, support per Ling.Nut's notes and the answer to Q9c. Torn right now as a result.
Many reasons I see to support, and many to oppose. Answer to my questions may sway my opinion. <small><span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
Sorry, I think you have the necessary experience and clue to be an admin, but I'm not convinced you have the necessary tact/decorum. I would probably oppose, but from reading some of the other oppose comments, I'd rather not be associated with them. <font face="Broadway">
I've had good experiences, but the civility issues worry me. '''
raised Eyebrow over communities concerns to civilaty, but maybe.....
Moved from oppose.
'''Moral support''' - You are obviously a good faith editor, and a good contributor, too. If you become more active and get a few thousand more edits, this process will no doubt go more swimmingly the next time. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
While I appreciate that you've been here for over a year, I don't like the frequency of your editing. 25 edits in April, 16 in March, that's less than 1 edit a day. I prefer to see admins be more active than that (especially anti-vandal admins). In addition, you just picked up anti-vandal work earlier this month, and I'd like to see a bit more time with it before you get the block button. Keep working, and stay active, and I'll support you in the future.
I want to support, but if there's one type of admin that worries me, it's an inactive one.
I closed your last RFA per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and I'm afraid that still applies. On the plus side I like [[User:Manadude2/CSD]] and your counter vandal work. On the negatives I don't see any real main space work, your editing is sporadic as noted above (not a big deal - this is free labour after all) and your overal edit history is insifficent for me to get a handle on your abilities in terms of policy. I'm sorry but this is far too premature. As an aside, the personal information on your user page would be better off gone - trust me on that. Good luck, and best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.
'''Oppose''' Per above, maybe next time.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Oppose''' Maybe after a few months of work and a few thousand more edits.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Oppose''' Concerns about lack of activity and experience. '''
Not really active enough.
'''Moral support''' - Great editor and a user who I respect, but the concerns below hold too much weight for me to consider offering a "real" support. I definitely see the potential in you, though; have you considered pursuing [[WP:ADCO|admin coaching]]? --'''
Sorry, but I have to oppose. You seem like you know what you're doing around here, and it wouldn't necessarily be "bad" if you're promoted; however, I do have several concerns. What pops out at me the most is the fact that you almost never use edit summaries. Obviously there are more important things to worry about, but I'm of the opinion that admins should use edit summaries where appropriate. After scanning through your contributions (which seem alarmingly dominated by userspace edits), I checked your block log, which led me to [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mario1987|this]]. I'm not familiar with that particular case, so perhaps I'm not getting the full story, but sockpuppetry is a serious issue. I do appreciate that you've been contributing for a year and a half without any similar issues however. In addition, your answers here aren't particularly satisfying; for example, referring to people as "hard headed" is not appropriate. Also, while {{tl|cookie}}'s are nice, they aren't really relevant to the dispute resolution process. I'm open to being persuaded, though, so please inform me if I'm in any way incorrect. –'''
'''Sorry'''. Looking at your contributions, I just don't see much involvement in any of the admin areas you said you intended to work on. Also, I would strongly suggest you start using [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]] when editing, it helps other people know what you're doing without looking at the diffs each time. And also, even though it was a long time ago, having been indefinitely blocked for abusing [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mario1987|sockpuppet accounts]] is a pretty ugly thing to have in your past. At the very least you could have mentioned it in your nomination statement.
'''Oppose''' As you Mario1987 said he'd be prepared to delete files and articles, I looked at some of his contributions to deletion discussions. The only one I could [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Mario1987&namespace=4 find] is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign football players in Vyscha Liha]]; for someone who states their intent to use the delete button and to close AfDs, this is not enough experience to prove familiarity with deletion policy. Mario1987's intentions seem to be honest, but I don't think he's got enough experience in the areas he wants to work in.
'''Oppose''' per above.  You certainly have the potential to become a good sysop but the issues noted above are absolutely causes for concern.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' These issues that have been raised now prevent me from supporting you. Sorry. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
Sorry, but issues with sockpuppets are concerning. Especially when you haven't disclosed the matter in your RFA. Sure, it was over a year ago, but being open and honest is important. Sorrry. <font face="Forte">
'''Moral Support''' Was given a second chance, has improved since then and I will give my full support if you can continue to be productive and run again in ~6 months. I'm going to stay neutral to avoid unnecessary piling on.
'''Moral Support''', I think you can be a fine admin, and I hope you take the points raised in the Oppose section constructively.  Would be very happy to support you in the future if you do this.
'''Strong Neutral''' Get yerself some admin coaching, kid.
'''Support'''.  Nearly six years on the project, which is pretty amazing.  Personally, I think 2200 edits is plenty, and I've seen RfAs pass with less than that.  35 AIV reports, showing a good effort in the anti-vandal category and a knowledge of the blocking policy, etc.  Not the most active editor I've ever seen on an average edits per day basis, but I see nothing that concerns me or suggests possible misuse of the tools.  Recently joined the [[Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron|Article Rescue Squadron]] which is nice to see, and he managed to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue sky science|save an article]], showing policy knowledge.  In short, there are no red flags here and I believe it will be a net positive for the project.
'''Throwback Jersey Suppport''' I see where Markhurd is coming from on this one. He's been here forever, but works at a pretty low key level. Essentially, an old school editor who meets the old school standards of who can be an admin.
'''Support''' purely to counteract the trivial "oppose" over a perfectly inoffensive userbox.—
One of the old boys, will do well, if he was editing in 2003, he will most certainly be here to contribute to the project, not run around with Huggle or VandalProof and run up a huge edit count/ego* (*Delete as applicable). No editor that has been around for six years should be told to withdraw their RfA by some arrogant little twit either.
'''Support''' Clean block log and enough edits to have sailed through easily in the days when RFA was working properly. Looking at your contributions I like the mix of gnomish improvements and vandalfighting, though I would have preferred to see a bit more use of the templates at [[wp:WARN]] to warn vandals. Yes there is a temptation for like myself who've been here far less time but racked up rather more edits to oppose out of editcountitis; but lets ask ourselves is this chap committed, civil, clueful, trustworthy and experienced? Obviously yes and therefore has my support. ''
Yes, definitely. Markhurd has been around for six years now, and clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. He/she has accumulated over 2,000 edits manually, and is here to build an encyclopedia. What's not to like? Even if they're not the most active editor, providing this user with the tools will be a net benefit to Wikipedia. Do I trust Markhurd to handle the tools responsibly? Yes. –'''
Clearly has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, and very unlikely to go mental at this point. I'd have no problem giving this user access to admin tools, the distinct lack of drama is nice and the contributions speak of someone who's mature and competent. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Per above. <font color="navy">
'''Support'''  —
Absolutely, per Cool3 and Nick. An editor with six years' experience is being told that he doesn't have enough experience and should withdraw? That boggles my mind. An editor that's been around for that long obviously knows what the project's about, clearly isn't going to break anything, and has ''more'' than enough tenure to be trusted with some extra buttons.
'''Support''' 6 years is plenty of experience, regardless of the edit count. I don't see any indication that this user will misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support''': Seems to know his way around the place, doesn't seem like the sort to delete the main page. --
'''Support'''. Hell yes.
'''Support''' Impressive duration of service. WikiGnome that does tasks that keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - we don't require a minimum level of activity from administrators, and nor should we. Markhurd may not have as many edits as might be expected for someone who's been here as long as he has, but his length of service itself is evidence of his good intentions and dedication to the project. I for one wouldn't care if he only uses the tools once a year - that's still once more than we would get if he wasn't promoted to admin.
'''Support''' Seems fine. Good luck to you. -
'''Support''' mainly along the same lines as Robofish. There is absolutely no valid or non-trivial reason to oppose this nomination (other than editcountitis). The editor appears to know the project and is unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Yes, Markhurd may not be the most active editor, but after over 5 years surely enough experience has been gained. '''
Having met Mark in person I can say that he is thoroughly competent, friendly, possesses good judgement, and is fully engaged with all aspects of the project despite his low edit count (a frankly ridiculous requirement). I doubt he'll make a super-admin, but he'll be more than fine with the extra tools. ~
'''Support''' - Hiberniantears sums it up beautifully: "an old school editor who meets the old school standards of who can be an admin". I couldn't agree more. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Robofish hits the nail on the head.
Per Riana
'''Support''' per Robofish.  He clearly has the interest of the project in mind, I see no reasons not to trust him with admin tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools, His edit count is more than enough! -
'''Support''' I have no worries, clearly a person who can be trusted.  --
'''Support'''
I see 2272 edits in 6 years as a good thing.  It shows me that Markhurd cares about Wikipedia enough to stick around for the long haul, but that his priorities are such that he is unlikely to turn into a power-hungry politician.  It seems to me perhaps we'd be better off with a few more calm, mature, committed, capable admins who ''don't'' eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia.  Any concerns I might have about "trust", or lack of policy knowledge, are satisfied by Riana's vouching for him in real life. I see no red flags reviewing his contributions, so why not? --
'''Support''' - Has shown long-term attachment to the project, and his edits suggest he's someone we can trust.
'''Strong support'''
I really don't see any indication that Markhurd would abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' This user's moniker is familiar to me, but I can't figure out where I have encountered him. In any event, his long record is one of careful work, giving confidence that he would use the tools responsibly. The only possible reservation is that it is not clear that he would do very much with the tools, given his customary low level of activity. --
'''Support''' Seems ok to me. Even if the tools are rarely used, can't see them being misused by this editor. Six trouble-free wikipedia years, even with intermittent use, don't weigh lightly on an editor. --
'''Support'''.  In September, 2003, Wikipedia's first request of Mark was to stick around, and he has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markhurd&diff=6468834&oldid=1431465].  His
'''Support''' I've looked over this RFA and gone through several pages of Mark's contributions several times, because several of the opposes were quite compelling. However, I've come to the conclusion that I really should support this candidate. He's been here for nearly 6 years, never been blocked, and nobody has been able to find any instance of him harming Wikipedia or causing drama. On the contrary, I see six years of him helping out in varying ways to articles as he comes across them, doing a lot of [[WP:Wikignome|gnome]] work, as well as patrolling for vandalism. And contrary to the oppose regarding lack of policy knowledge, that shouldn't be a concern with this candidate in my opinion. He hasn't done anything here so far (that I can find) that indicates a reckless individual, so I trust that he'll also be careful and thoughtful in not jumping right into administrative areas he's previously been unfamiliar with, instead sticking with what he knows for now and learning the areas he doesn't. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' Userbox showing "GOD" crossed out is not indicative of a friendly and tolerant user.
No doubt I will be accused of "editcountitis", but I really don't think that 2,272 total edits to 1,413 articles, with no article being edited more than 10 times, is sufficient experience of what this project is supposed to be about. --
'''Oppose''' I commend you for your consistent contributions to articles over a very long period of time. However, I oppose this request for several reasons. First, your article work has not been assessed by other users, as far as I can tell. Your contributions have been spread out over so many articles that I cannot determine if you are familiar with any of our content guidelines. I recommend focusing on one article and submitting it at [[WP:GAN]] and/or [[WP:FAC]]. Second, you have participated in very few discussions, which makes it difficult to tell if you will be able to keep a level head in the conflicts you will eventually get into through the use of admin tools. <s>Third, you have said you want to close XfDs, but I don't see much experience with complex cases in this area.</s> I think you should work on the areas I described above, and file another request in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Self nom statement comes off as arrogant.--
'''Oppose''' Per Giant27. Suggest closure, as this RFA is not likely to pass. Sorry.
Insufficient article writing experience, insufficient experience in admin areas and insufficient communication with other editors for me to support (i.e. you're a gnome). May support in a few months time when you have more experience (I mean experience through editing, not time).--
'''Tentative oppose''' - I concur that the self-nom comes across as being arrogant -- but my main worry is the answer to Q3. I dislike the connotation that it must always be the other person with a problem, and the vagueness of the response. The former issue is a problem that hits home to me personally, and the latter for me may be some sort of subconscious inference, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Either way, I am mostly opposing lack of provided evidence of relevant experience. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Needs much more experience and knowledge of policies.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose'''.  Other than [[WP:AIV]], the most edits he has to any project page or project talk page is 4 ... less than one per year.  Maybe he's a big reader and doesn't write much, but I need more evidence of connection to Wikipedia. - Dan
'''Oppose''' He doesn't seem to have much experience in article building or the Wikipedia namespace; it's not enough to convince me he'd use the tools correctly.
'''Oppose''' Per neuro mostly.  The answer to Q3 is worrying... waiting a day isn't really sufficient to solve all problems.  In fact, waiting rather than taking leadership to resolve an issue quickly can do more harm than good.  I'm also a bit concerned at how far the edits have been spread out.  2,272 edits I think is plenty to apply for adminship, but that's over six years and spread very thin.  This plus not a lot of experience in admin areas gives me some pause for concern, I'm afraid.  If your involvement goes up a bit, I don't see why you wouldn't pass in the future. '''
'''Oppose''', mainly per {{user|Dank55}}, {{user|Timmeh}}, {{user|Patton123}}, and {{user|Wronkiew}}. '''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience, as outlined above.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
Your activity level is very low. Your rate of being around seems very arbitrary. I do not see any long term devotion to any page, nor any activity that puts you out there long enough to have involved yourself in any discussions/disputes for the positive or negative. To be blunt, you've been here since 03 but you have the stats of someone who has been here for 5 months. It is a sad irony, but not now is the most appropriate thing. A month or two devoted to some major work, some topic areas, anything. You've had 35 edits to Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and your second most edits to a Wiki area was an RfA [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Markhurd&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia per this]. Work on a few articles, involve yourself in some areas more instead of just one or two posts, and actually involve yourself in complicated matters. Admin need experience, not just time.
'''Oppose''' FlyingToaster and neuro pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I share the same concerns about how you would approach a situation of conflict. Administrators are often consulted for third opinions about conflicts or often have to resolve conflicts of their own and your "hands off" approach isn't a good way to solve any issues. While I do commend you for being part of wikipedia for over six years, your sporadic editing may not work out for adminship. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Oppose'''. I can't trust the candidate with the tools given the low amount of edits. I don't have enough data to see where they'll best use it.--
'''Oppose''' - per Malleus Fatuorum and Ottava Rima. More article work is needed.
'''Oppose''' - after reviewing contributions and reading the nomination I felt there was little to make a judgement on. Very minor article edits, and little consensus building. I don't feel I am seeing a community member here - I see a stranger who makes a few minor edits to the encyclopedia. I need something more to go on. A more convincing nomination statement or fuller answers to the questions would help. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose'''. Not ready. Hasn't cited anything specific with regard to his work on Wikipedia, and his answers to the questions are vague and unsatisfactory. Don't worry though. My first RFA failed, and the only thing you can do is learn from the comments here (except those people who say that self noms are arrogant. They have no idea what they're talking about).
'''Oppose''' per answer to #4. There are perfectly acceptable things that aren't codified in policy or guidelines. Moreover, some policies and guidelines may be overridden by common sense and [[WP:IAR|appropriate policy]]. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Oppose''' not enough experience writing articles and averaging 30 edits per month over the 6 years of experience would likely be the lowest among all active admins (and, yes, there are many things you can only learn by doing, erring, and trying things).
'''Oppose''' due to poor understanding of non-free content policy.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough evidence over the past six years as to how he would handle himself as an admin. There is nothing wrong with an editor only having some 2500(aprox) edits in six years. However, I like to have more than that to go by before supporting someone for an admin.'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Oppose''' 2,272 total edits is an extremely low edit count for somebody who has been here a year let alone 6 years. There is something wrong with this. A reader rather than a major contributor? Thats fine but not admin material.
'''Oppose''' The user doesn't seem to have a grasp on everything needed to be an administrator. Even though he's been here for quite a while, I just cannot see evidence of knowledge of admin areas. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose.''' I don't want to sound like I'm advocating Mark getting into conflicts/disputes, but I'd rather see an admin who has at least ''some'' experience handling disputes (ref. Q3). <span style="color:#808080">
'''Oppose''' per nomination statement and extremely low edits-to-time here ratio.
'''Neutral''' I'm not so sure about this. [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum's]] comments above are rather convincing: Markhurd doesn't have a lot of edits. Normally, this is not a good reason for saying no, but look at it this way: ''this user has been here since 2003''. Divide 2272 edits by 6 years and we get about 380 edits per year. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like Markhurd has been that involved with the project. He has preformed almost no page moves ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Markhurd see]), and after 6 years, still has a [[User_talk:Markhurd|very small talk page]]. The fact that he's an atheist doesn't matter to me, honestly. I don't see any real indication that he ''needs'' the tools&mdash; his tasks don't seem to require them; they deal with different types of editing&mdash; but I can trust him. So, I'm undecided. <span style="color:#008800">The</span> <span style="color:#004400">Earwig</span> <span style="font-family:Verdana"><sup>(
'''Neutral''' I personally think that the current RfA standards are far too high, so I can't oppose your nomination; however, I am a bit hesitant to support, per the above neutral and opposes. Sorry, <font face="Georgia">
'''Neutral''' I believe Markhurd has good intentions and done some great work for the project.  However, I find the dearth of experience a bit unsettling. Perhaps in a few months and more experience, I would be happy to support.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Leaning toward support''': I agree, too, that the [[WP:DEAL|RfA standards]] have risen to astronomical levels per [[WP:Requests for adminship/Bearcat|this RfA]] from March of 2004. His [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Markhurd&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia edit count] is minimally concerning to me. However, the lackluster answers are keeping me from a full support. But I am quite certain that the server won't fail and he won't abuse the tools if he were to make it. On the fence but knees pointing toward support.--
'''Neutral''' Per earwig. The lack of activity on the talk page, among other things, keeps me from a support. We need administrators that have experience interacting in the community.
'''Neutral''' An abnormally low edit count for an editor with six years of experience is the only thing that prevents me from offering support.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to support someone who's been here as long as Mark.  I admire his self-confidence in his programming abilities, and appreciate that he's done a little vandal fighting.  But I just can't find enough material to judge his knowledge of policy and guidelines in his edits.  If there were even an article or two that he contributed to in a major way, but the only double-digit editing other than his own user-space is a list.  I certainly won't oppose, but I just can't find enough of anything to support either. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Leaning Towards Oppose''' The most edits to a single article was 11 to [[List of Australian television series]]? I'm not so sure...--
'''Neutral''' Moved from support after I considered the generally poor answers to questions.
'''Neutral.''' Markhurd is definitely a fine editor, but his answers to questions point out that he's "out of the loop" and devoting time to do 2,000 edits in six years is fairly low for someone who intends to enforce policies of Wikipedia. —
I would like to support you, but I am unsure you have been as active recently as I would like.  Policies are continuously changing, and if you are away from Wikipedia for too long (or are not active enough), problems will arise through lack of current knowledge.  If you could remain active for about six further months I would definitely support you, but I do not think you are ready as of now. <font  face="georgia">'''
While I applaud the user's longevity, that is not sufficient basis to grant adminship. 2300 edits is marginal in terms of experience, and over 6 years policy and interpretation of policy can change. I would like to see more than 35 edits to AIV and 12 edits to AFD, and more CSD taggings. Answer 2 confirms the impression of Wikignoming. I value wikignoming, but I would like to see greater activity levels all across the board.  Oh, and yes, let's do please leave his  God userbox out of the equation. If there is evidence of his relationship with God, or lack thereof encumbering his judgment or biasing his decision-making, that would be  a valid concern.  For now, I need a stronger indication either way. Cheers,
Looks alright to me.
'''Weak support''' &mdash; Doesn't appear likely to abuse the tools, and I appreciate the honesty he displays in his nomination statement. I cannot find any particularly salient references to suggest this user does not have a decent understanding of policy; the only concern I found in my (somewhat brief) glance at his contributions to [[WP:AfD]] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Baghdad_police_recruitment_centre_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=277113525 this], where he argues that the article in question is notable simply because "it is in the news" - not necessarily, unless it is a particularly significant event (see [[WP:NOTNEWS]]). [[WP:AIV]] work looks good. I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments with regards to this editor's suitability for adminship. I would, however, like to advice MathCool remembers to avoid labelling criticisms of his work as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]].
Sorry, but I'm afraid I must oppose. The first thing I notice is that 36.63% of your contributions consist of userspace edits, while the mainspace only accounts for 22.05% of your editing career. Your user talk: percentage is also unusually high. I see very little experience in the way of article-writing; in fact, I had to dig rather deep into [[Special:Contributions/MathCool10]] to find a substantial mainspace contribution, and even then I was unable to find any content additions. Also, a quick glance at your recent talk page archives reveals primarily cookies/smiles, with little evidence of collaborative editing. While it seems you have good intentions, you have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Best, &ndash;
'''Oppose''' I have to say that I'm changing my vote to oppose.  Although I am a friend of MathCool10, I would have to say I would not normally support another user of the same contributions yet.  In addition, most of MathCool10's edits are to the userspace, and less than 25% are to articles.  I would also like to add that some of MathCool10's recent edits and their summaries are "bad", for example, here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMathCool10&diff=271484296&oldid=271469560]  Firstly, my reminder about not editing others' comments was not unjustified, as MC had been editing other users' comments on my talk page.  In addition, MathCool was butting against me about bad use of Huggle and AWB the first days I had started using the tools, even after other editors had also told me about them.  ''(See [[User talk:Download/Archives/2009/February]].)'' Also, MathCool10 has just stated "''stop attacking me with my edits; I was just giving a suggestion''", basically saying that bringing up matters of his bad edits is an attack.  Finally, I know this user in real life.  He has good intentions, but will use the tools for personal reasons and is immature.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose''' Opening an RFA and announcing you won't be available to discuss anything the first day of it indicates your perspective here might be a little off.  You could have just waited a couple days to open the RFA.  And your AFD contributions, which were largely of the "vote" rather than "discuss" variety in the spot checking I did, indicate you're still a little inexperienced yet.  Keep at it though, and thanks for volunteering to help out in this role.
'''Oppose'''. Per Download. Removing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMathCool10&diff=271484296&oldid=271469560 reminders/warnings] and leaving an edit summary of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|WP:NPA]]? Either the user doesn't understand the policy or used it for… well, I don't really know. And to add, I don't see much experience in the admin areas the candidate plans to work in. The candidate only has eighteen edits in both [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|WP:RPP]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|WP:AIV]], which doesn't significantly prove that the user has much expereince.
'''Strong oppose''' - Dislike his attitude when saying Download 'had a grudge against him' with absolutely no evidence presented, which would appear to be nothing less than an assumption of bad faith and an inappropriate statement. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMathCool10&diff=271484296&oldid=271469560 This] is ridiculous too, and I am inclined to say that you are, if not ''were'' a rather over-social character. I'm not usually one for content creation, but at least some editing to the mainspace is a want for me, unless it is superseded by other points in priority. So, in a nutshell, I dislike the way you interacted with Download, I think your policy knowledge is off - it would have to be to think that templated warnings were personal attacks, and I need more time to see that you are not still in that 'phase', if you like. To be fair, it just seems like the whole thing between you and Download is a bit over the top and full of assumptions of bad faith, which is something which I would certainly not like to see from a prospective administrator. No prejudice towards further RfAs, but this one is clearly not at the right time. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - per no consistent pattern of editing, almost no significant article contributions (yes, specialisation as good, but I'd like to see some evidence of serious building; a GA or two would be good), and per neuro above. More alarmingly, [[User:Download|download]] demonstrated above that he has no grudge (''"Don't be sorry about spreading WikiLove. It's a great thing to take your time to do..."..), and was accused of holding a grudge half an hour later. Sorry. Give it six months, work on getting at least one article from nothing or stub to GA, and basically just focus on mainspace. //
MathCool has the best of intentions. I've also seen evidence that {{gender:MathCool10|he|she|he/she}}'s pretty good at template coding. But {{gender:MathCool10|he|she|he/she}}'s not ready for this yet. And I think Download should consider taking a step back from this RfA. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a good editor, but does not seem to have enough edits to articles in the mainspace(in my humble opinion).'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Oppose''' Too few article edits.--
'''Neutral''' Sorry, just not enough time.
'''Support''' Seems qualified.  Think his answer to question 1 is a little too staged, but not unreasonable.--
'''Support'''.  No problems.  --
'''Support'''...I've had this redlink watchlisted for a while, and am pleased that it has finally turned blue. I don't hesitate to support - he's sensible, level-headed, has shown excellent knowledge of wide-ranging areas of policy, and his having the tools will be a great positive to the encyclopaedia. <sub>
'''Support''' Appears to be a good user
'''Support''' He's been here a while, has extra user rights, excellent edit summary usage. Effective clerking. Looks deliberate and careful. I think he would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' I take offense to the neutral because I myself am not a big content builder but I still feel as though, I am improving the encyclopedia, in my own way. And clearly Mayalld's way is removing the garbage vandalizers put on, so '''he is''' building the encyclopedia, but differently than others.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
Support per sound nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruft portal]] and reasonable argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Nene River Clubs (2nd nomination)]], but oppose per weak argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination)]], but candidate has never been blocked, so, 2 to 1 for AfD participation and meets item 1 on [[User:A_Nobody#Positives]].  So weak '''support'''.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' since there is no user conduct reasons to oppose for, although I would recommend familarize yourself with administrative tasks first though before submitting a request for RfA again, they should be pretty straightforward and I don't think you should have trouble getting used to them. If you wish to work in the deletion area, my suggestion is, participate in AfD's, or at least, look at them, and see how they are closed by other administrators, you can learn a lot just by reading those debates.
The people opposing have a valid point about CSD work; a refresher seems to be in order.  But there's a lot of piling on going on now, to an on-the-whole helpful, conscientious, solid contributer.  More than 100 reports to AIV, helpful at WP:SSP and WP:SPI, no other red flags besides CSD... Mayalld is much closer to adminship than the current support/oppose ratio implies, so I'm doing my tiny part to counteract that discrepancy. --
'''Support''' mostly per barneca, but also because I like the honesty in Q4. &raquo;
'''Support''', most of the opposition below concentrates on your speedy work, which is, I'll admit, pretty poor.  That said, if you commit to approaching speedy deletion as a two-editor operation, the potential for harm is minimised.  Just lighten up with <nowiki>{{db-spam}}</nowiki>.
'''Support''' - switched from Oppose, per answer to Q7. I'm supporting Mayalld on the trust of his answer to that question, that he does not use his admin tools for deletion, as he hasn't demonstrated proper knowledge of deletion rationales. However, I feel he could be a productive admin as long as he keeps to other areas.
'''Support''' candidate has tenure a clean block log and seems to know his way around this place. The opposes raise some concerns but I'm largely reassured by the candidates statements on deletionism. '''
'''Support''' Candidate has assuaged my concerns; see Question 7 and my comments in the [[#Neutral]] section.--
'''Moral Support''' —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''', per Q7 answer. You're a great admin candidate apart from your rather-too-regular CSD flailings. If you avoid doing any of that I think you'd be a great addition - regular admin attention in the other areas you work in (particularly [[WP:SSP]]) is much needed. I trust your intentions and your honesty, and the only worry I have about your judgment comes in the area of deletion. Without that, you have my full support. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', partially to balance out some incredibly stupid opposes (taking issue with his stated refusal to beat dead horses? '''Really?'''), partially because I believe that any contributor who would be driven from the project by the incorrect speedy of their article is a bit too histronic to be devoting time and/or energies towards, partially per Q4.
'''Support'''.  Hmm. Interesting diffs in the CSD requests.  Your "self-ban" on deletion is fine, but extreme. Probably unnecessary. Maybe do a "several month" self ban, and then revise your deadminship standard.  I think the resounding voice of the opposers below has the potential of making you one of our best and fairest "deletion admins" we have.  I certainly don't see any evidence that you would act rashly with any of the tools.  That aside, I like the tactful way in which you are handling yourself in this rfa, and I choose to believe that this is your true demeanor, which seems calm, comfortable, and grounded in a logic approach to your editing strengths and weaknesses.  I don't have a problem with you joining the admin group.
'''Support''' - obviously. Calm and collected in the face of seeming intractable disputes, you know your limitations and will stay away from deletion. Unfortunately it looks like this won't succeed, but it ''should'' succeed, and that it won't is yet another indictment of the RFA process. //
Per Roux, whose phrase about calm and collected explains my views well. It is a pity that this won't pass, for your self-limitations are admirable. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' A good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Yesterday I screwed up a speedy delete. I've had the mop since 2007, and I've been editing since 2005. It happens. When approached by another editor to undo the deletion, I complied, before we both eventually realized that I deleted a page which could have been deleted, or could have simply been moved. So in the end, I deleted a page that should have been deleted, by I used the wrong criteria, and then overturned by own decision, which would have been correct... I think... ah never mind... still trying to figure out exactly what I did. The point I'm trying to make is that admins make mistakes because they also happen to be humans (unless they happen to be a bot, or a bot-human hybrid). A good admin is someone who is willing to take the advice of other editors. I think that Mayalld has reasonably expressed an intent to look before leaping, and Mayalld's overall history doesn't give me the impression that we cannot trust them. The criticism in this RfA is good, and Mayalld has taken it well, and constructively. That's good, and should shed some light on what type of admin he would be.
'''Support'''. We need more admins who prefer gnomery to drama, and SPI needs all the help it can get. Some speedy taggers are better than others, and I've seen far worse than Mayalld, who seems willing to admit his occasional errors.
'''Support'''. Everything I had wanted to say, has already been said &ndash; an excellent user and a good candidate for the administrator 'bit'.
'''Support'''. Helpful user with good edits.  Out of so many CSDs, everyone misfires a few times.  I'm not worried. <b>'''
'''Very Weak Support'''
'''Moral support''', I hope you'll take the feedback to heart and consider running again once ready :) --
'''Support''' The major objection is your deletion work which is certainly not of the level I'd hope for from an admin. But I'd trust you to uphold your self-imposed ban, and there's no reason checkuser should lose your bit-enabled help because you're not qualified for a separate area (I know XfD/CSD quality can be an indicator of general clue, but it's a correlation not a strict rule, and this feels to me like an exception). Best of luck, and I hope you see this as a positive experience for prompting you to re-evaluate your CSD technique.
Q3. Whether ''deceased equines'' applies to [[User:AndreaMimi]] or anyone else, no buttons from me.
'''Lean Oppose''' - it read more as a desire to be a CU than as an admin, unless I am missing something. Is this merely the first step to that position? I am willing to be convinced that you deserve to be an admin but I am not yet.
'''Oppose'''-Per Oppose #1.-
'''Oppose''' - <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PEER_1&diff=prev&oldid=26590149 Bad Speedy][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PEER_1&diff=prev&oldid=26590149 bad speedy]</s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Christina_Aguilera_B-sides_and_unreleased_songs&diff=prev&oldid=265444165 Bad Speedy (GFDL)][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Wall_Florid&diff=prev&oldid=265289325 Bad Speedy][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_Dev_Phone_1&diff=prev&oldid=264941931 Bad Speedy][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tpad&diff=prev&oldid=264941709 Bad Speedy] - and that's just the last week.  The last thing we need is someone patrolling new pages who doesn't realise that "About a company or product" is not a synonym for "spam".
'''Oppose''' per <s>SoWhy's</s> WilyD's last three diffs. No understanding of how tight the speedy criteria is (and should be) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Sorry, too deletionist.  Lift your right foot.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per WilyD. I was afraid that Mayalld's contributions rarely required any more effort than clicking a button in TWINKLE; WilyD has shown me that sometimes he's not even clicking the appropriate button. His non-TWINKLE contributions have drastically uninformative edit summaries, making them hard to examine even when you can find them. I don't see him communicating much with other users. (Templates don't count -- as an admin, there won't be a template for everything you need to communicate.) In all, these make me conclude that Mayalld is not ready to be an admin.
'''Switch to oppose.''' per Terraxos, Pedro, WilyD  and NVO. Earlier advice stands with greater emphasis. <<Sigh>>.
'''Oppose''' #1 you would kind of need Checkuser for that. #2 - Not impressed. We have enough TWINKLE admins and not enough content admins. '''
'''Oppose''' Makes many mistakes with deletion (I declined a couple of them myself). Overeagerness in deletion can only hurt. Also, per NVO: AndreaMimi was my adoptee, so I might be biased, but I will try to comment objectively on that. AndreaMimi was a newbie who tried to change some articles in her interest. She was aggressive about it, she broke 3RR, she was blocked. She continued as an IP, as many newbies do, being unfamiliar with policy - and got blocked indef for sockpuppeteering. She overreacted, accused him of destroying her hard work - understandable, although I hadn't done it if I were her. But the candidate's reaction was much too harsh on a newbie imho, because he accused her of editing against MoS on purpose ("...editing in an attempt to get a non-MOS version of an article to remain..."). I don't know about you but when I was I newbie, I have had no idea what a "MoS" is or that I was breaking it. I agree that she broke the rules and it was probably correct to block her for it but the way the candidate acted in this case shows me that he does not have the necessary patience to be an admin. I don't want someone with his hand on the block-button who gets so easily annoyed that he might block good editors who just don't understand all the rules yet. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:WilyD]].
'''Oppose''' per #4 & #6 (and gut feeling) --
'''Oppose''' - Per WilyD. Good user, bad tagging, uncomfortable with supporting this particular bid (if you were to come back later though with better tagging and less haste to delete, I would be likely to support). <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Too enthusiastic with speedy deletion per above.
'''Oppose''', but I'd like to encourage the candidate to keep working on deletion skills and try RFA again in 3 months or so. - Dan
While I thought you (Mayalld) were an admin already, WilyD, SoWhy, and Townlake sum it up quite nicely why you aren't one. '''Oppose'''. --<font face="script MT bold">
'''Oppose''' Place on the inclusion/deletion spectrum doesn't bother me but ''in practice'' every CSD patroller should think like a rabid inclusionist.  "two sets of eyes" is absolutely, positively the wrong way to think about this (though I agree that 99% of speedies should see two people).  Both people need to be paying attention and refusing to delete or tag anything strictly outside the categories.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but per WilyD. Sorry.
I'm a pretty strong deletionist at times in my own right, so that's not too big a deal. That being said, the speedy issues, the diffs provided.. I just have an overall bad gut feeling. Believe me, I'm trying hard not to oppose anyone, but I feel like I can't support.
'''Oppose''' per bad speedy tagging.
'''Oppose''' per WilyD, although I think you should contact a member of the "arbitration committee" to request CheckUser, even without adminship.
'''Regretful Oppose'''. I looked at Oppose #4 and I'm not impressed. [[WP:CSD]] is something tooken very seriously in an RfA, especially when I !vote, so that took away my support. However on Question #4, you proved you had a weakness in [[WP:DELETION|deletion]] and '''''YOU''''' said, ''"I tend to let my gut feeling take control when nominating, and it winds some people up, because it leads to some bad calls."'' I don't like that one bit and that took away my neutral. If you don't feel confident about your deletion, don't nominate it. Try again soon! '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' based on question four.
'''Oppose''' – While I do like the analogy used in [[User:Flaming|flaminglawyer]]'s question, I'm afraid that I must oppose per the comments made primarily by [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] and [[User:WilyD|WilyD]].  In order to maintain balance on the project, there must be some "deletionist" mentality as well as some "archivist" mentality; so your position doesn't sway me as a negative per sé.  The primary negative weighting factor is the hastiness involved in making your decisions to include CSD templates.  Should this RfA fail, I do hope that you stay with—and continue to contribute to—the project.  I do wish you a favorable statistical outcome, however.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Oppose''' per the incorrect CSDs shown in the examples by WilyD.
'''Oppose'''. Excessively confrontational, especially against newbies. Excessively deletionist.
'''Oppose'''. Despite Mayalld's pledge not to actively delete pages, he should have a better understanding of deletion criteria.
'''Oppose''' doesn't understand admin stuff, accepted own self-nomination, and User talk:Kenneth Alexander. Admins should know not to do what happened there. ''
Bad deletionist, and mistakes which could be worse as an admin in [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]].
'''Oppose''' due to self-crippling on deletion.
'''Oppose''' per WilyD and SoWhy, among others.
'''Oppose''' per all above, user is too deletionist. —<sub>
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate that Dave has said that he won't work on deletion, but his activities in that area still give an indication of how he would approach other admin tasks. The deletion nominations referenced above show a pretty stubborn insistence on following gut instinct rather than following policies and guidelines agreed by consensus, and in particular the habit of marking neutrally worded articles as spam shows a failure to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], which is one of the most important attributes of a good admin.
'''Oppose''' I understand your comments re deletion, but giving the tools inevitably includes giving the deletion button. If you do not trust yourself to use it, how can we trust you to have it? --<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' Opposers provide good reasoning, but I am not fully convinced.
'''Neutral''' Many convincing opposes (especially WilyD), but I still feel like I shouldn't outright oppose.
'''Neutral''', not even leaning either way. Honestly, those bad CSD's are horrendous. I had a good opinion of the user based upon the Q's, but the CSD things negated it out to a neutral. <font face="terminal">
I would suggest concentrating on brushing up on your speedy deletion taggings for a few months.  When you have improved, you should come back to RFA.  You have the potential to become a great administrator, but your improper taggings are holding you back.  Best of luck. <font  face="georgia">'''
Worried about some of WilyD difs, two of the links were borderline and I myself would have speedied them, (the phone and the [[WP:NEO]] created the same day) but the rest clearly wasn't. Also I prefer article work experience as well, you could always try working on your prose. I'm a poor prose editor (trust me), but I still have a few FAs and GAs under my belt. '''Neutral''', to avoid pile on.
Worried that the user is a little too extreme a deletionist, and I possess concern about the [[User:WilyD|WilyD]] diffs. However, this user is very well meaning and is a good contributor.
... so as not to pile on.  Please feel free to come back after expanding into content creation.  It's pretty clear that consensus is that admins should have enough encryclopedia building experience to have credible empathy with content creators.
Per Jclemens. I also thought you were overly harsh with AndreasMimi. We have to be human beings here, and remember that others are also human beings, even when we disagree with them. --
'''Neutral''' The speedies pointed out by WilyD aren't as problematic as claimed, but some were just wrong. Time to get more experience and then come back.
'''Neutral''' That 'Important Note regarding this RfA' is enough to sway me from opposing, but I still do not feel confident supporting. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Neutral''' I recently became aware of Mayalld as a result of this user's work as a clerk at the new [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]] page. I've also noticed the user's name on a couple of AfDs. My overall impression is favorable, and I believe that a Sockpuppet investigations clerk can be more effective with admin privs, so half of me says "support this request." However, the other half of me notices that most of Mayalld's active involvements are very recent (this might be why it is only recently that I became aware of this user name), and that judgments on article deletions often have been less than fully baked. That second half of me thinks that the user would make a better admin if given a little more time in harness. --
'''Neutral''' I'm not so sure about this user...like many said Mayalld is too much of a deletionist. <font color="cyan" size="2">♣</font><font color="lime" face="georgia" size="2">
'''Neutral''' - I was certain that I'd support based on [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but I am dismayed by the lack of judgment on speedy deletions.
'''Neutral''' per WilyD/Bearian.  I'd like to see more growth, but stupid speedies isn't a reason to oppose for me. --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Beat the nom support''' Whilst his project edit is not very impressive, his anti-vandalism work excels; I'm sure that his lack of knowledge in, say, WP:UAA, won't affect his ability to block vandals who are freely strolling around the place, recking havoc. [[WP:WHYNOT]]. Cheers. '''
'''Moral Support''' And thank you for the work you are doing. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  Though I know this is not likely to pass, I am willing to support you in the future, given the amount of edits you have.  &ndash;
Looks fine. '''
We ask for too many edits these days, he's fine. '''Support'''
'''Support''' - I really do not see any problems whatsoever. People pile on with [[WP:NOTNOW]], but I could easily see you as an admin. I did not click on this RFA expecting to find an excellent editor, but hey, suprise suprise. If this RFA does not pass, then '''please''' request again in a few months.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has neither been blocked nor had any memorable negative interactions with me.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Your anti-vandalism work looks great and I see no reason you couldn't be trusted with the mop.  But then, it's a mop.  So don't poke your eye out, kid. <b>'''
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' Huge dedication to recent changes patrol, seems to always stay cool when reverting, which is more then I can say for myself, havn't really talked to Mikaey at all, but looking around, seems to be a very nice person with good humor
'''Support''', no evidence or indication that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  I see absolutely no evidence that you would abuse the tools.  Good anti-vandal work, and we need more of that.
'''Support''' While I do not raise any question to the fact that one admin in his time wears many hats, I see no reason why specialization seems so undervalued. As an interested member of WikiProject Law Enforcement, I easily see an analogy between Sysops and cops. They have special privileges, among which the most powerful may be the taking away another's rights (arrest/imprisonment analogous to blocking) and destruction of that which is deemed contraband (seizure of contraband analogous to deleting pages). In both cases, the individual responsible for upholding the policies and procedures, and, in effect, the opinions, of the population must be one in whom absolute trust can be confided. Perusing this editor's history, I have seen very little that would raise questions about his integrity. His current activity, or lack thereof, in, for example, usernames for administrator attention, seems of little relative concern. Based on my judgment, he will be willing and able to follow the correct procedures throughout the project, and do what becomes necessary for maintaining the smooth operation of the English Wikipedia. I liken him to an officer who is concerned primarily with traffic. Traffic officers constantly come into contact with those who do not act in the population's best interests. They issue citations to violators, and may arrest habitual offenders. This editor's citations, however, are warning templates, and his arrest power, Wikipedia's blocking policy. Too frequently, traffic officers come across crashes and are charged with discovering the cause of the mess, how to fix the problem, and how to prevent problems in the future. Mikaey, I trust, will be able to work collaboratively to discover, fix, and prevent problems. Just because an officer prefers to work traffic, does this mean that they are unable to act as a mediator in heated disputes, assist well-meaning citizens, or contribute in any other way to the operation of the city? Even if all I expected this editor to do was revert vandalism, I would have a hard time opposing this nomination. I can see him quickly becoming an invaluable resource to this project and the community it involves. Should I be in the minority, I forsee him working his way up to whatever high standards will be demanded from an administrator in the future of the English Wikipedia. —
'''Support''' Despite a lack of edits, Mikaey seems trustworthy to me. I don't think this user will abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Outstanding work so far but general standard is 5,000 edits for vandalism experts. Come back ASAP, I'd really like to support. '''
Per [[User:Ceranthor|Ceranthor]].  I'd really like to support after a bit more experience in other areas of Wikipedia.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Oppose'''. You're on your way, but I don't yet see enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace for me to be assured that you know everything I want an admin candidate to know. For example, you say in Q1 that you want to work at CSD, but you've only tagged about 20 or 30 articles for speedy deletion. Also, there are a lot more qualities and characteristics that I want to see in an admin candidate (I'm not saying you don't have them) than I can tell from simply Huggling. You may have the clue, the knowledge of policy, the civility, and so forth, but it will take more than clicking Huggle for me to be sure. I see that 83% (2140 of 2567) of your work has been automated, including 94% of your last 1500 edits. I look forward to supporting in the future, when you get some more experience in the project space.
Yes, nice work so far but more experience needed.  The answer to question 3 in particular shows a lack of experience in handling disputes.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but your lack of experience in the areas you say you want to work in will be the downfall of this RFA.  Learn from it and come back when you have the required amount of experience.
'''Oppose''' per Useight and Ceranthor. Try again maybe in a few months and with more experience. Sorry  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per Useight. Good Luck. --
'''Oppose''' Not a not [[WP:NOTNOW]] oppose but a real one. Wants to work in [[C:SD]] but makes mistakes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheatley&diff=prev&oldid=274873317 this]. There is virtually no experience with CSD to judge from. Also, while I like Huggle myself, one fifth of this users edits were done within the last three days(!) using Huggle and a total of 1800 edits (out of 2600) are Huggled and another 400 are Twinkled[http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Mikaey&auto=auto]. While anti-vandalism work is good (and there are good Huggling admins like {{user|J.delanoy}}), there is no contributions in areas where admins need to work. I can't even say (and this pains me) that the candidate is on the right path. It looks like the candidate desperately tried to increase their edit-count for this RFA to quickly gain the tools. There is no reason to support that. If you, Mikaey, want to become an admin, work some months within the community, helping users, clearing away problems etc. It's not easy and it requires patience but it's what an admin really needs to be able to do. Regards '''
Just a little too soon. Whilst total edits count is a decent number, they have come in a big lump in the last few days, according [http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Mikaey&l=all to wikichecker results]. I would like to see more experience in the core areas he wants to assist in, and more WP namespace contributions wouldn't hurt. --
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. Apparently, it's Huggle season all around.
'''Oppose'''. A little too early.
'''Oppose''' I would like to support, but I agree with several of the comments above, and also concur this RFA may be a bit early. Sorry.
'''Regretful oppose'''- he's close to meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but needs a bit more experience.  In another month or two, I'd be sure to support.
'''Oppose'''. Too dependent on automated tools and little experience in admin-related areas. The candidate has done good work, but lacks sufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' You don't know what to do with the tool but want to be an admin? I think you're not ready yet.--
'''Oppose''' -- The nom is a bit premature, needs to gain more experience and do edits without an automated script.--'''''<small>
'''Oppose''' -- per Useight. Needs to contribute in XfD discussions, CSD, UAA, and help out other users. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Useight. Needs to contribute in XfD discussions, CSD, UAA, and help out other users. Sorry. '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
'''Oppose'''. Only became a regular editor very recently. More time and wider experience needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Potentially a good future candidate.
Per Useight. - Dan
I would like to support, but I do not see enough recent participation in the project for to me to give my support. You have been contributing consistently since December, and racked up 500 edits that month. However, since you are doing antivandalism work, I request that you get at least 3-4 more months of work and some broader experience with other areas of the wiki first, such as perhaps with writing a few [[WP:DYK|DYK]]s or assisting at [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]. <font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' - You do '''fantastic''' vandalism-reverting. [[MG Wallace F. Randolph]] looks really good, but I don't see much Wikipedia-related spaces, except for WP:AIV or when you are reverting vandalism there. That's the only drawback, sorry. You should participate more in WP:AN and WP:AN/I. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' Per NuclearWarfare and SimonKSK.--
'''Neutral''' - Won't break the Wiki, but I'd like to see more than just automated tools being used - whilst we do need anti-vandal administrators, I also would like a demonstration that they can work in other areas, as adminship doesn't come in parts. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - From what I can see, you will be a good vandalism based admin (if you stay in that area, a good admin) in a few more months. I will happily support you. I am currently leaning support, but I would honestly like you to have a little more time to develop first.
'''Neutral''' per Neuro and Ottava Rima. You're a great editor, but you need some more experience in areas outside vandalism reverting. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
Neurolysis hit the nail on the head. I stand by my oppose rationale (now struck), however. &ndash;
'''Neutral, leaning support''' - I doubt that Mikaey would cause irreparable harm to the project, but I think that the user could use a bit more exposure to other areas.  Should this RfA fail, however, '''please don't''' get frustrated and stop contributing with your anti-vandal work.  Give it some time, learn the other areas of Wiki, and I'll support you on your next attempt.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Neutral''' per Little Mountain 5, Ottava Rima and the [[WP:SNOW]] factor here, it seems that this rfa is set. Please try again soon, though, I believe this was a good faith nom and don't want to discourage the candidate.
'''Neutral''' - I am tempted to support, but it is difficult to judge you against quite a few of [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] as you are quite low on experience at present, even though you technically meet key criteria 1. I would like to see a bit more general experience yet, I wish you luck.
I considered supporting despite your experience, but when I looked at your edits at AFD I decided I could not.  Most of your comments were "agree with x" or "Per nom."  While this is not really bad, I like to see a bit more thought put into your work there.  I also looked at your last 50 edits to talk pages and I didn't see any meaningful discussion with other users.  Based on these I cannot support you, but I urge you to try again in six months.  Maybe try reading [[WP:ARL]]. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' I like a lot of what I'm seeing, but some of the CSD issues brought up by [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] are troubling. I do a lot of speedy tagging myself, and I've found that increasing my participation at AfD has helped me increase my understanding of deletion policies and therefore have a better eye for when it is and is not appropriate to place a CSD tag. I'd personally like to see more thoughtful contributions at AfD/ MfD. Great anti-vandalism work so far, in a few more months I'll be likely to support. '''
Lacks experience, communication skills, and maturity needed to handle the admin toolset. Suggest candidate withdraw nomination per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Weak oppose''' - Admittedly this may seem lazy, but I am loathe to support candidates who do not have an excellent command of the English language.
Sorry, have to agree w/ Beeblebrox. I get the feeling that you lack the maturity and judgment necessary to wield the tools responsibly. Keep up the good work, though! –'''
Per above - lack of command of English would cause problems - "try to warn the vandals about their ''crimes''". Crimes? Intent is good, however - perhaps with a lot more experience I could reconsider. Recommend another year.
'''Oppose''' - user has technical skills, but being an admin is more about policy. [[WP:N]] is a big one, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/English_Opens_Doors&diff=330122648&oldid=330114919 "I've never heard about it"] is not part of what notability is all about. Furthermore, concluding that something is a hoax because one has never heard about it doesn't show the judgment an admin requires. That is not to say that [[English Opens Doors]] is ''not'' a hoax (I have no opinion on the AfD itself); just that the reasoning for saying it most likely ''is'' a hoax is not sound. Admins must show knowledge of policy, and must be able to close AfDs correctly. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Poor knowledge of the English language which could be problematic and lacks experience. Also Q1 makes me feel as though the user doesn't know what the administrator rights are for. Maybe next time.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Beat the nom support''' Appears to be reformed and appears as though he would be a net positive so support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Nom Support''' Living proof that people can change.
'''Oppose''': I'm quite willing to accept that a user can change over time, but you were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMixwell&diff=259089077&oldid=258892122 edit warring] less than a ''month'' ago and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMixwell&diff=259090050&oldid=259089077 your response] showed you completely fail to understand that you did anything wrong. In addition your answers to the questions are very unsatisfying, and coupled with your answer to the edit-warring comments on your talkpage I have no reason to believe that you have moved on from your personal disputes and sockpuppeting days. In addition I see very little article work; AV work is fine, yes, but I've looked 2-3 months back and can't find any evidence of the montreal-related article work you claim to have done.
'''Oppose''' per [[File:4chan raid.pdf]] and associated edits.
'''Oppose''': This is too soon after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=201473905#Proposed_User:Cream_unblocking]. I am really uncomfortable with this user as an admin. Maybe people can change, I don't want to take the chance. --
'''Oppose''' - I haven't seen enough serious article contributions to counter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EpicFlame&diff=prev&oldid=171110371 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EpicFlame&diff=prev&oldid=171102111 this]. I know it was a long time ago, but it is way too aggressive to simply write off as ancient history - especially since it [[Special:Contributions/KickTheJew|continued]] until Feb 08. &raquo;
'''Oppose''' - Uploaded a 27 page copyvio from 4chan as {{tl|GPL}} just a few days ago. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' The few diffs already put forth should be enough to derail this.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. Ranked in order of concern: the edit warring cited by IronHolds; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=242982378&oldid=242980280 This] personal attack makes me nervous; copyvio uploaded images, most recently [[File:4chan raid.pdf]]; <s>[[User_talk:Mixwell/Archives2008/May#Are_you_using_a_bot.3F|this]] revert conflict and [[User_talk:Mixwell/Archives2008/May#Hiatus_hernia|the one below it]] and a couple others you can see throughout his archives, however most of them are old, and I'm ready to assume good faith and reform; and of course, the block log, though of course, that was a long time ago as well</s>. And what was going on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89_4&diff=next&oldid=250334184 here]? Oh, and though I find the edits listed by Backslash Forwardslash funny, they're definitely not appropriate. Some awesome work with Twinkle, though.
'''Neutral''' - I'd support, but chances are that you might not play well with a few people in particular. Some of the stuff linked from 07 is a little inappropriate, but also linking to it in 09 is a little inappropriate to. So here I am, at neutral. I'll be keeping an eye on how things develop and possibly reassess later.
'''Neutral''' I'm thinking the same thing that Ottava Rima's saying. But that by no means that I think you'd make a terrible admin.
'''Neutral''' per Ottava Rima. I just can't decide... '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">

'''Oppose''' - 29 project-space contributions lead me to believe that you do not know key policies, particularly [[WP:DP|deletion policy]].--
I'm not worried overly on the edit count, although it is a little low, but your lack of talk page replies, your somewhat single minded agenda in Q1, the sentence and first person pronoun case construction in your responses and the inaccurate transclusion of this RFA all add up to an oppose at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Essentially per Pedro. Your overall edit count isn't that alarming, but your activity in the project makes it relatively difficult to assess your knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' sure, it's not all about the count, but yeah, sub-4000 is a bit low. Keep up the positivity though and come back here later.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
Thanks for offering to take on the role of admin. I respect the value that your contributions and especially your mapmaking adds to this project, and I'm glad to see you have a clean block log and several civil conversations on your talk page. However I'm not sure you yet have the policy knowledge that an admin needs, you had a number of non free image warnings as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMohammad_adil&diff=302105036&oldid=302036916 recently as July], and no subsequent policy discussion or work such as speedy deletion tagging that would allow me to judge your knowledge of policy. But this is very much a not yet, and I hope to see you here again after three months. ''
I don't normally focus on edit count in a given namespace, but I have to agree with Unionhawk here in that you have very little, if any, experience in the project space. At a minimum I like to see some participation in community discussions. Still, per my [[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|RfA voting policy]], I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from opposing. –'''
I appreciate your submitting yourself for consideration to assist as an administrator.  As it happens, [[User:Matheuler/adminship|my criteria]] has significant similarities to Juliancolton's.  I am not yet convinced however, that you are at quite the level of expertise requisite for adminship.  I could very easily be persuaded to support, as this is definitely a borderline candidacy.  —
'''Moral Support''' - Unfortunately you don't have a lot of experience in many admin areas. I don't want this RfA to go through with no supports, since I think you are doing your best.
'''Moral Support''' I agree with J.delanoy. Thank you, Mollymoon, for your sincere desire to help Wikipedia. Good luck!
Sorry, but I'm afraid [[WP:NOTNOW]] applies. You only have 312 edits, and while edit count in itself isn't an indicator of experience, it seems that you misunderstand the position of an administrator. Best of luck in the future, &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Per Juliancolton.--
'''Oppose''' - far too inexperienced and few edits at all, and believing "my best contributions are probably the articles I've created" only shows this far too well when one looks at those articles. Just in the first page of contribs, one is a duplicate of an existing, older and fuller article; and the other three are non-notable single line items. This candidate has a lot more to learn before  considering RfA. Recommend starting at the tutorials and How to Edit pages. --
'''Moral support''' per above. sorry too inexperienced.--
'''Oppose''' - Too inexprienced per above. –
'''Oppose''' - Too little experience.  Try again perhaps in a few months and more edits. Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''', WAY too inexperienced and you don't need to be an admin to start a WikiProject. Molly has no need for the tools. '''
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience, somewhat egotistical nomination statement, and your editing is sporadic. Also, you seem too only sporadically use edit summaries. My recommendations would be to firstly commit to editing more, secondly gain experience in Wikipedia processes ([[WP:XFD]], for example), and finally wait some time before trying again, or you could pick up a label of "Too desperate for adminship" before you've really been able to establish yourself.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry but under 500 edits is just not enough edits to become an administrator. Apply again when you have more experience. Unfortunately I'd suggest you withdraw your request or this will be closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
Far too soon I'm afraid. You need to build up much more experience of how Wikipedia works --
'''Support'''. Momus has been a regular around RFPP, and I would have preferred to nominate him. Standards vary on what pages are protected and which ones aren't- in addition, revoking talk page access is something that is normally requested through RFPP, so that shouldn't be held against Momus. A little bit of [[WP:BEANS]] should be excused for anyone working on RC patrol. Momus would be a great net win as an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' - You seem to have a very poor understanding of what warrants semi-protection. You do not request semi-protection of a blocked user's talk page, nor a redirect that one user blanks. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=334443821], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=334439072]. Other instances, you appear to be too hasty with your reports and I am afraid that you will use the protect button unwisely.
'''Oppose''' makes too many mistakes in administrative areas. In addition to above (with protection), a quick glance on the candidate's talk page shows three mistaken speedies in a row from 13–15 days ago; two were declined and another was deleted on a different criteria. Additionally, I don't see much evidence of the communication that will be required in an admin.
Have to agree with Wisdom. You're doing decent work so far, but I've noticed far too many inconsistent or incorrect protection requests to feel comfortable endorsing this request. &ndash;'''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - I'm not impressed with your knowledge of the BLP policy, per your answers. Yes BLPs should be notable, but that applies to every article, and your personal opinion of whether or not the article is notable, should not interfere with your reading the consensus at the AFD. Also the other opposes bring up some very valid reasons why you shouldn't have the bit quite yet. The vast majority of your edits are to user talk, which I find quite odd. Come back in 6 months with a better understanding of protection and deletion policy, and I'll be glad to support. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see a bit more content work, sorry. '''''
'''oppose''' there are many reasons to chose from. I'll stick with the fact that he placed an unreferenced article on the website ten days ago. [[Nintendo Dream]].
'''Oppose''' I am not comfortable with the answers to the questions (along the lines already mentioned above), and do not feel that the candidate is ready for adminship at this time. I would suggest that you carefully read the comments made here, learn from them, and then if you still feel that you want to be an admin, re-apply in a few months. -- '''''
'''Oppose''' Dropping an unreferenced article into mainpace would be completely ignorable- if it had happened 3 months ago. Everyone's first couple articles made that mistake! However, 11 days ago you left a completely unreferenced article, and haven't been back to clean it up.  If you didn't have the sources, why did you write it?  I just don't think you're ready, not yet.
'''Oppose''' per Q5. An editor that needs Adminship to "become more active" is either power-hungry, or not very commited to the project. <font face="courier new"><b>>
'''Oppose''' per A5, Wisdom, and MM40.  You shouldn't need the motivation of the mop to become more active, that is not a valid reason for becoming more active.  You should WANT to be active to help the project, no matter the situation.  Granted, there are times when life gets in the way, and that should be taken under consideration, but the reason you gave is just plain wrong, IMHO.
'''Neutral''' I'm not convinced that this editor would be counter-productive or abusive with admin tools so I'm not inclined to actively oppose. At the same time nearly 60% of his edits are in user talk space, he has multiple and recent CSD mistakes, a history of being too quick to tag and an inability to demonstrate any substantial content creation per his answers to '''Q6'''. This leaves me unwilling to support giving this editors the tools. Still, he seems like a good editor and I'd like to be able to revisit this in a few months.
'''[[user:Katerenka/RfA|Support]]''' [[user:Jamesofur/whynot|Why not?]]. Long term user, seems like a friendly fellow, unlikely to fuck anything up that couldn't be repaired. Best of luck. :) <small>
'''[[Ad astra (phrase)|ad astra per alia porci]]''' I agree with Kat. The RfA standards are getting just a bit too high. I can't see a strong reason [[User:Jamesofur/whynot|why not]]. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' per above and because of the clean (albeit very short) talk page.
'''Weak Support:''' Great editor, With more knowledge and experience you will be a great admin. -
'''Moral support''' but urge withdrawal at this time and careful consideration of iMatthew's suggestions (top of the oppose section below).

'''oppose''' Per iMatthew. Also, you have not really indicated what you would do that requires the admin tools, and you do not appear to have done much work in admin-related areas.
Only 3 months of noteworthy activity in the past year. Nothing indicates that you'll stick around this time. I suggest you try again next year or so when and if you remain active.--
'''Weak oppose''' I would go [[WP:NOTNOW]]. The things you want to accomplish as an admin can be just as easily accomplished as a user with rollback.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Vandalism reversion doesn't need sysop privileges.  If you clarify more ''administrative'' work, I'll likely change. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''OPPOSE''' Per above. --
Sorry, but if you've never experienced conflict, the stuff being an admin will throw at you will be too much, I feel. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339999;">
'''Opposed''': You have 1000 edits in 3 years.  That's barely 340 odd per year.  I have just shy of 5000 edits in 5 years, and even I can't become an administrator here.  I wish you good luck, but I fear you are quite rapidly heading for [[Atlantis|a place from which you may never return.]]
'''Oppose''' per [[User:IMatthew|<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#000080">iMatthew</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7"></sup></span> and [[WP:NOTNOW]], but most important, the candidate has no demonstrated experience in any of the deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted to make the correct decision(s) in these areas.
'''Oppose''' based on the edits performed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.130.196.24&diff=prev&oldid=330569873 here] to an IP user's talk page, despite [[Wikipedia:Userpage#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings|guidelines on removal of warnings]], which lead me to believe there is the potential for misuse of tools (in this particular circumstance, inappropriate blocking of an anonymous user). It's not that I don't trust your personality, and I am willing to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], but I think you need some more time with policy and guidelines before you can be trusted to make these types of decisions. I look forward to seeing you back here in a few months. --
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Moral Support but Oppose]]''' - While I appreciate the work you have done, this looks like [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Also, I am very anti-automated, and the 70% automated edit percentages do not please me. <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience and knowledge of policy at this time.
'''Oppose'''/NOTNOW, only 2 1/2 months of even semi-active editing spread over the long life of the account just isn't enough time to show you have what it takes.  Also, objections above need to be addressed before running again. Try in 9-12 months but only after 9+ months of heavy editing including 4 of the last 6 months.
'''Neutral''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Mr. moose seems like a good, hardworking editor with a clean history. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have enough experience for adminship at this time. I recommend coming back after a few months of regular editing; you didn't edit at all between March and mid-November.
'''Neutral''' As has been suggested I will echo the [[WP:NOTNOW]] suggestions. You have made many good contributions and surely will grow into a very experienced editor with a good command of policy and confidence. I cannot support or oppose this RfA as you haven't demonstrated you don't warrant confidence (thus opposing) but on the other hand you haven't (yet!) done enough to warrant support. I highly suggest continuing to revert vandalism, do new page patrolling and other maintenance tasks. I bet in just a short period of time you'll be golden for your next RfA. :)
'''Support''' [[WP:AGF]] --
'''Support''' I like your approach to answering the questions. Good luck,
'''Oppose'''.  You've made a lot of contributions in articlespace, and a little in userspace.  Per [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/ Soxred's edit checker], it's been more than a year since you've had much of any participation outside of those two namespaces.  Although your RFA is about you, it's even more about all the innocents (if any :) who might be affected if an admin misunderstands policy. - Dan
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Mr Tan]]. '''
'''Oppose''' insufficient commitment to the project to be made an admin at this time.  Try getting back into it for six months, and then come back.--
'''Oppose''' I'm not very happy with your answers to the questions. Your answer to question five is just downright wrong. Sorry, but your level of policy knowledge is far too low for me to even consider supporting you in a RfA at the moment. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q4 is a disqualifier in my opinion.  We aren't here to build a social network and coddle "young and naughty" vandals; we're here to collaborate on a project.  We can have fun with it without bending as far as the candidate would suggest.
'''Oppose''' This candidate has virtually no recent experience communicating with others.  In the past YEAR, he has ZERO article talk edits, ZERO wikipedia talk edits, 13 TOTAL user talk edits, and besides his RfA only 2 edits to the Wikispace.  On top of that his over all activity is negligible.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>
'''Oppose'''. Probably a really nice fellow in real life, but the nomination statement and the answers to questions lead me to believe that there is some difficulty in separating RL from this wikipedia dream world. --
'''Oppose''': few if any recent interfacing with the outside world make it difficult for me to judge how good this user is at communicating with other users. Also the answers to questions are unsatisfactory.
'''Oppose''' per quesionable answers to questions, particularly the ban/block one. <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawye]]
'''Almost an Oppose''' Mainly per Balloonman, I think that some of the most important skills we need in an admin are in their communication with other users, and you haven't done enough of that for us to evaluate you properly. Also admins administer in accordance with policy, and I'm not sure you've got all the detail of that (BTW have a look at the template warnings, particularly the level 1 and level 2 ones, IMHO they are written gently and in my experience they do deter some vandals). But I'm sticking in neutral because you have made major contributions, you are an asset here and while you may not have some of the policies off pat I think you have the right attitude - lastly I don't think you'd mess up as an admin so I can't oppose. '''

'''Oppose'''. I would close this as [[WP:NOTNOW]], but I don't know how. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•

I don't think I should run if I don't vote for myself. Please Vote --
'''Weak support'''. 3/4 of your edits are in the User: and User talk: areas. That's not something I generally like to see, and I would suggest working on articles rather then tidying your userpage is you wish to be an admin in the future.
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate your enthusiasm and your work so far, but there isn't enough yet for me to accurately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures.
'''Oppose'''.  Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. '''
'''Regretful Oppose'''  Sorry; per [[User:Useight|Useight]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Oppose''' Absolutely not per the user's talk page.
'''Oppose''' thank you for your work fighting vandalism, but, not yet.
'''Oppose''' I have seen the candidate around a bit, and my personal observations and a cursory review of his talk page suggest that he not infrequently fails to demonstrate the sound sense of judgment, deliberative temperament, cordial demeanor, and conversance with policy that well serve an admin, such that, even as his evident good faith is sure to prevent him from intentionally misusing the tools, I cannot conclude with any confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]], although continued participation in the project will provide a broader record from which I might in the future reach a different conclusion, as I should be happy to do.
I don't believe you have the temperament necessary to be an administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' Your editing is kind of too aggressive for my liking. [[WP:AGF|AGF]] a bit; not everybody is trying to nuke Wikipedia. When the other flies off the handle, it doesn't mean you should too. So, maybe next time :)
'''Oppose''' Judging from your talk page, no one really seems to like you. I don't see a single friendly post on there (with the exception of a "you've been granted rollback" notice and my "merry christmas" template). To add to that, you've responded to all of them with some mean, demanding comment like "Don't do it again" or just "No." You also seem to have gotten into numerous incidents with [[User:Ryulong|Ryulong]]. I find no bright side to making you an admin. <font face="terminal">
'''Oppose''' Pretty much word-for-word what flaminglawyer says above.  Too many disputes; we don't need more admins seeking or creating drama than we already have.
'''Ummm... no'''  Not now, and probably not for at least six months.  An admin candidate's experience in creating content is more important than in fighting vandalism, and a cursory inspection shows serious deficits in that area.
I've had a hell of a lot of interaction with Mythdon since he began editing Wikipedia, and as he states, the Power Rangers subject area. Flaming calls them "incidents" which I would perhaps agree with the summarization. Recently, Mythdon had taken to sending articles to AFD for reasons that I've never found in any way part of the deletion reasons or processes. Until recently, any sort of article that should have probably been merged (at least in accordance with present practices concerning articles on fictional concepts). It was only until one of my comments towards him (which I now regret for how I handled myself) did all of our behaviors and practices were brought to light. I've not figured out why he acts as he does, but as far as I can tell, the only administrative function he should be allowed is the rollback function, as I do not trust his judgement if it comes to blocks, deletions, or protections. As per my (as it feels) daily interactions with this user, he is extremely difficult to talk to, difficult to reason with, and difficult to edit with. If you read [[Talk:Power_Rangers:_Jungle_Fury#Archive_soon_needed|this conversation]], you can see how he does not know when to stop. As far as I know, there have only been two pages that he's actually created, and afterwards he did not add to the pages, they were simply created. As far as Mythdon goes, if he were given adminship it would be a mix of TTN and CSCWEM, in their editing and administrative practices.—
'''Oppose''' Not completely happy with the very recent interaction with Ryulong, coupled with the lack of serious content contributions. However, keep up the good work, don't be discouraged. &raquo;
'''Oppose''' Part of an admin's job is to answer stupid questions with while showing patience for the ignorant.  No indication the candidate can do that.--

'''Oppose'''.  Candidate may be a nice guy in real life, and I like his dedication to various tasks, but it will make a lot of extra work for all of us if he becomes an admin.  Sorry. - Dan
'''Oppose''' No-one likes to pile on, but it seems that this RFA may be the only way of getting through to Mythdon. The candidate seems to be sorely lacking in the ability to work with other people, to admit mistakes, and seems to have no method of communicating without demonstrating almost constant aggression. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. "I don't contribute to a wide variety of articles, but that doesn't matter, especially since I have experience in vandal fighting." Um...no. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Vandal fighting should not be the reason for your existence on the project. If you do that on the side, that's great. I understand that even excellent content contributors, once they become admins, tend to work more in the administrative side of Wikipedia, but you've got to have a good background in content and not dismiss it like that. "I am not going to quit this RfA at anytime. I will run as I please, and until the closure date." I understand the sentiment, but you could have phrased it much, much better ("I would really like for this to run the full time so that I can get as much feedback as possible" sound a lot better than "I'm going to keep this open, and you can't stop me"). Additionally, I seem to remember a less-than-ideal attitude when you were posting on AN or AN/I. Overall, this just isn't the temperament I would like to see in an admin. That being said, if you tone down the aggressiveness some more and contribute &mdash; ''really contribute'' &mdash; with some substantive content, I would probably support in six months or so. Better luck next time.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. When the editing heats up, I'd recommend keeping [[WP:LETITGO]] in mind; it'll make everyone feel better.
Suggest closing per SNOW and IREALLYDONTWANTTOSEEPOSSIBLEFUTURECANDIDATES<!--In like a year minimum, it seems -->GETBEATENINTHEHEADWITHASTICK. <font color="navy">
Per NW. —'''
'''Neutral''' - to not pile on, questionable judgment etc. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''', I know this editor can make good contributions sometimes, but even the tone of "I will run as I please" in this very RFA smacks of exactly the attitude that I don't want to see in an admin.  Sorry, maybe sometime in the future.
The candidate generally meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  So, '''support''' per reasonable arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesogog]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction]] and as candidate has never been blocked.  I vaguely recall something on AN about a ''Power Rangers'' nomination that bothered me, but it is not so memorable that I feel an urgent need to search for it and anyway, I'd hate to see someone get no support.  Best, --
'''Oppose''': I'm sorry but just over a month is too soon in my opinion to run again. The main concern stated in your previous RfA seemed to be related to interactions with other users and while a brief glance over your recent contributions seems to show an attempt at improvement, it's just too short a time to be able to judge whether you would continue to do so in the medium and long term. I'm also concerned about your answer to question three in that you see to think that consensus has to be that someone admits they are wrong rather than there being a possibility of compromise. I think that you do positive work and that your heart is in the right place, I would just like more time (another 3 months at the very least, but ideally 6 or more) to see how you follow through on your efforts to improve on the areas mentioned in the previous RfA before you are given the responsibility of being an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. I support virtually everyone but I'll make an exception here. Running very soon after a VERY failed first attempt, and a look through your talk page gives me pause. Definite no.
Per Wizardman and Camw. - Dan
'''Opppose'''. I, too, see an attempt an to improve your communication with other editors, however, one month isn't enough to be indicative of a change in habit/behavior. To pass an RFA after only thirty days since a failed one, it would take an absolutely amazing turnaround evidenced by a ''lot'' of incredibly thoughtful and insightful comments paired with a ''lot'' of amazing content contributions. I don't know if anyone has pulled it off in recent memory. Anyway, I would recommend putting at least three months between RFAs and with continued improvement in your communication, you'll be well on your way.
'''Oppose''' - You appear to improving quite a bit, but three months is generally the community norm for times between nominations. &lowast;
'''Oppose''' Mainly per [[user talk:Mythdon]]. I'm not a stickler for the three month minimum gap and would happily have defended a candidate for running sooner if they were fairly close to consensus on their previous attempt, but that clearly doesn't apply here. '''
'''Oppose''' per above. I, too, suggest you wait a bit longer before running again. On a side note, I think you should start using [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] with every edit, especially minor edits should always be accompanied by an edit summary. '''
'''Oppose''' largely due to the rush to RfA#2 and the continued battling with admin Ryulong. I have witnessed many interactions between Mythdon and other editors in the last few months and have seen the same general conclusion each time - both sides remain on their polarized sides with no compromise. If Mythdon can't compromise with fellow editors as "merely" an editor, what will he do once he has the mop? Plus, I'm kind of dumbfounded by Mythdon linking the creation of two redirects as "just a few of my best contributions."
'''Strong Oppose''' Simply looking at Mythdon's [[User talk:Mythdon|talk page]] gave enough reason for me to vote a strong oppose.  This [[User talk:Mythdon#Harassing Ryulong|conflict]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyulong&diff=270821155&oldid=270752278 this], and [[User talk:Mythdon#List of Power Rangers: RPM episodes|this]] occurred very recently, within the past four weeks.  From what I can see in just these few conflicts, mainly with [[User:Ryulong|Ryulong]], this candidate, if an admin, may create his own rules and abuse the tools.  If it were not for that, I would have supported. Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
Interactions with Ryu gives me doubt about his dispute resolution skills. &mdash;
'''Strong oppose''' Editor is under ArbCom editing restrictions.
'''Oppose''' per BJ. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong oppose''' per above comments; and anyone power-hungry enough to post three RfAs in just over 5 months is never getting my vote. I'm not sure why the candidate encourages us to review those RfAs—they both had strong opposition and '''no''' support.&mdash;
The concerns related to ArbCom restrictions are indeed concerning, but with all due respect, I find the fact that you nominated yourself for adminship in spite of an issue which would almost certainly cause it to fail further indication of questionable judgment. Nonetheless, I wish you good luck. –'''
'''Oppose''' for various reason ranging from arbcom restrictions to temperament to judgment as mentioned by JC above.
'''Oppose''' (Edit Conflict with Juliancolton) Sorry, since the last RfA where I also opposed I don't see enough improvement in the areas of concern. That you were just admonished by ArbCom for "harassing behavior" should have been a clear indication to you that another run at adminiship would not be a good idea for some time.
Not only were you recently sanctioned by ArbCom for "harrassing behavior", the fact that you ran an RfA so soon after it is a sign of questionable judgement. <small>(
'''Strong oppose''' Editor is under editing restrictions from ArbCom, this is his third RfA of 2009 (and it's only July), his recent behavior toward Tiptoety at [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Tiptoety_clerking]], and his continued misinterpretation of both [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. Honestly, based on his actions and the situations Mythdon has been involved with in the past couple weeks, I question the actual purpose of starting another RfA at this time.
'''Strong Oppose'''. I recommend withdrawing and putting an end to this exercise in futility. I also recommend not trying this again for at least a year, perhaps longer due to all the issues you've had. If you can show that you can act appropriately for at least a year, you might have a chance of passing an RfA. Again, I recommend withdrawing (just post on the talk page of this discussion) as there is absolutely no chance of this passing right now. ···
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry - but way too much drama for this at this time.  No reflection on Mythdon intended, but I just can't see any way clear to supporting this right now. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''': I do not believe candidate has the proper temperament to be an admin. --
I seldom ever comment on RfA's that are clearly doomed to fail unless I am pressed to support despite the opposition. In this case, however, I'm making an exception, because I feel compelled to offer my opinion. I'm placing my comment in the neutral section, because I do not want to add to the negative pile-on above. Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that arbcom restrictions, while definitely a huge negative in my books for adminship candidacies, do not preclude any sort of support I may give. Circumstances are different for every editor, and after a certain time period has elapsed and they have demonstrated improved judgment, I would gladly give my support assuming they'd be trustworthy with the tools - which is ultimately my only ''real'' requirement when it comes to entrusting an editor with adminship, experience may vary between people but if I feel they can be ''trusted'', then I will support. For instance, I have supported [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] and [[User:Rootology|Rootology]] for adminship before - both of these editors have been given sanctions from ArbCom for very serious lapses in judgment, but their actions since have demonstrated obvious signs of growing and a willingness to continue to improve. Had Mythdon waited for several months and demonstrated the same willingness to improve himself and his mannerisms towards other people whom he disagrees with, I would have supported. Hell, even if everybody else were opposing due to something ''way'' in the past, I would have looked past and supported for the fact that I couldn't see any harm with him becoming an admin. What gives me pause for thought, is how Mythdon thought that requesting for adminship at this point in time was a remotely good idea. I'm sure he was already aware of the lack of confidence the community has in his judgment, based on the fact that all of his RfA's have been unanimously opposed and the fact that he was sanctioned by ArbCom. I doubt there will be any criticism from the opposers arguments that will honestly help Mythdon grow as a Wikipedian, because they will be focused on the fact that this RfA is poorly timed. The only real recommendation I can give him now is to withdraw this RfA and let a good amount of time pass, then come back with a much improved record and request again. It definitely won't be an easy road, but I think Mythdon can do it if he really tried.
Frequency of RfA’s should not be the sole basis for the decision; however having limited interaction with the editor limits my degree to see the entire picture of his edit history. I would like to exercise my vote to be neutral as not to pass judgement to someone whom I've not encountered as frequent as the others would.--
'''Strong Support''' The guy's one of the most active admins in wikipedia history. Goodness knows what we'd miss! On his recent issues, we need to get perspective here, ignore all the dramatizing, and extend good faith and forgiveness to a highly skilled, clued, and dedicated long-term member of our community who did the natural human thing of having a few "lapses of judgment".
'''Strong support''' I've had the pleasure of working with him on [[WP:DBR]], he really does have the project's best interest at heart.

'''Support''' While I thought your actions were rash as hell, and I didn't agree at all, I do believe you are sincere in you promises to be more patient and profesional. We all screw up every now and then, and this community benefits more from you having access to the tools than from any mistakes you've made with them. '''
'''Strong support'''  Solid editor and administrator who wants wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a social network, and willing to the do the hard work of monitoring BLPs.  --[[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] ([[User talk:KP Botany|talk]]) 06:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)  And, yes, the track record on BLPs is sufficient, in my opinion, to cause support.  --
'''Support''' a dedicated Wikipedian who believes in the project. Have faith that the "lapses" will not reoccur.
'''Support''' - One of the best discerning, clueful, XfD closers we have. -
My gut instinct was to be less than supportive to this request; however the honesty and integrity in the self generated and answered questions indicates that MZ has taken recent comments to heart regarding some minor errors of judgement.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' without reservation. As I've followed the arbitration case, I've come to realise just how much good work MZMcBride does for Wikipedia, and how much use he gets out of the admin tools in the process. He is one of our most valuable administrators despite his sometimes-contentious actions: he is the very definition of a net-positive. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Has the best interests of the project at heart. To answer those who feel this is premature, clearly the community & ARBCOM required a behavioural change, which I believe has occurred as evidenced by Mz's comments above. It is difficult to see what the addition of some time would achieve.
'''Strong support''' Very valuable and hard working.  I've watched his edits/actions for years in awe and think the project will be very well served with him being an admin again.  --
'''Conflicted support.''' I said on the workshop of the ArbCom case that I would rather not see MZMcBride desysopped if we could avoid it. I cannot fault the ArbCom for their decision in light of the evidence shown, though I tend to agree with Newyorkbrad's vote on desysopping him (the obsolete remedy from before MZM resigned). This, my hope that he has begun to understand the problems here, and the fact that he has shown himself willing to work like an ant to get stuff done (including helping to fix our BLP issues), makes me choose to support. I do question the timing of this, and wonder how likely it is to pass, but neither of those is my decision to make. If I may leave with a thought or two for MZM: If this does pass, please use your privileges exceedingly circumspectly but decisively, especially to solve the BLP problems. If not, try again after waiting a while. And whatever happens, seek to learn from this experience. There, hope I wasn't too preachy! Take what you will from it.
'''Support''' I thought you were allready an admin, oh wait [[wikt:facepalm|my bad]]--
'''Support''' Happy with the reassurances above, respect for doing this now rather than waiting for us to miss him in his role as admin. ''
Conditional, so long as you don't do anything you shouldn't again (which I don't think you will).  It's a pity there's an RfAR open about you because I think you were one of the most clueful admins I knew.  Good luck - because I think you might need it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
Why not?
'''Support''' I know we had disagreements, but I know you have done, and still do a lot of good work for 'pedia, and that you had the best intentions.  I trust that you will use the tools appropriately, but also hope that when, even one, other editor has concerns, you will stop ''automated'' functions, and try to see if how the automation has to be adapted (or consider that it simply can't be done automated ..) before continuing with that.  --
I really can't stand admins or really anyone who gives a shit about userpages (save some instances). That being said, you do have a clue as to how the rest of it works. Focus on that part.
'''Support''' - I trust that he has learnt from his mistakes, and that the mistakes themselves will make him more cautious in future. We've not always agreed, but that's only made me like you the more for it. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Net positive --
'''Support''' I trust your judgement and you can do stuff other admins would usually find too controversial to do, but still neeeds to be done.--
'''Strong support''' I fully trust you've learned from your mistakes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Obvious support''' - lots of work that still needs to be done here; I trust the admin opposers are willing to take that load on in the event that this RfA fails.  (Though I agree with Viridae etc. that waiting a short while longer might have been more productive). <b>
'''Support''' as deletion of secret pages probably annoyed a few kids enough to keep them off Wiki. Woohoo! '''
'''Weak support''' (ec) Please stick to our guidelines and policies, you were an excellent admin before otherwise and I have no reason to believe, if you stick with the 'rules' (horrible word), that you can't be an excellent mop holder again. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Your excellent record of adminship isn't effected by deleting near-useless 'secret' pages in my view.
'''Strong support''' - even though MZM and I have disagreed (sometimes vehemently) on certain things in the past, after we buried the hatchet and began working together I realized that his head is definitely in the right place. For those that are concerned that the old problems would return, don't forget he will still be held accountable to the arbcom remedies. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I strongly believe lessons have been learned here. I've had strong disagreements with this user in the past, but he's hard working and I know he'll use the bit uncontroversially, but in the interests of cleaning some of the backlog.--
'''Supported''': I have supported your actions in the past, and continue to hold the belief that you have had the best interests in WP at heart, and will continue to show my belief that you have learned from prior mistakes and will thereby give support to this RFA. <small>
'''Support'''; '''A net positive'''. Proven to be one, and should continue to be one. '''
'''Support''' A desysop, even voluntary, should not be punitive. As MZ already has decent tenure as an admin, has apologized for his mistakes, has promised not to repeat them, and has ''requested'' sysop status again, holding it back simply because of the recency of the ArbCom case would simply be punitive. &mdash;/
'''Strong support''' - I don't always agree with MZMcBride, in fact, when it comes to WP-related stuff, we usually disagree. However, in the many debates/arguments (sometimes heated) I've had with MZMcBride, one thing has always been clear, and that is how passionate he is about this project, and I've never questioned his intentions for any of his actions, no matter how much I disagree with them. I think it's clear that he does what he believes is best for the project. As far as this RFA coming so quickly, I thought it was too early as well, but knowing MZMcBride as I do, I did not believe it was an appropriate desysop, and many editors I spoke with agreed. ArbCom decisions should reflect community desires. I don't believe this RFA is to disregard the AC, rather than to confirm that MZMcBride's loss of the tools is the community's true desire. His work in the area of BLPs is prolific. A #1 concern of the project should be cleaning up and protecting living subjects of articles here. While that's not currently the case, it is a #1 concern of his. We need more admins with such a focus, not less. Hopefully the AC case has been a bit of a wake-up call and we'll see a change in the way he communicates.
Arbitrary committee is arbitrary. They were stupid to even think about a temporary desysop, and I think it's clear that MZMcBride has the best interests of the encyclopedia in his actions. Clearly an asset to the encyclopedia with the tools, so they should be given freely in this case. Amazing work on [[WP:ANUS]] and similar projects show what good MZMcBride does around here. --
Good God yes. While I don't always agree with MZM, I've always admired his dedication to the project and BLPs. His adminship was, in general, a net benefit. Judging by his above statement, I'm confident that he's learned his lesson. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' without hesitation. MZ has always done excellent work. The arbitration case against him was/is a farce. —
'''Support''' This administrator was tremendously useful for the Wikipedia despite some minor problems. His resignation will be a huge loss for the project.
'''Support''' - I don't have much to add that has not been said. MZMcBride has done an incredible amount of work as an administrator, and his loss would leave a void that would be practically impossible to fill. I do believe that MZM is sincere with his answers to the questions, and I hope that the community will agree to give MZM another chance.
I believe having MZM desysopped is a net negative for the project. I find many of the oppose votes rather unconvincing and based on a rather policy-wonkish approach to Wikipedia, which I reject. I don't see what we gain by waiting some arbitrary time period here. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' MZMcBride's contributions and admin work in maintenance areas are essential to the ever-expending encyclopedia. The arbcom case was over so trivial matter, I can't believe a desysop was considered there. On the few concerns raised, I'm confident they'll have been addressed.
Per Juliancolton, Lara, GTD and CharlotteWebb, all of whom I agree with. I don't agree with most of what MZM does, but I've never known him to be less than reasonable when asked to explain (and reverse if necessary) any action he's taken. To the "we can't disagree with Arbcom!" opposers – Arbcom are people, not gods, and have a long history of making weird calls. When they make a contentious decision, there's absolutely nothing wrong with throwing it over to the broader community for review, which is what's going on here.&nbsp;–&nbsp;'''<font style="font-family: Courier"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support'''- MZMcBride having the tools is better for the project than him not having the tools. Resigning his tools and then coming to RfA seems extremely mature to me, I'm not quite sure why people are trying to use it as an argument to oppose.
MZMcBride has my strong support for being very cooperative with ArbCom during the entire case, for not being a coward and ''retiring'' to hinder the committee, and for putting himself up for community judgment. I disagree with the "too early" opposes; this couldn't be a better time to run, and I think this candidacy shows great judgment: it would be great if more admins did this.
&ndash;
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''. There were no blocks involved. One of the flaws with the decision was that some context wasn't properly included in the decision of a small handful of arbitrators, and a few non-issues were inflated as issues. The community needs to make a statement to the effect that if admins with clue, are willing to change but have not been recalled (if they are open to recall), then that's prima fascie evidence that no desysop should occur via other means (unless it's an emergency). As for the actual issues, I trust MZM will tackle them, and continue his outstanding work for this project.
'''Strong support''' - very nice, very reasonable, I could go on and on. I see no reason to believe that MZMcBride would repeat any past mistakes.
'''Support''' Whatever the arbcom outcome, I believe that MZMMcBride was acting in the best interests of wikipedia and will continue to do so. --
'''Strong support''' Yes, he's a bastard, but I have a record of voting for people who're bastards.  Besides, he's a nice bastard, with a knowledge of the wiki, and a net positive to the project. He's certainly shown that he's learned from his mistakes, and the answers to the questions he generated were really the thing that assured my support. I'll admit, I've argued with him before, and I'm quite sure that I'll argue with him again. But that doesn't change my vote. --
'''Strong Support'''. We all make mistakes, why should this stop him continuing with his admin duties? '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I agree with Jennavecia, and she's put forth reasoning that is pretty much my own as well. MZMcBride is headstrong but does things that are very beneficial in the long run. If we desysopped people who took things in their own hands and were sometimes bitches, I think we'd shrink in size to 20 admins who are all mealy-mouthed and yes men anyway? Critical thinking is important and I think he exhibits that in spades.
'''Support''' - I am surprised to see you running for adminship so quickly after resignation, if I was you I would have probably taken a rest for lets say a week before thinking about the tools again for what you have gone through. However, you are entitled to run for adminship at any time per past planned and currently planned ArbCom rulings so I do not object to you doing so now. It was a long time ago, but I did support [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride|your original RfA]], and I have also lurked both your current ArbCom case and the Sarah Palin one. Do they make me regret supporting your adminship before? A bit, both cases do show in my view a series lapse in judgement. On the plus side however is your many contributions which will be enhanced by you retaining the mop, particularly BLP work. I am also impressed by your more recent behaviour, including your answers to the questions, and dare I say it, you are open to recall. Finally, you know as well as I do that any more negative ArbCom cases about you will probably end in book throwing! Overall, I have decided to give my support.
'''Support''' Overall a valuable net-positive for the project. I got on his case about the secret page deletions, but I never had the opinion that he should be without the bit.
'''Strong support''' for this hardworking contributor.
'''Support''' per Camaron.
--
I don't follow the opposes based on "avoiding" arbitration.  None of the proposed decisions take the decision out of the community's hands, so this RfA is perfectly appropriate.  I don't always agree with MZMcBride, but on balance I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' hard-working, learned from past experience.
'''Support''' Never had a complaint about his edits or his use of the tools. Frankly, I consider his ArbCom case to be an entirely unnecessary and avoidable hatchet-job, fueled by the self-serving political pontifications of several editors who really had no dog in the fight or business fomenting drama for drama's sake. One of them even "resigned" for dramatic emphasis after his actions were scrutinized and the case seemed unlikely to be accepted, only to return a week later after he'd made his point. I don't tolerate drama or drama whores. Neither does MZ.
Opposing this request would, in my opinion, be an endorsement of the Arbitration Committee's punitive motion (which would have been approved had MZMcBride not requested the removal of his rights himself) to desysop MZMcBride, which I did initiate a discussion relating to.  More (and most) importantly, I still trust MZMcBride.  I believe his actions and behavior during the last few weeks (especially during the last 2-3 days) have been beyond satisfactory and are at the very least, commendable. -
Desysopping is not warranted in this case --
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' But please be mre careful running sysop scripts on your main acount.
'''Support''' I still trust MZMcBride in spite of this issue, and believe that he's capable of using the tools effectively, moreover, is a benefit to the project.
'''{{User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support}} We need moar admins to viciously and brutally spank the vandals. --
We've all fucked up before. This RFA won't pass, and I'm not going to pile on. I don't think you'd make the same mistake twice (as would I), and I'm willing to forgive, so, I'll support. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
'''Oppose'''. There are countless reasons to do so, from ignoring [[WP:CSD]] whenever he feels like it to ignoring community discussion and continuing controversial actions after being told to stop and discuss or his disregard for consensus (see Sjakkalle's oppose for a example where MZM used his own "I think this should be deleted"-judgement rather than judging consensus to close an AFD - that is just not acceptable behavior for an admin). I do not believe he is serious when he says he has a "a deep amount of respect for the members of the [Arbitration] Committee" and yet does not even allow ArbCom to rule on him before requesting desysop and returning here. It would be respectful to way until it's over before submitting a new RFA, not sooner. But the main reason I oppose (and that is not because I wish MZM anything bad) is that I am evaluating him like I would evaluate any new user requesting adminship. And honestly, if a new user came here, while an ArbCom case against them was still pending in which there are multiple findings that the candidate has shown misconduct, if this new user had a lengthy block log for running unapproved bots on his main account (with the last one barely a month ago for (and I quote) "bot still running while editor promised to stop") and if this user had multiple ANI threads devoted to examining their behavior, noone would expect many people to support them. And noone would be surprised to see them fail. While anyone makes mistakes, I cannot treat MZM any different from any user requesting adminship. We had good candidates here in the past, who [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster|failed because they had a limited understanding of WP:CSD]]. MZM has demonstrated to have none whatsoever - Q2 says it all: he went to delete pages outside CSD based on a consensus that did not exist; furthermore, even if such pages really were deemed unacceptable, those deletions would still have been outside policy and an admin should know that. MZM has made mistakes, multiple times and repeatedly, with a certain stubbornness, too. I cannot support any random user with such a track record of behavior, no matter how beneficial some of their contributions may be. The same standard applies to MZM. I urge everyone commenting here to ask themselves, whether they would support a candidate with such a track record that was not called "MZMcBride". Regards '''
'''Oppose'''. This very self-nomination demonstrates a "lapse of judgement", it's way too early, it will inevitably be interpreted as a provocation by a significant number of editors, unnecessarily stirring up drama.  Shame, because this is such a gifted and clever Wikipedian.  Needs to unlearn some behavioural traits though, less strong-headed and more consensus seeking.  Actions would speak louder than words in this respect, and this is why this RfA is far too premature.
'''Oppose'''. To post a new RFA just days after the ArbCom were about to desysop for misuse of the tools (then altered to conform to a voluntary desysop) is way too soon. Heavy-handed use of the deletion button is not a lightwight issue. Moreover, I recall his close of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict]] as a remarkably bad one, where his closing statement just thrust up an "AFD is not a vote!" shield and gave no hint as to why he found one side more convincing. It appeared to me that he was closing it according to his own personal wishes, rather than to reflect the will of the community, and admins are not supposed to use their admin tools in that manner. Use of the admin tools must be used dispassionately and impartially, and that can involve closing a discussion with a result contrary to your own preference, or, if you don't like that, you should state your opinion like anyone else, and let another administrator handle the administrative parts of it.
'''Oppose''' per the points explained by SoWhy above. MZMcBride is one of the most arbitrary, abusive and uncommunicative admins I know. I do not trust him in the slightest. —
'''Oppose''' There is an unfortunate residue of careless judgment in the events leading up to this RfA and melodramatic immaturity in the actual production. I am sorry, but I cannot support this RfA.
I'm sorry, but no, not yet. You just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=282507767#Redressing_grievances asked on your user page] for constructive criticism not two days ago. I was actually going to write something there, but it seems pretty moot now. Why did you do that if you were going to run for admin again immediately after you resigned? Why did you not wait for the arbitration case concerning you to finish first? Quite honestly, I think this has been your problem all along: You rush things. You delete "secret" pages in the middle of a discussion about them, you delete talk page redirects with no incoming links without asking about any drawbacks that that might have (people had to find out the hard way). So no, I'd like to see you become more aware of your actions first before I support you for adminship. I'd like you to stick to the rules for a while, even if you don't agree with them. Yes, there are backlogs, and I'm actually willing to fully support any admin bot of yours that you will submit to BRFA (assuming the submitted task needs to be done, of course). I'm also willing to block it immediately as soon as it does something it was not approved to do. :) --
'''strongest possible oppose''' you resigned your adminship barely 2 days ago, doing so before it could be removed forcibly by arbcom. Hence this timing is atrocious. Take time off, try the non admin life for a while, and in a coupl of months I would be most happy to support.
'''Oppose''' - while my interactions with Mzm have been limited, the reasoning above by editors I trust sways me. Resigning the bit voluntarily and a few days later showing up at RfA (while still in the midst of the ArbCom case) seems telling. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Strong oppose'''. You gave up your admin rights on April 6 and then nominate yourself for adminship on April 8? Um, no. Why did you resign? Now is definitely not the time. And if this RFA actually passes, it would only encourage future admins who are up for desysopping by Arbcom in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride|active arbitration cases]] to game the system in a similar manner. --
'''Oppose''' Too stubborn in your mistakes, not sufficiently willing to accept consensus when you disagree.  Your [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war#MZMcBride admonished|admonishment]] in the Sarah Palin protection wheel war case last fall also weighs on me, in addition to the deletion and bot policy violations previously discussed.
Although I enjoy interacting with you and think you've made a lot of valuable contributions, I think it is too soon to ask for adminship back. At least wait for the case to close, please. Also I do have some concerns along the lines of those GRBerry outlines, I think some time away from adminship might be helpful. ++
'''Oppose''' Of the above [[User:Conti|Conti]] is closest to my thoughts here.--
'''Oppose''' - I don't often contribute to RfA Discussions, but I feel too strongly about this user to do otherwise.  In the events leading up to his current ArbCom case, this user has shown extremely poor judgement, a disregard for the wishes of the community and disdain for his fellow editors.  Perhaps, with more time, he will demonstrate that he deserves the community's trust again, but he's not there yet.
'''Oppose for now'''. Too much of a continuing theme of rashness and rush to action to fully trust with the deletion button at the present time (the timing of this self-nom is a case in point). Can easily see myself supporting once all the dust has settled and when it is clear MZM's modus operandi has moderated.
'''Oppose'''.  I have never bought the "but he does good work" argument.  Nobody is impossible to replace, nobody.  You may in fact, do a lot of good work, but the baggage that you bring just isn't worth it.  If as you say, you are willing to change, then give it some time (months, not days), and show us you are.  Then I'll support.  --
'''Regretfully oppose''', but hope to support in the future. Yes, MZMB does good work. And the majority of the communications I've seen have been polite and helpful, a model of what an admin should be. But the whole page deletion thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. Not the initial deletions, but the fact that MZMB continued to delete them by the bucketful after it should have been blindingly obvious that this was controversial and needed to be discussed. I hope MZMB has learned from this, but there just hasn't been enough time to see any evidence one way or the other.--
'''Oppose'''. The secret pages deletions were serious enough that, before MzMcbride resigned, ArbCom had effectively already decided to take his tools away whether he liked it or not. I feel the same sort of way as they do; that this was a massive, ''massive'' lapse of judgement. The disdain he showed to other users, the refusal to deal with the issue when it came up (instead prefering to simply ''continue'' deleting pages), the [[Santer Commission|Santer-esque]] resignation (jumping before he was pushed, essentially) are not conductive to a good editing environment and do not show an administrator with the necessary judgement, imo, to continue or be renewed. He ''was'' a good administrator, and he might ''well be'' at some point in the future. But his conduct over the past few weeks/months is such that at the ''moment'' he would be godawful. Past good conduct is not an excuse for current misconduct. If you've changed and accept you were wrong, fine; come back when we've got evidence of that in the form of diffs. The fact that this occurred ''after'' you were reprimanded in another ArbCom case suggests that such changes may be a long time coming. I've used up my italics quota for the day.
'''Oppose''' per Viridae, Fabrictramp and Ironholds. Come on, getting rid of the mop and then wanting it back 48 hours later? Are you serious? <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
Per Conti.
'''Absolutely not''' - per everyone above, really, but especially this: to resign your bit inches ahead of ArbCom removing it from you (that resolution passed with a majority of 8 several days ago) and then immediately request it back ''looks like'' evasion of said decision. Come back in six months. //
'''Oppose''' I'm in agreement with what Roux said.
Now? Ouch, that's a rash act. Relax. I would be glad to consider support if you ran a bit later, say in a few month's time. -
'''Oppose'''.  I don't think that MZMcBride acted in bad faith or that he is untrustworthy.  I'd also like to say that MZMcBride has done a lot of good for the wiki, but that's not quite the point here.  I think there are a few things to throw out here.  First of all, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".  Even if you do what you think is right and helpful, you can really screw up when you start to ignore consensus.  That is one of the things that happened here.  Second, "power corrupts". MZMcBride admits that after a few years on the site, he thought he knew best and could just do what he felt was right.  That's not how it works.  If we support here today, it's a de facto way of saying that he didn't really do anything wrong, and that's not the case.  Third, I'd like to put forward a baseball analogy.  If the coach tells you to bunt, but you swing for the seats, you're going to get benched even if you hit the game-winning homer.  It's just not acceptable to use your own judgment when it goes against what you should be doing, and in this case MZMcBride didn't hit the game winning homer, he grounded into a double play, so any baseball manager would be absolutely livid.  Finally, coming here so soon shows that MZMcBride believes that he didn't really do anything wrong.  Sure, mistakes were made, but coming to RfA more or less immediately means that he downgrades the seriousness of what he did wrong (and in my opinion, there may even be an attempt here to undermine the ArbCom).  So, to fill out the baseball metaphor, I think he'd do well to "ride some pine" for a couple of months before coming back here.
'''Oppose''' Not going to second-guess Arbcom before the case is even closed.
'''Oppose''' I have a great deal of respect for MZMcBride and the time and effort he puts into the project, but regretfully must oppose in view of the Arbcom admonition of 6 months ago and now this second Arbcom case where the ink isn't even dry yet. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Due to lengthy block log and running non approved bots.--
'''Oppose''' without prejudice to running again after the Arbitration is actually closed. But I think it has to be considered too early to run again if the ArbCom case which prompted it isn't itself closed yet.
MZM was about to be desysopped in the arbcom case before he resigned. I don't see this as a good idea.
'''WTF''' I'm sorry, but this is just over the top.  I am all in favor of people stepping in and out of adminship... I think we need to have more temporary desysops, and would encourage ArbCOM to start using temporary removal of the bit rather than permanent removal.  But requesting the bit back while the ink is still wet is a little too much.  I probably would support you in a few months, but not right now---my expectations for restoring the bit are lower than for granting it initially (I want gainin/loosing the bit to be less of a big deal.)  That being said, I do have a problem with a fair amount of your work at CSD.  The criteria at CSD are such that they errors should be in favor keeping the article  I don't watch AN/ANI religiously, but I've seen your name show up there more than a few times---and often taken there by long standing editors/admins complaining about your CSD's.  Am I willing to restore the bit?  Yes, but not now.  Not when it appears to be an end around of the ArbCOM process.  This shows an incredible lack of respect for the members of ArbCOM and for Wikipedia itself!  If you had waited a month or even a few weeks, I think you might have passed... but to run while an ArbCOM case is ongoing... that appears to be an intentional slight on every member of the committee.---'''
'''Oppose''', basically per SoWhy and GRBerry.  MZM&mdash;acting, it is undisputed and I do not doubt, in good faith&mdash;substitutes his judgment for that of the community too often (and quite importantly relative to BLP), and I do not believe that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being a sysop was positive]] (he may, of course, having been suitably chastened, now intend to partake of adminship ministerially, but one can't yet reach any conclusions about what changes he may have made; I, for one, though, would be glad to revisit the issue in a few months, when a greater record of post-RfAr conduct will exist, and I do not pass on the possibility that I might one day support).
'''Oppose''' Both due to the events that led to the Arbcom case and for the answer to my question. In both cases MZMcBride seems to take no consensus as an invitation to impose his own opinion over the opinion (or no agreement) of the community. I cannot support any candidate who would do that, as that way leads to decisions being made just on the basis of which admin arrives to make the decision first.
'''Oppose'''. Now is a time to process what has been said at RFAr, at your talk page, and at various other places. I've said elsewhere that I believe your activity as an admin has been a net positive, and I stand by that. However, it has also included a number of avoidable negatives. That is to say you have made mistakes that could have been avoided by acting with a bit more discussion, patience, and forethought. All people make such mistakes and hopefully we grow from them and learn to do better. I didn't feel you deserved to to be desysoped because of that but now that it has happened I think it is a time to let the dust settle and reflect on how things got here. I expect to see you return to adminship eventually, but I think it does neither the community nor you much good to jump back in as if there were never any problems at all.
'''Strong oppose''' per Sowhy and pixelface. <s>Wasn't this editor an admin before?</s> Has history of ignoring consensus on Articles for deletion, and closing the AfD the way he wants.
The way you dealt with this is inappropriate, I can't help but feel your are trying to play the system. —
'''too soon''' Let's let the arbcom case run its course and give things a month or so.
'''Oppose''' Per all the reasons presented by SoWhy. With an arbcom case ongoing, I also have some uneasyness. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per all above, but mostly the secret page deletions. -
'''Oppose'''. Per SoWhy and Roux. I have absolutely no confidence in the candidate won't abuse the tools, especially when it has already been done. — '''''
'''Oppose'''  I have no doubt that MZMcBride is on balance a good admin.  The problem though is on balance isn't a high enough standard when it comes to out of process admin actions.  He still continues to assert a right to ignore consensus like using unauthorized bots.  In fact his explanation that he didn't want to debate the people whose pages he was deleting IMHO compounds the problem.   Obviously deleted pages can be restored but the burden is on the deleter not the creator, for a reason.  I think the precedent set would truly awful.  Deletions should either be completely obvious or require a consensus.  I'd support reinstatement after a period of months.
'''Oppose''' per Sjakkalle.—
'''Oppose''' which I'll be happy to change to a support after the ArbCom case closes, depending on the ArbCom decision and how this RFA goes.  My hands are tied at the moment by my belief that RFA shouldn't be used to overrule ArbCom, and what I read in the proposed decision refers to "an RFA subsequent to this case" and "a future RFA", which is in line with the discussion leading up to the decision.  If the ArbCom case has not closed 7 days after the start of this RFA, I would support a request to the crats to extend this RFA until the case closes, if that might make a difference in the result. - Dan
The rashness of this RFA makes me suspect immaturity on his part.  Immature admins are a problem.
'''Oppose''' due to tendency to use admin tools unilaterally, ignoring the wishes of the community.
'''Strong oppose''' I'd have trouble supporting you half a year from now, but ''now''?! You have abused CSD and deleted tons of valuable information in the process, most notably the warning templates on past spammers. When notified of your actions you didn't stop to talk things over but carried on. What you did was an abuse of the admin tools if I've ever seen one. '''
'''No'''. Not suited to be an admin. MZMcBride's track record, his arbitration case, and my personal experience with him proves this. -
'''Oppose''' not with an arbcom case pending; let's see how it ends so we can evaluate your contributions in light of actual (not proposed) findings.
'''Oppose''' I try to stay well clear of wikipolitics, but in my opinion this has to be opposed because of the pending arbitration case.
'''Oppose''' Chronically poor communication and an attempted end-run around an impending Arbcom desysop are not encouraging signs.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose'''. Too much drama and what appears, without diving too much into the ArbCom case, to be an attempt to tiptoe around the issue. Semi-recent mass deletion with an unapproved adminbot. It's too much for my taste. Although you ''are'' a good editor and I could potentially support you in a future RFA depending on how things pan out.
'''Oppose'''. Drama prone, long history of bad decisions, doesn't listen to the community, etc etc as shown in the arb case; this poor decision to resign and file a new RFA while the arb case was ongoing is just bad-tasting icing on the cake.
'''Weak Oppose'''  I agree with the sentiments expressed by Durova and Roux—this has come far too soon, and there are some serious issues with your conduct. But MZM does do good work; it's a shame...  —
'''Oppose''' - resigning the bit during an AC case then RfAing was really stupid. You should've really waited the three months instead. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' The ArbCom case was a wake up call and he had no indication, including a specific injunction to stop the cavalier behavior, that his cavalier behavior needed modified?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMZMcBride][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride#Extension_of_injunction] If that's the case he's far, far too clueless to ever be allowed back near the admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' - you do some good things for the project, but the bad does not outweigh the good in my mind <small>(Which may be biased since I was the one to file the recently-closed Arbitration case)</small>, and the pattern and timeline of events leading up to this RfA is extremely unsettling. Resigning the bit during an ongoing Arbitration case is your right, but I believe that your judgment is severely lacking in initiating a reconfirmation RfA even before the Arb case closed especially when there was a remedy that would have passed if you had not resigned which would have de-sysoped you indefinitely. I would have liked to see at least three months of problem-free editing before you presented a reconfirmation RfA, therefore in three months I might consider supporting you because at present I do not trust you with the tools. -'''
'''Oppose''' per above and a pending ArbCom case.  Perhaps you should wait awhile before applying again - 2 days after giving up admin rights and then re-requesting them makes it seem like you really haven't learned anything from the ArbCom case.  I do think you are/were an excellent admin but this is, unfortunately, not the time. Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''', MZMcBride, I'm very startled, didn't you resign from your adminship just one and half day ago? If you request it two or three month later, I would support you, but this request looks like you're striking against ArBCom's decision.--
While I have great respect for MZ's tireless maintenance work which has been of significant benefit to the site, I have always found that he has a tendency to act impulsively at times. Adding the fact that MZ resigned only a short time ago and is already back at RfA, especially while the whole arbcom drama is ongoing, I have some reservations that prevent me from supporting. I just think it's a bad time to be here.
This is one i have to spend some time pondering. No doubt he's done an enormous amount of good work, but there's also little doubt in my mind he's done a lot of damage. I have to try to balance to two, and include his answers to questions and future questions. --
A year ago at the close of another arbitration case I discussed the possibility of a similar RFA with the unfortunate admin who was at the center of it.  Those circumstances were substantially different and don't need to be discussed here except to say that it was a highly irregular case and the Committee eventually vacated parts of the decision.  It's a good thing for the community to retain the power to correct arbitration errors in case they ever happen again.  That said, I am unable to support any candidate who posts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed_decision&diff=282038590&oldid=282037040 this] two days before RFA.  I almost never oppose an adminship bid, though, and MZMcBride has been a very active and mostly beneficial administrator who seems to be having a rough spring.  ''Take a breather''.  Life without the tools isn't so terrible, and if you do get them back please take a rest anyway until you're tanned and ready.  The stresses of being an active sysop are almost invisible until they overtake a Wikipedian; that's why so many retire suddenly.  Slow down from a sprint and run the mile.  Warmly, <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' pending outcome of ArbCom case.
'''Neutral''' until I've had time to consider this in its entirety.  I can't deny the contributions or benefit you've been to the community.  The support from some very experienced wikipedians is obvious.  Your responses to some very difficult questions are exemplary. (And I suspect you underestimate your writing skills)  My first thoughts of an attempted end-run around procedure may well have been wrong, and in the spirit of AGF, I assume it's a quick response to ArbCom's suggestion, and colleague's comments.  I think the judgment as to the timing of this is suspect, but I do admire the boldness.  Yes, I'll need a little time to reflect and evaluate.  While I understand my !vote carries very little weight, it's important to me that I cast it in the slot I believe most accurately reflects my beliefs. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' per Caspian Blue.  I generally agree with your actions, if not your methods, but I would like to see you hang up the bit and work without it for a while, to demonstrate continued "plays nice with others" and mollify your critics.  Come back after 3+ months of such productive non-admin contribution and I'll gladly support.
This is a tough one.  On one hand, broadly speaking I trust MZ with the tools, and I think the "secret page" thing was no big deal.  On the other hand, this RFA, in the context of the RFAR, suggests a certain stubbornness in response to criticism that's a little worrying.  I'm also worried about the fact that he's "open to recall" - as I see it, recall is only meaningful if you ''aren't'' open to advice through normal channels (like a note on your user page, an email, or an RFC).  Broadly speaking, the idea of MZ having admin tools doesn't bother me - there's a lot of benefit to the project.  But there are also concerns that make it hard to add myself to the support column.
'''Neutral''' Leaning toward oppose.  MZM, you are dedicated to the community, but I still am a little put-off by your actions.  Also, the ArbCom case is still open. :|
'''Neutral''' - I came here with the clear intention to support you, but I feel I can't do so due to the concerns raised above. Regretfully, →
'''Neutral''' I don't want to be part of this nonsensical debate but I'd like to note that the timing is just atrocious. What exactly were you expecting MZM? Overwhelming support? Enough support to fall in a grey zone where a bold 'crat might feel generous? Enough support to make the 8 of 14 arbitrators recommending desysoping look foolish? I don't really know ''what'' you were thinking and, RfC style, I'd like to ask "what is the desired outcome?" That's a mystery but what I do know is that the result, in the first 17 hours alone, is 110kb of drama which you've just uselessly inflicted on the community. Divisive shit: a few editors taking shots at one another or at ArbCom, people digging into trenches and thinking "jeez what are those idiots thinking?" I'm not even going to hint at what I think of the ArbCom findings or the wisdom of their decisions, or hint at my own evaluation of MZM's past behaviour. All I want to say is that running this RfA now is beyond idiotic and cannot possibly be helpful for the project.
I appreciate your work towards Wikipedia.  I am confident that you know computers, but we have formatting issues that I corrected in this submission that are the base of what an administrator should know.  I am computer stupid (I once crashed teh wiki in revising the history of [[Mars]]), but RfA applications truly are fill in the blanks.  Try again shortly.
'''Oppose'''. While your work so far has been good, and it is appreciated, there isn't enough yet for me to be sure of your knowledge of policies and procedures. I would recommend closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. However, I would love to talk to you about the Intel Core i7, which I am considering purchasing.

'''Support''' as nom. '''
'''Had it watchlisted for some reason support''' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Asenine_2&diff=242782519&oldid=242779009 deja vu!]) - clueful editor. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Would-have-nominated-Support'''. Per Xeno ;-) '''
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. I must say that I'm unpersuaded by the concerns in the oppose section thus far. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' I believe the nomination statement was sincere.  And while I am not a fan of extracting apologies, I think it was probably necessary.  I think Neuro/Asenine will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' Yup, been around the block, as it were, i see no reason the mop will cause brain fail. --
'''Support''' on the condition he stops making me hip-hop mixtapes, rapping on WP and doesn't shave HAGGER? into my head while I sleep.
'''Support''' I trust this user not to abuse the tools and I hate IRC DRAMA.
per Ironholds.
I opposed Neurolysis' last RfA based on some behavioral concerns. However, in the time since that RfA I have kept an eye on him, and I think he's done a great job in improving himself since then. He experienced with policy, is friendly, gives good input and does good work wherever he participates, and is a helpful editor overall. I am pleased to support this nomination after opposing the last one.
'''Support'''? Hell yeah! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
A very approachable and helpful user, Neuro will do well with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000066;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Neurolysis has been very active in a wide range of areas across Wikipedia and is very trustworthy. In my opinion, he has improved greatly in the last six months since his last RfA and would be very helpful as an administrator.
'''Support''' I can work with him. '''
'''Support''' I like what I've seen, & I think he'll be okay (okay meaning not abusing the tools). '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' I've seen neurolysis around, and all indications are that he'll be a great admin. I actually thought he was an admin already. Best of luck.
'''Support'''.  Been waiting for this one.  Solid, personable, and he cares.  I'll be happy to look at Wisdom's diffs or anyone else's diffs, but it will have to be pretty bad for me to switch teams. - Dan
'''Support''', and Support strongly I might add.  While his tremendous efforts to get me clued in and up to speed during my fist days at WP may be a personal feeling, rather than objective evidence, I can also state with clear conscience that Neurolysis does have a clue, will benefit the community, and the tools would only further enhance his ability to maintain, sort, and protect the project.  <small>(sorry for the run on sentence - I got carried away)</small> — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
<s>[[User:DougsTech|'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.]]</s> No. <s>[[User:Kmweber|'''Oppose''' - I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.]]</s> No! <s>[[User:Ecoleetage|Hello, I would like to place an order... oh sorry, wrong queue.]]</s> NO!!! Wait, I got it! '''Very strong support''' - I've seen Neuro around, and have seen nothing but good from him. A hard worker, civil, kind and helpful; if not him, then who? --'''[[User:Dylan620|Dylan]]''' ([[User talk:Dylan620|chat]], [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|work]], [[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|ping]],
'''Yarr!''' Neuro is an excellent editor, polite, mature, and clued-up. Excellent administrator candidate, I keep having to remind myself that he isn't one. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' No bad interactions, only good ones.
'''Reiterating support'''. The blog thing, especially the attack on giano, is unfortunate but I believe the neuro genuinely regrets it. It is also worth noting that he commented under his own wikipedia monicker. I continue to believe that he'll make an excellent admin. --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' You've been around and that's what counts. —
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' [[Star Wars|May the force be with you, young Jedi. ^_^]].
'''Strong support''', will make the kind of administrator of which we really need more.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''': Per above. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">
'''Strong Support''' Been expecting this rfa for awhile - would have nominated you myself eventually. Neurolysis has much experience in many aspects of the project, a high level of approachability, and will definitely not abuse sysop rights. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Neuro has always been able and willing to help me when I've had problems and has always been calm during a crisis.  I think he would make a great administrator.  ''<B>
'''Support''' Been waiting for this.
'''Support''' --
'''Duh''' - won't abuse the tools. Donnez le mop, toute de suite. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by

'''Support''' Can be trusted with the bit. --
'''Support'''. I am amazed by how much growth Neurolysis has shown from his past as a rather disagreeable character to someone with whom it is a pleasure to work with. I am certain that Neurolysis will make an excellent admin. '''''
<s>Too tall</s><s>Too young</s> '''
I've seen this request coming for quite some time now. There was a time when I had already thought Neuro to be an administrator, and then I had happened upon his logs and noticed he wasn't. I wondered, "why? He'd be a wonderful admin." I have seen Neuro's name around a lot lately and have generally had a positive impression of him &mdash; he is always willing to assume good faith when there isn't especially strong evidence of bad faith, and he admits and learns from his past mistakes. He is very active in a lot of administrator-heavy areas of the project, and is very thoughtful and patient when it comes to dealing with newcomers who don't understand Wikipedia's processes quite yet. We need more administrators with these traits, and we need more highly active admins. That said, I feel it would be against Neuro's wishes for somebody to not be honest and forth-right with him, and I will not lie; I have at times been concerned by Neuro's handling of certain situations. There are times when Neuro makes judgmental mistakes (and he knows this, he's not afraid of owning up to his mistakes), and on occasion I find he is a tad too willing to give obviously bad-faith editors more chances than they should have. I'm not suggesting that he AGF less often, but I just wanted to offer a reminder that sometimes, [[WP:IAR|rules can be ignored]] if it's better to do so. I also took the liberty to check his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Asenine 2|prior RfA]] and found that there were significant concerns at the time, just around six months ago. But simply looking at his contributions as of late, it is obvious he has come a long way since that time. He has matured a great deal ever since he first came here, and those issues are pretty much a faded memory now. It is obvious that Neuro has been working to become an administrator for some time now (not that it was his only Wikipedia goal, but it is still evident that Neuro wanted to be somebody others would turn to for help) and I cannot find any reason why not to give the mop to somebody who is honest, considerate, thoughtful, and open-minded. '''In short''', I trust Neurolysis fully.
'''Support''' I've had good interactions with this user and I think he'll be a good admin.
My impression of neuro has always been that he is an extremely civil and respectful editor; just about every interaction I've had with him has involved neuro keeping everyone civil (I have sometimes been on the receiving end of that). I don't know anything about neuro's past, before I was a Wikipedian, but the neuro of the present certainly commands my respect. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Weak Support'''. Not the perfect history, but a very improved Wikipedian.
'''Support''' Great editor, very helpful. Per all the above. '''''
'''Support''' Through my lengthy interactions with Neuro through anti-vandalism, FPC, and other places, I have always had good experiences. '''
'''Support'''- I don't see any reason to deny this user the mop. Neuro has always struck me as level-headed and intelligent, and will probably be responsible with the tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. I wondered a few days why you hadn't run for adminship.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I've seen good work from this user and believe he would make a fine and trustworthy administrator.
'''Support'''- it's about friggin' time. Neuro is quite prolific and I've had positive interactions with him.
'''Support''' No reason not to. Seen good stuff so far. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Strong support'''. He's not an admin?
'''Support''' thought he was an admin, a crat, a CU, an oversiter, an ArbCom member, a Steward, a Founder, etc, already.
'''Support''' Keep up the good work. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has clue, will travel.
'''Support''' - I don't generally get involved in these Admin elections (mostly because I just don't care about Admins), but I've seen some of his anti-vandalism work and I was impressed enough to have to speak up.  He has my support for his Admin bid.
'''Yes''' - honestly per Wizardman, also per WilliamH. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Hell yes''' (it gets old just saying "support" all the time, and well, the one above me is a "yes," so...) per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as the candidate has never been blocked, rescues articles from deletion and contributes to featured articles per [[User:Neurolysis#Contributions]], has received numerous barnstars seen at [[User:Neurolysis#Barnstars]], and makes thoughtful arguments in AfDs (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(2nd_nomination)&diff=278998276&oldid=278976572] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chemical_compounds_with_unusual_names_(3rd_nomination)&diff=266647900&oldid=266576439].  Sincerely, --
'''Strong Support''' Definitely, I was also under the impression that Neuro was already an admin.--
'''Support''' After what has been already said, I do not think there is more to add to the conversation. '''
'''{{User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support}}''' I give him the best support ever. --
Yup. Without a doubt. And, er, [[Vegas|what happens on irc, stays on irc]]. :) <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
Being Neuro's nom for his Last RfA, I can say that my view has not changed. Neuro is a very friendly, capable user, and will go good with the tools.
'''Support''' Sure. —
User is a good one. He's mean to me on IRC, but well, I can overlook that. Haha.
'''Support''' - A good candidate for the job, already doing a lot of useful admin-like work, and I've found him to have a good demeanor.
'''About time support'''. Why isn't this user an admin already? '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' This user spends a lot of time trying to do helpful things around the project. I feel he his a pretty good candidate, and I can find no reason to think he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', per above.
'''Support''' - I was not aware of this user's previous history, but I've seen some of his recent comments in the admin forums, and he always appeared to be a sensible person. Not convinced by the Oppose arguments.
'''Support''' I can't see any reason worth opposing for. '''
'''Support''' Never had a negative impression of the guy, and seen him around plenty.
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' Seems an able, and willing candidate...
'''Support''' I see no problems, will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' Sure, I think he'll be an asset with the tools.  --
'''Support''' nice guy, I trust him. He's not that bad [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 4|IRL either]]. '''
'''Strong speedy support''' We need more guys like him.
'''Support''' belongs here. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' to spite Giano :) No, seriously, there are positives and negatives about Neurolysis, and I think the former outweigh the latter. People are allowed to screw up.
'''Support''' opposes unconvincing, interactions positive.  Equals support.--
'''Support'''.  People can change, and this editor has shown that he has.—
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Editor has proven they can be a useful and valuable member of the staff. --'''''
'''Support''' Oops, thought I already had. Sorry for being so late! —<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
My interactions with Neuro have been very inconsistent. At times, I will approach him on IRC about something he's done that I don't necessarily agree with. I'll admit that most of these times, I lose my cool, and start acting rude, and I've tried to stop acting like that. However, one more than one occasion, I've been talking to Neuro in a channel, and before we finish the conversation, he makes a comment, and leaves before I have the chance to reply. I don't like the idea of having an administrator that walks away from issues, instead of trying to handle them. Besides this, I've read [[User:Neurolysis/Apology]] again before considering my !vote here, and I'm not exactly impressed by it. I don't like that he left his account because he couldn't handle the criticism. That shows immaturity, IMO. After he came back on his new account, I would at least expect him to come right out and say "This is me, I've created a new account." Instead though, it seems he only announced it because many were getting suspicious. Neurolysis is generally a great help to the community, and we do get along very often, but I'm not comfortable placing the tools in his hands. My mind is not shut close, and I'm open to discussing anything. <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;[[User:iMatthew|<b>iMatthew</b>]] : [[User_talk:iMatthew|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:#960018;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) '''Edit:''' After seeing the blog comments, I've lost my thoughts of switching to support. He was showing me elsewhere that, maybe he would be great as an administrator, however we can't have admins going out and talking to people that way. <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - I came here thinking that I would support, but as most RfA denizens know I am stringent, and a stickler, when it comes to UAA. I don't have the time right now to provide the actual diffs (I can do it later), but I am opposing on the grounds that Neuro thinks UAA is the proper venue to report and block suspected role accounts, or usernames that are actual entities, such as bands or companies. It is much more appropriate to kindly assert or instruct rather than hardblocking.
'''Oppose''' I am a bit concerned about Neurolysis' policy knowledge. It isn't uncommon that Neuro makes a request of an admin that gets turned down as unacceptable. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima&diff=281564594&oldid=281563851 here], Neuro indicates that it is appropriate to oversight comments on request, if a user wishes to redact them. Regardless of if this passes or not, I ask Neurolysis please take care in ensuring actions are appropriate.
I've interacted with this user off-wiki and am not comfortable with his general attitude.  I think administrators should exhibit a certain amount of maturity and I don't see it in this candidate. -
I suppose it won't mean much this oppose, since it looks like you'll pass easily, but nonetheless: I'm not sure I agree with those supporting that I trust this user completely, 100%. I like the improvement he or she has made, but I still have some lingering doubts. The dramamongering is a little offputting. Leaves in a huff, comes back a few hours later under a new name. Slightly fear a mass delete of <small>amend</small> something "important" a la Ed Poor (I think) and VfD. Fear a massive burnout and wanting to go down in flames. <small>/amend</small> Also, I think we have too many administrators... who haunt IRC. I'm a believer of on-wiki actions. Also, as Prodego highlights above, I'm not sure the grasp of policy, especially deletion/oversight, etc., is quite up-to-snuff. Some other lingering concerns as well, not necessarily concerning administratorship, so no need to outline here. I appreciate the work you do, neurolysis, and think you'll pass, so please be very, very careful using the tools. And don't put any 'thank you' spam on my talk page, if you would. Mahalo. --
'''Oppose''' per Rjd and others. Does fine work, certainly an improvement since leaving the Asenine identity behind; however, seems a little too drama prone. <s>Feeling a little uncomfortable about the IRC cabal turning out in force to push this through.</s>
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with the other opposers. Neurolysis is a fine user but I don't think he has the temperament for being an adminstrator. It looks like this RfA is going to pass so I hope I'm proven very wrong. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. I'm worried, per Rjd0060. Also more specifically I'm worried about [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/shane_richmond/blog/2009/02/08/giles_hattersleys_disappearing_wikipedia_entry Neurolysis' newspaper blog comments] on the Giles Hattersley affair (scroll down from the blog itself to the comments, please). I hope those comments don't indicate that Neurolysis' change of username and demeanour is only skin deep; but it's not looking good. He's commenting on a Wikipedia user, by account name, with hair-raising ignorance and assumption of bad faith; he can't have spent five seconds researching the matter. Yes, his comments are published off-site; if other reviewers here prefer not to pay attention to anything off Wikipedia, that's up to them. But good judgment, wherever it's displayed (as long as it's displayed ''with respect to Wikipedia'', and in public), is the single most important quality I look for in a new admin. I'm not seeing it on the page I've linked to.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not comfortable with this nomination at this time.  Too narrow in scope in regards to what comes across as a quick-trigger view on "IP = vandal unless proven otherwise", in my experience.  Also seems too intent on "gaining" adminship.  Just a gut reaction perhaps, and perhaps harsh, and I apologize if taken wrong, it's not personal.  Reviewing the earlier attempts at adminship, plus some interaction I've had with Neuro "as an IP" (check November archives) have tainted my view slightly perhaps.  Tipping me from neutral to oppose: I'm about as "anti-IRC" as they come, and the insinuations of off-wiki canvassing, while probably exaggerated or downright untrue, are enough to scare me off this candidate, although I freely admit that my bias against IRC is likely getting the best of me in this regard.
'''Oppose'''—I'm uneasy about the temperament side of things. Far too soon after previous RfA to have had time for self-reflection and development of the kind of skills we need to see in admins. Nervous that admins such as Black Kite and Bishonen are uncomfortable about this nomination. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 06:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC) PS, ''and'' I'm embarrassed about this public blog at the UK ''Daily Telegraph'' (excerpt below), which makes Wikipedians look like brawling fools, and insults the broadsheet's journalists as well! GREAT public relations, isn't it, and probably a breach of [[WP:Admin#Administrator_conduct]] if he were an admin. ".... Boo hoo. Then someone decided to leave an abusive edit summary and the whole thing is now completely blown out of proportion, making a complete mountain out of a molehill, all because you bloody guys couldn't get your facts right." Reply from DT: "Neurolysis: Thanks for the clarification but the article you're referring to was in The Times, not the Telegraph. Your comments would be better directed there." Rejoinder by Neur.: "Shane - Whoops. I suck. I'll work on a slightly more civil post now that I realise I'm actually commenting on a website of a newspaper that doesn't seem to want to have us drilled into the ground."
'''Oppose''': This person is totally unfit to be an Admin. He distorts the truth to suit his own ends. His temperament is wrong. He is not a person to be trusted. Just one of his lies was describing me as a "new user" that "we have come to see" in a public newspaper forum was more than a distortion is was a downright lie, concocted to ingratiate himself with Jimbo and God know's who else. Is this the sort of person who shopuld be an Admin. Lie, discredit and acheive, may be his motto; it is not one to be admired. We'll deal with his other lies, as and when this RFA continues.
Switched from support. I passed over Rjd0060's testimony but consideration of the points made by Bishonen and also Tony, substantiate this and make me uncomfortable. The behaviour on the blog, while perhaps well intentioned in some respects (not including using this as a platform to damage the reputation of another user), was rash, undiplomatic and consequential. This is not a good sign for a prospective admin. But most of all I don't like the idea that we'd elect someone to adminship soon ''after'' something like that. Wrong message to send. Sorry, Neuro.
'''Oppose''': Behaviour off-wiki often escapes notice, so it's always a useful pointer when these are available. In that sense, I'm afraid that Neuro has shown himself in the worst possible light: the posts to ''[[the Daily Telegraph]]'' are damaging not only to himself but to WP and all who edit here. In my opinion, its public nature makes it infinitely worse than anything he may have done under his previous moniker, for which he rightly got cold reception. His rapid succession of RfAs, would indicate his eagerness to step up to the block. However, I would say that it's been a few short months since he "turned over a new leaf".  While I have no doubt that the apology for his actions as Asenine is sincere, the Telegraph episode &ndash;only two months ago &ndash;gives me great trepidation about his personality; his rapid apology at this stage can be no more than damage limitation to rescue his candidature. I am terrified that we may be getting "[[Neuropathy]]" (or a [[Mr Hyde]], in more common parlance) as part of the deal when voting for [[User:Neurolysis|Neurolysis]].
'''Oppose''' I think Wisodm has a good point and also have concerns on the user's maturity/temperament.
'''Oppose''':  The Hattersley affair showed shrill, screeching, and imperious wrongheadedness, and it included name calling that brought disrepute to Wikipedia.  The amount of anger there made me sure that this person needed to be as far away from buttons as possible.  Buttons can be undone, but comments at a public forum on an outside site cannot, and yet he was willing to go off half cocked and with incendiary charges there.  How would his anger manifest, how would his haste show, as an admin?  No.  Temperament is the first and the only test of an administrator.  I'm also sickened by the idea of someone using IRC to decide Wikipedia matters.  IRC is not Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''': I'm afraid the behaviour on the blog is inconsistent with the standards expected of an administrator; furthermore, they demonstrate that the candidate isn't suited to the role of an administrator at this time. If the candidate was to make similar comments on the site here, it could lead to an escalation of an issue, that's something we really don't need.
'''Oppose''' Not comfortable with a prospective admin castigating another editor off wiki. <strong>
'''Oppose''' (Switched from support) The conversation (rather tale-telling about Giano) on the blog is totally unacceptable. I also missed to take a look into the previous account (<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per concerns raised above.--
'''Oppose''' The issues raised above here are of serious concern.
'''Oppose'''. Six months just doesn't seem long enough after my previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Asenine_2&diff=242785201&oldid=242785104 strong oppose] of his last RfA. I see that an about-face has been made... perhaps I'll feel differently in another six months.
'''regretful Oppose''' Sorry, but your behavior on the telegraph newspaper cite was deplorable... I did find this comment, particularly entertaining, ''Who am I? I'm someone who isn't enough of an idiot to reveal who they are on the internet.''  Interesting how your identitifying yourself is now biting you...---'''
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen above.--
Per Bish, Rjd, Ali'i + a gut feeling that true temperament has been successfully hidden for 6 months, not actually changed.  Sorry, I wish I could support, but we need less drama, not more.  —
'''Oppose''' - Neurolysis has a rocky past, one that has been well documented. While I am all for forgive and forget, I am not sure there really has been that big of a change. Between odd comments like the one noted by User:I'm Spartacus! above, apologies, and promises never to do it again I am left with a impression of immaturity and sporadicness. Two qualities I do not look for in administrators. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neurolysis&diff=282424049&oldid=282423133 this] comment to a neutral !voter below left me confused. You ''hope'' that comments like that are out of character? Does that mean you do not know, or are just not sure if they won't happen again?
'''Oppose'''. What I see at the ''Telegraph'' blog isn't the kind of thing I want in somebody who has fancy buttons to press here. That was bad, and it was very recent. --
'''Oppose'''. Try running for adminship at off-wiki blogs or IRC, not here.
'''Oppose''', primarily for the comments at the Telegraph blog. I don't care whether it's 'out of character' or not, that's not the type of behaviour I want to see from an administrator - as others have said above, it brings the whole of Wikipedia into disrepute, and reflects very badly on Neuro. This diff posted in the Neutral section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPeterSymonds_2&diff=265754959&oldid=265754635] is not exactly inspiring either. These issues, combined with his previous behaviour under his old account, give me too many reasons for doubt to support.
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen, Tiptoety and others.
'''Oppose'''.  Could write a lot here, but I think OhConfucious wrote it best above.  Whilst my personal interaction with this editor post name-change has been positive, there are too many negatives here at the moment.  I think I would be inclined to support with a further period of his good editing practice, but at the moment - no, sorry. <b>
Switched from support. Mainly per Bishonen. Though I agree with Tiptoety as well. Presumably you should know your own personality... <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' Too much problem with recent problematic actions to believe that the process of changing is as complete as the candidate believes it is.  It may or may not progress further in the future.
'''Oppose''' Clearly Neuro contributes a great deal and should be supported and encouraged to continue his good works with or without the "tools". There have been some instances that cause concern and misgivings. The off-wiki broadsides on a major (and at times controversial) contributor aren't a good look at all. I know you've apologized in this discussion, but I think this lapse in judgement and the lack of timely corrective action will require time to overcome. I think waiting a bit would be a valuable opportunity to demonstrate the good judgement required to be a great Admin.
'''Oppose''' Per Rjd0060
'''Neutral''' Too many administrators currently.
I had no idea you were Asenine before today. Want I remember of that account, it wasn't all pleasant. —
'''Neutral''' User contributions show some good recent edits, but his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPeterSymonds_2&diff=265754959&oldid=265754635 over the top criticism] directed against me after a misjudged comment I made in January made me feel very unwelcome at RfA. This incident makes me wonder whether he has the temprement for the stresses of adminship, he apologised for what he said but I believe comments like that coming from an admin would come across very badly.
'''Neutral''' Very good editor, who is always willing to help out, but I'm just not sure about this. --
'''Neutral''' In my original support, I said that off-wiki behaviour, unless it is atrocious, doesn't bother me. While Neuro didn't say he would destroy Wikipedia, but his posts to the blog make me question his... well not temperament, as he is a good-natured person, more his ability to acknowledge that in some settings, certain comments are never appropriate. I am sitting in neutral because if I had known about the blog posts, I wouldn't have voted, so I am really negating old vote more than making a new one. &lowast;
I've seen him make comments that made me consider him as an admin, but at the same time, I wasn't aware of some of the background raised in the oppose section. Until I've looked into it for myself, I'm not comfortable deciding either way at this point.
'''Neutral''' On-wiki Neuro has shown himself to be very deserving of adminship IMO, however the concerns raised above are, well, concerning. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Proud Support'''.  This user's take on tags is fantastic, and their well thought out distinction between the wikipedia community and wikipedia writers shows a thoughtful depth which will serve them well as a level minded admin.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; knows what he's doing, nothing glaringly wrong at first glance. I just wish you would use edit summaries more. [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] –'''
'''Support''' Honest answers to questions doesn't have any serious problems.  Unless something comes up I'll be staying in this section
I like and appreciate the honest and detailed nomination statement and answers to questions: in addition, the tone and style of them shows that Nosleep is not an RfA regular, which, in my opinion, is a good thing because it means the nomination and answers are direct rather than puffed to pass RfA. I hope that Nosleep gets more credit for them, not unfair and unnecessary opposition. I think she will make a fine administrator.
Clean block log and civil talk page, seems a good candidate, I like to see a New page patroller who uses CSD and prod. I disagree with you on IP edits and stubs, and so wouldn't support you for a policy making position, but the role of admins is to enforce policy not to make it. ''
'''Support'''. I like the contributions, and you sound sincere over past incidents. You probably chose a tough time to nominate yourself though, with the Tour de France finishing tomorrow and everything!
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' seems a worthy content contributor and knows his way around the wiki.  I'd remind the opposes we have no shortage of mops.  It is not necessary that a candidate work much at AfD before promotion, I didn't (still don't).  The term is "net positive".  Hopefully the closing crat will realize that if this one is close.  Good luck!--
'''Weak Support''' - Agree that you need to use more edit summaries, but I like how you've acknowledged your past and have rectified this. Although you seem to have done great work on [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Nosleep&namespace=0 cycling articles], I'd like to see your edits more spread out across the article namespace. Also you've only contributed [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Nosleep 185 automated edits] (all from Huggle) so your edit count hasn't been boosted by AWB ect. Interesting to note how Nosleep has never commented at RFA before. I suppose you have a lack of experience in admin areas but I'm impressed by your edits of late. Good luck :) '''
Looks solid.--''
'''Support''' - You have strong views in certain areas, but I don't see any real indication that these views would lead to real abuse of the tools. Criteria for adminship is based on who can demonstrate that they will use the tools responsibly and productively; RfA shouldn't be a popularity contest on controversial opinions unless there is real relevance to whether they can use the tools properly. I have no real concerns over "limited content area" edits--some editors are generalists and some are specialists, but both are useful. As Wehwalt says, "net positive."
'''Support''', looks decent to me. I appreciate people who are up-front about their past and their views, and I have no indication either of those things are likely to make you a bad admin. I've seen many good contributions from you and think you'd do well with admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Seems to meet the criteria.
'''Support''' It's refreshing to come across an editor who is honest and open about what they believe, and doesn't apologize for having opinions. Many RfA candidate become politicians, hiding their past indiscretions and moderating their beliefs. Nosleep has done neither of these, and has thus earned my trust. She may not be the most experienced candidate in admin-related areas, but she seems bright enough to pick it up as he goes along. (None of us with the mop ''really'' knew what being an admin entailed before we got the buttons anyway!) She'll do fine.
'''Support''' Looks good. I too applaud the idea of giving the admin bit to editors who actually have thoughtful, controversial opinions. The question is trust and willingness to follow consensus in the use of admin tools, not perfect ideological conformity, comrades. <strong>
'''Support'''; I'm happy with this candidate.
'''Strong support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nosleep&diff=289333138&oldid=289178320 this].
'''Support''' per 5. its not everything that could be mentioned, but what i gather from the response is there will be thought and consideration to be put into placing action/or not when asked to. I think there are questionable views about the editor that are justified. But I do like the transperency given. If i have any hestitation about support its over the stub issue. that said i think theres alot of honesty here by Nosleeps. I dont think they will abuse the tools
'''Support''' Because having an opinion is allowed. And in any case, most of the things in the RFA-sinking diff are spot-on. Since there has no reason been given to oppose, I therefore support. '''
'''Support''' I like your answers and you seem to exude common sense.
'''Support''' The editor's contributions to Wikipedia appear to be at a consistently high level. Furthermore, this editor has the ability to present opinions in a manner that is refreshingly direct and positive. The Oppose section has, to date, not produced any convincing arguments that would confirm Nosleep is either premature in seeking adminship or that Nosleep lacks the competenence to handle these duties. I have no hesitation in offering support for this RfA. Good luck!
'''Support''' per Acalamari and Pastor Theo. I like the answers to the questions, and the opposes are unconvincing. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' I've been up all night reading Wikipedia so now's as good a time as any to express my support for this candidate.  It's a shame that having unpopular opinions can be so damaging to RfA prospects; I'm sure we have hundreds of administrators with other controversial ideas that they keep to themselves. -- ''<B>
'''Support''' User appears to have clue. I think he'll be fine with the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
I see no problem with the user having slightly unusual views and don't expect these to hinder <s>his</s> her judgement. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' [[user:Javert/RfA|Good]] candidate. Would be a [[WP:NETPOSITIVE|net positive]] with the tools. Also, per Pastor Theo. Good luck!
'''Support''': Exceedingly honest - and therefore refreshing - answers from an editor who has had their WP problems (who hasn't?) and seems to have overcome them. I wish you all the best.--
'''support''' I'm a bit puzzled by many of the opposes. I disagree with many of his attitudes (especially in regard to IP editors and in regard to deletionism) but I don't see those as reasons to oppose if one thinks he will use the tools well which is a question independent of wikiphilosophy or long-term policy goals.
'''Support''' This deletion-prone gnome with where-were-u-in-07 hang-ups still prefers rare intelligence, honesty and clue .
'''Support''': Will be a good administrator, good luck..
'''Support''' This is a little tentative, but I think you have the ability to rise above and improve the areas that the community thinks could/should be improved.  I disagree that someone's views should [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it|count against them]]; as long as you're not grossly opposed to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] or some other such [[WP:5P|pillar]], you can fit neatly into the community.  I don't think you will let your creative views affect your behavior as a sysop, and they are valuable contributions to the community. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - Nosleep first got my attention through [[WP:BEEF]], a pretty good essay though it appears to misquote an essay I wrote. I don't believe in opposing due to user's views either (see [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria]]), and I am moderately confident that Nosleep can leave these behind when he has his admin hat on. I must say that if I was just judging views this is a candidate I would definitely oppose, though I appreciate the transparency and it is good to see Nosleep has taken the time to try and back-up his views. I see some good article and XfD work, I take note of the past conflicts but again I applaud the users transparency regarding the issue. I would like a little more experience with image copyright, but I think you know enough to use the tools okay.
'''Support''', no problems here, no evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', essentially moral at this stage, but I don't like the way her perfectly reasonable personal views on ISPs & minimum article length have been held against her by opposers. These may be minority views at present, but should not be brought in here in this way if Nosleep is ready to act on current policy in admin work.
'''Support'''.  Looks like an intelligent and thoughtful editor who could be an effective admin.  I am not just unconvinced by the opposes, but dismayed by some of them.  Holding certain views on policy does not imply that the candidate would abuse admin powers to push those views against consensus.  Absent evidence that she would do so, I see opposing on those views alone as a failure to assume good faith.
'''Support''' Although I was at first skeptical, your answers have shown that you believe in the continuous improvement of articles. I actually never even looked at your user page, I just judged you from the other content here. You will be a splendid administrator someday once you gain the power of those tools. Just so you know, these questions are supposed to be odd and taxing, so i'm not being a jerk or something down that line. Good luck in future endeavours!
'''Support'''.  Your answers are well-reasoned and you made good contributions as an editor.  No reason not to trust you as an admin.
Support, Answers show maturity and the ability to admit when wrong. A very important quality for us all and doubly so for admin.
'''Support''' we need more deletionist administrators to clean up this cesspool we often promote as an encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. Like other supporters have commented on, your answers seem well-reasoned. There's nothing wrong with holding certain opinions either. You are clearly committed to improving articles and I feel that you can be a trusted as an admin. I'm sure you'll do a great job.
'''Support'''. Answers to the questions are well-written and you want to improve many featured articles. Cheers,
'''Support''' for basically the same reasons that [[User:Tanthalas39|Tan]] weakly opposes, it just led me to a [[User:Wadester16/Admin#RFA Criteria|different conclusion]] (I, too, generally support your IP views and do not believe that they are detrimental to this project). Might be a ''tad'' early, but no question user will be a net positive and self nom gains some brownie points. Interactions may be a ''bit'' rough around the edges, but not to a level that I would expect it to interfere with his abilities as sysop. Would be stronger support if edit summaries were at least 107%. '''
'''Support''' editor shows ability to sincerely apologize, to work within consensus even when against personal beliefs, and willingness to say unpopular things. While I'm concerned about the IP editor responses and the deletionist pov, it appears Nosleep can be trusted to work for the best interests of the encyclopedia. I have no problem with editing in phases - my own contribution history has roller-coaster tendencies. --
'''Weak oppose'''. I see everything that the current support camp is seeing. Nosleep's disclosure of past problems shows openness and probity. His cycling work is admirable, and, like Acalamari, I like that Nosleep is not an RfA regular. The AfD work looks relatively solid, with only a few hiccups here and there. The bottom line is that I see this candidate as a fantastic admin - ''in the future''. I just don't see enough admin-related experience. I don't need Nosleep to go delving into AN/I; but I ''do'' want to see CSD work, RFPP work, or really any work in more areas where the tools will be used. I don't see enough experience in the areas Nosleep says s/he will participate in - [[WP:PUF]] and [[WP:PU]]. Even if there was sufficient experience, I prefer a more well-rounded candidate. If I'm wrong and this RfA passes, I won't be that upset - if I were a gambling man (and I am), I would bet on the candidate being an excellent administrator. However, I just can't support now. Good luck to you, and if this doesn't pass, I have every confidence I will support the next RfA. Like JulianColten said, think about bringing your edit summary usage up to 100% (I didn't oppose over this, but it did make contribution review difficult.)
'''Oppose''' Not nearly enough experience in the project namespace. Get more admin related experience and I'll likely support in the future.
'''Oppose''' I am uncomfortable with the candidate's bias against IP editors and edits.
'''Oppose''' I am uncomfortable with the editor's views on IPs, particularly the feeling that only registered IPs should be allowed to edit. I am even more uncomfortable with the 1000 word minimum for new articles idea. And, while I don't disagree with the views expressed on consensus, I'm not sure I would sanctify it to the same degree. These views are reflective of the kind of admin Nosleep would be and I'm uneasy about supporting the candidature. Sorry. --
'''<s>Tentative</s> Regretful, but very Strong Oppose'''.  Really per the issues brought up by Tan and RegentsPark.  I don't approve of the user's position on IPs and the 1000 article work min.  Frankly, I don't like what I see in terms of experience and policy knowledge.  However, I am absolutely open to changing my !vote.  Please impress. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''', per views on IP editors.  Shutting them out entirely would be a net negative for the project.
'''Oppose'''  On his user page he writes "Stubs have no value unless they eventually become articles of greater substance."  I just think that's entirely wrong and again would not want him to have the power to delete swathes of perfectly legitimate articles he didn't consider worthy of inclusion merely on the basis of their current size.  The user also states that "Most IP's are vandals" although "I don't have statistics to back that up" which is a terrible attitude to have towards new and occasional users.  It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right?  Funnily enough, the user then writes "Consensus should be viewed with a certain sanctity. It should not be violated without a new, overriding consensus or a very, very, veeeerrryy good reason" on his user page.  Well, which is it?  Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and IPs are allowed to edit.  Should these views be sacrosanct or does that only apply to policies nosleep agrees with?
'''Oppose''' Per Tan above. Just as an add on, I really don't find it nesscary to include any other editors names in your opening statement like you did to user [[User:JohnDoe|JohnDoe]]. Just saying.
'''Oppose'''. Disagree with the candidate's views as stated on his userpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nosleep&oldid=304142883] regarding edit summaries, IPs, templates and article tagging, minimum size requirement for article creation. Also other concerns as raised by other editors, above. '''
'''Oppose''' Have far too many opinions on what users should be doing or not that would stifle progress.
strong '''oppose''' - this comment (from the diff linked above) is baffling - ''If it were completely up to me, registration would be required to edit anything. We write for the masses, yes, but what in particular is gained by having the masses write for us? If registration were required to edit, those who really wanted to edit would register.'' - anyone can edit is at the root of Wikipedia, anyone can edit is where you get new editors from (a couple of copyedits through to creators of obscure academic articles) and any one knows that vandals are only too happy to create accounts to vandalise, as are other forms of disruptive editors (single purpose point of view pushers, vandal sock farms, malicious spammers, benign but determined conflict of interest pushers etc etc.)  That one comment shows a serious lack of understanding about wiki philosophy and culture and policies.
'''Oppose'''.  Deletionist userbox is inappropriate in someone who wants to be an admin.  Comments about stubs and IP editors are also problematic.
'''Oppose'''. More experience would be better for an admin. --
'''Oppose''' as per comments regarding IPs, stubs etc. Am also troubled by the somewhat casual invocation of [[WP:IAR]] in response to question 3; I view IAR as a safety valve to be used when policies and guidelines (as written) prevent us from actually improving the encyclopedia. I don't think announcing game results  on wikipedia ''before the game has ended'' is an applicable scenario. ''Aside'': Although this doesn't impact my RFA vote, the candidate's statement that "I'm pretty sure that anything we have that was fit for a print encyclopedia was written years ago" - is demonstrably false. On the positive side, I find Nosleep's honest and straightforward answers to the RFA questions refreshing; I disagree with his view, but she has earned my respect.
Nothing jumps out at me as a stopper in a future RFA, but I am more in sympathy with the opposition than the supporters here.  Regarding doing all your editing away from home, I don't mind if admins do some of their editing in public places, but I'd rather that admins not do all of their editing that way. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' For his view on IP editors (which leads me to believe that this user might treating IPs different than registered users) and his anti-stub stance (which leads me to believe that this user might be deleting stubs). Also, I am a bit concerned that this is combined with a deletionist stance. I am not against deletionists as admins per se but this user raises some concerns with me that I cannot overlook. Regards '''
'''Oppose'''. User is bordering on [[WP:BITE|bitey]] interaction. Combined with strong beliefs and wanting to defend them, it feels like having an open mind while resolving disputes as an admin would be difficult.
'''Oppose''' from neutral. Concerned about views on IP editors and stubs, however what made me swap to oppose is the way this user almost seems to be pouncing on those opposing him. I'm sorry, but it just gives me such a bad feeling reading through this RfA now. Best of luck though! --
'''Oppose''', I'm sorry to oppose you but I cannot support somebody with this kind of view on stubs and IP users. I have observed that the users and especially admins with the most radical views often are the most active and insistent in relevant processes and discussions, where they can easily do harm because less radical editors - with less strong opinions - are less active. As I said I am very sorry to oppose you as you are a very valuable content contributor - your article on Alberto Contador is great, for example - and seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and consensus in general. --
'''Oppose''', can't support somebody with this sort of view on IP editors in general and gnomes in particular. Take one look at our massive backlogs of badly wikified, unreferenced or badly spelt articles and how quickly they fill up and you'll see we that we need more gnomes than we do writers of massive articles, and I say that as one of the latter.
'''Oppose''' for several reasons.  These include: needs more participation and experience in the admin-related areas; an anti-IP stance is inconsistent with the reality that hordes of accounts have been registered purely for vandalism and disruption; the candidate may like [[:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|WP:IAR]] but "ignore all rules" doesn't mean admins don't need to know what they are; argumentativeness against opposers is unbecoming in a candidate (as well as inviting [[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|too long; didn't read]] repeatedly); and last but not necessarily least, a Wikipedia administrator should have at least one secure internet connection.  —
'''Oppose''' My only interaction with this user was not a pleasant one and therefore I do not trust this user as an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' given editor's history, multiple conflicts, and apparent misunderstanding of policy. -
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more [[WP:DGAF]].  Unimpressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lost&diff=prev&oldid=294662144][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling&diff=prev&oldid=300812618][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_8&diff=prev&oldid=302421238].  Unsure about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching&diff=prev&oldid=298236723].  '''
'''Oppose''' per the Wiki-beliefs on NoSleep's user page, which I strongly disagree with.
'''Oppose''' very strongly disagree with the wikibeliefs on userpage as well; not a good attitude for an administrator at all.
'''Oppose''', problematic views and philosophies. Unbecoming of an administrator hopeful. &ndash;<font face="georgia" color="black">
'''Oppose''' per views on IP's and stubs.  Much too likely to misuse the admin tools in furtherance of these views, which are entirely contrary to Wikipedia's principles. --<b><font color="green">[[User:Lord Pistachio|L]]</font><font color="red">
'''Weak Oppose''' - I appreciate your views on notability and I think you've made some really good contributions.  I thought it was great how you apologized to someone 2 years later and I think that's a great example for everyone.  However, I'm a bit concerned by some interactions that have come to light, and though adminship is "not a big deal", I don't feel comfortable with giving the tools to someone with such a confrontational attitude (for example, the posting at WP:LOST).  I also, while [[WP:BEEF]] is some good stuff, I'm not sure how you'd behave with CSD or AfD if you eventually move into that kind of work.  Perhaps as others say, get a little more experience in "admin-type work" and try again some other time.  --'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I must oppose. I was on the fence, but after seeing your answers to Fastily's questions, I'm unsure about your knowledge of the [[WP:NFCC|NFCC]] and other image-related policies/guidelines. I suggest either getting to know that area much better before your next RFA or just vowing not to work with images. Another suggestion is that you remove your opinion on IP editors from your user page. Although I do not think your views would impede your ability to correctly use any of the tools, it is clearly instigating a lot of opposition and would be best kept to yourself.
'''Oppose''': Per the IP comments.--
I have thought this one over carefully and in the end I had to '''oppose.'''  I congratulate Nosleep for having the guts to take a couple controversial positions.  Sometimes radical proposals are needed for progress, and while I disagree with her I admire her for being willing to take radical positions and defend them.  I thought the answer to 10a was especially good.  However, I don't believe Nosleep has sufficient experience in admin related areas.  She sighted image work as a particular area of interest and yet the answers to the image questions were a bit off, as were a few of the other answers.  Additionally, the slightly combative nature of her responses to some of the opposes was off-putting.  I would be happy to support a future bid after the candidate has gained more experience. --
After reading the candidate's contributions I was intending to support, but then I read her stated positions on IP editors and stubs.—
'''Oppose'''. Says she wants to help with [[WP:PUF|possibly unfree file]] backlog, which is great, but she has hardly any experience in this area. Although I'm bothered by both the attitude towards IPs and stub-length articles, I think that the latter is much more likely to adversely affect administrative actions than the former.
'''Oppose''' at this time.  Another situation where spending time in the trenches beforehand would be beneficial.  Also, although having an opionion is good, as an admin there are core policies and procedures to be followed and not downtrodden.  I'm afraid that by saying this, you might simply "give a good impression" for the next 5,000 edits and run again, however, that might just work in the long run. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;

'''Strong oppose''' at this time. This editor seems to have an interest in the welfare of the WP and has done good work (albeit in a restricted space -- cycling). Perhaps in future this may add up to a sufficient argument for adminship, but for now there is a strong commitment to enforcing rules with rigor, tempered by personal opinion on which rules/policies are sensible and proper. WP is a neutral place (NPOV and all that), or is meant to be, and admins must (should/ought/...) take the lead in that respect. They must (should...) not adopt this or that position based on personal standards, even if these are essentially congruent with WP:xxx of one kind or another. Other editors have just as much right (or leeway or ...) to edit and to have differing opinions, just as do admins/bureaucrats/steward and all the other inhabitants of our layers of supervision. Admins must (should...) respect this diversity of perspective and freedom to edit/disagree/agree comment without reservation. An analogy might be an ideal baseball umpire, who is resolutely neutral under all conditions. I see too much ground for reservation in this user's comments here in answer to questions and elsewhere to have the required faith in his  neutrality. Wait a while and try again.
'''Neutral''' You seem like an excellent editor, and a guaranteed fantastic candidate for adminship later on. However I agree with Tan. I don't see quite enough experience in administrative areas to trust you're completely knowledgeable in the areas you intend to work in. I ''may'' wind up supporting before this ends, and most likely will not wind up opposing. '''
'''Neutral''' I'm a little on the uneasy side seeing you become an admin right now, although you have too many strengths for me to oppose. It seems like you can be a little harsh towards IPs among other things. I'm glad you are outright honest; that is what I like to see in people. Actually, that is a part of what I think makes a ''good'' person. Maybe when you gain a bit more experience and build a reputation, I'll support.
'''Neutral''' per above, for now. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' per views on IPs, but don't want to oppose. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Despite my agreement with many of your views your upfront style of presenting them leads me to believe you will adhere to some of them religiously and this (particularly not blocking for BLP issues) is why I can't support. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339999;">
'''Neutral'''. Unfortunately, a number of your stated positions run irreconcilably counter to fundamental policies, such as your stance on anonymous editing. Therefore I cannot support at this time.
'''Neutral'''. Would've supported, but the candidate's anti-stub notes leave me unable to.
'''Neutral''' due to compelling arguments from both sides.
'''Neutral''' due to some of the positions taken on your user page.  Not comfortable with some of the stands you've taken, but not convinced on how that would affect day-to-day work as an admin.--
'''Neutral'''&nbsp;&nbsp;I appreciate the editor's honesty, and their contributions to the encyclopedia. I am not going to oppose, but feel that admins should not be performing their duties on an insecure wireless connection. Your behavior issues from previous years seem to have been resolved. I trust your pledge to follow consensus, which will trump your differences with Wikipedia policy. Come back in a few months with increased experience and an ISP, and I will support. --'''''
'''Neutral''' - you are a good editor, and adminship should be no big deal - but biting newbies and new contributions is a growing problem on the project.
'''Neutral''' I have no problems with your userpage positions, however extreme; in fact I agree with several of them.  None of these positions ''should'' impact your functioning as an administrator, as admins should leave their personal prejudices behind when judging consensus and policy, but I just don't feel that you have enough experience here for me to say with confidence that you will be unbiased in your actions.  Come back after six more months of active editing and a spotless record and I'll be proud to support you. '''
'''Neutral''' Seems to have a somewhat weak grasp of copyright law for someone who wants to work with questionable files.  Project image policy is one thing, but ultimately it's grounded in, and a consequence of, copyright laws.  The position on IP editors is a major red flag for me as well, most of this encyclopedia is written by casual editors.
'''Neutral''' Tan said it very well. I really don't have a problem with the user page essay -- I disagree with a lot of it, but that doesn't make it a non-starter. I just don't see a lot of work that shows a grasp of policy (or lack thereof), so I really don't have much of a way to judge. I'd love to see some CSD work, some hand-holding of new editors who are having trouble (very easy to find a bucketload of those at NPP); anything that shows grasp of areas where the tools will be used, and the ability to communicate well with the type of editors tool usage will affect the most.--
'''Neutral''' I haven't done enough homework to either support or oppose. However, my initial reaction to nosleep's comments on IP was negative. I'm aware of the study showing how much of WP comes from IP(even while not convinced it is as definitive as it appears to be). But I've also spent too much time lately untangling what IPs deliver less positively, (and I'm quite aware that I'm spending a small fraction of what others do), so I'm sympathetic to a policy discussion about how to rethink IPs. After thinking about what nosleep had to say, I'd love to have nosleep in the discussion, I think it would help reach some better solutions.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Neutral''' I am uncomfortable with some of Nosleep's views, especially on stubs. However, I do not know the user well enough to judge if this would lead to misuse of the tools.--
'''Neutral''' - I am torn here.  User:Nosleep technically meets most of [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], in particular - lots of edits including [[bicycle]] articles, AfD work, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].  Also, I'd like to have more diversity of LGBT folk as admins.  However, per above discussion, diffs, and statements, I am not sure about her judgment to make blocks, protection, deletions, etc.  On the whole, I would not oppose for just that - as everyone here knows, I've learned a lot "on the job."  Maybe some more experience will help, so she should not be discouraged and should try again.  Best of luck to her!
'''Neutral'''. I have concerns about her views on IPs and deletionism.
'''Neutral''' for now. I would encourage "keeping up the good work" and trying again in a few months.
I encourage you to keep editing and try again after you have much more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. While edit count isn't the most important aspect of editing, it certainly provides a rough meter stick/ starting point in terms of ascertaining one's experience level - and from what I can see you don't have nearly enough for an admin hopeful.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] You might have a year with Wikipedia, but you don't have nearly enough experience.  Nothing against you personally, but you need to get some more work under your belt before you consider RfA.  --'''
Sorry, but you don't seem to have the experience required to be a sysop at this time.

'''Oppose''', lack of substantial contributions leads me to believe you do not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' You've really only been contributing for the month of July, and even then you only have ~130 edits to articles.  That makes it very hard to determine if you can be trusted to understand and follow our policies.  I agree with everyone above that you should focus on continuing to make this site a better place then come back in a while with a stronger understanding of the underpinnings of Wikipedia. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose''' Concerning answer to Question 3 - Whilst admins caught in colateral damage should not hesitate in blocking, I am concerned with the personification given to the IP address and a seeming willingness ot block over one edit (just my impression of your answer). Also, per [[WP:NOTNOW]] as a lack of overal expereince.
'''Oppose''' per above. Come back again with more experience and you'll have my support.
'''Support''' for epic lulz. Nice chap, too; calls a spade a spade (or [[WP:DICK]] a [[WP:DICK]]).
'''Support''' Personally I think you are a [[WP:DICK]], but I am sure we can find [[Malin Akerman|things]] we both can [[Silk_Spectre_2#Silk_Spectre_II_.28Laurie_Juspeczyk.29|agree on]]. '''
'''Support''' per the IRC cabal, der. Seriously though, I admire users who have stepped on toes. I think people who haven't stepped on any toes probably haven't got into any disputes, which I could see as an issue down the road. How can you solve a dispute if you haven't been in one yourself. Personally, I believe that there are far too many admins who haven't had any run-ins with disputes, whether being personally involved or being an outside helper (ie [[WP:MEDCAB]]). I think learning from past experiences is best, but there are far too many admins who have no experience whatsoever in solving disputes and would probably be clueless when they encounter a dispute (and hey, we have them every day). So, uh, yeah. For not being afraid to step on a few toes, I support you. While what you've done has most likely been in an effort to further the interests of the community, I still think this RFA will not succeed. Either way, I want my opinion to be clearly known. '''We need more admins who are willing to step on a few toes''', to get the job done. We, as a community, need to change our rationale to support users in RFA from "Have they annoyed me/anyone, at any stage in their wiki-career, to "Are they fit to be an administrator? Do they have the experience and skills required to be an admin?". In my opinion, to Ottava, that question answers a '''Yes.''' (<small>And sure, he's had his fair share of fuck-ups, but haven't we all?</small>.) Ottava would be a '''net positive''' to the project as an admin, and if all else fails, [[WP:RFAR|we have ways to deal with issues down the track if need be.]] What's to lose? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Is this meant to be a joke?  Either way, I support.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' per [[Idi Amin|Idi]]. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' Surprisingly, I support this.  The user is a net positive to any project that he is involved in, and he could do serious good with the mop. Watching him occasionally inspires me to come back to Wikipedia and edit, and he's a nice enough guy to talk to and interact with, even when he does step on toes.  Sure, I've argued with him before, and I'll probably do it again, but he's got good points, and in my opinion <small>which stems in part from my admin experience on Wiktionary</small> excellent judgement. --
'''Support''' All joking aside, I didn't ever expect to say this--OR and I had a particularly heated encounter over something that spilled from here to Commons once--but for all his faux bluster, he's often one of the lone voices of reason in many, many, many, many heated debates. Does he sprinkle that reason with extra cayenne pepper sometimes? Yes. But so do I--I try to be a smart-ass about it, OR goes in with firing off flare guns. Does it get the Right Point across? Yes. Do I support him? Yes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Ottava's a he?''' I always thought of OR as a female's name... anyways... I doubt this RfA will pass, and can't believe Ottava honestly expects it to pass either, but I do believe that OR has the best interest of WP at heart---even if he (?) can be a... consider this a Moral Support.---'''
'''Support''' - (1) I believe he has the project's best interests at heart. (2) Edit tools are extremely useful for content contributors, and I strongly resent the split between 'content contributors' and 'admins', this isn't rocket science and we are all in this together. Plenty of FA wirters are admins, 'crats and arb members, (3) Yes he has had some temperament issues, ''but'' I am positive he will be watched closely for misuse of tools. Given that I believe there is a better than 50% chance OR will be a significant net positive, so let's give him ago.
'''Support''' - (moved from oppose) despite my lame Apr 1 oppose, I would have no issues with this user as an administrator. &lowast;
'''Oppose''' for a reason I haven't thought up yet.
'''Support''' An admin who is prepared to fight his corner against a prevailing tide can be a great thing if it makes the rest of us pause and perhaps better consider our position. OR's position on what he would and wouldn't do also makes it clear this isn't a power trip. --
'''Supporrt'''  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A shoutout to my man Ottava, who is NOT an admin lickspittle like so many molluscs who I've seen slither onto this page. If elected (like that would ever happen, LOL) Ottava would be like an editor's advocate right in the middle of the admin corps. He would not be afraid to unblock users blocked by arbitrary, capricious, moronic admins who ''should'' be pushing a mop (literally: cleaning the toilets at McDonalds). He's got his idiosyncrasies and he'd make mistakes so we'd have to keep a close eye on him, but the net benefit would greatly outweigh any damage he'd cause.--
'''Support''' Well informed of the role, isn't going to be intimidated by anyone. Sure, he "lacks restraint" now and then, but I think that can be a good attribute in certain cases—this being one of them. —'''
'''Support''' Yes Ottava is brusque and has a bad temper, but has a [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]] and there's no reason to think he'd abuse tools; in fact adminship might take the "rough edge" off. Remember [[WP:NBD]], users who've been here and done all the stuff Ottava's done are supposed to get the bit by default. Ottava, moreover, has so many "enemies" it's difficult to see how, even if he wished to be abusive, he could. Wikipedia actually needs admins like Ottava, if only to balance things out a little more.
<s>'''Support'''</s>. Switched to '''Strongest possible support, from the Dark Lord of the Underworld''', trumping the recent '''Stronger oppose than possible'''. I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Ottava, but then there isn't anyone I've always seen eye-to-eye with, and I hope there will never will be, as that would mean I'd been cloned. Ottava clearly has the project's best interests at heart, so it's difficult to see him abusing a few extra buttons many of which, like blocking, I doubt he'd be making very much use of anyway, Most of all though I agree with Deacon said just above. Wikipedia needs more admins like Ottava very badly IMO. --
'''Support''' Ottava has the temperament of an artist that is for sure. He is passionate about this project and sometimes this can lead to heated debates. But he does listen to arguments and reflects. Our paths have crossed a few times and all my interactions with him have been positive. I have great respect for his content contributions.
'''Support''' per Casliber and others. I admit to having had less direct contact with Ottava than some of you seem to have had, but in all the contacts I have had with him he has always struck me as having the best interests of the project at heart, and I have no reason to think that will change upon becoming an admin. Also, given his statements, it's hard to see that he'll do anything wrong with the tools.
'''Oh, sure'''.  Anyone who managed to get blocked for "incivility" on Wikipedia Review can't be all bad. Seriously, although looking at the current voting this won't pass, I think Ottava would be perfectly good at the job; he can be a grade-A PITA, but (as with his spiritual cousin Giano) I do trust him to know when to turn "asshole mode" off. Forceful&nbsp;≠&nbsp;disruptive. Not necessarily, anyway. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' He is already an admin on another major Wikimedia project and I don't see anyone turning up evidence of him deleting pages and banning users he doesn't like.  I would say that this proves that he can engage in heated and stressful debates and argue forcefully without abusing his power, and would be able to do the same on the English Wikipedia.  I am casting this vote at a time where there are actually more Oppose votes than Support votes, and I don't predict a sudden turning of the tides, so I am looking forward to a future date at which the candidate may decide to run again.  ''<B>
'''Rima for President'''. Oh, you've got one? Last year? Can't wait four more years, bring in the crown and the hatchet. '''Full support'''.
'''Support'''  Casliber said it best.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Per above.--
'''Support''' – <b>
'''Support''' Yes. He is manly, and Catholic. [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]]
'''Support''' Admin is no big deal. While his temperament is unusual, I have no cause to question OR's ''honesty,'' and if he sticks to his self-created admin role -- won't block or delete, will question admin action -- it may help to prevent groupthink in the admin corps. In short, he's a good guy, has a precise role envisioned which I think would be a good thing for Wikipedia. . This is a unique support, since normally I don't support people who I think have temperament issues -- really, it's conditional on his acting as promised. <strong>
'''Support''' though as some of the opposers said below, do we really want to tie up our best content contributors with the bit?  Regardless, clear positive.  <b>
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, decent interval since last block, and would be the only admin that could keep some of our more contentious 'good article writers' in check. --'''''
'''Support''' While I've seen that he does speak very bluntly, I think he has the best intentions for WP at heart.
<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Casliber. The sysop flag isn't permanent, and it can be fairly easily removed in the case of abuse. &ndash;<strong>
'''Support''' OR is an excellent editor who asks the hard question and takes stands that should be taken, but aren't due to the herd instinct here at WP.  Pity this won't pass, but I'm nailing my support to the door.--
'''Support''' I disagree with this editor's views on (nearly) everything to do with the wiki and agree that there is a tendency towards argumentative and tendentious behaviour. However, I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools; indeed I am fairly confident he would not based on his contributions here and elsewhere. The idea that we should refuse otherwise qualified candidates for adminship on the basis we would prefer them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere is nonsensical and antithetical to the idea of a voluntary project such as Wikipedia. Any assistance that this editor can provide on admin tasks, no matter how small, is welcome. --
'''Support''' Seems a fine candidate who's able to learn from mistakes.
Though I usually agree with him on most things, I have to disagree with Wizardman. I think that our best content contributors make the best admins-they have experience with writing and research. These are two elements I find essential to a successful adminship. Best of luck, Ottava. '''
'''Strong Support''' - Ottava Rima's pleasant attitude and willingness to help out with any problem make him (or her) a pleasure to deal with. Will be a shining example for other admins, as he (or she) has been for other editors in general. I look forward to watching Ottava Rima -- whether male or female -- interacting with newcomers to WP, an area in which I feel he (or she) will excel. I only wish that I had been in a position to nominate him (or her) myself.
'''support''' - the ''cabal'' likes admins who go off half cocked, but to many are getting deadmin'ed (see Ryulong, and SlimVirgin for recent ones), and the more recent group of admins seems shy on actual involvement with the content and content disputes.  --
'''Support''' Brusque? Yes. Malicious? No. A great content creator? Yes. And I'm sure a good choir boy like OR will recall Matthew 7:3-5 -- I think some people in the Oppose and Neutral sections need to look that one up.
'''Support''' - my interactions with the user have been uniformly pleasant and helpful. He's help build up the encyclopedia and I'm sure would be an asset as an administrator. -
'''Support''' per [[Horace]]. OR is at heart a dedicated scholar. Cheers,
'''Support'''  I think this user has turned around and can do a lot of good for the project. --
'''Weak Support'''. Despite the drama problems I think that Ottava will be a benefit to the project. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak Support''' It's obvious which direction this is going; but, I think that Ottava cares about what is right for the wiki.  His help to others in IRC, and his contribs indicate an honest loyalty for the community.  I'd strongly suggest toning down some of the rhetoric on site between now and the next RfA, and then I could say "Strong Support". — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as I think that controversial admins are much more fun than controversial editors. Plus, with most of the controversy, OR is usually right in the way he steers the boat, even if it is in a somewhat sociopathic way. But we're all at computers, so nobody can actually ause harm, so to me,  that's fine. It's called tough love. --
Moral support, per our previous good interactions. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - We need more admins who aren't scared to speak their mind.
'''Support''' in part per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Outside_view_by_Ottava_Rima this moving essay]. I am slightly saddened to see this RfA fall to the opposes. Any admin bright enough to see Wikipedia in this light is a rarity. &mdash;''
'''On the fence but support''': I just moved this from neutral, but I went through and carefully read OR's answers again. I am a big proponent of [[WP:DEAL]] but also believe that [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] are necessary qualities of a sysop. Notwithstanding the civility issues, I feel that OR could be a useful member of the admin corps by putting a different perspective on the sometimes-stuffy persona of the common admin and his willingness to understand the more difficult editors. His input on the [[User:DougsTech|'''Oppose''': Too many admins currently]] situation is a prime example. I also realize that this RfA is almost sure to fail but I ask OR to do two things: temper your 'tude for 6 months to a year and within that time I will renom you for round two. I think that he could be a [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-diamond-in-the-rough.html wiki-diamond in the rough]. [[Good luck|Viele Glück]]!--
'''Support''' Nothing I've seen convinces me that Ottava would abuse the tools. Seems to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.--
'''Support''' Conscientious editor who will be an asset on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cloverfield_(creature)&diff=186751391&oldid=186744685 good arguments].  Best, --
'''Support''', I think there are may be administerial uses for this person (taps nose in a thinking fashion). Malicious? Manly? Mmmm... --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''{{User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support}}''' He's a awesome guy. Boy needs the rainbow. ☟ These comments below should be ignored. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Ottava has been very cautious with the use of tools at wikiversity and has asked for advice from more experienced custodians (admins) when unsure and I feel that this would also hold true at wikipedia.  He has made great efforts to mediate disputes in very tense situtations and has gone to great lengths to help users who have had difficulty interacting with the community.  As a moderator Ottava has remained level headed and shown a great deal of patience.  Based on my experience and interactions with Ottava at wikiversity I feel that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely.  --
'''Strong Support''': I understand why many might object to Ottava receiving admin status, but in many cases the reasons many editors might object are the same reasons I would give to have his privileges increased. This user’s knowledge of WP guidelines borders on annoying, but he always seems to err on the side of legalism which can be frustrating to those of us who have our own ideas of how editing should be handled. Having worked with him on several poetry articles over the past 6 months, I have yet to see him make an edit that was not focused on improving the quality of WP whether it was on a mainspace, a user talk page, DYK, or any other special page. In some cases, he has sided against me in disputes because my understanding of WP policy was flawed, despite the fact that he and I were working together.  If this were a popularity contest, as I fear some RfA’s are, then I could understand how a decision against adminship could be validated, but if this decision is to be based on edits and actions alone, I can see no reason to object.
'''Logical Support'''. Let me get this straight. People are opposing because Ottava MIGHT be a bad admin here, right? But he already ''has'' a proven track record of being an admin over at Wikiversity. So either the supporters at wikiversity were crazy, or the opposers here are crazy. Seeing that wikiversity has not crashed and burned, I'll let folks here do the math. ;-) --
Can't imagine him misusing the tools. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>
'''Strong support''' --
'''Oppose'''. I see Ottava as one of those people that act as the safety valve to the rest of the community, much like the dissenters who keep the community in check. From experience, though, such users are not very suited to adminship. I do not believe that Ottava has the temperament or the attitude to be an role model and an administrator. While I respect his abilities, I cannot accept the impulsive traits that he has shown through his editing tenure. '''''
<s>'''Oppose'''. Lacks restraint. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)</s> '''Strongest oppose possible''' Likley to abuse tools by unblocking blatent vandals who were blocked after violating what OR uniquely (and more-often-than-not, incorrectly) interprets rules to be. A consumate troll - worse than me.
'''Oppose''' Needs to not add jokes and Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' - Concerns about temperament and lack of restraint. '''
I am actually of the belief that our best article writers should not become admins. Why? Well, for each deletion batch they're doing is another chunk of article that goes unwritten. It's easier to find people to close XfDs and block peeps then it is to find genuine article writers. This o vote is so that Ottava can do what best not just for the 'pedia, but for himself. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  Great contributions, but I question whether OR has the, er, social skills for the position.  In many ways, an administrator is the wiki- equivalent of a customer service representative.--
'''Oppose''' From what I have seen of OR, I just don't see them having the patience to deal with the silliness that admins must patiently deal with every day. They have very strong views, which is great, we need people to provide different viewpoints here, I just worry that they could come off too strong. Since RfA is essentially an endorsement of a user, I just don't feel comfortable endorsing a user which I feel can be a [[Big Stick Ideology|bit too strong at times]]. --
'''Oppose''' I am very sorry but I don't feel that you are at the point where you can take up the responsibilities of an administrator. For example, this post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jennavecia&diff=prev&oldid=281020484] has me a bit worried about your judgement. In addition, in your first answer you stated, " I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin..." what leverage do you hope to gain?  Discussion plays a vital role in being an administrator and I feel that you would be too quick to go rogue and serve your own purpose. I'm sorry I cannot support you right now.
'''Strongest oppose imaginable''' I can't think of anyone less suited to be an admin. An argumentative time-waster who refuses ever to admit he is in the wrong, Ottava had to be placed under mentorship (to avoid a community ban) from August to December last year [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive458&oldid=230198426#Mentorship]. A brief example of his way of going about things can be seen on the talk page of [[Alfred, Lord Tennyson]] from February this year [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alfred_Tennyson,_1st_Baron_Tennyson#Jordie.27s_addition] where he berates User:Contaldo80 for removing the edits of a blatant vandal/copyright violating SPA {{User|Jordie0108}}. Ottava claims Contaldo80 doesn't have "consensus" to revert such trolling. Read the rest of the conversation. Ottava doesn't seem to have a clue about policy but he is, as Contaldo80 says, "just argumentative for the sake of it." His inability to suffer contradiction leads him to make personal attacks, such as this rant against [[John Beer|Professor John Beer]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=278850332&oldid=278828530], which is borderline libel. [[WP:BLP]] is obviously safe in Ottava's hands. He can also be vindictive. He had a difference of opinion with User:Fowler&fowler over some of his Featured Article Candidates then initiated [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fowler&fowler|a check-user investigation]] against Fowler on the basis of the flimsiest evidence. This incident took place less than two weeks ago. I'm afraid that Ottava might use his admin tools to further his own personal agenda (the "leverage" remark in his answers hardly inspires confidence). --
'''Not only no but hell no''' Unpleasant temperament. Quick to judge. Willing to make bald accusations in defense of friends. Unable to disengage from disputes. Diffs available upon serious requests but I'm not interested in dredging up a bundle to satisfy idle curiosity.
'''Reluctant weak oppose''' - Ottava, I am sorry, I like you. However, you need to tone it down a little. Please run again in the future. —
'''Strong oppose''' - a solid contributor to mainspace, but as other users have observed, is argumentative, reluctant to admit mistakes, prone to bullying (frequently demanding the resignation of admins who challenge his views, for example), offensive violations of [[WP:NPA]] (such as questioning the "ethics" of his opponents), and finally, has a rubbery, self-serving take on policy in my experience. Basically, he just seems to love Wikidrama. I also find his stated reasons for wanting the tools not at all persuasive, and indeed, somewhat worrying (as in his comment about using the tools as "leverage" against other admins).
'''Oppose''' The comment about leverage has me seriously worried, especially in the context of the editor's argumentative style and tendency to encourage Wikidrama. I hadn't known about the mentorship, but that is also a concern. I too find his style unpleasant. Not at all suitable to be an administrator and as others have suggested, more useful to Wikipedia as an editor and maybe as a thorn. :-)
'''Strong Oppose''' Good article writer, but we need to look at an admin's temperament in order to judge them. Come back here when you learn how to be nice to other people.
'''Oppose'''. Does not assume good faith, and per Folantin above. --
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' I very rarely oppose, especially when as in this case the candidate is a good article writer. However Ottava's temperament as demonstrated by a long block record is not right for adminship. I'm prepared to disregard blocks from more than 12 months ago, even 12 months and 2 days ago, but that still leaves <s>three</s> two blocks in the last twelve months from <s>three</s> two different admins. Communication skills or style are also inadequate, as demonstrated by the candidates stated unwillingness to enter into dialogue with !voters in their own RFA.  There's also a separate but equally serious issue, the candidates postings on [[wt:rfa]] have displayed a deeply inappropriate understanding of the role of an admin; the candidate is trying to move Wikipedia to having a small group of fulltime admins who disengage from the community and don't take part in its deliberations. I take the contrary view that as many civil, experienced and cluefull editors should be made admins as can be persuaded to pick up the mop, and in this way we can be a self administering community where the burden  of administration is widespread and the administration does not disengage from the community because it is inextricably part of it. Having a good editor such as this candidate want the pedia run by admins who only do admin work saddens me, having an admin with this vision for Wikipedia would horrify me. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Downgrading from Strong Oppose to Oppose as the candidate has started to respond to opposes, and because I'd miscalculated his blocks. However I'm still convinced that Ottava should not be an admin, both in his interests and the project's. ''
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Never. —
'''Strong Oppose''' One of the few times that I don't even have to take a glance at the user's contributions. OR is completely drama prone with a terrible attitude and disposition.
'''Sorry, no''', needs to get along with and respect others better. And no, I don't mean he needs to submit to the civility police's every whim (they drive me nuts, too), but just that he neeeds to be able to work with others much better than he does now.
'''Oppose''' Ottava Rima is a very good editor, and certainly does his best to prevent WP from becoming dull. But his short fuse and habit of making the maximum drama out of any disagreement are unsuited to admin work. --
'''Oppose''' - Past experience with ''Ottava Rima'' at AN and AN/I leads me to feel that his temperament is incompatible with adminship (and being a drama magnet only makes it worse). —
'''Strong Oppose''' Ottava does not have anywhere near the temperament required to be an admin. Per several others, quick to drama and anger, extremely condescending. My [[User talk:GlassCobra/Archive 21#Don't revert improperly|last interaction with him]] was when he was blanking a number of redirects; I restored them, telling him that blank pages served no purpose, only to be told that I was edit warring and vandalizing. I'm really hoping this turns out to be a joke.
'''Oppose'''.  Nope, sorry.  You do some truly superb work in mainspace, but ... Ottava, do you ''really'' want to be an admin?  It can be an ugly, dirty job, and sometimes brings out the nasty side of even cool-tempered people.  Would it really be the best application of your talents, which are considerable?  Think on it.
'''Regretful, but Strong Oppose''': Ottava is an excellent article contributor and is a nice guy when things are normal, everyone knows that. But he also has a really terrible attitude when engaged in an argument, and everyone knows that too. I don't want to and neither do I need to describe any of it since everyone is familiar with this. In my view, an admin needs to have a cool head at all times and I can't picture Ottava doing that after he becomes an admin. An admin should be capable of finding a way out of problems, not into them. It feels weird to be opposing someone who has made a lot of useful contributions to Wikipedia, but I think this is necessary anyway. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't seem to have the right temperament to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - has a tendency to draw things out much longer than necessary. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per bibliomaniac15.
'''Oppose''' per the excessively contentious  "discussion" we had at [[User talk:EVula/Jan-Mar 2009#Improper templating]]. Being unable to understand that comments like "I HAVE A TINY COCK" (as vandalism; obviously, if someone wants to talk about themselves, hey, to each their own...) are actually block worthy is a horrible position for an administrator to have. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose'''. Ottava is, and wants to be, a [[populism|populist]] ("Down with tyrants! I speak for the little guy!"), and I agree with the supporters that populists can make good admins, but I agree with the opposition that Ottava isn't there yet.  I think it's very hard to pull off being a populist; there are so many pitfalls to watch out for.  You have to keep the people who want to bring down the system at arm's length; you have to constantly examine, not just your own motives, but how you're coming across, regardless of your motives; you have to bend over backwards to be friendly and engaging.  It's hard.  I'm disappointed by Q8; if Ottava saw himself in a process, I would happily work with him, but if the only choice on the table is "take me or leave me", there's not a lot I can do with that. I like Ottava, I think he has a net positive effect, but he'd get into trouble with a mop. - Dan
'''Oppose''' due to this user's history of instigating battles with other users, which I have observed primarily at [[Wikipedia talk:DYK]] but that apparently (based on the above comments) has been displayed in other areas, too. It's OK to disagree and it's OK to express opinions forcefully, but Ottava overdoes it in both departments. --
'''Oppose'''.  I have the utmost respect for Ottava's mainspace contributions and his committment to making the encyclopedia a better place.  I think he is an excellent editor, but I do not believe he would make an excellent administrator on this wikipedia.  I've seen Ottava do wonderful work in encouraging resolutions to disputes, especially when they involve new editors.  I've also seen Ottava escalate other disputes (in my opinion, unnecessarily).  Sometimes he takes criticism of his and/or differences of opinion very well; sometimes he does not, and a relatively minor issue can get blown into a larger drama-fest that pulls in other editors.  I think Ottava has come a long way in his general attitude in the last year, but I think he has a little way to go before I could support him as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - Seems to contribute well, but also creates levels of drama that outweigh his article-writing.
'''Oppose''' - I have not had any encounters with Ottava Rima so my viewpoint is unbiased and strictly from his contributions. My female intuition says he would be dangerous with administrative tools. From his conversatgions with others I would have to agree with those that say he is paranoid, crazy, uses little common sense and tact. His "block log" shows a tarnished reputation.--
'''Absolutely not''' - mostly per bibliomaniac15 and Hipocrite, as well as personal harassment from OR. //
'''Oppose'''. This clearly won't pass, but I hope OR will gather constructive criticism from it. Mine is that he doesn't seem to recognize when to withdraw from a conflict or how to do so gracefully. The recent kerfuffle with Fowler&fowler is a perfect example. I would expect an administrator to possess this quality. --
'''Oppose''' per answer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ottava_Rima&diff=281091742&oldid=281091076 q7]. --
Biblio says it as well as I could, unfortunately. I feel really bad about opposing too, because I like Ottava a lot, but I just don't think adminship is for him.
'''Oppose''' Too many admins currently. Just kidding. But I do agree strongly with [[User:bibliomaniac15|bibliomaniac15]]. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Oppose''' I would like to Support, but issues with Ottava Rima's not assuming good faith holds me back. Sorry.
'''No, no, no.''' Every time I've seen him, his attitude has been horrible. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Ottava, but I just don't think you have the right mindset. Above, you commented that most administrators should stand down if attitude is an issue. If you think that is true, why would that mean we'd need one more? It's difficult to judge temperament in the time before people run for RfAs, and I do agree that is true that many ill-tempered admins make it through. However, if one is showing signs of this even prior to running, it's probably best to avoid giving them extra tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''oppose''' OR has serious problems. He has demonstrated repeated failure to understand how the GFDL,  Creative Commons licenses, and public domain work.  Moreover, attempts to explain it to him failed. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems/Archive_11#Lack_of_Explicit_Permission this discussion]. By itself, this lack of understanding of copyright would be a problem. However, this is part of a more general pattern by Ottava. He opines about topics he doesn't know much about, develops weird ideas about them and then refuses to listen when people who know more try to explain it to him. None of these are traits that are good in an admin.
'''Strong oppose''' see my comments below. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)<s>'''oppose'''</s> has same initials as [[WP:OR]] which is prohibited here.
Sorry, but I really don't think this would work out very well. --
'''Oppose'''- this editor seems to me to have a volatile temperament and a bad case of the stubborns. Sorry, but the danger of Ottava Rima using the mop to irritate people and cause teh drahmaz is too great for me to support.
'''Oppose''' - I find Ottava well-intentioned and a good mainspace contributor, but inconsistent and unpredictable in his behaviour in project space. I would not honestly feel comfortable giving him admin tools; as I just don't know how they'd end up being used. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''': per [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my RFA criteria]].
'''Oppose''' per above. I'm sorry- a history of inconsistent and tempermental behaviour prevents me from supporting.
'''Oppose''' OMG no.  No, no, no, no.  Horrid behavior on AN/ANI and elsewhere.
'''Oppose'''. As can be seen from this user's block log, he has been blocked many times in the past year for [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]] and [[WP:Edit war|edit warring]]. I am also concerned about the candidate's statement that he would use the tools as "leverage" when dealing with other users, as it seems to imply [[WP:Wheel war|wheel warring]], and about the fact that he generally seems to be a somewhat controversial figure within the community.--
'''Oppose''' - Blocked by everyone and their mother. Wouldn't like to block (except actual, good-standing users). Wouldn't like to delete (except actual, quality articles). Notably, I absolute detest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=next&oldid=255726560 this edit].
'''Oppose''' <s>It's a simple concept really. Ottava opposes everyone else's RFA, so I'll oppose Ottava's RFA. Also</s> per above.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I don't like the "leverage" comment, Adminship tools is cleaning up stuff and helping other editors and not for politics.--
'''Strong oppose'''. On IRC, the user cursed at me and told me to retire again, over a minor dispute he blew totally out of proportion. Wikipedia does not need that sort of behavior as an admin. ♬♩
I stopped reading at "I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin."  That is everything that is wrong with admins already.
'''oppose''' never really was a big fan of that April 1 thing.
'''Oppose'''. This has nothing to do with the fact that he was the only person to Oppose my RfA. Though he may be a dedicated editor, I have real concerns about him possessing the tools. I share the fears of many of the above regarding your history. I don't think I have seen anyone with such an extensive block history and is still allowed to edit. Though he hasn't been blocked in months he still antagonizes, perhaps purposely, many others. I also lament that you refuse to address the concerns of those who oppose you. This indicates to me that you don't wish to make improvements.
'''Oppose''' I don't usually comment much, nor add my thoughts, but I oppose because I have been taken aback by Ottawa's attitude in a few posts I've read. I think it is not insurmountable that he could add actual value, but some demonstration of a more considered approach would be required.
'''Oppose''', don't get me wrong, a good content contributor, but totally the wrong attitude for adminship.
'''Oppose''' There is great value in an admin (or admin candidate) who isn't afraid to step on toes from time to time. There is no value in an admin (or admin candidate) who just runs into a room and just kicks people in the nuts for lulz.
'''Oppose''' I hate opposing RfAs, but I would be very uncomfortable with Ottava Rima becoming an administrator. Ottava is a good editor in general, but the idea of him becoming an admin is unsettling at best.--
'''Strong oppose''' From what I can tell, over the past month or so Ottava has been doing good constructive editing and not starting fights.  But nevertheless, the frequency of problems Ottava has caused in the recent past, or fights Ottava has started, is too much to ignore; if I were the only one who had gotten into spats with Ottava I might not oppose, but I know tons of editors who have had similar problems.  Also, in spite of Ottava's answer to Question 1, I don't really see any "need for the tools," considering that Ottava self-identifies as a "content" editor (and Ottava him/herself has opposed numerous other RfAs for this exact same reason). <b class="Unicode">
'''Strong Oppose''' per Ottava's disruptive behavior in the not too distant past. I sincerely believe that users are capable of reform, and I won't oppose solely based a user's block log, but a 3RR violation isn't the same as multiple blocks for disruption... beyond just that the general "don't give a crap" attitude I've noticed in his or her edits really bothers me. T.B.S., The last month or two has been particularly good and constructive, if I see more of this I will definitely consider supporting in the future. -'''
'''Oppose'''. I hate to pile on here, but better safe than sorry. When I first <s>met</s> saw Ottava on IRC he seemed like a good guy. However, as I became more involved in watching different RfAs succeed and fail, Ottava's opposes seemed so pointless, with reasoning that didn't even make sense. I can pull out diffs if anybody feels the need. Sorry :(.
'''Strongly oppose''', terrible attitude.
'''Oppose''' Though reluctantly as the editor does much good work. But just the wrong temperament for an admin.
'''Oppose'''— what they said^ –[[Special:Contributions/Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]<sup>
'''Oppose'''. No.
'''Oppose'''. I don't see much of you, but usually when I do you come across to me as abrasive and quick to judge, as has been stated repeatedly above. I don't feel as though I can support you. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose''' Has brought too much drama to DYK discussions. I wonder why this RFA has not been pulled, there's no chance it'll succeed. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''', per above
'''Oppose''' per above and because of answer to Q2&3. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong Oppose''' per answers to most of the questions. User appears to have little interest in being an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Having such an epic block log for disruption is enough for me to oppose, but it is also because of having watched OR in action. He has qualities, but we can't have administrators who seek conflicts, are quick to judge, who don't appear to be listening to the opposition's arguments, and who try to win discussions through attrition. Few editors have struck me as so unsuitable for adminship as OR.--
'''Oppose''' - answers to questions 1-6 are enough for me to oppose for lack of appropriate temperament. I believe in OR's sincerity and ability; I don't agree that OR's approach is right for adminship of en.wikipedia.org. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - Trust is the standard applied to candidates for the rather mundane office of WP Administrator. This editor cannot be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AOttava+Rima&year=&month=-1 this], and [[WP:civil|incivility]]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I think you are a great mainspace editor, and very valuable to Wikipedia; however, I do not think you have the temperament to be an sysop.
'''Oppose'''. Too much drama. Too much time spent on the wrong end of [[WP:DRAMA]]. I won't say this editor will never make a good admin, but I don't think they're there yet.  <font color="006622">
'''Stronger oppose than possible''' - I have to admit that I have sympathy for Hink &ndash; he's totally undeserving of the shit Ottava put him through, especially on IRC. Add that to Ottava's horrid incivility and block record, despicable judgment, drama-mongering, harassment, and promise to be horribly disruptive as an admin, and... wow. I don't care how good of an article contributor Ottava is, judging from what we block constructive editors for, I'm deeply alarmed that he hasn't been blocked for 8 months. Makes me wonder why [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima]] or [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ottava Rima]] are redlinks... --'''[[User:Dylan620|Dylan]]''' ([[User talk:Dylan620|chat]], [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|work]], [[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|ping]],
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' I do not believe I have ever seen Ottava act or speak in a neutral manner. While this is an admirable or exceedingly irritating trait in both a person or an editor, it is entirely contrary to how an admin is supposed to perform.
'''Oppose''' Comes off to often as hostile and confrontational, and only escalates a situation. '''
'''Oppose''' From what I have seen Ottava is a good mainspace editor, but seems to be unable to handle criticism (even when it is justified and constructive) or admit faults; instead OR usually chooses to respond by  assuming the mantle of victimhood and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|counter-attacking the critic/reviewer]]. For example, consider the lesson the editor has drawn from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=prev&oldid=281598940 the opposition to the RFA], or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ottava_Rima&diff=281605232&oldid=281603199 their previous blocks]. This is grevious shortcoming for ''any'' editor in a collaborative project, and a critical one for an admin.
'''Oppose'''. The items on the block log is too long to be listed and summarized.
'''Oppose''' per prior behavior, temperament, incivility, block log, absolutely no trust with the tools (regardless of other wikis). Need a year of problem-free editing before I would consider supporting. -'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but being a admin you may have to make or do things that you may not like such as blocking users or deleting articles.[[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I simply can not trust you with the tools per issues such as incivility and behavior stated above.
Agree about 100 percent with Karanacs. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Incivility issues, prior blocks. [[WP:NOTYET]].
'''Oppose''' Clearly not administrator material, per a look at the block log and the flippant statements throughout this RFA. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Oppose''' --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Oppose''' Absolutely not.
'''Oppose''', temperament and civility issues. "''leverage''"?! SideWays with mop, anyone? -
'''Oppose'''. Far too much drama and incivility in one person. — '''''
'''Oppose'''. The level of combativeness I've seen from you at DYK makes me unable to trust you with the tools, I'm afraid.
'''Weak Oppose''' Weak because of decent personal interactions, but the candidate's incivility at times raises concerns. '''
'''Oppose''' - no thank you. Too many controversies that you seem happy to fan the fire of, rather than help douse.
'''Oppose''' Civility is very important for an admin. Admins should reduce drama, not escalate it.
'''Oppose''' - Good writer, not so good at getting along with others.
'''Oppose''' - per trolling on [[WT:DYK]] after his article was rejected. <span style='font-family:monospace,tahoma;font-size:80%;'>~
'''Oppose''' - I have been very torn, as Ottava Rima has stood up for me in a wonderful ways, and for that I am thankful. I genuinely like OR.  I appreciate OR's contributions and marvel at OR's genuine generosity to others. But OR seems to have two personalities. I too was driven away from DYK  by OR's nastiness, and from FAC because OR's responses.  OR's recent attacks on Fowler&Fowler, going to the extent of filing a sockpuppet accusation  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fowler%26fowler/Archive] horrified me and make it impossible for me to support at this time. &mdash;
'''Oppose.''' RfA might be no big deal, but it's definitely not a joke and I really can't see someone telling it is and then being a responsible admin. This is April 6, not April 1. (Offtopic: BTW the interesting thing is that you're right now getting the same support percentage you were making through your own votes at other people's RfAs.) —
'''Oppose''' per numerous reasons stated by others opposing. Temperament and civility are key factors.
'''Oppose''' While he is on the right track, I must say that he is not quite the kind of person that an admin is. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Too much drahma at AN and AN/I lead me to question giving this editor the tools.--
Apparently not sensible enough to distinguish criticism from hate.
A total dramamongerer, and would probably be disasterous as an admin. But I have had numerous pleasant encounters, so no need to pile on. I think he knew how this would go anyway. '''
Largely per Majorly. Seems rather too drama prone  but I've only enjoyed pretty positive interactions in the past. I also note Deacon and Malleus in support, who make good points. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
In view of the friendly comment above from the candidate I feel I should say something here. If we could give   the right to view deleted articles separately, I would strongly support doing that, but I'm not that happy about the right to edit protected articles. As a slightly different view about the same sort of problems that others have mentioned, I see it mainly as being too stubborn in defending views and comments once they've been expressed, rather than the view and comments  themselves. As for article writing, we could use a few dozen like him. I notice another editor has suggested cloning as well.  '''
I would oppose if I thought this might pass, but I don't like piling on.  Excellent article creator; much too antagonistic to be an admin.
Per most of the oppose section.  But I have had some good interaction with Ottava.  He has clue but uses it too well or too badly, I can't really tell. <small><span style="border:1px solid #339933;padding:1px;">
Per mainly Biblio and also Majorly. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I have to side with Majorly on "he knew how this would go". Ottava is clueful in many respects but every now and then the cluefulness disappears and transforms into some seemingly random erratic judgement. For instance, Ottava is notably tough in RfAs. He opposes a lot of candidates and although I disagreed in many cases, I've been surprised to see him support candidates that fail the very standards he has set elsewhere. As another example, I can't for the life of me understand how someone with usually sound judgement writes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=264549898 this response] to a victim of real-life stalking.
'''Neutral leaning towards borderline oppose''' This is a tough one. Looking at the user's contribs and actions on Wikiversity I believe Ottava is more than capable of being a productive and effective administrator, however concerns raised above about personality lead me to believe this may be a problem. While I do value people who are willing to tell it like it is rather than worrying about not offending anyone I could see potential problems with that behaviour. As wikipedia's traffic grows Administrator actions are ever more so in the public eye, and while we can't possibly expect everyone to be a PR expert bluntness doesn't help the situation any. I would like to see the user show the ability to show diplomacy where the situation requires it without giving up his honest opinions, as well as run again in RFA. —
'''Strong Neutral'''. I would oppose due to OR's excessively confrontational attitude towards other editors not being usitable for a sysop. However, I was involved in an IRC dispute with him this morning, so I can't in good faith oppose the RFA. That said, OR brings some good things to the project. I just don't think giving him to tools so he can have "leverage" over other admins would be a good thing for Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">
Seems completely sane and reasonable from the little interaction I have had and answers to the questions above, if there weren't concerns raised regarding temperament and civility I would move to support. I hope OR gets nominated again at a later date. I think that the points OR raises about potential 'abuse' or lack of accountability is valid and I hope that he works towards resolving the underlying issues even without the admin bit.
Was told my opinion would be valued. So here it is... Has clue. (most of the time) Lacks deft touch. (most of the time) Knows where towel is (about 1/2 the time I think) ... high marks for meaning well, though. Ottava, you made a very favorable impression on SB Johnny (at Wikiversity, see above) which is not easy to do! He's good people and gave you some great advice... see what you think. Would love to support. Would prefer not to oppose, and pileon not needed at this time. Hence... neutral. ++
Great attitude. I am with you as an editor. We enjoy greater 'priviliges' and this attitude suits an editor. Not an admin perhaps.
'''Wimpy neutral'''.  Ottava is a great editor. He's far brighter and more productive than most admins. He could be an above-par superior sysop if he decides to dial down the drama.
Normally, with the concerns listed, I would oppose such a nomination; but, while I haven't interacted a lot with Ottava Rima, I am familiar with him. As such, I will not oppose, based on what I do know about him, but I'm not able to support; I also don't think that Ottava Rima deserves to have 100 in opposition either. I would, however, like to acknowledge all the good work Ottava Rima has done, as I believe that he is a strong editor.
'''Neutral''' Great contribs, but the civility issues are concerning. '''''
'''Neutral''' The recent Fowler imbroglio and the editor's subsequent actions were disturbing enough that it was reassuring that he did not have the power to block. God no, was my initial reaction to this RfA. However, now that I've been following this interesting RfA over the last few days, and seeing a lot more of the editor, I am convinced that OR would not have used the tools improperly had he had them. I suspect a reasonable person exists behind all that bluster :-) Can't support so soon after the F&f thing but am leaning in that direction. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support. Good contribution to resolving an intractable argument at the Picard article, showing good clue about BLP. Some subsequent issues may to some extent involve problems of communication or being misunderstood, but suggest lapses of sensitivity in tense situations where care is needed. The RfA above is jokey, and no problem with not taking it [[:File:I IZ SERIUS ADMNIM THIZ IZ SERIUS BIZNIS lolcat.jpg|too seriously]], but it's unclear that there's any real need for the tools. A lot can be achieved by earning respect without needing to be an admin. .
[[WP:NOTNOW]].  Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't see a need for the mop, and per the lack of experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' 11 year old.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but as someone who just barely passes the suggested minimum hurdle of 2000 edits, but doesn't feel qualified (yet), I'd need to see an explanation fo why this situation is special. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">

Keep up the good work, get some more experience and I'm sure you will be fine. Just not yet. :) – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Oppose''' Edit count too low ... you look like you mean well but there's really no way to see that you've learned what it takes to be a good administrator with so little to look back on.  -- ''<B>
Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable trusting you with the mop since you were, quite literally, just denied rollback. --'''
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Nowhere near enough experience to demonstrate a thorough and intricate understanding of Wikipedia policies, which are vast and bureaucratic and complicated, or demonstrate ability to handle disputes / judge consensus / etc. "Any Administrative work would suit me" does not suggest a good understanding of what adminship involves, or that you actually need the tools. It's not a reflection on you personally; just a lack of experience. •
'''Oppose''' per above. You seem to mean well, and thank you for the offer.  The post really requires editing time, knowing the guidelines and a willingness to be patient. Suggest you withdraw from this process at this time, but please don't be discouraged. If you are a North American, Happy Thanksgiving! (NOTE TO HIGHER AUTHORITY: If this turns into a real pile on, please close asap under [[WP:SNOW]]), thanks.
'''Oppose''' Sorry buddy, [[WP:Not now|not now]]. Best of luck in the future.
'''Oppose''' 512 edits, and back at RfA just a couple weeks after the last one closed?  I hate counting edits, but it's usually recommended to wait a period of months between RfAs.  Besides, I'm not sure you even want to pass an RfA- if you want to use Huggle, you should be [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback|here]], as Huggle requires Rollback permission, not Admin.  Any Admin can give you Rollback- which is far more liberally granted than Adminship.  AWB has a similar request procedure, which I believe requires 500 edits in the mainspace.
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal, but I believe [[WP:SNOW]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]] apply in this case. RFA is a tough process, and your current nomination will hardly make it. If what you want is [[WP:ROLLBACK|rollback]] you better request it at the link provided by [[User:Bradjamesbrown|Bradjamesbrown]]. <font face="courier new"><b>>

Sorry, still too soon.
'''Oppose'''. Way too soon! Although he's been a user since 2008, his activity levels have only been at a decent level for the last two months. He only has 39 deleted edits so his participation in CSD is nowhere near the level I would expect; even though this seems to be one of the areas he would like to work in. I'll have to oppose, sorry. Maybe try again in 12 months after getting some experience in the areas you'd like to work in. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><small><span style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:#FF6600;">~~&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Even if your answers were ''perfect'', your trustworthiness cannot be gauged from your meagre contributions. Please stop chasing adminship, settle in and become an established editor (ie by editing, not by existing) before requesting the tools. --
I can't evaluate a candidate with only 600+ edits. Sorry.
'''Support''' candidate has a nice mix of building the wiki and defending it - edits in two very controversial areas but seems to do so with aplomb. Should make a good admin. ''
Hmm. Slightly lowish edit count no doubt for some, but no concern for me. Clearly you work in some difficult areas so the statement on your user page regarding striving for balance is assuring. Deleted contributions and [[User:Polargeo/Articles I have nominated at AfD]] inidicate you would use the delete button well, so that meets with Q1. I was also impressed with the responses from you [[User_talk:Polargeo/Archive_2#Rape|here]] - calm and collected. Ditto that on ignoring this [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley/Archive|ill considered request]]. I'm happy to support I think. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
From [[User_talk:Polargeo/Archive_2#Rape|this]] - calm and collected per Pedro.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. Yes, it is a relatively low edit count, but Polargeo shows the judgement required to wield the tools (especially the delete button) and a bthrough poke around his editing stats shows a sound content contributor and a genuine positive to the project.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAnthropocene_extinction_event&diff=305979884&oldid=305979502 Yea] you deleted a part of your comment (3 minutes after posting) but that was 5 months back, and I don't think this is sufficient reason to deny you the tools.
'''Strong Support'''. I think Polargeo has very strong opinions on several issues with which he has been involved, as evidenced at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event]], and elsewhere. That's going to piss people off, not to put too fine a point on it - and, noting the opposes, it already has. So, the candidate will need to be extremely careful to maintain neutrality as an admin. The candidate must be willing to acknowledge two things: 1) You're going to be wrong at some point, and 2) This isn't the end of the world. In the face of reasonable arguments that one of the candidate's positions is flawed, the candidate must be willing to back down. Tenacity can easily become tendentiousness, if you let it. So, I'm just a wee bit concerned, and I know that there will be multiple admins keeping a close watch on this candidate's administrative actions, at first. But, overall, <small>and this is the important bit</small>, I see a very reasonable editor who has done some very good work on contentious topics, and I believe '''the candidate will be a net positive to the project as an admin.''' Good luck,
'''Support''' <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' I have reviewed the rape article and the AfD and his interactions on some of the global warming talk pages.  I see someone who isn't afraid to have opinions, and to defend them.   His arguments that I reviewed that referenced policy and guidelines seem to apply them in a proper manner.   Even  when expressing strongly held opinions, he shows a proper level of emotional detachment, which is especially important when treading into contentious areas.  I think he will be a fine administrator, and would be especially valuable for dispute resolution and for making contentious calls.
Polargeo and I have fundamentally agreed on certain issues in the past, but overall I believe he is a responsible and high-quality editor who's genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia. While it's likely this request will not succeed, I think three months or so should fully resolve any concerns related to experience or editcount. –'''
'''Support.'''  I haven't encountered Polargeo before but I see the good credentials here and the potential to become a conscientious and reliable administrator.   —
'''Support''' per Gigs. -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' No big deal. I see nothing to suggest that Polargeo would willfully abuse the tools. He also seems intelligent enough to keep mistakes to a minimum. He would benefit from working on his temperament, but I see nothing to get in a twist over. Net positive.
'''support''' - sensible chap, and the opposes re [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event]] are wrong
'''Support''' A highly intelligent editor who has given no cause for alarm.
'''Support''' - per answer to question 7. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Gigs effectively expressed most of my views. Much of the opposition appears to be related to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event]], where the candidate went a bit overboard in articulating and defending his position. The candidate's response to question 4 gives me confidence that he has fully absorbed the lessons of that experience, so it should not be a source of concern for the future. --
Has views, which is a good thing. Although likely to result in a failed RfA since it's a popularity contest. -
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: over 4,000 edits including good article work, Userboxen, Rollback rights, and auto-editor.  Can be temperamental, but can read [[WP:NAM]].
'''Strongest Possible Support''' I wish everyone here would stop hammering the edit count and focus on the clear merits here. Let's face it. The areas they want to work in are speedy deletion, Afd and anti-vandalism. Their answers to Q8, Q9 and Q10 were spot on and adress their admin interests and also suggest that they would be very productive in their intended areas. And anyone who is still not convinced by their responses to those three questions can read and learn [[WP:AGF]]. They clearly show understanding of the concensus, how do deal with unwarned vandals and they also show promise in their other answers to the other questions. The opposes do not concern me at all as this editor has proven more than once that they are very adaptable to changing their ways if needed to but can still be consistent with their merits. And as far as temper and heavy-handedness...a lot of current admins are far worse than this user could ever be (I won't mention names, you know who you are). Definitley no issues here.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="blue">
'''Support''' No apparent issues raised to date that concern me, in particular, well-reasoned polite advocacy in an AFD is not, IMO, a legitimate cause for opposing. <strong>
'''Weak support'''. The only thing that gives me pause for the moment is a relatively low edit count. Otherwise, the candidate's content contributions are excellent, his comments in AfDs (including the much discussed anthropocene AfD) are well thought-out and well argued, exactly what we need in an admin.  The work on Balkan articles is also a big plus in my book: Most of us tend to avoid such articles because of the highly frustrating disputes that inevitably accompany them. Anyone who expands considerable time and effort on actually improving such articles deserves special thanks.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Dream_Focus&diff=321991201&oldid=321975782 this argument] was reasonable and consistent with how the discussion closed, a glance at [[User:Polargeo#Contributions_to_Wikipedia]] reveals that the candidate contributed to articles including at least one GA (good job!), the candidate has been editing for nearly a year and has amassed over 4,000 total edits, the candidate has Autoreviewer and Rollback (someone trusts him!), and candidate has never been even accidentally blocked!  Best, --
Don't see any particular reason to oppose. Some of the folks who are disputing oppose rationales should probably can it, though - that tends to hurt more than it helps.

<s>'''Support''' per answer to Q9. [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#337B16" face="Garamond">Talk</font>]] 03:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)</s> Changing to '''Strong support'''. I'm still supporting per answer to Q9, but now I see a need to offset the error in oppose # <s>7</s> 6. Are we aware Polargeo isn't running for president of the world?  [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124;
<small>'''weak support'''</small> Although Polargeo has been doing some good work, I find myself on the keep side of many of his AFD's.  Also logs reveal problems with fair use policy with [[File:Willie-soon.jpg]], and a lack of evidence of permission with [[:File:Bambervelocity.jpg]].  However there seems to be a mature attitude and a willingness to learn, as can be seen from an answer about G1 compared with a nom for a foreign language article in the past.
'''Support''', looks fine to me. There's the occasional AfD nom I'm not sure about but overall I get the impression of a sensible user who'd make competent use of the tools. I'm not convinced by most of the oppose rationales, particularly those based on time-on-board and edit count - he's got almost the same number of edits as I had when my RfA passed easily just this summer. I think he's done quite enough to demonstrate he knows what he's doing. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - in my opinion, my objective in this process is to determine if the editor in question can be trusted to safely and effectively use the administrative tools. I've evaluated the candidate, and, in my opinion, I feel that he or she can, in fact, be entrusted with my support.  Best, <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' - I'm pretty sure the Polargeo can be trusted. Not that many mainspace edits, but there's some damn good article work. Net positive, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="#004225" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Switching to support as while still a little concerned about the risk of heavy handed mopping,  research has convinced me I misjudged the Balkan situation, and it looks like the candidate will be a net positive per the above, especially the MfD diff from editor A Nobody.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Weak Support]]''' (Switch from weak oppose) The candidate can be trusted. And those diffs are several months old. Its all water uinder the bridge now.--
'''Support''' Successfully dealt with touchy Balkan related articles. Has plenty of potential as an admin. <font face="xx-medium serif">◅
The AfD brought up doesn't bother me. The candidate was merely trying to help others understand your points.  The other main concern about editcount is not very valid in my eyes because I passed RfA with about 3600 edits two years ago and I never broke the wiki.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' No concerns with this user.<span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Support''', I see no reason to oppose, but user isn't very active, only a few hundred edits per month. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support'''. I've taken a look at the AfD and his behavior does not appear to be that bad. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''  Anyone who has been to Sarajevo/Belgrade and can still keep a cool head around Bosnian War topics is one of two things- a robot, or a very well-tempered person.  At the end of the day, edit count is just a number- and an easily manipulated number at that.
'''Weak Support:''' Although he does not meet my criteria, I like the guy. Happy Holidays -
'''Support''' I don't have to give a reason, do I? :p
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose! :p '''
'''Support''' Dedicated, knowledgeable, and passionate about the project.
'''Support''' You seem like a reasonable person.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good and thoughtful editor. <font color="purple">
'''Support''', noting that issues raised in the opposition are from ages ago (other than the editcountitis) - I think "forgive and forget" for past mistakes is the way to go! Also, per SlimVirgin. <span style="font-family:Century Schoolbook">
'''Strong Support''' on a first look I was going to !vote oppose, but after digging deeper I trust this editor.  Has he been around a long time? No. but in that time he has participated in a very difficult portion of Wikipedia and in my opinion has done a better job than I would have done.
'''Support''' No worries here.
'''Support''' I see no evidence for 'lack of experience'. Polargeo is coming up on 4000 edits over the course of ''12 months'', and people are opposing based solely on that? Ridiculous. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
Not convinced by the opposes. Several do raise concerns, but not strong enough to sway me.
'''Support''' Arguments in the Anthropocene discussion seem to be motivated by scientific rigour, something [[WP:RANDY|WP could do with having more of]].  --'''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Weak support''' as per my comments in the oppose section.
'''Support'''I feel that the edit count, while lower than some, is more than sufficient. The edit quality is good. Should be a competent admin. I hope that the closing 'crat will treat oppose votes on the basis of edit countitis or self-nom opposition with appropriate weighting. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Polargeo seems not to be your typical RfA candidate doing his best to appear bland and noncommittal but someone who is willing to actually enforce policy.  4000 edits and a year's experience is plenty, especially for someone who has demonstrated clue.
'''Support''', I don't see any significant problems here.  Just remember not to get in people's faces too much when you disagree with them.
Good faith editor with lots of experience.
'''Support'''. If longstanding admins were held to the standards that new ones are, we would lose a lot of good ones. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that this user won't be a net positive for the project.
'''Support''' Seems like a conscientious editor with a good understanding of content policy.  In the AfD that has been mentioned, although Polargeo's responses were a bit long, they  addressed the synthesis concerns clearly and did not seem emotional; I did not find a problem there.   Regarding the WQA that has been mentioned, the candidate responded calmly and sincerely in a stressful situation; a good sign for a prospective admin. --
Regrettably '''Oppose'''. Low edit count, but what kills this nomination for me is what seems rather pointy at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event]].
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event]].
'''Weak Oppose''' - I was tempted to go with a weak support, because I don't see any real red flags about the editor, and content contributions seem solid (a GA article and enough edits over nearly a year to show experience). I have concerns about temperament from some diffs mentioned before, but my biggest concern is that there seem to be only about a dozen successful speedy deletion nominations in his (deleted) edit history, yet CSD is one of the areas he wants to begin as an administrator. I don't have confidence that he's going to be safe with the tools, maybe with more experience in the areas he wants to use the tools I'd be tempted to support. -- '''
Weakly. I'm sorry, but the above concerns, along with your (seemingly) defensive temperament, convince me that you're not ready for the tools yet. I reviewed your GA - it was well written and engaging - and I think that you have potential to be a good admin, but you need to take to heart the things here and you should improve in no time. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Solid editor in general, but the points raised by Tan and Aditya are areas for improvement; Atama and Ceranthor sum the points up quite nicely. All in all, I'd like to see a bit more activity in CSD, where you intend to work, as well as improving on the aforementioned areas.
'''Strongest possible oppose'''
'''Oppose''' due to too low of an edit count, a temperamental, aggressive, and emotional personality, incivility at times, limited editing focus, and too few successful Speedy Deletion Nominations for someone who intends to work in the CSD field.
'''Fairly opposed'''. This is just my gut feeling, but editors working in problematic areas, and who take credit for an article that reads quite POV to me, seem a little too much [[WP:EEML|risk]] to promote, even in the claimed drought of admins. (E.g. the section about the Serbs has {{tl|cherrypicked}}, [[WP:WEASEL|vaguely]] attributed claims like "It has been claimed that 'For the Serbs, the desire to degrade, humiliate, and impregnate Bosnian Muslim women with “little chetniks” was paramount.' ", whereas the section about atrocities committed by non-Serbs has no such stuff. Badger me and I will detail additional POV problems there, although others have explained some of the issues in opposes above). The 'Anthropocene extinction' AfD [[snafu]] doesn't concern me as much, as most of the "badgering" there was a reasonable discussion with [[User:Uncle G]] about sources, although the exchanges with [[User:Archangel]] got a little too personal on both sides.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about temperament. '''
'''oppose''' users contributions do not provide proof of the maturity, judgment and range of experienece required to be placed in a position of responsibility over content.
'''Oppose''' - The link to the AFD discussion that Tan provides is very illuminating. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' as candidate does not yet possesses enough experience in the areas indicated they would work in.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. Sorry! <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><small><span style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:#FF6600;">~~&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.  Too few edits, not enough time on Wikipedia.  --'''
'''Weak oppose''' Mostly a gut feeling, combined with the fact that I don't believe that the candidate has sufficient experience in the areas he wishes to work in. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' Too many valid qusetions have been raised.--
'''Oppose'''.  Per above.  Candidate is inexperienced and does not appear understand policy very well.  You're on the right track but I don't think now is the best time.  -'''
'''Oppose''' Per Pantherskin and Tan. Actions show an editor who isn't interested in others opinions. I could be wrong but that's my immediate impression from it.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]], he doesn't like the others opinions and he don't have too much editions (I have 6000 and I was rejected in a RfA). --
'''Oppose'''. Due to Q.14. I've seem some explicit vandalism in my time (most know my automated edit count...), but I've never dived in with a 3rd level warming from cold. If they are going to be dedicated vandal then the required next four bad edits will some soon enough. '''
'''Oppose'''  I am concerned about deletion policy (apparently he has well over a 90% "delete" !vote record) , and about interaction with others on deletion pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGreenfinger_%283rd_nomination%29&action=historysubmit&diff=296595658&oldid=296581806]   With only about 2K edits on articles, 40% are on only ten articles, and with about 600 edits in article talkspace,  2/3 are on ten articles.   More varied experience in editing would help, to be sure.  500 edits in WP space, with  over 40% on ten pages.
'''Oppose'''  - also concerned about deletion.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of that discussion at WQA, which was only 4 weeks ago. I don;t want to get into the underlying issues or personalities, but the way you responded in that discussion was initially very poor and out of line for what I would expect from any editor, let alone an admin. You did apologize for it, but I think we should to see at least a few months without a similar discussion before we consider you sufficiently responsible.  I would not have said this if it had been in November 2008, because I'm sure you will t=learn to do better. You should ''first'' show you're doing consistently better, and only then make another try here.   '''
'''Weak oppose''', moved from neutral. I've seen Polargeo at AfD and MfD before, and my general impression is that he's intelligent, articulate, and reasonable. His content work is truly excellent; he has improved Wikipedia's coverage of glaciology and Antarctica considerably. I'm impressed with his GA, [[Pine Island Glacier]], which is well-written and informative, and I look forward to even more great contributions from Polargeo. My survey of his work at AfD also makes me confident that he has a pretty good grasp of policy and the ability to articulate well-reasoned arguments. Like Gigs, I see Polargeo as someone who has strong opinions and isn't afraid to express them and argue for them &ndash; not a negative in an admin at all. But in spite of all of the above, there are things that make me hesitate to support this RfA. First, the relatively small breadth of Polargeo's CSD-tagging experience makes me wonder whether he's ready to be an admin working speedy-deletion. I trust his judgement, but I'd like some evidence to back that up. Second, Polargeo has a tendency to get involved in debates over heated subjects &ndash; including Balkans-related deletion discussions such as [[WP:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War|1]] [[WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/User Republika Srpska|2]] [[WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Makedonij|3]] [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aradic-es/Future aticles/UK during destruction of Yugoslavia|4]]. He argues very passionately, which is not necessarily a negative in an admin. But would he misuse the tools in a dispute in such a contentious area? I trust that he wouldn't, but I would rather see him stay cooler and more collected than he did at [[WP:Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War]]. Finally, Polargeo [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive75#Polargeo and Atmoz|was reported]] one month ago to [[WP:WQA]] for behavior that an uninvolved user described as "basically ganging up to insult [a] user as though he was an SPA troll." Because of Polargeo's clean block log, I probably wouldn't care if the WQA was 3+ months ago &ndash; but it was just one month ago. For those reasons, and because I'm not entirely satisfied with the answers to the questions, I've decided to oppose. Polargeo will make a fine administrator one day, but not just yet.
'''Oppose''' Per Pantherskin and Tan. Also concerned about deletion.--
'''Oppose''': some more experience would be desirable first.
'''Oppose''' Low edit count and the other issues mentioned here.
'''Oppose''' Per numerous reasonable concerns expressed in this section.
'''Oppose''' due to the concerns presented above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose''' – due to concerns about civility and temperament presented above.  Global warming is one of the hottest hotspots on the wiki currently, and we don't need an admin with a demonstrated lack of cool in that area.  Additionally, I have concerns with how well the candidate would be able to function in CSD, given apparent lack of experience there and somewhat polemic participation in AfD. — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'>
'''Oppose'''. Per unexperience of the candidate. 11 months is a lot compared to a newcomer, but here he'll deal with much experienced users (that are here years longer than him) that have been through things he wasn't. It's reasonable to expect that he won't understand all their actions and that he'll get into unnecessary misunderstandings, possibly even clashes - but not because of bad intentions. Simply, unexperience. He has learned a lot, but still doesn't know enough. And that's not neglectable fact.
'''Oppose''' per Ronhjones, Kubura and Cirt, among others.  This is tough because the !vote is 66% with less than a day to go, but you fall just a bit short to get my vote.  However, please try again in mid-2010, because this project needs good admins, and you are well on the way to learning from your mistakes.  My sincere thanks to you for being willing to subject yourself to this process, and for your good work.  My best wishes to you over the holidays.
'''Oppose''' for this most recent edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=333540337] Getting involved in such a controversial cesspool shows poor judgment.  And I view RFAs as ''prima facie'' evidence of epic fail.
I remain neutral on this one. The candidate does show knowledge of policies and dispute resolution. On the other hand, deleting his own comments is not the proper way to follow a discussion, usually strikethrough is used... I don't precisely support it but I wouldn't oppose, so, neutral. <font face="courier new"><b>>
I'm of two minds here. My own work with Polargeo tells me they have the rationality to do admin work and they have good knowledge of the wiki-ways. Conversely, I'm a little concerned with limited edit count/limited focus and also the length of discussions in fora such as AFD where the risk of sterile back-and-forth gets higher. I'm not particularly fussed about the Anthropocene extinction thing, because I see the fine distinction and scientifically it is important. Needs more thinking.
'''Neutral''' - I haven't dug deep, but I don't see anything especially worrisome. A 100 patrol count out of this many edits comes out to just shy of 3%, which is on the low end, particularly for a user with an expressed interest of CSD work. Doing CSD patrol requires knowledge of both the type 1 and type 2 errors, and page patrols is the only way to see the type 2 errors (or at least have an appreciation for them). That, and a low edit count. Note that the edit count doesn't have a lot of HG or TW edits ''but'' it is mostly gnome style edits that are not substantive contributions. I started here the same month, so I understand the timeframe, and I am not compelled that this edit history requires or necessitates adminship yet.
Answer to 7 was very promising but temperament means I can't really support here.  I do agree with what Kurt's doing - it seems that he thinks self-nommed candidates should be able to deal with agression.  Or something. <small><span style="border:2px solid #339933;">
[[File:Symbol_neutral_vote.svg|18px]] '''Neutral''' Although the AfD referred to by Tan was 3 months ago, I think that combined with the WQA is enough to prevent me from supporting the candidate, but not strongly enough to oppose. -- '''''
A lot of good points in favor of this candidate but overall they strike me as being a little heavyhanded. Sorry.
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Neutral]]''' - The CSD topic still scares me a little bit. I am not pleased with your minimal activity in CSD, yet you still mention that you want to work in that area. If any area needs more caution then another, it is without a doubt speedy deletion. Tan's link also scares me somewhat, but not nearly as much as what I said. Good luck nonetheless... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]] -
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Neutral]]''' - Having only 3,800 edits isn't enough for me to support. Please request again in like 3 months and I might support.
'''Neutral''' Good work so far, but I would like to see more variety and experience in this user, and I'm not sure about the concerns already raised above. I think a few more months, at least. <span style="border:1px solid;">
Concerned about possible lack of experience.
'''Neutral''' Sufficient Edits, but time on wikipedia short. Will support in another few months.
'''Neutral''' You have enough experience and you are trying to make Wikipedia better, but there are several problems mentioned above. Try to fix those problems.
'''Neutral''' I think Polargeo is a great editor who has their heart in the right spot and wish to help the project. I also think that 4000 edits are plenty for adminship and that their editing itself is solid. What stops me from supporting is that there is not enough activity by the candidate in the areas they wish to work in as well as temperament issues cited by those opposing. While I don't think those problems warrant opposition, they are hard to ignore. I'd advise the candidate to work a few more months, especially in the areas they want to work as an admin in and then return to RFA after the concerns mentioned have been rectified or are well in the past. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' - I was going to support, but [[Talk:Anthropocene extinction event#Exiled text|this incivility]] was enough to cost my vote. He has a firm grasp on content policy, but adminship means dealing with troublesome editors too. --
I've been on the verge of supporting - lots of good article work and clear evidence of policy understanding, but as an admin, you '''will''' get poked with a stick, probably repeatedly. When you get annoyed, the thing to do is step away from the keyboard rather than fire a reply back. Demonstrate more restraint when being poked, and you'll have my support next time.
'''Oppose''' You've made 21 edits, I have to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't bother completing the nomination, you've got far too little - well, actually, you've not got any experience. [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' You were strongly advised not to do this and you don't seem to understand the role of an Administrator. Apparently you think that if you are an administrator you will have more rights to edit articles than you have now - which is incorrect. You will have the same rights that you have now so far as basic editing goes, and you can correct vandalism without being an administrator. I don't know why you went ahead after 3 editors advised against it.
'''Oppose''' Answers here and on user talk page indicate that user has no idea what adminship entails.--
You've only been here for a month, but you seem to at least have a sense of what the right path is. To be honest, you wont pass. Most people look for at least 6 months, active time in processes, and the rest. Don't get discouraged.

'''Oppose''', not yet ready as stated above.
According to [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Porchcrop&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Soxred's tool], you have a grand total of 261 edits to the article space.  Your most edited article is [[List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants]], with 7 edits, and your next-most is a tie between [[SpongeBob SquarePants (season 5)]] and [[Characters of Crash Bandicoot]] with five edits each.<p>While adminship should not be an award for prolific content creators, some experience with content creation is necessary in order to resolve content disputes.  I simply cannot see such evidence.—
Per said above and directly below.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#36F">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#09A">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
You have insufficent experience as shown by your edit count, and the answers to the questions are far to sparse for me. [[WP:NOTNOW]].
Please try again later .As per [[WP:NOTNOW]]Good Luck
Not enough experience. ([[WP:SNOW]]?)
Needs more and varied experience ([[WP:NOTNOW]]).
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArielGold&diff=prev&oldid=267955595 This] is too recent, and your answer to q1 is too broad - I'd hope to specific examples of where you would use the tools and relevant experience in those areas. ''

per ϢereSpielChequers.  See the advice and links that iMatthew gives, and continue to work on learning policies and guidelines.  The tools that admins have are not usually given out until an editor has demonstrated their abilities over a longer period of time.  Usually a minimum of 6-8 months and 4,000 - 6.000 edits.  Please continue to contribute, and stop back when you have a little bit more experience.  — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
Per answer to Q3, if you've had no stress you haven't been around long enough.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Strong oppose and request for closure.''' Not ready yet. per maturity issues noted on talk page, inability to distinguish between vandalism and good faith lack of understanding edits of others, overall lack of experience in admin areas.
'''Weak Support''': You need more "constructive edits".  (And I hope you have a thick skin.) Study the criticisms  below and think of this as a teachable moment, but don't give up on us at Wikipedia  -
'''Oppose''' - You lack maturity and judgment. You have a whole lot of guff on your user and talkpages about civility yet your history shows some fairly glaring lapses in this area on your own part to wit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArielGold&diff=prev&oldid=267955595] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArielGold&diff=next&oldid=267955595]. I believe giving you the tools would be to the detriment of yourself and the project.
'''Oppose'''. Although you do have over 2,000 edits under your name, you barely have 300 in article space and over 800 to user space. That, with the limited action in the areas you plan to work in (less than 20 edits in areas such as [[WP:RPP]] and such), lead me to oppose. —
'''Oppose''' Although you have some longevity, I am deeply concerned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Porchcrop&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1], which demonstrates a lack of collaboration with respect to writing articles. Also, your project space contributions leave a lot to be desired.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience, particularly in article space. '''
'''Oppose'''. Of your last ~20 speedy deletion nominations, as much as 8-10 are incorrect. I suggest re-reading the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]], in particular criterion G1 and A3. I would expect your taggings to demonstrate a better knowledge of the relevant policy before being comfortable with you having the delete button. <tt>
Your CSDs, per decltype, are not very good and you don't really have the amount of experience I like to see in a candidate.  I'm also a bit concerned over the creation of [[Template:Unappreciated]] - stinks of attention-seeking... <small><span style="border:2px solid #993333;">
'''Oppose''' - Not really a [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] case any more, but the comments from Crafty are concerning (even if they were six months ago), I don't like your idea of 'my article wasn't deleted, so I now know the ups and downs of content creation' response to Cirt, your reply indicates to me quite the opposite, a 50% hit rate on CSDs is very concerning for any prospective administrator, concerned (but not as much) by the comments by Garden above. Any one of the issues mentioned (except for Garden's, and maybe Crafty's since that was six months ago) ''alone'' would be enough to make me oppose. Sorry, but I think we all know how this is going to end. Suggest early withdrawal, either by the candidate or a 'crat, would disagree with [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] closure due to the mere statistics. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose''' Normally I would ask questions before deciding, but based upon the diffs provided and the fact that almost half of your edits are to userspace along with having less than 20 edits in each of the admin areas you say you want to work in, leads me to my oppose.
'''Strong Oppose''' - the UAA stuff linked by Wisdom89 is utterly dreadful - impossible-to-redeem levels of dreadfulness. Could easily imagine this candidate loudly lobbying to ban [[Puss in Boots]] from a school ibrary - never a good sign. Strongly doubt candidate has clue-capacity required to ever become an admin.
'''Oppose''': Not enough experience or judgement in areas you wish to work, diffs provided above are very worrying. The creation of those templates is also worrying, as it seems to suggest you seek attention. Try coming back in 6-9 months after some work in areas you wish to participate :) --
'''Strong oppose'''. These diffs show someone who should have his TWINKLE access removed for misusing it, not someone who should ever be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Way too many concerns. Suggest close per [[WP:SNOW]]. <strong>
'''Oppose''', sorry. Even during RfA you require someone to clean up your CSD taggings ([[Eovaldo_Moniz]]). --
One of the things admins need to understand are the unwritten rules of this place, and that includes having gaps of at least three months between RFAs. Also not impressed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoboomafoo&diff=prev&oldid=317411422 this] I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake, but as your article edits are very few it does rather stand out. ''
'''Oppose''' - Opposers demonstrate that you have a clear lack of judgement that an admin should have. Sorry.--
'''Strong Oppose''', clearly sees adminship as a goal. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' because this user doesn't have a clue what's going on.
'''Strong Oppose''' per concerns raised above. Nothing personal, but you are better as an editor of wikipedia, rather than an administrator of it. Adminship is not for everyone. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on, but I agree with all of the concerns above. Suggest [[WP:SNOW]] closure.  Regards, <font color="green">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on, but please wait at least 6 months before your next RFA, have no civility issues bewteen now and then, and demonstrate understanding of the policies (not just being able to cite them or quote them) in the areas such as AFD, RFPP, UAA etc. before your run again. I also suggest a lot more article work before you try to run again, since many will not support an RFA for someone who doesn't have significant article work. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Porchcrop, your enthusiasm in editing wikipedia and volunteering to take on the admin duties is appreciated. However, as others have pointed out, there are areas of wikipedia that you are yet unfamiliar with and others that you can learn more about and improve. Your current RFA is unlikely to pass as a result, but I hope you will be back someday; however instead of setting an artificial goal of a number of months or edits, I would suggest that you wait till another admin or established user offers to nominate you for adminship (don't worry, it will happen once you are ready!). In the meantime, try to read up on policies and practices, and ''enjoy'' your time here.
Porchcrop, you've received quite a bit of beneficial advice and I think it's time to withdraw this. Keep up the good work, come back in six months, involve yourself in various admin areas, and I'll be happy to support. On a side note, the oppose section of this RfA is utterly disappointing. Guys, the candidate is a real person, and doesn't deserve the mud currently being slung. –'''
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on as above. Nice to see you fighting vandalism, but I'd like to see more constructive work too. Please learn more about Wikipedia's policies before applying again. <font color="#FF1493" face="sylfaen">[[User:LovesMacs|Loves]]</font><font color="#1E90FF" face="sylfaen">
'''Support''' - A genuine support from someone who originally closed this RfA -- we need more admins that interact with people in the way that I was just approached with regards to reopening this RfA. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - per Neuro. That's a kind of communication we need. I had been leaning oppose, but I feel you deserve some support for that.
'''Support'''. This isn't going to pass, but honestly I wouldn't have a problem at all if it did. While Pr3st0n does fall below our usual standards for admin experience, most of what I've seen suggests a very sensible user who learns fast and has generally got the hang of how most things work here. He cooperates and interacts well with others, and most of the question answers suggest someone with sensible and mature ideas - though some of the answers do reveal a forgivable unfamiliarity with some aspects. I very much hope to see another RfA in the not-too-distant future once some of the opposers' concerns have been dealt with - I think we have the real potential for a good admin here. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''[[WP:NOTNOW| Moral Support]]'''. Exactly why we have NOTNOW as opposed to [[WP:SNOW]]. Good editor, very impressive exchange with Neuro as noted above, but simply not enough ''quantity'' of edits to get get above a moral support. I appreciate editcount is a horror but adminship requires, for me at least, a greater level of  consistent editing as well as individual quality edits.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Moral Support''' Your heart is in the right place, even if you don't have the experience.
'''<s>Weak</s> Support:''' cooperates and interacts well with others... Needs more constructive edits... hope to see another RfA in the "not-too-distant future" -
'''Support'''. Wikipedia needs more people who can interact in this way. Not at all concerned about trust at the moment in that if there is an issue with which you are unfamiliar I would be confident that you would at the very worst request assistance or avoid doing anything to damage. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' agree with above.
'''Support'''. I think we need more admins like this, who are awesome communicators (particuarly with neuro above), even with the lack of contributions. However, 900 is enough to assess the candidate IMO, and barring a few minor mistakes, I see no reason to oppose at all. Good luck, and if this doesn't pass, please come back in the futue. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Moral Support''' I loathe editcountitits but we need more edits in order to assess your suitability for being an admin
Obviously not passing, but don't let it get you down. Also, don't reply to every non-support comment. '''

'''Support''' I greatly support the fact that one's edit count should '''not''' reflect the user's knowledge itself. Good luck. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Strong support''', and not just a moral support. I haven't been on-wiki for a while, but I did happen to see this RfA, and thought I should weigh in. You seem level-headed and competent, and I believe those who think thousands of edits are needed to judge this are mistaken. Though it seems that you won't pass now, I strongly encourage you to re-request at a later date. Also, this quote ''"Indeed, if an incident was to happen to which I would feel uncomfortable with, I would seek additional help, to avoid doing any damage.  After all, to work as part of a team, is better than to work as part of an individual. [[User:Pr3st0n|Pr3st0n]] ([[User talk:Pr3st0n|talk]]) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)"'' strengthens my support further. I ask those who have opposed to re-consider their action, as it is plain as day that this user would make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' I welcome your desire to contribute to Wikipedia.You have only 900 edits.Please try again after a few months .It is only [[WP:NOTNOW]].Wish you all the best for the future.Very Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I do not think you could be a administrator for a long while. You have gone months in the past with not a single edit. Also 900 edits is not to much. <span style="background:#0F4D92;color:white;padding:1px 4px;">
I know several productive, long-time editors who self-identify as bipolar, so that's not a problem, but be careful, because we tend to be very sparse with feedback around here (except at RFA, where we sometimes give too much :).  So a lot of self-regulation and self-assessment is required to have a pleasant experience here.  You aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia at this time, and I don't believe you're qualified yet for any of the busy-work that admins do, but best of luck in the future. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - I'm not thrilled with what appears to be lack of familiarity with [[WP:CRYSTAL]] shown in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar in the Eurovision Song Contest]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine in the Eurovision Song Contest]], but as they were in May, I could be convinced to overlook them. However, in looking at [[Lostock Hall]], I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lostock_Hall&diff=314127814&oldid=314122807 this addition] of what appears to be copyrighted material from [http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53121 here]. It is cited, but it is a long-ish paragraph and the wording is nearly identical - too much so for my taste and, I think, generally accepted standards. If permission to use the text exists, I don't see it. As this edit happened just last week, I'm inclined to think more experience is required. If I had run across that edit in the routine course of events, I would alert the author and we'd work on removing it and get on with the business of building an encyclopedia. I hope that same result occurs here, but in the meantime, I don't think it shows sufficient familiarity with policy for adminship ''at this time''. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:SNOW|Snowball]] [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]]. Most people want at least 3000 edits, and, so do I.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, try again later when you have more knowledge and experience. <b><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Under 3k edits requires exceptional circumstances, and I don't see that applying here. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose'''. I can't help but agree with the others that you will need more experience than you presently have in order to be ready for adminship. You might want to pick up a mentor, but otherwise I would advise that you take your editing career slowly and don't actively seek adminship; instead, simply try to undertake some solid contributions to the article space (featured credits in particular would improve your candidacy). Bipolar disorder certainly isn't a problem, but publicising it on your userpage can work against you as well as in your favour. I would also add that bipolar disorder isn't an excuse for incivility or poor communication. For now, though, I don't think you are at all ready. Thanks for volunteering, though, and if I can provide you with any advice or assistance, my talk page and e-mail are open.
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' I've dithered about this a bit, 900 edits is IMHO enough to assess a candidate. But Frank's example seems to indicate that a bit more experience is needed. ''
'''Oppose''' I could've sworn this was closed earlier? But in any case, I can't support due to im my view a lack of experience. Under 1000 edits, really not enough.
'''Oppose''' The reason why edit counts are often referred to in an RfA is that the adminship request is a request for people to trust your judgment. This is judgment based partially on an understanding of the ways of Wikipedia. It takes a lot of experience to figure out this arcane place, and that experience comes from your presence in various areas of the project. If people don't see that it's difficult to determine that your judgment has been demonstrated. Also, I personally feel that empathy should be a requirement for an administrator and that empathy comes from making similar contributions and facing similar challenges and setbacks of other editors. '''
'''Oppose'' per above. Sorry. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]] I seriously suggest you close this RFA early.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but not enough experience ''here'', and how much experience you have in that other world doesn't really apply. I don't see much evidence here of the kind of practical knowledge (about copyright matters, about consensus building) that is necessary to be a good admin.
'''<s>Weakest</s> Oppose <s>Ever</s>''' I'm blown away by edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeurolysis&diff=315566399&oldid=315523641 this]. You seem to be extremely level-headed and thoughtful. A few more months of consistent editing, along with showing a bit more knowledge of policy (most of your answers don't show a very wide knowledge of guidelines), and I would whole-heartedly support.  <small><span style="border:2px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;background:White;">&nbsp;'''
'''Weak Oppose''' The last month of september your contributions are rolling ahead but they repreasent almost half of your total contributions. Id like to be clear on this though, this is not about quantity of edits in my thoughts my concern is about time editing and trust earned. BUT, dont be discouraged by that. You have some potential here and may be able to put things together soon, happy editing.
'''Oppose''', per others citing lack of experience.  I speak as someone in your boat; I've been here two years and am closing in on 1000 edits myself, and I wouldn't dream I could be an admin.  Strongly suggest you fold now, work hard, and if you really want to be an admin, try again in 12-18 months. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' the editor knows that copyright is important, but does not appear to have any knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines.  Knowledge of English copyright law is no much use, because there are some big differences between English and American laws.  And wp editors leave the legal stuff to mgodwin anyway, we just follow the policies and guidelines.  Th answer to q9 is just wrong and shows this well meaning editor could cause havoc with the tools.  I don't care about the edit count.
'''Oppose'''. Given answers to the questions and the overall level of experience, it's not difficult to predict that accidental misuse of the tools would be frequent with this editor. And it's all right that the nominee asked to have the RfA reopened after the snow close, but I'm uncomfortable with how he has proceeded to question the one-sidedness of the result. Surprise at the results here and reliance on posited real-world experience in this request indicate that the nominee is not familiar enough at this time with the Wikipedian bureaucracy to act effectively as a part of it–which can be taken as either a good thing or a bad thing, but in any event is not indicative of a match for the position.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in accordance with Atama's statement above.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]], <s>no</s>very few edits to admin related areas, and the fact the self-nom wasn't properly completed per the instructions.
'''Oppose''' - No experience or cannot demonstrate experience.  --'''
'''Oppose''' based on [[Talk:Fark.com/GA1|this Good Article review]] yesterday. Pr3st0n's obviously a bright guy who has the ambition and potential to do the work, but I don't think he has enough experience with policy yet to be an effective admin. In that discussion he purported that a profane word needed to be removed from an article because we don't want to offend young viewers' parents, that an uncontested page move qualified as an edit war, that a GA nomination was void and would have to return to the bottom of the list and "wait even longer for a review" if a page move actually occurred, that I was unable to correct him on procedure because I'm not an admin, and that that admins cannot "ignore all rules". I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect, but these particular areas (censorship, bureaucracy, edit wars, the role of admins) are pretty important, and I think the guy could use more experience. —
With no offence here, that last vote for oppose was wasted in retrospective.  I have already posted a final statement in the questions section, and in my opening nomination speech above.  I'm already looking into having this nomination suspended for the time being - but have requested for someone to read my final comment before it is closed, and have asked for them to close it down, as it was they, who reopened it for me.
I wasn't planning to join this pile on, but you've said you want to invite more comments; so '''Not-now-not-ever''', unless you clarify the situation regarding your comments to Frank. You say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPr3st0n&diff=315633430&oldid=315632762 "consent was given to use specific extracts from the website www.british-history.ac.uk, to which a letter is addressed to both myself and Ms. Stewart"], in relation to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lostock_Hall&diff=314127814&oldid=314122807 this addition] of [http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53121 this copyrighted material]. But www.british-history.ac.uk is not the copyright holder, it's a hosting service run by the University of London & History of Parliament Trust, and has no authority to give copyright clearance on behalf of the copyright holder (in this case [[Victoria County History]]). The material was first published in 1911, so it's possible the author died before 1939 and it's now out of copyright—but in that case it's not a case of them "giving you permission". Or, the material is still in copyright, you either never wrote to www.british-history.ac.uk; you did and are lying about what they told you; you did and you're misunderstanding what they told you. If it's the latter, then get them to email [[WP:OTRS]] with consent to use copyright material; otherwise, I don't trust you to judge.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Neutral''', no need to pile on. You are a very promising candidate, and I will support you once you get more experience. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' Per above.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' To avoid pile on.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
Not going to oppose as the outcome is apparent but cannot support due to the obvious reasons discussed above.
From comments made in this RfA, and elsewhere, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFark.com&diff=315631058&oldid=315630274 this], I can't help but think that you are misconstruing the role of an administrator. While administrators are expected to possess an excellent knowledge of our core policies, they do not have any special authority in disputes such as the one I linked. Indeed, some of the most knowledgeable editors when it comes to processes such as GA, are non-administrators. Regards, <tt>
I agree that the candidate brings valuable skills to Wikipedia.  However, it would be appropriate for more experience to be developed in certain areas, as indicated by somewhat incomplete responses to the optional questions.  —[[User:Matheuler|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color=" #871F78"><b>Matheuler]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Matheuler|*]]&nbsp;[[User:Matheuler/adminship|*]]&nbsp;
I cannot support you at this point as the answers you gave did not really answer my questions, largely leaving out the Wikipedia aspect.  The kind of copyright license granted for Wikipedia when you press that save page or upload button is very important to know.  The purpose of Wikipedia needs to be examined.  And on the topic of consensus building you did not seem to know about the venues on Wikipedia where this happens, or how it is decided.  But at some future point, after having  read the policies and practiced using the various options open to a user (including moving, uploading, requesting deletes, discussion) you could try again.
'''Neutral''' Your contributions and attitude show great potential, but you still haven't quite participated enough to earn the amount of trust needed. Try again in a few months of continued activity. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Moral Support''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Outstanding comprehension of [[WP:BOLD]], though :)
'''<s>Moral</s> support''' - As noted above, it is unlikely this request will succeed due to the candidate's low edit count. Even so, he has a clean block log, as well as a talk page free of warnings. He seems knowledgeable in policy, and has experience with vandal-fighting. I could not possibly oppose this. &ndash;
'''Moral support''' - Agree with [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]]. '''
Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out the "opposse" are all on wikibreak and this thing passes on '''Moral support'''? --
Pile-on '''moral support'''.
'''Let-us-see-what-happens-by-piling-on-and-outweighing-the-oppose Moral Support''' Your a great user, keep up the good work.
'''Why-not-support'''.
'''Moral support''' Good luck!
per Foxy Loxy.
'''Moral Support, but noting that this is not the same as a support'''. You seem to be continuing under the impression that a "moral support" is given value as a support; moral supports mean "we like what you are doing, but don't feel you should be an admin just yet". There is a limit to what advice we can give you; when you are (and sorry to be blunt) as inexperienced as you are we are limited to general "make more edits, learn policy" comments because there aren't enough edits to identify particular problem areas.
[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - Another good-faithed editor. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Real Support''' - Morality be buggered, I've no reason to think this editor cannot be trusted.
Oh, what the heck. '''Support'''. '''''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
I agree with Little Mountain.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', seconding Xdenizen's take on the M-word. Hey, other guys fail because they ''did'' something wrong. No complains here. Give hime the hacksaw and stand aside!
'''Support'''. I guess you could call this an immoral support, because it's certainly not moral. I have no problem at all with giving this user the tools.
'''Support''' per Wizardman. Adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal.]]
'''Support''' - per Wizardman. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Another real support'''.  I think that despite the low number of edits, there is no reason to believe that Pyfan would not make a great admin.  Answers to questions (especially 4 and 8) show good knowledge of policy. -
'''Real support'''- outstanding and active contributor, understands all the rules of Wikipedia. Would do well as an admin.
'''Support'''. For you opposers there, please note that [[WP:ECT|edit count does not matter]]. This editor edits in good-faith. '''[[User:MC10#top|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10#top|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''. For an editor with less time and edits than most on RfA, you show a good deal of cluefulness and policy knowledge.  Edit count really doesn't matter.  Hell, your RfA is doing about as well as mine. :D  Good luck in the future, and I hope to see you applying for adminship again later if this does not pass. <b>'''
'''Support''' So he's not that experienced? He has the right intentions and the drive so he could become a real asset to wikipedia
'''Support''' Very good amount of clue, seems friendly. '''
'''Support'''.  I can think of a dozen current administrators that I'd trade for this guy in a heartbeat.
'''Support'''.  As is said, "adminship is no big deal".  You've got several hundred good edits, and no record of misbehavior.  I'm afraid that this will probably fail due to editcountitis, but don't let that discourage you (really).  Come back in a few months and I think a lot more people will support you.
Your 300 or so edits don't demonstrate the familiarity with the policies and whatnot that would be expected of an administrator. Sorry. Edit regularly for a few months, participate in more areas of the project, and re-submit an RfA another time if you'd like. Best regards,
Um, less than 300 edits? No. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Moral Support but Oppose''' See the moral supporters above. No matter how funny it would be if this were to pass on moral supports, it would set a bad precedent for future RFAs. You seem like a good guy but your edits do not allow me (or anyone actually) to judge whether you'd be good with the tools. As WODUP says, after a few months of regular contributions in these areas and others, you should try again. Regards '''
'''Moral support''' - I would usually put this in the support column, but... well, yeah. I think you get the drift. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
Oppose per everyone in oppose and support. Moral supports are still opposes, because it still means they don't want you to become an administrator. Please reapply in a few months. —'''
'''Oppose''' Per every single reason mentioned by everyone. Keep up the good work and you'll definetely be an admin someday.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Oppose''', you're off to a great start as a Wikipedia editor but I'm just not seeing enough experience to show you're quite up to speed on enough aspects of Wikipedia's policies and community norms. I think you just need some more time making good contributions and exploring the more policy-oriented side of the encyclopedia; and i'd be happy to support a future RfA. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I also agree that you're off to a great start as a Wikipedia editor but I'm just not seeing enough experience to show you're quite up to speed on enough aspects of Wikipedia's policies and community norms. I think you just need some more time making good contributions and exploring the more policy-oriented side of the encyclopedia; and I'd be happy to support a future RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  Clearly it would be counterproductive to do a complete RFA for everyone with 390 edits, but as long as voters feel like they have something to say, let them say it, at least until we've done this a few times; this kind of general advice might be good for the RFA Guide. - Dan
'''Oppose''' Although most applications for RfA are good faith, and I believe this one generally is too, there are far too few situations in 2009 where a self-nom with this low level of activity cannot be considered at least ''slightly'' frivolous.  "Testing the waters" is not the purpose of RFA.  Although Editor Review is backlogged, RFA is also not the place for one - this is a mockery of what this process is for.  I'm not trying to drive off a possible future admin, but there are some good essays that should be read before even self-nomming.  (
Too little visible experience to support at this moment - keep up the good work and I am sure you will be on your way soon.
Though I don't want to call your enthusiasm into question, this should have been closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]]. Try again in 3-6 months and a few thousand more edits. :) '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Regretful Oppose'''. Now I remember what I was going to say... if a user mentions CSD, they have to have QUITE A BIT of [[WP:CSD]] experience if they mention it in Question 1. Even if I run for admin 4 months after my failed RfA with 700 edits, that still won't pass. A CSD admin needs to know the criteria very good. I'm probably going to give some questions to you... I may re-support. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose'''; sorry, too little experience.
'''Oppose''' Your editing record is not deep enough at this time.
Great work, come again when you have 1000 edits and I will support if you're still like this.--
'''Oppose''' Keep up the good work and I will support you once you meet [[User:Wadester16/RfACriteria|my criteria]]. ~ '''<font size="2">
'''Oppose''' per SoWhy. Don't be discouraged, you have good job so far. &bull;
'''Strong Oppose''' Good job, but my RfA, when I had [a lot more edits than you] failed. You have way too few edits. I don't see thats fair for me. Good job, keep it up, get 1500+ edits, and i'll strong support. '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
'''oppose''' I'm sure you'll be ready in a few months and a couple thousand edits, but experience is lacking at this time, there's plenty that needs doing that does not require the mop.
'''Oppose''' Your edit count is way too low. Once you have a few thousand edits, I will likely ''support'' you. However, not at this point.
'''Moral Support but Oppose''' You'll be ready in a few months.  Looking forward to it.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
The candidate is indeed off to a reasonably decent start. However, I must voice an '''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. Pyfan needs more familiarity in admin areas, more work in article building, and more experience interacting with other editors. Keep up the good work.
I wouldn't normally go back as far as [[Travelling back in time with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider)]] (now a redirect), but its still in your last 500 edits so I think it fair to include it in this RFA. I don't think it has the right tone, and it struck me as a tad pointy (and haveing worked to keep [[Large Hadron Collider]] neutral and non sensationalist I'm not happy to see alternative articles in Wikipedia on the LHC). I've also noticed that you don't always use edit summaries, I wouldn't normally oppose for that provided the candidate responds by setting their preferences to force edit summary, but I do see that as a communication weakness which implies you may not yet be ready for admin. I saw at least one occasion where you reverted a user who blanked warnings on their user page, the line on that is that blanking warnings is OK and should not be reverted, as the blanking of a warning is confirmation that the user has seen the warning.  I also saw a number of incidents where you reverted vandals but didn't warn them, though perhaps your warning was issued telepatically as they do seem to have stopped when you reverted them. I hope this gives you some pointers in your Wiki career and I hope to be able to support you in a future RFA. '''
'''Oppose''' Just not ready yet, you've got to get experience of a wider range of WP. Keep up the good work though!
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits or experience to judge candidate potential to be an administrator. --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20080811065641&limit=19&contribs=user&target=Pyfan&namespace=0 '''''Nineteen''''' mainspace edits in the last ''six months'', all of them minor?] I don't know what the hell is going on here or what the supports are doing – although I dare say the magic words "IRC" are involved somehow – but no.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Weak Oppose''' Well intentioned, but not experienced enough.
'''Oppose''' I'm not one for editcountitis but I just can't judge your knowledge of the project. Sorry '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose''' - I think you will be a good admin someday, but there is still a bit of experience needed I think so that you can demonstrate you have a thorough grasp of what is needed in taking the mop.
'''Oppose''' -- I feel that you are too inexperienced. Once you gain more experience on Wikipedia, I will be glad to support, but for now, I think you are not experienced enough to handle the tools of an admin. Sorry.--'''''<small>
'''Oppose''': 32 edits in Wikipedia area, excluding those on this page, does not show sufficient involvement in admin type areas and likely little knowledge of it if you don't participate in it. Get lots more consistent experience.
'''Oppose'''. There are a few exceptions, but in general an admin candidate should have some experience in writing articles, and Pyfan's experience in that department seems rather empty. When you are engaged in the business of speedy deleting articles and evaluating edits as to whether they should be reverted or not, experience on the "other side" is very valuable to gain some empathy with the problems article writers face. Without it you run the risk of unwittingly becoming an authoritarian policeman admin.
'''Moral support''' - good start to Wikipedia, keep working at it, then maybe come back when you are more rounded and ready for the mop. :) '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. Pyfan would benefit from more article space content creation before re-applying.
'''Moral Support''', but '''Strong Oppose''' You are a good editor, but not active enough and with too few edits for me to really judge.
'''Strong, Strong Oppose'''  This is making a mockery of RfA.
'''Oppose''' per the rationale of most of the opposes above - I'll add the additional reason that the editor is too guarded in his/her responses to the questions, basically parotting policy rather than showing some digestion and true understanding of it.
I agree with Keepscases, should have been a [[WP:SNOW]] a long-time ago, but instead this is a mockery RFA (with no offense to Pyfan, I think more experience is needed)

'''Oppose''' - You are certainly off to a good start, your answers to the questions are reasonable and you have shown yourself to be potentially someone trusted with the tools. However, you do not yet meet [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]]. I would like you to have more experience before taking the responsibility of administrator, and see how you react to more difficult situations.
'''Oppose''' per same reasons as those above me. You are off to a good start and have good answers to the questions, but you need more experience to show your dedication to the encyclopedia and to show that you can be trusted.
With more broad experience across Wikipedia, you'll have my strong support, as your start proves how you can do. However, that experience is currently lacking. Edit count doesn't matter to an extent, but in terms of experience, it's a relatively telling factor. Best, <font face="Arial">
You seem like a good person, but I'm not convinced you'd make a good admin. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' Due to your lack of experience, I don't feel comfortable supporting.  However, you seem like a good-faith editor.  Keep trying, keep reverting vandalism and I might support in the future.
I really like your editing so far.  You've done a great job and helped out the project quite a bit, but you really aren't ready for the high responsibility of adminship.  Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged if this RfA fails.  Many people fail their first RfAs and bounce back and pass a second one once they have more experience.  By the way, [[User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool|here]] is a faster way to catch and revert vandalism than just reloading the recent changes. Just follow the instructions on the page to install and clear your cache.  Happy editing! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' There's just not enough contributions for me to properly judge either way. -- '''
'''Neutral''' A great help to the project, but if all you do is revert vandalism, you really don't need to be an admin. Good luck and thank you, '''
Honestly, I'm very confused why this hasn't been NOTNOW'd yet. I don't think that this user is ready yet, but I do feel that the user is doing an ''excellent'' job, has a good knowledge of policies, and could be an excellent administrator in the future. <font color="navy">
'''Neutral''' Unfortunately, I wasn't able to ask my usual Q, but someone else did. The answer to the block/ban Q isn't exactly what I was looking for. Edit count = low, but ≠ NOTNOW low. Has a reasonable knowledge of policies, etc., but just not enough experience yet. Perhaps a bit overzealous...? <font face="terminal">
I also find myself wanting to support as I find nothing to suggest that this user would abuse the tools. However I would be happier if the candidate had more experience of applying the policies and guidelines.
'''Neutral '''I can't support or oppose because I see a useful contributor who just isn't ready to have the tools of adminship. You haven't enough edits for us to judge how you would use them and what edits you do have are spread out over nearly a year with low monthly counts (per edit stats) which shows too little activity.—
'''Neutral''' Not at all a bad self-nom for such little experience.  Come back in three months with a good, consistent history and I'll quite likely support.
'''Neutral''' Good faith but effectively no experience.
I continue to admire your dedication, but I think you should have spent more time reviewing other RFA's that have not passed before resubmitting quite so quickly - there's a sense of urgency in running RFA again that I am uncomfortable with. In addition the majority of your edits seem to be vandal fighting / AWB asssisted - I think you need to forget about adminship for some while and focus on enjoying writing Wikipedia. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I'd like to echo Pedro's comments.  I appreciate your desire to help Wikipedia, but still seems a bit early to be thinking about being an admin.  I would continue to work on articles, participate in the community; then, if you think you're ready sometime down the road (like 9 months to a year), consider [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]].  --'''
'''Oppose''' - Concerned with the terse answers, and Pedro makes some good points. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
-Seems like your rushing to administrative status. You should really sit down,  and focus on adding to articles, uploading pictures to articles that need them, reverting more vandalism(i suggest using the the Recent Changes bar) and just keep editing and them wait for someone else to approach you bout a RFA. To me, thats when your ready. But try staying around for about 7 more months and do more article work and you'll have my support. :)--(
'''Neutral''' You have got more experience than last time, but I would prefer if you waited a bit longer before another RfA.
'''Neutral''' Your previous RfA was less than three months ago, and your enthusiasm is still running ahead of your experience. Your willingness to help is commendable, but your candidacy would have been stronger if you waited somewhat longer for re-applying.
'''Moral support''' Editor needs more experience but has the potential to be a good admin.
I had a rather [[User_talk:Backslash_Forwardslash/Archive_3#slow_down_warnings|unpleasant experience]] with this user waaaay back in April, where he was tagging an article for speedy deletion prematurely (as I saw it). Looking through his recent taggings, I can still find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unity_Bainbridge&action=history premature taggings], a trait I most definately do not want in an admin. Administrators should be able to provide editors enough time to substantiate their new articles, particularly new editors, to prevent the risk of biting the editor; I do not see that ability in this user. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' Way too many blue links here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=RadioFan&namespace=3] to leave me confident of your ability with the delete button. Translcuding a non created RFA wasn't to hot either. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per \/. I, too, have experienced RadioFan to be very hasty with taggings and I have to fear that he will be hasty with deletions if granted adminship. A few examples (from the last 2 weeks): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara_Lindsay&diff=prev&oldid=326424307 A7 on lead actress of a broadway musical] (on the very second of creation!), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeharna_South&diff=prev&oldid=326420564 A7 with claims of significance] (one minute after creation), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Prevost&action=historysubmit&diff=326418389&oldid=326418244 another A7 the same time as created] (and using rollback to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Prevost&diff=326422979&oldid=326420773 revert good-faith addition of importance claims]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alon_Stivi&diff=next&oldid=326320584 another rollback for good-faith edits], a series of credit unions he both tagged A7 and PROD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearview_Federal_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325996579][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RACV_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325996506][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Wisconsin_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325996455] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Granite_State_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325996427][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qantas_Staff_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325995857][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentagon_Federal_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325995725][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truliant_Federal_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325995684][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wescom_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325995520][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USU_Charter_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325995414][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leeds_City_Credit_Union&diff=prev&oldid=325994865] (all declined and could have been easily sourced apparently), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria_Anna_Fesemayr&diff=prev&oldid=325726255 A7 with claims of importance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Froeschner&diff=prev&oldid=325443972 another A7 within a minute of creation], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adonai_Rocha&diff=prev&oldid=324830448 A7 with claims of importance]. Also, the candidate's edit summary usage is [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/editsummary/index.php?name=RadioFan&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia below 90%] for major edits - I believe an admin should use them every time since transparency of actions is vital to the position. Regards '''
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Per answers to question 4 and the many, many improperly tagged articles. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' per the user's misunderstanding of deletion procedures. An example is the set of PRODs on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090819183418&limit=100&contribs=user&target=RadioFan astronomy orgs]. A sequence of PROD tags by category, nothing better. Tagged in this set were [[British Astronomical Association]] and [[Royal Astronomical Society of Canada]], both of which had 400+ hits in Gnews and 1000+ in Gbooks at the time of tagging. Whatever one thinks of our notability guidelines, that is not a non-controversial deletion. Given the links posted above by SoWhy, this has obviously not changed since I came across the user.-
Sorry, I thought you were ready, but this evidence above has demonstrated you are clearly not ready for the bit. You do some good work, I hope you improve your skills and accuracy with tagging. I hate to oppose, but there's too many issues at the moment. '''
Per the deletion issue and also the user is now spamming[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ceranthor&diff=prev&oldid=328050274][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soap&diff=prev&oldid=328050280][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coffee&diff=prev&oldid=328050314][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff&diff=prev&oldid=328050316][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&diff=prev&oldid=328050317] people who have opposed. Please do not ask me on my talk page how long you should wait before trying another Rfa; asking that question betrays a basic misunderstanding of people's concerns. You're not beer, that is not ready one week and ready the next. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Oppose''', due to the tagging issues brought up. I recommend closing this per [[WP:SNOW]]. ''<font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' due to tagging issues, and the spamming as shown by KillerChihuahua above. This would be unacceptable behaviour even *after* a closed unsuccessful RfA - unless to a select few 'friends' on Wikipedia - but *during* an RfA? Indefensible. Sorry, RadioFan, I cannot support you at this time, and concur with TTTSNB's recommendation for an early closure. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Backslash Forwardslash]]. Although it was a long time ago, you PRODed an article I made ([[Are U 4 Real?]]) one minute after creation despite my edit summary ("started page, will expand it soon") and my post on the talk page. Your reason for PRODing was "Fails [[WP:BOOK]]", but the book clearly didn't fail WP:BOOK because it had been adapted to a live-action film and you would have found reliable sources if you had searched for it on Google News. As I started adding more reliable secondary sources to the article, you nominated it for AfD, just 20 minutes after creation. I felt very discouraged by that. '''''
'''Neutral''' Until questions are answered.
'''Neutral''' To avoid pile-on but to also commend RadioFan for his contributions and commitment.
'''Oppose''' per very recent issues with rollback and behavior. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Wishy washy non-answers, bad grammar, and rollback issues.
'''Oppose''' 11 years old?!
'''Oppose''' - per Julian. '''<font face="Verdana">
Good gracious no; behaves in a way which suggests that stating he is an 11 may be an overstatement.
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. 1200 edits in 6 weeks, only ~200 edits to articles, no pages created. Unless you furnish the previous account, I'm basing it solely on what you've done in six weeks- which is definitely not enough time to apply for the mop. However, I ''do'' appreciate that we've crossed paths (you removed egregious vandalism from my userpage).
If you don't want your previous account to be connected to your current one, I will also not take into account the fact that you've been around since early 2008. 6 weeks of editing is too short for me to support, regardless of the number of edits.--
[[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. Too less experience.
'''Strong oppose''' per concerns surfaced. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Insert standard expression of surprise that RayAYang is not already an admin.--
'''Support''' as nom. --
'''Support''' as om nom nom nom. --
'''[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]''' - Prolific, trusted, and experienced editor. Nothing to suggest they would abuse the extra tools. –'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - active vandal fighter, good natured, learns from mistakes, articulate... a fine choice, and I wish you all the best. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I've seen Ray make very sensible suggestions at RfCs, and am confident that he has the right temperament to be an admin. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)  P.S.: I was not aware previously of Ray's role in the Saint Pancake issue, but I feel that his answers to the criticisms raised have been thoughtful and sufficient, and some of the criticisms paint him unfairly. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Support''' per Black Kite.
'''Support''' Nominator makes a good case and the answers to the questions are reasonable. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Support''' Per nom.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' per above (except for the whole Black Kite thing).
'''Weak Support''' Good credentials. Would suggest that he do a little more article work, but not a big enough problem in my opinion to oppose - Regards,
'''Support''', with full knowledge of the R. Corrie debate (I think I participated it in as well).  Part of that falls under the category of 'opinions may differ', another part 'not terribly relevant to the use of the tools'.  I don't mean to belittle the concerns, as they are valid.  I just don't feel they speak directly to this candidate's ability to wield the mop.
'''Support''' - Read all the petty crap below and am willing to toss it all into the "sour grapes over heated content dispute" bin. Will this candidate abuse the tools, delete the mainpage or break the wiki? Very unlikely, that's good enough for me.
'''Support''' Good Luck!
'''Support''' Opposing over one mistake would be excessive. I know I have made many more.
'''Support''' the use of Saint Pancake was not a mistake, there are thousands of ghits that use the term, so fair enough for a redirect, so although some below are using it as a reason to oppose I am using it as a reason to support. It is not really an attack, just a bad taste joke.
'''Support''' - seen him around, I think. No concerns here.--
'''Support''' - I think some mistakes were made in the incident highlighted by Black Kite, but I feel it would be overblowing his role in that saga to oppose over it alone. In general, I find Ray's participation in Wikipedia to be positive and sensible: I would have no issue with him receiving admin tools, none of us are perfect. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Weak support''' Some errors have been made by this user, but I think he wouldn't misuse the mop and would be a great asset as an admin to WP Community. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' While I agree with the majority that you were wrong during the Saint Pancake Incident, I don't see why that would make you a poor administrator.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' - So far (almost) all of the opposers do so only based on one event, the dreaded Saint Pancake thing. While I understand the desire to do so, and I agree with most that Ray was incorrect, being wrong about something doesn't mean a person is unsuited for adminship. I'm sure every editor and admin has made a mistake now and again in Wikipedia (I know I have) but what's important to me is how that mistake is handled. Ray seems to have withdrawn and deferred to consensus as is proper when a person "loses" in a discussion, and while he may still think he was correct everyone is entitled to their opinion. Do people really think that Ray is going to take the mop and run rampant, putting defamatory redirects all over Wikipedia? (Actually he could do that without the mop.) -- '''
'''Support''' After reviewing contribs I think Ray would be a fine admin.  The Saint Pancake episode was a political blunder on his part but not nearly serious enough to justify an oppose for me.
'''Support'''
Generally, don't see evidence that the nominee is likely to abuse admin tools. And, per the above the comments presented in the opposes below seem fair enough to me; I don't think they demonstrate any fundamental misunderstandings of policies or practice.
I think that I can disagree that Saint Pancake should be a redirect (a disparaging nickname? How about "Shrub" for G.W.B.?) and still see that the candidate has the attitude and experience necessary for adminship. I'm not sure why that one thing is such a deal-breaker for everyone; if you have over 10K edits here, you've been on the losing end of a policy-related argument. Perhaps the sensitive nature of it? "OMG you insulted the girl who got ran over!" sort of thing? At any rate, you have my support.
'''Support''' First of all, the fact that you answered my first question at all impressed me. With that answer and your other remarks and answers to questions, I see a user who is thoughtful and honest, and, most importantly for an admin, who understands what consensus is and that admins must abide by it whether they agree or not. (I'm a little afraid my question might have spread some [[WP:BEANS]] around now that I think about it but what's done is done...)
'''Support''' per Black Kite.  Since Black Kite brought up RayAYang's participation in the [[Saint Pancake]] affair, it is relevant to note that Black Kite [[WP:WHEEL|wheel warred]] to delete that redirect: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Pancake&action=edit&redlink=1 log].
'''Support'''. The pancake affair raised by the opposers seems overblown. Whilst the candidate was not the example of how to handle dispute resolution and discussions, they still went with concensus and attempted to gather this through means of discussion. The other parties in the incident were also not examples of how to handle such, with AGF issues and as pointed out a mini wheel-war. I personally feel it is unfair to oppose the candidate over this as its been blown out of proportion. Support as net positive. --
'''Support''': besides the 'Saint Pancake' affair this contributor appears the ideal candidate. When it comes to that affair, I can appreciate arguments from both sides, and ultimately lean toward Dank's position on the redirect's worthiness. But in considering how it all affects RayAYang's suitability for adminship, the detail I find most important is his statement that "in my mind, the question of this particular redirect is settled, consensus has been reached, I've abided by it, and moved on." Thoughtful, considered, bold but prepared in the end to be bound by consensus. That's what I want to see in an admin.
'''Support''' We all make mistakes and that particular incident is not oppose-worthy alone (and while [[tu quoque]] is not an argument, Jclemens correctly points out that Black Kite's wheel-warring in that situation was not really the correct reaction either). But Gonzonoir puts it well: The candidate has shown an understanding of how to react when confronted with such opposes and has shown that they are willing to learn from past mistakes when necessary (see answer to Q7). Their answer to Q9 shows a good understanding of one of the most difficult speedy criteria and their contributions show no obvious mistakes in that area...As such, my decision here is to [[WP:AGF|assume that Ray learnt from that particular incident]] and that they will not let their personal POV influence the use of admin tools. Therefore granting adminship to this user would be a net positive imho. Regards '''

'''Weak Support''' The "Saint Pancake" issue is concerning, but it looks like RayAYang is a user who is willing to change and correct his ways. I think he'll learn from his mistakes. Everything else checks out fine. --
'''support''' Certainly concerns about the SP issue. But I've seen Ray around a lot and trust his judgment.
'''Support''' - Administrators need to be NPOV, but I'm not convinced the controversial edits shed much light on the editor's temperament.
'''Support''' - Despite the Saint Pancake issue I don't think he'll abuse the tools.
'''support''' for having the integrity to give honest answers where it would have been very easy to be equivocal and make the election much more likely to give a favorable result. an admin has to be neutral even over the most unsavory matters. I further agree that the obnoxious motives of people do not matter if they contribute good edits-- POV is a reason for examining them closely, not for rejecting them. '''
'''Support'''. I have no doubt that Ray is trustworthy, per the first sentence of DGG's support. As to the "Saint Pancake" episode: Yes, the epithet is disgusting; yes, I'd have !voted to endorse the G10 speedy; yes, I think Ray's position was clearly wrong there - but I just do not see how this has any relevance to the question whether he will abuse the tools; if anything, as DGG said above, the ability to be "neutral even over the most unsavory matters" is something we should be looking for in an admin. The question is whether he can set aside his views, however strong they are, and follow the consensus when he uses the tools; whether he can learn from his mistakes and move on; whether he can react calmly in stressful circumstances. As Gonzonoir explained, I see no indication that he cannot.
'''Support''' Good luck. No concerns.
'''Support''' - I was slightly put off by the Saint Pancake issue, but we shouldn't hold one mistake against it for the rest of it's life. Good honest answers to questions. Won't abuse tools,

'''Strong Support''' Looks like a fine editor who will make a fine admin.  As for the saint pancake redirect, since it wasn't [[WP:OR]], we are supposed to [[WP:AGF]], and Wikipedia is supposed to be neither a [[moonbat]] nor a [[wingnut]] soapbox, then I would hope that the oppose !votes based on such an obvious [[WP:CENSOR]] issue will be rightfully ignored in evaluating this RfA. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Tanthalas39]].
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Thanks for your contributions. I'm sorry to see grudges being held against you over a previous disagreement.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' The case for opposing is almost solely related to the Saint Pancake incident. While I’m sympathetic to the views of those who feel the redirect should not be in WP, I am astonished that so many people would decide to oppose someone as an administrator over this incident. While I can understand that a candidate should be opposed if an interpretation of policy is so at variance with the facts that no reasonable person could hold that opinion, I don’t find that to be the case here. I see an issue which requires close scrutiny of multiple policies, with the possibility that a multiple reasonable people could reach multiple plausible conclusions. If the facts are so clear, I hope someone will make a clear case, because I don’t see it. In order to avoid cluttering up this page with too much discussion, I’ll copy this paragraph and extended comments explaining why I think Ray’s position is plausible on the Talk page. I hope that responses, if any, will go there.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' I do not see any reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' per Gonzonoir and Sphilbrick.  Not all administrators, let alone all active editors, are going to completely agree, even on the implementation of core policy.  RayAYang has generally good contributions and seems a productive editor.
'''Support''' No problems, everyone must have an opinion, even Administrators. Carry on the good work.
'''Oppose'''.  The [[Saint Pancake]] saga left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm afraid.  For those unaware, the (now deleted) redirect was to [[Rachel Corrie]], a pro-Palestinian activist killed when she was run over and crushed by an Israeli bulldozer.  The "Saint Pancake" epithet was used only in the extreme right-wing blogosphere to mock Corrie's death.  The redirect was deleted (disclosure: by me) as a G10 (attack page) and endorsed at DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1].  Ray removed the original G10 speedy tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Saint_Pancake admins only].  In the ensuing discussions, Ray [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie&diff=prev&oldid=288601666 calls editors of Corrie's article "hagiographers"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=267465785 accusing another editor of "political correctness"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=267459135 redirects don't have to be NPOV], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Corrie&diff=prev&oldid=288515097 asking for the redirect to be recreated despite it having been deleted as a G10].  Wanting so desperately to keep something that was only sourced to blogs is very ironic, given that Ray [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thio_Li-ann&diff=prev&oldid=305146343 is aggressively clear that other things that are only sourced to the US blogosphere must not stand].  Sorry, not convinced. <b>
No. Deeply unimpressed with this editor's behavior on the "Saint Pancake" issue, for the reasons outlined by BlackKite above. The tendency to handle disagreement by accusing others of "political correctness", "groupthink" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=279285390]), "censorship" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=298382226]), etc bothers me, as it's already way too prevalent here. As a matter of personal preference, I think we need more admins who can recognize and handle obvious disruption and abuse. I'm concerned (based largely on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=279285390 this]) that RayAYang isn't able to differentiate disruptive accounts from "established users with a history of valuable contributions", which is a problem for a sysop. Given that these issues are not offset by any substantial experience in content- or consensus-building, I'm in the "oppose" column. '''
'''Oppose''' Arguments like "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=267459135  Whether ''reliable sources'' use the term is irrelevant]" are a deal-breaker for me. I could accept those if the debate was only about innocuous typos or transliteration, but this was clearly a "content" issue about a real-person, where [[WP:RS]] requirements are non-negotiable. The attendent bad-faith accusations are also deeply troubling. <s>I'll reconsider my vote if something new is brought to light to show clearly that the user's views and conduct have changed.</s>
'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. We lend integrity and approval to incorrect terminology, nicknames, misspellings, etc., if we use them as redirects, since no reaction to the inappropriate nature of terminology like "Saint Pancake" would accompany its redirect. I would support redirecting searches like that to [[WP:CIVIL]].
The Saint Pancake issue paints a rather unflattering picture. Fails to understand the importance of reliable sources, therefore I am concerned about any future activities concerning [[WP:BLP|BLP]] issues (I know the person in question was deceased btw). &mdash;
'''No''' per Black Kite.
'''Oppose''' per Black Kite.
'''Oppose''' sorry, Black Kite and Mastcells comments give me significant cause for concern.
The episode Black Kite brings up does not instil confidence in me.  <small><span style="border:2px solid #333333;">
Reluctant '''Oppose''' per Black Kite. I'm sorry to do so, because looking at RayAYang's contributions, he seems to be generally a good user, who would probably use the admin tools well; but his judgement in the 'Saint Pancake' issue was just so poor I have to oppose over it. While he's actually correct that NPOV doesn't apply to redirects (a bad policy IMO, and one I think we should change), in this case the redirect was so blatantly offensive and non-notable that it should have been obviously inappropriate. It gives me reason to have concerns about RayAYang's treatment of BLP issues. I don't see any major problems apart from that, but it's just too soon for me to support - if RayAYang continues to contribute well and avoids making any similar mistakes, I would be happy to support a future RFA in a few months' time.
Switching from support.  Google made more in advertising revenue in 2008 than every U.S. newspaper ''combined''.  We don't always admit it or like it, but the top websites have dramatically changed the world, and with ascendancy comes responsibility.  One of those responsibilities is not to parrot genocidal sentiments without nuance or balance; this is not a problem in (most!) news sources because they have editorial oversight, but we're in the process of putting most of them out of business.  It's a problem on a wiki, and one we need to constantly guard against. - Dank (
'''Oppose: '''The Saint Pancake saga gave me a bad feeling about this candidate.
'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. NPOV is a core policy, and should not be misunderstood by prospective admins. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' Not enough substantive mainspace experience yet; this is especially important when concerns of NPOV interpretation come into play.  Had we seen that he had written or contributed substantially to dozens of well-sourced and neutral articles, then I think the concerns raised by Black Kite would not stick out as much as they do.  While I wish the candidate success with this RfA, should this one be unsuccessful, I would recommend a focus on substantive mainspace contributions, after which, I would be happy to support --
The above stuff gives me no confidence in his level of clue.
'''Oppose''' - After analyzing the rationales of Black Kite, MastCell, and Abecedare, I don't believe this candidate will be a net positive as an admin.
Per Black Kite, MastCell, Abecedare, Friday. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
'''Regretful Oppose'''.  per Black Kite.  Ray has done <u>awesome</u> work around the project but this recent Saint Pancake incident noted by Black Kite is absolutely a cause for concern.  Perhaps in a few months and some more experience.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' per KillerChihuahua above. Saint Pancake? FFS. No way.
'''Oppose''' I cannot trust this individual with the tools at this time due to the Pancake issues coupled with no substantial disputes resolution.
'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. <font color="#FF1493" face="sylfaen">[[User:LovesMacs|Loves]]</font><font color="#1E90FF" face="sylfaen">
'''Oppose''' per BK. As one of the editors involved in the controversy, I was not impressed with his arguments and remain unimpressed with the rationales and interpretations of policy he has expressed on this page.
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia becomes a better place when we attempt to engage in candid conversations on awkward or sensitive topics. That said, extremist and fringe epithets should be addressed and assessed as to whether they have an appropriate place within in an article. However, the position that Ray is taking with the answers he gives in this very RfA demonstrates to me on of two things: either a simple minded approach to a complex issue, or a duplicitous intention to sneak unencyclopedic redirects into the project under the guise of expansive thinking. Redirects that denigrate the redirect target article is a no brainer. You. Don't. Do. It. If a denigrating term is significant, maybe it warrants inclusion, but if someone is searching a denigrating term in search of a well known figure, instead of searching for that individual then they are far too ignorant to even begin to grasp the basic purpose of an encyclopedia.
I'm afraid I must agree with the crowd on the Saint Pancake occurrence.  Not the demeanor of an administrator.  Perhaps you should run for adminship again in the future if you have had no similar altercations. '''
Per Mastcell.
'''Oppose''' Per Black Kite.
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't have opposed solely on the Rachel Corrie matter, if the editor had said they could now see why his actions were mistaken. As it is, he doesn't seem to have learned anything so, no, this time.
'''Oppose''' remember the St. Pancake bit well. Either didn't understand or pretended to not understand various policies, including WEIGHT and RS. Ignored consensus, generally combative. And not that long ago.
'''Oppose''' R.I.P Rachel Corrie
'''Oppose''' Saint Pancake? That is not funny.
'''Oppose''' per MastCell and Black Kite.
'''Oppose''' per MastCell, Abecedare and Black Kite. RS and NPOV are crucial to wiki. Sorry.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Strong Oppose'''. The Saint Pancake affair, along with your behaviour at the [[Talk:Death_of_Baby_P/Archive_1|Baby P page]], leaves me to believe you blindly follow the free speech, no censorship mantra that conflicts with the idea editorial restraint. I don't believe you have the necessary clue to deal with [[WP:BLP]] problems, as I get the impression [[WP:CENSORED]] will outweigh any BLP concerns in your mind. '''\'''
'''Oppose'''. Echo above concerns, essentially per those cited by KillerChihuahua. '''
'''Oppose'''. I know WP is [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] but there is a difference between having articles that discuss abusive, tasteless, biased or offensive terminology and allowing these to be used as redirects. The former cna be encyclopedic, the latter would bring the project into disrepute.--
Planned on supporting, but BK's oppose concerns me. See both sides right now, so I'll stick here. '''
Generally good, but that incident leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Still, I do not oppose.
I'm in the same position as iMatthew and Irbisgrief. I am not happy with the incident BK brought up, but RayAYang's contributions otherwise are OK. The incident clearly showed a lack of judgement. Sorry. Better luck next time ;)
Per iMatt really. Perhaps, I'll change my mind. </big><strong>
I've seen Ray around at various forums; his comments are usually logical, reasonable and contribute signal admist noise. On the other hand, I participated in the RfC about including the "Saint Pancake" bit in the Corrie article and found the arguments for inclusion to be incomprehensible without assuming unstated motives on the part of those making them (the exception was DGG, who argued that the phrase should be included because in his opinion it was common enough that some people were likely to search for it or expect to see it in the article). Jclemens and RayAYang, though, had little argument other than that there were reliable sources that the nickname existed, and that NPOV meant we absolutely had to include it. I found that to be an unusual misunderstanding of a number of policies on the part of experienced editors (and an administrator, in Jclemens). The issue is settled, of course, and there's no sense in rehashing the argument (which went on, and on, and on, via an extended Rfc). Even so, it's enough to cause me to vote neutral when I would otherwise likely support.
Neutral.  I see you mention [[obstacle problem]] as one of your best contributions, but the article is way too technical for general audiences.  (and I ''thought'' I had a college education!)  Because this is a general encyclopædia, please try to at least include some information in the lead that gives an overview for the lay reader.  For example, what is the importance of the obstacle problem in fields such as economics, computer science, or medicine?
I still think you're a decent editor, but the opposes raise some concerns, and I can no longer support. '''Strong neutral'''. ;)
'''Support''' seems like a knowledgeable user who understands policy. Best of luck, <font color="black">
I found his answers rather appealing, especially his justifications for 6 and 7.
'''Support''', per experience, maturity, answer to Q6 (I '''highly''' agree with this), and no indication at all that he/she will abuse adminship. I know it's fashionable to posture that adminship is in no way an "upgrade", but the RfA process ''clearly'' denies this - opposing for such seems silly. Experience is low but exceptions can be made.
'''Weak Support''' Mainly per Tan, but weak because admins need to communicate well with users and I'm concerned that your user talk contributions don't seem to include any warnings to vandals.  Also edit summary use could be higher. For the record I disagree with you re IP edits, they were the magic ingredient in building Wikipedia and recruiting new editors. But the point of that question is to establish that you understand the pedia well enough to have opinions as to its future direction, we administer in accordance with policy so our views as to future changes to that policy are only relevant to RFA in the contest of assessing your understanding and commitment - which side you take on a contentious potential policy change is not relevant as to whether you can administer in accordance with policy. ''
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] in that candidate has no blocks and no memorable negative interactions with me.  One suggestions I have is to use more edit summaries.  Best, --
'''Reluctant Support'''-Man you've been here a while but you haven't really engaged in contributing to Wikipedia. I like you answer to Q6 though and you seem like a no nonsense type of guy. So I reluctantly support you.--(
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest he would misuse the bits. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' No worries--<font face="papyrus">
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools.  I disagree regarding Q6, but it's your right to have such an opinion and the fact you're copping so many oppose votes over it is disappointing.
'''Support''' Per Q6, I 100% agree with that.--
You've been here for a while, but you haven't really engaged in or got involved in anything much.
'''Oppose''' - Concerned that the candidate thinks that adminship is an "upgrade", which may indicate unwanted traits. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Edit counts don't particularly worry me, but I do expect amins to be reasonably active contributors. Sorry, but with such a thin contribution record, I can't be satisfied that you will always be on top of policy.
'''Oppose''' mainly because of the response to question 6 (wikipedia would die if IPs were not allowed to edit) and partly because of the weak response to question 7 (wishy washy stuff about knowledgeable and trustworthy users). --
'''Oppose''' as even a brief check of User Talk and User Talk history shows that involvement in any actual administration is non-existing and article contributions are not particularly extensive.
Needs to improve his activity in Wikipedia. 500 odd edits in four years is certainly too less. Most amass 500 edits by 1-3 months. Too less activity to decide whether or not he deserves the mop. Answers to questions not too excellent either. <strong>
'''Oppose''' - Per "If an article has references, but the references are not trustworthy, then the information can be allowed if there is consensus among trusted knowledgeable users until proper strong references can be found". —
Unnecessary use of '''Bold''' above in the answers.
'''Oppose for now''' I don't usually go down this road, but I can't make a good judgment on this user's ability to be a successful sysop with only 500 edits in four years. Want to see more experience and I'll be happy to reconsider in the future. - <big>'''

'''Oppose'''. Few interactions with other editors. I would like to see more evidence of direct discussion and collaboration.
'''Oppose''', {{user|Stifle}} and {{user|Neurolysis}} bring up valid concerns, however if the user gains some experience in varied capacities would be willing to consider supporting at a future RfA at some point. '''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Oppose''' Serious experience concerns. There's not much to go on to judge whether this person would make a good admin or not.
'''Oppose''' Dissapointed at Question 6. There would be no Wikipedia without IP edits, as many new users come here through it. Amounts to a bit of assumption of bad faith. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Question 6. This is a free encyclopedia for a reason and disallowing IPs would tarnish that reputation. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and also answering '''Q6'''. If IPs were disallowed from editing, then account creation vandalism would increase by a lot. Also, you need to be on WP longer. Around 500 edits isn't enough. I expect around 5k edits to Wikipedia. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10|M]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[User talk:MC10|C]]</font><font color="#7B68EE">[[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|10]]</font>&nbsp;<font color="#1E90FF">|</font>&nbsp;<font color="#4169E1">
'''Absolute and total oppose''' &mdash; this user does not believe in a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and has proposed to ban an entire class of users from editing. '''
'''Oppose'''. Answer to Q6 shows a willingness to throw the baby out with the bath water, i.e. to use solutions that do not address and solve the problem but have a large impact on the encyclopedia. Creating a policy to disallow anon editing just because most vandalism is done by anon editors is the same as shooting a whole group of people because some of them have committed crimes. True, none of them will commit crimes anymore, but now even those who benefited you are dead as well. A candidate who is willing to punish a group of people because a few of them made mistakes should not be allowed to get into a position where they can really do so. Also, it shows a mistrust of anon editors and thus indicates that the candidate would be likely to treat anon editors in a different way than registered users. Also, I dislike the idea of adminship as an "upgrade" and the limited experience of this user. Regards '''
Weak answers to questions. Most of the tasks listed in Q1 can be done without the admin tools. Answers to other questions seem rather superficial; they don't go into much detail and make it difficult to judge experience. <font face="Broadway">
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' With no edits to the Wikipedia namespace (until creating this RfA), and very few edits to other users' talk pages, it's difficult for me to judge how well Raza0007 knows and can apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  Much of what Raza0007 indicates s/he would do as an admin (warning users, reporting vandals etc) is stuff that does not need the mop - and is stuff that s/he could already be doing, but apparently isn't.  However, as I don't have time to review the edits in more detail, I will refrain for joining the opposers at present.
'''Neutral''' I am in agreement with Bencherlite -- a wider level of contributions would benefit a future candidacy.
'''Neutral'''.  I have vowed never to oppose an RfA do to editcountitis, but under 500 is a bit low for me.  I'm not crazy about the question answers and I'm not seeing any real contribution to admin-related areas or any really strong article building. I would switch to support in a future RfA (or even this one) upon evidence of building one GA (or FA) or three DYKs.
'''Neutral''' No striking reason to oppose, but a lack of activity leaves me unable to judge the trustworthiness of this user. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' Per comments above.
'''Neutral''' Per above. I personally feel that less than 500 live edits is a bit low to establish trust within the community- but I'm reluctant to pile on.
'''Neutral Leaning Oppose'''  Needs more experience with policy and collaborative areas of Wikipedia.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
I don'tmind the answer to Q6, but while we need more admins, we do not need more inactive admins.
'''Not-piling-on Neutral''' - I [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in this user's intentions, but I see several glaring issues that should be resolved before a subsequent RfA: Yes, question 6 is on the list; enough has been said about that. Q7 is also concerning because consensus can never outweigh verifiability in my opinion; I'm surprised this question gets so much play honestly; you can't simply declare the sky purple because consensus says it is. We always need the references. I see that when pressed, verifiability was chosen as a one-word answer, but...the discussion doesn't support that point of view. Having said all that, though, my two biggest concerns are the [[power-up]] mentality I see in Q1, and the thought that an admin (or editor, for that matter) should only contribute to subjects he or she is expert at. That last point is exactly the opposite of what we need on Wikipedia. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' I'm sure this user will be an even greater asset to the project as an administrator.--
'''Support''', ehh, no issues. Might change depending on questiony-answery-things.
'''Support''' per positive interactions. '''
'''Weak Support''' Great user, could benefit from the tools.
'''Support''' Knows his way around Wikipedia, gets along well with other users.
'''Support''' Strong editor, so I have not doubt he'll use the tools the right way.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
Can we just gives him the darn tools already?
It seems to have been a rough road, but my feeling is that this candidate has arrived at a point where he can be trusted with the tools - and may be better for the travails in getting there.
'''Support'''same reason as Iamawesome <font face=jokerman>
'''Strong Support'''Red is one of the best editors there is. I can no doubt guarantee he will be a posotive for the project and use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' I don't see anything particularly troubling about this candidate. If he's conservative with his use of the tools and continues to study up on policy, I'm sure he'll be an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' - I think Wizardman said it best. &nbsp;
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN]] and per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support, from Neutral''' after five months, I can forgive him. Prompted to switch !vote mainly because I strongly disagree with many of the Oppose !votes; once you have been here long enough, I don't see moderate inactivity as a problem.
'''Support''' - having scanned through his edits (and then spending a few hours mulling it over) I am happy that he is able to interact with the general wikipedia community - including the development and use of a new welcome template - in an appropriate manner. I also see appropriate use of the user warning templates. These two are essential for NPP and AFD. His mainspace edits are also of a high standard.
'''Support''' 8 Months is a long time on Wikipedia, even if it contained a wikibreak the candidate was active for several of those months. Nearly 15,000 edits with no blocks should be more than enough to earn our trust. '''
'''Support''' &ndash; as a previous nominator of Red Thunder ([[née]] Stormtracker 94) I am aware of his ability to work well with other users and perform tasks to a reasonable standard. There is nothing concerning about his edits, in my opinion, and I am surprised that the opposition raise "inactivity" as a reason for denying a perfectly acceptable user from gaining the bit &ndash; I can see no concrete evidence (in the contributions, or in the opposition) that would suggest any considerably detrimental has occurred in that time. Surely if there is no diff nor evidence that can be provided, there is no basis for the oppose?
'''Weak Support'''.  The only issue I see is a faulty understanding of derivative works, which can easily be straightened out.
Why the hell not.  Is a good, productive editor who only wants to help.  What more could be asked?
[[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
Why not? --
Per previous three supports.--
'''Weak support'''.  I've always thought of you as a good editor and I'm sure you will do well as an administrator.  Your inactivity is a little worrying, but it's honestly nothing to sink an RfA over, especially when I know you already have clue.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support.''' Good luck (next time, at least?), Red Thunder. ·
'''Support''' Gets along well with other users. Doesn't abuse his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I  have no doubt of his commitment to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' - I trust him completely with admin privileges.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|is there a reason not to?]] '''<font color="navy">
'''weak Support'''- I feel as tho the answers are on the weak side, but I see nothing to fear that the user will abuse the privilege of the extra tools, which is what it all comes back to, in my mind at least. Good luck with the rest of your wiki career, admin or not. ~
This won't pass, but I decided to offer my opinion anyways. Overall, I don't see any red flags that assert this user will abuse or misuse the tools. Would advise reconsidering the answer to Q8 - non-free images of living people should not be used, even if the image comes from the time they were popular.
'''Weak Support''' [[WP:WTHN|WP:WTHN?]] '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support'''   At least moral support.  Here's to you having more success if there is a next time.--
'''Moral Support''' - you'll get there, just give it time and patience. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Oppose''' per inactivity over the last few months, especially in areas he hopes to work with with the tools.  He has three edits to AIV since the end of August.  Red Thunder also says he works in new pages patrol which would suggest having a bunch of speedily deleted edits but he only has five deleted edits that were speedy deleted since August 25.  I'd like to see more sustained activity over the next few months before I support,
'''Oppose''' Your answer to question 3 is almost shoving the blame for your past behaviour on everyone else. You say "I stayed out of the whole thing and told my adopted user to calm down", but from Icewedge's link, you were actively participating in it. I'm also concerned by your inactivity. Mid-December you felt like you'd "hit the wall", took a long break, then came back to run for RfA. Sorry, while I can understand this in a way, I'm not seeing much improvement since Dweller's review. Best, <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' - What Peter said, but inactivity doesn't matter too severely to me. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - You don't seem to be as familiar with image policies as I would like. I disagree with your answer to question eight, as I feel that is not always the case by any means, but I also feel there are other cases where non-free images of living people would be acceptable.
'''Oppose''' per above. User needs more time since coming back from break to prove trustworthiness with the tools. The long string of previous RfAs still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
'''Oppose'''.  All 5 opposes above mirror my thoughts, as well as Sam/Shapiros10's Support #4.  However, RT is an experienced user and a good guy, and I'm open to changing my vote if the candidate and/or supporters can meet the burden of proof that his strengths outweigh the points brought up so far.  Besides, RT has done a lot of good things around here, and I'd enjoy reading more about him. - Dan
'''Oppose''', for now, pending the answer to my question. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - sorry, per either way. Too much inactivity in the last months. —<sub>
'''Oppose''' per concerns noted above.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to the question 3 and fifth attempt for adminiship without much improvement.--
'''Oppose''' - Far to many requests for the tools in a very short time. I'd consider supporting your next RfA if you waited ''at least'' a year before trying again. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Weak Oppose''' My first and only real interaction with this user was from his time at Radio Wikipedia. His involvement with regards to using copyright material in recordings subsequently released into thdontblic domain which really questions my trust in thialieviateving even a basic understanding of copyright. I dont ask for in-depth knowledge and will say that did alieviate some concerns with the subsequent use of CC and PD material in the set up of another podcast. However I really need to see some long term proof that this user has learnt since then. This user has done some content work but I think that a good dose of clue is isntly needed. Having an RfA 2 days after a relatively long wikibreak when there have been multiple rfa's before probably isnt the greatest of ideas. The length of time since the previous rfa was much better but you need to be looking at things from all pov. This tied in with the lapse of clue with the copyright just make me concerned that there are gonna future lapses of clue. My suggestion right now is to get back into the areas your good at, give 4-6 months solid work, along with that start branching out even if only a little (prehaps into DR, of which your more than welcome to help out with a case at medcab), then I will look at how things have gone and If i am happy, you have an open offer from me to nominate you. But i will only do so If i feel that you ready. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Good user, but too much inactivity<s> and too many requests for adminship lately.</s>
'''Oppose''' - Answers to several questions suggest to me a superficial understanding of WP policies, protocols, and standards.  Specifically: #3 and #4 both seem muddled;  #5 seems incomplete and superficial;  #6 doesn't really seem to answer the question; #8 appears to be incorrect; and finally, #11 just seems rather naive, to suggest that one can participate "in AFDs more often to gain experience in administrative areas of work" in 2 days.  I believe that some of the cited answers may have seemed weak perhaps due to just a problem the candidate has with expressing himself.  Looking through the candidate's edits supports this suspicion, I do see some minor problems with syntax and clarity.  This, to me, is a problem since an admin must be able to express his stances effectively in order to be effective.  -
'''Oppose''' Per PeterSymonds and Neurolysis, who summed it up quite well unfortunately.
'''Oppose''' Per PeterSymonds and Neurolsis.
'''Oppose''' Per PeterSymonds <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Oppose''' - Sorry to say at this time.  The reasoning is not for your lack of inactivity in any given month.  God knows that real live always seems to interfere with what we like to do versus what we have to do.  And all to often people forget we are all just volunteers on this project, and [[Wikipedia]] should not be the be the end all of our life’s.   Likewise, my oppose does not deal with the drama that you have been involved with. If you are involved with [[Wikipedia]] long enough or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, we all get sucked into it.  My oppose is based on a lack of policy knowledge.  Just two days ago you were involved with an [[WP:AFD|AFD]], an area you stated in your opening comments that you wanted to participate in as a [[WP:Administrator|administrator]].  The particular [[WP:AFD|AFD]] was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern School, Lucknow]].  Your initial opinion was to delete this article, stating that the piece was “…Clear advertisment (sic) and complete violation of NOPV. Does not establish notability‘’.  Though the piece was a bit spammy, it clearly did establish [[wp:notability|notability]] in the opening statement.  My understanding of policy with regards to [[WP:AFD|AFD]] is that the reasons you stated are not valid reasons for deletion.  In fact, I believe it is mandated by policy to clean-up the piece, and than and only than, if the piece can not be savaged to delete the article.  The result, of the [[WP:AFD|AFD]] was [[WP:SNOW|snow keep]] in that it only took 5 minutes to clean up and properly reference.  I would hope that an [[WP:Administrator|administrator]] or an individual hoping to become [[WP:administrator|administrator]] would have recognized this.  My suggestion would be to review policy and guidelines, especially in areas you want to participate in, stay involved for three months and you should have no problems gaining consensus of the community to weld those extra buttons.  Thanks.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose'''. Answers show too much fence-sitting and too little policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - I don't like the idea that there are more admin needed because a few resigned. That makes me wary.
'''Weak Oppose''' Per answer to question three, which, to me, qualifies as question dodging. Better to say "I have no bloody idea what I would in a conflict," rather than the cryptic "I could find a reliable third party user to help settle it, bring it to the Mediation Cabal, or try to settle it peacefully with them myself."
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but I am not confident in the candidate's grip on policy. For example, the answer to Question 8 is not only wrong but confused (the notability of anyone, by definition, begins in the past!).
'''Oppose''' - Per Q3/Q8, and having recently ''hit the wall''; adminship will likely be a cause of additional stress for this user, and through 5 attempts at passing an RFA, I would have expected a better grasp (or better explanation) of policy in response to the questions.  I also am concerned by the user's statement that he wants the mop to help out with ''the backlog'', yet the areas he said he will work in do not have backlogs, nor do the ones he says he would venture to next.  <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤
I don't like his answers, he's premature to the adminship --
'''Oppose'''- The candidate seems reluctant to answer the optional questions. This is not a problem in itself, but I'm opposing until I see answer to question 15 (which I think is a ''good question''). What would you do if you were told that you had made an administrative mistake?
'''Oppose'''. A few months ago Red Thunder was part of a group of young editors who were fighting over their Radio Wikipedia project, running to ANI like it was their mother, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive444#Violation_of_WP:OWN_on_WP:RADWP] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive461#User:StewieGriffin.21.2C_WP:RADWP_.22ownership.22.2C_disruption_to_other_podcast.2C_etc.] asking for admin intervention, for people to be topic banned from the Radio Wikipedia project, bickering on talk pages and so forth. I'm afraid it's going to be a long time before I'm convinced any of that group have matured enough to be suitable for consideration as administrators.
'''Oppose''' The sporadic inactivity doesn't matter and shouldn't for any prospective admin; even if someone takes off every other month entirely, good for them, if we get a good admin 6 months of the year. Adminship costs nothing, so it's still a +6 month benefit for the project. But, overall, I don't think Thunder is quite ready just yet. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' per Symonds above. <b><i>
'''Oppose''' Per  PeterSymonds.
'''Oppose''' Inactivity doesn't bother me, answers to the questions do - candidate needs stronger policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' I am unconvinced that he has a good understanding of policy. --
Immature admins cause all sorts of trouble.
'''Oppose''' - per the Radio Wikipedia debacle
'''Oppose''' - From the start, I didn't have a good feeling about you. The whole "since a bunch have quit, pick me up" idea rings of a 'I wouldn't get adminship otherwise' ideology that I'm not too comfortable with. Plus a lot of vagueness and deceptive practices I don't quite trust.
'''Oppose''' Deletionist tendencies.
User is almost, but not quite, named after a [[Galaxie 500]] song.
'''Neutral''' The candidate's vices and virtues appear to be evenly balanced, so I think might park myself here for now.
'''Neutral''', not too confident now, but can't bring myself to oppose as the candidate shows what looks to be a genuine desire to improve. I think a future request could be successful a few months down the road.
'''Neutral''', I would like to see the answers to some of the pending questions, and fuller replies to some of the users existing responses.
'''Neutral''', would be able to support, but for recent inactivity.
'''Neutral'''.  Support for having never been blocked and for awards and good/featured credits on user page, which demonstrate working well with others and efforts to contribute to the building of our project.  Moreover, the nomination rationale seems well-intentioned.  Also, good arguments included [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Trek:_Starfleet_Command:_Orion_Pirates&diff=179377239&oldid=179377203] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaina_Solo_(2nd_nomination)&diff=207364396&oldid=207362686].  Oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Hand_of_Doom&diff=179378723&oldid=179378543], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fictional_chemical_substances,_A-M&diff=162708825&oldid=162670460], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_teen_idols_of_the_2000s&diff=179420003&oldid=179419908], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Examples_of_meta-references_in_fiction&diff=164494848&oldid=164493641], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_historical_people_portrayed_as_villains&diff=162913929&oldid=162913361], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Worms_weapons,_tools,_crates_and_objects_(2nd_nomination)&diff=162947061&oldid=162941204], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_weapons_and_items_from_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series&diff=179272618&oldid=179254632] per [[WP:PERNOM]].  Most importantly administrators will likely close discussions and so we need more insight into their logic and interpretation than simply voting rather than arguing.  Of additional importance is that when considering the good faith contributions of our colleagues we need to show them the courtesy of thorough consideration of their contributions, not simple votes.  So, due to the split of some good positives, but some concerns with the above examples, I am on the fence, i.e. neutral.  Sincerely, --
'''Neutral'''. Red Thunder has generally good contributions. However I am unconvinced that he has a good understanding of policy. He seems to be unaware of "[[WP:IAR|Ignore all rules]]".
'''Neutral'''. Unfortunately, Red Thunder seems to be that generic AfDer (like me) who just doesn't have enough to push him over the edge. The lack of activity doesn't scare me, but the raw amount of RfAs combined with the sketchy AfD work doesn't impress. However, there isn't anything negative about this user, so I cannot oppose either. Thanks and best of luck in your future endeavors! <font color="777777">
'''Neutral''' &ndash; I really wanted to support you, but the opposes makes me have to go to neutral on this for now. One thing I'm not very impressed with are your repeated "per nom" !votes at AfD that {{user|A Nobody}} pointed out. AfD is a great place to see if someone ''really'' knows policies on articles, but doing "per nom" !votes doesn't show me much or proves you really know policy or not. I don't see any or much evidence that proves you know policy related to articles, so I can't support, though, I know you'll do fine in other areas you have more experience at, so I can't oppose, so I'm a sitting duck here at this point. And the inactiveness? I do have to give that a little weight, so that's another reason why I can't support fully. People do tend to forget policy and experience through inactivity (I've seen it), so it's a bit troubling to come back and go for RfA right away out of inactivity. Though, work at it, I know you'll be able to improve. &mdash;
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not]]?--
I see no reason to believe that Renaissancee isn't ready and able to use the sysop tools. Seven months is plenty of time to grow accustomed to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And a focus on anti-vandalism work isn't necessarily a bad thing: we need more vandal whackers with the mop (in fact that's sort of what the mop is for).
'''Moral support''' <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]], i.e. no blocks, no memorable conflicts between us, etc.  Best, --
'''Support''' everyone should become admin (except vandals)
'''Support'''.  Seven months and 3600 edits are not WP:NOTNOW territory.  Yes, I see a lot of huggling, but I believe that Renaissancee has the necessary experience, trustworthiness and knowledge to become and admin (and per the questions and ability to admit and learn from mistakes).
'''Support''' RfA standards have ballooned to absurd heights in the past years, in my opinion. Several months on the job and several thousand edits are more than enough to establish trust and knowledge of policy here, in my mind. I don't see any reason to oppose. <font face="Georgia">
'''[[WP:AGF|AGF]] Support''' 7 months is a little short for me (I personally prefer a year or more) and I'd like to see more knowledge of policy, but contributions seem okay and nothing makes me question trustworthiness. - <big>'''
'''Support'''Seven months and 2800 edits are certainly sufficient to be considered for adminship-- enough of a picture emerges. I am a little concerned about 2 instances of vandalism warnings that were incorrect and an incorrect CSD tagging mentioned on [[User talk:Renaissancee/Archives/1]]. Sandboxes are generally for sandboxing, so it's good you removed the warning.  I count 23 successful CSD taggings among less than 500 deleted contribs. I do like notifying creators of CSD tagging. and of notifying users of reversions. The last 10 AIV reports resulted in blocks. More experience is never a bad thing, so please continue to gain it and fuller understanding. Hope to see you back again. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Oh, and specialist admins are fine with me. You don't have to be a great article creator to be an admin.]]
'''Support''': RfA's have definitely ballooned to ridiculous levels (relative to [[WP:Requests for adminship/Bearcat|this RfA]] from 2004). S/he has an appropriate edit count and has experience in [[WP:AIV]] per [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Renaissancee&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia this] and a grasp of WP procedure per [[User talk:96.224.170.251|this]]. S/he has been in a few conflicts and has learned what is and is not acceptable within this wiki. So, I say, "yes" without hesitation or reservation. We could use a few more specialist admins, especially in combating vandalism. That leaves me more time for AfD and article building. I would proffer to others that they [[WP:AGF|AGF]] and look at the benefits the project would reap from allowing this editor the use of [[WP:DEAL|cleaning tools]] and turn this RfA around. (Oh, and the nominator's wiki-youth is irrelevant to the acceptability of the candidate)--
'''Support''' I actually don't see why not. Seven months of experience, need for the tools, and good anti vandalism work make it pretty easy for me to support--
'''Support'''. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is not the Cavendish physics laboratory; you are not working for Ernest Rutherford developing theories of atomic nature. Seven months is more than enough to learn the ropes around here - I seem to remember learning differential equations in less time. Candidate doesn't seem drama-prone, appears to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and there is zero evidence they will abuse the tools.
Frankly, I don't believe that seven (or for that matter four-six months) is too short to gain the knowledge to become an admin. It does not matter whether someone is experienced or not, it only matters whether he can be trusted or not. I disagree with NGG's reasoning and think that you are much better than some admin candidates whose RfA passes. <strong>
'''Support''', no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good user, likely good administrator.  I'm not sure how much more we need to be asking of people. '''
'''Support''' - honestly don't believe the candidate would get into trouble performing the duties outlined in the response to Q1.
'''Weak support''', not a fan of solely-hugglers, but I'm willing to take a shot.
On principle, as some of the opposes are ridiculous and this will at least even out the numbers.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' - seems a good editor from what little I've seen.  I don't think it's a bad thing to have some who focus strongly on anti vandalism – it helps those who prefer content related edits feel less guilty for not pitching in!
'''Support''' - there are valid experience concerns, but overall nothing that really disturbs me. A good editor who's shown good sense and dedication; I wouldn't have a problem with having Renaissancee as an admin. I only find heavy Huggle use to be a bad thing if it's ''incompetent'' Huggle use, and that does not seem to be the case here - there's enough experience to show what I need to see. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Has done good work, not done anything crazy, and is not entirely empty in content creation, even if the focus is on anti-vandalism. (I do recommend balancing the vandal fighting with some article work as that will lower stress levels.) Seven months is more than enough time to gain knowledge of how Wikipedia works; I got my sysop bit after about three or four.
'''Support''' Per almost everyone on this page. I was particularly impressed that the only diff I spotted in the oppose section was an error [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tangelo&diff=260106147&oldid=260105930 from four months ago]. If the opposers had found incivility from four months ago then I would be concerned, but evidence that the candidate might not have been ready last December is IMHO scarcely grounds for an oppose now. By the standards of a couple of years ago when RFA was working you'd easily pass, so if this fails please don't take it personally. ''
'''Weak Suppport''' per Wizardman - meets all of my usual standards - user of at least six months' experience with a sufficient number of edits, has rollback rights, useful user page, etc.  The only issue that I have is all those automatic Huggle edits. But we need more [[WP:OTTER|otters]].
'''Support''' &ndash; Five months of good experience and thousands of edits; a good user and I have no reason not to trust him/her. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Plus one'''.  Has plenty of experience, IMO.  Also, per Iridescent above.
'''Support''': This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. five months is more than enough to learn the ropes and become and admin.  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:14px;">
'''Moral support''' - This one will not pass, but please don't get disheartened. Work hard for WP, and try again after few months.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Not ready; you just need a few more months of work.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I think that you need more experience with content creation.  You showed us [[Sailing and Fighting Instructions]] as an example of an article you wrote, and it looks like you created [[Peter Gooderham]] and [[Sioux Falls Public Transit]] as well.  [[Sailing and Fighting Instructions]] has too many redlinks (see [[WP:Redlink]] for advice), [[Sioux Falls Public Transit]] is a brand new article, so I wouldn't expect it to be much, but I would think at least a stub template would be nice.  [[Peter Gooderham]] looks okay but it also seems that most of the proper formatting was added by other people.  -- ''<B>
'''Oppose'''. You can't Huggle your way to a support from me (85% of your edits are via Huggle). I want to see more communication with other editors. You also have very little experience in the Wikipedia namespace, aside from updating the Huggle whitelist and report vandals via Huggle. You're too focused on one area for my taste; spread out a bit, become a [[Polymath|Renaissance Man]].
'''Oppose''', {{user|Soap}} and {{user|Useight}} bring up some good points. I'd recommend taking some time to work on gaining experience in varied capacities on the project. '''
'''Oppose''' Unlike NGG, I don't think 7 months is intrinsically too short (I know people who just joined in January and do way better work around here than I do).  But the article creations Soap pointed out don't demonstrate much knowledge of content guidelines and policies or how to write a proper stub.  You don't need to have multiple featured articles or anything, but it would be nice to see more knowledge of content creation before entrusting you with the tools; I don't think admin tools are needed for only vandal-fighting, since you already have rollback and [[WP:AIV]] can generally handle blocks pretty quickly. <b class="Unicode">
'''Minor Oppose''' Given his answer to Question 3, he is on the right track and is on his way to becoming a better editor. But seven months isn't quite the experience level that an admin needs. Give it some more time and experiences. Take up more admin related duties like AFDS and ANI and you will be truly the perfect candidate for the job. Good luck! '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
Per Soap, Useight, and Rjanag. Also, I'd expect at least a few reports to [[WP:RFPP]] before implementing blocks on one's own.--
'''Oppose.'''  Needs more experience (several months, at least) with further progress on the Wikipedia learning curve.  —
'''Oppose'''. Your article contributions show a worrisome lack of knowledge about our content policies and guidelines, and per above, having nearly all of your edits done via Huggle does not equal aptitude for adminship. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Weak oppose''' - 7 months is not too short in my book, but I think the concerns above do bring doubt on your knowledge of policies and guidelines. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' this candidate because the high proportion of automated edits prevents me from assessing his knowledge.<p>Work hard at writing some stuff, see it hit by some 100-edit-per-hour automated tagger, then defend it at AfD. :) That's a good way to demonstrate your suitability for adminship.—
'''Oppose''' Poor answers to questions, and no evidence of a good understanding of policy.
'''Weak Oppose''' I am hesitant to oppose, but I feel this is going to result in a case of [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Your heart seems to be into it, but I think you need to study up on admin and general wikipedia policies a little longer and gain more experience beyond automated reversion. Adminship requires a lot more manual labor than Huggle or Twinkle and I don't know if you are ready to handle it at the current time. Please take what we are saying to heart and reapply when you are ready.
'''Oppose'''. Again, limited collaboration with other editors. Evidence of article building would also help.
'''Oppose''' mainly due to not being impressed with answer to Q2. Would prefer to see at least one GA/FA/DYK. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.
'''Oppose''' as the user does not have enough experience to become administrator. Sure this user has a lot of edits, but don't forget that they have been ballooned by Huggle. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Get a bit more broad experience, and you'll make a great admin in a few months. <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' This came to my notice as a result of an article created by Renaissancee on AfD ([[Sailing and Fighting Instructions]]) that was created just a few months ago.  When investigating this I noticed that almost all of Renaissancee's edits were marked as "minor" when they shouldn't be.  I just think more experience and a broader knowledge base is needed to be an administrator.
'''Oppose.''' Excluding this month, the candidate has only 4 months of serious activity, and only 52 Talk space edits. The candidate just hasn't shown us enough of himself, particularly in regards to constructive inter-user communications. Sorry, but you're not ready just yet. '''''
Oppose for not enough experience. ''
'''Oppose''' as per above sorry good luck next time. [[User:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:red; cursor: help;"><b>Staffwaterboy</b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Oppose''' Careless AfD votes&mdash;at least two in the last three days alone.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Smith_(referee)&diff=prev&oldid=286971096][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iceland–Ukraine_relations&diff=prev&oldid=287162787] —
'''Oppose'''.  The concerns I have are with your experience outside the rvv realm.  I was hoping for answers to the additional questions from Σxplicit.  Without that, my [[User_talk:Preceding_unsigned_comment/RFA_Formulation|opinion]] is formed with what little can be found on your knowledge of guidelines and policies.  Please continue fighting vandalism.  I also encourage you to keep guiding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CanadianNine&diff=284126017&oldid=284066195 new users] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.166.221.159&diff=next&oldid=259870702 kindly].  You are clearly a responsible user, who would block, delete, and protect with good intent.  Demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and you will have my support. <small>
'''Oppose'''. I don't have a problem with the short timespan of editing, and the relatively small number of mainspace edits aren't a deal breaker. But looking at the last 500, most of them are with Huggle. I don't have a problem with hugglers, but I don't feel like I get an idea of ''this'' editor's contribution style when there's so little. Same for user talk edits -- almost all of them are with huggle, so I get very little feel for the communication style. Add to that recent AfD contributions that show a lack of understanding of AfD arguments ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Portland_Fiction_Project&diff=prev&oldid=286971719] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Emo_Apocalypse&diff=prev&oldid=286971905] are two of the three random recent AfDs I looked at), and I don't feel this candidate is ready yet. I hope to support in the future, but not now.--
'''Weak Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Later, but not now. It's a little early yet. Sometime in the future, you can see me on the Support side, but not now.--
'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately, without the answers to my questions, I am unable to have confidence the user has enough policy knowledge to trust them with the tools. — '''''
There is not enough time remaining for me to evaluate his answer. May switch if his answer are good enough. '''
I don't wish to pile-on, but you're going to need more experience than automated vandalism-reversion before getting adminship here.
I think you need some more substantial edits.
'''Neutral''' I am in agreement with Stifle. This is a well-intended but premature candidacy.
Neutral per Stifle. –'''
Neutral because I was going to support under no big deal because most of the NBD crowd opposed, but I felt that it would be a little mean. I honestly don't see any major problems with your candidacy, so work on things, put yourself out there more, and you'll probably be an admin before you know it.
South Dakota and British naval history are both topics near and dear to my heart, so I really can't oppose. I also don't see seven months and 3,600 edits, in themselves, as being too little experience. However, I'm going to have to see some more quality article work before I'll support. You do seem like a good editor, and I'd be happy to support after a bit more article writing experience and perhaps a GA or two.
'''Neutral''' You look like a good candidate, it's just hard to judge your trustworthiness and whether or not you're likely to abuse the tools without much manual edit history. However, I disagree with users who have said 7 months is too early to get the mop. Perhaps there aren't enough edits, but I don't see why only being active over half of a year is an issue. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' per Stifle.
'''Neutral''' per Stifle.
Ditto. Also (and no offense to [[User:CanadianNine]]) your nomination would be more meaningful coming from an established, well-respected user or administrator rather than a newly-registered account. I don't doubt that CanadianNine [[WP:AGF|meant well]], but make yourself useful in the admin areas of the project and someone will notice you. Best of luck on your next RfA. —
'''Neutral''' I would have expected that Renaissancee would have at least moved one page or uploaded a file.  Try out some more features to give some broader experience!
'''Neutral''' Per stifle.
'''Neutral''' Having taken a good look at your user and talk pages as well as your contributions and the other posts here, I'm of the opinion that you're a fine editor and an asset to Wikipedia. I don't base my opinions on experience or edit counts but I just don't feel you have the variety of edits required for the role. If you were to come back in a few months, having made more substantial contributions- for example major re-writes, article rescues etc, I would have no hesitation in supporting you. Sorry.
Seven months is long enough in my opinion, but you need to get more experience in areas that do not involve Huggle.  I want to see more Renaissancee in your edits than just a machine edit summary and work.  Try your hand at participating in [[WP:AFD]] a bit more and look to edit some articles for content.  Best of luck, '''
'''Neutral''' Come back with more substantial edits and edits and different areas. As of right now, it does not appear as if administrator right and tools are neccesary for you to continue your work on Wikipedia.
'''Moral Support'''. You clearly seem to be here for the right reasons. However, as you are already aware, many people will be uncomfortable with supporting someone with such a low number of contributions. I must regretfully admit that I am one of those people. Please do not get discouraged if this RfA fails. If I'm not mistaken, someone will shortly produce a list of specific things you may want to consider before reapplying, so I'll simply say: Keep up the good work, and if you have specific questions, feel free to ask me anytime. Sincerely, <tt>
'''Moral Support'''. I would've wanted a MUCH HIGHER  edit count. And I'm not merely talking about several hundreds more but several THOUSANDS more. I will morally support you even if I'm 99% sure that your RfA will not pass,--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support''', the editcountitis doesn't bother me, and I see only good faith contributions in this user's history.
'''Oppose''' Regretfully. I really would like to see more experience in terms of mainspace edits. --
'''Oppose''' as per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  When you have more edits I'm sure I'll be able to give you a support vote.  Good luck.
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate the enthusiasm and willingness to help out, but I'm going to have to oppose per lack of experience. You mention that you want to fight vandalism, but you've never made a single report to AIV. And, unless I missed it, you only started giving warnings to vandals earlier this month. I'd like to recommend taking a less passive, and more active role in the areas you work. I do look forward to being able to support in the future.
'''Oppose'''. Would like to see a bit more experience. Would consider supporting at a later point in time. '''
'''Oppose''' - the example you give of your very best work is not inspiring. There's also some archived talk page messages showing clear lack of understanding of deletion policies.  I guess I'd like to see a couple of thousand more article edits (not using scripts and not adding templates or tags), a lot less deletion and more creation, before I could support. Good Luck next time though. --
'''Oppose'''. Fairly good contributions so far. More collaboration with other editors and content creation would be good.
'''Oppose''' Your speedy deletion attempt on [[Melinda Schneider]] a few days ago either shows you hadn't done any research or don't know the rules.  Either way it's not good just as you're applying for adminship.
'''Oppose''' I hate editcountitis but you need more edits [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Rockstone35&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia]
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I don't like editcountitis, but 900 edits in 2 years is not impressive.
'''Oppose''' the user's main goal as an admin, from his responses at least, is to block people. That seems a little power-hungry to me. I question his motives. <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="#FF6600">~~</font> <font color="#006600">
Sorry, not enough experience at this time. See [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Strong Support'''; Has clue. Yes his wording in discussions can be a bit.. direct, but he gets his point across. To be honest I assumed he already was one.
'''Oh mi gawd it's roux Support''' seriously guys, roux has had his fair share of problems, but haven't we all at one point or another? The conflict is over, and now we have a excellent editor and NPPer running for adminship, a request I think should have been fulfilled a while back. Now I belive that more than a few people will oppose his request, I ask them not to look upon roux' past conflicts, but what good things he has done for the project.
'''Support''' - Candidate has clue, contributes in administrative areas, good mainspace contributions, a few unfortunate (admittedly recent) incidents, but since neutralling I have come to realise that Roux has the potential to be so much more of a positive to the project than many other candidates I have supported (and the community has promoted) in recent times. [[WP:NBD]] - one of the things often spoken of but often completely forgotten. Today we have a chance to turn that around. Take the chance. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Seems a fine editor, I'm not one to criticize because he expresses his views strongly, and anyone who improves the article on an NBIL school gets bonus points in my book, having attended Pascack Valley back in the Stone Age.--
'''Moral support''' I like Roux, particularly as we have similar article and editing interests. However, I don't think this will pass, in particular, because of the recent blocks, and the forcible removal of comments from his talk page. His work on articles is great, however, and I've seen a lot of good from him. Best wishes, <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Wha...? I actually thought he was an admin already. Excellent contributor, and one of the most all-round involved people I have met on Wikipedia. Roux having the admin tools will be nothing but a benefit to Wikipedia, I think.
'''Support''' I see the recent block log and I know of the recent disputes he had with {{user|G2bambino}}. But I think he learnt from those mistakes and will do a nice job as an admin and if he should really misuse the tools for purposes of "winning" an argument, we can take them away again. But I do not think there will be such need and the good editing this candidate does outweighs this small risk by far. After all, we all agree that people can change. Regards '''
''(ec)'' '''Support''' while he has been involved in a lot of drama in the past, and recently had a sort of "sulk" in which he removed all comments to his talk page, his judgement is ussualy very good, and he knows his way around wikipedia. He would be a greater asset to the project as an admin.--
'''Support''' - Everybody's made their share of mistakes, and nobody has a perfect track record. Despite the recent issues, I generally trust Roux's judgment. Adminship is no big deal, so I have confidence in Roux to use the mop wisely. &ndash;
'''Support''' I have great respect for Roux and his work here; however, that said, I don't think this will pass and that's a great shame. —'''
'''Strongly Support''' - Absolutely! '''
'''Support''' Roux has had some issues in the past, but he is a kind, caring individual who just wants to help the encyclopedia.  I see no problem with him being given the tools.
'''Support''' He deserves this thorugh strong contributions.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Weak support'''. Great user, though the talk space issue gives me cause for concern. Not enough to oppose though, because I don't see myself opposing anyone anytime soon.
'''Support''' Not sure if I have ever agreed with Roux before, so this is as good a place to start; obviously has the interests of WP at heart, and is familiar with policy, etc. but most especially ''listens'' in the discussions in which he participates and follows consensus. Yup.
'''Weak support''' (may change depending on answers to the optionals). Answers to the questions seem good. From what I have seen of roux elsewhere, seems a good editor. <font face=jokerman>
'''Strong Support''' - Like Peter, I also like Roux. And in my mind, his battles with G2 ''helped'' him - do you think that a long, drawn out, drama-filled battle like that is going to happen again with Roux? Doubt it. [[WP:WTHN]] and total net positive. Anything else I want to say is totally and completely covered by neuro in support #3. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support'''. I don't expect this to pass; I don't even think Roux thinks so. But in my dealings with Roux I've found him to be the most honest and most clueful (I hate that phrase, but there's no other to describe) user I've ever talked with. He has an amazing sense of perspective as to what's wrong, what needs to be improved, and what to do. I think it's a damn shame that he landed in the wrong side of no-man's-land so early into his editing career. It's easy to think that it's preposterous that a guy who skirted the boundaries of a community ban is up to no good, but appearances can be deceiving. '''''
'''Support''' - While Roux and I have had a few disagreements over his AIV reports, I was impressed by his ability to constructively accept criticism.  Though some of the oppose !votes below give me pause, I ultimately feel he would exercise good judgment as an admin.  --
'''Support''' per Biblio. I had no idea this was coming, but this popped up on my watchlist this morning. I've known Roux for quite some now. In my experiences, while he has been a little short-tempered, he definitely has gotten much better in the past few months. Definitely the embodies the idea of a [[WP:net positive|net positive]]. I don't expect this to pass, but I sure would like to see it pass. <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. I'd like to literally quote Biblio word for word there. Roux is extremely smart. Now he's had his fair share of Drama, but seriously, the more you encounter it, the more you learn to deal with it. Have you ever seen him on AN/I? He is quite active and intelligent in his contributions there and shows a deep understanding of wiki-policy. If you could simply look past his prior issues, you will find an extremely keen user. Please, let's get past the smokescreens and really look at Roux for who he is: a smart, honest, and clueful user. <font color="777777">
'''Support''' - I've had positive interactions with Roux, and we all make mistakes
'''Weak Support''' The diffs and recent blocks do worry me, but I've had some encounters with Roux and candidate has Clue. '''
'''Support''' Another admin with personality and the usual human traits? Yes, please.  Roux is probably better qualified to deal with disputes than some
'''Support'''. Roux has displayed a devotion to improving Wikipedia in both content and administration areas. I'm certain no one who didn't watch the incidents with G2bambino evolve has any interest in going through all that now but, as one who did see a good deal of it and dealt with both editors previously and since, let me just say the block log does no justice. The long-standing tendentious editor had caused other editors to give up and walk away but Roux refused to do so and ended up scarred but wiser from it. It should be noted that he volunteered to editing restrictions much to his credit and discomfort. I'm certain he'd wish the incident had never occurred but I suspect that it has made him a stronger and better admin candidate and his recent dealings in administration areas clearly demonstrate his learning and commitment to this project. He is devoted to helping newcomers, seeks to broaden our editorial base, contributes to articles, contributes to projects, contributes to administration, and seeks to take on responsibility. I also find his idea to log his speedy deletions and request regular feedback refreshing, positive, and demonstrative of his desire to further improve. In summary, an excellent candidate for adminship responsibility.
'''Weak support''' The opposers show some valid concerns, but there isn't anything there that makes me think roux would abuse the tools. Besides, I've seen roux comment on several threads at various noticeboards, and I generally like what he has to say.
'''Support''' A couple minor problems here and there, but contributions are more than solid enough to compensate. I trust this user.
'''Support''' - Fully trust this user, knows his way around an article too.
'''Support''' - Though outspoken, I fully trust Roux. He's helped me get into Wikipedia, and I trust him with the tools. He is clearly level headed enough to not involve his tools should a situation arise about/around him, considering that's the oppose's main concern. <span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Per all above. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - per [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] '''
'''Support''' - Per all above. --
'''Support'''. So what if he's outspoken? Some of our best admins are. He participates a lot in AN discussions, and frankly, I thought he was one already.

If it weren't for the drama surrounding G2 he'd be among the best administrators here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Everyone experiences their share of drama after a while. I trust that Roux has learnt from the past and that he'd use the admin buttons wisely. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I've never had a bad experience with Roux. --
'''Support'''. No issues here that can't be forgiven. Roux is a good guy, he can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' - Roux has some controversial episodes in his past but he is also blessed with a big dollop of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] and most importantly I trust him not to use the tools inappropriately.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy editor, would benefit from the tools. '''<font color="navy">
'''Weak support'''- indeed, why the hell not? Roux has clue aplenty and is clearly motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia.
Oh my God, it's an admin nominee with a checkered past, what a concept! Like most people, Roux is imperfect, has a bit of a flare for the dramatic, and has experienced his share of the nasty side of Wikipedia. On the other hand, he's got common sense coming out of the wazoo, solid contributions, and is generally a really great person. So here's an unorthodoxly formatted '''Support''' for an unothordox guy. <span style="outline:2px dotted #a1aaff; border:medium double #0f1c9d;">
'''Strong Support''' Part WTHN, part from my own keeping a close eye on these "controversial episodes."  I think mistakes were made by many people, including Roux, and I think Roux grew from it and persevered through it because of his dedication to WP.  Controversy in an admin's past doesn't bother me, and it's not a disqualification for admin.  Roux has explained his views, and I'm satisfied with his explanation and growth as a result.  In my experience, Roux has been helpful to the point of madness/sparta, peculiarly clueful, and a dedicated content creator.  Wikipedia would absolutely benefit from Roux moppage. <b>'''
'''Support''' Definitely an accomplished editor. <font color="cyan" size="2">♣</font><font color="lime" face="georgia" size="2">
'''Support'''. This editor has a [[WP:CLUE]] and should be trusted with the [[WP:MOP]].
'''Support''' - I hold Roux in great regard, and I believe he can be trusted with the mop. It's too sad that the prospects of this RfA are too grim. &mdash;<font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - I haven't known this editor for very long, but from what I've seen, he'd make a fine admin.— '''
'''Support''' Net positive based  merits already presented above and on the dispassion and aplomb shown  at [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#100.25_support_for_current_RFA_candidates]]
'''Weak support''' It doesn't seem like this RfA is going to result in promoting Roux to admin, but whatever - if Roux ''does'' in fact get promoted, I'll hope that he'll stay out of silly drama enough to become a useful admin to have around.
'''Strong support''' - Yes, this user has been in trouble before, but I personally don't believe it's entirely his fault. I also feel that roux has learned from all of this, which is a very good step. We all make mistakes, and some mistakes are bigger than others. I would trust this user with the tools, and would make a great admin if he got the bit, and did what I tend to suggest all new admins do - take it slowly at first. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Moral Support''' Whilst it currently appears that this [[WP:SNOW|doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing]], and whilst I can very much understand why other editors would have concerns about him, I would take the view that whilst he has certainly been guilty of over-reacting when the chips are down in a personal dispute, I have the very highest regard for his integrity, and am convinced beyond doubt that he can be trusted never to misuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Candidate keeps his cool even while being badgered by busybody buttinskis upset about his signature.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry Roux, but you've had to much of a dramatic past to be considered for adminship. I remember your battles with G2bambino well and I firmly believe you were close to a community ban just 6 months ago. You were edit warring and just generally at each others throat constantly. I asked you yesterday if you were planning on running for adminship, you said you weren't, but I've seen this in your contributions for some time which I wouldn't say is a good thing. Whilst I think you're a good chap, I don't think enough time has past since you were having your battles with G2bambino. '''
'''Oppose''', for now at least. Not been around long enough, answers to current questions very short, and Ryan's comments worry me. Definitely open to changing my mind if more positive things come out of the review to balance what's come so far.
'''Strong Oppose''' Painfully immature and prone to hostility (does a mature person put this on their talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=256287675&oldid=256287461]?). A history of drama mongering and not being able to interact positively with his peers is reflected in a block history (four blocks in a month, from September to October 2008 -- hello?). Sorry, this is the wrong candidate for the job.
'''Oppose'''. The fact that you had a complete breakdown and decided to cut yourself out of the community no more than a month ago is really disturbing.([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=255768528&oldid=255768382], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&offset=20081215122734&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=255779955&oldid=255775717], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=255835768], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux/Editnotice&diff=next&oldid=255784499], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux/Editnotice&diff=next&oldid=256028736], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Roux&diff=255783156&oldid=255737156]) As an administrator you would obviously face a very strong criticism and if you choose to react this way under pressure, then that's not particularly conducive for your nomination. You have done (and continue to do) excellent work. I particularly admire your efforts in NPP and on various noticeboards. I feel that you've gotten over your little episode and are on way to an amazing recovery. But with the recent history, I sadly can't support you. <sup>''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|Leave]]''</sup>'''
Roux is a bright guy, a good editor and a friendly and active member of the community. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that he has the even temperament necessary to be an administrator. Not all valuable editors are well suited to be an admin, and I think roux is among those who are not.
'''Oppose''' I recognize the candidate from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DJ_WikiBob/Sandbox_2 this current MfD momination of a user's sandbox page], which is rolling toward obvious keep.  I'd rather not see this candidate dealing with CSDs.
'''Very Strong oppose''' per Ecoleetage mostly. Has been incredibly rude and snarky to me in the very recent past, telling me to "now go away" when I tried to talk to him about something. A net negative for certain. Also per Townlake; Roux tells the sandbox owner "...we have guidelines for what is acceptable in userspace, and what isn't. Unfortunately, your sandboxes come under the heading of 'isn't'" which simply isn't true. '''
'''Oppose:''' See [[User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Roux]] for reasoning. '''
'''Oppose''': A number of civility issues that I've noticed.  While these weren't on-site, they still reflect negatively on the candidates general attitude towards his peers.  In addition, the comments that I warned Roux for [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=16948982 here] are those that I wouldn't want coming from a (potential) administrator.  -
'''Stong Oppose''' Diffs presented by LeaveSleaves show that Roux is not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per LeaveSleaves and Ryan Postlethwaite. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=255768528 Drama] issues and recent problems, including editing restrictions that are still ongoing.
'''Strong oppose''' <small>(moved from neutral)</small> - I rarely wish to oppose someone, although it's pretty strong in Roux's case. He was close to a community ban six months ago, was blocked fairly recently, and worst of all, telling someone to go away, especially when someone tries to talk to you about something (as stated in Majorly's opposition), is horrible admin conduct IMO. A bad temper is something that I '''''never''''' want to see from an administrator. Summing it up, per Ryan Postlethwaite, Ecoleetage, LeaveSleaves, and Majorly. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Oppose''' Shows signs at times of being an intelligent and thoughtful editor, but spends the rest of the time in dramatic conflict which regales us all at AN/I and occasionally RFAR. I would suggest trying again four or five months after major conflict has ceased.
'''Oppose''' very much per the points mentioned by Majorly and Ecoleetage above. A polite and civil tone should be mandatory for everyone, but especially for admins of course. I think we should all interact with each other in a respectful and polite manner. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' I would not trust buttons to someone who isn't polite about it - I can foresee too many mis-worded deletion summaries.
'''Oppose'''. Per Majorly, Dendodge (excellent summary thing, BTW), Ecoleetage, and others citing temper, recent near ban, and immaturity both emotionally and to the editing mindset.
'''Oppose''' Has a history of very poor judgments.--
'''Oppose''' I don't feel that Roux has the right temperament to be an admin at this stage, Ecoleetage's diff was less than a month ago.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan.
'''Oppose''' - Would like to support, but the AN/I issues and the recent block don't let me support you. —<sub>
'''Oppose'''.  I will oppose for one recent block, unless the candidate meets the burden of proof of showing that the behavior that led to the block doesn't receive a block in most cases.  Roux has 4 recent blocks, so it would probably be best not to try to make the case.  In general, I overlook a "reasonable" block after about 9 months.  - Dan
'''Oppose''' No need for another admin with baggage.
'''Oppose''' I am just not sure how he will react to hostility with his recent past per Eco, Majorly, Dylan620 and many other editors here. Net negative.
'''Oppose''' Edits suggest that he does not have the appropriate temperament to deal with controversial or challenging issues. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' per Dylan620
'''Oppose''' per above. No way. I don't want to see another unfunny [[Wikipedia:DIVA]] drama[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=251485533][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roux&diff=251620245&oldid=251587215] if he feels pressure in dealing with disputes.--
'''Oppose''' per Dil (Dylan620 - sorry if you don't like having your name shortened like another [[Dil Pickles|Dylan]]!) - Roux, I think you can still pass a RfA one day, but you still need a bit of time and expierence. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Oppose''' ''Because I can.''--
'''Oppose''' per Dylan620.
'''Oppose''' as per Ecoleetage, GlassCobra and Majorly above - this user doesn't seem ready to me.
'''Oppose''' per the various diffs in the oppose section. I see that the editor is angered quite easily.--
'''Oppose''' - User seems to be too temperamental. Most of the time, I have seem him to be a perfectly fine editor, but when he gets a little temperamental, things appear to go south quickly. Sorry, roux.
'''Strong oppose''' In light of Roux's recent response to NuclearWarfare's question, I felt it appropriate that I should offer my "vote" and opinion: As with a number of others here, I see that Roux is capable of excellent contributions to Wikipedia. However, adminship involves a talent with conflict resolution that I haven't yet seen Roux demonstrate, especially when he is, or was, an active participant in a dispute. I think more time should be allowed for him to actively engage in more disagreements, so that the community can see how, or if, he has made progress with his temperament and collegiality. --
'''Oppose''' per the troubling issues raised above, and will not abide another admin who [[Talk:Richardson family murders|goes overboard on BLP]].
'''Oppose''' &ndash; deeply concerned by the lack of maturity in the diffs provided above and even those comments here that appear to be retaliatory rather than addressing any question. I would not like to work with an editor on admin issues who has a propensity to lose their tempremant easily &ndash; it doesn't work and only collateral results. Also, WTHN is not sufficient reason enough to want adminship &ndash; that's an essay by a fellow editor, not a policy on which our administrators are judged.
Yikes!  No way.  Not well suited to a collaborative project.
'''Oppose'''. I cannot trust Roux with the tools after the diffs LeaveSleaves showed. Far too dramatic, and I can't really see the candidate as an asset or net positive.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=261139524&oldid=261137014 this comment] to AN two days ago.  So far as I can tell (unless there were oversighted edits), this account was merely created and blocked in the same minute.  To post that on the noticeboard brought more attention to this user than if he hadn't have posted about it.  He complained about it being a taunt towards Betacommand, but how many would have seen it if he didn't post it to the noticeboard?
Per Either way and LeaveSleaves. Initially I supported, but those diffs are concerning to me.
'''Oppose''' per LeaveSleaves.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Oppose'''. Hmm, let's see…[[User:roux|roux]] starts an  [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#Harassment_by_User:Ottava_Rima|AN/I thread here]], in which he comments to another editor whom he wants blocked, <blockquote>Me.. provoke.. you? Are you on crack? (…) I really seriously ask: are you inebriated in some way? Your statements bear no relation whatsoever to reality.</blockquote> Every couple of months, he leaves in a big huff, has his user page and talk page permanently deleted, sheds bucketloads of tears, and after sufficient numbers of his devoted fans beg him on their knees to return, he deigns to come back under a new user name?<br />He blanks not only his Talk page but also his ''Editor Review'' because someone wrote something he did not like (see the last one of the diffs posted by [[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]] above)?<br />And we are seriously discussing this instead of WP:SNOW closing?--
'''Oppose''' - Let me start by saying that Roux is a good guy, and on a personal level we get along quite well. Roux is a editor who on a number of occasions has said things that desperately needed to be said, and has contributed tons to this project. Unfortunately, I feel in no way that Roux would make a suitable administrator. Roux has a tendency to let things get to him, and often times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=256287675&oldid=256287461 lashes] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=255769074&oldid=255768528 out] when frustrated, something that administrators get quite often. Also, Roux's block log alone tells it's own story, the multiple blocks that I have done along with the others from various administrators are the result of [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] and at times [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil behavior]]. While I agree that the majority of the edit warring was due to a single incident involving a user whom he did not get along with, that can not be[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&diff=prev&oldid=243565691 used as a reason] to excuse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=248852981 shuch behavior].
'''Oppose''' per Tiptoety and [[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]].  Doesn't seem to be able to keep cool very well.  Move to close per WP:SNOW.
'''Oppose''' for slight bad experience where roux appeared to do inappropriate CSD tagging. Also for having user talk page look like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&oldid=256612065 this] when I wanted to talk about it. --
'''Oppose'''. Roux has a fiery temperament, unsuited to a Wikipedia admin. Too many conflicts have been unnecessarily escalated.
'''Oppose''' - he has done things and called for things that make it seem like he does not have a strong grasp of blocking policies. The tools would be dangerous in his hands.
'''Oppose''' due to dramatic past with multiple blocks.
'''Strong Oppose''' due to multiple blocks. He has changed, but it doesn't matter. I support with one block, but not two. And certainly not three. People with this kind of history just don't become admins. Sorry! '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Regretful Oppose''' Nice guy and positive personal interactions, however unsuited to the admin bit at this time, due to the attitude I see in the diffs above. Majorly's "Net Negative" sums it up, and the irony in that is not missed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I don't see blocks as a bar to adminship but my view is that six months should pass after a block before a user can become an admin. I am also not happy with the answer to the second part of Question 7 "Admins are often ... called upon to defend their decisions, especially with regards to deletions. How would you handle those situations?". In my view if an admin decision is questioned the first thing that the admin should do is review the action; considering the reasoning to an objection (if any). The candidate says that he would explain the decision but gives no indication that he would review it.
'''Strong oppose''' Sorry mate, but your track record of hostility and drahmaz is just preclusive to adminship in my opinion.  Your very opening statement suggests that when you are involved you get out of control, and your only proposed remedy is to refrain from use of the mop while in that situation.  Users will perceive even normal edits and conversation to be abusive of the mop, if made in an incivil, abusive or careless manner. Your reply to TerriersFan above indicates to me that you would take a view of users who do not elaborate well what their concerns are, as not deserving your time or concern.  This indicates to me that you would likely be a [[WP:BITE]]y admin. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤
'''Oppose''', I actually like this editor, and the site needs people who can speak their mind and stir the pot a little.  With that said, the user is just a little too prone to silly drama for me to be entirely comfortable with giving them the tools.
'''Oppose''' - because of the diffs from Ecoleetage and Sleaves. I don't want you losing your cool when you have admin-buttons. It seems as though this RfA is also something to do with revenge, or winning back whatever it is you think that people have taken away from you. -
'''Oppose''' - Having worked closely with you and G2B during your incidents, I know that you are a valuable editor. That said, I don't believe you are qualified to be an administrator. I'm going to echo much of what has already been said, however your recent blocks, as well as the deletion issues brought up by many editors above are very concerning and demonstrative that you aren't ready. Your involvement in highly controversial fields is of course prone to such disagreements, however I don't feel as though your handling of them was what we would expect of an administrator. Maybe in some time, but not now. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose''' - Sorry Roux, you are a great editor, but not quite the temperament for an admin in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' - Per the diffs Sleaves posted and the fact that your talk page said "Don't post here" for almost two weeks out of the last month.
'''Oppose''' I've never talked to Roux. I have no idea if Roux is a good person (but I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt). With that said, if you're going to get blocked multiple times, then run for adminship a few months later, not just do I not want you to become an admin because of recent actions, but you don't have the... I'm not sure what word I want here- foresight? restraint?... I want to see out of an admin. --
'''Weak oppose''' due to multiple blocks; however, as most were subsequently unblocked, I am only offering a weak oppose and also because I was a little turned off by some comments in an ANI thread I started a short time ago.  All the same, I do like the stars on the userpage, so again, not a strong or even regular oppose maybe bordering on neutral.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]] '''<font face="verdana">
'''Weak Oppose''' based on the fact that blocks were too recent. You would need half a year of clean records for me to support, but without the blocks, I would support.
'''Oppose''' - identically wrong temperment. That his answer to question #8 is demonstratably false doesn't help, either.
Oppose, and the clearest example of why is the signature. The developers say "don't subst"; people have told Roux; people have asked, politely, and Roux wants his silly "cool" signature more than he wants to work well with others and avoid causing actual technical problems with Wikipedia. This is self-centered and vain; it is putting his desire to be "cool" well above Wikipedia's interest. Completely unsuitable behavior for an Admin. Shows poor judgment and poor priorities.
Oppose, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=262092060&oldid=262091875 this]. Grow up.
'''Oppose''' - per LeaveSleaves, for starters.  <b>
'''Oppose''' Not for any lone specific comment, or alluded too long-ago drama as some people have mentioned (ancient history is ancient history) but for what feels like a general tone of contrariness in a lot of cases and not being willing to just say "OK" and move on, unfortunately. The current substr signature thing comes to mind, and the invocation of IAR there as well bugs me a bit. IAR in my opinion should only be used in a clear cut obvious case. If someone disagrees with your IAR, odds are IAR shouldn't be used. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' per all those citing temperment problems. <b><i>
'''Oppose'''. Roux cannot take friendly advice when it's given to him- the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Roux Substituting his signature against advice|signature problem]] re-enforced that in my mind. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Neutral'''.  Past quarrels are no problem as far as I'm concerned, but I need to get to know you better before I consider supporting.
'''Neutral'''. I like Roux, but I find his lack of knowledge of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Heraldic_Authority&oldid=260600419#Heralds_of_Arms image policy] a little concerning.
My gut feeling is that you are, at this time, far too opinionated to be a fair admin, and furthermore I'm not confident that, despite your assurances, you would be ''able'' to withdraw yourself from any situation in which you find yourself involved.  It's a no from me on this basis alone - neutral because I don't think it'd be fair for me to oppose without having looked very carefully through all of your service with the project.  Thanks,
'''Neutral''' I haven't done an in-depth analysis, but this person seems clueful and well on his way to demonstrating a pattern of handling situations that in the past led to blocks.  His voluntary 1RR is an important part of that.  However, there simply hasn't been enough time.  If this were 6 months past his most recent block I would take the time to look into this candidate further, but he would have to be stellar.  After 9-12 months of continuous civil editing I'd consider it history and hold him to just my normal RFA standards. Recommend withdrawing, keep on editing as you have for the past few months, and relisting no sooner than 9 months after most recent block.  The question "is giving this candidate the tools a net positive" simply cannot be answered "yes" given the short time since the blocks in question. By the way, I see two separate issues here:  The first is how to react in the face of an uncivil editor, the second is understanding restrictions you are under and what a "revert" means.  Candidate very likely fully understands how to deal with both now but unfortunately it takes a bit longer than 3-4 months to demonstrate it.  By the way, my "gut" says if we give him the bit, we'll ''probably'' be fine.  I'm neutral because making him wait a few more months to be sure is probably a net good for the project.
'''Neutral''' - I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this RfA, including sleeping on it. There are positives (such as the care he takes with NPP and new editors) but there are also negatives (thrashed out above and in other fora). I was trending towards Support, but then saw his response to Miesianiacal's Oppose. There was no need to tell us who this user was, we are intelligent people. However, it does tell me that the situation is still looming large in Roux' mind and has the possibility of clouding his judgement. This, therefore, results in a net-neutral for me.
'''Neutral''' - I believe Roux will be an excellent administrator in time, just not now.  It is too soon following Roux's recent block/semi-leave.  Roux will be a definite plus on the admin staff in the future, but I believe he needs to prove to the community that he can be a stable and reliable contributor.  I have personally worked with Roux in the past and found the editor very accepting and willing to work with others.  It's just his recent drama that just doesn't sit well with me just yet.  Happy New Year though.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Neutral'''.  I think you are a great editor in general, but I am unsure that you are ready for adminship right now.  You have the potential to be a great admin, but you are still unready. <font  face="georgia">'''
Don't wish to pile on.
'''Neutral''' I'm not confident your ready for the tools just yet. '''
'''Neutral''' I echo the above. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
134 main space edits and less that 600 overall edits. Way way too soon to form a view of the candidate. In addition, I cannot  make sense of the answers to questions 1 and 2. I appreciate that editors may come from all over the world but strong communication is one of the traits needed for administrators and I think there is a chance for significant confusion.  --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGaelen_S._2&diff=316282652&oldid=316281030 this]. [[WP:BITE|Biting]] other users only reflects badly on yourself. <tt>
'''Super-Absolutely Strong Oppose''' This seems appropriate.
You don't need to be an admin to do what you have suggested.  Projects can be proposed, created and got up to speed without any admin assistance, so you are free to recruit members and get going.  Also if you spot activity that is not really vandalism, you are welcome to add comments to the [[WP:AIV]] board or even remove nominations if they are clearly wrong, and you can talk to the people involved.  Admin privileges are not needed to do this.
'''Oppose'''.  Attacks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARuleOfThe9th&diff=315487073&oldid=315245698 this], even if they were due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StephenBuxton&diff=cur wikistress] are not signs that he will be able to keep a cool head in a problem.  Needs to learn proper etiquette as to when he can answer questions on other people's talk pages - I think it was me correcting him a couple of times that led to his initial comments on the user page (If I am wrong, please feel free to put me straight). '''
'''Oppose''' Your !vote on Gaelen's RfA shows me that you have one set of standards for yourself and another for other RfA candidates.    -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' Per above.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''oppose'''.  Also, that en-5 ubx needs changing. Much of what this editor says is semi-comprehensible.
'''Oppose''' Your answers make no sense. You don't seem to have done anything here outside nominating users in unwanted RfAs. '''\'''
He's been excellent since I've seen him around-active in policy discussion, XfD, definite support from me (but unintentional rhyme). '''
'''Support''' - per the urge to support more than once... and the above rhyme. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Although he doesn't say he is ready, he is obviously happy-ish to be nominated, having refused in the past, & to me seems like he would be a reliable, trustworthy & dependable admin.  Good luck Marshall.
'''Support''' meets my standards. AFD experience and knowledge looks good. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(2nd_nomination)|This]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&diff=285265051&oldid=285258035 the "flea in the ear remark"] tell me you are too tetchy. However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norwegian-Azerbaijanis_Youth_Organization_(NAYO)&diff=prev&oldid=293414641 that perception is balanced with this.] (There are other examples.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eumemmerring_College&diff=prev&oldid=293315462 This I like in particular.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Backslash_Forwardslash_2&diff=prev&oldid=293065306 ''This'' is unduly harsh.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_27&diff=prev&oldid=292705602 Nuanced thought.] So on balance, knowledgeable and experienced but a tad snappish.
'''Support'''. Good editor, experienced, stands up for himself.
'''Support''' Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs.
Change to '''Support''' - has done useful work on translating from other projects.
'''Support''' Net positive.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' clueful and modest editor, and per noms ''
A familiar name that I don't recall having seen anything negative from. His answer to Q6 suggests that he values the opinions of others and is willing to take criticism of his actions to heart, which is always a plus for an admin to have. I've looked over Dlohcierkim's links and the one he refers to as "unduly harsh" ultimately didn't strike me as particularly uncivil, though the candidate may feel somewhat offended if S Marshall had misperceived the situation. I'm unfamiliar with the whole misconceptions thing, and I can't view what it was he made, perhaps it was mild [[WP:POINT]]? Well, at least it wasn't significantly disruptive or anything (as far as I know). Overall, I see nothing worth opposing over - S Marshall a good editor who is familiar with policy and he will make good use of the tools.
'''Very Weak Support''' I see you have a good following and some very good supporters but I get the feeling that some of your answers are somewhat generic. I see nothing though that says you would be a bad sysop (you admit you are human which you need to rmemember if you are to be a good sysop) and the fact that you are invovled with AfD means you can probably deal with the "hot" moments.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest that Marshall would abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' with appreciation for the [[WP:COMMON SENSE|common sense]] and civilty with which he contributes to the project. '''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]. No reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' - The [[WP:POINT]] violation is a little concerning, but judging your other edits, it seems to be an isolated incident, and still trustworthy enough to get the tools.
'''Support''' No indication S Marshall would abuse the tools. He seems to know his stuff well enough too.
'''Support''' I'm surprised you aren't one already. One remark regarding opposes - I don't like the idea of requiring audited contributions for admins, and rigid enforcement of [[WP:POINT]] has a censorious effect. If I could support again just to counteract the opposes, I would :) <strong>
'''Support''' I have seen him at AfD and I am confident he will be a fine admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' as I see nothing which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. ···
'''Weak Support'''. I don't necessarily agree that the burden of proof is only on the keep !votes within an AfD but that the deletes also have some work to do in order to prove something is not notable, etc. It seems to come down to an argument between deletionism and inclusionism. That being said, you do good work around here and the net seems to be positive so therefore I support you.
'''Support''' We'll both have to agree to disagree on the NAC issue but otherwise he'll make a decent admin. --
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with your answers, and seem like you would do a lot of good with new tools. --
'''Support'''--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support'''. Trust him.
'''Support''' As far as I remember, I have never said this on a RfA so far: Always thought they were an admin already. —&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' actually per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that I for some reason thought this editor was an administrator already (yes, seriously) and per reasonable comments in AfDs, and no, we have not always agreed (on several occasions when I said to keep, the candidate said to merge or redirect, but these are reasonable compromise and alternatives and I can respect that and besides I am following suggestions at [[User:A Nobody/RfA]] to recognize reasonable differences of opinions).  Candidate is an article creator and translator whose lone block was rapidly undone.  I have confidence in this candidate, additionally because candidate is co-nominated by someone I recognize on my userpage at [[User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages]] (Childofmidnight!).  Best wishes!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;User seems to have a thick enough skin for the job, a clue to policy, and experience with content. --'''''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' > per PhilKnight, pretty much. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' The creation of [[List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall]] had [[WP:POINT]] written all over it, but I'll overlook it as you've done some mind-numbingly good work at WP:AFD. Besides, you appear to be pretty good in other areas too, so a net positive. Cheers. '''''
'''Support''' Always need editors who are willing to wade into the AfD/DRV world and actually evaluate the merits of the individual cases. Would have been strong support but for the point issues. No concerns that the tools would be misused.
'''Strong support''', one of the outstanding editors here.
'''Support''' Would have nominated him but I lacked the time to research his contributions thoroughly. Now that I had the time to do so, I think this is a fine candidate with no major flaws that would indicate him being a bad admin. The POINT violation evidenced in Q4 is unfortunate but I trust the candidate when they say they will not act like this again. Other than that, the candidate shows a good clue of deletion and related policies and displays patience when dealing in these areas. Regards '''
'''Support''' but not without reservations. I'm a little concerned by the creation of [[List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall]] and the way the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&diff=next&oldid=289495764 closed this discussion] but I have generally been impressed by the user whenever I have come across them and particularly like their answer to question 11 above. I can't imagine there are many users who would come through [[WP:RFA|RfA]] completely unscathed and on balance I think making S Marshall an [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] would be positive for the encyclopaedia.
'''Support''' - I've never encountered S Marshall but find the answers above and diffs to be worth paying attention to for their simplicity and knowledge of policy. On the matter of the supposedly pointy list creation, I'll say this: it's arguably inappropriate, but on the other hand, we routinely give run-of-the-mill vandals plenty more chances to do their thing when they have no intention of ever improving the encyclopedia. I can [[WP:AGF|look the other way]] on the list pretty easily given the total picture. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Per honest answers above, especially those showing ability to admit mistakes. And with a big +1 Insightful for "hell no, I want to work, not have a trophy."--
'''Support''' per Q20. - Dank (
'''Support''', good user. Opposes are a little conerning but not overly so.
'''Support''' There is nothing to show he will make a bad admin, i actually think he could be a good asset. I was hoping for somthing besides the common generic answers, but there is nothing bad about that.
'''Support''' I've seen him around and find him to be an excellent editor. After reviewing his RfA answers, I found them to be very knowledgeable and I can tell that he knows a lot of the policies, guidelines, etc. I know he will be a great admin and I am happy to support. Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I see no ''fatal flaws'' in S Marshall, and while the List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall page was to make a point, I don't find it overly disruptive.--
'''Support''' Net positive. Not perfect but no sound reason to mistrust the candidate. I disagree with his BLP stance. Many do but many also support his position. That's ok and the debate about the project's handling of BLPs won't be affected by SMarshall's sysoping. Oh and about that "list of misconceptions" thing: come on... It was completely harmless and created in good spirit. (see the diff in Q4)
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' I see no compelling reason to deny S Marshall the tools, and I find his reluctance to accept them to be reassuring against abuse.
'''Support''' An excellent editor with a sound understanding of policy and generally good judgement. True, he sometimes agrees with me, but I'd support   just as much even if he rarely did, based on the quality of the work. The "pointy" list was in the manner of an argument, not a genuine attempt at POINT.  '''
'''Support'''. I was pondering this one a while, but after going through all S Marshall's recent contributions to AFD and DRV, I am inclined to support. What was putting me off was his views about consensus - I tend to hold a different view, that admins should have more freedom to [[WP:BEBOLD]] and close discussions contrary to consensus where they think it appropriate. But I don't think S Marshall's approach is ''wrong'' - I could rarely, if ever, fault an admin for following consensus rather than ignoring it. Moreover, it makes it easy to trust him as an admin, as we can reliably predict how he'll close AFDs - we don't have to worry about him making wild [[WP:IAR]] closes. Finally, I appreciate his generally sensible, well-reasoned arguments and ability to keep cool in discussions, which give me confidence that he'll do a good job as an admin.
I trust this user and hope that he'll not create articles about himself any more. :-) <strong>
Answer to question 6 shows the user apparently doesn't mind violating [[WP:POINT]]. Lack of audited content contributions. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Weak oppose'''.  I really did not like your violation of [[WP:POINT]].  As an administrator you will represent all of Wikipedia and it is important to be mature and calm at all times.  On the other hand, there are no other problems making this only a weak oppose.  Best of luck, '''
'''Oppose''' on limited content experience. I seldom do so; in your case it's not about ''active'' time on Wikipedia, but about weak, sketchy, at times incorrect actual content of your articles. No one is perfect, but I won't delegate ''judgement'' on deleting content based on dino list alone.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 7.
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' based on insufficient experience (only really active for last 4 months) and answers to Q6 and Q7 (re [[WP:DP|DP]]). His [[List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall]] was a clear-cut violation of [[WP:POINT]].<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - indicates in the answer to Q10 that he would close AfDs according to consensus rather than policy, and thus that consensus can overrule policy, the only stated reason being [[WP:IAR]].  This is clearly counter-logical - policies are only policies  because they have broad community-wide consensus; they clearly cannot be overruled by a small local majority on an AfD.  That way lies anarchy. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] states this clearly - "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." Meanwhile, in his answer to question 7, this editor has then contradicted himself by saying that he would close an AfD as "Keep" when the consensus, such as it was, was clearly "no consensus" - he can only have arrived at that conclusion by discounting some of the votes!.  This is somewhat concerning given that the user has indicated a desire to close AfDs and I think they may be a bit too close to this subject to look at the subject impartially.  This is a shame as I don't see any other problems with this editor.
'''Weak oppose''': I share concerns over the presented interpretation of [[WP:CON]] in relation to AfD closures (small local consensus overriding community-wide consensus/policy), and over the sporadic long-term vs. active short-term contribution issue. If you've more time available since March why not spend that over the next few months demonstrating admin qualities. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Oppose''' doesn't demonstrate an understanding of [[WP:CONSENSUS]].
'''Oppose''' - This editor wants the admin tools for AfD, but in those discussions he recently violated [[WP:POINT]] and gives local consensus preference over larger consensus reflected by policy. --
'''Weak oppose''' per the [[WP:POINT]]-violating creation of the List of misconceptions about himself, and his attitude about it now.  But shows promise.  I also strongly disagree that [[WP:PRESERVE]] should apply only to sourced content except in the case of BLPs: that's why we have {{tl|fact}}.
'''Oppose''' problematic in regards to respecting community consensus and guidelines so cannot be trusted with administrative tools.
[[List of common misconceptions about S. Marshall|Oppose]]. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]] '''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' (Toolbox [[User:Dylan620/Personal toolbox|Alpha]],
'''Weak Oppose''' per [[WP:POINT]] that page wasn't necessary and was a blatant violation. Also dismissing concerns as "those were a while ago" when they were under three months ago seems to be pretty dismissive of legitimate concerns. I am also concerned with this user's views regarding application of [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I feel pretty bad about this as I largely agree (not completely) with this user's positions. LOTS of positives. I can certainly see myself supporting in 3 months if the aforementioned behavior does not recur and the user gets a better understanding of policies. S. Marshall is welcome to respond below if he has any requests for clarification and/or believes there is something in mitigation of what I've stated above as we should ''encourage'' discussion, not discourage it. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Oppose''' - Like others have said in both this and the support section, there are a number of positives and you should be commended for taking the leap and requesting adminship. That said, I do not think you are experienced enough yet (only a few months of strong contributions in a limited area), and answers to questions such as 7 leave me with less than a satisfactory feeling. Also, the [[WP:POINT]] issues pointed out by others forces me to question other things, and the creation of [[Wikipedia:SMARSHALLISRIGHT]] on top of that makes me worried. Lastly, like {{User|Nakon}} stated below, if you are not sure you are ready for adminship it would not be appropriate to give it to you. Cheers,
Concerned about some of the answers to questions, especially 4, 6, 10, 15 and 17. These answers lead me to believe that it may not be a good thing for the project to have S Marshall as an admin at this time...  ++
'''Oppose''' Do not trust this user to evaluate consensus accurately.
'''Oppose'''.  I ''really'' like what I am seeing here, but the content contributions is way too low for my liking, and the level of zeal is a bit too high.  Great ideas, but the rough edges need to be knocked off the old fashion way: experience.  Better that happens before adminship if the candidate is planning on making heavy use of the buttons, which is the impression I get. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Weak oppose''' - I generally like the candidate's contributions and the like but find the quality of the answers to the questions lacking and leading me to believe the candidate is not prepared for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Negatives are definitely starting to outweigh the positives.
'''Oppose''' Pretty much due to his answer to my question #15. I'm sorry, I feel that broad strengthening of BLP and Flagged Revisions (which consensus already supports, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=293917164#Jimmy.27s_reply is coming]) are essential and at this time I cannot support candidates who do not support them. Recent evidence why [[Catherine Crier|here]]. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' (Q. 10) While I agree that an admin is technically a button-pusher, the view expressed in the response to q. 10 is too extreme. It is important, IMO, to see that any consensus on wikipedia is usually made by a tiny handful of editors over a very short period of time, and that that consensus may not be backed up adequately by the literature in the area. In my opinion, an admin should almost always not implement a consensus that is not supported by reliable citations from the literature (or equivalent) of the subject matter.  --
'''Oppose''' - per Lar, particularly the answer to question 15. If you don't support strengthening BLP, do you think its perfect as is? Should it be weakened? As for flagged revs, there's dozens of possible ways to configure it technically, and even more ways to use it socially. Flaggedrevs has more applications than BLPs. Opposing specific implementations is fine, but opposing it in general shows some closed-mindedness that I don't believe is a good trait for an admin. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''', concerns about [[WP:POINT]], application of [[WP:CON]], and temperament, as raised above. '''
'''Oppose''' per breaking the resolution to not reply without a direct inivitation to do so`. And no, I'm not kidding (self-control, word-is-bond, etc...)
'''Oppose''' Too complacent about current BLP policy, too pointy about less weighty issues.

'''Neutral''' - because you're not sure if you're ready.
'''Neutral''' - My instinct at first was to support this candidate without reservation; however, a deeper study of the user's experience (including the [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=S%20Marshall&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia distribution of contributions]) gives me a teeny bit of concern. The candidate's edits in the ''Article'' and ''Wikipedia'' namespaces are excellent, but there is an apparent lack of user-to-user interaction - far less than you would expect from a typical candidate. Administrators typically have a ''lot'' of user-to-user discussions, both as mediators and moderators. S Marshall's "unreadiness" concern is somewhat backed up by what I perceive to be a lack of "battle readiness". I can find no reason to actually ''object'' to this RfA (apart from what I personally view as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S_Marshall&diff=prev&oldid=292842039 flawed character judgment]), and I can ''always'' find a reason to support a fellow Briton. I am particularly amused that this candidate is exactly one week older than me, which fits in with my personal feeling that all admins should be older than me to deserve my respect <code><nowiki></sarcasm></nowiki></code>. --
'''Neutral''' - I like your answers to the questions and I truly can't agree with any of the 3 oppose votes so far.  But, in response to one of them, you wrote ''I'm not necessarily here with the goal of becoming an admin, either. I've said openly that I'm not sure I should be. I'm here purely because several other editors asked me to stand on the same day — in other words, I'm here in obedience to consensus.''.  I think that it's important for admins to feel comfortable in their position and also enjoy their work.  --- ''<B>
'''Neutral''', if you're not ready for the tools, I'm not ready to support you having them.
'''Neutral''': while I disagree with the stance on Q#15, I do trust this user to go out and take care of things.  I was the one who kinda got the ball rolling on the dinosaur lists with an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaurs of Africa|AfD]] I put forward on an early incarnation of [[List of African dinosaurs]]. S Marshall put up a good reason for keeping, did a lot of work to make it presentable, and then went further and created similar lists for the other continents.
'''Support'''.  As Nom. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
This user's knowledge of image policy appears to be exceptional, and his tact in dealing with image issues is impressive.  '''Support''', despite his foolish support of [[Montreal Canadiens|lesser hockey teams]] --
Good luck to you.
'''Support'''. I'm a bit baffled by the opposes. The graphical title images (which, being the titles of open-source games, may in fact be free themselves) are cautiously labeled as being non-free and then added to the articles in a way consistent with normal practice for non-free images. The error I see here was that there were other definitively free images available in the article. This presupposes, however, that Salavat had pre-knowledge of the exact licensing terms of game. This goes from poor understanding of policy to a simple slip-up based on a misunderstanding of the license terms of the game itself (and consequently the other images in the article). Everything else looks good.
'''Support''' I found the opposes were pretty pursuasive in that imperfect examples were pulled from an area you cite as your best work. However, I don't see such imperfections as errors in judgement on your part, or a failure to understand image policy. You clearly have a solid understanding of how to properly execute policy, and a demonstrated desire to learn and improve.
'''Support'''- Your work on wikipedia seems impressive combined with a healthy experience and I can't really point out anything substansial enough that would make me critical of your nomination in particular. As a result I am pledging my support to you!
'''Weak Support:''' I have made simular errors but  that is not a good thing. -
'''Support''' in opposition to the opposers who have placed exceptionally weak reasons.
'''Support'''. I simply can't see how a less than 0.1% error rate is a concern.
'''Support''' per Fastily (including his reply to ArcAngel's oppose (now located on the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/Salavat|talk page]])). -- ''<B>
'''Support''' per Soap per Fastily. '''
'''Support''' - I have seen this user hard at work on adding images to a number of articles, particularly those for video games. I see that errors have been made; we are all of us only human, but I see nothing here worth denying the job over. Highly recommend seeking out [[User:Drilnoth]] for mentoring on image issues, whether or not nomination succeeds, as he really knows his stuff!
'''Support.''' I think I and the rest if the opposers are being a bit harsh here. Out of all those images uploaded, if only 3 are dubious, then I think we can put this down to human error and I think Salavat will definately be a net poitive if promoted to admin. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Support''', exactly per IronGargoyle, who encapsulates my thoughts very clearly.—
'''Support''' per Tim Song, I doubt Wikipedia has any administrator that has never made a mistake. Support as net positive to the project. --
'''Support'''.  I don't see how making a few mistakes means barring somebody from being an admin.  Salavat knows his/her stuff, but is human, so may make a mistake here and there.  I think Salavat will be a great admin. '''[[User:TheWeakWilled|''<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em"><span style="color:green">TheWeak</span><span style="color:blue">Willed</span></span>'']] ([[User talk:TheWeakWilled|T]] *
'''Support''' Seems alright to me.
'''Support''' Making a few mistakes really doesnt mean anything, everyone makes mistakes, no one is perfect! Good luck!--
'''Support''' - [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Salavat#ArcAngel's Oppose|'''''3/3574''''' is a very small number]]. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''[[User:Smithers7/RfA|Support]]''' - Now that I look at it I don't know why everybody is nailing you down for three images out of thousands of other worthy contributions. '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Support''' quality candidate.
<s>Tentative</s> Support.  <s>I'll check back.</s>  Candidate is good at what he does, he does a lot of it. - Dank (
'''Support''' Appears to a very good editor who almost never makes mistakes.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Support''' I have some concern about understanding of BLP policy in Q4 and Q5 but the individual's summary isn't far off from what policy says and they don't intend to operate in that area so I'm not too concerned.
'''Support'''. I have looked for reasons to oppose and, frankly, I cannot find any. The opposes would hold weight if it weren't for the fact that they appear to refer to a very small number of edits. It never ceases to amaze me the nit picking that goes on in RfAs. These three or four edits should not cancel out 35,000 good edits, many of which, I'm sure, will be invaluable and i hope that there will be many more to come and the sysop rights can only help in that.
<s>'''Support''' I echo those above me who expressed wonderment at the weakness of the opposers' arguments.</s> A few incorrect image taggings should not cancel out a tremendous number of correct image taggings and positive edits. To err is human, to forgive is divine. Anyway, Salavat seems trustworthy and understands policy well enough to be a good admin. <s>It's always good to have another admin who understands image policies, too....</s> [[User:A Stop at Willoughby|A Stop at Willoughby]] ([[User talk:A Stop at Willoughby|talk]]) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC) I still believe Salavat has adequate policy knowledge for adminship, but I'm somewhat dismayed by his incorrect answers to questions 7 and 10 above. Switching to '''weak support'''.
'''Weak support''' - was intending to go neutral, but decided that the few negatives should not outweigh the manifold positives.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' Pretty clear net positive despite concerns in the oppose section.
'''Support''' Per Fastily
'''Weak support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  The candidate is here to build articles per [[User:Salavat#Contributions]] and has over 40,000 total edits.  Yes, according to his bio, he is young, but not so young to give me too much pause.  In any event, the candidate has received around a half dozen barnstars (must have impressed someone!) and has never been blocked.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn]], which should have more correctly closed as "no consensus", the candidate provides an alternative suggestion to transwiki, which is reasonable, although I encourage more of an explanation why we should do something rather than just a [[WP:PERNOM]] style "vote."  I would, incidentally, be far more open to transwikiying as a compromise if the suggestion at [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#How_about_allowing_links_to_Wikia.2C_for_side_article_information.3F]] is followed.  Now in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Elite Four members]] the merge suggestion is reasonable enough, but again the reason is essentially just a [[WP:JNN]].  With regards to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon items (2nd nomination)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon moves]] as well as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination)]], I never get why this needless adherence to the idea that a reference guide cannot be a game reference guide.  We can and should do more than traditional paper encyclopedias and so long as the contents are verifiable in published reliable sources that should be sufficient.  The argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spykee Head Dude (video game)]] was sound and something I agree with, i.e. if it cannot be verified and appears to be a hoax, then indeed deletion is the correct result.  My suggestion here, however, is not to simply say "appears to be made up," but to indicate where you checked for sources only to be stumped and therefore reach the conclusion that indeed it does not only appear to be made up, it appears as such because after checking for sources, none could be easily found to prove as much.  Sure, we would like to assume that such search sources took place and I believe many editors do indeed do just that, but I know from experience that some don't try to check per [[WP:BEFORE]] if indeed they don't exist.  Anyway, in these examples, I did not notice anything particularly "dickish" toward those with whom Salavat disagreed.  Yes, some who read these may think that back in the day, these would still be enough for me to oppose the candidate.  Perhaps, but reasonable disagreement is okay and I really want to reserve my opposes for those who has said or done something eggregious enough that at the time of my typing they should not be an admin.  So, anyway, that's that.  Best, --
'''Support''': Seems like a good editor.
'''Support''' I think we may disagree on a number of issues, but looks reasonable and I see no serious problems in the oppose section.
'''Support''' Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. --
Answer to q2 is strange, but admins do not have to know everything. Q4 and 5 may not be to everyone's liking, but they are not demonstrating anything ''bad''. At least he's honest. '''
'''Support''' Nitpicking, petty opposes are not convincing. I see Salavat as a net gain as an admin.
'''Support''' Not perfect. But has the basics right and will learn the rest. I see no problems with his actual work, but a little more experience would have helped him word the answers in the way people like to hear.  '''
'''Oppose''', just taking a quick look through the images the user has uploaded, I've already found two clear errors: nonfree image uploads for [[Vega Strike]] and [[Scorched 3D]]. Both of these are open source games, so screenshots from anywhere in that game, including the title screens, would be free content and serve to replace the nonfree images. As the candidate is intending to work in images, I think an understanding of avoiding replaceable nonfree images is critical, and this seems to indicate a lack of that necessary understanding. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 09:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) And adding to this the answer to question 11. "On Wikipedia" permission is ''not'' free content permission and would not be acceptable for upload to Commons. Here, "use on Wikipedia" permission would be considered nonfree.
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned that the upload of non-free images should be framed as the candidate's "best contributions", given that the restricted use of such material is a significant part of [[WP:NFCC]]. I see no mention of the skills involved in image placement, sizing, captioning, writing of alt text, or the integration of images into article text. I'm not yet convinced that the candidate is equipped to help the project by policing the use of NF images. Is there a presence at [[WP:FIC]]? Is there a detailed knowledge of [[WP:NFC]], [[WP:IUP]] and the relevant parts of the style guides?
'''Weak oppose''' - Wouldn't ordinarily oppose over non-free image policy errors, but to class them as your best contributions and have them be fundamentally flawed in policy is bizarre. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' as per Seraphimblade
'''Oppose''' per seraphimblade.  Image concerns.
'''Oppose''' per your incorrect image tagging.
This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia; answers to 2, 9, and 10 suggest that the candidate doesn't necessarily understand this, or if {{gender|Salavat}} does, that {{gender|Salavat}} doesn't subscribe to it. Non-free images are only to be used to improve understanding of the encyclopedia, in a way that free content could not, rather than to illustrate or decorate.
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Answers to questions 4 and 5 are quite strange... You don't seem to understand quite a few of our policies yet. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
Per Stifle, Coffee. <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''', due to answers to questions four and five.
'''Oppose''', due to answers to questions two, four and five. <span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:black">
'''Oppose''', per Stifle, Coffee. Answers to questions are not satisfactory. Communication concerns. &ndash;
'''Oppose''', primarily for the same reasons expressed by Stifle and Coffee. Answer to question 4 isn't really coherent, since most AFDs turn on questions of notability.  Answers to questions 7 and 10 are clearly incorrect.  Answers to questions 6, 8, and 9 don't clearly reflect the proper application of relevant policy.  I don't believe every admin needs to grasp the arcana of image policy, but when a candidate identifies this as a primary work area, the candidate should display a clear and accurate grasp of the relevant policies -- both in order to apply the policies as an admin and to explain the application of those policies as issues come up.
'''Oppose''' way too many wrong questions.  This is an "open book" exam after all.  The answers are right there in the policy pages. 7,9,10 in particular.
'''Very Weak Oppose'''. Per questions 2,4 and 5. However, it would have been a neutral if it weren't for tagging issues and oppose comments well above.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
Given the candidate's stated intention to work in image-related areas, concerns about the user's understanding of our policies related to them are rather worrying.  Answers to optional questions are less than satisfactory and seem to reveal something of a misunderstanding with regards to core policies they would be expected to act upon.  I cannot support at this time.
I'm not opposing for the mistaggings - I know first hand how irritating it is to see an RfA sink due to three or four mistakes. I am, however, not completely happy with the answer to my question, #7. I wasn't too concerned about exactly what action he would take as long as it was reasonable. Deleting the image as self-promotional seems to draw a long bow, and in my eyes, misses the point. Simply removing the article from the page would've been an acceptable action, as would have double checking that such a personal, private image was uploaded legitimately. However, I do wish you the best of luck, as you clearly have the ability to become an able administrator in the near future. '''\'''
'''Oppose''', troubling answers to some of the questions. '''
'''Oppose''' - I share some of the concerns about answers to questions. The answers to 4 and 5 make me worry about policy knowledge. In answer 4 why would you assume that the subject "passed notability" in a deletion discussion with no consensus? Answer 5 just isn't really an answer at all. I do appreciate the editor's contributions to Wikipedia, and gaining more familiarity with some key policies and guidelines might help me support in a future RfA. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - lots of concerns, but an answer that says "''My best contributions would have to be my uploads of non-free images''" deserves an Oppose without even looking at their other contribs. <b>
'''Opppose''' - unfortunately, I had the same exact feeling as Black Kite above. It is just one of those lines.
'''Oppose'''. While I don't think that all admin candidate necessarily need to fully understand all image use policies (many good admins never involve themselves in this are), you are asking for admin tools expressly for image work. I am sorry but, per Seraphimblade, I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of this area at this time. Content that we have permission to use on wikipedia is still non-free content and must be treated as such. The answers to questions 9 and 10 are a bit superficial and I think your answer to 10 is actually an argument that the picture isn't replaceable. I am also unhappy with the user of the word "easily" in question 9. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral''' per your flawed contributions to non-free images and how you consider them your "best contributions".--
Moved to '''Neutral''' following an examination of a random selection drawn from your last 100 uploads, where I found no issues (after reading Fastily's reply to a similar oppose). Will hold off further opinion pending replies to questions. <strong>
Honestly, I can't find any compelling reasons to oppose. The candidate is obviously extremely knowledgeable and experienced, and is dedicated to Wikipedia. Looking through their image uploads, I see only strong fair use rationales and reasonable amendments to file data and such. That said – I've only spot-checked his logs and edits. The opposers seem to have strong opinions, but don't really provide any evidence to support their claims. I think it would be helpful for at least a couple folks to provide links, diffs, and other evidence of problematic contributions. Otherwise, I'm left to assume that any concerns are insignificant. –'''
'''Neutral'''. Looks like an experienced and knowledgeable candidate, but Cyclonenim's and Seraphimblade's opposition statements are enough to prevent me from supporting this RFA, which I otherwise would have done.
'''Neutral''' - Good editor, good vibes all around, but doesn't know the image policy well enough. From a legal perspective those answers scare up all kinds of worry, not the least of all Backslash Forwardslash's examples demonstrate a clear ignorance (not that this is at all a ''fault'') of privacy rights in [[New York|NY]], which tend to be important for a U.S. based server.
'''Neutral'''. While the candidate is experienced with good contributions, I feel slightly uneasy having read some of the oppose comments. I do not feel strongly enough to oppose, but do not feel that I can support at this time, either. Should the candidate not succeed in this RfA, hopefully they will use the comments on this RfA as a learning experience, and I hope to see them here again in the future. -- '''
'''Neutral''' - I'm puzzled by the answer above consisting of one of those acronym short-cuts ([[WP:NFC#UULP]]) that I find neither helpful in general nor clarifying in this case. True, it leads me to a section that has been quoted. But it is a missed opportunity to explain why we have this remark there (and even highlighted in italics) or why they personally think it is important enough to override general principles and to be highlighted in their answer 10. To me as image noob this looks like a surprising exception of the guideline to the transcluded policy part that somehow mixes notability and license issues. In short, I am also in general not really seeing what drives the candidate in his core area and getting that across is important, especially with respect to those in favor of stricter NFC interpretation.--
'''Neutral for now''' I'm minded to support, as image admin work is something we seem to get behind on, and Salavat meets all the other RfA criteria I carry around in my head. However, the concerns raised in the oppose section are troubling, and I'll need to consider further.
'''Support''' It appears you have been editing since January rather consistently, no matter how less that activity may be. My recommendation is to spend some time getting familiar with administration, find an [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|Admin coach]] and spend some more time editing constructively before running again. :) '''\'''
'''Oppose''' No indication of need for the tools.
'''Oppose'''. The reasons given in Q1 bear no relation to the ways in which admin tools can be used. Answers to questions are unsatisfactory, and I don't get the impression that the candidate understands the requirements for and purpose of adminship.

'''Oppose ''' Per above. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' schmausschmaus has done some good work around the project, but I feel a few months more experience wouldn't hurt.  Come back then and you'll have my support.  Suggesting early closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:SNOW]] -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' Why else do you think I nominated him for adminship!
<s>'''Placeholder oppose''' pending clarification as to what exactly is going on here (see Q4).&nbsp;–&nbsp;''[[User:Iridescent|<font color="#E45E05">iride</font><font color="#C1118C">scent</font>]]'' 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)</s><br>Now just plain '''Oppose'''. The last three posts on your talkpage are vandalism warnings; I hadn't noticed that.''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Tahoma"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' I must oppose on the grounds that you have zero experience in the AIV and AIN areas, and only 70 total edits in the xFD area, so right now I see no need for the tools.
'''STRONG Oppose and suggest withdrawing''' the fact that your account was recently used for vandalism on two separate days is concern enough.  This is not a commentary on you or your editing style, but when such a major gaff has occurred recently, the community is almost obligated to hold back the bit for a while.  (You are not the first person nor will you be the last person asked to demonstrate that they can protect their account after somebody else used it.)---'''[[User:I'm Spartacus!|<font color="purple">I'm Spartacus!</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:I'm Spartacus!|<b><sup><small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Switching to STRONG oppose.  The first three supports have a combined total of 22 edits in the past 4.5 months---15 of which are related to this RfA.---'''
'''Oppose''' per Spartacus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DavidJJJ&diff=192594311&oldid=191620340 This] is a strange RfA all around.
'''Oppose''' Per Spartacus and iridescent.--
'''Oppose''' A combined effect of your aforementioned security breach and a lack of experience in the project space. You claim to be a vandal fighter, yet I do not see any reports to AIV, which is just strange.
'''Oppose''' per Spartacus. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Oppose''' - I'm going to have to agree with Spartacus. Also, there's something suspicious about the support section. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Too soon after vandalism, if it was you then that makes this a strong oppose, if it wasn't it is still an oppose since administrators in particular need to be more careful than leaving their laptop out where anyone can cause damage to the encyclopaedia. And I concur, there is something fishy with the support section. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Given the circumstances surrounding this RfA - the recently compromised account, the unusual background of some of the supports, and answers to the questions themselves, I find I simply don't have the comfort level I need to trust you to wisely use (and safeguard) the tools at this time.
(Switched from Neutral) '''Oppose''' per Neurolysis. I have filed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SE7|this SPI]]. Please comment.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' - way, way too much [[WP:DUCK|quacking]], and [[WP:BROTHER|"oops, someone else used my laptop"]]. //
'''Definitely Not''' Vandalism warnings, possible sockpuppets? No way. ''<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="black">
'''Weak Support:''' <s>Solid record in policy areas but</s> Needs more edits on talk pages. -
'''Support''' Agree with Ottawa4ever.
'''<s>Strong</s> Support''' I have full confidence that Sebwite can easily communicate in a civil and thoughtful way with any user that he interacts with.  I have interacted with him in the past and it's always been a good experience.
'''Support''' Looks okay to me. So far I don't see any red flags. :)
'''Support''' - seems fine to me, just needs some more experience in some areas. ---
No reason to anticipate serious problems, solid and lengthy contribution history.
'''Support''' - well qualified and great answers to my questions.
'''Support''' - Highly experienced user, don't see how the relatively low activity makes him less competent as an admin. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I'm sorry to see you go through this. I have a feeling you knew the right answers to those questions, but felt pressured and wrote something you thought that the community might have wanted to hear. Besides the questions, I think you're a fine candidate. Either way, if you actually didn't know the right answers before, you clearly do now that 37 people have opposed over it. So, I don't think giving you the tools would be an issue. '''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], which I will explain momentarily.  I do acknowledge the strong consensus to oppose below and I do seem some opposable weak arguments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indonesia_and_Papua_New_Guinea&diff=294270685&oldid=294266444 this] in something that closed as a solid keep and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icelandic%E2%80%93Kosovan_relations_(2nd_nomination)&diff=294465925&oldid=294404488 this] is also not compelling per [[Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance]] in that having 40,000 plus articles is not a problem on a site that boasts having millions of articles and that seeks to catalog all of human knowledge, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pizza_delivery_in_popular_culture&diff=217951612&oldid=217917071 this argument] seems reasonable, although please remember to use edit summaries.  Now on the clearly positive side of things, the candidate has never been blocked, has a soundly expressed constructive and intelligent attitude on his userpage ("All articles created in good faith should be given a chance before they are considered for deletion....I oppose overzealous deletion proposals, and feel that deletion should be a last resort...Previously deleted material can be recreated and improved, and if so, should be given a chance, and not speedy deleted..."), has received a barnstar, and is an article, list, essay, and template creator, i.e. here to help build ''Wikipedia''.  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''. Although this RfA is numerically unsustainable at this point, I feel compelled to point out that the multiple opposes based primarily on the answer to question 11 may be based upon a misreading. Specifically, opposers are expressing concern about the candidate's referring to his "personal opinion" being in favor of deletion, in his response. But ''question 11 itself'' posited an AfD in which "on studying the article, sources and AFD discussion your personal opinion is that the article should be deleted as failing the notability guidelines." Thus, (1) Sebwite did not inject his own opinion into the answer, as it was presumed in the question, and (2) the "opinion" in question did not mean his individual personal inclinations, but his conclusion as to the proper outcome ''based on the notability guidelines.'' Administrators are supposed to take the content guidelines, along with the comments, into account in closing AfDs. In other answers as well, I think that references to the candidate's personal opinion were meant as references to his understanding of policy, rather than a statement that he would misuse personal opinions as a basis for closures.
'''Support''' Can fix concerns in oppose area.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''.  As for question 6, I would delete if there is any suggestion the subject of the article has requested deletion.  In fact I think the default for biographical articles ''should''  be to delete if no consensus.
'''Oppose'''.  Sebwite has made some excellent contributions to the project, mainly the article namespace.  Despite these contributions, I notice you have an remarkably low number of recent user talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sebwite&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 edits], less than 50 in the last 9 months.   A good sysop must have strong history of talk page edits and the ability to engage in discussion while remaining [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. With so few talk page edits (and Wikipedia namespace edits, where you discuss with other users), it makes it very difficult to gauge your ability to interact with other users, something that you will no doubt encounter as a sysop. You state you wish to work in XfD, AIV, RFPP, yet I see you have little to no experience in any of these areas.  Take your XfD contributions for instance.  You have made no edits in this area since early July 2009.  If you wish to work in this area, I would suggest you vote in these discussions more often or perhaps make several non-admin closures.   Your contributions to Wikipedia contentwise have been very strong and I encourage you to keep it up.  But if you want the mop and bucket, I'd recommend getting more involved in the management-related areas of the project. Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose'''. (i) 9k+ edits over 3 years with rather irregular counts. About 100+ edits per month recently, a few edits per month on user talk pages. Low activity is a big minus for a newcoming admin. (ii) Most of those 9k+ edits are on articles and policies, but, there is no visibly strong writing contributions (DYK/FA/GA, most of the regular edits are minor by my measures). As to policies, [[Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)]] is not a brilliant example, judging from its talk page alone. (iii) Self-nomination, in this case, is also not a plus. I have no hard feelings, and do appreciate the candidate's work, but just require more from an admin.
'''Oppose''' not feeling comfortable with candidate's CSD work per GB, along with lack of personal interaction with editors.
'''Oppose''' editor does not have enough experience where it counts to be an admin
While Sebwite claims to understand that an administrator is merely responsible for implementing the consensus decision at AfDs, his answers to questions 6 and 11 indicate that he is approaching AfD from the standpoint of a voter and not a closer. I am afraid that Sewbite will close AfDs based on his personal opinion of the article rather than based on the discussion. <font color="navy">'''
"If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article" - '''Very''' seldom is the personal opinion of the closing admin relevant to the result of an AfD. This is a fairly basic matter of policy, so unfortunately I think you need a bit more experience in terms of deletion policies. I think you do great work here however, and I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in a couple months. –'''
'''Oppose''' - per Juliancolton. Policy is incredibly important when it comes to deletion and adminship, and knowing but still contradicting (per the opposition between questions 6 and 10) the basic idea that the admin is the judge and the !voters are the jury leaves me rather uneasy with the candidate. As per others, the nominee would certainly be an excellent candidate once they gain more knowledge of policy, but I'd rather not see an admin just beginning to be comfortable with deletion policies. --
'''Oppose''' One of the most important parts of being an admin is being impartial. As such your answer to 11 alone is enough to for me to oppose. Admins who act in this way compromise the integrity of this site.
'''Oppose''' due to the answer to question 11. I know this user has lots of experience, but the answer to question 11 makes me oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Rather than my previous weak support, this is a firm opposition. The answers given since my support are disturbing. Answer 8 is frankly ridiculous, saying "I feel that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss my personal political views" when his user page is filled with userboxes saying to impeach politicians, who he supported in the last US presidential election, and what political party he is affiliated with. I honestly don't mind if a person gives their political beliefs on their user page but to do so and at the same time to say that they oppose presenting their political views looks like dishonesty and I have trouble trusting someone with such contradictions. I'll assume good faith with answer 9, that Sebwite means he might not disclose alternate accounts to bureaucrats because he would do so on the user pages of his accounts (though someone could interpret his answer to mean that he's not sure he'd disclose them in any manner). Answer 10 claims that administrators should always give a reason for declaring Keep or Delete on an AfD, and uses an essay that talks about voting as justification (even though an admin closing an AfD shouldn't be considering his close as a vote). Answer 11 just seems like the wrong answer, the correct answer should be that the decision is based on which side had the best appeal to policy, and ignore your own personal opinion. I don't have confidence that Sebwite could be trusted to properly close AfD discussions, and that is his first (and I assume primary) reason to request the tools. -- '''
'''Oppose''' (triple edit-conflicted) This has absolutely nothing to do with the pace or volume of contribution history. If anything, I see a slow, steady history of contribution to be an indicator of long-term investment in the project and trust. That said, the point brought up by those above is valid and a deal-breaker for me. If you have strong feelings on an XfD's subject, you probably shouldn't be closing the discussion in the first place—let alone casting a tiebreaking !vote.
Answers to Q6 and Q11 show that the candidate needs more experience and understanding on the AFD process. I have to agree with NW up there. ≈&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' also per the answers to Q6 (which basically dances around the question) and Q11 (sounds too dangerously indicative of a "supervote" as opposed to a "determination of consensus"). Q9 also worries me for some reason.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Sebwite but your answer to question 11 scares me a little. I trust you witht the tools however I think that you need to learn more about the AFD process. Personal opinions cannot affect your choice to delete an article or not. It needs to based off of a [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I belive that in a few months time these issues will be sorted out and you will be ready agian. Good luck in any future RFA.--<big>
'''Oppose''' based solely on answers to questions. I don't believe I have ever interacted with Sebwite. I was very favorably impressed by the candidate's answer to Q4, but the answers to Q6, Q7, Q9, and Q11 were disappointing. Taken together, those answers led me to conclude that this user has not fully absorbed Wikipedia policies and does not have a good grasp on the appropriate role of an administrator in closing XfDs. --
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Oppose]]''' - Answers to Q6 and Q11 show a disturbing lack of knowledge in this area. I can't support at this time, as I feel that Sebwite would not use the tools correctly. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">

When an AfD is evenly split between '''keep''' and '''delete''', generally the result is '''no consensus''' which results in keeping the article - there has to be a clear consensus for deletion (besides anything that falls under [[WP:CSD|CSD]], or in some special instances, [[WP:BLP|BLP]] issues). But it also means that you have to look extra close to the arguments both sides give for keeping or deleting, looking at the arguments on both ends (specifically to see if they back it up with policy and common sense) and decide from there. I'm sorry your RfA has to go down like this, but don't lose faith, apply in a few months with a stronger understanding of Wikipedia's policies &mdash; you'll be fine.
'''Oppose''' per 11. Giving this candidate the tools at this stage would ultimately not be in his interests. I can see him coming to grief. Best he waits a few months and tries again.
Now '''Strong Oppose''' per initial answer to q15, which shows that the candidate just doesn't "get" the concerns expressed by most of the recent oppose !votes. And revised answer to q6, holding that no consensus BLPs default to delete, isn't policy, and remains a hotly contested proposal at best. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)  '''Oppose''' per Q11 and implications in answers to some other questions conflicting with the ideal that the admin's role is primarily to implement community consensus (or lack thereof), a principle that goes well beyond XFD closings.
'''Strong Oppose''' Frankly, the answer to question 11 scares me... Personal opinions have no bearing on an admin's decision on whether to delete an article. It must be based on consensus. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions six and eleven.--
'''Oppose''' Answer to Question 11 is incorrect. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your answer to question 11 confirms my concerns from question 6, the reasons for this have been well covered by others above. A carefull read of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]] before coming back again with more experience of this area will hopefully allow you to be successful in the future.
'''Oppose''' I don't trust this user with the tools based on the boxen and the comments about overzealous deletion on his userpage.
'''Weak Oppose''' Although this contributor is active enough to be an administrator, he should reconsider his lack of participation on talk pages, and tend to be more on project pages and articles. Still, he makes a fine admin to me. However, the lack of participation on talk pages prevents me from a support.----<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
Per poor answers to questions and especially for, "If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article". Please wait a few months. <strong>
Per most above. Answers demonstrate the editor is not familiar with policy and norms. When closing an AFD, your job is to decide consensus, not cast a "tie-breaking" vote then following through on that vote unilaterally. If an AFD discussion is really split 50/50 not just in number of "votes" but in strength of argument, the default is keep whether you personally think it should be deleted or not. If the number is split 50/50 in number but one side is much stronger in policy than the other, the closing admin should close in favor of that side. Sorry, but you don't yet know what to do as an administrator so should get more experience in these areas and try again in 6 months or so. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' As per the concerns raised by NW and Atama.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, not yet. I have concerns about your level of activity - that in itself isn't reason to oppose, but combined with your answers it suggests that you aren't sufficiently well-informed about our current policies and practices. (For example, the answer to Q11 is wrong.) If you can get more experience with 'admin areas' like AfD, I will be happy to support in future.
'''Oppose''' Q15, the closing administrator should not be imposing their opinion on the AFD.  If an administrator assessing the consensus determines there is no consensus, that administrator should take off their administrator hat and !vote their opinion,  relist or close as no conssensus. Closing it per their opinion is not what their job is.  '''
'''Oppose''' Agree with concerns raised about injecting personal opinion in AfD closure, and lack of engaging in talk page interactions. '''
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) - The answers to questions are giving me too many concerns to support at this time.  If issues can be resolved in the future, a support vote could be likely.  Sorry.  Best, <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' per the lack of understanding on why you don't use personal opinion to close an AFD. In those circumstances, you close the discussion as "No Consensus" and keep the article. Showing any opinion in this closing openly will get you recalled and you will lose the tools.
'''Oppose''' (from support) Per Q11, you're supposed to evaluate the discussion not offer up your opinion. If you wish to do so, make a !vote to keep or delete and don't close it.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per answers to latter questions.
'''Oppose''' per Q11.
'''Oppose''' per above.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
{{ec}} '''Oppose''' - Q6 and Q11, mainly. I like the "blatantly not encyclopedic" CSD idea though. Anyways. Your opinion is ''not'' to get in the way with the discussion. I'm kind of saddened to see this one fail over a textbook case of what ''not'' to do.--
'''Oppose''' over anything related to "opinion". As someone who deals with basically everything AfD-- nominating, author contact, article improvements, withdrawing, discussion, topic research-- I am nauseated at the thought of an admin sitting and staring at what I may have spent several hours in total just "because". Admins are not referees. Mops cannot clear a room of people and throw their own victory celebration. Mind you, I know this probably happens more than it should, but it should be exceedingly rare and sometimes a really tough/controversial result is given. If I ever end up an administrator, I know I'll be able to see what people are trying their best to make a case for an article, and it worries me about how much I'm brushed off for a decisive close versus "no consensus". <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. Sebwite has been a great content contributor and put forth a very worth idea in their remarks about CSD above. But Sebwite stated that closing deletion discussions would be one of the administrative activities they would participate in, and their answer to Q11 therefore cannot be ignored. Administrators should not close deletion discussions they've participated in, and they should close deletion discussions by evaluating consensus (or the lack thereof), ''not'' by casting a deciding vote. Actually, your answer to Q11 really contradicts your commendable answer to Q10...strange.
'''Oppose''' Per question 11. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I know by now that you have learned from question 11... I feel bad that you have lost this RfA based on one answer, but being a neutral voice of reason is essential to being an admin.
'''Oppose''' with regret, per question 11. If an admin looks at the AfD with an eye to closure, they need to be neutral, and look purely at the comments left, and judge the concensus from that. Obviously, admins will have strong opinions on the deletion or keeping of some articles, and if this was one of those sitations, it is the role of the admin to make the appropriate !vote at AfD - and the leave the closure to another admin. I am also concerned that the candidate did not answer the follow-up to ''Question 9'' - explaining under which circumstances the candidate would ''not'' disclose alternate accounts to bureaucrats. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per now-stricken answer to Q11. I can understand that you've now learned from that, but knowing there may be numerous other things you have similarly mistaken views on, I can't bring myself to support. Sorry, and good luck - I'm sure you'll get the mop someday. <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[<b>
'''Oppose''' with recognition of the candidate's overall good intentions.  There are just too many things in their answers to the questions that make me uncomfortable, at this time. --
'''Oppose'''. Good intention, but just too many problems with his editing and his poor answers, particularly to Q11. Sorry, but good luck!
'''Opposer''' per answer to question 11. If you feel the need to override consensus and delete, don't' delete, but state your case on the page, and let a more impartial admin handle it.--
Deletion tends to generate a lot of tendentiousness in the encyclopedia, so it's important that admins get it right first time whenever possible.
'''Oppose''' Per Q9. "Depends on the situation"
'''Oppose''' per question 11. Discussion has been held and there was not agreement that BLP deletion discussions not ending in consensus can default to delete in the absence of a subject request. Even if a subject request is made, it's only a possibility, it's still left to the closing admin's discretion. The last misunderstanding of that caused enough trouble.
'''Oppose''' - ([[User:Smithers7/RfA|RfA Criteria]]) You don't show admin knowledge answering the questions. I can't feel comfortable handing you the broom. Sorry! '''<font face="Mistral"><big>
'''Reluctant oppose''', but I do hope the user takes the suggestions given here and runs again in a few months after which I will gladly support. --
'''Neutral''' Sebwite needs to study up on the CSD reasons, most of what I saw in the deleted contribs was not accurate.  db-author was used correctly a few time though.  I saw nothing nomnated for AfD, is there anything at all?
In March-June 2009 Sebwite authored and defended [[Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)]] which, in my opinion, demonstrated (past tense) Sebwite's misunderstanding of policies and top-level guidelines on the subject, severe US-centric approach to worldwide topics ... and other unacceptable flaws exposed on the [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (local interests)|talk page]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks)]] and [[Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill]], also from Sebwite. I'd recommend Sebwite to explain their ''current'' take on the subject. P.S. I de-facto retired from wikipedia, so this entry needs not be included in the vote count.
'''Neutral''': good editor but needs some more experience..
'''Moral Support, but Neutral''' Sorry, I don't think you are quite ready. I would suggest a closer per [[WP:SNOW]]--
Hmm, questions 6 and 11 give me a few shivers, as I just wouldn't trust sebwhite with the delete button. Going with neutral to avoid pile on. Come back in a couple of months and I'll be happy to support. Agree with Gordon here, suggest a snow closure. '''<em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting"><font color="navy">
'''Neutral'''. Can't support at this time, but I won't oppose this editor, either. Keep working on XFD and your knowledge of policy, and I'll be happy to support your next RFA. Best,
'''Neutral''' per a couple of the question answers, particularly 13.
Keen and thoughtful, but seems to have got distracted from editing into essay writing, which means Sebwite is thinking more about their views on what Wikipedia should be than how to work collaboratively with other editors, which is central to adminship. Needs to think more about closing deletion discussions, but I applaud the expressed willingness to explain decisions.
'''Torn''' - [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|I'd really love to support]] this editor, for his contributions, [[Wikipedia:Bare notability|essays]], etc., but he really needs more editing experience and communication in the community (read: more talk page experience, Rollback rights, etc.).
'''Early Support''' 50% main space edits, no silly user boxes, never been blocked, over the age of majority (if that still counts as an RFA plus or minus) - what's not to like? Oh, the edit count which will bomb this RFA into [[WP:NOTNOW]]. However that's another story - and this is a support and a nod at the future opposers. <b><font color="black">
'''<s>Moral</s> Support'''. I remember my own RfA &mdash; 1,000 edits and six months of experience were generally considered to be the standard back then (in the good old days of 2005). And I don't think the relentless raising of standards since then has necessarily resulted in a higher caliber of admins, either. So good luck in your future wiki-endeavors, and keep up the good work.
'''Weak Support''' You've been around long enough and done enough to justify adminship by the standards of when RFA was working. Weak because I'd have preferred to see more use of warnings after you revert vandals [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_hat&diff=prev&oldid=256026018 like this]. '''
Two years here, good number of article edits and you've not blown up the wiki. Support.--
'''Moral Support''' Your positive intentions are appreciated.
'''Support'''. Good, trustworthy contributor. This RfA probably won't pass, and I wish those who are opposing solely based on a meaningless four-digit number known as the "edit count" would reconsider or at least come up with a more compelling argument. But as a strategic note, Sephiroth, you should really spell-check your RfA next time.
'''Moral support''' for a good faith candidacy. -
When coming here I really did not think I would be doing something like throwing my name into the support section.  I thought of opposing and of going neutral, but I realized that the candidate really does have adequate experience. For the technical and policy side, you'll want to check out [[WP:NAS]] and [[WP:ARL]], but you'll be fine.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', per [[WP:WTHN]]. (Warning: Rant follows, apologies in advance.) This RfA is a perfect example of why, in my view, edit count requirements for adminship are ridiculous. Here we have a candidate who clearly knows his way around Wikipedia, has contributed plenty of content, and has no particularly objectionable edits. The ''only'' reason raised in the opposes below is 'hasn't got enough edits; NOTNOW, try again later'. But here we have someone who wants to help us out with administrative work now; why on earth should he be made to wait, or reach some arbitrary number of edits, before we allow him the tools? What possible benefit is there? Does anyone opposing seriously think he's not trustworthy now, but will be in six months, or once he reaches 3000 edits? This user should pass RFA, and the immense negative reaction to his nomination shows exactly why few candidates these days bother to submit themselves in the first place.
'''Support'''. This isn't a moral support, I actually don't mind this user getting the tools at all.
'''Moral Support''' This RfA is going to fail, that is a certainty. However, I think that you are going to be an excellent candidate for adminship '''in the future'''. I suggest you start taking a keener interest in the areas that you wish to work as an admin. If you have done that and come back in six months, you will have my support again.
'''Moral Support'''; any significant reason to oppose is due to 'not being here long enough', not any deficiency of character. As such I believe you would probably make a very good admin, just not right now. Soldier on through this RfA (if you want, it can get a bit soul-destroying), pick up any and all available criticism, act on those criticisms and run again in six months.
'''Support'''; Cons: lower than usual edit count, XfD - Pros: Good use of edit summary, plenty of time here (you don't have to edit to learn), common sense, level headed, friendly, and eager with good intentions.  One big pro I see is the strength in the IT field - that should not be overlooked.  That ability should carry more weight than it often does, it means able to get up to speed quickly.  I know it may end in a "TOSOON" outcome, but I'll throw my trust behind this candidate.
'''Support'''. I'm deeply disappointed by the editcountitis displayed in many of the opposes. 2 years of experience and good edits over that time shows someone that that is thoughtful and trustworthy. That there aren't many thousands of edits only shows that Sephiroth may have a more balanced life which is probably a good thing. Based on the quality of edits and lack of problems seen so far I assume good faith that Sephiroth can learn how to use the tools in any new areas and be careful with them. -
'''Support''', no evidence user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Arbitrary edit count is arbitrary. The candidate's contributions are for the most part of high quality, despite the fact that many have been produced by automated tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' - per Taxman who sums it up very well. As yet we have no examples of the candidate's "inexperience" hindering the project. Candidate seems trustworthy and wise. Good luck.
Assuming good faith '''support''' due to no memorable negative interactions and as candidate has never been blocked.  Best, --
'''Moral Support''' per Trusilver. You're a great editor, you just need some more experience. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' a bit weak given the lack of direct AfD experiance but not "moral" in that like Wizardman, I actually favor giving Sephiroth storm the tools now.
'''Support'''
'''Total support''' - per {{user|Terraxos}}. My trust in him + he will/would be a net positive = I support. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''' - No reason to assume user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Seems to have made some very good contributions and as Garion96 has mentioned there are no reasons to suggest tools will be abused. It doesn't matter how many times you've clicked save page, all that matters is the contribution made to that particular page.'''
'''Support''' Come on people (who oppose)! This user will not break the wiki. I trust him and I think self-nom is a sign of confidence!
'''Support'' This user has only just over 1200 edits. And so what? They are all good, and the user wants to improve the encyclopedia, and has the obvious ability to do so. Can we now finally break away from the obsession with edit numbers? --<font color="Red">
Everything checks out. WHy notktktk
You know what? '''Support''' for a user who won't abuse the tools, and who has nothing but good contributions. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''  My standard for candidates is the answer to two questions: 1. will this user break the wiki?  2. Will this user improve the wiki?  No in the first, yes in the second to you, Sephiroth storm.  Quality editing is more than edit counts.  I hope you'll stick around and RfA again in the future.  :)  <b>'''
'''Support''': per above.
'''Support''' - I believe that this user could make a good admin based on the altruistic approach for submitting your RfA.  As with the statements of others, edit counts are not a absolute measure of experience nor maturity and should ''not'' be used as the sole reason for dismissing a potentially beneficent administrator.  Should this RfA fail, please do not get frustrated and leave the project.  Continue to contribute to appease the "edit-counters" and try again.  You might also want to try [[WP:ADMINCOACH]].  Good Luck!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
Blah blah 'experience' blah blah blah, it's not like being an admin is hard and frankly most 'experienced' candidates are the worst ones, you know, the ones that spends hourss and hourss drama'ing it up at ANI. I can't see that there's any benefit in spending weeks Huggling. I prefer my admins to ''not'' be brain dead. Seriously, we have a polite, helpful editor here who's managed to edit for years without causing drama, I'm pretty sure he'll cope just fine with some extra buttons. '''
'''Support''' -
Appears to be a quality editor: I'm disappointed at the editcountitis reasons for opposition; but I'm even more disappointed at the amount of times [[WP:NOTNOW]] has been cited as a reason for opposition, because, based on my understanding of that essay, it doesn't apply to Sephiroth storm.
'''Moral Support''': Have interacted with him at the WikiProject Computing spectrum. calm and good editor, but I believe you need more experience for adminship. Since this RFA is supposed to not succeed, I give you my moral support --
'''Support'''. Clueful contributions. Unfortunately not enough in the areas needed to appease many. Not blowing up after the NOTNOW patrol pounced indicates a good temperament, too.
'''Support''': This user will make a good admin.
'''Support'''- For being [[WP:BOLD|Bold!]]
'''Support''': I looked through this users interactions with other editors and some of their contributions and feel cannot see them misusing the tools. AfD experience etc. is less of a concern (for me) because actual admin experience is best picked up as an admin. (I was planning on staying out of this one because of the low edit counts but am glad I took a closer look!) --
'''Oppose''' Experience issues. User is not ready.
'''Oppose'''. In your answer to Q1, you say you want to work at AFD. You have exactly four edits to XFD ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Wicca&diff=prev&oldid=153673845 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Wicca&diff=prev&oldid=153674915 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Wicca&diff=prev&oldid=153675268 3], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erin_McCarley&diff=prev&oldid=262352633 4]). Two of those four were refactoring your previous edit. Sorry, but at this time there isn't enough evidence for me to ascertain your level of understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures in the areas in which you want to work. What I've seen so far is good, keep it up and I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Moral oppose''', as per my comment above. --
'''Oppose''' - <s>Sorry, but 1,184 edits in 22 months is simply NOT enough experience.</s> Not enough experience in the areas candidate wants to use the tools in, plus the candidate's edit summary usage could be better.
'''Oppose''' per Useight. With all due respect to the candidate, I'd recommend withdrawal. Apologies.
'''Oppose''' per Useight. [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' User has fewer than 1200 edits in two years---and that appears to be with the benefit of using tools!  He has zero articles where he's made even 20 edits--while a few are meaningful, most of his edits are minor.  Has only five pages (in User Talk, Wikipedia Talk, or Article Talk) where he has over 10 edits.  This candidate doesn't even come close to the minimums of anybody who has passed an RfA in a long time.  Plus sparse answers to the questions. While he has been around for two years, prior to six months ago he didn't have a single month where he had 40 edits...  and only 4 where he had as many as 20---'''
'''Oppose''' I don't hold the nominee responsible for his supporters.  But he does not yet have the experience.--
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has little experience, per Balloonman's observations. Someday Sephiroth may be a good admin, but [[WP:NOTNOW|he needs more experience]].
'''Oppose''' per Useight and Balloonman. - Dan
'''Oppose''' He does not have enough edits to be able to make a accurate evaluation but from what is there I see someone who is far from ready. Per Balloonman mostly but additionally edit summary usage is very sporadic which to me indicates someone not fully invested in working with others with respect to communication and explanation of actions, key requirements for good editors - more so for admins.--
'''Not ready yet.'''The candidate has but a handful of deleted articles and only to AFD discussions that I can see. This is not sufficient experience for working with the deletion policies. I see no reports to AIV. The overall number of edits is about 1700. This is not sufficient overall experience in admin related articles or in article building for me to feel comfortable with support.
'''Oppose'''. Not a whole lot of XfD work as pointed out by [[User:Useight|Useight]].
'''Oppose/Moral Support''' - Not alot of edits in areas he wants to work. It's hard to see how he communicates with other people because his talk page goes back to 2007. Consider increasing your edits in adminy areas like [[WP:HD]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]] etc., wait a few months and then try again. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
NOTNOW.  Not a comment on the merits of the candidate, just not enough to judge work on vandalism/deletion areas.
'''Oppose''' for now - needs to hang around desired areas more.  Limited obvious vandalism-reverting/vandal-warning and limited xfd shifted me from "neutral leaning oppose."  Roughly 1000 edits since June and less than 200 prior to that is a good start but wouldn't pull me out of neutral territory without something special that made me want to say "we'd be a fool not to invent a time machine and give this guy the bit yesterday."  If your next 3-6 months are like the last 6 except you significantly increase your participation in the areas you want to use the admin tools in, you'll see a lot more supports.  On a personal note, don't restrict yourself to just xfd and vandal-fighting, put your toe in the water for some other admin areas too, you may find you like them, or at least you'll know you don't.
'''Oppose'''. Enthusiastic editor. However he should have a lot more discussion and collaboration with other editors, especially at AfD, prior to becoming an AfD admin.
very good user--
'''Oppose''' time is not experience, and the area you want to work in contains specialists that devote a lot of effort into the field. I don't think you are ready.
'''Oppose''', due to insufficient experience in the areas where the candidate says he wants to work.
'''Oppose'''. ([[User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria#Oppose|See RfA rubric]]), I look for contributions related to Q1 and your contributions. You clearly said you want to work with [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]] however looking at your contributions you haven't worked with it at all and I looked thru september (5 months). Also, many of your edits are minor. I appreciate your work however you don't work in admin-y areas. So I am going to have to say [[WP:NOTNOW]] and hopefully I can support you on your next RfA! =D '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' 2 years, 1,200 edits, I've been here 4 months and have 6,000 edits so that's definetely not good enough to be an admin. Try again because you are on the right track.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience in admin-related areas. —<sub>
'''Oppose''' 2 years is plenty of time but with only 1,200 edits I don't believe the user is active enough for these tools.-
'''Oppose''' I trust Balloonman's judgements; they are always based on thorough examinations.
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I must concur with Balloonman. I truly believe that you will be an admin one day, but honestly, not now. Sorry.
'''Oppose but keep up the good work'''  The nose is clean, the work is good, but the experience is not quite there...sorry, but that's just the way I see it at the moment. (
'''Oppose'''.  Sampled the nom's editing in the mainspace - not excited by the encyclopedic depth of the editing.  For me, an admin must have experienced substantial encyclopedic editing to appreciate the issues that may call for his/her action.  Maybe later.  --
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, particularly at AfD.
'''Oppose''' not now, but good for future.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
Not now. In the future, I hope.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''', while you have been around for years now. You need to be more active in the Wiki in both Mainspace and Projectspace areas. Since activity and passion are what makes good admins. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' can use more experience in the mainspace and probably more experience over at AFD. I say that because I usually trawl around there quite a bit and have not seen the candidate much at all, let alone enough for whom I would consider an "AFD regular".
Tough 'un. I fully agree with both Malinaccier and Balloonman's points above, and cannot draw my own conclusion on this one. Best of luck with your RfA. —'''
Moral support.  Hope that this isn't too negative an experience.
Moral support. Communication looks good, clue level looks good, but I'd really like to see more experience (and better edit summaries). Fortunately, both of these are easily fixed given a little time. I look forward to being able to support at a future RfA.--
(moving from oppose) The lack of experience is present, but not extreme. I would support if he had more, because all I can see is good things from him. I would oppose if I saw anything bad from a user with as little experience as this, but there is nothing bad to see. <font face="terminal">
'''Moral support''' - Good faith self nomination without any glaring red flags. Would need to familiarize themselves with policies, though.--
'''Support''' Good record  improving the encyclopaedia with gnomish edits.  Enough content building to show an understanding ,and the admittedly sparse talk page contributions always seem civil. In short,  no reason to think theyd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' sure, why not? --
'''Support''', no evidence user would abuse the tools.  I think this nom might have been a little too early, but if you can keep your current level of activity up (and involve yourself a little more in admin work), I see you becoming a fine administrator in the not too distant future.
'''Support''' - Self nomination is a brave move. Doesn't look like this user will be abusive. Good luck. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">
'''Weak Support:''' I think you will make a great Admin if you focus on '''Constructive Edits'''. Also consider Admin Coaching or Vetting. -
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is an article creator with rollback and awards who has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - Let's not kid ourselves - this is not going to pass. But if it did, I think it would be for the better. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Wikipedia isn't rocket science. Smart and pleasant chap with a reasonable concept of basic policy but also an obvious understanding of good and bad Wikibehavior.
'''Moral Support''' This RFA is unlikely to succeed, but I can see that you want to do good here and I respect that.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry but I usually look for a bit more experience in candidates.. and I most certainly did not do any vandalism when I was starting out btw, but that's just me. --
I'm not an admin who votes at RFA, but seeing your edit count and some of the tool servers we have, I don't think this RFA will succeed, most likely per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and lack of experience. I know you have been registered for more than 2 years now, but there's low activity going on in several areas fundamental for adminship. You mentioned in your answer to question number 1 that you want to work with article protection and vandal blocks. However, you've never made a report to [[WP:AIV]] and you've only made 2 protection requests which were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=315042823 declined][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=314974478]. . Also, you lack community interaction as shown on one of our tool servers, so we aren't able to easily evaluate your communication skills when it comes to conflicts and dispute. I don't think you really need the tools as much as others who do more admin-related tasks, but again, I'm not a regular voter here so I won't make any promises. '''<font color="navy" face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. The very fact that you have nominated yourself for adminship without apparently doing the due diligence research to know you have no chance of succeeding given your manifest lack of experience with Wikipedia in general (you've really only been editing for seven months; you're reverting vandalism without warning the vandals, have made 8 edits total to user talk pages; etc.) and administration related areas in particular (no edits to AfDs no CSD nominations, no reports to WP:AIV, etc.), is itself a reason to question your fitness for adminship. Possibly with incredible answers you could attempt to overcome the deficit, but your answers to the questions show little reflection.--
Two years tenure is a big plus, but as of the 1st of February this year your account had only made 16 edits, so I'm inclined to treat you as only really being actively part of our community for 7 months. Though in the past  I've supported candidates with similar tenure and number of edits to you, those candidates have tended to be types who learn by reading the policies rather than by making mistakes and being corrected.  I like the idea of a reformed vandal becoming an admin, and since you have a clean block record I suspect your your vandalism may not have been that bad. But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=283900166 this] was less than 6 months ago, which is a bit too recent for me. Also your deleted contributions include a number of non-free images which implies to me a lack of policy understanding in area in which you have been working. I'd be happy to support in a few months if you continue on your current path, but also show that you can move into new areas in a way that implies you've read the policies first. ''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience across Wikipedia. I think the answers to the questions above (especially 4 and 5) demonstrate a lack of reading around admin-relevant issues before the nomination. Also I am concerned about the ongoing image conflict as I think this shows a lack of readiness. And finally, I'm not at all happy about "little bit of vandalism when I was just starting out". I cannot accept that this was "like many users", and wonder how this would affect any actions taken against vandals if this user was given the tools. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''', but don't feel bad; some of our best administrators started out with RfA's like these. Also, for what it's worth, I can't find any vandalism by your account.   -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' per werespielchequers. Take some more time to familiarise yourself with the community and move on from any "bad" edits, then apply again in 3-4 months.
While we do need more sysops, I'm afraid that you're a little light on experience right now.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry,  I just don't think you're ready yet. However, do not become discouraged! Keep on trying, keep on improving the encyclopedia, and one day you will be ready. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
Not yet (although this does not qualify for [[WP:NOTNOW]] early closure). I agree with WereSpielChequers and Davidelit. Don't be discouraged, start reading up on some policy pages and become active in maintenance-related areas. That way you can gain experience and get a better feel for who an admin should be. As I see it, you actually don't have big red flags, although I cannot support at this point due to several issues and a lack of general experience. In this section you've received some good feedback, so I believe those issues can be resolved over time. Consider running for adminship after another few months, or perhaps contact another experienced editor and ask if they think you're ready at that point. :) Best,
'''Oppose''' Per the answers to the questions. I would defiantly suggest Admin coaching.  Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''. You're definitely on your way, that's for sure, but you're inexperienced as of yet. As per Q1, you want to work with blocking and protections, so I recommend you involve yourself at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]]. Also, I'd like to recommend looking over the [[WP:LOP|List of Policies]]. I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Oppose '''Not ready yet. I notice you have never participated in an RfA, which I think is an excellent way to find out what is expected.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but there's very little user talk to go with your reversions, nor mainspace talk showing evidence of cooperation with other editors. There are also virtually no edits until Feb 2009 (the last 8 months). Don't be disheartened, though. Work on it and try again later. <b><font color="green">
I respectfully disagree with
'''Oppose''', would like to see more experience. '''
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, your answers to the questions show a lack of understanding policy (ex: ban and block). With additional experience you may be ready for the sysop gig.
'''Oppose''' as the answers to most of the questions show a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to the policies involved with carrying out admin duties. I suggest participating in those areas regularly for several months, then trying again. I would likely support in the future should a better understanding of those policies be shown. ···
'''Oppose and Early Close''': You don't have enough experience and there is no way that this RFA will succeed.
'''Oppose''' Your experience is a little less than ideal, although that in itself would not lead to an oppose comment. But your answers to questions 4 and 5 are wrong, and the answers to questions 6 and 7 are quite woolly. These are policies which you must know as an admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, and your answers above are either incorrect and/or severely lacking in detail. Should you run again in the future (please do), look over the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|admin's reading list]] first, and go ahead and look up answers you're not sure about. You'll be able to refer to policies while an admin, we don't penalize you for doing so here. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
You don't quite have the level of experience I would usually associate with administrators.  However, a few months of showing that you have developed your knowledge will likely lead me to support a second RfA. <small><span style="border:2px solid #993333;">
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, and dont take this the wrong way, but I don't see a need for the mop. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't think you're ready yet.  Your answers will become more solid as you gain experience and understanding of policies and the general ethics involved.  I'd like to echo America69 as well. Hope to see you around in the future, though.  Hopefully in a year or two you'll be ready to come back and try this again. :)
'''not at this point''' - you are going to have to be able to explain yourself better with a bit more knowlege.  For my question you are thinking form the point of view of some one uploading a fair use image, but I was asking what does it mean for Wikipedia - is there a benefit, if so what is it?  You are right with admins may have to delete them, but what value do admins add to this and what does Wikipedia get out of it?
'''Oppose'' - Not right now, but please don't get disheartened. I agree with the opposers above. I do not see many edits out of the article mainspace to places such as talk pages, which means that your experienced in those areas, for example AfD, may not be as strong as one would like for an administrator. That does not mean you are not an asset to the encyclopedia &mdash; you definitely are &mdash; but I think you need some more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.  Please come back and reapply when you are more experienced.
'''Oppose'''. I don't get the feeling that you understand enough of policy to become an admin. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
I won't jump on the oppose wagon, but you don't have what's needed, ''yet''. Consider Admin Coaching or Vetting.
Seconded. I greatly appreciate the candidate's candidness w/r/t the block-ban distinction; however, I'm unable to support at this time per the concerns raised by the opposes. I'm looking forward to supporting in the future, once better policy knowledge is demonstrated.
I think some time answering some queries on the help page, would beef up/reinforce your knowledge of policies. Consider this a moral support though, happy editing and good luck!
I looked at a bunch of edits by this user, and they seem to be admin material to me. -
'''Moral support''' - This clearly isn't going to pass, but I feel that the opposition is a bit overstated, and encourage you to keep working at it.
'''Support'''. One <sub>(small)</sub> mistake should not torpedo the whole nomination.
'''Strong Support''' User has demonstrated abilities on talk page and I do believe that his mistakes were really just slight mishaps that unfortunately happened within the recent edits realm.
'''Support''' I want to say that I've seen you around, admire your work on AFD, and if you get a bit emotional at times, I think your heart is clearly in the right place and your reasoning is usually fairly sound (except, of course, when you disagree with me!). At the time I'm writing this, it doesn't look like this is going to pass, and I think that's something of a shame. <strong>
'''Strong support''' Seems fine. Adamantly discussing an article up for deletion doesn't seem especially problematic to me. Seems to be a collegial and collaborative contributor who is mostly human. Julian Colton's exacting standards should be disregarded as only he and I are are perfect. Also, that type of exlusionary approach to RfA discourages anyone who contributes in the trenches discussing controversial subjects and dealing with disputes. We don't need automotons. I have confidence that Shoesss will be a good admin and will know when restraint is called for. Many of our admins would do well with a reminder to demonstrate civility and to lead by example, but they should still be allowed to have opinions and be wrong (for example when disagreeing with me) on occasion.
'''Strong support'''  per Child of Midnight, per quality contributions and per good explanation re Julian's diffs. Still dont think vandal was the ideal word, even though it was used in a qualified comparison and not to label anyone,  but dont exspect even an admin to be word perfect all the time.
You know what, I will support here. I am agreeing with CoM here. Ok, JC's links are concerning and IMO a bit over the top, but apart from this, I cant see any major issues. I also like the communication skills and explanation of the issues. Also Shoesss is a good contributor, and I think will use the tools wisely, and make the right choices. Net positive here I think. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Moral support''' I quite like Shoessss, and while I am dismayed at some of the diffs provided below, I will note that I have seen this user handle extremely troubling articles without reacting adversely.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I really do not think the linked problems below are that serious.   The tone is a little aggressive, but not really out of line considering the usual around here, including many successful admin candidates.  I agree with those who think that admin courtesy standards need to go up a good deal, but it seems a little hard to express this so harshly to the detriment of the first candidate who comes along.   '''
Unfortunately, I feel I must oppose at the moment. While you're clearly an experienced editor and your work is appreciated, I don't currently believe you have the judgment and calm demeanor required in administrators. My diff below is indeed of major concern, but I see several other issues as well. Specifically: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lainz_Angels_of_Death&diff=prev&oldid=313972129 here] you reverted an established editor with an edit summary suggesting that his edit was vandalism. An admin needs to be able to tell the difference between good-faith changes and unproductive vandalism at all times in my opinion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pay_through_the_nose&diff=prev&oldid=315431991 Here], while not a big deal, your edit summary was unnecessarily intimidating. Similarly, at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick|this deletion discussion]], you come across as rather aggressive in that you often '''SHOUT''' in bold and allcaps. Sorry. –'''
I'm sorry but at the moment, no. You come off too aggressive and rude sometimes, and I just wouldn't want an admin who is rude and who doesn't properly explain the methods and procedures to other Wikipedians. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Oppose''' I've got to agree with the comments of those before me.  Juliancolton's phrase "calm demeanor" sums it up nicely, especially with the provided examples.  Moreover, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynne_McTaggart&diff=prev&oldid=317557350 this] seems to tread that "aggressive and rude" line too closely - just because you wink doesn't mean it's nice.  Things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pr3st0n&diff=prev&oldid=315613242 this summary] are uncalled for, as there is definitely no need to blame someone in an edit summary, especially given your own high rate of typos.  And I am concerned by your understanding of [[WP:N]] as expressed in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio-Zoids|Bio-Zoids AfD]].  <small>On a personal level, I'd say a good 90% of your edit summaries are just copy-pastes of your edits, which is less-than-helpful, and comes off as lazy.  And you should use the preview button to check for spelling errors.</small> ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose''' again. Sorry, but rudeness is ''not'' a quality an admin should have. And in my opinion ALL CAPS should not be used at all, as it comes across as aggressive and condescending. Your work is definitely appreciated, but if you want to become an admin you've got to be a lot calmer. '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Oppose''' per JC. Tact is necessary in an admin. -
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament. '''
Per Juliancolton. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Reluctant and weak oppose. You've been here a long time, and have a clean block record (the 2007 incident was an admin mistake that was reverted in minutes). I liked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Arvind+K+Singh&timestamp=20090825160807&diff=prev this] (admins only I'm afraid) where you made some improvements to an article even after it had been nominated for deletion. But the examples above do concern me, especially those related to communication style. ''
'''Oppose''' per Julian.  I didn't really get past the diff he posted as after I read through that entire deletion discussion I feel that you do not possess the correct mental aptitude for the mop at this time.
'''Oppose''' Per JC et al. <strong>
'''Oppose''' - per JC. Admins need to be calm, and have good judgement, both of which are qualities I'm afraid you are lacking in at this time.--
'''Oppose''' - I don't have links, but all of your inputs to AfDs that I have read have been passionate, overly sensational and occasionally irrational debate. Even as I look through your last fifty contributions, I see an example in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick]]. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' - Julian's links, primarily your conduct at places like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick|this AfD]], show behavior that is not becoming of an admin. It's very important for an admin to have a relatively good, calm demeanor; getting upset in discussion/debate with others and using hints of [[WP:SARC|sarcasm]] does not do well to keep a situation constructive and cool-headed, and I'm seeing evidence of that with your contributions. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' -  Lacks ConstEdits.
'''Oppose''' Originally I was learning toward support because I've seen you in AfDs and CSD and you do an excellent job there but I read your old RfAs and question #3 was answered completly differently in your first RfA compared to this one.  In your first, you admit to conflict in [[Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom|this article]].  The fact that it happened so long ago wouldn't have bothered me but it seemed you weren't upfront with it.  Also, JC brings up some excellent points about pointless editing.  Your answers were great, but it doesn't seem you always stick to them.  I think if you apply [[WP:DGAF]] to your editting, your next RfA might pass.--
'''Strong oppose''' - Very unhappy with the diffs listed in Julian's oppose. Not just the diffs, but the way you acted in the larger scenarios surrounding them concerns me greatly too. I expect admins to stay calm and to have good communication skills, both are questionable per Julian's diffs. <b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - concerned with civility and shouting on-wiki. Good edits however and keep it up! :D --
'''Oppose''' per Julian, et al. Although your edits are good, it seems to me that you often come across as agressive and/or rude, and I've noticed that these emotions have clouded your judgment on numerous occasions. If you work on not letting your emotions interfere with your judgment and editing, your next RFA might pass.
'''Oppose with <s>Moral Support</s>''' I have a great deal of respect of Julian, and I feel he summed up my position in a fairly decent way. I am sorry to oppose, and would like to tell Shoessss to keep up the good work, and possibly one day he may recieve the mop.
'''Oppose''' Plenty of problems, but the answer to Q5 is particularly perplexing. —
'''Oppose''' I need an admin I can faithfully look up to. I have the same problem too, but an admin needs to remain calm and professional at all times.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick]]. This is not how an admin should go about a situation like this. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Not because of competence, but demeanor. While I don't doubt that Shoessss possesses the knowledge necessary to help ease the load at AfD and CSD, I can imagine him blowing up or at least deeply offending someone who disagrees with the way he closes deletions. If he wants to work at AIV, sometimes confused new editors get reported there and I don't see any evidence that he would be willing to treat them with the care needed. -- '''
'''Oppose''' You may know your stuff but unfortunately, as I see it, your temperment cancels it out. To be an admin you need to act professional and I cannot see that from you at this time.
Temperament issues. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Tavix.  Wow.
'''Oppose''' per Tavix and the extreme badgering that is evident in that AFD. Present information supporting your argument, answer any questions politely and let the discussion run its course. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Tavix. Just weird.
'''Oppose''' – I'm troubled by the Juliancolton examples. Everyone makes mistakes and has a bad day but the candidate's response is defensive instead of apologetic. I easily found more conflict as well. Multiple comments [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ding_Day| in this AfD]] with shouting and put-downs of two different established editors. Then there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoessss&oldid=304870197#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Tuan_Nguyen this] confusing tale. I don't know the final outcome as the article doesn't currently exist, but the response to mistakes by two editors seems rather poor to me, especially the "AGGGGGGGGGGGGG".
'''Oppose''' – I was going to remain neutral on this, but after reading the evidence that [[User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] provided above, I'm now being draw to oppose, and almost a strong oppose at that.  I feel that everyone now is under the same agreement that this users aggression is the main issue here.  Perhaps withdrawing the RfA and offer the user some coaching techniques on how to avoid such aggressive behaviour would be feasible.
'''Oppose''' - Purely on account of a general temperament that comes across in more than a few recent examples.
'''Neutral''' Per Julian, I'll try and revisit before the RfA ends.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
Unsure after reading what you wrote in Julian's link. '''
'''Neutral FOR NOW''': Edits are good, AfD work is often challenging which is both a + and a -.  What I am trying to determine right now is ''pattern''.  What I mean is that I generally have no issues with ''occasional'' "incidents" - we all get pushed to limits sometimes, and as such those occasional situations disturb me less than if I see a longer-term pattern.  It takes some digging. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' You're a decent contributor, but you need to be more calm. Not going to pile on the oppose. I would suggest withdrawing early.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>[[User:LAAFan/Guestbook|sign]]</sup> <sub>
'''Neutral''' From the contributions I looked at your editing is very good, but your tone in communicating is too aggressive for an admin.   It just takes stepping back and rereading before posting.  I understand the last part of your answer to Q8, but I think it would be stick with this account and continue to edit and work on those thing that have been identified.  Then after editing for a while, have an [[WP:ER|editor review]].  You can also try [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|admin coaching]] or look into the new [[Wikipedia:VETTING|vetting]] area.  I hope you decide to stick around on your current account and work through the items identified.  '''
'''Neutral''' Ehh...there's good things are there's bad things. I'm just in the middle.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
I haven't really read anything else here...but in your answer to Q7, why did you feel it necessary to link [[WP:editor|editor]]? Do the people at RfA not know what editors are? One link is a nitpicky thing to oppose over, but seriously... why? <b class="Unicode">
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor, but a little hasty sometimes. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Intelligent editor, but might not make a good administrator due to issues raised--especially with demeanor. '''
'''Neutral''' Moving from support following the diff(s) offered by UncleDouggie. In a closer run race, I'd move to oppose but I think that's unnecessary given the inevitable outcome of this RfA.
The combination of your "happy vandal killing" phrase on your talkpage and the nomination statement with Q2 promising us "vandalism sprees" nearly put me in the oppose section (I'm assuming from your editing record you meant "vandalism cleanup sprees"). But you have a clean block log, I've gone through the last month of CSD tags and I think they were pretty good. I saw one where {{tl|db-band}} would have been technically more correct than {{tl|db-person}}, but to find fault I need to be as pedantic as that. Also I liked your responses to mistakes such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A98.198.83.12&diff=314185024&oldid=314183955 this]. ''

'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Per relatively low edit count, particularly in project space/admin related experience, and the overall duration you have spent editing Wikipedia.
I strongly disagree that this is a [[WP:NOTNOW]] case as suggested above, but I'm still afraid I can't support. Personally, I felt no inclination to read on past "...I've wanted to be an Admin, it's my ultimate goal in Wikipedia...". Becoming an admin should never be one's "goal". This, combined with a relative lack of experience, leads me to oppose. Your anti-vandalism work is certainly appreciated, and I'd be happy to support in a few months once you reconsider your "goals" on Wikipedia and gain a bit more overall experience. Good luck! –'''
'''Oppose''' (redacted by →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#4B0082;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#4B0082;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</small> Obiviously, not yet. Still Zalgo is coming. --<strong>
'''Oppose''' Per Julian above. Keep at it though. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Sorry, no. Per Julian--seeing adminship as a goal is [[WP:MMORPG|bad]], not enough consistency in your contribution amounts, almost 50% of your contributions are to user talk pages, and you have almost no projectspace contributions. Please come back in six months after addressing those concerns. →&nbsp;
NOTNOW or otherwise I agree that the "ultimate goal" bit put me off straight away. Nothing concerning on talk or archives, clean block log etc. but general inexperience concerns and flacid answers to the questions lead me to oppose ''at this time'' (which ''is'' kind of what NOTNOW is about) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
While not all editors [[User:Matheuler/adminship|(myself included)]] agree completely with the specific criteria laid out above by iMatthew, nearly all editors do desire to see a sufficient level of "knowledge and experience".  Also, per Julian, your comment regarding adminship being your "ultimate goal" is (unintentially, I'm sure) offputting.  In examining your work, I do believe that you are a very valuable asset to the Wikipedia community, and I am sure that you will continue to be a productive member.  Thank you for your candidacy. —
'''Moral support''' if you really want to be an admin, I suggest making lots of good contributions in the coming months and then in late [[January]]/early [[February]], come back and have another shot. You can do it. You'd probably want a bit more experience though.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
'''Support''' - Obviously as the nominator for this editor as per my above listed reasons.
'''Support''' - With the understanding, that he'll avoid the [[Ayn Rand]] article.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand#Snowded]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand#Snowded_topic_banned_and_warned]] are too recent for me at the moment. <font face="Arial">
I have to agree with PeterSymonds here regarding the ArbCom case. Sorry, –'''
As per the edit warring related arbcom case highlighted by Peter Symonds - simply too recent. Sorry. Also - err - some answers to the "optional" Q's 1 -3 wouldn't go amiss prior to transclusion to be honest.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I too was thinking along the lines of PeterSymonds. Much too recent for me. -
'''Oppose''' I also feel those events are far too recent. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
Me too. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - Anyone with several ARBCOM cases either about them or related to them shouldn't be applying to be admins.
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with above.
'''Neutral''', inclined to '''support''' contingent on answers to questions above, and [[WP:AGF|no reason]] to believe that the candidate won't abide by [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Snowded topic banned and warned|RFARB]]. Cheers,
'''Oppose''', with only 37 edits, the candidate isn't ready for adminship yet due to lack of experience on wikipedia.

'''Support''', yes, we do need more backlog cleaners. --
'''Support''' Has my trust. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' Spongefrog is an editor who can be trusted. He has a humorous way of getting things done, which is a big bonus. He has matured into an experienced editor, willing to help others. I have complete confidence that he will not misuse any of his powers, which I feel is the criteria to judge here. '''
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Good contributions and an easy going personality. Certainly.
'''Support''' I think we need more humorous admins who realize their responsibility and never push their pov And SP is one of the best editors out here--
'''Support''' Great editor, has been here since February, and has almost 7,000 edits.
'''Support''' <s>good</s> great editor, somehow manages to keep the majority of his edits on the mainspace despite a million edit to his talk page. Very deticated and all around impressive. (great sense of humor as well)--<big>
'''Support''' Enthusiastic and positive user, good contributions. Being an admin aint [[Quantum mechanics]], I'm sure you'd do fine.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. :( You said you wanted to work in the deletion category, but I see a few problematic AfD comments recently that show me you may not be fully aware of a couple policies that are truly vital to how Wikipedia functions. Things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Mess_of_Iguanas&diff=prev&oldid=321731541 this] where you "mixed policies" is a little worrying, [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] are ''crucial'' to how we build this project. Another few, recent (I'll link if asked) "per nom" comments that don't really help AfD. Clean block log, that's good, and your [[User talk:Spongefrog|user talk]] seems a little [[WP:MYSPACE|myspacey]] at times. [[WP:NOTNOW]] for me, sorry. :( <span style="font-weight: bold; color: #404080">
I have seen your around the wiki quite a bit, and my general impression is that I am unsure whether your have the requisite maturity to be an administrator. <font color="navy">'''
I've seen you around. I think you do some good work, but I get a sense that you have some maturity issues. Some of your AfD !votes can be disconcerting, as you mention "policies" but don't actually link to them (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAaron_Krach&action=historysubmit&diff=321626791&oldid=321512785  example][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prism_%28fictional_planet%29&diff=prev&oldid=321553871  s]) I think you need to think a bit more before you post things. If you do your best to think everything out just a bit more carefully (no paranoia, plz :) you'll be more than ready in six months. Hope to see you back here soon, '''
Per NW. I have general concerns about maturity and [[WP:CLUE]]. This is mainly evidenced by a lot of MySpacing on your talkpage with a certain group of editors. To be honest, by now a person of admin potential would have backed away from repeatedly chatting with these users who have been warned about [[WP:NOTMYSPACE]]. It would also be good if you gained a bit more experience. I agree with Ceran that it might help to think through your actions/comments, too. Apply feedback from this RfA over several months, and you might be ready for adminship at that time.  Best,
I agree with all of the comments above me. You're not ready yet. Sorry, '''
Per IMatthew.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per JamieS93; maturity concerns.
Sorry, but I agree that there are significant maturity concerns. I'm also a bit concerned at the above comment, which seems to indicate that you view RfA as a strict win/lose situation. Please consider the advice you've received and wait six months or so before filing another request. –'''
'''Oppose''' - sorry as well. You look to be a good contributor but I share the concerns about maturity with some of other editors opposing. Please accept the constructive criticism received in this RfA and if it doesn't pass, come back and try again when you are ready to and you think that you have addressed the areas of concern.
Per Juliancolton.
'''Oppose''' for the reasons above. In addition, something seems fishy here, enough for me to not trust you. There is something too similar about your RfA and the one of the other currently open RfA's for [[User:Katerenka]]. There was some drama surrounding a group of possibly socking editors last week (which I followed through their unblock requests) who claim to be friends editing from the same IP's. You and Katerenka were both tangentally involved, which is no big deal, but it gave the appearance of you both being part of the same clique of editors who had been blocked. It makes me nervous enough to oppose you.
'''Oppose''' as per GrooveDog
'''Oppose''' Per GrooveDog and JamieS93. The maturity concerns are something I can't overlook. Removing myspacey material from both your userpage or talk page is a start. Also, badgering opposers might make more people oppose.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per GrooveDog, simply not ready yet. ~
'''Oppose''' - Wikipedia is not a game or a social networking site; a review of candidate's talk page indicates s/he believes otherwise ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spongefrog&diff=prev&oldid=320623569 example]). In addition, we all change our minds, but I think a more carefully thought-out AfD entry could have waited the three minutes it would have taken [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FA_Mess_of_Iguanas&action=historysubmit&diff=321731541&oldid=320971754 here], so as to avoid potential confusion. A better understanding of the community's position on various policies is required for someone who will be implementing them. Also, [[WP:SARCASM|sarcasm]] really doesn't work around here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Pending an answer to Q8. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Good contributor and helpful, but must oppose due to major concerns about maturity. --
'''Oppose''' (switching from neutral): I was rather hoping I'd see something that would cancel out the maturity issues, but after reading Spongefrog's comments at this RfA I think this is not the time to hand him the admin tools. Some more experience would definitely help. ≈&nbsp;
'''oppose''' - I do not trust this user.
'''Oppose''' - Can I withdraw? [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Lord Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''': Underneath all the humour and the mess he calls user space is a solid, serious editor, dedicated to the good of the encyclopedia.  This can be difficult to spot, especially for editor's who have not previously dealt with Spongefrog, and is further obscured by a cluster of other editors who tend to hang around his talk page.  Nevertheless, I think Spongefrog is admin material.  But he is not ready yet.  I am not overly concerned by his mistakes over policy, although this is serious it is easily corrected, any fool can go away and learn the policies by heart.  What is more of a problem is that he lacks confidence and will often make a pronouncement and then immediately contradict it or doubt it in a following post.  Confidence is only going to come with maturity (and doing your homework reading the policies).  So yes, but not yet.
'''Neutral'''. I really like this user, very friendly and humerous. I wish I was as witty! However, little too myspacey as mentioned in the opposes, and a little inexperienced, but if every user was like you, everyone would get along! :) '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
Time to put this one back to work. ++
(ec) '''Support''' Per answer to Q4, shows that he understands his mistake and has moved on from it. I highly doubt that he'd abuse accounts again.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
I'm hoping the tide this week is one of understanding and second chances. This user did his time, continued to make great contributions despite any 'stigma' and I am extremely confident that he will make a good administrator. I would also like to say that his willingness to admit the mistake beforehand shows that he is doing his best to show transparency and good character. Here's to second chances and I '''strongly support.'''
'''Support''' I have been leaning this way, and the answer to Q4 reaffirmed my rationale for supporting Steve: He has learned from his mistake. He did a very irresponsible, immature, and ultimately, stupid thing. However, he did his time, and sat out his ban peacefully, and without trying to use sockpuppets to evade it. For months since, he has made constructive contributions, not only to articles, but also to AIV, and discussions. In what is normally considered recent history by RfA voters, I see no major issues. So I ask myself and others these questions: Has Steve learned from his mistakes? I think so. If he has, is this enough? Arbcom gave him a ban, a punishment that I can sort of say that I know how it feels, since I had no computer for just half a month last year, and no internet for a month a few months ago. But I can still only imagine what it must feel like to be able to see what is going on at Wikipedia, and still not participate in it for '''six months'''. I believe that he has been punished enough, and since he has learned from his mistakes, there is no reason to think that he would abuse the tools. Is there any reason unrelated to the ban to not give Steve adminship? I find no reason, but I am open to comments from others.--
Essentially per Res2216firestar, who has said it better than I ever could.
Would make a good use of the administrative tools. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
I'll support Steve. I'm surprised that he'd been banned for 6 months, I'd never imagine him to compromise somebody else's account. It was a terrible mistake, but one I'm positive he'll never make again. He's been and will be a lot more cautious in making decisions.
Provisional, weak (very) support.  Will definitely revisit later.  Please don't withdraw this if it goes poorly until you think you have exhausted all possible feedback.
Per Res2216firestar. Here is someone who did something stupid, and has come back to earn the tools the right way. As a "reformed vandal" myself, I'm going to say '''support'''.
'''Support''' Steve is hard worker, and we could use his skllls in the admin area.
'''Support'''. While there have been problems in the past, Steve seems to have worked through them and moved on to become an excellent contributor. Based on the answers given above, I think Steve has learned his lesson, and due to his experience, will make a good admin. I also agree with the comments from Law and Res2216firestar. ···
'''Support'''. I believe the lesson has been taught and learned (the hard way). Will Steve having the tools benefit the project? Yes. No doubt there. I'd hate seeing people piling opposes because of that single event, disregarding the rest of Steve's records. --
'''Support''' knows his shit. --
'''Support'''.  It was a learning opportunity.  Perhaps of epic proportions.  But I don't believe writing off any good faith contributor forever does us any good, and I think it's fair to say Steve is ready and able to resume his work as an administrator.  '''
'''Strongly''' As someone who intended to nominate. The community has, rightfully, shown that the comment "none will pass RFA in years" is clearly '''not''' what we want. Forgiveness is a good choice at times. Further, Steve clearly learnt from the event, didn't leave, didn't go using SOCKS or RTV. He held his hands up. We need a few more admins who can realise when they've made a grievous mistake and meet it head on with honesty, transparency and dedication. Further, rather than focusing on the negative aspect, if the password sharing incident had never happeneed Steve would have passed RFA months ago given his clue, quality editing and capability.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per Res2216firestar. I think we can trust him. <strong>
'''Strong Support'''. Steve has made thousands of good edits. The fact that there have been no major incidents since being unblocked about 6 months ago clearly shows that he has repented his ways, and should be trusted with the admin bit. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I'm trusting that there is genuine remorse for mistakes made in the past, and am willing to give Steve the benefit of the doubt. Therefore support on the basis of the many, fine contributions. <b><font color="green">
Just don't do anything stupid this time, eh?
'''Support''' - Has had very good interaction with the community and puts its needs first.  Pleasant to deal with, knowledgeable and fair minded.  Has learned from his mistakes and moved on.  I believe Steve would make a great admin.
Has grown incredibly maturity-wise. I feel he is now more than ready to take on the tools. '''
No concerns here. Valid judgment issues were raised but I've never seen evidence of anything malicious amid all the problems that came up last year - and since then Steve's been a generally excellent Wikipedian. Could definitely do a worthwhile job with his own set of admin tools, he has long since proved he's here for the good of the encyclopedia. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong Support'''. I have had the opportunity to sit down with Steve in real life and discuss his views on Wikipedia, its policies and his role amongst the rest of the community. He explained to me the details revolving his participation and the unfortunate circumstances that led to his ban. I have honestly come to the conclusion that he is not only trustworthy, he is a really valuable asset to this community. Steve: thank you for sharing your views with me. You'll make a great and wise sysop, brother. Godspeed --
I wanted to wait until NW revealed what they wanted to say, but it seems it's already there. I don't think something that happened a year ago should be held against you, especially when you have since demonstrated that you can be trusted. I really like your answers to the questions, and could find no concerns looking through your contributions. Good luck.
Obviously. <small><span style="border:1px solid #339933;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Lar. --
'''Support''' - Too many Wikipedia editors are incapable of either admitting when they are wrong or apologizing when they screw up.  Steve has done both.  Much like Lar above, I feel it is high time we put Steve to work with the mop and broom!  —
'''Support''' The opposes aren't 100 percent convincing to me.
'''Support''' - Seen him around. Apparently, he was banned, but, unlike others, admitted he was wrong, and went on to useful contributions.--
'''Support''' - Absolutely.  This user was an asset to the Simple English Wikipedia, and while he was there, he acted completely level-headed, calm, collected, and rational.  All good traits for an administrator to here.  Here, he has kept the same attitude and also has been able to deal with all new drama in a dignified manner.  Answers to the questions are brilliant.  Yes from me.
'''Support'''.  Any other editor, I'd oppose big-time for the account sharing stuff.  But this guy is too level-headed and contributes too much to this project.
Per Stifle.
'''Support''' - per Lar.
'''Support''' meets my personal qualification criteria - not a wanker or a bullyboy, not a member of ARS and have experience in plenty of areas. --
'''Support''' Res2216firestar said it better than I ever could. '''<font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' This is a long read, but after looking over edits and reading through all the discussion concerning the ban, I think he can be trusted with the tools.  '''
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Edit-conflicted Support''' I was on the fence here. While Majorly's oppose voiced my original concerns well, I agree with Law's more. To echo him, "Here's to second chances". I think we're in the clear here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. I'm not convinced by the opposes. And I'm convinced by Res2216firestar.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;On due reflection, after weighing the past against the present. --'''''
'''Support''' Absolutely yes! Great candidate. No worries.
'''Support''' Yes, a great candidate and does an excellent job on WP:24. True, he made mistakes, but it's time to let it go.--
No way, no how. You cannot be trusted, period. You were banned for sharing an admin account, and while you were banned you did the same thing on Simple. And if memory serves, you ''did'' sock around your ban; I believe Deskana or Lar has the relevant information. There is no way for you to regain the trust you squandered. →&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose''' - Sorry Steve. I think you are a good editor, but I don't believe that adminship is the correct course of action here, after only six months after the ban. <s>There is more I want to say regarding Roux's oppose, but I want to wait to clear it with the appropriate parties first. I'll be sure to expand on this within a few days.</s> <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose.'''   I've read [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive164#Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing|WP:AN/Archive164#Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing]] in its entirety and can only hope that Sam Korn's comment there ("None of them will pass RFA in years") proves true.  — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC) <br> <small>'''Addendum'''</small>:  the other two did regain tool access:  PeterSymonds [[:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2|here]] and [[:User:Chet B Long|Chet B Long]] (now known as Coffee) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=300064220#Request_for_resysopping:_User:Coffee here] ([[:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chetblong 2|Chetblong]] is presumably someone else).   —
Has already demonstrated very very poor judgement.  Question 4 is very worrisome.. this easily refutes those who assert that he has learned.   Lessons like this tend to fade over time.. if he didn't learn it immediately after the first incident, what makes anyone think he's got it now??  Maybe he's too nice a guy or something- but if this means he can be easily manipulated by others into doing stupid things, the last thing we want is him having the buttons.  If he's not yet an adult, I'd be willing to consider this question again, in 5 years or so, whenever he's grown up.  If he's already an adult, then I find it hard to believe this problem will ever improve.
Steve seems overly compulsive and thin-skinned even by admin standards.  Sock puppetry shows is a sign of addiction.
''' Oppose'''. Steves reply to Question six  takes too much for granted..assuming you have the trust of the community is a step too far. imo.
Sorry, no. Steve still does not have my trust after coming off his ban, and I have lingering worries about maturity issues as well.
'''Oppose''' per most of Roux's statement, though I'd prefer to not say "never". Getting banned for doing something... then doing again within a few months, especially something as dumb as account sharing, strikes me as incredibly stupid. Please come back some time later with a longer good track record. I'm willing to forgive errors, but there's only so many errors someone can make before the line is drawn. '''
''' Strong oppose''' - absolutely not. He's not to be trusted, has caused problems on other wikis, and has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment. From past experiences, I simply cannot trust the guy, sorry -
'''Oppose'''. Most editors have an occasional display of poor judgment. Steve's was considerably below par.
'''Oppose''' I do not trust this editor.  Any editor that blatantly, and knowingly edited outside of policy numerous times should not be an admin.--
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I have to. I can trust you in some sense and think that you'd be decent. However, I, at the same time, cannot feel that you can be trusted in general. It would have been better for Petter if he had told people to begin with about the incident, but he was mostly a victim. You, however, should never have been followed through with the temptation. Adam and Eve were stripped of Eden for trying to steal divine knowledge. You are merely kept from few buttons for stealing them. There is a right way, and a wrong way. You chose the wrong way and we have enough people who haven't and still do not get access to them. I also remember that your response to being blocked was constant complaining about it as if you didn't deserve to be blocked. I have no confidence that you ever thought that what you did was wrong, when it was one of the worst kinds of wrongs you could do.
When I first saw this RfA I was leaning to supporting it but I didn't realize that Steve Crossin had logged into another person's account on the Simple Wikipedia ''while under'' his ban here on Enwiki. At the same time, I think the other person was foolish for wanting Steve Crossin to do it, but Steve Crossin should have known better than to log into the account while having deep reservations about it ''and'' being under a ban for the same thing: I am surprised he did that. On a lesser note, I remember having some concerns with [[User:Steve Crossin/RFAQ|these stock questions]] he [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_176#Questions_-_thoughts.3F wanted to ask on some RfAs] which he explained were about judgment; though I'm glad Steve Crossin decided not to ask those questions, as I don't like templated questions. I also wasn't sure about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=prev&oldid=293009147 this], and most certainly was not happy with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2&diff=prev&oldid=283323383 this] (which came across to me as somewhat spiteful and kicking someone down when their RfA was clearly not going to pass). I wish to say, however, that I do think that Steve Crossin is a great editor, and that I do not agree at all with any "never" or "absolutely not" comments, as I believe that Steve Crossin is immensely productive, experienced, and also honest, and should not have his mistakes held against him permanently if it's clear he's learnt from them: I have no grudge against Steve Crossin, and would be willing to support a future RfA should he decide to run again and I don't have any (or many) concerns left.
'''Oppose''' per several people, such as Majorly. You have been a good editor since the ban was lifted (although I've seen little issues here and there, some of them possibly maturity-related), but there are still broad judgement problems. Your decision to access another's account at Simple Wikipedia, doing the same thing that you were living through a ban for, was frankly a plain stupid decision. You seem too persuadable by interpersonal things, and not reliable and account privacy-minded like an admin should be. Your general response to being blocked, at first, was not a good one. I'm glad that you've regretted the actions and moved forward with productive editing since that time, but it seemed to have taken you a while to be openly remorseful for what you did, and renounce the stupid judgement behind it. Maybe this would be different in the future. But not now; it was not long ago that you came off the ban, and too many things tell me "not trustworthy", which is the root of being an administrator. Sorry. Good to see that you'll continue editing anyway (the acceptance note), and I wish you the best for the future.
'''Oppose''' We are quite lucky here. Normally we have to calculate whether the person would use the admin tools responsibly based on evidence of their actions as a user. Here we can base on how they used them before. I also oppose for "Steve Crossin"'s wellbeing - I seem to recall he claimed the banning incident caused him to pass out at his computer, so we can't risk that again. Finally, I'm uneasy with people who use usernames that look real when they are not their actual name '''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry but the trust issues brought above are too prominent to ignore.
Reluctantly.  I'm torn here, but I'm surprising myself by opposing instead of abstaining.  I believe in second chances, and I don't question your dedication.  But I'm really disappointed in A4.  You've had a year to think about what happened back then, and come up with a description/explanation. But A4 is really poorly explained, contains what I consider to be a fair amount of spin, and seems to dwell on (paraphrasing) "costs outweigh the benefits", when the ''correct'' answer, IMHO, is "there were absolutely no benefits".  I don't care too much about one IP edit during the ban, if that's all there was.  I don't understand all the subtle complexities involved in the Simple English thing, and your intentions may have been innocent, but it does add to my unsettled feeling that adminship now would be too soon, and probably is what nudged me from abstain to oppose. Luckily, you've said in many places that you don't really care if this succeeds or not, so I don't have to feel guilty hurting your feelings. --
'''Strong Oppose''' I was considering supporting on the hope that you'd figured out the problems that led to your ban and wouldn't repeat them, but with the issue Roux brings up from Simple I find I can't. You either are incapable of learning from your errors (namely, using someone else's account w/ or w/o with permission is a Bad Thing<sup>TM</sup> that causes people to lose trust in you) or lack free will and/or proper judgment (it takes about 10-15 seconds to click "Reply", type "No.", click "Send" and then "Delete email" in most email clients; just because someone is stupid enough to email you their password does not mean you should use it, much less make an edit with it). Both of these qualities are critical for administrators. If you lack one, or as seems more likely both, I cannot support you for adminship. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
The candidate seems to be an exemplary editor.  I'm just going to stay in neutral for a few days to make sure no opposes come up.  Otherwise I'll switch to support soon per [[User:Matheuler/adminship|my criteria]]. —
I don't know for which devil I'm playing the advocate here, but Steve Crossin ''did'' get a second chance--there was an end to the ban, and he has regained all the rights and privileges of editorship. "Forgiveness" for past wrongs doesn't mean the same as "giving more privileges which could potentially be abused"--I hope the modifier and the modal indicate that I don't expect Steve Crossin to abuse those tools, should this pass. For now, I also am torn, between the sentiments expressed in the third support vote and the strict but, in my opinion, fair statements by Roux. Hence neutral.
Leaning oppose per NW, but Pedro's comment in the discussion section is holding me back at the moment. Will revisit. —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Neutral''', for now. Steve is a good editor, whose involvement with the project has been a net positive, even with the shenanigans of last year. So, that's all to the good. But the account-sharing incident strikes me as colossally bad judgement, and I'd expect an admin to know better. But there is contrition, from all parties, so we move on. The IP edit is troubling, mainly because of the implication that violating bans is ok if it benefits the project. I subscribe to [[WP:IAR]], and generally agree that improving the project trumps all, but a ban is a ban is a ban. If a user is banned, we cannot open the door to them for vandalism reverts or other simple, otherwise noncontroversial edits. Someone adds "cocksdickslol" to [[Barack Obama]]? IP revert, sure. But what about formatting? Edit warring? What can a banned editor revert, and what can they not? It sets a bad precedent. The edit may be a fine edit, consistent with policy, but it still violated a ban, and that bothers me. On the plus side, though - I have to applaud the candidate for being forthcoming with that edit, and with everything else. I like Steve, and want to support - and might yet do so - but I'm neutral for now.
'''[[User:Jamesofur/whynot|Why not.]]''' He seems to be a nice guy. If fhe is willing to stand here and has no great offences then i will support him. <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Nothing like enough edits to get an idea of what editor is like, and statement shows no need for the tools --
'''Oppose''' very little amount of edits, and has not shown the commitment. No admin expiriance, only 13 main edits. --
'''Oppose''' Few edits.  Not enough experience as a Wiki member.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure if you (Stevedietrich) are aware of this, but you do not need to be an admin to get the tools you want. You nominate unsuitable pages for deletion right now, and you can ask for rollback at [[WP:RFR]]. Work with both for a few more months, and come back to request adminship then. <font face="georgia" color="#E8A317">
'''Oppose''' You need More than 50 odd edits
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Strong Oppose but Strong Moral Support]]''' I hope that you don't give up but now is not your time to be an admin. You have only a handful of edits and you have only been here for a few months (2 to be exact). Perhaps you can get adopted and then admincoached and sometime next year you can re-apply. You seem to be quite the eager newcomer. I really like that as we really need good new editors. (the old ones are droping like rocks) but you still need to get a little more experiance. Perhaps you can get more experiance in vandal fighting and other admin related areas by [[WP:RPE|applying for rollback]] after you get a few vandal fighting edits under your belt. Good luck and I hope to see you back here eventually :)--
'''Oppose'''  Right now, you only have 55 edits.  It is impossible to determine if you are ready to become an admin.  If you work very hard for the next few months, you can reapply then.
'''Neutral''' While I applaud your enthusiasm, I feel that it is far to early for you to consider adminship. You have had an account for just over 2 months, you have a total of 55 edits (including 17 deleted edits), and you have absolutely no experience in admin areas (such as Page Protection Requests, Articles for Deletion or Administrators' Noticeboard). I would advise you to get a lot more experience across the board on Wikipedia - both in creating and adding to articles, and in admin areas. Good luck! -- '''''
'''Neutral''' per Phantomsteve. I wish you the best of luck on your on-wiki endeavors though.
Moral support. --
This RfA will not pass but any editor may overrule NOTNOW. Therefore this RfA should be allowed to run its course if the user so wishes. This may be considered a sort of moral support. '''
<small><s>Moral support</s></small> '''Strong oppose''' - Sorry, 210 edits is not enough to demonstrate to me that you would make a suitable administrator. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - As much as I would love to see you get promoted one day, today is not that day. You just don't have enough experience around the Wikipedia: namespace, such as with AfDs or even WikiProject discussions. Good luck for the future though. –
I'd suggest looking at [[WP:NOTNOW]] and the suggestions and links from that page. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]] case I'm afraid. Keep going so we can fully judge your potential to be a good sysop. <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Agreed. - Dan
'''Oppose''' Not to pile on but 210 edits is not enough for you to be an admin. Sorry.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Strong oppose''' was not going to pile on but user has demostrated that he won't take our opinions to heart by retranscluding this nomination.--
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' Sorry, but 210 edits is not enough to be an admin. Keep working on building edits, and experience on the wiki!
'''Oppose''' for lack of policy and process knowledge. I, too, was not going to pile on, and in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=271110351&oldid=271093219 I suggested reconsideration] after the initial mal-formed RfA was reverted. This isn't personal, though; editors are free to request adminship. However, when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271110351 several] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271110721 editors] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271111859 make it] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271123584 clear] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271123919 in polite ways] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271126276 that it] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Syjytg&diff=next&oldid=271127243 won't succeed] and an editor still insists, that begins to reflect negatively on the candidate. Even so, we could chalk it up to optimism and enthusiasm, which are generally to be encouraged, even if they are not sufficient to warrant granting adminship. On the other hand, lack of policy knowledge is most definitely not to be encouraged in an admin candidate. It is also considered bad form to [[WP:CANVASS|canvass]] at RfA, which is sort of a basic policy the candidate is either [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeeJay2K3&diff=prev&oldid=271118682 apparently] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peanut4&diff=prev&oldid=271119795 unaware of] or willfully ignoring - neither of which is on my list of things to look for in an admin candidate. It's basically a [[WP:NOTNOW]] on steroids. I continue to recommend withdrawal. Your enthusiasm is welcome; please make more contributions over time and come back here at a later date. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Continued insistence on running this RfA does not bode well.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you're not ready yet.  RFA candidates need to have at least 6-12 months of editing experience.  Also, the fact that you insist this RFA be allowed to run for the full time period does not reflect well.
'''Oppose''' As well as not being ready, the unwillingness to listen to advices by multiple very experienced admins (like Juliancolton) and a crat (Dweller) suggests a kind of stubbornness that I would not want in any admin, not even if the candidate were ready. I am afraid any future RFA will be judged by this behavior... Please consider withdrawing soon because nothing good will come from continued discussion. '''
'''Oppose''' In addition to the reasons noted by others above, the fact is that if you had investigated the administrator nomination process at all, you would have known you could not possibly succeed and were wholly unqualified. You thus nominated yourself either without performing the most basic due diligence, or did so in the face of such knowledge. Either possibility makes me question your fitness for administrative duties.--
'''Oppose''' Your obstinacy in continuing to keep this open against strong advice is in itself a strong negative and will likely prejudice your chances for success in a future RfA. You have already been strongly advised by many to withdraw - you should heed that advice. --
'''Oppose''' Insistence on keeping this open bodes ill for success in this collaborative project where you have to work with others, take their advice, etc.  Think well of what you're doing, Syjytg.  Incidently, I hear the stimulus package includes an emergency shipment of vowels, any interest in that?--
'''Oppose''' per all the above and [[WP:NOTNOW]]. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''', would've supported, but after looking at his conduct I now have doubts.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. Not enough experience. Continual instistence that this RFA remain open is not a good sign; plus we'll now have to wait for a bureaucrat to close this.
'''Support''' as nom. '''
'''Strong Support''' <font color="navy">
'''Support''' per nom. <font face="Verdana">
Who cares if he was problematic in the past? Excellent user, deserves the bit. '''
Per me. <font face="Arial">
Wish I could have co-nomed (4X edit conflict) '''Strong Support''' - I've been waiting for this for a long time, absolutely! <small><span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' For all the support, advice and patience you had when dealing with me on a number of occasions about wikimatters both on and off wiki. I have no doubt you will make an excellent admin seeing as how you are already well versed in policy and use of tools. May the force be with you. '''
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support'''. May the forks be with you, young sous chef.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Level-headed user.
'''Support'''- Absolutely. I've seen Synergy around and generally been impressed.
F$*& yes. —<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''
'''Support'''. (ec) Knowledgeable and civil user. Excellent contribs. It's a green light from me.
'''Support'''.  Always level-headed and thoughtful. - Dan
'''Support''' - He has written poetry in the past, ergo, he's a cool guy.
'''Strong support''' - Absolutely. Trustworthy, knowledgeable, and friendly -- everything I look for in a candidate. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes. —
'''Support'''.  Been around a while, knows the rope, willing to help with the backlog.
'''Support''' Well qualified.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' Trustworthy for sure. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Support.''' That's all I have to say!
'''Support''', does good work here; trustworthy, knowledgeable, intelligent, likable. He would have made a great admin by his last RFA back in September but that was derailed by (what seemed to me to be) a whole bunch of personal opposes.
'''Support''' Synergy does good work at SPI.  While there is some hesitation given past issues, I believe those issues are firmly in the past and that he will make a good admin going forward. '''
'''Support''' Definitely! '''''
'''Support''', Works well with others, competent and hard working, would be benefit to the community to have this user as an admin at SPI. <small>
'''Support''' per work in [[WP:SPI]]. Let's [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and forget the past event. [[User:Synergy|Synergy]] also does great work on the [[:simple:|Simple English Wikipedia]]. Overall, a good [[WP:admin|admin]]. '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Weak Support''' I am happy with the response to my questions, and I can see nothing else in his contributions that worries me. Good Luck! &lowast;
'''Strong Support'''

'''Support''' User seems to have improved since last RFA. I have no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Has plenty of common sense and seems thoughtful enough. He's been pretty level headed in some controversial areas.
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. [[Image:Smile.png]] Plus, this user is certainly qualified for the position, per answers to the questions and contribs. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' No worries.--
I had known prior to seeing Synergy at the top of the RfA list that he wasn't already an admin, but I had always asked myself ''why'' he wasn't. Whenever I see his name around, it's always associated with something good. Should have been granted the bit quite a while ago.
'''Support''' I know where Synergy is coming from (as a fellow clerk who doesn't have the tools) and how irritating it can be, not being able to do your job to the best of your ability due to limitations outside of your control. I have had good interactions with Synergy and I think {{gender|Synergy}} would be an excellent admin.
'''Doh''' I've known synergy for a ''long'' time back when he was under SynergeticMaggot. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to grant this guy the bit. His work on various ''gnomish'' tasks is extremely good. I have worked with him on multiple tasks, the latest is of course [[WP:SPI]] who we do need more administrators assisting with. Currently the case count is '''up''' to 28, and that is after some 10 cases being closed in the last 24 hours. —— '''
'''Support''' I have found Synergy to be a very helpful, knowledgeable, and reasonable user. The opposing arguments did not sway my opinion.
'''Support''' Synergy is doing great work clerking in SPI and has a definite need for the tools there.
'''Support''' No concerns here. '''
'''Support''' Why not? -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' per the above, and, interestingly, some of the below.
'''Support''' clean blocklog, civil talkpage, and per most of what's been said on this page. ''
per my co-nom
'''Strong Support''' sterling work at [[WP:SPI]], and it is clear that he has taken on board the issues that scuppered previous RfA's, and eradicated the problems. No problem whatsoever here.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and helpful.
Good candidate, though having some controversial thoughts. But deserves to be an admin. <strong>
'''Support''', no evidence that user would abuse the tools.  If having some slightly controversial opinions is now grounds for opposition, than we're in worse trouble than I thought.
'''Support'''. I !voted neutral the last time per a large number of negative issues being brought up. Since then, I think Synergy has learned his lessons and those reasons do not apply to his current personality anymore. Regards '''
I'm
Hmmm. Not overly impressed with Q7 (surely the best way is to talk to the blocking admin first, not after another conversation?) and there are some reasonably disturbing diff's from the opposition below as well - in particular those comments aimed to Giano and Malleus. I was really thinking about not commenting on this, but on balance I think [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|you'll be more help than harm]] with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I see no problems here :) <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' per Jenuk. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
Personal problems aside, there are enough people that I trust that trust Synergy and work with him often so there is almost no possibility that he will do anything but use the tools in the best interest of the Wiki.
{{User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support}} He does needz WANDERBL support from a lot of users. I trust him a lot :)
'''Support''' with reservations. I agree with Jennavecia and the points that GlassCobra brings up, but I still think that Synergy will be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] to the project (thanks, Pedro). '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Very Good Editor and also an administrator on Simple English Wikipedia. <font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support''' I honestly can't oppose. Good luck.
'''Support''', I've seen many good things from Synergy and the opposers have not raised anything I find excessively troubling. Some good question answers demonstrate he knows what he's doing, and long-time past experience suggests he's trustworthy. While some XfD problems may exist, I'm confident Synergy will be an even greater asset to the encyclopedia with admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - I've seen and appreciated Synergy's tireless contributions and good judgment as a clerk at [[WP:SPI]]; he handled the RfA questions with the same good sense I've seen elsewhere; and I have every reason to believe he would do well as an administrator. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The answer on 1A could have been better, I don't think we want to block "suspected" anybody, but rather confirmed.  4A could have been better as well, if some-thing's being worked on, let's see where it's going before getting too quick on the delete button.  Looking over the reasons to oppose, I just don't see anything major enough to convince me to oppose.  I think Synergy is a clueful editor, dedicated to the improvement of the wiki.  It's not a deliberate attempt to parrot Pedro, but I do see this as a net positive. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;"><b>
I've known Synergy for a long while, I trust the user.
'''Support'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Checked contribs and attitude. Candidate is here to build the encyclopedia. Continuing personal growth. --'''''
'''Support''' I couldn't see him abusing the tools, and he would make a good admin -
'''Weak support'''. I echo the concerns raised in many of the opposes, but I have seen your positive contributions on simple and know you can do well as an administrator on en too. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Concerns, while valid, are not enough to convince me that he would be anything other than than a net positive.--
'''Support'''-Good work with exposing sock puppets, good count of article edits, no special article work I see but you see to jump from page to page helping out articles in need which definently deserves a thumbs up and a respectable amount of user page edits.'''
'''Support'''. What a conundrum! After checking every one of Jennavecia's diffs supporting her oppose below, I had to go back and look through your contribs... then set this aside to think about it for awhile. Hard to discount the opposes from editors I respect - Jenna, Iri and GlassCobra have by far the most appropriate and valid oppose arguments. I, also, am not a fan of the IRC shenanigans. However, I have to stick to my usual criteria - can we trust you with the tools? You don't have to be perfect; you don't have to be a saint. I think we can trust you, you have the experience, you have the knowledge <small>(WE CAN REBUILD HIM...)</small>, this equals a support from me.
'''Support''' Good work at SPI. Demonstrated need for the tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Weak support''' opposes range from convincing to "lolirc".  The withdrawal of the RfA and subsequent return doesn't really signal steely nerves but I am loath to interpret more than that.  Has a demonstrated need for the tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Good user.
'''Support''' Based on others' comments also, his views on BLPs are balanced, and he stands up for himself properly. '''
'''Support''' Good job so far, and we lack administrators currently (and the very idea we have too many administrators shows a complete lack of understanding of our backlogs) --
'''Support''' Syn is trustworthy, and will make a good admin. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' &ndash; I've worked with this user some, and can trust him/her enough that s/he won't abuse the tools. Also has need for them. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' - Synergy is an experienced <s>administrator</s> user and I have no problem with him being promoted to <s>bureaucrat</s> administrator. --
'''Oppose''': Not a very good idea at all.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' I haven't had (to my knowledge) any significant interactions with this user, so I have to go by what I've seen digging through the past few months' contribs briefly and what others provide here. However reading through the old RfAs gave me pause. I'm not sure Synergy has the constitution appropriate for dealing with troublesome/controversial users; for example, his tone in talking to Giano [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=283008335][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=283009509] just doesn't help anything (it comes off as "talking down" to him, and telling someone to calm down doesn't generally help). Also, there was concern about XfD conduct in the previous RfA, and I haven't found much in the way of recent items that can persuade me he has learned, ex. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikistory_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=272597342][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Daniel_Brandt/open_letter&diff=prev&oldid=272850995] --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per Der Wohltempierte Fuchs. --
'''Oppose''', agree with concerns about temperament as raised by {{user|David Fuchs}}. '''
User does not have the temperament for an administrator. His interactions with Giano has me worried (links are provided by David above). Furthermore, I see no activity in the areas of AfD since his last RfA (aside from a few non-admin closures for articles which have overwhelming consensus). Aside from his contributions on SSP, I see no other areas of improvement relating to administrative duties (he seem to have avoided altogether the areas of concern from his last RfA). &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Like NixEagle, I've known Synergy since he was SynergeticMaggot. I was his adopter for a few weeks prior to his previous RFA. I recommended against him running at the time, as I did not believe he was ready. He decided to go for it anyway, and although I did participate in the RFA to question a particularly poor comment made in one oppose, I did not vote. As it is, I still don't believe Synergy is ready to be an administrator on en-wiki.<p>He managed 41 supports in less than 12 hours, which seems impressive, but many of the names are those I recognize from IRC, where many "joke" of a cabal, including Synergy himself.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MZMcBride/Going_rogue&diff=prev&oldid=265204404][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thehelpfulone&diff=prev&oldid=253472623]<p>Also, a major issue from his previous RFAs regarded his improper early closures of AFDs. Since his last RFA, he has repeated this problem.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phasmophobia] There he closed an AFD early as "speedy keep. Procedural keep." The article had been nominated for deletion on Oct 27. It was apparently queued on DYK and inappropriately placed on the main page on Oct 31. Synergy stated that removal from the main page should be sought and the AFD resubmitted, which makes no sense. The article link should have been removed from the main page. Also, when a discussion was brought up on AN regarding those making inappropriate early keep closes,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive182#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion] I don't think Synergy responded appropriately, especially considering his past issues with similar He called the discussion "absurd" and failed to address the issues, instead basically stating that his early NAC keeps shouldn't be criticized if early close deletes weren't also being discussed.<p>In addition to the troubling diffs David Fuchs provided regarding Giano[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=283008335][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=283009509] (which was not the first time,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=239210908#Ban.2Fblock_-_whatever.] though I can't for the life of me figure out the context of his last comment: "Right. Oilseed rape. Nice try."), I also feel his exchange with Malleus Fatuorum in Sephiroth storm's RFA was pointless trolling.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sephiroth_storm&diff=prev&oldid=267506250] Lastly, as someone with strict views on BLP, I don't believe the WP:BITCH reference in a BLP MfD was appropriate.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Daniel_Brandt/open_letter&diff=prev&oldid=272850995] [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 05:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)<p>I'm also left confused by Synergy's answers to my questions regarding BLP. Even after pointing out that my fourth question is based from policy, he still fails to answer it based upon that policy. I'm also unable to understand his views on the previous question after following up on it, so that just adds to my concern.
'''Oppose''' -Der Wohltempierte Fuchs, Dark, and his former adopter. Not look like the candidate's behavior has been much improved from the last RfA.--
Not yet, per David fuchs. May support in a couple of months if I see improvement in communication skills.--
'''Oppose''' per concerns in above posts.--
'''Oppose''' per Fuchs, Dark, and JV. Syn's clearly still got issues in the XFD arena, which have plagued all his RFAs thus far. The IRC cabalism/GAMEyness makes me uncomfortable as well.
'''Oppose''' per Jenna and  and Der Wohltempierte Fuchs.  If the concerns are addressed I will support next time around.
Lara says it all, really. Sorry, but the only time I ever see you you're throwing yourself into other people's drama, generally inflaming whatever the situation is. Being willing to get involved in difficult areas is a good characteristic; stubbornly arguing with anyone who ever questions you isn't.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' per Jennavecia and David Fuchs. There's a disturbing attitude taken towards some of his work here that isn't right for an admin to have. '''
Kudos for the correct use of "comprises". Although I can't support currently (based on answers to several of the questions, seemingly (over)use of IRC, and the appearance of dramaproneness, i.e. the withdrawal and subsequent relisting of this request), I hope you continue your work at the sockpuppet board and elsewhere. Mahalo. --
'''Oppose'''. I still remember when, last summer, this user attempted to speedy close an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User%3ASharkface217/Awards_Center MfD] I spent a lot of time working on after it had been open for 2.5 hours, citing [[WP:SNOW]]. An admin reopened it and it ironically ended in a deletion. Synergy's other edits to that MfD indicated a strong opinion on the issue, making the closure inappropriate not only due to the short time he left it open but also due to his personal bias. His userpage from back then has conveniently been deleted, but shortly after attempting to close this MfD, he placed a missive there about XfD that's quoted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Synergy&diff=220573763&oldid=220568019 this diff]. The statement, to me, indicates a dislike for so-called "deletionists". I care nothing for XfD and I don't believe I've participated in any others excepting the aforementioned MfD, but it doesn't seem like this is someone with the correct temperament for objectively closing XfDs or deciding what gets speedy deleted. In the ensuing exchanges on his talk page, documented until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Synergy&oldid=220779617 here], I note that Synergy ''excused'' his actions but never actually acknowledged that there was any problem with his behavior. No, best leave the admin duties to more objective personalities. --
'''Oppose''' - all the people above make very good points, especially David Fuchs and Lara.  And stopping the process, declaring that he will never run again only to have the RFA reopened a few hours later?  No thanks.
Apologies, but I don't feel that the candidate possesses the necessary demeanour and judgment I like to see from administrators (not to say that all administrators = good judgment and an affable demeanour... just look at me, haha). [[User talk:Ocee|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''ocee'''</span></font>]]
'''oppose''' per lack of understanding of blp policy.
'''Oppose''' - Two reasons. First, your answer to question 6 from GlassCobra is an exercise in obfuscation; either you have an established procedure for honoring requests for withdrawal or reconfirmation of your admin privileges--which you would openly advertise on your user page and pledge to enforce without delay if certain ironclad criteria are met--or you do not intend to honor such requests. Your "non-denial denial" gave me serious pause.<br /> Secondly, your response to question 9 from Skomorokh also set off my BS-meter. His question was straight-forward; you have, in fact, failed three previous RFAs across two usernames, the last of which prompted you to withdraw early and pen an essay extolling the virtues of deferring adminship in favor of fully dedicating one's self to editing. You appeared to have had an epiphany...but then spent most of your time between your last RFA and now building up admin career capital by acting as an unflagged helper in various high-visibility areas in Project space. You made extra sure to shake lots of hands, cultivate support on IRC and avoid controversy. In short, you learned how to sail through an RFA. This is a major change from your previously consistent attitude, and more than enough to make me wonder. In admins, I value transparency, blunt honesty, and above all, a healthy degree of zen-like selflessness manifested through the ability to function without constant praise or attention. Your less-than-fully-honest responses, when coupled with your prior actions as outlined above, give me cause to believe that you would be an unsuitable admin at this time.
'''Oppose''' - per Fuchs, Dark, and JV, and GlassCobra.'''<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS Italic"><font color="#8B0000">
'''Oppose'''. Withdrawing and declaring you will never run again, then reopening the RFA within a few hours, illustrates a temperament that is unsuited to adminship.
I was not previously familiar with this editor, as far as I know. What I read here makes him sound like a kid in a chat room.  More of that is unhelpful.
'''Oppose''' I was not going to vote, but per Stifle mostly. I'm also in agreement with Iridescent, GlassCobra, and Jennavecia. I think you should be focusing on your judgement, espescially on sensitive things. That can be as [[WP:SPI]], where I have seen some dubious clerk endorses. More or less, in some cases you just rely on the person - I don't want an admin to do that, espescially when you have the blocking tool. Taking action just because you trust the person does not mean the action in itself is right, nor should it be done for that matter. As I think this is going to be questioned, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dessiedolan&diff=277891622&oldid=277891410 this] diff to see what I mean. One minute, and you've already done your checking? I do not think so. I'm sorry if it seems I'm reaching too far conclusions, but I think it's justified. There are more examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx&diff=prev&oldid=276531548] (5 minutes here, possible, but that's rather quick in my opinion), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SE7&diff=prev&oldid=278198956] - I'm not quite sure here, but "I wasn't sure about it, but another clerk has told me to try anyway" - Is also a bit worrying; this suggests to me, that even though Synergy does not know the proper action, they go ahead. That is not something I would like to see from a future administrator. Good luck, and nothing personally. RfX isn't all Synergy. I'm sure you will probably make it one day. At this point - if you do make it, please heed the opposes. Despite my opposition - I think you're a good candidate, but I think you need a bit more improvement. With regrets, --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Prone to hissy fits.
'''Oppose''' temperament issues.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. It feels harsh to oppose someone on their fourth RFA, because it means he clearly wants a great deal to be an administrator - and quite possibly Synergy ''would'' be a net positive as one. But there are just too many concerns raised by the other opposers. Firstly, there's this comment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Daniel_Brandt/open_letter&diff=prev&oldid=272850995] That's the kind of comment (shortcut for 'X is a whiny bitch') I don't ''ever'' want to see at a deletion discussion, least of all with reference to a real person. Secondly, there's the early closes of AFDs, like these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Fuel_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=247682147][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wild_(band)_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=247680415]. Those decisions aren't hugely problematic in practice, but they go against the spirit of AFD - an article is supposed to have 5 days (now 7) of discussion, even if it looks like consensus has been reached sooner. Thirdly, there's the behaviour towards Giano, which wasn't exactly helpful. Fourthly, there's the SPI comments referred to above - e.g. endorsing an assessment of a user one minute after it has been made. That's worryingly hasty for someone who wants to work in that area. None of these factors ''individually'' would be enough to oppose over, but taken together they weaken my confidence in Synergy; I can't say I like the IRC cliqueyness, either (or the sudden closing and re-opening of this RFA). Despite all this, I ''do'' think Synergy could make a good administrator, and I expect he will successfully pass RFA eventually. But I don't think I can support him this time, unfortunately - sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Prior to me reading the contents of this page, I wanted to support for his assistance at [[WP:SPI]]. However, after reading the arguments presented on both sides, I guess I have to oppose. Unwithdraw the RfA just after 3 hours of withdrawing, combining with XfD mishaps, and also what Robofish said about providing an SPI assessment 1 minute after it has been posted tell me you act too hastily in many situations.
'''Oppose'''. Closing and re-opening this RfA within 3 hours is a bit too hasty and temperamental for me. You want to be an admin or you don't.
Regretfully, per Lara and DarkFalls.
'''Neutral''' - Synergy, you've many positive edits to WP, so I'm not going to oppose. I can't support because of something Jenna pointed out above - "He managed 41 supports in less than 12 hours, which seems impressive, but many of the names are those I recognize from IRC ...".
'''Neutral''' per the guy above. Good guy, but there's a small niggling worry that is stopping me from supporting. '''
'''Neutral''' I wish you the best but actively failing to adequately answer the question I posed doesn't help. As an admin, you'll be allowed to deal with those kinds of situations and I'd like to know what you'd do and your knowledge on the subject. That said, outside of this, I see no reason to oppose, so I'm going with neutral. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
I remember thinking that Tango's desysopping was not necessary: I am not aware of anything Tango has done since the ArbCom case to not support resysopping, and as such, I endorse his RfA.
He seems to have been desysopped for going against one of the "untouchables" who could engage in incivility at will because they had a clique behind them.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]].  Candidate's lone block was quickly unblocked.  Candidate has multiple barnstars on his userpage.  Now, I have actually NOT agreed with the candidate in every AfD in which we have both commented; however, the candidate's stances were reasonably presented and so that matters more to me now than whether or not we necessarily agree.  Reasonable disagreement should be encouraged, after all as through it, we challenge each other and ourselves to be better editors who make better articles.  And to a large extent here, while it seems clear where this discussion is headed, I do not want the candidate to walk away discouraged.  This request is not an instance in which the candidate has no positives.  I see a few and even if my and the others' supports are more moral in the end, then at least that is something.  Have a pleasant night!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Issue was more than a year ago and it seems to be a lone incident. [[User:Tango|Tango]] seems to have done good work since and I think that after that particular instance it is unlikely he will make another mistake. After all, he was an admin for 18 months prior. He must have been doing something right. - Regards,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMONGO '''Captain Obvious Support''' Mongo, at least at the time, was one of the most disruptive editors around. Mongo is/was exactly the kind of editor who drives off two good contributors for every one good edit he makes.]
'''Support''' I appreciate Tango's work on the ref desks.  The previous desysop looks to me to be an over reaction to an overreaction.
Per Acalamari. Unnecessary desysop, and no problems since, so automatic support. '''

'''Support''' I don't see any good reason to oppose, despite the pile of opposes.
'''Support''' No concerns since you really have a clean slate of late.
'''Support''' per Acalamari.
'''Support''' As someone who was unfairly desysopped myself, I am extremely sympathetic to others who may be in the same boat.  This RFA is already destined to fail, but I will give moral support.--
'''Support''' for having the guts to both maintain the fundamental rightness of your actions, acknowledge that the community saw things differently, and still put yourself through this.
'''Support''' ridiculous desysop decision in the first place, would have probably been best to recuse yourself from further contact with that editor though. <b>
'''Support''' (not that it will make a difference at this point) - From my own review of the evidence on the ArbCom case, it looks to be (another) poor arbcom decision on an "admin abuse" case. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
''"If you are not happy with me using the tools against MONGO, please oppose this RFA."''  Okie-dokie.
You're an asset to the project, and I have quite a bit of respect for you as an editor, but unfortunately I must agree with the sentiments of the above comment. Your actions against MONGO led to a serious dispute, and as such you need to be able to recognize that you have a COI with that editor. That said, it's still very early in the discussion, so I will check back for any new developments. –'''
The unapologetic attitude towards actions that the community at the time felt were unnecessary makes me hesitant to support this RfA.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
You obviously mean well, but you don't appear to recognize that future actions you would hypothetically take against MONGO would be bad news, considering that there is a history between you two. I cannot support re-granting you administratorship for that reason. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Your description of your past mistakes does not convince me that anything has changed.
'''Oppose''' - you don't ''need'' to take any more action with MONGO, and you should recognize that you have a COI... Apologies, —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">
'''Oppose''', nothing has changed. Attempt to leave MONGO in your past. &ndash;
Pretty much all you had to do to move on was to know not to use the tools against MONGO again. Yet you've admitted you can't even do that. I'm not comfortable with you acting against mongo, so... '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per your statement ''I do not recuse myself from further administrative actions involving him''.
'''Oppose''' Had me willing to support right up until the last statement. You are not uninvolved enough to use the tools against MONGO. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">
'''Oppose''' since you still don't think there was a problem with your block of MONGO. '''
'''Oppose'''.  per the above.  Frankly, nothing really has changed since the arbcom cases.  Sorry. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose:''' Some people should not be admins! -
'''Oppose''' I had a bunch written, but there was an edit conflict (don't like to copy and paste). In short giving you admin tools would cause too much drama, and if you were to block mango again, it would look as though you blocked him because you want revenge, thus the [[WP:COI]]. Before your next RfA I would STRONGLY suggest that you rethink your "adminship views". Bah too many edit conflicts got another one =/
I don't hold it against the candidate that he doesn't get what the opposers are saying, because my sense is that the rules used to be different; community standards at RFA and elsewhere used to afford a lot more leeway to admins.  But standards have changed, blocking someone you had a significant quarrel with isn't okay now.  I don't mean to pile on, but the candidate hasn't gotten the message yet. - Dank (
The reason why Tango was desysopped was not simply because of his bad block of MONGO. Yes, it was excessively lengthy, coupled with the fact that he'd already campaigned against MONGO, making him involved - even disregarding these facts, the block occured several hours after MONGO's mildly uncivil comment (which he made in frustration), which makes it punitive regardless of context. And there was a good deal of context in the case of Tango - he's made a number of very bad judgment calls using the tools (not a huge amount, but enough to be a concern). Yet if Tango believes that his block of MONGO was the reason he lossed adminship, he has missed the point. It was not solely because of that one very bad block, not even considering other very bad calls prior to that - it was because, when Tango opened his actions for review, he would respond to any negative comment with excessive defensiveness and try to justify his actions further, creating a great deal more frustration than what it should have been. That's why Tango was desysopped - ''he refuses to accept criticism when given''. Tango's refusal to acknowledge his block of MONGO as a bad call was (and remains) a serious concern, and given the background of making very bad calls and not learning from them, the odds of him making yet another very bad call were high enough that it warranted revoking his tools to prevent it from happening again. If Tango were to have admitted in his nomination statement, "you know, I screwed up, I'll avoid using the tools like that again," and he'd demonstrated that he learned how to control his emotions when he's being criticized, then I'd support. But after reading his nomination statement (particularly openly stating that he will not recuse from administrative action against MONGO) and looking at the way he's responding to the opposes, I am convinced that Tango is unsuited for adminship. And I feel really bad about it, because I like Tango and I think he is a great editor, but not every editor is meant to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Too many judgement issues. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' after reviewing the ArbCom case it's clear to me that this editor must never be given access to the tools again. Entirely unsuited to the role of Administrator.
<s>'''Oppose'''. Was unanimously desysopped (nine to zero), and seemed to acknowledge ("please oppose this RFA") that he doesn't meet and doesn't respect the standards he's going to be held to. [[User:SluggoOne|<font color="#408080" face="Garamond">'''Sluggo'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:SluggoOne|<font color="#337B16" face="Garamond">Talk</font>]] 05:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</s> Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' per below. User's refusal to read, coupled with a pretty blatant violation of [[WP:CIVIL]], coupled with a tried-and-not-true accusation of bad faith on my part (and, apparently, on the part of the several dozen other opposers) suggests a scorched earth approach.
'''Oppose''' based on his responses here. Everyone seems to be banging their heads against the wall with Tango. It looks to me like Master&amp;Expert was pretty accurate in that Tango doesn't seem to accept criticism well. Here there are 20 people so far, all basically telling him the same thing, and I've yet to see any effort at a re-evaluation. He even still asks "what conflict?", no matter how many times that question has already been answered here.
I came here to support originally, but the above concerns are, well, concerning. I feel your responses here have been unduly aggressive and they do little to reassure me that you'll be calm using the tools in future. You do good work here, so I'm sorry to have to sit this side of the bench. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''', mostly per nom. Also lack of judgement, unwillingness to reconsider own point of view, and quite a bit of cluelessness about what not to do in an RfA. And no, I will not explain my point further. If it is not clear by now, it will never be. --
'''oppose''' I came here to ''neutral'' because of past behaviour.  But comments made by the candidate during this RfA clearly demonstrate lack of suitability for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Does not appear to have taken on board any of the criticisms which led to his desysopping. Badgering oppose votes with "please explain", as if he doesn't understand it, does little to enhance confidence.
'''Oppose''' - have to say no here, you don't see anything wrong with blocking MONGO again, not a good position to hold. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' You really haven't made a single effort to convince the community why you should be resysopped. This RfA seems more like an attempt to settle an old score with ArbCom.
'''Oppose'''
Tango's arguments above convince me that he/she's absolutely not ready to be resysopped. Sorry.  '''
'''Oppose'''. "I stand by my block of MONGO" ... "if you are not happy with me using the tools ''against'' MONGO, please oppose this RFA." (my emphasis) I feel I must oppose based on those statements alone. Your block of MONGO was wrong and that is why you are no longer an administrator. Blocking someone for making an uncivil remark towards you hours after the event shows pretty poor judgement (regardless of the length of the block). In any event, you were not a neutral administrator to be sanctioning MONGO ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_DHeyward#Not_uninvolved]). Finally, anyone who thinks they are likely to use admin tools "against" someone is showing a mindset that I find incompatible with being a sysop on this project. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose'''. With apologies to Tango, who has done a lot of good work on the English Wikipeida - I can't support at this time. If the rationales of those who Oppose a candidate aren't sound, or are based on wrong or misleading diffs, or what have you, then someone will point that out - usually one of the supporters, a co-nom, or whomever. It is unseemly for the candidate to question so many of the Opposing editors. There are broader issues here, as noted - but this didn't earn any style points for the candidate, either. On MONGO, I have absolutely no problem with someone taking administrative actions in good faith and having them reversed. We, all of us, have made errors in judgement, and I don't doubt that Tango was attempting to act in the best interests of the project when he blocked MONGO. Great. The issue is that, once told by the community (and the Arbcom) that his actions were unacceptable, and unacceptable specifically because of his prior involvement with MONGO, his response (here and elsewhere) is essentially "Nuh-uh". Admins screw up; it's how we deal with the screw-ups, ours and others, that show what sorts of admins we are (or will be). Sorry.
'''Strong oppose''' - Absolutely not, based on the concerns of nearly everybody above me. '''
'''Oppose''' per above. Tango's comments tell me that he hasn't acknowledged that his actions were wrong, which the ArbCom voted unanimously that they were.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I can't believe you said you'd use the tools on MONGO again. Also, WJBscribe sums up issues well.
'''Oppose''' While most of the period while you were an administrator was (as far as I can tell, not being one myself) full of good judgements, the issue with MONGO does it for me too. The issue here is that there are {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} here on the English Wikipedia; with the number of opposes here about this issue it may be more sensible to have no contact using administrative actions on MONGO, but report it to another active administrator if you feel there is an issue: after all the harm caused by one editor cannot be that great in the time it would take, and will get around an unnecessary block which will cause a much higher drama than is necessary. I believe you when you say you will ''acknowledge that any such actions are likely to lead to significant drama and will take that into account when deciding what action, if any, is appropriate'' however I fail to see a situation arise when it would be appropriate, given the activity levels of administrators here. I hope this answers your question? --
'''Oppose''' Not because what you did originally was so onerous; we can move on and forget with good work. I'm opposing because of your stunning lack of understanding of what you did wrong and that you contributed to the exacerbation of the problem. Also the stunning lack of understanding that your use of administrative tools in relation to MONGO again would not only be a horrible idea, but simply unnecessary. Just ask another admin to do whatever is needed, or more likely let it go since someone else is likely to notice anything that needs to be addressed. I would never ask you to recuse forever, but I would expect you to understand that doing so would be a good idea. Your statement on the matter reflects an immaturity that goes much farther than the issue of recusing in that case. That's not a major problem (everybody has things to work on) except when you want to be trusted with the extra tools. I'm glad you were honest, but I believe the project would be better suited if you contributed to articles instead. -
Actually I would have liked to see an agreement not to interact with Mongo in any capacity. Sorry. —
'''Very Strong Oppose''' - The self-nomination started out defiant to begin with. Not a good way to start. But then badgering and attacking people in the RfA itself. Usually it's necessary to provide diffs in an RfA to show bad behavior, but this time a person doesn't have to look very far to see conduct unbecoming of an admin. -- '''
'''Oppose''' I agree with at least 10 of the cmts above. I'm sorry.
Tango has demonstrated a fundamental unsuitability to being an administrator, rather than the occasional errors in judgement we see in some other administrators who have been desysopped and are reapplying here, given such unsuitability to being an administrator I cannot support this request nor envisage being able to support a future request.
'''Oppose'''textbook case of not listening to differing views. Was waaayyyy too block happy when they had the bit.
'''Regretful Oppose'''.  When I saw this transcluded, I started reading through your background and contributions, and in and of themselves, although I wasn't entirely comfortable, I was prepared to [[WP:AGF|good faith]] support a restoration of the tools.  In the time it had taken to do all that reading, however, the whole discussion above had been going on - and your attitude towards oppose <s>voters</s> contributors has been apalling, exceptionally defensive bordering on rude and aggressive.  I wasn't around at the time of your MONGO issues, and haven't read every line and diff slowly so I wouldn't presume to judge whether you were in the right or wrong - but there are a lot of people above this who do hold an opinion, and rather than letting them have it and merely disagreeing, or even starting a calm discussion, say on the talk page, you are arguing with them and badgering them.  That does not fill me with confidence as to how you would interact with other users as an admin.  --
'''Oppose'''. Inappropriate responses here to "oppose" !votes raise substantial doubts about the candidate's suitability for admin status.
'''Oppose''', somewhat strongly. Your attitude toward the MONGO incident is troublesome. I don't mind if a former admin seeks the tools again after learning from mistakes, but no, I'm afraid this is a different situation. You don't seem to realize that it was bad judgement in the first place; the block was wrong, and you're openly stating that you still stand by it. WJBScribe sums it up well.
'''Oppose''' Still holding grudges? Bodes ill.
'''Oppose''' If you still don't think you did anything wrong when you blocked MONGO after over a year and a half, I have no confidence that something like it will not happen again. Also, the persistant badgering of the opposes seems aggressive and downright rude. Sorry, '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Oppose''' I could move past the obvious error you made in blocking [[user:MONGO|MONGO]] as you did. But I cannot get past the fact, made clear by your multiple comments here, that you cannot understand what you did wrong, nor that your interaction with him is seen as a conflict. --<font color="Red">
No, I'm sorry you clearly don't understand consensus - specifically that when a whole bunch of people have said "this is what we do, and this is what we don't" you feel you know still know better than the community that said it. Crowds may well be both wrong and right, but your deaf ear to them and combative status in this RFA is not where we want to be. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
If Tango said "I can't understand why everyone perceives a conflict but I will bow to consensus and recuse myself" it would show a somewhat concerning lack of social perception for an admin: this situation is ''clearly'' different from blocking the same person for 3RR twice (see exchange with Master&Expert above). But sticking to a position which is so obviously against consensus - whether you understand why or not - is deeply worrying. I also agree with WJBScribe about use of the word 'against', although that could well have been an unfortunate slip and wouldn't be worth an oppose on its own.
'''Oppose''' per candidate's advice in nom statement.
'''Oppose''' - It's quite a long time since the incident took place, but standing by your block of MONGO is not admin-like conduct. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''oppose''' Changed from support to oppose. After rereading his introductory remarks I'm not confident we will not have similar problems as before. Even if he were willing to say that he would just stay out of any admin issues with Mongo and wouldn't act similarly in any future situation I'd be willing to support, but without that sort of guarantee this is just waiting for a serious blow up with accompanying drama. And we have enough of that.
'''Strong oppose''' per nom statement and user's advice.
I think they're called ''weapons'' once you start using them ''against'' people.  Per Tango's own guidance I oppose. --
I would really rather have just closed this up as it is getting absurd, but the candidate has repeatedly stated they don't want that, so here I am. An administrator is supposed to take their cues from consensus, not their own stubborn determination that they ''must '' be right.
A nomination reeking of arrogance --
'''Oppose''' mostly per "I believe that matter to be completely closed and not worthy of further discussion."--
'''Oppose''' due largely to the users responses in this section. Setting the MONGO thing aside, the comments above don't reflect behavior I would want to see in an admin. --
All previous issues aside, a person who admits to "my tendency to dispense with tact and diplomacy when it is getting in the way of doing what needs to be done" is unsuited for adminship. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the MONGO situation. If you can't see that any action by you against MONGO in an administrative capacity would be wrong (regardless of MONGO's actions) then I don't see that you are ready to have the tools back yet. If you were resysopped and found any of MONGO's editing problematical the correct way to deal with it would be to post via AIV or ANI and let other admins assess and act on the situation.
'''Oppose''', the way the candidate is responding to opposes is making me uneasy. I don't think this is a suitable attitude to have in adminship. --
'''Oppose''' I would have liked to support but the candidate shows an excessive lack of understanding, why they were desysoped in the first place as well as a stubbornness to learn from previous mistakes. I am a firm believer that people can change (it's my core dogma when I approach such RFAs) but here we have an example where the candidate is unwilling to rethink their approach. Tango, please, listen to what people try tell you here... Regards '''
'''Oppose''' their responses here tells me everything I need to know. No thanks. --
'''Strong Oppose''' on the basis of the answer to Q6 - aside from all the practical concerns raised - a candidate with your background unable to provide a commitment to recall without waiting for ArbCom cannot be supported.
'''Oppose''' - ''not'' on the basis of "MONGO-gate"; I'm largely uninterested in the [[WP:DRAMA]] surrounding it. I had heard of ''neither'' Tango nor MONGO before this RfA, and my oppose has nothing to do with any block of MONGO or with Tango's de-sysopping. I have reviewed exactly zero of that past beyond what's on this page. I have read ''only'' this page, and the opening statement from Tango was sufficient to determine lack of suitable temperament for adminship, based on comments from the candidate, including: "...questions aren't really applicable..." (of course they are), "I also don't intend to answer any generic questions..." (how are we to get answers other than from the candidate?), and "...please explain why you think they are relevant..." (this is a discussion, and unless a question violates policy, there's no reason a user should be required in advance to justify asking it). Wikipedia is a community, and for better or for worse, it runs the way the community decides it should run, and these statements don't square with that. If there is a desire to change how things run, this is not the place for it, and granting the bit to an editor who believes this is the right approach would not benefit the project. As for the quotes I've listed above, I understand they are selected from larger sentences (hence the use of ellipsis dots), and there is no context issue; I've quoted words directly from the candidate that ring alarm bells for me. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' per badgering and combative attitude. This oppose has nothing to do with past admin actions or actions since then, but the attitude demonstrated in this RFA shows this person should not be an admin. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
I wasn't going to bother opposing due to the overwhelming numbers but since Tango wants this to continue I will make a comment. My impression of Tango has been as a user who has trouble accepting feedback and opinions when those opinions conflict with his own and his responses on this page are pretty consistent with what I have noticed in the past. There was an incident at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive163#Goa_Inquisition|IncidentArchive163#Goa_Inquisition]] where Tango expressed some very similar opinions and attitudes to what he has said here on the issue of acting when "involved". Various people tried to tell him that revert warring with admin rollback and then protecting the article on his preferred version and threatening to block users he'd just been edit warring against is really not appropriate. As Dmcdevit said at the time: "This isn't something we can agree to disagree about; this is about sound administrative judgment, which, as long as you defend any of those actions, I must conclude that you lack" and "I am absolutely flabbergasted that you seem to see no difference between "threatening to block people for incivility" and threatening to block people you just reverted for incivility. That is not simply enforcement of policy; that is out of bounds." Sure, this was a long time ago but Tango's comments about blocking MONGO etc certainly give the impression that even after all the endless discussions, with two years of experience, the arbitration case etc, he still fails to "get it", that his approach to adminship still hasn't changed one little bit and that he is still out-of-whack with where community attitudes and standards have been for a very long time. I understand RFA can be very stressful and upsetting but I feel his responses on this RFA show that he's simply not suited to adminship and I think it would be a very bad idea (for Tango as well as the community) to return the admin tools to this user.
'''Oppose''' - per HiDrNick, JayHenry, and Sarah.
'''Oppose''' Just wanted to get this in before the [[WP:SNOW]] started falling.  Aggressive oppose-badgering is very, very annoying and childish.  Definitely not admin material.  Looks like the de-sysopping was a great call.
'''Oppose''' Since this is looking more like a referendum on how long a particular ArbCom decision should hold than an RfA, I'll add my name to the list of people who think it should still apply. -- ''<B>
Your entire statement is dedicated to the arbitration case, and nothing about what you intend to work on again. (A week in real life is like a year on Wikipedia, a lot of developments and changes happen) Why did you even come to RfA? You should have instead used this statement to appeal directly to the ArbCom for reinstatement. -
'''Oppose''' The ArbCom issue was a while ago, but you don't seem to have learned from the incident. Also per Mailer diablo's statement regarding your future work as an admin.
'''Oppose''' After reading the Arbcom case, I did think that the punishment was harsh, but your actions here, hounding the opposers, is unbecoming of an admin. Being stubborn, unrelenting, and obstinate are not character traits of an admin. Sorry, --
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tango_2#Nomination|I stand by the ArbCom's decision to desysop you but acknowledge that you felt it was too harsh. I disagree with you on that point]].

'''Neutral'''. I sympathize but I'm stuck on the fence here. --
'''comment''' I missed all the drama of Arbcom... but one thing at this RFA is curious. Any first-time candidate with Tango's rate of article space edits (around ten per month) will be SNOW'ed. Here, respected JulianColton praised Tango ''"as an editor"'' - what did I miss or is it another case of double standards?
'''Neutral'''.  I don't know what the situation that prompted the earlier desysopping was all about, so I take no position.  However, in response to [[User:NotAnIP83:149:66:11]]'s comment, is a low contribution ''rate'' really that [[WP:SNOW]]y?
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support.
I was going to support, but I really dislike arguing with every other opposer.
Honestly, you're a great editor and I'd love to support - but I just can't with that statement about how you don't consider yourself involved as far as MONGO is concerned. Even if you don't consider yourself involved, it's as important to act with caution when you have the ''appearance'' of being involved. It's a real failure of judgement to consider that any administrative action you might hypothetically make against MONGO would be anything but an immense drama magnet. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral''' Honestly, the only issue keeping me from an enthusiastic support is your unwillingness to accede to consensus and treat MONGO as if you were involved. Note that I don't say that your logic is wrong - in fact, without going through all the facts of the case, I suspect that you are quite probably correct (this is based mostly out of respect for your logical capabilities, which are considerable). Note also that I'm not asking for a retraction or anything of the sort (and would cheerfully defend you against any who demand that you compromise your intellectual integrity), merely a willingness to move on - I've had my own experiences recently on that score. <strong>
'''Neutral''' in the hopes of moving on. Now's not the time.
'''Neutral''': I am stuck on the fence and feel that neutral is the best way to go..
I can see both sides of the argument here, yes it was a very serious issue that led to the desysopping. However I think it was an overeaction to desysop. However, because of this I would not be comfortable if Tango was given the extra buttons. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Neutral''': Leaning weak support. i really see how this can be seen in two different ways, on one hand the candidate was desysopped for an unjust block but on the other hand the user WAS a qualified administrator that made several good contributions to Wikipedia. I'm just stuck between his first successful run as an administrator and his later questionable behavior.<br />>>>> Posted By
'''Oppose''' You do not have the experience needed of an administrator.  You also do not have enough edits for me to judge how you will use the admin tools.  Maybe after more experience... <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Oppose''' You need more experience before I could support you for adminship. '''
'''Moral Support''' (Why is moral support listed under oppose?) -- Great that you want to help administering Wikipedia. Some areas here are, however, difficult to master, and mastering them will be what you have to achieve before your request will be granted. [[WP:CSD]] is a case in point, your tagging of [[Centre for Population, Poverty and Public Policy Studies]] today was sub-standard. It was neither G11 nor A7 as indicated by you. A single Google check would have brought up the required sources. In fact, after checking this article you should have removed the [[WP:PROD]] template. --
'''Moral Support''', your contribs look good so far, but 69 edits is simply not enough to get a feel of how well you know your stuff.  I mean, 10% of your edits are to this RFA alone.  Would be happy to support you in the future if you continue contributing positively though!
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but your level of experience is simply not enough at this point in time.  Recommend you withdraw this request, otherwise it will be [[WP:SNOW|snowballed]].  No offense, but your response to Lankiveil's oppose shows how naive you are as to the workings of the RFA process.
'''Oppose''' you still have a lot to learn here. For example your only picture upload [[:File:Marie Ficarra.jpg]] has problems with being free. Remember that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, so no unknown copyright material, no rights restricted material and no fair use for portraits of people that are still alive and could easily be photographed by a wikipedian who asked.
'''Oppose with Moral Support'''. Excellent start! Really good work, but realistically most editors won't support the RfA of any editor of under a thousand edits, as a bare minimum. It's sort of like growing up, when you're little you don't realise just how much you have yet to learn and understand. Please keep up the great effort though, and don't be discouraged, you're well on your way towards someday coming back here and receiving my full support. +
'''Moral support:''' I hate to pile it on, but you simply need more experience. Edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Liberals_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=309892215 this], and uploading of a [[:File:Marie Ficarra.jpg|fair use image]] with no rationale and incomplete details (all of which are not exactly correct according to our policies and guidelines) indicate that you need to work more here and gain experience as an editor. If you would like to learn, I suggest you get [[WP:ADOPT|adopted]] by an experienced editor, and get involved in different areas of Wikipedia. ≈&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''—Sorry, I just have the feeling all over that you're not yet ready. Please consider gaining experience in content editing and a good working knowledge of the major policies and guidelines, and renominate in ... six to 12 months?
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavlova_%28food%29&diff=309922789&oldid=308850526 This POV edit alone], in which he replaced the earliest verifiable record with dubious latterday reference to rewrite history, indicates a serious lack of awareness of what Wikipedia actually is.
'''Oppose''' Too little experience. Suggest [[WP:SNOW]]
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - thank you for your interest.  Unfortunately, no matter how good your answers to these questions, most community members will demand some evidence of how you do act in practice (rather than how you simply answer their questions).
'''Strong moral support''' &mdash; it looks like you've been quietly working away for some time now in relative peace & quiet and doing a good job at it. That being said, I don't see any participation in areas that would allow you to gain experience in adminly activites: such as AIV, deletion debates, dispute resolution, etc. I would urge you to consider exactly why you are asking for the tools. Are you running into problems editing in your desired areas and being prevented from accomplishing your goals because of a lack of admin tools? If so, it might be a good idea to outline those situations. If not, you might do best just to continue "as you were" and not take on the extra headaches that come with being an admin. Keep in mind that adminship is not a "graduation"; admins are just editors who have a few extra buttons to press. Not all content contributors need to be admins. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Oppose''' I know you want to help the project as much as you can, but your experience in admin-related areas, such as the Wikipedia namespace, which includes [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:ANI|ANI]], and this very page, is non-existent. Here at RfA, the community looks for candidates who have had experience in a variety of fields on Wikipedia, so that they know the candidates can be trusted with the administrative tools. Also, your total edit count is on the very low end of what even the most lenient !voters look for. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and look into helping out at AFD, ANI, and at certain [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]], in addition to continuing the good article work you're doing. If you do that while learning more about all our policies and guidelines for a few months, I'll support you in a second run for adminship.
'''Neutral''' Per Timmeh and xeno no need to oppose.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Neutral'''. There is not much experience at all in any area that admins work in. I suggest spending the next few months participating in those areas (already mentioned by others), as well as reviewing [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide]], and [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. ···
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  I like that the candidate has some userpage barnstars and is already an administrator on Wikinews per the candidate's userpage.  Best, --
'''Support''' - There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Tempodivalse would abuse the tools. As an added bonus, he's already familiar with the bit on another project. &ndash;
'''Support''' per Juliancolton. '''''
4.5k edits in one month (December) with very little activity since then was a warning sign. ''"I have logged over 4k edits with Huggle and Twinkle"'' is hardly a proud boast (I'd have kept that quiet to be honest and hoped people didn't notice), and the disturbing arrogance (in my view) of ''"I'm also an admin and trusted user at the English Wikinews, '''so I can clearly be trusted with the sysop tools'''"'' (bolding mine) tipped me over the edge. No thanks. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]], it may not be true but it makes you sound arrogant.--
'''Oppose''' - I concur that it sounds arrogant, and you are lacking enough manual edits for me to be able to tell whether you would make a good enough administrator at this time. Questions to answers are a bit terse, too, and the answer to Q1 doesn't list anything which a user without the bit could do. No prejudice for future RfAs, though. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Just scrolling down the list of the last 500 contributions, I saw nearly nothing except vandal reversions and warnings with Huggle. There's nothing wrong with RC, but it seems that you do not have the experience you will need to handle the tools in the most efficient way. I'm not suggesting you'll abuse the tools, but that you would be better with them in a few months, perhaps. I suggest broadening your horizons. I hope this helps, and regards,
'''Weak oppose''' per Pedro, that you are coming across as somewhat arrogant. That's not a quality I'd like to see in an administrator ''here''. —'''
'''Neutral''' Not sure about this, per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]] and [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]]. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Neutral'''  I like the efforts in december the user has done to combat vandalisim. Decreasing edits through time is a small concern to me since things come up in life to pull us away. But im not swayed. 8 months to me seems early, Iknow its allowed in the guidlines but can i be directed to something about knowledge about wiki policies?
'''Conditional support''' - 7 RFAs means nothing but he's trying. Anyway, I don't agree with him on certain things, but I'll give it a shot.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Support''' Seen him around. A preliminary check through his contributions shows nothing (much) to worry about. I haven't seen the off-wiki issues Roux mentions below, so I cannot take them into account.
'''Support''', much as it seems academic at this point. TenPoundHammer is an extraordinarily dedicated editor who I feel would be a definite net positive with the tools. I do not always agree with him, but I'm pretty confident that he'd make good use of admin tools, as in general his knowledge and attitude are good. Having not seen the off-wiki actions mentioned in the opposes I am not at this point worried by them: I have not encountered any reason to suspect TPH is anything but a sensible editor who just happens to have some slightly radical views as far as some inclusion concepts go. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Extra strong uber Support''' It's a crime that this highly experienced and dogged editor with so many excellent content contributions has been denied the mop so many times over what is now ancient history. TPH has clearly demonstrated that he can and does learn from legitimate criticism and from his own mistakes, and has demonstrated that he can be patient in that he waited an entire ''year'' this time to run again, and actually had to be talked (or at least nudged) into it. While there is no of course no amount of editing that automatically grants adminship, 116,000 plus edits is mighty impressive, and no one could accuse him of being soft on content creation, he has been an extremely prolific creator of new articles, many of which have been featured at DYK. And, if you ask me, sense of humor and not taking things ''too'' seriously is a plus, not a negative, in an admin.
'''Support''' Lucky number seven? What occurs off-wiki should remain off-wiki, it shouldn't by any account colour what he'd would or wouldn't do with the bit which, as we all know, only works on-wiki. Heck, I even believe his ''current'' judgement of XfDs to be as good as any admin who deals primarily in content deletion and will offer balance in an area which suffers from a lack of bold admins. I reckon he can utilise the tools well and, to his credit, he won't be going anywhere soon. <font color="#94887C">
'''Strong Support''' May I ask how many people gathered here would have the courage, the dedication, the sincerity and the strength come back to this faith-shaking arena and subject themselves to the abuses of RfA for a ''seventh'' time? I am highly impressed by this man’s ability to return again simply because he wants to offer a greater level of assistance to a volunteer project that he has enhanced with his time, energy, dedication and intelligence. TPH’s positive contributions to Wikipedia’s editorial contents have been extraordinary – I was floored in reviewing the full scope of his original work and the honors he racked up. As for the whisperings in the Oppose section about alleged IRC misadventures, I find such behavior to be obnoxious – we are here to judge TPH solely on the capacity of what he can bring to the Wikipedia community, so please leave the off-Wiki world ''off''-Wiki. I believe that TPH will be an asset to the admin ranks and I am very glad to support his candidacy.  Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' I've been involved in numerous discussions that TPH has also been in, many of them at AfD, and I've never had a reason to question their judgment or knowledge. In fact I've assumed that he was an administrator already. -- '''
'''Support''' Although I believe that this user has been impulsize in the past, there is no reason to believe that he hasn't improved. I also support his courage here.
I need more data, but I don't want to see this one turn into a train wreck.  I totally understand SoWhy's point, having declined quite a few of TPH's speedies myself during the spring, but I think there's a chance that TPH will become one of our most productive admins given his prodigious editing and tagging work so far, and before I give up the chance to get someone who could offset 10 inactive admins, I want to make sure there's no way we can make this work before I'm willing to oppose.  At a minimum, I'd like <s>for the community to be really clear about</s> to be able to get a sense of what he would have to do over the next 3 months to offset the negatives and get the mop.  I discussed tagging issues a lot with TPH in the spring, and I found him to be a bit stubborn, a bit curt, but intelligent, consistent, and dedicated to the project. - Dank (
'''Support''' I've seen him around and have seen his hard work. The opposes don't bother me; I'm confident TPH will be a very helpful and trustworthy admin.
'''Support'''. I supported TPH in his first RFA, and supported him in the 6th, so you would think my support here would be a given. I came here to do just that but found myself struck with a lot of doubt upon reading some of the opposition here. Their concerns are most definitely valid and do give me some pause, but after having considered it for a couple of hours, I come to the conclusion that while TPH has tripped up here and there, who of us haven't? Given his prodigious contributions, I would frankly be surprised ''not'' to see some mistakes brought to light. I do not believe any of these errors are egreious and certainly not permanent. I don't forsee a cavalcade of DRVs sprouting up in the wake of a successful RfA. I am confident in saying that TPH is familiar with the policies and procedures, and certainly the nuances of the processes in which he wants to contribute. Result of sysopping this candidate is a net positive.
Beaten to the punch '''support''' by nominator. I'm disappointed by the early reaction to this; it's my view that TPH is a dedicated, balanced, thoughtful and effective editor who will not do anything stupid with the tools. If waiting a full year before accepting another nomination is an indication of "wanting it too much," I'll eat my damn hat. Without ketchup. I don't see overturned speedy deletions, and my look through recent contribs didn't suggest he was missing anything. He works on article rescues and does well with them. Because he works in deletion that shouldn't make him a pariah when it comes to adminship. I ask that he be given a chance to show his maturity and effectiveness as an admin, and feel that the encyclopedia will only be better for his having the tools.
'''Support''' I thought they already were an admin.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Support'''  Seventh time lucky? Support based solely on level of contribs. Hope I don't take this many attempts to pass my RfA!
'''Very Strong Support''' The idea that all our admins must be cut from the same bolt of Soviet-grey damask is an absurdity. The oppose votes are all tired variations on the don't like his deletion attitude blah blah blah. Well, frankly, 1) we should have admins who come from all corners of the spectrum. We have arch-inclusionist admins (DGG) who do an excellent job and don't misuse the tools. 2) We have mechanisms for censure and redress in the event that admins are routinely letting personal bias interfere with interpreting community decisions. If the only outstanding objection of substance is this BS about how TPH behaves at AfD then we need to amend the process by which admins are selected b/c the process is broken. Show a consistent pattern of incivility, ownership, poor edits, pointy behaviour or biting newbies, ok those are reasonable grounds for objection. But what I see is mostly personal disagreement over wikiphilosophies masquerading as principled objection in faux-ingenu tones. I respect editors' right to oppose. But opposition to a candidate with ''over 100,000 edits'' should require more serious engagement with the editor's record.
'''Support''' Because I think the AFD opposers are nit-picking too much, and I feel comfortable with him having the tools.
'''Support''', most of the opposers are not making valid points and/or are misinformed. Ten Pound Hammer is an excellent editor (look at his contributions) and he would better serve the project by having the tools to make an even greater impact. He is tireless and willing to improve this project by doing all the dirty work that no one else wants to do. It is simply unwise to oppose. --
Without a doubt.
'''Support'''. Again. Still a trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as I've said before TenPoundHammer is a great editor. --
'''Support''' After so many edits surely this editor will be as well equipped as someone with 7,000! '''
'''Support''' A couple of RfAs ago, I opposed because of speedy deletion issues -- I haven't run across a single bad nom of TPH's in my speedy work since then. While TPH is a bit more deletionist than I am, so are a great number of Wikipedians, so I can't hold that against the otters. I read every oppose here, and none of them convinced me to change my mind.--
My '''support''' has nothing to do with edit count.  TPH is a committed editor with some excellent and thoughtful contributions under his belt.  He has, in the past, been described as "careless" from time to time—and I think that was an accurate description when it was made—but TPH's ''recent'' contributions do not show this flaw, so I [[WP:AGF|assume]] he has genuinely matured and begun to show more care.—
'''Support''' - I know TPH will probly be suprised to see this, but I support. TPH has made a lot of edits. I don't know much of his work since I was blocked, but yes, he seems all good.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Very commited user with more than 119,510 edits and is one of the users who will stay in Wikipedia and  is really dedicated and really commited to Wikipedia.Even after the RFA failures he has continued to work harder and contribute to Wikipedia even if this RFA tanks he will continue to contribute and which is really good and his dedication will not go down.See zero chance of misuse of tools.
No, no, no. I still have major doubts about his knowledge of this pedia through many conversations and plenty of his actions (the majority of which are found at afd). '''
No. 7 RfAs? No. Lack of real understanding of how Wikipedia works. Other issues which I shall not comment on, as they were offwiki, but betray a personality inconsistent with being an admin. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. The majority of his AfD contributions are Non-Admin Closures which do not allow me to see how well thought-out his comments are in that area, something I like to see before promoting an admin whose stated goal is to work in XfD related areas. The few ''actual comments'' I've seen are one-liners like "does not show notability" "no notability found" with no explanation or full rationale. Contact I've had with this user off-wiki, particularly on IRC, shows that while the face he presents to the wiki may have changed, his character has not, particularly one noted conversation in which he lambasted #wikipedia-en in caps for refusing to help him edit a country & western article.
This user seems to have trouble determining what should and should not be nominated for deletion. They fail to understand the principle of NOHARM as it applies to redirects and miscellany. And nominating [[Billy Mays]]' flagship product for deletion days after his death with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OxiClean (2nd nomination)|a joking nom statement]] showed extreme insensitivity and poor judgment <small>(Disclosure: I closed it as speedy keep)</small>. Oppose with my sympathy, as I'm sure running 6 or more times without success must be disheartening. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
Intends to work in deletion, but holds views on deletion that are considerably more radical than those of the community. No evidence that this has changed since the other RfAs. (Was edit conflicted by TenPoundHammer's comment above; that statement makes me more worried about controversial deletions in the event he is made an admin.)
Seven RfAs seems too excessive to me. I was considering neutral but I highly trust Roux's judgement on administrative matters, and although I haven't seen the evidence he mentions, I trust it's sufficient to deny you the mop. If you'd like to make that incident clear and present your side, that's fine. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' - came to support, but the opposers have convincing reasoning. Unfortunately, it's an oppose from me too...--
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Sadly, the opposer's are too convincing.
'''Oppose''' - I've seen way too much bad judgement (especially in the area of deletion) to trust TPH with the tools. It seems that you've gotten better with CSDs lately (the past month or two), but to me, a bit of improvement is definitely outweighed by a long history of mistaggings, poor research at AfDs, and a lack of general maturity. You're probably expecting this, but the numerous RfAs isn't a good sign either IMO; his seemingly pushy attitude toward gaining adminship has always left me very uncomfortable with granting TPH the extra bit. Also, although this is an off-wiki concern, I've never been impressed with his IRC conduct either. Sorry.
What Xeno said. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Pastor Theo's support is a great example in microcosm of nearly everything that's wrong with RFA.   By all means gather him round the campfire and sing Kum Ba Ya, but don't be giving him the extra buttons.  '''Dedication is no substitute for competence'''.
'''Oppose''' - JamieS93 put it well. I have time and time declined speedy taggings by TPH, some of them while AFD was open and discussion ongoing. TPH is one of those users whose contributions I cannot laud enough but who I do not trust with the delete button because their contributions are too often stained by grave mistakes (even after six failed RFAs). Regards '''
'''Oppose''' On my list of people to oppose. Let me see if I can remember why. Probably something with bad deletion tagging. The six previous RfAs don't bother me since the last one was long ago. --
'''Oppose''' - per JamieS93. '''
'''Oppose''' - dedicated yes - but hit rate in xFD does not look good. <small>This is just a casual observation from running across xFD's randomly</small>
'''Oppose''' He's a [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARemmaHdnuoPneT confirmed vandal] at [[Uncyclopedia]]. I can provide more sockpuppets of his upon request.
'''Oppose'''.  Well, I have supported and opposed in the past and most recently I was neutral at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6]] back in August 2008 and so am only focusing on contributions since then for the purposes of this new RfA.  And per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]], I cannot support or even go with neutral due to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire lizard]] (use of a [[WP:PERNOM]] and [[WP:JNN]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Sawyer]] (we should not go by speculation, but rather the results of actual searches), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-listened-to radio programs]] (nomination that closed as keep), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirage (Aladdin)]] (source searches show that these are verifiable, which means covered to some extent at least), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Skullhead]] (another nomination that closed as keep), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hanley (Peyton Place)]] (begins by commenting on another editor rather than the article), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Jean]] (no reason not to redirect at least), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reptar]] (the "sobbering fanboy" bit is over the top, even if a legitimate case could be made that a redirect would get overturned, no need to insult a class of our editors; after all, are we not all fans of something?), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Pickles]] (almost a copy and paste of the same "slobbering fanboy" line), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toothing (2nd nomination)]] (seems a bit antagonistic if not mocking toward those arguing to keep), etc.  That is not to say the editor has no positives.  He has been around for a while and has never even been accidentally blocked.  Moreover, he has at times made contributions to DYK, Good, and Featured articles.  All of these are commednable, but when it comes to an area of potential administrative use, namely the delete function, many AfD nominations and comments come off as either indiscriminate or overly zealous that I just cannot trust to close AfDs.  I have at times in the past commented on this user's niceness and have had some pleasant interactions despite our obviously divergent inclusion philosophies, but the whole "slobbering fanboys" stuff is I suppose just disppointing enough to give me pause and go from my neutral of last time to oppose this time.  Sincerely, --
Just not confident on the deletion front - still see him as quick on the trigger in this area.
No clue bat.  And I mean that in a serious way.  TenPoundHammer, you do fantastic work.  However, you in fact have no cluebat if you fail to realize that cluebats are not used to hit people, they are to educate.  Administrating the English Wikipedia is not an actual fight or contest, it is collaborative and in fact clueful.  The idea of cluebat is meant to be integral, not external.  The fact that I am in this opposition category with many users with whom I regularly disagree should be even more of a cluebat.
'''Oppose'''. As much as I appreciate TenPoundHammer's contributions, I can't comfortably suppose based on the user's XfD contributions. The one that stuck in my mind and was fairly recent was his several ways to get [[Atlantic Records discography]] deleted. He nominated the article three times for deletion. The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Records discography|first AfD]] was in November 2008 and the result was withdrawn, no troubles there. In May 2009, the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Records discography (2nd nomination)|second AfD]] was fully carried out and consensus was to keep the article. A month later, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_Records_discography&oldid=293850269 redirects] the article only to [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 2#Atlantic Records discography|nominate it at RfD]] after another month passes by. A user revert to the revision prior to the redirect during the RfD and TenPoundHammer [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Records discography (3rd nomination)|nominates the article for deletion a third time]], which he withdrew when he was notified. This isn't the first instance, nor will it be the last. Either TenPoundHammer doesn't check the article history or talk page for past AfDs or he nominates articles until he gets his way. Either way, I would not confide in him to use the tools correctly. — '''''
Firm no from me, per Ironholds, Xeno, JamieS93, Christopher Parham etc. I'm sorry this may sound blunt, but some people are ''just not suited'' for adminship. After six RfAs, and little to no change between them, I'd have thought this point would have sunk in. '''
'''Oppose''' per Xeno and Dekimasu. Behavior at various XfDs leaves a lot to be desired.
Oppose per Ironholds.
'''Oppose''' - consistently useless in tagging articles for deletion, requests he places via that nasty IRC place are frequently turned down and result in much childish stroppiness, before frequently descending into arguments before it's eventually made clear just how TPH has erred in policy interpretation. It's not really getting much better either, but ultimately, the key reason for opposing this request is the fact that we would lose a significant amount of good quality new content (and potentially, good quality contributors both new and old) if TPH was entrusted with the delete button.
'''Oppose'''. I would have supported TenPoundHammer this time around, but recent interaction with regards to non-free content has shown me he is perhaps not the best admin candidate. A blanket belief that "Alternate covers are generally acceptable if they are significantly different" is not a positive ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Milburn&diff=308900351&oldid=308881488 diff]) and I got the impression he really wasn't interested in discussing the matter- he suggested "taking this to a noticeboard" because he had "been told in the past that alternate album covers are acceptable in most cases". Non-free content guidelines? Non-free content criteria? Who cares? Someone told him they were legitimate, and it's ok, he added some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Be_Here&diff=308898828&oldid=308898288 original research] to the article describing what the cover looks like. Obviously, that means it's needed. Regardless of whether you feel that alternative album covers are automatically legit or not (amazingly, there are some widespread beliefs about how we should automatically be using alt covers, but I digress), you can at least see that this really isn't admin behaviour.
'''Oppose''' Based on some AfDs mentioned above, I have a feeling TPH would be too deletion happy which is what we need to avoid with AfD admins.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' Although I value TPH's nominations for deletion, and assistence in cleaning up the rubbish, I feel the temptation of the delete button would be too great.  There are too many articles that need to be rescued from TPH's nominations. <s>119,000 deleted contributions - the highest I have seen for a user!</s> [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 00:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)  Oops they wer not deleted but the total - thanks for the alert, not such a fantastic achievement then, but an achievement of a different kind.
'''Oppose'''. I've trusted TenPoundHammer, but the opposition has shown valid reason for concern that cause me doubt. '''''
'''Oppose''', though TPH does great work for the encyclopedia, I do not trust that they will not have an inherent bias at articles for deletion. We don't need delete happy administrators. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Seeing how he acts in AFD I am strongly opposed to him.  I'd also like to point out how odd it is, someone keeps trying for this, if they have been rejected this many times in the past.  Seventh nomination?
'''Oppose''' I came here very very sure I would be supporting, mainly because I already thought you were an admin. However, [[User:xeno]]'s oppose shows a very large lack of judgment. Sorry, but I don't want an admin like that. Also per [[User:Majorly]]. I usually do not fully agree with him, as I think he is always a little blunt, but today I think what he has said is correct.--
The candidate is a dedicated and excellent content contributor. I disagree with him sometimes at AfD but would not oppose on that basis, and I was neutral at his last RfA. However. I wonder about his ability to handle the stress of having his actions challenged when I see him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG/Archive_30_Jul._2009#ANI hinting to an admin] that a user with whom he is in a disagreement should be blocked for a rather mild attack. But the main reason I oppose this RfA, I'm sorry to say, is that I'm not able to bring myself to trust him when it comes to deletion. In May 2009 there were many speedy tags he re-added to articles (reverting the other editors who removed them) and he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=290558793 agreed to stop] only after it was brought to WP:AN and an admin was firm with him.  He should not have been doing it in the first place, as this is the very kind of thing he has received feedback about ''many'' times including at his previous RfAs.  He remains at times careless with nominations and speedy tagging, sometimes not even checking talk pages or histories; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corpus_Christi_(band)&diff=293512549&oldid=293456819 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kid_Dakota&diff=293820056&oldid=292734464 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Forms_(band)&diff=299727475&oldid=299619089 this one] stand out in my mind, in addition to the Atlantic Records discography redirect.  Sometimes he accidentally misrepresents what others say; for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pwn_(2nd_nomination)&diff=290996386&oldid=290996237 here] saying "Last AFD closed as keep on merit of nothing but [[WP:ILIKEIT]] votes" which was not the case, since sources had been offered.  I also agree with xeno that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OxiClean (2nd nomination)|this nomination]] is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from an admin candidate. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Oppose.''' The editor's commitment to ''participation'' is unquestionable, but it's unclear to me that this editor has interest in real improvement of the encyclopedia outside of a limited number of subjects that strike him as interesting, or in understanding issues and striking consensus when his edits are controversial or when they meet contention.  In this respect his user name is fitting; his modus operandi seems to be to hammer away, rather than to reason, negotiate, try to understand varying perspectives or alternate points of view, etc.  I'm also concerned about this user's support of drive-by tagging as standard operating procedure.  To my mind, this controversial practice has had a negative impact on the encyclopedia by blighting articles, and does not realistically contribute to article improvement any speedier or more effectively than discussion on talk pages.  I have concerns about how this user's adminship would affect the operation of the encyclopedia.
I've supported in the past, and I really want to here. It's hard to go a day without seeing [[WP:HAMMER]] and his content contributions are superior. Still, I find myself hesitating, because TPH's stated area of emphasis - deletions - is the admin area I am least comfortable in seeing him operate.  I'm concerned that TPH's impulsive nature will lead to a substantial workload at [[WP:DRV]] reconsidering his closes. I don't have any one diff from the last year that bothers me, it's more a subjective feeling that an earlier pattern of ill-considered bold actions hasn't really changed.
'''Neutral''' He's a very productive editor and would get a lot of work done, but I don't think we need any more admins with bad attitudes. I'd debating at the moment. With all of the time he spends working here, I'd say him becoming an admin would be a [[WP:NETPOS|net positive]] for WP, but the issues mentioned by users who I respect currently leave me unable to support. I will note that I can be easily swayed in either direction. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support'''. Extremely helpful. Definitely the type we want as an admin. '''''
'''Weak Support''' I've found Teratornis to be helpful, diligent, and without the inflated ego of some of us more delusional editors.  Also, at the time of this writing, Teratornis has exactly 10,000 edits.  IT IS A [http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/270929186_44459e86c6_o.jpg SIGN]. '''
'''Strong Support''' Per [[User:FlyingToaster|FlyingToaster]].  Also seems to be interested in green energy, which is a plus.  :)  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
<font color="navy">
'''Support''' - Always helpful and will humbly use the tools.  --
'''Support''' No problems here, nice answer to Q3. Good luck!
'''Support''' no reason to oppose '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' It seems clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Strong support'''. Oh yes, he is always so accurate and thorough (that's besides the excellent sense of humour). --
'''Support'''.  More edits to the help desk than I have to the whole project, wow.  That's the kind of helpfulness we need in admins.
'''Support''' Brilliant user, liked his answers :).&mdash;
'''Strong Support''' Would absolutely love to see this user as an admin. They seem so helpful and is the type of person I want to see as an admin -
'''Support''' - I'm extremely impressed with this user's contribs, and I'm extremely confident that they'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' - I have been very impressed with Teratornis' help desk work. I cannot speak for other editors there, but when I see that Teratornis has answered a query, I consider the matter closed. His answers are in-depth, knowledgeable, and have an abundance of helpful links contained with in them. Others may feel that his answers are confusing, I feel that they answer the explicit question as well as the other questions that would arise from the line of inquiry. <font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' per Xclamation point. Amazing work! '''''
'''Co-nominator support''' (belatedly).  Yes, sometimes he's a bit wordy, but adminship is about ''trust'', not conciseness.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' justification on why tools are helpful for trusted help desk regulars seems correct; won't misuse the tools; and the opposes really haven't come up with anything convincing.
'''Support''' No issues.
'''Support'''. Immensely helpful user with a great knowledge of Wikipedia's operation and some very smart answers to the questions. Your ability to comprehensively help confused new users is a virtue, I have absolutely no problem with your lengthy answers. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. In my humble opinion the concerns raised aren't enough to oppose.
Very helpful presence wherever he goes, Teratornis will do wonders with the mop. :)
'''Strong support'''. Just become some are editors and don't like to read long blocks of text is no reason for an oppose ''at all''.
'''Co-Nominator Support''' as described in the nomination. --
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, helpful, calm, polite and intelligent. Exactly the sort of admin we need.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate. No issue taken with long and detailed answers.
Part of the joy of the communal aspect of this project is RfA.  No, I am not kidding.  I have read through the opposition, including Iridescent's succinct oppose, and have come to an entirely different conclusion.  I trust this user's judgment, and I would much rather see a well rationed opinion that is open to criticism then a whole bunch of bullsh*t to pass RfA.  Regards,
'''Support''' People are opposing for loquacity now? For goodness sake...

'''Support''' - Approachable, willing to help, friendly. Also with a good grasp of the inner workings of WP. I think admins (current and future) could learn a lot from Teratornis. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] (
'''Support''' for a wise and informative candidate. I'm more concerned with those who feedback too little than those with a tendency to verbosity. ''
'''Support''' I tend to give long winded responses as well from time to time, covers everything needed to say. It can be hard sometimes to get across everything you need to say on talk page as its not instant chatting but sometimes more info can reduce more questions in the future as the answers are there. This can also reduce potential miscommunications during a potential conflict. So i think i see some of the users possible intentions and do not see fault in this at this time (unless Im missing something). Seems friendly and trustworthy
'''Support'''. Not enough administrators currently.
'''<s>Support</s>''' '''weak support'''. <s>Not that I ever had serious doubt, but</s> Iridescent did give me pause.  I can certainly understand a civility concern, and while TLDR is easy to do - when I look at the items "in toto", I simply see an editor trying to cover all aspects of an issue rather than declaring a point of view.  Sometimes playing the "Devil's advocate" helps everyone see the big picture a little better. I can also understand a question of ego, given some rather lengthy responses; but, the response to Q.7 indicates (to me at least) that Teratornis doesn't jump to conclusions without having all the data.  <s>Yea, full support from me</s>. —
'''Support'''. Anyone who is opposed because of alleged incivility can't be all bad. --
Problems described in the oppose section don't strike me as that serious.
'''Support'''. I followed the links provided by opposers, and saw nothing but reasonable comments.<br>By the way, I'm going to quote in its entirety the edit that is causing certain users to flip out, because the links to it have become somewhat obscured: "I think reading The God Delusion should be more helpful. Might as well get more points of view."<br>There is nothing offensive in there. If you are offended, substitute the name of any other book in there and re-evaluate. You are not offended by what Teratornis wrote in his edit. You are offended ''because The God Delusion is a book promoting atheism'' and you hold negative prejudices about atheism. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its editors.
'''Support''' Looks alright to me. --
'''Support''' Same here <tt>:)</tt>  —
'''Support''': I've never seen such a collection of nonsensical, ill informed and down right wrong opposes at RfA before. This chap will make an excellent administrator and we really should not be deprived of an extra admin because some people think he writes comments that are too long, or because we already have too many administrators.
'''Support''' Per Nick.
'''Support'''. I don't agree with all of Teratornis's opinions. However he is articulate and provides reasoned arguments. The answer to question 4 is ironically amusing, doubly so with the "tldr"-style opposes.
'''Strong Support''' Prolific article building, nor being a published writer, are qualifications to be a great admin. Teratornis seems to know what he's doing, he's trustworthy and helpful, and therefore (in my opinion) ready for the tools. -'''
'''Strong Support''' Extremely helpful to help-desk and project related areas. the kind of person that an admin should be. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. You seem to be doing a fine job. Your tendency to be verbose or to make long comments, which the opposition seems to have taken issue with, is not something I find to be of concern. However, you may want to try to be more concise when the time calls for it; everything you say in every context seems to be of a similar length. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' No big reason not to.--
'''Support''' I trust this user. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''': User's Help Desk contributions are always helpful. They can ''very occasionally'' be a little wordy, but are always insightful and show the necessary level of understanding of policy and guidelines.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' &ndash; no bright red flags, per above. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked and based on recent edits and adopt a user boxes on userpage seems interested in helping fellow editors.  We should hope that admins are interested in helping out those who ask for help.  Best, --
'''Support''' <small>switched from neutral</small> It seems to me that WP visitors put off by stuff like the Q4 issue (both the "answeree" and other readers) are unlikely to voice up and complain in numbers - they're more likely to simply disappear, for at least a while.  But, moving past that, I give the candidate credit for shortening the answers to the optional ?s as this week went on; for engaging people in constructive conversation in this RFA; and for genuinely trying to be, well, helpful in this little week-long conversation.  If I look past the style issues - which are important, mind you - I see the potential for an excellent and helpful administrator here.  (If candidate was really ''that'' unhelpful, Help Desk would be discouraging candidate's ongoing participation.)  I don't agree with everything you say and do, but I also don't want to withhold support over what basically amounts to one bad diff.  And if this doesn't pass, I do hope the candidate will continue to help out, and maybe even consider trying RFA again sometime.
'''Oppose''' Moved from Support per the candidate's overreaction and sarcastic comment toward pushthebutton' criticism. ''(It's good to get the first nonfavorable feedback. The early returns seemed a little too good to be true. Even in my wildest fantasies I'm not that good.)'' In my view, good communication skills and somewhat thick skin toward "healthy criticism" are required for ''good'' administrators, but the lengthy rebuttal make me rethink about my vote. --
<s>'''Strong</s> oppose''' <s>I feel the user has bad communication skills, d[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teratornis#Inappropriate_edit_at_Wikipedia:Help_desk.23Eternal_Security_in_Jesus here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=279824001#Adding_pictures here]. Orange Mike complained that a comment Teratornis made was offensive towards relgious people. Rather than say sorry, Teratornis wrote 854 words justifying his comment and claiming religion is nonsense. Now, making an occasional mistake and insulting somebody is fine, but then ''attempting to justify'' that comment and not acknowledge that what you said was insulting when someone complains of feeling offended is awful. Oh, and on your next run basic civility isn't enough. An admin should actually be nice, able to "win friends and influence people", not just be able to avoid fights. I expect drasticically more regard for other people's feelings next time round. Nobody lives more than once and we're all currently dying, so every second someone spends experiencing a negative emotion is a second of their lives wasted. Don't be the one who loses them a second.--[[User:Patton123|<font color="green">Patton</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Patton123|<font color="green">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patton123|<font color="green">c</font>]]</sup> 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)</s> User has addressed concern. I still would like a few months of completely civil behaviour before I support though. Basically, not this RfA.--
'''Oppose''' Conciseness is mandatory in an admin.  Life is too short for such prolixity.  I'm open to changing this if Teratornis makes a commitment to be terse in any admin-related communications.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. I can't support a candidate that has questionable civility when dealing with others, and potentially scaring away newbies. The overreaction to pushthebutton's criticism doesn't really strike me as a good sign of preferred admin qualities
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> - First of all, the [[User:Teratornis/Should editors be logged-in users%3F|unregistered users]] page didn't strike a chord with me. Perhaps our slogan should be "The free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, but nobody should." Your help desk contributions are a mixture of biting sarcasm and contempt. And, back to above, you assert that someone who isn't a regular has nothing useful to add to articles that are already of good quality. That disturbs me extremely. In one case, when you confronted by a user about your civility, you really replied by just asserting that Wikipedia should [[WP:CENSOR|censor]] an encyclopedic image that happens to offend many people. Everything just seems... arrogant.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>.  Admins have tenure, and it's unreasonably difficult to get rid of a bad one; and they have wide-ranging powers including the delete button.  This means I need to see evidence of the prospective admin's attitude to deletion, and I haven't.  I do see the prospect's remark that "I wouldn't use it initially", but I remain concerned about what would happen in three or six months when he did start to use it.—
'''Oppose''' Per the neutral votes, that's enough for me to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Iridescent completely. Civility in an administrator is essential. No matter how good your track record/contributions are, it gives no user the right to be uncivil, in any way, shape, or form. I can't support someone who has civility problems, sorry. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
<s>'''Oppose''' </s>per S Marshall. Also, clear communication is absolutely essential for a sysop.
'''Strong oppose''' based on diffs above. The one Iridescent called "a doozy" is simply atrocious and if that's his attitude toward newbies creating new articles, this is not someone I would trust with the delete button. This alone is a red flag the size of an elephant. But I also read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teratornis#Inappropriate_edit_at_Wikipedia:Help_desk.23Eternal_Security_in_Jesus this discussion referenced above] and I find it way too obtuse to make me trust his ability to communicate effectively with editors who (inevitably) get pissed off by this or that admin action. On a personal level, I tend to agree about the place religion should have outside, well, religion and this is really not the problem here. The problem is the grandstanding, including absurd generalizations such as "Muslims generally do not complain much about what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan" and "Wikipedia thumbs its nose at Muslims by asking them to tolerate [the Muhammad cartoons]", gratuitous wikilinks galore, self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing lecturing on increasingly unrelated topics. This is pretty much the opposite of what we want from admins. Among other diffs I found questionable [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mac&diff=prev&oldid=257001336] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=244330417] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=274767661]. The latter is probably intended to be funny (at least, I sure hope so!) but depending on whether one believes the original question was a serious one it's either a condescending lecture or a classic case of troll enabling.
'''Strong Oppose''' I am a loudmouth atheist, and I still think [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_March_20#Eternal_Security_in_Jesus this] is the 100% wrong way to respond. I'd brush it off, but your lengthy reply to the question about it totally dodged around the fact that you responded in a personal, snarky way to someone acting in good faith, which is the exact opposite of what is necessary for us to trust you with the admin tools. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
'''Weak oppose'''.  The incivility and communication problems are hard to ignore. You should always keep in mind that as an administrator you will be representing all of Wikipedia and one poor comment will reflect badly upon the whole site. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) - firstly, poor communication skills. One of the most important requirements of an admin is the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, and Teratornis fails that test spectacularly. Secondly, I have general concerns about his attitude; edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=244330417] display an alarming sense of superiority and hostility to newcomers, and the extensive arguments on Teratornis' talk page over issues like US energy resources and religion suggest he seems more interested in having political debates than building an encyclopaedia. Taking a look at his recent edits, he spends far too much time on the former and far too little on the latter - not a good sign in a would-be administrator.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of the material linked to in Q.4 We do not respond to a good faith inquiry by insulting a person's religion. Essentially per Malinaccier. I would not be too disturbed by this if it were an isolated response, and if Teratornis had realized the wrongness of how he responded. That he continues to defend it shows unsuitability for an administrative role here, in complete agreement with the other commentators in this section. . That he uses the help desk as a soapbox  on other topics also confirms this. '''
'''Oppose''' I do not feel comfortable given the communication concerns, pretty much agree with Neuro's neutral. &lowast;
'''Oppose''' per neuro (in neutral section). '''''
'''Oppose''' Does a lot of good work helping out at the help desk but my feeling is that he doesn't contribute enough to the encyclopedia or other parts of the site. He seems to have his eggs all in one basket so the speak.
'''Oppose'''. [[User:DGG|DGG]] has it right. An editor who is unapologetic for substituting his own views for Wikipedia policies and guidelines and has a history of soapboxing will likely generate more drama than his useful work. Not admin material yet.
'''Oppose'''- while I find it a valid use of the tools to help out at the help desk (I had never really thought about it, but being an admin does make things a lot easier), I'm not sure he has enough experience in other areas. I'd like to see more article building, myself. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per Patton, DGG, and the answer to Q4.  User seems to be an unrepentant about his anti-religion stance and causes me concern that he could instantiate NPOV regarding such articles and associated disputes.
'''Oppose'''  It's strange that someone who writes so fluently has virtually no contributions to articles when articles are the whole point of wikipedia.  I think an admin should have experienced first hand the difficulties of writing content, it would even benefit someone who likes to be on a help desk.  Seeing his writing edited by other writers might even tighten up his prose style for the benefit of all concerned.
'''Oppose''', switched from support, due to reaction to for instance Jclemens.  There are so many things I like about this guy, and I will ''enthusiastically'' support if the candidate learns something from what the opposition is saying over the next 3 months.  The candidate wants the freedom not to have to censor himself when he has something important to say, but that's a freedom you have to give up when your top goal is to make Wikipedia look good and avoid stoking known flashpoints.  It was an early decision at Wikipedia, and a bitterly fought one, to make Wikipedia a place that does a good job of reflecting the world as it is, rather than a place that does a good job of making the world a better place. - Dan
'''Oppose''', switched from Support, mainly because of the concerns DDG brings up and his constant badgering of people who has any criticism whatsoever.  '''
'''Oppose''' Wow. Somebody preachier and more verbose than I am. Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia needs editors like you: it needs people who are passionate, willing to engage in heated discussion, unafraid of speaking uncomfortable truths, and capable of processing and applying enormous amounts of data. But those character traits, while they make for a superb editor, do not necessarily make for a good admin. A good admin should be able to balance passion for Wikipedia with the dispassion needed to discern consensus, make compromises, avoid abuse of power in a cause, however just, and ''communicate clearly and concisely.'' I do not view admin as a merit badge to be handed out on the basis of quality - I view it as a particular role requiring particular traits, and, IMO, too much of our drama on Wikipedia comes as a result of the admins who are incapable of that particular brand of dispassion, self-denial, and moderation. To be frank, your record convinces me you're an amazing editor, one with awesome energy and skill, to be emulated in many respects, but not one possessing the qualities I see in a good admin. <strong>
'''Weak Oppose''', largely per S.Marshall and Stifle.  And while I definitely wouldn't call the Dawkins comment incivil, I would certainly charactarize it as unhelpful.  --
'''Regretful Oppose''' While I do approve of the work Teratornis has done for the project, points brought up by DGG and Neuro are not the qualities of an admin.  Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per issues raised by DGG and Stifle. --
'''Oppose''' I have to join in with the opposition. I like your explanitory writing style and I think we need more Wikipedians who understand verbal logic.  On the other hand, your message isn't fitting to the role of an admin. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teratornis&oldid=279745321#Civility This] is a case of how an admin shouldn't respond, but when it comes from a regular editor it has a lot to gain from your "outside the system" perspective. You're far too personal (in the best sense of the word) for a dirty old mop. An ideal admin is 90% robot and 10% consensus judger; you are neither.  As this is a collaborative encyclopedia, the admin tools should be used only to enforse what is already consensus, not to try to create a new one or push your own view. You'd be good in policy debates as a regular editor as you could win over support with your arguments, but I can hardly imagine you being fair in utilizing the tools in a nonbiased manner. We need more editors like you, but also less admins.  '''
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Teratornis&diff=281141850&oldid=281109427 q11], I'd want admins to stop other admins from doing such things again. --
'''Oppose'''.  I'm all for having discussions and trying to effect policy, but this user seems to be biased against anon users.  This makes me question how the user will deal with IP editors and the user's ability to [[WP:AGF]].  Furthermore, many of the user's responses on this page seem like a poor attempt at politicking rather than true discourse.
'''Neutral''' - I'm sorry, but I don't share the view that all of his help desk answers are actually, well, helpful. Take [[Wikipedia:HD#Adding_pictures|this one]], as an example (not a permanent link). The first answer, from {{user|ukexpat}} pretty much answers the OP's question - maybe a little on the brief side, but it's there. Teratornis' answer, however, would just leave a newbie scratching their head saying "WTF? That may be an answer to ''some'' question, but not the one I asked". His contributions to the Help Desk are littered with examples like that, and if people want I'll dig out more. They're verbose, frequently obtuse, and as a net result somewhat counter-productive. The Help Desk is not the place for long expositions on what Wikipedia is or isn't, or philosophical tracts  on any number of topics - it's for people to get answers to their questions about how to use it. All too often in his longwinded (although well-motivated, I have no doubt) replies, Teratornis forgets that. If that same approach is extrapolated out to administrative actions, and there's nothing to indicate that it wouldn't be, then I cannot see that it is conducive to being a good administrator - clarity and conciseness are two of the attributes that I look for in an administrator and their dealings with others, and I don't believe that Teratornis would display those. <small>
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' - Administrators need to be able to communicate effectively. The response above is a huge overreaction to a small comment, and makes me worry about what may happen if the candidate is promoted and faces more severe criticism (as most admins will at some point). <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - Neurolysis hit the proverbial nail on the head; I've nothing more to say beyond his rationale. &ndash;
'''Neutral'''. Teratornis, I believe you are trustworthy.  However, I have issue with your verbose responses and reaction to criticism.  I'd change my vote to Support, either at this RfA or a future one, if I were convinced your communication skills had improved.
Came here to support, but it seems that you're not as open to criticism as I thought you were.  A wonderful Help Desk-er and seems capable, but I really don't want another arrogant admin.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #999933;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''  User is trustworthy, but I am not sure the usage of the tools would be appropriate.  Cheers,

'''Neutral''' verging on the side of oppose. Communications skills are important, and his responses to the criticism of his rather.. verbose attitude has really proved the opposers point.
'''Neutral''', pretty much per [[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] and [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]]. '''
'''Neutral''' Has been a good contributor, but there are too many concerns for me to support.
'''Support''' I don't have a problem with you becoming an admin, if you're already one over at the Italian WP. '''

'''Oppose''' Your rollback request was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=299700964&oldid=299699876 declined a few hours ago].
'''Oppose.''' You have a nice balance of contributions, which is good, and you've been here for a few years, which is good. However, you have a history of blocks: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Texcarson 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Raffaello 2], especially one from February, which is very concerning. Keep contributing and you should be ready in under a year, assuming you get the blocks behind you. Regards,
'''Oppose'''.  I appreciate that this user seems to have been a productive editor the last month or so, but with the exception of some minor edits there hasn't been a lot to show for since February, when the candidate apparently had a bad reaction to some of his uploads being tagged for fair-use issues.  The manner in which the candidate responded to that issue was absolutely unacceptable and, even were he not blocked at the time, is enough to show that this user has yet to demonstrate the maturity or temperament required of an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Now just isn't the right time for you I'm afraid. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">
'''Strong oppose''', per vandalism history, block log, above diffs, and a stroll through the candidates talk page contributions. Recommend a solid year and ~5000 article-building edits before even contemplating another RfA run.
'''Strong Oppose''' Rollback request denied a few hours ago, the diffs, past vandalism all too much for me to support.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rayman_2_music_sample.ogg&diff=prev&oldid=270564495 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_Records&diff=prev&oldid=270564718 this].
'''Strong Oppose''' per recent vandalism. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]], seemingly [[User talk:The Black Rabbit of Inlé|treating Wikipedia as Myspace]] and this possibly being a joke nomination. Adminship is not a big deal, but neither is it something to be screwed around with for kicks.
'''Strong oppose''': Partly [[WP:NOTNOW]], and partly because editors I respect have tried to reasonable sort things out with you and have come back with little. Your user talk page says it all. Come back in several months' time with more edits, and constructive ones at that. I would also considering withdrawring this RFA for fear of an imminent pile-on. -
'''Oppose''' Four recent blocks including three for edit warring. Poor edits include the addition of factual errors to articles such as claiming [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sporting_venues_with_a_highest_attendance_of_100,000_or_more&diff=prev&oldid=298127070 Old Trafford's] record attendance is 100,000, when no figure of 100,000 has ever been recorded.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. '''<font face="verdana">
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' As per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try again after some months.sorry and good Luck.Welcome your drive to contribute more to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''', concerns raised above certainly give pause. Please take some time to reflect and gain more experience on the project in varied capacities. '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience [[User:Frehley|<font face="Old English" color="0d254c" size="4">Fre</font>]]

'''Oppose.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AThe_Cool_Kat&limit=1 Rollback recently removed] for abuse this month, and I declined a re-request for rollback shortly after. It is far too soon to try for adminship, as you yourself acknowledge above. May I suggest a [[WP:ER|editor review]] in this request's place. Best, <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' Per PeterSymonds, to soon after your rollback was removed. First step regain trust to get it back, then use it properly for six-twelve months and then come back to RfA.--
Sorry, but you don't quite seem ready yet. Spend more time looking over other RfAs, rebuild trust to get Rollback back, get an [[WP:ER|editor review]] which will be far less strenuous than an RfA, spend some time voting at AfD. Generally work on showingyou understand the nuances and vagaries of WP's policies. --
Too soon. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong oppose''' - Rollback removed due to misuse much too recently to support. Also due to a very serious off-Wiki incident which occurred as a result of this users actions recently (will not name specifics). Suggest [[WP:NOTNOW]] close. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support as co-nom''' Like I said, he will make a good admin.
'''Support as co-nom''' -'''
'''EC-almost-beat-the-co-nom-Support''' - Ed is a great editor, has experience building an article up to FA-class, and has experience in another position of authority&mdash;a coordinator at WP:MILHIST. Giving Ed the mop will be a benefit to the community.
(e/c, what ''is'' that?!?) '''Almost beat-the-nom strongest support possible''' - Excellent user, with commendable mindset. Ed is always patient with new users, and for the months I've known him, I have never seen a severe outbreak or tantrum from his part. Ed has had an account for several years now, so there is no doubt about his experience. Throughout the time I have known him, he has been committed to keeping the project intact pacifically, and he has done an outstanding job as coordinator of [[WP:MILHIST]]. Above all, he has immense levels of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] and absolutely knows how to [[WP:COOL|keep cool]] against all odds, even when I myself might have lost temper. In short, one very promising candidate; I am immeasurably proud to offer my support and hope the community is wise enough to agree. :) &mdash;<font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' - I share Darth_Panda's concerns, though it's not like you don't do any article work. I think you'll do just fine. &ndash;
'''Support''': The contributions look fine, and the honestly about not specifically desiring adminship is what I find to be refreshing. The talk page is of zero concern to me, as the user is simply responding to chatter, which I find is a good way to alleviate the stoicism that can be associated with taking part in this project. Good luck! <sup><small>
'''Support''' The ed17 is a great editor and coordinator and I'm sure that he'll use the admin tools responsibly
Looks like we're getting a lot of MILHIST noms lately. This editor should do very well as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' I've had nothing but good interactions with this candidate. I also thought the candidate was a bit MySpacey, until I discovered how much useful stuff he does and how helpful he has been - to me as well as others. '''
Hello, I'm Luke Skywalker and I need help picking out a Father's Day gift...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a highly qualified editor. May the Force be with you! <Cue John Williams' music>
'''Support'''--Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We need more administrators committed to content. --
'''Strong Support''': Excellent contributor. My primary resource for advice on article building and sometimes, policy ;) Has a good understanding of how things work around here, enjoys helping out people... all in all, has the qualities that should be in an admin.
'''Strong Support''' Experienced editor, very good article builder, a coordinator of [[WP:MILHIST|WikiPrject Military History]], adopter, has [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and stays [[WP:COOL|cool]]. I am confident he will be a great admin. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Weak Support''' I agree with a lot of Ryan's oppose, but in fairness the candidate has made it clear from his Q1 he's not going to go rushing off to AIV or CSD the moment he gets the bit, if this RFA passes. Clearly commited and if he just uses the tools occasionaly that's still all to the good. I would have prefered more project space experience, but I think the [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|concerns are out-weighed by the benefits]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &ndash; not convinced by the opposition; with other editors who have <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Climie.ca no deleted contributions] or Wikipedia mainspace edits at all (outside of MILHIST and associated pages) and who are currently running at 99% on RfA, it seems to me it's one rule for one person and one for another.
'''Weak support'''.  On the positive side, candidate has contributed to good and featured articles and has made good arguments in three of the four AfDs we both participated in.  On the negative side, there are the two blocks that did not result in an unblock (to me an unblock cancels out a block).  Best, --

'''Strong Support'''Positive contribs, great editor. Major net positive.
'''Support''' &mdash; will surely be a boon to the project, and trustworthy with the tools.  More like this, please. '''
'''Support''', ah yes, a very good article writer. --
'''Strong Support'''. A great guy and someone who voluntarily stepped in to adopt me back in September when all the users I wrote to weren't available. Since then he's taught me all about Wikipedia- he's even persuaded me to start writing substantial articles, something I never thought I would do before. I do have to be slightly critical in that I think Ed could do with frequenting the main areas that administrators work in more, but I know through his mentoring that he is knowledgeable in all these areas anyway. He is also a very nice guy in general, his manner etc and he doesn't lose his temper. This is getting way too long so I'll cut it here. He'll be a great admin. I have no doubt! <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Weak support'''. Good MILHIST contributions. Why weak (a) excessive use of FU images in one of the articles you regularly edit (b) please change the typeface of your signature. Not everyone has perfect eyesight to decipher minuscule script you use.
'''Weak Support''' - Although I am a little leary about the myspacey issue, I think you'll be a net positive.
'''Support''' I trust this user.
'''Support''' --<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Weak Support''' - I have talked with Ed and followed his contributions for a while. I have found him to be a very civil, very talented article-writer and user in general with the ability to make serious, major contributions and retain a sense of humor. He is always willing to help new users. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_ed17&diff=262176020&oldid=262169455 myself] implied doubt when it came to his experience in admin-areas. I honestly wasn't expecting his RfA to go live so soon, and I honestly would have suggested he wait a couple more months. But I trust him, and I hope he'll be sensible with the tools.
'''Weak Support''' per [[WP:Net positive|Pedro's guideline]]. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with him that I can see.--
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''.  A great contributor with very positive impact in the areas he frequents.  I hesitated a bit based on some of the opposes, as I would like to see more experience in admin related areas.  However, a review of your history shows good sense, so I'm satisfied that you will educate yourself as needed before taking any admin actions and not run off half cocked.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
With, admittedly, some reservations.  This would be an oppose if not for your response to Dank55 below. I would have liked to see more familiarity with admin-type stuff, but I will trust you to seek out sage advice before using any of the tools.  Not really concerned by response to Koji; it wasn't really that snarky, it was sort of  provoked, and going thru RFA is enough of a hell that I can cut people a bit of slack. <s>Haven't seen you that snarky with anyone anywhere before, so I'm assuming it's a one off</s>. OK, Wehwalt's diff is #2, but I'm assuming it's a two off. --
'''Weak support''' Dan's oppose gives me some strong reservations.  Some of the other opposes are less compelling.  I have faith that this editor will not screw up many admin actions through sheer ignorance of underlying policies and I hope that s/he will learn swiftly from mistakes that do crop up.  I have the utmost confidence that this editor will not be pigheaded in the face of criticism regarding those mistakes (an important precondition for learning on the job).
'''Weak support''' with respect to valid opposes, I still think this candidate will be a net positive to the project, even if he does not want to use the tools very often. Regards '''
'''Support''' good editor, quick student, helpful, humorous, committed. No red flags.
'''Weak Support''' Ryan makes several ''interesting'' points, but I am not worried. Good luck!
'''Support''' because the user has much experience reviewing fine articles, which is something I do and I consider it important.  He can learn how to do admin functions on the job.  I was not swayed by oppose number 1 ("Don't be dumb" in context is not uncivil) or the response to Koji (it wasn't uncivil either, again in context).  Keep in mind, he has ''two years'' experience, and an FA of his own.
Ryan makes a good point, but '''support''' because I can.
'''Support'''. I've interacted with The ed17 on the Novels Project. Perfectly good candidate for an admin. Cheers,
'''support'''.  Does good article work.  Posts way too much to my talk page, but who doesn't. As I said elsewhere:  Editor doesn't suck.  Civil and helpful, everything else fails to trump those qualities.
'''Support''' The examples of "incivility" below are weak-sauce. Coarse language can be found in good-hearted and undamaging comments, and the most vicious comments can be cloaked with polite language and a smile. ed17's controvertial comments fall into the former category.
'''Support''' - Looks good, on the balance.  Meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].  I am less concerned about the graphic design disaster on this person's User Pages, than communication of ideas respectfully.  Otherwise this is a perfectly good candidate.
'''Support''' Myspacy feeling notwithstanding. Good responses to questions. (
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN]]
'''Support''' Being an admin is as easy as hell. Writing articles is tough. Since he has the latter down pat, I doubt he'll have much trouble with the former.

'''Support''' Personal experiences. '''
'''Support''' Fit to be an admin <font color="cyan" size="2">♣</font><font color="lime" face="georgia" size="2">
'''Support''' I know this user fairly well, and completely trust him with admin tools. '''
'''Support''' He probably will make a good administrator. [[User:Reliableforever|<font color="maroon">Reliable</font>]]
'''Support''' - I have never seen an editor so polite. This editor has all of the qualities to make a '''perfect''' admin. '''''{{color|black|₰<small>imon</small>}}<sub>[[User:SK2|<font size="2.5">{{color|OrangeRed|K}}</font>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:SK2|<font size="2.5">{{color|DarkCyan|S}}</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' No evidence to suggest the candidate will abuse the tools. This cult of "experience" is a nonsense. Being an administrator is not particle physics. Common sense and an even temperament will go a long way. The response to Koji is a little concerning but it was a reaction to severe provocation and I am confident it will not be an ongoing issue. --
'''<s>Weak</s>Strong oppose''' Based mostly on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AToday%27s_featured_article%2Frequests&diff=257189261&oldid=257188794 this] (my response follows Sandy's, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&diff=next&oldid=257190012 here].  I don't think calling another editor "dumb" is an essential qualification in an admin.  This is a civility issue, less than a month ago.--
'''Oppose''' - sorry, you're a great article writer but you have no contributions to show that you understand the Wikipedia administration. Looking over your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=The+ed17&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 Wikipedia space] contributions, I see one report to AIV and participation in two MfD's - you've got no experience in AfD's or any other admin area such as [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:UAA]] or [[WP:AN]]. You've tagged a few pages for speedy deletion, yet you haven't even bothered to notify the original creator of the article - {{Userlinks|Beautifulstrangertv}} created [[Beautiful stranger.tv]] and you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Beautiful_stranger.tv&timestamp=20081208175345&diff=prev tagged it], but you didn't notify him. Also, that username should really have been reported to [[WP:UAA]] as a promotional account, but that didn't happen either or any attempt to discuss the username with him. This failure to notify also happened with [[Knackerisation]] (created by {{userlinks|Chrispyknight}}) and [[One Ninty Seven]] (created by {{userlinks|Brentoes}}, along with others that can be found by looking in his deleted contributions. What I see is no evidence that The ed17 understands or has experience in admin related areas, and the areas that he has a little experience in show that he doesn't understand the procedures well enough to fulfill them fully. Whilst I appreciate the article work that he does, I don't believe that he's ready for adminship. '''
'''Oppose''', per Ryan Postlethwaite, I'd like to see more experience demonstrating broader knowledge of policies in both admin-related areas and in content writing, and maturity with respect to Wehwalt's concerns.  I would be likely to Support The ed17 after he has more experience, but not yet.
'''Oppose'''.  Crap.  I really want to support, and I want you (The Ed17) to know that I strongly support the net effect you have on Wikipedia.  You're friendly, you're genuinely interested in other people's contributions, and you help them get where they're going.  You're almost my ideal admin candidate, but ... you're currently only interested in one button, and your answer to my question indicates to me that you might hit that button at the wrong time.  You've got a lot of supporters, and if you pass, I doubt that any harm will come to Wikipedia, but I'll be looking to work with you on page protection issues.  If you fail, please come back to RFA soon, but at least spend a few hours studying up on the areas you're interested in first. - Dan
'''Oppose''' You're telling me you've requested the tools for adminship only planning to use one, and you don't even understand the policy behind that one (nor did you show any intrest in studying it before the RfA)? Is this for the lulz?--
'''Oppose''' - I am looking for a positive approach towards the use of admin tools not as something to do when you are bored. Since you specified page protection as an area where you would use the tools I would expect an understanding of protection policy at this stage.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I really wanted to support, but some of the civility issues killed it for me. I do not like the idea of administrators characterizing other users in a negative fashion, as such basic lack of respect tends to lead to further problems later on. You are one of the better candidates that I have seen lately, so take that to heart and improve this one area (if you pass or not).
'''Oppose''' - Response to Koji makes me wary. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Strong oppose''' per response to Koji.
'''per Ryan. per Neuro.''' I believe one should understand the use(s) of the tool(s) in question before making a request. I would suggest trying again in 6 months, after gaining as much experience in as many areas as possible. Though I support specialist admins, you never know when you might want/need to take action outside your comfort zone/usual haunts. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Perhaps for the first time I find myself in agreement with Tan (no disrespect intended Tan).</joke> RfA is like a job interview. If you can't conduct yourself appropriately for a few days, then what chance you'd do so if promoted? --
'''Oppose''' - Per Ryan - issues pointed out cannot be ignored at this point in time. Perhaps sometime in the foreseeable future. Also, per Tan.
'''Oppose'''. The answers he has given to questions worries me. While most of those are about areas he does not plan to work in, we are still giving him tools he has the ''potential'' to use in those areas. A driver may plan to stay within [[London]] but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be taught how to drive on motorways before you give him his license.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough admin-related experience.
'''Oppose'''. A significant amount learning to be an administrator might come after you have become one and you might become proficient in various areas of adminship once you've passed this. But the problem is you can't expect to get a [[WP:ADMIN|driver's license]] even if you don't know what an [[WP:PPOL|accelerator]] does (I see this is the second driving analogy). You are obviously an editor of great standing and editing experience. But I feel you should learn the work before you start the job. <sup>''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|<span style="color:#00009C">Leave</span>]]''</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' "why would I take time out of my day to read WP:PPOL before I am an admin when "I'm not here to become a sysop, I'm here to have a few laughs while building an encyclopedia"? If I become an admin, then I will read it"  What kind of an attitude is that?
'''Oppose''' per Wehwalt.  Don't like Wehwalt, but he's right.  Seen too many admins resort to name-calling around here.  Don't need another.
'''Oppose''', doesn't seem to have a serious use for the admin tools and some of the answers and replies above (esp. to Koji) are frivolous.
'''Weak oppose''' I think you have done a lot of great work, and you will have the tools someday, but the maturity issues are the major reason I'm opposing. Although, I don't think six months is the appropriate time here. If you can start acting more mature, and work in more admin areas, three months would work just fine. <font face="cursive">'''
Prospective user, but too many major mistakes mentioned above. From personal experience, I think you can be an admin someday. [[WP:QUAKE|₪]]<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Oppose''' - Too little experience in admin areas. —<sub>
'''Oppose''' per the reply to Koji. Sorry. '''''
'''Oppose'''. Substantial contributions began less than a year ago (March 2008). Good contributions to MILHIST articles, but very little administrative work. This editor is very green, as the answers to questions reveal (e.g. to Dank). On the other hand, has anyone given a decent answer to Xenocidic's RfA question? The two I've seen in current RfAs were uninspiring to say the least. More seriously, I don't see in these answers any evidence that The ed17 will be able to restrict his use of the admin tools to the few areas where he currently expresses an interest in contributing. ''
'''Weak Oppose''' per macy and others citing small civility/maturity concerns. Answer to Q9 isn't great, either.
'''Oppose'''.--
'''Oppose''' per questions and non-demonstration of policy knowledge.  While the positive intent and content building are clearly there, it's not obvious to me that you are familiar enough with the relevant policies such as protection, blocking, etc.  If you really don't feel you'll use the mop much, keep working on content building and let other people clean the floor.
'''Oppose'''. There's definitely a lack of policy knowledge, as pointed out by Ryan.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, I have the feeling that he is likely either to be inactive,  or need to learn everything on the job. Admin candidates need to show some actual activity in admin-type things, so we can evaluate their judgment. '''
'''Neutral''' The Myspace-y talk page issue wouldn't be a biggie on its own, but now there's the related "because I can" attitude reflected in the candidate's related comment in the Discussion section.  Not the right attitude given this is a collaborative project.
'''Neutral''' - Solid contributions in article building, but as Ryan Postlethwaite pointed out, very little work in areas where the tools are used most often. --
'''Neutral''' per Ryan Postlethwaite. I took a while to decide how I felt to this one, you have a solid contribution history and have done a great job of content creation. However, RfA is not about whether or not you have been a solid content creator, but rather whether or not the tools would help you contribute. Having said that, your lack of edits in the areas where I feel admins are most needed ([[WP:AIV]], [[C:CSD]], [[WP:RPP]] to name a few) you have not had much experience in. Though I see you as a great contributor to the project, I do not feel that you need the tools at this time. --
'''Neutral''' - I wanted to support this nomination, ed17 is a good editor, but Ryan's oppose is very convincing. —
'''Neutral''' You need a little more expierence in admin related areas, per Ryan Postlethwaite's oppose above. Also, you could do with avoiding calling other editors "dumb" as per Wehwait's above diff. But this is less of an issue than the issues brought up by Ryan. Neutral because you have a lot of good edits, and I don't feel comfortable opposing. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Neutral''' - I don't see an obvious major negative in your becoming an admin. That would normally mean I'd support, but arguments above (particularly Ryan Postlethwaite's) sway me away from that. //
'''Solid Neutral''' leaning toward support-but I am SOLID!- Edits mentioned by [[User:Wehwalt]] and [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite]] have destroyed my support but I like the user myself... I'm going to stay right here. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Neutral''' &ndash; I've seen you around doing some very nice article work, but the opposition from {{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}} is very convincing. You do need more experience in admin and policy-related areas to prove that you understand those areas you will be dealing with as an administrator. You'll be a mess without it. Chin up, and work at it. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Wehwalt]].  One incident of incivility is too many in my book, but this one was on the more minor end of the scale, so opposing just over that would seem excessive.  No other real problems, so I encourage the user to come back in a few months time if this nom is not successful.
'''Neutral''' - I don't know where to bounce back! One part of me says to support per La Pianista, Chamal N, and OllieFury, while the other part of me says to oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. Sorry Ed; I respect you, and I really expected to support when I first saw this RfA, but Ryan's oppose whacked the crud out of a lot of my support. --<font face="verdana">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] ([[User:Dylan620/C|<font color="blue">Contribs</font>]] ·
'''Neutral''' The candidate does have a small content building effort in resume so I should support the candidate but it seems the candidate is not much inclined to use mop frequently and has to learn when to use. I would support when the candidate appears ready. I would also suggest that the candidate try nominating stuff to sections which need admin approvals - example: [[WP:ITN]], more DYKs and little more AfDs. This will help the candidate in further understanding where admin action is needed. --
'''Neutral'''. Response to Koji, while understandable, is not what I'd like to see in an admin. The fact that you understood your mistake is positive, but I can no longer support. Sorry! <font color="777777">
'''Neutral''' I can't vote support or oppose. ''
'''True Neutral''' - I can't make a decision either way.  Ed has good contributions and has received good feedback (amongst some of the not-so-good feedback).  My only critique is the lack of participation in the "behind-the-scenes" aspect of WP as also pointed out by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FThe_ed17&diff=262281954&oldid=262280922 Ryan Postlethwaite] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FThe_ed17&diff=262338737&oldid=262338692 Dank55].  If this RfA fails (which I doubt) I would definitely support Ed in a future RfA.  Good luck!  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
I thought I would support when coming to this RfA, but I was disappointed to see what has come up here.  My suggestion would be to work as hard as you can for the next few months, improve your demeanor and attitude, and try again.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral.''' As a protest against the standards at RfA, I am no longer supporting any candidates with more than 3500 edits. Bureaucrats, please interpret this as a "support" if this RfA enters the discretionary range.
'''Neutral''' - Originally a weak oppose per the PPOL comment and the points Ryan made about correct application of policy and lack of experience in some areas. But afetr thinking about it for a couple of days I'm confident the candidate would address these issues pretty fast, either this time or in time for a subsequent RfA within a month or two. I'm also impressed with the attitude displayed on their user talk page as this RfA has progressed. Changing to neutral isn't likely to affect the result, but if this fails and there's some attention to XfD and the like in the next month or so, I'll happily support.
'''Oppose''', sorry, you just don't have enough edits. Consider taking part in more areas, such as [[WP:RPP]], [[WP:NPP]], [[WP:AIV]], and [[WP:ADMINBACKLOG]]. I need to see a clear dedication to the 'pedia before I can trust you with the tools. As well as this, your reasons for wanting adminship do not impress me. See [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Just because you are an admin does not give you the right to revert other admins' administrative actions, see [[Wikipedia:WHEELWAR#Reversing_another_admin.27s_action|this page]]. You should learn to discuss with other users instead. -
'''Strong Oppose''' &ndash; This seems like a joke to me, and if it isn't it should be. You have barely 250 edits. You could not have read about what it takes to be an admin, because if you had you would not have applied.
Oppose, per [[WP:NOTNOW]], your Q1 (you do not need admin tools to do ''any'' of those things) and your talk page which is littered with warnings - some of which you appear to have ignored. Also adminship is '''not''' about avenging perceived mistakes made to [[WP:OWN|your article]]. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
It's less than a month since you were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=305476597 vandalising]. No.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' The answer to question 3 indicates you want the tools to [[WP:WHEEL|wheel war]] and advance your opinions, not for improvement of the project. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Oppose'''. Per Amory, Pedro and iridescent and per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Suggest a closure per [[WP:SNOW]]. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
I'm going to assume good faith. The spesh man is not yet providing valuable contributions. I suggest that The spesh man follows the advice that several editors have recommended on his talk page, notably "[[WP:YFA|Your first article]]". If The spesh man consistently provides useful contributions and demonstrates a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he might be successful in the future.
'''Support''' I looked over this RfA and the candidate's contributions during the time before it went live and I am pleased to say that I think he will make a great administrator.  -- ''<B>
'''Support''' Ditto. I'm very familiar with the user, and, you know, I think he'll be a trustworthy/responsible admin. It doesn't really matter to me if he's "too eager". Good. We could use more admins who are eager to work. As long as he's not going to abuse the tools, he's fine with me. I hope that more people look at his contribs instead of the number on this RfA. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' per my support on the previous RfA, 16 months ago.
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. Sixth time's the charm? :) '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''' A quirky but inoffensive editor, who would do sterling work with the tools, probably unnoticed. Hardworking and helpful, he's managed to find some quite exceptionally odd ways to irritate participants at previous RfAs. But the bloke who gets drunk before proposing to his girlfriend  isn't necessarily condemning her to living with a drunkard. --
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' While 5 failed RfAs may cause many to pause, the last was well over a year ago. I did pause, but I can't see anything that would stop me from supporting. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
An exceptionally hardworking editor who has use for the tools. I agree with Dweller here entirely. While he may have offended people in the past (even the recent past), I have also noticed that he is exceptionally willing to explain himself and listen to advice from others. <font color="navy">'''
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA rationale|Support]] Per NW.
'''Support''' In my interactions with him at AWB, he has always been courteous. Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' Some minor causes for concern, but a good candidate.

'''Support''' It's been over a year since one of these?  Wow, time flies.
'''Support'''.  I can't even count how many times I've supported these ;). Good editor, will be a great addition to the team. '''
I broke into a big grin when I saw this one, and I trust my grin.  If something awful comes up, I'll look into it further, but I'm not expecting any surprises.  Best of luck! - Dank (
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' As noted above, the number of attempts is troubling, but I reviewed the last two rfas for major red flags. Lots on minor issues, much of which has been addressed.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support'''Per above to Malinaccier.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''Aww nuts!''</font>]]
'''Support''' I've changed my vote a few times during TTH's multiple candidacies, but I think it's time.
One of Wikipedia's most hardworking editors. I've known TT for years (in fact, he's one of the folks who more-or-less taught me how to edit), and I've been consistently impressed by his work. I think we can look past his prior issues and give him the bloody mop already! –'''
'''Support''', after some reflection.  No recent matters of concern, and people, like consensus, can change.—
'''Support''' - Per my rationale from the user's last RfA.
'''Support''' - I've seen The Transhumanist's contributions in various places and been impressed, and the answers to questions are good.
'''
'''Support''' Great contributions and feel giving the tools to the user will only benefit the project and the user has overcame the issues raised in previous RFA.
I'm thinking I can trust him. '''
'''Support'''.[[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Yep]]. Loads of experience. The fact that he hasn't been blocked in all this time speaks for this editors reliability. He has the patients to stick around here.--
'''Support''' kept his nose clean, good contributions.  Not worried about the Outline thing, experience will channel efforts into better channels, methinks.  Time to finally give him the mop and send him to the spill in Aisle 12.--
'''Support''' Long term contributor. Before now, I would have guessed that Transhumanist has been an admin for several years. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Quelled my initial concerns/skepticism on finding an Outline article and dealt with a difference of opinion in a very civilized manner. Prodigious contributor/organizer. --
So far, I haven't seen anything that makes me doubt his competency. —'''
'''Support'''. While the opposes are well thought out, overall I feel that he is sufficiently experienced to be an admin, enough for me to overlook the issues raised by the opposers. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' See nothing that makes me think there will be misuse of the tools, not persuaded by the opposes.
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, The Transhumanist. —
'''Support''' I've come back just to vote for The Transhumanist and Killiondude.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Support''' No problems here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Good candidate, very longterm editor. I appreciate the long gap since the last RFA and consider it reasonable to ignore the old RFAs, not least because if he'd simply made a [[WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name|clean start]] his new account would probably already be an admin. ''
I remain unconvinced with the oppose reasoning, as they all seem to be a general feeling of distrust rather than citing specific examples (excluding the creation of a WikiProject, but I don't have too many issues with that). He's a long-term editor who has provided plentiful good edits. My experience with the nominee has been pleasant, so I find no reason to oppose for now. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' a curious and helpful editor who I trust will overcome any perceived past grumpiness once given the responsibility of adminship.
'''Strong support''' per flair for presentation and organisation of data. Opposes looked credible but  after checking the links Im  only seeing you involved in the sort of contention that inevitably comes up when one trys to drive positive change.
'''Support''' Committed, longtime editor, can be trusted, plus I trust the nominator. --
'''Support'''. Sure, he does have his own style, but overall I trust The Transhumanist and I'm confident in his abilities and knowledge of policies and procedures.
'''Oppose''' reluctantly. There is evidence of increased maturity, but when I occasionally see his work he still does not seem very good at understanding the concerns of other editors or explaining his own position. He has a history of starting grand projects, currently [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge]], without consultation and then enthusiatically and energetically pursuing them however many toes he treads on.  I'm concerned that as an admin the tools may be inappropriately used, and some other users feel intimidated, in this process, especially as he gives no specific reasons for needing the tools.  Despite the huge edit count, I also think his article writing experience can be questioned. Under half of his edits are to article space, & I'm guessing the great majority of these are to lists or outlines. I've asked a supplementary to the usual Q2 on this. Neither his edit stats nor his first answer mention a conventional article.
'''Oppose''', strongly, per Johnbod. The entire 'outlines' project is evidence of extremely poor judgement and an attempt to duplicate massive swathes of data. One article per subject is the rule. In addition, this is the sixth RfA, and while it's true that people grow and learn, six RfAs is pushing the limit as far as I am concerned. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</small> '''Adding to my oppose''': I had somehow missed the fact that Transhumanist was responsible for the Awards Center mess. All of a sudden, the behaviour around the whole OOK thing makes sense, and as noted below, he has clearly learned nothing since. So not just an oppose, but hell no, this person should never be an admin on Wikipedia anytime before the Sun goes nova. →&nbsp;
I thought I would be the only one to oppose primarily over the Outline of Knowledge bit, but evidently I'm in some kind of company (good or bad). The OoK project sprung up from nowhere, and while there was what I feel legitimate concern over the speed and rationale behind the proliferation Trans barreled ahead with it anyhow. The majority of his edits are to outlines (see the talk page printout), which I and many others feel constitutes a shadow wikipedia of questionable utility and practicality. There's no evidence of substantial audited content contributions<sup>([[User:David_Fuchs/Guide_to_featured_writing#Article_4:_Me_and_RfA|note]])</sup> and the user has a very vague answer for what he'd use the tools for—something I didn't expect considering all the previous RfAs. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' As a >=4th RfA.  Nothing I see here prompts me to change my default position on such repeated requests for adminship.
I have seen nothing to indicate this editor has a clear understanding of what being an admin is: from his ill-conceived [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school|admin school]], through the (also now deleted) [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center|Awards center]], which he began, then moved to another's userspace prior to the deletion discussion; it appears that the Transhumanist, while well-intentioned, is fundamentally ill suited for the mop and broom. He has more recently created the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge]], which while an improvement over previous efforts still shows more sympathy for organization and regimentation (and as several have noted, duplication) than any particular bent for what I would consider admin skills, or "clue" as it is sometimes called. I had hoped that somewhere along the way he'd become more amenable to feedback; Roux's concern that TTH has an ''"utter inability to even grant the vaguest hint that maybe critics might have a point and refusal to answer simple questions"'' is uncannily similar to concerns I voiced as long ago as his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2|second Rfa]]. While it is true we do not judge based upon the number of previous Rfas, if concerns raised then, which prompted ''oppose'' views, have not been addressed, then we must in good conscience oppose again. With regret - [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>
Sorry, and I really am, even though this RFA has a good chance of passing, but my opinion has got to go in this column. I've had concerns for some time about your level of maturity for a long time, and while I can't provide any examples off hand ([[WP:BEANS|I will do so if asked to, but I'd have to go looking]]), and I am uncomfortable with handing you a mop. The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge|OOK Wikiproject]] somewhat irritates me. It's a good idea, but every article on Wikipedia now seems to have a shadow article, "Outline of X". The AWC was a very poor idea, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award_Center_2|as I voiced around 15 months ago]]. All in all, these factors, as well as others, lead me to question just how much of an asset you would be as an administrator. I applaud your long service to Wikipedia, and your many contributions, but I remain unconvinced that you have the clue, and the judgment to be an administrator. Sorry. <font face="Forte">
Firstly there is not clear explanation of how this user will use the tools and their last 3-4000 edits doesn't show then involved in anything that would require them to do so. That means that I cannot judge how they would use the tools apart for theior disastrous attempts a non-admin closing AFDs some time back that showed they had no idea of how to apply consensus according to policies. What I do expect is admins or admin candidates to help keep the drama level down so I was disappointed with what I did find in a trawl through The Transhumanist's contributions; Unreasonable badgering of delete voters in an AFD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Outline_of_the_South_Island]; Assumptions of bad faith against another user and appearance of holding a vendetta [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sj#Facilitated_discussion]; Patronising comments "You are supposed to assume good faith" & "I'll try to explain things more clearly" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists], this was followed up by what seemed to be a revenge listing at ANI against that user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Dbachmann:_Underhanded_tactics_and_false_accusations] that they did not notify the user about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbachmann#Category:Outlines] and which they couldn't be bothered to participate in once it was clear the discussion about the other user hadn't gained traction. So this shows, refusal to take other user's concerns seriously, condescension to opposing viewpoints; lack of courtesy in informing of noticeboard complaints, pettiness and no evidence whatsoever of them attempting to act in an admin like way in resolving the dispute rather the escalating it to an ANI. This is far from what I want from an admin candidate and I must therefore '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. While the candidate has improved, I share concerns about his approach of implementing projects without sufficient consultation. Also, his conduct in the AfD linked by Spartaz was badgering.
'''Oppose''', while I do appreciate your consistent effort, I'm not entirely comfortable. The previous opposes make me pause, but I don't know enough about the situation to comment on that, however I am still skeptical of someone who is up to their sixth RfA. Sorry. \ [[User:Backslash Forwardslash|Backslash Forwardslash]] / {[[User Talk: Backslash Forwardslash|talk]]} 09:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) Changing to '''Strong oppose'''. The attitude expressed  [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outline_of_Knowledge#Outline_update_-_Good_news_and_bad_news_-_06.2F08.2F2009|here]], creating battlegrounds and using such charged rhetoric in order to garner support is not appropriate for administrators; we aren't meant to increase the amount of Wikiconflict. \
'''Oppose''' Per all the above concerns, particularly with regard to the Outlines Project. Judging from some of the candidate's interactions with other users over this issue, I'd say he still lacks the common sense necessary to be an admin. The links Spartaz posted are very revealing. He obviously still suffers from the attitude of "It's my way or the high way". --
'''Oppose''' for the [[Glaciers of Senegal]], that is, Outlines... enough said already. My sincere respect goes to the lone warrior for a hopeless cause, but TH's lone quest is ''precisely'' the reason to oppose. I expect significant conflict of interest, broadly taken: you cannot maintain a purportedly all-inclusive, controversial project ''and'' remain uninvolved in administrative matters.
I've put a fair bit of thought into this one; I entirely agree with Balloonman that events of two years ago are irrelevant in this case, and there are a lot of names in the support section which I respect. But it comes down to another OOK oppose, I'm afraid. There's nothing wrong with having ideas - the development of every project is driven by people having ideas of varying quality, of which the best are chosen and the rest discarded. But seeing the increasingly hysterical posts on the talkpage ("the complainers are disproportionately represented on the project's various talk pages", "While many editors work diligently on the front end, a handful of complainers are trying to tear down the project behind the scenes" etc) makes it appear to me that this is another Award Center situation, where you're going to dig in your heels and dismiss any opposition as "illegitimate" regardless of merit, and refuse to listen to anyone criticising the serious issues raised by what is, in effect, creating a shadow "super-simple Wikipedia" of duplicate pages. The very fact that only three days ago you set up your own [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Hall of Fame|WPOOK Awards Center]] makes it appear pretty clear to me that you've learned none of the lessons from last year. I think there's far too much risk that you with admin tools would be using them to defend your pet project(s) - I have no doubt at all that you're acting in good faith, but you seem to be far too convinced that your opinions always coincide with what's in the best interests of the project.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
Like some of the above, I too have repeatedly wondered about the attitude I saw in your postings. In addition to some diffs mentioned above, in particular by \/, I remember {{diff|User talk:SimonTrew|293650176|293619802|this}} {{diff|User talk:SoWhy|293649815|293607495|posting}} you left for numerous members of [[WP:ADOPT]], talking about leaving portals "in the dust by the end of the year", and "Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. But how do I do it? Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your advice. [...] Please recommend [...] ways to reach groups of editors. Or ways to reach all editors." I believe the reason why members of [[WP:ADOPT]] received this message was because they like giving advice.<br>You'd certainly make a good PR person, and I certainly don't question your good intentions, but I don't think that attitude is a desirable trait in an admin.
'''Oppose''', per Folantin.
Long history of poor judgement and generally nonsensical behavior.
'''Oppose''' per KillerC and Spartaz. --
'''Oppose''' per Friday, Iridescent and the never ending saga of The Transhumanist creating distraction after distraction. If we have every article we could ever need, and all those articles were as good as they possibly could be, then perhaps it would be OK to create a whole slew of projects to layout the knowledge contained within Wikipedia in a new way, as it is, OoK is just another hiding to nothing, trying to create outlines of knowledge without actually finishing collating all that knowledge within the existing articles in the first instance. I honestly dread to think what The Transhumanist would do with the protection and block tools if he was given the bit, I am genuinely concerned the tools would be used in the best interests of your present and future projects, not the best interests of the project as a whole.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure that you would wikignome plenty, but my concern is similar to Nick's - when, every 6-12 months, a new "Great Idea" surfaces, I'm not sure access to the tools is the best thing.
'''Oppose''' per the 2nd part of Nick's remark above. I don't have a firm point of view on many of your projects/causes, and I deeply respect passionate enthusiasm and motivation of a broader group of people towards a common goal. But I get nervous if that passion becomes a "damn the opposition" approach and I share the concern that having the mop would provide tantalizing new tools to push ahead with your latest scheme, whatever that would be.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but there are just so many reasons. I really wouldn't know where to begin. The above is a good start.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has a history of barreling through projects even when concerns are raised. I don't feel comfortable putting admin tools in the candidate's hands. Last year when I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards_Center MfD'd] the Award Center, the owner immediately distributed the AWC newsletter where The Transhumanist [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wikipedia:AWC/newsletter/archive/4&timestamp=20080621045228&diff=prev added a notice of the MfD] (sorry, admins only) in a coordinated canvassing attempt. This, combined with the language on the OOK page about getting more supporters to enter the discussion, creates a worrying and ongoing pattern of behavior. --
'''Oppose''', mainly per Spartaz and Irid'. The candidate has some admirable skils which, unfortunately IMO, have been largely directed into starting, pushing and abandoning a succession of dodgy projects. What really concerns me, however, is that his responses to those involved in the many issues that arise from them show so many instances of problematic attitude and behaviour. These persistent attempts at RfA show a strong desire for the tools but not the maturity nor the judgment to safely use them.
I really, really hate to oppose any good faith editor, and I seldom do so unless I really giving them the tools is a good idea. Looking over the opposition above, though, there appears to be a history of hasty decision making and drama - he's probably matured a great deal since his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 5|last RfA]] (which, after reading it over, it's pretty clear why it was [[WP:SNOW|snowballed]]), so it probably shouldn't really be held against him now. That said, the other concerns that are outlined above show that there lingers a certain degree of callowness which leads me to have an uncomfortable feeling supporting TTH at this time. I'm really sorry, I wish it were not so.
'''OPPOSE''' - the ook project is fine.  But TH's responses to people aout the ook project are sub-optimal.  Other editors involved in that project give reasoned responses, TH tends to make matters worse.
'''Oppose.'''  Whoa.  It's been said very well above (by Roux, Fuchs, Chihuahua, Crossin, Spartaz, Amalthea, Laser brain, Plutonium, ''et alii'').  No.  —
'''Oppose''' I came to this RFA planning on supporting until I read the opposes.
'''Close it, please''' -
'''Neutral''' This is no reason to oppose. And Im not. but Question 8 worries me a bit. public terminals at Universities (and schools) in my opinion are hot beds for wiki vandals (alot of people i see on wiki at my university are doing just that) and if you regularly edit from specific terminals there someone may notice. Call me paranoyed if you want, but by chance you forget to logout one day, or even step away for a moment. Alot of damage can be done prior to the account being blocked. Maybe im relating this to my university and not understanding yours so well, but like i said this is no real reason to oppose, but i cant support either. These are what ifs. Im just not convinced on the security for public terminals at university libraries despite what some people say and im not comfortably reassured that the account wont be hacked.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' as co-nom. – ('''
'''Support'''
'''Yep!''' - Very strong candidate.
{{ec}}'''Support''' He's not an admin?! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support'''. I was seriously just looking at his work earlier today, wondering about a potential RFA. He does good work, he's dedicated, knows policies and procedures. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, and [[WP:BARN|Barnstars]].
'''Strong Support''' Great user.  Plenty of worthwhile contributions.
Insane temperament. He never gets angry or annoyed, even when dealing with articles! '''
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; one of our most productive editors. –'''
Absolutely - article contributions utterly top notch, temperament seems sound. '''
'''Support''' - Not only did he join [[WP:DOH|The Simpsons Wikiproject]], he stayed, quickly became one of our best editors (certainly better and more fequent than I am!) and not only that, but has proved himself more than capable in a range of other article, non-article and policy areas. He is also one of the calmest users I have ever seen, which helps a great deal.
'''Strong Support''' as he has an excellent record as an editor and has made the project better by being here. I see nothing which indicates the tools would be abused (rather, the complete opposite). ···
'''Support'''. I just hope there is a left-handed mop.
'''Weak Support''': Sure, Theleftorium has made some brilliant content related edits, but I would like to see more behind the scenes action. I support because Theleftorium says that they plan to work mainly in CSD areas, and as articles are their main area of enterprise that makes sense, also solid answers to my questions. I would not suggest that you start patrolling AIV until you get some serious experience in the recent changes, but as you don't seem to be planning to patrol AIV or block users at all I give this my weak support. Also I suggest you thoroughly review [[WP:CSD]] twice after (if) you receive the mop, not because I doubt that you know it already, but because administrators who work in the new pages should have an intimate understanding of that policy, all the best
'''Support''' No problems here. -
'''make it so'''
'''Engage''' <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Support''' Theleftorium does good work all around. I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good work in all areas.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Support''' [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]], although I would point out that there's more to life than the Simpsons... ;-)
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Damn''',
'''Support''' As per Wizardman and track is good and see no concerns.
'''Support''' Absolutely.--
'''Support''' per the noms. —
'''Support'''. Strong positive contributor to the project. '''
'''Support''' - good content contributor and speedy work shows only minor flaws (like an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_%28Janne_Da_Arc%29&diff=prev&oldid=292077961 A7 for a member of a notable band]). The concerns raised are completely unconvincing. The personal viewpoint about the worthiness of episode-articles does not change the fact that they are held to exactly the same standards in a GA or FA review. The work needed and skill needed to bring [[Treehouse of Horror IV]] to GA-class is the same as doing it with [[Messerschmitt Bf 109]]. The copyright concerns are unfounded in the candidate's contributions and I notice that while Black Kite challenged uploads of the candidate in his question, they have not sought deletion of those images (which would be they appropriate thing to do if they really failed NFCC #8). As such, I see no valid concerns that would give me a reason to oppose this candidate. Regards '''
'''Support''' From my look I think Theleftorium will make a fine admin, not persuaded by the opposes.
'''Support''' clearly dedicated. Can learn on the job.
As reviewer of one of the articles identified as problematic, I'll apologize and accept my share of criticism for failing to identify violations of policy, with a note that non-interpretative claims that are verifiable by the primary source do '''not''' constitute [[WP:NOR|OR]]. What I cannot accept is the idea that a single editor is somehow responsible for all the problems in an article they contributed to. Nevertheless, Theleftorium has already started to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings%3A_The_Battle_for_Middle-earth_II&action=history address the concerns raised], and has even offered to  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiCup&diff=296918903&oldid=296863598 withdraw from the WikiCup]. Hence, '''Support'''. <tt>
'''Support''' No reason to believe this user will abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' per the usual suspects banding together for "Strong" Oppose votes.
'''Support''' Theleftorium's tireless contributions show a clear devotion to the project.  I was watching all the Bulbasaur nonsense, and the way he handled himself made a very strong impression on me. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Mostly agree with Black Kite about understanding the [[WP:NONFREE]] policy, however, in this case, I don't consider it sufficient reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Theleftorium is a great editor, and has done a tremendous amount of work for [[WP:Doh]] and I am confident that hard work will carry over to admin duties. <font face="papyrus">
<s>'''Oppose because of Ottava Rima'''</s>- Hell no, I mean '''Strong Support''' - Most of the details brought up here is more like building a personal vendetta against TheLeftorium. I therefore find the judgement in honor of support and in the amount of adminship.<font color="red">''
[[WP:Net positive|Support]]. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' I love that squirrel pic on your user page.  He is so funny!
'''Support''' per Rima. No, really, if those are Theleftorium's ''only'' flaws, he's got to be good. How does it relate to admin job? Beats me, but I see no harm here at all.
'''Support''' I am willing the ignore the "so called flaws" over trust to use the tools wisely --
'''Oppose''' - Many of the supporters above say that the articles are top notch. The RfA uses it as a primary basis for justifying RfA. From my experience, the articles, for the most part, don't deserve their status at FA, GA, etc. Sourcing tends to be borderline non-reliable or flat out non-reliable, coverage of the sources is inadequate, and many other problems. Sorry, but the truth is you produce quantity over quality and you surround yourself with people that push it through processes. Without the content, your record is completely empty and there is just no reason to support.
'''Oppose''' - No shown need for the tools. Don't get me wrong, this is a very evenheaded, mature, good editor. But he's not a wikignoming type. Not enough AfD participation for my taste. Also, the last points of Ottava Rima's points about references make me slightly uncomfortable. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Strong Oppose''' Thank you for your contributions and good work. I think Admins take on special responsibilities and need to be held to high standards. I am concerned about your maturity and judgment. I just didn't find a strong command of Wikipedia's core values or an appropriate emphasis on what I think are the essential needs of encyclopedia building demonstrated by your answers, article contributions, and other edits. Without getting into details I refer to the quality of content, sourcing, images, and communication skills. Obviously many editors disagree and have a different set of standards than I do. Good luck.
'''Strong Oppose''' Since I posted my question (8a), I have looked at the rest of the editor's image uploads and contributions. Even though the idea of the Free Encyclopedia is largely ignored by many editors these days, we certainly don't need an administrator whose contribution history is liberally sprinkled with [[WP:NFCC]] violations, and who regularly uses non-free images as decoration rather than to illustrate information that could not be transmitted in any other way.  Admins need to follow policy - this editor clearly doesn't understand this particular policy. <b>
'''Oppose'''. I'm going to have to agree with Ottava Rima. While they are certainly representative of a larger problem, two particular content issues cause me grave concern about the candidate's judgment. First, the FA [[The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II]]. It is currently at [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II/archive1|FAR]], where I studied the sources and am simply aghast at how badly they've been applied. Second, I was recently privy to the appearance of [[Starvin' Marvin (South Park)]] at FAC, its primary editor emboldened by its quick passage through the GA process. The article was overtly subpar, so much so that I investigated how it could have even passed GA. I encountered [[Talk:Starvin' Marvin (South Park)/GA1|this startlingly sparse GA review]], completed by the Theleftorium. While the article is now much improved, the GA review ignored glaring problems and it's hard to believe the article was examined in any depth. I'm not questioning Theleftorium's good faith—but the candidate displays a lack of judgment and ability to read and apply criteria. I cannot trust this person to be an administrator. --
'''Weak oppose''' - User is certainly thoughtful, civil, hardworking, and a great asset to the project. I was more or less satisfied by the answer to my question (Q8). However, due to the concerns raised by Black Kite in Q8a (and follow-up), coupled with the user's intention to work in [[WP:NFCC]] areas, I am not confident this user would uphold Wikipedia's strict copyright rules as an admin. Also, I am concerned by the sourcing issues raised by Ottava Riva. Would happily support next time, given even slight improvement in these two areas. -
'''Oppose'''.  The candidate is completely uninterested in the copyrights of others (answer to Q8).  This does not suggest that he will treat any of the other rights of contributors here with any more respect.  I prefer not to give power and authority to a person with this cavalier attitude.
'''Oppose''' per Ottava's highlighting of some worrying issues regarding sourcing and the application of content policies. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Oppose''' per lack of useful experience in the project space. I don't find anything to counter that in your contributions.--
'''Oppose''' although I've supported "content builders" running for Adminship, Ottava Rima has brought up the very strong rationale that I can not ignore. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of admin related participation in the project namespace - luke warm understanding of FAC and GAC and some misleading content "trophies".
Changing to '''oppose'''. Issues pointed out by Ottawa Rima make me slightly worried, but not enough to oppose on that basis only. However, Q8 and Q8a really made it for me. How on Earth is your website still there, even after a C&D from the copyright holder? Your only concern seems to be being "sued", instead of considering the right of the copyright holder to decide where their material is allowed to be used. These issues seem to affect your article work as well, as can be seen in your answer to Q8a. Nobody is expected to [[Wikipedia:Be bold|know all the rules]] before editing, but as such a [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-img_timestamp&img_user_text=Theleftorium&ofs=0&max=250 prolific] file uploader (and as an admin candidate) you should definitely know better. I'm sorry, but I can't support.
'''Oppose'''. Totally cavalier about copyright concerns; we can't have that in an admin.
'''Oppose''' Q8 and Q8a are a no-go for me in particular for someone who wants to work on [[WP:NFCC]] issues.
Sorry, but I feel the need to register a pro-forma objection here. I do not feel that an editor who has written all those articles about Simpsons episodes should be wielding the do-not-delete button, when I would argue that so many of his "good" articles should be transwikied or one-paragraph stubs in massive compilation articles. Beyond that, fair use image concerns. But, since I believe I am outside of the consensus of this site on this issue (massive fancruft about TV series and what not), I won't pollute this RFA with an oppose. Best of luck with the tools, please don't abuse the ability to decline speedies and close AFD's as keep/NC.
Per Ottava's concerns, I cannot conscientiously support at this time. --<font color="#cc6600">
Per Ottava.  Unaddressed sourcing concerns. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' This isn't FAR and content is content, but some concerns exist about understanding of NFCC and so forth.  Will watch and review as time goes by.  Seems like a pretty agreeable fellow otherwise, though.
'''Neutral''' leaning support per above.
'''Neutral''' Positive interactions with the candidate, but after reading Ottava's oppose I can't support. '''
'''Neutral''' - needs to demonstrate better approach to copyright and referencing. The "doesn't need the tools" argument doesn't sit well with me, because Wikipedia definitely needs more admins, even if they will use the tools sparingly. No objection and leaning toward support. --
Concerns regarding NFCC and sourcing leave me just on this side of supporting.

'''Support''' Essentially a specialist. Long time contributor with extensive experience. Has my support.
I'm going to support here.  With respects to A Nobody's research into AfDs, I have two points.  Firstly, expressing opinion in any debate on this website is just that, opinion.  Caveats being Jimbo, Cary, and our dear attorney.  They can lay down law.  As with a certain RfA that was very recent it is my belief that participation in AfDs is a positive thing, even if the participants hold different views.  Sometimes participants are flat out wrong, but most of the time they simply have a different interpretation of policy and guidelines (which yes, are open to interpretation).  I may have the opinion to delete something, and express it.  It does not mean that as an administrator I will ignore the thoughts of others and do as I please.  We've had admins like that before, and they don't last long.  I trust the candidate to put personal opinion aside and read the ideas of others and in that process, judge consensus.  The second point (and this is ''not'' directed at A Nobody, but the participants of RfA in general) is that I have seen a disturbing trend of cherry picking points of contention along the lines of "That's not what I would have done."  This is a collaborative process, and opposition based on disagreement is not progress but is, in fact, standing still.  Further discussion of this idea can be taken to the RfA talk page but I have little interest in debating this- it's just my own little opinion.  <small><sub>Steps off soapbox</small></sub>
Support for now, considering user hasn't stated they wish to work in the deletion area. If they did, I'd have to take A Nobody's oppose into more consideration. —'''
'''Am-somewhat-shocked-that-he-wasn't-already-support''' //
'''Support''' - Huh? -- not already an admin.? --
'''Support'''. A level-headed editor who has been rational and respectful every time I've seen him.
'''Support''' per Roux. &ndash;
'''Support''' - good contribs, good grasp of policy, no problems here. <b>
''' Full throated support''' Without quibble, qualm or qualification.  Please be patient for a detailed reasoning regarding the strength of this support, as I'll be busy for a few days.  If a further explanation is needed, I'll gladly give one.
'''Support''' Well-qualified. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>

'''Support''' as a user whose edits and comments I've seen around WP have been thoughtful and cogent.
'''
'''Support''' I see no reason at all that Thumperward should not be given the mop. Good luck.
'''Support''' I've seen him around and he's a solid strong editor with a good sense of our core goals. --
'''Support''' I've watched him for a while: sometimes he does execute a bit too briskly for other editors, but his heart is in the right place. Go for it. -
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support'''. Good editor, clear and cogent in discussion. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' Although I'd note that it would be best to avoid doing anything that would cause Jimbo to ask you to stop. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Per I've seen him around and he seems to have a good head screwed on his shoulders. '''
'''Support'''.  The oppose votes do raise some troubling points, but after more than 40k good edits I think his devotion to the project is not open to question.  That said, he may have made some questionable decisions in the past, but his heart is in the right place, and he seemed to have learned from his mistakes (which is really the key).  I think he can be trusted, and will avoid drama in the future.  Plus, his skills with templates will be very useful for all.
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong>
'''Support'''  —
'''Support.'''  For every reason above.
'''Support''' — Great editor; has clue and skills. Cheers,
'''Support''' Solid work overall, just mind the appearance of a bad attitude in AfD and you'll be fine. Good luck mate.
'''Support''' I've only seen good stuff coming from this editor so far, and I am not concerned over the oppose voters' input or by any occasional good-faith screw ups. &ndash;
'''Support''', no good reason not to.


'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, seems a very level-headed editor. --
'''Support''' - I do not have concerns that Thumperward would abuse the tools.  --
I have mostly encountered Chris in the template namespace, where he generally makes sensible and well thought-out edits. His skills with templates will be of benefit to the project, so I '''support'''. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(

'''Support''' per Cool3. - Dan
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - good answers and will be an asset with the admin tools.  --
'''Support''' - concerns raised by opposition are not in areas that this editor intends to admin; and no, some content conflict with Jimbo over something that [[Linux_naming_controversy|is controversial]] isn't a reason to oppose in my view (is Jimbo the ultimate content decider?) The candidate is more trustworthy than [[WP:Huggle]] plug-ins that get the mop in a blink despite the lack of substantive edits.
'''Support''' - per MSGJ.
<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Support''' Fine by me, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''': I haven't given his contribs a thorough look through before posting this, but I have had dealings with Thumperward in the past. Although we sometimes disagreed over certain issues, it never became a heated debate between us and he had some excellent points, often making me rethink or change my position. I've seen him do quite a lot of work with templates, which has made me think "Why isn't he an admin?"... template coders are always needed. Regarding the Linux thing, I don't think it really matters... if it was a dispute with just another editor, or even a group of other editors, it would probably go virtually unnoticed in this RFA. Just because there's a content dispute between him and another user (even if it's Wikipedia's co-founder) isn't a reason to oppose a nomination. (this is my first comment in an RFA; please let me know if I made any mistake) –
'''Support''' -- although there is some heat on Thumperward, he seems that he knows how to handle himself on Wikipedia. A couple of mistakes shouldn't affect his admin skills, we aren't all perfect.--'''''<small>
'''(very cautious) Support''' we need admins and we need clear thinkers. Obviously as an inclusionist myself I am (and was) unhappy with alot of the views Chris holds, but if he is prepared to step up to the plate then I am happy to give him a go for other evidence provided above ''(I hope I won't regret this)''
'''Support'''.  I rarely vote in AfDs, because I don't have the time to give the look-over that I think candidates deserve.  However, I have come across Chris numerous times and in ''my'' encounters with him I have always found him to be level-headed and well-informed.  I both understand and respect the concerns of the inclusionists below; all I can say to them is that we obviously can't have an admin corps composed entirely of inclusionists, and I'd rather have an intelligent and rational deletionist than someone who is "balanced" but doesn't have a clue.  I've seen a few (''very'' few, thank God) instances of admins who didn't understand the arguments on either side of a debate and yet they stepped in, making a worse mess than if no admin had appeared on the scene.  I think those with inclusionist concerns will be able to talk to Chris, and, if that doesn't work out, there's always DRV.
'''Support'''. Overall, good edits. Well-argued points in debates.

'''Support'''. Trustworthy and thoughtful. <font color="green">
'''Support''' I think he'll be fine. Obviously a bit trigger happy on the deletion button (I hope you tone that down) and a bit overly self-confident (since I am a notorious ditherer this is not necessarily a bad thing!) but overall I like his style. Including his response to Jimbo which, I thought, was well expressed. --
'''Support''' I have personally experienced this user's dramatics and hot-headed behavior in ''years past'' (when I was a n00b and we collaborated on [[Guinea pig]]), but I do think he's a genuinely well-meaning and trustworthy editor with more than enough experience to use the tools correctly. We should assume good faith, since he recognizes a poor interaction with others previously and says things have changed. <font style="font-family: Lucida Grande">
Happily. He said he will stay away from contentious fiction AfDs, which was my only concern. Most of the opposes are ridiculous, so no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' I've learned to know him as a good editor, somebody helping to solve disputes and also somebody doing a lot of very useful work for the Wikipedia project. Also, I trust his opinion even if it is different to mine from time to time.
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] okay, a few possible concerns brought by the opposition, but they are not things that are going to make me withdraw support.
'''Support''' Very nice cleanup.  The answers to your questions are a bit limp but I see you have a firm grasp of policy and guidelines from your editing history. '''
'''Very strong support'''  I've encountered this editor here and there spread over seemingly random articles a number of times.  When I saw his username here I immediately thought "You mean he isn't already?"  He is one of the few editors where I don't bother reviewing a change if I see him in my watchlist.  Look at his history: this is a varied set of contributions showing commitment to the project.  This is not an editor quickly racking up the edit count with uninvolving minor edits for RfA purposes, but somebody putting in ''time'' and concentrating on ''improving'' the project.  We need more admins like that.
'''
'''Support''' 24 months since your last block despite being busy and controversial, and I don't regard a lack of experience of new page patrol as a problem, especially as your experience relates to the areas in which you intend to work. '''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  Thumperward at times can be a civil and constructive editor as when he has suggested some pages I help edit on and as such I am pleased at times to interact with him as an editor.  And for the record, I like the pirate image on the userpage!  My concerns with regards to adminship is how tools might be used based on past interactions.  For example, he was pretty persistent about trying to get aspects of my old userspace undeleted that caused near wheel warring among admins over the issue.  And with regards to AfDs, I am concerned with such instances as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhuman]], i.e. not thinking outside of the box.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Corvinus]], digging in to delete when a merge as happened was reasonable as a compromise was disappointing.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator Timeline]], we have use of the non-word "cruft."  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens]], why not per [[WP:BEFORE]] attempt a merge or redirect?  With [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media]], not suitably acknowledging efforts to improve during discussion.  With [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters by IQ]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit of Caerbannog]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander]] we have a misread of the sources that was obviously inconsistent with consensus.  With [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy]], not objecting to future reuse seems more a call for a redirect with edit history intact to avoid having to request recreation.  Just as with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SD Gundam G-Generation F mobile suits]], why not redirect as happened?  With [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corvin]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series)]], it was just disappointing that when pretty much everyone else is persuaded by the sources that resulted in a keep, to still argue against them.  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Coltons]], even TTN didn't seem opposed to a merge and redirect.  Finally in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes]], he adamantly defended something that was speedily deleted.  So, my concern with regards to AfDs are as follows: 1) overly biased tendency toward deletion of fictional subjects, even when they are improved and sources presented during the discussions; and 2) reluctance to change stance during discussions.  It is important for admins to identify trends in an AfD and how the discussion develops when new material is presented and as such based on past experiences, I am concerned that even if an article is in fact rescued that might not be adequately taken into consideration.  So, I am happy to work with Thumperward to improve articles and of the various editors with whom I have disagreed in my time here, I give him a lot of credit for making good faith gestures to suggest articles to work on or to make the talk page archive thing in my talk page when I changed names, but there have been just a few things regarding deletion that make me apprehensive as to what he might try to undelete and how he might close discussions.  So, I am somewhat torn, because I believe he is an editor I can work with, but maybe if he pledged to not close fiction AfDs for which he might be biased (I think every fiction AfD I have participated in with him he said to delete, which is over 30 by my count, and not all of those closed as delete after all), maybe it would be reassuring.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''' - I am concerned with statements around the edit protection template pages. I am unable to trust this editor to do such without a chance of CoI or other problems. The concerns by A Nobody only verify a lack of trust.
'''Oppose''' - because the candidate with a "hot head" could be a "drama admin".--
'''Oppose''' -- Too many bad memories of this user in AfD.  They were a while ago and with a stated willingness to not use the bit on debatable fiction articles I really should be okay with this, but an still concerned.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Very high level of snark in the GNU/Linux edits and an ongoing conflict with Jimbo are not what we need in an admin.
'''Weak oppose''' Per questionable oppose at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ecoleetage_3&oldid=264506231#Oppose Eco's 3rd RFA here]. He opposed for an AFD close because he disagreed with Eco's applying of [[WP:SK]] even although Eco never invoked [[WP:SK]] in his close. His argument basically was that AFD's cannot be SNOW- or speedy-kept if the outcome is anything other than "keep" which shows a basic misunderstanding of what AFD is and is not. AFD is not a place for improvement discussions and an AFD which may end in "merge", "redirect" or "keep" but where there is no chance at all that it will end in "delete" can be SNOW- or speedy-kept perfectly fine because content discussion is to be held on talk pages, not on AFD. And, call it a stupid reason, but I have a bad feeling about this user's capability to be an admin and while I do hope I'm wrong, little bits of editing by this user leave me unable to ignore this. '''
'''Oppose''' per other oppose comments above. I'm worried based on the comments I'm reading that this editor means well but may not yet have the judgement necessary to be an admin that calmly handles disputes and makes judicious deletion decisions. Give it 6 months and I may support another RfA. --<font face="Futura">
'''Strong oppose''' can't see myself supporting this adminship, given the user's deletionist nature.  Deletion is a necessary process in some cases, yes, but Thumperward has always been aggressively deletionist.  He has gone so far as to prevent integration of deleted articles into other articles.
'''Oppose'''. Jimbo's comment simply "wow"ed me. And it sure looks like you're pushing your personal POV, which violated [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] (plus this happened less than a month ago)
'''Oppose'''. POV-pushing to the level that elicits a warning from Jimbo Wales is not something I'd want to see on the resume of an administrator.
'''Oppose'''  I have spent some time reviewing Cunningham's edits - no small task as he accumulates more edits in a few weeks than I do in a year.  I came across this deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor&diff=269119797&oldid=269030762] of a sporadic editor's contribution at [[Occam's razor]] ''"don't tag opinion pieces, just remove them"''.  Only problem is that the contribution was genuine and insightful - and more related to content than opinion.  The contribution, pointing to flawed logic, argued from that there were more epicycles in the Kopernican system than in the Ptolomean system, is not a contribution from the average bored college student lacing Wikipedia with POV.  The right action here would be to let it stay as fact-marked, leaving it to the editors of that page; alternatively a seasoned admin could have taken it to the Talk page and started a discussion.  We all swim in a sea of ignorance, but at the very least we should have a humble attitude to what we don't know.  In this case, Cunningham failed to show hints at this humbleness, and he showed a loose hand in deleting other editor's contributions.      What is his track record at AfD?  I picked 20 discussions at random, in 19 of those he voted "delete" or was the nominator - only one "keep".  Of those discussions, 11 ended in consensus to delete, so Cunningham's voting pattern is skewed towards deletion, when compared to community consensus.  This would reinforce the impression of an editor who is uneager to compromise with Wikipedia's strict quality requirements and who shows little hesitation in deleting other editor's contributions that may be less than perfect.  And this brings me to my final and greatest concern.  For what has Cunningham contributed with himself?  I only found two articles on footballers [[Archie McLean]] and [[James Riordan]], all the other pages created by Cunningham are splits with material transferred from larger articles.  Even with those two, I could have weak doubts, as they in their first revision come flying in with full heading structure, references and all.       For a collaborative project like Wikipedia, I consider it very important, if not essential, that admins at some point in time have slaved at the galleys themselves, struggling to create content, weighed by the burden of finding references, sometimes against deadlines imposed by others, in order to salvage information they consider important.  For isn't it true, that the more you become acquainted with all the policies, guidelines, MOS and essays in Wikipedia, the more visible become the flaws of other contributors, in particular those of sporadic editors and IP passerbys.  It is simply more demanding to create content, than it is to delete it.  I would be less concerned had the admin ''in spe'' shown a more pragmatic attitude towards retaining information, and had he shown a more humble attitude towards own (inevitable) ignorance.  In this context, IMO, his 22,000+ edit count becomes a liability, rather than an asset.  In summary, I would say he is not ready yet for the trust of being equipped with sysop privileges.
'''Oppose''' at this time, as the concerns of others have me concerned as well. His recently bumping heads with Jimbo Wales himself does not aleviate these concerns. I would not wish to gain the eye of Wiki's founder for my edits. '''
'''Oppose''' - Been thinking about this, the GNU/Linux stuff is enough to make me oppose on the basis that you can always reapply later when we can see more clearly that you won't do things like that again. Too soon for my liking, it would seem after a bit of thought. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', per concerns raised by others, above. Try again next year.
'''Oppose''' - Weak answers to 3 and 7a, especially considering the candidate's history of conflicts ([[User talk:Thumperward#Regarding_offer|example 1]], [[User talk:Thumperward/Archive 30#Templates|2]], [[User talk:Thumperward/Archive 30#KOS-MOS|3]], Jimbo conflict detailed above).  Also has a tendency to circumvent consensus ([[User talk:Thumperward/Archive 28#PLOT|example 1]], [[User talk:Thumperward#Merge_2|2]], [[User talk:Thumperward/Archive 27#Uzi article move|3]]). —  <small><b><span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' being admonished by Jimbo is nothing particularly special... except it is.  Failure to disclose and discuss it before an opposer brought it up shows lack of judgement.  If you'd had the self-confidence to say "I apply [[WP:BOLD]] well--Jimbo's even said I went too far--but always been willing to discuss, never been blocked, etc...." I would not be opposing.  If you'd mentioned it and said you'd learned from it, I would not be opposing.  As is, I find not mentioning such a recent interaction at all troubling.
'''Oppose this year with conditions for next''' As usual, A. B. is correct. I'm here because CC/Thumperward's encyclopedia-wide editing swaths are difficult to avoid even in out-of-the-way places: that makes my concern a possible community issue. We made a deal to avoid each other in a couple of articles, which he briefly broke, probably because he forgot about it in his high-volume editing haste. This oppose is a warning to CC that he's reasonably competent or better at some things, but not as competent or correct at Wikipedia as I think he has judged himself to be. Within the last 12 months and following his previous RFA, CC has been a shoot-from-the-hip deletionist, who too frequently shoots wrongly, excessively, or unnecessarily – to the occasional point of being a loose cannon lacking sufficient knowledge of guiderules. I don't hold it against him that he undertakes difficult experimental template programming, but when he hits the wall as we all do, I expect him to be graceful about acknowledging his limits in a collaborative environment. Much skilled programming is non-visual thinking, and I consider him to be visually art-challenged in a way that has led to protracted dispute. I can document each of the statements I've made here, but to be a nice guy, helpful to the project, and avoid raising too much dust, I don't want to do so. I think binary programming practice has an tendency to reinforce "black and white thinking", which is the exact opposite of cultivating a neutral point of view. I believe analog art and music practice can be a helpful counterbalance to programmer's bias. I recommend that Chris take classes in freehand, sculpture, or graphic art and web page layout, which are likely to be helpful to Wikipedia as well as to his long-term programming career. My conditions for RFA neutrality include CC's waiting until next year, going to admin school, accepting adminship only with recall, and that by subtle daily demonstration, he should incrementally increase his self-doubt to learn to "know what he doesn't know".
'''Oppose''' Per Levi van Tine's examples of editing against consensus.  The lack of care shown in all three examples is worrying, but particularly here: [[User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_28#PLOT]].  Similarly with GNU/Linux; a lot of [[WP:BOLD]] and less [[WP:CON]].  Combined with the answer on recall, indicating a desire to stay in adminship no matter what (even though recall is largely useless), I can't support.
'''Oppose''' Anti-science POV.
'''Oppose''' Like others said already, the [[User_talk:Thumperward#Please stop your campaign against GNU/Linux|"GNU/Linux" fiasco]] demonstrated - this user doesn't hesitate to use Wikipedia as a pulpit from which to promote his biases. Not the best quality for an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' I thought I was the only one. Author is deletion extremest on free software related articles. (My fault, I submitted this but wasn't logged in -- sorry)
'''Oppose''' While I have nothing against the user personally, experience with articles such as [[KOS-MOS]] have shown that he tends to go for the simple route, blanking or deletion, rather than try for merges or cleanups, then when this is brought to his attention responds with comments saying that others should do the work instead. While there is some truth to that attitude, I can't help but feel that if you're concerned enough with an article to want to blank or delete it because of the content, you should be concerned enough to do a cleanup or merge rather than take the simple way out, and this particular user doesn't come across as someone like that. The site needs less triggerhappy admins and more who are willing to do more than just remove. Fixes are always preferred where possible, and he forgets that. On a side-note, there also appears to be a noted bias against fictional subjects, perhaps the core of the problems surrounding him stems from that.
'''Oppose''' - Because he is intemperate and far too quick to play argumentative tricks.  See this very page (but also in many other places) for examples.  Also his style has been to crowd out other argument by ''relentless force'' rather than by ''reasoned argument''.  The very ''last'' thing Thumperward is, is wrong.  Not admin material.
'''Oppose'''. POV pushing is definitely not something I like to see, especially so recently.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns over the "GNU/Linux" issue; admins should be able to handle content disagreements in a graceful manner and ensure that any large-scale style changes they undertake reflect community consensus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' at this time.  This user all too often blanks/deletes on a hair-trigger, instead of working with others to improve Wikipedia, as the many examples above show.  Sometimes this person makes nice improvements, too, but an admin is supposed to meet "high standards of conduct" than a normal user.  Note, in fact, that the previous admin request was rejected!  I think this user ''wants'' to improve Wikipedia, though.  I think we should reject the request for now, and hope that this user will try to work more with others to create the best content. At which point he will be very welcome.
'''Oppose''' Has a track record of being wrong at AFD along with an over-bold attitude and so cannot be trusted to close according to consensus.
'''Oppose''' changed from ''neutral'' upon some more thinking. The brevity is so great in this case, that it unfortunately arouses my feeling of disquiet about  what the admin actions will be. The main point is trust, and I don't feel it. '''
'''Oppose''' - On one hand, I think in several ways he does decent work, however, my interactions with him involving templates makes me concerned about how he might interact with the less-than-wikipedia-aware newbie. -
'''Oppose''' per above and botched AfD nominations. Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per A Nobody and Ottava Rima.
'''Strong oppose''' - this user has not done '''''any''''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=Thumperward&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1 newpage patrol] whatsoever.
'''Oppose''' - because he deleted whole phrases (containing GNU/Linux) without giving reason for this. It took me a while (as a newbie; I think it took me about 20 minuts to find out) to find out what exactly his problem was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_28#Your_GNU.2FLinux_removals].
'''Oppose''' In my (relatively few) contacts with him, Thumperward's statements have IMO been dogmatic and undiplomatic. Add the fact that he's an aggressive deletionist and that's a recipe for trouble. --
'''Opppose''' The flaws of other contributors are easiest to see. I would rather he assist the developement of an article rather than jump to delete. ''It is simply more demanding to create content, than it is to delete it.'' from above Editor:Power Corrupts....--
'''Oppose''' - Thumperward has most impressive technical skills, but lacks the interpersonal skills that I think are necessary for a position of trust in the community. --
'''Oppose''' - This editor surely has made many contributions to WP. However, his track record of conflicts is extremely troublesome. I have not been able to observed him actually creating real content in the struggle to improve an article, indeed in his answers above, he could only state one article with significant contribution of content. He seems to usually just swoop into sight with reverts or deletes without having been involved in an ongoing development of a topic. This has led to creating obstacles and additional work for other editors. Contrary to his statements in this application I have not observed him following his stated 'rule' of 'forced discussions'. I came to the impression that some reverts by this editor are retaliatory in nature. Therefore I have been reluctant to enter my opinion here, because of the prospect of further such actions. In my opinion this editor would use his stated interest in locking articles after he applied his desired changes. His deletionist attitude is extremely worrisome, especially since he appears to actively and aggressively pursue deletions instead of finding ways to salvage and improve. As an administrator he should be able to abstain from active pursuit or voicing opinions about such actions, rather act in the sole role of executing editor consensus. An administrator should rank below editors in status, and should perform the elevated powers with expert efficiency and skill at the discretion of editors. While he has the skill and knowledge, an administrator however should be a support and service person to editors, not a superior or dictator. In this regard, it appears the candidate is not a proper match for the position. The candidate had a previous failed request for adminship. While the nomination text above states that the candidate has learned from experience, the reality of his track record and the reflection thereof in this poll do not bear this out. The nature of complaints against the candidate are much of the same nature and the numerical level of opposition is much the same if not higher. Since the candidate presumably knew of his future desire for adminship, he should have exercised extreme care not to raise any concerns or controversies over his record in the time since his first request, yet he obviously hasn't done so. From this fact, one cannot expect that he will exercise restraint once bestowed adminship.
'''Oppose''' Overall I'm concerened enough by a number of the opposers comments above that at this time I have to oppose.--
'''Strong oppose'''  Aggressively deletionist. --
'''Neutral'''. A productive editor, who I don't think will abuse the tools. However, his posting at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2]], where he sees Gavin's contributions to the D&D project (which consisted of tagging hundreds of articles, followed by edit warring to keep them in, all while doing little to nothing in the department of actually looking for sources or improving the articles) as perfectly OK behavior which improved the project really concerns me. Calling those who protested against that behavior for "scapegoating" doesn't fly either.
'''Neutral'''  It seems like he would do a reasonable job as an admin, but it is very important to understand the difference in terms of responsibility.  An admin has to be impartial, in action and in '''perception''' of their actions.  You can not get involved in a debate and then drop the admin hammer on it later.  If you recognize your own bias on an issue, you should stay as far away from it in an official capacity as is possible.  If you can not recognize your own bias, you are not fit for the job.  If you can not set arrogance aside, you can not honor that responsibility.  Most of the issues I had with this user's style of editing have been resolved on their own, as other sites stepped in to fill a hole being created in Wikipedia's coverage of fictional material, and in most cases outside sites have done a better job.  This user has done a good job of enforcing Wikipedia's rules as he interprets them, but the rules themselves have always been poorly-suited to categorizing fictional elements in popular culture.  If Thumperward's intent as an admin really is just to focus on high-level cleanup, more power to him.  Wikipedia is fortunate that there are people willing to shoulder that type of work as volunteers.  If it is to focus on inclusion/deletion debates, there are other people better suited to the job.  Unless his attitude regarding that subject has changed fundamentally since December, he brings too much drama into it.
Sorry, it's hard for me to support someone without evidence they will be able to handle situations calmly and without undue drama. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral''' Upon further reflection on the answers provided, I no longer oppose this candidacy. I think [[User:DGG]] says it better than I could.
'''Neutral''' Protonk's reasoning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward_2&diff=prev&oldid=277225537 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thumperward_2&diff=next&oldid=277225537 here] (as well as my respect for his abilities), and Thumperward's obvious technical abilities are enough for me to remove my '''Oppose''' vote; however, there's just too much "I know Linux - I know best" attitude there for me to go full support.  Granted, it's not a particular diff I can cite, but rather my impression of attitude.  I understand that working in contentious areas can have some danger flags, so I'm willing to withdraw my convict/Oppose !vote (so to speak) - And I hope this one doesn't come back to bite us. —
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]''' - With under 150 edits in two years, we don't have any way to judge how you'd behave as an admin. Your contributions are welcome; please keep it up and come back to RfA at a later date. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Oppose- not enough edits, absolutely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=tianhua1993&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 zero use of the edit summary], even on RfA related additions.
'''Beat the nom''' Per Q1 and experience.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]|
'''Support''' as nominator ''
An excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around quite a lot, and have been happy with what I have seen. The problem with DT was complex, and I am still uncertain if any of us got it right. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I have seen Timmeh's name frequently and I have yet to have reason for wincing upon seeing his participation. Timmeh's overall input has been highly commendable and I am happy to support this RfA.
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]]; seen him around, does good work. There are a few issues, but I'm confident he'll learn on the job. –'''
Per previous interaction which was extremely positive. '''
You've been around long enough to have opposed and moved to neutral on my RfA, and although you were the only non-support, I won't hold a grudge.  You are a knowledgeable editor who will be a benefit to the encyclopedia if given the tools.  Good luck, '''
'''Support'''. I've seen very good work from this editor, and I have no doubt I'll see the same if and when he becomes an administrator. — '''''
'''Support'''. Nice content work, and I see nothing wrong with your comments in the thread linked by Skinwalker. I sort of agree with Mazca that you use "per above" or similar a lot in AfD, but I haven't found any serious mistakes from you in that area so it's not really a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I was on the fence; Skinwalker and CoM put me over the edge into support. Defense of Dougstech is laughable at best. Decent contributions, good experience. My misgivings are your tendency to enter frays seemingly for the sake of doing so; I encourage you to try to pick and choose your battles more carefully. Take it from a guy who doesn't follow his own advice all the time. Net positive, has Wikipedia's best interests at heart.
'''Support''' - Thoroughly unconvinced of the opposition. T is a net positive through and through.
'''Support''' No reason you couldn'e be trusted, and your answer to Q4 was superb. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - Per excellent answer to Q4. <small>(
'''Support''', candidate seems fine.
'''Support''' I don't see any major problems that are big enough.
'''Support''' as a net positive, any negatives for this person are extremely minor. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as net positive. <s>The opposition does not highlight any major issues to me.</s> --
'''Support''' Seen him around and trust him. '''
'''Support''' - per Timmeh's good response to my neutral !vote, his sensible question answers, and his overall record of good contributions, I'm now sufficiently comfortable that he'd be a definite net positive with admin tools. There are issues, but they are minor. Think before you act, avoid unnecessary arguments, and you'll be a great admin. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' The DougsTech stuff seems to be an isolated chain of incidents, and RfA especially gets people especially stressed out whether they are in the ring or are commenting. I don't view it as an issue because of which Timmeh shouldn't be an administrator because of those circumstances. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' tempered, weakened, and saddened by the DougsTech issues. One must hope that that was an aberration or a flaw the candidate has grown beyond.
'''Support''' No concerns. I've seen him around, and worked in a few areas with him and never had a problem.
'''Weak support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has four barnstars on userpage and no blocks on the log; however, [[User:David Fuchs]] raises a serious concern below with regards to [[WP:BEFORE]] and [[WP:PRESERVE]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', can see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''', excellent work at [[United States presidential election, 2008]] and excellent answer to Q4. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''', interacts positively with all editors, should have wide support from every little corner of Wikipedia.  No need to agree with him 100% on every minor detail. Definitely a positive for the project.
'''Support''' Good editor. I really think the comment made above has been blown way out of proportion. I love you Pedro, but you coined the term 'net' - which means a cumulative view. One comment should not an RfA tank.
'''Weak support''' - a few concerns, but should be ok.
'''Support'''. Satisfied with answers to the questions. --
'''Support''' Yea, I know the oppose arguments, and indeed I have been on the opposite side on a few occasions of Timmths stance.  But I've seen his work in many areas, and while I don't always agree with his viewpoint, he does think things through.  He's polite, considerate, and usually willing to listen to reason.  I don't believe he'll use the tools to any detriment, and while I realize there may be some growing pains, I think the potential for good things is there.  I don't often end up on the opposite side of Pedro, but I think in this case that Timmeh has the ability to make a good admin.  I also trust the nom, and I figure that he has the best handle on the situation, ... so all things considered - I support. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Support''' - A few concerns about maturity (this is just an overall impression, so I really don't have anything to go on), but overall, I see Timmeh as a fine editor, and a net positive as a sysop. <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' Net positive. '''
'''Tentative support'''—Although you're young, I'm impressed with your skill-base and relative maturity. I like the fact that you're a content editor ... apparently a promising one. However, I'm concerned at issues raised in the Oppose section, such as Laser brain's. (Your GA nomination, linked above, was sitting there lonely yesterday; I think it's good.)
'''Support''' and strongly, I might add. Timmeh has helped me be a better Wikipedian, by proding me to put more thought into my edits. I recently gave him a barnstar for his efforts on an article he and I have both worked on. I think he will make a fine Admin.
'''Support''' You didn't handle the DougsTech thing correctly but from what I've seen of you around here I don't think you would have abused the tools in the dispute with him, nor do I think you would abuse the tools in any other manner. '''
'''Weak support''' I don't like the fact that this candidate is being pilloried for the Dougstech issue.  More substantive support later (or a change of heart) if the situation merits it.
'''Total support<sup>26</sup>'''. He is 10<sup>160</sup> times more civil than me. He fits well in the scene.
'''Support''' While one can argue about the DougsTech issue, I do not see outright misbehaviour from his side. Satisfying answers to questions, and indication he's willing to learn from mistakes. The latter is exactly what ''I'' would like to see in admins. --
'''Support''' I think the community can trust you to not abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' No problems here. -
'''Support'''. Opposes seem mostly frivolous. --
'''Support'''. I see two arguments presented below against Timmeh: (a) his role in the DougsTech problem and (b) his "immaturity". I have seen neither argument backed sufficiently with diffs or with anything, ''especially'' the second argument.
'''Support''' No problems with any of the issues highlighted in the oppose section. You ''cannot'' in any serious way punish this guy for making the right call on DougTech, nor have I seen any other evidence which makes obvious any immaturity. Net positive, cheers. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support''' This user appears to have a good knowledge of how to handle incidents on Wikipedia. I also agree with Cyclonenim above, he made the right call on DougsTech.--
'''Support''' good answers to questions and should do well - the lesson that any prospective admin will take away from the opposes is to avoid any and all conflict; any such being in effect a no-win situation. I would rather see what an editor does under conflict, than punish the editor for having the gumption to wade in.
'''Support''' RFA seems good. Good Luck.
'''Support''' per most of the answers (especially 4 and 13), per Koji's oppose 9, and per [[WP:NETPOSITIVE]].  Good luck.  &nbsp; — [[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]] (
'''Support''' Don't agree with his actions concerning DougTech but overall seems a quality editor and would likely make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' - Timmeh knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White;font-family:Times New Roman"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] [[User_talk:ThinkBlue|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">(Hit</span>]]
Why the hell not? <strong>
'''Support''' Although I've not had any direct interaction with the candidate, my impression is that his contribs have helped the project. His answers are articulate and on-target, for the most part. Is he perfect? No, but let's keep the big picture in mind{{spaced ndash}}does the condidate understand and correctly apply Wikipedia policies; have the temperament and experience to wield the mop; and can he be trusted to use the extra buttons constructively? For me, the answer is most definitely yes. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''&nbsp;-&nbsp;Candidate is here to build the encyclopedia. Timmeh, I think you've learned from this RfA how NOT to respond (possibly at all) to various styles of contentious editors. --'''''
'''Oppose'''.  Timmeh was a primary contributor to the massive troll-feeding regarding DougsTech.  I do not trust his judgement or his independence from groupthink, and I think the admin corps will suffer from his "me too" attitude.  Adminship <i>is</i> a big deal, per my comments made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=282215830 here], in response to Timmeh.
'''Not yet'''.  I do appreciate this candidate's GA work, and I do trust this candidate to close AfDs in accordance with the consensus, but I agree that his CSD tagging has not always been up to snuff, including relatively recent taggings.  To me, this suggests his ''knowledge'' around deletion is lacking for the moment, and that makes me very reluctant to support his access to the tools as of today.<p>This is a concern about experience and knowledge rather than temparament, so I feel confident that I would be able to support in future.—
'''Oppose''' Timmeh was an active participant in the hounding of DougsTech and the edit warring over his user pages. I understand Timmed disagreed with that editor's approach, lots of us did, but to do battle over their userspace [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADougsTech&diff=293804375&oldid=293793844] and engage in borderline trolling and other dramatics was utterly unhelpful [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADougsTech&diff=288156832&oldid=288072282] . Someone can check just how many times Timmeh felt the need to post on DougsTech’s talk page despite DT making it clear he wanted to be left in peace, but it’s certainly in the double digits and it’s the kind of activity that causes time wasting disruption and tension. Timmeh generally makes good contributions, but self control, judgment, and an ability to defuse conflict instead of instigating it are basic Admin qualifications.  Another flamethrowing admin who doesn't yet possess adequate maturity is not what Wikipedia needs.
'''Oppose''' the Dougstech issue does bother me, per CoM above. Looking through the candidate's AfD contributions, I see a frightening number of nominations where he either didn't look for sources, or the discussion veered towards a merge; AfD is not cleanup, and editors should propose merges, et al before taking them to AfD. It's a waste of everyone's time. --<font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Per Skinwalker and ChildofMidnight. Your GA work is good, but I believe your actions in the DougsTech fiasco were immature and unhelpful at best. Adminship requires a nuanced touch, a high degree of situational [[WP:CLUE|cluefulness]] and the ability to minimize disruption and drama by de-escalating conflict as much as possible. At this time, I do not believe you have sufficiently demonstrated these abilities.
Per much of the above.  Also by his own admission he's still a kid, so he should be scrutinized for kid-like behavior.  There seems to be plenty of evidence of kid-like behavior in the above opposes.  Just to head off possible objections: Yes, I understand that he says he's over 18.  I don't care much about how politicians in some particular country define adulthood- I care more about what science says on the issue.  There is lots of evidence that the "adult brain" develops closer to the age of 25 than the age of 18.  So, those in that in-between group should still be scrutinized to see whether they behave more like a kid or more like an adult.
'''Oppose''', based on my observations of his interactions with other editors.
'''Oppose''' per Skinwalker.  A dramafest was made out of someting which should have been ignored.  Otherwise, I have no problems with this editor and look forward to supporting at a later date.--
'''Oppose''' ''Because I can''.--
'''Oppose''', I highly value the candidate's article contributions but I have a general concern about lack of maturity and careful reasoning. AfD participation like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Country-rap this] concerns me; the candidate opines "delete" and says there are no sources but he clearly didn't look. This feeds into the groupthink concern Skinwalker mentions above (agree with the group until proven otherwise). Also, the "pet peeves" list on the candidate's userpage seems immature. If people ignoring your advice bothers you that much, you may find adminship boiling your blood a bit more often than is ideal. --
'''Oppose'''.As per his involvment in the dougtech debacle and general issues of maturity as mentioned by other editors. Adminship is a big deal and he is not ready. In my opinion and according to my expectations. (
'''Weak oppose''' due to nagging issues regarding maturity/temperament.  Overall I see many positive contributions and I am largely satisfied with the answers to the questions but I am not convinced the user has the maturity level I am looking for in admins.
The hypocrisy evident in the comments made following support #10 make it evident that this candidate is not yet ready to assume a position of authority. --
'''Oppose''' per Bullzeye and Wehwalt.
'''Oppose''' per the comment cited by Malleus Fatuorum. I don't normally oppose RFAs, or visit them at all, but I found myself here, and, "''Thanks for assuming good faith. I think some of the opposers may have forgotten to do the same, or do it to the same extent,''" made me cringe. <p> If the candidate can put that kind of attitude firmly behind him, then a future RFA could be a different story. A big part of what's on display in one's RFA is how one reacts to opposition. This was not how one should react to opposition, nor an attitude to display when standing for a position where one will be called on to resolve disputes, and not to escalate them. Learn how to pour oil on water, and not kerosene on fires. -
'''Oppose''' for having the temerity to think that the "whole thing was resolved peacefully" --
'''Opppose''' Careless work at AfD. '''
'''Oppose''' per maturity concerns. '''
'''Oppose''' For agreeing with what Majorly said. There are several problems with his version of events. Even without that there are obvious problems with attitude.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about maturity and temperament. '''
'''Oppose'''. While adminship across Wikipedia shouldn't be considered a big deal, the position still demonstrates community ''trust''; in both the technical aspect and the social aspect that comes with such a large community.  As per some of the issues raised above, I am not certain that this candidate is ready to be trusted on either level.  While I do appreciate some of the great work he has done for the project, it is my advice that he appeal for the tools after he has demonstrated to the community in a definitive manner that he has in fact matured and improved his "temperament."
'''Oppose''' &ndash; The tone used by the candidate and his friends when responding to opposition in this RFA indicates a temperament problem.
'''Oppose''' - Timmeh seems like a nice enough chap, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. AGF bleating of the sort found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Timmeh_2&diff=prev&oldid=297992977 here] is so ''tedious''. Agree with Friday in re: maturity. With regards to the Dougstech incident, it requires a certain lack of both [[WP:CLUE]] and general maturity to imagine that DougsTech would respond at all positively to polite, well-meaning, but completely uninvited propaganda. It's not even a matter of "was a troll/was not a troll" - it's just a pure lack of personality-gauging and human intuition, the ability to distinguish between people who would (for example) find welcome templates totally awesome, friendly, and helpful, and people who will find the templates condescending and obnoxious. Admins should be more like that cool, laid-back uncle who takes you fishing and helps you understand the facts of life, and less like that annoyingly chipper, nattering old aunt, no matter how good the intentions of the latter.
'''Oppose''' Given the concerns about immaturity, I recommend that the candidate consider a change of username.  His current name brings to mind a bunch of South Park characters or impressionable kids yelling "TIMMEH!" at one another...not exactly consistent with the maturity, calmness and individuality that many desire in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Weak contributions at AFD (and to some extent the answer to question 6) do not give me confidence in Timmeh closing AFDs. Also do have a bit of concern over some of the candidates comments regarding DougsTech.
Lack of policy involvement, yet active enough on RfA to create a giant deal out of what was nothing.
'''Oppose''' I actually do not think that the candidate did terribly wrong when the fiasco around DougsTech's block/ban occurred. However, I'm disappointed at his snarky comment and defenses regarding "good faith" on the opposition votes. Administors are required to have better communication skills to help editors build this encyclopedia.-
'''Oppose''' without prejudice for a future RFA. At the moment Timmehs "small, isolated lapse(s) in judgment" occur with unsettling frequency, and I find his handling of the IP above very reminiscent of Dougstech, indicating that nothing was learned. Admins need to be able to back away from a troll.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', per GTBacchus.
'''Oppose''', mainly per GTBacchus; what he said has already been borne out in your discussion with the IP editor above. Yes, please work on de-escalation. Tagging a self-indented comment as a possible SPA is not going to help the closing bureaucrat decide how to treat the comment, and the original comment was not in itself disruptive. The tagging was sure to make the IP editor unhappy. It's more important to retain perspective than to fight every possible battle.
'''Oppose''', per behavior in this RFA.  Your apologies for the knee-jerk reactions here are commendable, to be sure, but the need for them is troubling.  For one, I find knee-jerks indicative of how a person will react under less controlled circumstances.  For two, the multiple incidences of such reactions in this RFA, in a situation where you should anticipate stress and the need to step back, do not speak well for your ability to handle similar challenges in the field. &mdash;
I generally have had a very positive reaction to Timmeh's edits, and I think he brings a lot to Wikipedia.  If I were voting my heart or my gut, I would support, but I'm going with "fairness" this time ... and I don't think it's fair to support a candidate with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timmeh&oldid=297993703 the current] list of "My Wikipedia pet peeves" in a prominent place on his userpage.  Sorry, Timmeh.  I'm very optimistic that you'll see my point and similar points brought up during this RFA and that I will be able to support your next RFA run. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' - I initially came with a neutral opinion, since I've seen Timmeh around with good activity level and decent contribs. However, his involvement in this RfA raises definite concerns. In particular, the interaction with Pedro—the AGF comment, and overall making a bigger deal out a little interaction—and what feels like an attempt at persuading the opposers. Timmeh, I was just here (at RFA) less than 2 months ago, so I still remember the intense stress at times, and some leeway could be given to nervous candidates. However, adminship has the potential to be just as bad, and I don't see proof that you'll be able to handle that and make [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] judgements. I applaud your choice "I won't respond to any opposes", but I don't see the same attitude being displayed in this RfA otherwise with comments like "thanks for not opposing". Frankly, some of the opposes/comments in this RfA are ludicrous, and I'd rather not be associated with that. But as an administrator, you represent the website, and I see problems with lack of wise decision-making (i.e., DougsTech involvement). I hope you'll use this as constructive criticism to work by. :-) Best,
'''Oppose''' While Timmeh has done some excellent work for the project, the concerns expressed in the oppose section are potentially problematic.  Timmeh's temperament regarding Dougstech and haranguing of that user is not the behavior expected of an admin.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience.  Regards, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' because we don't need more immature admins.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:BITE|biting]] an IP editor (78.148.233.176) right here in this RfA.
'''Neutral''' I think you've done really good work, but I don't think you're quite ready.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
I told you, too many boxes. I don't have time for a proper examination of your record, thus neutral.
'''Neutral:'''  although I am leaning towards oppose and may change as the RfA progresses.  I accept that there are a lot of positive points to Timmeh's editing, but I have some concerns regarding his approach and temperament.  I know it seems silly, but I very much dislike "My Wikipedia pet peeves" on Timmeh's userpage.  In my opinion, it displays a juvenile, short-sighted, and hypocritical attitude, and if Timmeh would like, I would be more than happy to send him an email or a message on his talk page explaining why I think so.  I realise those three adjectives are considered excessively negative, and I'm not suggesting that Timmeh '''is''' any of those three things . . . I just think it is a poor choice of content for a user page and it makes me less optimistic about his attitude in general.
'''Abstain''' from support. Not overly impressed with the AGF throwaway comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Timmeh_2&diff=prev&oldid=297992977 here] I'm afraid.<small> also fixed IP markup above - that IP neutral is one for the 'crats I think.</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Back to Neutral''' as per Pedro's diff. – ('''
'''neutral''' I like to support content contributors, and Timmeh has clearly been around a while, but I too am concerned by edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Timmeh_2&diff=prev&oldid=297992977 this] and some of the work at AfD. I doubt this will pass, sorry.
I can't decide either way, but this RFA is devolving into a drama fest.
'''Neutral''' per Maedin, Pedro and David Fuchs as well concerns over the candidate's maturity and careless AFD work. While I do not think the candidate will not make a good admin, I have serious doubts (despite their good contributions) that they will make a good admin at the moment. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' as I think there are some issues which need to be addressed, though I don't find the arguments presented in the Oppose section to be convincing enough to oppose. ···
'''Neutral''', mostly per Nihonjoe.
Sure, I'm willing. '''
'''Support''' as nominator. The time elapsed is, in my view, sufficient if improvement has occurred - and it has. Demanding arbitrary periods between RfAs does nobody any favours. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Yep, remember reviewing on [[WP:ER]], and seemed good then, and still does, has the clue, willingness and right stuff for an admin. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Strong Support''' civil, helpful editor with a clean block log and nicely varied contributions. I think he would have done well if he'd got the tools a few months ago and am glad he's stayed around and is running again. ''
'''support''' I was looking for good reasons not to support you, but found none. hope you also become a good admin. Freshymail (
'''Support''' I see nothing in the history that causes me any great concerns (vandalism, membership of ARS, things like that). --
'''Support''' - seen him around. No concerns here.--
'''Support''' Dedicated, hard worker, who's demonstrated an ability to learn and grow.
'''Support''' experienced editor who's willing to learn knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' - Good interactions, mature and civil, and per Hiberniantears. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Support'''. Has shown good progress in the last few months, and is an excellent contributor. I see no likelihood of the tools being abused. ···
'''Support''' This RfA might be a little too early, but I supported your last one and I still stand behind that. I don't see any reason why you'd misuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' after review of Timmeh's previous RfA's and his answers and comments here. Mind you, I also have some concerns about the RfA being a bit too early since the last one, also some of the Opposers in the last RfA were a bit troubling and gave me pause, but the consensus here convinces me that third time should be the charm, as I believe the learning process has been effective in that somewhat short period of time. Good luck! <font color="green">
From his actions at GAN I can tell Tim is a very reliable and responsible user who isn't afraid to get stuck into backlogs. <small><span style="border:2px solid #993333;">
'''Support''' - this RfA came pretty quick after the last one, which surprised me a bit at first. However, time has elapsed since some of Timmeh's judgement issues (DougsTech, etc.) and I believe he has proven himself as being past any major issues. He seems fine this time around, and I come from the perspective of one who opposed his last RfA for drama/judgement type reasons. Tim's probably not perfect (although I can't recall anything negative lately), but on the whole he's quite knowledgeable and reasonable, so I'm happy to support this time. I doubt he'll cause problems with the tools, good luck. :)
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] - Textbook case of an editor who may not have been quite ready last time but took a few months to improve and is now fully capable of pushing ye olde mop. Good luck. –'''
'''Support''' Timmeh will make a great admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Per above.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support'''. Consistent quality edits in diverse areas, knowledgable, well-meaning, and committed editor. He's earned it. It's time to put the DougsTech issue to rest. --
'''Support''' - I weakly supported and then abstained last time, as a number of issues were nagging at me and I was not impressed with some comments on RFA#2. However a good review of recent edits shows a marked change. I doubt you'll go wild with the tools, you are unlikely to misuse them and you are clearly here for the right reasons; that you have had two failed RFA's yet shrugged your shoulders and carried on working hard speaks volumes. Just take it easy with the new tabs and ..... '''if in doubt - don't'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. A review of a sampling of the candidates contributions reveal nothing to worry about. Candidate displays improvement since last RfA, which means he reacts positively to constructive criticism. --
'''Support''' I supported last time; the candidates editing skills have improved since. Will make a good admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' has taken criticism at last RFA and applied it to editing.  I do not see any reason to believe the tools would be misused.  '''
Is this RFA too soon?  I wouldn't have thought so.  Anyway, Timmeh responded very positively to the one point I brought up last time in opposition, and I've seen lots of good stuff and nothing bad since. - Dank (
'''Support''' - al the good reasons mentioned.  Also editor uses nice edit summaries.
'''Support''' - Timmeh is clueful and intelligent. Should make a good admin.

As last time. '''
'''Support''': [[mistakes were made]], possibly because [[WP:BELLY|Timmeh isn't a bot]]. I'm fairly sure Timmeh wouldn't take the same path if put in that situation again. Ignoring one instance and/or period of time? Solid editor. It's just the mop, after all.
'''Support''' You've improved, so it seems that you have learned your lesson with things.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. Not enough administrators currently. I supported last time, and no issues have arisen since then that would make me change my mind. I like the answer to Q5 (as your answer to Q1 seemed to imply otherwise). I really hope that you'll continue adding content even after a successful RfA &ndash; it would be counter-productive to promote good content contributors if it ends up limiting their content writing. Good luck.
'''STRONG Support''' You appear to be trustworthy when it comes to the tools! --
'''Support'''. If you look at the editor from the first RFA and this one, the differences are striking. The candidate is now a solid editor with extensive experience, and I have no reservations about granting them the tools.
Since no actual concerns have been raised, there are no worries here! :-) '''
'''Support''' -- ''<B>
'''Strong Support''' Seems keen! Why not give him a chance, he has a few friends that will keep an eye on him and he won't make the wiki wheels drop off. Whats that song.. Mama Used To Say ''take your time young man''.
'''Support''' Familiar with his work, which I've found to be excellent, and I've seen nothing here to make me thing he cannot be trusted with the tools. And just for the record, based on the truly ''bizarre'' oppose below, I ''like'' his username. And I like saying it. Timmeh!
'''Support''' Good luck with the mop!!
'''Weak support''', I'd like to have seen a little more time since the last RfA but that's not worth opposing over; I think I can trust him not to cause any issues.  Should do a good job.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Timmeh_2&diff=297823954&oldid=297818628 per] previous RfA.
'''Support''' I think that obssessing over an issue that happened five months ago seems a little questionable. Besides, the canidate's edits since then have all seemed to be well placed and in good faith. Regards,
'''Support''', I see nothing that concerns me.
'''Support''', for my first RfA vote. It feels like only a matter of time for this.

As someone else suggested above, I came here expecting to oppose, but I've found no reason to believe that Timmeh would make a worse administrator than those we already have. Damning with faint praise, I know. --
[[File:Yes_check.svg|20px]]&nbsp;'''{{{1|Support}}}''' Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Timmeh. —
'''Strong support'''. A marked improvement over the last run; like Pedro, I get the impression that he's calmed down and sees adminship as a hurdle, not the goal.
'''Support''' - I have known Timmeh since my own RfA, and while I have not commented in any of his RfAs up until now, I think he has matured since then and would make a good admin. I have not found anything to suggest he would not pass my [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]. I am not convinced by the opposition, most of the cited issues were one off incidents which Timmeh has learnt from, and some are not of concern to me at all. I actually like his username by the way.
'''Support''', looks to be a perfectly trustworthy user and I feel they deserve the mop. Good luck! <nowiki>[</nowiki>'''
'''Support'''. Recent activity looks fine. I don't have a problem with the username.
Head seems to be in the right place. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
Sure, why not? <strong>
'''Support''' One of the  opposes is concerning as its from someone Ive found to have a clear view of whats going on.   But I not aware of a single problematic recent edit from this candidate, hes a quality contributor and no reason to think hed misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - I like your rationale in your answers, particularly for the AfD cases. Despite what is said below, a person ''can'' change in 3 months. Heck, a person can change in a day. I've had experiences in Wikipedia that completely changed the way I looked at things, and I know I've had major changes in the way I treat other editors and treat article content based on a single revelation. For example, I know that in a short period of time I went from being an inclusionist, to a deletionist, to something in-between. -- '''
'''Support'''. Not convinced by the opposes.
'''Support''' - Pretty good. I actually closed the Steed AfD as delete, which got a near-unanimous confirmation from DRV, but I can see how it could also be considered a no consensus. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Cautious support''' I remain concerned about judgment and maturity issues, but Timmeh is a devoted editor who (I think) is ready to be given an opportunity to be an Admin. Please be cautious especially with the block button and do your best to resolve disputes and avoid drama without using it. And step away from stressful situations and confrontations. Good luck. :)
'''Support''' Net positive despite the concerns. And by concerns, I don't mean the DougsTech mess (which dates back to April) but the AfD sloppiness mentioned in the last RfA.
'''Support'''. My opinion remains the same since the prior RfA. —
'''Support''' Doesn't seem likely to misuse the tools. Shows a wide knowledge of policy. I'm not at all convinced by the "opposed" issues raised.  <small><span style="border:2px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;background:White;">&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' I had better add this in to conteract some of that oppose trend.  The answers look good to me.
Ditto that. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(
'''Support''' significant improvement since last RfA. I've seen Timmeh around and our interactions have been positive.
Clueful candidate. No obvious problems. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and very interested in helping to improve Wikipedia overall. Some users have some maturity concerns, but I think he'll be fine.
'''Support''', I don't see any major problems.  Just tread carefully at first, and you should be fine.
'''Support'''. Seems to have improved since the last RfA, 3 months is fine as far as I'm concerned, and solid contributions.
'''Support''' He seems like he would not abuse admin privleges.
'''Strong Support'''. Last time I checked, a person's username has nothing to do with how he will perform as an administrator. I find this user to be a helpful person and have full confidence that he would be a great admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I disagree with the original premise of immaturity.
'''Support''' A net positive and also per answers to questions 14 and 15.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>[[User:LAAFan/Guestbook|sign]]</sup> <sub>
'''Support''' After weighing this one over thoroughly in my mind, the concerns raised below seem to be mostly about the username and the time after the last incident, neither of which concern me greatly. A good editor who will not misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Appears thoughtful, well-spoken, well-reasoned.--
'''Weak Support''' - Watched this discussion for a few days now and have decided that although I'm concerned about your judgment as noted in the oppose section, I can't see you misusing the tools. '''
'''Weak support''' Net positive.
'''Support''', decent user. --
'''Support''': I've read many of the comments both support and oppose, Timmeh's answers, and his nomination and I just have to support him.  He seems like a reasonable, policy knowedgable, decent contributor that, like everyone else, could use some improvement as expressed in the oppose section but nothing that I feel is deserving of an oppose.--
'''Support''', having read through the opposes, I see nothing that is even remotely convincing.
'''Support''': not convinced by the opposes. Timmeh seems to be a good editor in general, and would make a good admin. The only blot on his record is the DougsTech case, and I think he recognises his mistakes there and would not make them again.
'''Support''' I have been sitting on the fence for a long time on this one since the concerns about temperament (vis-a-vis DougsTech), and the hurried third RFA are valid IMO (I have no real issue with the AFD comments, which are borderline and dated; and with the username, which is perhaps a storm-in-a teacup, and easily remedied if needed). However, I am moved to support Timmeh based on his conduct during this RFA, which has been pretty drama-filled and gave him several "excuses" to blow his fuse, which, to his credit, he didn't. I trust that he has learned from the feedback he received in this and previous RFA and will be a better admin for it, either now or sometime in the future.
'''Support''' I am going to [[WP:AGF]] here. I think that Timmeh can be a great admin. I completely disagree with the username concern. There has been an issue with their demeanor on wikipedia, however I think that it is relatively minor, and nothing to really be concerned about in an admin. Due to his response in the neutral section, I completely believe he will take adminship humbly, and step into the tools cautiously. I also think that 3 months is fine for requesting again. 3 months can be a huge change in someone's life or even their attitude. It is my belief that Timmeh is a net gain to this project, and could bring even more with the extra buttons. Good luck <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
'''Support:''' I was wrong. Pascal challenged my position and I thought things over. Almost every concern raised was petty. There has been the issue of demeanor - petty stuff. Indeed on this RFA Timmeh's demeanor and maturity have been of the of the highest standard.  I support Timmeh based on his conduct during this RFA, which has been pretty unfair (including me) and gave him several "excuses" to blow a fuse, which, to his credit, he didn't. He will make a great admin! a humbled -
'''Support''' Great candidate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">
'''Support''' A more careful review shows that, despite dougstech and mzm, timmeh is  thoughtful editor. Switched to support. --
'''Support''' Hope to get this in before close.  All things considered, I think Timmeh has the ability to become a fine admin.  I'm not fond of the user name either - but it's the work that's done which counts.  There's always going to be a learning curve for any new admin., I think Timmeh has the desire, heart, and ability to do what's right here. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' -  an editor with a record of exercising questionable judgment. I do not think he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' - I believe that the candidate often seems to have questionable judgment (esp. in making comments) at times when good judgment is sorely needed (nothing particularly specific, it's a general trend that I have seen). Unlike in some RfAs where improvement can be demonstrated quickly, I believe that RfAs where maturity and such are in question should have a decent amount of time between them so that people can see the difference&nbsp;— here, however, I am struggling to see the improvement. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Concerned about judgment.--
'''Oppose'''. Too soon to have confidence. April - Key driver of a major dramafest (DougsTech). June - RFA 2, including saying in response to an oppose that the April episode hadn't been that bad since "no policies were broken". August - editor review with a clear view towards running for RFA again. Sept - RFA 3. I'm sorry, but this user did not have the mentality (perhaps maturity) to be an admin in April and June. Since then, he's been a good user and hasn't done anything bad. That's great, but few people genuinely change that quickly and the risk is too great. Maybe you're a completely different person than 3 months ago. Maybe not, no harm in waiting.
Immaturity, poor judgement. Pretty much just look at the last RFA, from a few months ago.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC) '''PS'''  To specifically address the "he has changed a lot in a few months".. do voters really think people change quickly like that?  The only people who mature noticeably in a few months are babies.  He's not a baby.  If he really is a "different person" than the subject of the last RFA, which one is the real one?  At RFA, voters try to judge the true nature of the candidate.  Anyone can put on an act, under supervision of a handler or two.  The act isn't what matters, it's the true character of the candidate that matters.  And I have very little confidence that the true character of a person can change meaningfully that quickly.  I'd want to see a much longer time of maturity and good judgement before I was willing to believe these problems have gone away.
'''Oppose''' Last RfA seems like yesterday, and the candidate's username remains amongst the worst on Wikipedia.  "Do you need a page protected?  Talk to TIMMEH!"  Please.
'''Oppose''' - I'm also of the "Time will tell" school and find 3 months after an controversial RfA too short. FWIW, this is a general concern of mine and I had already started [[User:Tikiwont/RFA|to jot that down]]. Time intervals of a year or half aren't really arbitrary for me but reflect some experiences here as well as real life analogies. --
'''Strong oppose''' per the comments in this RFC, the 37 opposes in the last one.
'''Oppose'''. Why so soon after the last one? It was rather contentious to say the least, and I think with good reason (I did not participate). Despite the fact that we often think in "Wikipedia time" around here, where a week can seem like a year, I don't think a person's judgment (which is the core issue at RfA) changes for the better much over the course of three months, and there were some real judgment issues discussed in the last RfA. The quick rush to RfA again when WT:RFA seems to be on a recruitment drive gives me real pause. I disagree with Ironholds' contention (which I also, admittedly, see as a bit of a distinction without a difference) that Timmeh "sees adminship as a hurdle, not the goal." It seems to me that he very much sees it as a goal (third try, second in a few months, set up by an editor review), and while I know others very much disagree, I'm skeptical of editors who strive to leap through whatever hoops there are to gain adminship. Timmeh was criticized for poor AfD research and rationales last time so he has made a point of working on that which is obviously good, but it has the feel to me of going through the motions in order to be able to pass RfA the next time around (I know there's a bit of an AGF failure there, but that's how I see it). Timmeh has commented on 38 AfDs since his last RfA (basically doing 2-3 at a time on a dozen or so occasions), but in looking at all of these I see almost none which are controversial or "difficult" AfDs. Basically all required a simple Google News search where it was obvious whether or not the topic had coverage in secondary sources (usually Timmeh did this well enough from what I can gather, though in a still-open AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IChill Relaxation Shot|here]] I find the sourcing arguments put forward by him to be extremely weak and the Google research not at all carefully done). In a prospective admin who says one of the two main things they will do is close AfDs, I want to see evidence of participation in tricky, close-call AfDs where the editor engages with multiples policies beyond [[WP:GNG]] and with strong counter arguments from other editors. I'm just not seeing that in the recent AfDs, and the previous ones were admittedly problematic in terms of lack of rationale, etc. Timmeh obviously is a valuable editor with a lot of great contributions (and if this passes, as it well might, I'll hardly freak out or anything), but I'd recommend that he not worry at all about RfA/adminship for awhile and then maybe try again in 6 months or so. --
Not that this will make any difference--obviosuly this RfA will pass--but after some thought I find myself in agreement with Friday and Bigtimepeace. People simply do not change as much in 90 days as you would have had to in order to address the issues brought up last time. Not that my opinion will carry much weight here, due to the numbers, but there it is. →&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Unsatisfied with response to Question #7, which misreads policy. -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Per question 7. I've no problem ''per se'' with deleting this article. I missed the discussion but I probably would have gone with an IAR delete !vote with a nod toward "NOTNEWS".  But "but they fail to take into account the fact that this person and event were covered almost exclusively in newspapers." is just a horrible reason to delete.  Lots of what we cover are found just in newspapers. This one appears to involve some 30 articles (per the AfD discussion).  Other issues raised about maturity worry me, but I've not investigated beyond this discussion...
Simply, not yet. I want to see more time of not being involved in unnecessary drama. I'm not that concerned about the username since Wikipedia did in fact elect a [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Messedrocker 2|messed rocker]] to be administrator. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Oppose''' - Mostly per Friday. I'm not entirely convinced that someone can make such a change in 3 months. The way Timmeh interjected himself into the discussion on MZM's RFA (as noted above) did little but cause unnecessary drama (and IMO totally misinterpreted MZM's comment). As well as comments like "''The number of edits seems like a more accurate gauge of experience gained than length of time''" – Edit count is a measure of nothing but number of edits. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' because of rationales given in various AfD arguments showing unawareness of well-established principles. (I am not concerned with wether to keep or delete, or whether it agrees with the decision in the case, or whether I agree with the decision in the case; nor would I emphasise this as much if the candidate had not specified a primary intention to work at closing afds.) (1)"Most of the articles in a Google News search of this person are in German" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johannes_Schlüter]; ''vs. sources in any language are acceptable''  (2) "I did find a few articles on the game (4 or 5), but at least 3 of them were pay-per-view " [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Generations (game)]; ''vs paid sources are acceptable'' (3) " the whole format is defunct, so its players are very unlikely to be notable anyway" [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toshiba HD-A1] ''vs. notability is permanent''   '''
'''Oppose''' Your behavior and mindset is not one that I would like to see in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per concerns about maturity levels, understanding of policy, and decision making ability above.  The username also certainly gives me pause.  —
'''Oppose''' 3 months/2000 edits isn't a long time, in terms of Wikipedia; I don't see why waiting a bit longer is an unreasonable request, when adminship is forever. I have concerns over maturity. Keep up the good work, and I'm sure adminship will come naturally enough - or perhaps it will come from this RfA, but I can only vote according to my own opinions, not based on the way things are going.<small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">
'''Oppose'''. Friday said it better than I could ever hope to.
'''Oppose''' Like some of the others I'd like to see a little more time to confirm that the issues from the last RFA are truly corrected long term.--
'''Oppose''' This RFA being accepted three months and two days after withdrawing from the previous one is too soon for the concerns raised then. Also, the improvement after that RFA indicates a change in visible behavior on Wikipedia, not a change in underlying attitude or maturity; a longer period of time would be needed to demonstrate that the behavior change is not simply a show to gain adminship. Considering the problems in the last RFA, should have waited at least 6 months after that one to accept a nomination again. If this doesn't pass, I would be more than willing to support in 4-6 months if no new major concerns develop between now and then. Username is within policy so that isn't a real concern for me. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. To put it plainly, "retard" jokes are not funny, and someone who makes one every time he signs his name is not showing enough maturity for me to support. Also, I remember this editor reverting edits to change "re-elect" back to the less readable "reelect" repeatedly. It's trivial, but it is part of a general sense I get from this editor, which goes beyond the name, that he is not ready.
'''Oppose''' - poor judgment (per Jonathunder), lack of knowledge of policy (per DGG), and too many recent RfA's (per Theseeker4).  Sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  I've given this some thought, and it's just too soon after the Dougstech mess and concerns expressed in the last RFA.  More globally, I've learned to look askance at folks who seek adminship this aggressively.
'''Oppose''' because waiting a mere 3 months is a bit of a slap in the face.
'''Oppose''' I have a lot of the same concerns as those above me. I think that after the way your last RfA went, you should have waited more than 3 months before running again. It's just not enough time to see how you've supposedly changed. '''
'''Oppose''' too many judgmental concerns, doesn't seem like the right time...
'''Oppose''' - agree with User:Friday, and it looks like the user deliberately wants the tools. His username is not helping either.
'''Oppose''' - per above and per concerns with judgement and how soon the RfA is.
After giving this some thought, I have to '''oppose'''.  Most people seem to agree that Timmeh has demonstrated poor judgment in the past - the only issue is whether to apparent change in the last 3 months is real or an act.  I am not going to go so far as to say it is an act, just that we don't have a long enough history to properly judge.  If a new editor was applying after 3 months and 2000 edits, the RfA would almost certainly fall.  Yes the standard advice is "wait at least 3 months & 3000 edits before reapplying", but that is the ''bare minimum'' and I personally would prefer to see more time and/or edits.  Thus, I do not feel enough time has passed to accurately judge whether the change is real or not.  Additionally, I am slightly bothered by the answers to the questions as they appear to be "politically worded" so as to "offend" as few people as possible by fence sitting.  This, by itself, wouldn't matter much, but added to the quick re-application it leaves me uneasy. --
'''Oppose''' !votes are not only more convincing, but are also much better thought out.--<b><font face="Rockwell" color="gray">
'''Oppose''', too bent on becoming an admin, also concerns about maturity and discretion.
'''Oppose''' Despite your clarification above your reading of policy with regard to Q7 is still flawed. [[WP:BLP1E]] is correct but [[WP:NOTNEWS]] cannot be applied with that rationale, regardless of your clarification above. You also seem a bit too eager to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' primarily per DGG.  We have too many AfD closes that substitute counting noses for policy-based consensus already, sorry.
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure yet that Timmeh has the right temperament for adminship and appears to take some things too personally.  Also, as many have said, I don't understand the rush to become an admin.  More time is needed to evaluate his work and maturity.
I find the judgment and maturity of the candidate lacking. ''÷
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about timing, maturity, judgement and motive (just another userbox to add to the impressive array already displayed}
'''Neutral''' I honestly can't see that enough time has elapsed since your last RFA for the community to be able to see whether you have addressed the concerns raised last time. The reasons why I opposed last time (A constant stream of "little slip-ups") are very difficult to get rid of. Regardless of your politeness during the Dougstech incident, I disagreed both then and now with your  philosophy as to how minor trolls should be handled, and I think that you would be an administrator who is too quick on the trigger. I don't think that a certain amount of harmless crankery or plain disagreement is the huge problem which many users appear to think (see [[WP:DISAGREE]]). On the other hand, your article building is very impressive, and you do appear to have taken the comments from your last RFA to heart, so I am unable to oppose. Best of luck.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose based on the fact that your most recent RFA was in June. Keepscases oppose makes me mad, so I don't want to be in the same category as him.--
'''Neutral''', '''leaning towards support'''.  I really like your [[User:Timmeh/GA|resumé]], but the reasoning behind the &#8220;oppose&#8221; votes gives me pause. (Note:  this is not intended to be an &#8220;oppose in disguise.&#8221;)
Too much fence-sitting in questions rather than committing to an answer.
'''Neutral''' I don't like the name, but I'm wrestling with whether that is an acceptable reason to oppose. If someone proposed banning such a name at [[WP:U]] I'd oppose it. If a new user wanted the name "I_am_a_jerk", I'd counsel against it, but not prohibit it, on the basis that the downside of the choice will largely accrue to the user. I'm tempted to argue that being an administrator is different, and negative reactions may accrue to Wikipedia, not just the editor, but I'm worried I am creating a bright line distinction between editors and admins, when the distinction is a bit grayer. My current position is that the name is acceptable for an editor, but not for an admin, but that position isn't as coherent as I would like, so I'm not ready to oppose just for that.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
I think I share the concerns of many. The contributions are good, and I'd like to support, but I don't have the comfort level that I need. The combination of many individually insignificant cues, combined, is enough to keep me down here.
'''Neutral''' and let me tell you why: both Thaddeus and mazca's comments in oppose #32 above.  To me, those two posts sum up the two sides of the coin right now.  The odds are supposed to be 50-50 that when you flip a coin, you would get either heads or tails...but since I started following this RfA, it has always landed on the edge, every time.  There have been dozens of additions, and sure enough, the coin keeps landing on the edge.  I have great faith in the contributions, but the other side of the coin weighs just as heavy.  My fear is going to be "where does Timmeh go from here" if this unfortunately fails...'''that''' would be the ultimate test for Tim, and will ensure the coin no longer lands on the edge in the future.  ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;
'''Actual honest-to-God (i.e. not "moral") support'''.  RFA <s>is really</s> should really be about two things: trust, and confidence. Trust that your judgement is sound and that you aren't a weasel, trying to get adminship in order to help push a POV, play a MMORPG, look at deleted edits for nefarious purposes, etc.  Confidence that you either already know exactly what you're doing, or will cause limited problems while you continue learning what you're doing.  After a review of your edits and talk page, you've got my trust; you seem to have the trust of the most of the opposers too. You don't quite have my confidence that you already know exactly what you're doing.  However, you do have my confidence that you'll cause limited problems while you continue learning what you're doing; you seem to take constructive criticism well, and I don't see a tendency to get in over your head. I suppose I can understand the opposers' desire to see more experience, so they can have more confidence that you won't accidently break something that will be a bother to fix, but I don't share their concern. 2000 predominantly manual, thoughtful edits are enough for me to have enough confidence to support.  You'll do fine, whether it's now, or some months down the road. --
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support]] per above. Only concern as far as I can tell is that you don't have 25,000 edits. –'''
'''Support''' per Juliancolton. Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support'''. You know, I'm not seeing anything problematic in the candidate's history. I didn't have all that many edits when I stood for RFA, and was approved; I'd like to think I haven't screwed anything up too terribly. Looking at this candidate, I see a lot of good contributions at AFD (See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimeface|This AFD]], where the candidate added sources and improved the article to comply with policy, and the more recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Blaylock|Russell Blaylock AFD]], where the candidate brought cookies in an attempt to calm down what had become quite the contentious debate). There is merit here, and I'm happy to lend my support to the cause. No reservations about the candidate, or his/her ability to properly use the tools for the betterment of the project. Good luck,
'''Support'''.  While the candidate may not have X contributions they do have enough to determine that they seem to be trustworthy, possess a good judgement and demonstrate that they have made good contributions to the project.  I have no reason to suspect that they will mis-use a mop.
'''Support''' A refreshing candidate. (Oh, and please don't feel compelled to reveal your home IP address. It's not needed.)
'''Support''' over a year here, active with 2k edits and no problems/concerns visible, absolutely nothing wrong with the diff provided in the oppose section with how the candidate dealt with another editor. If that is the worst in his history, he is better than many current admins. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor that will make a good admin.
'''Support''' in the spirit expressed by Floquenbeam.
'''Support''': TParis00ap is, as far as I can tell, trustworthy, knowledgable of our policies and committed to improving Wikipedia. I see no reason to deny him the tools.
'''Weak support''' - moving from neutral, answers to my questions Q5 and Q6 allayed my concerns. Would prefer more history to scrutinize, but what I have seen seems to show only good traits in an administrator. -
'''Support''' - Normally I would oppose because you haven't been active for long and you don't have a lot of edits. That generally makes it difficult to judge whether or not there is a basis to trust you with the tools. But I have to admit that the answer to Question 8 pushed me over to support. It's not often that a person in an RfA will actually say, I don't know enough to judge and would pass on taking action. That lays to rest fears that you'd use the tools recklessly, and to me alleviates concerns about your lack of experience. -- '''

'''Support''' Sure. Use edit summaries more often in the future; other than that, no probs here.
'''Support''' - I don;t see this editor doing anything that will harm the project.  I'm sure they'll take guidance while they're new to the tools.
'''Support''' After a quick check through I feel as though this user wouldn't harm the extra tools. Solid answers to questions. No problems for me here. Good luck. ~
A name I have encountered recently, but have come to find helpful and friendly.
'''Support''' Looking at this now, I am extremely sorry for the premature closure that I made, as it was almost a snowball, but it seems like you are worthy enough to get the tools.
'''Strongly weak support'''. 2000 edits is enough experience in my book, and I really liked the answer to #10. Some more article work would have been nice though.
'''Support''' The only valid concern I can see here is the relative lack of editing experience. And at 2000 non-automated, it's not so bad. He would seem to be an asset to WP if granted extra tools.
'''Support''' No problems that make me feel you'd abuse the tools.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support'''Answer to 8 is a good indication to me that experience wont be a problem (In that the tools will not be misused). Good luck! Im sure youll do just fine <nowiki>:)</nowiki>
'''Support''' worth a trial with the mop. note to all, arbcom is the place to review misuse of tools, so yes our safety valve is working.
'''Support.''' There are concerns, such as edit summary usage and number of total edits, but since adminship is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]], and there are measures in place in the event of an abuse (although I see no evidence that it would be likely here), I give my support.  Additionally, your comments about "staying out of it if I don't understand it" is admirable and matches my own sentiments.  <strong><font color="maroon">
'''Support''' even though he doesn't have the requisite 500,000 edits.
'''Support'''. [[WP:WTHN]] sums it up perfectly for me. No major concerns and unlikely to misuse the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Support''' <font color="darkblue">'''A8UDI'''</font>
'''Support''' Could do with more frequent use of edit summaries, but otherwise looks OK to me. Good Luck. ''
'''Support''' per [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]].
'''Support''' because the "inexperience" opposes are completely unconvincing.  Bald experience isn't what makes for a good administrator, but it's what most of the opposition is hanging its hat on.  2000 edits is plenty; I actually find 2000 a better number than 40000, which indicates someone's too personally invested in the project to be objective.
'''Support''' I see the question of adminship as less the declaration of a title than a matter of trust in using the admin tools appropriately. I think you can be trusted not to misuse them.
'''Support''' Seems somewhat less unhinged than the rest of the Wikipedia admins/ Trekkies.
'''Support''' Seems like a good contributor. The inexperience concerns seem petty.
'''Support''' as adminship is no big deal. What he lacks in experience should be made up for in his willingness to learn. He appears (here and in other interactions I've seen) to be generally levelheaded and straightforward. I don't see any indication the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support''' per Nihonjoe. --
'''Support''' This editor has consistently demonstrated to me his willingness to learn and his desire to understand Wikipedia policy at quite a bit more than a superficial level; he has asked me many questions that indicate his desire to understand "why" instead of merely "how" things are done here.  I believe that in performing administrative tasks, he would act by looking for a policy-based justification for his proposed actions rather than on instinct or emotion.  Yes, he lacks experience; everyone who isn't an admin lacks experience of how to use the mop, and his history with me tells me that he will approach these responsibilities with the same diligence and thoroughness that he's brought to mastering non-admin tasks.  I think this is the kind of person who merits the tools and who will use them diligently to improve Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Got a good head. Knows a lot already and what he doesn't know he'll learn quick enough. The mop ain't brain surgery.
'''Support:''' As someone who was recently granted adminship rights with a scanty 3,700 edits and who feels exceptionally grateful that 85 editors found it more appropriate to read my answers to the questions and judge my ability, as opposed to my edit count, I feel compelled in this instance to say that, although I don't have full confidence and although your edit count is very low, I think you are capable and mature enough to do the job well and not screw anything up too terribly.  <small>Sorry, that was a ''really'' long sentence!</small>  Similar to SoWhy, I don't like the lack of use of edit summaries, but I can see from your most recent contributions that you are working on that and I hope you keep it up.  I realise that this request for adminship is unlikely to pass, but when we see you back here in a few months, I'm sure you'll have a better chance of success.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support:''' Normally, I require two years experience, for me to support a candidate. I have been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and I am no where near ready for tools (see duped below). However,    is brighter than I am and more importantly, he shows a calm, diligence and thoroughness in all that he does.  I think this is the kind of person who merits the tools and who will use them diligently to improve Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' per how together the candidate seems despite the low edit count, and the thoughtful responses to opposers.
'''Support''' of course, because becoming an Administrator is "not a big deal", and as is often said "Wikipedia giveth and Wikipedia can taketh away"...what is the problem with a low edit count??? -
'''Support''' <small>switched from oppose</small> The arguments above are extremely convincing. <font face="Segoe Print">
'''Moral support''' This RfA probably will not pass, but the honesty of your opening statement is impressive, and the fact that you can readily point out the shortcomings that the opposers would have pointed out shows that you've obviously done your reading, rather than just barging into RfA. <b class="Unicode">
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' no reason to think they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' good attitude and AfD experience. Seems to be interested in making a few thoughtful edits instead of many automated ones. No reason not to trust with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I know your doing good, but I don't feel like you've, well to put it bluntly, got the experiance for adminship. [[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Oppose''', with confidence that if candidate continues on current path, I'd be happy to support in the future. For the record, I see ''absolutely'' nothing wrong with the diff linked above by Soap. In fact, I find that comment to be thoughtful, pleasant, and respectful.
'''Oppose''' - Not quite experienced enough. --
'''Oppose''', per Tan. I don't believe that about three and a bit months of active editing, not at an extremely high rate either, is really enough to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I'd be happy to support in a few months if your good work continues. <font color="navy">'''
'''Strong Oppose'''.  per my [[User:Fastily/RfA Rationale|rfa criteria]], I'm afraid I can't support - you don't have nearly as much experience as I would like to see, but you're off to a great start.  If this rfa passes, please exercise extra caution in your actions and be sure to read all the policies/guidelines pertaining to administrative areas thoroughly.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Oppose'''. The candidate's answers to several questions are very troubling. The answer to question 12 is very close to dead wrong. The answer to question 13 lacks substance, and never really gets to the policy involved.  The answer to question 11 is not well-thought-out.  And the answer to question 7 shows extreme carelessness at best-- the candidate didn't realize  (although the article states the point quite clearly) that most of the article text is the directly quoted text of the Code, didn't recognize the issues involved with an article in this form, and inexplicably characterized the quoted text as original research, treating it as original content written by a Wikipedia editor. While the candidate cites his experience in speedy deletion, I look at his contributions and immediately see a gross error in the most recent nomination, where [[Andrew Warde]] is nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Warde&diff=prev&oldid=321315977], even though the source was published in 1910 and is presumptively public domain. When looking at the article work the candidate cites as his best, I note that [[The Faerie Path]] consists almost entirely of a lengthy plot summary and related in-universe content, with negligible discussion of the book's reception, sales, sourced critical commentary, etc, and a lede that strikes the tone of a cover blurb. When looking at related articles, I noticed that he on at least two occasions cited a review of this book as though it were commenting on different books by the same author, which is entirely inappropriate.  Not meaning to be overly harsh, but this nomination presents a well-meaning but inexperienced editor with an inadequate grasp of important policies, whose editing and article writing shows serious lapses.  I would hope this candidate would withdraw the nomination, continue to develop experience in much greater depth, and return next spring, if not later, if interested in renewing the candidacy.
'''Regretful oppose'''. Given your I might have supported if you understood policy almost perfectly. But for Q11, something like "Jimbo Wales is gay" or an obvious sock of a banned user can be blocked without warning. For Q12, yes there are cases where it is acceptable, e.g. when the photo documents the person a historical moment. You might be able to create a free image of the person easily, but it will be impossible to recreate an image of him/her in that specific instance. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per 1) demonstrated lack of policy knowledge and 2) not being active enough, long enough.
'''Oppose''' Good attitude and a fairly  solid history so far. But I think you need a little more experience before I fully trust you with the tools. The intense focus on content like the balloon boy incident troubles me (flocking to controversy is never a good sign) and the last link in your admissions of hot-headed behavior feels like biting a newbie. FWIW, I'll happily support if you can show the same general quality of contributions after another couple thousand edits. <font style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">
'''Oppose''' Answers to the questions imply that you don't quite have the depth of understanding required of an admin. With a few more months of experience those gaps will likely be filled in. You're a good guy but you're not ready yet.
'''Weak Oppose''' per the last few above here. Good attitude, but we'd ideally like to see you gain a little more experience before being granted the tools.
'''Oppose'''Not enough experience, half of the edit count is in the last two months.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]].  The candidate states CSD is his area of expertise and yet provides [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWhy_I_hate_Speedy_Deleters&action=historysubmit&diff=311270218&oldid=311224767 a link] (only a few weeks old) that shows a lack of grasp of the CSD rules in more ways than I could possibily go into here (willing to give guidance outside of the AfD if the candidate wishes however). "''You can't put the entire responsibility on the taggers, the administrators actually carry out the deletes...Just because I tag a page doesn't mean it will neccessarily be deleted...This is why I only have NPWatcher privillages and not admin privillages. I'm still learning the ropes while you administrators are supposed to be seasoned veterans...The <nowiki>{{article issues}}</nowiki> tag only means the page will be forgotten and abandoned....I just dont understand the point in using speedy delete tags on pages that are ~30 days old.''"  The answer to question 13 shows the candidate has entirely misunderstood [[WP:FU]], i fhe even knows that guideline exists.  I am also not very charmed by the candidates repeated use of WP:FUCK.  In short, try again in a year's time.
'''Oppose'''. You're off to a good start and will likely be a great admin one day. However, I'm troubled by your lack of experience. That, coupled with some of your answers (#7, #12 and #13) don't inspire confidence that you're ready for the buttons. Keep up the good work; I expect that you'll be ready by early next year.
'''Oppose''' I think of the number of edits as an indication that you've gotten to know at least part what is a huge community with many areas of interest.  I think that takes time.  We can't log your time online at WP but we can get an imperfect measurement by number of edits.  I just don't think 2,000 is enough.  All the best, though.--
'''Oppose'''.  Not yet experienced enough.  No bar to future RfA.--
'''Oppose''' albeit reluctantly, as the candidate's answers to the questions appear remarkably thoughtful.  As with many others above, my concern is mainspace inexperience --
'''Oppose without prejudice''' I understand that [[WP:EDITCOUNT]] should not be taken to the extreme but it is hard to judge a candidate with few edits.--
'''Oppose''' I am impressed by your thoughtful and honest answers, and your comments on wikipedia policy, especially for someone ''relatively'' new here. However, I am uncomfortable with your level of experience actually editing articles, which I think is needed to gain an appreciation of (1) conflicts and issues editors face on wikipedia, and (2) how the policies are best implemented ''in practice.'' The good news is that this deficit is easily filled in with more time on wikipedia, and I look forward supporting your candidacy sometime in the future.
Per lack of mainspace experience and too many spelling errors in the candidate's contributions on this page. (Sorry, but we are a written medium and should expect a certain minimum level of written communication skills by our functionaries. Please use your browser's built-in spell-checker more frequently.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. The lack of mainspace experience (I quote Sandstein) is evident in the answer to, for instance, Q7, which Wolfowitz correctly criticized (and the candidate's subsequent remarks indicate that they still don't see the problem). I don't believe someone should have a certain number of edits, but it helps; if a candidate shows sufficient knowledge without a substantial number of edits, they were a fast learner, but I don't see that evidenced here. If this fails, try again when you have more edits under your belt and a firmer and broader grasp of policy, and especially more practical experience, which helps in recognizing situations that may appear in unfamiliar ways.
'''Oppose''' user has no substantial dispute resolution experience.
'''Oppose''' The repeated reference to [[WP:Fuck]] is, in my opinion, puerile. It’s a short essay. I don’t see how you can switch off and on at will and as an Admin. in a case involving me I think I would probably want you to give a fuck. Also, I’m mystified by your uncertainty around Q10.
'''Oppose''' Candidate needs more experience with all facets of Wikipedia before I would consider supporting him.  Not nearly enough edits and evidence of superior experience.
'''Oppose'''.  I think a little more experience would do this candidate some good.  I also endorse [[User:Leaky caldron]]'s comments, above.
'''Oppose''' seems to lack sufficient experience.--
I admire your enthusiasm but I have to '''oppose''' per Sandstein and others. Please give it a few more months and try again.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, not nearly enough experience.  No prejudice against another RfA after you've gained more experience.  --'''
'''Oppose''' I hate to do this because there is evidence to show that you could be a good admin. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough yet. Three months ago you had only 200 edits, someone even sent you a welcome to wikipedia message then. You are very polite in your dealings with other editors which is good but I need to see a potential admin really tested a bit more.
'''Regretful oppose''' per inexperience and answers to questions.  Come back in six months or so.
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced at this time. --
'''Oppose''' answer to question 17 is a bit disturbing, and 2000 edits is a bit low. --
'''Oppose''' – While I don't have issues with edit count (as there are always users who make few, but high-quality edits), the answers to the questions do concern me a bit. Quite a few of them you dance around the questions instead of making honest, direct answers. With regards to Q8, I recommend you get at least a basic knowledge and understanding of our policies and guidelines with regards to images and other files, as you will, as an admin, come across situations with images (as I have, even though images aren't really my specialty). Also try to keep working on building up articles and bringing them to GA/FA as well as perhaps getting some DYKs in there. You need to be comfortable and confident with the wiki-processes in the mainspace to function well as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Leaky Caldron above. It's been giving me a headache, at least now someone was able to mostly explain what I mean. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="black">
'''Oppose''' regretfully - just does not have enough experience according to [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].  Some more article work, a few more months, and perhaps a [[WP:BARN|Barnstar]], and I'll support.  We need more [[Trekker]]s as admins, but this editor needs more time in first.
See above. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
Unsure at this point. Seems like a trustworthy, reasonable candidate, although he could probably use more experience. I see absolutely no problem with link above, though. Rude/uncivil, huh? It was a perfectly fine comment - TParis wasn't being pushy or strange at all, and UIS (the recipient) agrees.
'''Neutral''' Although the candidate seems like a potentially good admin candidate, I do not feel that they are ready for two reasons - firstly, with just over 2000 edits, I do not feel that they have the overall experience I would expect to see in an admin; secondly with only approx a third of their edits being to articles, and just over a third being to user talk pages, I feel that they need a higher %age of article edits (I'd be looking at 50%+). If they fail this RfA and attempt again when they have 10K+ edits and 50% article edits, unless something untowards happens, I would feel that I could support them. -- '''
'''Neutral''' This is an interesting request, that much is certain. The candidate's edit count is at the lower end of the spectrum usually expected but is not inflated by automated edits as with many NP patrollers running for adminship. The candidate's approach to speedy deletion and deletion in general is excellent and shows a deeper understanding that our goal here is to improve what can be improved and only delete what cannot be improved. Unfortunately the candidate has a low [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/editsummary/index.php?name=TParis00ap&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia use of edit summaries] which is a red flag for me. This saddens me all the more because I would support the candidate if it were not for this issue. But admins, of all people, need to edit in a way that others can easily understand what they have done and as such I find it vitally important for every admin (and every other editor as well) to use edit summaries with every single edit. Not using them can lead to misunderstandings and problems that could have easily been avoided by using them - and imho, admins should strive to avoid problems that could be easily prevented. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' moved from Oppose. But although experience is adequate in length, deficient in breadth, in that there are only 1594 live edits (plus some 400 deleted) which in my view is a barely borderline limit of experience for an admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Neutral'''. This is probably the finest self-nomination I've seen.
Too much fence-sitting in answers to questions.
'''Neutral'''. A likely support in the future with continued experience, but given the slight bobbles in the answering the questions, my exeperience concerns aren't quite overcome.
'''Neutral''' an OK candidate, but he really only has 3 months active experience, and the answers ot questions are a little shaky.--
'''Neutral'''. After reading the oppose section I have some concerns.. not enough to oppose, but enough to not support. --
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose.  Likely to be a good admin someday.  But lacks a sufficient understanding of policy at this point and written communication skills could use some improvement.
'''Neutral''' May support after more experience.
'''Neutral''' I don't usually see much point in going neutral, but in this case I'm gonna do it, because I asked you an RFA question and you answered it, and I feel I owe you a response as a result. Your answer to my question was fine, and demonstrated that you are indeed a quick study. However, your answers to some of the other questions trouble me, and you've only been real active since July. I'd really like to see more experience, especially in policy areas, but I'm not so concerned over it that I actually oppose you, so here I am.
'''Support''' as nominator. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', of course. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I'll [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in that this users mistakes are a thing of the past.--
'''Weak Support''' No blocks in rather more than 12 months plus civil talk is enough to give me <s>some</s> confidence that you've turned round, the speedy tagging mistakes would get you an oppose from me; Except for your acknowledgment of being too quick to nominate to delete and not intending to work in CSD; But you need to realise there are three participants in the process not two; the third party being the author, who way too often is a bitten newbie.<s> NB It wasn't easy to find a link to [[User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2009/Mar|your recent archives]] (you might want to update your archive box).</s> ''
'''Support'''.  My interactions with TreasuryTag have all been positive, and from his contributions it is easy to see that he has developed into a mature editor that can be trusted with the tools.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' This seems unlikely to succeed, but I definitely think improvement of this sort should be encouraged and rewarded.
'''Support''' - thought: he hasn't been blocked since '07 (the April '08 block was a mistake). —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support'''.  Looks like he's really turned a corner.  If he had gone out and created a new account after the last RfA with the same contributions that he has made in the ensuing time (which he easily could have done), I think people would be comfortable supporting.  So,  I say, let bygones be bygones.
'''Support''' despite not knowing this user too well. I've seen TT around, and his work seems solid here and he seems fully reformed. Wikipedia is supposed to be the land of second chances, and I'm more than willing to give my support to someone who has spent over a year with an impeccable record. What the community has given can be taken away if necessary, let's give some benefit of doubt here. —'''
'''Weak Support''' I like to think users can change :) I havent seen anything too recent (yet) to suggest not supporting so i ll give my support at this time
'''Support''', this user has a lengthy block log, that's true, but the most recent serious entries in it are from 2007 - ancient history as far as I'm concerned.  Just be more careful with the A7s in the future, please!
'''Support''' Lots of history but I think that TT has done enough to put that behind him.  Only seen positive contributions from TT around the place.  And as for the suggestion he might make mistakes with the tools, so might every admin.
'''Support'''' Reformed. I trust this user not to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' What's he done for us lately?  Quite a bit I think.  This nom obviously will not succeed, but I urge TT to keep plugging away.--
'''Support'''- Cool3 makes a good point. If this were a different user, one who'd signed up just after TT's last RFA and done all the same stuff TT's done in that time, this RFA would probably be on track to succeed. I think TreasuryTag can be trusted to use the tools responsibly.
Fruitless '''support'''. Recent good far outweighs historical bad.
'''Support''': <S>Oh, absolutely love the guy.
'''Support''', for what it's worth given the number of opposes.  My only experience of this user is as someone who's honestly trying to help, and I don't recognise the picture of a disruptive editor seen here.  People can change.—
'''Support''' per Cool3 and S Marshall. '''''
'''Support''' Not enough administrators currently. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' Treasury Tags is a great editor and a fine peacemaker when necessary.  I think he'd be a well balanced admin.
Long, long, long history of blocks, sock puppetry, civility issues etc.
'''Oppose''' Long list of accounts with too many incidents of blocks, incivility, and vandalism. Sorry.
<s>Sockpuppetry? I'm sorry, but more than a year of space between that and an RFA is required.</s> Fine, then. Also, per rather poor CSD work. '''
'''Oppose''' - Don't trust him with the delete button. User is active in the [[WP:CSD|CSD]] area but has recent incorrect deletion tags - don't want to see clearly notable articles or articles asserting notability deleted under CSD#a7[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Davis_(comedian)&diff=275608373&oldid=275608305 assertion of notability][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_G._Morris&diff=prev&oldid=275418076 assertion of notability][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harlan_Rook&diff=273905148&oldid=273904751 fictional character][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandrine_Aubert&diff=275642727&oldid=275641099 world cup winner] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockland_County's_Best_Magazine&diff=276553973&oldid=276553932 not blatant advert][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRR_3750&diff=prev&oldid=275772555 clear context] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architectural_History&diff=prev&oldid=275435911 a7 Journal] among others. Edit warring and incivility are valid concerns even if the issues are way back in history - it reflects a person's temperament. [[Special:Contributions/Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]<sup>
'''Oppose''' the examples of Capricorn42 are enough, even without the history of past sins.
'''Oppose''' Huh? As I just glanced at your last RFA, you introduced yourself as not only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Porcupine Porcupine], but also many many <s>socks</s>individuals such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARambutan Rambutan], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACircuit_Judge Circuit Judge] and many others with the impressive block record (over 18 times!). I remember one case among your many dramas, so I will say "No thanks".-
'''Oppose''' Really poor CSD work. The first effort should be put into improving articles, not deleting them.
'''Oppose''' - Poor understanding of appropriate deletions e. g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory|this]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Department_for_Safety_and_Security&diff=prev&oldid=278150150 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8Eight&diff=prev&oldid=277185298 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supernova_Cult&action=history this] and so forth - examples pile up quickly.  Giving Treasury Tag access to the delete button would cause far more problems than it would solve.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. While I think that this is a well-meaning Wikipedian, the discussions I have witnessed this editor taking part in leave me with concerns. -
'''Oppose''' per WilyD. Very shaky recent AFDs from what I saw (heck, I might have agreed with you in one or two of them, as well).
An editor I've only enjoyed positive interaction with, hard working and seems to be on the right course after the early, shall we say "problematic" history. However, and even noting you did not specifically state [[C:CSD]] in your Q1, I still feel you are likely to cause too many issues with the delete button (examples by colleagues above). Not at this time I think. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Capricorn42. We don't need more too-quick-to-delete admins who won't give a new article a chance. Sorry, TreasuryTag - I'm sure you have good contributions elsewhere, but I can't trust you with the delete button.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I'm certainly glad to see that you've reformed tremendously. However, it is counterproductive to grant tools to anyone where it would be likely to cause more harm (being dragged in front of ArbCom, being forced to constantly defend yourself at DRV) than any potential gain (a few reductions in backlogs here and there). Also, the fact that you say you're not asking to be trusted with the delete button is not encouraging, considering that you will be granted the delete button if given admin rights. You are given all of the tools, not just a few that you select.
Poor CSD work. I can't trust you with the delete button at the moment, sorry. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">
Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I am in agreement with the previous statements regarding the editor's multitude of problems.
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&curid=16870435&diff=208163346&oldid=208161214 This, for example], was less than a year ago. Individuals can change, but the concerns shown by others suggest that TreasuryTag still has tendencies that would be of concern, and unfitting of an administrator. Furthermore, the statement of acceptance seems vaguely defensive, almost as if saying "I'll be good, honest", and that worries me a bit.
'''Oppose''' per above.  Lack of civility, sockpuppetry, and poor CSD taggings are not the qualities of an admin.  Sorry - perhaps next time -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' I share the concerns of Capricorn, Wily, and Esteffect, and I cannot conclude with any confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].  I do, though, commend TT for his continued willingness to change certain of his behaviors in order that collaboration should be more successful (if not always successfully) and for his evident desire to help the project, and I do not foreclose the possibility of my supporting a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' Too many blocks in your history.--
Diffs above show us what kind of articles he would have deleted if able. —
'''Oppose''' Given the somewhat concerning CSD edits, coupled with the block log, I don't feel completely comfortable in supporting. In a few months, certainly, but not just yet. &lowast;
'''Oppose''' - Too many issues, <s>specifically the block log -- a block doesn't mean a lot to me by itself - it is entirely possible to do something out of character and be blocked, but a string of blocks requires more time for me to see that the user has moved on from the behaviour that has led to their blocks</s>. Worrying CSD taggings, too, but that isn't the be-all and end-all of administratorship. I have little doubt that this user is well intentioned, but there are too many issues, and too much to worry about for me to support. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''': I'm confident that the tools would not be intentionally abused, but I don't believe TreasuryTag is just quite at the level where he could use the tools without some element of accidental/unintentional error.  The past behavioural problems, of which I'm well aware, do appear to be firmly in the past, once TreasuryTag can demonstrate a little more knowledge with regards to using the tools, I'd be quite happy to support. I will say, TT deserves at the very least, a degree of respect for not vanishing into the ether, returning with an entirely new account not linked to his past account, and sailing through RfA; judging by his behaviour over the past year or so, I think he could done that.
Sorry, but as per Capricorn's oppose earlier, way to many recent mistakes with CSD tagging means that I am hugely worried about deletions. Try again in a few months without the CSD errors, and I'd support. --
Per Capricorn and Wily; most of those mistakes are just within the last month, and I agree that they're mistakes and not just judgment calls.  I'm on the fence about the other issues, but we need more admins active in CSD tagging who know what they're doing, and I can overlook a lot 3 months from now if the candidate is doing a lot of good deletion work. - Dan
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#Need_help_with_article_patrollers]]. I don't like [[Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built|Inspectors]] as admins, their "swift" moves causes more drama than necessary.--
'''Oppose''' because I do not trust him with the delete button. Thanks to Capricorn42 for researching those links. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry, just too much trouble in the past
'''Oppose'''  Absolutely not.  A few days ago Treasury Tag tagged an article on a female international cricketer exactly one minute after its creation, claiming the subject was not notable and that the article wasn't referenced when it clearly stated she was an international cricketer and was referenced to her page and stats on cricinfo  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Claire_Whichcord&oldid=277147765].  I agree with most people here that he shouldn't be allowed within a hundred yards of a delete button.
'''Oppose''' per CSD work. Yes, I read that he said he did not want to get there but I expect at least a basic understanding of important policies from every admin. Treasury's tagging has major flaws, apart from WilyD's examples, we have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockland_County%27s_Best_Magazine&diff=prev&oldid=276553973 G11 for describing, not promotional text], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Classic_Struggle&diff=276060898&oldid=276044687 A7 for a band signed by a notable label], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Warren_Revere&diff=prev&oldid=275770535 A7 for the founder of a notable company], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sleeping_Years&diff=275634840&oldid=275634819 A7 for a band with multiple indications of notability] and an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandrine_Aubert&diff=prev&oldid=275642727 A7 for a World Cup winner]. While I don't expect perfect tagging from a candidate, I don't think such mistakes can be tolerated. Hasty taggings might scare away newbies - hasty deletions will surely do so. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per Pedro and a few others. I'm a proponent of putting past poor behavior behind us and moving; however, poor CSD work does not instill a great amount of confidence.
'''Oppose''' per above. While I most certainly believe in the ability for users to reform, I still am not entirely comfortable with this user's "promotion". I would consider supporting in the future if TreasuryTag continues to exhibit positive site behavior in the coming months.
'''Oppose''' per Capricorn42's list of examples. These are not ancient history (like the block log); they are all within the past 30 days, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of CSD policies. '''
'''Oppose''' All users with a troubled past, be they former vandals, trolls, or just plain uncivil, are capable of reform and redemption. You are a prime example of this, and I commend you on your great contributions and honesty. Unfortunately, I just can't get beyond Capricorn42's examples of CSD mistagging. One of the main functions any admin will deal with is deletion - responding to CSD tags and closing XfD discussions. Your history of edits in this area makes me seriously question whether you have enough of a handle on these policies to effectively enforce them, and makes me lean towards [[WP:NOTNOW]] for the time being. Read up on, and more importantly, start abiding by the deletion policies, come back in a few more months and I'll gladly and enthusiastically support. -'''
'''Oppose''' I trust that this user has developed and changed substantially since his last RFA. However, some more experience with AFDs will be needed to more precisely take on the responsiblities of an admin. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I appreciate the improvement, but he doesn't seem to have a full grasp of all of the policies and guidelines just yet, especially those for CSD, as noted by many above. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Oppose''' Too much history of sockpuppetry and blocks, as well as recent mistakes in AFD lead me to think that this user will not be able to fulfill the role appropriately.
'''Oppose''' for all the reasons listed above.  Plus, the constant oppose-badgering gets a bit annoying.
'''Oppose''' I was wondering why he had been nicer to me recently, especially after numerous blow-ups in ''Doctor Who''-related articles. I don't see any real improvement. As well, the socking is far more disturbing than the blocks; everyone loses their cool (I certainly have in the past), but socking implies a 'go fuck yourself' attitude towards the wiki rules that should never, ''ever'' be found in an administrator. -
'''Regretful oppose''', but maybe leaning toward neutral, per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]].  Good nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft]], but weak votes at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft]] (use of [[WP:JNN]] and [[WP:ITSCRUFT]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales]] (a [[WP:JNN]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction]] (more like a reason to merge than delete), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination)]] (needlessly mocking; if we assume good faith, we should provide more respectfully written arguments rather than two word one liners), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Ukrainian political crisis]] (some articles, such as those on presidents, will also “always attract edit warriors”, but that is the nature of the beast as it were and not a reason for deletion, because if so we could not cover everything from presidents to articles about atomic bomb drops).  The editor’s old username had quite a few blocks back in 2007; however, the new account has avoided being blocked and so I will not hold these against the current account.  If someone has reformed, we should be forgiving and encouraging.  Also, I do like seeing the two barnstars, so there are certainly some positives here.  I am nevertheless concerned with AfD participation that I am not comfortable with how the candidate might close deletion discussions as in those we participated in I see one good argument versus several weak or non-arguments.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by [[User:Prodego|Prodego]], [[User:America69|America69]], and [[User:Capricorn42|Capricorn42]]. '''
'''Oppose''', because of CSD issues.
'''oppose''' per CSD issues. I am opposing only for that. This needs to be clear: Other issues are not compelling since the user has clearly reformed.  But I have serious reservations about how the user would use the delete button.
'''Oppose''' - Other than a ''slightly'' less snobbish 'tude, I don't see any significant improvement since TreasuryTag's last RfA. Even more worrying is his disregard for Wikipedia's [[WP:NFCC|non-free content]] policy.
'''Oppose''' - This user has a dodgy block log, and has already placed forward a near-identical request, which failed. They have also failed to show an ability to work well with people who they dislike (which is, in my opinion, an important part of being an admin. I can't trust him with a delete article button. Spacevezon<sup>
'''Weak oppose''' - I was optimistic about this at first, but then I noticed the three block logs. Not just yet. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Oppose''' per Hersfold on block logs. This user should try again later. It is too soon.
'''Oppose''' - though I find something I can like (Q3, for example), I am afraid the attitude shown in Q5-6 is a deal-breaker for me. An admin must often deal with those who oppose them for any reason - or even no reason other than simply for being an admin. Ultimately, not much improvement over RFA#1 in this regard. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''', leaning toward support for now. Recent editing history looks good at first glance but needs closer inspection.
'''Neutral''' for now, pending the answer to question #4. &ndash;<strong>
'''Neutral'''&nbsp;&nbsp;Lots of progress during the last year - I applaud you. Knowledge of policy and ability to make good decisions at CSD and other quasi-administrative venues a bit shaky. If you continue along this path, I will support in a few more months. --'''''
'''Neutral''' I want to believe that Treasury Tag has turned a new leaf, and I want to put in a vote of support to hope that Treasury continues that upward route but I am concerned on several levels discussed in the oppose section.
'''Neutral''' Does a lot of good work reverting vandalism but there a number of points people have made above to leave me pretty unconvinced he would make a good admin.
'''Neutral''' Due to poor CSD work.  Would love to support in a few months if you can shape up in that area.  —
'''Neutral'''. I would have otherwise supported, but I can't shake the concerns expressed by the opposers, particularly with respect to CSD. Sure I've erred on some CSD's myself, but I also am not trusted with the delete button. <span style="color:#808080">
'''Neutral''' Although he has improved, I still have several concerns about his recent CSD tagging.
'''Neutral''' I'm not not going to pile on to the delete !votes but the evidence of his poor judgement at [[WP:CSD]] means TreasuryTag 2 is not suitable for the mop at this time. --
I want to support, but the CSD is preventing me. Sorry. '''
'''Moral support''' but cannot move to actual, real, bona fide support. TT is as close as I've ever seen to a model of reformed problem user. He still has his lapses, but he's come a long, long, long way. That said, I'm actually inclined to oppose, based on the speedy tagging raised by Capricorn, which to my mind is a genuine and substantial cause for concern, but I'll stay here as this RfA will not succeed and I only wish to encourage TT to continue to develop and contribute positively. I think you're almost there. Eradicate those very occasional relapses to incivility, learn the ropes of deletion policy and continue your excellent contributions to mainspace and I'll probably nominate you myself in a few months. But for now, you're not ready. My top tip to you, as to any other editor wishing to become an admin: starting now, behave in the way that you would expect an excellent admin to. --
'''Neutral''' Could see supporting, but CSD issues prevent my vote in that respect.<p style="font-family: Comic Sans">
'''Neutral''' Dr. Blodfeld outlined my own personal thoughts very well. Sorry Treasury. [[User:Blooded Edge|<font face="Vivaldi" size="4">'''<font color="000000">Blo</font><font color="770000">ded</font><font color="BB0000">Edge''' </font></font>]] <sup>
'''Neutral''' Too many concerns raised, although answer to Q4 is very good.--
'''Oppose''' You look like you want to do good, but I'd like to see more experience.  73 edits just isn't enough to be able to make a judgment one way or the other, or even a detailed oppose rationale.  So I'm afraid I can't really teach you much, but if you want to know how to be a good administrator you can ask other administrators for help.   -- ''<B>
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Please come back when you have ''at least'' several thousand contributions. In addition, please consider using the [[H:ES|edit summary]] with ''all'' of your edits. Cheers,
You need a lot more experience I'm afraid. Keep working, and after you've been here for about 6 months and have gotten a feel for it, and a higher edit count, please re-apply. You look to be a very promising editor. '''
'''Strong oppose''' per my suspicions of sockpuppetry at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phuntsok2000]]. --'''
'''Oppose''', 1000 edits are far too few for anyone to judge your competence properly. I note that you've been told this sort of thing at your previous RfAs as well - I advise you to take criticisms on board and act on them before running again.
'''Oppose''', 1600 edits in total is simply not enough to warrant adminship. Also, based on your contribution history you never worked as a [[WP:NPP|new page patrol]] or as a [[WP:VP|vandalism patrol]]. This is absolutely required as you indicate you want to work into those two sensitive area's of wikipedia. Blocking and page removal is not something trivial as it directly involves other editors. Without extensive experience in those sections you are bound to make many mistakes as they are more complex then they would seem at first glance. Not a bad word about your other edits though, as they are just fine.
'''Oppose''', as the others have said, far too few edits for anyone to judge you properly. You should also consider getting involved in projects such as vandal and new page patrolling before you renominate.
'''Oppose''' unlike the other opposers I do think that a thousand edits is enough to assess whether a candidate is yet suitable, though I think that few editors would be ready with that level of activity. However one of the first edits I came to was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyw7&diff=prev&oldid=292866941 this]. In future please try to criticise edits not editors. ''
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience with article deletions (where the candidate wishes to work) is enough reason for me to oppose. You've participated in a total of 4 AfDs with !votes like these: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Symantec_Endpoint_Protection&diff=prev&oldid=279361541 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norton_LiveUpdate&diff=prev&oldid=279146953 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norton_PC_Checkup&diff=prev&oldid=279361868 3]. I haven't gone through the rest of your contribs in detail, but I'm opposing per the diffs I've provided.

You're getting lots of good advice here, and I particularly like Dlohceirekim's.  Note: people who aren't familiar with RfA assume that a lot of words in the oppose section means people don't like you, but that's wrong ... when people write this much, it means they see potential.  My only advice is: read all this stuff.  When you come back to RfA, things aren't going to go well if you didn't act on the things brought up during this one.  - Dank (
'''Oppose''':Not treating it as no big deal-not experienced enough.
'''Regretful Neutral'''. Since it seems that [[WP:Canvassing]] was brought up at your 2nd RFA, I feel obligated to mention that I received a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADecltype&diff=292866575&oldid=292859435 friendly notice] (that I personally do not think it is inappropriate ''per se''). From what I've seen Tyw7 is dedicated to improve Wikipedia, and from what I've seen has only civil interactions with other users, so I will not oppose. My advice is for them to work on addressing the issues raised in their previous RfAs. That is, involve themselves more in the areas they want to use the admin tools, and improve edit summary usage. <tt>
'''Oppose''' per poor edit summary usage, and only 17% of edits with current account are to article and talk space. <s>Also, signature links to a custom contributions page instead of Special:Contributions,</s> and it's not correctly formatted under FF3. I'll keep my eyes open and see if people make a convincing case for changing my mind. --
{{ec}}You generally appear to be a good user, but my initial reaction is that you seek adminship too much, especiallly with this being your fifth RfA in 16 and a half months (and in 3,373 edits). That averages out to one RfA every 3.3 months and 674 edits, which is a bit much. You seem to have improved a little bit since your last RfA, however, <s>so I am open to persuasion at any time</s>. --'''
{{ec}} '''Oppose'''. Only 435 article space edits. I don't think you have enough experience yet. Sorry.
{{ec}}'''Oppose''' User has clearly made lots of progress since his previous RfA, and the work with the Software WikiProject is commendable, but there is definitely not enough strong mainspace contributions to show he has the understanding of how to interact with editors over contentious issues.  One attempt at resolution and a reliance on IRC does not fill me with confidence. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
{{ec}}'''Oppose'''. I really want to support, but you have zero XfD contributions. I'm not particularly bothered by the number of edits overall or the repeated requests, but no XfD participation is a deal-breaker.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough content contributions, not enough XfD work.--
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience yet, sorry,
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your just dont seem ready and dont you think that you should drop out now per [[WP:SNOW]]?--<big>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, maybe next time.
'''Support''': I have no reason to believe you will not be trustworthy if given the tools. The amount of time you have put in to vandalism fighting is worthy of thanks. I am also sure that you will find other administrator mentors to broaden your horizons. Being an administrator is, after all, no big deal. --
'''Weak support''' - I actually came here to oppose (for once in my life) per total lack of article building, but then I realized that this guy = Vandalism destroyer (I did not know this, and I remember seeing many good things from VD) and I saw, looking through a few pages, enough [[WP:CLUE|clue]] to convince me that he can hold a mop. So....weak for a total lack of article-building, but a support because he will be a net positive, IMHO. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Support''' I believe that Until It Sleeps would make a great vandal fighting admin. And to roux, who said something along the lines of we don't need vandal fighting admins as they are soon to be superseded: It is better to think in the now with RfAs, we never know how long the abuse filter will take to be finished to WMF server standard, and while it is, Until It Sleeps can really contribute to the prevention of vandalism, and even when it is finished, it isn't going to be 100% accurate, and it can't handle unblock requests either, we will still need admins like Until It Sleeps.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Collaborates well. Thinks on his feet. Assumes good faith. Assists new users. It would benefit Wikipedia to give UIS the ability to protect pages and temporarily block editors.
'''Support''' Plenty of anti-vandalism experience.  I definitely think he would be a great sysop in that area.
'''Sure''' Why the hell not? Give me one good reason you think Until it Sleeps will abuse the tolls and I'll switch to oppose.--
'''Support''' - excellent vandal-fighting experience. He does lack experience in other areas, but presumably that's the area he would be most involved in as an admin. I have no problem promoting an admin on anti-vandalism experience alone; we can always use more vandal fighters, at least until Flagged Revisions is implemented.
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has multiple awards on his userpage, has never been blocked, and his comment in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seek & Destroy]] was consistent with the close.  Best, --
'''Support''' - Don't see why not, he won't break the wiki.
'''Support''' I trust this user and know him to be a ninja at vandal hunting.  Clueful editors can quickly learn about other areas - I believe this user would not break the wiki and would be a huge asset in vandal pwnage. <b>'''
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' I believe in on-the-job training.  A user with a good heart and good intentions should never be denied the ability to doing good to the community.  That, and UIS is awesome.  :)  <small>(Note: No I am not a sock of a sock of Grawp.) </small> [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Moral Support''' because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FUntil_It_Sleeps_2&diff=267931776&oldid=267930470 this] it shows you understand the community, you'll succeed and become an admin in the future just remember that being cut with a [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|cookie cutter]] doesnt ensure a good cookie
'''Oppose''' - Purely mechanical reversions and reports to AIV through Huggle usage. I usually don't have that much of an aversion to the use of tools, but if you're only card is Huggle, then I have an enormously difficult time finding meaningful edits.
'''Oppose''' - sorry. I recognise that we need all sorts of admins, but I have seen very little from you in admin areas, particularly the sensitive ones such as AN, AN/I, AE, etc. The focus on editcount is [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|bad, bad, bad]], the laser-lock on anti-vandalism is short-sighted (what will you do once FR and the Abuse Filter are implemented?), and in general you just don't ''contribute'' much to the site. Don't get me wrong; reverting vandalism is a necessary thing, but as much as we need admins who focus on a specific area, we need admins to have a base level of competence across the site. Think of being an admin as like being a doctor: all doctors can set a bone, deliver a baby, suture a wound. Some specialise in osteo or OB/GYN or surgery, but all of them can do all three. At the moment you're a surgeon who doesn't know how to do anything else. In addition, this is your third RFA. The others are deleted so I can't quote from them, <s>but I am concerned that a) three RFAs have happened in a very short period of time and b) you haven't, if memory serves, learned much from the opposes in the previous two (which were, again if memory serves, closed per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I move for this to be closed on the same basis, and/or</s> ''(adding after striking)'' I move for the other RFAs to be undeleted for the duration of this one). //
'''Strong oppose''' - Little to no experience at venues the candidate wishes to work at, sorry. You're a good guy, but I need to see more work in administrative areas, especially the ones you mention, before I can lean towards supporting. You only have '''930 non-automated edits''', which is much, much too low. The answer to Q3 is also highly unsatisfactory. You have a grand total of ''one'' edit to either AN or AN/I, and even that was automated ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=252228664]). Your edit summary usage is low, too (there is an option for this in your preferences). <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
Adminship requires thinking; 930 edits without automation isn't anywhere near enough. Insufficient experience with disputes in articlespace, insufficient experience with decision-making in projectspace, means I can't support.
'''Oppose''' Until it sleeps has basically no experience outside the world of vandal-fighting. He does a great job with Huggle, but I can't yet trust him with the other features of adminship, for example: protecting pages, deleting pages, editing protected pages, etc. Roux mentioned the idea that vandal fighters will be more obsolete in the future (abuse filter, flagged revisions), and while I don't believe they'll be totally obsolete, there will come a time when Until it sleeps will seek to work in the (numerous) other admin areas. Simply put, he doesn't have the necessary experience to do that, as I see no evidence of handling disputes, nor any evidence of consensus-building or judging consensus. Adminship is granted as a package, and Until it sleeps is certainly asking for the full package, so I'd rather see some solid evidence of policy knowledge, policy discussion, consensus-building, and an ability to handle disputes, before supporting. Good luck. <font face="Arial">
'''Strong oppose''' Although off-wiki, several editors tried to suggest that you may be coming here too early. You stated that nobody could change your mind, and that you were coming here no matter what. That makes me think you may just be too power hungry. I know off-wiki actions should not have any involvement in the RfA, which is why I'm mainly opposing on your lack of article work, and lack of experience in any area other than vandalism fighting. I also remember a few weeks back, you retired from Wikipedia while upset at the decision of Flagged Revisions being passed for a test. I believe you were convinced off-wiki to stay, but what happens when the trial starts? As an admin, can't take a break, and come back the next day, then take another break, and come back in two days. It's just not a good admin quality. Also, the notice on your userpage (about Flagged revision) is worrying. Keep vandalism fighting, please! But you are not ready for the tools yet. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Oppose''' - UIS, as your admin coach, I don't think you're anywhere near ready. I told you this on IRC last night. &ndash;
'''Switched from support.''' Not ready yet. Extraordinary user who will one day make a fine admin. <small>inserted after Cobra</small> Just last month had talkpage comments about overzealous Huggling. Using automation to help one review and revert vandalism should not be an automatic disqualifier.  You still need to think about what you're doing before you do it. That's what counts. The thinking behind the act. If one is making errors in reverting and warning with Twinkle or Huggle, one should not be trusted with the mop. I for one don't require a lot of content building, but I see it as a plus and would recommend easing of on the Huggling and digging into content building. The 'pedia's most important need I see after vandal reversion is '''citing sources.''' Way too many articles without supporting references. Have a go at that, please. For more ideas on building the 'pedia, ask on my talk page, or ask one of the real content builders. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per Dloh and a couple others, but it's not a good sign that his admin coach thinks he's not ready and he went for it anyway. Also, this probably didn't need the 2 suffix; if the first one was declined and deleted, it's safe to say that it doesn't count.
'''Oppose''' Your admin coach doesn't think you're ready. You have very few article edits. 2/3 of your edits are from last month. I'm sorry, but you're just not ready.
'''Oppose''' - I didn't want to oppose this. In fact, I feel like I probably should have stayed out of it. But I'm going to tell you bluntly that unless you undergo a major personality shift, I cannot support you, for several reasons. I have no problem supporting vandal fighters. But they cannot be just pure vandal fighters who have never tried their hand in anything else. You have not tried your hand in any form of article writing, or worked in Requested moves, or helped along in a major policy discussion, or something like that. I don't care if you come out of it with an award from [[WP:GA|one]] [[WP:DYK|of]] [[WP:FL|those]] [[WP:FA|places]], but there are some things that you can only learn by getting into article writing. Secondly, when you work on Huggle, I've noticed that you seem to brag about ''your'' editing speed. Such a thing is not healthy. As an admin, one has to remember to act slowly and deliberately <small>(maybe I should listen to this advice too)</small>. I don't believe you would abuse the tools, but I don't think that at this moment, you would be ready for them. I do encourage you to keep this RfA open for at least another few days though, and get some more advice from other editors. <font color="navy">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I have to agree with Wisdom89 that most of your edits are tool-assisted and most of your edits to the Wikipedia: namespace are Huggle edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Until+It+Sleeps&namespace=4&year=&month=-1]. —<sub>
'''Strong oppose''' When your admin coach says you are not ready, won't nominate you and opposes at a RfA that is sufficient to oppose. This person knows you the best and I trust their evaluation. Obstinacy of going against strong advice shows a level of immaturity that I do not ever want to see in an admin. Being basically a process operator of an automated tool demonstrates no real judgment in any wiki area, not even vandal fighting. The vast majority of vandal edits are trivially identified. This RfA looks to be a [[massively multiplayer online game]]r looking for a level up. --
'''Oppose''' I agree completely with PeterSymonds. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' If your admin coach says you're not ready you're not ready.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->'''
'''Oppose'''- I can do nothing more than agree with those who have opposed before me and say that this user needs more article experience.-
'''Oppose'''. I'm all for using Huggle as a tool, but I agree with those above, you can't Huggle your way to adminship. I want to see you do your own manual work.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, I love the vandal-fighting, but you should have discussed this with Julian first before putting yourself through this.  The opposes above are pretty valid for your lack of experience. --<font color="navy" size="2">David</font> '''
'''Oppose''' -  Normally, I hate to see these pile-on opposes, but in this case I feel that you need a bit of a smack in the face.  Your disrespectful indifference to everyone that told you that you were not ready—these people care about you—is rather disturbing.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' You're an amazing anti-vandal guy, and we need those as sysops. Once you get into the other areas more (try writing a GA or two, maybe a couple DYKs; weigh in more in Wikipedia-space discussions; perhaps xfd?) I think you'll be more than fine if you try again later. Everyone has their one specific thing they're best at, even admins, but you just need a bit of diversification. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' per Neuro, Iamawesome800, and Rootology. You're a great editor, but you need more experience the areas you want to work in. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' - Experience consists of little more than vandal reversion, your own admin coach opposed you, as well as the strange attitude toward FlaggedRevs. You seem to be extremely concerned with it, yet you haven't really participated in any discussion regarding it, except for registering some votes on individual proposals (which also make up 3 of your 10 total edits to the Wikipedia talk: namespace). From the few comments I've seen as well as discussions in #wikipedia-en, I'm not sure if you really understand how FlaggedRevs works at all. <font face="Broadway">
'''Weak oppose''' trending to neutral.  On the plus side, he's got the experience to block real vandals appropriately.  However, his impatience may cause him to over-block.  If he gets the bit I hope he overcompensates and lets a few vandals go to avoid improper blocks.  His specialization and use of semi-automated tools make it very difficult to judge his non-vandal edits and his overall policy knowledge, things that will have to be addressed before his next go at the bit.  As far as his history prior to reforming, it's just that, history.  Before running again:  Find some way to communicate that you have broad policy knowledge, and have an RFA regular or coach go through your non-vandalism edits and declare that they are reasonable.  Also, as part of your RFA, state the steps you will take to make sure your innate impatience doesn't cause you to use the tools inappropriately.  See you in 3 months.
'''Opposed''' - 3 reasons; less than 1000 manual edits, not a great deal of non-article space contribution, and the fact that this is a self nomination, which (having learned through experience) is not good. You will be nominated when ready, if your own admin coach opposes you, this clearly says you are not ready. Come back when Julian reckons you're up for it. Sorry :)
'''Oppose''' - your own admin coached doesn't even think you're ready. <b>
Awesome username, and good at what you do - but you ''need'' more article edits.  If only 5.4% of your edits are to article development, how can you possibly understand how the users you block or delete the articles of feel?  How can you help with disputes in content?  <small><span style="border:1px solid #660000;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose (See my [[User:K50 Dude/RfA Criteria|RfA criteria]]). You do a great job but in your last 750-1000 edits (which happen to be in the last week...!) There were about 10 manual edits. All the rest were [[WP:HG|Huggle]] edits. I want to see more manual edits. If you can do that with manual edits, you will get supported in no time. '''<font face="Tahoma">
I've had great experiences with Until It Sleeps (abbreviated UIS from now on), but this is way too premature. You're a great Huggler and vandal fighter and I would love to support you, but I can't bring myself to do it... yet. I'm sure there is some subject that you could write on, regardless of whether you've found it yet. For example, my interests lay in Tropical Cyclones and Chemical Weapons. What I'm basically trying to say, is don't get discouraged (the RfA crowd is vicious) and find an area that interests you.
'''Strong Nuetral''' Per arguments by Garden, Roux, and Nuero, I went here from Support.
'''Neutral''' Think UIS jumped the gun.  But as he hasn't jumped the shark, see no reason to oppose.--
'''Neutral'''. User is just not ready. I'm sorry, but...
Don't wish to pile on. Recommend waiting until your admin coach gives you the goahead.
'''Support''', I've been waiting for this for ages. Until It Sleeps is an incredibly good vandalism fighter. Which is right where we need users with the tools. He is also good at [[WP:CSD|CSD]]. As always, working in these areas means a few mistakes, but in general Until It Sleeps manages to avoid these (these days anyhow). They are also very civil and helpful. While it's a shame that Until It Sleeps does very little content work, I don't think this will prevent him from continuing his excellent work in other areas, should he get the extra bit. Just because he uses Huggle doesn't mean that the work is easy, or that it requires no judgement. I ''fully'' trust this user. Hence the support -
'''Support''' The oppose !votes so far seem to be based on the rationale of adminship being a reward handed out after a candidate has fulfilled a checklist of duties, whereas I see it as a confirmation that a candidate is so dedicated to Wikipedia and so trustworthy that they could not possibly cause damage to Wikipedia if given full access to administrative privileges.  And I believe that UIS passes the test. -- ''<B>
'''Support''' I don't see why to oppose someone for being a specialist in a certain area. Great vandal fighting work, would be even better with a few extra buttons to push.--
'''Support''' - Candidate has also provided me various insight and personal reviews of various articles of mine. Such collaboration has helped with various DYKs, GAs, and FAs that I have processed. User also served as a valuable person to turn to for a second opinion on various content related issues. Even though their direct edits may seem weighted towards automated edits, my experience with the user directly has shown a key insight into content related processes as a secondary aid.
'''Strong support'''. I am very disappointed by the early trend on this RfA. I will amplify my views later when I have a bit more time.
'''Support''' (maybe leaning to '''moral ~''' because I can see the way this will go) per Tan in the opposes below. I know that's probably weird, but he's hit the nail on the head &ndash; marvellous vandal skills are an asset to the project. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Strong Support''' Trusted user and good track.User has been around since August 2007 and has used rollback well.I do not see any scope for misuse of tools.The user plans to use his/her tools only in the area of expertise Vandal fighting.Now Wikipedia is an [[Elephant]] and if the user plans to use his tools the project will only gain with the user getting tools.Further the user has a good track in Vandal fighting and [[WP:CSD|CSD]].Now article is only facet of the elephant and arguing that any single area is mandotary to be admin is wrong.It would like the [http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm Elephant and the Blind Men] saying the elephant was rope,tree or wall.Actually these are only parts of it as Wikipedia content writing is an important part of Wikipedia but not the only area of just as Tusk or the Tail is not the Elephant.
'''Support'''.  The candidate may not have extensive experience in all areas of Wikipedia.  However, he can use his admin tools primarily for the areas that he ''does'' have experience in, while working towards gaining experience in other areas.  Per my [[User:Matheuler/adminship|Adminship philosophy]], there is no reason not to support.

'''Strong support'''. Will work well as an AIV watcher/blocker. Been active for a year so has intelligence enough for a step up in the anti vandalism work he does now. In my experience, I have found that blocking editors at AIV requires an administrator to merely be careful and familiar with policy/procedure, and I think that UIS has quite enough experience in this area to work well in it.  Looking through his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&action=view&target=Until+It+Sleeps+alternate last 500 contributions] on his alternate account (where he does most of his CSD work), I see only successfully tagged speedies, so I assume that his CSD work is excellent. The opposes over lack of content contribution do not convince me because if UIS became an administrator, the tools will merely add on to what he already does, not force him to act in another area that requires his participation in the namespace.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support'''. One of the best vandal fighters I have ever seen. It seems he never sleeps, as whenever I am on Huggle, he's beating me to the punch. I have nothing but respect for his efforts and have no reason to think he would abuse the tools, which he could certainly use for blocks and page protection. <font color="blue" face="georgia">
{{ec}} Two words to describe this RfA - absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe people in this day and age would look at the contributions, see "(HG)" or whatever the appendage may be, and run off screaming to the oppose section. This user is a very polite, diligent one with a good head on his shoulders and has article experience (if not a lot in comparison with the immense amount of vandalism he actively reverts). I don't think that someone should be opposed purely because they use tools to protect this Wikipedia from vandals (which, let's face it, are something we really could do without). In fact, I think they should be applauded for it - it's just as important. (For instance, would you rather read a very good article with "FUCK YOU" at the bottom or a small one in pristine condition?) <small><span style="border:2px solid #000000;">
'''Support''' Personally I am not concerned by a lack of content creation. Good vandal fighting
'''Support'''. I support on the basis of how candidate intends to use the tools: to aid in vandal-blocking. I am confident that this will benefit the project a lot! --
{{ec}}'''Support''' I agree with Garden, however, I would like to see some more article contributions. Out of all your 64000 edits, there's only about 3500 that are non-automated. This probably isn't going to pass, but if you come back in 3-6 months with some good article contributions, I bet you will pass. Good luck! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support''', essentially per Garden. More rounded experience would be ''nice'', but I've seen nothing to imply this user is anything but competent and experienced. If he wants to focus on anti-vandalism, I'd be happy to offer him the tools to do it more effectively. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter who would use the extra buttons responsibly.
'''Support''' Excellent editor who will definitely benefit from the tools. Also, per [[user:Soap|Soap]]. Good luck :).
'''{{User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support}} A great editor, ˙ɐɟɹ sıɥ ssɐd pןnoɥs ǝɥ ǝɯıʇ uɯɐp ʇnoqɐ s,ʇı ˙sǝssɐ s,ןɐpuɐʌ ǝɥʇ sʞɔıʞ ǝɥ --<strong>
'''Support''' Will do fine. He can put the tools to good use in his area of expertise and I see no reason to expect that he'll abuse them outside of it.
'''Support'''. [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|make that '''STRONG SUPPORT''']]. I operate in almost the same fashion as this editor. We take the mop symbol of the admin to the extreme. I am a terrible writer. I am not creative, yet I am willing to help. In this editor I see this and more. Mature, and very helpful. I can respect these assets. I have pretty much no interest in writing. I like technical deletions and discussions. I see this editor is similar. I can respect that more than an editor that just spends their time writing articles. While writing articles I feel you don't learn the mechanics of WP.--
A dedicated vandal-fighter who seems to be trustworthy enough for the mop. I've never bought into the "admins should be well-rounded" argument, anyways; if somebody shows that they have enough [[WP:CLUE|clue]] to be thorough and ask for help when they need it, I'll support them. I personally believe that adminship is no big deal (my own opinion... and I stick to it).
'''Support''' Clean block log, good record at protecting the wiki, I'll take Ottava's word about your work on building the wiki. ''
'''Support''' the promotion of this user has a clear benefit and he is reasonably clueful.
'''Support'''. I discovered this user's work just a week after I started actively anti-vandalizing Wiki around 3 months ago, and just a few days ago I was going through their contribs and wondering why they weren't an administrator already. I trust UIS with the adminastrative tools and the project could always do with an extra helping hand removing the backlog from AIV. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''Support''' The opposition camp does not sound convincing to me at all. Although I like/prefer content admins who have enough experienced core content policies, admins specializing in specific areas such as vandal fighting, DYK, image areas are acceptable and encouraging. I don't see why admin candidates should be versatile in all areas. What I do not appreciate is however, admins/editors who never write articles is intervening content disputes, uncivil admins/editors are commenting on civility issues as if they has been civil ever before. As far as I've observed the candidate, he is civil and clueful. So well, even if this Adminship is not going well, come back in next 4 or 5 months, then let's how things going.--
'''Support''' I don't have any concerns about this user, everyone needs to take a step back and chillout rathor than grabbing the pitchforks over one measily answer. Furthermore I find people's "no article building" or "content builders first" excuses to be lame, surely we want article builders to stay right where they are (building articles) rathor then getting caught up in the wikidrama that is commonly associated with adminship? Im sure I dont need a citation to say that once an artical builder becomes an admin their article contributions to wikipedia (both quality and quantity) decreases due to the associated expectations of "you must do this and you must do that" Again, I dont see any real concern worthy of an oppose. I could understand unwillingness to support but we must remember that not-supporting and opposing are two diffferent things, the latter should be reserved for users who have done something wrong or who blatantly do not meet community expectations so to speak.
'''Support''' Obviously I rarely support n editor with so little article work but I'll make an exception for the above reasons. '''
Content creation is not a required function of sysops.
'''Strong Support'''  Great user defending the work of others and protecting our readers experience,  which he’ll be able to do even better with the tools.  Also per Ottava and Stifle.
[[User:Pmlinediter/RfA Rationale|Strong support]] I'm not convinced by opposers and think that this user deserves the mop.
'''Support'''--—
'''Support''' Soap said it better than I ever could have. I trust UIS. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong Support''' Yes, the candidate’s focus is heavily in vandalism fighting – and it is something that is accomplished with dedication, determination and excellence.  I am more comfortable with a specialist who does one thing well than a generalist who does multiple tasks poorly. Furthermore, I have to echo Stifle’s earlier comment in that content creation is ''not'' a prerequisite for acquiring administrative duties. And it is difficult not to notice that the concept of practicing what one preaches has eluded some in the opposition side, who decry the candidate's lack of content offerings when their own gifts of original editorial contribution are slim-to-nil.
'''Even Stronger Support''' - I was considering not saying support, due to lack of article content. But then when I read the above reason, I realised I was being an idiot. Vandal-fighting these days is almost, almost (that's two "almost"s) as important as content, and this user excels in the former (that sounded intelligent didn't it). Having an admin who excels almost exclusively in vandal-fighting isn't going to hurt the project, is it? Hm? Elephant? The user has proved s/he can be trusted 99.9999 percent. Or do you expect this good behaviour to have been a ploy, for an evil-hearted person to gain admin powers so they can horribly damage Wikipedia? I doubt this will pass, but I hope it does, [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' No evidence of collaboration. No evidence of communication. No evidence of article building. Hell, this guy has shown zero inclination for drama or disruption. I can't even find evidence that his primary drive here is to delete the main page. What am I supposed to do with that?!
'''Weak support''' Per Ottava, actually.  I want to reiterate my point from past RfAs that the "requirement" for content contributions is not a checkbox, necessarily.  If a candidate has audited content under their belt we have an easy place to check to see how they work with other or work on issues which are not immediately tractable.  Unless someone picks the perfect subject, writes brilliant prose and knows an en-dash from an em-dash, they will '''have''' to collaborate, argue and compromise in order to get an FA/FL.  Reading the talk page offers a much clearer picture of how the candidate will respond to problems than do a dozen questions on the RfA.  I say weak support only because many of the opposes offer convincing arguments.  As for ottava, upon whom many supports rest, "[[Grand Moff Tarkin|I'm taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work]]." :)
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate has never been blocked, has account creator rights, and has been editing since 2007.  We have only commented in one of the same AfDs and I am somewhat mixed about the editor's edit there: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seek_%26_Destroy&diff=160635094&oldid=160418600].  Yes, the candidate's stance was in-line with the close, but please remember to use edit summaries, but anyway, it was a couple years ago and was not entirely unreasonable in terms of content, and well, I have been playing ''[[Guitar Hero: Metallica]]'' on my [[Playstation 3]] and have had much fun in the process, so... what the heck, might as well give the candidate the benefit of the doubt.  Best, --
'''Support''': You could have done more edits not dealing with recent pages patrolling, but your intentions on Huggle and Twinkle or expectionally great.
'''Support''', I have no reason believing Until having the tools won't be an asset to the project. --
'''Support''' Nothing at all wrong with having an editor that only edits become an admin. The ability and inclination to write reams of prose isn't critical to the task of being an admin.&mdash;
He may rely on the tools, but he uses these tools well and it would be a service to augment his tools. It is not like he is running for content administrator or something like that. He has made it clear he is a recent changes kinda guy, after all. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
Per Newyorkbrad and many others.
'''Weak Support''' — I'd normally not support someone with little content contribs, but I have not seen any diffs of incivility provided by opposers. Hence I think that UIS is on the balance of evidence likely to be a net positive. Problematic admin conduct can always be referred to us at the arbitration committee ''(not that we're looking for more work that is...)''
'''Strong Support''' - Good user, good with policies, knows his stuff...give this guy a mop! - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">
'''Strongest Support Ever!!1one''' - We need a few more rogue admins<sup>''<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Joke|joke]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</small>, and, not only do we need another vandal fighter with the hammer, [[WP:WTHN|there's no obvious reason to oppose]]. Is he good at what he does? Absolutely. I don't need FA counts or edit counts to tell me that. Besides, I was shocked to see this RfA. I thought he was an admin already. O_O
'''Support''' - I would have liked to see some more evidence of experience in areas other than vandal-fighting, such as dispute resolution, which admins are likely to be involved in. However, I supported last time on the strength of the vandal-fighting alone, and feel compelled to do so again.
'''Support''' - I mostly just read the opposes, but if you're going to fight a bunch of vandals, then do it with the bit. -
'''Strong support''' - Anybody who's been on huggle patrol knows this name. His contributions are '''enormously''' important. That's why, among the opposes, Tan's oppose is the most persuasive. But even with that, I think there's a predictable underestimation of UIS's significance. There are a lot of opposes that I respect, but that I hope would reconsider.
'''Support''' - I've run into this user a few times while vandal fighting, and I would trust him/her with buttons. Though I do have to wonder why he/she felt the need to link that pic... I almost hurled when it loaded.  -
'''Support''' I think using tools is smarter than not using them.  Although it is not true, it has even been proposed that the use of tools is what separates humans from other animals. Somebody has to continuously fight vandals because Wikipedia is set up to be especially vandal-friendly and if this person is willing to do it let's make it as easy as possible for him.
'''Support''' - strong vandal fighter, net positive contribution.  Anyone who feels that WP doesn't need more "vandal-fighter-only" admins must not notice the frequent multi-hour admin backlogs we still see.
'''Support''' - very responsible user.  I see numerous complaints regarding his lack of 'collaboration' and 'content-building'; but every admin is different.  And, as an admin, this user would focus on vandal-fighting and do a great job at it.  With time, the user may move on to other administrative tasks.  And if he does, ''I trust'' that he will do so responsibly and aware of the learning curve involved, and for me that is enough.
'''Strong Support'''. I am baffled by the oppose voters who seem to think the mop ought only to be given to Booker Prize winning writers. While editing skills are nice and dandy, at the end of the day there needs to be someone to pick up the technical slack. This user has shown a willingness to do so even before becoming a sysop, think how helpful he could be with the wiz bit. +
'''Support''' The oppose votes don't convince me enough to be neutral.
'''Support''' This won't pass, but I trust the candidate with the tools. (I'll support next time too)
'''Support''' I think this editor would make a fine administrator.  --
'''Support''' on balance.  Mostly I'm swayed by Newyorkbrad's argument; not every admin needs to be a generalist.  At the same time, I recognize valid concerns raised by Tan and Juliancolton.
'''Support''' Does good and useful work on the wikipedia - can't see any reason why he/she would do harm as an admin. --
'''support''' looks good. I have no doubt the user will use the tools to benefit the project and I have no reason to believe that he will abuse them or create problems.
'''Oppose''' - Same rationale as last time around - User is completely reliant on tools and scripts - robotic and mechanical. I realize the user wishes to work at AIV, but huggling tens of thousand of edits just isn't that impressive. In fact, it's a large turn off. No evidence of collaboration. No evidence of communication. No evidence of article building.
'''Oppose''' - User relies entirely on tools to do his work, which consists of semi-automated vandalism reversion and almost nothing else. I see no work in many areas of the wiki, and no content contributions whatsoever. Not only is this a problem ''prima facie'' - it demonstrates a lack of experience in many areas - the fact that these concerns were all brought up in his last RfA over six months ago and he has chosen not to address any of them shows a problem of temperament. Either he's unable to take criticism or unwilling - either way he's not somebody I'd like to see with the tools.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Candidate's contribution to the project is huge in terms of keeping vandalism off the site. Huge. I want to formally give major props to UIS for this; he has committed a huge amount of time to this and I, for one, greatly appreciate it. People tend to see vandalism fighting as the "newbie task" of Wikipedia, but as it is, it's still a very, very important part of encyclopedia maintenance. All that said, that's really all the experience he has. A smattering of AN/I experience, some RfA voting (and it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mario1987&diff=305360905&oldid=305360310 looks] like some of those RfA votes aren't very well researched). While I don't think an admin has to be an expert in all arenas (see ongoing RfA with copyright opposition), I do think you need a nice rounded resume in terms of various areas - AIV, RFPP, AfD, ANI, UAA, etc. Also, I personally need to see ''some'' article building work - understanding of collaborative processes comes naturally from experience with building a well-referenced article. If I were to support you in the future, I would have to see you take time off from your huggling vandalism work (which would admittedly be detrimental to the project) and delve into other facets of the project.
'''Oppose''', essentially per Tan above. Great anti-vandal work, but very thin experience in other areas. Sorry. <font face="Arial">
Sorry. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_lecture&action=history this] is your most significant content contribution as you say, I'm forced to oppose. I don't expect everyone to write FAs but I do expect ''some'' article writing experience from an admin candidate. I do appreciate the work you do in counter-vandalism, but I'd like to see some proof of understanding content policies before I can support.
No real work outside of vandal fighting, needs a lot more experience with content or anything that doesn't take hitting a few buttons.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Weak oppose''' - I'm generally sympathetic toward those who are not prolific content-contributors, but as per the above all I am seeing here is a long list of highly automated sort of contributing. Button-pushing, as it were. Having the bit would most undoubtedly allow the candidate to deal with vandalism in a more efficient manner, and I have no real reason to suspect handing over the mop would do the project harm (therefore this is only a weak oppose). That said, it is also true that many functions of admin work are much more nuanced than button-pushing and there is nothing in this contributor's history to show they have either the temperment or the judgement to fill these functions.  Regardless of the candidate's stated intention to stick to vandal fighting for the time being, I cannot support handing the mop to a candidate who has no demonstrated capacity to handle the rest of its functions.
'''Oppose''' - We have enough "anti-vandalism only" administrators. I feel that Until It Sleeps has proven his ability to recognize vandalism, and deal with it in a appropriate manner. Now it is time for him to spread his wings and wander into some other areas of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' - I wanna support, but prior behavior seen by me on and off-wiki seems to not hint to me that the user is ready for adminship. I really don't feel a reliance on scripts, tools and bots, is all you need for adminship and is more of a token for ultimate disaster. Really should wait another 3-5 months working on contributions outside of those areas (including well article expansions (not looking for perfect) and more input in more areas). I'd like to see a little better on the behavior too, but its not a major issue. Not trying to down your luck, UIS, but you're are like 85% ready, just need the other 15%, and we'll see what happens.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
I find many of the above opposes regarding your reliance on Huggle unconvincing. However, Tan put it well; we always need more vandal fighters, but you have little or no experience in other areas of the project. That said, my main concern is your sometimes immature demeanor. I don't have any diffs to back that up, but as your former admin coach, I just get the feeling that you don't have the maturity necessary to make the difficult, divisive, and important decisions that come with adminship. The fact that you retired immediately upon hearing that the developers were discussing the implementation of flagged revisions, only to return a couple days later, doesn't give me much confidence. If I recall correctly, you also semi-retired a few weeks ago. Instability in that regard is not a favorable trait in admin hopefuls. And as much as I hate to make unsupported claims, you occasionally come across as just a bit desperate for adminship, particularly on off-wiki communication systems. You're certainly an asset to the community with your anti-vandalism work, and I encourage you to keep that up, but at this time, I do not feel I can fully trust you with adminship. Sorry, –'''
Sorry UIS, I expected to be more on the supportive side of this request, but I must agree with Juliancolton and Tan; they put it very well. Note that this oppose is pretty weak, but I'm just not comfortable yet, either. Vandal-fighting admins are great ([[User:J.delanoy|J.delanoy]] is a perfect example) and I have nothing against them, but the overall thin experience (in other areas) and general demeanor doesn't assure me that you have this thing called "mature judgement", at least right now. Even if you can't have the mop yet, do keep up the good work. :) Feel free to discuss this oppose if you have comments.
It's easier to say "per all off the above." My main concerns are that you lack experience in other areas, immaturity (on and off wiki), and the semi-retirement thing. I agree with every one of Juliancolton's points. '''
'''Oppose''' I have grave concerns about maturity. Nothing in this users behaviour shows me anything but a lust for the tools and an inability to act with some level of responsibility. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/fc/20090118225000!User_Until_It_Sleeps.JPG I have a feeling the user will simply pin it on like a badge]. The user also fails to do anything but obsessively Huggle, and I prefer to see some level of interest in writing. '''\'''
'''Oppose''' I do so reluctantly, I'm inclined to '''support''' based on your username alone (Metallica rocks). But this isn't "Request for Vandalbotship", I would expect an administrator to have more experience in creating content before he is given tools over other content creators. To me it's like making someone a referee in baseball who has never really played a game. Sure, you don't ''need'' to be a skilled player to know the rules but you will be expected to have judgement over close calls and it helps to have experience with the game. The same goes with handling articles, for example, can you empathize with someone who has made dozens of edits to improve an article and is now seeing it deleted or drastically changed? I do appreciate your efforts to curb vandalism however. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - The lack of collaboration, the lack of experience in editing without tools and the attitude shown by the user here simply makes it undesireable for this user to be given access to the administrator toolset. Using various buttons and programs to remove vandalism is fine, but it's rare for administrators to do nothing but revert and block vandals, eventually pretty much every administrator will have to deal with a content dispute or some other issue, even if it's only brought to their attention when they're doing vandalism patrol, and without well rounded experience here on Wikipedia, they're either going to get involved and are quite likely to make an error that causes further complications (blocking at the wrong time, not blocking at the right time etc) or they'll ignore what they've seen and carry on their merry way. Ignoring stuff (especially if there's no communication to other admnistrators, and with a lack of evidence of good communication in the case of UIS) is bad, making bad decisions far worse, but both options are undesireable, and on the evidence presented here, I'm worried that either option is a serious possibility.
'''Oppose''', having a niche area is fine, however one must step out of their comfort zone eventually. We entrust our administrators with a package of tools, not just one or two. Because of this, we must review the candidate's aptitude in a number of areas. If the candidate can not show us examples of their skill, then we can not properly evaluate them. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - per Tan, Juliancolton, and the fact that quite literally nothing has changed about your contributions since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FUntil_It_Sleeps_2&diff=267787088&oldid=267785711 my oppose] in your last RfA. →&nbsp;
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' - The answers to question 9's examples are inconsistent. States in example one that they wouldn't tag something because it's user space, but then they /would/ tag user-space in example 5. I can't feel correct supporting someone who can't interpret CSD ''consistantly''.
'''Oppose''' the comments already made in opposition have depth, and I also would like to see you put some more effort into article development before requesting the mop.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Oppose''' per Tan, who said it best. Your anti-vandalism work is invaluable and is commendable but I believe an admin needs to be versatile, experienced in a wider assortment of areas. --
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  Of your 62,000 edits, a significant portion consists of automated edits.  This makes it hard to judge your knowledge of policy and your familiarity with the inner workings of the site.  On top of that, I must agree with Roux - Little has changed since your last rfa.  You do some great anti-vandal work around the project and I encourage you to keep it up.  However, it would be nice to see you do some work in other areas of the project as well.  Perhaps in a few months and experience in other areas. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
I agree most with Ironholds; you had an RFA, the opposition was more or less unanimous in what they wanted to see (communication, article edits, etc), and other than exchanging emails with Ottava, I'm really not seeing that you even tried to meet them halfway.  RfA is the only game in town if you want to be an admin, so if this one should fail, please do at least some of what the opposition is saying and try again in 3 months. - Dank (
'''Oppose''' per lack of non-automated edits (5.88% of your total), answers to questions, and above opposes by [[User:Tanthalas39|Tanthalas39]] and [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]]. In my opinion, it is not the number of edits that counts for a user, but rather the quality of the edits. If almost all of your edits are automated, it is very difficult for me to assess your policy knowledge, and how you will handle situations as an administrator, and I have to resort to other outlets to find this information. One of the methods is looking at your answers to the questions, some of which are concerning. For example, in Q9.1, you said that you would discuss the situation with the user. Per the [[WP:U|username policy]], this is clearly the wrong approach to take. The user should be softblocked for having a promotional username (most likely with {{tl|uw-ublock}}), and the page deleted under [[WP:CSD#G11|CSD G11]]. There is no reason to make this page more neutral, because there is no salvageable content, and there is no reason to discuss this with the user, because their username is a blatant policy violation. Yes, this was a tough decision to make, but I feel that it is justified. You are an excellent user, and I would support without doubt if you focused less on vandalism and more on other processes, but I cannot support at this time. Thanks,
'''Oppose''' - I don't really see any evidence of attempts to address the concerns from the last RFA. Based on a couple comments (the nom statement and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Until_It_Sleeps_2&diff=next&oldid=267792060]) at the time of your last RFA, 5.4% of your edits were non-automated. More than 6 months and 45,000 edits later, its still only 5.8%. <span style="font-family:Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - Per Tan. '''
'''Oppose'''. After viewing the last RfA, it appears that nothing much has changed. I would support if you show evidence of participation in other important areas (those mentioned by multiple others here). I recommend working on that, then coming back in a few months. ···
'''Oppose''' - for many reasons mentioned above, though i think self nominations are always worrying. It would be far better to do as much good across wikipedia as possible and wait for someone to notice your efforts and nominate you themselves.
'''Oppose''' basically per the above. I think you've received more than enough constructive criticism from the first several opposers. I endorse their views, and if there's improvement, I'll support a future RfA.
'''Strong oppose''' based on lack of article writing and content. It would have just been an oppose, but because you appear to have ignored this concerns from your last RfA, I felt a strong oppose more appropriate. Best of luck anyway. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' - per Tan and Julian, mostly, though the seeming unfamiliarity with spam/username/blocking policies as highlighted by Jamie and others is also a bit troubling. You are doing a great job fighting vandalism, but that is only a tiny slice of that for which admins are responsible. It would be helpful for any future request if you got involved in other areas admin tools are required, such as the various deletion boards, [[WP:RM]], or [[WP:UAA]]. Another big thing, as others have mentioned, is content creation. No, you don't have to write an FA in a week, but find an article that interests you, find some sources, and improve it to meet GA criteria. Show us that you understand all that goes into writing a good article, since that is what we're here for afterall. Best of luck in the future.
'''Oppose''' User has lack of knowledge in other departments, Wiki is made for more than vandalism, I suggest coming back in 6 months.--
'''Weak Oppose'' per Tan and Julian. I was inclined to support at first, but the issues raised by those users prevent me from doing so. You have done a great job in terms of vandal fighting, in fact, I've seen many of your vandal reverts and that's very important work, but the lack is experience in other areas is something you might need to work on. Please don't be discouraged by this oppose, and come back in 3 or 6 months when you have obtained more (wiki wide)experience under your belt, and sure then, you'll be a shoo-in.
Sorry, but you strike me as rather [[User:Majorly/RfA/standards#Oppose|immature]]. This isn't a particularly great asset for an admin I'm afraid. Normally I don't care so much about this, but it just seems to be rather obvious here. '''
'''Oppose'''—Would like to see more well-rounded experience as a WPian first.
'''Not yet''' basically per Tony1.  This candidate may well have all the qualities required for adminship, but I have not seen sufficient demonstration of this in collaborative areas of Wikipedia.  Vandal-fighting and automated edits are a valuable part of the encyclopaedia that I do not wish to denigrate, but adminship is about dealing with people.—
'''Oppose''' Lacks the maturity.  And I'd really not like to see any "look who's talking" or "hypocrite" comments here.
'''Weak Oppose''', your anti-vandalism work is excellent, however the opposition raises some points that I feel are significant. Your editing however is a great contribution to Wikipedia, so do not see this as disheartening! --
'''Oppose''' I like UIS, and really appreciate all the good vandal fighting, but, just looking over some recent "RFC" edits by the candidate, I'm not convinced that s/he is able to see the '''big''' picture just yet.  I think after a little more experience they may make a fine admin, but for now I'd rather hold off on my own "support".  Sorry UIS. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' - Tend to concur with Ched, not sure if he is ready yet. Little advance from #2. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Limited collaboration with other editors. Minimal content creation.
'''Oppose''' Per Tan. I have high respect for Tan, and reading his comment, I truly agree with it. I would like to say to Until It Sleeps, keep doing the good work you do, and one day, I may support. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Tan and Juliancolton --
Oppose per the second sentence of The Earwig's argument in particular.
'''Regretful oppose''' per above; %94 of your edits seem to have been automated leaving less than 4000. Lack of experience across multiple areas is discouraging. I suggest trying to write a DYK stub, then take some article to GA status, then at least read through a recent FA review or two. Get a solid sense of building articles.
'''Weak oppose''' My personal experience with responses (or rather the lack of responses) to queries posted on this user's talk page have not been entirely positive. An admin should be more welcoming to IP users.
'''Oppose''' for using automatic tools as though they were the way of life here on WP.  Sorry, but you don't have the qualities I look for in an admin.  I want to see much more than a point-and-clicker.
'''Oppose''' I don't like the "I say I'm entitled to the tools and therefore I should have the tools" vibe that I got while reading his nomination. I'm worried that he will take a 'I say this article should be deleted and therefore it shall be deleted" attitude when it comes to using his powers.--
Numerous specific issues cited above, and the reason-that-must-not-be-named.
Your statements here are, where they differ at all, more vague versions of what you wrote last time. Aside from "time served", you haven't really explained what has changed since your last RfA, when many users asked you to edit articles more, or simply perform more edits in areas outside of vandalism reversions.
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral'''. I have told UIS on multiple occasions that I think he could make a fine [[User:J.delanoy|J.delanoy]] type admin if he would simply grow up. I'm not opposing because it would be in bad faith to do so based on my personal experiences with UIS, which are almost entirely IRC based. However, I think it's telling that the decisive majority of people who have interacted with him off-wiki are opposed to his candidacy on the basis of maturity, and he was blocked from a certain infamous IRC channel multiple times in the past. Whether this is evidence that UIS will make a bad admin or simply that the IRC [[voting bloc]] ("cabal" is so cliché) has struck again is open to interpretation. However, I suppose I'm living up to my sobriquet in voting neutral this time.
'''Neutral''' for now as I can't decide. I am not bothered by the contributions issue but more by some of the concerns raised by users such as Juliancolton, the general air of desperation that lingers and the fact that a lot of users who I consider fair in these cases are heading for neutral/oppose and giving reasons which I find myself unable to dismiss easily. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Neutral''' - Recommend DR work: helps with mainspace, and immensely helpful in regards to communication. Also learn the intricacies and consequences of protections. Join now!
'''Neutral'''. I came to support, but the issues raised by the opposers about not enough non-anti-vandalism work are quite convincing. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral''' - This one will not pass, so there is no point in opposing the candidate. Your anti-vandalism work is pretty good, but you need to concentrate on other parts of en.wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' - opposers bring up good points, but I really don't want to oppose...--
'''Moral Support''' - but I agree with [[User:Tanthalas39|Tan]] above - expanding one's horizons is something each of us can benefit from. Would support in the future w/a little more work in those areas.
'''Neutral''' - I am on the fence on this one, I don't consider a diverse editing history a requirement of adminship though it is a good thing. I am overall leaning to towards support and if I am honest I was expecting a bit more of a smoking gun from the opposition given their numbers. However, some concerns from the opposition do make contact with some of [[User:Camaron/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. The response to flagged revisions raises minor concerns with key criterion (KC) 7 and to some extent KC 5. IRC concerns have also come up repeatedly in this RfA, which while I take note of the lack of details/evidence, raises some further concerns with KC 4.
'''Support''' <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We need more vandal-fighting admins. <font face="Goudy Old Style"> '''
'''Support''' - from what I see, he does good work and would be a good admin.
'''Support''' - I've always seen Versus to be a good, friendly and mature editor. I've seen no problems, and I am proud to support him.
'''Support''', while I am not sure what is going on above in this support section with the striking, sockpuppet allegations, etc., i.e. I hope nothing is amiss here, in any event Versus 22 meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that his lone block was a mistake undone a minute later and as I do not recall us having any negative interactions.  One suggestion I have is to perhaps have a userpage as I tend to appreciate knowing about an admin, i.e. what has that admin accomplished (with regards to GA/FAs and barnstars).  Best, --
'''Support''' &ndash; I know him also on Simple English Wikipedia, and s/he should do fine with the tools. '''[[User:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">TheAE</font>]]''' [[User talk:American Eagle|<font color="#6B8AB8">talk</font>]]/
'''Support''' What!?  Not an admin!? O_o -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Versus is a vandal fighter with a clean block log who has also done other work here. It shouldn't surprise us that anyone doing as much vandalfighting as Versus has become a target for vandals. I would suggest that the candidate ask for their barnstar page and other user pages be restored and semi protected.  ''
'''Strong support''' as nominator. Sorry I'm late, this went live while I was sleeping. <font face="comic sans ms">'''
'''Weak support''' - Good head on their shoulders, knows what they are doing. Opposes hold some weight, but they don't throw me over there. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I see nothing to show experience with content areas and the lack of an answer to question three needs to be fixed before any reconsideration is possible.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, too soon after decisions like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Versus22&diff=prev&oldid=280475932 this]. <s>Retiring</s>Vanishing one day, RfA two weeks later? C'mon.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Tan. One quality an admin doesn't need is the ability to swing from one side of the spectrum to the other in terms of dedication in such a small period of time.
'''Oppose''' I've been reviewing your edits for about an hour now... and can't support---even with my more liberal view on adminship.  You made over 17K edits last month alone---this shows an over reliance upon tools.  There is very little of Versus22 in any of your edits.  I can't find too much in the way of legitimate discussions---it's all done via various templates.  You indicate that you want to work with CSD, and area where I have a lot of concern, yet you have minimal experience there---in your last 500 deleted edits probably less than 30 are where you are requesting CSD and most of those are when the author has blanked the page.  So how about your participation at AFD?  In your last 1000 edits to the Wikipedia space, I'd guess that 750 of them are simply to report somebody to AIV.  About 100 of them are to AFD's.  Of those, I counted 6 keeps.  That's roughly 94% delete, and 6% keep?  So what about your article work?  There is none.  What about policy discussion? I couldn't find any.  Sorry.  Also when 2/3rds of the edits to your talk page are either vandalism or reversions of vandalism, it sends up a huge red flag---and while it may be unfair, you didn't answer question 3, I have to conclude that the reason you didn't answer question 3 is the result of repeated and ongoing vandalism... which should have been a deterent to running right now.  If you are currently be targetted on your own talk page to the extent that it is, you had to have some incling that those who were targetting you, might come here to be disruptive as well?---'''
'''Oppose''' A closer investigation suggests that the concerns about temperament, judgment, and conversance with policy that I expressed below are not unfounded and not insignificant (or, at the very least, per Spartacus, that the record provides an insufficient basis on which to reach firm contrary conclusions), and I cannot conclude with any confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, you do great work with vandal-fighting and other areas, but I'm still concerned about your temperament. In mid-March I had to [[User_talk:Versus22/Archive_4#Your_edits|warn you]] against using edit summaries that attacked Grawp, and you cited frustration. As an admin, you'll be dealing with some far more frustrating issues, and losing your cool in those situations won't be helpful to you or others. Retiring and unretiring so recently also strengthens my concern about temperament. I will happily support you some time in the future, but not until I see evidence that this issue is resolved. Good luck, <font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' I am in agreement Tan's concerns about seeking adminship so soon after seeking the Right to Vanish.
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament and could use some additional experience in diversified areas as well. Without prejudice to a possible support at some point in the future, as I see lots of good faith work and positive contributions to the project in general. '''
Not enough experience for an admin. Somewhat incorrect temperament. What will happen if another user annoys you? Will you attack them? Remember, Murphy's Law. '''
'''Oppose''' I don't like that you evoked your RTV just two weeks ago. Peter's comment about your attacks on Grawp led on by frustration leads me to believe that you don't have enough patience to deal with conflict, which administrators deal with daily. <small><span style="border:1px solid #007BA7;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Sorry but per I'm Spartacus! and concerns over patience raised by PeterSymonds. An admin needs to be able to stay calm in the face of people like Grawp and worse. I do not think you have the necessary patience (yet) for the mop. Also, the retiring thing, while not a reason to oppose in itself, strikes me as weird. Regards '''
I'm not convinced that your policy knowledge or experience as a whole are enough for you to be an administrator. Perhaps after a few months and some dedicated article work, I could support. <font color="navy">
Too early, but you seem fine otherwise.
'''Moral Support''' Being only on Wikipedia for 3 months is not enough experience IMHO. Also, the rather choppy CSD work mentioned by Balloonman is concerning. But other than that, you are a fine editor. Try coming back in about 5 or 6 months. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=blue>
'''Moral support''' - I do not do these often, but I think the user is a good editor and will make a good administrator at some point. Time is really all he needs.
I'm thinking '''support'''. Everyone is talking about how good your edits are now, so then why wait? [[Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia#Obtaining_administratorship|It only punishes you for accepting this nomination]], and since this isn't a self-nom, I don't think that's right. It's very likely that this will be denied, but that 15% "penalty" just isn't right in this case.
'''Strong support''' Know Vicenarian well, so to be expected. I must admit, I was surprised to see this pre-watched page appear in my watchlist so early, but... why not, eh? Extremely knowledgeable, incredibly tactful, unlikely to abuse the tools. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •
'''Moral Support''' Will be a fine administrator one day.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen Vicenarian around and have seen nothing but good come from this user. Also, per the comments of Tiptoety and Bubba hotep.
'''Support''' - I do not believe they would misuse the tools.
'''Support''', 4000+ manual edits, and three months is plenty of time to see if you're plainly nuts.  I see no indication that you are, so this is an easy call for me.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Strong support''' as nominator. Good luck, pal! --'''
Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' I do not care about the length of time active, only about the number of good edits made, and experience shown thereby. Clearly enough. I have looked in some detail at the oppose !vote cast by [[user:Balloonman|Balloonman]], and while I personally agree with his comments relating to three of the four articles he gives as examples, I note that all were deleted, under the stated criteria, at different times and by three different admins. IMHO a proven difference of opinion is not a reason to withold the tools from an otherwise excellent candidate. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Good editing is like good cooking -- you recognize it immediately. It is fairly obvious that Vicenarian understands Wikipedia policies and would be able to make intelligent admin-related decisions. Good luck!

'''Support''' per Lankiveil. Vicenarian has only been here three months, but he's already amassed over 9000 edits, 4000 of them manual, appears to know the policies and guidelines well, reviewed GANs, etc., etc. I really don't think time on Wikipedia should be an issue if everything else about the candidate is great. Good luck! '''''<font style="font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Support'''. I've been here longer than you have and 4000 manual edits is quite impressive (to me, at least). Even though this RfA won't pass, I'll almost definitely be supporting you in your next one. '''
'''Very Very Strong Support'''. Per all the reasons above. And the opposite of some reasons below. [[User:Spongefrog|<font color="Green" face="High Tower Text">'''Spongefrog'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor and seems experienced even with the three months. I know he'll make good use of the admin tools.
'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards]] as candidate is an article creator with rollback and several barnstars while having no blocks.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' per Pastor Theo.
'''Support''' per other supporters. However, as a practical matter, this RfA is not going to pass at this time. It might make sense for the candidate to consider withdrawing for now and reapplying in a couple of months with a more conventional period of wikiservice under his belt.
'''Support''' If a person is clueful and a careful editor, and knows what he still needs to learn (discussion @06:19, 18 August 2009), isn't a minimum time period essentially arbitrary?  A clueful editor will make at least as good an admin as someone who spends the 4th, 5th and 6th month of their career memorizing admin procedures.
'''Support''', with a caution to go slow with deletion per B-man's concerns. Cluefulness ''can'' be demonstrated in 90 days and a users' clue level often stays pretty much level. –<font face="verdana" color="black">
'''Support''' – Contribs look OK and indicative that the user is solid. Why come back here in a couple of months?
'''Support'''.  My experience with this individual has revealed a dedication to the highest ideals of what Wikipedia is all about, a subtle and thorough grasp of policies -- not only their letter but their underlying meaning -- the ability to work sensitively and usefully with difficult users and a good sense of humour.  I can't think that anything useful will be served by waiting for some arbitrary period of time to pass.
'''Support''' per many above. -- ''<B>
'''Strongest possible support''' - this is one of the hardest working users this site is lucky enough to have.  Not only does he contribute much to the article space, but he does a lot of really good anti-vandal patrolling.  I was honestly going to nominate him myself.  --
'''Support''' - Looks like a valuable contributor across a number of areas. Three months is quite short, but it seems like the user and their actions are, in the majority of cases, well thought out and I don't see that this would change in the administrator role.
'''Support''' A great man can accomplish more in one day, than a fool can do in accomplish in a lifetime.
'''Weak Support''', an excellent candidate, although as others say more time would improve you to become even better. I am however supporting, as there is little that concerns me to weigh me to the other side. --
'''Support''' since I'd only been here five months when I was sysopped, it'd be hypocritical for me to oppose on that ground, and I can't see any other reason to. <b>
'''Oppose''' Three months is startling to me, but that's not the real reason why I'm opposing. 5119 of your 9502 edits are automated which makes me hesistant as to how much experience you have without the use of tools.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] ([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
Sorry, but 3 months is just not a sufficient amount of time to gain the knowledge necessary to become an admin. '''
'''Weak oppose''' Please come back in about six to nine months.
'''Oppose''' I am actually shocked that I spent as much time reviewing you as I did, which is more of a credit to your nominator, whom I generally respect.  I decided to look at you with fresh eyes and not hold your 3 months against you, which last year would have been an auto oppose from me.  But one of my pet peeves is sloppy speedy deletion and while I have loosened my standards elsewhere, I see that as an area where too much harm can be done by sloppy CSD'ers.  Unfortunately, just looking at about 15 of your CSD's over the past 2 weeks highlighted 4 CSD nominations that I simply did not agree with.  Those CSD's and my analysis can be found [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vicenarian/CSD|here]].---'''
I don't want to be mechanical about it, but 6 months seems to be a rough lower limit for me.  IIRC, I was an editor for 6 months before being sysopped...so maybe that's just too convenient.  Self interest aside I can't express how much I learned about how wikipedia worked between month 3 and month 6.  Nooks and crannies of project space, DYK, SPI (formerly RFCU) were all unknown to me at month 3 but familiar at month 6.  I would also like to see more contribution to the project space (mission aside, that's basically what admins work on) and more non-automated edits to content.  Please don't take this the wrong way.  I'll come back to this nomination and reappraise it, but that is my initial feeling.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Vicenarian has done some great work around the project.  However, I must agree with the above that you are in need of more experience.  I can absolutely see you becoming a great sysop in the near future.  Hope to see you back here in a few months.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' - I think it's still to early.  The bulk of your edits are on Huggle and Twinkle; which isn't to say that they aren't legitimate, but i would like to see more content work and a little more experience.  Looks like you've done good work so far though.  --'''
'''Oppose''' - I too think three months is just a bit too short. Your article work is promising, but not enough. '''\'''
Although I don't think 3 months is too less, but I'm afraid that you have too less article writing experience. That said, please come back after 2/3 months. Count this as a moral support from me. Regards,
'''Oppose'''. Three months with an account is not enough for me to feel comfortable about how the candidate would use the tools. I'm not saying that this candidate is a sock, but if three months starts to be an acceptable length of time before an RfA, we'll start getting sock candidates up the wazoo.
'''Oppose''', but not because of questionable speedies or the relatively short tenure. I oppose primarily because of [[Wikipedia:Fun with trolls]] and the surrounding events, which I feel was a definite lapse in judgement, too recent to overlook, and in my opinion extremely unbecoming of a potential administrator. Your track record has been stellar since then, but for me, more time is needed before I can trust you not to misuse the tools. I understand if this may seem unfair, and I invite you to post a reply if you'd like. Sincerely, <tt>
'''Oppose''' [[User:Gordonrox24/RFA rationale|Sorry]], if you had waited another month this may be a support.--
'''Oppose''' In general I tend to eschew philosophies that set a mandatory minimum time that a member must be registered in order to request adminship. If someone were opposing a candidate with six or seven months' experience because it wasn't a year, yeah, that would be wrong. But three months, in all honesty, just isn't enough. Get your hands dirty, write some articles, patrol more pages, get involved in disputes, have some silly squabbles at AFD. We need more than three months' worth of track record to figure out if we can trust you with the tools; however, more importantly, you need more time to learn about yourself as a member of this community, where your place is as a gear in this machine. Hope to see you back soon.
'''Weak oppose''' I'm not really seeing any major issues with this candidate, besides simple lack of experience. Sorry, but I just cannot support somebody who's only been here for 3 months. It takes time to learn about this place and hold a good, steady track record, so come back after another few months or so. GlassCobra said it well, so I won't repeat.
'''Oppose''' because it takes much longer than 3 months to understand the culture of this large, sprawling, and heterogeneous community.  --
'''Oppose''' - three months is not enough, and your answer to the question about your short period of time here is so long-winded that I couldn't get anything out of it. It doesn't really inspire confidence if you don't know enough to explain why you know enough.
'''Weak Oppose''' - a few months is too little experience imo.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman.  3 months experience in and of itself doesn't disqualify you in my books, but I think that you could use a bit more experience in this area.
'''Not yet'''.  I'd like to see a little more of this candidate first.—
I don't think you have all the experience necessary for an administrator just yet. In three more months I will support you.  Best of luck, '''
'''Oppose''' Experience is absolutely lacking for administrator tasks.--
'''Oppose''' same reason as S.Marshall--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>
'''Oppose''' - [[Wikipedia:Fun with trolls]] is enough to make me oppose. I don't know how you could have thought that was a good idea. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' - I am not entirely satisfied with the candidate's recent CSD work.  <s>Furthermore, I'm not sure I want to see more anti-spam hawks at UAA at this time ...</s> [[User:Shereth|<b><font color="#0000FF">Sher</font></b>]]<b><font color="#6060BF">[[User_talk:Shereth|eth]]</font></b> 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)<small>I may have been a bit quick to make assumptions on this one, but overall the !vote still stands
'''Oppose''' mainly per experience concerns. Three months is not enough time to show me you understand all the major policies and guidelines. Otherwise, I see no problems, and I'd be happy to support in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Vicenarian hasn't been registered long enough to show a commitment to Wikipedia (lots of people burn out after a few months, and I don't want to be promoting people who haven't yet shown this won't happen to them.)  Additionally, [[Wikipedia:Fun with trolls]] isn't a permanent disqualification but it will require more time than this to fully recover from.  --
I think you're a great editor, and, should this request not succeed, you have an amazing amount of potential. You strike me as knowledgeable and intelligent, and I think you would make a good administrator. Unfortunately, the fact that you've only been around for three months concerns me. Three months isn't that long; I've been around for two years, and it seems like I've just begun! There are quite literally thousands of policies, guidelines, essays, how-to guides, noticeboards and discussion pages, and to be perfectly honest, I don't feel three months is enough time to become familiar with them and all their associated [[WP:TLA]]'s. As an administrator, you'll receive countless questions ranging from "Why did you delete my article?" to "Do you know how to report a potential copyright violation", so you'll need to know where to point people. I don't expect you (or anyone else) to memorize all policies; in fact, I encourage people to read them slowly and over a long period of time. But as I said, three months is simply not enough time to become familiar with all major aspects of the community. However, you seem capable of learning on the job, and that's what is keeping me from opposing. Regardless of whether this passes, I'd advise you to, at your own pace, read through [[WP:ARL]], and perhaps dabble in the various pages listed there. I will watch this RfA for the next week, and I am open to being persuaded. I wish you the best of luck. –'''
''he had been around for only a few days when I first adopted him, yet he was acting like he had been an admin for half a year!'' Indeed, his second edit discussed merging an article ''using that term''. That's remarkably knowledgable for someone with no experience with Wikipedia; he may have a long experience as an anon (in which case he would do well to specify the IP); but there's always [[WP:SOCK|another possibility]].
'''Neutral''' - The user seems qualified, although he has not been around for a very long time in my opinion. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Neutral''' - Seems like a good candidate, but I have concerns. Don't want to oppose though.
'''Neutral''' - Unlike other candidates, Vicenarian's CSD tagging is quite okay. Balloonman lists some mistakes and that's fine but one has to go back a month to find taggings that were not deleted, i.e. were completely wrong. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DD_Chennai&diff=prev&oldid=302129399 This G11]] is such an example (not complete spam, has even a criticism section), as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_On_Lovin_Me_feat.The-Dream&diff=prev&oldid=302101084 this A9] (artist and album exist), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summer_07_EP&diff=prev&oldid=301825057 this A1] (clearly has context). [[WP:AGF]] compels me to assume that the candidate has since then learned from those mistakes and that the mistakes pointed out by Balloonman can be learned from as well. I like the way the candidate reacted after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HollyWild_Animal_Park&diff=prev&oldid=299536175 this tagging was contested] but I would love to see them try and save articles ''before tagging''. That said, the problems pointed out by Balloonman make me abstain from supporting (this time) but I would be happy to support this candidate in a second RFA if this one fails. On a side note: That the candidate has only been here for 3 months does not influence me at all. Quantity (of time being here) does never transfer into quality (of editing) directly. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' I'm here because I, like most of the others on this page, think you'd be a great candidate later on but aren't quite ready yet.  Juliancolton summed up the reasons pretty clearly, but it's really easy to be gung-ho and then burn out with your finger on the ban-hammer.  You've got about 4.4k non-automated edits, which is a lot for just 3.5 months.  In addition to some of the other concerns here (which can all be easily assuaged in just a few months!) I'd like to see evidence of sustained low-stress levels.  Your contributions look excellent, and I look forward to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vicenarian 2|Vicenarian 2]]! ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(
'''Neutral''': Our paths have crossed a number of times, and you've always seemed a sensible chap, but I too would like to see just a little longer.  This intensive three months may (for all I know) be because you're in-between jobs/girlfriends/courses or whatever, and you might slow down in the next three months, get fed up of reverting vandals etc.
'''Comment'''.  Thank you very much for being a Good Article reviewer.  If anyone in the oppose section above has never helped review a FA or GA article candidate then I challenge the legitimacy of their opposition to your candidacy here.  Engaging in article reviews materially increases Wikipedia's quality.  Please continue doing that kind of work, consider improving and taking an article in a subject you find interesting through the GA and FA processes, and reapply here again in six months or so if this one doesn't pass.
'''Neutral'''. An excellent candidate, but [[WP:NOTNOW]]. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Neutral'''. What a great candidate! I am sure they will make an excellent admin, in the future but for me 3 months is just not enough and some dodgy CSD tags put me off from a support. Good luck for the future though and be sure to come back in a couple of months! '''<em style="font-family:Kristen ITC"><font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' I'm sure you'll be a great editor, but you seem to have only 519 edits on the English Wikipedia.  I think you need a tad more experience.  Good luck.--
'''Oppose''' & [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You have only been a regular contributer here since September 2008. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''  This user is well qualified and will use the tools well.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' - I've yet to fully investigate your contribs, but you look fine at first glance. Good luck. &ndash;
Yup.  Well versed, no points off from me for not being a content writer (as I am not either).  Oooh, a rhyme...
'''Support''' - Looks Fine!!! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
I see no reason not to. I checked [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa|her most recent RfA]] and she seemed ready then &mdash; none of the opposing points convinced me that she would have abused or misused the admin tools were she promoted. I see no reason to believe she is any less trustworthy now, other than significantly decreased activity by contrast but since when should RfA candidates have to be total Wikipediholics in order to pass?
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support, this user seems to be perfectly sensible. I'm not fussed which account is mopped, but i would prefer the other account to no longer be used. --
'''Weak Support''' I have only briefly looked through your contibs, and they all seem great! ;) Although your edit count over past months is a slight concern. Good luck. '''
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''', don't see any issues.
'''Support''': going through the edit history of, ahem, ''both'' accounts, I have seen a lot of help to the project. Some issues early on, but as of late I see a lot of thank you's and other project-helpful goodies. I think the project could benefit from a person who is eager to learn, edit, help, and climb through the ranks. Any self-nom naysayers will disagree, but I think that we lose a lot of prospective administrators because no one has noticed their contributions and they are afraid of the RfA rocks being thrown at them for being a self-nom. I support this candidate. Good luck, Vivio!--
'''Support''' Clean block logs, and plenty of experience, and I like the fact that the candidate has an alternate account for  editing from insecure  PCs, but I might suggest that if that is the only reason for an alt account you might find it easier to redirect one talkpage to the other. '''
'''Support''', because no one could possibly fuck up Wikipedia more than it already is.
Your activity level should not interfere too much with your use of the administrative tools, and as such I think you are ready for the mop.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak support''' - technically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]]; lack of recent edits is not a huge deal for me.
'''Weak support''' - Lack of recent edits I guess would make it weak (though sometimes life catches us where we cant make edits), however the user does have 12000 total edits (unless im reading wrong) and seems not to have anything to suggest not to support. Work at the help desk is always important i think, so i believe they are familliar with policy and at least know where to find it by assisting with this. The intentions are there so ill support for now.
'''Oppose''' - <s>the last time you went over 100 edits in a month was in [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Vivio+Testarossa&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia July of 2008]; I'm sorry, but IMO that just isn't enough activity to prove to me that you have improved from your last RfA.</s> '''EDIT:''' See below Keegan's reply for my rationale, and apologies for forgetting to check the alternate account (though this is the first time I've seen an alt with more edits than the master....) —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Oppose''' per the_ed17 and your overall low edits during the past 10 months. I am totally unconvinced that you've been improved a bit from the last RFA. I looked through your most edited articles (37 edits are highest one) and your talk page archives, but your edits are just ''minor'' copy-editing. You had gotten an admin coaching but you did not seem to follow his advice ''again''; building contents. Given your deleted images unloaded by you, I'm not sure you're correctly understanding the image policy either. Besides after your last RfA, your edits are significantly decreased. 2008/05 (147 edits), 2008/06 (56 edits), 2008/07 (264 edits), 2008/08 (26 edits), 2008/09 (44 edits), 2008/10 (80 edits), 2008/11 (22 edits), 2008/12 (4 edits), 2009/01 (15 edits), 2009/02 (31 edits), 2009/03 (61 edits) I have doubt whether you can commit to the community. Therefore, I do not think you're fit for adminship.--
'''Oppose'''. Same as the last RfA. I was Vivio's admin coach briefly, but was forced to end that due to time constraints. During that time, I advised him to make some article contributions (I suggested working on a featured list together), but aside from a few token AfC contributions, I'm not seeing anything in that department that has changed since the last RfA. A rather complete lack of interaction with other users is also troubling; participating in the consensus building process in terms of making articles on talk pages is important for any admin, and his user talk contributions are practically all either warning templates or automatic templates given by Twinkle for CSDs and the like. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Tentative oppose''' - Not being active is not a problem. Being ''inactive'' is. Sorry, but I can't support with so little in the way of recent contributions - your contributions get too old too quickly to be effectively judged. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' Per neuro, inactivity is a problem, while being not active is okay as long as edit something on that day.--
'''Oppose''', more for the lack of evident improvement since last RfA than inactivity. I'll keep an eye on this, though.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' as a 4th RfA--too eager to be an admin to be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' due to poor understanding of non-free image policy, as evidenced by the answers to questions 5 and 8.
'''Oppose''', per {{user|Sephiroth BCR}} and {{user|Stifle}}. '''
'''Oppose''' Recall is a broken process. Promises to be open to recall are unenforceable campaign promises.
'''Oppose''' at the current moment. I hate to base an oppose on edit count but less than 200 edits in the last 5 months (and not really that much more on the alternate account) are too little to allow me to evaluate your current knowledge or readiness. '''
'''Oppose''' I am very lenient with RfAs (see
'''Oppose''' not active enough over an extended period of time to judge or to get much out the tools when s/he has them.
'''Oppose''' per openness to recall - a broken process - but more importantly the answer to Q9.  Pseudoscience advocacy has no place in a respected reference work.
'''Oppose''' The answer to #9 unnerves me greatly.
'''Oppose''' as the user wants the tools too badly, and per inactivity. '''
'''Oppose''' Too few edits to judge the suitability of the candidate (yes, I saw the alt account!). Also, I'm beginning to feel that Hipocrite and skinwalker have a point (though, with the poor candidate stuck between a rock and a hard place, I'm not going to oppose based on that alone). --
'''Oppose''' Per neuro and recent incivility.
'''Oppose'''.  I commend the candidate for never getting blocked; however, per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]], I found the claims of "indiscriminate" in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users]] not compelling and that the argument in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy Recurring Gags and Characters]] was similarly weak.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose'''. Per Caspian <small><b><span style="padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' given the major concerns raised about their deletionist tendencies, coupled with a clear urge to help with speedy deletions. Given that the user doesn't know much about our image policy, I doubt they'd be very good at dealing with that area, and overall the user also wants adminship too much. Also, a minor point, but the user stated ''"I will not bother putting in any more self-noms"'' at the end of the last RFA attempt.
'''Oppose''' per Sephiroth. The candidate has good qualities but doesn't appeal as someone who has the knowledge of policy and how to interact with others that is needed.
'''Oppose'''. This is your fourth RfA. That in and of itself is a bad thing; you're showing that you're getting desperate for adminship. The vote count at the end of that last RfA should have been a wake-up call: are you really ready for the mop? Your third RfA closed in late May of last year; you have made a grand total of 613 edits since 1st June of the same year. As others have said, how do we know that you are improved from the last RfA? Plus, your project-space contributions have been mostly to AFC; nothing that really demonstrates knowledge of policy. I'm sorry, but I can't support.
'''Oppose''' -- Mainly per above and inactivity.--Best, '''''<small>
'''Oppose''' - Much too many RFAs. You need to be '''much''' more active. Also, address the concerns of the previous RFAs you've had. Also, if you want to RFA again, make it a year after this, with about 10k-20k more edits. Cheers, '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry Vivio, but even taking both usernames into account, I don't feel there's been enough activity since your last RfA to be able to judge your improvement.  With a bit more active contributions and more interactions with other users, I would definitely support. '''
'''Oppose''' per many; FlyingToaster says it well. - Dan
'''Oppose''', mostly because of the inactivity recently. We need to know you'll actually be using the tools actively. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per question nine. Inexcusable and execrable. Inactivity doesn't really bother me, considering how active other admins are. Previous RFA shows other policy weakness as well. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Oppose''' - The answers to the questions do not show that this user has the knowledge to become an administrator at this time.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems like a nice guy, but I have my reservations.  As others have said, inexperience may be a problem.  It's not the edit count that's a problem per se, I'd just like to see either a higher edit count '''or''' involvement with an FA or a couple of GAs.  My advice, Vivio to you, is to try your hand at writing an FA (if you find that an overwhelming challenge, then at least bring something up to GA status), and try back here.
'''Oppose'''.  Vivio, I believe you need more editing experience and community interaction spread over several months, or a year.
[[WP:NOTNOW|You're not ready]]. While I have no doubt that you have admirable intentions, you do not strike me as a user who has the prerequisite experience for adminship; you've only been here since December 2008, and you only boast just over 500 edits. Sorry, but that's not enough. I do bestow you with a '''moral support''', though, but I must '''oppose''' on technical grounds. --<font face="comic sans ms">'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]]''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|Efforts]] ·
'''Oppose''' for now.  Sorry, you were blocked just a week ago.  This is not necessarily an impediment to eventual adminship; it just is much, much too soon to be running.  Please look over the various [[Wikipedia:Successful_requests_for_adminship|pass]] and [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological)|fail]] RfA's for ideas about what kinds of things we look for in candidates.  Also don't be afraid to ask other editors for help or advice about any questions you may have.  ''<B>
'''Oppose''' Per above. I admire you for wanting to help out more, but you just don't have enough experience. Cheers,--

No way. Suggest [[WP:SNOW]]. →&nbsp;
<s>Moral</s> '''Weak Support'''. You haven't done anything wrong; you work with vandalim reverting edits but you have a few big issues that will probably prevent this from getting too far. First of all, you have less then 2,000 edits in the mainspace, which everybody looks for. Secondly, you have a problem like me; you work too much on your userspace. A big chunk of your edits are to a userpage or subpage. <s>Finally, when you revert vandalism, you mark the edit as minor, which is not good; vandalism is a big deal.</s> That may get some people the wrong idea (like me...thanks for letting me know rollbacking is minor editing). Good luck on this though; work hard with vandalism and what you said and do this again in a little while. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''', I don't see a reason not to give him the tools.
'''Support''' Are we running out of mops?  Per Wisdom89, even if Wade blocks only one vandal, and never touches his tools again, he's a net positive, because I see little or no likelihood of abuse.--
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
Appears to have [[WP:CLUE|clue]], a level head and maturity in bucketloads.  Although this request isn't likely to pass due to [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]] I wish you the best of luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Weak support''' Changing from neutral per: Featured content, edit summaries that demonstrate cluefullness, user page and sub-pages that demonstrate good overall cluefullness, participation in: wikiprojects including co-founding one, DYN, featured-content discussions, use of cleanup templates, article assessments, and more.  Weak per:  Relatively low time in service, relatively low contributions to adminish areas, in particularly low to nonexistent participation in areas he wants to work in.  Would force to neutral but for the overall cluefullness demonstrated elsewhere - I fully expect he will on his own educate himself before using the tools. Forgiven or ignored:  Early problems with newbie-mistakes.  Minor things done early on I would do differently like not call the 2nd version of [[:File:IBeam2ndMomArea1.jpg]] a new version - I would've uploaded it as a different image.
'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''Cautious net positive type support''' ''Positives'' - clueful, sane user page, clearly dedicated (particularly noting your image work) ''some'' CSD work that looked all good, pleasent user page, very good answers to the questions - particularly your own Q4. ''Negatives'' - 350 or so edits to your user page (yes you explained above, but that really is a ''lot'') - and 670 overal User: edits!), only moderate experience in the areas you mentioned in Q1. Likely to deliberatley damage the wiki? No. Likely to inadvertently damage the wiki? Pretty unlikely given your cautious approach = support. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I've interacted with Wadester16 in the past, and from what I've seen, he's a very friendly and clueful user. Should do just fine with the tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' Is a net positive to the project, support.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Strong Support'''. I really like the overall attitude, the intents expressed in the nom, and the balance between vandal fighting and content building. Over 1,000 edits = enough experience in my book, and you've been lurking around the wiki long enough to have clue.
'''Support''' I looked mostly at the image related contributions and I consider creating images for use in the project as valuable as text additions. Seems to have solid knowledge in this area and I see good opportunities for admin work here evaluating images and making good choices for tagging, educating uploaders and deletions when needed. I did look at the CSD tagging that was refused and I would only see a problem if the feedback for why was ignored - this is just basic learning. I am impressed with the maturity shown and the good attitude towards the project. Wadester16 is a good solid contributor and I see no reason to mistrust him with the admin tools. --
'''Support''' - Clue levels are not in doubt - won't break the Wiki. I trust the user enough to think that if they encounter a situation which they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with that they will approach another admin for assistance. Net positive. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Cluefulness and non-insanity are way more important than edit count.  I trust this user to learn the admin tools and use them responsibly. <b>'''
'''Support''' per Pedro and FlyingToaster.  No-one's perfect as an admin right from the off (or even after a year, ahem...) but having reviewed some (not all) contributions, I see nothing fatal and I think that this user will do well.  Take it steady, lurk and observe when you need to, ask for help if you're not sure and you'll get there.  Good luck.
Despite having a less-than-desirable edit count, Wadester has demonstrated honesty and confidence in his self-nom, which are two positive factors one would hope for when looking for potential administrators. He appears to have a relatively good understanding of policy, and even if he won't necessarily have the most admin actions in his log, I can still say I trust Wadester will do what he said he will.
'''Support''' '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' I don't see any problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' - I like what I see, both in contributions and in answers and interaction in this RfA. I think some of the discussion about CSD is a bit blown out of proportion ''for my taste'', but that doesn't mean I don't have at least some concern. I am confident that [[User:Wadester16|Wadester16]] will be more sensitive to the community standards on this policy, and therefore I have no problem supporting - because that's the only issue I see anyway. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Looks great. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Clue+Civil+Competence+Clarity+Content.  That's enough C's for me.  Also, per Frank, above, well said.
'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''.  [[WP:TLDR|TLDR]] summary: I think the voters above have searched the contribs and thought carefully, and I can support their conclusions.  The candidate averaged only 5 edits a month before August; I've reviewed the contribs for August and most of September, and they show someone who was sincere but knew very little about Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=234428197 this, for instance]), so we're really talking about a candidate with 4.5 month's experience here, the way we generally count things at RfA.  When I supported [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Frank|Frank]] in July, I said: "Damage is done, of course, by giving what is perceived as a thumbs-down by the "establishment" to 19 out of 20 candidates who apply before 6 months of consistent editing", but the RfA community has matured since July, and I don't think that damage will be done if this RfA fails.  The supporters and most of the opposition are making it clear that we like this candidate but that we have suggestions for things he should learn, for his benefit and for the benefit of the people who will be affected by his actions.  This candidate started off as an [[meta:exopedian|exopedian]], but the candidate's wikiproject experience shows on-wiki social interactions that nicely balance the exopedianism.  The implication I draw from the voters above is that the candidate seems to be on the right track, and it's not worth the extra stress to him or the extra time it will take us to go through all this again just to increase the odds that we're getting it right.  I'm concerned that accepting people before six months of solid activity is going to eventually create a race among prospective candidates to see how fast they can get accepted, and if that starts happening, I would support either a 6-month minimum requirement before running ... or (and this could still happen in this RfA), we could oppose candidates who we think are running too soon, and use the opportunity to give them friendly and helpful feedback, which would have the effect of setting standards as a community rather than passing the buck to admin coaches and other individuals, at the cost of extra work at RfA. - Dan
'''Support''' Really good answer.
'''Support''' Was going to oppose because of too much common sense and not enough drama. Then realized that was a ''good'' thing. Not used to seeing that — threw me off. --
'''Support''' - Overall experience is on the low side, but it's enough. You know what you're talking about, you stay cool under pressure, and you've made a good contribution to the overall quality of Wikipedia. I haven't run into any items of specific concern on a review of your contribs, and your questions answers are generally excellent. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Very positive experiences with this user.
'''Support''' Believe this editor approaches the task of admin with the proper attitude, and if they have a few hiccups, will fix them. I see much benefit and little chance of harm or drama. --'''''
'''Support''', good luck ¬.¬ '''
'''Support''' Would do fine from what I can see. I assume that this RfA will fail given the current standards but I sure hope that if and when he re-applies down the road, he won't get the ol' "too soon since last RfA".
'''Suppoer''' Seems to have a Clue and would be a net positive. Good look!
'''Support''' Net positive, has a clue, won't break the wiki: [[WP:WTHN|Why not]]? <em style="font:bold 12px Verdana;">
'''Support''' Insufficient reasons to bar user from adminhood. Why not? --<font style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 10px;"><b>
'''Support''' - no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. I agree with the notes of caution below re speedy deletions - please be careful with these as incorrect deletion of a new editor's article will quickly sour their Wikipedia involvement (yes, yes, I sound like [[User:I'm Spartacus!]]). If in doubt don't do it, is usually a good motto. Edit count is a little low but I like the effort you put into the new Wikiproject, and your collaborative approach with other editors. Good luck with the nomination.
'''Support''' - net positive.
'''Support''' I believe that this user will be a net positive to the project, clearly this editor is not the clear-cut, 'fit the RfA mould', and I commend the user for submitting themselves anyway. They have started their own wikiproject, submitted content and now want to help in a new area. [[WP:WTHN]]? Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
Great answers to questions, especially to #4 and #5: the fact that Wadester16 has not been in many disputes does not mean he avoids them, it could indicate that he actually ''talks to people and resolves issues before they even become disputes.'' That brings me to my next reason, which is that he has no edits to ANI: I see that as a plus rather than a minus: he shows he spends more time working on articles that participating on the drama boards. As for experience, Wadester16 seems knowledgeable enough, and eager to learn: as long as he takes it slowly, and asks others for help, he'll be fine. Good luck.

'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and is a featured picture contributor.  Best, --
'''Support changed from Oppose'''. I've been looking over this user's contributions for days now and I've decided that he is just too good to pass up for adminship.
'''Support''' seems to have a good attitude, shouldn't make too many mistakes and will learn from them.
'''Weak support''' - per {{User|K50 Dude}} —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Strong support'''. I like what I see so far. We need more editors like this dude who know all about the importance of image contributions. Give him the tools already. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', I think he is mature enough to work within his limits at first, and intelligent enough to extend his limits over time. Net positive.
'''Support''' Can't see the editor doing off-the-wall things and I'm sure he'll use the tools wisely and carefully. Per [[WP:NBD]], a user who seems reasonably trustworthy should have the tools. --
'''Support''' From his answers, seems like he would make a good admin. Has heart in the right place. Also, I would discount the argument that he has less than 2000 mainspace edits, as it appears from his edit history that he contributes carefully, rather than editing and re-editing the same entry several times over. This is a ''good'' thing, but it tends to bias the number of edits downwards.
'''Weak support''' from my neutral. The candidate wanted me to ask another question or something to get me over to support. I then reviewed this RfA and realized that he's handled everything well (or, at least, not horribly), his answers to the Q's are reasonably reasonable, and he doesn't really have anything glaringly saying "Oppose my RfA!" about him... So I'm switching to a weak support. Not a full one: I wouldn't have nommed him, but I have no problems with him having the tools. <font face="terminal">
'''Weak Support''' (moved from Neutral). I was going Neutral on this one, but then I saw Wadester's own comments at [[User:Wadester16/RfACriteria|his RFA criteria]] - "I do not vote neutral. If I feel you're right on the cusp between oppose and support and you seem like you can be trusted with the tools, end up being a net positive, and there's no huge negative in your past, a neutral will be a support." And frankly, he's right. I'm not hugely enthusiastic about this candidate, but on the other hand there are no major problems with him either; on that basis, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and support. Two comments I would make to him, though, are: (i) be ''very'' careful with speedy deletions - the criteria are narrowly defined for a good reason; and (ii), you don't need to spend so much time welcoming IP users - it's nice, yes, but it's not really how I'd like to see admins spending their time, as it doesn't add much value to the encyclopaedia. Apart from that, good luck.
'''Strong support''' I have worked with Wadester on many occasions, I have found Wad to be much much more level-headed than myself, insightful, and always willing to lend a helping hand. There are a few admins (very few I hope and I'm sure not any that are reading this) who think their job is to "yell" at editors who make mistakes or at the minimum state that the editor did something wrong without then giving any constructive suggestions on how to do things the right way. Wadester would be the type of admin (like all those reading this of course) who are helpful in teaching newbies the ropes in a friendly welcoming way. I have seen Wad be concise and clear in responding to mistakes by other editors.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've had good experiences with the candidate, mostly at FPC. '''
'''Support''' - net positive. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - No reason not to. --<font face="script MT bold">
Since I'm usually convinced by the opposers, but this time I'm not, I think I'll express my '''support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Weak Support''' Net Positive . I dont reallly see a reason to oppose --
'''Oppose for now'''. I need to take a further look, but here's what I get from what I've seen so far. In A1 you say you would work at AIV, ANI, and AFD. I see that you have zero edits to both AIV and ANI, and you have ten edits to XFD (two to AFD and eight to SFD). Something makes me want to support, though; I will keep looking through your work.
'''Weak Oppose'''. I can't in good conscience support this request because you made the cardinal mistake (based on my own personal criteria) of flatly stating you will work in areas you have little to no experience in. However, my oppose is weak because you seem to be well-intentioned and level-headed.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pankaj_Patel&diff=268425124&oldid=262498426 One], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Door_Christian_School&diff=prev&oldid=268426101 two], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Rajaraman&diff=268425480&oldid=262487761 three] speedy deletion nominations in his last 500 edits have been declined, at least.  This only streaches back a week. Admins need to be competant in areas they work, especially, especially speedy deletion.
'''Oppose for now''' I see an eager and level-headed editor, but WilyD (again) digged out some mistakes with CSD that I was going to mention as well. I really think there is not enough work to judge you by, seeing that you got your rollback just a week ago. I'd suggest you wait another 2-3 months... Regards '''
'''Oppose''', a little light on overall experience, particularly in the project namespace.
'''Oppose''' Apologies, but I swore to !vote based on my optional Q, and you failed to answer it to my satisfaction. I asked you to pick a specific conflict and discuss how you might resolve it, and you gave a stock answer that is supposed to work for any conflict (but, by the way, dosen't.)
'''Oppose''' The nominated asserted that creating a WikiProject was one of his major accomplishments.  In optional Q 13 i asked about that, and the nominated went into arguments defending the merits of having the wikiproject rather than answering the question in my view.  I disagree with the nominated's judgment in several matters, which is okay, but I think it would have been appropriate for the nominated to acknowledge something there, and to show some capacity to appreciate a balance.  For example, it could have been acknowledged there have been little or no substantive discussion within the wikiproject about content of any articles or other content-related matters yet, and I think it is inappropriate to claim the wikiproject as a positive accomplishment.  In fact, the nominated's edit count in mainspace and in wikipedia space is run up by the creation of the wikiproject's pages and tagging a few hundred articles, all merely overhead which does not directly contribute to the wikipedia.    I think more experience would be appropriate.
There have been lots of good candidates that have violated my pledge to not !vote at RFA. However this is an RFA I think you really need feedback at, so... here goes... You do some good work around the FPC and VPC areas, but you need more work in admin areas. You state on your userpage that you've been here since summer 2008. Normally I wouldn't care but since you have (from Wisdom's oppose) very little edits to any areas where admins work (AIV, AFD) I can't support. I'd support you in a couple of months. [[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#000000">'''Ceran'''</font>]][[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#000080"><sup>→</sup>//</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in the areas he wishes to work in per Q1. '''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, yet.
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but with insufficient experience for the admin tools at present.

'''Oppose''' per the poor speedy tagging and lack of experience in areas you've stated you'd work at. '''''
'''Oppose''' The points explained above, especially by SoWhy, can indeed not be ignored. Sorry. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose'''  The arguments by DGG and SoWhy got my attention. There's not need to rush to be an administrador when you don't have enough experience. --
'''Oppose''' - ''Much'' too soon. <b><i>

'''Oppose''' The points brought up by SoWhy are very valid and convincing. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I just can't see a reason to support. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' for now. Some problems with understanding areas you wish to work in.  Some speedy problems.  4-6 months from now I suspect I'd support.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 9; XFD is not a vote count - if it were, anyone could do it without controversy - and if we wait for a certain number of attendees then it will be more backlogged with this admin than if we left it to the other admins to close them out. And, this is where this candidate wants to help out...
'''Oppose'''  Inexperienced, with real editing only starting up in October 2008.  Shows no maturity to be an admin.  It appears that it's just another editor who wants the admin tools with no idea of what it is to volunteer around here.
'''Oppose''' per bad speedies raised by WilyD.
Candidate hasn't engaged in sufficient judgement-displaying activities to make me confident enough to support, and the poor speedies means I feel I must oppose.
'''weak Oppose''' - I don't question the good intentions, but I'm not convinced that the user has a grasp of the "big picture".  Seems eager to ''get the tools'' just to try them out.  I suspect this user will be a good admin one day, but have to fall into the "not now" group.  A little more wiki-seasoning please.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience in areas he intends to work in.
'''Oppose'''. Not yet. The CSD issues pointed out by WillyD and SoWhy are disconcerting. I would rather see editors err on the side of caution and AfD something like that.
'''Oppose'''. Good potential, not enough experience. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose''' per Wily, DGG & others.
'''Neutral''' - Good editor, but you have very few contributions to the areas that you want to work in as in admin. If this RfA isn't successful, consider increasing your edits (a couple of edits each day) to adminy areas like [[WP:HD]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:CHU]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], correct [[WP:CSD]] tagging etc., then try again in a few months. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">

'''Neutral''' If you're not willing to block indefinitely without ''ArbCom'' instructions, I don't know that you really have the temperment and self-confidence needed to use the mop.  Your app has several things to commend it, but I'd rather you spent three months working successfully in some more of the admin areas and then I'd be able to support without reservations.
'''Neutral''' Sorry I am going to stay neutral per Jclemens.
'''Neutral Leaning Towards Support''' I feel similiar to Flaminglawyer. Answer to Q 15 was good.
<s>'''Neutral for now''' - looks mostly good, but the candidate's CSD contributions give me reason to pause. However, Wadester hasn't said CSD is one of the areas he'll be involved in, so... neutral it is. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)</s> Moving to '''Support'''.
'''Neutral''' <s>I can't find much evidence of article work,</s> plus strong arguments on both sides. <font face="cursive">'''
This RfA is a tough one.  I do not think you have enough experience in administrative actions for me to support you, but I will not oppose you because I think you are smart enough to use the tools effectively and safely.  Despite my neutral stance, best of luck to you! <font  face="georgia">'''
I am going to try not to vote oppose for good faith candidates who are nearly there anymore. Per Malinaccier. <font color="navy">
'''Neutral, leaning to Oppose''' - I appreciate candidate replying to my question. The answer was not to my liking; in my opinion candidate misses the gravity of the problem and is mistaken about the utility of existing remedies. However, candidate does deserve credit for taking the time to write out a thoughtful response instead of simply dropping in some boilerplate verbiage. On the plus side, candidate is not a mouthbreathing wannabe Abu Ghraib guard, nor a ritalin-addled videogamer, and has actually lived long enough to attain the age of majority. On the minus side, I do not have enough of an idea regarding candidate's outlook and personality, or candidate's track record mediating disputes with a view towards supporting good-faith editors over passive-aggressive obstructionists, Wikilawyers, drama mongers, haters, bigots, and single-purpose accounts. Until I see such evidence, I am unable to support.--
'''Neutral''' - good faith user who would mean well to the tools of an administrator, however, his lack of experience with the areas he wants to work in trouble me.--'''''<small>
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:SNOW]], please look at [[WP:ADMIN]] and previous successful RFA's for what and admin is and what the community looks for, because admins do not help out wikiprojects with their tools.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Oppose''' Suggest [[WP:SNOW]]. The answers to the questions are vague. Suggest you take the advice of Giant27 as well.
'''Oppose''' Snow cannot be determined until after people follow a way. The appropriate term is "Not Now". Regardless. :)
'''Oppose'''. Yep, SNOW, sorry :(.

'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you are not yet ready for adminship.  I would recommend making more contributions to different areas of Wikipedia, and giving it at least a few months.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but your recent blocks are cause for concern. &ndash;<strong>
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, only three weeks editing experience and being blocked during that time leads me to believe you need quite a bit more time and involvement in the project. I hope to be able to support a future nomination.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' For forging the input in the Support section.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Forging votes is unacceptable.
'''Support'''.  I think this user will complement the current admin corps nicely.  Also, during slow days, he and I can shoot the shit about [[Olympiacos B.C.]].--
'''Oppose''' - Candidate's temperament [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zagalejo&diff=333431391&oldid=333431078 isn't] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zagalejo&diff=333432062&oldid=333431391 suitable] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Greek_Basketball&diff=333433315&oldid=333432635 for adminship]. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''': Multiple concerns.  Virtually no edits in the Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, or user talk spaces.  Almost no participation in XfD, CSD, ANI, or any other admin areas whatsoever.  Answers to questions seem to indicate that this user has little understanding of what admins do.  Also, the answer to Q3 is frankly offputting and suggests temperament problems.  You seem to be a dedicated content creator, but if you are interested in adminship, I'd recommend taking some time to become familiar with the "behind the scenes" areas of Wikipedia.  I'd also like to see some contributions of quality content (good or featured articles), and not infinity and one basketball stubs.  <small>{{conflict}}</small> — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'>
'''Oppose''' You have 38 edits to the project space... including 5 to this RFA.  You need a lot more contact with the back-end aspects of Wikipedia before becoming a sysop.  Maybe someday, but not today.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' per Frank's diffs regarding attitude and no experience in Wikispace, despite having over 30k edits.  You look like a good article builder, but unfortunately adminship is [[WP:NOTNOW|not for you at this time]]. (ec) Furthermore A3 gives me the impression that candidate might be heavy handed with the tools with editors who they deem as causing trouble.
'''Oppose''' per Bradjamesbrown.
'''Oppose''' Candidate's answer to Q1 bothers me. <s>Besides, he has made too few edits.</s>
'''Oppose''' per <s>edit count and</s> issues raised by Frank. I wonder if more can be done to highlight the futility of this sort of thing before it gets this far.
'''Oppose''' Terribly [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]].  Also nearly all edits are to the mainspace, almost never participates on talkpages.  --'''
'''Oppose''' per Q1 and Q2. Doesn't seem to be good enough to become an admin yet.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Frank et al.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' The diffs provided by Fred paint a very clear picture of what we would be in for, especially this one: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zagalejo&diff=333432062&oldid=333431391]. Wants the position for ''exactly'' the wrong reasons.
'''Strong Oppose''' If you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Greek_Basketball&diff=prev&oldid=333472744 feel this way], giving you the tools is obviously not going to help the project. You may disagree with policies etc, but considering yourself the only educated person in a sea of immature people is, to put it mildly, lacking in judgment. -
'''Oppose''', concerns about temperament, and experience. '''
'''Oppose'''.  per above.  Serious issues with temperament and experience. -'''
'''Oppose''', and then some. I honestly can't figure out in what way you ''might'' be a capable admin—you don't know what areas you want to work in, you have little experience in the WP namespace, and you have trouble getting along with others. I don't see anyone (including you) mentioning how you've reached consensus with anyone, anywhere, at any time. Your weak English language skills could be worked around, but when {{diff|User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball|333433315|333432635|you brag about how good your English is}}, I don't believe you see there's an issue here. In {{diff|User talk:Downwards|234751473|234727180|this edit}}, you wrote "I was banned for weeks from the site," but I've seen no mention or explanation of why you were banned (much less blocked).<p>In {{diff|User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball|333472744|333471820|this edit}}, you wrote "I don't understand this site at all... But the site is something like a high school maturity level." Others here have said [[WP:NOTNOW]], but based on what you've written, I'm not sure that you'll ever be ready. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>
[[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|18px]] '''Extremely Strong Oppose''' Normally with a candidate standing at 0/15/3, I would opt for 'neutral' to avoid pile-on, but the fact that this candidate's temperament and attitude seems wrong (comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Greek_Basketball&diff=prev&oldid=333472744 this] didn't help), the fact that they have almost no experience in Wikispace, the fact that they have no idea what they could do as an admin (according to Q1), the fact that when SNOW was offered, instead of taking it (when they were already standing at 0/9/2) they decided to continue with this RfA (when no one had supported them in 3 hours - which shows that the candidate has not seen how RfAs like that ''always'' end up)... I could go on. The candidate bemoans the "high school maturity level" of Wikipedia - looking through their contributions, I didn't see anything to indicate that (despite 33K+ contributions) they have added content of a higher level. I also don't see much in the way of major edits - lots of little edits (many of which should have been labelled as minor), and lots of stubs created. Let me emphasise here that I think that their contributions to the articles are good, and very welcomed. Adminship however? I'm sorry, definitely nowhere near ready at the moment, or in the foreseeable future. -- '''''
'''Absolutely not'''. The strongest oppose I think I've ever given at RfA. Insulting everybody in their own RfA, plus the other links that have already been posted clearly demonstrate the exactly ''wrong'' temprament for adminship.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' The incivility brought up here is frankly shocking... your temperament is blatantly the opposite of what we want in an administrator. <font face="Segoe Print">
If the candidate is not able to accept the opinions given by the many users above me here, without resorting to the comment below and accusing those posting here of saying they're lying, then they have no place on Wikipedia, let alone assisting the project in the role of administrator. I strongly urge the candidate to withdraw and reconsider their behaviour and the comments that have been made in the Oppose section. I'm also concerned that this RfA appears to be a result of some sort of disagreement, rather than a genuine wish to help with the administration aspects of the project, this potentially being the case as indicated by several diffs above. Finally, I'm struggling to see any comments here in the Oppose section that don't show even a basic level of civility. Civility doesn't require everybody to support this request for adminship, giving an honest appraisal of a candidate is not uncivil.
'''Oppose''': The open incivility toward PhantomSteve resulting in an audible sigh. I will quote the following from above as a concern of future incivility;  ''...I am a very civil user, so that [user not being banned] really puzzles me quite a bit'', and compare to the diffs on the Basketball pages linked by Frank demonstrating... incivility. One good mention (kind of); the "popularity" competition view of RfA! "Popularity" apparently confused for "experience". It's not popularity, it's that experience in "admin-related" areas and discussions at XfD show logic, knowledge of policy and guidelines, civility, knowledge of the encyclopedia, etc etc. Editors will look through contribution histories for those things. These are lacking, as PhantomSteve mentioned. ...Well, this is my trying to be reasonable about this. I'm pretty much "per everyone", otherwise. <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">
Just, no.  The arrogance and attitude problems are clear just from the candidate's demeanour on this page, let alone delving into his contribs.  <small><span style="border:2px solid #333399;">
'''[[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|Pile on Oppose]]''' - Extreme maturity issues, I'm to the thinking that this is definitely a minor, or someone who has no idea what maturity means. -<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">
'''Oppose''' Users is too aggressive while talking to others, and the self-admiration in this rfa-"I'm better than everyone else" attitude is concerning. --
Yeah! Let's make [[WP:100]] oppose and no support!!!
'''Oppose'''This editor has not shown enough knowledge of policy in his edits or in answering the questions to be trusted with admin tools. While I would like to see more editors with extensive article work on RfA, there must be an indication that the tools will be used correctly, which isn't the case here.
'''Oppose'''. You'd think someone with a 'supposed' IQ of 197 would know how to pass an RfA. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Decent content contributions, but the user appears to have the disposition of a child. Comments here smack of arrogance too. No thanks.
'''[[User:Coldplay Expert/RFA Standards|Oppose]]''' per the users history and the RFA itself. you IQ means nothing, Remember "[[Forest Gump|Stupid is as stupid does]]". Perhaps you should end this per [[WP:SNOW]] and try again later?--
'''Lump of Coal'''
There is nothing either in this RfA nor in the candidate's contributions to indicate that they are suited to the task fo being an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, there are too many issues, notably your lack of experience in Administrative areas of the project and civility concerns. <span style="font-family:Segoe Media Center">
'''Very Strong Oppose''' per civility concerns and lack of project space experience.
'''[[User:December21st2012Freak/RfA|Strongest possible oppose + 1]]''' - lots of civility concerns.
'''Strong, strong oppose''' I think we know why, I'm not going to re-summarize what has already been summarized. <span style="border:1px solid;">
'''Oppose''' only editors with IQs over 9000 are suitable for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Uncivil for the diffs given above, arguably arrogant for his answer to question 1; ''not'' the temperament for an admin.
No thank you, due to the obvious incivility. I had to check if this was genuine and I'm still not sure. But please try again later. Merry Christmas/new year/whatever holiday you're having. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - I almost never, ever say this, but this is probably one of the very rare examples of someone I doubt could ever be an administrator. Usually I offer some piece of advice about something that a person could do in the future to get my trust but... I got nothing. -- '''
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose''' -  Well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki_Greek_Basketball&diff=333433315&oldid=333432635 this] just bombed your RfA :(. I won't vote as I don't want to pile on, but you don't have my support ''as of now''. If you'd still like to become an administrator, please show more experience in administrative areas. Also, please watch what you say. Maybe next time. Regards,
'''Neutral''' - By the looks of things an extremely productive editor, albeit not enough behind the scenes work to be considered a candidate for adminship. I'd like to request a [[WP:SNOW]] closure. I think the message has been delivered.
'''Neutral''' - This person seems to have a big grasp for basketball-related fields on the wiki; I appreciate that. However, I expected Q1 to be more specific in what areas the candidate wants to work in. A quick look through his contributions show only a few comments to AFDs and ANI. Perhaps if the candidate could put some more time into participating in administrative areas and remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], then I would give a hearty support.
This is just another case of [[Wikipedia:Not now|WP:NOTNOW]].  An <s>new user</s> editor is requesting adminship too early.  &ndash;

[[WP:NOTNOW]]. </big><strong>
'''Oppose''' recommend [[WP:SNOW|snow closure]] to prevent further pile-on and embarrassment to candidate.
'''Support''' Appears to have a clue, and failed the last RfA years ago. I see no threat to the project. We already trust him with rollback, and his contribution history clearly indicates someone working well in admin areas. Clean block log, and history of civil interactions.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - per PhilKnight. I think it's about time that the user should be admin. Don't see any problems for awhile.
I did a review of this Wikiwoohoo's recent edits, and I couldn't find any problems. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Wikiwoohoo deleted edits] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Wikiwoohoo&namespace=6&year=&month=-1 file-space edits] reveal knowledge of the image policy; he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AWikiwoohoo has rollback], and his content edits look good. I think that "need" is irrelevant, but if he did base adminship on whether the candidate needs it or not, Wikiwoohoo's image work shows that giving him the tools would be useful there, and we need more image admins. I also don't see why short (and honest, in my opinion) answers translates into this not being a "serious" nomination and to not putting any effort towards the nomination. I have no problems in giving Wikiwoohoo the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to be a serious user, with at least adequate knowledge of policy and a more than adequate edit count and edit spread. His last RfA, which was only a failure on marginal no consensus, was two years ago, and the previous one a year before that. I do not consider a short answer or a short nomination as in any way superficial, and have no hesitation in supporting. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' '''α§ʈάt̪íňέ'''
Support, no big deal. '''
{{User:IMatthew/V}} Strongly! <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' - Good answers, very reasonable, a bit short, though. Seems like a good editor to me! '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support''' You could consider working in more collaborative areas in the future, such as [[WP:XfD]]. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>|</font>
'''Support''' I just don't find anything wrong in the contributions.
'''Support''' I see no problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck.--
'''Support''' Answers seem solid as does the editor.
'''Support''' An editor for over three years, backlog rights, clean block log, and a history of civil interactions. Adminship is no big deal, and there is nothing to suggest that Wikiwoohoo will abuse the tools, regardless of whether he [[WP:NONEED|needs them]]. &ndash;
'''Support''' Clean block log, Long experience and over two years since the last RFA '''
'''Oppose''' - I need more reasons, more justifications, and the rest. If this is going to be a serious attempt, please put more into it.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but Question is not clear. I just don't see a need. Sorry.
'''Opppose''' I have a general lack of trust, hard to explain but I do not feel you have the necessary experience, nor do I feel you have placed enough effort into this nomination. —'''
'''Oppose''' Agree with above (other than "need").  I just don't see a lot of effort put into this.  Perhaps another time.--
Admittedly I haven't looked through this user's contribs as much as I should, though I just don't think this user would make a good admin, and I can't quite explain why. His answer to question 3 makes me uneasy. he should have experience with disputes, even dispute resolution. As an admin there are many situations where it will literally be impossible to walk away from a dispute because people will follow you, nagging and hastling. This isn't the whole reason for it. Basically, go away for a bit, solve (or even just get involved) involved some drama and then see if you want adminship. Basically, per Cyclonenim.--
'''Oppose''' Not much recent talk page activity (bots excepted) + stated desire to avoid conflict in Q3 + stated desire to work in deletion categories in Q1 = me uncomfortable with this.  I have no civility concerns, and I have no doubt you mean well, this just doesn't seem like the right time.  Thank you for volunteering all the same.
'''Oppose''' -- I also don't see the effort or encouragement to be an admin.--'''''<small>
'''Tentative oppose''' - Something throws me off with this candidate, but I don't know if I could pin it down to not seeing 'effort' or 'lack of need'. If I had to put it down to one defining attribute, I guess that the answers to the questions are unsatisfactory, and leave me feeling uncertain and uneasy, but that is not my main issue, which I am having a bit of trouble expressing. Other than on the 'effort' and 'need' comments, I tend to agree with what people have wrote above. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Q5.  Any user who has had 4 RfA's should have been around the block enough to know there are plenty of times where one would block without a warning.  You're going to warn a Grawp sock?  Combine that with Q6 and Q3 and it paints the picture of an editor who has no experience dealing with controversy and so I don't believe that there is a demonstration of the temperament or judgment to handle tough situations.  Any good admin will piss someone off sooner or later, and it's important to me that someone has seen at least some type of conflict.
Sorry, but the answers to Questions 5 and 6 are missing too much to give me enough confidence. Has certainly been around a good while, but no clear demonstration to me of understanding and involvement in WP namespace edits/contributions. --
'''Oppose'''. I just recently (approx. two days ago) closed not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Category:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance&diff=prev&oldid=274583451 one] but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:AMA_Members&diff=prev&oldid=274583951 two], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=274584193 three], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Ofice_of_Members%27_Advocates&diff=prev&oldid=274584455 four], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AAssociation_of_Members%27_Advocates%2FMeeting&diff=274584715&oldid=274403493 five], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AAssociation_of_Members%27_Advocates%2FGuide_to_Advocacy&diff=274585192&oldid=274298149 six], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AAssociation_of_Members%27_Advocates%2FFAQ&diff=274585442&oldid=274302644 seven] MfD's filed by this user (excluding 4 valid MfD's I rightfully left available for comments). This tells me that the user is a bit quick on such matters, and makes me question their judgment when it comes to the wikipedia namespace. My overall point, is that with something as simple as which venue to seek for deletion, I'm left wondering what else this user has ignored. If you haven't understood the basics, you're more likely to not understand the complexities of the tasks for which you seek. Conclusion: I believe you lack the experience needed (which is surprising since this is your fourth RfA). Some of the answers to the questions show this; as noted above. '''
'''Oppose''' Wants to work in deletion but seems to have no experience at all with [[WP:CSD]]. While I usually "complain" about people being overeager, the opposite is not necessarily better. One needs to understand when to use what and I simply see no grasp of policy if one does nominate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Exploder&diff=prev&oldid=235214634 such an redirect] for [[WP:RFD]] instead of using [[WP:R3|R3]]. Also, per above. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' per Q5. We have enough mush-brained admins who can't determine when it's a good idea to block without warnings. Sockpuppets do not require warnings. Aside from that, I just get a general feeling of uneasiness reading over this nomination. I have a feeling this user does not have a strong grasp of admin-related functions.
'''Support'''. Strong vandalfighter (50% of 20k+ edits are with Huggle), I've had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Willking1979/Archive_3#your_deletion_revert positive] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Willking1979/Archive_3#Encinitas.2C_CA interactions]. Suggest you spend some time in non-vandalfighting areas- for instance, [http://stable.toolserver.org/editcount/contributions;jsessionid=de00f2213cf455587a900a09e91d?username=Willking1979&projectname=enwiki&namespace=5 your edits to Wikipedia talk] is pretty slim. However, your response to Q1 indicates this isn't where you tend to spend your time, so I won't hold it against you!
Support . along with the stated huggle edits, this users efforts have been outstanding,  I can see that its in his blood already to help us out. All thumbs up from this end :D
'''Support'''.  Obvious experience fighting vandalism.  Short answers bug me (the whole frustrated applicant thing), but the candidate's more recent contributions indicate that he has given the position thought before submitting an rfa. '''[[User:ZabMilenko|Z]][[User:ZabMilenko|a]][[User:ZabMilenko|b]]'''''[[User:ZabMilenko|M]][[User:ZabMilenko|i]][[User:ZabMilenko|l]][[User:ZabMilenko|e]][[User:ZabMilenko|n]][[User:ZabMilenko|k]]
'''Support''' has required knowledge and experience. The mistakes are more anomalous then telling, not reflective of all the times candidate has been correct. We all make mistakes; it's how we handle our mistakes that is important. Frankly, there is flood of unchecked vandalism and pages that need to be CSD'd that we are missing due to a lack of editors to check them. Any tool that helps with that process should be used. It's not the automation of the edits but decision making processes involved. Candidate has shown a lack of perfection, not a lack of understanding of when to block/protect/delete. It doesn't take an article builder  to know when to revert "poo" from the encyclopedia or tho delete pages like, "My boyfriend is awesome." I don't mind laconic answers- say what you gotta say w/o a lot of unneeded verbage. I know some participants here want to see more article building. At this point, we don't need more article builders. We need more janitors to get the "poo" out of the 'pedia, and show those who vandalize our work to the door, and to protect that work from vandalism. Cheers,
[[User:Juliancolton/RfA rationale|Support.]] Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –'''
'''Support''' very helpful on [[WP:ACC|ACC]]
'''Support'''  Slightly worried about the stress problems, but overall I'd say the evidence seems that he won't abuse the tools & won't go mad!  Full understanding of every single guideline shouldn't be needed & I think & hope that when meeting vandals etc. he can take a step back.  More vandal fighters can't be wrong!  Good luck
'''Support''', Willking 1979 appears to be a dedicated user who could make good and productive use of the tools. Overall - excellent contributions in the form of BLP patrolling and counter-vandalism work, and nothing particularly concerning from any of his edits that I reviewed. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' as candidate meets [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] by having never been blocked, but by having [[User:Willking1979#Awards.2C_Badges.2C_Barnstars_and_Milestones]].  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' We all get stressed at times, no reservations here.--[[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27</font>]] (<span>[[User talk:Giants27|<font color="black">t</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]</span>|<span>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Giants27|<font color="black">r</font>]]</span>|<span>
'''Support''' - No reservations here, would make a great admin. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great, dedicated user.  This is probably not going to pass, but don't be discouraged and keep up all the good work.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
Excellent vandalism work, excellent work as a little man, has never been blocked(as far as I can see), and the stress thing is really not that big of a deal.--(
'''Support''' - opposers raise some valid concerns, however, in all honesty, I don't believe the candidate will get into trouble performing the functions outlined in his response to Q1.
'''Weak support''' Seems like a stellar editor, will not abuse tools, the wikistress issue concerns me, but not enought to get me in neutral or oppose.
'''Strong Support''' The acknowledgment of "wikistress" is the acknowledgment of an honest individual who is not putting on an act -- stress is part of the human condition and we all have to deal with it, especially in these rough times. However, I don't see that as an admission of weakness -- it is actually an admission of strength, and the candor is commendable.  Mr. King's contributions to Wikipedia are admirable, and I am glad to support him.  Good luck!
'''AGF Support'''. Willking doesn't have a great deal of experience in certain admin areas (like AFD and CSD), but I appreciate his skill at reverting vandalism, his concern for BLPs and his general civility. As for the 'wikistress' issue, we all suffer from it from time to time, but I don't see any evidence that Willking has actually made any bad edits as a result. The worst that could be said of him is that he can be slightly hasty with protection, which isn't that great a flaw; my only advice to him would be that if an article is only being vandalised by one IP, it's more appropriate to temporarily block that IP than to semi-protect the article. Apart from that, I think he'd be an effective vandal-fighting admin.
'''Support'''. I see nothing which leads me to believe this editor would abuse the tools, and I see a lot of willingness to learn and help out. I doubt there is any admin (or any editor other than a brand new one) that hasn't misunderstood something and perhaps jumped the gun on something. That he is willing to admit he did so, and is willing to learn from his mistakes goes a long way, IMO. ···
'''Support''' A great vandal fighter and a great editor as well. I believe that this user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I have no problems with this user being granted admin status. --
'''Support'''. I see no reason why the candidate would abuse the tools. A very dedicated editor, in my opinion.
'''Strong Support'''. This looks like a trustworthy long-term editor, and I see no great threat of him abusing adminship.
'''Support'''.Strong support here, Answer to number 12 is thought out and good. (The question was based on [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The cheapo/Archive]]). My support for admin is defineatly here. Good luck
'''Support''' Does good work.  I have confidence this editor will make a good Admin.
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to think that Willking1979 would abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing - they do not convince that candidate would abuse the tools, nor do they convince that candidate is unfamiliar with the specific uses of admin powers that he proposes to undertake. <strong>
'''Support''', I don't consider extensive article work to be a requirement of adminship - user is fine.
'''Support''', I'm not convinced by the opposes either.  No evidence candidate would abuse the tools.
No evidence that candidate will abuse tools. <strong>
To cancel out some of the curious oppose !votes.
'''Support'''. Anyone who opposes it is completely [[incivil]].
'''Support''' User doesn't have much experience in writing articles for the encyclopedia (which is why Wikipedia exists), but he appears to have [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and I do not believe he'll abuse the tools. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support'''. Great job vandal fighting.--''
'''Support''' - I've read the oppose !votes, but remember [[WP:BELLY]]. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- I need to check the "unreliable liberal source" assertion, then I'll either remove the "tentative" or move to oppose. Generally good answers to Qs.--
'''Support''' Per the comments above. Good luck.
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter.

'''Oppose''' per weburiedoursecretsinthegarden.  If you can't handle stress without the tools, I don't know how you would react under stress with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Wholly unsatisfactory answer to my question.  Users who present such extreme views should expect to be challenged on them and on their ability to stay NPOV.
'''Oppose''' Willking1979 edits primarily with automated tools, which gives me little opportunity to judge him as a potential admin (his understanding of policies, etc.). Additionally, if he's facing stress issues as a vandal fighter, he's going to face a lot more when/if he becomes an admin and I doubt he can handle it.
Per Nakon and Keepscases, I don't think you'd make a good admin. I will probably oppose in a few months time as well unless I see some serious changes.--
'''Oppose''', echo concerns by {{user|Nakon}}, {{user|Antivenin}}, and others, about temperament. '''
'''Oppose''' per Antivenin, Cirt, and concerns expressed in the neutral section.  You do great anti-vandal work but the concerns brought up by others are causes for alarm.  I would be happy to support in a few months and more experience.  Sorry, <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Oppose''' per answers related to content creation and content review (questions 8a, 8b, and 8c). I'd like to see more experience in new article creation, more participation at peer review of others' content, and more content review by others of your new or heavily-edited articles. --
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently. <sup>[[User:DougsTech/RFAreason|see here]]</sup> -
'''Oppose''': Insufficient content creation experience.
'''Oppose''': Lacks content creation and mostly automated tool use. And to head Stifle off at the pass, I think content creation should be primary responsibility here with Admin duties as one of those "if you happen to come along and encounter it" type things. A large section of the admin corps at this time seems to do more of the adminning than content creation. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Oppose''' - I don't think candidates need to write featured articles to become admins, but some article writing is needed.
'''Oppose''' for now, per answers to Rosiestep's questions.  This is a judgment call, and I'm sympathetic to the positions of the supporters, but there are things that happen along the wiki-journey that tell us things that we need to know before handing over the mop, and I need to see more writing and/or copyediting and/or reviewing before I'm comfortable making a call.  Give it a try, and then do [[WP:ER]] in 3 months, I might be willing to support at RFA then. - Dank (
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry, I can no longer support admins without well-developed content skills.  It's clear we have allowed a profound problem to develop in our community by not placing enough emphasis on this. --
'''Oppose''' Quite shocked by 8A to be honest. You can't have the mop if you've never pissed on the floor yourself.
'''Oppose''' The reason Wikipedia exists is to make, well, articles. You don't unfortunately have enough I feel article/content experience yet, to be able to properly fulfil the role of an Administrator. You're definitely on the right track--but just not quite there yet. Have you considered trying to do a few GAs (FAs are hard, and hardly any of us actually pull that off)? Spend more time on AFD? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' You seem like a good guy, and I certainly don't think you'll go crazy upon getting the tools, but I don't think you have the experience I look for when supporting candidates. As many have said above, we're here to write and improve articles, and I think that experience is needed in that area before you can become an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' not enough work in XFD and related areas. Also, the answers to the questions do not strike me as well thought out. Communication skills are important for admins. While perfect grammar and diction is certainly not a requirement for adminship (or we'd only have a handful), your answers leave me feeling the same as after reading someone's resume with typos in it. This latter point may be petty, but it certainly didn't indicate to me that you were putting forth full effort to obtain the bit.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in both Xfd's and content creation. Admins should be familiar with these aspects of the Wiki since all admin tools basically revolve around it. --
'''Weak oppose''' I'm not supporter of self-nomination.--> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''No Support''' — While I don't outright oppose your adminship (your heart is in the right place, and you have some good experience), I can't support it either. I don't think content creation is as critical as some people seem to, but I understand the comments that mention the experience you gain during the process of content creation. You come across more as a tired vandal fighter looking to relieve a little stress by using some additional tools. I prefer someone who comes across as a seasoned Wikipedian, well versed and experienced in a variety of areas or else someone who is an expert in a field and looking to take on more responsibility there. I don't sense either of those in you. Sorry. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Lack of content creation. Mediocre answers. The answer to question 5 is especially worrying.
Per PirateSmackK. Also creating less than 1 new article per 10,000 edits seems a little odd, how do you manage that? —
'''Oppose''' Per answer to number 10, and user boxes, I would have liked to see user distances themselves from admin actions on all articles they are ideologically attached to.  Since did not immediately do so, user does not have my trust.
'''Oppose.''' The superficial answer to question number five and the complete misunderstanding of [[WP:NPOV]] concerns expressed by me and several other editors have persuaded me to move from ''neutral'' to ''oppose''.
'''Oppose.''' As edits are primarily automated, I cannot with certainty sort out contributions made otherwise. Also the defensiveness in response to query 5 is questionable. It was meant to be a question the was slightly provocative and you missed the chance to shine there in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' – needs some more experience in the deletion field, which can be obtained my patrolling [[Special:NewPages]], checking articles at [[CAT:PROD]], and participating in [[WP:XFD|XFD]]s and [[WP:DRV|DRV]]. Also per concerns the others raised above about content building. While I'm not huge myself into creating new articles from scratch (and I would not oppose any RFAs solely for lack thereof, unlike the others above), there are also plenty of [[:Category:Stubs|Stubs]] that can also be expanded. Try and get some articles up to [[WP:GA|GA]] or [[WP:FA|FA]], and also work on [[WP:DYK|DYK]], which coincidentally complements article creation and stub expansion.
'''Oppose'''. I question the candidate's ability withstand an excess amount of stress. If vandals can push you into thinking about semi-retirement or full retirement without having the tools, I can't begin to imagine the stress you'll face as an admin, let alone your thoughts and actions. — '''''
'''Oppose''' per unacceptable answer to question 5. '''
'''Oppose''' - Need more manual edits. >50% edits as automated doesn't really show the experience an [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] needs. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10#top|M]][[User talk:MC10#top|C]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[Special:Contributions/MC10|10]]</font>&nbsp;<font color="#1E90FF">&#124;</font>&nbsp;<font color="#4169E1">
'''Oppose''' Candidate doesn't yet have the necessary breadth and depth of experience, activity and contributions; answers to Qs on content creation are somewhat iffy; grammar is somewhat slopppy. Also NPOV concerns as summarized per Keepscases, especially in view of the candidate's response to TharsHammer's oppose re their belief that their userboxen are ''not "extensive personal opinions"'' - unless an admin says otherwise....
'''Oppose''' In my view user needs to show more work without tools.
'''Oppose''' Needs more work with XFDs, tools ect. A good article editor, but not suitable for Adminship just yet. There is room for improvement. Sorry
Good work but this killed it for me: "I have felt stressed at times by vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers. I have thought about semi-retirement and even retirement."  You'll have a lot more than that pressuring you as an admin.
Agree with Garden. I feel uncomfortable supporting someone who gets easily stressed by such people because adminship means having to deal with them much more often than he has to now. And if the candidate thinks about retiring as a user because of them, it might mean he will retire quite soon as an admin or, in the worst case (not that I assume this will happen!), misuse his tools when handling those problematic users. Regards '''
Moved from 'reluctant oppose' because of Dlohcierekim's support rationale and Willking's answer to my Q4. I still can't support, though.
'''Neutral''' per above, leaning towards a weak oppose.
'''Neutral''' - I don't mind the stress thing or the lack of extensive experience in article creation (the two articles you created seem to demonstrate good knowledge). Looked over approx. 100 recent reversions and only found one mistake[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ziploc&diff=prev&oldid=289994523]; 1% mistake rate probably doesn't translate to potential sloppiness when blocking (alleged) vandals. Currently neutral solely due to answer to Q6: one should at least do a cursory search for references before AfD nomming an article for lack of references. Not a big deal, but it concerns me that an admin wouldn't at least make a minor effort to see if references exist in such a situation. -
Temporary neutral - I don't like your lack of serious content editing in BLP related areas, which causes me concern. I also can't seem to place how I know your name.
'''Neutral''' Per Garden. As you get more responsibility comes greater risk and if your response to stress is retiring or semi-retiring, why do you need the tools?
'''Neutral'''. I don't doubt he'd do a good job with the tools but, as far as I can tell, there's just not enough of the constructive content building kind of editing going on. Not that that, for one second, should discourage the vandalism patrols, but between Huggle, Twinkle and Rollback, there's not a huge amount he'd be doing that he doesn't do already.
'''Neutral''' > I'm not a big article-writer myself, but I've created a fair few, and done heavy maintenence on a few more. You, on the other hand, seem to have practically no mainspace contributions other than dealing with vandalism and, while that's important, so is some experience in dealing with content and the content policies. Could I suggest finding and joining a [[WP:Wikiproject|WikiProject]] covering a subject of interest to you? It's a great way to get practice and ideas. Good luck! <font color="#A20846">╟─
I am going to echo Garden's concerns about the statement, "I have felt stressed at times by vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers. I have thought about semi-retirement and even retirement."  While I understand the feel to become less active, I do not think that having such a "weak stomach" for vandalism is a good quality for an administrator because you will see a lot of vandalism in your time. Sorry, '''
'''Neutral''' per not enough to oppose, but concerns for the candidate compel me to not support:  While I trust your judgment, and I would truly prefer to support, I must offer this reasoning for my !vote.  Having seen how the destructive forces can work at Wikipedia, and it is an area in which you wish to work - I believe that any excessive elements of stress, which administrators often must endure, could be a determent to your wiki-career.  I would rather ''keep'' you as an editor, than ''loose'' you as an administrator.  I would offer you a possible suggestion: continue as you are, ''but'' at the very first indication of stress, relocate your efforts to another area of WP such as NPP, copy-editing, sorting, etc. until you feel refreshed enough to return to your first preference of vandal fighting.  Then return to RfA in a few months time, continue to be honest and show the integrity you have here, and I will gladly support you.  I wish you all the best. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>
'''Neutral''' I don't know. Awesome edits, but 10K with huggle? I have no problem with huggle, but, when 50% of your edits are from huggle...--
'''Neutral''' Not at all worried about the userbox as someone who has had one of his userboxes completely misunderstood in the past. Userboxes do not indicate bias; mainspace edits do, and I have been given no evidence to believe you have a conservative bias in your editing. I am concerned about your statements about stress. Perhaps you should reevaluate your reasons for wanting to be an admin and come back in a few months time.
'''Neutral''' - The answers to questions aren't overwhelmingly good, but I don't see as many problems as some others seem to. One userbox is no issue; I don't generally feel that should be a [[Litmus test (politics)|litmus test]]. Having said all that, though, candidate has stated (and re-stated) an estimate of 5% stress level, without having admin tools. The bit is, on the one hand, tiny. On the other hand, it is surrounded by [[:File:Target logo.svg|big red and white circles]] which change the equation in a big way, and I don't think that a starting point of 5% is appropriate for an admin. I'm certain I'm not the only current admin who has received threatening emails directly from vandals and wannabe-vandals, including one this very morning...it happens frequently and we need admins who aren't stressed out. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral.''' Not satisfied with the given reasons why xe wants this position. The Huggle tool and/or the Rollback tool is enough to fight vandalism.
'''Support''' - Like your secret pages answer, and you seem like a good editor \
'''Oppose''' While you've been here for a while, your editing stats show that you've made very little edits to the WP namespace or collaborative areas.  Looking forward to support next time. :)  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE>׀</font>
'''Oppose''' Too few edits; while you've been here a while, you're clearly not very active, which is important for an administrator. I'd encourage you to come back after another thousand edits, and hopefully you'll have been into some conflicts by then (not that I really wish it on you, but you'll need the experience). [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/

'''Oppose''' - Per above and for claiming to want to use the tools primarily in their area of interest.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, too few edits to be able to say whether or not I'd trust you with the admin tools. Also, it looks like you copied parts of your nomination statement and answers from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Colds7ream]].
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry, but I do not think that copying another editor's answer to Q1 verbatim was a display of sound judgment. It makes me wonder what administrative work '''you''' want to do (since the above was Colds7ream's answer to that question, not yours). Feel free to respond. <tt>
'''Oppose''', would like to see some more experience in varied capacities. '''
Per Jafeluv. - Dank (
Per Jafeluv. --
'''Oppose'''. per Jafeluv and imatthew.  Sorry.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' - You seem like a good faith-ed editor. It's very likely this RfA will not pass, as I noticed your lack of experience in administrative areas. You have good intentions, and I suggest that once/if a fair amount of oppose !votes build up, you withdraw and try again at another time. Also, if you really plan on working this RfA, you need to write a better self-nomination statement. Simply signing it will get you opposed. <font face="cursive">'''
'''Support''' per my [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA]] standards as an article builder who should be able to figure out how not to delete the main page or block Mr. Wales.
'''Support''' - I doubt this will pass, and I would really like to see more experience in admin-related areas, but we have to ask ourselves: can we trust this user not to abuse the tools? The answer is clearly "yes". &ndash;
'''Strong Support''', great user. If he hasn't talked at ANI or anywhere like that, I could care less.
'''Support''' While I'd like to see a bit more experience in the areas you'd like to work in, your record shows me that you are a productive and dedicated editor that we can trust to learn the areas you would be working in. <b>'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate has no blocks and due to no memorable negative interactions elsewhere.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Correct answers to questions shows he knows what he's doing.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE -->
'''Weak support''' - Per [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]]. <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color="#9966CC">-</font>[[User:Download|<font color="#7B68EE">down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color="#9966CC">load</font>]] <font color="#7B68EE">|</font>
'''Support''' per [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dloh]] and [[User:Neurolysis|Neuro]]. [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|&rarr;]]'''[[User:Dylan620|<font color="red">Dyl</font>]][[Special:EmailUser/Dylan620|<font color="orange">@</font>]]
'''Support''', you show good faith in all your interactions with editors that I have reviewed. I think that is far more important that extensive knowledge of policy. You deserve a chance!
'''Weak Support''' per Net Positive. The admins who say that he has good CSD work are enough to bring me from neutral to support. <font color="navy">
'''Weak Support''' - technically meets my basic standards, but I'd like to see more admin-type work already.
'''Support''' User has already proved his admin-worthiness and would make a great admin. Good luck
'''Weak Oppose''' You're a great article builder, but aside from edits to [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] and WikiProjects, you have 2 substantial edits to the Wikipedia namespace.  I suggest working in more administrative areas.
'''Weak oppose''' I agree with Sam. You are a good editor, but I never saw you in admin areas. Moral Support. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' The article-building experience is good, but adminship requires interaction with other users to a degree that I don't see much evidence of here.  And while you're right that conflict avoidance can be a good thing, the fact is that admins exist in large part to settle disputes in one way or another.  So some significant evidence that you're up to that task is really necessary for the community to fairly evaluate you.  Hope this is helpful.
'''Oppose''' Little work in the admin-type areas and interactions as above.  (
'''Oppose'''. Weak answers to questions, little to no experience in areas where editor plans to work with admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - Virtually no experience, and the answers to the questions demonstrate this.
'''Oppose''' — While the editor is clearly constructive judging by the contribs, I see a lack of experience and knowledge in areas where good policy/guideline knowledge and and making related judgments come into play, such as participating in XFD discussions. Also per poor responses in questions 4 through 9, especially 6.
'''Oppose''' Though I think you have made good contributions, in your intended specialty of fighting vandals you have admittedly relatively little experience. I think that you should start using Twinkle or some other anti-vandal script(s) as well as doing things by hand to show your knowledge of reversions, what applies as CSD, Prod, or XfD, as well as other related policies. After you gain significant experience and knowledge in this field I think you'll make a fine RfA candidate.
'''Oppose''' Shockingly unprepared for RfA.
'''Oppose''' - I find the answers not convincing, sometimes plain wrong, and although I don't doubt the good faith of this editor I'd feel uncomfortable if he had the bit. I think more experience is needed. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Oppose'''  Lack of experience in areas where the user wants to participate. Due to the fast pace nature of [[WP:AVI]] is important to have strong knowledge of policy.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Although the usually faceless, online environment works surprisingly well at Wikipedia, one thing I've noticed doesn't work is to count on people to get involved in some new project when they say they're going to.  I'm really not comfortable taking the candidate's word that, some day, he'll start making a significant time-investment in admin-y things.  (It's too easy to screw up without putting in significant time.)  But this was obviously the right time for him to come to RFA, partly because he might just pass (fine by me, I trust the supporters), and mostly because even if he doesn't, he's getting great support and advice, above and on his talk page. - Dan
'''Oppose'''. WWEYANKS52 doesn't have a good enough knowledge of the policies yet.
'''Oppose''' Answers to the questions aren't convincing. Also lack of activity in areas the user expressed to work in. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Unsatisfactory answers to the questions, lack of policy knowledge and little to no experience in areas the user plans to work in. If the candidate continues to contribute, expand their policy knowledge and work in admin-related areas, I'm sure next time around will bring better results.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience in admin areas, and some bad answers to the questions, specifically 8 and 9. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' I don't see a real need for the mop, nor do I see a wealth of experience in policy or actually even a good understanding of said policy; I also expect much more in the way of edit summaries. Sorry, but whilst I don't see a trust issue here, I also don't see the point of you getting the bit. You may one day have what it takes, but the preceding and the answer to question 6 tells me [[WP:NOTNOW]] '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose''' I seldom leave my "neutral" section, but this is one case where I feel I must oppose. I'm going to give the following advice: Work in admin-ish areas (XFD, ANI, AIV, etc.), get some policy knowledge, and keep up the good work in the articlespace! So for now, not now. Remember that "not now" ≠ [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <font face="terminal">
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) - agh, I feel bad about doing this, since I initially supported (in a hasty rush to judgement). On further inspection, I don't feel confident that I can trust this user with the admin tools. There's no evidence that he'll ''abuse'' them, but his knowledge of Wikipedia policies is poor, and he lacks experience in areas like AFD. I advise him to go and learn more about our policies and structures, and hopefully by the next time he runs for adminship, I'll be able to Support (and stay there).
'''Oppose'''. The candidate needs greater familiarity with policy and admin areas. You may very well make a good admin at some point, but you need additional experience. Keep up the good work.
'''Strong Oppose'''... Just because you work creating new pages about MLB players (great work with that!) you don't get to delete new pages. Deleters who work with [[Special:NewPages|new pages]] MUST know [[WP:PROD]], [[WP:AFD]], and, most importantly BY FAR, [[WP:CSD]]. I didn't see any of that in your last 1500 contributions. I also didn't see any manual edit summaries. That is crucial if you are an admin. You need a '''''ton''''' of work in the "adminy" areas. Try again in a few months. '''<font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose'''; low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' answer to question 6 is easily researchable, if you were to become an admin, you would need to research policy as needed, not demonstrating that is a killer for me.
'''Oppose''' - don't see a need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' Too many valid concerns have been raised above. Also, answers to my questions are not quite satisfying. Sorry. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' I don't see much experience in the admin related areas, or even the mainspace to feel comfortable with you having the tools.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Not nearly enough experience with the Wikipedia policies. Try again after a few months. :) Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but, you don't have enough experience in wikipedia related areas and you don't seem to have many substantial edits to articles, although keep up your good work with article building. Possibly try again in a couple of months and I'd probably support, all the best. '''
'''Oppose''' per above amd no answer to various questions above.
'''Oppose''' but with recommendation to apply again. You seem to have the right attitude, but with your answers to the questions you seem (to me) to lack the knowledge of policies and the actions of an administrator should take and what circumstances are difficult choices for admins. I disagree with this line of thinking, but there are a lot of people here who will not even consider your request without much more experience across the board. However, I do think you need more research in adminhood and policies, you could start [[Wikipedia:List of shortcuts#Policy|here]]. --<font style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 10px;"><b>
'''Oppose''' I was only leaning towards oppose based on [[User:DoriSmith/onRFA|my criteria]], but the editor's actions (or inactions) since this RFA started have convinced me. He hasn't touched this page since 19 Feb, and it's not as if he's been so busy off-wiki that he doesn't have the time. He's still editing, and still without any edit summaries. Does he even remember that this RFA is in progress? I hate to pile on, but he's not paying attention and not ready.
'''Oppose''' Not answering the optional questions isn't a reason to oppose, but is seldom a good reason to support. However, the answers that have been given don't imply to me an editor who has really thought this through or is familiar enough with core policy.
'''Oppose''' Fully agree with what has been said above. Keep working on your articles, slowly build up the policy knowledge and you'll improve immensely as an editor. &lowast;
'''Oppose''', No answers, no vote.
'''Oppose''', I know you mean well, WWEYANKS52, but I think you will need a few more months of experience and a better understanding of the Wikipedia policies before you can become an admin.  Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Stongly Suggest Withdrawl'''
'''Oppose''' per questions.
'''Oppose''': I am not enlightened by the answers to the questions or your editing history. <small>
Like many stated above, you are a good faith editor, but you lack experience in many Wikipedia areas. I recommend before nominating another RfA, improve your work on Wikipedia such as in [[WP:XFD]] and [[WP:ANI]].--'''''<small>
Couldn't possibly oppose, but couldn't support with your lack of activity in admin areas. Please come back in a few months with some experience and I'd be happy to support pending no issues. —'''
'''Neutral.''' I agree with iMatthew here, but really such a scarce nomination and the fact you say you haven't experienced any conflicts  doesn't bring up a good gut feeling about this RfA. You do have quite a good potential, but it seems you have yet to work on using it.

'''Neutral''' Commendable editorial input, but inadequate admin-related experience and unsatisfactory answers to the RfA questions.
'''Neutral''', I've not run into any red-flags that suggest you'll be a ''bad'' admin, but to be honest your vague answers to the questions combined with your lack of WP-space discussion means I can't really say you'll be a ''good'' admin either. I'm happy to support those that steer clear of the project-space parts of Wikipedia, but in their case I do ask for some reasonably enlightening question answers to demonstrate that you know our policies, you just choose not to get involved. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I do not think you have enough experience in the projectspace.  Try checking out [[WP:ADMIN]] for administrative areas that admins participate in for experience.  If you get this experience and run again, I will definitely support.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' - Your heart is in the right place but I don't think you are ready to be an admin. You pass quite a bit of [[User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria|my criteria]] - you are established, have a good history as a contributor, and attitude is fine. The main issue here is knowledge (k.c. 9), while I do not expect candidates to know everything about policies/guidelines/adminship they should have a reasonable grasp of the key parts, I am not convinced you do yet. I would also suggest making better use of edit summaries and the minor edit check box on the side note. Good luck.
'''Weak Support''', I would have preferred to see you warn a much higher proportion of  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slip_knot&diff=prev&oldid=303413994 the vandals who you you revert]. But from what I could see you have a commendable mix of vandalfighting and some article work - I learned something from [[color mixing]]. Experience is on the low side by modern standards, but it is varied and by the standards of "before RFA was broken" is enough to show you can be trusted. ''
Sorry, as far as I can tell, all your contributions are through Huggle or useless edits to your various subpages. No content contributions either. For a vandal-fighter, I need lot more than 2000 edits to support. \
Afraid I have to agree here, but I can't see much in the last 500 edits apart from Huggle and edits to your userpage/s. Sorry. <font face="Forte">
As above.
'''Oppose''', as per above.  I can find very little in the candidate's contributions which is neither automated nor very minor fixes.  If you want to revisit this at some point, try to get some breadth between now and then; I would personally find it hard to support a candidate who does nothing but vandal-fighting in any case.  --
Regrettably, I must oppose. While you seem fairly knowledgeable, I'm afraid you've just don't have the experience I've come to expect at RfA. I think we need more vandal-fighters, and I encourage you to keep up the good work, but as Backslash noted, your contribution history lacks sustenance. I'm not asking for you to write an FA; in fact, I don't really care whether or not you've written any articles. In a few months' time, if you have some more overall experience (ideally including participation in admin-related areas), I'd be happy to reconsider. I really don't like opposing anybody, so I hope this rationale comes across as reasonable. –'''
Improper use of rollback [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Age_of_Reason&diff=306891407&oldid=306891365 here]. Suggest snow close. (Note that this was a simple error, but in the hands of an administrator could be a ''huge'' error for a variety of unfortunately political reasons)

'''Oppose''' Per iMatthew. He did a good job explaining. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' as per above. Either a significantly greater portion of contribution to articles, or an even greater significant number of edits/rollbacks. I applaud you anti-vandal work and your rollback rights should suffice for now.
'''Moral support but overall oppose''' There is a lack of experience and knowledge of policy. I think this is a [[wp:Snow]] and [[WP:NOTNOW]] sorry <B><font color="green">SparksBoy </font></B>(
I am concerned that your approach to countering vandalism is militant and unbecoming of an administrator. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - No problem at all with your methods or history, it's just that there's not enough of it. 2300 is a really low number, and though I hate hard guidelines, that number is just way too low. Put in more time, and come back. There's a lot to do here without being an admin.
'''Moral Support''' - You have shown that you want to be an editor and not an admin. I am supporting you in your intent to be an -editor-. If you need help, many of the people who will respond to this are very knowledgeable. I would contact them and ask for assistance. I am sure a few will be willing to help.
'''Moral support''' Per Ottava, you mean well but please read [[WP:ADMIN|this]]. Cheers.--
Per [[User:NuclearWarfare|NuclearWarfare]].  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
User is not ready yet. Come back soon in a few months (4-6, maybe). <small><span style="border:1px solid #960018;padding:1px;">&nbsp;
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Strongly suggest withdrawing.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - user has good intentions but will need more experience to become an admin. Sorry. -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose with moral support''' I'm sorry, but per [[WP:Notnow]]. Sorry and keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' Way under qualified, and too many administrators currently.

'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm is running ahead of your experience, but your sincerity is greatly appreciated. Good luck, and keep doing what you are doing!
'''Oppose''' I saw the candidate accepted on their talk page, but they haven't here yet so I am not sure if I should oppose yet, but I will be bold and just say it.  It is obvious this candidate is off to a good start, but emphasis on start.  Out of 1444 edits, 328 have been automated.  The candidate also has a history of reverting users without warning them.  The candidate has also only really been active a little over a month.  With more manual edits, more experience, and giving proper warnings, I could support this candidate a few months down the road.  As it is yet, there just isn't enough to judge trustworthyness just yet.--
To be completely honest, I am starting to regret this. But don't let that think I will downright oppose you nor approve. My word of advice is to withdraw this nomination for your sake and not mine. If you choose to take chances then I give you these words, "I wish you '''[[luck]]'''." <big>☭</big>'''
'''Support''' per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]] in that candidate's user page suggests nice picture contributions and in that candidate has never been blocked.  Plus, I'd rather not have any good faith user not have at least one support.  Best, --
'''Moral support''' - You're a good faith user with good contributions - if you sort out the sort of issues being mentioned in the oppose section your next RfA has every chance of going much more swimmingly than this one is. Don't be discouraged. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>—&nbsp;
'''Moral Support''' <sup>(editconflict)</sup> '''<font face="Segoe Script">
'''More moral support''', as I don't believe there are enough admins to serve in certain areas and you seem an appropriate choice. --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]]
'''Support''' Seems okay to me, we have a lot of admins going inactive or semi-active (including me) so we are in need of admins.
Sorry, but if you're willing to revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisexualism&diff=prev&oldid=280963603 this] as vandalism along with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A82.149.1.199&diff=280964889&oldid=280961302 a level three warning], you're far too hairtrigger. I appreciate you apologised when the editor complained, but for every editor who sticks round to read your apology and accepts it, there will be more who are driven off in disgust (I note that this editor hasn't contributed since). And quite frankly, if you think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dosanjh,_Punjab_(India)&diff=prev&oldid=281977580 this] is a legitimate {{tl|prod}} tagging (less than two hours ago, not in the dim-and-distant past) there's no way on earth I'd trust you with a delete button.''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Tahoma"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescent those are some scary links, no way that "vandalism" warranted a level three warning. Add on the bad prod, and you've got an oppose.--
'''Regretful Oppose''' I would support but Iridescent brings up some strong points.  The bad prod is, unfortunately, enough for me to vote oppose.  While I really like the contributions you have made (mainly in pictures), a lack of understanding in Wikipedia policy is not a quality of an admin.  Perhaps in a few months and more experience...Sorry -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' Sorry but too little experience: Soxred's tool shows 56% of automated edits and about 75% of all edits were made in the last 5 weeks. Only limited content building and experience in the project namespace beyond AIV is in areas that have little to do with sysop tools. (and of course, the two diffs of Iridescent do not help...)
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
Per Pascal.Tesson. - Dan

'''Regretful Oppose'''  I think you need more experience, but are on a good road to adminship.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Oppose''' - With only ~2000 "human" made edits, and while still making mistakes with ~2000 "assisted" edits, I don't think you're ready. The poor grammar on your userpage doesn't fill me with confidence either. It also seems a little soon since your last RfA.. Adminship isn't a prize, just be cool and run with it. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per download.
'''Oppose''' edit count seems artificially inflated in the last few days. Also, I do not trust an editor with the delete button who makes such mistaggings: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson_High_School_%28Jackson,_Ohio%29&diff=prev&oldid=280094840 G1 for school], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandford_Park_School&diff=prev&oldid=277439054 G1 for school], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Floyd_%28mathematician%29&diff=prev&oldid=274185083 A7 for professor at notable university], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Annie_B._Jamieson_Elementary_School&diff=prev&oldid=274179441 A7 for school]. '''
Oppose; doesn't understand the basics, like the principles of categorisation.
Sorry, but you're not ready yet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandford_Park_School&diff=prev&oldid=277439054 This] article is most certainly not patent nonsense. I'm also concerned that you lack knowledge in the field of notability (which leads me to question your knowledge of policy in general). I'm not terribly concerned by your excessive use of Huggle, but from what I can tell, you have little experience in admin-related areas. Overall you're doing well as an editor, and I'm sure you'd make a fine administrator come several months from now. Regards, &ndash;<strong>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry ZooFari, but I must go along with Iridescent. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' To avoid an Oppose pile-on. Besides, this is a well-intended offer to help.
We need more admins, but SoWhy's diffs prevent me from supporting.
From here, it looks like ZooFari will make a great admin if he keeps improving & learning in the next few months. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Neutral''' We need more admins, and I hope you become one this summer,  but sadly your CSD tagging is currently below admin standards. Please be a tad less trigger happy, and come back in three months. Remember when you are new page patrolling if in doubt use hot cat and categorise rather than CSD tag. PS those are great photos! ''
I've seen you around - excellent image work. I think you'll do fine. '''
Seeing you around leaves me with a good impression. --'''
'''Support''' not every admin, or admin candidate has to be involved in AfD.  The mop has many uses.  Candidate seems entirely suitable.--
'''Support''' Seen him around. I actually thought about nominating him once but didn't have the time. Good luck!
clean block log, civil editor, and takes nice photos [[commons:Category:Images_by_ZooFari]] ''
I am not convinced by either Pedro or Majoreditor; IRC isn't necessarily bad (though I don't use it), so long as it isn't used to discuss things that should have transparency (i.e. admin actions). I guess I can understand the argument IRC user - immature admin, but I don't buy it; for me to be convinced that somebody's not mature enough to be an admin, I'd have to see examples of immaturity and poor judgment. I see his comment about RfA candidates as a good thing, because it shows he's cautious of biting newbies - which is a huge plus when considering that he's going to work at CSD, where a trigger happy admin can turn away many potentially valuable editors.
'''Weak Support''': seems like a good editor despite immaturities..
'''Support''' Seems okay to me. Encouraging more civility and sensitity at RfAs shouldn't be punished, even if the phrasing wasn't perfect.
'''Support'''. No reason to believe they would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I agree with those above and I to those naysayers, whoever doesn't make a few mistakes on this site shouldn't even be an administrator.
I thought hard about this one.  The bottom line is that the user seems to be a nice person, is reasonably experienced, and appears to be willing to accept and adopt to criticism (at least based on my superficial research of their contributions).  The SVG work is fantastic.  Like ChildofMidnight, I also liked the RfA talk comment even if it was worded poorly.  The big niggle I have is the paucity of substantive articlespace contributions.  If this RfA is successful, my suggestion would be to stick to areas of expertise (images/files for deletion, etc.) initially --
'''Support''' - Seems a good candidate.
Very good interactions; I've always thought him to be a nice candidate. <strong>
'''Support''' no reason to think they'll misuse the tools.
{{User:Belinrahs/support}} Looked over contribs and I see no reason to be alarmed. Pretty impressed actually, I think you'll do fine with the tools. ['''
'''Support'''
'''Moral Support''' I think your on your way, but not quite there. However, I don't want to pile-on below, so Moral Support.
''"I was on the IRC channel the other day .."''. Nope. Bad thing. Rational arguments against my oppose only please. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Your recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=316333030&oldid=316330540 comment] at RFA talk disturbs me: "''I would like to ask RFA to moral support or don't vote at all."'' Suggesting that editors shouldn't provide an honest assessment just doesn't feel right. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned that this editor sees adminship as a goal in and of itself. Wanting to be an administrator for the sake of it does not a good administrator make.
'''Oppose'''  Agree with above, it seems the "adminship" is just the next level up in his work. '''
I immediately had a bad feeling when I saw this RfA for an initially unknown reason, until Majoreditor posted his oppose. That thead struck me as slightly clueless in regards to this users knowledge of this process, and I'm concerned that his involvement in RfA only began recently, far too close to opening this request. It almost feels to me like ZooFari is trying to jump through hoops to get the mop. To top it off, I don't see any creation work. Feel free to point some out, but I don't think it'll convince me to switch from this oppose. Best of luck, anyway. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">
'''Oppose''' With 56% of this candidates edits being automated, I have concerns that this candidate is too dependant on AWB, and I see little interaction with others (approximately 5% of his edits), plus I see very little CSD work, or deletion work in general.
'''Oppose''' - Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=316333030&oldid=316330540 this] demonstrate a problem, and it generally feels like the editor at hand sees adminship as a goal. Sorry. <b>—&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''  I am totally and utterly with Pedro on this.
'''Oppose''', agree with concerns raised above by {{user|Neurolysis}}, {{user|Pedro}}, and {{user|Craftyminion}}. '''
'''Oppose''', your userpage seems myspace-y, you have mainly automated edits and I haven't seen anything to tell me that you don't hold the "'us vs them (vandals)' is 'good vs bad'" mentality that often happens to some vandal fighters. I don't know what [[User:ZooFari/Inspection/Srinivas|this]] is intended to do but your somewhat suspect coaching makes me more skeptical of whether you have that level of clue. Sorry. '''\'''
'''Strong oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=316333030&oldid=316330540 This] shows you're coming from the [[WP:ESP|wrong end]] of the ballpark. People's feelings are important, but they should not trump practical concerns. I don't find it especially productive to gingerly hop through a figurative minefield just so someone won't have an emotional boo-hoo, and especially dislike those who are all too ready and willing to use their emotions as a bludgeon. Candidate definitely needs a good amount of time to substantially evaluate his guiding philosophy - whatever that guiding philosophy may be - and determine whether or not there may be a more appropriate, perhaps more nuanced, position to adopt.
'''Very Strong Oppose'''.  per all the above.  I'm interrupting my Wikibreak to oppose.  The diffs and points brought up by Neuro, /\, Pedro, and Crafty are all very concerning.  Apart from having a high proportion of automated edits to manual edits and a low interaction level with other users, I found this highly disturbing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASrinivas&diff=316250433&oldid=315304697 diff] and [[User talk:Srinivas/Archives/2009#Ready for inspection?|banter]] between Zoofari and [[User:Srinivas]].  In these conversations, Zoofari openly admits to [[WP:SOCK|socking]] while acting like a "faux" admin coach.  Clearly, Zoofari is completley, if not totally oblivious to many of our core policies.  I don't mean to be "bitey" in any way whatsoever but I strongly feel that promoting this user to sysop would be highly detrimental to the project.  -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">'''
'''oppose''' the "coaching" diffs provided by backslash forwardslash and Fastily show that the candidate is  not ready.  (indeed, that's something that probably needs some admin action.)
Mainly per Pedro. Your initial comment suggests this rfa was done "per IRC", when it really needs thought first. I also think you have unclear interpretations of policy. I'm afraid I have an uneasy feeling about handing you a mop, sorry. As someone who recently went through rfa, I know how stressful this can be. Don't be discouraged. You do good work, some more time is just needed. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose''': Your writing style is unclear enough that I find some of your comments ambiguous or hard to understand. I believe that admins should be clear, precise communicators: perhaps you could work on this area and then try for adminship again.
'''Oppose''' per most of the above, sorry. I suggest waiting at least 6 months, maybe a year from this RFA to try again, and demonstrate improvement in all of the areas brough up above. Also, approach the next RFA (if there is one) from the position that being an administrator would enable you to improve Wikipedia more effectively, not that being an admin is a goal in and of itself. <font color="forestgreen">[[Special:Contributions/Theseeker4|'''The''']]</font>&nbsp;
Per Majoreditor.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Too many valid concerns raised by other editors.
I feel strongly enough about this one that I'm logging in to oppose. "I was on the IRC channel the other day and my adoptee encouraged me to run an RFA" would do it anyway, but given that it's only a few days since your "everyone should support everything so we don't hurt peoples' feelings" posturing, I have not the slightest confidence in your judgement.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Neutral''' - Hard to get a feel for your knowledge of deletion policy, as there are very few AfD !votes in your contributions.--
I am interested in neither supporting nor opposing. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''
'''Neutral''' per my own communication concerns.
If [[User:Malinaccier]] hadn't asked Q4, I would probably have done it myself, and I am a bit surprised by your answer. More often than not, I find that your sentences are awkwardly structured, making it difficult to understand what you're trying to say. As an administrator, you will often have to communicate with users who speak English as a second language, such as myself. To avoid misunderstandings, it is very important that you express yourself with clarity. Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I think this is something you should try to work on. If you're interested, I'll gladly highlight a few examples of what I mean and provide a few suggestions on how you could improve. Regards, <tt>
The opposers raise valid concerns, to the point where I don't feel comfortable supporting; however, I'm not entirely convinced that you'd be a net-negative if promoted. Thus, I remain neutral for now. Pedro's oppose, while blunt, does have merit; I've got nothing against IRC (in fact I use it regularly), but it should ''never'' dictate on-wiki actions. We all screw up occasionally, but I think you need a bit more experience in terms of becoming more familiar with WP's policies/guidelines/norms. –'''
'''Neutral''', the points raised by the oppose camp are valid, however I am unable to oppose currently. Neutral for now. --
'''Neutral''' <small>(moved from support)</small>, the points raised in the oppose section are concerning, and I am leaning toward that direction. You're also somewhat light on experience in other areas, i.e., CSD (there weren't very many speedy tags when I looked through your deleted contribs, and they were generally "simpler" cases like R3). I also see a lack of [[WP:CLUE]]/knowledge about how things work. To me, most of the oppose reasons are valid, with the exception of "IRC". Many candidates, who decide to run for RfA partially after conversing with other Wikipedians on IRC, could easily have mentioned that in their answers/nom statement. It's only the savvy ones (who know enough wiki-politics) who known to refrain from mentioning "IRC". Sorry, but this looks like chastising the ones who are less aware of "unspoken" things. Off-wiki communication shouldn't truly influence actions/decisions on-wiki, sure. Although there's nothing wrong with communicating with others (via chat), giving suggestions, helping each other, and chatting about Wikipedia. There are some interesting conversations, but mostly nothing of substance, so the lack of transparency ''usually'' is not a big deal. ZooFari's off-wiki conversation with another, influencing his decision to re-run for RFA, is nothing to be alarmed over - it happens all the time, like I said. This seems like a very weak basis to oppose over - persuade me if I'm missing something. :)
'''Conditional support''' you are [[WP:NOTNOW|not quite ready]] per opposes below. However, you are off to a good start so keep it up! '''<font color="navy" face="comic sans ms">
'''Moral Support'''. Adminship shouldn't be your goal on Wikipedia, and judging by your edits thus far I'd say it is. Try spending time improving the encyclopedia, by either writing articles (fun!) or working on vandalism patrol (not as fun, but needed), and return full of knowledge in 4-9 months. :) '''\'''
Sorry. [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&name=ZooPro 179 edits] is not enough to inspire confidence in your knowledge of policy, site norms, and general Wikipedia practices. →&nbsp;
Per Roux. Additionally, most of your contributions are to your userspace, so you have very little experience with the project itself. Please contribute to the encyclopedia for six months or so, and barring any major issues, I'll reconsider my position. –'''
Mainly for not enough experience, but some minus points for not reading the self-nom directions fully.

'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooPro]] could have been used here, as it was never closed or even had any votes! Just getting my vote in early because I suspect this will be closed off before you get to answer my question. Any way the reason for my oppose is that you do not seem to have done very much.  You should try out a wide range of activities so that you can get an understanding of what can be done, how to relate to people, how to handle a difficult situation.  You should nominate some for WP:AIV, nominate article for speedy delete in various different categories, do new page patrol, assist users on one of the many help areas, do more article editing, disambiguation work, wikification and clenaup. I see some positive things such as sandbox, user page, joining a project.
'''Oppose''' per Roux and others with concerns regarding number of edits. Now that I'm over 1000 edits I'm just finding out how much there is to learn here. Best of luck to you in the future, however, should you wish to pursue this.  We have had some great candidates come through in the past week, study their qualifications to get an idea of what is being looked for. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per many of the concerns expressed above me. You do have a good mix of different types of edits in the various namespaces, just not anywhere near enough to have the experience required. Keep up the good work, and try again when you are much more seasoned. -
'''Oppose'' Per Crockspot.[[User:Abce2|<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2</font>]]|<small>[[User Talk:Abce2|<font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">''This is''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per Roux --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' Sorry; you have only a small fraction of the experience and knowledge needed to function adequately as an administrator. Try again when you have amassed something around 3,000 edits, distributed over all or most of the encyclopedia. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' per Roux. --
'''Oppose''', would like to see a bit more experience first. '''
You may wish to close this, you are unlikely to pass.
For all the reasons stated above, I cannot support a RfA at this time. While I understand the desire to help the project as an administrator, we really need proof of your experience and skills. your talk page shows good signs, you are a participant on multiple WikiMedia sites, are a member of the [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit|Counter-Vandalism Unit]], but I noticed that you blanked your talk page manually with an edit summary of "archiving" I can see no achive listing in your page. Also you said you were an IP editor here for two years, providing us with the approprite IP, if it was a static IP, would be useful. Good Luck.
'''Neutral''' To avoid piling on, good luck next time around.--[[User talk:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants</font>]][[User:Giants27|<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">27</font>]]([[Special:Contributions/Giants27|<font color="black">c</font>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Neutral''' per Giants27.
Was a great admin before, and will be again. Experienced with images.
'''Support'''. What Acalamari said ;).

Of course. <font face="Broadway">
Why not give them back? -
'''Support''' - definitely. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' and welcome back. My only reservation that because the user left adminship in good standing and is eligible to reclaim it by simple request to a bureaucrat, this RfA is an unnecessary expediture of community time.
'''Support''' I am pleased the ^demon is applying again, and even more pleased that he is doing it in the democratic way, through the voting process. Sadly, too many admins take their rights for granted.
'''Might as well.'''
'''Support'''. Largely because of the answer to Q5. --
Quite experienced, no past significant issues with use of tools.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' per Malleus. Newyorkbrad, and all the rest.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Why wouldn't I say yes when I see that you've collected 12 other votes?''' <font face="terminal">
'''Support''' - <sarcasm> despite the fact that I'm [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive102#My_Observations|just another elitist bastard]]. </sarcasm>  Speaking deliberately, I think that there is a role for an agitator in the community - and while I think that sometimes ^demon reacts before he considers all the consequences, I know that he has the best interests of the community at heart and will often say the things that need to be said by someone, however unpopular they are.  -
'''Support''' - ^demon certainly wasn't the worst admin we had when he left, he's done some fantastic work with his tools. I do see some legitimate concerns in the oppose section, and I encourage ^demon to read these carefully before he takes any administrative action should this RfA succeed. All in all - the positves far outweight the negatives of ^demon regaining the tools.
'''Ditto''' ^demon's already demonstrated ability to do the job well, which is the primary selection criterion.

Strongly.
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent, Welcome back...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. I was disappointed in several of ^demon's actions before his resignation (specifically the alma mater category situation), but I don't see anything that cannot be corrected or that would prevent him from using the tools responsibly. -
'''Support''' - ^demon was and will be an excellent admin.
'''Support '''and the moral of the story is never use RfA for reconfirmation, since the community can be relied upon only to be predictably petty and vindictive. You never abused the tools, so you should get them back, and we should not waste our time discussing it.--
'''Support''' - not least because of your answer to Q5.
'''Support''' Deserves a second chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seen this user as a good user, deserves the mop. And the incivility concerns in the oppose section dates back to last October and November. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. The number of toes stepped on seems proportionate to the number of administrative actions taken here. Certainly there are some things that could have been handled better, but the standard here is not perfection (or shouldn't be, until RoboAdmin 1.0 is out of beta-testing). He did good work; controversial decisions are not the same as abuse of the tools. '''
'''Oh yeah''' To paraphrase MastCell, the number of toes, how big those toes are, and the sensitivity of those toes are all proportionate to the number of admin actions... Gosh I hate this reconfirmation stuff but it's worth it for this guy. I do worry a little that you might not enjoy it very much - you didn't seem to, last time around? ~
'''Support'''. I still trust ^demon with the mop, which is what really matters. Regarding the opposition over "drama", ^demon has specifically stated his intent to avoid such entanglements and I see no reason at all not to [[WP:AGF|take him at his word]]. Regarding complaints about supporting Veropedia over Wikipedia, such complaints are (<u>in my own view</u>) <s>patent nonsense</u> unconvincing. The Vero' crew improves articles '''on Wikipedia''' according to Wikipedia's own rules and common standards, so I fail to see how there's anything resembling a conflict of interest or a deprecation of Wikipedia. On the related free image thing, Wikipedia ''is'' supposed to be based on free content and there's even a Foundation-level policy related to that. (Plus, ^demon has been consistently clear on his fair use position, long before Veropedia was around.) Thus, the opposition provided seems entirely unconvincing to me.
'''Support''', user did well with the tools in the past. As for the "drama" concerns, Wikipedia is more or less nothing but. Not going to single this user out.
Ultimately, an asset to the project.
'''Support''' - Seems like we should have more admins with his sentiments.
'''Support'''. I remember ^demon as a good admin, and I'd like to see him help out again. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Natch
Per Acalamari.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Trustworthy and honest.
'''Support''' Has been a very good admin; I have had several positive interactions in the past, and no negative ones. If I were in doubt, I would be swayed by the support votes of such serious and sound editors as [[user:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] and [[user:Riana|Riana]]. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. ^demon is an intelligent user who never abused the admin tools. I typically take a dim view of unnecessary self re-noms like this one, but ^demon is too good an editor to oppose on such grounds.
'''Support''', the comments made in the oppose section, such as by Pedro, are true - however, this does not mean I don't trust the editor to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and trustable with the tools. A good editor who I can trust and believe the project will benefit him having the tools (again). Good luck,
'''Support''' the +'s outweigh the -'s.
Although the reasons for ^demon's wanting the admin back are a little weak, I have to '''support''' based on his past record. [[Image:padlock-pink.svg|15px]] &ndash;''
'''Support''' Is prepared to take the hurt when knowingly going in harms way - whether it is bravery or foolishness is unimportant, there needs to be an element of the sysop grouping that will do it for the best interests of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - nothing's more obvious than the fact that the longer you're around, the harder it is to gain adminship. But I suggest getting another hobby, ^demon.
Qualified '''support'''. Like others have pointed out, the good far outweighs the no-so-much in the course of several years. One or two misjudgments won't and should not simply cancel out years of great work. However, going against consensus in the aforementioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_November_7&diff=170099576&oldid=170097532#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater_and_subcats_.28closed.29 CFD discussion] is not something that an experienced admin should feel free to do IMO. I don't agree that it was appropriate to pull an [[WP:IAR|IAR]] on that one, particularly in light of the fact that a previous nomination for deletion resulted in a keep. —
'''Support''' As much as I oppose pointless reconfirmation RfAs, I can't turn down admins willing to work with images.
yes -- <b>
'''Support''', definitely. '''<font color="#ff9900">
[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive102#My_Observations|Strong moral support]]. User:
He's incivil, sometimes trollish, often acts against community consensus, certainly against the wishes of those who've bothered to comment. But the fact that he actually told AN the truth is enough. With due respect, it seems the opposition are those who were hurt by his abrupt manner of calling a spade a space, which is something we need now as much as (if not more than) ever. ''
I wondered where you'd been. We could really use more admins that are willing to work with images.
'''Strong Support''': On the basis of his past admin behaviour, especially when combined with his answers to questions 2 and 5.
'''Support''' - unlikely to misuse or abuse the tools. Should be able to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and keep a cool head.
While I probably wouldn't say it in the same way, I think he makes some good points. He was previously a fine administrator and will again serve the community well. -
'''Support''' – respected ^demon as administrator before and look forward to working with him again. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.
See neutral below by Maxim. Though I support, I agree with that. &ndash;
'''Support''' fully qualified and clueful.
'''Support''' - No reason not to that I can see.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Very experienced with image work, and gave up the tools voluntarily, so should be able to have them back.
'''Support''' - As far as I'm concerned, he's capable of being '''re'''granted admin tools.--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]]|
'''Support''' Experience is always a valuable thing.
'''Support''' - per answer to Q7, and despite rouge tendencies; speedy deleting an article by [[Jimbo Wales]]!
'''Support''' Great editor that I've seen around for a long time now. Good luck. <b>
'''You resigned?''' '''
'''Support''', ^demon never broke the Wiki when he had tools before, and I don't think he'd do it if he gets them back. Glad to see him coming out of retirement! &spades;
'''support''' For most interactions I've had with ^demon I've disagreed with his opinions. And yes, he can sometimes be a bit extreme and sometimes makes hasty or poorly thought out decisions. That's why we have things like DRV. ^demon was a very competent admin who is clearly dedicated to the project.
'''Support''' - yup -
'''Support''' - no history of abuse, admits to errors, has valuable experience.
'''Support''' Bearian pretty much said it all, but I also believe "once an admin, always an admin". ;) (In mind, at least!) &mdash;
'''Strong support''' not least on the grounds of disagreeing with some of those who oppose on the grounds of your views on certain policies.  Opinions, on-wiki or off-, are not a ground for refusing adminship.
'''Support''' ^demon is one of the good guys.
'''Support''' - I appreciate your work.
'''Support'''. ^demon has already demonstrated his ability to handle the admin. tools responsibly, and for the benefit of the project. Whilst it is indeed suprising to see him reversing on his earlier, rather high-profile decision to retire from metapedian activities, I cannot say I feel ill towards it; rather, I look forward to the prospect of ^demon regaining the tools he used to such a huge extent. Chad has demonstrated enormous wisdom, including in his previous activities with [[m:OTRS|OTRS]] and as [[WP:MEDCOM#Chair|Chair]] of the [[WP:MC|Mediation Committee]]. Likewise, he has produced some enormous improvements at the Veropedia project, in his role as something of a (as I gather) "head developer"—he's largely responsible for the implementation of the single user login being rolled out there. I have absolutely no qualms about supporting his request, although I would not go so far as to rubbish the opposer's concerns: particularly, I do think ^demon can be somewhat dramatic at times, and may benefit from, shall we say, taking his work with a little less seriousness? Similarly, I can sympathise with the view that ^demon can be a little "gung-ho" in his approach. However, these are minor concerns, and are definitely ones that he can work on. Best of luck, Chad—I am confident in your ability to contribute as an administrator in a project-benfiting fashion.
'''Support''' per Sam Korn. ^demon served well as admin previously.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] mostly. —
'''Support''' I don't believe the OMGdramaz are as serious as opposers are suggesting. <b>
Please just ask for the tools back in future. We have enough processes and non-article pages already. We shouldn't be adding to them unnecessarily.
Perfect example of a unneeded RFA, but still, hard worker against fair use, obviously need the tools.
'''Support''' - Yes. --
--
'''Support'''. One of the good ones.  &#10154;
'''Support'''
[[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup>

Per exactly what Acalamari said. <span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' Was a good administrator before. No reason not to be an administrator now.
'''Support''' Undoubtedly a good admin; we need more like him.--
Everytime I see ^demon do or say something, he seems pissed off at something. I dunno why that is, but he says he wants to continue the work he was doing before. I believe that's what caused him to quit in the first place. Also when he requested desysopping, he asked for it to be impossible to be an admin on any WMF project again. But here we are. I think you'd be better off as a normal editor for your own sake, at least for a few more months. '''
'''Oppose''' ''Way to much'' "OMG drama" and previous wholly negative interaction. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Pedro.
'''Weak oppose'''. Sorry ^demon- I do like you, I think you're a nice guy, but it's what Majorly said- you always seem so ''angry''. I think you're also a bit unpredictable- silly little things you do occasionally. For instance, blocking yourself. It made me laugh at the time, but I think you're a time-bomb. However, this is only a weak oppose, because, for the most part, you made a great admin.
'''Oppose''' - Per Pedro. I've also witnessed similar attitude.
'''Strong oppose''' A drama machine with consistently poor judgment: nominating RFA for deletion (as a tactic to force a reform discussion, when he didn't feel like using the talk page)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=162267837], speedy deleting [[Mzoli's]] (which ended up being a massive embarrassment for the project and could have easily been avoided with a little politeness and patience), deleting the Wikipedians by alma mater categories (700 of them!) against a strong consensus (his delete closure was never carried out, because it was swiftly and overwhelming overturned at DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_November_7&diff=170099576&oldid=170097532#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater_and_subcats_.28closed.29].) Pointless incivility [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest&diff=prev&oldid=174822241 "Oh come off it Anthere. Not a single one of your proposed theories as to why this is bad makes any sense to any thinking person."]  The rudeness of the post is especially stunning in light of the thoughtfulness and openness to discussion of Anthere's previous post. <s>Supports Veropedia's content policies over Wikipedia's.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=176999340]  </s> Edit warring at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest&dir=prev&offset=20071016182142&action=history WP:WBNOE].  I didn't even look through his contributions, these are just incidents I remembered off the top of my head, and knew where to find quickly. --
'''Weak Oppose''' per Pedro and J Milburn. Normally I'd be all for re-sysopping, but your actions and attitude have shaken my confidence. Sorry.
'''Weak, Weak Oppose''' I'm not really against the user, but rudeness does prevent me from supporting. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Erratic behavior, doesn't seem to believe in the project.--
'''Edit conflict Oppose'''. TBH, I have no idea why you're here, per Majorly. Plus, constantly annoyed admins can be hard to work with, sorry. <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Oppose''' per Majorly. Too much drama. Sorry. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Oppose''', per Majorly. --
'''Oppose''' - Per Majorly, Pedro, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183622796 this]. I think this user's userpage sums it up.
'''Oppose''' He declines to answer the questions everyone else seems happy to, and I decline to support him.
'''Regretful Oppose''' It pains me to say so, but the incidents that JayHenry brings up are disconcerting enough to make me honestly feel you are untrustworthy. Sorry, but the fact that even many of your supporters call you an "agitator" and recognize the legitimacy of some of the oppose claims doesn't exactly stem the tide either. What we need are admins that dutifully and courteously act in the best interest of the project and, most importantly, can reliably enact a consensus (even one that defies their own personal feelings). Diffs provided here strongly suggest you have a hard time doing this.
Protest oppose against the general trend of reconfirmation RFAs and community infighting instead of encyclopaedia writing. Also per Majorly.
'''Oppose.''' Overly bureaucratic, non fun-loving. Users who go through reconfirmation RfAs unnecessarily are not fit to have admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Has a tendency to lash out at people and make a bad situation worse... The Mzoli's meats AfD is still burned into my head, although I see now it was longer ago than I thought. Needs more time, I think.
'''Regretful Oppose''', ^demon gets himself involved in a lot of unpopular work that nevertheless needs to be done, and I thank him(?) enthusiastically for that.  However, my observations of him indicate that he used to do it in a rather dour and humourless fashion.  I really don't think this was necessary, and I don't see any evidence that you've changed in that regard.  Some of [[User:Majoreditor]]'s diffs above also indicate that occasionally you can be reckless with the tools, not something I really want to see in an admin.
'''Oppose'''.  Assuming Good Faith, the question still is, Is this another "[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive102#My Observations|test]]"?  --
'''Oppose'''. User had shown a total disregard for community consensus and abused the admin tools when they had them. Apparently not strong enough to handle criticism and seems volatile at times. Not suited to regaining the position. --
I don't believe ^demon currently has the temperament to be an effective administrator.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, too much drama involved and disregard for consensus.
'''Oppose''', uncomfortable with behavior, views and attitude.
No. I'm sorry, I don't think I want you back as an admin, bearing in mind the other opposition. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Try again after being a "user" for a few months. --
'''Oppose''' Was highly active in image deletion, but in the same time span shows far, far less activity in the form of fixing imperfect rationales so that they wouldn't need deletion.  I'd rather have image processing admins who want the encyclopedia to have legitimate content than high speed deleters that aren't applying judgment.
'''Oppose''' per GRBerry. Your bias against [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]] policy concern me a lot.
'''Reluctant oppose.''' I don't like to oppose candidates since adminship is supposedly "no big deal", and even moreso for a previous admin who voluntarily surrendered his rights. But I see what I consider abuse of the "delete" button (deleting against consensus, speedy deleting a brand new article by an (*ahem*) experienced Wikipedian). And my only major criterion is whether the user seems likely to abuse the tools. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. Confrontational attitude (yes, I know this is a case of [[WP:KETTLE]], but that doesn't make me wrong). I recall an incident several months ago (I don't have time to find the diffs now) when [[User:hmwith]], who was not then an admin, asked him about a fair use image (I believe it was a baseball team logo, or something like that) which he had deleted, despite the fact it was used in an article. He ignored her, and when she asked me to try and deal with the issue, he ignored me. I initially thought it was an error (since he was receiving a lot of talkpage messages at that time) so I notified him a couple more times, but he still ignored me. Even if this was a mistake, no admin should be deleting images at such a rate that they don't have time to respond to people questioning their deletions. Admins need to be able to be accountable for 100% of their administrative actions. (I'll find diffs for this incident later; I'm very busy in real life at present, hence why this is my first edit in two weeks.) If I were feeling particularly vindictive, I'd support him anyway because of the Mzoli Meats incident (I have no idea who was right/wrong on that, but I am not a big fan of the Foundation or the wiki-elite), but in the end, the best interests of Wikipedia are more important than my own personal feelings, and it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to have ^demon as an admin.
'''Oppose''' per above, especially the image deletions. An admin should be able/willing to explain his actions, especially to new editors. Too many admins assume "but somewhere in this whole thing I was deleting a fair use image" is a blanket excuse for absolutely any kind of behavior (and too often the community buys that). Do we really want more admins who ignore reasonable questions about their admin actions? -
'''Oppose''' While certain amounts of skepticism are useful in admins, ^demon has this in large enough amounts to damage his ability to work with other Wikipedians. I hope that ^demon will stay with the project, but I think that it is best that he contribute as a user and not an admin.
'''Oppose''', for a number of reasons - 1) in principle (I will continue to oppose all reconfirmation RFAs), 2) because demon^ cannot be trusted with the delete button per the various examples above, 3) because he's rude and confrontational (again, see various examples above), 4) because we really don't need the additional drama, 5) because he seems to be unstable, and 6) because he only half-tells the truth in this very RFA self-nomination statement (as he indicates [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&diff=prev&oldid=780801 here], he revoked his right to "ever obtain any usergroup on any Wikimedia project beyond that of 'user'").
'''Oppose''' While I believe ^demon has genuine talent and concern for administrative duties, I feel he lacks sufficient civility in dealing with other users, especially when there is sharp division in viewpoints. I would be happy to support if he demonstrates an improvement in this area. --
'''Oppose''' as per ''JayHenry'' above.  The alma mater incident especially gives me too much pause in trusting this editor with the mop again.  --
'''Oppose''' Per JayHenry. A few too many concerns here.
'''Oppose''' Per concerns raised above, especially those raised by JayHenry.
'''Oppose''' Just too many concerns.  If you had the ability to be re-sysopped (as is my impression) without an RfA, why didn't you?  This RfA is wikidrama that could have been avoided.  Because of that, I have no reason to believe that future wikidrama wouldn't follow from your contribs where wikidrama was not needed.  Opposing, sorry.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose'''. A productive editor certainly, but has clearly shown through past administrative behavior that he should not have been trusted with the tools. Abuse of the delete button cited above is certainly bad, and general incivility/drama-creation makes that much worse.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I have to go with an oppose as per JayHenry and Pedro. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per reasons stressed by WaltonOne ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2F%5Edemon_3&diff=192110981&oldid=192106247 diff]) and Majorly ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2F%5Edemon_3&diff=191858084&oldid=191854933 diff]). I also am supplying diffs (& a timeline of events) for the situation of which

'''Oppose''' per JayHenry and GRBerry.
'''Oppose''' per GRBerry.  "Calling a spade a spade" is a fine thing to do, and I support that practice.  I don't see ^demon's conduct as embodying that principle, however; rather, behavoir strikes me as too often erratic and hasty, embodying little principle at all.  Since I'm happy to "call things as I see them", I have no reservation in sharing my honest judgment here.
'''Oppose''' per the multitude of issues raised above.
'''Oppose''' to quote someone else,''"Those who can, create. Those who can't, delete."''  Too many deletions, too little contructive discussion.
'''Weak oppose for now''' I am a bit concerned about all the references to assorted pieces of drama, even from supporters. I am a bit concerned about lack of actual article creation as born out by [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=%5Edemon&site=en.wikipedia.org]. I am think some more time in the trenches producing content would actually be a good thing, particularly when I see almost no activity in the last 3 months. This does not mean I would not support at a later date of course.--
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about the rudeness level that I have witnessed with this editor. I think h/her editing is not even an issue, but an administrator should show [[civility]] at all times. Even in times of great stress! Best of luck!
'''Oppose''' Have not had good interactions with this user. --'''
'''Oppose''' due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=162267837 frivolous MFD].
'''Oppose''' Has deleted to many images that were really useful. This users attitude toward me wasn't exactly what I expected.[[User:Swirlex|<span style="color:Red">'''S'''</span>]][[User:Swirlex|<span style="color:Orange">'''w'''</span>]][[User:Swirlex|<span style="color:Yellow">'''i'''</span>]][[User:Swirlex|<span style="color:Green">'''r'''</span>]][[User:Swirlex|<span style="color:Blue">'''l'''</span>]][[User:Swirlex|<span style="color:Purple">'''e'''</span>]]
'''Oppose''' I do not think contraversal people should be admins, but can be productive members of the community.
Protest neutral. This is a pointless exercise. ^demon, you should have asked at the 'crat noticeboard and avoid this drama. If you're so confident not to answer the standard questions, why not just ask a 'crat? I don't see the point of this RfA, and frankly, I think this is unnecessarily disruptive. The candidate is obviously trusted, IMO, as he was long-tenured sysop without any major controversy, he's a Veropedia programmer, and he did a bunch of OTRS and media requests before.  '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Neutral''' - It would have been one thing if the candidate had not burned bridges and just asked for the bit back. As [[User:Maxim]] points out, candidate would contribute to the project immediately at a very high level of experience, competence, and expertise. Not to sound snarky in this proceeding, but I believe candidate has discovered a third official way of losing sysop rights: C) resigning the bit, and then misjudging community approval during a re-run for adminship. I'm inclined to suggest the candidate withdraw right away, and come back to this process in three months with a degree more regard for this sort of proceeding, which is a measure of trust ''and'' confidence.
I thought ^demon was a good admin. However, I find it odd that although he "[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&diff=prev&oldid=780801 revok[ed his<nowiki>]</nowiki> right to ever obtain any usergroup on any Wikimedia project beyond that of 'user'.]", here he is. I think you were a good administrator, but you seemed so strongly opposed to ever become an admin again, I'm a bit worried. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Neutral'''. Good work, but a little too much drama and rudeness. I'm thinking some time later would be better. '''''
I'm sorry, I just can't support here.
Great answers and plenty of experience, but I think in his prior admin work ^demon tended to push his own views over others far too aggressively. The [[:Category:Wikipedians by alma mater]] business (see [[Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater_and_subcats|the CfD]]) is one of the more extreme examples. I don't want to oppose for a variety of reasons, but foremost because I think editors who go through scrutiny tend to use the tools more responsibly. —
'''Neutral''' Great guy, but I just can't support. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' even though I supported the original request.  The project is better with ^demon than without him, but the tone of anger in the RFA reform controversy and in the comments when he temporarily left us call into question whether he can handle the stress of adminship.
'''neutral''' - while adminship is supposed to be no big deal, it clearly is a huge status thing here in this virtual community.  I'm concerned that ^demon realized that his previous resignation was too much of a status let down.  --
'''neutral''' - undecided, might still be swayed either way.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but at this time I just can't support. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Neutral''' - Even though ^demon is someone who I respect greatly, some of the issues raised here are worrying. He was a very good admin in many actions but his temperment is what prevents me supporting. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Neutral''' - I can't get past the feeling that this is just a big joke, or social statement, kind of the same as nominating RfA for deletion. Doing something to get maximum attention, and maximum drama. Handing over the mop in a manner designed to create drama, and then asking for it back in a manner to create drama.
'''Neutral''' - I've seen a fair amount of good work from this Wikipedian. My only concerns are about "speedy" actions which possibly should have not been so "speedy", as it were. That said, I'm not thrilled with several of the oppose commenters above who opposed due to (paraphrasing) "He deleted something I wanted kept", which I hope are discounted by the closer regardless of how this is closed. -
'''Support''' Hell Yeah! (as nominator) I am not even gonna wait for his answers to the questions before I say yes.  Actions speak louder than words anyhow.   &mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I have admired 52 Pickup's editing since I first encountered him in 2006. He has continually impressed me with his level-headedness, impartiality, and technical savvy. I believe he would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. After reviewing Pickup's [[Special:Contributions/52 Pickup|contributions]], it is clear to me that he meets the required standards of civility and trustworthiness, as well as the technical editing ability, to be granted access to the administrator tools. I am confident that issuing the sysop. flag to 52 will benefit the project as a whole, and I am happy to support his request. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''' Nice editing, can handle the mop constructively. <strong>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. 52 Pickup needs the tools.
'''Support'''.  It's a real shame that I've never come into contact with you before. Looks like MJC has run into a winner here.
'''Support''' I think you could make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Weak support''' - trustworthy editor, however your answer to Q1 could be improved slightly.
Wherever I have come across this user's contribs, he looked [[WP:COOL|cool]]. No problems that I could see. User:
''' Support''' Track is oaky with over 3000 mainspace edits no concerns.The user's track shows civility.
'''Strong support.''' I am absolutely convinced this candidate will not misuse the tools, and there is a definite need — considering all the work on now-protected templates! Strong, strong support. --
''' Support''' The user is trsutworthy and productive editor and certainly is working towards the improvement of articles. Will most likely continue to improve after adminship.--
'''Support''' - 52 Pickup will be a benefit to the project as a sysop.
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Although he may need to study up and doesn't particularly need to tools, I see no reason why he would misuse them.  Fine contributor.  <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">
'''Support''' the answers to my questions quell any concerns I might have had... and per my wife ;-)
'''Support''' I believe that this user will be a very good member of the Admin team. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;background-color: white;color: blue;">
'''Support''' 52 knows his stuff where it matters the most - and that is where often he needs to rely on admins to make the final edits for him. As elsewhere he has proven trustworthy I can only see benefits from him becoming admin. <small>why did I not think of nominating </small>
'''Support''' I really can't say anything that hasn't been said already so I'll just let my vote do the talking. '''''
'''Support'''. I like what I see and I find the oppose arguments alleging a lack of policy knowledge to be unconvincing.
'''Support''' Give him the mop. '''
Yea, give him the mop. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Strong support''', extremely helpful and nice user, great template wizard, I was planning to nominate him myself. Excellent long-term commitment to good content too.
'''Strong support''' -- "support" because  I think his answer to question 17 addresses the "oppose" concerns and "strong" based on his overall record and his answer to question 16. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - [[User:Bearian/Standards|meets my standards]], although I prefer more consistent edit sumamry usage.  No worries here.
'''Support''' – I know we a tendency to look for the perfect editor to give the [[WP: Administrator|Administration Tools]] too and have to say honestly looking at [[User: 52 Pickup|52 Pickup]] edit history, reviewing the '''Support''' opinions, and yes the views of the '''Oppose''', this nominee has come danm close to the perfect candidate.  Good Luck to you and if you need a nominator, if this round fails, let me know, would be honored to place your name in contention again!   <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''SUPPORT''': I have looked through his user history located [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=52+Pickup&site=en.wikipedia.org here] with over 3,700 edits in the mainspace, checked out some of his userpage history and has been acting with honor as can be seen [[User talk:124.181.45.106|here]]. I am confident this user would not abuse the mop! Good Luck, [[User:52 Pickup|52 (card) Pickup]]--
'''Strong Support''': I looked through your answers to the questions and briefly through your edit history, and I think you would make a Great Sysop! :)
'''Support''': He may not use the tools as often as others might, but judging by his contributions and ethic, I believe that whenever he does, he will have benefited Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - I'm sure you'll make a decent admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:BanRay|<font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''Ban'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Clearly fair enough!--
'''Support''' contributions seem find, answers a good... seems right for the job <b>
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', brilliant answers. <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - Changed to oppose after linger in neutrality for a bit. My rationale is as follows: While this user is a brilliant editor, 1. Wikipedia namespace contributions are lacking and confined mostly to project pages (reflecting great editing skills once again) 2. The answers to the questions, per Pedro, seem to reflect a misunderstanding of key policy points ''prior'' to answering. Also, the answer to Q12 is a little bothersome. Prior to an RfA, users will be inclined to "study up" on policy or admin related guidelines for "preparation", and while this is good practice, this is not an exam. It's also suggestive of a candidate who wasn't exactly ''ready'' to be nominated. Sorry, but I must oppose. Good luck though!
'''Oppose''' - As users have already said, the user's answer to some of the questions have made me very skeptical about whether he really knows the key policy points from practice, instead of from just "studying up", as Wisdom89 said above this comment. In addition, most of his work seems to be with templates. After that, he seems to be concerned with his FAC. He does not show much of a need for the admin tools. Maybe if he had more experience in AFD and if he participated more in vandalism reversion, then he would have enough experience to know what he was doing when it comes to the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[User:Wisdom89]]. Answers to questions are a bit weak, and seems to demonstrate a lack of hands on experience related to admin duties. I am not sure i see a need for the tools.
'''Neutral''' Good answer to Q17. Very good. I'm sure you'll be okay, despite my misgivings on block/ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Nom --
Nom --<big>
Support -- Addshore is quite knowledgeable about Wipipedia. He also adopts a lot of new users, something that's sorely needed. --
'''Support''' - With so many edits and such a long history of quality edits, this man must become admin! He has my support and respect!
'''Strong support''' Excellent vandal-fighter who will make a fantastic administrator. Good luck! <font face="Arial">
'''Strong support''' - Do I trust this user to use the admin tools carefully and thoughtfully? Yes. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' Have worked with him extensively and he clearly understands what is required of being an administrator. '''
'''Support'''. Most concerns from the last RfA have been addressed; user now has much more experience in many more Wikipedia arenas. Oh, and as long as you never type "e.t.c." as an abbreviation for "et cetera" again. :-)
'''Coming out of Wikibreak support''' - user has plenty of clue. &ndash;
I've seen him around I guess. Seems like a solid editor, contributes only for the good of the encyclopedia, not for self=gain. &mdash;
'''Huggle'''. '''
'''Support'''. Has been around since Dec 2005 and has over 34000 edits with over 14000 mainspace and see no misuse of tools as per track.
'''Support''' - I was neutral last time as I was on the fence over one or two issues, after reviewing you again I am happy that these issues have resolved themselves, hence I am supporting. I have no concerns that you will abuse the tools and you have experience where it counts, I note that you have now been very active for the past eight/nine months. I was particularly impressed by your adoption work, you clearly have a good knowledge of Wikipedia and you are not afraid to share it.
'''Support'''. I think, as noted above, that the candidate has sufficient clue to be a good admin. I'm not seeing a whole lot to be concerned about, frankly. Good luck,
Reasonably sane.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Concern from last time is mollified.
'''Support'''. Of course. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' and tag userpage with Category:Thought was already an admin. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' - no concerns here. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I have came across Addshore on a couple of occasions and I have no doubt he would be a good addition to the Admin community. No doubt in my mind that he would not abuse the mop. <strong>
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - AfD is an area about which I feel strongly, and the candidate's work there may reasonably be questioned, but in all fairness, he listed at least five or six admin areas in which he'd work first. I don't think I need to hold his stated desire to work towards closing AfDs against him when the other indications are that he will be responsible with the tools.
'''Support''' - AfD is not an always on thing. The "per nom" votes were where someone has already constructed very good arguments and really it came down to being accepted or not. I'd like to see more work on AN/I , but there's nothing here to alarm. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
Why the hell aren't you an admin yet? —'''
'''Support''' editor has made plenty on contributions, a committed vandal-fighter, AfD work is ok (if what others say is true, you might want to do some more in depth research of AfD nominees, I.e. Try google news, books and scholar as well, they turn up results that google doesn't.), all in all, would be an excellent admin. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' per default, pretty much. AfD might be a little lacking, but that's really OK in my book. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
'''Support''' - Some of the AFD comments by Addshore are a bit empty but nothing in my opinion that is more then minor, so I support.
'''Support''' Great user, even with helping develop [[WP:HUG|Huggle]].
Hello, I'm Othello and my wife insists that I sign up for anger management class...oh, wrong queue.  But while I'm here: '''Support''' for a class act editor.
'''Support''' &ndash; It's about time actually. Addshore will make a great and fantastic administrator. The opposes don't concern me much. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''': I know from personal experience that Addshore is very helpful and enthusiastic. I think he'd definitely make a good admin. Another plus point if it helps him in developing huggle.
'''Tentative Support''' - While I am slightly concerned by the AfD arguments, I sometimes do the same thing. Also, the candidate has specified multiple areas in which he would like to work in. He has answered the questions well and has enough experience in admin-related areas to justify a support. As long as he can try and think over his AfD closes/discussions more carefully, I can give a support. Again while some arguments below are concerning, I believe that this user will be a net positive as an admin.
'''Support''' Nothing but positive interactions with this user. ''I'm [[User:J.delanoy|<font color="green">J'''.'''delanoy</font>]][[User Talk:J.delanoy|<sup><font color="red">gabs</font></sup>]][[Special:Contributions/J.delanoy|<font color="blue"><sub>adds</sub></font>]] and I '''approve''' this message. ''
[[Image:Hemiphaga_novaeseelandiae_-Nga_Manu_Nature_Reserve,_New_Zealand-8.jpg|25px]] '''Support''', nothing wrong with this user. <small>
'''Support''' - Helpful, kind, considerate and respectful... this is the kind of administrator Wikipedia is in need of. If you need diffs for any of these, you are blind to facts. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;

'''Support''' - Addshore has been extremely helpful on every occasion that I've approached him, even to the extent of trying to [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 7|add a task to his bot]] to help out [[WP:O|WikiProject Orphanage]].  I've never seen him get cranky with anybody, and his programming contributions to Wikipedia are among the best.  I definitely trust him with the tools.--
'''Support''' per nom, and per BigDunc. --
'''Support''' he knows he way around and is an extremely pleasant user to interact with. The weak AfD voting is a bit displeasing but I don't think he would make any real mistakes. I don't see any problem with giving this long time user the tools.
'''Support''' - Since when have you not been an admin? Fully trust this editor.
'''Support''' - Courteous, helpful, and trustworthy. Seems like a real [[mensch]].
'''Support''' - Incredible amount of edits, well rounded help, really positive contribs. <b>'''
'''Strong Support''' Always had postive interactions with the candidate. Be a bit careful with the AFDs. Many of my concerns at your last RFA have changed and I trust you. Hopeing to see [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 200|Addbot Task 200]] from you. --
'''Support''' I actually thought him to be an admin already. Meh, well, then be one now. Contributions look good and I do not find the opposes convincing, because I am sure you will make yourself familiar with deletion policy before you go around closing difficult deletion debates. '''
'''Support''', the RfA contribs highlighted by [[User:SashaNein]] gave me a brief pause, but then again this user has templated the regulars, which I think balances that out.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', trusting my guts. I am not impressed by your replies but I know you are a sound editor. Best of luck! --
'''Support''' <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Yes''' '''
'''Support''' per Gurch. :P
'''Support'''. I've been aware of this contributor for a while, and I think he'll make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''': As I did last time.  Good luck, Addshore. -
'''Support''' - I analyzed the contributions of Addshore, and his contributions raises no red flags for me.

'''Support''' per [[User:Addshore/awards]], which shows that he has worked well with others and takes pride in what he does here, and as he has never been blocked (if you are around long enough, it seems sooner or later you may be accidentally blocked even, so I would not automatically hold blocks against anyone, but I do give those without them credit).  Also, in the discussions in which we both participated, he seemed reasonable enough.  Best, --
'''Support''' No reservations whatsoever. He will make a great admin. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Your AFD calls for keep or delete are almost all now blue or red as you !voted, which implies to me that you would close AFD correctly. I have no objections to being templated if it is a friendly reminder about a minor point as yours were. '''
'''Support''', looks good. I'm not a fan of the "Fails [[WP:MUSIC]]" type AfD votes with no further elaboration, but in your case it at least seems that the articles you say that about do indeed fail the relevant policies. While I may dislike the exact style of your arguments, it does seem that you know the policies you're quoting and would competently close AfDs. I have no concerns about any other areas, so no reason not to support! ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - change from a neutral back in May - due to now meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this. Addshore has my complete trust. —
'''Support''' I'm not persuaded by the Oppose votes so far, and I remember having only good interactions with Addshore. Wouldn't be out of line to say I trust him.--
'''Absolutely'''.
'''Support''' Seen this user around, would trust him with anything administrator-ish. Absolutely, support. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Support.'''  Addshore's contribs indicate high standards of [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]] and [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Wikiquette]] and an admin-like grasp of policy and guidelines.  I see nothing in the "Oppose" section to convince me otherwise.  —
'''Support''' No problem for him to become an admin per his contributions.--
'''Support''' Per answers to questions, particularly #1. User has good background, and very few reasons that opposing should even be considered. '''<font color="midnightblue" face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Don't see anything remotely disturbing in the oppose section.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' owing to my trust of this editor. We need admins for ''all kinds'' of volunteer tasks here. Please try not to wade too deeply into helping out with content disputes or disruption worries until you've done more meaningful article building (but I also trust you to have thought about that already :)
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers.
'''Yay'''
'''Support''' - I thought Addshore was already a cliché. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''' No doubts.
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' - another good, polite, experienced Wikipedian who, I have no doubt, will make an excellent admin. –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
·
'''Support''' - yep. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. Dedicated editor with significant contributions to multiple admin-related areas.
'''Support'''. Criticism in the oppose section is unpersuasive. We always need more serious RC patrollers. --
'''Super-Strong Support''' great editor, and I have faith he will be an even ''better'' admin!
'''Support''' Fit's [[User:Theoneintraining#Requests_for_adminship|my criteria]]. P.S. No RfA spam on my talk page please.--
'''Support''' - I trust him, he's been around.  'Nuff said.
'''Support''' Not concerned by anything in the oppose section.
'''Support''' Fixed everything that looked concerning to me from last RfA, I see nothing else wrong, and is definitely a dedicated editor.
'''Support''' per above comments. - -
'''Weak Support'''. Not entirely impressed by endless Huggling, but concerns from previous RFA have pretty much been allayed.
'''Support''' plenty of experience in relevant areas, no real concerns. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - Addshore has, and always will be, a user I respect and admire - based on prior experiences.
'''*Huggle*''' (translated: '''Support''') —
'''Support''' - Of course.
I don't get how this is an unusual candidate, but '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Give him the mop. '''[[User:Jock Boy|<font color="brown">Jock</font> <font color="red">Boy</font>]]    [[User talk:Jock Boy|<small>(<font color="blue">t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jock Boy|<font color="orange">c</font>]])</small>
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]] --
'''Support''' But of course! Addshore's a great user and I trust him with the tools! :) [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]][[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''.
--
Pile-on (should be doing coursework right now) '''Support'''. It's about time you got those buttons. :-D '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' No concerns for me at all. <font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''support''' Interesting concerns by the opposers but none are enough to make me want to oppose.
'''Support''' I have known this user to be trustworthy. <font color="black">'' '''
'''Yes, Yes, Yes ,Yes ,YES!!!!''' I supported this user on his first RFA and I still think that he is a great candidate. He has already done many many good things for the wiki and I am sure he will continue to do many more. Addshore is a wonderful user and I am please to support him on an RFA.
'''Support'''.  I would trust this user with the tools, therefore I must (and enthusiastically do) support.  &hArr;
'''Support''' - <font color="green">
'''Support''' I trust he will do fine. I've seen some of his edits, and his edits are enough to make me have faith that the will use his tools properly
'''Strongest support possible''' —
'''Support''' - I've kissed him a couple of times on IRC and I liked what I read back so... of course. But, seriously, he's a great guy who really wouldn't abuse the tools. He has my unconditional support.
'''Strong Support''' Seen this user and his edits, both excellent.
'''Support''' - congrat.s and good on ya' add :-)
'''Support''' - no problems here.  <b>
--
'''Support'''- Addshore has done a great job on certain articles [[User:Juthani1|<span style="color:#ffffff;background:#ccf">&nbsp;<span style="background:#99f">&nbsp;<span style="background:#66f">&nbsp;<span style="background:#11f"><b>Juthani1</b></span>&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;</span>]]<sup>[[User talk: Juthani1|t]][[Special:Contributions/Juthani1|c]]
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support.''' Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to this project. Thank you. '''
'''Support''', thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' - lack of mainspace contributions would only be a problem for me if the editor in question was not showing skill in other areas.
'''How the hell is he not an admin already!?!?!?!?!?''' [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Support'''- I'm not too concerned about the lack of article writing. Although the ultimate goal is to write an encyclopedia there are, unfortunately, a great many things that need to be done that don't involve writing article content. Addshore does some of these things and does them well- and I believe this candidate would be a net gain to the project if invested with the tools.
'''Support'''- Many of the 'oppose' rationales are fairly silly--not the reason for the support, but worth noting nonetheless. --
'''Support'''. Seen this user around a lot, good participation throught Wikipedia. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''': a trustworthy user who will make a good administrator, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. I won't say I had it watchlisted, but I've seen Addshore around and contributions definitely look positive. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
I supported last time, and am supporting again. Both vandal-fighters and article-writers should be welcomed.
'''Support''' - an excellent user who will make an excellent admin. All my experiences with this user have been highly positive, and I find them helpful and thoughtful. Opposes do not bring up any undue concern. Good luck, Addshore!

'''Weak oppose''', I agree with SashaNein. Lack of elaboration on rationales for AfD nonvotes is a sign of an editor who goes with the flow rather than developing own opinions. --
'''Oppose'''. Candidate adds automated templates to well-established users, even to some administrators. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Prince_of_Darkness&diff=prev&oldid=247774216] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TerriersFan&diff=prev&oldid=247774572] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DiverseMentality&diff=prev&oldid=247772722] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Searson&diff=prev&oldid=247772753] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddstretch&diff=prev&oldid=247767947] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oscarthecat&diff=prev&oldid=247767913] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MacGyverMagic&diff=prev&oldid=247767885] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TomStar81&diff=prev&oldid=247767839] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Attilios&diff=prev&oldid=247767601] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IMatthew&diff=prev&oldid=247766671]. Note to other editors: these templates were added when Huggle, Twinkle and Friendly were down. Sure, a couple of us made mistakes when manually adding warn templates, we forgot as we have these scripts do it manually for us, but automated templates aren't very helpful and don't really explain where the problem occurred. Mainspace edits aren't too great either, with the largest contribution to a single article is 27 edits in [[Torquay Boys' Grammar School]].
'''Oppose''' for "me too" AFD "voting". ''Maybe'' Addshore knows the real deal about AFD rules (he/she has been long enough to know), but Addshore ''spoke'' at AFD as if completely unaware of [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]]. There is a difference between ''Delete Per RJFJR (no refs)'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operative_(Game)&diff=prev&oldid=224610405] and the policy: ''Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources''. Yes, Addshore was right, yes, the articles were uncontroversially deleted, but no button from me.
<s>''Strong oppose''</s> '''Oppose''' based  of all on the following from your talk page "Records: 48 Edits Per Minute @ 16:25, 2 July 2008 " This is exactly the way no editor should edit, let alone an administrator. We're not certifying machines by speed of performance, we're selecting humans with judgment. No one who edits this way can possibly be sure of what they are doing. I recognize that this particular one was a bot making a form change-- but why should a prospective administrator be proud  at how fast as they can run a bot. I am also not all that happy about other signs of ambition, such a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Addshore/notepad/noms]. And I share previous commentators' disquiet about the overall value to the encyclopedia of placing templates telling people how to place templates. Given that this was 2 days ago while this application was pending, I would have thought a candidate would want to show some understanding of policy by edits in Wikipedia or wikipedia talk space, but except those related to Huggle, there are almost none, now or earlier. (<s>I should note that Addshore challenged my dislike for Huggle and other automated tools on my talk p. earlier today,</s> but even accepting the apparent general feeling that Huggle is very valuable to Wikipedia, there's no correlation between skill in programming it and the sort of think an administrator needs to do. The buttons are not a reward for proficiency.) '''
'''Oppose''' You've been around a lot and seem to be very trustworthy, and usually I would support.  However I have to oppose in this case because of the lack of enough article work that I like to see with admins, and most of your contributions seem to be minor.  The AFDs are slightly concerning as well although I think you could improve that pretty easily.  Good luck. --
I agree with the above about the template thing. It's bad form to template regulars, and while I agree that reminders about substituting templates are fine, Addshore could have gone about it better. There's also [[User:Addshore/notepad/sigs|this signature page]] and [[User:Addshore/guestbook|this guestbook]], which seem immature. My main concern, however, is his U1 deletion of [[User:Addshore/notepad/noms]], after DGG referenced it in his oppose above. While you're certainly allowed to delete/request deletion of things in your userspace, I view the timing of the deletion to indicate you're trying to cover it up. The deletion notwithstanding, I agree with DGG about what the page says about Addshore. '''
'''Oppose''' DGG (and DGG ''alone'' among the opposition) made a convincing argument. Quality is more important than quantity, and looking at the character of your contributions, I honestly don't trust you to wield the tools with the absolutely necessary amount of forethought and due consideration. <font style="font-family: Georgia">

'''Oppose''' DGG and Tiptoety and say what needs to be said, but it's superfluous as my comments on the earlier "discussion" Addshore 1 still appear to stand tall and strong.
'''Oppose''' I wasn't going to chime in on this RfA, as I generally don't get involved with RfA's that are essentially decided (whether they are going to pass or fail.)  In fact, I wouldn't have looked into this if it wasn't for Julian's question above.  But Addshore has a serious dearth in contributing to the project.  <s>He claims to have started five articles.  Unless he changed his name, and failed to disclose the name change, one of the five, one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FV102_Striker&dir=prev&action=history he didn't start.]</s>  One is a fairly well developed list---of course, this was almost 3 years ago and his original edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_where_French_is_an_official_language&oldid=30326416 pretty weak.] The other three articles are all in the STUB level.  He then lists 5 other articles where he has made contributions--again nothing major.  In fact, he lists articles where his contribution is virtually non-existent.  In other words, in over 3 years of working on this project, it appears that he has edited less than 10 articles.  Anti-Vandal Admins should have some experience building the project.  They need to have some idea as what people feel when they work on a project only to have somebody place a dozen tags on the project.  Addshore's dearth of contributions, makes it impossible for me to support this candidate.  I have no doubt that he is a fine vandal fighter, but IMHO his lack of building the project makes him unqualified.---'''
Oppose, per DGG. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' per DGG and Tiptoety. Luck of interest to article writing, preference of using automatic tools and templating regulars, plus love to the IRC channels is a mix that often produced bad administrators in the past
'''Oppose''' per Sashanein and Banime and Alex Bakharev. In addition to that, this user supported [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3&direction=prev&oldid=216946222 Giggy] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CWii CWii] becoming admins &mdash; displaying an overall lack of judgement. I could not trust this user to be an administrator. --
'''Oppose''':  IRC is not Wikipedia.  Every minute spent there is a minute that is ''taken from,'' not added to, Wikipedia.  As long as it is not portable, not recorded, and not admissible in a deliberation at Wikipedia, any use of it for conducting, considering, or deliberating Wikipedia matters is abuse.  Additionally, this candidate appears to have little interest in what is "between the covers" of the encyclopedia: the articles.  We need less socializing and more working, especially among our administrators.
'''Weak oppose''' Lack of content editing. I don't demand a lot, but more than this. I probably would not oppose for this alone if everythign else looked hunky-dory, bit there are other concerns here too.--
'''Oppose''' — Could use more time in the trenches working in the mainspace. I also partially agree with some of the AfD reasons as stated by several above. For me, citing "fails [[WP:SOMEPOLICY]]" as a reason to delete/keep is fine, but not major AfD pitfall arguments such as "[[WP:JNN|not notable]]" and "[[WP:PERNOM|per nom]]" without providing any additional insight. There is also something about the IRC situation that does not make me comfortable that this person would use the tools properly (i.e. seriously). <font color="#063">
'''Oppose''' - per nom-ing at AfD shows candidate is unready for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Too much interest in policing and too little in content writing, too many RfA's too soon and IRC habits combined show the wrong set of priorities. --
per DGG.
'''Oppose''' Althought I hate casting "per X" !votes in an RfA, my full rationale would have contained elements from Balloonman's, DGG's and Tiptoety's rationales but, in all likelyhood, mine would not have been as eloquent. Addshore is an invaluable asset to the project as a spectacular vandal fighter. I do, however, fear that the liability of someone with no experience and/or interest in article building having access to the delete button does not make up for the benefit of him being able to block vandals rather than reporting them to AIV. To sum things up: oppose per Balloonman, DGG and Tiptoety.
Good guy and a good Wikipedian, and it looks like this will pass, but I can't support based on what DGG and Tiptoety have written above. We have a lot of really valuable, key contributors who aren't admins. Whatever the outcome, I hope we can continue to count on Addshore's involvement in Huggle and anti-vandalism etc.
'''Neutral''' - hate to be the first user not to support, and I'm willing to change my mind. Can't oppose because the user seems trustworthy and in need of the tools for the good of the project, and I do think he should become an admin one day. However, I also can't support because there is virtually no article-building experience, and entirely too many automatic/script-assisted edits. The user should consider doing some research about subjects he's interested in and writing articles—even if he spends only half the time he does now fighting vandals, he'll still be a very effective vandal fighter, but also likely a great author and content contributor. --
'''Neutral'''. Contributor is too cute to be an administrator --
'''Neutral'''. As a general rule I do not like the proliferation of templates in wikipedia, I abhor "template throwers", and I do not like editors who make "speedy" edits either with or without bots.  However I am not convinced that this candidate will not make a good admin.  that is not the same as sayng he will make a good one.
'''Neutral''' - He fights vanadlism a lot. This is not a bad thing, but it seems he needs to focus on adding info more. See the 25 mainspace edits on http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Addshore .
--
Changed from support per Balloonman. I should probably look a bit deeper before supporting. Nothing wrong with specialists and I for one am not demanding an FA (or even GA, for that matter), but the content contribution record is indeed a bit too meagre to feel entirely comfortable. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Absolutely!''' I was just wondering what was taking you so long to apply for adminship. All my encounters with you have been positive, and you really do put a lot of effort into some of the more neglected areas of the encyclopedia. I'm confident you'll do great with admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Excellent nom, Balloonman!
'''Support''', good contributor. --
'''Support''' clean block log, good contributions where they are needed, good nominator; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Aervanath and I had a recent exchange about [[Oliver Farm Equipment Company|two]] [[Oliver Corporation|articles]] which needed to be merged. S/he had a solid grasp of how Wikipedia worked. While Aervanath asked me to do the merge, s/he had a pleasant tone while explaining that that s/he didn't have the background to do the merge (I had enough background). '''<font color="#000000">
Herm, thought he was an admin already. Best of luck. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' With a nod to the oppose regarding content creation, but on balance a net positive. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Adminship is not about article writing but about cleaning up. So there is no reason to deny the tools to a good contributor. '''
'''Support''' - I can see that he/she is an avid Wikipedian and has been working hard. He/She deserves Adminship :)
'''Strong Support''' - I've never met this user before, but looking at his contribs and nomination - I'm very impressed. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Support''' Good contribs.
'''Support'''. Though I wish you would have taken my suggestion to get some article building experience first.  Good luck anyway! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - Niche candidate is always cool. Article building doesn't have to be there if the user can point out [[wp:clue|clue]] levels. And the user seems trustworthy. Enough in my book. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked (I would not always hold blocks against editors as if you are around long enough someone might accidentally block you or block you in bad faith, but never being blocked is a good sign perhaps) and also as any of the discussions in which we both participated the candidate seemed reasonable enough that I would probably trust judgment in closing discussions.  --
[[Image:Florero de decoración.jpg|25px]] '''Support''' - I don't care if the candidate has article work, but I do care for the maintenance this user does. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' - Very good contributor. Good luck for the adminship.
Admins do not need to have work creating articles. Creating articles and doing admin work are two completely different skill sets.
'''Yes''' Article creation is one important way to understand how this place works enough to push the buttons, but it certainly isn't the only one.
'''Support''' per the [[WP:WND|Why Not? Doctrine]] - -
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support'''. I am not convinced by the opposition. '''''
'''Support'''  ''any'' editor can validly remove a speedy tag except the creator of the article--see WP:CSD, the italics at the top. I consider practice at this excellent preparation for adminship, because it lets us see the quality of the decision-making. Looking, I think he's been doing OK here.  '''
'''Support''' A civil, good faith contributor, but I still think I'm right about the "orphan" template though...
'''Strong support''' - Trust this user + [[WP:WTHN]] --'''
'''Support''' Article writing isn't a very important skill for an admin, other topics should be looked at as more important, which he succeds in. '''<font color="midnightblue" face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Weak support'''. Although I do like to see more article building from candidates, overall, I trust the candidate will properly handle the tools.
'''Support''' The user is well experienced, and the only strong point brought up by the opposition is lack of article building. Even though Aervanath hasn't created many articles and doesn't have any GAs or FAs under his name, he obviously has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. He has also made very valuable contributions in maintaining Wikipedia, which I think has made up more than enough for thead lack of article building. I think this experience and a good understanding of policy is what's gong to help him as an admin, not creating articles. He should definitely get the mop.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''<s>Weak</s> support''': WTHN ? But plz promise to work more on article building --
'''Support''' per nom. Experienced user, no problems.
'''Support''' - [[User:Ameliorate!/THEREISMORE|THEREISMORE]] so keep up the good behind-the-scenes work. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''', the oppose camp's main argument that you have only a limited amount of  edits flawed, in my opinion. Yes, it is important that those elected to be Administrators should have some experience, and be serious about there contributions, but I think that ''quality'' is more important here than ''quantity''. Editors who contribute to a limited range of articles but contribute well and provide high-quality information, are worth far more to any encyclopedia than just someone who builds up his edit count with hundreds of minor grammar corrections.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''', my natural inclination would be to oppose as the process of article building creates  "a person who knows what it means to put one's heart into the project only to have somebody tag or delete their work." (see nom) but the candidate seems to understand this principal(see answers to question 8) and contributes some references to articles created by others rather than just adding a template and leaving others to do the legwork
'''support''' -
'''Support''' - My personal opinion is that a maintaining an encyclopedia and building an encyclopedia can be kept separate. If you can do both, excellent but if not, never mind. I have no objections to this user becoming an admin. <font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold">
'''Support''' - Checks out for me...but a bit more article editing would help! Cheers. '''
'''Support''' Seems more than fit for the role.--
'''Support''' - this candidate can be trusted.
'''Support''' His work shows he will make good. Article work is not required a lot. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' Just because Aervanath doesn't write a lot of articles we should not get all carried away and start saying this editor isn't a contributor. Writing the content in articles is merely one way to contribute constructively to this project. Knowing how to correctly block someone doesn't require extensive article writing experience. Aervanath has shown that we can trust him/her with the mop.
'''Weak support''' admins really should have some content creation experience and so it was with that in mind that I set out to find more reasons to oppose this editor yesterday, but my search came up bare (except for a few minor lapses in judgment that failed to show any worrisome pattern) so I guess I will go with a weak support as IMHO article lack of article writing is not a sturdy enough pillar to support a whole Oppose.
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. Content creation is not part of the role of admins, and so admins should not have to be content creators.
'''Support''' Why not.--
'''Support'''- I'm not concerned about the lack of article writing. As I said in another RfA, Wikipedia is a big place that requires, unfortunately, that people spend time on things other than writing articles. Aervanath, from what I can see, is involved in doing some of these things and does a good job. This user would be a gain to the 'pedia if given the tools, and that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned. It would be a different matter if there was some sort of correlation between a user's lack of article contributions and their likelyhood of going rogue and abusing the tools, but there isn't.
'''Support''' I acknowledge the oppose !votes, most of which are perfectly reasonable and logical reasons to oppose an RfA candidate. But I believe this user's access to the buttons will be of benefit to the project with little or no possibility of misuse. Good luck!
'''Support''' Although I agree with the reasoning of the opposes, and although I've disagreed with Aervanath on several style issues, Aervanath's mainspace edits, his instincts, and his temperament tell me he's not going to be a bad admin. - Dan
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]], "it's not a big deal" and [[User:Ameliorate!/THEREISMORE|THEREISMORE]] all describe what I think. Cheers, —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support'''.  Scott Mcdonald, Iridescent, ''et al'', raise some valid points, but also make some leaps of logic. The content/no content admin debate will go round and round similar to the Great Age Debate.  Sigh.  This Editor is not a vandal, or "uninterested in content", will not break Wikipedia, has shown over time that he is here for the benefit of Wikipedia and its editors.  There is a huge assumption that someone (someone with 2300+ content edits no less) who works in a niche/gnomish area couldn't possibly understand how to correctly push a new button (block,protect,delete) on the top of the browser window.  That's a huge assumption, and while possibly correct, it's not correlative and therefore not a qualified "standalone" reason to oppose a dedicated editor, IMHO.  As an example (actually, I could probably name ''dozens'' of examples) someone with ''hundreds'' of articles "under their belt" could be equally, or even more, inept at pushing a new button (block/protect/delete) on top of their browser window because they are overinvested in content and are unwelcoming to new users that might be trying to [[WP:OWN|improve "their" articles]].  Seen it happen. However, I would ''also'' be mistaken to assume that "primarily content builders" will therefore, as a group, be bad admins (and I'd get flamed for it no less). Not correlative.  Adminship is a ''character'' issue - not a content issue, and to claim that someone "doesn't belong" or "no content therefore no admin" is a logical fallacy, an overgeneralization, and in a very convenient way, a civil attack on someone's intelligence and character.  If there are diffs that show Aervanath being a dick, or overreacting, or underreacting, or being uncommunicative, then perhaps more time/experience would be helpful prior to adminship.  In my contribution check, I see no evidence of those "qualities", therefore I am compelled to support.
'''Support''' Per Keeper. Aervanath is not going to break anything. Also, I find it very interesting that at least four people who opposed this RFA for "too few" article contributions also supported my RFA, even though I have, for all practical purposes, zero article contributions.
'''Support''' &mdash; RfA is about trust, as in, do we trust this candidate with the tools? Do we trust his judgment enough to give him a few extra buttons? I always appreciate an article writer, especially those with a string of FAs and GAs. Of course I appreciate administrators who spend their time writing articles. After all, we're an encyclopedia. But going back to the meaning of RfA, I trust this candidate with the tools, even though he hasn't written a series of FAs and GAs. I seldom support candidates who use Huggle as a primary form of contributing, and who make thousands of edits a day doing such. While vandal fighting is indeed important, those are the editors that need to explore the mainspace and edit/create/improve more articles. I can hardly say the same for an editor who has 2316 edits to the mainspace. Just as much as Wikipedia needs more quality articles, Wikipedia needs editors who help maintain the project. I really hope that Aervanath becomes at least slightly more active with article writing, but I trust him with the tools. &ndash;
'''Weak support'''.  The perceived "lack of article building" does not concern me in the least.  Some people are just not content builders, and prefer to lend their talents in the form of a copy editor rather than a content contributor.  Does this make them any less trustworthy, does it demonstrate a lack of competence or an inadequate amount of clue regarding policy?  Nope.  Adminship is not a content-building niche and candidates should not be judged for their (lack of) content building.  That said, I do have some minor concerns over some UAA reports brought up below, but it's not distressing enough to make me withhold support.  Cheers,
'''Support''' Keeper puts it well, but also this candidate seems trustworthy to me, is obviously experienced enough. and has a clean block log. I take the focus on orphans as a positive. Opposes don't greatly trouble me, yes a probably promotional name needs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fullyang&oldid=250606708 this] and some AGF unless and until they edit in breach of COI. So if [[wp|UAA]] was one of the areas that the candidate was planning to work in then I would be a little concerned, but as he isn't I'm not going to oppose over that.  '''
'''Support''' Administrators don't deal in solely article work, so I don't see why that appears to be the deciding factor. As long as he understands all admin-related policies then I don't see a reason to oppose. We're voting on how fit he is to be an administrator, not how well he could be a novelist.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN]], niche candidate. <sub>Why don't you [[Come Out and Play (song)|come out and play]]?</sub>
'''Support''' Breaching my own norm of almost never !voting on RFA. Concerns mirroring Keeper's about assumptions, and about good adminship candidates who may be pushed to engage in a part of Wikipedia they understand but are not hugely drawn to. Ideally a rounded set of experience would be good for all, but not all feel inclined to all major roles on-wiki and forcing round pegs into square holes tends to have a discouraging effect. (Will we see multiple opposes to FA writers based upon "Only edits content, has never dealt with conduct disputes, cannot be trusted with adminship or tools", asking them to meet a relatively low requirement of 3 months dispute resolution, block reviews, template fixing, or anti-vandalism patrolling before returning to RFA?) As an author of many articles, I'm looking at this candidate and just not seeing anything that says he/she would not understand content work well, even if not him/herself massively involved in it. "Being a proven content writer" in itself isn't an RFA critierion I require. Being trustworthy in editorial judgement, calm, insightful, clued-in, and with excellent attitudes is. If those were challenged, I'd not feel inclined to say a word. But despite around 80 views to date, there isn't compelling evidence of this, and there is at the least fairly solid and uncontested evidence of the opposite, including mainspace work in the form of consistent "wikignoming". Even so this is at least in part from "gut instinct".
Candidate seems relatively humble, the sole most important attribute in an administrator.
'''Support.'''  I reviewed this RfA several times in the past few days.  I was initially inclined to oppose but I've come around to the position that Aervanath would probably be a pretty good admin.  —
Lots of mainspace edits that are ''directly improving the encyclopedia''.  Talk page shows lots of civil, helpful interaction.  I cannot imagine how this editor would not be a great help if given the admin bit.  Many of the opposes below provide solid evidence that this editor is not the 100% perfect quintessential candidate, creating FA’s and GA’s and DYK’s in their spare time.  But this is Wikipedia, not Utopiapedia, and I can’t understand why we should [[Voltaire|let the perfect be the enemy of the good]]. --
'''Strong Support''' Wikipedia is a huge project, we have many different areas where people can help out.  Some of these areas are overlooked because they are esoteric in nature and people get caught up in their own little niche that they fail to see the value of others areas. I firmly believe that the project benefits by having admins with diverse backgrounds and diverse experiences, not mere clones of one another.  We need experts in more areas than just the MOS.  Come on, the two keys to being an admin should be 1) Do I trust the user?  2) Will promoting him harm the project?  If you can answer both of those positively, then you should reconsider your oppose.  It amazes me how many people are saying (here, on his talk page, and WT:RFA) , "Yeah, I trust this user, I don't think he's going to hurt the project, he's an asset to the project, but because he doesn't fit my model of what an admin should be I'm going to give an auto oppose."  Those who are providing ''auto-opposes'' without looking at the candidate are doing the candidate and the project a disservice.---'''
'''Support''' - I encountered this user on the last [[Talk:New York/Archive 3|discussion to move New York]]. And even though the result went against what we wanted (that even though IMO "New York" more commonly refers to the city worldwide, [[New York]] is currently the state), Aervanath had the sense and initiative to indicate that the discussion really wasn't going anywhere. This is the kind of judgment I want in an administrator. --
'''Support''' The work here is great, and it really doesn't bother me that there aren't "vast amounts of content creation."  Admins user their tools to make Wikipedia better, and every one of them doesn't need to do everything.  So, my question is, will Aervanath make Wikipedia better with the tools?  Absolutely. -<b>'''
'''Support''' The UAA concern is not much of a concern, considering how often someone shows up at one of the username pages to find they have a faulty case, and learn not to do that; this editor is no worse than so many others have been, and is now suitably chagrined. As for the "you can't possibly be trusted with those other things unless you have done this one most important thing", I disagree.  Demeanor and regard for others must be the guidestars when evaluating whether someone can be a responsible admin.  Much of below begins to sound like guild masters arguing about apprenticeship tenures. ''How can we promote [[journeyman|this editor]] until they have demonstrated a sufficient [[masterpiece]]?''  Double praise to editor-admins, yes, but not no praise to the "insufficiently productive".
'''Support''' Trust this editor to use the tools wisely. Like what I see from a review of contributions.
'''Support''', the opposes are unconvincing, and I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I looked at the opposition here, and then turned to the contribution list expecting to see an abundance of edits in Wikipedia space, with the only mainspace edits consisting of tagging things for deletion. (That at least, is the pattern of a candidate I would oppose for lack of work with the encyclopedia itself, since an editor like that is unlikely to have empathy with content writers, and may wind up being more of a bureaucratic policeman than a service-minded steward.) However, looking at the contribution list, I am pleased to see a different picture. Even though his record is not strong in the sense of contributing large chunks of prose, he has done several small improvements over a variety of articles, and been willing to help anons who want to make a change to semi-protected articles. Working with articles is more than just writing articles from scratch, the business of improving articles is also an important aspect of article building, and the candidate is at least not empty in that regard. Although lots of minor improvements over several articles does not extract the glory as writing a new article does, it does provide the experience required in mainspace. Since the general judgment of the candidate has also been sound, my vote is to support adminship, since [[User:Sjakkalle/Admin criterion|my admin criterion]] is met.
'''Support''' ''
'''Strong support''' I don't see anything wrong or lacking with Aervanath's contributions - quite the opposite. I like to see how admin candidates behaved when they first arrived. So, I checked the first month or two of contributions. I found Aervanath removing spam [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City_Police_Department&diff=prev&oldid=102840846] thanking other editors for their contributions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JW1805&diff=prev&oldid=103058463] helping out other editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=104282343] and editing mangled sentences and grammar [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxicabs_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=103742474], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IBM_Enterprise_Storage_Server&diff=prev&oldid=104041679], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orange_(fruit)&diff=prev&oldid=102642619]. This seems to be the editing pattern of the ideal Wikipedian - wikiing away editing, protecting and improving articles in a courteous, helpful manner - what more could the project want in an Admin?
'''Support''' - admin tools require trust, not prolific editing.  In a hard-bound copy of an encyclopedia, the content writers are definitely the most visibly important people in its construction.  But there is more to it than that - there's copy-editing, proof-reading, ensuring that the writers have a comfortable environment to work in (e.g. aren't harrassed), resolving disputes that may arise between colleagues, etc. etc.  In the real world, these tasks are not handled by writers - they are handled by specialists.  Disputes between workers are handled by HR or people detached from the process, copy-editing/proofreading are often completely separate disciplines, etc.  As Wikipedia grows, editors and administrators will have to specialise in order to be able to meet the demands placed upon them by the sheer scale of what we are accomplishing, and it is my own opinion that this will ultimately be to our benefit, not our detriment.  I have no reason not to trust this editor - support
'''Support'''; I've waited quite a bit before deciding if I was to remain neutral or chime in &mdash; but given that the opposition has not managed to raise objections more substantive that quantity of contents, that I trust that this editor will not misuse the tools, and that he has demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively, there is no reason to ''not'' give him the bit.  &mdash;&nbsp;

'''Support, support, support!''' - That's a support per nom. Aside, I've always found the focus on a candidate's article building and FA/GA achievements unfair. Of course Wikipedia would be nowhere without article builders, but it couldn't survive without vandal fighters, image uploaders, techies, and niche contributors. They are just as important for the project. The writer who looks down on the paper supplier makes a big mistake. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support''' agree with Keeper76, JoJo, etal.
'''Support''' trustworthy with the tools; if he ends up in situations where greater experience in article-building is required to lend perspective, then I'm confident that he will (a) not rush in (b) seek wider input (c) not do anything stupid (d) learn from experience.
'''Very Strong Support''' As a member of WikiProject Orphanage, as soon as I saw this RfA, I was immidiatly very supportive. Yes, he has a lower edit summary usage and edit count than I usually like, but I trust Aervanath with the mop.
'''Support'''. Writing is a core component of the project, for sure. However, it is not the only aspect that needs the admin bit, and as with any organization there is a need for a wide range of talents. In my dealings with Aervanath, I've seen him remain calm under pressure in some rather heated situations, something that is of great importance when dealing with the day-to-day reality of adminship. As well, and to echo others here, I've every confidence that he will easily adapt to new situations and aspects of the job. --'''
I'm going to have to '''support''' this candidate; I am unconvinced by the opposers. They say that Aervanath should not be an admin because he lacks article work. Call me crazy, but the volume of content contributions doesn't matter to me so much. If someone's been around enough and active enough that that's the most common oppose rationale, ''and even those opposers say that the candidate is a good trustworthy contributor'', well, that person should probably be an admin. Net positive, I think.
'''Support''' - I was going to sit this one out; the truth is I don't always have something to say about every candidate. However, it would be inappropriate to avoid supporting this candidate, whom nearly all acknowledge is a net positive to the project. I'd like the 'crats and others who have yet to express an opinion to pay careful attention to the editors supporting this candidate; I'm going to name some names here: [[User:Pedro|Pedro]], [[User:Bibliomaniac15|Bibliomaniac15]], [[User:Tanthalas39|Tanthalas39]], [[User:Dank55|Dank55]], [[User:Keeper76|Keeper76]], [[User:J.delanoy|J.delanoy]], [[User:barneca|barneca]], [[User:Coren|Coren]]. I'm not saying "per xxx" but rather pointing out in one place, concisely, the caliber of editors who have cogently supported Aervanath. These are people who are all well-respected and well-known members of the community. Regarding content editing, anyone who wishes to review Aervanath's grasp of the editing process (including [[WP:BLP|BLP concerns]]) can examine [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Stevens&offset=20081113034343&limit=500&action=history these edits to Ted Stevens], spread over a number of days, to clearly see that Aervanath knows what's going on around here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. While article writing is nice to have, I don't see it as a requirement for adminship, and everything else checks out.
'''You don't have to be an article writer to be an admin.'''
'''Support'''. I am useless at writing articles from scratch, or adding new content. However, I donate my time to perform many maintenance tasks that need to be done here, which don't require those skills. I don't feel that this user is being given a fair chance, because as far as I can tell, article writing is not required. I feel people should be appreciative of the time that people donate, rather than criticising. After all, you wouldn't get criticised for offering to donate time in a charity shop, as opposed to donating clothes or something similar, so why should this be different? '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' most articles Have been written all ready It's just ridiculous to oppose because of this +[[Wp:WTHN]]
'''Support''', as I see no reason to be concerned that Aervanath might abuse the tools.  I would, however, ask Aervanath to seriously consider getting more involved in content creation (preferably get at least one article to GA status), before engaging in deletion activities. That said, I don't see any reason to delay adminship just because of that one concern. --
'''Support'''. I trust Aervanath to not abuse the tools, and to be a net gain for the project. That's really the criteria for the bit, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. From what I have seen, a capable advisor and mediator, particularly in difficult policy areas and touchy content disputes; good at encapsulating issues, calming troubled waters, and developing consensus.  Just the kind of admin we need more of.
People contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways, and each way is equally helpful and valuable to Wikipedia. There is no evidence that Aervaneth will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Lack of article building is a tiny bit of a putoff, but it is outwighed by other great contributions.
'''Support''' – Editors contribute in various ways, and this editor's contributions provide evidence of a civil, thoughtful, communicative user who is unlikely to misuse the tools if given adminship. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - '''(1)''' No trust issues regarding your prospective use of the tools, therefore, per my primary criterion, I would be a hypocrite not to support you.  '''(2)''' The answer to Q12 is of minor concern.  Not every IP vandal you block needs to be brought to [[WP:ANI]] just because the IP happened to vandalize your user page as their last act of vandalism after a final warning and right before you blocked them.  Yes, there could be a concern about a conflict of interests in that block.  It's a block I would refrain from making, but I won't oppose you because you would make it.  It's also not a block I would grant an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> request over if I were an admin.  That said, it is not a block worth cluttering up [[WP:ANI]] over.  Transparency is good.  That kind of transparency is ridiculous.  The IP has the power to contest the block.  If you're concerned about transparency, make sure the IP knows they can call attention to the conflict of interests and request an unblock on the IP's talk page.  The IP can bring another admin in to make the call.  Don't clutter up [[WP:ANI|Incidents]] with crap like that.  Please.  '''(3)''' Lack of content work does not concern me.  I feel that an admin should have [[WP:CLUE]] and that's a big part of what my primary trust criterion is about.  How that clue is demonstrated is up to the potential admin.  As the tools have little to do with article writing, and they serve article writing (directly) very little, and they are aided by article writing very little, article writing is unnecessary in a good admin.  Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and none of us would be here without the articles.  Yes, in the end, everything we do ultimately does and must serve the articles.  That said, this world works on a concept of specialization.  People do what they are good at.  Not everyone is a content contributor.  As such, content contribution should only be a criterion for adminship if it is relevant directly to one's ability to be a good admin.  Per my primary criteria above, trust, it is not.  Therefore, the opposes based on lack of content contribution do not sway me.  '''Lastly,''' apologies for the longest support !vote I've ever cast into a suspiciously ballot-box-shaped !vote receptacle.  &hArr;
'''Support'''There are many points in the oppose section that make me think. The work on AFD and comments on UAA. Lack of article work is still a big reason that is used. The tools and buttons that adminship bring have little to do with article writing. The main thing you need is good judgment and understanding, both of these I feel Aervanath has. Many of my other feelings and messages are included in AubreyEllenShomo's support above. such as "Don't clutter up [[WP:ANI|Incidents]] with crap like that." referring to the question on vandalism on your page. I trust this user, he has also been good to me, he has come up with good suggestion nd helped me out when I have needed it in the past. Good Luck. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' Just passing by, but in my humble opinion, article creation is the last benchmark I'd hold an admin to.  The mop is meant for cleaning... <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">[[User:DigitalNinja|Digital]]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>[[User talk:DigitalNinja|Ninja]]<font face="Arial" color="1F860E">
'''Weak support''' I am concerned by the UAA report by iridescent, as that could be fully coincidential, but you seem to have a good (and quite niche) reason to be an administrator.
'''Support''' I considered carefully the points made by the opposing discussion -- and I am in agreement with them. When it comes to the duties of an administrator, understanding how to build quality content is paramount. Not so much for the added content, but for understanding the process. Every policy or guideline which an administrator is called upon to enforce here was developed in support of the article-building process. And an admistrator needs to understand this. I think the opposition is correct in stressing this point to Aervanath. However, not every good administrator will have the skills to add quality content, just as not every quality writer has the skills to administrate.  The question for me was: Does Aervanath have this understanding?  After reviewing his contributions to discussions and talk pages, I think he shows the ability to understand the process and the willingness to work with the content editors. He certainly will have gotten the point during this Rfa. My gut instinct is that over the next few months he will add content, he will proceed slowly with the tools (if received), and he will continue with the moderation and thoughtfulness he has displayed in the past. I support giving him the tools now. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' I'm sympathetic to content-building concerns, as I think that article experience is ''very'' valuable in helping to deal with article creators, but I don't believe it is necessarily the only route. Basically, good sense, an understanding of policies/guidelines and [[Wikipedia:AN#Suicide_threat|empathy]] can get you to the same place. I see all three. I also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=249979484 need for tools] (and we can always use more admins on  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_October_14&diff=prev&oldid=246846539 copyright work].) I believe that this contributor is generally clued in, good intentioned and motivated...pretty much exactly the qualities we need for the job. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of article work. Sorry, I don't demand a FA, GA or even a DYK, but I do think admins need to have some idea about the frustrations of content creation. If you can't point to a few articles that you've made some significant contributions to, then I can't support. Respectfully suggest that you get a little (I don't ask for much) content experience and then return. Doing layout on some wikiproject just isn't comparable. Being mainly a process admin is fine, being exclusively one is not so. Do9n't be discouraged, please try content editing and then come back. You might even like it.--
'''Oppose''' Reluctantly, you have good contributions in your area but I also like to see a decent amount of article writing from admins.  Usually Balloonman does as well so I took an extra hard look at your contributions when he nominated you but I still can't really see any of the amount of work that I like to see with admins in articles.  I'm sure in a few months I'd support (if this one doesn't make it), good luck. --
'''Oppose''' per surprisingly [http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php?user=Aervanath too poor content building of the candidate]. You only created "6 short stubs" for two years (on and off though) that seriously require your attention first before inviting people to your party here. An admin willing to dedicate to niche areas for keeping Wikipedia clean and healthy? Well, you're determined to "clean" articles to which many editors may devote their time and energy for some amount of time. The user page of the candidate introduces his/her "earlier contributions" (June 2008 -.-;;) to creation of two articles; [[Modesto Varischetti]], [[David Woolf Marks]]. If I were the candidate, I would not even mention the stubs on his/her page with just two lines and "huge warning template(s)" hung at the top of the pages. At at least s/he should've expanded them yesterday if s/he thought of the RfA seriously. Why does content building so matter to admin wannabees? Because as we look trough your created/expanded/edited articles, we can see whether you understand core content policies like [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]] along with [[WP:NOTABLILITY]], [[WP:CITE]], [[WP:DUE]], and others. I could not be convinced that you do so per your articles. I'm not also satisfied with [http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Aervanath your AFD activities], especially at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur M. Dula]] You said you just nominated for deletion on behalf of an IP user instead of letting it be PRODed. Before bring it up to AfD space, you should've checked that the IP user's idea of "lack of notability" was correct. I'm also not sure why you thought of [[Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)]] failing to notability guidelines ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)]]). I can't support you at this time because I don't know what is your strength to have the admin tools. Vandal fighting and de-orphanage? Well huggle is a good tool made for the purpose and for the latter, you don't need the admin tools.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry. A lack of both article-writing and admin-related experience.
'''Weak oppose''' — Sorry, I think an administrator needs to have editing work under his/her belt before applying for adminship. If you gain just a little experience (I'm not asking for GAs, FAs or DYKs, just experience) then I'll be willing to support this otherwise exceptional candidate in future. —'''
A few clearly erroneous AFDs could be outweighed by enough positive contribution of content, but in this case they aren't. —
'''Oppose, switched from Neutral''' Reasons provided below in Neutral section, strengthened by the cogent arguments made by the Oppose camp.
'''Oppose'''. The recommendation offered by the nominator (and the candidate's cheerful acceptance of it as "glowing") troubles me. A proven track record of discussing policy and procedures, without actually writing the encyclopedia, means [[clue]]? No, no, and no. Not in my book. Please get down and dirty in the encyclopedia first, Aervanath, and then I will take another look at your candidacy.
'''Oppose'''. This is an encyclopedia where we above all are supposed to be writing articles. If you show a dedication to adding content and get the important experience in WP policy that it entails, I may vote for you in the future.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, absolutely nothing personal, but I believe fundamental questions of credibility are being touched here. Admins should have a record of article creation as a matter of principle. I don't want editors to suffer possibly unpleasant consequences of admin actions by someone who has not enough experience as an author. As the nominator mentioned, the candidate already is an admin in a way and does a commendable job. While the extra buttons might assist in that kind of work, I do not see a real need for them. Adminship is not a decoration.
'''Oppose''' Per lack of article work. --
'''Strong oppose'''. Scott MacDonald and Bishonen sum my view up perfectly. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
<s>'''Oppose''' Wikipedia in an encyclopedia. We're all here to build it. If you can't, (even to some small degree, ie creating a non-stub or non-maintenance-tag-page or even expanding a stub to a respectable start class article) well you don't belong.</s> '''Moral support''' You seem like a decent enough candidate. As I see that you have potential in article work, I'll be looking out for it. While I don't think it is time yet, I think you will be sucessfull on RFA #2 (if you do indeed start working on articles, which I don't doubt you will do.) Not yet though. ~<strong>'''''the'' [[User:Editorofthewiki|<font color="#FFFF501FFFFF101">editorofthewiki</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Editorofthewiki#top|<font color="Green">talk</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|<font color="Green">contribs</font>]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|<font color="Green">editor review</font>]])</sup>'''</span></strong>~ 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC) <small>Per confirmation on his talk page, Editorofthewiki is still opposing, but is offering moral support.  Despite the "support" it remains an oppose---'''
'''Weak oppose''', echoing others' concerns above regarding a lack of article work.
Sorry.  Scott up at oppose #1 says all that I can.
Insufficient interest in content writing. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
Echo the above about lack of quality article writing. I'm quite surprised to see that you can't get an article to DYK, GA, nor FA in 1 year (I already taken the fact that you took 1 year wikibreak between March 2007 and February 2008 into consideration). And oh yeah, being a [[WP:GNOME|wikignome]] isn't a "get out of jail free" card because you'll be surprised how many wikignomes out there have at least a DYK, GA, or FA (if not more) under their belts.
'''Oppose'''.  Adminship is more then wikilawyering and wikignoming.  You don't need the mop to fight vandals.  Spend more time writing articles then reapply.
'''Oppose''', I recognize the name since you volunteered and [[Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:compromise#Results|summed up]] [[Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise]]. Even though I disagreed with a few of your interpretations, I think you did an OK job there, but I still don't think you're ready to be an admin at this time. I think you acted well in your conflict with [[User:Tony1|Tony1]], but I worry about a possible rush to judgement with the username thing iridescent brought up, the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_M._Dula|AFD]] you started because an IP added a prod tag, the fact that there are only 3 articles you've made at least 10 edits to, your claim that [[WP:CSD#A7|A7]] and [[WP:CSD#A7|A9]] have to do with notability... Maybe later, but not right now. Speaking of article work, I know that right now Wikipedia desperately needs an article on the subject of [[notability]], since so few seem to understand the concept... --
'''Oppose''' due to this very questionable UAA report. Worried the candidate would just block users for no reason. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AUsernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=250606530&oldid=250585641] - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose'''. Unconvincing reasons for adminship, and limited mainspace content contribution.
'''Oppose'''. Per little experience as a content-editor and other concerns raised.
'''Oppose''' - seems like a good user who will not abuse the tools and will work in his own niche. However, the niche editing is exactly the problem here; I'd find it extremely difficult to support a candidate for whom there's an indication of not being familiar with all-across Wikipedia policies. I think Aervanath should try to write a dozen articles or so and be involved in numerous areas before re-applying. If that is done, I will gladly support (GA, FA and DYK per se aren't important). --
'''Oppose'''; seems like a smart guy, and trustworthy, but I would expect some experience of actually writing an article in an administrator - how else can you understand what people's concerns are when you try to resolve disputes?  My bar is exceptionally low and it's not often an editor who's been around for more than a few weeks doesn't meet it, but this is one of those cases.
'''Oppose''' - Cannot offer any examples of content creation.  Admins need to have ''some'' experience in what we're all doing here.
'''Oppose''' - No need for the tools, not enough content experience, and, in my humble opinion, too much work outside of the core goals of what I want to see admins doing. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Oppose''' - practically the same reasons as Iridescent's above; it's disheartening when you have to keep rooting out bad reports at UAA, and little content work is, in this case, stretched to the extreme.
'''Oppose''' I don't care too much about the alphabet soup of article ratings/standards (FA, GA etc)...but it's really important that admins have a good idea of the frustrations and concerns felt by article writers and content creators. And there's only one way to do that and that is to feel them personally. You don't have to make it your life's work or devote all your time to it, but that is the only reason we're here after all. I don't like the idea of "professional" admins here, and get very concerned when I see admins that do no content creation at all start to manage people who actually write content.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately.  I believe this user does lots of good things for the project and I really don't care about the lack of article-writing experience.  What gets me is the apparent misuse of non-admin duties, specifically [[WP:NAC|non-admin closure]] (yes, I know it's an essay but it's fairly accepted).  For example, look at the following list of recent closures: [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_22#Andrew_Blake_.28pornographer.29_.E2.86.92_Andrew_Blake_.28director.29|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem of change|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spencer_Herbert|3]].  While I don't believe these closures to be wrong, they should have been done by admins.  I don't mean this as a procedural point, and I see the obvious counter-argument ("if he's already acting like an admin, let's just make him one") but one large part of being an admin is using tools within very narrow constraints.  This user's closures and some of the [[WP:UAA]] reports above don't give me faith that this user will use the tools according to the commonly accepted practices, so I oppose.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has the potential to be a fine admin. However, he needs more experience, both in article-building and in admin-related areas. Iridescent's example is a  valid point.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, your lack of article work is low. '''
'''Oppose'''. Unimpressive Afd and article building skills. I'm okay with specialist admins. However, I cannot trust a user with a user with the tools who is unconnected with the core process of the wiki which is basically article writing. Try to write non-stubs first, the research and communication skills that you'll practice via article building will help you in the messy world of adminship.--
'''Oppose''' Aervanath strikes me as reasonable and committed to improving Wikipedia. However, the lack of content creation concerns me. Article promotion is the most straightforward way to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia's core policies. Without that, I need to see some significant work in other areas. You have done some good work with the orphanage and requested moves. I am a little uncomfortable with your non-admin closes at AfD. Unless I'm missing something, that is the extent of your experience with Wikipedia policy, and it's not enough for me to trust you with project-wide admin tools. Sorry, for what it's worth I think you are on the right track with broadening your experience. I will be happy to support you in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Scott and others have said everything I could possibly wish to say, but taking no interest at all in contributing content is far from ideal. I agree with others, when they say writing isn't essential to being an admin, but dealing with the many different things I've been asked to deal with in the two or so years I've been an admin, I can assure the candidate that being able to write makes things so much easier, the specific abilities you'll soon learn when writing are incredibly useful when closing deletion discussions, deciding on speedy deletion or when you need to re-write an article because of BLP concerns; indeed, I would contend that because of our BLP policy, every administrator should be at least capable of identifying an article that doesn't comply with our BLP policies AND then be capable of re-writing it in such a way that it then complies with our BLP policies. Yes, I know people would contend that if you don't write, you go fetch someone else to re-write the article, but that's far from ideal when it comes to BLP.
'''Oppose'''. I was sitting on the fence on this one, but Aervanath's recent posts on WP:AN made it clear to me that he's going to intervene in content disputes even though he doesn't much experience in creating content.
'''Neutral''' De-orphaning articles help this encyclopedia to make the most out of its database, but I personally think that admin can tag an article with a speedy, but '''another''' admin should do the honors, because everyone makes mistakes once in a while. I also feel like you want the admin tools to edit protected articles, which makes me worry. Yet, your edits are of very good quality. Oppose... Support... so I have to be neutral. [[Wikipedia:Edi|<span style='color:navy;background-color: gold;'>Leujohn</span>]] <sup>(
'''Neutral''' needs more article work...
'''Neutral''' Count of 2300 in mainspace is good but that didn't include content building. I do see the good work done by the candidate but some good hard work might be better. I stay neutral. --
'''Neutral''' - I've decided to switch my !vote to neutral. Aervanath lacks article work, but he will not abuse the tools. He has participated in village pump and is also active in WikiProject Orphanage. One good thing about him is he didn't try to get the "right numbers" before applying for adminship. He has done some good work, so I can't oppose.
Having seen Aitias around popping up here and there doing useful things, I've formed a pretty good impression of him. I think his article work ''could'' be stronger, especially as I don't think writing GAs is all that difficult, but some people just aren't suited to writing big articles for whatever reason. I think what people sometimes neglect to consider is that 100 edits across 100 articles that add some useful content is just as worthful as 100 edits that brings one article up to GA, ''even though'' you don't get a sticker for the former. The work that he has done in the mainspace is a good effort, especially the various new articles he's created, and his work in other areas appears to be almost without fault, so I see no reason to oppose this request. '''
'''Support'''. I've seen you around, and I think you will be a definite benefit to the project with the tools. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', sensible and dedicated user who makes a very effective vandal fighter and could make excellent use of admin tools. I supported last time based on exactly that rationale and I am happy to do so again! Aitias only seems like an even better candidate now. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''; I see nothing worrying about this candidate, and improvement since his huggle-loving days.  Besides, there is a rumor that all the best admins were chosen on their [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coren 3|third]] attempt.  :-)  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
A little trigger-happy on this latest attempt, which I think might cause a few problems, but as I did the last time I around, I '''support''' this candidate.  --
'''Support''' should have been promoted last time. - '''
Hello, my brother-in-law mistook a tube of Super Glue for his toothpaste and I need to buy a crowbar to...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a candidate who fights vandals and writes articles (nice combo!).
'''Support''' - Now that Aitias has clarified for me, my slight concern is mollified. Good luck on the RfA.
'''<s>Support</s> Make it [[absolutist|absolutely]] strong  support''' even better than last time.
'''Support''' - Very trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Has gained much more experience in the four months since last RfA and although for some reason I didn't express an opinion then, I am happy to support now. No worries for me. --
'''Support'''. How could I oppose a candidate who ''both'' fights vandals (706 edits to [[WP:AIV]]) and makes content contributions? Aitias should have been promoted last time.
'''Support''' Active, trustworthy and experienced. Though I have to ask, when you rewrote [[Federal Court of Justice of Germany]], why did you erase all the categories and interwiki links (as shown in the diff provided in the nomination)? Not that it changes my opinion, simply curious. <big>
'''Support''' Trustworthy user. You'll do fine as a sysop, despite not seeing an answer yet in Q4.
'''Support''' I'd like to see more article work, though 700 AIV edits = trustworthy candidate (in this case!) &ndash;
Bah, no article work needed, just maintenance of the encyclopedia, that's adminship for. <small>
'''Support''' has an obvious need for the tools. '''
Just your third RFA? I thought I'd supported you like six times already. ·
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. :D (of course)
'''Strong support''' &mdash; I am very impressed with what I see; we have before us a well-rounded and dedicated Wikipedian with no apparent black marks.  I would urge a rethinking of the answer to RMHED's philosophical question, however.  '''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Certainly.
'''Support''' I really loved naerii's way of putting it: 100 good edits are 100 good edits, no matter if they are on one article to GA it or on 100 article to make each one a little bit better. You should not judge an admin by GA/FAs I always say. This candidate wants to fight vandals and care about CSD (which has a huge backlog at times and everytime I see it I feel like more help is needed there) and I am sure he will do it great. And this user is friendly, helpful and constructive and will make the encyclopedia a better place with a mop. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Everything I'd want in an admin. Καλὴ τύχη, Αἰτίας! <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' per SoWhy, naerii and <s>weguardourberrieswithsecrets</s>, eh, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden ;-) <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support.''' →
'''Support''' as last time, and better qualified now. Cheers,
'''Support''' Possesses a clue.
'''Support''' He's not going to do anything dumb and giving him the tools will be a definite positive for the project. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Good luck. :)
'''Latest nom support evar'''.
'''Support''' No obvious reasons not to. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' Per RMHED.
Performs an upscale amount of work at [[WP:FPC|FPC]]. I'd like to see more content building but rv edits are impressive. &mdash;'''
'''Support''', I trust Aitias completely. There is no requirement for administrators to be experts in all fields, and what Aitias does, he does well. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Support''' I agree this makes sense. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Strong Support''' Unrelenting commitment ,Great track ,Totally unbiased Vandal fighter.Above All Trustworthy.See no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user who would benefit from the tools. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''ing a great contributor.--
'''Strong support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], excellent answres to questions.
'''Strong Support''' I supported last time, and will support again. Long overdue. I fooled the Wikibreak enforcer for this one (and because I was bored). Actually, the Wikibreak enforcer is very flawed. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Thanks for a great vandal-whacking, german helping, all around great candidate!
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' Sounds good.
'''Support''', meets my criteria, has addressed my concerns since the previous RFa, and has worked diligently towards the betterment of wikipedia.  What's not to love?  Excellent candidate.
Aitias is ''the'' candidate for the mop. An exceedingly well-versed and coherent user.
I have seen Aitias on Huggle several times in the past couple of months, and I know that he knows what he's doing with vandal-patrol. His answers to the CSD questions are also good, as are his article contributions. <br />Based on my prior interactions with you, I came here intending to give you a strong support. However, your answer to RHMED's question was, in my opinion, absolutely excellent. Regardless of whether your position there is right or wrong, I greatly admire someone who is willing to make a statement like that in such a forum as an RfA. Your answer shows clearly that you are not afraid to to state what you believe, regardless of any possible consequences of your statement. Since you are obviously willing to say what you think is right no matter what, I also believe that as an admin, you will be willing to ''do'' what is right, regardless of what others may think. I have no reason to believe that you will make any bad decisions as an admin, so, based on my interactions with you in the past, and especially on your answer to Q4, I am happy to give you my '''''Very'' Strong Support'''. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' I have had good experiences with this user, especially at [[WP:FPC]]. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Seems to be a dedicated and trustworthy 'edian. Though I cannot say that the answers to the questions had me jumping up and down, shouting "Go, Aitias!!", I must say that examples of work have gotten me pretty solidly over to Support. I feel that he has the experience and general mindset needed for an admin. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
I nominated Aitias for adminship last time around, and I'm disappointed that the RfA didn't pass. I thought he was qualified then, and believe he is qualified now. I have to mention that I was very impressed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAitias&diff=237690295&oldid=237681234#Question_from_a_NOOB_:.29 this discussion] on his talk page (also see the section after it), showing that Aitias is indeed a communicative and helpful user, and nice to newcomers. He'll be fine. (Acalamari from alternate account.)
'''Support'''. Aitias has good contributions and a fine temperament.
'''Support''' - [[WP:COMMONSENSE|Common sense]] appears to be abundant with this candidate. Aitias, would you mind sharing some with the rest of us?
I thought about going neutral because of all the automated edits, but I do my fair share of those as well.  After thinking about it, I don't think he'll do anything stupid like deleting the main page, so I'll support. --
'''Support''' - yes. &nbsp; '''
Despite my ramblings below, I trust the candidate.
'''Support''' per nom, although xeno has some good points and advice below.
'''Support''' - I supported last time, and I see no reason not to do so again. You have the right judgement and attributes for adminship in my opinion. Opposition comments are not that strong, article work seems good to me, I don't see this as needing to be fantastic for adminship. I also see nothing wrong in admins being fully honest.
'''Support''' – Passes my [[User:Animum/My RfA criteria|criteria]].  Seriously, though, Aitias would have made a fine admin long ago. —
'''Support''' I trust this user.
Good vandal fighter, dont see any significant probs, good luck '''
'''Support''' Good candidate that can be trusted. However, I don't support the usage of greek, hebrew, kyrillic or other foreign letters in a username. Y'all, pls stop that nonsense messing around with your signature and make your usernames readable again, pls!
'''Support''' - seems to be a ready and able candidate, and excepting xeno's concern, I see no reason not to. Best wishes -
'''Support''': A well-rounded editor who would make a fine janitor! <small>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' rationales are unpersuasive.
'''Support''', absolutely. --
'''support''' —
'''Support''' - The candidate's edit history does not give me any concerns that he will misuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''. I have to say the opposition's comments were quite disappointing. Perhaps they don't know that questions like "do you always tell the truth?" are standard "baiting" questions used to assess deception on psychological tests like [[MMPI]], and the [[lie detector]]. The attempt to focus the debate on that applicant's answer to that question is dubious at best.
'''Strong Support''': Trustworthy , experienced and Active wikipedian. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Too soon since your last attempt for me and stronger article building needed. —
'''Oppose''' I can't support an [[Moral absolutism|absolutist]].
'''Oppose''' per Realist2. The last RFA was just held two and half months ago and content building and activities in Wikispace are more required.--
'''Neutral''', I cannot support an editor who "would not lie in any situation". --
'''Neutral'''. Although I feel Aitias' rewrite of [[Federal Court of Justice of Germany]] was great, I feel his/her article building needs more work. Not enough for an oppose, but not enough for a support either.
'''Neutral''' for now: a clueful response to Q6, noting that he should not decline the unblock request from his own block, but I disagree with this statement: ''[if i had] to decide about the unblock request, I would decline it, as the risk of further harm for Wikipedia would be much bigger than something constructive''. Not true at all; schoolboy vandalism of this nature is easily cleaned up (especially with our huggle battalion), and the reblock would be swift. The possibility of long-term positive contributions from this user far outweighs any risk of having to reblock if they were not sincere. Consider offering users in this case a {{tl|2nd chance}} (even if another admin has declined the unblock template as they likely would, since it was, in itself, a fine and good block - at least in my biased opinion). Constructive contributors are golden. Though I will take a closer look at the rest of this in the morning. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral Towards Oppose''': I haven't found anything that I'm completely opposed to, as of yet. My big issue is the necessity for adminship. I don't think this user has been hindered by not having administrator privileges, and having failed RFA a few times before, it makes me question why they're intently seeking the admin position.
'''Support''' - I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of being '''bold'''.
'''Support''' - I can't find anything to oppose with, good contributor. Will weild mope wisely.
'''Support''' - In looking through their edit history I can find no reason to oppose. Looks like they would do a good job. -
'''<big>+</big>'''
'''Support'''.  No reason not too, good luck.  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''support''' As with EJF, I view self-noms as [[WP:BOLD|being bold]] and power hunger. Good job, and good luck! <font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Jonathan|'''Jonathan''']] <small>([[User talk:Jonathan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jonathan|contribs]] •
No reason not to. Solid contribs, experienced, etc. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Support''' Good edit history. <strong>
'''Support''' A solid editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Great editor with great contributions. Good luck!
'''Support''': After reviewing edits outside of the WP namespace and per comments left below, I feel that this editor will make a worthwhile administrator.
'''Support''', looks like a quality editor who will do a good job with the mop & bucket. --
'''Whole Hearted Support''' I see lots of great things being done with the mop!
'''Support''' Great editor, would do good with the tools no reason not to! Good luck!
Obvious '''Support''' as I have co-nommed.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions.
'''Support''' Looks good from here. --'''
Yes, of course.
'''Support''' Just to help cancel out Kurt. <span>
'''Support''',seems a solid editor, good contribs, no reason to oppose. <b>
'''Support''' nice broad base of contributions.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''
Per the answer to Corvus Cornix' question. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Opposes appear to be generic, nobody has raised any meaningful concerns.
'''Suppport''''
'''Support''' per Corvus cornix.
'''Support''' - great candidate who will be fine with a couple of extra buttons.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as meeting all my standards, especially the edit count, wide variety of contributions, and recent perfect edit summary use.
'''Support''' &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per answer to my question.  <font face="Comic Sans">
<s>'''Neutral''': While you are a solid editor at Wikipedia, I'm unsure at the moment that you really ''need'' administrator tools, given that you have [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AKeen|few]] Wikipedia namespace edits that are truly relevant to administrators.
Nom support
'''Support''' - one of the good non-admin huggle users.
'''Support'''  Good candidate.
I see you a lot at newpages, I was thinking about askign you if you were interested, actually. &mdash; [[User:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">Ceran</span>]][[User talk:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">thor</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ceranthor|[Formerly]]
'''Support''' one of the best hugglers. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. Trust the nominator, and no red flags. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''
'''Support''' - Seems a-ok to me. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Good Luck!
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason to oppose.
'''Beat the Eco Support''', I'd like tickets to see the 9 o' clock show...oh wait, wrong place. Guess I might as well support while I'm here.
'''Support''' Solid.
'''Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
Can this user be trusted? Yes, therefore '''Support'''.
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - We need more admins to clear the backlogs at CSD, this user appears very capable. Good luck,
'''Support.''' ·
'''Support''' Satisfactory answers to the questions, and we need more admins.
'''Support''' 11,000 edits and no blocks is more than enough for my vote. '''
'''Support''' Has plenty of experience, no sign of any trouble, and we can use admins at CSD. --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Per coding skills. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose, default to support.
'''Support''' Don't see anything worrying. —
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' As per track and cannot find anything to suggest user will misuse tools.
'''Support''' – I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - why not? <small>
'''Support'''. Good contributions in multiple areas. I'm not worried about the uneven distribution of edits over time. This is not a paid position!
'''Support''' - Good candidate. Have seen around. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' Evidently here for all the right reasons, and technical skills add further reassurance. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support.''' Agree with {{user|Matty}}. '''
'''Support''' as A Good Thing. As a couple of users reminded me, even when it's 99% likely someone will get the tools it's still helpful to try and up that a percentage point.
'''Support''' I think he will maje a great sdmin.
'''Support''' since he has a solid record of tagging pages for speedy deletion.  There's no shortage of pages at [[CAT:CSD]].  (So why am I voting on an RFA when I could be patrolling new pages?  Oops.)  --
'''Support'''. Has provided some good answers to the provided questions, I feel no reason to vote against the nominee. [[User:Blooded Edge|<font face="Chiller" size="4">'''<font color="ED1C24">Blooded Edge</font></font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' I have encountered you on several occasions and have found you to be smart, bold, and correct in all editing. I trust you with admin tools fully.--
'''Support''' A very good candidate.
'''Support''' good candidate, A Good Thing; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
One of the developers of VandalProof? No-brainer. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', with comments per Ecoleetage and Tikiwont below. --
'''Support''' - nothing amiss as far as I can see.
'''Support'''. Sporadic editing is a little concerning, but I have faith that won't be a problem.
'''Support.''' Excellent, thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Support''', a huggler with good contributions. &mdash;
'''Support''' Oh, yes. I thought I'd already supported. Great work in a range of activities.
'''Support''' Per nom. - -
'''Support''' -  excellent record, good contributions, diligent editor.
'''Support''' Highly respect contributions to [[Artemis Fowl (novel)]] as well as in other areas. Understanding+experience+great question answers=Support. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Support''' &ndash; Per question 5. Nice, thought out answer. Good contributions also in many areas. Like I always say, you'll do just fine as an administrator. &ndash;
'''Support''':Moved from neutral eventually...busy times. —
'''Support''' --aye.
'''Support''' Jdelanoy catches another good one! <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Neutral''' Based on the answer to Q4. I do New Page Patrols, too, and I frequently find wobbly articles that need to be strengthened -- or, at the very least, marked with the various "Wifiky" or "Unreferenced" tags to encourage article enhancement.  I am surprised about your claim that you were unable to identify a single new article that warranted your input for enhancement and improvement -- are you making ''any'' effort to save new at-risk articles? Or do you see the process as simply an exercise in deletion? Anyone can tag a junk article for deletion, but the real test comes in serious content creation and enhancement. Let's not forget that we are here to build and strengthen content, not just swat away the flies.
'''Neutral''' - As Ecoleetage I find the new page patrol one sided. I don't see may maintence tags or stub labels or one of our nice welcome messages to the newbie behind them that would be preferable over some very fast A1 / tags A3 (I would e.g not have tagged or deleted [[Horace (tv series)]] per A3 as it relates to [[Horace (play)]] by the same editor). So i think you could raise your head more often and consider what is the best things to do in a given situation. --
'''Support''' - For reasons stated above.
'''Support'''. I think Aleta has the necessary experience and temperament to make a good administrator. She has handled tough situations - like with the [[Matt Sanchez]] article - very well and has shown a good ability at resolving [[WP:BLP|BLP]]-type problems. She is involved in content writing, warns vandals appropriately and her involvement in projectspace - AfDs, noticeboard discussions etc. - show a sound understanding of policy. Won't abuse the tools and I believe she knows what she's doing. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Aleta's contribs are of great quality. I've not once seen her violate any policy and I suggest her block log reflects this. She's always a calm, reasoning voice when things get stressful. Definitely one of the more pleasant people to interact with around here. I feel she would do just as wonderful as an Admin and noway would abuse the tools. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">✰</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - of course! I've had dealings with Aleta in the past and she's been great. Should make a fine admin -
'''Support''' Ideally there would be a bit more experience in admin-related areas, but everything looks good. Should be fine.
'''Support''' All my dealings with Aleta have been supportive to the aims of the encyclopedia.  Sie's been good at dealing with tough issues and is not likely to abuse the tools. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">
'''Surprising Strong Support''' When I read you nom earlier tonight (BEFORE ANYBODY had !voted) I thought this would be an easy vote---'Oppose'."  Instead, I found a person who has a nice breadth of experiences and is very level headed.  Has made numerous contributions all over the place.  She has participated in numerous projects and activities.  Her exposure to some traditional admin tasks may be limited, but you have an attribute missing in most  candidates----'''you act like an administrator.'''  I think this is a key that many candidates are missing---you don't have to be an administrator to act like one.  If you act like one, then people will see you as one, and handing over the mop becomes no big deal. You already are an administrator, now we just have to make it official. IMHO this is probably the easiest support I've ever made for somebody I don't personally know!
'''Support''' contributions suggest Aleta can be trusted with the tools. Would be nice to see a GA or something but no matter. Cheers,
2 words; Matt Sanchez. ''
'''Support''' per WJBScribe and Balloonman. This user's clearly got clue, and knows how to handle herself in tough situations.
'''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
''' Support''' As per WJBScribe.The commitment of the user is unquestionable.
'''Support per[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]], DHMO, Glass, Pedro.(eek. Before he went neutral)''' The nominee's other experiences convince me that she will not misuse/abuse the tools.
--

'''Support''' User seems to be dedicated, hard working and civil.  Certainly trustworthy.
'''Support''' - I don't see her much on "~ for deletion" pages, but not every admin. needs to do all jobs; good user and will be a very good administrator. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]]
'''Support'''.  No worries here, good luck!  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I've seen her around (somewhere), and she has been helpful to many other users. <strong>
'''AHA!'''.  I just figured out why I recognized your name!    You worked so graciously a few months ago (I found it in your [[User talk:Aleta/Archive 3|Archive 3]] with DrAlanSun and I remember being extremely impressed by your patience and graciousness towards a new editor that just "didn't get it" when his article(s) were deleted. Sheesh, I thought you were an admin! I was indrectly involved in the same incoherent talkpage diatribes from him (there isn't a nicer way to say that, they were diatribes) You stood out though.  some editors ignored him, others brushed him off or replied on his talkpage with bluelinks (me=guilty), but you responded politely, you bent over backwards to be helpful and non-bitey.  I'm sure you remember him.  You thoroughly impressed me then, and my only regret is that I didn't realize you weren't an admin then to nominate you myself. (I wasn't an admin then either).  Anyways, I'm rambling. All this to say, '''Unquestionably strong support.'''  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - capable editor demonstrating no areas over which to be concerned.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Looking through a considerable number of contributions, Pedro's diffs appear to be the only aberrations, and are only slight; in my opinion, the other edits outweigh them. Even so, it's best to keep the edit summaries clean and to be as polite as possible. I trust Aleta with the mop, but I think [[WP:RBI|reverting, blocking, and ignoring]] would be preferable to killing vandals :)
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Good luck.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size: 14pt">
'''Support''' Article writing is something I look highly upon. --'''
'''Strong support''' Excellent candidate, trustworthy, hard-working, knows her way around... No brainer, folks.
'''Strong support'''. Not going to abuse powers, and is currently a ''great'' editor.
'''Support''' Seems a solid editor and very civil. A couple offhanded comments are not enough to outweigh a solid history of civility.
Pedro is the only one thus far who has brought up concerns, and the concerns he has brought up are not major for me. Good luck!<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong support''' brilliant hard working user. It's just too easy to support the good ones! Best of luck! --
'''Support'''. I have reviewed Aleta's contributions to a reasonable degree, and I am confident that she meets the standards expected of project administrators. Aleta maintains civility and top-notch communication at all times (for the record, I wouldn't interpret "crappy" as a [[WP:NPA]] violation, nor as a shortfall of ettiquette expected from administrators, although I would say it would be prudent if Aleta watched her word choice in the future, considering it concerns a few of the neutral editors). I was pleasantly surprised to see Aleta's contributions at the administrators' noticeboards: I very much get the impression that she is a "mainspace" administrator, and indications that she is prepared to get involved out with her current comfort zone are encouraging. All things considered, I see no problems with Aleta's nomination—I think she will be a great administrator—and to that end, I am happy to support. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
Per Keeper76.
'''Support'''.  All my encounters with Aleta have been very positive.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Although I respect Wisdom89 - who I think should be an admin - I have to support.  Aleta is an asset to wiki and I feel is a prime example of a user who will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Looking over this user's user talk and article talk edits, I find that, in general, the user demonstrates civility and politeness in inter-editor interactions. We do not expect perfection from our sysops, only superhuman self-control [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]]. The user's edits span most of wiki-space and based on my investigation, I am reasonably comfortable that anything the user does not know immediately, she can find out soon enough. A lack of knowledge is easily rectifiable, a lack of a willingness to lean and admit ignorance when necessary is much less so. Not that I think this user is ignorant of the necessary wiki policies and guidelines, otherwise I would not be so willing to support, but the concerns raised about a lack of admin related areas do not concern me with this user enough to oppose or sit this one out, and I believe that the user is worthy of the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community's trust]]. Although I would counsel a less colorful approach to discussing vandal-whacking in the future. We want to reform vandals, not kill them :) Good Luck. --
'''Support''' One of the most telling comments I've seen is that several editors thought Aleta ''was'' an admin. That says a lot to me, and I think she can be trusted to continue to be fair and civil and to make good judgment calls with the tools. She has sufficient experience all around, anything else can be learned. What can't be learned so easily is the temperament and good judgment needed to apply policy fairly and appropriately, especially in the really tough calls, and all my experiences with her have been positive and have convinced me she has that without question. I don't see anything in the expressed concerns so far that seem significant to me, especially after her responses. She has my trust, and that's the primary necessary and sufficient reason to support here. —
'''Support''', solid candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - an easy one.  Having also spent time on the Sanchez article, I have seen Aleta's abilities in action.  I have also seen a lot of APK, and I think he is both an appropriate nominator and a pretty good judge of character.  Aleta, enjoy the mop. :)
'''Support''' with out a doubt. <b>
'''Support''' will without a doubt be an excellent admin. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - very good user, will be a further asset to Wikipedia as an admin. I am confident that she has learnt from the points raised by Pedro below.--
'''Support''' Relatively low wikispace contributions offset by sensible decisions made @ AfD & strong contributions elsewhere. <b><font color="FF6600">
'''Support''' per above. :) <font color="#006600">
Per above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per WjBscribe and above ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Because good users are hard to find. As a sidenote, I'd prefer that the user familiarize themself with AfD, AIV and other areas that are crucial to any admin.
'''Support'''. But of course, it never hurts to have one more. Even if the candidate rarely participates in "admin-related areas", still a great user that can be trusted and will use the tools when they find something they need to be used on.
'''Support''' I mistakenly referred to this user as an admin during an arbitration case three months ago, with good reason. Highly qualified. '''
'''Support''' Qualities far outweigh the experience/areas issues raised. Re Pedro's points (language): this editor has consistently demonstrated civility and communication skills to a degree which IMO make these two examples of no concern to likely future etiquette. A rare and real asset to the project
I've seen Aleta around on a handful of AFDs, and found her comments more sensible than most. She looks like an excellent candidate all-around and I see no reason not to support. The opposes below aren't very convincing and the neutrals are too <s>crappy</s> <s>shitty</s> fucked up to take seriously. '''Support'''. —

Seems sensible, little evidence tools would be abused.
I see no counterarguments. '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Experience in admin areas can come with time, but common-sense and good judgement can't be taught; this candidate seems to have a good head on their shoulders and I believe they will use the tools well.
'''Support''' - a very useful editor, working across several wiki-projects, she has real potential as an admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Wisdom89 unfortunately.  Candidate has demonstrated competence, and I think we need less admins who spend their time in project space.  I think such admins are increasingly a net negative to our project. --
'''Support''' - Wikipedia is lucky to have Aleta.
'''Support''' - Very luck. =] [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Crappy Potatoes''' :-) <strong>
'''Support''' Not to do so would be crap. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' All around I think that this user would be a wonderful new sysop! --
'''Support''' Looks like a clean and steady person. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' I found her to be extremely helpful and always willing to help and guide, going to great extent to help new editors. She may not have experience, but she knows her way around wikipedia, and is definitely more professional than several other editors with more experience in terms of time. (
'''Support''' Would make a good sysops best of luck
No problems here.
'''Support''' - Generally a good set of contributions. Great article work, great interaction with other users, both on their / article talk pages. Wikipedia-count is a little low, but it isn't bad, and I've seen enough to give my support. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Why not? '''''[[User:NimiTize|<font color="blue">N</font><font color="red">i</font>]][[User_Talk:NimiTize|<font color="blue">m</font><font color:"black">i</font>]][[Special:Contributions/NimiTize|<font color="red">T</font><font color="black">i</font>]]
'''Support''' Aleta's cool head and unfailing politeness, even when provoked, has impressed me.  Her arguments are always grounded with one foot in WP policy and one in common sense.  WP would be lucky to have her as an Admin.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I don't see enough experience in the admin-related areas - Afc, AfD, RfC, AIV, AN, etc.
'''Oppose''' - Experience not quite up to snuff in administrator areas - you've made a good start though. I also praise you for your article work - unfortunately, this means that you fail my criteria for balance.
'''Oppose''' - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
I should do my homework better. Swearing in edit summaries ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Sanchez&diff=prev&oldid=195040869]) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgar181&diff=prev&oldid=183443670 vandal] '''killing?'''? I won't oppose as there's lots of positives, but when you become an admin (as is inevitable) I'd ask you remember that the popular press have a keen interest in the administrative actions of en.wikipedia and that kind of stuff is unbecoming. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' nominator's enthusiastic support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Strong support''' per Great feedback   <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' -
'''STRONG STRONG SUPPORT''' Very impressed with the answers above. Happy Editing,
Excellent user.
'''Support'''  Friendly, conscientious, industrious.  Works on a variety of projects.
Very experienced user. '''
Yes. He has enough experience for my '''support'''.
'''Support''' Great editor. Nice work at [[WP:ACC]]. -
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Good user, seen him around, and honest answers to questions. BTW, the template [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback&oldid=191911990 used] to be on the page, however it has been removed and re-added a few times. As far as I know, the discussion will take place, and the template could be re-added closer to the date. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''Jus</font><font color="Red">tin''</font></strong>]]<sup>[[User:J-stan/Gmail group|<font color="808080">(Gmail?)</font>]]</sup><sub>
Good answers, mature demeanor and attitude, notabigdealwhynot. User:
'''Support'' Haven't seen anything to throw me off. Looks good! '''
'''Support''' track shows no concerns.
'''Support''' he seems like a really good user to build up so many edits and such a reputation in a mere matter of months. I congratulate him and show my support.
'''Support''' Despite the "low clock time" of only being active for two months, nominee will do fine and is learning fast. Reviewed contribs back to Jan 15, 2008. Not sure I would have speedy tagged an article created by Tony Sidaway, even if it did say, "placeholder." <<grin>>   I would recommend waiting a bit before deleting articles after they are tagged. The creator may need a bit more time to get references and a claim to significance up. A review of nominee's talk page shows courtesy and a willingness to learn. I did not see any notifications of speedy deletions. It would be good to notify article creators that their pages have been deleted and why. It softens the blow and helps them to become more constructive. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Strong Support'''.  Has only been here since December, and is already a well known and respected editor.  I think you will do great things with the tools, and would be an even better contributor for it.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' pre [[WP:NBD]].  Would not abuse the tools and is a good user.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Weak Support'''. Doesn't have a whole lot of Wikipedia namespace edits, nor has he been active terribly long, but he seems to know what he's doing. Bonus points: at the time of this writing he has exactly [[Firewire|1394]] edits this month.
'''Support''' - good editor. &nbsp; '''
'''weak support''' essentially per Useight. I'd prefer slightly longer here and a bit more evidence that he understands policies that he will be dealing with as an admin but overall looks good.
'''Support''' Impressive answers, seems to know what he's doing. Lack of article writing is a bit bothersome, but admin tools don't do much for article writing anyway. <span style="font-family:freesans,century gothic,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' - per no big deal. All the best <sup>
'''Support''' - I second what [[User:Dlohcierekim]] mentioned above. You're a good user and you won't abuse the tools :-) Good luck!
'''Support''' per nominator. User has achieved marked improvement in a (fairly) short time; appears fit for sysophood. --
'''Support''' - I have come across this editor from time to time and have found his work to be fair and experienced. I don't see any evidence where he would abuse any tools.
'''Support''' per above, and I am not impressed by the oppose votes here because Alex has plenty of experience. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Strong support''' Alex understands policy and has demonstrated his ability to apply it in a fair and civil manner. Keeper76 asked me to co-nominate Alex and I would certainly have done so, but have been traveling for the last day or so.
'''Support!''' DO IT!!! :)
'''Support''' yes, a very good user. —
'''Support''' seems very together.
'''Support'''. Sounds okay. [[User:Basketball110|<font color="#228B22">Basketball</font>]][[User talk:Basketball110|<font color="#40E0D0">110</font>]]
'''Support'''. What I've seen, I like.
'''Support'''. Why not? <strong>
'''Support''' - Per what others have already said. Quality over Quantity.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''': Sure. --
'''Support''': I am a bit reluctant to support, more 'pedia building would help. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' No problem with him receiving the mop.
'''Support''', no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support'''. Alex.muller has a strong edit history, even if only since December, his records indicate no blocks and I don't see any shady warnings on his talk page.  He always uses edit summaries, keeps civil when dealing with other users (even vandals), and I think he would make good use of the tools.  P.S. I, for some reason, thought Alex.muller already was an administrator, but maybe that is just the vibe a good editor gives off!  I hope to see this RfA succeed.
'''Support''' - will make a good admin, and by no means should all admins write big articles, as there are many other important jobs to do.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, no problems here —<sup>
'''Weak support'''. Typically I'd prefer a month more of experience, but otherwise, great user that deserves the mop.--'''
'''Support''' - User has done some good work at [[WP:ACC]], and I see no evidence that they'll mis-use the tools.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - has always appeared civil and communicative as far as warning vandals and authors of pages for deletion. His editing style encourages that his changes are checked by those affected by them, so I don't think he will abuse admin tools.  He reacts well to criticism and seems willing and able to fix his own mistakes.  He also seems willing to entertain the difference between a vandal and a user who is confused about where they should write. --
'''Strong Support''', per [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]], that being an admin is [[WP:DEAL|no big deal]], looking through his history, this is an editor that knows how WP is run, is obviously level-headed and constructive, and would make good use of the tools. Good luck!--
'''Oppose'''. Insufficiently experienced as yet: the user has only really been active since December.
'''Oppose''' - Not ready for the mop - no evidence of any article building or editorial experience, minimal participation on mainspace talk pages. 60 reports to [[WP:AIV]] is cool, but doesn't impress me. I'm uncomfortable with the candidate's activity only persisting for a mere 2.5 months as indicated above. Just fails my criteria for balance, but based on experience, I must decline.
The vast majority of user's edits are automated or semi-automated. Too little time active on Wikipedia. —
'''Oppose''' – Not for the quality of the edits, I could find no fault there, or for the quantity of edits, which I am impressed with over the last two months, but for the amount of time actively involved here at [[Wikipedia]].  I agree that a majority of administrators work is routine, and as the saying goes, mop and bucket duties.  However, let’s be realistic, editors do look to administrators to resolve, sometimes very contentious and controversial issues, and sorry to say, I personally do not believe 2 months of experience is enough to have that responsibility placed on an individual. Please do not take this as a negative opinion of your edits or work, just the '''opposite!'''  If your contributions stay at this level for the next 4-5 months, I would be happy to jump to the '''support''' side. Good luck to you.   <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. You're only active for last 3 months. Give yourself more time and familiar with everything.
'''Oppose''' Just a bit lacking in overall experience.
'''Oppose''' per the above comments about experience. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose''' Very new, recommend at least 6 months, prefer 9-12 months experience and stability with more interaction with editors and controversial areas.--
'''Oppose''' I do not see you being a threat with the admin tools; I am however concerned that the bulk of your edits and involvement with Wikipedia have occured mostly within the last two months. I am more at ease supporting someone with more substantial editing experience. I would gladly support you in a few months with more time and experience here under your belt. --
'''Neutral''' Sufficient basic experience, knowledgeable answers here. I'm a little concerned with the apparent lack of dispute resolution experience though, your answer to Q3 was over-simplistic (i.e. you spoke in generalities, rather than giving specific examples). If you could provide a diff of an incident you think you handled well, then I would be happy to support.
'''Regretfull Neutral''' No article building or editorial experience. While vandal fighting is ok (In fact, my 150-or-so edits are mostly VAN reverts), we've got others than admins to do that. I also found that most of your articles were focused on the last two months: February and January 2008. Sorry, but not good enough experience in my opinion. --[[User:Executor Tassadar|<font color="midnightblue">'''Exec. Tassadar'''</font>]]  <small>(
'''Neutral''' - not quite up to my standards. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''. Good answers to questions, but low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely poor level of policy knowledge.
'''Neutral'''. The admin bit is not needed to be a good wikignome ot a vandal fighter. Get some more experience in dispute resolution, and you will be ready.
Nothing wrong with the edit history, interesting edit span. Beat nom! <strong>
'''Support''' as a [[WP:WPF]] member who has seen Alex around the place. Conscientious editor.
'''Support''' A whole lot of edits recently, all good. No problems with edit summary usage or contribs. Good luck. [[User:Timmeh|<span style="background:black;color:darkred;font:12pt kristen itc">Tim</span>]][[User talk:Timmeh|<span style="background:darkred;color:black;font:12pt kristen itc">meh</span>]]
'''Slightly Weak Support''' looking through contribs and deleted contribs reveals an editor who is certainly experienced on the vandal fighting side of things. Indeed there were very few declined [[WP:AIV]] reports out of many. I get the impression you have a lot of football related articles on your watchlist! My issues are minor, and not enough to oppose but for the community it's only fair to point them out. '''1)''' Other than a bit of [[WP:AFD]] contribution, you have done nothing really in deletion areas. However you haven't stated you want to go near deletion processes in the questions so fair enough - just go slowly if you do. '''2)''' I noticed two rather brusque comments on your talk page that you won't reply to another editor on their talk unless they sign. As an admin you'll get far more complaints about your actions, often from new users who may not be aware of four tildes. Please remember that even if they are complaining, a civil and respectful response may help us to retain a valuable editor for the future. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' All looks good
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  '''
'''Support'''. I have had many encounters with Alexf, most notably his support of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentine football|WikiProject Argentine football]]. He has created a number of articles on Argentina related subject matter and is often reverting vandalism on my watchlist. From my experience he is a trustworthy editor and should be allowed the tools that will allow him to make a greater contribution to the fight against vandalism
'''Support''' As per others. '''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' As a regular contributor to Spanish football league articles (specifically related to [[FC Barcelona]]), I've found myself running into Alexf routinely and I don't recall a single instance where that was a negative. A tireless anti-vandalism worker, really, and someone who seems to have a fairly complete grasp of the wiki world.
'''Support''', good vandal fighter, nothing in history that suggests he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''', as canvassing doesn't really worry me much, and this user is a good editor. ·
'''Support''' It would be a shame to lose a good admin over a minor mistake.
'''Support''' - yes, why not?
'''Support''' Although the canvassing is frowned upon, I believe it to be an innocent mistake. I don't believe it's grounds enough to deny an otherwise qualified editor the opportunity to help the project via adminship. <span style="border:#0000FF 2px solid;background:#CCFFFF">
'''Weak support''' - Great candidate except for the canvassing bit, which may indicate lack of knowledge of policy.  In any case, he should go to [[WP:NAS]] when chosen, sooner or later.
'''Support''' Yeah, canvassing sucks and they shouldn't have done it, but that is not reason enough for me to oppose.
'''Support.''' It's difficult to canvass as an admin, you can always push the button yourself. I suppose you could canvass for a community block an [[WP:AN/I]], but you don't have to be an admin for that, and you also would have to be really vindictive too... <small>(come visit me and help me push the edit button! I need help because [[Tyrannosaurus rex|I have a big head and little arms!]]</small>
'''Support''' While canvassing is frowned upon, I don't feel that's reason enough to oppose this user, given that their contributions have been great.
'''Support''' Canvassing is good. See [[User:Majorly/RfA#On_canvassing|here]] for my rationale. This user appears to be a good candidate. '''
As Majorly says, this user appears to be a good candidate. I happened to know about the RfA before the canvassing took place, and I was going to support anyway. ''
Yeah, ok. Majorly [[User:Majorly/RfA#On_canvassing|makes a strong case]] against [[WP:CANVASS]]-based opposes. So <s>[[WP:DGAF|fuck]]</s> [[Nuclear explosion|nuke]] [[WP:CREEP]] (the bureaucratic ill not the guideline addressing it, mind you). [[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatu'''a'''rum]]'s rationale is still valid, but I'm wildly eager to make a [[point]] of supporting for the sake of sanity.
'''Support''' - one misstep (and the canvassing was that) does not a failed admin candidate make.
'''Support''' - While I do feel that the canvassing issue was an unacceptable lapse in judgment, I think that this user has learned his lesson and will not be doing anything of the sort in the future.  I feel that aside form this, the user is a good candidate.
Tentative '''support''' after a quick review of contribs, assuming that there's nothing else other than this canvassing issue. -
No reason to make this vote '''oppose''' [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:11pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:11pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. Notifying a few other users should not be viewed as canvassing. Having worked for a politician in real life, I know what canvassing is, and leaving a few polite, neutrally-worded messages on talk pages isn't it. Yes, I know that in theory such notification skews the sample, but I don't think this is seriously problematic. Those editors who have worked with a candidate before are those who are most qualified to judge that candidate's fitness for adminship - and experience has shown that they don't all necessarily vote Support. We would only have cause to worry if candidates were stacking the vote by recruiting armies of supporters who shared their own ideological viewpoints, and that is not happening; besides, any candidate who was dishonest and power-hungry enough to do that would probably not do it openly on-wiki. So all in all, I don't think that the alleged "canvassing" is a sound reason to oppose. The only solid argument I can see is the fact that the candidate's conduct, in contravening the commonly accepted interpretation of [[WP:CANVASS]], may demonstrate unfamiliarity with RfA procedures; however, I don't see this as a deal-breaker.
'''Support''' - I'm going to be bold. I suppose I've set off enough about this already, and I see this as the only way of apologising. Good contributions, good answers to questions.
'''Support''' - Canvassing is indicative of ignorance of community sentiment, not ignorance of '''policy'''.  You can be an excellent admin focusing solely on policy (i.e. vandal whacking and mop-and-bucket activities) while keeping out of more political areas. If you've kept your nose clean for over a year and 10K edits while helping with vandal whacking, you deserve trust. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' I'm very happy with the answers given - we all make mistakes, but it's the self-analysis afterwards that's important (i.e. not making the same mistake a second time). Nothing I've seen shows a propensity to abuse the tools and his understanding of policy exceeds the mere mechanical. Well thought out and investigative approach to my question also.
'''Support''' Despite a bobble over [[WP:CANVASS]], he seems like a responsible editor with good knowledge of policy. Very small pet peeve: all your edits seem to be marked as minor which I have some difficulty believing. Willingness to admit mistakes is always a plus as is looking up relevant policies and guidelines when necessary. I'm a policy wonk and I will still own up to gaps in my knowledge. <small>(but don't tell the cabal or I'll catch it good.)</small>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse the tools. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Canvassing doesn't mean he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - nice wide area of interest on the 'pedia when looking at his contributions. Never been in any situation that would make me doubt his trustworthiness. He apologized for the canvassing and I believe it was a genuine mistake.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Weak Support''' Please go slow. There may be a tendency toward trigger-happiness. Unfortunately there is sometimes a tendency among [[WP:AIV]] participants to hit too hard and fast with warnings. Sometimes a full set of warnings, with time between for the message to sink in, can be effective in stopping vandalism. It is pointless to block someone after they've already stopped, and counter productive to block those who are not really committing vandalism. The canvassing is concerning. Though the last time I read [[WP:CANVASS]], it did not prohibit canvassing, it is certainly disruptive and definitely to be discouraged. Not quite enough for me to oppose as I believe the benefits of promotion to the project outweighs the detriments.
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support''' nothing to indicate that the tools would be abused or misused.
Canvassing rocks, and so do you.
'''Oppose'''. A lack of awareness that canvassing is frowned upon (rightly or wrongly, I'm sure we all have our own views on that) makes me suspicious that there may be other more important guidelines and policies that the candidate is also unaware of, as Rudget hinted at above. --
Oppose as a result of violations of WP:CANVASS and candidate not remembering that the policy exists. Sorry - <sup>
Even if you forgot the rule, canvassing isn't the best idea off top - and indicates being out of touch with the community's zeitgeist.
'''Oppose''' per WP:CANVASS and the above-mentioned risk of nom not knowing other policies/guidelines.  --
'''Oppose''' per Malleus.  The user should have known that, at a minimum, canvassing would be controversial.  Failing to take note of that is a sign of poor judgment, so I'd support a bit more of a wait before the editor is given the mop.
'''Oppose''' For me, while canvassing is not breaking a policy, it does indicate a poor judgement and that is not something we need in admins
'''Oppose''' I was once blocked for [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] due to my lack of awareness on Wiki-policy and Wiki-etiquette. Any person who violates this guideline is making a mockery of the <s>AFD</s> RFA process and as such should not hold the power of the mop. Sysops are expected to play by (and enforce) the rules. They are not meant to be politicians. --'''
'''Oppose.''' Concerns about sometimes inappropriate/mistaken use of user-warning templates apparently leading in two cases to blocks based at least partly on misunderstandings and/or mistakes, detailed in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexf&diff=185518087&oldid=185034466 post] on the candidate's talk page.  --
'''Oppose''', per canvassing. Life is just like self-assembly furniture - if you don't take the time to read the instructions, it is likely to all fall apart.
'''Neutral'''  - sadly canvassing makes me wonder about user's knowledge of this policy and there was perhaps a unintentional selection bias. Fear of a low number of (votes) at an RfA doesn't mean you have to send many messages to other editors. However, really this is not a very serious concern as adminship is no big deal; nevertheless I feel unable to support, but I hope you learn and become a good admin, as you appear to be a good editor!
<s>'''Temporary Oppose pending explanation''':</s> '''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose: Seems like a good editor. However, a quick look at his contribs shows, at the time of writing, 13 notices to other users about this RfA, which I'd say violates my understanding of [[WP:CANVASS]].
'''Neutral''' - I know for good he is a good and trusted user, but he ignored what I feel to be a very important behavioural guideline such as [[WP:CANVASS]]. But I am sure he just did it in good faith, so I am casting a neutral vote. --
'''Neutral''', as I was one of the canvassed editors too, and I wasn't really familiar with Alexf's work outside of AIV reports.
'''Neutral''' per everyone else who has mentioned [[WP:CANVASS]] I'm an infrequent editor so have never come across this user before, so have to go by what I'm seeing here. And what I'm seeing here is good answers to questions but a large question mark because of forgetting such an important policy, that could very easily sway an RFA. Even if it wasn't realised to be policy, common sense should have dictated that making people you think will support you aware of an RFA is inappropriate. Common sense isn't a good trait to be missing from an admin, nor is forgetfulness regarding policy. But, good answers to questions so I won't oppose
'''Neutral''' Until above questions are answered. <small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' - fantastic user who will be a great help at DYK. '''
'''Support''' We absolutely need more qualified DYK admins. Also (more importantly?) I love the username.
'''Support''' Per great work at DYK.&nbsp;–
Per co-nom. -
Was literally looking over this users contributions a few days ago thinking about whether to recommend that the user run for RfA. So I guess that's '''support'''
The candidate is competent and trustworthy; will be a a net plus, if promoted, I believe. '''Support'''.
I see no reason not to trust this user with adminiship. --
Competent administrator-hopeful; helps out a lot at DYK which is great.
'''Support''' Good work at DYK.--
'''Support'''
'''Aye''' - great user, no red flags, no problem. <b>
'''Support''' - Nothing even remotely alarming or worrisome. Nice work.
Pretty much per everyone else. We really ''do'' need more DYK admins, other than Victuallers ;). Just joking, there are plenty other great ones! Plus, if WJB wants to nom. you, you can't be all that bad.&nbsp;— [[User:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">Ceran</span>]][[User talk:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">thor</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ceranthor|[Formerly]]
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', I already thought he was an admin.
'''Support'''.  No red flags, everything looks good! Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Very well-rounded editor. I've seen very nice work from this user around DYK, and I'm sure he'll be able to do more as an administrator. Absolutely no problems from what I've seen. Ameliorate! will do just fine. &ndash; <font color="navy" face="cursive">
'''Support''' No reason why not really. Great editor.
'''Support''' --ditto.
'''Support''' - I trust the nominator's judgment. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' Nothing significant pops up after a look at your contribs, seen you around, and trust the noms. Good luck!
'''Support''' After very careful consideration.The user has been since April 2006 but over 11000 edits have been since June 2008 and over 7000 in September 2008 alone.But the user has  used Automated or script-assisted edits only for 800 edits.Further the user has shown great commitment as per track and see no misuse of tools.Lastly fully trust the judgement of WJBscribe.
Hi, I'm here to pick up my laundry.  Oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here -- '''Support''' for a great editor.
'''Support''' '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
Support!'''
Yes indeedy! --
'''Support''' - We need more DYK admins, and I trust the user's judgment, as well. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' No problems here. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Great editor!
'''Support''' as nom. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' having seen contribs as part of AWB approval, and taking into account willingness to take on DYK, I have no qualms here. --
Because you're from New Zealand, you must be the coolest. --''
'''Support''' - Great user, will be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Outstanding user. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. WTF? I could have sworn that you were an admin since early 2007. I must be confusing you with someone else. '''''
This isn't even a ''jokingly'' cliched support - I truly ''did'' assume this contributor already had access to the extra buttons, and was honestly quite surprised to see his name pop up at RfA.
Certainly. --
<font face="Broadway">
Support, although with a caution that people who ramp up their activity on Wikipedia so quickly are prone to burnout.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' - A candidate with the potential to further [[wiktionary:ameliorate|ameliorate!]] the DYK process --'''
'''Support''' - it is only the fact that this RfA occurred that caused me to realise that Ameliorate! was not an admin already, and ought to become one. Caspian blue's diffs show what a great candidate he is. -
'''Support''' Great DYK work, no reason to believe candidate will misuse tools.
'''Support''' The candidate has provided well-thought out answers, and I feel he would make a great administrator. [[User:Blooded Edge|<font face="Chiller" size="5">'''<font color="ED1C24">Blooded Edge</font></font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' User's openness and good communication suggests can be trusted, and DYK work os great - good 'pedia builder Cheers,
'''Support''', per competence.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support'''. Good contributions & answers.
'''Support''' Developed great DYK tool, DYK help is always needed. Even if the candidate would burn out quickly it would be worth it to have a short-term net positive. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Good work and would help a lot at DYK. --
Very good worker - can't have enough DYK template updaters. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I reviewed the diffs listed by Caspian Blue and couldn't see what the problem. Reviewing Ameliorate!'s contributions and answers, those'll work.
'''Support'''- I haven't had much to do with this candidate, but what I have seen has impressed me. In  addition, I am unconvinced by Caspian Blue's accusations of incivility- to me they actually demonstrate a sound grasp of policy and a level head even in the face of provocation.
'''Support.''' - Per the noms, the answers to the first three questions, and some excellent positive contributions to this project across varied capacities. '''
'''Support''' Agree with Reyk - I am encouraged about the candidate's level-headedness after reading Caspian's links.
'''Support''' - after viewing the way he dealt with the oppose, and looking through his contribs, I'm perfectly happy to support this candidacy. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' for incredible patience in sorting out DYK microconflicts.
I'm familiar with the candidate and trust him with the tools. The diffs presented below aren't uncivil and the dispute was handled in a calm manner.
'''Support''' per nom and article work.
'''Support''' I've seen you around at DYK. Judging by your contributions and work on article building, you have my support.
'''Support''' wholeheartedly, a longtime contributor who can easily be trusted with a mop.
'''Support.''' Great work + nomination by WJB = Support! :-)
'''Support''' They will be really useful at DYK, and no reason to think they will abuse the tools. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
Hello, I'm looking for the grave of the first German Shepherd, and...ooh, wrong queue. '''Support''' (beat you eco) '''the
'''Support''' quality additions to the project
'''Weak Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' per Malinaccier. —
'''Support''': The username represents what every Wikipedia user should strive to do for the community. Need we use it as a battle cry someday? Also, it brings me back to the good days of studying 4th Form History at S.M.A.... Anyway, best of luck! --
'''Support''' - one of those few users over which I have no doubt whatsoever. It's evident from everything he's contributed so far that he's in it for the long haul, and certainly won't abuse the position. Long overdue IMO. –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Support''' per pretty much everyone above.  Great editor, pleasure to work with.
'''Support''' : I have a [[WP:BOTR|bot task request]] for you... :) Can you automate RFA approvals ? If ( RFA candidate = Good ) { default: Approve }  ?  .... Just Kidding ! --
'''Support''' - meets all my [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' - seems good to me. <b>
'''Support''' Thought I'd already supported actually. Per DYK and previous wholly positive interaction. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Wonderful contributor, although, is [[User:Ameliorate]] a sock of yours? Because if it isn't, you are open to impersonation (a situation potentially magnified with adminship), but besides that, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - looks like an execllent user.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Weak Support''' No reason to oppose, nor even go neutral, but I would have preferred a ''sustained'' amount of edits over a longer period - however, WP is not constructed around my preferences and there is no indication the candidate would abuse the mop.
'''Support''' per answers, experience, general reasonableness, and Caspian blue's reasoning.
'''Support'''. Good candidate, net positive.
'''Support'''. Ben waiting for this. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. I gave Ameliorate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=WilliamH&page=User%3AAmeliorate!&year=&month=-1 account creator] rights, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Ameliorate!&page=&year=&month=-1 results] speak for themselves. Clearly advantagaeous to the project, congratulations. <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''
'''Strong Support''': Ameliorate will revolutionize the DYK concept.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the candidate's incivility and lack of understanding of policies which showed on [[T:TDYK]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=239804879][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=239812679][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=239812988][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=239827491] (my responses[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=239817781][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=239829751]) The user obviously could not assume good faith in not only this case but also in many others. I also have not get any good impression from the user's cynical sarcasm such as on [[User:Cirt]]'s RFA[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt&diff=238460782&oldid=238456676][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt&diff=238467666&oldid=238463523][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt&diff=238460782&oldid=238456676] and on ANI. I don't want uncivil editors to become admin with tools.--
'''Neutral'''.  Seems intelligent and clueful, and this editor's contributions so far have been outstanding.  But the user's edit history is extremely top heavy, with 80% of the user's 11000 edits occurring in the last 8 or 9 weeks, and an enormous number of ''those'' edits are repetitive Wikignome tasks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roswitha_Steiner&diff=prev&oldid=236761809 replacing deprecated templates].  User seems smart, but I like to see more of a temporal commitment to the project; before this summer, they barely edited at all.  I also don't feel the user has participated in enough discussion for me to get a feel of how they'd handle the tools.  Contributions at DYK and elsewhere are superb, though.  Should this RfA fail, I have no doubt that after some time has passed, I would be able to support this candidate without reservation.
'''Neutral''': Answer to question 3. Bots and automatic edits. Also mainly editing article relating to dogs. —
'''Neutral''', a little light on Wikipedia-namespace contribs and deletion-related activity.
'''Neutral''' (for now), I agree with Stifle here: I expect someone that wants to close AfD discussions to have more experience in that area. It's not just a clerical position where you count !votes.
'''Neutral''' - this user looks to be on the path of being a great admin.  A little more experience in various parts of the project and more mainspace activity will help.
'''Support''' as co-nom. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' I belive she will have a great use of these tools. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yes. '''«'''
'''Support'''. Solid nomination, trustworthy, competent, and will use the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''', seems like she'll be a good admin. '''
'''Support''', per above
'''Support''', will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Good editor, fairly good balance of edits, although I'd like to see more Wikipedia talk edits. Vandal fighters are always appreciated! Good luck.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' per above and  more.
'''Support''' as co-nominator. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
I strongly support this nomination, being AngelOfSadness' nominator. In response to the communication concerns, I can honestly say that AngelOfSadness is a fine communicator: a look through her talk page and her archives will show that she is good at talking to people (and that includes vandals and trolls), and that I have never found any problems with her communication. With "a lot of her user talk edits are templates", that's only because, in addition to her article-writing, she has done a lot of vandal-fighting, and the fact that she's warning vandals after she's reverted them is a good thing and should not be held against her. Finally in response to her low WT count, in my 11 months as an admin, I've found that it's actually not a high priority to edit those pages: the actual Wikipedia-namespace is more important to edit, and she has plenty of activity there. She'll be excellent.
'''YES FINALLY''' Nuff' said.
'''Support''' - After carefully looking at the user's special contributions, I've decided there exists ample evidence that the candidate will be nothing less than a benefit to Wikipedia. Yes, there are few WT edits, but there are plenty of instances in the article space that shows how they interact and communicate.
'''Support''' WT edits? There's enough evidence that the user communicates well. Would there be 3 noms if she didn't? '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support''' (changed from Neutral). After a deeper look, your contribs are good enough and after going through your user talk edits, I think you'll be communicative enough. Your work in User Talk makes up for the little work in Wikipedia Talk. I, like Wisdom89, want to give my !vote meaning, so I can add to the discussion.
<small>'''
'''Support''' Per nom. '''
'''Support'''good 'pedia builder. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - I knew you wouldn't let me nom you. I should totally oppose just based on that! -.- You are a marvellous editor; you're funny, bright, and enthusiastic about Wikipedia. I'm really happy that I'm writing '''Support''' here. You're a great vandal hunter and you keep the music articles in my watchlist clean ;-) - You've also got a great taste in music which is always awesome in an admin. You won't abuse the tools... 1) You're a girl and you're mature. 2) You like rock music. 3) You're awesome. 4) You're exceptionally trustworthy and I know you'll make an awesome administrator. Take care my friend, and good luck!
'''Support''' Sure, good candidate, slightly worried by the lack of WP talk but hey, what you gonna do? ;) Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Strong support''' - Kind, thoughtful and very helpful editor. Knows what she is doing. Has rescued my userpage from vandal attacks many times. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''.  Admin coaching, coupled with good experience leads me to believe you will be a great admin.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
--
'''Support''' No reservations or doubts here - this is a fine candidate.
'''Support''' The answers to every one of the questions that I asked were superb and they show that this user definitely understands the policies that administrators need to know in order to do their job correctly.  The only thing I have to say is that when you are in a wheel war, the most important thing is to ''stop reverting the other admin's changes''.  The rest of your answer was perfect.
'''Support''' per Malinaccier P! Good luck! --
'''Support''' - per nom.
'''Support''' No problems here &mdash; and she's using a userbox I created! :P
Per Rlevse, Acalamari and Nishkid64. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' No major reasons for concern, candidate will be a net benefit to the project.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per everyone above. The only fault, insufficient communication at Wikipedia Talk: Pages, isn't an issue for me - as noted, the candidate's talk page shows ample evidence of good communication. In short, per the Pedro Test, candidate would be a net positive if granted the tools.
'''Strong Support'''; I thought you were already an admin. AngelOfSadness is an experienced vandal fighter and should be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Definitely. Strong editor, does good work around here.
'''Support''' <span>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' ''because'' you have so few edits in WT.  Means you're building the encyclopedia and not getting too caught up in policy-wonkery.  Purviewing your contribs, you are civil, patient, thorough.  Purviewing your article contribs, you are accurate, detailed, and thorough.  Support without hesitation - good luck!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.  —
'''Support.''' All is good except the sig (personal preference, though, so don't mind me). ;) ·
'''Support''' per good reasoning at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry potter and the order of the pheonix]], although I hope with the whole name change thing, you are still happy, too. :)  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Support'''. I don't think I have ever come across her, but I'm not seeing any issues.
'''Support''', no problems here.  No reason to believe that this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' per most support comments suggest a good candidate -
'''Support'''. A good editor and candidate. Good luck AoS. --
'''Wouldn't dare oppose''' Great answers and if I were to oppose, god only knows what would happen to me :D. Good luck Angel <font face="Ravie">
'''Support''' Stunning! Stunning!--
'''Support''' - of course! She looks like a great editor and should make a super admin :) -
'''Support''' obviously.
'''Support''' reminds me of me, and I mean that in a good way. --<small>
'''Support''' No concerns about editor having the tools. --
'''Support''' Well it's about time. [[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|BoL]] (
'''Support''' Great answers to questions, plenty of experience, and level-headed. <b>
'''Support'''. Reminds me of DEA, and not in a good way. </jokes> &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''' No concerns here. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' and huggles --
'''Strong support''' Great vandal fighter and other edits; I was waiting for AngelOfSadness to accept an RfA, but I didn't have time to ask her if I can nominate for. Great user and it's time for being an admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I'm a new editor and I've only just found out about RfA but even to me this looks like a good editor.--
'''Absolute Support''' How did I miss this one? —
'''Support'''. I have watched this editor for a long time and wondered when someone would nominate her. She is an excellent asset to the community and giving her the mop would only make her more so. When I'm monitoring WP:AIV and vandal hunting, seeing her also at work makes me comfortable knowing that an experienced vandal whacker is also on the job.
'''Support''', seen this editor many times; she is dedicated, trustworthy and consistent.
'''Support''' I have had a number of interactions with this user, all positive. Clearly has a good grasp of wikipedia fundamentals, and will make an excellent admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - definitely. This user seems to be great admin material, and I don't really have any concerns. Until just recently, I honestly thought that she was an admin already from how she acted. She seems to have good judgment with handling things, as well as a nice balance of vandal-fighting and encyclopedia-building. I believe that she'd be a good administrator, and it certainly wouldn't be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net '''negative''']]. :) --
'''Support''' limited direct interaction with AngelOfSadness but I looked through her contribs and she seems to be a high quality editor and will benefit the project as an Admin. <sub>
'''Support''' For some reason <small>(support number 2) ''':)'''</small> I thought I'd already commented here. Highly competent user who is already a major asset without the buttons and can only be more so with them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Don't know this editor but checked her edits and concluded that  she's trustworthy, civil and has a need for the tools.—
'''Support''', one of the best and most level-headed editors around.  Very smart, polite and knowledgeable.  Will weild the mop wisely.
'''strong support''' Hurra! Finally! —
'''Support''' yeah, of course. :) —
'''Support'' per [[WP:WTHN]] - '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support'''. I have no concerns with this editor.
'''Support'''.
Why not?  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Brown">
Seen this user around. She'll be fine.
'''Changed to support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spencer&curid=12697018&diff=217794181&oldid=217793970 this]. She's the first person to do that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spencer&curid=12697018&diff=217819632&oldid=217819571 And again]. <strong>
A good user, although it would be nice to see a "major content contribution".  –'''
'''Oppose''' Useless. Psyche!, its a support. '''''
'''Neutral''' The lack of edits to the WT space concerns me, as does the support of BLP1E, although that not as much, since I understand the need for administrators from multiple policy standpoints, even ones that I don't believe are in line with the goal of producing a quality encyclopedia.  Communication is one of the most important duties of being an admin, and I just don't see anything that demonstrates the ability of the user to do that.  <font color="629632">
No concerns from me at all. AniMate is a very nice chap and knows his stuff. '''
'''support''' i add my support to AniMate as an adminship. he is a very able user who not only has skill in working with improving articles but also is polite and always helfpful even in situations where others might be stroppy or annoyed. one quality of his that i presonally found impressive was his work on articles re: obscure people who might be overlooked by many other editors due to a lack of prominence in mainstream television culture. He worked hard on [[Steve Brown (yo-yo player]] and preserved it to keep importnat information onto the wiki that might not have been noticed by someone else who wasnt as good at researching and editing as he is. i believe this this good example of hard working and enterprising nature that is valuable in an admin.
'''Support'''. No problems here, solid contributor and mature editor. To the !vote above - ''spell check''. Use it. Love it.
'''Beat the next person to vote support''' - Good editor, nice guy, [[Mr. Muscle]]. No reason not to support. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Of course. To the above, hmm, possibly the most unoriginal "beat the.." supports I've seen, but good try nonetheless. :D <font face="Arial">
Ho Ho Ho! I'm Santa Claus and I need to buy a girdle -- either they're making chimneys smaller these days or I put on some weight since last Christmas. Oh, wrong queue.  But while I'm here: '''Support''' for a candidate who is clearly the perfect holiday gift to all the good little boys and girls of Wikipedia.  I actually wanted to co-nominate AniMate, but that's okay -- he's here and that's great. On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer, on Jimbo...Jimbo? Hey, what are you doing with my reindeers?
'''Support'''.  As Vote #2 said above, AniMate is definitely not stroppy.
Seen the user around, seems like a good natured person. &mdash;
'''Support''' Positive name I've seen around. '''
'''Support''' - It is about time.  I will not prattle on about this editors contributions or the benefits of having [[user:AniMate|AniMate]] as an addition to the [[WP:administrator|admistrative roles]], his record speaks for its self.  Again, about time. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - Good editor, why not?  '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as the same as just about everyone else above. You got this in the bag!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per previous interactions, and per answer to Q4.
'''Yes''' - have seen nothing that says "can't be trusted." Donnez le mop d'admin. //
Excellent contributor. Fully trustworthy
'''Support''' - I've seen AniMate around and have a positive opinion of him. Trustworthy and would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - Deletion discussions look fine to me.
'''Support''' &ndash; I've heard (well, I mean "read") good things about AniMate. I've skimmed his contributions, and I see nothing but positive work. Looks like AniMate could do a good amount of extra things as an administrator to me. Would do just fine as one. &ndash;
'''Support''' as nominator. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' per {{ul|Ecoleetage|Santa Claus}} above ;-) '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. While I would have liked to see more article-writing, the candidate exhibited good mediation skills in dealing with difficult and contentious disputes, and we definitely need more admins with these kinds of skills.
'''Support''' I've seen you around, I have no concerns. Good luck!
'''Support''' Quality editor and I have no concerns that he won't be successful.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' Competent and experienced enough for adminship.
Seems fine.
'''Support''' Per contributions, my only concern was addressed by the answer to q7  '''
'''Support''' Hello, I'd like to purchase a high-strength snowblower...sorry, wrong queue.
'''Support''' &ndash; I have worked around Balkan articles before (especially those that are Kosovo-related) and I must disagree with Terse's oppose. Although I can't elaborate with diffs at this particular moment, due to time constraints, I would encourage people to investigate further before mindlessly "''per''-ring" that oppose. From what I can recall, AniMate is good editor.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' views and find them unpersuasive.
'''support''' thought he was already an admin.  A Nobody's oppose is because he disagrees with almost all deletions (that's not failure to [[WP:AGF]], it's a fact with which he might well agree if you ask him.  He's one of the most 'notorious' inclusionists after [[User:Kmweber]].  We are supposed to give our opinions at AfD and no-one presumably is psychic, we won't always agree with what the future close ends up being.  Nor is having a different opinion to the close wrong.  If we really were a hive mind that could read each others' minds to determine what consensus is on an article, we wouldn't need to have AfD discussions at all.
'''Support''' - I have to admit, I've never heard of the candidate before, but as far as I can tell he'll do just fine with the mop. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've seen this user several times and have been impressed with his edits and demeanor. The ability to keep a cool head in Balkan-related issues is a definite plus. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' I have had many interactions with AniMate and seen him "at work" here many times, and find him to be consistently calm, civil, evenhanded and always going out of his way to de-escalate conflicts between others, encourage more collaborative behavior and help/guide/teach new editors both technically and regarding policy and behavior.&mdash;
'''Support'''.  I warn you to watch your POV when dealing with Balkan articles, but other than that you will make a good admin. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' No reason not to!
'''Support''' meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]].
'''Support''', naturally.... --<font face="Eras Bold ITC">
Can't see why not.
''
'''Support''' Opposes are either unsubstantiated allegations, or very borderline questionable but from a long time ago where edit history since then has been rather good.
'''Support'''. —<sub>
'''Support''' Seems to be a good content contributors. He also managed to keep a cool head during all those Yugoslavia related edit wars. So I think he will be a good sysop.
'''Support''' per conduct in this RfA, particularly vis-a-vis the questions - I like it when candidates admit their mistakes - and general decorum / healthy perspective.
'''Support''' - Read through the Holocaust archives and extremely impressed with the candidate's skills, abilities and calmness (Is that a word? It is now!)
'''Support''' - we need more admins willing to lend a hand for the 'unglamorous' areas such as those identified in your question answers
I probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise, but we saw enough of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Terse this nonsense] during the ArbCom elections.
'''Support''' - a longterm commitment to improving the encyclopedia, reasonable experience in the usual Wikispaces and a calm and constructive approach on some of our most controversial articles. Seems like an excellent candidate to me.
'''Support''' - The tone of Rjecina's opposition and questioning convinces me that you'll be a good influence in that area of the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''.  Some of the counterarguments seem to have interesting crusts, but they're rather empty inside.
'''Support''' Three years on the project, solid contributor.
'''Strong support''' - It is nice to see a candidate with solid substantive experience in mainspace.  Much rather see that than tens of thousands of vandalism reverts or whatever.
'''Support''' per the candidate's responses to the not-so-helpful questions 12 through 16.
'''Support''' All my dealings with this editor have been positive and considered.--
'''Support'''. Well beyond net positive. Quite the impressive candidate. <font color="777777">

'''Support''' As per track.POV should not be reason to oppose every editor has a POV.
'''Support''' has a very strong commitment to Wikipedia - very positive and skilled user.
'''Support''' no dealbreakers noted. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' -
'''Weak support''' - The answer to my question above wasn't particularly strong, but I see no other major issues and a lot of positives.--
'''Happy Christmas Support''' I see a lot of positives here, and assuming this succeeds and the community agrees, the flag can be your Christmas present from the community! :D '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Suppoort''' - I could have sworn you were an admin..  But yes, I trust your judgement.— '''
'''Support'''. AniMate does not have a lot of mainspace content contribution. However there are good interactions with other users, and sensible answers to tricky questions above.
'''Support''' — the mop is no big deal — for those who show clue. Cheers,
'''Weak support''' - I'd like to see some more article work including going through the GA and/or FA process once or twice, but I haven't found that here. Or am I missing something? In which case, I'll strike the "weak". '''
'''Support''' - [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]].
'''Support''' I trust Animate. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' per what's been said.
'''Support''' per all the above. <em style="font-family:Impact"><font color="black">
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support''' Appears to have good judgment in dealing with others, including those in contention.  Does not seem be be a member of one of wikipedia's  power-welding cliques. Wants to become an admin for the right reasons (taking care of admin tasks) and not just because it would be convenient to have the tools now and then, or to help only in circumscribed areas of interest.    &mdash;
No concerns from what I have seen. First hand experience in conflictual areas is a big plus. -
Based on the reviews and work by AniMate, this user is an excellent potential in Administratorship. I support his campaign, and have no worries he will do something negative with being ad administrator.--<b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">
'''Support''' Good user, can be trusted. I don't see anything in the opposes to move me.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent user, he would be trusted with the tools and I wish him luck in the future!--
'''Support''' as to give AniMate [[WP:MOP|the mop]] as a Christmas present. :-) --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Support'''. See no serious issues.
'''Block as impersonator''' &mdash; Has nobody else noticed the similarity? [[Image:Face-surprise.svg|25px]] Seriously, though, '''support'''. —
'''Weak oppose''' per these examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_traps_in_the_Saw_film_series&diff=156199352&oldid=156113657] (this "vote" is really a merge and redirect, not a delete), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_restaurants&diff=160510366&oldid=160476903] (no argument, i.e. no "why", just a suggestion), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Sander&diff=175010878&oldid=175009431] (vote inconsistent with close).  I like that the candidate has created some articles and received a couple barnstars and has not been blocked, but in deletion discussions in which we both participated, I have to give pause for the above indicated reasons.  Best, --
'''Neutral, leaning toward Oppose''' See Oppose #2
'''Neutral''' as some of my concerns have been answered, I switch my vote to neutral. Still a bit skeptical, but I hope AniMate will live to his promise to leave policing of Balkan related articles to other admins, and restrict his efforts to mediation in this hot area, where his efforts were overall OK.
'''Neutral''' Christmas is period of gifts and good wish--
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' per nom. <strong>
'''Support''' per co-nom added above.  --
Changed from neutral, user expanded on answer to Q1, and it looks better now. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
I don't forsee sysop abuse from this user.
'''Support'''. Period. Thank you.

'''Support''' The more experienced article writers who also have admin powers the better.
<font color="blue">
'''Support''' - Seen this user around, always left with a good impression.
'''per nom.
'''Support''' Great contributor to the encyclopedia, don't see anything which would cause me concern. I'm not crazy about part two to Q3 (don't just give in to the vandals!), I'm not worried.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy enough, no reasons as far as I can see ''not'' to give him the tools.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A collegial and diligent contributor.
'''SUpport'''.  That's a lot of edits.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' good, experienced editor who should have the tools.
'''Support''' per answers to questions. Before adding yourself to AOR, check out [[User:Lar/Accountability]] and look at some other folks recall guidelines. Its a tricky subject, so look into it more carefully before making a decision. <sup>
'''Support''' - good answers!
'''Cautious support''' My only concerns with this candidate are that he might be overeager with [[WP:CSD]], especially A7s, but he's allayed my concerns substantially with his answer to question six.
Cancelling out Corvus cornix' oppose, which he [[hypocrisy|ironically]] bases on a [[WP:BEANS|solicited]] "reason". Yes, I happen to agree with AOR. And Wikipedia processes don't produce drama, people do. Everything else about the candidate seems just fine as well. '''
'''Slightly Qualified Support''' I like what I see, but I understand the concerns raised by Nishkid64 in Neutral and Phil Bridger in Oppose. However I agree with Sarcasticidealist that Q6 indicates the candidate would be cautious. Speedy Deletion is contentious, and poorly applied speedies create stress both for admins and non-admin editors. Having said that, your other contributions indicate a civil, friendly and knowlegable contributor so I have no real concerns. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Dorftrottel and per Pedro. Concerns raised by Phil Bridger are valid, so I would have been neutral had it not been for the candidate's brave commitment to admin recall.
'''Support''' Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' Yes. —
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' Candidate's answers are good, does not appear to be someone who will abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' - As an admin, should you shoot and ask questions later?  Or the other way around?  '''''
'''Support''' per above. No reason to '''oppose'''.
'''Support'''. This is a fantastic editor and one of those that when I saw his nomination, my first reaction was "What the hell? he's not an admin already!?".
'''Support''' -
I can support.
'''Support''' When users of this caliber are willing to donate time to admin chores, Wikipedia will benefit no doubt. Knowledgable and helpful participant. -
'''Support''' Having worked with this editor on numerous articles, and also having the benefit of knowing him in person I feel that he would be a superb Admin.  Calm, reasonable, fair-minded and open-minded describe his personality well.
'''Support'''.  This fine editor's judgement is trusted.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' My appraisal of this user is excellent.
'''Support''' -- I don't see how his answer to Q4 is grounds for opposing, but to each his own. And I know he will be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence&diff=183008759&oldid=182944173 very sensitive to collateral damage] when blocking IPs. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' A diligent and patient editor (per A.B.) who will be a valuable admin.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I couldn't find anything I didn't like, and my interactions with this editor have been positive on the rare occasion that they have occurred. --
'''Support'''. Will do fine.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4.  The less drama, the better.  <font face="Comic Sans">
'''Neutral''' per answer to Q5. CSD A7 can only be applied if no assertion of notability has been made. If any assertion of notability (example: xx was the first band in the state to do xx"), then the article cannot be speedy deleted per A7. I am not opposing this RfA, because I'm sure if you re-read [[WP:CSD]], you will have a proficient understanding of our speedy deletion policy. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Strong support. Majorly said it very well. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - Editcountis-based votes don't appeal to me. The only thing I would suggest is for this user to become more active in Wikipedia-administration projects, which he doesn't appear to participate in very often. I also added an optional question for you. I won't withdraw my support; I'm just curious what you would do.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user, won't go insane with the tools. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support'''. Would have preferred more experience, but I think will be ok. Go slow. If uncertain, ask. First, do no harm.
I've seen Aqwis around, and I have confidence in him. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' Lykke til.
'''Support''' Aqwis is a sensible user and he has good judgement. He should make a great admin.--'''
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Sure--
'''Support'''. I am on wikibreak, but i have to support this. Aqwis is a great user and should definitively be given the sysop tools. My interactions with Aqwis are only good.
I don't see him abusing the tools.
'''Support''' The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - would be a good addition --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', seems to be a reliable enough fellow.  No reason not to support.
'''Support.'''
Would like to see some more mainspace, but he knows what he's doing. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' - just over 2500 edits in 14 months is really low but looking through your edits it seems you have made good edits in the past..I think he is trustworthy and I don't see any "Conflicts" this user has had..and an excellent nom :) ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I trust him. Very nice article, good comments on FPC. —
'''Support''' No concerns here.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''  -no reason not to.  cheers,
'''''
This is an excellent candidate with an excellent nominator, and I see absolutely no reason to oppose whatsoever: if Aqwis wants to add himself to recall then so be it; candidates often get opposed if they say they ''won't'' add themselves to recall and now it seems they get opposed if they say they ''will'' add themselves to the category: they can't win either way. I also note the "not enough deleted edits" reasons, and that surprises me too: ''double-editcountitis''? To me, it's not the number of pages tagged, it's the quality of the tagging: if someone made 15 speedy tags, and all pages got speedy deleted, that shows more knowledge of the deletion policies that someone who made 150 speedy tags, and only 50 were speedy deleted and the rest were either declined, or the speedy was changed to AfD or PROD. I trust this user.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I see no reason not to AGF, as there is no differential evidence to suggest untrustworthiness.
'''Support''' - Looking at the answers to the questions put forward, edits and other contributions show me that this user can be trusted as an admin.
'''Support''' Certinally meets [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|my]] standards.
'''Support''' as he seems committed to improving and expanding the project.  Happy New Year!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
A great user use could use the tools.
'''Support'''. Particularly for the answer to question 1. We already have more than enough admins who are happy to delete articles, so let's have some who concentrate on using the tools to improve them.
'''Weak Support''' I would have prefered answers to more questions, but still there's no reason not to. <strong>
'''Support''' Excellent, committed to the project.
'''Strongest possible support'''- great answers to questions, exactly what I was looking for! Excellent editor.
'''Support''' ''"I do not think one issue, much less a single edit, should be able to prevent a user from becoming an admin"'' - yes, that would be something we could all do with remembering. Good luck, and sorry about not giving you enough time to reply to the question. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per candidate's contributions, and per q7.
'''Support''' (og ønsker deg lykke til i dette ormehullet av et sted å være administrator &ndash; jeg fatter ikke hvorfor du frivillig ønsker å bli administrator her, men du vil trenge all lykke og alt hell du kan få på veien, hvis ikke kommer folka her til å steine deg.) [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]]
Nothing indicates to me that the candidate will do worse than the average admin, despite his '''"'''failure'''"''' and individual '''"'''shortcoming'''"''' to be part of the policy-discussing in-crowd. This perhaps says more about my own opinion about the admin corps, but I also think that the candidate's temperament, combined with a sustainable edit rate (of less than a thousand per month) are a good omen that he's never going to explode or implode like others frequently do. Lykke til! '''
'''Support''' per Jon Harald Søby.--
'''Support.''' per {{user|Majorly}}'s nom, and answers to questions 1, 2, and 3.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and experienced enough. Go for it. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' but I hope the candidate's statement of "I do not think one issue, much less a single edit, should be able to prevent a user from becoming an admin..." is incorrect when it comes to extreme misconduct such as pedophilia edits, grossly irresponsible administering, etc. Support!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - '''
'''Oppose''' The kind of work Aqwis does is important and necessary.  However, someone with limited article-writing experience, in my view, simply does not get the "big picture" of Wikipedia enough to be an effective administrator.
'''Oppose''' per answer to my question.  <font face="Comic Sans">
'''Oppose''' in spite of my general agreement with what he says here, he has had essentially no experience discussing policy, or interacting with other users. I look forward to supporting some time in the future. '''
'''Neutral''' Hum, I would have preferred more experience and contributions overall to the encyclopedia.--
'''Neutral''' - I like the idea of more admins that understand how to deal with image issues, but I'd prefer to see at least some experience in AIV.
'''Neutral'''- There are to many concerns raised above for me to support, maybe next time.
'''neutral''' - Okay, i changed to neutral, just in this short RfA this user has taken the communities advice and has improved, so i do not think my oppose really is truthful anymore.
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  '''
<s>'''Oppose''' Only 3000 edits. Answers too short</s>'''Support''' apart from the fact it WJBscribe nominating, this looks like a fantasic candidate. One I've been waiting for, in fact. Excellent contributions, and looks well rounded. Good luck! '''
No issues here. In relation to your answer to question 4, I reported a user with the name "Mr. Hi'''lt'''er". It looked like Hitler at first! The block was turned down, but he was kind of a disruptive editor, so I don't know what became of him. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' as nominator. Obviously I recuse myself from acting in any bureaucrat capacity in relation to this RfA. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', a good editor from what i've looked at. Answers occasionally too short as Majorly suggested, but requests for adminship apparently demand no prerequisites, so I see no reason to oppose on the grounds of 'not enough edits' or 'not long enough'.
'''Support''' - I've been incontact with <s>Archtrain</s> Archtransit since the beginning. Always willing to ask when unsure, or just to get advice. Very good user, strong contributor. The only way is up! Good Luck! <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support Because WJBscribe Says So''' - Well actually, he seems to be really on top of things. I don't really view edit counts as important. As long as the person is constantly contributing, he is okay in my eyes. The fact that we wants to do DYK, and that he reminds admins that it is late, shows that he is really comitted. I say do it my sir! (And only way I can/will change my support is if he completely butchers my question)
'''Support''' - He should make a good admin.  Thanks for the answers. -
'''Support''' Great editor, would make a great admin
Answers show candidate possesses lots of that elusive clue. Everything else is generally secondary.
<i><b>
'''Support''' Great editor; I look forward to seeing this editor update DYK. :) <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strong Support'''  Kind, calm, careful, competent and intelligent; devoted to building an encyclopedia.  Counts for about 5,000 Wikipedia space edits in my book. --
'''Support'''. I was watching the Boeing article, and I am impressed with the candidate's answer to Q3. --
'''Support''' WJB scribe nom.--
'''Support''' Seems just the sort of person we need.
'''Support''' -  Good answers to the questions and a solid edit history particularly with DYK. His/her civility and calmness in dispute resolution is an asset too.
'''Support''' - I'm confident this user won't do anything stupid, and DYK ''always'' could use another admin. -'''
'''Support.''' - Per the nom, and answers to questions 1, 2, and 3.  Agree with above that we could use more help at [[WP:DYK]], and {{user|Archtransit}} has already been a help over there.  Also good to have more Admins who know what it takes to bring an article or better yet, article'''s''' to [[WP:FA]] status.
Strong support. '''
Per FA contributions (although I see more of me at the Manchester FAC than you :P). [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Because the DYK template is often behind and we need another active admin to help the rest of those guys and girls over there. Plus [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards|my usual review]] uncovered nothing worrying. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Zero Sum Support''' to cancel out the impact of the anti-admin recall vote. All admins should in principle be open to recall, and I respect this candidate for having the strength of character to commit himself to [[CAT:AOR]] despite having been opposed for it.
'''Support'''. Great editor, our experiences at DYK have been positive. We can always use more help updating DYK to ensure a rapid turnaround between rounds.
'''Support''' - looks like a great candidate.
'''Support'''. This is the first RfA I've supported, to my knowledge, where the candidate has fewer edits than I do - but the quality of those edits is outstanding. No reservations whatsoever. The fact that the candidate seeks to help out with DYK is a huge plus, as well. Best,
'''Support'''.  Clearly shows he is a quality editor and shows a desire to help out where needed most.  --
'''Support''' - works for me, and I love the answer to Q10.  -
'''Support''' Yes, fine. —
'''Support''' per aboves. <strong>
'''Support''' Seems good with content creation and management. '''
'''Support''' per aboves. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''
'''Support''' Ready for the mop. --'''
'''Support''' All administrator-like qualities. Good luck. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
1FA. Of course I '''approve''' this message! Oh, and I'm
'''Support''' seems well able to handle the tools.
'''Support''' - knock 'em dead. '''''
'''Support''' I was looking for a peanut but this will do. // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - though I do kind of dislike that eaten by tigers comment above, so soon after the most recent [[San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks]] -
'''Support'''. If someone wants to help out at DYK then that's an auto-support from me.
'''Support''' - per aboves
'''Support''' - see my neutral comment.
Worked with this editor at DYK and am impressed with the drive and the approach taken. While I'm here, I will mention that I wish people would stop asking candidates about [[CAT:AOTR|voluntary recall category]] membership. It's not really a fair question unless the thing being tested is whether the admin can give an answer that will satisfy everyone. ++
'''Weak support''' I was leaning a bit on neutral at first before giving the weak support. Granted, he is a good editor and answer very well the top 3 questions. My only concern though is the low-contributions on Wikipedia related pages.--
'''Support''', meets standards, no concerns.  Due to lack of WP space experience, may need to go to [[WP:NAS|school]].
Should be one of the best administrators around.  Willing to help other users, also articles that would have been [[WP:CSD#A7|speedied]] by other administrators.  I may want to suggest participating more in essential Wikipedia processes, but for now I have no worries.  This is a '''strong support'''.
'''Support'''. Very helpful with DYK; tools would make him even more so.
''Strong DYK Support''' '''
'''Suuuuuure''' --
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
Because nominators are allowed to support pre-transclusion. Since now. ''
'''Support''' If thats so, then no one-can yell at me now! But seriously, I co-nomed, can't be more trusting than that. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Strong Support''' per my nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''': Excellent candidate, absolutely no concerns, per my nomination. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good user who obviously knows his stuff.

'''Support''' as in the first RfA - good vandal-fighting, edits, etc.  I've seen improvements on edit count, edit sumamry use, civility, etc.
'''Support'''[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
Interacted with Barneca a few weeks ago, and I found them to be polite and friendly. I think the issues raised in the last RfA have been dealt with, and I have no concerns here.
'''Support''' per Hiberniantears and TwoOars at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Barneca|RfA/Barneca 1]]. -
'''Support''' Only seen good things, has learned from previous comments, should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Good Luck! --
'''Support''' - in particular for the stirling work done in unmasking the various identities of oldwindybear, and pursuing the case with a combination of determination and civility.
'''Support''', excellent contributions, excellent answers to questions.
'''Support''' It's clear this user's made real concrete efforts to improve, and has done a great job. Proud to support here. :)
'''Strong support''' Definitely He'll make good admin.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - great editor. Will only make wikipedia better. -
'''Support''' - Wow, awesome at dealing with potential conflict, from a good look at their talk page.  Always friendly and helpful in every edit I looked at, plus good about taking criticism.  And clearly knows their stuff.  An asset to the project, and leaves no doubt that they will use the tools well.
'''Oppose''' Too many noms.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudget&diff=next&oldid=180489657 Remember this?] :) Too many co-noms *coughs* (then again, pots and kettles comes to mind) :]
'''Support''' obvious.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' 200 AIV reports?  Get him the mop, quickly! Otherwise, looks like a great candidate.  I'd like to see a bit more XfD discussion, but you show that you at least understand the process.
'''Support''' Many editors that I respect are supporting and co-nominating you, making this an easy call for me.  I read through your previous RfA, and had I participated there, I would have supported then as well.  Great user, obvious dedication.  Enjoy the buttons.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' - I don't like reconfirmations. ;) [[User:Mistery account|Mistery account]] ([[User talk:Mistery account|talk]]) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—
'''Support''' Though I'm slightly concerned about the issue from the first RfA, I see evidence that this user has improved, and is an excellent contributor. Also, they have demonstrated they can be [[Talk:Randy_Raine-Reusch#Edit_warring|civil]].
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seen Barneca around and seems to know what he's talking about, and with the right attitude. --'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' 197 edits to [[WP:AIV]]. Definitely needs the mop.
'''Strong support''' Excellent work on [[WP:ACC]]. Barneca deals with requests very well and is careful in what he does. [[User:Tra|Tra]]
'''Support''' - of course. I'm no longer concerned over the last RfA. This guy will be just fine :) -
'''Support'''.  Will make a fine admin.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - good editor, great work at [[WP:ACC]]. Will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Of course. —
'''Support''' I know who he is.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
&mdash;
Answer to my question is tad formulaic, but displays tact and due care. Best of luck. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup>
'''Support''' Good editor despite apparent reluctance to improve [[RuPaul]] article.
'''Support''' I've found Barneca to be polite and thoughtful.
'''Support''' I'm sure... all those co-noms. People gave me a hard time at mine for having 4 too! Haha, '''
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' especially per your eloquent answers to questions here. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' Good answers; Seen you around somewhere. <strong>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - qualified for the mop. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' - Looks good to me!
'''Support''' I already thought you were an admin! --'''
'''Support''' I'm not thrilled about mainspace contribs but evidence of diplomacy and recommendations of other folks I trust leads me to believe sysophood would be a net benefit. cheers,
'''Support''' I see no reason why this user can't be trusted.&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per the easy choice to make.  Really can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' of course [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' As per nom and concerns raised in previous RFA have been cleared.Good track.
'''Support''' Worlds of experience, despite a diminished presence with general editing. I don't feel this should preclude someone from gaining admin status.
'''Support:''' I generally consider article writing experience to be important for the reason noted by [[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ("[a]dministrators need to understand the problems and frustrations faced by regular editors"), but I have no worries that this will be an issue with Barneca, partly because he ''does'' have experience in that regard (what level or quantity of experience is "enough" is subjective) and partly because his comments (in deletion and other discussions) reveal a consistent pattern of civility, maturity, and experience. – '''
'''Support''' —
'''Support.''' Sure, you could have more article writing experience, and if you'd talked about different admin activity interests, I might have been less inclined to join this vote, but you have a solid track record and a clear need for the mop. You look like someone we can really count on.
Sounds good. <i><b>
Strongly.
'''Support''' - I'm impressed with what you've done around here and I have no concern that you'd abuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Who am I to say otherwise! :) [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]]) 14:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—
'''Support,''' encountered at Wikipedia account creation. Edit counts look absolutely fine, and this user seems a pleasure to have on WP. <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''', needs the tools. Good Luck.
'''Support''' Best answers I've ever seen, especially the middle part of the one on arbcom enforcement.'''
'''Support''' Lucky number 69.
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose. Particularly not spurious reasoning based on experience writing articles being somehow relevant to whether someone will be a good admin or not.
'''Oppose'''. On the grounds that I ''do'' believe that a background in article writing is essential for an administrator. What else is the purpose of wikipedia? Administrators need to understand the problems and frustrations faced by regular editors, and they can't do that without ever having been one themselves. --
Not enough article writing experience.--
'''Strong support''' as nom, plus for having to go through an ''absurd'' amount of questions.
Glad to see that Wizardman was playing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=203075152 a late April fool] on us all. :) Seriously though, good candidate.
'''Support''' Great content work, active in lots of different areas. More like these please!
'''Support''' Slightly concerned from your user boxes that you state you are "drug free". Rampant alcohol and drug abuse is a side effect of being an admin here, so best of luck with keeping that up... In seriousness, great contributions, clean talk page and a desire to work in the less common areas - particularly updating DYK - that's great news. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Yup'''.  A clean talkpage, good archives, firm knowledge of policy, more than qualified even for edit counters, a wealth of encyclopedic contributions.  And to top it off, a nominator that [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keeper76|always gets it right]].  Happy to support, good luck!  *hic* <small>he said as a drunken admin...</small>[[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - highly worthy candidate. Bedford has shown adequate skills in a diverse range of areas from my various encounters with his name. Good luck, -- <strong>
'''Support'''. Great communication, great work in the areas he wants to be active in. Only negative is that he's a Reds fan. ;-) No problems with the mop here.--
'''Support''' While there is a lack of some admin-related activities (AFDs, CSDs) I trust that he will stick to his area of expertise until he is more familiar with other areas.
'''Support''' -- very dedicated article writer and works well with others.  Some people complain that potential admin candidates aren't good at writing articles, but Bedford is the exact opposite.  Just don't stop writing articles about places on the [[National Register of Historic Places]] and about other places in Kentucky.  --
'''Support''': Looks as if this editor has done some great work in the past with DYK. Also number of edits is great, edit summary is alright. Would be a great asset as an admin. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' - great editor. '''
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - No reluctance in my mind. Trusted, proactive.
'''Support''' More DYK mops are always needed. --'''
'''Support''' I've seen Bedford's work and he has helped me out a few times.  He's a great writer and contributor.  Full support. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong support''' &mdash; '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
Looking good.
'''Support''' - Great editor, very prolific and diligent. I liked the answers to the questions, every single one. User has experience in the areas which he wishes to work in as an admin. Good stuff. You have my support. I definitely do not foresee any issues or problems down the road. Good luck with the RfA.
'''Support'''. That's A LOT of DYK.
'''Support''' Darn it, finally someone I can't oppose for lacking Cat talk, Template talk, or Portal talk edits! '''
'''Support''' - Lots of diverse experience; looks trustworthy as well. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support'''. Everything here appears to be in order. That, and I am desperate to support an RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' – all that needed to be said, has been said – see above.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
My answer is '''Yes'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' per answer number 7!
I don't feel there is any reason not to trust this valued contributor with the added tools.
'''Support'''. No reason not to trust.  And a side note.  23 questions in six hours?!?! -<small>
'''Support''' based on my observations at [[Wikipedia:Portal peer review]], [[Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates]] and [[Template:Did you know]]. -
'''Support''' the candidate, '''Oppose''' the number of questions, many of which prove nothing about how the candidate can be trusted to use the tools effectively. Contributions show a good editor. Regards,
'''Support''', per Wisdom and Anon'Diss.
'''Clichéd support''', I seriously thought you were an admin.  '''
'''Support''' Detailed answers to the questions, and a solid contributions history leave us with no doubts as to whether this editor is ready for the mop.
'''Support''' - Another fine [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] candidate. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
A very silly number of questions, considering the disposition of this user. Superb in many areas and can communicate well. I would ask the candidate to read up on blocking though.
'''Strong Support''' - Bedford is a great contributor, has been a huge contributor to [[WP:INDP|Wikiproject Indianapolis]], and is tireless in his efforts for the next DYK.  Rack him up already!  --
'''Support''' - the nominee is definately someone looking to improve the encyclopedia rather than constantly wear it down and scare away newbies.  He appears to be someone who will be very thorough and willing to look at a whole situation and improve it rather than simply take one side or another.  He also appears to be bluntly honest, which is a good thing, can't always trust a diplomat or politician.
'''Support''' Feel he wil make a great admin, also glad to see he's from Indiana!!! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Solid. No worries. I also agree there are simply too many questions. Questions pertinent to the candidate are fine, but generic questions should be limited. A browse of the candidates history usually reveals more than the answers to the questions. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' pretty good editor which I think will make good use of the administrative powers.
'''Strong support''' - serious, trustworthy editor who's improved the encyclopedia and will continue to do so with administrative tools.
'''Support''' Great editor, all those DYK's?! - [[User:Milk's Favorite Cookie|<font face="Snap ITC" size="3px" color="#4D0100">'''M'''</font>''''']]
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' fine 'pedia builder. net positive.Cheers,
'''support''' - Beford is a great contributer and wonderfully responsible. I am surprised he is not already and admin. He has been very kind and helpful to me and other new users in helping to improve wikipedia!
'''Support''' and block anyone bureaucratic enough to ask 10 freaking questions at RFA. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy and reliable. The question is not whether he '''needs''' adminship. The question is whether Wikipedia needs him more with the buttons.
'''Weak support''' (changed from neutral). Not particularly because of the new Q16 answer (which I feel was somewhat lackluster), but per your response to Pedro in the discussion section of "should I feel the need to block, I will ask advice from senior admins before doing such a thing". I do think you will make a good admin, but knowledge of the blocking policy is important, and even though you don't anticipate blocking anyone at this time, most users come accross an occasion every now and then when it is needed.
'''Support''' of course. &nbsp; '''
'''Weak Support''' Has been around since May 2005 with over  4800 mainspace edits.There is nothing that the user will misuse the tools and his/her track is outstanding through not fully convienced why the tools are needed.Not needed for some merely writing featured articles or DYK but more needed for Vandal fighting,deletion and other admin areas but assume that he will get into it after getting the tools.
'''Support''', despite my concerns with your answer to question 57 - or was that question 58? :)  Seriously, the candidate is a trustworthy and hard-working encyclopedia builder.
'''Support''' sounds all good <strong>
'''Support''', sensible user, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools.  My sympathies to the candidate also for the ridiculous amount of questions they've been compelled to answer.
'''Support''' - while this user hasn't participated in the traditional admin areas, he requests the tools for DYK updating. I expect that Bedford will read the applicable policies before using the other buttons (most sysops will eventually). His contributions do not lead me to think that the extra buttons will not be safe in his repertoire of available tools. -'''
'''Support''' - Valued contributer. --
'''Support''' will not abuse the tools. <strong>
Hell yes. God forbid he hadn't memorised a policy he'll never need to use. Seriously, what's the sudden lust for CDB questions...why can't we ask every candidate something like "in what order should the relative DYK pages be changed?" and oppose them if they make a typo? Oh, wait. Because that'd probably be over the heads of the vast majority of people who oppose per CDB. ''
'''Support''' - He will be of valuable service around [[WP:DYK]].
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - a good editor; wll make a good admin & be valuable in the DYK area. See no reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''. Great work but DYK ...you'd make a great admin? (had to ;p)
'''Support'''.--'''''
'''Industrially strong support''' Excellent, calm, thoughful, reliable, cool-headed editor. He will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Great admin choice! <font face="Neuropol"><font color="#003366">
'''Support''', tremendous contributor to DYK, and an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Weak support''': A good user who could definetly use the tools, there's no doubt there. The only thing that concerned me was your answer to Question 13. [[WP:CDB|Cool down blocks]] should '''never''' be used, and on this it is unconditional. Never ever should be used. Apart from that, everything seems fine here. :) <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="red">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. BTW, has this candidate answered more "optional" questions than anyone else in RfA history? (The record for fewest optionals asked or answered is zero, in my RfA, although the community more than made up for it during the ArbCom election.)
'''Support''' Candidate will be a good addition to the current roster of well qualified administrators.
'''Support''' We can always use more hands at DYK, and I'm impressed at the candidate's tenacity in the face of so many questions.
'''Support''' Good history, and good work handling so many questions.--
'''Support''' Known this user for some time and I consider that any statements made here have to be understood against the background of his judgement. I do not think Bedford will use the tools rashly or without contemplation.
'''Support''' A solid candidate; will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with solid contribution history and good work around DYK.
'''Support''' He will make a good admin, of this I am certain.
'''Support'''  per Wizardman.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Having worked some with Bedford on Indiana articles, he would make a fine admin.  Not using the tools is not reason to deny them.  <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">
'''Support'''. I missed this RfA! Guess it doesn't really matter now, it's gonna pass, but here's my support. Great editor, fellow member of the MilHist project...
'''Support''' - Good contributor who appears to have a mature outlook.
'''Strong Support''' - I really think this editor with not abuse the tools. I like his answers a lot! <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Will be an asset at DYK as an admin.
'''Support''' Good luck :-) '''
'''Strong oppose''' I do not have anything against this user, he/she has made substantial contributions to wikipedia. However, I fail to see this users need for the admin tools. S/he has virtually no edits in admin-related tasks (AIV!!!). Surely someone wanting to become an admin should test the tools from a non-admin perspective first? I know this is exactly the same post as above but I have exactly the same problems with both of them: I am going to have to add these criteria to my rfa requirements! --
'''Weak oppose''' - I have changed from neutral as I really do not see much improvement in the way of fixing some of the questions in regards to blocking, specifically Q16. I also understand the IAR can apply to blocking, but do not really care for your answer to Q13 as policy does state that cool down blocks should never be used and I do not feel that your reasoning behind why you would implement one is justified. Along with the concerns raised above by Cameron (which I agree with), I must oppose. Please understand that I recognize all of your great DYK work but feel that admins need to be well rounded, especially in the most common admin ares (blocking, deleting, ect...).
'''Oppose''' In question 13 Tiptoety asks "''When should cool down blocks be used and why?''", and part of this users response was "''If the editor in consideration has a history of placidness and all of a sudden becomes heated, then maybe use a cool-down block...''" Wikipedia policy says that cool down blocks '''NEVER''' should be used. The response to question 13 makes me think this user would misuse of the tools by blocking people so they have time to cool down. Your first answer to question 16 bothers me as well. You said that it is okay under some circumstances to give IP's and indef block. That answer makes me think you would give an IP an indef block, which again, would be misusing the tools. However, you have done lots of positive things for the encyclopedia. Please continue:-) Also, if you don't get the mop, improve yourself and try again:-)--
'''Oppose''' First of all, the ignorance of the very straightforward rule about cool down blocks (never is pretty unequivocal, it doesn't include any maybes) is disconcerting. Second, your broad inexperience in many common admin tasks and areas (AIV or XFD). Last, anyone who says that they have not once been in a conflict of some kind is either lying or is too inexperienced to make a good admin. Dealing with conflict, either your own or as a mediator, is inevitable ''whatever'' area you choose to work in Wikipedia as an admin. Combine a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of actions such as blocking, with a lack of conflict resolution experience, and I don't feel comfortable knowing you'd have the tools. I say go through admin coaching and get some experience outside the mainspace, and I'd be ready and willing to support.
A sensible editor with good judgement, but some wider experience in admin related areas would be preferable.
'''Neutral''' --
'''Neutral''', for now, while I request an elucidation of the imho overly restrictive interpretation of [[WP:BLOCK]] and [[WP:WHEEL]] in the answer to Q 22. <small>Note: my concern isn't that it demonstrates that he isn't up to date on the ins-and-outs of policy; its ''how'' he demonstrates it. The answer seems to show excessive deference to a single other opinion.</small> --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Neutral, leaning on Support''': Waiting for an answer to #17; otherwise, keep it up. --
'''Neutral''', at least one of the replies given are misleading in it's detail. Saying that some of the questions are beyond me so it doesn't surprise me they are testing, so for quickness to reply, I'm going with neutral.
'''Support''' as nominator. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' active editor especially in Scotland related articles. Good luck! --
'''Support''' Active editor, looks like he would make a great admin :). --
'''Support''' A good editor. Ready for the mop.--
'''Support honest answers in questions'''
From Scotland :D
'''Support''' Why not???
'''Support''' - Excellent editor and has been through admin coaching.
'''Support'''
per WBOSITG.
'''Support'''&mdash;superb mainspace editing. I'm slightly concerned at the AfD comments [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee County High School (Leesburg, Georgia)|here]] (a "delete per nom" when sources are easily available on Google News) and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderlust (1991 novel)|here]] (if an article is salvageable, improvement is a better course of action than deletion); that said, his comments at AfDs are generally sound and well-judged. His excellent work around the wiki leads me to believe that he will use the sysop tools judiciously and without abuse or misuse.
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor with lots of main space experience. I am sure he will use the tools well.
'''Support''' Ready to be an administrator <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Trustworthy, detailed nom and solid, honest answers to the questions. Mainspace contribs look stellar. Absolutely a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''' - seems like a very trustworthy Wikipedian :). And there is some brilliant article work there. Nothing to suggest he wouldn't make a fine sysop. :) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Signature follows:
'''Support''' Will be a great admin. '''
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' - Seems to be to be a good editor  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. No obvious trust issues, great with mainspace-editing. --
'''Support''' from my experience and looking through contribs - trustworthy and has the bests interests of Wikipedia at heart -
'''Support''' as candidate works on good and featured articles.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' - Superb. I can definitely see a mop in your future. ;D
'''Support'''. He is a very good editor, he will make a good administrator. --
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' Like your articles, like your answers to the questions above.  Best of luck. - Dan
'''Support''' Glad to see you as a candidate! I've had some small interaction with Ben before, and he's a friendly, knowledgeable, and dedicated encyclopedist.
<s>'''Support, per KurtWeber''' (I figured one pointy !vote deserved another.)</s> Seriously though, '''strong support''' based on my view that there is currently a dearth of "writing admins" and this candidate would definitely be one of those. Also, I saw no red flags in the contributions, and per my belief that [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|good editors should get the mop and bucket when they ask]], I have no trouble supporting this candidate. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''': I think Ben MacDui would make a fine administrator.
Writes articles (zomg). —'''
Support. His content work is top-notch, and I sincerely hope he continues to produce such content if and when he is promoted. -- <strong>
Support - Already seemed like a strong candidate, and the slight concerns I had over preparedness for tools were quelled by intelligent answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Definately. I came across this user when I was very green and he was kind and helpful. Will make a good admin. (Yes my space bar is broken.:).
'''Support''' Candidate is very well qualified for this position; there seem to be no concerns with his editing or conduct.
'''Support'''. Excellent nomination, competent user.
'''Support''' Good addition. '''
'''Sure'''.  I examined your talkpage editing as you edit in areas that can become rather heated.  I was very impressed with your composure on [[Talk:Scotland]] and other pages and have no worries that you would misuse or abuse admin tools, and will only benefit Wikipedia and other Wikipedians by having them.  Easy support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. I like his mainspace edits. Oy! Support Scottish admin, mates! -
'''Support''' per Q5 and Q6.--
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
'''Support''' - satisfies my personal criteria for adminship, don't see any particular reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' — seems [[WP:Cluocracy|clueful]]. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - looks great.
What Nishkid64 said. Pure dead brilliant candidate, by the way.
'''Strong support''' I have had the pleasure of many interactions with MacDui and have no doubt he will make a fine admin and is eminently mop-worthy
'''Support''' per Q&A.
'''Support''' based on answers to questions and high level of community respect.
'''Support''' definately! As per nom and contribs.
'''Support''' Dedicated contributor and, most importantly, a skilful content creator. "Mop and bucket to checkout 1" --
'''Support''' fully.
'''<s>Strong</s> Strongest possible support''': A reasonable, articulate, and intelligent editor whose contributions as an admin would be most welcomed.
'''Support.''' An excellent editor with a cool head and judicious temperament. Will use admin tools carefully and will not make rush decisions.
Good editor.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''', so long as it does not stop him contibuting! MacDui is a great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Is it acceptable to close this under [[WP:SNOW]] ;) ?
'''Support''' A good editor, and trust worthy.
'''Support'''. He's a good candidate.
'''Support''' :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' good candidate who should make a good admin. Should take no notice of the tiresome nonsense of people like Kurt. --
'''Support''', looks like a good candidate. No concerns here. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Aye''' Whereas I share some of Kurt's concerns ''in principle'' (see his Opp below), I'm entirely confident they do not apply to Ben MacDui, whom I think quite excellent.
'''Support''' - Low tolerance for persistent vandals is just what we need.  I also like this editor's views on notability.--
'''Support''' - Excellent mop potential. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Thought he was one.
'''Support''' - even though he's not a [[sassenach]].
'''Support''', he seems to have many great qualities of an administrator: calmness, enthusiasm, respect, politeness, and willing to look things up when he doesn't know them.  --
'''support'''
'''Support'''.  I'm sort of familiar with the user (just from seeing him around), and coaching makes him an even better candidate.  Just keep up the good work! <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' Per answer to Q7 (the AGF challange one).
'''Support''' An excellent wikipeidan would make a great admin --
'''Support''' Great content-writing contributor, no issues.
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' — Level-headed, good communication skills. --
'''Support''' more than a few great articles under his belt. would make a great admin in my opinion.--
'''Support''' often encountered this editor on Scottish articles. A good editor, satisfactory answers to questions, should make a good admin. (Oh, and I still have to climb [[Ben MacDui]])
'''Support''' - I will, however, change to oppose if oppose #2 is diffed and I agree. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - net positive, an asset to the project.
'''Support''' - why not?
'''Support''' Some of the answers are v. good. It's also rare that a Q1 answer is both impressive and amusing; most attempts at humour there are catastrophic. So a well-qualified admin candidate with a nicely judged sense of humour... hmm, let me think about this one... --
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''': I dont see any issues with him. Good and well qualified admin candidate. I like people who works actively on WikiProjects..Keep up the good work. Best wishes --
'''Support''' Go for it!--
'''Support''' Clearly clueful and beneficial to the project. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' seems well prepared...
'''Support''' met this user only briefly on [[Talk:Scotland]], which seems a pity as he has a calm collected approach to editing. Welcome. Yours,
'''Support''' Great mainspace editing, can be trusted with the tools. Good luck mate! [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''': --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; RFA gamer.
'''Oppose'''- has [[WP:OWN]] issues with relation to Scottish articles
'''Support''' per nom. Berig is by far one of the most active and resourceful contributors on Norse topics I know, and he is a pure pleasure to work with. –
'''Support''' - Reasonable stipulations in the answer to Q1. I see no reason not to allow this user access to the tools.
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Support'''  The user has over 18000 edits with over 12000 mainspace edits further the user can get back the bits from the crats if he/she wants but still seeks tools through RFA and Last RFA over 2 years ago.Also track is good. See no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' — Great article work, already been an admin in the past so no worries about using the tools. Why not? —'''
'''Support''', great article writer. --
'''Support''' Malinaccier in the oppose section brings up a good point, but Berig seems to know what he's doing. A few GAs and 42 DYKs indicate a dedication to the project. Best of luck, &ndash;
'''Support''', as nom. --
'''Support''' Taken with the previous accounts tally of over 20,000 edits the candidate has almost 39,000 edit total (and perhaps more than 40,000 including deleted contribs). However, more than the mere count is the focus of the edits - to improving the encyclopedia. A review of the previous admin actions gives no reason for concern, and as the tools are granted on the basis of trust rather than use I see no reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Nice guy, good editor - one of the first people I met at Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' a good candiate, was already an admin without a controversial background, understands that the comunity changes (evidenced by starting at square one to  learn about the changed norms of Wikipedia) instead of recovering or transfering his adminship. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' a highly qualified, trustworthy, dedicated, level-headed, mature and approachable candidate, who has accumulated a lot experience over the years, a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy as well as a large repository of patience. He has demonstrated great organizational skills and has contributed quality edits to an incredible amount of articles - actually, his generosity with time and expertise has made Wikipedia into one of the best places on the Internet to find well-organized and well-sourced information on runes stones and other subjects relating to Norse history. If the organizational or vandalism-fighting aspects of his work here (such as moving over redirects and page protection) would make the admin tools useful to him, he certainly deserves them.
'''Support'''.
Because the opposes really aren't anything to worry about, IMO.
Opposes noted, but I think there should be no chance of misuse. Honest, if brief, answers to my Q's. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Complete faith and trust in this superb editor and former admin. —
'''Support''' Looks Goood To Me.
'''Support''' Seems good to me.
'''Strongly support''' I cannot see any mistakes or stuff like that when looking at your editing history so far. You seem to be a constructive editor to this wikipedia and I am sure you would make a fine admin!
'''Support''' Great article work, good answers to my questions. Overall a good candidate. —
'''Support''' - Great article contributor; was an admin in good-standing before he left; after returning, he has worked diligently on the project for two years before deciding to take up the tools again. I think he shows the reasonable and thoughtful approach one desires in an admin. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Support''' The more article builders as administrators the better.
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|seems OK to me.]]
'''Weak Support'''. I'm not real keen on your activity for the last three months, but I still think net positive applies here.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support'''. I supported without reservation [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Berig|the last time Berig ran]], and I'm more than happy to do so again. Excellent editor, with many many fine works both behind and ahead of him.
'''Weak Support''' I'll [[WP:AGF|assume]] that this ''is'' wiglaf and in that case this is pretty well open and shut.  I would prefer it if we had some way of demonstrating clearly that Berig==Wiglaf, but barring some evidence to the contrary, it isn't a show stopper.
No concerns whatsoever: I don't believe that Berig is "inexperienced" at all. Unless Wiglaf/Berig mysteriously forgot relevant policies, then I don't see any reason to worry. (1.) He's been active with this account for over two years. (2.) he doesn't appear to be an RfA regular, so his answers to the questions are more likely to be genuine rather than "copied and reworded". (3.) There was no abuse that I know about from his former account. (4.) Berig mentioned in his answer to question four about who can confirm that he is Wiglaf. Finally, I'm not worried about inactivity either...remember the adage: "''better an admin who uses the tools sparingly but effectively than one who uses them often and abusively''".
'''Support'''. Fine contributions. He has enough evidence of collaboration with other editors.
'''Support''' - Likely net positive. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
Hello, I'm Judas Iscariot and I just received 30 pieces of silver -- I'd like buy a microwave oven, please...oh, wrong queue.  But while I'm here: '''Support''' for someone who can clearly be trusted with the duties of adminship.
'''Support''' - can be trusted.
'''Support''' I'm surprised that your criteria for granting rollback are more cautious than some people have for rfa votes, but over caution is scarcely grounds for oppose.. '''
'''Support'''.  No reason not to trust with the tools, ample experience suggesting user is deserving of trust.  Support is an easy call for me, here. &hArr;
'''Support''' per Acalamari. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' Good mainspace contributions, has clue.
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' IMO there are no good reasons against the nomination, and Berig is definitely an active and deserving candidate. Also, the election of his previous account puts him in good light, despite the account being "inactivated."
'''Support'''. This user didn't abuse the tools first time around and doesn't seem to have gone off the rails since then. Berig does a lot of stuff on Wikipedia and can be trusted to use the tools uncontroversially and for the benefit of the encyclopedia.
Hmm, many opposes point to lack of admin experience.  '''The candidate has held a flagged account before'''.
'''Support''' What better way for him to get (more) admin experience than by giving him back his (old) tools?
'''Support'''. I have often worked with and collaborated with Berig here on Wikipedia, and I've always found Berig to be evenhanded and levelheaded. I see no reason why he should not have administrator tools again.
'''Support''' - You are a good candidate, I see no problems after reviewing your current and old account. The AFD rationales and question answers are not fantastic but do not concern me, and neither does activity with quality being preferred over quantity. I have reviewed the opposition and none of it concerns me. The answer to question three is fine in my opinion, taking a break while stressed and returning later is good advice and not running away. Experience in admin areas does not concern me either, I think you have enough general experience for the tools and it is rather difficult for non-admins to build up the edits at pages such as [[WP:RFPP]], I had nearly none there myself before I got the tools.
'''Support''' I don't remember any significant troubles involving Wiglaf or Berig so I see no reason not to reinstate his adminship, although I'm wondering why he simply isn't returning to his previous account. Would save us a lot of work. -
'''Weak Support''': The recent inactiveness is kind of holding me back, but such and experienced editor who has made so many valuable contributions should definitely get the tools. Even a little work as an admin will help Wikipedia, and I think everyone has agreed he is not someone who will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I am going out on a limb here, and I hope it does not smack me in my face down the road, but I think Berig can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' While duly noting the opposing rationales, I don't find any reason to be concerned for possibility of abuse of tools.
'''Support''' I'm a little confused about the inexperience objections when Berig was an admin under another name even though it was long ago. No one has pointed to any objections under his prior adminship so I'm presuming he's still qualified.
No worries here. I trust him to do the right thing.
'''Support'''. The candidate has been an admin before and is quite experienced.
'''Support''' No real issues; some mainspace concerns, but as has been said, the candidate has already been an admin. I trust his judgment.
'''Support'''. I have seen past admins being opposed for various reasons, but inexperience... —
'''Support'''. No problems.
'''Support''', will make a fine admin. —
'''Support''' , meets most of my requirements. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Support'''. Contributions are great, opposes not convincing.
'''Support''' the candidate has already been an admin without any issues. Opposes are not convincing to not support you --
'''Support''' Highly educated content builder. Gold-dust. Who cares if you haven't ticked the wiki-process boxes, you're inteligent enough to work it out if you ever want to use the tools in those ares. Which can't always be said of process admins doing content. --
'''Support'''.  Fine, just fine.
'''Support''' I think he should become an admin he used to be an admin so he knows the tools if he just got a new password for his old account he would be an admin if he passed once I find no reason why he shouldn't pass again.
'''Strong Support''' just as qualified as ever. I've seen him around on some articles, and he has well-thought out answers to all of the questions. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Exceptional work, tons of great edits, absolutely an asset to the mighty 'pedia.  Full speed ahead! -<b>'''
'''Support'''.  It's nice to have admins with good article writing experience.
'''Support''' - despite the opposes, seems like a no-brainer since he was already an admin and left without any controversy. <b>
'''Support''' trust with tools.
'''Absolutely support'''. Will be a net positive, at any activity level. <strong>
'''Strong Support'''...He's been around for ''how'' long? He'll do fine with the mop. &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F"><small>'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="00008B">1''7'']]
'''Support''', may adminship not drive you away from article writing too much! --
'''Support''' and thanks.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]; nice user page, plenty of experience, if a bit uneven in use.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Per above (sic). Sometimes all that can be said abut a topic has been said, but we somehow need !votes to achieve consensus.
'''Strong, though late, Support".''' A great Wikipedian and trustworthy candidate by any name! It is my pleasure to endorse Berig since I wasn't around to do so for Wiglaf.--
'''Support'''. Anyone who earns Pete Hurd's support is good enough for me.
'''Support''' Good user, will make a good admin. --
'''Support.'''  I see no opposition that convinces me otherwise.  —
'''Support''' - Trustworthy editor --'''
'''Support'''[[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]]. No RfA spam on my talk page please.--
'''Support'''. Former admin who hasn't done anything crazy with the tools.
'''Support'''. Successfully held the tools previously, and has been a productive editor since then. No flags (for me) raised by the arguments below.
'''Weak oppose'''.  When I visited this RfA, my first thought was that this would be an easy support.  I looked at all the DYKs and article building and was impressed, but then I asked myself if Berig had any experience in anything but article building.  In his last 500 edits, 18 were to the Projectspace with five being to RfA's.  I understand that this user wants the tools mainly to work with moves, but Berig needs at least a little experience outside of the projectspace, and I'm not seeing it.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak Oppose''' I agree... when I read this page, I thought for sure that I was going to be supporting this candidate.  Unfortunately, I can't. Not only did I see any meaningful activity outside of the project space, but Berig hasn't been active in the project for 3 months.  I want to see admin candidates that have been active for at least five of the past six months---and I consider 150 edits to be a good base line for an active editor.  Based upon that criteria, Berig, hasn't been active for the past 3 months.  In fact, we are almost at the end of October, and at this moment Berig only has [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Berig&site=en.wikipedia.org 58 edits for the whole month] this includes 7 edits related to the RfA.  While I might be able to over look some issues for a trusted editor, I can't support somebody who isn't currently active in the project whose edits don't demonstrate policy knowledge.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 07:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) COMMENT: forgot to put my actual !vote on here...---'''
I would love to support you, really I would. However, a combination of little edits to admin-related areas and inactivity pushes me to '''Oppose'''.
'''Weakly'''. I would like to support as well, but I just think that you should be more active, both in the project space and overall. In addition, you say you wish to work on protection, but you have less than 4 edits to [[WP:RFPP]].
'''Strong Oppose''' - per
'''Oppose''' I'm not seeing the kind of admin-experience that would make me comfortable supporting.--
'''Weak oppose''' per weak “arguments” at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Watercraft_in_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events&diff=211253538&oldid=211210855], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Table_of_Doctor_Who_characters,_monsters,_and_aliens&diff=208492917&oldid=208484711], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_Ryan&diff=210406803&oldid=210290641], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nom_Anor&diff=211920624&oldid=211905696], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_deaths_and_atrocities_of_the_twentieth_century&diff=206569054&oldid=206498594], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_with_city_names_in_the_title&diff=211688863&oldid=211677910], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Star_Ocean_locations&diff=211253247&oldid=211211739], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darth_Vader%27s_helmet&diff=210065313&oldid=210049444] (sounds like a reason for a merge and redirect), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Hollywood_Republicans_(2nd_nomination)&diff=206933980&oldid=206928895], etc. (I do not find that “per x” style “arguments” actually add anything new to discussions and I cannot take seriously use of the nonsense “word” “cruft”; nor do I find use of the subjective and disputed concept of notability as a persuasive argument; when considering the good faith work of others, we should be considerate enough to come up with thoughtful and original comments that bring something to the discussion rather than vote-sounding [[WP:ITSCRUFT]], [[WP:PERNOM]], and [[WP:JNN]] non-arguments).  It is important that administrators close discussions in a manner and with rationales that are still respectful of good faith contributors and that explain their judgment.  We can only get a real sense of the why behind someone’s argument if he/she articulates it, especially in discussions that are not unanimous.  I do not see from my experience with the candidate in the above cited examples much of an explanation beyond one or two words of how he actually interprets and understands policies and guidelines with regards to these examples.  In fact all of the preceding examples are the kinds of arguments typically cited as ones to avoid and from administrators I look for more carefully thought out arguments that tell me the logic behind their thinking.  Yet, I am still only saying a weak oppose, because [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prostytutka&diff=206934752&oldid=206925592 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clint_McGeady&diff=211255269&oldid=211227671 this] are reasonable arguments that I agreed with.  Moreover, I am impressed by the article creation (including good articles) work he has done as shown on his user page as well as that the candidate has never been blocked.  Finally, I assume good faith regarding abandoning the old account and starting over with the new account.  I can think of many legitimate reasons why someone would leave thinking they will not return, but then coming back and starting over.  If the old account was not indefinitely blocked and the new account is therefore not evading a ban, then there is nothing wrong with someone coming back and editing in good faith.  It is not worth it to me nor is it any of my business as to why the editor left and did not see a need to immediately return.  He said he left for personal reasons and didn’t edit for a time.  Thus, the new account was not evading a ban or acting a sock and to protect whatever his personal concerns were, I do not feel it is right to inquire any further.  So, in summary, I just don’t see enough care in “votes” at AfDs to trust the candidate closing deletion discussions with appropriate thoughtfulness (which is important to me) and so I have to oppose, but again, I see a number of positives that make it a weak oppose.  So, all the best in any event.  Sincerely,  --
'''Oppose'''. The candidate lacks experience in admin-related areas. The answer to question three also concerns me; it seems the user wouldn't try resolve the disagreement, but runaway from it.
'''Oppose''' I reviewed the candidate's edit record and success highlights, which were pretty impressive, but the relatively low recent edit counts, lack of project-space involvement, and the answer about leaving for weeks or months at a time when the user is stressed, leaves me to believe that the editor has potential, but definitely needs to gain more experience solving issues, not just taking breaks.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Oppose''' The high amount of poor arguments at AFD, cited by "A Nobody," have shown me that I cannot trust you with the tools at this time. Please put more thought into your AFD votes, as "[[WP:PERNOM|per above]]" and other [[WP:ATA|weightless arguments]] are discounted by any responsible closing administrator immediately.
'''Oppose''' As much as I'd like to support, the lack of activity for a while makes me a little afraid. To ensure you will stay active, I think it's necessary to wait for at least a couple months of fair activity (at least 200 or so edits a month, ideally more). '''<font color="midnightblue" face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' from previous neutral. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' A nice summary in the comment from A Nobody above along with a rather strange situation given in reply to #4 which leaves more questions.
'''Oppose''' When I was reading over the nomination, I figured this would be a pretty good candidate. When I got to the CSD question, I figured, okay, deletion is not this users "thing". There is nothing about deletion or AfD in Q1, so a weak answer there is not a problem. But the diffs brought up on AfD shows this user is reasonably active at AfD, and I believe we should hold our administrators to higher standards than other editors. Combined with the weak unblock answer, and the userpage vandalism answer, I don't feel confident about this user as an administrator, even while his planned admin actions are not in these areas.
'''Weak Oppose''' The answer you gave to Q3 leads me to believe that if and possibly when you get stressed with a disagreement you will leave it not IMO a good thing for an admin to do. <strong>
'''Strong oppose''': this user has not done ''any'' [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages|newpage patrol]] at all.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Q13.  I was initially worried by the non-arguments shown by [[User:A Nobody]] above, but that wasn't sufficient enough to convince me to oppose.  What tipped the balance was the answer to Q13, which, while correct in a sense, essentially boiled down to "I won't delete because I'm an inclusionist", rather than any argument rooted in policy (in this case the CSD A7 policy).  Please don't interpret this as an attack on the candidate's mainspace contributions, which appear to be excellent.
'''Weak Neutral (leaning towards support)''' Seems like an excellent candidate, but needs more experience in admin areas.
'''Neutral''' I see a great future ahead for you, and this RfA will most likely pass, but I'm just worried about the last of involvement in admin areas. Let me see how the rest of the RfA works out, I may later support. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Neutral''' The lack of recent activity is a bit concerning as well as lack of experience in admin related areas.  Being an admin 3 years ago is great as well but it is just that, 3 years ago.  It's a long time and the lack of current activity with the great experience beforehand will mainly lead me to not being able to support or oppose. --
Unnecessarily punitive answer to Q16, and out-of-touch answer on Q12 (a vandal vandalizing one's userpage does not place oneself into a conflict of interests: just block them) but since he technically could've just re-requested the tools I suppose opposing would be a bit silly. Would urge Berig to consider offering users a {{tl|2nd chance}} if there is a sliver of hope they would become constructive contributors - no need to make them wait a week, as reblocks are cheap if they return to vandalism. Vandals are a dime a dozen, constructive contributors are golden. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as nominator. I believe Bigtimepeace has been around long enough to understand how the Wiki works and has demonstrated his knowledge of the relevant policies. <font face="Verdana">
I have seen Bigtimepeace around before: he'll do well. Excellent candidate and nominator.
Strong support. (IIRC) Recently interacted with BTP on Sceptre's RfA, saw him/her as highly reasonable and able do discuss calmly. Will go far. ''
'''Strong Support'''.  No problems here.  Giving this user the tools is a no-brainer. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Support''' Good track has been around since June 2006. No concerns.
'''Support''' per DHMO, and the fact he's trying his best on the State terrorism article. '''
'''Support''' No reason not to.--
'''Support''' per being worthy of the tools. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' evidence of 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Sound knowledge of policy per contributions to AfD. [[WP:CSD]] noms look good, as do [[WP:AIV]]. Can trust.
'''Support''' I've never seen you before, but your answers are great, your nominator is enthusiastic, and your work looks more than satisfactory. Hope to see you around more,
'''Support''' - a quick review of contributions throws up no problems and shows thoughtful comments and a firm understanding of WP matters. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' - I like RfAs that are easy to evaluate, such as this one! :) &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' per no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' - Hmm.. rather impressive.
'''Support''' Yup yup yup. '''
'''Support'''. Good user that is experienced with admin-related tasks. '''
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Strong Support'''. Thanks for being honest on my question - I relaised some people may just say that both are important and that they'll revert both the pages. Go you beast. <strong>
Disappointed that I didn't notice this sooner. Bigtimepeace is an excellent candidate: he's fair minded and friendly, maintains an eye for neutrality, and stays cool in the face of problematic behavior. By far the most qualified person I've seen come through RFA in several months, and I am pleased to give my unconditional support.

'''Support''' When your nominated by a bureaucrat you know theres something special in the user. I trust you will do a great job. Good luck.
'''Support''' - although being nommed by a bureaucrat shouldn't be such a big deal.  '''
'''Strong support''' agreement with the above but still a strong support. Evidence of a brilliant users who will go far! Good luck! --
'''Couldn't be any more supportive''' per sense of humour
I don't see ''any'' reason to oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Wow''' i can't believe i've not encountered you before! Fantastic editor and vandal fighter. You  are my perfect candidate for adminship. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Just spent a while reviewing your history, seems A-OK to me. Impressed with the way you resolve disputes. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support'''" Yes. --
'''Support''' Nice answers to questions, checked your recent contributions and was impressed.
'''Support''' Been here a long time, no problems so far, behaves. Perfect, the user will not abuse the extra tools --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great user. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''yup'''.  Without question or hesitation, based on talkpage comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A76.80.19.161&diff=128455871&oldid=128385444 this].  Anyone that is willing to go that length to converse with an editor that has called him a wiki-nazi will make a fine admin.  Keep up the patience, you'll do great!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Strong Support''' per Keeper. One of the few people who not only understands [[WP:BITE]], but actually applies it even in difficult situations. I don't usually bother voting on unanimous or non-controversial RfAs, but this candidate deserves to get to [[WP:100]].
With a combination of an excellent WJBscribe nomination and a Keeper support (which is almost always supported by a diff), I'm happy to endorse to that end.
'''Support''' - should make a great admin. <font color="006622">
'''Strong Support''' - mentions not biting newbies, sensible attitude to needed blocks, willing to delete attack pages.
'''Support''' - Definitely. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' This user has proven himself to be excellent in every important area the project needs; he has a fine scholarly precision with article content sources, and keen appreciation for NPOV, RS, and Undue, and other policies; he has always been civil, avoids drama but yet has not been afraid to put himself in the middle of it to play an exemplary moderating role in defusing conflicts as a peace maker. He has shown an amazing ability to keep a cool head, stay focused and rational while dealing with those who would challenge the best of us. And, I have seen how he has puts his own personal views aside in conflict in order to maintain a fair neutrality for the greater purpose of resolving disputes among the quarreling editors. Thus his service to the project and community should be greatly appreciated. In short, there is no question that he would make an ideal administrator that I'd hope others would model. If they did, this place would be vastly improved.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Fair answers to questions posed and previous editing history is good.
'''Support''' Seems like a pretty reasonable candidate.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per answers to questions and no concerns that I can see. Looks good. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Strong Support''' he ain't perfect but he's damn good and level-headed.
'''Support''' I'm shocked to discover that people who try and step into content in conflict areas sometimes stand for admin. <span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support''' While not recalling direct interaction - which doesn't mean it hasn't happened - this is a name I have seen in many areas I have recently been present in, and I do recall being quietly impressed by their attitude and conduct. No qualms over giving the keys to the mop cupboard.
'''Support''' Afd experience looks appropriate.
'''Support'''. Sure he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Always civil and calm with disputes, does good work mediating conflicts and has a grasp on policy - will make an excellent admin. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Strong Support'''  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Strong Support''', has tried to be a peace maker on several controversial articles.
'''Support''' I may disagree with some of his edits, but there is no doubt in my mind that he will make an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''' Should be fine.
'''Support'''. Good and sensible person who will do well.
'''Support''' Strong answers to the questions, and I trust the nominator. Good luck!
&mdash;
This contributor is a quality editor in every respect.
'''Support''' - seems okay to me. :-)  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Support''' BTP seems very level headed- even in difficult situations; and from my interactions has always attempted to find mutually agreeable solutions ([[WP:CON|consensus]]) rather than simply saying 'NO'.
'''Support''' Great involvement here on Wikipedia; as an administrator, he'll clearly be helpful for the project. <strong>
'''Support''' - meets my usual standards, no concerns here.
'''Support''' No objections here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support'''. Good contributions, good answers to questions. No worries here. --
'''Support'''. Worked with him, positive experience. -
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Experience with this user is best explained as level headed, and reasonable. They have made me rethink my position before based on providing evidence and reason over bickering and provocation. --
'''Support''' User appears to have demonstrated reasonable enough judgment in the main and appears worthy of community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]]. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' Looks good. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Looks like a great future admin! <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">
'''Support''' - I like his answers to the questions and his contributions to the project appear to be of good quality and in my opinion he would make a good sysop. --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Certainly seems good to go. '''
'''Support'''.  Appears to be a dedicated and fair participant in the project.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Should do just fine. :)
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Per nom by {{user|WJBscribe}}, per answer to what Bigtimepeace intends to do with the tools, per some good article creation contributions and overall contributions to the project.
'''Support''' As I though I already had done at No. 35.... :)
'''Support'''.  For every reason stated above.
'''Support'''. I seen 'im around. Good guy.
'''Support'''- an experienced editor who will make good use of the admin tools. --
'''Support''' - looks just fine -
'''Support''' A bit low on total edit count, but you know how to handle issues under pressure so you gained my support.
'''Support'''. No worries about this editor. --
'''Neutral''' Pending answer to question I am posing.  --
'''Neutral''' - I will not oppose - The main reason I am neutral here is that Bigtimepeace is polite in discussion on difficult topics... You might say "Huh? Why not support?" Well, reason I am not supporting is based on the concerns of DHeyward. It appears that this RfA should be successful as per the timing of my post. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to serve as a sysop. It also means that you will very soon have the tools that can cause you much heartache if you are not careful. You will be scrutinized by some users for any and everything that appears to be a conflict of interest. Good luck to you in your soon to be role as a sysop - If you stick around in some of the areas you have contributed to, you are going to need it big-time (and no, no pun was intended).  :-(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I think this user will do good with the tools. Nice answers too.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support'''  Every trusted helping hand is a hand.  BrigitteSB has been a solid contributor on more than one Wikimedia project for several years.  Please don't oppose because the user doesn't desire to be aggressive.
'''Support''', as a nominator.
'''[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]'''  Opposing someone because they won't be as active as other administrators is absurd; it's not like there's a limit on the number of administrators we can have.
'''Support''' Q1 is of definate concern, but the issue is not how active will a person be, but do we trust her with the tools?  Not every admin is as involved as some (I know there are admins who block more people in a week than I have since i became an admin.)  Do I trust her?  Yes... I say that having reviewed her edits/talk page and based upon the quality of people who nominated her.  Does she meet my criteria for admin?  Not really.  I personally like to see more edits and article building, but I also like to see people promoted who fill unusual niches.  Birgitte fills a niche that most of us don't bother with and don't care about.  She is very active in finding sources for unsourced articles.  She is also active in discussions on many different subjects---including but not limited to a very contentious debate concerning OR.  Will she be our garden variety admin?  No, but I think having an admin who frequents unusual spots (the places most of us don't go) can be beneficial.  Also finding sources for the unsual is article building, just via a different venue
Per Ral315.  The current opposes based on planned activity are, as Ral notes, ''absurd'' and this is an otherwise good candidate with an extremely lenghty track record of thoughtful participation. --
'''Support''' Agree strongly with Balloonman's sentiments above.
'''Support''' It's good that she isn't going to let the tools distract her from her more important work.
'''[[User:BirgitteSB#Unsolicited_Advice|Strong support]]'''.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - She seems to know what she's doing, she's civil and helpful in dealing with other editors, and she does a lot of good work around the 'pedia.  As someone far smarter than I once said, the tools don't rust if they're not used, and it's not like we have only a limited quantity to give out anyway. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. For me, the only legitimate reason to oppose giving someone the tools is fear that he'd misuse them. I have yet to find a reason to believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools. '''''
Per JayHenry, although ''absurd'' is perhaps rather weak. Any time I've come across BirgitteSB she's been doing good work without any drama.
'''Support''' It's all just about trust, isn't it?  And do we sack admins who aren't terribly active?--
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' Good candidate. Agree with Angus above that many of the opposes are absurd.
'''Support''' Certainly. Qualified and trusted users should be given the tools, regardless of whether they intend to become active in administrative areas or not. --
'''Support'''. I see no red flags. Qualified editor. Knows Wikipedia.
'''Support''', excellent trustworthy editor and content contributor, I'm reassured by answer 1 and unconvinced by the worn-out logic of the opposes.
'''Support''' - So a user gets opposed for not being as active? I thought RfA was about if we can trust this user, which I can, at least. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' - for me the frequency with which the tools will be used is of minor importance so long as I am happy that when they are used it will be wisely. Which I am.
'''Support''' per [[Honesty|answer to question 1]]. Also, a ''very'' civil user who will not abuse the tools even if they are not used much. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' -- Meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]]; I have no concerns; [[WP:Wikignome|gnomes]] don't need to be here a lot.
'''Support'''—Who wants another drone-mop? I'm quite happy with the response to Question 1; the applicant is a good member of the community and performs valuable tasks. That's enough for me.
'''Support''' per answer to Q1. I will always respect an honest answer.  The tools are free, they don't age, they don't rust. (as Pedro has stated before). You won't abuse them or misuse them. You've been here too long and I trust that you will proceed with the same care and cautiion that you have as an editor.  What else is there to consider?  If you use the tools at the rate of once per year, fine by me!  It's one less good standing editor that needs to ask for admin action when he/she needs it and can do it his/her self uncontroversially, and trusted by the community to do as much.  Happy to support,  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
I strongly support this nomination, and am also reminded of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan]]: being active occasionally and using the tools only once a week (or a month) is perfectly acceptable. Regarding question 1, if BirgitteSB had answered with the "standard RfA answer" with something like "I intend to take part in AIV to block vandals, in CSD to delete pages that meet the WP:CSD criteria, and RFPP to protect pages that need protecting. I also plan to close XFDs when the discussions are finished." instead of being honest like she has been with her answer, she wouldn't have the opposition she has now, and that's a shame really. I would much, ''much'' rather prefer an honest admin who uses the tools sparingly but effectively than one who uses them often and abusively. After all, people do have something called ''real lives'', and nobody has said why BirgitteSB would abuse or misuse the tools at all, and "need" for the tools is irrelevant: there is no limit on the amount of mops available, and if someone will put the tools to good use, why deny them adminship?  BirgitteSB is a great candidate.
'''Support''', I don't see any reason not to.
'''Support'''; not using the tools ''much'' isn't a reason to deny all uses.  Responsible editor, and no hint of probable misuse.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' for the honesty in answering Q1. No other concerns. Acalamari makes excellent points, really. I would strongly urge the Opposers below to reconsider their comments.
'''Support''' Remember instances when I thought she was particularly sensible though I do not remember the context. And a quick review does not show anything worrying. But I see that people still want to oppose for not "needing" tools. Demanding a minimum work limit or activity from volunteers... that's rich.. :D -
'''Support'''- The oppose concerns are outweighed by the good work this user has (and will) do. Good luck...--
'''Support'''. User can be trusted with the tools. Whether or not she uses them is irrelevant. "Inactive" administrators do not harm Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Nothing to make me believe that Brigette will misuse the tools.  My measurement is "misuse", not "fail-to-use".  Sure, it'd be great to have admins who are hyper-active, but Brigette will probably be with us for the long run, and what's the danger in giving her the tools?  -
'''Support''' - clearly trustworthy, will be a net positive for the 'pedia. Cheers,
'''100% Rock Solid Support'''. I have complete confidence that this editor will use the tools to benefit the project. She is on my list of users that I would ask a question if I need an opinion about a difficult issue. I find her comments in discussions to be extremely well reasoned, even if I do not completely agree with her.
(ec)'''Support''' — [[WP:DGAF|"lackadaisical and indifferent sounding"]]? [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|That's the ticket]]. I find [[User:BirgitteSB#Unsolicited_Advice|this]] wise, and looking at the candidate, I would be of the understanding that she won't misuse the tools, given her experience — and obviously she can't, if she does not decide to use them. Some the opposers really ought to chill out. BirgitteSB will be a fine admin. Regards,
'''Support'''. By all accounts a thoughtful and experienced user; while I don't know her personally, no-one seems to be saying they don't trust her and many are saying they do. Not all of our mopsters need to zealously run around with the mop all the time. We need more reasonable people who have a mop available when they come across a situation when needed.
'''Weak support''' after reviewing alternate account contribs. I would really, really like to see more activity in the deletion or anti-vandal areas, but I'm not finding anything to make me believe there will be problems.--
'''Support''' I've been very impressed by Birgitte, and I think she would make an excellent admin.  I think she has just the right temperament for the job, and a broad set of skills and knowledge.
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]. --
'''Support'''.  The only questions that matter to me in considering an RfA are:  "Is this person here to build an encyclopedia?" and "Can we trust this person with administrative tools?"  The answer to both is a resounding "yes" for this editor. --
'''Support''' This is an obviously qualified candidate, and the community can only benefit from giving her the tools. Question 1 is hardly a worry for me, as "no need for tools" has been debunked time and time again; I'm quite disappointed in the members of our community who have opposed over this. Further, now that Birgitte has updated her Q1 answer to clarify exactly how she will use the tools with her backlog work, I'm even more sure that giving her the mop will be an overwhelming positive.
'''Strong Support'''.  Most definitely.  I agree with GlassCobra in saying that "no need for the tools" is a ridiculous reason to oppose.  I would like to say that Birgitte will "Do no harm" and will have a positive, rather than negative effect on Wikipedia because of the +sysop flag.  Best of luck to you Birgitte, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I'm puzzled by all the hoopla surrounding her answer to Q1, especially coming from administrators. Sure, admins clear backlogs and while there are a few workhorses out there, the fact is many admin accounts do relatively little as far as closing XfDs, speedy deleting stuff, working at AIV. Yet, even when we are ''not'' working specifically on admin backlogs, we still routinely use the tools simply to be better editors. Access to deleted revisions can be extremely informative when trying to understand an editorial conflict. Access to deleted contributions often allows one to realize that editor X with 3 harmless junk edits has in fact created 10 hoax articles and needs to be blocked. There's this myth going around that being an admin is a mysterious super-complex endeavour which requires years of studying policy and understanding its finer points. It's not, especially if you're a responsible person unlikely to start using these tools in areas you're not familiar with. From what I can see, BigitteSB has shown a sense of responsibility and has shown dedication to wiki-projects. The net-effect of her adminship can only be positive.
'''Support'''. In general I like to see more article writing and I will argue to the end why that is important. But what a few in the oppose camp didn't look into closely enough is the type of experience that this user has that more than fulfills the spirit of why article writing is important. Article writing isn't just important for an admin for the sake of it, it's important so that a user understands what kind of struggles go into deciding what content should be kept and not, and how our policies (content and behavioral) interact with that. BirgitteSB has very clearly demonstrated those understandings in important ways beyond what most well qualified admins  do through the types of experiences she has, particularly the example of working with unsourced articles and going and sourcing them by hand after working on an RfC related to the article content. Furthermore this user is so trustworthy that the doesn't need the tools argument is moot and doesn't sway me at all anyway considering that she has demonstrated some important use for the tools, and some is better than none. The tools are not limited folks we can give them to everyone that won't misuse them and I argue we should. -
Birgitte is a good person who would do good things with the bit, as much or as little as she can do. The point of a wiki is that every little bit counts :) She'll be just fine. ~
Support, strong candidate.
'''Support''' - don't see there being any problems.
'''Support''', fine answers.
'''Support''' will be a good sysop. ''
You seem to be sane, and, you're a sysop/crat on another WMF project<small><sup>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=BirgitteSB&rights=1]</small></sup>. You've been around for a bit<small><sup>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=BirgitteSB][http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BirgitteSB&site=en.wikipedia.org]</small></sup>. Ordinarily, I'd like to see more edits to AIV, to see how you'd be with the block button. Rather than look for one or two instances where you've made a mistake, your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&limit=500&target=BirgitteSB Deleted contribs] show plenty of good CSD taggings, and prods. You appear to be smart and civil. Overall, I don't see a reason why I wouldn't trust you to use the tools in a responsible manner if or if not you decide to use them. BTW, the templates above in the RfA, why do they link to [[User:BirgitteSB-prod]]?
'''Support''' After reviewing the opposers here and the candidates work. Even if the candidate uses the tools just once every six months that's not a reason not to have them. Per Keeper (i.e. per me!) they don't rust and we don't have a limited ammount to give out. I appreciate the candidate could have made a "better job" of Q1 but the excellent contribution history gives me confidence. On balance; no harm + potential good = a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] to the encyclopedia. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Unlike many to-be-admins, good thing about supporting this candidate is that we know how she will handle things once she gets the tools. No guess work required.
Outstanding candidate, has knowldege of the tools from wikiquote (who I've come across a lot when I've been retrieving quotes for portals). An extremely friendly user, rather baseless opposes (especially ones regarding the answer to answer one), clueful&ndash;just everything that is needed in an administrator is displayed in Birgitte.
'''Support''' Per Q1. Honesty is not a virtue to be taken lightly.
Sure. Trustworthy enough, and if she feels like she could use the tools, why not? -
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' as a response to unconvincing opposes. If an editor is trusted to use the tools, it does not matter that s/he will only use them on an infrequent basis. There's no upper limit on the number of admins, so promoting less active editors to adminship does no inherent harm. As long as the candidate is trustworthy enough - which it appears that she is, per comments of others above (who have reviewed the candidate more thoroughly than I have) - then I have no problem with promotion.
'''Support'''.
'''[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]''' per Ral315.  The point is that they can be trusted, not whether they are going to be a supercharged admin devoting their life to wikipedia or not.  Her answer to Q1 was perfect because it was honest and not laced with a bunch of stuff just to get you vote for her. &mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support.  Meets my standards. --
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest candidate will abuse the tools. Does not matter how many times candidate is going to use the tools.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Brown">
'''Support''' Adminship is ''no big deal''. If the candidate is trustworthy and experienced, that's all that matters. Honestly people, first we crucify TenPoundHammer for be too eager, then we deny Birgitte for not being eager enough! It's absurd. Not being desperate for the tools is an asset, it'll provide time to ease in to it.
'''Strong support''', Giving the tools to experienced and trusted users like BirgitteSB allows problems to be dealt with calmly before they reach the noticeboards, which in turn allows new users to be coached rather than pounced on.
'''Support''', I've found BirgitteSB to be a very level-headed, intelligent editor and someone who I think will wield the mop wisely, even if sparingly.
'''Support'''  from all evidence, she'll do very well. Knows WP policy well enough that I see no reason to be concerned.  '''
Hell yes. Someone I trust immensely all over Wikimedia, combined with supports of Sandy and Tony (you don't see them here except for the very best) means this is a very strong support. ''
Trustworthy. Also, I agree with Dlohcierekim, that infrequency of expected use is not a valid criterion for objection. Having surplus admins would be very useful. For example, if Wikipedia were to experience a crisis, her infrequently active admins may come to her rescue.  Trustworthy admins, regardless of activity level, are a potentially incredible resource, and present us with a net benefit.  The "all or nothing" reasoning of opposers is irrational, and is at the top of the list of [[cognitive distortion]]s from the field of [[cognitive psychology]].  CDs are so prevalent in opposers' reasons, that perhaps they are prime candidates for [[cognitive therapy]].  [[Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy]] might also help.  :)
'''Support'''. I can't see why a user who has served the encyclopedia well should not receive the tools because this is a secondary wiki to them. Does inactivity equal potential abuse, or lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia works? '''''
'''Support''' - per answers. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' based on answers given and comments made by nominators and supporters. It doesn't matter if an admin doesn't use the tools often. If they use the tools only once, it will have been a net positive.
'''support''' Even if this user isnt goin to be active, help is always good. Too much time on wiki can be bad as well.
&mdash;
'''Support''' following Tim's response to my concerns below. Good luck!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' she's an exemplary admin at wikisource. seems like a no-brainer.
'''Support''' Nothing has been brought up that leads me to believe she will abuse the admin tools. As for not planning to be an active admin, so what! Even if she only uses the tools, lets say one or two times a week, that still is a help.--
'''Support''' – I was not sure if I should put my remarks in the comment section or in the '''support''' or '''oppose''' opinion section.  Well, reading the Oppose section made up my mind! Happy to say '''Support''' won out.    First to address the issue to Q#1, if anyone took the time to read [[User: BirgitteSB|BirgitteSB]] talk page, she/he explained their reasoning why they do not need the tools, but also were reluctant not to use the tools if given to them.  Personally, kudos to you, from my standpoint great answers.  You are the type of administrator I would like to see more of here.  This user is a contributor to the project, not a distraction.  Good edit count that shows article building – no conflicts and handles troublesome situations well.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I am changing from Oppose based on the editor's crat status at Source & her reply below, which provides me with sufficient conviction that her adminship would be an asset to the project.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' proven trustworthy editor.
'''Support:''' A fantastic, dedicated contributor who tackles everything she does with dedication, wisdom and humor!
Birgitte is one of the people who I think '''really''' "gets" the wiki way. She has a deft hand, a good grasp of general principles, and is a very dedicated, hard working contributor. I supported her for ''Bureaucrat'' on en:wikisource ([[s:Wikisource:Administrators/Archives#BirgitteSB]]), after all ... why would I not support her for admin here? With all due respect to Doc and others, while I do agree that some articlespace contributions are helpful, her mainspace contributions on Wikisource more than make up for that in my view. Absolutely an asset to WMF projects. Strong '''Support''' with apologies for not supporting sooner. ++
'''Support'''. Demonstrates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BirgitteSB&diff=139717727&oldid=135800813 clue].
'''Support'''. I liked the honesty given in Question 1. Not very active doesn't necessarily mean incompetent. Would make a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Birgitte is quite experienced with the admin tools on other projects, and no harm should come from her having adminship here. The Q1 answer doesn't bother me in the least, she will use them when she feels she needs to, and that will be a net positive - one less bit of work for the rest of us to do. :)
'''Support''' - no issues really with Q1. We can't all be active on enwiki at all times and some of us are busy elsewhere. Everything else seems fine here and 1 sysop action per month is better than none. It's No Big Deal, folks -
'''Support''' As someone who is a sysop on more than one project, I can fully understand the need to parse ones time appropriately. Furthermore, I appreciate Birgitte's honesty in informing us that this would not be her primary wiki. Her history reveals someone who seems to be a fine candidate for the tools, and if she uses them less frequently than some others, in my opinion that is irrelevant. Not everybody can be on every wiki all the time, and mature, reasonable, civil, fair, and honest people, as Birgitte appears to be, can only benefit the project, in my opinion. --
'''Support''' a valuable contributor.
'''Support'''.  Saying they will only use the tools on occasion is better than saying they won't use them at all, or overuse them.  And when he/she does use them they'll use them well.  Good luck in the RfA.  '''
'''Support''' As per track and the fact she is sysop in more than one project.
'''Support''' I cannot imagine that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No one ''needs'' the tools. That's ridiculous and should not be given weight, as that's not what we're discussing here. We are discussing whether or not we trust this candidate. Everyone seems to trust her. Looks good. Under the rationale provided for many opposes, we should take away the tools for everyone on wikibreak or who is unactive. They don't ''need'' the tools, either. '''
'''Support.'''  Self-reverted my oppose.  —
'''Support''' Looks like the editor would be good with the mop; not convinced by the opposes -- I think we've gotten let admin's have a life sometime or wait, do I need to give mine back? :( <font face="Blackadder"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support'''. It seems that Birgitte is unlikely to be the most active admin, butshe  is sane, thoughtful, a great communicator, and has demonstrated her trustiworthiness with tools by her work on wikisource. I am not overly concerned with how infrequently an admin uses the tools (although that I ''would'' be very concerned if an admin was trigger-happy); what matters to me is whether the candidate is an appropriate person to have access to the tools, and whether any use she makes of them will be wise. In Birgitte's case, I see plenty of persuasive evidence that the toolkit will be in safe hands. --
'''Support''' editor is an asset to the project and editing history demonstrates that she can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Very good user. I hope she will do a fine job as an admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' Admins who use their tools infrequently seem to use them more wisely. -
'''Support''' Good luck and keep that head up!!! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - seems like a good editor who will use the tools wisely. Can see no reason why not despite opposes below. --
A good lass from what I've seen of her. Good luck.
'''Support''' per Q.1. - 1st sentence of answer. Honesty is all we can require of a candidate in the matter of establishing trust in being allowed use of the tools (even if the use is to be limited).
'''Support''' - Someone who goes out of their way to keep material in Wikipedia is someone who is a vastly positive influence.  I also consider someone who is not looking to use the powers all the time, but rather only when needed to help, that's someone who can be trusted with such powers.
I can't believe I almost missed this RfA. To be honest, even though I didn't recognize the name right away, I now recollect seeing this editor's signature on talk pages, and was under the impression she was already an administrator.
'''Support''' - sufficient experience with Wikis that she'll know to look before she leaps (or blocks, unblocks, protects, unprotects, deletes, undeletes, grants rollback...), and if she makes a single good use of the admin tools (without any bad uses) then the project is better off with her as an admin.
'''Support''' - I had a personal experience with this users abilities and it was like hearing a clear voice emerge for the caos. If I every need someone to arbitrate I would go to BirgitteSB without hesitation. --
'''Oppose''' due to no evidence of watching [[Robot Chicken]], the most hilarious show on earth.
'''Support''' - Some of the opposes below...smh. We have many inactive admins. Birgitte would be a big plus to the squad.
'''Support''' Sure, Q1 could've been worded differently; ''very active'' is relative after all.  She seems qualified, and active enough. -
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - seems a stable, trustworthy and intelligent person. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''': With pleasure. --
'''Support''' Adminship is all about trust. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' - an excellent and very trustworthy candidate.
The opposes are not for good reason.  I assume if there ''were'' good reasons to oppose, they would have come out by now.  So, support.
'''WTF Support''' All that trouble about question 1? Does she ''need'' the tools? No, and anyone who does probably needs counselling. Would she ''make good use'' of them? Surely, when the occasion present itself. Will she ''abuse them''? Surely not. This is meant to be no big deal, remember? <font color="006622">
Per all of the above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' As many above have said, adminship is all about being trusted by the community.  To me, this user appears trustworthy and thus my support.  Good luck with your RFA!--
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience with article building and project space. Also, the answer to Q1.
'''Oppose''' Wisdom has it as usual. Not enough article building. I disagree that not using the tools is an issue (if anything it's a plus not to be on a power trip) but Wisdom's argument stands.
'''Oppose''' I stopped reading this RfA after reading the answer to question #1 --
Per Q1, if you don't intend to use the tools why request them? You can still be a good editor/contributor without the tools.
On the rare occasion he finds a case where the tools are needed, there are a lot of admins already. If he doesn't intend to help with the general work load, why give him the tools?
'''Oppose''' - per answer to Question 1, we already have many editors who become admins for the powers but don't really have the intention of using it and thus are deemed inactive. I prefer active editors to become admins and she is a perfect candidate but if she doesn't intend to use it, I doubt she needs it ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] and [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]]. '''
'''Oppose''' - Yep, Q1 was the dealbreaker for me also.  If this is a "secondary" wiki to you, then you have no need for the mop here, IMHO.
'''Oppose''' - answer on Q1 says you don't need the tools.
'''Reluctantly oppose''' per answer to Question 1. User does not seem to require administrative tools.
'''Oppose''' Not happy with answer to Question 1 and if only secondary wiki no need for admin tools IMHO.
'''Oppose''' - Whats the point of becoming an admin and having those responsibilities when your not even going to be here often. Its like becoming a copper and saying i wont be coming to work for 10 months of the year.
'''Oppose''' Low mainspace edit [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BirgitteSB&site=en.wikipedia.org], 2968 mainspace edits and highest edit is in [[St. Louis, Missouri]] i.e. only 12. Lack of experience in article building. '''
<b>Oppose</b>- question 1 answer.
'''Neutral''' per Q1. But she does seem like a good editor so I can't find something major with which to give an Oppose for. -
'''Neutral''' Also per Q1. I don't think it's something I should oppose for. --'''
'''Neutral''' - I'm on the fence with this one and may move it to oppose. I appreciate that some admins may be more active than others, and even though any contribution done as an admin is advantageous to the project, the candidate's response to Q1 does not strike me as particularly well thought out. Saying you don't intend to be very active as an admin because this wiki is secondary to you really doesn't do much for your nomination and it seriously begs the question why you want to become an administrator here when you consider it subordinate to another wiki. I also would've liked to have seen some kind of article building, i.e. a GA or FA. But can I also ask fellow editors to at least read the entire RFA before they comment on it, as to discard the entire thing so quickly feels like playing devil's advocate, rather than forming a balanced good faith response based on the whole perspective.
'''Neutral'''. Long-term editor with great work sourcing articles. I utterly disagree with most of the "need for the tools" arguments. However, like Fabrictramp, I'm concerned at the editor's understanding of the utility of tagging stubs, for example, removing "refimprove" tags from stubs which definitely need more referencing. Also, back in June 2007 there was an incident where her subsidiary account was blocked for multiple inappropriate use of prod for controversial deletions, and I'm not seeing much subsequent use of the deletion processes to make me comfortable with giving the editor the delete button. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' Changed to neutral per Acalamari and Sharkface217. —
'''Neutral''' per Q1, and per Sharkface. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Q1 and lack of evidence of preparedness for the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Q1. --
I disagree with the above, but I feel I must make a comment here. I've just had a rather unpleasant discussion with her (off-wiki) regarding bureaucrats on Meta-wiki. Background: we proposed that bureaucrats should be able to remove rights as well as add. I found her overall tone to be aggressive and accusing, and when she didn't understand why we were doing something she exclaimed, "My mind would be boggled" (or words to that effect). She then bluntly refused to accept that a certain user was a steward, even when I posted the userlist and showed her the rights the user had. She said that she'd rather believe the user themselves, even when faced with clear evidence of opposition. In all, my brief interaction with this user was most unpleasant, and I would not want this kind of user as an admin. '''
'''Neutral'''. I'm fine with the answer to Q1, neutralling based on a gut feeling.
'''Changed from oppose'''. I still feel the same, although I won't hold my concerns against the candidate.
'''Neutral''' Per answer to Q1. Althought there is a lack of experience in article building, I don't see a major reason to oppose.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - yes definitely.<small>And Wizardman had to get me into an ec</small> '''«'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''.  Good user. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Y3S''!''''' '''
'''Support''' per Wizardman's nomination. We need more Image admins, and BJW seems to be just the person for this. --
'''Support''' - A specialist.
'''Support''' per nom.  I was surprised that this user wasn't already an admin, actually.  --
'''Support''' Like the man said, we need more image admins.  Anything to stop me getting drawn into it! --
'''Support''' responsible bot maker, good editor. Has no malicious intent and would make a good level headed admin. --
Absolutely trustworthy. I think BJ will make a fine admin.
I am compelled by "we ''need'' more image administrators".  –'''
OK.
'''Support''', I see no reason to believe user would abuse or misuse the tools (and more admins in image-related areas are always needed). --
'''Support''' per [[User talk:Bjweeks#This|recent friendly usertalk page interaction]] as well as strong argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldmember]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Kind of weak in the mainspace, a majority of your last 1000 article edits were via some automated tool. I also think bots are irrelevant at RFAs. ''But'' you do have quite a bit of experience and you work with images. It's a go from me.
'''Support'''. Given how arcane Wikipedia's image system and policies can be, another admin who knows what they're doing in that area would certainly help. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''support''' Recongnising that there are some legitimate concerns voice in Neutral and comments above, I am also keenly aware of the need for more image working administrators. On balance "risk / reward" seems to indicate [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|a net positive]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Yay! Good BAG work + per Pedro. ''
'''Support''' Good image and bot work, will do lots of good.
'''Support'''.  User in fact does not tend to run amok.  &#10154;
'''Support'''. More admin who is skill in this area
'''Support'''. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Need more specialists.
'''Support''' - Seems trustworthy and helpful. --
Trustable bot operator, image admins are a great plus.

'''Support''' Talented specialist admins are just as valuable as talented specialist editors.
'''Support''' A bit concerned about the allegations in the oppose, below, I'm also taking on board East718's assessment of the incident. Contribs look good to me, no reason not to trust with the buttons.
'''Support'''
'''I thought he was one already''' <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Good candidate <font color="blue">'''
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support'''. I believe that more admins in image-related areas are always needed. --
Yup, knows his stuff and will certainly be a benefit. I'm not concerned that he might not use the tools as much as others, the point is that when he does use them, I'll trust him to do an effective job.
'''Weak support''' due to bj's lack of understanding about roche copyrights [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] '''
'''Support''' per Ryan Postlethwaite. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' with pleasure. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''', per Wizardman's nomination statement; I see no problems here.
'''Support''' I think he'll be fine. So what if he's an image and bot specialist, more power to him.
'''Support''' This user has the experience, and my trust. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' From his work in bots I can see he is truly devoted to improving the encyclopedia. His commitment to image issues is another plus.
'''Support''' I would trust this user with the tools, and I anticipate his focus in images will make his use of the tools a great help to the encyclopedia.  His botwork only increases my support.  &hArr;
'''Support''' User has shown he will be a highly capable specialist admin. If approved, keep your focus on what you already do well and you will be just fine.--
'''Support''' Agree w/ {{user|Wizardman}}.
'''Support''' - We need more image admins. He'll do fine.
'''Support''' but on the ''strict'' understanding that this is an RFA for Bjweeks and NOT any of his bots. I would expect a second RFA if you intend to run bot jobs from a sysop account.
'''Support''' The others said it best...and first.
'''Support''' per all of the above.  As the nom said, admins with experience in this sort of thing are needed and appreciated and this user looks like they'll do a good job.
'''Support''' No reason not to. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. Deletion work, especially in the image arena, is an important part of maintaining Wikipedia. No problems here with user contribs or attitudes.
'''Support''' I fully agree with [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] when he states we need more administrators who are willing to use their tools in the image department. [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion|WP:IfD]] has a huge backlog, and so does [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images|WP:PUI]]. I have faith that this user will help in these areas not only because he has stated he will, but also because he works heavily with images. This user has clearly demonstrated a need for the tools, which for me is important. Through his work tagging images for deletion he has proved himself to be pretty accurate, which shows he understands the policies he will be working with as an admin. This user not only has demonstrated a need for the tools, but he has also shown he won't misuse the tools. These two things, in the case of this user, are enough for me to support him. Some of his comments on the bot owners' noticeboard are a little rude, however, overall he has proved himself to be kind.--
'''Support''' per Wizardman's nomination. --
'''Support''' Given the (initial) parameters in which the tools may be used, and the candidates expertise within those areas, I have no qualms in respect of Bjweeks ability to use the tools appropriately. With regard to concerns raised in respect of off-wiki comments, I see no effect on the candidates on-wiki processes and therefore conclude that any ''unfortunate'' personal mindset will not prejudice their sysop functions (which are generally related to determining consensus and judging the application of various policies and remedies).
'''Support''' - he meets my standards for RfA, and I can't see the drama per opposes.
Experienced with images: Bjweeks' knowledge in that area will be an even greater asset when he is an administrator.
'''Support''' Seems fine. Opposes aren't really convincing, and we need more admins working with images.
'''Support'''. IFD needs more hands.
'''Support''', I think he'll do a fine job.
'''Grapes'''. —
Someone who ''wants'' to deal with image copyrights? '''Support.''' <font face="Broadway">
'''Support'''. There is nothing wrong with specializing, images in particular can be very complicated and I think Bjweeks can do a good job in this area. I trust this user and the opposing comments have done nothing to dissuade me.
'''OMG I FORGOT SUPPORT'''...yeah these supports aren't going to get me adminship.... <font color="blue">'' '''
'''CWii really needs to calm down support''' - User would be a net benefit with the tools.
'''Desu'''.
'''Support''' Guy has experience
'''Support''' times sixty seven. No need to elaborate, since experience speaks for itself. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Support''' Hardly matters for me that the nom plays up only the bot functions (..and the bot IS good!) and AfD participations. A look at the editor's contributions says that he is experienced and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''', meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  Good luck!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - I always trust [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] to come up with good noms, and this one doesn't fail my expectations. As he says, there aren't many admins in the image category. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Sounds good to me.
'''Support''' Looks both knowledgeable and trustworthy to me. And I've witnessed mature, responsible interactions on the project space. Plus, being able to lend a hand in images is also a plus. '''<font face="times new roman">
Yep. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - <s>No opposer has given a legitimate reason. -[[User:FrankTobia|FrankTobia]] ([[User talk:FrankTobia|talk]]) 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)</s><br/> In my humblest of opinions, no opposer has given a reason which satisfies my personal moral compass in order to oppose this candidate, and therefore I support. This is to be considered at most a single Wikipedian's judgement of other Wikipedians' [[WP:AGF|good-faith]] opposes, and certainly not as a blanket rejection of the legitimacy of the opinions of other Wikipedians. This qualification shall continue [[Rule against perpetuities|in perpetuity]]. -
'''Support''' - Per [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]]. Vocal opposition of [[WP:BADSITES]] is a clear indication of clue. I'm not a huge fan of image work, but willing to think critically is important. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good guy. A little mis-guided, ''maybe'', but still a good guy. What's that phrase people always use...? "net positive"? Yeah, that's the one.--
Knows his image policy. Always a boon. -- <strong>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''[[Godwin's law|Godwin's]] support'''. I was on the fence about BJ until someone used the word "Nazis" in their oppose. In case people haven't noticed, thousands of things get deleted from Wikipedia every day ... and that's a ''very good thing''. We need people to decrapify the encyclopedia and excise copyright violations to keep it from a) becoming bloated with detritus and b) facing legal charges. BJ is eager to help do the latter, and that is a good thing. -
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' Looks good enough.
'''Support''' Reading through the oppose section, I see some stuff about ED, but that doesn't bother me in the least.  In fact, it makes me want to support this user even more than I would have otherwise.  We need more admins who can have a laugh and aren't liable to have these kinds of knee-jerk reactions at having some people on teh internets linking to their mistakes and laughing at the wikidrama.  <font color="629632">
'''Support''' I see this user's intentions on Wikipedia great. Deleting content, he knows Wikipedia Policy. A great editor.--
'''Strong Support''' - Not only because I find you unbelievably qualified for adminship, but also to counteract the opposes based solely on your sense of humor. It appears that Wikipedia has become [http://www.google.com/search?q=serious+business&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a serious business]. --
'''Support''', knowledgable and helpful editor.  Will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - we definitely need more admins that can help with images. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I am not swayed by the opposers.
--'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' a good, well-reasoned candidate whose adminship will be a net positive to the project. The candidate's work with images will also be of benefit, as noted above.
--
Appears to be a fair and dedicated editor.
'''Strong Oppose'''. I don't see where this candidate needs the admin tool just to run a bot and participate in AFD. Also, it would be nice to see more contributions from the candidate in terms of ''creating content rather than deleting it''. We already have enough self-appointed image copyright cops armed with bots. We don't need another Betacommander running amok.--
'''Strong oppose''' - I cannot support someone who supports what is unquestionably external sexual harassment of Wikipedians. Any interested administrator may [[Special:Emailuser/Sceptre|email me]] for proof, but the nature of the evidence is such that I cannot post it on Wikipedia. '''
'''Oppose''' Nom is just about a bot and per first oppose comment. [[User:StewieGriffin!|'''<em style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">StewieGriffin!</em>''']]&nbsp;&bull; <small>[[User talk:StewieGriffin!|Talk]]
'''Oppose''' User has not done enough to prove dedication to the project/understanding of procedure.
While we've previously adhered (collectively) to the "not harmful = promote" paradigm, the project has grown in maturity since those days.  I have been unable to locate substantial engagement with article space, and the candidate has not made a convincing argument w.r.t. How the project will benefit from their possessing a few extra buttons. - <font color="black">
Per Brenneman.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:OMG|OMG]]! [[WP:FU|FU]]! [[WP:Deletionism|Delete]]! -- We don't need another example of the "it's better to delete than to create" philosophy in the ranks of admins.  Their overrepresentation is excessive.  Candidate makes no representation about content addition or about fixing problem images instead of nuking them.  --
'''Oppose''', as far as I can tell, this amount of content that the candidate has contributed has been minimal.  His bot certainly does some useful work, but you don't need to be an admin to run a bot.
'''Weak Oppose''' while I think his bot has done some good, I too am not very keen on photo nazis.

'''Oppose''' do to lack of understanding of deletion policy, insensitivity, and lack of reason why the tools are necessary to run bots. '''
'''Oppose''' per Sceptre and DGG. Also, I read through the incident with BJbot and I didn't like how Bjweeks handled himself in that situation. Replies such as: "k?" aren't really the best way to respond to an apparently legimate concern. Despite admitting he could've improved from it, I can't really let that go. My apologies.
'''Oppose''' Has no need of tools. Not sure he can be trust him with them.
'''Oppose'''. You don't have to be a sysop in order to run a bot. You have to know how to talk to people and to address their concerns if you want to be an admin. There are serious doubts that the nominee possesses these qualities. --

'''Oppose''' mainly over the lack of empathy that I perceive for those attacked on ED.
'''Oppose''' due to comprehension concerns regarding deletion policy and other issues cited above.
'''Oppose''' per Aaron and scribe. Mainly I think you do a pretty good job on wiki, but I'd like to see additional contributions outside bot related and image. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Oppose'''. No evidence of commitment to building content and no evidence the candidate possesses the necessary communication skills to resolve issues effectively. --
'''Neutral'''.I'm at a fence here. Bjbot is awesome. He is great and is up there with the top bots on Wikipedia. You are are very good with images, almost professional. But after studying your contributions I have found that you almost ignore articles. And the edits you have made to articles aren't all that. Before you can get my support, I think you should  be better with editing articles. [[Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#BJBot|You've only had one biggish]] conflct but you handled that perfectly compared to me. Keep up the great work but right now I'm not ready to support you.
'''Neutral'''. Not sure here. On the one hand, I agree with the nominator that we could use more admins to work specifically with images and Bjweeks is certainly qualified. On the other, users who focus largely on image work without much in the way of other contributions often seem to rub people the wrong way. I worry that the lack of communication in responding to complaints about his bot in [[Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#BJBot|this thread]] bodes ill for when he has to field a lot of questions about why he has deleted various images. That said, his early work since joining BAG seems to be going well and I am aware of no complaints. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' while the candidate has shown himself trustworthy with a tool almost as powerful as admin buttons (the bot) the failure to understand why oppose #2 saw a serious issue means I have to withhold my support. --
'''Neutral''' - per the first three opposes. --
'''Neutral''' — per [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]]. <small>
'''Support''' per my support in the last RfA.
'''Support''' - Meets my criteria by a landslide.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - extensive article-writing and Wikipedia experience, seems like an ideal candidate. Doesn't say so in his answers but I'd guess he also knows whether fair use images should be allowed in galleries or not, too.
Per the resolution of last time's support.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' In every way a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good answers. Lot's of experience. Got my vote. '''''
'''Support''' I'm impressed by the knowledge of policy shown by this candidate in the discussions kindly provided by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and in the answers.
'''Support''', --
'''Support''' don't see any real problems, unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - No reason to think he won't use the tools wisely and help the project. ---
'''Support''' plenty of experience. Nice answers to questions. <strong>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Opposers aren't remotely convincing.
'''Support''' - good editor, should get the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' As last time.
'''Support''' - nothing to make me believe that he wouldn't be a competent administrator.  -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Gwernol and Addhoc said it first, so I don't need to say it again.
'''Support''': Great answers to the questions provided. After reviewing the contribution history, I see no reason why he can't be handed the mop and bucket. Best of luck! <font color="#CC0000" size="-2">
'''Support''' - Yep, give em' the mop.
'''Support''' Good user, good soon-to-be admin. '''
'''Support'''. No problem. --
'''Weak support''' Attitude towards AfD concerns me, but all in all, I doubt that Blueboy will abuse the mop. --'''
'''Weak support''' per TBC [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''', I think objecting just because the user is a deletionist is a bit harsh.  I see no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support:''' Frankly, the opposition votes highlight some of the deep flaws of the RfA process.  No grounds are actually proffered for why this able, thoughtful and dedicated editor would make a poor administrator or how he would abuse the tools.  So ... because someone hangs the word "deletionist" on him and that he lacks a claque?  At this rate, I expect Oppose votes to start coming because nominees' political stances, takes on abortion rights, preferences in music or real world professions by definition would make them "poor admins."
'''Support'''.  Make sure to be careful when deleting articles at AFD.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. But don't forget that fresh eyes are sometimes better for blocking vandals, the blood can boil and make you over-react. AIV can be used by admins too for confirmation. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' per
'''Weak support''' Although I'm not a fan of deletionists (as every article should be decided case by case), I would never oppose based on this. Therefore, I see no reason this user should not be an admin, so... support. '''
'''Support''' I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since I've never seem his name mentioned as a ''problem user'' '''
'''Support''' with best wishes--
'''Support''' should do ok by the look of things. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Strong support''' per the extensive list of Blueboy96's 107 deletion nominations over the last 6 months that I've listed at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Blueboy96 3#Deletion track record]]. He has a near-perfect speedy deletion track record and a respectable (but not stellar) AfD nomination record; some of the AfDs that went against him were either close calls or had just 2 or 3 participants. Several articles were kept that were not obvious keepers to me either; perhaps the subjects were notable but no refs were shown to prove it. As for the concerns about "mocking" expressed by opposing commenters below, I looked at the diffs cited  and I personally just don't see a problem. --<font face="Futura">
'''Strong support''' Has been around since March 2004 with over 14000 mainspace edits and track is good.
'''Strong support.''' Long term editor, lots of edits, good AfD contribs, opposing based on "deletionism" is absurd.
'''Weak Support''' - a change from neutral last time.  I am a bit concerned about deletionism, but he has waited, learned things, and been honest.
'''Support''' - the only problems that the user seems to have is some dispute issues, but those issues were handled with and the user has not had significant disputes since.
I think that Blueboy96 will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' - about time there was an admin that understood that we are editing an encyclopedia, not some oddball Triviapedia.
'''Support''', nothing intrinsically wrong with being deletionist.  I don't see any evidence Blueboy would be incapable of judging policy or the consensus of others, no matter what his own view on an article may be.
'''Support''' - answer to question1 spot-on for a potential admin! [[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
'''Support''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' per the good track record this user has in AfD discussions and nominations, as so graciously laid out in full detail by A. B.  Not perfect, but who is?  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' as I did in the last RfA. We've worked together on several projects, and his contributions are always well-informed and constructive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like people who don't like crap articles.
'''Support''' Great Xfd expirience and article contributions

'''Oppose''' — per the guy above me (my apologies, the name is far too difficult for me to type). Deletionism is never good; remember [[Mzoli's]]? --
'''Oppose''' - per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' comments and the fact that this is a self-nomination.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' - per above. --
Per Le Grant; specifically deletionism and mocking of banned users. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman;">''
<B><U>Strongest possible oppose</U></b> -  Per my reasoning from November: this guy lied and fabricated a reason to harass, intimidate and ban another editor. <B>He should <U>NEVER</U> be an admin at Wikipedia. </B> <font face="raphael" color="green">
'''Oppose''' per the [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Great Pumpkin King]].  Far, far, far too deletionist for my tastes, and too willing to allow others' zealous application of [[WP:BLP]] constrain their independednt analysis.  I've seen quite a bit of good work deleted, both at AfD and by claiming BLP violation.  Destroying contributions is easy and discourages further contribution.  The easy stuff needs no encouragement.  Granting deletion tools to this editor seems a greater-than-acceptable risk.  --
'''Oppose''' for deletionism.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
Weakly per East718 and a gut feeling, the latter of which I admit isn't terriby persuasive, but should be noted anyways.
'''Oppose''' Even though he answered my questions well,  I'd like us to have some additional experience with him at deletion processes to et a clear idea of objectivity.'''
'''Neutral.''' The candidate knows how to properly amend his comments after others have responded to them and acknowledges that he was wrong on his last RfA. The examples that Blueboy96 gave were not too recent, but I didn't ask for recent examples (<tt>:O</tt>), and as it's something that doesn't happen quite often, I imagine it's not too easy to come up with examples where one amends one's own comments. I believe that he will amend his comments properly in the future. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' — Nice application, seems like a nice user with no wrong intentions. Unless I find a reason to oppose, I may as well support! Good luck! —'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Good answer(s) to questions. <font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script">
'''Support'''<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' Will do well with the extra tools. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Good luck!
'''Support''' The answers are extraordinarily sensible. And everything else.
'''Support''' An excellent editor, very friendly and helpful. I've never seen him be abusive with tools or be anything but civil in the times I've encountered him, and his work speaks for itself in its quality and quantity.
'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - His logistical work for the MilHist Project is outstanding.  I can't wait to see what he can accomplish with admin tools.
Everything looks fine. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' Civil, helpful, dedicated, self-effacing and modest. A great article writer with sufficent project space contributions to demonstrate clue. Clearly won't make mistakes and will check first before acting. Frankly a pleasure to support. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per iridescent. lolz! No, per your outstanding work on one of the biggest projects on WPedia. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Seems good to me. I do, however, find it slightly bizarre that you mark all edits as minor. No biggie! &ndash;
'''Support'''. Everything looks good to me, I think he'll do fine as an administrator. I would recommending archiving your talk page one of these days, it's quite long. Fortunately, I have [http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/mice_pointers/mice/devices/2987&cl=us,en this mouse], great for scrolling.
Has the [[WP:QA|requisite experience]] in the only significant respects, and his conduct shows that he has both the faithful intentions and the necessary clue not to cause concern in any technically demanding adminsitrative functions with which he may not be terribly familiar. <font color="404040">
'''Support'''. Seems to be a trustworthy candidate.
'''Support'''. Agree with all of the above.--
'''Support''' A good editor, a good contributer, and a soon to be good admin.
'''Support''' Unless he answers my question stupidly..... i support.
'''Support''' One of the most effective editors of the Military history WikiProject, which helped me a lot when I was at my beginnings here on WP. --
'''Support''', Buckshot has done some fantastic work in helping to remedy the prevalent systemic bias in Wikipedia, and is in general a very good article writer. --
'''Support'''PS no offense, dude, but proof your statement about yourself.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Absolute Support''' —
'''Support'''. evidence points to being trustworthy with tools. Cheers,
'''Support'''  A hardworking, balanced and trustworthy editor who relishes the grunt work so necessary to advancing Wikipedia; my only hesitation is that he’d have to spend less time on MILHIST and AIR articles.
'''Support'''  Seems like a good candidate and I trust my adopter, Useight, who voiced support.
'''Weak support'''. Not much experience in general admin areas, but as long as you stick to your answer in Q1 you'll do fine. Good luck! :) <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Has a lot of experience and generally keeps his cool in content conflicts. POV pushers and fringe theorists can be quite challenging in that respect. I looked at the diffs posted by Maedin, but I don't see any problems. IMHO, none of those articles require a more drastic action that the one taken by Buckshot06.
'''Weak support''' - Weak given the distinct lack of activity in the project adminy space, however, your answer to question 1 gives me confidence that you will stick to what you know (AFD for example) and gradually improve/move on from there if you ever desire to do so.
'''Support''' Everything looks good, just remember to ease your way into areas outside of your comfort zone. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' as nominator
'''SureShot'''
Yes, yes, seems decent so '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - No concerns. Good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' No obvious problems, good editor.--
'''Support''' - Good answers, good contributions, responsible edits. -
'''Support''' - great content contributions, even temperament.
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong support''' Hard-working and effective editor, with masses of clue. --
'''Support'''.  Excellent, experienced, and dedicated project participant.
Not being sure as to the right name for the recall process absolutely clinched it for me. :-) Requesting mindless droning through the project space from a candidate that could be improving the encyclopedia is silly and hurts Wikipedia.
'''Yep''', obvious one!
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions. Good answers.
'''Support'''.—
'''Support''' - Very nice contributions, hopefully this will just make you that much better at improving the project.
'''Support''' obvious! ''
'''Support''' Reading through the page; i see no reason to oppose. - -
'''Support''' per excellent qualifications, impeccable credentials, and the silly neutral !votes below.
'''Support''' I have interacted with this user for a while now given our shared interests in MILHIST. I have been involved in the heated discussions over Mrg3105 hence my questions above. I think they have been answered to my satisfaction though I don't agree with that definition of civility; disagreeing with someone is not incivility, calling them an idiot for disagreeing is. Given that you have stated you want to avoid that particular department of the admin ship, I have no reason not to support. Buckshot06 has shown his commitment to Wikipedia through his long time here, he has built up a body of knowledge about how everything works and has a good amount of experience. Not every admin needs to have spent their wiki-life buried in XfDs and the circular ANI cesspit; if their daily contributions will be enhanced by admin tools, then that is fine by me. I feel fairly confident that Buckshot will not abuse the tools so I offer my support.
'''Support'''. The candidate is solid and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - the candidate is a solid contributor with a good head on his shoulders. I have no concerns over him having access to the tools. -'''
'''Support''' based on constructive experience interacting in Africa milhist articles. -
Is this where the Jane Fonda Fan Club is meeting?  Oh, sorry, that's seriously the wrong queue! But while I am here, a salute of '''Support''' for a worthy candidate.
'''Support''' as per [[User:Woody|Woody]], from what I know of his talk page contributions he will make a good administrator. --
'''Support''' great work in the wikiproject, trusted editor. --
'''Support''' up from Neutral.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Experienced ... and good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' per nom and article contribs.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''', papers are in order. :D --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' Per their body of work and the great endorsements. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Seems to be a quality editor. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Good editor, definitely trustworthy of the tools.
'''Support''' As per nom and user track.
'''Support''' because of answer to Q10 and because of a modest, yet telling [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrg3105&diff=228996329&oldid=228958273  salutatory gesture]. --
'''Support''' Knowledgeable and trustworthy Wikipedian. Good temperament as displayed on this RFA and in his work on Military Articles. Will be more helpful to the Project with the additional tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a fine editor with a firm understanding of policy.
'''Support''' Nick Dowling said it very well: ''Buckshot06 has an excellent record of treating other editors with respect and engaging in cooperative editing''. --
'''Strong Support''' Excellent contributions to english wikipedia. Wikipedia will gain with Buckshot06 been granted with adminship
'''Support''' - Trustworthy editor; will make a fine admin --'''
'''Support''' per Roger Davis and BanyanTree. --
No major issues.
'''Support'''. Would prefer broader experience, but see no significant issues here.
'''Support''' 5 and a bit months of 100% edit summary, so only reason not to support dealt with. Evidently trustworthy.

'''Oppose''' per A1 '' I do a lot of low-profile tedious 'grunt' work.......I hope that the admin tools will increase my effectiveness in this work'' I don't understand why you're willing to take such tedious work by yourself, because nobody force you to do so. Besides, having admin tools is not intended for yourself, but for the community. --
'''Neutral for now:''' I'm just not sure.  Buckshot has obviously made substantial contributions to military-related articles, but he appears to have very limited experience in admin-related areas.  Looking through a month's worth of contributions, I found at least two ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combat_Identification&diff=prev&oldid=238248829] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Challenge_Coin_Association&diff=prev&oldid=239547057]) articles where he has placed tags for notability, which could perhaps go to AfD, and five or six participations in XfD discussions.  Also, a prod2 which was blatantly removed, without discussion, by an IP 8 hours after being placed by Buckshot ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Va_man_dar_khoshbakhti-e_shirin_be_donya_amadam!&diff=238392563&oldid=238323998]) was never followed up.  I'm not suggesting that other people should use a watchlist in the same way that I do, but it seems reasonable to have watched this and followed it up (possibly with a re-instatement & a user warning?  Sending it to AfD so it's more visible?).  I am not convinced that a user ''should'' have used rollback before gaining its use as an admin, but I do note that Buckshot doesn't have rollback status or experience with undoing, reverting, warning users, etc.  And no speedy deletes?  Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, there are only so many contributions I can search through, lol :)  A few more thoughts: I don't see ''that'' many indications of how Buckshot handles himself under fire.  I've seen that a fair proportion of his edits, even from a month ago, are still the latest edits on the articles.  Not to be dismissive, but it would appear that he has been working largely in an area where there is not so much conflict and activity as to warrant quick responses.  Also, I fully accept that he has had documented trouble with user Mrg3105 and I do not know the nature of those problems, but a few days after Mrg3105 created an article, Buckshot added an <nowiki>{{accuracy}}</nowiki> tag with the edit summary "this guy is smoking some serious weed" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Royal_Navy_stations&diff=next&oldid=235251796]).  To sum up: I guess I just don't see a need for the tools, and I do not feel confident that, with the tools, he would not make several errors, which a more experienced candidate would have already come across and be able to avoid.
'''Neutral''' at this point.  There's a whole whack of questions above with no responses that I would actually like to see the answers to, mostly regarding civility.  Until then, I can't vote either way. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - Cailil is self-possessed and committed to high standards of accuracy, neutrality and verifiability.  He would make an excellent administrator.  I was going to nominate, but Durova's already provided a perfectly good nomination, so I'll state my opinions here.  I first met Cailil on the [[User:Anacapa]] situation, and Cailil has since come to me a few times for help with sock puppets of that user, or other issues requiring administrative attention.  My strong feeling is that Cailil does not need to come to me for routine administrative actions because he is perfectly capable of making the necessary judgments.  In my experience, Cailil's reports have always been accurate and well supported by evidence. Cailil's [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cailil|edit count]] shows 6800+ edits, 2000+ in mainspace and the rest nicely distributed, including substantial noticeboard and WikiProject participation, and he has a clear block log.
'''Support''' because you see, atheism-related userboxes are just fine when they aren't disrespectful towards others.
'''Support''' per a lack of a reason not to. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' Cailil has excellent judgement and a level head, and will make a great admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Per your very impressive experience.''
You're ready.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' Looks ok.
'''Strong Support''' I've worked with Cailil through various issues, and Cailil was very impressive with jkeeping their temper and never making empty appeals to authority.. all of their arguments were very firmly grounded in WP's policies.
'''Strong support''': Per Jehochman, Akhilleus, and SirFozzie. I'm sure if you looked at my history, you'd find some dodgy AfD comments as well, but the bottom line is that Cailil has a solid track record of mature, sensible, and level-headed editing. He's worked in the trenches already and handled himself well. Those are really the most (only) necessary characteristics for an admin. The rest follows. '''
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
'''Full Support''' If all you have done wrong in the last year is make a few a comments that only some users feel ''may'' be a little shaky, then man your going to be the perfect admin.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support'''. Seen you around a bit, I believe. I'm sure you'll use the tools to the 'pedia's benefit; good luck. --
'''looks okay'''.
'''Support''' Checks out by me. Will get the jobs done and admirably so.
'''Support''', per great history of calm resolution of problems, and an excellent answer to question 3. I've opposed RfA's in the past for candidates that make dodgy AfD arguments, but the few that have been raised are a while ago and are pretty borderline. No problems here, good luck. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''': Candidate seems like they would do a good job. I don't see a problem with the AfDs mentioned below. Sometimes articles need to be deleted and I'm sure that even with articles deleted if notability surfaces then the article can be recreated or information could be added to appropriate articles. Candidate seems civil and has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent as well. I think candidate would make an excellent admin. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''': Gonzo's reply to Wisdom below sums ny thoughts up.  Good candidate.
'''Support''' Cant see any reason not to. <strong>
'''Oppose''': Candidate's signature is too bright and too green. On the other hand, what I've seen of Cailil leads me to believe they wouldn't abuse the tools - and I do not think the AfD contribs raised by the opposers have any bearing on that question.  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Solid candidate, nothing to indicate possibility of misuse of tools.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Good luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''support''' Have noticed around as a sane & reasonable contributor, I trust Durova to nominate quality wikipedians, and I am not at all troubled by diffs cited by those !voting oppose.
'''Strong support''': level-headed, not afraid to speak up when needed, and diplomatic with the people with whom he has a disagreement, and has a sense of humor and self-derision when required. All the qualities we need in a good admin. Now, about that ''green'' signature... ;) --
'''Strong support''', Cailil seems to be very levelheaded, and certainly used to staying calm in disputes.  Although never having heard of him until today, I am completely impressed reading about the work that he has done, and he seems responsible, rational, and considerate - so very important. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. The oppose arguments aren't remotely convincing.
'''Support''' I've seen you around before, and like how you generally keep cool.  Your diligence and experience lead me to trust you with the responsibility.
'''Support'''.  I see no indication of any trust issues, and this user has a fine, long, edit history.  I will take my standard position of support.  &hArr;

'''Support''', meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  Excellent editor, civil, thorough and patient.  Also direct and consistent.  What's not to love?  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''  I've seen him around, seems level-headed and knowledgeable.  AfD cites seem picky in opposes, and not representative.
'''Support'''  net positive. Cheers,
'''Support'''  per candidate's edit history and answers, particularly 7 above.  He is an article-builder as well as a patient vandal-fighter, is calm and civil, and shows he sees the rationale behind rules and policies as well as what they actually say.  --<strong>
'''Strong support''' I'm on the other side of the aisle (inclusionist), but his edits to articles that I've worked on have been nothing but helpful and constructive.
Fully trust Durova's judgement.
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong Support''' - Your answer to question 10 strengthened my support for you 100 fold, it shows that you will think through your decisions before making them, which is a vital part of being an admin. And of course, you pass [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
'''Support''' per answers to q7 & q10; clearly [[WP:Cluocracy|clueful]]. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', per perusal of contribs, solid answers to questions, and my [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|previous reasoning]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''' - Per answers to my questions. [[WP:CLUE]] abounds. Excellent and ''thoughtful'' explanations.
'''Support.'''  Switched from neutral (see below). —
'''Support''' per answer to Q10.
'''Support''' - Per reponses to questions.
Per Jehochman.
'''Support''' - an all-round decent candidate, who has dabbled in all the right areas. Thoughtful and clear answers to the questions. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions. ''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' I've known this user ever since I first started editing on Wikipedia. He is the first person I talked to on Wikipedia. I must say he is very qualified and has really good answers to questions. He has lots of experience and has made lots of great edits, especially on [[Feminism]] related articles. He is always helpful if I have questions and he doesn't mind giving me feedback. He seems to know alot about Wikipedia. I only have good things to say about him. --
'''Support''' per Jehochman. Good luck!  --
'''Strong support''' Has kept a cool and balanced head in some very difficult situations. He appears to have much clearer powers of judgement about problematic editors than some established administrators.
'''Support''' for thoroughly and thoughtfully handling a very, very difficult editor. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''' - seen this user around, have been impressed. -- <strong>
Per Q&A.
'''Anacapa supports''' I am officially proven to be Anacapa [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive9#Anacapa See line just above "move to close" at the bottom]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Anacapa]] and [[User talk:Hotpotatoes]] (see comment on talk page) I support Cailil for admin!
Fine, fine. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) (
'''Support''' per Jehochman, MastCell &  per Durova's nomination.  Excellent thoughtful answers to the questions showing knowledge, skill & good judgment. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Has experienced some of the ugly parts of the wiki and still maintained himself with a high degree of professionalism. Answers indicate a good head and lots of clue.
'''Support''' He has done great work around here. I'm glad to support! <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Someone who is skilled, well informed, and is not afraid to venture into contentious articles in the interest of objective, sourced neutrality is of great value to the project. Cailil appears to be just such a person.
'''Support''' This Rfa has been going on for a little while, and nothing has been brought up that indicates this user will cause unneeded drama, be very rude, misuse the tools, etc, thus I trust them with the tools. Good luck!--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
But of course! '''
'''Support'''—I am sure this is not what Elonka intended by raising her concerns, but in fact her research made it easier for me to decide my vote here.  What I see is an editor who is willing to dig in to the trenches, research, compile facts and evidence, and present them.  Editors should not be asked to give up their opinions when they are handed the mop, and I doubt Cailil will.  What I would expect is that Cailil would not take any action against a user that he has taken an active part in discussing.  Everything I see leads me to believe that my expectation would be met, leading to my support.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We need more academically inclined editors to become administrators.
'''Support'''  I have had excellent interactions with Cailil, and have observed many other respectful conversations with editors he strongly disagreed with. A smart, informed, committed editor who has engaged not to use tools inappropriately in areas he feels strongly about (though that's a given for all, surely?)--
Read and understood the opposes - but I think the project would be better off by having Cailil as an administrator.
'''Weak oppose'''.  Although a reasonable comment in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knuckles_the_Echidna_%28comic_character%29&diff=221959223&oldid=221958906 this] discussion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soren_%28Guardians_of_Ga%27Hoole%29&diff=201636679&oldid=201603064] is inconsistent with the close and saying “No reason to keep” can be regarded as insulting to those who argued to merge, i.e. as if they offered “no reason.”  With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Raymond_Cunningham&diff=201634159&oldid=201616485] without being able to re-look at the article as I am not an admin it is little difficult to judge the comment left here, although as a general suggestion, it is helpful to make some effort to improve the article in question as well, so that you can say, “I did the best I could with it,” as opposed to only exhorting others to do so.  With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sun_Wukong_in_popular_culture&diff=154693678&oldid=154690661], please note [[WP:JNN]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_professional_athletes_who_have_been_convicted_of_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=146897371].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' Weak AfD arguments (as expected from a deletionist), doesn't show any knowledge of policy.--
'''Oppose''' per my only interaction with the user, in a discussion on [[Talk:Gender studies]] (top section onwards), which I visited as a mediator via [[WP:Third opinion]]. I am particularly concerned about the editor's neutrality when editing topics close to themselves, probably the #1 cause of admin abuse of the tools in the past.
Agree with the above arguments, and (relatively minor issue) I was a bit irked by the transclusion. More so by the two comments related to it being hidden on the talk page. —'''
'''Very strong oppose'''.  I have serious concerns about his neutrality.
'''Oppose''', per Q7.
'''Oppose'''.  I am concerned about Cailil's quickness to call other editors "trolls" and "vandals", even when they are clearly not.  He may be a good admin at some point, but I would like to be sure that he breaks some bad habits first. --
'''Oppose''' per Le Grand and unacceptable answer to Q7.
Q3.
'''Neutral''', leaning to support. I want to take time to look closely at this candidate, but I don't see anything that would indicate any problems with them as an admin. I've had dodgy comments at AFD too, and I've had a dodgy nomination or two; Holy crap, he/she is a person! I plan to review and (likely) switch to support later this weekend, but wanted to note my leaning on the off chance I don't get to it rapidly.
Switching to neutral. —
'''Neutral''' I agree with [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] regarding Q3 and Q4.
'''Neutral''' - I am concerned about the deletionism, but otherwise meets my usual standards.
(Pre-transclusion) Per my nomination. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
Delighted to '''support'''.  I have worked with this user of late at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)]], and he is conscientious, always civil, and well-versed on Wikipedia policy.  This, combined with his extensive and varied edit history and his thoughtful responses to the stock questions, makes him an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - looks a goodie. Liked the flexible grasp of policy evident in some school-related AfD discussions. --
'''Support'''--
Good editor. --
Great contributor, I was going to pre-translude (!)vote, but decided not to. :) Good luck,
Per nomination. Good luck buddy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Looks like a goer. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Nice editing. <strong>
Great editor, will make a great admin. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' - Seems to know his stuff.
'''Support''' - Can find no reason in his edit history not to support their nom. -
'''Support''' I don't see a reason to oppose!
Of course, while sometimes we don't agree in stuff, especially with school article I found chris to be a excellent participant to wikipedia namespace
'''Support'''. Worked with Chris on [[Eurovision Song Contest 2008]], absolutely no problems. '''
'''Support''' Answers to questions demonstrate an excellent knowledge of policy. Has some good contributions to the encyclopedia.--'''
'''Support'''.  Good answers to questions.  Good luck!  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
No reason not to.
'''Support''', even though I disagree strongly with the user's views concerning [[WP:SCHOOLS]], he has been a constructive and intelligent contributor to the discussion.  Has the right temperament, in my opinion.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Lookin' good. --'''
'''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I was impressed by his work when I [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Camaron1|reviewed him]]; I'm impressed with it still. I believe he'll make a fine admin. :) --
'''Support''' as a fine editor, and no concerns.
'''Support''' Not 100% sure what's going on in the oppose section, but this editor looks fine by me.
Excellent contributions to articles! Adminship is not a big deal. '''
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen him around, certainly competent.
'''Support''' As a contributor from time to time at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools]] I have noticed your efforts there. I think adminship would help you in that regard. As far as trusting you with the tools and with your experience on the wiki, I have no problems. Best of luck.
'''Support'''. Seems to have adequate time and experience. Unless I'm missing something, no reason to oppose.
After some thought, I can support. None of the opposes are convincing.
'''Support''' I've watched and on occasion guided the candidate for a good few months now and have no doubt whatsoever in his ability to use the admin tools judiciously.  As for the opposes, well adminship really isn't a big deal (for those who consider it is, please read [[WP:DEAL|Jimbo's own statement]] and being open to recall is probably the best we have until someone else comes up with something better (which has been discussed ad infinitum) so nothing substantial there.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Though I would have prefered more overall contributions (mainspace), has relatively solid answers and significant Wikipedia pages contributions - so I do think he will handle well the tools.--
'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Support''' - I'm a little shocked this editor is not already an admin.  Best of luck!
Per Corvus cornix. All admins should be open for recall. Accountability is important. So is ''continued'' community trust with the tools. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' per bizarre opposes
'''Support''' per Dorftrottel et al. His contributions demonstrate that he is a competent editor and is ready for adminship. I wasn't going to bother supporting (as it looks like this request will pass anyway) but I felt it was necessary to cancel out some of the opposes below. With all due respect to the opposers (and I don't doubt their good faith), spelling errors are not a particularly good reason to oppose; are we to prevent all dyslexic and all non-native English-speaking editors from becoming admins? Furthermore, I admire the candidate's courage and moral fibre in stating that he will be open to recall, and maintaining this stance even though he has been opposed for it. All administrators should be accountable to the community, and the community has the right to revoke its trust in them.
'''Support''' Every sign of a good admin - good answers, I've seen his conflict management skills at work in [[WP:SCHOOLS]], including a conflict I was involved in where he resolved for the other side to that which I was arguing, but in the most civil and rational manner possible and giving appropriate justification. That to me is the biggest indicator of how he'll manage situations in an admin role. He's one of their stronger assessors and uses and applies criteria effectively, which suggests an understanding of content processes, even with a lower end mainspace count. There are different types of admins - some are mainspace editors, some are process admins or vandal whackers, some are project maintainers etc and we need a mix of all types to be a successful venture.
'''Support''' Per answer to question 6.
'''Support''' Per EJF.
'''Support''' Gone back and forth on the schools talk page a couple times.  Always been polite and thoughtful.--
'''support''' I can not spell either. and I do  not list myself as open to recall, since I think the recall system as it now is is essentially useless. I dont think any opinion on recall is a reason to oppose at this point, and   I think he'd make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why not?]] To me the arguments for opposition are frivolous. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Oppose'''. Has not made substantial contributions to mainspace. Adminship is a big deal.
'''Oppose'''.  Those who agree to add themselves to the "admins open to recall" category are just perpetuating a system which is rife with drama and does no good for Wikipedia.  <font face="Comic Sans">
'''Oppose''' I cannot, in good conscience, do anything but oppose an editor who makes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCamaron1&diff=180778517&oldid=180760393 basic spelling errors] - we are trying to create an encyclopedia after all...
'''Support'''. Good god, yes :) <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support'''. <strong>
'''Support'''. Meeting him on the wiki and at Melbourne meetups, I had assumed he was an admin. Certainly, he will make a great administrator. --
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''. Only problem I can see with this RFA is "has no block log" should be "has an empty block log". ;) · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I see no problems here. --'''
'''Support'''.  Looks fine.  '''[[Capital One Bowl|Let's go]] [[Michigan Wolverines football|BLUE]]--
Er, not one already? '''
Absolutely, '''Strong support''' Trusted and respected editor. --
'''Support''' Yep, all looks good to me.
&mdash;
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' Looks good here!
'''
'''Support''' Nothing wrong that I can see here.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Absolutely, no worries about Canley. (Who could oppose the guy who was inspired to write about such cultural memes as [[smoko]] and [[Not happy, Jan!]], even if he was entirely wrong about David Tench! ;))
--<font color="blue">
'''Support''' There seems to be nothing to suggest that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' - an excellent and long-term contributor to Australian articles, and thoroughly versed in the mechanics of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Has been an excellent contributor to Wikipedia and particularly Australian related articles and I would think he would continue in the vein as an Admin. --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor over a very long time. As an aside, I've really appreciated his  constant updates of events in  [[2006 in Australia]], [[2007 in Australia]] and now  [[2008 in Australia]], which have effectively become a newsfeed on my watchlist. --
There is absolutely no reason not to.
'''Support''' It's good to see a candidate who works to source and improve articles which otherwise might be deleted.  Good luck.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Good editor.
Everyone else agrees. Must be good.
'''Yep'''--
Forgot-to '''Support''', as nom. :)
'''Support''' Sounds good!
'''Support''' -- a trusted editor who'll use the tools wisely. -
'''Support'''.
Looks good (i.e., the nomination, don't know about the candidate). I&nbsp;
'''Support''' Has everything [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|I'm looking for]]
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support'''.  Great work on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify]] and meets my standards.
'''Support'''. No problems with me on this one.
'''Support''' Great editor, no problems.  Good luck! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''', Canley's contributions have made Wikipedia a better place, and I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending the tools be given to him.
'''Support''' Looks like a good administrator candidate.
'''Weak Support'''. I very nearly opposed per the answer to q6; it's not the recall system that's at fault, it's the behaviour of some admins who refuse to honour their commitment to recall, and I don't understand why the candidate isn't willing to be open to recall. However, it would be grossly unfair to oppose all candidates who are not open to recall (since some people are going around opposing all candidates who ''are'' open to recall, and I don't want candidates to be stuck between a rock and a hard place). I reviewed the candidate's contributions and I'm very happy with them - a healthy amount of participation at AfD, coupled with extensive work on improving articles and adding sources (per Nick mallory's comments above, it's good to see a regular AfD participant who also works on improving articles, rather than becoming a "professional AfD patroller", a common problem at AfD). So although my support would be massively strengthened if he were open to recall, I am willing to support this candidacy.
'''Support''' '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' Fine. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support'''
Appears to be a very good editor.
'''Support''' this request. Well done.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor - will be a good admin -
'''Support''' Get that mop and bucket shined up and ready.
'''Strong support''' Good editor, operates in good faith, I've seen him rescue several worthy articles in a dire state on AfD and I believe he will be very handy with the mop.
'''Support''' - I trust Anthony's judgement.  '''''
'''Support''' - I have always liked his editing contributions --
'''Support.'''
Australian-Cabal-Support. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' Refuses to be listed in the recall category CAT:AOR .
<span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' Per nom, good editor.--
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Though (not related to the candidate but to this RfA) I think niether supporting nor opposing should not be related to recall. That's just me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
sure. --
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop.
'''Support''' - K, I'm suitably impressed. I felt that your answers to my last question in particular were excellent. -
'''Support''' - Excellent answers to questions, superb edit history, great work. No reason not to trust user with the buttons.
'''Support''' Clear need for the tools expressed in the nominations and highly articulate answers to questions. No trust issues with this candidate.
'''Support''' - A specialist! Needs this for template work. I also like the idea of an administrator participating in an " unconventional/non-traditional" manner.

'''Support''' extremely well-qualified, especially in an area where few admins have expertise. '''
'''Weak Aye Aaright''' Done enough, no worrying answers.
'''Co-nom support''' - I have always been very impressed by CapitalR's work. And today with his answers above, he impressed me again. --
'''Support''' – It is time that [[Wikipedia]] looks to specialized user, with specific talents, to take some of the administrator roles that the project thrusts upon individuals who may be lacking in certain skill-sets.  This user has been a faithful and trusted contributor since 2006.  No major conflict with regards to civility – is a major contributor in their area of expertise – and has stated quite articulately the need for the few extra buttons and has reaffirmed that they will be staying within their area of expertise.  If they wander to far from the path, it is only a click away from taking their privileges away.   Good Luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' You did navbox...and you're not an admin? I see no reason to distrust you. Your work in the template namespace has been a great help to the entire project. You will do well with the mop, and, more importantly, the keys to the locks.
'''Nom-Support''' has a definite need for the tools.  May not be a typical candidate, but knows his stuff.
'''Support''' Has been around  since Feb 2006 with over 6000 mainspace edits and over 25000.No concerns.
'''Support''' All I really need is to know that the user won't abuse the tools, in this case, I found no evidence that he would. This, combined with extremely well thought out answers to the questions is more than enough to gain my support. <tt>

'''This guy's awesome!''' And I don't say that about very many of you.  He can only help the community as a whole even if he only uses the tool when he see fit!  No reason not to give him the tools.&mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' Specialists get a thumbs up from me, as many consider me to be a [[Jack of all trades, master of none|jack of all trades]]. It's always nice to see a person who does a small number of things but does them with dedication, vigor, and... does them well. --
'''Support''' What we have here is a talented and dedicated template editor who simply wants to be able to continue what he is already doing. For some, becoming an admin increases one's ability to contribute; for others, not becoming an admin reduces this ability (a similar situation led to my own RfA). I've been following his work for a while and have been impressed with his technical savvy and impartiality—the latter is incredibly important for major template work, considering the huge number of articles affected. I see no potential for abuse here and so by granting CapitalR admin rights we can let him continue his good work here.<br>For those who see the nominee's low mainspace participation as a indicator of a lack of understanding for this area: how can you possibly work on something that affects thousands upon thousands of articles without this understanding?
'''Support''' The protection tools will help with his template work.
'''Support''' based on a very few interactions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Minnesota&oldid=167480610#navigation Template:Minnesota] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:US_state_navigation_box&oldid=205299741#Tnavbar-header Template:US state navigation box]. Seems to handle all three things well: the politics of requests, bug reports and template coding. -
'''Support''' per 52 Pickup.
Agree with Shoessss and 52 Pickup. Here we have oodles of relevant experience, sensible answers and someone who seems most unlikely to delete the main page just to see what happens. No bother.
Strong '''support''' - calm, polite, experienced, editor.
'''Weak support'''.  Not much experience in the projectspace which usually demonstrates a lack of policy knowledge in most users.  Your answers are good, however, and this offsets my worries.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' per his two most excellent nominations. Not only can he be trusted with the tools, he will make excellent use of them. -
'''Strong Support''' I was extremely impressed by your responses. I agree with FrankTobia, you can be trusted with the tools, and make excellent use of them.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I believe this user can be trusted to use the tools constructively. --
'''Support'''. This candidate is an excellent example of why the admin tools ought to be further unbundled. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with above comments, nothing wrong with being a specialist.
'''Support''' - in the absence of a system for handing out partial admin abilities, I believe this user would make excellent use of some of them, and would not abuse the others. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Civil, good communication, good contributions, I find no evidence of threat or mistrust, and certainly no reason other than to give support.
'''Support''' Yea! '''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Yup'''.  Great nomination, fantastic answers to questions, obvious need for specialized tools, and based on the answers to the (terrific) questions by Jc37, I have no worries about your use of the other tools if/when you decide to branch out.  Support without hesitation.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Sounds like he could use the tools.  As long as he just makes "bots", and not "cons", let him Roll Out with the tools.--
'''Strong Support''' per Q5. no point even reviewing anything further (although I did). If you've got that attitude that's all I need to see, personally. To suggest we should be indifferent is not just "cold". It's plainy unacceptable. ''who are we to interfere with what someone chooses to do with his own life?''. I take Kurt's oppose to mean that Wikipedia, and the building of an online encyclopedia generally, is more important than one persons life. How wrong can you be. I'd sooner this project deleted than someone take their own life. Yes, we're not counsellors. But we are not indifferent robots either. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Frankly, I don't give a damn what Ayn Rand has to say on the matter. Great editor, nothing else is important.
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Strong Support''' Like your answer to #5 <font face="Ravie">
'''Strong Support''' per the answer to question five. I'm not going to go so far as to attack Kurt, but his oppose is simply ridiculous. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' per lack of any negative interactions with candidate.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I'm impressed by the answers this user has provided, keep up the good work! Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' Good specialist editor, contributions to non-template areas seem to show a reasonable spread.
'''Support''' Per Kurt. ;) Actually, beyond Kurt, I am impressed by contributions and responses, and now believe giving CapitalR the tools would be a ''net positive''. '''
'''Support''' Nice answers to questions. Great user. <strong>
'''Support''' Good answers, no issues and can make good use of the tools in his specifc area of intrest.
'''Support'''. Reasonable answers, good contributions.
'''Support''' - the nomination by Balloonman is particularly persuasive.
'''Support''' <strong>
'''Support''' We need more people who know their way around template code. Anyone who can change that many templates without a wikiproject with WP:OWN issues successfuly lynching them must have some worthwhile interpersonal skills as well.
'''Support''' Well written nominations, well answered questions, good specific sense of why the tools are desired. All-around good candidate.
'''Support''' Im going to joing the bandwagon for your answer to q.5 and the ridiculousness of Kurt's oppose.
'''Support and Kurt Weber Oppose''' - A great, all around user. Like everyone else, I support your brilliant answer to Question 5. Kurt is just attention seeking and it's best to ignore him. Anyone who is '''that''' heartless and who puts an encyclopaedia '''before''' a human life just isn't worth paying attention to. I think I speak for everyone when I say you did a great answer and he is just a cold, heartless young man.
''' Support''' - There should be more people who intend on dealing with the back stage, icky, nitty gritty bits of the whole show.  As for the Kurt thing, I dont think that belongs in the support section.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''', a quality candidate with a demonstrated need for the tools (to edit protected templates).  And while I usually support Kurt's right to have an unpopular opinion, damn that is cold (and it's a pretty feeble reason for opposing).
'''Support'''. Clearly CapitalR would improve Wikipedia even more with the tools.
'''Support''', if nothing else will reduce the {{tl|editprotected}} requests :) Bright, yes, sensible, yes, that'll do.
'''Support''' this user would make wikipedia a better place!...need I say anymore? --
'''Support''' a bot creating admin who 'admins' the bits and pieces. Can't complain about that!--
'''Support'''.  Has done major work for Wikipedia.  No reason to oppose.
'''Aye''' excellent work, and civility too. No reason to oppose. <b>
'''Support''' I trust his judgment about the areas he does not yet have experience with. '''
'''Support'''  Obviously knows what tools he wants and why.   Even more importantly, knows what he does not want to do.  Good answer to #5; I will apply my moral code and not Ayn Rand's.
'''Support.''' Per {{user|Balloonman}} and {{user|Davidgothberg}}, and some great template work on the project, among other areas.
'''Support''', per answer to question 5. Yes, I really am Irrational and Evil. --
'''Support''', I've had very good interactions with this editor. He will make a great administrator.--
'''Support.''' The oppose arguments are so weak, they make me wish I could vote some more. This fine editor deserves the tools for the stated purposes.
'''Support''' I especially like the idea of his specialization. Frankly, I am envious because templates are an area of weakness for me. I expect to be calling upon you for help from time to time. -
'''Support''' He helped out the [[University of Florida]] and the [[University of Miami]] with their Templates.  He does great work!
'''Support''' Absolutely; exceptional candidate.
'''Strong support''' - holy cow, what a strong candidate!
'''Weak support''' - generally very good contributions, although I'd have liked to have seen more interaction with others on article talk / wikipedia talk pages. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - a pleasure to see this sort of nomination. Obvious need for the tools, excellent answers to the questions, he won't abuse the other tools.
'''Strong Support''' - answers to questions were exactly the sort I admire!
'''Support''' Users answers to questions are satisfactory, and interactions with other users seems appropriate. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' Good answers.
'''Support''' per the answers to your questions and per "''Duh!''" :)
'''Support''' Cannot see anything to suggest CapitalR will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' While I have only noticed this user once before, I will have to say I'm impressed with his edits to the templatespace. I really don't care about the projectspace; I rarely edit there too. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' It looks to me as though this candidate is capable of being a more effective creative addition as an admin...
'''Support''' Looks reasonably good candidate for an admin -
'''Support''' - will be a great asset, with his work on templates. Can see no problems, except comparative lack of mainspace edits, but given his chosen area of editing this shouldn't be an issue.--
'''Support''' Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.I actually thought you were an admin, until I explored the RfA pages.--
'''Support''' 4 editprotected requests to templates are outstanding on [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]] as I support this RfA. We need admins with the confidence and skills to furfil these sometimes complex requests.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Sorry to be the first (and possibly only) opposer, but you lack experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Only 125 edits there out of 25,000+ edits is extraordinarily low. Even though I did calculate that that equates to less than 0.05%, I don't care about the ratio, but instead the lack of experience indicated by the number 125. Perhaps I will be accused of editcountitis, but if you take a look at [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my admin standards]], I want to see at least 500 contributions to the Wikipedia namespace (regardless of ratio to total edits). I am aware that you will be focusing in the template area, but you'd have the tools in all areas and I would want you to be more familiar with other areas.
'''Weak oppose''' - Good contributions, just doesn't meet [[User:Soxred93/RfA Standards|my standards]]. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Oppose''' per answer to #5...who are we to interfere with what someone chooses to do with his own life?
'''Weak Oppose''' No specific reason, I just think that you would be better off not being an admin. Your edits are great as of now, but if you get the tools it will change the way you look at editting.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - Above arguments very convincing. Navboxes also a real concern.
'''Oppose''' - Mainspace edits are too small a percentage of total edits.
Nice nomination, good answers, and comprehensive editing history in relation to the maintenance of articles. However, you don't need the administrator bit to continue with that job. I just don't see a need for the tools. No heckling please.
'''Support'''. Finally you guys nommed. I thought you guys had given up! '''''
'''Support''' - By all means.
'''Support''' - We need more content admins who are in touch with the encyclopedia.  Will be a net positive to the community.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' as nom. Cheers,
'''Weak Support'''. Not as much experience in the Wikipedia namespace as I would normally like, not to mention poor use of edit summaries, ''however'' he does excellent work in the mainspace, seems to have knowledge of how everything works, and is civil. I found comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sherurcij&diff=prev&oldid=236347515 this] (making amends with another editor) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdultSwim&diff=prev&oldid=222763809 this] (looking to improve himself) to be great. It was hard to sift through your contribs, though, without the aid of edit summaries; I would suggest using them all the time as it makes it ''much'' easier for the rest of us.
'''Strong Support'''.  It's been a joy to work with Cbl62 on historic site articles.  A while back, I noticed his DYK contributions on some buildings in Los Angeles, which included some NRHP sites.  I was able to suggest use of some NRHP tools based on my experience and I occasionally commented on content issues.  He absorbed and used whatever i had to share, and went on to do far more than i could ever hope to.  He is a mature, skilled, prolific researcher and writer.  Much of this is reflected in [[List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles]] and linked articles.  More recently, he responded to some general calls for help addressing backlog in the DYK area -- I want to claim some credit for asking him, but he did all the work -- and he has been a solid editor there.  I trust him to learn what is to be done, and how to do it properly, in any new area of wikipedia adminship that he chooses to venture into.
'''Support''' per his impressive work in DYK. Good luck!
'''Support''' - some experience with the other common (or uncommon) areas of admin responsibility would have been good, but DYK specialists are also much-needed and your extensive article experience will stand you in good stead in considering other admin actions. I also like the answer to Q4, it says good things about your willingness to communicate the way you went back to Sherucij after catching the hoax.
'''Strong Support'''.  Attempting to vandalize the Main Page is blockworthy.  This non-punishment dogma is becoming the most absurd bit of Wikipolitical-correct nonsense reverberating around the dramaboards at the moment.  The mere utterance of the word cited as reason to oppose.  Goodness, people, get a grip.  We're here to build an encyclopedia.  Cbl62 excels at it and ''needs'' the tools to   help ensure the smooth functioning and integrity of the Main Page.  He (actually, I thought for some reason you were female!) has a stalwart track record, and will do nothing but ''help'' from Day 1.  ''Please'', please, do not withhold the tools for using the faddishly politically incorrect WOTW "punishment"!  We hurt the encyclopedia every time we insist on "WikiSemantics" over "WikiSubstance". --
'''Weak Support''' Solid editor and good contribs, from what I have seen and I trust the nominators a bit too. Concerning is the near lack of using the "This is a minor edit"-checkbox, even for just correcting typos, that shows a lack of understanding what minor edits are (which an admin should know about). Also a bit concerning is the low edit summary usage (86% / 0%). '''
'''Strong Support''' As per Jay Henry and has over 16000 mainspace edits.
Did you know... that
Support, as I said I would at WT:RFA. The stuff below is a bit concerning and I would implore Cbl62 to keep a check on the words he uses and to use the preview button. But there are more important things than civility (many of our current admins/RfA voters could lean from that).
Hello, I called about seeing a psychiatrist -- I am having intensely peculiar fantasies about the Duke of Edinburgh and...oh, wrong queue.  While I am here: '''Support''' for a dedicated, focused and highly skilled editor.
Wee need more DYK admins, and Cbl would be great. Your friend '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Eddy]]
'''Support''', a prospective specialist admin in an area that needs more specialist admin help.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
Seems to be able to admit his mistakes and is mostly a good guy.
I'm
'''Support''' I see only positive effects on the project by granting adminship to this candidate. Good luck.
'''Support''' Aye. '''
'''Weak Support''' per DYK work and answer to Q4, I was involved in the thread and saw his excellent work there. Erik the <font color="red">

'''Support''' Prolific mainspace editor with a clean history. No worries here! --
'''Support''' &ndash; nice to see a DYK candidate.
Per everything I've said previously on various pages regarding cbl's role in exposing the DYK hoax, and per my inability to take the oppose/neutral comments seriously, I strongly '''support'''. —
'''Support''' Hard worker and trustworthy. Give him the mop.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Support''' per my stricken oppose below. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Normally I would oppose a candidate with only 122 project space contributions, but Cbl62 is an exception. &ndash;
Why not? Excellent DYK contribs, and it has been stated we need more DYK admins. &mdash;'''
'''Yup'''.  Does that really say 180 DYKs?  Pfft.  You are obviously an asset to the ''quality'' of this place, and the admin tools will only help you more easily do what you like to do here.  This is a no brainer.
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' Would support anyway, but DYK badly needs more admins & he has excellent experience there.  If his experience of other areas is lower, I'm sure he will work himself in gently, if he goes to them at all.
'''Support''' - Umm... why would I oppose this ''fine'' editor?
'''Support''' Bannana Hammoc. Every other reasonable support rationale has been said already.--
'''Support''' Outstanding editor. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' He'll likely exercise good judgment as an admin.
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' for your tireless contributions to DYK?, and especially for uncovering the DYK hoax --
'''Support''' Per nom statments.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but good work from you at DYK, and look forward to your continued contributions there with the added bonus of the buttons.
'''Support''' per answers to my questions (although the first two questions weren't serious questions).  The main thing I get is that Cbl62 is interested in article work, which I've already seen as a participant at [[WP:NRHP]].  I think I can trust his actions, and I really don't think he's all that interested in being a pure policy wonk.  --
'''Support''' Great amount of experience, he would use the tools well. --
'''Support''' Question 7.
'''Support''' - while you may not have the tidiest editing style around, I don't think that there's any doubt that we can trust you to use the tools well, or that you will be civil while using them. As long as you take your time when stepping into areas in which you've had little experience, I think you will make a good admin. –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''support''' Good user. Good contributions. Stifle raises a serious issue but based on the questions and the actual wikipedia space contributions I'm not that worried. There are some interesting issues brought up in the neutral section. I'm not at all concerned with the Phlegm Rooster issue. Indeed, I think Cbl62 handled that better than I would have (and Cbl was pretty close to correct there anyways). Catching the subtle hoax attempt on DYK definitely speaks well of the editor in my view. I disagree with claims made that it is intrinsically necessary to have editors deal with seriously controversial topics in order to judge their temperaments.
'''Support'''  Good answer to Q 8.  It was sincere.  I have no idea what the "correct" answer is supposed to be, but I liked yours.  Contributions look good.  Has a need for the tools, and seems polite. Feel free to ask for help with policy if something is unclear.
'''Support''' per [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] above, and other editors. No candidate for Admin can apparently please everyone; however, there is nothing at all in Cbl62's history to worry me that he will not slide into his role cautiously. Horses for courses, I say. --
'''Strong support''' per nom (I trust Casliber's judgement) and candidate's supplemental statement.
'''Support''' I've seen you around, and seen what you've done. You have my full support.
'''Support''' seem right for the job. <b>
'''Support''' - Reliable user who will not abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' If he already knows all about DYKs and wants to help more with them then, sure.
'''Support''' DYK work a big plus, nothing big jumps out to make me say oppose otherwise.
'''Support'''.  A qualified candidate, willing to work in an area which needs more assistance from administrators.
'''Weak support'''. Though low amount of discussion made through talk pages, I see reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Can't see why not. :) <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' Keeper76 about sums it up. Cbl62 is dedicated to the project, trustworthy and more admins tending to DYK are badly needed; so a no brainer.
'''Support''' I think this helps to build an encyclopedia of good material.
'''Support''' I'm confident that he will use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''' Yeah he seems very responsible and does deserve this --
'''Support'''&mdash;as per solid contribs and adequate question answers. I wish you the best of luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' - for GA's. The fact that there are opposes based on Q8 is ''interesting''. --
'''Support''' - I love his DYK work. :-) Can help out at DYK with the tools. Yours,
'''Support''' - Good Luck!
'''Support''' loocks good! ''
'''Support''' - Policy concerns have been dealt with through responses to questions. many thanks for taking the time to answer them. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' - I believe that the more admins there are, the easier it will be to ban all vandals.
'''Support''' - Good answers and fine contributions. And JayHenry makes a valid point too. Give the man a bucket. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support''' - I have watched this nomination with interest from when it was first mooted, having noticed Cbl's intelligent commitment and hard work at DYK.  I see no problem with promoting a user to admin with one specific area of expertise in mind, particularly when admin help in that area is sorely needed, provided their RFA reveals that they understand their current limitations and will be circumspect with the tools as they learn.  Cbl's answers show exactly that. <strong>
'''Oppose''', sorry to be the first, but low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge and of experience in major admin areas.
'''Oppose''' personally I don't think that "falls within the scope of two established Wikipedia projects, one on the Catholic Church and the other on schools [.... and] within at least four Wikipedia categories: [[:Category:Roman Catholic churches in California]], [[:Category:Elementary schools in California]], [[:Category:Roman Catholic elementary schools in the United States]], [[:Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California]]."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incarnation_Catholic_Church_and_School_(Glendale,_California)&diff=prev&oldid=205030005] really has any of the slightest bearing on the notability of an article. I imagine that the useless band articles that are SD every day could fall within the scope of half a dozen Wikiprojects, and dozens of categories. (yes that diff is 3 months old but it is from the most recent AFD that this user has participated in) - '''
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q8.
'''Oppose''' - Per lack of policy knowledge and Q8. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' due to difficulty in evaluating admin-y participation; I don't see much work in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces, especially [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and various noticeboards. While DYK participation is good, I don't see that alone as a particularly good argument for requesting the tools, after all, [[WP:ANOT#COMPULSORY|Adminship is neither compulsory nor necessary to aid Wikipedia]]. &mdash;/
'''Neutral''' I was leaning towards opposing the candidate for a couple of issues, primarily temperment and concerns of how the block button would be used.  I posted question number 4 in reference to a fairly recent incident that suggests to me that the candidate would be inclined to issue punitive blocks, but Cbl62 responded very quickly to the question and I'm less concerned about that now.  Of additional concern was a warning on an anonymous editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.175.162.227&diff=prev&oldid=224461760 here] that in my opinion was excessively harsh in reaction to petty schoolkid vandalism that is all too common here.  I was very unhappy with Cbl62's interactions with {{user|Phlegm Rooster}} regarding a copyvio tag on the [[University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor]] article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phlegm_Rooster&oldid=227420274 discussion]), and in another incident, a conversation with {{user|AdultSwim}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdultSwim&oldid=222765727#San_Fernando_Building here] (note that the text in bold was put in boldface by AdultSwim, not Cbl62) left a bad taste in my mouth, but after reflecting further, I think that it was the comment about not having any constructive suggestions in the last edit that bothered me, and when taken in the context of being in response to someone who threw out comments like ''"Please Raise any issues at you may have at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. You can lord your accomplishments there too"'' wasn't likely to cause AdultSwim to cry himself to sleep that night.   I'd like to suggest a better use of edit summaries, but for me that in itself is not a reason to oppose.  Overall, I'm concerned about how Cbl62 might react with the admin tools when faced with gross incivility, so I'll raise my concerns, but stop short of opposing this request and instead simply express my hope that my concern is unfounded.
'''Neutral''' - Low edit summary count, low talk count. The articles you do edit tend to be on the "safe" side. Concerns about your ability to communicate, discuss, build consensus or deal with heated situations. As an afterthought, you also have an annoying user name, it's really stone cold and doesn't feel inviting at all. Can I ask why you chose it?  —
'''Neutral'''. Cbl62 sure seems to be a nice, good mannered guy, and I understand it would be helpful to have another admin at hand at DYK. However, two things disturb me: Firstly, this candidate seems to concentrate overwhelmingly uncontroverial articles. So I can't find examples how he would react under pressure. But before someone gets the power of the mop, I really think he should have proven that he can still do a good job when the going gets tough. And secondly, there is an annoying lack of edit summaries. Imho this isn't appropriate for an admin, who should take care to be transparent on what he's doing. Oh, and one last small observation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kurowoofwoof111&diff=prev&oldid=202735779| If an editor posts April 1st jokes on April 2nd, this makes me somewhat question his good judgment! :D]. All in all, cbl62 sure is made of admin material, but I would rather like to see him return in a few months and shows us some work in controversial articles.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support.  I would support because of the Good Article writing, even more so because of the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=235674074 catching of the WP:DYK hoax].  And I see nothing at all wrong with the lack of edits to controversial articles.  However, I share the concern expressed above concerning the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phlegm_Rooster&oldid=227420274 interaction] with [[User:Phlegm Rooster]], and this concern is serious enough (it is the [[WP:C|subject matter]] of the dispute rather than the tone in which it is conducted that concerns me) to weigh against all the excellent reasons why I would want to support this RFA.
'''Neutral''' — Per Realist2. —'''
'''Neutral''' - starting to think Kmweber has a point (my suggestion to future nominees going through the rigmarole: say "a well placed cluebat is sometimes needed" because it's true :-p (actually, I wonder how much would be different if we started calling certain CD blocks cluebats, although tbh I think most admins lacking mediation experience won't be making many blocks except at AIV... something to consider, since if you don't know the best approach then you'll look to policy for what is the best approach, and you'll assume it documents the best practice even if it really doen't. Or something like that.)) My bigger issue is the response to Q5, which is more vandal-grr than newbie-yay... combined with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=235739066 red-handed comment], I get the impression that the candidate (mwahaha, "the candidate", <small>I have so much power</small>) is a bit militaristic in his approach. Might not be a bad thing though, which is why I'm babbling in this section.
'''Neutral'''. Cbl62 has some good mainspace edits. However the answer to question 1 indicates no suggestion of use of administrative tools.
'''Support''', as I trust the nominator's diligence in vetting candidates.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
Yes.
'''Support''' per nom statement. Knowledgeable user who will likely benefit the project. Article bi=uilder who also has been working in admin related areas. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._Bap_Reddy&diff=prev&oldid=211895922 Self revert tagging for speedy deletion] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viral_email&diff=prev&oldid=211261056 Removed speedy deletion tag] from article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral email|that survived subsequent  AFD.]] and over 1000 deleted articles, suggest will not hastily delete articles.  Over 500 Wikipedia space edits, including 51 AIV reports.
'''Support''' per astonishingly good nomination statement by Keeper :-) .  Actually, support because this is an astonishingly good editor that will only use the extra toolset for the betterment of Wikipedia.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' per stupendous nom.  I agree 200% that he will be a net positive.
'''Support''' per cliche 'thought he already was', and evident high clue level. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
'''Supert.''' ·
'''Support'''.  I've been sort of "watching" your editing, and glad to see you at RFA.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Would use the tools well; IMHO, you should be an admin already. Excellent work. --
'''Support'''. This editor meets [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]] (which I'm revamping). Excellent communication, does mainspace work, plenty of experience. A net positive for sure.
'''Support''' I am somewhat familiar with the candidate from AfD discussions and I am confident that they would not abuse the tools.  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|my criteria for adminship]].
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' I've seen Cenarium around, and I reivewed they're contribs back to 700 or so, and I see nothing that concerns. A good editor who is polite and civil and does good work for Wikipedia. I only wish you had more talk page edits other than reverting vandalism, but no biggie!
'''Support''' — I have seen this user a lot on [[WP:XFD]], and I know that he will do great use of the tools. <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Trust the nom.--
'''Support''' A high quality candidate. --
'''Support''' Didnt know you weren't already an admin... <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' per Keeper76, who says it all. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' No problems here.
The fantastic opening statement by Keeper sold this for me.  –'''
'''Support''' Keeper76 wrote a nice nomination, but in the end, all that matters to me is that you can be relied upon to use the buttons appropriately.  That much seems certain.
'''Support'''. Another strong candidate that will be of great service.
'''Support'''. About time.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' A civil, good faith contributor
'''Support''' -- No reason not to = ). Good luck! --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Looks okay to me.
'''Strong support.''' —
'''Support'''. After looking over your contrib's, you appear to be an asset to the wiki. A fine candidate. :) &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
Don't see any reason to oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">

'''Strong Support''' I was going through RFA tallying the votes that weren't up to date, and just realized who I tallied for. Support per the nom statement; I also always assumed you were an admin. (And that's saying something, considering that I have a script that highlights admins' names in cyan.)
'''Support''' - Excellent user who has the experience to make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - good edits and summary usage, rollback rights, etc.  No concerns.
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel)]] (balanced and fair editor).  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' experience user to make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' Everything seems all systems go here. I don't see any evidence (or lack of evidence) that he would abuse the extra tools ~
'''Support''', see no reason not to.
Was not impressed with his participation in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals|Cabals RfC]] or the proposed [[Wikipedia_talk:TFA#Stricter_standards|TFA shakeup]]. I feel a lot of candidate's comments are a bit too close to policy wonkery for comfort—[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cabals#View_by_Cenarium|''...groups working on a specific topic of the encyclopedia should be allowed as long as they ... clearly explain their goals to improve mainspace content, how they differentiate from wikiprojects and don't break other policies or guidelines...'']] is frankly ridiculous. Combine this with no significant content contribution (as opposed to mostly thoughtless maintenance or anti-vandal work) is concerning. ''
'''Oppose''' Mainly per giggy's concerns, and having seen him a lot at MfD, I get the impression he beleives some of our policies to be ''prescriptive'' rather than ''descriptive''. [[WP:IAR]].--
'''Neutral''' per giggy, though I don't feel strongly enough about the issues raised to oppose. --
'''Neutral''' per giggy, plus I also get the impression that the candidate needs to work on the "people interaction" thing (not just communication); that aspect of sysop work that is sometimes being the bridge between the editor and the encyclopedia. I don't think the candidate would abuse the tools, but perhaps hasn't had the wider experience to use them well.
'''Weak support''' Lack of article building and surprisingly recent ignorance of AfD policy (which he admitted to above), but nevertheless seems unlikely to abuse the tools. He accepts and learns from criticism, which IMO is the most important criterion for an admin (and one which many established admins could use more of). --
'''Support''' - I think you could make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''', I see no evidence that you'd misuse the tools.  Just be careful and read (and understand!) all the relevant policies before you go deleting anything.
'''Support''', of course I do. I wouldn't have nominated him otherwise. --
'''Support''' - Lack of Wikipedia-space edits and mainspace edits, but apparently good work so far, so can't deny on that basis alone.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with Ginkgo100, he recognized he made a mistake regarding the AfDs and promptly apologized. Overall, I think he would use the extra buttons competently.
'''Support'''. Have looked closely at contribs: [[WP:CSD|CSD tags]] seem to be appropriately applied and [[WP:AFD|AfD|closures]] now being done properly. A recent addition, but a fast learner. No evidence of problems so [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|why not?]].
'''Support''' Would be a good admin, good luck. '''
'''Strong Support''' Would be an amazing admin, takes responsibility, is very helpful, personal, and thoughtful. Good luck!
'''Support''' Just remember ,''[[Primum non nocere]]''. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Changed to support'''.  Thanks for easing my fears and answering my questions.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak support''' Mainspace ratio is kind of low. Not low enough to deny.
'''Support''' meets my standards. Courteous and helpful. Willing to take constructive criticism.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
Honest. ''
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools, found no reason to oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks alright by me.
'''Weak support''' Lack of AfD participation concerns me.  I would like to see more of this, but all of your other contributions are fine.
'''Support'''. Reliable.
'''Weak support''' based on a very civil clarification and comment below my initial oppose concerns.  Excellent response - I wish you well with the tools.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Sure.
'''Weak support''' As per Rudget,Razorflame  and Alex.But the user's commitment is 100%.
'''Support''' Sounds good to me.
'''Support''' Nice responses, I hope you get the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' Per answer to questions- sorry a little late! --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''. Better than some of the current admins. [[User:Basketball110|<font color="#4682B4">Basketball</font>]][[User talk:Basketball110|<font color="#FF8C00">110</font>]]
'''Support'''. While I take note of Moonriddengirl's (whose opinion in these matters I greatly respect) opposition, I like what I see in all other regards and expect that these issues can be addressed.
'''Support'''. Seems like a responsible Wikipedian, and I wish him the best of luck. —
'''Support'''. Best! --
'''Regretful oppose'''. I am concerned about the nom's understanding and application of CSD policy. Of greatest concern to me is this use of [[WP:CSD#A7]] on February 9th: [[Sweetcorn icecream]]. The entire contents of the article when he tagged it were "Sweetcorn ice cream originated from Malaysia (Clarke 2004) is one of the strangest and most exotic flavoured ice cream ever made. Its existence has been very much debated by rachel. In each delectable spoonful you'll find juicy pieces of this signature fruit of paradise. blended with the purest ingredients, sweet, luscious corn create a tropical delight." [[WP:CSD#A7]] says, "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion." No argument on the quality of this article, but it was patently not an A7 candidate. Similarly, within the last several weeks, he tagged [[Dick chop]] and [[Laurie Ferron]] as {{tl|db-nocontext}}. The former read "Dick chop is a shock video, made by Bme pain olympics, of a man who removes his penis and testicals." and the latter "LAURIE FERRON: best known for being a french model." A1 says, in full, that it is for "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." I can recognize the subject of both of these quite easily. I also see several instances of articles which he tagged for deletion under [[WP:CSD#A3]] as "no content" within a minute of creation. [[WP:CSD]] notes that "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." The nom has made ''many'' good tags and seems to do generally very good work on Wikipedia, but ''does'' indicate that this is one of the "two main areas" that he knows "most about". I would feel more comfortable supporting with evidence that the nom knows it better. I believe that speedy deletions are often overly liberally applied—a complaint we see quite often at the talk page for CSD—and that anyone seeking adminship, particularly with the stated rationale of desiring to pursue them, should demonstrate full understanding of policy before receiving the tools. --
'''Oppose'''. Insufficiently experienced, at present.
Weak oppose. I share concerns about too few substantial mainspace contributions. User:
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]].
'''Oppose''' Just a tad bit lacking in overall experience right now.
'''Neutral''' - I'm worried by the lack of mainspace edits, which I consider wholly necessary and preparatory for diffusing future disputes and edit conflicts.
'''Neutral''' per the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per lack of mainspace. cheers,
'''Neutral''' You are really on right way, I would like to see more article or [[WP:AFD]] participation. Good luck.
'''Neutral.''' Great candidate, but I disapprove of the strong-arm tactics the community has used to force this "admins open for recall" notion. We already have that process (ArbCom), paranoid hysteria about "OMG rouge admin abuse" and grumblings about "X users, Y months, Z edits" are unnecessary. Bureaucrats, please count this as a support vote if it comes down to it.
'''
'''Support''' From what I saw, this editor does good work, both article writing and WikiGnoming, uses edit summaries, I see no negative things or incivility and I think this editor can be trusted with the mob. '''
'''Support''': One of the users who greatly improve Wikipedia's content. After so many excellent contributions I can definitely trust this user with the buttons.--
'''Support''' - very happy with everything I've seen. Comes across as a mature and sensible editor who's done a lot of good stuff, and who could make good contributions using the extra tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Looks fine to me.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' Agreed, I'm seeing lots of good content work, and the candidate has definitely been here long enough to know what is what. No concerns at this time.
'''Strongest Support''' I have known Choess for a few years here and have always been impressed wtih his careful work and calm demeanor. I know from experience that he has discovered several problems (sockpuppets, users citing unreliable sources) and has cleaned up a fair number of messes. He is eminently mop-worthy

'''Support'''.  Good user, and good future admin.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Absolutely'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Another good candidate, will be a great future admin. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''', very belatedly, as nominator.
'''Support''', as co-nominator.
'''Support''', no concerns here. Will make a fine admin.
'''Sure'''.  Looks good. Happy to support.
'''Unconditional support''' after reviewing about 3000 contributions, all is well :) —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - I paused for a second at the answer to question 1. I always have reservations when a candidate suggests using the buttons on articles they've worked on, ''however'', I believe this is a net positive. More than meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Very strong support''' per nom and outstanding article contributions.
Writes articles (zomg). —'''
'''Support''' A very insightful editor and has always been pleasant to work with.
'''Yes''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' Only thing that worries me is the Talk page edits; really spread out (all but one of your highest editted talk pages are single digits), and Q3. Makes me think you haven't had a real brush with significant conflict here, which is something you'll face as an admin fairly regularly. But that's just a paranoid hunch, so not enough for an Oppose (would do a "weak" support, but that's not my style) :-) You = Trustworthy --
'''Support'''. Since Balloonman seemed to be wondering about the amount of Choess' participation in non-mainspace areas and the extent of his policy knowledge, I spent the time to look at a couple of things: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Andy67890|an SSP report]] filed by Choess, and his comments in an AfD regarding a confusing and [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William de la Pole the Elder|hard-to-verify historical figure]]. I noticed that Choess seemed patient, thorough, and familiar with the related policies. The William Pole AfD was not the only one where another voter mentioned 'Per Choess' in their vote; take a look at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Christian_Oscar_of_Hanover|this one]] as well, where you'll notice Choess making a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Christian_Oscar_of_Hanover&diff=226082543&oldid=225969661 well-researched comment], mentioning three new references and drawing the appropriate conclusion from each.
'''Support''' Obviously trustworthy, except for the feminine sounding pseudonym ;) <font style="font-family: Georgia">
Looks good
'''Support''', no concerns here.Cheers,
'''Support''' No concerns here. Would strongly advise tapping other admins to help resolve conflict until more comfortable with it, though.
'''Support''' - per Giggy. Best of luck, --'''
'''Support.'''  Choess is an outstanding and very promising candidate, and I see nothing in the neutral and oppose sections which cause me to doubt that.  —
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose. Solid contributions all around.
'''Support''' as a good article contributor.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' Good contribs!!
'''Support''', has dabbled in all the right areas, good answers to the questions too. Seems always willing to learn and improve. :) <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Plus, I really like long-term editors. Just goes to show how much patience they have. &mdash;
'''Support''' Given his long term here, I believe that he is trustable with the mop. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I trust him with the tools. Should be a net positive to Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' Good user. '''
'''Support''' - yes, I think so.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''A favor''' - Buenas contribuciones, confío en el. (Nice contribs, I trust in him).
'''Support''' Good candidate and best of all that are running.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''supporter arguments more convincing than opposer arguments. If anyone thinks CDB's should be allowed, I would suggest gaining consensus for changing [[WP:BLOCK]]. I certainly don't want to grant the block button to anyone who does not understand and is not willing to follow policy.   I saw nothing to suggest the user is untrustworthy, and I still don't believe adminship should be made into a bigger deal than it really is.
'''Support''' if user promises to get drunk and cooldown block as often as possible. I absolutely love that! Haha<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' - Nobody can please everybody. If a candidate has worked more in area A than area B, some people will hold it against him/her and vote oppose. If it's more B than A, the same thing happens, only with different people voting oppose. I prefer to look at a candidate's attitude, see if they're trustworthy, thorough, serious. Choess certainly is, so he gets my vote. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support''' - Love the answer to Q4. This candidate clearly has [[Wikipedia:Use common sense|common sense]]. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Supporting this candidate''', as I've looked into the opposes/neutrals below, compared their concerns to [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|my normal rationale]], and still find no reason not to support. Even subtracting all of the potentially automated edits from Choess's contributions, I still find an editor who's here for the good of the project, seems to have a high clue factor, and would do no harm with the tools. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]]
'''Support''' This looks like a dedicated Wikipedian, who has been round for a decent amount of time, with a large amount of activity in lots of areas, especially with articles. In short, I think he'll be a good addition. <big>
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose.
--
'''Support''' per rational and well thought out answers to questions. At this point, if there was problematic behavior or judgment in his editing history folks in the oppose section would have pointed it out. It doesn't appear that they have (although the philosophical differences are valid as well, of course).
'''Support''' per my general experience with Choess ''and'' the answer to Q11. The oppose voices seem to have overlooked that what is advocated here is ''semi''-protection, which merely compels the warriors to register and become subject to our constraints. (Let me take this opportunity to remind Choess that he should not semi-protect ''this'' article, but should still put it up to other admins.)
The defaulot answer. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' Choess has more than 20,000 mainspace edits. He has worked hard for this encyclopedia. Many editors have become admins without many mainspace edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Editors who work hard, contribute to articles, and stay away from silly discussions should be respected. I really appreciate your work and please continue to work on articles after you become an admin.
'''Support''' Despite Q11, Choess is a good candidate.--
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate. The answer to the "cool down block" trick question is the best one I've seen.
'''Weak support''' Most admins end up in controversial areas without trying, but I think Choess can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' Moved from Neutral. See below. --
'''Support''' Switched from neutral after answer to Q7. Fine candidate, should use the tools well. --'''''
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support.''' Candidate has good communication skills. ''Nihil obstat''.
Fine candidate.
(ec)'''Support''' - Candidate has the experience to do the right thing or at least not do the wrong thing.  Lack of project space work would be concerning in a newer editor but is overcome by experience.  Contrary to some of the opposes - conflict resolution does not require admin tools and admin tools do not help very much with conflict resolution, the two are not closely connected, we aren't police officers, we have no authority, just ability.--
'''Strongest support'''. Calm, courteous and all round excellent contributor.
'''Weak support'''. I share some of the concerns of the opposers, and the low level of Wikipedia namespace edits would normally cause me to oppose, but the answers to questions have swung things slightly in favour.
'''Strong Support''' Get the impression Choess will be the kind of admin who'll help good contributors more than tendentious über nuts.
'''Strong Support''' - no concerns at all, voluminous number of edits, fairly safe bet that he'll not abuse the tools, and meets my standards.
'''Support''' - Took me a while to decide but after a while I have decided to support. You appear to be a good solid contributor, who I think would do well as an admin and not abuse the tools. I would not have taken quite the approach you did to the answer to question 11, but you gave it good justification and is satisfactory to me. Answer to question 6 and what the nominators do does not concern me. Getting lots of FAs/GAs and doing a lot of dispute resolution/project space work is a bonus, but is not required in my opinion for adminship, and I am an admin and fail at least one of these myself! Good luck.
'''Support'''. I have had no problems with this editor; he's done some good work on [[Schunemunk Mountain]] and some other hiking-related articles.
'''Support''': plenty of experience, seems good-natured, good answers to questions, and no reason to believe he would abuse the tools. I particularly approve of his reasonable approach to page protection, which seems to have earned him some opposition below.
'''Support''', a good contributor; I have no reason to suspect that he will not perform well as an admin. --
'''Support''' -- a solid contibutor.  I've run across his work from time to time, and I have no reason to believe he would not benefit the encyclopedia by becoming an admin.  --
'''Support''' - good contibutor. No reasons to believe any possible misuse of admin buttons.--
While Choess is an excellent editor, who makes a ton of menial edits (possibly via tools?) I had a real problem finding any proof of consensus building and/or policy understanding.  Of his over 23,000 edits, over 20,000 are in the mainspace and would be deemed minor (but beneficial) edits. While 3000 non-mainspace edits is still an impressive total so I tried to dig into them.  During the last 5 month period, he has made 3 edits to Wikipedia Talk.  One of those [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#Splitting_constituencies_for_UK.2FGB_Parliaments|edits]] he started the discussion, but never participated or followed up on the discussion.  Another [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Proposal:_modifications_to_Template:Succession_box|edit]] he made a drive by comment, but never appears to have revisited the discussion.  His [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle_Ages/Crusades_task_force#Holy_Leagues.3F|third edit]], the same thing.  All three of those discussions encountered extensive discussion after his contribution, but he didn't appear to be involved in them.  I got the definite sense that he is the type to make drive by contributions.  So I looked at the other places where he might be involved with.  During the same 5 months, he's made 100 edits to the talk space.  While there is minimal evidence of working on GA reviews, most are cosmetic edits such as redirects, name changes, or adding appropriate project tags.  I don't think there are but one or two where he made more than 5 edits!  In fact, in his 3.5 years of editing there is only one article where he has contributed to the talk page more than 10 times.  Similarly, in the past 5 months, he's only made about 100 edits to User Talk pages.  While there are a few people he communicates with on a semi-regular basis, his user talk contributions are sporatic and do not show consensus building nor do they demand policy knowledge.  So how about his participation ot the wikipedia space?  Once again, during the past 5 months, he's only made about 50 edits to the wikipedia space.  The contributions to these spaces indicate drive by participation in a number of areas as compared to establishing oneself and obtaining a solid understanding of any one area.  Thus, while he is a solid editor, I don't see the policy building or a demonstration of communicative skills I'd like to see from admins candidates.  I'm also worried about the apparent drive by nature of his communication style.  On a side note, I would suggest responding to discussions on the page where they begin, it really makes researching discussions a lot easier.---'''
I have to agree with Balloonman on this one, consensus building, controversial article mediation, discussion. Your user page says you have only got 1 article to GA, I need to see stronger article building than that. Also have concerns about certain editing style/actions of certain nominators. —
'''Oppose''' per answer to #6.
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' This user has 2 Wikipedia namespace edits in the past 500. 16 user talk edits in last 500. Also per policy-clingy answer to 6 and answer to Xeno's question. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Weak struck after looking closer and some recent answers. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' - Choess's answer to question 11 scares me a bit and to be honest almost goes against policy.  "''I'd say that once a suitable, NPOV version has been worked out on the talk page, semi-protection justifies the potential loss of incremental improvements by eliminating the perpetual oscillation from one POV to another.''" gives me the impression that once a version comes about that ''he'' agrees with he will protect that version to insure that it stays that way, is that not a POV protection itself and is Wikipedia not built on the basis that anyone should be able to edit and contribute, and that includes users that feel that the protected version is not the correct one. <s>Also "''I don't think there's any need to discuss protection for the article; it's just a high-profile article that's bound to get a certain amount of drive-by vandalism.''" goes completely against policy IMO, we do not protect articles unless it is warranted, and simply saying "I ''think'' this article will be a target for vandalism" is not justification in and of itself for protection.</s>
'''Oppose''' due to answer to question 11. This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the consensus process, and the use of protection. Wikipedia articles find a NPOV by having competing POVs present in the creation process. All of these POVs, centrist, for, against, combine and argue until they reach the version where they are all the least upset with it. It is a dampened oscillation that gets closer and closer to NPOV. Obviously there are some exceptions, but as [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] so correctly explained, don't get confused between an [[Objectivity (journalism)|Objective point of view]] and a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]. It is not for Choess to judge what is an NPOV and protect the page. <span>
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q11 and general non-focus on Wikipedia areas indicates a general lack of understanding of policy, especially in a critical area (issuing protection). <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' I was going to post [[User:jc37/RfA/General questions|my typical questions]] (the one concerning consensus, in particular), but decided there wasn't a need due to the response to question 1. Opposing due to no seeming need for the tools. -
'''Neutral''' Per Balloonman. Seeing as the user's past 50 Wikipedia space edits date all the way back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Choess&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 February], I'm a bit concerned about a lack of understanding of policy and knowledge of consensus building. You seem like a good editor, otherwise &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - I do agree with Balloonman on some points, about how while your mainspace gnome work is exceptional, not enough is done in other places. I also agree with Juliancolton's point about projectspace edits. However, it's not enough to oppose over.
'''Neutral''' - Good(ish) contributions, bad answer to Q6. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''', basically per Baloonman. Outstanding mainspace contribution work by the candidate (and this really counts for a lot), but too little participation in areas such as consensus building, dispute resulution, Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk pages, AfDs, and the like.  An admin needs to be able to deal with various conflicts and problems, to interpret policy and consensus correctly and I'd like to have some kind of explicit basis for judging how well the candidate might do there.
Awaiting more Q&A.
'''Support''' A review of talk page and contribs convinces me the nom is more than ready.
'''Support''' This user had made good contributions to project-space pages. Also a great vandal fighter. Time to give this user the mop. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Clear-headed, concise, knows policy. No qualms here. --'''
'''Support'''.  Good user, and good vandal fighter.  '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seems a level-headed editor with strong experience in areas outside the usual suspects. Although there are some areas in which the user has less experience than I'd prefer, nothing I've seen in a fairly extensive trawl through his/her recent contributions suggests that s/he will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Per Espresso.  Nothing of any concern.  A hard worker and a steady hand, with experience in places that could use more admins helping out. --
I '''support''' this nominee. I've reviewed his contributions and see no reason for concern. I am pleased by his smooth and civil dicussions with users. -
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' No problems with this editor. --'''
'''Support''' Familiar with the places they intend to use the mop - no evidence of intention to misuse... Yup.
'''Support''' A good amount of successful [[WP:AIV]] reports.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Always a pleasure to have him at AIV, I can't think of a single report he has ever made that has been too premature or made in error. It will only improve the asset that he already is to give him the tools.
'''Check on that, doctor'''.
'''Support'''. Don't normally vote on RfAs which are going to pass anyway, but am willing to make an exception here: an ideal candidate.
'''Support''' I like the fact you've actually contributed to articles. Please, please, please, as an admin keep your hand in as a writer/editor. All of our best admins are also at least part/time writers.--
'''Support''' Good contribs. As a content editor myself, totally second Doc's comments, too.
'''Support''' Looking in the overall contribs, he is very familiar for copyright issues and will make a good vandal fighter as well.--
'''Support''' Has been around since Sept 2005 and track is good.
'''Support''' - How could we oppose?
'''Strong support'''. I was actually thinking about asking the user about a nomination myself. I'll have less opportunities to perform history merges (which are my favorite kind of administrative work) but this user should have the tools. Copyright violations are serious problems, and user is an ace at them.
'''Support''' - I think he will make good use of the tools. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''

'''Support''' an all-round good contributor.
'''Support'''
Good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. '''''
'''Support''' Impressive stats. :)
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here, will use the tools well. --
'''Support'''. A review of the user's page and work reveals no issues, except for a pedantic style. :-)
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Support''' as nominator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Beat a co-nom support:''' You're ''not'' already an admin?  Cirt should have been given the mops years ago!
'''Support''' - fantastic editor and knows the project well. Will do well with some more tools. '''
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' before anyone else gets in before me :P
'''Support''', I am shocked that you aren't already an admin, I had assumed you were. Excellent candidate, I have no concerns. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Clearly one of Wikipedia's most qualified for the mop. &ndash;
'''Support''' I actually did think you were an admin already. Model Wikipedian. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''.  Most definitely.  This is one user who will benefit the project greatly by being given the mop! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong support''' — Fully trust both nominators, great article work, is human and can communicate well with others, wants to work in areas commonly burdened with backlogs. Marvellous! —'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor who understands the image policy.
'''Support''' Overdue. <big>
Obvious choice I'd say.
'''Support'''. Seems like a great guy. Certainly answered my question very well :)
'''Strong support''', per both noms. Extremely trustworthy. --'''<font face="Rockwell">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="43AA54">Maxim</font>]] (
'''Support''' I see him all the time and I think him to be an admin each time, only to be proven wrong. I have not a single idea why, with all those great contribution, he isn't an admin yet. '''
'''Support''': Why not? <small>
'''Strong Support''' Highly trustworthy candidate. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support'''; I have no fear the candidate would stick the mop in bad places.  &mdash;&nbsp;
Simply looking at his astonishing content contributions pushes me to support - above and beyond the accepted RfA standards.
'''Support''' complete no-brainer. Absolutely. --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Great edit history, many fine contributions.  Support 100% --
'''Support''' - This RfA isn't an April fools joke? I thought you already were an admin. *Realist double checks his calendar* . —
'''Support''' Good answers, gonna make a great mop-holder. —[<small><u>
'''Support'''. I'm usually pretty well informed about who is and isn't an admin, but this one really made me jump out of my seat. '''''
'''Suppose'''....joking! :P An excellent candidate ——
I'm very disappointed... that I didn't nominate you myself. '''Very Strong Support!'''
'''Support''' a real asset to the Wiki. '''
'''support''' —
'''<s>Strong</s>Weak  support''' An outstanding Wikipedian. <s>Move for acclamation invoking [[WP:SNOW|snow]]</s> <i><b>
'''Support''' Very straight forward, hard working... nothing of note to gripe about. Good choice!
Kind, caring, and trustworthy. Hopefully he'll become an admin, and then this'll be your third project as a sysop , correct? Good luck! &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - Yes! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Like WBOSITG said, all I can say is, '''Wow!''' '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' '''Wow!''' <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
A fantastic, exemplary contributor. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' Several positive experiences with this user at Commons where the user is an administrator.--
'''Support''' I've had positive experiences with this user.  Seems willing to learn fine points when required.  Considerate.  Helpful.  No issues from my point of view.
'''Support''' Why do we even have to go through RfA for this candidate? Erik the <font color="red">
I cannot think of anyone who "deserves" the tools more.
'''Support''' I have interacted this user during the various featured processes I went through and as far as I can remember, it was only positive, without having any problems with any of his edits/comments. I also find it funny/notable to have edit conflicts over a 2-second edit in the support section.
'''Support''' You managed to get FAs on Scientology articles? And you work at OTRS!? My cluemeter just broke.
'''Support''' I don't often post here, but I heard Cirt was in nomination, and decided to throw my unconditional support his way.
'''Support''' Cirt is a good content producer and a nice guy.
Wha? He's not an admin? Someone get a [[WP:TROUT]] for the people at RfA. Excellent work in Featured content, very civil.
'''Strong support''' Most certainly. In every way, epitomizes what people have to be to pass the horrible process that is the modern RfA.
'''Strong support''' All of my interactions with Cirt lead me to believe he will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - Nothing wrong with this user, give him the mop. <small>
'''Dinner Support''' - I haven't done a dinner support yet so here goes: I had [[General Tso's chicken]] and rice with an eggroll. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Wow isn't the one word I was thinking of... Busy might be more apt. But I'd be hard pressed to find anything Cirt has accomplished that was not done properly and thoroughly. A good editor who will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' can't place where I've seen Cirt around since our editing spheres don't appear to intersect. When I saw this RFA I thought, "Cirt isn't an admin??" so, no doubts here. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Support'''. I often see this editor doing good work. I think he'd make a helpful and diligent admin. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support''' - <br>"Cirt" is such a familiar-sounding name<br>It comes from the whole ''prima facie'' fame<br>But fortunately today I have no doubts<br>That this user knows what it's all about<br>
'''Strong support'''. An outstanding editor. The amount of dedication and work Cirt had made here on Wikipedia is by far the most impressive I've ever seen.
'''Support''' Looks outstanding!
'''Support''' Cirt should've been an admin months ago. Cirt is very familiar with Wikipedia, its policies, and editing. He is always a hardworking Wikipedian. I like the stuff he has done to various portals. He is always helpful and willing to help out. I think he deserves to be an admin. --[[User:Grrrlriot|<font color="00FF00">Grrrlriot</font>]] ([[User talk:Grrrlriot|♠]] [[User:Grrrlriot/Guestbook|♣]]
'''Support'''. Never had any problems with him.
'''Support''' I saw this when it was 10-0... and while my initial impression was to support, I decided not to take a short cut, but to investigate further... I saw it when it was 35-0 and still thought, wow, I should support, but let me look closer... at 50-0, I still couldn't bring myself to support without reviewing Cirt myself.  Having looked him over, I am happy to pile-on-support.---'''
'''Of course'''
'''Total no-brainer support'''  obviously is acting in the best interest of the project.
Ah, much overdue. I am confident that you will integrate the massive experience you have on the other projects into your use of the tools here, and, because of that, there can be no reservations in the wholeheartedness of my support. &mdash;<strong>
'''Strong support''' - needs no introduction. Super nom, super editor. This is a total no-brainer -
'''Support''' - I have seen Cirt all over Wikipedia, and I think that he has the trust of many editors.--
'''Support''' Well known, good trustworthy editor. <font color="blue">'''
'''trust Durova'''
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' - per excellent responses, especially Q#5. --
'''Support''' I thought you already were.
'''Support''' &mdash; per the obvious. '''
'''Support''' per strong confidence candidate will continue to contribute as before getting the mop. Candidate has been a major force in portal promotion and frequently risks the peril of editing in controversial areas.
'''Support''' Looks to be a good user '''
'''Support''' As per track.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support.''' →
'''Support''' - this is the first time I contribute to an Rfa. I consider Cirt a very worthy candidate. Also, I have long thought that he already was an Admin.
'''Support''' Of course!
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Strong support''' per nom and comparable administrative work (Wikinews, etc.).
'''Support'''- Sure thing! Overdue, though. :) Cheers mate!
'''Support''' per the above.
'''Support''' - I've reviewed several of Cirt's FA nominations, and even though on several occasions I began by opposing the promotion, Cirt always worked very politely and very diligently to improve the articles.  He has a good work ethic, a congenial manner, and a good grasp of policy.
'''Support''' excellent editor, shows dedication to the encyclopedia. -- <sub>
'''Support''' good user who is highly qualified for the job of administrator.
'''Support'''.  Cirt has definitely had a rocky road, and I've seen him rub up some people the wrong way, but this is mostly because of his enthusiasm and dedication. I have had a fair amount of interaction with him and am happy to give full support.  --
'''Support''' I've known Cirt ever since he came out of nowhere to nominate an article I had on watch, and he's always been an enthusiastic editor and a lot of fun to work with. I would have gladly nominated him had he asked, so I definitely support. --
'''Support''' Great editor, any interactions that I remember have always been positive, should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Way overdue --
'''Support''' - Seems to easily pass criteria as far as I can see.
'''Support''' - I've known Cirt for a good while and know how great a user he is. He'll do nothing but good as an admin.
'''Support''' - Sorry I have no diffs but great name recognition—in other words all good associations, some as I recall, in [[Portal:Contents/Portals]]. Others here have said this better. Good luck. -
'''[[WP:100]] Support''' for this editor. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - wow. <b>
'''Support'''. An obvious candidate for the mop. --
'''Support''' with a sense that this person will continue to do well..
'''Support''' - Why not?--
'''Very Strong Support''' I trust him. Sure, he's got a couple blocks. You don't have to be a virginal saint to be a good admin. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' per answer to question 3. Blocks aren't punishment then, and shouldn't be punishment now, over a year later, either.  And also, because I thought that you were already an admin
'''Support'''.  Cirt has given every indication, and has a proven track record showing that he will use the tools responsibly and effectively.  So, in fact, make that ''strong support''!
Yes, looks good to me. As for your answer to my question, while you shouldn't be declining the unblock you can certainly grant it. Do consider giving {{tl|2nd chance}}'s when appropriate. This particular vandal went on to become a very constructive contributor. –<font face="Verdana">
'''support''' Having now had time to look at the old accounts in detail I am inclined to support. This is also based on Cirt's work on the other Wikiprojects where he seems to be good. 3RR violations that are over a year old are not sufficient reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user.--
'''Support'''. Here's a productive, trustworthy candidate. Cirt knows policy and  has a solid record creating content and working constructively with other editors.
'''Support''' - know him from Commons. Exceedingly sound. ++
'''Support''' - productive, no reason to think he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Really, administrators on other WMF projects would probably be trustable with admin tools on this project. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Somewhere in the past 15 months with no problems, 12 months as a truly exemplary contributor, 11 Featured Articles, 11 Featured Portals, and dozens of GAs and DYKs, I think this editor has more than atoned for past 3RRing.  In general, I wouldn't really say I'm quick to forgive and forget, but ''surely'' Cirt's record is sufficient to do so in this case. --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' a decent user. Aside from article writing there is nothing that impressive about this candidate but there are no real negatives. The edit warring is to far in the past to influence my descion. - '''
'''Support.'''  I had some doubts, because I remembered some disruptiveness in previous incarnations and I hadn't seen much of this nominee since then.  However, I respect Durova (I'd support her re-adminship any time), who authored what I consider one of the best of the Wikipedian essays, [[User:Durova/The dark side|The dark side]], so I did my homework on the contribs while giving it more thought.  Cirt has changed ''a lot''. <br> I am very impressed by the gains in [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|coolheadedness]] and skill, and I think the mop will be in good hands. <br> (Changed from oppose.)  —
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, no doubts at all. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Strong support''' - Durova said it all! --
'''Strong Support'''  I know the full history of the user currently known at Cirt. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)  #::Any editor who gets so many socks and indef blocked vandals opposing their RFA deserves '''strong''' support.
'''Support''' The history of this account, and the confidence of folks who know the history of the user, lead me to support.
'''Support''' too much good 'pedia building. Cheers,
'''Support''' Surprised you aren't one already. Esp. per answer to Q8.
'''Support'''. Cirt will be a solid administrator.
'''Support'''. My first adminship vote, well, he looks good enough to be one. --
'''Support''' looks good, no objections. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Cirt's and my POV have at times differed, but in disputes he has invariably behaved like a gentleman. I trust this will not change if he becomes an admin. Good luck. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' I'm piling on solely on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miles_Fisher the work Cirt did on the Miles Fisher article]. That was my only experience with Cirt and I came away amazed from the due dilligence Cirt exhibited in the AFD.
'''Support''' – Cirt is a quality contributor in a variety of areas (especially article work!), and all I've seen of him has been positive. The Opposes and past issues with 3RR don't leave me with concern; since then he's acted just the opposite of that, being collaborative and polite. I don't see why not, as he is overall a great user and very experienced. At times the mopping can be [[WP:PA|hard]], but please don't let yourself be [[Template:Retired|marred]]. ;)
Didn't-read-the-nomination-'''support'''. ·
'''Support''' - the obligatory "you're not an admin already?" sentiment applies here. Superb content contributor. Will use the mop well. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I've only ever seen good things from Cirt. He's been helpful to me a few times, and blocks from over a year ago are of no concern to me.
'''Support''' - I could have sworn Cirt was already an admin, so, if this is a case of deja vu, ignore me. If not, well, heres to it all. Same reasons as I probably hallucinated before. Something about trust, good editing, keep up the good work, etc.
'''Support''' His help at DYK has been excellent. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''', good experience and productive cooperation with this user. --'''
'''Support''', I thought you were an admin. I cannot believe this user is not an admin. Great user to work with,
'''Strong support'''. Strange — I was sure I supported here, but it seems I haven't. Cirt has been a solid contributor to portals, content, and discussions for quite some time now, and I've been lucky enough to speak with him regularly both over IRC and on-wiki. He has proved he can be trusted with the tools, so I see no reason not to give them to him. This is truly well deserved.
'''Support''', although bear in mind that adminning Scientology-related articles will result in a flare-up for you, deserved or not!
'''Support''' great contributor on wikinews. --
'''Support''' - I CIRTently support Cirt.
'''Support''' - A dead "cirt" for adminship if I ever saw one.  Particularly helpful, has assisted me as I started my first round of dealing with [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] relisting.  Would be a great asset.
'''Support''' - Certainly looks like a dedicated editor to me. I've seen constructive work at DYK also. Would do just fine in my opinion. Add yourself to [[WP:DYK/A]] when you get the chance. ;) --
'''Support''' - I am glad to have the opportunity to express my confidence in Cirt.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Support''' as per other people's comments. <small>- -<nowiki>[</nowiki>
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Strong support''' we need more people prepared to bring NPOV to articles 'owned' by fans of certain groups- not speaking of any one group in particular, it happens on a range of articles.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' , I thought he was an admin ...
Pile on '''support'''. Given the overwhelming good quality contributions, the history of blocks is less important.
Strong editor: good interactions with and observations of them. (Acalamari from alternate account.)
Yes, the block log's not a plus, but it's more easily forgiven when it's someone like Cirt who has done such good work, and it is rather ancient history now.
'''Support''' - a good editor with a damn fine record in the past year. That the blocks are way in the past are evidence of vast improvement since then. Is supremely unlikely to do insane or stupid things with the tools, and that's really the question RFA is supposed to be deciding - not an overarching Ken Starr inquisition -
'''Support''' - well knowing his/her history, I will still support him/her, though he/she has about 7 blocks combined for something as minor as 3RR, its still not a problem..its editors with a clean block-log who you need to worry about ;) ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', certainly. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''- Cirt will most probably need the tools for his work, and I think can be trusted not to misuse them.
'''Support.''' I have worked with this editor in the past on controversial subjects and found nothing but level-headedness.
'''Support.''' Cirt has done a lot of work on here, and on Wikinews. We all make mistakes (3RRs), but a lot can change over the course of a year. Cirt is ready to have the tools, and will make a great admin!! <font face="papyrus">
'''Support''' I've had good experiences with Cirt, especially relating to ITN and Portal:Current events. '''
'''Support''' - I certainly don't think short long time ago blocks should be held against you, and you have clearly learnt from them and made a great turnaround from them. You clearly have a lot of experience, now have the right attitude, and I have good 2008 record despite working in controversial areas. All the best.
'''Support''' - I actually was in the same situation that Cirt had, I was blocked in early 2006, yet passed RFA. Still, great editor, and I really support hard work he puts into things.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Support''' - Excellent editor.
'''Support''', have seen Cirt's fine work at Commons. Would do well here also.
'''Weak Support (Shifted from Neutral)''': Reasons at Neutral section --
'''Strong support.'''
'''Support'''. Although the previous identity really should have been disclosed, given its block log - all the alluding to it without directly admitting it probably caused more drama than keeping quiet about it would have. The past year's contributions have amply shown Cirt has changed his ways for the better.
'''Support''' Fantastic contributor.--
'''Support'''  - The candidate has demonstrated a firm grasp of the technicalities of the admin role. Despite the rather sickening levels of puppetry that have occured during this RfA, I am confident that Cirt's admin actions will be reviewed and assesed as much as any other contributor performing admin tasks. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support.'''  I am wary about Cirt's past; I'm familiar with the old accounts and I had a hard time working with them, and I even had to give Cirt an official Arbcom sanction warning back in March (COFS case).  However, if anything Cirt always seems in good control of himself, and the tasks he wants to work on are needed and appropriate given his background.  Ultimately, adminship is no big deal and I feel confident he won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' While I appreciate concerns raised about past edit conflicts and would have been far happier if they had been disclosed, Cirt has no recent evidence of Wikipedia policy issues and has an undeniable track record of strong positive contributions to building this encyclopedia, so refreshingly different from the many RfAs of editors who have almost no edit history to speak of.
'''Support''' I trust Cirt to use the tools correctly as he does on other wiki sites. --
'''Support''' Per Marlith, Patrick, Mangojuice, [[wiktionary:et al.|et al.]]  No fear that he will abuse the tools.  --''
'''Oppose''' for previous accounts with numerous 3RR violations, ''''and failing to disclose during RFA more details about the number of past accounts, the number of blocks, and additional username changes'''.  2007 24hrs on 3RR-; 72 for 3RR,; 48 for 3RR; 3 hours for 3RR, 2006 24 hrs for 3RR; 24 hr for 3RR;  8 hrs for 3RR.
Excuse me, but what is this nonsense about deleting comments? This editor wants to be an admin but is in such a sensitive position that certain comments about him must be immediately deleted due to unspecified "security concerns"? WTF? Durova's reply to jossi is positively Orwellian. Apparently, Jossi said something that was bad, Durova is demanding that Jossi delete all record of it having been said, and Jossi seems to be unaware of what the secruity concern is at all. What is going on here? I '''oppose''' Cirt's RFA in order to provide him with his unspecifiable security needs which are so dire as to over-rule normal Wikipedia transparency. This is nonsense we don't need. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. I came here to support, but from what I see, you have a history of being blocked for 3rr. This is not something I like to see, and would have been willing to overlook it if it had been disclosed. '''
'''Oppose''' per his answer to my question above. Almost everybody say he has been reformed from his past in which he had been chronically blocked, but I could not know how well he has been improved. 7 blocks are not "some" blocks, edit warring is not immune to anyone including admins. Besides, he is not open to his past, and this just reminds me of somewhat [[User:Shalom Yechiel]]'s RFA. His contributions with the current account look good, so he certainly would pass this RFA in spite of my opinion.--
'''Oppose''' - an admin with 7 blocks for 3RR?  What could possibly go wrong there? --
'''Oppose''' 7 blocks? Secret past identities? Friends in high places who make stuff up in his defense? Seems like the recipe for another above-the-law admin. --
'''Oppose''' Not that I expect my observations to influence the outcome, but '''I counsel extreme caution here.''' We are dealing with an editor who spent well over a year as an extreme POV warrior of the most obsessive kind, often spending up to 18 hours a day on polemical outpourings. Not isolated excesses explicable as inexperience, but sustained campaigns of edit-warring on a narrow range of related topics, abusive and uncivil comments and personal attacks on other editors, and multiple blocks for repeated and persistent 3RR and other violations. Then suddenly they announce their retirement, go to great lengths to hide the records of past behaviour, but almost immediately create a new account and spend a year or so building up an impeccable record and winning friends. There are clearly two possible explanations for this sequence of events, but I'd be more inclined to the charitable one if there had been a full and frank disclosure of past activity.
'''oppose''' three reasons 1) 3rr <s>and NPA</s> blocks and no real willingness to discuss them 2) I don't like the evasion we are seeing 3) If this editor has severe worries about privacy and real-world identification, to the level suggested, then being an admin is a really, really, bad move. Keep your head down mate.--
'''Oppose''' - I am well aware of the prior accounts, and their history. I am also aware that he isn't quite as good at letting bygones be bygones as he has intimated. As I respect the user's desire for privacy as the reason for his rename, I will not comment further on this issue; please do not insist on examples, as it will only serve to "out" him.
The blocks are certainly concerning. While they are indeed from a year ago, there are seven (at least that is the number given by administrators who are privy to the previous account's username) blocks for 3RR. That's ridiculous. That shows that he has a lack self control to stop edit-warring, discuss and build consensus; a refusal to follow social norms &mdash; there are seven blocks; or the ability to learn from mistakes. The behavioral problems alluded to above also compound these concerns. Further, I do not like administrators to have a problematic history that cannot be openly reviewed. And finally, I agree with Troikoalogo. If Cirt has serious privacy concerns, and he edits contentious articles, becoming an administrator is an ''extremely'' unwise thing to do. '''
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now but I'm just not comfortable with it and therefore must oppose. I have seen this user's name around but I did not realise it was a new account of a user I remember only all too well from the various ANI discussions a year or two ago. In fact, I only discovered who Cirt was accidentally when seeing the subject being discussed on another user's talk page via my watchlist. I'm not comfortable with a user with a controversial history on this project being promoted without the community being allowed to know who they are and having the opportunity to examine the full range of their edits. Also, and probably most importantly, if their identity can't be revealed for the purpose of transparent discussion at their own RFA but their identity is apparently known and is even being discussed openly on user talk pages, I worry that they are too vulnerable to be an administrator and could be compromised (and for some reason I can't help but think of the situation with NSLE as I write this). If they can't reveal their prior username due to personal security concerns, then what happens ''when'' a troll they deal with as an administrator happens upon discussions of their former username and decides to use the information? Sorry but this is a little too much for me and I'm just not comfortable with it.
Per concerns about the previous account. '''
'''Reluctant Oppose''', this user's contributions are stellar, there can be no doubt or dispute about that.  However, I am just not comfortable with the secrecy and mystery surrounding this user's past.  I'm sure that Cirt will prove me wrong and turn out to be a model administrator, but I feel I simply can't support given that there are things we don't know about him/her.
'''Oppose''' Cirt is an excellent content contributor (something far more important than some silly extra buttons) and I hope he will continue. I can't unfortunately shake my uneasiness of his block log and past history, given that past cases of problematic admins have been significantly damaging to the project. I'll err on the side of caution in this case, and hopefully be proven wrong. <strong>
'''Strong Oppose''' Cirt is an average contributor who's POV is remarkably close to mine.  But per B and Jossi, there's something wrong here.  Fighting POV battles is fine, but 3RR is one of those non-subjective guidelines around here that shouldn't be violated once, let alone 7.
'''Oppose''' Excellent content contributor who should remain as such, having administrator rights will not improve this user's contributions to the project. Also a bit of a protest oppose to the lack of transparency et al. One can disclose all they want, but things don't get any more transparent and that's a ''bad thing''.
'''Oppose''' - While I feel that letting the forgiving and forgetting is something we all need to learn to do a little more of here, I can not overlook Cirt's history in this case. Let me start by saying that I respect Cirt and have come to find him a good editor, and I think he needs to stay that way, an editor. I consider edit warring, and violation of 3RR to be among some of the most disruptive practices here, and have come to see them as the downfall of Wikipedia. In order for us to ever fix these issues we must have admins who set good examples, and a block log seven blocks long does quite the opposite. In my experience users who have a block log as long as Cirt's prior account does for edit warring are unlikely to change that behavior, and admins who edit war often do the most harm. I really hope that if Cirt does get promoted, that he will take all of the opposes to heart and insure that every edit he makes is in the projects best interests.
'''Oppose''' The editor has a propensity to edit war.  I find a history of blocks.
I've been thinking about this for several days since I saw mention of it on someone's talk page.  I'm sorry, but I can't support because I know who this user used to be.  While I'm fine with someone turning over a new leaf, I have a sneaky suspision that this user is only doing it just to get the tools and then will go sideways. --
'''Oppose''' The lack of transparency here makes one unable to make a fair judgment. Is this editor trustworthy enough to be an admin? I have no idea, because I can't see the information I'd need to make that call. Even if there are legitimate reasons for this lack of transparency, it seems troubling that editors are being asked to accept on good faith that an editor with a history of blocks and POV edit warring should become an admin without the details of this history being known. It seems better to err on the side of caution--An editor doesn't need admin tools to keep creating worthy articles.
'''Oppose''' per goethean, et al. I am, like Gilbertine, erring on the side of caution.
'''Oppose''' per B, Jossi, Gothean et alia.  Full stop.
'''Oppose''' I oppose this editors nomination based on the lack of transparency regarding their previous accounts. Clearly someone with a mysterious and perhaps controversial history should not be an Admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Believe or not I really wrestled for a long time with this one. I wanted to give Cirt the benefit of the doubt and !vote "neutral". I even toyed with the idea of !voting "support". What brought me to my senses was Cirt's response ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cirt&diff=next&oldid=238088238 here]) only a few paragraphs above this. It demonstrated clearly that whatever sense of judgment Cirt might possess that qualifies him to be an admin here goes right out the window when Cirt's own self-interests are involved. And that is what worries me most when a confirmed and dedicated POV-warrior puts on a happy face and makes of bunch of friends. I refer of course to Cirt's response above to the sock [[User:ShadowVsScientology]] (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles]]). In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCirt&diff=238085713&oldid=238077887 the pair of edits] the sock attacks me as a paid propagandist working for OSA and proceeds to explain that he knows all about the IP attack on my userpages. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that this is just another sock of the same character that was doing most of the attacking, {{userlinks|Richard Rolles}}. Just look over his contribs - there are only six of them, and those of the first sock {{userlinks|Ken Moxon}}. Would any of you admins here have missed that? Cirt was very involved with all of this and in fact referenced it in his response to my Q.15. He pointed at specific related off-wiki posts in his response to the sock. There are simple to follow clues in those posts to the source of that attack and the sockmaster there including a name similar to this current sock. But he should not have even needed to go off-wiki, it is obvious to anyone that looks at the posts of the sockmaster and the current sock that they the same individual as was confirmed by checkuser. And even if, by some stretch, Cirt's admining instincts are so bad that he could not spot that then why in the world does he respond to the post by providing clarifying information rather than address the personal and off-topic attack on me, and to a much lesser extent, himself. To try to a score point as a "neutral editor"? Anyone that thinks Cirt is neutral on the subject of Scientology is clueless indeed. Cirt is careful, not neutral. Careful not to get caught. Cirt repeatedly and routinely puts this project second where his own self-interest and biases are concerned. Witness his recent unwillingness to grasp the basics of [[WP:BLP]] and what constitutes a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] at [[Talk:David Miscavige]]. Cirt repeatedly championed the inclusion of libelous and poorly-sourced material in that article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Miscavige&diff=235123592&oldid=235083243 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&diff=235164655&oldid=235133194 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&diff=next&oldid=235164655 3], even to the extent of suggesting it be included as an EL after it was clear that it was not going in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&diff=236563618&oldid=236558775 4]. I did not have any big problem when it was just old low-key POV-warrior Cirt being obtuse on BLP and RS; I do have a problem when it is admin-hopeful Cirt. --
'''Oppose'''Would like to support but too many issues have come up.
'''Oppose''' I have observed Cirt's editing style through at least three previous account names and have observed a pattern of editing against editors s/he has taken exception to regardless of the merit of the edit. Just to annoy and disrupt.
'''Strong Oppose''' Cirt seems unreasonable and has even attacked some good Wikipedia editors.
'''Oppose'''. The secrecy about this candidates former identities and contributions prevents a fact based judgment. If the candidate has such problems, it would be a good idea not to run for admin. Not willing to support RfAs where the editors are left in the dark.
'''Oppose''' per comments by Jossi and Caspian Blue.  Too many things that trouble me and not enough information to evaluate them. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Has been a borderline POV pusher, and I'm saying that as someone with no connection to COFS. Recent edits seem to show improvement, but the concealed blocks in the past push me into "oppose." Maybe next time.
'''Oppose''' Having observed and edited pages that Cirt and his former user names have edited in the past (and still edit) I am opposed to this nomination.  His/her editing over the last year has been above board and polite, but previously this was not always the case, and he/she often heatedly argued with and insulted other editors.  There were several times that he/she misquoted the sources he used as references so that they would support his point of view and then whined when it was challenged. It disturbs me that his/her history is not clearly laid out for all to see so that we can have a real discussion based on a true history.
Oppose - many of the above comments are concerning. I am also not comfortable creating more administrators who very actively promote the rather overzealous formalisms being applied to wikipedia articles these days, far beyond what policy would call far, and disparage articles that do not meet their personal interpretations.  See [[WP:FAR]], where this user has such a scope of understanding that he or she can apparently offer a Remove opinion on nearly every article, and things such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Augustan_literature&diff=234960761&oldid=234904258]. Trivial? Not to me—reasonable approaches to article stewardship are all that matter to me in an RfA candidate.
Oppose - I'm absolutely opposed to this candidate due to POV and security concerns.
'''Oppose'''. Unwillingness to disclose prior account(s). --
'''Oppose''' Even as it is most probable that the net effect on the project of Cirt's participation is positive, it is not at all clear, per, for one, the succinct Swat, that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].  (I should say explicitly that my participation here is not the result of canvassing; even as I have made but a handful of logged-in edits across the past two months, including none to RfA [where I had been an active !voter], I have edited a non-trivial bit anonymously and have in any case been, as ever, an active observer of AN, AN/I, and RfA [and thus a continuing, if largely passive, participant in the project], at the last of which I have not been compelled to participate in a good while&mdash;my opposition here is not, I would note, as severe as that that I might have held for other RfAs in which I did not !vote, but in none of those was the outcome in doubt, and I prefer to avoid piling on toward the disposition I seek or arguing pointlessly against a disfavored disposition, at least where my opposition is not of the sort as to be likely to command the support of others.)
'''Oppose'''. I've been following this closely, seeing both pros and cons, and rather troubled by the secrecy that makes it hard for many users to evaluate the candidate (though I'm not one of those users myself). Cirt has certainly done good work recently; on the other hand, his/her past is ... well, I'd call it shady. And Justallofthem makes good points. But what swings it for me is SwatJester's recent oppose. I know Swat investigated the candidate in depth under a previous account (investigated for good reasons, in case anybody wonders), and he knows a lot about the security concerns he mentions. I must oppose.
'''Oppose, switched from Support''' I take no pleasure in moving my vote, but as this discussion has progressed it has become painfully obvious that Cirt has stretched the concept [[WP:AGF]] to the fraying point.  The candidate's failure to be upfront and honest about the block history is appalling, and the whole concept of secrecy surrounding the candidate's past seems wildly out of place for an online encyclopedia project (unless Cirt is really Dick Cheney...Dick, is that you?). Furthermore, the rising level of defensiveness by the candidate's supporters isn't helping the candidate -- if anything, it is raising more questions about why Cirt's ascension to adminship is such a big deal. (Take it from an expert: being too defensive in an RfA is ''never'' a good idea!).  I feel awful Cirt, but I would feel worse for the project if the admin tools were given to this editor.
'''Oppose''' due to hiding the past. If there is no problem, tell us, if there is, remain silent, atm there seems to be.
'''Oppose''' I appologize, you may be fantastic admin material, but I just don't know how I could support as long as your past account(s) are undisclosed.--
'''Oppose''' - I am concerned by the lack of information about previous problematic accounts, and the multiple blocks for edit warring.
'''Oppose''' - per Sarah. Switched from neutral below; I highly value and respect Cirt's contributions (in particular the portal work which has been outstanding) but the propensity to edit war is a doubt in my mind, big enough for me to oppose this candidacy. As Orangemarlin states above, we shouldn't edit war once, never mind seven times. No amount of time would ever cover that.
'''Oppose'''- Been putting off coming here, but consciously I'm very big on transparency so I wish to comment, I've gone through and looked at the blocks on the prior account, and firstly, I don't see any reason at all the prior account should not have been disclosed, by name, during this RFA, I see nothing personally identifying, and by not disclosing it, it just made everyone who wanted to know it(including anyone who might have been the reason for not disclosing it in the first place go seek it out.) So I must oppose, based on what I see as a transparency issue, compounded by the earlier block log that shows me that though he is a good editor, he has also been a wee bit of an edit warrior. -
'''Oppose'''. How many blocks must an edit warrior receive before he's considered a chronic offender?  How many name changes must an editor undergo before he is considered unpredictable and evasive?  A couple of blocks a year ago wouldn't have been a serious concern, and one name change is common and acceptable. But seven blocks for the same, persistent behaviour, and four different names in a relatively short time shows a definite pattern. If personal security is a concern, the high visibility of an admin is the wrong place to hide. Cirt has done some great work since her last name change, but for an admin, I look for stable, persistent, dependable behaviour.
'''Neutral''' - well qualified, but the answer to question 8 gives me pause. To present that the current system through the Arbitration Committee works shows a large amount of ignorance towards how wikipedia actually works --

''' Neutral for now''' Problematic this one - a "just stay well away" temptation but I've read through this far and concerns about the issues this nom raises nag: why does this seem to be a bit of a 'reward' of adminship consideration? The candidate's history - arguably old? So what is 'old history' and for whom and under what circumstances does it or should it matter still or no (seven blocks, name change, pov accusations)? The insistence of the replies to the opposes. Drama - actual and potential? Alongside and yet in opposition: the value (and volume) of the contributions. Thinking, reading on.
'''Neutral'''.  I'm sorry, but if a past ID is so sensitive that just discussing it causes people's comments to be deleted and there are outing concerns, then no.  Too much chance for blackmail.  <font family="Comic sans">
'''Neutral''' Too controversial.
'''Neutral''' and relist. I've worked with Cirt and find him a fine editor and applaud his work, but this RFA is far too tainted and the accusations of the supporters are going too far. I don't see too many comments interspersed in the support section asking for difs on why an editor supports the nomination nor questions why this editor or that editor is here. This is why I tend to stay away from RFAs. Deplorable.
'''Neutral''' I'm still gravely concerned about the lack of recall, but I guess I'll move for now. '''
'''Support!'''  Beat the nom.  Will not go nutzo with the tools.  Unlikley to block good-faith contributors without discussion first.  &#10154;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Some very impressive contributions and experience. Definitely not going to misuse his new admin tools.
'''Support''' Great edit summary usage, good edit count, deserves the MOP. :) -
'''Support''' - should have had the mop by now. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''.  Very good editor.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I have the utmost confidence that this user will make a tremendous admin. Excellent editor, very versatile. Got tinkles.
'''Late to the party nom. support'''.  —
'''Support.''' Good all around, plus I have always been impressed with how well this individual handles unreasonable editors.
'''Support''': I find that the editor has handled him/herself well in light of several bad-faith editors, and that the contributions thus far have been very positive. I see no reason why you would abuse adminship if so granted.
'''Support''' You're not an admin? '''
'''Support''' Just talk to your partner about classical music stuff, OK?
Looks good. '''
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with broad experience.
'''Support'''. ·
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' no evidence they will abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' Seen him around doing great work. Will certainly make an excellent administrator, no doubt at all. --
Some outstanding work over at AIV.
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' And this Rfa didn't happen before because...? :)
'''Support''' - prolific editor, great vandal-fighter, with the scars to show.
We've certainly been on opposite sides of the table on some issues, but I don't feel as if he would be a bad, or careless administrator. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''yup''' - all the best <sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As per nom. Good track with over 14000 mainspace edits.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support'''. After reviewing Ckatz's [[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|contributions]], I am confident that he has the necessary experience, and has sufficient levels of trust, to function as a project administrator. Best of luck, [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''', seems a solid candidate.  I am reasonably satisfied that they will not abuse the tools.
'''Yes''' '''
'''Support''' Sounds good <strong>
'''Support''' Best of luck. :)
'''Support'''.  Anyone who has an external website dedicated to hating them, must be doing something right!  I've seen this user's work related to Canadian places and Canadian stuff.  He made a great little [[Template:Geographic Location (8-way)|template for 8-way geographic locations]].  &mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''', very responsible editor.
'''Support''' Pleasent, civil, well-rounded editor who can only be a '''net benefit''' to the work <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' good luck.
'''Support''' - Will make a fine addition to the admin corps. —
'''Support''' - --
'''Support'''
I have had positive experiences with Ckatz at [[WP:HEROES]].  –'''
'''Bandwagon support'''. This candidate is a good one. '''
'''Support''' Time to get your long overdue mop. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' per below? --
'''Support''' You would make an excellent administrator!
'''Support''' - past contributions reveal an excellent article editor with a wealth of experience in the 'machinery' of Wikipedia. Should make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Wow, impressive user. Give em' the mop. :p
'''Support''' - No problems here —<sup>
'''Support''' - Seems solid in my book.
'''Support''' - Extensive line of edits. Puts helper tools to good use. Can be a good admin. <span style="border:2px double #ffffff;padding:1px;background:#000000">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Good editor. -
Excellent user: will make great use of the tools.
'''Support''' - With 20,000 solid edits and a great track record, why not?
'''Support''' I'll join in before this closes. --
'''suppport'''
Per nom.
'''Strong Support''' per nom. Editor has a strong need for the tools and I believe would use them responsibly.
'''Support''' - Yes, per the nom by far. Very detailed and informative. User participates evenly on the wiki, has a level head, engages in civil discussion and leaves me with a feeling of trust.
'''Support''', Tony has been very helpful on the antivandalism front for a long time.
'''Strong Support''' Seen him around a lot, and have been very impressed by his skill and judgement. Will be an excellent admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Very strong support'''. Someone who can be trusted to rescue/improve as their first instinct.
'''Yup.'''.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCobaltbluetony&diff=200607761&oldid=200606134 Nice answers]!  I had already looked through your superb contribs, (and I'd seen you around anyway and had a postivite vibe).  You answered question 4 superbly, as I also detest the word "vandal".  Nail/Head/Hit.  Easy support.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. Seen him around. No apparent problems. --
'''Support''' per the nom and answers to questions. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|~いいですね?]]
'''Strong support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support'''. Per obvious qualifications and my trust of Rudget's nom.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' -- I needn't really say much here..brilliant user all round...very friendly....--
'''Support''' Thought he was one!
'''Strong support''' (Insert standard text here expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin). I've noticed this editor around a number of places on wikipedia -- judgement has always been good, and communication has always been excellent. No worries here.--
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support:'''  Seen him around, can definitely be trusted with the tools.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Strong Support'''.  Good editor.  I trust the nominator besides...<font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per nom, well-rounded candidate. <strong>
'''Support''' - per excellent nomination details and great answers to questions. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' -  should have the tools. &nbsp; '''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Strong Support''' Color me sentimental but [[User:Cobaltbluetony]] welcomed me to wikipedia and I've been watching his page ever since. His energy is astounding and though I've neither interacted with him and  nor have we edited the same articles, his discussion page is a model of fair comments without being wishy washy. No question that he'll make a great admin!--
'''Strong Support''' It is excellent to see in the answer to Q1 that the candidate plans to "work with new editors in helping them understand notability criteria". It's great to see someone who says specifically that they want to work with new editors, rather than just delete things.
'''Support'''. Impeccably trustworthy I think. I've scene him around and I've never had an issue with his judgement. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' Great editor, file under "though he was already an admin." <b>
'''Support''' on excellent potential. --
Rudget gave one of the best introductions to an RfA candidate in a long time and his answers so far have been excellent... I didn't have to spend too much time reviewing his edits to become convinced that Cobalt not only knows the policies but lives them.  Good luck.
'''Support''' - excellent answers to questions, great to see he wants to work with new users, mop-time for tony! Good luck! ♥
No big deal, and a Rudget endorsement that was close to some of my better ones :P ''
'''Support''', contributions seem solid enough, no evidence that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' have come across user often enough to base a positive judgment. Level headed - good admin material.
'''Support''' Looks like tony will make a great admin.
'''Supporting''' per a great nom and no evidence that he will be anything less then great. <b>
'''Support''' - definitely deserving.  I know it's a cliché, but I was surprised to learn he isn't already an admin.
'''Support''' - a good solid editor who is thoughtful and civil. No reason not to trust him with the tools. --
'''Support''' As per Rudget and Track is good.
And good answers.
'''Support''' Tony does a lot of good work here and would make an excellent admin.
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' - Excellent answers. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''iM'''<font color=#00ccff>'''at'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''th'''<font color=#00ccff>'''ew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, and I've seen him around here often enough that I can trust him.  --
'''Support''' '''[[User:TheProf07/Vandals|The]]
'''Support''' Yes. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the issue raised by the opposer and find it to be insubstantial.
'''Support''' A fine quality editor who has demonstrated the skills to be an excellent administrator. My only regret is that I have but one vote to stand opposite one of the most illegitimate excuses to oppose.
'''Support''' — per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen King (soccer)]]. CobaltBlueTony has the [[WP:IAR|common sense]] to get the job done, and is not keen on [[WP:WIKILAWYER|wikilawyering]]. He knows and understands policy and guidelines and will be a fine sysop.
'''Support''' - per answers to questions and [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. Good luck with the tools (though I'm sure you wont need it) :D. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - per wonderful nom by Rudget (like normal). Best of luck,
'''Support''' - He’ll make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' via ''prima facie'' <font face="terminal">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Just a little worried over the mainspace edits (only a third of all the edits) but fine anyway. <strong>
'''Support''' A no-brainer for me.
'''Support''' Hell yes. About time. -
'''Support'''. The opposition here is ''very'' unconvincing. That someone thinks the notability guideline leads to bad results if enforced with an iron fist and with no flexibility, and should be applied with some common sense is a good thing. Nothing in this candidate's record which does not indicate a responsible use of the tools.
'''Support''' Per nom. --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' a clear net positive to the project. Cheers,
'''Support''' after I got a short view over his work. ''
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support'''. Some well-researched articles on local history, and sensible statements without getting hung up on pseudo-procedure at the footy AfD. Glad to support.
'''Support''' Excellent editor. '''
'''Support''' I trust his judgement. --
'''Strong support''' due to the answers given; very concise.  Well done.  <font face="Verdana">

'''Support''' - no reason to believe this user will misuse the tools.  -
'''Support''' Although Tony and I don't see eye to eye sometimes at AfD I've always had an excellent experience hearing his input and considering his points. He is always thoughtful toward what he feels is best for the project and I think he will do well as an admin.--
'''Support''', trustworthy, excellent editor.
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
If Dweller vouches for him, he's trustworthy enough for me.
'''Support''' Dedicated and experienced user. Kudos to Rudget for the extensive, well detailed nom. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Based on this user's history, I am reasonably comfortable that extending the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in his judgment]] will not be abused. --
'''Support'''. A fine editor.
'''Support''' - I'm not concerned by the AfD because he is displaying rational judgement. Some may disagree with his view but his stance is not outrageous. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Good number of edits.  Seems like a[[WP:BOLD|bold]] editor.  See my question below.  Good luck! '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' The user is dedicated to help new contributors and not eager to delete, these are good qualities for an admin. Per nom too, <strong>
'''Support''' - Yes. --
'''Support''' Convinced by endorsements above. That, plus the truly weak rationale for the few opposes. I examined the afd in question and found him to be entirely reasonable.
'''Support''' There is no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', good edit history, excellent answers and seems to be fairminded.  Will make a good admin.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the comments made at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen King (soccer)]] (ignoring WP:BIO amongst other things) are a little worrying.
'''Oppose''' This is why it's 'worrying'.  It's long been established that sportsmen need to have made at least one appearance at the top or professional level to merit an article.  The King AfD shows that Cobaltbluetony is happy to ignore this long standing convention.  Were he to become an admin he'd have the power to act on this belief, in contravention of policies which nearly everyone else accepts.  Allowing American soccer players to have articles before they make an appearance opens the flood gates to having every wannabe player on a teams 'roster' everywhere in the world and for every sport.  This would be a terrible precedent.  Obviously all those voting in favour either do not understand the implications of this or think them unimportant.  If that's the case then fair enough, but it's also fair to raise this issue.  It's not simply a matter about disagreeing on a borderline case, it's about one man's wish to change a oft cited policy which will affect innumerable articles in the future.
'''Oppose''' sorry, but a wannabe admin should understand the current well-established guidelines instead to simply call [[WP:IAR]] with no justification. [[WP:IAR]] is policy but must be used reasonably, since it is not a [[Trump (card game)|trump card]]. --
'''Neutral''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANumber_57&diff=200862346&oldid=200851896 this comment] seems to show that the candidate seems to believe that AfD's can by judged by the !vote counting method, rather than an informed consideration of the issues. I would hate to see this candidate become yet another !vote counting AfD closer. I hope the candidate accepts that 100 !votes based on [[WP:ILIKEIT]] or [[WP:CRYSTAL]] should never outweigh one !vote based on policy guidelines. I will not oppose, because of the good track record and my assumption that the candidate will take note of my point.
'''Neutral''' - I'm a bit nervous about the [[WP:BIO]] issue. It's not enough to oppose, IMO, but it's tipped the balance away from support for me. I've got this on my watchlist, I may take another look at it in a day or two.
'''Neutral''' - I know I've definitely seen this editor around, and had a negative reaction to him - I think for using revert tools to re-prod articles. (I remember going to his homepage and thinking, admin hopeful, huh? Not if I have anything to say about it!) However, I've been unable to find the examples, and I don't feel it would be fair to oppose without something specific to point to. It was long enough ago that he may have changed his ways, anyway. I also think he's probably too deletionist for my taste, but I have to applaud him for showing common sense in the soccer player's AFD. --
'''Beat-the-nom support'''.  Superb candidate.  '''
'''Yup'''. All I needed to do was read your talkpage (and the nom/answers to questions above).  You have a very civil and friendly way of dealing with folks that post "zOMGs" to your talkpage.  You strike me as someone that is patient, and willing to work with most any editor, gently pointing them the right way, and gently rebuking even the vilest vandal/COI/Spammer.  I haven't run across you personally very often (if at all), but based on what I've seen, I believe you'll make a terrific admin. Happy to support, without hesitation.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Definitely'''.  I've seen Daniel's work around the 'pedia and have developed a respect for what he does.  <font  face="georgia">'''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Good answer to Q1.
'''Support''' - Good answer to question 1. Really. User wants to put the tools to good use at AfD, and combing through the contributions, I notice the candidate has a sound knowledge of policy and what determines consensus. Second, bravo about CSD. We all make mistakes there, and you shouldn't be blasted for it.
'''Weak Support''' weak more because of my laziness than your contributions.  (E.g. You appear to be fine, but I would have to do more homework to give you a full support and right now I'm too tired.)
'''Support''' I like the answer to question 1. Otherwise, I see no reason you'd abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' More than ready for the mop. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' Impressive answers, good use of [[WP:AGF]] and clearly very competent with things such as [[WP:AfD]] and the like. Good luck, happy editing and happy administrating. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' I am pleased with his coolness and calm manner on the talk pages. Think he will do just fine. -
'''support''' - sure thing <b>
'''Support''' - looks good, meets my standards.  Has an awfully boring user page for a design major. :-) No concerns.
No evidence that this editor will go on a rampage with the tools.  I hope that they reign in their deletionist tendencies, but that's not enugh for me to oppose.
'''Support''' - Seems to actually have participated in the realms they wish to contribute in. Would like to have seen more discussion, but no flags (outside of the [[WP:CDB]] bit which I'm sure they've read by now) go up about abusing the tools.
'''Support''' - Upon rereading the answer to question six I believe that this user is simply using the term "cool down block" to mean something subtly different than what is specifically disallowed by policy.  No other concerns have been brought up, and this is a good user. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Though with the sincere suggestion that the candidate talk with other admins before blocking (or speedy deletion, for that matter) his first few times. (I found it to be very helpful, myself, and still have the original advice saved to my computer for reference : ) - The concerns above (and below) may be legitimate, but (I think) this was within the realm of lack of experience, and which may be enhanced by a bit of "on-the-job-training", and not something that I see as a question of judgement or discernment. (Of course, as always, I hope I'm not proven wrong : ) -
'''Support'''. Seen around at the afd's, knows what he's doing. --'''''
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' - Great user with good experience with the project.
'''Support''' - seems to know what he is doing. Good range of contribs. ''Always'' use the edit summary! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support''' -- Per all of his answers! --
'''Support''' due to no negative interactions any other obvious problems.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate to be a admin! Good luck.--
'''Support''' Good AfD work.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LionEV&diff=prev&oldid=191694046] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jody_de_Ruiter&diff=prev&oldid=191692878] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prussian_Blue_%28duo%29&diff=prev&oldid=197141030] Seems like he knows what he's doing.--
'''Support''' helped me out numerous times and helped me get used to wikipedia. I'm actually surprised to learn that he is not an admin already.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have reviewed the opposers' rationales and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''': I've seen you around a lot... and I can say that I've never faulted your judgement. <small>
'''Support''' - Good answer to questions one and two. I trust you'll do well with the tools based on previous encounters. Nice nomination statement.
'''Support''' I love the answers to the Q1 and Q2.  You definitely will do good with the tools.  I wish you luck in the future!  Cheers,
'''Support''' per answer to question six. That persuades me to ignore the way this RfA was organized. ;) Good candidate anyways.
'''Sure'''.
'''Support'''. I find nothing at all wrong with this candidate after spending a day or so sifting through his contributions. I am actually a little bit disturbed at question six, but not at his answer - rather the fact that it had been asked at all. Are we resorting to trick questions to dispose of RfA candidates now? What's next week? "Under what circumstances is it appropriate to murder vandals?"
Opposes unconvincing. ''
'''Support''' Gee, people opposing on a trick question about cool down blocks. Big surprise. Always petty, but especially so here when used to oppose an obviously qualified candidate.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' Solid all-around editor, has a good understanding of how to help improve this project.
'''Support''' Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.--
'''Support''' per respect for nominator, levelheadedness of candidate, and the fact that the cool down block thing is totally played out.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' for generally good answers and understanding of the project,'''
'''Support''' Cool-headed in debates.  Will make a great admin. <font color="#9eee00">
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Candidate seems mature and balanced and I think he'll make a good admin. Good answers to the questions, which shows that he'll think things through and use his admin functions responsibly.
'''Support''' Per a general very good impression and understanding of the project, showed consideration in questions. <strong>
'''Support''' Uses real name, something I believe every admin should do
'''Support''' Well argued AFD contributions, should be fine at closing AFD discussions, will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''', would make a great admin.
The points raised by opposes are very weak and minor. So '''support'''
'''Support''' On question #6 he described a situation and a remedy, ''calling'' it a cool-down block and upsetting several, but the situation described - foul actions, warnings, continued foul actions, followed by a block - is actual practice and completely correct.  (I'm amazed at the misreadings.)  Seems otherwise reasonable in addition to simply telling it like it is.
'''Support''' Activity looks good, and I'm sympathetic for anyone given crap about seeing some value in never saying no to cool down blocks.--
'''Support''' Great answers to questions. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|~いいですね?]]
'''Support''', of course. I thought he was already an admin. Time to give him the mop.
'''Support'''.  Though the user admits to be sometimes quick to judge, he also admits that he recognizes it, and makes a point to think before editing/typing/etc.  This seems very reasonable.  --
'''Support''' Perfect for the job.
'''Support''' - probably better qualified to be an admin than I am.  <b>
Nothing wrong with this user. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Oppose''' All admin candidates should know that you never give out a [[WP:CDB{{!}}cool down block]].  <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Propose''' Prone to threats - likely to view adminship as a power trip
'''Very weak oppose''' - Per the candidate's answer to the question about [[WP:CDB|cool down blocks]]. <small>
Kind of wary of the editor's knowledge over some guidelines that I believe all admins should know.  Seems to be a good editor and understand other workings of Wikipedia, so for now I'll remain neutral. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' Seems soft on socks in #4. Unclear on cooldowns in #6, NPA is a policy that violations of should be blocked to stop further NPA.  #11 is a bit unclear to me.  But since he's looking to mainly do AFD, I'm still a bit torn. '''
'''Neutral''' User talk interaction is predominantly templates, and I as yet do not have a good understanding of how this editor would react in difficult situations with access to the bit, so I will demur for the time being. Perhaps I'll form a better opinion with more investigation. --
Pending answer to Stifle's excellent question.
'''Strong support''' - I trust the nominator fully, and I've seen Dank in many places. We're doing great in getting good candidates. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Support''' was sure he was one. Balloonman endorsement says it all... &ndash;
'''Support'''.  I've seen Dank around and trust him as an editor.  He says that he needs the tools to make him a more effective editor, and that's good enough for me.
'''Support''' I don't know much about this user, but like some of the above user's have said, if the nominator (Who I've seen around Wiki alot) supports him that's good enough for me. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support'''Over 11,000 edits, clean block log, and looking at talk and contribs I see an editor with clue and of high quality. You'll do well. '''
Unlike above, I don't give a crap to whom the nominator is. But I know that Dank will not abuse my trust. ~<strong>'''''the''
'''Support''' per self-proclaimed need for the tools + his rationale for needing tools seems sensible + no indication that he will abuse them/long history to back this up + nomination by someone with a history of good judgment in nominating future admins so I can be lazy and not to an in-depth investigation. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC).  PS:  Unlike Editorofthewiki I do not know the candidate well enough to categorically say he won't abuse my trust, only that by all appearances he won't. I have to rely on reputable people to stand up for him or spend a good hour investigating his history.  Thanks to Balloonman's nomination, I can be lazy and just spot-check his history.
'''Support''' civil, (friendly even!) at FAC. Clearly he will make good use of the tools and he has my full support.
'''Support''' I've enjoyed recent extremly positive interaction with the candidate. Lack of deletion work is neither here nor there when someone is focussed on creating stuff rather than getting rid of it, which is what I see. Net positive with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Another awesome candidate! &mdash;'''
'''Support'''. His edits on contentious articles like [[Cold fusion]] have been nothing short of exemplary. We need more level-headed admins, even if they can't recite the [[WP:NFCC]] criteria in their sleep.
'''Support''' - A long string of excellent candidates in a row, and it shows no sign of stopping. Candidate has clue, has need for the tools, and knows policy. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' - I'm glad I can support one of my peers who has contributed a lot to [[WP:ROBO|WikiProject Robotics]].  Dan is a very kind and friendly individual who likes to collaborate towards different articles, even creating a task force of his own.  I enjoyed his contributions to the project and I would be honored to support his nomination for RfA.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Support''' - I wrote four FAs with Dan's help. For two of them he was the main copy editor and co-nominator. I don't think I would have been able to do it without his assistance. Dan has a thorough knowledge of the MOS, Wikipedia policy in content, and is very conscientious in his editing. He would make an excellent admin.  --
Absolutely. Well-rounded and experienced. Should make a terrific administrator.
Sure. No obvious issues and seems well-qualified.
(ec)Without a shadow of a doubt. Calm, dogged and fair. Helped to make WP 0.7 happen--period. I've dealt with Dan on a few GA and FA articles (including one where he swooped in unsolicited and devoted hours of time to a peer review and a copy edit) ''and'' I've seen him in disputes over heated issues. In both cases he handled disagreement and dispute with aplomb. Perfect for the bit.
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --
'''Support.'''  No doubts that Dank55 will be a mop corps asset.  —
'''Support.''' Lots of quality edits, no concerns.  Let's keep this happy rfa bus rolling! <b>'''
'''Support'''. Patient, polite, and helpful. --

We have had a run at really good candidates here lately (plus a lot of the serial opposers are not here, so that helps too). '''Support''' for a great candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no reason not to. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Has clue, will travel.
'''Strong support'''.  An excellent editor along the lines described by Moni and Protonk.  (As an aside I'm getting bored of reading commentary about nominators of any sort whatsoever.) --
'''Support''' - [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]].
'''Support''' Dank is a great contributor to Wikipedia. He is also an excellent reviewer who works both in GA and FA areas. He may not have much experience in XFD, but the only question that is pertinent to this discussion is "Can Dank55 be trusted with tools?" My answer is '''yes'''. Therefore I support him.
'''Oppose''' I am against him on the general principle that we have too many good candidates this month already, it screws up the statistics...just kidding, '''Support''' of course ;-) '''
'''Support''' - the [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]] is strong with this one. //
'''Support''' - Solid contributor --'''
I am the eggman...they are the eggmen...I am...in the wrong queue. (Sorry, I thought this was ''[[Magical Mystery Tour]]''.)  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a candidate who is clearly in tune with the project. And as we say in walrus-talk: goo goo g'joob!
'''Support''' - Thought he already was an admin. —
'''Support''' - Seen him around FAC, always impressed with his work and dedication to Wikipedia.  He is certainly trusted not to misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I can trust Balloonman's nomination!
'''Support''' has enough of a clue to be trusted.
'''Strong Support'''.  I actually came pretty close to opposing this RfA before deciding to strong support.  I looked at this RfA and the first thing I noticed was a lack of patrol-based edits, and I thought that I might not be able to support this.  The next thing I noticed was the low XfD participation and I was almost sure that I would actually oppose this RfA.  Usually in cases when I see a low amount of participation in the projectspace and I don't see much of a chance for supporting, I look extra closelyat the candidate's answer to question 1 to see what areas they want to go into.  This is where the tables started turning and I thought I could possibly support you.  From what I saw, you had a genuine need for the tools that would not end up harming the encyclopedia because of your experience levels in the projectspace.  Reading through the next few questions and your answers, I started to realize that you were an exceptional candidate.  Your answer to question eight shows how you have dealt with delicate editing problems on [[Robot]] with skill and tact that most vandal-fighters can only dream of.  In this process, my !vote went from a potential oppose to a strong support.  I've realized that Ballonman's statement in his nomination ("In all honesty, this candidate has it all, and from what I've seen is probably the strongest admin candidates that I've ever nominated!") is true, and I'll be proud to work with you as an admin.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' His GA reviews are thoughtful and constructive, as this one [[Talk:Suitport/GA1|recent example]] illustrates. They are a pleasure to read. I am hard pressed to find an instance of careless writing, so I am confident that I do not have to worry much about his careless use of tools. Take care.
'''Support''' A great editor, although he did once give a barnstar for "outstanding clarity and research leading to a substantial and helpful change in a core content policy," for an edit which lasted for less than 24 hours on the policy page i think, but i still have the barnstar!
'''Support'''; my outstanding concerns have been alleviated.
'''+S'''. Feel free to copy/paste positive comments from previous Supports <'''here'''>. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Support''' Good article contributions, otherwise trustworthy. --
'''Support''' A very good well-rounded candidate.
'''Enthusiastic support'''. Dank is an editor whose head and heart are in the right place. All my interactions with him indicate to me that his first priority is making Wikipedia the best free encyclopedia it can be and ensuring the world has access to it (hence his dedication to WP1.0). He's not here to promote a viewpoint on a particular issue, or to garner barnstars, featured stars and kudos. He's here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and a better place to contribute. We need more admins of this ilk. My only criticism is that he tends to be rather verbose on talk pages, but that's probably the pot calling the kettle black :-) ''
'''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''', he has extensive experience with policy and content writing. Interactions with him have been positive. No major issues. I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' ''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Net Positive. - <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. I've worked with Dan extensively as a part of [[WP:ROBO]], and Dan has been a tremendous help to both the project and myself. I'm confident that Dan will be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' Seems mop worthy
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. To the opposer's point, I find it it unrealistic to expect candidates to have robust experience in every administrator area.
'''WOW I created this user!'''<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=SQL&page=User%3ADank55&year=&month=-1 1]</sup>. Srsly tho, I considered nominating him before, then got lazy... Looks like this user is still doing great to me.
'''Support''' Only just bumped into him, but I've been very impressed with his calmness and clearheadedness in a discussion that otherwise could easily have gotten quite heated indeed.
'''Support'''. A user that is knowledgable in many areas, [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] will be an exellent addition to the admin group.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' Well experienced user. Has every qualification to work in the areas he has mentioned, in my opinion.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Seems intelligent enough. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' ticks all the boxes (in a good way); per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' I have always been happy to see Dank55 around science articles and policies. Spot checking a few months of contributions reveals a broad range of interests and suggests a clarity of thought that is not limited to some core area of competency, but is a general feature. -
'''Support'''. Net positive.
'''Strong support''' Well endowed with clue and excellent handling of tough situations. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
Probably unnecessary '''support''' at this late stage, but I'm glad I caught this RfA anyway. I've run across Dan at GA, FA and elsewhere, and been impressed with his energy and dedication to improving the quality of our encyclopedia. He's clueful, trustworthy and refreshingly positive ;)
'''Support''' Yes '''
--
'''Support''' — I swore I thought I !voted my support, but maybe that was another candidate. Solid contributor. <font color="#063">
'''Support''' for this clueful candidate, whose work I've seen. Actually would have guessed Dan was an admin already. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Solid candidate with a good manner who will be an asset with the tools. Incidentally, when I became an admin in early 2007, I didn't have a single edit in AIV and had never patrolled. Never really hurt me when I did get to vandal whacking though - and that sort of work doesn't prepare one for the real trolls and nasties who are a far greater danger to the project anyway. Good luck.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]]; the opposing discussion does not convince me of any concerns.
'''Support''' - Per Q1, Dank55 needs/could make use of the tools. There's nothing to indicate that he will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Agree with Orderinchaos, I had minimal AIV work when I got the sysop bit, and it won't be much of a hindrance if you take baby steps at first.
Good user.
'''Support'''-Nice, scattered contributions; I see no problem with [[WP:ADMIN|handing over the mop for cleanup]]. Cheers. '''
'''Support''' No worries - I see him around a lot, with thoughtful contributions.
'''Support''' I first noticed Dan when he posted a thoughtful—if typically long-winded :)—note at AN about the difficulties in recruiting and retaining science-minded editors. Over time, I have seen him cheerfully contribute in many areas, including the ever-contentious FAC and MOS, with minimal mis-steps. He is competent and clueful, and I trust that he would be careful with the tools.
'''Support''' Seems capable and an able candidate...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per discussion in the oppose section below.
'''Support''': Well, this is a season of successful RFAs, any more takers ? I find you as a helpful and trustworthy person and I see no problems in awarding some more buttons. --
'''Support''' - I honestly thought that you were one. Honestly. ...but its not like my vote matters now, though, so let me be the first to say "''congratulations''"! :) —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''' After very careful consideration the user has been around since Dec 2007 and has over 2000 or only 18% are mainspace edits [http://stable.toolserver.org/editcount/result?username=Dank55&projectname=enwiki&showgraphs=2d] out of 11000,No images uploaded,No patroling,XFD and little article creation [http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php?user=Dank55].I was wondering  ,But the fact [[user:Balloonman]] whose judgement i respect a lot nomed him made me think .The answer the user gave to question 1 and the fact the user has contributed positively to Wikipedia by helping another user build articles for FA and GA and after looking his contributions very carefully felt his getting  tools will only contribute to the Project .I see no concerns of misuse of tools as per track.
'''Support'''.  I've seen many examples of Dan's dedication to the project, and I am confident that he has a good understanding of most WP policies and is willing and able to learn those that he is not comfortable with at the moment.  He is one of the most unfailing polite editors I've interacted with, and I think that he will make good use of the tools in the areas he has indicated.
'''Support'''. How can I forget to drop-by and !vote?
'''Strong Support'''. No concerns over misuse of tools, and deserves the mop. :) --'''
'''Obvious Support'''. Why ever not? He seems like he is an admin already.
'''Support''' Per the nom---'''
'''Oppose'''. I don't think that Dank55 has the clarity of thought or the intellectual consistency desirable in an administrator, and gets too caught up in "the really, really important issues of the day". --
'''Neutral''', still not quite comfortable with the idea that BLP issues would be taken straight to the controversial "special enforcement" setup, but I'm impressed with the candidate's cool under fire, and we need more like that.
'''Support''' [[User:Davidgothberg|Davidgothberg's]] excellent work with the recent [[Wikipedia:ClickFix]] problem, in which he quickly produced the {{tl|px}} template fix, demostrates why he should be an Admin. He was unable to add it to several templates because they were editprotected, and he is now unable to directly maintain it because the template itself is now editprotected! I had this page on my watchlist so I would not miss this RfA if it ever came up (Is this too early to support? This is the 1st one of these I have supported!).
'''''Co-nom'' Support''' - I initially was thinking of nominating David myself; <s>I may yet add a co-nom</s> (''done, second co-nom''). His work in templates is really great; I'm currently working with him on {{[[Template:pp-meta|pp-meta]]}} and have done a bunch of {{[[Template:editprotected|editprotected]]}}s for him, and he has my confidence through that. Yes, he'll be a specialist, but the need is justified and the trust, I think, is there.
'''Support''' - As per my co-nom (sorry Nihiltres, I had previously so offered this, but you're welcome to be a 2nd co-nom !). Has a need, the considered care in what he would do with a mop tool, the courtesy that we expect of those granted additional powers and certainly my trust not to misuse the other implements in the broom cupboard.
'''''Nom'' support''' - One of the most resourceful template coders I've met on Wikipedia.  Certainly he deserves never to see [[MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext]] again. <font color="forestgreen">
'''Support'''<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' I have to say some of the headings on your talk page made me a little worried. I've investigated, quite thoroughly, and there is in fact no concerns. None at all. Specialised reasons for needing the bit, but no concerns at all on accidental misuse - you are clearly a supremly competent coder, and your work here has been incredibly beneficial to WP. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. An experienced and trustworthy user with very clear reasons to be an admin.
'''Support''' My reason for supporting is encoded in the following message: "V fgebatyl fhccbeg gur rkvfgrapr bs fcrpvnyvfg nqzvaf naq jubyyl erwrpg gur arrq sbe jryy ebhaqrqarff".
'''Support'''.  Looks like a good future admin to me.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''weak support''' and the primary reason why this is weak support is because I'm too lazy right now to do my homework right now... I like what I see, but before giving full support I'd have to review you closer.
'''Support''' I've followed up at least some of what Pedro is referring to above, and see no problems either.  And obviously giving you access to edit protected templates is a huge net positive.  Good luck as an admin!
'''Absolutely'''.  Without question or hesitation. Specialists welcome! <small>backs away slowly in awe of your work and dedication...</small>  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. Strong technical user. Definite benefits of letting him have his own mop and not having to bother others for theirs.
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' A trustworthy and knowledgeable user. As Wikipedia becomes ever larger and labyrinthine, then Admin specialization will become a necessity.
'''Support''' - I used to view the absence of admin related areas as an absolute detriment to the candidate, however, after considerable mulling and understanding where and how the user wishes to use the tools (along with trust), I feel there shouldn't be a problem. I still would have liked to at least seen [[WP:AIV]], but I'm going with my gut here.
'''Absolutely''' The candidate's answers to questions show him to be thoughtful, honest, and trustworthy. Based on his template work I'd say he's less likely to abuse the tools than he is to improve them. <font color="006622">
'''Support'''. Agree all little admins need not do all admin tasks. Little David do templates, 'Zilla do rest!
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support'''. Will not block good-faith contributors without prior discussion, and will not protect pages just becuase he doesn't think they should be edited: good enough for me!  &#10154;
'''Support''' - While there are areas that need improvement (such as [[WP:AIV]], which he has a litt under 4 edits to) I think that he can be trusted with the tools, and will ask when he is unsure whether to use them or not. (Changed from oppose)
'''Support''' don't see any cause for concern in the users conduct or in the opposes listed below.
'''Support''' - is civil, can be trusted with the tools & will be a valuable administrator in chosen area ([[CAT:EP]]). --
'''Support''' - I believe adminship is for all trustworthy and proved editors. The fact that he doesn't have much administrative activity record should not be held against the candidate.
'''Support''' Gee, sounds like you can't go wrong here. A very qualified editor, working in a specialized area who needs admin access to continue working. Even the self-assessment of probably not being a ''well-rounded admin'' is reassuring, as it only reinforces the impression that this candidate knows what he is doing, and wants to contribute at a higher level than what ''normal'' registered users have.
Provided the Q1 answer is honest, and I have no reason to believe it isn't. ''
'''Support''' as above by the guy from whom I took the code for my signature-> <small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' Will make good use of the tools. --'''
'''Support''' - excellent reasons for having the tools. I trust this user to know his limits and to test the waters carefully when trying admin functions.
'''Support''', solid candidate, obvious need for the tools (well, one of them, anyway), and no reason to believe that he's abuse the tools if they were given to him.
'''Support''', asset to the 'pedia. Cheers,
'''Support''' Certainly needs some of the tools, and will use them right for what he wants to do. I furthermore have confidence based on his general experience that he he wants to try working elsewhere, he will do so carefully and be an asset to us there also. '''
'''Support''' User will make good use of tools. <font color="green">[[User:Vivio Testarossa|Vivio<font color="red"> Testa<font color="blue">rossa]]</font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:Vivio Testarossa|Talk]]
Needs a little bit of work, but has the basics for an administrator hopeful. David seems well acquainted with the responsibility of the tools and may use this RFA as a learning curve for future, potential work.
'''Support''' valuable and committed contributor.
'''Support''' Solid. Trustworthy. Careful. Honest. So what if his use of admin tools will be narrow initially... <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support'''. I've found David's work on [[Wikipedia:Line break handling]] particularly helpful and have recently become aware of his ambox contribution. I suspect I have but a limited appreciation of his work thus far and I'm wondering where next I'll find some constructive presentation-enhancing work in which he's played a significant if not seminal role. I've no doubt that whatever administrative privileges he finds himself using -- regardless of whether they're many or few -- will be used well.
'''Support''' Has been around since Sept 2004.No concerns as per misuse of tools.
'''Weak Support''' In this users long "career" here he has shown no signs that he will abuse the tools. That is my main reason for supporting him. I do see the fact that he is not experienced in admin areas as a concern, but when a user has not other problems then it is not enough for me not to support him. Good luck!--
'''Support''' excellent user. <strong>
'''Support''' - I don't see anything to say that he will abuse the tools. The lack of experience in the usual admin areas would normally be a concern, but his trustworthiness and stellar work in the template space show a clear need for the tools. I trust, also, that he will not get in over his head, and that he will ease into use of the tools in other areas slowly; he does have good judgment.
'''Support''' Completely agree with Pedro in the discussion section. This is a specialized candidate who can only benefit from gaining the tools; his work thus far has been more than exceptional. I feel confident with his overall knowledge, and suspect that he will not take any actions that he feels are out of his range without asking for help.
'''Support''' User seems worthy of [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community trust]] --
'''Support''' His need for the tools is obvious, and it seems clear that he has no intention of participating in the areas he doesn't fully understand without taking the time to learn about them first.--
'''Strong support''' For a coding specialist those are some really well thought out answers! '''
'''Support''' He is trustworthy. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Good luck and great work.
'''Support''', like the answer to my question.
'''Support'''. Normally I'd like to see a few more edits, but after reading the answers to the questions and Davidgothberg's talk page, I have no worries about the mop. I'd love to see more admins who are so committed to reading instructions before acting! :) --
'''Support''', I can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. An extraordinarily capable Wikipedian who will put the tools to judicious use. Not the slightest risk in this case.–<font color="blue"><sub><big><big>'''[[User_talk:Noetica |⊥]]'''</big></big></sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup>N<small>oetica!</small></font><sup>
'''Support''': Sure. --
'''Weak Support''' pending users keeps his/her word and will not participate in unfamiliar areas without requesting help from an expierenced admin. Good luck [[User:Davidgothberg|Davidgothberg]]. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Of course. —
'''Support''' Absolutely no concerns here.
'''Support''' for a good person. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative experiences with candidate.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
&mdash;
'''Support''' He's done great work on templates and will be a trustworthy admin.  --
'''Support''' - great work on English wikipedia.  I can't vouch for his personal web page.
'''Support''' - looks ok to me. I can see that this candidate has a real need for the sysop bit in dealing with high-risk templates which have been fully protected, etc. IMO, there's nothing wrong with highly specialised admins and AIV work is absolutely not a prerequisite to adminship. S/he will be just fine ;) -
'''Support'''.  Excellent example of a 'non-standard' Admin candidate.
Seen him around, good user.
'''Support''' - no-matter which area Davidgothberg specialises in, I'm sure he will be a good admin. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I've seem him around. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' In short, somewhat mixed. I can see the argument in favour of giving greater reign in the area of updating and handling protected templates. David is someone you want on a technical project, someone you can trust in his own spear, a productive work horse and likable person. Take him out of his comfort zone, give him something new especially none techy and my impression is that he would struggle. Still you require a whole mixture of people in an admin team and without knowing what is really required in the mix of admins(someone send me info please) then I support this request for admin.
All signs point towards a great admin in the making! I'm glad to '''support'''. '''
Of course.
'''Heck Yeah Support'''
'''Shell-Shocked Support''' This guy '''''created''''' ambox??!!! <small>Also, he's a great editor. ;)</small> <font color="#3300ff">
'''Strong oppose''' I do not have anything against this user, he/she has made substantial contributions to wikipedia. However, I fail to see this users need for the admin tools. S/he has virtually no edits in admin-related tasks (AIV!!!). Surely someone wanting to become an admin should test the tools from a non-admin perspective first? --
Probably trustworthy, but I'm afraid I can't support candidates without admin related experience.
'''Neutral'''. Without the massive weight of the nominators, I would probably oppose. Clearly the user is skilled, has been around the Wikiblock, and is trustworthy. However, with the attention we give to policy knowledge on other RfAs, I'm not sure why people are overlooking it on this one. Having to look up the ban/block question? Sigh. I just think that a few days of policy study prior to this RfA would have made a prime candidate. That said, the answer to Q3 was spot-on.
'''Beat the Nommie Support ''' - - Yeah !!! ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Wizardman has gone RfA-mad again... &mdash;
'''Double edit-conflict support''': I guess that says something abotu this candidate.
'''Support'''. Has a good record record as a contributor to articles including a number of featured articles.
'''Support'''. A good editor, always helpful to other users.
'''Support'''. Definitely support. Should have been picked a long time ago. --
'''Support'''.  Great user.  '''
'''Support'''.  An excellent encyclopedist!  [[House with Chimaeras]] was a wonderful [[WP:TFA]].  Молодец! :) --
'''Support'''.  Good Choice
'''Support''' deserves it more than anyone.
'''Support''', an outstanding editor. His constructive attitude is far and beyond any that I have ever seen. To my knowledge, he is more than familiar with all the guidelines, and constantly applies them. I honestly do not expect to see a single, heartfelt oppose. <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' Mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' per Wizardman
'''Support''' per Wizardman and track.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine]]. <strong>
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support''' great editor, I will fully trust with the tools.

'''Support.''' Per the nom, will use the tools well.  Great content contributor.
'''Support''' per nom. A good user, IMHO ready for administrative tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. About time! Skilled user who started many fine articles about Ukrainian topics. Wikipedia would only benefit from his adminship. -
'''Support'''. The candidate is a rock-solid contributor and appears to understand policy. DDima should prove a good admin.
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Per the experience, relatively good answers, good involvement in Wiki-pages. No problem here.--
'''Support''' Seems like a very strong candidate.  Impressive.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions.
'''Support''' without hesitation. A very productive, very balanced user who has always managed to stay calm in a contentious area (Eastern Europe topics).
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support'''.  A hard-worker, gives constructive comments, and most of all helps those of us who are less-savvy with the html-thing.--
'''Support'''.  Very useful to have around and gave good answers to questions.  --
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' - looks like he has great potential as an admin.
Good candidate and nominator.
'''Support'''.  Strong, experienced candidate.
'''Support''', looks good! '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''''
'''Support''' I see no problems.
'''Support''' I liked what I saw of the editor's contributions to the project. --
Finally. ''
Why the hell not? '''
Per the previous two. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Most highest support possible''' - I have known Ddstretch for a while through WP:Derbys, and he can only use the mop for good! '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support''' A [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] and then some. Mature, educated, civil dedicated wikipedian. A pleasure to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I belive you won't abuse the tools. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I have some reservations, but a net positive.
'''Support'''. Generally, a solid contributor, and an editor who has demonstrated a readiness for the sysop tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' without reservation. --
'''Support''' A review of the contributions indicates nothing of concern.  Impressed by attitude to conflict
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' While it may be hard to point to a single reason why I would support, I can't really find any reason why I wouldn't support. I see no issues with the candidate having the extra buttons.
'''support'''
'''Support''' - Indeed. Net positive per Pedro.
<small>'''
'''Nominator'''. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''; appears to be a good candidate with solid contributions. No reservations about this editor or his use of the tools.
<span class="plainlinks">'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddstretch&diff=next&oldid=202800615 Support]'''</span>. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">

'''Support''' What a pleasure to find out that Ddstretch is even more dedicated and more collaboration-prone than I knew.  Full support. - Dan
'''Support''' -- Brilliant wikipedian. Whole-hearted support. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - Looks good to me.  --
'''Strong Support''' (provided he still has time and energy for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire|WikiProject Cheshire]]!)
'''Support''' – Excellent candidate [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]].  Now this is what I am talking about!  Great edit count that shows Article building rather than just vandal fighting.  Time with the project, coming up on two years – [[WP:Civil|Civil]] but no push over, at least through the talk pages I reviewed.  Had some disagreements, but no real conflicts, at least on his part, that I can tell.  Best of luck to you.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. I can't find anything even remotely negative.
'''support''' fantastically helpfull!!!(
'''Support'''. No problem here.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' good editor.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' for the good of Wikipedia. '''''
'''Support''' Three cheers and a tiger for this excellent candidate!
<big>
'''Support''' Very impressive.
'''Support''' Capable of listening and self-criticism even in situations of disagreement. Won't throw around his weight any differently just because of a shiny new sysop badge. Certainly won't abuse tools. Explained how he could be more effective with tools. Good editor, good judgment. Should receive tools. ---
'''Support''' per Sluzzelin - capability of humility and open-mindedness is perhaps the most valuable human quality. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Appears unlikely to run amok with the buttons.
'''Support.'''
Totally!--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I don't see how this user would abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' Good editor.'''<span style="border: 3px black solid;background:black;font-family:garamond"><font color="white">RE</font>
'''Support''' Have seen nothing at all to doubt this candidate's commitment and competence. --
'''Uber Support''' An admirable candidate
'''Support.'''  Has what it takes to admin with the best.   —
'''Support'''.  Will make an excellent administrator. Cheshire represent!
'''Support''' Yes yes yes! I thought Stretchy was already an admin.
'''Support''', WP:50.
'''Support''' An editor who isn't addicted to talk pages but gets things done.
'''Support''' This candidate is an exceptional candidate.  I support him per the answers to Q2, Q3, and most of the questions that I asked.  Most of the questions that I asked were geared towards policies that are relevant to administrators, and DDstretch answered every single question impressively and with a lot of thought.  This means that he would not just ''leap before looking'' when he is deleting a page or closing an AfD.  He will give each block and each protection and each deletion a lot of thought and his full attention before he goes through with it, and he will do it correctly.  I have complete faith that this user will do the job right the first time.
'''Support''' [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Aye'''. <b>
'''Hurrah''' From personal experience, a good and thoughtful contributor to Wikipedia. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' I've noticed you doing a lot of good work, and you seem to have a good grip of policy from the questions above.
'''Support''' Yep, meets my lenghty, edit count, and demeanor reqs. '''
'''Support''' clear net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - I am impressed. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' we've not always agreed onarticle content, but discussions have always been civil and constructive.  no reason not to.
'''Support''' Solid contributor, mature comments to AfD debates I have been involved in and meets my criteria.
'''Support''' - most definitely. Good contribution record - and the essential ability to herd cats in the same general direction. Answers to questions demonstrate a good grasp of policy.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I've had nothing but good experiences with this editor. --
'''Support'''--per Sticky Parkin, Black Kite, and Sheffield Steel, because I always see them making sensible comments on AN/I and elsewhere, and trust their judgement. -
'''Support''' — No concerns.
'''Support''' Don't like all the answers above, but don't see any important concerns either. From what I'm able to gather this user is the right kinda guy for adminship.
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Regards, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''', no evidence that this user would maliciously abuse the tools.
'''Support''' We have 'met' on only a very few occasions including [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place|this wretched discussion]]. I can't fault your civility or open-mindedness during the debate and I have little doubt that you are a fine editor and are likely to make a good sysop.
'''Strong Support''' I received a huge amount of support and guidance from this editor in my quest for a little bronze Featured Article star. He provided not only helpful suggestions, but a great deal of practical help as well. I would definitely give him my support as an administrator.--'''
'''Weak Support''' This user has a good 9K edits, however 1K of them are just user talk. It is a little decieving. However, good luck.
'''Support''', trust the nom and no compelling reason not to. user talk edits indicate that the user values the collaborative process.
'''Support'''. A fine candidate. No red flags. ''Net positive''. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''' An excellent editor, and should make an equally good admin. I do not see the diffs in the oppose section as representing anything other than civility. '''
'''Support'''  By far the strongest answer to my optional question from any candidate that I have posed it to thus far.  Doesn't look too much like you'll need it, but good luck!  --
'''Support''' Considering the well thought out and lengthy comments Ddstretch usually seems to make, I'm surprised that there are so many brief support comments. I've observed that Ddstretch is a knowledgeable and thoughtful editor, one who I am certainly will use the admin tools wisely.
'''Support''' Quality contributions, thoughtful comments. No reason to oppose. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support''' - top quality contributions, no concerns over interactions, patient answers to adminship questions.
'''Support''' per Warofdreams. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support''': User around for a long time. Contributor. Steady editing. Thoughtful. Actually barely needs the admin tools...But no reason to believe in any risks in giving the buttons too. 1.2 K user page edits ! Wow ! Still never wrote on my page ?? OK. You can leave a RFA-Thanks spam soon... ;) Keep up the good work in wikipedia. --
'''Strong Support''' per noms and especially due to question 5a.  That answer should be in a guideline somewhere.  It illustrates the differences perfectly!  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': Following clarification on quality of interaction and ability to work with others. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Support'''.  Wow.  From what I read above, this individual is already a better administrator than I am.  I look forward to learning from what will doubtless be good examples.
'''Neutral''' (modified from '''oppose''').   It seems I may be in a minority here, but I need to express a slightly contrary view....  My experience of Ddstretch is generally in line with what others have said. Without question, he is conscientious, civil, and a major contributor of excellent articles and improvements.  But I'm not sure that would make him a good ''administrator''.  His background is in academia - nothing wrong in that, but it can generate a particular sort of mind set that only the best, the most perfectly justified, the most precisely argued, is good enough.  Anything else is less than the perfection he seeks.  My specific experience followed my making a small edit (informative and interesting, I thought) which he reverted as being not in accordance with guidelines.  Nothing wrong with what he wanted to achieve, but I question how he did it, and how he would deal with similar issues in future.  Rather than showing flexibility and a light touch over what was, in essence, a small disagreement, Ddstretch escalated the issue by raising it on various talk pages and contributing ever lengthier and more precisely argued paragraphs to justify his position.  His view was not "wrong" - we all need rules - just mildly inappropriate for the messy and imperfect world in which the great majority of Wikipedia contributors live.  I worry that he would not have the occasionally necessary lightness of touch, or the correct tone, in dealing with well-meaning but less precise or academically qualified editors, and that this would discourage, rather than encourage, many potential contributors whose involvement would benefit Wikipedia.  <s>So, I must reluctantly '''oppose'''.</s>
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Great encyclopedia builder and a good member of the community.
'''Support'''. Looks like an excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Tons of experience; fixed his edit summary usage. A fellow mainspace contributor. What more could I want? Nothing. In fact, my support even comes with a free subscription to ''[[WP:SIGN|The Signpost]]''.
Support without reservation. A great encyclopedia builder. --
'''<span style="color:green">Support</span>'''.  The green color is just to mix things up a bit! =)  Good editor, deserves the mop.  <font  face="georgia">'''
Great editor. PS- why are you guys writing ''support'' in your votes? We're under the ''support'' section.
Well, I would do, wouldn't I?
'''Support''' - The user definitely has the experience and would make a great admin, or at least it is extremely likely that he will.
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Dwire&curid=15959431&diff=194141331&oldid=194114336 this] edit.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''SUPPORT''': After looking through his history (20,777 edits, with 13,323 in the mainspace), several archived userpages (mild disagreements at worst), 4 featured articles, and apparent trust of the community, I would say that the admin mop has been overdue. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Since there's some opposition, I bothered to profile this editor for 10 minutes. I see nothing wrong with him. His credentials are far in excess of what's needed to become an administrator.  He changed his answer to the question about cool-down blocks, so I think he knows what the policy is.  Let's give him a chance to make mistakes, and if he makes mistakes, we'll worry about it then.
'''Support''' Trust not to abuse tools. -
'''Support''' Have had good experiences with this editor. Feel he has a good grasp of the relevant policies in the areas where I've seen him work, and understands the culture of WP. I think he'll be a good addition to the team (I already consider him a valuable member of the team, actually). - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support.''' Seems like a good candidate.
AGF, has learned lesson on cool down blocks and will never issue one. 4FAs move me from neutral (strongly...) ''
'''Support'''
Support per nom.
'''Support''' - incredibly knowledgeable editor in a number of areas and would put this to good use as a sysop.  I've found him always willing to explain issues and be helpful.  He does spend far too much time in WP than is good for him, but that's WP's gain.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''.  The Deacon is very knowledgeable and adding the admin tools will make him able to contribute to Wikipedia.  I am slightly concerned that he'll be diverted into admin tasks when he might be more valuable as an article editor, but that's his choice.  I have thought about the civility concerns, and looked at some recent interactions of his, and I think he is blunt and sometimes not particularly tactful.  I'd urge him to err on the side of tact in the future.
'''Support''' Excellent editor would make a fine admin --
'''Support''' per answer to 7 and ''revised'' answer to 8. —
'''Ditto''' (not putting "support" down for reasons above. :) ). The Deacon has written many intelligent and worthwhile entries, well referenced, and highly informative and I also think that he will apply some common sense to some of the more stupid aspects of wikipedia too! --
He is quite clearly a great content editor. There are very slight civility concerns but I think here [[Talk:Kiev#Requested_move]], he conducted himself very well under the circumstances despite being baited; and I support despite  [[Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move February 2008|here]] some pro-soccer bias perhaps ;). No, seriously, I give my '''strong support'''.
'''Support''' – 20,760 edits – 3.28 average edits per page, which means to me article building – 1 very minimal civility concern, from what I can see or gather,  equals '''strong support'''.  Good Luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Perfect edit summary usage, and a nice editor overall. -
'''per water'''
'''Support''' - I've noticed the positive contributions of this user before. Should have been an admin long ago. --
'''Support''' per answers to questions. Even the one he got wrong, which wasn't terribly wrong, and he corrected it anyway.
'''Support''' great nomination. Strong editor with a proven track record. <b>
'''Support''' Shows good judgement. Proven experience.<big>'''
'''Support''' More article building admins are always welcome.  Employing AGF, I don't really see enough in the opposes not to support. <b>
'''Goodness Gracious Me Support''' - A '''prolific''' content contributor, will be a strong asset to our project. --<font color="2B7A2B">

'''Support''' - I don't think I have ever voted in one of these Rfa thingies before (when Deacon mentioned on my Talk yesterday that he was in an "Rfa" I misread it and thought that it meant "Request for Comment" and that he had been brought before the [[Rector#Scotland|Rector]] to receive the [[tawse]]). Anyway, I will probably not be voting again in these daft popularity contests, because I don't have much time for Admins as a species, a few of whom are downright scoundrels in my opinion. Like Calgacus/Deacon I myself have the very Scottish cultural trait of saying exactly what I think. I don't know about other people, but we Scots tend to trust a straight-talker, and be very wary indeed of sweet-talkers, who can turn out to be the worst type of venemous serpent. Deacon is ''not'' a "sweet-talker". But what he is is incredibly intelligent and hard-working. He is a total brainbox, and I know it sounds snobbish, but encyclopaedias ''ought'' to be written by, and run by, total Tefal-heads. I hope Deacon gets this, and I hope that he may even become a classic Rouge Admin in time - they are about the best type of Admin (I just read [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc Glasgow's User page]] a few days ago - made me laugh). Lord preserve us from the thickies!--
'''Support'''.  Seems trustworthy. --
'''Support''' Considering the qualifications in the answer, I think the statement he made in his original answer about cool-down blocks comes very close to the actual use of the policy: officially, never, in practice, under exceptional circumstances. (when we do, as I see it, we generally call it a block to prevent further disruption--the difference can be just a choice of words). I think he'd do as I--almost never consider it necessary to block except for blatant & continuing problems. '''
'''Support'''
'''support''' There are civility concerns but overall I don't think that Deacon would either abuse the tools or misuse them. Some more familiarity with the blocking policy wouldn't hurt either but overall these issues don't seem too serious in this case.
'''Strong Support''' I've carefully looked at the links in the various opposes (12 at the moment) and honestly can't really see the problems they are suppose to exemplify. Deacon appears to have an excellent grasp of policy as well as a long and exceptionally productive history on the project. And this is bad how? I guess one ''might'' take some of his edit summaries as sniping but I personally find that description a stretch. I know that I often communicate to other editors in edit summaries. Sometimes the limited space can result in rather too brief and terse phrasing, particularly when outlining a contrary position to previous editors. Deacon appears willing and able to engage in discussion, often in contentious areas. I see only positives here.
'''Support''', seems level-headed enough, and I'm confident that the tools will not be abused.  Just don't give any cool-down blocks!  Awesome username, too.
'''Support'''
'''Very Weak Support''' Good candidate probably will not abuse the tools but the old answer to Q#8 worries me
Good content editor, so he doesn't always  haud  his wheesht, all the better. Cool down blocks do occasionally have their place.--
'''Support'''. I don't forsee any abuse here. All questions bar 8 answered well enough. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' We're all human. We all make mistakes. We all fall from grace from time to time - Do I think you can effectively use the tools? Yes. Do I think you will abuse the tools? No. After reading through some of the comments brought up in the oppose section and doing my own checks into your contribution history and talk pages, I feel you will be fine as an admin. --
'''Support''' Will make a bloody good admin. Opposes are laughable. Bruising the egos of the raving lunatics around here is not a good reason to oppose adminship.
'''Support''' Will make good use of the admin tools
'''Support''' Is this why Deacon is being comparatively nice this week? :-> But I support anyway; I usually agree with Deb, and disagree with Deacon, on the substantive issues; but I don't regard him as uncivil.
'''Support''' I would like Deacon to be a bit more constantly polite, but, all considered (in particular his incredible dedication and also his quality) I strongly feel that we need more admins like him.--
'''Support''' per the user above.
'''Strong Support''' a stellar candidate who managed to keep neutrality in hot edit warrings
'''Support.''' Per all of the above. Everything seems fine to me, don't see any real reason to oppose. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' has been around since Feb 2005 with over 13000 mainspace edits.
'''Support''' - sound answers to questions! —
'''Support'''Good content contributor.
Seems like a good user, but I kindly suggest you do pay attention to the concerns listed in the oppose section.
'''Support''' while occasionally blunt, he's focused on the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and I do not believe he would missue the tools.
'''Support'''. None of the civility concerns really move me to think that this user would misuse the tools and besides that I think it is clear that he is a great contributor. Going forward, I encourage the user to review the civility issues and attempt to resolve them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Lukewarm Support''' While I can see the civility concerns raised by the opponents of this RfA, I don't see anything that would indicate a propensity to misuse the tools.  The tools can be taken away if the Deacon proves to be uncivil as an administrator, so granting them is [[WP:DEAL|no big deal]].  I would, however, like the candidate to affirm both a renewed commitment to [[WP:NICE|niceness]] and an [[WP:AOR|openness to recall]].  That would turn my support <font color="Red">'''red hot'''</font>.  --
Figure he is responsible enough to take civility concerns in mind when being an admin. If not, he seems supportive of admin recall. So sure. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support'''. Great contributor, mature enough to learn from mistakes.
'''Support'''. As prolific, sensible and helpful an editor as there can be. --
'''Support''' - I never oppose a candidate because of a few moments in the past when he/she has got to the end of the tether and lost their head slightly. We're all humans, we're not perfect and it happens to us all. Hopefully this user learns from mistakes, because the set of contribs we have here is brilliant. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Yes, there are some problematic points, but nobody's perfect and Deacon certainly doesn't look like an [[Wikipedia:No angry mastodons|angry mastodon]].
'''Support''' I hope this can help to stop the campaign of forking articles on Eastern-European topics.--
'''Support''' Highly intelligent contributor to the project. Would be an asset rather than a detriment, and the responsibility of being an administrator will soften some rough edges.
'''Support''' truly dedicated editor! We definitely need more such contributors.
'''Support'''. A serious cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary editor. Practice makes perfect. Let it be. <font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' To be sure, certain of the answers to the questions are at least a bit disquieting, but I am sufficiently convinced of the candidate's conversance with policy, deliberative temperament, and cordial demeanor as to conclude with some confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
Don't like what [[User:OhanaUnited]] pointed out, sorry... <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Back to Oppose''' - Per Q#8 and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Deacon_of_Pndapetzim&diff=194344507&oldid=194344174] - <s>Per Q#8. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#00008B;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)</s>
'''Oppose'''. I hate to do this as your contributions here are stellar, but "you're the only person who wants this trash in the article njan" as an edit summary? Civility trumps even article building in my canon. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Your talk page is a little bothersome for me - hints of edit warring and issues of incivility as pointed out above. Also, your answer to question 8 raised my eyebrows slightly. Advocate of page protection for a content dispute? Cool down blocks? No.
'''Strong oppose:''' Clearly a strong contributor to article space, and passionate about the project, but I've found this user overly combattive on talk pages, even rude, negative and dismissive on occation. Some of his remarks I've seen do little to move discussion along and seem to have the purpose of ridiculing others attempts at engaging with the community (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland&diff=prev&oldid=193829684 here]). An example of talking about contributors rather than contributions is also found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=194424208 here] - again, no purpose of moving discussion along, but mocking other users who may hold an alterative view or look at a problem from a different angle to his own. Amongst other pages, I'm concerned about how Deacon went about putting his views forwards [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29#Scotland_guidelines|here]]. I made an edit in good faith but Deacon seems to imply I did not. He did not contact me for an explanation or my views, and again acts more as a "joker", mocking others' views rather than behaving like a mediator. In this capacity, I wouldn't feel comfortable with Deacon having administrator status. I do not think his mediation skills are developed enough and his manner, dare I say civility, with those with alternative perspectives leaves much to be desired. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''
'''Oppose''' - if you want an idea why, you only have to look at some of his recent comments on my talk page, eg. [[User_talk:Deb#RE:Your_comments|this]], not to mention the way he harasses every user who disagrees with him in a debate by adding snide little comments under their contributions.  I don't dispute that he is intelligent and knows a lot about his "specialist subjects".  He is, unfortunately, also unbelievably arrogant and offensive.  Were he to be given admin tools, he would undoubtedly use them to impose his own strong opinions on others.
'''Oppose''' - I did initially have a good oppose for this but it was lost in a session data muddle-up, but civility concerns are a major issue so per Jza84 and Deb - (who's talk page is a good example of the behvaiour conducted by DoP, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&diff=next&oldid=181722296 this] for example).
'''Oppose''' - too many concerns raised by others.  I don't feel this user is ready yet.  Come back soon, please.
'''Oppose''' - have had a very negative experience with this user at [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Scotland guidelines]] - during which I unfortunately allowed myself to get a little riled.  The user repeatedly moved pages ignoring an existing naming convention.  I moved them back, and they reverted the move.  They then claimed that there have never been any consensus on the issue, despite evidence - and tried to remove evidence that there had been a consensus, ignored any attempts at compromise and insinuated collusion on IRC.  When another presented a proposal which would have altered the existing guidelines to prefer the disambiguator Deacon insisted on, Deacon left on a wikibreak, and despite returning a week later, did not attempt to build a new consensus either way.
'''Oppose''' - Tends to work in Black or White - the "Halychina" vs "Galicia" debate tends to support what he is most comfortable with rather bluntly. Admins need to promote TEAMWORK in Wikipedia!
'''Oppose''' - "As mellow as the come". Really? I don't think so looking at the uncivility on Deb's page.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' Cool-down block is the tipping point, clearly indicating that the individual did not read throughly in blocking policy.
'''Oppose''' Regardless of other experience, the candidate does not currently have right approach for adminship if they believe that cool down blocks are a good idea, plus the incivility issues raise are a concern. Overall candidate seems more likely to create extra admin work by annoying other editors.
'''Oppose''' per civility concerns.
'''Oppose''' per discussions mentioned by {{user|Deb}} and other evidence of conflicts on Deacon's talk page.  --
'''Oppose''' The issues raised here in regards to Q#8 just bother me a bit... sorry.
'''Oppose''' The issues raised here do seem to be substantive. Whilst I think the user has learnt from their mistakes, I think the civility issues mean they are not ready for adminship just yet. More uncivil admins is not what we need right now. Regards.
'''Oppose'''; we have here what I beleive to be an ''extremely'' valuable contributor to the encyclopedia, but who seems quite unsuited to janitorial duties.  His answers to questions 12 and 14, in particular, worry me.  I'd add that the original response to Q8, even if it was fixed a posteriori, is a bad sign.  Not everyone is cut out to clean up messes over constructing an encyclopedia, and I don't think not having the bit removes any of the shine from Deacon's contributions.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - I thought [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&diff=181722202&oldid=181683583 this] was mean and condescending, especially when followed with the post that Rudget points out above.  This is not the way to resolve disputes, it looks more like taunting to me, which is bound to stir them up rather than calm them. Plus, the past couple talk page archives show evidence of edit warring (or at least other users accusing them of it). I'd rather see this user take a few more months to more clearly demonstrate that they've fixed these civility problems.
'''Oppose''' - not quite ready, too many lingering issues.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, I believe there are too many little problems here, the recent civility issues in particular.
Civility issues render me unable to place a support. However, you otherwise seem to be contributing well, and I would be happy to give my full support next time should this RFA fall through. Thanks, and good luck -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' per civility concerns and removing cited material.
'''Neutral''' Gut feeling. Shows experience, but [[User:Dlohcierekim]] makes an excellent point. <strong>
'''Beat both the noms Strong Support''' --
'''Obviously''' ➨ '''
''' Strong Support''' thought you were an Admin.great track and has been here sinse July 2005 and great vandal fighter.
Per the great noms.
'''Looked through edits and found no redflags''' I had actually noticed this user's high number of edits earlier and asked about seeking RfA. Has been making a lot of edits in admin related areas. Gives knowledgeable and helpful answers. I found no declined AIV reports or CSD requests. Is open to discussion and apologizes for the inevitable automation assisted errors in tagging. I'm afraid Maxim's neutral rationale does not carry a lot of strength with me. Nominee could reduce edits by 3/4 and still do a tremendous amount of work, true. On the other hand, we should harness that energy and enthusiasm while it lasts and trust the nominee to know their limits. Cheers,
'''Support''' No issues here.  :)
'''Support''' – Nothing more needs to be said about this candidate other than '''Great job'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Seems like a great candidate. <b>
'''Support''': He's a dedicated anti-vandal, and i believe he will use his new tools to continue the fight. Good luck! <span style="color:green"> '''
'''Support''' <font face="comic sans ms">
'''support''' —
'''Support'''. Trust the nominators, trust the user, and I know that they will make a good admin. Works for me. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' - Truth be told, I ran across the user yesterday and was planning on asking him about a nomination in the near future.  This is definitely one time that I'm glad I was beaten to the punch. --
'''Oppose''' - your nominator sayz you haz only 10,000 edits, I don't like liars :p ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I've been impressed with my limited interaction with DEA and I respect the nominators opinion
'''Support''' - Not too shabby. Quality editor to say the least. I would have liked to see heftier participation beyond [[WP:AIV]], but going through the contributions, there seems to be no issues. Good luck!
'''Support''' I've encountered DEA several times while he goes about his work of clearing vandalism from articles. He displays a good knowledge of policy and I am confident he will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Good RC patroller.
'''Support'''.  Professional, no nonsense. Good luck.  --
'''Support''' Good balance between article creation and vandalism fighting. Seems professional, civil, and overall a good editor.
'''Support''' - your answer to Q6 is best described as 'wrong', and you are lacking in meaningful article edits. However, fortuitously adminship is no big deal, and you are an excellent vandal fighter, with more than enough experience of process.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me!
'''Support''', definitely.  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''' - in our few encounters, he has seemed like a good editor, and his history supports the idea that he will use the tools wisely -
'''Support''' Was wondering when this one was going to come along. :)
'''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' All I know is that I ''constantly'' see the message "reverting to last version by User:DeadEyeArrow" when I go patrolling. Trust user with the tools.
'''Support''' No problem here. '''
'''Strong Support''' I think that this user is long over-due to become an admin and therefore I strongly support :). Thanks,--
'''Strong support''', constantly popping up on my watchlist as they bash vandals. No reason to think they would abuse the tools.
''
There aren't any red flags that come up lookingat his contributions. Should be a fantastic administrator.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sure. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support'''. I can't find anything I'd outright disagree with.
'''Support''' Going to be a great help.
'''Support''' I Support DeadEyeArrow! This guy rocks. He's always two steps ahead of me. Granted, I'm new. But, still. He's even friendly, which is a big plus for an Admin/SySoP. I see his reverts all the time. --
-- <strong>
'''Support''' Might as well to help him with vandel fighting more. Still not sure he contributes to wikipedia as a whole, but with that many edits he is clearly on the right side and things can only get better.--
'''Support'''. Experienced and trusted user.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs vandal fighters like this one! Best of luck! --
'''Support''' A pleasure to support. I have seen the candidate been consistently helpful, and per. pleasent previous interaction. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  A strong editor.
'''Support'''. Good work with fighting vandalism. I'm sure you'll do fine as an administrator!
'''Support''' [[User:RC-0722#My Dictionary|My metasense ain't tingling]]. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
Great user with great nominators. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''', excellent if somewhat hyper-specialized contributor.  The AIV reports of his I've handled have been solid.  His 'health' is his own business.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Would have been happier with some article content but thoughtful in AfD, so ok. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Nothing wrong with a specialized contributor. Better to spend time excelling in a single area than spreading oneself too thin trying to do everything. I think DEA would make a very good admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Tough guy on vandals. Mop needed. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Gets what I do and why I do it; I like him. Just kidding, great contributor, devoted to the project. Of course, I'd advise spending maybe a ''little'' less time on Wikipedia; it may help you hold on to your sanity for a bit longer. <tt>:)</tt>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' This user's strength in character will benefit all of Wikipedia. --'''
'''Support''' While the preponderance of edits are vandal-related (templates and corrections) I have seen enough actual true interactions with other editors and comments on articles that lead me to be reasonably comfortable with this user's understanding of wiki policies and guidelines and appropriateness of behavior to other editors, and thus agree that this user should be shown the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community's trust]] with the tools. --
'''Support''' I've surfed through his contributions, and I've seen him on my watchlist from time to time. Never an unproductive edit. (I also stole my userpage header from him :)) &mdash;
As strong as possible; nothing more is to be said.
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support'''- He could warrant the tools, I've seen he's been doing a lot of good work on RC patrol today.
'''Support''' - He can clearly use the tools, there's no indication that he would misuse the tools in any way.
'''Support''' - I would've also liked to see more encyclopedia-building edits, but overall a pretty damn good editor. This editor has an impressive vandal-fighting history, and we need more admins like that, in my opinion. Also has good track records with civility, helpfulness, and judgment, and we <b>definitely</b> need more admins like that. '''
'''Support''' - looks good.  Great answers.
'''Support''' - We need more vandal fighters with this power so the serious writers can get work done.  I'm shocked this user is not already an admin.
Heard a lot about this user, who I can trust with the admin tools. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. After looking through your contribs and usertalk pages, you seem to have a good [[WP:CLUE|clue level]] that will make good use of the extra buttons.  Two good nominators adding in means I have no problem supporting.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
1300 edits yesterday??? Dedicated to removing vandalism I would therefore conclude. But DeadEyeArrow clearly is not one-dimensional and has contributed well to other areas such as [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:XfD]]. It may be considered by some that he needs some more experience at article writing, but to me he appears competent in the mainspace. I am quite sure that he will be careful with the tools and it is a pleasure to support.
'''Support''' - seen user around and happy to give support. <b>
'''Support''' doing an excellent job in a number of areas, shows understanding of mainspace so I don't think the lack of loads of contributions there will be any kind of a detriment.
'''Support''' - looks good. Great anti-vandal work. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' though I am not 100% satisfied with the answer to my question (When deleting candidates for speedy deletion I generally check for attack pages first, as I feel they are the most important to delete.   That is why I think any page that can be tagged as attack should be even if there are other csd reason.)
'''Support''' - A good candidate, but consider that Wikibreaks are for your benefit should you need to take one. We are building an encyclopedia based on quality, not stamina. ;)
'''Support''' - Wikipedia needs more anti vandal admins! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' - [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good anti-vandal person. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
'''Support''' Solid editor, very eager to help the project.
'''Support''' Looking good here.
'''Support''' YAY <strong>
'''Moral Oppose''' - While I appreciate that DeadEyeArrow has plenty of strengths as a user, his long experience at fighting vandals does not make up for his lack of content contribution. Here's why. This is an encyclopedia, not an online Multiplayer where the good guys get to zap some bad guys and get rewarded with "promotion". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a hierarchical MP-gaming  stroke social networking site. I'm being a little frivolous and unfair, I admit it, so I'll give a decent reason for an oppose. What the answer to question 6 missed and what no-one among the support votes pointed out is that the long community vote which gave sysops the right to block for 3RR a few years ago did not give sysops the right to preside over other users (admins or not) like little emperors anytime they chose. I may venture to say that that comment could make half the supports begin wikilawyering at me ... well, don't bother. ;) An open-ended expansionist philosophy of admin powers is enough to get my oppose, wikilawyering aside. Moreover, the user has ambition to intervene in content disputes and patrol 3RR, and despite very little experience with article building, has strong opinions about how such things ''ought'' to work out. I get the feeling it's a lot easier to parrot pontifications about how people ''ought'' to act in a content dispute than actually learn how these work, and this from what I can see is what DeadEyeArrow is doing. The user has little experience with article building, so I've gotta wonder where DeadEyeArrow gets the belief that he has more knowledge about these situations than an experienced admin article builder like Dbachmann? "Another content-shy self-righteous intervenionist mandarin with blocking powers" is what I might be tempted to predict were I in a worse mood ... but even the hint of this is not what this encyclopedia needs just now. To DeadEyeArrow, 45 supports to 0 opposes suggest you have more good qualities than bad, so my oppose is no more than a little balancing. You're already pretty much guaranteed to go through, so good luck and I hope you prove me to be a pessimist.
'''Oppose'''. Too much emphasis on policing and vandal-fighting and too little on creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack such reasons. I am well aware that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions about 3RR suggests that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and ''content editors''. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a srong net-negative impact on the Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. --
'''Oppose'''. An excellent vandal-fighter, and very possibly someone who will not abuse the tools; but I believe that demonstrating an ability to understand the problems that crop up in article-writing is essential for someone with the mop. The answer to the question about Dbachmann illustrates that, to my mind.
'''Oppose'''. Same reasons as Relata refero and Irpen.
'''Oppose'''. Per the above concerns. I'm sure he's a nice guy but we've had too many problems with admins who have little or no experience of what it's like to edit content interfering in areas they don't understand. --
'''Oppose'''. This is a collaborative work, and the best way to develop collaborative skills is to work together with other editors to build an article (or a template, portal, policy, etc.).  I am not seeing a lot of collaborative work. Excellent vandal fighting, yes. But the answers to the questions indicate a desire to change focus from generalised vandal-fighting (which largely involves non-content editors) to behavioural management of content editors.  This is a far more delicate area than meets the eye, and really does need greater understanding of the different perspective of a content editor.  Best of luck to you, regardless.
'''Oppose''' - Like to see more than just recent changes patrol work, while it is helpful it does not need the knowledge of all of the policies and guidelines. I would like to see a bit more article work, and just a tiny bit more project space contributions than just AIV. (yes I know, this is a rather hypocritical comment.) I am sure this RfA will pass, and wish you the best of luck with the tools.
'''Nominator support''' as a nominator [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - seems competent and conscientious from my observation.
'''Strong support'''. Nommed him a few months back, he declined. Was ready then, is definitely ready now.
Outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' It was about time. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Definite Support''', very good user.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' - Pretty darned impressive if you ask me.
Excellent user. It will be a benefit for Discospinster to have the tools.
'''Strong Support''' - 45k+ edits - 'nuff said!
'''Strong Support''' Great edit summary usage, great edit count, should be a positive admiin, and will definitely help out at [[WP:AIV]]. You're a great vandal fighter, adn you would be a great admin! Also, considering that you have been here since 2004, and declined several nominations, it shows expereince, and it shows the exact opposite of power hunger. And the answer to my questions look more than great! -
'''Support''' No reason he'll abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Strong Support'''  Has been around since 2004 and turned down offers for nomination.Track is very good.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and keen vandal fighter.
'''Support'''
Can't say no! '''
'''Support''' 35000 mainspace edits?  Holy crap. I don't care if they were automated, twinkle, huggle, or anywhere in between. You obviously have the best intereste of Wikipedia at heart.  Please don't block someone or delete the main page once you get the keys to the janitor's closet.  Be smart. If you know it, do it.  If you don't.  Ask first. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Strong support'''.  Seen him around.  Good editor.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong support''', an awesome editor! Obviously he isn't ''power-hungry'' as he has declined a nomination before, obviously has enough experience and hasn't been in any trouble that would hinder me in being able to give my strongest support. Hope to see you carrying the mop soon,
{{ec}} '''Support''' No qualms here. Plus, the username is spectacular. '''
'''Support''' I like. '''''
'''Support''' Excellent editor. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

Should've done this a long time ago. ~
'''Support''' I'm glad you finally decided to go through with this. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' Without question, a dedicated and trustworthy Wikipedian.
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''' - yup! -
'''Support'''; consistent, reliable, predictable, trustworthy.
'''Support''' ''Yes''. -
'''Support''', dedicated user who should be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' User's (plethora) of edits span the wiki, his non-templated message interactions with other editors is polite and friendly, well-versed in vandalism and the tools would be a help there. I am reasonably confident that this user will continue to exercise good [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment, and community trust]] should be extended to him. Good Luck. --
'''Support''' Only good will come of this!--
'''Support''' This user's got clue. :)
Would be strong support if this editor was a content contributor, but has ten times the experience of most of the other content-shy vandal-fighter type noms who get through these votes. Plus, breath of fresh air to see that this user does it for the sake of it rather than to be an admin. When I saw this user's record and history I expected this to be like the seventh nomination, but no, the first! As long as this user avoids intervening in content-related matters and/or blocking established users, handing her the mop should be nothing but a benefit to wikipedia!
'''Support'''. Obviously not just a vandal fighter. <small><span style="border:1px solid white;padding:0px;">
'''Support''' - this user appears to be fine and has raised no concerns.
'''Support''' - good user, good contrib, fights vandals...what more could one want? Good luck! --
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' This user has blown me away with some awesome answers above. I think I've just learned a lot from him in just reading this [[WP:RFA|RFA]]!!! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' seems to do a very good job, dedicated and capable. -
'''Support'''. This user will be a fine admin, IMO. --
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' - oh, go on, then! —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' definitely. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Long overdue. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' Everything looks good and he seems trustworthy.—
'''Support''', seems fine to me. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Support''' per answer to question 15; disco fans should never play the violin. (Note for the humor-impaired: experienced, trustworthy and rational candidate.)
'''Support''', straight-forward, long overdue &nbsp;—
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - Based on answer to question #15.  Seriously, I agree we do need administrators specializing in specific areas, and this editor has certainly found their nich!  Good luck to you.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' '''
Unconditional '''support''' - seen this user around and they are very much admin material. I was wondering why this RfA didn't come any earlier. :)
'''Support''' seems trustworthy. <b>
'''Support''' - a refreshingly familiar username, and one that's usually been associated with statements that make good sense.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, undoubtedly experienced, and will use the tools well. ♥
'''S u p p o r t''' :) <strong>
Ok. —
—
'''Support''' - will be a net positive.
'''Support''' per his answer to my question, he seems to be a good candidate.
'''Support''' seems ready for the task. --
'''Support''' I think that this user would be an excellent new admin :).  Thank You,
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' (This my 1st time wading in on an RfA btw). Admirable record. Contribs impressive. Strong on the answers. No 'power issues' or tool concerns. All the best,
'''Strong Support''' - no concerns whatsoever --
'''Support''', faithful editor. '''''
'''Strongly Opposed''' Sorry I am changing my vote from slightly opposed to strongly opposed. Although the edit count is high, I feel that little value has been added to wikipedia.  I feel that the user has in somecauses overreacted and changed good edits.  He has acted first and failed to read the editors changes.  Pointing this out I feel that he will keep to his habits and block users without first understanding the problem.  The reason why I feel this way is because of some of the users who have voted in support act in the same manner as this user.  The purpose of wikipedia is content first.  Everyone here must remember that.
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' haven't seen enough to show me that he knows or understands the requisite policies... gave decent answers to the questions... but just not enough for full support
'''Support''' - No reason not to. :)
'''Support''' as nom. --'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' - Working in areas not many others do makes for a good admin IMO.
'''Support''' - Working in other areas does help.
'''Support''' - good admins are always welcome, and especially those who can add different talents to the team.
'''Support''' It's users like you that we need to keep Wikipedia working behind the scenes. Keep it up!
My experiences with him as been positive, need more sports editors as admins
Strong Support.  I've seen this user around, always doing good things. -
'''Support'''.  You will do great.  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
Looks good.
'''Support''' Looks good, meets my standards. <font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Jonathan|'''Jonathan''']] <small>([[User talk:Jonathan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jonathan|contribs]] •
'''Support''', Wikipedia can always use more gnomes with the tools.
'''Support''', per EJF. <strong>
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', great contributions and keeps a level head during discussions. --
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose him.
'''Support''' - I would like to see the usage of edit summaries a bit more consistent and higher (78% major, 80% minor) for last 150 each, but the candidate has shown a sufficient (for me) need for the tools in moving pages. -'''
'''Very Strong Support''' - Seen this user around on the Ice Hockey Wikiproject, does great work and  is very good at keeping a level head in discussions. No reason for him not to level up. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">

'''Support''', looks like a quality editor who will do a good job with the mop & bucket. --
'''Support''' (from Neutral) - Appears to have a good approach and will benefit the project more as an administrator.
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/standards|Support]]''' Oppose reasons were unconvincing. Liked nom's response to Harland's oppose. "It's all good," tells me nom is able to handle disagreement or opposition with aplomb. Good answers to Q's 1,2,3.
'''Support''' A good user. --'''
Yes, they're willing to help out in mindless areas where no admin dares tread.
'''Support''', good contrib history, and per east718. <b>
'''Support''' would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Good editor, helpful and knowledgeable would do good with the tools.
<i><b>
'''Support''' looks fine to me. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''
'''Support,'''
'''Support''' No objections for this nomination --
'''Support <s>oppose</s>''' per Dlohcierekim. This candidate will be ready for the mop.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, give em' the mop.
'''Very Strong Support''' Extremely level headed in his edits that I have seen.  Great work with [[WP:HOCKEY]].  Would make a fine admin. --
--<font color="blue">
'''Support''' I have much respect for this user. --
Per agreement with the concept of admin recall. I&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' A very active member of the Hockey project who has done a great deal to improve the quality of the articles he edits.  Already takes on numerous tedious tasks on top of being one of the better vandal fighters on the roster.  An excellent candidate for the mop.
'''Support''' Like he said at my own RfA, he is also very level-headed and need more users like him, ones who keep Wikipedia running.
'''Support''' - yes indeed, should be a good addition to the pool.
'''Support''' - for every single reason listed above.
'''Support''' - Based partially on a positive observation of Djsasso making the right decision [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Hedman&diff=181263759&oldid=181263177 here]; many editors can't swallow their pride when proven wrong in cases like this and keep trying to push things through. Humility and a willingness to learn and work for the greater good of the wiki are important admin traits. By the way, don't forget to inform others when posting an AfD via the edit summary, which you forgot to do [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Hedman&diff=181261648&oldid=181261345 here].
'''Support''' as meeting most of my standards, but I'm a bit concerned about lack of edit summaries.  However, we could use another expert from WP Hockey, and a WikiGnome who likes moving articles to boot.  So on the whole, I could trust this one with "the mop".
'''Support''' Always level headed when I've dealt with him on WP Hockey.
Good user.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; While the kind of work Djsasso does is essential, it also tends to foster a fortress mentality that is an unacceptable trait in an admin.
'''Support''', nom beating or otherwise, per previous pleasent interaction. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Will effectively use tools. <strong>
'''Support''' ·
'''Support''' Great track over 31000 edits with over 19000 mainspace ones.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Good luck,  '''
Even if I did offer to co-nominate the other month.
'''Support''' what they said.. :) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Good luck --
'''Support''' per the candidate's work with the [[Amalgam Comics]]. Good editor.
Aye, per Jc37.
'''Support''' per noms. Best of luck <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. '''
'''To say the nom, "meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]],"''' would be a vast understatement. Good answer to Q3. Liked what I read on the talk page. Civil, open to feedback, seems to be able to stand firm with vandals without being nasty. (I switched from VP to TWINKLE because of the problems with reversions and misdirected warnings.)_[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' Yep he can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' Admirable history, experience. Disinterested and impartial tone (like a psychologist). The pedia would be fortunate if we could get more candidates like this one.
'''Support''' Yeah, of course. :) —
'''Support''' Superb user; lucky to have him an admin.
'''Support'''—there is clearly a positive influence to be had for the project by granting this user administrator status, and I am happy to support to this end. Best of luck!
'''Support''' I don't even have to think about this one. '''''
'''Support'''.  Definitely.  --
'''Strong support''', definitely passes Level 3 of [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].  Well done, and good luck with the mop!  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Support''' I can think of no reason not to support this candidate.
'''Support''' Sure. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' - Can't think of any good reason why this individual shouldn't be given the tools. This despite the fact that I have personal reservations about the "zilla" name, and have tried to think of a few. I don't recommend changing the name though, it's more trouble than it's worth. ;)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Yep, give em' the mop.
Sup Doc '''
'''Support''' good editor :) Good luck :) -
'''Support''' Time to start washing the [[WP:FLOOR]] with a shiny new [[WP:MOP]].
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', good, solid editor.  Will weild the mop well.
'''Support'''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good! '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' &mdash;
Strongly. Likes recall, [[User_talk:Dihydrogen_Monoxide/Archive/January_2008#Input_sought|gets it]] (our only interaction I can recall), and has a good username.  Best candidate in a while. ''
'''Support''', excelent answer to question about recall.
'''Support'''. This is an absolute '''no-brainer'''. Outstanding track record. I would trust this user without hesitation.
'''Support''' Solid editor, should make a solid admin.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' &ndash; I'm honestly very surprised he's not one yet. —
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in good order--<small><span style="border:3px solid #000071;padding:2px;">
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Support''' Appears to be trustworthy, good answers here.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - trustworthy, experienced, and can keep a cool head. '''
'''Support''' Interesting, I stumbled across this user just the other day and wondered why they weren't an admin!

'''Support''' Only know him from CfD, but seems good.
Isn't-he-already-'''support'''
'''Support''' the giant atomic fire-breathing dinosaur with a PhD.
Sounds good. <i><b>
'''Support''' Seems like a capable and serious editor.
'''Support''' With gusto. Doc's a strong, rational editor, bringing that to the Admin plateau will benefit all of WP.
'''Support''' A level head and a level manner. -
'''Support with no hesitation'''
'''Support''' Clearly this is superfluous, given the level of support already achieved. But I have seen this editor around a lot; will make a great admin. --<font color="Red">
Obviously. -
Per Deskana :)
'''Support'''.  It's about time.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. I know it's the oldest cliché in the book, but I really thought he was one already.
No problems at all.
'''Support''' indeed! --
'''Support''' You're not an admin? '''
'''SUPPORT!''' I always thought you were.
'''Support'''. Definitely good for the project.
'''Support''' ''I want to jump on the dogpile too!'' (On a serious note, this is a clear-cut case where the user will undoubtedly be a great administrator). '''
'''Support''' - Why not? <small>Bark! Bark!</small> -
He isn't an admin already support
'''Support''' - A very experienced editor who could well benefit from the extra tools.--
'''Support''': I've seen this user around, everywhere, and have no complaints. -
'''Pile on'''.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''': Good editor. --
'''Support'''
'''''
If what Deskana says is true, you must be all kinds of awesome. ~
'''Support''' an obvious choice to become a sysop. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' Obvious choice. Courteous and always thorough. Congrats on the landslide!
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' - a solid candidate --'''''
'''Support''' Courteous and will make a good admin.
'''Support''' definitely.  <b>
'''Support''' What they said.
'''Support'''.
Changing to support. I am still unhappy with Doczilla's judgment, but his explanation on my talk page is sufficient to make me believe it was not a serious error and that he is careful enough with his thought that his judgment will improve as situations like this come up in the future.
'''Support'''. Thanks,
'''Support''' - No Reason not too.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - he is quite professional and courteous. To my reckoning, he is what an admin ''should'' be like. A lot of folks could learn much from this guy. -
'''Support'''. See no reason to anticipate tool abuse.
'''Support''' -- a valuable editor. No reason to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' per Phil Sandifer & Black Kite.
Inclined to support, but remaining neutral while awaiting answers to questions posed.
'''Support''' per Revolving Bugbear. Oh, and John Carter. :) -
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''.  Trust the nominators, and we need more image/copyvio admins.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' already doing great work in needed areas. The tools would make him even better. Cheers <b>
'''Support''' - Nice work, great editor. Per Malinaccier, it's a breath of fresh air to see a candidate participating in [[WP:MFD]], [[WP:TFD]] (not that it's particularly rare) and interested in image/copyvio work.
Absolute strongest support ever +1. ''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support.''' Doug came to my attention through his eloquent and diplomatic non-admin close of the [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination)]] MfD. The text of his comment there suggests he will be able to communicate well in admin discussions. His contributions seem good and the areas in which he intends to work as an admin appear useful: images and copyvios.  Anyone who looks at {{cat|Administrative backlog}} and take note of the image and copyright issues will understand the significance.
'''Support''' Have worked with him, deserves the mop and I should have co-nomed... <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' But needs more experience on RfC for featured user-warning templates created by a SPA with a COI who adds EL. Or equivalent college courses.--'''
'''Support''', good interactions with this editor.
I oppose. He clearly does not know how to write a suitable Haiku. :) '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Since he looks trusted, along with his edit summary usage, his expereince etc. etc. etc. etc. Seems we need more image copyvio admins these days anyway... -
'''Support''' Good editor. I'd like to not that sometimes, when 5/7/5 haiku is translated from its original Japanese, it will sometimes, in English, turn out not to be 5/7/5. <strong>
No red flags.--

'''Support''' should make for a good admin. --<small>
'''Support''', as all my interactions with this user have been positive. ·
'''Support''' Seems ok by me!  :)
In my experience, seems to be a capable, intelligent and well-spoken editor who treats others well. No problems here. Good answers to questions and solid nominators. ~
'''Support''' - no concerns here! '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' Net benefit for the project. :)
'''Support''' because of the haiku. And because Doug appears to be a strong admin candidate. But mainly the haiku :-) -
'''Support''' per riana. Seek your mop and role, build bridges and new friendships, do good on wiki.
'''Support'''. Well-rounded and responsible editor.
'''Support''' Seen him around. '''
'''Support'''. Solid contributions across a range of areas, and I love the haiku in the Wikipedian spirit.
'''Support''' Just solid enough, couldn't hurt, will only help improve wikipedia.--
'''Support''' - Doug's edits seem very much aimed at improving Wikipedia. Looks like he'd make a great admin. --
—
Quite clearly an excellent editor.
'''Strong support''' the ansers thing user has given clearly indicates he will make a great admin! Good luck! --
'''Excellent''' I love the Haiku, trustworthy user too, even meets my [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|standards]] stew! '''
'''Support'''. per haiku.
'''Support''' per answer to Q4.  What can I say, I'm a sucker for catchy slogans.  ➪
'''Support''' Love the Haiku. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' I think the "haiku" and why he wrote it says it all. :) --—
'''Support''' Doug not only contributes but also keeps a cool head and does not edit Wikipedia to vent spleen. --
'''Support''' - Excellent answeres to questions, (loved the haiku), and will be a great asset with images and copvio. Good luck! ♥
'''Support''' - Good solid work in xFD. Knows his stuff. Interacts very well with others. Would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' As per NiciVampireHeart.
'''Support'''. Appears to be able to communicate; has a good grasp on policy.
'''Support'''. Communication skills and working on a project sold me. Cheers,
'''Support''' - [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate with great communication skills and fine project work. He's trusted and respected by others. Doug should prove an above-par admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good user, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Good user, shows no indications that he will abuse the tools, very active, so I'll support. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' A well qualified editor who should have become an Admin long ago. --'''
'''Support''' &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Looking at user's contributions, interactions with other editors, and participation in dispute resolutions among other things, I am reasonably comfortable with this user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] and trust that he will use the M&F™ properly. --
'''Support''' This editor seems like an upstanding kinda person and I doubt they would abuse the tools. I say, "Let's just give it to em! Good luck
'''Support'''; see my concerns being addressed below.
'''Strong Support''' I like the fact that this editor has already been exposed to a lot of the things that Sysops generally would do, and as such I think he would be a great Sysop. --
'''Super Support''' Anyone opposing Doug should be slapped with a fish
'''Support'''. '''''
Encountered Doug many times before. He'll be fine.
'''Support''' Always has been calm and a pleasure to work with. Never given me any idea he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good luck! <font color="#006600">
Yes, should have been an admin a long time ago. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I like the haiku ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Sometimes, I learn more about someone from a shared failure than a smooth success. Doug volunteered to help mediate an issue, if there is such a thing as mediation from a cabal that may or may not exist. It was a tense situation, but Doug impressed me with both with his sincerity at trying to find a solution, and his sadness that mediation was not successful.
'''Strong support''' Must, must, must! <tt>:)</tt> It's a weird feeling seeing people who practically live on your watchlist and realizing they're not admins yet. The system is flawed, I tell you.
'''Support:'''  I'm not overly familiar with this user, but I've seen him around the site and he seems to deserve the mop.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support'''. Doug is a thoroughly refreshing candidate, and I think he'll be a great administrator. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
'''Not that you need it''' support.  Go pay your bills.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Thought you were already an admin support''' - we can always use more levelheaded and thoughtful admins.
'''Support''' based on <s>our need for more lawyers</s> the candidate's excellent overall record.
'''Support''' Seems an excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' trustworthy and experienced editor. Will make a very good admin. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate indeed..
'''Support''' User who is helpful and is what we need in a janitor ;)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A good candidate. While good manners cost nothing, they are truly invaluable here. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' I thought you were already an admin.
'''Support''' good candidate.
'''Support''' <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><b>
'''Support''' per answers to questions 8 through 11.
'''The abuse of the haiku''' is cause for support. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' No red flags.
'''Support''' Looks like a good mainspace editor with his head screwed on right. --
Nominated by Moreschi. '''
He's someone I've had on my list as well, though I didn't follow through. Definitely a good candidate from what I've seen.
More sane admins in fringey areas are always good. Also Moreschi nom.
Support. No concerns at all about Dougweller from what I've seen so far. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Thank you for your thoughtful response, you've lived up to the nomination statement.
'''Strong Support''' - I can't imagine a better candidate.
'''Support''' Good candidate. &ndash;
'''Support''' - yes.
'''Support''' Great editor, I can trust with the tools.
'''Support''' - Looks like he'd be a fantastic, trustworthy admin. --
'''Looks good'''.
Seems like a quality editor through and through. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - Nothing alarming = support.
'''Support''' to my knowledge we have never met on site here, but I see a lot of names I know and trust in the support column, so I will lend you my support as well.
'''Support''' All is well. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Can't argue with this one...
'''Support''' - great editor
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''', best answer to question 4 I've seen. —
[[Wikipedia:WikiSpeak/Decoding RfA|zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!!]]. But seriously, a great and helpful editor. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. Everything checks out; experienced, communicative, civil, knows policy, and works in the mainspace. It's a green light from me. (Ironically, per your answer to Keepcases' question, I got an error when submitting this comment).
'''Support'''. From What i've seen.. all checks out. <small>- -<nowiki>[</nowiki>
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck to you.
'''Support''' Seen him in action, yes. -
[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]] by granting the buttons. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' As civil, good vandal fighter who has not made any troubles I could find - you will make a good janitor...I mean admin. '''
'''Support''' - I've seen this guy around quite a bit and everything looks to be in order. Yup! -
'''100% Support''' -- exactly the kind of addition  the admin population so desperately needs. --
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' I've edited alongside this editor recently and he is the right man to have the admin tools. I hope to continue to edit with and learn from him. All the best.
'''Strong support''' Exactly the kind of admin we need. --
'''Conditional Support''' Will change to ''Freewheelin' Fun Support'' if you'll swear a blood oath to fix the freakin' [[Terracotta Army]] article. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Support''' Always seems calm, capable, and in full control of his rational faculties. -
'''Support''' Judging by his past conversations he is always levelheaded and shows his wisdom in ending disputes. --
'''Strong support''' I frequently perceive this user's contributions as a breath of fresh air and a veritable gale of commonsense. --
Having watched many of his interactions, I have been impressed with his calm, informed demeaner. His presence in a discussion tends to make them go smoothly, even if no agreement is obtained. Importantly, he seems to know the name a certain [[Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade|garden tool]], but wisely [[Wikipedia:Civility|doesn't brag about it]]. I call this having [[Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms|compassionate clue]], and '''the project is well served when its admins have this'''.
'''Looks good'''.  No problems here.
'''Support''' Would like to see more article work, but for such a solid contributor, that's not a showstopper.
'''Support'''. Quite reasonable for somebody who majored in Political Science ;-). --
'''Support'''. A balanced contributor who always tries to seek sources for people's contributions if at all possible and has remained open and tolerant in his responses even to users who subject him to abuse when they disagree with his edits. Would be a solid addition to WP. --
'''Support''': Nominated by Moreschi, which goes a long way, and a review of his contributions indicates maturity and thoughtfulness. Properly skeptical of [[Ctesias]] and Herodotus. Everything looks to be in order; I think Doug will be an excellent admin. We need more candidates like this. '''
'''Support''' - nice contrubutions, good answers... enough for a support. <small>
Great editor. Will be good with the tools. (Acalamari from alternate account.)
'''Support'''.  Looks great to me. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - Looks like a civil, thoughtful user and I have no doubts that we can trust you to "wield" the mop and bucket. I would like it if you made it slightly easier to access your talk page archives though - the current pointer is a redlink, I had to go searching, and after all that it turned out you weren't hiding anything! How disappointing. :P –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Support''' no big negs but (and I'm sure you are preoccupied this week) I would prefer when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neolithic&diff=prev&oldid=238008012 you revert this] sort [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Pyramid_of_Giza&diff=next&oldid=237996369 of stuff] I would like to see warnings - that way we can deter people early and we know whether this is a first or fourth offence. '''
Looks fine to me.  --
Sure.
'''Support'''. Nothing but net positive.
Strongly, per MastCell.
'''Support''' net positive, to be sure. Cheers,
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''', he doesn't shun away from dealing with problem editors.--
'''Support''' per nom and Q2. Academic interest in the project is always a plus.
'''Support''' Absolutely. <strong>
Moreschi candidate. Clearly excellent.
'''Support'''. A superlative contributor from the get-go. Doug's expertise, rationality and ability to handle sticky confrontations with aplomb and grace has been a great boon to the project. Can only admire his range and work ethic, dunno how he manages it along with everything else but I'm very glad he does. I trust entirely his good judgement and common sense in editing and dealing with others, have no doubts that once an admin these qualities will continue to benefit the project.--
'''Support''' - a very good candidate who can be trusted with administrative tools, I feel.
'''Support'''. This editor seems to be well-suited for the task of administrating. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support'''. Doug participates well in discussions and has learnt from minor mistakes in the past.
'''Support''', seems sensible enough. --
'''Support'''. I can see nothing bad from Doug's contribs. '''
'''Support''' Absolutely.  Very solid and sensible in all situations I've seen.
Per Moreschi and MastCell.  I feel that we don't need more admins ''in general'' and would probably even benefit from a sizeable reduction of the current corps, but we do need more admins with the set of skills Doug seems to have. --
I'm
Support. Quite convicing candidate. However, taking more care of newbie users and helping them to make useful contributions would be fine. That Doug couldn't remember any such incident is really somewhat embarrassing.
Moreschi nominated. ~
'''Support''', no good reason not to.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate. No obvious problems.--
'''Support''' -- Yes please. Good head on the shoulders of that one.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Support'''. This is a no-brainer for me.
'''Support''' : Nothing that concerns me... Best wishes again --
➨ <font color="red">❝'''[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]'''❞</font>
'''Support''', yes please.
'''Support''' As remarked above, a no-brainer and some say I have no brains, so... More seriously, one of the better RfA candidates we've seen lately. JayHenry's remarks are especially apropos.
'''Support'''. First class editor, impeccable judgement.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support'''.  Highly clueful.
'''Support'''. Don't recall how Dougweller wound up on my watchlist, but I see a constant string of comments related to productive edits. Plus, adminship is no big deal. Mop away, my friend! -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I had always assumed that Doug was an administrator. Let it happen.
'''Support'''. No worries about this editor. --
Obviously. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support'''. Trustworthy experienced and useful editor. +
'''Support''' I see no reason for concern, the candidate should be a net positive to the project.
Support - net positive. While I understand Realist's concern, I think that the general Gnomey-ness, coupled with a careful approach works for me. Best of luck, '''''<font color="green">
'''Support'''.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Hello, is this where I sign up to go hunting for Thomas Jefferson's ghost? Oh, wrong queue.  While I am here: '''Support''' -- everyone else said it best, and earlier.
'''Support''' As per  Moreschi and track is very good.
'''Support''' per answers to 8, 11, 12.
'''Support''' per answer to question 8, and nothing big jumps out that would make me oppose.
'''Support''' Thinks outside the box and is reasonable and willing to listen. ——'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good Editor '''
'''Ah yep'''. Seen em around with good effect.
'''Support'''. I'm seeing good contributions here, and I don't have any reservations about granting this editor the tools. Good luck,
'''Strong support''', with many thanks for showing wisdom in the Hrafn affair. If you ever want to discuss something I'll be glad to try to help, but suspect that you already know more about it than I do. . .
'''[[WP:100]] support''' for this fine editor. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' We can always use more admins (see my user page) and there isn't a problem with this one. <small style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic,Arial;display:inline;padding:5px;background-color: #ff0000">
Lack's article work for me to support, but I wouldn't object to you being an admin at all. Best of luck whatever happens. —
'''Neutral''' at this time.
'''Beat the nom support''' - Yes, yes, yes! (2nd BTN in a row)! ;) <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Strong support''' - I strongly support this great user and hope he'll be an admin. <font face="Arial Black">
Absolutely.
'''Support''' before the nom's, go me. Seems an excellent editor.
'''Strong Support''' Per high quality nominations by [[User:Davidwr|Davidwr]] and [[User:Pedro|Pedro]] ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', Pedro basically got it all. This guy knows what he's doing and definitely appears to have the project's best interests in mind here. No concerns. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong Support''' In my browsing around wikipedia, I have read many of this candidate's messages and contributions even though I have never interacted with him. I think Dravecky would make an excellent and mature administrator. This is because his extensive quality content contributions means that a firm foundation in the work which is our main reason for being here will almost certainly be maintained. Thus, I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. Almost the perfect candidate IMO. No time wasted in the sloughs of despond, obviously dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. --
'''Support'''.  Good user. Best of luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
Great image work. That's certainly an area where we need more admins. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' per nom. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' &ndash; Will do just fine. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Good user, good image work, good (future, hopefully) admin.
'''Support''' good pick for adminship.
'''Support''' - User clearly has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart.
'''Support''' - I would rightfully deserve to be burnt like a witch if I didn't. —
'''Support'''. The candidate has a great track record in content-building and communicates well with others. He's mature and informed. I see no problem with him having the buttons.
'''Support.'''  Toolage for this candidate is both appropriate and overdue.  —
'''Support'''. This editor does excellent work and knows his stuff. He'd make a fine admin. Although I'm a bit miffed by the statement in the nomination that he had over 500 edits in his first three weeks. Unless I'm missing something, it appears he had under 100 in the three weeks following his first edit.
'''Supprot''' Sure.
'''Support''' good plan on how to start your admin career.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''. It's difficult to think of something new to say when you're this far down the list, so I'll just say ''per above''. -
'''Support'''. Hey look, a great editor with an awesome track record who says they want to help with backlogs.  I think I'll oppose! <b>'''
Wow, even Malleus likes this one! No way I can do anything but '''support''' then.
No reason not to.
'''Support''' ''
'''Weak support'''.  I would oppose per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timetales]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate]], i.e. use of [[WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC]] style of non-argument, but support per reasonable arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Botany Bay]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Hills Middle School]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luminara Unduli]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (6th nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashyyyk]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kady Malloy]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Kajzer]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronauts of Antiquity]], as well as the candidate has never been blocked, i.e. positives trump negatives by a good degree.  --
'''Support''' As per Pedro and track is good .See no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' per noms. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
Never heard of candidate, but glowing comments in nom, and in supports suggest this is a great candidate. &ndash;
<s>'''Oppose''' - Only two edits to the portal talk space.</s> I'll let the 350+ edits to the category talk space make up for it. ;) '''Support''' - We need more admins with a focus on content and not politics. Clearly this user's focus is on the articles, although with so many edits, I'd like to see some featured content, or at least Good Articles. Nice to see him dipping a toe in DYK, though. In looking over his user page, I can tell he's got a sense of humor, which I think I'm going to start requiring of all admin candidates. Clueful and qualified, I ask two questions of myself: 1/ Can he be trusted not to abuse the tools? And 2/ Does he have the edit history needed to determine 1? And to both I answer "Yes."
'''Support''' - Because of my limited free time, I rarely offer support here, but after reviewing this editor's contributions, there's no way I can ignore this RfA.  This user deservedly has my support.  —'''
'''Support''' Good editor. No doubt as to Dravecky's ability!!
'''Support'''. Good content and reasonable AfD participation.
'''Support''' - Builds the encyclopedia. I hope to emulate their example. --'''''
Trustworthy candidate who will benefit from the tools. No grand plans for the mop, but that's okay: every little helps. No other obvious problems. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - So many mainspace edits! --
'''Support''' Strong candidate, obvious need for the tools. No reasons to suspect any misuse of the tools. Good luck!
Another great candidate? ANOTHER? Wow we're on a roll lately. '''Support''' for a great candidate who is trustful and will not abuse the tools :)
'''Support''' - Excellent, thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' - Only hear good things from this candidate --'''
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
Hi, I'm [[Puff the Magic Dragon]] and I need to speak with an attorney -- I am being harassed by the [[Drug Enforcement Agency|DEA]] because they think I have a stash of you-know-what in my cave (it's just a name, it's not a lifestyle)...oh, wrong queue.  But while I'm here: '''Support''' for a candidate who clearly lights up the project.
'''Support''', yes, some wonderful candidates this week.
'''Support''', without reservation. I bumped into Dravecky regularly over the last several months while working on disambiguating call signs. Solid grasp of policy and guidelines, well-spoken, and doesn't hesitate to dig into the mucky stuff. Combined with the focus on article creation, this one's easy.
Oh, hell yes. "Get the red out", hahahahahaha I love it. —
'''Support''' Great contributions, good article work, everything I like to see in an admin and trustworthy. --
'''Support'''. Fine contributions.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''. Looks great.
'''Support''' Per Brad. '''
'''Support''' No issues, fine work. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has a ton of experience, and definitely knows what he's doing. If Dravecky has the mop, it'll be nothing but a benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Of course; admins with a serious focus on content are an enormous asset to the project. //
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support''' large amount of contributions, 100%/100% major/minor edit summary usage, no blocks, excellent candidate; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''': Strong contributor and no block history. Some added buttons for you can do only good for Wikipedia. Best wishes --
Well I guess it is true the old saw: "Better late than never..." Anyway, pleased to '''Support'''.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.  --
'''Support'''. Very strong candidate.
'''Support''', meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], no major issues.
'''Support'''.  Nice work on category talk and wikiproject talk pages. - Dan
Pile-on counter-update redundant '''Support'''.  As nominator, I can freely say "per nom."  I think this may be a record for the number of people who "beat the nom."  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)  Update:  At the risk of being premature, let me be the negative-Nth to say "congratulations."
'''Support''' - Well qualified and giving Dravecky additional tools could only help the project. --
I don't get it, candidates get opposed for not having patrolled enough pages, then candidate who has patrolled no pages gets unanimous support --
'''Strong support.'''  One of the most levelheaded editors around and has a far better than average understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  —
'''Support'''. Seems like a strong candidate.
'''Support''' - nothing here to make me believe that Ed would be anything but an asset.  -
'''Meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]].'''  <edit conflicted> Reviewed talk page and saw no evidence of incivility or misapplication of policy. I did find Barnstars and such comments as, "at last someone who  will help me." Works in an area I don't have the patience for. Seems experienced and wise enough to trust with the mop though not highly active in so-called mop related areas.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' per Athaenara. Has significant experience of editing controversial articles and keeping his cool.
'''Support''' - Ed does a great job and would be a huge asset to the admins. <b>
'''Support''' - Extremely strong in all areas, especially Wikipedia namespaces that foster good pre-administrative experience. The fact that he's a science user like myself is kinda a bonus. : )
'''Support''' Good user, he is good at participating in noticeboards. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''.  Re. Question 4, would love to have heard the nom's view of the ethics of sending thank-you notes, but even without it I support candidacy.  --
'''Meets
'''Support''' - Clear evidence of a calm, careful approach and an excellent understanding of WP policies. The level of detail on COI work is particularly impressive - a genuine interest in finding ways to keep notable articles, remove biased material and not drive away any conflicted but genuine editors.
'''Support'''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''' As per Athaenara and Euryalus and over 7000 edits.No concerns.
'''Support'''.  Please send me a thank you note.  =) <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Level headed administrators are always good. <strong>
'''Support'''. Long-term thoughtful editor with wide experience of the project.
'''Strong support'''.  Thoughtful, level-headed, and I've always been impressed with his willingness to help out in other disputes here and there.  He'll make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' Has always been calm and thoughtful when I've run across him.
'''Support''' I have been impressed with his work at [[WP:COI/N]] and think he will be an excellent admin
'''Support''' Has a good understanding of how to handle situations. '''
'''Strong support''' -- good judgement. --<font face="Futura">

[[WP:COIN]] patrollers must be '''supported strongly'''.
Looks ok to me --
'''Strong Support''' - Good answers to questions and meets [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]] --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Strong Support'''--
'''Support''' thoughtful candidate who will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' I've been very favorably impressed, and think he'll do a great job. :)
'''Support''' - good candidate, meets all my standards, very level, probably will be a great sysop.
'''Support''' - meets my standard... sike, I have no standards. --[[User talk:Endlessdan|Endless]]
'''Support''' I think it's okay.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Best correlation between article space and article talkspace I have seen in a candidate.
'''Support''' Appears to be a diligent, thoughtful, well-rounded candidate. My random check of contribs from Dec. 2007 shows good judgment and knowledge of policy. Actively takes care of things in a positive way. Shoobee-dobee do-whah (sax solo goes here)
'''Support.''' The candidate helped me get oriented when I was a new user.  That's probably enough reason for support right there, but I looked over some of the candidate's contribs anyway, and found a lot of knowledgeable actions, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=178177628 reverting] a premature closure of a discussion by an involved user; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=prev&oldid=178354774 enforcing] the BLP policy; an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christofascism_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=179434434 informative] AfD vote, a lot of work on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, etc.  Coincidentally, in going through this candidate's contribs I happened to run across a support vote for the first RfA I ever supported, Salix alba's. --
'''Support''' Great editor. --
'''Support''' - Yes. --
Good editor, good answers to above questions. '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Some good work here; questions well answered--'''''<span style= "font-size:large;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' Sure. :)
'''Support''' - No Reason not too.
'''support''' Ok, I know this is a cliche but I honestly thought he was an admin already otherwise I would have nominated him.
'''Support''' Great answers to questions - great editor - Good luck! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support.''' Experienced, level headed editor who can handle controversy. Looks well suited for admin status.
'''Support''' Looks good with awesome edit summary usage, and a great amount of edits. -
'''Support''' No issues. Great candidate. '''
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''A cool, reasonable individual in complex settings.--
'''Support''' Excellent content contributor, I see no reason for concern of any kind. Good luck!
'''Support''' - Nom. —
'''Support''' - I trust this guy, and he helped me in dealing with POV/fanboyism problems on articles related to Filipino actors and actresses. He really deserves to be an administrator here.
'''Support'''. Good feeling about this one, and the contributions I'm seeing are top notch. I think having the candidate as an admin will be a net positive to the project. Good luck,
If he can write good articles, and negotiate interaction enough to get FA status, without any fracas, he can handle adminship. Shame about the musical tastes, but we can't have everything, and I doubt opposing for that reason would result in reform.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. I've reviewed Efe's contributions, and I like what I see—good communication skills, a sensible approach to vandalism, and obvious dedication to the project.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support'''. Looks great!
'''Support''' - no one thing to point to, but I've reviewed a sample of her recent contributions (deleted and none) and they show pretty good awareness of policy and practice.
Hello, my Venus Flytrap is having a birthday party this weekend, so I’d like to get a pound of horseflies and a half-pound of gnats...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: '''Support''' for a candidate who embodies everything that’s net positive.
'''Support''' - Good content builder and has good experience with image deletion. His experience in other admin-related areas looks weak though.
I'm strongly supporting this nomination: I supported Efe's last nomination, and while I thought he was ready then, I do believe he's even more ready now. I've interacted with him on countless occasions, and his work to articles about [[Beyoncé Knowles]], [[Britney Spears]], and other pop musicians is impressive. I was hoping to nominate when this RfA came around, but I see that Realist2 and Journalist got there first. :) Efe is an excellent user, and I'm sure he'll use the tools well.
'''Support'''. He's a helpful, hardworking editor with common sense.
'''Strong support'''. No one is more deserving.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user + Great Article Writing.
'''Strong Support''' Great track ,civil and very good article writer.See no scope for misuse of tools and concerns raised in previous  RFA overcame.
'''Without a doubt''' Yup. He meets any standard for adminship that exists. At the risk of embarrasing myself if it doesn't, I predict this will hit [[WP:100]] at some point.
'''Support''' — Nothing wrong here! Clearly a good editor (since Realist nominated...) and has no problem with admin-related areas. —'''
Of course. '''Support'''
[[Efe]] should have becomed an admin the day he registered from Wikipedia. Of course, '''Strongly Support'''. --<b><font color="darkgreen">
'''Support'''.I know very well Efe is an amazing contributor with past interactions, he'll be a fine admin.
'''Support''' per all above. ''
'''Support''' Looks pretty good.
'''Support''' excellent contributions to the article field, clean block log, very high edit count (although it is not a determining factor for me) this user will most surely be a net postive to the project if given the tools, so [[WP:WTHN|why not?]]. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''': All that interaction on article talk pages looks like a good sign that the candidate knows how to discuss issues with others. <sup><small>
'''Support''' Very good portfolio. --
'''Support''' Indeed. Efe will be a very good admin from what I've seen of his work here. Absolutely. --
What RFA has been needing lately is some solid content contributors! This guy meets the cut. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Clearly deserves the mop.--
'''Beat the nom sup--Wait, no. Just plain support'''. Great editor, clearly has shown they can be trusted with the mop.
'''Turkish Outlaw Support''' ~<strong>'''''the''
'''i Support'''. A single judgment error doesn't subdue a thousand good contributions, not to mention helping other editors too.
'''Support''' - contributions look good - user ready for the tools --'''
'''Support'''. Impressive editor, one I'd trust with unpopped bubble wrap.  Maybe.  -<b>'''
'''Suppport'''.  Per Axxand's argument that a single "fault" should not be the basis to overlook and disregard thousands of good contributions.
'''Strong support''' This is one of those once-in-a-lifetime chances that people just die to wish for.  Honestly, I believe he's a great editor, an active Wikipedian and one of those people who can contribute greatly to the development of Wikipedia as a whole.  It's not so much a vote as to whether or not he needs or deserves the tools, it's more a vote on affirming his capability to use them since I know he truly deserves it. --
'''Support''' - absolutely. -
'''Support''' - Trust is obvious here, and therefore so is my support.  &hArr;
'''Weak support''' - the contributions and work that Efe has done all seem positive, although the phrase "I can't control my zeal" (Q1) does seem rather odd.
'''Weak Support''' -- The weak is per [[User:Balloonman/RfA_Criteria#How_I_.21vote|my guideline]] on how I vote when I don't thoroughly vet the candidate rather than anything about the candidate themselves.  I started looking at him last night and didn't see any obvious issues.---'''
'''Sure'''.  Contribs look fine, lots of excellent content contribs.  Some of your talkpage/Wikipedia page editing (which will become a large part of what you do as a result of "admin actions"), are perhaps a bit "short", but they are sound in their policy interpretation.  I think there might be a language barrier of sorts?  My apologies for being assumptive, but it seems like you are not a native English speaker (I had to read your answer to Q1 above like 8 times to understand what you meant by ''Although I can still contribute greatly to the project by simply tagging speedy-eligible pages and notifying page creators, and reverting vandals and giving warnings to users and IPs, I sometimes can’t control my zeal protecting pages and blocking users and IPs myself, so I though it would be prolific if I have access to some tools that ordinary users can’t'').  A couple of things:  "Zeal" has a negative connotation and comes across as if you would be "zealous" in blocking others (blocking is a last resort in most cases and comes ''after'' open dialogue is at least attempted, not a block first and ask questions later thing.  Same with protecting.  Same with assuming all IPs are vandals).  Calling non-admins "ordinary users" also has a negative ''us vs. them'' connotation, but again, I don't think you meant it that way.  I think you'll do fine with the extra buttons, and you work in an area of the wiki that does seem to attract vandalistic editing where you would be an asset to the project.  If in doubt, ask someone you trust first before performing a controversial admin action, I believe you'll do just fine.  Cheers,
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Also, per good answers to my questions. —
Little bit of everything, looks great for me so '''Support'''!
'''Support''' Yes, Yes, Yes.
Looks like a fine candidate, so '''support'''.
'''Support''' Some AfD concerns (see opposes below).  Please work on that.  Otherwise, I like the strong article creation and other contributions, trustworthy. --
'''Support'''.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' A motivator. -
'''Support''' See no reason why not.
'''Strong Support''' Great editor with loads of good contribs and no decent reason not to! <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Strong Support''' I'll give my full support for Efe. He's a great editor.--
'''Support''': An excellent contributor, well experienced and looks at home with the policies. But maybe a bit umm... over enthusiastic, judging by some of the answers :) I think we can trust him not to make any wrong decisions though, and he definitely won't be misusing the tools.
Yes.
'''Support'''. Good contributions & answers.
'''Support'''. Been so busy with school and work I hadn't had time to review the candidate until I was finally given a 1 hour lunch break. I wonder if that was a mistake. But what wouldn't be a mistake is making this guy an admin.
'''Support''' You werent one? I thoguht you we're. Gave me a lot of advice when I first joined wiki. ^^
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I've come across Efe at FAC, and he responds and communicates very well with other editors, even when they are critical of his work.  This is the kind of level-headedness that makes me confident that he will prove a fine admin.  --
'''Support''' and regards.
''Support''. Have clue, will use.
'''Support''' Most definitely. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and has contributed to good articles.--
'''Support''' - Good contributor. --
'''Support''' Admirable candidate - the somewhat um er regrettable taste in music ;) more than amply compensated by his clarity of purpose, communication skills, thoughtfulness and diligence.
'''Support''' - Very excellent contributor for making music and Filipino-related articles.
'''Support''' - An excellent contributor, I see no reason why you should not be an admin. I have reviewed the thoughts of the opposition and they do not concern me.
Efe comes across as a decent, clueful guy who could surely help out with the extra buttons.
'''Very strong support''' Per 33 GAs, 3 FAs, 10 DYKs, and lots of other work in those areas. Cares about our encyclopedia very much. Excellent candidate! &ndash;
'''Support''' - experienced enough; opposes are very weak. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 23:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)  He fully meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]; and at least some of the opposes are suspicious - possible [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]] going on here.
We need more article writer admins
--
'''Support''', great input and judgement.
'''Support''' - We need more admins with an article focus to help balance out us vandal/spam fighters. I trust the judgment of both nominators. --
'''Strong support''' - Teh fundamentals are important. '''
'''Strong support''': Very experienced and dedicated contributor to the project. Opposes doesnot convince me at all. --
''' Supreme Support''': I envy this guy's featured articles. I am 56, a [[judge]] and lawyer, and yet, since July 2007, I miserably failed, to have even on feature article. Oh, I admit I am lazy to read the rules on how to put into vote my legal articles to be featured. Efe is '''very not lazy like me'''. He must be a lawyer, who, unlike me, reads the Wikipedia Rules. He is neutral, in fact, in our RFC and bickerings, he stays up there in [[rainbow]]. He is an asset to Wikipedia. Cheers.--
'''Final Support''' Let's close this and give him the mop, shall we? -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Oppose''' per the rather stunning assertion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowloon Nine Heads Rodeo Show]] that "lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" is an insufficient reason to take a page to AfD. In general, Afd work is not particularly good. Most !votes are either of the [[WP:JNN]] or [[WP:JUSTAPOLICY]] type comments ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crispin_R._Aranda&diff=prev&oldid=250015091][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Vaughan_(teacher)&diff=prev&oldid=251318733]). Additionally IMHO [[WP:DELETION|deletion process]] + [[WP:SARCASM|sarcasm]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pangarap_Ko_Ang_Ibigin_Ka&diff=prev&oldid=250015227]) = [[WP:BITE|extreme newbie biting]] and is entirely unhelpful to the user who's page is getting deleted, regardless of how useless the page is.
[[Image:Florero de decoración.jpg|20px]] '''Oppose''' - Good Article writer? Yes. Does he demostrates enough maintenance edits to deserve the buttons? No. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Oppose''' For two reasons: his reply to question #3 is far too vague and mostly all of his edits are music related only. Not good enough in my opinion. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I don't see the kind of project experience that warrants trust.--
'''Very strong oppose''' - This candidate is not a suitable candidate due to lack of experince and possible conflict of interest.
'''Neutral for now''' I'm waiting for the answers to the last few questions.
'''Neutral''' - Per Icewedge's oppose !vote. Whilst I agree with his points in general, I don't think that Efe would be a net ''negative'' as an admin, so I am neutralling. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' Not wanting to ignore the reasons to support, some facts make me refrain from jumping on the support-bandwagon: The additional question by Richard Cavell reveals something important: An admin, like any good editor, should be able to use edit summaries that really explain what they were doing. Removing things as "ce" or "not needed" is not helpful and/or reminiscent of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Also, Icewedge's oppose is concerning as for the [[WP:VAGUEWAVE]]-part. '''
'''Neutral''' - I also am a little concerned by the editor removing information from articles without much explanation. -
'''Neutral''' but leaning towards support. The only reason I'm not on board is because of Icewedge's concerns.
'''Neutral'''. I'm concerned about the amount of haranguing that oppose !voters are getting. (Note: Any response to this will automatically result in me moving to oppose.) Also concerns about communication skills.
'''Support''', yes beat the nom! Great candidate! <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support (also beat the nom)'''. A good user as far as I can see. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. I work frequently with EncMstr, most notably on [[Barlow Road]] and [[Portland Aerial Tram]]. I would highlight his intense focus on improving articles; he does independent research, creates maps and visual aids, and deliberates on talk pages, without getting unnecessarily drawn into argument or tangential discussion. An excellent candidate for admin tools. -
'''Support''' My interactions with this user have been great, and they're obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' per Peterforsyth. <strong>
'''Support''' EncMstr has always been positive and helpful and patient, especially with editors like me who are fairly new.<blockquote>Great work on the article. Thanks for the excellent effort. I notice you added the <nowiki><br clear="all" />,</nowiki> back in. That's fairly unusual to do when the photos are simply interacting with text. See, for example, Oregon which has had a lot of effort applied to make it react and appear well when subjected to a wide variety of browsers, style sheets, resolutions, and font sizes. I recommend removing them. Perhaps a few <br />'s would accomplish your goals? —EncMstr 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>
'''Support.''' Per the nom, {{user|EncMstr}}'s answer to the nom, and answers to the questions.
'''Strong Support''' EncMstr has always been patient with and welcoming to newcomers, assumes good faith above and beyond the call of duty, often taking time to civilly explain things to users when most of us would just template 'em. He also knows his grammar and wikimarkup, and though this doesn't appear to be a requirement for adminship, I sure wish it was emphasized more. Great answers to the questions, can start ''and'' improve articles--all together a great all-around editor, who would only be better with the use of the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - A good balance of talk page to article page.  Admins are often the first phase of dispute resolution, and use of talk pages helps.  --
'''Support''': Great work!   -
'''Support''' Has been around since Nov 2005 with over 9000 edits with over 4000 in mainspace and no concerns with track.
'''Support''' meets my standards. No problems seen. See no indication will abuse tools. No incivility seen on talk pages.
'''Support''' Qualified, to say the least. --'''
'''Support''' ''Pourqoui pas?''
'''Support''' I have seen EncMstr around ''somewhere'', but for the life of me I can't remember nor figure out where.  But I ''do'' remember it was a pleasant occurance.  Great editor, great asset, going to be a great admin.
'''Support''' - never had a bad experience with EncMstr.
'''Support''' - Great editor, will make terrific admin. --
'''Support''' [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Great contributor in a number of areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' Don't really see any major issues there.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' Seen on watchlist, always with high-quality edits.
'''Support''' - a fine user. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' ready for the tools
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Support''', quietly indispensable at [[WP:FAC]].
ec I'm angry no users give me a chance, but I think you will make a good admin (like I would!). So definite '''support'''.
'''Support''' as nom. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as a good candidate unlikely to abuse the tools or the trust of the community. I'm seeing a lot of good work at FAC, as noted by SandyGeorgia, above, and the candidate's CSD tagging (on review of a random sampling) looks good. No objections.
'''Support''' He is extremely active at [[WP:AIV]], in an almost scary kind of way.
'''Joke oppose which is actually a huge support''' since he's always so annoyingly quick at reverting vandalism, often beating me. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' I was one of the people who had doubts during the last RfA, and stated that I thought Epbr123 needed to spend more time showing that real changes in his behaviour had occurred. Since then, I have watched his contributions, and I think real changes are evident. Everyone should be allowed to demonstrate that they have learned, and Epbr123 seems to have done this. We still seem to have differences of opinion, but a healthy disagreement can lead to improvements in what it is one disagrees about, and I do not think this will jeopardise any administrative duties he will perform and learn to carry out. Consequently, I support this nomination.
'''Support''' without hesitation. An excellent user who I've encountered a couple times, and I see him all over. His vandal fighting work is terrific. Per the reasons above, as well.
Nominator last time, I know Epbr will utilise the bit effectively. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''. I have had several run-ins with Epbr123 in the past &ndash; some may not find that altogether surprising &ndash; and I do not always find myself in agreement with him. Nevertheless it seems obvious that his outstanding work in dealing with vandalism and speedy deletions would be enhanced by his access to the administrator toolbelt. --
'''Support'''.  Impressive article work.  There was some other interaction I had with him that I was impressed by, but I can't remember, so I decided to check out his contributions to see if I could find it...which was a mistake.   There's so much there that I probably couldn't find it if I spent all day.  Ah well, that's a plus. - Dan
'''Support''', thought he already was one. He beats me to the revert far, far too often :). <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Support''' I have had many, many run-ins with Epbr at AFD and I do have concerns over his (I think) overenthusiastic deletionism - but I do trust him not to delete anything he's not sure of, and a block button would obviously be useful to him.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' - Has my complete trust, seen editer on numerous times, very good. —
'''Support''' seen Epbr around vandal-fighting a lot. Will not misuse the buttons. --
'''Support''' - of course! -
'''Strong Support''' This candidate would be a great asset to the project. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from Epbr123 having the extra buttons.
Support. <big>
'''Support''' All of my encounters with him and what I have read lead me to believe he is mop worthy
'''Support''' Very impressive contribs. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. Excellent article contribs balanced with excellent vandalism/protection efforts.  And knowing a bit of the "history", if Malleus can support this, I would be daft not to.  No hesitation on my part.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I've watched Epbr123 in many FAC discussions.  He has shown a solid knowledge of policy and an ability to keep calm in the face of the inevitable disgruntled comments from FAC nominators.  I'm also highly impressed by his willingness to do tedious tasks (such as copyedit FAC candidates for MOS compliance) without seeking any recognition of his efforts at all.
'''Support'''. Observations of and encounters with contributions at FAC have left only the impression that Epbr123 is helpful, knowledgeable and competent.
'''Strong support''' as user has never been blocked, has contributed to 7 featured articles, 1 featured list, and 5 good articles, and makes good arguments as at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August]].  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - Good guy, great article writer, deserving.
A good, second RFA '''support.''' It's good, because this how a second RFA ought to be. At first, the editor got entangled in some brushfires, had a few arguments, and failed his first RFA attempt. OK, that happens. But he's continued to show his commitment, his cool, and his desire to help in editing. I don't doubt at this point that Epbr can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''', a dedicated encyclopedia builder who displays great judgment.  I have seen this editor make the difference on countless FACs, sneaking in with a key copy-edit when it counts.  --
'''Support''' - I've seen only good things from this user. Our Encyclopaedia would definitely profit from him gaining the tools. "Net positive" as some would say :-)
'''Support''' Seen his name more times than anybody else's at AIV. As I said at the last RfA, his work at FAC is impressive and as Sandy said, indispensable. The project will benefit with Epbr123 armed with the sysop flag, and the issues brought up at the last RfA are evidently resolved.
<small>'''
'''Support''' A superb editor, and have had pleasant experiences with him at WP:GA. I trust him with the tools and believe he will be a great asset as an admin. --
Should've been an admin the first time around.
'''Support''' just like last time. Trustworthy user, excellent content work.
'''Support'''.  You should've received the mop on your last RFA IMO, but all should be good this time around.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', active and encouraging contributor to the GA and FA process. Trustworthy anti-vandalism work and a thorough understanding of what makes wiki-tick. The mop and bucket can only make him more effective.
'''Support''' - a good editor who is constructive in potentially confrontational situations.
'''Support''' Very [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Epbr123 useful] against vandalism.  Also support per the answers to the questions.  Your mainspace edits are impressive and your deleted edit count is huge.  Good luck!
'''Support''' per ddstretch. Looks like this user has learned from his conflicts, and has continued to build on his considerable mainspace experience.
'''Edit-conflicted Support''' - Good vandalism reversions, good content creation, and I'm always encouraged to see newpage patrollers try to save pages from deletion, such as Epbr did with [[Special:Undelete/Kacey_(porn_star)|Kacey (porn star)]].  It doesn't always work out (as in this case), but it speaks volumes about the editor. --
'''Support''' (Changed from neutral) Per discussion below and excellent contribution history despite excessive Mechanism.
'''Support''' A pleasure to add my support, as this user's work in vandalism reverts on many articles I watch is outstanding. Worthy of being trusted with the mop. <i><b>
Good user, though you will be [[Running Up That Hill|running up that hill]] after this closes, won't you?
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
Certainly. -- <strong>
'''Support''' a most prolific, vibrant contributor - a role model. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Yep''' i said just yday i was going to do it and here it is '''''
'''Support''' lotsa evidence of good 'pedia building. Cheers,
'''Support''', per {{user|SandyGeorgia}}.
A great editor. '''
'''Strong support''' - great work with cleaning up articles as well as writing them. Strong in the fundamentals of Wikipedia. '''
'''Support''' Per nom. '''
To be honest, I had already assumed he was an administrator, given his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' A pleasure to as well. Good luck. Further - I've spent time today at [[WP:AIV]] and every report of Epbr's was spot on. Thanks you.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
''
'''Support''' There is such thing as ''too'' much vandalism reverting, but your article work balances it off. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' I've worked with this guy many times and he's a great asset to the project. ——
&mdash;
'''Super support''' An excellent contributor. If only others contributed so little, so thoughtlessly and mechanically to mainspace. Mind you, Sandy and Raul would be pretty busy. --
'''Support''' without hesitation
'''Strong Support''' without hesitation. Good editor. Has often edited articles which are not his own to save them from speedy deletion. Will be a strong asset to the project (I'm surprised he's not an admin already).
'''Strong Support''' Excellent article writer, great work in administrator-related tasks. This user is well qualified for adminship. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strong Support''' - Great content work both in article building and grooming. Having worked with this editor in GA, I was always impressed with professionalism that came across in his edits. Nothing I've seen from Epbr has ever given me pause. Will make a great administrator. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Edit-conflicted ''Very'' Strong Support''' <small><nowiki><--Can't let</nowiki> anyone beat me, now can I? :P</small> I have seen Epbr around on vandal patrol, and I have actually opened his talk page a few times to ask him for "admin" help, only to realize (again) that he is not an admin. I have no reservations whatsoever to giving him the mop.
'''Support''' - Although I expect most AIV reports are automated with Huggle and things, there are lots of great contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia-space, and also some good article building. A good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Dweller.
'''Support''' — for sure! →
'''Support'''. A very level-headed and experienced editor with a good track record both in main space and in project space and a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will definitely be an asset in managing various disputes.
'''Support''', valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''' User has demonstrated behavior that at this point indicates that he would not abuse the tools, and thus may be [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusted]] with them, even if we may disagree as to other minor points. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' An impressive record as an editor...
'''Strong support''' wonderful vandalfighter, brilliant contributer! Good luck! --
'''Support'''. A paragon of adminship. Why aren't you an administrator already? --
'''Support''' Of course. --
'''Support'''. If he would be better about edit summaries, I'd vote for him in November.
'''Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.'''  [[WP:200]]?  Don't bet against it.
'''Support''': per nom
'''Support''' Great, well-rounded user. <strong>
'''Support''' Looks like admin tools would come to good use, agree with the nomination by WjBscribe. ''—
'''Support'''. He looks like a great editor and should make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' Just saw him in action on vandal-patrol.  Good job!
'''Support''' I think you are really useful, especially anti-vandalism and [[NPOV]]. I appreciate all your contributions. Best wishes to you, Epbr123.
'''Support'''  All things appear to be in order for this candidate!  Best of luck!  --
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
'''Support'''. Hard working, trustworthy candidate. It's important to have well-rounded admins who know policy, have article-building experience, and have helped in admin areas like vandal-fighting.
'''Support''' - would do great use of the tools. <small>
'''Support'''. Any concerns from the previous nom have since been addressed, and the candidate is well qualified.
'''Support'''. Intelligent and thoughtful vandal fighter. Fairly good answers to questions and good article contributions.
'''Support''' Solid and helpful contrib history. Shows great judgement. Good, knowledgable answers to questions.
'''Support''' yeah, of course. —
'''Support''' no reason to suspect he might misuse the tools.
'''Support''' as co-nom of this RfA and last RfA.
Yep.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' - Solid user who will use the tools wisely.  --
'''Support''' - Ok, I finally found the time after my experiments (graduate school) to go through the contributions, and you know what? Yes, they are great things to be found amid the ten of thousands of reversions :). I still maintain that my neutral stance was justified, and I don't appreciate the swipes taken, however, that is unrelated to the candidate's overall performance, which is pretty darn good. So yes, my support is extended. Good luck, this will surely pass and you'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Solid candidate.
'''Support''' Great candidate. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''[[WP:100|Support]]''' - Looks good here.
'''Support''' Absolutely support; great editor.
'''Support''' Of course. Besides, if he's kept busy with admin stuff maybe he finally stops beating me at reverting vandalism. ;-)  <span style="background:#FFEE91">
'''Support''' per gurch and nom's. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''. Great amount of participation across Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support'''.  Dedicated and valuable contributor to the project.
'''Support'''. Great editor.--
'''Support''' Solid content contributor and hard worker, and meets
'''Support'''. Good luck.
Time to return the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/thedemonhog|favour]].  –'''
'''Support''' - Looks like a good editor who is unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent vandal fighter & editor; could really use the mop. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Great editor, and will be a great admin. --
'''Support''' At the prior RFA, I cast a vote for oppose due to a RFC related matter, but I've watched him working very hard, especially fighting against vandalism, and giving great contributions to articles as well. I have no lingering feeling about his ability as an admin. He will be good. --
'''Support''' Hard-working, conscientious and civil. He'll make a good admin. --
'''Support'''—Excellent candidate indeed. He will be an asset.
'''Strong Support after answering My Questions 16&17''' {
'''Support''' Piling on support. Good recommendations above. Exceeds thresholds for experience, judgment and trust. For proficiency's sake, I'd like to see the candidate get more portal and image edits, but that should never be a deal killer.
'''Support''' Well above the standards of most successful candidates - hard-working, impressive GA and FA contributions, can certainly be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' great edits/work - going to use the tools well
'''Support''' With all of the featured/good content, and the massive amount of vandalism reverts, he has shown he is here to contribute to an encyclopedia. '''
'''Support''' After reading the various comments on the page, I see no need to oppose a good candidate. <font color="green">[[User:Vivio Testarossa|Vivio<font color="red"> Testa<font color="blue">rossa]]</font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:Vivio Testarossa|Talk]]
'''Support:'''  Can certainly be trusted, and that's enough for me!<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']] .. <small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' We don't always agree, but Epbr is absolutely trustworthy.
'''Support''' as per above. <small>- -<nowiki>[</nowiki>
'''Support''' per lots of the above.
'''Support'''.  Looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  I see no problems, and this is clearly a valuable contributor to the project. --
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've done two thorough editor reviews of Epbr and have been pleased to see what progress he's made.  I've looked closely and haven't seen a hint of incivility since the problem I brought  up at the last RfA, and I've been impressed by his handling of several situations.  Not to mention all the excellent work he does for the project.
'''Support''' You are an exceptional candidate from what I can see, I see no other thing to do but support. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">
'''UBER Support''' As my firend steve has pointed out you are an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Seen this name popping up all the time, including content writing and vandalism reverting. Will be very valueable having this user as an admin here.  --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support.'''  Admin-quality candidate.  —
'''Support''' Should be an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''' I'm sure he will be an outstanding administrator.
'''Support''' Good experience of the candidate at AIV, and I liked the tone of the answers to questions (content in this matter irrelevant, the consideration and respect was great).
Support.
'''Support''' A wonderful editor who will make an even more wonderful admin.
'''Support''' I've only come across this user a couple times at FAC, but overall he's been helpful and a pleasure to work with.  This user is valuable to the project and will surely be even more so with admin privileges.
'''Support'''. I trust this editor.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support'''. Great user with great contributions. +
'''Support''' Epbr123 is a fine editor.
'''Support''' of course. --
Unlikely to blow up the wiki. ++
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' - oppose reasons from last rfa seem to have gone away --
'''Pile-on support''', I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', after having a good look at a variety of Epbr123's contributions.
'''Support'''.  With over 65,000 edits, You definitely deserve the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to be good user. He deserves adminship :p
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Assuming I haven't done so already. Like what I saw when I checked the contributions.
Per Lar. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
Seen Epbr everywhere. And of course the triple nominations by users I trust. ·
If Sandy calls him indispensable, then it's impossible not to support.
'''Support''' Had meant to support a few days ago, but was interrupted in the process. Doesn't make any difference at this point, but better late than never, right?
'''Support''' No arguments here. Looks like a good contributer. --
'''Support''': No reason to believe he will misuse the tools or the power buttons. With 65K edits and " ''still'' " no block history , I will blindly vote for you. --
'''Support''' committed editor with clear ideas.
'''Support''' for the many reasons stated above.
'''Reluctant oppose''' Not as strong an oppose as last time, but an oppose nevertheless. I had intended to support Epbr123's second bid for Adminship, but this one comes before I see much improvement in some areas of concern left over from the previous RfA. There were several aspects to Epbr123's disruptions which I think need to be addressed before I would support an RfA. 1) Incivility. He appears to have shown that he can be civil when he wants to, so this concern is addressed. 2) An overly-strict and literalistic interpretation of Wiki Guidelines which all state right up front that they are to be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This concern remains as strong as ever. Even statements he has made here show that he thinks "Ignore All Rules"-- a policy, not a guideline-- applies when a guideline is clearly in error. This is an invalid application of "IAR" because a guideline which is clearly wrong should be changed and ''never'' followed. Epr123 continues to show hostility towards any interpretation of a guideline for any exceptional case, claiming that instead the ''guideline'' must be changed to accomidate that-- and every-- exception before he will consider it. (I notice AfD hero has changed his opposed based on conversation on this matter with Epbr123. Epbr123's claim that he does not think every exception need be written down, "to avoid instruction creep" does not satisfy me. It ''still'' seems a concern with the guidelines-- i.e., keeping them nice and tidy-- not with their common sense interpretation and application.) 3) Epbr123 combined concerns 1 and 2 with a bot-like, mechanical, repetitive editing technique which can be good or bad. This technique, when employed to create valid stubs or to fight vandalism, is good. When it is done to strictly and mechanically enforce guidelines, ignoring all exceptions, and ignoring continued complaint from multiple editors, it is disruptive, leads to time wasted in arguments, and, ultimately, good editors leaving this volunteer project. It needs to be remembered that Wikipedia ''is'' a volunteer project, which depends on its volunteers feeling welcomed and valued. A welcoming atmosphere is destroyed when "Rules" are strictly, coldly, and (because not all Admins behave in this manner) inconsistently enforced. Epbr123 and I have had many disagreements in the past, and he has characterized these as "Inclusionist" and "Deletionist" differences. I disagree with this characterization. Epbr123 has created by now probably tens of thousands of stubs, while I work very slowly, on few articles... I think our differences are in our concern with form and content. Epbr123 is an extreme formalist. The letter of the law must be followed exactly, without regard to real-world interpretations or outcomes. This is a tolerable attitude, perhaps, in an editor, but one that will lead to conflict, disruption and other trouble in the hands of an Administrator.
'''Oppose''' - Today I had or another editor had to revert changes you made to two articles which were to the detriment of the articles. Both articles are currently [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]]. This leads me to think that you do not have good editing judment. Reading the rest of your nomination, it seems like you should know better.  &ndash;
Uses Huggle --
'''Support'''. I'm confident that Esanchez7587 has a solid grasp of policies and procedures, even though he doesn't have a whole lot of edits to the Wikipedia namespace.  I'm willing to overlook that one this time due to his extensive time of active work on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Very good user. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
I encountered this user earlier and found him to be both polite and a good vandal-fighter. ''
'''Support''' Been here a good long time, knows the ropes. :)
'''Support''' Looking at edit history, good user. <strong>
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  '''
'''Support''' Seen some of the great work he has done on the articles on rap music etc. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good user to me.
'''Support''' I'm sure Esanchez7587 will help fight vandilisim which is a growing problem on Wikipedia. His barnstars prove it and Esanchez7587 has personally said to help fight vandilism.
'''Full Support''' Numerous excellent edits, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Great user <font color="1900FF" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' I've seen this guy around. He'll make a useful admin.
'''Support''' I do not believe that this user would abuse the tools, and I have seen good things at AIV, hence... However, I am very slightly concerned about the narrowness of focus (vandals and vandalism) but I am not worried enough not to support.
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Support'''. Meets my standards, great vandal-fighter with 48 scars to show for it.  Some answers above are a bit weak, but are not a major concern.
'''Support''' - All looks good, give em' the mop!
'''Support''' On balance this will be a '''net positive''' to the project. Nothing worrying on talk pages or in contributions, and plenty of sterling article work. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I can trust this user.
'''Support''' - Mop up.
'''Support''' valid candidate, very likely to be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. A good candidate with solid mainspace experience. I'd like to see a little more AIV work, but no concerns otherwise. Good luck,
I have no doubt at all this user is a great user and deserves to become administrator, especially not when looking at his edits and history carefully. Besides that, he has a, clean good record and fine reputation. Take that as a yes from me, okay?
'''Support''' All looks well. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Does not appear likely to abuse the tools. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' - Should have been one by now. --
'''Support''' I don't see any reason he would abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' Yep, see no problems here.
'''Support''' Sure there are good contributions and excellent vandal fighting and AFD's, although the only concern is the overall involvement in Wiki pages is a bit low with a large chunk of the contribs at WP:AIV.--
'''Support''' Good answers, edit history, and record.  <b>
I don't want to oppose based on answers that aren't completely incorrect, but I think answers to my first and second questions leave much to be desired. I don't think moving potentially BLP-violating material from the article to the article talk page is a good idea at all, and bans and blocks have entirely different purposes (although bans can be enforced by blocks). <sup>
As nominator.
'''Strong support''' An outstanding editor and great contributor at [[WP:AUS]]. While not afraid to take a position, he nevertheless steers clear of Wikidramaz and retains a cool head when discussion may get heated. A feature of his contributions to the project is the quality of his AfD comments. Not satisfied with a "per nom" comment, Euryalus provides detailed information, referring to policy or guidelines on what has prompted his !vote and advice on what could be done to change it; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Falling_Rain_Genomics_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=246920927], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burragubba&diff=prev&oldid=240308572], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Racing_guantanamo&diff=prev&oldid=235510148] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Ryan_(Australian_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=234028674]. --
'''Support''' Meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]].
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Ooh yeah'''. Great contributor and will be a great admin.
'''Support''' I was very impressed with the Barnstar of Rescue. Impressed by talk page. I found ~700 deleted edits.
'''Support'''. A consistent record of valued and considered contributions.
'''Support''' Very well-rounded editor, no serious conflicts, could definitely put admin tools to good use. '''<font color="midnightblue" face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Thoughtful contributor who gives every indication of being respectful and prudent with the tools.
'''Support'''.  I would trust you with the tools, and you have a fine contribution history.  &hArr;
Yes you have my '''Support'''.--
'''Support''' - Will be just fine with the few extra buttons. -
'''Support''' — Good editor, impressive answer to Balloonman's question in my opinion, nice ability to clarify things simply. Why not. —'''
'''Support''' - history demonstrates trustworthiness: Clear style in both articles and talk pages, non confrontational, dedicated to getting things right (as demonstrated by research for AfD). I believe precision and consideration mean the tools are safe in his hands, and that's what counts. <font color="#E66C2C">
'''Support''' -- echoing the support given above. I have no reason to see or believe otherwise. -
'''Aussieaussieaussie-oioioi'''...seriously though, clear net positive and excess of light over heat indicate a net positive for the 'pedia. Cheers,
'''Support'''- Has, in my opinion, the most important qualification for the extra buttons: '''“Investigator”'''.  [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] researches his/her opinion before expressing it.  Looks at both sides of a situation, researches it, than formulates his/her response based on the situation and the facts.  Now that is someone who has [[WP: Administrator|Administrator]] material.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' per above especially the question answers, and from reviewing candidates contributions such as to [[Talk:Kevin Rudd]] '''
'''Strong support''' Agree with nom and Mattinbgn amongst others. A strong editor on content alone even not considering his admirably even temperament when handling disputes such as those at [[Talk:John Howard]] and [[Talk:Nicola Roxon]] with the calm and factual approach that was sorely needed and without taking sides. Wish you the best on this one.
Hello, I'm [[Sarah Palin]] and I'd like to return this clothing I recently received as a gift -- I have my receipt for the $150,000 purchase and...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a highly worthy candidate (you betcha).
'''Support'''. Looks great.
'''Support''' per nom and experience of seeing the work in the Australian project
'''Support''' I find no reason for concern. Also, per the very thoughtful answer to Q4.
'''Support''' any editor remaining after 18 <s>hours</s>, <s>days</s>, months of circular discussions on articles like [[John Howard]] & [[Nicola Roxon]] needs a <s>padded cell</s> mop, and should be sharing his [[drug|happy pills]] with the rest of us
'''Support''' - He seems to be patient and methodical, even when the discussion gets hot. I liked his answer to Q4.

(ec)'''Support''' Thought I had done so last night, but when I started reviewing Euryalus, I thought for sure that I was going to oppose him.  There were some red flags that popped up immediately:  Heavy use of bots, sppedy deleter, and lack of meaningful talk page discussions (EG there are few pages where he's made more than a few edits).  I particularly hate Speedy Deleters... while I recognize the need for them, I will only support the best of the best because IMHO a wreckless speedy deleter can be as harmful to the project as the most persistent vandal---and may never be noticed.  So I took a very close look at Euryalus, probably close to four hours (interspersed with watching the election results)!  I checked a large number of his AFD contributions, where he makes solid well rounded policy based persuasive arguments. I checked well over 100 of his CSD's... and while I caution him on the use of Patent Nonsense and *I* might have referred one or two to AFD, there weren't any that I felt were mistagged.  I also checked out his talk page---particularly looking for "reverts" or other signs of removing complaints.  Again, I would suggest carrying on conversations where they start and not jumping from page to page. I also looked at his other contributions.  The more I saw, the more convinced that I became that Euryalus is a speedy deleter that I could support.  His answer to my question above, satisfys my only concern.---'''
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions with the candidate.  --
'''Support''', good article editor, but please do teach yourself the speedy deletion criterias better. --
'''Support''' I like all of your contributions and you've put in enough work to articles that I feel comfortable with.  Please work on improving your CSD work so it is more accurate as any wrongly speedied article always hurts the project.  However, you are trustworthy and I believe you will improve in that area. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor. When in doubt, AfD is never a bad idea.
'''  Support''' After Careful Consideration.User has been around since April 2007 and has over 7000 mainspace edits and over 14000 overall.The user is a Good editor but has made a few questionable edits in CSD and further the fact he plans to work in CSD and Deletions as per question 1 made me think.But after reviewing his contribution again see no chance of misuse and has shown great commitment to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Safe, Sound, Capable, Enthusiastic, Thoughtful, Considerate. Did I miss anything? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Work is too good for me to oppose, darn. ;) <font face="Gill Sans MT">'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions & reasonable answers.
'''Je soutiens ce candidat.''' I don't see why not. Net positive. Cheers,
[[Image:Florero de decoración.jpg|30px]] '''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' this user seems to a perfect candidate, clean block log, varied contributions, article work, high edit count; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. Candidate has good knowledge of policy and is a little iffy with CSD tags, but positives overpower this issue.
'''Support''' Looks Good To Me.
'''Support''' Looks great to me.  We could use an admin at [[Wikipedia:AL]].
Keeps a cool head in heated discussions and remains dispassionate and committed to the goals of Wikipedia; strongly support. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' because of many good articles.
'''Support''' A well experienced editor, very careful in his work, and dedicated. I think we can trust him not to make the wrong decisions or misuse the tools in any way. He should definitely get the tools.
'''Support''' I don't mind the CSD tags issues that much, and Q4 assured me that it's not too much of an issue. Otherwise, a great candidate, definitely deserving!
'''Support''' - great article work, good communication and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' &ndash; Very good article work, loads of experience in vandalism, the patent nonsense question does raise some concerns but they are very minor, i'd trust this user in using sysop tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' Looks good to me, good luck! <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' <s>per [[WP:WTHN]] at the moment, as</s> I see nothing of <s>immediate</s> concern. <s>I'll take a closer look as the RfA progresses.</s> &ndash;
'''Weak support''' Very bold edits I'd say, but your meaning of "pantent nonsense" is kind of confusing. Took me a few minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. [[Wikipedia:Edi|<span style='color:navy;background-color: gold;'>Leujohn</span>]] <sup>(
Yes, yes, a thousand times over, and a thousand times under, '''yes'''. Prolific contributor who has earned the level of trust associated with the tools.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - Seems to research issues in a painstaking and diligent way.
'''Strong Support''' - Users seems to be extremly experienced and know how to use the tools. You have my vote all the way. --
'''Support'''. For some reason I thought I had already participated in this RFA, but I realized I hadn't yet. Anyway, Euryalus is sufficiently experienced. Meets my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|criteria]].
'''Support''' The editor seems to be a good candidate for adminship, so why not? We can always use the help, especially with CSDs, where the backlog is often at 100+ and I am sure that he will restrain himself on CSD#G1 deletions in cases where he is in doubt. The candidate seems to be able to not start running amok with deletions and has instead indicated to be willing to be cautious. I think he can be trusted to keep that promise. ;-) '''
'''Support''' - seems very trustworthy, and the CSD tagging issue does not seem that major (as [[:User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] said his main concern was regarding CSD ''categories'', not with tagging pages which shouldn't have been tagged at all, for the most part).
'''Trust this candidate not to go apeshit''' with G1 speedy deletion et cetera. My experience of this candidate has been encouraging.  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' ahhhh yup... nothing here but good stuff. <b>
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''', seems level headed enough, no evidence that user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - After a look over this user's contributions, I have found nothing but good things: logical and level-headed discussions, and practical edits.  This user will make a fine admin.  —
'''Support''' per the ''Why Not? Doctrine''. - -
'''Support''': all good.
'''Support''' - I believe the user will handle the "delete" button responsibly. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' So good that nobody else is running for RfA because they can't compete! Also, solid contributions (at least, the last 100 are).
'''Support''': You have my trust ! --
'''Support''': I like a Latinist.
'''Support''': for what it is still worth (removing nonsense is excellent work)
'''Support''' Looks good to me. —
'''Troppus'''. '''
'''Support''' Most excellent. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. No problems here! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Sounds like you'd really like to get down n' dirty to clean up Wikipedia. Hope all your dreams come true!
'''Support''' &ndash; Mostly per [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]. A quick glimpse of the candidate's last 500 edits shows me a lot of good qualities administrators should have as far as I can tell. Will do just fine as an administrator. &ndash;
'''Support''' I hate being late to the party.  '''
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to support --'''
Serious content editor, yes.--
'''Support''' - refreshing candidate.
'''Support''' I see no reason this user would abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''', this candidate seems to be very much decent and clearly puts in effort to his writing.
'''Support''' as per nominator ;) '''
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support'''. See no issues here, no reason to suspect this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Although the concern presented by Neutral party is not satisfiable, the candidate's general contribution looks great, so I believe the candidate do not misuse the admin tools. Good luck.-
'''Support''' - I cannot see this user abusing the admin tools. Best wishes, '''
'''Support''' - no major issues in the "oppose" section.
Yes, this candidate will be a good administrator. Happily '''support'''. Use the tools well!
'''Support.''' Per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some noticeable positive contributions to this project. Thank you for your work here. '''
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, shows sufficient understanding of policy. Most importanly, his article contributions are quite good, with no evidence of tendentious editing, flawed dispute resolution, etc. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a very strong candidate, should make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Again?  Yes.  Some hardcore contributing here.  -<b>'''
'''Support''', gladly. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Neutral''' Sorry, I can't support due to the "Patent Nonsense" CSD mistakes. It shows the candidate hasn't read the speedy deletion criteria very well. We already have too many admins who don't understand the criteria.
'''Neutral''' - I can't really support either due to the G1 mistakes. G1 isn't really a complicated thing to mess up. Balloonman said it best; "If it doesn't fit one of the criteria cleanly, then it probably shouldn't be speedy deleted." At best, it should be prodded. - <font color="amaranth">
'''Strong Support''' I know EyeSerene from helping out the student editors over at [[WP:MMM]] and he has done a fantastic job. I couldn't possibly think of a better canditate
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
'''Support'''.  I'm sure that EyeSerene will make a great admin, and I trust the nominator.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Absolute support''' - There's not much more to say than that. :)
'''Support''' An excellent user whose work with the FA-team is something all Wikipedians should be aware of and considering whether or not they're doing anything so valuable. --
'''Support''' - Weak in the project space, strong in the mainspace. However, quality over quantity. [[WP:MMM]] by far was the selling point for me. I can trust this user, and that's the most important criteria.
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' Article builder admins are always welcome. --'''
'''Support'''. Excellent work. Keep it up!
'''Support'''. I can trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Strong support'''.  I've been involved with EyeSerene on the [[WP:MMM]] project, and he does indeed have much to be proud of there.  Above all, he's an astonishingly patient and effective mentor.  --
'''Support''' No problems here. <strong>
'''Support''' though I'll switch to oppose if the candidate wastes his time answering question 9. And FYI, answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 can be found in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cheatsheet]]. <font face="Broadway">
'''Strong support''' per FA/GA. '''
'''Support''', civil, courteous, collaborative content contributors are exactly the kind of editor we should be giving the tools.

'''Support''', same disclaimer as Mr Z-Man, and looking at the diffs from LGRDC below, I'm struggling to see any concerns, all the comments made at AfD have been sensible, backed up by policy and look to be well thought out.
'''Support'''.  From what I've seen of EyeSerene, I trust his judgement.  He's an asset to the encyclopaedia and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''', great contributions, seems like a trustworthy editor.  I looked at all the discussions linked to by LGRDC below, and I'm equally baffled by this oppose.  EyeSerene's comments all seemed carefully considered and were based in policy.  No reason to think he can't judge consensus based on this.
'''Support''' Strong editor. No indication that he'll abuse the tools. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Hell Yes Support''' although I will switch to oppose if he '''doesn't''' answer #9 by 24 hours before this ends...no particular reason except I like to force people to choose rather than just sit on the fence.
Absolutly not trite to say "whatever presents itself."  Nice to follow Kurt in a support :)
Strong support. An absolutely brilliant editor who will be an excellent administrator. No concerns whatsoever. ''
'''Support''' – As I stated in my original '''Neutral''' opinion, I would have come out in support for this candidate from the start.  A user since early 2007 with no civility issues or bad judgment calls.  An article builder, not an edit count engineer.  Listens to advice, and more importantly takes it.  And, most of all [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|NOBIGDEAL]].  The only time it should become a big deal is when a candidate has shown some inclination that the use of the tools will become a big deal.  This editor has shown no such sign other than they are a hardworking –-dedicated – levelheaded editor.  As to my original '''Neutral''' position, sorry to say it was done to make a point, not a supposition of the candidate’s qualifications.  Thanks and good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
Excellent article builder, good nomination.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Oppose reasons aren't especially convincing - it appears he has a life outside Wikipedia, focuses on articles, and is prepared to withdraw deletion noms if the article is improved.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' After careful consideration of this candidate, I have nothing to offer but support.  Good answers to the questions, and great patience with my asking the one about AOR, I thought I had substituted another question in its place.
'''Support''' Calm knowledgeable and very civil editor who knows the ropes. No reason whatsover to suppose he'll misuse the tools. --
'''+Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions in the form of articles, review work and interaction with others; helpful, knowledgeable and amicable.
'''Support'''--This user deserves the tools --- good luck! --
'''Support''' I see no cons. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' We definitely need an admin who knows so-called "bold delist" actually works and isn't afraid to be bitten when delisting a GA.
'''Yup.'''  You [[WP:CLUE|do it right]].  Great answers above, great contribs, no civility issues, clean talkpage.  Excellent candidate, happy to support!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Looks good. Fun to see Kurt in the support column as well. :)
'''Support''', looks great and love the above comment!!! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' per JayHenry and others. Cheers,
'''Support''' As per Keilana.
'''Support'''. I actually thought about adding a conom, but I just arrived too late and it took to long to look into the details. So I will waffle a bit here instead. I think I first encountered EyeSerene at the [[WP:Good article review/Archive 23#Holocaust denial|GAR for Holocaust denial]]. Although we did not engage directly very much, we effectively disagreed, because I supported the approach of
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
With pleasure. '''
'''Support''' candidate will be a fine admin. &ndash;

'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, has a level head with regards to AfD and from what I've seen consistently makes good arguments with a solid basis in policy.
'''Support'''. Have seen him around at [[WP:GA]] where IIRC he writes detailed, sensible rationales. Another article writer candidate! What is this, Christmas? --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. Collaborative, supportive, helpful, encouraging, good editor, thoughtful and trustworthy. Has to be a teacher! Clearly the ideal material for an admin. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''. Switch from neutral.
'''Support''' Strong experience, absolutely trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per Kurt. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seems to be trustworthy and reliable.
'''Support''' - he meets my standards, and I can't see any concerns.
'''Support''' - civil and thoughtful; looks like they'll be good with the tools. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' with pleasure, per MMM work, graceful diplomacy and devotion to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' Clearly meets
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate, can't think of a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor; will do well as an admin.
'''Support''' - User is OK. No major reasons not to support. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Flukey Support''' - Believe it or not, I had actually bookmarked your userpage with the intention of nominating you one day, as judging by your contributions and ethic, I reckoned you were definitely admin potential. Good to see someone else shared my thought, and I anticipate you will be a sound admin.
'''Support''' - a good editor who will use the tools well. Can see no evidence of future problems.--
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per Le Grand Roi's switch to neutral (Man, my RFA contribs just keep getting weirder and weirder...)
'''Support''' Community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] in this user appears warranted. --
'''Support'''.  In trying to get up to speed at [[WP:GAN]], everything that EyeSerene has said has seemed very level-headed to me. I have read all the comments; they make sense and don't give me any cause to worry about the candidate. - Dan
'''Support''' a little uneasy with the Afd discussion highlighted by 'Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles', but overall enough to keep it positive.
'''Strong Support''' Yes, a good article writer. I also like how EyeSerene answered his/her questions. I see very, very few reasons why to oppose. Good Luck. Cheers.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' I couldn't remember if I had weighed in on this RfA or not, so I did a name search and saw Geometry Guy's post where he reminded me of where I knew EyeSerene from.  Geometery Guy is 100% correct, we had a good discourse.  The name calling that he referred to wasn't between me and Eye, but rather a few others who were very (overly) concerned with the article itself.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions. No indication that this user will abuse the tools. ♥
'''Support''' See nothing to sugest will abuse the tools or be anything but a good admin.
'''Support''' nice answers, no concerns. Good luck.
'''Support'''; qualified and competent; will be an excellent admin.
'''Support.''' Per the nom from {{user|bibliomaniac15}}, some excellent content contributions, and contributions in many other areas of the project.
'''Support'''. A worthy candidate and good encyclopedia builder.
'''Support''' a strong editor who can be trusted with the mop. No worries here. --
'''Support''' No qualms regarding trustworthiness, and anyone experienced in getting articles through the GA process must have an understanding of WP editing policy.
'''Support''' - Good user, won't abuse the extra tools and the edits are great --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' and thanks for the answer to my question. <b>
Sure.
'''Oppose.''' I examined EyeSerene's contribution history and it makes me a little uneasy. EyeSerene averages 11 edits per day but it is heavily skewed to main space edits. EyeSerene has hardly engaged in Wikipedia discussions (policy) or activities (deletion). For example,  EyeSerene has only been involved in five deletion debates. Almost all Wiki space edits have been in the Good Articles project. I think EyeSerene has not experienced the dark side of Wikipedia enough to demonstrate their 'stuff'. Cheers!
Switching to '''neutral''' following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeSerene&diff=204215510&oldid=204170397 this] edit.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Switching to '''neutral''' following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EyeSerene&diff=204215510&oldid=204170397 this] edit.
'''Support''' no. 1 :) Will not abuse the tools, and will make the encyclopedia better, which is why adminship is granted after all.
'''Support''' Doesn't seem like he'll harm anything, seems like he might actually help things. '''
'''Cautious Support'''. Reviewing your deleted contributions, rollback usage and [[User:Firefoxman/Admin coaching]] I think on balance Firefoxman will be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]]. You've obviously worked hard since RFA 2 to address the experience concerns. My cautiousness is that Q1 seems a little bland, you've not had much ''recent'' input regarding speedy tagging, and I saw a mass of vandal reverts on the 16th May, some of which were not really clear cut vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=206040722] and '''none''' of which seemed to result in you warning the editor. Having said all that, working on [[WP:ERRORS]] counts as a big plus, and there seems to be no glaring issues. Certainly a civil and friendly user. Just take it steady. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. All I can say is, I'm pleasantly surprised. Best of luck, ffm. --
'''Support''' Seems OK. Nothing stands out that should suggest this user will make a bad admin. He's dabbled in all the right areas. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Grr, WBOSITG, I thought I was gonna be co-nomming? :( ''
'''Support''' - I've had a look through your recent edits, and I'm pleased with the level of article building and maintenance work you do. The only thing I'd ask for is that you put more thought into your responses in general in order to demonstrate critical thinking. This in itself is no big deal though, so I'm happy to support. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' - Nice mix of work, and definite building of content and usability. I just visited [[WP:ERROR]] for the first time myself - never saw it before. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
I've seen him participating well in many areas an am confident that with the tools he will continue to behave in a mature, responsible manner.
Seen him around, looks good. Near-perfect edit-summary usage, decent number of edits over quite a large timespan - shows you are experienced. Going through new admin school is a good idea - I didn't do it on enwiki, but practised on my own wiki. My only concern which would lead me to oppose would be the fact that this would mean there's another admin to beat me to stuff :P In other words, I offer my full '''support''' <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - ffm seems to be a very good editor who's got experience in a number of admin related areas. There's nothing in his contributions that cause me concern, and I'm confident that he'll make an effective administrator.
(ec)'''Ithoughtyouwereonealready support''' I never thought I'd have to say this again after I <s>stole</s>transcluded a script to highlight admin sigs, but I guess I did. Seriously, I thought you already were an admin. Guess that's because I don't frequent [[WP:ERROR]] very much... Good luck and remember not to ''delete'' the main page when your supposed to be ''fixing'' it. ;) <font color="#3300ff">
'''
'''Support''' Looks fine, and the good technical work is a big plus.
'''Support per above'''  Trust nominator. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#.22standards.22_chart|More than meets my standards.]] Review of edits and talk shows low likelihood will abuse tools.
'''Support''' -- per the noms = ). --
'''Support'''.  As nominator. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I did a full review of this candidate's contribs earlier, and came to the conclusion then that if I ever saw ffm at RFA, I would happily support.  Easily meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - basically per everything that's been said above. ffm is a very civil, nice user, and even though there might be a couple of little things, they don't concern me and it doesn't affect my support. This candidate is experienced and I'd trust him with the tools. Just don't forget to start out slow and careful as you said. :) Good luck!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Definete.
'''Support''' - Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''', nothing to indicate that this user cannot be trusted with the tools.
No... no, just no. You're already an admin. Liar. Admins running for RFA are disruptive, and therefore I oppose.<sup>Joke, of course. I hate cliches, but it's true. :(</sup> ·
'''
'''Support''' About time. I would carve you a mop myself if I only had a carving knife.
'''Support'''. Only if you take strong note of Wisdom89's neutral, which I'm sure you will. Apart from that, everything else is fine.
'''Support''' - Per conversation in neutral section below. User should be more careful at [[WP:UAA]] considering how bitey it can be, but I trust that they will be more conscientious in the future and learn by trial and error. The rest of the work is quite good.
'''Support''' you can look at his answer to Q1 as hesitation, but I see caution motivated by responsibility. He's not gonna dive into the pool without learning to swim. Good attitude, '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''Belated Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Per Bstone. I've seen ffm around quite a bit, and I doubt he'll abuse the tools. Seems like he could really benefit from the mop.
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]] and previous positive interaction. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Conditional support''' – /Support Firefoxman / do I so long as [[haiku]]s, / like above, are fixed./ (5/7/4 ≠ haiku) <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support'''. I've seen ffm's contributions all over Wikipedia, and I agree that he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' The issues from the previous RfAs seem to be taken caer of. And his decent Haiku shows his dedication to teh wiki :-) <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
<span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support'''. <big>
'''Support'''.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Those year-old diffs don't really convince of any possible malice.--
'''Support''' <span>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Oppose arguments seem to be based on stuff that happened last year.
'''Support''' Seems like the right person for the job. --
'''Support''' all looks good. --
'''Support''' This is a well prepared candidate for adminship.
'''Support'''- The concerns that were in your previous RFA's have been ironed out, and I think sysopping you would be a net positive. Best of luck, <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">
'''Support''' Taking a look through this user's contributions, answers, and recent history, there's nothing to indicate that this user would misuse the tools. You have my trust thus far. :) Best,
'''Support'''. I thought ffm was an admin already- he has my trust and I feel the project would benefit from him having the tools. Some recognised content would be nice, but I see Ubuntu (certainly an important article) is currently a GA nominee.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', trust the user.
'''Support''' from me and the otters. Deserves it.
'''Support'''. He is reliable.
'''Support''' of course, great user. —
'''Support''' I've known this user for I think a couple years now from vandal fighting together, and I've never seen anything from him that led me to question his judgement.
'''Support''' - looks good, no concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Reliable, trustworthy, and good work.
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
Although some article writing would be nice.  –'''
'''Support''' Good user who won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' I'd trust this user with a mop.  Even a really big one.
'''Support''', good edits, answers and experience.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' — civility, comprehension, maturity, and skills: all this and haiku too?  Yowza  —
'''Support'''.
Yep. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''
'''Support''' - he needs the tools.  Frequent reverter of vandalism/tests, and reports people to [[WP:AIAV]]. -
'''Support''' ''
'''Support''' - excellent candidate. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' by all means.  Has done super work here and on other wikis.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me. I've seen him in action around the wiki, and all is well :) -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy editor.
Meant to support this one earlier, but here you go.
'''Support''' Good candidate. I am mostly impressed by the fact that both times earlier requests failed the candidate simply went back to contributing to the encyclopedia - learning all the time - and only reapplying when they thought they might be ready. I believe they really are this time.
'''Support'''No concerns.
'''Support''' No concerns here, great work at [[WP:ERROR]] and good answers to questions 5 & 6.  All the Best, --
'''Support'''. See no serious issues.
'''Support''' Excellent editor.

Would like to see an explanation for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Oreskes&diff=prev&oldid=218239197]
'''Neutral'''. After looking through your work, it's all really good. However, a lot of it is automated. A vast majority of your User Talk edits, at least in the last 1000 of them are automated, templated warnings. This shows a lack of communication and I feel good communication is a valuable trait in an admin. Also, the same case applies to the mainspace, a lot of your recent work has been via Huggle. I'd prefer to see that you do more of your own work rather than click buttons in a script. At least in the 1000 or so edits leading up to your RFA.
'''Neutral''' Pending optional answers to optional questions. I may then opt to optionally change my opinion. But I might anyway. A longwinded way of saying this is a placeholder. --
"A: I'd warn the user up to four times, and if they persisted I would block the account, put a post at WP:ANI, report it in #wikipedia-en-admins, and contact the administrator via email and ask for more information. If the admin unblocked himself and continued vandalism, I'd get a steward" — administrators vandalising equals one message and then block.
'''Support''' I can't say i have reviewed all of your edits but 3700 is plenty for an admin and having reviewed a dozen of your AFD contributions I'd say that the ones I looked at were all on the button. Your opinion was in all bar one case on the winning side - both delete and keep. Lots of early votes too so no worries about following the herd. <s>My only concern is that even the most routine action can lead to strife and angst and your answersd suggest a conflict aversion on your part. Just remember if you get the tools that no means no unless you can see you screwed up. But having 4 teenagers </s>(you have my sympathy} <s>you probably already know that. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 23:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</s> Struck per clarification - except for the sympathy for having 4 teenagers - you still have that.
Looks fine; I had four months under my belt when I was sysopped and the worst thing I did was delete the Main Page... ;-) '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' Seems fine, I trust him. Good AIV work, no serious screw-ups in sight... also, if I remember correctly, I've had nothing but positive interactions with Frank. He's a good guy.--
'''Support''' — self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
I actually bothered reading the statement & answers for once and was very impressed. Exactly the kind of person we should be promoting.
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of absolutely nothing.  But I do see an intelligent, sincere and capable candidate.
'''Support''' I like your style, dude. Good luck-
No reason not to '''support'''. A productive user. --'''
'''Support''' Looks like a fine editor. I have to say Ecoleetage put it best here to!! =)
'''Support'''. In my thoughts, you have enough experience so that is not an issue. I was at first worried about your lowish projectspace count, but seeing varied experience at [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:AIV]] has relieved my worries. I can also see from the questions that you appear to be a smart guy who will pick things up quickly. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
Answers are fine although maybe Frank is selling himself a bit short in his answer to Q2. Looks to me to be a sensible editor who seems to understand what we're about, so I'll make an exception just this once to my brand new RfA standard of 12000 manual edits, never used Huggle ever, 2 FAs, and 12 months of continuous experience. Being an admin isn't rocket science. A few months of experience is plenty for anyone clueful to be able to master the basics of mopping. Since Frank seems clueful enough he'll be able to pick things up quick enough.
'''Support''' per good arguments and sound interpretation of policies and guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule of Two]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WayForward Technologies]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Wiatt]], as well as for [[User:Frank#Wikipedia Fun|receiving a barnstar]] and for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Frank never having been blocked]. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
<s>Tentative</s> support; I like the ''attitude'' displayed in the self-nom and answers (although we disagree about vandals and warnings).  I freely admit that I've spent 0.0 seconds looking at previous contrib history, and I will do so soon; but I wanted to "park" in the support section to do my small part to try to discourage any possible early withdrawal due to the early percentages.  Calm, rational people with 3-4 thousand edits, a few months experience, and a demonstrated ability and willingness to learn will do fine as admins; it isn't rocket science.  Frankly, I've got no problem with controversy-avoiding admins; I think we have quite a surplus of controversy-seeking admins, and they can be found easily enough if one is needed.  If Frank wants to delete a couple of pages that need deleting, block a vandal or two, and occasionally send someone a copy of a deleted article so they can work on it some more, and that's all, I say: "Thanks, Frank." --
Of course. '''
'''Support'''Any/All of my concerns have been met professionally and clearly. Thanks for that. I'm sure you'd make a great admin!
'''Support''' - I balked just a bit regarding your experience, but then I read your AfDs.
'''Support'''.  I see no evidence of trust issues here, and the answers to the questions are excellent.  &hArr;
'''Support''' per above. See no reason to oppose.
'''Support.'''  Additionally, I strongly agree with the candidate's observation that it's better when three or four different editors warn a vandal, and another does the blocking, because it shows [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] in action.  —
'''Support''' - Length of time on the 'pedia be damned. User shows insight, maturity, and the experience necessary for adminship. I definitely trust him with the tools, per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjweeks#Support|his level head (#74)]]. Also, he has my name which somehow makes him an even better candidate. -
'''Support''' You've sufficient experience, and plently enough clue to be a good admin. --
'''Support''' Unlike I usually do, I haven't really looked through your contributions, so my reasoning presented here probably isn't as valid as usual. I'm supporting you because I've seen nothing brought up that suggests you will abuse the tools, or don't have a grasp on the policies you'll be working with as an admin, and you seemingly have a need for the tools. Also, nothing brought up thus far suggests you have a bad attitude. The lack of experience is a minor issue, but not enough for me not to support this user.--
'''Support''' The more grown ups around here the better.
'''Support''' ditto. Cheers,
'''Support''', didn't recognise the name (but do under the old name) - will be fine.
'''Support''' Good attitude, no serious flaws.
'''Support''' My personal preference would be to require 6 months of solid activity before someone can come to RfA, because I think transparency and easy-to-follow guidelines promote calmness and clarity.  Damage is done, of course, by giving what is perceived as a thumbs-down by the "establishment" to 19 out of 20 candidates who apply before 6 months of consistent editing; this damage is not IMO offset by the benefit to us or to the candidate for the one in 20 that can justify getting the mop with less experience.  However, none of this is Frank's fault, and I'm quite happy with his AfD experience. - Dan
'''Support''' 3 months experience is not much, but I see no other reason to not support. '''
'''Support''' - net positive. Ali'i is correct about the [[:Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif|Sscolorlogo lg.gif]] image (now fixed), however overall I think he'll be ok.
'''Weak Support''' I think you could use a little more experience, but you seem trustworthy.  Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question.
'''Support''' changed from neutral. Answers and justifications are in plain English with liberal amounts of common sense. My concerns have been allayed.
'''support'''.  After a look through your contribs (and I've seen you around as well), I've determined that you easily [[User:Keeper76/RfA|meet my criteria]].  Good luck!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Responsible editor, no sign whatsoever he'll abuse the admin tools. As for the "only x months" argument, people should keep in mind how ''easy'' an admin's job is. Of course, it is reassuring to see candidates who've shown they know just about every minute detail of every policy. However most problems with admins are not due to lack of knowledge of policies, but lack of respect for them.
'''Support''' I see no evidence that the editor would abuse the tools. We need more syops and he appears ready to contrib heavily to our many backlogs/needs.--
'''Support''' No problems that I can see.
'''Support''' You are a great vandalism reverter and are awesome at removing links to disambiguation pages! <font color="amaranth">
'''Strong Support''' I don't usually like to give more weight to my own vote by adding such superfluous adjectives as ''strong'' or ''very strong'' or whatever else seems to be the standard these days but I couldn't immediately think of a more appropriate way to express my opinion that this candidate has demonstrated a level of maturity that's both very rare to come by as well as deeply reassuring of the project's future prosperity with people like Frank pushing the buttons. No offence to anyone to whom this may be directed but I feel that everyone who used an argument of ''low edit count'' or ''hasn't been around long enough'' to oppose has not thouroughly read the candidate's consistently thoughtful answers. I would never, ever trade maturity, responsibility and thoughtful cool-headedness in a RfA candidate for a high edit count, never. The ''letter of the law'' of policies and guidelines can be learned by anyone but, in my opinion, it is people like Frank who exemplify the somewhat rare breed of administrator who can truly understand and apply the policy in its intended ''spirit of the law''. I have no doubt in my mind that, given enough time and candidate's continued contribution to the project, Frank will be a no-brainer for RfB one day. Good luck, you truly deserve the mop.
I think I came into contact with Frank for the first time about two/three weeks ago. We had a discussion within a discussion, so to speak, and it demonstrated alot about his overall standing here. That was enough to support, but then I came across another <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thingg&diff=prev&oldid=217350709 one], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Friday&diff=prev&oldid=216895540 two] reasons, plus the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=216871490 magnus opum] of all comments I've seen from a newly established editor. Very impressed with candidate.
'''Support''' Would have been sooner, but I got my wisdom teeth out yesterday...(ouch!) Seen him a lot and have no reservations. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Weak support'''.
'''Support''', a great user.
'''Support''' - Opposes don't really worry me, and you have made some quality edits. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak / tentative support''' - the lack of experience is worrying, but there is definately something about your approach to this RfA and the answers to the questions that make me want to give you a try. Please go to the new admin school though, and practise, practise, practise! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' per parentage of four teenagers; will be able to relate to majority of contributors just fine, with necessary authority if required. Oh, and appears unlikely to run amok with mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- A good user who appears to be more than qualified for the mop. --
'''Support''' I'm a little disappointed in those opposing because of the candidate's edit count; it's plainly evident this guy's got clue. Very thorough answers to the questions that show a high amount of policy knowledge. I especially liked the answers regarding the questions on blocking policy; the candidate clearly knows that blocking is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. High-speed vandals, especially page blankers, need to be blocked on sight, not after they've accumulated four warnings. I'm not worried about the [[:Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif]] slipup, especially now that it's been fixed. Adminship does indeed require lots of knowledge, but it is most definitely a learn-on-the-job position as well. All in all, this user very obviously demonstrates to me that they have both the Wikipedia and life experience to handle the stress and extra flak that comes with being an admin, and I feel confident that he will do fine with the extra buttons. (An aside to the candidate: DRV is a pretty interesting place -- drop by if you have a few moments sometime) Best of luck to you!
'''Support''' (edit conflict in the support section!) Frank will only grow further as an admin and while I hope he keeps learning through more article building, he already has a strong overall understanding of Wikipedia and going by my interactions with him, can easily be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''', doesn't look [[WP:ROUGE|rouge]] ;-). <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Frank is reliable and sensible. I'm not convinced that he's going to use the tools a lot, but he certainly won't misuse them.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - questions I was examining satisfied my criteria.
I have only seen good things from this user.
'''Support''' - Adminship is about knowing policy and having the judgment and mindset necessary to make proper decisions.  I believe that you demonstrate this, especially in regards to your attitude, and therefore I believe you'll make a good administrator.
'''Support''' -- per Oren0! --
'''Support'''.  Your answers to questions and comments to users linked above show high levels of clue and intelligence.  These are important for an admin to have, since they lead to generally being useful.  You also appear to be a well-spoke, civil, and clearheaded editor, all of which we need in admins (not to mention always just needing admins).  You'll do great work as an admin most of the time, and when you don't you'll make sure any messes you made get cleaned up.  I don't think we can ask for much more.  As a side note, I hope I don't see you around [[WP:DRV]] too often except when you want to be there.  Cheers.  --<font color="green">
'''Support'''—Has been activley participating in the areas that he wants to admin, with good quality.  Regarding experience, I think he's shown that he has enough experience with the areas he will engage in admin activity.
'''Support:''' I view self-noms as indicative of someone eager to help improve the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think that you have enough experience for the job. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' - Sorry – 2-1/2 months experience – less than 3,000 edits – and three what was your previous USER: Name?  I noticed on your talk page a reference as shown here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank&oldid=218030502] and wonder why it is not mentioned in this [[Rfa]]?  Thanks. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
I was going to support, but in the very little image work you have done, you have violated copyright. [[:Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif]] which you uploaded as public domain less than a month ago is a copyright violation. The Smart Start website states, "The Smart Start logos below can be used with permission from the The North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc., or local partnerships. Feel free to use our logos to provide a link from your site to ours, '''but please do not modify this logo'''; use only the digital art provided via this web site." (emphasis original)[http://www.ncsmartstart.org/mediacenter/logos.htm] And their copyright policy on images reads, "Images: All images hosted on www.ncsmartstart.org are either the property of the The N.C. Partnership for the Children, Inc. or used with permission. Use of these images by other groups or individuals is prohibited without written permission. If you would like to use an image from this site, please email your request to ..." [http://www.ncsmartstart.org/mediacenter/copyrightpolicy.htm] I cannot support someone as an administrator who does not follow the copyright policy. If for some reason I am misjudging the situation, I will gladly reconsider. Mahalo. --
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Reluctant oppose''' - too green. Barely 3000 edits. The issue with the logo above illustrates exactly why I tend to oppose RFA's for candidates with low edit count - administrator skills are learned over time. I consider not understanding image policies like the one above to be a pretty big flaw - not to mention that even then you didn't get the tag right. But that's OK - we all make mistakes - come back after another 2000-3000 edits.
'''Oppose''' - only five months of activity is not enough for me to support for adamin --
'''Oppose''' would like to see more main edits and broader experience.
'''Oppose''', although Frank gives every indication of having the ideal characteristics for the mop, e.g., cool, mature judgment and a good ability to express himself, more experience is needed at this point. The old saying, "the more you learn, the more you realize how much you don't yet know" is instructive, because there is just a fairly steep learning curve in the first year on Wikipedia to become truly familiar with all of the intricacies of which an admin. is expected to have a working knowledge. The issue with misuse of a copyrighted image is a case in point and tips the scale for me. An admin must be knowledgeable about image PD, copyright tagging, NFCC, etc. <i><b>
'''Weak oppose''' per only 5 months of editing and the copyright image issue. I would not have opposed if it were only one of these issues, but the combination does demonstrate a lack of needed experience. '''''
Weak oppose. 5 months is a bit short, and the copyright issue worries me as well. Give it some time and learn the ropes. Should this request succeed, please keep the concerns in mind and proceed carefully (as I'm sure you will).
'''Neutral''' About 2/3 of edits mainspace, but not enough activity.--
'''Very close''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], but not quite there.  I will not oppose.  Good luck!
'''Neutral''' - Per inexperience as mentioned above. I believe you are doing well though, and would be happy to support in a few more months. -
'''Almost there''' - over 3,000 edits, over 300 in Wiki-space, rollback, but somewhat limited experience; does not quite meet my standards.
'''Nom support'''.  This one's a "duh".  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' per Keeper's and my nom.
'''Support''' I can't see any problems here. Arguments with [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] are practically a requirement for adminship, not a disqualification.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support'''. I'm seeing a lot of quality in a sampling of the candidate's contribs, and the RFK article is quite good indeed. I'm satisfied that this candidate will be a good admin and a net positive to the project.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great user. --
'''Support'''.  I'm not even going to look at the contribs for this one; Keeper's nom is simply sublime.  '''
'''Support''' A fine editor.
'''Glad to support''' Per answer to Q4. Knowing what to keep away from is more important than the contrary, and per WP:N/CA talk page shows great civility and content building. Impressive.
'''Support''' per good answers and a good nom from someone I trust.
Definitely a net plus for the project. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
No problems here ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Excellent, well rounded candidate who will obviously use the tools well - Good choice.
'''Support''' - No problems with this candidate, as far as I can tell. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' in addition to the [[Eve Carson]] AfD, I ran into Fritz during his proposal for [[Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)|this guideline]]. He saw an issue that needed to be addressed within Wikipedia and started a discussion on how to fix it. Wikipedia is not perfect and it's part of all of our 'jobs' to do what we can to improve it. Fritz does this and I see no issues in his contributions that would make me hesitate to support him as an admin <sub>
'''Support''' Questions and contributions look fine to me.  --
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''- I dont see any risk of abuse.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' -- It's always wonderful to see a good nominator with under 3000 edits. All these supports prove that it is quality and not quantity that counts! Well done and good luck! = ) --
'''Support''' -- Intelligent answers, worthwhile contributions, "plays well with others"; I expect this individual to use the tools well.
'''Support''' - from what I've seen appears to be a capable editor and familiar with the technical side of wikipedia. Am certain he would use the admin tools to the full benefit of wikipedia. I'm a little surprised however his edit count isn't higher. But for anybody with technical abilites such as Fritz has admin tools would be very useful to him and this webiste. Best of luck!
'''Support''' Looks good every which way I look. <b>
'''Support''' While I (for once) agree with Kurt Weber, you have shown dedication to creating the FritzpollBot to create stubs on places that Wikipedia ignores. If you have the programming capability and willingness to undergo such a massive task, then I don't see why we can't and shouldn't sysop you. I for one could care less about all this editcountitis. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. You obviously put a lot of thought in your contributions, and your dedication to consensus-building on that really dicey topic really says a lot to me. Seems like an excellent admin candidate to me. ~
'''Support''' - Will be an asset at AfD and other deletion areas.
'''Support''' He believes in consensus, what else is there to say?
'''Support''' Trust the nom.--
'''Support''' with one hundred percent certainty. He knows his way around wikipedia, know the policies and guidelines, and contributes on the talk pages. To my knowledge, this editor has never been so problematic that he cannot be trusted. Good show.
'''Support''' -- Looks good to me. He's ready for the mop. --
'''Support''' User knows their way through Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Strong support. Silently trolled Keeper's talk page the other night, saw this coming up, looked through user's contribs and was impressed. ''
'''Strong support''' Of all the editors I've bumped into around the wiki, Fritzpoll is definitely one of the most enjoyable to work alongside - he's rational, welcoming, helpful and on top of that a bloody nice guy too.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.

'''Support''' On the basis of good and thoughtful answers to questions, & having the right attitude towards improvement. I think he's learned from the batch of careless AfDs. Judging the likelihood of further improvement is always a little impressionistic, but I have a favorable impression here. '''
'''Support''' Good, honest, and thought out question answers. '''
'''Support''' No reason for concern, candidate will be very beneficial to the project as an admin.
'''Support.''' No concerns.
'''Strong Support''' Seems like a good contributer here to wikipedia. According to his/her answers, this user fully understands the tools and won't misuse them. Regards,
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Support''', per my normal reasons for this type of candidate.
'''Support''', no problems.
'''Support''' like his answer to Q9. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Supoort''' Wouldn't abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' I personally liked the answers that you provided to Q9, Q11, and Q12.  They show that you have the thoughtfulness and ability to help others.  I believe that your answers to Q5 and Q6 show that you have good understanding of the relevant polices and guidelines that administrators need to know in order to do the job right.  The answer to Q7 leaves me a little shaken, but I don't believe that it is necessary for an administrator to know how to edit the MediaWiki namespace.  Cheers,
'''Support''' Meets my only 2 personal criteria, respect for consensus and civility with others. Mop on.
'''Support''' seems to be a good guy. If his proposed bot will be approved the admin tools might be handy
'''Support''' overall a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' Light on edits, maybe, but strong on ability; Keeper's nom makes a compelling case.
'''Support''', no reason to believe user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Strong support'''.  I've been coaching him a bit.  Fritzpoll did a wonderful job cleaning up [[Robert F. Kennedy assassination]], which is now a [[WP:GAC|good article candidate]].  I was expecting trouble with that article, but Fritzpoll fixed it up and nicely worked out any disagreements via the talk page.  He's demonstrated very strong editorial skills and the ability to work with others.  I am confident he will be a fine administrator.
'''Support''' - One of his admin coaches speaks highly of him and believes he will make a good admin. Good enough for me.
'''Support''' - He'll be a good admin and I'm very impressed with the contributions. I know some people say that running a bot is irrelevant, but he has shown his commitment to the encyclopedia with the outstanding FritzpollBot.
'''Support''' - candidate's adminship will benefit the encyclopedia.  —
'''Support''' - per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]] --
'''Support''' - nothing wrong with this candidate - has dabbled in all the right areas. In depth, thoughtful answers to the questions. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', per quality, not quantity! [[User:WikiZorro|<font color="DarkOrange" face="">'''Wiki'''</font>]][[User talk:WikiZorro|<font color="#FF4500" face="">'''Zorro'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''', superb responses to [[User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles|Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]]'s concerns.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': I like people that believe in following policy, and, in respect to notability and AFD behaviour, I also believe in the old saying that you can judge a man by his enemies.
'''[[User:Al tally|<span style="font-family:verdana; color:#B05427">Al Tally</span>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:Al tally|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]]''</sup> <-- passed with barely four months activity. People who clearly haven't bothered to look at the candidate's edits, but just the quantity should be banned from RfAs imo. Some people are ready for adminship within 2 weeks. Get over your silly time-countitis and editcountitis, and actually review whether the editor would make a good admin or not. If you can't/won't do that, please do everyone a favour and stop voting here. '''
'''Support''' Looks great!!!
'''Support''' - everything looks good here. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''', good editor. --
Four months is easily enough time.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', appears to be a capable editor with no indication he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --
Editor has demonstrated they possess The Clue.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien)]] (how could it not satisfy [[Wikipedia:FICTION]], which is only "a ''proposed'' Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process"?),  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson]] (too exclusive interpretation of inclusion criteria), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global]] (on one hand I commend him from revisiting the disucssion and changing his stance, on the other hand it's nice when editors make the attempt to improve the article themselves first).  That's not to say he isn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=207881661&oldid=207857478 nice], but I just question some of these arguments.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Individual incorrectly believes so-called "policies", "guidelines", "standards", etc. to be ''prescriptive'' rather than ''descriptive''.
'''Oppose''' – Let’s start at the beginning – A grand total of only '''2,832 edits''' gathered over just '''4 months''' here at [[Wikipedia]].  Not a lot of experience to really gauge qualifications.  Let me put it another way, would the average individual give any other individual the powers to censor what I write – Ban me from contributing – or delete a contribution, after only knowing you for 4 months.  I know I won’t.  In addition, I have concerns about your precipitation concerning [[wp:policy|policy]].  I reviewed the [[Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination|Discussion Page]]  you referenced in Question #2, and must say that I do not believe we had a real consensus with regards to your changes.  However, I will leave that opinion for the other editors to decide on their own.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' I like the idea for the bot on the user page. However I feel this user is too reliant on the text of notability guidelines rather than our core policies.
'''Weak Oppose''' While I do realize that this RfA is probably going to pass and that Fritz has made some quality edits, I keep going back to the fact that he has fewer than 3500 edits and 4 months of activity.  Six months experience really isn't asking for much---it should be longer than that---but 4 months is too short.
'''Oppose''' A little inexperienced, and four months isn't enough time for any potential character flaws to be exposed.
'''Oppose''' A great contributor but too short a track record for me to adequately judge your suitability for the buttons. A solid six months of continuous recent activity is my bare minimum.
'''Oppose''' - 2,000 or so edits over a period of only a few months is not enough for me to judge whether making you an admin would be a wise idea. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - Satisfys the number of edits I require by a long shot, but 4 months isn't enough, things happen slowly on Wikipedia, and experience happens even slower. 6 months plus at least I'd say. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Oppose''', low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
<span class="plainlinks">With respect to what Balloonman said, I couldn't agree further. I understand there are relatively wide-ranging opinions on this: from what counts as an edit, and whether even those who do have high edit counts, do truly contain an intimate and coherent knowledge of wiki policies. Furthermore, however, I don't see the candidate in question working in that diverse an area, and I am slightly offput by the nominators focus on one event to characterise a single individual. We just can't do that, albeit it is often the way if that event has put a negative perspective to a nominee. I am also slightly concerned that the editor has made several areas as potential targets for involvement, but has little to no experience here &ndash; at least going by Kate's Tool. In terms of hard evidence to go netural, possibly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Ace_the_dog&timestamp=20080509000441 this] application of a G3 tag (which actually removed the content of the page prior to the edit), should really have known to redirect at this [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Max (2nd nomination)|deletion discussion]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonderland Online|withdrew this]] after personal mistakes about checking sources et al. However, I do see good work otherwise, so I stay neutral, until, at least, there is an oppose which could be of significance. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Neutral''' : I dont think big edit counts means better quality as a Wikipedian. But less than 3K edits in 1.5 years ? Most of the edits are in last 4 months. My personal opinion is that he needs more experience and gain more trust in the community. Keep up the good work but as Admin , may be you should try again -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Neutral'''  While I can not find any major problems with this candidate that would lead me to oppose, I can not vote support, due to my [[User:InDeBiz1/Standards for Adminship|standards for adminship]].  If the community's consensus is to support, I have all the respect in the world, but I can not offer my vote at this time.  Best of luck!  --
Nom. --
'''Support''' Meets my criteria. '''
'''Support'''. Recommend not diving in the deep end if this RfA is successful; there's a lack of significant experience in a few areas. However, I get a good feeling that G.A.S. is mature and won't abuse admin privileges.
'''Support''' per nom. Net positive user. —'''
'''Support'''. A valuable WikiGnome. Sensible comments.
'''Weak Support for now'''. I'm logged in with my public account, so I don't have time to do my usual scrounging around, but from my cursory glance it appears the candidate will be a net positive. However, I will return with my regular account and a more solid assessment later.
'''Support''' I really don't see any problem with passing GAS right now.
'''Support''' &ndash; everything looks fine.
'''Support''' Why not? <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' I'm convinced by the nomination. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' - I see nothing controversial, and I'm quite partial to Wikignomes.
'''Support''' Nothing that strikes me as concerning. I've never heard of G.A.S., however, so I'm going to watch this page closely. &ndash;
'''Support''' - great WikiGnome, especially in his work with [[WP:ANIME/CLEANUP]]. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - while I normally prefer a potential admin to have more experience in some areas and at least 10,000 edits (5,000 in the article space), in my interactions with G.A.S. through our joint work on ''[[Tokyo Mew Mew]]'' and as members of the Anime and Manga project, I have found him to have the right sort of personality and temperament to be an admin. He is very fair-minded, even tempered, patient, and has a strong sense of personal responsibility. I was actually surprised to see his edit count wasn't at the 10k mark yet, as I have often turned to him to be a voice of reason in some heated discussions or to help out where an impartial third opinion is needed. I feel certain that G.A.S. would not abuse the admin tools and would take his time to educate himself about an area before he began working in it and would make an excellent admin. --
'''Support, up from Neutral''' Yes, I am in the right queue!
'''Per Keepscases''', above.  Stole my damn gas joke.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', although I recommend that you don't let it go to your head.  I was first inclined to oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29%2FPersistent_proposals%2FStraw_poll_for_view-deleted&diff=241112923&oldid=241112745 this], as the last thing we need is more elitist administrators, but upon further reflection, it's probably just naiveté rather than something more sinister.
'''Support''', per response to ecoleetage. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
DAmn, you're good! Per excellency. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' excellent user as far as I can see! ''
Support without any reservations. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' A good reason for wanting the tools, and sensible enough to learn about new areas before working in them. I think its better that the people who do the work behind the maintenance deletion carry them out as well, once they are known to be reliable,  for they are more likely to understand the situation than some random admin checking CSD. '''
'''Support''' Very good editor. He always makes a good job.
'''Support'''.  No reason to oppose, should be a fine addition to the admin team. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Great editor. - -
Seems non-controversial.
'''Support''' per the opposing IP. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' per Realist2 at the neutral section, article work is not important for adminship. <small>
'''Support''' Everything looks ok.
'''P.A.S.S.''' :)
'''Support''' No problems here. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. Good luck!
'''Support.''' The candidate has contributed to one GA and other contributions are also good.
I'm
'''Support''' Good editor, good contributions, and a good reason for the tools. --
'''Support'''. G.A.S has shown a high level of thoughtful judgment in my experience, so I trust he'll be similarly thoughtful as an admin. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, any use of the tools is a net positive, and we could use more help fighting copyvio.
'''Support'''. You are ''way more inclusionist'' than I am, but that's not a reason for me to oppose you. I wish you good in luck clearing up the anime/manga articles, even though I'm skeptical that your approach will be able to keep up with influx of new stuff in that area. Anyway, for your approach to have a fair chance of succeeding, more admins active in that area are needed, hence my support.
'''Support''' per HiDrNick.
'''Support''' Decent answer to a tough question that you probably will face at some point.
'''Support''', good outweighs the bad.
'''Support''' -An Experienced editor who deserves the mop - a net benefit for the project --'''
'''Support'''. Seems to have a genuine need for the tools - in that Wikipedia has a genuine need for him to have the tools. --
'''Weak Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' No reason demonstrated not to trust with the tools. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support'''. I've seen quite a lot that leads me to believe G.A.S. will use the tools wisely. Twiddle that bit! ···
'''Support''' should be fine and can be trusted. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Net positive.
'''Support''' - See my neutral comments. —
'''Support''' A good users who should benefit as an admin
'''Support''' &ndash; Will make a fine administrator. The opposes below don't concern me. --
'''Support'''. All interactions have been entirely positive and friendly. I have no doubt in my mind G.A.S will do an excellent job as an administrator. &mdash;
'''Support'''' Per my review of talkpage archives, contribs and Count - and the opinions of commentators I respect.
'''Weak Support''' A bit lower edit count (<10,000) than I normally like to see, but he seems very mature. I can't see any real problems with handing him the mop as of now.
'''Support'''.  Clueful, thorough, civil, diligent.  Seems like a fine candidate for the mop.
'''It's really a GAS.''' --
'''Weak Oppose''' - I disagree with admins who believe there *must* be a "best way" to handle deletions or that deletion (or inclusion) is a "last resort". Some things do not belong. Merging everything ends up importing weak material to otherwise good articles that gets excised later anyway. Additionally the answer that the editor doesn't really plan to do admin related tasks leads me to question a real need for the tools. Finally? A touch weak on main space edits, especially with all the AWB edits being done. I think this is a fantastic editor and contributor and encourage them in this RfA as my single oppose is unlikely to lead to it's failing, but I can't endorse this request.--<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Oppose'''. His answers, especially A1, do not meet my criteria.--
'''Strong support''', as nom. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Civil and polite, going so far as to import a "friendly" javascript into his monobook [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gadget850/monobook.js&diff=prev&oldid=193015163], an expert in his field of scouting, and a person who recognizes the importance of [[argumentation theory]] and [[fallacy]] in keeping on-wiki discussions civil but practical--the latter something near and dear to my own wiki philosophy. What is not to like? This is a user who in my opinion can be [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusted to exercise good judgment]]. Best of Luck! --
'''per nom''' (If there are more long term editors out there, perhaps they could come forth and submit their RfA's?)
'''Support''' - sound contributions. —
'''Support'''. After reviewing Gadget's [[Special:Contributions/Gadget850|contributions]], and the material in the nominating editors' statements, I see no obvious problems, and thus am happy to support. Best of luck! [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
I'll break my revision for this. Very good user with excellent and coherent understanding of practically everything.
'''Support''' per Rudget, very good wikipedian, loads of edits, good edit summary usage! --
'''Support''' Seems open to learning. '''
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Strong Support''' - Leaned towards support before, but got stronger after candidate answered my questions.  :)
'''Strong Support''' - per noms and my own personal review of the candidate's actions, and my granting rollback in January. -'''
'''Support''' As per Rlevse  above has been around since July 2005.Good track with over 7000 mainspace edits and over 16000 overall.
'''Support''' I don't see why not. The answers to questions look awesome, and with 100% edit summary usage, this editor will definitely make a great admin. -
'''Support''' – I always hate saying; “…per above” but in this case, it is a record I am envious of and cannot add to the praise!  Great job and good luck.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Contribs look good, and very nice noms. :)
'''Support''' per his vast experience and common sense answers and the noms didn't hurt either <b>
'''Support''' Definitely has sufficient expirience
'''Support''' [[Special:Contributions/evrik|evrik]] (
'''Support''', good editor, seems very level-headed and fair.
'''Support''' I've worked with this Wikipedian before in the Scouting wikiproject, I know he'll make a great admin.
Per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. Like [[User:Rlevse]] I have worked with Ed for a long time and I fully endorse everything in his nomination. --
'''Support'''. Totally. I see no issues. Very prolific and versatile. Would make great use of the tools and the mop.
'''Support''' - Very experienced user who should have the tools —
'''Support'''. But it's [[WP:TROUT]]! --
'''Strong support''' Gadget850 has all the attributes one ideally hopes to see in an admin. &mdash; sound judgment, an even disposition and unflappable, thorough technical knowledge, and in general very helpful. It is a pleasure to endorse his nom. <i><b>
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A great all-rounder, and I have no qualms. --'''
'''Support''' Of course. <strong>
'''Strong support''' Gadget850 has been one of the pillars of the Scouting WikiProject, steady, fairminded, and diligent, and would make a great admin.
'''Über Support''' Great candidate. Great responses. Keep up the good work.
'''Support'''. Has the backing of several major editors, has tons of experience, meets [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]] without a second glance.
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''', per satisfactory answers to questions. Seems level-headed and possessing a sense of humour. --
'''Support''', no problems.
'''Strong Support''' - an absolutely brilliant candidate. This user should've been made an admin a while back. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''
'''Strong support'''. Experienced user that deserves the mop.--'''
'''Support'''. The candidate is an experienced encyclopedia builder, understands policy and seems trustworthy.
'''Support''', I don't see any problems in your edit history, only excellent contributions.  I trust your nominator's judgment. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Pants off Dance Off Support''' Yes, I would dance in my boxers for this Adminship. --'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Looks like a stand-up user.

'''Support'''- definitely a good candidate for the mop and bucket. <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - Yep,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A model Wikipedian. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate and great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Solid candidate, good experience and excellent attitude - will no doubt make an outstanding admin.
'''Support'''. Don't see any concerns. --
'''Support''' No concerns, fine work, good answers. Finally someone who's been reading the admins reading list. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Level headed and deserving.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - trustful. '''''
'''Support''' AOK <strong>
'''Support'''. See no need for concern, answers seem reasonable.
'''Support''', may as well. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Support'''. He's a good guy: worked with him well
'''Support''' though I disagree with the answer to question 13. <span>
'''Support''' I think he would make a great admin!  Good luck with your RFA!--
'''Support''' Nobody else is opposing so why should I?--
'''Support''' a sound editor who will make an equally sound admin
Of course.
'''Support'''.  I've seen Gatoclass editing for a long time. He's done a lot of good work, is careful about what he says and does, and in all likelihood the extra power will only make him more careful. (Would have nommed him myself.)  So here's my glob of vaseline.
'''Beat the other co-nom support'''.
I have seen Gatoclass around a lot. He is a regular at DYK, and extra hands are much needed there. I am confident he will do very well as an administrator.-- <strong>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've gone back to January reviewing contributions and it all looks <s>good</s> stunning. Clearly you need the tools for [[T:DYK]] - as well as your prolific creation of articles and DYK hooks your desire to help at this often overdue page is admirable. In addition allthough I saw some talk page comments that made me pause, in reality you responded calmly and rationally. Occasional input at project areas like AN and RFA are sound. Informative edit summaries when making changes other than tweaks. Also constant reference to policies in these edit summaries, or when delaing with (for example) tricky BLP issues on DYK hooks. Very much a net positive to the project without the tools, and can only help further with the bit. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' hardworking editors usually make good admins
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' thought you were one already, with the amount of work you do at DYK. Thank you for telling me when I messed up the ref at [[Tourism in Kenya]]! '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' - No problems here. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
FINALLY! ''
'''Support''': It's only worth opposing if there's something major to fault, but I can't find anything standing out.  Great user, working in an area suited to administrators, so the tools will come in very handy for this user.  Good luck!  '''
'''Support''' - My trust meter is pegged to the limit here. Excellent article work in the mainspace. DYKs. Wow. Your intentions seem quite solid, and adminship will suite you just fine in those aspects. You have my support.
'''Support''', yes. -
'''Support''', after a bit of a look I don't see anything worrying.  No evidence this candidate would abuse the tools.
'''VERY Strong Support''' : Excellant contributor , Amazing history of DYKs and currently helping the admins with the Next Update Page of DYKs. Surely will never allow the timer of Main Page DYK page go beyond 6hours deadline if made an admin . Best of luck <span style="cursor: crosshair"> --

'''Support''' – The opening remarks by '''<font color="#000000">[[User:Royalbroil|Royal]]''' say it all.  Good Luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support as nom''' I was sleeping. We all need sleep, although I sometimes wonder if Gatoglass does! '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support'''.  No problem here.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Strong Support''' - I was planning on nom'ing Gatoclass myself, telling him that whenever he was willing to go through the Proctology exam that is RfA, I'd nominate him.  Another set of hands working at DYK is always a plus.--
I support this content creating editor getting the tools.
Only if he promises to stop asking me to do the DYK update, because I always botch it. :) ++
'''support''' I see no reason not to. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Cant imagine this user will abuse the extra buttons.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' My experience with Gatoclass has proven that he is fair, neutral, and tries to go out of his way to help the project. This alone would make a good admin.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks great to me. --
'''Support''' Bumped into a lot and I see no problems. Great experience.
'''Support''', user seems polite, an incredible contributer to the encyclopedia, and will benefit DYK greatly by having the admin tools. --
'''Support''' This candidate seems to have gotten through the bumpy road from his first Rfa, and I can see no potential problems.
'''Yup'''.  No hesitation, excellent candidate.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
I think this user would help the encyclopedia with the tools provided administrators. --
'''Support''' - too active around DYK to not need the tools - ''I'' confused him with an admin once. '''
'''Support''' Enthusiastic and strong support, is already very helpful at DYK and with the tools will be a strong asset.
'''Support''' I am comfortable that this user has the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] necessary to be an admin, and can be trusted with the tools. --
DYK support. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I supported last time, and nothing has changed except for Gatoclass getting even more experience. Just go to [[WP:NAS]] before using the tools. -'''
I'm disappointed. How did you slip through me while I was looking for potential admins? :P '''Strong support''', will be a huge asset as an admin.
''' Support'''  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' No issues that I can see. I can't understand why he has gone this long without being nominated. I went back as far as the end of last year and all of his edits look exemplary. He will be a great asset.
'''Support''' Great editor, with clear need for the tools.
'''Support''' There are never too many article building admins.
'''Strong support''' I have worked with Gatoclass some helping at DYK and he is very responsible and desrving of the mop
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He's competent and trustworthy, no problems here.
'''Unnecessary, Pile-on Support''' DYK could use more admins. You definitely deserve the mop.
'''Support''' per Paragon.
'''Obivious support!''' User is doing a super great job! Keep it up! --<strong>
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Brown">
'''Support''' based on candidate's valuable participation in one area that needs tools.  A micro comment, I didn't take too kindly to an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=207367599#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_April_16 11th hour] comment at DYK--for a minute I wondered if the reviewer's comprehension was turned up all the way but then decided that is just me in a crunch with a nom about to expire. Also maybe it should be mentioned that when a DYK update is late which can happen on occasion, asking admins to do the update is a way to say one needs tools (just between you and me I expected to see an RfA real soon now, oh here it is! ;-). That said, support and I think the candidate means well, has contributed mighty well and will do a good job. Good luck. —
'''Support'''- Good candidate, quality contributions, no reason to oppose. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good contributor and keeps his cool in diffcult circumstances. Seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' absolutely. Trustworthy editor - net positive to admin his account.
'''Support''' – Seems like a great user; I can't see any reason not to support giving him the tools. He seems to be very responsible and knows about the processes and policies of Wikipedia, especially DYK. There's always a need for another admin doing the DYK updates, which he has considerable experience in; and I don't doubt that he would do it well. While he may not have as much experience in some other areas, I don't see this as a problem, per the answer to Q1. Overall, I have a good impression of him as a very careful, trustworthy user. --
'''Support'''. Previous [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gatoclass|RFA]] bugs seem to have been worked out. Good editor, likely good admin material. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Looks great! Best of luck. :)
'''Support''' Net positive :) Happy administrating.. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
Length and Reference verified. '''«'''
'''Support''' I've seen this user work at the [[Template talk:DYK]] and on articles. I was actually going to ask when this user would try the RFA, and I just noticed this. This user is trusted user and good article writer/improver and I trust this user with the tools. Cheers. --
'''Strong support''' - Excellent candidate. Widely experienced in a whole range of areas. Will be a fine admin. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I thought he was an administrator given his extensive work at [[T:DYK]].
'''Support''' - Good candidate, very helpful at DYK. No problems here.
'''Support''' His past 2000 or so contribs give evidence that he has a grasp of policy and the temperament to make a good admin.
'''Support'''; No problems here.
'''Support''' Great user that would not abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' I encountered this user at DYK, where he took the time to read the nominated article, [[Pont Notre-Dame]], AND the sources. He also spent time with me verifying the information to ensure that the article was as accurate as possible, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lazulilasher/Archive_2#Notre_Dame here]. Throughout, he was civil and courteous. This user will make a superb admin, in my opinion.
'''Support''' Seems unlikely to run amok with the mop, and will hopefully keep up the recent 100% edit summary record.
'''Support''' at least per comments above.
'''Support''' Per contributions
'''Support''' Seems fine, as long as he remembers to go very slow for a while with deleting and blocking.
'''Support''' someone I can trust.
'''What?''' He isn't one? <strong>
'''Support''' I believe that this user has been extremely careful in all of his interactions on this site and I believe that it would be a disservice not to have him have the tools.  As he stated in his answer to Q1: ''It is very frustrating to have to find a DYK admin, only to not have any online''.  Also, given the fact that he has prepared for a single thing for 6 months, that just goes to prove that he will be careful with the tools.  Good luck in the future, [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b>]]
'''Support''' - Mop is waiting. --
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', valuable contributor who can make use of the tools. --
'''Support''' Could use more Project space edits, though.--
'''Support'''Totally! Why not?--
'''Support'''.  He's a fixture at DYK; tireless and trustworthy. --
'''Support'''.  Looks like a solid personality.--
Absolutely. Offered to nominate him myself, a few months back, but he wanted to wait - another plus point. ~
'''Support''' - clear need for the tools, a good, careful editor, I can't see any problems, plus I like the fact he waited 6 months.
'''Support''': Certainly.  No risk of tool abuse.  —
'''Support''' Looks good. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' - All looks good here, it is nice to finaly see a a candidate with something other than anti-vandalism work to bring to the table. Overall he will be an asset to the project.
'''support''' no possible reasons not to. '''
'''Support''' - Any issues that would have prevented me from supporting last time were resolved long ago, and I now feel quite confident that ''Gatoclass'' will make an excellent admin!  --
'''Support''' A "He isn't ''already''?" vote. Besides which, he does great work on DYK and the tools (and editing access to [[T:DYK]] will only help that.
'''Support''' Of course. Proven track record and will speed up DYK work. RsfAis  suddenly getting so many good candidates!
'''Support''' All looks great; especially the DYK work. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|~いいですね?]]
'''Support''' would be a very good DYK admin.--
'''Support''' seen him around, looks like one of the good guys. --
'''Support''' Guess I'll pile on. I thought you already were an admin...
'''Support''' Definitely. I've seen a lot of good work from this editor.
'''[[WP:100]] support''' - fantastic work at DYK.
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGatoclass&year=&month=-1 gave Gatoclass rollback], and there haven't been any problems with that.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' outstanding contributer. Good spell checker too.
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''' yep. —
'''Support''' yeps.--
'''Strong support''' - far exceeds my standards, no concerns.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support.''' Great work with [[WP:DYK]], and per {{user|Royalbroil}} and {{user|Bencherlite}}.
'''Support''' I'm teaching myself how to DYK updates, and it seems like I spend as much time reading Gato's edits as the project pages. Impressive work.
'''Support'''. Without question.
because of your willingness to call [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid/Archive_21#Finkelstein| an extremist a reliable source]. '''
I believe that non-self nomination increase the cabalism of Wikipedia.
Neutral section looked empty --

'''Support'''.  Just saw this pop up.  I realize I'm adding support rather quickly, but this is just one of the names that is "automatic" for me.  Superb contributor, both in article building and collaboration, and with clueful Wikipedia/meta activities.  His methodical, thoughtful approach to Wikipedia is greatly lacking in the admin core.  Wikipedia has much to gain from Gazimoff+sysop.  Easy, no hesitatiion support.
'''Strong support'''. I am one hundred and ninety nine percent sure Gazimoff is right and ready for this task. I've overlooked a great deal in supporting, on purpose. I feel that as an editor with his level of knowledge, common sense and clue, he can properly and slowly learn how to use the new buttons. Its not a difficult things to learn, in any event. Hes ready, willing, and able. Two great noms to boot. What can I say? Theres no way I cannot support this request. '''
'''Support''' Net positive. <font color="amaranth">
I'm
'''Support''' Per Keeper...---'''
Per nomination. -
'''Support''' Hell yes. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''; an easy one, based on my few interactions with him, Keeper's comments, and finding [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|no reason not to do so]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''' per experience with this user's attitude and experience. As it happens, I participated a little in WayForward Technologies (expressing a keep opinion in the AfD) and more than a little in the Open Web Foundation article (just check its [[:Talk:Open_Web_Foundation | talk page]]), which was a bumpy ride through a process that worked as intended. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Should make a fine admin, had a look at some edits and talk page archives and everything looked good.
Seen Gazimoff around several times, and from what I've observed, he has good judgment.
'''Support''' - I think one of the most important qualities in an administrator is an ability to keep calm and to show, to a certain extent, empathy with an editor who has been at what might loosely be described as the negative aspects of Wikipedia, such as content deletion.  It's only through these means that we can retain new editors who are just a little unsure of how things work around here.  I think Gazimoff, in addition to the various other qualities expressed by more prominent individuals above, has demonstrated this ability in his various interactions around the project, having been described as helpful by newer editors, and in more heated disputes such as the recent one at AN/I.  Large net benefit to the project, and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Has been very helpful with templates. '''
'''Support''' per [[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 29#A humble request.]], i.e. receptive to my advice posted at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Gazimoff#Reviews]].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' What? Isn't he an admin already? I was so sure he was. But if that's a choice now, I happily support it. Everything looks more than great in this case :-) '''
'''Support'''. Sensible and reliable. Helped even further by endorsement from Mailer Diablo and Giggy.
'''Support'''. All contributions are thoughtful and considered. Will make a very fine admin.
'''Strong Support''', per the above. Gazimoff is, as noted, an editor with large amounts of clue, whose adminship can only result in a net benefit to the project. I'll add that his work in organizing much of the [[WP:RREV|RfA Review]] is most impressive, as are his contributions elsewhere. A strong candidate. <small>...and had I known he was running, I would have nominated him myself. </small>
'''Support''' per Keeper. Will be a net positive.
'''Support''' Candidate looks good. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''support''' you aren't an admin already?
'''Support'''. Gazimoff has been a quick learner; he knows policies and procedures. Also very civil and communicative. He also improves articles (bonus points: articles about Blizzard, nonetheless). I am confident he'll make a good admin. It's a green light from me.
'''Support''' per a number of pleasant interactions. User is friendly, [[WP:CIV|civil]] and helpful, has a [[WP:CLUE|clue]], and therefore will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' great user. —
'''Strong support''' - He's a good dude. He's great at what he does. His RfA improvement idea was great. He also built a blocking template for me when no one else could be bothered. He should be given the tools on being so helpful alone. He's also English... which is like... really, really good. All admins should be English. We make great [[tea]].
'''Two thumbs up'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; I've seen him around, seems clueful, and good answers to questions. For what it's worth, the blocking admin should never decline an unblock request, but I see no need for them to wait for another admin if they're unblocking (as long as the block wasn't applied per a community consensus, of course). –<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Would make a good admin.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support'''. I strongly disagree with [[User:Scaria|Scaria]] assertion that being English is a reason to support someone for adminship.  I am supporting ''despite'' him being English.
Seems reasonable enough, sure. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support.'''  All in all, a good addition to the crew.  —
'''Strong Support''' Not an admin already?!?! '''
'''Support''' I've seen how you act and respond to things, and think you deserve this.
'''Support''' Excellent answers and contributions, Gazimoff will make a fine admin.
'''Indeed''' A fine candidate.
'''Support'''--
I'm User:Pedro and I .... [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|have a sub page]] ... or something like that :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
·
'''Support''' - Per Pedro, like...net positive and stuff. Also, meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]. I trust from the answer to Q1 that he will work slow and prudently.
'''Support''' No issues with this editor, doubt he will abuse tools.
'''Strong Support'''. My interactions with this editor have been positive in all instances.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - Interactions with user have been great.
'''Support''' For great justice and epic lulz and don't go to www.crashyourbrowser.con --
'''Support''', definitely. &mdash;
'''Support''' from me and the otters. Seems to know what they're doing.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Answer to Q4 seems ok.
'''Support''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=24%3A_The_Game&diff=205876900&oldid=195475730 this]. Doing good work on a [[24 (TV series)|24]] article gets my !vote. Plus I think you'd be a fine admin. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support'''- All the evidence I've seen indicates you'll use the admin tools responsibly and appropriately. You have a thorough understanding and respect for Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and you know what makes a good article.
'''Support''' - yes please!  Thoughtful answers given to the questions, respectful, enthusiastic, takes initiative and I'm very impressed with all the work put into the RfA review. --
'''Support''' - good editor. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' per excellent AfD participation.  His work there shows a fairminded editor, and fairmindedness is my chief criterion for adminship. '''
Will do fine.
'''Support''' per excellent interactions with the editor and well thought out answers to the admin questions. I absolutely trust him with the tools and am confident he'll be as great an admin as he is an editor.
'''
'''Support''', I've worked with Gazimoff in the past and found him more than amicable and capable. I have little doubt he'll make a fine admin. --
Of course. --
'''Support''' - A candidate that brings us all together... even socks.  ;)  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WHHN?]] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Strong candidate. No concerns.
'''Support''' Excellent user. '''
'''Support'''—This is the first time I have said "He's not already an admin???"  I've been a worker bee under his direction on the RFA Review and I am simply amazed that a) he's not already an admin, and b) he's been here such a short time.  Someone so BOLD as to take on this effort is someone I trust with the tools.  I was really impressed when he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:RfA_Review&diff=next&oldid=224451284 changed his mind] based on consensus.  Good luck, mate!
'''Support'''. Well thought-out answers to the questions.
<font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font>. Although I was initially reticent about the the editor's pattern of commenting in admin areas in a manner that suggested [[WP:MANDARIN|mandarinism]]. If one was uncharitable, one might conclude that the much vaunted RfaReview seems to have stalled at the "review" phase after it had been insured that every influential potential supporter had heard about it, and that it seems highly unusual to "run for office" when you are in the middle of crusading to reform the "electoral process" (analogy only). To an uncharitable eye, seeking "coaching"
'''Support''' No concerns here. --
'''Support''' No concerns, looks like he would make a great admin :).
'''Support''' - Giggy's and Mailer Diablo's nominations effectively summarise the candidate well.
'''
'''Support''' - looks solid and I haven't seen a valid oppose so promotion time it is --
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Great contributor. <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' I've encountered this user before on RfA and I think he'll make a great admin. In less than 6 mos, he has amassed 1000 mainspace edits, 500 WP edits, and 260 WP talk edits. He has demonstrated an in-depth level of policy comprehension; the answers to the questions just reinforce that. Gave a great answer to Xeno's question, and a wonderful, well-thought out answer to Kurt's infamous question. All of his edits are made to actively improving the encyclopedia. Good luck, Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support.''' I don't see anything reason not to support. Clean record, good use of edit summaries, etc. is all here. He does not have many edits, but he seems to have enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Support.''' Definitely a standout member of "people who aren't admins and clearly should be" to me. Knows what he's talking about (as demonstrated by the questions) and can put it into practice (as demonstrated by his varied and intelligent WP: space contributions). ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Weak Support''' Great answers to questions. #5 may be a little easy, but just a great user, even with little experience. '''''
'''Support'''. Clearly dedicated to the project.
'''Support''' - This user has come such a long way in just 5 months of editing. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I could have ''sworn'' I supported days ago =/ --[[User:Nacimota|'''''<font color="navy">Nacimota</font>''''']] <sup>[ [[User_talk:Nacimota|<font color="blue">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Nacimota|<font color="blue">C</font>]] |
'''Support''' He is a perfect admin, he just needs the Userbox!! :)
'''Support''' - I feel that Gazimoff is well-experienced enough and a very responsible user who would not misuse the admin tools. Good answers to the questions show a knowledge of policy and rules, and I think that Gaz would make a great administrator based on the responsible, level-headedness I've seen from him. Good luck with your mop! :-)
'''Support''' - Solid contrib history good answers to questions. My personal interactions with you show patience, understanding, and that you are able and willing to ask questions to clarify things when need be. You'll be a solid addition.
'''Support''' - No doubt. Great editor, intelligent, clueful, polite, helpful, all that jazz. Will be great.
'''Support'''. Would make use of admin tools. --
'''Strong support''' per his rfa reform work and my review. Thanks again and good luck! --'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', all my interactions with Gazimoff have made me feel that he's a solid, helpful and reliable Wikipedia contributor. --
'''Support'''. Has been very helpful so far. --
'''Support''': User appears to be mature , thoughtful and knowledgeable.. Answers are simply awesome...I support you inspite of being less than 6 months here...No reasons to not trust you... ( I strongly oppose one of the reasons in the Support #26, not really expected from an admin either, just my 2 cents) --
'''Support''' per all previous supports and nominators. '''
'''Support''' He has taken the initiative and been bold in clearing out cruft on [[World of Warcraft]] which is not an infrequently edited, viewed, or discussed article and everything came out for the better. I have nothing but the strongest faith that he would demonstrate similarly excellent dedication and judgment as an admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', no good reason not to.
'''Support''' Have seen this user often, is a reliable person w/ good intentions.
'''Support'''. Familiar with the candidate, no issues.
'''Support''' He won't abuse the tools, seen him around a bit and he's decent etc.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, and a very good contributer to Wikipedia, especially in some administrative areas. Certainly acts like an administrator, and would certainly be a great one with. Will do just fine with the tools. Gazimoff has my trust. [[WP:100]]! :) --
'''Support''' Good thing that the candidate wants to work at [[C:CSD]], [[WP:AfD]] and [[WP:AIV]]. I believe you'll be a net positive to this project. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
The noms outline the good characteristics of the candidate very well. Clueful answers to the questions, great article work, friendly and patient manner. I think you'll be a great admin.
'''Strong support''' per nom, question answers, and especially thoughtful and honest user page, which gives me a positive impression of this candidate as a person.
'''Support''' per the language question!!!! Actually, I have no problem trusting this user with the tools. I'm impressed by his level-headedness, his rational approach, his knowledge and experience, his ability to communicate clearly, and his honesty. Good answer to question 1. It shows great responsibility and honesty. Will make a great sysop.
'''Support:''' per Kurt, whose frequent Opposes because candidates ''don't'' take enough of a side to suit him bemuse me.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, and in protest of Kurt's oppose below.
'''Support''' - absolutely no concerns here. Excellent track record & good answers to the questions. Should be a fine admin -
''''Support'''. I first saw Gazimoff on IRC about a month ago. Since then, on the few times I've spoken with him, my interactions with him have been extremely positive, and I think he has shown excellent judgement, as well as skills to be a good admin, not to mention his excellent manners. Best of luck. :)
'''Support''' - /me drools. Gazimoff is a very dedicated editor, with works beyond my wildest dreams, he is definitely ready for such a job. He's doing things well, I must say.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Support''' I ''almost'' forgot to get to this. But I didn't. :-) Gazimoff is a very hardworking editor (among other things) and I'm sure he'll transfer that skill to adminship.--
I was sure this guy was an admin, and thought of him as one for quite a few months. He's extremely helpful all around the project, and will make a fantastic sysop. '''
Support. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Gazimoff&diff=prev&oldid=223493734]
''''Support'''' Good user, dedicated  and I cant see him abusing anything <font color="blue">'''
I have had only excellent interactions with this user over on the CVG.
'''Support'''. Why not?
'''Nearly-didn't-beat-the-clock support''' —
'''Support'''. :D This guy's great.  Hope I made the clock.
'''Strong Support''' Has been very helpful, and is on IRC a lot (which is good!). ≈ '''
'''Support'''. Good participation throughout Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Oppose''' per answer to #4, although at least he took a side (which is admirable in and of itself; he just took the wrong side).
'''Oppose''' - I can not support for admin any candidates with less then six months of experience --
'''Weak Oppose''' per NSK92. Just not enough to know if I can trust you to be responsible with the tools yet.
'''Weak oppose''' Gazimoff shows thus far the makings of an able mopnbucketman. One can never predict whether more hanging out and/or more getting stuck in at WP:AN, WP:AFD and the like would make any difference. But I feel that the opportunity to learn from more such exposure and experience is worth taking before getting the tools. Gazimoff has been here for just 5 months. Furthermore, the candidate built presence and mainspace focus in the area of video games: one which is lively and sometimes controversial (being popular with trolls and vandals as well as the opinionated and immature) but isn't IMO one which gives satisfactory evidence of the eclecticism of WP and its users. Not withstanding all the assistance and advice available, an admin has to make and stand by difficult decisions themselves and I think he could only benefit from a bit more RL time to prepare for that.
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry and Plutonium27. They make very valid points and the more I think about it, the more I believe they are right. Furthermore, I think if Gazimoff's main work of the last month hadn't been on RfA Review his own RfA would have been closed as hopeless before you could say "snow". <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
An excellent editor, but less than 6 months of having a named WP account is really rather too fast for adminship.
'''Neutral'''  I'm torn on this one.  On one side, the candidate appears to certainly have a [[WP:CLUE|clue]] and would be a solid person to have on the admin team.  On the other side, I'm a little concerned that the candidate has spent a rather signficant portion of their time on one specific area of the project.  On these two factors, primarily, I'm declaring myself neutral, but will not be at all upset if the candidate is successful.  Good luck!  --
Judging from niceness and general mellowness of the candidate I'm not really concerned he'd be abusive, but I can't support.  It looks to me like approaching Wikipedia as if it's an MMORPG, with the goal of gaining enough XP to get a new level.  It's perhaps unsurprising that MMORPGs appear to be the candidate's only real interest with regard to editorial content as well.  The success of this so far seems like more confirmation to me that socializing with the RFA regulars gets a candidate a lot farther than any actual contributions to the project.  If we had the exact same candidate, minus the RFA participation, I don't think this would be passing.    It seems to me that previous candidates with this general profile of contributions have been somewhere between irrelevant and actively harmful.  I wish you luck finding a role as an anomaly. --
'''Neutral''' Doesn't seem quite experienced enough. I also agree with JayHenry's comments.
Per nomination statement.
'''Support'''.  Looks like a great Newpage patroller, and an even better [[CAT:CSD]] admin.  '''
'''Stong Support''' (The first two sentences from A1 above say it all, so good that they are worth reading again: "'' I think, certainly in the early days, it would make good sense to stick to the areas that I know, and not try to walk before I can crawl. I would plan on spending a term at admin school, and look to be mentored by an experienced admin...''".)  That's as far as I read before I decided I would support.  Absolutely Great Answer.  (I did of course continue reading your superb answers, which are of the same great quality as your prolific contributions to this project, which I briefly checked).  I foresee a stong showing of support for you here!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Screw that, reinstating. I reread answer 2 and it is simply too good to refuse support. <s>Changing to abstention for now. Only ~1000 mainspace edits minus many vandalism reverts means article work is really low.</s> User:[[User talk:Dorftrottel|Dorftrottel]] 19:41,&nbsp;[[February 15]],&nbsp;200[[Special:Random|8]] <s>Yes, very good answers and nomination statement. Looks good. User:
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Sure thing. :) Very nice answers, and glowing nomination.
'''Support''' - All looks good, per nom.
'''Support''' I see no issues. <strong>
'''Support per nom, per Dorftrottel and the other supporters. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA]]''' Can't say I care much for scatological metaphors, but you you handled that conflict well. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' I think you'll make a good administrator.
'''Support''' Sure.
Per Rudget. ''
'''Support''' - He will do a great job clearing out all the junk in [[CAT:CSD]] and other such tasks.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Edit-conflicted Support''' per the answers and expanded comment above.  Gb is clearly an intelligent, thoughtful editor and I have no problem trusting him with the tools. --
'''Support''' - sure. &nbsp; '''
[[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''', I do not see any evidence that you'd be incivil or misuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' - Gb meets [[User:Chetblong|my criteria]] and therefore has my support, good luck. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support'''. Worthy.
'''Strong Support''' User shows great civility with a good track which shows no concerns and great vandal fighter.
'''Support''' I do not believe that I have come across this editor, but his edits clearly reflect a serious dedication to admin-related aspects of the project, and a good level of competence therein. I have no problem with edit-count. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The main space ratio is low for my normal standards. I would prefer more work on editing articles, but I do not see an  issue with his av work and seems capable of handling the mop.
'''Support''' A great editor, dedicated, trustworthy and with diverse namespace experience; Wikipedia can only benefit from this editor.
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor, and would make a great admin. -
'''Support'''.  No reason to oppose, although you could strive for more mainspace edits.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Support''' - His help with trying to cool down the {{Ul|Calton}}/{{Ul|MegaMom}} conflict is greatly appreciated.
'''Support''' - I love the answers that were given to the questions, and think this user would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Having abstained from !voting on RfA's for a while and only observing and commenting here and there I've decided to get back into the flow of things... Having requested to look through this users' contribs I have decided that they're a well suited candidate for the tools. Solid reports to AIV, I see a couple of [[WP:UAA]] reports in there, and messages on the help desk! Always a good sign (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=191832258]) to see someone helping out there. All in all, I think this user will make a solid admin... (When you get the tools can you help out occasionally at [[WP:UAA]]? It gets mighty backlogged!)
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seems a sensible and reasoned person, meets my criteria.
'''Support''' Per OIC.
'''Support''' First class editor, with a sound grasp of policy. It concerns me that so much is made of mainspace edit count. Whilst it is certainly true that an admin with no mainspace editing experience would be a bad idea, I really do do think that too much is made of it, and some people set the bar far too high. Once a candidate has shown that they have ''some'' experience over a reasonable time period, requiring more is really rather pointless.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - CSD work alone makes them worthy, but having a nom by my own nom takes the cake. -'''
'''Support''' - Sensible and Thoughtful Candidate; No Problems.
'''Support''': My only hiccup was minor, and has been addressed.  I see no red flags from this candidate.   -
'''Support''' - Looks great, even if he is a lawyer. (Oh wait, so am I....) :-) Meets all my standards.  Has proof of vandal-fighting and the scars that go with it.  No major concerns.
'''Support''': Fine. --
'''Support''' Bahh, [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis]]. Trust is the most important issue, and Gb has mine. '''
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' - No real concerns. Looks like a good editor. Best of Luck!
Of course.
'''Support''' Like your responses to the questions. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' This user can be trusted with the tools. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' as a good candidate with what appears to be a thorough understanding of policy, per questions and contributions. No reservations whatsoever (and I'm shamed that I didn't see this RfA sooner).
'''Support'''. The opposition expressed below would be reasonable if there were any evidence that you were irrational, or lacked any kind of thoughtful approach to your work on Wikipedia. To that end, your body of work, and in particular you comments in this RfA convinces me that you are entirely thoughtful and reasonable. I see nothing to dissuade me from trusting you with the mop. Good luck!
'''Support''' Excellent answers - well thought out and well written.
'''Weak support'''. Experience isn't great but most question answers are decent.
'''Oppose'''. I am one of those concerned about a lack of mainspace editing experience, whether that's currently a fashionable view or not. Conflicts in "adminspace" tend to be relatively black or white when compared to dealing with conflicts over content. It is my belief that every administrator needs to have experience of dealing with the kinds of conflicts that those who are trying to build an encyclopedia have to deal with every day, and I have seen no evidence of that in this case. --
'''Oppose''' I can see little work in mainspace outside of deletion tagging and vandal fighting. Don't get me wrong, he seems to have a good attitude but there's no way of replacing the experience you get by interacting with other editors while producing encyclopedia content. That, and not vandal fighting should be required before an RFA...my opinion.
'''Oppose''' I'd also like to see more work in mainspace.  RxS is right on about the fact that this is what brings about interaction with other editors and really tells a lot about how potential admins would handle different situations. --
'''Oppose''' More editing work needed, in my opinion, in mainspace. Having more experience avoids a too-narrowly focussed set of experiences of wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' - Remaining neutral for now - I am truly troubled by the lack of mainspace edits, as well as general talk. Obviously candidate is not warning vandals, but merely reporting, which is good I suppose, but I don't get the feeling there's a whole lot of patrolling or talking going on. Seems like a casual editor and thus fails my criteria for well balanced edits. However, we have some time, and I may be leaning towards support depending on what I hear from the user. I'll try and come up with some question when I have some time.
'''Neutral.''' Great candidate, but I disapprove of the strong-arm tactics the community has used to force this "admins open for recall" notion. We already have that process (ArbCom), paranoid hysteria about "OMG rouge admin abuse" and grumblings about "X users, Y months, Z edits" are unnecessary. Bureaucrats, please count this as a support vote if it comes down to it.
'''Support''' - I've only had limited interaction with this editor, consisting mostly of a threat on her part to sue me (it was a joke, in case anybody's considering blocking per [[WP:NLT]]), but I've seen her comments at [[WP:ANI]].  Reasonable, cool-headed, and experienced.  Have a mop.
I don't know who you are, but I like your style.
'''Support''' for now. I must admit I've never heard of you, though some [[User:Keeper76|respected editors]] seem to like you. At first glance, your edits seem fine, and so far, I see nothing that concerns me. I'm going to watch this for a while. &ndash;
'''Support''' - I think you would benefit from the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Per Keeper. '''
'''Support''' Per Keeper as well. Glady seems like an honest individual who will do well with the tools. &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]]
'''Support''' - Keegan states it best.
'''Support'''. Keeper hasn't even edited this page yet. Either you're confusing Keegan with Keeper, Keeper said something about this candidate somewhere else, or you guys have some sort of telepathy/IRC going on. '''''
'''Support''' I thought about asking if you wanted me to nom you, but 1) I suck at writing noms and 2) I suck at writing noms. Either way, you should have run a long time ago.

'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I know Kurt can't poke back but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPlasticup&diff=237541823&oldid=237524153 he even said] last time that the reactions to the "self nom" jokes was out of hand.  I'm not saying that it makes the jokes cool but just so we keep things in check.  Ok.  Back to the support.  This is partially a "per keeper" support, because I trust his judgment, but "Gladys" has also earned my trust.  Where I see him/her around the wiki s/he (ZOMG, gender!) tends to be helpful and incisive.  This interaction has been (minus AN/K) been almost entirely in the project space (as I don't think I've ever looked at much else edited Clifford the Big Red Dog).  As such, I'm not terribly concerned about this editor's ability to pick things up as s/he goes along and to not abuse the tools.
'''Support.''' Has almost the same record as when I was promoted.
'''Support''' Sure. I don't see why not.
'''Support''' - as I said below in a now-removed oppose, " . . . the contributions I've seen are rather fair" - and since the primary motivator for said oppose is now gone, it would be illogical to do anything but support. I have some experience-related concerns, but those are neutralized by what I can gather of this candidate's temperment - I do not think she'll jump in over her head.
'''Support''' - I trust Keeper, and I trust the candidate.
'''Support''' - everything I've seen from you so far is excellent, and Keeper clearly knows what he's talking about too. I'm going to have a closer look at a few more of your projectspace contributions tonight, but right now I'm very happy to support. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers.
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' per Keeper '''''<font color="green">
Seems to know where her towel is.  Everything else can be learned on the job. --
Hello, I am John Wilkes Booth -- what's playing at Ford's Theatre tonight? Oh, sorry, wrong queue...but while I am here: '''Support''' for a worthy candidate.
Keeps a cool head under any situation need be? Excellent... &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Style ''and'' Keeper?  There's something you don't see every day!
'''Nominator level support'''.  I don't do nominations anymore, but this editor was one that I attempted to nominate several months ago.  Extremely clueful, humorous, fair, hardworking editor.  Has her "stamp" on several areas of the wiki, and she gets this place.  The community would be well served by this careful and judicious editor.
'''Support'''. There are many reasons why she is suitable for the mop, the one's explained here will suffice for now.
'''Strong Support''' This one has been a long time coming. Erik the <font color="red">
Not as much experience as I'd really prefer to see but everything I've seen from Gladys has been great and she I'm sure she'll do just fine with the tools. I actually would have been willing to nominate her myself had I known she was interested in adminship (and I don't nominate many
'''Support''' An eminently sensible editor who has an excellent understanding of policy and its application.  Beyond that, a fine and self-deprecating sense of humor. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Level headed and with the support of some very well respected editors. --
'''Support''', great editor who has contributed a lot to the project. --
'''Support''' per the nomination and Wisdom89. —'''
'''Support''' A solid and sensible individual. The opposes are entitled to their view but I have observed that the skill set required for being an admin has minimal overlap with that required to write FA/GA. Some of our best admins have never written a FA/GA, and some of our worst admins have written several.
Comments sometimes remind me of CharlotteWebb. Used "egregious" in a section title on ANI. Self-nomination statement and answers are honest, decent and truthful. Seems clueful. I'm with barneca and Sarah.
'''Support'''. Intelligent user=intelligent admin.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''- I see no issues with giving this user the mop.
'''Support''', no real reasons not to.
Experience in admin areas is a big plus. Whilst Gladys hasn't got any FA's or GA's, she's got ''some'' content experience which will put her in good stead if she gets the tools. '''
'''Support''' per all above, seems to have a good head on her shoulders.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy, I don't see any obvious evidence of a possibility of misuse of tools.
'''Support''' per thorough and reflective self-nom.
'''Support''' - while I'm tempted to oppose for the tl;dr intro statement, this user seems to have a clue, something that many people seem to be lacking nowadays. <font face="Broadway">
I like the way you speak your mind and state your opinions with conviction. You know how to do the Right Thing<sup>TM</sup> and you have my trust. It's always good to see this editor inject clue and humour into a conversation.
'''switch to support.''' No one has come of with a specific indication that user will misuse/abuse the tools. I would have preferred more experience, but I came up with no problem either.
'''Support'''. If you can't figure out after 2400 edits whether or not a person is going to be a good user, you're probably not going to. This one looks good to me. --
'''Support''' - A definite net positive. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support'''. Forget the "seems trustworthy" and similar, she is sensible and intelligent according to her answers above.  So what if she doesn't make the perfect admin. No-one has yet.
'''Support''' - per good comments on ANI.  Also, '''snotburger''' is my new favorite word.  //
'''Support''' as there is no reason to object.
'''Support''' Net positive skills-wise, and I generally like the approach candidate's taken to the RfA.
'''Support'''. Confident candidate will use tools appropriately and within her comfort zone. I wouldn't mind if you really did stop being so verbose - I almost fell asleep reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WereSpielChequers&diff=prev&oldid=241656171 this], and it's not even close to "a long post" for you - but whadeva. Also, you have my support not to answer Asenine's asinine questions.
'''Support''', [[WP:WTHN|I don't see why not]].
'''Support''' I don't think Gladys will abuse the tools. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
--
''
'''Support''' (despite intolerable verbosity). Gladys is, admittedly, at the lowest edge of my comfort zone in terms of overall experience and substantive interactions with policy discussions/actions...however, her editing patterns (and our limited interactions) suggest that she "gets it" to a sufficient degree, and will have a managable learning curve, that I feel comfortable supporting. &mdash;
'''Support''' I've seen Gladys struggling against the kiddies who edit the same articles as she, and she always acts in utmost good faith; accordingly, I trust her with the tools and the rest may follow in due course. --
➨ <font color="red">❝'''[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]'''❞</font>
'''Weak Support''' Not too sure, but seems to be experienced enough
'''Support''' per Caillou & Teletubbies. Specifically [[Talk:Caillou]], and the history of [[Talk:Teletubbies]]. Your contributions show great patience and willingness to teach kids how to edit an encyclopaedia. Also there were several things in your blog that give me a feeling of confidence in your judgement. '''
'''Support'''. I admit to not having fully checked GJC's contributions, but if the parade of inanity which currently constitutes the "oppose" section is the worst that can be dug up by those who ''have'', I can't see any cause for concern. While we all have different standards in an RFA, it would be ridiculous for an RFA to fail on grounds like "swore on a blog", "2500 edits is not enough", "hasn't written any GA/FA" or "participates heavily in user talk pages".&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' Edit count is a bit low but makes good decisions.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. Seems like a careful and intelligent editor who has the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. Who's bothered about an occasional little "snarkyness", apart from the far too many kiddie admins? Let's see a responsible adult promoted for once. --
'''Support'''. No reason not to. You are just a trooper with [[Caillou]]; it'd be interesting to have an administrator (assuming we don't already have one) that is primarily focused on working with children's tv-related articles. Good luck! &mdash;
Excellent candidate.
'''Sod reviewing the stats, questions and answers, or even the Supports/Oppose/Neutral rationales... - I've interacted with the candidate and will ''Support'' on that basis!''' Said. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 01:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Upon reviewing the opposes, I shall expand - confering tools is not supposed to be about need, or experience in areas they can be used in, but about <u>trust</u>! I trust this candidate, on the basis of my own interactions, and therefore they have my support.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' per intolerable verbosity. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' -
'''Strong <s>oppose</s> support''', even though your lack of [[WP:AAAD#Must have 10,000 edits, three featured articles...|10,000 edits/3 FAs]] is concerning... (On a serious note, I do have one small comment, though &ndash; have a look at [[WP:DASH]], since you use a double-hyphen a lot where the use of em-dashes is recommended.) ''Bonne chance''! <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''h''']]</font><font color="#00AA55">[[User:Haza-w/ABF|'''a''']]</font><font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' because of expressed desire to find [[Win-win game|win-win]] resolutions in an on-going process of making the rough places plain and the crooked places straight. --
'''Support''' &ndash; Per [[User:Sarah|Sarah]]. The opposes don't concern me much. &ndash; <font color="navy" face="cursive">
'''A bit weak support''' Good contributions and many many clueful edits. Candidate is able to admit mistakes and does not want to answer questions in a way to appeal to !voters. The only thing to weaken it is the fact that she had few edits within the last months, but I always say every admin is a good admin if he does only one good admin action. As the discussion on [[WT:RFA]] shows us, we need more anyway (but I'd have supported her anyway if we didn't). '''
'''Support''' Am persuaded that the candidate will not misuse the tools, just be cautious in using them in areas where you do not have much experience if you are successful.
'''Weak Support''' Feel the candidate will not misuse the tools.Contributions are good and track is good.
'''Support''' per the "intolerable verbosity", no admin has ever been a bad admin because they were overcomunicative. Normaly I would be botherd by the lack of admin related expeince but I 'm not, just a gut feeling, I dont know. - <font color="#708090">
'''Support''': The user has really kept cool here and cool heads make for good administrators. <sup><small>
'''Support''' - You lack the experience I like to see in a candidate. Normally, I would oppose, but I refrained because from what I've seen from you, I like you. I know we're not supposed to vote on things per [[WP:ILIKEIT]], but does that count for RFA? I'm not sure. Anyway, I've put a good deal of thought into this, and while you don't meet my unwritten criteria, I don't think you'll abuse the tools or the position. Just keep in mind that you have a lot of admins at your disposal to seek help from, and don't feel like you can't ask questions.
'''Support''' - I think you have the right attitude and enough experience for the tools, no substantial concerns I can see. I have reviewed the opposition and some comments have merit but I do not find them overall convincing.
'''Support'''
Per me at the Foxy Loxy RfA.
'''Support''' per intolerable verbosity and talk page badgering, but mostly because of Keeper's support of you. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Weak Support''' per some good arguments to opposes as well as a good answer to my question. Honestly, and we have to assess ourselves on this because it says a lot about the Wikipedia community, who cares about what a user writes on their blog? Is it a genuine reason to oppose an Rfa, or just an excuse not to support someone you have a beef with? '''
'''Weak oppose'''. Certainly a good and valuable editor with no warning signs, but the overall contribution record just does not seem sufficient at this point for an admin job. 1149 mainspace edits and 453 Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk edits just does not cut it for me. I would like to see a more substantial contribution record, either in mainspace or in projectspace for someone who wants to be an admin.
I think the candidate needs more experience. I have reservations on support #1, which she said a legal threat to a user. I have also glanced at her [http://the-story-of-why.blogspot.com/ blog]. Some entries to me very much concern me. From that evidence gives me a big red flag which gives me an inference that she can't handle disputes well enough, such as off/on-wiki threats, conflicts, consensus on disputes, etc. '''
'''Oppose'''. ''Not enough edits to the entire project'' let alone project namespace (I don't care about DYK's, GA's, FA's and content contributions). I want to see enough contributions in these areas so I can get a round about basis for your policy knowledge, opinions on blocks, bans, and situations where you've had to use your brain (in relation to tool usage that is). So far, I'm not seeing this. '''
'''Oppose''', [[WP:NOTNOW]]. For the past ''three months'' Gladys has done little more than [[WP:TW|twikle]]-based vandalism reverts in article space. OTOH, she participated heavily in user talk pages. While I consider wiki-gnomes quite valuable to Wikipedia, I am concerned by the lack of more substantive content contributions on her behalf relative to her participation in the social aspects of Wikipedia. I'm uncomfortable with her stated desire to engage in XfD discussion ''as an admin'', after her admitted experience in that area is little more than lurking and the occasional snarkiness (her words). I'm worried about the promotion of admins that have little experience in editorial work; it leads to a disconnect between the policed and the police. Compare here edit summary with these two (which are likely to fail their RfA): [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Tadakuni]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/WereSpielChequers]].
'''Oppose''' - Practically only TW work for the last three months, I have no problem with Twinkle and use it all the time, but it doesn't allow me to see your policy knowledge or evidence of suitability. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose.''' The candidate hasn't contributed any FA or GA or DYK.
The candidate hasn't contributed any FA or GA or DYK. —
'''Oppose''' Per miranda. I think she said it best.
'''Oppose''', but reluctantly.   I'm sorry, but there is just something about the admittedly contrived persona that screams, at least to me, "Don't trust me."
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits suggests a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose.''' Insufficient experience in most if not all relevant areas, as pointed out by several people above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per lack of experiences in Wikispace.--
'''Oppose''' not enough experience in encyclopedia building. Only about 300-400 of the article edits are not machine edits and they aren't very big. '''
'''Oppose''' with regrets. You're off to a good start but need more experience in admin areas; additional content-building would help as well. Stay at it and you'll get there.
'''Oppose''' this time. Come back with wider experience and more article-building.
'''Weak oppose'''. Some inexperience in areas, but should improve within months of further editing.
'''Weak oppose''', you seems to be sensible and to think carefully about what you're doing, but that is balanced by the fact that you haven't a great deal of experience. Although I wouldn't advise you to expand the article on Vista (I read your blog! :)), making some careful and collaborative contributions on a controversial subject that you don't have strong views about would go a long way towards me supporting a future RfA.
'''Weak oppose'''.  No glaring mistakes or missteps in edit history, but I don't think the user's edit history shows sufficient depth or breadth of experience.  I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect people who wish to participate in AfD as admins to have some (or ''any'') prior AfD experience.  A lot of RfA oppose votes also make it sound as if the opposer is passing judgment on the ''editor'' rather than their suitability as an admin, which is the sole attribute I am speaking of here.  It should be noted that the user is extremely valuable to the project as a competent Twinkle-user; I just don't feel they are ready for the tools.  Yet.  Keep working, try some new things, some new areas, and I have no doubt that you will be a good candidate for the tools in time.
'''Support''' Per miranda and the answer to Q7, the candidate has far too little experience for me to trust that they are competent enough to wield the tools. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
Oh, boy... '''Weak oppose''' on account of recently heavy activity and relatively low count. Ditto with [[WP:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2|another ongoing candidate]], {{user2|Foxy Loxy}}. --
'''Weak oppose''' Too inexperienced for me to trust. Lack of both admin-related and article-writing experience, as shown by Q7.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns over inexperience, per above.
'''Neutral''' Seems sensible, and is supported by very sensible people. Not much to go on apart from that. Somehow I suspect the candidate would add to the drama on Wikipedia. But maybe in a good way. We'll see.
'''Neutral''' Because of concerns raised in the oppose section, I have to go neutral.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Neutral''' - She's on the margin of qualified, but no major concerns were raised, so I will not oppose.
'''Support'''. I've had many dealings with this editor, including some very heated [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] problems. He's been patient and precise, and been a true asset to Wikipedia. He's been vigilant against vandalism, and also in page creation and maintenance. Strong support.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Great responses to questions, the editor will use the tools wisely. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Great experience, great responses to questions, no evidence of problems.
'''Support''' All of our exchanges have been positive and with a pleasant demeanor. He does an excellent job in writing content. I watch several of the Green Bay Packers articles and his edits/reverts have all been reasonable.
'''Support''', per candidate's good responses to the questions.  We always need more admins who understand what is and is not an A7.
Duh!
'''Support''' Nice responses. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Great answers.  Good luck!  '''
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' - per answers, and excellent contributions, especially at [[WP:FLC]]. Enjoy your tools. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''; looks like a great candidate. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' - would be a excellent admin for wikipedia.--
'''Support''' No problems to be seen. --'''
'''Support''' Good answers, check of contribs reveals no problems. Good luck!
'''Support''' - Some of the best answers I've seen in quite a while. No problems, Good luck! -'''
'''Support''' will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
Yes, postive experiences with this editor.
[[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He'd Make a good admin.
'''Support''' This user has helped me many times in the past... and this is when I say... I thought he was already an admin!! :D  Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' Should handle the tools quite well.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Reiterate what - Jameson L. Tai had to say. Great editor and very helpful with other editor's questions, great choice for admin! <font face="Neuropol"><font color="#003366">
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions, contributions look good.  Side note: what a heartbreaking way to end a [[2007 Green Bay Packers season|season]] last night, so you get the sympathy vote as well.
'''Support''' I liked your answers. Will make a fine admin. Good luck.
Helped deal with the Starwars1955 incident? You have a strong support from me because I remember how that situation was.
'''Oppose'''.  I would never support a Packer fan.  I'm joking (kinda).  I '''support''' because of very good answers. ---
'''Support'''
Great user, will use the tools well.
'''Support''' I have [[Brett Favre]] on my watchlist and have seen this user's interaction with others.  He's very calm and level headed.  His answers were great.  --
'''Support''' As per Wizardman and Acalamari and has over 5000 edits with over 2000 in mainspace.Track shows no concerns.
'''Strong support'''. Has been a positive contributor for a long period of time now, and could definitely do good with the tools. ''Bon chance''. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support''' See no problems here.
'''Support''' Oh yeah! Gonzo is a great user and would be a great admin. :) '''
Per the beautifully written nomination.
'''Support''' I trust Wizardman, and that is one of the best nomination statements I've seen. Good luck,
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, nicely written nomination. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support'''. The work with categories is outstanding.
'''Support''' - Wants to work at CFD. Fresh.
'''Support''' - <s>somewhat weakly</s> because I'd like to see the candidate willing to offer {{tl|2nd chance}}'s, but the existence of this template is something I learned on the job myself, so I can't fault him for not giving me exactly the answer I was looking for. On the assumption that he'll take this into account, I trust he'll be a net positive especially in his intended areas of focus. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, changing to just regular 'ole support because he got the bonus points for knowing not to decline an unblock request from his own block. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Cannot see anything at all to worry me here.
'''Support''' Always calm, thoughtful, thorough & ready to be pursuaded to change his mind at CFD. Will be an excellent admin.
'''Support without reservation'''** - I've been favorably impressed by Good Olfactory ever since he first started taking part in the proceedings at CFD back in early March of this year. What first caught my attention was the fact that he immediately adopted use of a [[:Template:cfd-notify|CFD-notification template]] that User:Black Falcon and I had developed for notifying the creators of Categories that a CFD has been opened. Considering that the CFD guidelines don't currently ''require'' such notification, and that many editors don't do so voluntarily, his use of the template -- especially as a fairly new Wikipedian -- said to me, "Here's a guy who respects his fellow editors, and really values fairness and transparency." <br/>Wizardman has already noted GO's prodigious industriousness -- and no, that isn't hyperbole. :) What's more important, as far as I'm concerned, is that he has consistently demonstrated through his participation in numerous CFD discussions that he has the temperament and good judgement that are the bedrock qualities of a first-rate admin. Oh, and one other thing: he has a good sense of humor, and doesn't take himself tooooo seriously. (I still crack up from time to time when I think of [[:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_10#Category:Hip_hop_albums_featuring_skits_or_interludes_recorded_through_telephones_or_telephone_answering_machines|one particular self-deprecating comment he made]] at the very end of a rather boisterous CFD.) In closing, my only regret is that (as a non-admin) I wasn't able to write the nomination myself. [[User:Cgingold|Cgingold]] ([[User talk:Cgingold|talk]]) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)<br/><nowiki>**</nowiki>Actually, I do have one very slight reservation: We may (to some extent) lose his participation in CFD discussions. That would be a real shame.
Two tickets for "The Dark Knight," please.  Oh, wrong queue. Seriously...'''Support''' for a fine candidate.
'''Strong support'''.  Well-reasoned additions to CFD discussions, and as Cgingold said, very helpful to other users with the use of the cfd notification template.  Will make an excellent admin.  --
'''Support'''.  Wizardman has found another good one.  Excellent candidate, no hesitation on my part.
'''Support''' - yes!
'''Support''' Anyone who can contribute so regularly and so productively to what can sometimes be a contentious topic (all things LDS) can handle the tools.
'''Support'''. After taking a look through his contribs and stats, I'd have to agree, excellent candidate. Good communication skills, experienced, knowledgeable, works at the oft-overlooked CFD.
'''Support''' - Who wouldn't be impressed by his category work? :) I would have liked to see a tad more article writing experience (everything else only serves to support article writing, so yes, experience there is important!) but the candidate seems to have a good grasp on guidelines and policies and has worked on some controversial material. I think he'll do some good things with the mop. The nominating statement helped win me over, too.
'''Support''' per Okiefromokla, loving the category work. Good luck, --
'''Weak Support''' I am a bit late, so I have to say "[[WP:PERNOM|as per nom/above]]" even though it should not count as a valid support criteria, so let me say: I looked through the contributions and I agree we need someone to care for Cats and CFDs. So he will be a great asset to the project and I could not find a single negative contribution to cast doubt on this assessment. Also, I liked the answers to the questions, he sounds like a sensible guy. '''
I wouldn't normally bother with this '''pile-on support''' at this stage, but I just want to comment on an excellent answer to Q3.
'''Strong support''' per excellent nomination, equally excellent response to Q3, and the fact that the unique nature of this user's focus (i.e., religious categorization) makes this user a clear asset to the project.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' &mdash; Lots of clue. Good luck, &mdash;
I strongly support this candidacy. Unfortunately, I don't have anything new and clever to add to what the Wizardman, Kbdank71, Cgingold and Johnbod have already said. Could definitely use the extra buttons to help the project.
'''Support'''. Although I'm unsure what assistance Olfactory is planning to provide at [[WP:AB]] (Wikipedia:Autobiography). [[User:Axl|Axl]] ([[User talk:Axl|talk]]) 18:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) <small>Oops; I meant [[CAT:AB]] (administrative backlog), of course.
'''Support''', seems pretty sane, good work on categories.
'''Support'''.  Good luck at [[WP:CFD]]. <font  face="georgia">'''
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
Sane people always welcome at CFD; sane people with the mop even more so.  'Bout time!
I think everone has witnessed Good Olfactory's excellent contributions to categories etc. Oh, and what an interesting username! --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Strong support''' as nom. (Very impressive that I leave for only a little while and it's at 30 already.)
'''Support''' Looks like a good user, great nom statement by a trustworthy user. Good luck helping over at CSD. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' anyone this dedicated and well-behaved deserves the bit.
'''Support''' I have no concerns here at all. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
—
'''Support''' Why not?  Responsible and diligent editor.
'''Support''' - How could I oppose an editor like this?
'''Support''' - A helpful editor; gracious with helpful council when I did not quite understand what I was doing. I cannot name another individual more qualified by skill or personal effectiveness.
'''Support''' - I don't think I can say much more than what Wizardman has already said. Despite the limited editing and time here, I believe Mr Factory will make a good admin and be very beneficial with his work clearing out backlogs. <font color="#312AB6">
—'''
'''Transfer''' to [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators]].--
'''Support''' Indeed.
'''Support''' without hesitation. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' will get great value from the tools with his work at CFD.
'''Support''' - He might be a fresh face, but he's clearly demonstrated a firm grasp of policies and dedication through content contribution. Gaining the tools will be a net benefit to the project.'''''<font color="green">
'''+S''' [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
I can't remember quite where I've seen you, but it was a positive experience. Combined with that, the great nomination statement and the answers to the questions, I think you'd handle the tools just fine.
'''Support''' - this editor has crossed my path many times. Always good work. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Strong Support''' He will use the tools to block vandals. --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, and I have no doubt he will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per finding absolutely [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|no reason not to do so]]. Also, per Gazimoff. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I've seen him around and he does good stuff. --
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' - looks qualified. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Strong support''' - excellent contributor at CFD, giving him admin tools would be of great benefit to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Per nom and scribe. '''
'''Support''' - in general, thoughtful answers to the questions, and seems a good candidate. I always trust Wizardman to come up with a great nom aswell. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' No reason for concern from this candidate.
'''Support''' good user. —
Another great candidate from Wizardman.
'''Support'''. Good Olfactory is an excellent contributor and he has answered the questions well, I have no concerns about his good character.
'''Support'''. Fine user, would do good use of the tools, and per #6. <small>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - I would like to see some more experience, but that isn't bothering me enough to oppose and everything else looks good.
'''Support''' - No problems here. --
'''Support''' - The biggest controversy I'm seeing here is with A6 (discussed below and on talk), and I'd rather have an admin who errs on the side of caution when it comes to blocks anyways. --
'''Support''' Opposes unsurprisingly trifle, glowing nom and solid-looking contribs. Good luck.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions; the responses seems adminy enough, though a little verbose (except for cooldown blocks, which was given exactly the wordcount it deserved) --<b>
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support'''. The candidate is helpful, constructive and understands policy.
'''Support''' - I love people who hate cool down blocks just like the 99.999'% of Wikipedia users! But, seriously, he's a great guy and he'll make a great admin. No worries here.
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' should be fine. Cheers,
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support''' per awesome nom. '''
'''Support''' - no worrisome issues for me, and I see evidence of being able to work well with others and good communication skills.  His enthusiasm for categorisation is something needed in the administrative ranks.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. The answer to Q6 is cool.
'''Support''' per answers - '''especially''' Q6. A number of opposes recently (here and other RfAs) have been pretty [[WP:POINT|pointy]] on this question, and I have to say that whether one agrees with the policy or not, asking an RfA candidate to IAR (or at least ignore this one - ITR?) out of the box is silly. An administrator is here to exert the will of the community, not make new policy. Also, for contriving to have exactly 45000 total edits on your summary page, exactly the same number as a [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/J.delanoy 2 |concurrently-run (and now successful) RfA]]... <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. I thought I already had supported, in fact. Definitely a trustworthy user who knows what's what. No problem giving admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support:''' For no other, and no better, reason than to help offset the Oppose votes, which I feel, quite frankly, are [[WP:POINT]] votes and nothing more.
'''Support''' per RGTraynor and Kurt. '''
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q6.
'''Oppose''' per A6. Admins need to be able to explain their actions (and a lot of other things for that matter), and merely pointing to a policy in lieu of explaining it in your own words (and demonstrating ''your'' understanding, which is the entire purpose of asking the question), in my view, is insufficient and shows that something is lacking. I cannot support admins (or future-admins) taking this approach in answering questions (however obvious or tedious or repetitive they might be).
'''Weak oppose''' - Q6 is a bit... hm. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with city names in the title]], i.e. use of [[WP:UNENCYC]], but good argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lance de Masi]].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Neutral''' While I would support in a future rfa, I feel the user needs a little more experience.--
'''Neutral''' - not quite there with experience.
Yes. Well done. Graham all the way. --
Yes.  Graham does excellent work.  Impressive nominators, as well, whom I've beaten in.--
Definitely. Will make a good administrator. =)
'''Beat-the-noms support'''. Absolutely: if Graham's fine combination of article writing and projectspace work is any indication, he will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, per excellent quality contributions to this project. Thank you for volunteering to help out in this added capacity. '''
'''Support'''.  Graham is a fine editor and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Slow voting nominators are a plus.]] <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Graham does excellent article and reviewing work and is trusted by everyone who deals with him. - Dan
'''Support'''. We need ''some'' good ole medics amidst the manga and death metal majority.
'''Support''' without any reservations whatsoever. The excellent work he's doing on the virus articles would be made easier for him with those few extra buttons, and I see no reason at all to suppose that he'd suddenly go mad if allowed access to a block button. I have complete faith that he would continue to be the thoughtful and helpful contributor that he has already so amply demonstrated himself to be. --
'''Support''' per responses to standard questions especially '''answer 1A'''.  My first instinct was to go neutral for the same reasons as [[User:Ottava Rima]] - adminship is not a reward, and specifically look for opposes vs. value of having the tools.  The only reasons I found to oppose so far was weak participation in Wikipdia: outside of Featured Article-related pages.  Normally that would give a neutral, and his answers to other questions demonstrates the value of giving this guy keys to the broom closet.
'''Support'''. I've known Graham over a year on WP. He's an outstanding example of an expert editor patiently collaborating with us amateurs to produce great articles. Graham's many FAC reviews show he is willing to undertake some often-thankless tasks that nevertheless require careful attention and much thought. Graham is a gentleman and wise—attributes that, if missing, no amount of training or reading can compensate for.

[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' Great editor, great nominators. Simple as that.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' - as the French say. . .  yeah sure, why not? Very helpful and a nice guy too.
'''Support''' He has the knowledge base, experience with articles that are the basis for all the tools. One does not have to embroil yourself with the shenanigans at the DRAMA boards to be a good admin. Regards.
'''Support''' He has a potential use for it and has done nothing to suggest he might not understand what to do with it.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Weak Support''' I honestly believe GrahamColm would make a good admin, and thats why I'm supporting, but the oppoosition by Wisdom89 can't be overlooked.
Hello, I’m [[Angelina Jolie]], and I’ve come to this remote corner of the developing world with my publicists, stylist, wardrobe consultant, personal trainer, chef, bodyguards and [[Brad Pitt]] to call attention to issues of geo-political consequence...and to myself, of course. Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: '''Support''' for someone who is clearly a star on this project. To paraphrase Brad’s ex-wife: !voting against this candidate would be “uncool.”
'''Support''', adminship should be given to those unlikely to cause damage with it, and it should be no big deal. --
'''Strong support''' Shows supreme competence in absolutely everything that matters on Wikipedia. Has therefore demonstrated obvious capability to learn all the little trivialities of being an admin. We are taking our eye off the ball when we balk at such a completely qualified candidate. Absolute confidence. --
'''Support''' Ridiculously strong contributions, and if we can't trust our even tempered best writers, who can we trust?
3FA's + 6000+ edits of high quality + high standards of civility + outstanding answers to the standard questions + Sandy and Cas nomming = '''Strong support''' in my book. Go to it!
'''Strong Support''' A very good user and I think he would be a excellent admin. Good Luck!--
YES. Only seen very useful contributions from this user at [[WP:MED|WikiProject Medicine]] and have seen nothing in the slightest that alarms me. —'''
As with Moni's RFA, I think his content work overrides the lack of admin work mentioned by Wisdom. [[WP:QUAKE|₪]]<font face="Gill Sans MT">
I am curious to why he asked Sandy to nom for him, but I see no reason to oppose. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' no real need for the tools, but no concerns with yielding them either; will be a net positive. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]

'''Support''' I've seen only positive things from Graham. I trust his judgment. <small>
'''Support''' without reservation. My experience with and observation of GrahamColm in action (e.g., [[Herpes zoster]] last year) is uniformly positive.
'''Rocks Bells''' —
'''Support'''.  Almost opposed (based on lack of experience with administrative tasks), but after reading the answers to the questions I changed my mind, realizing you are an intelligent editor and do not plan to use the tools in ways you have no experience with.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Has my confidence.
'''Strong support''' Work at FAC and writing show a strong ability to analyse and show attention to detail which is very important. '''
'''Support''', one of the best editors on RfA for a while. --
'''Strong support''' An excellent contributor who can be trusted not to go crazy with the tools. This idea that one needs to participate in admin-lite tasks to understand that the tools should not be abused seems strange to me. Being an administrator isn't rocket science and common sense and an even temperament are better indicators of suitability than any amount of vandal-reporting, AfD contributing etc. As for  concerns about need for the tools, this seems a little backward to me. Generally, unless there is a valid reason why an editor should '''not''' have the tools, what matter is it that he/she will rarely use them. --
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative personal interactions, as candidate has never been blocked, as candidate has been co-nominated by one of my top ten or so favorite Wikipedians (Casliber), and as candidate's user page suggests a good degree of high quality and constructive contributions.  Best, --
'''Very strong support''' - This is my strongest support !vote so far. Here are my reasons. '''A.''') I agree with Wehwalt; the nominators are ''very'' impressive. '''B.''') Civil editor. '''C.''') Superb content builder. '''D.''') Over 6,000 edits. A few other things; IMHO, we could very likely have another one for [[WP:100]] with Graham. Also, judging by the early supports, looks to me like we narrowly escaped a reapeat of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3|this]]. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Support.''' ·
'''strong support''' mature, with common sense, and a fellow [[Birmingham|Brummie]]. :)
'''Support'''. Oh dear. There seems to be a cabal! No, but in all seriousness, this user exemplifies a great contributor and article writer. <font color="777777">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' - Even though the user doesn't have much experience with adminy things it's not like he's going to go on a rampage. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Graham is definitely a mature, trustworthy user. By any standard, a true top-caliber user. '''''
'''Support'''. The candidate is mature, helpful and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - net positive? {{tick}} Support? {{tick}} ''<font face="Impact">
'''Support''' - from neutral. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' trustworthy user.
'''Support''' - no reason to suspect he'd misuse the tools.

'''Support''': Impressed with not only the answers, but the confidence in which they were drafted. <sup><small>
'''Support''' - The ability to perform administrative tasks here can be learned. The ability to be a talented, trustworthy, civil editor cannot. From my experience as an FAC reviewer, Graham is all three of those, and I have no doubt that he would be a great admin. '''
'''Support''' Just keep away from the big red button for a while :)
'''Support''' Very mop-worthy,
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with excellent content contributions. I have seen his work in the Virology WikiProject. He might not be the most active admin, but I'm sure he will use the tools for the benefit of the project.
'''Support'''. A strong candidate that shows plenty of wisdom and maturity - exactly the qualities that make him worthy of our trust. My congratulations in advance.
Per Maxim.
'''+S''' [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Support''' - User GrahamColm has made a number of impressive contributions to medical articles and is, more importantly, a thoroughly competent and trustworthy editor.  He will make an excellent admin.  —'''
'''Weak Support''' Although he has been a great editor here, lack of knowledge to admin tools worries me, but I trust he will learn.
'''Strong support''' &ndash; Outstanding editor.
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. The user seems to be very thoughtful and will probably not rush head-first into areas he has no understanding of. I do not care if he does not want to use the tools often, he is a net positive if he uses them only once. And when he does, I am sure he will not abuse it. Regards '''
Of course. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' -- I like your article work! Cheers, '''
'''Support''' Looks like a good user. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Support''' Yep. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Trustworthy nominators, sensible answers to questions dispell any concerns about possible misuse of tools even if the candidate has no experience in administrative areas. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Little experience of admin-related tasks does not mean he will suddenly start pressing buttons willy-nilly to see what they do. Even so, it's not rocket science, and he is intelligent enough to first look into the specifics of any tasks he wishes to perform. It should be no big deal to give the tools to those we trust won't misuse them, even if they may not be called upon to deploy them very often.
I'm
'''Support'''. I typically require more experience in the usual admin forums, but reading the questions above, looking through the candidate's meta contributions, and the obvious article building experience makes me land decisively in the support camp. I trust this candidate with the tools - ''definitely'' a net positive.
'''Support''' Net positive.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Strong support'''. Trustworthy, great user.
'''Support''' Would be a good admin I think. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Strong Support'''. Great editor, fanatastic contribs and very helpful.
'''Support''' - it's not rocket science...
'''Support''' Good track and see no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' - Definitely. The user does excellent work on articles. It is clear from answers that the candidate is highly knowledgeable in how Wikipedia works, and the only reason he's lacking in the understanding of certain policy nuances, is because he didn't cheat the process by looking up past answers or secretly asking other admins. I think that especially because of the answer to Q1, this candidate is the definition of what they call 'net positive'. --
'''Support''' -
A mature, sensible, and well-informed editor as an admin?  That just won't do. Not at all. (Oh, and for the humor-impaired -- '''Support!''')
'''Support'''. —<sub>
'''
'''Support''' Lack of huge admin-activity doesn't worry me: candidate is a good editor and I think he will not be going bonkers with admin tools until he feels comfortable doing so. <b>'''
3 FA and SandyGeorgia vouching? I look no further!--
'''Support''' per Wisdom89.  An excellent and conscientious editor who does not wish to embroil himself in wikidrama is an ideal candidate for adminship.  After all, it's no big deal, is it?
'''Support''' Seems good to me. <em style="font-family:Impact"><font color="black">
'''Support''' I have had experience with Graham. Definitely a supportable candidate.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange"><sup>(
'''Support''' - terrific work in microbiology. He'll be able to contribute more with the admin-tools. -
'''Support''' - Personal reasons.
'''Support''' - Supporting per comments from [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] in the discussion above. It's a nice feeling to see an admin candidate with an impressive mainspace portfolio. --
'''Strong support''': Late to the party, it appears, but I still wanted to chip in. I have absolutely no concerns here. Look, not every admin needs to haunt AN/I. I want to know whether someone can ''learn'' to be a good admin. Can they admit their mistakes and learn from them? Do they ''get it''? I can absolutely guarantee that a mature, sensible, dedicated content creator who's never set foot on AN/I or XfD can learn this job - I'm not as confident about many of the people who frequent "admin" areas and the noticeboards. Anyhow, strong support it is - good luck, Graham. '''
'''Support''' - An admin wannabe should have some experience in admin-related areas, but if you can make high-quality edits to [[Virus|this article]], [[Rotavirus|this article]], [[Introduction to viruses|this article]], [[Hepatitis B virus|this article]], and [[Herpes zoster|this article]], you can easily understand the duties of admins.
'''Co-nom Support''', sentimentally, wanted to be Number 100, but ... gotta sleep.
'''Co-nom Support''' oh yeah, forgot about that...Cheers,
'''Support''' I trust his judgment. Any technical admin tool details can be learned ... and for anyone who can wade through [[WP:MOS]], [[WP:ADMINGUIDE]] will be a breeze :)
Based on his work and experience, Graham would make an essential Administrator.  Here's my reply to a comment of Oppose: Not all admins have to excel in all areas.--<b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">
'''Support''', sensible, mature and hard-working. I trust Graham completely.
'''Strong support'''  Wikipedia desperately needs admins who are clueful about scientific and medical issues.
'''Support'''- I see no reason to think this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Clearly trustworthy. Also, SandyGeorgia's co-nomination makes a good point about admin help at FAC. Making GrahamColm an adimin would be a positive move. --
'''Support''' &mdash; Would make a fine administrator. Could also help at [[WP:FAC]] also. <font face="cursive">
'''Support'''. Disappointing answer to question 8. Otherwise an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' More than than merely trustworthy. This one's an obvious choice. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' I've no concerns with the candidate, looks to be trustworthy and generally know what he's doing.
'''Support''' ''
Per SG's conom. Also per SBHB. Also per Wisdom89's oppose. ++
Per oppose votes. What a fine user. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Per Malleus. If he knows not to use the tools that are over his head, there's no reason he shouldn't have them to help with the simple tasks where he does know how to use them.
'''Strong support''' I'm trying to figure out a reason to not support.  Oh, I keep forgetting how to spell his user name.  Seriously, best candidate in a while, and will balance out the anti-science crowd in the admin group.
'''Support''' I like their spark. -
'''Support''' No issues I see here. Your work in namespace is admirable, and you show maturity in the answers to the questions. I have every confidence that you will make the project proud. --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''+ve'''  Its been said all up above me but I can't resist pointing out that countless cookie-cutter candidates have dutifully done the "admin experience" tickybox thing. By contrast, Graham has got on and done his own thing and proved his considerable ability both intrinsically and incidentally. He is just about everything I want to see in a bucketwallah.
'''Support''', 'nuff said
'''Support''' - good contributer, able work collaboratively, knows what he does not know and how to read up where necessary. Re opposing concerns, whilst I appreciate where the issues are coming from, per Jimbo's "no big thing" so no reason to withold from someone who might have some valid use of some of the tools some of the time.
'''Support''' --
'''S'''upport. Graham is a content beast. I think all content beasts, especially in the field of GA/FA content, should have the option of admin tools provided they are unlikely to abuse them. This content beast can be trusted.
'''Support.'''  No concerns. Since Graham has obvious diplomatic skills, I'd expect he would participate thoughtfully in the admin areas and not jump in beyond his expertise, until he has learned more.
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions.
'''Strong support:''' Per [[User:Dendodge/Admin_criteria/Log#GrahamColm]]. '''
'''Support''' per the nominations.
'''Support'''.
'''Must. Pile. On.''' - Support, seriously. Fine contributions and a calm, clever and civil contributor. Can't think of any reason why he shouldn't be an admin. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support''' per the nominators.
'''Support''' per [[Dylan620]]
'''Support'''.  Graham has an excellent understanding of the policies that he needs to know to do the tasks that he wants to do.  I am also confident that he will verify what he thinks he knows and/or look up any policies he is unfamiliar with before he starts using the tools in areas beyond his immediate interest.  I trust him with the tools and it is enough to know that they will make his editing easier - we should be trying to help our excellent content contributors add more excellent content.
'''Oppose''' - Excellent editor, unfortunately I see virtually no activity in admin-related areas, and while some (including myself) might consider it refreshing to find a candidate that doesn't immerse themselves in the standard or become embroiled in ANI drama, I can't ignore this fact.
Per Wisdom89 --'''<font face="verdana">
While I would generally blindly jump in on the side of my fellow content-creators, as per Wisdom I don't see a lot of admin-activity; not to say you have to be a ANI troll, which I find insufferable, but at least some general interest in mop activities? I think Graham should "fully understand the duties and responsibilities of administrators" ''before'' getting the bit, is all. <font color="#cc6600">

'''Oppose''' - per [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]],  and per nomination by clique members.  Candidate seems to have little knowledge of, or interest in, most of the work and tools of admin duty. He does not intend, judging by his statement,   to contribute much to admin work. Having tools so that his own  article work  would be made easier for him does not seem to be an adequate justification. Plus the signs of support from an organized wikipedia clique are worrisome, especially since he asked them to nominate him.  A candidate should not run because "a few extra buttons" would make his own article writing, and that of a few selected others,  easier.   &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs.
'''Strong Oppose''' I am particularly worried about the above statement "Never before have I seen such malicious vandalism. If I were an administrator, I could have instantly blocked the contributor for at least enough hours for me not to have to worry all day that such nastiness would be re-added." The IP very likely would have been banned if it had been reported to [[WP:AIV]]. At the very least I'd hope that the quick and easy step of ''warning'' the user would have been taken. Missing the [[WP:NFC]] question didn't help, and then saying "if an editor is not sure they should ask before uploading them" really turned me off. As [[WP:MOP]] says, "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute." '''<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' for now. This one took quite a bit of thought, and I really expected to end up supporting when I saw this RfA. Graham is an excellent article writer, a competent FAC reviewer, and an overall helpful user, but as Wisdom89 pointed out, he has little experience in admin-related areas. Also, the answer to question #1 concerns me; this statement, "But at first, I need to learn how to use the tools correctly and wisely and memorise as much as I can of the Wikipedia policies and essays that relate to them", leaves me to question the candidate's current knowledge of policies. I have no doubt that you will make a fine admin, and you will pass RfA with flying colors, but for now, I remain neutral. Cheers, &ndash;
I don't think giving GrahamColm adminship would either improve or disimprove anything.
'''Support''' - former ArbCom member here. I cannot find any evidence to suggest candidate will misuse tools, even if he does not use them very often. He is clearly trusted on Romanian Wikipedia with being CheckUser, sysop, and bureaucrat [http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:Gutza]. Has plenty of edits in various namespaces [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Gutza&site=ro.wikipedia.org]. Not quite so many on en-wiki, but thats [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]].
'''Support''' I see no indication that there might be abuse. Made sufficiently clear what he will be doing with the tools.
'''Support''' This is, of course, a rather unusual RfA (one supposes that it is essentially a request for limited adminship), but inasmuch as it appears that Gutza intends to use the tools only in areas with the policy and practice of which he is conversant (at the very least, he so avers, and there is nothing, it seems, to suggest that he will not act consistent with his profession), such that he will not inadvertently misuse the mop and bucket by acting whereof he does not know, and to use the tools toward some propitious end (viz., the development/improvement of various tools that will prove useful to, for one, the en.wiki community), I feel quite confident concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' - Former ArbCom member apparently already has the trust of many. Reasons for seeking adminship seem to be good ones. No reason to have reservations.
&mdash;
Has been trusted here before, and trusted on other projects. Nothing here makes me think he's likely to abuse the tools.
Support per [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and [[WP:DEAL|adminship is not a big deal.]] -
'''Support'''.  No red flags.  Good luck, '''
'''Support'''. He might not use the tools too much, but I see no reason to believe that he'll abuse them. It's pointless to make someone who'll never use the tools an admin, but Gutza has made it clear what he'll do with them. Also a good admin/bureaucrat/checkuser on the Romanian Wikipedia. He may not use the tools as often as some admins, but his being sysopped will improve Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Sure, don't break anything. <sup>
'''Support''' - Why on Earth would we oppose?
'''Support''' Per Gromlakh.  Unusual circumstances, but it'd be foolish to oppose this request, given the purposes for which the tools are being requested (to help improve the wiki itself). --
'''Procedural support'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
(warning, my Romanian spelling is horrible, although my slang is surprisingly good!). Da, bei :)
'''Support''' He should help when it comes to other wikis. <strong>
'''Support''', and ban Ryan P for that hideous sig ;).
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' because the line of 7 bright pink hearts above is calling out to me...begs me to support...  Would someone hit RP with a [[WP:TROUT]] please?  As for Gutza, yeah - seems fine and perfectly capable.  Excellent answers to the above questions, by the way.
'''Support''' - yes, of course.
'''''
Almost missed this one! :) I've been working with Gutza this week, he collaborates well, is civil, and, overall, I think he'd make a great admin!
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">

Me too, per answer to Question 8, and general all around cluefulness. --
''<nowiki>[[Instert random comment here]]</nowiki>'' (actually this obviously needs no explanation)
'''Support''' I don't know how I missed this one yesterday.
'''Support''' - looks fine. --
'''Support'''. Obvious case. --
'''Support'''. good 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. Someone will need to update [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries]] with the date of promotion.
'''Support'''. Fine, per above. --
'''Support''' per above and damn good question answers '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', perfectly good reason for the tools
'''Support''', no harm in giving the tools to a responsible person, and I'm not against not very active admins ∴
'''Support''' Definitely won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' of course.  -
'''Support''' as already trusted admin.
'''Support'''. Obviously trusted; he'll definitely benefit the Romanian Wiki, and anything he does here will be a bonus.
'''Support''' - Great editor! Is Trusted! -
'''Neutral''' Pending answer to question above.
'''Support''', seen her around enough, no issues.
'''Support'''. I wholeheartedly support Gwen for administrator. She is balanced, coolheaded, insightful, open-minded, and thoughtful... all qualities demanded of a good administrator.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong support''' We need more Gwens who actually think about what they're doing and less human-bot hybrids. I don't always agree with her but at least she understands what we're supposed to be doing here.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' per my co-nom, of course!
'''Support''', I had some reservations last time around, but I believe that those concerns have been addressed and that the tools will be well-placed here. Best of luck.
'''Support''', per the reasons I gave during the first RfA.
'''Support''', obviously. '''
'''Support''' of course, per Pinkville, Iridescent, and of course Majoreditor. --
'''Support'''. Tons of experience and a very prolific mainspace contributor. I don't really like her shortcutting in the edit summaries, "c", "flw", "det", "capt", but I can get over that.
'''Support'''. Trust nominaters. Gwen Gale is very reliable, net gain and more. Good luck. --
I strongly support this nomination for the reasons I listed in my nomination statement and the reasons I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGwen_Gale&diff=185315421&oldid=185315371 supported last time.]
'''Support''' No problems here. <strong>
'''Strong support'''.  I didn't realize that this User was [[User:Wyss]], but I have a great deal of respect for Wyss.  <font face="jokerman">
Impressed with wisdom and overall high clue quotient shown in frequent comments and actions at [[WP:AN]]/[[WP:ANI]].  Thoughtful, helpful, cool, and (based on the fact that I agree about 75% of the time) smart. <small>("Very smart" would have required agreeing with me over 90% of the time...)</small> Significant mainspace contributions help make up for all the useless admins like me who don't write. --
A "high clue quotient" is what we need in administrators.
'''Support''' -- Ready for the mop. --
'''Strong support''' - absolutely no problems here -
'''Support''' - Past experience with this editor gives me great confidence that she will make a great admin.  --
'''Support''' <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|contribs]]~
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Incredible article work.
'''Strong support''' Sensible, good grip on policy, civil. Outstanding candidate. --
&mdash;
'''Support'''ed last time.
My interactions with Gwen/Wyss back in 2006/early 2007 were shaky, but I've been impressed by her civility and cool-headedness as of late.  At this time, I don't see any concerns granting her adminship.
'''GOAL!''' O I mean '''Support''' '''
Certainly. I think she'll do great work as an admin. --
'''Aye''' - no problems here now, good candidate. <b>
'''Agree''': her answers to our questions were good enough.
·
'''Support''' I agree with Iridescent: we need more human Gwens and less human-bot hybrids.
'''Support''' Marginly "light" answers to the questions are no match to a review of contributions - which shows a dedicated policy and guideline wise editor. In addition the candidate has clearly worked hard to address the concerns from the last RfA. Definetly a net positive to our work. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seems to be a cool headed, civil person. Good skills in deletion and article building.--
Strong support. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' I've nothing that would indicate she'd have any trouble as an admin.
Drama-free '''support'''. Learned her lesson, will be a fine admin -
'''Support''' wonderful candidate, brilliant article work. Good luck! --
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  Hope to be working with you on the admin team soon!  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Sí'''.  '''
'''Support''' Everyone who got here ahead of me said it best...and first!
'''Support''' Per ANswer to my question. <font face="Arial Black"> [[User:Trees Rock|<font color="Green" size="2">Trees Rock</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' A very experienced and knowledgeable user who is able to learn from her mistakes.
'''Support''' no reason not to. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' I'd say why, except it might get me in trouble.
'''Support''' - Smart lady. I perceive no problems with this wonderful user gaining the tools. Good luck!
'''Support'''. I love Iridescent's comment about wanting fewer "human-bot hybrids"; that really comes across in the candidate's answers.  I see lots opinions from people I trust here, too. - Dan
'''Support''' I supported Gwen last time, and I still do. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  --
'''Support''' I don't think anybody's perfect, so a few transgressions are not to be unexpected. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' In my experience Gwen has shown excellent wisdom and care. . .
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' I believed the candidate to have been capable of fulfilling the responsibilities in the earlier RfA, and conclude that we are simply going to get a better prepared sysop this time round.
'''Support''' --
'''Yup'''. ➨ '''
'''Support''' Appears to have overcome past difficulties. Opposes seemed based on past events or on non events.
'''Support''' My own interactions with Gwen ahve been very positive. '''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''': I see a lot of progress since the prior RfA, and she's been a helpful and sensible presence around administrative areas. The current opposes don't concern me overly, and I think we should encourage someone who's obviously learned from past experiences. Good luck. '''
'''Strong Support''' per [[User:BobTheTomato]], who does not appear to have moved on since the last RfA, in ''marked contrast'' to the candidate.  <font color="006622">
'''Support'''. Gwen would be a strong contributor as an admin. She is a great communicator and has demonstrated excellent dispute resolution skills&mdash;handling difficult cases with fairness and competence.
'''Support''' I've had nothing but good interactions with Gwen, and she would be a credit to Wikipedia as an admin.
'''Support''' per Mastcell.
'''Support''' per answer to my question.
'''Strong support''': Through dozens of interactions with this editor over the past several months, I have developed the highest respect for <s>him</s>her. I would have offered to nominate <s>him</s>her if I had known <s>he</s>she wasn't already and admin.
'''Support''' intelligent, able, committed to making the project a better place ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''', as last time. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' Especially for taking a strong stand against racist editors.
'''Support''' Gwen is a force for good here and makes appropriate course corrections when needed.  She has my trust.
'''Support''' I have worked with this editor and found her to be intelligent, helpful, trustworthy, useful and dedicated.  If there's any part of the Girl Scout oath I've overlooked, she's probably got that too.
'''Support''' Assumed she was an admin already.  That's a good sign in my book...  //
'''Support''' per above, has a good grip on policy and isn't giving second thought to rotten tomatoes.  <font face="jokerman">
'''Support''' Has a clue, always a good thing in an admin. Issues from last RFA appear to have been addressed, despite a few claims to the contrary from her primary detractor. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy and competent.
'''Support''' I supported Gwen Gale's first RfA and am happy to support again. I'm impressed by her ability to remain polite and rational when others don't extend her the same courtesy.
'''
'''Support'''.  Editor is civil above pretty much everything else, which is exactly what we need considering the current active admin pool.  <font color="629632">
'''Support''' No problems here. ( I borrow Siva1979's comment this time) . -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Support''' Candidate will be a solid and welcome addition to the current admin roster, no reasons for concern.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' without hesitation.  Great contributions. <b>
With pleasure.
'''Support''' - wasn't aware there was an RfA on - my interactions with her and my observations of her interactiosn with others meanI would trust her to be an admin --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per the answer to my questions.  The answers you gave to my questions show that you have an understanding of the policies that administrators must have in order to do the job properly.  I must say that I did not like the short responses, though.  I would much rather have seen longer responses, but you answered them (especially Q16) well.  Cheers,
'''Support''' per '''overall''' review of editor's generally careful, considered posts and edit summaries. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''', Wow! Prideful answers! [[User:WikiZorro|<font color="DarkOrange" face="">'''Wiki'''</font>]][[User talk:WikiZorro|<font color="#FF4500" face="">'''Zorro'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support'''. While BobTheTomato's oppose did make my eyebrow raise, I'd have to say I'm still leaning on the side of support with regards to this editor, there is a potential for a temper issue, but it thats gonna be an issue it'll become aparant fairly quickly. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support'''. Gwen Gale is more than qualified to be an admin, and it is very disappointing that we've allowed an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krimpet&diff=prev&oldid=214116074 admitted] sockpuppet to disrupt this RfA. Gwen Gale has been beneficial as an editor, and will be even more beneficial as an admin. -
'''Strong Support''' Great editor, sad this has needed a second request. --
'''Support''', seems to be a decent editor and wouldn't likely abuse the mop. --
'''Support''' Have seen candidate around and have never failed to be impressed with what I've seen. Definite case of net benefit to the project.
'''Oppose.''' <small>'''As before, so I copy the text from my previous oppose:''' </small>In my dealings with her at Abraham Lincoln, I was accused of edit-warring, personal attacks, and all manner of wikipolicy violations, none of which I'd committed. She couches her accusations of bad faith in faux politeness, but they remain unsubstantiated allegations, as she never supported them in any way. In addition, she edit-warred at that page, badgered against consensus, and displayed some quite blatant POV problems at the talkpage as pointed out above. It's disturbing to me that this candidacy is on track for promotion.
'''Oppose''' I have interacted with Gwen Ga<s>i</s>l<u>e</u> on only one article, [[hummus]], but I don't think her interactions on that article are consistent with Wikipedia policy.  She treats the article as though she owns it, and seems not to understand the difference between [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and unsupported assertions on random Web pages and cookbooks. Her unsubstantiated personal opinion (what she calls a "glark") that hummus is very ancient is treated as the touchstone of correctness in sources, and she seems to think that modern folklore reported on random Web pages (not even reports in serious ethnographies etc.) is more worthy of attention than scholarly books. She also doesn't bother to try to refute others' arguments, but instead repeats her claims over and over. I'd ask other editors to look over [[Talk:Hummus]] and see if this sort of approach is consistent with Wikipedia policy. By the way, I have > 10,000 edits on Wikipedia, including on food articles like [[baklava]], where I think we've successfully kept up high standards in the face of spurious claims (mostly by nationalists). --
'''Oppose''' My one interaction with her was not too pleasant. It was the edit summary which I considered out of line.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Miles_Minter&diff=137652026&oldid=137634550]  I might add that another user replaced the link .[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Miles_Minter&diff=137714094&oldid=137652026] The edit summary was uncivil and uncalled for. While a good editor, I feel that she might not have the temperament to be an administrator.—
'''Oppose''' (at least for now). I am surprised that Gwen only hinted at the [[Abraham Lincoln]] article in her statement and answers. Seems a few people are still feeling the sting of her actions after all these months. She says in her answer to Q3 "having come to understand something about how and why Wikipedia works" and "I took the lingering criticism I got back then truly and deeply to heart". I'd like elaboration here. I'd really like to understand from her what went wrong on her part, what she learned, and how what she has learned will make her a better editor, and a good admin.
'''Oppose''' per Gwen's [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gwen_Gale#Candidate.27s_closing_statement_about_the_conduct_of_this_RFA|closing statement]] from her last RfA. Given her seeming obsessiveness about deflecting blame, I'm not sure I see the temperament to be an admin.
Per some valid concerned raised above.  Also, the last RFA was a few months ago.  The suggestion to ignore her history before that time seems quite ridiculous to me.  Why would we ''not'' consider all available information about a candidate?  Anyone can act reasonable for a short period of time, but this means nothing.  It's the true nature of the candidate that RFA attempts to divine, not some ability to act differently in the short term.
Per Friday; all past behavior is to be considered.
'''Oppose'''. I am aware that the candidate has made considerable efforts to behave like a good admin over the past four months, and that everyone has bad days and bad periods. However, I am concerned enough with the previous behaviour and attitudes displayed to feel that four months of deliberate good behaviour is not quite enough to make me feel comfortable. There is no rush here, and I'd feel more secure if the candidate was naturally behaving in a positive light over a more extended period than say yes at this point with the concerns raised and my own general uncertainty. There is a bit of wikidrama over some of what Gwen Gale does - the closing statement of the previous RfA still casts a shadow over the candidate. It will go. But at this moment it is still there - and I'd like to see a bit more light before giving my support. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Weak oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination)]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose'''. Per Friday.  The dispute at [[Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#Discussion_of_External_Links_Analysis|Abe Lincoln]] is way too recent and disconcerting for me to be comfortable that fringe POV pushing would not recur.  I strongly dispute the assertion that someone with a Bachelors degree in English is a "degreed scholar" whose essentially self-published claims about Abraham Lincoln merit consideration.  This appears to me to be complete, and unacknowledged, failure to understand even a ''very'' lax reading of [[WP:UNDUE]]. --
Considering the other issues raised alongside my unresponsiveness concern above (in support). ''
'''Oppose''' after having read both RfAs in their entirety (and their talk pages) and several of the disputes which were linked in both support and opposition.  —
'''Neutral''' - it's been four months since this candidate' last nomination.  I think any opposition votes should focus on this time period.  Her obvious and blatant prior misdeeds should be overlooked as a courtesy to the nominating admins who have, no doubt, been providing the appropriate mentoring and oversight.
'''Neutral''' - I was one who expressed difficulty with this candidate in the previous RfA process. At some considerable length (I made 36 edits to that earlier process page, and perhaps a few dozen more between her and my talk pages at the time), I raised questions concerning 1) transparency regarding failure to disclose the account [[User:The Witch]] prior to the process; and 2) what I viewed as "manicuring" her talk page to leave a favorable impression after the [[Abraham Lincoln]] talk discussion back in December 2007. Further, I admitted to what could be viewed as "canvassing" by notifying both users Bob the Tomato (vanished) and Rklawton (on wikibreak) of her RfA process. Candidate's defensive manner in answering my (perhaps) leading questions might have contributed to a somewhat negative impression conveyed to those reading the process. I once shared some of the concerns raised by Bob the Tomato in his opposition, but I urge those who do read candidate's previous RfA (and I'd like to think that's required reading here) to follow Rklawton's suggestion above: since then, candidate has demonstrated transparency and trust appropriate to such high responsibility.
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose''' - Slightly worried about this editor, mostly per BobTheTomato. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral'''  This one was realy tough.  After reading the comments (and various comments on the comments), I just had to look at the Lincoln material.  Frankly, I was not impressed by either side.  Looked to me like two who could not/would not step back from a confrontation.  Even though it was several months ago, Gwen, I found several instances of behavior that trouble me.  A more up-front acknowledgement of what happened, and how you changed behavior '''before''' the community weighed in would have helped.  Unfortunately, I can't support at this time.  However, I won't oppose as it seems there have been improvements, and quite frankly, the opposes led me to think you were a cross between Lucifer and the NY Yankees (I despise them!)  The results were not nearly as bad as anticipated.
Totally pointless unvote to note that I'd like to support but I'm a little hesistant to after seeing you around. Good luck, though. <nowiki></end pointlessness></nowiki> <small>'''
Yes! --
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support.''' When closing difficult TfDs, Happy-melon's opinion is one I always look for.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' A Very good wikipedian. A good admin she would be.--
looks okay.
'''Support''': All of my interactions with Happy-melon can be described as positive. -
'''SUPPORT''', ready to mop. -
'''Definatly Supporting!''', from what I have seen...he is great for Wikipedia! --[[User:AP_Shinobi]] |
'''Strong Support''' - Strong knowledge of [[WP:DEL]] and [[WP:CSD]] and an active and knowledgeable participant in [[WP:XFD]]s.--
'''Support''' Absolutely! This guy helped me out when I was but a wee newbie, and definitely knows his stuff.
'''Support''' as nom.
Nice username - sad melons would look ugly.
'''Support''' - will not abuse or misuse the tools.
Although I think you are dead wrong about self-noms, I can agree that you are well versed in the way things are done here. I appreciate your answer to Q1 which shows a broad view of the work of an admin. You are also quite transparent about previous "issues" you've been involved with. All things considered and given proper weight, I can easily '''support''' this nominee. Good luck! -
'''Strong support'''.  I am completely amazed by Happy-melons work with the [[WP:LOCE]] project.  I stumbled into it and haven't yet done much with their '''huge backlog''' (cheap plug).  But my first stab at it was met with a welcome mat, a pat on the back, and a warm cup of coffee for my efforts.  I was having trouble with a template, and if you just read the comments from the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors#New LOCE member, need some help|LOCE talkpage]], noting in particular the tone (civil and not condescending), the length (indicating a real desire to be helpful and specific) and the breadth (indicating a core understanding of the technical intricacies of this place - something I'll never get)  An outstanding, dedicated editor that is willing to take the time and effort to make this place ''shine.''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', and I completely agree with the comment from [[User:RyanGerbil10]] above.
'''Support''' Good editor. <strong>
'''Support''' Is not including tally boxes the new way of getting me to review a RfA? <small>- nb. I don't really believe that anyone thinks my vote essential, or that most have a clue who I am!</small>. Everything looks fine, and no evidence they will abuse the buttons.
'''Support''' - will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
You have my full '''Support'''.
We do really need more.
'''Support''', because we need more admins,</joke> and this user is trustworthy. ·
'''Strong support''' - despite the well-thought out oppose rationales, which provoked a long period of thought in my mind about how the issues raised would make this user abuse the tools.
Yes, good answers and great article work. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''- Good editor, experienced, and other reasons per above.
'''Support'''. The candidate is well-qualified and a good contributor.
'''Support''' If only because of the ridiculous oppose "arguments" (if you can call them that) below. Seriously, I see Happy Melon all the time, good editor, no reason to suspect misuse of tools.

[[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. Helpful editor with valuable technical skills. All interactions positive. Would make a very useful admin. ''
'''Support''' Seems like a great editor to give the tools to.  Outstanding answers to the questions, good contributions.  And one of the least likely guys to garner the opposes below, but I guess you never can tell what will happen next.
'''Support''' Editor will use the admin tools well.
Need more content-editors as admins. Yes please.--
'''Support''', good editor. --'''
'''Suppport''', all looks good, give 'em the tools.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, thoughtful comments and questions in deletion debates. No problems.--
'''Support''' Looks to be an excellent, hardworking editor who knows policy. Already working in areas that could benefit from another editor with the extra buttons. I cannot deny.
I took a positive impression about you from our recent interaction at WT:CSD. Getting an article to FA status is enough evidence of interpersonal skills to convince me that the oppose because of lack of dispute resolution isn't strong. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(
'''Support'''. Judging from edits, user is a constructive editor. --
'''Support''' Copy editing should be good background for encyclopedic administration.
'''Strong Support''' Happy-melon exemplifies the Wikipedia admin, persistently amazing me with his commitment to the project. His perseverance for improving articles and fighting on behalf of the [[WP:WPHP]] for articles he believes in always make him a pleasure to work with. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' He would be a good admin. Good luck. '''
'''Support''' One of those times I thought, "Wait, aren't they already an admin?" <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]] [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count]
'''Strong support''' Diligent editor who significantly contributed to Wikipedia and understands Wikipedia policies.
'''Support''' Impressed by this editor's comments on my talk page- showed procedural understanding.
'''Support''' While a large number of contribs are related to Harry Potter and related subjects, the answers to the 4 questions seems to be sufficient enough that he will handle well the tools. --
'''Support''' I was extremely impressed with how well Happy-melon handled [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson]], an epic discussion that would have caused many editors to tear their hair out.  If he's always as cool, collected and patient as this he'll be a great admin. --
'''Support Unreservedly''' An excellent Wikipedian with whom it is always a joy to work. Commitment and knowledge that should be the envy of many! —
'''Support''' - Nothing I could say hasn't already been said, a fine user.
'''Support''' - Acknowledging the point in the oppose section, lack of experience in dispute resolution is not necessarily grounds for thinking a person disqualified in general, and I have every reason to believe that the editor in question will be more than effective in the other areas of "admin life".
'''Support''' - A committed, knowledgeable, level-headed Wikipedian. --
'''Support''' - This editor has been helpful at the [[WP:LOCE]] WikiProject, and has impressed some fairly-well-known editors who I see above in the Support column. I see nothing in the Oppose comment that makes me worry.  Happy-melon has made some votes at [[WP:TFD]] that appear sensible, so he must have mastered some of the dusty corners of policy.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me!
'''Support''' - Great admin material, keeps his cool, mature...
'''Support'''. I was thinking as I was browsing TfD... "Hey, I should nominate Happy-mellon for adminship". I go to his userpage and I see someone has already beat me to the punch. :-P
'''Support''' - Great editor, will make a fine admin.  Also, has a catchy name.  <b>

'''Support''' - Great job in the template area & other areas as well.
'''Support''' - yep.  -
Good user. What type of [[melon]] though? [[Cantaloupe]] or [[watermelon]]?
'''Support''' Good article writer, will do well with the tools. I like [[watermelons]] btw... --
'''Support''' - for all the experience he doesn't yet have, and is destined to acquire.  '''''
'''Support''' A committed editor... I'd have to go with [[Galia (melon)|Galia]] :)
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - meets my standards, especially with so many edits in the past 5 months, with perfect edit summary usage. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Answered the questions well.
'''Support''' --
'''Suport''' - good editor, will make a good admin. --
'''Oppose''' No substantial dispute resolution experience.
'''Oppose'''.  I am reluctant to oppose the nomination of anyone for the difficult job of admin.  However, I do not think that this editor has the experience or temperament to be an administrator yet.  For example, in the recent FA review for ''[[Wicked (musical)]]'', he has shown impatience with other editors who have helped to improve the article and has been dismissive of the comments of experienced editors, contributing to the failure of the article in its FA review.  Best regards, --
'''Support''' - Sure thing. Meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]].
'''Support'''. Can't see any problems here.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' Excellent candidate Baloonman!  Good find!  Easily surpasses [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  An article builder, sane and competent in contentious areas?  ''Exactly'' what Wikipedia needs!  I fully expect some POV editors to join the oppose section, ''prima facie'' evidence of a [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] editor.   [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. FAC is usually a spot where nominators show their true colors; the fact that HappyMe22 remained cordial throughout the 5 Ronald Reagan FACs and the Nancy Reagan FAC (which was restarted) says a great deal about his character. After Nancy Reagan achieved FA status, a user I did not know chose my talk page to complain about HappyMe's "POV Pushing". I investigated pretty thoroughly and found that, even in the face of blatant POV-pushing by anon users, HappyMe kept his cool and reasonably discussed policy and the merits of the disputed edits. I have full confidence in his judgement and think he will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per the nomination and Wisdom89's criteria.--
'''Co-nom Support''',
'''Support'''.  Basically what Karanacs said.  Anybody who can keep their cool through a process as bruising as the Reagan FACs is going to be able to handle adminship.  Was also incredibly impressed with HappyMe's commitment to neutrality on [[Ronald Reagan]] in the face of almost insurmountable attempts by others to have the article written with an agenda in mind. --
'''Support''' I was on the fence until I saw your Userboxes.--
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Strong Support''' With nominators like Balloonman and SandyGeorgia I can safely say you will make a great admin.
'''Strong Support''' per TomStar81. --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Support''': Candidate looks good. Has well rounded contributions and it's nice to see a candidate interested in American politics as well. It's quite a controversial area and it's nice to see an editor taking initiative and editing the articles in an appropriate manner. I think this user will make an excellent administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Happily support''' Happy is a level-headed editor with a  maturity that is often in short supply around here. I have found him to be cordial, thorough, and - most importantly - always willing to listen to another point of view and negotiate a compromise. He has helped out on FA review of articles I'm involved in that are not in his own typical editing focus, but done so with integrity, fairness, and insight. I have seen him withstand unfair attacks that many would have responded to with anger - Happy remained calm and polite, while standing up for his own (correct, as it happens) position.  My only criticism would be that he was too nice - responding to unreasonable requests in a FAR  that he could have just ignored or declined and no one else would have objected. As an admin he may sometimes need to be tough - but I am confident he will meet the challenge.  I enthusiastically support this and look forward to calling upon his administrative tools which I know he'll use with care. <strong>
'''Support''': I have only worked with Happy as the reviewer for a GA nomination for [[Iran-Contra scandal]]. I was impressed with how he handled such a controversial topic. Although I thought the article had serious problems and the nomination was pre-mature, Happy worked diligently to fix all issues in short order. He handled the POV and vandalism issues that inevitable creep into such an article in a mature fashion, enough to give me confidence that this user can be trusted with the admin tools.
You da man. '''<font face="Verdana">
If you're trusted enough to get a ridiculously good nomination from Balloonman you're trusted enough by me to let me support you.
'''Happily support'''.  Good user with 11,000 edits and lot of experiance.  &ndash;
zOMG yes. —'''
'''Support'''. Per dilligence, knowledge, and clue necessary for adminship. --
'''Support'''. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Support''' —
&mdash;
'''Support'''. But given your brother's behavior, you might wanna be more paranoid about signing in and out from your account... [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Support''' ''^_^'' --
Happy to '''support'''.  —
'''Support'''. I worked with Happyme22 on several parts of [[Nancy Reagan]], and have run across him on a number of other American politics articles.  He works well with constructive editors even of opposing views, is willing to stand up against nonconstructive editors, and has the wisdom to know the difference.
'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
Support as candidate appears committed to building the project.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
'''Strong Support''' per Diligent Terrier's persuasive, convincing and well-written nomination.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''': A well-rounded candidate who has great experience with editing and maintaining articles to a very high standard. <small>
'''Support''' I know this user had a sort of coach, but I can't see any edits I would associate with the "classic" coached admins, contribs look fine, okay.--
'''Strongest Possible Support''' - I know Happyme22 rather well and I must say that this editor is one of the nicest most helpful editors I have ever come across. I originally noticed his excellent article building work so asked for assistance on a copy edit. Needless to say, he copy edited a 100,000 bytes article he had never before edited at the drop of a hat and I was a complete stranger. I have a huge amount of respect for this person, I also thing we could do with another strong admin in the field of politics. —
'''Weak support''' - great editor, and meets my numerical standards, but tends to obsession about a certain former President.  I'll assume good faith in POV.
'''Support''' This user's willingness to heavily edit politics-related articles and his ability to keep his cool while doing so demonstrate an ability to deal with conflicts and pressure. I see no compelling reasons to oppose. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. Solid contributions, good editor, no problems, so it's an [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|easy support]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Strong support''' per his work to Mr Reagan's article. Good luck. --
'''Support''' per excellent comments of the three extremely reputable co-nominators, whose knowledge of the editor is better than my own, and whose standards might be higher than mine as well.
'''Support''' - a very good user. Terrific article work, excellent interaction with other users, despite the talkpage problems Balloonman mentioned in his introduction. Very good Wikipedia-space participation. Just don't forget to log out of your account! ;) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Though I continue to strongly question Balloonman's judgment after a still-recent debacle that I won't deign to name, the co-nom from SandyGeorgia and the candidate's answers to the questions make me feel comfortable enough to '''support'''. I'm glad the candidate will be taking the steps necessary to prevent his account from being compromised in the future.
'''Support''' - I have known Hap since he was a newbie, and I have seen him emerge as a very good editor (whatever little I have done towards this end is not really worth mentioning). While I am notably concerned over his ability to be neutral in political articles outside the relative confines of political conservative articles, he does allow for his own mistakes and never forces his beliefs on others. I am also concerned that he hasn't a lot of experience outside his article comfort zone, but then, as we aren't being paid, we are better off sticking to what we like. I would suggest that Happy's interest in RFPP and MfD successfully sidesteps this concern. If he makes an editorial call in an article in concerning American politics, it wold be expected that he consult other admins for guidance before doing so.  Personally, I disagree with him is virtually every discussion I have had with him concerning content, but he is one of those rare individuals who can keep matters civil. Poking at him for forgetting to log off his account, thereby inadvertently allowing an apparently juvenile person to act as him, is unfair. What was missed in the criticism was that these lapses in his typical demeanor were ''immediately'' noted when they occurred, for the simple reason that they were so unlike how HappyMe22 usually edits. It was a mistake, as no one typically expects a family member to screw them over. That Hap should log off his account when using a community computer is a lesson he has no doubt severely learned (and, if I remember my own interactions with my own brother, the appropriate level of payback administered). It isn't a reason to fault his ability to act appropriately. I think he should be monitored for a bit, as all new admins are, but he is ready for the mop, to my reckoning. -
'''Support''' I was hesitant to support at first, but then realize I was confusing Happyme22 with Happy-melon, who is unfortunately already an admin. Looking over his's contribs, I see a great deal of good work and considerable evidence that Happyme22 has a firm grasp of policy (and how it should be applied). The account security issue doesn't concern me, as it isn't as if he is offering his admin account up for the highest bidder on eBay. We've had accounts maliciously compromised in the past, and what little damage they caused was cleaned up in minutes. I suspect Happyme22 will take the necessary precautions (always log out, even if leaving the computer for just a minute or two) and his little brother/sister/friend will not gain control of his account again. Good luck! -
'''Support''' Nothing but positive things to say about this nomination.  When you see Happyme22's name, there's bound to be some neutral and helpful stuff attached to it.  But why the 22?
'''Support'''
<big>'''Strong Support'''</big>. I've always had my eye on nominating Happyme, but I might as well just give the strongest support I've every given. Helpful, neutral, and dedicated, I have no doubt that Happyme will continue to do good here. '''''
'''Support''' Per Sandy's nom <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I have every reason to believe that this user will keep a watchful eye on their account and avoid a repeat of their past mistake. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
I'm
'''Support'''.  Happyme22 edits on some high-traffic articles that evoke strong opinions, but he always manages to keep a cool head -- a good quality in an administrator.  He's also an active writer of articles, which is another good quality.
'''Support'''. Rock-solid nominations. I believe candidate will address security concerns - we're not giving him the codes to nuclear warheads, we're giving him Wiki admin tools. Clearly has the temperament and knowledge needed to use them effectively.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' – I have re-evaluated the neutral I posted earlier in the RfA when I discussed the possible problems arising from a potentially 'unsafe' administrator account and some other concerns about experience and some lack of deletion work. I now feel that, as I say, a review of this, I had unfortunately come to the wrong conclusion about this particular user. A focused, well-mannered, and overall compatible individual '''Happyme22''' shows good signs of being an excellent administrator, this being further evidenced by a rigorous and somewhat, one can only imagine, tiring process of the FA system for the same article five times. That really shouldn’t be the be all and end all for Hm22 though, I've also been reflecting upon their contributions and some fine examples of following process (outside the Reagan’s) are <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.209.242.200&diff=prev&oldid=220812278 notifying IPs of refactoring comments on talk pages], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.201.26.245&diff=prev&oldid=217374726 relevant notices about test-editing], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.39.244.251&diff=prev&oldid=208148792 vandalism warnings]</span> etc. There were others concerns, which I did feel where preventing me from supporting, below in the struck-out neutral but now with this more detailed review I believe there is a ''very'' good chance that not only will Happyme be an administrator, but an excellent one too.
'''Support''' Great work on great articles. If Sandy and Ballonman both approve, who am I to say otherwise? Please get a committed identity, though.
'''Support''' A generally cheerful and unflappable editor. Can't imagine him/her misusing the tools. --
'''Support''' -Per the rather poor opposes. I can think of a few admins whos accounts have become compromised and still have the tools, and use them just fine. I mean its not the end of the world, admins can be temp de-syoped and their actions undone. Now in saying that I hope Happyme will understand a need for secuirty and as such will take steps to ensure that his/her account will be secure from here on out.
'''Support''' Seen this user around alot - especially at [[WP:AFD]] recently - keep up the good work. <strong>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Notably per answer to question #8
'''Support''' - great content contributor, pleasant attitude. Trustworthy too; I take his word he'll be more careful with logging out.
'''Support''' After reviewing the user's contributions, I wouldn't hesitate to trust them with admin tools. --
Lack of security awareness enables terrorism. Right, piss off to Fox News. In other words: I trust the candidate to have learned his lesson and always make sure he logs out. I also suggest threatening with violence. If it works for the U.S., it will work for you. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Editors who are capable of bringing contemporary political articles to featured status are exactly the kind we need to evaluate and take action against disruptive activity. Security concerns seem entirely overblown. <font color="404040">
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose presents itself except for the security issue, and I'm convinced he's learned a lesson from that incident and will not allow it to happen again.
'''Support'''. Good editor with lots of content contributions. Appears to have a clue and grasp of policy. --
'''Support''' Good admin candidate.  --
'''Support''': I dont really see any reasons why I shouldn't support you. Please do take care of some of the concerns raised by those who oppose you. Otherwise I feel that you will not misuse the power buttons a.k.a the mop :) --
'''Support''' would make a good administrator.
'''Support'''. Some good points have been raised by opposers, but on balance I think you've learned your lesson about account security and I see nothing else to concern me. Your general contributions to Wikipedia have been excellent. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''', has been upfront (enough for me, at least) about the account compromisation, and appears aware of the problem, and to not let it happen in the future again.  Mistakes happen, eh?  Including to actual administrators.  Everything else looks great. --
'''Support'''--
'''Sure''' (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I've been very impressed with Happyme22's work on challenging featured articles and the manner in which he has communicated and worked toward consensus, two things I feel are very important skills for administrators. The security issue had me hesitating a bit until I remembered a few occasions when I'd left myself logged in while stepping away from the computer for "just a minute" too. I see that Happyme22 has taken the bull by the horns and addressed the issue with the committed user identity, and I think he's learned the hard way why one should log out whenever leaving the keyboard (and I've been reminded by his lesson, too).
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate from contributions, etc. even by the admission of several opposers below.  I would like to ask some of them how one goes about proving that something won't happen in the future?  Accidents happen, and if his account were compromised, it would be noticed, the account block and any intervening damage undone.  Since this wasn't the result of foolishness in, say, a public library or by having a weak password, I don;t see the big deal
Very good user. In addition, it's nice to see another person that I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AHappyme22&year=&month=-1 granted rollback to] at RfA. :)
'''Support''' &mdash; clearly clueful, and the reassurances about the account security are enough for me. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' While I missed the security issue, that would not have changed the fact that I think Happy will be an excellent admin.  For those who oppose, I wonder how many log off everytime they get up to use the bathroom or do something at their home (family's home.)  I know that I don't, and I doubt if even 10% of the opposes did.  We've had admin's whose accounts have been broken into, while it can cause problems, it isn't the end of the world as we know it.  Beyond antagonizing others (which non-admins can do). There is very little that even an admin can do that can't be undone...and most of those would require somebody familiar with the tools.---'''
'''Weak support''': per me (below).
'''Strong Support''' candidate seems likely to do a fine job...
'''Weak Support''' Per my Netural comment. I do however feel that this user will not abuse the tools, but then again security is a big issue.
'''Support''' Having the courage to admit when you're wrong, then to go and correct your error, is a sign of strength and not weakness. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''': Went from "oppose" to "neutral" and now to "support". Reasons are given (in my history) here on this page. --
'''Support''' Strong nomination statements, good answers, weak opposes. I'm comfortable trusting you with the tools. --
'''Support''' per Sandy's nom and my own opinion of the candidate; admittedly I have not had  a personal experience with Happy, but I see no reason to oppose him over a family member gaining access, assuming he has learned from it. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Rfa-game coachee.
'''Weak oppose''' per [[User:Tombstone|Tombstone]].  The fact that this account has been ''recently'' compromised makes me considerably nervous, but the fact that no mention of this incident came up in the nominating statement or other discussion is equally worrying.  RfA is a time for full disclosure, and something like that ought to have been disclosed by either the candidate or the nominators.  Were it not for this incident I'd easily be in the support column, but given the potential for damage caused by compromised admin accounts, I'd like to see a little more time pass as evidence that the account security is being properly looked after.
'''Weak oppose''' — You seem like a nice enough person and your edits have been good. That said, security is a big deal to me in what I look for in an RfA candidate. A lot of damage could be caused if you were an admin and you 'forgot to log out' again. Best of luck in the future, perhaps when you can indeed prove it won't happen again. — <font face="rage italic" size="4.5px">'''
'''Weak oppose''', per Tombstone, and Shereth. Security is a serious issue, much more so for users who are admins. As AuburnPilot noted, this was not the first time this account was compromised and used for vandalism. I would have liked to see a longer period of breach-free editing since last month's episode. Moreover, as Shereth's noted, the breach episode should certainly have been brought up either in the nomination or in the candidate's opening statement.
'''Weak Oppose''' When considering whether to support or oppose someones Rfa I ask myself ''"Can I trust this person with the tools?"'' If I can trust this person with the tools, I support them, and if I can't trust them, I oppose them. I trust ''you'' not to misuse the tools when ''you're'' editing, and I believe you won't act inappropriately, but I have serious doubts you'll keep your account secure. Your security track record isn't great. Your account has been compromised multiple times, and one of those times was just over a month ago. This wouldn't be a ''huge deal'' to me if it happened once and/or a long time ago, but that isn't the case. Otherwise you're fine, and I'm not 100% opposed to you ever becoming an admin:-) Go '''at least''' 6 months, preferably more, without any security issues, and I would ''happily support you''. Also, keep up your good work here. You're a true asset to the project, and I would be saddened if you left. Sorry about opposing you this time:-(--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' Security concerns.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Security issues.  Sorry dude.  I go to great lengths to make sure I log out each and every time I go to a public/shared location.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' per security concerns - a major issue with new access.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I can't let a person to become an admin if he is not going to do his part to prevent someone from using his account. While he could say it's his brother or young cousin who did it, there's no way to proof his innocence.
'''Oppose''' at this time for multiple incidents in which your account was compromised and vandalism resulted.  With admin tools added to the account, this would be a truly serious issue.  If the security problme had just happened the one time, I might be able to believe you had learned to be wary, but it has happened again. Sorry, but I therefore cannot support at this time. --

'''Oppose''' - a great article writer, but unless he can demonstrate that his account isn't going to be compromised (ie, go something more than a month and a half since the last compromise), I must reluctantly oppose.  (And just to add, by the way, this is ONLY about account security.  I've seen Happyme22's work before and really think those finding fault with his edits are barking up the wrong tree.  I encountered him on [[Nancy Reagan]] awhile back where he was doing a great job of working to make the article neutral.) --
'''Oppose''' - Too short of a time since his account was compromised for my liking. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - POV pushing on [[Ronald Reagan]], just look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=210215873&oldid=210213946 this].
'''Neutral''' I'm feel like this user still hasn't given enough detail for most of the extra questions I asked him, as well as for the AFG. Ideally, I would have like to see far more written.
'''Neutral''' Three separate nominators for the same candidate?  I realize that's well within the rules, and this isn't an oppose, but I gotta wonder why the candidate desires the persuasive influence of that many co-nominations for one RfA.  No offense intended to candidate or nominators, it's just an eyebrow-raising approach.
'''Neutral'''  This account has been compromised twice. A compromised admin account can do more damage than a regular user's account. I don't see a  [[committed identity]] template, it is a way to regain control of ones account if needed, anywhere on their user  pages and it leads me to believe they don't take security strongly enough or are not aware of the risks. —
'''Neutral'''.  Would be a support, but this is more of a warning to watch your account safety and such.  Otherwise, no problems. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
The account security issue is a big deal for me, this would be a support otherwise.
'''Neutral <small>(switched from oppose)</small>''' <soapbox>Despite temptation to stand pat and stick it to the RfA bullies who badger anyone who dares oppose someone already with their foot in the door to the the admin "clique"</soapbox>, I cannot in good conscience oppose this editor.  Happyme22's attitude, maturity, patience and neutrality are just too good - and the FA writing is too deserving. And hat's off for taking practically every step possible to ensure future breaches will be unlikely (although this should have been done ''prior'' to the RfA). However, IMO, I feel one and a half months is just too soon after the "incident". I can't support, for the reasons listed in my oppose, but the candidate is just too (otherwise) qualified to oppose. --
<insert audible groan at what's probably (but hopefully not) going to happen next here>
Per Dihydro.  The opposition in the previous RFAs is becoming increasingly capricious and absurd.  It's been 8 months since the first one.  He's waited the recommended time and waited for a nominator.  Hdt83 is a good editor, 500 reports at AIV, etc.  Let him help. --
'''Support''' Lucky number 5 eh? :)

I remember not supporting the first 2, but I will now. It's been long enough, and he has still stuck around, so imo he can be trusted. Best of luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' like last time. -
'''Support''' I opposed last time for your, shall we say, unseemly haste in re-applying (which I was concerned might indicate haste in applying admin actions). However I think that your editing since then has demonstrated a cautious and careful contributor, and there is '''no''' hard and fast rule about gaps between RfA's. Consequently my support. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I enjoyed checking the links in Q2, and I've known about Hdt83 for a while.
'''Support''' per Pedro. <strong>
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Hdt83 is an excellent user: he should have been made an admin at his last RfA, and probably the one before that too. The most significant opposition in those RfAs was that they were self-nominations, and since Hdt83 has a nominator this time, I see no reason to oppose. He can article-write and vandal-fight, and his civility has improved greatly since the first RfA. He'll make a fine administrator. The amount of nominations, which he was also opposed for, isn't a concern either: the fact that Hdt83 wants to be an administrator is not a bad thing. After all, if he didn't want to be one, why would he run?
'''Support''' - should be just fine -
'''Support'''. This is a case of a user being a victim of a process where relatively minor issues have magnified into a numerous pile-on opposes several times over. Let's give him the mop already. <strong>
'''Support'''.  This user will make a good admin—no major problems in my opinion.  '''
'''Very, very strong support''' per above. Through interactions with him/her, this user is as friendly as my best friend Melanie. Hdt83 is definitely ready for the mop for this reason and let's hope that this RfA is successful. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Strong support''' - Has been unfortunate in his previous RfAs. Poor mainspace/total edits ratio though ;)
Now it is the time <tt>:)</tt> Good luck! '''
'''Support''' no obvious reason not to.
'''<FONT color="blue">Super-fast Subaru support'''</FONT> - I remember this guy from way back when I was just an anon editor, floating about on various IPs. Great Wikipedian and should come back. Excellent [[WP:AUTO|WikiProject Automobiles]] editor --
''''Support''' Definitely.
'''Strong support''', can we finally give him the mop?  There has been continued improvement from this great editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Yes.''' <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop.
'''No shit'''. Good luck.
'''Support''' Krasilec's oppose dif's are not sufficient for me to  oppose.
'''Support''' no problems here.
'''About time'''
'''Support''' Should have gotten the mop last time around.
'''Support''', should have been done 3 RFAs ago.  It clearly takes someone with straight stone cold chilling skills like EndlessDan to finally convince us of Hdt83's value to the project.
'''Support''' ·
'''Support''' I see nothing in this user's editing history that makes me worry about admin tool abuse. Best of luck! &mdash;
'''Stone Cold Support''' ;)
'''Support'''.  From what I can tell, you could use the extra buttons and you will use them well.  But always remember that that is all admin is.  Extra buttons.  No power, no glory, just a mop and bucket. Most of the oppose votes seem baseless and [[Catch-22]]-y.
'''Support'''. What the nominator said.--
'''Support'''. Looking at the previous RfAs, I think that it is about time. Everything checks out as far as I am concerned. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - he'll be fine. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Seen him on the recent changes reverting vandalism. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - I've seen Hdt83 around in many places and been impressed with his constructive attitude. Will be fine.
'''Support''' Appears qualified. --'''
'''Support''' Qualifications seem good. Article writing is good. (For example, [[Tunatic]] is nicely sourced and completely written by her/him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tunatic&diff=178660772&oldid=176845158])
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''  Jeez.  This guy got hammered and piled on for not a very good reason (IMO).  Just looking back over the past RFA's, it tells me that this voting...er, I mean consensus system has some major flaws. ---
'''Support'''. Hard working Wikipedian who should use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' &ndash; Per henrik. —
I have supported you in the past, and will support you again. Good luck!--
'''Strong Support''' Great commitment and track to Wikipedia ,only Tenpoundhammer is more unlucky not to be an admin in a earlier RFA.
'''Support''' - Mop up!
'''Support''' Great editor for adminship!
'''Strong Support''' - I have come across this user a number of times, and each of those times, I have been very impressed. I'm surprised it has taken five attempts so far, but I'm sure he doesn't need any more. Best of luck. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''': Agree. --
'''Support''': I think they will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Should have been sysopped already,
'''Support''' OK by me.  -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' These recent RfA's in the last few months is a very fine example of why we need to reform the RfA system. There is no reason why this user should not be promoted, and there is all the evidence in the world which shows this user has capability, but thanks to the very efficient nature RfA system, that it took 5 nominations just to get this through, simply ridiculous.
'''Support''' - I know Hdt83 from his work at AfD and it's something I can (and will) continue to support.
'''Support''' About time too. Good luck! <b>
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and [[WP:DEAL|adminship is not a big deal.]] -
'''Support''' - I've seen Hdt83 around quite a bit and it's been good.  The stats and answers to the questions confirm that.  <b>
'''Oppose''' - While I appreciate Hdt83's hard work to contain vandalism, I remain unconvinced that this editor has the temperament required to be a good admin.  As an example, despite taking part in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 1#Numbered list in layout not working|the discussion]] where WikiProject User Warnings reconfirmed its commitment to using a numbered warning layout, ''Hdt83'' instead reverted {{tl|uw-vandalism4}} to his/her preferred version (which broke the consensus-determined layout) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism4&diff=143051043&oldid=138588468 time], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism4&diff=159300944&oldid=159168687 after time], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism4&diff=177977428&oldid=177816721 after time].  Same thing for {{tl|uw-bv}} ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-bv&diff=143051330&oldid=138138106], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-bv&diff=146836480&oldid=143090893]), etc. --
'''Oppose'''. Six RfAs in 9 months. Anybody who wants to be an admin that badly shouldn't be an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Sitting in neutral territory'''. While Hdt83 did a lot of great work in wiki, but as some opposers pointed out he went through a lot of RFA in a short period of time. Having a lot of RFA shouldn't be an oppose reason, but I would say that this practice leaves a bit to be desired.
'''Support''' Your response to the [[Bertrand Russell]] issue demonstrated a sort of ultimate way of responding to an area where you had messed up. If anything, it shows you would take seriously any significant error you made that is identified by the community. Furthermore, I've reviewed your recent work at AFD and it appears balanced and always with a decent explanation of your thought. An overall glance at your last 1k edits or so shows broad activity and good work being done, and impressive situations where others request help and you promptly help them. Good luck.
'''Very strong support:'''  I was going to co-nominate him but I didn't notice he'd applied until just now so this'll do.  He's one of those people where you see their user page, talk page, contribs etc and you just can't believe he's not an admin.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hersfold_2|as last time]] but now without any qualification. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. No obvious problems, seems trustworthy, demonstrated need for the tools. Fire away :) <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support'''. '''''
Another RfA in which I either got mentioned in the questions or the statement, yet I'm not the candidate or nominator: I'm everywhere! :) Heh, heh, Hersfold is an excellent user, and I was more than happy to grant him rollback. He will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Lots of experience, lots of excellent contributions, no red flags.
'''Support'''. Agree with number 2. I thought you were already an admin. Well, after this, im sure you will be, you're a helpful user who has contributed to WIkipedia in a big way, and for that, you get my support.
'''Strong Support'''.  My interaction with this user has been very positive.  Willing to help out wherever possible.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Support''' - I see this user around everywhere, especially the [[WP:HD|help desk]]. Without hesitation.
'''Support''' - Qualified editor, and it sounds like he won't tell on me for sneaking into the RAC without paying the five dollar guest fee.
'''Strong support''' - great editor, well versed in almost all areas of the project. Great work on [[WP:AFC]]!
'''Support''' Ach! Keep getting edit conflicted! - Helpful and knoewledgable user, will not abuse the tools. Best of luck! <strong>
'''Support'''.  Great editor.  ''Superb'' answer to Q7 above. (anyone that can use "dummy" in a self-reference is fine by me:-)  I have no worries about your inevitable promotion.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - No reason not to. I'm sure he's learned from his past RFA's. And since nobody's seemed to have mentioned this (unless I missed it), I'd like to say that aside from his help on [[Wikipedia:Help Desk]], he's also helped users on [[CAT:HM]].--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]]|
'''Support''' As per track and concerns of previous RFA overcome.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per answers to questions.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' Per answers to questions, experience, and edit summary usage. -
Really, Hersfold is such a great user that I have to come out of my wikibreak just for this.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Go get 'em! --'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Full Support, no questions, all the way''' as per co-nom. You've been a great help keep up the good work. :) <strong>
'''Strong support''' per above. Good candidate, supported his/her last RfA last September. Hopefully Hersfold will not get opposed. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' A familiar name — no reason to withhold support.
'''Support''' Looks good, proud to add my name here. :)
'''Support'''. I trust this user. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' brillian ansers, will make an exeedingly good administrator! Good luck! --
'''Support''', seems fine to me. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A great editor, my issues from the last RFA have definitely been addressed. Definitely trustworthy!
'''Support'''.  Hersfold has done such good work since last time that I've been proven an idiot for opposing previously.  That clean-up of Bertrand Russell was not an easy task.  Bravo! --
'''Support'''. Editor appears to have gained from previous experiences, exhibits civility and politeness (GRUNet was a nice example), and demonstrates knowledge of pertinent policies and guidelines. I am reasonably confident that the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in this user's judgment]] will not be abused. --
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' Completely support, have seen them around and they will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Great contributor, has improved significantly since the last rfa. --<small>
'''Support''' Third time's a charm.
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around and they contribute well. They will, I am sure, make good use of the administrative tools using their wholly unique, intelligent and exceptional method of contributing... Go get 'em, [[Tigger]].
'''Support''' Good luck and avoid letting those powers get to your head! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Ready for the role. --
'''Yes, yes, yes'''.  Fantastic work, Hersfold.  Particularly at [[WP:AfC]].  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''' - Very civil and helpful user, great knowledge and experience, will make a good admin! <span style="border:1px solid #433">
'''Support''', another quality candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good user. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' Strong user. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Strong Support''' Great approach to helping editors. Has my respect. Best of luck. <b>
'''Support''' - I see he has made a lot of improvement.  Change from last time of (oppose).
Great candidate.
'''Support''' - I love the answers to all the questions. Good Luck! <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' - It's time.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. From a review of his recent contributions, I believe Hersfold has learned from past errors of judgement and is now ready for admin tools.
'''Support''' - Great nom and great answers.  I have no doubts. --
'''Support''' Good editor - no reason to oppose. --
'''Absolutely''' See him around often enough, have never had any problems with him. The only thing that gives me any pause whatsoever is the Bertrand Russell incident, but that seems to be an isolated incident more than six months ago; I can forgive Hersfold for not being a philosophy major. Therefore, no reason to oppose (well, aside from the fact that he supports the [[Chelsea F.C.|Blues]] :P).
'''Support''' Everything here seems good.
'''Support''' looks good to me. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Support''' Time to let him live down the Bertrand Russell incident. --
'''Support''' I've found Hersfold to be a good editor and fair in matters of AfD and related processes.--
'''Support''' A rare case of a user who's never stopped improving. Will make a fine admin. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Hersfold clearly now doesn't need my support but I give it gladly for the assistance he's given me with PD-copyright issues. --'''
'''Support''' Some sort of recommendation here.--
'''Support''' good asset tp WP. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Logical and deserving.
'''Support''' - Great answers to the questions. [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - I'm happy to add my name here. Hersfold will make an excellent admin.
'''Good Support''' Overall, this candidate is very good. I like his/her reply on question 11.--'''
'''Support''' as a good candidate.  However, I can't see why the oppose vote should be discounted.--
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support'''. Well answered questions.
'''Support''' Of course!
'''Support''' - an experienced, well-rounded editor who should make a capable admin. No obvious reasons not to support. Good answers to questions. --
'''Whoa''' - let me just check the admin list to check he really isn't there.... '''<font face="Verdana">
Per generally uninformed commentary on Geni's current RfA. Failure to check details over before commenting and slightly worrying characterisation of the candidate.
beat the nom '''support'''.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Beat all three Nos; '''Support''' Clearly dedicated to the project and knows how to take it easy.
'''Strong Support'''.  Should have accepted that earlier nomination :).  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''. Excellent answers.

'''Support''', we need more admins with a sense of humour.  Perusing this user's edits, there is no indication that they will abuse or misuse the tools if they get them, so there is no reason not to Support that I can see.
Definitely. --
'''Support'''.  Number 9 and still beat the noms? Anyway, excellent editor with lots of experience.
'''Support''' I see declined past nominations as ''prima facie'' evidence of a healthy view of oneself. This candidate seems both competent and trustworthy. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Ready for the mop. --
'''Support''' as nom number one.
'''Support''' Lots of experience and a dedication to the project. Seems trustworthy, too. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''', of course, would not abuse the tools.  '''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Yup'''.  Great noms. Great answers.  Clean talkpage/archives.  Civil, courteous, but also direct communicator.  Don't see anything but positive results in giving you extra buttons.  Happy to support, [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Indeed. User discusses thoroughly arguments at AfD (a place where the candidate wishes to work) and the answers to the questions demonstrate an exceedingly high level of policy and guideline comprehension.
Better-late-than-never '''support''' (by co-nom). '''
'''Support''' - My primary interactions with Horologium have been around the [[Matt Sanchez]] article. Horologium has impressed me with his fairness and patience in dealing with a very tendentious situation. I trust him to use the tools appropriately.
'''Support'''. The candidate has a [[Goatee]] beard. Oh, and the contributions, civility, policy knowledge and open and helpful attitude. But mostly the beard. ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
You mean he isn't one? (Also, on first read of Pedro's comment, I thought he said a goatse beard...) <font face="Broadway">
'''Support'''. Yep.

'''Yes'''. '''
'''Support'''.  Good answers, good comments, and I like his articles, too. - Dan
'''Support''' -- mainly per this user's AFD work ; ) --
No evidence that this user will abuse the tools, thus I'd support them becoming an admin.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Obviously.
'''Support''' yep, of course. —
'''Support''' good luck!
'''Support'''. He's ok by me. -
'''Support''' Definitely. <tt>
'''Support''' sure <b>
'''Support''' Answer to question 1 and especially 8. We need more admins that give some room for humor, but also know where to draw the line.--
'''support''' Sensible and knowledgeable. '''
'''Support''' Should be fine.
'''Support''' Appears worthy of community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] --
'''Support'''  Skills look good, like the answer to the last question.
'''Support''' Isn't he already one... '''
'''Support.''' Per {{user|Wizardman}}, and per some great content contributions to this project.
'''Ka Pai.''' Good on you. <strong>
Low mainspace contributions, so only '''Weak Support'''. But there's a record of article building and answers to questions are competent.
Of course '''Support'''
'''Support''' Great answers. &ndash;
Yes...signature rings a bell as someone who's always insightful and useful. Good luck with them. ''
'''Support''' Has seemed like a sensible guy whenever I've worked with him.
''' Support''' Seems to me to be a humble, kind individual, with no potential for abuse.  Also, has a sense of humor.  ;)  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with solid contributions in a range of areas, and good answers to the added questions. I'm still a touch concerned over the comment I mentioned, but on reading the debates I can see that they had got to a point where frustration was only human.
'''Support''' - No concerns, and the kind of editor I like to see becoming an admin.
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions or other obvious signs of concern.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Aye''' - switched from neutral, see below. <b>
'''Support''' by default, since I can't find anything wrong with you. :) &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' - no problems here :) -
'''Support''', good candidate. --
'''Support''', I was surprised Horologium wasn't already.
'''Support''' The "bloody worthless" comment rubs me the wrong way, but I'm not one who should be casting stones about strict civility. Whatever the case, still a net positive.
'''Support''' per nom, Great user. <strong>
'''Support''' As per Black Falcon and user has been around since August 2006 with over 8000 edits including over 2000 mainspace edits.
'''Support''' strong editor who will make a fine sysop.
'''Support''' I have disagreed with this editor, discussed our disagreements, and ended up laughing. Candidate passes the bar for experience and judgment.
'''Support''' per all above. Good luck!
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around my watchlist a lot, good answers to questions, no reason not to support. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' I think this user would make a great admin. <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' - I think this user is perfectly capable - no real problems that suggest I shouldn't support. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support''' - There is absolutely no reason not to give him or her the tools. <small>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Trustable and will be a great help to the community.
"Question for the candidate:" Can 72 people (or 1 sockpuppeteer ;) ) be wrong? ·
'''Support''' He's got my vote. :D
'''Support''' I guess I don't support much, but a thorough review of this candidate came back very positive. In addition, answers to questions were quite good.
'''Support'''  Yes, you are definitely going to use them appropriately.  Cheers,
'''Support''' Great candidate, shows the wisdom and the knowledge needed. <strong>
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' per nom and everything stated above
'''Support'''  I thought you were already an admin!  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' What? You are ''not'' an admin? Time to change that!
'''Support''' Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do. Oh, I was just gonna say what EconomicsGuy said above!--
'''Support''' His work looks great!
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - can see no problems here. Good luck! ♥
'''Support'''.  Definitely.  I have had many positive interactions with Horologium. --
'''Support''' Yes, experienced and trustworthy. Good luck.
'''Support''' - Looks to have a good grasp of policy.
'''Support''' From what I've seen about the place, understands policy, is rational and extremely unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck! :)
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Do I even need a reason? '''''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest user will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I can see the user is experienced and will not misuse the tools of an admin.
'''Support:''' Woah, lots of supports, why not pile on ;). Now for my real rationale. Good editor who deserves the tools.</Edit Conflict> Good luck, <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' - No reasons not to support. An exemplary candidate.
'''Full Support'''.  For every reason above.
'''Support''' Good responses and record and wide support suggests we have a good new admin here - well done!
'''Support''', can't see why not.
'''Support''' - yes, I'm generously allowing someone else to get the 100th support.  Great user.
'''Support''' - with pleasure. --
'''Support''' &mdash; He has a life. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' Primarily, the requirement for the handing over of the sysop bit is trust. This editor has mine.
'''Support''' Good edit history, clean block log, good noms. '''
Good contributions, fine knowledge of policy, and trustworthy nominators: should be good admin. Liking [[Evanescence]] is a bonus too.
'''Support''' solid, reliable worker. My feeling is he is the kind who can make a cool and effective administrator. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  No problems here.  (Good article work is a plus, BTW) <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I sincerely trust the nominators and therefore trust this user's ability unless any significant evidence is given to the contrary. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
<big>
'''Support''' per above. Looks to be an excellent addition to the admins.
'''Support'''.  No reason not to.  Good luck!  '''
'''Über support'''. An editor I can definitely identify with, given answers to RfA questions. Fantastic contributions, and excellent in resolving potential conflicts before they arise. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' No blocks,very good article contribs, and I completely trust the noms. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''EDITOR''' Say it with me now... someone who ACTUALLY knows what the stated purpose of this project is for.  Not having 50 million contribs in the administration is something we see rarely nowadays. For I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. If he's been around this long and hasn't gotten into any trouble, he will have no problem wielding the tools correctly. -
'''
'''Support'''. The nomination rationales from [[user:Rudget|Rudget]] and [[user:Dihydrogen Monoxide|Dihydrogen Monoxide]] essentially epitomise my thoughts on this candidate, but to briefly summarise: I find Huntster trustworthy and competent, and feel that the project would benefit from his having access to the tools. Good luck,
'''Super clean support''' - too much bleach :P ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Looks good, and noms from users I trust.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': Outstanding contributions, and I see no major reason to oppose this adminship. <small>
'''Strong Support''' -- An article builder who also looks with awe at the marvels coming out of [[Bigelow Aerospace|Robert Bigelow's company]]? He gets my vote! --
'''Support''' Looks like he'll make a fine admin.  --
'''Support'''&mdash;no worries. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Looks good to me, even though his edits are not on the radar.
'''Support''' - I like the answers to the questions, humble and honest. Solid article contributor, gnomish and elfish combined. There is nothing here that makes me think there will be a misuse of the tools - can only be a net positive. You have my support.
'''Support'''. Response to comments are thoughtful, no evidence to suggest any abuse of power, is active enough.
'''Sure''' &ndash;
'''Support''' as everything looked reasonable as far as I can tell.  Happy Memorial Day!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - looks good. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Number 31, beating the noms.  This must be a record <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' No, sorry, you've [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds|broken even]]. :)
'''Support''' user has a cool head and has impressive contributions, would be a good admin.--
''
'''Support''' May as well save my breath, its already been said :-).--
'''Support''' - Highly capable and experienced user. High interaction with other users. Brilliant article work. Honest & thoughtful answers to the questions. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Sí, claro.''' [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' good user, no reason to oppose. <strong>
'''Support''' absolutely. -
'''Support''' per answers and user edits. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - No problems here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Make way on the band wagon for my vote!
Per nomination, Q2 and Q4.
'''Support'''. A long, unblemished history of many incremental, useful contributions. Couldn't think of a reason to oppose you if I tried! You even provided some of the best and most concise question answers I've seen. ~
'''Support''' The candidate has been extremely consistent in his contributions over the last 2 years. Seems to be well versed in policies, and the cool temper, in my mind, indicates that wrong administrative actions will be highly unlikely.
'''Are-you-sure-he's-not-already support:'''  I've seen him/her around now and then and (s)he would most certainly not misuse the tools, which is my only adminship criterion per [[WP:AAAD]]<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']] .. <small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Strong support''' Good edits, brilliant user. No reason not to = )...--
'''Support''' - I usually don't bother with pile-ons, but this candidate has a great editing history, great answers to question. I think he will likely make a very solid admin.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Without question.''' &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' deserves the tools, and will use them effectively. --
'''Support'''.  I do whatever Rudget and Water tell me to do, because I'm a meat/sock puppet of both of them simultaneously.  I heart Rudget.  I heart Water.  </sarcasm>. Seriously, you're a great candidate, well deserving of the mop/bucket combo.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. Can't really say anything else.
'''Support'''. Good history, see no issues.
'''Support''', per noms. --
'''Support'''. Worked with him on an article before.
'''Suppport''', though it's probably moot by now. I haven't run across this user too many times, but what little I can remember has left a good impression. Obviously experienced, dedicated, and generally in good standing with a wide cross section of the community. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Suppport''' Steady editing over a long period. No block or disruptive edits history. I dont feel the Huntster really needs the tools but I dare to believe that he wont misuse the tools. ''To quote Shiva1979 "No problems here." '' :)  -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Suppport'''  very decent amount of main space edits. I hope tendencies will remain and with sysop status.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', as I can see only good coming to the project from Hutster having admin tools.
'''Support''' - looks like a great candidate.  <b>
'''Support''', good candidate, with the kind of mainspace contributions behind them that are needed in admins.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate with strong mainspace edits and great answers to the questions.
'''Support''', per history, answers to questions, general demeanor, and already having the support of other users I trust.
'''Support'''. Solid contributions; no concerns. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' per the answer to Q1. Background work is always needed.
Excellent candidate. <tt>:)</tt>
'''Support'''.  He's a copyeditor.  His actions are trustworthy. --
'''Support''', trustworthy.
'''Support''' Well, I can't really say anything that hasn't been said <s>multiple times</s>before, so I'll just say good luck with teh tools. <font color="#3300ff">
Don't see any reason to post an oppose vote. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
Am pleased with the candidate's answer to my question, as well as others.  Commentary to date, in addition to a review of recent contributions, leads me to believe this candidate will make solid use of the sysop tools.  '''Support'''   --
'''Why the hell not? Support''' - '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support''' A wonderful trustworthy candidate with excellent contributions. Past interactions with this candidate show that he's not only helpful but is also open to discuss hard-to-grasp policies clearly and simply to newbies and is even open to discuss the repetitive genre debates ([[Talk:Evanescence]] anyone? :)) if it means it will improve the article is some shape or form.
'''Support''' Seems to know enough and be trustworthy. So support.
'''Support''' for many reasons. He is a good helper on IRC and his handling of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huntster/Archive_9#.22Sweet_Sacrifice.22_in_the_Turkish_chart this]. It looks like he had a disagreement with an IP and fixed it. Both sides were happy with the result. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]][[User:Mm40/home|40]] <small>([[User talk:Mm40|talk]] |
'''Support''' I can't believe I almost missed his RFA. Keep up the good work Hunster
'''Support''' A good, trustworthy editor; won't abuse the extra tools. —&nbsp;'''
Totally!--
'''Support''' experienced editor, trustworthy <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - Of course. I see no reason why Hunster would not be a fine admin. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">
'''Support''' a fine and helpful candidate we can trust to use the tools wisely.
'''Support.'''  Solid candidate with excellent prospects.  —
'''Support'''.  Nothing in recent contributions to indicate that the user would make a bad administrator.  <font color="629632">
'''Support''' - I've interacted with Huntster in various corners of Tennessee. In my experience, the user is "a good egg" -- capable, helpful, and inclined to be a voice of reason when the going gets tough. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''That's hot support'''! I've worked with Huntster in a number of different avenues over the years and I've always been impressed with him. As Tyra would say, he's [[America's Next Top Model|fierce]]!
'''Support'''. Looks to be a great article contributor with a clean history who understands policies and communicates well.
'''Strong support''' as nominator.<FONT FACE="Anderson Supercar" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red"><sup>
'''Support''' Okay I've had a good look at this and I see no problems at all, this editor seems to me to be helpful, friendly, constructive and useful. He could do with the tools and he has my support.
The lack of [[Special:Contributions/Hurricanehink|significant development and improvement]] since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hurricanehink|the candidate's first and very recent RfA]] is deeply concerning. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' (EC) Hink has proven to be a very valuable and dedicated editor. I would be MORE than happy for him to join the ranks of the mop-slinging admins.
'''Strong Support''' This user is an excellent contributor to wikipedia being the nominator with the most current featured articles (32), numerous featured lists (14) and several  . He has helped bring up brand new editors to a standard of being able to attain GA's and be able to competently review GAN's. He can keep a cool head in discussion and very easy to work with. The responsibility of the mop will not be misplaced in his hands and i have no reservations about supporting this editor in the role of admin.
Shocked support. A brilliant editor. ''
'''Support'''. But [[Sarcasm|dubious]]. No one can be this qualified...
'''Strong support'''. Amazing contributor. '''
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Support''' One of Wikipedia's finest contributors. I've always wondered why you hadn't nommed yourself for adminship before. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' is such an understatement in this case. Without question, without doubt, and without reservation.  Absolutely.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support.''' Per the nom, per the answers to the questions, per statement above by {{user|Seddon69}}. Simply incredible work with [[WP:FA]] content.
'''Support''' - A dynamo editor. I'm usually reluctant to support candidates who only massively edit, but thoroughly going through the user's contributions has lead me to believe he/she has the experience.
'''Support''', well rounded editor. <strong>
'''Strong support'''. I cannot think of a candidate whom I would endorse more enthusiastically for administrator status than Hink. Hurricanehink has, on several occasions, asked to be cloned due to the [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations|exorbitant production of Featured Articles]] and Good Articles coming from his keyboard. From my experience in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|WikiProject Tropical cyclones]], I've found Hink to also be an absolutely pleasant user to work with, and my trust in his judgment is complete. I cannot fathom a scenario where Wikipedia would be worse off with him as an administrator, so I happily offer my support without any reservations.
'''Support'''.  Glad to support; an outstanding editor and an asset to the project.  (As someone despairingly watching him zoom up [[WP:WBFAN]], I also have a sneaky hope that he will get distracted by his admin role and let the rest of us catch up. (Yes, just kidding.))
'''Strong Support''', was ready a year ago, more than ready now.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - He has created several great [[WP:FL]]s.  I see him at [[WP:LOTD]] regularly.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Support''' ([[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]]). I'm confident he can do a good job, can be trusted, and needs the tools. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''', obviously, but hoping this won't impact upon his fantastic mainspace contributions.
'''Support''' as Neil said -
'''Support''' Not only because of his excellent contributions and amazing number of featured articles, featured lists, and featured topics, but also because he is very helpful, and willing to answer the questions of newcomers and professionals alike. When I became active in Wikipedia, he was one of the first people I encountered. He, over a period of months, certainly aided in the development of myself as a user, and he still to this day has excellent suggestions and words of advice. In my opinion, he would do just fine with the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support #25''' Hopefully I won't run into edit conflict. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Support''', trustworthy, great FA content contributor.
'''Support''' without question (I'll let others ask the questions ;) ) His heavy work with FA and GA along with the Tropical Cyclones project display great dedication to the community - and judging by his answers - he's cool and patient.  That's a big plus &nbsp;—
'''Support''' (3 ec) hoping that he rarely uses them.
'''Support''', an excellent, trustworthy, and dedicated encyclopedia builder. --
'''Support''' As per Track and contributions.The commitment of the user is beyond question
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - sure, vastly experienced and very active..[[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|YNot?]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Sometimes your personal guidelines/expectations on what background/experience a candidate should have is negated.  This is one of those cases---he may not have all of the 'experience' one would like elsewhere, but how can you oppose?
'''Support''' Strong article builder, plenty of experience (excluding the Policy realm) and no reason to believe the candidate will abuse the position, or the tools. I would prefer to see more direct participation in more administrative areas, but the good easily outweighs my concern.
'''Support''', great editor.
'''Support'''.  One of our most dedicated and prolific quality content contributors.  He understands why we're here and thus is the kind of person we definitely want with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Dedicated and trustworthy, and very professional in his demeanor.
'''Support''' steady editor, professional demeanor. Good luck! --
'''Support''' I have encountered Hurricanehink many times at FAC and have always been very impressed by the quality of his work and the way he has been leading Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. (ok, he's not really "leading" it, but he sets the standard and encourages other members to work harder.) I have often wondered why he didn't try to become an admin, and I would have been happy to nom/co-nom him for admin if I had known he had decided to go for it. Honestly, at this point in time, I have encountered no one on Wikipedia who deserves to be an admin more than Hurricanehink. I'm happy you decided to go for it again, and I wish you luck. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - No issues here.
<b>Very impressed</b> an editor who '' needs'' the tools so little and who has done so much so well is unlikely to to anything but good with them.
A good user.
'''Support''' - happy with this user. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Support''' Excellent user, haven't seen someone this qualified in a long time.

'''Support'''. Hope you get some more expertise in wielding the mop and helping others that need assistance with content disputes.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Strong support'''. 32 FAs --> O_O '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' - A terrific user, with great contributions, he should make an excellent administrator.
'''Strong support''' - prolific contributor, professional and civil in his actions. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Impressive. :)
'''Support''' A perudal of the users contributions shows an understanding of the project, a knowledge of policies and guidelines, a willingness to help, and a civil and polite demeanor. This is a user in whom I am reasonably comfortable having the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community's trust in his judgment]]. --
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools. '''
Per answers to Messedrocker's questions. --
'''Support''' Very good editor. There is no reason to oppose.
Worked with Hurricanehink on many occasions before when I used to carry out good article reviews, and his mature attitude combined with excellent article skills make this a definite support.
'''Weak Support''' Trusted editor I feel will use the tools positively but one who should engage in the more usual administrative work. --<small>
-- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Suppport''' - Very nice answers.
'''Suppport''': Excellent user with excellent contributions. Good luck! --[[User:Lahiru_k|<font color="blue">'''♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪'''</font>]] <font color="blue"><sup>[[User talk:Lahiru_k|walkie-talkie]] |
'''Support''', probably not a sockpuppet, so I don't think he'll go crazy and block me. :)
'''Support''', be careful and have fun! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', looks good for the role. --
'''Support''', your general WP namespace contributions may be low, but with 77 AIV reports you've already done a lot more than many. Take that mop and start cleaning ;)
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support''', Excellent editor that I have worked well with in the past. I have found him to be civil, focused on the tasks at hand, and see no reason he shouldn't receive the tools. --
'''Support''' would make a good administrator.
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support strongly''', as he is an experienced article writer and is pretty much as far as one can get from a career mandarin. Great to have an article writer standing for adminship. Invite your friends!
'''Support''', faithful editor. '''''
'''Strong support''', given his helpful attitude in Wikipedia as well as his due dilligence in writing and editing. I strongly doubt he'd abuse the position.
'''Support''' every interaction has been good and a pleasure. Easy to work with.
'''Strong Support''' One of the best editors around.--
'''Support''' - no concerns; meet my standards; we could use "a mop" around the hurricane articles.  :-)
'''Support''' [[User:RC-0722#My Dictionary|My metasense ain't tingling]]. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Sup'''. --
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' - [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and respect his contributions and temperment. A rock-solid candidate.
'''Strong support'''. Fantastic edits - <strong>
'''Support'''. Hurricanehink is an excellent Wikipedian who is definitely ready for the mop. He has a good temper, which will be an asset in dispute resolution. He also has written excellent content, and thus will have the requisite experience to deal with content issues, which come up fairly regularly as an admin. He responded well to the questions, especially Messedrocker's, and I'm sure he has the good sense and judgment to use the mop well. I'm not particularly concerned about the lack of "admin-y" contributions. He has shown that he knows the way to use them, and to be fair, he has said that he will not be that active of an admin. He has been around long enough to know and respect convention surrounding the admin tools, hence my support.
'''Support''' Ready to be an admin. --'''
'''[[WP:SNOWBALL|Snowball]] support''' This user seems like such an obvious sysop. So many FA contribs and never a bad edit. &mdash;
'''Support''' Absolutely.  Wonderful content contributor, there should be more administrators with this focus. Can certainly be trusted not to abuse the tools --
'''Strong Support''' Hands down one of the best
'''Strong support'''.  If he can figure out how to write 30 Featured Articles I'm sure he can figure out the unimportant trivialities of whatever goes along with the tools. --
'''Support'''. Doubt he'll be the origin of many tempests as an admin.
'''Support''' a good editor with a good grasp of policy and its implications.
'''Support''' great article editor, answered questions well, great nom. <b>
'''Support''' - good answers and looks like a fine candidate. No problems here -
'''Support''' - Don't see why not. '''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I hate to do this, as I know Hink is an excellent editor. I've given this a lot of thought, and while he has remarkable experience in article writing, when you look at the big picture, he has very little experience to speak of in various policy areas. His record in those policy areas consists primarily of a handful of XFDs, very little anti-vandal work, and almost no activity at any of the noticeboards. Pretty much all of his work is focused on [[WP:TROP]] (in fact, most of the XFDs he's been involved in were related to that particular WikiProject), and he rarely ventures out of that area. Being able to write good articles is admirable, and adminship might be no big deal, but you have to ask - will Hurricanehink actually use the tools? I'm not sure he will, and in this case <s>I'm really not sure he needs them.</s> --
'''Oppose''' I think he needs more experience doing admin related activities before we can judge how good he will be at it.
'''Neutral''' I view nominations by other users as prima facie evidence that the user himself does not desire the admin powers particularly strongly. Otherwise, he would have nominated himself long ago.
'''Neutral'''  Hink is an excellent editor, coordinator and contributor to WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. It's obvious he pours an incredible amount of time and effort into this encyclopedia. On those merits alone, he is an instant "Yes" to get adminship. However, I can see the points of others, wo put their votes as "Oppose", as the question is whether or not he would actually significantly contribute as an administrator. Also, on a more personal level, if he ''were'' to begin significantly contributing as an admin, that would be time away from editing the WikiProject, where his help and coordination is sorely needed. I'm something of a noob to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how much my vote counts, but there's my two cents.
'''Support''' - You seem like a good fellow who takes part in content writing and all that Wikipedia-related stuff; I see no problems in supporting you. Then again, it is 3am so my judgment may be a little clouded :)
'''Support''' Judging from looking through a bunch of contributions, this is a civil, cool-headed editor, who will make a good admin. From what I saw, he/she is eager to work on topic, shunning all personal attacks and who has a good track record on both maintenance, WikiGnomic activity and article writing/improving. And when he/she does make mistakes (we all make them), he seems willing to admit it immediately, not trying to make up excuses. The attitude I observed when looking through his/her contributions is the one I think an admin should have. If I have not overlooked something very grave, I'd say he/she will be a great addition to the mob-team '''
'''Support''' Don't think he'd abuse the tools. Does some nice work.
'''Frosty Malted Beverage Support'''. User is as cool-headed as the alcoholic concoction he is named after.
Been around for 11(?) months, has a reasonable edit count and activity level, managed to help bring 9/11 up to GA (which is v. impressive), has a clean block log (also impressive considering he works in controversial areas), candid answer to Q6 - etc etc, I think he'll make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' Strong mainspace work, reasonable question answers. '''
'''Support'''. Any editors with concerns about a low number of edits from this candidate should have a look at their work on the 9/11 article. I'm impressed by the quality of the edits I see there. I concur that a userpage would be in order for an admin, and was going to comment before noting that the candidate beat me to it. As others have noted, this candidate's candor is refreshing. No objections.
'''Support''' good all round editor - great mainspace work, talk contributions show a desire to collaborate and has also participated in project space. Will be just fine with the tools.
'''Support''' Accurate [[C:CSD]] and [[WP:AIV]] work indicate a need for the tools, and being unafraid to edit in heated areas is a big plus. Good answers to the questions. Lack of a userpage seems academic really. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Too bad I'm not 21. :) --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' Impressive work to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], as well in CSD tagging and AIV reporting. &ndash;

'''Support''' Great editor, experienced in nearly every area, and per Newyorkbrad. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' per answer to '''Q5'''. It shows real care in your approach, in general, and I have no reason to believe this would not translate into using the mop. Good luck! —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - definitely trusted, I think Ice Cold Beer will be a great admin. --
'''liked answers, trust pedro and other support ratioanles''' Minds to logy for haiku, a simple "support" will have to do.
Seems good. Good luck in this torture zone, :). --'''[[User:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="green">Meld</font></font>]][[User talk:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="red">shal</font></font>]]
'''Support''' - as long as you know what [[Beerware]] is <code>;)</code>. Besides that, great editor, nothing bad.
'''Support''' Everything looks good. Good luck!!
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' - looks good. '''
'''Support.'''  Ice Cold Beer / Has a clue / With the tools / Will be true / [[Burma-Shave#Examples|Burma-Shave]] ''<small>(inspired by NewYorkBrad)</small>''.  —
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Looks good. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Humble, good work, very civil. No problems and no negative interactions. &mdash;
'''Support''' Seems to have excellent experience. Won't abuse either. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' works calmly in controversial articles.  That's excellent practice for an admin.
'''Support''' per Protonk. --'''
'''Support''' per NYB.
'''Support''' No poetry in this one, sorry. No real problems that I can tell; answers to my questions were satisfactory. For question 7, ICB, you might consider usage of the {{tl|2nd chance}} template; if the vandal can prove willingness to contribute constructively, they deserve another chance. Other than that, I wish you the best of luck, and please feel free to ask me if you have any questions, admin-related or otherwise.
'''I haven't said no''' to an ice cold beer yet.  Perhaps I need to go through a [[Twelve-step program|few more steps...]]  Oh, and excellent editor.  Communicative, knowledgeable, clueful and (this is awful Keeper, simply awful..) refreshing.

'''Support''' - Seems like a reliable editor. Meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]. Also, I'm not convinced by the diffs shown in the oppose section. Good luck with the RfA. Cheers!
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' who can oppose an ice cold beer, now where is [[User:Bourbon chaser]]?

'''Support''' - Nothing but good experiences with this user.
'''Support''' Of course. Nothing but good experiences with this user, a wonderful editor, and plus has satisfactory answers to questions, Xeno's in particular. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support.''' - Per {{user|SoWhy}}.
Not able to have the beer, but an ice cold hot chocolate would be nice.
'''Support''' Being an [[Arthur Rimbaud]] fan, I'll take an absinthe instead.

'''Support''' - After digging his contribs, I think that he will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - Myself and the Beer Snob Cabal fully endorse this candidate.
'''Support''' He has a finely tuned sense of why we're here. Easy call.

'Insert poem here'--
'''Support''' &mdash; Looks good.
'''Support''' Per solid general reputation, answers to questions above, and your sampled reasoning in the diffs provided in Pumpkin Guy's oppose.
'''Support''' An experienced and friendly user. To be trusted for sure! <font style="font-family: Georgia">

'''Support''', good editor, nice contributions and answers.  Will make a fine admin.  ''(and NYB's fine poem puts a nice frost on the mug..;)''
Even though this is going to breeze through thanks to hundreds of pile on support votes, I'm supporting anyway...
'''Support''', but I'm not a poet (and don't I know it).
'''Support''' to make up for the two poor-quality opposes.
'''Support'''  See no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I looked at your edit summary over the past few months and the small [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ice_Cold_Beer&diff=prev&oldid=230933878 specks] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter stories (2nd nomination)|of]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JGHowes|dirt]] I could come up with are nowhere near as uncivil as the worst I've seen. Looks like you have kept a very cool head in the face of some very difficult situations, including your great behavior in the 9/11 edit wars, and it looks like you will put the tools to good use. Keep it up! -'''
'''Weak Support'''. Anyone who knows me knows I'm not the kind of guy to write poetry. I'm only able to give a weak support due to your somewhat lacking communication with other editors.
'''Support'''. Reliable and sensible.
'''Support''' - I can't do brilliant poetry, but after a review I see a reliable, civil, and helpful user that should use the tools well. Good luck!
'''Support''' Great guy.--
'''Support''' - Knows his way around Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I thought I already did this. Oh well, here's my support.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''support'''

'''Support''' Fellow New Englander, or at least one who drinks New England beer.  Also, have seen good signal to noise ration from this account.
'''Support''': Ice Cold Beer seems to have a in depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies and is experienced in the fields he has chosen to operate in. &ndash;
'''Support''', I like ice cold beer, and I would also like this person to become an admin.  Looked through their contribs, nothing particularly scary or worrying in there.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''': What I'm looking for —
'''Support''' per no readily apparent reason not to, as well as a strong answer to my optional question.  --
'''Support''' one of the good guys, give him the mop.
'''Support''' I don't do <s>pottery potery</s> poetry, but this guy is chilled, and experienced, enough, to take on perpetual abuse with equanimity. No qualms here. --
'''Non-poetic Support''' - why not? --
'''Support''' all self-noms.  Anyone who wants adminship should automatically have it.
'''Support''' - Solid candidate. No problems here.
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to. -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
'''Support'''. See no issues here, and approve of a candidate who can inspire poetry.
'''Enthusiastic support''' per work on [[September 11, 2001 attacks‎]].  //
'''Support''' per above, and the cool headedness displayed during the 9/11 conspiracy theory medcab case.
'''Support''' When this is done, I'll give you the award for "most poems in an RfA". ≈ '''
'''Support''' awful username though.

'''Support''' per answer to Q7. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate. Nice answers to questions. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' Particularly for the redux answer to Q.11, and the fact they started editing on my 48th birthday. And the usual ''seems trustworthy'' review. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)<small>(Jeepers, it is lucky for you that I loved your second response to Q.11 so much I skimped over Q.13..!!
'''Support''' A tip of a glass of cellar-temperature wine to Ice Cold Beer... -
'''Support''' Clearly dedicated to building an encyclopedia. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
'''Support''' - looks like a good editor, and nice username ;) &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' For the best read at an RfA ever.---'''
'''Support'''. No negative history with me, and great name. Hopefully this can make [[WP:100]] by the time it closes.
'''Support'''.  Per past encounters, seeing his name on my vandalism patrol watchlist, and his comment [[User_talk:Ice_Cold_Beer#Thanks_for_the_support...|here]].  Also, should have no problems with [[WP:COOL]].  :-)  <i>'''
'''Support''': Generally I expect more 'contributions' from RFA candidates, but some times I am willing to support those who are mature , civil and dedicated contributors. ( [[WP:WTHN|WTHN?]] ) . RFA answers are reasonable to satisfy me and many around . Oppose reasons not strong enough to convince me of opposing you. No reasons to believe that you will abuse to the tools. Good luck !! --
'''Support''': No reason to oppose. Seems committed to [[WP:NPOV]]; see the parenthetical bit in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ice_Cold_Beer&diff=221997598&oldid=221997190 this diff].
'''Support''' &mdash; Doing good work here. '''
[[99 Bottles of Beer|-bottles-of-beer]] '''support''' so someone else can link to WP:100... <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' [[s:Proverbs of Hell|Welcome to Hell]] and [[WP:100]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''I like beer''' --
'''Support'''. Great!
'''Support'''.
'''Strong, but bittersweet, Support''' Ah, wasn't it only last week when I welcomed the new user with the amusing name? And only yesterday when I gave him his first barnstar? And now he's at RFA... They grow up so fast! But in all seriousness, this is one truly awesome candidate and I would be remiss if I didn't comment here, even though this one can't possibly fail. Let me be the first to welcome you to the club, then, ICB.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per these weak arguments: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_passengers_forced_to_leave_an_air_flight_due_to_behaviour&diff=203921846&oldid=203904447] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_spoiled_brats_(3rd_nomination)&diff=217217538&oldid=217217196].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose''' Normally I never oppose, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedant&diff=next&oldid=206063160#Warning these edits] makes me ''extremely'' nevous. '''''
At this time, I am unwilling to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.
'''Neutral''' Support per great disposition in tricky subjects, oppose per poor understanding of deletion criteria: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Final_boss_of_the_internet&timestamp=20080819073127 none] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Antarcic_fur_seals&timestamp=20080819072319 of] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Mermaid_Guru&timestamp=20080819070101 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=MCJS072008&timestamp=20080815055019 at] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Nasly&timestamp=20080815051147 all] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Ninjanism_religion&timestamp=20080815030513 satisfy] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Brian_Norris&timestamp=20080815023652 CSD G1] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Dustin_nanius&timestamp=20080812040529 Admins] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Bamowachowa&timestamp=20080802080516 only]). Regards, <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''
My observations of this user have been positive.
'''Support'''.  Good vandal fighter.  <font  face="georgia">'''
As nominator, duh! '''
'''DUH!'''
'''Support''' - Yes Yes Yes!
'''Support''' - needs the mop. &nbsp; '''
(See below) '''[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Support]]''' per nom. Saw no incivility on talk page. Did not see any rejected CSD taggings.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' Seen him clerking on [[WP:CHU]] and [[WP:CHU/U]] and is a very polite and civil editor. Would make a great admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' <s>''Would''</s> ''Will'' make a great admin. Very nice and polite in talk pages. Great editor! -
'''Support''' Seen him at [[WP:CHU/U]] when I changed my username. Nice and helpful. Also a great vandal fighter. <strong>
'''Support''' meets [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]], good luck. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="gray">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">T</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Chetblong|<font color="black">C</font>]]</sup></span> 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) <s>Switched to oppose see below. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="gray">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">T</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Chetblong|<font color="black">C</font>]]</sup></span> 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</s> Switched back to support per answer to UAA. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''', a quick scan of his contributions did not turn up anything negative.
'''Support''' Vandal fighter with more than 2000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support.''' Looking at the diffs provided by Rspeer, the [[user:CaptainMorgin|CaptainMorgin]] report was from October, and the [[user talk:Biotch 71493|Biotch 71493]] account was soft blocked. Also, the edits of [[User talk:Twong@cmmt.ubc.ca|Twong@cmmt.ubc.ca]] appeared to be promotional, even if the account name wasn't. Overall, I think he'll be ok.
'''Support''' Looks good to me!
'''Support''' - The concerns raised in the oppose section are not enough to convince me to oppose. In my opinion, Icestorm will do just fine with the tools.
Wow just wow, those username reports are from a long time ago. The candidate has done many other constructive edits since then, and shouldn't be judged solely on some username reports that occured in October. Please judge the candidate on his general editing, not on a couple of slight errors that occured previously. We all make mistakes.
'''Weak support''' Very few concerns per the oppose concerns but a good contributor, making me weakly support this user. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''.  Re.Q&A6, the present admin recall "process" is the wrong approach to a real problem.  --
'''Support''' per Addhoc and Ryan Postlethwaite. I understand the problems with [[WP:UAA]] - who hasn't made 2 or 3 dodgy reports in their past? I trust that Icestorm815 is now ready for the tools.
'''Support''' A good vandal fighter, and mistakes made 2 moths ago can feel like an eternity on Wikipedia. I believe this user I more then capable of being a good administrator. He has use for the tools, and I don't expect major problems. As long as this user realises that whacking people over the head with a cluestick might drive people away, where genuine discussion often resolves issues, success in this RfA will have a positive net effect.
'''Support''' Excellent editor ready for the mop
'''Support''' Will have learnt from his mistakes and will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Lots of potential, will learn quickly. Applaud him for honestly saying he won't join recall--it is a mess lately.
'''Support''' - looks good so far, opposes are entirely and fully unconvincing: "Reporting Biotch as a filthy username? Freedom hater!".
Weakly. I encourage Icestorm that, should he be promoted, he be very cautious in areas where his involvement has raised concerns below. I'm [[WP:AGF|sure]] that he will take these concerns in mind. If not, there will be people enough watching, I'm sure. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter, will be a great admin. '''
'''Support'''. I was going to go neutral, but considering the answer to Q11, I trust the user will know better in the future and be just fine with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. May make minor missteps, but obviously has the sufficient basic know-how and good intent to be a satisfactory admin.
'''Support''' Trustworthy. People make mistakes, thats why pencils have erasers.
'''Support.''' An active vandal-fighting admin. That's what we need; more of those. And this one's it.
'''Support''' as this user meets all my standards, although is a bit weak on building the main space.  Vandal-fighting is a plus, but as I've learned, you have to be extremely careful when blocking alleged vandals.  Best of luck, this time or your next RfA.
'''Support''' No one's perfect. If an editor's never messed up, that editor probably has not been incredibly involved. I still feel that Icestorm is trustworthy. '''
'''Support'''. Rspeer's oppose concerned me, but you seem to have learned since then, and the responses to follow-up questions are good. If you are promoted, please be cautious about blocking, and seek advice if you are at all unsure.
'''Support''' Even though "Biotch" just looks like [[Biotech]] to me.  Solid contributions.  The answer to Q11 really makes it seem like this editor is willing to learn from mistakes, do the homework, and move on.
'''Support''' - though I hope you will address the issues of the oppose section.
'''Support''' I am somewhat tentative in the face of some of the issues raised below, but on the balance feel confident enough to lend support. I like the CSD tags I'm seeing here. In deleted contributions, on the blatant hoax [[:Cheetah Gazelle]], the nom even corrected a misapplied {{tl|db-nonsense}} tag with the more proper {{tl|db-vandalism}}. This gives me confidence that he is, indeed, "very familiar with speedy deletion" and more importantly has thought about what the criteria mean and how to apply them. Particularly in light of Pedro's oppose below, I looked back at his contributions at ANI through mid December of 2007, and every report the nom has filed there except [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=183723098 one he himself removed] was subsequently blocked. This suggests to me that, if he has had imperfect judgment in the past, he seems to have the idea now. (The one that he removed does seem to have been an over-reaction. I'm glad he rethought that and would encourage him not to overreact in similar circumstances in the future. That doesn't strike me as a credible death threat. :)) Every name he has reported at UAA since the first of January has resulted in a block. That said, I would encourage this nom (if he receives the tools) to avoid name blocking in anything but the most clear cut circumstances, given that his report of "monosex" was only on December 24th. --
'''Support''' Arbcom in desysopping cases has said that "occasional mistakes" are entirely consistent with the mandate of admins.  All the oppose comments refer to occasional mistakes in the context of generally stellar work.  User's involvement in [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]] is especially praiseworthy and should continue.
I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not, from the reports he has made to [[WP:UAA]]. He thinks that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=179984877 "Monosex"] is a username so "disruptive" that it needs to be blocked, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=175998573 someone's academic e-mail address] is "promotional" (I know we discourage e-mail addresses, but a block for "promotion"?), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=179805984 the word "biotch"] should be [[WP:CENSORED]], and that someone registering with the name [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=165487007 "CaptainMorgin"] should be blocked for "promoting a product". I think admins should have more of a sense of perspective than that, ''especially'' when blocking is involved.
'''No!''' I agree with [[User:Rspeer|rspeers]]. An admin should be a bit less strict. <font face="terminal">
'''Sorry but oppose''' You seem far to "free-and-fast" with your vandalism reporting, and coupled with that being top of your list in Q1 makes me move to oppose. Remember that a ''perceived'' vandal may actually be the opportunity to greet a new editor. Sorry <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first.  Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions, even since last RFA was declined. --
Doesn't like freedom, I do. ''Further elaboration: this is in concurrence with rspeer and Pedro. I fear I see a general trend of eagerness take punitive action rather than problem solving.''
'''Oppose'''. Because of the answer to Q6. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry, but it looks like the candidate needs some more time to hone his skills.
'''Oppose.''' Over-eager with his desire to block coupled with the answer to question 6 suggests this editor is not ready.
'''Oppose''' for the moment. No hesitation about general suitability, but I'd like to see ''some'' evidence of constructive editing. Even if you don't have a [[WP:GA|Good Article]] to boast of, could you point to any article where you've made significant additions of text? If there isn't one, but you can make up this deficiency for next time, would have no problem in '''support'''ing in the future.
'''Oppose''' – Sorry – I noticed a vast majority of your edits, well over 80%, were done just over the last 3-4 months.  Would like to see more experience especially  in the area of editing before haveging the privilege of deciding whether an article stays or is deleted. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the answer to Q8. [[WP:CSD#A7]] clearly says, "this is distinct from questions of notability...". One of the biggest problems we have with administrators is that many don't seem to realise this speedy deletion criterion doesn't insist on notabilty.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building.
'''Weak Oppose''' A good user, well on their way towards becoming a great editor, but I just cannot support quite yet.
'''Neutral''' Switching to neutral in light of opposition comments. Those ARE hasty trigger happy reports.
'''Neutral''', this user obviously has his heart in the right place, but some of the points brought up in the Oppose section would indicate that this user is using policy as a replacement for common sense.  A good admin needs to be capable of using both.
'''Neutral'''. Answers to the questions are good, but the concerns brought up by the opposes bother me. The username reports brought up were slightly less than two months ago -- I'd like to see a little more time pass without incident to see if things have settled down there.--
Neutral per Kim Dent-Brown ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Triona2&diff=prev&oldid=188745435 additional rationale]) and your answer to Q8. Sorry, but I don't think you're ready quite yet.
'''Support''' - looking through your last few hundred edits shows solid AfD rationales (whether K or D), solid CSD tagging (looks like everything you nominated for SD is gone), so you're looking good in the areas you want to work in. Donnez le mop. //
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN]]? I've seen Icewedge around a bit, trust his judgment.
'''Support''' - Trust you'll use the tools well. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Without a shadow of a doubt''' I'll be back to give some meatier reason later if it appears necessary. Regardless, I trust this user to use the tools properly.
'''Support'''. I've seen Icewedge edit around, and he does good work, and a quick skim through his contributions shows no sign of any negatives. I support this user, even though his alternate account should have been named IcewedgeHugglesBunnies!.
➨ <font color="red">❝'''[[User talk:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]'''❞</font>
'''Support''', assuming good faith. --
'''Support''' I see this user doing good work in the 'pedia as an admin. —'''
'''Support''' I've encountered Icewedge several times, he's a cluefull editor whose views I take seriously. Contribs look good, diverse activities and the only one of your speedies I found that isn't currently a redlink is a close call that needs a complete rewrite. '''
'''Support''': Contributions look good and it seems like you could use some additional tools. Good luck. <sup><small>
'''Strong Keep''' Perfectly encyclopedic editor, useful source of constructive edits.
'''Support'''. I already had a favorable impression from what I had seen of him around AfD, and a trip through his contribs only strengthens it.
'''Support'''. No red flags in the last four months of your contribs. I happen to agree with the current lone neutral vote though - maybe you were hurried, but your grammar needs attention.
'''
'''Weak Support''' I'm not crazy about promoting underage users, nor do I think "HugglesGoats!" is the most professional username.  However, candidate's contributions are good, and (if you will permit me to briefly get on my soapbox once again) it sure is nice to see a candidate who identifies as an atheist while managing to not belittle religious folks.
'''Support'''  you sound like a solid editor, and I think that you would help Wiki more than harm.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Candidate seems to have clue, user talk page shows no signs of incivility, and I feel comfortable trusting his judgement. Good luck!
'''Strong support''' Because he's 17, i.e. an adult in all but name and this is a self nom.--
'''Support''' - I've bumped into his contributions a few times and they've all been high quality. Seems to understand policy very well. --
Hello, I am planning to sell my brother-in-law’s internal organs on the black market, so I’ll need to buy a cooler chest, about 10 pounds of ice, a roll of paper toweling...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for an editor who is truly good for the heart of Wikipedia. Excellent contributions all around, coupled with healthy doses of honesty, tact, and sincerity. What more can you ask for?
'''Support''' for references in userspace. (Im doing an Imatthew here :D). Seriously though, solid edits, good user, decent contribs. Good for me.
'''Support''' All good, no issues, seem to recall granting you (or your sock account) rollback which resulted in pleasing and positive interaction. A couple of errors in gramatical construction in your self nomination does not seem to me to impact on your ability to either use the tools wisely or communicate to others why you used them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Your English isn't egregious, so I don't see it being a problem.
'''Strong support (from neutral)''' - The English gives me concerns, but I am willing to overlook that. IMO, Icewedge is an obvious net positive, and I'll be crossing my fingers that this RfA makes it to [[WP:100]]. And to tell you the truth, I overlook age, for the most part. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Support''' A clue-full user, has a clean record, and already [[User:Balloonman/act like an admin|acts like an admin]]. '''
I'm
I've been watching you <small><sub>(not in one of those creepy ways)</small></sub> for a while, and was considering a nomination for you by myself.  Quality editor.
'''Support''' As per track and concerns of Previous RFA overcame.
Good user. 'Tis about time. ;0 &mdash;
'''Support''' as candidate seems reasonable in discussions in which we both participated and the one block on his account was quickly undone.  Best, --
'''Support''' I'm sure he'll know how to handle the mop.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Absolutely''' &mdash; Fantastic editor. Concerns from prior RfA have been ameliorated. At this point, this RfA is no more a formality.
'''Supports''' - meets my usual standards, no concerns.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
Please to install FireFox which has a built in dictionary.  Very, very handy.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. I agree that using Firefox's dictionary is a help, especially when copy-editing articles.
'''Support''' Why not??
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Numerous positive interactions with this editor. No concerns.
'''Support''' – has a solid knowledge of deletion policy, and I trust his judgment. By the way, Icewedge, may I also say that having your Huggling done by a separate account was very helpful in reviewing your contributions just now. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - I trust this user fully, no doubt they'll do great with the tools. Perfect English is not a prerequisite. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''.  Already tangentially familiar with Ice's work, no issues here.  Editor has clue, that's all he needs.  Really, it is.
'''Support'''. Not a pro with grammar, spelling, or punctuation, but this is an RFA, not an SAT. Icewedge has the skills and knowledge I want to see in an admin candidate. A green light from me.
'''support''' Everything seems to be in order here.
'''Support''' per many above. More than meets my standards. Review of user talk page allays any concerns there might be about communication skills. Found no evidence of problems on talk page. Civil user interested in personal growth, growing the project, saving articles and helping others. Vanishingly small likelihood of abuse/misuse.
'''Support''' Yep.
'''Support''' - See below comments.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' My encounters with him has been very pleasant, and he has been very patient and helpful to me. Not being an adult yet isn't a problem. Do people expect that more grownups surf the web than teens?
'''Support''' - this user does good work over at [[WP:HG|Huggle]], and I would trust them with administrative tools. '''
'''Support''' Positive contributor to the project in many varied capacities, and also per answers to the first three questions, and [[User:Icewedge/DYK|this]]. '''
'''Support''' a well rounded editor.
'''Strong Support''' no doubts about this one. I offered to nom him a few months ago, was impressed by the maturity of his response and am very glad to see him finally here. He nominated me in my successful bid for adminship and I'm proud to support him in his now. Viva la Alaskan Cabal! <span style="outline:2px dotted #a1aaff; border:medium double #0f1c9d;">
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support''' Very respectable.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. I always thought Icewedge was a good admin candidate, so yes, you will do fine, good luck :-) '''
'''Support''' - Was thinking of nomming you myself, but you beat me to it.
'''Support''' &ndash; Definitely. Very impressed with his work. I've seen Icewedge ''a lot'' around Wikipedia doing positive work, and I'm very sure he'll be a fantastic administrator. No doubt. &ndash;
'''Support''' - yep. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions swayed me here from neutral.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' - I am impressed with this user's contributions, and with his answers, and would feel comfortable trusting him with the responsibilities of an admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' via thoughtful answer to my question that demonstrates this editor has clue. Also, [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]] and Net Positive apply as well
'''Support''' - Good answers, good potential, good luck!
'''Support'''. Basically everything looks pretty good, substantial mainspace and projectspace record and the concerns from the previous RfA have been addressed. Plutonium27 does raise some valud points regarding shortcomings of the candidate's English but Icewedge indicated that he is aware of this issue and I trust that he will work on addressing it. In fact, since English is not my native language, I am not really in a good position to criticize others in this regard. Overall, a good candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' - Makes usefull edits and would be a great administrator :)
'''Support''' - Seems up front and straight forward. Appears to be in need of the tools. --
'''Support''' If what all the other supporters say is true, which I believe it is, then you will be an asset to the community with the tools, also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Seen him around; good editor, no concerns. I think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support.''' →
'''Support''' I have no doubts that he'll be a great admin. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. Sorry I'm late!  Good user=good admin. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' You have a bright future ahead of you. just make sure you don't abouse your powers ;)
'''Support'''. I have spoken to this user in the past, and I do not see how his knowledge of English will be an issue. Good, trustworthy user who is worthy of adminship. Best of luck! <font color="777777">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Him had good working. --
'''Support''' - Thought he already was an admin. Which I guess means he should be. --
'''Support''' based on personal experiences. '''
'''Support''' An excellent editor who has been an active creator of new and improved content.
'''Support''', net positive. &ndash;
'''Support''', the whole spelling and grammar thing gave me a little pause; I don't expect 100% perfection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that you proofread your RFA statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Icewedge_2&diff=258609121&oldid=258608900 before] it goes live.  That said, it's only a minor thing, and I was not able to find any other reason to oppose this user.  No evidence that they'll misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN]]?
'''Support''' I've got no reason to think this won't be a good idea. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' per what's already been said.
'''Oppose''' I hate to do this (and being first sucks all the more) but this application is sketchy and the English is unacceptably sub-standard. Perfection is NOT necessary but too many fundamental mistakes give no confidence. The essential reasons for admin proficiency in this area have been emphasized and reiterated time and again. I don't feel I need to investigate the candidate further.
'''Oppose''': Having looked at this user's contributions in some detail I found a few edits that I considered questionable and which I was going to raise in the questions section.  However, then I noticed that it is this user's second nomination which I feel should have been mentioned from the outset in the candidate's nomination statement.  The answer to Matt.T's question regarding the previous nomination leaves me even more dubious as to this candidate.  This reads to me as if he has changed his behaviour specifically to get through the RfA, which leaves us with no guarantee that the new behaviour will continue as an administrator.  Finally I am concerned as to exactly why this user has two distinct accounts, when he wants us to take the edit history of both into consideration but simultaneously provides no reason for having both accounts in the first place.  This would probably be best taken up as a question, but I see no reason to do that now because no answer to that specific issue would change my overall impression.
'''Oppose''' based on answer to Q1. I cannot support a candidate who states their unwillingness to use the tools required to enforce [[WP:PROT]] policy. <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' At this time I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.
'''Neutral''' It may seem very petty but the number of grammatical mistakes in the candidate's statements above give me pause.  I could certainly understand a few minor mistakes and typos but given the relative importance of these statements I can't help but wonder if these are indicative of either carelessness or a lack of understanding of English.  In either case, this bothers me given that written English is our primary means of communication here.  I would be most happy to reconsider if the candidate were to acknowledge that English is not his or her first language.  --
'''Neutral''' - initially to support, but after reading some unsatisfactory answers and especially "I doubt I will use the protect button as I don't really like the idea of protection, it is necessary in some cases but I think it is overly used. In most cases the vandals will just go elsewhere and edit warriors will just wait it out" - makes me think this may not be someone suited to adminship.
'''Neutral, leaning to Support''' I've had many favourable encounters, mainly the "Edit Conflict" for reverting vandalism. However, as noted somewhere above, anti-vandalism, while a positive benefactor, is not the ''only'' factor; in contrast, there are many other, if not more important, factors to consider for a RfA. I would change to Support if enough examples of [[WP:COPY|Image Copyright Violations]], [[WP:AfD|Articles for Deletion]], and [[WP:CSD|Speedy Deletions]] (by the last two, I mean inserting an intelligent discussion rather than simply posting something up for it) are shown, however. BTW, in case you do have minimal spelling/grammar problems, simply use F7 on Word. :P Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Neutral, leaning support'''. Just a few issues with your !votes on other RFAs and per Imperator.
'''Neutral''' until the three remaining unanswered questions are answered. '''
'''Support'''. I think that this is probably one of the most clueful self-noms I have ever seen. The answers to his questions more than make up for any issues that I have with borderline projectspace experience. I found his answer to O-4 refreshing - I think that a lot of people say they are in support of admin recall because it looks good that they are willing to let the community recall them on a whim. I like to see an honest answer from someone that has reservations about that optional process.
'''Support''' Okay, enough questions already.  Islander knows what's going on.
'''Support''' Based on answers to questions. <sup>
'''Strong Support''' The user knows more than enough based on the numerous questions. My last two questions were just to make sure that your not just a robotic admin! Best of luck!
'''Support'''. The candidate's answers to the questions have been (rightly) cited as thoughtful and well-informed, and I can't do anything but agree.
'''Support'''. This guy knows what he's doing. Not a whole boatload of Wikipedia namespace edits, but he has a clear understand of how we roll.
'''Support''' Looks good and good luck! And don't let some superiority complex takeover <!-- like Clownwilleatme --> once you are admin - which I hope you will be soon  --
'''Support''' Clearly knows policy, has experience with admin processes AND article work.  No concern about misusing (accidentally or intentionally) the mop.  --
'''Put him to work, ASAP''' - '''''
'''Strong Support''' - fellow member of [[WP:BBC|WikiProject BBC]], proved he could clear large backlogs after assessing 1000's of articles in a few day. Always [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and helpful. Very unlikely to abuse the tools. Great guy! <span style="border:1px solid #433">
'''Extra-mega-strong-super-support''' - Extremely good editor, and the tools would be used well. // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Strong support''' Oppose this user and I will get mad.
'''Support''', solid user, will be an asset to the project with the tools.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Remember to [[Logic|light the match first...]] -
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' I supported last time, after your answer to my optional question was answered in such a pleasingly civil and informative fashion. This leads me, with the greatest repect, to believe the candidate has the communication skills so essential as an administrator. I had no other concerns at that time, and three and a half months more work here has only confirmed that my support then was justified. Good luck and, as ever, Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Despite favorite color not being blue, user seems otherwise reasonable, knowledgeable, articulate. I'm afraid I don't find REDVEЯS  oppose rationale sufficiently convincing. (If anyone opposes I will agreeably  respect there right to disagree and be happy if they do so agreeably.) Cheers,
'''Support''' per the below exchange with REDVEЯS. Wikipedia could do with a more civil tone, and ''clearly experienced'' users who will help bring that about will obviously get my support for adminship.
Yep. Is ready to take the responsibility. -- <strong>
'''Support''' good A's to the Q's.
'''Support''' by Keeper.  Good use of the word ''whilst'' above.  One of my favorite words.  But seriously, you're a great editor with a good temperament, well-spoken, and thoughtful.  You will not abuse (or misuse) the mop or the bucket.  Great answers to questions above, especially optional Q5  (Avruch) and Q6 (DHMO).  BTW, I used to like red also, but now that it has forever become a [[Link to Nowheresville...]], not so much.
'''Support''' I'm impressed by the work that this user does.
'''Cliche support''' -
An ''Oh No! Not a self- nom!'' '''Support''' - Looks ready to grasp the mop.
''' Support''' Good luck :-) <small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Impressed with answers to the questions. -'''
'''Support''' A great editor, very good answers to questions.  Great job! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' - experienced, meets my standards, bold, humorous, and will (probably) not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' meets the standards, has his wits around him.
'''Support''' - I especially agree with [[User:Trusilver|Trusilver]], per nom. <strong>
'''Support''' ...and there was much rejoycing.... --
'''Support'''

'''Support''', seems like a good user who'll do well to have the extra tools.--'''
'''Oppose''', wrong favorite color. <!-- just kidding of course -->—
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' Despite poor answers to questions 8 and 9. In all seriousness, I have no doubt that Islander will be a trustworthy addition to the ranks. --
'''Support''' I have no reason to object, doesn't seem likely to abuse the buttons. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
''''Support''' - I like to think I've had a relatively large ammount of interaction with Islander and from what I can see, he's fine admin material. What I particularly like is the way he asks for advice if he's at all unsure - to me, that shows he wouldn't abuse the tools. He's a very friendly chap as well which is always a plus.
'''Support''' - Very good candidate, will not abuse admin additions.
'''Support''' Sensible editor who makes thoughtful contributions. I was waiting for this to come round..
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' - Answers to the questions looked good.
'''Support''' - No problems.
'''Support''' While I agree with Rudget somewhat, I still think the editor can recover from this minor stumble and be more courteous to users they interact with in the future.
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Rudget|Rudget]].
'''Support''' - Supporting after considering all the comments. --
'''Support''' Great editor and see no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' - Very friendly and civil; I've always found Islander a pleasure to work alongside.
'''Support''' - Most certainly yes all the answers to the questions are very good.
'''Support''' - In my experience, straight talking and not afraid of taking action. But not too cocky for self-improvement, either.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - With the good answers and good contributions.--
'''Oppose'''. Communication skills are vital in administrators. The candidate has a poor record with me - attempting to pick a fight over the word "shameful" in an edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedvers&diff=181048237&oldid=180606557] and then trolling to provoke a response when dismissed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redvers&diff=next&oldid=181051117]. I cannot, in all honesty, trust this user with the tools. ➔ '''
'''Oppose''' As per above diff in conjunction with [[User:Daniel_Quinlan/gaming#Be_nice]]. Substance over politesse. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose''' A clean track record is very important to me. If you get flustered with other editors easily, I don't know how you will handle actual trolls talking down to you when you block, delete, etc. Trust me, it's not fun! However, it's clear that this RfA will pass at this point, but just remember to [[WP:COOL|keep a level head]]. '''
I thought about this for a bit and decided that I'm neutral. Everything else seems okay, but the issue with Redvers concerns me, though not enough to outright oppose. In my opinion, the edit summary didn't warrant any of this. To me, ''shameful'' doesn't imply any sort of intent – it implies a result – , so to say that something is shameful doesn't assume bad faith. Again, everything else is fine, and at 53/2/1, this RfA does look like it'll be successful. I offer advice to choose your battles wisely – don't sweat the small stuff – along with my anticipatory congratulations. <tt>:D</tt> Cheers, <span style="font-family: Verdana">
No nom to beat support. --
'''Support''' talk page and archives show a sane and useful editor, 6,500 edits and no blocks is good enough for me '''
'''Support''' clean block log, good amount of contributions, all-in-all, a good candidate; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' as there is really no reason to oppose. It has been about 3½ months since your last and you have worked hard. Certainly those of us with the mop will be glad to show you which end to use on the floor. Good luck!
'''Support.''' Good contributor, good vandal fighter. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Support'''' - Use is obviously experienced and qualified.
'''Support.''' 2 DYKs is what I have, that's no problem.
'''Support''' looks quite fine. :) ''
'''Support''' Looks like you've been working hard. No reason not to support!
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WTHN?]] <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' - I didn't have a GA (or even a DYK) when I became an admin.  <b>
'''Support''' Good enough for me.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' gladly. I supported the first time around and see (as I fully expected) a consistent, solid contribution history since. <small>Plus, I can't even spell "GA" or "DYK".</small> <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Pass go, collect $200 and a mop.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor with good contributions in a variety of areas and an interest in areas that often need the attention of those with a mop.  Would be a fine addition to the cabal, in my opinion.
'''Support''' Good & trustworthy editor.  Knows and uses policy.  I couldn't care less about a GA. <b>'''
'''Support''' Sure, looks good. Marked improvement since last RfA. Good luck!
I looked at his last nom; he seemed to be a suitable (albeit slightly inexperienced) candidate at the time, and have only improved since. In particular, his positive and mature attitude, as demostrated by his learning from the criticism at his last RfA, is exemplary and a sign of things to come were he given the mop. It would be a net positive to promote this editor to adminship.
'''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' Would make a fine sysop.
'''Support'''Enough for me to say yes.[[User:Wikidude57|Wikidude]][[User talk:Wikidude57|<span style="color:red">57</span>]][[User:Wikidude57/Sandbox|<sup>S</sup>]]
'''Support'''. I supported last time. IIMH continues to contribute well and remains a good candidate.
'''Support''' - Good user, I can't see him blocking [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] any time soon! :D '''
'''Weak Support''' Good contributor, could use some more work in admin-related fields like AIV and ANI though. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' I've seen you on Huggle, and a quick look through the rest of your contribs reveals nothing disturbing.
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions (assuming good faith).  Sincerely, --
'''Support''', natch. Not swayed by the article writing arguments, seems like an excellent user. -
'''Weak Support''' - even w/o article building experience, this user seems like he would be a net positive. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Yep.
'''Support''', I supported last time, and cannot find anything since then to make me change my mind.  No evidence user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No problems here. And good job sidestepping the landmine (Q7).
'''Support''' I read answers to questions (they are reasonable, in my opinion) and briefly reviewed nominator's contributions and found no reason to oppose. Yes, he has only a limited article witting experience. However pushing something through FAC is a difficult business now, and I can not blame the nominator for the lack of FA articles.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN]], no big deal, and net positive.
'''Support'''. Good experience, and patiently accommodates lame questions on the RfA. Patience with confused newbies is a valuable skill for an admin.
'''Support''' - Seen the user around. No concerns. &ndash;
'''Support''' nothing to cause me any concern here. --
'''Support''' No overwhelming reason to oppose, no trust issues to be weary of. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' As per EVula and track is okay.See no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' Per [[User:NuclearWarfare/Admin Standards]]
Abso-fucking-lutely.
'''Support''' - Per question number six and extensive vandal fighting history.  —'''
'''Support''' - No problems here. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Sure. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' '''
'''Alrighty''' '''
'''Support''' as we hit the halfway mark for [[WP:100]]! <font color="777777">
'''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]]''' -- <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
First self-nom I've seen in a while; no issues.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Trust the user, and the lack of mainspace contribs doesn't bother me.
'''Support''' No real reason not to '''
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' will do fine. -- '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Absolutely no reason not to. Good count, contribs and they will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Per statement in nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive helpful contributions in varied areas of this project. Thank you. '''
'''Support''' Appears to have good experience.
'''Support''' I could not believe the people who opposed on your last RFA. Good reverter, vandal fighter, and editer. This MUST suceed.
'''Support''' - Can't see why not. Fine contributor. I don't care about the article writing GA FA alphabet soup, a hard worker is a hard worker. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support''' Seems to be a quality candidate and I think that he deserves this.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' I am moved by the willingness to learn from the previous RfA. Seems to be a mild-tempered hard-working contributor.
'''Support''' No problems here. User has enough experience. I have also seen him during vandal fighing and I think he can handle pressure very well.
'''Support''' Seems willing to learn, and up-to-date with things, such as the dating system.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.   <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by

I would encourage the candidate to address the neutral voters' concerns (below) and make it habitual to contribute to article space—as well as to Wikipedia namespace—pages: we are writing an encyclopedia, after all. I see no other obvious issues with this candidacy, however. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've opposed candidates before with little article contributions, however you did significantly contribute to [[Europa_Barbarorum]] and, though it failed GA, I implore you to continue to try to get it to GA status and work on articles, even if only one and awhile.  Besides that, you are trustworthy and have good contributions. --
'''Support''' - It Is Me Here took the comments at RfA1 to heart and successfully addressed the concerns raised there. Obvious need for the tools and will not abuse them. As for article writing, I'd be more than happy to co-write an article with you on a topic of your choice. Feel free to give me a buzz on my talk page after this is over. --
'''Support''' Definitely has the experience to be trusted; answers the questions with confidence. &ndash;
'''Support:''' Why not? '''
'''Support:'''Good editor.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.

'''Support''' Looks good to me. —
'''Support'''. It Is Me Here works to better himself; of course he's qualified this time around.
'''Support''' Although I realize that you don't have much article building experience, I think an '''admin'''istrator works on administrative things. Content builders, in my views, will become Wikiproject leaders if they are really committed. Knowing MOS s good enough.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose - the candidate is qualified and has no problems, and also followed the advice at their first RfA well; one does not need to be an admin to write articles; it's illogical to oppose a user for not writing enough articles when adminship has nothing to do with writing articles.
'''Support''' - looks OK, meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
Excellent and improved editor.
'''Moral Oppose''', per question 2. DYKs, GAs and FAs can often mean little more than a person knowing how to game the wiki-credit system, but there's not even this. It is a moderate rather than strong oppose though as the candidate's areas of admin interest don't concern me, not really requiring a decent 2.
'''Neutral''' - Sharing Littlealien's concern. Two DYK's does not an article writer make; i've come up with 32, and in article terms I'm a complete hack.
'''Neutral''' No glaringly obvious reason to Oppose, but no overwhelming reason to Support.
'''Neutral''' Both article-writing and admin-related experience is still a little weak.
'''Neutral''', tending towards oppose.  I concur with LittleAlien's comments - there just isn't enough substantive article building going on.  I do see plenty of vandalism fighting and bitmap to vector graphic conversion going on which are both valuable and mundane work, but ultimately for me nothing demonstrates commitment on a genuine, emotional level than fact checking and adding new content and cites as necessary.  This is an encyclopedia after all, and that should be the bread and butter of the project.
'''Neutral''', concerned about article contributions, but it really isn't a terrible deal (most of us have our areas we find interesting, some involve working with articles in such a way to make them prominent, others don't). —
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Strong Support'''. Great all around editor. Does a great job at [[WP:ER]], [[WP:AFD]],.....--'''''
'''
Per my co-nom. Great editor.
Support, redux. Ok now? ;-P
Of course, great editor.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
'''Support''' Great contributor and answers indicate an exhaustive knowledge of policy.
'''Support''' Very well rounded. <strong>
'''Support''' yeah sure, no obvious reason not to.
'''Support'''.  Good luck!  '''
This one's a no-brainer. I've met J-Stan at [[WP:EA]] where his efforts to help others are highly appreciated. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, no reason to oppose. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' - I've had good interactions with this user. Would make an excellent admin; trustworthy, experienced and civil.
'''Strong support'''. '''''
'''Support''', I have been watching this user for a while now and I must say I am impressed with his growth since joining the project. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' I can definitely support J-stan; my interactions with him have been highly positive, and he's a productive, courteous editor.
'''Support'''. I've encountered and/or worked with this editor in a number of project spaces. He strikes me as dedicated and knowledgeable, and I've always found him interested in seeking consensus and read to bend to it, even when he personally disagrees. I've seen nothing in his contribution history to lead me to believe he will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Okay. —
'''Oh, go on then''' Prolific, dedicated and courteous editor. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yes.
'''$upport''' Great editor will make  a better admin. Cheers! <b>
&mdash;
'''Support''' An easy decision. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
I'm not kidding. I thought he already was an administrator.
Fuck. Yes. Please. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''

'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
I like what I see here. Someone who is Clueful, and not just a user who uses automated tools rather than using their judgement. Understands and values what we're trying to achieve here. All looks in order. '''
'''Support!''': It's about time! -
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
oh yes <font color="blue">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Absolutely no reason not to. -'''
'''Support''' - Well if Pedro voted support then this user '''must''' deserve the mop, j/k. No this user has proven to me many times to show admin qualities, i know (s)he will not abuse the mop.
'''Support'''. J-stan is more than ready for the tools and has been for a while now. I am confident with him having the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Absolutely''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You will make a good admin. You listen, you are open to new ideas, and most importantly, you are not afraid to reassess your position with the passage of time. You have long since earned my trust, and I know that you won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Absolutely!
'''Support''', no more needs to be said. [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Keilana'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Strong Support''' This is an [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|easy]] one!
'''Support'''.  Great job so far, no concerns. Meets my standards, too.
Positive interactions with this user, accurate reports to RFPP, civility and calmness when dealing with other users: J-stan will make a great admin.

'''strong support''' —
'''Support''', solid candidate.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor. I've seen him around a few times. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support''' Lots of involvement with the WP pages which means he should handle the tools quite well - the only concern is the relatively low number of mainspace contributions.--
I thought you were an admin. Strong support. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''' I've seen J-stan's work.  It's been good.  And yes, I thought he was an admin already as well...

'''Pile-on Support''', per the other 54 supports here.  Great editor.
'''Súppört''' - No doubt. Strong editor, will make a great admin. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' great editor.
'''Support''' - Good contributer, who my experiences with suggest, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate for administrator.
'''Mmph''' &ndash; He isn't one? —
'''TYWOA''' Thought You Were One Already...
'''Support''' conscientious editor who has good use for the tools.
'''Support''' I've been expecting this for a while.
'''Strong Support.''' I've not commented on RfAs for a while, but seeing this I can't help but voice my support.  J-Stan would make a great addition to the ranks of our admins.
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributor and I think they will do great with the mop.
'''Thought-you-were Support'''
'''Support''' Yep! '''
'''Support''' Zero concerns.
'''Support''' good editor, no reason to oppose. Seen this user around.
'''Support''' - User states wants to work on some Cut and Paste move fixes, and it seems [[user:Anthony Appleyard]](along with the others that sometimes work on merges) could use some help, so more hands are always a plus. -
'''Support''' - great user. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - Per world + dog.
'''Support''' Definitely seen around with a general aroma of good will. Says he learns from mistakes, always a good sign. His answers above are fairly grounded. All this to the greater good. Go.
'''Support''' A great editor. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
Support.
'''''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I've recently met this user (he disagreed with a vandalism revert/warning I made, but it turns out I was right B) ), and he seems to me like a level-headed person. ·
'''Support''' - Definately a fine candidate. Seen this username all around the place doing lots of excellent work. On RfA sensible comments and suggestions are always left. The time has come! ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong Support''' Most definately yes, I can't believe I didn't vote before!
'''Strong support''' - I've been J-stans admin coach for a few months now, but to be honest - he didn't need it. When we first started, I could tell he was very clued up with policy and knew the wiki-way. Upon further interaction with him, I can tell he's a very motivated chap and always remains extremely civil - often he helps move discussion to an amicable end. I asked him to concentrate on AfD's for a while, so i could make sure he was knew exactly how article processes work, and his thoughtful commenting showed he didn't just jump into discussion without doing enough research. I had one concern that J-stan didn't do enough article work so I asked him to work on some articles - In one edit, he changed [[History of timekeeping]] from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_timekeeping&oldid=174610293 this] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_timekeeping&offset=20071204040153&action=history this] which I am sure everyone will agree is an excellent improvement. All in all, he's one of the user I would trust most with the tool.
'''Support''' No concerns, will make a fine admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' - Will be a great admin. <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#02D3DA">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' - Looks pretty good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
My impression of J-stan, through interacting with him on noticeboards and reviewing at least his last 1000 contributions, is that he does not regularly research disputes before commenting on them and that he regards blocks rather flippantly.  While I appreciate his dedication to the project, I would not appreciate these qualities in an administrator.  A block, in theory, is not supposed to be a big deal, but practically it is - a block remains in a log indefinitely, a logged block can ruin an RfA, a block can be a determining factor in another block by a hasty or careless administrator, etc.   Note that I am not planning to provide diffs to support my judgement - I do not have enough time.  I apologise.  I know it is typical at an English-language Wikipedia RfA to ask for diffs from those who oppose.  For those interested, I would recommend that you too review [[Special:Contributions/J-stan]].  --
Interaction with this user on Mercury’s recall shows a tendency of creating faction rifts. I’m not familiar with his other work, but I can’t support at this time.--
'''Support''' Great antivandal=Great admin. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' - Another one I've been waiting for. Good luck! --
A nice chap with common sense - will make a fine admin.
'''
I think he'll do well and stuff. Article writing experience is a little low but it's not completely absent or anything, and I think I've seen enough to conclude you're reasonable and wouldn't be a negative.
&ndash;
Having being the lead opposer at RFA 1 I'm delighted to support. I've enjoyed entirely positive interaction and J delanoy has worked hard since the last RFA to address concerns, indicating cluefullness and a desire to help. A [[User:pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] to the project by adding the bit. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I don't seem to see any problems here. '''Support'''.
Strong Support; I'd like to see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dweller&diff=next&oldid=226113930 this] attitude among RFA candidates/RFA coachees more often. ·
'''Support''', no problems here.
'''Support''', go and whack some vandals, you're good at that. Remember to ask for advice if you need to - it's what we're here for.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support as nom''' - sorry, tired, in pain and out-of-character-editing-on-Sunday mean I forgot to put my support in earlier. --
'''Support'''; excellent specialized editor; exceptionally thoughtful, professional, and mature in the role he has chosen to play.  The extra tools will greatly assist him in that endeavor and I have no doubt he'll be measured if he moves into other admin related activities.
'''Strong Support''' One of the best vandal-fighters and adopters you could hope for.:)--
'''Support''' Though I recommend he take it slow before trying to jump into other "adminny things." ;)
'''Support''' - No problems here, he has enough common sense to ask for assistance if he is uncertain about anything new to him. —
'''Support'''. (ec x2) I'm not the biggest fan of endless automated reverts, but he also has plenty of other work. J is experienced and knows what he's doing. His answer to Q4 shows that he won't be too trigger happy, but would consider the situation further before issuing a block.
'''Support'''. A huge number of automated reverts is, in my view, a good thing when they're as almost universally correct as J.delanoy's have been. That's the area of Wikipedia he chooses to concentrate on, and damn if he's not very good at it. Clearly will make excellent use of admin tools, as far as I can see. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Strong support'''' yes yes yes! Will make an excellent admin ——
'''Support'''. I don't see how a lack of content contribution will color JD's use of the admin tools. Long interaction with this user leads me to believe he will use the block feature prudently, and will be open to comment or criticism.
'''Support''' - Has a clue, especially when it comes to vandal-fighting, [[WP:WTHN|why shouldn't I support]]?! <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;">
'''Support''' - he will be a great admin. <small>
'''Support''', only good interaction with user.
'''Support''' A specialist I can get behind.  The key question when it comes to vandal-fighters is this: Is he (and it's usually a he) a nice guy, or a deranged hard-ass?  After a look-through, seems like a nice guy.  I'm slightly unsure about the possibility of RFPP work - I think that needs a surer touch with article space - but otherwise I'm all for giving him the tools.
'''Support''' per the answer to my question, if you'd told me to mind my own business I'd have made it strong support. Sure you're a massive Huggler but I'll try not to hold that against you.
'''Support''' - I find him to be a great user, and hope he will do well as a sysop.
'''Certainly!''' Coming out of wikibreak for this one. :P<font face="Forte">
'''Support''' While Rudget makes a good point, being focused on one area does not mean an editor nor admin is bad or not useful to the project. Lots of admins and editors specialize and still help our encyclopedic effort. I support this candidate but encourage him to branch out more with other parts of wiki. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' &mdash; To those who are opposing due to his initial "tentative" answer to Q4, some things you just need to learn on the job. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' nothing but good experiences with this user, shows common sense and knows how to learn from mistakes, one of the best vandal fighters I've met on WP. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' All looks well. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
<big>'''Strongest Support ever!'''</big> effective vandal fighter.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
Support. I have no problems supporting this candidacy.
'''Support''' Contributions and vandalism reversion look wonderful.
'''Support''' I've worked with J.delanoy quite a bit recently, discussing primarily copyright concerns and speedy deletions, but also other issues, and I've come to be very impressed with him and his contributions to Wikipedia. I have great confidence that he is motivated to help and more than competent enough to do so. Our conversations have convinced me that this user understands policies, knows how to work collaboratively, when to seek further opinions and when to simply move ahead. I do not believe he would abuse or misuse the tools, and I think with his thoughtful approach and interest in Wikipedia it would be a great benefit to the project to give them to him. --
'''Strong Support''' I've really waited for this RfA. In my opinion J.delanoy is a trustworthy, civil and polite editor and he would make a great administrator as well. —
'''Support''' Does plenty of good work.
'''Support''' While Rudget has an excellent point, I feel that we need vandal-fighting admins just as much as we need article-writing ones. I've conversed with this user in the past, and he always keeps a cool head. I also like how he is devoted to Wikipedia, so much that he spends hours a day reverting vandalism.
'''Support''' Another name that comes up regularly, and always civil, competent and positive.  Demonstrates an intelligent commitment to the project.  <strong>
'''Support''' keep up the good work.
'''Support''' and '''very strongly agree''' with the nominee's stance as in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dweller&diff=prev&oldid=226243233#Re:_post_on_my_talk_page 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)] post. —
'''Support''' Will be a good admin
'''Support''' - Robots are cool. So is [[Bender (Futurama)]]. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', definitely. I would prefer to see less automated tools though, but to me that's pretty much immaterial. &mdash;
'''Support''' I thought you were an administrator at first... Would be a great admin. Good anti-vandalism work, XFD work, answers, ect. H e has my trust. Thanks,
'''Support''' - I couldn't possibly oppose, not even if you paid me. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Strong Support''' - a very trustworthy user who displays good judgment and great care and civility. He will help us improve Wikipedia - if you believe that vandal fighting isn't a critical part of maintaining Wikipedia, I suggest we stop that activity for a day and find out what happens. We need the dedicated editors like J.delanoy who are willing to volunteer their time so that the integrity of the work done by article editors is maintained. J.delanoy has proven he is willing and very capable and he will be more effective with the tools and I trust him not to abuse them.
'''Support''' clearly someone we can trust not to abuse the tools, from what I've seen his temperament has been fine of recent, and policy seems pretty good. All the things I want in an admin. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Horses for courses, I say. Some people are great vandal-fighters, others great article-writers. Sometimes they coincide. But only sometimes. --
Support - dedicated muchly. '''
'''Support''', per a basic fulfillment of what I think being an admin [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|requires]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Strong Support''' - I'm amazed he wasn't made an admin sooner!
'''Support''' a dedicated edit who shows a great need for the tools. No real problems. -
'''Support''' - The only reason an administrator needs to have a background in writing articles in the first place is in order to make them popular enough to pass a Request for Adminship.  Making one's edits solely devoted to fighting vandalism is fine, and in my opinion not a very good rationale to oppose. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Weak Support'''--

'''Support''' - Would be much better with the tools.
'''Support''' Trustworthy, clueful and courteous, has made significant contributions and will be able to do yet more with the admin bit.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Good vandal fighter and editor. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Familiar enough with this user to know he won't often get in over his head in unfamiliar areas, and if he makes a mistake, will fix it when told about it, and will learn from it. --
'''support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - Dedicated, experienced, wants to help. Meets [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|my adminship criteria]] ;-) --
'''Support''' Will make a great admin. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' the reason why is left as an exercise for the reader.  But overall good contributions, seems to have the right answer to WP:CIVIL (Q3).
'''Support''' Some people have brought up that this user mainly only fights vandalism, but the tools applied for are also vandalism-related (they don't help expand Wikipedia), so I support. Fighting vandalism allows other editors to expand the encyclopedia and maintains Wikipedia's image.--
Hell, I'll '''support'''. I am not a fan of excessive vandalism reverting as there seems to be more now than content writers, but this user shows no problems (other than that) by me. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. The candidate is currently a highly skilled (and prolific) (!) vandal-fighter, no question. My interactions with J, however, have shown that he is a reasonable and intelligent person. Were he to use the admin tools in other areas (where there is an equal need for his skill and dedication), I have every confidence that he'd do just fine. No worries here.
'''Support''' - I've seen him around he does great things. If people are complaining about us having too many "anti-vandal admins", then why don't we do a little experiment and get all of our admins to focus on article-building for a day. Where would we be then? It's a ridiculous reason to oppose to be honest. It goes in my top-10 ridiculous RfA opposes for all ridiculous things ever said in a ridiculous manner. He's great at keeping our streets clean and we should be proud to give him the buttons to do even more great things.
'''Strong (unilateral) Support'''.  I've never installed Huggle.  Terrified of it, personally.  I do find it profoundly useful, and in the right hands, profoundly effective.  It has tipped the scales, we (the good editors) are winning the battle.  Vandalism is still here, but it is gone withing seconds, instead of minutes, instead of hours.  You, J.Delanoy, are one of the best hugglers I've ever seen.  You are thorough, careful, and mature with the tool.  You understand its powers and its limitations, as evidenced by your posts (mostly witnessed by me on [[User talk:Iridescent|Iridescent's]] page. You've witnessed and experienced the growing pains as new versions and updates have surfaced. (Gurch is a freeking genius BTW).  These attributes alone are enough to get my support.  I am also supporting you as a non-article writing admin.  I personally have goose-eggs in the following categories (outside of copyediting others' articles):  DYK, GA, FA, A-class, B-class, C-class.  I am not ashamed of that.  I'm a sucky writer, but I love Wikipedia.  I am personally terrified of content writers.  They are way ''way'' smarter than me, and as Everyme states below, "without article writers, there would be nothing to vandalize".  Absolutely true (although a bit "chicken and the egg"-y...) In my honest opinion, to stretch that thought to the point of saying that "because you're not one of us, you are obviously against us and will harm us" is farcical at best, more closely a slap in the face. (that's not directed specifically at Everyme, its a general statement only).  I protect article writers (and I'm damn good at it).  My talkpage is filled with requests for help from article writers.  Apparently, they are all misguided, as I will ''obviously'' screw it up because I haven't brought an article through an arbitrary process (namely FA)?  Silly.  If you were against article writers, you wouldn't be removing vandalism for the damn articles, you'd be adding it.  This is a strong support, because you were here before huggle, have ''only'' made positive contributions to Wikipedia, recognized Huggle for what it was and continues to be, use it wisely, enjoy using it and want to expand your abilities with it, and refuse to change your editing styles simply to oblige some silly RFA crowd.  Don't you ''dare'' go start writing articles, J.Delanoy, if you don't want to.  The same people that are opposing you will oppose you again for "gaming the system."  Hold your head high, keep on keepin on, and enjoy the admin tools, which I am confident you will only use for the betterment of the encyclopedia and its writers.
'''Support''' MOAR EDIT COUNT. '''
'''Support'''. Seems like a sensible, level-headed editor. But mostly because of the honesty and common-sense displayed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dweller&diff=next&oldid=226113930 this]. --
<s>'''Neutral''' but leaning towards</s> '''support'''. J is one hell of a vandal whacker and as the pedia' gets bigger the need for experienced and exceptional vandal fighters increases, as does the need for capable admins. <sup>[[Exponential growth]]!</sup> I'm rather split on a few things though. Being "specialized" in only one area doesn't sound good at all on the surface, however, editors and that includes admins '''''learn on the job all the time.''''' I think a good question to ask is "Do I trust J not to delve into something he doesn't understand without first seeking advice or opinions?" To answer that for myself, yes I do. <s>The only thing keeping me from supporting is the apparent lack of article contributions.</s>
'''Support''' - I dont see a problem with vandal whacking.  If thats what you're good at, then thats what you're good at.  <b><font color="Indigo">
After much thinking about it '''support''' - when I first saw this RFA appear, I figured that based on my interactions with JD and seeing him about the Wiki, I'd certainly support without a doubt. Reading through the edit count summary on the talk page, I was very impressed at his vandal-fighting - with over 1200 reports to [[WP:AIV]] he's clearly got that side of things down pat. Then, on reading through the replies to the questions and the opposes and neutrals, I found myself agreeing to a large degree with what was being said - although he's a strong candidate from that one perspective, from others he's very (and in some cases very very) weak. At the end of the day, though, I think I have enough trust that he isn't going to run before he can walk, will learn from new admin school, will stay away from situations that are beyond his remit, and will call upon other, more experienced, admins as and when needs be. I therefore feel safe that any risk in granting him the tools without his experience being as well-rounded as perhaps might be liked is, well, negligible. <sub>
'''Weak support''' because I support by default, but would like to see more article work, and I suspect that he [[List of child prodigies|forgot something]] in his answer to question #8. Seems a bit pre-judgmental.
'''Support''' Great experiences with J.D. Excellent vandal fighter. <strong>
Strongly support: I've interacted with J.delanoy over the past few months, and I've found him to be a person who is civil, willing to learn, and not afraid to ask for help if he needs it. In addition, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AJ.delanoy&year=&month=-1 granted him rollback], and he's been fine with that. He'll make a great administrator.
'''Support''' - Some months ago I contacted this editor with concerns regarding one of his AIV reports [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ.delanoy&diff=198263867&oldid=198250733].  His reply was both immediate and impressive in the way that he took responsibility for the mistake [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKralizec%21&diff=198265317&oldid=198156831].  All too often people get defensive in situations like this, but instead ''J.delanoy'' stepped-up, admitted the error, and learned from the mistake.  I have zero concerns that he would misuse the tools, and have great confidence that he will use them with the sense of responsibility and humility that many wish all admins had.  --
'''Strong support'''.  Many, many positive interactions with this user.  I definitely trust him with the mop! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. I often see this editor helping the project. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support''' Honest editor who knows his limits and his abilities. Has done an inhuman amount of work on Huggle, always beating me to the vandalism. Has experience in [[WP:AIV]]. Still wish there could be some more mainspace edits :). Overall, I firmly believe this user deserves adminship.

'''Support'''. '''
His mature responses on this RFA and to things that came up on his talk, plus a review of his contributions lead me to '''support'''.
'''Support'''. (Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin.) I've encountered J.delanoy many a time in vandal fighting and never seen anything that would give me pause. Communication has always been excellent, which is a definite must in my book. Specialization doesn't worry me -- if an admin gets asked to be involved in something they aren't comfortable with or knowledgeable about, the best way to handle it is to politely say "no", and I trust J.delanoy to do just that.--
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. Thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''' Absolutely yes. After looking through his contributions extensively, I feel that he has proven himself to be mature, level-headed, and kind. I also see a general tendency for him to reflect on his actions&mdash;a trait that I view very highly. <span style="font: 13pt 'Arial';">«</span>&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter, good answers to the questions. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''  It's been my repeated pleasure to revert vandalism alongside him, and found his discretion and accuracy superlative.
'''Support'''. Absolutely, without question.
'''Support''' Clearly will do a good job...
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Candidate is a hard working and knowledgeable editor; Wikipedia can only benefit from him having access to the buttons.
'''Strong support''' Yes, J. is a '''VERY GOOD''' vandal fighter and have seen him on [[WP:HG|Huggle]] many times. I think saying no to RfA becuase of the use of an automated tool doesn't make sense. --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Support''' Per above. →
'''Support''' Level-headed, dedicated editor who I've interacted with several times in the course of vandalism issues. No issues whatsoever. <b>
'''Support''' per Keeper, as well as question responses and my own review of the candidates contributions.
Good candidate: honest, well meaning, has necessary levels of clue.
'''Support''' Candidate = a net positive.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' - At the risk of jumping on the bandwagon, I've found this editor to be quite reasonable.
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' OMG, YES!  Definitely has a definite need for the tools!  I have been waiting for this RfA for a LONG TIME now, and I am glad to see that it is finally happening now :) Good luck!  Cheers,
'''Support''', no major problems.
'''Support''' - everything seems to be in order. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Strong support''' - I've come across this candidate many, many, many times across Wikipedia, and he works so hard to make this a better place. Excellent vandal fighter too. Will be very, very useful in that area once has the tools (rather like me! haha). Extremely honest Wikipedian, and that answer highlighted to us by the nom was just stellar. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Will be a very productive admin. I hope this marks the end of RfA's prejudice against vandal fighters.
'''Support''' I think jd has made a massive contribution to wikipedia. Although not a significant content editor - knowing what constitutes vandalism in an article is often an art in itself, involving the exercise of discrimination and experience. I feel that he is civil, honest (with himself), has the ability to 'take a clue' and the capacity to grow into the role, and to take on more responsibilities beyond vandal-fighting.
'''Support''' This is my first comment on an RfA and I couldn't be happier to add my support for this candidate. JDelanoy's recent assistance with a contentious AfD showed an ability to give well-thought out opinions and insightful analysis. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' No worries here. I only ask that if you have interest in helping with content disputes which may have to do with page protection and sourcing disagreements, that you get more experience writing articles.
'''Support''' - Making you an admin would be a net positive. Best of luck, <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]]
'''Support''' - nothing in my experience with this candidate gives me pause.
'''Support''' based on what I know, I have no reason to belive this editor would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''  I believe J.delanoy would be a great addition to the administrator team, after looking through the user contribs. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', because he [[Know thyself|knows his own weaknesses]]. He's a vandal-fighter, not an article-builder, and hasn't tried to pretend otherwise - and that should be no bar whatsoever to his becoming an administrator.
'''Support''' -- I've worked with this user a lot in vandal fighting as well as checking recent filtered edits.  Very efficient, very consistent, and I have no doubt this user will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Pleasant and rational from what I've seen of him/her. Can't see any risks here. --
'''Support'''—Prolific fandal fighter with a clear need for the tools.  Smart enough not to go screwing around with admin actions that he doesn't understand.  Honestly, probably 12-13k vandal revisions and we're suddenly afraid he's going to run around blocking users out of hand and deleting things for no reason?  It's no big deal, he has a valid use for the tools, go for it.
'''Support'''  While I would love to see a bit more experience in the writing arena, I am by no means opposed to a strong specialist, such as this candidate appears to be.  I have every reason to believe that they will make good use of the tools.  --
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''', a prolific vandal fighter (which is needed here), very thoughtful and honest regarding this process and answers to the questions, upfront with regard to his own possible limitations and willingness to seek advice when needed. Open minded and trustworthy.
'''Support.'''  I've run into J.Delanoy a few times on vandal patrol and what impresses me about him is not that he never makes mistakes; it's that he's willing to admit he makes them ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fleetflame&diff=185563476&oldid=185348893]).  <i>'''
'''Support''' although it would be nice to have more experience outside of anti-vandal work, it certainly suggests they have their values in the right place for wikipedia. No convincing arguments for opposition have yet been raised --<b>
'''Support''' I note the concerns below but i trust this user and somebody has got to clean up the junk on the wiki. Good luck '''''
'''Support''' Absolutely shocked to find that this user isn't already an admin. (
'''Support''' vandal fighter + intelligence + moderation = good admin ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' The tools will enable this user to contribute on a larger scale. As much vandal fighting as he does, he needs them. I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. IMHO he will make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''. This user is ''everywhere'', and has worked on the project in many different aspects, also seen him at editor review where I reviewed him before my review was reviewed. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' everything I've seen from J. has been right and I'm sure J. will do fine as an admin. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - Trustworthy.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - The opposes don't worry me. I've seen J around and what I see is a level-headed, solid contributor, doing important work, who has a grasp of what makes Wikipedia tick. It's all about the content, and vandalism is incompatible with that, so anti-vandalism editors are an important part of what we do. Those who do it well and thoughtfully are the ones we consider (and support) for adminship. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Trustworthy. Cheers,
'''Support''' Pile on support :)
'''Support''' No reason not to. '''
'''Support''' I love the answer to Q3, about walking away for a bit when anger threatens to take over. If only more people would do that.
'''Weak oppose''' - Unilateral anti-vandalism work with Huggle. Per Rudget below. Weak mainspace work to boot.
'''Weak oppose''', somewhat close to neutral per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Family_of_Barack_Obama&diff=212983976&oldid=212976811] (somewhat odd comment; yes, I know humor is sometimes appreciated, but in these discussions, when we are considering undoing other editors' volunteer contributions, I think we owe them serious justifications for doing so), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Iuz (2nd nomination)]] (should say why you tagged it).  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose''' per Rudget. Whether you like it or not, you'll be asked to handle situations out of your comfort zone. J.delanoy's lack of non-automated article work doesn't instill much confidence in his abilities to make important decisions with regards to the encyclopedia. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to oppose you (it really pains me to do so!) but because Wikipedia's primary business is writing articles, all administrators will, without doubt, encounter problems that require some background with article writing and collaboration. Thus, administrators should have reasonable experience contributing to articles, and this user appears to have next to none, with a relatively narrow scope of experience away from vandal fighting. After a few months of greater contributions to articles, I believe this user will be ready.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Robot.
'''Oppose''' Good guy, but doesn't have a whole lot going when you take away the huggling. Using an automated tool to rack up a bunch of rv's doesn't establish trust.--
Per Kurt and Naerii. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Oppose''' - No more "anti-vandal only" candidates.
The type of edits this user makes it hard to determine whether or not they have the proper character to be an admin.  I suggest keeping up the anti-vandal work but let us know who you are as well before you run again.
'''Weak oppose''' - <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Uncensored&diff=193604779&oldid=193604619 What the hell]? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User talk:Asenine/Wizard|<i><font style="color:white;background:#4682b4;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Asenine&nbsp;'''</font></i>]]</span></small> 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)</s> Needs more article building for my liking. Per Rudget. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Just don't have enough to trust the tools to you at this time, per above and per own concerns. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''. This is an RfA where I'm unsure which side to go on, do I support or oppose? J.delanoy (for the sake of convenience, I'll refer to him as J) is clearly a user who is committed and self-assigned to the task of reverting ''mass'' amounts of vandalism, has the interest of Wikipedia at heart and is civil to boot. However, for an administrator we need to see the encyclopedia-aspect of candidates, and with J that is something near impossible since most of the mainspace edits are reverts of vandalism (which are mightily good I should add) and we also need to see someone who is versatile; willing and capable to venture outside of their comfort zones to make decisions which will further the encyclopedia. With answers like that of Q4, I have doubts about J's ability to do anything of the such. As Dweller mentions in the statement, it is okay to be specialised at something, but if that is something which the user is totally focused on (and it is something which is capable by every other administrator) the magnitude of that specialism is reduced. I won't be dismissive of his candidacy just yet however, I will be back to review the RfA later on in the week.
This is a tough one and I don't know yet. I'm pretty familiar with J.D from hanging out around [[user talk:Iridescent|the altnernative AN/I]], so I figure I know him pretty well. In judging his work I'm trying not to put aside my natural instinct, which I'm sure some are familimar with but others will get offended by, which is that vandal fighters are good but don't need adminship. But that said I have seen issues with his work before - I haven't gone and gotten the detail yet, because I'm lazy and have articles to write - but I don't think I could comfortably support. And while he has started doing some article work, tentatively taking on board the advice I gave last time, though there are still issues. Then I noted he lacked understanding of the MoS. Now, per [[Talk:John Rutledge/GA1]], is he competent on NPOV and V/RS? I don't feel comfortable giving him tools with which he can affect article writers in these current circumstances, but I am not yet opposing. I might change; we'll see. The response to this comment will definitely influence me. —'''
I know and understand that J. delanoy will not abuse adminship rights.  However, I think if you dropped all his revert edits, he'd be a weak editor.  I would like to see J. delanoy improve upon article building, because I already know he knows what to revert and what not to. So I'll stay with '''neutral'''. --
Not convinced yet. Article mainspace experience, I think, is only necessary as far as gathering experience, particularly on how editors will respond to certain things that are said or done (as an action) by admins. It's also to draw a distinction between content and conduct, and you need to know enough about content policies first, and how to apply them. I think it's difficult to resolve doubts on this. However, I would like to ask for more Q&A to help make a decision either way.
'''Support''' J Greb has shown himself time and again to be a reasonable voice on the various articles where our paths have crossed, including incredible support during the revamping of a major comic book character's article. He is possessed of great pateince and would be an asset.
'''Support''' a bright, reasonable, conscientious editor who's really on the ball, knows policy, and ever endeavors to improve Wikipedia and advance project goals.
'''Support''' as J Greb is an excellent editor from all angles. (
'''Support''' RfA's are, at their core, a request for the community to decide whether or not the candidate has exhibited the characteristics that the community requires of its sysops, whether or not demonstrated judgment that the community appreciates—even if they may disagree, and whether or not the community should [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|extend its collective trust]] to the candidate and authorize them to exercise that judgment in protection and enhancement of the wikipedia project. This candidate's user history, in my opinion, does demonstrate good judgment, civil and polite interface, the best interests of the project, and an ability for their work to be enhanced by the tools. As such, I am comfortable extending my [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to this user. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' based on answers to Wisdom's very well thought out questions. I see nothing to suggest likelihood of misuse and candidate seems to have the common sense to think first or ask first and act later.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - After thoroughly reading the answers to each question. Yup, if this is how the candidate thinks, and I'm certain that it is, he/she has my support. One of the rare exceptions to my balance criteria rule. Good show.
'''Support''', seems sensible enough, and no evidence that they would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, and very active in regard to images, an area where more help would be very welcome.
'''He's not already?''' '''
'''Support'''.  Will be a great help in the image area of Wikipedia.  Best of luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
Seems appropriate and well-deserving.
'''Support''' - the user has answered most questions to my full satisfaction and seems a generally good user with common sense. Good luck! --
'''Support'''.  Excellent answers to questions above, I have no concerns about your willingness to be helpful where help is needed.  A net positive to give you the mop.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Can't see any good reason to oppose, acknowledging comments below regarding some of the answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - A fine candidate. Completed lots of great work on Wikipedia so far. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - looks fine and trustworthy.  Good attitude.
'''Support''' Over 20000 edits with over 7000 mainspace edits.Good track.
'''Support''' I don't think the <s>opposes</s> neutrals are that concerning. I, for one, would welcome another admin who works with images a lot. He was just short of the 25 points required on my [[User:Xenon54/RfA Criteria|RfA criteria]] for a definitive support (he had 23, discounting an early mistaken block), and that's impressive. Good luck!
'''Support''' [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - I do not even see a reason to explain my support, the user obviously is not only meeting but passing the standards for adminship.
'''Support''' Impressive, and we can always use more image admins.
'''Support'''. He's a fine candidate.
'''
'''Support''' - seems like a great candidate. <b>
'''Support''' Gut feeling and the fact that more image admins are needed. <strong>
'''Support''' per many above who have mentioned images. '''
'''Support''' =  And with regards to question '''#9''',  how would your answer differ if the editor were a misplaced alien from Mars, with a Physical handicap and three little aliens to support, change?  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Aye'''.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy, could use the administrator tools, no [[Special:Contributions/J Greb|obvious]] problems. Best of luck, [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support'''. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' per the images
'''Weak support''' - nice to intend to work on IfD, but make sure that you don't upset people. Lots of uploaders get upset when their images are tagged or deleted by impersonal admins for not filling out the correct ream of documentation - particularly when the admin could easily just fix the form theirself. —
'''Support''' happy with answers and with this candidate. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''He tangata pai, he tangata pono.''' In other words, he looks like a good guy and sounds true. <strong>
'''Support'''. I'm a bit uneasy with the answer to Q11, and I suggest you consider your options carefully if you're ever in this situation, but other than this I see no reason not to support you.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
No problems here.
'''Support''' I think that this user will be a wonderful new admin :).
'''Support''' Will make a great admin! -
'''Oppose'''. Questions 3 and 9 are answered decently. Question 10 though, you've got an opportunity to be honest and show your thoughtfulness, but didn't take it. Qu.11 ... you'd issue an indefinite block to a user because he was ''irate'' and ''already blocked''? That'd be scary to be quite honest if it weren't for the thankful fact that it would certainly be overturned or reduced. I don't wanna be harsh, but there is too much thoughtlessness in these answers for me to ignore this nom and not oppose.
'''Neutral''' Questions above answered with generalities. Editor focuses on technical details, needs more significant contributions on actual article content based on contributions. <font color="Purple">
'''Neutral''' Boy, I'm in the middle of the road on this one. '''''
'''Neutral''' - honestly, not ready yet. Another six months, perhaps. Has responded on some matters with a tad too much emotion (and had to apologise) and it has at times smacked of a grudge. Have dealt with other administrators who are more objective and not so quick to draw their six-guns. Review again in 6 months.
'''Support''' As nom. Even if I now feel very, very old ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A bit on the old side, but ok. '''
'''Support''' I like the initial decline for the tools, as well as the work with deletions. Very valuable in that area and can be trusted with admin.--
'''Support'''. Recent assistance on a "major" rewrite of a list specific set of guidelines as well as as stepping into an Edit War shows Jac16888 to be helpful and neutral. (Guess with age comes wisdom huh?)
'''
'''Support''' - Not power hungry, not seen them around but from what I can tell they would be a net positive for Wikipedia. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
<s>Oppose, is too old.</s> Seriously, though, he should be fine. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Per Pedro's nom. User looks a.o.k.
'''Support''' Per nom. Good user. —
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I give credit to the nom for pointing out all those facts, it saved me some time, anyway, looks good. Good luck!
Best of luck. &mdash; <font face="Bank gothic">
'''Support''' as per above comments
'''Oppose''' - too old :P
'''Support''' has over 4000 mainspace edits.As per track see no chance of misuse of tools.
'''Strong Support''' - After examining the user's talk page and contributes; And the full examination from the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Jac16888}}}}&site={{SERVERNAME}} Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool] and from the SQL's Tools [http://toolserver.org/%7Esql/sqlbot.php?user=Jac16888]. —
'''Support''' Why not? :) Looks good to me!
'''Support''' I trust him. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' I usually trust Pedro, anyways. Good luck!
'''Support''', I very much trust the nom.
'''Support''' - Jac, don't be humble about your contribution history. I've gone all the way through it and you're an excellent wikipedian. By the way, I am an administrator and I know nothing about image policies either, and there's nothing wrong with that, because I do hardly any work with images. You clearly understand the policies that apply to the areas you work in. Incidentally, my understanding of current policies is that list-type articles are allowed to contain redlinks, because they encourage others to create articles to turn the redlinks blue. If the redlinks bother you, you can link it to something else. Have a look at my articles [[Agro-]] or [[Aggi]] for some examples. See how I have no redlinks, but there is a link on every line despite some of the topics not having an article? -
'''Support''': I see absolutely no reason not to support.
'''Support''' There is plenty of reason to support. It has just all been said already. Good to see another speedy-deletion-willing candidate. I experienced in my RfA to be opposed because I said I wanted to handle this as it was considered an "easy task" but with days such as today, where there are more than 600(!) requests for speedy deletions, I am glad of anyone willing to help. And much more so, if the person in question is shown to be as competent as this candidate. '''
'''Support''' You'll make a fine admin, no worries here. You'd better start growing that beard ;)
'''Support.''' Per nom and positive contributions to this project. '''
'''Support''' - good contributions to the project.
'''Support'''- Looks good to me.
'''Support''' <s>Old fogeys are much more calm and useful than the young idealists</s>Great candidate, lots of contribs, [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not]]?<font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' I can spot a Pedro nom from a mile away. :)
'''Support''' I was swayed by how Jac16888 responded to Q5. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''support''' Stifle raises an interesting point but since the user does not intend to do image work it is not a serious concern.
'''Weak Support''' lack of image policy knowledge concerns me, but not enough to make me oppose an otherwise wonderful candidate. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''Seems to be a perfect candidate, stay away from our image policy if you don't understand it until you do, also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''', will be fine.  He's said he'll stay away from images til he learns more; that'll do.  No reason to presume he wouldn't be able to gen up on image policy if he wanted to.
I agree with Pedro's answer to Stifle as well as Jac16888's frankness. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Nothing worth worrying over, apperently has plenty experience.--
'''Support'''Good choice to be an admin.
'''Support'''.  Good candidate.  Good luck, Jac! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. The candidate has not raised any significant doubts in my mind, so I see no reason to oppose this request.
'''Strong Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' especially because of the answer about image policy, which I think realistic because if approximately matches my own feelings and abilities. '''
I'm
'''Support''' - Haven't seen reason not to.  The candidate has answered two out of three questions I've asked and so far so good.  Review of candidate's record has come back clean so far.  Just because I voted doesn't mean you shouldn't answer the last question though... I am still waiting :)
'''Support.''' Yep!
'''Support'''. Good contributions & reasonable answers.
'''Support''', per answer to question #9. I didn't particularly like the question asked (we have many dedicated, trustworthy users in their twenties, myself included), but I liked the answer. Best of luck to you. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Plenty of edits, good work against vandalism, nothing negative that I see.  Good luck to you.  -
'''Support''' per nom. - -
'''Support''' - 'Pedia builder (and a Pedro nom) ;)
'''Support'''. Good contributions in multiple areas and nothing to worry about. Just a note about knowledge of image policy: unless you upload a lot of them, it's difficult to become well-versed in that area while you are not an admin because few discussions take place.
'''Support''' Deserves the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|it's no big deal]].--
'''Support''' &ndash; I like most of this editor's answers to the questions. Constructive contributions in many areas also, and in a good amount of admin-related ones also. Will do just fine. &ndash;
I don't actually have any age-related jokes, sorry.
'''Support.'''  The tools will be in reliable hands here.  (Trying out how it feels to say "when I was 20" ... somehow it doesn't make me feel old ''now'', but I remember hitting the benchmark which closed my second decade of life and, yes, feeling old ''then''  ;-)  —
'''Oppose''' Too many numbers in their username, lack of capitisation of "i", too old, too young and too many age related jokes ... but I'm editing the wrong section so I'll support per the positive contribs anyway. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support'''. Good editor. No reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' - per RyanCross. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' Everything looks good. :) Nice answers to questions, too. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' even though I might question feeling "old" at 20. At just more than twice that, I must be a prehistoric [[fossil]] :-) Good answers to questions. Keep up the good work. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. OMG. I am so old for Wiki :( <small>( reading I am 20 statement) :) </small>. No concerns ... Best wishes.. <small>I also admire the interesting way of Pedro's nom style. </small> --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' experienced user, will not abuse the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' This user helped me a while back with [[Son of the Shark]] when I first started the article. He is an incredible contributor and I know that he is ready for the tools. --'''
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions. <strong>
'''Support''' As per usesight through joined  in April 2007 has more than 4000 mainspace edits and very good track.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', as the candidate has a good set of contributions, and the answers provided above show that the tools would not be misused.
'''Support''' - Seen this user around, will not abuse the tools, give em' the mop!
'''Support'''. --'''''
'''Support''' He's got a great record, and I've had very positive interactions with him in the past. I don't doubt that Jauerback can not just defend our country against terrorists, but make a fine admin, as well. --
'''Support''' User has gained my trust.--
'''Support''' - per nomination. Useight's got another good find. :)
'''Support''' Best Candidate I have seen in a ''long'' time! <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
Gotta go with yes on this one. :)
'''Support''' Worked with this user recently, he'll make a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Good user.  '''
'''Support''' Will be a positive to the project, and meets my
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate! One thing, what is the difference between your monobook and the standard Twinkle install? It seems like something I might want to use. -'''
'''Weak oppose''' - uses the word "dammit" too much. Has killed too many people. Furthermore, has committed numerous crimes in the line of duty, including treason. But per Mike, he's damn good at vanquishing terrorists and vandalism. '''

'''Support''' as hardworking and experienced editor.
'''Support''' Liked your answers to the questions. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Agree with Midorihana. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent editor, I see no problems. -
'''Support''' Will be good for vandal fighting and deletions.--
'''Support''' Per nom - no reason to oppose.--

'''Support''' Answers to the questions backed up by contribution history. Great stuff. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' All the evidence I've seen shows good knowledge of policy and the right attitude. --'''
'''Support''' Good user.  Good question answers.  Good contribs. --
'''Support'''. Good job, Useight. You have learned well... '''''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  He has a great record of vandal-fighting with the scras to prove it, and no issues.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Yep! '''
'''Support''' long time great contributor, has good knowledge of policy.

'''Strong Support''' great editor. '''
'''Support as nom''' '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' - very ready. -- <strong>
'''(Would have been the) First support (but it's not. remind me to Pwn you, Blnguyen and Anonymous Dissident. LaraLove is exempt, she's the nom :) )'''! I've seen him around, and I have to say Jayron32 is a great editor. If you don't think so, well, [[User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion/Hall_of_notoriety|your mother]]. :) [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Strong Support''' per [[User:The_undertow|the_undertow]].
I've seen this editor in places like GA and FA discussions, and I am very pleased at what he does.  Re everything else, knows what he is doing; article experience will only help him mediate and resolve content disputes.  '''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' because I think you're a great content editor.  I can't say I'm thrilled to see something like an AFD of [[Nelle_Wilson_Reagan|Nelle Reagan]].  I mean, I'm happy you withdrew the AFD but that it ever seemed like a priority to you to delete a well-sourced article is disturbing to me.  Nominations like these don't help Wikipedia; focus your energies on getting rid of non-verifiable content, rather than a well-researched article written by someone who took [[Ronald Reagan]] to FA. --
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian, and as long as the "delete button" isn't used too speedily, should also be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' sysopping this outstanding <s>New Hampshirite</s> user. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Glad to give my support here.
Support per the_undertow. Jayron, quite simply, is the bomb. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' Well rounded.
'''Support'''-You look like an exceptional editor. I trust you will do good.
'''Support''' Was going to support any way, per nominators, but the diff provided by Malleus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_5#Are_Admins_treated_differently_than_other_wikipedians.3F] seals it. Good all round candidate with nothing in the history troubling enough to not see a '''net gain'''. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Should've known... a new recruit for the Bathrobe Cabal. Would've opposed but I have to do what YellowMonkey says or I won't get a banana... :( &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
Sure thing! <i><b>
'''Support''' The two essays linked to in Lara's nom are insightful, compelling and firmly based in existing policy and practise.

'''Support''' Glad to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  '''
'''Support''' - looks fine to me --
'''Support''' - Looks like you would make good use of the tools --
'''Support''' Brilliant editor.
'''Support!''' Answer to question six shows that he has a firm grasp on [[WP:CSD|CSD]] guidelines. Trustworthy contributor, meets all of [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|my]] standards, I'm sure will use the tools well.
An experienced editor.
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''', good answers to all questions, seems very helpful and knowledgeable.  I think this editor can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor: well-rounded, sensible and trustworthy. ''
'''Strong Support''' An absolutely stellar candidate.
Bleh thought he was an admin
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop,
'''Yep.'''  -
'''Strong support'''. '''
'''Strong Support''' More than ready for the mop. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Excellant knowledge of policy. <strong>
'''Strong support'''. I still occasionally look at your essay on orthodoxy and heresy. '''''
'''Support''' impressive work.
Absolutely.
'''Support''' More than ready for the mop. --'''
'''Support''' without a doubt. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support'''.
'''Very strong support'''. He has helped me so much with tagging images properly, and he was very courteous to me in the process. I feel I should extend that back to him, and thus I support his adminship. —
'''support''' No problems here, user understands policy well as shown by his/her answers above. --
'''Cliche, he's not one already support?'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' yes, indeed a good candidate
'''Support''' Great candidate. I've got no doubts. --
'''50th support''' Hopefully I don't run into edit conflict.
'''Support''' Suprised he wasn't already an admin, etc.
'''Support'''. A top-notch candidate.
'''''
'''Support'''.  Per Geometry Guy and several others; no concerns here.
'''Support'''. This one was easy. Great track record on articles as well as user talk interface!
'''Support''' funny guy, really good when maintaining Wikipedia. Hecks yeah! [[User:Blow of Light/Guestbook|&mdash;]][[User talk:Blow of Light|<font color="black">B</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|o]]<font color="red">
'''Jawohl'''
'''Support''' I ain't seen nothing to worry about here, Jayron can be trusted with the tools.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Insert cliche about "already being one" here... From what I have seen, will make an excellent admin.
Mandatory '''I thought he already was''' contribution --
'''Support''' An excellent editor who has helped me multiple times in the past and helped me to become involved in the GA process. I'm sure he'll do great with the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Significant involvement on Wiki-related pages.--
'''Support''' Will make a good admin, have seen his contributions in several areas.
'''Support''' What? I thought you were admin already!
'''Support''' - meets all my standards, great user page, nice answers.
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''' for his excellent article contributions, communication skills, understanding of policy, and participation in processes of admin interest such as AfD. --
'''Support'''. Good contributing editor. Cheers!
'''Support.''' --'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good editor who seems to have good experience in areas useful to the project. I can honestly see this user deservedly getting unanimous support.
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder cheers,
'''Support''' met him, intelligent and centred, has done good work in important areas, no probs here.
'''Co-nom Support''', one of a kind.
Strongest support ever, except for the uber-strongest support ever, which is reserved for Sandy. ''
'''Support''' - Per [[WP:WTHN]], excellent candidate. Preliminary look at his contributions shows nothing to be worried about and I have no doubt he'd use the tools wisely in various areas of Wikipedia. Good luck. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - obviously. --
Excellent nominations. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' - I think this user would be able to learn to use the tools and would use them responsibly.
'''Support''' Even if he only uses the tools once, he is most certainly a net positive, and there is really nothing bad to be said. '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
Very, very impressed with his comments during the "large class is disrupting Wikipedia" thing a week ago, and his essay on the subject, and his contribs, and... everything. --
'''Support''', Jbmurray seems to be a great editor who is respectful and has a good attitude towards conflicts. --
'''Strong Support'''. Has my full support and more importantly my full respect, he has definetly become of the best editors on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Good positive attitude.
'''Support''' - Great user, terrific job with his own and suggestions for other school/university projects.
'''Support''' no-brainer ''(the decision that is, not the candidate :) ). Cheers,
'''strong''' support.  SandyGeorgia is someone I trust, and the statement/answers make me think this will be an excellent choice for admin.
'''Strong support''' - Both as per [[WP:WTHN]] and this users clear sense of loyalty to the encylopaedia. Good work! :) <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''+Support'''. In the place and the time and the event where truth reveals itself, unobstructed by the oppositions and differentiations of language, we let go of conceptual thinking and of the logical way we order the world, so that like creativity in art, the appropriate insight and response arises naturally and spontaneously in the mind.
'''Support''' No problems here; a civil editor dedicated to adding new material is fine by me.  --
'''Support'''. As Casliber said above, a complete no-brainer. --
'''Support'''. Editors who care about content should make good administrators! --
'''Support'''. Here's an editor who really understands Wikipedia's mission, its strengths, weaknesses, potential and limitations. Wikipedia is extremely fortunate that he has chosen to help rather than criticise. And he really does help a lot: for instance he has become one of GA's most careful and positive reviewers. He will make an excellent admin. ''
'''Support''' - seems to have been very valuable to Wikipedia. Always use the edit summary though. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''.  No question about it in my mind; Jbmurray will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' JB is not a complete stranger to me, and I have seen his fine work. No doubts that he would make a fine admin. &ndash;
'''Support''' Very capable editor.
'''Support''' I've been thoroughly impressed with jbmurray's understanding of WP policies, his willingness to guide and teach inexperienced users (including those who are not his real-life students), and his overall good attitude and calm demeanor.
'''Support''' Good judgement; excellent communication skills; great editing, reviewing, and writing; and solid knowledge of policy and guidelines. Confident he would make a fine admin.
yes, ''yes'', '''yes''', '''YES'''.  And let's keep bringing in academicians who "get it" like jbmurray does. - Dan
'''heck ya.'''  Malleus said it best above by quoting Casliber.   [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' as I could not identify any compelling reasons for me to oppose.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''; everything looks good here; good candidate.
'''Support'''. A good editor with a lot of experience. He's always civil and he's a mainspace contributor. Excellent candidate.
SandyGeorgia co-nomming? That's an auto-'''support'''.
'''Strong support''' Wizardman missed another chance to nominate such a wonderful candidate for adminship. Chances that Professor Murray becomes an admin: 100%. Chances that he will act immaturely: not a chance.
'''Strong Support.''' Absolutely.  <s>I'd likely support blocking anybody who opposed.</s>  This type of editor is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. --
'''Support''' - as said above by so many of our colleagues, this is an excellent candidate who will use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' per almost everyone else.  Sound user. '''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support'''.  I have no reservations.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''' - This was one of the easiest RfA to judge. Excellent all around. Trust abounds. Net positive.
'''Support''' Of course! Excellent member of the community.
'''Support''' per above. Understands Wikipedia, intelligent and trustworthy.
'''Support''' well rounded, great user. <strong>
'''Support''', obviously. Smart, thoughtful, incredibly helpful, and understands Wikipedia. I'm still amazed that something this progressive managed to get done at UBC, of all places.
'''Support'''.  Very level-headed, from what I've seen.--
'''Wikibreak-breaking support''' - outstanding editor.
'''Support''' - A look through the candidate's history shows outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">

'''Support'''<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Strong support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Excellent content contributor, thus likely to know what it is to be on the other side of admin actions - including a brief block. That last is long past history, and I see no evidence that the mop would be abused.
'''Support'''. It is a pleasure to support such as a calm, communicative, and productive content editor getting some additional tools.--
'''Support''' An academic who really understands Wikipedia, and an ''outstanding'' contributor as well. Wikipedia can only benefit from his use of admin tools. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' -- It seems everything has already been said! Good luck! --
'''Support''' A breath of fresh air and exactly what Wikipedia needs. Understands what Wikipedia is about, but takes an innovative approach to improving the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''All the good reasons have already been used support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Sensible and knowledgeable.
'''Support''' Knows what he's doing and is likely to make very good use of the tools. -
'''Support'''. Academic ... Canadian ... what's not to like? Is a unique editor and has made some cool contributions.
Per the 63 people above me, especially the Canadian thing. ;)
'''Support''' Very impressive work with [[WP:MMM]]. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. [[WP:MMM]] and related editing points Jbmurray out as an editor who is obviously trustworthy and with good judgment. In the absence of anything negative as far as I can tell, he will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' duh. (sorry, I couldn't come up with anything to say that hadn't already been said&mdash;and I'm lazy :P )
'''Support''' NETHWATT. (No Evidence That He Will Abuse The Tools). -
'''Support''', excellent contributor, no evidence that this person will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Trusted user. Good leadership skills. '''
'''Support''' Looks good! He is a very good editor. He has created many articles. I see no reason to oppose him.
'''Support''' - His work with [[WP:MMM]] has been great, and he has been quite civil and rational in all communications that I have seen.--
'''Support''' - Great candidate.--
'''Of course - Strong Support'''. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Capable of effectively coordinating what has essentially been the most successful school project on Wikipedia, ''and'' a co-nom by Sandy? Sure meets my criteria.
'''Support'''. Although I was reluctant to admit it earlier when in a disagreement with Jbmurray, his ability to keep calm despite my unfriendly attitude at [[Talk:The Accidental]] is an excellent skill. I think he is well suited for the position, and I'd like to wish him the best of luck.
A big, hearty '''support'''. I've had nothing but positive and productive interactions with Jbmurray and think that his talents on Wikipedia will only be enhanced by the tools. --
'''Support''' A complete and wholehearted support. Excellent contributor, civil and rational.
'''Support'''' Great contributor, no problems with giving him the tools.
'''Support''' Solid, experienced editor. I have no concerns. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''.
Can we use his research as reliable sources for subjects relating to Latin America? :-)
'''Strong Support''' A Wikipedian who supports article building and actively encourages everyday people into contributing to the project! Say it isn't so! *swoon* --
'''Support''' pretty much a model Wikipedian.  Good luck!
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very qualified candidate. Best of luck to you!

'''Strong support''' very skillful user who uses his skills very responsibly, great contributor. '''
'''Support''', I have seen many great things from this editor.  Displays excellent judgment, a good temperament, and a dedication to building content. --
User has no need of yet another '''Support''', but how can I not chirp in about how great it is to see others using WP in the classroom at a time when it's more and more under attack in the academy.  Any the edits, etc., are great! --
'''Support''' - pile-on support to hopefully reach [[WP:100]], but also because I trust this user, especially after what he has shown the community he is capable of doing through [[WP:MMM]]. -'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''.  No problem.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' Will be a great asset, will not misuse tools.
'''Incredible Support''' no risk of abuse.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' for a deft handling of the <s>single</s> first oppose.
'''Support''' number 99! Yes, good user, no big deal.
'''No more beat the Nom Support here!'''
'''Support''' as a fine editor, and...per Animum, because I love the word '''penultimate''' even if I don't agree with O/S/N notation... <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' not letting this one get away. --
'''Support''' Solid answers to questions. Good on ya, mate.--
'''Support''' <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&#151;
'''Support''' Top of the class. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support'''Totally! Why not?--
'''Support''' - absolutely, excellent editor. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Dedicated and helpful editor who should benefit the project as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' - Would it be wrong for someone who works with religious articles to call him a gift from God?
'''Support''', more like this candidate, please!™
'''Support'''.  I've seen him at work at ''DYK?'' -- he's tireless and trustworthy. --
'''Utmost support'''. An intelligent, thoughtful and principled editor with a phenomenal workrate, and someone whom, I strongly suspect, will be instrumental in many of the changes we might see on Wikipedia over the coming years ;)
'''Strong Support''' - I have followed the Madness Wikiproject ever since it was posted on the community portal, and am very impressed with its work. I don't know a lot about Mr. Murray from personal interaction, but the fact that he worked so well and so hard to dramatically improve wikipedia demonstrates many very positive qualities, most important of which is trust, and I believe we can trust him with the admin tools and responsabilities. True, adminship isn't a reward, but I don't think he's asking for an award, he wants more responsabilities, and we should give them to him.
<sarcasm>'''Oppose'''. I believe that nominations increase the cabalism of Wikipedia.</sarcasm> ·
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''': an articulate and thoughtful editor who values in-line citations and the importance of reliable sources. Wikipedia would do well to have him as an administrator. I look forward to working with him in the future.
I've really struggled here.... struggled to add any more value to the debate! So I'll just lob in a support anyway! Seriously - obviously. A credit to Wikipedia, and a fellow editor that should make us '''all''' proud to be Wikipedians to work alongside. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy! Thanks for your edits to [[Buckeye (chicken)]].
'''Strong support'''.  I know this editor personally and have a great deal of admiration for his hard work on Latin American projects, as well as his guidance to new editors (his students) and general common sense.  He will be a credit to the mop.
'''Support'''. Good contributions throughout Wikipedia, good anwers to questions, no reason not to support. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''support''' One of our best editors, and will be an equally good admin. '''
'''Support''' Good choice. --
'''Support''' Why should such a committed content contributor not have the tools at his disposal when he needs them?
'''Support'''. Trenchant but perceptive contributions on recent FARC of ''[[The Office (U.S. TV series)|The Office]]''. Although it failed to remain featured, I don't hold it against him. We need more admins who dive deep into editing. A good editor-admin knows the tools extend his reach.
'''Nothing less than Big Support''': Somebody give me a reason to oppose him. :D -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Support''' Encountered this user during the Global Economics fiasco, positive interactions, and experienced editor. IMHO, admins are editors first, and admins second. --
'''Support'''—Needs to be cloned.
'''Support''' Knows what hes doing, will have no probs. '''''
'''Support''' a good candidate, who appears unlikely to act with haste and thus abuse the tools and the community's trust. No reservations whatsoever.
'''Support''' Of course. '''
'''Support''' All the reasons for that everyone else wrote, also, I read the Elonka diffs, and they seem to be commenting on the article rather than the contributor. Surely we're allowed to say "poor sources" and "poor article" without being considered to be making a personal attack. --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. He is good at consensus and handles difficult individuals and situations well.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per [[WP:TLDR|WP:EVERYONEELSELIKESIT]] <small>''(tips hat to [[User:EVula|EVula]])''</small> <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - seems to offer soem good life experiences to freshen up Wikipedia.--
'''Support''', why not?
'''Support''' yep. —
'''Strong support''' - we need more academics (yes, like me) bringing knowledge to students via WP.  Surely he needs the tools.  Great nom.
'''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', yes please.
'''Support''' Good user interaction - willing to take the time to explain actions
'''Support'''—Based on comment on talk page.
'''Support.''' - Works well collaboratively with others, while maintaining a cool-head and polite demeanor throughout.  Admirable traits for an Admin.
'''Strong Support''' ~ Intelligent, capable, objective, would be a valuable asset for Wikipedia as an admin. &nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - excellent all round, I'm particularly impressed by his University project, a splendid example of how to get outsiders involved with Wikipedia to the benefit of both.
This guy's already an astonishing net-benefit for the project - promoting Wikipedia through the construction of FA's as an assignment is one of the most incredible ideas ever. '''Support''', easily.
'''O yes!'''<span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' It's about time.
'''Warm support''' He's smart, articulate, friendly and clearly devoted to Wikipedia.  I haven't the smallest doubt that he will use the tools well and wisely. :)
'''Support''' Even completely ignoring the class project, I'd seen good work from this user elsewhere and we need more admins with a solid content background and even temperament to handle issues which arise. With it, I think that's the icing on the cake. Good luck.
'''Support'''. What a fine candidate.
'''Support'''. Totally.  Absolutely. Definitely.  Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' Excellent editor, will be fine with the tools. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support''' - not like you really need it at this point.
'''Strong Support''' Pilein' and Pilein' on...
'''Support''' A good candidate for the mop. --
Strong candidate.
'''Support''' great editor
'''Support''' no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. Never been anything but civil in my interactions with him.
'''Support''' - I thought you were an admin .LOL, nuff said.
'''Oppose'''.  I think that Jbmurray's university project was a great idea, I enjoyed reading his essay, and I am a big supporter of getting more academics involved with Wikipedia.  However, those reasons aren't enough to support someone for adminship.  One key reason to oppose, is simply that I don't see him needing the tools.  This nom seems to be more of a case of awarding a "prize", than giving tools to someone who actively needs them.  Also, and of more concern, when I was recently in a conflict with Jbmurray about the ''[[Dirty Dancing]]'' article, I was not impressed with his on-wiki communication skills. I found him short-tempered, dismissive, and quick to blame, in ways that ''escalated'' a dispute rather than de-escalating it. I also have strong concerns about his involvement with the FA process, because of the growing cliquishness on the part of some of the senior FA reviewers, and the often arbitrary and frequently trivial reasons that are given for opposing the promotion of an article.  I'm not going to go into details about my concerns about the FA reviewing process here, because this isn't the right venue.  However, I do realize that by my opposing Jbmurray's adminship, I may well be diminishing or even destroying any chance that I have of getting another article through the FA political hoops. There's also another issue here, which has to do with [[WP:CIVIL]]. There is a disturbing trend on Wikipedia, that when someone is an article-writer, the culture often overlooks some very serious behavioral problems, specifically as regards civility and personal attacks. This problem is bad enough when dealing with a regular editor, but to have another short-tempered admin, would be a very bad idea.  And to have a group of uncivil admins, who support each other in their attacks on other editors, especially editors who are trying to get articles to FA?  I think that would be an even worse thing for Wikipedia, because that puts too much power into the hands of too few people. In short, I just don't think that Jbmurray handles conflict well, I don't think he would handle the "power" of adminship responsibly, I don't think he sets a good example of how a Wikipedian should act, and I don't want to see yet another uncivil admin FA reviewer.  I do have respect for some of the articles that Jbmurray and his students have created.  But I cannot in good conscience support him for administrator at this time. --
Insert witty Neutral comment here. I can't be bothered to think up my own, I'm having a bad day --
'''Neutral''' I had a look at the first fifty contributions, and it already made me think that he should be an administrator. However, I am unfamilliar with the supporters, so I am neutral.--
'''beat the Nom Support''' Good, [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] user who will make a good mop-pusher.
'''Support'''. Rather than clutter this RFA with the arguments for-and-against, my views (and the views of what feels like half the internet) on Jclemens's suitability for the role were discussed [[User_talk:Iridescent#Reply_.28long_version.29|here]] at some length<small></understatement></small>. (Ignore the insane flamewars above and below the thread; for some reason my talkpage seems to have taken on the position of "toilet wall of Wikipedia" today.)<font face="Trebuchet MS">''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Plus one'''.  I've always assumed jclemens was an admin.  I remember vividly the different "opinions" expressed during the whole "Palin implosion"; the warring, the mudslinging, the fork creation.  (good times).  Jclemens showed then that he has a calm demeanor, a logic based approach to editing, and an inherent fairness about his edits.  I looked through his contribs yesterday or today after a post on my talk regarding a potential rfa for Jc.  If I was nominating people, I would've asked him if I could nominate him.  He'll be a very good admin because of his content contribs, his tact under fire, and his ability to navigate controversial areas and troublesome POV editing with grace, directness, and precision.  Strong support.
'''Support'''. An excellent user with whom I have had a good time working with. '''
No questions asked, he's trustworthy and civil. He should be granted access, as I can't see it being anything less than a net positive.
'''Support''' I must admit, when I saw the section heading on your talk page for your RfA nomination, I thought you'd just been trolled, but then I was suprised (and happier) to find it was an RfA nom and not what the heading suggested. You're an excellent user, you have a clean block log, great contributions and a nice personality. I believe that you would be an asset to the comunity if you were granted the tools. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Strong support'''.  Impressive candidate. You've done great on Wikipedia and will do better with the tools.  Good luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
Duh-uh support! Well-rounded, and, like Balloonman, I saw this guy (partially) go from a beginning editor to what he is now. Good luck, I really hope you pass! &mdash;'''
'''Support''' I would suggest you stop posting welcoming messages to IP's that have only made one edit &mdash;it really serves no purpose as many IP's will only ever make one edit, they change frequently, and the links are more geared for accounts. Also if every IP that ever edited was welcomed the database would explode unnecessarily &mdash; but no real problems here.
'''Speedy Keep''' - Notability clearly asserted. —
'''Support''' - I assumed you already were an admin, or didn't want to be. You've certainly got the ability.
'''Support.'''  I'm familiar with Jclemens from the [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|Third opinion]] project during the past five months and support this nomination to put the tools in good hands.  —
'''Strong Support''' - I've had this RfA preemptively watchlisted ever since I've saw it on Ballonman's talk page (TPS I know, but get over it). [[WP:WTHN|I like fish]].
...that the '''[[Sarah Palin|Greater Alaskan Gooney Bird]]''' has a single mating season that lasts 365 days? (5x expansion, self-nom)...uh, is this where we do the DYK nominations? Oh, sorry, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for someone who is more than ready for adminship.
'''Support''' - Oh yeah. [[WP:WTHN|Flea market.]] It's just like, a mini mall. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' I was under the impression that he was already an admin :o He's a very careful editor, not likely to mess up (definitely won't delete the main page, as they say...). Got enough experience and also seems to have a very good understanding of policy. He should definitely get the tools.
'''Support'''. A great candidate. I've seen him around and his work is good. He's civil and knowledgeable. He'd make a fine admin. Meets [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]].
'''Absolutely''' Far calmer than me, which I'll admit is faint praise, but he's a good candidate for the bit.  Also, thought he was one.  Also, works in that icky part of the wiki that I wouldn't touch w/ a ten foot pole.
'''Support''' I believe it is wise. '''
'''Support''' Very appropriate to be a sysop
'''Support''' - as above; I don't need to repeat it. Alright, I can't help myself... I thought he ''was'' an admin already. -
Passes the common sense check.
'''Support''' Absolutely.  Have had good experiences with editor, who handles very controversial topics with professionalism and spunk. <b>'''
'''Support''' As per track.Good Editor.See no concerns.
'''Yes sir!''' —'''
'''Support'''. Good contributions and level-headed.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Oh yes''' - I've seen this editor around (though I don't ''think'' we've ever really interacted; I could be wrong) and have always thought he's reasonable and thoughtful. Donnez le mop. //
'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder, and calm, by the looks of things...Cheers,
'''Support''' as candidate generally makes good arguments.  Only the "vote" in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childe (World of Darkness)]] is not really sufficiently explained and we were on opposite sides in someone else's relatively recent Request for Adminship, but by and large it is more than apparent that the candidate mostly "gets it" and is here to build an encyclopedia, help out those who are also here to do so, and assume good faith.  I can think of well over a half dozen reasons to support and that is more than enough for me.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' Duh.
'''Support''' Duh. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Yes! Support!''' ''
'''Support''' I like your work with Article Rescue. '''
'''Support''', albeit with one minor reservation. IMO, the [[Wasilla Assembly of God]] article wan't ready for GA status due to problems with focus. But that aside, I am confident that Jclemens will make a good sysop. He's well-rounded and knows how to work constructively with other editors. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
I am quite pleased with this editor's demeanour at AfD; the administrative ranks would certainly benefit from competent and clueful article rescuers. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' Qualified. I have no doubt that Jclemens will make a good admin!!
''' tl;dr (per nom) Support''' per '''
Strongly, and he konws why.
'''Heck yes''' no question at all. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' &ndash; I was probably one of the first people Jclemens met. Since then, I've seen him to be a very productive editor on Wikipedia.  I'm very impressed with his article and [[WP:AFD]] work especially. Jclemens will do just fine as an administrator. Very happy to support. &ndash;
'''Support''' - I have a good opinion of this editor as calm and reasonable. &mdash;
'''Support''' Another editor who I thought was already an admin. &ndash;
'''Support''' Great contributions, trustworthy too! --
'''S<small>s<small>s<small>s<small>support</small></small></small></small>''' - Great user, trustworthy, and would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy candidate.
'''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''YES!!''' We Alaskans are ''owning'' RfA this week. All my interactions with this user has been positive, and there's a fair chance I know his family so I'd better !vote for him or they'll track me down.
'''Support''' - No problems here. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - Based on my dealings with him Reviewing the Wasilla AG page, I have no doubt in this users ability to use the tools responsively.
'''Support'''  per he's got the record, and also a good nomination from a reliable nominator. Would prefer more questions were asked of these recent candidates though. This is too easy. ;)
'''Support''' - Based on my experience with him on Good Article reviews.
'''Support''' No concerns - plenty of [[WP:CLUE]] and will only be a further asset with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - All the chronic opposers are supporting, so obviously a good candidate indeed. Also, I've always seen good things from Jclemens.
'''Support'''. After reviewing the oppose and checking out the candidate's contributions, I am convinced the problem raised was an isolated incident born of frustration. We're all human and will occasionally act in a human (imperfect) manner. I can find no indication that the candidate has continued to pursue a grudge or would in the future. However, looking over his contributions I see a continual dedication to the principles and improvement of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per most folk above me and because the candidate has a surprisingly low cock-up quotient.
'''Support''' despite a rather confusing nom. "This is a good editor, but I told him two days ago that I'd oppose him because he worked on a contentious article. So what's changed? Well, I looked at his edits, and he's a good editor." Er....well okay then. Yet another of Balloonman's interesting and roundabount "contentious" noms, but I'll obviously not hold that against the candidate, as he does indeed seem to be suitable.
'''Support''' I've seen you around, and I like the cut of your jib.
'''Support''' Yet another awesome editor and soon-to-be admin. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' with one reservation. I would prefer to have seen a diplomatic response to Tautologist's question, than to see a {{diff|User talk:Tautologist|prev|240831638|block warning template}}. Not enough to oppose over. I trust Jclemens with the tools.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
Seems competent; no obvious trust issues. Opposition NPOV accusations are unsubstantiated. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', for excellent work resolving disputes.
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate. :-) '''
'''Support''' - I have no reason ''not'' to support such a helpful contributor.--'''
'''support''' A good editor with sensible opinions about policy, and the ability to deal with differences.  '''
'''Support''' - I do not ''[[WP:CLUE|get]]'' what the opposition is about; I see no problems and lots of editing work from this user.  Therefore I support.
'''Support''' - '''
'''Strong keep''' per above rationale.
'''Strong Support:''' You didnt tell me you are a not an admin yet ? :P I like your article rescue help intentions !!. Something that I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahul_Raj_encounter&diff=254227506&oldid=253958752 also do] as much as I can. Best wishes --
'''Strong Support''' Very Experienced edits and this user could make a great admin. Good luck <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''No More Beat the Nom Supports''' with the holidays I don't know if I'll be able to visit this page again before it closes, so I'd better support.  And um, oh yeah, I support 100% per nom ;-)---'''
Good user.
'''Support'''. One of (at least three) good adminship nominations open at the moment. A helpful editor who will use the tools well in my view. All my experiences have been positive. ''
'''Support''', clearly a great user who will use the tools well.
'''Oppose''' per A1, candidate's bickering and incivility on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann]] and poor nom statement. The candidate is a vandal fighter, so he surely needs the blocking tool if he become an admin. However, well, after seeing the attack to his disputer on the AFD, I'm not sure he would not abuse the tool when he would be in dispute. The candidate's behaviors on the AFD is quite a major disappointment; teasing his disputer, quoting [[WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism]] to attack him. Well, not a good model in civility. As for the nominator's statement, I get that one of nominators' job for their candidates is to woo and glorify their candidates' assets and achievements in front of voters. However, the first lengthy paragraph just fills with a negative projection of the nominator's "own" evaluation on a user who was disputing with the candidate. That rather gave me a disturbing image to the candidate (calling one disputer a POV pusher could be equally applied to the other). After some research, the named editor is indeed a SPA with a strong agenda[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wasilla_Assembly_of_God&oldid=235896132] and "possibly" used a sock[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tautologist]. However, RFA is all about how the candidate has behaved what thought he thinks, not about a place to present how the nominator thinks. With these reasons, I can't support the candidate.--
'''Oppose'''. You've practically admitted baiting [[User:Hrafn]] (now retired) on Caspian's talk page: "''My objective at the Kaufmann RfA was to bring out Hrafn's contentious and less than civil nature, without myself violating any guidelines or policies.''" Despite that, you were eventually told by a third party that you were "over the line". Creating a toxic atmosphere is not what's expected from admins. You've also made a vague statement about Hrafn that essentially places most the blame for your bad behavior on him "''Others have had negative interactions with Hrafn....''". Those inclined to read [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Hrafn]] will note that most of the accusations against Hrafn were baseless.
Jeepday appears to be an excellent volunteer and would do well to have a few extra buttons.  He's written some great articles, and while I haven't yet had the pleasure to talk to the fellow directly, he seems to be very affable and easy to communicate with.  In looking at his conversations with other volunteers, [[User_talk:Jeepday/Archive_2#Re:_Kangeyam|he's shown some great dispute resolution]] skills.  In the referenced conversation, he and the other fellow were able to work out their differences by citing policies and maintaining a friendly demeanour (admittedly, the diff is hardly a dispute, but was the only semblance of one I could find given his seemingly naturally friendly manner, hehe). [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''', A good editor.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
'''Support''' - good editor; I actually thought you were already an admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Strong Support''' - will be very good at what he does --<font color="blue">
'''Support''': I am glad that Jeepday decided to further review some of the questions above, and IMO, that reflects positively on his behavior.  Having positively addressed my concerns below (in the neutral section) I am happy to support this users' candidacy for adminship. -
'''Support''' - Good editor; I'm pleased that your answers to the questions have been revised. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Answers could be a bit longer, but I don't see anything in them that is particularly troubling. I seem to recall encountering Jeepday a time or two, no complaints about anything I've seen from him. Mop up!
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, especially the one that always comes up about blocks and bans. Seems like a good editor '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' based on the answer to question 6.  Demonstrates the common sense an admin needs in one fell swoop and cuts to the heart of what a wiki actually is.  We are allowed to deliberately leave things for others to do.
'''Support''' not many concerns here.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor to me (my first RfA vote), so good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:BanRay|<font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''Ban'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Excellent user.
'''Support.'''
'''Changed to Support'''.  Answers to my questions, and clarification on Q4 have removed any doubts I had about this editor.  '''
No reason to oppose. Looks like a good editor.
'''Support'''. Looking through the user's talk page and contributions, the canidate seems to be well-reasoned, mature and has the ability of self-reflection. He also seems to have a good understanding of deletion policy. The answers also give me confidence that the net gain here will be positive. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Nom appears thoughtful and trustworthy. --
'''Yes'''. Good experiences with this user, and thoughtful janitors make good administrators.
'''Support''' A good user. --<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' He needs to be able browse deleted articles, and I believe he can be trusted to do so responsibly.  '''''
'''Support'''. Seems to have a clear need for the extra admin buttons and I'm sure wouldn't abuse them. --
'''Support''' Jeepday's answers seem bizarre: I've never seen anyone ask for admin tools primarily to view deleted revisions for the purpose of deletion review, but it is important.  The history of article contributions makes this an easy choice.
'''Support''' I misunderstood your response to question 6, ignore my comment under neutral, you have my full support!
'''Support''' The question isn't whether he "needs" the tools (nobody does - any non-admin can be a useful Wikipedian), the question is whether now that he's volunteered to do some extra work he can be trusted to do it.  It looks to me that he can.
'''Support''' Longer answers might have been better, but is still a good user. <strong>
'''Support'''.  The answer to Q5 is "discuss it with them on their talk page".
Support, appears trustworthy enough.
'''Support''' (insert standard text here involving surprise this editor isn't already an admin). I've encountered Jeepday on several wikiprojects, and feel the mop will not be abused. --
'''Support'''. The ArbCom run was premature, but my dealings with the candidate have shown him to be a sensible person who is willing to discuss things, and the admin roster needs people with that attitude.
'''Support''' Since everyone below is citing the answers as oppose rationale, my support rationale is- Excellent answer to Q6. :) But more seriously, appears to be thoughtful and sensible from a quick glance at contribs. -
'''Support''' Actually, I like the answers given - even the short forms. No pomposity. Past history establishes trustworthiness.
'''Support''' - fine experience, meets my standards, over 10 thousand edits. No concerns.
'''Support''' Great user, track record is fine. Questions don't matter much, lots of people have talked a good show and delivered nothing. Jeepday's record of actually doing stuff will hold him in good stead. Enough of the [[Mark Webber]] admins. '''
'''Support''' No concerns, and it was very noble to run for ArbCom. Here's my trust.
'''Support'''. Some answers are confusing, but I place my trust in you.
'''Support''' No evidence to suggest that the user will abuse or misuse the tools. [[
'''Support''', seems level-headed enough, I'm confident that they won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''' It's no big deal being an admin, and this candidate seems willing to be accountable to the community.  We need more of that quality in the admin ranks.  --
'''Support''', I have reviewed this user's contributions and I think they will make a fine administrator.  No admin is expected to be an expert on all policy matters right out of the gate - just make sure to ask lots of questions. --
'''Support'''. Changing from neutral. After reading this editor's contributions over the last few days, I think that even though I have issues concerning his experience, I don't see anything to suggest he will abuse the tools knowingly or unknowningly.
'''Support''' - Plenanty of experence. I am pleased to see that Jeepday is happy to not just jump into the deep end but insted build up gradualy in areas where he is less familar. <span style="border:1px solid #433">

Unsatisfactory answers. –
'''Weak oppose''' per initial answers to Q6 and Q7, lack of answer to Q5, minimal need for the tools, little anti-vandalism activity. --
'''Oppose'''. Answer to Q8 doesn't show a real need to become an admin. Q9 is a direct quote from [[WP:BP]] (though it may have been set up that way). Q5 also worries me. IMHO, you probably should ask the administrator their reasoning first before making any edits. Also, I find it hard to support users who completely change their answer to a question in response to a comment. Otherwise, you're a great editor. '''''
'''Oppose'''Excellent editor, does not  yet know much about what is involved in being an adminisrator. '''
Per DGG and ST47. The answers to the questions shows a lack of experience in administrative areas, especially dealing with BLP. Sorry. &mdash;
Oppose per answer to Q5. '''
I'm confused about the answer to Q5, seems like more experience is needed, sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Per NF24. --
'''Oppose''' Per NF24 also. --
'''Neutral''' Answer to [[User:Avruch|Avruch]]'s 3rd question yields my hesitation to vote one way or another. --
'''Neutral''' Leaning to support, but I find the answers to Avruch's questions to be quite unsatisfactory. However, this seems to be a well meaning editor who would be unlikely to abuse the buttons. I want to support, and am very much open to changing to support, and so I encourage Jeepday to elaborate a bit, especially on Qs 4-5. We need more than one sentence! :) BTW, I especially like the answer to Q1; generally I don't care for self noms, but this editor has given a very specific reason why he wants the tools, and I feel that his having them will benefit the 'pedia. I just want him to show that he really understands policy before going support. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose - <s>pending response</s> upon reply to my further question (5). The answer was not what I would have expected. Just discuss with the admin and repost in BLP/N would have been a simpler response. Why take a deletion of BLP material to DRV?
'''Neutral''' I'm really torn with this one; I would have liked to have seen more reasoned answers from the start, but I can see the reasons for that; OTOH, and this is nothing personal, candidate does not seem to be making the best case for himself. --'''
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' Lots to like, but I agree with [[User:Rodhullandemu]] that the candidate is not making a very clear case for himself. This lack of clarity is not enough on it's own to oppose, but other worries (clearly evidenced in the oppose section) are. However I do see many many positives as well, so Neutral it is. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I have to agree with [[User:Trusilver|Trusilver]] on this. I'd like to see the candidate get more experience re the need for the tools.
'''Neutral''' While I believe him to be a valuable editor, his responses to questions did not demonstrate clearly that he required administrative tools.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent candidate. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' Wow. Great article work, very trustworthy, mature editor, see no reason he would abuse the tools. '''<em style="font-family:BankGothic Md BT"><font color="Black">
'''Weak Support''' - I feel disappointed seeing 'Requests for' in the header. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as nom.  <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''', excellent article contribs, low on the drama scale as well.  I am just a little creeped out by the three similar signatures (candidate and both nominators).  Weirdness. ;)
'''Support''' - basically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' Wow, excellent article contributions -- much congratulations for that work! Everything seems excellent and I wish you continued success.
'''Support''' Co-nom by a b'crat? More article work in a day than what I've done in my life? Mediation? Gnome work? There's nothing not to like!
'''Support'''.  Spent about fifteen minutes going over your contributions, and while nothing jumps out at me as amazing, I didn't find anything I'd consider a major issue.  I'm confident in your ability to communicate with other editors, and I trust you [[WP:Don't delete the main page|won't do anything too stupid]] as an admin.  Since you don't have terribly many edits (from what I saw) to the areas you want to work in, I suggest easing into them.  If you ever need any advice, I'm happy to help or point you at someone who can (or be entirely clueless).  <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Seems sound to me. --
'''Support'''. - What I'm looking for. —
'''Support'''. - A reliable candidate.
'''Support'''. As noted, JGHowes is a good candidate, and I am impressed with the mainspace work I'm seeing. I concur that it'd be a good idea to tread lightly in the admin areas you're unfamiliar with, but I trust this candidate to exercise the appropriate caution. No worries.
'''Support''' &mdash; Almost "weak" because of a technicality on Q4, but I just couldn't do it. The candidate is experienced, knowledgeable, and an excellent content contributor. I see a plethora of good things in his contribs, and nothing too questionable. Just take note that you shouldn't decline the unblock request of a user you blocked, although I'm not sure you understood that you were supposed to be the blocking admin in that scenario. In any case, now you know. Don't be too unwilling to use the [[Template:2nd chance|2nd chance]] template either.
'''Support''' there were some areas where I wish you had a little more experience, but not enough so that I would oppose or even go weak.  Solid contributions and respect of the community.---'''
'''Support''' I went through some stuff, but nothing but positive things stick out. I think nothing bad will come of this '''
'''Support''' Have seen this editor around doing good work, and trust him with the tools. --
'''Support''' Per: '''
'''Support''' most definitely.
'''Support''' I have seen some great work at the Scouting WikiProject, and was unaware until now of the great depth of contributions JGHowes has done. Great demeanor and attitude. Willing to upgrade to '''Super Strong Support''' in exchange for a really good Blue Comet article that isn't about the Sopranos. '''
'''Support.''' Per {{user|Wizardman}}/{{user|Rlevse}}.
'''Support''' A broad track record of creating and improving articles, accompanied by broad-minded participation at XfD.
'''Support''' Naturally. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' due to constructive contributions indicated on candidate's userpage.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' Indeed.
'''Support'''.  I see nothing wrong here. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Candidate looks good to me. &mdash;
'''Support''' great user. —
'''Support'''. A good editor, who knows the issues and will react calmly to problems. He will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. JGHowes will be a competent and effective administrator, and can be trusted. Good luck,
'''Support''' —Seems to be a fine candidate. I see no reason to fear any tool misuse, which should be the most pressing concern (+sysop is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]], afterall).
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor, will make a fine admin.
'''Support.'''  Top-flight nominee.  —
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Support'''. Yes.
Yes, although i dont really feel safe in your small Cessna 310 - care to upgrade to say a 747 or an A380;)? '''''
'''Support''' Strong nomination statements, good answers, good contribs, good luck. --
'''Support''' No reason not to. &ndash;
'''Support''' Wikipedia should not be edited while flying an airplane.
'''Support''' per Julian. '''
'''Support''' - I like what I see. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' No reason for concern. Well-rounded editor and above average content writer, the project would only benefit from candidate's access to extra buttons.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. JGHowes has all the right qualities.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Answer his questions perfectly even the hard ones!
'''Support''' — Doesn't look like someone who would misuse the rights. —
'''Support'''. A little late chiming in on this one, but he's a solid contributor, plenty of mainspace work. Good experience in the project space as well. Looks good.
'''Support''' Wikipedia could always use more admins who are article-writers at heart.
'''Support'''-- Article writers are always a bonus. : ) --'''
'''Support''' - Looks like he'll be a good admin, and per the odd opposes below.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - per NYB.

NYB? Huh? Anyway, great candidate, thumbs up. --'''[[User:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="green">Meld</font></font>]][[User talk:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="red">shal</font></font>]]
'''Support''' - why not? --
'''Support'''  Have not found anything in the candidate's history that would make me believe that it would be a mistake to give them the tools.  Good luck!  --
'''Strong Support''' Six FA's, 6 GA's, 12 DYK's? Of course! Also per follow-up to Q6 and [[WP:WTHN]]. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. Normally when there's no opposition and plenty of support before I arrive, I don't bother to comment. However, in this case, I make an exception. JGHowes has the makings of my favorite type of administrator: the writing admin. Of course, there's [[User:S._Dean_Jameson/RfA_support_criteria|the usual reasoning as well]], with which JGH perfectly aligns, so this is an easy support. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]]
'''Support''' per the answer given to #6, and per his good contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Answers to questions are ''fantastic''. My fence sitting ended when your userboxes (particularly the 2nd and 3rd column) came and pushed me off.--
'''Support''' fine 'pedia builder., and minimal drama Cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Bottom line: I trust this guy with the admin tools. --—<i><b>—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - the candidate has done good content work.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Strong support''' per nom and Q4. Q7 made me smile, though. :-)
'''Support''' Loved answer to Q7. Good luck.
'''Support''' per Kurt Weber. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Strong support''' JGHowes has 6 FAs, 6 GAs, 12 DYKs, and more than 5,000 mainspace edits. I really appreciate his contributions.
'''Support''' - everything looks good here. :) &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Not really necessary to pile on at this point, but I've been particularly impressed with JGHowes thoughtful and reasoned approach to dealing with Wikipedia. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' due to constructive contributions indicated on candidate's history. --
'''Support''' The fact he's written 6 GAs, 6 FAs, and 12 DYKs is enough for me to support. <big>
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions. I don't think candiate will abuse the mop. <b><font color="green">
'''Support'''. See no issues here, and it's good to have a few more article creators as admins.
'''Strong Support'''. Intelligent, level-headed contributor. An asset to the community.
Good user.
'''Support''' - I see no problems here, you have my support. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]]  <sup>
'''Oppose''' per answer to #6...individual clearly puts so-called "policy" (which is in fact totally non-prescriptive and non-binding) ahead of his own best judgment.
'''Oppose''' Seems another WP policy drone, so I oppose.
'''Weak oppose''' - I take issue with an administrator using their real-life name or a clear derivative thereof as a username.
'''Neutral''' per Q4. I would advise the candidate to consider offering a {{tl|2nd chance}} template to IP/users who claim they want to contribute constructively and unblock if they respond well to it. Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap...constructive contributors are golden. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' - Outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' as a great candidate.
'''Support''' This guy has not been nominated before...why?
'''Support''' - one of the best candidates I've seen in a while. This guy should have had the tools ''long, long'' ago. --&nbsp; '''

'''Strong Support''' Very good candidate. <font color="3CBAEF" face="Vladimir Script">
'''edit conflict support''' - overdue for the tools.
'''Support''' - Had my run ins before with him, but he has always proved himself to be polite and reasonable.
'''Support''' Of course, my goodness.
I demand an answer to [[User:Trusilver|Trusilver]]'s question! <small>(support)</small> - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Strong support''' -A prime example of what an admin should be. John is a good coordinator of this project and like myself is attempting to address the problem of uneven coverage on wikipedia. He has set up some sort of wikiproject for practically every place on the planet including Vanuatu and Micronesia lol! How he could ever possibly have to time to be a project member of the hundreds + projects he's set up I don;t know lol but he's doing a great job. He is also skillful in intervening in difficult situations which is an asset to the project. I thought John was like myself and not in the bit interested in becoming an admin but I see not. Best of luck!
Of course
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Absolutely. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support''' Although I usually like to see editors with at least 80,000 edits apply.
Yep. &mdash;
'''Support''' Have seen him around... he's a dedicated, hardworking editor...soon to be admin with good reason.
'''Support''' A good, experienced, trustworthy editor. I'm sure he will use the tools well.--
'''Support''' A great candidate.
'''
Oh good god yes. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' - Yes, of course :-) - It's an honour to support such a wonderful contributor.
'''Support''' - Great candidate, and will make an equally great admin.
'''Strong Support'''. --
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  '''
'''Support'''. John is an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia and imho perfect admin material. I would happily have nominated him, and happily support now. --
'''Support''' Unbelievably good editor who will be an amazing admin.--
'''Support''' - Wow. Will make a great admin. :) [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Keilana'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
I've encountered Warlordjohncarter mainly at MfD and I have found him to be a civil, reasonable, and communicative user.
'''Support''' per being one of my [[User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Favorite_fellow_Wikipedians|favorite fellow Wikipedians]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. I have no reservations about John. He's well-qualified, very helpful and a great contributor. He will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - Wow! 74,000 edits! (thats not my reason for supporting). Great editor, shows extreme admin potential. Give em' the mop.
'''Support'''.  A fine editor, good contribs.  Wont' abuse the mop.
'''Support'''. The warlord without edit warring or any other kind, for that matter.
My goodness yes!
I thought you were an admin already (the last person I thought already was finished with 147/0/0, btw), '''support'''
'''Support''' A good contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per Nick Mallory (no 18).  Great candidate.
Amazing editor, I'm pleased to add to the pile-on. --'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
--
'''Support'''.  Great editor.
I am Assistant Secretary to the Chief at the [[WP:WikiProject Africa/Democratic Republic of the Congo work group]].  Warlordjohncarter is the Chief.  I strongly support him or he will send the secret police at my home to wait for me.  Just a joke.  But my '''support''' part is not a joke.
'''Support''' - great contributor -
'''Support''': Well-rounded contributor and answers to questions appeared to be honest and really quite refreshing.
'''Support''' Looks good. --'''
'''Support''' per clear understanding that the [[Simpsons]] clearly demonstrates notability.
'''Support''' a Wiki machine with 25 DYKs and a great user name?  An easy choice. <small>It's only a matter of time until somebody BLP's Tony Blair, isn't it?  Sigh...</small> --
'''Support.''' Great content contributor, as well as a great collaborator with others on many topics.
'''Usual Cliché''' Per nominator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Seen him around.  '''''
'''''<Cough>''' [[Spit take|Splutter]]'' - You're not an admin already? Colour me a hackneyed cliche. '''Strong Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' Oh yes, we are going to disagree at some times, but that is separate from his skills in maintaining Wikipedia. Good choice.
yes<font color="blue">
'''Support''' I swear I voted already...hmmm... Anyway, good job! <strong>
'''Oppose''', needs more Talk-space edits.
'''Support''' - Good luck John. I know that you are both dedicated and capable. -
'''Support''' There is no reason to oppose him. Super editor!!
'''Support''', as I can find no cause for concern in the candidate's considerable body of work. Best,
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' Great contributor, <s>great name<s>.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Thought he already was, etc., etc.
'''Solid support''' Ditto. How could he ''not'' have had the tools by now?
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I have gotten into quite a few very heated debates with John recently.  His comments about his temper (see questions above) are quite true... he does indeed have a short fuse on issues he cares about and when other editors reject his opinion on editing issues.  However, I do not think that these will affect his ability to be an effective admin.  He takes the rules very seriously (almost too literally)... and that would include not acting as an admin on articles in which he is an active participant in disputes.  On the brighter side, I have also seen him act as a neutral party to resolve the disputes of others, and there he is ''excellent''.  All in all, he is a fine editor, and giving him admin tools will be for the betterment of the project.
'''Sure''': Someone with this many old-school unassisted edits should probably be an admin unless they're manifestly unsuited. I don't see anything like that, so why not? '''
'''Definitely''' Why didn't you tell me about it? I would have co-nommed!--
'''Support''' Candidate could do the job blindfold, but I hope he won't, if appointed! --'''
As a former martian myself, I '''support''' this highly qualified editor. --
'''Strong Support.''' A very good contributing editor. Cheers!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on my experience of this user. Thanks,
Strong support. '''
'''Support''' I have no qualms whatsoever, go get 'em Johnny!
'''Support'''.  Absolutely - seen you around in many places doing good work.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Level-headed and fair. Although we do not always agree, I have seen enough to feel that placing my [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in his judgement]] will not go awry. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' Could this be the perfect candidate? So far, looks like it... everything I look for in an editor. Cheers.
'''Support''' As noted, many people have offered in the past to nominate this candidate. I am one of them.
Strong support, <s>but I don't particularly like the [[warlord]] part of your username</s>. '''
'''Support''' - it really does '''all''' read well.  The contributions, the approach and many of the preceding comments --
'''Support''' -- thanks for answering my questions.  Cheers!
'''Support''' -- easy decision.
'''Strong support''' - fantastic editor.  We need another admin who knows something about saints and has a sense of humor!
'''Strong support'''. '''''
'''Strong DYK Support''' '''
Piling on a good user was never bad. ·
'''very weak support''' was a little reluctant, bcauses of our previous issues at [[List of people who converted to Christianity]], but that is long over with, and you have proven yourself a good contributor, so I think I can look beyond that. '''
'''Support'''. It's about time. Help at DYK is always welcome!
'''Support''' - superb editor. Will use the tools well. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Oh, what the hell - he doesn't meet the [[User:Sarcasticidealist#On_RfAs|criteria under which I'll normally participate in an RfA]], but I can't resist a good (and evidently well-deserved) love-in.  [[WP:100]], here he comes.
'''Support''' - has always been a calm rational voice in any discussions I've seen him in.
'''Very firm support''' - from his responses (and credentials), I'm very confident that he will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Yes, of course. —
Thaught he was '''support'''
'''Support''' per VanTucky, although in a more under-stated British sort of way.
'''Support''' Helpful. <font face="Times New Roman"> <font color="#800000">[[User:Bmrbarre|Benjamin]]</font> <sup><font color="#000080">[[User talk:Bmrbarre|Scrīptum est]]
'''Support'''. Welcome to the [[WP:100]] league.
'''Of course''' '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support'''. obviously can be trusted. cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support''': for breaking the edit counter (user was renamed by the way, contribs link didnt work). --
'''Support''' enthusiastically. How are you not an admin already?
'''Support''' potential user.
'''Support''' - have encountered this user in several places around Wikipedia, and I trust him to use the tools properly.
'''Aye''' per the cliche.
'''Support''' - getting rid of the term "warlord" in user name is a good portent.
'''Support''' - I don't usually vote in these things, but I love the idea of admins who are energetic and knowledgeable about creating actual content.  This intelligent, prolific editor has my support.--
'''Support''' - I first came across this user creating new articles in a head category from which I had down-categorised nearly all the articles, but he had good reasons for it and explained fully and clearly why he was doing it and what he would do to support my efforts in future. I'd probably trust him with my life, and certainly with my encyclopedia. -
'''Support''' - Per [[WP:OUTRAGEOUSLANDSLIDE]]?
'''Support''' - seen around, very deserving of mop. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - I'm quite surprised that he is still not an admin despite that much edits. Certainly due for having the tools. Great contributions overall--
'''Support''' great track with over 74000 edits.
'''Support''' pending his return to [[WP:EH]] to work on the collaboration of the month. Or something. Obviously. -
'''Strong support''' - User is very experienced and knowledgeable, and seems to be fair-minded.  I think he'll do a good job as an administrator.
'''Support''' - I couldn't find a reason not to support if I tried.
'''Support''' Long service deserves reward.
'''Support''' - This could just tip things in your favour! A solid candidate
'''Support''' - Strong editor, experienced, knows policy, great admin candidate.
'''Support''' - very patient, level headed and likable answers to the endless questions. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' good show my friend. -
'''Support''' - I trust him. <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#02D3DA">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' - Certainly. --
'''Support''' - Could I have honestly said no? ;)
Finally, a candidate who has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart 100% rather then their own. Been a while since I've seen one of these :) Dedication and discretionary ability displayed in spades.
'''Support''' - Would be a fantastic <s>president</s> admin // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - 'crats: give him the tools!
'''Support'''.   This has been a long time coming.  And this support column is 32 KB long...;) <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''': Congratulations. -
'''Support'''. No concerns, and I do remember the [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] controversy. Since those days whenever I see John Carter weighing in on some issue I tend to assume that the advice will be sensible.
'''Support''' A fine editor, in my few interactions with him, and am sure he will be an excellent administrator.--
Indeed. '''
'''Support'''. Always calm, polite, reasonable and rational. What's not to like? --
Late '''Support'''.  And thanks for being a fine contributor. &mdash;
'''Support''' - good to see the warlord bit has dropped off - he has given great support for some very disparate projects and template issues -
'''Support''' I've seen some of his good work around, but with 75,000 edits I don't see how I could miss it. --
'''Support'''-I think all the comments above got pretty much what I have to say(this user should be a B'Crat by now!)--
'''Support''' - words are unnecessary. --
'''Support''' - very clearly.
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support'''. After a review of the candidate's [[Special:Contributions/John Carter|editing history]], I'm confident he meets the standards required of administrators.
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor, but rename of account with 75,000 edits caused the whole wiki to seize up for 10 minutes earlier today –
Strong candidate.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. Jonny-mt is certainly a suitable candidate with the skills to do the job. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good nomination, excellent answer to Q1 backed up by copius accurate deletion requests, civil and dedicated user, and not afraid to discuss contention issues in a calm, thoughtful and helpful way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:User_page&diff=prev&oldid=196671982]. Very much a '''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]]''' to Wikipedia with or without the buttons, and can only help out further when granted the tools. Good luck and Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support as nominator'''
'''Support''' As everyone said above I think that this is a strong candidate and would make a good admin --
'''Support''' - Excellent answers to questions, great contribs, seems civil and trustworthy to me.
'''Support''' Feel very comfortable with said candidate.
'''Support'''.  Actually, I'm secretly tempted to oppose because of his ''brilliant'' [[User:Jonny-mt/CSD|CSD notice]].  Have you read that?  I've read a lot of the "Why did you delete my page" subpages, this one is hands down the best I've ever seen.  Why would that make me oppose, besides the unworthiness I feel when comparing my own meager writings to his?  Because he's needed at [[WP:NPP|New page patrol]] tagging articles and welcoming new users.  I'm astounded at his level of patience.  If Jonny-mt promises to share his CSD page with anyone who wants it for NPP now that he's moving over to the [[WP:ADMIN|dark world of blocking and deletion]], he has my support. <small>(Actually, its under the free license, so I would say go steal it. Just give credit to J-mt when you do :-) Simply brilliant.) </small> [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' great candidate. Being willing to learn is always a great admin quality. <b>
'''Support''' - very strong candidate and per (most) of the above...Good luck! --
'''Support''' - great answers to questions, knows policy well, and knows how to do CSDs. --
'''Support''' - I almost extended my support before even looking at the candidate's contributions/edit count given their answers to the main questions were flat out superb. Hands down. Seems extremely knowledgeable about policy, and I am thoroughly convinced that there is a "snowballs chance in hell" that they would ever abuse the tools. Nice versatile participation as well.
'''Support''' I can see no good reason not to give this editor the mop.
'''Support''' I have come across Jonny-mt a number of times, most notably during the Boomgaylove saga. He's a calm, civil editor who demonstrates a clear knowledge of policy and its application. I have no hesitation in supporting this RfA. He'll do a great job.
'''Weak support'''. Answer to Q10 was a bit of a cop-out but other answers and experience pushes it over the line.
'''Support''' Definitely, great user, seen around a lot, great contribs, good luck with the mop!<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support'''- I've had a look at the contributions the user has made and they seem to be good at helping/assisting admins, he could do with the tools.
'''Support'''. Solid. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support'''.  Good candidate.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools, well rounded. <strong>
'''Support''' per, well, I agree with the above positive comments! —
'''Support''' Good disposition to questions. '''
'''Support''' Shows solid knowledge of policy (and an ability to look them up when need be). Diverse contributions. No propensity toward abuse or incivility, and certainly not a duck.
Good user.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Level-headed, reasonable, etc. Probably could use the accompanying pay raise, too. Admins get raises right? --'''
'''Support''' - Sure, why not?
'''Support''' - lots of pluses here: reasonable, thinks things through, levelheaded, dispute resolution skills; in general seems very capable and ready for the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good. --'''
'''Support'''' - Candidate is OK, no reason not to support. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support:'''  Meets my unwritten criteria, that's enough for me.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Editor seems to know what he/she is doing. Strong candidate.
'''Support''' [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|~いいですね?]]
'''Support''' Sensible answers, nice chap. Normally I expect more experience and more article-writing/DR but his calming involvement in the troublesome Hawaii Kingdom-related articles, which I keep one wary eye on, demonstrate that he has the right instincts anyway.
Very strong support. Excellent contributions. ''
'''Support'''  Track shows no concerns.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' Why didn't this happen sooner? Invaluable user.
'''Support''' He could use administrative tools. I say go for it! <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px">'''
'''Support''' There is no reason to oppose this user. Good luck.
'''Support'''.  An editor with 5000 edits certainly deserves to become an Administrator.
'''Ridiculously strong pile-on support'''. Mop. Now. This guy. Here.
'''Oppose''' This user is a very experienced editor and he knows far more about wikipedia than me. <small>Yes, the oppose at the start of this vote is a joke!</small> <span style="color:green"> '''
'''Support''' - I like the answer to the question about Admins open to recall. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' Like the answer about reverting other admins. <i><b>
'''Support''' - solid answers, good experience with user.
'''Support''' In the 2000+ user talk edits, there is more than enough evidence of civility, friendliness, and a desire to help others. The editor also exhibited a sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines. I am reasonably certain that this user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment can be trusted]] to be exercised in a manner that will enhance the project. Good Luck! --
Did I not yet support Jonny-mt? How dare I!!! '''Super strong support'''! Congrats, Jonny. ;) –The
'''Support'''.  Approaching perfection.--
'''Support'''. Strong answers to the Qs.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Overall contribution seems good--
Good answers and solid contributions in such a short amount of time.  –'''
I see several good reasons to support this contributor, and absolutely no reasons to oppose.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' See no issues here. '''
'''Support'''. Good judgement, very friendly :).
'''Support''' Trustable, no concerns. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
--
'''Support''', definitely, I've been impressed with his great work at the Hawaii project. --
'''Okidoki''' - Answers to questions imply no risk of abused tools. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' - net positive by sysophood. good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Pile on support'''. As Keeper76 said, [[User:jonny-mt/CSD|this]] is simply brilliant. No worries about this editor's ability to communicate with frustrated users.--
'''Support''' - an excellent editor who is more than ready for the tools. --
'''Support'''. Although I was debating Opposing just so it wouldn't be unanimous :). [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Oppose''' This just smells fishy... &mdash;  <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size: 14pt">
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Strong Support''' I really liked '''all''' of Jonny-mt's answers. I think this user will be a really good admin.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' Yes a strong candidate, really good answers and experienced. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Great editor.
'''Support''' Clearly no concerns here. -
'''Oppose''' :) Only joking, a definite '''Support''' this guy clearly knows what he is doing, good luck to him. [[Special:Contributions/211.30.169.132|211.30.169.132]] (
'''Support''' I do worry that he only has 25% of his edits in mainspace, but that's not a fatal objection.--
'''Support!''' —
'''Support'''.  The ideal Wikipedian.  &mdash;
'''Beat-the-nom support'''; specialist admins are okay, and this candidate has no warning bells attached.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Absolutely''' Go help that backlog at WP:RM.  good candidate.
'''Support'''.  Definitely.  —
'''Support'''. I've seen this editor in action over at [[WP:RM]] and I respect his work.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support''' - Specialist candidate.
'''Support''', Most Definitely.
'''Support'''. I see no problems.
'''Strong support''' - I run across this user frequently via his G6 tagging for requested page moves and have always found his work to be accurate, clueful and per consensus. [[WP:RM]] and Wikipedia in general can only benefit from JPG-GR getting the bit.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose really, although the issue bought up by Aude is somewhat concerning I don't really find it too concerning to the point where there's evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools, which is what I do care about when considering RfA candidates. We all have our learning experience and I think the user will learn from it.
'''Support''' Already knows how to handle the backlog, why don't we give JPG-GR the tools to help out more? per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - While not perfect (who or what is?), I liked a fair part of your answers, and my quick look over your edit history didn't ring any alarm bells. And from what I can tell you have a fairly good handle on consensus. We simply need more admins who understand that it's about weighing arguments, and not about counting "votes". -
'''Support'''. A fine candidate.
'''Support''' Clearly a specialist in a sorely under "staffed" area that we urgently need to grant the bit to. Also the answer to Q7 was particularly pleasing - an excellent attitude / outlook. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yes, we need more page movers, always more people moving pages, the faster the better </sarcasm> '''
'''Support''' - We need more admins in this area, but I'd like to see email enabled. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''. Looks like a fine hard-working candidate willing to take on tedious duties. I read the opposition by Aude, and while I can understand the annoyance, it is mostly a result of someone trying to work efficiently, not a lapse in judgment.
Excellent moving work. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Looks good from what I can see and I think specialist candidates are fine. After all, we are all specialists in some area of admin work that we take part in and that is no bad thing. He does what he knows best to do and I am more than happy to support him to continue doing it - just a bit more effective. And as for the oppose, well, the candidate said he would learn from it. That's good enough for me. Also, I like the answer of Q7, admins need a bit of humor ;-) '''
'''Strong support''' - I assumed he already was one, he behaves professionally and manages janitorial tasks few want to bother with.
'''Support''' net positive. Cheers,
''' Support''' Great track has been around since Aug 2006 and over 19000 mainspace edits with over 40000 overall.
'''Support'''. Good track record as Pharoah says above; help always needed at RM. In response to the email 'situation', I agree - even if it means setting up a separate email address for the wiki (as I have done) it shouldn't be a problem.
What Sjakalle and Orderinchaos said.
'''Support''' great amount of experience, I also like how he didn't jump immediately into an RfA when first approached. --
'''Support''' Seems good to me
'''Support''' i like the idea of specialist administrators and this one should be good at what he sets out to do.
'''Support''' Wizardman nominated; 'nuff said. &ndash;
'''Support''', why not.  But please enable email :)
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support'''. An excellent all-around contribution record, both in mainspace and projectspace, good answers to the questions, good judgement and attitude. Will definitely be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' an excellent contributor. Plus a sensible signature, containing just the right amount of capital letters, I'll overlook the hyphen.
'''Support''' Great all-around. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' I thought he was one until a requested move both he and I were involved in. Deals with all moves I can remember, and does the menial and boring tasks like filing problematic requests, moving requests around, etc. Very dedicated editor in need of the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' - I trust Wizardman's judgment as well as many of those in support. I'm not moved by the opposes.
'''Support''' I offered to nominate him back in August. Good to see he's accepted. --
'''
'''Support'''. Quite impressive. And [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] needs another responsible admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' - For sure.
I see this user's work regularly in my editing, and I trust his judgement.  Having administrative tools should make his work easier and thus improve the encyclopaedia.  Furthermore I have seen nothing whatsoever to make me suppose that he would misuse these extra abilities.
'''Support''' Seems good to me. —
'''Support''', no problems that I can see - really looks like you could make effective and competent use of the admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' ''5000'' page moves!? Wikipedia (especially [[WP:RM]]) will definitely benefit from giving this editor the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. Most definitely.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|it's no big deal]].--
'''Suppport''' per Caspian Blue! Usually, I hate it when people !vote to support based upon an !vote in the oppose... but the reasoning that Caspian Blue uses to oppose is the exact reasoning that I would use to support!  You don't have to have the tools to be an admin, and if JPG is acting like an admin and seen as an admin, then it is about time that we grant him a title he already wears!---'''
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' "I thought he already was" :) --
'''Oui''' - Je voudrais un JPG-GR pour le mode d'administrateur, s'il vous plait.
'''Support''' - he would clearly benefit from being given the tools, and wikipedia would benefit if he were given the tools. -
'''Support''' User does not appear as if he would abuse the tools. --

Hello, I am taking pre-med classes with the University of Phoenix Online and I was practicing my gastric bypass surgery lessons on my brother-in-law, and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here:  '''Support''' for an editor who knows how to operate!
'''Support''' would be a good specialist admin.--
'''Support.'''  The username is familiar to me from {{tl|db-move}} requests in [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|CAT:CSD]], and I grew to appreciate this editor's conscientious handling of such requests.  I think the project as a whole will benefit from supplying JPG-GR with the full toolkit. —
'''Support''' - Excellent grasp of policy and how to apply it, and more importantly how not to. Granting the tools is a clear net benefit to the project.
'''Support'''. You've obviously managed to piss off at least one editor, but given the amount of work you've done in that area, and your overall edit count, it would be truly amazing if nobody opposed you. I'm not dismissing his complaint, and you don't seem to do that either, but pile-on support is in order.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Caspian blue. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''': </noinclude><small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' really good answers to the above questions! '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support.''' [[Wikipedia:WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support.''' - Because of big, positive contribution.
'''Support'''  In the disputes I've seen JPG-GR in, I've been generally impressed with the way he carries himself.
I almost never pile on, but since Sadalmelik went to the trouble of helping me find my previous interaction with JPR-GR, I'll support based on the fact that (a) my two previous minor interactions were positive, (b) obviously knows what he's doing, and (c) not a drama queen. --
'''Support''' - You mean he isn't one already? ''
'''support''' - My sentiment exactly. I see JPG-GR cleaning up so many RM's, I thought they already were an admin.
'''Support''' - per support votes number one through seventy. ;) <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' - I see no legitimate reason to oppose, and JPG-GR has showm a respectable dedication to this wiki, so, as I said, support.
My first "The user isn't already one?" support in a long while.
'''Support''' - Extensive positive edits and 1337 skill, nice work! -
'''Support.''' Per nom by {{user|Wizardman}} and answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to this project. '''
'''Support''' Candidate is willing to work, presents (to me, at least) no reason for concern that tools would be misused, and (per Q7) seems to have a solid understanding of what [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] really means. Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems here. Dedicated and competent.
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|moving]] this candidate to [[Wikipedia:List of administrators]].
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Don't often weigh in on these discussions (only once before, as far as I can remember), but I've seen this user around WPRS and I like the cut of their jib. I'm also in favour of anyone who's inclined toward the low glamour, high backlog tasks.
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]], we need more editors like this.
'''Support''' – but, please take the advice of the [[User:aude|first]] "oppose" voter to heart.  Thank you.
'''Support''': Dedicated in his areas of interest. No concerns except for not having an userpage than merely a redirect to the talk page --
'''Strong Support''' per Caspian Blue. *snorts* Can't see any chance the tools would be misused. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Strong Support''' Excellent candidate.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' I always thought he was an admin. --
'''Support''' will be fine. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —

'''Strong Support''': The candidate is dedicated and well experienced, and giving him the tools will be nothing but beneficial to Wikipedia. As for the opposes, I tend to accept the first one as a honest mistake. And I'll take the second one as a sign that he will do well as an admin.
'''Support''' - We need more admins specializing in specific areas of wiki, and admins willing to clear some of those massive backlogs :) --'''
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked after making tens of thousands of contributions.  --
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' &ndash; I have seen him around doing some good work. I like most of this editor's answers and contributions. Will be fine as an administrator. &ndash;
'''Support''' <font color="#708090">
'''Support'''. JPG's performance in the move arena suggests he has precisely the work ethos we as a project should covet in any Administrator. <span style="font-family: Garamond;">
'''Oppose''' - I am concerned about how JPG-GR handles the [[WP:RM|requested moves]] page.  On September 23, I  added a move request tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=240380639] to the talk page of the [[Islamic terrorism]] article.  JPG-GR came by 18 minutes later and removed the tag from the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism&diff=next&oldid=240380639], with the edit summary "rm move request template - page not listed at WP:RM", because I hadn't yet added it to the requested moves page.  Clearly a requested move was intended by my adding the tag, and removing it was impolite.  I'm sure it was unintended, but JPG-GR also blanked most of the page along with removing the tag.  Instead, the thing to do would be to add my request to the [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] or leave a note on my talk page, or be patient.  Please remember that [[Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]] and don't trounce on other users for procedural mistakes or not following the three requested move steps quick enough.  Such actions only frustrate other users and have the potential to drive away contributors.  Removing the requested move tag from the article talk page was enough of a problem, but easily reverted.  Although admin actions are mostly reversable, more damage can be done.  Speedy deletions, which JPG-GR appears interested in handling, is one area where being too quick and focused on process, can be a problem (see [[Frog Legs Rag]] which was subject of a recent [[Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_34|Not the Wikipedia Weekly]] episode). I don't like opposing anyone at RFA, but given my experience, I'm not ready to trust JPG-GR with the admin tools. --
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' <s>(a little leaning toward neutral)<s> I thought the candidate is already an admin because closing heated [[WP:RM]] discussion is mostly taken care by admins. --
'''Neutral''' - I would like to support the candidate, but I just have this gut instinct telling me not to. Not too sure what the reasons are myself, but instead of commiting myself to either of the two camps, I'll just sit pretty here for a while, until I change my mind. [[User:Blooded Edge|<font color="DarkOrange" face="">'''Blooded'''</font>]] [[User talk:Blooded Edge|<font color="#FF4500" face="">'''Edge'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' as nominator. ♬♩
'''Support.''' Juliancolton has done some outstanding work.
'''Support'''. Another on my short list that definitely deserves the tools.
'''Weak Support''' Yes, definitely. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Change to weak per this quote: "''Endorse block, possible ban. Kurt has shown bad behavior, poor judgment, incivility, and most of his comments, posts, and RfA !votes are solely to prove a point. We welcome good-faith contributors, but Kurt was anything but, and was clearly not here to build a better encyclopedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)''" Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. Good user, and I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. Julian has done some great work here, and I definitely trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''.  Just looked through your diffs (I see you everywhere).  You are an excellent and clueful writer, you understand the work that goes into creating ''and'' maintaining articles.  Your FA work and your huggle/vandal work attest to your dedation to a clean ''and'' accurate product.  I focused my research into you on your "Wikipedia:" edits and your "User:talk" edits.  You come across as intelligent and civil, huge assets that are hard to come by - you seem to possess them naturally.  Excellent candidate HH, simply excellent.
Good luck. i really hope you pass this time! &mdash;'''
Wow. Yes. Your friend <big>'''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Eddy]]
Might well hit [[WP:100]] - maybe in the 120's?
'''Suppport''' based on my own check of the contribution history, including recent talk page comments and warnings to other editors, and the fact that the nominator opposed this candidate twice previously.
'''Support''' — Twelve FA/Fl? Wow. I'll support pending no major opposes just for that :) —'''
<s>'''Oppose''', imitates me on IRC.</s> (just kidding) '''Support''' – Besides fantastic mainspace contributions, I think that Juliancolton has enough quality experience at AIV and AfD to make good decisions and use the tools well. I've also followed a lot of his interactions with others, and he has consistently demonstrated civility and level-headedness, which is essential for an admin. I don't have any concerns here, and really have to agree with what Keeper said. Good luck with your mop!
'''Support''' based on the fact that every single dealing I've had with Julian has been pleasant & positive and he is clearly committed to improve Wikipedia.  His promotion would be a clear net gain for the project.
'''Support''' Hello, can i get a fake ID?  I need it for going...damn, wrong queue.  Seriously, this one's for you, bud ;) <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' All of my interactions with Juliancolton and his contributions make me believe he is mop-worthy.
'''Support''' — superb content contributions, excellent contributor, civil, and insightful. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' has a great deal of clue and his mainspace contributions are quite impressive. I cant say that I am that particularly pleased with his AfD !voting as the majority of it comes in the form ''per [[WP:X]] and [[user:Y]]'' (eg.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GFV&diff=prev&oldid=239277768][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Wooten_(trooper)&diff=prev&oldid=239276834][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glamper&diff=prev&oldid=239277304][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rio_Grande_(Legend_of_Galactic_Heroes)&diff=prev&oldid=238617115]), sometimes within a minute of his previous edit, but occasionally he does make more insightful votes which seem show show that he does know how to think critically during an AfD, even if he does not often exercise that ability. - '''
'''Support''' You mean to say that you ''aren't'' an admin?!?!  And I've been nice to you all these months thinking you were. ;)  I support any candidate whose demeanor leads me to believe that they already had the mop almost automatically.
'''Support''' - Surely.
'''Absolutely'''. '''''
'''Strong support''' ''(ec)'' user has brilliant contributions to the enecylopedia--
'''Strong support''' per my nothing but excellent experiences with this user. We need more admins with a sense of humor! ;) Oh an per Jamie! <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Why not Support'''.
Definitely '''support'''.  Committed, responsible, can be trusted with the additional tools.
'''Support'''. A strong overall record and the AfD concerns from the previous RfA have been addressed.
'''Support''' per all the above.
'''Strong Support''' Good interactions with user on RfA(Or is my memory faulty...:P)--
'''Support''' It says a lot when editors who opposed in his previous 2 RFAs are now supporting and one is the nominator. --
'''Support''' definally. Does good work at AfD, also good article building at [[WP:WPTC]].
I was wondering just the other day if you were going to run for RfA - this is a pleasant surprise. From all I've seen of Julian's editing he is nothing less than civil, helpful, and hard-working. Obviously trustworthy. '''
...wait, so Julian ''wasn't'' an admin already? I'm not just invoking the cliche, for the very first time, I honestly thought that the candidate already was an admin.
'''Support''' - nice contributions. <small>
'''Support''' - On every occasion I have interacted with Julian there has been a consistent and refreshing positivity in his attitude. Through observation, he is thorough is most areas and when editing has insight, exploring every possible avenue of possibility; the opportunities for wikipedia once he becomes an admin, are endless. A great candidate.
'''Support''' Oh, and give him a real life already! He does so much work here, thousands of edits and I have not seen a bad one. '''
'''Support''' Without question one of the best editors on Wikipedia. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''': Excellent. —
'''Support''' Will be a net positive to the Community.  Good luck!<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and has more than enough experience, I believe. Best of luck, &mdash;
'''Support''' Easily has enough experience (more than 20,000 edits) to be an admin. Also, 5 FAs and 5 FLs are incredibly impressive. I'm surprised that no one nominated him before.
'''Support''' - Good contribs on the cyclones articles among other places. And since Hurricanehink nominated you, here is my trust.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' - nothing but awesome interactions with this user.  Will definitely be a net positive to this community.
'''Support''' Lookin' good <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' Juliancolton has been an amazing contributor to the project. Deserves it. Good luck!
'''Support''' Seen him in action, is trustworthy. '''
'''Support'''.  Julian really blows me away with his contributions :D  Also, he is friendly and stern in cases where he needs to be and can tell the difference.
'''Support''' Going through Juliancolton's contributions extensively, I think he has done good work in a number of different administrative areas and I like the fact that he is active in WikiProjects, GA noms, and AfD discussions. He has ''written'' nicely for a number of articles, too. Juliancolton uses Huggle extremely effectively, but Huggle edits are not his most substantive contributions. Some edits I saw at the beginning of my search are particularly noteworthy for being typical of minor edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_temba] (spot on), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_Storm_Miriam_(2006)&diff=prev&oldid=238922333], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Harry_Potter/archive3&diff=prev&oldid=237561531], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tivoli,_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=237084265]. I see no reason why not. <span style="font: 13pt 'Arial';">«</span>&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' I find this editor trustworthy enough to use the tools.
'''Support''' Definitely. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' - I've came to know this guy pretty well. Brilliant article work with the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject, level headed and I have the utmost trust in him. Will make a great admin.
'''Strong Support''' As Julian's admin coach, I believe he is a highly trustworthy candidate for adminship. I planned on co-nominating Julian, but due to my busy schedule, I couldn't find the time to write a nomination statement. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
Hello, I'm Dorothy from Kansas and I'd like to sell the Tin Man for scrap metal -- oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here -- '''Support''' for a great editor.  (Say, is there a circus around here where I can sell the Cowardly Lion?).
'''Support''' Excellent editor, should do a great job with the tools. --
'''Support'''. User has matured very well.
'''Strong Support''' Very trustworthy user, who does great work. —
'''Support''' - no worries the user would abuse the tools. Only concern is that admin duties might take him away from creating more hurricane FACs... oh, wait. Nevermind, no concerns at all!
I've found him to be quite reasonable, and as an added bonus, he's good at writing articles. '''Support.''' —
'''Support''' he has the one feature I find the most important in an admin candidate, he is already an admin.  He acts like one and has the trust of the community that an admin needs, thus going through an RfA is only a formality to give him a title that he already deserves.  In other words, wow, I thought you were an admin.---'''
'''Strong Support''' - I support his adminship all the way. He's made many valuable contribs, has a good attitude, and I know that he is also skilled at keeping his cool. Sure, he may have a couple faults behind him, but, don't we all? -<nowiki>[[Ryan]]</nowiki> <sup> (
'''Strong Support''' I've been waiting for this one. I would have offered to nom/co-nom, but I suck at writing noms. Balloonman pretty much sums it up: Julian already ''is'' an admin. All we need to do here is make it "official".
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I've admired the candidate's contributions for some time. Julian works well with others and knows policy. He will make a great admin.
'''Cold Support''' - per me having a horrible, wretched, and disgusting cold. <small>Oh and this user [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|will be a great admin]].</small> --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support'''. Better answers this time round. Julian has a better understanding of the deletion process.
'''Support''' per all the other comments. ''
'''Srong Support''' He wasn't one already? Give him the mop! <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''So strong support that I have broken a tv with the strongness'''
'''Support.''' I've asked about 10 people to help me some time ago, this guy was the only one who helped me. And he did it during the next few hours and he did it very well. Except for that I can see that his work on Wikipedia is better than excellent. It is admin-like. Cheers--
'''Support''' This is one user I have witnessed grow from the beginner that we all start out as, to a very mature and experienced editor. I can speak from my experiences of working with this editor at [[WP:TROP]] that he has the ability to learn, and more importantly the ability to learn from his mistakes. This is undoubtedly a vital skill and one that will serve JC well in his tenure as an admin. I wish him good luck with the tools. '''
'''Support''' 100%! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
I'm
'''Support''' - no-brainer support. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom and article work. This user has a [[WP:CLUE]] (even when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diary_of_a_Camper&diff=next&oldid=234131324 I don't]).
'''Support''' Somebody worth trusting.--
'''Support''' - Of course. Good luck,
'''Support''' seems to have a good grasp.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. ·
'''Support''' (can't think of anything else to say) --
'''Suppport''' Seems Fine To Me :)
'''Support''' - Julian is an excellent editor and would be an excellent admin. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
<s>'''[[Cabal|Cabal Support]]'''</s> ahh '''[[WP:TINC|There is no cabal]]''' support \o/ ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong Support'''.  Sorry, but I didn't have internet access, or I would have nommed.  Congrats! :) <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Of course! Though, candidate has no chance. Just kidding.
Yes.
'''Strong Support''' - Per all the comments above. ~~ '''[[User:ComputerGuy890100|ĈĠ]]''' [[User talk:ComputerGuy890100|☺]] <sup>
'''Support''': Hard to believe there are so many votes in such short time. --
'''Strong support'''  A very hard worker thats made so many contributions. -<small>
'''Support''' - good Wikipedian merits the tools.
'''Support''' clearly a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' per last time (co nom). '''
'''Support''' This user. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support'''. Recent interactions with and observations of this candidate lead me to being very pleased to support.  A definite net positive to Wikipedia!  --
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support'''. I am a bit worried by statements like his answer to question 6, i.e. assertions along the line that "Wikipedia is perfect". I can understand his reluctance to state anything that is wiki-politically controversial, which also may explain his answer to 7. On the other hand, based on answers to 8 & 11, Julian doesn't seem prone to applying WP:Rules without careful consideration of the context, so I think he'll do fine as an administrator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''  - despite weak answer to q6.  '''
'''Support''' -- a bit opinionated, but highly qualified and meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' per many of the above. A fantastic user who can do well with a few extra tools. I've read the opposes, but they don't concern me. '''
'''Support''' No reason for alarm, I believe the project will benefit from candidate's access to extra buttons.
'''Support'''.  Writes featured articles, no history of problematic behaviour.
'''Support more enthusiastic than anyone else's could possibly be'''. Although we've never met in person, Julian and I live in the same region of New York and often edit articles on many of the same subjects, some of which (OK, two state roads) have reached FA. I have been impressed by his skill, dedication and patience, particularly in taking on the responibilities of being ''de facto'' coordinator of [[WP:HVNY|WikiProject Hudson Valley]]. Julian is a deserving candidate for adminship; Wikipedia needs people like him with the tools. I would feel remiss if I had not added my support and he got them, which looks very likely.
'''Support''' because Juliancolton will be an excellent. I don't feel Juliancolton is very likely to prove to be inept or the like.
'''Support'''.  Congratulations.--
'''Support'''. :D ≈ '''
'''Support'''. FA writer, see no serious issues here.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' : Prince of editors, I have to trust you with the tools. One of the biggest things I learnt from my experience in wiki is to control impatience. If somebody has similar concerns about it for you, prove them wrong. But don't hesitate to 'block a malicious vandal' ! Let not the extra button hamper your writing skills. Best wishes. --
'''Support''': Even from very limited interactions, I have a very positive impression of Julian. Adminship is no big deal, especially for someone who so clearly shows good judgment. I do find Erik the Red's concern a tad troubling, and would be interested if Julian cares to comment. But it's not nearly enough for me to oppose; I don't believe there's anything approaching a pattern along these lines. Keep up the good work, and thank you using your real name in editing Wikipedia -- may many others follow your example :) -
'''Pile-on Support'''. A very rare thing from me indeed.
I don't see any serious obstacles. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' - for all your hard work including multiple FA's and GA's --'''
'''Strong Support''' seems to be a very good editor  look at those FA anominations ;)
'''Support''' From all appearances, a well-rounded experienced candidate. &mdash;/
'''Support''' Good editor, good answers, good admin potential. Good luck! ;-)
'''Support''' - one of those folks who should have been given the bits donkeys ago. ——
'''Support''' Good editor, helper and good person. No major reasons not to support in my eyes. <font color="blue">'''
'''Weak support''' as likely to do a fine job as admin and trustworthy.  Do take to heart the concerns about acting a little quickly brought up in the opposition, though, particularly when you are tasked with determining consensus.  Cheers,
'''Support'''I have no doubts that this editor will use the tools wisely. <strong>
'''Support''' My interactions with the candidate have been positive and I don't have any concerns. '''
'''Support'''. Impressive mainspace edits. -
'''Support''' - I find myself very rarely supporting admin candidates these days, but I am happy to support this one, I mean finally not a "anti-vandalism only" candidate. I just hope that the admin tools will not get in the way of all of his great article work.
'''Support''' Everything that I have seen is good and article contributions are excellent. Opposes don't worry me because I don't think to Julian will be involved much in these areas very much. I hope that you don't end up using the tools much but you keep your focus on improving articles. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Congratulations''' - per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support'''. All Seems good to me. - -
'''Support''' Certainly trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
&mdash;
'''Support''' levelheaded, would be an excellent addition to the admin pool. <font face="Verdana">
'''support''' not that my vote is needed at this point.... <b>
'''Support''' I read all the RfAs but don't pitch in as I'm new 'round here :).  Seeing as my opinion in this case (a solid yes) has proved very nearly unanimous, I feel it's safe to add my support, albeit late and unneeded!
'''Support''' I've interacted with Julian at FLC and IRC. Both places he has proved himself kind, courteous, and helpful. He'd be a great addition to the list of admins.
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason he shouldn't be an admin. &nbsp; '''
Excellent candidate.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' I'm new here, but seeing your interview and you're contributions, I think you'd make a great editor, though I don't exactly agree to you on question 6.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Sure. Wikipedia builder with a big footprint. Will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' have done some work with Julian in the NRHP project and elsewhere, no issues. Seems like a solid editor. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Support''' &ndash; Very dedicated and trusted editor to Wikipedia. Has done a lot to help Wikipedia, and has definitely improved from his last RfA. Will do just fine as an administrator. The opposes brought up below don't concern me, therefore, I support. &ndash;
'''Support''' Best candidate I've seen in some time.
Excellent candidate, I'm pleased to support. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support.''' An excellent positive contributor to many areas of the project. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' - One of the most able candidates I have seen in months. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as a patient and approachable candidate.
'''Strong support''' great user. '''
'''Strong support''' Very good article writer, knows what he's doing, etc. etc.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Definitely trusted, would be a good admin. --
'''Support'''.  Candidate does seem a wee bit block happy, and his XfD votes can seem a little drive-by and shallowly considered, but overall I think he's a big net win for the admin camp.  And I think he's responsible and responsive enough to take to heart editors' (comparatively minor) concerns here and improve in these areas.  Good luck.
'''Support'''. No concerns here. '''
'''Support''' Appears extremely unlikely to use the tools inappropriately.
'''Support''' Yep, he's ready.
'''Support'''. I'm very glad I didn't miss this RfA. This user has contributed a huge amount of work and encyclopedic value to the project, especially within the scope of tropical and non-tropical cyclones in particular. Also does all that work in an incredibly short amount of time. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Stronger support''' - Being of Julian's best friends, its hard not to vote. I know him well, and he knows all policies well. Even though I wanted to do the nomination, Hink beat me to it.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Oppose'''. Julian seems to be impatient at times. That's not a big deal, but when a prospective admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones&diff=prev&oldid=239382833 declares a consensus] one hour after a discussion starts, on a issue that is not time critical (and develops further in multiple directions) its worrying. I'm concerned he may act too fast on the speedy delete finger, close discussions early and so on generating needless drama. A lack of understanding of the [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Isabel eye|etiquette surrounding images]] is also an indication of things left to learn.--
'''Oppose''', <s>I am sorry, but I don't think Juliancolton has the right mindset to be an admin. He threatened (on IRC) to withdraw this RfA due to the above oppose, which indicates that he's unable to handle opposition and resistance well enough to be able to fulfill his admin duties without generating drama. I sincerely dislike opposing an excellent article writer, but keep in mind that there is no need to be an admin to continue writing articles.</s> I also agree with Nilfanion's concerns regarding impatience, and he also does seem a little too block happy (potentially related to the aforementioned impatience). --
'''Oppose'''. In the question I asked, he basically recited policy. It seems obvious that he just chose the "correct" answer, for the sake of becoming an admin. He has yet to learn that adminship is not a trophy, and not something one can get merely be reciting policy.
'''Neutral''' - may be a little to block happy[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juliancolton/Admin_coaching#Practices_2], however I am assuming the candidate has learned in the months since then so no oppose from me. --
I have been impressed with Juliancolton's work at FAC and his knowledge of content policies.  I am concerned, however, that he is an active user of IRC.  I am a firm believer that wikipedia should be policied from wikipedia, and I hesitate to give the tools to someone who does not necessarily see the same value in that. I will not oppose because Julian and I were on opposite sides of [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_Featured_content_IRC_channel|an IRC-related dispute]] yesterday, and that conflict of interest means it is not appropriate for me to do so.
'''Support''' Per my nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' ostensibly per the nominators. I have checked the contribs and links and they seem to be very civil and a great article writer. We need more admins of this calibre.
'''Extremely Strong Support''' For the reasons the nominators give. Jza84 isa wonderful article builder, and his possession of the tools will enhance his abilities in that area. Because he has been actively writing articles for so long, it is inevitable that he will have been in disagreements: indeed, it would be almost suspicious if he had not been. In every case that I am aware of, his behaviour during these disagreements was civil whilst being firm and searching in his ability to reach the best decision for the matters under discussion, or, in other words, impeccable. In terms of his behaviour if he gets the tools: the behaviour he has shown so far makes me think it is certain that he will not misuse them, but will use them wisely and with the main purpose always in mind&ndash;the building of a good encyclopaedia by collaboration and discussion with others. His own work in this aim will certainly be enhanced by possession of the tools, and that will be good for all of us.
'''100% Support''' - This user is a pleasure to work with: He is a good article builder, voluntarily does article reviews and keeps a cool head at all times! Best of luck!--
'''Strong Support''' Strong article writer, is wonderfully civil, put short, no problems I can see. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' - Writes a damn good article.  I've seen him in action calming the stormy waters and explains his reasoning very well.  He would be an asset to the sysop-hood.
'''Support:''' fantastic editor, no concerns from me <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - this is the sort of editor that has built Wikipedia's best articles. Looks very capable of using admin tools without issue. '''<font color="black">
'''Support''' : ''I don't "patrol" the more sexy or even (dare I say) trendy (but of course, vital) corners of Wikipedia, like say WP:AFD or WP:IFD. Instead, I'm a servant to the WikiProjects I work with, and I put myself at the disposal of those great teams. '' -- Do I need any other reason to support you ?. I really appreciate people who wants to create and improve articles and not just tag articles for deletions. I support Admins with a ''mop'' in one hand and a ''pen'' in another hand. You are [[WP:BOLD|Bold]] and a great editor. Best of luck -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Support'''.  No problems here.  Good article editor who knows and understands policy.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I have worked with Jza84 and seen him in action on some other pages.  No problems.
'''Support''' A very devoted Wikipedian. I don't usually support candidates without much admin-related experience, but Jza84 has shown he's very capable and willing to develop his skills in a responsible manner. I've seen him make great improvements to his conflict-resolution skills over the past year.
'''Support''' A good editor, with a good attitude.  Nothing more needs saying
I'm not sure it's possible to '''support''' anymore than I doing right now. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
All looks good here. I like Jza's attitude and can really tell he wants to be an administrator for the right reasons. Fully qualified so has my support.
'''Support'''. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anyone less likely to abuse the admin tools. His contribution to UK geography articles has been immense, and access to the tools can only increase his value to the encyclopedia. My slight reservation is that he's a [[Rangers]] supporter, but [[2008 UEFA Cup Final|today]] I guess most of us in Britain are Rangers supporters, so that's understandable. --
'''Support''' per Malleus.  I mean, per nom.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
<s>'''Oppose''', rejecting a Rudget nom is prima facie evidence of power hunger</s>  Kidding, definite '''support'''.  '''
'''Support''' from me and the otters. (Sorry, my otters can't vote separately.)
'''Support''' - Good knowledge of policy, strong article builder. Net positive.
'''Support'''. A good and rational user. Will be even more of an asset to WP. <span class="user-sig user-Mentisock">--
'''Support''' Looking over his contributions (discussions in particular) I'm not too worried about this user abusing the tools.  Adminship is a net positive.  --
'''Support'''.  Looks good overall.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong support'''. I've worked with Jza84 on several of [[WP:GM]]'s activities. As well as being a prolific editor with many fine contributions to the main space to his name, in my experience he has always been civil and happy to help me when I've ventured into an area of wikipedia I know he is more familiar with. His contributions to a range of featured articles has no doubt aided his understanding of wikipedia policy. I believe that providing him with the extra tools of adminship would make an already invaluable editor better.
'''Support''' - With all these long and spelled out words, I am sure he's smart. But answers to questions look excellent. =D <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
I am extremely happy to support and endorse the quest for adminship by [[User:Jza84|Jza]]. He has been an exemplary editor in all respects that are possible on this fine wiki, with involvement on every level. He has, as noted above in both the nominations and some supports, declined the initial offer of administratorship in the early days of 2008 when I recognised that Jza had made outstanding, and even in some places, distinguised and noteworthy contributions, especially within the [[Manchester]] article, which I also luckily helped to build up. He has near absolute dedication to the wellbeing of the encyclopedia, and as he noted in my first attempt at adminship during 2007 - "[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudget|This user has a calm, collected temperament, with sound judgement and a clear and sincere enthusiasm for furthering Wikipedia. I would welcome this user as an admin]]". (#34) Not only does that apply to his collectively excellent working attitude - which is continually and relentingly positive - but also to his manner and respect for those he collaborates with. I can even remember on at least one occasion where he helped resolved a dispute between two users. If he is not worthy for adminship, I do not know who is. Fully qualified candidate. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' Know this user well and by and large I'd be happy for him to gain mopship. I think he needs to rethink how he goes about his POV, such as not advertising it so blatantly on his user page and insisting on it in so many places. This is an encyclopedia and political stuff is for elsewhere, and even if it isn't, there's no need to get yourself labeled in the minds of other users uselessly. Quite a few times he has not properly interpreted policy, and this is a concern for me ... but I'm sure he will be more careful of this when he gets the mop. But above all he needs to develop a thicker skin. I'm serious here. ''Sometimes'' you need to think of wikipedians more as forces of nature than personalities, esp. when you become an admin, and to hold off a bit before becoming offended. But he is a good content editor and there's no reason he should be denied the tools if and when he needs to use 'em, and if he heeds these points I'm sure he would be a good admin too.
'''Support''' - A thoroughly committed contributor with a thorough knowledge of our policies and practices.
'''Considerably strong support''' meets [[user:Phoenix-wiki/RFA criteria|my criteria]], knows policy and knows what we're about.--
'''Support''' Even though I have had disagreements with Jza84 in the past I think he will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Very qualified candidate.

'''Moral support''' per [[2008 UEFA Cup Final|2-0]] ;) Seriously, great article writer and work with UK geography wikiproject.
'''Support'''  Solid answers to all questions, appears to be a very good candidate!  --
'''Support''' Seen the candidate keeping a clear head and a civil tongue, though firm on occasions, when in dispute with others. No reason to think that he would abuse his position in the future in such circumstances, and WP would benefit from his enmopping.
'''Support''' Excellent answer to Q1, no "red flag" contribs, and an ''extremely'' trustworthy nom.--
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor, and great answers to questions. I would certainly trust this user to be a sysop. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - always positive, civil, helpful and committed.
'''Support''' - reviewed your history the other day, it looked very good. I waited to see if anyone would bring up anything concerning, I'm not seeing it. I'm happy to support at this time.
'''Hurrah''' Seems like a good candidate. I trust they will be careful while familiarising themselves with the tools.  <font color="006622">
'''Support'''. Looks fully qualified and I also trust Pedro's judgment.
I have to say that I liked your answers to the questions I posted. My cursory glance at your contribs + seeing several people that I trust to go over contribs with a fin toothed comb ''also'' voting in support, (and you were nominateded by Pedro ''and'' Keeper76?), just pushes ''me'' towards '''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - Not perfect, but besides me, who is.  I see no real problems here.--
'''Support''' - A good candidate, I have worked with him on a number of articles and have had no problems with his work. Excellent contribution to UK Geography especially with the production of a series of maps for the infoboxes.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' I like his edits.--
'''Support''' Some of [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] tests at [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] have been with me and the patience he demonstrated was perhaps beyond the call of most editors. Jza84 has built up the GM project from nothing to a dozen FA/GAs which is certainly very very commendable. The problem of him reinventing persona and salting userpages under privacy rules could seem to be a problem, but unlikely to effect a future role in Wikipedia -- <font face="Sans Serif">
'''Support''' A tireless editor whose skills are so valuable to Wikipedia and one who continues to grow.--
'''Support''' Good article builder, solid grasp of policies, no reason for concern.
I have seen quite a lot of Jza84 here and there. If this were a beatification, I'd have a few remarks to make, but it's only an RfA. Nothing I've seen suggests that he isn't the right stuff. No worries.
'''Support''' - I've spotted Jza84 around now and again, and overall he seems like an excellent editor. There are concerns here in there in the contributions, as raised below, but an excellent (and busy) editor is bound to hit the occasional conflict. The real question for me is do I trust him to be a good admin - and there I see no problems. :) -
'''Support'''.  Great writer. - Dan
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''; great contributions to the encyclopedia, civil and friendly, knows the rules - great candidate! --
'''Support''' as above. The issues brought up by those objecting/neutral don't bother me.
'''Support'''.  Excuse the following verbose comment... I don't like to give anything but full support, and I've been holding back a little because of a niggling doubt about the circumstances in which [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] turned down the earlier suggestion that he run for admin, a doubt which perhaps had something to do with the way in which that decision was presented here.  I recognize that it's the job of the nominator to present the best case possible; but Jza84 declined earlier not because he wasn't keen (and there's nothing wrong with being keen, in my view), rather because he felt he was embroiled in some "ill timed" conflicts at that point.  But there's nothing wrong with conflict ''per se'': I agree with [[User:ddstretch|ddstretch]] that if anything a lack of conflict would be almost as worrisome.  I sense a slight suggestion that conflict should be avoided in the run up RfA.  That's understandable, of course, but I am wary if coaches or nominators were to start advocating such avoidance in order to ensure success at RfAs. In my book, at least, it's much more impressive to see an editor confront, manage, and work through conflict to a mutually successful resolution, than to avoid it altogether.  I've seen evidence of [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] doing that well over the past few months, and am especially encouraged that he can [[User_talk:Chrisieboy#Borough_status|work productively]] with editors with whom he has [[User_talk:Chrisieboy#Good_faith|earlier had disagreements]].  (See also [[User:Bpeps|Bpeps]]'s support above.)  I am also impressed by his responses to questions and comments at RfA.  As such, and in the confidence that his recent behavior is not merely strategic, he does indeed have my '''full support'''.  --
'''Strong Support''' - will use tools wisely. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''100% Strong Support''' - great user and will be a credit to the admin team. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''
'''Support'''. The candidate is a wonderful article-builder, is trustowrthy, and understands policy.
'''Support''' - I think this editor is very helpful, friendly, and has greatly contributed to Wikipedia. An ideal candidate for adminship.--
'''Support''' - an excellent editor who would make a conscientious admin.
'''Support''' - A positive editor and a number one contact on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester]].
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AJza84&year=&month=-1 Yet another person] that I've granted rollback to.
'''Support''' - A welcoming, helpful, and all-around outstanding editor, who would make a great admin.
Was considering nominating him, looks like I was too slow.
'''Support''' ~ Words I associate with Jza's Wikipedia activity are: wisdom, cool-headedness, common sense, approachability and efficiency.  All of these strike me as good qualities for an admin to possess.  Also, he has an excellent habit of spotting deficient articles and working constructively with other editors until they are significantly improved ... often in circumstances where it would be much easier to sit back and look elsewhere.  (See [[Denshaw]], for example.)  <font face="Helvetica">
'''Support''' Meets my expectations. '''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, ''fide et opera''.
Per Manchester collaborations. ''
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Looks good. Best of luck to you!
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Support''' He/she (sorry, don't know which) has a wonderful sense of humor.  That, coupled with excellent article building and working on articles already present are a plus.  Furthermore, I find that his answers to all parts of Q4 illustrate that he has an understanding of all of the policies and guidelines that are relevant to administrators.  Also, his answer to Q8 was calm and collected and also goes to prove that he is incredibly civil.  No problems here, good luck!  [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b>]]
'''Support''' Great candidate. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Good 'pedia builder and net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - has contributed much useful content.  Has engaged constructively in discussions, and even when they have become somewhat heated, has kept a cool head.  Also has a good understanding of policy in areas he is involved with.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', saw user deal with an issue with one of his maps politely, appropriately and considerately - a good indicator, and certainly good enough for me.
'''Support''', Jza84 works hard, is courteous in discussion and will make a significant contribution with the mop and bucket.
Late to the party '''support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' The user has done a lot of good work for Wikipedia, but I am concerned about him becoming an Administrator. The user is too clinical in applying the guidelines and sees them as rigid rules which must be adhered to. However, the general consensus view is to agree with the request for him to become an Administrator. Time will tell.
'''Oppose''' - Although Jza has made some contributions to Wikipedia which are very good, such as the many FA he has created. I do not feel comfortable that he would use the administrative powers in a correct way all of the time. I feel he would use them incorrectly when it comes to political issues which he does not agree with and use his power to push across his stance. Though certaintly even if he fails he has made many FA contributions and this is a thing the community can value. The every day run of the mill admin tasks I think he could do, just when it comes to politics I'm unsure. -
'''Oppose''' This editor has ignored discussions and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Irish_people&diff=211552818&oldid=200851107  inserted contentious] material flouting agreed norms, and I would oppose their request for Adminship.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_Rising&diff=200586578&oldid=200556007 Edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_Rising&diff=200594769&oldid=200587800 wars] under the totally incorrect assumption that NPOV applies to facts on a subject he knows nothing about. Given this and other disturbing involvement in Irish related articles listed above, we can do without what could possibly be a POV warrior admin. Also his assumption that I was not [[WP:AGF]] tells a tale too. <strong>
[[Talk:Kingdom_of_Gwynedd#Lead_image|This]] has me a bit worried... not so much the discussion with the person who had an issue, but rather the whole edit war.  This image was removed and added back 4 times.  Overkill for something that is, to me at least, a simple fix... <b><font color="Indigo">
This also 'hot-headed reaction' is not exactly what might I expect from a prospective administrator: [[User_talk:Snowded#Requests for Mediation]]. --
Nom. ''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' [[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|BoL]] (
I like the honest answer to question 1. Trust the candidate and the nominator.
'''Support'''. Looks like a reasonable person. So why not! --
'''Support'''.  I love the answer to Q1.  The way that Q1 was answered makes me believe that this user won't abuse the tools and will only use them when needed.  Kakofonous has done great work on GA's and writing articles in general.  Good luck!
'''Support'''.  No problems here.  Good article writer with the experience of anti-vandal work.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Good editor, going to be an even better admin. No abuse, and this user gets along with almost everybody! <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Sure''' -
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor and giving me no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''.  No reason to think he'd abuse the tools in any way.
'''Support''' We need more admins who work on articles. --
'''Support''' I trust Water's opinion and I appreciate the honest answer to Q1.  I also really liked this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKakofonous&diff=210018112&oldid=210016798| edit]
'''Support''' - Well the ''old'' Wisdom89 would say.."hey, this guys meets my balance criteria!" (And he does, there's versatility) However, per Sharkface, we need more article building administrators. I also trust, highly, DMHO.
Looks good here. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''. Everything checks out. I'm a big supporter of mainspace contribs, so even though this editor doesn't have a boatload of Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, I'm going to green light this one.
'''Support'''. I haven't had any experience with this editor before but his history looks excellent, nothing that would throw up any red flags for me. Also I trust DMHO as the nominator.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as a good article contributor with no blocks.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' He might not really need the tools, but we can certainly trust them.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools in the rare occasion he actually uses them per q.1 Its not a big deal and its not one with me. '''''
'''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]]''' - Of course. Clearly trustable, policy and process knowledge demonstrated from contributions, clean talk and user page etc. If Kakofonous uses the tools but once a year then that saves another admin having to do it. Let's remember they don't rust and we have an infinite supply of them to hand out. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Trust DHMO nom, otherwise excellent. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' - plenty evidence 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''', you were nommed by DHMO for god's sake.  And I see no reason to oppose, anyway :)  '''
'''Support''' yep. —
'''Support''' Yep, this one's dedicated enough. '''
'''Support''' - not one already? '''
'''Support'''
'''per nom''' seems to be unlikely to abuse the tools, delete the main page, etc.
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy to me.  --
'''Support:'''  I can trust the user, therefore I have no reason not to support<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' only positive effects from this user, can trust we'll receive only positive effect as a sysop.
'''Support''' - I feel like that is focus on Wikipedia is to the point. I'd rather have an admin who actually contributes to articles instead of just refreshing his watchlist to try and catch vandals and wrongdoers. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' Good [[WP:GAN]] work. - Dan
'''Support''' - Wants to continue writing/editing; appears trustworthy. --
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' Good balance as others have pointed out, dedicated, and nothing to indicate abuse will occur. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''', someone I feel can be trusted.
'''Support''' trustworthy, and a great editor. <strong>
'''Support''' -- per Wisdom89, we need more article building admins...unlikely to abuse tools...Good luck!--
'''Support'''. Dug through candidates contributions, read opposition !votes, made a frown face and thought for a minute, and concluded that I trust this candidate.
'''Support''' I could care less about your lack of admin-y related experiance and what Wikipedia needs is more of these types of admins. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''': Shows an understanding of policy and would not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Fits my only criteria of adminship: would not abuse or seriously misuse (accident or otherwise) the tools. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' per WP:TROUT. Candidate seems well-suited to the role of editor-admin. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' changed from oppose, per DMHO's<small>(shouldn't it be DHMO?)</small> diff. I think I was misreading your answer to Q1. I thought you were just going to edit, edit, edit, but now I realize that you actually do plan to use the tools, and correctly. Sorry.--
'''Whole-hearted support''': No reservations.
'''Support'''.  This user seems sensitive to the types of communication that are needed to grease the wheels of the 'pedia and has done good work.
'''Support''' Good solid editor. I have no concerns. —&nbsp;'''
'''$upport''' Well-trusted editor all the way. Good luck! <b>
Indeed. '''Support'''.
'''Weak Support'''. The candidate seems trustworthy, but has made a very weak case for needing the tools.
'''Support''' : The candidate is a good editor and trustworthy. Altough I am not sure whether he is actually serious of the need of ''power'' buttons. But I sincerely feel that such good editors should be awarded adminship <span style="cursor: crosshair"> --
'''Support''' per [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Petro]]. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Seen you around AFD (namely rescuing worthy articles by improving/adding sources). Great username, great contributor, no hesitation on my part.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' Intitally, I thought the relatively short presence might be an obstacle for me to vote support. But after scratching my large head for a little while and carefully looking over the candidate's contributions, I feel that 4 months of presence has been more than enough for Kakofonous to get a solid grasp on how to improve this little project of ours. No cause for concern from me whatsoever.
'''Support.''' Per nom by {{user|Dihydrogen Monoxide}}, as well as some great contributions to the project.
'''Support''' - a trustworthy and dedicated editor. No reason not to give him the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  I have worked with the candidate on FAC.  He displays excellent judgment, dedication to content building, and a good temperament. --
'''Proud support''' - I first saw Kakofonous on [[Jazz drumming]] when I was reviewing it for good article status, and he was courteous to me the whole way. I respect him as a user and wish him happy adminship! – [[User:The Obento Musubi|Obento]] [[User talk:The Obento Musubi|Musubi]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/The Obento Musubi|C]] • [[User:The Obento Musubi/Guestbook|G]] •
'''Support''' - meets my standards, basically.  No concerns.
'''Support''' - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools.
a gentle '''support''' - bypassing a self-imposed restriction is mildly worrying, but there's nothing that makes me want to oppose and there's no evidence that this editor will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''Totally!--
'''Support''' I see no cons. Furthermore, I am really not convinced by the opposition. Four months is plenty of time, plenty of time for dedication. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' - please to see a candidate who is focused on quality article writing and improvement.
Unreserved '''support'''. I've mainly seen Kakofonous through GA, and his work and demeanor have always been great. Glad to see he or she will get the mop.
'''Support''' Solid article builder, knows policy, unlikely to scale Reichstag. --
'''Support''' As more and more good contributors depart, we need good writers to replace them. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I see no problems.
'''Strong support''' Kakofonous has created many articles. He has also significantly contributed to many articles. He should be an admin.
'''support''' - Im no admin, but i hope my vote can still count. I have spent a lot of time working with Kakofonous recently, i find him to be trustworthy, reliable, helpful, the list goes on. He has created some great articles on wikipedia, is very dedicated. He can be trusted with the tools. Good luck.
'''Support'''. No logical reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Let's give the tools to the responsible editor, instead of the Rambo, vandal killer... :)
'''Support''' Short editing time is no problem for me, heck I haven't been editing that long and I'm clearly the best! ;) Support as people I respect have supported, and nothing sticks out as problematic.
'''Support''' No evidence that he will abuse the tools. And that's the only criterion that really matters. -
'''Support'''. Won't abuse the tools. Nice GA work. :) <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Am confident user will not misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  I've come across this editor at the [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gilberto_Gil|FAC]] for [[Gilberto Gil]], where I was the first to oppose the article's candidacy.  His (or her) reaction was most constructive, he (or she) has been at pains to communicate with me, keep me up to date with further progress, and has really improved the article in the meantime.  I've been impressed by the way that this user has handled him or herself.  --
'''Support''' I honestly see no horrendous issues... a ''bit'' lacking in the experience right now, but not enough for it to be an issue.
Looks good to me. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Can certanly be trusted with the tools
'''Support'''. I've seen nothing but good contributions from this editor.
'''Oppose''' – I am in full agreement that the tools are no big deal.  However, I do want to see someone with a little more that 4 months experience with [[Wikipedia]] as shown here [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Kakofonous&site=en.wikipedia.org].  If we start to use the standards that after four months; “…I trust the individual with the tools”.  Why not give the administrative tools to all editors say after three months of no complaints by other editors.  In addition, don’t we want the individuals applying for the administrative tools to have some experience in other areas?  Like administrative?  I do not see that with this candidate.  Is this reflection of the candidate’s ability or knowledge to use the extra buttons?  Of course not!  Is this a question of the individual’s competency?  Yes!  Four months is to short a time to judge the individuals character.  Sorry. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' With all due respect to DHMO, I can not support a candidate who has only four months experience as an editor.
'''Oppose'''- Sorry.  I just don't think your'e quite ready yet, do some work on [[WP:Afd|Afd]], and we'll see where you get.  '''<font color="green">
'''Oppose'''- Nothing in April, and only around for six months.  I am going to say its too soon.--
'''Oppose with moral support''' - I would love to support, but 4 months of experience is simply not enough. If you come back in 3 - 6 months, I would more than likely be happy to turn this into a support. :) <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - Don't like doing this, but sometimes I get the feeling we are just creating admins for the sake of it sometimes. Kakofonous himself has stated that his interest here is writing articles, which is excellent, trust me, but a statment in question one is just ''occasionally blocking a blatant vandal''. Does this user ''really'' need the tools? If not, there is no need to make him an admin really, and what's wrong with a quick AIV report if your not a vandal fighter in need of better tools? I'm bracing myself for a storm of opposition here, but honestly, I can't see the need for tools with this user. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose for now''' It is great that Kakofonous has written some nice articles and has more than 5000 edits in about 4 months of solid editing. However, he has no experience on controversial articles. And no experience with long disputes as near as I can tell. He just has not been around here long enough or had enough experience to get the tools quite yet I think. If he keeps doing good work however, I would be pleased to support him sometime in the future of course.--
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience, and completely disappeared in April.  Also, answers to questions indicate to me a lack of need for these tools.
'''Oppose''' I guess I'd just prefer to see this editor around the place for a few months longer before getting the mop. --
'''Oppose''' Admirable candidate, but lacks track record for now.
'''Oppose'''. Only four months of consistent editing, and made no edits last month. Needs more time and a more consistent track record. A good future prospect though.
'''Neutral''' Level of admin-related experience is slightly too low. I'm afraid I don't agree with the theory that certain users can be trusted to quickly learn everything they need to know about the tools just before using them.
'''Neutral''' - leaning somewhat towards support. As this will likely pass, I won't trouble the candidate to ask for further clarification. -
'''Neutral''' meh, I see no reason why not, 4 months of experience doesnt make a difference, what he did in those four months will be what he does in the next four. I just don't feel like actually LOOKING to see what he did in those four months, my vote won't effect the out come anyway. good luck. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
Kakofonous looks like the type of person we should be giving admin tool to (after all, admin tools are, primarily, editing tools), but strikes me as far too new.  I would oppose on principle if it weren't for his/her answer to Q.1.  Based on that answer I would support.  But I'm far too torn.  Wish I hadn't wandered this far down the page.  Oh well.  Keep up the good work of writing articles - that's what we're here to do.
'''Neutral''' While the tools themselves are no big deal, especially where the candidate is primarily going to use them in the editing function, a more substantive (and regular) editing pattern is required - one that will come with time - before I would be willing to hand over the keys to the mop cupboard. In the event that this request fails I see no problem in supporting a subsequent one.
'''Beat the noms support''' I've followed this user's contribs for a while. Excellent article work, good balance between namespaces, experience in admin-related areas, as well as other things. I've been waiting for this for a while.
'''Support''' Karanacs is one of the most active and efficient FAC contributors on the project. Also some excellent article work. It's a pleasure to support.
'''Support''' great editor, very level-headed. --
'''Support''' obviously.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' -- per the Ima Hog article! I love that, well done! Best of luck, --
'''Support'''. I've seen Karanacs around at FAC quite a bit, and I've got no reason to suppose that she wouldn't behave sensibly as an administrator. --
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''—Just excellent!
'''Strong support''', simply the best.   Karanacs has been principle author on seven [[WP:FA|featured articles]] ([[James Bowie]], [[French Texas]], [[Lawrence Sullivan Ross]], [[Aggie Bonfire]], [[History of Texas A&M University]], [[Texas A&M University]] and [[Ima Hogg]]), showing the range in her researching and writing skills.  She is also consistently one of the busiest and most thorough reviewers of [[WP:FAC|featured article candidates]], as well as a frequent author or copyeditor on the [[Template:FCDW|Dispatches]] written for the [[WP:SIGNPOST|Signpost]].  But the most impressive part about Karanacs is her calm disposition, good nature, and excellent character: important requirements for adminship.  I've observed her at FAC, and have had her talk page watched for a very long time, and have never seen her lose patience, be uncivil, or be anything less than generous, thorough and professional in her dealing with other editors and on FAC reviews, even as she firmly and politely insists that Wiki policies are upheld.
'''Support''' I'm not personally familiar with Karancs, but her userpage and answers are those of a level-headed, intellectually curious editor with common sense. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' No concern at all that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''&mdash;an excellent Wikipedian who most certainly can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''. Article builders are we need more of.
'''Holy moly'''.  An astoundingly overqualified candidate.  A look through the 'tribs and talkpage was a pleasure trip.  Karanacs knows ''exactly'' what Wikipedia is here for and what needs to still be done.  Easy, no hesitation support.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - obviously. --
'''Support''' Trusted user. Good contributor. '''
'''Support''', every one of my interactions with the candidate have been overwhelmingly positive.  Displays excellent judgment and temperament on top of being a tremendous contributor. --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Everyything I know and have read about this editor leads me to believe she is very mop-worthy
'''Reasonably strong support''' per ANI.  Thank you jbmurray for including that.


'''Support''': elaboration I might have offered thereupon has already found eloquent expression above - a laudable Wikipedian.
'''Support''' per everybody above. Looks like a brilliant editor with excellent qualities for adminship. "putting individual stub-petals together to make article-flowers" is so poetic! ;) --
'''Support''' — definitely. →
'''Strong support'''.  WP:FAC would not be the same without her, and this is a model RfA for a candidate that doesn't have any current plans to use the admin buttons a lot.  (In fact, if she ever starting spending her days at XfD, people at WP:FAC would howl.) - Dan
'''Support''', I believe sysopping this user would be a net positive for the project.
'''Support''', this editor meets my minimum, "would I trust this person to use responsibly?" criteria and exceeds many times over.  The vast content and process contributions (esp at [[WP:FAC]]), while not specifically a tool-intensive place, can only serve to increase the strength of my support.  &hArr;
'''Support''' - Editor was polite and helpful during a past FA review of mine. Gave lots of good advise and went out of his way to give extra feedback. —
I have seen nice work from this user at WP:FAC.  –'''

'''Conditional Support'''.  As long as you stick with your promise about not getting involved in areas that you have only limited experience in (you cited AfD for example).  Other than that, you're a fine candidate! <font  face="georgia">'''
per iridescent.
No apparent need for the tools '''Support''' - just seems like someone who can be trusted with them is all (that is needed).
Support, per LessHeard vanU. Admins who work on FAs are what we need more of... ·
'''Support'''. I haven't supported anyone recently, but Karen is one of my favorite pure article writers and a joy to collaborate with.  Editors like her make the project great.--
'''Support''' definitive trustworthy. —
'''Support''' trustworthy and helpful to the process :) Cheers,
'''Ima Hogg''' Support. <small>This user is not a corpulent snout-nosed creature of pinkish complexion. He swears!</small> <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. When you feel you need to use the tools, I trust you'll use them well. Good luck. --
'''Support''' especially for the tough comment at Editor Review - we need more blood on the floor there (and then we'll have less here).
'''Support''' - this is the first RfA I have ever voted in. Karanacs is one of the most highly valued content editors I know. I am honored that she takes an interest in my articles and gives them a peek or two. I wanted to support as soon as I saw this was an idea she was entertaining. In fact, '''Support''' twice. --
'''Support''' - If only for the answer to question 1.
'''Support'''.  A great editor and will make a valuable admin.  Please don't stop writing articles, though!
'''Strong support''' excellent contributor. '''
'''Support''' - of course. --
'''Support''' – a consistent contributor, with the added benefit of providing quality article building to the project, with over a year’s experience..  No civility problems, even considering the one mentioned in a oppose opinion.  Best of luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - knowledgeable in all the right places. No one is perfect and it would appear on review of Karanacs' edits that the civility issues mark a rare departure from <s>his</s>her usual cordial exchanges with other users. No one is perfect and I believe Karanacs would make a good addition to the admin team. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' As much as I wanted to be the first Aggie Admin, I can't be selfish here. She's good and will only benefit Wikipedia with these tools. I can't think of a better candidate! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Support''' - for nothing more than the mindboggling nature of the Opposes.  Are people flipping serious, and opposing because Karanacs was insufficiently fluffy in telling the fellow that she opposed him as an admin and here's why?  It would never remotely occur to me to oppose a nomination for ''no'' other reason than someone had told me something I didn't like, and I wanted proper subservience before I withdrew that opposition.
'''Support''' as per [[Ima Hogg]]. --
'''Support''' if there are no more [[French Texas|French claims on Texas]].
'''Support''', most definitely.
'''Support''' with no reservations whatsoever.   —
'''Support''' - superb editor. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Good steady contributor. '''
'''Complete support.''' I've seen Karanacs's work in many places (first running across her during jbmurray's descent into [[WP:MMM|madness]]), and she has been nothing less than impressive. Whether she ''needs'' the tools or not at present is largely irrelevant; once she has them, plenty of opportunities will present themselves where they are in fact needed... and I trust her absolutely to use them with good judgement and forethought.
'''Support'''. Great editor. --
Support; I've been meaning to ask to nom you for a while but was slacking. <tt>:)</tt>
Automatic support for incivil article builders. No, seriously, it's been taken ''way'' too far. ''
--
'''Support''' Excellent article writer with solid policy knowledge. One of the most active and dedicated reviewers at [[WP:FAC]], she is unusually adept at communicating difficult news. I have yet to see her lose her cool.
'''Support''' Obviously Wiki do need more reviewers with good writing skills
'''Support''' - Great Admin.
Does excellent work for the signpost.
'''Support''' I've only had productive interactions with this user.
Strongly per article contributions and [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki]].
'''Support''' Solid editor with productive contributions, and meets
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Karanacs has superior communication skills and a strong history of collaboration, my two big points. She's willing to step back from her usual tasks and look at other things as well, as she identifies in her statements above.  An excellent candidate.
'''Support''': the nomination statements say it all, and a quick review of Karanacs' [[special:contributions/Karanacs|contrib's]] flags up no obvious problems. I think the candidate will make a productive administrator, and I'm happy to support the request.
'''Support''' Has the experience, and a great editor overall. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''; excellent article writer and Texas historian.  I have no reservations about her ability to handle the extra buttons.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' super smart, hard working, helpful, mature and patient.  I've been impressed with everything I've seen from this editor. --
'''Support''' Absolutely. <small>
'''Support''', positives outweigh negatives.
'''Support''' - Very thoughtful editor who contributes a lot of a skill in short supply through her work reviewing FA candidates. Her attention to detail is absolutely spot on and the way she handles herself shows a real willingness to build to concensus. I am sure that with the admin tools she will be mre of a benefit to the project, so I'm happy to support. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''', very much so.
'''Support''' - looks great!
'''Gigantisaurus Support''' Looking through the contributions, I've come to the bold conlcusion that there is literally no reason she shouldn't be an admin.--
'''Support''' Let me start off by saying you're a huge asset to wikipedia:-) Your work here is amazing, and I hope you continue to edit here for many years to come. Though you're clearly an excellent wikipedian, I do have a minor issue, and that is your inactivity in admin areas. One of the main things I look for in an admin is that they have demonstrated a need for at least one of the tools. If an admin doesn't use the tools they might as well not be an admin. Demonstrating a need for the tools isn't the only important thing to me though. The attitude of the person who is going through an Rfa, and his grasp of the policies he'll be working with is important as well. Though you haven't demonstrated a need for the tools, you have proved to us you have a good attitude, and you have shown a firm grasp of policy. The good things about you far outweigh the bad, thus I believe you are deserving of the tools.--
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' Doesn't really need a comment. Excellent reviewing work at FAC, excellent content work, civil and intelligent. Not much more can be said.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''. I don't always agree with her, but she's trustworthy, bright and hard-working. She will make a better-than-average admin.
'''Support''' trustworthy reader and editor.
'''Enthusiastic Support''' as co-nominator.  It is gratifying to see the community's appreciation for this magnificent editor. --
'''Strong support''' - consistently informed fac reviews indicate a firm grasp of relevant policy and commitment to thankless tasks. Will be a great admin.
'''Support''' I trust her judgment, and a talented article writer furthermore. No hesitation, <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support''' An excellant editor, the only problem I saw with this user was that listed below. While Karanacs IMO did not handle the situation to the best of her ability, I view this as an isolated incident and I prefer not to hold grudges. Other than this I trust this user very much. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent candidate...
'''Support''' Per {{user|iridescent}} and {{user|jbmurray}}, and of course also per some excellent contributions to the project.
'''Support''' - I extend good faith to the editor using the admin tools for the benefit of the project. On a side note, the editor should avoid using bad faith comments towards fellow editors. The "deliberately misleading" comment made me think twice on whether to support or post a Neutral !vote. Cheers, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">
'''Support as well''', since you're doing a good job to improve the 'Battle of the Alamo' article. I can't wait for you to handle the mop with care. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Support'''. Very talented writer, here for the right reasons, has good judgement.
'''Support''' No reason for concern.
'''Support''' per excellent noms and review of edits. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Strong support''' - excellent editor! Great article work. Great Wikipedia-space participation. Excellent knowledge and understanding displayed. It's all there! :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I was slightly involved with [[Ima Hogg]] (the Wikipedia article, not the person), so I can attest to Karanacs' good work.  And I believe we may be ready for [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3NueKXS6dk an encore].  :-)
'''Support''' I see no reason the user would abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I believe he will do fine.
'''Support''' We need more admins ''not'' all about the mop and bucket. -
why not?  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''support'''-At least someone on wikipedia is getting something done.  God, 10,000 edits, and you're not an admin ''yet''?  ~~
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I could have sworn I'd already supported this nom, but oh well. Karanacs is a solid editor with a clear understanding of policy. I have no doubts she'll make an excellent admin. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - see no reason not to. work with FAC looks good --
'''A review of this user's contribs and answers to the questions, I see no reason to oppose at this time.  Thank you.
'''Support''' - No problems here. Will wield the mop much like [[Roland]] wielded [[Durandal]]. Or maybe not. --
'''Strong Support''': great editor...Knows policies...Strong and long experience and wiki experience... No reasons to believe any possible misuse of the 'power' buttons. --
'''Support''' Seems like a great person. Would never abuse the tools.
'''Support''' seems fine to me. <b>
'''Support''' Excellent contributor and editor! --<strong>
Sure.
'''Oppose''' per stances supported in [[Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability]].  I am, however, happy to see [[User:Karanacs/Barnstars]], so while I am a bit concerned about notability interpretation as relates to likely interpretation of arguments in AfDs, the candidate does seem to have done some commendable work elsewhere.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Very Weak Oppose'''.My oppose is a complicated one. You are no doubt a awesome editor, no doubt about that. But my concerns are with the nomination, which to me messed up the entire RFA. "does not need the admin tools", not eaxactly a reassuring statement. [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|you have been grossly uncivil]] and yet you are a great editor. I really think that you need to work on your attittude(if it hasn't changed since the incident) and get someone else to nominate you(no offence to first nominator).
'''Oppose''', from reading this editor's comments at [[Wikipedia:Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria]], [[Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability]], and her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29&diff=prev&oldid=220155397 most recent reply to me] at [[WT:FICT]], I could not support this editor being an admin. Just about every statement Karanacs supported at [[Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability]] contradicts [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper#No_size_limits Wikipedia is not paper] on meta, which is linked from the policy [[WP:NOTPAPER|Wikipedia is not paper]]. It looks like this editor does good work with WikiProject Texas. But if Karanacs is made an admin and gets anywhere near a fiction topic or the subject of notability, I predict bad things. --
'''Oppose''' per Le Grand, Pixelface.
'''Neutral''':  I would support, but the characterization of [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|User:Editorofthewiki]]'s edit to the Wikipedia Signpost as "...deliberately misleading..." seems not to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].  To say that a user "needs more experience," or "added irrelevant information," or engaged in "self-promotion," is perfectly reasonable, but to say that somebody has been "deliberately" misleading in my view is a grave accusation that should only be made if it is actually true.  Aside from this (and granted that I too have been known to say things that would have been better left unsaid), I would support.
'''Neutral''' Switching vote from Oppose, as per Karanacs' input on the talk page relating to the Editor Review brouhaha. While I feel the whole matter could've been handled better from the beginning, I see no reason to continue opposing this candidate.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Bwrs]] above.  Your contributions are phenomenal, but I cannot bring myself to Support a nomination given such recent incivility.
Why not? Contributions fine, etc. Good luck.
'''Absolutely'''
'''Support''' I was a little set back by your lack of deleted edits (i.e. CSD tags) but then you haven't said it's an area you want to deal with. Certainly your edit summaries seem to indicate a firm grasp on notability, so no worries there. '''Stunning''' article building work, some vandal fighting and your [[WP:AIV]] reports seems accurate. A clean and civil talk page and a pleasing user page indicate a commited contributor. Okay you've not that much in the traditional AIV / RFPP /AFD (allthough I did see some AFD contribution) areas but I see no reason whatsoever why you won't be a great asset to the administrative team. Oh, and your answers to the questions where great, which is probably why I'm not fussed about the relatively low project space edits. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support as nom'''. I wonder why i wasn't the first?
'''Support''' per above. <strong>
'''Support''' - excellent contributions; keen and trustworthy.
'''Support''' I would have preferred more reports to [[WP:AIV]]. That's a minor quibble compared to the nom's many, many contributions.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - a most courteous, civil and efficient editor who is concerned with building a quality encyclopaedia, not just a big one.  A valuable addition to the administrator team.
'''Support''' Could do much to help. -
'''Support''' obviously<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering.
'''Support''' Nice answers to questions.
'''Support''', impressive article work. --
'''Support''', as said by [[User:Regan123]], a most courteous, civil and efficient editor who is concerned with building a quality encyclopaedia. A great candidate for adminship if ever there was. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''
I&nbsp;
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Pedro's analysis tracks, on the whole, closely with mine, and I see nothing to suggest that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' Very good mainspace work.  <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Have seen no problems with his work.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy enough, no reason not to support.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' From a user who's a relative new boy. When I started I came across what's probably a typical experience of new users - aggressive and overbearing editors who never consult. KBT's behaviour was a breath of fresh air and stopped me from concluding that the whole space was inhabitated by a particularly infuriating small-minded bunch. High emotional intelligence -  he/she is civil, thoughtful, helpful and consultative - particularly important when dealing with new users. Wish there were more like him/her. Buena suerte KBT.
'''Support''' a strong, worthy editor likely to use the tools well.
'''Strong Support''' - was friendly and helpful to me when I first started editing, I think KBT would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Of course. —
'''Support''' - sure. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''.
Gotta go with a yes on this one.
'''Support''' - The safest pair of hands imaginable.
'''Support''' - I have worked with Kbthompson on many articles, and I find him to be patient, thoughtful, generous with his assistance and willing to discuss any differences.  I have asked him on many occasions to comment on talk page discussions, and his input has been valuable and has often defused conflicts.  I think he would make a very fine administrator indeed.  --
'''Support''' -
'''''
'''Support''' Worked with kb to develop {{tl|Infobox theatre}} and found him to be intelligent, fair, and EXTRAORDINARILY easy to work with.  By far my greatest collaborative effort on WP.  &mdash; &nbsp;
'''Support''' Answers questions well.  I think he's thinking of a different user because I haven't seen kb's name in articles that I've edited.
'''Support''' and without any reservation. Is more than capable of using extra tools for the good.
'''Support''', Definitely. <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#02D3DA">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
<span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
Of course.
maybeee it's becorse i'm a Lahnduner ....
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Strong Support'''. Sensible and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - I have no problem with giving the candidate the tools. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Nominator's support. I think we have an excellent candidate here who will continue working to improve Wikipedia. -
'''Strong support''' -- judicious, pleasant editor. I went over his talk archives and looked at all the AfDs he initiated. Keeper76's track record on AfDs is good and in the very few cases where he's been wrong, he's been quick to change his position -- an important trait in an admin. --<font face="Futura">
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent candidate. Seen him around, always been impressed. Good nomination statements aswell. :P
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' I trust JodyB's judgement.  '''''
'''Support''' Good man. He was wrong for picking the Bucs over the Giants, but still good. --
'''Support''' per A. B. <strong>
'''Support''' Great answers to questions. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Little worried by ans to Q4 but tilted by ans to Q6 and overall attitude. A good candidate, IMO. --'''
'''Support''' - will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - excellent, clued-in user. Great admin candidate. Best, [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Keilana'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support'''. (Specially because of the answer to Q3.)
Answer to my question is good enough for me. [[User talk:DHMO|&mdash;]]
'''Strong Support''' Excellent, thoughtful editor. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent editor.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.  Hasn't edited for a long time, but he edits a lot in the few months he's edited, so forget that.  Good answers to questions lead me to my decision.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like what I have seen.
'''Support''': Answered questions rather elaborately and put some effort into the RfA. Past contribs. have been wonderful.
'''Support'''. Has a clue... and that alone means a lot. I also am extremely impressed with his answer to question 6.
'''Support''' I think the answer to question 6 makes it all clear; this user should be an admin.
'''Uber support''' - for mainly dealing with this [[Sitakunda_Upazila|little thing]] and per above. '''<font face="verdana">
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  '''
'''Support''' strong answers to questions.
'''Support''' This may not be worth much compared to the weighty (& abstract) issues discussed above, but the nom took the time to welcome me (a complete n00b) and gave me some good pointers on how to proceed. Maybe WP needs more admins who take the time to do the little things really well?
'''Support''' Okay. —
'''Support''' Another good Wizardman nom. I'm very pleased seeing someone adjust and adapt so well to the community in as little time as this candidate has. :)
'''Support''': Finally :-) .  -
'''Suport''' - [[WP:DEAL]] and answers seem to indicate someone with Clue.
'''Support''' - mainly for the AFD work - will help for that domain for sure.--
'''Support''', solid editor, no reason to believe that they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Impressive contribution history which raises no red flags for me, and I like [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bonhomie the attitude]. :) --
'''Support'''. Seems like a friendly and informed editor, who has done a lot of good work here. --
Fine contributions: no reason to oppose. ''
'''Support''' good editor with good use for the tools. AfD backlog really needs this admin.
'''Support''' I liked your answers. Good luck.
'''Support''' Already demonstrated he knows how to clean up with his bare hands.  Let him have the mop, he will use it well.  --
'''Support'''. No reason to think this user will abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#02D3DA">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
Sensible and straight-talking.
'''Strong Support''' I'm proud to add my name to the supporting list... --
'''Support''' As per track.See no concerns.
'''Oppose'''. The answer to Q5 doesn’t address the ''sufficiency'' part of the question.  The present answer centers on “independent, verifiable, reliable sources.”  Actually, there are many facts with such sources that don’t belong in an encyclopedia, or in a particular article of an encyclopedia.  Without going into an essay about what's encyclopedic or not, my impression of the present A5 is that the nom fails on an comprehensive understanding of what an encyclopedia is, or should be.  Changes in A5 may change my impression.  --
'''Neutral''' - He has a sufficent edit count, does not completely ignore edit summaries, great job so far at [[WP:AFD]], cool user page.  I'm not 100 % sure about someone who's only been editing actively for about 4 months.  But I won't oppose just for that.
'''Neutral''' - lots of wiki-gnome stuff is promising, but I would have liked to have seen more consolidated article building, a GA at least, given the short length of time you've been here. I am also bemused at the name given I've seen more 'delete' votes than 'keep' at AfD. Given some of the issues at AfD in recent months I feel a bit wary at the moment - I feel really working on an article gives an appreciation of what goes into it. cheers,
'''Support''' - Whatever the past, my review of this editor's present circumstances is more than good enough for me.
Has my support. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Strongest possible support'''.
'''Support''' <sup>
'''
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]
'''Strong support''' I strongly support this candidates try for adminship. I hope Keilaba succeeds and gets the position.
I have no reason to oppose. From what I understand, this is just about a confusion with usernames. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' Haven't seen a reason not to support her. '''
This really isn't the right way to do this. Keilana left her old account because of real life harassment - she then created this account to carry on her excellent work. The problem is, people cannot be expected to fully evaluate her contributions when they don't know her old account - it's not really fair on the RfA process. If her account was revealed, then it would mean this RfA was pointless - she's an admin in good standing and doesn't need this RfA. I strongly support Keilana on both her accounts, I just don't support this RfA process, but there's no need to be a dick as I know she does a fantastic job.
'''Support'''. '''
&mdash;
'''Support''' Good to see an admin live up to their word
'''Sure'''.
'''Support''' just like last time, although she does seem to be going down a bit lately... [[User:Blow of Light/Guestbook|&mdash;]][[User talk:Blow of Light|<font color="black">B</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|o]]<font color="red">
Definitely. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support.''' No problems at all.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Once again -
'''Support''' I was only asking a question...
'''Support.''' Solid admin, and changing her username should have no effect what-so-ever.
'''Support''' No reason to deny the tools. Four edit conflicts! --
I strongly support this nomination, just like the last time.
I don't know who Keilana was before, because I'm not going to go look. It doesnt matter, I think I've seen enough of this admin in action to judge without knowing. This is an admin who is so concerned about doing things correctly they opened a [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_4#True_Blue|DRV]] on themselves, just to make sure no loose end was missed. WP needs more admins as conscientious as Keilana. ++
'''Support''' I am glad to see someone actually go through with a recall process when it is requested. I see no reason to oppose and I think that I can be certain that Keilana holds to her word.
'''Support''' Per the facts that she's already an admin and has done nothing to warrant confiscation of her tools.
'''Unquestionable support''' - absolutely 100%. -
'''Support'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''', this user has my confidence to continue acting as an admin.
'''Support'''-No doubt will still stay a good admin...--
'''Unconditional support'''; the name change was not under a cloud, there is no reason that our trust in her should be in any way weakened because she had to escape notice from unsavory characters.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weakened support''' - per Ryan. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Why judge someone by their name when you can judge them by their actions? Your history looks good and you are (obviously) qualified for Adminship. --'''
'''Support''' this seems unnecessary.
I have some mild reservations about some of her admin actions. However, her clear willingness to be accountable for them, and her desire to correct any mistakes clearly outweigh this in my mind. Administrators who are willing to admit they could be wrong, and a desire to be accountable for them is a great one, and one we need more of. '''
'''Support''', not an editor I had even seen until quite recently, but having checked out the contribs seems to be a good admin and editor, and having also seen the previous username, no issues there either. Shame about the circumstances of this RfA.. --
'''Yep''' - All looks good,
'''Strong Support''' If user is a good admin who has convincingly established that she was also another good admin, I see no reason why she should be standing for an RfA at all.
'''Support''' <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' I don't believe that this is necessary, but why oppose for that? -'''
I dunno which past admin this is, but either way, this editor has been a fantastic sysop. Glad to give my support here. [[Special:Contributions/68.148.134.201|68.148.134.201]] (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder as well. cheers,
'''Support'''.  Good editor, good admin.
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' Yes! --
'''Support''' This pointless waste of time. DHMO should know better then to foist this nonsense on the community and it does not speak well of their judgement. The candidate on the other hand.... is an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I don't see any problem if the name change wasn't of malicious intent. And no serious objection were raised that I'm aware of.
'''Support''' as affirmation of admin in good standing.
'''Support''' ditto.
'''Strong support''' - a great admin under any name. :) '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Strongest Possible Support''' - Absolutely no concerns.
'''Support''' → for the record, I don't like reconfirmation RFAs either, but I don't see any issues around here. <i><b>
Support, and '''congratulate on the terrific decision to resubmit herself'''. '''
I'd be foolish to not '''support''' Keilana's continuation of Admin role. It takes guts, but you've definitely got a strong enough streak that I don't think you'll have a problem here. --
'''Stronger support than the last time''' — excellent user and excellent admin ;-) --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Absolutely Support and SNOW close as successful''' there is absolutely no reason for this RFA as hre rename was under non controversial circumstances and it's fine to move the bit in such a case. How do I know it was noncontroversial? Because I, at her request, helped with the rename/RTV process. This right should be respected and she should not feel compelled by others to do an unneeded RFA.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support'''. Per Dorftrottel, I applaud her decision to run for reconfirmation. However, I looked through her recent admin logs, and although the vast majority of her admin actions were fine, I found a couple that I wasn't happy with. [[Special:Undelete/Amelia_Bingham|This page]] should not have been speedied (a better version has now been recreated, but the original (viewable by admins only) asserted notability and was not a legitimate CSD A7). Likewise, I wasn't impressed with her deletion here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=James_Barker_(athlete)]. Her deletion reason read ''This is ridiculous. Why should some guy that gets in the Olympics and then gets immediately eliminated deserve an article? No way he's going to be covered in reliable, 3rd party sources; he won't satisfy WP:BIO. Chalk it up to WP:IAR.'' This is clearly an unacceptable use of administrative tools; such comments are fine on AfDs, but not to justify a unilateral admin judgment. (To her credit, however, she subsequently restored the page and took it to AfD when requested to do so.) I almost went neutral as a result of this; however, the question here is not whether Keilana's judgment is perfect, but whether she has done anything bad enough to merit desysopping. Considering that I only found two bad judgment calls out of several hundred, and both were reversible (and reversed), I don't think that she deserves an oppose; she certainly shouldn't be penalised for choosing to submit to the community's judgment when she could easily have not done so. I am very glad that she ran for reconfirmation and submitted to the judgment of the community, and that I have therefore had the opportunity to raise these concerns about her past actions; I hope that she will bear those concerns in mind in her future work as an admin.
'''Support''' per all above. No reason not to let her keep the tools.
'''Support''' - No problem for Keilana being admin.--
'''Support''' - trustworthy admin.
'''Strong Support''' Not, I think, a necessary process under the circumstances, but [[User:Keilana|Keilana]] has, and retains, my fullest confidence. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' process for process sake, rename shouldnt require an RfA.
'''Support''', as the admin has made excellent use of the tools. I also think this nom was ill-advised, but I'm not familiar with the overall discussion that spawned it, so I'll simply voice my opinion without any particular facts to back it. Thank you,
'''Support''' I;m just wanted to stress that I admire your guts, even if there is no chance of failure here. Being willing to undergo a new RfA shows that you're masochist enough to be an admin ;) --
I support this excellent administrator. I also oppose this pointless process.
'''Support''' It's a shame what a few editors have put you through on all this.--
'''Supprot''' the user - I see no reason for this pointless RfA. '''
'''Support''' This administrator has always done excellent work and should be allowed to do so in the future.
'''Support''' I agree with the other views above that this RfA is totally unnecessary and appears to be simply the product of over-thinking on the part of a few editors.
'''Support''' this completely pointless RfA.  Good administrator, and what was the point in bringing up a couple of errors in hundreds of admin actions?  No-one is perfect. <b>
Do not disappoint.
'''Support''' Yup!
'''Strong Support''' I don't know if I have a right to vote, since I rarely make contributions, but from what I have seen of Keilana, she is a great admin despite her youth. I recognized her immediately despite her "vanishing act", and give my full support to her excellent work. One of the most humble admins I have encountered.
'''Support''' Has been a perfectly good admin.
'''Support''' - no real reason to oppose has been given that I can see. Agree that the RfA is unnecessary.
'''Support''' - already a good admin, it should stay that way. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' While I like the idea of reconfirmation RFAs (they should be more regular, and from less popular admins), I feel this one is very unnecessary, for the following reasons: 1. She's an admin still. 2. She's been an admin only a few months, and passed her original without any problem 3. She was never controversial, afaik. I know I was, that's why I went through RFA, and lo and behold, I was opposed for good reasons. I messed up. This user hasn't messed up. However, you haven't vanished at all. I can still see who you are quite easily. If you are really concerned about your privacy, start a new account. I'm sure you'll live without admin privs for a while. Any user made an admin without an rfa will always be found, and so will their identity, so it isn't recommendable. Anyhow, I support you to continue doing the good job that you are doing, but this particular RFA is unnecessary - that isn't to say all reconfirmations are, just this particular one. Thanks. '''
<font color="blue">
'''Support''' You have a lot of edits (to me) and many of them useful if not all of them. ^__^--
'''Support''' Still mainspace edits, that's good.  Drama with another RFA?  More of a system problem.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' An admin who has shown appropriate respect for the delicate balancing act of being an admin.
'''Support'''. I don't believe this is particularly necessary, but I appreciate Keilana being willing to follow up on an obligation she believes she has incurred. As her use of the bit has not been called into question, there's no reason not to support her continuing to have it. <span  style="white-space:nowrap">—
'''Support''' From what I've seen from this user and his/her previous account, they are well-suited to the job. —
'''Support''' '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I don't even think I need an explanation. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20px]] <font face="Verdana">[[User talk:Jonathan|'''<font color="black">Jo</font><font color="#40404F">na</font><font color="#3B444B">th</font><font color="#464646">an</font>''']]
'''Of course.''' - As it's only a name change, I don't think this reconfirmation was even needed. But since the ball is rolling, I'll kick it ;-) - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support'''. The community trusts the ''person'' behind the username, whatever that name might be. --
'''Support''', Yes I think this person who is an admin and has been an admin without issue should be an admin. I do not however support the idea of using RfA to determine if an existing admin should remain one.
'''Support'''.  Where's the waste of time?  This took me all of 3 minutes to evaluate.  Keilana felt she had an obligation to keep her word and kudos to her for doing so. --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - Clearly the right thing to do.

'''Support'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Strongly Support''' - I have looked at Keilana's history. As both an admin and a mediator, Keilana has, as far as I can tell, exemplified the best characteristics of an administrator and a Wikipedian. There may have been a few judgement calls that people have not agreed with, however it is my sincere feeling that Keilana has made every effort to act within the guidelines and spirit of the community at large. It is editors like Keilana that we need in this position. Thank you for the opportunity to voice this support.
'''Support'''. Why not? Experienced user that will keep her great job.
'''Support''', but please avoid these pointless, unnecessary reconfirmations in the future.
I '''support''' this candidate. However, I think this RFA is a waste of time.
'''Support'''. In this particular instance, I find this a waste, but at least the process exists, to alleviate doubts of some who've since voted support.
'''Support.''' --'''
I '''support''' both Keilana's adminship, and the idea that admins without a visible RfA should at some point stand for reconfirmation. I recognize that it was not strictly necessary in this case, as someone who wanted to look up Keilana's original nomination can easily find it in her history, but I still see nothing wrong with the process. Thank you, Keilana, for going beyond the call of duty to show your integrity.
'''''
It's a waste, but more valid then some of the reconfirmations lately
'''support''',Call me Mr. Oblivious, but I had no idea that Keilana was a rename, nor do I care.  May I never have to go through the RTV stuff for any reason (I like my username, among other more serious reasons).  I crossed paths with Keilana, as Keilana the admin, recently regarding a speedy deletion and I was completely impressed with her communication (5 talk messages within an hour back to me when I questioned the speedy - like she's not even busy!) and the way she treated the newbie editor that was/is attempting to write new articles was absolutely exemplary.  You can look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeper76/Archive_1#International_Worship_in_English here] for support of the dialogue in my archive.  Happy to support, as Keilana.
'''Support'''. <strong>
'''support, though this is stupid''' - --
'''Support'''. while I think this rfa is totally unwarranted-even silly, I see no reason she should lose her adminship.
'''Support''' A better procedure needs to be created that somehow automatically grants adminship after renames. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said. Suffice it to say, I trust Keilana as an admin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''' Fine admin, kind person: the reconfirmation RfA was unneeded, but is a considerate step, and shows good judgment.
'''Support''' No problems I've seen.
'''Support''' We don't promote people who won't make mistakes, but those who we trust to try to do the right thing, get it right the vast majority of the time, and learn with some humility when they cock up. Keilana gives me no concerns. --
'''Support''' I share the concerns of some of the opposers regarding past application of CSD, however Keilana's comments on [[WP:BN]] indicate to me that she has taken the critiscism on board and will learn.
'''Support''' Absolutely, I am sure the correct attitude is being shown here. --'''
[[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''' certainly!
Silly that this even needs to happen, but still, support.
'''Support'''. I don't feel this RfA was necessary, but regardless, Keilana has my full support to retain her admin buttons. --
'''Unnecessary Support'''.  Why was this even an RfA?  Regardless, I take pleasure in awarding the 124th (!) support.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''.  Fine record, meets every possible standard.
Why haven't I supported yet?
'''Support''' and kudos for voluntarily submitting to the (possibly unnecessary)process.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - I do not know the details of the name change but have been involved in the past with admins who have changed names do to some pretty scary circumstances.  I strongly support htis candidate and even more that they are willing to stand for reconfirmation in efforts to decrease disagreements.  We need mroe administrators like this.
'''Support''' As per track.
'''Support''' - Yes. --
'''Oppose''' - sorry but no.. I don't even care to know who you are because this is one of those things that come with adminship "being able to counter all crap dished out to you and not run away with your tail in between your legs" when people begin to stalk you ..for whatever reasons..sorry I know this oppose means nothing but this RfA is more of a "pat in the back" than anything else..I really have to say nope..I  have seen many admins leave quoting as "the Right to vanish" and then return with another name and ask for adminship from our gullible crats..nah..sorry, I'd rather not be a part of this but this kind of habit mainly by admins is getting a bit out of the hand..so regretfully ..I oppose...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Doesn't really seem to get [[WP:CSD#A7]]... as we saw in the James Barker speedy deletion. Some other examples: [[Ghost Lake, Alberta]] (A7 doesn't apply to geography), [[Cyril Walker (footballer)]] (playing for a notable pro team is a claim of importance), [[Comical (software)]] (A7 doesn't apply to software), [[Amelia Bingham]] (cited a New York Times reference).... these are all just in the past 3 days. --
'''Oppose''' per evidence of inappropriate speedy deletions provided by [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]].
Moved from support to oppose. See my support comment above for reasons. I could not inspect CSDs, and so opted for the status quo, but W.marsh's examples raise more doubt. –
I will continue to '''strongly oppose''' all reconfirmation RFAs.  If you are so insecure as to require a great big community hug before you will continue to use the extra buttons, you are eminently not suitable for adminship.  And if you made a promise to go through a reconfirmation RFA if "a user in good standing" asked you to despite everyone knowing it's a pointless exercise, then you are also unsuitable because you have knowingly made a foolish, wasteful promise.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:B|B]]'s neutral comment and [[User:Neil|Neil]]'s oppose comment. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but it appears to me you do not understand the concept of [[Wikipedia:Merge|a merge]] in (closing) deletion debates. I've looked back at your AfD closures in the last 10 days and found no less than a dozen of discussions which you closed as "''Merge''", or "''Merge'' and Redirect" but you just, in fact, went ahead to delete the whole content/redirect the articles and apparently made no attempt to merge any materials. I consider this to be a serious matter, since you as an admin carry the responsibility of doing the same as what you have said. If you close something as a merge, then take care to merge the content or apply alternative methods of the same effects (e.g using the merge template or giving a note concerning what content should be merged on the talk page). If it is ''not'' your intention to merge the content, please do ''not'' perform massive AfDs closures as ''merge''. (Stating "the result is redirect" would do.) The AfDs in question are, to name but a few, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riemersma dithering]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poet and the Pendulum]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambino (single)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Falcone]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thyrsus (Mage: the Awakening)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000 White Flags]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodsball strategy]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Horst]]. I don't doubt the RfA is bound to pass, and I'm prepared to withdraw my opposition if you could please offer a satisfactory explanation for your unusual and, forgive me for the lack of a better word, ''dishonest'' AfD closures.
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh, though I have nothing against reconfirmation RfA's.
'''Neutral''' I echo some of Ryan's comment but I express them as a regular community user who has no idea what Keilana's previous admin identity was. Based on Keilana's contribution, I have no reason to oppose her <s>but I also do not have enough established history to support her either.</s> There are a lot of blank pages and I suppose all the community has is to take a far extreme adaption of [[WP:AGF]] in the case of admin tools. You don't ''really'' know this person but you are going to have to trust the judgment of the crats that give the tools back. ''To my knowledge'', an RtV admin has not yet abused this system and the community has benefited from not losing these valuable contributors due to off-wiki harassment and the like. However, I admittedly do have some overarching concerns and reservation about the process itself. I wonder how obsolete and diminished in importance that WP:RfA becomes when view in hindsight of how RtV admins are handled. In theory, the RfA process is meant to be a community gauge of consensus and trust in the admins based on who they are and what they have done. Supposedly, this is an level playing field since any community member has access to view the same contribution history as anyone else. The case of RtV admins does make it less level since only a small group of people can truly see the "big picture" in order to make an informed decision of whether or not to trust this individual-something that the larger community lacks. Despite my philosophical concerns, I don't see a reason for Keilana to be "test subject" for the conflicts between RtV and RfA and would support this RfA (while made in good faith) to be closed, with Keilana maintaining her admin status, in lieu of a broader community discussion on the main issues.
'''neutral''' Insufficient MediaWiki-space edits –
'''Neutral'''. At first I assumed good faith, but this RfA is an absoloute waste of time, especially as you were always a good admin, having this RfA go for no reason other than to get high votes is, in my view, a big no-no. Sorry, :( <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Neutral''' It doesn't merit an oppose, because Keilana has done just fine as an admin. However, while every user has the [[m:RTV|RTV]], that doesn't mean every admin who invokes RTV should automatically get their tools back. I know this is slightly different because of the rename and not switching accounts, and Keilana has done a fine job, hence my neutral. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Protest Neutral''' - I'm sure you do fine as an admin (no idea, didn't look), but reconfirmation soley because of a rename is a waste of time and a dangerous precedent.  If someone doesn't understand the rename process, they need to be educated, not force the admin to go through a needless process. --
'''Neutral''' I'm still not quite sure if this is an RfA, a reconfirmation, a recall, or circus side-show.
'''Complete Waste of Time''' I was watching this RfA all day thinking that this was an admin that stopped using an older account and created a new one. But, after looking more closely, that's not what happened. This was an account ''rename'', so ''why'' is there a problem? By the way, this does nothing to help your desired privacy -- this RfA has attracted a lot of attention and will naturally lead certain curious folks (like myself) to go search for your original username. And, frankly, it doesn't take long to find. -- '''
'''Uh.''' - As recall / retaining / reconfirmation / whatever votes are not RfAs (and not official policy), this should not go here. It's fine if you want to use the same format, but this is not the appropriate place to do it. Even if it were, the rationale behind starting this is trivial and should've been resolved elsewhere.
'''Neutral''' - I'm one to support reconf. RfAs, usually stating the opposite of whatever [[User:Neil|Neil]] says. However, this is totally ridiculous to me. I've been debating this for days, reading over everything, including Walton's series of books, and I just can't bring myself to support. I get the RTV deal, but I think if something happened that caused me to need to vanish, my ass would vanish and I wouldn't bring it up again. I find it increasingly unsettling when users RTV then advertise it later, or link to their old account. It does not make sense to me. I also fail to see a need to put a recall link in ones signature. That seems like one hoping for a recall request, which is strangely masochistic. As far as edits, some diffs provided may be slight cause for concern, but overall I think her admin edits are overwhelmingly beneficial to the project, therefore, I cannot oppose the candidate, although I do oppose this stupid process of "Retaining RfA" based on one dumbfounded request. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''WTF''' People who didn't know/didn't care about the rename/vanishing/whatever (say... me) now know it from browsing through a couple of logs. So having a high profile reconfirmation RfA totally ballsed up the RtV deal. Waste of time mainly because it's confusing the hell out of us. In all other ways, you seem like a decent sort of admin, no problems, except for this bit of fluff, which I'll chalk up to occasional bad judgement :s ~
'''Support'''. I often notice this editor doing good work. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- knowledgeable about policy, level-headed, and has already been helpful in admin areas.  He's ready for the mop.  --
'''Support'''.  Has over 2 years experiance.  Why not give him the tools?  &ndash;
<big>
'''Support''' per Elkman, and Dlohcierekim. Can definitely help out with the tools; [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]]? --
'''Support''' all seems reasonable, although I am always wary of users who just use their first names. --
'''Support'''  You'll suit fine, nice contributions and talk page history.  Bonus points for me having never heard of you.  Also what Stephen said as far as concerns about using a first name.  Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' per [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]]. A good degree of confidence despite his brevity. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Particularly impressive ability to spot the bad content and tag accordingly, as evidenced by the deleted contributions. As you have clearly stated you wish to help out at [[C:CSD]], which "enjoys" a regularly high backlog, I'm more than convinced you'd be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]]. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I have looked very closely at his CSD related edits and I could find nothing problematic.
'''Support''' A fine candidate. --

'''Support'''. Ironholds has made a fair point in the "oppose" section, and I'd recommend to the candidate to give article writing a higher priority. (For one thing, it is fun, and a good way of reducing stress levels when tensions grow.) However, my look through his mainspace contributions shows that Kevin has a good record of dealing with sourcing issues, so he is not ''empty'' in that department, and I think he has a good enough grip on the encyclopedia aspects as well. Since his contributions in vandal-fighting and tag cleanup (especially removing incorrectly placed speedy tags) have been helpful, and the candidate has shown consistently good judgment in executing those tasks, I am supporting this candidacy with pleasure.
'''Support''' - no issues at all. Completely trustworthy to have the tools -
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''', user seems to have a good understanding of the area in which he intends to help (CSD).  Sure, he could do with some more broad contributing to mainspace, but this alone is not an indication that he should not be supported.
'''Support'''.  I went through your last 500 contribs and was pleased to see that you had ample experience in areas such as [[WP:PROD]], [[WP:SPEEDY]], and [[WP:XFD]].  Good candidate! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Kevin is obviously making a positive contribution to the project, and the tools will help that. ''
'''Support'''. I've thought long and hard on this one. Essentially, I've been trying to work out what article building means to me and how important it is in a candidate. While exposure to the GA and FA process is desirable, it doesn't mean that a candidate is any less likely to be able to analyse a debate and understand concensus from it. Gnoming in this case demonstrates that maintenance of the encyclopedia can go both ways, either by making minor improvements here and there, or by performing cleanup etc. As long as his reasoning and judgement is both sound and stable, the addition of the tools should be a net benefit to the project. His work at XfD, PROD and SPEEDY clearly demonstrates this, so I have decided to support. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Seems that he will make a good admin, good luck Kevin!! <font face="Ravie">
'''Support''', of course.  Two years, thousands of edits.  Easily capable.
'''Support'''
''
'''Support''' Low edit count concerns me, but seems trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' Good answers to the question. From what I can tell he has a good, balanced editing pattern. Won't abuse thr tools.
'''Support''' A reasonable and conscientious editor. --
'''Per Rudget''' above.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  (<small>and more seriously, per easily meeting my [[User:Keeper76/RfA|criteria]]</small> [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Great contributions and great answers to the user-submitted questions.  Some future article writing writing would be welcomed.  –'''
'''Support''' - Per Pedro. Good eye, net positive. I trust this user to delete and report properly.
'''Support''' - although the candidate did not use a [[herring]] to remove the acceptance line [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kevin&diff=218867323&oldid=218866890 as I requested], it would be silly to not support someone with such solid CSD work because of such a small technicality. CSD has been backlogged a lot lately, I think Kevin would assist with that. He also works in the image deletion area, which seems to be an area in need of attention.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' I would trust this editor with a mop.
'''Support'''. Answers show a solid understanding in the areas he wishes to contribute to.
'''Support''' -- per the answers to the questions (short and to the point!). --
'''Support''' Candidate seems to have clue, self-noms when it's known to draw a bad reaction, and has good contributions. I'm not worried about potential periods of inactivity, whenever he's around I'm sure he'll make good use of the tools.
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support''' a self nom that is succinct and a record that does the talking instead.
'''Support'''. Looks good. Lack of taking an article to FA status doesn't concern me - gnomic edits are valuable, also. Demonstrates sound policy knowledge and tact.
Per above. Also, I liked the answers to questions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''An excellent wikignome with admin tools. Sounds good to me!
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - more admin taking concern.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Sounds qualified enough to me.
'''Support''' Specialists are better than generalists in the area of anti-vandalism combat. Full support.--
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose him.
'''Support''', don't see any reason not to.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per edits and answers. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' per Dlohcierekim. --
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. Kevin ''does'' fulfill most of my standards of what i'd consider good admin material; he's established, has made good contributions, few of which have been contested or reverted. However, there are several things that concern me. Firstly, his contributions seem very narrow; much of it is counter-vandalism or deletion action. This is absolutely fine, and an arena where admin tools will come particularly in handy, but I'd prefer well-rounded admins. I can't find any created or majorly edited pages in the last 1000 edits (again, it's mainly anti-vandalism work). He seems a mature, good editor, and i do like his work, but I cant justify giving administrative tools to someone who is inexperienced in one of the most important (if not ''the'' most important) aspects of wikipedia. It's a case of "not right now" more than anything else (which I feel bad about using, since you're a long-established editor) and in a few months (assuming this doesn't pass) if you've started making more mainspace edits I'll be happy to change my next vote to support.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Strong Support''' per my great nomination <font color "red">''':)''' </font><small>pre transclusion as nominator</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Supporting Kim Dent-Brown '''
'''Support'''. After seeing a note on Pedro's talk about adminship, I checked the user's contributions and was impressed. I think this user will make a fine administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Pedro's great nom.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' per Pedro, whom I trust a great deal. However, apart from that, user has the diversification I look for in an admin hopeful. Examination of talk page leads me to believe the user is level headed, friendly, and calm. The answer to the questions are honest and candid. Seems like the candidate can learn from mistakes.
'''Support''' I was on the fence over this one... I mean come on, never edited wikipedia naked? Live a little :P ''now I am off to go put on some clothes''.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like Kim will make a fine admin. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' How could I not, with this user's record and such a nom?
'''Support''' - I think he'd make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''
Definitely. &mdash;
'''Support''', seems to have a decent grasp of CSD policy, which is a must working in that area.  A good, solid admin candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems thoughtful. cheers,
'''Strong support'''. I see a lot of Kim's work on new page patrol, and he is doing excellent work there. Just the new page patrol would make me nod with this RFA and move on (I rarely vote in RfA's not between 65% and 75%) but his excellent communicative skills, civilty, and WP space edits made me decide to drop in and voice my support.
Per [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/Criteria for recall]]. ''
<s>Because of one of those AfD's I saved from Kim. :) [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#801818;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Rudget|.]] 11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)</s> - '''Strong support''' - I really don't need to say anymore than what Pedro has said. Kim reflects all those qualities that are needed in administrators these days, perhaps even passing more than all of them. Apologies to Mailer Diablo, but.. I '''approve''' this message.
Erm, OK. This was a little bit of a surprise.
Yep, no problems here. User:
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - high quality of edits.  I'm convinced.  -
'''Support''' I've had moments where I thought he was one
'''Support''' Great nom from a trusted user, and contribs look good as well. Best of luck!
'''Support'''. No concerns here, he's an exemplary editor.
'''Support''' - Kim is an excellent editor and I expect that he will be an excellent admin! —
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', great candidate.  Use of the clichéd "I thought you were already an admin!" held back so strongly you wouldn't believe.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per excellant nom. <strong>
'''Support.'''  No problems here. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - excellent editor, no problems here. <b>
'''Support.'''
'''support'''
'''Support''' Just worked with editor on his GA nomination. Very conscientious and thorough. And works extremely quickly and efficiently as well.
'''Support'''.  I just read through the last 6 weeks of your talkpage and history.  You have a very easy demeanor about you (which is not exactly easy to do with a keyboard - kudos to you).  You respond to criticism with poise and patience.  Now that you will likely be spending time in the Janitor's realm [[CAT:CSD|cleaning up vomit]], [[WP:VAND|mopping the floor]], [[WP:BLOCK|patrolling the halls]], and [[WP:PROTECT|locking the doors at night]], your demeanor will go a long way towards increasing your notability to other Wikipedians at least. (I read your "10 odd" userpage too :)) Easily one of the strongest admin candidates I've seen in recent weeks.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Great one! Good luck with the mop. '''
'''Support''' Though I would ask that he add a message or a userbox on his user page saying he is male.  Kim can be a male or female name and its annoying to not know; I hate using the wrong prepositions.
'''Support'''. Nothing but good interactions with this editor, and I know the mop will be in excellent hands. (Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin.)--
'''Support''' Good user, seen her around as a constructive contributor, no reason to oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
Good one. See that sig everywhere, it seems! ~
'''Support''' Reviewed contributions, see not a trace of any problem. --
'''''
'''Support''' well done, good luck!
'''Support''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].  Other than never editing in the nude, liking kittens, and speaking English, we don't have much in common.  However, WP could use an admin to mop up some of the [[Wicca]]n articles.
'''Support''' - Per Nomination. There is no reason not too.
'''Support''' Trusted user. No concerns at all. --
I have always been impressed with Kim Dent-Brown.
'''Support''' No immediately clear reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' [[User:Kim Dent-Brown]] has been very active in AfDs. I have reviewed his entire edit history. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is evenhanded in the discussions of AfDs. He already appears to be functioning as a good admin even though he does not have the administrative tools. He consistently shows patience and courtesy when interacting with other editors. He writes well and makes quality edits. My sole interaction with him was on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol]] which was positive.--[[User:Dan Dassow|Dan Dassow]] ([[User talk:Dan Dassow|talk]]) 06:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I updated the tally from (63/1/0) to (66/1/0) to reflect the current count.--
'''Support''', good answers, good edit history.  Seems level-headed, fair and knowledgeable.
'''Support''' looks a goodie. And we could do with an admin called "Kim". --
'''Support'''. He's a worthy candidate.
'''Support''', will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' No problems with this.
'''Support'''. Not an editor with who I am familiar, but certainly seems to be a user I am willing to trust.
'''Support''' from experience working with this editor, can trust with the tools. --'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - no reason not to.
'''Support''' - Yes. --
'''Support'''. Good editor, good candidate. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Has done good work, has sound judgment and works well with others. His work on [[Wicca]] has crafted it into a better and more focused article. (pun '''certainly''' intended) I'm a tad prejudiced because he works on articles in my areas of interest but this also means I'm impressed with his work.
'''Support''' Kim Dent-Brown is a polite editor and tries to help, when new contributors write their first articles, if they don't cover all the wikipedian standarts. He gives them time and advices how to continue their work.
''Support''' Per the nom... Looks good. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Never had any dealings myself but seems able, civil and conscientious. --
'''Support''' My support.. :) [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. -
'''Beat the Nom Support'''. A full third of your mainspace contributions are to one article ([[Florida Atlantic University]]), where you doubled its length and brought it to FA status. Most impressive. I also see good contributions to AIV and UAA. No reservations about the candidate's ability to properly use the tools to the benefit of the project. Good luck,
'''Support'''.  Knows policy, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KnightLago&diff=200428522&oldid=200425439 has worked to promote civil discussion between users], and has been a solid contributor to articles.  --
'''Support''' - According to this user's special contributions for [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AIV]], and [[WP:UAA]], they certainly know policy. Good stuff.
Excellent user with an excellent nominator.
'''Support''' - All looks good here.
Extremely well-rounded candidate. Reflects characteristics needed in administrators well.
'''Support''' I can find no reason why this candidate shouldn't have the mop.
'''Support''' A good editer with almost 4000 mainspace edits of his 7000 total. Also, decent answers.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' I trust this editor not to abuse the tools, and he will do much good with them.
'''per above''' found no serious problems. meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]].
'''Strong support''' -- Everything is more than in order! Besides all the regulars are supporting *Not to be taken seriously* --
'''Support''' Yep yep.
'''Support''' After reading his answers to the questions asked, and viewing a few of his articles he has contributed to, I place my vote to support this action.
'''Support''' Even though he lacks the requisite number of Portal talk: edits, he seems like he'll learn. :) '''
'''Support'''. Knight seems trustworthy, and has demonstrated a clear need for the tools—a great bonus in any candidate. He's experienced, and technically savvy. I am confident that mopping him will be beneficial to the project. No-brainer, standard-support. Regards,
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' I noticed knight the other day when he had contact Alison about becoming a co-coach... I was impressed by his initiative to go in search of a coach and said so then... while seeing this RfA now was a bit of surprise, based upon that post, I feel comfortable supporting him.
'''Yep'''.  You've got exactly [[WP:CLUE|what it takes]].  Support without hesitation. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Looks like a fine editor to me.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', per the above 20 users. All of them. --
'''Support''' Seems like he will do a good job with the tools.
'''Support''' Absolutely. --
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighting. <strong>
'''Support''' Looks good. :)
'''Support'''.  Sure, no problems.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''You weren't already a sysop? Support''' I'm surprised that this took so long. You're good to go for the tools. --'''
'''Support''' You seem like someone to be trusted with sysop buttons.
&mdash;
'''Support''', as nominator, 'course =] '''
'''Support''', if trustworthy users trust KnightLago, so should I.
'''Support''' - net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' what else? ''
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' great candidate for the tools.
'''Support''' User seems to fully understand Wikipedia policies. Appears to be trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Good answers.
'''Support'''. No problems here. --<small>
'''Support''' I have looked over his logs and edits and see the makings of a fine administrator. I trust he will wield the mop with accuracy and good judgment. We need more people like this for recent changes patrol to deal with vandalism and inappropriate articles.
'''Support''' Great article contributions, and nice answers to questions. Good work. :) Cheers, <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|~いいですね?]]
'''Support''' Nearly 4000 mainspace edits has been around since March 2006 and no specfic concerns.
'''S''' - looks good to me.
FA work + some good answers to questions. ''
'''Support'''7000 all good <strong>

'''Support''' - <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. User looks fine to me. '''
'''Support''' Everything looks good here.
'''Support''' - –'''''Cheers,
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per the nom statement.  Good luck! <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Great user. Also per [[WP:SNOW]] (i.e. jump-on-the-bandwagon :P )
'''Support''' No concerns have been brought up so far, so of course I'll support you.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Per answers to the questions. Good luck!
'''Support''' Clearly no problems here. -
'''Support''' I see no cons. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Great user. --
'''Support''' Good answers and always glad to support a fellow vandal watcher/fighter.
'''Support:'''  No reason not to.  <span style="cursor: crosshair">[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' - I've seen him around and have often been impressed. Not much more to say!
'''Support''' Pile on support. I can't find a reason not to support. '''
'''Support''' Trustworthy and experienced user, will be a good admin. <strong>
'''Strong support''' Well done on the FA. '''
'''Support''' Looks like this editor would be fine with the tools. <font face="Blackadder"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Go for it, seems to be a model candidate. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I want to jump on the dog pile too. '''
'''Support''' Will make a good syop. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' I've seen KnightLago around [[WP:UNI|WikiProject Universities]].  His contributions to WP are useful and well done, and I think he's fully ready for adminship.
'''Support''' - zero concerns, meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], seems to be a model candidate bordering on the normal. :-)
'''Support''' - less than no concerns.
'''Support''' Great user. —'''
'''Support''' Very thorough editor.  Knowledgeable on wiki topics and guidelines.  Good luck on your adminship!
'''Strong support''' Very productive and samrt. He has made his contributions to wikipedia and is dedicated to making wikipedia a better place--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of contributions to [[Official Monster Raving Loony Party]] and [[Screaming Lord Sutch]].
'''Support''': Looks promising to me. --
'''Support''' See no reasons to suggest user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Supprot'''. Good contributions, seems unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Yep!''' --
'''Support''' A great user who has good article building experience and knows the Wikipedia policies. I see no reason to think that he won't be responsible with the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Solid enough. No concerns. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' because [[WP:ILIKEIT|I like it]].
'''Support''' per answer to my question.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|Trust, judgment, blah, blah, blah…]] --
'''Support'''. Very promising contributions. No sign that he may abuse the tools. Clear yes. --
Yep, no evidence that this user will ever abuse the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' There is absolutely no reason not to support you. I have no doubts you will have the mop and bucket soon, and I will feel safe knowing Wikipedia is then under your jurisdiction. <small>
'''Support''' Right, I've got to run in a moment, but here it goes. I've read through a good bit of your latest contributions, as well as [[User:L'Aquatique/RFA FAQ]], and you've got the right idea. I like your work at MedCab and with your various WikiProjects; this shows me that you clearly realize that peaceful and civil collaboration is absolutely number one for this project. I don't entirely agree with all of your answers on your RFA FAQ page, though. In the "If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article" question, keep in mind that blocking is preventative, not punitive. You could likely solve the problem by merely blocking the two or three IPs for a short period of time, even just a few hours. That way, you wouldn't have to protect the article at all, leaving it open for potentially constructive contributions. You should also have a bit of a think more on the role of admins on the project. While we do need to be police/mediators sometimes, we should by and large not think of ourselves as somehow above other members; we need to work really hard on dispelling this air of grandeur that admins think they have. These are just some hopefully helpful suggestions from me that you might think over. As I said, you very clearly have the right idea with what Wikipedia is trying to do as a whole, you do fantastic work here, and you demonstrate a clear need for the extra buttons. I wish you the very best of luck, and please feel free to ask me if you ever have any questions. Here is my trust.
'''Support''' I like the answers at [[User:L'Aquatique/RFA FAQ]], they show me she put a lot of thought in it. I think someone who puts those into practice will make a fine admin. (I reserve the right to change my vote though when I see her answer to the questions here, after all, you never know ;-) Also, I think the contributions are quite good as far as I looked now. '''
'''Support'''. Sure. Good luck! &mdash;
'''Support''' Based on what I know about this editor, I have no reason to believe they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' &mdash; appears willing to work with those who may one day be potential contributors even if they start off on the wrong foot. In addition to lowering the block length, consider extending them a {{tl|2nd chance}} template. Other than that, general cluefulness has been displayed. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as nothing serious jumped out at me to cause me to oppose.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' per Tan 39's neutral, Le Grand.
'''Support''' - Very good user, per the people above and her answers. -- '''
'''Support''' GlassCobra said it the best ("It's been seen.... it can't be ''unseen''!")
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A fine candidate who knows the difference between right and wrong.
Will make a good admin.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user around, and I think they'll make a good admin.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Have seen L'Aquatique around doing good stuff, no qualms here. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I have two concerns: one is the lack of edits; I'm not sure you have enough edits, however, I do believe you will not abuse your powers, and will use them in an effective manner. The second: templating the regulars (see my talk) is something which really gets my goat. However, this user responded admirably to the whole situation (including my tongue in cheek response), which leads me to believe he has the proper temperament, intelligence, and knowledge to make an ideal administrator.
'''Support''' Even though L'Aquatique doesn't have an insane amount of edits like some other users do, her edits are well spaced out across the Wiki. I think she will be able to handle her tools responsibly. I believe that L'Aquatique can continue to improve herself here on the Wiki, but I think right now she deserves to be granted adminship. I have seen L'Aquatique around a little, and from what I can see, she is very civil and responsible. Best of luck,
'''Support''' - [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]] --
'''Support''' - Oh, yes. Definitely. And yes again. Apart from the purple/green user logo (argh, my EYES! ;-) no problems at all. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' She's headed down the right path, they can't know everything in the beginning.
'''Support''' - Dedicated to the project, has a clue.
Knowledgable and civil user, trustworthy.  Also great attempt at helping during the Hopiakuta messes last year, IIRC.
'''Weak support''' - I'm seriously concerned by the low edit count, but opposing for that reason would be [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/oren0|hypocritical]] of me.
'''Support''' Looks good. [[WP:WTHN]].--

'''Support''' - definitely has what it takes. She'll be just fine -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' She has a rare combination of intelligence, empathy, civility under pressure, and level-headedness, and she understands both letter and spirit of WP policies and guidelines. I'm confident she will make an excellent administrator.
[http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/users.php?viewuser=56 Does great work] on the account tool. No problems here!
'''Support'''. She will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - shows strong communication skills and working in dispute resolution is in my opinion always a sound foundation for adminship. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - as the opposition point out, you don't have much experience in the administrator areas just yet (the types of which are also described in the opposes below) but as shown above you have excellent skills in discussion, good answers, you're communicative and you have experience in dispute resolution. That's a winner for me.
Looks good to me.   &ndash;
'''Support'''. Too much common sense and Wiki know-how for me to continue being neutral.
'''Support''' Can't have too many sensible admins :) <br />—
Dedicated and smart user. She'll certainly make an excellent admin, I have no reservations. :) --
'''Weak support''' - a little more experience here and there, but the answers to the questions are impressive. You have good communication skills, and what you ''have'' done seems good. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', though as Wisdom89 says your edits in some areas you wish to work in as an administrator are quite lacking. However, it's obvious you're a very sensible person who can be trusted not to go racing in flailing admin tools at inappropriate things. Your general contributions as well as your communication skills seem excellent, and you seem to know all the relevant policies pretty well. Your answers to the questions, in particular, were excellent - I never thought those (in my opinion) kinda pointless AGF Challenge questions would ever have any effect on my vote in an RfA, but your answers were very switched-on and well written, and you can call me impressed. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I fully support you in this. It seems you are fully deserving of adminship. Your contributions may be within a certain limited scope, but they are of excellent quality.
'''Weak support''' Not the most experienced candidate I've ever seen, but certainly seems thoughtful, trustworthy and willing to learn.  Good luck!
'''Support'''...yep...yep...yep. Good luck! --'''
'''Weak Support''' I do understand some of the qualms that others have - low number of mainspace edits likely means this candidate hasn't run into enough edit conflicts where policy experience is necessary. However, from the questions given, it certainly seems like L'Aquatique knows his/her stuff and would an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - User has a solid level of clue. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>'''''<sub>(<font color="black">
Should be fine: UAA, AIV, and RFPP aren't too difficult to learn. I only had two edits (and only one request) to requests for page protection when I became an admin.
'''Support''' I see no reason for concern.
'''Support''' Everything looks good.  Adminship is not big deal.
'''Support''' per the fact that she meets [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|my criteria]] for supporting a candidate for adminship. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Strong support''' - exceeds [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], by far.
'''Support''' per anser to Q6.  And, honestly, I generally never even read the "optional" questions, or the first three, or the nom statement, for that matter.  But you nailed it. Also, I've seen you around and have no negative "vibes" from your contribs.  Good luck with the mop!
'''Support.'''  Seems to be a fine candidate: ready, willing, and able to address [[Wikipedia:Request an account|ACC]], [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention|UAA]], and [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|RM]] backlogs, demonstrates a good understanding of the role of the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AFD]] process, and excellent vandal-fighting and article experience (building articles in userspace = good, btw; no thankspam = good as well ;-).  —
'''Weak support''' per below. Please contribute more mainspace content instead of userspace content, because we have enough no writing content contributors, already. First and foremost, this is an encyclopedia, and the community must know that first and foremost before XFDs, AfDs, and even TfDs occur. '''
'''Support''' - Net Plus.  Her answer to the Kurt Question showed a sense of humor and poise that one cannot fake.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' I couldn't find any reason to oppose her. Good luck!
[[User:L'Aquatique]] has demonstrated the ability to relax on Wikipedia, which is quite a valuable trait when all about you are losing their heads.  <tt>:-)</tt>  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility]] is important work; in particular, she has tried to get [[User:hopiakuta]] involved properly in the encyclopaedia, which is commendable.  --<span style="color:blue">[[User talk:Grey Knight|<sub>tiny plastic</sub> Grey Knight]]</span> <span style="color:#777">
''Je ne sais quoi'' support. —
'''Support''' Impressive candidate indeed. WJBscribe, among several other users here have voiced my opinion on the matter.
'''Support'''. Good answers. Solid contributions. I'm impressed that you made the effort to answer the tedious "AGF challenge" questions.
'''Support''', seems extremely sane.
'''Weak Support''' I have been assured that the user would use the tools, with an admin backing up the statement. Changing from neutral to weak support.--
'''Support''': Mainspace edit count is more than acceptable, and adminhood is no big deal. --<b>
'''Support''' Intelligent, polite and helpful, what else does anyone need in an admin?
'''
'''Support''', user seems good to me.
'''Support''' from neutral, you actually gave (very good) answers to the AGF answers. I'm impressed. You have a decent knowledge of WP policy, you know how to build articles ''and'' deal with anti-vandalism. WikiProject work is good, too. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support'''. Good participation throught many aspects of Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support'''. How could I ever forget my Alaskan fish buddy? '''''
'''Support''' Per Xeno.
'''Support'''. should be fine. Cheers,
'''Support''' Great user. '''
'''Support''' Another strong candidate who can obviously learn anything remaining to be learned.
'''Support''' - answer to Q11 suggest that in the case of burnout, he won't explode spectacularly and speedy delete CSD. '''
'''Definitely''' ——
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' per nom, answers to all questions thus far, and apparently pleasant, down-to-earth personality. (Extra weight on the personality factors, as per my eventual support for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Morhange another candidate].)
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' No reason not to!
'''Support''' Nothing I can see is particularly alarming. I loved your answer to question #7, btw. Scintillating and succinct.
'''Strong support:''' Let's leave aside any other consideration while we gaze at the Oppose voters.  Gentlefolk, have you read over this lady's thoughtful and reasoned answers above (she had me at "Wikipedia. Is. Not. Congress.")?  Seen anything of her style and work?  So may I ask you this: ''what about any admin work with which you think she's inexperienced are you figuring she's incapable of learning?''  Swear to god, there's nothing about any of this that's brain surgery.
'''Strong Support:''' Can't say no, active contributer to wiki, and can use the tools.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - definitely. Strong contributions, great answers. We can't all rack up a thousand edits per month, and not every editor needs 5,000 to show she has a clue. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Both candidate and community will benefit from tools. <font color="amaranth">
'''Surely.'''  Your answers above make a great impression, but your work speaks for itself.  If the <s>litmus</s> test is trust, you seem to have the community's.  Do great things!
Honestly, I think this is a little premature and I would rather see wider and broader experience but my observations of L'Aquatique have always been positive so I'm happy to support.
'''Support''' : Weak contributions as per 'my' standards :) ... But now seeing people opposing RFA for no real and  tangible reasons - Bad signature, 'Myspacey' userpages etc..( WoW !) , I am leaning to support people who has a decent behaviour history and good attitude.. [[WP:WTHN]] ? Keep up the trust we have in you... Best wishes --
'''Support''' Good answers and trustworthy editor --
'''Support''' Good experienced user. No need for the tools is not a good reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' '''
'''Oppose''' - User wishes to work at UAA, AIV, and RFPP according to statements made in the answer to question 1 (wants to block, protect etc..etc..) Yet, I see a paucity of contributions (if any) to those areas. So, I'm going to have to oppose this request per lack of experience.
'''Weak Oppose''' Though the editor seems well-intended and seems to make constructive edits, he/she also looks way too inexperienced and a bit too meta-wiki for my tastes. Just call me grumpy. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89 and due to low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits, which indicates to me a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' You've got little to no experience in the admin areas you want to work in. What exactly are you going to do--wing it? As far as I see, you've done nothing that makes me trust your ability to work there as an admin.--
'''Oppose''' - Little to no experience in sysop areas. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom. The candidate needs more experience in sysop-related areas. Sorry.
Per Q2, and the above. —'''
'''Oppose''' per proposing [[MDV3100|a stub]] as an example of best work. --
Hmm. I've been pondering on and off about this for several days now. The thing is that even with the above opposes, there is no real deal-breaker. Yet I feel a bit eery about handing this candidate the tools. Cannot pinpoint any particular reason, so don't ask, but my opinion that this is a bad idea is weirdly strong. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Neutral for now'''. I agree with Wisdom (in the oppose section) in that there is a little lack of experience, however, I've seen this editor around here and there and they've demonstrated a seemingly good knowledge of how everything works. A bit more userspace edits (proportionally) than I would like, and a bit more Huggling recently than I would like. I'll take an extra close look and come back to this one.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; Can't support due to disagreement over philosophy on cool-down blocks, but can recognize a respectable and meaningful answer that at least takes a side.
'''neutral''' (from support) over concerns about experience levels.

'''First support!''' I trust this user, and with a nomination from Biblio and Giggy, I can't oppose! <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''--
'''
You obviously understand the purpose of the encyclopedia. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
'''Support''' - Wow, this is a really obvious one. I trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' - Definitely - A veteran who clearly knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' The obligatory "I thought you already were one" vote.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy. No reason not to support. &mdash;
'''Support''' Easy one. Good luck. :)
'''Support''' Trustworthy <font style="font-family: Georgia">
''Good Suppourt'''He seems accomplished and edxperienced, and seems like a hard worker,--
I'm
Yay. —'''
Contributions: [[Image:Yes check.svg|15px]] + Answers: [[Image:Yes check.svg|15px]] = '''Support'''. <small>
I did a thorough [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Lankiveil|ER]] of this user and was very impressed, especially with his great interpersonal skills.
'''Support'''- assumed Lankiveil was already an admin.
'''Support'''- erm....was going to say something witty but nothing came to mind...so I won't...looks good, will do fine. Cheers,
'''Support''' whenever I've read what he's written he's been great, and his contributions + question answers are great too
'''Support'''. I would most definitely trust this user with the tools. His contributions and interactions with other users have both been very good.
'''Support''' yes, of course. Knows what it takes to build an encyclopedia, and has the ability to do it. Also per nom :) Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Yay an article editor! —
'''Support''' Seems like a great editor, polite and doing tedious tasks without complaining. That's what an admin should be! '''
'''Support''' per the fantastic answer to Q7 and the fact that I can see this user going on to become one of the best sysops on this project. :-) '''John Sloan''' (
Hello, I'm here to sign up for the Do-It-Yourself Liposuction class, and I...oh, wrong queue.  While I am here: '''Support'''.
'''Supported'''.  A trustworthy contributor.  This is way overdue.
I'm supporting this user. I've seen him around in a variety of namespaces, including, refreshingly, the (main). He should do splendidly as an admin. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' - bumped into the user in the past, and even though the answers to the questions are a tad bare, I have no doubt the user won't go insane as an admin.
'''Aye''' - no-brainer. (My vote, not the candidate). <b>
'''Support''', no problems here.
'''Support'''. I trust Lankiveil with the administrator tools, and furthermore think he will be competent in his use of them. That he has such solid article space experience is an added bonus that "seals the deal" for me. Good luck,
'''Support'''. He's experienced and civil. Knows policy. Somewhat lacks communication in the realm of Wikipedia Talk, but I think he'll be a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Concur with the above. Candidate is a dedicated editor whose skill and level-headedness will be an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' Definitely. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
Hello, I'm here to take Ecoleetage home as he seems to be lost again. Ah, there he is. Oh, while I'm here, I '''support''' Lankiveil completely. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - from interaction alone and leaving the questions/contributions aside - every sense a candidate for the task of coping with the likes of most of the voters here without any difficulty (since when was presence on talk a virtue?)
'''Support''' oh-no another Autralian as an admin. I've only had and observed good interactions with other editors, happy to trust with tools.
'''Support''' This should have happened a long time ago. Vastly overqualified for the position. --
'''Support''' I am a little hesitant to give admin responsibility to a fiendish [[Harkonnen]], but I guess we shouldn't rule out everyone from the ice planet of [[Lankiveil]].  In all seriousness, I remember Lankiveil form my days at AfD and even back in those days this user was a respected veteran who could always be trusted for their thoughtful opinions in deletion debates. --
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Strong support''' Have seen this user a lot, he interacts well with others, is responsible and contributes well to community debates. Meets
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' I trust the editors and the noms!
'''Support''' net benefit to the project.'''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' &mdash; Very obviously qualified, able, and ready. '''
'''Support'''. He will make a good admin. As others have said, he can be trusted and knows the ropes. --
'''Support''' — the obligatory "I thought you already were an admin" sentiment here =) <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''', a great Wikipedian, and I've seen a good early opinions at AFD which is unusual as ppl who vote early at Afd are usually not engaging their brain very much, but .. please do go easy on the AFDs as LGRdC does have a point (this time?) that you're often voting delete on the borderline topics. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Absolutely''' Nice to see you accept the nomination.  Will be happy to welcome you to your next stage at the project.--
'''Aye''' '''
'''
'''Support''' Giggy co-nominated. &ndash;
~
'''Support''' - no reason found not to, per nom --
'''Support'''. Yes, simple as that.
'''Support'''.  I'm always surprised when I see an admin show up at RFA, proving that I was wrong in my earlier perception.
'''Support''' thought he already was :P ——
Simple choice. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' - Thought you already were one! Good luck! --'''
Perusing ''Lankiveil`s'' contributions shows no areas of concern, and I also like his answers to the questions above.  As such, it is my pleasure to '''Support''' this member of the "Obscure Dune Username" club!  --
'''Support''' I dug through his "wikipedia" namespace contributions from January to April.  Seemed to be knowledgeable and helpful.  Works in portal and project space as well!
'''Support.'''  Excellent candidate, more than capable.  —
'''Support''' Highly competent and trustworthy editor.
'''Support.''' Per the noms and {{user|AGK}}.
'''Support'''.  I trust bibliomaniac15's assessment.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Seems experienced and well qualified.
'''Support''' - a bit late in the day seeing this is overwhelmingly going to pass, but I may as well throw in two cents. An excellent editor, consistently civil and with a genuine interest in improving content and a detailed understanding of the machinery behind it. Fine by me.
'''Support.''' Experienced and sensible.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Another Australian Wikipedian who can be labelled as professional. -
'''Support''' - Watched Lankiveil's contributions for a long time. Steady, clueful, trustworthy -
'''Support''' Looks good. Good answer to question 9.
'''Support.''' A solid and balanced record of mainspace and projectspace contributions, good understanding of WP policies.
'''Support''' - <s>Unless the eventual answer to Q10 comes back completely off-the-wall,</s> I can see no reason why this excellent candidate shouldn’t be given the mop. Cheers —
'''Support''' - Pending answer to Q10. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].  I must disagree with Le Grande Roi (whom I respect greatly); I don't see this editor's delete "votes" at AfD to be a major issue for me.  Quickly scanning that list, I would agree with Lankiveil on many of those discussions, for which he did cite policies in many of the examples given.  I dread arguing in favor of deleting anyone's hard work, but many of those articles did not meet our standards.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - Your distinctiveness will be added to [[WP:CABAL|our own]].
'''Support''' per Giggy's ringing endorsement. User has a strong history of good and fair editing.
'''Support''' per some interaction with Lankiveil on Australia related topics. Nothing particular stands out in my mind as amazing, but also no negative interactions. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' per nom and article work. Q's 11 and 12 are especially impressive (I see that Kurt hasn't entered his trademark oppose...so far, anyway!). For what it's worth, I thought Lankiveil was already an admin.
'''Support'''. I trust this user.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' - flawless nomination from what I can see, and this speaks volumes not just for the candidate, but for the nominators too. ;) I'm sure you'll make the entire community proud, so all I can say is: best wishes and good luck!
'''Support''', yes please.
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Stockman]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrachan]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignika]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhikan]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Degrassi-related articles]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local children's television series (United States)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuevo Rico (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possessionless (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria]] ... actually, you seem to be a well rounded editor and I don't see a major reason to withhold the mop and bucket. <small>
'''Strong support''' per Seicer.
'''Support''' an experienced and sensible user. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support;''' evidently well-suited to the job. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - the contribution history and answers are satisfactory. --
'''Support''' – I'm suitably impressed. ..
'''Pile on support'''; this user should be in the <nowiki>[[Category:Editors everybody expected were already admins]]</nowiki>. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''.
Switching to '''weak oppose''' maybe even neutral following a nice discussion off-wiki with the candidate (he did NOT for the record canvass me to switch my stance, just merely explained some things in a civil and respectful manner; I am changing on my own accord).  Although I am trying to avoid ''Wikipedia'' due to some real life matters I need to focus on working out, which is why I blanked my userspace and requested they be protected, I had a nice enough off-wiki discussion with the candidate that I felt compelled to log back on briefly today (of course, y'all may not see me again after this edit for quite some time as I must continue work out my real life concerns) and am persuaded that he seems more open-minded to compromises (like merges with regards to these fiction articles) that below diffs from the past suggest, is trying to avoid use of "cruft", and that he takes criticism with a mature and open-mind. So, kudos to him.  Please also note that I originally strongly opposed per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Stockman]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltar]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrachan]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted Hero (Ghost Whisperer episode)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignika]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhikan]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Degrassi-related articles]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local children's television series (United States)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Dog (Dungeons & Dragons)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuevo Rico (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possessionless (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfied (album)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Moon]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Colony ARK]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercheats]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran Alliance]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toa (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbeeg]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanatos (Star Wars)]], i.e. overly aggresive deletionism that is actually FAR more of a concern than any other admin candidate whom I recently opposed (and [[WP:ITSCRUFT]] and [[WP:JNN]] style "arguments", not seeing second nominations for articles that were decisively kept previously as disruptive/pointed, or use of the failed fiction guideline) that makes it difficult for me to trust with deletion tools as relates to articles concerning fictional characters or television episodes in particular.  Too biased on one side of the spectrum when it comes to lists or fiction articles.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose''' Why does he end up on the loosing side of AFD's so much and doesn't cite and policies for reasons? scary what could happen as a closing admin etc.--
'''Support''' Seems fine.
'''Slight Support''' I'm confident LAX wouldn't abouse the tools, but I would like to see more activity from him at [[WP:AFD]].

'''Support'''.  I don't see any problems.  This user will make a great admin.  Good luck!  '''
'''Support''', but see DMN's comment. Otherwise, you seem to be a pretty good user. <strong>
'''Support'''. Great user. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' - Per D.M.N and Not because I am being biased (both of us apart of [[WP:PW]]) but LAX is always striving to make Wikipeida better, and as an admin he can do that more.--'''''[[User:Truco9311|<font color="black">T</font><font color="blue">r</font><font color="black">U</font>]][[User talk:Truco9311|<font color="blue">C</font><font color="Black">o</font>]]
'''Support''' I like this user's work around here.  Looks good, and I have no qualms.
'''Support'''LAX is a very dedicated user. He would make a great administrator.
'''Support''' A decent editor who will use the tools properly.
'''Support''' as nominator. <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">
'''Support''', he knows his way through Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
We need more admins who can deal with the black hole that is wrestling articles.

'''Support''' Will use tools well.
'''Support''' Good and trustworthy user. -
'''Support''' as meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards|my standards]] and per the good arguments above.

'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' - looks good enough to me.
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide|DHMO]].
'''Support''' can't found a reason to oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Answers to Q.4 indicate that the candidate is properly knowledgable regarding how sysops should operate. Everything else appears fine, too.
'''Support'''.  You seem like a great editor that is committed to this project. Your answer to Q4 is especially promising.  Good luck with the mop!
Per comments in neutral.
'''Support''' This canadite seems dedicated to wikipedia and knows the sysops responsibilities -- should become a great sysop  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' No problems to be seen. You're ready for the mop! --'''
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to.  LAX certainly is interested in subject areas where we can use another admin or two.  -
'''Support''' - Of course, user is very capable and has demonstrated why is they are such a great member of this community :-)
'''Support''' Per above..Good luck! [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support'''- Deserves it, knows the way, will improve Wikipedia '''''
'''Support''' - Capable user. Knows policy enough to be trusted with the tools. I see no problems. --
'''Support''' I have know this user for a while now, and I have always trusted him. Good luck:-)--
'''Support''' - He has almost made the same amount of edits as myself in less than half the time. Statistics aside, I think here we have a very compentant user. Great vandal fighter and dedicated Wikipedian. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]
'''Support''' Sure!
'''Support''': Accepting above comments. --
'''Support''' - can be trusted with the tools. --
Good user.
'''Support''' Yeah, of course. —
'''Support''' - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. '''''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Neutral'''. Don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. Can't justify opposing as the experimental questions are flawed, sorely need patching up. A bit surprised the candidate responded at all, in retrospect. —
'''Support'''- I've seen this user around and consider them to be reasonable, and will be a net gain to the 'pedia if given the mop.
'''
'''Support''' as a Good Thing. The edit count fluctuates wildly, yes, but with GA and FA tags and a respectable number of AIV reports nobody can argue that this indicates either 1) lack of mainspace/AV experience or 2) the possibility of the user being unfamiliar with wiki-policy in those areas.
'''Support''' I can already tell this will be a pile on. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Good contributor.  Why not? <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' After reviewing the editor's talk page, I am convined there is little likelihood would abuse/misuse the tools. Editor has made a sufficient number of edits to be comfortable with the level of experience. GA's and FA's (a [[User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle|Triple Crown]] yet) weigh in favor of support with me, as they are further indicators the editor can participate productively in a collaborative environment and is knowledgeable of policies and guidelines. Also, I like the answers to the questions they indicate good critical thinking and ability to communicate. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Net positive. Will make a great admin.
Two tickets for ''[[Godzilla vs. Megalon]]'', please.  Oh, wrong queue...damn, I was looking forward to seeing that flick, too.  But while I am here: '''Support''', because I am looking forward to seeing this fine editor become an admin!

Good, I hope you revive French project as well with your tools.--
'''Support''' Interactions with this user have been positive, good contributions = mop in sight. Best of luck, &ndash;
'''Support'''.  I trust this user.--
Everything I've seen from this user convinces me to '''support'''. Level-headed and mature.
'''Support''' an excellent editor, and I hope this will gradually encourage him to be around here more,for we need people like this. '''
'''Support''' All of my interactions with Lazulilasher and his answers to the questions so far make me believe he is mop-worthy,
'''Support''' I can't say that I'm familiar with Lazulilasher&mdash;which is, I gather, my loss&mdash;but my analysis tracks closely with that of Dlohcierekim, and I conclude with a good deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' – I notice in particular some of his commentary at AfD discussions. He comes across as thoughtful, clueful, trustworthy. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - Absolutely trustworthy, looks like.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' No reason for concern. Good luck!
'''Strong support''' from neutral (technicality) below - the candidate has responded well to my concern there, and he has a lot of relevant admirable qualities. I did look (in some detail) at his contributions in the dispute resolution process, and I was around in WQA at the time he was involved. His responses have always been helpful in resolving the dispute quickly and effectively. (I could've supported his RFA, solely based on the quality of his responses and the way he handled those disputes.) He's made good contributions in other important areas, whether they are content or admin-related, and he pays quite a bit of attention to some of the finer details others may overlook. I could keep going on and on I think, but in essence, I think I can sum it up with the following line; I'm very confident that he will be a fine admin. Best wishes -
The candidate has won me over through his detailed responses to the questions provided. I have no hesitations in stating he may indeed make a fine administrator. [[User:Blooded Edge|<font face="Chiller" size="5">'''<font color="ED1C24">Blooded Edge</font></font>]] <sup>
I've not seen you around before, but anyone who is able to help out at AfD and has time to dedicate themselves to a WikiProject redesign deserves my '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Good contributions & answers.
'''Support''' I like the answers and can't find any reason not to support. --
'''Support''' - Good editor, no doubt they will make a fine admin. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' good editor, can be trusted with the tools.
'''Strong support''' -- Excellent. XfD, CSD, AN/I, mediation, lots of article edits, clean user page, no problems, no issues. Perfect. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support'''. I have worked with [[User:Lazulilasher]] on several articles. He is talented, hard-working, congenial, fair, and trustworthy. I wholeheartedly support this nomination.
'''Support'''. No problems here -
You're one of the users that I go around seeing and say, "That's one of the users who works so well without the tools he may not even need them." You're awesome, seriously. &mdash; [[User:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">Ceran</span>]][[User talk:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">thor</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ceranthor|[Formerly]]
'''Strong Support''' Excellent all around work. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support.''' - Per the nom, answers to the first three questions, and some quality positive contributions to this project. '''
'''Support''' Solid answers to questions + good contribs = support. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Aye''' - no reason no to, good answers as well. <b>
'''Support''' Wow, I'm amazed no one thought of this before. Though I have only worked with this editor over a brief period of time, I have found his contributions to be of excellent quality. His dedication to the citing and verifying of information in articles is an admirable quality, and I believe that he would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. He has sufficient experience in multiple areas. He writes good articles, keeps vandals at bay, works towards defusing conflicts at Wikiquette alerts, and makes substantive comments at AfD.
'''Support''' No reason to think he'll abuse the tools. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Great editor, deserves the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' As per track and see no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' a strong candidate.
'''Support''' - Absolutely. —
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' - nothing alarming here --'''
'''Support''' Experienced, and has seemed like a sensible and pleasant person during my encounters with him.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. —
'''Support''' Seems well versed in several important ways....
'''Support''' ex-LOC member, and by extension, a godsend. Oh, and everything else everone else said that was good as well :)
'''STrong support''' Great editor adn writer. '''
'''Strong support''' has my utmost respect. --
'''Support''' Sure, looks fine. Good luck!
'''Support''' - looks great.
'''Support''' - seems to be a very friendly editor and would benefit from the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Quick! pileon! Seriously though, good contributor; good admin. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Appears to be an excellent communicator, and otherwise unlikely to abuse the bits.
'''Support.''' He has experience in admin-related areas and he is unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, knowledgeable and helpful.
'''Support''': You have my trust and confidence. --
'''Support''' per my experience with him. '''''
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' '''«'''
'''Support''' - User wants to work in [[WP:XFD]]'s and rightly so.
'''Support''' Everything seems good.
'''Support''' No obvious problems spotted. We need more good admins. --
'''Support'''.  Been waiting for this one. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]], trust nominators. (Saw no red flags sounds so negative and bitey.) Per above, per noms.
'''Support'''I expect to see fine admin work from this user. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Looks good to me, too. --
'''Support''' Not only an Excellent editor but also civil and humble listener! I believe that the candidate would be an great admin.--
'''Support''' especially b'coz more admins are needed at [[T:DYK]]. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' A run through of contributions reveals no problems, trusted nominators and DYK assisatnce is allways needed. Ticks the boxes for me! Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Seems ok. <big>
'''Support''' Per my comments at option question 4 and neutral partition.  Good luck.--
'''Support''', will likely be an asset to some of the less glamorous XfD processes around.
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' His [[English]] is far better than what I thought it would be after reading the co-nom; I'd go so far as to say I like the way he writes.
'''Support''' I find no reason not to support. Good luck.
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''', no interaction directly, but I have seen great work from this user.
'''Support''' - clearly meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support'''
'''Support''', all seems good here --
'''Support'''. I trust this editor.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
''
'''Support'''. clearly a good choice for admin. Especially wants to work in [[Wikipedia:Deletion discussions]]. --
i '''Support'''. i stumble with this guy a long time ago, and he is nice.. real nice!
'''Support'''. A competent, very responsible, and helpful editor. I see him a lot of times in the [[WP:TAMBAY|Tambayan]]. -
A solid editor.  –'''
'''Support''', easily surpasses [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Good user who will not abuse the tools.  He will be able to help close some of the open XfD's that don't get closed even when there is consensus to do something with them.  We desperately need an administrator like Lenticel.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a strong candidate.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose, and that's enough for me.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I see no reason this user would abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support'''  -- trustworthy Wikipedian, that should be enough grounds for anyone = ). --
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support''' Should do a good job. --
This user can be trusted with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Question 4. A good candidate whose adminship will be a net positive for the project.
'''Support''' A continually great contributor at CfDs.
'''Support.'''  Excellent candidate, and the more knowledgeable admins we have to help clear the clutter and untangle the knots, the better: many hands make light work!  —
'''Support''' [[Diff'rent Strokes|The world don't move to the beat of just one drum]]. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' knowledgeable admins.
'''Support''' I trust this editor.
'''Support'''
Seen this user around, no concerns. Trustworthy nominators.
'''Support''' One of the more interesting candidates to recently surface, and I have no concerns in their commitment to properly use the extra tools. I suspect that the increased effect of any use of the tools will be greatly for the benefit of en-WP and the range of Phillipine subjects.
'''Support''' No reason to believe user would abuse the bit. --
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' He looks trustworthy and has a lot of enthusiasm. Seems good to me. --
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per solid contributions and responses above. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' This man is an asset. Good luck Lenti. =) --
'''Support''' WTHN... <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' A good Wikipedian both in the English and the Tagalog Wikipedias. He would certainly benefit from using vandal fiting tools offered with Adminship. [[Special:Contributions/Felipe Aira|<font color= "#FCD116"><b>--</b></font>]]
'''Support''' His edits to some articles that are actually on my watchlist have been constructive. Worth the position. --
'''Support.''' I've always found his comments and participation at XfD's to be superb and I like his passion for promoting DYK's. He certainly deserves the mop. --
'''Support''' Had supported him even long before this RfA process.  Finally, my pledge becomes a true vote. -
'''Support''' His balanced and neutral views on deletion discussions can pave the way to balanced and neutral adminship.
'''Neutral''' - no reason not to assume the user will be fine, but don't have enough personal experience, or time to review for a support vote, but certainly do not oppose.  --
'''Support''' Looks good. A review of a selection of your last 500 edits uncovered no problems. Good luck,
'''Support''' As nominator.
'''Support''' Looks like he will use the tools great. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Very strong support''' Nominator made his/her case, and it's as solid as it gets. Unless someone finds evidence of unruly behaviour, which I doubt will happen, it's impossible to not support.
'''Support''' Contribs look solid, seems to have good attitude about them.--
'''Support''' I see no reason why not to, and your contribs look good. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I've seen the editor around.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - seems eminently trustworthy, and has a clear need for the tools.
Edit count seems somewhat inflated due to use of some automated tools, and the high number of welcomes, but edit counts don't matter, and editor seems nice and relaxed. Some slight concerns elsewhere, but they aren't important currently, and are not enough to withhold my support. Besides, adminship isn't a big deal, so why the hell not? Mahalo and cheers! --
'''Weak Support''' I really see no issues to suggest that you will abuse the tools and you are a great editor, but after looking over what JulianColton had to say, and the link he added made me wonder. Anyway, you look like a great editor. Good luck!!!
'''Support''' - a couple of minor concerns raised but none really give me pause. I see a mature and thoughtful editor who knows what he's doing and how he'll use the additional tools. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I think Lifebaka is trustworthy, and would make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' Trustworthy, friendly editor. Quickly, easily acknowledges and learns from mistakes.
'''Support''' Good editor who would be a valuable addition as an administrator.
'''Support''' - Solid experience. Wants to work in deletion area. Go for it.
This is the last time I'll forget you
'''Support''', seems fine. The point outlined by Julian doesn't concern me; mistakes happen. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support''' I generally support making all regulars at DRV admins as it makes the work much easier if you can see the deleted content. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of policy.
He's not an admin? I'm falling down on the job.
'''Support'''.  I see every reason to expect this user to do good work with the tools.  &hArr;
This DRV regular was starting to become visible on my "I should look into nominating them at RFA" list.  As is becoming a pattern, the nomination occurred before I did so.  I am comfortable with his judgment.
'''Strong Support'''.Clearly knows what it takes and has the experience for the job.''
'''Support'''.  I've seen you at DRV (and honestly, I just assumed you were an admin).  You meet my criteria for adminship easily.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Nothing seriousley worrying. You've got the coveted "KojiDude's Thumbs Up!" trophy. <small>I better not see it on eBay</small>--
'''Support''' Per K76's cmts above and the fact I think you'll make a great admin. Good luck!--
'''Thought-you-were Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' I was still composing my suggestion that you stand for admin when I found I was too slow about it. '''
'''Support''' I too have seen lifebaka around DRV and AfD and think s/he makes well-reasoned arguments on both sides of discussions (obviously not at the same time) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travellingcari/Archives/2008/May#Artist_Karaoke_Series:_Miley_Cyrus_deletion_by_G4 discusses decisions] politely. I see the issue JulianColton raises in the neutral but we're human, it happens. <sub>
'''Support''' experienced user, (s)he needs the tools. <small>
'''Support''' - knows what the tools are for (watch [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs|the AfD backlog]] shrink!) and will have good uses for them.  —
'''Thumbs Up''' -- Because everyone is saying "support" and it is getting monotonous. :)
'''Support''', I've seen this editor numerous times in deletion debates and the contributions there show familiarity with policy and procedure.  Looks to be an easy support.
'''Support''' - Can't find any reason not too --
'''Support''' Solid contributions. '''
'''Support''' This user has demonstrated a clear need for the tools, has indicated he grasps the policies he'll be working with as an admin, and his attitude seems "fit for the job".--
'''Support''' Reasonable person that I've seen around contributing productively.--
'''Support'''. A great asset to DRV and would be a great asset with the tools.
'''Support''' Good, honest answers to the questions, no glaring red flags - room for improvement, but nothing to stop me from supporting. The issue raised by question four doesn't concern me too much; looks like an honest mistake, and Lifebaka admits as much. Should be okay.
'''Support''' The only issue I saw doesn't seem to be a major problem, so I'll support. Good luck,
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' - per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
'''Good Luck''' with you new position as Admin, I'm confident you'll get it! Keep up the good work!
'''Strong support''' Another asset to Wikipedia. I'm sure your work will be even better when you have the tools! Well done and good luck! = ) --
[insert RFA cliche here] I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''', looks like a solid candidate. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' A candidate who makes the occasional mistake, responds politely when advised, ''and then'' checks the diffs, makes any necessary correction, apologises to ''and thanks'' the reporter, and then gets on with editing the encyclopedia? What on earth is this place coming to?
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Input at AfD always seems well thought out, communication on this editor's talk page is excellent. No one has brought up any serious (to me) problems, so I doubt there will be any in the future.--
'''Support'''.  If you can stomach DRV, adminship should be a breeze.
'''Support'''. shows can be trusted. Cheers,
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' The candidate is thoughtful and the project would benefit if he had the extra buttons.
<b><font color="black">
--
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
Only voting because I've already said something on this RfA. As I said on my talk page, I wasn't feeling convinced... I could vaguely recall the name alongside something that made me go "bleh" at DRV at some stage, but I couldn't recall any details. Maybe he was replying to some crap as opposed to stirring it. So I just looked over the current version of DRV and saw some good thoughtful commentary. Take it easy if you ever step outside your clear comfort zone, eh? ''
'''Support'''. No concerns. His work at [[WP:DRV]] looks good.
'''Support''' as the user can easily be trusted with the tools and that is the only important and fair criterion<span style="cursor: crosshair">......
'''Strong support'''. One of the most thoughtful and articulate of the regular DRV contributors. Truly a classic case of the "I-thought-he-was-already-an-admin" cliche.
'''Support''' A consistently insightful and well-reasoned contributor to DRV who would use the adminship wisely.
'''Support''' While there might not be as much edits as some users like, this user has half of his edits mainspace. He also has months of experience.--
'''Weak support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WTHN?]] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' - meets my standards, this is an interesting WikiElf.
'''Support''' - excellent AfD / deletion review participation, and extremely throughful answers to the questions which show plenty of Wikipedia-knowledge. Good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Has an intuitive and reasoned grasp of Wikipedia policy. On DRV I've always found lifebaka to be civil and helpful, so much so that I had assumed he was already an admin with years of experience :) ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''. Good participation throught Wikipedia, especially in the deletion/undeletion processes. Good answers to questions and seen this user around quite a lot. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' Very nice. --
'''Superfluous support''' and barely squeaked it in at that. :) I've observed this contributor around and been very impressed with the work I see. --
'''Support''', I saw all these supports, and I thought it looked fun! '''
Good user.
'''Oppose'''. ''He always makes thoughtful and considered contributions there based on a good knowledge of policy. '', I am not convinced of that per my latest contact with him/her input at [[WP:DRV]]. --
'''Neutral''' Agree with [[User:Juliancolton]] point, but think that you are an excellent editor. --
'''Neutral''' as I am concerned about [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters from Epic Movie (2nd nomination)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hardy (The Hardy Boys)]] (we can't [[Wikipedia:Merge and delete]] per the GFDL, so the arguments really needed to just be "merge").  In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Mothers in Disney films]], I am somewhat concerned that the candidate did not return to the discussion to comment one way or the other on the various revisions that resulted in a redirect rather than deletion.  Now, with that said, the candidate made a strong case at [[Wikipedia:Artigcles for deletion/List of Magic: The Gathering keywords (2nd nomination)]] and was open-minded at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Alien and Predator timeline .28closed.29]] where the candidate changed the initial stance based on civil discussion and acknowledgment of the discovery of sources.  Thus, I can't really oppose or support at this point as I'm somewhat conflicted here.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong support'''. To pre-empt Kurt, if this user had asked me I would have nominated.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' does a lot of good work. --
'''Support'''.  You are definitely experienced, just be careful around blocking :). <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per the excellent [[User:Lomn/RfA review|comments here]].
'''Support''' All that work of actually helping people at the reference desk means that you are not going to go crazy with the tools, and will have them to hand when you need them. --
Capable of independent thought. <small>ssh, don't tell anyone, they don't like that.</small> ''

'''Support''' - Good user, needs the tools. <small>
'''Support''' I have no doubt you would use the tools for good, and I believe wikipedia will be just that much better a place for your use of them.  I think your work at the [[WP:REFDESK]] is of great value. &hArr;
'''Support'''.  Absolutely!  Longtime user and solid editor.
'''Support''' No issues. I also like some of your comments above.
'''Support''' - No issues, no evidence for possible misconduct or accidental misuse of the tools. Also, per RMHED.
'''Support''' - liked your rant and the "low tolerance for picking fights" as well.  —
'''Support''' I think that self-noms who call attention to the fact that they are self-noms are offering  ''prima facie'' evidence that they are self-noms who call attention to the fact they are self-noms offering ''prima facie'' evidence that...whoa, wrong carousel ride.  Yes, a fine candidate.
'''Support''' I would like to start of this comment by thanking you for your work here. You have done a fine job answering questions at the reference desk:-) My main reason for supporting you is because you haven't indicated you don't under policy, so I doubt you will misuse the tools, and from looking at your contributions you seem to have a good attitude. I will be asking you some questions to confirm you have a grasp of policy. My only issue with you is that your contributions indicate you will be a very inactive admin. However, the positives far outweigh the negative.--
'''Support''' - [[WP:RD]] needs more admins. You're qualified. --
'''Support''' Definitely. I'm sure you'll do just fine. --
'''Support'''. Lomn has done a lot of good work, I have seen no reason to believe he would not be a great admin.
'''Support''' per answers thus far.  Cant imagine you'd abuse the tools.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' no problems. Cheers,
'''Support''', yes please.
'''Support''' Been here a while, trustworthy, good question answers, has a good idea of when he'll use the tools, nice sense of humor etc --
'''Support''' will be a great admin. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''.  Another one that I was [[User:Keeper76/RfA#Editors I'm watching or have offered to nominate|working towards nominating]] shows up here before I can get to it :)  Absolutely support, your work here is valuable, appreciated, intelligent and careful.  Your reference desk work is superb.  Yes yes yes!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. Lots of experience, participation throught the project including admin-related tasks and noticeboards, good answers to questions. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
Inspiring. Exceptional user.
<b><font color="black">
Because you got Kurt to go neutral.  That is a feat.
Yes. Of course. Voices of reason and collegiality always get my support (or should, anyway). Doesn't feel the need to chime in on every trifle under the sun, but when he has something to say, it's thoughtful, and one listens (I do anyway). Good answers. Very helpful contributor at the reference desk. Could be even more helpful with tools. '''Strong support'''.   ---
Looks good. --
'''Support''' No evidence that user would misuse the tools. Good contributions to the community so far.--
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''' It'd be hard not to. As noted in the neutral section, nomination was [[Tenth Doctor|''Brilliant!'']]--
'''Strong Support''' You appear to be thorough, honest, well-intentioned, and smart to boot. Plus, a nice sense of humor, which in my humble opinion is the most important thing for an admin to have. You will do well, I have no doubt. Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' This user is extremly helpful and has a wide knowledge of WP Policies and Guidelines. I've encountered him before, and his comments have really opened my eye at the right and wrong on Wikipedia.--
'''Support''' A self-nom that not even Kurt can oppose? Lomn must be doing something right. :-)
'''Support''' Good contributions from a user with a sense of humor. Why not? <strong>
'''Support''', per kmweber. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - seems like a highly capable user, although I understand and support what Lenticel says in his oppose. However, that being on its own, I don't want to oppose, based on that only, as this user has a host of fine contribs. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - abnormally positive [[WP:CLUE|clue]] quotient.'''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' per ''shows no need for the tools'' - but clearly indicates that they can be trusted with them.
'''Support''' Good user, can be trusted with the tools. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' - per recent excellent work on [[NHL Entry Draft]] --
'''Support''' - Consistent editing over a long time period, good answers to the questions, no evidence that tools would be abused.

Most of the questions I had in mind have been answered well.
'''Support''' Looks good, seems like this user can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, clearly know what they're doing. Good luck ——
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' without reservation - courageous move (self-nom). -
'''Support''' -- per Kurt's neutral! = ) Best of luck! --
'''Support''' - meets my standards, no concerns.
'''Oppose''' per your eloquent defense of Kurt's behavior. Had you posted this on somebody else's RfA or to aid Kurt then I'll be your strongest supporter. This is because then you have nothing to gain and your reputation to lose. I'll greatly respect any editor that does that even though I don't oppose nor support Kurt's behavior. However, putting it here means that you have something to gain from defending Kurt's behavior. I cannot trust you with the mop as I see that you'll go out of your way just to appease someone as long as you get something from it.--
Because that was pretty brilliant...
'''Support'''. (Beat the nom) Good editor. Epbr has found another good one. Good luck, '''
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Strong support''' I had to go back through a number of Lquilter's contribs to find out where I knew the name from and why I already had a good impression. On Nov 29th, the editor left me some very astute and informative remarks on my talk page regarding a hasty speedy tag I left on [[CryptoRights Foundation]] when I was still quite new. I was impressed then, and am impressed now. <sup>
'''Support''' seems ok.
'''Support'''. I trust this editor.--
'''Support''' I've had interactions with this editor and seen her at work for a long time and she is always knowledgeable and professional.
'''Support''' Very experienced user. <s>But, "Malformed RFA".... (as 'they' call it) your !vote tally marker (the 0/0/0) was in the wrong spot.</s> (I'm gonna go off on a tangent and ask, how can you tally consensus if the discussion isn't votes....?) Anyways.... support!
'''Strongest possible support''' exactly what we need. Good Luck! <i>
'''Support''', excellent editor, good interaction.
&mdash;

'''Support''' Seen her superb work on some of the project's best content like [[Emma Goldman]] with [[User:Scartol|Scartol]], et al. Also seen her participate calmly, patiently and productively in some tedious project space discussions that few have the intestinal fortitude to withstand. --
'''Support''' Luck number 13... hah.
'''Support'''. Seems like a very thoughful editor, who is very familiar with the WP guidelines and policies. Her arguments that I have been reading are calm and well-reasoned. I am glad that editors like this continue to be willing to accept the responsibility. --
'''Support''' Don't always agree with everything Lquilter says at CFD, but no doubt Lquilter would put the point the other way round! Sensible in discussion, though, which is the main thing, and an extra pair of experienced hands at CFD would be useful. Was (honestly!) thinking only yesterday that Lquilter was one to watch for here.
'''Support''' Thoughtful intelligent editor. Unreservedly support. --
'''Support'''. Will clearly make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Good user. <strong>
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. She will be a fine admin. -
'''Support''' - She is always level-headed and rational in disputes - even concerning abortion (see [[Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 3#Wollstonecraft's views on abortion]]). She provides thoughtful answers to questions (see [[Talk:Fanny Imlay#names & references to FI]]). These are essential qualities in an administrator.
'''Support''' No worries here.--
'''Support''' excellent in editing and discussion, careful and polite. Yes, there are some types of articles where we disagree, but I'd never hold that against someone who always says something sensible. '''
'''Support''' - yup! -
'''Support''' without a doubt. --
'''Support''' all seems good.
'''Support''' trust with tools
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful long-term contributor.
'''Support''' Can't say that I have recognize the name, but I definitely like what I see here. <b>
Indeed. '''<span style="font-family:Candara">[[User:Seresin|seresin]] ||
'''Support''' She is always contributing at CfD and I trust her completely. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but reasonable posts from this user. Have a mop. --
'''Support''' I've been milling around WikiProject proposals, and every word she's spoken there - which is a lot - is sensible. On the internet, it takes a heck of a lot to find someone like that! I hadn't checked, but I vaguely assumed she was an admin already. This looks inevitable - and rightly so
'''Support,''' not an admin yet? Who's been sleeping on the job here? Heh =) Good to see that such an excellent editor is up for the mop. &spades;
'''Support''' Fair-minded and tactful.  --
'''Support''' I often see this editor doing good work. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' User shows good sense in her replies to the questions, especially the ''negative'' one below! --
'''Support''' Thoughtful, diligent, and very civil, even in arguments.
'''Support''' Great editor, would be a valuable, trustworthy admin. --
'''Support'''  I became acquainted with [[User:lquilter|lquilter]] through her insightful contributions to [[A Vindication of the Rights of Men]] and, later, to [[Emma Goldman]].  I've always been impressed with her energy, intelligence and clear thinking, and think those gifts will make her an excellent admin.
'''Support''': the right stuff in all respects.
'''Support''' - She seems capable, serious and thoughtful. -
'''Support''' Minimally qualified. --'''
'''Support''' Excellent contribs to [[Emma Goldman]], courteous and helpful, seems trustworthy to me.
'''Support.''' Having skimmed through some of the threads mentioned by the Oppose voters, and noticing her ability to remain diplomatic in stressful situations,  I am happy to conclude that Lquilter is a good candidate for admin.  Somebody who can [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008_January 15#Category:Leslie Fox Prize for Numerical Analysis_winners|discuss the respective advantages]] of lists and categories with such agility is good to have in policy discussions. Her work on the [[Nadine Gordimer]] article seems very sensible.
'''Support.''': Yes. --
'''Support'''. Smart and tenacious.
'''Support''' Great contribs overall from mainspace and significant involvement in several WP areas/pages, particularly in Categories for discussion.--

'''Support''' - Having read the comments in the oppose section below, I still have no reservations about this individual becoming an admin. If one knows to try to separate one's actions as an editor from one's actions as an admin, there is no good reason I can think of to believe this editor will abuse the tools. I've also had frequently contact with the editor in question and have never myself seen anything to give me the slightest concerns.
'''Support''' - Our editing paths have crossed on several occasions. Lquilter is a good editor. In spite of having at least one of my own brilliant edits reverted by Lquilter, I have confidence that the project will be enhanced by Lquilter's use of the admin tools. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''' - Solid editor, will make a great admin.
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent Wikipedian, who is experienced in a wide variety of areas - should make a great admin. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Meets my simple [[User:Lawrence_Cohen/RFA_questions_and_requirements#Baseline_criteria|requirements]] easily. Not likely to abuse the tools. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">

'''Support''' as hard working Wikipedian making a significant contribution to the project.
Excellent editor.
'''Support'''. Passes [[User:Jguk|JG Test]]. '''
'''Support'''. After witnessing this editor's conduct at [[Emma Goldman]] and other articles, I'm satisfied she is of a suitable temperment, has the requisite knowledge of policy, skills and civility to be an administrator. Passing the  [[User:Jguk|JG test]] is a sufficient but not necessary criterion. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' Great editor! -
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] -
'''Support.''' The candidate is a good contributor, seems to understand policy and works well with others as far as I can tell.
'''Support''' I think this candidate has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, has made good edits, has good faith, and is an active user of Wikipedia. I think she will be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Passes [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]] as well.
'''Support''' He is very calm and level-headed when resolving disputes.
'''Support''' - Fine.  -
'''Support'''. Very good editor. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' per the candidate's answer to my unrelated comment that ended up seeming like a question so he answered it anyway and it was a good answer. The candidate's contributions and experience look good, too.
'''Support'''- The Marine does not just support anyone, you have to be good candidate to get my support.
'''Oppose''' Sorry I disapprove of this users actions. During an RFC This user participated in a poorly thought out separate policy discussion, canvased to only one side of the discussion, and then tried to defend the action. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Television_episodes/RFC_Episode_Notability&diff=prev&oldid=185351516]]--
'''Oppose''' I have had, just recently, some interactions with this nominee in a category-deletion discussion, and, unfortunately, I haven’t felt that her comments and attitude have risen to the level of administrator.  She has made some insulting and condescending remarks about me and other users that show a lack of neutrality and lack of patience which I don’t believe would suddenly disappear were she appointed as an administrator. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2008_January_21&diff=186044459&oldid=186040200 Here]  she dismisses editors of Hollywood-related articles as “argumentative fans” and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2008_January_21&diff=186349257&oldid=186339178 here] she insults me (and others) by calling me/us merely "people with pet projects”. I have been active here for over two years, editing and writing on a variety of topics (and, in that discussion, desperately trying to understand the process and the rationale) and so I was extraordinarily offended by this remark.  Belittling contributors and holding the opinion that those who work enthusiastically and in good faith to make improvements are just people defending pet projects seems incompatible with the responsibilities and outlook required of an administrator. Also, given what she's written, I've been left with the impression that she picks her category-deletion battles based on their win-ability and not on a consistent application of policy or a thorough combing-through of existing categories. In spite of what she has said in her statement, in my dealings with her I didn’t encounter much respect nor ''any'' levity. The few admininstrators with whom I’ve interacted here have all demonstrated tremendous patience, graciousness, a sense of humor, and a completely impartial, highly respectful attitude toward other contributors, always chosing their words carefully. I’m afraid, in my (admittedly brief) dealings with her, I’ve seen none of those qualities in this nominee. (Also, I'm sorry but I just have to ask: I simply can not fathom why someone who so rigorously and repeatedly battles against what she see as the major and hugely detrimental problems of overcategorization and non-defining and trivial categories, and accuses so many editors of being guilty of that infraction, would post [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lquilter/Userboxes this]).
'''Oppose''' Your failure to state definitively weather an administrator adding oneself to the recall category during their RfA being binding later in their adminship causes me to be opposed to your becoming an admin. Sorry, but consistency is absolutely essential in those whom we entrust with the mop.
What an odd request.  I will however support based on good contributions in your home wiki which you can hopefully take here.
'''Unrestricted, and not any other kind of support, moral or otherwise''' Interesting request, and I see no reason not to trust him. - <font color="navy">
Assuming good faith here since I have no idea who you are, or what you do, but hey. An admin on two other projects, no reason to see why you can't do well here too. —'''
<s>Tentative</s> support, pending confirmation that he is not insane on de.wiki or meta.  I'm tentatively supporting, rather than waiting, because I have a bad feeling about how this is going to go down, and I want to do what I can to slow it down.  Assuming everything is in order at de. and meta., why not trust a long-term supporter of the overall project in his attempt to improve our corner of it?  I would oppose a request to be a full-fledged admin here, as our culture is likely significantly different.  But I see no reason not to trust his promise to stay in the SBL and help us there. --
Support: Above link confirms identity on de-wiki/meta. Unless there is some dark secret at .de or meta, +sysop flags on two major projects demonstrates all of the trust I need. Welcome aboard.
Support: I would be quite happy to endorse this request.
Seth is extremely helpful on [[m:|Meta-wiki]], where he spends most of his time dealing with the global spam blacklist. If he is trusted to block a site globally, he should be trusted to do so here. Nobody should care about how many edits he's made, it whether he'll do a good job. '''
Edit count doesn't matter in a situation like this. &ndash;
'''Support''' per Laz. //
'''Support''' Per Majorly.

'''Support''' Per Majorly
One could make the argument that a general lack of edits would be a killer at RfA unless under exceptional circumstances. This candidate is requesting adminship under exceptional circumstances. The candidate clearly has experience with Wikipedia - admin over at another Wiki and meta - and intends only to help with the spam blacklist and not bother with anything else - which alleviates any concern regarding whether or not process is different in other Wiki's, and if this candidate would potentially misuse the mop here on that basis. Opposing this candidate for a relative detail such as edit count seems somewhat pedantic (this is in no way any disrespect to those opposing, whose opinions are valid and, indeed, raises points about a very geniune concern - however, as I see it, edit count is a redundant measure of this particular candidate, who is clearly experienced).
'''Support'''. If he's trusted to blacklist on a ''global'' scale, he's definitely trusted to blacklist here on the English Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per Majorly.--
'''Support''' Reasonable request, trusted user on de-wiki, I think I understand the need.
'''Support''' Fear not specialists! Your request to monitor WB:SPL is reasonable, and WP will be better for your work.  While 50 edits is pretty weird, I think we should be looking at de and meta for his work. <b>'''
'''Support''' - Allow me to break this down - having +sysop on two projects gives you trust. Maintenance work does not require a ton of policy knowledge - and it is likely that very little in the sort of maintenance he wants to do differs in execution from de. I trust him to do as his nomination says and not use the rights for anything other than maintaining the SBL. Whilst I do trust the user, since other decisions would require much more policy knowledge than it does to maintain the SBL I would ask that his statement of "[not] do[ing] anything, which has nothing to do with the SBL" is enforced. To close - absolutely yes. No reason not to trust user. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' He's stated his scope, and will be useful in the rather underwatched area he has chosen to work in. His contribs on other wikis are solid and demonstrate trustworthiness.
'''Support'''. As I see it, Iustiger has shown himself to be a trustworthy admin at both meta and de:. He's asking for the tools so he can work in a very specialised area that isn't really being covered on en; I firmly believe that we should make exceptions in cases where there is a clear benefit to the project. I am more than happy to accept his work at de: and meta as evidence of his trustworthiness and ability in his area of work.
'''Per Majorly''' and the notion that specialization is not just for ants. ++
'''Support''' User definitely deserves access. Looks like he would be a big help to the project, and absolutely no reason to believe he would abuse. &ndash;
'''Support''' Specialized admin, net benefit to the project.  I see no reason to treat this request as suspect.  The kind of abuse that would come from a request like this would be remedied swiftly (rather than the kind of abuse we worry about in administrators generally).  What's he going to do, delete the main page?
'''Sure'''.  Clear outline of what ''good'' he'll do for wikipedia, sans admin drama.  Ideal candidate, IMO.  Wish there were more of him. The alternative is to require this already trusted Wiki-editor to perform some silly, perfunctory "chores", get involved in admin areas and basically waste his and everyone else's time. No thanks.  I trust that he'll do what he says he'll do.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': This editor is asking for permission to contribute to one particular area of our project, and I don't see why not; he's an active admin at two different projects already. However, I do wish that the editor would promise to limit his admin-actions to areas pertaining to [[WP:SBL]]. Otherwise, full support. --

Why not, after all [[WP:ADMIN|adminship]] shouldn't be a [[WP:DEAL|big deal]], decision can always be reversed if there are problems.
'''weak support''' The lack of experience on this project is a slight concern. However, he is an admin on .de so we can trust him. And he intends to use the tools in a very narrow fashion. Overall I think that letting him have the tools will be a net benefit.
'''Support per majorly and Barneca''' as a net positive, despite the low count on this Wikipedia, with the proviso that I can accept on [[WP:AGF]] that candidate will limit himself to  SBL only-- <s>an area I never heard of before.</s> Cheers,
'''Support''' I take as truthful the candidate's representation that he will use the tools only relative to [[WP:SBL]], and I suggest to those opposing that I cannot imagine that any of those supporting here would be unwilling to act swiftly to request that the candidate be desysopped were he to exceed his limited mandate or were he, because of unfamiliarity with en.wp (I don't really know that any exists, but some are concerned, and probably not unreasonably so), to disrupt the project in his use of the tools; the ArbCom, to be sure, would undoubtedly (and with celerity) direct a steward to remove the sysop flag were the community to draw its attention to the candidate's contravening the commitment he makes here <small>(that's not, I should note, to suggest that it is the ArbCom to whom the community should have to turn to pursue de-adminship&mdash;the present scheme improperly aggrandizes the role of the committee and unforgivably relieves the community of a right that rightly resides with it; I speak only to the process that would transpire here)</small>.
'''Weak Support''' - admin on another Wiki (so I somehow doubt that he will be deleting the main page), he will be a net positive and the edit count is not a ''major'' factor to me because I'm going to [[WP:AGF|AGF]] his claim that he will stick to [[WP:SBL]]. Though the edit count scares me a little bit, he ''is'' a sysop on the German Wikipedia, so he's has to have done some good work there...maybe that can be translated to here (going back to my "net positive" thought). ''<font face="Impact">
'''Support.''' Adminship on de.wiki is very hard to come by, the simple fact that this editor has adminship there assuages any concerns I might have.
'''Support.''' Goals and needs of admin tools are so refreshingly straightforward, it's very to !vote any other way.  -
'''Support''' All the evidence clearly suggests the candidate is knowledgeable and trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''': Trust the user to do the job intended. I see no reason to 'make' the user do some AIV of AfD or article building just to boost an edit count and get ready for another RfA. This candidate is an exception to many rules, and I support. I wish there were more cross-wiki candidates like this one. <sup><small>
Makes sense to me.
'''Support''' Per Majorly's argument, and [[WP:DEAL]] - <s>although I look forward to the answer to the well phrased Q4.</s>Excellent answer to Q4 - although possibly unenforceable I have no reason to doubt Seth's word on this. Far more potential benefit than risk.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Per his answer to q. 4. My main concern was that adminship is granted as a package: as discussed, if we trust an editor to delete, we trust them to block and protect, etc etc. However, this is exactly the type of "specialist" candidate that is worthy of the tools. We don't do temporary adminship here, so the tools are granted indefinitely, but if you want to move into other areas, I would advise a second RfA. Best, <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - user is demonstrably trustworthy, has done good admin work on de.wiki, and wishes to assist our overworked admins in an often-neglected area he's good at? I'm gonna call this a clear net positive. Stick to the spam blacklist work and I will have no complaints whatsoever. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' This is a rare exception. Because they're limiting themselves to certain areas he already has experience with, I doubt they will blow up the 'pedia.
'''Support''' Agree with {{user|Garden}}, {{user|Cyclonenim}}, {{user|Barneca}}, {{user|Lazulilasher}}, {{user|Majorly}}, et al. '''
Has special purpose. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' Here to do a job which badly needs doing, and which will significantly improve the project. Even he if does decide to go rouge, extremely unlikely considering he is trusted on two other projects and seems to meet most of the requirements to be a full meta-admin, any damage he could do before being caught would be outweighted by the benefit his changes would give. --
'''Support'''. SPA, will only do non-controversial changes with the additional rights. Per Q4 and no problems on [[User talk:lustiger seth|his talk page]] this is not only a net, but a full positive. --
'''Support''' The candidate holds a position of trust on another Wikipedia project and I see no reasonable possibility of abuse on this one. Once trust is established, the bottom line is that the en-Wikipedia project would benefit from this user having the bit.
'''Support''' I think you'll be a good admin.
'''Support'''. The user is volunteering to perform, a largely neglected task here, as he has done on other projects. His task will be made easier with the use of the same tools that has used elsewhere without incident. No problem supporting.
'''Support''' I think we need to stop viewing the admin process as some sort of bizarre "good citizen" award and view it more practically. The candidate is credible and wishes to improve a highly technical aspect of wikipedia, he has a reasonably detailed description of the work he wishes to undertake, and it is good work.
'''Strong Support'''. Opposes points are unconvincing. While de-wiki has different policies to us I trust an admin on that project to be mature enough to look ours up before doing anything controversial (not that updating the spam watchlist is too difficult and iffy). In addition he has few edits on en-wiki, yes, but de-wiki actually has (in some ways) stricter standards; it'd be like (iffy example I know) preventing someone using a pistol because "they've only got experience with rifles".
'''Strong Support''' is clearly a useful member of the global Wiki community and there is no reason to expect he will go rogue on us '''
'''Support'''; no trust issues, and a reasonable request for access to the tools in a manner which will benifit enwp.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Mainly per Majorly, but also on the proviso that you agree to register yourself [[User:Radiant!/Classification of admins|here]] if given the mop. '''
'''Support''' this entirely reasonable request.
'''Strong support''' - "if he can be trusted to block sites globally on meta, what's the problem here?" - wise words. Viel Glück! ;) --'''
'''Support''' - Though edit count is low here, no lower than mine on our sister project, however he has well over 10,000 edits, as shown here [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=lustiger+seth&site=de.wikipedia.org]  and is a administrator on our [[German]] site - No history of incivility there or here - been an active member for over 5 years.  I say let the tools carry over. Viel Glueck.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' The opposes are mind-numbingly short-sighted. Trusted user, no reason to think that he won't abide by his promise to work solely on SBL. It's also pretty clear that lustiger_seth would get hammered and desysoped if he uses admin powers on matters unrelated to SBL. Experience on the en.wiki is irrelevant if he sticks to spam control which really ''needs'' to be a cross-wiki process in order to be effective. I just can't believe people are citing WP:NOTNOW as if it's relevant to this particular case. I'm tempted to create a new shortcut WP:DONTREPLACERATIONALTHOUGHTBYANALLCAPSSHORTCUT. Most depressing is the argument "many good RfA candidates fail on flimsy grounds so it's only fair that we fail this one".
'''support''' sure why not. He does not have a ton of article work in [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Lustiger_seth&lang=de&wiki=wikipedia de] but he seems trustworthy. <b>
'''Support''' - Per Majorly.
I doubt he'd cause any problems. Sane, and his history suggests he wouldn't suddenly start getting involved in drama here. Trusted and everything.
'''Support''' a trusted user with good track record on dewiki and meta. --
This is one of those times when I truly regret knowing only one language. However, a little digging shows me an editor with over [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=lustiger_seth&site=de.wikipedia.org 10,000 edits in his home wiki], [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALogbuch&type=&user=Raymond&page=Benutzer%3ALustiger+seth&year=&month=-1 7 months as an administrator] after an apparently [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen/Lustiger_seth drama-free RfA], [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdminkandidaturen%2FLustiger_seth&diff=45903436&oldid=45899249 support in that RfA] from a [[User:ABF |commons administrator and member of our own community]] (whose opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ABF&diff=prev&oldid=258806654 I've solicited]), an expressed intention to limit activities and length of service...and on top of that, the work stands a chance of making our pages '''load a little faster'''? Everything seems to be in order to '''support''' this request. And let's not forget, we do still have [[m:stewards |stewards]], at least one of whom has supported this request by my reckoning. Yes, it's unusual. No, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Weak, very very weak Support''' Normally I belive you simply <u>cannot</u> become a sysop just having 50 edits, but in this case I believe it's exemptions-time 'cause I trust him in wikimedia-releated issues, because he promised not to use the tools outside the spam-blacklist and because he's a "good guy" ;) ''
On balance, based on the good references supplied above and his answers to questions 1 and 4 which I would be very disappointed if he does not stick to. This should not set any precedent however.
I'm
'''Support''' but for edits to SBL only. Any other use of the tools will require a reconfirmation RFA.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support'' under the conditions proposed by the requester. The overall goal of RFA is to ensure we have trustworthy people doing Good Stuff to the encyclopedia, stuff that needs a certain recognized level of trust to do. Seth is proposing something very targeted, where it seems his limited participation in the en:wiki community will not be problematic. He has earned trust elsewhere and shown himself to be a good communicator in this request. Some opposers have expressed surprise that there are many people who support his candidature but oppose much more active en:wiki participants in RfA on the basis of single diffs, etc. We can debate till the cows come home how well our RfA process works in general, but one reason for this is that we in general are selecting people who seek to play a broad general admin role at en:wiki, where their overall collaborative interactions skills, skills in dealing with editorial conflict, and familiarity with a wide range of policies are all important. That is not the case in a specialized request like this one.
'''Support''' per Majorly, and per the German Wikipedians. He seems to have been a good admin over there, and if you look at the translations of the opposers, they have no reason except for editcountitis (to an even more shameless extent than we typically see here on en.wp, no less).
'''Support''' - self-noms (and de.wp) FTW! :D &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - If he does anything wrong or does anything outside of his area of interest the tools can be taken away. I trust the guy anyway, he want to help and needs the tools to do a job others won't. —
Actually has a good reason for being an admin. '''
He has already shown that he can be trusted with admin access to meta spam blacklist. No real reason to deny it here. Desysop if he goes outside of SBL. --
I have observed many times where candidates have promised what they will/won't do if they are made an administrator, but have been opposed on the basis that they "have no reason to stick to their promises/there's no way of enforcing the promises" if sysopped. With Lustiger seth, I believe this situation is different: he only wants to edit one part of the encyclopedia, the spam blacklist; therefore, keeping an eye on what he does will be easy, and should he venture outside the realms of SBL and thereby break his promise, speedy desysopping should be no trouble at all. However, I have no objection to a second RfA at a later date should Lustiger seth gain more experience here, and wants permission to use other parts of adminship. Besides, if Lustiger seth is granted adminship for SBL use only, I'm not worried about him causing negative issues...I'm more concerned about the admin accounts that have been inactive for years, and what possible problems they might cause should they end up applying the adminship of three-plus years ago to today. I am happy to support Lustiger seth's request for this type of adminship.
'''Support''' - I don't see that there is any great philosophical difference between the German and English wikipedias. This candidate is entirely trustworthy. -
'''Support''', per good contributions on their home wiki, and because of the specialised technical skills that he can bring to us here on enwiki.  No evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Obviously a net benefit on other projects and knows what he's doing. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' - Based on his answer to question 4, I think we can trust him with the mop, given that he's only going to be using it for a specialized area of the project.  If we vetted him like we did other admin candidates, we'd be expecting FA's, thousands of edits, and so on, to allow him to work on a specialized area of the 'pedia.  While this may make sense for candidates who will be dealing with users on a regular basis, I think he has demonstrated trust of other users on meta and de, and as such, will stay true to his word and work only on the area's he's noted above.
'''Support''' - He has said that he will only use the tools for a particular purpose.  If he ends up using them for other things in a good way, so much the better.  If he ends up misusing them, we enforce the rules as we would with any other administrator.--
'''Support''' - See no reason why not, the user has demonstrated himself trustworthy on other wikis. Anything that helps for cross project collaboration is a good thing. —
'''Support''' The user seems trustworthy and he is doing a good job on other sites. I see no reason not to give it to him. --
'''Support''' - There's nothing to support the claims that he'd misuse the tools. He's trusted on another large wiki and has said what he's going to do with them - that's good enough for me. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support'''. I see no reason to suppose that an admin on the German wikipedia would suddenly go mad on the English wikipedia. I would have strongly supported had there been an effective desysopping process on the English wikipedia, but there isn't. --
'''Support'''. Candidates who come forward with very explicit and limited aims generally stick to them, per examples listed above.  Should this candidate stray much from his intended remit, I suspect things will be addressed fairly promptly. Meanwhile, the task he wishes to work on is one of the most complex ones on Wikipedia due to its interrelationship with other projects, and he is already a proven quantity in this area.
'''Support''' This is indeed a strange request, but fortunately we have [[WP:IAR|a rule for dealing for these kinds of situations]]. I this request has been made in good faith by a de user in good standing and because of this, I think this user will be a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' &ndash; What a specialized and specific request indeed... but after doing some thought and research into this nomination, I have decided to support Seth. In question 1, Seth said he would '''''only''''' work at [[WP:SBL]]-related issues. With only about 50 edits, I doubt he knows [[WP:POLICY|Wikipedia policy]] as well as a normal Wikipedia editor, ''BUT'' if he promises to ''only'' work on the spam blacklist, then I think I can make an exception to support Seth to become an administrator. I've looked over his contributions at [[meta:Main Page|Meta-Wiki]] ([http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Lustiger+seth]) and de.wikipedia ([http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beiträge&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Lustiger+seth&namespace=8]) and he shows he has quite a lot of experience of the spam blacklist to help en.wikipedia's blacklist also. So he has no real contributions to our project... woo... big deal... but if his only admin work he intends to do is spam blacklist work, then I believe adminship can be done here. Other RfA candidates generally plan on doing deletion, protection and blocking work... that, you really need to know Wikipedia policies for. Spam blacklist? Nothing really except to know what to do. Seth obviously knows what to do, so there's nothing really problematic with him as an administrator here. If this RfA passes, I expect that he will '''NOT''' do any deletion, protection, blocking, or any other admin-task for any reason at all. The only admin-task he should do is for spam blacklist. If he promises that, then I can trust Seth as an administrator... simply for access to the blacklist... ''nothing'' else. I can understand why most users would oppose, but [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] that he really and simply ''just'' wants access to the spam blacklist and [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] (ahem... [[WP:NOTNOW]]? (I know it's just an essay for advice... but still, ignore it in this kind of request and situation)) so that our blacklist could be improved with the help from Seth. Thank you, Seth, for offering to do extra work just for the sake of Wikipedia's blacklist. &ndash;
'''Support''' based on candidate's affirmative reply to Nuclear Warfare's  question No. 4 above, to be strictly enforced.--
'''Support''' per Majorly. I've given this quite a bit of thought, and I think it comes down to one thing: can we trust this user? I most certainly do.
'''Support''' – so long as the candidate is aware he will lose the bit if he uses the tools outside [[WP:SBL]], I have no qualms supporting. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' per Majorly. I have no problem with specialist admins and Seth's work on other Wikis in the project gives me great confidence in his ability to do good here too.
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]], [[WP:WTHN]], and any other acronyms you can think of. Seth appears to be the definitive example of why adminship shouldn't be limited by editcount: he wants to perform a useful task that he needs the tools for, and his work on other wikis gives us reason to trust him, so why should we oppose just because he hasn't done much here? The sysop bit can always be removed if he screws up or breaks his word, anyway. I have confidence in this user.
'''Support''' There is just no reason not to support this candidate. There has been an absolute absence of anything negative about this candidate that I see. Nothing. The best we have from opposers are indirect, maybe possibly not a good idea, haven't done it before kind of arguments. This is a highly specialized position and the nom already does admin work  that affects en at meta.
'''Support''' I have confidence that he will not go beyond what he is intending to do, at least not until he becomes familiar with the practices here and the differences between some of the guidelines on the en and de Wikipedias. Actually, the spam backlog should keep him busy enough that he won't even have time to think about doing it. I am normally very reluctant to have confidence in admin candidates with very low edit count who intend to work in specific areas only, but this is an exception. '''
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions and as candidate has never been blocked; however, I wish the candidate's userpage had more to it, such as barnstars or good or featured credits.  Best, --
'''Support''' He has enough experience for the work he will be doing. Interference with other issues in en-wp is extremely unlikely. And it is good to have a specialist admin instead of another generalist, who does the usual vandal-fighting stuff.
On the strict understanding that the tools are just for the spam blacklist.
I used to be very active in counterspam, I've sorta died out a bit due to lack of time and programming [[User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations|other]] [[User:Nixeagle/CheckuserBot|things]]. Regardless, as a past active counterspam person... I support this request as counterspam needs more people. We are overloaded with tools, and few people to use them. :) —— '''
Per Minderbinder. –
'''Support'''. Has demonstrated he can be trusted and has not been controversial. That on top of asking to have admin privileges for a limited area in which he has expertise. I'm very dismayed by the poor quality of the reasoning in many of the oppose votes. Not enough experience is clearly shown to be false. Not enough edits to en.wiki really doesn't matter that much if he has enough experience overall to demonstrate he can be trusted to do the task he is asking to do. Some of the oppose votes are reasonable and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but many of them are not realizing the value this user can bring for very little risk. There is way too much tunnel vision and too little big picture thinking going on. -
'''Support.''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support.''' - low risk appointment with a reasonable upside -
'''Hesitant support'''.  Unlike Agathoclea, I believe this is a high-risk appointment, but I trust that you will use your tools only for what you have said.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per Malinaccier. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' - anti-spam is also my specialty both here & a small amount of cross-project work. I know Seth from the cross-project work & it would be nice to have his assistance here on en-wiki.. --
'''Support''' per common sense, a personal strong feeling this is a trustworthy individual, and per his impressive work on another project -- one which has very high standards indeed:  and per Ralph Waldo Emerson.  This is a delightfully instructive exception to our general tenure rule, and I have no problem supporting this candidate.
'''Support''' - per answer to question 5; net positive with no risk. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''' - He needs the tools for a legit task and is a globally trusted user. No reason to not trust here.
'''Support''' <small>(Moved from strong oppose)</small> Lazulilasher convinced me to support. Also, per Garden, this is quite the unusual candidate. However, per Malinaccier, this is a high-risk appointment. But even with under 500 edits, Seth appears to be a responsible Wikipedian, who is willing to help the community in battling one of our most annoying entities: spam. Don't forget, Seth, that as an administrator, you can go further in fighting spam &ndash; by blocking spammers. God speed, Seth, and good luck. I can now stop banging myself in the head, knowing that I can now support you on your quest to kill all spam. ;-) And another thing; Seth, do you think you could please teach me German? I had huge trouble understanding [[w:de:User:lustiger seth|this]]. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Support'''
Per work at Meta-Wiki doing this same thing for the last year or so.
'''Support.'''
'''Strong Support''' The opposes bring up some concerns, but they do start to feed off of each other. This user, IMHO, has what it takes. Best of luck.
'''Extremely strong support'''. I rarely find the need to '''oppose''' this candidate because he has lots of strong experience. If users oppose then they oppose for a very disrespectful reason. IMHO,
'''Support''' - I see seth having the ability to edit the pages that he is asking to as a net positive to the project and I do not foresee that he will abuse the trust of the community by using the other tools that +sysop entails. Also because of the precendent of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herbythyme|Herbythyme's RfA]] (which I also supported). -'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Wikipedia needs more technicians.
'''Support'''. The Germans know how to run a wiki. —
'''Support''', but only if you'll visit [[:de:WP:KA]] once :-) --
'''Support'''. "Being an administrator is no big deal" is still the party line, yes? This user can put the bit to legitimate and productive use, so let's give it to him.
'''Extremely strong support''' Considering the clarity of the request, and the answers to the questions, it is completely nonsensical to claim NOTNOW or "too few edits" or "not enough experience". Seth clearly knows what he is doing, knows what he will do and has shown no reason to believe that he needs anything otherwise. I'm shocked by the transparent ignorance of some of these oppose votes. --
'''Support''' The oppose voters have thrown [[WP:AGF]] right out the window.
'''Support''' I'm willing to take this candidate at his word; that he will help out initially only in his area of expertise.  While many of the oppose voters make good points, there is simply a net positive potential here and the handful of spam specialized admins could use the assistance.
'''Support''' per Minderbinder and candidate commitment to only use tools for the SBL, which can use all the help in the world. Should access rights be split in the future, the tools can be adjusted accordingly. Candidate commits to making his role here explicit and well-known, no indication whatsoever they won't keep to that commitment, easily enough solved if they don't.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Has already demonstrated that he can be trusted to handle the admin tools appropriately.  --
'''Unterstützung''' Not entirely orthodox but imho that's often the best kind of candidate. It seems pretty simple: he's extremely experienced, he certainly speaks English better than I speak German, and best of all he's here offering us his help no strings attached... to turn him away would be a net loss to the project and an incredibly dumb thing to do. <span style="outline:2px dotted #a1aaff; border:medium double #0f1c9d;">
'''Support''' unless evidence shown otherwise that the user will abuse the tools, plain and simple.
'''Support''' per many above, sounds alright as adminship, especially in this case, shouldn't be a big deal. '''[[User:American Eagle/Guestbook|✼]]
'''Support, selbstverständlich''' - He's an admin on meta, so indirectly he's already working for en.wikipedia, isn't he? First: assume good faith, second: he's only interested in the blacklist area, third: I can't find a single reason, diff or post (not here and not on .de) to think he would abuse the tools. The German wiki has an admin-expert on blacklist maintenance and he is offering the English wiki his services. We are going to say "No"? Of course not. See it as outsourcing. And there is no reason for Seth to go through the usual .en RFA criteria. In his case they are truly irrelevant. In short: AGF, and be glad a specialist is offering his help. Besides, both .de and meta are still running smoothly so he can't be ''that'' bad. ;-) <font color="#8080ff">
'''Suport''' assuming the response to Q5 can be enforced if necessary. I'm sympathetic to the oppose reasons, but I can also recall when developers used to go through RFA to facilitate their work. This case seems comparable to the developer-admin.
'''Support''' He's proposing to work in a very specific area, and I'm sure any deviations from that will be handled or reversed should they come up. Besides, the blacklist is an area where many, if not most, of us don't have the technical abilities to help the way this editor can.
'''Support''' I normally steer clear of these, but I'd hate to see someone rejected just because we put English on a pedestal. Clearly a highly competent experienced Wikipedian. The fact that they have more experience in another language is an asset, not a liability.
'''Support''' - if Hilary needs to climb Everest, give him the pickaxe. '''
'''Support'''. I don't suppose at this stage my vote will make any difference but I'll record it anyway. The issue here is trust - we have someone who has "auditioned" at a similar project and been hugely impressive. Is it really likely he would choose another wiki to run amok on, after such an enormous contribution? I thank this editor for wanting to help out in this not especially interesting area. Best wishes if this RFA is a success.
'''support'''. Regards, —
Per Tan. ''I understand RfA a little less every single day.'' I'm surprised that many of the people I happen to agree with most about RfA are opposing for such idiotic reasons and then comparing them favorably to bad CSD tagging, which from what I've seen is one of the few rational opposition reasons given around here (though not always) I'm assuming that the answer can question five can be enforced, of course and I don't see why it wouldn't be.
When I reviewed Seth's de.wikipedia contributions, I found plenty of good sense and reason to trust. I understand the opposers who cannot review these contributions themselves, or find them irrelevant to en.wiki. I understand them, but I disagree, which is why I'm posting my support. I also understand the concerns regarding different wiki-cultures; my request to Seth is to ask an administrator he trusts or to post something at one of the noticeborards, when in doubt. Thanks for caring about sister projects, and good luck! ---
'''Support''' he can only help us. '''
'''Support''' Feel user will not misuse tools and further user plans to use it solely for SBL.
'''Support''' Doesn't look like he'll vandalize the main page, block Jimbo, spam every article and blow up the servers. But I support nevertheless. :-).
'''Support''' Trusted member on de.wikipedia and meta.wikimedia (a big wiki and a pretty important wiki!), pleasant to work with, and I trust that he will not ''misuse'' the admin tools.  --
Ja. Warum nicht? --
'''Support''': We are making an encyclopedia on a global scale, involving as many languages as possible. Recognizing the different standards that apply across the various Wikipedias, I consider them all rooms in the same house. Some rooms are messier than others, but it takes about five minutes of intellectual curiosity and a good online translation tool to figure out if someone like Seth is legitimate. I trust any admin on de.Wiki who can speak English to function here competently. Especially when they desire such a limited scope of work. This guy isn't going to destroy the English Wikipedia, and any reasonable person who has done even the most superficial due diligence can see that.
'''Support''' assuming he only works on SBL, and nothing else, as he said he would.

I fully respect Eco's concerns below, and partially agree with them. Under normal circumstances I also would be opposing; these are not normal circumstances. By "dedicated long-standing contributors to this project who've made thousands of edits are routinely picked apart in RfA over the most inane trivia and denied adminship" I imagine he is partially referring to myself. It can be argued that seth has not ruffled ''any'' feathers and made very few edits to this wiki. However, Wikipedia is not a one language project; de. is approaching on 1 million articles. Much of what seth does there is janitorial, however, he does aid in content more than some editors I've seen requesting adminship. He surely had negative interactions there, but he is human. Besides, Eco, the best way to counter the picking apart is supporting. :) ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' - As long as he does what he says he will, and why should we ''not'' trust him?  He's a sysop on the second largest Wikipedia, and he's open to recall or blocking if he does anything he shouldn't.  He's simply going to make something more useful and efficient.  Why do we need to see more edits?  He's not going to make ''any'' edits to article space (most likely). Just [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], as he is clearly trustworthy.  <font color="red">
He knows what he's going to use the tools for and has proven he can do so. That's good enough for me.
'''Support''' per Wizardman. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''. Lustiger seth wants to solely edit the spam blacklist, which is fine by me. I'm sure there are more than enough admins (me included) that are willing to block as soon as he uses his tools for other purposes. I doubt that he does, tho. Anyhow: No big deal, assume good faith, yadda, yadda. --
'''Support'''. Trusted there, why not here? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''', I don't think his adminship on dewiki (and especially not the one at metawiki) is any indication that he can be trusted ''at all'', but having researched him and read the comments here, he seems like a decent user. --
We can't guarantee you'll use it for just the spam blacklist, so oppose.
Per number of edits here. Though your intentions are laudable, adminship is pretty all or nothing on wikipedia. I've added [[WP:SBL]] to my watchlist though, and would ask other admins to do the same, to make any additions suggested there get added a little faster. --
There are already moral supports, so I have to oppose per WP:NOTNOW, also per lack (less than 500) contributions. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per lack of experience. 5 months doesn't let me down, but (I don't know if the edit counter is messing around,) but less than 50 edits? [[WP:NOTNOW]]!!! I can see why you have no edit conflicts... But you are kind of on the right track. Sorry! Try again in a few months...
Spam off back to de.
'''Oppose'''. If the permissions came separately, I might feel otherwise, but I can't seriously entertain an RfA from an editor who claims "no edits" about himself. Self-admitted no experience. He may say he will only use the tools for SBL, but the best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley. -
'''Oppose'''. Nothing personal, I just can't support handing out the tools to someone with that little experience on en-wiki. I've always thought it would be a good idea to allow specialised restricted admin permissions so that this kind of application could be allowed, but in the absence of this flexibility I must regretfully oppose.
'''Strong Oppose''' Based on an absurdly low level of input on this project -- both in terms of quality and quantity. I have to state that I am utterly baffled: dedicated long-standing contributors to this project who've made thousands of edits are routinely picked apart in RfA over the most inane trivia and denied adminship, yet someone who has barely contributed anything to ''this'' project can waltz in and be treated like royalty.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Probably will make a good admin at some point, but too little participation on en-wiki yet.
'''Oppose''', although this is a tough call. I will gladly reconsider when the candidate gains additional experience on en-wiki.
'''Oppose.'''  The request is predicated on limited applications of an array of tools which confer much wider powers.  Whatever "temp admin at meta-wiki" actually means, it doesn't add legitimacy to a request for local en adminship.  —
'''Oppose'''. Iustiger seth has not yet demonstrated sufficient interactions with other users on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' 42 edits. Really? Trust doesn't transfer from wiki to wiki, and I see nothing here that shows me you would be a compotent admin.--
'''Oppose'''. I can't believe the support this is getting. Per Athaenara. Per Ecoleetage. Despite what areas this guy ''says'' he's going to work in, we're going to give him the bit? I understand RfA a little less every single day. Someone makes three questionable CSD tags four months ago, they get hammered. Someone with off-wiki credentials shows up with virtually no experience, we're going to confer admin powers?
'''Strongest possible oppose''' I can't remember adding a strong oppose to a RfA, however in this case I even have to add my strongest possible oppose. Firstly, I have to say that I'm in perfect agreement with [[User:Ecoleetage]], [[User:KojiDude]], [[User:Tanthalas39]] and [[User:Caulde]] here. Actually, I'm really astonished by what is happening here. How can I trust someone who has not demonstrated ''any'' of the things I expect from an admin? This user has 11 edits in the mainspace (!). Usually, such a RfA would be closed per [[WP:SNOW]]/[[WP:NOTNOW]] (justifiably!). Great, this user is an administrator on another Wikipedia. However, how can a user with virtually no experience on this wiki have enough policy knowledge? Simply, he can't. Summarising, this user has not contributed any content to this encyclopedia, he has no experience in any admin area, plainly he has no overall experience here. Any admin would reasonably decline a rollback request from this user, so how can this user be granted adminship? Again, I'm astonished and equally shocked by what is happening here. I really do hope that our bureaucrats won't count votes when closing this one, but rather carefully consider all arguments and concerns. —
Oppose per Caulde.
'''Strong, but regretful, oppose'''
'''Oppose'''  per the rationales of Fvw, Tanthalas39, Aitias  and this  "I won't use the rights to do anything, which has nothing to do with the SBL." --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I am German myself but I know why I work here. De-wiki is very different from en-wiki and while I do not want to imply that the candidate would make mistakes deliberately, there is a very good chance he will make them, not being familiar with the project at all. I think our admins here should be able to handle SBL just fine without having to "outsource" it to de-wiki admins. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - per above. If you want to work on the spam black list, or assist, you can tell admins what needs to be added. But, otherwise due to your lack of contributions and knowledge of policies. In addition, how do we know this administrator is not controversial on .de? For that, I strongly oppose. '''
'''Oppose''' Per lack of experience, might need some more time.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Oppose''' - I appreciate this user's work on other projects, but I am concerned about his lack of experience on this particular project.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Adminship requires trust. Trust requires commitment. You have proven neither. Adminship is not something to be handed out lightly. Sorry, but I can't support such a candidate as this.
'''Oppose''' All summed up nicely above.
'''Oppose'''. At a minimum, if we're giving him rights here based on his work at de.wikipedia.org, the burden should be on the candidate to show that he has very broad-based support there; I don't think he's met that burden, especially since most of us can't read German to check for ourselves.  The candidate should have shown up here with strong recommendations from more people who are familiar with de.wp.  Also, I might have this wrong, but couldn't Cheerful Seth simply work in his own userspace for 3 months, and admins could drop by once a day to upload his changes to the spamlist?  This would take half a minute, or longer if the admin wants to take the time to vet the changes ... would that be a bad thing?  If he needs broader powers to test things, can't he do his testing on his other two wikis?  It's not my call what adminship means, but I'm pretty sure it's more than "We don't need to vet him ourselves because he promises he'll stay in one area".   - Dan
<s> Extremly Strong Oppose </s> '''Strongest Oppose Possible''' (Alex made me think of a ''very''' good reason to oppose. See below0 No offense, but even if you are an admin at de-wiki, does it matter here? en-wiki has a lot more in store for you, and there is nothing to stop you from using your tools on something else.
'''Oppose''' He does not really need permanent adminship. I would support granting him adminship temporally, say for six months, so he can update spam blacklist. This is much like temporal adminship on Meta, which Lustiger_seth already has.
'''Strong oppose''' - unfamiliar with this project. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, not enough work on en.wiki. I could see the possible translation (no pun intended) of adminship from one wiki to another, but I need to see more work in the desired wiki before I can support.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience on en.wiki, per all above. '''
'''Oppose''' per lack of edits here per John Sloan and all similar opposes.  I should add that the editor's work is excellent, but more work on en.wikipedia is needed.--
'''Oppose'''. He even admits he has little experience in here. Adminship is not given, it has to be earned.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question from Ameliorate!  There is only one category of administrator on Wikipedia and this kind of assurance is completely toothless.  A user that doesn't understand this ''can't'' be ready for adminship even if he does have it somewhere else.  The alternative is that he does understand this but chooses not to address the issue.  Ameliorate!'s question was unfair in my opinion, but that does not mean that I can ignore what I consider to be an overly simplistic response.  Good judgement is necessary even when spam fighting and this user has not demonstrated it.
'''Oppose''', and if that's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2Flustiger_seth&diff=259288279&oldid=259282103 "very disrespectful"] then so be it. I really didn't want to get involved in this one but it looks set to end in the discretion zone. I have no idea if you're the best thing that ever happened to de.wiki, but – while I think this shouldn't be the situation – unfortunately I've no way to judge you, and what's appropriate at one project isn't necessarily appropriate at another. (Until recently, ''three'' [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Quillercouch admins] [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Cato at] [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Yehudi Wikiquote] were Poetlister accounts, and [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Kelly+Ma Kelly Martin] is ''still'' an admin at Commons.) I don't know whether you'll stick to your specialist area, and I don't know whether you understand how our rules differ from .de. If there was a way to give you specialist powers in this area only I'd support it, but there isn't.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with Aitias and Kojidude. '''
'''Insufficient Experience''' Any time you need help with the spam black list, please post a request and somebody will take care of it for you.  If you don't get fast enough response, ask me and I'll try to help.
Doesn't intend to do any sysop work. (Question 1). <span>
The fact that you only intend to use the admin tools to edit the SBL is practically weightless in my decision to oppose.  You will have access to all the tools and you are going to be able to use them without question — so this is like any other RfA by a user who is new to our project.  If this doesn't pass, come back in a few months once you are familiar with the English Wikipedia, it's policies and guidelines and once the community is familiar with you. -
'''oppose''' - we have 1,300 admins, make a request of someone on the off chance you actually need tool useage here.  Also, per some of the other comments, en.wikipeida is not de.wikipedia, is not commons.wikipedia; each have separate criteria for adminship both granting and removal.  --
Sorry, I can't support someone who does not contribute to the wiki in the broader sense but wants the admin tools anyway. Show me some general contributions over a period of time and I am sure I will support. However I will remember you if I need some admin help on the de wiki.
'''Oppose''' in the past, an editor promised that they would use the tools only in non-heated areas, and would resign the tools under certain conditions. Since then, they have been the subject of multiple arb cases, have been presented the conditions referenced above, and are regularly in the thick of things. Until promises can be enforced, they cannot be made. Feel free to mirror the blacklist on a non-functional page and wait for an admin to copy it over.

'''Oppose,''' per Aitias. →
'''Oppose''' I consider the reconfirmation this candidate is proposing as a form of a recall promise, and thus must oppose.
'''Regretful oppose''' To get the admin bit here requires that you get accustomed to the conventions and community here, and that you gain the trust of the community here on en.wiki, not anywhere else. Trust is non-transferable. Lack of participation here makes it hard to discern whether the user is used to handling affairs here. Can I further emphasize the word "here"? —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">
I can't support handing out the full set of tools permanently to a user unfamiliar with this project. For your purpose, there's {{tl|editprotected}}. --
'''Neutral''' Can't support right now. His answers really don't explain much.
'''Neutral''' may return to my initial thought of oppose, based upon the convincing argument Ottava gave [[User_talk:Balloonman#Seth.27s_RfA|on my talk page.]]---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Going back to neutral... I just can't decide on this one.  My heart wants to support, my brain wants to oppose.  Who to listen to...---'''
'''Neutral''' Good admin at de.wiki, but activity at EN (or lack thereof) is enough to cancel any possible support.
'''Neutral''' Balloonman took the words stright out of my mind! I simply cannot decide!
'''Neutral''' Moved from oppose, where my original reasoning and new reasoning are still intact.
'''Neutral''' moved from '''Oppose''' without prejudice for a speedy re-listing for now, check back after actively participating in 10 separate/unrelated en-wiki SBL threads spread over at least a month.  I want to see how you interact with SBL participants and if most of your suggested changes are accepted by your peers.  You are about 4 threads over about 3 weeks, which just isn't enough.  Also, not speaking German, my ability to spot-check your ability to not tick people off is limited. I'm inclined to assume good faith per your existing permissions on other boards and support you come January or February though. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC) moved to neutral
'''Neutral''' It would feel silly to oppose this clearly good intention for bureaucratic reasons, but there are real concerns. What if Seth suddenly feels morally obliged to use the tools outside SBL during some heated conflict here on enwp? Could you have admins here do the SBL edits for you instead? Do you intend to change the scope of SBL in any way, or just refractor? --
'''Neutral'''. I really want to [[WP:AGF]] here, but I simply can't due to the lack of edits. The concerns raised above are very realistic, but your adminship in other areas means I cannot oppose, as you clearly have experience as an admin. <font color="777777">
'''Neutral''' per pretty much every neutral !vote above; there's not much I can add. If there was partial adminship, I'd support with little reservation, but... let's just say that trust isn't an issue, but it is. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - Solid long time contributor. Hard working.
'''Strong Support''' Has been contributing forever, works like a slave, all around great contribs in multiple areas. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''': We need more hard working admins like this who know how to -and want to- use the mop where few of us ever venture.
'''Support'''.  User with a good reputation.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
Not too dramatic. Answers to questions meet my criteria on maximum words.
'''Weak Support''' I trust a janitor candidate to handle a mop - he wouldn't be a full janitor without a mop (and [[Janitor (Scrubs)|a certain crazyness]] ;-) I trust the nominator and the contributions I reviewed confirmed it. '''
'''Support''' Solid Wikipedian and a workhorse to boot. CSD concerns from last RFA have been addressed. There is nothing to oppose and a lot to support.
'''Support''' as per your first RfA, I have no reason to alter my opinion.
'''Support''' Has been around since July 2006 and has over 20000 mainspace edits and over 33000 overall further as per track see no concerns of misuse of tools and concerns of earlier RFA overcome .
'''Support'''; [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not]], and net positive.
'''Support''' Quite a large amount of experience, fills a needed admin job, and overall I trust the nom and them. --
'''Support''' — No concerns. Best of luck! —'''
'''Support.''' Per nom by {{user|Wizardman}}, per answers to the first three questions, and some great positive contributions to the project. Nice work on [[List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War]], by the way. '''
'''Support''' I see no issues.
'''Support''' - yep. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''', has shown a remarkable dedication to wikipedia. Would certainly make a constructive admin. --
The nominations haven't gotten any more flattering.
'''Support''' per nom. meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]]. no reason not to.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' —
'''Strong Support'''. Many contributions, helps the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece]] by tagging articles and assessing them. He has improved Wikipedia articles in a number of ways, always with attention to detail. He is hard-working and rightly deserves to be admin.
'''Support''' '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
Hello, I'm [[Diana Ross]] -- you can call me "Miss Ross" -- and I'm here to be worshipped by my millions of fans...oh, wrong queue.  But while I'm here: '''Support''' for a savvy and dedicated editor for whom we don't need to ask "[[Theme from Mahogany|do you know where you're going to?]]"
SOlid work. Glad your work payed off, aren't ya'? &mdash;
'''Support.'''  I particularly and very strongly support the nominee's position that it is always better to let another admin handle issues in which one is involved (see answer to question 7): ''every'' admin should take that position.  —
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' over 30,000 edits and no blocks. I'm happy to support, esp as per answers to Qs. '''
'''Support''', see no reason not to.
'''Support''' High number of edits, good decision maker, happy to support :D
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Supoort'''
'''[[Net (device)|Net]] [[Positive element|positive]]'''. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
''Changed from '''Neutral, leaning towards support''' to '''Support:''''' Would make a great admin, and is willing to do the tasks no-one else wants to do.
'''Support''' - Why not? <small>
'''Support''' Good, honest, and concise answers to questions... and per Balloonman's question, candidate openly admits when they screw up without trying to over-context it.  I trust this candidate and believe they will use the tools responsibly.
'''Support'''. Seen Magioladitis at [[WP:DEP]] quite a bit over the last couple of years, and no worries about mop abuse. Janitors can definitely make good use of mops.--
Everything about this candidate screams "trustworthy and competent". Punish him with the tools I say! '''Support'''
'''Support'''.  When I joined Wikipedia, Magioladitis was one of the first editors whose example inspired me to get involved, learn policy, and contribute.  This is a great editor, and I support wholeheartedly, but suggest that he address some of the issues brought up by Caspian Blue below, including the answer to Q6.
'''Support'''  The oppose raised (#1) below gives me a bit of concern, but I believe it would be a net positive to Wikipedia if this editor were given to mop. --
'''Support''' Solid editor, can always use those that do the non-glamorous 'janitorial' aspects of the 'job'
'''Support''' I have had only one interaction with Magio, but that was positive. He showed me that it was incorrect to use a specific category on articles in a kind and helpful fashion. Articlebuilding is weak, though. ~<strong>'''<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkRed">one of many</span> <span style="color:#FF7F00;font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support''', I see no reason not to. The issue brought up by Caspian Blue is perhaps borderline but not totally out of line, and most of us have found ourselves in similar situations from time to time. I also see nothing wrong with the answer to Q6, and in fact am quite glad to see an admin candidate who's not afraid to answer "I don't know" when that's the truth.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good editor and is honest. What's not to like?
'''Support'''. Good contributions and answers. Magioladitis has a broadened his experience since the last RfA.
'''Support''' I've interacted with Magioladitis at {{tl|articleissues}}, where we've cooperated to maintain the template (or did, until it was fully protected). I think we have a slightly different views on which templates can be included in articleissues, but otherwise I've found him a fair editor, willing to cooperate.--
'''Support''' per 30,000 edits. There's nothing wrong with janitorial work; someone's got to do it. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''' - good contributions, not overly eager to become an adminstrator, as intermittence length would indicate. Support as last time (#7).
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Strong Support''' as for the same reasons I already nominated him once :-) --[[:ca:Usuari:Xtv|Xtv]] - (
'''Support''' Giving this candidate the mop would free up admins to help in other areas. I see no obvious reason for concern. Good luck!
'''Support''' Absolutely.  Excellent work all around.
'''Support''' Does good work in the X part of XfD (as in, things other than articles).
'''Support''' per good work at AfD.
'''Support''' per all of the above
'''Support''' good contributor.
'''Support'''. Experienced contributor that also participated substantially in admin-related areas.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' Per the Wiz. '''
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] --'''
'''Support''' Sensible enough to stay out of the wiki fiction drama despite his strong views on fiction, which is admirable. No other possible red flags. &ndash;
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Support''' - trustworthy and much needed in XfDs. --
'''Support''': Adminship is a natural progression for hardworking and solid contributors like the candidate. --
Will be fine.
'''Oppose''' per Q3, Q6, Q9, especially per [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Badagnani reported by User:Magioladitis (Result: 72 hours)|WP:AN3#Badagnani reported by Magioladitis]]. The candidate was edit warring with Badagnani and reported him to not ANI but AN3. I watched the whole show at that time of edit warring. There was no 3RR violation, and the user barely used talk pages with him. That is not only an evidence that the candidate lacks of understanding of policies but also I think he would use his admin tool to block somebody in dispute instead of resolving the matter with a discussion. I also have had hard time with the mentioned user and agreed with his insistence wrong. However, the report was gaming a system from bad faith to block the disputed editor. As for Q 6, that is not even an answer. You have to say about the question since you are asked to do so. Admin with specialty is okay, but at least you have to show willingness to answer the question as searching for the image policies.--
'''Oppose''' due to spotty success rate with nominations (see [http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Magioladitis here]) of fictional characters and television episodes, which means I do not trust the candidate's judgment regarding the worthiness of these articles, and he seems to only "vote" one way (see [http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=4&user1=Magioladitis&user2=TTN&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= these examples]) in these discussions as well, which means I do not trust his neutrality.  If the candidate vowed to never close discussions on television characters or episodes, just as you won't see me do, I might feel otherwise, but as of right now I am concerned with the obious bias concerning these particular topics.  --
'''Oppose''', I could not trust this user to close any AFDs whatsoever. As of October 16, 2008, this user was still referring to [[WP:FICTION]] in deletion nominations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_births,_birthdays,_marriages_and_deaths_in_Emmerdale], but [[WP:FICTION]] has not been a guideline since July. As of October 19, 2008, this user was saying "Fails notability for fiction" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._David_Cameron] in deletion nominations, but Wikipedia does not currently have a notability guideline for fiction. Only 18% of the articles this user nominates for deletion end up being deleted.[http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Magioladitis] Nominations like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Alan_Skinner this] are simply embarassing. If this user can't take the time to read [[WP:ATD]] or [[WP:BEFORE]], how does anyone expect this user to read [[WP:DGFA]]? --
'''Oppose''' <s>subject to possible change depending on the answer to Q12 above</s>, ''all the more so because of the evasive answer to Q 12 above. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) ''.  Looking at AfDs placed just during this discussion, I see he nominates on the basis of having no citations to prove notability, without making any demonstrated attempt to find them, not realising that the requirement is verifiable, not verified. Just above, in his answer to several editors, he confirms that, saying that for an article to have been tagged for notability and not improved for 13 months is grounds for deletion. That's nonsense, of course, it's grounds for examination and looking for sources, and then, if not found, nominating for deletion.  I suppose the candidate will be confirmed. I do not dislike him, and I would never oppose just for being a deletionist, or having a different opinion about fiction.  I doubt everyone saying keep above has actually examined his record at AfD.  I hope he learns more about deletion policy before he starts closing AfDs, or there will be a good deal of activity at deletion review, and not just about fiction. I now regret having waited so long to comment, but I hoped to not have to oppose.  '''
'''Oppose''' I do not trust this user to close AFDs in a competent manner. Constant, very brief deletion votes that carry [[WP:VAGUEWAVE|zero weight]], exampes of "[[WP:ITSCRUFT|It's listcraft]]", "[[WP:VAGUEWAVE|fails notability]]", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mill%28insult%29&diff=177414670&oldid=177408914 "speedy delete"]. Way too many "per [[WP:FICTION]]"s, as well. Even some of the longer votes are still weightless, as it's just policies written as a sentence to make it look like a 'real' opinion. "Delete. It is unencyclopedic, unreferenced (thus maybe inaccurate). Wikipedia is not a directory." --Translation: "Delete. [[WP:UNENCYC]], [[WP:VAGUEWAVE]], [[WP:VAGUEWAVE]]" The whole mindset for even nominating articles for deletion is also completely out of whack, as DGG demonstrates. It's just way too much of a risk for you to have the tools right now.
'''Soft oppose''' per all the above re: AfD closure, in particular DGG's comment about the answer to Q12. Give it another 3 months, maybe. <font color="#A20846">╟─
'''Regretful Oppose''' per statements in response to DGG and questions 12, above.
''''oppose''' per concern over AfD. I've supported editors who are highly deletionist in the past but I see no evidence that Magio's deletionism is well-thought or that it will be reasonably laid aside when judging community consensus. This person is simply not someone I would trust with the delete button at this time.
'''Neutral''' Regretfully I can't support based on answers to questions. Firstly the answer to Q1 is not very satisfying. Secondly the answer to Q3 does not really provide evidence of being able to solve conflicts. Furthermore the answers to Q4 and Q6 indicate that the user does not have sufficient policy knowledge. All in all it's not enough to support. Sorry. —
'''Neutral''' I'd like to support as I think the user is generally a good candidate who would not abuse the tools. Unfortunately the answer to question 4 leaves me with some concerns over their knowledge of [[WP:POLICY|policy]] in an area where I think it is likely that they may work.
'''Neutral''' - Seems like a good contributor, I'm a little wary over Q4 though. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' I have concerns about his reliance on tools that are bringing people to his talk page because of issues with the tools and/or his execution with the tools.  Tools also make it difficult to see how he would respond... and unfortunately, the answers to some of the questions were a little weak.  In this case, it's not enough to make me oppose, but I can't support at this time.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Leaning Oppose per some of the opposes above... won't change without first confirming myself.---'''
'''Neutral''' I finally unraveled the July threads with [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] and [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] enough to see that you _were_ trying to apply the policy correctly.  But you should not forget people may need more explanation/description to understand what you, or rather your bot, is doing.  We've had problems with minimal explanations from bot owners before.  Hesitation in stopping a bot or explaining it further is what is stopping me now. I could be enthused with your interactions in June regarding the talk-page-of-redirect-blank-except-for-project-template issue.  You got people's attention and a good resolution at MFD. Problem-> talk-> resolution - that's the right way.
'''Neutral''' for now. Seems like an excellent contributor for the most part, and I suspect giving Magioladitis the tools will be a net benefit. Despite all this, the answer to question 4 is very concerning. Guest9999 said it all. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' Past interactions brushing with 3RR and questionable bot activities, iffy communication skills, and some worrying concerns over strength of deletionism per DGG. I revisit RfAs often, and may change my stance here.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. Experienced and good answers.
'''Strong Support''' Good project work, experienced, and excellent, articulate answers.
'''
'''switch to Strong Support''' per nom.
No problems spotted. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''--
'''Support''' Experienced user, good admin candidate, voted Keep on an AFD for my article. <font color="#00ff00">
'''Support''' - Yes.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q1, and I doubt Malcolmx15 will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Good article work, experienced, looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Will be just fine.
'''Support''' - Would be a good admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - clearly a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - no reason found to oppose. Also not the deletionist that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes him out to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GlavUpDK] --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Other than gently pointing out that admins participating at AfD might reasonably be expected to also close cases where the consensus is ''keep'' I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' Would be a good admin.
'''Weak support''' considering you said you'd like to work in AIV but I see little activity there. Just take it slow for a few weeks before pressing 'block' :) —
'''Support''' Trustworthy user. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">

Hello, I'm here for my vasectomy and...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: '''Support'''
'''Support''' <s>per Ecoleetage</s> per nom! :P Candidate looks fair. &mdash;
I'm
—'''
'''Support''' may vote delete as per Le Roi, but does vote keep some of the time and appears to think about AfD and be open-minded. Cheers,
'''Support''' because of the [[WP:UCS|fantastic]] answer to Q5! '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''' I've looked at the examples Le Roi gave for his oppose and and whilst Malcolmxl5 doesn't always give detailed reasons for supporting delete, those articles all seem to have been deleted; which I take as a sign of good judgement. Having looked through a few of Malcolmxl5's contributions I'm happy to trust this editor with admin tools. Though after reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plantpot&diff=prev&oldid=232460154 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugenia_B._Thomas_K-8_Center&diff=prev&oldid=232764050 two] good bits of vandalism reverting, I would like to suggest that in future Malcolmxl5 follow up more of his vandal reversions by putting vandal warnings on the users talk page. <font face="Comic sans MS">'''
Can't say no to a Wizardman nom. :)
'''Support'''.  Everything looks good here.
'''Support''' Should make a decent admin.
'''Support''' &mdash; As an [[England national football team|England]] supporter, this man has clearly suffered enough, and I feel that an oppose vote might push him over the edge.  (Seriously though, looks good.) '''
'''Support''' I like it. '''
'''Support''', good contribs, obvious clue, civil talkpage.  Also, I generally don't read the Q and A above, and if I do, it generally has no bearing on how or where I offer an opinion,  but you nailed Q4.
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' I think he well understand what to do as an admin, and I trust he is reasonable use of the tools. I also appreciate his patience here, a very good sign..  '''
'''Support''' per profuse amounts of experience in a myriad of areas (1450 WP edits!) and well-thought out answers to questions and thoughtfulness in general. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support.''' - Per the well thought-out nom by {{user|Wizardman}}.
'''Support'''.  I don't see anything wrong with giving the candidate the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Malcolmxl5 has more than 10,000 mainspace edits. He has made fine contributions and I couldn't find any reason to oppose. I also found the arguments of editors who opposed this RFA unconvincing.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WTHN?]] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''–your answers show a strong knowledge of wiki-policy and a desire to promote it; they are very impressive and, for me, overwhelmingly convincing.--<small>
'''Weak support''' - It's funny, because the opposes have some good and bad arguments.  I do ''not'' think Malcolmxl5 is a ''complete'' deletionist, although that might be a ''tendency''.  Also, I see some good article-building work at the [[:football (soccer)]] articles, especially bios.  On the whole, though, this editor just about meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' per just about all the above. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Weak Support''' Something bugs me, but I cannot say what it is. From what I can judge, I see no reason not to support. '''
'''Support''' I believe that Wikipedia needs to build up its forces against vandals. As a devoted vandal-fighter myself, I support this user becoming an Admin. Thank you.
To nullify Skinwalker.
'''Support'''. ''Superb'' answer to Q7. I couldn't agree more.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' I would support you anyway but take cyclonenim's comment to heart. ;) Regards, --'''
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination)]]... ah, what the hell. Well-rounded editor who has demonstrated in the past that he can be trusted to use the mop and bucket wisely. I also trust Wizardman's judgement. <small>
'''Support'''. Seems to be sensible.
'''Support'''. No reason not to, and the "oppose" arguments below are rather silly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Longstanding trustworthy contributor.
Changed to '''Weak oppose''' bordering on neutral, maybe even weak support per answer to question 4.  I originally regularly opposed per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydra in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falkner Eggington Courts (2nd nomination)]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Carrea]].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
For two reasons. First, he has not been in a significant conflict, so I don't know how the user would react in dramaful situations. We've had incidents in the past where we've had terrible sysops who quietly passed RFA. Second, there's a lack of experience in normal administration areas (the highest count is eight on AIV). '''
At this time, I am unwilling to support any admin candidate who claims to be open to recall.
'''Oppose''' per answer to #8.
'''Neutral leaning to Oppose''': Article building is minor, would have liked to see one GA under your belt. You haven't got much experience with controversial, disputed articles. I can't see consensus building or dispute resolution work. Your AfD work is impressive, stopping me oppose. —
Per co-nom.
<s>'''Oppose''' Your user page is messy. :P</s> '''Support''' Bout damn time!
'''Support''' per nom. <strong>
'''Support''' - should get the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
'''Support.''' He looks good and ready to be an admin.
'''Support''' - on review, appears to be a solid user with no warning flags, demonstrates maturity and civility in interactions and has suitable editing skills. See
OK. '''
'''Support''' - per noms. Definitely ready for the tools. -'''
'''Support''' - Trust noms, appears to be civil user, experienced.  <span style="border:1px solid #433">
'''Support'''. I can't find any reason not to. -
'''Support''', looks fine to me. <b>
'''Support''' looks good. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' You bet.
One of the few RfA regulars who actually deserve the tools.
'''Support''' - Has clue.
Happy enough with this user getting the tools --
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop.
'''Support'''.  Good editor, no redflags here.  Good luck, Malinaccier - don't go crazy with the tools!
'''Support''' Good faith editor; I see no relevant reason to oppose. Good luck! <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' an excellent user, plus a WP:WPHP member. :) -
Good. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Clearly aware of policy & good attitude to boot. --'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong support''' per [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Malinaccier#Deletion track record]]. I pulled up his deleted contributions history -- Malinaccier has an excellent track record with speedy deletions and AfDs. In other words, it's very rare for him to nominate or tag an article that should be kept. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Looks ready for the buttons. --
'''Support''' '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' Valueless in terms of input this support may be, but it's all said above. '''Net Benefit to Wikipedia.''' Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' per everyone. (what?)
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder and trustworthy. cheers,
'''Support''' - well known and respected editor.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - --
Almost overlooked this one.
'''Support''' - After our brief interaction, I wannabekated you to learn more, so I knew a bit about you before the process. Science-Fiction/Fantasy topics often draw a very young and consequence-free editor, much like myself back in the day, so I have some admiration for a prospective admin who has devoted one's edit career to these somewhat contentious pages. I'd like to see some more non-fiction area page edits (not editcountitis, merely for perspective), but what you've done is solid reliable work, based on contribs.
'''Support''' I liked what I saw. Looks like a good editor and a good addition to the project. --
Good user.
'''Support''' - looks to be a good editor who can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Neutral''' per reply to my oppose above.
'''Support''' Happy to be able to support. Thanks,
Support.
'''Nom support'''.  (Man, Rudget.  You write way better noms than me, and you beat me to support?  Sheesh.)  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' per nom. --

'''Support''' per Keeper76's faith, the answer to Q8, and what appears to be a fantastic edit history.
'''Support''' - Reliable guy. '''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Communicative editor, fairly prolific and versatile. You have my support.
'''Support''' - Satisfied that this user won't abuse the mop.
'''Strong support''' (insert standard text expressing surprise this user isn't already an admin). Every encounter with this editor has impressed me, especially with the thoughtfulness. Absolutely no worries here.--
I "adopted" Martijn a few months back, but haven't had to do much of anything; he already knew the ropes fairly well, and just wanted someone he could ask questions every once and a while. May sound odd, but the ability to self-identify that you don't know absolutely everything is a wonderful trait for an administrator, and goes hand-in-hand with his knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as his rational nature. An excellent addition to our administrative ranks. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Sure'''.  No problems that I can see.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Enjoy the tools! '''[[User:TheProf07/Vandals|The]]
'''Tentative Support''', brief perusal of contribs raised no obvious red flags. Reserving the right to switch if any new information arises.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - independent, well-reasoned arguments in AfD.  All my interaction - well, really more like observation - has left me with a positive impression that was re-enforeced by a review of contribs.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Prolific editor, trustworthy, good track record.
'''Support''' as nom. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''': I see no major issues, well-rounded and quite balanced. Refreshing. <small>
'''Support''' - I trust any editor nommed by husond.
Agree with Chrislk02: as well as observing Martjin Hoekstra's good work, the nomination by Husond and the co-nomination by Keeper76 top the RfA off.
'''Support''' Good noms and answers, seen this user around plenty.
'''Support''' I view editing as ''prima facie'' evidence of insanity. No RfA is complete without the phrase ''prima facie'' and there we have it. Nurse, Nurse!
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Pshhh... Why not... <font face="terminal">
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' - No problems that I can see. Good luck! —
'''Strong support''' → need to dump NPW moderation on him while we claim to be on wikibreak :) <i><b>
'''Support''', a solid contributor, no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - no problems here.
'''Support''' I belive he'll be a great sysop. ''
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support''' - reliable. '''''
'''Support'''. Experienced long-term editor, albeit mainly at low editing rate, with balanced contributions.
'''Support''' thought you were already an admin. &nbsp; '''
Per Snowolf.  Also, he's a great user and will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I'm very disappointed with the "opposes" and "neutrals" based on SqueakBox's insinuations (and judging by Guy's "neutral" comment, people familiar with the underlying issues know exactly what the insinuation is). Martijn is brave enough to try and sort out the perpetual mess on [[WP:PAW|PAW-related articles]]. This is something I once tried and gave up on because it is so draining and because editors such as SqueakBox demand nothing short of full compliance with the idea that the number one priority is not neutrality but the destruction of any hint of satisfaction for people sympathetic to paedophilia. I'd encourage people to read carefully the diffs presented below by <s>Harland1</s> RegentsPark (sorry, wrong attribution in my original post). They are far from scandalous. They are trying to return a heated discussion toward basic principles: state the facts, trust the reader's moral judgement for the interpretation of these facts (the good ol' principle that we don't need to write "Hitler was a bad guy" for people to understand that he is). It's important to remember that a remorseless paedophile will get a hard-on when reading the articles on paedophilia, no matter how we phrase them. It's just as important to remember that, yes, activists sympathetic to paedophilia do routinely try to push their agenda on Wikipedia. But the only way to obtain quality articles on these delicate subjects is to involve more people like Martijn who, unless I'm missing some dramatic evidence, is not there to push any agenda beyond the Wikipedia agenda of responsible, sound editing. To see his courageous involvement belittled by petty insinuations saddens me.
'''Support''': Excellent contributor, and I'm happy to support. -
'''Support''' - Great editor, see no sufficient reason to object to this nomination.
'''Support''' Looks good here. More than qualified for the mop. --'''
'''Support''', per nom and Pascal.Tesson. Solid editor.
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''' I do not have the good fortune to be able to say that I have experience with this user, either good or bad. However, I have watched him from a distance (he's doing and done a brilliant job on pedophilia-related articles, by the way), and from what I have seen of him, he more than deserves the bid. &mdash;
'''Support''' - a well-qualified editor with adequate experience in article and project space.
'''Support''' - excellent editor, and an impressive and honest answer to my question. <b>
I was literally sitting in front of my computer when I gave this user my '''support'''.
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' Has been around since Dec 2005 and has over 2000 mainspace edits.Seeing the neutrals comments I was swayed but feel you have enough to be trusted with the tools after careful consideration
'''Support''' I feel confident Martijn will not abuse the mop. (Ook al ben je waarschijnlijk een AZ-fan :) <small><font color="AE1C28">
Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Experience with mediation is a big bonus. ~
'''Support''', per Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''', <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - convinced by the shallow oppose reasons given below.
'''edit conflict Support''' per Pascal.Tesson, the demeanor of the candidate, the experience of the candidate, and the sources/quality (or lack thereof) of the opposes below.
'''Support''' Competent user.
'''Support''' &ndash; Excellent.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - good track record. I've personal experience of dealing with this candidate and he's been great. Good noms and answers to the questions. Civil and non-BITEy & should make a fine admin :) -
'''Support''' - there's no reason not to, IMO. He's got a lot of experience, has loads of clue, and will definitely be an asset as an admin. I actually did a double take when I saw this on the RfA board, I had (cliché alert) thought he was an admin.
'''Support''' This editor's reactions to the various accusations and oppositions below and on the talk page reinforce the trust shown by the nominators above. This, togther with an evaluation of the user's edits leads me to believe that this user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment can be trusted]] to be exercised in a fashion that will be of benefit to the project. --
'''Support''' to reduce the effect of Biruitorul's point-making. He will use the tools effectively; also, no evidence to suggest he will be anything but neutral as an admin.
'''Strong Support''', also Per Martinp23 and Snowolf - <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, see nothing to suggest user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], reputable nominators, and good answers.
AGF on the stuff below. ''
'''Support''' No problems in contribs, excellent answers to questions. I really like the answer to the question about when you would decline a CSD. I will try to do that myself if/when I become an admin.
Ok, I honestly didn't take a closer look, but the opposition didn't gain momentum after several days and that speaks for itself.
'''Support''' I like the responses to the mini-crisis inspired by SB below - yet another good sign this user will be a good admin.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but unable to support, based on my experience of this user. Thanks,
Martijn, can you link to the pedophilia mediation directly please? I'm not familiar with it.  I trust your co-nominators, but I find that I usually agree with SqueakBox in respect of this particular subject. Thanks, <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Neutral''' I hate being the odd one out, but I think the edits are a bit too low for me. 5000 edits with only 2000 being mainspace. I'll think on it. <strong>
'''Neutral''' for the time being (though it doesn't look like it will affect the outcome), as per Guy and Dorftrottel, I am puzzled by SBs oppose and given the subject matter am hesitating on this one. Cheers,
Neutral for the moment. I don't typically vote against the folks currently in support, but this one isn't a clear win for me.
'''Neutral''' I'm on the fence for this one, per avruch and Casliber. <strong>
'''Neutral''' I have concerns... but they aren't strong enough for me to oppose... but I can't support right now.
'''Neutral'''.
'''
'''Support''' - can't see any problems here. <b>
'''Support''': I've interacted with this user a number of times, and have no problems with his demeanor or judgment.  Will make a good sysop.  Good luck. -
'''Absolutely!''' <i><b>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''.  I don't like that big gap in editing, but that can't be changed and he's logged over 1000 edits the last three months. He has tons of experience. Some people may get the wrong idea regarding sockpuppets when they see his name, but whenever I see his name, though, I think of the Pastor of Muppets.
You're NOT an admin???!!!
'''Support''' yepp, of course. —
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''', excellent candidate with thorough grasp of policy. A very thoughtful, helpful and responsible adopter, also. :)
'''Strong support''' - Uhh, yeah, I so didn't realize MOP wasn't already an admin...*twiddle*
'''Support''' - will be fine.
'''Strong Support''' Was going to nominate him myself. Will make a great administrator. Very kind and has helped me out a lot.
'''Support''' MOP deserves the MOP. Great user seem him everywhere, very trustworthy. -
'''Strong support''' - I'm getting annoyed with you answering questions before me at the help desk - so maybe the tools will keep you a little more preoccupied? ;-) - This user will make an excellent admin; he is kind, polite and dedicated. He will no doubt offer the same level of care and interest to his admin obligations as he does elsewhere. MoP is also great at noticing my mistakes! :-D - Definitely needs/deserves the tools.
'''Support'''.  Very knowledgeable about policy, as shown at [[WP:UAA]] and [[WP:AIV]], and helpful at the help desk.  My only quibble is with flagging edits as minor edits when they aren't, but I'm not going to make that a big deal. --
'''Edit-conflicted support''' - An excellent candidate, who's fine qualities are reflected in his outstanding contributions to the project. No reason why MOP can't get one.
'''Twice edit-conflicted Support''' I thought you were an admin! <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Strong support'''. About a month ago I considered noming, but had never done so, and I didn't want to hurt the user. At any rate, I wanted to do because there are few non-admins that would put the tools to better use than Master of Puppets. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' You have lots of contributions in most areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per answer to my question in neutral section.
'''Support''' Uh, thought you were one.  Give M.O.P. the mop...hah! :)
'''Support''' I have no concerns that this editor would abuse the tools
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose that I can see. And has a great name.
'''Support''' - The questions are just general... I will still support you, those questions are just a check up ;) :) --
'''Support''' - per answers and superb edits. Will put the tools to good use. <font face="Verdana">
'''Long overdue'''
'''Support''' Excellent work on the wiki. Also, I like your honest answer to the admin recall question. Sometimes it's hard for me to believe that nearly every single admin candidate actually supports the idea and isn't just trying to conform.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Oppose'''. <span title="It was the most arbitrary reason I could think of.">Under 100 edits to the Portal talk namespace.</span><br/>Kidding, of course. '''Give MoP the mop.''' :-) Great editor, clearly trustworthy.
'''Support''' You're one of the few I support.
'''Cliche'd I-already-thought-he-was-one support''' -
'''Support''' Yup. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Give MoP the MoP''' [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Seen MoP around [[WP:ANI]], where his contributions are knowledgeable and worthy. No qualms. --'''
'''Support''' Per Majorly. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Interactions with this user have been more than positive, will not abuse the tools. Give em' the mop.
'''Support''' - looks like a responsible user from his contribs. -'''Trampikey'''<sup>(
'''Support''' Seems like a good user, per majorly. <strong>
'''Support''' excellent contributor. Have fun with the mop :-). But not too much fun. '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Based on what I've seen while patrolling recent edits, I have no problem with is fellow--<small><span style="border:3px solid #000071;padding:2px;">
'''I've been through his deleted taggings, and, I'm [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]][[User:Dlohcierekim/deletion|<font color="#ff0000"><small>Deleted?</small></font>]], and I approve this message.'''[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' Levelheaded, takes criticism well, willing to adjust, civil. Most important qualities in an admin. --'''
'''Support''' I think that MoP will make an excellent admin! It’s about time, too. —
'''Support''' I thought I'd never say this again at an RFA, but...I thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' Looks good to me!
'''Why didn't this happen sooner?'''
'''Support''', good answers - just be more careful of the [[Grue (monster)|Grue]].
-- <strong>
'''Absolutely''' - I was going to make an obvious pun, but Milk's Favorite Cookie beat me to it.... --
'''Strong Support'''. Giving mopper the mop will, in my opinion, greatly benefit Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]] / [[WP:DEAL]]
IRC troll. Auto-oppose. ''
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around and they know what they're doing and what they're talking about.
Has clue. ~
'''Support''' - of the ''"I thought he was one already"'' variety.
'''Support'''.  Yes!  '''
'''[[Hellyeah|Weak Support]]''' - Unless you write a Featured Template as Gurch suggested, this will remain a weak support [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I don't think that a featured article is necessary. I've noticed this user in many places (AfD, NewPages, etc...) and I fully agree with him becoming an admin. He's one of the best candidates for the time.
'''Support''' How can I not support designer of my userpage? Great contributions, no concerns. <b>
'''Support''' impressive progress since the last voting - and he is a good editor anyway.
'''Call him MoP'''!  Yep,
'''Support''' Done impresssive progress since last RFA.good track no concerns.
'''Support''' <small> and jumps on the party wagon </small>
'''Support''', although a Featured Template would make MoP shine even more than he already does. ;) ·
'''Support''' I've seen this guy around. He's good. :<
'''Support''' Good editor and I think he will be trustworthy.--
—'''
'''Support''' Someone sent me several of his AfDs over the last few weeks. A couple were ridiculous, but his acknowledgment above of how he acted inappropriately in the past is humble and his AfDs are reasonable enough. <font size="4">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Having reviewed MoP's [[Special:Contributions/Master of Puppets|contributions]], and following general review of his presence on the project, it is clear that he is trustworthy to a sufficient degree as to be granted the [[WP:SYSOP|administrator]] tools. At a push, I do sense some "ramping up" in that typical pre-RfA style we often see, but it's not overly worrying: if anything, it just highlights the candidate's dedication to the project ;) Additionally, Master's experience and contributions with administrator-related areas brings added confidence, and I am pleased to offer my support for his candidacy.
'''Support''' - no problem by me.  -
'''Support''', no question.

Almost a [[project:administrators|mop guy]].
'''"Wait-what?" support'''  You mean MoP doesn't already have a Mop?  Fix that!  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' what's not to like with this helpful, active editor?

'''Support''' Cute username, but you have the skills required. '''
'''Support''' I believe this guy has a diplomatic, tactful, and overall friendly personality. I'd feel peaceful having him around as admin, not oppressed nor fearful. --
'''Support.''' I have found this user to be knowledgeable, helpful, and diplomatic, an all-around great Wikipedian who uses good judgment in dealing with trouble makers and clearly has good use for the tools.
'''Support''' all the best. <sup>
Although this won't do much good for anyone's sake if the "MoP has mop" jokes continue ;)
'''Support''' very active user which will helps a lot with the tools. Good luck
'''Support''' - not much more that hasn't already been said.
'''Support''' Looks like this user will make another good one. '''
Pile on '''support''', a trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. —
Excellent user and excellent nominators.
'''Support'''. Excellent experience with this editor, about time to remove that "non-admin close" tag from his work at AfD.
'''Support'''. I don't usually pile on obvious shoe-ins, but hopefully this might get to [[WP:100]] if a few more of us do. Also, wanted to voice appreciation of [[User:Gurch|Gurch]]'s excellent '''neutral'''.
'''This will hit [[WP:100]].''' Best candidate in a long time. [[User:Mistery account|Mistery account]] ([[User talk:Mistery account|talk]]) 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—
'''Very Strong Support.''' Are you kidding? Who would say no? '''
'''Support''' Well qualified and good natured. You'd be mad not to.--
'''Strong support'''. Nice fellow with excellent judgment and plenty of experience. In my view the answers are just about impeccable. He also gave me a very kind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/xDanielx&diff=181270999&oldid=177626257 review] some time ago. —
'''Support''' There is no reason to oppose him. And, his user name is cool.
'''Support'''. Fantastic contributor, will use the tools nicely, and very good answers to questions. Has come a long way as a contributor. Congratulations on reaching [[WP:100]] as well. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Tarragon Support''' Great and venerable editor - best of luck my friend! <b>
'''Support,''' from part of the "Hey, weren't you one already?" gang. Seriously, MoP seems like part of the furniture here. <span style="color:#00398d;font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:95%;">&mdash;
'''Support''', assuming of course he's not in fact a master of [[WP:SOCK|puppets]]. :) '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' - has done a great job at [[WP:UAA]] and [[WP:AFD]], even when we disagree, and meets all my standards.
'''Support''' - --
'''Weak Support'''. I wish you the best of luck, and keep your grades up! Happy Editing,
'''Support''', don't think he'll go crazy and block me.
'''Support''' - I actually thought he was an admin. The contributions he makes certainly befit an admin candidate (lots of vandal-fighting, like myself). <span style="white-space: nowrap;">
'''Support''' - Will be a great addition to the admin <s>cabal</s> team. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' - It's been too long.
'''Support''' but ask candidate to be very cautious not to undo other admins' actions without discussion. Use AN if their are disputes.--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''You're not already an admin?- Support''' A great user who should have gotten the mop ages ago. --'''
'''Support''' - ''Excellent'' track record all around. Will make an outstanding administrator.
'''Easy, easy, easy support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. net positive to 'pedia. cheers,
I assume you're not ''actually'' a master of ''sock''puppets...
'''Strong Support''' - "I thought you were one already..." -
Support per '''[[WP:SNOW]]''' - let's just admin the guy already. 100+ votes and we can't just throw it at him? &spades;
'''Support''' - user will not abuse tools. '''''
'''Support''' - will be a great admin and can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' I thought I voted days ago! Obviously I was wrong. Great user in every respect.

'''Support''' - Most definitely. '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' - thought you were already an admin. You need the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - Oh please... that's like asking whether or not I support sugar in my ice cream.
'''Strong Support''' - Absolutely No Problems. I actually thought he was an Admin (hehe). Has been of great help and is always polite.
'''Support''' No indications he will abuse the tools.
'''Of course'''
User would do well with more powers/really should have been granted some time ago. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
I don't see any reason why not. :)—
'''Congratulatory Support''' Now it's apparent candidate will get community endorsement for tools, Best Wishes, and use the bit wisely.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor, great personality. &mdash;
&mdash;
'''Support''' Can not find anything against him!! :) [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', though I am required to bring up that this user is obviously an impersonator of the account that pre-dates him, [[User:MasterOfPuppets|MasterOfPuppets]]. And I must say I told you so about the RfA as well. <tt>:)</tt> <span>
'''Support''' for answers that reveal an understanding of what adminship entails, a good contributions history, and a good AIV and AFD participation history (in terms of quantity/accuracy of reports and quality of comments, respectively). – '''
'''Support''' —
'''Strong support''' Good editor, and I think that he will make a great sysop.
'''Support''' --<small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' He seems to be a good editor, This user should have been an admin long time ago. I think he will do well as an admin. --
'''Support''' - you mean he's not an admin already?
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' the editor. (I'm not so sure about the username given the community's sensitivity to sockpuppets -- please consider changing) --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose.''' I am very sorry, but I have to oppose this. Not that I am afraid that MoP will misuse his tools.. -quite contrary, I´m afraid MoP will not use them when it is needed. I base my opinion on the interaction with MoP concerning now banned user
–
'''neutral''' -
The answer to #9 concerns me - please feel free to ask for help should you need to handle an image issue.  If the licensing terms of an image forbid derivative works, then it can be speedied under I3.  Obviously, if it is a user-authored image, it's helpful to ask the user to pick a better license (like the GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0) and give them a chance to respond before deleting it, but there's no "process".  As for portals, images being used under a claim of fair use can only be used in article space - never on templates, portals, or user space - and should be removed on sight. --
'''neutral''' - I am slightly concerned at how MoP dealt with my report on WP:AIV against [[User:1948remembered|1948remembered]], together with the spurious reports posted there by the latter. For more details, see my talk page, 1984R's & MoP's talk pages (and those of the other editors involved). He removed all these reports from AIV, on the grounds that they concerned a "content dispute", when in fact a closer examination of the edit history would have revealed clear evidence of vandalism (for which 1984R has now been indef blocked). In fact I hadn't realised MoP wasn't an admin until I saw this RfA, and he should have left these reports for an experienced admin to deal with. In mitigation, it isn't easy to deal with AIV reports if it's not immediately obvious vandalism, and MoP did try to encourage the parties to discuss on the talk page. I'm inclined to believe he will learn from this mistake (we all make mistakes), so I won't oppose.
Per Gurch, Rocksanddirt and B. Also, no need to pile-on support at this point when there are some minor issues. User:
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' He has been helpful, especially when I was first starting out on Wikipedia :) <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per nom, and per his excellent, always constructive work in the FLC area.
'''Biggest possible support''' I am actually unhappy that I didn't get to nominate Matthew.  His work is a huge <u>net positive</u> for the project.  That is what matters here.  If we give Matthew administrative tools, it will do nothing but make Wikipedia better.  I have the up-most confidence and respect for Matthew, not only when it comes to administrative work, but more importantly to expanding the encyclopedia.  Matthew gets it, we are here to make an excellent encyclopedia, and he has contributed his own time and effort to not only creating excellent work himself, but also reviewing and correcting others' pages.  He is well-spoken, mature, honest, hard-working, and knowledgeable.  This is not even a question of whether or not I trust he will not abuse the tools, because that is an easy answer.  I trust Matthew will be a great admin and the project will greatly benefit from his work.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''': Candidate looks well rounded. Has an excellent amount of experience in multiple areas and edit summary looks good too. I think this user would make an excellent admin and would do nothing but help the project with the addition of the tools. I don't see anything alarming in the contributions either. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. This user appears responsible, personable, and doesn't display any tendencies that would seem to indicate he would misuse the tools. He would also be a "writing admin" which I think our project needs. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
Definitely.  I even awarded him a barnstar back in May.  –'''
Why the hell not.
'''Support''' - knows his strengths, his limitations, and the right use of admin tools.  —
'''Support'''. I know this user from FLC and he's done some excellent work there.  If the only thing he's done wrong is UAA then I'm definitely supporting.  Good luck, Matt.
'''Support''', can trust him to use the tools effectively.
'''Support''' - dammit, if I had known about this earlier, I would have offered to co-nom :p. In any case, Matthew is definitely a very knowledgeable and dedicated editor, with superb content contributions and excellent work at [[WP:FLC]]. I trust he will use the tools well. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', I've "met" Matthew at FLC and am impressed by him.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' Lower on the edit count than I'd prefer, but he does do good Fx work and shows an interest in helping users, things I think are good. '''
'''Support''' -- user has done a lot of great work. I agree that a few of the UN reports were questionable but consider it no big deal (they were pretty borderline, after all). —
'''Support'''.  The missteps at UAA give me a little bit of pause, and he ''did'' just get through with picking my FL candidate into tiny little pieces (I kid on the second item there, just in case the humor doesn't translate well), but it's certainly not enough of an issue to cause me to withhold support.
'''Support''' -- demonstrably keeps a cool head during disagreements, and seems to have enough common sense not to use the tools in areas where he doesn't have experience.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Weak Support''' Wisdom89 makes a good point with that link, but not enough to oppose for me.
'''Support''' Well-rounded, trustworthy editor. '''
Certainly.
'''Strong Support''' - a glowing candidate! Article building is fantastic, as is Wikipedia-space participation. As ''Wizardman'' says, an extremely well-spoken user, which is an asset to any admin. Thoughtful answers to the questions too. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Both his prose skills and his work on style guidelines pages are very much appreciated.  Answers to questions are good, and the slight muffing at [[WP:UAA]] is not too much of a concern, given that he's committed to do the things he has experience with and be careful with the things he doesn't.  It's quite difficult to operate on pages that largely concern conflict (such as style guidelines talk pages) and always come off as pleasant and open-minded; impressive. - Dan
'''Support'''—Since he ended up being right on most of the UAA reports (most were later blocked) I don't see that as a concern.  Most refreshingly, the candidate states that he ''wont'' work in areas he has no experience in.  I believe he will limit his use of the tools to the areas he feels comfortable with.
Constructive manner at FLC would seem to suggest a user who is appreciative, civil, well-focused and optimistic. Other work like at the help desk is excellent.
'''Support''' as candidate appears dedicated to improving the project.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' - Matthew or as I know him as, "Featured List Guy", has been really helpful to me where ever I have come across him. His work at Featured Lists is good, as I see him either reviewing or nomminating FLC's, I can see him becoming a great a admin.
'''Support''' I think those UAA reports were good calls.--
Per KojiDude (omg!) - also, he's clearly here for the right reasons looking at answer #2. '''
'''Support''' Any positive use of the tools is a net gain; I don't have any problems with the candidate's answers to the questions. Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' - The guys a wiki genious. —
'''Support''' Very impressed with user's contribs. No indication they will misuse the tools. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - I believe that Matthewedwards would make an excellent admin.  Wisdom's diff's are somewhat concerning, but I believe that he will learn from his mistakes, now that they've been pointed out, and not act inappropriately.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]], has made a few UAA mistakes (who hasn't?), seems capable and willing to learn.  No hesitation on my part.  Excellent contribs, good article work, good civil talkpage communication.  All ideal for an admin candidate.  Go easy on username blocks when just starting out - I trust you to use the tools properly with minimal drama. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Speaking from personal experience, when one is blocked, they are allowed the option to challenge the block and another admin can review it. When I made my blocks, they usually were upheld, but with a second pair of eyes you garner better judgment. There is a reason for an unblock button. Pass go, collect adminship.
'''Support''' Interacted with him multiple times, have nothing but good things to say.
'''Support'''. Dedicated, trustworthy editor. --
'''Support''' <span style="background:#FFEE91"><font color="#111111">
'''Support'''Cheers,
'''Support''' Others said it best...and earlier.
'''Support''' per the diff cited as a reason to oppose. Aggressive reporting of questionable usernames can help us catch accounts vandals are trying to age before they even reach the four-day limit. Problems that admittedly exist with UAA should be solved at UAA, not at an active editor's RFA.

'''Support''' Nice FLC reviews. [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20 px]] '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' Dedicated, helpful user. Per the nominator. --
'''Support''' Rfa's ideally should be about trust. Those who we trust should be given the tools, and people we don't trust shouldn't be given the tools. I trust this user will at least use the tools ''sometimes'', I trust this user won't delete the main page(misuse the tools), and I trust he'll act in an appropriate manner, thus I must support him. Good luck!--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' per a number of pleasant interactions. He's a good article and list writer, and a good editor. Although the diffs in the oppose section are valid grounds for concern, I believe that Matthew will be more cautious in the future. He'd make a fine admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' Very strong editor who's not afraid to get his hands dirty.  Should make an excellent, hands-on admin.
'''Support''', with an urging to take it easy on the borderline usernames. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - He's reviewed nearly every list of mine at FLC, and would make a great admin. '''«'''
'''Support''' - Excellent answers to questions and excellent article edits.
'''Support''' - He knows right from wrong and has great morals. He will probably make a great editor.
'''Support''' - Looks good!
'''Support''' - never interacted with this editor so I have no horse in this race. Edit history looks good. --
'''Support'''. He's a fine contributor.
'''Support''', because he's willing to do stuff himself, rather than go crying to someone else. His FLC reviews help, too. Those UAA reports don't worry me, and I am ''extremely'' disappointed that, considering all the work Mattewedwards has done and the lack of active admins, one possibly questionable report prompts an oppose.
'''Weak Support'''.  You just be careful ;). <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' Matthew does stirling work around [[WP:FLC]] and so a lot of his edits are naturally outside the mainspace.  However, he's completely commensurate with what constitutes the building of a fantastic on-line encyclopaedia and is generous with his time.  What people here need to consider is "Would making Matthew an admin result in a net gain for Wikipedia?".  The answer is unequivocally yes.  I believe he will '''never''' abuse the tools and if he (like many of us) makes a mistake, he will apologise, correct it, learn from it and become an even better Wikipedian.
'''Weak Support''' Because, while you contributions are great, most of your GAs and FAs are on one subject.--
'''Qualified support''' per general competence and not evading hard questions.  Issues dealing with how he will apply blocks or deal with other contentious issues aren't as important since he will be focusing his admin work in other areas.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor to Wikipedia and never steps aside when asked for help. His work at [[WP:FLC]] is outstanding and having him as an admin will only benefit Wikipedia and its users. – <font color="black">
'''Support''' Net positive. I doubt any/many admin edits will be with usernames. Rationale for questioning the names was reasonable even if some might be borderline. No one is perfect or knows everything. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Well rounded contributor
'''Support''' an intelligent and independent contributor and will probably make a good admin as well. '''
'''Support''' good user. —
This appears to be another great candidate brought to us by Wizardman.
'''Support''' Excellent contributer to Wikipedia. A few [[WP:UAA]] reports won't hurt and I believe he's learned his lesson. Besides that, great candidate. --
'''Weak oppose''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=219040154].
'''Oppose'''. From the UAA diff that Wisdom has already cited, I fear that Matthewedwards would be too loose with the block button. I talked to him about those reports, and although he was nice enough in his response, I'm not impressed by his explanation that he wanted to block [[User:Joshuajjackson]] for fear that he would impersonate [[Joshua Jackson|Joshua C. Jackson]] (who? Also note the different middle initial.) and [[User:Bill Romanawsky]] for impersonating [[Bill Romanowski]] (again, who?)<br>It's not like the minor differences in the names are the deal-breaker, either -- if I met a Wikipedian saying his name was Joshua C. Jackson, I wouldn't be reaching for the block button. An admin has to be willing to consider multiple explanations. Is this person impersonating a minor TV actor? Or is he just editing Wikipedia under his own name? I'd think it would take an unfortunate level of distrust of newbies to even consider the first in the absence of any evidence, but that's what Matthewedwards did.
'''Weakish Oppose''' per diff by Wisdom.  Having recently had an issue taken with my username, despite having an explanation of it on my userpage, I am now wary of folks who dont... (how do I put this without coming off like a douche, because I dont want to seem like I am) assume better faith.  Its now a knee jerk reaction.  Sorry, dude.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' Wont take the risk of a trigger happy admins per wisdom's diff.
'''Oppose''' for refusing to get off the fence and answer a simple question.  It's not a trick question at all.  We don't need people who are afraid to take a stand publicly because they know they won't be able to please everyone.
'''Weak Oppose''' Despite Kurt's bad faith intentions, I don't like the avoidance of his question. Also, if cool-down blocks are bad, why have I seen so many admins engage in this practice? Maybe they dodged that question in their RFA, as well. Combined with the UAA problems, I don't trust the user's judgment at this time.
'''Oppose''' - Too inexperienced, not enough article edits, too many WP edits.  Are we building an encyclopedia or a model community of the future?  What's the rush?  Are we in some kind of dire state of admin-drought I wasn't aware of?
'''Weak oppose''' - Wisdom has made me a little nervous about voting to give this user a block button... hm. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' ''likely to support'', but considering Wisdom89's diffs.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Neutral''' confirmed - still not convinced either way. A bit more time, experience and involvement in admin areas would be ideal in any event. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC) <s>Not convinced - more Q&A needed.
'''Neutral''': Looks good <s>overall</s> <b>in many respects</b>, but my enthusiasm over this candidate was significantly curbed by concerns voiced by Wisdom89 and Rspeer.
'''Neutral '''(''likely to support''): per Wisdom89's diffs, low edit counts and less edits other than the comfort zones. I havent decided completely yet --
'''Support''' as nom. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' as nom also.
'''Support''' Just looked at his contribs, he seems to do his job pretty well. BTW, is your username by any means intended to be a joke on [[M.Bison]]'s name ? -
'''Support''', because of the thoughtful answer to Q4. --
'''Support''', great answers to the questions, good edit history.  Will weild the mop well.
'''Support.''' Has made good contributions at the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]]. I believe he has the judgment to carry out admin tasks effectively.
'''Support'''. As this user's main admin coach before I had to stop editing Wikipedia recently, I have particularly been impressed by his willingness to seek feedback when he is not sure about something, and his constant urge to improve. I am sure this would continue as an admin.
'''Support''' As per Rlevse and has over 5000 mainspace edits and over 10000 overalll.good track no concerns.
'''Support''' The minor concerns offered below seem minutia in the grand scheme of this user's contributions. Good show.
'''Support''' Seems sincere, a good editor, and learns from mistakes, which we all make.
Per [[User:MBisanz/COI|this]]. Rlevse and Keilana nomination too.
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''': I'm impressed by the quality of the edits, and the answers to the above questions. You'll do well with administrator tools.
'''Support''' Thanks for allaying my concerns. Good luck with the mop.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' good editor. —
'''About time super strong support'''.  I don't quite recall where I first ran across MBisanz, but it was very positive and has remained so. Since our first encounter, I've seen him everywhere (hard to miss that signature:)  He goes out of his way to communicate with good faith, out of his way to do things The Right Way<small><sup>TM</small></sup>, and has been active in more ways than most editors. I've seen him in the article space with aptitude, the Wiki-space with poise, always trying to find solutions to problems with tact.  Embodies [[WP:CLUE|clue]].  I've been nothing but completely impressed with his dedication to this little world we all type in.  Cheers, MBisanz.  Always remember - if you don't know it, [[WP:AN|ask it]]; if you know it, [[WP:BOLD|do it!]].  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''.  Can't put it any better than Rudget's support.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' will use tools well; also [[User:Rudget|Rudget]] makes a good point. <strong>
'''Support''' - An excellent user who seems to know his stuff from his comments in admin discussions - will be fine with the tools.
'''Support'''. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. ·
Well, since Mike supports, I must too :) Cheers, ''
'''Support'''. I was concerned earlier about the issues raised under "oppose" but I am now satisfied by the discussion there. He will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Looks good, though I would ask MBisanz to take it slow at first. Good luck!
'''Support''' A good editor, the contributions say it all.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
A contented '''support'''.  Good, steady contributions.
'''Support''' - excellent noms, good history, good answers. Should be a fine admin :) -
Sounds good. <i><b>
If annoying signature is the biggest complaint against him, then '''support''' -

--
Excellent candidate.
'''Support''', though I encourage him to use prod instead of speedy deletes if there's a shadow of a doubt (e.g., whether it's a spa or a spa _town_) so that whoever wrote it (or someone else) has a chance to clarify a notable topic.
'''Support''', yes--
'''Support''' Great candidate! '''
'''Support''' - I have to say I was greatly surprised to find that you weren't already.--
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop!
'''Support''': This is another user that I've been waiting to support.  No hesitation, and I'm confident this user will make an excellent admin. -
'''''
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Helpful and sensible. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Seen around and impressed.
'''Support''' for all the reasons listed above.
'''Support''' - will make a fine admin <small>and I’ve seen a lot ''worse'' signatures!</small> —
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful and intelligent, good grasp of policy, already good participation at administrator noticeboards.
'''Support''' Reasoned and a good editor. --
Will make one hell of an administrator.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. Have met him in person, gotten to know him and have no doubt he'll do great with the tools.
'''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support''' I trust his judgment and his efforts at [[:CAT:DFUI]] show a rare willingness to deal with administrative backlogs in a constructive manner. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Chalk one more up for this guy from me.
'''Support''' - would make a good admin. --
I think that anyone <span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>using such signature</span> simply does not respect other users. The candidate also decided not to answer to my comment at [[User talk:MBisanz#Signature]]. Naturally, I was going to vote against this nomination, but everyone says he is so much useful for the project ... well, if I'm the only one distracted by such signatures, I guess it's simply my loss here, and I'll try to visit Wikipedia discussion pages less often. Cheers. /
'''Neutral.''' Great candidate, but I disapprove of the strong-arm tactics the community has used to force this "admins open for recall" notion. We already have that process (ArbCom), paranoid hysteria about "OMG rouge admin abuse" and grumblings about "X users, Y months, Z edits" are unnecessary. Bureaucrats, please count this as a support vote if it comes down to it.
Per my excellent nomination. :)
'''Support''' I was about to offer to nominate him myself.
'''support'''.  Contribs look good.  Edit summary=100%.  You seem to have your head on straight.  Well deserving of the mop! Use it well.  Good luck!
'''Support''' - experienced, interesting, already has rollback rights, no concerns.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. Knows how Wikipedia works and is, most importantly, a calm contributor :-)
'''Support''' In part per Radiant, and otherwise based on answers to questions. <sup>
'''Strong Support''' you will make a good admin. I know this because I was going to nominate you at the end of this week, but Rudget beat me to it :)
'''Support''' meets my standards. Answer to question 3 was a little weak, but nom does not seem to be a hot head. With all due respect, Radiant!'s oppose is unconvincing.
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  '''
'''Support'''. The candidate seems to be a good, constructive contributor and understands policy.
'''Support''' I agree with the nom. <strong>
'''Support'''  -- seems like a good candidate and the Ships Wikiproject is one of the better one for "doing things right" -- a good place to learn. I appreciate your having thought through the recall process and not just saying "sure I'll sign up". You get bonus points for resisting the temptation to reply to Radiance's oppose comment below. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - Works for Rudget, works for me! Also, good answers to questions.
'''Support'''; the candidate has a good body of work thus far, and I would have no reservations about their use of the tools.
'''Support''': I think this user will make a good administrator.  Great job with your active participation in the WikiProjects; shows that you are here for the right reasons, and that is to write an encyclopedia. -
'''Support'''. This user seems to be very well-rounded and experienced. No reason to think that he wouldn't make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' no reason to oppose [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:11pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:11pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Great editor, well-rounded. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' - Per nom, give em' the mop.

No problems here. ''
'''Support''' - All of my interactions with MBK004 in [[WP:SHIP|WikiProject Ships]] and [[WP:MILHIST|WikiProject Military history]] have shown him to be an excellent collaborative editor who is very dedicated to improving the project.  I have zero concerns that he would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Will be a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seen this user around Ships and Milhist and think they would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Seems like a great user and admin to me.
'''Support''' per nom, excellent editor and will make a great admin.
'''Support''' This editor worked very hard on [[WP:MILHIST|WikiProject Military history]]'s recent [[WP:MHA07|''Tag & Assess 2007'']] and clearly has the best interests of wikipedia at heart. I saw nothing that would raise doubts in my mind about his suitability as an administrator. --
'''Support'''. I'm only happy to add my support. Seems to be an excellent user, and all my interactions with MBK004 (though limited) have been positive. Will be an excellent admin. <strong>
'''Support''' - Great user who has shown he is trusted to have the admin bit.
'''Support'''; you do great work!
'''STrong support'''. '''
'''Support''', certainly can be trusted as an admin. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' - bumped into this candidate's edits plenty of times in the past and he appears to be a solid contributor. His answers also show a good grasp of policy and an ability to learn from mistakes. I respect his commitment to accountability via recall although I personally think recall is a problematic notion.
'''Support''', good answers, good editing history.  Can be trusted with the mop.
Good recall criteria.
The needlessly convoluted criteria you impose for the already nebulous recall process strike me as an vacuous promise - it is obvious from their wording that they are meaningless and would allow you to talk yourself out of any such request. I do not trust people who make empty promises.
Recent incidents lead me to be distrustful of people that promise recall. Having such complicated criteria to me says that it will be difficult to carry out such a recall process, and the more difficult it is the more drama there will be and the more accusations there will be of avoiding keeping pledges. I would rather a candidate make recall straightforward, or not pledge recall at all.
'''Neutral''' Judging from the Oppose votes, this user appears to be bureaucratic. I'll keep my vote a neutral for now. --'''
'''Neutral''' I just can't support after that recall answer.--
'''Support''' - Melesse has an excellent grasp of image policy, an area where more admins would be very welcome.
'''Support'''.  Yes, Melesse would be a great help with image deletion.  Good luck!  '''
'''Support''' 1) I love the honesty and approach in your answers to the questions. 2) Another image working admin - bring it on!! 3) Clean talk page, all looks civil, communicative and gentle. 4) A '''Net Positive''' - zero danger of this candidate misusing the tools by design (due to her expressed interest in and demonstrated work on images not topics) or by accident (per the same rationale - she's hardly likely to wade into [[C:CSD]] or whatever as it clearly doesn't intertest her). Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Per Pedro's well reasoned rationale'''
'''Support''' - also per Pedro. -
'''Support''' Need for the tools is not a criteria by which a candidate should be judged as suitable for receiving same, but whether they have evidenced that they would not abuse them if they were given them. No qualms here... but please turn on the "Force Edit Summary" option; communication is vital in creating and building consensus.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Given the backlogs we have in certain areas, it would be useful to have admins who are prepared to specialise in those areas to begin with, and maybe broaden their experience later. I see nothing to indicate that this would be a problem for this candidate, and answer to Q3 shows that she is prepared to seek advice when necessary. --'''
&mdash;
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' Absolutely love the answers to the questions.  She doesn't seem like she would use the tools much and when she does I feel certain it would be a deliberative and intelligent decision. Even if she only uses them once we will gain a valuable contribution, I am sure.
'''Strong Support''' - I'd actually been considering nominating Melesse for adminship, but given her lack of article and project name contributions, I was concerned that the nomination might not be successful and in fact serve only to discourage someone whom I consider to be an invaluable contributor to the project.  That being said, I couldn't be happier with the level of support she is receiving right now, and I am only too glad to offer mine as well.  Melesse has a rock-solid grasp of image-related policies--particularly [[WP:NFCC]]--and she employs them to great effect.  To those who would argue that more article writing or project-space experience is necessary, I would point out that a lack of image policy knowledge is almost ''never'' raised as a reason to oppose an RfA despite the fact that a quick browse through [[:Category:All non-free media]] or a look at the daily litany of complaints on [[User talk:BetacommandBot]] shows that a huge portion of users lack knowledge about or simply ignore this area of policy.  The fact that an [[:Image:Vertexguy03.jpg|image]] I tagged as [[WP:CSD#I9]] (a re-upload of an image claimed under a free license with the watermark of the copyrighting website cropped out) stood for over a day before being deleted tells me that we desperately need more administrators willing to do the scut work in the image namespace, and I can think of no one more qualified to do just that than Melesse. --
'''Support''' I admit image policy remains an area I'm weak in understanding which is why I have the utmost respect for those who '''do''' know it. Her contribs show consistent and diligent and admirable work in this area. Down-to-earth and well-considered answers to the questions above and an obviously courteous attitude toward other editors makes my support here a pleasure. I have no doubts that she will use the tools wisely and well.
'''Support''' - Per Pedro.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' per our porcine friend. But Melesse, please use edit summaries more often. -

'''Support''' per [[User:Pigman|'''Pigman''']]. At the risk of redundancy, I'll add that this candidate brings an essential skill set, and her manner makes me feel pretty safe supporting, since I don't believe she's going to wander over into unfamiliar terrain. Her response to the conflict described above rather suggests that if she's called on to use her admin tools in an unfamiliar area, she will rather quite sensibly seek out somebody better prepared to handle the situation. --
'''Support''', looks like an excellent candidate. —
'''Extremely strong support''' - per Pedro and others. Another image sysop!
Seems to be a rational and communicative user. Deals with images, and we need more sysops that do so. I don't anticipate Melesse abusing +sysop. I also agree with Pedro's rationale, especially his 1st and second point. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' per jonny-mt and Moonriddengirl. --
I strongly support Melesse's nomination: she has great experience with images, and ''we need'' more image admins. I'm not convinced by the edit-counting in the opposition: whenever a candidate has a "lower-than-average" Wikipedia-space edit count, this always turns into "oppose - not enough Wikipedia-space edits" or "oppose - low Wikipedia-space edits means this user has little knowledge of policy". We all contribute in different ways, and Melesse's interests are images, and she has knowledge in that area: we shouldn't hold that against her.
There's nothing wrong with this request *looks below* Yep, nothing at all. '''
'''Support''' more admins working with images would be a Good Thing, and (per Pigman, Moonriddengirl, Acalamari etc) she would be a welcome addition to the ranks for that reason.
'''Support''' per Pedro, Pigman, Moonriddengirl, and Acalamari. -'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' against editcountitis and AfDitis.
'''Support''' <sup>
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]
'''Support'''. The candidate appears to be unlikely to abuse the tools, and would be of great benefit in an area that doesn't always get enough admin love. Best,
'''Support''' We need more admins that work with images. I think that Melesse will do just fine doing just that.
'''Support'''. I like the answers to the questions and feel this user will help out in a field that needs all the assistance it can get. The lack of contributions outside that area does not bother me, I do not see the user exploring those areas and really have no issue with that. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' An admin focussing on images means I don't have to learn the intricacies! It's a specialised area that needs experience to perform the role properly.  Why should Melesse learn other areas if she has no interest in them, to then promptly forget about them and return to images once adminship is received?  And if Melesse suddenly expands her admin activities too quickly beyond her areas of expertise, then there are plenty of people more than willing to trawl the issue through the appropriate forums. --

'''Support''' per Pedro. User is smart enough to wield the tools correctly, so her relative inexperience in certain areas is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Pedro made an excellant point. Also, this user could use the extra tools. <strong>
'''Support''' I trust that Melesse will not abuse the tools, and they clearly will be useful in her ongoing, outstanding work on images.
'''Support''' per Pedro.  --
'''Support''' Impressive dedication, especially with regard to performing mundane image maintenance. BTW, if you run across a fairusereduce request that demands you cut something like one hundred pixels from an image, feel free to inform the tagger that they are wasting your time :)  ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' oh yes -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' she seems a responsible person who will do what she says she wants to do, and do it well. As an admin who has avoided working with images, I recognize no one person can be exert in anything. If she wants to expand, there is every reason to think from her current work that she will learn carefully how to do it right, and ask help as necessary. '''
'''Support'''. Others on this page have expressed confidence in the candidate's knowledge and diligence with regard to image policy, and I see nothing to contradict that.  I encourage the candidate to use edit summaries and to go through learning phases of significant length before using admin tools in other areas. --
'''Support''' We always need more people minding the images. '''
What was I on?
'''Support''' - per above.  Keep up the good works.  '''''
'''Support'''. No need for every admin to demonstrate intense activity in every area of Wikipedia. Dedicated, diligent editor could make good use of the tools and would not abuse.
'''Support''' - I would like to see a wider variety of edits, but I think you can be trusted with the tools and would be a valuable asset in the area of images.--
So she's not part of the wikispace club yet? Good. User:
'''Weak support'''. She's done a great job as a [[WP:GNOME|wikignome]] with images, and I'd like to have more evidence about mainspace work.  But I will not oppose her for that, as I trust her not to abuse the tools.  Also, we need more sysops working to delete old images.
'''Support''' No reason not to trust with the tools, and per Bearian. --
'''Support'''As per track and Bearian.
'''Support'''. Sure. --
Belated support, welcome to the image cabal. :-D
I can see no reason or any suggestion that this nominee would abuse the tools. Her gnomish work is what makes the place function. Certainly images is one of those areas where we need plenty of help. -
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - appears to be an experienced editor. --
'''Support''' - I must have been on the same thing as DHMO, since not only did I seriously mis-evaluate the arguments for support, I misunderstood the candidate's response to Q5.
39 projectspace and less than 2,000 mainspace edits? That is far from sufficient experience to be a trustworthy admin candidate in my view. It's obvious that your current area of interest and expertise is with images, but as an admin you are going to be asked by others to participate in other arenas, and the vast majority of users tend to shift their contribution focus as time passes. When this happens, I couldn't trust you to have the necessary experience. I'm sorry. But only 39 project space edits makes me uncomfortable with you potentially having the tools. Additionally, your answer to question seven is disconcerting. If you don't believe that a majority vote is an acceptable barometer of the best direction to take, then why are you standing for a position in which a majority vote is the deciding factor?
'''Oppose''' - intelligent and rational enough, but scope of experience seems fairly narrow in focus.
'''Oppose''' Very good points made.
'''Oppose'''  per VanTucky's thoughtful comments. Plenty of potential -- just not ready yet. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose, with regrets.''' This candidate has great potential. Perhaps I can even talk myself into overlooking Melesse's almost complete absence of article-writing experience. However, her lack of edit summaries suggests that she doesn't understand certain basic WP procedures. She has just 85 user talk edits, which raises concerns over the candiate's experience with communicating and collaborating with other editors. Van Tucky makes an valid point on low participation rate in the Project namespace. And some of the candidate's answers don't inspire confidence: ''To be honest, I'm not sure what I could do if I were an admin that I can't do now as a regular user.'' I appreciate her contributions but feel that she'd be a much better admin if she took some time to acquire additional experience. Please don't take these comments as criticism, Melesse, and keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Experience in project space is far below the least acceptable to infer aptitude for adminship. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' a little more experience would be desireable.
'''Oppose''' Sorry not enough mainspace experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Given the nom's answers, I don't see a good reason for giving her/him the use of the tools. --
'''Reluctant Neutral, leaning toward Support''' I'm sorry here, I really wanted to support. I'm leaning towards it because I know how badly we need image admins, but I am just a little bit worried about the full concentration on images. What I would recommend is waiting about two months, getting experience in other fields of the project in the meantime. Keep up the great work with the images, but also maybe drop in to [[WP:AN]]/[[WP:ANI]] once in a while, and write a DYK or two. Very best of luck,
'''Neutral''' GlassCobra said it so well that he might as well be my sockpuppet...or maybe I'm his? Regardless, I like what I see from this candidate, but it is still a little bit too soon.
'''Neutral''' He is great a contributor as far is images is concerned but the number of Mainspace and WP contribs are quite low and would need more involvement in areas like [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:AFD]].--
'''neutral, leaning to oppose''' While I think there's a lack of experience in mainspace, I take the claims that we need more image working admins at face value, and withdraw my opposition in the absence of any indications of past behaviour that would cause concern.
'''Neutral'''. I agree that their imagespace work is highly impressive, but the lack of experience in other fields are somewhat shabby. I believe the candidate can have a much more enriching experience if they choose to expand their horizons. '''''
Impressive knowledge concerning the image policies. However, I don't feel confident about giving the tools to a candidate who considers [[WP:BLP]] ''"a really long policy with a lot of very different reasons to remove something"''. When asked a question directly related to a policy, even if you don't already know about it, you still need to take some time to read and understand the policy. When you are an admin, you cannot respond to questions outside your area of interests with a simple "I don't know", that gives the impression of irresponsibility, given that the policy is easily available for you to read. Answer to Q1 ''"I'm not sure what I could do if I were an admin that I can't do now as a regular user."'' is not satisfactory.  Please familiarise yourself with the definition & technical abilities of an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]], as it appears you're close to becoming one. -
'''Support''' Lack of all-round admin-related experience, but should be fine if he's going to specialise in images.
'''Support''' No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Per Epbr123: Not much all round admin work but OK if going to specialise in images...--
'''Support''' - good experience with editor in the past. Thanks/
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with commitment to encyclopedia building.
'''Support''' I can not find any faults with this candidate.
'''Support''' The more article builders become admins the better.
'''Support'''. Good editor. No sign he might abuse the tools. Looks like it would be good for Wikipedia if he gets involved in Admin-work, too. --
Diligent editor.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support'''.  Well, this user has done great work in the mainspace, but projectspace work in "admin areas" is extremely weak.  Please take the time to read ''everything'' on [[WP:ARL]], and be careful with controversial actions.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' Good answers here + positive contributions = definitely trustworthy.
'''Support''' Solid, well-rounded editor.
'''Support''' - I'm a little concerned by your answer to Q1, I'd like to see you do a bit more with the mop. Maybe (once you pass) you should do some work at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]]. In any case, you passing this RfA is clearly a net positive to wikipedia! Good luck :-) <small>'''[[User:TheProf87|Alternate account of]]'''</small> '''
'''Support''' As per Question 1 and user track is good.The user has been around since with over 14000 mainspace edits since January 2006
'''Support''' - I like his answers to the questions, and from my experience with this editor see no reason he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].  No concerns.
'''Support''' Has been here a while and made plenty of edits to establish a solid history.  He's been a solid contributer in WP:Aircraft and has shown to be helpful and level-headed in dealings with me. -
Good enough for me.
Sure, I'll '''support'''.
'''Support''' due to no negative interactions with the editor, who seems committed to building ''Italic text''Wikipedia. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.  Also per Malinaccier.  '''
'''Support''' No worries here. --'''
'''Support''' CSD always could use help.
'''Support''' I like his answers to the optional questions.--
'''Support''' - Changed from neutral based on the candidate's answers to the questions. Seems like a level-headed user. I trust that they will not jump headlong into risky admin-duties without forethought. Recommend versing in several admin-related areas though. Good luck!
'''Support''' – A top-notch, level-headed editor who would handle the tools responsibly. (Of course, that probably means he won't let me get away with creating [[:Category:Flying things]]. <Inside joke>)
'''Support''' I like what I see... and I like people who specialize in images---it's an area that frightens me :)
'''Support''' A well qualified editor who will not abuse the tools. --
I never saw a non-admin with "all round admin work"... ''
'''Support''' Yep, good evidence of 'pedia building. Cheers,
'''support''' - lack of bite and good contribs.
'''Strong Support''' - great candidate.
'''Support''' - looked at his edits and would be a great admin. --
'''Support'''.  No good reason to consider otherwise.
Support per above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' will make good admin. <strong>
'''Support!'''  —
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. Good answers.
'''Support''' Good specialist editor, should cause no problems.
Yes, I think this editor can be given the extra tools, and can use them wisely. Mahalo. --
'''Support''' Seems worthy of community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]]. --
'''Support'''. Use the force for good, young skywalker! --'' '''
"Need" for tools is irrelevant: no one needs the tools. I'd rather have a someone who uses them rarely and correctly than often and abusively. In addition, MilborneOne has said he wishes to work in image-related areas, and we need more admins who'll do work there, and if that's the only place he plans to work at as an admin, Wikipedia will benefit.
'''Support''' - Reasoned answers that aren't just the usual boilerplate. Seems quite civilm, and has plenty of experience. My only concern is a sporadic editting history, but I'll defer to [[You Can't Always Get What You Want|the philosopher Jagger]]
'''Support''' - I can't see any reason not to. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' Here are my reasons - 1. Individual has over 18,000 edits with a sufficient a mix of wikispace, talk mainspace. 2. Individual received no blocks, no obvious history of vandalism and the only edit warnings appear to be due to 3RR due to fixing  a page due to vandalism. 3. Individual has been editing on wikipedia since 15 January 2006 in good standing 4. Individual has been active in at least 3 wikiprojects related to aircraft and aviation 5. This is the 1st time the user has submitted RFA that I can tell 6. Individual has a lot of articles, mostly related to aircraft and aviation 7. Individual has received several awards and accolades visible on their talk page and archives. 8. This editor seems to stick mostly to aviation and aircraft related articles and will likely continue to do so in the future but I see no reason not to support. Also, the editors responses to the questions leads me to believe that they will not abuse their admin responsibilites and will ask for assistance or read up if they are unaware what to do.--
'''Support''' - diligent and trustworthy. I see a desire to specialize as a good thing rather than anything else, as it ensures this user will stay at that task. At my RfA, I stated I was going to help at [[WP:RPP]] and [[WP:AFD]] and I think I've protected five or so pages and closed one AfD in the three months since then, as versus my activity at [[WP:AIV]] and [[CAT:CSD]]. Go figure. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', despite the total lack of contributions to [[autogyro]]... Nothing indicates a likelihood of running amok with the mop.
'''Support''', appears to be a great editor who I believe will not abuse of the administrative powers.
'''Support''' - I trust this candidate to tread lightly as they learn to use the tools. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' per Kumioko's very nice assessment above.  I come to the same conclusion.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - You're answer to question six shows me that you will make a fine and friendly admin. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - An editor who sails in calm waters.
'''Support''' - has a good track record of encyclopedia contributions, and seems to be thoughtful and level-headed.
'''Support''' Handles issues well, responds positively to constructive criticism, acknowledges and even apologizes where appropriate when mistakes are made -- all excellent qualities for an admin. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support'''  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' Looks good. User seems capable of keeping a level head under pressure.
Administrators are trusted members of the community - we give the tools based generally on trust. This editor may not have tremendous experience in admin-related areas, but he has shown that he his clearly trustworthy.
'''Support''' It is difficult to judge how the candidate will use the tools considering his inexperience in admin-related areas. We oppose hundreds of candidates because they showed poor judgment in these areas as a non-admin user. In regards to this, it may be viewed as unfair to support when the candidate never substantially addressed these areas. But the candidate seems to have the community's trust and I found nothing worth to oppose in his contribs. So I support, knowing that other admins will assist when necessary and that the user is dedicated to help the project. <strong>
'''Support''' I have always found MilborneOne to be pragmatic in his dealings and willing to engage in collaboration. As he builds on his administration duties, I am confident that MilborneOne will be able to adapt and learn how to use the tools that will help support others. I have no reservations about this editor. FWiW
'''Support''' A solid and very fair editor. I have worked on many pages with him and he is always a pleasure to work with. He would make a good admin. -
'''Support'''  Seems to be a good editor who will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' - You are an excellent contributor to aviation articles and the like who I have seen around from time to time; you seem to have the right attitude and trust with the community to be an administrator. Experience in admin related areas does not concern me much in this case, I think you will use the tools sensibly and appropriately.
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around and they do ''jatte bra'' ('Very good' in [[Svenska]]) work.
'''Support''' This looks like a good solid candidate who would make great use of the Sysop tools.  --
'''Support''' Should make a fine admin.
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
Fly-boy, eh? '''Support'''.
'''Support.''' Valued article contributor, would be nice to have an admin focused on the subject matter specialty like aviation.
'''Oppose''' Recent double edit war. Not quite 3RR, but his reply to #3 indicates that he would consider two reverts to be ok before even considering to initiate a discussion. In the [[Manchester Airport|recent case]], he didn't even do that, the discussion was not started until an admin protected the page and explicitly asked for it. There are already too many trigger-happy admins. Also, I don't like the answer to #5: CSDs should be obvious, not something to search for.  --
'''Oppose''' His answer to question one makes adminship seem un-necesary.--
'''Neutral'''.  Good editor, no history of doing anything that <s>requires</s> would warrant Admin tools though.
'''Neutral for now''' MilborneOne seems to be a good editor. However, I fail to see why he actually needs admin tools. A more specific response to Q1 might change my mind.
'''
'''''
'''Absolutely'''. Fantastic editor.
'''Support'''.  Review of his edits reveals quality work, in-depth knowledge.  Looks solid.
'''Support''' - absolutely. What a turnaround from last RfA! This candidate is excellent and should make a great admin -
Excellent contributions, it'll be a real shame to lose him at GAC :( [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' Lucky number seven... Majorly has a knack for good finds (cough).
Good article contributor, nothing to suggest that he would do something silly. Per Jmlk17. '''
'''Support''' - I'm not Mailer Diablo and I approve this message ™...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - Great contributor, especially at GAC. Good luck.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' - Great articles writer and has experience all over the place. Will be fine with some extra buttons.
'''Support''' -<font face="Century Gothic">
'''Support''' Great job. You have improved exponentially since your last RFA.
'''Support'''. I've worked and spoken extensively with Mitchazenia over these last few weeks, and I have no doubt in his ability to yield the mop and bucket well. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Should-have-nommed support''' great user, deserves the tools and will use them well.--'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a very good editor looking at the edit summary. <strong>
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. --'''''
'''Strong support''' A great help at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|Wikiproject Tropical cyclones]], and I hear he is good at roads too!
'''Support''' Positive changes since last RFA. :)
'''Support''': After reviewing the prior RFA and the edits today, a big improvement!
'''Support''' A good editor with many GA quality articles written. I am slightly concerned at the awkward answer to question 4 but I don't think it should be that big of a problem. People change after all. --
'''Support'''--
Long time since Majorly nommed a guy. Must be good. --
'''Support'''. Trustworthy nominator, candidate is clearly ready and willing to make use of the tools. Additionally, I've had the pleasure of talking with Mitch over [[WP:IRC|IRC]], and he's a top fellow. No qualms,
'''Weak Support''' - I must admit I am a bit taken aback by answer to Q4 but ultimately I see no deal-breakers being raised and as always, a good article writer and 'pedia builder is a plus. Overall a net positive. cheers,
Good writer. Answer to question 4 - meh. -- <strong>
'''Support'''. I have no problem with the answer to question four, I much rather a user that feels as though they can not do something not do it. Such self-restraint and self-assessment is welcome. Of course, this assumes that the user has attempted to improve his behavior before simply quiting, but I believe that is the case. At any rate, best of luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Awkward answer to question #4. But there is nothing saying a person can't change their mind. Would be a welcome addition. -
'''Support'''.  Won't abuse the tools.  '''<span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
Answer to Q4 is obviously concerning, but recognizing substandard conduct in oneself is a good value to have as an admin. Advise candidate to steer clear of blocks and CSD for some time, and exercise extra care in controversial actions until you've had enough time to become comfortable in these areas.
'''Support.''' Mitch always conducts himself cheerfully and professionally and doesn't have any major problems (other than a strange aversion to being called "Mitchster" -- just kidding Mitch! :P). I believe that he's immersed in Wikipedia well enough to handle the tools, and to look up those policies he has questions on.—
'''Support'''. An excellent content contributor who's experienced and dedicated to the project; I have no qualms with giving him the extra buttons to use in the course of his work. --'''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''. Mitch has always been enthusiastic.  His dedication to the the project has always been there from the experience that I have seen from him.  Question 4?  meh - we're human - he's learning just as you and I are. &nbsp;—
'''Support''' - looks great!
'''Support''' good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support''' A pleasure to do so. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' - I'm not concerned about the answer to #4.  My interests have changed dramatically during my wiki-life, as I have burnt out from some tasks and moved on to others.  I don't see this as being out of synch with that. --
'''Support''' :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' great editor, has changed a lot since his last nomination, very experienced, he'll make a great admin. —'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above. No reason to oppose this user.
'''Support''' There are many aspects to Wikipedia that goes beyond GA reviewing.  Some people have strengths in reviewing, others have their strengths in writing and researching.  Some people are better at mediating disputes.  Granted, in all cases a user needs to have the experience...and Mitch has that.  He'll make a great admin.  --
'''Support''' - Adminship is "no big deal", i do not think this user will abuse the tools.
I have no foreseeable problems with this candidate gaining administrator status.  While the answer to question four may be troubling to some, it has been realised by the candidate that giving up isn't the a good thing to do, and then bucked up and returned to doing what has been done before.  Even in difficult circumstances like the beginnings of a probable arbitration case, he has managed to [[WP:COOL|keep cool]].  Bolstering that, I have not seen Mitch be incivil once, and that is a huge plus in any candidate tossed up in the air.  Keep it up,
'''Support''' - very good editor and article writer, deserves the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Terrific editor, answer to question 4 troubles me very slightly, but overall he is a great contributer and I believe he would do well with the tools.
'''Weak Support''' User deserves adminship and the tools, answers to Q4 and Q5 trouble me slighty. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' Great contributor; can be trusted with the toolset.
'''Yes''' I support this request. --
'''Oppose'''. The user has had some issues in the past while under pressure or given some power. He admits in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mitchazenia his last RFA] of his problems with AFB. He mentions several conflicts, and I'm a little concerned it could happen again if he became an admin. --♬♩
'''Oppose'''.  Don't see a point by point reasoning that the problems mentioned in the first RfA have been resolved.  Besides, the answer to the present question 4 may be honest to a fault but nevertheless bothers me a lot - nom not being able to keep up with rising quality standards??  Sorry.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, the attitude expressed in answer to question 4 is just bizarre for someone now wanting admin status.
'''Weak oppose''' per answer to question 4 and per Hurricanehink. --
'''Oppose''' The answer to question four and admin status are, in my view, mutually exclusive
'''Oppose''' Not ready yet.  Answer to question 4 is very troubling, no one who views themself as a source of trouble at their main Wikipedia space contribution area is ready for adminship.  Speedy deletion tagging that I spot checked was all blatantly obvious cases, so it didn't give me a sense of whether the candidate has good judgment.
'''Neutral'''. I've worked with Mitch a lot over the last few months through [[WP:NYSR]] and I must say I'm impressed with his work ethic. He's one of the most energetic and eager editors I've had a chance to collaborate with, and that says a lot. However, the answer to question four is a bit concerning. My issue with the answer transcends adminship or even the wiki; giving up instead of learning new things when changes warrant such learning is a bad approach to have in life. Instead of becoming familiar with the new Good Article criteria and becoming a better reviewer (which GA desperately needs, judging by the now-commonplace backlogs), you close up shop. I also remember a few discussions with Mitch where he had an opinion regarding some XFDs but refused to add his opinion to the pages, which to me comes across as a bad practice as well - if you have an opinion about something, you have to voice it. No one on the wiki can read your mind. To me, an admin - to be honest, all editors as well - has to be willing to stand up to new challenges and be willing to voice their opinion. There are also a few flaws that I see on the editing side, but these are far too ticky-tack for this venue. Don't get me wrong, Mitch has done great things on-wiki and he's a good guy, which keeps me from opposing, but the concerns that both I and others have above are far too great in my mind to support at this time. --
'''Neutral''' because I'm concerned about the Q4 answer. If there was further clarification I might be persuaded to support.
'''Strong support''' as nom. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Support''' as co nom. '''
'''Absolutely''', as co-co-nom.
'''Support''', as per my rationale on Mos15's last RfA. <small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>'''D.J.'''
'''Support''', oh yes! Lots of us have been waiting for this well-deserving user to try an rfa again.
'''Support''' - as the nomination reads, she is now ready for adminship. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' &mdash; The nominators said it all. I've been waiting for this RfA. &ndash;
'''Support''' – excellent candidate. Per Julian, was waiting for this RfA. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' As per Rlevse and see no scope for misuse of tools and concerns of previous RFA appear to be overcome.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''. Excellent, thoughtful editor, will make a fine admin.  Great contributions to XFD's, RFA's and other areas of Wikipedia as mentioned by the nominators.
'''Amazing username = support''' - Just kidding, but '''amazing contribs = support''' so we'll go with that. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Support.''' Seems like a good choice. I do see the concerns raised by A Nobody's oppose, but I am sure the candidate will not let AfD closes be influenced by such personal views or will mistakenly speedy delete stuff as cruft. On a side note, I'd suggest a shorter username. ;-) '''
Obviously.
'''Support'''. '''''
To be completely honest, I considered this user to already have administrative tools. On that basis, there is no pressing reason for me to oppose.
'''Support''' Excellent Editor can't smell any misuse
'''Duh''' At last. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Good answers. But women not many here and we need more to write about our issues. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
Hello, I'm Jack the Ripper and I need some help meeting the right woman...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for the right woman to wield the mop!
'''Strong support''' - Power to the Alaskan cabal!
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Customary thanks to the opposer whose first diff, in my humble opinion, shows a reasoned justification for deleting the article in question.
Support.
'''Support''' - No problems here. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' per the excellent nominations, good amount of contributions, work spread across the board, all-in-all, a net-positive. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Yes''' per awesome user page and unusual name.--
Excellent track history, and excellent history of [[WP:LOVE|kindness]] not commonly found. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Excellent work on the wiki. I see no trust problems. Good luck.
'''はい''', いいです。-
'''Very Strong Support''' A trust worthy experinced candidate who has what it takes
'''Support'''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' - I've always liked you and was looking forward to this one. —
'''Support <s>as nom</s>''' (I wanted to, anyway). Great user, no problems, I trust Mizu.
'''Support''' Why Not? /\ _ /\
'''Support''' She remains civil and friendly and she would make a good admin. [[User:Reliableforever|<font color="green">Reliable</font>]][[User:Reliableforever|<font color="blue">♪</font>]]
'''Support''' Has clue.
''' Support'''. A bit new, though, clearly involved with the community (1/5th edits in User talk:). Definite net gain.
'''Support''' &ndash; Definitely. I knew this RfA would come up sooner or later. I've seen this user in many areas around Wikipedia and have found her to be a very worthy candidate for adminship. Happy to support. Will do perfectly fine with no doubt. I see absolutely no reason why not to support Mizu onna sango. &ndash;
'''Support''' Still obviously qualified. '''
'''Support'''. I see no problem at all.
'''Support''' Sure, no problems here.
'''Utmost Support''' When I was going over her Editor Review, I remember that I either said something along the lines of, "You are great. There is no weakness I can find in you," or looked at the editor review and skipped it because I can't find a weakness in her. I see no reason why I shouldn't say, "Good job, you're still just as good."
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' - definitely.
'''Support''' per all above. ''
'''Support''' - I can find nothing that raises the slightest concern.
'''Strong Support from me!'''. Lots of good edits and good all round.
'''Support''' - I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Strong Support'''.  You will make a fine admin.  All that needs to be said has been.  &hArr;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - After reviewing things I am happy you will make a good admin and will not abuse the tools. The concerns of the opposition thus far do not concern me, I have not find anything I consider moderately wrong with your XfD contributions. Good luck!
'''Support''' Quite [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] IMHO.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].   I did not take part in the first discussion.
'''Support''' Will definitely benifit from having the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' - Girl power, trust in the noms, nothing popping out in the contribs (though I just randomly scanned). No reason to believe there would be an abuse of the tools.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to be concerned about this user being granted the tools.
'''Support''' - Great editor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Thought she was one already. I am surprised. &ndash;
'''Strongest possible support'''. I was a bit worried when I saw this come up due to the last RfA, but looking at your contributions and attitude the improvement is absolutely phenomenal.
'''Support''' No qualms about the ability of Mizu or her trustworthiness. --
'''Support'''. Good contributions & good answers.
'''Support'''. Good experiences with Mizu, looks like a trustworthy contributor. <b>'''
'''Support''' One of those times where I can say "Seriously? She's not an admin yet?" Good experience, great editor, passes everything in my book. <font face="Gill Sans MT" color="darkblue">
'''Support''' - will surely be a good admin using her rational temperament. --
'''Horribly Strong Support''' I've been with her since she first started. What a great deal of work she's done in such a short amount of time! She's active in many WikiProjects, and is the most curteous Wikipedian I know. I'm sorry it took me so long to nominate! Have fun with the mop. ;D
'''Strong support'''. Great user!  Been waiting for your RfA Mizu! :) <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Nice noms, no problems with user, seem them around the wiki, nice work, keep it up!--
'''Support'''. See no reason to suspect tool abuse.
'''Support''' As before! --
'''Support''' Your questions have satisfied any fears that I had, and I couldn't find any more recent contributions that seemed iffy.  My fear was just that you would forego warning users of vandalism before blocking them, or skip right to the highest level warning even when only one or two minor vandalisms occurred.  However based on your answers and recent behavior I don't think that will be a problem.  I'm glad to support. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate....
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' - the contributions highlighted in this RfA all seem very good. Just one small note, though: could you change your user signature to another colour other than red (as it looks like a red link to me, when you actually do have a user page)?
'''Strong Support''' Hell yes!!! <font face=tahoma>
'''Strong support''' Gladly interrupting my wikibreak to support this excellent candidate. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Excellent experiences with this user. '''
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, seems to be very careful with her edits (at least now, if not earlier). Definitely won't mess up ;)
'''Support''' looks decent, not the best AFD work I have ever seen but she will do allright.
'''
'''Support''' per all above. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Why not? '''
'''Support''': I dont see anything that concerns the community --
'''Support''' gladly, based on past observation of Mizu. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Weak oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars vs. Star Trek]] (use of [[WP:ITSCRUFT]] and [[WP:JNN]] non-arguments), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest (2nd nomination)]] (use of [[WP:PERNOM]] non-argument).  In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Family_of_Barack_Obama&diff=212962709&oldid=212960432 another example], the candidate really just votes without providing the ''why''.  It is important that administrators close discussions in a manner and with rationales that are still respectful of good faith contributors and that explain their judgment.  We can only get a real sense of the why behind someone’s argument if he/she articulates it, especially in discussions that are not unanimous.  I do not see from my experience with the candidate in the above cited examples much of an explanation beyond one or two words of how the candidate actually interprets and understands policies and guidelines with regards to these examples.  In fact all of the preceding examples are the kinds of arguments typically cited as ones to avoid and from administrators I look for more carefully thought out arguments that tell me the logic behind their thinking.  Nevetherless, these are only a few examples and I am pleased to see that she has never been blocked and was granted rollback rights, so it is only a ''weak'' oppose, but still I have reservations whenever I see these particular arguments to avoid in deletion discussions used as to how much thought will potentially be put into closes and if the closes will be good.  As I am confident your request for adminship will likely pass, please do consider providing more substantive rationales in the future.  All the best, --
'''Neutral''' Good editor with almost a full package; as a content builder, vandal fighter, active participation in wikispace, the nominators' excellent supporting, having shown her strong patience per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Woody]] (the candidate did not lose her temper after referred to as "Wiki bullies"). I also believe the candidate would not abuse the admin tool. However, I land here because I feel a little uncomfortable with the candidate activities on AFDs for her assertive tone as sometimes not providing a clear rationale and echoing "per who".--
'''Neutral''' I would really like to support, but looking through her contribution history I found several things that keep me from doing so. One is her short and at times insufficient delete rationales at AfD. Another is the recent content dispute with allegations of harassment. Mizu chose to report it at AN/I after giving up trying to resolve it herself. As the dispute resolved itself over time without administrator attention, reporting it seems to have been the wrong choice. This was a missed opportunity for Mizu to demonstrate her dispute resolution abilities. Finally, users are allowed to blank their own talk pages, and I fear she will block people for doing so. Sorry.
'''
'''Support''' without hesitation. 'bout time too.
'''Strong Support'''.  I disagree with nearly everything Ceoil says, but for once he's spot on.  Simply one of the best editors on the project. --
'''Support'''. Record is impressive and solid. Deserves the promotion.
'''Support''' per all...the...FAs... something I have envied doing for a long time...
'''Total absolute support'''<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Ardent support''' Unshakable integrity, down-to-earth, forthright speech, devotion to Wikipedia, incredible energy, good reader of people, noble heart.   She has my utter trust.
'''Completely support this candidate''', over-reliance on Wikipedia-space work as an RfA criteria is faulty in my opinion, and this candidate shows a cool head, when dealing with some tough areas. Cooperative work in spanning the divide between the LGBT wikiproject and other projects is especially impressive, and would be enough for me to support, even ''if'' the article work weren't so impressive. Keep up the good work, Moni. You'll make a great administrator. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]]
'''Support'''. Pretty much an ideal candidate so far as I can see. --
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Co-nom support''', Moni3 can be trusted not to misuse the tools; I'm always asking an admin to help move and correct malformed FAC and FAR noms, and the same 'ole same 'ole admins are probably tiring of my requests.  I'm sure Moni will put the tools to appropriate and good use.
Can't find any reason not to say '''[[Mony Mony|"yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"]]''' ... <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. When evaluating candidates, I look for solid skills in ''communication'' and ''collaboration''—both of which Moni3 has in spades. In addition, she has shown very evolved ''leadership'' skills (q.v. The Everglades project, where she led a large group of editors), ''respect and understanding'' of viewpoints different than her own (e.g., the LGBT work, where she has acted as a bridge between the wikiproject and other groups within the community), and an ability to ''de-escalate'' difficult situations. Her sense of humour never fails to entertain me. She has demonstrated the ability to learn new skills quickly and effectively, so I have no worries about her being able to master the technical use of the tools or the policies associated with them, and she has no trouble at all asking questions when she has them. At the end of the day, adminship is about trust, and I certainly trust Moni3.
'''Support''' per all the above. Awesome article work, deserves the tools. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
(ec)'''''No Poems?'''''-'''Support''' - Anyone who has contributed to that many FAs and GAs deserves the tools, although contributing to admin-related activities would be ideal. However I still can trust this user -
'''Weak Support''' I have to say I agree with Ryan, and I have great respect for his !vote, but after reviewing Moni's contribs, I think he is ready. Moni, if this RFA passes, I would strongly take to heart what Ryan said. I wish you luck in this RFA and as you continue in the project.

'''Support''' I've seen Moni3 around, know her work. Content is just as important; a good content builder will be able to assist more thoroughly, especially with requests from newcomers. This is an encyclopedia, after all. I'm sure Moni will be a great administrator. Good luck,
'''Support''' I got into a disagreement with this user on the [[Talk:Charlie_Crist#Talk_Page_Template|Charlie Christ talk page]] over the placement of the LGBT project tag.  Throughout this discussion, which must have been trying, this editor continued to respond constructively and civilly.  Not for an instant did I feel like this person held me with disdain, even though I staunchly opposed their (at the time) position on this particular issue.  Excellent admin qualities.
Um.... hell yes. —'''
'''Support''' - I echo Giggy here. Like "duh, of course".
'''Support''' as a good and featured article contributor with whom I have had no memorable negative interactions.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support'''  In his studies, the Fat Man has identified no less than four admin archetypes, listed here in descending order of awesomeness: A) helpful, articulate and prolific contributor of content; B) dutiful custodian occupied with tedious but necessary drudgery; C) blustery, trigger-happy, bullying philistine; D) manipulative, scheming, partisan busybody.  Moni3 clearly belongs in category A. It is more difficult (and in The Fat Man's mind, considerably less fun) to write a halfway-decent encyclopedia than to provoke, heckle and dissect the sundry amusing sideshows that our community can be relied upon to generate. Anyone who manages to engage in the former while not acting like a complete asshole deserve a few extra buttons.  I also enjoy her edit summaries.
'''Support''' I trust you with the tools in the areas that you will be using them in. But please, for the love of the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]], don't move into gnomish areas like [[WP:AIV|AIV]] without reading up on [[WP:BLOCK]] and [[WP:BAN]].
Oh my god, yes, Moni is the best of the best, one of the top contributors here. I've been '''waiting''' for this one. Good luck, Moni, this is a torture zone, just look around. ;) --'''
'''Support''', Adminship is primarily about trust, it requires no great skill. IMO a moderately intelligent chimp would probably manage OK. I trust you and I think you're significantly brighter than the aforementioned chimp.
'''Support''' will do just fine. Adminship is not rocket science: Moni3 is a trusted, responsible, smart and experienced Wikipedian. She will not go bonkers and get into the more delicate admin areas without making sure she's read and understood the procedures. Let's stop talking about closing XfDs as if it's this horribly complex thing that you can only understand after 3 grueling months of XfD experience. Great article builder, communicates well, what are people afraid of? I see admins whose work I respect talking below as if a lack of AIV reports is a sign that Moni can't be trusted with the mop but come on... Ryan, Bugbear: can you really say with a straight face: "I found that working as an admin is an intellectual challenge"? Moni is smart enough to ask around if she's getting into something she's not entirely familiar with. We all did that as new admins. I knew squat about images when I became an admin: now I've deleted hundreds. That's not because I hung around [[WP:IFD]] or [[WP:PUI]], it's because there was this backlog and I read the policy. Nothing to it.
'''Everglades support''' The enormous amount of work Moni did to the Everglades articles was astounding, and outweighs his/her little admin-related experience. &ndash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' sensible, prolific contributor, will have loads of pages watchlisted and will be doing admin work on those without even thinking about it I am sure. ''Clearly'' can be trusted. Cheers,
'''Um, yeah''', without hesitation. If moni can't pass thru RFA, no one can. I cannot think of a more (over) qualified candidate for the silly tools that seem to have gathered some ridiculous "aura" about them.  The admin tools are ridiculously meaningless, and ridiculously boring, garnering more grief than they're worth.  They should ''only'' be given to those editors that have proven, in [[WP:FA|one way]] or [[WP:GNOME|another]], that they are here for the betterment of the encyclopedia.  Again, if not Moni, then who?  The opposition, at this point, is petty and nitpicky.  This is an ''excellent'' candidate, one of the very few that could have gone straight to RfB and skipped this step altogether.  Clueful, intelligent, collaborative, dedicated, and humorous.  ''Ideal'' editor, one who will not block arbitrarily, will not delete arbitrarily, or create or enforece drama arbitrarily.  What's not to love about Moni?  Nothing.  Heartfelt and hearty support, without hesitation or question.
'''Support''': I wish I could come up with a witty poem or comment, but instead I'll just say "Support". -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">
Answers to the questions appear spontaneous and almost original, which is more helpful than absolute compliance with policy (which is descriptive not prescriptive mind you) in evaluating the candidate. Bonus points for a non-colorful sig. —
'''Support''' &mdash; Moni has more than 3,000 mainspace edits and she has made more than 200 edits to five articles. She is interested in building article. There is no reason to oppose.
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' Administrators need to be competent, communicate well, and be dedicated to the encyclopdia. All of my interactions with Moni3 convince me she is all of these and more and will do a fine job as an admin. What she doesn't know, she learns and is not afraid to ask and get help, she'll do fine.
'''Support''' As CharlotteWebb and others point out, reasonable and unrehearsed answers can show more than standard ones.  She seems to be a sensible person who understands the objective of building an encyclopedia well.
'''Support''' I remember Moni3 from [[Talk:Mary_McLeod_Bethune#Delta_Sigma_Theta_membership|this discussion]] where she was unsure of Bethune's membership in a sorority. Wow, the number of GAs and FAs she has done are an ''oustanding'' feat. I urge many editors alike to take advice from her on bringing articles to GA and FA standard, because ''this is an encyclopedia''...amirite? :-P I know she will be a good admin. '''
'''Support'''. Wow, I'm exhausted. I spent the whole day at [[Lagoon Amusement Park]] (my brother, [[User:TheInfinityZero|TheInfinityZero]] is in town so I haven't spent much time editing), however, I did have time to examine Moni's merits, and I trust that her experience and ability to communicate will make her a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Anyone who is that busy working on GA/FA content is too busy to misuse the tools.  Actually, I should probably change to "Oppose: we don't need another excellent editor manning the mop instead of writing an encyclopedia" but I won't.
'''Support''' Contrary to what those opposing may believe, adminship is not about whether the candidate is "needing the tools" or already working in admin related areas. It is about whether the candidate, if made admin, will use the tools correctly, look at admin-related areas and is a civil and cool-headed editor. As Balloonman correctly states, admins should be chosen by the criteria whether the candidate would be a net benefit for the project and not whether they agree to stop working on articles and start hanging around ANI or AIV all day. We have dozens of admins who don't and noone cares about that. I think we need to chose candidates based on the fact, that they can act like admins if they have to. And I have every confidence (by what I have seen) that Moni3 can be such an admin. '''
'''Support''' Ideal candidate.
'''Support''' - she'll be just fine. She's a trustworthy editor with a reasonably good knowledge of policy & I believe she'll come up to speed pretty quickly. I take the points below re. some of the responses to the questions, but it's not enough cause for concern, IMO -
'''Support''' - When I first saw this come up, I was surprised, never expecting Moni3 to be interested (which is a good sign I think.) My first instinct was hell yeah! based on her incredible proliferation of high quality article contributions, my entirely positive interactions with her in the past and the enthusiasm and civility I have seen her display all over the place. Going through her contributions, I can't see any reason to oppose. She may not be the most experienced in amidn-y areas, but one thing I noticed about Moni3 from the start was her thoughtfulness and willingness to learn and to ask for help if needed. She isn't going to just start deleting and blocking willy-nilly. She'll use the tools as and when needed in the areas she already works in. And if that's 3 times a year, it's still worth it overall for the project. Bottom line: can she be trusted? I have no doubt whatsoever. --
'''Support''' A trustworthy user with a load of great article contributions and stuff. I'm sure they'd only do good with the tools so of course!
'''Strong Support''' - She can be trusted with the tools. She can be trusted not to tread into unfamiliar territory. Fantastic contributions. Enough said. --'''''
Hi, I am here for the "Man of La Mancha" auditions and...oh, wrong queue.  '''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - Ugh, I was hoping to be the first to support. I guess I missed that by quite a few votes. I 100% support. Moni is an excellent Wikipedian and I can't see her ever abusing the tools.
'''Support'''.  Moni3 has an excellent grasp of policies as they relate to articles.  I have no doubt that anyone who can understand (and implement) the intricacies of the [[WP:MOS]] will have no problem learning the intricacies of using admin tools as well.  Being an admin is not exactly rocket science (but Moni could probably master that too if you gave her enough books to read).  I trust Moni's judgement, and I trust her to know when she need to seek out help.
'''Support''' Excellent content producer with a proven record in collaboration and the ability to learn. The other statements above clearly demonstrate the trust of the community, and I find the opposes less than compelling. Per [[WP:NBD|NBD]], in the absense of any concrete reasons to suspect misuse, supporting is the proper thing to do. '''
'''Support''', Sorry no poems from me this early in the morn.
Although I would probably have rather seen her simply ''not'' answer the questions at all, the brief and to-the-point answers are refreshing. Do NOT spam me with any thank you crap. Mahalo. --
'''Weak Support''' While I do have hesitation with the answer to Q5, it isn't severe enough to change me to neutral or oppose.--
'''Support''' Smart user. I trust her to learn the ropes quickly. --
'''Support''', Moni3 has amply demonstrated she has the qualities that matter for the role of admin. --
On balance, '''support''' despite the concerns. She seems to be bright and conscientious enough to learn first, do second with regards to the admin areas where she lacks experience.
'''Support'''  Amazing that a potential admin candidate actually tried to answer questions in her own words, rather than just parroting what the relevant policy pages say.  We have to weigh which we care about more in potential admins:  Cluefulness, of which Moni3 is quite well-endowed; or ability to cram for an RfA. --
'''Support''' Superb editor. People can learn and gain experience in 'admin areas', and I believe that Moni3 is sensible enough to be able to do this on the job (I view 10 FAs and 12 GAs as examples of diligence and application).
'''Haiku Support'''. Moni3 is a good enough editor to receive the benefit of the doubt from me. I have no reservations about granting the tools in this case.
'''Weak Support''': Great editor, I would advise that before you make any admin orientated edits you ensure you ''do'' read the policy or ask for advise. Since you ''are'' very mature I know you will ask and think first before doing anything your unsure of. —
'''Support''' Wikipedia will be a better place if Moni3 has admin tools to aid in her work in the content areas of Wikipedia.  Moni3 not only writes FAs, but is also active in reviewing at FAC.  There is the need from time to time to delete FAC pages to make way for moves, and such tasks that require admin tools.  These are the sort of admin tasks that Moni3 is definitely familiar with, and I trust her to not jump into something she's unfamiliar with. --
'''Support''' without hesitation.  I first ran into this editor on [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mulholland Drive (film)]] and I was amazed at her dedication to excellence.  The concern that she hasn't "prepared" for adminship (I guess the preference is strong here for pre-fab candidates) is easily offset by her frequent displays of thorough research and commitment to quality.  I have no doubt that she would similarly research any admin action, especially if it were likely to be controversial or out-of-process. --
'''Support''' - Moni3 fulfils my criteria, in that she displays competency in both strong ''behaviour'' (she is here for the right reasons, works well in collaboration with others and has the trust of the community) and strong ''mediation'' (her many GAs and FAs are testament to working well with others in resolving concerns to improve the quality of articles). Although her ''knowledge'' of Wikipedia's janitorial functions could be improved, I have faith that she will be cautious in her approach and seek guidance from others where appropriate. Good luck, '''''<font color="green">
'''Strong support''' - I was granted admin access without experience in most admin areas. Learning these areas isn't very difficult. You look around, see what everyone else is doing, ask questions when you need to. It's not that difficult. You don't block or delete unless you're sure you've got it right. I remember my first few weeks as an admin. I'm sure ''the_undertow'' and en-admins were ready to desysop me just so I'd stop asking questions; of course, everyone seemed happy to help. When judging someone for adminship, I've come to believe that it should be based solely on trust. Not some arbitrary numbers yielded from a fake wannabe-kate tool. Is she a smart cookie? I think so. Can she be trusted? Contribution history indicates yes. Is she a risk to the project with the tools? Certainly not. Net benefit and all that jazz. It's unfortunate to see highly productive editors, who have spent many months/years doing great work for the project, showing they can keep a cool head, and clearly demonstrating they have policy knowledge and a decent amount of clue, get shot down (too often by the same people) for arbitrary reasons. She works in the area of the project she feels like working in, and she's volunteering to help out with some admin tasks. It should not be required that she start venturing off where she's not interested. She's already shown she can be trusted and that she can learn. I also trust the judgment of the noms. In this case, I put particular weight on Sandy's nom, knowing her role in the FA process and the expectations she holds for editors. That's enough, in my opinion.
'''Support''' - After questioning, user has shown how they hope to use admin tools in addition to what they have now for the betterment of articles/the encyclopedia. Since the rule to Wikipedia is to do everything possible for the best interest of improving the encyclopedia, the tools in this user's hands will assuredly be used to this end.
Agree with Jennavecia, who makes excellent points. A lot of admin work can only be learnt on the job, and as long as Moni3 talks to people if she needs help then she'll be fine.
'''<span style="color:red">S</span><span style="color:navy">u</span><span style="color:olive">pp</span><span style="color:maroon">o</span><span style="color:teal">r</span><span style="color:fuchsia">t</span>''' <small>(ok, I'm just jealous that you're a synaesthete)</small>: I was pretty conflicted about this - I share some of East718's and Axl's concerns about your response to the consensus question. That said, I think the pluses outweigh that particular issue here. As Risker said, you're a good content writer, you obviously care about the encyclopedia's mission, and you handle things in a mature, thoughtful, level-headed fashion. Those are really my main criteria - the experience thing isn't a big deal. You learn on the job anyway, and as long as you're willing to recognize the learning curve that's no big deal. You'll do fine.<p>But please think about the consensus thing - it's not a majority vote, and the middle road between two opposing camps is almost always the wrong way to go because of Wikipedia's dynamics. For instance, at any given time, AIDS denialists outnumber "normal" editors on the [[AIDS denialism]] article. Taking the "middle road" between their agenda and that of regular editors would still leave the article quite skewed. But I trust that with your obvious thoughtfulness and your hands-on experience in creating quality encyclopedic content, you'll recognize these issues in practice even if they are hard to articulate in the abstract. '''
'''Support'''. Calm and thoughtful. Recognizes you learn as you go along, and presumably would not do anything stupid, and if s/he did, would presumably fix it. I heartily disagree with the opinion that an admin candidate needs to study all sorts of info s/he will probably not need before being given the bit, and I trust more people who have shown a rational attitude and good set of contributions than someone who has become fascinated by the minutiae of our policies.
'''Support''' The answers to the questions are distinctly weak and would normally mean I could not support, however your excellent contributions show a clear commitment to the project and could not find anything in those contributions that makes me feel you will abuse the tools. Like others I would strongly urge familiarising yourself with the relevant policy before using the tools in that area and am confident you will do so.
'''Support''' I find myself somewhat taken aback by several of the opposes which, frankly, border on absurdity.  The nature of the tools is such that their possession requires the establishment of trust.  Some editors demonstrate trustworthiness via participation at XfD, AIV, etc., while others do so via content building.  Moni3, much to the benefit of Wikipedia, has chosen the latter and has done so with diligence, reason and good humour.  Moni3, further, has demonstrated both thoughtfulness and a willingness to seek and heed advise from her peers.  Trustworthiness has absolutely been established and I have little doubt that the tools will be used with all due and necessary consideration of the relevant facts and policy.
'''Support.''' - Per {{user|Casliber}}, {{user|PeaceNT}}, and {{user|Davewild}}.
'''Support''', being willing to learn and being humble are the only attributes an admin needs, and these attributes appear to inhabit Moni3. --
''''Screw-it' support''' — I have no idea why, it seems to go against all common sense, but you're such a nice person and I've just got a hunch you'd never do anything to harm to project. Best of luck. —
'''Support'''. Limited experience of 'admin areas' (e.g. deletion discussions), but that's not so problematic in this case, for several reasons: (i) Moni seems unlikely to spend much time working in areas she's ignored up till now; (ii) she has indicated that she is willing to learn more about Wikipedia processes where necessary; and (iii) her article contributions and behaviour with other users make her seem highly trustworthy. With no good reason to believe she would abuse the tools, and plenty of reason to think she would use them to improve the encyclopaedia, I must support.
'''Strong Support''' - a candidate who likes to write; and creates articles and is capable and serious. Seems like she has a really good shot...at being a really good admin.
'''Support''' Whilst in pure admiration of her edit summaries, I have no doubt that she will make a great admin; only using the tools when needed. I see no reason why not to.
'''Strong support'''. Wikipedia is lucky to have Moni3. If you could clone her, do so.
'''Support''' for more grrl power. Some admins are mainly vandal fighters, others article writers, and others again like to nitpick over WP:WHATEVERRULE. Nobody can be experienced in everything and demanding that is making adminship an even bigger deal than it already has been made. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Strong Support''' Hell, I already nominated you. (: --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. Has a clue; the rest will come.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - has clue by the bucketload.
'''Strong Support''' Moni has demonstrated a profound commitment to building this encyclopedia. I have no doubt that she will handle the new tools with the same care and responsibility that she has handled her article contributions. Good work, Moni.
'''Strong support''' - Moni is a very active editor who puts a lot of work into the project. She cares about getting things right in articles, and she will not abuse the tools. I trust her to use them appropriately.
Great candidate for adminship - has clue, is here to build an encyclopedia, not here for "Wikipedia, the MMORPG that anyone can play". Simply put, she has my trust.
'''Support''' I'm going to go out on a limb here and support Moni, she seems to know what she is doing and also seems to know what she does not know how to do (ie. she won't do controversial stuff).  Overall a good candidate. '''
'''Support''' a good writer of articles.
'''Support''' --
'''Weak support''' I really don't like the answer to Question 10.  [[User:MastCell]] describes how consensus should be adjudicated, and I hope Moni3 takes this to heart.  Despite that trepidation, I'm willing to support based on the comments of MastCell and Casliber.
'''Support''' Nice work. -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
'''Support'''. Her Question 10 answer bothers me a little too. But she's capable and intelligent, and I think she would examine all arguments in a conflict to arrive at a reasoned decision.
'''Support''' Seems to be a hardworking and trustworthy editor who will do no harm to wikipedia with the tools and will figure out how best to use the tools as she goes along. --
'''Support''' I respect the main thrust of the opposes.  Because it's important to treat all candidates fairly...not just during their RfA, but in what we ask them to do before they get here...it makes sense to ask them to get their feet wet in admin-y things before they come to RfA.  I've opposed on these grounds before.  But there are plenty of genuinely nice, dedicated candidates who know all about XfD and AIV who will make some bad decisions as admins, because Wikipedia is huge, and people are coming from many different places, and writing and reviewing and editing are hard.  Being an admin is not a trivial job, and learning enough to pass an RfA doesn't equip a person with everything they might need.  I struggled with how to put this best, and all I can come up with is: trust me.  I have worked with Moni for a while, and there is nothing she doesn't  do well, and there is no chance that she will harm the project, whether she's an admin or not. - Dan
'''S'''. I think Moni3 ''thinks''. I'll take an administrator who will reason, but has a few things to learn, over one who uses policies as hammers and considers everything on Wikipedia as the nail.
'''Support''' An RFA is to determine if we can trust the user. The user's commitment to the project shows that we can.--
'''Support''', there's no reason as far as I can see to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Granted, the answers are weak, but my familiarity with the candidate's work alleviates any doubt I might have. Moni3 can be trusted with the tools, and we really need more admins who have a demonstrated ability to add quality content. '''
'''Support'''. I'd rather trust a candidate who isn't yet a policy expert than have doubts about a candidate who is.  Ryan's points are sensible, but they don't convince me to oppose: I believe Moni would be a net asset to the project as an admin.
'''Support'''—I can't speak too highly of this editor. Eminently trustworthy.
'''Support''' This should show how strong this candidate is... she had 99 '''beat the nom''' supports.  Supporting despite the fact that she is afraid of clowns...---'''
'''Support''' I believe that for the sake of diversity, the community benefit hugely from having admins who come from some kind of minority groups. She won't do controversial stuff and overall, a good candidate. --
'''Strong support''' Appropriety for administratorship is primarily a question of ''judgment'', ''trust'' and ''experience''. My interactions with Moni, specifically at [[Talk:Katie_Sierra_suspension_controversy/Archive_1#GA_Review_2|this GA review]] and her astounding contributions to GA/FA convince me of her judgment. There is very little chance that Moni will become a cabalist/dramamongering/abusive admin, and every reason to believe that when she does use her admin tools, she will do so responsibly, uncontroversially and in every instance with the bes interest of the encyclopaedia in mind; I can without reservation ''trust'' this editor. The point has been raised that she seems unfamiliar with what it is administrators do and how they are supposed to act; granted. Moni does seem unprepared, lacking the necessary experience in administrative areas to get everything right from day one. If this were a position that ''required'' prolific use of the admin functions from the first moment they were granted, I might be concerned; Moni could make a lot of mistakes due to unfamiliarity. But there is no such requirement. I would be concerned if I thought Moni would block/protect/delete without looking into what the prevailing policies and conventions had to say on the matter first. I would be concerned if I thought Moni would not listen to objections to her ineperienced use of a given function, or if I thought she would wheel-war or bully non-admins. I have absolutely no concerns on these scores. Worst case scenario if Moni becomes an admin: she makes a series of mistakes, is swiftly reverted by her admin chums/stalkers and after having the score explained to her, either discontinues actions in these areas or amends. Without a shadow of doubt, Moni as admin would be a net benefit to the encyclopaedia. I also echo Kaaveh's point about the beneficial outcomes of having admins with interest in fringe/non-mainstream areas, to counter the systemic bias and groupthink widespread in the existing admin cadre. <font color="404040">
'''Support'''.  Moni has stringent standards and excellent research skills, as demonstrated by her article creation and improvement.  She will use those same skills in the application of administrative tools-- researching what is appropriate to a situation, and using the tools as and where appropriate.
'''Support''' - I don't have a poem for you, but I support you --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Steady and thoughtful user. Am sure that she will approach new areas with appropriate circumspection & will do just fine.
'''Strong Support''' a great article builder with experience in anywhere would be quite trustable with the administrative tools. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Absolutely''' I've worked with Moni for about 6 months at FAC. She is a skilled researcher and a great writer. A prolific FAC reviewer as well, she has a deft touch in delivering difficult news and forging compromises. She is a responsible, respectful, and above all ''thoughtful'' person who would make wise choices in using the tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. User seems to be ready to be an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Very appropriate attitude toward the "status" of admin; but when one is "''wildly respected''" then sysopship is truly No Big Deal...
'''Support''' because I like the answer to Q14. '''John Sloan''' (

'''Support''' Trustworthy? Yes, and that's what matters most. Moni3 may not be masterfully knowledgeable in certain areas (doesn't everyone have their weak spots?), but she's got the right attitude and plenty of experience. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. Definitely. Per all the supports above. &mdash;
'''Support''' She knows the logic behind all the policies just not how they're currently worded. She has a great attitude to the project as noted many times (see her [[User:Moni3/Cogs, Trees, and the Forest|essay]] as well) and this has helped her always treat everyone with goodnatured respect, even those she disagrees with. She is short on admin related experience, and the consensus response worries me but seeing as she has made great reasoned consensus building on inclusion of a project template and other minutae she should be ok. I would think she would be able to gauge valid consensus if the numbers were with weak arguments laid out in [[WP:AADD]] but a few people made reasoned well thought out arguments she would make the right call. If she has problems on the technical end she is on good terms with enough admins that they could help show her/correct her. It is probably a lot easier to teach an admins the technical skills and application of policy, than it would be to change their attitude and behavior. -
'''+S''' In the particular case of adminship on Wikipedia, dedication to the encyclopedia plus possession of good character trumps lack of knowledge in admin-related areas, since the former two are relatively fixed, while the latter is quite easily acquired. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Support''' I trust the user with the tools and I think she will make a fine admin. --
I'm
[[User:Mailer diablo]] wants us to think that he '''supports''' this adminship. But does he really? You can ''Trust'' [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] to make the right call.<small>I'm
'''Support''' Seems to have an interest in good content.
'''Strong support''' it's the fundamentals that count. '''
'''Support''' I trust this editor; that includes trusting that the same brain that has learnt to be a good content editor (by reading about WP policies for content etc, by communicating with others, etc) can also learn to the policies, procedures and buttons more relevant to administrative tasks. --
'''Support''' I trust this editor to use the tools carefully and to check before doing so if she was unsure about anything. I myself am an admin that is more interested in content than AFD and ANI, and I haven't broken Wikipedia (yet).
'''Strong Support''': Fundamentally I support Wikipedians who have good contributions to WP articles and no history of bad behaviour at WP. Admins with mop and pens ! I agree you dont have much admin related activity but you have contributed immensely to FA and GAs.. What else are we here for ? I trust you. Just in case you are confused to use the 'power buttons' , dont hesitate to take the help of others,.. there are lots of pretty experienced admins around.I hope you adminship will lose your interest in article contributions.Keep up the good work and Best wishes!  --
'''Strong support''' &mdash; This is a Wikipedian with an ''extremely'' strong record and reputation who has made a good-faith request for the tools.  There is every reason to believe that Moni3 will use the tools in the same conscientious and intelligent way she has dealt with other areas of our project.  Some editors are simply suited to the tools, regardless of their exact prior areas of expertise.  '''
'''Support''' per nom...and all the poetry. :-)
'''Support''' --
After thinking about it, I've changed to '''support''' from neutral. '''
'''support''' - the opposes are uncompelling.  --
'''Support:''' Per Q4, and I don't find the opposes compelling either.  You can ''train'' people to do the job; I am quite wary of the culture that suggests there are admin candidates going down a checklist and parroting the answers they think people want to hear.
I trust her judgement and I feel comfortable with the idea of her having the tools.  Definitely '''support'''.
Per... oh, let's see. NewYorkBrad. Risker. Obesity/TFMWNCB. CharlotteWebb. Pascal.Tession. SandyGeorgia. Jennavecia. (how many times are you gonna get to cite THAT collection of names?) oh, and also KMWeber. Clue is more important than being able to recite policy backwards and forwards, or than regurgitating pat answers. This user has clue, and plenty of it. She'll do fine. ++
'''Weak support'''. Some of the opposers raise concerns but I don't think they're insurmountable.
'''Support'''. Seems intelligent and friendly.
'''Support'''. No doubt.
'''Support''' Whatever the deficiencies in experience of other areas, she is extremely well-qualified to work in her intended specialisation of the FAC area.
'''support''' I hope that Moni will take the oppose votes to heart and study carefully what the CSD criteria are and the distinction between a block and a ban. But other than those issues I have no problem giving Moni the mop.
'''Support''' – some concerns about issues of preparedness raised in the oppose votes, though kudos for an honest attempt to give an opinion rather than a standard answer. Overall I'm confident that she'll act wisely and be an asset, taking particular care to check out guidance in unfamiliar situations before using the tools. .
'''Support''' - Genuine. Doesn't spew out policy like it's the law. I like it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', seems bright and trustworthy.
'''Support''' based on a great working relationship. I know Moni and know that she will not abuse the trust of the community, and that she will continue to be level headed. All the rest can be learned, as we all do in a new job. Her honest answers are a good indication of that. Total suppport without any reservation. And the number of others here that I have come to trust that have voiced their support is inspiring. —
'''Weak support''' - while I understand the opposes, I see a very strong, bold editor here.  I would suggest Moni3 be very careful about the tools, but I'm certain (from the evidence presented) that she will not abuse them intentionally.
'''Support''' - She knows her way around Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - I don't see her misusing the tools in any way. --
A great article writer, but unfortunately no experience in areas relating to adminship so I’m not convinced she knows when to delete pages, block users or use page protection effectively. I’ve gone back to January, and the only XfD discussion you’ve participated in is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center|this]] MfD. Her [[Special:DeletedContributions/Moni3|deleted contributions]] show that she’s tagged no pages for speedy deletion. I also see no reports to [[WP:AIV]], or any other board to give an indication of where she’d block a user. This boils down to not having enough experience in my eyes to use the tools correctly, and there’s a chance she might hit delete or block at a time when she shouldn’t because she doesn’t know when to. When supporting a candidate, I like to see at least one area of admin related experience – even if it’s just commenting in a few XfDs and tagging some pages for deletion. Unfortunately there’s none of this in Moni3’s contributions. '''
'''Weak Oppose''': I agree with [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]. It's not that I don't trust [[User:Moni3|Moni3]] it's just that I feel they're not ready to become an admin yet. I see that Moni3 is a great editor and in my opinion is trustworthy, but I feel that they are too inexperienced in admin related fields. If there was at least a months worth of work in admin related fields I would support your RfA but right now I don't think you need these tools since you currently only contribute to articles and you said in Q1 that you will continue to mainly edit articles. What I gathered from Q1 it seems that you don't intend to use these tools very often. I'm sorry but I don't feel like you need these tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Because to the answer given to #1, user does not seems to be interested in admin tools. Also per some of the comments given by Ryan Postlethwaite. <small>
I know this is going to sound harsh, since Moni said she wasn't going to look it up because she thought she was getting tested. Moni, you're an awesome contributor, and I think you'd make a good admin. But the answer to Q5 worries me, because it looks like you haven't prepared for adminship. I've got nothing against on-the-job learning, but the block/ban question is almost always in RfAs these days, so not knowing the answer gives me the worrisome impression of a lack of preparedness. I would ''definitely'' support you, Moni, if you came back (soon!) and showed some more preparedness. Please don't let this discourage you, and happy wiki'ing! -
'''Oppose''' <s>I'm probably reading Q1 wrong, but the second sentence "''In between, I hope to be able to impose within discussions regarding the encyclopedia, that ''nothing'' should diminish its quality.''" makes it sound like you only want the tools to be able to "impose" on people. Adminship isn't supposed to grant you any extra authority, and being an Admin isn't supposed to add or subtract to the weight of your argument in any situation.</s> And, while Q5 may be an overused question, I still think that an Admin should know that answer ''long'' before an RfA.--
'''Oppose''' per Ryan and the blocks and ban confusion. --
'''Oppose''' per above - while there is extremely impressive contributions to the article side of Wikipedia, there's clearly insufficient knowledge/experience in needed areas to use the tools, and I'm not at all convinced there's a need for tools here either.
'''Oppose'''. You look like a great editor and you've done some spectacular work. '''But''', I'm going to have to agree with RyanP. Spending time in the areas admins edit to, can greatly improve your knowledge of the role. I'm seeing this lack of knowledge in your answers to the questions (specifically: 1. '''Q1'''- you never mentioned what areas you intended to help out with, just a continuation of what you normally do; which does not require tools. 2. '''Q4''' - you should at least be aware of the controversy surrounding this. 3. '''Q5''' - you didn't want to look it up, but its good to have a round about knowledge of the policies we did create since we didn't create them for window-dressing alone. And a ban is not permanent; it takes the community to implement, and the community to reverse. Also they can always request an unblock. 4. '''9b''' - I would hate to see pages being protected solely for ''quick changes'', even if the subject of a BLP just died. 5. '''Q9d''' - I suggest rereading [[WP:IAR]] and its corollaries. 6. '''Q10''' - I would have liked to see you mention an [[WP:XFD|XfD]] here. This is where consensus is derived on a daily basis and [[WP:CCC|changes]] just as fast. 7. '''Q11''' - Protection should come last. In this example, '''users''' are discussed. If there is a 3rr, the user gets blocked leaving no reason for protection. And if the second user is about to reach 3rr, they usually get a warning  ). You'd know most of this if you were active in these areas (such as [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:AN3|3rr]]). What strikes me the most is, where is the need for the tools? You seem to enjoy what you are doing, and I am happy to see that you would continue to do this even if you had these tools. So I can only hope that my comments give you a better understanding of why I oppose, and serve to demonstrate the areas you would need to work on if this request fails. ''Good luck and best wishes from'' '''
'''Oppose''' unfortunately.  I have nothing personally against this user but several of the answers to questions are dicey (to put it nicely).  I'm not convinced by this user's definition of consensus (Q10: nothing on Wikipedia is defined by "majority rule") nor this user's respect for it (Q7, compromise is good but if all but one editor doesn't want to include something including it with weaker language doesn't seem like the right thing to do).  The block/ban distinction isn't quite right (Q5).  Two of the five reasons the user lists to speedy delete a page (9c) are explicit [[Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria|CSD non-criteria]].  The list goes on and on.  This user might be a great article contributor and might have good intentions but IMO the answers above don't demonstrate anywhere near the policy knowledge required to be a sysop. Not every experienced editor needs to be an administrator.
"If the solutions fall within policy, and there are no apparent extenuating circumstances (canvassing, newsletter alerts, etc.), the compromise, the middle way of what is being offered should be the road to follow..." is a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. We are here to write a serious, reputable intellectual resource, not to create an egalitarian community where everybody meets each other in the middle. The natural reaction of the community to POV pushers, trolls and cranks - indeed, the only defense it has - is to throw them out without any quarter. The sort of agnosticism towards content when determining consensus that Moni3 describes, as if all viewpoints are equally valid is dangerous and undermines our integrity. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
Reluctantly '''oppose'''. you are clearly a great article contributor and a dedicated wikipedian, and I am certain that you would do nothing intentionally to harm the project. But it is important to learn the basics before being sysopped, not after. --<font color="Red">
Another reluctant '''oppose'''. No one doubts that Moni3 is an excellent contributor. However [[WP:CON|consensus]] is not determined by majority vote. The block vs. ban is an important distinction. If Moni3 didn't know the answers before, she should have looked them up prior to answering. After all, this should be exactly what you do when you come across a real situation on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4.
'''Oppose''' from Neutral, per answer to Xeno's question, Q5 and general lack of admin experience. I really think you are a great and dedicated editor, and I admire greatly all of your article work. But one can be a great editor without being a great admin. Good luck in the future, Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose.'''  Moni3 is a prolific content editor who knows the featured article processes inside and out, but no clear need for or intended use of the tools is apparent.  —
'''Weak Oppose''' - answers to questions were very weak. --
'''Oppose.''' Great writer but virtually no admin experience. I don't expect candidates to know all, but they need some degree of exposure to the admin area of wiki. Her statement about not looking up something she's not sure of concerns me too. Admins SHOULD look up things they are sure of, both formal policy and input of experienced admins.
'''Oppose''' Switched from support above. I regret somewhat having to do this, but after revisiting this discussion and looking closely at all of your answers to the optional questions, I feel that you are (at the moment) unfit for adminship. I was willing overlook your answer to the ban/block question, but subsequent answers are completely unsatisfactory.
'''Oppose''' unscripted answers are good but if a candidate comes with a weak resume in the "admin areas" they should come with strong responses; such are lacking, not terrible but not good enough to know without any contributions evidence that you would know how to use the tools correctly. Studying for an RFA is not a bad thing, an admin needs to know the policies as they stand. It is not gaming the system to read the polices one or twice before an RFA. - '''
'''Oppose''' To put it bluntly, RFA wether we like it or not has become allot like a job interview. you have come to the interview with a resume full of irrelevant bits to the role you seek (adminship) and you have been (very mildly) ''short'' with the questions, having to clarify multiple times. You also have made no indication as to what admin tasks you want to get involved in that prompted you to request this adminship right now. Regretfully content editing means less to me than what maintenance tasks do, as you don’t need adminship to make great articles ;-) . Get some maintenance experience and come back, then I will support

'''Weak oppose''' - the lack of admin action isn't what worries me, or any perceived lack of experience in the field. However, I don't find her rationale for ''needing'' the tools that compelling. 95% of all actions as an article writer you can do without the admin bit. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Weak oppose''', regretfully.  After thinking this over some and coming back to pore over the answers to the questions ... I find them to be rather unsatisfying.  I had remained neutral because Moni appears to be a trustworthy, constructive and fantastic editor who unfortunately lacks the experience by which to measure her potential strenghts/weaknesses as an administrator.  The quality of the answers to the optional questions, however, leads me to believe this candidate is just not quite ready yet.  As others have stated, a new attempt after a little while mucking around the underbelly of the "meta" areas would probably have an enthusiastic support from me.
'''Weak oppose''', obviously one of the finest contributers around.  However most admin tools require expertise in the areas where they will be used.  Why give a user the delete button button if they don't have experience in XfDs? --
'''Oppose''', sorry. Per Ryan and answers denoting unpreparedness. I shall support next time if I see more participation and experience in admin-oriented tasks then. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
I take issue with some of the answers to the questions. "Non-notable subjects without reliable sources" is not a speedy deletion reason and many articles to which this description may apply are explicity carved out and directed to other deletion processes. Admins protecting a page, in general, should not "determine which version is the one that is better" before or after doing so. I don't really care about whether candidates can recite the policy but am concerned about the misapplication of tools in these areas.
'''Oppose''' Nominee seems to have some fairly big gaps in their understanding of policy, and doesn't seem to have a good feel for the soft skills needed in dealing with other editors. I get a feeling that their is a big risk that they will use the tools to impose their understanding of policy, or belief in "what matters" and cause more problems than they solve. When they say '''''"I don't participate in ANI much, but when I do I hope I make it a priority that the quality of the encyclopedia is the highest priority above individual editors' hurt feelings, lack of understanding, or whatever personal issue s/he has"''''' I am not convinced they understand that the contributors are the most important part of this project and sometimes we have to err towards taking the softly softly approch to get the best out of them.
'''Regretful Oppose''' I wanted to !vote support on this one but I can't. I find the candidate's answers to questions vague, lacking thought or effort and, at times, completely incorrect. Hoaxes should never be speedily deleted. This concept is something that was instrumental in denying [[User:TenPoundHammer]] adminship several times. Being a spectacular editor (which this candidate undeniably is) is a very desirable trait in an administrator but it is by no means the lone qualifying factor.
At this time, I am unwilling to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.

'''Oppose''' Lack of acknowledge of the admin roles and experiences in the Wikispaces that require admin action.--
'''Oppose''' In this case, it appears to be handing out an adminship as a reward for being a good editor.  Is this really what an adminship is?  The editor didn't request it, has no knowledge of admin procedures and policies, and has no plans to put the tools into effect.  --
'''Oppose''' - Fantastic work in what ''has'' been worked on, but there is a lack of admin-related work and I can't see a real need for the tools. This user doesn't need to be an admin, from what is desired to be done. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Oppose.''' Sorry, but I think that the answers to questions 1, 5, 9c and 10, in particular, are inadequate or incorrect. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Dang-look-at-those-FA-contributions Neutral''' Moni looks like she would handle disputes really well. But I just simply can't tell how she would function in closing AfDs, blocking users, deleting pages, or applying page protection from her limited experience in those fields. So, a neutral until I can get out my quizzing book :) <font color="amaranth">
'''Neutral'''.  Your contributions in the mainspace are great, but you have little experience elsewhere.  I would suggest getting more experience at [[WP:XFD]], and doing a little [[WP:NPP]] and [[WP:RCP]].  Just so you know, you can look up the answer to questions, and I am not neutral because you didn't answer that correctly.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''ARGHHHH!!!! neutral''' - Such many great contributions...but I'm on the fence due to Q5 and also because I don't see much admin area experience.
'''I feel Soxred93's pain''' Jaw-droppingly admirable contributions and commonsense. Admin experience really is a must, though. I'm sure that with some goodly involvement in it under her belt, Moni3 would and should be back soon for the !win.
'''Neutral''' - You seem like such a great person, you really do.  But Q5 and Q10...  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral''' Damned if I can't make up my mind, clearly a smart and dedicated user, but a smart and dedicated user with virtually no visible use for, or demonstrated knowledge of the use of, admin tools. I'll think some more. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral'''  This is a tough one.  On one hand, there are a lot of very good article contributions.  The candidate also gave a strong answer to my 3RR question above.  But, there are some legitimate concerns raised by several of the opposers above.  I would not be upset to see this RfA succeed, but in the event that it does not, I encourage the candidate to heed the comments of [[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] and make another run at that point.  --
'''Neutral''' per Q14. I would normally oppose for such a hardline approach to vandals who could possibly be turned into contributors, but I have a feeling that Moni won't be dealing with vandals on a regular basis should this RFA be successful. Will have to take a closer look later. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral'''. I feel that Moni3 is calm and collected, and would learn the admin tools very well were she to receive them, so I'm leaning towards a support. However, the lack of admin-related experience troubles me slightly. '''''
'''Neutral.''' You meet the pivotal criterion: a trustworthy person who is calm in tough waters, and this RfA is a good example. You have my vote as soon as you focus more on learning the policies, etc. To be a good admin, you'll have to devote some steady amount of time to it, even though the lion's share of your time could still be with your terrific editing.
'''Neutral''' Damn if I haven't been torn on this for days now. Like pretty much everyone else in this section, I just can't tear myself off the fence.
'''Support''' Per my great nomination. ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I was ambivalent about the candidate, but the high-quality nomination was what sold me on the benefits of their adminship. In all honesty, a good contributor with whom I have no reservations as to their conduct as an admin. Good luck,
'''Support''' per highly persuasive nom statement.
'''Comment (supportive)''' I'm not suficiently acquainted with Nancy's work, but I wish to note that my first (and so far only) use of my [[User:PeterStJohn/ScratchPad#Barnstar_of_Conceding_a_Point|Barnstar "Conceding a point"]] was for her. I still need to fix up the graphics. But anyway she has at least provided a definite example of something I consider important towards consensus-building, ethical disputation. (I'm trying to do something constructive about the morass of nonconstructive, eristic, contentious rhetoric.)
'''Support''' Yeah, whatever. No problems here.
'''Support'''. Very good editor. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' I like what I see.
'''Support''', per Pedro's analysis.  '''''
Agree with SlimVirgin.
'''Support''' per answer to questions. <sup>
'''Support''' Solid answers, and I trust Pedro's judgment. :)
'''Support''' Good things will be done.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. This editor knows what she's doing; plenty of experience in all the right places.
'''Support with suggestion''' for [[Cannons (house)]], you might want to use [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php this tool] for citations, if you want to make this article a GA, or perhaps an FA. Cheers.
'''Support''' - deserves the sysop bit. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Very good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Great contributer. <strong>
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' - works for me.  -
'''Support''': This user has made come great contributions to Wikipedia, and I have no reason to oppose. -
&mdash;
'''Support''' Track is okay over 2400 mainspace edits.
Per everything but Pedro's nom.
'''Support'''. Great track record. Excellent answers.
'''Support''' - clearly a great candidate. Wonderful answers to questions, Nancy! Good job!
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  '''
'''Support'''. No problems with this candidate. Nancy is a solid contributor and seems to work well with others.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Was going to oppose, but then I read [[User:Pedro|Pedro's]] incredibly persuasive "Support" argument. After something that incredible...how could I say no?
Candidate is especially capable in AIV.
'''Support''' <s>Seduced</s> Persuaded by Pedro's prose :) --
'''Support''' - for reasons above <B>
'''Support''' - no concerns here. Good answers to questions! [[User:Xenon54|X<small>ENON</small>54]] | [[User talk:Xenon54|talk]] |
'''Support'''. Seems very sensible. --
'''Support''' a strong candidate, which will make a fine admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' "stoical and pragmatic" are ideal qualities for an admin, and there is a great breadth of experience here. No qualms at all. --'''
'''Support''' Very nice indeed :)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, will certainly be great as an admin. -
'''Support''' She has made some fine contributions. I think she will do a fine job as an admin.
'''Support''' yes. :) —
'''Support''' - Nancy impressed me with her (many) swift reverts of vandalism over at [[Bread clip]], so I'm pleased to support her here.
This user has enough experience, and has not done anything that indicates that she will abuse the tools.--
'''45th support''' Excellent candidate, hope I don't run into edit conflict. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt comic sans ms">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - she didn't speedy tag [[Drumahoe]] ;-) Seriously though, I see no reason to deny the tools.
'''Support''' Checked out the deleted contributions and it basically a variety of nominations (Prod's, AFD's and CSD's along with some image deletion proposals here and there). Will be a good admin as far as deletions is concerned
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Should make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' enough experience to do the sysop work.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions. Should be just great! -
'''Support''' - very good candidate with very good answers to the questions. -
'''Support'''

'''Support''' No doubts here. Good luck! '''
'''Strong support'''. Of course, she meets all my standards in edit count, etc., but also because she saves articles and creates new ones across various fields.
'''Strong support''': An asset to the Project. --
'''Support'''.  Passes Level 2 of [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].  Also, they look to be a remarkably able editor regardless of 900 odd deleted contribs.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, good contributions generally. Merits the mop, in my view.
'''Support''', looks like a great candidate. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' - Nev1 is a great candidate - per nomination.
'''Support''' - No problems here; looks like a very good editor, clear block log. Seems to have a good understanding of policies and guidelines.
'''Suport''' Record looks clean shows a sensible level of understanding of admin-related activity. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''; clean record and seems to know his way around policies.
'''Support''' Writes articles. Knows limitations. He doesn't need to lurk moar around AfD for months to get the mop and bucket.
'''Support''', per having no concerns based upon [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|my criteria]] for supporting an admin candidate, and the fact that experience in the traditional "admin-related areas" of Wikipedia is somewhat overrated in my view. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|'''S.''']]
Would make a good admin.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' without reservation. Nev1 is a sensible and hard-working editor who clearly has wikipedia's best interests at heart. His replies to the standard questions demonstrate that he would not rush in to unfamiliar areas once granted the extra buttons, but would feel his way into his new role. --
'''Weak Support''' Looks good on a surface level and I have faith in Rudget.  But didn't dig deep enough to give more than weak support.---'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Good answer to Q1; think he'll be ok at semi-protecting pages, and closing articles for deletion discussions.
'''Support''' per nom. Great user, would make a good admin. '''
'''No reason to oppose'''. '''
'''Support''' levelheaded, mature, polite, gets what the site is about, great contributor. Lack of playing in admin areas is not of much concern. Nev1 appears the sort of editor who will be cautious as an admin, and not make mistakes twice. -
'''Support'''. Nev1 is an excellent contributor and has demonstrated a well-considered, pragmatic approach to editing; I have no reason to doubt that this would continue were he to be given the tools. We really could do with more admins, like Nev1, who know their own weaknesses and are prepared to assess a situation before jumping in. The answers he has given to the questions are exemplary.
'''Weakish support'''- I'm not entirely convinced Nev1 ''needs'' the tools as he's not particularly active in admin-related areas. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that he can be trusted with them and, even if he only uses the mop and bucket sparingly, Wikipedia will be better off.
'''Strong support''' per the rationale in the nomination by Rudget. Outstanding user. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support'''.  I would go neutral or even oppose based on lack of experience in core areas, but I was swayed over to the support side.  What influenced me the most was that I can see you want the tools to help out, not to simply have them.  Plus (though this is to a lesser extent), I trust Rudget. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' due to barnstars and good articles indicated on userpage and in nomination above.  User is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia and gets along with others.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''', I see no reason to not support. --
'''Support''' - due to many GA's and no reason not to trust --
'''Support''' We are here to determine if we can trust the user with the tools. The article writing shows we can. The rules come from common sense and the contribution to the encyclopedia show trust; trust that the user will use his/her best common sense on Wikipedia. That is all you need: '''to use your best common sense''', and when users contribute responsibly, I have no doubt they will use there best common sense. --
Great article work = trust, plus a perfect answer to Xeno's question. —'''
'''Support''' Great answer to Xenocidic's question. Great article work.--
Doesn't act like a ten-year-old.
'''Per Daniel and the well written nom by Rudget :)
'''Support''' Just the kind of person we need.
'''Support'''  Has the right skills (writes articles), does excellent work.  As per "not enough admin-type work/trust", if he was at ANI or AIV or whatever, we would be screaming that he wants it too much...Nev1, please keep doing wht you are doing.
That's an impressive list of work and experience in the nom! '''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - Appears to use [[WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]], something this project has very little of and with lots of article work we have more than just another run of the mill anti-vandal only candidate. Best of luck,
'''Support''' per nom. Hard-working editor with admirable writing accomplishments. Agree with Xeno that answer to Q4 isn't very good, but a close reading of block policy will do. --
'''Support''' great article writing, reasonable understanding of most admin tasks, seems sensible. of course.
'''Support'''.  Fine contributor, clearly cares about the project & so no reason to presume he would run amok with the mop.
'''Support''' Apart from having faith in Rudget's nominations, I think this editor does great work. As xeno points out in the opposes, you cannot know all there is to adminship when RfAing - you will learn with time. I have great faith, that Nev1 will be responsible enough to learn all he needs to know and not go round, abusing the tools. '''
'''Support'''.  If you are smart enough to write excellent articles, you can handle being an admin.  Being a good article writer requires a far higher level of competence than being an admin, which is really not that difficult if you are a) sane and b) not a moron.  Meets both a) and b).

'''Strong support''' An editor who has done fine work in mainspace and proven both trustworthiness and civility has asked that he be granted the tools for a small and localized but very real set of uses.  I cannot think of any reason to oppose.  If Nev1 should eventually expand into other areas of administrative work, there is every reason to think that he will apply the diligence and seriousness there that he has applied elsewhere, and will pose no problems. '''
'''Support''', per Mr. IP.  I couldn't have said it better, nor shall I try.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''. Good editor, good answers to questions, mature. He's a good article writer, and that's harder than admin stuff. If he's the same person as [[User:Nev2|Nev2]], though, this may be considered an oppose vote, as Nev2 was less mature than an unborn fetus.
'''Support''' You seem to be a thoughtful user, clearly a good article contributor. I would like you to get more admin-area experience. By your answer to the block question, I would normally not support, but you demontrated some good thoughtful consideration. I would urge you to let another admin consider this request if you were in this position however, though any admin worth their salt would come to this very conclusion. Take your time, before using your new tools, (especially the block) make sure you are confident in the applicable guidelines, and ensure that you take the time to consult with other, more experienced admins and editors when your not 100% sure. I recon you'll make an excellent admin. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support'''. Nev1 will use the tools sensibly.
'''Support''' - will probably make a better admin than I am. <b>
'''Support''' - After riding the fence for a while and revisiting this discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the outstanding work in the mainspace is conclusively a net positive for the project if the candidate were to receive the bit. I still retain my earlier reservations about Wikiproject tool usage, but I don't think the user will go around pushing any project agenda. Mr. IP's comments were also very very insightful bravo.
'''Support'''. A good candidate, who would clearly use admin tools sensibly. His experience in article building, maintaining, and involvement in the GA/FA/DYK are excellent. '''
'''Support''' I do not always support candidates with limited, roles, but the article writing strikes me as sufficient indication that he will be responsible and properly cautious in his use of the tools. '''
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''' - Strong editor. I trust him to know his limits with the tools. -
'''Support'''. Certainly. &mdash;
'''Support''' Despite flubbing the question, I see no serious concerns and think Nev1 will be an excellent sysop.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' great work on Lancs. '''
'''Weak Support'''. I thought I had already participated in this one, but I must have been interrupted and/or distracted in some way when I was looking this RFA over. Anyway, I'm going to have to give only a weak support because of the somewhat "lacking-ness" in experience in the project space. However, I think you have demonstrated the elusive and really subjective "clue"; you've got a handle on how everything runs around here. Should make a fine administrator, just don't jump into anything too hurriedly.
'''Support''' per nom. Nev1 is a great contributor and would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Nev1 has more than 4500 edits and he is interested in building articles. He will be a good admin.
'''Very strong support''': Top-notch article contributions and stellar civility lead me to [[WP:AGF|A'''G'''F]] (Assume '''Great''' Faith) with this candidate.
'''Support so strong  that i could lift the Tower of London with the strength'': Brilliant articles.... and will make a good admin. He also seems to be able to listen to overs which some admin don't seem to do.
'''Support''' Looks fine. Solid answers to questions, good mainspace work, detailed nom.
'''Support''', seems sensible and trustworthy. Also able to admit mistakes and learn from them.
'''Support''' per nom, and I think he would make a fine admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I find Nev1 to be at least as trustworthy as other administrators who I do not think should be relieved of the tools, and so it would be inconsistent of me to oppose on this basis. However, there are many other much more positive aspects to his editing, many of which have been mentioned above, that would lead me to support this nomination on their own account. So, support.
'''Support''' from me and the otters. Solid contributions.
'''Support''' - I haven't really dug deep and researched this user, but here are my reasons for supporting - Number one, I've seen Rudget around and he seems like a good user, so if he nominated this user, that must be a good sign. Two, the supports in my opinion outweigh the opposes and neutrals greatly, so I will support as well. Cheers -
'''Support.'''  The candidate is well equipped to assume administrative tasks cautiously and responsibly.  —
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. We need more admins like Nev1. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' More than sufficent clue level demonstrated from contributions and answers to (most of) the questions allay the valid concerns presented in Oppose / Neutral. [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net positive]] to the project granting +sysop. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' User is very constructive, very trustworthy, grasps the "walk before running" idea.
'''Support''' Because the opposition has failed to demonstrate it is a non-member of the Equus asinus species, <small>and [[User:Chet B Long/RFA-standards|my criteria]]</small>. --
'''Support''' - He's a decent guy. Good temperament. My recent interaction with him showed a cool, calm and collected sort of person. Knows his manners, which is always a good sign in someone. Good luck!
'''Support'''. You're not an admin yet? <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Strong Support''' Great article work (we are here to build an encyclopedia, something people often forget), and I see no reason not to trust this user. Good answers to questions as well.
I'm
'''Support''' will be great.
'''Support''' great 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Support'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - great temperament, seems very respectful and civil, all very important traits for an administrator.  I'm confident that if there are adminy things that he doesn't know about, he won't hesitate to read the appropriate guidelines/policy. --
'''Support''' The project will benefit from this editor's access to extra buttons. I have no reason for concern about misuse of tool. Good luck.
'''Support''' - Generally meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], great editing work, and has an interesting user page.
'''Support''' Per nomination by Rudget.--
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to the questions. Good luck. --'''
'''Support''' -Finally a candidate who is actually an encyclopedia contributor. Personally I don't see this editor's perceived lack of experience in the admin space is a flaw, it many ways this removes any suspicions I would have that he would abuse the tools. I'm sure if presented with a situation he would use the tools responsibly and if there are any grey areas of admin policy I'm sure he can quickly learn once he is under an obligation to act as an admin, even if he doesn't spend much of his time with admin stuff.
'''Strong Support''' -Outstanding user. -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
'''Support''' I like article writers. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
&mdash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Long history, consistent work, no reasons to oppose. <b>
'''+S''' [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Oppose''' — Great article work ≠ Trust. — I don't see anything that makes me think you would use the tools responsibly. Nor do I know how to spell "responsibley", which probably cut down the seriousness of this oppose ''quite a bit''. :-/ That might be a good thing though, I won't get flamed as much now.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Great article work, but not enough admin-area work to demonstrate a comprehensive enough grasp of policy. Answer to Xeno's question pretty much sealed the deal for me. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Weak Oppose''' - <s>Per Rudget</s> Sorry, I misread the first oppose as coming from Rudget as the screen I am using made it hard to read the opposer's signature. Per oppose 1. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
A quiet and civil user, and a dedicated article writer, but his admin-related experience is very weak at the moment.
'''Neutral''' With regret -- as much as I love content creators, I cannot overlook the candidate's lack of admin-related duties.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; admins should not decline unblocks from blocks they placed, and I would hope they would try to reform vandals when they do show a glimmer of hope as the hypothetical vandal did at 11:18. However, I believe the candidate has misread the scenario because they didn't serve the 5 day block, so I'll just remain neutral for now. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' as per previous Oppose. <font color="amaranth">
'''Neutral''' the user has a high level of clue, but, as the user has participated in actions involving protection deletion and blocking at an almost non-existent level I really have no way to feel confident that the user would really know how to use the tools correctly. - '''
'''Neutral'''. Great article work, which really counts for a lot, excellent attitude and civility. But, as pointed above, almost no experience in admin-related areas. I certainly trust this user not to abuse the tools, but he may unintentionally misapply them. Right now there is too little basis for judging how well the candidate understands the policies that require admin actions and the answers to the questions are a bit wobbly in this regard. E.g. even the answer to Q8, while ultimately correct, is a bit off. Permanent settlements are generally considered inherently notable, once basic [[WP:V]] requirements are met, and articles about them are, as far as I know, never deleted (speedy or not). While it may be unfair to judge the candiadte on deletion-related questions since he states that he does not intend to be active in closing AfDs early on, I still do not get enough of a feeling of this user having sufficiently solid understanding of WP policies and procedures that I would want to see in an admin (even a new one).

Per my co-nom. <font face="Segoe UI">

'''Support''' could use more edits, but definitely has his heart in the right place. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Switcth to strong after  reviewing the oppose arguments again.<s>Support </s>per nom'''[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]][[User:Dlohcierekim/deletion|<font color="#ff0000"><small>Deleted?</small></font>]] 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)<s>Support for now . Oppose # 1 lacks merit for me. Will take closer look when not tied up.</s>[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good evidence of 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support'''. Seen mucho good work from this one.
Not an admin?
'''Support'''. Have looked closely at this editor's contribs, and they are consistently mature and sensible. Good input at RfA: I've seen less activity in other areas, eg [[WP:CSD|tagging for speedy deletion]], [[WP:AIV|reporting vandals]] etc. Suggest that you do some more [[WP:NP|new page patrolling]] as a footsoldier (ie not immediately using your admin tools, even when you have them) so that you can get more familiarity with areas where you have been less active up to now.

'''Support''' Although there are not many mainspace edits, the editor seems to have some amount, even if small, of experience in many different areas.
'''Support''' per nom :). [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Good answer to my question, and a '''very''' civil and honest response to my query in oppose. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per the noms and Kim Dent-Brown. User:
'''Support'''.  Absolutely no evidence that I can found or that has been found (because it doesn't exist most likely) that this user will abuse or even misuse the admin buttons.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I really do not understand the opposition.
'''Support''' Mathcounts is on my watchlist, and it was nice to see this user improve the article and respond to suggestions quickly and appropriately. Endorse Kim's suggestion.
'''Strong Support'''.  Most definitely. I have seen this user around, and admire their work. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Seen user around. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this user around quite a few times when I've been recent changes patrolling, I think he will make a great admin. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
Per Cas & articles. ''
'''Support''' Seems good. Plus, his username mildy amuses me. '''
'''Support''' Don't see a reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' per EJF. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - Meets
'''Support''' - I think he understands the responsibility involved.  I don't get the feeling he'll be careless with the tools.  '''''
'''Support''' Sure thing, we always need more help at AfD!
'''Support''' As per nom and track is okay.
'''Support''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].  No major concerns raised.
'''Weak support''' on the edge of not having enough edits to meet the requirements, but the quality of his contributions are good, which will make me say weak support in this case.
'''SUPPORT''', the first thing I noticed was that the candidate is only '''12 years old''' and I nearly fell out of my chair. I have just spent the past 45 minutes sifting through edit history, article contributions, discussions with other editors, etc., etc., looking for a reason to ''not'' allow a 12-year-old to be an admin. I could find none. NUL is knowledgeable of WP policies and procedures. Maintains his/her composure, and writes as an adult. Disregarding the candidates youth (which is and ''should'' be irrelevant), I give my support to NUL. Good Luck, [[Doogie Howser]]!--
'''Support''' Great editor, has proved that he's responsible during his many sensible edits to my userspace :-P-
'''Support''' So he's twelve, huh? I'm around the same age. Oh, yes, I support! He looks like he'd do well as an admin.
'''Support''' Looking good to me.
'''Support''' - Age is irrelevant. As has been amply demonstrated, there are [[User:Anonymous Dissident|extraordinarily mature young people]] and extraordinarily immature adults. If someone has demonstrated the ability to use the tools wisely and judiciously, then they should be granted them, regardless of age.
'''Support''' He may be young, but he seems to be quite active on wikipedia. He seems to have made good contributions. He seems really nice and I think he will make a good admin. I'm very impressed with his knowledge and how he writes like an adult. --
Damn... I was just checking this user out as a potential Admin Coachee when I discovered that he was already up for Admin... '''support''' BTW I removed you from the Admin Coaching page.
'''Support''': Sure. --
'''Support''' The only problem with giving the mop to a level-headed twelve-year-old with excellent article-building and interaction skills (like Nousernamesleft) is that people are generally a lot saner at twelve than at fourteen. Kidding, of course.  Good luck,
How can I say no? Great editor! '''
-- <strong>
'''Support''' Yup! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a tremendously good editor, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the user's Wikipedia namespace edits seem to be project spaces. I would like to see more experience in other areas before offering support.
'''Oppose'''- This user has a rather aggressive vandalism history, not limited to articles, but to userpages as well. I have noted that when I went through his contributions and discovered the other face-sort of- of this user. I respect you, sir, but the fact that you have little mainspace edits, and your lack of knowledge of WP policies as [[use_ talk:nousernamesleft/Archive 1| evident here]] as you have poorly grasped WP:TALK and your rights and limitations as a user [[WP:USER]] makes me question how reasonable would it be to vote for you. Also, you have been on WP -and seriously contributing- for something like 3 months, which will discredit the nominator .Please give yourself another 3 months and come back again, we will be happy to vote for you then, right now with all these issues, I feel that I must say '''Oppose'''. [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]]) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—
'''Oppose'''. While I appreciate this editor's commitment to building the encyclopedia, I feel that s/he is insufficiently experienced for the admin tools at present.
As nominator. ·
'''Support''' - Everything looks up to snuff here. I would have liked to see more mainspace contributions, not that they are particularly ''low'' really, but overall this is only a minor quirk for me. I think he deserves the buttons. I like the user's honest response to question 3.
Yes. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Sure, why not - looks good to me. <strong>
'''Support''' I supported before and I'm supporting again as nominee has only improved since the last time. Very impressed by what the talk page says about this editor. Enjoy the mop.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
I suppose I will support, I don't really have a good reason to oppose, and OU's contributions have been benificial to the encyclopedia as a whole.
Like before. User:
'''Support''' trustworthy editor and featured portal work.
'''Support''' has made great contributions. <strong>
How about <s>'''no'''</s>yes? '''
'''Support'''. Great user, knows policy.
'''Support'''  Respectable amount of good work in the Good Articles domain. I would trust his administrative decisions.
'''Support''' definitely.  <b>
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - I think Ohana has the sufficient amount of clue to deal with being an admin.
'''Support'''.  Most definitely.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' - I've seen this user's work at GA, and it's tremendous.
'''Support''' A versatile contributor to a number of important areas.
'''Support''' No problems here. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' Wonderful, wonderful. It's definitely time you're made an admin! '''
'''Support''', Obama is a good editor, I liked how he welcomed me back.--[[User:Uga Man|Uga Man]] ([[User talk:Uga Man|talk]]) <font color = "red"><small>
'''Support.''' Per the nom, per the answers to the questions, per great work at [[WP:FPORTC]].
'''Support'''. Especially if working in the Commons duplicate backlog is something you want to do!
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' - Great editor! Seen everywhere, and active with great edits. Good Luck =) -
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Naturally.<font face="Forte">
Has improved since the last RfA. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Solid contributor and contribs turn up nothing that concerns me.
One for the featured portal cabal! ~
'''Strong Support''' A fantastic candidate, should have the mop already.
'''Support''' I supported last time and see no reason to change.
'''Support''' Great contributor; spotted around my watchlist all the time.
'''Support''' - I've seen nothing but good from this editor.  '''''
'''Support''' because [[UofT]] is the place to be...Go UT, Go UT, Go....Go UT, Go UT, Go...woot [[Image:SMirC-tongue.svg|20px]] ...but seriously, a good editor and I would definitely give OhanaUnited the tools.
Per Q3. Knowledge of when to block. Now can you un-block my MSN please :) ''
'''5uppoяг.''' Period. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' - well done.
'''Strong piley on support''' all the best. <sup>
'''Support'''
I look forward to being a fellow administrator with OhanaUnited on two different projects. :) [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Strong support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' As per track.Concerns expressed in previous RFa have been overcame.No concerns.
'''Support''' - excellent record, good all-rounder. Will make an excellent admin -
'''Support''' - No problems.
'''Support''' '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' -- Yes.
Well you could've waited.... :)
'''Strong support''' - I honestly though he was already an admin, having passed his RfA.  Any concern I had back at the end of October 2007 is long gone.  Great improvement to mainspace, edit summaries. OhanaUnited will make a great admin.
'''Unnecessary because it's [[WP:SNOW|snowing]] where I live support''' (No really.  It is.  Several inches last night, more today.) [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - a name I recognize, and for good reasons. :)
'''Support''' - [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|Why not]] create a blizzard? :) --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' Fine editor.
'''Support''' Surprised he ain't already an admin.
'''Support''', yet another well-qualified editor. --
'''Support'''. Don't be a tool if elected. --[[User talk:Endlessdan|Endless]]
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - great editor, needs the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Overwhelming support.''' This a great editor, a sensible person, and someone who watches out for what's fair and right.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''': Following the footsteps of [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] :), as also on the merits of the "case" for giving tools to the nominee. --
'''Support''' Good golly, Miss Molly! Certainly! By all means! Overdue IMHO.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose! <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><b>
'''Support''' :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Resounding support''' --
'''Support''' - Have never had any qualms about this editor, earlier or based on his answers above.
El poder de '''sí'''! In other words, I fully '''support''' OhanaUnited. —
'''Support''' Not already an admin? --'''
'''Support''' - <small>...was an idiot and forgot about Ohana...</small> - I noticed this user a long while ago when I started out here... There is no doubt in my mind that he will make a great admin :-) Good luck, my friend.
Meh.
'''Support''' Thought I did this a few days ago...
'''Support''' - Unequivocally.
'''Support''' -

'''<s>Weak</s> support''' I will keep it short, I have looked through some contributions and I think this user has done a good job, writing in articles and fighting vandalism, not focusing too much on either one. The Arbitration-debate posted seems to indicate that this is a civil user, not really into personal war. His edit-summary-statistics are impressive (100%, although we have to consider that he has used this account only for 8 months now it is still very good). I will review more tomorrow if time permits but I wanted to have my vote on record for now. I say "weak" now because I also see that this user makes some newbie mistakes, for example having to edit the last change he did to fix errors which could be prevented by previewing (like he did on this nomination where he did 5 changes within 15 minutes). '''
'''Support''' no problems noted from a look through your contributions, some good AfD arguments and well-chosen reports to AIV seem to suggest you know what you're doing. By the way, my complements on your self-nom statement, it expounds your good points so enthusiastically it's worthy of a politician. ;) ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' While I do see a few things that I'm not crazy about, I don't see anything that would stop me from supporting. User appears to be civil, trustworthy and knowledgeable enough for the tools.
'''Support'''. Mazca, with all due respect, if I saw a user like a politician, I would immediately oppose that user. '''''
'''Support''' I see no problems and you show you're aware you need to ease into areas you're unfamiliar with. --
'''Support'''
Great recent interactions with Okiefromokla. Honest, communicative, and experienced. Will make a good admin.

I '''support''' this nomination because there's no [[User:S._Dean_Jameson/RfA_support_criteria|real reason]] not to do so. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''', shows a good grasp of policy eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=205209599&oldid=205208839 diff] and the ability to deal with controversial subjects in a calm and polite manner eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=205220705&oldid=205218984 diff].
'''Support''' <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Nothing that rings any alarm bells, and a distinct impression of "thoughtful". Should use the mop well.
'''Support''' Would like a tad more experience, but I see lots of good admin work coming from this user. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. Good content contributor. '''
'''Support''' <font color="#156917">
'''Weak support''' per my [[User:Balloonman/RfA_Criteria#How_I_.21vote|guidelines on how I !vote]] and the fact thatdig into Okie's history... but have an overall favorable impression of him from my few interactions with him.---'''
'''Support''' Excellent article writer. The quality of the [[Oklahoma]] article has always impressed me, and I have never witnessed any incivility from the candidate.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Weak support''' - No problems in your record, nice edit count, won't abuse tools. I was concerned that you didn't have enough experience with controversial articles and I'm still not 100% convinced that you have experience with consensus building or disputes (I'm aware of the 9/11 stuff). I was leaning towards a neutral vote but the support of [[User:Balloonman]] and [[User:Rodhullandemu]] has tipped me. —
'''Support''' - I'm sufficiently convinced that whatever areas the user is inexperienced in will be approached with caution and diligence, as a quick look of their contributions showed that same cautiousness. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support''' intelligent, reasonably knowledgeable. -
'''Strong support''' - Per [[User talk:84.16.227.242‎|this]] amongst other reasons. I think this user will make a fine administrator, and see no reason not to trust with the tools.
'''Support''' - From what I recall of that mediation, he probably did a better job than me ;-) (It was a long time ago, sorry! <cringe>)
'''Support''' - no good reason to oppose, you seem like you have a good attitude to deletion discussions and dispute resolution.
Writes articles (zomg). —'''
'''Support''' - a solid editor with a sensible attitude, will be just the sort of admin we need more of.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' net benefit to the project.'''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Another nice suprise of a self nom. Per Nancy. Good luck! --
'''Support''' per all of the above comments.  &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' an extremely polite, civil editor who also contributes well in the mainspace. I would have no doubts trusting this guy with the tools whatsoever. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support''' mainly per Giggy.  Article writing = win. =D
'''Support''' looks a goodie. --
'''Support''' per userpage, i.e. proud of articles canddiate has worked on and has received support in the form of barnstars from multiple members of the community.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
<s>Weak</s> '''Support''' &mdash; support, because the candidate knows not to decline an unblock request that resulted from their own block, but weak because he seems reluctant to offer the user a {{tl|second chance}}. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Seems fine.
'''Support''' I'm smiling. :)
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support.''' All interactions that I have had with this user have been wholly positive. <joke>Plus, we need more administrators from Oklahoma!</joke> —
'''Boomer!'''
'''Support''' - I see nothing wrong here.
'''Support'''. I'm a little late to the discussion this time, but I think Okiefromokla is knowledgeable and experienced enough. It's a go from me.
'''Support''' per Giggy and the self nomination.
'''Suipport''' Okie Pokie now! --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. No big deal, nothing that causes disquiet. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' by default and per article contributions.
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' Level headed with plenty of common sense, great candidate...
'''Support''' - Past collaborative work with ''Okiefromokla'' on the [[Oklahoma]] and [[Tulsa, Oklahoma]] articles has shown him to be a knowledgeable and hard working editor.  I have zero concerns that he would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Editor's contribs are nicely balanced out, very civil and welcoming. Would make a good admin, IMHO.
'''Support''' - Finaly, not another anti-vandalism only candidate!
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Good answer to Q5.
'''Support''', meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], no concerns.
'''Support''', Okiefromokla has been the best user I have worked with on Wikipedia, hard worker and great communication.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - a good candidate, who seems to know what he is doing. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I sympathise with those who find Okie a touch inexperienced.  However, he seems to have the sense to start gradually and learn on the job.--
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''' Sure, looks fine.
'''Support''' No issues or concerns.
'''Support''' per demeanor shown by answers, especially Q5. Welcome! <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  Also for a poor [[Okie from Muskogee|Merle Haggard]] impersonation.  C'mon, don't just do it halfway!
'''Weak Oppose''' You say you will be spending a lot of time at AIV, where you have been a "regular visitor", though I count one edit to AIV in your last 500. Article building work is good, yet you also say you are by far most experience in vandal fighting, and still made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J.delanoy_2&diff=prev&oldid=226852486 this diff] to an RfA. Overall a good editor, but I'm not ready to support. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
Great start, but a little inexperienced for me. I'd consider nominating in the future, but as of now, that's a tad redundant seeing as this is likely to pass.
'''Neutral''' A bit more experienced, and I would support.--
'''Neutral''' - A little inexperienced for my tastes, but yes, as with Rudget any future voting pattern would be irrelevant as this is likely to pass. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as co-nom. -'''
&ndash;
Excellent user.
'''Support''' as co-nom. that would be odd if I didn't wouldn't it--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' on a recent contribution on which I was confused, I turned to Parsecboy.  He was immensely helpful, considerate and contributed much more than I had asked him to.  I asked his help because I thought he was an administrator.  He ought to be.
'''Support''' Good track with over 6000 mainspace edits and no concerns.
'''Support''' nice, well-rounded user. <strong>
'''Support''' 100% edit summary usage, been here a while, and with over 11000 edit should be trusted. I also hope you learned from breaking the 3RR rule back in September. -
'''Weak Support''' - You seem trustworthy and all but, looking at your editcount I don't see a conclusive amount of experience in the wikipedia-space (such as [[WP:AIV]]) and after reveiwing your talkpage, I beleive you could be more [[WP:COOL]].--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]]|
'''Support''' If he can take [[RuPaul]], I am sure he can oversee Wikipedia.
'''Support.''' Looks pretty good. Good history. I like what the user has been doing and how these questions have been answered.
'''Support''' -  a good history of article improvement combined with extensive experience in "machinery" and cleanup activities. The explanation for the 3RR blocks seems fine by me and the edit record is excellent.
'''Support'''. --
'''Yup'''
'''Support'''  - seems trustworthy, reliable and dedicated --'''''<span style= "font-size:large;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - I see no issues of concern.
'''Support''', I see no evidence that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per nom(s). I, too, am a little concerned about a lack of participation in the Wikipedia space, and urge the candidate to tread carefully once the mop is granted, as I am confident it will be. Spend a day or two wading through new admin school before getting into your heavy-duty mopping. No real concerns about the candidate, otherwise.
'''Yes''', good encyclopedia builder, that's what matters the most. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
<s>'''Strong Oppose'''  Likes the Buckeyes.</s> '''Support'''.  Looks like a great editor to me.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' as per excellent experience with this editor in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships|WikiProject Ships]]. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''support'''.  Looking through your talkpage, I don't see any evidence of incivility.  In fact, you seem to handle yourself very well, especially during the recent 3RR block on your account.  IMO, you kept your cool there. As for your talkpage, I would say leave the notice on top, as it is informative and not at all incivil. Remove it of course when you're an admin. Once an admin, replace it with a really nasty one because you will be untouchable!  Mwa-haha!  I'm of course using a highly sophisticated level of sarcasm here. Don't do what I just said.  What you should do though is go really slowly with the tools, especially reverting/blocking/protecting.  Now that you'll have the block button, it will be very easy (and ''very tempting'') to start blocking accounts that edit articles that you are involved in through your WikiProjects.  Don't do it.   [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' No probs here.
'''Support'''.  Got back up immediately after a block - a great feat.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
<s>'''Oppose''' like the buckeyes!</s>'''Support''' - meets [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
An appealing candidate. Good general experience, with neat touches of excellence partially mentioned somewhat in the nomination statements. Parsecboy appears to display what is needed in a administrator, and so I am therefore willing to contribute another support to this request for adminship.
'''Support''' - Would make a great admin. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' - Appears to be an excellent candidate and I agree with Keeper76’s comments about the block. —
'''Support''' - Changed to support per my comments below.
'''Support''' - Yep, No Probs.
'''Support''' - Seems like a really good user. Just the kind Wikipedia needs to do the admin tasks dealing with vandals.
'''Support'''. Good answers, by the way. [[User:Basketball110/Hidden Page Challenge|<font color="#0000FF">B</font>]]
'''Support'''.  A strong candidate. Understands policy, works well with others, and great article writing and collaboration experience. He should make a good admin.
'''Support'''. sounds good, you go boy <strong>
'''Support''' per answer to Q3. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - comes across as a level-headed guy.
'''Support''' seems to know what he's about.
'''Support''' Nice answers.
'''Support'''. A good candidate.
'''Support''' Will make a wonderful admin. Plus, his response to criticism is enviable. '''
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' A long time coming too; an excellent editor.
Per above. ''
'''Support''' Per above; looks good.  <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Nominators signature reassures me :) - Seriously, great all rounder and very very civil. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Calm and level-headed. Seen them around at Ships, no problems here.
'''Support.'''
'''
'''Support''' - looks like a good candidate to me.  -
'''Support''' - Endorsed. --
'''Support''' - prolific editor.  No concerns.  Meets all my standards.
'''Support''' - Trust with tools. -
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''', per [[User:AGK/RfA Standards|requirements]]. Strong, trustworthy candidate. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Good candidate, he will make an excellent admin —<sup>
'''Support''' - seen the user in action and likes what I saw --
'''Oppose'''. He recently violated [[WP:3RR]] and abused his rollback tool, so was blocked and his privilege of having the tool was stripped.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Parsecboy] Administrator should be calm but he blocked two times for 3RR violations as well. Do I expect so high standards for admins? Parsecboy said he is interested in [[Liancourt Rocks]] and the controversial article seriously needs more objective admins but I read his comments from it, he lost NPOV a lot. --
'''Support'''. No problems here, question answers are all good. Best of luck, don't go insane with the tools should you get them, and all that. Cheers! &mdash;
'''Support''' - Meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]. Good AfD work in the last 100 edits or so.
'''Support''', Checked talk page and recent contributions and everything looks good, good nomination and was impressed with your contributions at AFD.
'''Strong support'''. Absolutely. I encourage other participants in this RfA to read Q5, and the associated AfD links. A top-notch editor.
'''Support''' First noticed this user on AfD where he does remarkable work researching sources for problematic articles; and upon review of contributions I see a superbly communicative and level-headed editor. Great admin material. -
Strongly support: I have only seen good work from Paul Erik, and he always comes across as sensible and experienced. No problems here.
'''Support'''. Reliable contributor. Good answers.
For reasons similar to Acalamari, I'm happy to '''support'''. Regards,
'''Support''' from me and the otters. Seems to know what they're doing.
'''Support''' &mdash; good answers to questions, and the fact that he works with articles to save them from deletion is an admirable quality. –<font face="Verdana">
[ec]'''Support'''. Rescues articles = trustworthy with delete button.
'''Support''' because I have no reason not to.
'''Support''' Replies to questions seem reasonable, candidate is a consistent contributor, with significant contributions to various articles.
'''Support''' Paul Erik is an excellent contributor. I have a great deal of respect for any editor who takes the time to rescue articles rather than simply delete them or list them at CSD/AFD. Answers to the questions are very good too. I would definitely trust Paul Erik with the tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a great editor, 12,000 edits is no minor feat. Can't be all that bad if he has several admins supporting him. --
'''Support''' I trust you with the delete button for your excellant saving of artoicles. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' :P -
'''Support''' Does great work at AfD and tries to rescue instead of delete. I was particularly impressed with the "Polish Raggae"-AfD, one that is as well discussed from another viewpoint somewhere else at the moment, and the work you put in there to keep it. You seem very civil as far as I can see, not trigger happy, use edit summaries etc. Of course, people might dig up something against you that makes me reconsider but I doubt it really. '''
'''Strong support''' Model Wikipedian. '''
'''Support.''' [[User:Paul Erik/Rescued articles|This]] to me is quite encouraging.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, with enough experience and knowledge to earn my trust with the tools.
'''Support'''--
'''
'''Strong support''' - A character to emulate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Goodness me, yes indeed. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span><font color="black">
'''Support'''.  I love his approach to AFD.  If everyone spent their time looking for sources instead of arguing about ideology I suspect that our Deletion Processes would be happier, and would achieve the correct result more often. --
'''Support''' - no problems.
A pack of Dunhill Reds, a Powerball ticket and...oh, wrong line.  Seriously...'''Support''' :)
'''Support''' - another excellent admin to mop up spillages. Civil, [[WP:CLUE|clue]]-full, and your contribs to AfDs seem to have built a knowledge of both [[WP:N]] and how to apply [[WP:POL|policy]]. Certianly more committed to improving random articles than I am! -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support''' - Seems good to me, lots of edits and im sure he/she knows what their doing, spends alot of time on wikipedia.
'''Support''' - I was leaning on supporting before asking, but I needed to make sure about how the writer presents his biases on Wikipedia, because very recently we've had admins whose viewpoints have negatively influenced their use of the tools. I see that, with his well-answered question, that the only thing his biases are going to influence is what subjects he writes about, instead of what he writes about the subjects - e.g. I write ''Doctor Who'' articles because I like the show, and I'm not squeamish for writing about it's faults, which is acceptable; writing how ''Doctor Who'' "sucks" or "rocks", with no thought of NPOV, is unacceptable. Oh, and decent taste in music too. :) '''
'''Support''' for this model wikipedian. The tools will enable him to contribute so much more. I wish he'd go through the articles that I frequently edit in order to improve them to his standards. -
'''Strong support''': Content-building + civility = win.
'''Support.''' An experienced and civil editor, with excellent mainspace contribution record and substantial projectspace and AfD participation as well. The AfD !votes are careful and well-reasoned and make it clear that the user actually does some research before !voting. Good answers to the RfA questions too. Will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''', I've seen him around and he does good work. A trustworthy, conscientious editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very impressive! Fantastic answers to the questions as well.
Model wikipedian, exemplary administrator candidate, outstanding choice.
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' -- Sure. --'''
'''Support''' Don't see anything that convinces me otherwise.--
'''Support''' Great editor, trustworthy, good answers to questions. '''
'''Support''' ok. Cheers,
'''Support'''.  Looks great to me.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Definately can have the delete button. -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
'''Support''' per 1-46, above.  Great editor, lots of clue.
'''Support''' generally I wouldn't even bother to check out a person whom I don't know and appears to be destined to get the MOP (eg supports outweigh opposes as lopsidedly as this one.)  But I decided to take a quick look at Paul----but Ice's nom really caught my attention.  Thus, I am going somewhat against my practice and supporting this exceptional candidate.---'''
'''Support''' I applaud your contributions and I believe you'll make a great admin.  Keep up the great work in the future.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', active user with experience.--'''
'''Support''' - fair questions were asked; some very nice answers followed. Even in the absence of the commentary in the other sections, his answers (on their own) reveal a lot about himself as well - particularly his positive approach towards Wikipedia (and all of its contributors). He's an exceptionally talented user from what I've looked at, and certainly seems trustworthy to be an admin. Impressive candidate indeed.
I'm
'''Support''' Looks a goodie. --
'''Support''' Looks good. Can't see anything to prevent supporting.
'''Support''', all seems fine to me. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' per a quality candidate and strong answers to my optional questions. --
'''Support.'''  I found many reasons to support and no reasons to oppose this clueful candidate, though I now hold the absolutely irrelevant opinion that the list of Homer Simpson's jobs should be a list/article, not a redirect.  —
'''Support''' No reasons given by opposers as to why this user should not be given the tools.
'''Support''' Solid, nuanced answer to Q10, among many other reasons to support.  Trustworthy and mature.
'''Strong Support''' - All of the questions were answered perfectly.
'''Support''' - good contributions, well-answered questions... enough for a support. <small>
'''Support''' Understands deletion policies very well. --
'''Support'''  quite apart from inclusionism one way or another '''
'''Support''' Paul Erik has more than 8,000 mainspace edits. I reviewed his other contributions and I couldn't find any major flaws.
'''Support''' - Lengthy history of positive contributions.
'''Strong support''' - not only does he meet [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], but [[User:Paul Erik/Rescued articles|for his work rescuing articles]] from [[WP:AFD|being deleted]], this guy should get the mop, where he can do even better work.  He's one of the best candidates in recent months.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - No reasons not to; good edits and answers to questions; could do more work with the tools. Also (in small part) to counter Kurt's probable oppose.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' No reasons for concern.
'''Support''' - a sterling set of contribs, and a sensible user. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Great work in Afd's. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Looks like a well-qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - why not? --
'''Support''' – overall work looks excellent and trustworthy, will make good use of tools. A note of caution – your response to question 7. choosing option #2 could, in my opinion, give undue weight to an extreme minority opinion, and per [[WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution]] it would probably be more appropriate to go for option #4 and write "the vast majority of music critics called it their worst album", citing Smith, Jones and Woo via an inline link. Depends on the circumstances, of course. . .
'''Support''', don't see any issues.
'''Support''' for, among many other reasons, understanding and answering question 7 so well. I disagree with Dave souza, and actually think stating "vast majority" carries the risk of misrepresenting the number of critics with this view from the total who reviewed the album, thereby placing additional, and unwarranted, negativity on the statement. It would always, of course, depend on the specifics of the situation, but depending on the notability of those named, I think it would most likely be more appropriate to go with option #2, as you have, optionally naming the publication they write for rather than them specifically.

'''Support'''. Absolutely. Superb answers. '''
'''Support''' Sure. Very civil and intelligent on Wiki-issues. Flawless answers to the questions! Knows how to start out with adminship. He deserves the mop.
'''Very Weak Support'''
'''Weak oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs (3rd nomination)]].  He started off with the right idea, but was convinced by faulty logic inconsistent with the close.  As admins close AfDs, I am somewhat concerned here about what therefore caused the change in argument.  As it is the lone AfD in which we have both participated, I am only going with "weak" here.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
I can't see any evidence that you can cope with controversial, disputed material or articles, or any consensus building on such articles. Also do you have any GA's or FA's that you have significantly contributed to. Will happily reconsider if I can see. —
'''Support''' - looks like a good editor, dedicated to administrator tasks. Edits all over the place and would make use of the extra buttons in a constructive manner.
'''Support''' - I think he will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''

[[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''': I've seen this user around, everywhere, and am confident that s/he will use the admin tools wisely. -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Meets my standards. no talk page indicators for incivlity or lack of understanding.
'''Support''' Gnomes like this can use more tools. <strong>
'''Support''' as a good, solid editor. No reservations about this candidate's use of the tools.
'''10th support''' per above. Hopefully I don't run into edit conflict. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Nothing to make me worry about this editor's ability to use the tools correctly. --'''
'''Support''', seems to be a responsible and productive editor. Regarding the UAA question I asked, his answers are reasonable. I would disagree that there can be a hard rule saying every name containing profanity should be blocked (after all, Wikipedia is not censored), but since most names with profanity are obvious vandal names anyway, we wouldn't disagree much in practice.
'''Support''' He will use the tools well. --'''
'''Support'''I am satisfied with all of his answers, should make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Good user, I've seen them around.  '''
'''Strong Support''' - "I don't do a lot of article building" is not a valid reason to oppose an RfA. Using the admin tools has almost nothing to do with article building. If the user can spot vandalism and will help out constructively, quite frankly I couldn't care less if he's never made a single attempt to "article build" outside of reverting obvious vandalism. [[WP:DEAL]], people.
'''Support''' - I'm usually wary of those who don't really work on articles because it demonstrates a good understanding of how this system works and also indicates good interaction skills, but in this case, the user has stated articles aren't the main places he will serve as an admin. The places he has worked in show that this user should make a good admin. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - Come on, most of the "articles" I've created are stubs.  Judging from everything else, he'll make a fine admin.  <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - While I respect someone's right to decide as they will, I think the common agreement for the last several months is that, provided someone is familiar with our policies and smart enough to know when they need help, article building is not the primary requirement for RfA.  This objection was raised at my own RFA as well, and I remain unconvinced by it - the vast majority of the things that I run into as an admin have very little to do with content improvement to an article.  They're mostly vandalism and username issues (plus some page protection and deletion, obviously).  I have no reason to believe Pb30 would misuse the tools and every reason to believe they'd be in good hands.  -
Absolutely no reason not to. '''
'''Support'''.  No redflags here.  Contribs look good, answers to questions look good.  Best of luck with the mop.
'''Support'''.  I looked through a bunch of the candidate's contribs, and just see the candidate going around doing a whole bunch of useful stuff.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_in_Conflict_honours_system&diff=prev&oldid=187334622 This] AfD nomination seems apt, for example, referring to a guideline listed at a relevant Wikiproject. --
'''Support''' - seems worthy. -- <strong>
Looks fine to me.
'''Support''' <b>
'''Support''' - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. '''''
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support''' No causes for concern.
'''Support''' - Fine editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Yup. '''''Cheers,
Per " I don't do a lot of article building" - whilst specialising in grunt work is fine, all admin candidates should also be regular editors, and should be able to point to at least some significant content contributions. If you can point to some, I may withdraw this oppose. Otherwise come back in a few months once you've seen the writing/editing side.--
I have to agree with Doc again. I have the greatest admiration for the work you've been doing for a year and half, but once an admin you will be given power that you can use outside of vandal-fighting as well, and I can't say I've seen anything telling me how you'll handle it.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Support''', good editor.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' excellent candidate, experienced and tactful. --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Would be a good admin.--
'''Support'''. Talk page shows good evidence of communication, article contributions look good, some participation at XfD, and I like niche area admin candidates (helps you learn new things, I was unfamiliar with SFD).
'''Support'''. I trust this editor.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
Well, this is embarrassing - guess what the nominator forgot to do :) '''Support'''
A Grutness nom?...Wha ''
Sure. Good candidate with good article contributions = {{Tick}} Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' most definitely.  '''
'''Support''' Seems link a well-rounded editor. 1:Stub sorting 2:Over 1000 edits per month 3:Seems to know her way around Wikipedia. Congratulations. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]][[User:Mm40/home|40]] <small>([[User talk:Mm40|talk]] |
'''Strong support'''.  Will make good use of the tools (already does a lot of "housekeeping" sort of work here, and as the nom alludes to, SfD has averaged about one regular closer for several years now, and that person burns out every six months or so -- I know, since I was that one person for a while), and seems exceptionally unlikely to misuse them in any way.
<small>'''
'''Support''' Not so much "no concerns" as "'''impressed!'''"
'''Support per above''' Lots of experience, particularly in area for which tools requested. Cheers,
'''Support''' per LHVU. I consider being experienced in an obscure area (I bet there are some admins who have never heard of SFD) a very good trait in a candidate.
'''Support''', seems to be an experienced editor that could make good use of admin tools. ~<span style="color:#000000">
'''Support''', I have no concerns and am sure user will research unfamiliar areas. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. A clear case of a candidate who needs a few extra buttons. --
'''Crap''', I was actually going to nom you myself in a couple days ><. Another miss for me, but I definitely support this.
'''Support''' - User requires the tools for work in areas that they have extensive experience in.
Totally!--
'''Support''' definitely trusworthy.
'''Support''' every once in a while I stop by RfA to see if any of the exceptional contributors I've had the pleasure of interacting with over the years has gotten nominated ... and hey, this is one of those times! Peg is great. --
'''Support''' View of contributions shows a good editor. <strong>
'''Support'''.  I didn't see any problems in the last two archives of her talk page, so no problems here! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Definitely. ;) Per the nomination statement, and the above opinions.
'''Support''' More editors like this, Great candidate!
'''Suppport''' good candidate for the job. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' a superlative editor, careful and thorough. I think she'll find a good deal to do with the tools, and I am totally sure she'll be scrupulous in learning any areas that are new to her.  '''
'''Support''' admins with specialist skills are welcome, and the attention to detail I've seen convinces me that Pegship will be a welcome addition to the team. --
'''keep''' Notable. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' - per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]] --
'''ithoughtyoualreadywereone Support''' <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - Just dont change like some evil admins do :-)
'''Support''' - a very able & experienced editor, all contacts have been very positive!
'''Support''' Pegsport seems like a pretty cool guy eh. Likes to to fight vandalism and doesn't afraid of anything. [[Special:Contributions/24.15.158.90|24.15.158.90]] (
'''Support''' Always seeing her around, doing useful stuff.
'''Support.'''  Pegship adminship will benefit the encyclopedia.  —
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm very surprised to see her here - I always thought she was an admin.  Her work and leadership at [[WP:DYK]] is exemplary.
'''Support''' -- No problems at all. Good luck! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - definitely admin material, I don't even see the need to wish her luck, she won't require it. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' Why not? Great editor, trustworthy, shall I continue? <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support'''.  Has seemed sane for a long time. -
'''Support'''.  About jolly time too.
'''Support''' Why not?  <font color="629632">
'''Support'''. The candidate appears both trustworthy and helpful, and understands policy.
'''Support''' Just barely makes my edit count req. '''
'''Support'''. Good 'pedia builder and lileky to be a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - brilliant editor, can easily be trusted with the tools, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Thoughtful and courteous.
'''Support''' No reason not to, no reason for concern. The area in which this candidate edits regularly would benefit from the candidate having the extra buttons.
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
'''Support'''. Tons of experience. She knows what she's doing and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Pegship is not only an extremely experienced editor, but also one of the most qualified candidates at RfA for a while. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''', I've seen this user about and imagined she was already an admin. '''
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Yup''', per Malleus.  Clear case here.  Gnomes welcome and appreciated!  I trust this user to not abuse, or even misuse, the tools involved in adminship.  No hesitation -- [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. It seems that you've hit the edit counting cap for Interiot's edit counter. SQL's indicates a count of 70103 (w/o deleted edits) of which a whopping ''56994'' are mainspace! '''''
'''Support''' as what appears to be a constructive editor.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''', good user, but would like to see more mainspace edits.
'''Support''' - No reservations.
'''Support''' - Everything looks good.—
'''Support''' - All the time I've been here I've always assumed you were an admin already.
'''Support''' - I thought she became already an admin.--
'''Support''' - seen in odd places helping other eds out - a good sign
<big>
'''Stub support'''. Fellow stub sorters beware. </stub> &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''. For a very long time, I've seen little but hard work and sound judgement from herself.  She'll do a great job. '''''×'''''

--
'''Support''' – No concerns.
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' - WTHN? <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''', has been around enough.
'''Blind Support''': 76K edits and still no blocks ? (Just kiddin) I dare to believe she will be a good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I have never had any interactions with this editor that would lead me to believe they would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
Yep.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools.
Looks like a great user.
'''Support''' I have seen this user stubsorting, the kind of unrewarding maintenance task that all admins should be forced to do for at least a month to earn their buttons!
'''Neutral'''  This would be a support, except it'll mean that we will have lost another ''good'' editor to the ranks of the ''evil'' admins. <span style="color:yellow;background-color:black;font-size:larger">☻</span>. <span style="font-family:cursive">
'''Neutral''' for now. An excellent user, and I would have supported, but the answer to Q4 let me slightly concerned. I would have expected an explaination of your thoughts on BLB, but instead, there was hardly an answer at all.
'''Neutral'''  I'm not really sure how I feel about this one.  Reviewing the last 1,500 or so edits, I don't see a lot of article work.  It appears that it's nearly all stub sorting.  Don't get me wrong, that is something that needs to be done, in order for the encyclopedia to fully function as intended, but the lack of user talk contributions doesn't give me confidence (but, to be fair, nor does it give me any concerns to the opposite) that this candidate can successfully interact with other editors in various situations.  I'm more inclined to oppose this one on the grounds that I feel that this candidate serves a more important role in areas other than adminship, but I will remain neutral, pending further review.  --
As nom. —'''
&mdash;
'''Support''' Good instincts, and seems adept at basic admin work.  Can only be a good addition to WP's admin staff.  No concerns.  '''
'''Support''' -- assumed this editor was already an admin. -
'''Support'''; abundant evidence of "clue," as Giggy indicates.  Lots of good work here; should be a good admin.
'''Support''' a good Australian candidate --
'''Support''' - ooh, a Giggy nom! Yes, this candidate should be just fine. No problems at all :) -
'''Support''' - I view noms by Giggy as ''prima facie'' evidence of a great administrator at our hands -
'''Support'''. Will make an excellent admin.
'''support''' Good user and AfD needs more administrators. -

&mdash;
'''Support''' - Meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]. Also, I like to see more admins wishing to work at IfD, MfD and CfD.
&mdash;
'''Support''' - I don't know you that well so I was reluctant to put my name down. But your intelligent and responsible answer to Question 6 has convinced me.
'''Support''' Ticks all the boxes for me. [[C:CSD]] seems spot on, uploads indicate great image policy knowledge, articles marked patrolled are as they should be, your non-admin closures of [[WP:AFD]]'s are sound, great article work, collaborative desire evidenced through talk pages, great answer to Q6.... etc. etc. etc. Good luck and best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks good that the candidate wants to work with [[WP:IFD]] [[WP:DRV]] [[WP:AfD]] and [[WP:MfD]]. Good luck. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility]] (good close), having never been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Peripitus blocked], and focus on article work at [[User:Peripitus]].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Strong Support''': Seems excellent to me. I'll support him even though he's from South Australia :P --<b>
'''Weak Support''' Good answers to the standard questions, uses edit summaries perfectly, does all the little jobs that need to be done and seems to be happy about it. Definitely sounds like a good candidate to me :-) '''
'''Support''' - Cant find a reason why not.  I loved the answer to Q6.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - should make an excellent admin.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' - will be fine. Cheers,
'''Affirmative''' G'day, mate!
'''Strong support''' - No problems are apparent. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Per nom. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user. '''
Good nom, solid answers to questions...this one's got the right stuff. Wonder what Kurt will say.
'''
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support.''' An experienced and level-headed user with an excellent mainspace (over 5000 edits!) and projectspace contribution record, including substantial AfD participation. Will definitely be an asset as an admin.
I'm
'''Support''' Another great candidate (and nom). '''
'''Support'''. Good, sound editor. Nothing to frighten the horses here.
'''Support'''. Good luck. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Wow we've been getting lots of great candidates for RfA recently, I can find no reasons not to support, the user has a great understanding of policy and has done lots of great work building the encyclopedia and I think that the Admin tools would only help Peripitus become a better editor :). --
'''Support''' per Everyme.
'''Support''' [[WP:Why the hell not?|Why the hell not?]] Good articles, a Q6 answer only Kurt could dislike, and [[WP:CLUE|clueful]] non-admin closures, what's not to like?
'''Support''' I can trust Giggy's nom.
'''Support'''. Nice nomination and <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birmingham&diff=prev&oldid=226726997 this]</span> revert in particular highlights the investigative nature of this editor. Something all administrators need to be. Good luck.
'''Support''' this productive, clueful editor. AfD discussions Peripitus contributed to include [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Nolan (2nd nomination)|Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Nolan]] which was deleted ([[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_7 |and upheld]]) and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105|Articles for deletion/Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105]], which was (properly) kept. Non-admin closures looked good too. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Lower your shields and surrender your article writing ability, we will add your distinctiveness to our own.
'''Support.''' His record is clean. Although, I wonder why is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Peripitus&page=&year=&month=-1 his upload log] full of redlinks.
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per everyone else. No worries here. --
'''Support''' - I have no doubt that this user will do well.
'''Support'''. ---
--I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. I agree with Xenocidic that unblock templates should not be declined by the blocking admin. However, this user seems like a sharp enough candidate that I hope he can see that he was wrong, figure out ''why'' he was wrong, and learn. I don't think this indicates a core misunderstanding of the admin tools. Your exercise ''is'' a very, very blatant vandal, ya know... ;-)
'''Strong Support''' I've come across this user's work on and off for about two years now within the context of the Australian wikiproject. He is consistently trustworthy and even-tempered (even when noone else in the discussion is), contributes well in debates and project discussions and contributes solidly in article space. For some reason I had assumed he already was an admin, otherwise I would have proposed to nominate ages ago. Good luck!
'''Support''' I see no problems and per the nom.--
'''Support''' If Longhair can say '' I thought he was an admin already'' - well stole my thunder - well worth the mop
'''Support''' Peripitus has more than 5,000 mainspace edits.
'''Strong support''' per Australian contributions. '''
'''Strongest possible support''' A valued and productive member of WP:AUSTRALIA. Calm, rational and knowledgeable, I trust Peripitus implicitly with the tools. --
'''Support''' That's 4 in a row, I'm on a roll. --
'''Support''' <small>...yeeees, yeeees, [[Australians|our]] plans for world domination take yet another leap ahead...</small> Ehm, great editor, would definitely trust with administrator tools. +
'''Support''' yes.... he deserves it. Nice edits and media works.---
'''Support''' I must admit that I wasn't all that impressed with the answer to Q4 but I believe that the potential for positive contributions from this clueful candidate as an administrator far outweigh any risks of him misusing the tools in such specific circumstances.
'''Support''' on the assurance that he will consider offering {{tl|2nd chances}} to vandals who claim they want to contribute constructively. It can't hurt, one of two things will happen - 1) they will lash out and resume trolling their talk page or 2) they will come up with a well-referenced addition to one of our articles, and hopefully continue doing so after ultimately being unblocked. Also, he's been here for ages, does solid article & CSD/XfD work and he's got a lot of people I respect supporting him. Net positive. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong-Support'''-The Candidate is perfect for the position of adminship. I see nothing wrong except q4.
'''Support''' from oppose. After changing answer to Q4, opening up to recall, I can support this candidate. 13500 edits, many of the editors on my "respect list" supporting, much experience, good mainspace article work, 1545 WP edits show a good understanding of policy, solid XfD work. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''', per [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|my reasoning]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Changed from oppose. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Giggy makes an outstanding case.--
'''Support''' Seems good, meets my unwritten criteria.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''  All signs point toward the tools being given to this candidate would be an overall gain for the project.  --
Completely bandwagon-jumping here, but you have an excellent manner about you, and you seem to have a sound understanding of policy, especially the evolving nature of it - seriously, this is what we need in an admin. Whole-hearted '''support'''. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
Piling on '''support'''.
'''Support''' per Alison, since when does Giggy ever go wrong?! :-D --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Support''' -- Nothing left to say : ) Best of luck! --'''
'''Support''' Excellent contributions over a long period of time.
'''+S''' as per [[Brazil (film)|27B-Stroke-6]]. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
Seems fine.
'''Strong support''' per nom, strong answers to questions, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peripitus/Todo ambitious to-do list].
'''Support''' - I'm joining late and adding this much needed pile-on support. I'm glad I could be there to seal the deal for you, Periptus :) This user seems cool-headed, knowledgeable, and ready for the responsibility. As long as he/she promises not to decline unblock requests to users he/she blocks, except for obvious misuses of the unblock template, I have no issues.
'''Support''' may be superfluous since it seems to be snowing here but I'm saying so anyway: very sound candidate.  —
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''': Absolutely NO reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. I like people who work for WikiProjects. Just letting you know that I got a chance to help your project [[User_talk:Tinucherian#User:Moondyne.2FAU_categories|here]] . Best wishes --
'''Support''', appears to be a great contributor to the encyclopedia, and to possess common sense, rationality, and respectfulness.  Even though I'm a bit wary of people who say they haven't had any big conflicts, I quite enjoyed his answer to question No. 3, and am impressed with his ability not to be fazed by things.  --
'''Support'''. Gread editor. [[WP:SNOW]]?
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Brill editor per Bart133 <font color="blue">'''
'''Support'''. Appears to be good admin material.
'''Support''' - piling on now. -
'''Support''' as nom.
From what I can see he is an article builder and has some extra competences useful to wiki. So I'll '''support'''.
'''Support''' - Works to add content, works to bring people together.
'''Strong support''', seen him around plenty, very deserving of the tools.
I'll '''support''' any article builders who are unlikely to abuse the tools. <tt>
'''Support''', per {{user|Wizardman}}.
'''Support'''. I would like to see a little bit more experience in the areas that he is planning on working in, but aside from that I can't find anything that I don't like. Would definitely be a net-positive.
'''Support''' - an asset to the project.

My work with Pete around GA stuff has presented him as someone who would do well with the tools. Will go far with the tools. ''
'''Support'''. Will likely be able to learn on the job. It's not exactly rocket science if you're a sensible person, which Pete seems to be. <strong>
asking a good faith editor to change their name because he finds it "confusing" (with what?) isn't great, but he said he'd talk about it, and didn't mention blocking, so I'll support this candidate.
'''Support''' When you get right down to it, you have to be able to trust that the person wont abuse the rights.  I believe Pete wont abuse the rights.  I see no evidence for it, and the fact that he hasnt done much work in AIV and XfDs doesnt bother me.  Those things are pretty straightforward and vary from person to person as it is.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''.  While he admits inexperience in some of the admin areas, the answers to the questions indicate thoughtfulness and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and principles.  Plus, he gets points for contributing to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon]] -- they do good work creating content about their state.  --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Between his contributions and his answers to questions, this user has shown that he understands Wikipedia, will work to improve it, and can be trusted. Unfortunately, from the opposes, it looks like fine-grained editcountitis is back in style.
'''Support'''. Worked with him a lot and have always been impressed by his proactive and common-sense approach to developing consensus. Would be a great admin. --
'''Support''' A long time editor with a good track record. More than qualified. --
'''Support''' Pete's careful answers reflect an approach to editing that is conscientious and measured, and show that he will not take adminship duties lightly. He takes his time to understand policies and guidelines, isn't afraid to ask questions if he doesn't know something, and is a quick study. Pete is a champion at negotiating consensus in contentious situations and is able to be a voice of reason when things get heated. He also excels at approaching new editors who have run into trouble with their initial edits and encourages them to keep trying while others are merely templating them. I've never known him to be anything but honest in his dealings on the wiki and he's quick to apologize when he's edged into incivility (which hasn't happened recently). And as an admin who would be familiar with adding content (and not just in discussions and project pages), Pete would be better able to determine the viability of questionable new articles and additions when a question of deletion comes up.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse the tools. I'm confident Pete won't wade into a situation until he's fully versed in all subtleties. &mdash;
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions or other obvious signs of problems.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''I've read the answers to the questions (paying close attention to jc37's, which I find to be brilliant questions), I've read the opposes below (paying close attention to balloonman's, who I find to be brilliant), and I've concluded that this is a dedicated user that communicates clearly, knows policy, and more importantly, knows what he ''doesn't'' know and will research before acting controversially.  Support without hesitation. A dedicated user, a clean talkpage, a clear communicator that treads slowly, politely, and correctly.  What's not to love?   [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Weak Support''' - Per the reasons Balloonman listed for opposing. There is the chance that you may misuse the tools unknowingly due to inexperience in certain areas. That said, I do not believe that I should oppose you for that, as I believe that you are minimally qualified to wield the mop. Rather, I suggest that you spend a good deal of time learning about the various functions and tools of a sysop ''before'' just jumping into certain areas where your experience is limited. Admin school  is, of course, always useful. --
'''Support''' -- Seems to be a case of net positive...keep up the article building work! --
'''Support''', primarily because of his civil record and the fact that he will be able to control himself with the tools.  Doesn't strike me as someone who would do other wise, so [[WP:WTHN|why not]].  '''
'''Support''' So he wants to get involved in a new area, so what? Let him get his feet wet and see if he likes it or not.--
Support, of course. Pete has good experience, and is a helpful, amiable person. The idea that someone has to be a model bureaucrat before we give them a few extra buttons so they can better help the encyclopedia is silly.
'''Strong Support''' First, his encyclopedia building work is sterling. Seriously, read the articles. Second, Pete conducts himself not just well on the wiki, but far better than most (myself included). Third, with his off-wiki work, he goes above-and-beyond the call of duty in attempting to improve the project and educate others about what we're doing. I get that there are some who are legitimately concerned about his experience with the details of policy. But I want to ask people to give him a second thought. He may not have memorized every speedy deletion criteria, but he gets what we're here to do, and the best manner in which to do it. He's the person least likely to abuse the tools that I know.
'''Strong support''' Everything I have seen from Pete makes me think that he would be a careful admin and go slowly at first as he learned his way with the tools.
'''Support'''. I've been watching this one all day, and it was a hard decision. The answers to some of the questions are vague, and in a couple cases, initially wrong. Typically, I won't support a candidate that has not properly prepared for an RfA. And as someone mentioned below, a few of his comments have an unpleasant texture to them - sarcasm? Condescension? I can't really place it, and I could just be flat out wrong. But, in the end, the positives outweighed the negatives, and VanTucky's support and comment pushed me off the fence into the support camp. This guy is here to improve Wikipedia, and he will be a net positive.
'''Support''' While Balloonman and other opposes may have a point about Peteforsyth's relative experience in some areas, I maintain that Pete's goodwill and efforts towards building the project count for quite a lot in my book. It's possible he may make mistakes but I also trust his good judgment to learn from them. Pete has a good track record. I suspect he'll be able to handle the buttons just fine.
'''Support'''. He's a [[User:Peteforsyth/leg|citizen]]. Best they come.
'''Support.''' I am concerned about his lack of experience in some areas and especially that he does not know that ip's are generally not blocked indef because of collateral damage. This is pretty basic stuff. However, he has been a consistent editor and has displayed a good and positive attitude toward others. He has proven to be helpful at the articles he works in and seems to have support from those who work in the same area. Good luck! -
'''Support''' although there is some learning to be done, seems to have the right attitude for the job <b>
'''Support.''' There are many paths to become qualified for adminship, content editing is a perfectly valid one. The abaility to generate a lot of content means that the user is already good at learning and following rules, which is a big part of being an admin.
I think Pete should be fine. -- <strong>
'''Support'''. Good record of content contributions. Although he may not have less experience in administrative areas than some other candidates, his excellent and thoughtful answers to the barrage of questions suggest he wil be just fine.
'''Support''' - excellent contributer to this encyclopedia - has done lots of great article building and helped out in a range of Wikiprojects. Also participated actively in Wikipedia-space. Seems good to me. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' seems like a long time great contributor. Lack of experience in Admin areas doesn't unduly concern me, nothing wrong with on the job learning. I don't think this candidate will act rashly or abuse the tools in anyway. The answers they gave seem well considered and they come across as a well rounded candidate.
'''Support'''. I'm going to declare a bit of time travel on this. 14-16 months ago this RFA would have stormed through. As the sands have shifted and we have become more focused on "admin" contributions, our article writers are now finding they have to rack in edits vandal whacking or at CSD or XFD etc. etc. for the sake of it, which is clearly bad. Whilst not disagreeing with the communities current vogue for wanting a "well rounded" candidate, I feel in this instance that the thoughtfullness and thoroughness of contributions to the encyclopedia imply a candidate who won't do anything hasty, or take actions that will cause extra workload for other admins. On balance a net positive. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Per "No Big Deal"
'''Support'''.  His hisotry shows a strong contributor with solid knowledge of the workings of the pedia.  I'm confident that he will not start pressing buttons in unfamiliar areas until he has gotten the hang of how things work.  Thus, I am not concerned that he will abuse or misuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - As per [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not?]] <small>
'''Support''' Requests for adminship are, at their core, a forum in which project participants can opine on the body of work of the submitting candidate and decide whether or not the candidate has demonstrated the knowledge, maturity, and judgment required by the project as a whole of their sysops. It is in these forums that each of us can declare what particular aspects of the sysop responsibility we feel are important, whether or not the candidate has demonstrated sufficient competency in those areas, and whether or not we [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] the candidate to act in an appropriate manner in situations that may require the mop-and-flamethrower™. In my opinion, Pete has demonstrated the judgment and interactions that I feel are paramount to proper application, and more importantly, non-application, of the tools that the sysop bit affords. Looking at random diffs from his 950+ user talk conversations, I find that he portrays a friendly, polite demeanor, even when in disagreement with the editor with whom he is conversing. This personality trait, that of civility in the face of opposition or worse, is one that I feel is critical to sysops to minimize, if not nearly eliminate, the chances of wikidrama, wheel wars, or worse. Pete's contributions to mainspace articles stand on their own as an indication of his understanding of both the project's ultimate purpose as well as the policies and guidelines that govern the day-to-day workings of the project. The point has been raised about the relative dearth of experience in regards to certain administrative duties. My personal opinion is that while a high level of sophistication can certainly not be claimed, enough understanding has been demonstrated to indicate that the user will not abuse the tools, will fill any knowledge gaps quickly, and will help continue the smooth working of the project. I believe there is a fundamental difference, and the project members [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham|have clearly stated]], between the level of sophistication (at least vis-a-vis RfA's) which we require from bureaucrats, since their actions are more permanent, and sysops, each of whose actions may be corrected, if necessary, by any other admin. This safety net is sufficient enough for me to feel that the remote possibility of a mistake made from ignorance is far outweighed by the positive characteristics that Pete presents. --
I should write something long, but I'm tired, so I'll just say '''per Avraham and Anonymous Dissident'''. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.--
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].  I am a ''bit'' concerned about lack of XfD experience, as noted in opposition, but that is "no big deal" as Jimbo says.  I have no reason not to trust this user.
'''Support''' as a strong mainspace contributor. Candidate's statements appear to be well-reasoned and thoughtful, and I have no doubts that that care will follow him to Admin tasks.
Excellent editor.
The differences between Pete and the average candidate (who would be more comfortable memorizing policy and checking their brain in at the gate) make this an easier choice than I expected. '''Support'''. —
'''Support'''.  Strong, dedicated editor.
'''Support''', will be fine.
Whilst I respect and understand the opposition, and believe it to be a genuine concern, I also appreciate Petes' attitude and believe if he gets into unfamiliar waters, he will read up fully before acting. I therefore trust him with the tools and therefore '''support''' this request.
'''Support''' I've been impressed by Pete's work and think he'll be a fine admin. Additionally, I think the weak opposes and neutrals make some valid points that I'm sure Pete will dutifully consider. [[Wikipedia:New admin school]] will prove helpful, and I'd be happy to offer any help as he comes along... &mdash;
'''Support''' Uses real name, something I believe every admin should do
'''Support''' -- I've been impressed working with Pete, and like his answers to the questions.  --
'''Weak Oppose''' I hate to do this because Pete looks like a fine candidate.  He's civil and cooperative.  Has the respect of a number of editors that I have a lot of respect for.  But his answer to question one is of great concern.   In his answer he says, ''This would likely include [[WP:SPEEDY|speedy deletes]], [[WP:PROD|proposed deletions]], [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]], [[WP:CFD|categories for discussion]], [[WP:IFD|images etc. for deletion]], and likely other wonders of which I'm not yet aware.'' Yet if you look at his last 3500 edits (which takes you back to December) you will find that he has only participated in roughly 8 XfD's.  The ones that he did participate in are almost exclusively related to Oregon (eg he likely came to the debate through the wikiproject he belongs too.)  So I looked to see if had a strong history with prod'ing articles or CSD.  Nope.  Thus, it appears as if this candidate either wants to work in an area where he has no experience/interest or gave us the answer he thought we wanted us to see.  Either way, I have to vote oppose based upon this answer.  It truly is a shame, because I would have probably supported if he gave what I felt was an honest answer.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman. Admins should ideally have experience in most areas where the tools will be used, but should have significant experience of the processes that the intend to focus on - otherwise there is no way to gauge their judgement in these areas, or their knowledge of policy. Other users may have been made admins without that type of experience but that is not a good rationale (it is the RFA equivalent of [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists|Other stuff exists]]).
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman.  I don't like the fact that Pete stated he made reports to AIV, yet the facts say otherwise.  Plus, no to little work in the areas you say you will be involved with. Sorry, but I cannot trust you with the tools at this time.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Changed from neutral below. Most of the answers to the questions look pretty good. However, schools do not meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, especially if a google search proves that the school in question exists. Second, an IP address is never blocked indefinitely. I appreciate the candidate's honesty about looking into policy if a situation arises that they are unfamiliar with, but those two answers suggest a weak understanding. Finally, per Balloonman. Candidate wishes to work in areas they have little experience in.
'''Weak oppose''' - I regret doing this as I have the utmost respect for Pete and the wonderful work he has done for wikiproject:oregon. I feel that Pete lacks qualities of a administrator but has those of a strong article editor whom has improved this project vastly. Those qualities/skills can be easily learned over time, and with a little reading (policies and such) and maybe getting some [[WP:ADMINCOACH|coaching]], I know in a few months Pete will make a great candidate. The areas that I feel need some improvement are deletion (as he clearly states his interest in working), along with a better overall grasp of policies. I would like to see him contribute to project space a bit more, where we can get a feel for his level of policy understanding, along with proof that he can remain calm under fire or take appropriate actions with the tools. I think Pete is a wonderful wikipedian whom I have ''never'' had a negative interaction with, and for that reason do not feel he would ''abuse'' the tools, but maybe ''misuse'' them.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Balloonman. I think that the candidate is a great article builder, but doesn't have some of the needed experience for a admin. I suggest that Pete gets more diversified in editing, and later he would be a nice admin candidate. Maybe next time, <strong>
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm sorry, I know you've done a great deal of work for this site, but I have to oppose you per Wisdom89 and Balloonman.  I wish you luck in future RfA's.
'''Oppose''' The answers, tho mostly not actually wrong, show a lack of understanding of the typical situations that arise, and a self-admitted lack of familiarity with policy. ''Here's a clearly wrong one, that seems not to have been noticed:''  saying a reason for speedy is if an article is in a "different language than the encyclopedia is on". That is simply wrong. The criterion is "Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. " Otherwise, they are to be listed for translation. See WP:CSD A2.  I advise the candidate to actually read the relevant policies before next time, or at least as soon as possible after he becomes an administrator. '''
'''Oppose''', seems to have a weak knowledge of deletion policy per the above opposes.
'''Neutral''', with regrets. The candidate has the makings of a good admin. However, I'm concerned with his lack of experience in certain projects, per Balloonman. I lean toward Support since I think this candidate is trustworthy and diligent.
'''Neutral''' I feel somewhat weary of this users answers, I've no doubt he is a ''good'' editor, but I'm insufficiently persuaded that they'll use the tools correctly and regularly enough to warrant administration. Good luck in the future though, this by all means isn't an oppose, just that I don't see enough reason to support. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Changed from oppose to neutral'''.  Sure you don't have the experience that I generally like to see in potential administrators, but it's obvious that you're very smart and not likely to go blundering about with the tools.  Over the time of this RFA, I have seen you take criticism very constructively and without snapping at the editors who've left it.  Combined with a re-examination of your contributions, this was enough to change my stance from Oppose to Neutral :).  Of course you will need to review policies more often in the beginning than most do, and you should review key policies listed at [[WP:ARL]].  Best of luck to you, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''. Can't support on this one as you do not have enough exp in xfd's (as per baloon man. If you're going to work in that area as an admin - I suggest you practise a little now. <strong>
'''Neutral''' I think you candidate needs at least another two weeks of experience and observing other admins before he actually uses the tools in any area.
'''Beat the Nom(s) Support'''. I've been waiting on this one - a good, reasonable candidate with solid work at AFD and the Help Desk. There's good mainspace work, as well, with multiple Featured Articles to the candidate's credit. No reservations.
'''Support''' I was thinking of nominating him myself.
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_am_not_a_dog&diff=prev&oldid=200551580 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlvisFreeman&diff=prev&oldid=200745791 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_little_mollusk&diff=prev&oldid=201640183 this] (in response to an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=201637613 AIV report]), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ngckmax&diff=prev&oldid=200273381 this]. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
I don't like adding '''as per other people''' votes, but this clearly defines one of those moments.  '''Support''' as per Rudget.
'''Support''' the editor seems to have good understanding of policies, so abuse of tools seems highly unlikely
'''Support''' a civil editor who will use the tools wisely based on what I've seen.  --
'''Support'''. Absolutely. I am impressed with this editor's civility and just his overall level-headedness. He will be a welcome sight around both AIV and CSD.
'''Yup'''.  "No problems here", a wise editor once said...[[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. No negatives I see. -
'''Support'''. The candidate appears civil and helpful. He's a solid encyclopedia-builder who seems to understand policy.
'''Support'''.  No problems here.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' I see a strong contributor in review of edits. Well spread out across the various spaces. Answers to questions are well put together and show knowledge. Not worried based on my review.
'''Support''' - Excellent answers. Also, because of the FA articles. Trust the nominators, trust the user.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' I find no reason to vote otherwise. Well rounded candidate.
'''Support''', someone who digs in with one day's notice to save a [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|pending mainpage article]] from embarrassing us, and prevent a trip to [[WP:FAR]], is a trustworthy asset to Wiki.
'''Support''' No concerns... clearly committed to the encyclopedia... will make good use of tools, IMO... Nominations by both Pedro and Balloonman means a lot to me, because of my respect for them. '''
'''Stongest support''' - This user appears more times than anyone else on my watchlist! Not only do I always bump into him in the article building areas but I also see him in the more tedious areas. Peter is an asset to the project! Best of luck!--
'''Support''' Ability & attitude shown so far make me believe Peter will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''. Solid nominators, has the trust of a lot of people, nothing I could find in some contribution digging revealed anything questionable. I trust this candidate with the tools.
'''per nom'''
'''Support''' Questions from jc37 notwithstanding, I can find no problems with this candidate.
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' - Decent responses. We could get into the various details (For example, based upon surrounding context, there's a sentence or two that I think may misrepresent what the candidate meant), however, I have a feeling that, upon further, albeit longer, discussion, the candidate would either learn-as-we go, or already know/understand the information. Should be fine. -
'''Support''' Per [[WP:JIMBO|WP:PEDRO]] '''
'''Support'''. Great work at WP:FAC, no negatives. - Dan
'''Support''' Mainspace contribution looks good. And as well as per [[WP:JIMBO|WP:PEDRO]] and [[WP:JIMBO|WP:Balloonman]] :)--
I was wondering when this would happen.  A very civil, hardworking user who would do no end of good with the tools.  '''
'''Support.''' Per {{user|Balloonman}}, {{user|Pedro}}, and some excellent and admirable contributions to the project.
'''Support''' Well informed, detailed answers; great contribs; great admin candidate! <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
Thirty First........Do I win the latest nominator v. support position prize? Per, well, me! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Beat-the-nom Support!!!1!1''' (lol) great answers to questions, noms I really respect. Good luck with the tools! <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate who meets [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]]. Contributes to the mainspace, communicates with other editors, and has plenty of experience.
'''Support''' yep. —
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Pile on support''', expressing standard surprise this editor isn't already an admin. I've noticed nothing but thoughtful arguments at AfD, solid knowledge of deletion policy, and good communication. The mop will be in excellent hands.--
'''Support''', seems to be an exceptially well-rounded editor; lots of work in the Article space, works with some of the pre-adminy tasks, and helps out at the Help Desk!  --
'''Support''' - Unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' - Wow.  '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Good user. '''''
As promised! ''
'''Support''' No problems here.--
'''Support''' - My first encounter with Peter was when [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom]] was on the main page, and I had noted that images weren't lining up properly when I looked at the article logged out. Peter, instead of using various guidelines as an excuse for the problem, took me seriously and checked for himself, saw the issues I was concerned about, and worked to rectify them in a way that worked for the encyclopedia and its readers. Peter "gets it."
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - clearly for the benefit of the project.
'''Support''' - No problems here. --
'''Support''' Solid editor - clearly dedicated to improving the encyclopedia and unlikely to abuse the tools. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Great Editor. Welcomed me on my first day. Very polite.
'''Support'''. Incidentally, I wonder whether his username is a reference to [[Peter Symonds College]] in Winchester - I have some friends who went there.
'''Support''' - A well-rounded editor doing the stuff that needs doing in various corners of the project. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - no concerns.
'''Support''' - No concerns whatsoever. Candidate looks perfect for the job. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - From what I have seen in AfD, his rationales in discussions are well reasoned and observe policy. I believe he will be a sound admin.
'''Support''' - from my interactions with him he seems to be fine on policies and building the encyclopaedia.
Normally I'd oppose anyone who wants to work in CSD, but the noms suggest this user  is cautious, so I '''support''' this candidate.
'''Pile-on Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools, has good experience in many admin-related areas. Good luck!
'''Support''' as I could not find any jump out negatives.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''Totally!--
'''Support''' As per, well, everyone above. No need to restate the wonders of this user. '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. Seen this user around quite a lot, good answers to questions, frequent FA contributor. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support'''<s>, although this - "Adminship would just mean being able to do things myself rather than asking someone else to do it for me" - concerns me.  Strikes me as someone who just wants the tools to save time...  selfish, maybe?  But, after reviewing some of the other commentary, I'll allow for the possibility that the candidate meant something more noble and up to par with why I think someone should be interested in being an administrator... and merely chose an ill-advised phrase. --
'''Weak support'''. I'm a little concerned by the candidate's defence of marking most of his edits as minor, as many of these edits substantially change the meaning of the page concerned ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Evans_%28footballer%29&diff=prev&oldid=210595213 here], for example, the candidate reverses his position on an AfD), and almost all talk page contributions seem to be marked minor, with the result that anyone who hides minor edits on their watchlist will not see these. However, in fairness to the candidate this was the only problem I found in his contributions, and it is ... ahem ... a minor problem. I don't see any reason not to trust this user.
'''Support''' Very helpful user, esp. at the help desk. <strong>
'''Support''' - Can not find any reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Echo Tiptoety: I tried and I tried and I tried.
'''Support''' - A wonderful helpful editor. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' - hes a bit of a mystery to me, but he meets my standards and raises no concerns.  Plusses include rollback rights and "honours" like barnstars.
'''Support''': Stunning editor/writer with a good knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''. Has clue (viz., Rudget's links), and is trustworthy. Good luck,
'''Support''' I'm not going to support solely because I find no reason to oppose, but because I find a lot of reasons to support. <strong>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' For solid contributions, sound knowledge of policy, and general clue-ness. --
'''Support''' This one's easy. Good luck!
'''Strong support''' - A fine candidate. Terrific article work. And a great knowledge of Wiki-policies and such like. Will be a brilliant admin. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have always had a great experience dealing with this user at [[WP:FLC]].
'''Support''' as per above, everything looks good!
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''' No apparent grounds for objection and his remark - "Adminship would just mean being able to do things myself rather than asking someone else to do it for me" - fits in entirely with my own ethos. --
'''Support'''.  He's excellent as an article-writer, and I can see no evidence that he would be any less excellent as an administrator.
'''Strong Support''' I've seem PeterSymonds around making constructive edits. While looking me closely of his actions from this RFA, I would say this user is trusted enough to have the tools. Cheers.--
Looks like a good user.
'''Strong support'''. Civil, highly intelligent Featured Article writer. No reason to oppose. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Very helpful and kind, takes his time and is dedicated to his work, a rare ardor to find anywhere. --
Great editor. Very helpful as well in his work at the help desk.
'''Support''' Appears to be a good solid contributor with no apparent tendencies which preclude being given the mop.
'''Support''' I have encountered Peter a few times while editing royalty articles and he has always been a ''consistently'' friendly and helpful editor and I feel that those are very desirable attributes to have in an administrator. Even though I am ''far'' from being a model editor, I think I know one when I see one and I wholly endorse Peter's RFA.
'''Support'''Ka Pai <strong>
'''Support''' strong, experienced candidate who will put the tools to great use.
'''Strong Support''': Just wondering how I missed supporting you -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Support:''' Good editor. '''
'''Support''' I've had no problems at all with this editor and it definitely looks like he'd make effective and well-reasoned use of the tools. ~
'''Strong Support''': I normally don't !vote on RFA's, but your answers blew me away. Looks like you'll make [[WP:100|100.]] <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">

'''Support''' [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|Trustworthy]] --
With about an hour and a half left before this can be closed, I must '''Oppose''' as you failed to [[User_talk:Balloonman#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds|meet my expectations]]
'''Support''' Very nice contributions I belive he will use the tools correctly, will be a excellent admin. [[WP:100]] --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
STICK IT TO THE MAN =D the lone neutral [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
Seems ''very'' sane, which is all we need really. I would suggest, though, that you leave the infobox as-is—if it listed the wife as a co-author, especially (otherwise, consider changing to that, but no harm in status quo). Simply because every other source should take precedence over a self published source. But seriously, answers like that to the AGF challenge question are more than [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_124#SERIOUSLY_good_questions|many admins]] consider themselves capable of. Good luck. ''
I'm gently worried that the editor lists SPEEDY so prominently, but I haven't seen anything to suggest this editor would be harmful if they get the bit.
Reasonable editor, no reason to doubt capability of user. Seen him here and there frequently.
'''Support''', we certainly need help at [[:CAT:SPEEDY]].  '''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' because you went ahead and answered Q4, and for all the shit you're getting for it.--
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per Naerii, per Wisdom, and per the ''asking'' of Q4, despite the answer.  You've unwittingly been guinea-pigged, which is a shame, not on you, but on those that have made you the guinea pig.  There are many ''many'' experienced admins that would botch any one of Filll's "scenarios", and I personally think they are excellent exercises in the intricacies of what comes up for admins on a daily basis.  The correct answer by the way, for any of Filll's questions, is "I'll ask a more experienced admin before I take any direct action".  We have [[WP:AN]] for a reason.  An RFA is ''not'' the right place for the AGF challenge. That issue aside, your contribs are terrific, your talkpage is clean and civil, you seem balanced in your work and seem to have a good level of [[WP:CLUE]], all very desirable traits in an admin.  Support without hesitation. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative intereactions or other major concerns of mine.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have reviewed the opposers' concerns, including those concerning the candidate's answer to a highly unlikely hypothetical scenario, and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' (2 edit conflicts) Ok, maybe I don't understand the process...but what does '''Question #4''' have to do with admin-ing (or even AGF)? Don't OTRS emails go to the OTRS volunteers and not random admins? And then, isn't it the OTRS volunteer's prerogative to pass the legal threat to WMF? And isn't the content of that email covered by [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy access to nonpublic data]? In other words, this seems like a reasonable question for OTRS volunteers or during an interview for Super-Burocrat-Protector-in-charge-of-all-of-Wikimedia...but for an admin, I don't see how this is relevant. Also, I forgot to add that I am supporting because I liked that he tried to reason through the question.
'''Support''': Seems to be qualified to be an administrator, and I applaud you for taking on Question 4. <small>
'''Support''' The answer to Q4, while a bit unsettling, presents such a ridiculously unlikely scenario that the author should not be opposed simply because of his answer. He has stated that he wouldn't want to work in OTRS, and I respect that. <s>In fact, if it weren't so aptly named the  [[Ministry of Truth|Assume Good Faith Challenge]], I'd question whether or not those situations were designed as "gotcha!" questions.</s> I will [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. --
'''Support''' - Changed from oppose below based on question 4 mostly. The itching to be involved so heavily at [[WP:SPEEDY]] is minute at this point. Per Keeper and Naerii, I find it completely unfair to oppose this candidate on what I consider to be a horrendous conundrum of a problem/puzzle, especially since I don't find the AGF challenge to be appropriate for RfA at all. I will not use this against the candidate. I do, however, maintain that the answer was strange and does not reflect the duties of an admin, but the candidate's contributions are solid nonetheless.
'''Support''' - seems like a sensible person.  Unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good answers to my questions, but mainly to offset Q4, which wasn't a fair question to the candidate, but who handled it just fine, IMHO.
'''Strong support''' I believe this wikipedian is living proof that one does not need to have 10000 + edits, 3 fancy conominations or to have taken part in coaching to become a successfull admin. This user has worked in a wide range of areas and seems a sensible wikipedian. If only there were more users like this one! Best of luck!!! = ) --
'''Support''' - (ignoring Q4 per Keeper [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Philosopher&diff=208802756&oldid=208802405]) Solid contribs, long term commitment, and I don't see any evidence that tools will be abused. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support'''. No evidence of potential abuse or misuse of the tools. A self nom is evidence of boldness and need not be viewed otherwise especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. -
'''Support''' - good editor. Admittedly the answer to Q4 was not perfect, but his other contributions strongly outweigh it. The userbox issue does not concern me - indeed a user with the same userbox passed an RfA two months ago and appears to have been an effective admin.
'''Support''' believe has learned from Q4. No one knows everything. Go slow, ask questions. Look before leaping.  This was not essential knowledge for area for tools. I've no problem with self noms. All due respect to Kurt, et al, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. While article building is important, it need not be an essential prerequisite to adminship. A janitor admin can mop up leaving the builders more time to build.
'''Weak Support''' when I usually see this many opposes, I expect to see something opposable.  Here I don't.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Q4 has no bearing on this RfA.
'''Support''' But is [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Philosopher&site=en.wikipedia.org 6000 edits in 3 years] too less for an administrator ? -
'''Support'''. Sensible person. Won't abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' An honest attempt at Q4, and nothing in the contribution history leads me to think you will be anything but a net positive with the tools. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Do not believe user will abuse the tools and tried Q4. (also anyone who creates election articles must be good!)
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' - 0% concerned about this editor.
'''Support''' Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.--
'''Support''' with a slight concern regarding what the end of summer may look like per Q9
'''Support''' Seems fine.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per George The Dragon. '''
'''Support''' Seems perfectly fine to me.
'''Support''' Cheers to the candidate for taking on Q4; it's a much more difficult question that I often see on RFAs.  Good luck, you'll make a fine admin! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I cant see a problem. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - best of luck. <font face="Verdana">
Slipped on Q4, who cares? At least he won't soon forget. ·
'''Support''', self-nom. --
'''Support''' Seems like a stable candidate that will make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''' It was me who kicked off the criticism of that one guy's atheist userbox recently...but I felt and feel that that userbox was *intentionally disrespectful*.  No such issue here.
'''Support''' reasonably good understanding of policy.<s> Q6</s> '''Q4''' is deliberately tricky, and opinion can vary on whether or not to contact the author. '''
'''Support''' per diving into Q4 (and the benefits of the discussion generated from the answer) and being bold enough to self-nom given the automatic oppose votes that come with with it. <nowiki>--</nowiki>
'''Support''' per the ridiculousness of Q4 and those that are so hung up on it.
'''Support''' per Q4 and the need for more evangelical Christian admins...Seriously, though. I see no problem with Philosopher and don't expect to see any abuse here. Should make a great admin. -
'''Support'''. Can be trusted. Doesn't seem like he will act on any delicate task without thorough policy knowledge or help from a more seasoned admin.
'''Support'''.  For being [[WP:bold|Bold]].
No issues.
'''Weak Support'''.  Userboxes are perfectly acceptable, people who oppose on that basis aren't [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and seem to be rehashing things better left in the past. As for Q4, I admire his desire to answer an open-ended question like that in a nuanced way, but would urge him to review [[WP:FIVE|the core principles]] of Wikipedia. [[WP:NPOV]] is clear in that while we don't present a single viewpoint, we don't give minority viewpoints [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] weight. While we always [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and try to work with the subject in an amicable manner, we do not sacrifice core principles in order to do so. --
'''Support''' Sane, trustworthy editor, unafraid to be [[WP:BOLD]].
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support'''.  Appears to be dedicated to helping improve the project.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have seen nothing that raises any red flags with me. <b>
'''Support''' - An OK set of contribs, nothing too serious. But, I think the opposes per ''Q4'' are a bit harsh. We cannot expect a single user to know ''everything'' there is to know on Wikipedia, so one slip up on a question he gave his very best shot shouldn't be enough to shoot him down in flames. I bet many current admins would've found that difficult. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - good editor. The Q4 was pretty complicated and I think most of us not involved with day to day OTRS would fumble it somehow. I guess I would have preferred an answer more along the lines of "run to WP:ANI and ask for help." No admin is expected to know all the rules, but it is reasonable for them to expect most of the rules and then go for community help when tricky situations crop up. I would have written "weak support" instead of "support" but then I was put off by the the opposition involving Philosopher's acknowledgement of his/her faith so I guess I gave him some points as compensation. Some of us like myself choose to give no details about our points of view but we should respect those who do. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' -- good editor, good attempts at answers to difficult questions.  --
'''Support''' I like his answers to the questions and I also think that as an admin he would have no problem being BOLD. --
'''Support''' I was impressed by your answers, and none of the objections raised below seemed particularly bad to me.
'''Support''' per KojiDude (number 4 or so). Otherwise, Philosopher is a great editor. <strong>
'''Support''' - Great trustworthy user, terrific canidate for receiving the tools.
'''Weak Support''' - Overall a good candidate but the answer to Q4 could have been answered in a different way.
'''Support''' My acute Meda-sense almost went off, but I'm assuming it was because of heartburn. Good user, 99.9% chance we won't abuse the tools. '''''
--
'''Support''' because of exposing where one may unwittingly express some bias, but more so the responses about the answering of optional questions shows sufficient cynicisms to demonstrate an understanding of the communities requirements.
'''Support''', user appears to have a very calm and civil attitude towards editing, seems very reasonable, and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. --
'''Support'' Seems ready for the tools.
'''Full Support''' Simply because I have no idea what self-noms and creation of new articles (or lack thereof) tells you about how well an editor will use his/her admin tools. As for Q4, admins are human beings and as such make mistakes too - and though the answer may be wrong to some, again, it doesn't show inappropriate use of admin tools. —
'''Support''' Seems honest and civil in their work and worthy of our trust.
'''Support''' - Agree with Dean above. User '''does''' seem honest and reliable. And I must also note that this user is holding his composure well under all of the stress of some "weightless" opposes. Kudos!

'''Support''' - Everything indicates this is a mature user who will no doubt handle the tools well.
'''Weak support'''. Not the strongest candidate, but I think that Philosopher can be a capable admin. I recommend admin school.
Weak support per Majoreditor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  We need help at new page patrol, the answers are intelligent and show not only an awareness but an appreciation of the finer points of policy, everything I read seems honest and polite, and my sampling of the edit history showed nothing untoward.
'''Support''' because it's a self-nom, which I think displays that Philosopher has a good level of confidence, which is often needed in an administrator. Oh, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the candidate. That too. <span style="font-size:90%;font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools, good luck. '''''
'''Support''' No evidence that admin tools will be abused.
'''Support''', no concerns. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&#151;
'''Support'''. Well answered the questions. Seems honest, and will be a help. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Support'''. minor quibbles not deal-breakers for me. Cheers,
'''Support''', the concerns brought up here are not dealbreakers for me, more like the minor imperfections we all have. As to Q4, there's no one right answer to those scenarios, and I'm impressed that the candidate clearly put thought into the answer.
'''Support''' - I'm sure he will be a great administrator. No concerns, even after reading the Opposes and Neutrals below; absolutely none of the "arguments against" will prevent Philosopher from doing a good job. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]]
'''Support''' <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' - After reading Philosopher's answers to the above questions, I believe he will do a fine job as an admin. -<nowiki>[[Ryan]]</nowiki> <sup> (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Requests for adminship are, at their core, the opportunity for the members of the wikipedia project to opine as to whether or not each one of them believes that the candidate in question demonstrates the qualities that each one of the project members believes is important for the proper maintenance of the project, and whether or not the candidate has exhibited past behavior and [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] sufficient to be trusted with the tools that accompany the janitorial process. After looking through Philosopher's contributions, I feel that he does exhibit the overall tendencies and character traits that are important in my opinion. Investigating his inter-editor interactions, I do not see anything that would require me to withhold a support. He has sufficient edits to the mainspace to indicate an understanding of wiki policies and guidelines. As for the Question 4 issue, that is a difficult situation which is better handled through the OTRS system. I applaud Philosopher for attempting to answer that question here in the context of an RfA, but I would counsel him, should such a situation actually occur, to use [[WP:ANI]], or in matters such as this where there may be privacy and legal issues involved, to submit the issue to Cary or the OTRS list. Either way, there is no shame in asking for help and/or advice from fellow wikipedians on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or elsewhere. --
'''Support''' Good answers to questions 1 to 3, and I could care less about question 4.
'''Support''' I'm quite sure that he won't misuse the tools. Although the answer to Q4 wasn't perfect, I don't think that it will affect him as an admin. —&nbsp;'''
'''Oppose''' - Changed from neutral, per Q4, reason given below.
'''Weak oppose''' - Almost purely on the answer to Q4. Sorry!<br>(I have mentioned to [[User_talk:Keeper76#Philosopher_RfA|Keeper]] that if this user were to come to RfA again, I might support based on [[WP:WTHN]]. <small>
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''<s>Concerned</s> Oppose''' I do not think the candidate would intentionally abuse the tools, but I am worried that they could slip up, based on the answer to Q4. Yes, in a sense, it was a trick question, but many wikipedia situations can potentially be just as tricky. In this sort of situation I ask: Does the candidate know when to make a decision on their own initiative and when to seek advice? Do they know enough about policy to resolve the issue? If not, are they aware of gaps in their knowledge, and do they know where to go for information or advice? I think that the candidate's answer indicates ignorance of [[WP:LEGAL]], [[WP:OFFICE]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:UNDUE]], each critical in its own way. <s>I'm also concerned by religous issues - not necessarily COI, but a userbox featuring a "Jesus fish" is surely going to alienate some editors.</s> <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' - per Q4.
'''Oppose''' - self-nom.
'''Oppose''' as user has not fully demonstrated his commitment to article building.
'''Oppose''' - have you perhaps misunderstood Q4? At the moment, your answer is almost entirely wrong.
Several minor concerns accumulate to give me an uneasy feeling. '''(i)''' I don't think heavily addicted power users are better admins, quite to the contrary. But this user has been basically inactive for over half a year, then returned in March. I think admins must be in touch with current policy, and six months are a long time on Wikipedia. '''(ii)''' Say what you want about religious freedom, I personally don't appreciate displays of religious affiliation on Wikipedia (very minor point, yes, so please don't bother to bother me). '''(iii)''' Commitment to article building is another minor concern. '''(iv)''' Underwhelming project space participation. '''(v)''' Q4. So there, no total deal-breakers. Should this RfA succeed, so be it. However, I for one would prefer some more activity to have more material to reliably judge this user's trustability.
'''Oppose''' per declaration of faith on userpage. I find such declarations potentially divisive. Sure, it's a personal reason and one that will be criticised and probably ignored by the closing 'crat, but I feel I'm entitled to it.
'''Oppose''' - Dorftrottel puts it better than I could. I know not everyone agrees, but, while I don't support the "must have written 3 FAs" school of thinking (I've yet to work on a single FA), I do think admins — especially those who want to work in deletions — need enough project-space work to appreciate the sheer effort that's gone into the material they're deleting. And to echo the two above me, while it wouldn't be a deal-breaker, I also loathe declarations of religious and/or political affiliations. I'm distinctly unimpressed with the editcountitis (the statement on your userpage that "This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia" would be a bit more convincing if it wasn't right underneath one of those ridiculous "[[Wikipedia:Service awards|service badges]]" and a list of your 1000th, 2000th etc edits). No doubt the closing crat will discount all of this, but there you go... FWIW, I ''don't'' have a problem with the answer to Q4, which - while technically wrong - has at least had some thought go into it.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' per Q4 response (lack of policy understanding) <s>and self-nom.</s>
'''Oppose''' per Q4 response and per Dorftrottel.  I wish you luck in the future!
'''Oppose''' - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits and poor answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Weak Oppose:'''  Obviously well-intentioned but the arguments above and below make me uneasy.  Maybe in another month or so and some more wiki-space contributions?  Sorry<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. You seem a nice guy, I just don't think you're really admin material. Yes, your answers to various questions bother me a little, your lack of article writing bothers me a little, your lack of Wikipedia space edits bothers me a little and I just can't see you being a great admin. The 'faith on your sleeve' thing bothers me a tad too, though I'm not sure where I stand on that being an issue over which I/anyone can oppose.
'''Oppose''' Regretfully Q4 is a dealbreaker for me. '''
'''Reluctant oppose''' I think criticism is a good thing as long as it's constructive. I find, however, that a large portion of criticism directed at the candidate (I speak of criticism about candidate's answer to Q4, the religious statement made on the user page and the self-nomination) has nothing constructive about it and I find it just shameful at how many people have taken the opportunity to take a jab at you without telling you what it is that you could have done in order to avoid such scrutiny. Some criticism has been constructive but a large portion of it seems to boil down to ''I don't like you'' and that bothers me quite a bit. For that reason I abstained from voting here until now because I didn't want my vote to look as another insult/injury directed at you due to a belief that if you do something differently than I would, you're wrong and you need to be punished. Having said that, I oppose your nomination at this time strictly due to your lack of recent activity. Prior to March of 2008, you only made 80 edits to Wikpedia within the last 7 consecutive months. I don't think you're a terrible candidate for an administrator at all and I actually commend you for nominating yourself for adminship especially if you had any kind of an idea as to how ideologically opposed some people are to that and you still had the nerve to go ahead and nominate yourself. Given a few more months of the level of activity you had during March and April, I would vote support on your next attempt at adminship, especially if you're brave enough to nominate yourself again.
'''Oppose''' per responses to Q4, Q8, and Q13. Took the "adminship is no big deal" thing in entirely the wrong direction. <font color="#0000b0">
'''Switching from neutral to oppose'''. During the time I !voted in neutral, I was weighting between Q4 and your overall useful contributions. But since one admin mistake could chase away an editor forever, I have no choice but to oppose.
'''Neutral''' Cannot support due to the "evangelical" part of the user page.  However, cannot oppose with just that one factor.  See my reply to George's oppose above.  That lays out my thinking.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral''' The answer to question 4 concerns me the most, as well as question 11. While question 4 doesn't seem correct, the initial answer to Q 11 is '' I have now.  ;-)''. Those are pages that an editor should know about before the RfA brings it up. How many other guidelines and policies didn't Philosopher read? He makes good contributions, and is a good editor overall, but I am afraid I can't support at the moment.
'''Support''' Sure - looks like a great candidate. Could use the tools. '''«'''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, competent, and could use the tools. No problems here,
'''Support''' Per my previous positive interactions with this user that suggested no potential impediments to adminship. <strong style="color:#000">
'''Support''' for an editor who's not afraid of engaging in disputes where appropriate but whose edit history (and relative brevity of talk page archives) demonstrate that he's primarily a ''writer of encyclopedic articles.'' He says that he believes "[his] best contributions have been on sometimes contentious AfDs and perennially contentious articles such as My Lai Massacre, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein", a statement that I find odd or more likely just modest: he has certainly been energetic and constructive there, but consider his compact yet informative and excellently sourced articles on such nineteenth-century (and thus untrendy) Japanese photographers as [[Ueno Hikoma]] and [[Uchida Kuichi]] (for which the equivalents in Japanese-language WP are much weaker and non-existent respectively), and his three FAs [[Pierre Rossier]], [[Adolfo Farsari]], and [[Felice Beato]] (or four; see [[:de:Diskussion:Felice Beato]]). Not that I have anything against gnomery, and not that adminship is or should be a reward for FAs; but if you think that writers are (and thus that the writers' PoV may be) somewhat underrepresented among administrators then here you have somebody who in addition to his other pluses is a first-rate writer. --
'''Support'''. I often notice this editor doing good work. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support''' Yes, this is the kind of users Wikipedia needs [[Image:Face-wink.svg|24px]]. <small>
'''Support'''- Good, dilligent Wikipedian. The FAs are just a bonus. --
'''Support''' Thoughtful and thorough. '''
Why not?
'''Support''' - Net positive.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' well-rounded nom. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate. --
'''Support''' based on their acceptance statement. Indicates high level of [[WP:CLUE|clue]] - candidates should not be participating in the RFA process whatsoever whilst they are under nomination.
'''Support.''' Contributions look good.
'''Support''' Wonderful, experienced, trustworthy editor who has more than a clue.
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''.  We could always use civil admins!
'''Support''' Easily meets (and surpasses) [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  Happy to support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''.  You've swayed me over completely! Your answer to my question was very well thought out and it is clear to me that you know what you're doing.  Keep it up! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] esp. as a long-time user who raises no concerns.
'''Support''' - No concerns; liked his answers to the questions. It would be good to have more admins who have a strong record as article writers.
'''Support'''
Strong support per Q2 and articles noted in nomination. Here for the right reasons. ''
'''Support''' all looks good. --
'''Support''', answers to questions show that this user understands the proper role of an administrator.  Contribs looks good, this user has a clue.
'''Support''', looks like a decent editor with a decent history. --
'''Support''' No reason for concern. In addition, I'm impressed with how thoughtful the answer to Q5 was.
'''Support'''. He's good.
Will do well as an administrator.  –'''
'''Support''' per the answers to Q4, Q5, and Q7.  They show that he has a grasp on the policies that govern what administrators do, and they also show that he is very [[WP:CIVIL|civil]].  He is also willing to work on XfD's, which is greatly needed right now.
'''Support''', looks well rounded with good contributions, would be a boon with the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to be able to be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' Well-rounded and trustworthy. <strong>
'''Strong support''' -- Per the answers to the questions. Particularly Q4...--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Works for me. '''
'''Support''', can be trusted with the tools, no reason to oppose. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
Support, per Auawise. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Complete absence of any reason to stay neutral, let alone oppose.
Support - It's very nice to be able to support a well rounded candidate. I also commend someone writing such obscure articles, they need to be done! Good luck being an admin. And for the crat reading this, I support per actually reading the nom and looking at his contributions.
'''Support.'''  Very sound, more than ready for new admin school!  —
'''Support''' per strong arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I, Claudius (film)]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' A good case study for not !voting by edit count. Plenty of other candidates would be racking up opposes for c.300 Project space edits, but not only is this user experienced, they clearly understand how policies work. I have no trouble trusting this user with the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' skilled .
'''Support''' trusted editor.
'''Support'''
Of course.
'''Support'''. No reason to think Pinkville will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per review and answers above. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
I won't blot your copybook with an oppose, but I don't normally support users with such a low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Support''' I like his style. '''''
'''Support''' - good edit count, seems a good and trustworthy user. Good luck! --
Nice answer.
'''Weak Support'''. An excellent editor, meets [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my requirements]].
'''Support'''. Great answers, especially some of his thoughts in #9.
'''Support''' per answers to questions and overall goodness of candidate.  Whoever asked question 13 though should be blocked. I would do it, but I'd end up in a wheel war with the bastard.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''', fantastic editor.  Has a great knowledge of policy and would be an asset to the project. <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Good edits and good answers. <b>
'''Support''' - will help fend off the unconstructive edits.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - <s>Good user</s> - Great user! Definitely needs the tools... even though he self-nommed himself... yeah, that's a terrible, evil, and pugnacious trait in a future admin... <small>coughs...</small>
'''Support''' No reason he'll abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' - Edits and Deletions look good, and the responses to questions fit with his experience.  Looks good overall, --
'''Support''' This guy looks like an admin already! --
'''Support'''. I view <u>appropriate</u> self-nominations, like this one, as ''prima facie'' evidence of good judgement and initiative, but so what? Seems like a level-headed guy with quite enough experience to handle the stuff he's planning to do (A1) to start with.
'''Support''' - a change from last RFA, due to big improvements all around. Now ready for the mop.
'''Support''' - much like RC-0722, I like his style. <span>
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:Soxred93/RfA Standards|my standards]], good editor. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - If for no other reason, I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of [[WP:BOLD|<b>being BOLD!</b>]]
'''Strong support''' Wanted to nominate this user before. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Best of luck.  <font  face="georgia">'''
Has my support for answering all of those damn questions, Jesus...
'''Support''' Got my vote.
'''Support'''. Has improved greatly since his last RfA.--'''
'''Support''' Great commitment and has improved since last RFA as per track.

'''Support.''' I ''love'' the answer to question nine (he used the words [[semantic web]] and I'm a geek, what can I say?) and none of the opposes mean anything to me <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
Yeah he's good. '''
'''Support.''' I was impressed with the user's ability to apolgize when wrong; something that is extremely important when acting as a sysop, because every single one of us is fallible and will make mistakes. I believe that this user is worthy of the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] and expect him to function admirably with the mop. Good Luck. --
'''Support''' - use the tools wisely! --
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
'''Support''', no reason to believe that they'd abuse the tools.
'''a little weak''' because of some warning's going astray, but I think the knowledge is there.  Just be sure to slow down a little and check carefully.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
To cancel out Shoessss' totally irrational comment (oh gosh, we get 4 months admins all the time!), and because it really is no big deal. Yeah, really. ''
per Ral. &mdash;
Seems fine.
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Support'''. I've changed my mind. Wish you well.
'''Support'''. I see no reason why this editor would not make a good administrator.  ''According to [[User:Hennessey, Patrick/RfA Reviews/RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria v1.0]], Poeloq gets a [[User:Hennessey, Patrick/RfA Reviews|score of 95.5%]].''
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of wanting to improve yourself and wishing to better [[Wikipedia]]. I see abuse of the tools as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, excellent understanding of policy and always very civil. Will make a good janitor and deserves the mop,
'''Support''' - changing from oppose. Thanks for answering the question, excellent contribs. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:Littleteddy|Littleteddy]] (
'''Support'''. Smart answers. Good edits. Great strides since last RfA.
Would prefer a leetle more time served, but insightful answers to questions and strong edits otherwise, convince me. Good luck! ~
'''Support''' Was on the fence, but you have you stuff together it seems.  Good answers to the questions.
sv-- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Support''' I am happy with edit total, edit spread through various areas of project, and with answers to the questions, of which I think he has more than any previous applicant. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a well-intentioned editor, however, I'm more than a little concerned with his/her lack of experience outside [[WP:AIV]] in the project namespace. [[WP:AFD]] participation is pretty good, but other areas are just as vital, if not moreso. I'm also concerned by what seems like a myriad of mechanical reversions, and barely any extensive talking or article building. These two things I consider (with only small exceptions) absolutely essential for adminship. Sorry, but I must oppose. Good luck with the RFA though!
'''Oppose''' -  I’m sorry, but looking at your edit history, well over 4,000 of your total 5,500-edit count are just in the last 4 months.  For me, that is just a little too soon to really familiarize yourself with the policies of [[Wikipedia]] and sorry to say I would hope for an individual with more experience in dealing with policy situations,  before giving the tools to enforce policy to that individual.  Little bit more experience and try again.  Good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to add another oppose despite fighting against Kurt Weber's silly reason to oppose, but I don't feel you are ready to become an admin just yet. Give it a few more months. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' per not sufficient interest in content writing. Seems like a nice person and hopefully he won't be discouraged from doing useful work. --
'''Oppose''' 2 months of solid edits isn't enough to gain an adequate understanding of how things work here.  I'm also not comfortable with your answers above.
'''Oppose''' not for the sake of the fact that he nominated himself, but for the fact that I am concerned that even though he said he'd be involved in vandal fighting, it doesn't mean that he will delve in other facets of of administration without knowledge of policies.  Familiarize yourself with the policies first. &nbsp;—
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see more than four months involvement, please, and some evidence of behaviour in dispute resolution of some sort.
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see more content contributions. I'm also concerned that the bulk of the edits were made in January and February. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose.''' Sorry dude hate to say this but 5000 is a bit low for me. You're quite new and I rekon you should get some experience under your blt first. Anyway don't be in such a rush to become an admin - you can just ask a admin (nicley) to do whatever you need for you. <strong>
'''Oppose''' WT space shows inadequate experience with policy. '''
'''Neutral''' - a little too new here, plus slightly nebulous and 'standard' answers to questions. Try again soon when you've been here long enough to know ''precisely'' what you want to do! —
Weakly per Stifle and Irpen, the answers weren't inspiring enough to be able to ignore these concerns.
'''Neutral''' - A few more months of experience would be ideal.
Nominator support. --
'''Support''' - level-headed editor with a good grasp of possible. Generally more patient with other editors than I am; sets a good example for editors in content disputes :-). Makes responsible edits with helpful edit summary and talk-page follow-up, and in general is someone whom I'd trust to mind the shop when no one else is around. --
'''Support''' - I've seen this guy around a lot at [[WP:RSN]] where he is always handing out well reasoned, useful advise. I kinda had assumed he already was an admin.
'''Strong Support'''.  Probably would have co-nommed even.  Great editor on fairly technical subjects.  We need more admins who can deal with complex topics, and Protonk has the rare ability to do this with economics content.  Has been very helpful in raising [[Tulip mania]] to FA and [[Panic of 1907]] to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panic of 1907|FAC]], for example.  As someone tending toward the inclusionist end of the spectrum, I'd attest that [[User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0]] was a frustrating user, and that although Protonk may feel he crossed the line he 1) is clearly aware of this and upfront about it, per his answer to the third question, 2) anyone with flesh and blood would have gotten frustrated, and 3) he made a good faith and concerted push to work constructively with the editor in question.  Approachable, smart, exactly the sort of admin we want, in my opinion. --
'''Support''' I offered to nominate this user myself about a month back; (s)he was a great user back then and from what I have glanced over recently that has not changed. I have always been impressed by his/her thoughtful statements on a wide variety of issues. <font color="#708090">
No reservations. Early congratulations on your successful request.
Complete support. I've hoped this would happen for awhile; we need more like you. Good luck,
'''Support'''. Reality stinks a lot of the time. I wouldn't get my hopes up this early if I were you, Avruch. '''''
'''Support''' - glad to provide early support for this productive, knowledgeable editor. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Hello, I'm the Road Runner and I would like to file a restraining order against Wile E. Coyote...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for one of our finer editors. (Does [[Richard A. Houghten]] know you're going for adminship?)
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''

'''Support''' - Clueful editor with the necessary experience to excel as an admin.
'''Strongest possible support''', I've seen this guy around and honestly thought he was an admin (ignoring the cliché/ROFLZ value that statement normally brings).
'''Support''' Thought he was an admin already... '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Strong support''' – cool-headed, excellent user. Absolutely no qualms in supporting him. Will be a superb administrator. Probably would have offered a co-nom if I had heard about this earlier ;-) — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - A very productive and insightful editor who works constructively with others. Good judgment, good attitude. Flexible in his approach.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' for calling us a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProtonk&diff=232941306&oldid=232923630 nest of vipers.]  '''Support''' for all of his other edits.  I've been reviewing Protonk for about 2 hours now... while I don't always agree with him, and there are a few concerns that I have, I haven't seen anything that really makes me say, "No."  One of the things I really liked was how people came to him seeking help... he is seen by many as an admin, which makes him one by fiat if not by RfA---'''
'''Strong Support'''. I've seen this user frequently in AFDs making articulate arguments that show a good mix of knowledge on policy and common sense. He is polite and respectful when engaging other editors, and goes the extra mile to explain his rationales thoroughly.
'''Support''' I've frequently disagreed with Protonk in AfD, but he's a well-reasoned contributor and I have no doubt that he will make an excellent administrator.  And I'll specifically note that the Oppose does not concern me a single iota; I've seen Protonk manage conflicts in other circumstances, and dude handles disagreement well.
'''Support''' I see nothing that causes me not to trust this user with the colloquial mop.
'''Support''' Extremely active in AfD and policy pages, thoughtful contributions, and understands the difference between personal opinion and consensus. Easy +sysop. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support.''' Per the nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive contributions to this project, thank you. '''
'''Support'''- I've had a fair bit to do with this user. Protonk knows the policies, knows what an encyclopedia is about and how this one operates, and can be trusted to use the tools responsibly.
'''Support''' - agree with EEMIV, responsible and trustworthy.
'''Support'''. His attitude about Wikipedia was definitely a tad too pessimistic in the past. But I see no evidence that that has prevented him from doing good work in multiple areas: he wrote good articles and constructively took part in several admin-related areas. He could have said nothing about his old views about Wikipeida, in which case I doubt anyone here would have guessed his past opinions. If anything, mentioning those is case of too much honesty, bordering naiveté, but I'm not going to hold that against him.
'''Support''' - Great edits, no problems, active contribs, good luck! -
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' per A Nobody.
Strong support because I've suggested he run well over 9000 times. My experiences with Protonk indicate he will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Experienced editor, net positive, WTHN? <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
Thoughtful, well-intentioned, patient, considerate, clueful etc. I could rattle off a longer list of good qualities but I don't think I need to.
'''Support''', seen around and anticipate good work, while my preference tends to be keepist, notability is essential so no problem there. .
'''Support''' for a great editor. Much anticipated. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Seems clueful and trustworthy.
'''Strong support''' I've been waiting for this for a while. A net benefit, no doubt. &ndash;
'''Support''' Protonk's AFD contributions are presented clearly and further the discussion. Good asset to the encyclopedia, and hopefully an even better one once he is an admin. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Support'''. Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin. Seen Protonk at AfD quite a bit, and the comments there are always well thought out and based on policy. No worries.--
'''Support''' for my favorite sub-atomic particle.  Also, I have checked Protonk's contribution history and found nothing of concern.
'''Support'''. I can see from Protonk's record that I have several disagreements with him when it comes to deletion policy. However, the fact that he also has an eye on rescuing what should be rescued, and writing encyclopedia content shows that his heart is in the right place. He has done a good job with content writing, and remains civil in discussions.
'''Support''', I had this real negative feeling when I saw this RfA - for some reason my brain was telling me there was some serious bad experience I'd had with you in the past. So I looked around for quite a while to figure out what that was and saw pretty much nothing but good contributions from a sensible user. In the end I decided I was probably just crazy and/or hallucinating. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Yup, looks good to me. —
'''Support''' per others.  --
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' — No objections with this user whatsoever. Will make a fine administrator. —'''
'''Strong Support''' A great editor who will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' - I've seen Protonk around and have yet to run across anything which would make me think he would not be a good admin. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''': OK, I'm sold. Make me proud. '''
'''Support'''. All of P's actions and comments I've seen (even when I've tended to disagree with him) have shown him to be a level-headed Wikipedian who can certainly be trusted with the tools.
'''Weak Support''' - I would normally go neutral, due to the short time period you have been here. However, you have always been professional when I have bumped into you. Yes. —
'''Support''' Why not?
Extremely competent. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Hello, I'd like two tickets to London?  Oh damn, wrong queue...
{{done|user OK}}. <small>
User seems [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and I can't see anything that would indicate they would abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support'''; I trust this user.
'''Support''' Ive seen him around, does good stuff.
'''Support''' See no misuse of tools as per track.
'''support''' Frankly, the dif given in the first oppose vote strikes me almost as a reason to support. We have an editor who came here with negative feelings about the project and the people in it and has changed his mind becoming a well-intentioned productive member of the community. Protonk's honesty in this matter is refreshing.
'''Support'''.  Sure. <font  face="georgia">'''
Can this one be trusted with teh tools? Yairs so '''Support''' already.
'''per above'''-- net positive.
'''Support, heartily'''.  I can't stay on Wikibreak when such a clueful editor is taking a stab at adminship.  I've had some very solid discussions with Protonk regarding several extremely "sensitive" issues related to Wikipedia, inclusion, exclusion, WikiProject tagging, and deletionism.  In my experience, he is ''always'' communicative, ''always'' remains civil even when in conflict with another editor over guideline/policy interpretation, and ''always'' willing to be wrong when approached constructively and intelligently.  Absolute 100% support for an ideal administrator candidate.
'''Support''' As someone I've found reasonable in my interactions with him.
'''Support'''. Good user, good work on the [[4chan]] article.
'''Support''' He has done plenty of good work on articles, he has enough experience with process, and his interactions with other users have been reasonable. I understand that working with [[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]] can be frustrating. In one of the conversations A Nobody referenced, Protonk was having trouble keeping his cool. However, Protonk has always worked to improve Wikipedia. I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' familiar with his work at AfD & elsewhere, trust with tools.
'''Support''' Warm, enthusiastic support; I've worked with Protonk on a number of articles and issues.  Nothing in the Oppose section or the questions gives me any doubts. - Dan
'''Support''' Civil, frank and clueful, I trust this candidate. '''
'''Support''' After looking at his edit history, his interactions with others and other such variables, I see nothing that concerns me greatly and lots to suggest he would make level-headed and useful administrator for this site. --
'''Strong support''': I'm familiar with Protonk through AfD, and I have full confidence in him.
'''Support'''. Good contributions & answers.
'''
'''Support''' Sure. Seen him around, nothing disturbing stands out on a cursory look through contribs, opposes don't really concern me.
'''Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' There a handful of editors whose edits and actions I've encountered and remember.  Protonk is one of them. --

'''Support''' I might have some disagreements with his stances (though our base beliefs on the project are alike), and he hasn't been around too long, but he's clearly dedicated to the project, and I don't see a reason why I would oppose him.
'''Support''' {{tl|thoughtthisuserwasalreadyanadmin}} '''~'''
'''Support''' Protonk has been very kind and helpful with administrative issues whenever I've run across him.
'''Support''' with nom.
'''Support''' per "I thought you were already one".
'''Support''' I gave your history the once over and could not locate anything disquieting enough to withhold support, although that may change if I can find a free moment or two to do more thorough contribution check.
Considered a nomination myself earlier.
I particularly like his attitude toward blocks and his willingness to go out on a limb to give second and third chances. --
'''Support''' &ndash; good contributions to the project, the number of which can't undermine their significance.
'''Support'''. I trust this candidate with the tools.
'''Support'''. ultimately a net positive. article work is a good change of pace. Cheers,
'''Support''' Ran across his contributions at AfD, then saw him up for sysop here; definitely like his style, and honesty above about past issues above helps cement the initial impression I've had of his being a solid editor with a good head on his shoulders (something we need in admins). Look forward to the verdict on this one.
'''Strong Support''' As a fellow member of [[WP:WikiProject Economics]], I've had many opportunities to observe Protonk's contributions to Wikipedia articles. They have invariably been good. Additionally, he is cool-headed and contributes positively to talk page discussions. There is every reason to believe that he will be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - I came here to support before I knew about the ED thing and it doesn't really seem right to change my mind based on a single revelation, such as that. My reasoning is that Protonk didn't have to admit it, but did anyway. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''' - Not generally one to be involved in RfA, I thought, however stereotypically, Protonk was an administrator already. I've encountered him in general and to say the least, have typically found him civil when engaging in discussion. --
'''Support''' - Good user, don't see any problems here.
'''Support''' (switching from Oppose). I spent some more time and reviewed Protonk's track record. While the record is newer than I would have preferred and I would have preferred a few more months of experience, I think Protonk does have the the experience and demeanor to serve effectively as an administrator. I had originally planned to switch to Neutral, but the nature of some of the oppose votes, particularly from Husond, and the manner in which Protonk has handled them, has convinced me that a vote of support is in order.
'''Aye'''. No reason not to trust with the tools. <b>
'''Yes'''. I've worked with user at [[Talk:Deletionpedia]] and have seen his work on other controversial website articles and in gaming. User has a strong understanding and commitment to our policies in even the most controversial areas. Will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' will be a net positive to the community.  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Support'''  I could have ''sworn'' you were already an admin, and I was quite surprised when I saw this.  I've seen you around a few AfDs, most notably the various AfDs where LGR was arguing everyone in circles.  You may or may not remember that, but I do remember you kept your calm, and made that review on my review page.  All around, you're a good editor, at least in my opinion, and from my interaction with you.  Good luck.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' Two words: [[Mathematical economics]]. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' - Good work in the [[WP:AFD|Afd]] process --'''
'''Support''': Throw another one on the pile.  My experience with this editor has been positive and I thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''': with a request to concentrate more on mainspace and '' deleting the articles '' :) --
'''Support''' per Q10.
'''Support''', I've seen many good things from this editor; someone I think will make a fine, fair, level-headed admin.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Articulate and sensible answers to questions. Wikipedia needs more admins of this variety. ''
'''Support'''. Protonk is a good and level-headed editor with a good understanding of our policies.
'''Strong Support''' (just noticed this - better late than never) - I worked with him on [[Tulip mania]] and he is the type of editor who is a pleasure to work with.
'''Support''' - looks, good, meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' with no problem whatsoever. Thanks,
'''Support''' - tons of great work, always very clueful in everything I've seen him do.  Certainly seems ready and I don't see any problems that should prevent becoming an admin.
'''Support''' Hell, 6 months is enough, and the conflicts presented below don't seem all too severe and besides, everyone makes mistakes at some point.
'''Support'''. Good editor, with decency and integrity. No spam, just continue to be a good guy. --
'''Oppose''' because the candidate came here with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Protonk&diff=prev&oldid=223014921 bad intentions] (how do we know we’re still not being had?), does not seem to understand how admin boards work and venue shopped/escalated tensions during a dispute (see [[User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Suggestion]], [[User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#Title_and_3RR]], and [[User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#RFCs]]), is too quick to fly off the handle/lose temper for a prospective admin ([[User_talk:Protonk/Archive_3#Rescue_tag_on_Ultramarines]]) and while claiming there that he wanted nothing to do with his opponent followed him around anyway as seen in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes]] and apparently was in no hurry even after that to let things be, has been [[User_talk:Protonk/Archive_1#June_2008|warned]] for vandalism, and has engaged in [[User_talk:Protonk#3RR_and_OR|edit warring]].  Also, look at the earliest edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&contribs=user&target=Protonk here].  His immediately jumping into AfDs is also somewhat unusual for a “new” user.--
'''Oppose''' I can't support because of not even having 6 months experience yet. I was also concerned because of an edit summary using a 4chan saying.  The drama with a certain editor doesn't help the case either.  However, your edits that I looked through are all good and you have a good deal of anti vandalism work.  Maybe in a few months you'd be ready under my standards, but for now I have to oppose because of that. --
'''Oppose''' I don't approve of the shaky AFD work, so far. You have stated that you want to be involved in closing AFDs, and I do not trust your judgment at this time.
'''Oppose'''
Per revelation "''I literally came to wikipedia because of AfD''". <span style="font-size:smaller;">(It saddens me now to realize that I was right[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-September/095600.html] and Phil was wrong[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-September/095609.html].)</span>  —
'''Moved from Neutral'''  I will say that overall from what I have seen of your edits, I'm good with them.  We've only edited in the same places once or twice, but I have gone through the logs.  I like that your edits aren't relying on tools to do the job.  I do think that you will need a little more time on the job as an editor before being upped to an admin.  I appreciate your reply below to my questions about controversy.  This shows me that I would readily support you on an RFA after about 3 more months of similar editing and cooperativeness. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I have not had much interaction with him but the one that I did have did not leave me with a warm feeling.  We became involved in a discussion at AN/I ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Jarajet89|see this section of AN/I archive titled '''''User:Jarajet89''''', for context]]) where we had a difference of opinion of whether a disruptive editor who refused to respond to any attempts at communication, should or should not be blocked for a short period, to force some kind of reply to repeated inquires as to why they were continually removing an image from an article.  Every attempt at communication with Jarajet89 failed to get any kind of response.  The discussion at AN/I became a discussion of Protonk's and my view on blocking to force communication and end disruption.  The editor continued to refuse communication, even when Protonk tried to ascertain why he was editing in the manner that he was, which eventually resulted in Protonk filing a 3RR and the editor being blocked for 48hrs.  Protonk posted this action in the AN/I discussion, to which I replied "no comment".  His immediate reaction was to rip into me for what he felt was a he was wrong and I was right plug.  I replied to his reaction with a further explanation of what I meant by my comment, but the AGF of my comment, considering it was right under the 3RR notice he had posted, being made on the 3RR rapid response, seemed to not have entered his mind.  I would invite any editor to view my edit history and my participation at AN/I, and would expect that before someone ripped into me, they would at least give me some credit for not being a drama seeker or immature as to want too disparage them.  This incident being little over a week ago, does not give me the impression he is ready at this time to deal with the duties an administrator faces in levelheaded and cooperative discourse. This is the impression I am left with at this time, but do not see it as something that can not be changed with less contentious interation with him.--<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Do not endorse nomination and have doubts on user's judgment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=244011406 This] bugs me; all users should have the right to a fresh start. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Moved from oppose. <font face="Broadway">
I don't see anything troubling, but it's pretty hard for me to support anyone with less than a third of his edits in article space. I might have been swayed to support if the majority had been on article talk, but Wikipedia. Pfft. We're here to build an encyclopedia not endlessly discuss policy, and if policy is your main focus, you should probably let others with more article experience enforce it.
Moved from oppose. I wanted to support him because he has reacted to his opposers' concern in a civil and calm demeanor. He could fix his error easily, so my concern about his AFD could be decreased. However I still find myself hard to switch to "support" him per the answer to my question. Maybe because I'm reluctant to accept the existence of the crappy site and his a little involvement there. Sorry.--
'''Support''' as nom.
Impressive. Just. Impressive. '''
'''Support''' - From examination of your special contributions, I get the feeling that your edits are of the utmost quality - edit count ''sometimes'' is a good indicator, but by no means definitive or all encompassing. Nice job.
'''Support''' A quick review of contributions shows a reasonable person with a wide range of posts on policy issues. 'Reasonable' is what this encyclopedia clearly needs. --
'''Support''' Another highly involved editor I was sure had the mop, till I saw this. '''
'''Support''' Very impressive, clearly willing to get his hands dirty.
'''Support:''' No evidence that the user will abuse the tools.  <span style="cursor: crosshair">[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support'''. R. Baley has a clear need for the tools and can be trusted. The project will benefit from a mopping here. Best of luck,
'''Support''': Seen him around and been pleasantly impressed. Seems mature and sensible, and I think he'll be a good admin. Plus, points for being bold enough to voice his opinion on a controversial topic (Orangemarlin's block) while his RfA is up. '''
'''Support''': umm...sounds sensible, and some evidence of 'pedia building. net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' Experienced enough.
'''Support''' - I choose to support this user simply because he has given me no reason no to.  Experience doesn't always come in the form of edit counts. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' --- steady editing rate, good edits, no reason to oppose! --
'''Support''' Highly involved. Willing to abide by the spirit of policy. Smart enough to see through murky situations and come out with a strong position. <font color="#0000b0">
'''Support''' Generally makes thoughtful comments and helps move processes forward.
'''Support''' excellent editor, good experiences, expect to see good work here.
'''Support''' great experience and has a solid head on their shoulders.  Should be a very good admin.
'''Support''' Well intentioned, experienced, the oppose seems unjustified... no reason not to support. <small>
'''Support''' Great editor, great contributions.
'''Support''' Ready for the mop. --'''
'''Support''' What Jehochman said. Even though I don't agree with everything he's ever written, R. Baley seems like a sound chap.
'''Support'''.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Seems to have a strong comprehension of policy and shows reasoned understanding of complex situations (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangemarlin&diff=203880370&oldid=203855686 these edits] for a complete incident). I think his posts and responses show a balanced and reasonable admin not shrinking from policy just because an admin said so. Just the sort of Admin we need here.
After seeing this user number of times on Wikipedia, including having him/her revert vandalism on my talk page at least once, I believe that he/she is ready for the mop. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', solid editor and thankyou for the detailed answer to my question. <b>
'''Support''' will not abuse the mop, good user. <strong>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per any discussions in which I have participated with the candidate.  In all cases, I found the candidate reasonable, objective, open-minded, and constructive: [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunguska event in fiction (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charla and Mirna (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5]], and [[Wikipedia:Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Does good work, meets most of [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]]. Communicates, does mainspace work, shows up at AN and ANI, reports vandals. Can't demand much more from a candidate.
[[WP:SPADE]]. ''

Seen him around in many places editors (such as myself) fear to tread. &mdash;
'''Support''' - no concerns at all.
'''Support''' Per previous wholly positive and pleasing interaction. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Willing to take a stand on principle.  Great editor.  Mature.  What else could we want?
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support'''
Outstanding&ndash;there is simply no definition more appropriate to this candidate who has amazed me with [[User_talk:Gwynand#Hi_Gwynand|this]] comment, which for me, is the best representation of [[common sense]] I have ever seen on Wikipedia in a very long time.
'''Support''' per Kusma.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  <small>and more seriously, you have a great track record.  No worries from me</small>  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Sure.
'''Support''' - of course -
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support'''--
Great user, and the answers to all the questions are excellent. It appears that R. Baley has a sense of humor too, which is a very good sign, and seems to be a music fan as well. :) For the record, I was the admin who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AR.+Baley granted him rollback] (one of the first users I ever changed the rights of, in fact), and he's been fine with that, so I think he'll be fine with adminship. Just remember to keep your sunglasses on! :)
'''Support.''' Can't add much to what has already been said. Are there any more at home like you?
'''Support''' Sensible and has a good grasp of policy. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' Have seen around and always in a good way, meets
'''Support'''  Helpful and sensible.  Thought this person already was an admin.--
'''Support''' - Give the man a mop! '''
'''Support''' Support as per Usesight.Through edit count is low the user has contributed in over 18 months to a variety of tasks.
I think so. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) (
'''Yes''', absolutely.  No worries here.

I was quite surprised to find his name up on the RfA chopping block, as I had assumed he already had the added administrative tools. But that's easily changed. '''Support''' goes to a quality and trustworthy contributor in every respect.
Support per all the above, and per that below as well. Outstanding candidate for the mop.
'''Support''' - I guess so. &nbsp; '''
Support. Seen him around, and the opposes reveal nothing that can't be addressed. Trustworthy. --'''
'''Support''' - Good, thoughtful candidate. The first ''opposer'' clearly hasn't read through R. Baley's statement about the quality of his edits rather than quantity BTW. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Per everything above. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
One of the good guys. ~
'''Support''' - Looks experienced enough.
'''Support''' - switching from neutral. My concerns addressed elsewhere. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support:''' - I like the answer to question 12. I dont understand the question but i like the answer:) Think will do a great job on wikipedia.
'''Support''' Learning from one's past mistakes is a critically important trait for anyone. --
'''Support''' This is a no-brainer; eminently qualified. '''
'''Support''' What harm could one more dedicated administrator do???  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - Appears to have made several poor assumptions, but signs are he's learning well, so I support. PS [[I am thinking of a number between 1 and 100]].
'''Support''', not perfect (nor is anyone here), but still a great and qualified candidate. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''. Smart and trustworthy, and good at handling nuance. <font color="Brown">
'''Support''' Experienced, and has a smart and nuanced view of policy. It's also reassuring to hear that the candidate is willing to learn more about subjects s/he's not familiar with before diving into them. --
'''Support''' Liked the answers to the questions, not perusaded by the opposes, am confident will not abuse the tools and will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good experience of this candidate, only slightly tainted by their preference for <s>[[The Woodentops (TV series)|The Woodentops]]</s>[[The Eagles]]. Unlikely to abuse the mop.
'''Support''': With pleasure. --
'''Support''' - excellent answers to questions, see no problems, and good luck! ♥
'''Support''' Great, trustworthy candidate. '''
'''Support''' Ob--
'''Support''' No problems here!  Good luck with your new tools!
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=161997802] plus the lack of experience.-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Strong oppose''' for the most blatant violation of [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] on [[User talk:CreepyCrawly]]: "A pov pushing sleeper account created in nov. 2006, makes one edit, and then none until March 2008. . .making a run at Global warming articles. Time to blockyblocky." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACreepyCrawly&diff=198337521&oldid=198336942] The edit summary also contained the words "time to blockyblocky."  As I documented in many places -- including farther down on [[User talk:CreepyCrawly]], [[User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly]], [[User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/CreepyCrawly/One last try]], and posts to WP:ANI linked in that last page, as well as [http://yrobinso.livejournal.com/2008/03/20 my blog], CreepyCrawly is innocent beyond any possible doubt, and everyone who accused him of being Scibaby must now apologize for making an egregiously false accusation against an innocent user.  R. Baley has not apologized.  Neither have any of the other eight users who falsely accused CreepyCrawly or endorsed his block.  Not only did R. Baley err on this case, but he used gratuitous insults in violation of [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]: '''"time to blockyblocky"''', in the message and ''again'' in the edit summary.  Anyone worthy of administrator status does not speak to human beings in such an insulting, derogatory tone.  If you want to report this user to an administrator and suggest blocking, go ahead.  (Someone else did that.)  If you erroneously thought based on a first impression that this was a sockpuppet, you were not alone, and you probably were unaware of the events that followed.  Nonetheless, I consider your ill-advised comment an immature insult which should disqualify you from being able to block other users for quite a long time.
'''Oppose''' per handling CreepyCrawly. Other admins should also be ashamed of themselves. ~
'''Oppose''' per handling of CreepyCrawly as well as the points raised by Gwynand (in "Neutral") about BT's comments on the Orange Marlin / Hersfold block issue (and yes, I am aware of GSTS's edits). While I don't doubt the good intentions or strong contributions of RB, these incidents do make me doubt the maturity of his judgement.
'''Oppose'''. As per above and due to the fact that your edit count is very low, less than 1000 in mainspace edits and 3000 in edits. You've been here around a year and a half but I would prefer more edits and experience. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per Fattyjwoods, and low edit rate of avg c. 250 pcm.
'''Very Weak Oppose''' Sorry, the whole blockyblock thing did it for me. However, as a former admin I will admin that EVERY (and I mean that, every single goddamn one of them) does get a kind of thrill from deleting and blocking on a whim when its pretty obvious. This vote should not really be held mainly against baley but the whole damn system instead. Sorry, Baley, there is a need to keep this things to yourself. But, I do wish you the best and I assume you will become an admin.
'''Neutral''' - for now, based on your various comments on OrangeMarlin's [[User_talk:Orangemarlin| talk page]] regarding the block of [[User:God_Save_the_South]] and overturn by new admin [[User:Hersfold]]... then the block of [[user:Orangemarlin]]. I'm neutral because I see you as a good, civil contributor to wikipedia, but the first thing I see in your history regarding something an admin would have to deal with seems... questionable at best. I'm unsure of your understanding of [[wp:civil]]. Your apparent "siding" with Orangemarlin and subsequent insinuation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=prev&oldid=203808175] about Hersfold's future as an admin didn't sit well with me. I certainly don't want to rehash that whole topic here, but to be blunt, you seem to give ''numerous'' uncivil edits a total pass here while taking passive-aggressive swipes at a new admin who made a mistake and then was falsely accused of being a racist. Also, if you'd like to reply here or on my talk page, I'll leave that up to you, but I am definitely open to a deeper explanation of your thoughts on the incident.
'''Neutral''' per oppose #2.
'''Neutral leaning Oppose''' per Question 9.  While this user has done much valuable work, I'm troubled by the fact that the candidate seems to think that expressing an honest (or "frank", if you like) opinion and communicating in a polite and civil manner are mutually exclusive.  (Less seriously, preferring [[The Eagles]] over [[The Cure]] also would seem to indicate a colossal lack of judgement =p)
'''Neutral'''. Switched from oppose. I have confidence that there will be no repeat of the "blockyblocky" incident, and therefore I am happy for R. Baley to become an admin.
'''Support''' - As per last time.
I supported last time. I still think that Remember the dot is a good user.
'''Support''' - I know it sounds lame but the issue for me last time was edit summaries and that seems to have been addressed.
'''Support'''.  No problems here.  '''
'''Support''' again.
'''Strong support''' an excellent and intelligent user who clearly supports our free content policies.  Most of the opposition last time was, in my opinion, based off an unfortunate and unfair misrepresentation of The Dot's views. --
'''Support''' Another great editor soon to be an admin...
'''Support''' This is one of those editors I'd see around and just assume he/she was an admin, which demonstrates that I, and the community, already trust this user. '''
'''Support''', just like last time. :)
'''Support'''[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' - solid candidate who knows policy well. Will be good with the extra tools.
'''Support''' I've editted with him and trust his judgement. '''
'''Support''' I've seen his participation in Wikipedia and I'm impressed. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' Seems very dedicated to Wikipedia and vandal control.
'''Support''' Great user trustworthy. -
<s>Oppose per Q9</s> '''Strong support'''.  Passes level 3 of [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].  Excellent user.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Support'''. Understands policy, seems trustworthy.
Yes, I remember the dot! '''
'''Support''' - more admins willing to help with images are needed.
'''Support''' Well do well with the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' Good answers, a little concerned about the recall threshold (1 user?). That'll get cleaned up in time I'm sure. <sup>
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. (I agree with the comments that the candidate's recall criteria should be rethought, though.)
'''Support'''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' The recall criteria are a little dodgy but I always think it's an unfair question to ask at RfA, since no one, including yourself, really knows how you'll handle the tools, what you'll do with them, who you'll come into contact with in the course of usage... etc. Plenty of time to think that stuff through later :) Solid work, especially on images. ~
'''Support''' Bearing in mind admin recall is a personal option, that's not an issue for me. But RTD has a good grasp of policy particularly in relation to images, and shows a mature attitude. That's good enough for me. --'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Dlohcierekim||Dlohcierekim]].

Poorly considered answer to recall as stated by Tim; but I cannot honestly say that Remember the dot didn't improve from his last RfA. He has overcame many policy experience problems present in the last RfA, and seem to be much more knowledgable about them. Although I have a different view on fair use, I trust that he will not voice his opinion to the point of disruption. We don't have many admins tackling the image backlogs of Wikipedia and any help will be appreciated. Good work and good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' Cry havoc! <b>
'''Support''' - Has done what has been requested of his and has improved his candidacy. Based on my limited experience with him, I believe RTD would be a greater asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. By the way, question #12 is brutal.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' While the answer to question #6 is not the best wording I have ever seen, the candidate is at least honest about it. Second, I am completely baffled by the rationales of the three opposes below, in which one seems to be based more on prejudice than reality, and the other two having nothing to do with the candidate's competence with the admin tools. —'''
'''Support''' I'm slightly concerned about the degree of replaceability issue brought up in the last nomination, but on the whole Remember the dot's work with images is exemplary. I trust that this user will hold himself accountable for his administrative actions regardless of recall category membership. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' some evidence of 'pedia building which I hope will continue. cheers,
'''Support''' Good candidate.
Again. ''
'''Support''' issues that have been brought up at this RfA will no doubt be addressed by the candidate. Otherwise a great user and a good candidate for the mop. '''
'''Support''', no valid reason to oppose (and the 2 year experience minimum mentioned below is risible).
'''Support''' this user.  He meets all my standards.  He has vastly improved from the past RfA (for which I did not take part) especially on mainspace edits and edit summaries.
'''Support''' as per all the previous comments.
'''Support''' as per above. I have seen a lot of this editor out and about and don't hesitate to support
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Strong support''' Never found a reason to oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] ([[User_talk:Bhadani|talk]]) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)--
'''Support''' As per track.
'''Support''' per Kurt.
'''Support''' Strong user - deserves the mop - going to make a superb admin. Keep up the good work.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per JayHenry's comments above and below. As for Q6, I think the issue is being overblown: a responsible admin (i.e. one who probably shouldn't be recalled) will generally voluntarily submit to community review/recall with or without a formal process, whereas those admins who probably should be recalled are more likely to resist community review regardless of whether a formal process is in place. I like the honesty and simplicity of RTD's answer (the one dated "23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)"). – '''
'''Support'''
'''support''' Good answers to questions and a realistic approach to policy.'''
'''Support''' per ''the_undertow''. But, srsly, per question 6. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - as per my support last time.
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''', particularly impressed by how civil and constructive his replies to my earlier oppose comments were.
'''Support''' Pile on support!
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
Blah. User:
'''Support''' just like last time.  <b>
'''Support'''. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' - I've seen Remember the dot many times editing articles in my watchlist, and it has always been positive, constructive changes. Remember the dot is an excellent editor and would make an excellent admin.&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support''', as per amended answer to Q6. --
'''Support''' Sure, seems like a good editor.
Changing to support per clarifications and good attitude.  You'll be a fine admin.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Excellent editor, shows maturity in difficult situations, willing to admit issue and correct mistakes - exactly what we want --<font color="#06C">
'''Support''' <span>
'''Support''' - seems civil, trustworthy, should make a good admin. --
'''''
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' - I haven't seen his contributions, so my criticism isn't pointed into that direction. He's active on en.wiki since 22 Nov 2006, that means, 1 year 2 months and few days. According to me, he's <u>not experienced enough.</u> I'm speaking from my experience (I'm on en.wiki since 30 June 2005, 2 years 7 months, total 31 month). A lot of that changed since I've been 14 months on en.wiki. Since en.wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, we cannot allow ourselves such luxury. I don't say that Remember the dot is not good, I just want to say that he doesn't know what traps await him. With 2 years on en.wiki, with a lot of experiences on heated issues, he'll be a wiki-veteran that 'll recognize things. However, than we'll have to look at quality of his contibutions.
'''More a protest oppose''': I'm not liking the candidate's own nomination, unfortunately. There was a lot of well thought out and sensible opposition at this chaps last RfA and to blame those Opposing for not elaborating and saying there was sockpuppetry or something just belittles comments others made in good faith. What's fully worse is this chap probably has taken on-board the concerns, but he's not really telling us all that much about that, the changes he has made and why he should be promoted now and not then, just that he should be promoted now.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Neutral''', Per Nick. I cannot fathom to understand why a candidate would take a shot at people who opposed last time for "not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" — I opposed for that reason, and it's a perfectly legitimate one. Doing this during your second RfA showed poor judgement from where I sit.
'''Beat the noms support''' '''«'''
'''Support''' For the near perfect response to Q3 and for the quote on the top of her user page. --
'''Support''' per nom
'''You're not an admin?  Seriously?''' You certainly act like one.  Support without hesitation.  Keep on truckin.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. Give me a content-oriented administrator over a career wikimandarin any day. --
'''Weak Support''': See no immediate problems, but having little experience with her, I can't say full support for now--
Seems like it's moral support time, for whatever reason.
'''Weak Support'''.  Mmmm.  I don't like DRAHMAZ, but I do like the attitude toward Wikipedia that you convey.  And like Balloonman said—she is not your typical RFA candidate.  Let's shake things up a bit. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''. Clear article builder who isn't afraid to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] when needed.'''''<font color="green">
a very gentle support, <s>with comma splices, to drive her mad; but to wish her luck.</s> with the hope that she's careful with deletions.
'''Support'''. Closer inspection reveals a thoughtful editor, who analyzes carefully and astutely, and actually does ''not'' jump in disputes head first, but tries to avoid drama for drama's sake. Anyway, good content editor. Make that strong support. ---
'''Support''' - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' very strong content credentials, and reasonable when I've seen her around in discussions.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support per noms'''. Good seems to outweigh bad.
Support—Thoughtful editor. The opposers' diffs so far leave me wondering why this editor's opinions are considered "drama". –
'''Support''', good experiences with this editor.
Enjoyed working on [[Jacques Plante]] with her. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Strong Support''' Per Nom. I admire the fact that she was one of those who stood up to the [[WP:BADSITES|BADSITES]] policy-pushers as a voice of reason. We need more, not less, administrators who can think critically. --
'''Support''' as a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' Just because I think she will do good with the tools. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support'''.  I'm uncomfortable with editors who are dramaholics, but I can't see from below that this is at all the case.  Risker participated in discussing, yes, a relatively small handful of some ugly dramas.  But hers was always a calm voice that never fanned the flames and often helped move toward resolution.  Her approach to BLP is firm and principled while not couched in unhelpful histrionics about "what moral right etc. etc."   In short, the sort of candidate we need, and I encourage the opposers to give this one a careful reappraisal. --
'''Strong support''' - great admin material
'''Support'''. Her contributions are solid and valuable, and don't find the problems pointed out by the opposers very problematic at all. I also disapprove of the tendency to label getting into any sort of policy debate as "wikidrama" and use it as a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I'm willing to take a risk. :) <b>
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support here. <font color="blue">'''

'''Support'''. The admin corps can do with more great content contributors like this, for balance, and, per JayHenry, with calm voices in the storms.
Per my nom and those above. ''
'''Support''' - Highly qualified candidate. No major concerns for me. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Fuck it, why not.
'''Support''' per Swat
'''Support''':  Well informed, temperate, and interested in both the issues (and some people call that "drama") and best practices.  An administrator who takes a stand is going to be accused of "drama" by ''someone.''  There is neither policy nor reason to suggest that this is a valid criterion for rejection.  Every time someone, below, says "drama," just translate that in your mind as "took a position."  Now, are administrators better for taking positions or worse? Are they better or worse for being involved?  Are they better or worse for caring?  To me, it's a reason to support, unless there is some reason to think the new candidate would use the buttons against policy.  Nothing like that is present here.
'''Support''' - no rational reasons to oppose Risker getting the tools.
'''Support''' - There's srsly not one diff in the oppose section that brings me any caution. Tho, I do need to give credit to those who actually bothered to give diffs, thereby giving their oppose some weight. I've worked with Risker a few times over the past year. I've always had a pleasant experience. While we certainly do have too many admins with nothing better to do that kick up the dust and interject themselves in the drama, I have a feeling in my gut that risker will be a good addition to the team. [[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]
Thought she was one. Opposing concerns do not seem particularly troubling to me. ~
'''Support''' My only issue with this candidate is an extension of ''prima facie'': I view accepting RfA nominations as a sign of power hunger.
'''Support''' I object to this candidate for her unwillingness to follow accepted practice and to keep her head down until her RFA has passed (although if those diffs are the best drama she can provide I should really be opposing on the grounds of blandness. She put an article up for deletion and then had the temerity to argue in favour of it being deleted?! How did Wikipedia survive that? Whatever next?!). Also, I see no need for the tools, and where is her 1 FA?
'''Support''' Methodical, open minded and keen to learn new topics. Would make a good admin overall.
'''Support''' After looking this candiate over, I don't see any drama in the diffs of the opposers, so I will give [[WP:AGF|the benefit of the doubt]].
--
Respect opposers, but positives far outweigh the negatives. Unless of course, other links could be provided. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' Solid contributor with mature and rational approach to problem-solving. I share Lara's sentiments in general regarding the net benefit to the project of this candidate having the tools. Regarding the opposes, I see no evidence that the candidate has done anything other than express arguably controversial opinions on process - that should not be a disqualifier for RfA.
'''Support'''. Heaven forbid someone show gumption ''prior'' to RfA.
'''Support'''. I just don't see the issue with excess drahmaz mentioned in the opposes, and agree with Orderinchaos' view of the situation. I'd much rather have a known quantity who's been around the block than another candidate with 3000 automated vandalism reverts. I don't like the precedent that previous involvement in significant and controversial issues is a handicap at RfA; it should be a prerequisite. Risker will be a good admin. Honestly, I'm most troubled by the 540 edits to [[James Blunt]], but I could not in good conscience oppose an RfA solely on grounds of differing musical taste. '''
If I could think of something pertinent that hadn't been said already, I'd add it right here. I can't. We certainly don't need more groupthink or careerism.
'''Strong support'''.  Excellent, well thought out answers + contributions to a featured article + participation in virtually every area administrator should work in = Excellent administrator.  I would not hesitate to give her the tools.  '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' The opposes from editors whose opinions I hold in very high regard (e.g., Ryan, DGG) gives me pause. But overall I think she will be a good addition to the admin corps.  One person's "drama" is another's "not afraid to step into controversy" (and vice-versa).
'''Support''' I don't see how her alleged dramatization will affect her ability to use the admin tools at her disposal. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- good user, unlikely to misuse the tools. Loved the nomination also, very well said! --
'''Support''' Obviously knowledgeable, definitely trustworthy (in my book anyway). Gnomes are not the only people who are trustworthy, and the presence of conflict is not a bellwether for potential abuse. I find that Risker has done a fine job all around, and there is no reasonable objection to sysopping her.
I think she'll be great.
'''Support''' Net positive? Definitely.
Will make one hell of an administrator.
'''Support''' Excellent copyeditor, I see no reason why she wouldn't make a good administrator. --
'''Support'''. Fine answers up above.
'''Strong Support'''. Very good candidate.
'''Support'''. As an experienced editor, I expect her to have opinions about Wikipedia. Discussions on Wikipedia are not reserved for administrators so I have absolutely no problem with her regularly commenting in discussions, even controversial ones. Although I do not always agree, I see her polite comments as a plus. No reason stated indicate that she would abuse the admin tools. Rather, she appears to be an experienced user volunteering to do her share of more work. :)
'''Support''' The opposition raises some valid points, but I personally find them insufficient to counter all the pros about Risker. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Experienced and dedicated editor.
'''Support'''. No evidence whatsoever that the candidate would abuse the tools. Indeed, everything I'm seeing would indicate the opposite - that this candidate's adminship would be a net positive for the project. Best,
'''Support''' A good user with a good record.  I looked at the Bob Kinnear AFD cited by DGG, and I am not bothered by it.
'''Support'''. An active editor who is here to make an encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. A great candidate. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''. Looks good. -
'''Support''' Has helped me. '''
'''Support''', a reasonable voice with good judgment. --
'''Support''' Solid judgement, can't find any reason not to say yes :)
'''Support''' So reasonable. -
'''Support''' I'm not too worried about this user; solid work and answers to questions look good.  --
'''Support'''. The diffs provided by the opposes seemed to show a calm, level headed individual here. No worries.--
'''Support''', Risker appears to be friendly, pleasant, courteous, and to already have a hand in lots of issues that administrators deal with.  I think that we will benefit from her having the tools. --
'''Support''' I've had only positive interactions with this user, through some tough times. (The badsites drama, specifically.) In all cases I am aware of she has acted as a steady voice of reason and diplomacy in some of Wikipedia's worst zones of personal antagonism and social conflict. Her involvement always served to mitigate, rather than exacerbate, existing drama. She has never caused controversy, and her judgment and demeanor in high-stress situations leads me to believe she is well qualified for use of the tools.
'''Support'''. I read the arguments in the oppose section and do not see why giving the tools to an experienced editor such as Risker would be a problem. Yeah, we all make mistakes here and there, that only shows we are human.
'''Support''' - Understands the work at hand, and has demonstrated competence in my eyes.
Changing to '''Support'''.
'''Support''' No question, given of what I've seen of him/her to date. Trustworthy, and an asset to the project.
'''Support'''. This took awhile to go through all the diffs and various discussions posted in the opposition section. I didn't see anything that would indicate misuse of the administrator tools. I might not agree with 100% of Risker's opinions, but seems like a fine editor. An asset to the project.
'''Support'''. I trust her judgment. <font color="Brown">
'''Weak Support'''. not thrilled by deletion tendencies, nor drama, ''but'' evidence of helpfulness and article building is a plus. On the balance of things a net positive I suspect. Difficult as people whose opinions I take heed of are on both sides of this debate. Cheers,
'''Support'''.  Strong candidate and I see only evidence she will use the tools wisely and well.  There's some people I greatly respect in the oppose camp, but looking at the diffs, I don't really see the drama.
'''Strong support''' I've seen nothing but good from Risker. This is long overdue.
Support. My interaction, though limited, has been positive.  Checked through hundreds of talk page edits and Risker has been level-headed and reasonable; I think would s/he would be fine with the bit.  Good Luck!
Ok. Not afraid to get her hands dirty, which is probably a good thing. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) (
'''Very Strong Support''' To be honest, it is the oppose arguments (but not the arguers) who cite the strong opinions and the strange affliction of "wikilawyering" (i.e. the willingness to test the understanding of policy, to ensure that all aspects have been covered, in a debate) in their decisions that has persuaded me to vote early (when I first found out I was toying with holding on and trying to be [[WP:100]].) I am biased, but I sincerely believe that a candidate who is committed to the encyclopedia and yet is prepared to get into the protracted debates and hold an unpopular opinion on the basis that it is important to provide a full vista of argument is one that is needed. ''"Too much drama!"'' is sometimes shorthand for, ''"Too much hard work, why can't we just act and move on?"'' Even where this is considered a Bad Thing, does this willingness to ask the awkward question or take the unpopular position translate as an inability to use the sysop bits appropriately? Has this editor been found to violate Wikipedia principles or policy? I say no, and thus believe that this candidate is a great example of the type of free thinking individual that should be part of the admin community. Case in point; it has come to me, as it has for many, as a surprise to find that Risker is female - evidence that the individual has devoted much of their time to the project, and not used it as a medium for promoting themselves. It makes the point that Risker has only ever debated upon facts and interpretation of policy, and never on who they are.
Change to '''support'''. Anyone who can stand up to the kind of loopiness currently going on in the oppose section without snapping at anyone is going to do just fine.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
The '''STRONGEST SUPPORT''' I have ever offered an adminship candidate. Risker is not only one of the finest editors I've known on this project, but one of the nicest peoples as well. I've rarely, if ever, seen more specious, less-reasoned opposes. And that's saying something, as with a previous account, I spent a LOT of time at RfA.
'''Support''' 10 more supports to [[WP:100]]
Seems fine to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions and I don't share the concerns brought up by several of those in the oppose camp. I've seen Risker around in at least a couple of intense community discussions and she always seems to demonstrate good judgment. Bottom line is that's what we're looking for in an admin.--
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' per Bigtimepeace. --
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support'''. A good editor that will make a reasonable admin. --
'''Support''': I dont see a reason why I shouldnt support her -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
I've had good dealings with this user, and she seems well qualified.
'''Support'''. Good editor with good judgement.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Exceptionally intelligient, calm, and rational person. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Seems to have the right combination of patience, judgment, knowledge and self confidence to be an admin.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''Totally! Why not?--
'''Support''': for those occasions when a protected page needs copyediting :) --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support''', strong candidate.
'''Support''', fair minded, critical thinker, content oriented, reasonable personality--
'''Support''' seems reliable enough to me.
'''Support''' - she looks like a good copy editor, no concerns, meets my standards.
'''Support''' I have every confidence that Risker will use the tools wisely and carefully.
'''Support''' - no problems from me at all. <small>(And I didn't know Risker was a gurl! :)</small> -
'''Support''' good editor, reasonable, and we need more admins. I would appreciate it if more females clearly indicated they were such. I hate calling ladies "him", you know?
'''support''' I'm perplexed by claims that Risker's willingness to spend time discussing AfDs in detail is somehow problematic. If anything, we need more admins who are willing to discuss and explain actions rather than act unilaterally. I disagree very strongly with Risker on deletionism/inclusionism issues but I don't see that as a reason to oppose either.
'''Support''': Has been a voice of reason in every discussion I've seen.  No risk of tool abuse as far as I can tell.  —
'''Support''' I think Risker will be okay. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Looks good.

'''Support''' - and remember that if you hold Asia, you can get 7 extra armies! (whodda thunk it! Risker an admin? whatever next, I wonder..........)
'''Support''' Opposes don't impress and no reason to suggest abuse of tools. -<small>

'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Naturally. Everything I have seen from this user suggests sound judgment and clear and firm expression of views.
'''Support''' I wasn't going to !vote in this RfA, but I dropped by to update the tally and some of the recent supports were... interesting, so I decided to read the oppose section. I must say that this RfA is one of the finest examples of how base and petty RfAs in general have become. When I was on Wikipedia fairly around a year ago, I came to RfA (I think) two or three times, and I did not have the confidence to !vote. However, I do not remember the absolutely rediculous opposes to various highly qualified candidates, like Risker is. Opposes based on "''prima facie''" anything should be struck '''IMMEDIATELY''', as they subvert the most basic guideline given to potential !voters cf. "''review the candidate's contributions''". Opposes based on actions made a year ago, opposes based on ONE temporary lapse of judgement, opposes that remind me of in the book ''Dogbert's Clues for the Cluesless'' where [[Dogbert]] is talking about how much to tip your waiter (or waitress) and says "Minus one dollar because people tailgate". I am seeing examples of all these in RfAs. As many have said in various venues, RfA has become an open forum for users to vent all their pet peeves. It's frankly ridiculous. '''<nowiki></rant></nowiki>'''
'''Support'''. Intelligent editor, just the sort of administrator we need. I've put Risker on my list of admins to consult (don't worry, I consult about three a year).
Oppose votes concerning, but not overly concerning.
'''Support'''.  Her past history and conduct suggests she'd be a great admin. --
'''Support'''. I agree that, for the most part, the oppose concerns aren't overwhelming enough to right out oppose. But I can't help but think I have something to do with Zginder's oppose (currently oppose number 10).
Way way too much drama to be an effective administrator. He has tendencies to jump in head first to disputes and ask questions later and I really don't think that makes a good administrator.
'''Weak oppose''' - I was going to support per [[WP:WTHN]], but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AAdmins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks&diff=204860115&oldid=204859951 this drama] has me worried. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - Per Wikidrama presented at XfD ''and'' Arbcom and the issues raised with AfD's.
'''Oppose'''. I remember the ad hominem and strawman arguments she made at the Essjay controversy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=119434823 talk]. She is one of the top wikilawyers I have ever seen. She loves calling me a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&diff=next&oldid=210904280 quack].
'''Oppose''' per Ryan and Iridescent. -
'''Oppose''' - Too much drama, overall per Ryan.
'''Oppose''', per links provided by Quack Guru above.  I don't really know Risker, and my overall impression isn't bad, but twisting an editor's username into an insult is unacceptable.  Repeating the slur ''during'' your RFA shows either incredibly bad judgement or a lack of self control.  Either one is a huge red flag when it comes to handing out admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per the links provide by QuackGuru.  And also per Guettarda.
'''Oppose''' per her drama mongering BADSITES stance - very reminiscent of Voldemort/Harry Potter.
'''Oppose'''—I believe non-self nomination increase the cabalism of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' I agree, this user is grat admin material, but the amount of time arguing this user spends cannot make me support. '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Neutral''' The amount of time that this user spends arguing is not a good sign that she will be a great administrator, but the way that she has answered the questions has made me put this in here, as I believe that she will be great administrator material in the future.  Good luck in the future!
'''Quite frankly, i'm torn''' - One side of me says I'd trust this user with the bucket, the other (after viewing the diffs) is worried that she would use the tools perhaps a little too quickly. A few months of positive editing and contributing to namespace without disputes would change my mind, most certainly, so right now i'm unwilling to oppose or support. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
Regarding the questions, there were a few words that I felt were missing in your responses. I really would have liked to see the word "warning" in your blocking response; And "discussion" in your protection response. Your response in consensus starts out describing [[WP:BOLD|being bold]], which is fine, but that's not the ''only'' way (talk page proposal/discussion?) to start concensus ("a way" vs. "''the'' first way"). And I ''do'' consider page moves to be a "big deal". Redirects aside, navigation for our readers is ''very'' important. And your response to 6 had me concerned at first, but I think you clarified yourself better as you went along. (It probably was good that you decded on the long answer.) All these concerns aside (and no, none are minor), the context, tone, and structure of the responses was such that I think we can trust this editor with the tools. I don't believe this is someone someone who's going to block/protect/delete first and ask questions later. And there is distinct evidence of the use of discussion and an understanding of when to "back away" when appropriate. - <s>'''Support'''</s> - changed to '''Neutral''' upon reflection. -
If Risker has drama-escalating tendencies, this is good reason to oppose.  However having looked at some of the examples given above, I don't see anything that looks wrong to me.  So I'm on the fence for now.
'''Reluctant neutral''', per ''Iridescent'' and '''DGG''', and the discovery that the majority of her recent AFD !votes have been skewed toward deletionism. She is a good editor, but I have concerns. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Chaotic Neutral''' per diffs provided in Oppose section. However, I feel that besides the "drama", this candidate is more or less qualified for adminship. Alas, I must vote neutral. --
'''Reluctant Neutral''' Although in many ways, Risker would make a good administrator, some of her contributions in a discussion about infoboxes in [[WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall]] were not really helpful, relying on [[argument from authority]] or other insufficiently justified statements (some of which were apparently fallacious) which were not clarified even though clarification was requested by experienced editors and it was reasonable to ask for clarification. I'm not criticizing her for committing the errors of argumentation, but for not clarifying issues that arose from points she made that would have been potentially very persuasive in resolving the dispute. More care is needed here, and I think an adminsitrator would definitely need to take more care than was shown in these interactions.
'''Changed to Neutral''' from Oppose. Looking at some of what goes on elsewhere around here, my concerns may have been over-cautious. And I dont want a negative vote to be misinterpreted that it might have anything to do with a slightly greater degree of deletionism. '''
'''Support''' as nominator - best of luck!
'''Absolutely!'''.  There are a few names of editors that stand out in my mind that make me say ''"If they ever do an RfA, I'll chip in quickly.''  Rjd0060 is one of those editors, and he is a fantastic editor with lots of clue. He will do extrememly well with the mop and bucket.
May as well support, whilst I'm under this name.
'''Strong Support''' - I interact with this user often, and nothing he has ever done has proven to me he will abuse to mop. Has a core understanding of deletion policy and a good track record of dealing with vandals. While every user has had there "incidents" this user has handled them all with a calm demeanor of reasoning.
'''Support''' Reviewed talk page and contribs. Looks good. My only possible quibble is the speedy deletion tagging of [[Andrew Nichols]]. Only one out of over 500+ is pretty impressive.
'''Support''' <sup>
'''Support''' Are you kidding? Absolutely trustworthy. --'''
'''Yes!''' [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
Yeah, WP:HOCKEY member. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
Like Maxim said.
'''Support''' knows what's what and who's whom.
'''Support''' worked with him in the past and he is great contributer to the project. -
'''Strong support''' - I've seen this user around the Wiki and my interactions with him have been very favourable. I have absolutely no doubt that he will put the tools to good use and will continue to provide the strong and smooth contribution that he has always brought to this project. He is always civil, calm and productive and I have never seen him produce a bad edit. Definitely admin material.
'''Support''' great understanding of CSD, will make a good admin (and will help clean out [[CAT:CSD]], as Ryan Postlethwaite pointed out). &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' user can be trusted with the tools. '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' Can't say no to this one. :)
'''Support''' - experienced and prolifically helpful user.  '''''
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  '''
'''Support.''' I've seen this user around somewhere, but don't remember exactly where &ndash; whatever happened, I do remember I appreciated his viewpoint and the way he put it across. <span style="color:#00398d;font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''' from what I've seen at [[WP:HOCKEY]], I have no reason to object. This nom should only serve to benefit the community as a whole.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Indeed good sir, indeed!
'''Support'''! '''
Oh, this what he has talking about.  Looks good.
'''Support''' - Will make a fine admin. :)
'''Strong Oppose''' Is already an admin, this RFA is disruptive. ·
'''Support''' - very helpful and hardworking. Will make a fine admin. I especially liked his answer to #3, that it's important to understand other's pov when in conflict disputes. I've seen too often admins just looking on the surface, without "digging" deeper into disputes. This is very important to do, '''''especially''''' on the more controversial subjects where it is more complex in nature, with all the POV pushing and where it can become heated, and when even the best editors can become unhindged and frustrated. ←
'''Support''' - all encounters have shown a competent, [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] user.
'''Support'''. --'''''
'''Support'''. Comes from Ryan Postlethwaite. Can't fudge with that. '''''
'''Support''' - Oh aye, definitely - no problems at all here, great editor with grasp on policy. <b>
'''Support''' A great candidate.
'''Absolutely'''.  Also, ITYWOA.... --
'''Support''' I'd say "Strong support" but that's probably unnecessary. Anyway, Rjd0060 is an exemplary user; I've only seen him around occasionally on my watchlist, but that's probably because the editing he does spans many spaces. His efforts as a vandal fighter are superb, and I haven't seen him mess up yet. His work at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey‎]] is excellent because it displays both his skill at communicating with fellow editors and also knowledge of article editing. Demonstrates good understanding of image policy, which is crucial, and is active at the Admin's Noticeboard. I won't mention the incredibly courteous and approachable nature of the candidate. *phew* Oh, and is also regularly available on IRC, which is a plus.
'''Support'''. Everything suggests this user will make a great administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Suppport'''  Highly qualified user. '''
'''SO EASY support'''. Fantastic editor.
'''Support''' per awesomeness.
Good to see a genuine concern re. incorrect speedies. I'm very very impressed - well done mate.
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. <strong>
'''Support''' Though I have to admit I'm concerned about him being a Detroit Red Wings fan.  But, I'll let that slide. ;o)  He's always been a polite and helpful editor, and has a very good understanding of the maitenence tasks that go into Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I've seen Rjd6000 doing good work round the Wikipedia and knowing how helpful and useful he is on IRC, I can only give my full support. Wikipedia and the community are far too important to this editor that he would ever feel the need to misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Fine editor with a level head. Best of luck with the mop!
'''You're not already a mod?-type Support''' This user does great work through the Help Desk and will be a valuable mop. --'''
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools.
'''Strong support''' Very good user. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support!''' I highly doubt you'd abuse the tools!
'''Support''' Seen evidence of good editing from this user around the traps, a further check of contribs suggests this person will be an asset to Wikipedia and is very unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck.
'''Support''' &ndash; I see this user all over RC patrol and have no doubt about his/her good judgement. —
'''Support''' A definate asset to Wikipedia, I've seen nothing but favorable things from this editor on the [[WP:Hockey|Hockey project]]. --
'''Support''' - My personal interactions with you suggest you are a sensible editor with a good knowledge of policy which I cannot foresee abusing the tools. Lots of article writing is nice, but not essential for adminship.
Answer to my question was excellent: the temporary userpages category has a backlog far worse than CSD, and we need more admins there. You have my ''strong support''.
'''Support'''. From my limited interaction with him, he strikes me as a very responsible guy with a good understanding of the workings of WP.
'''Strong Support''' - Don't care that you don't have a FA, that's not a requirement for being an admin.
'''Support''' - Don't you worry one bit about not having made any significant FA contribs. I don't know why people assume that has to be necessary on the criteria. Any good article writing / development is fantastic and in some cases, even that isn't needed. A good user. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' I seriously thought you were an admin, you would do wonderful with the tools. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Support''' I don't find a single remotely compelling argument in the oppose section. This user has always impressed me and has been an excellent asset to [[WP:AIV]].
'''Support''' Can make good use of the tools... surprised this user wasn't an admin already
'''Support''' OK by me. :-)  -
'''Support'''. Seems like a good user.--'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' Conscientious editor with good history of working with admin noticeboards, etc. Even though my main interaction with this editor was to disagree over someone's notability, that's irrelevant to evaluating this user's obvious value.
'''Support''', has contributed significantly to the hockey project and seems to have a good knowledge of administrative issues already.
'''Strong support''' as a great and prolific editor, who makes some mistakes, but admits them.  I think I'm one that disagrees with him sometimes.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose at this point''' whilst I'm a million miles from any 1FA standard, I like to see some real evidence of content contributions from admins. It is difficult for writing contributors to have confidence in admins if they've never been proper editors. Sure janitorial specialisation is fine, but at least some content is essential. All I can see from the two or three articles you've pointed me to are an inordinate amount of reverting. I suggest you spend a bit of time on learning what it's like to be an editor and re-apply in two or thee months - I'll be happy to support then.--
'''Oppose'''. August 2007 is not very long ago. Also: I too do not in the least believe that FAs are a necessary standard, but 13000 edits without a large number of major article contributions are a problem. I'd would be happy to support this account once it has demonstrated a familiarity with the constructive editorial process.
'''Oppose'''. As per the reasons stated above. --
'''Oppose''' per Doc.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
–
- [[[[User talk:The_Librarian|The_Librarian]] - Recent edits extremely limited in scope, doesn't appear to do much other than revert. --
Would like to see more article writing.
I rarely oppose nominations, but I share the concerns about article writing experience.
'''Neutral''', with regrets. I'm impressed with the candidate's contributions, especially with providing image fair-use rationales. However, Doc, Sandy et al make good points. A bit more article-writing experience would make you a better admin.
'''Support''' as nom. Watchlist for the win. -
'''Support''' - I've been generally impressed with Rodhullandemu and from interaction with him, I believe he is ready and has the required knowledge to use the mop effectively.
'''Support''' - I've noticed the user around wiki and have found their involvement to be helpful and calm.
'''Support'''. Concur with those above, and add that I have no reservations about the candidate's judgement or use of the tools.
'''Support''' per having most mainspace edits to an [[cunt|article]] that I wouldn't touch. I mean I ''would'', just not the article.
'''Support'''.  Aye. <b>
'''Support''' no concerns here [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Obviously trustworthy.
'''Uber support!''' - Yes yes yes! I guess i missed co-nominating you, sorry.
'''Super special awesome support''' I looked over his recent contribs and I believe he is ready for the job. --<tt>[[User:Einsteinewton|<span style="color:green">Einstei</span>]]
'''Support''' Contribs look good. Plenty of mainspace experience. Keep up the good work and good luck.
'''Support''' Looks good from here. --'''
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around doing good work. --
'''Support''' - no reason not to.  -
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''': Yes, for sure going to support here. -
'''Suppoer''' active and trustworthy.
'''Support''' just don't go fiddling with your aerial...
'''Support''', a good vandalism fighter.
'''Support''' per Ryan.
'''There's somebody at the door''' --
'''Support''' per interactions we have had in the past and solid record of contributions.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - good editor. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Seen this user many times around AFD, and in recent changes reverting vandalism.
'''Support''' Seen the user around many times, has the required knowledge and experience.
From what I've seen, I have two words on the topic. '''Heck''' and '''Yes'''. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools.
'''Weak Support''' The diff below worries me, but I think he still can be trusted. <strong>
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. No worries at all here.
'''Support''' Personal interaction based. A pleasure. As ever, Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No objections and knows the CSD well. '''''
'''<s>Support</s>''', regretfully changed to '''Weak Support'''. This user appears to have a good understanding of policy, and everything I've seen has been positive. Was very helpful to me whilst I was making improvements to [[The Jeremy Kyle Show]] (see that article's talk page). However, I'm changing to weak support as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Gell&diff=next&oldid=185329215 diff] is worrying for an administrator hopeful. The article both provides enough context to identify the subject, and makes a definite ''assertion'' of notability. I hope this diff is a one-off, as everyone makes mistakes.--'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I read the stuff in neutral; all I say to the candidate is remember to [[commons:COM:MELLOW|chill]].
Seen him about, seems good. '''
'''<s>Support</s>''' '''Strong support''' without hesitation.  I've looked through your contribs and your userpage/usertalk and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have the admin buttons.  Absolutely '''spot on''' (IMO) with answer to Q7 by NF24.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)  Added Strong support Re:  levelheadedness in the face of accusations, and being correctly suspicious of a "left field" oppose as a sockpuppet, and for keeping everything on-wiki for transparency.  You rock,RHAE.
'''Support''' - Good editor --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="skyblue">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' - The diff listed below, while a bit beyond snarky, does not change the fact that the user has a solid understanding of policy and is a positive contributor to the project.  If that's the worst we're going to see out of Rodhullandemu, then I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Good editor, understands policy. --
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, strong editor, knows policy.  <b>
'''Weak Support''' - all-round good guy but got .. umm ... "twitchy" about page protection some months back over the constant vandalism of the [[theft]] article. Has moved on a lot since then, however, and is involved in many areas. Should be just fine -
'''Support''' As per track.
'''Support''' Good answers, good record. <small>~&nbsp;</small>
'''Support''', seems like a great editor.
'''Support''' a solid reliable contributor.
'''Support''' I don't see any great causes for concern. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support'''.  I spent five minutes constructing an elaborate pun about [[Rod Hull#Death|falling off a roof]], which frankly wasn't in the best taste, so I gave up on it. This Rodhullandemu will be fine. Seen him buzzing around the admin boards and usually makes sense.
➔ '''
'''Supporting'''

'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support'''. The candidate is trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Yes, a strong support. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No concerns. Looking over his Wikipedia space edits, I noticed him expressing an opinion on a recent arbitration case, and (without commenting on the position he took) his reasoning seemed to show good understanding of policy and of the expected behavior for administrators.
'''Support''' Has demonstrated appropriate composure during difficult circumstances. If he brings the same to his adminship I'm sure he'll do a fine job.
'''Support''' Sensible and committed to the project.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Per nom.
'''Support''' - Meets
'''Support''' Nice attitude, bit surprised he wasn't one already.
'''Support''' as hard working Wikipedian.
'''Strong Support''' - He will make a wonderful administrator. I only wish him the best. —
'''Strong Support''' - See this user's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvis_Presley&diff=172613259&oldid=172609960 excellent third-party statements] on [[Talk:Elvis Presley]]. Sounds like a comment from an administrator.
Will be okay.
Unprofessional editor with a track record of image upload violations and one troubling incident involving admin Jeffrey O. Gustafson.  Rodhullandemu left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=prev&oldid=164420759 this note] on Jeffrey's talk page, a note Jeffrey was thoroughly creeped out by (told to me via private correspondence, sorry, so make that what you will<!--I know Jeff outside of Wikipedia-->).  After Jeff had soon removed two fair use images from Rodhullandemu's user page (a common and accepted practice), Rodhullandemu [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodhullandemu&diff=prev&oldid=164423730 reverted] (as vandalism, no less!) and left a note on AN/I actually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=164425303 questioning] Jeffrey's sanity.  Those familiar with Jeffrey O. Gustafson know about his ... eccentricities... but to question an admin's sanity for enforcing policy is a bit much.  Then Rodhullandemu had the gall to, after noting Jeffrey's failings (a rather troll-like move, IMO), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson&diff=prev&oldid=164432964 question Jeffrey's commitment to the project] (something Jeffrey believed in vehemently and devoted much of his time to) by saying "''I've created several pages from scratch. I've taken several pages from sows' ears towards silk purses in the few days since I joined the Wikification project. I don't see you doing that. Again, nothing personal, but exactly why are you here?"'' (Which, of course, is not just insulting but ignores his many many contributions, including featured content.) Rodhullandemu then flipped out, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodhullandemu&diff=prev&oldid=164436612 stormed off] in a huff claiming he was going to be dead soon and that the removal of the fair use images from his userspace meant that no-one would have any clue who he was.  Lovely.  Veiled personal attacks in retaliation of policy enforcement, even against a certain controversial admin few had love for, followed by dramatic overreaction is just not acceptable to me (but maybe I am a little biased).   --
'''Neutral''' Rodhull made a good point.
'''Neutral''' I have seen a lot of good work from this user, too much good to even consider opposing. However, the diff that Jmlk17 posted above concerns me. Having a bad day or not, I don't care for his seemingly difficult time remaining civil. And I really  unimpressed with his rather insulting implication that Jmlk did not care about the situation the article was about because he's in the US.
'''Neutral'''.  The diff given by Jmlk17 bother me, but I won't oppose you over it.  Good luck anyway, '''
'''Neutral''' I'm still rather worried about how this editor may react under pressure; however, I guess if Jmlk himself has moved on from the incident, I can't hold it over Rod's head.
Neutral per above. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
Per my rationale above. I still think the candidate erred in his/her handling of the event above, for the record.
The situation above is too bizarre to base a decision off of what happened.  But that said, I'm not too impressed with the "meltdown" type incidents that have been documented here. It seems to me that questions 3 and 4 were an opportunity to address this -- but in this case, a missed opportunity. --
You get this one for free.
Excellent candidate.
Pleased to support this nom - extraordinarily civil & level-headed, diligent, and committed to quality work. --
Obviously support, per co-nom statement.
'''Support'''. Grrrr. Just five-minutes elapse and I still manage to be fifth :-(
'''Support''' Over qualified (if you can be such a thing!). Contributions, logs, talk pages, user pages, edit summaries all is spot on. Great stuff. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' A brilliant editor.  Just remember you can't block me for not caring about ENGVAR ;) --
'''Strong support''' as my interactions with this user have been amazing and they have always been good natured. ~  <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Strong Support''' - No one deserves it more. Good luck Roger. '''
'''Support''' His article work is fabulous, he's thoroughly conversant with policy, and he's a top notch communicator. I can't think of a better all around candidate.
'''Support'''.  Roger is one of the most enthusiastic, dedicated, and diligent editors I know; I have no doubt he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Roger is constantly doing a very good work as a coordinator on Military History Project. --
'''A WOW SUPPORT''' 3 Co-nom's, you've got my vote!! <small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''Support with extra dosage''' Great work coordinating MILHIST.
'''Support''': Great user, great candidate; good luck!  -
'''Support''': I'm the poor, helpless editor drowning in [[Emily Dickinson|Dickinsonian]] nuances, as Awadewit cited above, and I can honestly say that from my interactions with him, I consider Roger to be kind, patient, experienced, and (what I think is most important) reliable.  He'll do well in this role. <span style="font-family:verdana">
'''Support''' - a fine editor, and I'm sure will be a fine administrator. Can be trusted. --
'''Support''', great.
'''Support'''.  Excellent and dedicated contributor.
'''Strong Support''' excellent contributor. '''
Slam dunk.--
'''per Doc''' to say meets my standards is an understatement. No evidence of incivility. Review of edits and talk pages raised no concerns.
Of course. &mdash;
'''Support''' great contributor and who can resist a bandwagon.
'''Support'''. A fine editor who will be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin also.–&thinsp;<font color="blue">Noetica</font><sup>♬♩</sup>&thinsp;
'''Support''' - about time for this to happen. You mentioned the end of the six-month term as assistant coordinator at MILHIST, are you running for re-election? -'''
'''EC Support''' A good editor that I've seen around. Cheers! <b>
'''Strong support''' A superb editor who remains calm and centered even in disagreements over core principles.  Devoted to Wikipedia and, I believe, utterly trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per Awadewit--'''''<sup>
'''Support''' Most definitely. <small>
'''Support''' - Great, civil user who will use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and [[WP:DEAL|adminship is not a big deal]]. -
'''Support''' - works for me.  Though, I'd have preferred to see "contact the other administrator" when dealing with the BLP issue above.  Remember that: in 90% of cases, just CONTACTING the other admin means you can find an amicable solution without reverts.  -
'''Support'''.  Get 'em the tools!  '''
'''Support''' Excellent editor. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''HELL YES''' - ...and there ain't no more to say ;)
'''Support''' - Per, like, everyone.

'''Support''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Thought-he-already-was-an-admin Support'''. Nuff said. --
'''Support''' Very good editor...will use the tools well. <strong>
'''Support''' An excellent contributor, and will I am certain be an excellent admin. I did not feel it necessary to wait for his answers to the examination paper at the top of the page. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' <sup>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' everything I've seen looks good.
'''Support''' Sure thing. :)
'''Support''' the editor, '''oppose''' NASCAR Fan24's useless exercise (how can well ever tell if anyone is or isn't looking at [[WP:CSD]]?  What does this prove?)
'''''
'''''
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Excellent contributor who works well with other editors.
'''Support''' Great contributor. -
'''Strong Support''' An incredibly dedicated user who will make good use of the tools. --'''
Automatic FA support.
'''Support''' A great editor who'll make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''' - Am surprised he is not an admin already. Trust 100% with the tools. -
Excellently capable in areas which are personal to candidate, but also reflect the true identity of what is needed in an administrator.
'''Support'''. An experienced and organised editor; kept well on top of things during the military history drive I participated in.--
'''Strong support''' - one of the best candidates in weeks.  Meets all of my standards.
'''Yes yes yes''', solid candidate. --
'''Support''' <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - user would be fine being an administrator. '''''
Per answer to Q10 and Q10a). Looking forward to his answer to part b) :)
'''Support''' Looks good. :) Good luck, <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Strong Support'''. I worked with Roger for the last six months as a fellow assistant coordianator and I have found him to be a dedicated and hard working editor who will flourish as a admin.
'''Support''' Never found a reason to oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' I know I don't see a whole lot of WP:AIV/WP:RFPP contribs/involvement, but has very good contributions overall, so he should be okay with the tools.--
'''Support''' - Great candidate.
'''Support''' - Super editor. No problems here -
'''Support''' - --
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Very strong support''' Hard-working, civil user, will make a great admin and definitly isn't power-hungry oranything like that.--
It's time.
'''Support''' A very experienced and good editor.
'''Support [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoger_Davies&diff=184767101&oldid=184762374 as usual].''' --
'''Support''' you get in there good and mop up. '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Strong support''' – Excellent editor with a good sense of balance and the spirit of Wikipedia!
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, will make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support'''
Good user.
Congratulatory '''Support''' - Excellent [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|WikiProject:Military history]] experience with this user. Can be trusted with new responsibility.
'''Support''' as nom, best of luck!
'''Strong support''', has shown great improvement, and would make a great admin.
'''Support''' as per nom, best wishes. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Strong support''' as per nom, good answers to questions and I beleive that he would become a great admin. '''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Excellent user.--
'''Support''' - Has improved so much since his last RfA. He will be an excellent addition to the admin team. [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Keilana'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support'''.  Absolutely: a great editor, and an excellent future admin.  Good luck!  '''
'''Strong support'''. Outstanding contributor to the mainspace, improved greatly since his last RfA. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
Per [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide|Dihydrogen Monoxide's]] excellent nomination. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' per Qst. --<font face=Impact> ~
'''http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fo+sho fo sho yo''' --<font color="blue">
'''Support''', fine candidate who has put in a lot of hard work to improve.  Can be trusted to wield the mop.
Definitely. Absoultely. Great editor, who will make an awesome admin. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Strong support''' great contributor, positive attitude, improvement to constructive criticism from last RFA.  Has shown he can be trusted with the mop. Good Luck! <i>
'''Strong support''' - I like your attitude.  '''''
'''Support'''. First J-stan, now Rudget. It has been a good week indeed. This user will be great as an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
But of course! <i><b>
'''Support''' Sounds like a great editor that will do well with admin tools.
'''Support''' Good editor, seems willing to handle the mop. '''
'''Support''' good all-round experience.
'''Support''' - (ec) definitely, would make a great admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Strong support''' - of course, a great forthcoming admin. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''
There is absolutely no reason not to bestow the editor with the added tools.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' as a co-nominator!
'''Support''', looks like a great candidate. --'''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Strong Support'''
'''Super Buff Macho Hercules Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per the many noms. --

'''Support''' - My interactions with this user have been positive and I am very sure that he/she will make a great admin :-)
'''Support''' - very good editor. -- <strong>
'''Support''' &mdash; a good editor who has worked in various Wikipedia areas; has made a conscientious effort to address issues raised in the interim since his first RFA. &mdash;
'''Sure''' <sup>
'''A++ Support''' Mop time, GO! --'''
'''Good luck.''' <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support''' 'Bout damn time :)
'''Support''', works on admin tasks, can't see any reason why not to give him the tools.
'''Support''' [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''': Pretty well known around much of the mainspace, see no harm in giving Rudget2 administrator powers to further the good will.
'''Support.''' Per all the noms.  Great contributions to the project.
'''Support''', An excellent editor who will make a great admin.
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' - Supported first RfA and I still stick by it. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' of course! '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A fine candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Yep''' As was promised on his talk page some while back. An absolute pleasure to support this fine editor, who in every interaction I have had has proved a sheer delight to work with. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' With such a overwhelming nomination, he must be good! <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Oh yes - should be just fine
'''Support''' The blocked user list is a bit antagonistic. Given some of the plague socks around, I could see someone manipulating you into building a Wall of Fame for banned alterwikegos. Outside of that, I think removing it was a good move, and you have certainly proven a willingness to take the advice of your fellow Wikipedians. Even more outside of that, and more to the point, I think you will be a fine admin based on your larger body of work, and the respect I have for your nominators. Best of luck!
'''Support''' [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|liking what I'm seeing!]]
'''Support''' As per nom, well rounded user. <strong>
'''Support''' this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=182327209&oldid=182254455 friendly] editor who seems committed to helping improve articles and thereby helps make Wikipedia an enjoyable place to volunteer time.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Weakly though. I dislike long term planning of RFAs - this has very clearly been planned for a while, and while some may think it is good to plan, I think one should concentrate on other things more and not dwell on it so much. That said, I think you're an excellent Wikipedian and will be an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''' Per Docboats detailed support. // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Support''' Yep... I've got nothing to add that hasn't been said a dozen times. Great user, will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''. I thought the candidate deserved it last time around. Since then Rudget has become an even better contributor. Rudget will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Rudget's article contributions are first rate, and I think he has improved his understanding of policy since the previous RFA.
'''Support''' Has gained good experience since previous RfA, and is able to deal with troublesome users well.
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop.
'''Support''' - [[WP:DEAL]] and appears to be a very good editor.
'''Support''' Responds appropriately to criticism, a good editor, doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools, and overall a pretty civil user. ''Donc pourquoi pas?''
'''Support''' - probably one of the best admins we (don't yet) have.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' - I thought he already was an admin. --'''
'''ditto'''.
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support''' Experienced user, nice answers. No major issues raised by opposer.
'''Support''' - Issues raised by opposer not enough not to. -'''
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support''' -
The way I interacted with Rudget shows he's ready for the tools.  Happy New Year.
'''I could have sworn you already were!''' --
Same as last time.

'''Support''' a track record of improving and creating articles that demonstrates an appropriate recognition of the relationship between administrative responsibilities and the work of those building this encyclopedia.
Strong candidate, no reason to believe you will abuse the tools, and concerns raised by the opposition do not concern me.
'''Support''', strongly. I've had the pleasure of working with Rudget on an extra-WMF MediaWiki site, and I'm pleased to say he's excelled himself with his communication skills, and talent at dealing with teh drahma! His excellent personal carries over to Wikipedia, with his recent appointment as a Featured Portal director simply highlighting this. Rudget makes himself useful in a number of different locations around the project, and his XfD contributions are often insightful and reflective. I was seriously tempted to pile in another co-nomination, but stopped myself as it may have been a little bit much :) hopefully my +1 to the tally will be enough to carry this effective and reliable contributor through to the realms of Administratorship!
'''Support''' - <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' About 25% of the contribs are on Wiki-related pages and among the top 15 in that domain includes the help desk, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and the good articles pages, so I think he should be able to deal well with the tolls. --
'''Support'''.  A friendly and helpful editor who has a good grasp of policy.  Some valid comments below, but I think the good far outweighs the bad here.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. I would have co-nom you too. Anyways, great work at [[WP:FPORTC|feature portal candidates]]
'''Support''', but <s>death</s> hair loss to pointless co-nominations.
'''Strong Support''' Civil user, well experenced, knows policy well. Will make a good admin! <span style="border:1px solid #433">
'''Support''' Rather than listing users blocked, you can create lists of SSP reports, RFCU reports, ANI threads, etc.   Such things are useful for future reference and do not create a bad appearance.
'''Support''' Rudget has obviously come a long way and will continue to improve.
'''Support''' By all means

'''Support''' Can safely say yes on this one. :)
Support (moved from above) - Hello, I would like to support the candidicy of Rudget 2 to become an administrator. This user address all postings in a very respetful way.
Welcome to [[WP:100]]! Great user, listens to and gives advice. I am sure that Rudget will address the concerns listed in the oppose section, and will be a better admin, and Wikipedian overall, because of it. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Good editor. Cheers!
'''Support'''. Seen this guy around a lot, he does great work.
'''Support'''. Good vandal fighter. Always appreciated for his work around AIV.
'''Support''' per above. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Support Rt but recommend that he consider the oppose comments if he is granted sysop tools.
'''Strong support''' Great work, great user. '''
'''Strong Support''' Everything's been said above really. Seems a really strong candidate, '''''great''''' answers to some of the questions IMHO. Have seen this user here and there, and certainly seems like a user that would use the mop to the benefit of Wikipedia. Well done you ;).
'''Support''' Seen him around and think you are a good editor. I hope you will take on the advice of some of the opposers.
'''Support''' - See no reason to think that he cannot be trusted.
'''Support''' Great user.  Good luck! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' -- trusted editor. -
'''Support''' After observing the discussion here and looking over some diffs, IMO this user has demonstrated a knowledge of WP policy and good judgement to convince me that he will be an effective and fair admin.
'''Support''' As per Rvelse .fully trust his nomination and the track of Rudget is good.
<s> '''Oppose.''' </s> <s> '''Neutral.''' </s> '''Support.''' I don't understand what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rudget_2&diff=182533797&oldid=182533790 this] means:  ''"with immediate effect pending the result of this RFA."'' (in the candidate's response in the Neutral section.) It seems to mean the candidate might be intending to re-instate the block list when the RfA is over, depending on the outcome (one way or the other).  It suggests poor communication skills (or perhaps it's me who's having trouble interpreting the words;  but I have the same trouble with some other things the candidate says on this page) and a continuing attitude towards blocked users which is not conducive to being a good admin.  One can't change one's attitude in response to feedback on this page as fast as one can change one's signature. --
'''Support''', not that you need more.  Great answers to questions above.  Cheers,


I worry about this user's clue. For a while Rudget was a clerk at the rename board. While he did primarily good work, several of his comments were not helpful or wrong and indicated a lack of understanding of the rename process; he was contacted about this by three different people before he left a [[Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Assistance#Clerk Resignation|resignation note]]. When clerking at the rename board, it is important that the bureaucrats can trust that a clerk's comments are correct and relevant, otherwise the bureaucrats must check everything themselves, which defeats the purpose of having clerks. He volunteered his time at a place where it's important one understand what's going on, but he didn't fully. {{tlx|Rudget notice to readers}} should not have been in template space, (I pointed this out to him and he then userfied) which I also find alludes to a larger lack of wiki knowhow. A while back he closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1|these]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2|two]] AfDs as keep after commenting keep in them (they were ultimately relisted after a DRV and deleted). He says he didn't know that this was a procedural faux pas, and while that was almost certainly true, abstaining from closing discussions one has commented on is a huge deal in my mind, and the fact that he didn't know even that important aspect of the deletion process causes me to question the thoroughness of his policy knowledge. A similar problem was also exhibited on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRNY (AM)|these]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRRC (FM)|two]], which were also [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 18|overturned at DRV]], although I can't find a relisting of them anywhere interestingly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=next&oldid=182136252 He reported] a username at UAA (which means it is blatant and needs to be blocked right now), but quickly changed his mind after feedback from EVula. While it's good that he was able to understand he was wrong, if someone is going to report a user to be blocked quickly because of his username, he should be sure that his report is correct. His last RfA was also a bit over two months ago, and while waiting three months is not a steadfast rule, I appreciate when an editor can respect the community's norms; this isn't a huge deal though. Ever since being appointed to featured portal co-director, he has not given up a chance to make note of it (cf. Q2 and userpage). This seems to me as if he sees that this appointment (and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume he sees adminship this way) as a trophy. I'm also really confused about the answer to Q3 [[User:Rudget/AC#Round two|here]]. I assume that was written incorrectly; otherwise I think he may need to scale back his time here. [[User:Rudget/Contributions#Users I've helped to block|This]] is extremely distasteful, and my biggest concern. Blocking is not something we strive to do, and then wear a list of users we have gotten blocked as a badge of honor. Interestingly, at least one of those users has never been blocked before. It is these several lapses in judgment that, while none are particularly serious, (although I still cannot get over his ''Users I've helped to block'' list), that cause me enough concern about misuse (although not neccessarily ''abuse'') of the tools, as well as his attitude towards things if he were to become an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' with general uneasiness of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rudget/Contributions&diff=182293849&oldid=182180105 this] and [[WP:DENY]]. -
'''Oppose''' - per '''Duero'''.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rudget/Contributions&diff=182293849&oldid=182180105 Very weak oppose, close to support]'''
I '''oppose''' <s>on principle</s> strongly. He may be competent in many areas, but I have to question the judgement of someone who would try to get a new user blocked simply for being named "Jonjacobdinklehighmershmitt", a harmless reference to a children's song. Along with his "users I've gotten blocked" list, this shows that Rudget has an unsettling desire to block people, no matter whether blocking them actually helps the encyclopedia.
Not a "real" oppose, but a little '''[[Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout|whacking]]''' for the initial response to JayHenry's question about a username... I feel that blocking someone, who is not a vandal/troll, for having a not-according-to-wikilaw username is bad enough; wanting to block an obviously productive editor is twice the sin. That and the other username example above makes me urge Rudget to be very careful while blocking. No one would want to go through all the hassle of creating new accounts or requesting unblocks just to do a bit of unpaid work. Even mistaken warnings [[User talk:Vardos|could probably drive away]] some valuable editors. Worry about content or potential loss of contributions first. Username concerns, especially the one like the 15g's do not disrupt wikipedia and such issues can be solved by a civilized discussion ''before'' blocking. Blocking that username was neither an emergency nor was it preventive. But it seems like Rudget understands the problem (from the conversation with JayHenry), so I hope that good sense prevails. -
Oppose.  The answer given to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudget&diff=prev&oldid=182545819 this] is, IMO, incorrect.
'''Oppose'''.  Restoring warning messages that the user has seen and removed is blatantly [[Wikipedia:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings|incorrect behavior]].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHudson_Hawk21&diff=182788011&oldid=182787817][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SHOUT357437943&diff=prev&oldid=182544844].  Per Dan above.
'''Oppose''' Sorry - as per [[User:Soleil]].
(Changed from support) Soleil's and rspeer's arguments convinced me that this is at least not the right time. Airily driving off clearly well-intentioned users with [[User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12|petty rulemongering]], an evident fixation on blocking and the AfD keep closure after himself commenting to keep. This is going to succeed anyway, but I don't feel like adding to the WP:100+ when there's considerable reason to doubt the candidate's judgment in several areas. '''
Token '''oppose''' per cluefulness concerns.  I see similar concerns brought up in a previous RFA only a short while ago.  What has changed?  Are people really evaluating candidates, or merely supporting their friends?
'''Regretful Neutral''' Good user, but what keeps me from supporting is the removed blocked users list mentioned above.  While as an admin I do block (sometimes a lot of) users, I don't enjoy it, and I don't believe someone should have a sort of "trophy" list of users they "helped" to block.
Per Rspeer and Dragons flight. '''
'''neutral''' - I am a bit worried about the blocking but I can see you're helpful too. I can't make up my mind....cheers,
'''Neutral''' per concerns raised by Soleil, Dorftrottel and rspeer. Username blocks can be something which drive well-intentioned users away from the project, and so the username rules should be administered with tact, care, and impeccable regard for procedure, not with a sledgehammer. This isn't enough to oppose IMO, and this request will probably still pass, but my support is withdrawn. I do think he's a good editor, however, and I'm not especially concerned about "the list".
'''Beat the nom support''' and my first one. You look like a fine candidate. I see no problems. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
I've known Ruslik for a long, long while. His FA contribs are great, yet he still manages to find time to do maintenance work. Good luck, friend. (My RFA is coming up, too, aah) &mdash;'''
'''Support'''Over 8,000 edits, clean blocklog and useful contributions, you have my trust. '''
'''Support''' I know Ruslik best for his FA contributions and civility at FAC. I trust and respect him.
'''Support''' - Experienced, trustworthy user.
'''Sure''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. A solid contributor who works reasonably well with others.
'''Support''' Trust the user, and the nom.
'''Support'''. An experienced and well-rounded editor, excellent mainspace contribution record, good judgement.
'''Support''' As per track,good Editor and Civil.See no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' as candidate has contributed to featured articles, received multiple barnstars, and has never been blocked, which are all signs of working well with others for the purposes of building an encyclopedia.  Sincerely, --
Why not.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''—Seeing this name on an RfA table helped motivate me to come comment. :) <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support''' - Good record, experienced, unlikely to abuse the tools. And I trust the nominator's judgement, so I'm sure he wouldn't nominate somebody who wouldn't do good.
'''Strong support''' -- an excellent editor, well-versed in the ways of the Wiki and with an ideal temperament. --
'''Support''' - very experienced with many awards, contributed much to featured articles. No misuse of tools is likely.
'''Support''' Is this user going to fuck up Wikipedia, intentionally or unintentionally? No. So, a support from me. Erik the <font color="red">
Passes common sense.
'''Support'''. Didn't need to look at the current totals or arguments, and now that I've looked, I'm not surprised at how it's turning out.  High level of clue on all scales. - Dan
'''Support''' per nom. -- '''
'''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' Great editor, nothing scary, excellent contributions about SPACE. <b>'''
'''Weak support'''.  Longtime editor, but not many contributions to the projectspace.  Nonetheless, you are an intelligent user who won't harm the project by being an admin in my opinion. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; I see no concerns.
'''Support''' no problem!
'''Support''' - What a wonderful selection of candidates we have been getting recently. —
'''Support.''' good 'pedia builder and big net positive. Cheers,
'''Full Support''' clean block log, good contributions, <s>provided there is an ok answer to Q4,</s> I fully support. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' per quite impressive candidate and admin corps needs him and contributors like him.
'''Strong support''' per work on GAs.
'''Support'''. Anyone who can GA sweep over 100 articles without getting into hot water can manage the much easier job of being an administrator. --
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' - Always seen good things from this candidate in the GA project, and I trust the nom.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - definitely --
'''Support'''. Good and trustworthy editor. --
'''+S''' I suppose I'll have to Support. Crippity cripes.  <sigh> <see "Oppose" below> [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Support''' - I have seen nothing but quietly constructive and helpful editing from this editor.  &mdash;
'''Support''' - per [[User:NuclearWarfare/Admin Standards|My standards]]. Hey, I've always wanted to say that. - <font color="amaranth">
Support from me, obviously; see my nom. I just realised I never did this. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' very helpful, very constructive editor. The only drawback to this is that he will have less time to spend on getting Solar System FAs.
'''Support''' ''
'''Support''' per Malleus Fatuorum. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. Nice content creation, and reasonable arguments at AfD.
'''Support''' - net positive and also per Malleus. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Should be a net plus if granted the mop, per above. I trust Anonymous Dissident's judgement, and am happy with the candidate's answers. A trustworthy candidate who seems competent. I'm not otherwise convinced by the opposition, although I do understand the thinking therein. I would caution the candidate against "jumping in" without care at [[WP:XfD]]: some concern has been expressed over Ruslik's ability in that area, and it would reflect poorly on him if he were to make serious mistakes on day 1 of his sysophood. My advice is: when it comes to XfDs, just be careful, and leave the difficult ones until you're comfortable. Take me up on that advice to whatever extent you wish. Otherwise fine; '''support'''.
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate, willing to learn what he does not already know. Just the username bothers me a bit, you should [[WP:USURP|try to get rid of the "0"]] ;-)  '''
'''Support''' - With or without the "0" in your username. --'''
Hi, I'm the Mayor of Munchkinland, and some girl sort of dropped a house in the center of town and left it there while she went off to visit someone in Oz -- can you send a team over to cart the house away?  Oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here...'''Support''' for a candidate with a brain, a heart and courage. (Apologies to L. Frank Baum)
'''Support'''. Fine contributions. A worthy candidate.
'''Support'' - basically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].  We could use another sysop with knowledge of hard sciences.
'''Support''' - '''
'''Support''' One does not simply walk into <s>Mordor</s> Wikipedia, yet Ruslik has done so well.
'''Support''' Great contributions and trustworthy. --
'''Support''' Has made several very helpful changes at Peer review and all of my encounters with Ruslik and the answers to question make me believe Ruslik is mop-worthy.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good candidate, knows Wikipedia policies very well.

'''Support'''. Great science content editor, and good contributor at GA. We don't always agree, and Ruslik sometimes fixes on a position before discussing the issues with other editors: try to be more flexible! However, these concerns are not sufficient for me to doubt that Ruslik would make a good admin: the kind of admin we need more of. ''
'''Blind Support''' : 12 FAs and 4 GAs ? Impressive ! Great contributors and non-disruptive history gets my blind support --
'''Support''' Seems to have a sensible handle on things...
'''Support''' I thought he was already one anyway. Various interactions with him/her leads me to believe that he/she ain't batshit insane, (I like non-batshit-insaneness in admins) and and also very helpful. Lack of experience in "typical admin work" is irrelevant to me. The RfA process is way to stuffy about experience anyway.
'''Oppose''' The only project work I see that instills any confidence is AfD, I don't feel like that alone is enough to garner trust.--
'''Neutral leaning toward Support''' In my standards, I'm torn. First thing I look at is edit summaries, this guy does so for major, but not minor edits, although he promised to change. I don't look at FAs OR GAs, but I think he needs to broaden his horizons a bit. For example, a little bit of vandal fighting might help, because it might help on how to use the new block button.
'''Support''' as nominator. Cheers,
'''Support''' valuable contributor and will be able to make good use of additional tools.
Oh, absolutely excellent user. No hesitation. -- <strong>
'''Strong support''' - great contributor. '''
'''Support''' - an ideal candidate.
'''Support''', great editor, will make a good admin.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' - Exceptional article builder. I suggest taking the time to bask in the warmth of that which is admin-related areas in the near future, however, given what you intend to work on, and where you experience lies, I think I can trust you with the tools.
Just what we need.
'''Support''' per Casliber.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Excellent work.
'''Support'''. An excellent and experience editor who knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' A long-standing, important contributor, always civil, accurate and diligent. no concerns at all - I'd vote twice if I could
'''Support''' Sure looks good to me.
Yes, please.--
'''Support''' - excellent contributor who well deserves the "next step".
Automatic-Casliber-support. ''
'''Strong Support''' - How are you not a admin already? =D --
'''Suppport''', no concern here.  Seems capable and sensible.
'''Support''', seems sensible enough, no indication that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support, Support, Support''', erm, if I didn't a) see exemplary contribs and b) already trust the superb nominator I'd c) be blown away by some excellent answers to questions. Can I support three times? --
'''Support''' Very impressive indeed.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
As strong as possible. It doesn't matter if the user "doesn't need them," as outlined in [[WP:AAAD]]. Absolutely no hesitations about this.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support'''. I actually liked the answer to Q#1. User does not "need" the tools, but will be of greater use with possession of them.
'''Support'''. Why, of course! '''''
[[Big Bird]] '''S'''upport. Polite & humble. Trying to write an encyclopedia. Always good. Should have tools. Just asked for rollback but obviously deserves more.
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
<s>'''Support'''</s>. Switching to '''Strong support''' based on your exquisite answers to the two questions by Cameron (7 & 8).  Perfect answers.)   Trusting the nom on this one, as I haven't seen you around.  (Probably because of my severe [[Ornithophobia]] ;-).  Or maybe a bad experience with [[Pontiac Sunbird|one of these]]...  Anywho, you've got a nice, easygoing civil attitude, you work to make the encyc. a better, more precise and reliable source, clean talk history, prolific writer.  What's not to love?  Easy support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Don't much like the general lack of admin work, but feel that this is not enough to prevent me from supporting. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Though I firmly disagree with your comments about the placement of citations, you're still certainly trustworthy.
'''Support''' No problems to be seen. Article building is always a plus. --'''
'''Strong support'''.  Exactly the sort of candidate we need. --
'''Support on wings''' Sabine's Sunbird is smart, even-tempered, and generally awesome to collaborate with. He should know by experience when protection, unprotection, and pagemoves are appropriate, and he also knows what he doesn't know so I'm not concerned about lack of experience in other areas.
'''Support.''' —
'''Support'''.  I find that I trust this user after reading the replies to questions.  I do, however, believe that you should start slow if you decide to go into anti-vandal activities and other areas where you haven't had much experience.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''.  Clearly a dedicated editor, no reason to worry about abuse of the tools.

'''Support''' for an excellent content oriented contributor.  We need all types of admins.  &mdash;
'''Support''' - Looks like a good candidate. Give em' the mop!
'''Support''' - "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." -
'''Support''' - don't see any reasons they would misuse the tools; seems to have a good grip on policy. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with a strong commitment to encyclopedia building.
'''Support'''.  Any use of the admin tools, even if infrequent, is helpful.  --
'''support''' Needing to move over redirects is a perfectly adequate reason for the tools, and the editing history is good enough to justify a feeling that they will be used properly. (Incidentally, as I see it, the main problem with infrequent use is a tendency to not keep up with changes in consensus about policy interpretation. Of course this can be a problem to several hundred of the current admins as well. But in general I trust them, as I trust him, to check in advance about things that might be problematic.)'''
'''Support''' to quote [[WP:ANOT]] ''They do not need to know how "everything works". They need to know enough not to misuse what they touch, and to conduct themselves well. The emphasis is on "Not making mistakes" not on "doing it all". Users do things, admins just handle the few exceptions where for practical reasons we don't let every new user do so. Even very experienced admins, including those elected to higher positions than admin, don't know how "everything" works usually.''
'''Support''', the candidate appears to be a fantastic contributor who will use the tools responsibly. --
Superb answers to questions. Excellent work elsewhere.
'''Support''' as meeting my standards. Has a good sense of humor. I have no concerns.
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''' Okay, looks good.
'''Support'''. Does good work, seems trustworthy, and could use the tools. Best of luck,
'''Support''' Although the answer to Q1 makes me slightly wary, I think this is a reliable editor, who will do just fine with adminship.
'''Support''' The answer to question #8 is so good that it made me go "Wow".
'''support''' - seems trustworthy and a good hand for the tools. The oppose down at #3 really does worry me - we do not want every admin to be a vandal attacker, somebody who eats & sleeps Wikipedia... What's wrong with an admin who will grow into the tools, use them with consideration and care? Also much less likely to burn out too. Thanks/
There are absolutely nothing but positive connotations I can give this user. For starters, his involvement in [[WP:BIRD|the bird wikiproject]], with himself contributing four [[WP:FA|featured articles]], is exemplary of the content contributions that are the core of Wikipedia and its goals. Also, the answers he gave to the questions alone are clear indicators that he understands policy, is [[WP:CIVIL|calm and reasonable]], and will use judgement when using the administrative functions. There is no reason whatsoever to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' - a grand candidate. One of those editors who has done ever such a lot for this encyclopedia. Fully deserves the tools. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Seems trustworthy. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Unfortunately there are only seven admin bits left in the box, so we will soon need to start removing them from people who don't spend at least 23 out of the 24 hours each day on admin-related activities. SS clearly doesn't fit into that category so we shouldn't even dream of handing out one of the precious remaining admin bits here. Oh, wait...
'''Support''' No reason to think that this editor would abuse the tools.  A credit to the project. --
'''Support''' Good contributions till date. Great answers to the questions as well.
'''Support'''. Model editor. Aggressive use of admin tools is NOT a requirement.
'''Support''' Great editor! '''
'''Support''' - Nice answers. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Excellent answers, obviously thoughtful and considered in his approach to the 'pedia. I'm particularly swooning over the attitude toward cites and content. Bless his pointy little head!
'''Support'''. Intelligent, thoughtful, lucid, helpful. Clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. Will use the tools where needed in the chosen areas of interest and knowledge. More people like this should be made admins. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' Appears worthy of community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]]. --
'''Support''' Thank you for your wonderful work! I have enjoyed reading all sorts of bird-related articles without ever knowing who wrote them. You explained how these tools might help you, but even if you were to use them sparingly or never, even if your answers weren't as thoughtful as they are, my support would remain strong. See also Yomangan's comment and Jimfbleak's rant. I wish you good luck. ---
'''Support''' Even if he only uses the tools to move problem articles once a month, the project benefits. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support''': I see no reason not to support this user.  I've seen them around and have no complaints! -
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Support'''. Cool - YAYAY! <strong>
'''Support'''. Seems a nice, sensible and trustworthy quality editor. I understand the requirement to correctly 'move pages to existing pages' without an admin's involvement. I don't know of any level other then admin that can do that. Would like to point out that [[WP:AIV]] work sometimes required a tough skin and your apparent gentle nature could be tested.
'''Support''' will not abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support'''. Makes great FA contributions. <font color="Brown">
'''Support.''' Per the nom by {{user|Casliber}}, per some great content contributions and comprehensive [[WP:FA]]s.
'''Support''' - seems to have good judgement and knowledge of policy, not to mention contributions. While it's always nice to have more people over at AIV, not everyone needs to work there. --
'''Support''' I have to say that I was somewhat surprised at the inclusion of <nowiki>[[Category:Arses]]</nowiki> in the Count, but upon finding that it is an Avian related cat I was quite(ly) amused. My only other comment that a subject specific sysop is no bad thing, as it negates the need for admins unfamiliar with the content to read up before using the bit, and there is no requirement that an admin to actually use the tools - they just to be trusted with the buttons. It is on that basis I am supporting.
'''Support''' Seems to have a good idea of what the project is about and good contributions.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Support''' - appears to be an ideal candidate, with some very good contributions
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Altogether seems like a wonderful editor.
'''Support''', I quite like the answer to Q2. A user who is willing to cite and not merely type <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> is not a common find. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Support''' The more good article writers we have as admins the better.
'''''Oppose''' Too many FAs.'' :) OK, seriously, the opposes on the "doesn't need the tools" grounds are all wet as far as I am concerned. ONE good admin action justifies giving the bit. Also, per Q2. ++
'''Support''', great answers above, good knowledge of policy, will make a great Admin. <font face="comic sans ms">
Ok. —
'''Support Only''' for WP Admin doing PhD. Future is now.
'''Support''', seem's like a good article writer.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''', no problems here!  Good luck with the new tools!
'''Weak Support''' I would prefer experience in a wider variety of admin-oriented areas, but user is trustworthy and intends to use the tools in very specific occasions only, so no problem I guess. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' This candidate should make a great, careful, productive admin. <font color="006622">
Per above<small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
Oh, go on then! Great article writing; the lack of experience at AIV does not concern me - it can be picked up very quickly. More AfD experience would be great, but you can't win them all. No real concerns = glad to support. Regards,
'''Support'''.  A very helpful and generous editor.--
'''Support''' Pretty much a common sense view given the many support votes above. You got mine, you will make a great admin.
'''Oppose''' -- Sorry not enough work at [[WP:AIV]] to name just one! I also found the answer to Q1 rather worrying...--
'''Reluctantly oppose''' Seems to be a good editor in general. However, I do not think that he would really need access to admin tools. I suggest that he gets involved in more admin work in Wikipedia. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' As per question 1 and per neutrals Jon513,Epbr123 and Cameron.The user has a great track in article writing ,DYK .But wonder  why he/she wants the tools? Though I do not expect the user to misuse them based on track.We need active admins.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Number_of_admins]Further the user has little experience in vandal fighting,Deletion,Images and most aspects of admin work and shows little incination to get involved as per question 1 .Sorry for my opposing but I do not question the user commitment or forsee any misuse of tools by the user.But as said below it is a  not a  [[WP:ANOT#TROPHY|a recognition of hard work]].
'''Neutral''' I find it hard to support a candidate that has not made a case for needing admin tools (Question 1).  And while adminship is [[wp:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]] it is also not [[WP:ANOT#TROPHY|a recognition of hard work]]. It is almost impossible to ask follow up questions about how he would deal with admin related tasks as he has stated that he plans to only seldom use them.  Nevertheless I found nothing problematic in his contributions and I have no real reason to oppose.
'''Neutral''' per lack of deletion and vandal-fighting experience.
'''Neutral''' I don't intend any ill-respect, but an admin candidate who does not intend to use the tools gives the perception that adminship is a ''status''.  If the tools are not needed, they should not be given.  I am not opposing, because I feel this is a super wikipedian, and I can see that there is overwhelming support from others, but I can not in good faith add a support vote based on the answer to Q1, and the level of experience in the venues where the tools are used. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]] ¤
'''Neutral''' Would like to support, but I also cannot support someone who doesn't even profess to intend to use the tools. It would be nice if every new admin would help clear some existing backlogs. Anyway, this RfA passes easily, so congrats on passing the RfA! No mean feat. '''
You're bold, ergo you have my support. --<font color="blue">
--
During my brief interaction with SI, I found him to be a mature and respectful editor.  To my delight, after looking thru the contribs, I also see that he is a well-rounded contributor with experience in both the mainspace as well as conflict resolution.  I think he would make a superb admin.
'''Support'''. Looking over your answers to the questions above, I see one thing that strikes a particular chord with me - That you have the ability to know when to cut your losses and withdrawal from a conflict even when part of you wants to continue arguing. This is an admirable quality that I wish I saw more of around here.
'''Support''' Admins with good writing experience are vital.
'''Support''' The work so far is good, and no reason for doubting the tools are in good hands. I do like your response to conflict.
'''Support''' No concerns here so no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' There's nothing wrong that I can see. Good job. <strong>
'''Support'''. Look's good to me.  '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I followed the discussions mentioned in question #3 as an outside observer and was impressed.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good answers to questions and no red flags in the candidate's contributions.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
'''Support''' - good contribs.  '''''
'''Support''' - Adminship is "no big deal", shows no signs they will abuse the mop.
'''Support''' Answers show balance and thoughtfulness. This candidate will be an asset and not jump headfirst, an admirable and necessary quality in an admin.--'''
'''Support''' a good candidate, although I am somewhat worried by your assertion that "monitoring noticeboards of various kinds is one of the most interesting and satisfying experiences on Wikipedia" ;) --
'''Support''' A strong candidate. --'''
Solid candidate, good answers, and a fantastic username. '''
'''Support''' - good candidate. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' per all above; extremely trustworthy and thorough.
'''Support''' Great contributor and answers indicate an all-inclusive knowledge of policy.
'''Support''' as meeting my standards, and a great editor and helper, even if he is [[WP:BOLD|insufferably bold]].
'''Support''' Fine. —
'''Support''' Looks great! Let me know if I can ever be of any help. :)
'''Support'''. In my experience of this candidate he has been helpful, patient, knowledgeable and calm.
'''Strong Support''' I feel you deserve a chance, given your answer above. <small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' per superb answers to questions by CIreland and Avruch.  Good luck with the mop!
'''Support''' - Per world + dog.
'''Support''', good answers to the questions, no indication that they'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - all looks good. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Has over 3000 mainspace edits and  over 5000 overall.no concerns as per track.
'''Support'''. Sensible answers to question and reasonable editing history. --
'''Support''' - Solid contributions, civil, and good answers to the questions. My experiences with you have been positive so no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. You're very human. I like your honesty about your issues with other users. I think that it's hard to always have users agree on all matters and I find it is disappointing to have some administrators come down with a matter like BLP to make a [[WP:POINT|point]], especially when there may be no clear BLP concern (I saw someone take off all the instances relating to [[George Michael]] being gay because there wasn't a direct reference, and stated that saying he's gay is BLP... where to me, saying he's straight is a BLP issue). Anyway, I heartily support you. You've got the stuff it takes. --
'''Support'''. can br trusted and good evidence of 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support''' Modesty is an important attribute of an admin.--
'''Support'''. I like the way [[User:Rm w a vu]] put it. I believe you need the tools, and I believe you'll do good work with them. :D --
'''Support'''. Excellent answers. Appears willing to take on controversial topics with an open mind and judical attitude.
'''Support''' per contributions and answers. <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#02D3DA">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''', the candidate has given good answers, and has made good overall contributions to the project. No concerns.
'''Support''', with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' A great editor, good luck! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
Good user. ''
'''Support''' a worthy editor with strong record.

'''Support''' - presents no reasons to believe that the tools will be misused.
'''Support'''. You can count on my support. The edits are good, the responses are good, the attitude is good. No problems here.
'''Support''': is a good user and will be a great admin. <b><font color="#002BB8">
'''Support'''; I thought you already were one! --
'''Support''' - Yes. --
absolutely no research of the candidate '''support'''
Yup.
[[Live long and prosper]], just as [[Sarek]] of [[Vulcan (Star Trek planet)|Vulcan]] actually did.
'''Support''' All of the experience in the necessary areas. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''', meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]] easily.  A bit of advice, change your sig.  It's a silly reason to have people unwilling/unable to support your otherwise solid track record and not worth the grief.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
You dirty filker, you. ;-) I am only weakly supporting at this moment. You have done some quality work, but I am concerned with your reliance on automated tools rather than editing through standard means. Also, I am greatly concerned with some of you image work. For instance, the fair use rationale is frankly pretty weak for [[:Image:AdricTeganNyssaFive.jpg]] and [[:Image:VFPHelloWorld.png]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=prev&oldid=215551300 this edit] is, errr... interesting. :-) I can't oppose you though, so I weakly support. And don't spam me with thank yous, either. Mahalo. --
'''Tentative Support''' Seems a good editor but sporadic nature of edits has me concerned. Particularly the 13 edits between March and June. I see no reason to oppose though especially if the editor can commit to being around more often.
'''Support'''.  Meets my trustability criterion solidly.  I am not concerned about periods of relative inactivity.  This is a volunteer project, after all, even for admins.  &hArr;
'''Support''', I've run into this editor from time to time and have never had any issues with what I have seen.
'''Support''' solid, reliable contributor. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Yeah.
'''Support'''  Further examination of contributions quiets my concerns expressed below.  Suggest, however, that the candidate reformat their signature, should this RfA be successful.  --
'''Support''' for having a sig that "thinks outside the box"!  (oh come on, it was hilarious!)  But seriously, good, solid contributor, and a self nom, showing zest for the project and a willingness to change it.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' - Solid editor. No reason to think he will abuse the tools. People have children, sicknesses, and other substantial reasons for inactivity. They are not obligated to report to us their reasons for inactivity. We need more competent admins, and I have every reason to believe this editor will be one.
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per edits and answers to questions. Solid contributions! <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' no reason to oppose.  Those disgruntled about individual edits, or disliking the RFA process should be ignored.
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
Quite possibly one of my strongest '''support'''s yet in an RfA per making my [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Nice comments other contributors said about or in support of me.21|list of nice Wikipedians]] as well as open-mindedness (willingness to change stance in a discussion based on new evidence) and solid arguments elsewhere as well.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.  It is logical to trust this Vulcan with the tools. --
'''Support''' Has demonstrated diligence and policy familiarity during my xfD interactions with him.
'''Support''' - user passes [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. <small>and per kurt</small> --
'''Suppport''' a good editor, tough i hope he will realise that good work in patrolling is possible without automated tools also.'''
'''Support'''. Sarek is a good editor and I trust him with the tools. His answers above, along with comments elsewhere, suggest to me that he has a firm understanding of our policies and guidelines and their limitations. I would encourage Sarek to resolve the sig problem though, but this isn't a vote-blocking issue.
'''Support''' - seems fine to me.
'''Support''' per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.''
'''Support''' and the crystal ball thing is utterly silly.  Wikipedia ARTICLES do not contain our predictions for the future (ie, a crystal ball).  But Wikipedians in AFD discussions are perfectly free to apply and interpret policies and guidelines as they see fit, including !voting "keep" on someone of marginal notability but who will more than likely pass the bar with flying colors in the future.  The prohibition on crystal balls is talking about making predictions/speculations in article space, not a general prohibition on any and all planning for the future that we as a project might do. --
Support per B. However, I'd ask the candidate to try and moderate things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080617170452&limit=50&contribs=user&target=SarekOfVulcan&namespace=0&year=&month= this], which is, unfortunately, becoming a trend.
'''Support''' Great editor, lots of experience. '''
'''Support''', now that the signature issue has been addressed. --
As User:B has tactfully explained, it is the opposeurs below who are grossly misinterpreting content guidelines, not Sarek. —
Sure.  --
'''Support''' Having read the answer to Q5, I believe the recent problem is less about understanding WP:CRYSTAL and more about not understanding football, and the inherent likelihood of any youngster signed by monster clubs not ever playing for them, or anyone else for that matter, and barely causing even the tiniest ripple in RS. Anyway, as understanding football is not a requirement of adminship, I am happy to support. --
'''Support''' Would make a fine administrator, I'm sure. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - no problems as far as I'm concerned. The issues raised about deletion policy seem very minor. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - self noms demonstrate the [[WP:BB|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Making a not great argument in one AFD is nowhere near enough not to support someone who I have noticed around and think will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.  I'm sure you've read up on [[WP:CRYSTAL]] now and will not make any mistakes regarding that policy ever again.  That is a really minor misunderstanding to oppose on IMO. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support:''' I view self-noms as people who want to improve the encyclopedia enough they're not waiting for someone to push them into it.
Support, simply for being a Trekker. <sup>No, actually because I've seen you do some good work around here.</sup> ·
'''Weak Support''' The CRYSTAL thing doesn't really bother me that much, and I'm sure he'll work on it. I was a little disturbed by the biteyness of the diffs regarding the sig changes, though.
'''Support''' with no reservations.  Two comments: the fuss about WP:CRYSTAL is just plain silly, and anyone who complains about a signature because he edits Wikipedia from the ''workplace'' ... shouldn't IRC from work, either.  —
'''Strong support''' —
'''Support'''.  I'm not really bothered by anything put forth by the opposers.  <font color="629632">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', per answer to Q6, and no reason to believe user would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
Approved by MatthewOfRomulus.
'''Support'''. Judgment looks fine, good edits, no reasons to oppose, plus I personally think that [[WP:CRYSTAL]] as applied to [[WP:ATHLETE]] is too nearsighted. There's a lot of reasons to keep non-notable content off Wiki, but splitting hairs isn't one of them. /soapbox
'''Support''' - No concerns.
If not for WP:CRYSTAL and the signature, I would have asked "why not?", but both of those are easily fixable anyway.  –'''
Of course. '''
'''Support''' There have been no major incidents brought up so far. His sig wasn't the best, but it is hardly a reason to oppose someone. The main thing people should ask when considering whether or not to support someone is if they can be trusted with the tools. If the answer is yes, then something as little as someones sig shouldn't really matter. As for this user responding to opposes, I see that as a good thing actually. Rfa's should contain a maximum amount of discussion. People should explain their reasoning in detail, the person going through an Rfa should explain his actions, etc.--
I am inclined to oppose based on poor work in the deletion field, but there are several oppose "votes" that I consider rubbish (no, I'm not going to point them out), so I'll try and cancel them out a bit.
'''Support'''.  I do not consider any of the issues listed in the "oppose" section to be serious enough to outweigh this candidate's obvious positive qualities.—
'''Support'''.  None of the issues in the oppose section particularly bother me, and the answers to the questions show an ability to learn from previous mistakes.  While it's better to not make mistakes, learning from and correcting them mitigates this problem almost entirely.  I'm comfortable that Sarek will continue to do this when he makes mistakes.  It also is extremely good that he can admit his own ignorance.  As a side note, I hope not to see you over at [[WP:DRV]] all too often except by your own free will.  Cheers!  --<font color="green">
'''Support'''. The only real issue that's been raised has been addressed (the [[WP:CRYSTAL]] thing is a storm in a teacup).<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I'm a little late to the party on this one, but SarekOfVulcan has plenty of experience in all the right places. He/She would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Nothing more to say--
'''Support''' - Good user, oppose section comments not concerning enough to change my mind.
'''Support''' - changed from neutral, and agree with VegaDark at this stage too. Continue to maintain a good attitude, even when an editor gives you one that you don't like, okay SarekOfVulcan? Best wishes -
'''Support''' I see no substantial reason to oppose. Signature problem is paltry, other issues brought up don't seem to be that big of a deal. I've seen him around, so no reservations.
'''Support''': Answers to questions show good judgement. A strong contributor to WP.
'''Tentative support''' - clearly meets all my standards, and has been a good editor.  My only small concerns: lack of understanding (at some point) of [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and that darn signature.  Change the signature, please!
'''Vulcan Support''' --<span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' Your edits show an impressive range of interests and a cursory glance at your talk page turns up no major problems. Good luck! <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - I think it is time to grant you with the tools! A good set of contribs. :D <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' -- Looks qualified enough to me. Will make a fine administrator. --
'''Support''' You have encountered some opposition then (and will encounter some opposition in the future), but I know that you'll be a fine admin. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Support''' - per Iridescent. Tussle with StevenBlack hasn't shown any lack of character, at least not proven.
Looks alright. (Just keep the non-special-character sig however this plays out.)
'''Support''' — I have seen this user in a long, hideous tussle with a religious zealot who squats on several articles and will permit no changes.  Sarek was patient, diplomatic, and resourceful, and had the endurance to go on for months while other editors quit from sheer exhaustion. —
'''Support'''. Many positive contributions by this experienced editor and I see no compelling evidence they would abuse the admin tools. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Oppose''' Comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davide Petrucci]] and [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Davide Petrucci]] show the user does not understand [[WP:CRYSTAL]] balling and does not care for basic guidelines such as [[WP:BIO]].
Per Number 57 - poor understanding of CRYSTAL, but indicates he'll work in AfD. Sig is fine though. ''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:CRYSTAL]] incident was too recent. Can't whole-heartedly say you've learnt your lesson, or that there aren't other lessons to be learned.--
'''Absolutely Oppose''' This nutbar shadowed me for weeks and ignored repeated requests to knock-it-off, triggering a mediation.  He is banned from http://fox.wikis.com, which I've run since 1999, for trashing topics. Thumbs down.
'''Oppose''', but I'd love to see another try after adressing the problems noted with deletion policy. I was going to be neutral, because I've also seen a number of good AfD contributions from this editor, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Master_Genealogist&oldid=207644778 this prod request] tipped me over. There are claims of notability in the article, and a 5 second gnews and google search came up with easy evidence of notability. (The added deletion reason of "Also, written in VFP, my primarily programming language." still has me scratching my head.) Still, with some work on deletion policy, I could see myself supporting in the future. (I'll also add a plea for a more easily read signature. While I can read the upside down script, it's difficult and annoying to do.)--
'''Oppose'''-- Sorry, Sarek. You have such an awesome name that I would love to support, but I just can't. The signature bothers me, and while it's nice to see that you have now changed it for your RFA, your unwillingness to do so before, even after knowing full well that it wasn't displaying properly in other people's browsers ''and'' that it would likely be very confusing to other people, worries me significantly. Furthermore, your responses to other people show a defensiveness that borders on [[WP:BITE|bite-y]], for example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=next&oldid=186629362].
'''Oppose'''per the CRYSAL incident that Number 57 mentions, way too serious an incident and too recent.
'''Oppose on grounds of lack of information''' You haven't really addressed of how your response to question 3 would change when your an admin (You said you messed up a few times but never addressed my concern which is would that happen if you're an admin).
'''Weak oppose''' - L'Aquatique has said is better than I could. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' This user is coming off with a very combative attitude in this RFA, and dismisses all constructive criticism from others. Since other opposers are showing us that SarekOfVulcan has a prior history of not getting along with others, I am afraid I cannot support him in the role as administrator, where keeping a cool head and being willing to see a case from different sides is a must.
'''Neutral''' because, like many people, I am forced to use Internet Explorer at my workplace...and the candidate's signature just shows up as a bunch of squares...not really ideal for an administrator.
'''Neutral''' I just had a close look at your past few hundred contribs and a glance at a few thousand, and I see nothing of concern. I wish you had a steadier editing pattern, as some days you make around a hundred with Twinkle and other times you go days with only making a few edits. I was going to support, but I looked at your talk page and the !votes in the Oppose section, and the threads that Number 57 brought up are worrying. Administrators should have a good understanding of [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. This also makes me wary of your understanding of other guidelines and policies. So, for now, I'm going to go neutral and watch how this RfA plays out.
'''Support''' as nominator - good luck!
Scarian is a user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scarian&diff=prev&oldid=133982073 who I welcomed] in May of last year. Since then, I have been impressed with his work here. He is civil, and takes the advice of others. I have been waiting for this nomination for some time now: I believe he'll make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - seen his work at the reference desk. I'm sure he'll use the tools effectively and without abuse.
'''Support''' Really good editor - very nice and great work. Would be an excellent administrator. —
'''Support''' Over 6000 mainspace edits,great track no concerns.
Good edit count. Also good interactions. '''
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': Been waiting for this one!  Good luck.  -
'''Support''' - meets my criteria and seen around. Will be an excellent addition. -'''
'''Support''' - If I have any hesitation it is only that in the past I have asked for Scarian's help with issues and he chose not to get involved on either side or with the issue at debate.  Perhaps as an admin (with his added "powers") he will do more conflict resolution.
'''Strong Support'''.  This guy is a great vandal fighter.  Wikipedia will benefit greatly by giving "Pat" (can I call you that? =]) the tools.  Good luck!  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA| More than meets my standards. :)]] Talk page reveals a helpful editor who is open to feedback and is civil. Seems to grok AIV in fullness. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' - sure, no problem here :) -
<s>'''Oppose''' Hasn't sumbitted his bathrobe picture yet!</s> '''Strong Support''' Absolutely! Best of luck to you, my friend. :)
'''Support''' Good editor, will do really good with the tools. <strong>
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin already. He does a lot of work, tons of experience, knows what he's doing. I'd be surprised if this doesn't reach [[WP:100]].
'''Support''' I've seen his work as a vandel reverter and editor and think that he would make a great admin. Good Luck!--
'''Support'''. A good editor, every interaction I have had with him has been very positive. Has consistently shown good judgement.
'''Support''' I have very little doubt the tools will go to waste here. -''
'''Support''' - Absolutely. No Reason not to.
'''Support''' Meets [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]], you'll do well. -<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' - good editor and vandal fighter. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - Will make a great addition to the team, give em' the mop!
'''Support''' an excellent [[WP:AIV]] reporter with solid contributions elsewhere. Well suited to adminship. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Thought you wuz!
'''Support''' Seen him around, excellent candidate. Definitely ready to mop. --

'''Support''' Demonstrating effectiveness at [[WP:AIV]] while we're writing these posts.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Imagine my surprise when I checked into RfA and found Scarian, the very user I'd just happened to be fighting vandalism alongside! Needless to say, you'll do well with the mop. Good luck, although I doubt you'll need it. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Strong support'''. [[:The Iceman Cometh|The Mopman Cometh]]: mop him Mr Mopman!--
'''Support''' per all the obviously wonderful things Scarian does for this Wikipedia.  Absolutely.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I see him constantly at AIV so I am definately supporting this. -
'''Support''' I thought this user was an admin already. Excellent candidate!
'''Support,''' I've seen him around absolutely everywhere... AIV, discussions. Clearly (I think) has a good understanding of policy through edits, polite guy. Really nothing more to say <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''' with my very certain sureties that Pat will have a spectacular career as an administrator with us.  -
'''Support''' He definitely won't abuse the tools. Surprised that he isn't an admin already! <font style="color:Blue;">'' '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. The candidate is well-rounded and a good contributor. Great AIV work and solid encyclopedia-building experience.
'''Support''' - Another "I can't see any issues" response. Kudos to the candidate for being so diligent in many aspects of the Wiki.
'''Support''' helpful civil editor who is open to feedback.
'''Support''', great editor/user, glad you're finally running for the mop. :) ·
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Glossary#ITHAWO|RfA Cliché #1]]. 'Nuff said.
'''Support''' ITHAWO! <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]] [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - friendly, civil and great editor. Wonderful vandal fighter that understands policy and I have no doubt that he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - a great vandal-fighter, with scars to prove it, a prolific edit count and perfect edit summary usage.  I support him despite that fact we have disagreed in the past.  Bring out yer mops!
'''Support'''
-- <strong>
'''Support''' Seeing stuff I like. '''
'''Support''', absolutely! Great vandal-fighter, very level-headed and fair, will use the tools wisely.
''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. well-qualified. cheers,
'''Support''', a great user.
'''Support''' &ndash; smells like keen spirit. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' You are a friendly and dedicated editor,<s> but my comments to you just two weeks ago [[User_talk:Scarian/Archive_9#Adminery|here]] still stand firm - I'm ever so faintly nervous about some of your AIV reports still. However, given your civil/helpful attitude I don't think I should withhold my support - just go slowly and judiciously with the block button please.</s>The candidate has explained that a lot of the problems were down to tetthing troubles with [[WP:HUGGLE]]. As such I'm pleased to move to an unqualified support (not that it makes a diference to this RfA!) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' qualified editor. --
'''Support'''. Nothing but good interactions with this editor, comments at AfDs have always been thoughtful. The mop will be in good hands.--

'''Support''' - your good. --[[User talk:Endlessdan|Endless]]
'''Support''' I concur.
I still don't know how to pronounce your username. :/ ~
'''Support''' —
'''Strong Support''' A great candidate.
'''Support''' - Will make a great addition to the admin team.
'''Strong support''' Wanted to nominate this user. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''', bandwagon support.  69 Wikipedians can't be wrong!
'''Support''' Go Pat go!
'''Support''' Good luck with mop.--
'''Support''' - Come across your edits here and there and they always helpful.
'''Support''' Good user--
'''Support''' I see you around and I think, you are ready. Good luck.
'''Support''', great user (thought I had already supported this RFA!). --
'''Support''' Indeed.
Sounds good ;-) <i><b>
'''Support'''Kind and civil, unlike some of the other editors. Clean record, too.
'''I noticed this RfA and just had to log in to show my strong support'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Good impressions from this user all 'round. —
'''Support'''. Trying to help the drive to 100, obviously will do fine with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Scarian is highly qualified and will make a fine admin! —
'''Support''' Definitely qualified.
'''Support''' Yup.  Great candidate, excellent answers to questions - good luck! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - great user, will be a great admin!
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support'''. Sure. --
'''Support''' Simply a quality editor.
'''Support'''-
'''Strong Support''' I logged onto Wikipedia today just so I could read the [[Smells Like Teen Spirit]] article. Call it fate. --'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' A very well rounded editor who has made a great contribution so far, and who will doubtless continue that with the tools. <sub>
Grabs a handful of snow and throws it at Scarian.
'''Support''' Excellent editor in all of the many areas of Wikipedia he frequents. Looking forward to not having him beat me out at WP:AIV anymore. :) <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. Yep
'''Support''' - Pleasure to support indeed.
'''Support''' - Haven't seen any good reason <b>not to</b> support this user for adminship. Would bring a good résumé to the sysop table. :) More power to AIV! '''
'''Support'''. Good editor, will not abuse adminship. [[User:Basketball110/Hidden Page Challenge|<font color="#0000FF">B</font>]]
'''Support''' Why not, sounds good <strong>
'''Support''' Dedicated and helpful editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' Great editor. -
'''Strong support''' Really? You're not an admin yet... ''seriously?'' I could have sworn... '''
'''Support''' Good editor. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' Yep, good editor, thought they already were... etc, etc, (not a pile-on at all).
'''Support number 108!''' Woohoo!  Good interactions and would make a good admin.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support'''. See no reason to suspect abuse of admin tools.
'''Support''' - His answers are written very nicely, and he has many edits (over 13,000!). I am sure this user will be a great admin. —
'''Support''' – Ahhh what is one more.  Respect his comment at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Afd]] well thought out and reasonable.  Good Luck to you.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support'''' Happy to support a kind fellow with a keen intellect, a good sense of humor, and a sound record, and I'm interrupting my absence to do so!
'''Support''', strongly. Well-fitted to be an administrator, in abilities and personality: Scarian has a sound knowledge of policy, a likeable and approachable personality, and is more than trustworthy. I strongly believe the project will benefit from granting Scar. the administrator flag, and I am pleased to support this request.
--'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' as co-nom. --'''
'''support''' as conom---probably the first thing Rschen and I have agreed upon in 3 months!
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy. —
Great candidate.
Really co-operative with the UKRD/USRD thing :) '''
'''Support''': Trustworthy, and his silver mop is long overdue. <small>
'''Support''' looks good. '''''
'''Support''' Looks like he would make a good admin, with 100% edit summary usage, and great experience, I don't see why not. -
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Looks OK.]]''' The nom statements are very persuasive.
'''Support''' - Excellent answers to the questions. I was leaning toward support anyway, but this gave me the nudge. Good luck!
'''Support''' [[User:Miranda/Oklahoma State Highway 9|I worked with him during a GA review]], and he did a good job. Excellent answers to the questions provided.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', excellent answers.  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''' - I have no concerns.
'''Support''' Per the superb answers to Majorly's '''[[Monty Python|S]][[Salvador Dalí|U]][[In the Night Garden|R]][[Dada|R]][[The Magic Roundabout|E]][[André Breton|A]][[Bureau of Surrealist Research|L]]''' questions. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. ''Edit history: Very strong - Edit summaries: 100% since February 2006 - Warnings: None found - Blocks: None - Primary questions: No problems - Extra questions (4 - 19): No problems'' -- Scott5114 appears to be a trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' I feel confident in supporting after the answer to the question I posed. --
'''Support''' One of the best nominations I have seen. Good introduction by the nominator, good answers to the question and well established and trustable candidate. My full support, good luck!
'''Support'''. Looks like a well-qualified user to me. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Hard-working editor. -
'''Support''', no reason not to. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
Per above. Good answers to questions. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. After reviewing the candidate's [[Special:Contributions/Scott5114 2|contributions]] and the opening statement, I see no obvious reason to oppose. I'm confident Scott will do a good job as an administrator. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''' While admins are responsible to the community, I see no problem with one that appears to have a specific project interest. Tools are provided on the basis of trust, not need, but a sysop with specialist subject knowledge means the requirement for the intervention of a outside admin is diminished. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools, so ''yup!''.
'''Strong Support'''- Per answers to questions. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' Looks like a good one. '''
'''Support''' I had positive interactions with this user, and I trust him with the tools. <font color="red">
'''Support'''. No problem. --
'''Support''' I see no problem.
'''Support''' - unless he plays his trombone at 3a.m. in the room above mine. Seriously, though, yes, a good candidate. --'''
'''Support'''. This candidate seems OK. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Edit-conflicted Strong Support''' I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Scott5114&diff=174115850&oldid=174114007 opposed] Scott's last RfA, noting that he did not seem to have a grasp of the policies as shown by his limited participation in admin-related areas and answers to the questions.  I joined many others in suggesting that he try and branch out a bit more from road-related work--I am delighted to see that he has taken this to heart and pleased to see that his meta contributions are now of the same quality as his fine mainspace contributions.  I've participated in a number of XfD discussions with him and have been impressed by the effective, policy-based rationales he presents in each.  I am also impressed by [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/School related user templates|this closure]] of an MfD discussion per [[WP:SNOW]]--while this call may have been easier than most, I think it shows a willingness to make tough calls that is valuable in an admin. These factors combined with his much-improved answers to the questions leave me with no doubts about offering my support. --
'''Support''' - I can't see any problems. Good Luck.
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions, and a wide array of contributions. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' No real concerns. NB That is a stonking nomination... very persuasive. --
'''Support''' - Looks like a strong editor. No reason to oppose. -
'''Support''' The coaching page pretty much said it all for me, and I even learned a few things. I haven't always agreed with [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]], but I certainly can't deny that his coaching was spot-on for training a responsible, knowledgeable administrator. I think Scott5114 will be a fine admin.
'''Support''', but I warn you to be careful in making rash decisions, and those actions you condone......see below discussion <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', I don't have any concerns and I think you will make a great admin.
'''Support''': After arguments in my talk page I changed a my vote:)
'''Support''' Working with him at USRD - I've found that he has been great to work with - and he has been patient with his efforts (even under pressure) and has stuck with the goal.  I'll let the experience and the above answers decide this.  Give the man a mop! &nbsp;—
'''Support''' Ready for the mop. --'''
'''Support'''. Ready, willing, and able.
ok. —
'''Support again''' as in his 1st RfA.  Still a great editor, who meets all my standards, and his answers are much stronger now.
'''Support'''. User seems to have learned from prior experience, exhibited civility on the sample of user talk edits that I checked, and appears cognizant of the proper policies and guidelines. I am reasonably comfortable that the user will exercise [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|good judgment]] on behalf of the project. --
'''Support''' per all above. Good luck!
'''Support''' per above (everything that can be said has been said) and per my comments on his previous RFA. --
'''Support''' I've run into this editor at [[WP:MFD|MfD]] and he seems to have good sense.  The answers are fine though a bit brief, or maybe just ''concise''.--
'''Support''' the glowing nom is persuasive, and the candidate appears ready. --
'''Support''' I just took a look at his previous RFA and I think that sense that he has learned a lot and I think that he deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' - see my neutral comments --
Good user.
'''Strong-to the point of dying Support'''-Scott, you're the one deserving of these tools. Hope for good luck.<FONT FACE="Anderson Supercar" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red"><sup>
'''Support''' Good strong editor.
+1. --
'''Support''' I see no problems.
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Pile on support''' - All looks fine here. Net positive.
'''Neutral''' Gut feeling, and per Camaeron. <strong>
'''Neutral''' I question some of his \ her answers.  It is not clear why he \ she wants to be an admin.  If he \ she can clearly state why, I change my view to support.  I fear if this is not done this user will be an admin who acts first and may or may not think second - sorry if this sounds negative.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral''' Per Camaeron and I'm just not sure, I can't support unless I'm 100% sure that it's the right thing to do, sorry.
Strongly. Per the rationale in my nomination statement.
Unconventional 'top of the list' '''support''' :-)
'''Strong support'''. I've seen this guy around and I can think of view more appropriate to be given the tools than him. Has clue, will travel.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Seddon started out around the same time I began editing, and even then he helped me as a newbie in several ways. Seddon is a helpful user and, despite his fairly low edit count, is a dedicated and clueful Wikipedian. His dispute resolution efforts are excellent, as are his contributions to [[Hurricane Henriette (2007)]] and his featured pictures. Even so, if I had one suggestion, it would be to use edit summaries more often, but that's no big deal. Good luck, &ndash;
'''Support''' per AGK.
'''Strongest support I've ever given'''
'''Support as conom.''' <font face="Verdana">
'''Support.''' Great editor. --'''
'''Support''' - User has a clue, no problems noted so far. Large net positive, it would seem. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''. Definitely. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong support''' Excellent contributor! &ndash;
'''Support''' But of course! <b>'''
'''Support''' - I've had the pleasure of working with Seddon quite a bit and I've found him to be a fantastic user. If he's ever unsure, he asks - that's important in an aspiring admin. '''
'''Support''' - Pretty good editor with good contributions.
'''Never could say no support''' - Seddon is a great friend of mine, and I have had the same interactions mainly as AGK, the nominator had. I can't say no to supporting such a strong-willed editor and mediator.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="maroon">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="brown"><sup>(
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate; I see no concerns.
'''Support''' no brainer in my mind. Experience as an article builder, a mediator, a vandal fighter, project space experience including AfD, RfA, arbitration, Featured Content processes, past involvement in WikiProjects. He's got so much experience that, unlike most RfA candidates, he can tell you what it feels to be wrongfully accused of sockpuppetry or to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ASeddon blocked by your incompetent friend and would-be RfA nominator].
Well rounded, good contribs. Excellent mediator ;) &mdash;'''
'''Support.'''  Piling on (though surely not needed here).  Seddon is an exceptional nominee whose intended applications of the tools will be very welcome.  —
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''' — editor is very well–balanced in nearly every aspect of Wikipedia, from looking at the contribs. I think user would do fine with the tools. <font color="#063">
Experienced mediator, civil, and productive. Deserves the tools. No red flags as far as I can see.
'''Duh''' - //
'''Support''' I TOLD HIM TO CANVASS ME AND HE DIDN'T '''
'''Weak support'''.  Only 1 notable disagreement in a discussion, so I cannot really justify a neutral or oppose.  On the reverse, the candidate has contributed to featured articles and even featured pictures and sounds!  Also, the indefinite block the candidate had was accidental and quickly reversed and thus should not be held against the candidate.  Candidate seems reasonably successful at mediation too.  Finally, candidate is co-nominated by Durova, whom I tend to get along and work with per [[User talk:Durova#Collaborative projects.21]].  So, good luck.  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' - Easy decision. —
Durova co-nomed him? You've got my '''support''' then.
'''Support.''' I don't see any concerns here.
'''Support.''' big net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''', ''wryly'' (per Privatemusings) -
'''Support''', although I'm now tempted to canvass MBisanz on user's behalf.
'''Support''' - I genuinely believed Seddon was already an administrator - indeed, when I saw his name at RFA, I assumed it was some sort of reconfirmation RfA thingy.
'''Support''' Yes. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' no problems that I see. <b>
'''Support''': You weren't? Damn. <small>
'''Support''': Of course!
'''Support''' Yep, looks good and I've had positive encounters with this user. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Everything is fine.
'''Massively mega over-the-top really pretentious great ([[MMORPG]]) support:''' Everything I have to say has already been said - I thought you were already an administrator, and you certainly deserve to be. '''
'''Support''' &ndash; Seems like a fine candidate for adminship. No serious problems here. &ndash;
'''Support'''. I am familair with Seddon due to his participation in dispute resolution, particularly at MedCab and MedCom. His mediation skills and familiarity with Wikipedia are such that I invited him to become a MedCab coordinator. The oppose is unconvincing to me. His work in dispute resolution makes it very clear that he understands some of the most contentious varieties of mainspace editing and his work in featured content makes it clear that he understands our quality standards.
'''Support''' Very nice editor with good experience.
Certainly. Seddon seems well-rounded and clueful. Both are great in sysops. &mdash;<strong>
Seems fine.
'''Support''' ''
Yep. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]]''' and then some. A particularly tactful and thoughtful editor. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Well-rounded and collected.--
'''Support''' Based on his contributions and thoughtful answers to the rhetorical questions.
'''Oh hell yes'''. User has been extremely helpful to me in the past, and I have nothing but praise for this user. It's about time he got the buttons. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' I have very little familiarity with this editor aside from seeing his name a few times in passing. However, his edit history doesn't give me any cause for alarm and I have yet to see [[User:AGK|AGK]] throw his support behind someone frivolously.
'''Support''' - He has only 1495 article space edits, but he has contributed to a featured article.
'''Support'''. Good featured article that one too. Seems great to me. Good Luck!
'''Support''' - Good contributor with a solid understanding of the dispute resolution process. --'''
Hi, I need to file a noise complaint - I'm the lion in the jungle (the mighty jungle) and I was trying to sleep tonight when some fool was chanting "O Wimboweh, O Wimboweh" and woke me up...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a wonderfully active candidate (so active that  you couldn't possibly call him Seddon-tary!).
'''Support'''. Not a massive number of mainspace edits, but reliable and trustworthy.
'''Weak support''' - technically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], but I'd like a more varied picture.

'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy.
'''Support'''. He'd be a great person with the tools. I've known him on-wiki for a while, and nothing I've seen so far suggests he would not be fit to have the tools. ♬♩
'''Support''' Have a mop!
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Strong support''' - helpful, thoughtful and bright.  Will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - well-rounded, active candidate, with good contributions and abundant evidence that he will use the tools constructively.  Has also made some useful contributions towards setting up the new Wikimedia UK chapter.
'''Support''' per nom. I'm wholly satisfied with the thoughtful answers above and his contributions, especially, MED activities. He has been trusted as a member of the committee and I believe he would be an excellent sysop for people who needs neutral and calm third opinion. When he faced a very difficult situation[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fredrick_day_(2nd)], he was very calm and behaved good. That is also impressive.--
'''Support''' I looked hard at this candidate after the oppose, however the good amount of featured and good articles and other contributions have helped alleviate any fears.  Good article building overall, and the edit count does not bother me when it is done in a constructive way.  Trustworthy as well. --
'''Support''' - An Anthony nomination and a good experience with the candidate is enough to entrust a support vote. Good luck with your future!
Clueful. —
'''For great justice and epic lulz'''. '''
'''Support''', based on my experience with him he'll be an asset as an admin.
'''Weak Support''': Another [[hurricane]] fan, hah? Weak in mainspace per my expectations but still willing to support as a Netpositive candidate ! Did anybody say November is the best month for successful RFAs ? --
'''Very Strong support''' - I don't understand the comments that the mainspace edits are ''weak''.  When did we start requiring over 1000 ''mainspace'' edits for adminship?  Although no or very few mainspace edits with many project space edits can be questionable, it's projectspace edits that are most important for admins to exhibit and far to many candidates are weak in ''that'' area.  I am amazed that Seddon is not an admin already.  Although I don't find mediation to be a particularly important part of adminship (though I too do both - but not to the level of Seddon), it is very very rare for MedCom to pick up a non-admin, some members of medcom believing adminship to be a condition precedent to membership on medcom due to the demonstration of trust.  This user is extremely trusted and trusworthy and we don't have to worry about Seddon abusing the mop.--
'''Strong support'''. Seddon has been a member of MedCom for a while, which is a significant show of trust, as Doug indicates. Also, as a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|WikiProject Tropical cyclones]], I can vouch for the quality of the work done by Seddon. Interactions with him have led me to believe that he is not a power-hungry editor, and that he has a very thorough grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Overall, he has a clue, and I have no reservations granting him the [[Wikipedia:Rollback feature|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]].
'''Support'''. Seems a reasonable fellow with enough experience.
'''Support''' This user has, as of now, 4349 edits with good contribution levels across the various aspects of the encyclopedia. This is plenty, and comments below relating to amount of artcle-space content alone are without relevance. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''': Seddon has a strong track record of service to the WP community and is well-qualified to wield the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', in terms of edits, quality counts over quantity, and there's every bit of that here. Keeps cool, helps defuse tough situations, will do a great job.
'''Support.''' Per noms by {{user|AGK}} and {{user|Durova}}, per answers to the first three questions, per some excellent quality contributions to this project. Thank you, '''
'''Support''' Fair 'nough....displays abundant knowledge of guidelines, policies, and tools. :-) Cheers. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per I don't like patronage candidates and this user has only 1495 article space edits, so not understanding why the user is supposed to have the experience.
'''Neutral''' Has not answered at least three questions and has edited after they were asked. This will obviously be a successful RFA but I can't help but wonder about this particular issue.
Would be a fantastic administrator. Willing to deal with difficult inter-personal disputes and has shown a great ability in resolving them. Experience with mainspace disputes via mediation, no evidence to suggest he won't know how to use the administrator tools in this respect if he gets them. Stable user who can take on criticism and learn from his experiences. Kind, friendly and trustworthy user. Strong support.
'''Support''' as nom - Best of luck!
'''Support''' Interacted with this editor for over 2 years - a great editor, professional, knowledgable. --'''
&mdash;
Per previous interactions.
'''Support''' - of course! -
'''Support''' - experienced and skilled with resolving conflicts, disputes, etc. Highly mopworthy. --
'''Support''' No problems here. '''
Strong support.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Oh wow...I was amazed to see this considering what I've seen from this user, especially around MedCom. Very, very impressive, and I'm sure he'll go far. ''
'''Support''' Your answers were too long to read so I'll just take Ryan's word for it ;) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Superb track record - extremely impressed. Will make a trustworthy admin.
Not one yet? Make it so! '''
Aye
Yup! <B>
'''Support''' great contributions! Will use the mop well. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Already has experience in dispute resolution.  Good luck.  '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Will not abuse thee tools. Good luck. I also hope you learned from breaking the 3RR rule back in September. -
'''Support''' Good experience in dispute resolution, will serve him well on his journey with the mop.
'''Support''' - With all the DR experience under the belt, I think Seicer will make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' - Yes, quite clearly ready for the mop.
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop.
'''Support''' I did an editor review for him last year. He's a good writer and a good communicator.
Resolution of disputes and all the other contributions Seicer has done are simply outstanding. I hopefully recognised this when I added my opinion to his request to be a mediator a few weeks back. Sincerely the strongest support in a long time.
'''Support''' Very civil and productive editor. You'll make a great addition to the janitors! <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support'''  Seems good to me! Good luck!
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Enthusiastic Support''' I like what I see!
'''Support'''.  Persistently good contributions (along with others from the Louisville project), and knowledgeable in policy.  --
I have had the pleasure of working with Seicer through [[WP:MC|Mediation]], and his calm, collected outlook and kindly nature are an asset to the project. Seicer has experience in administrator-related areas, including participation in heated discussions (through [[WP:RFM|Requests for Mediation]]) and contributions to [[WP:CVU|counter-vandalism activities]]. He is technically adept, and would be able to comfortably adjust to the additional set of tool the sysop. flag offers. His [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contributions]] clearly portray his value to Wikipedia as a whole, and I am confident the project would be better off with Seicer as an administrator. For these reasons, as well as his general common sense and high levels of [[Cluebat|clue]], I am pleased to '''support''' his nomination. Best of luck!
'''Support''' -very useful and prolific editor, appears to have learned from mistakes.
'''Support'''. Prolific user, would be very useful admin. -
'''yup''' - all the best <sup>
'''See that yup and raise''' <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' - looks like he'll make a good administrator. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' excellent editor, knows policy, no problems here at all. <b>
'''Support''' Sure, seen Seicer around, no qualms with him having the mop --'''
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Strong support''' I do not think I have ever seen such a Platonian idea of an admin. He has a lot of experience with discussions and mediation as well as some of the necessary article-building skills. He would definitely make a great admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Looks good. He was blocked for a violation of the 3RR rule on September 20, 2007. However, anyone can make such mistakes. I hope he will do a great job as an admin. Good luck!
'''Support.''' Good at dispute resolution, and has experience at [[WP:WQA]].  He has my sympathy for taking on the [[Cold fusion]] mediation; I guess he wanted the ultimate test of his conflict-resolution skills.
'''Support''', great editor, great mediator, well versed in policy. No reservations here. --
'''Support'''. Excellent, level-headed, meta-involved editor. What more can I say? —
'''Support'''. One of the best and level editors I've ever witnessed.  '''<font color="#235493">Stratosphere</font>''' <sup>(
'''Support''', meets [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]] and knows about dispute resolution. Good luck with the tools! <span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''STACKS ON!!!!''' Sure, give this man a mop. --
'''Support'''. His watchlist and mine have overlapped in the past, he's handled difficult/frustrating situations very well, including repeated blanking of a talk page and its archive. -
'''Support''' As the blocking admin I should record that everything I have seen of this user since then has been good and I'm sure they will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Absolutely no Problems. Keep up the good work.
'''Yup'''.  Because he's from [[Kentucky]], which so graciously chased away their [[Tubby Smith|coach]] and sent him to [[Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball|where he belongs]]. And because he's a good editor.  Yeah, that's it, because he's a good editor. *clinks glasses*  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |

Yes definitely nothing but good.
'''...''' He gives long, complicated, quality-and-quantity answers to questions. Go ahead. <font face="terminal">
'''Support''' - I think the user'll make a great admin. Controlled, concise and colourful (Points for alliterative support)!
'''Support''' Why does it take the longest to get to the best? <tt>:)</tt>
'''Strong Support''' I think he has much experience is willing to deal with all the problems people can cause on Wikipedia. I hope too see him as an administrator sometime soon! --
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''': Excellent candidate.  Good luck. -
'''Support''' an outstanding fellow [[WP:WQA]] veteran (although I'm around there even less than him these days).  Best of luck!
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, who I'm sure will do well.
'''Support''' Has over 5000 mainspace edits and track is very good.
'''Support''' only seen good from this editor.
'''Support''' - he's not already? '''
'''Support''' excellent candidate, good answers to questions, long history of good contributions.
'''Support''' Very good candidate.
'''Support''' Glad to work with Seicer, who has been a pro, on some contentious material today.
I've seen you around, and, I can't see a reason that would make me believe that I wouldn't be able to trust you with the extra buttons. Best of luck,
'''Support''' Impressive. :)

'''Support''', this should be a good admin. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' we're all only human, and this particular user has not made many mistakes, and definitely none disqualifying for the function, while on many occasions has proved being worthy the buttons.
'''Support''' <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Endorse''' request.
'''Support'''. Careful, clear, unafraid, and usually right. --
'''Support'''. Showed administrative mettle in handling of CompScientist.
'''Support''' No doubt in my mind he should be a admin. --
'''Support''' I'm a little shocked this has not happened before.
'''Support''' Someone who is easy to talk to and work with and has shown great abilities at editing and mediation.  I have no hesitation of giving my support,
'''Support''' Level headed, balanced editor. Good luck.
'''Support'''. Good man.  Just remember when taking admin actions that the wiki is deep and broad and almost never what it seems. ——'''
'''Support''' Balanced, level-headed and objective editor.
Answers to my questions were satisfactory.
'''Support''' Past interactions have given me the impression of quality admin material. —'''
'''Support''', seems like an excellent candidate with a great editing history, good answers.
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''
'''Support''' will do just fine.
I admire the way this user handles disputes.  Other than that, there's some good article writing with the dispute resolution, and I will trust that this user will continue to do the awesome work he already does.
Based on his involvement with Mediation and his answers above, he's got the background to warrent my '''Support''' &nbsp;—
'''Support''' The Mediation background and cool attention to policy seems likely to help calmly & neutrally unwind various tarpits of exclaimed dogma and POV.--
'''Support''' Good work at WQA.
'''Support''' Future Admin. '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' His background and his experience on Wikipedia makes me believe he will be a great admin. [[User:DanTheMan474|DanTheMan474]] ([[User talk:DanTheMan474|talk]])
'''Support'''! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">
'''[[WP:100]] Support'''. ·
'''Support''' Breaking the 100-boundary.
'''Support''' this editor, good recommendations above. --
'''Support''' – One of many,  who have had the opportunity to be involved with articles that [[User:Seicer|Seicer]] participated in.  Even had differences in opinion on [[WP:Afd|Afd]] and at all times found him to be civil – fair minded and respectful to all sides.  Will make an excellent administrator.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' – I've seen him to good work at [[WP:WQA]] and I think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' I trust this editor with the mop. One of the oppose arguments below (regarding Seicer's perceived personal POVs) seems to ignore the fact that the admin tools are solely intended to enforce process, not to influence content. That said, I agree with some of the oppose voters that we have a problem when it comes to protecting the neutrality of the encyclopedia against fringe editors who have learned to behave civilly, at least superficially. But it won't be solved by denying Seicer the admin bit, or made worse by awarding it.
'''Oppose.''' Sorry, but after reviewing [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion]] I must oppose.
'''Oppose'''. Please note the following recent instances wherein this candidate seems to deviate from the mediator of conflicts template: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cheeser1&diff=193182848&oldid=193167121] and[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cheeser1&diff=prev&oldid=193214439]. Under the page for "resolving disputes" linked to the primary mediation page, it suggests "Focus on content, not on the other editor" and "stay cool". Certainly a mediator (and an administrator) should practice both traits? At least during his initial interaction with an editor, regardless of whether he may or may not feel the editor deserves it? <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose.''' I don't agree with the claim that Seicer behaves in neural point of view. When the dog meat section of Korean cuisine article was in a big dispute about two month ago, I thought he was an admin because he acted like that. Aside from the dog meat dispute, several editors had conflicts over the placement of the cuisine template and MoS guideline, but he reverted to the unsettled revision without consensus or discussion. I visited his talk page, he did seem to have similar problems with several visitors. I believe that aministrators should be credible and a good model to editors, but I doubt Seicer could keep objectivity when his thought conflicts with others.--
'''Oppose'''. With regrets. This user made some very rude comments to me in an e-mail regarding the ongoing [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Cold_fusion|mediation on cold fusion]]. I was concerned (and still am concerned) that he was being way too accommodating of the fringe POV in the mediation. Here's a taste of his response to me: "I have not taken your comments into consideration, and will not continue to do so among advice from other administrators and editors, and because of the Arbrition decision and discussion." The sad thing is that I have also had some very productive conversations with this user over e-mail. It's almost like this particular user has a tendency to "flash" when high drama or heavy conflict comes. I have yet to receive an apology for this outrageous behavior. Believe you me, I know what that's like to feel that upset and want to lash out, but that's why I'm not going to become an administrator any time soon. I think this user needs to learn to control his temper. If as a mediator he cannot control it, what's to make us think he'll control it as an admin?
Poor answer to Q5: images from stock photo libraries and news agencies should never be used to depict living persons; non-free images of living persons are not permitted except in exceptional circumstances, which your example article doesn't have; your seventh point doesn't make sense. Also, an exceedingly hostile response to SA above.
I hope the user does not take my opposition personally, but there are a number of concerns that would lead me to oppose any user seeking these tools. Kudos to anyone who addresses incivility in our community, I hope that s/he continues to do so. I noticed this user at [[WP:WQA|WQA]], and ''I thought they were an Admin''. I made this assumption because the user has not denied it when others have made that same assumption. The editor also has a statement heading their talk page that might lead one to assume that this RFA had concluded, and that s/he was already a sysop. While that may be a reasonable prediction, it seems a little presumptuous. I am not quite sure what to make of the statement, ''that they [supporters] have a lot of vested interest in seeing me succeed as a potential administrator'', but I find many of the statements made by the user to be slightly baffling. The answer to question 3 s/he says, ''but also because I enjoy the spirit of debate and resolve.'' If s/he means spirited debate, I am strongly opposed, wikipedia does not need it (I am, of course, in favour of the spirit of resolution). I see this ambiguity as a flaw in their approach, especially in dispute resolution, and that editors might misinterpret some statements. The lack of clarity in some of this users statements may not reduce disruption, or may increase it. The user maintains a 'humourous' link on their user page, [[User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel‎]], which could inflame a situation they are trying to resolve. I took a good amount of time to assess this request, I hope the editor finds my comments useful in their new role. I will conclude with what I feel is my most pertinent point, the editor has not answered '''Q.1'''! Perhaps the editor has not asked themselves this question when they set out to acquire this 'status': how will the tools help me to do this work? My oppose is also based on this opinion: a greater proportion of mainspace edits is a better background for sysops than participation in [[WP:DR|DR]] forums.
'''opppose''' I joined recently and don't know if allowed to vote (I followed the trail leading from ScienceApologists talk page).  I don't know the background to most of the comments here, except I picked up that there may be issues of 'fringe science' subjects here.  I've seen enough during my short period here to demonstrate this is a serious issue facing the encylopedia, and I'm concerned enough to register an ''oppose''.  Apologies if I am speaking out of turn.
'''Oppose''' Wiki has far too many admins who behave in a similar manner to this particular editor. With that said I would probably not vote in this particular situation except for the fact I am very concerned about how he or she is handling his or herself in the case of User Science Apologist. :
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Another anti-science Admin candidate who couches his POV in the old canard of civility etc.  Policies like [[WP:VERIFY]], and [[WP:WEIGHT]] are not subject to "negotiation."  And if this candidate<s> is attacking</s> merits an oppose from Raymond Arritt, one of the best science writers we have, I know we have a problem Houston.
'''oppose''' per Raymond arritt.
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''oppose''' per Raymond arritt.  I happen to support substance over style.  While "civility" has become the proper "style" for WP (and an overused trope), substance has been left behind as a merely ancillary concern.  Quite amazing when one considers that academe has been the forum for many a hot-headed dispute over time.
'''oppose''' - answers are unconvincing and somewhat contradictory when when comparing against edit history and comments in AN/I.

'''Oppose''' per the obvious named reasons, probably much like
'''Strong Oppose''' - per refusal to answer question and other assorted actions.
'''Oppose''' Seicer's  chiming-in in support of a particularly weak sock-puppetry accusation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Archive/February_2008#User:ScienceApologist_2] against one of the parties ( [[user:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ) in a  case on [[Cold fusion]] he was then mediating makes me suspect that his mediation was in fact very far from neutral.
'''Oppose''' per Raymond Arritt. We have concerns here about the cold fusion controversy and the alleged ScienceApologist sockies incident. I see some questions have remained unanswered. Hmm.
'''Neutral''' - your answer to Q5 is confused, and mostly wrong.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Was incredibly cool and level-headed in my first interaction with him under what I imagine to be a lot of stress/anger.  I trust that he can handle the rigors of adminship.
'''Support''' Excellent user; seen him around, and he seems very trustworthy.
Seen the candidate around doing first-rate main space work. AfD contribs look good, with calm judgement consistently on display. '''Support''', and I do hope his article contributions will not suffer as he takes on administrative work.
'''Support''' Not a lot of experience with this editor, but I've read over his contributions and he looks like he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Seems to be of the quality needed for admin
'''Support'''. Good user. --
'''Thought-you-were-already Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' - He even told me about fixing something at the stint I did at the Signpost. :)
'''Support.'''  Per the nom, per answers to the Questions, per the great content quality contributions to the project.
'''Support'''.  I actually thought he already was, cliched as it might sound.  Excellent user, no problems here. <b>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nom. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Good luck.  '''
'''Support''' based on answers.
'''Support''' because I alreay thought you were one. Good luck!
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Insert cliche here... Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', also in view of the answer to Q10.  --
'''Support-because-I-am-surprised-that-you-were-not-an-admin-already!'''
'''Support''' excellent user, trustworthy. Will make a excellent admin. Good luck.
'''Full Support''' Great work already, will do awesome with the mop.
'''Support''' He's got a lot of experience and overall is a classy editor.
'''Support''' I did notice a couple of A7 speedy requests that I think were, well, a bit "dodgy". However this is minor in comparison to everything else, and you answers to the various questions above have been thoughtful, insightful and policy based. Good job. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Seen him round the traps and he knows his stuff. Plus, fantastic answer to #9. Having admin recall present is kind of a necessary evil, but I have complete faith that we won't be looking to demote you based on your value to the 'pedia. --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Okay. —
'''Support''' For all the reasons above.
'''Support''' per reasons already stated above. Editor won't abuse the new tools. Also, very good answers to questions 10 and 11, IMO.
'''Support''' First off, you're a good contributor. Second, you love [[Bleach (manga)|Bleach]]. --'''
'''Support''' Everything seems good...
'''Strong support''' - prolific contributor. -- <strong>
'''Support''', excellent contributor, no indication that he will abuse the tools. --
Absolutely - FT = Hell yes.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' User knowledge of AfD and other procedures indicates strong knowledge of policies. <font color="green">[[User:VivioFateFan|VivioFa<font color="red">teFan]]</font></font> <sup>([[ User_talk:VivioFateFan|Talk]],
'''Support''' - Answers to questions + [[WP:DEAL]].
'''Support''', from my own interactions with Sephiroth in several articles, I've found him to be an ideal person for adminship as he has a good knowledge of policies, a even temper, a willingness to help others learn, and is dedicated to making great quality articles.
'''Support''' per the first sentence of his answer to question 8. Not only is this user a thinking and responsible Wikipedian, but he seems determined to continue being so if given the mop. -
'''Support''' very solid work, mature and thoughtful responses.
'''Support''' A really solid candidate who will be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. I see no problems with giving this user the tools.

'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''. I first had occasion to look closely through the contributions of this editor at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Sephiroth BCR|his editor review]] and liked what I saw. I like what he's been doing since then. He seems very much on top of what he does. That said, I also like his stated intent in answer 1 to work "only with obvious cases" as he becomes more familiar with policy. Particularly with CSDs, which for obvious reasons seldom get the scrutiny of AfD, thorough knowledge of policy is essential. My observation of this editor's contributions suggest that he will be duly cautious as his understanding evolves. --
'''Support'''. I've seen this user in several places and developed a good impression of them. Additionally, I found their answers interesting and informative, particularly 10 & 11.--
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order, NEXT! // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Support''' Great article work! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' <span style="background:maroon;font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Good user. <font color="1900FF" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' - deserves the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support.''' Good editor who would put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' First rate work on articles, shows a clear desire to continue to do so.  Also shows a clear understanding of policy, and there is no doubt about his ability to use a mop correctly.  --
Hi. I look forward to collaborating someday.  '''''
'''Support''' - we could really use another admin with some expertise on what's notable in Manga/Anime, (see ''e.g.'', [[Monster (manga)]]), and one with a great record to boot.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
Of course. ''
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''.  Two featured topics is more that I will ever achieve.  Good luck!  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Oppose'''. Candidate is a niche contributor, should seek experience outside of manga/anime.
You'll be a helpful addition to the team, but I recall many instances at [[Bleach (manga)]] in which you have reverted good-faith edits without comment using popups or TW. The reversions themselves were always correct - I agreed with them, anyway - but the page draws a lot of inexperienced users, and I feel that things got bitey at times. Upon reviewing the history of the page, I notice that this has been less common of late. Can you comment on the (former) practice? I will almost certainly switch to support, but I felt it was important to bring this up.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]]. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' as nominator. --
Per co-nom.
'''Co-nom support''' '''
She looks great to me.
Excellent contributor and will use the tools well. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' yep. —
'''Support''' - Absolutely. Meets my criteria of balance and versatility almost perfectly.
'''Support''' - Consistent contributions to articles, vandal fighting, ANI, etc. Looks trustworthy, too.
'''Support''' good editor; I thought she was already an admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good contribs...good luck! --
'''Support''': I've seen good things from this user. I don't see any reason for concern, and I think she'll do good work with the tools. Keep up the good work. '''
'''Support''' Looked at some contributions and can't see any problems.
'''Support'''. '''''
Per Q2 - excellent article work. ''
'''Support'''. After reviewing Seraphim.'s contributions, I'm confident that she is an ideal candidate for adminship, and that the project as a whole will benefit from her being mopped. To that end, I am happy to offer my support—best of luck! [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' meets my standards. Talk page has a calm, patient, helpful response to pressure. Trust the nominators.
'''Strong support''' very worthy candidate who has been ready for this role for quite some time. ~
'''Support''' [[User:RC-0722#My Dictionary|Well, my metasense ain't tingling]]. '''''
'''Support''' - she deserves it :) ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Aye'''. Excellent candidate. <b>
'''Support''' - looking forward to you having the tools and continuing your good work.
'''Support''' Though I am slightly concerned about the block for 3RR, this user has no other concerns and deserves the mop.
'''Support'''.  No problem.  Good luck.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Nice experience, with almost 3500 edits to the mainspace, and 100% edit summary usage. I don't see why not? -
'''Support''' - very deserving of the tools. Will use the tools well. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' definitely. —
I am enthused to support Seraphim Whipp. She is an excellent editor. The oppose rationale does not concern me in the least. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support''' - Easy call here.  As far as the block mentioned below goes, I looked back at what happened and found that it actually bolstered my reasons for supporting.  Essentially, Seraphim called out an administrator for a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cluck-U_Chicken&diff=next&oldid=119419753 personal attack], took it to their talk page, and was blocked per [[WP:3RR|3RR]] for re-adding her comment multiple times after the admin removed it.  She contested the block on her talk page, but eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphim_Whipp&diff=prev&oldid=119678359 accepted] the reasoning and was back to work almost immediately after it expired.  In other words, she displayed characteristics vital to a successful admin--a willingness to engage in difficult conflicts as well as an ability to recognize and learn from one's mistakes--nearly a ''year'' before trying to get the tools herself.  That's as clear a sign of her quality as an editor now and her potential ability as an admin as I could ask for. --
'''Support''' Friendly and [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], nothing to suggest they will abuse or misuse the tools.
Excellent mediaton skills in my only interaction with her (requested [[WP:THIRD]] over on [[Need for Speed 11]].
'''Support''' Excellent editing, shows evidence of working well during disputes and thinking before acting - all things I love to see in an admin candidate.
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
-- <strong>
'''Support''' not thrilled about edits highlighted below in the whole TV episode arbcom, but I am happy to see article writing, which is the best way to see things from the 'article creator' POV.
'''Support''' First, I agree that the fact that she learned from her previous block is a plus.  Second, Ms. Whipp has always been polite and thoughtful in her reponses to me.  She has a good handle on civility, even in difficult situation.  Third, although I do not share her precise view when it comes to our coverage of fiction, I accept her answer that she would not be biased and where she had an opinion she would participate in the AfD.  I have found her to be an editor of integrity, who abides by her word.  I had previously hinted at nominating her myself.  I think Ms. Whipp would make a fine addition.
'''Support''' — no concern about misuse of buttons; I actually thought she was an admin already. Cheers,
'''Support''': I don't think I have to explain my rationale. ·
'''Support''', of course, given that I offered her my nomination (which apparently seems to be just a few hours before someone actually created this page, that certainly meant more than just coincidence!) I've encountered Seraph here and there, and though our viewpoints almost always differ, I've always found her to be nothing if not shrewd, patient and kind. Excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' Terrific vandal fighter, shows great judgement, no outstanding concerns. <font color="404040">
&ndash;
Didn't know...etc.
Oh my... even the end of the name is weapon, this is such a blatant sock. ;-) '''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' - Good candidate. :-) Guess what? I only started editing Wikipedia 5 days before yourself! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support'''.  Looks like one of the best candidates recently.  Meets all my  standards, and is fantastically involved.  LeRoi has the right to his opinion, and I understand his concern, but on the overwhelming balance, this user should become a sysop.
'''Strong Support''' - Her responsible and conscientious edits have led several to believe she was an admin already, which is always a good sign. I looked through the arbitration below, and I see nothing to indicate that she would not be a good admin. Prolific vandal-fighter, good humored, civil in all the interactions I've seen, and excellent answers to the questions above. I was happy to see her mention the 3RR block, and her actions and edits since then indicate that she's learned from it. That's the ultimate goal of a block anyway. I can't say enough good things about this editor and I'm honored to support her for adminship. '''
'''Support''' per nominator. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' As per nom and track.
'''Support''' - I must say the 20 against 1 battle in the oppose section is pretty amusing.
'''Support''' Good user, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Looks fine. :)
'''
'''Cautious Support'''. I thought she already was one, and not just because she has a similar name to Seraphimblade. Seems like a pretty good editor, although I would be cautious with so flippantly dismissing large amounts of sock-puppetry evidence (i.e. Jack Merridew--see diff in oppose section below) when this information is presented by a long-term and respected contributor.
—
'''Support''' - appears to be a good editor! While I can't say that I have crossed paths on many occasions, I have seen this editor at work, and see no reason why they should abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per nominations and no indication the user will not make a great admin. <b>
'''Support''' Solid editor and good record re: vandalism.
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter, good contribs. <strong>
'''Weak support''' I don't like the block, but it was almost a year ago, and the editor seems to have matured. '''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor.--'''

'''Support''' all friendly, experient, trustworthy users who can't stand rap/hip hop. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - All looks good here.
'''Support'''. Sensible and reliable.
'''Support'''. I am sure than many very reliable and experienced editors on Wikipedia have a block somewhere in their past. A fantastic editor, who has no doubt reformed. Two thumbs up. <small><span style="border:1px solid white;padding:0px;">
'''Support''' Fine to me, minor concerns.
'''Support''' definately a case where the nominators played a factor.
'''Mild support''' - looks reasonable. —
'''Support''' a recent encounter with Seraphim_Whipp at WP:AIV demonstrated her willingness to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] with an anon user who was reported there, but might likely be just confused.
'''Support''' - looks just fine :) -
'''Support'''. No question.
'''Support''', I thought she was an admin already...
'''Support'''. Don't see any current issues.
'''Support''' -
Happy to '''support''' anyone nominated by this particular nominator. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
Pile on '''Support''', per answers to Majorly's questions. ;~)
'''Support''', she's very helpful and looks reasonable. <span style="border:1px solid #000080;font-size:90%;background:#FFFFFF">
'''Support'''. A recent situation demonstrated that Seraphim understands the necessity of communication and discussion.
'''Support''' - No problem here. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks a goodie to me. --
'''Support'''. The only issue I had was the block, however it was '''not''' out and out vandalism and Seraphim Whipp states that she has learned from the situation.  In the end I have no problems with supporting.  ''According to [[User:Hennessey, Patrick/RfA Reviews/RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria v1.0]], Seraphim Whipp gets a [[User:Hennessey, Patrick/RfA Reviews|score of 79%]].''
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Ka Pai''' <strong>
'''Support'''. Good editor, she will be a good admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' ready for the mop.
'''Support'''. WP:90's not WP:100, but close enough.
'''Support''' - Absolutely. The block was a long time ago. Great answers, excellent editor with more than enough experience. -
'''Oppose''' I'll go into the minority and voice an oppose, because I just feel rubbed the wrong way.
'''Neutral'''.  Switching to neutral since she was nice to me and Seresin clarified.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' as co-nom.--'''''
'''Support''' as co-nom. Seresin is one of the most qualified people I've encountered!
It was kind of Seresin to do this before we died, wasn't it... -- <strong>
'''Support''' Great contributions! I'm liking the question answers, too, and a run through your contributions secured my support. Also adding in an optional question. Good luck!
'''Support''' 1) Good answers to the questions. 2) A sensible level of patience shown by going through coaching. 3) I saw like, maybe 1 [[C:CSD]] tag that was declined in two months, and plenty of nominations, so no concern on deletion policy. 4) '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Double_entendre&diff=prev&oldid=189371841 This]''' diff I particularly liked - shows a deeper understanding of guidelines than many IMHO. On a side note, I'd have ''supported anyway'', but oppose number one is '''deeply''' disappointing and well out of line with current RfA "expectations". <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' Good Contributions and good Answers would be a good Administrator.
'''Support''' I have seen nothing but good work coming from this user and believe he will make a great admin and I will be very annoyed if this rfa closes <insert high number here>/1/0 because of that stupid oppose below --
'''Support''' — now that he has his username sorted ;-)&nbsp; Seresin has the patience and calmness that I believe makes him a fine candidate for adminship. He has offered good advice when he thought it needed and I have no concern that he would run amok with the buttons. --
'''Support''', no valid reason to oppose.
'''Support''' although you're one of the few candidates whose name I don't recognize <sup>(I wonder why?)</sup> browsing through contributions turns up nothing but excellence. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Good user, will do fine with the tools. '''
'''Strong support'''. I have always had very positive interactions with Seresin. He is an intelligent capable and helpful users. I acknowledge the reluctance of those below based on the fact that his contributions to the mainspace aren't particularly strong but I do think it important that this project makes use of contributors according to their skills and interests. Some may not be great content writers but can help out with more administrative tasks. I think Seresin has enough mainspace involvement to know what goes on there and he has plenty of experience of areas where admin tools are needed. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Good contribs. Seems unflappable. --
Support, a good user (and partly to counter some of the most stupid opposes I've ever seen). '''
'''Support''' per nom. User:[[User talk:Dorftrottel|Dorftrottel]] 18:19,&nbsp;[[February 8]],&nbsp;20[[Special:Random|08]] [<s>Per Casliber, I sorta kinda feel like the opposition does not make very convincing points. User:
'''Support'''. He meets all my standards. While I understand the concern about his lack of experience with settling disputes, yet he is from [[Albuquerque|a city filled with very nice people of various cultures who live together faily peacefully]]. If promoted, which I think he will be, I urge him [[WP:NAS|to go back to school]].
'''Support''' as per all of the previous comments. Seems to really want to help out in the community. I say that we give him that chance.
'''per pedro and <s>dorftrottel</s>'''  (switch to strong see below)_ & meets my standards. While I see where some of the opposes are coming from, I believe that these faults are fixable and that if nom exercises a bit of caution regarding these concerns will do fine.
'''Support'''. So "I", or "Soleil" or whatever he's calling himself has made a couple of silly comments. Who hasn't (including many opposers below I might add). He is obviously dedicated to this project, obviously has a [[WP:CLUE|CLUE]]. Remember when a ''Request for Bureaucratship'' looked like [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kingturtle|this?]]. I don't. I haven't been here long enough and so I'm apparently not worthy of the silly buttons granted me after a mere 4 months and 3000 edits. But I've done some digging back a couple of years for the benefit of others that may have thought, as I did, that this is what an RfA was supposed to be. Geesh. We seem to have gotten a little carried away here. You have my support, Seresin. Happy editing, [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] | [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] |
'''Weak support'''. You have made some rather uncivil comments, pointed out below, and I do hope you don't act like that if and when you get the mop. As for my support, you pass level 2 of [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Support''' Frankly, I don't see any reason why this RfA should have become such a train wreck. <sup>
'''Support''' - He does have some judgmental issues, as mentioned by the opposes below, but I believe that this candidate would use the admin tools well.
'''Support''', comes very highly recommended, and the minor (IMO) issues in the oppose section don't bother me. ·
'''Support''' Have no problem with him receiving the mop.
'''Support''' per above. And the concerns in the oppose sections regarding AfD concerns are really concerns from last November, about three months ago. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. Although I do not share what appear to be the candidate's somewhat deletionist inclinations, I do not find his positions so outlandish as to bar a dedicated contributor from adminship. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive, and in several cases, wholly without substance.
'''Strong support''', the "strong" part on account of the opposing opinions. --
'''Support''', some of the contributors deletion rationales have been a bit wacky, but they're not so crazy that they're way outside of policy or anything. I'm satisfied that Seresin will be able to use the tools responsibly.
'''Support''' I like what I have seen so far.
I was concerned over the multiple name changes and was likely to be neutral in this RfA for that, but after a review of the opposition and seeing their reasons...there are some legitimate issues for not supporting but most seem either borderline (at the worst) or just silly. I feel more comfortable supporting instead.
'''Support''' I thought for a few minutes about this one. I am convinced that Seresin's knowledge of policy is above average for new admins. I really, really hope that he won't delete any articles that shouldn't be deleted.
'''Strong Support''' [[User:Seresin|Seresin]] knows policy and guidelines extremely well, he is a conscientious editor who makes reasoned and rational decisions. I can understand why some are opposing him, though I don't agree with their arguments. I believe that this editor would be an honourable and fair administrator, and that's good enough for me.
'''Support''' per no apparent problems, and also some of the oppose rationales below. <b>
'''Support'''. Ample experience IMO, notwithstanding some opposes below which seem to fly in the face of precedent set by many recent RfAs.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. Another great example of one person saying something and all of a sudden they are a deletionist. ---
'''Support''' &mdash; opposes are insufficient to deny adminship. --
'''Support''' Gut feeling, and see oppose section. <strong>
'''Support''', seems to be an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' as co-nom. I believe Seresin will work hard and carefully. I speak here as an inclusionist who will *not* oppose someone suspected of being a deletionist. I am not looking for admins who are exactly like me. Different points of view benefit consensuses.
Per above, although I ask Dorftrottel to carefully review his conduct on this RfA as it is neither helpful or acceptable behavior. &mdash;
'''Support''' This user is clearly exceptionally well qualified. This RfA contains, so far, nineteen deleted comments, which is a record since I have been here. Only 21 months, of course, with ten as admin! --<font color="Red">
'''Support.'''  I'm very positively impressed by a look over some of the candidate's contribs:  I see helpfulness, courtesy, knowledge and ability:  a high concentration of the types of edits I'd expect an admin to do occasionally.  Edits I like include  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Oversight&diff=prev&oldid=176906708 updating the Oversight page]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=prev&oldid=177099324 finding an apparently missing user];  the edit summary ''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Raven&diff=prev&oldid=177121574  Alter per wonderfully collaborative discussion on talk]"''; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pax_Deorum&diff=prev&oldid=177348094 expanding a redirect to a disambig];[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TTN/Archive_10&diff=prev&oldid=177103991 awarding a barnstar]; and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Seresin&diff=prev&oldid=177773793  very proper action] on an earlier version of this RfA.  Unlike with many other RfA candidates whose contribs I've looked through, I found zero edits worthy of critical mention here. '''(paragraph break)''' I also support per no-nonsense:  that is, according to [[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]] above on this page, I told someone that an article marked with a CSD tag was not nonsense.  That is, "'''[[User:Seresin|I]]'''" did that.  That is, the candidate did that. :-) I &ndash; that is, I, Coppertwig &ndash; support the careful use of the "nonsense" criterion, see it being over-used and generally support actions pointing out that articles tagged as nonsense are not nonsense.  '''(paragraph break)''' The reasons given in the oppose votes seem either trivial, not good reasons or unfounded. I see no evidence that the candidate is any more deletionist than the average user;  and being deletionist is in itself not a reason to oppose.  The only relevance of deletionism/inclusionism is that if a candidate happens to be inclusionist, it can lessen (though not eliminate) any concerns that might be present that the candidate might allow personal opinion to override consensus when using delete buttons. That's irrelevant here.  In this case, I see no reason for concern that the candidate might allow personal opinion to override consensus or policy.  The candidate's statements on this page, combined with the high quality I've seen in the candidate's contribs, are such as to inspire my trust in that regard. --
'''Support''' Per looking at user's contribs and also per Majorly.
'''Support''' I've seen Seresin around on [[WP:CHU]], [[WP:CHU/U]] and a few other places in the project space, and I've always thought he was an admin (until I got that [[:User:Ais523/adminrights.js|cyan-admin-highlighter script]] and was pleasantly surprised). No concerns from me. Also per Newyorkbrad and Majorly, some of the oppose votes don't seem particularly concerning to me personally.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad as well. I see no evidence whatsoever that this person would abuse the admin tools. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I see no glaring problems here. The oppose votes are a little silly, to be honest.
'''Support''' per solid contribs and mature approach to this proceeding.
'''Support''' No serious problems.
'''Support''' Patient, thoughtful user who has done a lot of good work.
'''Support''' - I have no problems.
'''Support''' per my own recall criteria. See Malleus Fatuarum's oppose below. -- <b>
'''Strong support.''' Why not? No, seriously; I don't see any good reason to oppose -- I disagree with every one of the "oppose" opinions below. In fact, this user's stated disdain for "wikidrama" makes my "support" a "strong support". Just Say No To Wikidrama! --
Slightly weak, but per Coppertwig and {{La|Age of Mythology}}.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, the oppose opinions aren't convincing to me.--
'''Support''' The stupid reasons in the oppose section are enough for my support.  Adding to that fact, I like his answers and his contrib history, I think he'll make a fine admin.  <b>
'''Support''' No one's perfect. I still do not think that he will abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' - Looks like a good user, opposes do not raise real concerns. [[WP:AGF]].
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
I wish Seresin engaged in more mainspace work.  I believe his judgment would benefit from it.  (I believe everyone's judgment benefits from doing the content work that is our flesh and blood.)  I ''really'' wish the bureaucrats or... someone... had done something more about the grotesque incivility from the support section.  The editors in opposition are some of Wikipedia's best, and they do not deserve this appalling and truly despicable treatment.  The true victim of the incivility has been Seresin.  Had someone engaged the opposers in respectful discussion, many of them might have changed their minds as they are intelligent and reasonable editors, but do prefer to be treated like human beings.  On balance I'm not convinced that his judgment is poor though and I think he's unlikely to be a bad admin. --
Agree with JayHenry above re mainspace, and to a degree with CharlotteWebb below on notability, but Seresin seems unlikely to delete the main page by mistake - or even just to see what happens - so I think he merits my support, especially given some of the poor oppose rationales advanced here.
'''Support''' Some of the opposes are well, tenuous. Admins need to judge consensus. Ballonman's analysis of the candidates AFD contrubution suggest they get is right 90something% of the time.
'''Support'''. I have seen this editor in action and think he'd make a good admin. Deletionist/inclusionist stance is beside the point in deciding whether he'd make a good admin or not; he has shown good judgement by stating that his own opinion would not affect his actions as an admin. There are enough good contributions behind his name to believe him when he says that.
'''Support''' a trustworthy editor who understands what an encyclopedia (as opposed to a blog) actually is and shows good judgment.
'''Support''' I do think the opposers bring up some valid points, but none of them is that big.  Yes, it's important to respond to good faith posts to your talk page, but a look through his talk page archives shows that he almost always does respond helpfully and civilly, I was very impressed.  The all caps comments in the AFD were unfortunate, but again, this was one instance, a while ago.  We should be looking at patterns, not single instances (admittedly, if the single instances start to stack up, there's a problem. And of course, some things are deal-breakers no matter how infrequently they happen). Otherwise the community becomes an unforgiving place.  If you can work really hard and do a great job but then one or two minor slipups costs you your reputation, who would find it worth sticking around?  I think we owe it to the candidate to take a more thorough look.  I took one, and I was pleased.
'''Support''' Obviously dedicated to Wikipedia work and seems to be mature and trustworthy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' - A Dedicated User. I don't see the maturity issues listed below as being of great concern. Quality is always better than Quantity.
'''Support''' - A reliable XfD participant and worthy of additional tools.  Being a ''deletionist'' is just a label and it's really not relevant - a deletionist can know a keep - that's the point of closing cases in which one is neutral; in at least one case he says he wouldn't close because he'd participate, that's the answer we need to hear.  If an editor is interested enough in the outcome to care he or she should be in the discussion.  This editor is active enough in XfDs that if not involved in the discussion you can pretty well judge that neutrality is present.  Unless the opposition can show that the candidate would misread consensus and delete where one ought to keep, the label ''deletionist'' should be ignored.  And although it's no recommendation at all, the fact remains that this is 'no big deal'.--
'''Support.'''
'''Oppose''' - I haven't seen his contributions, so my criticism isn't pointed into that direction. He's active on en.wiki since 3 March 2007, that means, <u>less than a year</u> (10 months and few days. He's <u>not experienced enough</u>. Since en.wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, we cannot allow ourselves such luxury. I don't say that Seresin is not good, I just want to say that he doesn't know what traps await him. With 2 years on en.wiki, with few experiences on heated things, he'll be a wiki-veteran that 'll recognize things. However, than we'll have to look at quality of his contributions.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veropedia&diff=prev&oldid=169526374 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bingo_wings&diff=prev&oldid=170613258 this] lead me to think you have trouble using the word 'keep', combined with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taepyeong_Station&diff=prev&oldid=172173186 using caps lock inappropriately] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BNSF_7687&diff=prev&oldid=169045315 this]..I dunno how to categorise that one, but combined with a lack of mainspace edits makes me worry about hasty deletions and civility issues when not on best behaviour for RfA. cheers,
Sorry. User seems too keen on deleting stuff, and apparently has something against "list" articles. Votes beginning with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rule_5_draft_results&diff=prev&oldid=158612424 I hate lists like these] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fast_food_restaurants&diff=163238565&oldid=163237441 ' o.O That's a very indiscriminate list] are quite unsatisfactory. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minor_Power_Rangers_characters&diff=169043227&oldid=168993594 This] shows that user doesn't understand the concept of "minor" in fiction articles. I'm also concerned about the diffs cited above by Casliber and Dihydrogen Monoxide. Particularly, I'd respectfully request that user Seresin avoid WRITING ALL IN CAPS because it looked like he was shouting at other editors, which is not at all helpful conduct in AfD discussions. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Just a bit overanxious to delete it seems. I dunno...
'''Oppose'''. Limited commitment to building the encyclopedia.
'''Strong oppose''', too enthusiastic to spend time getting something deleted than writing it. Sorry, but never.
'''Oppose''' I agree with the above. Not enough effort displayed to improve articles and too much effort to destroy them. Seems to make weak arguments in AfDs and in the Episode and Characters Case. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' Does not give the impression of being objective with regards to deletions, and being too keen to delete is not a good thing for an admin (as I have witnessed recently).
'''Oppose''' I was going to sit this one out, but i'm deeply concerned by the posts of [[user:Dorftrottel]] both here and on the talk page. I have no choice but to oppose someone who's supported in this way.--
'''Oppose''' - seems too young, too rough. May be a fine candidate in the next decade.
I do sense that the user is over-eager to delete as noted above, though Dorftrottel's entertainingly sharp comments (which have now been struck out for some reason — I don't think that was necessary) almost had me willing to overlook it. Yes, thank you for recognizing that AFD is not a vote (and neither is RFA in theory, cough cough cough). Yes, do play from your fucking heart. Yes, it's okay to scream sometimes. But it's not okay to make broad assumptions about the "notability" of a category of topics, be they railway stations, or bus routes, or television episodes, or shopping malls, or runway incursions (as far as I'm concerned). Sorry. —
'''Weak Oppose''': Grrr..I had to think long and hard about this one. This user certainly does good work - And I honestly don't understand the deletionist standpoint that everyone is using above against him, however, what concerns me is a lack of mainspace edits. An administrator would need vast experience is dealing with the dilemmas that go on with generalized editing. Granted, there is particpation, but I don't like the proportion. I might change though depending on the answers to some other questions.
'''Oppose''', because of the answer to question 7. If being an admin is "no big deal" then it ought not to take '''5''' administrators to persuade you to relinquish your shiny new buttons. And to ignore the opinions of those who are not administrators shows a breathtaking arrogance. --
'''Oppose'''' Despirte a good answer to my first question, i do not yet have confidence in continued neutrality, and the replies here indicate a certain degree of defensiveness .'''
'''Oppose''' CharlotteWebb sums it up, I distrust broad applications of ''notability'' jargon, even though this is somewhat balanced by some saner contributions to AFD. Multiple username changes are another cause for concern.
'''Oppose''', this editor has been here less than a year and under 29% of his edits are to the mainspace. Also, the fact that this editor is still a junior in high school, coupled with comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taepyeong_Station&diff=prev&oldid=172239247 these], is a concern of mine. --
'''Oppose''' - due to maturity issues.  We can afford to wait.  I'll be glad to support after a longer track record of admin-like activities without problems.    '''''
'''Oppose'''. Too many issues raised above for me to be comfortable with this. Good future admin potential, but now doesn't seem to be the right time.
'''Neutral''' per delldot.
I like everything I read, talkpage archives seem fine, editor shows an abundance of clue, maturity and has a refreshing attitude. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' – good editor. Like the excellent content contributions and the cool head. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Strong support''', an excellent editor who should be an even better admin. Good luck. :-) '''
'''Support''' I think he is a net plus. '''
'''Support'''- I've seen Sgeureka around, and this editor has always strongly radiated clue.
'''Support'''
From what I see, a superb candidate. Will make a fantastic administrator.
'''Support'''. A clear head and an ability to handle stress are crucial as an admin, and you clearly have both. <font color="777777">
Summertime, and the living is easy -- fish are jumping and the cotton is...uh, is this where they're staging ''[[Porgy and Bess]]''? Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: '''Support''' for a net positive contributor who is clearly in tune with the project's needs and who won't bring a diva attitude to adminship.
'''Support''' I can't even foresee anything terrible coming out of this. Would be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Smart contributor.  Calm, productive and civil.  Like sephiroth says, it is a rare person who makes it to RfA without being passionate about ''something''.  We are all here because we are passionate.  Sometimes some people confuse that passion in themselves for righteousness.  Sometimes they confuse the need for passion with a need to passionately argue.  I don't think Sgeureka does either of those things.  I think that he has strong feelings about inclusion, fiction and so on, but that he knows how to separate those feelings from cases where it is desirable or necessary to use the tools.  I have no reason to feel that Sgeureka will abuse the tools and every reason to feel that they will be a net positive.  I expect some opposes solely on the basis of his AfD contributions or on his application of NOT/N/NOR to articles and article debates.  I would hope that individuals viewing those opposes separate out the opinions on content with the trustworthiness of the individual.  We have every shade of administrator.  Permissive inclusionists.  Radical inclusionists.  Deletionists.  And everyone in between.  Their position on that spectrum does not make them a 'bad' administrator.  What makes a good or a bad administrator is their willingness to communicate, their trustworthiness and their judgment.  Sguereka has those qualities.
'''Support''' I didn't find anything unsettling.
'''Support''' From what I can see this editor doesn't have any skeletons in his closet. He seems like an intelligent user; I can support him. --
'''Support''' [[WP:CIVIL|Civil]] and sensible user; regardless of their wiki-ideologies I don't see there being any problems should they get the tools.
'''Support'''. Seems experienced enough. --
'''Support'''. although we are on opposite sides of the idealogical fence when it comes to notability, has contributed quality content and has the 'pedia's goals at heart. net positive. Cheers,
'''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]]''' with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''<s>Weak</s> support'''. While I do not see much experience in the projectspace, there is no evidence you will abuse the tools.  Your answers are intelligent and appear honest, so there's no reason not to trust you.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]] [[User:Malinaccier Public|P]]. ([[User talk:Malinaccier Public|talk]])'''</font> 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC) <small> Thank you for the good answer to my question. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I analyzed his edits, there is nothing to worry about. Net Positive.
'''Support'''  As per track the user has been around since Jan 2007 and has over 13000 mainspace edits and is a good editor after reviewing contributions. [http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php?user=Sgeureka] Feel giving the user the tools will despite a relative lack of experience as pointed out by Malinaccier only be a net plus to Wikipedia.Do not see misuse of tools.
'''Support''' clearly an encyclopedia enthusiast and will try to do the right thing. --
'''Support''' He is doing a very good job merging/cleaning up articles. Certainly has my vote. --

An enthusiastic administrator candidate.
'''Support''' Less tolerant of fictional articles than me, but trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - After a slight analysis of Sgeureka's contributions and talk page archives, I see nothing of concern. &ndash;
'''Support''' - All of my experiences with this editor have been positive. --
'''Support''' Positive contribs.
'''Support''' Good, quality user, so yeah.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support'''. Sqeureka's role in the "sysop spectrum" (see Protonk's above) quite fits my own view on inclusion/merging. Long history of edits/moves/discussions in the tv fiction beehive has been sufficient training for adminship (specifically, the ability to handle large blocks of related articles as a whole).
'''Support.''' Well-spoken and well-deserving.
'''Support''' - No problems here. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Good, clear judgment. Knows how to deal with others constructively. Doesn't get into personal wrangles, a very big asset. &mdash;
'''
Disappointed that I did not get here [[Wikipedia:Talk page stalker|sooner]]—WP:RFA is going back on my watchlist, effective immediately.  I trust sgeureka fully, having interacted with this calm and helpful user and followed his (I think) contributions for some time now.  –'''
'''Support''' Civil and intelligent user. [[User talk:Sgeureka/Archive03#Rollback and beyond|Spoke with him]] a while ago about a possible nom for the mop, I wish he would have let me know that he was planning on running so I could at least drop a co-nom. :P I would like to note quickly that I share A Nobody's views in hoping that Sgeureka will be extremely careful in deletion discussions on fictional topics, but I know he's got good sense.
'''Support'''. Interacted quite a bit with Sgeureka in the past, never had a bad encounter. Has done some outstanding work bringing the Stargate material up to encyclopedic, even FA/FL, standards. As with GlassCobra, I would have gladly co-nommed, and had in fact discussed this with GC in the past. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—
'''Strong Support''' — Project will definitely benefit from his having the tools. Cheers,
'''Support'''; and how.  I don't think I've encountered another contributor who is more patient, willing to listen and compromise, and makes fantastic use of that little "discussion" tab on pages.  I wish this editor could collaborate on everything, I and expect best things from his or her administratorship.  —  '''
Fit for it.
'''Definitely.''' Good answers and good user. Deserves the mop :) <nowiki>[</nowiki>'''
For now. Seems like a NP, but his AFD closures are causing me doubt. &mdash;'''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">'''Ceran'''</font>]]♦('''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">speak]])</font><sup>
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], and we could use an admin who knows the difference between fancruft and pop culture.
Oh yes. '''
'''Support''' - I appreciated the answers given, and would be comfortable trusting this user with administrator responsibilities.
'''Support''' I am frequently opposed to his views on some types of articles, but he's always been rational about it. I therefore hope to convince him yet. (But even if I never do, I do not see any indication that he would use the tools wrongly, and the general level of his work is fine). '''
'''Aye''' Excellent candidate, need more like this. <b>
'''Strong support''', and I very rarely give that !vote. Would bring a level of rationality to some AFDs that have lacked clue lately.
'''Support'''. I agree with Stifle, immediately above.
'''Support''' I must admit I have not yet interacted with this user anywhere on the project but, having read the nomination and the answers to questions as well as reviewing this candidate's contributions, I readily admit that I am thoroughly impressed with his efforts so far. Thank you for nominating yourself and please continue the good work!
'''Support''' --
I have worked with this user closely over long periods of time and am absolutely confident that he will make a fine administrator. I can also personally vouch for his ability to deal with sockpuppets mentioned in question 1. Any serious examination of this user's myriad contributions to the project will reveal both an intimate knowledge of policy and an unrelenting dedication to the improvement of this encyclopedia. That the granting of admin tools to sgeureka will have a positive effect on Wikipedia is as indisputable as it is an understatement in my mind. There are not many others in whom my trust is so certain; as such I support this nomination without reservations.
'''Support''' My recent interactions with him have borne out others' statements about his balance and reasonableness in cleanup, and his AfD conduct has been reasonable and appropriate.
'''Support''' - I have a rather different view to you on certain issues, but as far as I can see you are trustworthy. You have a good history of contributions and will almost certainly use the tools well.
'''Support'''- I am fully confident that you will do a good job. I have reviewed a number of your interactions with users and find you to be calm and not easily provoked. The comparison with TNN is inane. I appreciate your acknowledgment of possible COI issues and your understanding that there is a time to step away. Good Luck!
'''Support''' Yay!
'''Support''' Able to deal with contention without loosing his cool. Solid editing history, no serious issues raised by disgruntled users. Even those who have had differences of opinions with him, have come on board to support. Seems to be a perfect candidate.
'''Support''' Excellent user, knows what he's doing. I think he can be trusted with the tools. Definitely not someone likely to mess up.
'''Support''' - I can't think of anything novel to say when I'm this far down the list. -
'''Support''', yes please, I have seen lots of excellent work from sgeureka.
'''Support''' No qualms here, candidate has addressed concerns correctly, IMO. --
'''Support''' - I don't think this user will destroy the wiki as a sysop.
'''Support''' - The [[Wikipedia|pedia']] won't catch on fire if he becomes a admin. Net positive.
'''Support''' On the whole, Sgeureka seems well qualified to be an admin, both in need for the tools and trustworthiness. The concerns about closing fiction related AfDs is a fair concern, but DRV seems more than adaquate to address such concerns. I don't think Sgeureka would be tenacious in continuing to close AfDs in a certain area should DRV reverse them one after the other. --
'''Support''' Towards the top end of smart and clue. Opps are a bit [[Chicken Licken]] IMO
'''Support.''' You look like a generally good editor that could utilize the admin tools.  <font size="+1"><font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="red">'''''
'''Support''' &ndash; Seems like a fine editor to me&mdash;has shown s/he knows and understands Wikipedia policy, is civil, and has shown that s/he could use the tools positively through his experience as a non-administrator. The opposes don't concern me a bit. Will make a fine administrator.  &ndash;
'''Support'''. The mop isn't a big deal; the core criteria should be competence, trustworthiness and willingness to engage in discussion, and Sgeureka has demonstrated these. Disappointed that so many of the opposes assume that someone's stance in an AfD is prima facie evidence that he can't be trusted to close one fairly, given ample evidence of fair AfD-participating admins on either side of the inclusionist/deletionist line.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. Reasonable answers.
'''Support''' per Pixel's explanation on the talk page. --
'''Support''' Quite frankly, I don't know what really gets Pixelface so annoyed about Sgeureka's transwiki of NN stuff from Wikipedia to Wikia, I frankly don't understand what is wrong with another project benefiting from content that will be otherwise deleted and would not consider calling it "leeching" (it should be noted that Pixelface's post on the talk page was tl;dr to me, although I did manage to pick up a few points from its opening). I must say, that from what I have read on [[WP:DRAMA#User:Pixelface|the drama board]], Pixelface seems to have large amounts of bias (and possibly [[WP:COI|COI]]?) when it comes to both Wikia and Fiction-related articles and thus, it don't believe that his/her points are entirely neutral or accurate. Sgeureka has been with the project for nearly two years, has accumulated over 20,000 edits and many, many contributions to the many areas of the project and will be a benefit and net positive to the administrator community. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - I've known Sgeureka to be a rather fair editor, who is not afraid to speak their mind and disagree if the case calls for it (i.e. doesn't often fall victim to [[groupthink]]). The fact that Sgeureka promotes transwiking information has nothing to do with whether or not he will be a fair and impartial administrator. Every Administrator has their own personal views on some specific topic on Wikipedia that does not always mesh with what others believe, that is not something new or something that will ever go away. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they are encouraged to share it (even Admins). The question should be, "Would Sgeureka be able to put his personal opinion aside in a RfC, AfD, etc and perform the correct action based on the consensus of the page?" Personally, I believe that he can and will.
'''Support''' Why not, no big deal, Wikipedia needs more admins, I don't give a fuck etc.--
Excellent candidate; clearly knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' Good user :) ''
'''Support''' per compelling argument given by Pixelface.  If you [[WP:TLDR|TLDR'ed]] his argument on the talk page, you may have missed him describing Wikia as "Jimbo's fancruft mines," which is one of the funnier things I’ve read here in awhile.
'''Support''' per positive personal interaction, a fine grasp of what makes for an encyclopedia, and the stirring recommendation by Pixelface.&mdash;
'''Support''' this reasonable editor.  Mop's [[WP:NBD|no big deal]].  I consider fears of abuse to be unfounded. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. His edit history and discussion threads are cogent and sensible, though I don;t agree with everything he's said and done. On balance he'll make a competent admin.
'''Support'''. Certainly he's been involved in some controversial things, and sometimes I don't entirely agree with his opinions. But I haven't run across anything (including in that lethal wall-of-text on the talk page) that leads me to believe he's acted in bad faith or otherwise in a way that undermines my trust in him. I think he'd make an excellent admin. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''. I see no problems with Sgeureka.
'''Support''' per the opposes.
'''
'''Support''', per [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy]].
'''Support'''!!! Sqeureka deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' as this editor has been making some good arguements for quite some time now. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - No reason to believe Sgeureka will abuse the tools; everything I've seen is in [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' IMO sysoping Sgeureka would be akin to sysoping TTN. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=238863291]
'''Oppose''', I do not trust this user enough to be certain of him being a net asset to the admin team. --
'''Oppose''' as too biased with regards to content inclusion to trust with closing certain articles for deletion.  Unless if the candidate pledges to not close any fiction related AfDs, which even I would do were I ever to run for adminship (really unlikely...), I cannot support, but might reconsider per some pleasant experiences in the past.  Sincerely, --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> I do not trust in your ability to correctly close AFDs.
'''Opppose''', another Wikia <s>tool</s> editor. We're here to write an encyclopedia and give free information to everyone, not enrich Wikia, Inc or Jimbo Sylvester McMonkey McBean. Some Sneetches don't care about stars on their bellies. We're here to volunteer and do the best we can, not to quote Steve Smithson Scott because he took The Bible or the Dungeon Master's Guide off the shelf and scribbled in it. --
'''Oppose''' Per past experience at AFD and role in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2]].
'''Oppose''' Role in Episodes and Characters 2 clearly shows that this user is not to be trusted with the buttons.

'''Oppose''' - Pixelface seems to say it better than I ever could - we're here to build an encyclopaedia, both general and specialist in nature. Those who're unlikely to be assets to this task in administrative roles should not be made administrators.
—
'''Oppose''' - Hearts in the right place, but has trouble with compromise and consensus. -
'''Oppose''' per candidate's reply to second question from Deacon of P above. Recusing himself because some might see him as biased… because he is German? This is worse than Wehwalt's undertaking to take no administrative action in I-P areas, above, which at least went back to actual behavior. Here, sgeureka is backing away based solely on his citizenship, something he has no control over. I want to shout at him, Have some gumption! If anyone gives you trouble just because you're a German send them to me and I'll sort 'em out! Too bad because I read the Supports and they are well stated.--
'''Oppose''' per Pixelface's [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka#Detailed oppose by Pixelface|more detailed comment on the talk page]].  This seems like very serious business to me.  Sgeureka appears to be systematically engaged in moving WP content to a for-profit project and then having the work of the original authors deleted here.  The suggestion of tag-team editing with TTN is also disturbing.  I must strongly question the judgment of this would-be (and looking to be likely) administrator. '''
Wow, I've seen some verbose opposes before, but never quite to what I've seen on the talk page.  I couldn't read it all, but I did read enough that I now have concerns.  '''Oppose.'''---'''
'''Oppose''' per Pixelface.
'''Oppose''' Too factional.
'''Strong oppose''' Why is often the mark of a "good potential administrator" how much that editor deletes other people's contributions? Why do so many wikipedians revere such conduct? An editor who calls editors' contibutions "tons of new crappy articles"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=238863291] shows how much that editor respects not only the other editors contributions, but the editor's themselves.  This editor should not be an administrator, let alone an arbitrator.
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid on consideration I feel unable to trust that the editor would interpret consensus appropriately.
'''Strong opppose''' - per this talk page. I strongly encourage people to read the fully text of that. - <font color="navy">
'''Neutral''', concerns expressed in the opposes give me pause. —
'''Neutral''' While I know Sgeureka makes good contributions, his views on fictional articles are controversial and I cannot honestly say that I trust him not to use the tools to "win" disputes in such cases. I won't oppose because of that though. '''
'''Support''' - I view opposing RfAs on the view self-noms are ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger ''res ispa loquitur'' evidence of not knowing Latin. '''
Yup, a good guy. He works in numerous areas and his edits show he has a lot of clue. Certainly has the experience required to make a good admin. '''
'''Support'''.  I've seen you around Wikipedia, and after poking around your userspace I've decided to support.  Your work here is good, and I can see that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheffieldSteel#Closing_as_delete you actually need the tools for something more than a trophy].  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', definitely worthy of the tools.
'''Support''', happy to. :)
'''Support''' I trust this user wholeheartedly. He's been involved in some nasty disputes on controversial subjects and has always shown maturity, knowledge, and a cool head with arguments that invoke policy and hit it right on the button. He's respectful and to-the-point, which is good combination for an admin. I normally wait until some of the common questions are asked, but I have enough experience dealing with this user and confidence in his knowledge and attitude that I am comfortable supporting now. I'm sure he'd take it slow and do some studying at [[WP:NAS]] to compensate for any experience he lacks in certain areas. Good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''' per {{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}}.
'''Support''' By all means, rational and common sensical.
'''Support'''- good article work demonstrates the candidate knows what an encyclopedia is about, sound reasoning at XfD and elsewhere demonstrates a level head and firm knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around a lot. He's experienced, knows policy, and civil. He has my trust with the tools.
'''Support''' Because user is a wikignome and because user needs the tools.--
'''Support'''. I view SheffieldSteel's work as ''prima facie'' evidence of needing admin tools.
'''Support''' - Strikes such a solid balance mingled with thoughtful comments and a civil nature.
'''Support'''—Looks good. '''<font face="Rockwell">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="43AA54">Maxim</font>]] (
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Seems honest and trustworthy enough.
'''Oh, hell yes!!!!'''.  I actually tried vehemently to get SheffieldSteel to accept my nomination for adminship months ago!  I would be his nominator, and should be his nominator, except I don't do that anymore, for personal reasons.  I'm so very glad to see SheffieldSteel boldly taking a step towards improving Wikipedia with the extra tools!  The tools are meaningless, really, and they should be the default setting and removed for abuse.  That's merely my opinion.  SS has proven that he knows how to write articles, but also that he knows how to diffuse contentious situations, and he knows what Wikipedia is and what it isnt'.  I'm proud to be a supporter of his request, regardless of the outcome. Supprort, without hesitation!
'''Support''' Great user, see him around a lot. No reason not to support. '''[[User:Little Mountain 5|<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold;color:Black">Little</em>]][[User talk:Little Mountain 5|<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold;color:Red">Mountain</em>]][[Special:Contributions/Little Mountain 5|<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold;color:Blue">5</em>]]''' <sup>
'''Support'''. Levelheaded and reasonable editor.  Plus he likes fishapods.
'''Support''' I've been giving this candidate the once over because of his involvement with controversial subjects such as ID, 911, abortion, and creationism.  While I don't always agree with him, I can't help be impressed by his demeanor and desire to get to an accurate NPOV articles.  To quote pigman, ''Why would anyone be interested in your opinion? Because you seem generally balanced and considered of word. Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter; your statement was a careful presentation of the good/bad faith perspectives. My bad for attempting to interpret your earlier words into a specific position.''  ---'''
'''Support'''  I have seen this editor around and have been impressed with their demeanor and attention to quality content.
'''Strong support''' Editor with a fair mind and a commitment to policy.  His participation at AfD is well-reasoned (as always, I would prefer radical inclusionism, but "well-reasoned" will do in a pinch!), his closures are always consistent with consensus, and his work at EA is marked by a strong knowledge of policy and an ability to work with difficult editors.  I would cite, for just one example, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=224653985 EA diff], where, wading into an intractable and frankly idiotic dispute involving an editor with an ''idée fixe'' about the Atlanta Braves (and are there any ''idées'' more ''fixes'' than those regarding sports?), he takes the time to clearly and politely explain the available options.  It's a good example of trying to talk a troublesome editor down from the ledge with the force and wisdom of policy behind you.  As regards SS's past with difficult areas of the project, it's clear that he's been there and back and learned from it.  Good administrator material. '''
'''Support''' should be ok. Cheers,
'''Support''' Quality candidate, acceptable answers to my questions, no reason to believe the candidate would misuse the tools.  --
'''Support.'''  Several times in the past few months I've thought that SheffieldSteel was good admin material.  I'm glad to see the nom and happy to support it.   —
'''Strong support''': An excellent candidate, and I would happily have nominated him myself if his power hunger had not gotten the better of him. :) SheffieldSteel possesses a surfeit of cluefulness and maturity - the most important qualities for adminship - and he'll do good work with the tools. Absolutely support. '''
'''Support.''' Looking through the editors interactions with other wikipedia users, I am comfortable that SheffieldSteel will demonstrate the maturity and patience needed to use the mop-and-flamethrower™ properly and not abuse them, and overall, I believe this editor's judgment worthy of being extended the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]]. --
'''Support''' in spite of obvious ''[[prima facie]]'' power hunger. --
'''Based on answers to questions, particularly #3, and on difs provided by Le Grand Roi'''.
'''Support''' I have seen him around and have no reasons to believe that the tools will be misused.<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' - I do not see any possibility of abuse.
'''Support''' I view self-noms as...NO! BAD PARAGON! Anyway, good gnome-work and I see no problem with giving you the bit. You could use a little article work, but I have absolutely no room to talk there.
'''Support''' This editor has a great track record (as pointed out above) and there is not a single reason to believe (as far as I saw it) that he would abuse his newfound mob and hit people over the head with it. Being a WikiGnome should be the first criteria for adminship imho (not just because I am one too) because those editors find "joy" in doing all the little sweeping up, the housework and the cleaning and that's what the admin tools are - cleanup tools to keep Wikipedia clean. And if the user is furthermore civil and cool-headed and (like the candidate) trying to do his best to adhere to all policies, then that's a definite reason to make him an admin. '''
'''Support'''. Perfect admin material. Will be just great.
'''Support''' Someething rings a bell about positive previous interaction, but I couldn't find it in archives. Anyway, [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|a net positive]] with the extra tools. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Shown a need for the tools, no history of misuse, and all round polite person. --'''''
'''Support''' - Appears to be a long-time, positive contributor.
'''Support''' - No problems here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''
To quote the candidate: "''I invite the community to consider my contributions and answer the question of whether you trust me not to abuse the tools''" - My answer is '''Yes, I trust you not to abuse the tools'''. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''' Excellant admin material. While I would like to see a bit more article work, the ability to help newbies is a very useful qualification, I think. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' In my (admittedly few) times coming across this editor, I have been impressed. Contrributions show a pretty high degree of [[WP:CLUE]] is present. '''
'''Guarded support'''.  Have some concerns about the comparitive lack of contributions to the main space though.
'''Support''' Sure. '''
'''Support'''.  Seems like a sensible, thoughtful candidate who puts policy before personal interest.
'''Support''' I've seen Sheffield around, and I've seen nothing but good and constructive contributions. A pleasure to support.
'''Support'''.  Adminship should either be automatically granted on request without going through RfA, or automatically granted after 6 months of editing, but until either of those happens I will automatically vote Support on all self-noms.
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy to me. --
'''Support''', no problems.  --
'''Support''' - looks good; meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]]; very interesting user page; [[User:SheffieldSteel/BITEM|this essay]].
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Overall, Sheffield Steel will be a good admin. Although I'm disappointed by the fence-sitting with question 5.
'''Support''' for several mature and rational discussions in support of NPOV and the encyclopedia in general. Clearly makes frequent trips to the clue depot. -
'''Support''' - surprised he isn't already an admin. Support per excellent answer to Q3, very reasonable Q5, equally reasonable Q7, and the AfD diffs provided by Le Grand Roi (#1 in neutral, below)
'''Support''' -  We need more admins from [[Sheffield]]. (also having seen him around here and there have not seen any reason to oppose)--
'''Enthusiastically support''' In short, SS gets it. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) '''Addendum''' Answer to Q.9 makes it game, set and match. Outstanding.
'''Support''' because the north of England rocks, and there aren't enough admins from up here. Plus [[User:Toon05/Admin_criteria|all this stuff]]. I shall be expecting some thankspam. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support''' - I thought I added my support this morning but I can't see it.  Someone please smack me with a [[WP:TROUT]] if I'm just going crosseyed and am voting twice.
'''Support'''; A good candidate with sufficient clue to be a good admin. I'm encouraged by his answer to question 5; Quite honestly, that's the kind of response that could result in opposes, but he posted it anyway. I'll take an honest admin over a popular one anyday.
'''Support''', only ever had <s>good</s> great interactions with Steel, would be a great addition to the admin ranks.
'''Strong support'''-Great editor.
'''Support''' Great editor, not afraid to wade into policy stuff.  Will be one of the good ones.
'''Support''' No reservations about this candidate.--
'''Support''' - I like his style, attitude, and to-the-pointness. Fine editor. <font color="#8080ff">

'''Support'''. Has the right amount of clue. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Oh hells yeah'''. Already thought he was one for some time now.
This user is experienced and will not misuse the bit. &mdash;<strong>
Good chap. What MastCell said. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) (
'''Support''' - good contributions, I can trust in SheffieldSteel as an admin. <small>
'''Support''' Posting vandals at AIV doesn't uniquely qualify someone to handle the buttons.  Everything seems in order here.  Also, lay off Sceptre unless you're willing to explain why it is bad for him to be disruptive but OK for Kurt to be disruptive.
Support, btw. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' - Very good quality candidate. Has been here more than long enough to fully understand what he's doing round here. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - I have full confidence that SheffieldSteel will be a good admin. --
'''Support''' - Seems like a great editor, no problems. --'''[[User:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="green">Meld</font></font>]][[User talk:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="red">shal</font></font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Super Strong Support''' - I think it took some guts to nominate himself the guts an administrator needs to work with other user, we wouldn't want some timid person to be and admin who just doddles around Wikipedia!  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' If I had been between on the fence, the answers do it for me. --'''
'''Support''' "Wikipedia is not a crazy den of pigs", indeed. Sheffo will help clean out the sty. --
'''Support''' - I would like to see a little more article work, but basically SheffieldSteel is a helpful, competent and civil editor and I can see no reasons in contributions, talkpage, answers above or opposes below to think that he/she can not be trusted with admin tools. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The opposers' rationales are unpersuasive.
'''Support:''' This guy's a top-notch professional&mdash;clean and clear. -- '''
'''Support''' Seen him around quite often, great editor. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' per Q13.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Good luck.
'''Support''' - I agree with Ferrylodge's oppose, but do not see that as a big enough deal to not support --
'''Support''' So I wouldn't agree with taking that sourced RR quote out of [[Abortion debate]] but that's a content dispute in a widely argued topic often misunderstood by either side. This may be the first self-nom I've ever supported. The pith is, I trust SheffieldSteel and would say he's shown his overall grasp of Wikipedia's policies is strong. Please go slowly at first, read up and don't be shy about asking questions, since it's true you haven't been doing lots of adminly tasks.
I accept.
'''Support''' – in my experience SheffieldSteel has shown wisdom and so should make a good admin. Gwen's opinion and advice is sound. . .
'''Supporting again, even though it's a foregone conclusion.''' I have seen SS around, and have liked what I've seen. Meets all of [[User:S._Dean_Jameson/RfA_support_criteria|my criteria for supporting]] with ease, so here I am. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small>]]
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' The first self-nom I've ever supported as well, but well worth the precedent. See Gwen's advice above - it's right on the money.
'''Support''' - per {{tlu|User:SheffieldSteel/Pigs}}, follow-up to Q7 and a lulzworthy handling of Q15. Come on MastCell, this is an RFA, not a philosophy term paper. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per SS’s contributions to admin-related areas of the project and the calm reasoning displayed; also per the answers to the above questions. —
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - this looks like a no-brainer to me. Don't let Gwen fool you, though; she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFrank&diff=222683009&oldid=222682314 supported me] first :-) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' based on my own interactions and answer to question 9
'''Support or oppose''' per question 15. ++
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Supremely trustworthy, will most definitely wield the mop well. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' in my experience SheffieldSteel is well endowed with clue. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support'''. See no reason to think he will abuse the tools.
Had I known he wanted to go for RfA, I would have nominated SheffieldSteel myself. Great user.
'''Support''' - after further review (including previous interactions I've had with you), I think this is appropriate. But, I trust you will keep what I said (below) in mind for the future.
'''Support''' - SheffieldSteel seems utterly level headed and sane. Who could ask for more?
'''Support'''. Absolutely no concerns, even though I waited for a while for any to be brought up due to my lack of interaction with the candidate. Looks like a level-headed, thoughtful and well-intentioned user who could use the tools well. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' I have crossed out my "neutral" comment below, and regretfully am moving to oppose.  Until I noticed this RfA, I had not encountered or observed SheffieldSteel's editing in a very long time.  And I still have not tried to comprehensively study this nominee's editing.  However, in view of the comment that I crossed out below, I have now taken a very brief look at a few of SheffieldSteel's recent edits.  In particular, I'm concerned about recent edits at [[Abortion debate]] (I have never been involved with that article as far as I recall, but have been involved with related articles, as indicated unfortunately in my block log).  Anyway, on 7 August 2008, SheffieldSteel made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_debate&diff=230403397&oldid=230382909 this edit] followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion_debate&diff=230419100&oldid=230413194 this talk page comment].  If people are interested, they can take a look.  The idea that an article on that subject should exclude relevant comments by a leading political figure is troublesome enough, but referring to that figure as "Ronald Reagan, of all people" confirms my concern that this nominee has a tendency to needlessly make certain contentious articles more contentious.
Meh. Not much article work. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheffieldSteel&diff=231312424&oldid=231311521 Dismissiveness] on something he really should know better. I was also confused by his comment [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UnrealIRCd (2nd nomination)|here]]. Not sure if I'm happy to have him around AfD yet. —'''
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' I feel very uncomfortable with a non-admin closing AfD discussions as delete.  If he can't follow the basic non-admin closure guidelines, he probably won't make a good admin.  Sorry!  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Neutral'''.  Oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory&diff=164102087&oldid=164002895], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_leaders_by_height&diff=206758449&oldid=206644450], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_passengers_forced_to_leave_an_air_flight_due_to_behaviour&diff=204714915&oldid=204674147], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_deaths_and_atrocities_of_the_twentieth_century&diff=207438153&oldid=207386668], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OC_Systems&diff=204747859&oldid=204026230], and[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pregnancy_in_science_fiction&diff=161649758&oldid=161649255], but support per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bespin&diff=231293945&oldid=231056796], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Butt_harp&diff=202349013&oldid=202345707], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_future_in_forecasts&diff=204709766&oldid=204670492].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
Don't see enough article building, won't oppose however. —
'''Neutral''' This vote is based on my sole encounter with the candidate, who made a bizarre attempt to convince me that I was not being insulted when someone called my opinions "ignorant" in an AfD debate.  Yeah, right -- I still cannot fathom the logic behind that effort.  Having not experienced the positive encounters that the Support crowd enjoyed, and seeing no clear reason to Oppose, I guess I have to sit down here and bum cigarettes off Realist2 and Le Grand Roi. :)
'''Neutral leaning support''' Steel seems like he wouldn't be a bad admin. I'm a little concerned about the answer to Q7, but doesn't give me enough reason to say oppose by far. <font color="amaranth">
'''Neutral''' from '''Oppose'''- I still carry my concerns from my previous oppose, but the candidate's general all-around personality and answers to questions force me to Neutral. Best of luck, Erik the <font color="red">
'''Neutral''', leaning towards '''Support''' — I really would like to support, I already thought you were an administrator. However, the relative lack of article contributions concerns me. I'm further worried by the somewhat fear you seem to have expressed of creating new articles in Q8. Other than that, I have no concerns with this candidate and wish you the best of luck. —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
Seems to fit the mold of what an old school admin was supposed to be like. '''Support'''
'''Support''' 12K+ edits, vandalism fighting, solid track record, I say let's hand him the mop.
'''Looks good.''' Would have liked to see more talk page archives. What I saw was not distressing. Also, would like have liked to see more deletion notification. [[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]] 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
'''Support''' He would do fine with the mop. -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Seems like a sensible candidate who would likely make a sensible administrator. --
'''Support'''. shoeofdeath is a well-rounded editor. I see no red flags.
'''Weak support'''. Prominent vandal-fighter. Has improved since the last RfA, with more participation in the project space. I'd like to see more article space contributions, but otherwise, a great editor that definitely deserves the mop.--'''
'''Support'''. Seems like a good user, and the opposes are unconvincing, to say the least. ·
'''Support''', seems sensible enough, and no evidence that they'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - seems perfectly capable of easing backlog at [[WP:AIV]], and there's no reason whatsoever to expect abuse.
'''Weak Support''' [[User:shoeofdeath|shoeofdeath]] can be trusted with the tools but some of the opposes have good points
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''''
Opposes are some of the worst I've ever seen... automatic support, therefore. '''
'''Support''' per Majorly - and to help nullify Kurt.
'''Support''' per Majorly/EJF <b>
'''Support''' Looks good; enough experience, no evidence of anything really problematic, been around long enough with good work in the areas they contribute to.
'''Support.''' I looked over some of his (now deleted) speedy deletion nominations, and they all were appropriate in my opinion. And I am pretty strict about [[WP:CSD]]. I have no problem with a candidate not being active in a particular area of adminly duties: In a year and a half as an admin, I can count on one hand the number of AfD's I have closed, and those were mostly because the articles were speedy deleted. Needs, understands, and won't abuse the mop. --
'''Support'''. In this case, I am compelled to agree with Maximillion Pegasus ("''He'll do fine with the mop''")—Shoe has some basic experience in [[WP:CVU|counter-vandalism]] duties, and his [[Special:Contributions/Shoeofdeath 2|contributions]] show some [[WP:AIV|AIV]] participation, which is always handy. Whilst I would not go so far as to say that he is the "perfect" RfA candidate, I am confident that he'll be able to help out at least a little with the buttons, and for that reason, I am pleased to support. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''', I've seen shoeofdeath around and he seems very sensible, also per Majorly. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Well, outside of glaring reasons not to promote, my only real, cast iron criteria for an admin is to know the policys well, and I think Tiptoety has proven this criteran to be well met. Can someone get this editor a mop please :P? [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
Per Majorly and AGK.
'''Support''' The mop is handed over on the basis of trust, not need. Shoeofdeath appears unlikely to abuse the buttons so this is a default support.
'''Support''' - Seems like a great users, with good experience, and great with anti-vandalism.
'''Support.''' Survived my check.
'''Support.''' I view editing as ''prima facie'' evidence of insanity, but that's not going to stop me supporting, is it Kurt.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and excellent vandal fighter with 150+ reports to AIV.
'''Weak Support''' - I would like your edit summaries to be more then 1, 2, or 3 letters but other then that I see no reason to fall on the other side of the fence.  <b>
Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' Solid user, no convincing reason to Oppose. Good <s>shoe</s>luck! <b>

'''Support''' Though I must stress that you should keep talk page archives, ''especially'' as an admin. Please reconsider your stance on this.
'''Weak support''' - No major concerns, and meets all my standards, this user appears to be a fine Wikignome.  My only concern is that I don't know much about the user -- no activity at WP:XfA, no user boxen, no archives.  But having read the opposes, I am not convinced to oppose, nor remian neutral.
'''Support''' -- I can see no reason to oppose and plenty of reasons to support, especially this being a self-nom. Reeks of [[WP:BOLD|Boldness]]. A good editor.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Although there are some good arguments in the oppose section, I see no reason why this user will misuse the tools.  <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">
'''Support''' - good candidate, proves self worthy of nomination.
'''Weak support''' - OK, good, good, but more interaction on talkpages (especially your own talkpage and article talk) would have made this RfA even better. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' "Due to fact his edits are so tightly constrained in the first place to protection and improvement only." (What else is there besides the broad categories of protecting and improving this place?)  Of course you have my support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Answers are similar to my own views, and indicate familiarity with policy.
'''Support'''Sounds Good <strong>
'''Support''' I'm okay with admins specializing in one field as long as they can be trusted with the tools--
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Oppose''' - Low individual article count with respect to total edits/mainspace edits, which means it's just a bunch of reversions. 15K with only 500 wikipedia namespace contributions, mostly robotic [[WP:AIV]] reports? No other major contributions besides this? Regretfully must oppose. Fails my criteria for 1.)Balance and 2.)Versatility in admin related areas.
'''Oppose''' Due to fact his edits are so tightly constrained in the first place to protection and improvement only.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' - Past experience with this editor on the {{tl|uw-vandalism4im‎}} and {{tl|uw-vandalism4}} templates has left me with the impression that he prefers to revert back to what he feels "looks better," rather than discuss changes or even look to see if those changes were made via group consensus.  As such, I cannot in good conscience support the RfA of this editor. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
Q10 was the dealbreaker for me.  Admins should be versed in ALL areas of WP, not just one or two.  Effective vandal fighting can be done without the use of admin tools.  <strike>Also - where was the nom acceptance?  Sorry, but noms who can't follow the nom instructions also break the deal.</strike>
'''Oppose''' - very small percentage of edits to actually improve the content of articles. All the user seems to do is to use the rollback function.
'''Oppose''' Based on limited editing pattern. Perhaps a renomination should be considered when wider experience has been garnered.
'''Oppose''' I have no problem with specialist admins, but I do believe that one should get a broad depth of experience demonstrating a firm understanding of wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per insufficient interest in content writing. It has been explained elsewhere many times why it matters. --
'''Neutral''' - <s>For now, until questions are answered.</s> Overall I feel the same way wisdom does above. Great contributions to [[WP:AIV|AIV]], but little to no project space contributions outside of that. Would also like to see more communication with other user, just things as simple as leaving speedy deletion notifications, or keeping talk page archives. It appears this was also an issue raised in shoeofdeath's previous RfA, does not show improvement.
'''Neutral'''<s>...until questions to be answered.</s> Gut feeling. Tiptoety voices, rather types, my feelings on the matter. <strong>
'''Neutral''' - I can't really support someone who thinks that cool-down blocks should be used "never under any circumstances in an attempt calm down someone who is frustrated or angry". Your answer gave the impression that you simply read the [[WP:CBD|policy]] and tried to think up a convincing answer, rather than explaining your understanding of it based on a long familiarity with Wiki-culture.--
'''Neutral''' per tiptoe, answers are very short, thought the user does seem well informed. Sorry! I know everyone hates neutrals but I can't decide! Quote: "Switzerland, not very useful in a war but oooh the fondue!" --
'''Neutral''' per the support votes and the oppose votes. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. The communication issues brought up bother me as well, admins are not an island, if you will. Besides that, the user does seem to understand policy well and be a solid contributor. Hence, the neutral. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Of the 1850+ user talk edits, it appears that more than 1600 or so of them are straight templates, and this does not give me enough to work on, especially recently, on how this editor would handle contentiousness [[vis-a-vis]] any administrative actions he may take. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience extend my [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to this user at this time. However, I did not see anything egregious enough for me to specifically oppose this user, so I will abstain from this discussion. Good luck! --
'''Neutral''' I normally take adminship as no big deal & I have pretty low standards (see [[user:hmwith/rfa]]), but I cannot support at this time. It doesn't bother me much that he doesn't have archives right now. However, even with the concern raised here by many, the user will not guarantee he will keep talk page archives if he becomes an admin. Trust me, if you use your admin tools, you will get several messages a day, unlike now. ''If he says that he will begin to do so if granted the mop, I will change to support.'' '''
'''Neutral'''. Nearly there, but not quite. A lot of edits, but mostly robotic. Recommend keeping talk page archives and getting involved in policy discussions.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. I've got a few minor "reservations" - you've virtually no expereince in the project space areas of [[C:CSD]] and [[WP:AIV]] so it's a bit tricky to see how you'd do there (not that you've stated you want to work there but still...). Also, I note your Q1 but there's not a lot of [[WP:RFP|protection related]] activity either. However susbstantial content contribution to [[Beer|an area close to my heart]] and the associated talk / wiki projects etc. shows collaborative drive. Lots of [[WP:AFD]] stuff that looks okay. Civil user page, helpful manner, seems to have plenty of [[WP:CLUE]]. [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net positive]] with the tools but go steady ''should'' you decide to start moving into blocking / speedy deleting would be the only thing I'd say. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

I'd like to see more RPP work if you want to help there, but another editor <s>stupid enough</s> willing to delve into the hell-hole that is DRV cannot be a bad thing :)
'''Weak Support'''. Like Pedro said above, you're lacking some experience in a few places, so if you do decide to branch into CSD or AIV, I implore you to take it slowly.
'''Support''' Some experience in a few areas is missing as others have said, but with so many edits you've proven trustworthy and I think you'd use the tools well.  Experience can be gained, my concern is whether giving you the tools is a net benefit for Wikipedia - and I think it is. <b>'''
'''Support'''. "Good Ol' Pedro" said it best. CLUEful candidate who seems very mannered and I am sure he will not delve into areas where he has not worked in before without either consulting an admin who already works the area or looking at those admins' way of doing things. For example at [[WP:RFPP]], you can easily see a backlog of fulfilled requests to learn from and I am sure he is willing to learn whatever he does not know. I know those areas Pedro mentioned from my own experience and I think I do an acceptable job there (and I learned it this way^^). Regards '''
'''Support'''. Reliable with good contributions.
'''Support.'''  I've seen SilkTork around on the [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|WP:3O]] project from time to time during the past year or two.  From what I've seen, this nominee has what it takes to be a good administrator.  —
'''Support'''. I'm a bit frightened by the number of children you have, though.  How do you have time for Wikipedia? Good contributions, bound to do a great job as administrator.
'''Support''' - We have a good one here. —
'''<s>AW HELL YEAH BOY</s> Unyielding support''' - Absolutely no trust problems with this user, will not abuse the tools, massive positive contributions everywhere this user goes - what can I say. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Experienced, and ready to be an admin. Good Luck!!
'''Support''' Per much of the above, good luck.
'''Clear support''' you are competent and committed in article space - that's all I require. The rest is easy in comparison, and you'll pick it up if you choose to do it.--
I have opposed SilkTork for RfA in the past. While I still have some concerns, things are different now, I think. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' although "SatinPork" would be a better username. :) <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Support''' I think this user would be a good admin.

'''Support''' Good article building, overall trustworthy. --
'''Weak Support'''.  Please take it slow.  I echo Pedro's concerns. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' as meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], and having learned from the first RFA.
'''Support''' If you don't intend to work in CSD or AIV, then why the hell do you need experience there? Trustworthy, and won't mess things up. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Seems like a friendly and knowledgeable editor, who has done a lot of good work here.
'''Support''' - Interaction with this user was pleasant. [[Beer in the Philippines|Have one on the house]].--
'''Weak Support''' No newpage patrol/[[WP:AIV]] experience, so he might not know how to deal with it at first, but I'm sure he'll manage. A very good Wikkipedian.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''.  I understand Pedro's concerns, but when an editor seems to be very focused on the policies and the activities they know, it reduces my concern that they will lunge into something they don't know, like WP:AIV, and start making bad decisions.  Some people just have focus and maturity, and SilkTork is one of those people.  I guess I'm also pushing back against the idea that the deletion and behavioral policies are what admins "ought" to know, and the other policies (which SilkTork knows well) are less important ... all Wikipedia policies are important, and SilkTork's broad knowledge is just what I'm looking for in an admin. - Dan
'''Support''' Get involved with newpage patrolling and CSD! Article contributions are excellent though, think he can do great things with the mop. '''
'''Weak Support''' After very careful consideration.User has beem around since Jan 2006 and track is good and see no misuse of tools hence supporting through considered the fact of lack of editing in AIV, and New Page patrolling.
'''Support''' I see no evidence that the user would abuse the tools and their general demeanour seems impressive. Also like their answer to the question I asked (4) - especially the first sentence.
Work is helpful, deserves the tools. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' long term user, clean block log, and [[User:SilkTork#My Wiki-editing style|I like this attitude]]. '''
'''Support''' Why not? ^^
'''Support''' large amount of contributions, clean block log, net positive as an admin. per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Weak Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|I like fish]].
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' Sure, no issues here.
'''Support''' - Good user, and I trust them.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' I believe he would make a great admin from reviewing his contributions and would toast him with a [[Paulaner]].
'''Support''' - worthwhile contributions to article writing and a good general understanding of policy is what I think an admin should have, and this user clearly satisfies these criteria. --
'''Support'''. Good candidate, net positive.
'''Support''' A good editor, looks to be very enthusiastic and committed. I particularly like the answer to Q2, somehow :)
'''Support'''. Looks like a sensible person who won't do anything crazy.
A teacher eh? Well, '''Support''' anyway. :D
'''Support''' per the above and RfA cliche #1.
'''Support''' - You are a good candidate with enough general experience and large number of contributions. I can see you are not an all rounder with admin areas, but you have experience in most areas you want to do admin work in. I do not see anything wrong in your contributions to AfD.
'''Support''' - I gave him an exceptional newcomer award almost three years ago when he appeared and started improving beer related articles. He thinks before taking action and learns from any mistakes he does make. Needs a mop to clean up the beer spills before he gets the next round in. --
'''Support''' No problems here. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy individual. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' without reservation.
'''Weak support''' because although I can't swing one way or tother on this, there aren't really any concerns; and because of that and his contributions, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support'''. Great candidate, "in spite of" being like Newyorkbrad (see below).
'''Support'''. I was coming here to support anyway, but my resolve was only strengthened by the ridiculous oppose and neutrals.
'''Support''': One mug of beer please!  Oops ! :) I have seen this guy around for a long time and trust he wont break any beer mugs ! --
'''Support''' Per nom by {{user|OwenX}}, per positive contributions to this project, per answers to the first three questions. '''
'''Of course'''. Really good user, seen him around a lot, perfectly fine!
'''Support''' - an excellent contributor who make a fine admin. '''
Fine editor.
'''Support''' No problems here. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
I can't support any user who hasn't done any [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&hide_patrol_log=0&user=SilkTork newpage patrol].
'''Neutral'''.  Reasons for supporting include a nice userpage with barnstars that show the candidate has impressed and worked well with others and that the candidate has worked on good articles.  That the candidate has never been blocked is also a plus.  Reasons for opposing center on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Hoover]] (inconsistent with the close), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-pornographic films featuring nudity]] (while candidate's "argument" was in line with the close, there was no argument, just a vote and attempt at humor), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese dragons in popular culture]] (these in popular culture articles vary wildly in terms of both quality and potential, so saying "delete all" is not really fair or objective).  With that said, some of the arguments I have seen in other discussions were reasonable so that coupled with the positives I mention above prevent me from opposing.  I am going with a neutral rather than a weak support, however, as I hope that the candidate will take note of the above critical examples and as I do not believe my neutral will negatively effect the outcome.  Best, --
'''Neutral''' - Based on the very unfortunate [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates|AMA]], but as it no longer exists, hopefully his judgment has improved. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Balloonman + SandyGeorgia?  Co-noms? Seriously?  Good gravy, just give Slp the mop!  No need to bother with an rfa...[[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''.  No problems here whatsoever.  Glad to have you (almost) on the team!  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. I've had the pleasure of working with Slp1 on several articles, including [[Nicholas John Baker]], [[gaijin]], and [[G. Edward Griffin]] -- to name a few. She is one of the most civil, policy-oriented, article-oriented, and professional editors that I know. I support her nomination without reservation.
'''Co-nom Support''', obviously :-)
'''Support''' -- per the first three answers! I trust the rest shall be just as good? = ) Best of luck. --
'''Support'''  I think she would be a great administrator for our community. --
<s>Conditional support upon good answers to optional questions.</s> '''Strong support''' per answers to questions. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - I usually don't support based on co-nominations, but those explanations and diffs leave a really really good taste in my mouth. I can sympathize with a few misplaced CSD tags, but you know what? She removed faulty ones. Good for you. You have Wisdom89's support, for whatever it is worth. Good luck.
'''Support''' <s>Good</s> Great answer to Q4. <font face="Arial Black">
Ips cannot vote. Howver, I am willing to fill the place of the '''support'''. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''.  A steady hand on the wheel for a long time.  Love the answer to question #5 as well.   I really wish more admins had that attitude. --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', exactly the kind of user and admin we need more of.
'''Support''' good editor.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support'''. I have [[William Wilberforce]] and [[Learned Hand]] watchlisted, so I see daily what a smart and collaborative editor Slp1 is.
'''Strong support''' All of my interactions with Slp1 indicate that she is extremely qualified for the mop,
'''Support''' - very conscientious, places strong emphasis on communication and collaboration, and has a good grasp of policy.  I trust her to make considered decisions.
'''Support''' wowed by nom - cool person. All the best!
'''Support''' - Per [[WP:WTHN]]. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' as I could not come up with any compelling reason not to (as apparently so far no one else has either).  Bonne chance!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
There are many excellent reasons to support this user - Firstly, they are exceptionally well-rounded, contributing to [[WP:CSD]], vandal-fighting, and article work. Another terrific anecdote is her [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] level, which is excellent and necessary particularly in the administrative tasks she intends to take part in. The two nominators (who appear to be nominating contributors like ''crazy'' these days) are both, IMHO, highly trustworthy and experienced contributors, whose judgement I fully trust. Finally, her answers to the questions exhibit a well-versed understanding of policy and a willingness to assist the project. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to oppose this contributor.
'''Support''' per great nomination, see nothing to make me think user will not use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''', seems no reason not to.
[[Learned Hand|Yes please]]! ''
A dedicated cleaner, with a cool head and good approach to improving content. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' per answer to my question.
'''Support''' well-rounded, nice answers to questions. <strong>
'''Support'''. Best answers to the questions that I've seen in some time.
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful and impressive answers to the questions. Seems level-headed and mature. If there was anything to waver over (there wasn't) her statements about verifiability would have clinched it for me.--
'''Support''' Strong candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' – Your answer to question #5 gave me all the reasons I needed to express a support opinion.  Many here, at [[Wikipedia]], believe that it is all about edit count – or how many GA & FA’s the individual participated in, in so many months.  And they are important to a certain degree.  However, when it comes to our [[WP:Administrator|Administrators]] I personally prefer the slow and easy method.  Great answer.  Regarding the rest of your qualifications:  Over 2 years of consistent, quality contributions – the times you had to be tough you were – no incivility issues – an edit count that shows article building.  Overall excellent job.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Good content editor, and, besides quoting Dr Phil, see no reason to deny user the tools if she needs 'em.
At times I will pick a random RFA to comment on.  After reviewing this candidates contributions, and asking a couple of clarifying question, I feel comfortable this editor will not abuse the tools.  This one has my support.
'''Support'''. Slp is a good editor, who has impressed me with any work I have seen around the project. Strong article contributions and co-nominations; sound answers to the questions, which demonstrate competence; contribution history shows that he's trustworthy. I have no problems here; good luck!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. The candidate builds quality content and works well with others.
'''Support''' per [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]], plus everything appears fine in all the right places.
'''Support''' Quite the [[polymath]]. You absolutely deserve this. Have fun with the mop!
'''Support''' - a very good editor who'll make good use of the tools.  -
'''Support''' - Balloonman + SandyGeorgia, I have nothing to worry about.
"My proudest moment as a content editor was when the École Polytechnique massacre article became a featured article and subsequently appeared on the mainpage". That kind of "dedication to the cause", plus no other obvious issues, equals a support every day of the week. Definitely not your stereotypical sign-up-and-revert-using-twinkle-till-I-can-pass-RfA candidate which tend to cause most of the problems due to a lack of discretion, understanding of more complex users and ability to interact intelligently.
'''Support'''.  A fine candidate.  --
'''Support''' wonderful user, will definitely use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' Looks all in order. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  Love her answers to the questions, trust Sandy's perception of her as a careful architect of articles.  - Dan
'''Support''' - per answers to questions and looking at past edits. Careful attention to detail, lots of activity on article talk pages. Let's have more Wikipedians like this as admins! <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Sandy + I've seen this editor around and I'm confident she will use the tools in a responsible manner. --
'''Support''' per nominations and the responses to all of the questions.  They show that you have a deep understanding of all the relevant policies that administrators have to deal with, and I would be glad if you became an administrator.  Good luck!  [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b>]]
'''Support''' clear net positive. Cheers,
'''Suppport'''. I like what I see in contribs, and I'm very impressed with the tone of communication with other editors. I've tracked a number of threads on her talk page, and I find her helpful and civil. I like the attitude towards speedy deletions reflected in the answer to question #1 above, as it suggests the nom intends to bring critical thinking into responding to CSD tags. --
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' - Can not find a reason to oppose (even after digging pretty deep).
'''Support''' per noms and everyone else in this list.  Cant find a single reason to oppose.  ;)  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' In my experience, Slp1 is a hardworking editor who is consistently civil and fair in her dealings with others. I have much respect for the work she does and believe she is a true asset to the project.
'''Support''' I'm thoroughly impressed with the well-roundedness of the candidate's contributions to the project.
'''Are you married?'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - super editor. Kinda and considerate, never [[WP:BITE|BITEy]]. She will make a fine admin -
'''Support, support, support.''' Nuff said, she'll be a great admin. I wish her the best of luck. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaNLOPEZ1115]]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> [[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|TaLKBaCK]]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>
'''Support''' : I havent had any interactions with the person yet but I dont find any reason I should oppose her. Her answers impress me , indicates me how serious she is for the job. You have a steady editing pattern. Have seen many people suddenly increasing edit counts and then coming to RFA. Full support and best wishes to you -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm always amazed by Slp1's patience on [[École Polytechnique massacre]].-
'''Support''' after consideration.--
'''Support''' Very good answers to questions - seems serious, dedicated, and respected.
'''+Support'''
'''Strong support'''.  She looks like a great editor.  She meets all my standards.  Best of luck!
'''+Support''' Has been around since April 2006 with over 4000 mainspace edits.No concerns.
'''Per nom Support'''
'''Post nom support''' Fine candidate. No concerns, no big deal. I made it, great. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support''' Good editor, no major concerns.--
'''Support'''
'''Neutral''' --
'''Support''': Seems like a good editor. The lack of article writing does not concern me, as an administrator or a regular user can write articles; the tools are for work like recentchanges patrolling. Good luck! --
'''Support''' I had a recent positive experience with Smalljim--he seemed thoughtful and helpful.  A review of his contributions showed me many similar edits.  I would have no worries about this editor misusing the tools.
'''Support''' add me. <sup>
'''Support''' Looking over his contribs, I find some substantial work on articles and I particularly noted his work on [[Teignmouth]]. His AV work is good. I ♥ Wikignoming as well. He knows policy and his general congeniality indicates he'll communicate in conflict situations, which I consider very important. Thumbs up.
'''Weak Support''' Weak, because of the weak answer to Q6.<strong>
'''sUPPORT''' PER ABOVE. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good.
I am aware of this user's work here & on Commons.  I see no issues with having the extra buttons --
'''Support'''.  Looks good so far.  '''
'''Support''' - good answers to questions.
Answers are ok, with the notable (and already noted) exception of Q6. Because of that I'm giving my '''weak support'''. Please note however that this is an issue extending far beyond this RfA and I do have a rather strong opinion about it, so I'm not going to let it prevent me from taking a neutral look at the good you're doing around the wiki.
'''Support''' - Looks good from where I'm standing - a fine user who appears in many areas. He shouldn't do any harm with a couple of extra buttons.
'''Support''' - Well thought out answers.  His contribs look good. --
'''Support''' Looks good here. --'''
'''Support''' Your dedication to accountability will no doubt be mirrored in your dedication to performing admin tasks. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - meets all my standards, incl. edit count, AfD work, no issues, etc.
'''Support''' - sure :) -
'''Support''' with blathering: your answer to Q6 is one of the best we've seen in awhile.  The gut reaction is spot on.  You correctly intuited some of the problems with recall and really intelligently expanded on those insights below, and that's a ''very good'' sign.  You've done good work at [[Teignmouth]] and you needn't be bashful of it.  Also, bravo to Epbr for finding candidates who don't spend all their time at RFA.  We need ''more'' people doing what Epbr does—not less. --
'''Support''' - a good editor. --
'''Support''' - great editor! -
'''Support''' - I am sure  you will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - No red flags here.
'''Support''' - I'm suitably pleased with what I see here... --
No issues here.
'''Support''' - yup. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Neutral''' Sorry, I don't have time to research enough for a full vote, but I've looked at a few of the candidate's contribs and these look good:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roller_coaster&diff=prev&oldid=183042108 here] using Twinkle but being careful not to label this particular edit as "vandalism" (and other similar examples); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.183.141.249&diff=prev&oldid=183044474 here] using the nice gentle "editing tests" template for vandalism reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Stripe&diff=prev&oldid=183044040 here].  The reverts that I looked at that the candidate labelled as vandalism looked clearly like vandalism.  So, the candidate seems to be being careful, using different levels of response to different kinds of tests/vandalism. The little I looked at looks good. --
<s>Weak support for now since I haven't had chance to review your AfD's all that substantially, but otherwise I don't see many problems here.</s> '''Strong support''' per this statement: ''"Regardless of what Kurt's impending vote is going to say, I do not want to be an admin to wield my mighty admin sword around and make others tremble beneath me. I want to improve the project and I believe that I should be accountable for my actions."'' —
Same here, count me in as long as nothing out-of-the-ordinary comes up. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''', excellent participation in AfD from all the ones I've seen - I was particularly impressed with your numerous intelligent contributions to that AfD-from-hell, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)|Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)]] - From that one and several other discussions, it's clear that you don't have a problem with picking up on others' weak arguments, and you always seem to do it in a civil manner. I also saw good contributions to [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:DRV]]. Overall you look like a smart user who could make good use of admin tools and knows what to do with them. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - I don't notice anything alarming. Defaulting to Support per Cyclo.
'''
'''<s>Default to</s> support''' - <s>Pending answers to my questions.</s> You have my backing. :) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  I don't see why not. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - defaulted really.  Nothing of utmost importance jumping out.  Good article work, XfD experience, conflict experience.  All good.
'''Support:'''  good understanding of policies and guidelines, experience in both content-building and admin venues, seems ready to take up the admin tools.  —
'''Support''' Looks fine by me. I've got no idea what Ironholds is on about, it looks like Smashville was handling matters correctly.
'''Weak Support'''. My support somewhat waivers because you're not all that communicative (your last 500 User Talk edits go back to 2007, as does your talk page, for example). Also, you haven't been all that active in recent months, usually clocking in at about 100 edits per month. However, you have been around a long time, have gained experience, and seem to have a good handle on policies. Good enough for my support. P.S. - Your username reminds me of [[EarthBound (series)]]. Interestingly enough, this is not the first RFA to remind me of a video game, see my optional question at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zedla]].
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smashville look], I like, I '''support'''.
'''Weak support''', I like the mainspace building, but I'd like to see more use of edit summaries.
Hello, I'm here for the [[Dolly Parton]] look-alike contest -- "Workin' 9 to 5, what a way to..." oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here with a [[Nashville]]-based candidate who does great work on Wikipedia: '''Support'''!  (Anyone want to hear me sing "Coat of Many Colors?").

'''Support''' - Per questions and review of contributions. No problems found, and edits (and, *cough*, ''non''-edits) on this page already show admin-like qualities. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. In the removal of links disagreement noted by the opposers, he handled the situation courteously, and I think his actions were in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
'''Strong Support''' - I've never, to my knowledge, met Smashville, nor have I extensively gone through his contribs (but what I did see looked great; keep up the good work, no matter how this RfA turns out), but the biggest reason I'm support is his answer to Q2: "I liked the fact that if someone was watching on TV, they could look him up and find out about him. While I recognize that it has nothing to do with my ability with an editor and everything to do with lucky timing, I did find it kind of cool." This, to me, epitomizes why we're all here: to help provide free, decent, information to anyone who needs it. I think too many people forget that, and Smashville obviously hasn't. Good luck!
To counter the baseless opposition. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Last RfA !vote for a very long time support''' - This will be my last !vote in a RfA for at least a couple of months. I'm delighted it can be for you ''Smashville''! You will certainly make a fine sysop, of that, I have no doubts :-) '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''' to counteract the lame opposes for thing such as edit summary usage. More experience on AIV is encouraged, though. '''
'''Support''' Nothing makes me believe that this candidate will abuse the tools.  I was somewhat troubled by the material in the 2nd oppose at first (the findingDulcinea exlink issue), but on a second look, context proved mitigating.  I hope we won't let a good-faith editor, an editor with a desire to use the tools to improve the project, get rejected at RfA over unrelated political issues like AOR. '''
'''Support''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of a need for the tools. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hatch|understands IAR]] --
'''Support'''. Reliable and well-established editor.
'''Support''' Have no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Also, really like the question answers.
'''Support''', per Editorofthewiki.
'''Support''', per answer to Q10.
'''Support''' per sound logic
'''Support''' Per good answers to the questions (especially Q9 and 10), good track record of contributions and overall no uncivility in sight. Reasons in the opposes are not very convincing, I rather have a good admin with 100 edits a month than a bad one with 1000 and I never understood Realist2's reasoning that in order to be an admin you should be an article writer...honestly, I thought to honor article writers, we have [[WP:BS|barnstars]] not adminship... Winger84 has a small point but 92/98% edit summary usage is rather good compared to some of the current admins. And I think the candidate will not do so as admin, if you look at his [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Smashville&site=en.wikipedia.org edit count] you will realize that the lack of summaries stems from his first months at the project. '''
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions-- they convince me that the candidate is not likely to abuse the tools and will work well with others, seeking discourse and understanding to handle disagreements. (This is sufficient to offset oppose issues raised below.) Further, I view self nomination to indicate the boldness and self confidence needed to be an admin when the candidate's self appraisal of readiness is accurate, as it appears in this instance. On reviewing the discussion up to the present moment, the support arguments seem more convincing to me, while the oppose arguments are not sufficiently compelling.  Cheers,
'''Support''' I'm happy to support ——
'''Weak Support''' While I am a little concerned about the mainspace edits, it isn't severe enough for me to oppose.--
'''Support''' Seems to have a good grasp of the WP world. I would recommend you turn on the Edit summary checker in your preferences. Cheers <b>
'''Aye'''. Seen this user about, always been impressed, don't see any red flags.  Opposes don't convince me. <b>
'''Support''', any editor who would improve Wikipedia as an admin should be one, and I can find no indication that Smashville would not do so. --
–<font face="Verdana">
Seems alright. —
Of course.
'''Support''' – while I'd like to see a bit more activity, I think that your activity is enough (albeit possibly just barely enough) to answer the question as to whether you are a trustworthy user who will, with an adequate knowledge of policy, will strive to better Wikipedia. For me the answer to that question is yes. I applaud your work in [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:AFD]]; being an administrator will mean that many newer editors will look up to you for guidance, and I hope you can use your experience garnered from those projects to set a great example. Good luck.--<small>
John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. --
'''Support'''. Candidate has been sensible from what I've seen. The opposition mentions that mainspace work is on the low side, but while more efforts in the mainspace certainly cannot hurt, the work with A P Valentine is enough to convince me that the candidate knows what encyclopedia writing is about, and will have the sufficient empathy with the article writers to be an effective administrator.
To nullify Skinwalker.
'''Support''' per all the answers to the questions. Good luck. Best, --'''
'''Support''' - per nom. <font color="green">
'''Support''' No reason for alarm.
'''Support''' per Cyclonenim and article work. To those of you who are believe his edit count should be higher, please consider that A) he has ''created'' decent articles, and a single article creation may deserve more weight than a single ordinary edit; and B) if he weren't intending to increase his edit count, he wouldn't be on RfA!
'''Support''' I think Smashville is trustworthy and should be given the tools. The opposes based on recall are [[WP:POINT]]y and have nothing to do with the candidate. As for edit summaries, it's hardly the be all and end all.
'''Support''' - you look like a genuine editor who knows the ropes, you seem civil enough and I trust you to perform admin actions well. I will be very interested to see your answer [[User:JC37|JC37]]'s first four questions, so take your time and answer them well, I'm sure you will. From an editorial point, however, I'd really like to see you use [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] all the time, and, when adding [[WP:REF|references]] and [[WP:CITE|citations]] to articles, such as [[Mike Hamilton]], use {{tl|cite web}} etc. templates. Otherwise you get messy, raw refs and a bot comes along and adds a title, which still isn't enough really. But from an admin point of view, I trust you. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support''' per Cyclonenim. I'm not big on fretting over mainspace, I don't do much there myself, so I don't see any outstanding problems.--
'''Support''' Could have a bit more experience in the mainspace, but but at this time, I see nothing that would lead me to believe that Smashville will not be a valued administrator.
'''Support''', I see no reason to believe that Smashville would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Why not? &mdash;
'''Support'''. Not a lot of mainspace work. However Smashville generally provides sensible contributions and he has good answers.
Despite the lack of ''strong'' content contributions, Smashville seems quite cognizant of our norms and able to hit the ground running in unfamiliar situations. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' ''"The Edit Count is as a road, you must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you" [http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits]'' comes to mind here. So regardless of arbitrary statistics like their main-space edit count, I feel this user has the integrity and trust required to be an administrator. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>
'''Support''' no deal-breakers arising in oppose comments. Cheers,
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support''' - You seem to have the right experience and attitude for an admin to me, and your edits suggest a lot of productive main space and Wikipedia space work. I personally think your answer to question 10 was good, but RfA should not be referendum over recall in any case. Your edit count/activity levels do not concern me either, even if you don't use the admin tools lots every day, there is still a clear benefit in giving you the mop.
'''Support''' I think the ED AfD did it for me. It's a good sign when someone can wade through the emotion over the subject matter, and actually look at sources, guidelines, etc. I also liked their answer to Q.13.
'''Strong support''' - per the statement given in #10. <small>
'''Support''' all self-noms, because anybody who wants adminship should automatically have it.  Adminship is "no big deal", right?
'''Support''' : Altough I feel you are 'relatively' inexperienced per my expectations, I see there is no alarming concerns from you. [[WP:WTHN|WTHN ?? ]] . Adminship is just a natural progression for hardworking and trustworthy Wikipedians. I see you have taken care of edit summaries, kindly concentrate more on your contributions to Mainspace.  Best wishes --
'''Support''' Positive contributor.  Being open to recall is evidence of trustworthiness.
'''Support''', meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
Seems solid. Good luck. &mdash;'''
'''Support''': A great contributor, would make an excellent janitor. <small>
'''Weak Support''' there are areas where you are lacking, but not enough to warrant an oppose.  The opposes below are so weak that I'm actually voting (in part) for one of the lamest reasons of all, to counter the garbage below!  I don't think I've ever voted that way... but I see enough good and fail to see the rationale below that I have to support (albeit weakly.)---'''
'''Support''' – had to think a bit about this as limited experience, but good answers and appears well able to present careful reasons for actions. Should be able to make good use of the tools in areas with backlogs. . .
'''Support'''  the opposes do not concern me.
'''Support'''. This is a good candidate, and I too am impressed with both the questions and the candidate's statements here. You had me at hello, so to speak. Good luck,
I'm sure your a nice person, just not what I'm looking for criteria wise. Try to get some strong article building under you belt. Best. —
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smashville#stop_deleting_external_links_on_historic_sites this] makes me sit up and take notice. Very low number of edits relative to time here; 96 this month makes it difficult for me to judge your (recent) temprament/quality of edits/so on. You say you want to patrol AIV, but 22 submissions in 1 year doesn't make me confident you have enough experience to patrol it effectively.
'''Oppose''' As Ironholds pointed out above.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''  At this time, I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.
'''Opppose''' I do not trust this user at this time. On the side, I also have problems with admins being open to recall, as one spoiled admin ruined it for everyone.
'''Oppose''' Not enough mainspace edits.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you simply don't edit much. 4,500 edits compared to the time you have been here is hardly any at all. Otherwise good though - just get on wiki a bit more and get nominated by someone other than yourself.
'''Oppose''' While I think he is a good contributer. I just don't see enough mainspace edits. I would be more then willing to support in the future with more experience. While I don't automatically vote against those who self nominate, I do think it would be a good idea to also have someone else nominate you next time. -
'''Oppose''' Smashville doesn't have enough mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' I like to see administrators with a majority of their edits in the mainspace. Article building is what we're supposedly here to do.
'''Oppose''' per Ironholds, and not enough activities to become an admin yet.--
'''Oppose''' not per mainspace edits, but per ''150'' talk edits out of ''4000'' does not demonstrate the ability to communicate that an admin must have. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Not enough article work, yet. I'll support later on, if that improves. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Neutral''' I've reviewed Smash, and the arguments made thus far, and find myself conflicted.  He seems like a strong enough candidate, yet I still would like to see some more edits and interaction before I could be confident enough to support. Happy editing. '''
'''Neutral''' per my comments in the oppose section above. --
'''Neutral''' A strong candidate, but has a lack of mainspace edits.
Vote pending more A's to Q&A.
'''Neutral''' - well-intentioned user, just could spend some more time in the mainspace. &nbsp; '''
As nom. ''
Seems a very constructive editor, reviewing his contribs. Darn, didn't beat nom support.
'''Support''' I see nothing to suggest that my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSorryGuy&diff=174535470&oldid=174529172 support three months ago] was misplaced.
'''Support''' - a very good editor, knows everything he needs to know to become a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I've been impressed, and I thought the last RfA (which was right on the edge if I remember, with 69%, I even commented to Deskana asking if maybe it shouldn't have passed anyway...) should've passed.
'''Support''' based on a strong recommendation from H<sub>2</sub>O.
'''Support''' Pleased to be able to do so, as I remember regretting my oppose last time.
'''Support''' User seems to do great work - good balance between admin and general editorial activities.
'''Strong Support per nom''' and per [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]]. '''FA editors''' have strong article building skills and generally have shown they know how to work well with others. The talk pages support the notion that nominee will not abuse the tools out of ill-temperedness or because of being too quick  to anger. In fact, the Barnstars and smiles suggest that the user is helpful, friendly and courteous. When an oversight is called to the nominee's attention, he thanks the editor for bringing it to his attention and seeks to improve with the experience. '''He is clearly the sort of person it will be a pleasure to have as an admin'''. Since the last RfA, he has broadened his experience beyond article building to include AfD as well. I trust DMHO's knowledge of AfD sufficiently to feel confident in his judgement as nominator. '''Certainly his time and experience are satisfactory.''' His answer to question 4 is irrelevant to his readiness for adminship because the question, regarding a controversial matter lacking in community consensus, is lirrelevant. In fact, the continual appearance of this "rationale" on RfA after RfA, without regard for the nominee's abilities, is both troubling and distracting. It lacks any merit at all. '''In short, the nominee is more than ready for the mop-- let's give it to him.''' [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Per Dlohcierekim. User:
Nothing unreasonable has occured since my last support. SorryGuy maintains a strict code of conduct at AfD and his manner in other areas is superb. A person dedicated to rooting towards a common goal with excellent contributions that reflect what is needed in an administrator, make this a support.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' As Dlohcierekim and as per track see no concerns.
'''Support''' per answer to Q4. <i><b>
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate, and basically the primary concern voiced at his prior RfA - lack of experience - has been addressed four months later! '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' - the project will definitely benefit from SorryGuy having the tools.
'''Support''' per the answer to question 4... additionally, I was considering nominating him myself soon. Good luck! '''
'''Support.''' The candidate has substantial mainspace contributions, has done a fine job at AFD and seems to understand policy. He's trustworthy. Let's give him the mop.
'''Strong support''': Easily passes [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|Level 3]].  Good luck!  <font face="Segoe UI">
I really like the answer to Q4. It shows a good understanding of the true working of Wikipedia (consensus, not polls of arbitrarily picked users). He indicates that he will respect community consensus. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>

'''Support''' Good grasp of policy. Good experience of article editing. Recall is voluntary; it is possible to construct criteria and process to make oneself virtually fireproof- conversely, it is also possible to do so in a manner that leaves one open to frivolous attacks. --'''
'''Support''' - Looks good.<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' - no problems, meets [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|my criteria]] even if his sig looks suspiciously like Pedro's! Also, appreciate the courage of the answer to Q4: I think recall is a good idea but declining to join the list (when the popular move would be to just say yes) demonstrates strength of character.
'''Support''' Per previous positive interaction, and despite the blatant theft of my signature...... :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' First ran into him at FAC, and had a positive interaction with him there, although the Preuss School still didn't pass. Didn't realize he spent a lot of time on AFD, and though I should be concerned that giving him the tools could take him away from article writing, I'm not.
'''Support''' Good choice. '''
'''Support''' - Excellent editor with an impressive list supporters. —
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Very competent contributor.--
'''Support''' I supported this candidate the first time, and things are still the same. Definitely trustworthy.
'''Support'''. There is no evidence that you will abuse the tools.  (Actually I thought you had the tools already).  As an admin myself that is not in the CAT:AOR and stating as much at my  own RfA, I salute you for your stance in Q4.  Personally, until that particular "category" is made more specific, non-optional, and less arbitrary, (meaning every candidate gets to choose his/her own recall criteria) I don't see how any ''optional'' category could or should hold up your request for adminship.  In my opinion, this thereby renders the opposes based on said category a moot point. It's optional. Full stop.  You are a good editor, you don't vandalize Wikipedia. You contribute to wiki space and main space.   That's enough for me.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' good editor overall. Regarding your answer to Q4: I strongly feel that those admins who allow a few editors drag them into wikidrama by acting decisively have decided to refrain from acting decisively when there are factions rather than 1 editor on each side. This editor has widely chosen not to corner himself or herself.
'''Support''' this is a good editor and meets everything that an [[admin]] should stand for. No evidence they would misuse tools!
'''Support''' Seen this editor around. Knows policy. Won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''': No hesitation here.  -
'''Spencer''' Will use tools very competently. Good job, and happy editing! <strong>
'''Weak support''' I opposed his last RfA, but he have improved in the past. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' —
'''''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. :)
'''Support''' and no I'm not sorry about it, nor will I be, I think--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' as per all of the above comments.  Seems to really want to help out the community.
'''Support'''. He's got what it takes.
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support''': Yes. --
I trust this user with rollback, and I trust him with all the tools.
'''Support''' I believe in forgiveness, and this editor seems genuinely sorry for what he's done.--
'''Support''' I think he'll do well as an administrator.
'''Support.''' Especially per Q4.
'''Support''' Awesome editor, been spotted everywhere I go. Well, not really, but still.
'''Support'''. Good editor, will do well as as admin. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''', because of the answer to Q4. --
I encourage you to rethink your position on listing yourself for recall. There's been a fair amount of discussion on criteria and process. Each admin sets his/her own criteria at [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria]] and you can peruse what others have done. I agree that you definitely don't want to add yourself to the category without laying down some criteria. --<font face="Futura">
Nom. --
Co-nom. —'''
Co-co-nuts?  Erm, anyway.  I have seen SoWhy getting involved in many difficult situations and certainly looks like admin potential.
So why not? --
Sure. Everything I've seen has been fine. May as well.
'''Support'''; I rarely support on RfA's, choosing only to comment on those when I need to oppose, but what the hell. I'd always assumed he was an admin, just shy about it :P.
Knows guidelines extremely well, can really help as a sysop. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' per '''[[WP:WTHN|WP:SoWTHN]]'''. The candidate is a good editor who has sufficient clue to be a good admin. No concerns.
'''Support''' I already offered to nominate him, but I'll just support now. --
'''Support''' - No concerns here.
'''Support''' good natured and evidence of pedia building. Can be trusted.Cheers,
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''.  No worries.  --
'''Support''' Seen him/her around. No worries. Seems competent, seems committed. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' I've gone through a couple of hundred of the candidate's edits without seeing anything to quibble about, and have seen good use of different warning levels. Also I like the answers and on more than one occasion where our paths have crossed the candidate has shown sense. '''
'''Support''' Looks good, looked at some contributions and everything seemed fine, answers to questions are fine. See nothing that makes me think candidate will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per well-thought-out answer to Q7. Also, seems to have the right temperament for a great admin. &mdash;[[User:La Pianista|<font face="Century Gothic" color="darkblue">'''La'''</font> <font face="Century Gothic" color="dodgerblue">'''Pianista'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:La Pianista|<font color="696969">'''T'''</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/La Pianista|<font color="696969">'''C'''</font>]]•
'''Support''' Based on the answers above, and seems sane and rational. I don't have any reason not to trust them. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Strong Support''' As a fellow member of the Evil Atheist Cabal, how can I not support? ;) No really, I liked how you put some time and effort into answering the questions. Your edits also show a solid understand of Wikipedian processes. Good luck :) <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''', a helpful and rational user, I have no concerns. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - user OK. <small>
'''Support''' Any RfA candidate with such lame oppose !votes must be ok.
'''Support''' - Not ideal answers to some questions but good ones to mine :). The opposers need to demonstrate at what times the candidates theological (or rather lack of it) ideology has impaired his ability to '''edit neutrally'''. The fact that there appears to be no evidence of this at all through diffs strongly suggests to me that SoWhy would be an excellent admin. We shouldn't need to care what editors believe unless it shows up in their editing - only then is it a problem. Here it is not. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''SoWhy not?''' <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' I've seen him around.
'''Support''' Contributions seem solid. I like the answers to questions too, particularly #4. The userbox doesn't bother me, but it suggests you blame religion for your/the world's problems, so I can see why people would take offense to it. If this passes, it'll probably come back to bite you in the ass eventually (taking it down wouldn't be a bad idea).--
'''Strong Support''' for an editor with a record of sound and constructive contributions. Granting the tools here would to the advantage of the 'pedia.
Hello, my mommy says that Keeper76 is my real daddy, and I need to take a DNA test to determine...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a very, very worthy candidate!
'''Support''' from answers given, seems to have the right attitudes and is unlikely to go crazy. Userboxes? Pah! --
'''Weak Support'''. Okay, but a few comments make me squirm just a bit. He seems to advise newer users about how to play the system, e.g. to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&diff=next&oldid=239248601 hide their ages, because it might be used against them in a discussion]. Also, very strong on policy knowledge, but I don't know if he actually understands how policy works (rather than just what it says) &ndash; seems to rely on spewing forth acronyms at people. OTOH, he's a reasonably strong candidate, who's not going to blow everything up. &mdash;
'''Support''' I have seen him around the Wiki, especially on ANI. Also a trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' Userbox makes this user's NPOV and otherwise great editing look that much better. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' per userbox. User does not believe in a supreme being and thus will be fully accountable for their own actions, rather than pointing to the "will of God" or the like. We need our admins to show good judgement and weigh-up evidence, and the userbox clearly demonstrates this quality
Per bizarre, conspiracy theory opposes, oh and great editor too! —
'''Support''' - Per Pedro.
'''Support'''. Seems to know what he's doing and most of his speedy deletion tags were done correctly. A pretty liberal userpage, but I did steal one of his userboxes.
'''[[:de:Soldaten sind Mörder|There's no Santa]] support'''. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support'''. So why not? Even from my Christian POV, I find opposing because of their userbox pretty preposterous. After all, this isn't exactly Conservapedia. '''''
'''Support''' No major problems.
'''Support.''' Atheism shows good judgment. Oh wait, a review of the candidate's ''edits'' shows them to be competent and capable as well...
'''Support''' - his edits, judgment and clue are good. This is extrinsic from his religion (or lack thereof), and his userboxes are not causing any hesitation here. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''': Question 4 did it for me. The user feels the world is better off without religion? Eh, so did Ben Franklin. Perhaps the candidate will invent something. <sup><small>
To balance out the idiotic oppose reason.
'''Support''' as long as you promise not to go rogue and block all us crazy theists. But in all seriousness, I've seen this user around doing great stuff for the project, and I find myself quite disappointed by the folks voting oppose because he's atheist. Imagine the uproar if someone voted against a Christian for his religion? Oy vey.
'''Totally Support''' SoWhy adopted me and has been nice to me, he rocks, is awesome and is very dedicated to the project also to mr andrew k that is a very silly reason in my opinion what i find more relevant is that he is an evil socialist.
'''Support.''' Per the noms. Positive contributor to the project in many varied capacities. '''
'''Support'''. This user-box trifle is just evidence of the differences in culture between the US and Europe. In northern european culture, saying "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." would not commonly be considered provocative or divisive and definitely not as something meant to be offensive, but just a statement of opinion well within the acceptable bounds of the zeitgeist. <strong>
One ''Userbox War'' is enough. We cannot afford another one. I'm
'''Support''' No reason for concern, a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' Good user ''so why'' not? ;) ''
'''Support''' Seems to have one of the most two of the most important attributes of a good admin (or editor) Thoughtful, and prepared to admit he can be wrong. --
'''Support''' Upon review of SoWhy's contributions; seems fine. -
'''SoWhyNot?'''
'''Support''' - I have no problem with his opinions on religion, in fact, I agree with them. Everyone is entitled to express themselves. Perhaps it's a good idea he has those userboxes, because then he's admitting that he has bias if he edits any article(s) pertaining to religion, which would thus prevent him from making any major changes. Additionally, after looking through some of his recent contributions, I see no troubles whatsoever. Will make a competent admin.
Per John Reaves.
'''Support''' Nullifying Andrew Kelly's "vote" as illegitimate grounds.--
'''Support''' Answers to questions are honest and largely in line with what we would expect from a prospective administrator.  I really, really, really don't get the userbox issue.  Honestly don't get it.  It's 40px by 120px (or whatever).  It isn't the end of the world.  Would wikipedia be a better place if he had never put the userbox there?  Maybe.  But I can say that about almost any userbox that announces a personal opinion about the world.  I might be better off for not having seen the userbox, but the editor who placed it found it and put it there for a reason.  Likely, it was just a lark.  Or the user is happier for having put it on there.  It is, after all a volunteer project.  We do things in our userpace that are inside our comfort zones and most of the time that comfort zone is different than from our activities other places.  I might use the word "fuck" on my talk page.  It is pretty unlikely that I would use it on, say, the [[Miley Cyrus]] talk page.  If you think the userbox is polemical, [[WP:MFD|MfD]] is '''that way'''.  If you feel that it is not bad enough to merit deletion but crosses some invisible threshold of "bad userboxen for admins", please consider the impact that applying hidden and arbitrary conditions on adminship will have.  If you think that this userbox peers into the editor's soul and reveals his true prejudice...you should take a deep breath.  Because it doesn't.  [[Special:Contributions/SoWhy]] is that window to the soul.  Please oppose or support based on that link
'''Strong Support''' I first encountered this editor when he was the only one to comment on my Editor Review. SoWhy is civil, active, and obviously supports the best interests of the project. A prolific adopter of new editors, SoWhy provides good guidance to those adoptees as is clearly evident on his talk page. I especially support the full-disclosure of potential COI problems covered by the userboxen on SoWhy's userpage. That is what we are supposed to use them for. An editor who discloses this much about their personal interests is obviously not trying to hide an agenda. I have no concerns about giving SoWhy the buttons, and there is no reason to oppose according to the actual requirements laid out in the [[WP:ADMIN|Admin policy]]. '''
'''Support''' Beliefs and ideals aside, SoWhy is a worthy editor. They have my full support.
'''Support''' - looks like a solid enough editor; editing and judgment surrounding it is the important thing.
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers.
'''Support''' - good contributions, fine question answers, people opposing over a userbox is perhaps going too far...
'''Support''' - I can't find a reason to oppose, he will make a fine administrator IMO.
'''Support''' - Good answers, good contributions, and his anti-religious stance should not make him a villain, but an individual.
'''Weak support.''' I would have liked to see a bit more article-writing, but overall a good editor with a solid record. Will be an asset as an admin, particularly at AIV.
'''Support''' - Thoughtful answers (better with some of the clarifications) and good contributions. I also like the '''My WikiPhilosophy''' section on his userpage. --
'''Weak Support'''.  While I don't care about that userbox, I do believe that it is important not to judge users on their real-life stances and views.  That said, I will support--though I will caution you not to act biased in any argument involving religion that you are asked to preside over. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I would also like to see more article writing, I believe every user, and every admin, is an article-worker first and everything else second, regardless of how good they may be at the second. However, I see no issues with this user, and I especially like the lack of attempt to tackle areas of wikipedia that the user has no intention of facing, just to satisfy RfA questions. A user who can pick and choose what they wish to work on is an admin who is doing RfA for the right reasons, not just to have every single fancy button (of which there are in fact very few)
'''Yep'''.  User has clue.  User has opinions.  Clue outweighs opinions.  Find me one, even one, diff that shows SoWhy acting with bias. I haven't found any.  The userboxes are stupid SW, get rid of them, they aren't worth the trouble.  You, however, are an excellent admin candidate.
'''Support''' per Keeper76. - '''
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, has shown the ability to handle the...silliness that often comes along with being a Wikipedian. Be warned - it's only going to get worse once you get the bit. :-)
'''Support''' per Pedro.  Frankly, everyone has opinions about just about everything.  These opinions, whether expressed or concealed, should only become an issue on Wikipedia when they impact the [[WP:NPOV|user's actual editing]] - or in the case of an Admin candidate, when they would impact his use of the tools.  Having seen no allegation to this effect, the opinions are irrelevant to my decision.  --''
'''Strong support''' - There's been more talk on here of that blasted userbox than his contributions, which are good. Enough for me, you'll make a great admin.

'''Weak Support''' for changing the user box.  It bothers me somewhat that SoWhat doesn't see the difference between making a blanket statement of fact "User is a supporter of X" or "User opposes X" is different from one that makes commentary on said position.  That being said, he was willing to change the box nonetheless.  While I wouldn't have concerns about a person who had a box saying, "User opposes communism" it would be different if somebody said "Communists are the cause of the world's problems."---'''
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' per Andrew Kelly.
➨ <font color="red">❝'''[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]'''❞</font>
'''Suppport''' SoWhy aren't they an admin yet? Solid contributor.
'''Support''' in hopes of balancing out some of the absurd opposes.
'''Support.''' Good editor. I read the opposers' concerns and I find them unpersuasive.
'''[[WP:AGF|So Why Not ???]]''' : Everybody has personal beliefs and opinions , but no problems as long as they don't [[WP:NPOV|push them into]] Wikipedia. I have to trust you. Does Userboxes make bad admins ? No way ! Best wishes... <small> ( From one of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators|coordinators]] of [[WP:X|WP:Christianity]] )</small> --
'''Support''' per Andrew Kelly indeed.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' cos I'm an inclusionist and he'll be a great admin. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support'''.  I'm a little concerned that the thing in which this candidate is most proficient is the recycling of Wiki-acronyms for the benefit of the questioners, but I can find nothing in his edit history that would be a concrete cause for concern, and he seems reasonably competent in Wikignomery, so, barring any reason to oppose...
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. Can't find anything to oppose.
'''Support''' Seems sensible.
'''Support''' - experienced, helpful and civil - a lack of major mainspace contributions has little effect upon how well you will perform with the tools when you've been here as long as you have. I like that you've adopted users - sharing the love is important! –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Support'''. I've seen him in action at AfD, he makes reasonable, well-argumented decisions. He's no wild-eyed inclusionist. The (in)famous user box is a bit "in your face", but he's not a POV pusher, so I don't think he'll misuse the new buttons to further an agenda. I'd rather deal with editors/admins that disclose their biases but observe [[WP:NPOV]], rather than POV pushers with blank user pages!
'''Suhhportt''' Ive seem him editing numerous parts of wikipedia. So, why not?
'''Support''' per Ford MF, HiDrNick, Tinucherian, Tool2die4, Redvers, Philosopher, Keeper76, Bigjake, Ale jrb, JumMillerJr, Protonk, Tznkai, UtanVax, henrik, L'Aquatique, John Reaves, XF Law, Anonymous Dissident, RyanGerbil10, Bibliomaniac15, George the Dragon, Erik the red, Pedro, Number 57, and NuclearWarfare, mostly. He's also a strong editor who is unlikely to abuse the tools, imo.
'''Support''' per Lara's "short-list". I honestly don't see the issue with the opposition. Much of it is revolving around his mainspace edits, and comes off too pointy. GA/FA has little to do with adminship, if anything. It only means you are a superb editor, not a superb admin candidate. I also don't care about the userboxes on bit. SoWhy looks like he thinks things through before acting, and this is something I look for. I don't see any problems at all. '''
'''Support''' per nom. Can't hurt to have another WikiGnome admin.
'''Support''' Wha? I though [[user:SoWhy|SoWhy]] was already a admin. Silly me. <b><font color="black">
'''Support''' SoYes. --
'''Support''' - sure. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Has been around since March 2004 and has a good track and through I very strongly differ with the  user box and views of the User  but still feel “ I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. ” Feel the user will be neutral admin as per track.Further every user has his POV whether in chemistry,Religion,Politics etc which others may not agree.The opinion or views  of any user should  not be a reason to oppose.His or her Track in Wikipedia should be.
'''Support''', a good contributor. He's experienced, reasonable and his answers to the questions are very easy to agree with. --
'''[[WP:100]] Support'''. Good contributor. I see where the oppose votes are coming from, but if the biases don't show up in his editing then they don't matter.
'''Support'''. Good contributions —
'''Support'''. Good answer to my question over trivia, sounds like they will make an excellent admin. - [[User:Tbsdy lives|Tbsdy lives]] (formerly
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me too.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' (switched from Neutral.)  Skills and interest in resolving disagreements, as illustrated repeatedly in this RfA, override any concerns I previously held.  Gonna be a great admin.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me; good answers to the questions, seems unlikely to oppose the tools. Also in protest of [[User:Andrew Kelly|Andrew Kelly]]'s '''''incredibly''''' bigoted oppose - it's ridiculous, and the rationale on the talk page really makes me wonder whether, by "independent", he means "[[Neo-Nazi_groups_of_the_United_States#United_States|this]]".
'''Support''': trustworthy, found no good reasons among those who opposed. --
'''Support''' Switched from neutral. I feel SoWhy does have the necessary experience. I'm not going to count in the userbox, as I believe that userboxes should not have an influence on editing habits. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Support.''' Userbox discussion should be irrelevant, this is a worthy candidate.
'''Support''' Great editor , and worked on [[List of NCIS episodes]].  Winner!
'''"SoWhy" on earth not?''' (Hurray, 8K edits!) --
'''Strong Support''' per baseless, failed well-poisioning attempt oppose by [[User:Andrew Kelly]], who boasts his own wonderful userbox of, "This user believes that Marriage should be between one Man and one Woman." along with other gems.
'''Support''', would make a good and dedicated admin. --
'''Support''' - excellent, trusted user who will be fine with the tools. The opposes don't concern me at all. '''
'''support''' Has a realistic and non-dogmatic  approach to policy.'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Per the below supports. —
'''Support''' Now, I am highly against atheism, but we're not electing this guy for "person-who-decides-what-religon-we-must-all-have" are we? For my actual reason for supporting, he seems honest, so he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' – clearly doing useful work in a sensible way, perhaps not using edit summaries informatively at times, but all the examples I checked were straightforward reverts of blatant vandalism so that was ok. Doesn't claim infallibility :) . .
'''Support''' - I may disagree with your personal views, however I do agree that you deserve the mop. --'''
'''Support''' -- response to [[The Lady, or the Tiger?|''lady or the tiger'']] Question 14 revealed something about the way in which [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]] reasons through aspects of an issue. --
'''Support''' respect for his contributions, small or otherwise, and I like all of his answers. --
'''Support''' -- no concerns, meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' I do not know you, but 110+ people vouch for you, so you have my !vote.
'''Strong Oppose''' based on "The world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" userbox.  If you could have only stopped at the "this user is an atheist" userbox -- which is just fine as far as I'm concerned -- you might have had my vote.
'''Strong Oppose:''' This user will just be one more anti-Christian admin.  Wikipedia has enough of those.  The userbox mentioned above goes ''way'' too far.  It is a personal attack and just plain wrong. --
'''Oppose''' I think admins should be more restrained. There are a lot of things which scream ''agitated'' to me. <span style="font: 13pt 'Arial';">«</span>&nbsp;'''
Per Keepscases and Q2.
'''Oppose''' per the user box. Having respect for those with whom you disagree is an important thing and with that user box on your page, it calls into question your ability to deal fairly with users who believe differently than you do.  Also, you are marking substantially all of your edits as minor, even ones which are clearly major.  Only reverts of simple vandalism or insignificant spelling/formatting/etc fixes should be marked as minor.  I am also concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Puente&oldid=225062140 this speedy request].  Presumably, anything you would tag for a speedy as a non-admin you would delete as an admin and unilaterally deleting that article would obviously be a really bad idea.  You had two minutes between your previous edit and that one.  If this article had been something you found in new pages patrol that said "DAVId PUENTE IS MY BESTEST FRIEND EVER" ok, that takes 2 seconds.  But it had been around for two years and had multiple (supposed) sources.  Two minutes is not enough time to review the sources, review the history (to see if a better version existed previously) and make a determination to delete it.  Getting it right is more important than throughput and edit count. --
Lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign for reasons I've touched on at length elsewhere. Administrators are the public face of the project, and having a divisive userbox on one's userpage is bad PR. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Weak oppose''' - Whilst I strongly agree with the userbox in question, I don't think it is a good thing for a prospective admin to be displaying it. I realise that we are supposed to be commenting on contributions here, but to have an admin with such a divisive userbox in place would be both awful PR, and go against policy. Remember the discussion about those 'this user loves redheads', 'this user thinks blondes are beautiful', etc. userboxes? Well this is a ''lot, lot worse.'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
I don't really care if he doesn't like religion, and I don't have any concerns that he will be biased. I just have problems with anyone that thinks its appropriate or necessary to put statements like that on their userpage. Really, how is it related to anything we do here? What's the point? It's just so stupid. I really wish people would stop posting userboxes related to religion, politics, or any of the other polarising topic areas, because it just causes no end of hand-wringing and hassle for no discernable gain. It just makes people look stupid and childish. Irritating. '''
'''Oppose'''. I am nervous of administrators who believe that WP:N is too <s>lenient</s> strict.  Wikipedia has standards for a great many reasons, and the standards are actually fairly low as it is.  I'm also reluctant to give the tools to someone with little article building experience.  WikiGnomes are incredibly valuable, but it is very difficult to have a full understanding of all of the guidelines and policies that govern article content if one is not creating much.  Without that full understanding, it is more difficult to appropriately help those that are having content-related problems.
'''Oppose''' per Q2--
'''Strong oppose''' to absolutely unacceptable answers on Q1, Q6, Q9, limited XfD experience, FU opinion, and lack of foresight. If you had no inkling that userbox would cause you a problem at RfA, what else might you well-meaningly but inadvertently fail to take into consideration when making administrative choices? --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Oppose''' - limited experience, and most experience is in non-admin areas. Also pandering to the opposes over the userbox thing shows poor judgment. --
'''Oppose''', per Q6.
'''Oppose''' per Giggy and T-Rex. Limited experience in admin areas and poor judgement in choosing an offensive userbox. This candidate isn't quite ready for the shiny buttons.
'''Oppose''' per Giggy. Q2. '''
'''Neutral'''. I was originally going to support, but after I read the answer to question number ten, I couldn't support a candidate who is unable to be unbiased and seems to be unable to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]].
'''Neutral''' - Will change to support after a redux on userboxes as per oppose comments.
Changed to '''neutral''' per answers to the questions. &ndash;
I came to support (because of the good, and sometimes excellent, comments by SoWhy in various places around en.wp) but that userbox may be a divisive issue, which may represent more than what it says at face value.

'''Switching from Oppose to Netural''' He removed the userbox, which was good, but still it should never have been there.
'''Neutral''' per Giggy's oppose. I want to express my opposition to the userbox, but similarly think there ought to be better reasons to oppose than just that.
'''Neutral''' I see no evidence that the candidate will be anything but a good admin with their actions. However, the userbox is a red flag that I also object to. Someone put it well when they said "admins are the public faces of the community", and this is true. New editors, sometimes editors with contrary beliefs, will search out admins to help them. If they came across a politically divisive userbox, one which they may be offended by, it's highly unlikely that they will want to request help from the candidate. This is the only issue. I'm also concerned by the candidate's defence of the userbox, and failure to see how it ''could'' be a problem (even if it doesn't turn out to be one). Best wishes,
'''Support'''. Believe he will use the tools responsibly. ''
Per my nomination.
'''Support''', no indication user would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' Gah! (next time you should tell me before you do something like this){full support} <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' User has my full trust, and I feel aboslutely certain that they would not abuse tools. <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support.''' Although his blatant POV is obvious in his username, that might be a problem within the cabal. ·
'''Support''' Per Wisdom89. Thank you for bringing up excellent examples of good reporting! All of those names reported should have been blocked there and then. No serious user would ever make such a confusing username. '''
'''Support''' I don't think the 'pedia will asplode if the user is given +sysop. '''
'''Support''' per my esteemed colleagues, above. Sox is a good editor and a skilled bot op, and I think adminship would be a net positive in this case. Full support.
'''Support''' per above. Those usernames were either confusing because of long letter repetitions or appeared to be random. I would have suggested that the user seek a rename before going for the block,  but those usernames needed changing. Not enought for me to oppose over.
'''Support'''. Valuable member of the community.
'''Support''' Seems ready for the mop. I honestly don't see the problem with Wisdom's diffs, as I would reported those usernames just the same.
'''Strong support''' per nom.  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support''' Whilst I have some minor reservations, the lack of article work is balanced by the excellent contributions technically. A dedicated Wikipedian who has worked hard to clear the concerns in earlier RFA's. I'm sure Soxred will tread lightly, so on balance the tools would be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]]. Good luck.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom. '''<font face="Verdana">
Finally someone who can do the complicated and technical template edits that come up in [[CAT:PER]]! Best of luck,
Yup.
'''Support''' - Excellent technical contributions, evidently has a [[WP:CLUE|clue]] (which is more important than you might think!) <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
'''Support''' as nom, and my otters support too.
'''Strong support''' - SQL's nom say's it all! This user is very trustworthy, fixes his errors and is not immature in the way he manages things. Good Luck! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - This guy has to one of the most helpful people I've ever talked to, definete admin material.
'''Support''' editor has done good work with SoxBot and not shown any reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' Great bot work, and willingness to act on constructive criticism.
'''Red Sox Nation Support''' - I see growth over the course of your RfA's, and a willingness to heed the well meaning advice of the community. Good luck!
'''Support''', Good editor. I don't want to [[WP:WTHN|use the cliché]], but Adminship is not a big deal, and whether or not Sox has contributed ''majorly'' since the last RFA is not much of a reason to oppose. The most important matter is whether or not he can use the tools wisely. --
I have no problem with his RfA volunteering list.  –'''
'''Support'''.  My past interactions have been positive.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Would have co-nommed but lives on the other side of the world support'''.
'''Support''', see no problems.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've seen this user and his bots around the wiki frequently and he deserves it. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Good user. Bots and portals are off the beaten path, but everything counts.  I disagreee with Wisdom89 in oppose number 1.
'''Support'''. Seems good. :)
'''Supper strong support'''.A brilliant editor. Maintains the best bots on Wikipedia(other than the almighty Clue Bot), wont abuse the admin tools, and only wants them to make Wikipedia better.
Duh. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support''' great user. —
I fully support you for your contributions to [[Wikipedia]].  Good luck.
'''Support''' Cant see why not, seen him around heaps <strong>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Unconvinced by oppose arguments, four of the five accounts listed by Wisdom89 have been blocked indefinitely; the other received a {{tl|uw-username}}. Given the candidate has made over a 100 user name reports, an occasional mistake is understandable.
'''Support.'''  We need admins who really know the score.  This nominee does.  —
'''Support''' trustworthy, been involved in different areas, will do good with the tools. --<small>
'''LIKE OMG U CAN HAZ ADMINZ AND CHEEZBURGER SUPPORT!!!1''' <font color="blue">'' '''
[[Shaken, not stirred|Cheese placed, not dropped]]. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' This user's development work to benefit wikipedia (the bots, the tools) is impressive.  I see no reason not to trust him/her with the tools.  Why not give a great technical contributor the technical buttons?
'''Support'''OMG! HE HAS A EXTREMELY STRONG SUPPORT FROM ME! --<strong>
'''Support''' Quid pro quo, and they're good with bots, helped me out a little, I don't see why Sox wouldnt be a fine admin. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">
'''Support''' I trust him, enough said. <small>Wow, flashing support sign</small>
'''Support''' This should've happened a while ago
'''Support''' -- Thought you already were an admin. = ) Best of luck, --
'''Support'''  Trusted user, waited a good amount of time before running another RfA, solid noms and answers, and no convincing opposes.
'''Support''' per noms comments, and answer to Q.4.
'''Support''' It is quite obvious to me that he can be trusted with the tools.  He's been a proven asset to Wikipedia for a quite awhile.  If he's not worthy of a mop, I honestly don't know who would be.  <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">--
'''Support''' Per last time. --
'''Support''' Most definitely.--
Seen this user around, and didn't see anything negative recently; improved a lot since the last RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Even though I thought of making this a "weak support", in many ways I'm actually strongly supporting the candidate. I think he's a great user, perhaps should have been an admin already. ;-) However, while the issues raised in the Oppose/Neutral sections don't concern me very much, as long as he's careful at UAA and with pushing the buttons, I feel very comfortable about Soxred93 as an administrator. Like normal he should just start out slow with the tools, and other than that, I'd think he's very capable and well-experienced.
Definitely. '''
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' &ndash; Per above, even though I haven't read much of the above.  Trustworthy user, though. —

'''Support''' - done some good work. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I've seen SoxRed around, and have no reason to doubt his trustworthiness with the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support''' – No concerns.
'''Weak Support''' as sysop.  No major concerns about his wielding the mop, and meets all my standards.  My only concern is his deletionism, but I am on record aleady for voting for some others of that ilk, so I will go along. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. This is not an endorsement of his board candidacy.
'''support''' —
'''[[User:Keeper76/RfA|Yup]]'''. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Support''' - Great editor & vandal fighter. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Good editor. I'm sure this user will do great with the mop.
'''Yes''' I was trying to look for a reason to go neutral other then to article building. However, when I find my self looking at the move log, I know I can't find anything. I would've went neutral, but some people might think that me doing so because he likes the Red Sox would be a personal attack. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' seems good editor and a skilled bot op. valuable admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I was sure I'd supported this already, oh well. Soxred93 is a fantastic guy - knows a lot about the wiki and is extremely helpful, two very important points.
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''', seems like a fine user.
'''Delayed support''' He'll do fine. --
'''Support'''. I've had good interactions with this user. I think the user's bot did something weird once, and I asked him about it, and user was very friendly and helpful in resolving the problem.
Sheesh, Sox, I see what this is all about. You just can't wait for Tyler to get the anti-spoof override for Account Creator's working, can you? Well, despite this obvious lack of ''patience'', I'll give you a '''<font color="gold">DIVINELY INSPIRED</font> Super-Strong Support''' because I can't open my inbox without having at least one accounts-enwiki e-mail from you, and if that's not dedication, I don't know what is! S.A, aka
'''Support'''- You are an excellent editor.  Keep doing what you do.  ~~
'''Support''' - good editor. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Weak Support''' The concerns Wisdom has brought up are valid, and worry me a little worried, however, since I see no other issues with this user, I'm going to support him. The correct way to deal with confusing user names according to [[WP:U|policy]] is to leave a message requesting that the user change his name. After that you should wait, and see if he requests that his name be changed. If he does, then thats great, and if he doesn't, he '''then''' should be blocked. An admin must have the right attitude, and some of this users actions indicate he is "[[WP|BITE|bitty]]"(which isn't a good trait for an admin or anyone else), thus the attitude of this user probably isn't the best attitude for an admin to have. However, this user has shown a need for the tools, and a solid knowledge of the policies he will be working with as an admin(for the most part), thus I will support his Rfa. Those two things outweigh his possible attitude problem.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - Candidate believes that "confusing" usernames should be blocked at UAA. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=213398860], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=207155295], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=207290131], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=207979823], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=209585984]
Per Q2 and Wisdom. When it comes to blocking newbies for stuff that isn't against the policy we link to (at least, confusing wasn't last time I checked), we should darn well look for perfection. ''
'''Oppose''' The "stuff to volunteer for list" doesn't bother me much, although you should already know where you want to work. But, as Wisdom said, the UAA reports show a certain bitey-ness that makes me think you might need some more practice.--
'''Weak oppose''' See my comments above. I think soxred needs a bit more practice with the UAA reports. Its a bit unfortunate considering he'd be a pretty good admin when it comes to other aspects. But I think if he works at UAA for a while and shows a change in the way he approaches it he should be fine next time around.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom. Soxred93 wants to block newbies for extremely minor problems, ''without discussion''.
'''Oppose'''. Three RfAdm's in 6 months suggests career mandarinship. Answer to question 3 is evasive. Answer to question two is very non-persuasive. Lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign. These three reasons together add up to an oppose. --

'''Neutral''' I have to second Xenocidic's comment, and also point out his curious answer to Pedro's question here.  I would think being an Admin is primarily about dealing with people of all ages and levels of emotional passion to Wikipedia; the buttons are part of the responsibility, not the driving force. While I have no criticism on the other responses, I have qualms about giving the tools to this candidate based solely on the response to the fourth question. Sorry.
Neutral. Per that rather strange 'volunteer RfA' list, some dodgy UAA reports and Xenocidic. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Neutral'''. The candidate's answers to some of the questions, particularly #1 and #4, are unsatisfying.
Based on seeing only positive things.
'''Support''' I've seen Spencer around, and I've seen good contributions. His work at ITN is great, and I'm sure giving him the tools would be of assistance there. Your edits seem to be balanced quite well, between mainspace work, vandal-fighting, among other things. Best of luck. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Based on a quick dive through your contribs, you seem to be a clueful and dedicated editor that would be well suited to the extra tools. Clean talk (communicative), clean block log (always a plus), and excellent, balanced contribs to both wikipedia space and mainspace.  Wikipedia will be better off with you having the full set of tools at your fingertips.  Good luck, and happy editing!
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''.  You've been around for quite a while and I've only seen positive editing from you.  Glad to see you at RfA!  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. '''''
Support based on edits and personal interactions. Oppose based on [[Ohio State Buckeyes|this]]. '''«'''
--''
Well it's about time. ;) --
'''Strong Support''' - After [[Wikipedia:An#ITN_invitation|yesterday's discussion]], I looked at your contributions in depth, only to ask myself: "why isn't this guy an admin yet??" - the struggling ITN secion will need an admin like you --'''
'''Support''' I've seen good contributions at ITN --
Trust the editor who gave you rollback.... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', most definitely.
sure! ''
'''Support''', with pleasure. --'''
Almost a model candidate. Good experience in admin areas with some good content as well. ITN work would be much appreciated here and Spencer will do a fine job at it. '''
I believe Mr. Blofeld is expecting me -- my name is Bond, James...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a highly worthy candidate.
'''Support''' Polite, communicative, and wants to help in an area sorely in need of it? Yes, please!
Sure. You seem to have done well for yourself here, healthy contribs in mainspace and Wikipedia:. I see only reasons to support, none to oppose. I hope you'll be effective as an admin as you have been as a regular user. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' Vandal fighter,track is good and trust Pedro's judgement.
'''Support''' Positive impression as a vandal fighter. No reason why not. —<sup>
'''Support'''  Strong encyclopedia-building contributions.
'''Strong Support''' Great user, has my complete trust. —
'''Support''' per Juliancolton and Keeper.
Finally! I knew this one was coming! Excellent user, has a fine grasp at [[WP:FPC|FPC]] and [[WP:ITN|ITN]]. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' Drama-free talk pages indicate either a tendency to avoid disagreement, or a history of healthy collaboration in the areas where the candidate works.  Given the high degree of respect they've earned from the rest of the community, I'm gonna assume the latter.
'''Support''' I can see nothing that gives me even the slightest pause. Also, basically per Pedro.
'''Support.''' The candidate has good experience in admin-related areas.
'''Support.''' &ndash; clueful user and nice to see an enthusiatic and coherent self-nomination.
'''Support''', but go easy on the Huggle, eh?
'''
'''Support''' - looks like another worthy vandal-fighter. --
I was comtemplating nominating you, Spencer.  Why don't you enable your email?!
Pile-on '''support'''...but I do agree...it's probably best to have that e-mail active... --
'''Support''' No issues here.
'''Support''' - No issues here. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' - Thought you were one :) →
'''Support''' - Good editor, good answerd, good admin potential. Good luck! ;-)
'''Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|I don't see why not]].
Yairs, '''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support''' Yep. Good all around guy and contributor, and can help out on ITN. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Aye''' No problems here, good luck <b>
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''': See my old neutral comment. —
'''Support''' - Spencer knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support'''  per previous votes from editors that I hold in good standing and no glaring concerns that I have been able to find as of yet. --
'''Support''', no problems here.
'''Support''' - I thought he was already an admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Strong Support''' - I seriously thought this guy's already an admin.  Will be a definite net positive to the community.
'''Support''' I like the answers and the candidate seems to be a civil editor.--
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen him around doing some constructive work. By a glance at his contributions and what he's done to help the encyclopedia, he looks like he'll do just fine to me. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Solid contributor with lots of clue and definite need for the tools.
'''Support''' based on constructive interaction at ITN over several months, where I was struck by Spencer's reasonableness and good judgment, even over issues we disagreed. An excellent admin candidate. -
'''Support''' I really do believe en.wiki needs more admins to take care of the ITN template.
'''Support''' I looked through contributions and nothing strikes as negative, answers are okay. As others mention, you might "get out more"... (other areas?)
'''Support''' Sure. Your answers to the questions are good, even the very difficult ones. Based on the admin areas you plan to work on, I think you will be a fine admin. I know little of DYK or ITN, but I've seen you on Huggle many times. Your reversions, reports to AIV, and CSD taggings are always spot-on, and you have an even temperament, civility, and clue to boot. Good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. Definitely a great editor and vandal fighter.
'''
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions & good answers.
'''Support''' good contributer
'''Support''', ample evidence to suggest that you know what you're doing in the areas you plan to frequent. Trustworthy and competent. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' In the spirit of Bond, this user is good as Goldfinger. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Looks like an asset to Wikipedia and his contributions and actions speak for themselves. '''
'''Support''' Looks very trustworthy, good contributions all around.  All of your answers are also good and I think you could help a lot with the tools. --
'''Support''' There's no reason to think he'll abuse the tools, the single oppose doesn't convince me (he never said he'd participate in AfD) and promoting him looks like it'll improve the encyclopedia. Vandal fighters are often opposed, but this user isn't only a vandal fighter, and we need admins for vandal fighting anyway.
'''Support''', per no legitimate reason to oppose. &mdash;
'''Support''' No reason not to. Good contributions and really knows the place and how it works. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Just looking at the articles in your contributions list, I see that you've waded into some seriously contentious neighborhoods of Wiki-world, and don't seem to have angered anyone seriously. That alone won't make you a good admin, but it sure helps.
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''' I've seen him around. Not in a creepy way or anything.
'''Support''' User does a lot of stuff that even I find tedious and annoying. Seems to be in good standing, looks prolific in their edits, and seems on top of the game. Definitely a good choice.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' One of the easier ones in this batch - very apparently trustworthy.
'''Support'''.  Happily, a no-brainer.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Too often I have had this user beat me on anti-vandal work.
'''Support''' – superb editor. Will be an excellent administrator. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' Great editor and will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' - positive contributor and good demeanor in discussions. '''
'''Support''' per J.delanoy. <font color="#708090">
'''Support''' Positive work, don't see any problems here. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support'''. Found it impressive how he keeps his cool. --
'''Support '''- due to positive interactions. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support ''' : As somebody says, " Nothing that concerns me ". --
'''Support'''  A great asset to Wiki.
'''Support''' I've worked with Spencer on a few occassions and he's been nothing but helpful.  I don't see any reason he shouldn't have the tools. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' -- Lack of XfD and AN/I participation. Very good, strong contributor who I'm sure is a positive asset to WP (more than I am, for sure) but I want to see more than vandal crushing and article space contribution. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' Strong edit count, plenty of Wikipedia edits, mainspace looks good. Has my support. Beat the nom support as well!
'''Support'''.  Looks very good.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''. After looking through this editor's contribs, I find an editor that is concise, civil, and seems to know what policies apply in different situations.  Also, meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]] easily, especially, the [[WP:CLUE|clue]] part.  Easy support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - clueful, civil, and level headed. Looks good to me. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Good user, solid contribs, and I concur with Keeper's assesment of his "clue"-fulness. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
Was on my watchlist.
'''Support'''. I believe this user will do good for the project.
'''Support''' looks wonderful. No civility issues = ). Per Balloonman. --
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]] and evident high amount of clue. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;">
'''Support'''. Should be a strong asset. --
'''Support''' I looked through your contributions and the only minor thing I could find was a COI edit to [[Puzzle Panel]]. Apart from that little thing all looked good.
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' - <s>I'll be frank first. I'm not overly pleased with your work at [[WP:UAA]]. It's not convention to report vandalism only accounts and confusing usernames there</s>, '''however''', you are an awesome editor so you have my support. Striking my previous comments per candidate's response on my talk page. Shows more clue than I originally though. Good luck dude.
'''Support''' based on the fact that you bothered to answer the AGF challenge.  I'm not going to read it, but that leans me to support nonetheless.
'''Support'''  Probably the most impressed that I've been with a candidate in awhile.  Excellent nom statement told me pretty much everything that I needed to know.  I have every confidence candidate will effectively use the tools.  --
He knows enough about Wikipedia to be an admin.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
A strong trustworthy candidate, and always prepared to listen to Balloonman.
'''Support''' A great, trustworthy editor. '''
Trustworthy, competent. We need better admins. —'''
Per survival of 160kB of admin coaching.  –'''
'''Emphatic Support'''  You have many qualities and I notice the diligance of your vandal fighting work.  The 160kb page is impressing.  You and I seem similar, and you seem very worthy of completing what you wanted.
'''Suppport''' as I could not find any evidence to suggest I shouldn't trust this user and thus hope he'll work some nice wikimagic as an admin!  :)  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' competent, i ve study his rollback :) --
'''Support''' - Has excellent broom potential. Good luck!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''': It looks like this user takes care and consideration with his work. Also looks like they really have their heart and mind set in this project. Has plenty of experience and looks like the user will do an excellent job as an admin. Also, I like the users answers to the questions and editing style. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Yabba Dabba Doo!''' Just to take a break from "Support"
'''Support''' I see Kurt opposing as ''res ipsum loqitor'' evidence of a good candidate.
'''Support''' per [[User:StephenBuxton/If|pretty poem]] and WTHN?  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - As Kurt and Wizardman says, this candidate looks rather too "prepared" for this, and I am no fan of admin coaching at all. But what they produce can't really be ''that'' bad, can it? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - A admin who went to admin school is bad? What's the purpose of it then?
'''Support'''  No trust issues.  Preparation is a plus, for me, not a minus.  Supporting this candidate, for me, is not a difficult choice.  &hArr;
'''Support''' No issues here, looks like he would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Seems like a dedicated editor to me. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' User is a magician, the admin tools will add to his already impressive repertoire '''''
'''Support''' Edit count is a bit low for me, but I trust Balloonman's judgment on an otherwise excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' Calm, cool-headed, well qualified. No reason to oppose. `
'''Support''' When considering whether or not to support someone we must ask ourselves whether or not we trust them. We must trust them not to misuse the tools, to act in an appropriate way, etc. Nothing has been brought up that indicates this user will misuse the tools, cause unneeded drama, be very rude, etc, so I trust this user. Good luck!--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Hell yeah.
'''Support''' per weburiedoursecretsinthegarden. Seems like a good guy, fit for the job, blah blah.--
'''Support''' and '''Oppose''' simultaneously, ''with support exceeding oppose'' so I guess that makes this <strike>'''Neutral'''</strike> '''''weak support'''''.  Support for good editing, good attitude, good answers to questions posted here, ''and general attitude during the course of this RfA, in particular his insistence that this RfA not get derailed'', etc.  Oppose due to short period of time between late February, when even the current nominator agrees he was terribly unsuited, and now.  I ''still'' believe StephenBuxton will be a '''better editor''' ''and'' an '''better administrator''' if he <strike>withdraws his request and waits at least another couple of months to give what he learned in admin coaching a chance to sink in and/or</strike> defers doing serious admin work for <strike>that period of time</strike> at least a couple of months.  <strike>Right now, he's like a hotshot Ph.D. student with a good professor getting ready to defend his dissertation a year early then immediately applying for a tenure-track position at a University.  Like the student, he should either "postpone his defense a year"/withdraw his AfC, take a vacation/defer using the admin tools for a few months if you get them this week, or do a postdoc/have another administrator review your administrative decisions, particularly those which actually required making a decision such as a near-consensus AfD or semi-disruptive editor.</strike>  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)</strike>.  ''Additions'' and <strike>deletions</strike> and move from neutral by
'''Support''' - meets my standards.  I understand the concern about "over-coaching", but that's better than being under-prepared.
Switching to '''support''' as per [[User:Ral315/WTHN|WTHN]] and the candidate's own post in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StephenBuxton#Discussion|Discussion section]].  —
'''Support''' Cheers,
(changed from neutral per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/StephenBuxton&diff=prev&oldid=224557485 demonstration of natural cluefulness]) <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
Though I continue to strongly question Balloonman's judgment after a still-recent debacle that I won't deign to name, I am impressed by this candidate's demeanor and handling of the RfA to this point. After a little digging through his contribs, I'm comfortable enough to '''support'''.
I wasn't sure whether to support or not, but I went ahead and read the coaching page. 160kb over a 4 month period? There's getting a person ready for adminship, and there's basically telling him in every possible situation what to do, and it almost feels like.. I'm not sure what the right word is, but this all feels very odd to me. You're a great editor from what I gather away from the coaching, so I may have a change of heart and support. I'm not a fan of coaching to begin with, but for once Kurt does have a point, this is too groomed and pre-packaged for my liking. <s>This is a hard non-support for me, but alas. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)</s> Granted, RFA is about whether or not I trust the '''candidate'''. Do I trust admin coaching, and the way Balloonman did it? No. But do I trust Stephen? Yes. So while I hate the way everything done, I feel like a jackass not supporting. '''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason to do otherwise. --
'''Support'''. Checked your edits, count and interactions. Impressive answers to the questions asked. I dont see you will abuse the tools. and [[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]] , I trust your nomination too --
'''Support''': Nominator was fair, honest, and compelling. Candidate is impressive; his response to Question #3 was particularly outstanding in its thoroughness and thoughtfulness.
'''Support''' from me and the otters, no reason to oppose.
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' per nom---'''
'''Weak Support''' - Editor appears capable, but Kurt got me thinking. It seems he's answered the questions with much thought, but possibly not with complete honesty. It all seems a little doctored to me. This however is no reason to not show support, but it makes me trust the user a little less.
'''Support''' - not a vandal and wants to improve the encyclopedia - so there is no reason to object. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Yet another product of the "Play-the-RFA-Game School" process.
'''Oppose''' Given the nature of the difficulties here, I would suggest this to be re-examined in a month or two. Admins are expected to be independent, and in the general atmosphere, I can not feel any assurance of  the actual proper use of the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced, not enough article edits.  A third of edits in User Talk? Come on...
As Wizardman, although I don't think it's your fault.
Neutral.  I actually agree with Kurt in the first opposition, as well as Wizardman.  StephenBuxton, I appreciate your contributions and I'm sure you'll make an excellent administrator.  I do feel that changing your editing habits to fit coaching is inappropriate.  I don't care if you're a vandal fighter, content builder, or mediator; if you're familiar with policy and trustworthy I favor promotion.  Coaching will not make a better or worse administrator.
As nominator
'''Support''' Looks like a fine candidate. And we need more users working in images. :) Good luck,

'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' - Per the answer to question 2, if only for [[WP:MEDMOS]].
Plans to help with images, and we need more admins willing to work in that area. Trustworthy nominator as well.
Another good user with experiance.  &ndash;
'''Support''' No concerns here. --
'''Strong support''' - I've only ever seen good things from Steven at [[WP:MED]], where he's a regular and dedicated contributor.  I looked through his talk page archives and was blown away: consistently polite and friendly; de-escalating potential disputes with grace and skill; adopting and welcoming newcomers, encouraging them to get involved, helping with their questions; long, thoughtful, friendly responses when people come to him with potential problems; lots and lots of great collaboration. Very impressive!
'''Support'''.
'''Supporting''' this nomination, as I find [[User:S._Dean_Jameson/RfA_support_criteria|no reason]] not to do so. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support'''. Per answer to Q.1. - no burning need for the tools, obviously the right type to give them to per everything else.
'''Support'''. Looks great to me. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Most definitely.  Right attitude, great experience, and (though I realize this has nothing to do with Wikipedia) is a trusted user at Wikinews.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. No concerns here. And I love admins who write articles and know image policy (or want to learn it). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' <font color="#156917">
'''Support''' I didn't see anything to make me !vote oppose, and we could always use more experts.
'''Weak Support''' per my [[User:Balloonman/RfA_Criteria#How_I_.21vote|guidelines on how I vote]] and the fact that I didn't dig too deeply into his edits.  From what I saw everything looks good.---'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''.  Looks good all around.  We're always in desperate need of more admins with knowledge around specialized subjects such as medicine.  Also, the trust of WikiNews counts for something in my book--shows an ability to function within a community. --
'''Support.'''  The image work specifically got my attention because of some recent confusion (discussed [[User talk:Sdrtirs‎#Forwarded message and reply|here]]) about how duplicates of commons images were being tagged for deletion and their uploaders notified.  An image specialist admin will be an immense help to the project.  —
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support''' fine and competent contributor, the demure response to an anti-fence sitting question notwithstanding. :)
'''Strong Support''' per Tim. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' Looks like a great editor.--
'''Support''' More image admins are always helpful.
Magic 8-ball says '''Support''' [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Support''' I trust him enough to ask his opinion on image sourcing and licensing, why wouldn't I trust him with the tools to delete said images. Also per his excellent commons essay on images. -
Writes articles (zomg). —'''
'''Support'''. I often notice this editor doing good work. --
'''Strong support''' Finest administrator material.  Strong work and experience as an editor, fair-minded, polite, intending to do genuinely useful work.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - Image administrators + excellent track record means this is a definite support.
'''Support''' Sounds like a sensible user with a great track record in working on images and articles, it can only help us to have him as an admin. '''
'''Support''' for sure.
'''Support'''...and glad to see some people are actually going to pass RFA for a change. = ) Good luck, --
'''Support''' - got plenty of experience, there is no dirt so there is nothing to be concerned about. Plus - I like people who declare they will be involved especially in a particular subset of Wikipedia (in this case Medicine). --
'''Support''' Excellent contributor and fine admin qualities across multiple projects.
Hard working with a good mix of experience. Certainly has my support.
'''Support''' Another who maybe should have been mopped sooner. --
'''Weak support''' &mdash; support, because we need more admins who aren't afraid to work with images, but weak because I'd like to see more of a willingness to offer {{tl|second chance}}'s. But I have taken into consideration he said he wouldn't have blocked for a whole week on the second offense, which might change the landscape a bit. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''. About time.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor, would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Excellent lead on [[WP:MED]] project, and helping to initially create and continue the refinement of [[WP:MEDMOS]] shows has a grip on a wide range of core policies & guidelines. Polite in all interactions I've come across.
''''Support''' - Great user. -
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support''' Seen his work on Wikipedia, have worked more closely with him on Wikinews; he is a very trustworthy candidate and I have no qualms giving him the mop. :)
Per Q4.
'''Strong support''' per nom, in addition to high-quality article and guideline (i.e., [[WP:MEDMOS]]) contributions.
'''Support'''.  Easy one!
'''Support''' - good contributor + reasonable communicator + well-informed editor = really easy decision.
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''S'''upport. Unlikely to abuse the tools, good collaborative work, and focused on high-quality content. Could I clarify that the "Fruitsmaak" in his username means "fruit flavour"?
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', meet [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], no concerns, great answers to questions.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. The project will benefit from this candidate's access to buttons.
'''Strong support''' He has made substantial contributions to medicine-related articles.
'''Support'''. Medical cabalism. Seriously, though, has a very creative way of getting people to constructively contribute. <font color="#0000b0">

'''Support''' - of course :) I know Steven well from both medical and Belgian articles where he's a super editor. He'll be a great admin! -
'''Support''' - Good and experienced editor. Always need more admins to work with images. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support''' Couldn't miss this one. Steven does excellent work both on actual content and on admin-like drudgery. Absolutely no problem with the answers to Q4 and Q5.
'''Support'''. Judgment appears worthy of [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community trust]] --
'''Support''' A serious editor with a long experience; seems highly improbable he will ever abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' - Trustworthy.
'''Support''' per good, varied contributions, and also for covering things I didn't even know existed and would rather not, truth be told :-) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support'''. Seen his work, trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Support''' Doubt the user will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Can't get off the fence and give a straight answer to a simple question.
'''Oppose''' Per answers to Kurt, Aqwis' and Xeno's questions, dodges Kurt's question, says "a minimal amount of civility is needed", and doesn't AGF or let a more removed admin handle the unblock request on Xeno's question. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Weak Oppose''' Don't much care for the answer to Q4.
'''Oppose''' - (you never saw me do this) Oppose per Kurt Weber. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'' you blocked one of my ideas  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral''' per answer to Kmweber's question.
'''Neutral''' per user Juliancolton. --
Per the three questions from the users. They are not very clear answers (especially the one about cool down blocks) so for now I have to say that I'm neutral.
'''Neutral''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeing pink elephants]] (one of only two AfDs we both participated in was obviously inconsistent with consensus).  Not enough to oppose, but enough for me to be hesitant with support.  The the other one we were both in was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)]], again on opposite sides, although this time I was the delete, and again the close was opposite of the candidate; however, that discussion was after looking it over close enough to a no consensus that I couldn't really fault any keepers).  As with the other RfA I justed commented in, I do like that the candidate notes articles worked on and barnstars on the user page, as that's always encouraging to see. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
Strongy, beat the nom, #1 support.  Stwalkerster's contributions to the encyclopedia are exemplary and I truly believe he's the sort of person who would make a great admin, and reduce the backlogs.
'''Strong Support''' - I also beat the nom ;). Stwalkerster has helped out in various places, and I have seen him helping out at [[CAT:HELPME]], as he stated, also, the [[WP:HD|Wikipedia:Help Desk]]. Stwalkerster is frequently in the [irc://chat.freenode.net:8001/wikipedia-en-help #wikipedia-en-help] IRC channel on freenode - to help out users there. I have seen him many times at [[WP:ACC]]. When [[WP:ACC]] closed down into a mailing list, he has been working tirelessly to complete the large number of requests that came in, since the new method offers more privacy. All in all, Stwalkerster is a great user, and will make a great admin! Mirroring Martinp23, again.. Stwalkerster is the type of user, that, if becoming an admin would help to clear out the numerous backlogs that we have on Wikipedia. Good Luck, my friend! --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''. I've changed my mind, my neutral was not on the best of basis. If you'll help clear out the backlogs and are dedicated, that's all I need to see. Good luck. :)
I absolutely would trust you to use the tools responsibly.
'''Support''', seems good.
'''Support''' Thank you for waiting a good long time before trying again.  Good luck.
Seems competent. Will do well.
'''Support''' &ndash; Yes, this will indeed stress you out, but you'll be a fine addition to the cabal. [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]] —
'''Support''' - Nom support. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FStwalkerster&diff=150421203&oldid=150418191 supported] the last RfA for Stwalkerster. I think he'll be a good admin.
(edit conflict)'''Support'''. Would've beat the nom if not for edit conflict. Anyway, highly experience editor, plenty of mainspace and Wikipedia namespace experience. Lots of reports to AIV. Sounds good to me.
'''Support'''. Seems good, could use the tools, etc...
'''Support''' Good user; I like your answers to the questions. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|~いいですね?]]
'''Support''' No concerns--
<s>Smells</s> Sounds good.
'''Support''' - I believer this user will not abuse the tools, and that Stwalkerster having the tool will benefit the project.
'''Support''' -- (Most) answers to the questions are very good. I am confident this user will make a brilliant admin...--
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I have seen this user around, and I know that they will make a great admin. <font  face="georgia">'''
Sure. '''
'''Support''' helpful user, will not abuse the tools. <strong>

'''Butter''' '''
If Majorly says so. <i><b>
'''Support''' - I've seen him around and I think he would do nothing but good with the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Strong Support''' -- Stwalkerster is obviously here for the right reasons, and deserves the tools. Good Luck! <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' -- no concerns and anyone who follows the teaching of Douglas Adams is likely to have a good head on their shoulders ;) <font face="Blackadder"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support'''. After reading through the answers and a others comments I have no concerns that this user will abuse the admin tools. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' - per answers to questions and [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Weak Support''' would like to see more article development, but nobody is perfect and wikipedia is large enough to have people with different specialities/skills.
-- <strong>
'''Supper'''.
So long, and thanks for all the support. Or something like that. ''
'''Support''', seems sensible enough, no evidence that they will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Able to be trusted with the tools. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''iM'''<font color=#00ccff>'''at'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''th'''<font color=#00ccff>'''ew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Nice and experienced user. Good luck! '''[[User:TheProf07/Vandals|The]]
'''[[Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything|42]]'''.  In other words, good answers above, as well as solid contributions.  Supporting.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
<s>Sounds</s> Smells good. I agree with Camaeron that most answers are fine. The only one that stands out is number 10. If there is a solid, policy-based reason to delete an article, and ten people stop by and support their keep votes with anything listed [[WP:AADD|here]], the article should be deleted. In practice, though, I don't think it's terribly likely that someone would nominate an article, for example, based on [[WP:BLP1E]], only ten people would come by with their BS keeps, and no other knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedians would comment to support or deny the nominator's rationale. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''. Need I say more. The only deficiency is mainspace edits but that is not a big problem. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-color:#003153;color:#003153;">—
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' - has <s>the cabal's</s> my support :)
'''Support''' Ooh, I see ''prima facie'' potential here. Since I will probably forget, I am giving you (early) a nice, firm handshake, for when you take up the mop. Good job, young grasshopper. <font face="terminal">
'''Support''' Another no-brainer.
'''Support''' Over 2000 mainspace edits and has been around since January 2006.
'''Support'''  - somewhat conflicted - the lack of concerted article building (even a GA or DYK) concerns me but no-one has pointed out any conflicts or confrontations or incivility for the length of time you've been here which is a ''big'' positive. I like the answer to section 10. Nice to see someone assuming good faith at AfD. Overall a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''', absolutely. Plenty of experience and I know he'll do a great job as an admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
support --
'''Support''' I view self referencing as a ''"Wikignome"'' as evidence that this applicant places the encyclopedia before their own contributions, and as such is prime sysop material.
'''Support''' He wasn't one already? O_o
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
I've been waiting for this for a very long time, he deserves adminship, and I'm glad I kept an eye on RFA during my recent inactivity...--
'''Support''' He's no fool! --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Weak support''' - A bit more ineraction with other users would be nice. Although I like to see some article work, especially collaborative article work with others, I do understand that not everyone is a good writer, and that must be taken into consideration. The candidate and his nom have both understood the issue and this editor has made it up in other areas. Admins do have areas in which they specialise in, and he does lots of useful work elsewhere. Let's give it a go. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Good guy, won't abuse the tools. Knows his way around. He'll be just fine :) ~
'''Support''' - an excellent user, no reason to oppose. <font color="#0084C9">
'''Support''' - Definitely support this user with the tool. A bit of Mainspace edits would be nice however. <font color="red">
'''Hey''' :) -
'''Support''', per the nom and all other supports [is lazy =P] <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', although I would have preferred the answer "No consensus to delete" to my question, your thoughtful answers show you take the proper time necessary to make administrative decisions.
'''Support''' works hard for the improvement of the project. No red flags that he will abuse the tools. <b>
'''Support''' History of being a great wikipedian.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and knowledgeable.
'''Strong support''' - an extremely capable editor who will use the tools extremely well. He's got experience in many admin related areas and he's just about always right. On a side note, I've found Stwalkerster to be one of the friendliest users here which is always a plus. All in all, an excellent chap.
'''Support''' I trust this user enough. '''
'''Support, duh!''' He even kept it away from me on IRC per [[WP:CANVAS]]! ≈ '''
'''''
'''Support''' I see no cons. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. I really like the answers to the questions. #9 also amused me, having just seen Wikipedia compared to the Hitchhiker's Guide recently.
'''Support'''.  Worthy of the bit.
'''Support''', I've encountered Stwalkerster several times around the site, mainly through being beaten to vandalism reversions. His ability to be polite and keep a cool head is definitely a trait needed in an administrator. Definitely support. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Support''' - Good candidate. --
'''75th support''' Great candidate, after seeing him/her around many times, I believe that he/she is ready for the mop. And hopefully I don't get into an edit conflict when voting this RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - fine candidate. Much has changed since the previous RFA. The answers all look fine to me & he's been active in a variety of places. Should be just fine! -
'''Support''' - he's definitely improved since his last RfA. However, I do have some slight qualms due to the lack of encyclopedia-writing. Despite this, he's done great work in admin-related areas, and should do just fine there. However, I would suggest that he start slowly when involved in dispute resolution, as he (or anyone) could get in over his head very quickly.
'''Support''' Based on history, I am reasonably comfortable thatthe user is worthy of the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]]. Good Luck. --
'''Support.'''  Good candidate.  —
'''Strong 80th Support''' - before I forget to vote for this outstanding candidate :) .. I have known Stwalker since he started helping out in [[WP:ACC]] and since then I believe he has what it takes to be an admin, he is very helpful, helping out via [[irc:wikipedia-en-help|IRC]] and is always  available when needed, no qualms about it, Good Luck ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Because I can't see [[User:Ral315/WTHN|why not]]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' The user has been patient since his last RFA, values discussion before acting, it's all good. Though I'm sensible to the oppose and neutral votes, I think that he won't abuse the deletion tool and so his lack of article editing won't be problematic. <strong>
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' Calm and collected editor, good admin qualities.
'''Support''' - <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Strong Support''' Funny, I was just thinking about re-nominating Stwalkerster when he told me he was already up. Oops! Stwalkerster is an excellent user who is very deserving of the tools. He's very helpful on the IRC channels and always shows good judgement in everything he does. This is a definite example of how the quantity of edits is far less important than the quality thereof. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' - Low mainspace contributions, almost no article building. Also, the user's AFD contributions are invariably delete and predominately short "per noms" within a span of minutes - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Stwalkerster&namespace=4]. Granted, that was in 2007, but still. I see nothing that leads me to believe that behavior or mentality has changed. I cannot support you at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but the balance of non-automated to automated contributions is way out of whack. Looking through your mainspace contributions, I see *a lot* of vandalism reversions but little real article building. While I don't have real high standards for article building (read them [[User:Xenon54/RfA Criteria|here]]), at least a GA or at least an effort to noticeably improve a few articles (i.e. finding sources, copyediting, cleanup, adding information) would be nice. You also say you want to help at [[CAT:CSD]] but going through your edits I found thirty-five articles that you tagged for speedy deletion and were subsequently denied. These all were from June 2007 to January 2008. Thirty-five denied articles show that you need to brush up on CSD policy. The low amount of project space edits also concern me when it comes to policy knowledge.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sure this is an excellent candidate, but I think that it is impossible to judge exactly how he or she will use the tools in content-related questions without having a decent-sized set of article contributions to examine. (Also, the answer to q10 bothers me too.)
'''Neutral'''. Low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Neutral'''. I've had good interactions with this editor, but a couple of things are nagging at me. One is a ''big'' concern over the answer to number 10. Another is that I'm not getting a good feel for how this user communicates, as most of the user talk edits I see appear to be template messages, and I'm not seeing a lot of solid communication on his/her own talk page.--
'''Neutral''' Low edits and few namespace ones. I'd say come back in 5-6 months. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Answers to questions are short and lacking. I just don't get the feeling this editor has a full grasp of policy, which I consider paramount as an adminship requirement. I don't see any "negatives", but I still can't support when I feel the editor hasn't fully prepared for adminship.
'''Neutral''': Though a good asset for [[WP:AIV]], he has not had much editing activity with articles. If that improves in nine or so months, I'll support the next nod. --
–
While I have not personally interacted very much with Tadakuni, I am well aware of his excellent work. He has done much to improve articles dealing with Japanese history and samurai. Particularly note worthy is his constant use of references which are often so lacking in other articles. I have only seen quality work with a mature attitude. Wikipedia could hardly go wrong with him as an administrator. Keep up the great work. It is appreciated.
I enthusiastically support Tadakuni. Based on his many contributions to fields I follow closely, I believe he will be a trustworthy administrator on Wikipedia.
He would make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. We need more like this.<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support'''. Tadakuni's committment to improving the quality of Japan-related articles is obvious, and allowing him access to a few extra buttons is unlikely to cause him to go berserk. I also like the way he's not afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, as in "poorly-writ the project space. The fact that you focus most all of your attention on the 'pedia is great. Most admin tasks aren't that difficultten pseudo-intellectual gibberish". --
'''Support''' per nom and contribs.
'''Support''' Maybe he's not 100% on all admin processes, but I doubt he'd mess up and he doesn't sound like he's going to go on a spree of doing dumb things. He's clearly a good user, and I don't see an RfA should fail just to come back in 3 months for some minor details that I believe he'll take to heart and fix.
'''Support''', good article writer. --
'''What happened to net positives?''' — Who cares if he hasn't participated in an AfD if he has no intention of working there. The candidate has stated they want to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals. We need more admins like you—content-focused and well spoken :) —'''
Taking the [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]] route. Who cares if he doesn't have much AfD work? Moni didn't have that much and she passed. I don't think it's very fair to oppose someone who gets almost no recognition for his huge quality edits. Furthermore, gnomes are the best people for adminship. I'm also confused with that, since HH didn't pass once and is currently #2 on [[WP:WBFAN|WBFAN]]. I think that's plain ridiculous. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - if a candidate has no intention of working in AfD, their AfD contributions are irrelevant. Tadakuni isn't going to abuse the tools, works well with others when they aren't sure about something, and is an excellent general contributor. Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't.
'''Support''', mostly per Iridescent and Malleus.  Another fantastic editor with stupid oppose reasons.
'''Support''' -- Attention to detail is the hallmark of Tadakuni's work; but the more significant effects of Tadakuni's contributions are illustrated in those crisp edits which caused me to ask myself, "Why didn't I think of that?" or "Why didn't I see it that way?"   No less important, Tadakuni's willingness to commit to a long-term project is matched by an ability to follow-through on that commitment.  The expressed interest in being an administrator becomes a plausible next step. --
'''Support''' There is no adminship topic draft.  If someone gets the bit and never wants to to a history merge, why should we insist that they be familiar with the concept of history merging?  at no point, ever, <small>ever ever ever ever</small>, will an administrator be ''forced'' to close a deletion discussion.  We are, of course, empowering him to close that discussion if he wants, but if he doesn't express an interest in doing so immediately, we should judge that on two things: will he (just assuming the male pronoun here) dive right in or learn how the process works first?  If he makes a mistake, will he accept criticism and work to rectify it.  If the answer to those two questions is yes, then great.  If no, then that would be a great reason to oppose.  I guess in general I don't buy the "admin experience" argument.  I can make >50 reports to AIV (I have), but that doesn't make me any better at actually physically blocking someone.  Since 90% of those reports were made by huggle (which now ''automatically'' sends a report for vandalism reverted after a final warning), those are even less helpful.  Furthermore, experience at things like AIV '''''AREN'T HELPFUL''''' for general admin wonkery.  It is an easy up/down to block a user who inserts "poop" into an article after being warned several times not to.  We are, in fact, [[Wikipedia:Abuse filter|proposing to do so with a script]].  The hard part is getting a complex request where guilt is not cut and dry (or maybe not even present) and assessing that request on its merits.  Will the editor make the right decision in THAT situation.  Will they block someone on the say-so of someone else?  Will they help mediate a content dispute?  Will they de-escalate conflicts?  None of that has to do with project-space edits.  This is a process to see if an editor has gained the trust of the community.  A better way to determine if the candidate has earned that trust than counting edits is to look at the content and context of his contributions.  Do they show someone who is thoughful, reflective and helpful?  That answer appears to be "yes" here.
'''Support''' RFA makes me laugh. Here right now on this page we've got one guy being opposed for not writing enough articles, and this guy being opposed because he does write articles. A good contributor is a good contributor no matter their chosen area of expertise, we shouldn't try to force people into areas they're not interested in before they can be admins.
'''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]]'''. And I agree with our two headed editor above about the joys of RFA inconsistency. But that's for another day. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  While you don't have much experience in the projectspace, you've been editing for quite a long time and have done a lot of good for the project.  You've got the experience and intelligence to succeed as an admin.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' only 2 edits to AN/I, that alone is proof of common sense.
'''Support''' per Malleus Fatuorum. I enjoyed reading the [[nanbu clan]], also deletion codes can be learned, judgement in deciding what to delete matters and has been displayed. '''
'''Support'''. Personally, I think it's about time we start promoting solid article-writers, rather than those who are most adept at navigating the bureacracies. Also, what Protonk said--no one (outside the fishbowl of RfA, that is) will ever DEMAND that this user (close an AFD, evaluate a GA, close a sockpuppetry case, craft a bot) that he hasn't himself chosen to do--and you know what? I trust that if an admin sees something that needs to be done, and finds himself interested enough to want to try, that he'll LEARN how to do it. People are not static entities--neither are admins. IMHO: if an admin is smart enough not to use tools he/she doesn't understand, or to ask first, then he/she is worthy to be an admin. I think Tadakuni is smart enough. Thus, support.
'''Support''' Demonstrated he's a good editor, and I trust he'll go slowly at first and will ask questions if unsure. --
'''Support''' I've run into Tadakuni on many Japan-related articles and through those collaborations I"ve come to find him a quality editor who wants to improve the product. While a lack of admin experience would lead me to go neutral/oppose on some, my experience with Tadakuni makes me think he'll ask questions when unsure and learn what he needs to be a good admin. Not already knowing everything related to being an admin is not a bad thing in this case. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said, but I'm going to let that stop me. Every little helps in adminstuff, just like it does in building articles, and there isn't any of it is rocket science. Tadakuni seems to be a solid, sensible editor, with plenty of experience. Sysopping him would be a net positive, surely.
'''Support''':  I know that adminship is not considered to be a reward for anything, but removing [[WP:COPYVIO|copyvio.]] from Wikipedia ought to be rewarded.
'''Support'''. Not a compelling answer to question 1. However Tadakuni has excellent contributions and a reasonable understanding of policy.
'''Support''' - Net positive. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' I see absolutely no indication that this editor will overstep his knowledge when using admin tools. I also have no problems with his lack of WP-space articles because he has not indicated a desire to work in those areas. If he wants the tools to keep articles relating to Japan in good condition and to delete the couple of nonsense/cruft articles about Japan that show up, more power to him. I know I certainly can't tell whether a lot of Japanese-related articles are legit or not and I daresay the vast majority of both editors and admins here can't tell the difference either. Having an active article-writing admin in your area of interest is an invaluable asset to any Wikiproject because you don't have to fully explain the entire situation in order to get what needs to be done done. I know I am extremely thankful that [[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]] is an admin whenever [[WP:VG]]-related articles start getting hit, and I'm sure Tadakuni will provide similar assistance to other WP:Japan members when they need admin help. Sysopping him will definitely be a positive to the project. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. Good luck!
'''Strong support''' - Lack of edits to the Wikipedia: space looks like a positive to me. We currently have too many admins that do nothing but monger drama in to learn. I became an admin with basically no experience in admin areas. It wasn't a big deal. Now should be no different. So, same as always: Do the candidates contributions leave the impression that he may abuse the tools? No. Is it reasonable to AGF for this one and assume the candidate can be trusted? Yes. Does the candidate appear to be capable of being taught? Yes.
I'm
'''Support'''. Tadakuni is a dedicated user who has made few mistakes. I'm confident he would do well with the tools.
'''Support''' all seems good to me. - -
'''Support''' Per Protonk, Thingg, and Jennavecia. Seems strange to me that an RfA for an editor with 12,000 edits, two years' experience, and 80 WP-space edits is in danger of failing, when a candidate with 6,000 edits, one year's experience, and 300 WP-space edits would probably pass with little to no concern about 'experience'.
'''Support''' Although it's slightly disconcerting to see the lack of namespace edits, admin processes can be learned and taught.  Tadakuni is a great editor overall and I feel will make a good administrator. --
'''Support''': Cautious, well intentioned, experienced editor. A combination that does not lead me to worry.
'''Support''' - but Tadakuni, make sure you understand deletion policy before using your admin-ness, okay? -
'''Support''' - Sure, Why not? Seems like a prolific, seasoned editor --'''
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Support''' - We need more article building administrators. I mean, we are an encyclopedia, right?
'''Support''' Changed from ''Neutral'' as the applicant has addressed my concerns, and otherwise seems unlikely to abuse the mop.
'''Support'''. What's wrong with a potential admin wanting to spend their admin time furthering the project they are part of instead of the neverending noticeboards? --
'''Support'''.  Lot of good commentary above.  Has experience with the parts that matter. --
'''Support''' Fundamentals are key. '''
Happy to '''support''' in one of my rare RfA contributions; a lack of experience in certain areas is not really relevant, because I believe I could trust this editor to know when to act on their own judgement and when to seek assistance. All the prerequisites of a thoughtful, trustworthy, effective admin appear to be present.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support''' Good editor
'''Support''' If successful, take it cautiously when you are acting in an area you do not have experience of. Overall am confident candidate will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - user comes across as sensible and I am confident he will take it slowly in unfamiliar areas. There is nothing so magical about adminship that cannot be learned by someone with decent judgment and the ability to ask when unsure. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
Seems experienced enough. Just make sure you stick to the areas you're most familiar with, and if you decide to branch out, just take it slowly.
'''Support'''—I'm not particularly swayed by the arguments presented in the opposition. Having poor edit summary usage is a matter of ticking a box in the prefs and that problem is fixed. For AfD experience, it's not like he's going to close them. As WJBsribe said above, closing an AfD can be learned on the job very easily. Finally, Tadakuni can, and will make good use of the tools. It's false that article writers have no need for the tools; whether it's a history merge, a semi-protection in case of heavy vandalism, deleting a self-uploaded fair-use image that will no longer be used in the article, or even auto-patrolling a new article, saving a new page patroller time, they are still simple tasks that can be done by a trusted article writer, instead of an editor solely dedicated to cleaning backlogs. We need more admins, and all admins; we need every type of admin, not only backlog-cleaners, who will make at least 50 actions a day. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' aside from this one edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hachisuka_clan&diff=prev&oldid=143591767] back in June the candidate has never participated in any AfD's until three days ago when he nominated eight pages for deletion ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowy tree cricket|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh dooley|2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Petricone|3]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Swain|4]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beast Wave|5]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Petricone|6]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DERIAN NEWMAN|7]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manomaya|8]]), seven of which were immediately speedily deleted, by a varying assortment of admins, and closed early. In light of this appears it seems that Tadakuni does not know or is unable to determine which types of articles merit speedy deletion, which is worrying in someone who says "I'd also like to keep an eye on new articles", which I assume would involve application of the deletion tool. - '''
'''Oppose''' per above - I think it demonstrates that you need to learn processes a little better before becoming an admin.  You are obviously a trusted user and I would enthusiastically support after some sufficient amount of time to demonstrate an understanding of admin-related processes. --
'''Oppose''' Even though the candidate is a great article writer, that doesn't excuse having only 81 Wikipedia namespace edits. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. You could use some more experience in the project namespace, getting a feel for the areas. Other than that, I think I would support in a few more months (the standard 3-6). '''
'''Oppose''' - Insufficient experience in admin related areas at this time. Sorry. '''''
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, to put it mildly, and a curious answer to Q1 (the candidate appears to be confusing admin duties with WikiProject coordinator duties).
'''Oppose''' Per the comments above me.
'''Oppose''' - Worrying lack of experience. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Good article writer: Yes; Experience in admin-related areas: <span style="color: red">No</span>, which is vital for adminship. <small>
'''Oppose''' low wikipedia space contributions makes it hard for me to put any confidence/trust into you (as an admin). Q1 is sort of ify too, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest there.--
'''Oppose''', a great content contributor. However, as usual I do not really consider article building to, in itself, qualify anyone to wield the admin tools. They are, after all, tools that are not particularly useful in article building, and unfortunately your contributions to the areas the tools ''would'' be useful in seem sporadic and, in places, inexperienced. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''', you have great article building skills. However, per comments above, your lack of experience in admin related areas is troubling. Come back in 3-6 months with more experience in those areas and I might support.
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''', per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. An excellent content contributor and certainly a trusted editor who will not intentionally misuse the admin tools. However, being an admin requires a certain minimal proficiency in WP policies and guidelines, which is usually demonstrated by experience in at least one admin-related area (XfD, AIV, etc). With so few projectspace edits and a fairly weak answer to Q1, the candidate does not have such experience yet, particularly not in the area of intended admin work. The answer to Q7 confirms this weakness. Unlike registered users, IPs are virtually ''never'' indef-blocked. Instead, in cases of continual misconduct, IPs are given a series of blocks of escalating length (e.g. 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, etc). Please get a bit more projectspace experience and re-apply in a few months; there'll be no problems then.
'''Oppose''' per lack of edit summary usage, 81 Wikipedia namespace edits and a generally low number (~2000) non-mainspace edits.
'''Oppose'''. For the lack of experience. The answer to question one is very vague and I fail to see what Tadakuni will do as an administrator—regular editors can also fight off vandals.
'''Strong Oppose''' Seems the user wants adminship as a trophy. (judging by # of admin edits)--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' At this time only. Based on everything so far, once you have more admin-type work under your belt, you should be a sure thing. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' per everyone's concerns, the answers to questions.--
'''neutral''' - I'm loath to support based on the lack of project space contributions and taciturn non-answer to question 1. If the candidate could elaborate further, much obliged.
'''Neutral''' I want to support, but I can't. Let me make this clear- Tadakuni is a great, valuable editor. He's done great things, particularly with WikiProject Japan. However, he remarked he wanted to keep his WikiProject 'free of vandalism'. To me, this sounds more like a job to do with [[WP:BROOM]] rather than [[WP:MOP]]. I usually look for a reasonably well-rounded administrator candidate when I support. Of course, I recognise that each admin usually will have their own *specialty*, and there are always exceptions. However, I believe that some more experience is necessary before Tadakuni runs again. I count 2 edits to AN/I with [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Tadakuni&site=en.wikipedia.org this]. I see none to AIV, for a admin candidate who is more or less stating he wants to focus in vandalism. I'm also concerned that Tadakuni doesn't fully understand an admin's job in the community. Also see less than perfect use of edit summaries. I'm leaning towards oppose. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support.  Major concern is Q1 non-answer, will reconsider after I see a clarification.  --''
'''Neutral''' - while nominally meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], the oppose comments give me pause, especially edit summaries, lack of XfD issues.  Perhaps another time, with more experience?
'''Neutral''' - due to inexperience as revealed by some of the answers.
'''Support.'''Per you very impresive improvement since your last RFA.''
'''01010011011101010111000001110000011011110111001001110100'''

I believe the user in question is fairly trustworthy. After a review of his contributions, I haven't found anything to strongly suggest he would abuse the tools. A fine example of a "one-topic" specialist editor. I am not 100% satisfied with the tagging for [[:Image:TimRyan.jpg]] (it should really be tagged with {{tl|Non-free promotional}}), and please remember to include full rationales for future fair-use image uploads, but this error is not enough to make me oppose since it is at least tagged as a copyrighted image. Please remain cautious. Please use the tools sparingly. I don't want thank-you-spam though. Mahalo. Oh, a side note, in case you care... it is my opinion that you look much nicer with the shaved head. ;-) Mahalo. --
--
Possibly the best way to come back from a failed first RfA.  Well done and good luck.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor who has addressed the concerns from his previous request.
'''Support''' - Nice improvements.
'''Support''' Good editor.  Good response to my question--I meant competitive eating in general, but the critique of the Wikipedia article seems valid.
'''Support''' Best, --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Support''' - Based on his work on the WPFood project, I believe Chris to be dedicated to improving WP by ensuring articles are truly well researched and of the highest quality. --
'''Support'''.  Good luck.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak Support''' Opposer Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes a strong point, but for now Support.
'''Support''' — self-noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  I see no trust issues here, and I am pleased to support.  &hArr;
'''Support''' A vote of support gets with a free meal, yes? :)
'''Support''' I looked through a fair few of your contributions and can't see any obvious problems. Though you don't have much experience at AfD I still trust you to make appropriate, consensus based closes.
'''Support''' the user has a clue, a very good one :) -
'''Support''' - Good user, I don't care if it's a self-nomination. <small>
'''Support''' - Some nice work done by this editor, will not abuse tools, I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of bravery and admirable self confidence. —
'''Support''' - all of the concerns from the last RfA seem to have been more than adequately addressed.  I see no reason not to trust this user.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and deserving user.
'''Support''' - I get a strong feeling that I can really trust this user. Excellent article work too, and extensive Wiki-project participation. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy, activity isnt that important to me. '''
'''Support'''. Shortly after his last nomination was closed, [[User_talk:Tanner-Christopher/Archives/2007/September#Your_RfA_did_not_succeed|I offered]] to nominate Tanner-Christopher should he decide to run again. He would have been very welcome to take me up on my offer. I believe he has the right mix of experience and temperament to make a fine administrator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''': He's definitely given us ''food'' for thought. --
'''Support'''.  First, it's important to have expert admins in all fields to help sort out issues that arise from that family of articles.  A chef is as much a specialist in his field as literature scholars in theirs.  Second, no evidence that this is anything but a smart and kind editor and a good collaborator. --
'''Support'''.  Encountered this fellow on the [[Talk:Hors d'oeuvre|Hors d'oeuvre talk page]].  Great editor; does the hard stuff (i.e., research) and remains civil.  The project needs more foodie admins (and level-headed, helpful content experts, in general).--
'''Support'''. Impressive edits and per Q6. I like your respectful disagree. You're neither sucking up nor combative.--
'''Support''' Brings a unique perspective to the project and understands the rules at the same time <3
'''Support''' -- Our culinary articles definitely need work to them! Just the man for the job! = ) --
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' - looks good to me. <b>
...as a fellow "diligent" editor, '''support''' - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' - It seems that the extra time has served him well. --
'''Strong support''' - completely convinced, per the Q&A I was assessing.
Support to help even out Asenine's "OR reply" oppose. May reconsider if Asenine decides to strike his oppose ''and'' if any serious concerns come to light.
'''Support:''' I view self-noms as indicative of someone eager to help improve the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per WJBscribe. Not the nomination offer part, but the other thing.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent answers to all the questions, wonderful article-space work. - Dan
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Support''' I was on the fence last time around, I have a good feeling about it now.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - To balance a ''prima facie'' rubber-stamped oppose. <span style="background:#FFEE91">
'''Strong Support''' A trustworthy and committed encyclopedist. Sterling behavior and contributions.
'''Support''' Strong candidate and subject expert, sensible answers to questions and lack of drama. Meets
'''Strong Support''' I'm impressed by his sincere and trustworthy answers as a future administrator as well as his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia.--
'''Support''' as the reasons I gave durign the first RFA have simply been enhanced with time. Good to see that you came back to RFA!--
'''Support''', per perusal of contribs, and my previous reasoning with regards to adminship being [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|not that big a deal]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''', agree with {{user|Gears of War}}, great improvement, some wonderful quality contributions.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''': good editor; sensible candidate.
Great work at WP:F&D.  –'''
'''Support''' Contributions are good no concerns.
'''Support''', no problems.
'''Support''' It seems per question 4, you have gained much more experience since your previous RFA.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Sure, if you're crazy enough to want the bit. I actually would have nominated the good chef myself had I known he was interested in adminship. From a chocolate lover,
'''Support''' I thought I already voted but I guess not. So there.
'''Support''' - looks good. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Clearly has addressed the issues from last RfA.  My interactions have all been positive and I trust him with the tools. Level headed and good member. —
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boston_Logan_Airport_Fake_Bomb_Incident&diff=160086866&oldid=160075001] (the yearly volumes of Britannica and almanacs cover notable news stories) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_movies_that_take_place_in_one_day_or_less&diff=160392181&oldid=160391754] (verifiable information that does not advance a thesis is not original research). Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong oppose''' - Your reply about original research has me very, very worried. I notice that you have clarified, but I see no way that your original response could have meant that. If you can convince me otherwise, I will definitely change to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - current edit history  seems to show a lack of envolvement. 3 months of very few edits followed by one month of activity. I would think that an administrator would be a bit more consistant in his activity.
'''Neutral'''. I don't think that "List of movies that take place in one day or less" is [[WP:OR|original research]]. Each entry on the list is verifiable with a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Rather the list is [[WP:LC|listcruft]] (all points except 4, 9 and possibly 6).
'''Neutral.'''  Switched from oppose (see above). —
'''Neutral.'''  While there is no reason to think you will abuse the tools, new administrators should avoid administering in subject areas they edit, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Given that you are a specialty editor, you won't have much need for the tools.  I encourage you to spread your wings and spend at least 20% of your time and, at least initially, over 50% of your administrative time on topics unrelated to your personal interests. Also: You wrote "... if I was given the abilities of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve the members of Wikipedia by being a definitive person that they can goto for assistantship with their personal work here."  You do not need administrative tools to become a leader in the editorial realm.  Your work so far with the newsletter and elsewhere has already established you as a leader among editors.  Being an administrator is more like being a janitor than being a team captain.  They require different skills.  Are you really sure you want to be a janitor?
'''Nom support''' [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Aye'''.  Won't abuse the tools, reservations from last <strike>AfD</strike> RfA were only really over experience. <b>
'''Support''' Seems sensible and knowledgeable enough. I've been impressed by his contributions to recent RFAs.
'''Support''' Did so the first time, and nothing has changed!--
'''Support''' I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools. The delay since the first RfA (see nom statements) is also an encouraging sign of maturity and patience.  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Per more experience '''
Candidate is trustworthy, honest, reliable, competent, principled, and above all, approachable. An excellent administrator candidate then. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Strong support''' - I have been waiting for this. And seeing as I would have nominated him if given the chance I know he will do a great job as a admin, now give 'em the mop.
'''Support''' Absolutely. The candidate has worked hard on the experience issues form his last RfA, and every comment and edit he makes is thoughtful and unrushed. No hesitation is supporting round 2. A pleasure to support. Good Luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. I've had nothing but good experiences with this editor, he appears to be a real asset to the project that could benefit from the tools. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I don't usually (or ever) support this early on, but in this case, I know the candidate through seeing his interactions with Keeper and he impresses me with his civility and intelligence. Judgement looks good all around, I've done a deep review of his contribs and haven't found anything alarming. I can comfortably support.
'''Support''' I've had interactions with Tan in various locations but the one that strikes me most is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Balloonman/Archive_6#Military_Bio_help.3F this one]. While I wasn't new to Wikipedia I was new to that type of article and his willingness to help is typical of his contributions to Wikipedia. Good quality to have in an admin. <sub>
'''Strong Support''' - From personal encounters with the candidate. Tan has proven himself to me countless times via his contributions and comments. Will make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''. Seen this user around.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Lately there has been a string of highly qualified candidates at RFA and this one is no different. Looking over the contributions and communication I see no cause for concern, and there were no real issues at the last RFA other then a lack of policy experience which seems to have been addressed.
'''Strong Support''' (ec) Would be an asset as an administrator. Please give him the tools. '''
<small>'''
'''Support'''. Seems like a sensible editor. --
'''Support''' per [[User_talk:Tanthalas39#Surprised|this]].---'''
I’ll go through and [[Due diligence#For supplier quality engineering|look through a sampling of his recent contributions]] before this closes, but in my limited experience with this user, I’ve been quite impressed with his demeanor and clue level, and am quite sure I’ll confirm this initial support. --
'''Support''' Like last time.
'''Support''' No evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. --
I should be opposing; this user clearly has absolutely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=210334801 no clue] where to address MOS concerns. :) But seriously, I've had positive interactions with this user; he's very hard working; a prolific vandal-fighter; and a sensible editor who will not abuse the tools. It is an unequivocal '''support'''.
Good luck Tan. You were one of the good ones. ''
Strong support. <big>
'''Support''' per nom. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Two Thumbs Up''' Well, everyone else is saying '''Support''' and I want to be different. :)
'''Yep''' I've had a look at his contribs, and I must say I'm impressed. The answers to the questions don't concern me. I think he could certainly benefit from having the mop.
'''Support'''.  Nothing to indicate that the user would be less valuable or a problem with the tools.  <font color="629632">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support without question''' &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Weak Support'''. After sifting through his contribs, I must support. My reason for the weak support is that 307 of his last 500 contribs were automated (either Twinkle, Popups, or Friendly) and I'm not a big fan of automated edits, although I ''am'' warming up to the idea.
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support''' - can't think of any reason not to and I trust both nominators' judgment.
'''Support''' - roughly ten percent of the things I say are Chuck Klosterman references, and Tan is the only editor who's ever noticed.  But seriously, very good answers to questions, good philosophies & attitude, and a good track record. --
'''Support''' - anyone who uses my userpage design (well Phaedriel's actually) can't be all bad, but seriously, a net positive as long as you're careful with PRODs and AfD debates..Cheers,
'''Weak support''' per [[User talk:Tanthalas39/AC#Assignment 3]] in which the candidate acknowledges one of the problematic AfDs I linked to below as one that he "could have handled...better".  I still disagree with him in some AfDs, but he appears to be responding to feedback proactively and I greatly appreciate his response to the oppose section below, i.e. he responded both civily and respectfully and is being open-minded.  So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Deserving and ready. I see no red flags besides a few admitted mistakes here and there. No one is perfect ''all the time''. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''' -- Thought this user already was one. I think I had a good experience with this user a while back. I will add the diffs if I find it. If not, I was just generally impressed by the user! Good luck! = ) --
'''Support''' I have seen Tan do some good work with the more....awkward....members of our project and use the patience of a saint. This gives me faith in how he would use the tools, when needed and not before.
'''Support''' - He's ready for it this time. Has lingered in all the right areas as well as doing some constructive article work. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Yes!''' →
'''¡Sí!''' - Candidate is ready for the mop. —
'''Support'''. I'm not changing my vote from last time, I still feel the same.  It's time.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Also, the answers to Q4 & 5 seem fine - under normal circumstances general incivility isn't blockable, while more severe personal attacks can result in a block.
'''Support''' This candidate is reasonably proficient in the running man dance.
'''Support''', looks good as far as I can see.
'''Support''', per Balloonman's link. I have a lot of respect for Tan, and he deserves the mop. --
'''Strongest Possible Support in the Universe Support''' Now it happens?!(the Rfa):)
'''Support''' - no problems here, and anyone who uses the word "circumspect" properly is worthy of respect. --

'''PRO''' -
'''Support''' just like last time. And he's even better now. -
'''Support''' - I think Tan has shown growth and development since the last RfA. And I think that Tan's responses to the "civility" questions and my observation of Tan's responses in other fora show an understanding of the complexity of the concept. The candidate, I think, has shown good collaborative and communication skills which will serve us well.
'''Support'''. This is my attempt to balance those who have opposed over the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, and their notion that incivility even ''can'' be simply identified. Per Geogre's Neutral, and per common sense, and to support a candidate who has given the question of civility and [[WP:CIVIL]] actual thought, as opposed to automatically disgorging the desired, and impossibly simplified, answer.
'''Support'''; everything looks good here.  Including the answers to questions 4 and 5.
'''Support''' Don't think the editor will abuse the tools and his clarification of his stance on civility.—
'''Support''' Like last time. Also, I've seen the user since the last RFA and they've improved and always seemed good. <strong>
'''Support''' agree with support comment by Risker above. ''—
'''Support'''.  Intelligent and reasoned answers, worthwhile edit history, and I like the comments about civility; I look forward to working with this individual.
'''Support''' done some checking over the last few days, and liked what I saw. Will be a good admin.
'''Support''' No concerns. I spent some time looking at the civility issues raised and see more of a debate on the meaning of civility rather than uncivil behavior.

'''Support''', although I would like to see an answer to my question above, if at all possible. --
'''Support''' Including the debate on [[WP:CIVIL]], I see no reason for concern.
Why not?  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support.''' Seems to be capable of having admin tools. --
'''Support'''. I encountered this editor just a while ago [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferdiaob#American%20vs%20British%20spelling%20is%20vandalism? here]]. I found him extremely conscientious and more importantly open to my point of view. He meets my requirement of 6 months or more tenure, and proved in my discussion with him and in the questions above that he meets my second requirement of a working and obvious knowledge of policy and guidelines. I'll keep an eye on this page to see the answers to his remaining questions, but at this point he definitely gets the Ferdia seal of approval. Good luck good sir. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
Tan39 will not abuse the tools and will not make rash decisions in areas that he is unfamiliar with.  –'''
'''Support''' I trust Tan and think he'd make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' per nom. Looking great!
'''Support''' : The oppose reasons doesnt pull me into the other side.  --
'''Support''' like last time. (I still don't think he is Archtransit) Good editor, doesn't spend too much time [[User talk:Keeper76|chatting]]... and appears to have the temperament and judgement to act as an effective administrator. Experienced with content, anti-vandalism, deletion and protection&mdash;what more could we want?
Support.
'''Support'''.  Having reviewed the questions and answers, the users contribution history, and taking into account the previous arguments, I find nothing substantive that would warrant opposition at this time.
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support'''. To me, the civility issue in no way outweighs the positive contributions of this user. '''''
'''Support''' - Solid contributions, likely to be a net positive to the wiki. '''''<font color="green">
'''Oppose:'''  I very seldom oppose an RfA, but in this case, I must per answer to question 5. I cannot support a candidate that cannot identify uncivil behavior on Wikipedia.   I've asked for examples of behavior that differ from what I have observed and the candidate states he/she is unable to provide any. I must conclude that my personal observations of this editor are consistent with behavior.  Uncivil behavior is not hard to find on wikipedia and frankly, I think it should not be ignored.    To be fair to the candidate, I am posting diffs of my observed dismissals, so it isn't just heresay:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=204268272 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=204940203 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=204948451 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=205126886 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=206953430 5] [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
'''Oppose''', per questions 4 and 5.  I'm not comfortable at all with the idea of admins that think that civility is no big deal and that editors should learn to 'deal with it' if they are the victim of it.  Please don't take this oppose as a criticism of your record of contributions, or of your own civility, which as far as I can see are excellent.
'''Oppose''' pretty much for the same reason as Lankiveil, and Toddst's diffs. Adminship is no big deal, but civility is.--
'''Oppose:''' You are my first oppose, and it is based on the reasons Toddst1 listed. I looked at the diffs he posted and I cannot support a candidate who doesn't take civilty seriously. Nor can I support an editor who thinks one policy is more important than another. Policy is policy and wether you become an admin or not thats something your going to need to learn fast.
'''Oppose''', I agree with the other opposers concerning the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5. I regard [[WP:CIVIL]] as one of our most important policies; every admin should be ready and able to identify uncivilness and enforce the policy. --
'''Strong oppose''' - I hate to do a per vote, but per Toddst1. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''oppose''' -- I don't know the candidate, at all.  But the candidate's unwillingness to answer questions during the {{tl|rfa}} suggests an unwillingness to hold him or herself accountable to the rest of us if entrusted with administrator authority.
'''Neutral''':  I cannot support, since I don't know the candidate, and I don't like very fast nominations, no matter how clued in a person may be.  However, are you folks ''really'' opposing because someone recognizes what all of us old timers know to be true, that "Civil" is impossible for any single person to define, that it cannot be and should not be enforced unilaterally, that we cannot weigh the contents of an edit for their intentions?  I've just written a very long winded [[user:Geogre/Civility|essay]] on civility.  It's not quite ready for prime time, but it should be enough to illustrate why, if it's hard to know exactly what to ''do'' with civility, it's blindingly obvious that what a person does ''not do'' is go around looking for bad words.
'''Neutral''' Definitely inclined towards support, but I would like to see the remaining optional questions answered before committing. (And yes, I am aware that the questions are optional, before anyone jumps on me.) '''
'''Neutral''' I was all ready to support, but my review of the edit count showed a lot of activity in the last few months but very little in the previous year. I would have liked to question the candidate about that, but my reviewing also found a place where the candidate said they were not inclined to answer the further optional questions than those they had. Since I will not get an answer I shall not ask, and thus I cannot support - although AGF means I will not oppose.
'''Neutral''', but regretfully. Yes, it's important for an admin to not be sensitive to impoliteness towards him--but also that he be sensitive towards peoples' impoliteness to others. In dealing with any admin situation, there will always be situation where other people have done this. they almost always don't need to be blocked, but they do need to be warned, (in my opinion usually informally). While of course any editor can and usually should do this, it's a fact of life here that many people do pay more attention when it comes from an administrator, and any admin should be willing to actively help enforce proper standards. An admin is a sort of referee, one of whose jobs is to quietly defuse conflicts by the implied us of authority. Tan says he expects to be involved in dispute mediation,  In that sort of context, apparently "false" accusations of civility are often indicators that both parties, not just one, need to be warned about it. In the 5th item cited in this section, he condoned a user page "new message" manner that redirected to "Fuck", saying one didn't have to look at that userpage. But someone coming there would not know this. I have no objection to the use of "fuck" in a userpage in many contexts, but this is really stretching it. However, I'm not going to actually oppose the nomination over this, because I hope Tan has enough sense to learn from the various comments here.. '''
'''Neutral''' Registering concerns with admin-mill candidates for the record.
'''Support''' Seeing you around, I was planning on nominating you about a month ago, but was delayed. Has many featured and GA-class articles, and would be very useful to the project. Good luck! --
'''Support''' per noms. No problems.
'''Support''' I previously offered to nominate thedemonhog as an admin - which (s)he declined. I'm sure (s)he'll do fine with the tools. '''«'''
'''Strong Support'''. I supported her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/thedemonhog&diff=prev&oldid=173704263 at her first RFA] and she has only since become an even better candidate. Lots of mainspace work, tons of experience, knows what she's doing. She'll be a great admin.
obviously.
'''Strong Support''' Looking forward to seeing you around [[WP:AFDO]]! --

Someone who I've noticed is a very helpful and smart editor. --
'''Support''' the candidate will be an excellent administrator. -
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - Excellent editor. Thorough experience and knowledge of policy. Should make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' Making it an even dozen.  Next?
'''Support''' Baker's dozen? :D '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' By all means.
'''Strong Support''' Great person. I trust her with the tools.
--
'''Support''' Good 'pedia builder. can be trusted. Cheers,
'''Support''' Editor has overcame her weakness and has enough patience to wait for more than half a year for a second shot at adminship.--
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor doing a lot of good work for the encyclopedia.--
'''Strong Support''' - Like, why wasn't I informed ealrier? **girly giggle** '''
'''Support'''.
'''Definitely''', a class editor.
Yup. —'''
'''Support''' Easy decision. &ndash;
'''Support''' I've seen this candidate around and have been impressed with their work. Good luck!
'''Of course''' '''
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, her work with the Lost wikiproject has been outstanding. I have no reason to believe she would misuse the tools.

'''Support''' absolutely. —
'''Strong Support''' Everything here is perfect admin material. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Knows what he's doing.--
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' as userpage suggests he spent time working on good and featured articles.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Of course! '''
'''Support'''.  As co-nominator. <font  face="georgia">'''
Excellent user who has the experience to make a good admin. No concerns that I can see.
'''Support''' per answer to Q6.  More seriously, I see no trust issues, and anticipate you will be a fine admin.  &hArr;
'''Support''' Great editor, I have ran into her edits many times while on Wikipedia. And of course she passes [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
As Thedemonhog's nominator, I strongly support this nomination. :) She's a great editor, and I stand by my statement.
'''Support''' I won't hold the fact you're a Heroes fan against you.
'''Support''' Sensible with clue etc. Has enough experience and everything. Would be good. --
'''Support''' - I can find no reason not to do so.
'''Support''' I supported last time, and am happy to support again.
'''Support''' all Canadian demons. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per deft handling of Q6. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Supporting''' an annoyingly excellent editor.--
'''Support''' a grand candidate. Stellar article work as well! Well done! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', in this user's last RfA, I opposed because I felt that the user had not gained experience in a wide enough range of areas and topics.  And while I would like to see some more substantial content creation on an article that does not relate to a television programme, the user has been making enough useful contributions to XfD and projectspace that I can justify supporting this nomination.  Also, I find it very unlikely that this user would deliberately misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've seen <s>him</s>her around quite a bit at the LOST areas, and (s)he always advances the articles in a very positive manner, and has productive discussions on the talk pages. Definitely fits the 'why not promote to admin' criteria for me.
'''Support''' -- out of retirement (briefly) to add onto the support pile; I've watched this editor grow and flourish to be an excellent Wikipedia contributor, from when I first noticed her contributions in 2006. I've no doubt she would make a fine addition as an admin. --<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Support''' Per Mizu '''
'''Support''' Well-handed, experienced user who will work great with the admin tools.
Support. User has outstanding history. First time in a while candidate has come up which I have previously awarded a [[WP:BARN|barnstar]] to (<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thedemonhog&diff=prev&oldid=204953061 here]).
'''Support''' - No problems here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Good editor, trustworthy --
'''Support.''' Per the noms, and some great quality contributions to this project.
'''Support''' See no reason not to. '''
Certainly. --
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''' - no issues at all! Very trustworthy, experienced editor! Good luck! --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No reason for concern.
'''Support''' .... because ....--
'''Support''' per Question 6, et al, particularly because [[WP:SARCASM|Sarcasm is really helpful]] most of the time.
'''Support''', levelheaded, has clue.  An asset to Wikipedia. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''–Candidate has experience as a user in the area they want to admin.  Seems to have a good grasp of policy.  I trust her.
'''troppuS''' I detov rof uoy tsal emit, dna ll'I od ti niaga htiw edirp. <font face="terminal">
'''Support''' Very nice articlespace work. - Dan
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Q6. That made me laugh.--
'''Support''' - superb work on articles. I trust this user with the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - have never had a problem with this user; does great work especially on TV-related articles.
'''Support''' You have a high edit count and you appear to be contributing nicely to Wikipedia.  I trust you with the tools
'''Support''' WTHN?  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' The default answer should be support, unless the candidate has major problems that need fixing. thedemonhog does not. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' as a fan of [[Hayao Miyazaki]], in case your user name refers to the demon hog in [[Princess Mononoke]], or else because you have lots of good experience.
'''Support''' Already does great work, tools can only help make the work even better
'''Support''' - User seems to know their way around Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.  However, I would go so far as to say that non-free images of living people should generally be avoided.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', per my previous reasoning (on TomStar's RfA) regarding the fact that getting these extra tools is [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|not that big of a deal]], and they should be given to anyone who asks, unless they have clearly demonstrated some deficiency that would make one suspect they would misuse them. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''' Despite not viewing the contribs, I have a good feeling that she'll make it. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Tired cliché''' Not one already...
'''Support''' will use the tools wisely
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' per overall answers to the questions and points brought out in nominations.  Not all questions were answered to my liking but the overall impression I get is that handing this editor adminship responsibilities will improve the project.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' after careful consideration. :) Seems cool-headed enough. -
'''Support''' - moved from neutral. Impressed. Best wishes -
'''Support'''  As per Track and Acarimari.
'''Support''' --<span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support'''. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
I agree! I think he should be an Admin! --
Sorry to be late to the party '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Fantastic editor. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Per answer to Q6.  The conventional wisdom on this issue is, frankly, ludicrous; I see no problem with cool-down blocks whatsoever.  They're perfectly fine.
'''Neutral''' pending answers to questions.
'''Beat the nom support!''' - I finally did it! I beat the nom!  Woohoo!  And speaking of this nomination, the nominee's name says it all.  He ''is'' very helpful.  I've worked with him a lot, and as long as I've known him, he's always acted in good faith and for the good of the project.  I'm sure he will use the admin tools responsibly.
'''Support''' - I recently was looking for some help on some unblock requests, and saw this user (whose work I was aware of) was around.  I was stunned to discover that he wasn't an admin already - cliched as that may sound.  On review of the contributions at the time, I was convinced that this user should get +sysop and so pushed him to seek better counsel.  I am sincerely delighted that he has, and hope the community feels the same.
'''Support''' &mdash; I'll agree with The Transhumanist. Thehelpfulone is, as his name suggest, a very helpful editor who's willing to work hard at a project. I see no reason not to support. &ndash;
Absolutely. A great Wikipedian who makes the project a better place. He's got plenty of experience on a number of Wikimedia projects and he'll do just fine with a couple of extra buttons on en.wikipedia. '''
'''Support''' - He lives up to his name, and also does a lot of constructive editing. No reasons not to trust here, more than happy to support. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' — I don't know this user but I recognise the name. No negative experiences and a persuasive argument has been put forward by the noms. Why not? —'''
'''SuperStrongSupportIn[[CamelCase]]WithExtraOMGWTFBBQ:''' I thought you were already an administrator - if I'd known, I'd have offered to nominate you! '''
'''Was-away-eating-my-dinner-or-would-have-been-sooner nominator support'''. :D '''<font face="Verdana">
Yep. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Great Candidate.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate: hard working, helpful, and obvious need for the tools.
'''Support'''. A... helpful one? O_o Or dedicated, maybe. --
'''Strongest support''' user has my complete trust. <font face="Arial">
solid and competent in article space - that's all the matters the rest is a cakewalk besides.--
Seen him around. Seems sensible.
I would have supported based on previous positive interactions in Wikipedia space, particularly the help desk and AIV <small>(and also the unlamented ''old'' version of [[WP:ACC]], where his edits are now deleted)</small>: consistently clueful, good attitude.  Had no idea there was a significant content-building side. Impressive. This appears to be a candidate that the two main RFA camps can both agree on. --
'''Support''' Ok, but I would not object to a rename to [[User:TheNotSoHelpfulOne]]. '''
'''Support''' Do we need more all-around helpful admins?  I'm thinking yes. <b>'''
'''Support''' - [[WP:CLUE|Clueful]] user. No red flags. Happy mopping.
'''Support''' Hell yes.
'''How-the-hell-is-this-user-not-already-an-admin-I'll-never-know Strong Support''' All the way. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
Fuck yes.
'''Support''' Although he would be even more helpful if he could get me a turkey sandwich. --
I have known Thehelpfulone since he joined Wikipedia, and have only ever seen good things from him. A content editor, vandal fighters, helpful all round (hardly surprising considering the name). I've never once seen him close to being uncivil, and I had planned to nominate him myself a while back but never got round to asking. '''Very strong support''' for a great Wikipedian. '''
Every thing looks good here. Good luck!! <font face=tahoma>
'''Strong Support''' - yeah, I think the [[User:Thehelpfulone|Thehelplessone]] will make a good admin, boring but good ^_^...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
All looks good, no concerns, trustworthy, seems somewhat overdue - I had thought he was already an administrator. Net positive to promote this editor to adminship.
'''Support'''. Good editor. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Wow-I-can-truthfully-say-that-I-actually-thought-he-was-an-admin Support''' - <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' - definitely.
'''Strong support''' - clearly exceeds [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' - it's difficult not to support someone called 'The Helpful One'. -
'''Support''' per all above. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support''' as he lives up to his name. Good article writers are good. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' I was a little disappointed that such a large percentage of your wikispace edits were via tools.  This is an area where you can show policy knowledge/expertise, and to see that 2000 of the 2500 or so edits were automated in this area was disappointing.  That being said, I reviewed your edits elsewhere and feel that you can be trusted not to delete the main page. <small>Either on purpose or by acceident</small>---'''
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen him in multiple places over the last 8 months doing constructive edits. Will do just fine. &ndash;
'''Support''' as nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': Really helpful person. I also want to thank Pedro for such a 'clean' look on the nomination; it made it easier (for me anyway) to do some research. <sup><small>
'''Yes!''' - no concerns, excellent person to work with —
'''Support''', nuff said --
'''Ultimate utmost support''' I think this will be the only time I will use that phrase in an RfA. My encounters with this username has made me think he is an admin... without a mop. It's about time he got one.
'''
'''Support!''' ''
'''Support''' - Ready for the tools - solid contributions, civil and patient, high probably of long-term commitment to the project. [[WP:WTHN?|Why not>]]--'''
'''Strong Support''' A trustworthy, hardworking capable candidate. '''
'''Strong Support''' ''<insert witty comment here about how I thought you already were an admin>'' :D
'''Would have nomed support / Strong Support''' Good user, trustworthy and definatly knows their way around wikipedia policy wise e.t.c <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' - seen this user around, definitely a plus and will make a great admin. <b>
'''Support''' He will make an excellent admin. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked, is a good article contributor, has been granted rollback rights, works well with and is appreciated by others per [[User:Thehelpfulone/Awards]], and seems helpful (member of welcoming committee and kindness campaign confirm the username's claim!).  Best, --
'''Why-are-so-many-supporters-using-hyphens-its-kinda-stupid-hope-Ecoleetage-doesn't-do-his-wrong-queue-joke-with-loads-of-them-cos-that-would-be-annoying support''' Great candidate, no bad moves or anything. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
Great user. &mdash;'''
'''I wanted to nom but you didn't tell me Support''' - Abso-frikin-lutely.  Very, very trustworthy.  Has done vandal fighting and article work which is great.  To me, all I like to see is understanding of policy and trustworthiness, which this candidate has!  <font color="red">
'''Support''' I had a feeling that this day was coming.  He is a great editor and extremely helpful and I definitely support granting the use of the tools.
'''Strong support''' A great editor, should have been an admin before, very helpful, friendly, understands policy better than me anyway! Good luck on this RfA and hopefully as an admin!--
'''Support''' - well, ''duh''. //
'''Support''' excellent nomination, although I disagree with you adding yourself to recall (I know, you can't win either way, which is why I won't oppose for it) as the system is like an election promise, good luck enforcing it later on (I would think that generally the ones who end up needing to be recalled are the ones who won't honor their promises). All-in-all, an excellent candiate; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' From my experience of dealing with this user, THO is more than capable of being sysop, and has my unreserved support.--
'''Support''' - User lives up to his name. Since before I became an admin (over a year ago), I've seen TheHelpfulOne working around various areas of the project. Most memorable areas being the help desk and ACC when it was still just a page. In the past year, quite a few times, he's asked me to carry out administrative tasks, which shows me that he has an understanding of them. I think he'll make a great admin. The sole oppose at this time is completely unpersuasive, and from reading the linked page, it seems more to me that the opposer was being an ass in the discussion, while the candidate was making polite arguments.
'''Support''' I like the contributions and seems trustworthy. --
'''Support'''; a gem of an editor, and I expect a gem of an admin.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support'''. Pretty much everything has already been said. Experienced, civil, knowledgeable, all-around good editor.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Long overdue support''' - Definitely time for THO to get the mop.
'''Strongest possible support''' - How's this guy not an admin already!? He's a great person to work with.
'''Support''' Well, some concerns raised in the neutral party were about things past over 6 months. The candidate' general contribution looks good.--
'''Infinately Strong Surpport'''. Excellent editor who, as in his name has been the helpful one!
'''Support'''. Good contributions & good answers.
'''Support'''. Good candaidate, and also I liked the nomination statement.
'''Strong Support'''. After having a look at this users resent contributions i have changed my mind and decided to Support this user. Good Luck and hope to be hearing from you when you succede. --<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. Good candidate, can't see any problems.
'''Support''' looks good, should be fine. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. That just about sums it all up, no need to say any more :)
'''Support''' After Very deep Consideration .The user track is good and see no concerns there.I was surprised by the fact that a RFA candidate has only 2 articles [http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php?user=Thehelpfulone] .But the fact is a user can contribute to the encyclopedia in any form and article writing is  only part of it or rather Article writing is not a requirement for adminship.The user has been around since November 2007 .I fully trust the user with the tools after review of track.
'''Strong Support''' I think I'm going to jump in on the bandwagon :) He is a valuable editor who lives up to his name.
'''Support''' I'm too tired to make a joke or some other clever comment here. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' - No problem here. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:MediumBlue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Not-!voted-in-a-very-long-time Support''' - I don't normally !vote in RfA's anymore, but when I saw Thehelpfulone was a candidate, I HAD to come here and support! Great Wikipedian and deserves the tools! :-) '''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - As the name suggests, he's very helpful. Lots of good article writing, will make a great admin.
''''Bout bloody time''' &ndash; Thehelpfulone should have been granted this responsibility a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned. —
·
'''Support''' - Overall, you are an excellent candidate who I have seen around that I am surprised to be honest is not already an admin. Clearly you have a good range of contributions - the amount of articles created does not concern me, I confess I have only created three, some editors are more for maintenance tasks and fixing existing articles. I do have a bit of reservations on the CSD tagging, though you have tagged many pages and a few mistakes are understandable for a task that requires on the spot decision making. I advice you if this RfA passes to stick to the [[WP:CSD]] letter and spirit as much as possible when speedy deleting pages. Nothing else brought up really concerns me.
'''Support''' will be a net positive. Cheers,
'''Very Strong Support''' Seen him around, and seems excellent to me. Why not? ^^
'''OMG-do-I-need-to-have-an-explanation!?!!1! support''' Definitely!
'''Support''' ''
'''Brad Cabal support''' per Bradv. Fully qualified candidate.
'''A mensch.'''
--
'''IRC Cabal support''' per '''
'''Support''' Username has made me believe that this person will deserve to be an alright sysop.
'''Support''' - I have seen this user's good work around the encyclopedia.--
I'm
'''Support''' - Definitely one of those editors that you assume already has the tools. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">

Yay, I'm the 100th voter. :) '''Strong support.''' Outstanding contributor, and will also be an outstanding admin.
'''Support'''. I remember signing this guy's [[User:Thehelpfulone/Guestbook|Guestbook]].
'''support''' his name is perfect for the job. <b>
'''Support''' Oh boy. You're not an admin yet? Hmm, I seem to remember you helping me out months back with a formatting issue I was having in an article. Huh, totally surprised you've not been given access to the extra tool set. I have 0 reservations in my support of your candidacy. Good luck.
Hello, I am Harry Potter, and am looking for some Quiddich materials. I need a broom, a ball-ooh, wrong queue. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Per the two noms, the answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to this project. '''
'''Support''': IMO, THO is helpful for the project. Please work more on<span class="plainlinks"> [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Thehelpfulone&auto=auto non automated or tool assisted] edits also</span>. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
Of course.
'''Support'''—I've seen Thehelpfulone around, and my impression has been uniformly positive. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{
'''Support''' Obviously a great editor. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''.
Per Q3 (may not be able to handle pressures of adminship) and poor understanding of NFCC, combined with a stubbornness and lack of willingness to listen, as shown at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter/archive3]].
'''Oppose''' along the same lines as Giggy; a poor knowledge of the [[WP:NFCC]], and the answer to Q3. While I hate to sound like I want admins who are garrulous, I think being in a conflict or two is necessary to understanding how to go about conflict resolution; "by the book" knowledge only goes so far. I think THO is a fine person in my interactions, but I'm not sure need of the tools has been demonstrated. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' per Giggy and per claim that he has no experience of editorial conflict.
'''Weak Oppose''' Generally a good editor, but having seen recent problems with administrators who believe "their" articles are exempt from [[WP:NFCC]], the FAC mentioned above makes me more than a little concerned. <b>
'''Neutral''' per some questionable CSD tagging, eg. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Albertsai&diff=prev&oldid=247180295], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugo_Baltistan&diff=241597182&oldid=241596864], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashton-on-Mersey_School&diff=233604814&oldid=233604533], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALuis_Vargas&diff=247176740&oldid=246879164].
'''Neutral''' per Epbr123, also for saying (s)he wants to work at the drama boards with little experience in those areas and for reporting the username {{user|ROCKVILLAINS}}, which has yet to edit, to UAA because "We don't like villains on Wikipedia!"([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=198048604]).
'''Neutral''' - can't support somebody with an image upload like [[:Image:Miessence Product Range.jpg|this one]] (will be speedied shortly).
'''Present'''. —
'''Neutral'''. The questionable CSD tagging forces me to be neutral, especially when the candidate plans to work in that specific area. The answer to question three brings concerns as well; the user hasn't been in any conflicts that comes to his memory, so it's hard to tell if the user can appropriate handle a heated situation.
Of course (per nom)
Nothing immediately alarming :) Good luck! —'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Yes, I've been waiting for this for a while now, and have always thought Thingg would be a fine administrator. I've been watching his talk page and his edits for a while now, and see most everything constructive. Happy to support. Good luck! --
'''Support'''. Thingg has an impressive WikiResume, displays great understanding of Wikipedia policy, and has the temperament to be an administrator. Although I have had only minimal direct interaction with Thingg, I am constantly bumping into him at AIV and other places - and all I see is indications of a reasonable, thoughtful editor.
Seen nothing but good things from Thingg: he's always been sensible whenever I've seen him. I was the one who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AThingg&year=&month=-1 gave him rollback] as well, which he has been great with.
'''Support''' - a little soon after his last RfA but what the hell.
'''Support''' – i've seen this guy around a lot, and he seems to get it. The issues brought up by the opposes last time around seem to have since been dealt with.
'''Support''' - all-round good candidate from my experience. <s>Best we've had in weeks, in my opinion.</s>
'''Strong Support'''. By my past nom. Glad to see you back at RfA! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
Hello, I'm Catherine the Great and I'm in a frisky mood -- I'll take a dozen oysters and a horse, please...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Strong Support''' for one of Wikipedia's very best editors (truly)!
'''Support''' (edit conflict x2). Only 913 reports to AIV? I've seen Thingg's work and it's always seemed good to me. Seems to have a good handle on policy, and has demonstrated the ever-subjective clue. That's some serious Huggling you got there, but you have other work as well. I think he'll do fine as an admin.
Strong Oppose :) per he is the perfect candidate with excellent nominations and therefore there ''must'' be something wrong with him ;) <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. I've never interacted with this user, but from his responses to the questions, the nomination, and from the approval of other editors.
'''Support'''. I've seen Thingg's contributions for quite a while and I know he's an amazing editor and vandal fighter. Definitely will make an amazing administrator as well.
'''Support''' - nothing wrong, at all. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' per Bsimmons666. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' Makes sense. '''
'''Support''' a demonstrated need for the tools and a good demeanor. - <font color="#708090">
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support''' User won't abuse the mop.
'''Support''' as nom. Thingg taught me so much when I was first starting here and as I said to him at my talk page, it's pretty much a travesty that I was made an admin before he was - let's fix that =) –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Has objectively worked and overcame the concerns raised during the Previous RFA.Further trust the Judgement of Acalamari.See no chance of the user abusing the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' (ec) Per the above and a clear, reasonable answer to the questions.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', albeit a little weakly. Thingg's instability is a small cause for concern for me: I fear his judgement may at times be lacking, or that he may—rarely, I suspect, admittedly—make rash decisions in the course of his work as an administrator. By and large, however, I believe he will bring some improvement to the project through his having the +sysop bit; I do caution him to take a step back if he feels unsettled on the project, but at the root of the matter I trust him and think he will make a decent administrator.
'''Support''' – good candidate. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' - Hard working editor with a stable record of contributions and Vandal fighting --'''
'''Weak Support''' Haven't had [[User_talk:GlassCobra/Archive 16#Using Huggle|the best]] [[User talk:Thingg/archive 4#Huggle?|interactions]] with the candidate in the past, and apparently I'm not the only one with some concerns, as shown by Anthony above. However, I do feel that this will be an overall net gain.
'''Strong support''' I literally, honestly, truly believed you were already an administrator. &ndash;
'''Strong support''' Let's get this Thingg started! Erik the <font color="red">
'''Supportt'''
'''Support'''. I kinda thought you were an admin already too. Talk page looks good (You get a lot of pints, don't you!) and contribs...well, as you said, a little Huggly--but I'm not one who considers that a bad thing. Yeah, I'd trust you with the mop.<s> But re: Q5...you might want to go back and peek at [[WP:SPEEDY]]--particularly item #2 under "non-criteria". (Did I just give the answer away?)</s>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - why not. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Nobody reads these comments, so I'll come forth and say that abortion is the best thing since sliced bread, McCain is a revolutionary step forward in U.S. presidency, and we should work on colonizing Mars because Wal-mart is running out of places to urbanize.
'''Support''' (AA) per Juliancolton <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' As last time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks like would be a good mop-wielder.
'''Support''' A review of the stats shows no likelihood of mop abuse, and my interactions with the candidate (reviewing/actioning AIV reports) have been good.
'''Support''' per Master of Puppets and that I don't see anything troubling. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support.''' Yep, this fellow has the temperament to be an admin.
Really hope this one finally passes. ;) &mdash;
'''Support''' Never had a problem with this user. Hard worker who deserves the tools and will use them well.
'''Support''' —
{{done|user OK}}. <small>
'''Support''' (again!)  —
'''Support''' Thought he was an admin! --
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' All problems (even the minor ones) raised in the last RfA seem to be addressed. While I would like to see his answers to the remaining questions, it appears irrelevant.
'''Support'''.  More Huggly than I personally prefer admins to be, but that's a question of personal style, and to each his own.  Editor appears a superb vandal fighter and would be an obvious net gain for the project.
'''Support''' Excellent user.--
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''. Edits and answers look good. -
'''Support.''' ·
'''Affirmative.''' →
'''Support''' I've seen Thingg around, Huggling and whatnot, and he's done very well. With a bit of my own investigating, I am pretty ready to believe that Thingg will do well as an admin. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''"What do you mean you are not already an admin?"-Support''' Not much more to say, I really thought he was an admin and answers and contribs look fine as well. :-) '''
'''Support''' Seems to merit trust, despite some past controversy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
Umm...'''yes'''. I have no concerns about this user.
'''Support'''.
Already-thought-you-owned-a-mop '''support''' — seriously, this one kind of surprised me. No problems with what I've seen of this user, and I think he'd definitely make a fine admin with the areas he intends to work in. The first time I really saw him around was about the time when he once [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=222584505#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_June_24 helped cleanup after a little mistake] of mine at DYK. ;-) Good luck with everything, keep up your good work!
'''Support'''. Very good editor. --
'''Pile on support'''. Solid editor.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, nothing alarming in the past 500 edits. Answer to question 11 was a little iffy, but it was a pretty general question.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions and sensible answers.
'''Support''' I supported last time per candidate's good work which has only improved since then. Good luck!
'''Support''' As last time Cheers,
'''Support''' - No issues. <b>
'''Support''': I've seen Thingg around and found his work to be solid. Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Seen him around and he does a excellent job. --
'''Support''' A capable candidate doing very good work...
'''Pile-On/As-Co-Nom/Of-Course/Thought-You-Were-Already-Support''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Great edits and experience over the past 6 months, good answers. --
'''Support''' - I opposed last time, but my concerns are no more. Have fun mopping!
'''Support''' - Per noms and answers to the first three questions. '''
Thingg is one of the sites most fervent and intelligent administrators, there's no reason not to gie him the flag to go along with it.
'''Support''' Why not? If there's not not, then there should not be anyone not supporting. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''' per nom and [[User:Thingg#Things_that_make_me_laugh|the lulz]].
'''Support''' No problems, huge positives <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' (even if my opinion is redundant at this point). He has accumulated a lot of experience in different areas, and he used the feedback from his previous RfA constructively. I see no reasons for concern.
'''Support''' I have no concerns trusting them. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''': without hesitation.
'''Support'''  Clearly.
'''Support'''. Looks like a strong candidate.
'''very strong support''' I like people who i find worthy, know how to use the tools, dont like vandals, and will make constructive edits to wikipedia.
'''Support''' Answers look good, and you seem to have the trust of many users.--
'''Strong Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' A top prospect for the Cleanup Team.
'''Supportt'''.
'''Support''', good answers to the questions,  respectable editing history; seems trustworthy.
'''Support'''. I would like to see you branch out beyond RCP and new pages patrolling though. Most of that type of patrolling doesn't need the admin toolkit (other than of course administering blocks and making pages disappear).
'''Support''' :  Have a stormy [[Image:Lightnings sequence 2 animation.gif|40px]] admin life :) <small> Ref: Userbox on the candidate's page </small>--
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support''' - per nom, and has over 40,000 edits. --
'''Support''' - Seems to be an almost perfect candidate. Lots of frequent edits, many reverting vandalism. Very good question answering too :-). Good luck.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no worries.
'''Support''', everything looks good.
'''Support''' - definitely ——
'''Support''' Wooo! You made it into the [[WP:100]]! A great candidate, good record, no bad points brung up and I can't find any; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' Definitely trust-worthy. --
'''Support''' The reasons I opposed the latest RFA are no longer applicable. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Support'''. I supported this user on his previous RfA, but now he has even more experience. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support'''. I'd pushed for article probation on the Obama pages, and although it wasn't ideal for the candidate to be partially sanctioned under it, and partially under 3RR, I'm very happy to trust this user with tools for demonstrating what he learnt from that experience. The candidate also provided a nice answer to question 9. Just as a further point on that answer, users too easily start having doubts whether someone is speaking about them behind their back, or vice versa, just because they use it. Sometimes the doubts are well-founded, while other times it's pure paranoia, and the effects of such doubts which can be damaging to collaborativeness. It can never replace on-wiki consensus building, and certainly, doubts shouldn't replace basic AGF. I hope that this is also something that the candidate will reinforce when his RFA is granted. ;) Best wishes,
'''Support'''. Impressive.
'''Very Strong Support''' - Very impressive contributions. I hope this passes! --(
'''No-brainer support'''  Nominated by an editor that I have the utmost respect for, co-nominated by another of the same stature, outstanding contributions to the project...  what more could I possibly ask for? --
'''Strong Support''' Most definitely ready to become an admin.
'''Strong support''' - from all interaction with Tiptoety I've found him to be extremely helpful and clearly understands policy - will make a fantastic admin.
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. '''
Still a little bothered by the police thing from before, but his work has generally been quality so I see no reason to oppose at this time.
'''Support''' - Experienced user all around. I can see no potential problems whatsoever.
'''Support''' - Wait a sec, he isn't an admin?
'''Strong support.''' One of the editors I see around most frequently. I had assumed he was already an admin - as for the concerns cited, the given article is perfectly fine. It's not against policy to write sub-FA articles. Heck, look at most things I write, they're completely uncited.
'''Support''' Very thorough editor; no problems supporting. CBHAIO.
'''Support''' It was tough to oppose last time, but I'm happy to support this time around. Tiptoety will make a great admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems here. '''
-- <strong>
[[:Category:Rouge non-admins|Rouge no big deal support]]. ''
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - An experienced user who can be trusted with the tools. --'''''
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' Great user, have interacted with him here and Travel Guide Wiki, and I don't think that Tiptoety will abuse the tools. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and was impressed with his contributions. Good luck! <strong>
'''
'''Strong Support''' I've had nothing but high quality interaction with this candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. You don't need writing skills to make a good admin. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. per response to Q #4 and reviewing the opposes from RfA #2. I see a not insignificant amount of effort directed at self-improvement here. To me, that shows the right kind of attitude.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Very well accomplished editor.
'''Support'''. Awesome editor, very clueful.  I've never seen him be anything other than totally friendly, and always makes a lot of sense when participating in discussions.
'''Support''' meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]]. We can't all be article builders. The user has knowledge to use the '''block, protect, and delete''' buttons. Although article building is helpful, it is not essential to the admin-specific buttons. User's other experiences offset the "lack" of article building.
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - This user is a great editor whom is well suited for the tools! :-)
'''Support''' - Very good user whom I know will use the tools well. <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">
'''Support''' - Shows good interest in doing admin level work [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' - Excellent user.
'''Strong support''' ''Great'' candidate who will undoubtedly make a ''great'' admin. '''
'''support''' —
'''Support'''.  Brilliant user, some disagreeable opposes.  Would, to quote a famous user, be a net positive to Wikipedia.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' As per nom and Keilana why not earlier is the question only Tenpoundhammer is amongst the unlucky not to be an admin.Great track with over 13000 edits.Concerns in previous RFA overcome.
'''Support''' Responsible user. '''''
I was more than happy to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ATiptoety grant Tiptoety rollback] (in fact, he is the first user I ever gave rollback to), and I am more than happy to support this nomination. Tiptoety will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' - as nominator. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - as co-nominator. [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - I can't see any problems with this user.
'''Support''' Perfect Edit summary usage, and would make a great admin! -
'''Super Strong Support!''' I do not believe that [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] is not an admin. I'm glad I read my userpage!
'''Support''' - very good editor, will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Absolutely''' - He's already a huge help; I can't wait to see what he does with the extra buttons. --
'''Support''' It's about time! Very helpful user who would do great with the tools. <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Support''' Excellent user. --
'''Support''' Active, improved over time and has clearly taken points on board - I would have been reluctant to support a few months ago, but am happier now. Tiptoey's adminship will be a net benefit to the project.
'''Support''' I trust this user. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' Always willing to help fellow Wikipedians with questions as well as a vigilant vandal fighter. Will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Having reviewed Tiptoety's contributions, I see no concerning flaws in the candidate's nomination. I get the feeling that he may not be the "perfect candidate" at the present moment, but I am confident that, if he is not, he will eventually develop into an administrator and an asset to the project. On the basis of a reasonable nomination at present, and an assumed future improvement, I am happy to support. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''' Would make a good admin '''''[[User:NimiTize|<font color="blue">N</font><font color="red">i</font>]][[User_Talk:NimiTize|<font color="blue">m</font><font color:"black">i</font>]][[Special:Contributions/NimiTize|<font color="red">T</font><font color=" black">i</font>]]
'''Support''' Will be great Admin. '''''
'''Support''' A good user. —
'''Support''': Again.  I see no red flags. -
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support:''' No problems here! --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' as before. [[User:Bearian/Standards|Meets my standards]], has been very useful with [[criminology]] topics, and is known around.  No concerns about abusing the mop.  Excellent answers to questions.
'''Support''' I thought I had done this earlier... ·
'''Support''' Per AndonicO, I thought I had, as well. Tiptoety will make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' - User has a good track record and seems to be doing well.
'''Support'''- Has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, helping new users (including me), and would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''': I see no major issues; is well versed in many of the critical aspects of Wikipedia. <font color="#CC0000" size="-2">
'''Support''' I see nothing worthy of concern, and am glad to see someone so well versed in the community side of Wikipedia. Those are the people we need making admin, as they are the ones who get the most enjoyment out of, and are therefore the most productive in, the job. '''''
'''Support''': Seems to be knowledgeable of WP policy, cool under fire, and has other Wikipedians asking for advise. Fits my criteria. Good luck!--
'''Support''', could use more article-building experience, but otherwise I see no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I trust that this user to not misuse the mop, which overrides any other concerns listed.
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy.
'''Support''' Active community participant, sensible.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', outstanding contributor to the project. --
'''Strong support''' - I thought he was already an admin. I've seen him around a lot lately and have seen only good things. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Yep!'''<span style="white-space:nowrap">
'''Yes'''.  -
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin! <font color="#006600">
'''Support''', and about time too.
'''Support''': He's made some great contribs to the project and I think that he would make a great Admin --
'''Support''': Sure. --
'''Support''' experienced member <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:BanRay|<font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''Ban'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''': I like the way that you responded to #4 and I like your reply to #1. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety|Strike one]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety 2|Strike Two]], <s>strike Three</s> , Nah.  Homerun.  Good user, knows policy, seems civil reading through talk page history. Has addressed previous concerns. Have fun mopping!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' considering that if asked I would have nominated myself, sure. --'''
'''Support''' I've seen Tiptoety around enough to have confidence in his judgment
'''Support''' Good experienced user and knows how to use the tools. ♥
'''Support''' --
I don't see any major problems here. Best of luck!
Support good wikipedian, participate in RfA a lot, has already been tagging pages for deletion, will make a great admin. Good luck! --
'''Support''': Seen Tiptoety around Wikipedia (mostly on the [[WP:HD|Help Desk]], if I remember correctly) and have always been impressed with their helpfulness and respect. Hopefully the third time is the charm!
<s>'''Delete'''</s> err... '''Support'''
'''Support''' Seen Tiptoety around on [[WP:ANI]] and on various user talk pages always with good answers. Time for him to do some mopping. --
'''Support.''' Per the noms by {{user|ThinkBlue}} and {{user|IMatthew}}, good content contributor, has done some valued work on this project.
'''Support''' Reviewing the editor's history, while there have been some hiccups well documented below, and perhaps some poor decisions in the past, the editor's willingness to learn from mistakes and accept constructive criticism reassures me that community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] extended to this editor will not be misused. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' Yes... yes indeed.
'''Support''' If I hadn't just reviewed the Deacon of Pndapetzim RfA this would have been a very simple case. As it is I was just a little perturbed by the times the candidate changed their vote. While it is good that a potential admin should be open to a change of opinion, it is also important that an admin makes a decision after considering all relevant data and not upon a first review. However, does it change my opinion whether Tipteoty can be trusted with the mop? No, it doesn't - so my !vote remains the same.
I wasn't actually going to bother piling-on here, but I might as well help push this towards [[WP:100]]!
I interacted with the editor earlier, and the editor took my suggestion in stride.  I knew the editor was on RFA, so I went ahead and took a glance at the contributions.  Does good work, I think this would be ok.  I'll support.
'''Oppose''' Has only been active for less than a year. In that time has been too active to promote him/herself as arbiter of what qualifies for deletion. Get someone with more experience.  <small>—Preceding  comment added by
'''Oppose'''.  Quality of writing. --
'''Oppose''' Reluctantly.  The misrepresentation of your off-Wiki position bothered me slightly (because of the recent EssJay issue), but I've discounted that, since anyone can say/do something foolish and should be able to outlive such things.  While I echo others' concerns about quality editing, this, again, isn't a defining issue for an administrator.  My major issue comes out of the candidate's comments in this RfA, to wit: "''un-constructive users who make it their goal to attack me and disrupt me in any way shape or form they can find''."  I've had dealings with a number of administrators whose comments I've found to be undiplomatic bordering on incivil.  I can't see where we need another, or even the potential for another.  That, coupled with the lack of a clear openness to recall, means I must oppose. --
'''Oppose''' per the quote in the previous oppose. While I appreciate (personally!) the sentiments behind it, it seems un-necessarily vicious and "just another jab" at this prime oppurtunity. No problems except that; try again soon.--[[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
'''Oppose''' - Has grown since the last RFA and half the concerns have been addressed. But the other half (experience in the mainspace) remains to be addressed. Vandal fighting is only a small part of what Wikipedia is about, and Tiptoety has that part down. Now its time to spread your wings and fly into the larger Wikipedia world where we are writing an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' - I am particularly concerned about one of the article requests you handled: "State Representative Carlos Lopez-Cantera ... " You replied: ''declined. This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria A7 and/or guidelines on biographies..'' Tiptoety talk 00:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)-- (you used  the form, not writing it specifically) But all members of state legislatures are considered notable at WP, it's one of the best-accepted special inclusion rules. If you dont know this, how are you yet qualified to work on article requests, let alone be an administrator? I think that you're learning how to work here, but you have not so far learned thoroughly enough. I appreciate your good work on  my question above, but the RfA is not the time to instruct you in the basics of notability. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' User has only been online for 10 months. It seems the main activity has been to increase his edit score with a view to becoming an admin rather than actually contributing. I don't think anyone should be able to be an admin without a proven record of steady contribution, rather than an excessive burst of activity in a bid to get power
'''Oppose''' TipToe keeps trying to delete articles without actually reading (or understanding presumably) the subject matter. Wikipedia does not need any more clever fools who delete articles for their own amusement.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Weak Neutral''' Sorry Tiptoety, but I have to go with my gut here. I know I supported last time, but it bothered me a fair bit afterwards. The thing about misrepresenting yourself as a police officer really rubbed me the wrong way. I also think that your articulation and spelling leave a lot to be desired, even here at your RfA.
'''Neutral''': Changing my !vote from "oppose," in recognition of the broad array of editors who seem to have had positive interactions with Tiptoety and faith in his future as an administrator. It would be nice to see a ''few'' specifics among the support !votes, a diff here and there illustrating his helpful nature, or a description of his work in a certain area. But, from what I see my concerns are a small aspect of his experience, and I don't want to stand in the way based on my limited and apparently atypical perceptions. -
'''Neutral''': 13,000 edits in nine months, working four hours a day on nothing but Wikipedia, 7 days a week, works out to around four minutes spent on each edit.  That's an absurd pace of editing and not consistent with giving careful consideration to all viewpoints in article and meta discussions.  Even going to the extreme of saying half your edits were vandalism reversions requiring only 30 seconds of your attention, at two hours a day, seven days a week, you're still only spending 4.5 minutes per edit, dropping to as little as 2.4 minutes in September of last year.  As I do not have personal experience with you, however, and do not have time to do a statistical sampling of your edits to ascertain their quality, I simply post this to ask you to consider slowing down and verifying sources, refactoring sections, and merging edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&diff=prev&oldid=192860252] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860403] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860478] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860615] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860682] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860812] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860887] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-02-20&diff=prev&oldid=192860933] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192861136] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192861338] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192861448] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192861700] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192861803] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192861929] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192862019] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192862123] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192862275] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192862842] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192863005] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192863402] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192863683] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-18&diff=prev&oldid=192863857].  In that last case, you made 22 edits in 20 minutes; did it really only take an average of 54 seconds to conclusively determine something's notability, click the edit link, insert the appropriate template, and write an edit summary?  <span style="font-family: monospace">

'''Support'''. Editor claims 10,000 edits, but that includes deleted contribs. But he does still have 8000+ other edits. He has tons of experience and seems to know what he's doing. I think he'll be a help at [[CAT:CSD]].
'''Support''' - Enough experience for me to support - meets my criteria with aplomb. Well rounded.
'''Support''' - I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of [[WP:BOLD|being BOLD!]].
'''Strong Support''' I've worked with Tivedshambo on a number of articles including the current push to improve [[Talyllyn Railway]]. He is a great contributor to the encyclopedia, working tirelessly to improve articles. He has also demonstrated a clear grasp of policy and a willingness to get down in the trenches and help remove vandalism and perform the other grunt work that enables Wikipedia to function. During all of this he remains polite, calm and positive. I've no doubt that he will use the tools well and continue to make excellent contributions to Wikipedia. I only wish he'd asked me to nominate him, something I would have happily done.
'''Support'''.  An experienced encyclopedia editor with a good knowledge of policy.  (And a good knowledge of small railroad lines, too.)  --
Refreshing to see a self-nomination. Seems well-acquainted with policy and will make a good addition. With respect to edit count, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=contribcounter&titles=User:Tivedshambo 10,012] at time of writing.
'''Support''' not based on edit count as I view this only as a very crude way of determining experience --
'''Support''' from my time seeing this user, seems to be very good! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' User seems to have many edits in a variety of area and i think could do some good work as an admin. I don't see any problems in the past with being uncivil or having disruptive edits.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I really [[User:Mr Senseless/RfAStandards|like]] what I see.
'''Support'''- <s>Wheres Kurt?<s> <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''': an experienced, well-behaved and trustworthy editor who isn't likely to make a mess with the admin tools.  --
'''Support'''. I'm confident that granting Tived. the administrator tools will benefit the project as a whole. After a quick look through the candidate's [[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|contributions]], I see no obvious problems, and as such, I am glad to support. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support''' And I'll be honest here - I haven't interacted with the candidate and therefore spent quite a while reviewing contributions / talk pages and so on. I'm simply staggered no-one has spotted their dedication earlier and forced a nomination upon them!! Great stuff, clearly great, and as ever my best wishes and good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Aye'''.  No problems at all, will be an excellent admin. <b>
'''Support''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  <strong>
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence that the nominator has nominated himself or herself.
'''Support''' - Keepscases sums it up succinctly.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Good luck to you, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' As per Track and has over 3000 mainspace edits .
'''Support''' Seems very genial and not likely to abuse the tools. Seems to take strange criticism in stride.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems fine. '''''
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
<s>'''Oppose''' - I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.</s> '''Support''' - excellent editor. I received adminship at about the same point that this user is, though this user happened to be active almost all twelve of the months he's been registered, while I was only active five. ;)
'''Support''' - looks good to me. —
'''Support'''. Everything looks good.  I have no reservations in supporting this RfA.
'''Support''' Regular vandal fighter, demonstrates knowledge of speedy/delete policies, displays civility—I am reasonably comfortable having the community show its [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in this users judgement]] and handing him the mop-and-flamethrower. --
'''Support'''. I was going to oppose due to low level of Wikipedia namespace edits, but I am going to support in lieu of Kurt Weber's nonsense opposition. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
Per Stifle. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' No indications that they will abuse the buttons.
'''Support''' The guy wants to be an admin - and he backs it up with a good resume and interview results, so I'd say yes! &nbsp;—
'''Support''' No qualms here. '''
'''Support''', excellent user!  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''',What a bobby dazzler - doing some great work on [[Talyllyn Railway]] keep it up!
'''Support''' - a dedicated user that won't abuse the tools. :)
'''Support''', good answers. seems right for the role.
'''Support''' Good answers, seems to know his stuff. :)
'''Support''' - I view self nominations as ''prima facie'' evidence of immense common sense.
'''Support'''. I especially like his answer to question #5, in that I have never seen the usefulness of "registering" for recall. If there are problems, which i doubt, we'll deal with them. No issues, seems to have learned from his past "mistakes" (quotes because nothing was really horrible).
'''Weak support''' - great editor, knows the rules and isn't [[WP:BITE|BITEy]]. I'm a bit disappointed with question 5, but appreciate his honesty -
'''Strong support''' per having the backbone not to sign up to the useless drama-sink that is the recall category, and the honesty to explain why.
'''Support'''. Seems ready to me.
'''Support''' I've seen your work occasionally, and you've answered well here.
'''Support''': After answer on question number 12.
'''Support''' - With plenty of edits, here is an editor who is actually working on creating an encyclopedia.  No concerns, and meets all my standards. Go for it.
-- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Support'''. Good user.--
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support''' - ready for the task. --
'''Support''', faithful editor. '''''
'''Support''' - seems ready. Good answers except #5 but that is not a deal breaker for me.  <b>
'''Support''', passes my [[User:Littleteddy/Standards|criteria]]! <font face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:Littleteddy|Littleteddy]] (
'''[[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|Definitely]]''' '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Neutral''' His motives are clear given this users answer to number 5.  If this user really is not after power they would have answered yes.  I will review his answers again in a few days to see if this user can make a better argument for them to be an admin.  If this user cannot, I will be changing my vote to opposed.  It is clear that this user is the weakest of all three users this month.  - Sorry
'''Support''', as nom. --
'''Support''' - Excellent all around.
'''Support''' muy bien--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' Largely based on the contents of '''[[User talk:Toddst1/archive3]]''' which I've just spent some time reviewing. Now, there are some instances of accidently reverting vandalism back in, or wrongly identifying a bad edit. There's also a couple of minor speedy deletion items. But what shone out was the [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] you demonstrated, how you tried to approach every query with [[WP:AGF|good faith]] and your clear policy knowledge when discussing articles - making recomendations to [[WP:BITE|new editors]] regarding our core policies and guidleines. I'd suggest you take it easy at first, as the outcome of innocent mistakes can be a bit harsher with admin tools, but there is nothing here to indicate anything but a '''net positive''' to granting you admin tools. Good luck, and best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I think Pedro puts it quite well. You seem to have - like me - made some mistakes in the past and have handled them in an excellent manner and I am sure you will work well with the tools. You pass my simple rules: ''yes, you can be trusted'' and ''yes, you have enough ''overall'' experience''. Good luck,
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Pedro puts it well, mopship likely to be net positive. I take comfort in the fact that you have a decent history of content contribution as well as the mandarin stuff.
'''Support'''. Good candidate. -
'''Support''' Well rounded. <strong>
'''Support''' Looks a goodie. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and keen vandal fighter.
'''All out support''' due to his anti-vandalism work. you'll pass the adminship test (if there is one). Handle the big mop with care and sweep them all out! -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaNLOPEZ1115]]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> [[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|TaLKBaCK]]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>
'''Support''' - Can find no reason to oppose at this time.
Increasinly per Pedro. God is he original! ;)
'''Support''' would like to see more rfa noms like this around! Good user in every aspect! --
'''Support''' Adminship isn't a big deal, and I think he's trustworthy to put the mop to good use.
'''Support''' No issues here, that I can see anyway. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - we need more fans of historic sites.  That, and he has a good track record of contributions and knowledge of policy.  --
'''Strong Support'''.  I don't remember how or when, but I seem to have developed a high respect for your work somewhere along the line, but I don't remember interacting with you...Whatever, you'll make a great admin anyway.  Good luck!  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Over 13000 edits with over 5500 mainspace edits .Good track.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''''
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good article writer and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' - sound answers to questions. —
'''Support''' - civil and a good vandal fighter&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Demonstrates civility, engages in vandal fighting, exhibits knowledge of the policies and guidelines—I am reasonably comfortable with the community extending its [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to this user. --
'''Support''', seems fine with me. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
[[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks good. '''
'''Support''' Hands down the best of all the users this month.  No question this user will be an excellent admin.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Looks good to me. The mop should be yours! --'''
'''Support''' Answers to the questions are pretty good, and civility is always a good trait to have.
'''Support'''. Actually written articles, and wants the mop? Give it to him!
'''Support''', seems like a good editor that would use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy, demonstrated need for the tools, technical knowledge and experience. Good luck! <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Support'''. Great editor, has created several new articles and fights vandals.  No concerns.
'''Support''' - Well versed user, will be an asset to the project. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#00008B;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to '''weak''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=197773044] this makes me question if you [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], this user was not really vandalizing, sure there where some test edits here and there, but his account is only a few days old, I dont think reporting this user was the appropriate action to take.
'''Support''' Very trustworthy, active and calm in discussions, so a complete support.
'''Support''' Clearly up for the task. --
'''Support'''. Good nom. Cheers!
'''Support''' Looks good to me, we can always use another vandal fighting admin :). --
'''Support''' In agreement with Mifter.
'''Support''' as co-nom. -'''
'''Support''', I've "known" TomStar81 (and his "famously idiosyncratic spelling" :-) for about as long as I've been on Wiki; he is a solid content contributor and a civil, collaborative editor.  Happy to support.
'''Support''' as co-nom. --
'''Weak Support <s>for now</s>'''. It'll take me a bit longer to go through my review of this candidate because he has 17,000 edits, but I wanted to get my current thoughts down before I fall asleep. Anyway, TomStar81 is an excellent content builder, but according to Q1 he wants to work with vandalism, AFD, and RC patrol. Going through his contribs, he has exactly three edits to AIV, and one of those was adding his sig to his previous edit. Depending on what I find tomorrow when I have more time to go through his contribs, my !vote could change.
'''Support''' Tom is a great editor and I am very pleased to support his nomination. In particular, I'd like to highlight the extent to which Tom seeks to gain consensus when writing articles or discussing issues. A particularly good example of this is that he nominated the article [[USS Illinois (BB-65)]] for deletion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65)|shortly after he sucessfully guided it through a FAC]] as several of the editors who [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65)|commented on the FAC]] stated that they didn't believe that uncompleted ships deserved to have articles and Tom wanted a ruling one way or the other. Based on this behaviour I think that there's no danger that he will miss-use the admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per reasonable stance at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga]] and his userpage shows an impressive degree of featured article contributions and barnstars, which shows clear effort and knowledge of building the project and cooperation and appreciation from fellow editors.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Strongest support. —'''
Support - Have met this user several times and have always thought him to be fair and non-judgemental. Also thought he was already an Admin.
'''Support''' I have always found this user to be approachable and fair in his actions on this wiki. Whether under extreme pressure on his FACs at times, or under pressure from other editors, he has always acted fairly for the benefit of Wikipedia. Not every admin will be extremely active on all policy areas, indeed active at all at admin functions. But I do think he will benefit from the tools where needed and it would be a benefit to the project.
Hardly as if blocking vandals at AIV is difficult.
'''Weak Support''' - the contribs look OK, and there are no serious issues I don't think, but the answers to the questions aren't very impressive really. I still feel that we have a decent admin in the making though. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I've seen your work at [[WP:MILHIST|WikiProject Military History]], and its great!  Keep striving to do well! --
'''Support''' Tom's work speaks for itself, and he's always been a fair and civil editor in my interactions with him. No reason to think he'd misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Tom is a diligent and dedicated editor; I have no doubt he'll make an excellent admin. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>(
'''Support'''. Candidate has demonstrated significant growth as an editor and contributor. Good judgment, trusted.
TomStar81 appears even-tempered, dedicated and clueful. I've admittedly only taken a superficial look, but pending further findings and per all of the above, I believe the candidate '''can be fully trusted with the tools'''.
Strong Support. ·
'''Support''', nice editor. --
'''Weak Support''' Mainly per Useight. As he said, when I look more closely as this continues, my !vote may change.
'''Support''' Tom's a level-headed article writer who's exercised good judgment in the past. I trust he'll continue to do so as an administrator. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
Yes--
'''Sppuort'''.
'''Week Support'''.  Much more activity in AIV needed before I feel comfortable with you beong able to block, but being the coordinator of arguably the biggest Wikiproject on Wikipedia shows your commitment and communication skills.  Good luck.
'''Support''' I am going to trust him. '''
'''Weak support''' - Spelling doesn't bother me much, since spelling does not affect use of the tools - any editor can edit an article or talk on a talk page. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Good user: not bothered about a low report count to AIV. After all, I only had two edits to requests for page protection when I ran for adminship, and I said in my RfA that I wanted to help out there.
'''Support''' - Actually intended to support when I left my question... Just forgot! Great editor, great skill, and great work.
'''Support'''.  No trust issues, long running track record of useful contributions.  I'll support for that alone.  The limited reports to [[WP:AIV]] and the like do not concern me with to an editor who's done this much work.  &hArr;
'''Support''': He's a blessing to MilHist.--
'''Support''' - I have taken the necessary time for closer inspection, and I find that the good completely out weights the relative inexperience at AIV. You have my support. Good luck.
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
'''Support''', we need more admins with strong experience in content writing. Also, Tom is polite and dedicated, and is already a coordinator at the Military History WikiProject.--
'''Support''', excellent MILHIST / WP:SHIPS editor, I have no doubt that he will use the tools fairly and responsibly. The process at AIV is not exactly complicated, I have no doubt that he can figure it out regardless of how many times he has used it in the past. --
'''Support'''- Has shown no predisposition to abusing the tools. Also, we need more syops working the afd and aiv backlogs.--
'''Support''' - Impressive edits, candidate also shows patience (time between RfA 2 and 3), sense of honor (RfA 1) and clear understanding of what he wants to do (Q1).--
'''Support'''.  To anyone concerned about spelling, if you have the time you might enjoy: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27074-2005Feb15.html "Why Stevie Can't Spell"].  On other matters, Tom is somebody who I've noticed is a helpful guy and smart editor.  All things considered, I thought he handled the [[USS Illinois (BB-65)]] situation with a lot of aplomb.  I probably would have thrown the towel in had I been in his shoes--that he stuck it out is a tremendous credit. --
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor, can't see any reason why you would abuse the tools. -
'''Support'''.  An excellent article contributor, and excellent coordinator for the Military History Project, and an extremely active contributor to Wikipedia. You've got my vote!
'''Support'''.  Yes.
'''Support'''. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Mature, patient, knowledgeable. I hope that patrolling to eliminate the worst of WP doesn't draw too much time away from creating the best.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' One should always support unless there is a very good reason not to. This is not the case with TomStar. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. One of the strongest candidates over the past couple of weeks.
'''Support''' - A great editor, and he passes [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. <small>And per his answer to Q9.</small> --
'''Support'''.  Just watch the spelling and read over [[WP:ARL]]. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''.  The candidate meets what i like to see in a candidate.  But I'd suggest using Firefox for spellcheck ;-)
'''Weak support''' - perhaps there are some issues here and there and this candidate could do with some polishing, but to be honest, most of us do at one point or another.  What it boils down to is that I can find no good reason to oppose this nomination, and chances are sysopping this user will be a net positive.
'''Support''' no problemo - a well-rounded contributor. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I've taken some time, looked over the RFA process, and also discovered [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. My conclusion is this: unless an editor has demonstrated that they are actually unfit to wield the extra tools that come with adminship, they should be supported. Thus I offer my support to TomStar81. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''': Tom is a hardworking, fairminded editor who handles a lot of the "grunt work" in the projects he supports and a valued contributor. I think he would be an excellent contributor to administrative grunt work if the mop is placed in his hands.
'''Support''' - anyone who can quote Socrates in his defence can't be too bad a candidate! Seriously though, while Tom does not always express himself clearly, I think he generally has pretty good instincts and will not go far wrong.
'''Support''' - a little humility goes a long way.
'''Troppus'''
'''Support''' When making a decision whether or not to support someone the most important question for us to ask is ''"Will this person abuse the tools?"'' From looking over the comments of people who have opposed thus far, I don't feel as if this user will misuse the tools. On top of that, I don't see any attitude issues, which is another important thing. Good luck:-)--
'''Support''' Per answer to question 9.
'''Strong Support''' - Past experience with this editor has shown him to be a hard working team player who is dedicated to the improvement of the project.  I have zero concerns that he would abuse the tools, and great faith that he will use them to better the project.  --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Positive interaction with WikiProjects, plus sensible and pragmatic answers to questions that apparently, juding by the oppose section, do not fit the precise standard, which I don't really think is a problem. This request for access is not an examination, it is a demonstration of trust.
'''Strong support''' back to basics. '''
'''Support''', a gentleman and a scholar.
'''Support''' Sensible and reasoned person with sufficient experience; meets
'''Support.'''  Over 70 have weighed in here already, so I'll be brief: support as per SandyGeorgia, Woody, Dual Freq, JayHenry, Shereth, Gatoclass, SJP, Orderinchaos.  —
'''Support'''. He will be fine.
'''Support'''. A fine candidate. ''
'''Support''', meets my criteria easily.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' per the user's wikiproject work! Keep it up! --

'''Support''' Tom is one of the nicest persons that I had the pleasure of interacting with. Not only is he a great editor, but he is also a very understanding person when it comes to issues. Tom, I know that you will make a great administrator and in the furure a terrific historian.
'''Support''' Excellen work at [[WP:MILHIST]], can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' I have no major concerns here, and I dislike this trend I see of expecting brand new admins/candidates to know every admin policy/rule. He's eager to learn and do the right thing, that's what's important at this stage. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' as per comments by Krator, SJP, & Rlevse. --
'''Support'' as per [[Cofraternity of Wikipediams whose <s>Speeling</s> Spelling and/or Typing Suck(s)]] [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' usually I don't support based upon my emotions/feelings towards a candidate, but for Tom, I'll make an exception. Some of the opposes are of concern, but I still support.---'''
Per accumulation of "many shiny things". :-) --
'''Support''' Per Sandy and because of content contributions, which I always like :) <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Most of the opposes seem to be based on either his spelling, or his minor error on a really nasty trick question (17). I can't call either of those a good enough reason for me not to support - everything else looks good to me. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Weak Oppose''' Not everyone is a naturally gifted speller, but spellchecking is out there for a reason.  The candidate seems aware of this apparent shortcoming, and yet three words are misspelled just in the first sentence of the Q3 response.  Overall, I feel like more effort should have been put into this RfA, and I think the candidate lacks experience in some critical areas.  Weak oppose with regrets, candidate seems like a good guy, and if he happens to not get the mop this time, I'll be rooting for him in the future.

'''Oppose''' per answer to #9.
'''Oppose''' User's question responses are almost robotic.  I am weary to promote somebody who won't bring a fresh perspective to the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' - switched from neutral. Insufficient grasp on policy per Q&A.
'''Oppose'''–This was a bit of back-and-forth for me.  Positives: Learning from one's experiences is a biggie for me.  TomStar81 experienced [[WP:OWN]] the hard way, and learned from it.  If an editor can go from pistols at sunset to cordial relations with another editor, that's another big win for me.  '''But''' the candidate states he wants to do vandalism, AfD, and RC patrolling.  I see very little to no activity in these areas in the candidate's contribs, at least going back 3-4 months.  I think a user needs be involved in the tasks he plans to use the tools for before he gets those tools; if only so the user is familiar with the policies and practice of that area.  So, in short, participate in the projects you want to admin and ask again.
'''Oppose''' per Question 13 (you can't ban people). Also, lack of any work in admin areas ([[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:AN/I]]) shows that you don't need the tools.--
Answers show a lack of experience - for one, we don't indefinitely block IP's.
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65)]] has me shaking my head. Maybe it was a joke on your part, or maybe you made the mistake of taking a couple of drive-by "notability" complaints ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65)|see FAC]]) seriously, or maybe you [[WP:POINT|opened a "procedural nomination" to prove them wrong]]. Poor judgment in any case: articles are not marshmallows to dangle over the bonfire. Possible lack of common sense: If you have enough verifiable information to write a bloody FA about something, the question of "notability" is moot (and ideally unasked). Sorry. —
'''Oppose''' Per CharlotteWebb and Daniel.  Nominating an article for deletion to prove its notable enough for Featured Status?  That isn't something an admin does.  Nor does an admin indef block an IP address.
'''Oppose''' Not that an admin has to understand every detail of policy in advance, but some of the responses here,as given by the others in this section, add up to insufficient preparation. '''
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 5, 13, 14, 17, 18. While I understand that knowing policy is only really part of Adminship, I am concerned that his knowledge really isn't up to what we need for admins. Furthermore, real-time spell checkers are available in Firefox and other browsers so you don't make constant spelling errors (most of these are underlined in red for your quick perusal, right click for suggestions of corrections). I am concerned that this will not present a professional image in his rationale for deletions and other situations. A pretty blatant violation of [[WP:POINT]] also has me concerned. I'll admit some of my questions are a bit loaded, but 17b is what really put this one over the edge. [[WP:SIP|This particular IP address belongs to the U.S. Senate]]. Blocking that IP, no matter how correct, needs additional information to be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation. Your lack of knowledge in that area could be a major issue. I am '''not''' saying you shouldn't re-apply. I can easily see myself supporting you in the future, just not yet. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Oppose.''' I do not have a big problem with the spelling issue, but the Q&As and other comments above raise sufficient concerns about understanding of policies and procedures. As others have noted, indef blocks are not appropriate for IPs. The mistake in answering the copyvio question is also telling and removing that portion of the answer first instead of striking it down made it worse. The AfD episode cited by CharlotteWebb raises more questions, and Icewedge brings up more such examples. Overall, I feel that the candidate has  insufficient understanding of the WP policies at this time and is not ready to be an admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', per Q5.
'''Oppose''' per IcĕwedgЁ, your close to the mark its frustrating, if this doesn't go through come back in couple of weeks or a month and ill support
'''Oppose''' The answers to certain of the questions posed by [[User:BQZip01|BQZip01]] are not entirely pleasing or satisfying&mdash;the answer to question seventeen, most poignantly, is, to my mind, problematic, and not really for the reasons sset forth by BQ in his oppose; unless I misread entirely, the candidate is suggesting that semi-protection is appropriate where an article is repeatedly vandalized by a single IP, which would seem entirely contrary to [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection|our protection policy]] and to the fundamental tenets that underlie it, which would, for reasons that I need not to set out, suggest that locking an article to anonymous editing is not to be done where blocking one IP address would (at least apparently) do (I intended to oppose earlier in order that the candidate might alert me to any misunderstanding of his answer [because it is, in my facial analysis, so profoundly flawed, I wondered whether I might have missed something], but I managed to leave this oppose open in a [[Firefox]] [[tabbed browsing|tab]] for several days, and so must apologize to the candidate for failing to express this particular objection before the close of this RfA)&mdash;and they do not allay the concerns that otherwise I might have had.  There is, of course, much to (re)commend the candidate to and for the tools, and I think him, on the whole, to possess the fine sense of judgment, civil demeanor, and deliberative disposition that well equip one for adminship, but I am not convinced that he is sufficiently acquainted with policy and practice as to be able to determine whereof he does not know, and so fear that, even as Tom is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse intentionally the tools, he might avolitionally misuse the tools.  I am unable, then, to conclude with the needed degree of confidence that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose for now''', you're definitely a fantastic editor, but the answer to the IP question and others shows that you are perhaps a little too hasty for my liking.  The correct course of action is to check existing policy to make sure that you're right before answering, by not doing this you've indicated to me that you're possibly a bit too hasty right now.  I encourage you to reapply in a few months, because there's nothing that would stop me supporting you in the future once you get some deeper understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' at this time. You certainly look like a very good editor, but this is a written medium; administrators <u>must</u> have a good command of the written language in order to communicate effectively. Also per some of the policy knowledge concerns expressed above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - This is an experienced, good-natured Wikipedian, but he has not sufficiently demonstrated his intentions for adminship through his edits. --
'''Neutral''' - troubling answers above are offset by numerous good contributions. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Enthusiastic support''' as nom. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Absolutely, I've been waiting for this. Great editor at AfD and I have had good interactions with her in the past. Doesn't lean towards deletion ''too'' much, and has sound policy knowledge and judgement.
'''Support''' Have come across this user several times (although never directly interacting) and been impressed by contributions in AfD.  Looking through all her contributions last night, seemed to be a good user to be trusted with the tools
'''Support''' per excellent responses to my questions. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' per noms (and Kurt). Seems knowledgeable enough.
'''I've-been-waiting-on-this/edit-conflicted support.''' --
'''Support'''- Ive seen this user around lately and must say that she(?) is very civil, cool headed and knowledgeable.  Full support.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''. Great answers to questions, contribs looks solid, I've had a few positive interactions with this editor.No problems here -
'''Support''' All around solid contributor, very good understanding of policies, no reason for concern.
'''Support''' A well-qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. A reliable candidate.
'''Support''' from me and the otters. I've seen this user in AfD a lot, and she really seems to know what she's doing overall.
'''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - Extremely impressive, well rounded. Excellent work at AfD. I see the candidate there regularly, and they seem to have a good understanding of policy. You have my support.
'''Support''' Nice work at AfD. Just remember to ''never delete the main page...'' ;) <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Put some time into answering my questions. <b>
'''Support''' Seems to know policy, and there is no evidence that having the tools would lead to misuse of them.
(By the way this is another editor I was keeping an eye out for, but clearly, my nominating days are over). [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''support''' sane and reasonable contributor, a credit to WP, valuable and constructive work at AfD.
'''Support''', absolutely. I consider both opposes rather poor, and the noms say it all. I have bumped into the user once or twice, and I actually thought she ''was'' an admin.
'''Support''' - Per ''[[WP:WTHN|'WTHN?']]'' <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', seen the user around, wouldn't abuse the tools. '''
Duh.--'''''
'''Support''' the candidate clearly understands Wikipedia policy and appears to have the right demeanor to properly apply it as an administrator. Good luck,
'''Support''' per EJF. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Support'''.  I've seen Cari around, and have been waiting for this RFA.  :) Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' for knowing what a typewriter is. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' I've seen this user around quite often. Travellingcari has helped me a bit in the past and would be a better help to the community with the tools. Cheers. --
'''Support'''.  [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]] <font color="629632">
'''Strong Support''' As per above. <small>- -<nowiki>[</nowiki>
'''Support''' Seems to know policy well enough and seems civil and experienced enough to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''Support''' per my personal interactions with Travellingcari. I found Travellingcari to be polite, willing to discuss points of disagreement, and generally an asset to Wikipedia. I have no doubt Travellingcari will be an even greater benefit to the project as an admin. -
'''Support'''. I'm glad to see this nomination since I don't normally vote in or follow RFAs. I'm happy to support Travellingcari for adminship. I've only come across her work in AfD's (and I don't think we've ever interacted directly), but as a rule have been quite impressed with her comments there. Her answers to the questions above are also quite strong. No hesitations in terms of support&mdash;I'm confident she'll make a fine administrator.--
'''Support''' Very knowledgeable editor. Good experience - Perfect for the mop.
'''Support''' evidence of 'pedia building and some keep votes show a (hopefully) net positive effect. I'd like to see some more article work. Cheers,
'''Support''' -- per both the nominators = ). Good luck! --
'''Support''' For a good answer to my question.
'''Support''' No problems here. -<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I tend to agree with Les Grand in regards to incorrect reasoning on AfDs... the Eve Carson one sort of makes me cringe. ''However'', I find it much more concerning when a candidate is showing evidence of simply not looking into the AfDs at all, not a problem with this candidate. Also, some of the policy surrounding those votes is poorly written and actually causes a lot of community disagreement. I trust nom's assertion that if Cari is shown to be incorrect in an XfD, she won't make a fuss, and think that she'll be fine finding consensus in a neutral way. Other contributions and interactions look good, highly civil.
'''Support''' seen her around, excellent & pleasant editor. i'm a bit concerned by points raised by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles below, too, but I believe Travellingcari has the project's best interests at heart, and she'll be a fair admin when it comes to judging consensus in debates. Support. --
'''Very strong support''' One of our best editors, with an excellent ability to write succinct articles and to find good sourcing even if difficult cases. Good in discussions, understands the situation well, and will be a reasonable admin generally. Much of what she is best at doesn't need the tools, but I am one of those who suggested to her that she apply, because they would help in some of it--the ability to see deleted articles and revisions is a great assistance in dealing with deletion questions.  I think she'll also be very valuable here in dispute resolution, particularly about sourcing--that's the other reason I suggested she apply, because the tools are handy to have in reserve for that. I think she'll use them very judiciously. I'm not happy with everything she says at AfD, and vice versa, and she & I have had a number of discussions about it on my talk page--but I find her flexible, willing to adjust her opinion in accordance with the evidence and the policies. It's the people who don't discuss who are the problems. Being an admin takes the ability to communicate, and she does that very well and willingly.  I see no sign whatever that she'd push her opinion in closing AfDs. '''
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate, will be good with a few extra tools.
'''Support''' Respect the nominations and like the answers to the questions.  Also prejudiced towards those who know what a typewriter is. Cheers! --
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Enthusiastic support'''. (Insert standard text expressing surprise this editor isn't already an admin.) I see her often at AfD, and can always count on her for a thoughtful, policy-driven opinion. I may not always agree with it, because there is often more than one way to interpret policy, but I know the mop will be in excellent hands.--
'''Support''' -- Ready to handle the mop. --
'''Strong Support''', I-thought-she-was-already-an-admin-support.  My interactions with and observations of this user have been without exception positive.  With respect to some of the arguments against, expecting someone who contributes to as many AfDs as Cari to be correct 100% of the time is pretty unrealistic.
'''Support''' - Per Kurt. This editor shows a desire to build a verifiable encyclopedia, but not an indiscriminate collection of information. They have knowledge of policy, guidelines, essays, the acronyms that are used to point them. Their response to questions six and seven show a positive attitude with respect to others. These two AFDS ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Life Ministries|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Pulizzi|2]]) show keeping a cool head, an ability to work with others (especially new users), and the skills to develop material they are unfamiliar with and may not even like. Their ability to coordinate the museums project without it turning into social networking is a strong skill as well. Their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior all appear positive in relation to Wikipedia, and they have a demonstrable need for the tools. -
'''Support''' for this model Wikipedian. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''', no good reason not to.
I trust the candidate. ''
'''Support''' Would like to see more experience in main space (image/portal/category) edits, but this candidate has basic requisites. Didn't know about WP:Museums until this morning. Very cool. I have disagreed with this candidate, laughed about it, and learned something. That's always a good sign.
'''Support''' I don't always agree with her AfD contributions but they are always well argued and she is always willing to discuss issues in good faith.  there is no reason to believe she would abuse the tools. --

'''Support'''. Very good choice. -
'''Support.''' Excellent, responsible editor who will put the admin tools to good use.
'''Support''' Why not? --
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support'''. I've no previous interactions but nominee looks like a good one.
'''Support''' Looks great, I've seen this candidate around. Good luck!
'''Support''' I'd thought I'd already !voted here, but, anyway, ''extremely'' trustworthy nom, ''extremely'' trustworthy candidate.--
'''Support''' I see no problems with the candidate and I think she'll make a great Admin. --
'''Support''' She'll be great. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
DGG doesn't give out endorsements like that to just anyone.  Combined with good articles, good answers to questions, and intelligent and kind discussion?  Happy to '''support'''. --
'''Support'''. Fine editor.
'''Support'''. An expert editor.
'''Support''' She's a good editor, and meets my standards for sysop.  I have no major concerns.
'''Support''' No reason to think she would not do a good job.
'''Support''' Good communication skills, works well with others, and did a wonderful job of improving this [[Baton Rouge Gallery|article]] on a noteworthy gallery when it is currently under discussion at [[WP:AFD]].
'''Support''', seems to be dedicated to article building as well as adminy tasks, which she appears to have good familiarity with.  She also seems very civil and open to communication, both defending her viewpoints rationally and able to admit when she may have been in error.  --
'''Support''' It takes three supports to cancel one Kurt. I counted two so far. <font color="006622">
'''Support'''. Looks like she will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' - a random sampling of talk posts shows this user is a dedicated problem solver.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm uncomfortable with the answers to 7 and 8, but overall I think she'll be trustworthy.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Normally I'd prefer longer experience on the project, but Travellingcari has already shown that she knows what she's doing.
'''Support''' I believe that even though this user doesn't have longer experience on this project, but I believe that this user has shown that she knows the policies well enough.  Cheers,
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Support''' See no problems.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- has solid experience in article building, and she's also not afraid to say that some articles don't belong.  Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keeper76&diff=214027957&oldid=214026930 the nominator is always right.]  --
'''Support''' I don't see anything wrong, and I think she'd make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Candidate is an example excellent of how an administrator should be. Just ignore the troll-ish oppose at no. 1 ;-)
'''Support''' - Seems OK. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; User believes that verifiable existence is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion of an article on a given subject.
'''Oppose''' per weak arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Biesterfeld]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exit Mundi]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of motorcycle clubs (2nd nomination)]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' : She leans more to [[Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia|deleting articles]] . I am not sure whether she will take a neutral opinion while closing AFDs . I personally feel she should concentrate more to article editing before given a mop. I know that edit counts are not any indicative of quality, but I guess she should work more harder to be an admin -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Neutral''' Will make an excellent admin, IMO, with just a little more experience of a greater breadth of WP activity. While I am certain the candidate will not abuse the tools, there is not enough history for me to judge whether they can be trusted with them.
'''Neutral'''. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' per LessHeard vanU.--
'''Support'''.  Per my nomination and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_January_29#Reporting_vandalism_to_basketball_moves_page these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_January_29#I.27m_a_new_user.2C_please_forgive_me diffs] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_January_28#Two_questions where TravisTX helps out new users]. <font  face="georgia">'''
No warning flags.
'''Support''' While mainspace contribs are on the low side, there isn't any real reason to deny him the mop.
'''Support''' - should get the +sysop bit. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - I was a tad concerned about the low mainspace count - well not exactly the total count, but the individual contributions. However, the user has taken a vested interested in learning policy and participating in active ongoing discussions at relevant namespaces such as [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]]. Also, kudos for over a 100 edits to the Help Desk. I like that. You have my support.
'''Support''' This user has all I need in an admin. I'm also glad that Wisdom brought up the Help Desk contributions. This user seems to know policy well enough, and good luck! ''EDIT: The answer to my question was certainly satisfactory, and the mainspace work, although without a high edit count, is of high quality. '''
'''Support''' I am satisfied with the answers to my questions, so thumbs up from me.
'''Support'''ArcAngel. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]].
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Weak Support''' - Issues raised below are not ''quite'' enough to make me oppose, but make me a bit worried. When it comes to admins; [[WP:BITE]] can be a big issue, ''but'' i think your answer to Q#11 deals with that rather well. I would also like to see your answers to the questions be expanded, theres just not a whole lot there to go off of. Overall there are more positives than negatives. Good luck,
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't see why not. He has been here since 2005 (although mainly started in Jan. 07). He also has 100% edit summary usage for both major and minor edits. Would make a great admin, for he has also helped several users. -
[[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. Experienced and helpful.--'''
'''Support''' No problems here. -
'''Support''' User has been here since 2005.No concerns as per track.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' will not abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Support''' - [[User:Bearian/Standards|meets my standards]], neato-keen user pages (''thanks for the userboxen''), nom by Malinaccier, no concerns.
My observations of this user have been positive.
'''Support'''.  The number of edit conflicts on the help desk astounds me... <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support'''
'''Support''', all seems fine here.
'''Support''' - great editor with no history to show that the tools would be abused. <b>
'''Support''' - sound answers to questions. [[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
'''Support''' - Great candidate, good luck! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:BanRay|<font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''Ban'''</font>]]

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Sometimes these things take too long to happen.
'''Support''' A very well qualified candidate
'''Support''', good answers, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Heh, I was saying exactly the same thing as [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] and got an edit conflict for my trouble :). [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support'''. '''''
'''So freaking easy.''' Support, of course. :)
'''Support''' Will make an effective admin.
'''Support''' Looks good! :) <font color="#006600">
'''Support''' Hey, why not!!--
'''Support''', Siva1979 says it all.  :-) [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Mainly per the general consensus, demonstrated on this page, that Travis should get the administrative 'tools'. I'm generally *okay* with the promotion if it were to happen (which as of now, is certain) but I would suggest to Travis (as Jonny points out below) to familiarise yourself with policy first. I would also like to ask him to try and improve his mainspace count (excluding the usual vandal reverts) because writing articles and working with others are some of the most essentials qualities/experiences on this project.
'''Support''', seems like a good editor who can be trusted with the tools and will use them well. I would like to see more article building though. --
--
'''Support''' Travis is a hard working dedicated wikipedian who has a clear understanding of the project.  Good luck! --
'''Support''' [[User:RC-0722#My Dictionary|My metasense ain't tingling]]. '''''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' Not that it makes much difference now. I have been more than impressed by this candidate's attitude and conduct through the course of this RfA, and the answers to the questions from other editors. Good luck with the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Should get the sysop-buttons. —<sup>
Seems like a promising candidate for the future, but right now too little article writing experience for me I'm afraid. --
'''Neutral''' - While I don't think that your getting the tools would harm the project in any way, I can't fully support at this time, primarily based on your answers to questions 11A and B.  What Daniel was trying to get at is that blanking of biographic information may be done to remove potentially libelous information--in the case of blanking by anonymous editors, you may actually be dealing with the subject of the article themselves (see [[WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article]]).  Given that part of your duty as an administrator will be watching out for [[WP:BLP]] violations, I'd just like to ask that you make an effort to familiarize yourself with the policy before getting the tools. --
'''neutral''' - not enough conflict resoluction on article talk pages to engender support.  resolution of conflict is the most important job of admins and one that gets most into trouble.  --
'''Neutral''' - A rather unspectacular RfA, with little showing of interaction with others, especially in Wikipedia (talk) space. Although I wouldn't oppose this candidate, I'm wary of supporting what I can see is a relatively inexperienced user as of yet. But the work that has been done is of fine quality. In a few more months, this suer will be ready, and I will support. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
I was tempted to oppose for your nominator's blatant misuse of "vote"... &mdash;
I was waiting for this one. Good user.
Easy support. I don't know that folks who aren't regular WT:RFA participants will get the !!vote etc. references in the nom, though ;) <sup>
'''Strong support'''.  How could I not?  Like I said to you before, you'll make a great admin.  '''
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Would have like to see more admin-related  edits, but I saw no indication would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' As per nom and the trusted judgement of Acalamari.
'''Strong Support''' Very civil user, I'm certain he'll user the admin tools in a way that is best for the wiki.
'''Support''' Absolutely; seen him around, knows what he's talking about, and trustworthy. --'''
<small>Hell, I need to oppose for not accepting my first nomination</small>, yea
'''Support''' Sure thing. :)
'''Support''' No problems here. '''
Definitely. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
Gah, I had to be offline for most of the day today. Sorry, no co-nom from me, but absolute best of luck, mate.
'''Support''' - No doubt about it, you deserve the tools. '''''Cheers,
'''Vote of support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Good user. <strong>
'''!Oppose'''.  Which, of course, means I support.  And I'll add an ITYWOA.  (pronounced "itty-whoa").  I Thought You Were One Already.
I am, of course, endorsing this candidate's request for adminship. Ultraexactzz, a user whom I've come to admire over numerous XFD discussions, RFA participation, and other undefined namespaces had initially inspired me to ''want'' to coach him. Although inspite of my recent departure, I felt it hugely necessary for me to support this nomination. Bibliomaniac has completed a tremendous effort and his endorsement of this participation, is another strong reason for me to support it. Do I trust Ultra with the tools? Yes, I do. And the many reasons why are all explained in the nomination statement.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' No substantial dispute resolution experience. '''
'''Support''' no problems.
'''Support''' Do not see any problems. Seems trustworthy. Unlikely to abuse administrator tools and other reasons per above.
'''Support''', user's contributions to AfD have been of a consistently good quality.  Good luck!
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' A user who won't abuse the tools. --'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Mop up!
'''Support''' Knows a lot about Wikipedia, and seems like the kind of person who is nice to everyone he meets.
'''Support''' - No real concerns. Should be OK. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. I see good things in the candidate's contribs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:AudacityofHope.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=183213348 knowledge of fine points] of image policy, as far as I am able to discern;  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vpmi&diff=prev&oldid=183253042 knowledge] of speedy-delete policy;  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=183395333 ability to judge] other users from their contribution history. :-) --
'''Support''' - Looks fine here; give em' the mop; [[WP:AGF]].
'''Support''', looks good, opposes rather superficial.
'''Support''' - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. '''''
'''Strong support''' I've seen nothing but good things from this candidate. Good luck with the tools.
'''Support''' A solid candidate whose contributions indicate a '''net positive''' to Wikipedia. The opposers have failed to provide any evidence as to why misuse (let alone abuse) of the tools is likely to occur. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as a very good editor, and I am tempted to support merely for creating [[Allan Berube]].  No issues or concerns that the user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': <B>
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' Can be trusted
'''Oppose''' No substantial dispute resolution experience.
'''Oppose'''  It would be better if this user spent a year or two writing and contributing normal articles.  This would give him/her a wider perspective, and probably make him/her more tolerant.  It is very difficult to understand why someone whose 'normal' use of Wikipedia is so slight would even want admin status.--
'''Oppose'''. The job of the administrators is to support the article writers. Without experience of article writing themselves they can have no idea of what that job actually entails. As they used to say in the British Army, "get your knees brown". --
<s>Ambiguous statements about recall are even worse than firm commitments to recall.[[User:CordeliaHenrietta|CordeliaHenrietta]] ([[User talk:CordeliaHenrietta|talk]]) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</s> Stating clearly his intentions is an improvement, but I can't trust anyone who claims they will volunteer for recall.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDanny_Welbeck&diff=188145998&oldid=188144467 This] AfD comment shows that user did not consider [[WP:BIO]] before !voting as the player actually fails the criteria (as he has not played in a fully-professional league), though Kudos is due for later striking out part of the comment which violated [[WP:CRYSTAL]].
'''Neutral''' A review of the contrib history and count show that the vast majority of edits have been over the last 3 and a bit months, and that most are process orientated. While I have no qualms regarding wiki-gnoming (believing it to be a noble calling) I am not seeing the breadth of editing in article space or in user talkpages; I cannot therefore support at this time. Neither can I see any indication that the user will purposefully misuse the buttons, and the admins providing guidance are top quality. I am therefore neutral.
As nominator.
'''Nom beating ;)''', but Yes. '''
'''Support''' Beat the co-nom. :) Excellent editor.
'''Strong support''' great user, has experience in all places, will make a great admin. Always civil.--
'''Support''', per rationale in my nomination statement.
Has improved a lot since the past RfAs. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' VanTucky is a valuable editor, and will be even more valuable with the admin tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' Knows what they're doing, certainly. Haven't seen this user screw up, which is also a good sign. :-P
'''Happy to support''' since abuse of the tools seems very unlikely. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' - credit to wikipedia! '''
Excellent candidate, excellent nominations, excellent answers. Overall, excellent.
'''Support''' - Nice article work, great editor, good project space contributions, well thought out arguments at [[WP:AFD]]. I recommend using your edit summaries abit more, but that's a minor skin irritation. Net positive.
'''Support''' A quite familiar username, I've seen VanTucky all over the place. Given the multiple civility concerns raised on his last RfA, I've checked his recent history in order to spot any uncivil behavior. Couldn't find any and I congratulate VanTucky for that. Guess you're cleared. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''support''' Excellent example of how to overcome a difficult (and rightfully unsuccessful) RFA#1.  Seen you around, you do great work, (your GA reviews are excellent for example), and you truly are here (both on wiki and in RfA) for the right reasons.  Support without hesitation. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. I could have sworn I saw your last nom pass, but apparently not. '''''
'''<s>Conditional</s> STRONG Support''' I started out supporting him last time he ran, but was eventually persuaded to change my stance because of some civility concerns.  He had a propensity to drop the f-bomb when dealing with people.  I've gone through and looked at quite a few of his edits since his last RfA and can't find any similar situations.  In fact, I've seen a number of edits where I felt like he was restraining himself.  Am giving him my support for now, but may reconsider if somebody shows a '''pattern''' of continued incivility since his last RfA.
'''Support'''. Liked the answer to Q10, like the general contributions.
'''Support.''' I have worked closely with VanTucky both on- and off-wiki. He is dedicated to the success of the project, and has extensive experience in various areas. Where concerns have been raised about his behavior, he has been responsive. A side note people may not be aware of, VanTucky has been an effective ambassador for promoting Wikipedia in the local academic community; see [http://ournewmind.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/encyclopediae-proliferateencyclopediae-proliferate/ here] and also [[WP:ORE/OE|here]]. -
'''Support''' Partly per the honest reposonse to my question. I weakly supported your last RFA, then switching to oppose as I had failed to be thorough enough in my review of your work, and the civility concerns identified troubled me deeply. I'd like you to look at your edit summaries more - sometimes you leave none and other times you appear to leave more info in the summary than in the contribution. But it's minor. There is no question in my mind that you have learnt from your failed RFA, and this is demonstrated by your work subsequently. I strongly believe that this learning curve will continue, and you will not relapse to past ways - you seem to be more "content and happy" in your editing recently (I am hoping you undestrand my meaning in this respect - you seem "calmer"). Your policy knowledge and abilities were never in doubt, in my mind, so with your refreshed approach to working with others I'm convinced that you having admin buttons will be a '''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]]''' to Wikipedia. Good luck, and, as ever, my best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - The answer to Q10 especially blew me away. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' I love the answer to Q10.  Very nice.  Definitely can trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' Generally excellent editor.
'''Support.''' No concerns.  His answers at [[User:Acalamari/Admin_coaching/VanTucky]] seem to be even more cautious than necessary, and they do suggest good knowledge of policy.
'''Support''' - I've seen nothing but good things from this contributor. Always civil, always polite and always dedicated. He is a brilliant contributor to our encyclopaedia who just won't stop giving! He bakes good cookies too! Yum!
'''Yes, of course'''.  (By the way, I nicked your userpage.  You are credited mind.) '''
'''Support''' - I think I supported him in the past, and I think I was right then. I understand others have had concerns, and I don't minimize them, but I think he's done enough to have even those concerns addressed.
'''Support'''. I trust this user. Seen his work on the project and no problems with his edits. 42 was a good answer to Q5A (it had me stumped) and answer to Q10 confirmed my trust.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support'''. Long-term contributor with substantial commitment to building the encyclopedia.
Of course. An excellent content contributor who has diverse experience.
Indeed.
'''Support'''
Of course. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&#151;
I am 100% positive that this editor will make a fantastic administrator, so I fully '''support''' this nomination.
'''Support''' per ''"Brilliant!"'' [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) - After reading through various recent opposes and neutral, and weighing up of overall impression against this incident; '''confirm Support'''
'''Support''' - should have passed last time. Also good answers to my questions. <tt>:P</tt> '''
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. I usually don't declare strong support for a candidate, but VanTucky is exceptional. He's hard working, trustworthy and knows his way around. He'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' Seen him around, looks like a  good guy. '''
'''Support''' - Same as in the last nom, all I have seen of this user has been very constructive. -
Comfortable with the judgement that this editor shows.
'''Support''' again. --
'''Strong Support''' As per Acalamari.I feel the questions raised in the earlier appear to totally overcame after this [[User:Acalamari/Admin coaching/VanTucky|admin coaching]] and user has reacted positively and has been constructive and the contributions have improved since the last RFA.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Would like to see better edit summary usage, <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Just like last time.
'''EC Support''' - I'm not all that concerned about the edit summary usage, VanTucky will be of great benefit to the project as a sysop.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support.''' —
'''Support'''. Edit summary usage is disappointing, but everything else checks out. VanTucky is a very experienced editor who would do a good job as an admin.
'''Support''' Great answers and a great contributor.
'''Support''' - I've had only good experiences with VanTucky. Good luck! <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - User seems to know their way around Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already.
'''Support''' <insert cliche&mdash;yeah, you know which one&mdash;here> ·
'''Support''' Absolutely, and about time. --'''
'''Support''' because... (already said) and because... (also said) and becu(''also'' said) hmmm... ah I know because.... (dang it) well, because he's a good editor that's why. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Appears to be qualified. Also seems to have a good sense of humor. --
'''Support''' Looks good, and answers to questions are very impressive.
'''Strong Support'''.  Really regret my opinion the last time around.  I think VT is a great Wikipedian, great article work, very helpful, some of the best answers to questions I've seen (particulary 7, 10 and 17).  No reservations. --
'''Support'''. I have seen this user on [[WP:GAN]], and I think that he will be a good administrator.
This has to be my latest support ever for a nominee/co-nominee of mine! :) A ''strong support'' from me!
This is one of the tougher RfA decisions this year, simply because VanTucky's last RfA was so darn dramatic. He has, at times, been harsh, has called a spade a spade, has called a troll a troll, and has been called incivil. Perhaps he is. So the question the community must ask itself is "will we tolerate an incivil administrator?" I could rant about how we already have plenty (we do) or about how incivility isn't an issue (it is)...but I won't. What I will say is that VanTucky is "incivil", though his occasional bluntness, to those that can take a hit, or at least, should be able to. He is civil, respectful, and helpful, to new users, and indeed, to anyone who is here to build an encyclopedia. VanTucky is here to build an encyclopedia, and the admin tools will make that easier for him. That's what we should be doing—sysopping people who will use the tools to better the encyclopedia, not to better their rank, or to eliminate those they don't like, or whatever. VanTucky is an encyclopedia builder, and will do this work better as an admin. I trust him. <sup>But...Steven...you promised I could nominate you...:(</sup> ''
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': Great 'pedia builder which more than makes up for other issues. Big net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - solely because you like [[phở]].</sarcasm> Will be a fine administrator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I could tell you that I waited so long to !vote because your last RfA confused me. I could also say it was because of your history of un-civility. I ''could'' also say that it was because of the Oppose !vote down there bringing up some good points. But to tell the truth, I just wanted to be Support #69. Ha ha ha.--
'''Support'''. It's hard to oppose a nomination such as this :) Anyway, great, well-rounded user; we could use more admins like him. '''
'''Support''' - I was surprised he is not already an admin.  A credit to the project.  --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''
'''Strong support''' Excellent. '''
'''Support''' Excellent editor. --
'''Support''', [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky|again]] and strongly so.
'''Support''' - Had some civility issues in the past, but has grown from those and does good work at GA.
'''Support''' Has addressed previous concerns, good answers to questions, should be a good admin.
'''Support''' coolios!! <strong>
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - User is likely to oppose the bias at Wikipedia against anonymous IP editors, and likely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. Furthermore, the user's record and overall views impress me.  Excellent admin candidate.
'''Support''' - This guy is really helpful through IRC for me, and has basically governed WP:GAC helping to bring the backlog down. Will make a really good admin.
'''Support''' -  really good editor who will use the tools wisely. Civility has obviously been an issue but I think VanTucky has genuinely worked on this since the last RFA.--
'''Support.''' Per nom statements by {{user|TimVickers}}, {{user|Acalamari}}, and {{user|AGK}}. {{user|VanTucky}} is a valued contributor and has been for quite some time now, an excellent GA Reviewer, and will do well to have the tools.
'''Support''' An excellent editor who will make good use of the mop.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', GA's FA's no blocks? Seems to meet all my criteria! --

'''Support''' Wonderful work on articles such as [[Domestic sheep]], and my experiences with him have always been positive.  I believe he's well-suited to be an admin, both in skills and temperament.
'''Support'''. Good editor who won't abuse the tools and may contribute even more to Wikipedia with the tools. --
'''Support''' --
'''Yes!''' - I have been waiting for this! While the issues raised in VanTucky's previous RfA really concerned me then, those concerns are no more. I feel that this user has shown great improvement and a willingness to improve upon their mistakes. I actually have found myself going to VanTucky's userpage to search for anything that indicated he was already a admin, and always to my surprise came up empty handed, well after this that will no longer be the case. Net positive all together and will be a great asset to the team.
'''Support''' Great candidate. support like last time ▪◦▪
'''Support''' the mature responses persuaded me.
'''Support'''.  Most definitely.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' involvement in PAW-related articles is proof of VanTucky's insanity but he'll do fine as an admin.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' It's overdue.
'''Support''' absolutely. A great editor, cool under fire - I can't see him abusing the tools. Net benefit to the project. (Answers to Q5A and 19 are pretty good, too.)
'''Strong support.'''
'''Support'''. Good work at GA. Thoughtful answer to Q7, which I recommend people read. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support''' - Good editor, and more civil than he used to be (and I'm probably not the ideal person to be lecturing anyone about civility, in any case). His experience, of course, is more than adequate.
'''Support''' - per questions! Good Editor! Good Luck! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>

'''Very strong support''' How could I oppose? Quite frankly.
'''Support''' Just like last time. And solid answers to those extremely important optional questions :D (which have correctly been removed).
'''Support''' - Given the razor thin margin between support and oppose, I really felt it my duty to weigh in on your behalf to ensure your success. Additionally, I supported you the first time, and I see no reason not to this time through.
'''Support''' Learning from experience is one of the most important characteristics that sysop's need to have, and an example of good [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]]. --
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate deserves pile-on support! -'''
'''Support''' Of course. VanTucky is a ''great'' candidate. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''', as I did last time.
'''Support:''': I believe this editor is worthy of our trust.
'''Support'''.  All I can say is, if VanTucky is suspected of civility issues, then I'm in deep, deep trouble :)  He's one of the nicest reviewers I've met.
'''Support''' the user is a competent long-time wikipedian. See no reason why he should not be given administrator privileges.--
'''$upport''' Solid editor. <b>
I know this looks like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but this guy's legit. --'''''
Support per Hiberniantears.
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' I don't usually even look at RFAs, let alone participate (except my own of course).  There can be no doubt VanTucky is qualified for adminship:  he excels in technical and communication skills, temperament, and attitude.  —
'''Support''' I have admired VanTucky's work on Portland-related articles at [[WP:ORE]], one of the most collaborative and well-run WikiProjects around.
'''Support''', he is not a kitten beater! <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''  Some RfAs are easy to support, and this is one of them. I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. —
'''Support'''.  For every reason stated above, plus one.
'''Support''' well rounded. Very good candidate. <strong>
'''Support''' - will make a fine admin. <b>
'''Support''' - just to pile on. Absolutely no valid reason to think user will abuse tools.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Weak Support''' - No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' – Contribs look good, nothing of concern. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Strong Support''' Well qualified for adminship. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strong Support''' - absolutely. Previous concerns have all been addressed and are well in the past. Give this guy a mop! :) -
'''Support''' - '' '''
'''[[Guinea Pig]]''' -
'''Support''' VanTucky 2 seems to be trustworthy and reliable.
'''Support''' You are a valuable member of the Wikipedia community.
'''Support''' Because I want there to be no doubt why I voted in support. 1. Individual has a good number of edits with a mix of wikispace, talk and mainspace. 2. Individual received 1 block 5 July 2007, no obvious history of vandalism and no recent warnings 3. Individual has been editing on wikipedia since 8 August 2006 in good standing 4. Individual has been active in wikiprojects 5. This is the 2nd time the user has submitted RFA. 6. Individual has been a reviewer on numorous good and/or featured articles 7. Individual has received several awards or recognitions including The Good Article Medal of Merit for their work on wikipedia. 8. Has been coached by Acalamari, Co-nominated by Sysyop's [[User:AGK]], [[User:TimVickers]], [[User:Acalamari]] -->--
'''Sorry I'm late Support''' - VanTucky's first request gave him a fair bit of feedback to think about and address and I think he's done just that. The wide margin here suggests I'm not the only person who thinks so. I think he will make a fine administrator. Just watch out for [[m:Namespace shift|Namespace Shift]]!!!! Your help on GA and FA will remain invaluable... ++
'''Support''' I think this is gonna pass...
'''Support'''. Has addressed earlier concerns. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Strong support'''. Great candidate.
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''.  Haven't had any contact since last time, but if there are so few in opposition, and so many for, I think that says a lot. ——'''
'''Support''' a frequent and knowledgeable reviewer of articles.
'''Support'''.  A reliable editor of good judgment, from what I've seen.--
'''Support''' I know it's a cliche but I thought... --
'''Strong Support''' Will surely use the tools well, contributions are excellent. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;color:white;">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' A very thorough, thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' Any friend of [[Dolly (sheep)|Dolly]] is a friend of mine.
'''Support'''  A good candidate for the mop.  --
'''Support''' - seen VanTucky all over the place. He'll be a great admin! ♥
'''Support''' - He is a great editor and deserves the admin tools -
'''Support''' - <strong>
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, participation in FA process, WP:100. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support.''' I had had second thoughts about this user, especially because I don't believe we think about adminship in the same way, but the nominations by a number of editors whom I respect deeply, as well as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGiovanni_di_Stefano&diff=206793786&oldid=206792738] brilliant application of policy, leave me more than satisfied to support.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''', seems level-headed enough, no indication they'd abuse the tools.  Plus, 155 Wikipedians can't be wrong.
'''Support''' - Good to see civility issues have improved. Definitely ready now. -
'''Support''' - I appreciate his [[WP:GA]] contributions.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/

'''Support''' per the above 150+ supports.
'''Support''' One of the most clueful editors I have ever had the joy of working with.
'''Support''' thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' completely.
'''Support''' I'm confident having seen VanTucky interact with others lately that all concerns from the previous RfA have been taken to heart. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support'''  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Superfluous Support!''', but adding it anyway. Per answers to questions, contributions and other comments, especially those by [[User:Pedro|Pedro]] and [[User:Katr67|Katr67]]. Civility is in my opinion one excellent trait in an admin. The ability to learn from constructive criticism is another. :) --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Adminship is a good thing for VanTucky. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''', has the experience I like to see in admins.
'''Support'''. Among many other things, I really like the fact that VanTucky speaks his mind.
--
'''Support''': I cannot believe I didn't see this before.  I have no reason not to support.  -
'''Support''' If I were writing an article on how to respond for RFA, I'd link to this one.
'''Support''' Eminently mop-worthy
'''Support''' Yes. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Seen around to have confidence in this user, and their insightful answers to questions demonstrance a strong grasp of policy. --
'''Support''' &ndash; most definitely <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Support''' more than capable to help improve the project. '''
'''Strong Support'''. He's not going to abuse tools and make the encyclopedia better.
'''Support''' No sense he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' A pleasure working with him.
'''Support''' - I do not find the opposition convincing enough to sway my opinion of this fine editor. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - I have seen this user around before, and sorry to use a cliche, but I thought he already was an admin! [[user:kennedygr|'''&larr; &kappa;&epsilon;&eta;&eta;&epsilon;&part;&gamma;''']] <sup>([[user_talk:kennedygr|talk]]) (
'''Support''' - Seems to be a reformed, learned individual.  Have trust that he would not abuse their rights.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - Huge asset to Wikipedia, dedicated and experienced. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' - An excellent contributor who I have seen around and am sure will make a good admin. I read through the opposition's concerns and I have decided they do not concern me.
'''Support''' - A wonderful contributor who shows good understanding of Wikipedia Policy and in my opinion would not abuse the Admin Tools.--
'''Support''' - the consensus is already evident but nonetheless - extensive experience in resolving content disputes and dealing with fringe theories on routinely controversial pages in a calm and collaborative manner. Strikes a good balance between involving others in debates and ensuring their points are responded to, while identifying and not feeding the inevitable trolls. An excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy and should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good contributor, enough time has passed since block for sure, points about the AfD's haven't been troublesome enough to hold back a good user. <tt>
'''Support''' Why not? Very friendly, trustworthy, and has a catchy name (the three most important admin qualities).
'''Support''' without worry, has always seemed a good editor. --
'''support'''
'''+Support'''
'''Support''' Per most the stuff that was said above. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' per my esteemed colleagues, above. It's weak, but there are 190-some-odd reasons to support above, and it would be unreasonable to duplicate them here. Candidate is a good editor who would be a net benefit to the project as an admin.
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' due to unnecessarily unpleasant interaction with editor at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 5]] (notice how TenPoundHammer civily persuaded me to change my stance whereas VanTucky just added to wikidrama) and weak arguments expressed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Grey's Anatomy]] (an AfD tainted by participated from banned [[User:Dannycali]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy]] (another AfD tainted by Dannycali's participation), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological List of Playboy Playmates]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination)]] (an AfD tainted by participation from banned [[User:Burntsauce]]), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linwood Elementary School (Kansas)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeti in popular culture]] (an AfD tainted by banned [[User:IPSOS]], [[User:Burntsauce]], and [[User:Eyrian]]), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer (2nd nomination)]].  Thus, a bit too zealous to remove articles that we do not have clear consensus to remove (any examples that were deleted were marred by the participation of sock accounts).  I am also persuaded by fairly widespread concerns at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky#Oppose]] and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:VanTucky block] for revert warring.  As I do not like to say only negtaive things, I did agree with him at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (second nomination)]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per what I said above... we don't need more admins who treat inline citations as if they're decorations, requesting one per paragraph. --
'''Oppose''' Seeing him around occasionally, I'm not convinced the very consistent concerns of many opposers last time (in which I did not participate) over temperament, civility and aggressiveness have been overcome.  No heckling please!
''' Strong oppose'''. Although his user talkpage no longer gives the elitist reasoning he once gave for his choice of editing names, nor the gratuitously cruel and again elitist link to  to what he used to refer to as a " rube" on his user page shows an attitude that all to many administrators have. It is my strong, but humble, opinion that the project would be better off without this.--
'''Oppose''' My experiences with this user have not be positive or encouraging that he suitable to be an admin.
'''Mild oppose.''' As I speak he is blanket-reverting me based on a convention he hasn't read properly. This doesn't bespeak of the kind of thoroughness I like to see in administrators.
'''Oppose''' This is one of those situations where an incident happens to a user ''during'' an RfA that may reflect on how s/he will behave with the tools.  I've seen that happen quite a bit here, lurking at RfA, actually!   First VanTucky (VT) reverts Hesperian (Hesp) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_Mouse&diff=prev&oldid=207518321 here] and leaves a note at Hesp's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hesperian&diff=prev&oldid=207518701 here], misquoting the [[WP:MOS|MoS]], which is an excusable mistake--this is a wiki after all, and many of us have been caught off guard by sudden policy changes.  However, Hesp made him aware that the MoS did not support his edit in  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hesperian&diff=prev&oldid=207519008 this reply] on VT's talk page.  After Hesp explained this to him, he reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goat&diff=prev&oldid=207521932 four] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Rabbit&diff=prev&oldid=207522140 more] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dromedary&diff=prev&oldid=207522295 Hesp's] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat&diff=prev&oldid=207522754 edits], before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=207523231 changing the MoS] to agree with him.  I am not opposing because VT made a mistake--I am opposing because after he was ''told'' he made a mistake, he went on making the same mistake.  When he realized that [[WP:MoS]] did not support his edits, he changed the policy to agree with him!  We have too many admins that do that sort of revisionist history now, I do not think we need another; additionally, I believe his approach to Hesp's oppose here comes off as confrontational. Combine that with the old civility concerns raised at his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/VanTucky|previous RfA]] and what I perceive as an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giovanni_di_Stefano&diff=prev&oldid=206793786 insensitivity] to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_%286th_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=138471396 BLP problem], I must oppose.  Allow me to explain the BLP concerns:  In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giovanni_di_Stefano&diff=prev&oldid=206793786 Stefano diff] he chides others for their lack of "cojones" for voting delete and in the (admittedly old) [[Angela Beesley]] AfD, he suggests that if you do not want to be a public figure, then you should just remove yourself from a position of public scrutiny and "grow the fuck up".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_%286th_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=138471396].  We need admins that are sensitive to the BLP issue--these two diffs show a person who does not consider the affect that these articles have on real life people.  He felt this way in June 2007 and feels similarly now, it seems.  Respecting the subjects of our bios does not include telling other editors to "get cojones" or telling article subjects to "grow the fuck up".  In conclusion, admitting when you made a mistake, being humble and polite about it, and apologizing when one screws up are skills that an admin needs--the recent events here suggests he does not have these skills.  My concerns over his feelings on BLPs and his civility in general is what caused me to watch this RfA; this incident with Hesp just confirms the bad feelings I had about him being an admin.
'''Oppose''' per [[User_talk:Daveh4h|daveh4h]] and his sleuth-like work. I wouldn't want this guy as an administrator.--[[User talk:Endlessdan|Endless]]
'''Strong Oppose''' - This is both the strongest opposition I've felt in a while and among the most regretful.  VanTucky does great things, especially in creating and improving content -- which is what we're here to do.  However, my own observations of VanTucky are enough to make me oppose this nomination.  Far too interested in deleting stuff, even in areas where his commentary is infused with a strong opinion bordering on prejudice, he has a tendency to make comments in such away that others' views and contributions are demeaned.  That, in and of itself, would require me to ''oppose'' this nom. // Having read the other opposes above, I conclude that my observations matched what others had seen or experienced themselves.  None of these problems are major issues, as long as others make the final call.  But, giving this editor the keys (and the trust to use them) entails an unaaceptable risk, as well as creating a civility quagmire.  --
'''Neutral''': Not entirely sure on friendliness, but has definite done quite a bit of work for Wikipedia.--
'''Neutral''' per concerns raised by
'''Neutral'''.  VT's a great editor, but he needs to work on how he responds to people he doesn't agree with. -
'''Neutral'''. While I think that VanTucky as an admin would probably be a net positive for Wikipedia, the image size situation makes me hesitate from outright supporting him. For starters, I'm puzzled why none of the involved parties sought to discuss this first either at the Manual of Style talk page or at the Village Pump. I also think that VanTucky's comments could have been less controntational. On the other hand, he has been overall a great editor, and I feel that he has improved since his last RfA. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Absolutely''' - will use tools well.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. It will be great to have another set of hands at DYK. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strong Support''' - yep!
''' Good luck''' <small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''"I thought he was an admin" support'''
'''Support'''. Was actually looking at him a week ago and wondering why nobody had nominated him yet.
'''Support''' <sup>
'''Strong support''' - I have known you for a long time now, in fact you were one of the first users to welcome me to the project, and my experience of you has been positive. Very good contributer, done a lot of work for WikiProject Schools and plenty of other things, certainly has the experience when it comes to articles. Civil and friendly to users, you have the right attitude and will be a good administrator.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' -- Victuallers is a fine editor. I've enjoyed working on chance collaborations with him in the past. He has helped me to learn how to use the referencing system and has contributed some brilliant clickable pictures. He is always polite and civil, never gets rattled, and has a good sense of humour. He would make an admirable administrator.
'''Support''' - Above people put it right. // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Support''' No reason to believe he will abuse the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' Very helpful and polite user.  A prolific encyclopedist as well.  His DYK nominating work also demonstrates precisely the right way to welcome new users to the project. --
'''Support''' Haven't looked in depth into contribs, the answers to the questions convinced me.--
'''Support''' Seen him make many constructive edits. <font color="1900FF" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  '''
'''Support''' - Without a doubt a very strong and capable editor. Has lots of experience in the many different areas of Wikipedia and will no doubt continue to be a strong contributor.
'''Support''' - brilliant. -- <strong>
'''Support''' As per track.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' looks good, meets my standards, no concerns.

'''Support''' Well rounded, will use tools well. <strong>
'''Support,'''
'''Support'''. I have had positive interacts in the past and see no reason to assume this user will be anything but a great admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Everything checks out here. ''
'''Support''' Plato said that perfection exists in a world that is far away from ours and everything here is only a shadow of that perfect world which cannot be seen by man. Apparently he was wrong.
'''Support'''. ·
'''Support''' - looks good. Will use the tools well. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Well qualified. --'''
'''Support''' Appears to be an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Seems to be a very good choice. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' -
Answers to questions show a rare level of "genuineness" - they're not perfect, they're real. I wish more candidates would show this.
'''Support''' - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:BanRay|<font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''Ban'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Almost forgot to support and I made the nomination!
'''Suppot''' Great work with the DYK's, excellent. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Support''' Per answer to my question. '''
'''
'''Support''' My experiences with this editor have been good. The answers to the questions are satisfactory as is the edit history so I see no reason not to support.--
'''Support: I thought he's already an admin''' (credits to Wizardman lol). Sorry for copying but I DID think that way until I failed to find the userbox stating that he's an admin. Came across this user when he assessed school articles, and he's doing a good job. —
'''Support''': Late pile-on.  I need to check RFA more often for such gems.  —
'''Strong support.''' Victuallers was a contributor I regularly came across when I was inactive ages ago. A fine editor, always civil, and thoroughly deserving of the mop. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' He once helped me out a bit and he seems generally helpful towards others. I've seen him around a bit.
'''Support''' Great contributor.
'''Support''' - Gogo Gadget mop!
'''Support.''' Agree with the noms.  ''Great'' content work!
'''Support.''' - Agree. --
'''I-can't-believe-he-wasn't-already support''' per Wizardman and Yurei.
'''Seems sensible''' - '''''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - quite a high profile and a good one.
'''Support''' Jumping on the [[Bandwagon effect|bandwagon]]. I see no red flags here. Good luck with the tools! '''
'''Support''' No really problems here--
'''Support''' - I thought I voted days ago.  Guess not.  Anyway, excellent editor.  Will make a great admin.  <b>
'''Support''' strong editor with good variety of experience, likely to put the tools to great use.
'''Support''' why not?
'''Support''' - looks cool-headed and trustworthy. Can see no problems. --
'''Beat the nom support''' WBOSITG, I've sen you around. You are a prolific article writer and will make a great admin.
'''Support''', in spite of the longish name. ;>
'''Would-have-beat-the-nom-support''' were my internet not being less reliable than a [[British Leyland]] motor. A brilliant editor whom I've come across on several occasions, and who has come a long way since his first RfA back in January. A Brit too, just in case he wasn't perfect enough. Good luck, as if you'll need it. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - I see this user around a lot.  Absolutely no concerns from here. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' - Wow... what is there to say. I see him everywhere... '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''-- I actually thought this user already was an admin! I see this user around a lot...No worries what so ever. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - This user is a net positive for Wikipedia. I like his humble answers, and I trust that he will not impulsively run into situations without conscientious thought. Also, he has done some nice article/encyclopedic work. I'm sure there are a few mistakes at [[WP:CSD]], but I'm not interested in a few diffs creating pile ons. Good luck!
'''Support''' I really thought he was an admin already. See WBOSITG all the time, and I have no concerns. '''

In before the nom '''Support''' - WBOSITG has learned a lot since his previous RfA and I trust that he would not abuse the tools. Plus, I respect the judgement of his co-nominators. I completely agree with Wisdom89’s statement. Best of luck! —
I buried my secrets in the '''Support'''. ;-) <font color="blue">'' '''
Sound chap.
'''Support'''. Sure. Interactions seem good, no problems I see. --
'''Weak support'''.  I like that the candidate has contributed to good articles and featured lists; however, I am somewhat dismayed by the participation in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimension X (TMNT)]], i.e. lack of a rationale or argument, just a stance.  Nevertheless, other AfDs I've seen the candidate in have been relatively spot on, so I'll go in the support camp.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''Totally!--
Aww, come on, why didn't you let me nom? This is an excellent candidate with whom I have had many positive experiences. He'll definitely make good use of the admin tools (unlike me, who barely uses them anymore...)
'''Support''' -- lots of great contributions.  Two caveats though: I wish the answer to the Billy Lee Turner speedy had not invoked '''no''' indication of notability (Prof. Emeritus w/ 60 graduate students might be taken as one), but the Google search before tagging tells me the user will use the tools well.  Also wish there was more article writing to back up the great editing: the Good Article that the nominator says WBOSITG wrote, [[Aberdeen Grammar School]], seems to have had hundreds of edits and most of its current prose before WBOSITG found further references and cleaned up to GA.  A confusion between the process of "writing" articles and editing them for WP MoS etc., should not exist among administrators, (but I think this might just be a bad choice of phrasing on the nom's part).  --
'''Support''' per nom. Involvement in GA and FA shows article building expereicne. I reviewed the opposes of Gwynand and Naeri. 4 of the 5 examples cited by Naerii resulted in deletions, so I can't fault WBOSITG's judgement on that score. The one, already cited by Gwynard is from March. Going back, I found other non-problem AfD nominations for April as well as CSD notices about red linked articles. That tells me he is communicating with the article creators and that admins had found his CSD nominations acceptable. (I would like to see more noticing of article creators, but that's my personal opinion.) So while WBOSITG is not always on the mark, I believe he has sufficient knowledge and experience to use the tools.
'''Support''' - User is to be applauded for taking articles to AfD if they are uncertain of notability - I'd oppose if they were tagging them for speedy deletion, but I see no real evidence they would be deleting stuff that shouldn't be deleted if they were promoted.
'''Support''' - The opposes are about problems in XfDs - nominating the wrong ones. This, to be fair, doesn't really worry me so much, as that is exactly what XfD is for - sorting out what needs to be deleted. Just because someone made what has been considered an incorrect judgment does not make them unfit for adminship. We are all human. Support is mainly based on [[WP:WTHN]]. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
Another watchlisted redlink. I've seen Joe around, and I think he'd help the project as a sysop. Also, must support per the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS CABAL. W00t! <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' No worries here. Clear and cool-headed, and commitment to walking before running is commendable. --
'''Weak support'''. Seen this editor around and there won't be any problems. The only reason my support is weak is the answer to 4.1 -- article claims he was a full professor at a major institution, so A7 wouldn't apply, IMHO.--
''
'''Support''' Met him a couple of times reporting vandals. I have complete confidence that the tools will be in good hands. His civility is a clincher for me.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' I've gone over the contribs (and the opposes made) for a while, and still can't think of a dominant reason not to support. Mostly trustworthy. --
'''Support''' Diverse experience, dedicated, willing to learn, wants to help, and I see no evidence that he will abuse the tools.  Yes! <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support'''. This user is ''everywhere'', good answers to questions, widespread activity. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' - good contributions and shows a willingness to learn. Will use the tools properly and with due caution. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  As nominator.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I believe WBOSITG is highly qualified and has grown considerably since their last RFA (hate it that I wasn't aware of it last time around).  The opposer comments have not managed to convince me that any glaring problems will exist if WBOSITG got a hold of the tools.
'''Support'''. The points brought up by the opposers are a little disconcerting, but they are very minor and everybody makes mistakes. Making WBOSITG an admin would definitely be a net positive. He's a very active editor, has lots of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, and communicates with others; he's also very civil. He also has more edits than me (but I'm catching up). What more could I ask for in a candidate?
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - will make a great admin, but I have to admit, I didn't recognize the name until I saw the signature. <b>
'''Support''' Have not directly interacted with user, but have seen him around and have seen good contribs from him. '''''
'''<s>Weak</s> Support'''  This candidate's answer to Q.1 strikes me as a cause for concern.  To me, that says that we have a timid candidate on our hands.  I'd rather see someone who is a bit more eager to jump in and take part.  However, I can understand the answer, after reviewing the rationale again.  WS for now, but I may change to a full S after further thought.  *EDIT* Changed to full support on 5/12/08.   --
'''Support''' Good nom and great edit history.  I've seen this user around a few times and have no worries about his ability to justly use the admin buttons. --
'''Support''' per life(everything). <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, agree with Useight about the opposes.
'''Support'''. Seeing that I have not had much actual experience with this editor, I did a little bit of digging into his history and wasn't able to find anything that really concerns me that much. I note the arguments of the oppose side below and do not find them persuasive enough not to support, although I do hope that the candidate will take them into consideration and be a little bit more conscientious about handling deletion in the future. But that aside, I see no reason to think that he will abuse the tools intentionally or unintentionally.
'''Support''' per question 4.  I dont think you will abuse, and your keen eye caught that copyvio.  Good job!  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Strong Support''' - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Strong Support'''-Would not abuse the tools. <font color="red" face="Papyrus">
'''Support''' No reason for concern.
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' - Admin-Coached = Pass. J/k. He has obviously done his homework on his questions and seems to have a good understanding. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''«'''
'''Support''' Obviously well-rounded editor, and approaching the tools with care, rather than zeal.
'''Support'''. Changed from neutral. I feel WBOSITG can and has learned from any minor concerns raised in this RfA. So I've buried my neutral in the garden.
'''Support''', default vote per AGF. --
'''Support''' Have seen him/her around, and liked what I saw. Love the editing - hate the name! But never mind; good admin material. --<font color="Red">
I oppose the admin coaching, per Kurt. Also, your answer to question 5 is somewhat off the mark (minor though): "''Firstly, I would semi-protect the article for a period of two week, to prevent any short-term vandalism.''" The question mentioned "two or three" vandals; revert, warn, and block if necessary, no protection needed. "''Secondly, I would warn and/or block the IPs for a suitable period of time (perhaps a week).''" On the mark... nearly. Block for a week only if they've been blocked at least once (I myself prefer a 72 hour block as #2, though, and a week-long one for third block). Also, per Anthony right above. ·
'''Support'''.  Read stuff first, ask questions first.  Go slow. It's much easier to ''not'' be the header of an [[WP:ANI|ANI post]] than to have to defend your actions.  Go slow.  You have my support.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - A well qualified user who has made us proud. --
'''Support''' Had good interactions with WBOSITG.
'''Support''' The points brought up in the oppose rationales don't give me a substantial pause for concern (though I would advise you to take it ''slow'' with the delete button, looking at some of the diffs). I've seen you working hard in many places, and you've done a fine job of maintaining your cool in discussion. Definitely a net positive.
You have my full '''support''' on this RfA! <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&#151;
'''Support''' per [[common sense|my requirements for adminship]]. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''. I've considered this carefully- I read through everything and pinged WBOSITG on IRC. Though I don't like admin coaching and think he has some things left to learn, my interactions with WBOSITG have been very good, his answers to the questions are fine, and, most importantly, he has a really great username.
'''Support''' Great interactions with this user. <strong>
a gentle support despite the poor taste username.  I hope the candidate reads what other have said about going slow.
''' Strong Support ''' In all of my experiences with this user, he as always been civil, and in general always shown that he can handle responsibility and I would more than trust him with the tools that Sysops are given.  Good Luck with you RFA!--
'''Support''' - I knew he wasn't an admin yet, but I never understood how that's possible. <font face=jokerman>[[User:IMatthew/Admin coaching|<font color=purple>'''King'''</font>]] [[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks okay to me. I'm glad that the candidate plans to take things slow at first, but I'm confident he'll make a fine admin. :)
'''Support''' Knows policy, and if takes it a just a bit slower, should make a fine admin. Overall, seems unlikely to bury bodies in a garden. --
'''Support'''. Yes, I do think so. Best of luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' You have been taught well and learnt from your mistakes from the first time. Good luck '''''
'''Support''' Per others above, take it slow and don't be afaraid to ask. If in doubt, '''do not''' hit delete. However on balance I find your contributions lead me to believe you will help far more than hinder - thus being a net positive to the project with admin tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
My favorite username of all time.
'''Support''' - Great candidate. Seen him around a lot, doing lots of useful and constructive work. Will make a brilliant admin. Good sense of humour too. AND my the holder of my favourite signature at the moment. ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I definitely trust WBOSITG. You can learn some of the ropes as you go, like we all did. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Support''' Helpful, resourceful, polite. I thought you were one already! '''''<font color="green">
'''Strong support''' - This guy would make a wonderful addition to our admin ranks. He is civil and able, and totally dedicated to this project. I have absolutely no reservations about giving this guy the tools. He'll use them wisely, fairly and with the project in mind. Good luck, my friend!
'''Support -''' latest interaction while cleaning up vandalism was fantastic. No reason at all not to <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;background:white;">&mdash;
'''Support''' - Wah, hes not already one! Brilliant guy.
Natürlich. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' - Seen him around loads (who can miss that appalling neat-table-breaking full-version user-name?). Mature, sensible, polite editor: I trust him with the tools. --
'''Support''' a good candidate who will not abuse the trust of the community. I've noticed some concern over the answers to the questions, and would advise the candidate to tread lightly until he has a handle on the ins and outs of adminship. New admin school will help - but, as the candidate is already probably smarter than I am, I have no qualms about granting the bit. Best of luck,
'''Support'''- you've helped so many people. I agree with everyone else, too:) [[User:Lunakeet|Lu]][[User talk:Lunakeet|na]][[Special:Contributions/Lunakeet|ke]]
'''Support''' At first I find your signature somewhat confusing, but after seeing your contributions I have no reason to oppose you.
'''Support''' I thought you already were one, so I was surprised to see your name here. No real concerns with WBOSITG, should be an asset to the project.
'''110% Support''' One of the best editors I have come across personally, I think he would make a great Admin. He deserves it, he is an alright bloke to have as one, again support.
I buried my '''support''' in a list of other support statements.  By the way, I reviewed the admin coaching, and I don't see anything wrong with how it was done.  I think WBOSITG had good answers to the questions and has an understanding of policy, so I don't see reason for concern.  On the other hand, if WBOSITG had had a number of sub-par or completely wrong answers and had to be continually corrected with "correct" answers to the questions, then I'd think the coaching was just being done to make it possible to pass an RFA.  Not the case here.  --
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools. I'm a little concerned with the answer to Q5 (I think a week is way too long for an IP block, unless there is a history of previous blocks, or it's an IP address from a school or other educational institution), but no other issues. '''
'''Support''' I have had some interactions with this editor on IRC, and they, as I am typing, helped a wikipedia editor. A '''Norwegian''' wikipedia user. I'm amazed at this. [[User:Mm40|Mm40]]|[[User talk:Mm40|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around a lot recently, net positive, will make an excellent admin. Although... exactly ''what'' secrets are buried in this metaphysical garden? :-P, only joking! <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
'''Support''' Seen a lot of good things at AIV, and appears to have learnt from the previous RfA. No concerns with handing over the keys to the mop cupboard.
''''Support''' A well rounded editor, well capable of using the tools in the correct and prescribed manner.--
'''Strong Support''' An asset to wikipedia. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' — I have noticed this editor around and I like what he does.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' I cannot say enough about this user. Excellent user, wish I could have co-nommed.
'''Support''' Sorry this took so long. RL got in the way... <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' I'm happy to support you this time.
'''Support''' Yes. I've seen the editor all over the place, and abuse of the tools is highly unlikely. Bring on [[WP:100]]!
'''Support''' Will be fine as an admin, as long as the amount of support he's gained here doesn't lead to overconfidence. He will certainly need to attend the new administrator school and take things slowly first, as there are apparent gaps in his knowledge.
'''Support''' Active and trustworthy, will do well I'm sure. And because someone has to be #99...
'''Support''' [[WP:100]]. Comfortable that user's judgment has been, and will be, exercised properly in the best interests of the project and is worthy of community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B]] --
'''Support'''. I have a few concerns, but I don't believe any are substantial enough to warrant my opposing. I feel WBOSITG is fairly competent and trustworthy, and although I predict a bit of a shaky start into adminship, I feel as though he's pretty much there; that he'll "learn on the job", is my hope. I also share Xenocidic of support no. 2's thoughts. :) Best of luck,
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support.''' We want you on that wall. We need you on that wall.
'''Support.''' Trustworthy.
'''Support''', a good user overall, will make good use of the admin tools. --
'''Support''', per {{user|Malinaccier}}, {{user|Wizardman}}, and {{user|Dihydrogen Monoxide}}.
Good user: no problems here.
'''Support''' per answers to questions, good history, and in particular having been impressed by the user's contributions and conduct in the past. Hadn't got around to supporting before as the outcome looks so certain, but after reading comments in the oppose section I decided to express my appreciation for a young editor who shows a commendable level of maturity.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Everything said already. Just can't believe I missed this RfA
'''Support'''- The answer to question seven leaves me slightly concerned, however everything else looks fine, and I've had good interactions with this user. Probably pointless me !voting, but meh. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Support'''- The fact that I'm no. 113 in this list is prima facie evidence of...oh, forget it. I've got no doubts WBOSITG will use the tools wisely. <sub>[[User:The public face of Gb|The public face of]]
'''Weak support''' - Concerns noted from opposition, but I've made mistakes, and lots of them.  I do not see clear evidence of probable future ''abuse'' of the tools.  Good editor, meets my standards.
'''Oppose'''. I've spent the last 30 minutes or so reviewing your Wikipedia space edits and I have to say I have a lot of concerns, considering that you show interest in CSD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_Is_the_Life_%28Amy_Macdonald_song%29 this] nom isn't really bad, but their is only 3 words in your reason for nomination. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Durgin_Park This] afd nom also doesn't show much research on your part to check notability, or if you did, then an incorrect interpetation of notability. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanz_TV&diff=prev&oldid=209951684 Here] I agree with the nominator that this is not a great speedy candidate, although you claim that is the place for it. Not sure why you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=208380939 this]. I don't want to make this a massive diff fest, but I'll just say that I have major concerns with your XfD participation in general and wouldn't feel comfortable giving you the admin tools, despite your good contribs.
Per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is the Life (Amy Macdonald song)|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durgin Park|2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grayshot|3]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Moller|4]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Curto|5]] and probably more (I only went back around 600 contributions). None of them have any proper rationale or any evidence of trying and failing to verify notability, whether it be through Google or otherwise. I'd like to see at least a cursory effort at researching and presenting a justified reason for deleting. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Admin coaching is a sign of power-hunger on a level with self-nomination.
Sorry guys and with due respect to the nominators and supporters but I just can't support this after looking at those empty AfDs. I don't feel at all comfortable giving this user the delete button yet.
'''Oppose''', quite young, doubts as to priorities.

looking at the concerns raised by others, then looking into them myself I agree that there is reason to be cautious with giving this editor the mop.
'''Oppose''', I don't think this user is ready.  I agree with Gnangarra.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Per answer to Q#7, I would '''not''' have protected the article in this case as it clearly goes against what wikipedia is all about "The free encyclopedia, ''anyone can edit''". Full protection should be used sparingly and ''only'' when blocking is not a option. I would have warned the users who are participating in the discussion that if they continue to edit war they will be blocked, block the users who violated 3RR and block the other's for [[WP:EDITWAR]] which does not require the 3 revert rule to be broken. I ultimately feel that admins should be chosen for their good decision making skills, and feel that the answer to that question did not demonstrate that to me. Also per WillOakland (sorry dude).
Too mechanistic a view on edit warring: an arbitrary four reverts isn't the prohibited behavior, hostile editing is. Also, page protection in response to edit warring only exacerbates the previous problem, the lack of discussion which led to the initial edit war; as well as preventing constructive users from participating in improving the article in question. I suggest you read [[User:Heimstern/Editwarring]] and [[User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts]] for ideas on how to combat such behavior without undermining our "anybody can edit" ethos.
I only vote in favor when the editor has at least one year editing on the project.
'''Neutral''' per [[user:Naerii|Naerii]], above. Otherwise a good editor. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Neutral''' per [[user:Naerii|Naerii]], clearly helpful but AfD issues are a worry. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' Although this is a good editor with excellent contributions in some areas, there are things which concern me.
Beat the nom Support. ~<strong>'''''the''
Nom beating too. Most encounters with Wehwalt have been rather pleasant. '''
'''Support''' - From my personal experience with Wehwalt, who I've worked with extensively on the Holloway article, I have no doubts that he will make an effective admin. Out of his 14,000+ edits over the last 2.5/3 years, a little more than 10,000 of them are within Mainspace (70%). With a mainspace-heavy edit count, Wehwalt's contributions still show plenty of work on article, user, and Wikipedia talk pages (~20% of his edits). Effective communication and the accurate application of policy (most importantly with respect to content) are two key factors in the role of a good admin. Wehwalt's contributions indicate he doesn't have a problem with either, and granting him adminship would certainly benefit the project. -
'''Support''' Although I haven't run into him here on Wikipedia, I can still tell that he's very committed to preserving Wikipedia and will use the tools wisely. So yes.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support''' One of the most rational editors I've encountered.
'''Support''' per encounters with the user at [[WP:TFAR]]. &ndash;
'''Support''' We need more admins who have the skills to take complex articles to the highest levels of quality.  Everything else is mostly trivial and can be learned.  Editor has been exceptional every place I've seen him too. --
'''switched to strong<s>Support</s> per [[User:AuburnPilot]]''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#.22standards.22_chart|Wehwalt has been editing about a month longer than I have, and has over 14,000 edits. Has been working on three FA's. (readily meets my standards)]] In reviewing [[Talk:Natalee_Holloway]], I see a knowledgeable and reasonable editor who seeks consensus and works well with others in a sometimes contentious environment. I discount the "no need for the tools" argument-- user is unlikely to rush in and do something ill advised with the buttons.  Blowing a fuse as mentioned in [[User:either way]]'s neutral looks like an aberration. Even so, it was pretty much on the mark and at worst was overly frank, rather than incivil. In the context of the conversation, it was not as inappropriate as it would have been had the anon been less bellicose. It does not diminish my confidence in view of all the other edits. '''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Not likely to abuse/misuse the tools and a net positive.]]'''
'''Support'''. Upon further review and thought, such a comment is really inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Per Dlohcierekim, I think the candidate soars well above the net positive. Best of luck! <font color="777777">
I have interacted with him lots at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests]].  –'''
as nominator behind the beaters!
Sure, seems fine. If the only thing dug up so far is one snappish remark to an IP, this candidate's a net positive.
'''Support''' Absolutely. <font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. I have never seen this user's name before but the contributions look fine to me. The only concerning thing is the diff provided by {{ul|either way}} in his neutral !vote but I haven't found any other comments of this kind. I think, also based on Q1, that he will be a wise admin that does not run guns drawn into things he does not understand and I am sure he will handle the tools responsibly. And as the nominator out it, there is no reason to deny him those just because he does not wish to focus on admin work. Every active responsible editor in good standing with the tools is a net gain for the project, even if he or she does only use them once a week. Regards '''
'''Support''' Definitely has a clue. His FAC work shows patience and responsiveness.
'''Support''' – Yes, another long-winded comment.  Reviewing the candidates’ talk page – oppose opinion expressed, along with the neutral view, and taking into account [[User: Wehwalt| Wehwalt]] contributions I can only come down on the support side.  From my perspective the answer to question 7 shows an individual that has grown into a fine editor and who will make a wonderful [[WP:Administrator|Adminitrator]],  fair and balanced.  Regarding the Neutral opinion, I understand the point [[User:Either way| Either way]] is trying to make.  However, two slightly, and I emphasis slightly, bite remarks can be chalked-up to a frustrating situation and remember 2 out of 14,000 edits is a damn good track record.  Finally, the Oppose opinion actually pushed me to contribute to this discussion in the support column.  Where [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]] points to the candidates’ expressing the viewpoint that he does not need the tools or may not even want the extra buttons.  When we think about it, there are very view individuals on [[Wikipedia]] who actually need the tools. However, I am inclined to give the tools to an individual who expresses reluctance in wanting the tools.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I am not doing any “wrong queue” jokes today, because I want to offer my serious support on two levels. First, the candidate has done extraordinary work that is deserving of commendation – that is a given. Second, concern is being raised over the isolated comments made by the candidate that, admittedly, were not framed correctly. This should not be a cause for disqualification. People will, on occasion, say the wrong thing. But that is why the words “sorry” and “apologize” are part of the vocabulary. On a few too many RfA occasions, I’ve seen highly qualified candidates whacked because isolated incidents of poorly-considered opinions and badly-phrased comments were taken out of context and magnified inappropriately in an effort to obscure a larger body of positive work. I sincerely hope this is not going to be the case here.
'''Support'''. Editor has strong contribution history and I sense a sufficient amount of clueful editing that, overall, respects and advances the goals of the project. I found the answer to Q4 to be a responsible and practical initial course of action for uninvolved adminstrative action in a contentious arena. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Wehwalt has a strong grasp of policy and a history of working with other editors.  He put in a lot of effort at [[WP:TFA/R]] to help define what the process ought to look like.  I'm satisfied that he has a lot of clue and will not abuse the community's trust.
Fine content contributions, no bullshit attitude, can interact politely and constructively with others, knows their way around the encyclopaedia at this point. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' Having read the candidate's answers to questions and the opposes below, I am going to tentatively support the candidate. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time when it comes to [[WP:CIVIL]]. I hope the candidate has learned his lesson there and will be a little more mindful of it in the future.
'''Support''' per Trusilver --[[User:Irmela|<b><font color="#F77FBE">Ir</font></b>]][[User talk:Irmela|<b><font color="#F77FBE">me</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Irmela|<b><font color="#F77FBE">l</font></b>]]
Great user. &mdash;'''
'''Support''', the mildly uncivil (incivil? noncivil?) comments aren't Wehwalt's finest hour but they look like isolated incidents in a long editing history, and aren't ''that'' bad in any case. Still, I'd urge Wehwalt to take the civility comments in this RfA on board. Other than that, a good content editor on controversial topics, with a good grasp of Wikipedia's core policies. Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' - has shown excellent judgment in applying policy to various disputes, in addition to being a solid contributor.
'''Support''' - No reason not to. AuburnPilot (Roll Tide) makes an exceptional point about nit-picking.
Enthusastic '''Support'''. Have been impressed with what I've seen. <font color="green">
'''Strong support''' - I might've missed something, but judging by the candidate's contributions and answers to the questions, he will make a great admin, experienced and knowledgeable in the important processes. His course of action in certain answers differs from what I'd do, but still shows that his knowledge clearly comes from dealing with real articles and real users, as opposed to artificial knowledge gained solely from process participation. --
'''Support'''. We need more people willing to say what needs to be said and less self-proclaimed Civility Police.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Strong Support''' - What ever happened to net positive and no big deal? Isolated incivility <s>almost three months ago</s> is not enough to make me oppose, but if you becomes an admin, I suggest you take an extra healthy look at [[WP:CIVIL]]. No one is a perfectly civil robot.
Did we run out of sysop bits? Are admins really expected to be perfect? Wehwalt's positive contributions to the project are clear to see, but you have to get out a magnifying glass and squint real hard to see anything negative here. The comments in the discussion section are all too true, unfortunately.
'''Support''' With a few minor reservations based on either way's comment in the neutral, but they aren't nearly sufficient enough for me to even go neutral, as I see a pretty good contributor up for adminship today. A few ill-adviced words shouldn't damn anyone's RfA candidacy outright.
'''Support''' See no pressing concerns.
'''Support.''' Opposers, while acting in good faith, are IMO stretching it a bit. The canididate will be a net positive.
'''Support.''' per RyanGerbil10 --
'''Support.''' Sensible editor, see no serious concerns.
'''Support'''
--''
- <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. The opposes below are silly, typical of the normal hostility shown on RfAs towards encyclopedia builders. This good editor has done more than enough to show he can be trusted by the extra buttons.
'''Support''' I decided to look over this RFA as it's a close one. I've considered the opposes below and completely agree with Deacon directly above me that they are completely silly and I believe they are unduly nitpicking.
'''
'''Support''' I've worked with this editor a long time, and he shows sound judgment. Neither of the diffs below bother me strongly ... snapping back at an editor that is chewing on you isn't the best of behaviour, but even when he did it, he focused on the quality of the edit, not the characteristics of the editor.&mdash;
'''Support''' a good article builder, and [[User:Kww|Kww]] said what I would about one minor lapse. We've all been there. Nothing indicates to me that the tools will be misused. --
Unlikely to abuse the tools (nor to use them often enough for a moderate error rate to amount a serious problem, but that's another matter). —
Course!
'''Weak support''' per Julian and AuburnPilot. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''': Any experienced editor who understands that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wehwalt&diff=prev&oldid=254250192 a tool like this] is not an inexperienced noob, but a jaded editor hiding behind an IP for the sake of causing disruption has my trust.
'''Support''' per [[User:Pascal.Tesson]], - 10+ edits per page is an impressive contribution for an editor with 14k edits...must know somethin'....
'''Support''': I think this is a responsible editor in which I would be comfortable entrusting the privileges of an administrator.
'''Support''' - I feel that the Wehwalt having the tools is a net positive for the project and the remark to the IP does not concern me at all. -'''
'''Support''' '''
Angus McLellan and auburnpilot have unpacked this quite nicely. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
Incivility concerns are outweighed by the candidate's positive contributions.
'''Support''' - I like your answer to Q9. For Q8, your call should be to let another sysop handle the unblock request. Also, I like the fact that you are prepared to be tough on vandals! I'm not really concerned by the civility issues brought up in this RfA. I've seen and encountered sysops with severe civility problems and in some cases, downright attitude problems during my time here. As far as I can see, you have a nice, tough and hard working attitude! Good luck :-) '''
'''Support'''. No problems here. "Incivility" accusations are being blown WAY out of proportion.
'''Support''' - good editor. With regards to the opposition, it's a poor argument when you have to rest upon one diff.
As long as that diff never, ever happens again.
'''Support''' - I'm as big on civility as anyone, but that's about as minor a deviation from civility as could be imagined and I imagine the editor has taken the point. Good luck if you're successful.
'''Support''' - I have worked with this editor (my role was minor) over time on one of his FAs (an extremely difficult one to write, one of the best I have seen on Wikipedia) and I have noticed his behavior since.  Not only is he an exceptional article writer, he is extremely patient and easy to work with on difficult topics. I have never seen anything close to incivility in his responses, even in some irritating situations. Whatever evidence to the contrary is a very unusual exception.  No doubts in my mind at all about his judgment nor his ability to communicate well and constructively with others. &mdash;
'''Support''' Opposition isn't convincing, good answer to questions 11-13. Per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' will make a great sysop, I am sure. ''
'''Support''' Seems very good. The minor incivility discussed below does not bother me. --
'''Support''' One violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] in two thousand talkspace edits? That's amazing! [[User:Fahadsadah|~-F.S-~]]([[User_Talk:Fahadsadah|Talk]],[[Special:Contributions/Fahadsadah|Contribs]],
'''Support''' due to barnstars and good/featured article credits on candidate's userpage (shows that others have appreciated the candidates efforts and that candidate has contributed constructively to our project), as candidate has never been blocked, and due to no memorable negative interactions in any discussions we both participated in.  Best, --
'''Support''', good editor, solid article contribs, shown ability and intelligence in collaborating on high level and sometimes divisive articles.  He has opinions (gasp!) AND (double gasp!) has the audacity to stand by them?  Heaven forbid we have admins with spines.  Admins are janitors and hall monitors, not doormats.
'''Support'''. Overall, very fine contributions. Wehwalt has a good appreciation of policies and guidelines.
'''Support'''. Wehwalt is an excellent contributor and I would trust him with the tools. His remarks, whilst unfortunate, should not disbar his candidacy; admins are humans too.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', great content contributor, good answers to questions, intelligent and dedicated; will make a good admin.
'''Support''': The comment on the IP's grammar might have been a bit over the line, but I believe he will learn from the experience, and he has demonstrated civility in contentious areas.  I see no reason to believe he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Great editor overall. The comment on the IP's grammer was a bit much, but if every admin had to be perfect, I doubt we would have too many of them.
'''Support''' - changed from neutral, apologies to Wehwalt for taking so long about it. Having taken a look at Wehwalt's contributions, he generally seems like a helpful and well-intentioned editor; he's an excellent content contributor, knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies, and not bad at dealing with disputes. The worst that can be said of him is that he's occasionally a bit sarcastic, but I see no evidence of real incivility, bar the single edit linked in the Neutral section below. Thankfully, we don't require administrator candidates to be perfect - just unlikely to abuse the tools. In Wehwalt's case, that seems very unlikely, especially given his answer to question 1 (that he doesn't intend to use the tools much anyway); therefore, in light of my comments above (that RFA assessors should default to support, in the absence of a reason not to), I am happy to support.
'''Support''' per everything above, especially in the discussion section.  Very happy to have another congenial lawyer on board. - Dan
'''Support'''. (After two edit conflicts!) Though Wehwalt could have chosen better wording, one slip up is not enough for opposing; with that logic, there would rarely be any passing RfAs. His overall contributions and talk history show no signs of a net negative.
'''Support''' - One slip-up is not enough for me to vote against a candidate who meets all the other qualifications for adminship. I fully support Wehalt. --
'''Support''' we can but strive for perfection
'''Support''' - Yep!
<b>VERY STRONG Support</b> I don't feel scared having this user utilize administrative tools. He looks like an admin to me. and hope he will work hard with Wikipedia. Best Regards!<font size="+1"><font face="Vivaldi"><font color="red">'''''
Long standing contributor with clean block log. I trust this user with the tools. Good luck. :) — <span style="font-family:verdana;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold">
'''Weak Support''' - user doesn't want to customize his siggy :). Seriously though, I think your a good editor for the admin task that you want to fill and willing to learn from others and your own mistakes. However, I think that you should try more to control your temperament since you'll encounter more hostile and annoying editors in your term as an admin.--
'''Support'''. Excellent editor; seems level-headed and responsible. <font color="green">
'''Support''' &ndash; Seems like a fine candidate to me who has done quite a lot for Wikipedia. Could do more as an administrator. The opposes don't concern me. &ndash;
'''Support''' Can't justify opposing, default to support.
'''Support''' Longterm active user with no bocks and much bling; In my estimation, the Opposes and you being a lawyer are not enough to outway your contributions. '''
'''Support''' I've seen part or all of all three featured articles now - outstanding work.  The calm, laid-back approach, and the willingness to admit mistakes, are desirable qualities of character.
'''Support'''.  Seems reasonable, and is apparently willing to take the job for the right reasons -- unlike a substantial number of current admins, in my opinion.
'''Support''' Productive, constructive editor, philosophical and reasonable. I have examined the reasons for opposition, and find them insufficient in quantity and severity. --'''''
'''Support''' I have some concerns about rashness of language as expressed by the oppose votes, but there's nothing there that suggests to me the candidate isn't dedicated to Wikipedia, or is incapable of separating his personal judgment as an editor from the specific, more technical responsibilities of an admin.
'''support''' per various opposes
'''He's not an Admin Yet! support''' hehe <font color="blue">
'''Weak Support''' in the hopes he will use the tools only in non-controversial situations or when he is a disinterested third party.  He's got too many civility issues to use the tools in areas where he has an emotional stake in the outcome of a controversial action.  I trust that he is aware of that and I trust him to know when it's time to "just be an editor" and to let some other administrator use the sysop bit.  If it weren't for his strong editing and the general knowledge of Wiki-processes that come with his edits, this would be a neutral or oppose.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong support''' - <s>Great candidate on my terms. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
I am not cool with the attitude expressed in the neutral opinion. Don't bite the newbies. You have to take crap from people and smile about it. It's not exciting but its how it works. Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but it's just too recent to overlook. Also, per [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wehwalt#RfA this]] I don't really see a need for him to even garner the tools along with the idea that Q1 doesn't express a real need for it. I will give him credit for being a fantastic editor but I don't like giving adminship as a matter of fact kinda thing.
'''Oppose'''. The diffs brought up by [[User:Either way|Either way]] in the neutral section are unacceptable for an administrator to have.  You will be representing Wikipedia if you gain the admin bit, and comments like the ones given there will give the encyclopedia a bad reputation.  Even if you do not plan to actively use the administrative tools, users will still come to you for advice, disputes will be brought to you for judgement, and your communicating skills will be utilized daily.  Even if you are making a reply to a vandal, your goal should be to rehabilitate them into--at the very least--a regular user that does not vandalize Wikipedia, rather than to make them into a repeat vandal.  You are a talented writer, but I do not think you have the necessary skills to become an administrator.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Oppose''' per either way and Malinaccier. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wehwalt&diff=254255281&oldid=254250427 This] was  a bit too harsh.
'''Oppose''', in light of the incivil tone of the communications linked to in [[User:Either way]]'s neutral vote. '''
'''Oppose''' I find it disturbingly inappropriate, and somewhat ironic, that you would condemn another user's grammar on a public encyclopedia. That kind of arrogance is astounding and unfit for a potential administrator. Seriously, this candidate obviously has vast experience in the mainspace building content, which is great, but I don't want anymore administrators with chips on their shoulders or condescending attitudes.
'''Oppose''' - I would support, but Either way's neutral has changed my mind. Administrators should be more civil than what you have said in those diffs. If I was told that, especially if English was my second language, and I was a newcomer, I'd feel unwelcome.
'''Oppose''' - We don't need more incivil administrators. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately per Either way's second diff and other opposes. '''
'''Weak oppose''' Usually I'm fully in favour of second chances, but sometimes things just don't rub me the right way. I appreciate that people need to vent sometimes, that life is hard, that things can go south of how we'd like them to go; however, that's no excuse to act uncivilly. No matter what the case is, an administrator should never, ever display negative emotions. Yes, they are human, but they are the people we entrust to keep order around this place; if they're responding snidely to others (even if said others are the worst vandals possible) they shouldn't be sysops. So again, this isn't a personal thing, and I still think highly of Wehwalt; I just can't support yet.
'''Oppose''' I'd have to say the incivility has me bothered enough to oppose, unfortunately.  Incivility is probably one of the hardest things, and it becomes even harder when you're an admin and even more people may complain or argue with you.  If you could take a few months or so and continue to make a conscious effort to be civil, even to someone argumentative and hostile, it will help.  Some things that help me are just to leave the specific article for awhile, since we all face this problem.  However for now I don't think you should get the mop because of these interactions.  Good luck in the future. --
'''Oppose''' because of concerns over the candidate’s comments in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_4#Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway this discussion] starting on 22 October.  He criticizes SandyGeorgia’s understanding of a prior exchange by stating:  "Sandy, I want to work with you, but you are making it real hard. I make a living as an attorney, I don't take being accused of breaking my word lightly. Please withdraw what you said."  When Sandy provided statements showing the basis for her understanding, the candidate made a legalistic argument why there was no agreement, stating the discussion "does not constitute an agreement not to nominate for the 21st and I'm not buying that you viewed it that way".  Inside of half an hour he took umbrage at what he took to be an attack on his honesty, while refusing to believe another editor’s statements, thereby impugning her honesty.   I am not comfortable with giving the powers of an administrator to someone who engages in argumentative behavior and who relies on his profession when advancing his position, nor with what appears to be an escalation of a misunderstanding rather than an attempt to resolve it.  (SandyGeorgia stated that the incident was "no big deal" even before Wehwalt made the second statement quoted above.)  While the two parties work well with each other, I am concerned of the effect of such actions on editors less experienced and collegial than Sandy Georgia.
'''Oppose''' - the diffs identified by either way are all that I need to see. I'm not going to check anything else. Keep calm - don't get a victim mentality. It comes across as aggression when you act defensively like that. -
''Oppose''' Not quite ready yet.  Soonish, but not yet.--
'''Weak Oppose''' due to concerns over recent civility and inappropriate responses as epbr123 and other editors pointed out.
'''Oppose''' Unlike some admins, Wehwalt is '''not''' exempt from [[WP:NPA]]. It's really a shame that some current admins are attempting to justify this behavior. Regardless of context, the response should be completely unacceptable from any competent administrator. Next they'll try to convince me that telling users, "Fuck off!" on 10 separate occasions is completely OK since it's part of (mystery admin)'s culture. Oh, wait..
'''Strong Oppose'''. The key question in evaluating an RfA is trust, given that the necessary experience requirements are satisfied. Sadly, I am unable to trust this candidate, firstly because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=next&oldid=74906036 this blatant lie]<sup><small>for readers wishing to verify this lie, the link to the HRW page is now dead, but it can be viewed [http://web.archive.org/web/20070929160146re_/hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/8.htm on the wayback machine]</small></sup> and secondly because, as Tiamut has pointed out in her edit of 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC) above, Wehwalt has displayed a consistent pattern of lax application of rules regarding edits supporting his own POV while vigorously trying to keep out edits against his own POV.  Sorry, Wehwalt, I normally like to support article builders at RfA, but I regard this sort of lying and inconsistent application of rules as an automatic and absolute bar to adminship or any other position of trust. And before people jump in and say I'm just opposing because my POV is different than Wehwalt's, not so: I will support (so-called) "pro-Israel" candidates if they have demonstrated that they can be trusted, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Avraham&diff=194761016&oldid=194759789 here].
Regretful '''Oppose'''. Was going to vote "Support", in part based on the ridiculous justifications from opponents. I'm not all that impressed with [[Albert Speer]], which paints its subject in too positive a light (see [http://www.netzeitung.de/voiceofgermany/340438.html|Netzeitung summary of more damning evidence] {{De icon}}; but the de-wikipedia article is no better). However, I would have supported if not for the undertaking by [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] "not to take administrative action in the I-P area", based on… well, what? A sign that the candidate lacks backbone, in my opinion.--
'''Unfortunate but firm oppose'''.  The input of others here, and Wehwalt's response to the opposes (showing he doesn't react calmly when challenged), combined with the fact that other editors have encountered similar issues that I have seen, leads me to believe Wehwalt is not ready for the tools. Although I have long-standing concerns about Wehwalt's difficulty with [[WP:AGF]] and his input at [[WP:TFA/R]], which has been a bit rough around the edges, as well as the ownership issues and failure to respect broad consensus at [[Talk:Natalee Holloway]], I had not intended to enter an Oppose on an FA contributor.   What finally convinced me to oppose was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWehwalt&diff=257651043&oldid=257447210 this exchange,] which reminds of the issues at Holloway, but occurred only in the last day, while he was at RfA.   I was willing to overlook the number of times he has questioned my good faith or honesty, but indirectly soliciting 3RR backup [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&diff=257649359&oldid=257642880] compels me to oppose at this time.  Whether or not this RfA is successful, I hope that Wehwalt will take on board that there is a need to examine AGF and article ownership issues, and if he acquires the tools, I hope he will keep this well in mind.
'''Oppose''' I'm enough concerned by some of the diff's supplied that I think it would be best to hold off for now.--
'''weak oppose''' for many of the reasons stated above.
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia needs less admins with attitude problems, not more.
'''Weak Oppose''' Good contributions, but the incivility issues worry me. '''
'''Strong oppose.'''  Everything said above is convincing.
'''Weak Oppose'''. These oppose arguments have me persuaded me.--
'''Neutral''' I was ready to support based on overall positive article contributions, but then I glanced at Wehwalt's talk page and saw these two replies ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wehwalt&diff=241385128&oldid=241378726] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wehwalt&diff=254255281&oldid=254250427]) there and must say that I am not a fan of the attitude expressed in each.  For now, I must stay neutral,
'''Neutral'''. Changed from "Oppose" after the candidate's pledge not to take administrative actions in the I-P domain. Concerns about civility and his approach to newbies remain an obstacle to full out support. '''Update''' Knowing NSH001 for some time now, I'm concerned by his latest comment regarding how Wehwalt's actions at [[Rachel Corrie]] put him off editing altogether, and even drove him to be ill, something I was not aware of. NSH001 is not a drama queen, so this is a serious issue. I'm not going to change my vote again, but I do hope that others consider what it means when an established editor says another editor's approach at a given article turned them off editing completely. <s>But I wish him luck nonetheless.</s>
'''Solid Neutral''' Was ready to put "strong oppose" after the IP problem, but since you offered an apology, I will stay here.
'''Support''' Very excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' - I know the history of this candidate and, yes, no problems here from me :) -
I've also seen this user around doing constructive editing. Probably at bot approvals if I recall. I trust this user with the tools. Regards,
'''Support'''. Of course you have my support. But you knew this already. Where Werdna applies himself, he does a fine job. I'm not interested in seeing article edits, because thats not what hes here for. He can be trusted with the buttons.
'''Support''', Very good editor e.t.c. Also very helpful <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. Good luck! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support'''yes mopify.--
'''Support'''- I actually thought you were ''already'' an admin. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
About time... &mdash;
'''Support''' - As per Steve Crossin, I thought you were already an admin!
'''Support''' Granting of +sysop is for one reason - to help make Wikipedia better. Clearly Werdna will use the tools to do just that, and to save him time and frustration in having to get others to edit the MW interface. A clearly positive move for WP here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Net positive user, happy administrating! Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' as nom. Good luck buddy.
'''
➨ '''
'''Support''' You've got mine my fellow Sydney wikipedian:) '''''
'''Strong support''' Pffftttttt. <sup>
'''Support''' I thought this guy was an admin already.  Looks like a great candidate who will be a net positive with the tools.  --
'''EDIT CONFLICT SUPPORT''' --
'''Support''' because he's probably already coded himself admin privileges anyway via a backdoor, so this is just a formality ;) --
Werdna has my trust and I am confident in his ability to administrate. -- <strong>
'''Support''' no concerns, and + sysop would be a sizeable benefit to the project.
'''Support''' -- a reliable developer? Why certainly! Good luck = ) --
'''Support''' - trustworthy and competent.
In my experiences with Werdna he has not steered me wrong.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  No problems.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support''' No problems here! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''No worries''' seen the bot, trust the user.   <font color="006622">
'''Support'''. As someone that opposed previous RFAs , it is a pleasure to fully support now. Based on my longterm observation of Werdna, he  is much better able to handle the admin tools now. Giving him the tools will be a benefit to the project as he has many talents that will be enhanced by having the tools. All the best,
'''Support'''.  Werdna is crucial to the bot-development community.  If we can't trust him, we're already screwed :) - Dan
'''Strong support''' No worries about the tools and they'll come in handy with vandal fighting.--
'''Support''' This is long overdue.  Ryan makes a compelling argument in his nomination, and I fully agree with him.
'''Support'''. Most excellent candidate - are they not already an admin? I was sure they were! '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''', obviously trustworthy and intelligent, appears proficient with policy.

I guess it's time now
'''Support''' He has good use for the tools, and he's mature enough now. I particularly appreciate his candid discussion of this possible concern in the questions. '''
'''Strong Support:''' Shows a need for the tools and I have no worries about the user misusing them, after all, you can screw up a lot more as a dev than a sysop. Werdna has done a sterling job as the former, so [[WP:WTHN|why the hell shouldn't we]] give him the tools? <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
'''Support''' '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Needs the tools; no evidence he'll misuse them; proven himself trustworthy: what else is there?
'''Support''', his knowledge and experience on wiki will benefit the project even more with the tools. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' His knowledge of MediaWiki and his other contributions to this site are a net positive that makes me support this user at this time.  Cheers,
'''Support''' due to nothing major that stands out.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
<small>'''
'''Strong Support''' - someone forgot to tell me he was up for RfA. :/  I trust Werdna :)  And per [[WP:BITED]] :P  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
I'm <s>[[User:Mailer Diablo|Mailer Diablo]]</s> [[User:Paranomia|Paranomia]] and I '''support''' this message! <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Why not?  <font color="629632">
'''BOT: Support'''.  lulz.  '''
'''Support''' Great credentials; assumed he already was an admin. <b>
'''Support''' - I don't feel that age should be taken into account when opposing or supporting a candidate, at least not if we're going to simply refer to the user's ''previous RfA''. Per Pedro, the tools are required for a single thing - benefiting Wikipedia. From the candidate's statements, I can only arrive at the conclusion that the tools would only boost this user's good potential, and they would be an overall asset to the project.
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWerdna_2&diff=104018546&oldid=104000739 Same as last time]'''
'''I thought he already was one.''' '''
Besides [[WP:BAG|your membership]] in an illegitimate group, I have no concerns. '''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' What else is there to say? <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' Werdnabot is a good tool, and it belies me why a developer doesn't have adminship. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''', obvious decision.
'''Support''', although I'd prefer the same things brought up by Gurchzilla below.
'''Support''' Of course.  <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Definitely. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' Sure. '''
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
Werdna knows what he's doing. <font color="blue">'' '''
Yes.
'''Strong Support''' -- An able, dedicated Wikipedian who will make good use of the tools. On a side note, I see this RFA topping [[WP:100]], maybe even [[WP:200]]. --
'''Support'''. Definitely. He's been doing good work. '''
The high level of proven clue outweighs and mitigates any other minor concerns.
'''Strong Support''' - too smart to be an admin, Cratship please :) ....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Unquestionable support. This contributor is experienced in a wide variety of areas, but mostly I support because he is a trustworthy, level-headed editor whom should have been adminned already.
'''$trong $upport''' $! <b>
Yeah, OK. ''
'''Strong support''' Absolutely.
I generally respect and value the opinions of those in the neutral and oppose sections, and would like to applaud them for being so willing to voice their minds. At the same time, I've been able to observe Werdna's participation and growth in various areas of the Wikimedia community, over time, and I think having him as +sysop would be of net benefit to this project. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''', this one is really a no-brainer in my opinion. More than qualified to have these tools ;).
'''Support''' Good user. <strong>
I've observed Andrew on many occasions round this wiki and Meta. Continually impressed, I feel that not does Werdna show a comprehensive understanding of policies but also an underlying coherent principal of the administration of Wikipedia. An excellent, outstanding perhaps, candidate. I respect those opinions of those in the oppose and neutral sections, however, I do believe that the experience both here and elsewhere removes any minor concern I may have. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
Hate to use a cliché, but I really did think Werdna was already an admin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Jaw-dropped <span style="color: #ff0000">STRONG Support!!!!!!!!1!!1!</span>''' ''What????!!'' You're not already an admin?????!!!!
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, no issues for concern, candidate will be a net positive to the project.
'''Support''' - Sure,
'''Support'''. Looking over your last RFA, I'd have to agree that you weren't yet ready. However, now is definitely the time to promote. I'm not taking WerdnaBot into consideration, as I don't consider bot work in an RFA (see my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|admin criteria page]]), just your own work, and I think your work is good. I don't really like that you have more Wikipedia namespace edits than mainspace, but since you do have over 1000 mainspace, that's not really a big deal.

'''Support''' I don't know the prior history, but the answers to the optional questions are mature and well considered.
'''Support''' - should have been an admin long ago. --
'''Support''', for all the right reasons, not that you need any more...[[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I THOUGHT HE WAS ONE ALREADY O_O. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Werdna+sysop=Happy Wikipedia.  Need I say more? <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''. Should have been one a long time ago. It just proves (along with Cobi's case) how bot-operators are often looked down upon by the community. '''''
'''Support'''. Should have been one a long long time ago.
'''Support''' Very yes.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. No, I want to be support #100. :D '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''. [[WP:100]] --&nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. Dang, all the reasons to support are already mentioned by people above.
'''support''' issues from past RfA's are long in the history books.  Has definite need for tools and shown a positive history.
'''Support'''. Long experience, a huge amount of technical and MediaWiki work. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' Yep, no problems here. [[WP:100|WP:105]]. '''«'''
Qualified candidate, decent answers to questions, no issues, will make good use of the tools ... happy to add my superfluous '''Support'''.
'''Support'''  Certainly more than qualified.  Responses look good, plus I have the most extreme level of trust for this specific nominator's judgement.  --
'''Support''' improved Werdna.
'''Support'''  can be trusted and net positive. Cheers,
'''Support'''.  I kinda agree with Gurch below that I hope you will keep doing the good stuff you are so good at and avoid getting sucked into admin drama.  That being said, I see no reason you can't be trusted with the extra buttons.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Sure. Good idea! --
'''Support''', of course. —
'''Support''', need a mop to go with your wrench! —
'''Support''' - great answers to the questions, qualified, not seeing anything recent that demonstrates maturity issues.  People change, and in this case, for the better.
'''support''' —
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support''' - Looks good. Sorry for piling on.  ;-)
'''Why not?''' --
'''Support''', Already admin-like material! Just needs the title! [[User:WikiZorro|<font color="DarkOrange" face="">'''Wiki'''</font>]][[User talk:WikiZorro|<font color="#FF4500" face="">'''Zorro'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Strong back from the dead support'''. Werdna's a capable user who's done a ton for this project, and would make a great admin. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. I have known Werdna for about 1.5 years now, both in a Wikimedia and a personal context. While some users have voiced concerns about his maturity, it is my personal experience that he is very mature and capable. I have no problems whatsoever with him having admin tools.--'''
Support because Shanel told me too. <small>(Given the number of reasons provided above, I guess I can be lazy.)</small> —<small>{[[WP:ADMIN|admin]]}
'''Support''' per lolcat.
'''Support''' Yes please.
--
'''Support'''. Werdna has matured. He will use the tools responsibly.
'''Pile on Support'''
'''Support'''. I'm frankly amazed this wasn't the case already. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Almost didn't recognize the name without 'Bot' at the end.--
'''Support''' - great contributor. Good luck. ♥
'''Support''' - Better late than never.
'''Support'''. I very much trust Werdna with the tools. [[Special:Contributions/GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] ([[User talk:GlobeGores|talk page]] |
'''Support'''Good luck.
Gurchzilla has a point.. :) but still.'''Support''' anyway. Why? ... Knows where his towel is, unlikely to blow up wiki, gets it, and is working on deft touch. Net positive by a wide margin. Sorry for the delay. ++
'''Support''' - knowledgeable, dedicated.
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools in my opinion.
'''Support''' - I would have liked to see more mainspace substantive content contributions, but the answers to your questions were thoughtful and demonstrate that you obviously have a wealth of knowledge to work from.  I try and not be an ageist, but sometimes I do find myself giving younger people a particularly hard shake... but I remember when I was younger and wanted more responsibilities online and how passionately I approached my contributions and feel that you are likely to be just as enthusiastic.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Thanks Werdna for all you do here!
'''Support''', unequivocally. —
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' - I opposed one of his previous RFA's. No reason for an oppose anymore.
'''Support'''  <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''support''' I hope that Werdna will not get too involved in content issues since he doesn't have much experience with them, but other aspects of the project will benefit from Werdna having the mop.
'''Support''' As per been around since July 2005 and see the concerns of earlier RFa have been overcome.
'''Support''' - Great candidate. --
'''Strong Support''' →
'''Support''' - fully qualified candidate & another fine Ryan Postlethwaite nom ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', obviously, a fine candidate.  No reason to believe that they'd abuse the tools.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''; surprised you're not an admin already! <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">'''
'''Support''': (from neutral) After talking with this user, and getting some more information, I can happily support now.  My apologies to the candidate for not checking things a bit better than I did before.  -
'''Support''' is already a great asset to the project. --
Pile-on '''support''' from me; thought the user was already an admin and definitely wouldn't oppose him being one.
Okay, I'm dumb. I haven't even voted '''support''' yet. Clearly I do so let's just get that formality out of the way.
'''Support''' Why not? He's a developer on Wikipedia, and therefore will need the tools for the [[WP:MediaWiki namespace|MediaWiki namespace]]. The extra tools will help him accomplish more, and that is a good thing for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' more than ready now. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' - Pile on support - clearly can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''— Werdna definitely can be trusted to use the mop with responsibilty, and knows policy quite fully. --
'''Support''': There's nothing that I can really say against the candidate here. More than ready for the mop. --
'''Support''' - rather shocked to find out he isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' - looks great! Fully support.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''', I swear I supported already but apparently not. Previous concerns seem to have been dealt with most satisfactorily. and I see absolutely no compelling reason not to grant admin rights. ~
'''Support''', More than ready.
One step closer to [[WP:200]] '''Support'''. Per the many dozens of supports above. I only wish you had mroe time to edit here!
'''Support''' Thought he was already an admin. Definitely deserves the tools. --
'''Support''' - Yup, and closer to 200.
I suppose its now pileon, but I '''support'''. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''', fine user who will make a fine op. --
'''Support''' This seems to be about time....
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, being constructive and level-headed -- the tools will be in safe hands.
Definitely: Werdna is clearly experienced, and has great knowledge of policy. Wikipedia will benefit strongly from him having the tools.
'''Support'''. If he's already a developer, he clearly has a use for and can be trusted with admin tools.
'''Support''' - An excellent Candidate. Is unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Coming late to the party, but +1 to what Ryan said. --
'''Weak Support''': No reasons to think that he will abuse the tools. The developer background is an added plus. I would like to see more activity from him as 4.7K edits for 3 years is not an indication of an active Wikipedian. Reading the previous RFAs give me a reason of concerns , but that is a loooong time.. and I dare to believe that he has matured enough to have the mop. Good luck-- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Stong Support''' As Above.....all of it :-)
'''Support'''
'''Massive super-dooper-mega strong support:'''  How can a developer not be trusted with these comparatively minor tools?<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']] .. <small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''' - looks good: meets my standards, no concerns raised, around for a while, and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' -I don't see why not. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' -Good edits, and very strong answers to the questions. I cant see any maturity issues remaining from previous nominations, and in my opinion being nominated by another, experienced editor shows you must have some merit. People change, and with Werdna it has evidently been for the better.
Mainly upon reading [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2]].  Maturity and temperament issues were raised there. Lack of experience is an issue that time will solve- temperament is not.  Also, he does not appear to understand the disadvantages of IRC as compared to the wiki.  We need to work to make IRC ''less'' important, not more.
The main reason given for Werdna to be given the tools is to assist in development work. I agree that a developer should be given access to the tools appropriate to the job - but not that a developer should be given tools to block users or delete articles if the individual has questions about their temperament and judgement, as is the case here. I hear what Werdna is saying about having matured since the previous RfA, but I'm concerned when I start looking at recent history and find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland_Virtual_Tissue_Archive&diff=213228252&oldid=212811565 this questionable prod], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acorn_noodles&diff=prev&oldid=210044804 this very poor speedy], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masoud_Boroumand&diff=next&oldid=210043470 this blind revert of accurate material, which was also marked as "minor"], and I've now stopped looking. I have found enough evidence in the edits of the past few days which coupled with Werdna's past history indicates to me that Werdna hasn't got the secure judgement required of an admin. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - Per SilkTork. This is almost definitely going to pass, but I don't think that is a good thing. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' Approved STBotl bot but refused to respond to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werdna&oldid=214369664#User:STBotI this] querry. --
The actions shown by Silk Tork cause me concern. Since we're not evaluating everybody equally, this will obviously pass; my oppose will make no difference, but I cannot support him with those edits. '''
'''Neutral''', would prefer to see candidate invest their time in MediaWiki development rather than wasting it on adminship drama :) --
'''Neutral''': per above discussions.
'''Neutral''' Only reservations are based on temperament issues.  Don't have an overall problem with the edits or quality of work, however. --
'''Strong Support''' Per my nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Almost beat the nom support'''  &ndash; No reason not to, excellent user.
'''Support''' Pedro nominated, I'm in! <font color="amaranth">
Writes articles. —'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Will surely be an asset to WP. --
'''Support'''. My primary encounters with WilliamH have been in AfD, and I've pretty universally been impressed with his caution and maturity at it. Now, reviewing his other contributions, I think he looks like prime admin material. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' I believe the user will be a net positive, what I like about the users contribs is the List of The Killers awards which is a featured list. Also the UAA work. That being said it looks like be giving WilliamH +sysop will be a net positive move for Wikipedia. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', per mazca, who somehow crawled into my brain and stole my words.  Not sure how you did that, but I must say it is rather impressive.  Oh, and per Pedro.  Per Mazca, who stole my words, and per Pedro, who wrote a nice nomination.  Oh, I forgot.  Also per the candidate's excellent clue level.  So, per Mazca, who stole my words, and per Pedro, and his nomination, and per William's clue.  That's all the reasons I need.  And per AFD work!  Oh, the AFD work!  Almost forgot that!   So, per Mazca, her theivery, per Pedro, his poetry, per William, and his monopoly, i mean scrabble, i mean Clue, and per AFD work.  Yeah, that's all the reasons I need.
'''per nom and other fine arguments after ec''' The crucial phrase from [[User:Pedro/WilliamH]] for me was, "When in doubt, don't." I'm not Barak Obama, but I approve this message.
Seen this user at AfD.  Thoughtful.  Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' per arguments, answers and my own interaction with the user.
Pedro nom, eloquent, adopter, multilingual, account creator, welcoming, good answers to the questions, especially Q4. So - '''strong support'''. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per Keeper's rambling.--
'''Support'''. WilliamH is an excellent contributor who has demonstrated his knowledge of policy and readiness for adminship.
Usually don't pile on support for no brainers, but since I'm desperately procrastinating in order to avoid work in the real world, I actually went to the trouble of looking into WilliamH's contributions, so I'll add my own '''of course, a shame we have to wait a week''' to the chorus. --
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions, great edit summary usage, good contributions and not a single bad thing to find! '''
'''Support''' - Has more than enough experience in all the right places. Level-headed, communicates well, no problems. Very good answers. I'm happy to support.
'''Support''' per all the above. '''
'''Support'''. Absolutely: I think William will be a great administrator.
'''Support''' per AGK ^^^ <font color="blue">'''
'''Support'''. Complete no-brainer decision.
'''Support''' Per the comments above.
'''Support''' - One of those people that I have wanted to support for a long time...
'''Support''' Very well-rounded editor. Rather surprised he is not an admin. --
'''Strong support''' Strong user who has experience in troublesome areas, yet no black marks on his record - the tools would be in good hands.  He also appears to have a zest for boring crap, which is a crucial quality in any admin :D '''
'''Support''' - Trust the candidate. Trust Pedro. Per nom.
'''Support'''. Wow, that diff is...all I can say is wow. Good job, I think you'll do the same excellent work with the use of the mop and bucket. Cheers, &mdash;
'''Support.''' An experienced and level-headed editor with a solid mainspace and projectspace contribution record, including substantial AfD participation. I looked at quite a few of his AfD !votes, and while I do not necessarily agree with all of them, WilliamH gives civil, reasoned and substantive arguments. I trust that he will interpret consensus and enforce the policies correctly.

'''Support''' good user. —
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' per nom and questions. Answer to Kurt's question (Q5) is especially impressive (although it's anyone's guess as to whether Kurt will agree ;-)).
'''Support'''-I've encountered WilliamH on AfD and found him to be intelligent and responsible, with a sound knowledge of the policies. I'm also impressed with his work on article content. About the only thing I can fault this editor on is his deplorable taste in music. But I'm prepared to overlook that and give him my unhesitating support.
'''Support''', by all means. Looks like a fine contributor to me. (Although he sometimes takes 'assume good faith' a bit too far in my opinion, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vhasdlcf%27adomjcfcfdfdf here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh here]) <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''', your are a beautiful human being.<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support'''. I'm a little late this time, but WilliamH is an asset to Wikipedia. He does great work in the mainspace, has a solid grasp of policies and procedures, and he's civil in his communication. Having him as an admin would be a definite plus.
'''Support''' The candidate definitely knows his policy, has been a good mediator, and will be a net positive. Why not? <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' Per [[WP:JIMBO|WP:PEDRO]]. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. It's all been said above, and this candidate offers me [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|no concerns worthy of opposing him]]. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|'''S.''']]
'''Support''' Great candidate. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#004488"> [[Special:Contributions/-Midorihana-|みどり]]
'''Support''' - valuable, thoughtful editor, not afraid to ask for help and learn from others, good answers to questions, no reason not to trust him with the tools. I'm sure he will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me! :) <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' A strong article writer, also participates in admin areas like AfD, etc. Plus a Pedro nom. All pros, no cons. I'm in. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' I've had a number of pleasant interactions with this user since he asked me to look into [[Auschwitz concentration camp]] about a month ago, where I blocked a user for 3RR. The follow-up from that event revealed that WilliamH has a [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. A brief look at his other contributions revealed no red flags, so I'm proud to support.
'''10-4''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' per Pedro's nom.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' I really liked the answer to #6, and also I think that WilliamH will be a good sysop. <small>
'''Strong Support''' - editing is even more sporadic then mine, but WilliamH is a great article writer and can be trusted. Furthermore the AfD experienced linked to by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles shows no flaws at all. --
'''Support''' Impressive contribs, and answers to the questions prove that this editor has clue and will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I've had positive experiences with this editor in the past.  He shows a good level of existing knowledge and, more importantly, the self-awareness and initiative required to fill in those areas he could use some work in. --
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' - Big ups for editing with the least amount of edits.  ;)  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''And here''' One big warm glow.
'''Support''' - definitely.  <b>
'''Support''' - He's a good guy. Does good work. It's good to see a non-vandal hunter admin here for once (I jest, of course). Good luck with the tools!
Diplomatic.  kind.  works in parts of the wiki I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole as an article writer. :)
'''Strong support''' - fully meets all [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] - and then some.
'''Support''' per nom. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
'''Super Strong Support''' - Hes brilliant. From his edits and stuff it looks like he will be a super strong admin.
'''Support''' is level headed and answered the questions very well, will be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support''' Per the nom and good answers to questions.--
'''Support''' Obviously a good candidate, considering... --
'''Support''' Very solid candidate all around. I have absolutely no reasons for concern that admin tools would be misused. This candidate's access to extra buttons will benefit the project.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''support'''
'''Support''' per nom. The candidate is a good content builder and works well with others.
'''Support.'''  Solid wikipedian, timely nomination.  —
'''Support''' - No problems here, Sceptre's oppose doesn't worry me at all. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as we need an admin to tackle controversial issues.
'''Support'''. William has the right qualities and the experience.
I'm
'''Strong Support''' Been with Wikipedia for a while now, showed administrative concerns and knowledge.
'''Strong Support''' I think this guy will be awesome.
'''Support''' qualified in spades. Cheers,
'''Support'''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' - looks good :) &nbsp; '''
'''Strong Support''' For the fact the user does not make countless edits on one page, showing they are not obsessed with [[WP:Edit count]].--
'''Support''' good answers to questions. Very sensible. No issues here : )--'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acalamari&diff=prev&oldid=217289009 This] is a reason to support in itself. :) Seriously though, my interactions with and observations of WilliamH have been good, and he'll be a fine administrator.
'''Support''' Nice work. -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
'''Late to the Party Support'''. WilliamH is a good content editor, and I think he'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''': I don't normally go by support per norm, but Pedro's nomin fills my confidence. [[WP:WTHN]] ? No reasons to believe the user may abuse the tools . Good luck with the mop. --
'''Support''' since there are no oppose votes at this point, le'ts give him the tools and help fight the battle against vandalism, etc. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Looks good enough to me.--
'''Support''' Seems to be an able and qualified candidate...
'''Support.''' Per {{user|Giggy}}.
'''Support''' per Q7 and a long list of positive contributions.  No reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, so why not give them to him?
Pile-on '''support''' per answers and per nom. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - excellent candidate. '''''<font color="green">
'''Neutral'''.  Support per good arguments and closes at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games notable for negative reception (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teeswater (sheep)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serg Klimov]], but oppose per weak arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole)]] ([[WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC]] and [[WP:ITSCRUFT]]) and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of masks in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask]] (article actually was consistent with what ''Wikipedia'' is).  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
Obviously, as the nominator, I '''support''' this clueful candidate.

At first glance I see nothing of glaring importance wrong.
'''Strong support''' for this bright fella. <big>
'''Strong Support''' - Great contributions, good community involvement, solid answers to the questions (not that I expected anything less, of course). --
'''Support''' Shows a high understanding of Wikipedia and is generally a calm person with few mistakes who learns fast. Excellent dispute resolution work and many helpful edits to mainspace. Seems like a good guy to me. --
'''Support'''. Good editor. Can be trusted to use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - despite only being around a short space of time, this user has achieved a lot in that time. And the answers to the questions are also impressive. If this user becomes an admin, I'm sure he'll be a useful one. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and mediator.
'''Support''', absolutely no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support per many good arguments above.''' A cheerful, helpful, constructive editor who seeks the tools for a [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Tyrenius|a specific purpose (Mediation Cabal)]] where he can benefit the project. Nevertheless, does not show likelihood of abusing/misusing the tools in other areas. (
'''Support''' - per the directly above! --
'''Support''' I see no reason for this user not to have the tools. <font color="blue">'''
'''Strong Support'''.  Mediation skills are a ''huge'' bonus.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', after research, candidate easily meets [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Yep''' I  have been working on a medcab case with him (which I sort of ditched), and he is one of the most civil editors I know. He has kept the potentially-fiery case very calm. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
I have seen him in action at MedCab, very good indeed. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''- Nothing here would suggest intentional or unintentional abuse of the tools. [[WP:CLUE]].
'''Support''', a mature and thoughtful member who seems to do a great job at dispute resolution and wouldn't abuse the admin tools. I don't see the fact that 'a good-dispute resolver rarely needs admin tools' is a good reason for him not to have them for when they ''are'' useful. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' A good mediator, and user. Stays [[WP:Civil|civil]] which is good. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Reasonable argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Supercar]].  While we disagreed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination)]], the candidate responded to the discussion maturely, civily, and constructively.  At [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination)]], I obviously agree more with the struck out argument; however, it is good to see someone who is open-minded and follows the discussion.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' he comes across a bit green about the whole thing (based on his answers), but that will be addressed soon with a little more experience and responsibility. '''<font face="Verdana">
Absolutely: Xavexgoem has excellent communication skills, and has a knack for cooling down heated disputes. His time on Wikipedia, and the time for which I have known him, has been one in which he has consistently impressed me with his knowledge of Wikipedia, its policies, and operations. I have no doubt he'll be able to function successfully as a project administrator, and I confidently offer my '''strong support'''. Best of luck,
'''Support''' - Simple, no issues, terrific guy, yes.
'''Support''' On second thoughts I really don't anticipate any problems.
'''Support''' Although editting your comments after you've made them '''grinds my gears''' (as evidenced on my talk page) I don't think that alone can garner an oppose.--
'''Support'''. I like his calm demeanor. He's a good editor and he knows what he's doing. A little low on the mainspace edits, but I'll let that slide.
'''Support''' A fine candidate for the job.  --
'''Support''' Editor seems to be worthy of community [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] and does not seem to engender worry about tool abuse. Good Luck! --
'''Support''', sure. -
'''Support''', for one year (the typical duration of adminship on most other wikis). We have very few Dispute Resolution capable admins anymore. Such people are precious. After one year, see if you've learned enough to be able to hand in the bit, and still be able to do most admin work. :-) --
'''Support''' a trusted user, whose likelihood of tool abuse tends toward zero. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Trustworthy user.
'''Support''' Looks like a goody. --
'''Support''' I'm seeing good contributions in several areas, and a calm demeanor - as noted by Useight and others - is absolutely an asset to an admin. Full support.
I do not have a problem with someone who is not completely sure of how they want to help out with their administrative tools.  –'''
'''Support''' per the answer to Q7.  This user is very civil and his answers to the questions show that he has a grasp on the policies needed by administrators.
'''Support'''. Everything appears to be in order, will be a fine addition.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  &hArr;
'''Support''' Believe editor will use the tools with good judgment and to the benefit of wikipedia. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No reason not to, and opposes aren't convincing.
Per GlassCobra. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Excellent mediator, and I see no reason why he would misuse the tools. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]]
'''Support'''. Have confidence in the user, after his Mediation in [[Gilad Shalit]] dispute. --
'''Strong support.'''  I've worked with this candidate very recently and he knows what it's about — more tools in his hands will be a bonus for the encyclopedia.  —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - Good editor and mediator.

Sure.
'''Support''' - (my first rfa vote here though I have read dozens) I find it refreshing to see a candidate who knows what makes angry and frazzled editors tick, and likes to help them calm down.  I am baffled as to why someone would come here to listen patiently to users fighting about minutiae, and to know so much with such a small edit count.  But all of this applies to Xavexgoem, so a good reason for my 'me too' post. --
'''Support'''Bravo for dispute resolution.
'''Support''' Excellent work in Dispute Resolution and in the Med Cabal.  All the Best, --
'''Support''' excellent editor.
'''Weak oppose''' Whilst I can appreciate all of the good points regarding Xavexgoem as raised above by my fellow !voters - I am left with a feeling that he is not quite ready at this time. Specifically I note constant changes to his edits such as the one commencing at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aratta&diff=next&oldid=202123869 this diff] and the 4 or 5 edits that follow on from this point, which only occurred at the end of March.  I do not mean to offend or insult (we all make changes to things we write about) - but my view is that some more time is needed for this editor to get to a stage where he knows his thoughts and mind more keenly.--
'''Oppose'''  This user has no user page.  For that alone I do not trust him/her with the tools.
'''Oppose'''. Wow. You're an excellent contributer here. I love the fact that you're into dispute resolution and helping other editors. Thats something I'll always admire as I too once used to help out over there back in 2006. But sadly, you say that this will be what you will be doing once you're an admin. Right now, I think we need more admins to do ''admin work''. And I can't really tell how good of an admin you'll be since the last few months in WP-mainspace only show mediation related edits as the majority. I can see you'll most likely pass (going on the current tally), and I hope you understand why I cannot support you at this time. Good luck. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Neutral''' While I have no doubt that the candidate will not intentionally abuse the tools, I do not see enough time or breadth of experience to be certain they may not use it improperly through error - which amounts to that I cannot trust them with it, even though I am sure of their good intentions.
'''Strong Support'''. [[User:Xenocidic|Xenocidic]] is an excellent editor with plenty of experience and has an excellent handle on policy. A fair number of his recent edits in the mainspace have been automated, but he has plenty of manual edits improving articles. Excellent communication skills and always civil; he's always willing to help other editors. My interactions with him have always been positive. Over 80 reports to AIV. I think he'll do a great job as an admin.
'''per nom'''
'''Support'''. I'm not so high on the social networking aspects of StatusBot, but I will not let that influence my decision making process her.e I find the candidates' article building contributions sufficient, well rounded with contributions in other gnomish areas. He seems to be a good communicator, a solid base of policy knowledge and has a squeaky clean record deserving of community trust.
'''Support''' Candidate has enough experience.  Slightly unusual answers, e.g. the category in Q1, show individuality and awareness of how the system works.
'''Beat the nom support''' - '''this''' is the RfA I've been waiting for, because it's the first one for an editor I've seen around and thought should be an admin, with no need to check. I've been watching xenocidic for a couple of months now already. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Seems a solid editor despite short history. See no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I've had nothing but positive encounters here, and I'm more than happy to support. After all, you prettied up my Status Indicator for me. ;-) --
'''Support''' per nom. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Seeing the ''right stuff'' '''
'''Support''' - Per [[WP:WTHN]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - good candidate.  —
No qualms. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and competent; the length of time for which the candidate has been active isn't a problem for me, in this case. Experience trumps time.
'''Support''' Clearly clueful. Whilst I take note of the comments regarding the duration of the account, I see no reason why we should do ourselves a disfavour by not giving the tools now, rather than waiting an arbitary couple of months. <b><font color="black">
'''Űber Support''' My Criteria: Can the user be trusted? (answer = yes) and Will the user benifit from admin tools? (answer = yes) 110% :-)
'''Support''' - Good candidate, a great deal achieved in a relatively short period of time. Keep up the good work. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support''' per great experiences in the past.  You wouldn't be able to tell he's been here for less than half a year, which is a very good thing.  Good luck.  '''
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' This editor is a genuine asset.
'''Support'''. Per reference to [[WP:LAME]]; along with the nom support and a clear possession of all faculties.
'''Support''' Well-rounded candidate who, as an administrator, will more than likely dabble in a little bit of everything depending on where administrative help is needed. It's the kind of candidate I'm always willing to support.
'''Support''' Looks good, this guy's got clue.
'''Support''' I encountered him a few weeks ago and he left a good impression on me, as in encounter, I was spying on him. ;) <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' reliable user. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support'''  Well, I did offer to nominate you...  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support'''. I trust the nominator's decision, and my one interaction with you was positive.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' Strong candidate with a genuine want to help the Wikipedia community (adoption).  The answers to your questions show that you have a clear understanding of policy and I am confident that you will fulfill this role perfectly.  Cheers,
'''Support''' All of my enocunters with this individual give me no reason to believe they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - good candidate!
'''Support''' - Solid editor who gets it. Net Positive.
'''Strongest possible Support''' At the risk of sounding ridiculous, that is what I think. I met xenocidic back in late January when I was helping get [[WP:XB|Wikiproject Xbox]] starting and I was immediately struck by his character and just all-around good work. Over the last few months, I've seen him become more and more involved with more areas of Wikipedia than I can count. I have absolutely no question that he will be one of the best admins we've ever had and he's always willing to lend a helping hand to everyone. No reservations whatsoever. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' per candidate's answer to my question above, as well as a closer examination of their contributions.  Best of luck!  --
'''Support''' With nothing new to add to the above.
'''Support''' Seen him around, especially while patrolling vandalism. No problems here.
'''Support'''. An editor who will stick to what he knows for now and branch out later shows the right attitude to be an admin.
'''Support'''. net positive. Cheers,
Name rings a bell from a WikiProject. But I forget which one. Xenocidic, help me out here? :) ''
'''Support'''. I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FXenocidic&diff=215682543&oldid=215673952 Wisdom was right]. [[User:Prima Facist|Prima]] [[User_talk:Prima Facist|Facist]]
'''Support''' Good AIV reports, good user. <strong>
'''Support''' Yes I agree with (an excellent) nomination.  I also believe this user is ready - 2 weeks to go or not.--
'''Support''' I see no red flags to point me to leave a comment below. This user has been very supportive of other editors, and has [[User:FGWQPR/adoption|taken care]] of me while I was on a slightly enforced Wikibreak. I think he'll make an excellent admin. <font face="Ravie">
'''Support''' -- Per my good experience with the user: Xenocidic was really patient when I asked his help, even when I had to ask about 5 times before fully comprehending! Thanks again and good luck! --
'''Weak support'''- weak because I would like to see some slightly better mainspace contributions, but everything else looks great.
'''Strong Support'''xenocidic always has the answers to my questions, or when he doesn't, find them for me.Everytime I make a mistake he fixes it and explains why so that I don't do it again.He still has plenty to learn, but for a non-admin, e sure knows alot. [[User:Jacob696|'''<font color="black">Mr.</font> <font color="green">Green</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:Jacob696|'''<font color="black">Hit Me Up</font>''']]</sup><small>
'''Support''' Trustworthy? For sure.
'''Support'''.  This support is a little weak for the following reasons: I'm a little dubious about the blog-like activity ("hello world") on the user page; indeed, edits to his or her own user page far outnumber edits to any other; hence Xenocidic shows a tendency towards using WP as a social network; see also the category creation and deletion discussion to which the user refers above (under "stress").  But basically a solid editor. --
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Brown">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per [[WeMix.com]]. An irresponsible new pages patroller will simply leave his tag as is and go back to monitoring. But this editor can change his mind and actually assist a new editor in improving the article.--
'''support''' per Dorftrottel's eloquent reasoning.  And because this is a good editor. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. Nominator convinced me; contributions look good. I would advise the candidate to consider Moonriddengirl's reservations below. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Completely trustworthy editor with strong contributions. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support:''' Solid.
Totally!--
'''SUPPORT'' g'day mate, i totally support you in your election thingy
'''Support'''- I like the way this user can keep his calm and works well with at-times-difficult users. Good luck, man!
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, who would help Wikipedia prosper with his additional privileges. <span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support:'''  Very experienced and trustable user.  Meets my 2 (aforementioned) requirements<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']] .. <small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''', my interactions with this user have been good.
'''Unequivocal, strong support'''&nbsp;&ndash; Though a small voice, I would like to have ''Xenocidic''  as an administrator. I can tell how much helpful, good-hearted, well-meaning, nice and quickly responding Xenocidic is when some “basic user” like me <small>(I mean: Totally n/dumb and unable to understand how technical things work, where you find this and that round here, how the guidelines apply in such and such case etc.</small>) needs assistance. Till now, I've had many opportunities to test his ability and willingness to make it easier for me to contribute without becoming a stupid editor or simply a vandal&nbsp;&mdash; unvoluntarily, in my case&nbsp;&mdash; and keep cool when becoming disquieted or when some point niggles me. He helps me becoming more confident that I would gradually write more and better here, <u>even if we do not have the same hobbies and interests</u>, as far as I can see.</br>I could be told this is basically the role of any efficient [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User|adopter]]. I'd simply say then he's <u>more than this</u>. There are many more things like these I'd like to add, but then you'd think: «Why! Coaxing!» (or requested praise)&nbsp;&mdash; what it's not.</br>''I just expect him to remain a ''precious adopter''  if he becomes an administrator…''
<small>'''
'''Support.''' Great edit history. Will put the tools to good use.
Why not?
'''Support''' due to no personally memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around quite a lot, good participation in a variety of areas. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' strong user, and as per nom.
'''Support''' Seems ready.--
'''Support''' Bah forget the two weeks until the 6 month mark :) he is definitely ready to be a sysop and I don't think waiting two weeks would really have much of a difference :).  All the Best, --
'''Support''' He seems to be moving along well, and will do fine. He learns from and admits mistakes, none of us are perfect.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', in the answer to question 3, xenocidic refers to these 2 threads[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Niko.27s_Nationality][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Niko.27s_nationality] (oldids[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&oldid=215494242#Niko.27s_Nationality][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&oldid=215524513#Niko.27s_nationality]) where he tried to "act as a facilitator to resolve" a debate. From his comments there, it appears to me that xenocidic doesn't understand our [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] policy. which aims to represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&diff=prev&oldid=213981367] he barges into the thread and declares "case closed", saying "can we put this one to rest." When someone disagrees he states "Please refer to the consensus/compromised already reached."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&diff=prev&oldid=214265163]. A week later he's reverting[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&diff=prev&oldid=215417395][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&diff=prev&oldid=215417757] editors and telling them[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThePhrozenPhoenix&diff=prev&oldid=215417626] on their talk pages that consensus had been reached (there wasn't any). If this editor thinks the way to resolve debates where one source says one thing and another source says another is to sweep in and say it's settled, I question their overall judgement when it comes to content disputes. Balloonman said xenocidic "only writes about video games" and that's also a concern of mine. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Individual fails to recognize that people can change their minds over time.
Well, this is quite an interesting feeling. I agree with Kmweber. The RfA community is well versed in the reasons for Kmweber's opposes, and the relevant history. Bringing up his years-old self-nom RfA in that manner was probably supposed to be funny, but it comes off to me as petty and immature, and it did not add anything to the conversation. This is more of an intangible thing, but that comment really doesn't sit well with me. '''
'''Oppose''' per Seresin and for choosing a potentially divisive user name. The former is the stronger of my two concerns; the latter is easily addressed but may indicate a deeper problem. --
'''Oppose''' on account of the careless CSD tagging in the section below. Knowing how to do this right is a basic admin responsibility. In this case we don;'t have to guess whether he'll use the buttons properly--we can see that he does not yet know how to do it. I urge the people voting support above to have another look at that. '''
'''Oppose''' per DGG. Once speedies are deleted, very little can be done. These are all very recent and basic mistakes. Not ready yet, whatever his other good qualities.
'''Oppose''' per careless speedy tagging.  Knowing when not to rampantly go through the wiki trying to get things deleted indicates to me someone who isn't here to build an encyclopedia.  <font color="629632">
Per several concerns brought up above. John's explanation of the username issue, even though he himself marks it as a minor point in his oppose, tipped it for me. <big>
'''Oppose''' per Johnbod & DGG.  User is too new, too "speedy"-happy.  Come back in another 6 months.
'''Oppose''' - Probability for misuse of delete button is too high for me, and per Xenocidic's comment above, just because some articles should not be included does not mean they are candidates for speedy deletion, there are other process for that. Not at this time.
'''Oppose''' per DGG and Johnbod. Seems too hasty with speedy delete tags.
'''Weak Oppose''' - After revisiting this discussionn and in light of the diffs presented for CSD tagging, I feel that I cannot, in good faith, offer my support for the candidate, who appears to have a ''very'' tenuous/shaky grasp of CSD policy. A few mistakes is clearly ok, but not this many. I feel kinda bad about this considering his strong attributes, but he wishes to work in the deletion area as stated clearly in his answer to Q1.
Per DGG and Moonriddengirl. Come back in a few months, after more experience. If you continue to learn and improve, I anticipate being able to support you with no qualms.

I am reluctant to support candidates who are only involved in narrow areas of WP, and for such a short while. While this candidate appears unlikely to abuse the tools, I don't see the breadth of experience of interacting with the wider community that makes me confident to entrust them with the mop. At the time of writing it appears that this request is succeeding (which is cool), but I would like the candidate to get involved with other areas of WP before considering using the sysop bit there.
Nom.
Before anyone squeaks the block was an accident although not fully clarified in the unblock summary. Yes, I like the refreshing approach here. Sensible user page, a browse of the archives indicates a civil and thoughtful editor. Nothing wrong with specialising at [[WP:AFD]] when all your edits seem to me that you won't go crazy with a block or protect button or more importantly make decisions you're not sure about. '''Sound, calm, sensible, pragmatic and communcative'''. Seems like a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] with the extra tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''
'''Support''' Good contributions, civil, careful and helpful? Count me in! Who cares that the candidate does not have many edits? 10 good admin actions a month are better than none after all. I suggest, if I may, the candidate, if already AfD interested, to broaden their horizon by contributing at [[WP:MFD]] and other deletion related areas to help out there as well. '''
I wouldn't really say this was an unusual candidate - he's got experience in a number of admin areas and clearly knows his stuff. He'll be just fine. '''
'''Support''', no reason to believe this would be anything but A Good Thing.
And I said: "What about ‘Breakfast at Tiffany's?" She said, "'I think I remember the film, And as I recall…’" uh, is this the [[Deep Blue Something]] [[Karaoke]] festival? Oh, sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here: '''Support''' for an editor who hits all of the right notes!
'''Support''' Can't see any problems here. Area-specific admins are no bad thing.
As dweller notes, we do need more admins. This user seems like they will do a fine job if given the position, and so I have little hesitation in offering my support. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' Good enough for Dweller, good enough for me.
You are an admin already.
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Support'''- I've seen a lot of Xymmax on AfD, and I have never had cause to doubt this user's intelligence, reasonableness or civility.
'''Support''' per the (unusually) to-the-point nom.
'''Support''' He's been on a lot of AFD and would make a great admin. He also voted Keep on the [[Robin Simon]] [[WP:Articles for deletion/Robin Simon|AFD]]. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">[[User:Universal Cereal Bus|<font color=#00ffff>Special</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Universal Cereal Bus|<big><font color=#ff0000>K</font></big>]]([[User talk:Universal Cereal Bus|KoЯn flakes]])</small> 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I really have to shut the hell up about that AFD, just cos it's MY article. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' - Another solid contributor. I see nothing of concern.
'''Support'''. Xymmax is a fine candidate.
'''Weak Support'''. Not as communicative as I'd like nor as much mainspace work as I'd like, but he seems civil and knowledgeable enough, especially in the AFD realm, and we need more admins in that area. Not to mention we need more admins whose username begins with "X", we only have [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/P-Z#X|6]]. Hmm, there's only [[Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/P-Z#U|7]] of us starting with "U", another small crowd.
'''Support''', need more admins interested in deletion.
'''Strong support''' - meets almost all my requirements , active in XfD, not a rabid deletionist or inclusionist, balanced contribs. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' - Going through the user's contributions, I see a strong grasp of policy from within AfD arguments. Article work, although not as much as I like, extends beyond the remit of vandalism reversion, with examples of copyediting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Tales_of_Beedle_the_Bard&diff=220172227&oldid=220134492] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_N._Samuelian&diff=236379897&oldid=235956082] in amongst article cleanup, wikification, spam removal and so on. Entries at [[WP:UAA]] are also sound as well, displaying a grasp of username policy. user has also contributed in policy discussions on [[WP:N]], exibiting a willingness to help shape policy as well as understand it. Deleted contributions reveal sound CSD tagging, as well as a couple of examples of trying to cleanup and wikify articles as well, before they were ultimately deleted. Although the candidate talks at length of his AfD work, I think his contribs at UAA and CSD, as well as a degree of gnoming work, helps to round this candidate off. No problems with supporting. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Looks good, but as pointed out above, work on communication. Good Luck!!!
'''Support''' - per the opposes below, specially because of the "not enough article work". <span style="color: red">'''For the people who opposed: Adminship is not article writing</span> <code>:P</code>'''. --<small>
'''Support''', Pretty much every AfD contribution I've seen from you has been not just okay, but ''excellent''. You really seem to understand the process and policies well, and I can think of few, if any, better people to be working that area as an admin. And given that, you appear to have enough clue that I don't think you'll be wading drunkenly into other, unfamiliar areas waving your admin tools around. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Seems like this user would be a net positive to the encyclopedia, adminship is not all about how many DYKs, FAs and whatever else you can get, and nor do I believe that this candidate is not adept outside of AfD. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Civil and very thoughtful, great AfD work. The tools are not needed to write articles. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''', will be a very useful admin in AfD and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_conspiracy_trials&diff=241171799&oldid=239644091 this] careful rewrite of the lead of a controversial article on Lyndon LaRouche convinces me that Xymmax has a reasonable handle on article-writing.
'''Support'''.  One does not necessarily need article work to be an admin.  Good luck, Xymmax. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', Most Definitely.
'''Weak Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|Why not?]] --'''
'''Support''', no evidence that user would abuse the tools, and declining the prior nom in my opinion showed good judgement.  We need more admins with good judgement.
Agree with above, seems to have clue and a level head.
'''Support''' Seems like a sensible choice, no reason for concern.
'''Support''' I like that he declined the first nom.  Also, AfD is always in need of good administrators and your contributions there will be great.  Lack of article edits is a bit concerning but as I usually state the main thing is trust and willingness to learn. --
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. Sure, more article work would be great, but the gnomes are just as important as the people with 12 FAs. :-) &ndash;
'''Support'''. There's no reason to believe that this user will misuse the tools. Declining the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xymmax|previous RFA]] showed that they're clueful, which is the most important quality in administrators. We need more admins, and Xymmax will most likely be a good administrator. This nomination wasn't very unusual.
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to. <b>
'''Support''' Great contributions.
'''Support''' per totally reasonable answers to questions, and a good overall feeling. Also, for the record, I am totally unimpressed with Everyme's responses above. Pretty damn pretentious.
'''Support''' The answer to Q4 in particular is the just kind of communicative and sensible attitude that makes for a great administrator. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support.''' Per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive contributions to this project. '''
'''Support''' giving a committed editor some extra tools to make this place better is a no-brainer. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' the block in the log was only applied for a minute (hardly a block at all) and user has made excellent AfD contributions; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. He's probably capable of doing an relatively easy job (being an admin) competently.
'''Support'''. Looks like admin tools will be used to help rather than hinder the project.
'''Support''' Per candidates only comment at first RfA.
'''Support''' I like the way he researches articles at AFDs properly, instead of drive-by voting "per nom". They're a good sign of excellent judgement and thoughtfulness. --
'''Conditional support''': Hoping you'll have time for working on a(n) FA/GA. --
'''Support'''. I appreciate a good WikiGnome that can contribute usefully. I have no doubts the tools will be used with care. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Once again support for a specialist admin who can do useful things in specific areas whilst not touching others.
'''Support''' &ndash; Good experience in admin-related areas so s/he will know what to do and good policy knowledge. Will do just fine as an administrator. &ndash;
'''Support'''. No evidence this user is likely to abuse the admin tools. No evidence this user is likely to be abusive or harass other editors. No evidence this user suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of any policy or guideline. Seems to me that's all that really matters. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - Good luck, you've been doing a great job, and I hope to see you become better with the tools. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' - can't see why not. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' - In theory, if you were to stay at AfD and never leave that zone I would support, honestly I would. Your intentions at this point might very well be to stay there. However at some point you will venture elsewhere. Sorry. —
'''Oppose''' Since April 2007 this user did just ~1000 edits in the mainspace and did almost no article work (cf. answer to Q2). While I don't think there is a need to write a lot of articles and do a lot of mainspace edits, I ''still'' think there should be ''a bit'' mainspace work - what I see here is not enough, sorry. Another important point is that I don't see any experience in admin related areas besides AFD (cf. answer to Q1). Furthermore, there is no indication how this user would act in conflicts (cf. answer to Q3). From my point of view it's very important for an admin to be able to act calmly in conflict situations. Certainly, there is no need to have done tons of dispute resolution. ''However'' there should be ''some'' indication that the user has the needed calmness. Finally I don't see any evidence that this user knows the (relevant) policies. I would not oppose for one of this points ''alone'', but ''altogether'' I have far too much concerns so that regretfully I can't provide my trust this time. Again, sorry. —
'''Oppose'''. Not enough article work in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' Only for now. Once you have more article work I will support. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
A decent history of mainspace contributions, including creation of new content, can reasonably be expected from someone who asks to be trusted with the tools and the role of an admin. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Sorry''', does not meet [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] yet.
'''Oppose'''. I see a lack of activity and not enough article work to support.
Neutral. He seems level-headed and I've no concrete concerns that lead me to oppose. But I simply can't support a candidate with such low experience of content building. I'm not looking for FA or even GA, but the  creation or significant expansion of at least a few articles is really necessary for my support. Admins have tools that sometimes worry content writers, and they should have at least a ''minimal'' level of experience of content writing, the examples here are really very minimal. If this RfA fails, I'd encourage the candidate to make some non-AfD related contributions - improve the article on his home town, hobby, school subject whatever. If he does that, I'd probably strongly support next time. If the RfA succeeds, I'd still encourage him to get that experience.--
'''Neutral ''': I dont see any concerns that push me to Oppose section,but lack of tangible contributions to mainspace is something that makes me stay neutral. I am not a fan of big editcounts but I would like to see more contributions in mainspace too from you.''If everybody contributes to AFDs ( read as deleting articles) , who will write articles for Wikipedia ?  ''. Come on, this is encyclopedia , not a recycling machine ! This neutral vote is only to remind you to work more in article writing and not bcoz of any concerns of any possible abuse of tools. Nevertheless Bestwishes and this RFA is more likely to succeed. --
'''Support''' User has been around since Nov 2004 and had the first RFA in 2006 and has waited for 2 years to try again after overcoming the points raised in previous RFA.User has more than 19000 mainspace edits and over 25000 overall.See no misuse of tools.
'''Support''' User is highly experienced, trustworthy, neutral, knowledgeable and committed to Wikipedia. I have known him on Wikipedia for at least some 2 years and during those years, he has always displayed excellent professional behavior. Despite him holding a 'job' as Israeli prison commander for Arab prisoners (don't know whether he still does that), he has never displayed any bias in anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a very remarkable and positive fact. He recently did a huge amount of excellent work on the [[:Arad, Israel]] article, which IMO should be a featured article. I see no reason at all not to support Ynhockey for adminship, so hereby, I give my full support. --
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' - Ynhockey is a talented editor who is dedicated, thoughtful, and experienced so would make an excellent admin. DVD (
'''Support''' as co-nominator. — <font face="Segoe Script">
Pending a deeper review. I'm at least partly voting support this early in order to counteract some of the neutrals/opposes below. In my opinion, the purpose of an RfA is to determine if the candidate is trustworthy and reasonable enough to be granted admin tools. A wide range of evidence can be considered in this determination - simple participation in XfD, AIV etc. is not the only method. These forums also aren't rocket science - it doesnt' take a huge amount of participation to get the idea of how things should work and what the problems might be. To put it more plainly:''no one is still an "unknown" after 25,000 edits and 4 years.''
PEr [[WP:WTHN]], but only because I don't see anything in my brief review of your edits worth actionably oppossing... lolz. &mdash;
I don't see a need per se, but I do see a trustworthy well intentioned editor.
'''Weak support''' I'm concerned by the user's lack of experience in the areas described in question 1, but he's not ''totally'' inexperienced. The answers to the questions seem fair and well-judged. Should be fine, but I urge caution, and perhaps admin mentoring if the result is successful. It may help to bridge the gap experience-wise. Best, <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Agree with the nomination regarding Ynhockey's contribution to Israel-Palestine articles. Also concur with Avruch - in all honesty, I don't envisage Ynhockey is going to struggle helping to clear backlogs at requested moves.
'''Support.''' Experience in one area presupposes experience in other areas.
'''Support''' almost 80% of your edits are to article space.
'''Support''' per net positive. Even if this admin makes mistakes, I believe they will be very few because of the massive amounts of time he has spent he and the policies he will have undoubtedly pick up. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' per especially [[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] but also after a look through his contribs , especially considering the fact that Israel is such a hot topic (bias-wise). As to the concerns that this user doesn't have enough experience in the areas he mentioned - I see no problem. They will not be the exclusive area of work, and after 4 years I'm sure he knows enough.
'''Support''' due to a combination of no memorable negative interactions with the candidate, the candidate's creation of over 150 articles, the candidate's contributing to featured lists, and as the candidate has never been blocked.  --
'''Support''' So let me get this straight: we have here a candidate with 25K+ edits and 4 years of involvement in the project, good article builder, no serious incidents, no blocks, edit-warring or civility problems despite working in the oh-so-friendly area of Israel-related articles. And people are criticizing his ''experience''? How many times to we have to debunk the "no need for tools" argument? Adminship is not rocket science. The guy can read.
'''Support'''- Pascal.Tesson's just said what I was thinking, and better than I could have said it.
'''Support''' Ynhockey is familiar with Wikipedia processes, and I am sure he can pick up new responsibilities as needed without causing much disruption. His interactions with other editors seem reasonable.
'''Support''' Really, how long has it been since the "doesn't need the tools" argument was first demurred? Anyone can learn to be an admin;  trust is more important. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Support''' Great contributions to Wikipedia, especially in an area that is highly controversial.
Admin tools are easy. There's no real way to gain experience with them before RFA anyway. Your article work is good and stuff so yeah.
'''Support''' Hell yes - one of the best and few unbiased Israel-related contributors around. Will be a great asset as an admin.
'''Support''' He is an excellent editor and very experienced, fair, and neutral. Always provides insightful additions to wikipedia and would make an above par editor. I agree with all of these comments under support. --
'''Support''' Fantastic editor. Give him the mop.
'''Support''' Sound, experienced editor.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Although I'm concerned with his lack of experience in the areas he wishes to work in, his great levels of experience in content building and general trustworthiness overcome this and I gladly support. --
'''Support''' Civil and mature, 4 years experience and 25000 edits? Most definitely. As stated by others, the most important thing to look for at RfA is the proper temperament; everything else is easy to learn.
'''<s>Cautious support</s>''' per reasons I gave in neutral section below---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 11:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC) EDIT:  I should note, that one of the things that I did while vetting this candidate was looked through the history on his talk page.  The talk page is relatively clean of anybody complaining about him, but he has a note saying that he retains the right to delete personal attacks.  So I looked for cases where he might have done so and was surprised at how rarely that occurred considering his area of interest---and when he did so, I agreed that his deletion was justified.  I will reiterate what I said below though, I strongly encourage people to keep conversations on one page.  It is a major pain in the butt trying to trace discussions through various user talk pages and their archives.---'''
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I think you know what you're doing and have amply demonstrated that you're sensible and level-headed. While yes, you are short on some direct experience in admin areas, you do not come across as the kind of person that's likely to botch his way through things he does not understand. Your followup to question 1 is very convincing. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Strong Support''' - Brilliant editor. I've seen his edits pop up all over the place. A net-benefit user of the highest regard. --'''
'''Support''' Although I do understand the concerns of editors cautious of supporting someone who wishes to work in administrative areas in which they have little or no experience, I believe the possibility of misuse of tools by this candidate is still very low. Other than that, the candidate seems to be a solid content builder who has earned the trust of those he works with; that's something that always makes it difficult for me to oppose. Good luck!
'''Support'''. 25,000+ edits. Consistently editing since September 2005. Never blocked. Can there be any doubt that ynhockey has a commitment to making this a great encyclopedia? --
'''Weak Support'''. —
'''Support''' Needless to say, the facts mentioned below can't be ignored. However, the important question is whether Ynhockey is likely to abuse the tools. Given the answers to my questions I think this can be negated. The answers provide evidence that Ynhockey uses common sense and this is indeed very important. Overall I think there is no reason not to trust the candidate. —
'''Support'''  [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA|Being highly involved in a Wikiproject is not a valid reason to oppose. Contrarily, user should have a good understanding of the tools. User has made a significant number of edits, more than sufficient to gain understanding of policy and guidelines, and no one has provided any specific example of a ''lack'' of understanding. No reason to believe user will abuse/misuse the tools.]]
'''Support''' I trust this user with the tools. He will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' call it an irrational bout of trust ([[I know it when I see it]]). The candidate's record is a good prediction that he won't abuse the delete button.
'''Support''' - He'll do fine —
'''Support''' <small>(changed from oppose)</small> - Ynhockey2 is a highly experienced editor. His article work is impressive, and I don't think he will misuse the tools.
'''Over-the-top Support''' An Israeli hockey fan? It's certainly a demographic that is under-represented on Wikipedia.  :)  But seriously, my interaction with him has been outstanding.  He has contributed heavily to this project despite his rather unusual outside commitments.  My only critique is his lack of involvement in Wikiproject Ice Hockey, but I think the world will move forward.  But actually (back to being serious), I see him everywhere, which is the kind of editor and admin that is great.
'''Support''', user is involved in a WikiProject and is willing to learn. --
'''Suppory''': He failed an RfA in 2006, and seems to have been happy to simply continue working on building the encyclopedia since then. Not exactly a sign of someone who is likely to cause disruption with the mop by any far stretch.
Avruch hits the nail square on the head. And I do so wish I'd thought of Hiberniantears' rationale.
Support - Extremely impressed by the breakup I see [http://toolserver.org/%7Esql/sqlbot.php?user=Ynhockey here] and the answers to my questions (though the answer to my fourth question was a little too politically correct for my taste).
'''Support''':The experience shown here convinces me that the candidate would have to be familiar with said policies, even if it was gained through tangential action. I see no problems. <sup><small>
'''Strong support'''. Answers to optional questions show a high level of maturity, tact, intelligence, and all around [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. Dearth of drama-laden ANI experience is a ''plus'' in my book; reading through contribs and discussions makes me very confident that Ynhockey isn't going to jump into administrator arenas and start bashing the banhammer around uncontrollably.
'''support''' Editor likes hockey which is bad. But he likes Bleach which is good. Ok, joking aside, Ynhockey is a competent editor with better understanding of wikimarkup then I probably will ever have. He's one of the few editors on the Israel-Palestinians articles I've seen who seems to both understand that NPOV is not the same one's personal POV and moreover seems to be genuinely interested in achieving NPOV content. I find the editor's response in question 1 about experience issues to be while not completely compelling to be very reasonable especially given that the answers to the other questions generally demonstrate good understanding of wiki process.
'''Support''' Great article contributions and seems to interact well on article talk. Some more work at the noticeboards would be nice, but do we honestly need another admin that spends all of their time there? Nah, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not patrol noticeboards.
'''Support'''.  I liked the responses to the questions, and I feel that the editor will use the administrative tools properly, and has demonstrated interest in helping the project out.  I see enough here to trust him.  Lack of previous activity on the messageboards is not concerning in my view, as there's always time to learn, and as long as he doesn't jump in and start doing crazy things without consensus, he should be fine.
'''Support''' this experienced editor who gives clear answers to questions.
'''Support''' While some of the issues raised are important, I think that, as several users above have pointed out, the most important one in handing the mop to a janitor is whether you trust him to actually mop up the muck, and not just start running around showing everyone how big and powerful that mop is -- I have no fear that this editor will misuse the bells and whistles granted through adminship. Morever it's [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] in the grand scheme of things. Cheers!
'''Support''' - I agree with whoever first said you don't need admin tools to be a Wikiproject co-ordinator, and of course any admin should steer clear of controversial tool use in areas they regularly work as an editor. As its been raised ind etail in this RfA, no doubt Ynhockey has got the emssage to stay clear of any perceived conflicts of interest. Re WP edit history, longterm editors can easily have a detailed understandign of WP policy and practicve without having made hundreds of edits to the policy pages. For example, extensive article editing will make anyone familiar enough with common vandalism to be able to take action on AIV reports, without having made 50 such reports themselves. Ynhockey's contribution record and (admittedly limited) WP work is enough to say its unlikely the tools will be abused. A net positive, and clearly someone who is committed to improving the encylopedia.
'''Support''' My only real concern was with some material on [[User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia gripes|one of Ynhockey's user subpages]] ('''marked as outdated''') about IP editors, but I'm satisfied by his answer to my question. Other than that, the candidate looks fine to me. I would suggest, though, that Ynhockey either remove or strike through the stuff on that page with which he no longer agrees. Open editing is a foundation issue, and as an admin, you'll be, or at least be seen as, one of the foundation's representatives.
'''Support''' - nice responses, good work in the sensitive area of racial/national conflict. Good luck! <font color="#A20846">╟─
If someone is intelligent, cautious, and gets what we do here, especially if there is a ''long history'' of demonstrating it, "experience in admin areas" is completely unecessary. --
'''Support''' Good responses to questions
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
-- <b>
'''Support''' Responses confirm what the contribs show - a user who is level headed, thoughtful and understands policy. Lack of experience in admin areas is mitigated by the clear indications that he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I personally have no problems in seeing the nominee receiving adminship. Seems knowledgeable enough, and I can't think of any major issues caused as a result of the promotion. '''<font color="gray" face="Viner Hand ITC">Blooded Edge</font> ([[User talk:Blooded Edge|<font color="gray">T</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Blooded Edge|<font color="gray">C</font>]]•
'''Support''' 19,000 mainspace edits, here since '04, period. &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F"><small>'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="00008B">1''7'']]
'''Support''' Time-tested editor who shows NPOV, thorough understanding of policies, and trustworthiness.
'''Support'''. Ynhockey is one of most knowledgeable candidates in recent times. He also edits in a potentially contentious area, and managed to do so for a long time without stepping on any mines. I also think he has demonstrated sufficient commitment to the admin areas in which he plans to use the tools.
'''Support'''; I was -ahem- slightly brash in my decision. He's been here long enough to do mostly everything right. Net Positive.
'''Support''' - Everything I have seen with this candidate demonstrates he is ideal admin material. Able to work well with others, demonstrated ability to learn and grow, strong familiarity with all of the relevant policies in their current form. Ynhockey works in areas with some pretty heavy administrative observation; there's no 3RR to report if the action's already been taken, or the page protected, or the vandal blocked. He's been there, done that, and got the t-shirt long before almost everyone else on this page had made their first edit. Clean block log despite editing in very intense areas - a good sign.  I will forgive his Canucks fandom.
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' Nothing concerning here.
'''Support''' -
'''Support.''' Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, and some quality contributions to this project. '''
'''SuPPorT''' Risker said it all.
'''Support''' I literally starting editing wikipedia like 4 days before Ynhockey. I've never been elected for adminship. I WANNA HELICOPTER!-
'''Support''' - No concerns. I reviewed a number of his article Talk comments. He seems to be very patient.  Good answers to the RfA questions.
'''Support''': As sephiroth bcr mentioned in his nom, I think the user's immense experience (which would naturally result in a clear knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) will help him to overcome any difficulties and make the correct decisions in his role as an admin.
'''Support''': His experience and judgment I like. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': Tremendous experience.
'''Strong Support''': definite support, great overall experience.
'''Support''' Every time a trusted user, as is this candidate, uses the sysop tool it means another admin does not have to - thus giving a trusted user the mop increases the effect.
'''Support''' The responses are solid - YnHockey has done himself justice. I had already chanced upon just a few (of a considerable body of hard work) of his admirable contributions and was impressed enough to look up the editor. These include subjects for which I had some knowledge and resources to contribute but was too put off by the sctual and potential heat to get stuck in; anyway, Yn makes a better job of it than I could. As for the "needs tools?" rattle, I'm mildly astonished at how this could be an oppose-worthy issue for this candidate.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, reasonable and thoughtful. No valid issues concerning him yet raised.
'''Support'''. A trustworthy, good editor.
--''
'''Support''', great editor which could and would benefit from the mop, definitely fits my criteria and frankly the reasons cited by the Oppose voters are ridiculous. +
'''Support''' - Very good candidate, no problems I can see. You clearly have a strong history of productivity in controversial areas and I cannot see any reasons that you will abuse the tools. I have reviewed the concerns of the opposition with varying merit, and overall none of it concerns me. I think you have enough general experience for the admin areas you wish to work in, such as [[WP:RM]]. I disagree with the view that being involved in a WikiProject gives you an automatic COI in the area it covers. Yes [[WP:UNINVOLVED]] applies but many WikiProjects are in need of admins that can sort out day to day issues such as page move fixing and dealing with vandals.
'''Support''' - a committed, clueful editor, and there is no reason to believe that he won't figure out how to appropriately use any mop-like cleaning tools too. --
'''Support''' No reason to believe tools will be abused, and worthy of [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community trust]] --
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy from his answers and contributions.
'''Support'''.   Impressive contribution history.  Trust is a given and therefore so is my support.  I am not concerned about lack of activity in admin-areas cited by opposes.  My criteria is trust, as anyone who can be trusted with the tools can only help when they choose to use them.  &hArr;
Clearly the user can be trusted with the tools, therefore '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems ok to me.
'''Yep''' <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''': I see him as seemingly trustworthy candidate with lots of wiki contributions. Just 2 RFAs in 4 years should be seriously an eyeopener for many admin hopefuls :) --
'''Support''' good experienced editor who doesn't cause waves in a very controversial area. '''
'''Support''': been around a while, none of the opposes are deal-breakers for mine, i.e. highly likely will be a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' Of course, one of those RFAs that should have been automatic. Longstanding user, always been a reason of calm especially with the 9-11 articles which has been a source of wiki biggest dramas for years. Experience oppose votes are very weak
'''Support'''. I concur with much of the above, I'm seeing a good, experienced user with quality contributions. No reason not to trust them with the tools.
'''Oppose''' - I hate to be the first to oppose and not to be able to cite any diffs...Anyway. It's good to see an editor with this much experience, but I just don't see a need for the tools. Ynhockey expresses a desire to work in [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AIV]], and [[WP:RM]], but out of the total 25000 edits has made a total of 14 edits to WP:RM, and fewer than 5 to the other two areas. The nom has also made 20 edits to [[WP:ANI]], but states that they will wait for some time to work in that area. Additionally, I could see a potential on-wiki COI issue; as a main editor to a Wikiproject, using admin tools to work on that area seems like it could cause issues. NOTE: I'm not flaming possibilities here, I'm just noticing an issue which could arise. As such, I feel I must oppose; though he is a trustworthy user, the tools are not needed in the current areas in which he works. --
'''Oppose''' - Given my previous neutral rationale. It's enough to warrant an oppose.
'''Oppose''' As per the previous comments and, ironically, as per this comment by his co-nomination: "he does not have a great deal of participation in traditional administrator areas..." This lack on project input on that front does not make him a net positive and, thus, cannot support him. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per tennisman. The candidate could use more experience in the admin areas in which he says he plans to participate. In time he'll be ready for the mop.
'''Oppose''' - per teh tennisman. <small>
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience within admin-related areas. Perhaps in another six months?
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I cannot support !vote on a candidate who wants to work in areas they have little experience in to start with. Come back with more experience (although it does indeed look like this will pass anyway) and you will no doubt be getting a support from me. Good editor, though. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Weak Oppose''' per nom? Your answers to questions clearly show that you are intelligent and have clue, and your efforts in improving the project are commendable, however, you need more experience in admin areas, specifically the areas you want to work in, before I can support. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:teh  tennisman]] and also due to lack of experience. Sorry
'''Oppose''' - weak and inconsistant XfD experience. Some inappropiate keep votes. Lack of AN/I experience. And frankly, admins with huge interest and membership in highly contentious WikiProjects who plan to use their admin tools in said project are not the sort of thing I'm looking for in admins. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Oppose''' I don't feel that I can support a user with virtually no experience in the areas that they want to work in. Sure, the user has good judgment, but judgment is no substitute for experience. Furthermore, the user said many times that they would look for the opinion of other admins in areas that they want to work. Input from other admins should not be necessary for most decisions that an administrator needs to make, and if it is, it should hold the same weight as any other users input.
'''Oppose''' As per MWW113 and the areas where he says have TOO many admins there anyway. Itfc+canes=me
'''Oppose''' Lack of project space experience disturbs me.--
'''Oppose''' for lack of project space and per Tennisman, Erik and Eco. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Strong Oppose''' Sorry I am late on this vote (have been away), but I urge everybody to read what I have just written on [[Talk:Karmiel]]. In short: Ynhockey  has done thousands of useful, though mostly minor and uncontroversial edits, on many articles, including geography-articles of Israel. The problem is that he has a strong POV regarding MiddleEast (Israel/Palestine)-articles, and he has become an editor which strongly pro-Israeli editors notify when they want/need support. Nothing unusual in that, but I am very reluctant in giving the tools to somebody with such a strong POV, when he has <i>not </i> in any way shown that he has a great need for the mop. Regards,
'''Netural leaning Oppose''' Candidate exprasses to work in areas he has little experience. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' — Per Wisdom89, America69 and Ecoleetage. I'll switch accordingly later on. —'''
'''Neutral''' I hate to give a useless "per User:X" comment, but Wisdom89 said it all. &ndash;
'''Neutral'''. Ynhockey is a good contributor, but has little experience is admin-related areas he/she plans to work on. Will gladly support with more experience in these areas.
<s>Pending A to my Q's. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)</s> Some well thought out answers in some ways, however, I don't think it attacked the issues strongly enough either. For me to support, most of the fundamentals are there - sufficient for a lot of the stuff he wants to work in. However, I expect that an editor who goes for RFA after 3 years should have, and be able to demonstrate, a strong and deep understanding of these fundamentals. Like others here, I'm not satisfied that there is enough experience, which is why I suspect that part of the understanding fell short of what I was hoping for. In such cases of that missing "depth", users with tools can (without realising, and without the community noticing) do more damage than good. Despite my concern, there are some other positives, and it seems he is trying to be very careful which may avoid that problem. Overall imo, it's certainly not enough for my support, but it just falls short of oppose. '''Neutral.'''
'''Neutral''' per not enough experience in the areas that they wish to contribute in as an administrator.  With as many edits as the candidate has, I think it would be reasonable to expect to see a significant number of additional edits to their declared areas of interest. --
'''Neutral'''. Overall, good contributions. However Ynhockey does not have much experience in the areas that he intends to mop.
'''Neutral'''. I was borderline before reading this discussion; I think there's too much fence-sitting in the answers to questions. As an admin, you will have to take strong positions one way or the other. (And yes, I am aware of the irony in voting neutral for this reason.)
'''Neutral''' per Erik the Red.
'''Neutral'''.  I would answer Q10 slightly differently myself:  in almost all cases, I would be inclined to disallow a non-free image of a living individual, even in the exceptional case of somebody who is &#8220;inaccessible to the public.&#8221;  As for Q5:  [[wiktionary:TMI|TMI]].  Overall, however, seems like a good candidate.
'''Meutral'''. Just not enough experience in admin-related areas for a support, though I sincerely hope this does pass.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' seems like a good editor, but not enough experience to become an ''effective'' administrator.  More experience in admin-related activity will gain my support in the future.  Seems like this editor does have decent judgment, so I hope this RfA passes. [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Neutral  leaning Support''' Admire work at [[WP:ANIME]] very much. Some issues with Ynhockey's votes in XfD's, though. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, seen this user also make some mainspace edits as well. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - I like the answers to the candidate's questions - obviously a knowledgeable and well rounded editor. I would have liked to see more Wikipedia namespace contributions, but the break down/versatility is just fine. I believe this user deserves the tools. Nothing makes me think he/she would have difficulty wielding them.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Per Q2 answer. ''
'''Support''', this is a good vandal fighter who has made many contributions to school articles as well as other articles. The tools would improve this user's ability to fight vandalism.
'''Support per above'''
'''Support''' Although self noms will usually make oppose, your answers make up for that. '''''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Well use the mop well. <strong>
'''Weak Support'''. An excellent mainspace contributor and great vandal fighter. Nearly 6000 edits. Good enough for me. The lack of Wikipedia Talk edits is disappointing.
'''Support'''. Users edits indicate maturity.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support'''; editor seems ready for the mop.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I can find no reason not to trust this user&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Weak support''' - generally good, but 1 edit on a Wikipedia-talk page is disappointing. I'm sure this user will be OK though. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - After looking this user over, he gets my support.
'''Weak Support'''.  Very low projectspace edit count, but I still think that this user won't delete the main page, and so will be fine with the tools.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - Good wikipedian so far will be even better with the admin tools! Good luck! --
'''Support'''. [[User:Ral315/WTHN|W.T.H.N]]? [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' - This user meets my standards, and edits articles for which I have little expertise. I have no concerns.
'''Strong support'''. Great editor, will be an even better admin.--'''
'''Weak support''' per Rudget.
'''Weak Support''' Also per Rudget. While I do not know the full extent of the January events, this user does appear to be qualified for the mop. Besides, the mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' No glaring concerns. I would advise Zedla to take things slow at the beginning, and ask other admins for advice often. :)

'''Support'''. Casliber puts it nicely. Slow-to-block is a good attribute in an admin. Seems like an excellent user.
'''Support''' good editor with no warning signs. Seems willing to learn. <b>
'''Support''' and good luck! —
'''Support''' - After thinking this one through I have decided to support. My interactions with you have been positive, and I think you have the right attitude to be an admin. The concerns of the opposition are not unreasonable, and I suggest you take them on-board, but they do not concern me enough not to support, and I think you have learnt from the issues mentioned.
'''Support'''  good edits on school articles and per above
'''Support'''. Experienced enough. Able to learn quickly.
'''Support.'''
'''Ka pai.''' Good. <strong>
Opposes are woolly, enough said. '''
'''Support''', I believe you have the best interests of the project at heart, you seem to learn quickly, and communicate appropriately and when necessary.  Looking forward to seeing you around more.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Looks like a good user.
'''Weak support''' I am, in the end, largely convinced that the candidate will not act in areas whereof the policy and practice surrounding which he/she does not know and that he/she is capable generally of appreciating what those areas are, such that it is rather unlikely that he/she should misuse&mdash;even avolitionally&mdash;the tools; in view of other recommending qualities, then, I am relatively comfortable concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' Has all the 'tools' needed to be an admin.  Shows upmost professionalism and does not overreact.  Something that sometimes lacks around here.  Will be an excellent admin.
I don't usually oppose RFAs, unless they are on the subject of relatively new users which have moreorless 1000 contributions, whether it be dedicated to mainspace revisions, userpage edits etcetera. Unfortunately, I believe I have to oppose this RFA on quite a few bases, which will hopefully serve more as a learning curve rather than an outright unendorsement. [[User_talk:66.94.89.148#January_2008|Back in January]] you gave a final warning to a user that had already been given a level four notice prior to your note, which then ultimately ended with <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:66.94.89.148 block], yet with more than 60 edits there (maybe more were after this event, I'm unsure) you should have learnt to know that after a final warning which was added within 5 minutes prior to your application, you should go directly to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] (which co-incidentally, is a place you've stated that you wish to work). You also have very few discussions with other users, with the only WT-space edit being a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy&diff=prev&oldid=172446822 revert]. <s>Most mainspace contributions are in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Zedla&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 form of revisions] with no reasonable evidence that you've yet developed an article or used it as a basis for discussion.</s> There is also a little confusion over this user's understanding of the SSP case board ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/76.102.193.102], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cyclopticbob], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mschuhe3]), and [[WP:UAA|UAA]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=189156709]), with few edits elsewhere in the Wikipedia namespace. This combined with the relatively infrequent and discontinued discussions with others users, make me unhappy with this user becoming an administrator at this time.
'''Weak Oppose''', sorry. Not only I seem to agree with the concerns presented by Rudget above, as I also think that your participation in the Wikipedia space is a bit below the level I would find satisfactory. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. I'm really sorry, because I know how much passing an RfA (or receiving too many opposes) means to admin hopefuls, but I cannot look past [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=189156709 this] which only happened a month ago. If it was months and months ago I would probably just ignore it and support your nomination but if you were to become an administrator it was implied by your [[WP:UAA]] edit that you would block 'on sight' (when reporting to AIV, you usually do it because you can't block the vandal yourself - if reporters all had blocking capabilities there would be no need for AIV) and create a potentially dangerous (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) conflict. I disagree partly with Rudget's January IP warning, because other users had done the same (but not within that 2 minute period). Looking at your edit count I do find concern in your WT edit count. Do you intend to clear DYK? If so, I think a WT edit count (not wanting to sound like I've got a spot of [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|edit-countitis]]) is a great idea. Anyway, I'm sorry and I hope that I can support you in the future. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User talk:Littleteddy|Littleteddy]] (
'''Oppose''' At this time I do not feel comfortable supporting you. True; you are constantly reporting vandals - but I feel more at ease supporting admin-hopefuls that are more well-rounded in Wikipedia and what is going on. If I saw more interaction in Wikipedia space - or AFD's - I would gladly support you. --
'''Oppose''' While I don't mind vandal fighting admins... I believe that admin candidates should be more well rounded.  He doesn't have the breadth of experience needed for my support
'''Oppose''', low-level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' per above comments, not well-rounded enough yet on wikipedia for mopship.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by Ozgod and Balloonman.
'''Oppose''' With apologies as this RfA seems close. Your answer to Q1 states you wish to participate across the broad mainstay of admin areas. I'm affraid I see insufficent evidence from your contributions of your knowledge of protection and deletion. Vandal fighting is great, but, per Ozgod, I prefer someone more "well rounded". Kind of "close, but not quite" for me. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Oppose''' A good editor, but quite lacking in the areas admins inevitably should work in.
Changed from neutral to oppose. Like pointed out above there seems to be a lack of project space contributions, something that is very important when it comes to administrative functions. I know this is an easy thing to work on, and I will be happy to support next time (though I am sure this will pass).
'''Oppose''' various minor niggles add up, particularly the username report, lack of projectspace interaction and tellingly for me, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Zedla&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 this] which to my mind indicates a lack of interaction with others. Admins need to explain our policies and idiosyncracies, especially to newbies, so racking up user talk edits with automated messages is fine, but insufficient on its own. Anyway, I think you'll be fine next time if you pay attention to the comments here and look forward to supporting... please do drop me a line (if this fails) when you run again. --
'''Weak oppose'''. Your mainspace contribs are good, but after reading the opposes I'm not quite convinced that you are ready for the tools at this time. Hard oppose for me to make since you seem to be a good user, plus I"m not a fan of opposing RfAs myself. (joke, your contributions in the following are good)Also, I can't support anyone in the school cabal.(/joke) I'll keep an eye on you,  people who barely fail have great track records on the second RfA.
'''Weak oppose'''. I like the looks of your CSDs (the one exception being [[Super bed]], which you tagged under [[WP:CSD#A7]] even though it wasn't a bio article at all but an article on a [[WP:NEO|neologism]]. The article was patently unencyclopedic, but in my opinion it's better to delete within policy.) You seem like a great contributor, but I share the concern voiced by several above that it is just too difficult to assess your likely use of the tools since you aren't contributing much to the project spaces that would help me evaluate that. I suppose I fall in with [[User:Pedro|Pedro]] and [[User:Dweller|Dweller]] here, and I expect that I will be able to support in the future if you continue as you are but also demonstrate in additional areas. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of project space contributions.
Requests for adminship are, at their heart, an open community referendum on a given candidate's judgment and whether or not the community should extend its [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to the candidate. As such, it should not be a decision entered into lightly or without proper thought. In this case, after looking at a few hundred edits by this editor, I have not seen anything that stands out as a trustworthiness issue, but I have not seen (yet) examples of behavior that I look for in potential admin candidates. Thus, I am uncomfortable opining either way. In the past, I would have left such RfA's mute of my over-long, circumlocuitous, pedantic, and otherwise carpal-tunnel-causing comments, but I am in the process of being educated by the community that it prefers a more vocal and obvious presence at RfA's by those of us who wish to undergo ritual [[vivisection]] below, so I am learning :). Back to this particular candidacy, I will look at a larger swath of edits, and hopefully will come to some clarity. Regardless, best of luck, Zedla! --
'''Neutral''' Too close to call at present, but if this one fails, I expect to be able to support the next one.
'''Support!'''-
'''Support''' - would have nominated if others had not got there first (and did inquire some months ago but user declined until it felt right; a decision I respect). My impressions: a quiet "doer", heart in the right place, stable and effective, likely to have good judgement and be a "voice of calm sanity" in a debate, and well placed in spirit. Editing history is good; likely to be an asset to the project if given the mop. Glad to indicate support.
'''Strong Support''' - Seen Zeibura many times before. Good luck.
'''YES''' '''
'''Support''' Definitely a positive for the project. Music's one of our really dodgy areas on WP, would be good to have more knowledgeable admins with solid content skills in there. Has a cool head and meets
'''You're not a mod yet? Support''' --'''
'''Support''' - worthy editor and nice with it.
I strongly support this candidate, and I agree completely with Acalamari's and PeaceNT's points in their nomination statements.
Yes, finally.
'''Support''' per aboves. <strong>
'''Support''' per all above. Having an Acalamari nom is icing on the cake. -'''
'''Support''' - a valuable contributor, will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
&mdash;
'''Support''' As per Acalamari.
'''Support''' - should get the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Needs extra tools. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Of course. —
'''Support''' without having to look twice.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Should be good with the tools.--
'''Oh yeah''' —

'''Support''', of course. Will make good use of the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' is a very good editor that could help wikipedia with admin tools
'''I am saying "Yes"'''. -- <strong>
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Good luck!  '''

'''Support''' no doubt that this can editor will only benefit the community and the project once he becomes an admin!
'''Support''' Looked over contribs and think user will use tools wisely.  --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', no concerns here. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' as meeting my standards, with no concerns except that I wish he'd know more AfD policy.
'''Support''', yes, no concerns here. --
'''Support''' as nominator. Good luck! '''<font face="verdana">Cheers,
'''Support''' - 21655 looks like he'd make a great admin. Good at vandalism-fighting, lots of edits. He could do a lot of good with the tools. --
'''Support''' — Yes, blows [[User:EJF/Adminship standards|my criteria]] out of the water. Good luck!  (But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGurch&diff=196131060&oldid=195931144 here], remember edit count isn't important, it's helping the encyclopedia that counts) (But I think you know that :) Regards,
'''Support''' Great interactions with this user. <strong>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to be the first one here, but I have a problem with edit summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=August_6&diff=prev&oldid=198927057 this].  Also, I'm not thrilled with messages on talkpages like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=prev&oldid=198224082 this].  I get the impression, that although you do a fair bit of vandalism reversion (which is a good thing), you seem to have a problem when any other user actually confronts one of you reversions/actions.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a user here in 21655 that can get ''way too defensive'' when actually challenged, which of course is a bad trait in an admin.  Prove me wrong, I'll switch my !vote.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose'''. Poor mainspace coverage as well as limited experience on wiki generally, despite some vandal-zapping. I want admins to grow out of the encyclopedia building process, so I'd prefer the candidate to do some of that for its own sake. Always suspicious too when an editor's user talk count even approaches mainspace contributions. You don't need the tools, and wiki hasn't been given enough to risk giving them to you.
'''Oppose''' - Per the diff's provided by Kepper above, and then the way that 21655 responded to them.  Just because you "wikimood" is at a -7 does not make it alright to go off on a user (vandal or not). Just appears that there may be some [[WP:AGF]] issues here. Also, while I love anti-vandalism work, there has to be a sweet medium between that and other areas that may require administrative attention, like contributing to [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AFD]], ect. With a little over 5,000 edits, and most of them reverts coupled with the other issued raised, I can not support. Sorry,
'''Strong Oppose''' Serious concerns regarding civility and temperament raised above, including instances from today. There is no way that I would feel comfortable with this editor having the tools right now, and likely not until there has been a significant history of avoiding such behaviour.
'''Oppose''' - The diffs provided leave something to be desired. You apparently have [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] issues that need to be addressed before I trust you with the tools. Also, you lack vital experience in the project space. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - I have to agree with the reasons given above. There is no excuse for incivility. If you know your not in a good mood, take a  short [[Wikipedia:Wikibreak|break]]
'''Oppose''' It is unfortunate that the candidate's reaction to certain of the (entirely reasonable) opposes has served to bear out that Keeper's concerns about temperament, judgment, and civility are not unfounded, and I am led to have those concerns myself.
'''Oppose''' (switch from support) (edit conflict). In light of the above diffs (especially incivil edit summaries '''during''' an RFA, I am opposing this RFA.
When I saw your name, I got all excited.  But the diffs left me with a sour feeling.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
No problems with your actual editing, but incivility is a great concern here, and I'm not so sure I like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2F21655&diff=198975177&oldid=198974835 this edit summary] that much. I kindly suggest you withdraw for now, work on your behavior and interactions with other users, and come back in a few months time.
Completely and utterly wrong temperament, as shown in the diffs mentioned in the first RfA, the resultant behavior from the last RfA (including edit summaries during and post-RfA, as well as the retirement), and even the nominating statement for this one. I'm sorry, but you're in dire need of relaxation, and I'm '''extremely''' hesitant to provide you with administrative tools. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose'''. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/21655|No, just no.]] Plus, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=2609425&diff=199414225&oldid=199412059 this] is a completely inappropriate edit summary. Why not act on some of the concerns raised in your previous RfA and set your mind on ''improving the encyclopedia''.
Oh, Man.  I'm so sincerely sorry to be here in the oppose section.  You are a good editor.  The things you do are valuable to this place.  But your previous nom was yesterday.  You "quit" the RfA after a handful of opposes, then "retired" from Wikipedia in a huff (and a prolific amount of cursory language at that).  Now you're here again.  This is ''highly unlikely to pass''.  You need an admin coach, or some sort of guidance.  I'm afraid you'll leave again (which is not what is wanted by anyone).  I believe your sincerety and completely accept your apology to the community above for your rashness yesterday, but this won't pass because of it.  Please withdraw again and find an admin coach.  I'm an admin coach by the way.  Feel free to visit my talkpage anytime.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Very strong oppose''', and possibly a never. The behaviour after the last RfA is ridiculous, as describe in your nom, and shows that you're unfit for adminship as you can't properly react to stuff. Also per EVula, who puts it well, too. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' I am a firm believer in people learning from their experiences, but before I feel that I can [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust the candidate's judgment]], I need to see evidence of the change. At this point I would counsel withdrawing this nomination, and editing for a period of two-to-three months  at the minimum, so that there can be concrete evidence of your stated changes. Good Luck! --
'''Strong Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=2609425&diff=199414225&oldid=199412059 RFA is not a fight]. Take 6 months or so, build some experience and temperance and come back.
'''Oppose''' until user undergoes a complete shift in temperament and attitude (note that I do not foresee that happening in four days).
'''Strong Oppose''' - as per the above. Suggest at least a bit of admin coaching, as per above, and at least a few months of regular editing before another nomination.
'''Strong Oppose''', per quick review of your recent contributions. You're focusing on your previous RFA experience with some sort of vendetta attitude, the last thing we need in admins. You need to cool down a bit. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Strong oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:21655&diff=next&oldid=199096295 this] statement on your userpage after your first RfA is quite frankly rude, provocative and more inline with what I would expect off a disruptive user, not an aspiring administrator. I suggest you edit productively for quite a while and consider how to react when things don't go your way.
--

'''Oppose''' Lance you seem like a great guy, and we need more devs with varied programming experience .  But I must oppose as I'm uncomfortable with someone who has edited 9 times making decisions related to blocking users or deleting content.  Try getting more experience and coming back. '''
The fact that he was tempted to decline is prima facie evidence of a lack of power hunger! '''Support''' wholeheartedly!
'''Support''' per these intelligent posts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron&curid=12249773&diff=180053427&oldid=180022393 02:40, 25 December 2007], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions&curid=6303829&diff=180724286&oldid=180591596 02:02, 29 December 2007], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions&curid=6303829&diff=180928651&oldid=180871408 05:12, 30 December 2007].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Contrary to the opposes, I feel his responses to questions and Le Grand's diffs above demonstrates enough knowledge of policy. &mdash;

'''Support''', appears to have a good grasp of policy.
'''Support''', because I like your edits and also think you understand policy. But wait!!! Whoa back. I am inexperienced, just like you. Ergo, thats TWO of us editors who have no place in Wiki.
'''Support''' sensible. -
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I would consider that this user has a very good grasp of policy. I see absolutely no benefit making the candidate wait some arbitrary time period before being granted the sysop flag; such process is simply for process's sake, and does not help the encyclopedia. What should be considered before commenting is whether the candidate can help Wikipedia, and will not harm it; looking at some contributions and comments that the candidate has made, the only option is to '''strong support''' given the clear policy knowledge and good manner that he has.
'''Support''' - not afraid to get stuck into some messy topics integral to good 'pedia building, and seems to exhibit some diplomacy. cheers,
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers to questions. Opposition based on a lack of experience is misconceived, as this candidate clearly has the experience needed to use the few extra buttons wisely. --
'''Moral support''', thoughtful replies to the questions and unafraid of controversial issues. But rather inexperienced and possibly a bit too focussed on contributors, rather than content.
'''Support''' I don't expect problems with this candidate.
'''Support'''; in spite of a low edit count, he's quite a strong candidate.  Do please read the three diffs cited by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles above.  This candidate will be a fine admin.
'''Strong support.''' A refreshingly eccentric contributor. Adminship should be no big deal, and this candidate's attitude is consistent with that. No danger of abusing the tools here! --
'''Strong support''', very good answers to the questions. --
'''Support''' his answers and Le Grand Roi's diffs show wisdom that belies his number of contributions and make me doubt that he would use admin tools inappropriately.
'''Support'''.  This user can be trusted with the admin tools and has done good editing.--
'''Support'''. Overall a good user, and holds potential to be a good admin.
'''Support''' This user is thoughtful, reasoned and sensible and I am actually fairly convinced this person would use the tools wisely if promoted. Edit contribs seem solid.
'''Weak Support''' I would have probably been neutral, but your handling of the whole debacle regarding "vote trading" has been exemplary. I suspect this RfA will not pass, and hope that if this is the case it is not too long before you ask for the tools again. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' "coz" you are a good contributor Abd El-Rahman. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Weak support''' or '''moral support''', I would like to see you with the tools, but PLEASE cut down on the length of your responces. Good luck!
'''Support'''. I'm actually rather impressed by this user's communication skills. Have those who complain about his lengthy responses stopped to read them? He responds to minor issues (like those on this RfA) with good nature, and he uses wit (and, yes, sometimes sarcasm) when it is merited. He has points of view, as everyone does, and he does the right thing with them -- bringing them into discussions about improving articles on their talk page. This is what I observe from following opposers' links to his "diatribes" -- they look to me like rather eloquent defenses of his position with no malice involved. If we would lengthen our collective attention span, we would gain an excellent admin.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I don't believe you have enough overall experience as of yet.
'''Oppose''' Per Jmlk17 - This was my major concern while doing my analysis. I'm sure in 4-5 months my username would be in the support list.
'''Somewhat Reluctant Oppose''' I have no doubt that Abd is a good editor, and I'm fairly certain that he can be trusted to use the tools properly. However, he admits in the 'discussion' section above that he is not an experienced Wikipedian (''"I do not consider myself an experienced Wikipedian."''). While his answers to the questions show intelligence, they also serve to illustrate his unfamiliarity with some basic aspects of Wikipedia. I'm not concerned with his edit count, but rather with the fact that, by his own admission, he is lacking in the experience department. And while I feel that he can be ''trusted'' to wield the tools, I think that at this point he lacks the experience to effectively and appropriately use the buttons. I could definitely see myself supporting some time in the future, but I can't now. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - per Jmlk17. And although this has not much relevance with this RFA, does the candidate know what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sarsaparilla&oldid=190273410 this] means?
'''Strongly Oppose''' -  He has a tendency to judge other editors and their editing practices far too often in talk, and believes that this practice is productive. He seems to have an unlimited amount of time to do ''lengthy'' commentary in talk, and has spent a lot of time researching editors edit history(in my opinion verging on stalking behaviour). He also appears to know a great deal about Wiki policy and these combinations, intentionally or unintentionally, have been used to wear many editors who disagree with him down. By this I mean that disagreements are resolved not through communication but by the other side simply throwing in the towel. He generally appears to be a little obsessive and has difficulty "letting things go". I am on the verge of making a formal complaint and have sought advice on how to proceed. I have placed four warnings on his talk page which were deleted. Granted, the third warning used the wiki "don't be a dick" as a heading with a quotation from that essay, but that was the behaviour I saw at the time. On hindsight that probably wasn't the best approach but you would think that a potential administrator would take the highroad and seek conciliation. The olive branch has been extended to him many times.--
'''Oppose''' Low edit count.Curious why previous RFA link was not put at the offset.Sorry but will support you in the future but not now.Good luck .
'''Oppose''' per Pharaoh.
'''Oppose''' - not enough edits yet. &nbsp; '''

'''Strong oppose'''. I don't believe Abd has the ''people skills'' to be trusted in any way to represent the Wikipedia community. I must conclude that whatever intelligence, skills and enthusiasm he offers, this is fully offset by his ability to turn people off from future editing of Wikipedia through his continual judgement of motives and good faith edits by users.
'''Oppose'''. You don't have to look further than "''Q: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?  A: They are yet to come.''"  Without substantial editing (and without the associated interactions) in the mainspace, one cannot have sufficient appreciation of the situations that may arise requiring admin intervention. --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=160840412&oldid=160840321 this] report at [[WP:AN/3RR]] and the associated 2000 word [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=160944418 diatribe] when your request is denied. I opposed last time on this issue, and I see no progress since then. Please, Abd, target responses that are about 10% the length of your current responses. Brevity is the key.
'''Strongly oppose.''' I would echo Scuro's comments - Abd has a tendancy to get personal when challenged (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#What_is_.22neurology.22.3F here]) and does not assume good faith. Scuro and I oppose each other in viewpoint on the [[Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder|ADHD]] and [[Controversy_about_ADHD|controversy]] article we are currently researching but can manage to get along without getting personal. Though I'm sure Abd is well versed in Wiki policy, his long, l-o-n-g comments don't so much instruct as put you off or make you lose the will to live [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder:_controversies#controversies_and_controversy_articles_as_related_to_wiki_guidelines]. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miamomimi my talk page] you will see it mostly taken up by Abd's comments.
'''Oppose.''' Not experienced enough. By user's own assessment, he doesn't particularly need the tools. It's just a shame that a decent editor has to go through this RfA when he didn't even particularly want to.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience yet to meet [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my standards]].
'''Marginal oppose''' per [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|my criteria for RfA]]. Lengthy answers to almost every oppose suggest a certain "I am right, and I'm going to pound this keyboard until I persuade you" attitude. Prefer a more conciliatory, 'listening' approach and a more economical, concise style - I infer that clarity of expression mirrors clarity of thought.
'''Oppose''' per DGG and per my pounding headache (the kind you get right between the eyes and just above the nose - usually caused by staring at a computer screen too long and trying to understand what is on the screen.) My favorite long answer (and trust me, I'm as verbose and longwinded as they come - that's not the issue) is the long answer that follows Ronnotel's request to understand that "brevity is the key."  Not that you've asked for advice, but I will echo the advice of Ronnotel as something to really strive at, Abd.  When it's written "dialogue" instead of spoken, a long answer ''every time'' to every question is a turn off. It's too easily perceived as "talking over" the other editor, aka a Monologue.  You obviously have sound ideas and sound objectives, but your answers eventually will only be skimmed, too easily discounted and likely frequently dismissed.  Brevity is the key (he said in a long ironic paragraph).  Cheers,   [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Changing to oppose now. In one "word": '''[[TL;DR]]'''. Seriously, try to be more concise. Your posts regularly span my entire screen height+. Also per DGG, Dloh <small>(I always have to look up your precise username, so I'm now going to call you that from now on if you don't mind, I think it's a rather cute nickname)</small> and Keeper76. User:
Per answers to questions. '''
Abd has played important roles and made valuable contributions to Wikipedia.  However, Abd has not demonstrated the consistent judgement and self-control required of an admin: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approval_voting&diff=185923387&oldid=185823504 use of 'allegedly' (diff)] and [[Talk:Approval_voting#Is_Approval_.22susceptible_to_strategic_voting.22 | justification]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approval_voting&diff=186018414&oldid=185976610 removal of content without reading supporting sources (diff)] and [[Talk:Approval_voting#Removal_of_claim_.22Approval_is_vulnerable_to_strategic_voting..22 | justification]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Approval_voting&diff=162795474&oldid=162794892 purveying OR (diff)]] [[Talk:Approval_voting#Multiple_Ballot_Questions | examined]], and [[Talk:Approval_voting#notConciseOnTopic | able but unwilling to be concise and on topic]].  For him, dual roles as admin and POV advocate would create mutual interference that separate accounts would not resolve.  The mutual goals of Abd and Wikipedia would be better served in other ways.
Attitude toward naysayers is too defensive for me to approve.
'''Oppose''' based on lack of people skills shown here and on [[User talk:Abd|Abd's talk page]]. 90% of the work I do as an admin involves communication with other editors. Editors who are often frustrated because their article was deleted, they've been blocked, or an article they proposed for deletion ''wasn't'' deleted. Tact is essential, and I'm not seeing it here. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns. Try again in a few months and I may support. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' from a user who has never crossed paths with [[User:Abd|Abd]] but has doubts due to other Wikipedians' concerns and the amount of dispute around this RfA. I wouldn't like him to bear the mop. --
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.
If it takes more time to make more concise statements then you ''need to take more time'' to make more concise statements.  Your response to this concern (above, several times) has been very dismissive.  Indeed, for some editors it takes more time to be civil, or to use edit summaries, or to actually read a guideline or policy.  And so they take this extra time, though they find it inconvenient.  I believe that you need to do so as well. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] and others' concerns.  This editor does not yet know much about WP, even after more than 2 years.  I can not trust this user at this time.  Come back after a few more thousand edits and clean hands.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:DGG]], [[User:Kim Dent-Brown]], and [[User:Bearian]] in addition to [[User:Abd]]'s responses to RfA questions and the user's Shakespearean "I get paid by the word" mindset in rebutting oppose votes.
'''Oppose''' - Per Keeper; I also have a large headache after reading this page and the talk page. Aside from that, there have been too many issues bought up for me to comfortably support.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in my books.

Trustworthy editor, however lack of experience in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&contribs=user&target=Abd&namespace=4 areas] that relate to using the extra buttons.
'''Neutral''' at present. I am inclined to support, but would first like to see a comment from you relating to the diff highlighted by [[user:Rudget|Rudget]], naming you as another user's proxy voter. In which votes is not specified. --<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' -I'm concerned about the lack of experience, and am unsure about supporting, but the concerns aren't enough to oppose. I do think that Abd has shown a good knowledge of policy, and will keep an eye on this RfA for anything that may cause me to change my mind. In any case, best of luck to Abd, and please don't get disheartened if this fails; you will still be an excellent editor.
'''Neutral''' I see a very good editor in your future...you have a good knowledge of wikipedia's policy, but the lack of experience doesn't quite want to make me support yet. I'll vote for you in another RFA, just maybe later. <strong>
'''Neutral''' - You're a good candidate, but need just a bit more experience.  Up the mainspace counts, and it would be a support from me.
'''Switch to neutral''' per this part of his response to Ronnotel below (my emphasis): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAbd_2&diff=190641507&oldid=190634722 "As to the substance and subject here, which isn't Ronnotel, had ''I possessed the tools at that time, I would not have been able to use them,'' I'd have had to file a report like anyone else, because I was an involved editor,"]. I still think the nominee is a bit of a hot head. (If you want to know why, just read some of his responses. RfA is stressful, so I'll cut him some slack, but having the buttons isn't always a walk in the park either.) So I can't support. But he does seem to trying to help and do more than POV push. His response to conflict seems to be overly zealous, and that turns a lot of people off. The most important traits an admin can have may be the ability to entertain the idea that one might be wrong coupled with patience with the wrongness of others. I just don't see that. And really, the wordiness is not helping.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Neutral''' to avoid pileon, something I don't normally do, but I see no harm in this fellow, other than he (a) doesn't want to be, and (b) doesn't have the knowledge to be, an admin.  I wish he had simply declined.
'''Neutral''' [[wikt:en:TLDR|TLDR]] per Dorftrottel. There are pros and cons here, so I'm not giving a definite answer as of right now. However, I'm just wondering why you make page long, run on paragraph responses to an oppose that says "brevity the key", then another page long response to an oppose saying that he didn't like your page long response to the "brevity is key" post. '''
'''Neutral''' per RGTraynor.  Why does this RfA lack an acceptance statement from the candidate?  Does he want to be an admin?
'''Time will tell''' - '''''
'''Neutral''' I don't know what to vote in this.  I am torn between both of the arguments listed under both of the support and oppose headings.
'''Neutral'''. I don't think that you would "misuse" admin tools. However I am concerned by some of the more judgemental comments. I expect that you could convince me to support you in a few months.
'''Neutral''' in lieu of piling on. As an adherent to the [[KISS principle]], I find the excessive verbiage in your responses, Abd, quite impenetrable. I have attempted to read everything here a couple of times, but my eyes have glazed over before getting very far so I really don’t know what kind of an admin you would make. If you wish to attempt another RfA in the future, I’d suggest a bit more brevity in your responses. —
'''Moral Support''' - [[WP:ADMINCOACH|Admin coaching]].
The nom only adds to my maturity concerns. ''
'''Oppose''' Unacceptable answers...ending with "e.t.c." and "..."? You need to full answer the questions, not leave much of the matter up to the reader. <strong>

Sorry. But [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=ACBest&site=en.wikipedia.org ~1350 mainspace edits] are not enough. And the answers are not okay, either. And you don't use the edit summary...  —
'''Oppose''' Answers generally, and to question 2 in particular, are quite concerning - not really answering the questions designed to find out whether one is suitable for adminship is hardly the best way to show commitment to the concept.
'''Oppose''' Never minding your uninspiring nomination statement and answers to the questions, the edit war you were involved in at [[Hull Trains]]  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hull_Trains&action=history] recently (and were warned on your talk page about) concerns me deeply. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Lack of engagement on questions demonstrates a less than serious approach to this proceeding. I'm not convinced candidate understands this RfA is a gateway to responsibilities, not goodies. The admin bit is not a merit badge. If you want tools, use Lupin or apply for non-admin rollback, and we'll see how you use them. If candidate is truly serious, I encourage the user to find an admin coach and work some steps.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Per nom, and per answer to all the question, especially number 2.
'''Oppose'''. Per all of the above, mainly. I see a lack of maturity shown, a satisfactory amount of edits to the mainspace (although, I must note that a good half of these seem to be through using rollback.) The other thing which has really nothing to do with your RfA is the confusing system on your talk page, I refer to the "main" messages, the archives and messages displayed on your talk page, this seems very long winded and somewhat difficult to understand, but I'll mention it anyway. The answer to question #02 leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Your signature is also rather long (yes, I can't be bothered to count the characters) and bright, maybe consider changing that. Overall, you're on the right track -  but you just need a more time. I strongly suggest getting involved in content contributions (i.e. cleanup, copy-edit, bringing articles to [[WP:GA|GA status]].)
No option but to '''Oppose''' based on extremely poor answers to the questions 1-3. Perhaps the candidate should look at how other RfA noms have answered them, to get an idea of the accepted standard.
'''Support''' Very helpful person will be a great sysop and has made several useful contributions. [[User:Staffwaterboy|<b><span style="color:red">Staffwaterboy</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<span style="color:blue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]]
'''Support''' Duh! I did nom him, must think he's doing something right :) '''
'''Support''', know and trust him.  '''
'''Support''' from me and the otters.
'''Support''' - Why not. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - No problems with this guy - a fantastic user who will use the tools well.
'''Support'''.  Trust the nom, who is very careful in all edits, to nominate.  In a brief look at contribs, don't see any problems whatsoever.  Happy to support, no hesitation.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |

'''Support''' I've seen you around plenty, and have no concerns.
I admit I didn't even read the nomination (maybe I'll get around to it in a few weeks...). ·
Seen Addshore around many times: I'm always impressed with their work.
'''Support''' Why the hell not? He is... EVERYWHERE. Perfecto for the job-o. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
Little article-writing experience; I see thousands upon thousands of reverts and tagging, but given that they were appropriate I have no problem with that. I assume he will remain in his comfort zone at AIV as a newbie admin and I trust that he will avoid more controversial areas such as [[WP:AN3]] until he has more experience in editorial disputes. Regards,
'''Support''' Looks good to me; I trust he'll use the tools wisely.  --
'''Support'''. Competent, communication skills, and trustworthy–that's essentially all I ask for in a candidate.
'''Support''' - trustworthy vandal fighter.
'''Support''' - as EOTW says, he's ''everywhere''. '''
'''Support''': Excellent user; I can put the lack of mainspace work aside here (I myself don't contribute to the mainspace as much as I would like to).  There is no reason to believe that the user will abuse the tools, and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be beneficial as as administrator. -
'''Strong Support''' I was going to nom him *snaps fingers*, Add shore is a great editor, with over 20000 edits and 1000 at [[WP:AIV]] I have no doubt that this user will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''Totally! Why not?--
'''Support''' purely to piss off Wisdom89.
'''Support''' - an extremely worthy candidate. '''<font color="#ff9900">

'''Weak Support''' - Your lack of article building is not the best thing in the world, but I see no reason to oppose you. --
'''Support''' trustworthy candidate --
'''<s>Strong</s> Support''' I thought you were already an admin.
'''Support''' - Article work/talk is sufficient. Also per Nick. '''
'''Support''' Article editing is completely irrelevant to good admins.  Most of the tools are used to combat [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. <font color="green">[[User:Vivio Testarossa|Vivio<font color="red"> Testa<font color="blue">rossa]]</font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:Vivio Testarossa|Talk]]
'''Support''' as the candidate seems like a reasonable person.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' No concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I see him quite a lot, even if I've not had much interaction with him. Supported per [[WP:WTHN]]. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Suppport''' - very friendly, helpful and competent, so thanks for running, add!
'''Support'''. Mainspace editing isn't the only way to get experience, nor is it always the best for everyone. Also, I don't like Q5. When there are many editors participating in an edit war and some others trying to amicably resolve the dispute, I find that protection is best to get everyone to discuss. In addition, if a page has been edit warred on for four days, it really, badly needs discussion. I don't like blocking for 3RR because it's a very slippery tool and prone to be ineffectual. '''''
Looks good to me, helps out at [[WP:ACC]] as a bonus. Keep up the good work!
'''Support'''. I've seen good work from the nominee.

'''Support''' Even after reviewing the opposes I think this user is a worthy candidate! Good luck! --
'''Support''' I've spent some time reading all the opposes based on Q5 and I do see and understand the concern voiced by the community regarding the candidate's answer. I, however, believe that the overall benefits of having Addshore as an admin in my mind easily outweigh the potential risks.
'''Support''', lack of article contribs is a bit disappointing, but no evidence that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', giving Addshore the mop will will free other admins' time, thus being a benefit for the project. No concerns about abusing the tools. <nowiki>--</nowiki>
'''Support''' No evidence to suggest tools would be abused. <strong>
'''Support''' <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support''' I have had a really good dicussion with addshore about the points i raised and other people i now feel confident that he will be able to use the tools wisely and know when to pass the baton if outside an are of his expertise.
'''Support''' I thought you were already an admin!  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' - I really like this guy, and he never fails to stop editing wikipedia. I would have no objections to Addshore having the tools.
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong Support'''.  No problem.  Thanks for answering my question—I can see you are passionate about helping Wikipedia.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' --
You will make a good admin --
'''Support''', per IRC! --
'''Support'''.  Nothing to suggest abuse of tools. -<small>
'''Support''' - At first, I thought Addshore already was an administrator. Will be great with the tools.
'''Support''' There are admins who have done 1/4 of what he has. It is sad the way he is being treated. People nit pick about almost anything. The guy is obviously improving and vandal fighting, who cares if he isn't building A+++ articles?--
'''Support''' - knowledgable and helpful editor. I did read the opposes below, but I don't share the concerns. There's no need for an admin to be an expert on every single policy - this is a big project, and we can use specialists.
'''Support''' He will not abuse the tools. Definite net positive to the project. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' will not abuse tools - nothing objectionable with answer to Q5. Some opposes have strange interpretations of the protection policy!
'''Support''' Seen him around at AIV, no concerns about misusing the tools.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' He will be a good admin. <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Support''' I see no reason to believe Add will abuse the tools. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy. Learns from mistakes. Hard working. No indications of potential abuse.
'''Moral support'''. Come back again in 3-6 months and work hard.
'''Oppose''' - Article work/talk is insufficient.
'''Oppose''' Mainspace edits are too spead out, and not enough Main/Project talk.--
Your answer to Q5 indicates a very mechanistic view on when to impose sanctions for edit warring, but the more troubling divination from it was that you'd misuse the protection tool in response to edit wars. Full protection has no constructive use outside of enforcing BLP or preventing extreme vandalism, and applying it as the response to an edit war only exacerbates the problems that existed before. If several people have bypassed the negotiating stage and are already editing in a hostile manner, what makes you think that they'll sit down after you protect the article? More likely, the "winner" will slide off while the "loser" fumes for a while; during all this, the article is also locked from constructive editing by bona fide editors. It also has the effect of causing harm in the future, because it will condition the guilty parties that the response to combative editing will be a light one.
'''Oppose''' - Per Q#5. Protection should only be used when blocking is ineffective (eg. large amounts of vandalism, BLP issues, or when the edit war is so out of hand blocking would not work). In the case posed above (question number 5) you could have blocked all the user who had refused to partake in the talk page discussions for disruption and edit warring, understand that just because a user has not violated 3RR does not mean they can not be blocked. I am sorry to say, but I think this demonstrates a poor ability to make good judgment in content disputes, and one of the only ways you are going to gain better judgment in that area is to actively participate in content discussion and work on improving articles (eg. more mainspace contribtuions). You have defiantly got the anti-vandalism stuff down and I know you would use the block button appropriately, but to be honest there is not a large demand for admins who will monitor AIV, I mean how often do you see a <nowiki>{{adminbacklog}}</nowiki> tag on AIV, opposed to areas like RFPP, and [[CAT:CSD]]. Sorry, I just feel that there is still much to be learned. Also per East718.
'''Oppose''' - p/q5. I believe more mainspace work and review of blocking/ protection policies would be needed before further consideration.  Also per tiptoety and east.718. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]] ¤
'''Strong Oppose''' First, almost all of his edits have occured in the past 4 months---that's 20K edits in 4 months.  He has essentially no experience prior to then.  Second, there is an incredible lack of article building.  His defining article is [[Torquay Boys' Grammar School]] which leaves a lot to be desired and he's made a total of 15 edits on it (including reversions of vandalism.)  I can live with no article building if the person contributes constructively to other aspects of the project, but when their contributions is vandal fighting, I want to know the person in question has experience with building the encyclopedia in same manner.  Third, if you ignore AIV, which has edits due to his use of tools/bots, then he has virtually no Wikispace or Wiki talk space edits.  Fourth, while he has over 7K edits on user talk space, 300 are on his user talk and about 100 on the next 15 most edited user talk spaces that he's edited.  In other words, almost all of his edits are drive by warnings/templates---unfortunately, this was encouraged during his coaching.  Fifth, virtually all of his edits are drive by edits.  In other words I don't see any material edits.  They are almost all using tools/bots---of course you would expect that when you have 20K (undeleted) edits in less than 4 months.  Even most of his edits to the talk space are reversions of edits.  I see no effort to build community or guage consensus.  I see no experience in areas where diplomacy or tact are required.  There is no discussing policies or refining of understanding.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. Sorry for this one, but — as a number of others have said, if you're going to cite [[Torquay Boys' Grammar School]] as an example of your ''best'' work, I don't think you understand Wikipedia's core policies yet; this article is an incoherent, unreferenced mess, at least 80% of which should be removed as either inappropriate content or content forks. Sorry, but I don't think you'd be at all credible doing the major (I'd say primary) admin task of explaining policy to others, and even though you've not said you intend to work in XfD, I don't trust you with the Delete button.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''<s>Reluctant</s> oppose''' This candidate obviously is doing a great job at vandal fighting with the available tools; this does not mean that they would do a great job at being an admin. My worry is that this candidate will, in response to an administrative backlog (see Q1) wander into unfamiliar territory, and do more harm than good. I read the answer to Q3 as implying that the candidate expects problematic editors to follow a standard path from newbie to vandal to blocked to banned, and will happily use the tools to speed this process along (see Q15). I just don't think that is what being an admin is all about. There is another side to Wikipedia, and that is working with editors who [[WP:AGF|'''want''']] to build an encyclopaedia, but who are having problems (for whatever reason). I think this candidate needs more experience working to help them solve those problems. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' – I am sorry if I am coming off too critical here, but let me start breaking down the numbers.  First, you made 19,651 edits, just in Feb – Mar- Apr.  Which constitutes 92.4% of your total edits of 21,160.  If we count May, and this being only May 13 (Not even half way through the month), and add your 1,037 edit to the total, making for 20,688 total edits in 3.5 months, which makes for a grand total of 98% of all edits in less that 115 days of your total experience here at [[Wikipedia]].  This constitutes, working 8 hours a day, every day (Sat and Sun included), no bathroom breaks – no lunch – dinner – or breakfast time, 1 edit every 30 seconds!  Even with that considered, only 1.3 average.  No, sorry to say, not ready for the extra buttons, especially to start deciding what articles stay or are deleted, let alone who may be blocked or not.  You do not even give yourself time to breath, let alone make a decision.<font face="Times New Roman">
'''oppose''' An admin who expects to be devoted primarily to vandal fighting should at least be expected to know the protection policy. Cf. q5, above. To take such a problem as reason to fullly protect an article is perhaps from a lack of realisation of the problems that occur in actually editing articles. That's the reason for requiring mainspace work: it's the way to get perspective of what is after all the core of WP. (I would not oppose for this alone, but I suggest that it explains the problems)  And the numbers calculated by Shoessss show an excessive reliance on either automated tools or the equivalent. Insufficient evidence of using individual judgement.  '''
'''Oppose.''' This user doesn't really understand how things work around here.  He would issue indefinite protections and blocks in situations where more muted measures would solve the problem.  Answers to questions 5 and 15 do not demonstrate the nuanced thinking I'm looking for.  Also, it's okay if you don't spell every word correctly, but at least ''try'' to show you can present yourself professionally.  Repeatedly using lowercase "i" does not impress me, nor does this sentence from question 3: "There have defiantly been users that have caused me stress though."  That certainly means something, but not what you intended. ("Defiantly" means "refusing to back down.")  If you can't take an RFA seriously, why should I expect you to take blocking and protecting seriously?  I haven't checked the article writing etc. as pointed out by Balloonman, but it seems to fit this pattern of superficial action without thought.
'''Oppose''' We already have more vandal-zappers than we need. No more non-content editors until we are much better balanced. Answers to questions are also very weak.
'''Weak Oppose''' - it looks like Addshore needs more experience in article writing and conflict resolution. Promoting people without first hand experience in those areas often lead to bad results
'''Oppose'''  per Iridescent.
'''Strong Oppose'''  per Iridescent's strong oppose, and because of a somewhat worrying tone in responding (or in some cases, not responding) to questions and comments here.  Changed to strong oppose after difficulties with communication on talk pages as I tried to help out this candidate, as detailed above.  --
Per 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC) comment. ''
'''Oppose''' (two edit conflicts) I have my reasons, but they are mostly indentical to what has already been said above. My biggest concern right now is a lack of experience.
If some or all tbgs.co.uk content is available under a free license (GFDL, public domain, etc. — "Wikipedia may use it" is not a free license) their site can be updated to reflect this. I will consider supporting if the copyright status is verified in this way or by some other robust means. —
The copyvios on [[Torquay Boys' Grammar School]] are a concern. Actually, the copyvios are just the symptom; the true problem here is the complete and total ignorance of such a key Wikipedia policy. I don't expect our admin candidates to know every policy and guideline like the back of their hand, but for such a ''core'' policy, and really such a blatantly obvious one, to be ignored like that... no, sorry, can't support. Some of the other concerns voiced above are equally valid, but the copyvio/policy ignorance is specifically what spurred me on to actual participation. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose'''. Per the plagiarism issue referred to above. --
'''Oppose''' initially per Irid, and now also per EVula, as he has perfectly summed up how I feel. The answers to questions and in the discussion are quite concerning. As supports usually have the expression, "no worries here", this is a case where I certainly do see some serious worries in regards to adminship. When at an RfA, when the candidate knows everyone is watching, he still shows a gross misunderstanding of core policy (which can be looked up), I then question how future issues will be handled regarding policies, core or peripheral. For a succesful RfA, the candidate needs to show that he can apply policy correctly, or at least to show the ability to research policy that they are unclear with.
'''Oppose''' based on sloppy and troublesome answers.
'''Oppose''' based on troubling answers and responses to the comments section above - user has displayed an apparent lack of understanding regarding important policies.
Insufficient knowledge of copyright.
'''oppose''' lacks experience in substantive matters, article writing not least.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I came in to give moral support, but questionable edit counts and lack of strong overall experience says that your time is yet to come; check back in six months, then maybe.--
Per plagiarism/copyvio concerns, which are very serious, and a general lack of knowledge of policies.
'''Oppose''' per answer in question five.
'''Oppose''' per lack of article writing, and, among other things, the copyright issues. A little more experience and work in the relevant areas may mean I support next time.

'''Oppose''' Lack of contributions in writing articles and participating in discussion. Admins are expected to hear people's opinion more.--
'''Oppose''' Not very many of your edits have been in writing articles and based upon what numerous other people have said above, you do not seem to have a clear understanding of what protections and blocks are used for and when they are appropriate.  Someone above said that blocks are not a punishment, and to tell you the truth, your answer to that question makes me cringe.  Most of your edits have been in the past 4 months, with no experience prior to that, which means that you do not have at least 6 months of experience that I like seeing in my supports.  You also clearly have trouble understanding the copyright policies on the English Wikipedia.  For these reasons, I cannot support you at this time.  Take care, [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b>]]
'''Oppose''' I am not, for reasons a recitation of which I will save everyone, particularly concerned about the (putative) lack of article-writing experience, and I don't know that Addshore's involvement in project space fails to provide a sufficient record upon which to base conclusions about his knowledge of policy and practice (in fact, it appears clear to me that Addshore is relatively conversant in policy and practice, even if it is not altogether clear that he well apprehends whereof the guiding practice and policy of which he does not fully know), but I do join in the concerns about judgment and temperament raised by [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] (although not in those terms, and perhaps more couchedly), and so, notwithstanding the good deal that there is to commend Addshore to adminship and the fact that most of my (passive) interactions with him have been quite fine, I can't&mdash;at least at this time&mdash;conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose'''. His many, many edits over the past few months are almost exclusively devoted to vandal patrolling&mdash;way too little experience writing articles or in discussion/dispute resolution on article talk pages. I have no idea whether he would make an acceptable admin. Needs to round out his experience, IMO.
'''Neutral''' Article-writing experience is too weak for me to support.
neutral at the moment, but I can see I'll probably change to support.
'''Neutral''' I see no reason that Addshore would abuse the tools, but I would definitely prefer more article and talk experience. <strong>
'''Neutral''' for now, leaning to support. I want to take a closer look at this one, and it will take me a little more time than most due to his having 21,000 edits. However, I am disappointed in his article work, I had to go back to April 22nd to find an edit to the mainspace that wasn't revert or tagging. That edit can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LogMeIn&diff=prev&oldid=207384231 here] and I don't think it was a great one, using "you" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. If anyone can find a more recent mainspace contribution, please let me know. Also, your Wikipedia Talk edit count is only at 39, so I fear you don't communicate with other editors enough.
'''Moral neutral''' --
'''Neutral''' - no real article or talk experience, one of the best vandal fighters we have but that alone is not enough to show how he will deal with XfD's etc..around since 2005 but only really active since February and only because of [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggles]]..not a really good indicator..sorry..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Neutral''': My concerns still stand, and this wasn't me buckling from pressure put on me, after reconsidering, Addy can be trusted with the tools, but he has areas that need working on. Really, I should abstain from this RFA, but as I already !voted, only changing my vote to neutral would be best. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Neutral'''; Addshore seems to have very good ways to contribute with administrator tools, but I am concerned about how he deals with disputes.  The answer to question No. 3 did gave me the impression that either he had not run into any big disputes, or that he did not consider much how he dealt with them.  While it is great if someone has not had any disputes, if that is in fact true, I think that administrators should have some experience with dealing with conflict, as they will certainly run into it as they go about their various administrator tasks.  If there could be elaboration on that point/consideration of past conflicts in more specification, I would feel more comfortable supporting, but at this time I must remain neutral.  --
'''Neutral''' - I've seen you around, and most of your contributions are good, but some of them are a bit "interesting" (per say), and I may have to agree with Iridecent. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Neutral'''. Need to write more instead of just purely combating vandalism. People expect admins to be working more than just reverting vandals.
'''Neutral'''. I'd have to agree with [[User:Epbr123]] and [[User:Iridescent]]. Also a few unanswered, and important questions above. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
Reluctantly changing to '''Neutral''' for now. There have been too many valid questions raised by the opposes and I need some time to study the details. —
'''Neutral''' - this candidate is not the worst at all, but I'm concerned re. the copyvio issues mentioned above. If I could see something stronger here re. copyright or even some progress on the above issues, I will likely reconsider -
'''Neutral''' - Overall, after a long review I am getting the impression you are a good candidate with one or two concerns preventing me from supporting. The answer to question 5 does not actually concern me, especially taking into account that hypothetical questions often lack the detail necessary determine the correct course of action, such as reason for page protection request, what is actually happening on the talk page etc. Your answer was not perfect, but it was not completely wrong.  Page protection can be used in response to content disputes to encourage people to discuss the issue on the talk page per [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes]]. Blocking is often better in isolated edit warring only involving a one or two users, but there is no blanket rule, and often full page protection can often inflame the situation a lot less than what some can see as "one sided" and disputable spirit-3RR blocking. Though I would still avoid a "fixed penalty" approach on blocking users for edit warring, for example it is often unnecessary if page protection is given, and is good to make sure that users are aware of 3RR before any block is given. Spelling skills do no concern me, I can't spell either and I know I have got defiantly and definitely muddled up - it does not hugely affect the ability to be a good admin. The copyvio issues are a concern however, I would carefully review copyright policies and get familiar with them as you will need to know them as an admin. The overall impression I am getting here is that you need more experience, continue contributing try and diversify you edits and you will do well.
'''Neutral''' per Alison.
'''Neutral''' - [[User:Bearian/Standards|almost there as far as I'm concerned]].  Good points: lots of edits, lots of talk, rollback rights.  Needs improvement: more time, especially at XfD - 4 months' active service is not quite enough for me.  I ''won't oppose'' what appears to be a fine editor from getting the tools.
Copyright knowledge's the only major concern here for me, really. Looking forward to giving my strong support next time around, as I'm sure you'll improve in these areas by that time! :) ~
'''Neutral''' - I think some more article writing would be a net positive for the well-rounded admin. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you lack experience in both admin-related areas and article building. Perhaps you'll be ready later.
'''Oppose'''/NOTNOW - less than 200 edits, not nearly enough to see a pattern of responsible editing.  Also, inconsistent editing, editor edits in spurts separated by wide gaps.  This isn't fatal but it must be overcome by positives.  Try again after a couple thousand edits over at least 6 months, including significant participation in administrative areas such as AFD/XFD, and/or dispute-resolution areas such as mediation.
'''Oppose''' Applying for a second RFA 10 days after NOTNOWing the first one - very poor judgement.
'''Oppose''' per Q1; you can settle disputes without being an admin. Also, insufficient editcount; you really should have at least 3000 before you even start to think about an RfA.
Avoiding the pileon of opposes that is sure to come. Please consider withdrawal per [[WP:NOTNOW]], as it seems to me you have little experience and not nearly enough edits to pass by today's standards. --
'''Beat-the-nom Support''' - I had already looked over this editor a few weeks earlier (He was another of my Admin Coach's students) and I feel that Biblo has taught him fine :) - <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' per experiences with the user. '''''
'''Support'''
Funny, just earlier today I thought about nominating you. I'll throw my '''Support''' in.
'''Another''' good candidate. When will the streak end? &mdash;'''
<s>'''Support'''</s> Candidate seems to be knowledgeable in the areas he wishes to take part in, especially AfD.
'''Support''' I would say that with an admin coaching background and good knowledge of backlogs, there is no reason why I shouldn't cast this vote.
'''Support''' as soon as I saw this on my watchlist. I've seen him around the wiki, and he both has clue and is willing to use it.
'''Support''' - User appears competent enough. Good AFD and AIV. I would have liked to see more UAA experience since they state this in their answer to question one, but I didn't find anything alarming.
'''Support''' - Good user, good contribs, won't mess up.
The candidate's answer to Q3 has me a bit concerned as to whether or not they will be able to effectively manage the stress of being an admin, because editors are going to bring disputes to administrators expecting them to resolve matters. However, I figure it's better to take a break and relax than it is to go off exploding randomly everywhere. It's also good that he is willing to ask for help when needed. He seems to have an overall solid grasp of policy, and has a degree of common sense I would hope for and expect from an administrator. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Weak Support''' - When will this string of excellent candidates end? No problems here, or at least that I can see, no reason not to trust this user. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
Another great candidate? What's going on with RfA these days? '''Support''' as a great user, with excellent contribs.
'''Support''' Certainly is a bit of a green week at RFA! Great candidate, nice diverse editing, civil and calm looking at user talk. Also appears to share my twin interests in [[smoking]] and [[Drinking#Alcoholic_beverages|drinking]] - two habits that adminship will no doubt only strengthen .... ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - It's a cliche, but I thought he was one already. -
'''Strong support''' RfA is going green, indeed. You show a major net positive, which is great. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Support''' Tangobot's report is green like [[Money|cash monies]].  IMO, this user will do a fine job as an admin.
'''Weak Support''' per above <font color="Blue">Message</font> <font color="green">from</font> <font color="red"><b>XENU</b></font><font color="gold"><sup>
'''Wanted to be a co-nom support''' - Would make a great admin. Often does my work for me by answering questions on my talk page. –<font face="Verdana">
Hello, I'm Mrs. Balloonman, and I need to hire a detective to follow my husband -- he keeps sneaking out of the house at night to go to someplace called "RfA" and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: '''Support''' for an excellent editor who would be a fine admin!
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions between us.  Best, --
'''Support''' because candidate is clearly responsible enough to handle the admin tools in a way to help wikipedia and I see no reason for him to abuse such tools either purposefully or accidently in such a way that would skew the values of wikipedia.
'''Support''' I have seen him around, and I like what I saw!
Perhaps I could sneak by in the surge of good candidates... Oh the irony! ~<strong>'''''the''
'''Support''' I respect DGG's concerns (as I always do) but I don't feel that they're really a deal-breaker. He's done quite a bit of gnomish work and admins with that sort of background usually turn out to be quiet and averse to drama. Willingness to follow policy is more important than knowledge of policy. I think he knows enough to get around and will do just fine.
'''Support''' - Nice person, per above. '''
'''Weak support'''.  Your experience levels are a little lower than what I would normally support, and your answers to the above questions are not the greatest, but because you have gone through admin coaching and seem to have good intentions with regards to the encyclopedia I will support you.  Please be extra careful in your admin actions if you are given the bit, and good luck.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I think he has been around long enough to not burn down teh wiki. '''
'''Support''' Over 8,000 edits and a clean block log, and as DGG discovered your AFD calls are sensible. I prefer verified edits to verifiable ones, but current policy is [[wp:verifiable]] not [[wp:verified]]. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. Don't honestly believe that he would misuse the extra buttons.
'''Support.''' Sure.
'''Support.''' I don't see being involved in policy discussions as a pre-req for admin, so I respectfully disagree with DGG.  --
'''Weak Support''' per willingness to admit mistakes.  I realise that your article work is limited, hence the weak.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Weak Support'''. The answers to the questions seem to me a little lacking and leave me feeling confused, but really I can't find a reason to oppose. DGG brings up valid concerns below, but I don't see that as a reason to think you'll abuse the tools. I do suggest taking stronger stances on the importance of WP:V and WP:RS.
'''Support''' Trustworthy, basicly.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' I am happy that he will not abuse the tools. I have nothing but respect for [[user:DGG|DGG]], whose opinion is aways reasonable and considered. But I feel that his reasons are not sufficient to refuse adminship to this editor. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust the candidate.  The concerns raised by the opposers regarding the lack of experience in policy discussions are valid, but I don't think you need to have debated the policy in order to understand and follow it, and no one is arguing that Adolphus has edited against policy.  As a personal example, I have barely contributed to discussions on [[WP:CSD]], yet I am pretty familiar with the various criteria.  As for lack of article-writing experience, well, I'm right down there with Adolphus, so it would be hypocritical of me to oppose for that reason.--
'''Support'''.  I find the opposes unconvincing.  Admins are not more responsible than other users for article or policy writing so limited experience in those areas should not be a deal breaker.
'''Stunningly weak support''' — I'm almost inclined to neutral here but I feel that I can trust you enough to be ''very'' careful until you get the hang of the tools. Don't go jumping into anything really confusing or difficult just yet and I have every confidence in you. Good luck. —'''
'''Support'''. I trust the candidate.
'''Support''' - Great contributor; trustworthy. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Do I trust this user with the tools? Yes. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Pshah - respectable folks and all on the oppose side, but I've never found myself keenly interested in policy, nor do I think that not editing policies is the same as not knowing policy.  Contribs show a pretty good grasp of how things work and you seem to have good intentions here.  Like others have said, be a bit careful on the uptake and don't be afraid to stalk good admins or ask as many questions as you need. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' - Per voices in my head saying so. <span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' per Aervanath above...though the lack of article-building worries me a bit, it is not enough to oppose. Good luck! —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support'''. I understand the concerns that people are having, but the candidate has not messed up in the time that he's been here, and I'm confident that he won't suddenly start messing up once he gets the mop. --
'''Tentative support'''- I see the rationale behind ''some'' of the opposes (notably NOT the one about the smoking) and they make me a bit cautious about lending unqualified support. I'd look favourably on more article building but, as I've said in previous RfAs, I don't see it as a prerequisite for being granted the tools. In the end I incline to support because this user doesn't have a history of big mistakes or questionable behaviour, and adminship isn't supposed to be that big a deal.
'''Support''' - Yes, as [[User:DGG|DGG]] pointed out, your contributions have a tendency to come in bunches.  My question is what is wrong with that.  If  any us could get past real life problems - situations - loves -dislikes - and so on - and so on - we would all have 1,000 edit’s a day, every day, all done manually without the help of [[Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]] and /or  [[Wikipedia:Huggle|huggle]], or other like programs.  In reviewing your contribution history, I saw an editor with over 8,000 edits, over an extended time period, coming up on three years.  Likewise, with 40% of their total edits over the last eight months, showing a growing concern and a want to contribute to the program called [[Wikipedia]] with no major conflicts - ghastly errors, as even noted by the opposes, - no incivility and a majority of the time, coming to the right decision, my first knee-jerk reaction is “…hell yes, make that guy/girl an [[WP:Administrator|Administrator]]” and wish that some of our current [[WP:Administrators|Administrators]] could claim the same track record.  Likewise,  after looking at [[WP:Policy|Policy]] versus [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Guidelines]], and in particular [[WP:NBD| Administratorship as no big deal]], which is [[WP:Policy|Policy]].  I have to give my support to [[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]].  An editor who has contributed positively to the endeavor.  Either way this goes, good luck to you, and note even the most venomous of your opposes can find no specific wrong in your edits, other than needs more experience., and in my opinion, experience is gained by doing.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Weak Support''' was neutral:  I think he can be trusted not to abuse the tools.  While he may occasionally use bad judgment on balance the project will be better served with him having the tools than not.  The issues raised in opposition and neutral-comments should be taken seriously by the candidate should he pass or in a few months when he seeks renomination. Having said that I strongly encourage him to seek additional help if he passes, even if it's just a long-time respected administrator he can go to for tough questions.  I also strongly encourage him to stay out of areas where he is not very confident of relevant policies.  If he fails, I strongly encourage him to either self-study or continue at least minor coaching and spend the next few months editing as if he were already an administrator.  "Editing as if we are an administrators" is something every editor should be doing anyway, as all editors should be editing "for the good of the project" not any other reason.  Had I come to this decision 2-3 days ago I would have recommended withdrawing his nomination and resubmitting it in a few months.  With less than a day left, he should see it through.  The closing bureaucrat will have a tough call on this one, if I were in his shoes I would probably fail it with regrets and hope and confidence that after a few months the next try would be nearly unanimous.
'''Support.'''  I opposed five days ago ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Adolphus79&diff=prev&oldid=254314332 diff]).   As I've been checking the discussion daily since then, and I've looked at more of the candidate's responses to user questions on individual admins' talk pages, my view of his potential administrative adequacy, if you will, has evolved past neutral into the support zone.  —
'''Support''' Not exactly the perfect candidate, but looks to me like the user has a fair understanding of policy and is a sensible editor. He can be trusted, and I'm sure he won't delete the main page ;)
'''Support''' He's been around long enough to know not to delete the Main Page and to ask for advice if he's not sure about something. Definite net positive for the project. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Most of the people in the oppose section raise some valid points. However, if, after the candidate's length of time here and number of edits, the general reason to oppose seems to be 'I would like to see a bit more experience in X area', then I'll support. There is a difference between not socializing and being unable to communicate, and the latest comments that I've read from the candidate indicate that he doesn't have a problem with discussing something when it needs to be discussed. Also, the fact that the candidate has thus far not been obsessed with the political side of Wikipedia makes me confident he will not go berserk with the tools.
'''Oppose''' (pending answers to my questions). I see a great many people like you, and, if I were working in your areas, I'm sure I would also. But I consider you not yet qualified for administrative functions. You have never participated in a policy discussion. You have never given an extended comment at an AfD. There is thus no way of really telling if you understand policy. You have essentially no article writing experience--almost everything you list on your user page is a trivial stub,and almost all contributions to other articles are also very minor.  You have only 3,000 edits in 2008, and 400 in 2007. (and another 5,000 two years ago, in the first half of 2006). I'd suggest about 6 months experience in those things before you re-apply. '''
'''Oppose''' per DGG. Experience very shallow.
'''Oppose''' per more time writing.....
I'm sorry, you seem to be a fine editor with your priorities in the right place (slothfullness, piracy and ''Neuromancer''!) but I don't think it's in the best interest of the encyclopaedia for you to be an administrator right now. From reading your answers to DGG's questions and examining your contributions, I am not at all convinced that you have the understanding or experience needed to judge decisions or to handle borderline situations relating to deletion or content disputes, despite the fact that you mention NPP and CSD as areas of interest. You may very well make a great administrator in time, and I hope you will get seriously engaged in content creation and deletion. Regards, <font color="404040">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I don't want to oppose, but DGG's oppose can't let me support. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Oppose''' DGG's oppose makes me distinctly uncomfortable. AfD and policy discussions are very important to this job.
'''Oppose''', following the logic in DGG's oppose.
'''Oppose''' Also in agreement with DGG.  Experience is a bit too shallow, you stated yourself you don't really talk with other users too much, and your article creation isn't enough yet.  Otherwise you are good, please work on these things and the other opposes for a few months and you'll be ready. --
'''Oppose'''; your experience in project space is still too thin for me to feel comfortable that you are familiar enough with policy yet that I'd task you with the mop.  I think you still need to "find" yourself, and that a few months' time of active experience around the project is all you need.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Q5. I'm dismayed how many people support this application. I really thought my !vote would not be necessary...
No solid article experience, per Q5.--
'''Oppose'''. Per DGG. Also, the candidate begins the answer to question six with "I really don't talk much to begin with…". I think discussion is a key element to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per DGG & DiverseMentality. Broader experience is needed before this editor is ready for the admin tools.
'''weak oppose-- needs more experience''' I was really surprised that the candidate did not recognize the importance of sourcing articles. Sourcing is paramount for an encyclopedia, and an admin candidate should know this. I would like to see more article building experience-- especially taking the effort to source any articles candidate works on. The candidate must know where the information comes from, and should put the references in the articles.  I think taking the time to review our basic policies would be in order. The CSD work almost persuaded me. There needs to be more of that and the rest of the admin tool areas. I believe the candidate will be ready for the mop in about 6 months/5000 edits if the advice given in this RFA is heeded. Also, it's important to search for verifiability and reliable sources before deleting articles. Sometimes we delete articles about notable subjects that should be kept and would be with adequate sourcing and a well written lead.
'''Oppose'''. The answers to questions 5 and 7 turned me off. I'm not sure about the experience, but it's something to consider. Deleting articles: sometimes, they simply need more time to be expanded; they actually belong here. Sources: it's important to user third party sources. From the way the question was answered, it seems that not enough importance is placed on them. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I'd like to see the candidate get more experience and then reapply.  Adolphus, I think you're doing a good job and learning a lot, but I'd like to see you work on a few more areas before RfA.  While no admin has to be an expert at everything, some of your answers to questions (especially with AfD rationale and citations) suggest that waiting a little longer and considering the policies and process of Wikipedia (as well as your response to them) could be very useful.  Also, participating in more discussions I think will make you a more confident admin.  So please don't take this vote personally - I see you as an absolutely awesome candidate in a few months.  <b>'''
'''Weak Oppose''' I really want to support this candidate, but per DGG I simply can't see the policy experience yet. I have no doubt that his intentions with the tools are good, but I need to see a bit more to feel comfortable that those good intentions will be informed by policy.
'''Oppose''' per DGG. Needs more experience. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Oppose''' also per DGG. I agree the users experience seems very shallow.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think editors without real article writing experience can qualify for adminship.--
'''Oppose''', sadly. Candidate is willing to help out, but I fear that—even after the nominator's sysop coaching—Adolphus has insufficient experience. The qualm I have with that is that A. may therefore take actions that, whilst certainly not maliciously so, are misplaced or mistaken. (I'd rather not promote a sysop that makes a bad situation worse.) Here's my advised strategy: ontinue with the admin. coaching, work on getting some serious article contributing (collaborate with another editor or your coach and get a [[WP:GA|GA]] or, better yet, an [[WP:FA|FA]] under your belt?), and drop in to the Wikipedia: namespace (suggestion: [[WP:ANI]] is a good eye-opener) every so often. That strategy should combat the concerns raised and, so long as you follow it, should make you a more solid candidate in six months to a year's time. Thanks for volunteering, though, and I look forward to seeing you back at RfA better prepared and more experienced than now.
'''Oppose''': Candidate needs more breadth and depth of editing in article space and some policy work to round out experience.
'''Oppose''' per above concerns and especially answer to Q5. Reliable independent sources are a requirement, not a nicety. I would expect someone who would like to be an administrator to be aware of that.
'''Oppose''' — as they say, needs more time in the trenches. Also, focus more on making more specific rationales in AFD discussions, as it really does separate and distinguish from those who simply "go along with the mob mentality" in AFDs. Although not a reason to oppose adminship, it doesn't hurt to !vote ''keep'' a little more often, either, on those articles that should be kept. <font color="#063">
'''Weak Oppose''' - I hate to vote this way, but from the answers to the questions above, I can't vote support. Your answer to questions five and six worry me simply overall; it's enough to put me over the edge on this side of the fence. --
'''Oppose'''. Limited mainspace content creation, and the lack of sourcing compounds this. AFDs often hinge on reliable sources.
'''Oppose''' Someone who is apparently proud of cigarette smoking should not be in a position of power.
'''Oppose''' The number of actual article edits is very low in comparison with your edits to talk pages and user pages.  Although you probably wouldn't abuse the tools, your own claim at this RfA that you "do not claim to be an expert on all of Wikipedia's policies" is troubling, as regular editors and the outside community do rely on admins to clarify and execute Wikipedia policy.
'''Oppose''' Agree with most other opposes
'''Neutral''' between my own unease with candidate during my review and DGG's observations, I can't remain in the support column support.  Will review later to see if I need to move to Oppose or can reinstate my support.  I haven't closed the door on support, I just need to look you over closer.---'''
'''Neutral''' - I do not have a reason to be significantly concerned that you will abuse the tools, some of the question answers however were of concern, despite the clarification. I do believe you should give greater weight to the importance of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]], and while I am pro-[[WP:POTENTIAL]], really admins should be creating articles that follow these from the start. Also some of DGG's observations are worthy of note. I may later move to support or oppose with further review.
'''Neutral''' I think the potential is there too but I would like to see you involved in more wikispace discussions before supporting you.
'''Neutral''' hard call for me. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Neutral''' one part of me says opose while the other says support.
'''Neutral''' There is definatly potential in you becoming a Sysop. But for Now i will Remain Neutral Sorry. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - possibilities are there, but I'd like ''some'' administrative experience.
'''Neutral''': I am not convinced yet --
'''Nom Support''' -

'''Support''' - needs the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' 203 edits to AIV? '''Definitely''' needs the mop. (Better get this in before it's 204).
'''Support''' I've supported good candidates who wouldn't really use the mop, this is a good candidate who will use the mop.
Excellent user: polite, hardworking, good to interact with, and listens to advice. I was more than happy to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AAitias grant Aitias rollback] a few weeks ago to aid with his vandal-fighting, as I believed he was trustworthy with it. I think he's experienced enough to become an administrator.
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Support per 10,000 edits should give enough experience in the absence of any evidence that nom does not understand the tools.]]''' Please review Dispute resolution, as Admin actions sometimes require that knowledge.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' - I don't think that the lack of ''time'' has any bearing whatsoever on his stellar contributions, he has been here 2 months and has accumulated an impressive amount of experience and expertise, and it would be a net loss for Wikipedia to deny him adminship another 3 months.
'''Support''' I guess I could support this one. Seems like he needs the tools.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. An unusual profile, but every reason to believe the tools will be used appropriately.
'''Support''' - from his answer to Q1, I gather he wants the extra buttons to block vandals who continue after the final warning, and delete new pages that are complete nonsense. His contributions indicate that he understands these processes, and more admins in these areas would be of benefit to the project.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Weak  support''' Although I would prefer that an admin candidate had more experience in a variety of duties I am inclined to believe that Aitias would not misuse the tools and would enable him to perform better on the project.
'''Support''' - 10,000+ edits in two months demonstrates that user is quite insane and clearly unsuited to continue being allowed to edit. Strongly support this user being demoted to admin status. Preferably if user also agrees to seek immediate medical attention for Wikipediholism.
'''Support''', experience is irrelevant if the editor is well-intentioned and willing to learn, which Aitias is. --
'''Support''' – I have absolute confidence that this user will stay in the areas in which he is experienced. —
Per Cometstyles, who never ceases to outdo himself. ''
'''Support''' [[WP:AGF]] / [[WP:DEAL]] - No reason to think user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Experience is not necessary. The ability to stay on Wikipedia for years, creating massive contributions to the mainspace, has absolutely nothing to do with your capability as a SysOp. He answered both of my questions fairly appropriately and as such, he should be given sysop. If adminship is trly "no big deal" and just a "mop and bucket," the idea that one has to edit for 3 years straight and create at least 25 articles is absurd. <font size="4">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I would normally oppose per lack of experience, but Aitias has made 203 AIV edits!  All that giving Aitias adminship will do is benefit Wikipedia.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Looks good. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''' Have no problems with him receiving the mop.
'''Support''' Not too many users are trusted at this point, but this one manages to get mine. '''
'''Support''' - experienced vandal fighter (beats me to the revert a lot!); I wouldn't mind him getting the "mop and bucket." However, I would like to see this user do more than just revert vandalism, such as cleaning up spam, etc. --
'''Support'''.  This user having the tools will benefit the encyclopaedia, and his experience is completely sufficient for what he intends to do with them.  (Of course, if he ever plans on stepping outside the vandal-fighting role, he should tread lightly until he knows what he's doing, but very few admin candidates are, at the time of their adminship, qualified to do everything that admins ever do.)
'''Support'''. I realize that this is just a gesture at this point, but I do hope the candidate will remain involved and re-apply after a bit more time with the project.
'''Support''' - per Newyorkbrad. I too realise this won't be much of a compensation for what seems a destined no-consensus RFA. However, I've often comes across your efforts at AIV and UAA, where I don't even need to do the usual routine because I know that you will have been thorough in your reports and will have made sure the vandal is active now, has a final warning and is failing to stop. Not to mention the 2 months effort you've put in. Good job.
'''Support''' Definately can be trusted with the tools. --'''
'''Support''' I've seen you somewhere, I thing it was featured picture candidates. You were very insightful. Also, many edits to AIV also help. <strong>
'''Weak Support''' time is not really a true indication of how experienced a user is, and thus I give my support. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' Naturally. Per Sarcasticidealist. <font face="Forte">
'''sorry''' but barely 2 months is '''not''' experienced enough..I'd prefer waiting it out for another month or so before requesting adminship again...10,000+ edits is impressive but high edit count matched with equal experience is what I love to see in an admin...sorry again..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Weak oppose'''.  Two months is not enough to appreciate the several perspectives of situations that may require admin action.  Besides, the mainspace editing experience seems heavy on translation and patrolling, and not enough on gathering of fresh material. It all looks a little too "mechanical." --
'''Oppose''' Aitias joined Wikipedia on December 4, 2007. I have a great respect for his contributions. However, he is not experienced enough. I will support his next RfA. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but while your edit count is impressive and you editing is helpful, I hesitate in supporting someone with just two months here at the project.
'''Oppose''' - more experience needed.--[[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
Per Q4 and low experience. Also would like to see more effort made in the mainspace.
'''Regretful Oppose''' I'm really sorry about this as I hate to see obviously well-intentioned and extremely valued editors declined adminship. But whilst your outstanding effort has proven you have the right intentions, it doesn't demonstrate sufficient experience. Judging by your answers to questions and looking through your contributions I believe that you just won't yet know how to deal with many of the complex situations that administrators encounter on a day-to-day basis. There will be many occasions where other editors will look to you as a role model and you may just not have the knowledge to deal with the situation. Or, in the heat of battle you could inadvertently discourage one or more potential contributors. I would be happy to support or nominate you (if this RfA fails) in a short time (~ a month) provided you have diversified your edits and demonstrated you are familiar with a few more essential nooks and crannies Wikipedia's "behind-the-scenes scene" has to explore. It would be great to see if you could get a little more "''dug in''" to the community as Martijn Hoekstra articulated below. All the best, '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Not enough time. --
'''Weak oppose''' Good vandal fighter (that's why I'm making the oppose weak) but not enough experience. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' too soon, not enough general experience.
'''Oppose''' too soon.
'''Temporary oppose''', until I get an answer for my question.
Things don't seem quite right here. Not enough experience, sorry. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' per Majorly, Miranda and others. For sure, 10k edits indicates commitment, but frankly 5k edits and four months history (which I believe indicates the opportunity to have read debates, policies etc. etc.) would be preferable. I'm sure I'll be in support of a round two, but for now this just seems too rushed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Oppose''' - Question #7, along with this RfA being pre-mature. Better luck next time,
'''Oppose''' - per cometstyles.
'''Oppose''' - Totally unexperienced. He's been here for 2 months, not for 2 years. 2 months being on wiki is nothing. Let's get serious, he's a newcomer.
'''Oppose'''. One of the main admin tasks lately is dealing with images, fair use violations, etc. and with just two edits in the Image namespace unfortunately Aitias doesn't get a support from me.
'''Oppose'''. Regretfully I might add. I see stupendous potential and some real rigorous drive - unfortunately, a few comments on your talk page lead me to believe you might be acting somewhat hastily - and I know this from experience and my own failed RfA. A few more months of the same activity, maybe a little less robotic, try some dispute resolution, mediation, requests for comment, administrator noticeboard etc..etc.. and you'll have my support.
'''Oppose''' I regreat opposing, but I must. I think you need more time under your belt. I know you have buku amount of edits, but the ammount of time isn't there yet. Keep going and in no time, I'll be putting a support on your next RfA. Sorry.
For not being around long enough. I fear there may be misapplication of the tools, even if I don't expect it to happen. Getting a little more dug into the community may be a good thing.
You have much potential, but you have no experience. I do not really feel comfortable supporting someone who has very little experience on wikipedia. I do not feel that lack of experience is a good enough reason to oppose someone though. Sorry:-( Try again in the future please.--
Regretfully I have be neutral for this one. I don't have a problem with the answer to my question, it is just the fact that I don't think 2 months is enough experience. I think your 10,000+ edits are good, you seem like a bot!!! (joke). Sadly, its a neutral but I hope to support you in your next RFA! --
'''Neutral'''. ·
'''Neutral''' I joked with this user just after he got a Wikipedia account (sometime in December, I think) telling him that I looked forward to his future adminship. While I do believe that this user has done an incredible job so far, I like my admins to be active on Wikipedia for at least six or so months before adminship. --'''
'''Neutral''' I feel that two months is not enough experience, but come back at a later date and I might support. :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Neutral''' —
'''Neutral''' Good start, worthy of support. But not yet. Wait and get some more experience in the quarries.
'''Support'''.  Seen you around and I believe that you definitely deserve the tools.  <font  face="georgia">'''
No doubts. ·
'''Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aitias&diff=188718346&oldid=188718294 As I said before], clear need for the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' Great user who I would trust with the tools.
'''Support''' <font face="Arial Black">
'''Support'''-User obviously knows Wikipedia's policies and tools very well, and would be a great help if he had admin tools to better patrol Wikipedia and prevent Vandalism.--'''<font size="3"></font>[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]][[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]
'''Support''' - User wants to work at [[WP:AIV]] (and rightly so) and [[WP:RFPP]]. Go right ahead. You'll make good use of the tools as far as I can see.
'''Hesitant support''', with over 600 AIV reports it is obvious that the user needs the tools, yet I find his contributions to other admin related areas lacking. I noticed that Aitias does not communicate with other editors very often, his typical comments to RFA and FPA are along the lines of  "'''Support''' yep."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jbmurray&diff=prev&oldid=212585030] or "'''Oppose''' per above."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Flame_1.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=208629978] and in his last 500 edits to namespace talk: and user talk: I was hard pressed to find some edits that were not reverts or auto generated messages. However there is no reason to belive that he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good editor.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' I was unaware that this editor was not already a sysop. Very good and skilled vandal fighter
'''Strong Support''' -- I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aitias&diff=178860457&oldid=178786492 joked with this user] when he first joined Wikipedia that I looked forward to his future tenure as an administrator. I was not mistaken in my intuition; from our first meeting, I knew that this user would be an admin eventually. His professional manner then conveyed a seriousness not found in many Wikipedians, and the vigor with which he fought vandalism was most impressive.  Today, as he was then, Aitias is highly qualified, dedicated, and certainly ready for the mop. --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Great guy, good edits, will do well.
'''Not likely to abuse/misuse the tools.''' Article buiding is important, but one can have knowledge of the tools without it. The time this user spends mopping up will give someone else more time to build. Cheers,
'''Support''' I'm always running into him on RC patrol (and I hope he's running into me as well. Bwahahaha!!!1!) Also, a quick glance through his talk page and contribs turned up no major issues. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' per response to my question.
Despite what some may say, you can never have too many vandal fighting admins.
Yep. -- <strong>
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
[[WP:WTHN]].
'''Support'''. Edit count (beyond a basic level) and mainspace work are utterly irrelevant to whether someone will make a good admin or not.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' Good interactions with user at [[WP:FPC]]. <strong>
'''Support''' I could not not support this fine editor <font color="blue">'''
'''support''' —
'''Support'''.  A great user who would not abuse the tools; much the opposite.  '''
'''Support''' would work effectively at AIV and RFPP and per [[User_talk:Cobi#ClueBot_3|this]]. Opposition concerns aren't really resonating with me, the editor knows the workings of AIV sufficiently to block when necessary.
I wasn't expecting to write a long support rationale in addition to my nomination statement, but there we go. Anyway, I don’t find any of the concerns raised in the oppose section convincing: in the past, we’ve had vandal-fighters nominated for adminship, they’ve been successful, and have gone onto be great admins. The communication issues are understandable, but in my dealings with Aitias, as I said in my statement, I’ve found him to be reasonable when talking to him. It should be noted that people who focus heavily on reverting vandalism ''will have'' a lot of templated talk-page messages in their editing histories, and the fact he’s notifying people when he’s reverted their vandalism or nominated their page for speedy deletion is a ''good thing''. I should also remind people that there are other prolific vandal-fighters like Aitias who are admins: DerHexer (who is also a steward), KnowledgeOfSelf, Alex.muller, Persian Poet Gal, and Can’t sleep, clown will eat me, just to name a few: these people are heavy vandal-fighters, and they are all highly respected users, with use of the tools that has been excellent; I think Aitias will be the same, and therefore standby my nomination and support. Finally, Aitias is experienced in the areas he says he wants to work in: if he ever decides to branch out, he can take it slow, and talk to more experienced admins. This was another reason why [[Wikipedia:New admin school|the new admin school]] was set up.
Some very good points from a user that I have a great deal of respect for, [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]].  '''Support'''  --
I took a while deciding this one. I have looked through your contributions, deleted contributions, user talk page history among other things. I have found that you are a strong vandal fighter that goes out of the way to be friendly in many cases. You have e-mail enabled, and good summary usage which is excellent. You clearly have good knowledge of Wikipedia policies, such as [[WP:CSD]], as all the tagging I have had a chance to look at in your deleted contributions was correct. In addition the requests at [[WP:RFPP]] I have seen are generally appropriate. I have seen you at [[WP:AIV]] - and I have generally got the impression you make good reports and do not misuse this noticeboard. Lack of any article content contributions do stick out for me, but I do not consider it necessary for adminship, and I think you will do well in the admin areas you intend to work in without them. Your communication with other users does not concern me - you have received a few heated comments on your talk page, as you likely will as an admin, and you seem to have responded to these well. Answers to the questions are sufficient. Weighing it all up, I have decided to '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Yea I'll be supporting. '''
'''Support''' This editor is an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support:''' I actually went through the previous RfA looking for my support comment so I could link to it from here. Turns out, I apparently forgot to comment last time... which means this should be made worth twice as much <tt>;)</tt>. There's no reason not to support Aitias — the fact that they could be accused of not being trustworthy enough for a couple of buttons is beyond me <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">–
'''Support'''; NBD, gives him easy tools to vandalwhack. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. I have interacted with Aitias, and I find him to be a courteous, level-headed person.
'''Support''' Problems here :) <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Support''' : No major concerns. Good vandal figher.WoW , 600 AIV edits ( But i am too lazy to go and see what you have reported.But I believe you). I have no reason to think now that he will abuse the tools. Suggestion is to improve the contributions to develop articles (other than page reversions), Work on Wikiprojects, interaction with other Users (I see very less talk page utilization of others)  etc. Initially , Make sure you ask others for opinions as I see you r having no experience in conflict situations till now. Best of luck -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Support''': Not thrilled about lack of mainspace but is clearly stating using self for a specialist role and in this I guess will be a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''': No issue with specialist admins. Net positive to the project to let Aitias be more effective at vandal fighting. <nowiki>--</nowiki>
Actions are no different to those that administrators do when they get the bit. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' - a great vandal fighter who could really use the block button, and I'm sure he'll use it wisely.
'''Support''' - looks good to me. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I agree that there are certain aspects of the candidate's qualifications which do need improvement (most importantly article building) but I still feel that granting Aitias the mop would be a net positive to Wikipedia.
The lack of article writing does not concern me as much as it appears to concern others below. Aitias appears to be a genuinely good vandal-fighter. There is no requirement that all users here ''have'' to write articles. If we can have enough administrators that can fight the vandals off, those of us that ''do'' write articles have a much easier job. I think giving Aitias the administrator tools would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, and anything that is helpful and a positive for the encyclopedia should be supported. I would note that Aitias should go slow with the tools and use them cautiously. Also, if he intends to send me thank you spam, you can discount this support. ;-) Mahalo. --
'''Neutral to Support''' per above
'''Support''' I'm currently on vacation, but at the risk of attracting the ire of my wife I had to log in to throw my support here. This editor is by far one of the most competent vandal-fighters that I have ever seen. I, of course, would like to see a little bit more article building out of him but it in no way affects the fact that he is an obvious net-positive.
'''Support''' I have processed many of his reports to AIV and CSD and mostly found him to be accurate and quick to report. I see no major problems here. --
'''Support''' - he has a [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggling]] problem and needs to see a [[User:Gurch|doctor]] as soon as possible but apart from that, his contributions in the past 5½ months has been impressive as well..no doubt he is here to stay, and I'll be more than happy to support him if he stays and is willing to see a doctor for his problem which i had once.. (its really really bad O_O ) ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I've seen Aitias vandal-fighting.  He does it well, and with 600+ AIV reports, he could surely use the blocking tool.  I read the answer to Q2, and I am mystified by the opposition based on lack of article writing.  His article writing is more than enough to meet my minimum standard for adminship.  It seems people are opposing for ''disproportionate'' vandal-fighting compared to article writing.  I understand why that bothers some people, but it doesn't bother me.
'''Support'''. Its not very often around RfA that a good vandal fighter also comes to us as a good contributor. Judging by the user's contributions listed above, I'm confident that he understands both sides of the coin. There is no reason to mistrust with the answers above, so unqualified support.
'''Support''' -- I can't see a reason to distrust this user. Good luck! --
'''Weak Support''' I do agree that more actual article work would be nice. But coming from the guy who had the princely total of two DYK's and some minor copy editing when I passsed RFA that would be a bit hypocritical to oppose on! You dilligence in respect of [[WP:AIV]] reporting will, I trust, be mirrored in other areas of activity. So whilst this is a weak support, as I take on the points noted in opposition below, on balance I believe you will be a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] with the +sysop bit. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Clearly a dedicated and effective vandal patroller, who would make extremely effective use of tools in terms of speedying, reverting and blocking. I don't consider his limited article-building experience to be a problem, he's done enough of it to show he understands what Wikipedia is about - if he generally prefers anti-vandal work who are we to judge? He appears trustworthy and would make good use of the tools. ~
'''Support''' per [WP:AGF]] and I see no warning signs that the tools will be abused. <b>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' This user has enough edits to satisfy my tastes, and I'm not concerned over the opposers' comments. —&nbsp;'''
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Great Vandal fighter further has great commitment and dedication to Wikipedia.Not one out of the opposes even suggests that he will misuse the tools which clearly shows even those opposing trust him.Not even one has questioned his commitment.This clearly shows he will using the tools for the benefit of Wikipedia.Has over 17000 mainspace edits and growing and has the experience in the area where he plans to work as per Question 1.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' for those reasons expressed so well by Acalamari.
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter --
'''Support'''. Has improved since last RfA.
'''Support'''. From all my interactions with aitias, I am sure he has the most valuable attribute of any potential admin, which is common sense, and that he would not be afraid to ask for advice if there was something he was unsure of. He also has vast experience in the particular areas in which he intends to use the admin tools, and I trust that he will use his tools in those areas, and not rush into areas where he has less experience. As such, I'm more than happy to support. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - No major concerns, not convinced by the oppose argument, can be trusted.
'''Oppose'''. I know a "not enough mainspace work" looks bizarre in relation to someone with 17k mainspace edits - but I can see virtually no substantial creation/writing work, other than writing a couple of stubs. My usual argument applies here; I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected. It's not an opposition to automated tools per se (I once racked up 13,000 edits in a month changing a category name), but opposition to users who don't '''''add content''''' to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. As with Wisdom above, the edit pattern strongly indicates a Huggle user, and I personally loathe that tool and would happily see it banned as I think it encourages a "high score" mentality (flames to the usual place, please...) — I have a feeling that as it catches on we're going to see a lot more of this kind of user coming forward at RFA. I appreciate I'm in a minority here (at the time of writing, 12 editors do trust you and I'm the only one who doesn't) — but while I certainly see no reason not to trust you with the "revert, block, ignore" side of adminship, I see nothing in your talkpage or user talk edits to give me any reason to trust you on the "why did you delete my page?", consensus-building side of adminship. On the contrary, what I do see is user after user complaining about your inappropriate use of automated tools to shoot first and ask questions later. Note to anyone who feels the need to respond to this oppose: please check [[Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Has_the_required_tenure_gone_up.3F|this discussion]] first, as it's highly likely someone has already made the point you're going to make.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' – I guess someone has to be the first, make that the second (Edit conflict) – I just wish it wasn’t me.  First, very impressive edit count!  Almost 27,000 in four months.  (I didn’t include your first month of editing here at [[Wikipedia]] which was only December of 2007, just a little over 4 months ago or May, where you have close to 4,000 edits in just 16 days.  Indeed, I am impressed).  I have to ask though; did any thought process go into those edits? 15 minutes – 5 minutes – 30 seconds or as your contribution history shows probably less than an average of 15 seconds each?  Also, in reviewing your talk page, I noticed that more than a few editors, and again in reviewing the discussions that took place they seemed like rational, well intentioned editors, had less than admiration for your contentions on reverting.  Sorry to say, with the extra responsibility that comes along with [[WP:Administrator|Administratorship]] I do not believe you have demonstrated that once you have the availability of the extra buttons that you will take the time to review both sides of the situation but rather, as you state in your own words “…I would delete pages myself” . <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''', Iridescent and Shoessss summed up several of my feelings as well. As a whole, the candidate has been an editor for less than six months. While he has over 27,000 edits, a large chunk appear to be vandalism warnings and reports. He's done 655 AIV reports and granted those AIV reports appear to be beautifully formatted and any admin's dream. However, the candidate seems to do little actual editing of late and there is a severe lack of activity in the areas candidate expressed interest in. Indeed, looking back through May's contributions to the article mainspace, I do not see a single actual edit, Everything appears to be extremely rapid fire reverting of vandalism with the rollback tool, averaging 6-7 pages a minute. I'd like to see at least a full year of editing history, with a better balance of editing, being involved in the areas of interest (such as CSD--more steady that apparently random newpage patrol--, XfD, featured picture/article/lists, etc), being active in the discussions in those areas, and slowing down on the reverting to be sure its actual vandalism so as to have less complaints.
'''Oppose''' I can't support at this time.  While the user does great work vandal fighting, he has a complete lack of any track record dealing with controversy or other people.  EVERY edit to the talk page was a reversion.  Almost every edit to articles are reversions.  While I have no problems with specialist admins, I do want to see some sort of community building/evidence that the person can work with others.  I don't see that here.  I don't see any evidence that he worked with others to refine his understanding of policies and procedures.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman and irdidescent. Racking up a high edit count with automated tools (or whatever you kids call them these days) alone doesn't make you admin-worthy. You've got to show that you can work with people and content, the two things admins deal with most, and endless reversions don't show it.--
'''Oppose''' - Four months is not enough for me to be able to tell if I trust you with the tools, and your lack of communication with other users does not allow me to see that you would make a good admin. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
Oppose per iridescent and Baloonman.
Also '''oppose''' per Iridescent and Balloonman. They sum up my feelings well- a demonstration of your ability to communicate is needed. While I'm here though, I ''have'' seen you around and ''do'' think you're doing a good job.
'''Oppose''' per vague answers to my questions and per Iridescent and Balloonman. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' per pretty much all of the above. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' I very much appreciate [[User:Aitias|αἰτίας']] contributions in fighting vandalism. I have a small number of articles that I watch and defend; this editor does the same on a grand scale, and Wikipedia needs specialized enthusiasts like him. That said, I, like many above, am concerned about this user's lack of experience with article building. I see that this user highlights his creation of a number of articles on [[Latin language|Latin]] phrases. Certainly, these are well-known, yet the phrases themselves seem more appropriate to [[Wikiquote]], and the additional information on them seems better suited to articles on the works from which they come. I am very troubled by the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socrates&diff=prev&oldid=176677051 edit summary and unilateral move], undertaken without reference either to community consensus or to [[WP:UCN|Wikipedia policy]]. This editor is only a few months out from this sort of hasty decision, and I do not see sufficient evidence (and I speak as a Classicist who fully understands the reasoning behind the attempted move) that this editor is aware of the significance of naming controversies which [[User:Moreschi/The Plague|plague]] Wikipedia at the moment.  I am also concerned by the lack of links to an archive on his talkpage. I realize that all the information is available in the history, but in my experience, it is better to provide easier access to this information.  I would like to commend [[User:Aitias|αἰτίας]] overall, but do not feel I can support at this time.
'''Oppose''' - I Have to agree with [[User:Shoessss]] here, the majority of Aitias's edits do not show any thought, I mean there is not much skill or thought process need to determine a edit as vandalism and click the revert button. Like Ballonman I understand candidates do not need to be versatile in every are of the 'pedia, nor do they need much mainspace work, ''but'' I still like to see some as it demonstrates the candidates ability to resolve disputes and work well with other users.
Virtually no experience in admin-related areas besides AIV. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - Only 6-month-contributions. Too early to be admin --
I actually supported the first RfA, but my views have changed since then, and I really have to oppose per Balloonman.
'''Oppose''' per the reasons that Iridescent, Shoesss, and Balloonman brought up.  You have absolutely no experience in dealing with controversies with other users on this site, and as either Shoess or Balloonman brought up (can't remember which), you have only been a member for 4 months and all of your edits to articles have been reversions (or most).  I would like to see some more creations of articles from you.  For these reasons, I cannot support your request at this time.  Cheers,
'''Oppose''' 5 <math> \frac{1}{2} </math> months of Huggle vandalism reversions and little else does not an administrator make IMO.
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescent - lack of article building/substantative edits. -
Per Q4. God forbid that somebody have the gumption to place NPOV above civility.
'''Oppose'''. Excellent vandal fighter, but little evidence of encyclopedia building gives me no hint of the editor's suitability for the administrative role.
'''Oppose, regretfully'''.  This is an editor who is both very prolific and willing to clean up after vandals.  I just am hesitent due to less than 6 months' experience.  Next time.
'''Oppose''' If the mop were an award for hard work, this editor would deserve it.  I am really concerned with the descriptions above of rapid fire reverts and the comment about wanting admin status so that articles can be deleted on site.  If the candidate had been through the processes of writing more articles, I'd feel better about the judgment to delete.  I suggest taking a new approach for a few months.  I try to find diamonds in the rough at AfD or Clean up; most are junk, but there are some that are worthwhile researching to save.  Maybe wear the other hat for a few months finding a challenge in creation and inclusion rather than deletion and reversion.  Also try spending some time at Third opinion showing the community how you can help resolve disputes.  COntact me for your next RfA and I'd be likeley to support. --
'''Oppose''' - A good editor and potential future admin, but he needs more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose based on lack of mainspace contributions. Now, I say "contributions" instead of "edits" because you have 17,000 edits there. However, if you take a look at [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my admin criteria]], I'm not impressed by endless clicking using an automated script. Huggle has done wonders for your edit count, but it's going to take communication with other editors, work in the Wikipedia namespace, article contributions (on the article you've edited most, you've only edited it 14 times). Communication is a very important attribute for an admin to have, as others have mentioned. I'm a very big supporter of mainspace work, so I'll have to recommend you do some actual content-building work there, as well.
'''Oppose'''. Great work on the vandal patrolling. To become an effective admin, though, I believe that there is a need to round out experience in other key areas: writing/editing articles; project work, policy discussion, etc. A single (or even duo-) purpose admin is an oxymoron.
'''Oppose''' - I'd say over 90% of this candidate's time comes from using that awful tool called Huggle. I usually support admins who specialise in vandal-fighting, as this is what I do, but we ''do'' branch out in other areas too. You don't need to be an admin to patrol the RC. True, this user is a great patroller, and I have awarded him a barnstar in the past for his efforts, but there's more to adminship than just that. Huggle is an excuse for upping the edit count in a short period of time, while using very little effort. Sorry, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' per Useight.
'''Neutral''', but I'm going to come back and revisit this.  I don't mind specialist admins, and AIV always needs help, and the mainspace always needs scrubbers.  You obviously know what you're doing in those areas and will be a real asset.  I'll come back and visit this, leaning towards support. What would help me greatly is you being able to convince me that, since blocking will likely be your area of admin work, and since blocking tends to be a very touchy area because it deals primarily with contributors not content, that you'll be fine. Right now, your answers above are lacking, your communication style is primarily reversion and templates.  I need more convincing. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Neutral''' Can this candidate be trusted not to abuse the mop? Most certainly, everything I have reviewed points toward a person committed to maintaining the encyclopedia. Can this candidate be trusted <u>with</u> the mop...? I just do not get any sense that this is an editor who interacts with the community, except as a vandal fighter. I do not see any evidence of the necessary nuances or flexibility in application of (often conflicting) policies generally. Despite the impressive pure statistics I do not think the candidate has been here long enough to pick up fully the ethos of Wikipedia that a sysop is supposed to exemplify. If it wasn't for my belief that this editor is absolutely non-abusive in intent and practice I am afraid I would be opposing.
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor, but uses Huggle, and thus should obviously be banned --
Optimistic '''neutral'''. I'm having trouble finding something showing how this user would handle him/herself in a conflict. Conflict happens to admins, a lot, as admin actions (deleting, blocking, protecting, or declining to do any of the above) tend to get people worked up. I would support this user given evidence that his/her actions in a heated situation would be calm, rational, and measured. -

'''Neutral:''' The editor is a solid vandal fighter, and we could use the help. I would like to see more well-cited (with footnotes) articles written.  As someone who is responsible for deleting articles, you probably should demonstrate more proficiency with creating them.
'''Support''' clean block log, moderately good amount of contributions, [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] one good use of the tools benefits the project. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Moral support''' I mean I unblocked the nominator. --
'''Support''' I think you would make a fine administrator. I do not see any objections not to support you at this point. I wish you the best of luck and hope you get to be a administrator!
'''Strong support''' per [[User:Alan_De_Smet#Things_that_make_me_weep_for_Wikipedia]].  I appreciate someone telling things as they are (although, I can't stand any use of the nonsense non-word "cruft"...).  Clearly gets that we are primarily here to build an encyclopedia and that [[Wikipedia:Editors matter]].  I also like that the candidate has never been blocked.  --
'''Strong support''', per opinions on deletionism (per above). --
'''Support''' candidate has been here a long time, cares about the content, knows enough about his stance to clearly disclose it, but as per clear answers to questions would not abuse tools. '''
'''Oppose''' per the block notice on the nominator's talkpage and [[User:Alan_De_Smet#Things_that_make_me_weep_for_Wikipedia|Things that make me weep for Wikipedia]] on the candidate's userpage; anyone who thinks that articles are deleted because they "[don't] meet some petty deletion-biased bureauocrat's intepretation of the guidelines" either does not understand our policies or the concept of consensus. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Oppose''' per userpage. <s>Anyone who posts that and then says in their statement that they "[understand] that most deletionists are simply trying to hold Wikipedia to high standards so that it can be great and not just another heap of unfiltered garbage on the internet" is at best an idiot for assuming people wouldn't check their userpage and at worst a very poor liar trying to weasle their way past RfA.</s> The nom hardly inspires confidence either.
'''Oppose''' – per Ameliorate and Ironholds. If that is the candidate's perception of the AfD process, then I have little to no confidence in his or her knowledge of how consensus works. Furthermore, the candidate has hardly any project space edits (49 total), basically no experience in admin-related areas, and the answer to Q1 doesn't give me any reassurance in terms of how the candidate will utilize the tools. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Oppose'''.  Was going to vote "Support", but the user page issues brought up above are disturbing.  No thanks, not at this time.
'''Oppose''' - not exactly a glowing nomination - and by a nominator who was recently blocked. If I've read this correctly, the candidate says he doesn't need the tools, doesn't plan to use them much, and doesn't particularly care whether or not he receives them. In that case, why waste everyone's time with this process at all? <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> —
'''Strong oppose''' - My basic criteria for support !voting on an RfA is simply that I can trust the editor, and that I cannot. Candidate seems confused over their stance on deletionism, and they have little to no experience in admin areas. You were also nominated by a user with, lets say... a not particularly clean track record. I apologise, but there is no way that I can support. To reiterate what Ameliorate! said, candidate also appears not to understand core policies, or the notion of consensus. If this oppose streak continues, I'd suggest [[WP:SNOW]] withdrawal, but that's either up to the candidate or a 'crat to decide. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
The vast majority of the stuff deleted from Wikipedia is correctly deleted; because of that, the exceptions stand out, leading people to assume that we have a problem with trigger-happy admins. Anyone with sufficient experience of Wikipedia deletions to become an administrator will have learned that we don't particularly. On that basis, I oppose Alan's nomination. ➨ <font color="red">❝'''[[User talk:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]'''❞</font>
'''Oppose''': I don't see any reason to give the candidate admin tools. He says that he's going to work very little anyway, and that little too with only deleting. He also says that he will err a lot if not having the tools, but I don't see how, considering he's an inclusionist. An inclusionist would want to keep the articles if possible, so it's not like he will go about placing CSD tags on every other page (which means minimal errors, right?). Then if he becomes an admin, I don't see how this situation is going to change. And anyway, if the candidate is not confident of his judgment now, it's not like we can give him a sort of a "test run" to see how he does and if this will change. Maybe I'm being stupid here, and if so, I'd appreciate it if somebody could point me in the right direction.
'''Oppose''' I'll have to oppose this because of the questionable nom and the lack of experience and need for the tools.  I have to echo the sentiment that you should spend some more time in AfD, for a couple reasons.  First you'd see how the process generally gets thing right, and second, so we have another valuable content building editor who understands what goes into writing to help decide on certain cases that may otherwise be overlooked. --
'''Oppose''' As per the cogent comments raised by everyone who got here ahead of me (I really need to get into these discussions earlier).
'''Oppose''' ''Very'' odd nom + Frank in the neutral section overwhelm me. &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F"><small>'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="00008B">1''7'']]
'''Oppose'''. So basically, we have here a candidate who only has the time to perform two tasks, and whose religious convictions prevent him from performing one of the two. Splendid. The candidate's perspective on the deletion process is best described as "completely out to lunch". The dump I took this morning was, I assure you, a sincere contribution. Unfortunately, it was still crap.
'''Oppose''' Per Ironholds.
'''Oppose''' Primary per Ironholds' oppose. —<small>
'''Oppose''' Per lack of projectspace contribs. Spend some more time there, come back in 3 months? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
Offbeat noms are usually a good sign but this one verges on the downright weird which leads me to conclude he should not be trusted with the tools. Oh, and what Badger Drink said. '''Oppose'''.
'''Weak Oppose''' - per "valid content deleted because it doesn't meet some petty deletion-biased bureauocrat's intepretation of the guidelines" is simply understanding of policy. Also, his Q1 answer shows no need for tools, their putting their "inclusionism" as somehow more important than improving the encyclopedia, and their overall attitude all are negatives. The nom I don't really care about,and actually looking through the deletion discussions shows that he does nominate articles for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Olitext], even ones in his areas of interest, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/4dventure]. Finally, not enough wikispace participation. The editor is clearly a "good" editor who sources, cites, cleans up, and is a positive asset to WP. Maybe in six months. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Oppose''' Troubling judgment concern in accepting nomination from nominator-- a relatively new user with < 100 edits.  While I agree that sometimes articles are deleted that would be better kept, it is also true that the reverse is true. I'm not convinced that the candidate as adequate grasp of ''and acceptance of'' the relevant policies to trust with the ''undelete'' button. It is unusual for this to be the problem. There is no doubt in my mind that the candidate would not delete items that should be kept, and I would support a limited use as proposed for images, but I see little activity in image deletions. Furthermore, while it was made long ago, I find this edit to a later deleted image troubling-- "''While any rational human being could figure out that a scan of a video game's box would be fair use in an article about that video game. However, Wikipedia is about mindless enforcement of petty rules, not rational behavior. So to please the wikibureaucrat's, an explicit fair use claim follows.''" It is relevant in that it connects the candidate's rather extremist views with the area in which he wishes to work. I believe the editor would benefit from more all-round experience in the admin related areas.
'''Oppose'''; too radical for my taste.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I'd prefer that admins are completely neutral, and this editor doesn't appear to be that at all. Good luck anyway,
'''Oppose''' seems too biased and (to a degree) disregarding to authority. Normally opinion/bias doesn't matter, but here it's clearly having an effect on your editting, dude. It seems obvious to me that it will totally effect your administrative decisions too.--
'''Oppose''' - this RfA is not off to a good start. An RfA should inspire confidence in the candidate. -
'''Oppose''' primarily because of the opinions in "Things that make me weep for Wikipedia". It leads me to think the candidate doesn't respect policy or consensus enough not to put his own opinions ahead of them, so I don't feel confident in giving him the tools right now.
'''Oppose''' Unsatisfactory question answers.
'''Oppose''' - not because user is an inclusionist, but that he denigrates deletionists and their methods on his userpage (the weep thingy). Man, I've had enough of that attitude to last a lifetime in ''regular'' users; certainly don't need it in another admin.
'''Neutral''', I wouldn't expect problems if you were made an administrator, but due to how little you'd actually make use of the tools I just don't feel the "risk/reward" balance is quite there. I'm sure you'll carry on making great contributions without them, I don't suspect you're missing out. I would, however, encourage you to spend some more time at AfD even if you don't intend on running for adminship again: while I'm entirely supportive of your generally inclusionist viewpoint, I think it'd help you to realise how much total garbage ''does'' get correctly processed every day. And plus, as you say on your userpage - as worthy article-building Wikipedians often avoid AfD, why not bring your opinion to more of them? ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral''' - with only 49 edits in the Wikipedia name space, I just don't see enough to gauge a knowledge of policy sufficient for an admin. Often we chastise candidates for a perceived lack of a specific area; however, I am '''not''' saying "candidate doesn't have enough participation in fill-in-the-area-du-jour" - I'm saying there isn't enough in '''any''' admin area. I am also somewhat troubled by the points raised by opposers above, but not enough to oppose myself at this time. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral'''.  Not enough experience in the projectspace to support.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral'''. You seem like a good, sound editor, and your honesty in answering the "standard" questions is admirable. Unfortunately, you have little experience in the project space. I would recommend that you get involved in some of those areas, and apply again in a few months. Best of luck!
'''Neutral'''. You sound like a good editor, but your strong views and ''your own, stated'' lack of need for the tools doesn't help. [[User:Bsimmons666|'''Bsimmons<font color="#990000">666</font>''']] ([[User_talk:Bsimmons666|talk]]) <sup><small>
'''Neutral''' - To avoid pile on, though at this time I do not the candidate has quite enough experience.
'''Neutral'''.  Would make a good admin if it weren't for the extreme stances they take on certain issues.
'''Neutral'''. Following your answer to me earlier, I think a neutral vote is more appropriate for now. <font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Neutral this time''' I do want to point out that I asked the tools for exactly the same reasons as Alan:to delete the utter junk that I come across, and to examine deleted articles to see if they could be restored. Essentially, that all I've ever done with them, except block a few of the worst spammers i find in the process. It's quite enough to keep someone busy--check my log. What I do think is not acceptable is the low level of experience, which does not give me the necessary confidence in the ability to actually know what can and cannot be rescued.    '''
'''Moral Support''' — give it more time; continue building the encyclopedia and contributing to [[WP:XFD|community discussions]] and the like, and I'm sure you'll get the experience required to be an admin. But please do keep your good work! BTW, the "rollback" or "revert" toll (which, apparently, has been quite controversial lately) can be granted without the need to grant admin rights via [[WP:ROLL]]. Best regards,
'''Regretful oppose''' I can see you have good intentions here, but you need a little more experience and you need to use more edit summaries. Sorry, and good luck! <font face="Verdana">[[User talk:Jonathan|'''<font color="black">Jo</font><font color="#40404F">na</font><font color="#3B444B">th</font><font color="#464646">an</font>''']]
'''Regretful Oppose''' - it's clear that you want to help out here at Wikipedia but I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. According to your edit count (As of this moment) you've made 20 edits this month. I think maybe you should withdraw and get more experience in the different areas of Wikipedia. You could start by reading [[WP:ADMIN]] - to get a feel for what admins do. Basically it boils down to experience and committed use of Wikipedia. I'd be happy to help you and point you in the right direction, I will post this on your talk page aswell.
'''Oppose''' - I applaud your vandal fighting! It is most likely too early for the community to approve your admin request, however, you almost have enough edits to apply for [[Wikipedia:VandalProof|VandalProof]] access (I think it's 250 mainspace edits if I remember correctly). This will give you the "revert" tool you want and will most certainly assist you in your vandal fighting activities.
I'm not sure this is the right time, so I'll go '''neutral'''.
'''Support''' I would like to see a little more Wikispace contributions, but everything else I saw looked good.
'''Support''' as nom (shouldn't I be first to support?).
'''Oppose''' - I essentially knew how I was going to !vote after reading the first line of the nomination, and it was reaffirmed after looking at the count and user contributions. Complete lack of Wiki-project space contributions. Sorry, fails my criteria for experience and balance. Cheers and good luck though.
'''Oppose''' - Proportionately miniscule use of talkspaces and not nearly enough experience with the administrative end of Wikipedia. I also worry that the article he points to having written "from scratch" is completely without references and citations. Just doesn't seem to know enough in way of policy.
'''Oppose''' per the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
b'''Oppose''' - his only explicit intention of his RfA is speedy deletions. Looking at his deleted contribs, I don't think he has enough experience in this field.
'''Weak Oppose''' For substantially the same reasons as Od Mishehu. Your Q1 indicates that [[C:CSD]] is where you would like to use admin tools, but you have almost no experience there. (As a note - admins aren't "requested" to work anywhere - they work where they feel they can help best). Weak oppose as there's lots to like here as well. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. I'd support in a heartbeat if you had two or three times as much experience in the Wikipedia namespace. I'm a huge supporter of the mainspace, normally wanting to see at least 1000 edits there to !vote support, and you have 10 times that amount. You got over 5000 edits last month (were you bedridden all month long or something?), which shows a definite desier to help the project out. Plus, your answer to Q1 leave something to be desired.
Consistently performs well, shows great judgement particularly in the areas I've seen him. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Delete''' User obviously has an excess of humor. (Where'd I leave that [[WP:Trout|trout]]).
'''Support'''.  No big deal, and I like your honesty in the nomination.  --
'''Support''' This should clear up Malleus Fatuorum's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=70297836 question]
'''Support''' ''(switched from Neutral)'', but I strongly urge the candidate that, however not-a-big-deal he believes the tools to be, his use of them can indeed end up being a very, ''very'' big deal. Tread lightly. Having the tools isn't as important as having the trust of the community, and I think Ali'i has that trust, so I can't not support his request.
'''Yup.''' Seen you around, always pleasant and civil and informed.  Good at mediating issues between editors.  Won't abuse the tools, and you say directly that you'll give them up if you do.  That shows that you trust the community, which means I for one trust you right back. You answer to Optional question number 6 was the perfect answer by the way.  Shows you know where to get help when you need an answer.  Cheers,  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Seen him around for a while. Does good work editwise. Seems helpful, polite and friendly. Has a deft touch, more or less. Gets the wiki way. Unlikely to blow up the wiki. ''Adminship is no big deal.'' No compelling reason to oppose. ==> '''Support''' ++
Trust him. Admire his honesty, <s>although not so much the pointyness</s>... But in real life, sorry, in real editing, his actions seem near flawless. When he would use the tools, I'm sure it would be only good calls. [[User:Merzul|Merzul]] ([[User talk:Merzul|talk]]) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Changing this to a wholehearted support based on the excellent answer to Q7. Thanks,
'''Support''' Why not? He seems trustworthy and generally a sane person who wouldn't make awful calls. Agree with Keeper76 and Lar. --
'''Support''' Per OrangeMarlin. Ability to bridge gap is key. <s>Will support or oppse. Reviewing users contributions to recent dispute resolution now.</s>
'''Support''' I believe she really cares about the project and won't abuse the position. ''
'''Support''' - no trason not to. '''
'''Weak support''' per the answer to Q7. It is weak because, while the candidate has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ali%27i&diff=218910467&oldid=218910045 vehemently denied this], I can't help but get the feeling that they are requesting the tools as some kind of validation of their efforts.
'''Support'''. Doh! What was I doing opposing? Luckily I managed to find my [[Worzel Gummidge|thinking head]]. Every editor should have the tools, whether he or she intends to use them or not. --
'''Weak Support''' - I have very serious reservations about giving tools to someone who says they have no intentions of using them. Having said that, I can't help but imagine that, sooner or later, they will get used anyway. Intentions, however good they might be, are often altered by the realities of situations. In the event this editor ever is in a situation where the tools are needed, I think the encyclopedia would be better off with him having them.
'''Support''' - Pretty much what Keeper76 said.
Think of it this way. The user's honest, something that we really need in admins these days..
'''Strong support''' incredible nomination. He knows how big a deal adminship should be. But this support isn't frivolous, I'm really impressed with Ali'i's work and have seen him be a calming and refreshing voice in discussions. He would be a terrific administrator.
After reading this RfA, I've decided my decision to support is an easy one. Tell me, has anyone provided any evidence to show that Ali'i will abuse the tools? Not at all. For starters, I'm baffled over opposition regarding the first three questions: why answer them if the candidate already pretty much answered them in their own nomination statement? Why say the same thing again? As for need...that doesn't matter either: Ali'i will do what many admins do and just use the tools when it's necessary to use them; it's been said many times before, but ''no one'' "needs" the tools: they're just technical features to help improve the encyclopedia. I'm very sure that if Ali'i had given the "standard answer" to question 1 (i.e. something like "I want to delete pages that meet the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]], do work at [[WP:RFPP]] and protect pages if necessary, help manage [[WP:AIV]], and close [[WP:AFD]]s", she would have more support just for saying that, and that's saddening. I'm also trying to work out why there's opposition and neutrals saying "adminship is not a reward or a trophy" and that this is a "point nom": where did Ali'i say she was looking for a reward for her work, and how is this nomination "pointy"? This RfA is different from most RfAs I've seen, but I wouldn't say it's pointy, and it was easily submitted in [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]]. Now I go onto my next point: we often complain about how RfA candidates "all seem to be similar/the same" yet when someone who is different to the "mainstream candidate" applies, they get opposed, yet Ali'i isn't less experienced than those candidates at all. In addition, Ali'i has a strong sense of humor, which is a very necessary quality, and is honest, also very necessary. With my own interactions with Ali'i, I've found her to be knowledgeable and polite, and I'm sure that if she was made an administrator, she would do just fine. Again, nothing has been provided to show that she would be abusive, and given that fact, plus the reasons I mentioned above, this is an easy (albeit long) support.
'''Support''' - editor makes good contributions, no reason to suggest that they will abuse the tools.  As far as I can tell, the only people who shouldn't get made into administrators are those who the community cannot trust to use the tools.  Such a lack of trust may arise from limited editing experience, or from incidents in the user's past.  I was recently made an administrator - in my RfA, I said where I would like to use the tools, but there isn't anything binding on me to actually use them at all.  If we can trust a user, then it doesn't matter if they actually have a plan to use the buttons or not.  That's my support statement, anyway
'''Support'''. There does not appear to be ''any'' reason to believe that the candidate would either abuse or misuse the admin tools. The opposes are based, in my opinion, on deeply flawed logic saying that we should care about whether or not they'd actually use the tools (as if this weren't a volunteer project) and that we should oppose because the candidate has given some insight into their personal beliefs on the nature of Wikipedia. These are hardly valid reasons; we should be concerned only with whether or not +sysoping the candidate might bring harm the encyclopedia, and by all indications it will not. --
'''Support''', hard working, easy-going user that would not be a pain in the arse if she were to get the tools.  Also, per the self nom, I see the user is '''bold'''.
'''Support''' '''
'''
Thank you for adding pizazz to the RFA process! I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' don't particularly like the tone but in essence I agree with the sentiment and I doubt the user would abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''', per above, user needs to use edit summaries a little more
'''Support'''. I've been thinking about this one for a bit, but I'm going to have to support. You've done well as an editor and are polite, civil, and knowledgable enough for the tools. I don't quite care for the "I won't use the tools" attitude you have (I think you will of course), but that is no reason to oppose. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
Hmmm, what have we here?  An editor asking for editing tools, seems to be saying s/he doesn't plan to use the controversial bits.  How odd.  No admin coaching?  No admin mill participation?  Nothing that could be labelled mandarinship?  What ''is'' Ali'i thinking?  Oh, yeah, that adminship is something we give to people who won't abuse the tools.  Having clashed with Ali'i a couple times, I feel comfortable with the idea of giving him/her the keys to the closet where we keep the mops.
'''Support''' Ya dunno ya need them (tools) until ya need them.  I trust him... and if ya dont make it, dude, moral support wooty.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' per those above. I was initially concerned about your lack of sufficient answers to questions and the fact that you aren't very willing to perform admin tasks, but (per Malinaccier) the fact that we'll have an admin that we can trust to use the tools well, should you choose to use them at all, is enough for me to support. --
'''Support''' per Rudget.
Strong support per nomination, answers to Q1-3, and user's brilliant attitude.  ''
'''[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]'''  I see sufficient understanding of the community and policy.  I don't think it's "POINTy" at all; he's merely being truthful about what he'll use the tools for, which I think more admins should do.  Too many candidates answer the questions in a specific, calculated way in order to appeal to the most users.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust the user.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would maliciously misuse the tools.
'''Support'''  demonstrates more than enough judgment and independence of thought to be a fine admin  - hats off to  Ali'i for refusing to play the RFA game.
Excellent answers to questions six and nine.  –'''
'''Support''' I like your style, you're not an arse kisser. A very refreshing RfA.
'''Support''' To be honest when I first read this nom I thought it was a joke or a [[WP:POINT]].  But I've read all your further posts and I just misunderstood.  I see some who's judgement I respect, and who know your work better then me, support.  And I believe some of the opposes have gone too far.  And I guess it'd be wrong to hold it against you that you've never had the pleasure of editing drunk per Q#5.--

'''Support''' despite the peripheral funny business about will he/won't he does he/doesn't he - I doubt this nominee will abuse admin tools if he acquires them.  —
'''Support''' He or she is very smart, fair, and conducive to neutral outcomes.  Okole Maluna.
'''Support''' The admin tools are no big deal, and this user clearly has the capacity to use them appropriately if he ever chooses to do so.  What's wrong with using them sparingly?
'''Support'''. Thoughtful, trustworthy user. I don't see any reason not to support. ~
'''Support'''. A sensible, scrupulous editor. The lack of eagerness to go around enforcing the law (pressing magic buttons) reassuringly suggests a non-[[authoritarian personality]], and her performance wrt [[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed|an article that shows far more intelligence than does its subject]] (I looked through its talk page archive) reassures me that she'll do a good job of pressing those buttons when she needs to.
'''Support''' - Also, really like answer to question 6.
'''Support''' - no evidence he'll misuse the tools, I'd call this kind of situation a good place to bring in the "no big deal" thing. He doesn't need the tools, but he's a respected and trustworthy editor and I see no reason to deny them to him. Plus I think his answer to question 6 was exactly what that oft-seen question deserves. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''', while unorthodox, I see nothing in either the nomination or candidate's history to lead me to believe that he would misuse the tools. If he doesn't use them that often, so what? This is a volunteer project, there's no quota.
Clueful and trustworthy. I expect Ali'i will find something useful to do with the extra buttons from time to time. Even if it's only once a year, that's fine. No shortage of tools.
'''Support''' Pretty much the same ticket I ran on; whether there is sufficient trust to be handed the mop, not whether it was going to be used in a particular space (or at all). I think the candidate will not abuse the tools. I note the edit summary percentage isn't high, but am going to trust the candidate to always communicate in this matter when they do use the extra buttons.
'''Support'''. The nomination is witty (and I seriously think that Wikipedia can do away with the always serious, grumpy type Admins). His/her user history shows that the person can be trusted with the tools and whether he/she chooses to use it or not depends up on him/her. Best of luck! :-)
'''Support''' We haven't always seen eye-to-eye, but I don't think Ali'i would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I admire his courage.--
'''Support''' Seems like a good guy to me. We need more [[brah]]s on this wiki.
'''Support'''.  I think the compromise approach to dispute resolution is better than the "use the tools" approach.  ("Vow" is a bit too strong of a word, though.)
'''Support''' - Basically I'm always suspicious of people who are overly ambitious to get a position of power, like adminship. Ali'i's relative indifference of whether he'll become admin or not is quite refreshing. Based on his record, he seems to be an editor of (more than) good standing, understand [[WP.GOODFAITH]] and the importance of compromise. --
'''Support'''. To be quite honest, I can't really say why we should give Ali'i adminship, but there really isn't any reason NOT to do so. I think it's clear that Ali'i won't (ab)use the tools. --
Solid answers to the questions, very enlightening.
'''"I wish I said it" support''' - I agree with the nomination's sentiment that RfA is a joke.  Treating it as a joke is totally appropriate.  By the way, can anyone point me to the discussions concerning how and by how much !votes are discounted?
'''Support''' no reason why not.
Who '''does need''' the bits anyhow? We could use more decent people that don't take everything here so gravely serious. Additionally, Q6 shows me that you know where to look, if you have questions. It's a shame some people would have preferred that you copy the answer from one of the other 2500 rfa's to date, or the cheat sheet... Additionally, while I generally don't read the questions after they get past 8, Q9 shows that you're here for the right reasons :)
'''Support''' Looks like a solid contributer and is not a run of the mill candidate to boot. Also per Christopher Parham. --
'''Incredibly, ultra powerful, heroically unstoppably, Super sized, King sized, over the top, above and beyond, no bones about it strong Support''' - anyone with the balls to answer Q1 as bluntly as you did is definitely someone whom can be trusted with the tools. I wish more rfa spotlight people had the tanacity to answer Q1 like you did.
'''Support''' - The user lives in a tropical climate just like the one found where I come from, if she can resist the heat this time of the year surely adminship will be no big deal. Jokes aside, having reviewed the user's contributions and the opposes below, outside of Kurt's usual copy-pasted (and in this case rather ironic) "power hunger" jusfication, only Kalizec!'s oppose seems troubling, but not sufficiently so to oppose or go neutral. I don't foresee this use misusing the tools and her demeanor seems positive. -
'''Strong Support''' - I, like most of the other supporters, not only like the humor this candidate exhibits, but I have been given no real reason not to support. I've RfA'd twice, and obviously did not so well. How smart is it to not take it so seriously? Genius in my opinion. I took it WAY too seriously. Adminship, when used, is serious to a degree, but not using it all the time like some other users might want, isn't serious either. I'd rather have an admin who doesn't use the tools at all, than one who uses them inappropriately. This user seems like the kind to use them appropriately, and sparingly which I think is perfect. some admins get upset in RfA's when the candidate declares they won't help in a specific area, or when they get the impression that they'll help in an area they think doesn't need much help. just cause they won't help in YOUR area, doesn't mean they won't be helpful. Once again, great answers, and you seem like you know what you're doing! Good luck!
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Why not?  <font color="629632">
'''Support''', great answers to questions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, <s>#8</s> and #9. A refreshingly... different candidate. :) --
'''Support''' I trust that he wouldn't abuse the tools, he's made a good contribution so far, and even if he only acts as an admin once, its still a positive contribution. I can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Oppose '''I suggest you wait a little and get a few more conrtibutions under your belt. [[User:StewieGriffin!|'''<em style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">StewieGriffin!</em>''']]&nbsp;&bull; <small>[[User talk:StewieGriffin!|Talk]]
'''Oppose''' - I’ve read the nom statement, not once but twice, then reviewed the contrib history, and have to oppose this one. Even with assuming good faith, right away I have to question such an essay put within a nom statement. It simply, in my opinion, does not belong in an RfA, although an RfA is most certainly the place where you can the most people to read it. Right away, bells go off when we have a candidate 1.) Needing to tell us that they don’t care whether or not they pass, 2.) Already making statements about the lack of weight in certain types of opposes, and 3.) Various vows about where they will and won’t use the tools. If I support, it is for a candidate’s judgment, meaning I don’t need them to make vows to me. As for the optional questions… just a few days ago I was defending Tan’s right to not answer certain kinds… but to make a flat out statement that you don’t want to answer them and the answers shouldn’t have weight? I disagree with that. The main reason I am opposing is not because of major worries in contrib history. I reviewed, it seems alright, candidate is certainly willing to get hands dirty and wants to help improve the encyclopedia. However, in the spirit of No Big Deal, this oppose is obvious to me. Candidate doesn’t need to use the tools, but to nominate themselves and then proceed to make a POINTy statement which basically says they don’t need to be an admin?  To me, this is the opposite of no big deal. This is bringing an essay to perhaps the biggest stage on wikipedia to have people read it and discuss it and the candidate.  My final point: this very nomination makes me worry that candidate may wield their status as an admin to help make certain points about Wikipedia, not to use any of the technical tools, which is really the point of +sysop. I encourage fervent discourse to improve the project, which it appears the candidate is involved in, but I'm not going to help give someone the admin label just because of that. Abuse of tools? No. But possibly an abuse of the perceived status bump, and I can’t support that.
'''Oppose''' This isn't based on the refusal to answer optional questions, but for not showing at least a small understanding of admin related tasks and issues. Seems like a great editor, but before I'm willing to trust someone with the tools, I have to know that you can use it correctly and know how/why to use them. <font face="Ravie">
Isn't going to use them.
'''Oppose''' Ironically, if Ali'i gave me a reason why he would use the admin tools, for example to answer requests at [[WP:RFPP]] (which is generally a low-stress page that doesn't get backlogged), I would have no problem with it.  He's been a user in good standing for more than a year, and his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=move&user=Ali%27i move log] shows sufficient familiarity with MoS and site policies.  However, if Ali'i simply wants to make a point about how receiving admin tools should be no big deal, I'm not interested in supporting such a statement.  Adminship is a user access level.  If you need the access level, ask.  If you don't need it, don't ask.  If you're not sure whether you need it, think about it for a while, and then ask.  I hope that makes things clear from my end.  Again, I'm not really opposed to granting Ali'i the tools, but I need a reason to do that, and I have none.
'''Oppose''' I basically trust this editor, I like their focus on product, and I have no problem with the fact that they don't want to do any admin work.  But admins can cause a lot of trouble if they want to, and if we hand out mops just as a way of saying "good job", then sooner or later, someone's going to screw things up.  This is an example of how the lack of other RfA-like processes screws up the RfA process: if this editor had a better way to get community-wide acknowledgement of accomplishments, and gain some form of stature, they would probably be doing that, since they don't really want to be an admin. - Dan
'''Oppose''' on the non answers to the questions, also,  because  user states they don't intend to use them. —
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_3&diff=prev&oldid=216688484]
'''Opppose''' the attitude and spirit are well and fine, but proper answers are meant to give an idea whether/how a candidate wants to be useful and how conscious he/she is about understanding what the tools are, what/when they can be used for and what/when they shouldn't be used for. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' A good sense of humour is one thing, but the level of flippancy being displayed here does not give rise to much confidence. --
'''Oppose''', because the nom makes no sense to me. If you are not going to use the tools, there's absolutely no point in nominating yourself for adminship. And yet the comment to Dank55 above makes it seem that you're interested in the tools? The contrived nomination statement only shows you're looking to draw attention to yourself and your 'controversial' ideas about adminship, and this isn't the correct forum to do that (try the talk page). -
'''Oppose''' per Gwynand. [[WP:POINT]]y nomination, and doesn't seem to show good judgement. Adminship is not a big deal, but it's not not a big deal either.--
'''Oppose''' No evidence that the candidate needs or will use the tools. [[WT:RFA]] would be a better place to contest your perceptions about the process than here. --
'''Oppose'''. The "no big deal" thing, said several years ago in a different WikiEra by a guy who isn't exactly up to speed on the current climate here, needs to die. It's a big deal - every single RfA for the past year is testiment to that. If you don't want the tools, and you're not going to use the tools, what's the point of this RfA? To cause a scene? To prove that a priviledge you don't want and will not use is not a big deal? Gwynand is right, and Ecoleetage hit another point - flippancy isn't exactly what I'm looking for in an admin candidate.
'''Oppose'''. The reason for nom makes no sense to me. --
'''Oppose'''. I do love a good sense of humor. I like to think that I have one, perhaps not as visible on Wikipedia as in real life, but answering Q1 by saying you won't do any admin work at all, and answering the blocking vs. banning optional question by simply linking a policy page...well, I think requesting adminship should be a bit more serious than that.
'''Strong Oppose''' Correct adminship is not a big deal but it does require a good deal of deliberated consideration because the work performed should leave that part of the community effected by an administrator's action in less doubt than it was in before the action was taken.  Humour is fine - but I am left in much doubt by your own nomination.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Adjusting to Strong Oppose - [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]]'s diffs as detailed at oppose 23 give me even greater concern - and the candidate's responses do little to assist.  The reality is (as others have said) we, the community have a right to consider the candidate's request based also on the application itself - going through diffs is helpful and sometimes completely necessary but it is not the only valid process for determining our view.--
'''Oppose''' Lack of admin-related experience.
'''Oppose''' - Per the answer to question 1, 2 and 3. The nomination was ill-conceived. Wikipedia is not a hierarchy.
'''Oppose''' - Unconvinced that user can be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose'''. An unnecessarily [[WP:POINT|POINT]]y self nomination. I'm uncomfortable giving adminship in these circumstances. The tone of the nomination speaks to the candidate's judgement and temperament.
'''Oppose'''. Adminship is important; look at recent arbcom cases.
'''Strong oppose''' as I believe this editor has neither the temperament nor the maturity necessary for an editor entrusted with the tools. For example, when {{user|Melsaran}} contacted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali%27i&diff=prev&oldid=155900950] Ali'i asking him ''not'' to change others' talk messages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=155899200&oldid=155898907], Ali's response was an incredibly snarky "Meh. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, '''do not submit it.'''"" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali%27i&diff=next&oldid=155900950]. When Melsaran patiently pointed out that Ali'i's behavior was in violation of the [[WP:TALK]] guideline, Ali'i had the exact same derisive response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali%27i&diff=next&oldid=156928667]. When other editors voiced the same concern [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali%27i&diff=next&oldid=156931195] over Ali'i's violation of [[WP:TALK]], his identical response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali%27i&diff=next&oldid=157056758] and later elaborations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali%27i&diff=next&oldid=157248054] clearly showed contempt for existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --
'''Serious Oppose''' - per Bobet, Singopo, Ceoil, and the others who expressed similar opinions. But I'm happy to discuss this whole RfA process with the nominee at the talk page. :)
'''Oppose''' per Tan. I started from the top, and stopped at Tan's oppose. While I like his attitude and contributions, I think this RfA is a little premature. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Oppose''' As much fun as this non-request request is, the user appears to have zero experience in admin areas. Ali'i may or may not use the tools frequently, but with no evidence to show they will be used correctly, I cannot support. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. Unconvinced you'd use the tools correctly; very little experience in admin-related tasks and your use of policy links to answer questions hardly inspires support. "I don't really think I need administrator tools, and in fact would vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances." ..What is the point of giving tools to someone who is unlikely to use them? You dont have to use them constantly of course, but I find it stupid giving tools designed to help the encyclopedia to someone who admits to being unlikely to make use of them. In addition, applying to prove a point makes a mockery of the process. Yes, admins are technically no more important than users, but RfA in a way shows the quality and quantity of your contributions to Wikipedia; debasing that to prove a point is almost disruptive.
'''Oppose''' - The admin tools are supposed be tools, we shouldn't give them to people who aren't going to use them. Adminship is not supposed to be a social class, user seems to want to ensure it is one. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose'''. Same reason as Mr.Z-man. If you aren't interested in doing admin duties, why run for adminship?
'''Oppose.''' I’m really confused by this RfA, In the opening paragraph he states: “I don't really think I need administrator tools, and in fact would vow not to use them in all but the most grievous of circumstances.” Wouldn’t it be easier if you just got an admin to sort out these “grievous of circumstances” as I don’t thing these circumstances will happen often. Q1 confused me and wasn’t very well worded (a few of the above comments have said that he would use I when he needed it – as per Acalamari’s reply). And as to Q6, I’m sure instead of slapping a big link to the blocking policy he could have at least written a couple of short sentences about it, it also shows he has no idea what the blocking policy is as he did not answer the question. Does this mean I can post links as replies? I don’t really think the candidate was very serious when he filed this RfA (or maybe drunk as Keepscases said). If you’re not going to use it why are you bothering to get it? <strong>
'''Oppose''' I have read the talk pages for Rfa and Jimbo (referred to in the second para of the nom) where the question "is being an admin a big deal" is discussed. The answer to this question is "in some senses, yes, and in other senses, no". I thank Ali'i for asking us to confront this question, and for the great work undertaken as a wikipedian. I welcome the opportunity to oppose this nom to express my opinion that admin tools should not be handed out based on "it's no big deal". A sense of humour is a wonderful asset, but an admin should know that it is not appropriate to rely on humour in an application. --
'''Oppose''' I am not concerned with the edit count, but the attitude concerns me, as mentioned by others above. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' I do not believe the candidate has sufficient experience in admin-related areas or knowledge of admin-related policy (although the nomination demonstrates an excellent familiarity with recent [[WT:RfA]] topics). How the nomination is worded concerns me. While I don't believe that this RfA is cynical or in bad faith, I am left with the impression that the candidate is seeking to prove a point by making this request. While their contributions to date have been very good, I don't like the idea of this candidate using the tools in a "grievous situation", and then making a mistake due to lack of practice / familiarity / policy knowledge. On a related note, posting a link to a policy page (Q6) is not a good response from an ''admin''; from a ''candidate'', it fails to demonstrate any understanding of policy. Perhaps the risk of awarding these tools is low; judging by the candidate's statements, the reward certainly should be. Given the uncertainty in risk/reward ratio, I can certainly see why community opinion is divided on this. On balance, I would rather not see tools being handed out to an editor who really doesn't care about either gaining or losing them.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' per #1, #2 and #3. Looks that you're not interested in administrator-related areas. <small>
'''Strong Oppose''' Admits in the nom statement that s/he is only trying to [[WP:POINT|make a point]]. I find this contemptible.
'''Oppose''' No apparent need for tools.--
'''Oppose''' Not now, consider admin coaching
'''Strong Oppose''' None is not an answer to a RfA question.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' I believe that this editor would make a good admin. But if he does not intend to use the tools then there is no point in his having them. And apropos [[user:Kmweber|Kurt]], whether he is or is not power hungry, at least a little motivation is surely required. --<font color="Red">
'''Weak oppose''' per Anthony Bradbury. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Strong oppose'''. From your four declarations you make in your nomination I don't see how you can have sufficient experience to wield the mop properly on any internal processes of Wikipedia. Furthermore, for extreme cases (which probably calls for editors that they very experienced) that you feel you need to handle, we have to be sure that you actually have a clue what are you doing, not taking action just because "I just feel like it". We have no shortage of ''zOMG DRHAMA!'' encyclopedia-wide because of admin decisions made in such a manner, like the mop is some kind of political weight. -
'''Oppose''' for many of the above reasons, especially tone in the RfA. --

'''Definite, if not strong, Oppose''' Let's leave aside Kralizec's telling Oppose, however much I find editing someone else's talk page comments for anything short of gross obscenities or vandalism incredibly obnoxious.  Let's leave aside all the other good reasons listed to Oppose.  Let's leave aside that he quite explicitly has no use for the tools nor intends to do any actual admin work.  What I'm left to wonder is ''how in the merry hell sixty people support this nom???''  There are many sound reasons to find the RfA process completely broken, but this takes the cake.  Some of the same people who above say "sure, whatever, we need more humor" to an unqualified candidate who declares up front that he doesn't need and won't use the mop are the first ones to scream on other RfAs "ZOMG!!!! He doesn't have 100% edit summaries/enough XfD experience/enough AVI edits/too many talk page edits/not enough talkpage edits/not enough articles to FA/whatever my personal hobby horse ''de jour'' is!!  He's plainly unqualified!!"
'''Strong Oppose'''"I am power-hungry. Well, only sort of. I don't really think I need administrator tools", why the heck would you even say something lke that. That and the fact that you dont have the experince needed(or at least what I think)to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't need the tools.
'''Oppose''' He won't use the tools. He said so himself. So there's no point in giving them to him. --
'''Oppose''', we need admins who are willing to use the tools whenever necessary, not in the most grievous of situations.
'''Oppose'''. Users come to RfA asking us to trust them. This nom does nothing to instil trust. Particularly regarding appropriate use of humour. --
'''Oppose''', it's not a badge. If you don't intend to use the tools, I dislike the concept in "awarding" them just to assuage your ego and show you how uberimportant you are. That being said, some of the reasons for opposition ("He isn't taking it SERIOUSLY!") are funny in themselves.
I kind of liked some of the humour and gentle knocks at the rather staid RFA process at first. But I got the impression early on that this RFA would be convoluted at best. And tonight (although made earlier) I see from the candidate ''"I understand the opposers, I just don't think they "get me" the way I had hoped"'' as a statement from the candidate. Yep, well I'm afraid communication in a text only medium is damn hard. In fact, part of the reasons my first RFA passed was myself poorly communicating what I thought was funny and insightful when others felt it was sarcastic and bitey. '''However''' admins need to be able to communicate efficently and clearly. The fact you may not use the tools is immaterial to this argument - there are many searches on Wikipedia that would identify you as having +sysop - and indeed at near the top of the list given your username. So - the subjective crunch - Do '''''I''''' feel confident in you being able to use admin tools to the standards the community expects if it was asked of you, and could you do this effectively without issue and with effective communication? - '''No'''. Do I believe that you would deny flat out any request for use of the tools, thus mitigating my proposition? - No. Hence oppose. Sorry and Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I cannot in good faith support a user who will not use the tools. If this RFA passes, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Toffile|this link]] will be going blue shortly.--
Sorry. I agree that RfA needs to change somehow, but this isn't the way to do it.
Agree with #32. '''
'''Neutral''' Although I agree that adminship is, in effect, no big deal, I would like to see this user have some experience with it. No experience indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. For example, when I first started getting involved in CSD, I made a few mistakes which I learnt from with more experience. I'm neutral because I know this user doesn't mean to exercise the tools; but, if they are there, I would like to see at least a passing understanding of the policies (shown through experience).
'''Neutral''' This is a strange RfA, and I am just going to sit back and watch for a while.
'''Neutral''' Same as Keepscases.
'''Neutral''' I usually come here with one of three solid opinions:  Support Strongly,  Oppose Strongly, or I don't give a crap (so I don't vote).  In this case, I give a crap, but I don't know where I stand.  If the candidate had come here 6 months ago, I would have jumped all over it in oppose.  Recently, however, I've seen some real strong maturity and a willingness to foster compromise.  I do not like his recent involvement with various RfC's and the such, but right now, those things are like a gigantic [[The Blob]] engulfing lots of people in drama.  I'm going to watch the rationalizations of the supports and opposes, and eventually change my vote.  I'm specifically interested in SheffieldSteel's "feelings".  I wonder what's going on there.  My only other concern is wishing the candidate had spent more time building articles, but that may just be picky.
'''Meh''' What's the (lowercase) point in giving the sysop bit to someone who ''probably'' won't abuse them but ''probably'' won't use them constructively? If this is only to (in)validate the premise that adminship is "no big deal", it's missing the mark, I think. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - I give you boatloads of credit for being honest.  I bet the number of people who think, but don't say, what you typed in your nomination is higher than any of us would like to believe.  While I do believe that honesty is a good thing and should be rewarded, (1) adminship is not a trophy and (2) there's no way in heck a pointy RFA is going to succeed. --
'''Neutral''' Doesn't seem like they'd hurt the place, but I'm still concerned. '''
'''Neutral''' - yeah, adminship is no big deal, but RfA is something we should still take seriously.
'''Neutral'''.  Was leaning to support, after being finally convinced that you foresaw ''any'' use of the mop, when I noticed you don't archive your talk.  I consider discussion archiving to be a basic social nicety so it can be Googled for those users trying to find old conversations.  I seen far too many users blank discussions that cast them in a bad light; I'm not saying you're one of them, but it raises the hairs on the back of my neck. <Picking up the popcorn and making a place for myself on the fence.> -
'''Neutral''' - I think you're a good editor and I don't have any doubt that you'd misuse the tools, but things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=prev&oldid=210373168 this] give me pause.  Adminship may be no big deal to someone who understands how Wikipedia works, but to newcomers and troublemakers (and ''especially'' to newcomer troublemakers), the fact that you were entrusted with the tools by your peers implies a position of authority.  While admins are fallible humans just like anybody else, that perception that we're supposed to be the people who know how this stuff works makes it even more important for us to uphold basic things like [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:COOL]].  --
Just wanted to comment that opposes for "you won't use the tools enough" are very misguided.  We're all volunteers; we don't demand any particular level of contribution.  If someone only wants to use the tools occasionally, but does so responsibly, there is no reason to object to this.
Have been watching this for a while, and have now decided to come down as neutral, for the moment. The nomination is silly, in a way possibly indicating that essential wisdom. Ali'i's help in trying to resolve disputes has seemed pretty useful, from what I recall, so I'll try to check that out a bit more and all being well will be inclined to support. . .
'''Neutral''' -- per Wisdom89 (in the oppose section). Sorry! --
'''Neutral''' Good contributions, but the nomination doesn't make it clear why the tools are necessary. That said, keep up the good work. <b>
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Regards, --
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' "None" is not an okay answer for admins to have as their best contributions.  Sorry, but I don't think you're anywhere near experienced enough for adminship - this could potentially by closed early under [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Support''' – Everyone needs at least one vote of support.  However, you may want to withdraw your nomination.  With only 84 edits, I believe you may have jumped the gun here.  Your '''Gung – Ho''' attitude is welcome and appreciated.  Nevertheless, asking for the tools maybe a little premature.  Good Luck and happy editing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support''' - I would advise you to follow Dlohcierekim's advice. I hope you take on-board the concerns raised and come back as a more experienced editor. All the best,
Please edit consistently for a few more months, and avoid the userspace. Answer to question 3 does not show adequate understanding of "conflicts over editing". &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Lacking experience, weak answers to questions - give it 5-6 months and return and I'll take another looksy.
'''Oppose''' Though all the contribution in WP is welcome, I suggest you to come after few months later.Good luck--
'''Oppose.''' I hope this was just gung ho enthusiasm which inspired the user to apply for adminship. When you've been editing for some time, you'll probably understand much better why this request was drastically premature. Please don't let this get you down.
'''Oppose''' - Your answers aren't put in the right place (it belongs after '''A:''', not on the next line), and they're very short. I think you need to do more soul searching here first, because creating redirects does not need any administrator privileges. Perhaps you'd like to see [[WP:ADMIN]] for what admins can do that regular users can't. —
'''Oppose''' Welcome your commitment towards Wikipedia.But please try after 5-6 months.Sorry.Good luck for the future.
''''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''': Not one substantial edit to the article namespace, only 2 edits this year, and 9 in total, 8 of which were creating redirects and the 9th was fixing a wikilink, now I don't wish to be unfair or what have you, but without really substantial experience of creating and fixing content, it wouldn't be fair on you to be promoted at this time, you would honestly end up completely dazed and confused by the whole being an admin routine. You'll really need to start writing lots of content if you want your next RfA to pass, it can't stress that enough, writing content is important. It doesn't need to be Good Articles or Featured Articles, stubs and short articles are fine too, as is fixing up existing articles or just adding some references here and there.
'''Oppose''' With less than 100 edits, and with less than 9 edits in the mainspace, this shows total lack of experience. And considering the answers to the questions you made, shows lack of knowledge. Sorry. Try in a couple of months. -
'''Oppose''' - Give it some time and experience and try again. I am glad to see you are excited enough about helping at Wikipedia  to try for a RFA. Cheers <b>
'''Oppose''' Less than 100 edits, lack of experience, and too premature. Also needs better answers to questions. Recommended closure per [[WP:SNOW]] and try again in May or June with more experience and better answers and I can support you. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Regretful Oppose''' Okay, I know I'm going against my own [[User:Mr Senseless/RfAStandards|standards]] here, but nine mainspace edits just isn't enough. A certian level of experience is required for a sysop and with a few more months and a few more quality edits I will be more willing to support.
'''MUST... PILE... ON!!!''' '''
'''Oppose''' [[WP:SNOW]]-Close it now. <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Neutral''' Please come back in 4-5 months; at this time I can't support for lack of experience.  <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Neutral'''.  Sorry, but you need more experience.  Take a look at [[WP:AFD]]. '''

Decide to be nice today and not piling on.

You have a very inconsistent edit history, with 3 months spread out over a long period where you have a lot of edits and the rest with pretty much nothing - you need to be a bit more consistent. "Letting it rest" isn't really a resolution of conflict (although it's not always a bad idea). Almost all of your edits are done by automated tools, which I'd say are easier to get big edit counts with yet yours is still small. Sorry, I can't really support you right now. [[WP:NOTNOW]] and all that - wait a while and just edit normally. --
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) - Not enough edit activity, low edit count, and 94% edit summary usage. I think you need more a bit more experience first. — <font size="3" face="times" color="#f42c39"><strong>
'''Strong Oppose''' No article work, just another teenager who sees Wikipedia as an alternate video game with Huggle as his supersonic vandal zap toy.

'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arden_Wohl_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=155182845] (the only AfD participation I noticed, so difficult to gauge how candidate would or would not close AfDs), i.e. AfD is not a "vote", [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state|potential]] is actually more of a reason to keep, and [[WP:JNN]] is considered an argument to avoid.  I also agree with the above about the low edit count total.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Long break, followed by a flurry of activity...I would like to see a more consistent history first. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't support at this time. Per above I'm concerned about your inconsistent editing history. Also, more article work would really help you along. While vandal fighting is greatly appreciated, it's better to have a well-balanced edit count between namespaces.
I've had the fortune to interact with Asenine at some level on previous occasions and my observations have been found to be consistently positive. And for images, I always use [[User:Asenine/Icons|this]].
'''Oppose''' I do not feel I can fully support you at this time - I am concerned about your edit count and how that relates to your interactions here on Wikipedia. I have not seen much involvement in your contribution history with Wikipedia related areas (AfD's, WikiProjects, etc). Give it a few months times and more involvement and I am sure then I would feel more comfortable supporting you. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you need to get more experience in Wikipedia-space. 45 edits doesn't show enough experience in necessary processes like AIV and RFPP, both of which you haven't made any edits to. <s>Your disappearance for August and September 2007 also concern me</s>, as well as the infrequent use of the edit summary box. Also semi-concerning is the fact that 24% of your total contributions is to userspace.
'''Oppose''' as per above concerns.  Also your edit summary usage should be very much improved by this point in time over what it is now - edit summaries are a VERY important aspect of adminship.
'''  Sorry, not ready yet. ''' Per above. On one of the talk page archives, I saw concern expressed over incorrect speedy deletion taggings. I would recommend reviewing [[WP:CSD]] and being less hasty about applying those tags. If an article does not look notable, it might be better to apply Prod or AfD. I did not see a lot of AfD involvement. Even if AfD is not your cup of tea, the experience is valuable as there is some overlap in practical application of policy. I did not see reports to AIV. There can be a fine line of distinguishment between vandalism (which is willful and purposeful) and errors due to lack of experience or understanding of our policies. An admin sometimes needs to me a couch rather than a cop or a janitor. I would suggest a balance of article building and admin related tasks, seek an editor review in another 2000 edits and then, depending on the recommendations, submit an RfA about 1000 edits after that. I did not review for article building, but I would like to see at least 30,000 bytes of content added for content builders or several thousand "wikignome" type edits to gain experience in article building policies, which also help in recognizing vandalism and notability. Cheers, and happy editing.
'''Oppose''' with just over 50% edit summary usage, which really should be perfect when going for an RFA. And with just over 606 edits in the mainspace, that shows lack of experience. And you last 50+ contributions, seem to be welcoming users. I recommend you vote in AFD's and start using [[WP:AIV]], more often, and of course maintain perfect edit summary usage. In 3-4 months I would be more than glad to support. -
'''Oppose''' - Obviously a ''very'' well intentioned user. I give the candidate praise for being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and self nominating. Unfortunately, I have to agree with my fellow wikipedians above. You simply are lacking in the overall experience department, both admin/wiki-namespaces '''and''' article building. I suggest giving your stay here a few more months and another 3,000 or so edits in various areas before reapplying. Try and contribute to the following semi-regularly: [[WP:CSD]] (careful about tagging), [[WP:AFD]] (which I see you've already done, good), [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AN]], and [[WP:ANI]]. Also, it wouldn't hurt to get yourself an admin coach. I also suggest this be closed for now per [[WP:SNOW]]
'''Oppose''' Per other concerns above. Very good user, just not ready to become an admin. I think this should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]] at this time. I would probably support an RFA in another 2 or 3 months
'''Oh, so close''' - But just not enough experience, like Alexfusco said, try again soon!
'''Oppose''' Not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
Response to Q1 & Q2 is a little vague. Nice user page though. Overall, if this doesn't work out, suggest you re-apply in 2-3 months.
'''Neutral''' – First thank you to [[User:Asenine|Asenine]] and to [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#801818;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]] for [[User:Asenine/Icons|this]].  I now have posted to my archive. To [[User:Asenine|Asenine]], come back in 3-6 months, with your current edit count expanded upon (and additional participation in other areas), and you will have one more '''Support''' opinion to count on.  Good Luck to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' 3+ more months, and if you continue along this path, it's a support. <strong>
'''Neutral''' - your answer to Q3 (that when in a stressful conflict, you would "deal with it efficiently") leaves me wondering what you would do when in a stressful conflict! In general, your answers are too vague. Try again soon.--
'''Support''' - I had this one watchlisted for some reason...Probably to support =) –<font face="Verdana">
'''Double-take''' OK, I know that sometimes people say "I thought you already ''were'' an admin." I used to do that sometimes, mainly for effect. But in this case, I really, truly did not know you weren't an admin. Since I already assumed you ''were'' an admin, I don't think I can reasonably do anything ''but'' support.
'''Support''' No “wrong queue” jokes today, folks.  Just a simple message of support for someone who has been an asset to the project.
'''Support''' Yes, some of the opposes are concerning but I've only had really good interactions with this user personally. I do not feel like I could do anything but support on this one. —'''
'''Support''' appears to the right sort of person for adminship
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080812120351&limit=100&contribs=user&target=Asenine&namespace=6 this]. While many disagree with me, I'm not a fan of the "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach to fair use, and a ''lot'' of these images you've tagged seem to have been kept. Also, it's a trivial point but I really don't like the apparently random way in which you use the "minor edit" box, in which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_virus&diff=prev&oldid=235594381 labelling an article as OR] is a minor edit, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scary_Movie_3&diff=prev&oldid=234779916 removing 4 line breaks] (with an incorrect edit summary, and in violation of the [[WP:AWB#Rules of use|AWB rules of use]], incidentally) is a major edit. All minor negatives, but without positives to cancel them out there's nothing to push me to the "support" side – and, while we do need more admins, admins with an itchy trigger finger will end up causing more problems at DRV, ANI and the rest of the alphabet soup then they fix. Sorry…<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose'''.  Looking through the user's recent Wikipedia namespace shows 2 things.  First, a large proportion of it is Twinkle tagging - not a bad thing in and of itself, but in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gladys_j_cortez&diff=242037417&oldid=242036896 candidate's own words], "it doesn't allow me to see your policy knowledge or evidence of suitability."  (A large percentage of the candidate's mainspace contributions are also TW tagging/AWB typo fixing.) Secondly, a disproportionate amount of the contributions seem to be in and pertaining to RFA.  Something about that just rubs me the wrong way.  I'm also not impressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_2&diff=242757171&oldid=242754515 this] characterization of another candidate's RFA as "utterly ridiculous" - I'm not sure that's the kind of temperament I look for in prospective administrators.  Asenine is overall a good contributing editor to the project but I'm not sure I'm seeing admin material here.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Absolutely not. While there are many positive constructive traits about this candidate, Asenine's RfA behavior - which I think would be a predictor of admin behavior - is bureaucratic, arrogant and often nonsensical. The questions Asenine posts - so often they are templates - in (almost?) every RfA these days are ambiguous, of dubious relevance to adminship, and in my opinion, smack of self-importance. Often the questions are asked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Editorofthewiki&diff=prev&oldid=241513807 after] an oppose !vote has already been cast, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IMatthew&diff=prev&oldid=241316949 directly before] a support !vote ("the epitome of nothing wrong here"). Pointless timewasters. I've seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Plasticup&diff=prev&oldid=237167370 Asenine oppose] for "being too bitey", and then come up with opposes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J.delanoy_2&diff=prev&oldid=227508078 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_2&diff=prev&oldid=242757171 this]. Hypocritical. This candidate puts too much energy into smacking other potential admins down, which indicates his/her perception of Wikipedia adminship is heavily skewed.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' -- not only completely and utterly fails my requirements, but shows too much love for automated tools and displays an '''awesome''' lack of AGF in that <s>AfD</s>RfA vote per Tanthalas39. Never.--<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
First off, I'm not impressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tadakuni&diff=prev&oldid=241514808 this edit], where Asenine says "''I'm not a fan of being badgered, either"''. I for one am tired of the word "badger" and its variants being thrown around to stifle discussions. Secondly, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Geni_3&diff=prev&oldid=234575440 this edit summary], and I dislike what comes across as "shouting" in edit summaries. The following two edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Steven_Fruitsmaak&diff=prev&oldid=227507186 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shoessss_2&diff=prev&oldid=222904187 this], were, in my opinion, wrong considering the fact Asenine once said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blakegripling_ph&diff=prev&oldid=222243671 this]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=222241466 This] to me was something else that seemed unnecessary, and things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Good_Olfactory&diff=prev&oldid=227508554 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Morhange&diff=prev&oldid=225657305 this] are unhelpful. I'm not sure Asenine has the right judgment for adminship at the moment.
'''Oppose''' I hate to pile-on, but I'm afraid I cannot support a candidate with a behavior such as Asenine's. Those diffs provided by Tanthalas39 are extremely concerning. Overall, I'm not too happy with what I'm seeing in Asenin's contibs. Mostly automated edits. Cheers, &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''', arrogant user (proved by their comments various places, including RfA), does not seem to understand AGF, has a very high proportion of automated edits, etc. Has some - in their own words - utterly ridiculous RfA opposes, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_2&diff=prev&oldid=242757171 this one]. (...) "ended in an indefinite block - a perfect result" indicates the kind of prejudice an admin definitely should not have. --
'''Oppose''' - doesn't seem to have the right attitude or temperament for adminship. Please don't take this as a criticism of you as an editor, since you are an excellent and dedicated one; some people just aren't suited for adminship, and you appear to be one of those people. Though of course, within time, people change, I'd love to support you in the future. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - per Iridescent - that's just unacceptable. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' I also hate piling on to, but I most going along with Iridescent and Aclamai(Sorry if I spelled the name wrong!)
'''Oppose''' I know I do not need to preface an oppose with an apology, but here I feel somewhat compelled to. I like Asenine, I really do. I think he is extremely well intentioned, but that's not really the issue. There is an obvious and very real temperament problem that needs to be rectified before I can, in good conscience, support an RfA from him. Far too often have I seen ghastly comments at RfA. They sometimes churn my stomach.
Tan said what I thought when I saw this RfA. '''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' seems to have issues with [[WP:AGF]]. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tadakuni&diff=prev&oldid=241514808 this edit] really seems to indicate that he doesn't realize Rfa's are a discussion and not a vote and that the user who asked him a question in an extremely respectable way was actually trying to discuss their !vote. Which makes me question if the candidate realizes things lika Rfa and Afd are not votes, which is important for an admin to know. -
'''Oppose''' - we already have too many unecessarily arrogant administrators here.  I do not feel promoting another would benefit the project.  (Tan and iridescent sum it right up for me.)
Pretty much per iridescent. I'm sorry, but "The perfect outcome" is the first thing I saw when I opened your RFA, and that really upset me. A shame, thought you already were an admin at one point. '''&mdash;
'''Oppose''' for exactly the same reasons as Tan enumerated above.  Shoots first and asks questions later.
'''Super Duper Oppose''' Look at my talk page for details but he just had a go at me.... for having edited my own talk page in a "wrong" way.
I was inclined to support, but I can't in the context of the opposers' comments.
I disclose I did 'admin-coach' Asenine for a short while, and he did have some merits in the way he answered some of the queries; however his questionable remarks at RfA leave a lot to be desired.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=2609425&diff=197828583&oldid=197747633 Wolf support]. :) A bold, hardworking gnome who don't screw up. ''
'''Support'''. No obvious problems, trustworthy, could use the tools. Best, <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
'''Support'''. What we need are BOLD admins who can step up to the plate when it comes to deletions and blocking. '''''
'''Support''' - [[WP:BOLD|Boldness]] is admirable. Yes to this one.
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*Lake Bonavista, Public Elementary|So this is where I saw you]]? This RFA is a little premature, however, I'm willing to give ''Autocracy'' a go. WRT the block, that was ''over'' a year ago.
'''Weak support'''.  I'm sort of worried about your wildness and such, but we do need admins willing to make tough blocks, determine tough consensus, etc.  This RFA probably won't pass, but now you know you will have my full support after a little bit more experience.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
There's no chance for this RfA to pass as it stands now, but I do think you have the ''beginnings'' of adminship going on. You're not nearly as active as I would like to see in an administrator candidate, but your attitude is spot-on. Experience is your key weak point, and that's something I think you could address by spending more time here in the coming months. I'm confident that, if you made an effort, you could become an administrator before 2009 hits. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' - Had to do it, sorry, for a few reasons. 1.)Low mainspace/article building 2.)Generalized talking is nill 3.)Relatively thin Wikispace contributions 4)erratic Wiki participation over many months with lulls. I admire how candid you were in your self-nom, that was pretty cool and I respect that. However, some of those things actually ''do'' concern me. [[WP:BOLD]] is one thing, but stepping over the boundaries is quite another. I'm sure in a few months time you'll meet my criteria for experience and balance. Cheers mate.
'''Oppose''' - The fact that this user RFAs the same day a number of their NACs where overturned worries me about their possible usage of the tools. As well, far too few edits lately (223 in the last nine months). Particularly in the regular places for admin duty. Take a few months to work in these areas and I'd support. --<small>
'''Oppose''' - For several reasons. First, I have a gut feeling that reckless editing may reapear, and the block conerns me. also, too few edits. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''  Close to half the user's edits took place in a two-month span in March and April of 2007.  I think more experience is needed.
'''Oppose'''. I do like that you're bold in editing, I like that. However, a couple of things stop me from supporting. One, your mainspace work isn't quite enough yet for my taste. We're here to build an encyclopedia and so I want to see encyclopedia building. Secondly, you haven't been very active over the last 9 months. A lot changes in 9 months. I'd recommend knocking down 3 consecutive months with at least 100 edits as more concrete evidence that you're familiar with policies and procedures.
'''Not ready yet'''. I might suggest more thoroughly reviewing the guidelines and a bit more experience.
'''Strong Oppose:''' The [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] example you provided was decent, but I also stumbled across more NACs by you that were reversed, that looks pretty bad and I personally frown upon that. In essence, this is a perfect example of Recklessness. Finally, you need more experience. &nbsp;—
'''Oppose''' NAC's should be sparse and rare and only invoked when a clear consensus has been achieved after an acceptable period of time.  Having them overturned in quantity is a sign of bad judgement on the subject.
Misapplying the deletion policy as written as a non-administrator generally doesn't encourage one to support, and per Metros, I must oppose.
'''Extremely strong oppose''' User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. I will not support right now. No.
'''Oppose:''' Sorry, but your answer to Question 6 show you are not yet knowledgable enough to be an admin. Come back some other time when you know more.
'''Oppose''', sorry, but recent inactivity coupled with poor answers to the questions <strike>(#6 in particular)</strike>.
'''Oppose:''' I agree that more experience is needed.  You need a more consistent track record.
'''Weak oppose''' - Sorry, I like to whole [[WP:BOLD|boldness]] (though don't over do it), but lack of experience coupled with not the best answers to the questions makes me oppose. Best of luck,
'''Weak Oppose''' As said above I like your bold editing but I just don't think that your ready to be a Sysop yet.  Thanks, --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and erratic behaviour in closing AfDs that bodes ill for an admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' per all above. I agree that this candidate has the makings of a good admin, but consistency concerns and Ryan's questions make me think that this editor is a little too [[WP:BOLD|bold]].
'''Neutral''' - I was tending towards oppose, but you seem like somebody who generally meets my main requirement: trustworthiness. Being bold and self criticizing (i.e. recognizing your mistakes) is also great. However, a little bit more experience under your belt and I'll be in the support section!
'''Neutral''' - Agreed generally with Poeloq's comments; you've been a member here for going on two years now, but you've only been active for a handful of months, in a very erratic fashion. I agree with the sentiment posted in the oppose section that a lot can change in 9 months; you would do well to put in a few more months of work, read up on the policies that govern places you'd like to become involved in as an admin, and be careful about the non-admin closures. You do seem to be a trustworthy editor, which I believe is the most important criteria for admin-candidates. If you get some more experience under your belt, I'll be happy to support you in the future.
'''Neutral''' to avoid a pile on, and to just state that admin coaching may be the way forward. Plenty to like here, really plenty, but some fairly fundamental errors that need sorting out. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' per Poeloq and Pedro.  I like the boldness, but [[WP:IAR]] should not be a [[modus operandi]]. --
Tempted to support, but... Boldness is good, half-cocked boldness in an area where you are unfamiliar with policy is risky. Next time.
'''Neutral''' to keep from a snowball oppose. Auto, this is too soon after making a large mistake like you did. I did it as well not so long ago, and got cracked for it. I'm currently on a [[Wikibreak]] but felt I should comment on this. I'm glad your [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]] and I am as well, but you need to wait for awhile and get your edit count higher and practice some more. Remember, Adminship is [[WP:NBD|No Big Deal]]!!! I see you succeeding in the future, but for now, I feel your not ready yet. Please don't get discouraged, as I am sure one day you will make a great Admin, but for now, keep being bold and keep your head up!!! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Neutral''' Dusti summed up my thoughts exactly. <b>
'''Neutral''' per Dusti, Poloq and Pedro. <strong>
--
Per conomination. ++
Been waiting for this one for a while. Avruch is awesome. Very awesome. Always has intelligent things to say. And all that nice stuff. Great guy, etc.
'''Strong support'''. I would have nominated this editor myself. In fact, I tried yesterday.
Of course.
'''Support''' I kept waiting and waiting for him to run. '''
'''Support''' - My involvement with this user has shown that he exhibits a large amount of Clue. Possibly more Clue than one person can safely handle, but I'm confident that this user is more than capable of the task. '''''<font color="green">
'''Strong Support'''. Several months ago I told him that I would definitely support an RFA submitted by him--and I've been waiting ever since. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. Very nice, you'll make a fine admin, I'm sure. --

'''Duh'''.
<big><big><big><font color="blue">YES!</font></big></big></big> '''
Absolutely without a doubt.
'''Strong support''' - will make an excellent admin based on past contribs and evident high level of [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
- I admit I was confused when I saw this users name on the RfA list; they spoke to me with the fluidity of a well versed administrator totally competent in their function inside Wikipedia. I found this user, in our brief past interactions, to be polite, well-mannered and totally sane! Would make a remarkably balanced, fair and thoroughly decent sysop based on their ability to handle potentially fiery situations alone. I have no qualms about handing over the mop and am totally satisfied that they would not abuse it in any way, shape or form. '''Strong Support''' :-)
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support''' as I totally thought he was one already. No problems at all, has always come across as mature and sensible. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>

'''Confused''' What do you mean you are not already one???
Nothing wrong here.  –'''
'''I-thought-he-already-was-one-Support'''.
'''Support''' This editor goes far above and beyond my basic criteria of trustability with a mop.  &hArr;
'''Support'''; always thought he was an admin, because he acted like one. Most definitely. --
'''Support''' All his contributions and comments I've come across have been [[WP:CLUE|clueful]]. --
I strongly support this nomination: I've had nothing but positive interactions with Avruch, and seen only good work from him. He has great knowledge of policy, gives helpful input on the relevant noticeboards and on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]], is civil and decent, and overall, an excellent contributor. He'll make a great administrator, and you can count me in with the people who were going to ask Avruch if he wanted to be nominated, but were beaten to it. :)
Not bother to check the talkpage, contrib history or count '''Support''', as I am going simply by the interactions I have had with the candidate. Will make an excellent sysop.
I thought he was one already so much I asked him to do a (non-controversial) admin action for him last night. '''
<big><big><font color="red">What Majorly said!!!</font></big></big>..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
<s><big><big><big style="color:red">What Cometstyles said!!!</big></big></big> —[[User:Animum|<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b>]] <small>([[User_talk:Animum|''talk'']])</small> 00:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)</s><br/>I humbly apologize for my somewhat impetuous previous support; after pressing my modified “Save page” button, which looks more gray than blue due to my amazing CSS skills, I immediately thought to myself, “This requires more thought.”  When I further examined Avruch’s contributions, I found that he made extensive contributions to [[The Man Who Would Be Queen]], while ignoring such high-brow featured articles as [[Wonderbra]], eliciting either a COI with regard to the first – or if he truly were to be queen, perhaps the second as well – or a distaste for popular undergarments.<br />As for the ever-present aspect of contribution counting, I must admonish this user on his edit count, for it is truly lamentable that someone as experienced and level-headed as Avruch can overlook the important area of edit count maintenance – the first digit is divisible by the second, but this trend does not hold true for the third and fourth!  You should always seek to improve the statistics by which so many newbie editors will inevitably judge you.<br />Of course, one cannot overlook some way in which I have interacted with Avruch in the past.  This crucial insight will give me a candid look into his past, his future, the present, his behavior, the upcoming Presidential elections, my horoscope, the weather in London, gas prices, the existence of aliens, the Jedi council, penguin mating times, and so many other things.  I do believe that once we both did indeed comment on the same discussion thread, albeit not one concerning many of the aforementioned topics.<br />In the end, however, the positives marginally outweigh the negatives and tip the scales in favor of '''supporting''' this candidate for adminship.  Many thanks if you forced yourself to read this far. —
'''Support.'''  Calm down, people.  —
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
What Giggy said! ''
Whoa, he's not an admin?
'''Excellent Editor''', great answers, will do well. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Support''' an excellent candidate --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - Assumed he was one already.
'''Support''' not only did I think he was an admin already, I actually thought he was a 'crat. Excellent questions to the optional ones. (Note - I re-numbered them so people could refer to them without confusion).
'''Support''', per Athaenara. Although I must admit, I thought you just had an RFB... so who was it I voted for, lol...? ·
What CWii said...wait? What did he say? \(0.0)/ <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Support''' Indeed!
'''Support''' Solid nomination statements, very good answers, plenty of experience.
Answers do not provide anything I would deem concerning enough to oppose. --
'''Support''' and thinks... "wait a minute, he's not an admin?"
'''Support''' per nom. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Maybe this way we'll stop being confused for one another. In all seriousness, Avruch is someone who will not abuse the tools, in my opinion, and can be [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusted]] with the bit. --
'''Support''', this user seems to have their head attached correctly.  Answers to the optional questions seem to be well-thought and a quick review of this user's history looks good.
'''Support''' [[User:StewieGriffin!|'''<em style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">StewieGriffin!</em>''']]&nbsp;&bull; <small>[[User talk:StewieGriffin!|Talk]]
'''Support''' Saw the user somewhere and that left good impression. --
'''Support''' Everything I've seen suggests a guy with good judgment who wouldn't abuse the tools and would be a benefit to the project. Whenever I've seen him he's been polite and insightful. Having so many great editors on the support side suggests that yeah, he'll make a good admin. --
As with PeaceNT. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) (
Per Moreschi. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', although I note the opposes. The answers to Haemo's questions are solid and dispel any concerns I have. '''
'''Thought he was one support''' per the previous 50-odd supports.
'''Support per Gurch'''. Honestly I don't want to come off as the rest of the supporters but I did in fact think Avruch was an admin. I frequently go to him for answers from time to time before I make certain edits or anytime I need the specifics on a variety of topics. I've found him very knowledgable and completely worthy of adminship. Trustyworhy as well. A fine example of "I thought you were an admin" and a perfect candidate. :) &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''', nothing out of order here :) [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''<s>Suppoty</s>''' what [[User:Juliancolton]] said <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
I'm not a fan of drama causing admins, and I've opposed a few RfAs simply because the editor tends to stir up too much drama. I don't think Avruch is a drama mongering user at all. Yeah, he does get involved in some intense discussions, but he gives some very thoughtful comments in these discussion. Overall, he often helps to reduce the drama. He knows policy well and I think he'd do a good job as an admin.
'''Support''' I've seen Avruch around a lot, and his involvement in dramas that I've seen has been constructive and conciliatory. No reason to think he'd abuse the tools, so, yes. --
'''Support'''. No problems here. Well, start using the "show preview" button dammit, I hate messy history pages.
'''Support''' - seems to be a good candidate for adminship. &nbsp; '''
Experienced user, unlikely to be abusive.
'''Support''' Keep the opposers' drama concerns in your mind from now on, and you won't have a problem.--
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience, communicates, works in the mainspace. Has my support.
'''Support''' <span>
'''Support''', easily surpassing [[User:Keeper76/RfA|my criteria]].  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I first noticed Avruch on the [[Roger Stone]] page, where we had a minor conflict over whether a problematic (and unusual) passage should be kept. The result was a better-written, more tightly sourced passage which seemed to meet his objections. (At the time, I mistook Avruch for Avriham and I almost left a note on Avruch's page to say that now I'd twice had my prose edited by someone who had impressed me with the improvements. Since reading this page, I'm happy to find out what we have here is four hands on the keyboards rather than two.) I'm also impressed by Avruch having Lar as a mentor. I looked over Avruch's contributions, and I'm impressed by his cool, helpful comments in discussions. As others have said, he may show up a lot on some of our drama stages, but he's not there to ham it up (I saw a minor exception in one spot, but nobody's perfect; and, frankly, he keeps his cool much better than this non-admin does). He contributed a bit at the Mantanmoreland arb case, and I overall disagreed with what he said, but I can't question his judgment or his tone there. I didn't want to vote before seeing how he'd answer my questions above, and he answered them well, except for Question #11. What I wanted to see in that answer was whether he'd stand up even against a consensus if it went against policy. Even if there are 170 or so editors going one way, it's the closing admin's duty to go the other if that's the only way policy can be interpreted. That disappointment aside, this is clearly an editor knowledgeable about policy and procedures (from quite early on in his contributions, it seems), and one who pretty obviously has the maturity to be an admin. And thanks, Avruch, for quickly answering all those questions. I think you'll be a real asset to WP.

'''Support'''
Of course.
that was quick :-) --''
'''Support''' - definitely, although I do admit to confusing him with Avriham every so and then :p <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' should do well as an adin; seems trustworthy, and has the necessary experience. -- <strong>
'''Support''' I have seen him around, and I see no reason to believe he would abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Yay me! I get arbitrary number 78! It just makes me feel fuzzy inside...I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Strong Support''': I don't think we always agree, but I've been impressed with Avruch's maturity, level-headedness, and dedication to the project's goals. Those are really the most (or only) important qualifications for adminship in my book. I think he'll do good (and well) with the tools. Ordinarily, <s>a 10:1</s> an excess AN/I to articlespace ratio would alarm me, but Avruch's contributions in projectspace have been drama-reducing, mature, and calm, and that's the sort of presence that Wikipedia always needs more of. I can't penalize him for that when his input has been a clear net positive for the encyclopedia. Good luck. '''
'''Strong support'''.  Clearly meets my standards.  Reasonable even when we do not agree.
'''Support''' You're not already?  Hmm... <b><font color="Indigo">
'''support''' Seems like a good candidate. Presence on ANI is not necessarily the same as drama-mongering (I am willing to change my opinion on this if opposers can link to specific difs that they think are problematic).
'''Support''' - I srsly, not even kidding, for real thought you were already an admin... You are clearly qualified.
'''Support''', he looks like he would be a dedicated administrator who is able to do whatever is asked of him.
'''Support''' I am not so sure about the co-nominator, but I think the candidate is reliable.
'''Support''' Absolutely, yes!
'''Support''', no indication candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - a nod towards JayHenry's comments below, but nothing severe enough for neutral or oppose, IMO. Should be okay -
'''Support''' an experienced candidate whose adminship would be a net positive to the project.
'''Support.'''  A candidate who has a clear understanding of what an admin needs to do.
'''Support''' Good responses to the questions. Opposition below makes a lot of claims about ''drama seeking'' but fails to tie that back to the admin tools. --
'''Support''' Orangemarlin's diffs are not convincing.
"What are the steps in evaluating of a userbox is appropriate or inappropriate? What questions should be asked of any userbox (or for that matter, content on any userpage)? This can only be evaluated in the context of the goal of Wikipedia: The development of a resource that contains the useful knowledge of the human race.Since this is such a broad and ambitious goal, there are many different elements that can contribute to its achievement. Among those elements is the identification of editors and their interests and points of view. Some might make the argument that the encyclopedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view, and thus the specific perspective of any given editor is irrelevant. I disagree with that presumption - the content of the encylopedia is supposed to be neutral, but editors themselves can never be neutral. Awareness of the interests and biases of yourself and other editors is crucial in counteracting it, as biases may unconsciously affect editing. So if I accept that understanding and identifying editors is helpful to the task of developing an encyclopedia, then I must also accept that userboxes are a simple and straightforward method of accomplishing this task. Therefore, userboxes themselves cannot be verboten. What I can do, however, is evaluate individual userboxes against the criteria of usefully describing an individual editor - keeping in mind that the description is useful only as long as it supports the goals of the encyclopedia. That leads me to a question, though: Can userboxes actually detract from the encyclopedia, or do some userboxes simply not contribute either way? Phrased differently, is some self-description actually a net negative for collaboration? The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that a userbox is descriptive only - a userbox describing me as a Nazi does not make me a Nazi anymore than the lack of one means I am not, it merely identifies something that exists independently of the box." That is what is located at [[User:Avruch/About userboxes]]. I am, I must admit, very much impressed by this view. Avruch is clearly able and willing to understand those who may have differing viewpoints from others in the vicinity, and being able to be compassionate whilst having the 'effectability', so to speak, to perform extra tasks for this is a great plus (example: being able to perform protections in times of edit warring etc.) However, I do have to take into consideration the points that the opposition make, some of which are valid, others maybe not so. I do appreciate that refactoring (or in any way modifying a comment) is very much inappropriate, however I see rare occasions where this has occured, secondly I see that there are concerns expressed that Avruch may be to 'prone to drama', which I initially had too, however, on deep reflection of the candidate against a wide variety of areas he has been active in and the humbled and both encouraging responses given to the questions above, means on the contrary there is sufficient reason why I should support this candidate.
Down with [[crimethink]]! It doesn't correlate that an interest in drama means he's going to cause it. I see no risk to the project in promoting. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) When did this become [[Wikipedia:Mindless sheep for adminship]]? At the risk of channelling [[Harry Frankfurt]], I suspect the opposers don't even know what they mean by "too much drama," except they think that it is bad, and by extension Avruch is bad. The veracity of the statement can't be established; I suppose we can stand [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] on its head and presume the sincerity of the user, but the lack of specificity and falsifiability precludes any possibility of engagement on the question. Surely a substantive oppose isn't all that hard?
'''Support''' Experience in nearly all of the admin areas (although I would've liked to see more than 15 AIV reports in over a year of experience). <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' From what I've seen, Avruch is thoughtful and responsible. No question. --
'''Support''' per OrangeMarlin.  Although I suspect I was supposed to draw different conclusions, I've looked through his diffs, I've looked at the original disputes behind them...and I'm seeing things entirely differently.  I'd much rather see an admin like Avruch out there than OM.  --
'''Strong Support'''. Support, per [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]]. Per Lar, too. I think this editor is a good guy and wants to further the project, I just hope he will soften his beliefs on fair-use. This project works best when reasonable compromises can be had. --
'''Support''', per the user's workings on the [[Giovanni di Stefano]] article; he treats BLP as they should, not as some super-special case where [[WP:V|V]] gets thrown out the window in the name of "keeping bad stuff out".  We needs more admins like this.  <font color="629632">
'''Support''' - I think the reasons given for opposing this excellent candidate are basically nonsense.
'''Support''' - I approached Avruch not 2 weeks ago, to see if he felt nomination for adminship was appropriate, based on his consistent and well thought out contribution to the wiki. I examined his involvement in ANI and cases cited below, cases and satisfied myself that he is "a good editor who tries to help calmly in difficult places" rather than any other reason.
'''Support''' Despite the drama concerns, I can't recall ever seeing anything too negative coming from Avruch that would justify a refusal to granting him the tools. Also, opposed by SqueakBox, which is usually an indication that the candidate is doing a real good job somewhere. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - per the opposes, they are uncompelling.  --
'''Support''' A thoughtful, civil editor who doesn't merely deserve adminship, but who would benefit Wikipedia with her/his adminship. With regard to the accusation that Avruch seeks ''drama''... this is an unfair characterisation. Avruch has worked on controversial subjects, and conflict at such articles is inevitable. ''Anyone'' who spends time at [[Norman Finkelstein]], et al, is bound to become drawn in to arguments (as I know, myself), and my experience is that Avruch has approached discussions - heated an calm - with fairness and equanimity. If that's drama-seeking, I'm all for it.
'''Support'''
'''Oui''' &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
I'm sorry, but I continue to believe that editors who are here primarily for the drama are a net negative.  Even if they tend to make reasonable points (whether or not Avruch does is immaterial to my view, although for the record I don't think he always does), this preference is something that needs to be much more strongly discouraged.  I just fervently believe that we don't need a professional drama corps that's only tangentially here to build an encyclopedia.  Avruch has 800 edits to the dramaboards and a scant 1400 edits to the actual encyclopedia (and I'll note that this number appears to only be so high because of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Avruch&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 aversion to the Show Preview button]).  With appropriate use of the show preview button, he'd likely have much less than 800 mainspace edits.  It's not about edit count, however—it's about priorities and outlook, about the direct correlation between misplaced priorities and misjudgment and misunderstanding of our goals here, and how poor judgment and misunderstanding inevitably extend to misuse of tools.  Not just correlation: causation.  Having made these observations long ago, and expressed them for well over a year now, I do recognize that this is an unpopular school of thought among the RFA regulars (and by all means, don't let this stop the usual allegations of bad faith, grudge holding, etc.  I'm quite used to all that as well :), yet I continue to see more and more evidence to support this view. --
Oppose per JayHenry. Avruch is a bit too prone to enter drama. <big>
'''Oppose''' I concur with JayHenry. I also see few vandalism reversions (aside from reverting some bot messups) or other indicators that tools are needed.--
'''Oppose''' I thought the candidate already became an admin per his/her activities in Wikipedia space. Recently at ANI, he or she promised to meditate or listen to some dispute related to me, but just went off unlike his promise. I had been waiting for his/her return to the subject, but meanwhile s/he seemed to be very busy preparing this RFC. I guess the candidate could have enough time to show up here for his election campaign but could not afford his/her time to needed problems. If he/or she did not intervene the matter, I would not have any expectation from the user, but just give me a disappointment. I had a good impression on him/her before, but with the case, no. I don't trust people who make a hollow promise.--
'''Oppose''' per those above; I also thought he was an admin until I looked on his page one day, as he's always around ANI & similar pages. Rather too attracted to drama, & perhaps not enough to helping people with simple problems. As an editor he is unimpressive, hardly ever using edit summaries, even when removing material, which apart from reformatting references seems to be his main activity (no doubt much of it deserves to go, but edit summaries should be used to highlight this).   Most of his article editing seems very recent too, and his edits to ANI (670) are exactly 10 times as many as those (67) to his most-edited article, [[Norman Finkelstein]].
'''Oppose''' No I cannot support - as I agree (through personal experience) that Avruch is far too inclined to seek drama.  I also agree with Johnbod's comments about Avruch's poor edit summary record (which can only be seen by looking at a list of his actual contributions which clearly show that he very often does not add to the pre-existing sub-heading in a thread thus not giving any idea what his specific edit is about).  To my mind this is a failing for most editors and certainly a more serious one for prospective admins. --
<s>'''Oppose''' per JayHenry. [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</s>  '''Strong oppose''' per OrangeMarlin.  I do not trust this person as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry and my own observations of the user's behavior. I do not trust any drama monger with access to the tools.
'''Oppose''' spends much more time in bureaucracy than editing. '''
'''Oppose''' per my sig. <small>per JayHenry, too.</small> <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Purveyor of wikidrama over and over again.  Gets involved in drama that has nothing to with him, and from all that I saw made it worse.  Not good for an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen and JayHenry.
'''Strong oppose''', per his apparent support for banning users who are ''perceived'' to hold a particular opinion or sexuality, regardless of whether they are pushing for it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carnildo&diff=prev&oldid=208825115] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAvruch&diff=220399974&oldid=220399546] In the links cited, Avruch defends the block of [[User:VigilancePrime]], who had created userboxes that said variations of "This [male/female] Wikipedian loves [girls/boys], as opposed to loving [boys/girls]" (e.g. [[User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Girllover]]). Girls was piped to [[young women]], and boys to [[young men]]. Our Arbitration Committee seems to believe that loving young women is paedophilia, and so, even though VP hadn't applied the box to himself, had over 7000 edits and a history of nonpartisanship when involved in paedophilia-related disputes, and had in fact opined that paedophiles "need help,"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APedophilia&diff=192514112&oldid=192467821] he was blocked '''indefinitely''' without a "fair trial" or even a chance at discussion. (Indefinitely is emphasized because in ''every other case,'' the Arbitration Committee applies blocks of one year.) Failing to protest this appalling action, let alone ''supporting'' it, is evidence enough that Avruch does not have the judgment to be trusted with a license to block. --'''
I don't mind the person, but too much drama plus the admin tools is a bad thing.
'''Oppose''' way too much drama.
'''Strong oppose''' As an editor Avruch is a BLP nightmare, especially on the Giovanni di Stefanio article,a nd this si the kind of user who should never be trusted with the admin tools. Thanks,
'''Oppose''' Based on the mainspace edits this candidate seems borderline to me, however based on the editing ratio I also do not think this editor is ready yet...per [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]),
'''Oppose''' too many poor AfD nominations; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vocelli_Pizza] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_N._Meeker] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trans-bashing] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sergey_Kryukov] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alvar_Palmgren] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stradivarius_%28INDITEX%29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_John_Hodgson] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Intermittency] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hormonal_meat] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_in_Apostasy] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maravilla_%283rd_nomination%29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dikeou_collection] <br> Also some very poor CSD tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petter_C._G._Sundt&diff=174496193&oldid=174455020] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MV_Holmglen&diff=174494059&oldid=174452590] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Christmas&diff=174490606&oldid=174473622] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viscount_%28biscuit%29&diff=174488694&oldid=174479613] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Neshaminy_%281865%29&diff=174486023&oldid=174484957] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WANTED&diff=174485058&oldid=174484830] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clubland_X-Treme_Hardcore_4&diff=174484912&oldid=174479133] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stradivarius_%28INDITEX%29&diff=174489656&oldid=174477653] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_Dane&diff=174496032&oldid=174440136] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Hurley&diff=175559146&oldid=174951906] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gokul_Inder_Dev&diff=175567268&oldid=171656427] <br>They may all have been a while ago but these days you seldom frequent these areas, spending the bulk of your time on various talk pages or noticeboards. So I can't really tell if your judgement has improved or not.
I just don't have full confidence in the candidate to be an administrator. The already&ndash;mentioned concerns about his presence in drama cause me pause. I don't really trust his abilities. You will almost certainly pass, and I wish you the best of luck as an administrator, but I can't support. '''[[User:Seresin.public|seresin]] <small>
'''Oppose''' per per JayHenry. Too much drama around the candidate, to the point of being a net negative.
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry, OrangeMarlin and Squeakbox. I'm sorry but I don't feel I can trust the candidate's judgment regarding administrative manners.
'''Oppose''':  Based on edits, editor cannot be trusted to use the tools to de-escalate the wikidrama - in fact there is a subtle wiff that tools will be used for escalation instead.  So opposing to avoid bothering ArbCom in a few months time.  --
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry.
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry and OrangeMarlin. Several comments by Avruch have made me seriously question this editor's judgement and tact. --
'''Oppose''' - I went over the Anti-semitism issue and while it's not as bad as it could have been, it's been enough to make me question this editor being overly protective of problematic conduct. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">
'''Oppose'''. I would say that such balance of edits between spaces suggests that user is here for all the wrong reasons. But here we do not have to "suggest" anything since the user is notorious enough. He is clearly '''seeking drama and escalating it''' rather than merely commenting on all the drama boards. The most blatant example is [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive20#IRC| here]] where his action '''started a new major turn of drama''' which was very uncalled for and provoked a huge escalation of a conflict that already started winding down. (Of course the drama-banner was eagerly picked by some other usual drama proliferators.) --
'''Strong oppose''' Administrators are here for one thing: to keep the place tidy, free from trolls/vandals, and running smoothly so that the rest of us can build an encyclopaedia undisturbed. Avruch's contributions to the article space do not show any significant experience of article-''building'', and s/he has few or insubstantial contributions to images, portals, templates, categories, stubs, help or ref desks. This shows that s/he lacks the requisite experience to understand the conditions under which content-building thrives, and thus presumably lacks the ability to facilitate it. Now this is not in itself damning, as there are many unobtrusive vandal-fighting administrators who do not venture far from the uncontroversial admin tasks. But Avruch appears to spend much of his/her time at administrators noticeboards (I assume good faith that correlation with drama is not causation), requests for comment/arbitration, deletion and policy pages; this is someone who is shaping the culture of the encyclopedia without having meaningfully contributed to it (I don't mean any offence by this, your contributions are certainly valued). Any wavering doubts on this score are put to rest by his/her despicable behaviour towards the ephebophile editor, his/her belief that it is justifiable ''to block people for their beliefs'' (as if a particular ''epistemological stance'' towards the Holocaust was punishable ''on principle''), and the thoughtless unresearched book-burning highlighted by RAHMED above, and it becomes crystal clear to me that this is someone who at this point in time needs to be kept far, far away from any position of power, control or influence. I sincerely recommend you take a break from the Wikipedia space, pick five topics and create a non-stub article on them, try and work a poor article into a GA or better, pick an unpopular or marginal viewpoint and try and correct the mainstream bias by writing from a neutral point of view on it, add some quality free images or useful templates, and see how your experience with vandals, editors of different POVs, overzealous copyright police, and trigger-happy patrollers shapes your beliefs on the proper role of administrators. Thank you for all you have done for the project so far, and I hope I will see you back here in a few months with a fresh perspective. Sincerely, <font color="404040">
The link by Irpen is very troubling - combined with JayHenry's concerns, it's enough to make me oppose. Sorry. OrangeMarlin's diffs, however, still don't interest me in the least.
'''Oppose.''' Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with JayHenry on this one. Not enough edits to the mainspace and too much wikidrama. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose''' - I've read through diff's and links presented and the Drama like attitude,keeps me worried. I think it  could be easily avoided by drinking some [[WP:TEA|tea]] and taking a time to cool down.--
'''Implacable Oppose''': I thought he was already an Admin. It restores my faith in Wikipedia that he is not. Avruch is completely unsuited to adminship. We are here to write an encyclopedia not give our opinions on how others should be writing it.  I don't see the point of Avruch, or why he is here. He has yet to prove his worth. No need for him to be an admin at all.  It is nominations such as this, which cause Wikipedia's rot to set in. If Avruch wants to be wiki-famous, he should try the hard way - writing a few pages or at least having a useful presence. He has, to date, achieved neither.
'''Oppose''' Whilst Giano is rather brusque in his assessment, the underying message is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. We are here to write an encyclopedia and recently, wikidrama, which has in part been fuelled by Avruch, is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I see adminship as tools to help content creators to help build the encyclopedia. I don't believe that Avruch is suited to that added responsibility, as frankly, I don't see many substantive mainspace edits that could be enhanced with admin tools. I simply don't have the feeling that Avruch being an administrator would have a positive effect on wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per the way Avruch stokes the flames and stirs the FT2/Giano pot [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive20#IRC here], cited by SachaNein above, and also by Irpen. I don't want to see this editor wielding a block button; we have enough admin ''provocateurs'' as it is. Avruch's explanation of this diff at Oppose 28 above is strangely uncompelling to me, in fact I have trouble understanding it. Avruch, I don't care too much if the edit you cite "ends up being discussed on IRC"; I care about the way you express yourself, say  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=207657423 here] ("choosing to be upset"? Lovely!). If that was "in reality" intended to "head off an IRC-related disaster", I have to agree with your own insight that your action is woefully short of clarity. I'm prepared to believe in your good intentions, but you don't seem very good at getting them on to the screen. If "cooler heads" did prevail, it sure wasn't because of your inflammatory wording.  Oh, and per [[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] (support 101), too, very much.
'''Oppose''' - not enough experience with the mainspace and no demonstrated ability to extinguish drama as opposed to inflaming it
'''Oppose''' per Giano and Bishonen. An otherwise unemployable admin provoking superior editors just for the fun of it - this is the last thing we need here in Wikipedia. --
What Gurch said --
I also want to support but I cannot support users who are prone to drama.
Switching to neutral, per candidate's response. —
''(nngrh, nneghr, nnnggrh)'' ''Sound of struggling to get off fence but patently unable to''  - ''sigh''. Sorry, I do see JayHenry's point. I also see the ''huge'' negative effects of some of the quagmires going on at the moment, in which uninvolved people's input ''(probably occasionally including mine)'' results in absolute reams of opinion that takes hours to sift through. I would love to see some article writing, even  if this does get through ''(which it probably will)'' I would be happy to help you write a GA or more. I sincerely believe article writing is essential to being here. Cheers,
<s>Registering ongoing concern with adminship-mill. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 18:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</s> <s>To oppose. Rudget's support links to [[User:Avruch/About userboxes]], which says in part "a userbox describing me as a Nazi does not make me a Nazi anymore than the lack of one means I am not, it merely identifies something that exists independently of the box." No, it dosen't do any of that. A userbox describing a user as a Nazi is '''trolling''', pure and simple, much like what God Save the South was doing. No more blind eyes. [[User:PouponOnToast|PouponOnToast]] ([[User talk:PouponOnToast|talk]]) 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</s> '''Neutral''' without further comment.
Overall there are reasons for both sides. While I think Avruch would make good use of the extra tools, I am also strongly against the amount of Wikidrama that we've been having, and with due respect Avruch contributes too much to it for me to support.
'''Neutral''' - Want to support, but can't quite cross the line. I think Casliber put it very well, above. --
'''Neutral''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Shake]] (how a main character in a notable TV show, film, video game, etc. is not notable is beyond me), but good argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Hoover]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo J. Meyer (2nd nomination)]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
[Moved from support] Per developments above.
Moved from support. Going by my own experiences with Avruch I have found him trustworthy and helpful but I was unaware of these other issues. I think Avruch could learn a lot by spending much more time building articles.
'''Support'''  as nominator.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Strong Oppose''' Per past socking, behavior at the cabal debate, and general lack of understanding of WP's workings. '''
Socking == Fail at RfA.
'''Oppose''': Per the above.  We've seen what happens when Basketball110 'loses his cool'; I'd hate to see what the ''administrator'' Basketball110 does if he 'loses his cool'. -
'''Oppose'''. We need to see that you can handle the stress of adminship. Right now, I'm not seeing it. Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose'''. No more puppetmaster admins, please. :/ '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose''' My general sense of the candidate, whom I have had occasion to observe from time to time, is that he is not always possessed of the sound judgment that well commends one to adminship, and I am altogether unable to conclude with confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
Socking, poor answers. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
Refraining from opposing due to the inevitable pile on, I'll just note that I'd expect to see a much more convincing answer to Q2 with evidence of a bigger effort to improve the mainspace should you ever run for adminship again. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' You have 70 edits.  Please withdraw this RfA until a much later date. --
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW]] in full effect.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason to oppose (plus a creative answer to Q4). <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' Very professional, enthusiastic, and well-spoken. Not likely to be misunderstood or to be uncivil. Not likely to abuse the mop. Meets my criteria.
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate!
'''Support''' an asset to the 'pedia.
'''Support''' Great contributions to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry|WikiProject Chemistry]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals|WikiProject Chemicals]] and to Commons. IMHO there is no reason to oppose. --
Agree with Wisdom's concerns, but Q1 answer means they aren't overly relevant. ''
'''Support'''. He is an excellent content contributor, he is smart, careful, and has the right personality. I don't care if he hasn't edited the Wikipedia namespace that much. --
'''Support''', seems sensible enough, no reason to believe that they'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looking at these user's edits, I see evidence of competence, an understanding of how wikipedia works, expertise in his field, and in the 200+ user talk edits, I see cordiality, politeness, and a willingness to explain his actions. II can also infer from this user's past edits that any area in which he may be lacking experience he will quickly learn and act appropriately. As such, I am comfortable extending my [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to this user [[vis-a-vis]] the application of his judgment, and wish him the best of luck in this RfA. --
'''Support''' - good user, steady edit count, good use of summaries. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - he's an excellent contributor, and if we can't trust him then there's no hope for the rest of us. I don't care if his namespace edits are a bit thin - look at what he ''has'' done. I don't see anything that says all admins have to do everything.
'''Support''' - I've worked with Ben often with editing related to the chemistry Wikiprojects.  I know that he is a trustworthy, intelligent, level-headed editor, and there is no reason not to entrust him with additional tools.  The number of edits in Wikipedia namespace should be a non-issue for a demonstrably trustworthy editor.  --
'''Support''', a lengthy experience of editing gives you a far better experience of what we do as a community when applying and interpreting policies than you get by joining into the meandering discussions in project-space about the policies.
'''Support''' - Knowledgable and outstanding contributor. ----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:medium;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions. Long-time contributor, does excellent work in areas few people deal with, and I have absolute confidence he won't abuse the tools. Few contributions to project space don't present a problem to me at all, and even if he'll only use the buttons every now and then, I'm sure he'll use them well.
'''Support.''' There are several acceptable areas in which to prepare for being an admin, mainspace is one of them.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, (I specifically like 10 and 14),  combined with a base knowledge of Wiki-policy, combined with excellent contributions, combined with being open to [[CAT:AOR|recall]] lead me to support.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I agree with Tim Vickers, a lot can be said for learning and applying policy in the main namespace. Great long-time editor is not likely to abuse the mop.
'''Support'''Fine, perfect for adminship!--
'''Support'''.  [[User:Bearian/Standards|Meets my standards]], although Wikispace editing is a bit low.  I do not think the user ''needs'' the tools, but that's not a major concern for me.  He appears to be a likeable chap who will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' -  The theme that is expressed by all sides; Support – Neutrals and even the Opposes  are that this editor is not a threat to misuse the tools.  In fact, the tools will improve the editor’s ability to improve the articles he is working on, there by improving [[Wikipedia]] as a whole.  What more can we ask of our [[WP:Administrators|Administrators]]? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I am not convinced by the oppose votes here, since I've heard that Benjah is ready to be an admin, worked in chemistry-related pages, etc. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Sound editor and the debate over project/main is missing the whole point. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Shit, even more questions...
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - The answers to the questions above tell me that Ben has the requisite policy knowledge needed to be an administrator.  Although I may not agree completely with some of his answers, I'm heartened by his ability to recognize each of the policy issues inherent in the questions as well as his obvious willingness to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] rather than reaching for the block button.  This combined with his considerable content-related knowledge tells me that he will make a good admin. --
'''Weak support'''. Typically, I'd like to see some more project contributions, but otherwise, a great user that deserves the mop.--'''
'''Weak Support''' I agree with the opposers that the lack of project space edits is an issue / a concern. But it's not insurmountable and probably not actually relevant in your case. I don't actually think you'll have a lot of use for the tools, to be honest. However "no use for the tools" is a poor argument, and the odd time you will use them saves someone else doing it for you. On balance, no reason why not to grant here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - agree with concerns but not to the point of not supporting. <b>
'''Support''' - per my usual rules: ''yes, he can be trusted'' and ''yes, he has enough ''overall'' experience''. I fine editor that may not need the tools all the time, but it will be of no harm to the project in him having them and using when necessary. Good luck,
'''Support''' trustworthy, and per Rlevse. <strong>
'''Support''' I trust you to not abuse the tools. Maybe you haven't shown that you ''completely'' know policy, but I didn't know ''everything'' when I became an admin, and I doubt that most do. It's possible to learn on the job. If you don't know certain things, you can stick to areas that you do know... until you catch on. '''

[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' Ben has single handedly transformed the appearance of hundreds of chemistry pages with superb graphics.  Complaints below about "low mainspace edits" and "lack of familiarity" are irrelevant when one considers how many articles carry Ben's brilliant images.  Such statistics merely reflect the technical quirk that separates image content from the word content.  Ben has been a committed Wikipedian, and a great colleague.
'''Support'''.  As opposed to all the opposes here below, I do not believe that not editing the wikipedia namespace is a proof that a user is not familiar with our policies and guidelines.  Seen there are no blocks listed, and knowing his edits, with all the images created, and all the data added, I don't see any problems there.  Ben is an excellent editor, and I am sure, that when he needs to apply an administrative action where he is not sure about, he will contact other admins to verify that first.  --
'''Support'''.Per answers above. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
Good answers to a large amount of questions make up for lack of Wikipedia-space activity.
Sensible answers, and it appears an impressive set of contributions. I fail to understand how ''participation'' in projectspace is necessary to ''understanding'' what's in it. We need more writer-admins.
'''Support''' -- An excellent editor, with an impeccable record. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - seemingly ''bona fide''! —
'''Support''' A qualified, competent editor. Ready for the mop, indeed. --'''
'''Support''' Not a strong answer to Q18, but your answer to Q19 makes me cast a support ballot.
'''Support''', great editor & user overall. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Strong collaborative background, demonstrated knowledge of key policies.
'''Support''', good luck and happy editing!!!<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. I see no red flags. I see strong edits, and good interactions.
'''Support''' looks like a sound candidate from the answers and history
'''Support''' Going by the quality of the mainspace edits rather than the quantity, the good answers to questions, and the obvious ability to communicate constructively. --'''
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, and we could certainly use admins who can help settle disputes and help with images. Concerns regarding personal factors which do not present themselves in the editor's work on wikipedia are basically irrelevant. I can't fault someone for a problem they admit but don't seem to ever really negatively impact them.
'''Support''', because I hate canvassing, and find many of the opposes quite unconvincing.
Evidently has the best interests of the project at heart, communicates and collaborates well, no ghastly ''faux pas'' in the answers. I conclude that Ben is unlikely to burn the place down, either deliberately or by accident, and we are not so short of sysop bits that they can only be given out to players of wikispace MMORPGs.
'''Support'''. I like all his answers. He could do with a little more participation in project space, but that is not to say he doesn't ''read'' those pages. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''.
'''Automatic support''' - I didn't give more than a cursory glance to his edits and really don't care one way or the other, but when I see people opposing for "namespace balance" reasons, I automatically support.  I don't support the notion that you need to have some exact percentage of mainspace vs Wikipedia space edits in order to have the technical competence to hit a block, delete, or protect button. --
'''Support'''. I was drawn by the AN/I notice. The solid, consistent editing outweighs, in my belief, the lack of non-article space edits (which is a concern). In addition, his answers show a reflectiveness that will serve him well as an admin.
A low number of EDITS in policy space is not evidence of a lack of knowledge of policy. Good answers to questions, except for totally flubbing the butter pecan one. '''Support''' ++
'''Support.''' I'm here due to the AN/I notice. This editor's Talk page shows plenty of interaction with other members of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry]] and shows that he can resolve disagreements promptly and without rancor. When somebody hints that a certain task needs doing it seems he is off like a shot to take care of that task. It's hard to picture him as a disagreeable or bad-tempered admin, or one who would use the tools carelessly. I agree that his lack of work in Wikipedia space might be a concern if we had any other reason to be worried about his behavior as an admin. But people are raked constantly over the coals at RfA for lack of article work, and this man appears to be very productive in the chemistry pages. If you ever need to know the mechanism of nitrosation of secondary amines by the nitrosonium cation, I don't know a better place to [[User_talk:Benjah-bmm27/2007#Nitrosation|ask the question]] than on Ben's Talk page. Since I drew a few molecular diagrams in ancient times I have the impression that his work in that area is top grade, both graphically and scientifically.
'''Support''': Quality surprasses quantity of edits, making up for a lack of many namespace edits. I am especially fond of his dispute handling. <small>
'''Support''', over two years of steady quality contributions, a clean record, and good interaction with other editors shows me he amply meets requirements for the role. His answers demonstrate he's knowledgeable enough about policy, and it's not rocket science anyway, though this editor appears bright enough to handle rocket science even if it were that challenging.  The more important issues are, can this person be trusted with the tools, and does he have common sense and the proper temperament for the role?  A look at his extensive record makes me answer yes without hesitation. --
'''Support''' Hands down, no question.
'''Support''', and I'm going to give a fairly detailed reason.  Project experience is not needed to be an admin.  Being an admin is fairly easy.  I know a lot of people like to suggest it is incredibly hard, and a massive, onerous responsibility, but honestly, it is not a difficult job for most people.  The tools are very easy to figure out and to use, and if a user is bright enough to edit in the way Benjah has done so, they will have no problems.  Adminship is only difficult for those who are unsuited to the role (ie not bright, not trustworthy, or with very little maturity). Sure, a lack of experience in certain areas may require a light touch at first, but I see no evidence to suggest that wouldn't be the case.  Would five hundred mindless "per above" RFA supports and "keep"s at AFDs change that?  Of course it wouldn't.  All that is required is evidence that the candidate is bright, sensible, and trustworthy.  I see ample evidence of all three, and foresee Benjah having no problems with the tools.
'''Support''' - Appears to be good in dealing with disputes and has good answers.  Project space is important but should never become a litmus test for admins.--
'''Strong support'''.  Lack of project space edits has never been a valid reason to oppose adminship and I question the judgment of those who value pixel-pushing bureaucracy over quality content.  There is a serious and disturbing problem with the direction the encyclopedia is heading when a good editor like Benjah is denied the tools.  We need less mindless policies and more quality articles.  When the rules-makers become more important than the content-creators, the project is officially dead. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Civil and good answers to questions.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' a good candidate with solid contributions. Some of my colleagues note the low editcount as a reason to oppose, but I feel differently - indeed, I actually hit my 5,000th edit ''during'' my RfA, and haven't deleted the main page yet or anything! If the candidate is reasonable, and if they tread lightly in areas where their experience may be lacking, I have no concerns about granting them the tools - and I believe this to be such a candidate.
'''Support''' - the excellent answers to the questions demonstrate a clear understanding of the reasons behind the questions - in my opinion, understanding what's going on is important as experience, and this candidate obviously has an understanding. <span  style="white-space:nowrap">—
-- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Support''' per the principal that resulted from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan]]. A good editor is a good editor, especially if they can handle chemistry. :)
'''Support'''. Seems to be an actual contributor to the project. We don't have enough. Cheers!
'''Strong support''' I haven't seen him around but he has made many solid contributions and comes over as level-headed. I appreciate his candour. --
'''Support''' — I trust that the tools will not be abused or mis-used, and this editor appears to have the experience to know how to use them. Canvassing was unfortunate, and hopefully will not have distorted consensus.
'''Support''' As per track.
Administrators interact so much with articles and article disputes that I frequently oppose for not enough experience in mainspace, as all the complexities are very difficult to get your head around and uninformed administrators cause more trouble than good. Project-space is less difficult to understand and I hope that, should this be successful, Benjah goes a little slow in this regard, however I cannot fault myself '''support'''ing.
'''Support'''.  Been around a while, seems to know his way around, doesn't appear to be a troublemaker.  No reason to oppose. --
'''Oppose''' - No, I must oppose - very low Wiki-space count. No indication that he candidate has any experience in admin-related tasks. Sorry, but good luck!
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Benjah-bmm27&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 no projects space] edits apart from wikiprojects and this RfA. Also, with the exception of page moves, the candidate could start all of the activities he mentions in Q1.
'''Oppose''' - per above concerns about low project space edits.
'''Oppose''' - Project space is the most important area for admins to be familiar with, and right now you have not proven that you are familiar with it. Get more project space contributions and if this fails (which i doubt it will) come back in a few months. Best of luck,
'''Oppose''' An excellent editor, but adminship is about enforcing policy, and the only way of learning it and showing knowledge of it is by participation in discussion in WT on policy talk pages, XfD, or other places where it is being discussed and enforced. I'm sure B-b can learn all this, and when he can show us he should re-apply & I expect then to support him. '''
'''Oppose''' - very low Wikipedia-space count, which is one of the essential ways of learning Wikipedia's processes, ways of working and interaction with other users. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong oppose''', two-figure edit count for Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' There isn't anythign that fits the idea that he DOES understand the polocies either. 31 wikiedits? Scary.--
'''Oppose''', sorry. Very low participation in Wikipedia space. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' After reviewing your contributions I do not feel you have a need for the tools. --
'''Strong Oppose''' I see absolutely no evidence that this candidate has demonstrated any knowledge/expertise with the policies/procedures relavant to being an admin.  I am particularly concerned about his answer to question 12.  A final warning from a month ago should never be used as justication for a block today---particularly on an anonymous account.
'''Oppose''' on wikipedia I would like to see an admin who would know what he is doing a bit more. Your lack of participation in the "wikipedia" namespace and your contribution evidence tells me that you would have little need for the admin tools and judging by a number of other things you have failed to persuade us with your knowledge of policy that you could become a sysop that could improve wikipedia overall.
'''Oppose''' various issues discussed above make me uncomfortable trusting you with the tools currently. Sorry - not yet. If this fails (looks likely to succeed at the moment) and you run again, please do drop me a line. I'm sure that if you pay attention to some of the good-faith criticisms above, you'll sail through. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of Wikipedia space involvement.
'''Oppose''' Contributions history makes it too difficult to discern whether this user has a good grasp of policy.
'''Oppose'''. I agree that article edits are the most important thing for an admin, but at the same time some project-space experience is also needed, and 31 edits, most of them related to this RfA, just aren't enough. There's also very little article talk compared to number of article edits. I'll definitely consider supporting next time if there's more experience in those areas. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' per Wikipedia space. IF the answers to the questions were so perfect that they would take away any doubt on this ground, it still might be allright, but unfortunately, they are not.
'''Oppose'''. Only 49 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, shows lack of experience in admin-like areas. I do like his 4000+ edits to mainspace (I'm a big pusher of mainspace contribs), but you've got to get your Wikipedia namespace edits closer to 500 before I'll feel that you have adequate experience. Please see my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|admin criteria]] if you have any questions.
'''Oppose''' I was emailed by a sock asking me to oppose this RfA and frankly, it made me want to support just to piss the puppeteer off. But at the end of the day, I don't want the sock to infect this RfA in either direction and as this is the kind of candidate that I normally oppose due to the very low WP experience I feel unable to support. I suggest, if this doesn't end up passing, you spend a couple of months getting wider experience.
'''Oppose'''. Excellent editor, but the lack of significant involvement in WP space functions makes me question the motivation for becoming an administrator.
'''Oppose''' 4000 + edits to mainspace is supposed to be a strength, but it's not really very much, and I'm pushed into the oppose section by the editor's proclaimed ambition to deal with [[WP:3RR]] matters and to push [[WP:Etiquette]]. The former I'm not convinced the editor is experienced enough for and the latter suggests self-righteousness, the main source of all human conflict.
Oppose per lack of experience in dealing with other users - this relates to the talk and user talk namespaces as well as the Wikipedia space. It's one of the most necessary things in an administrator. ---Having read Sarah's explanation above, I realized that I was also canvassed through e-mail to oppose this RFA. I didn't notice that it was the same one until I had already started writing my comment here, and I certainly don't want to encourage socking and canvassing.
'''Oppose''' With only '''1 edit regarding policy''' (an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=196530245 AIV report]), how can he be considered for adminiship ?  Definitely a very good editor, but not admin material yet.  Please review [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Benjah-bmm27&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 his edits to the wikipedia namespace], excluding wikiprojects and this RfA he has only made one edit.   I think at least 1000 should be required.  How can anyone be supporting this RfA even for his own good, he should not be an admin, he has never participated in a single deletion discussion, a DRV, a dispute resolving process...  He is not suffering from not having admin tools, because he has only ever made 1 request for an admin to use their tools.  You don't need to be an admin to move a page, or explain things to people.  RfA is not about supporting people who are nice or prolific, the goal of an administrator is not to be nice or a great contributor.
'''Oppose''' An admin needs to have more edits in the project space to be knowledgeable in admin-type tasks. I am willing to support in the future when there are more project space edits.
'''Oppose''' per his answer to question 1, combined with the low number of project space edits. Anyone can help users understand image user policy and resolve disputes, and I find it difficult to support someone who intends to engage in antivandalism work despite only having ever made one edit to [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. Understanding the ins and outs of when to block vandals is of paramount importance to antivandalism work, and contribution to AIV is the easiest way to judge whether or not he does.--
'''Weak Oppose''' The lack of experience in the usual admin-related areas worries me just a bit too much.
'''Oppose''' Not sure this user know the policy well enough to apply it as an admin. --<small>
'''Oppose''' per Jackaranga - I'd rather see the user get a gist of admining before being promoted - one edit to AIV doesn't show the meta side. I suggest to the candidate that he keep [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]] on watchlist and contribute in discussions there, should he fail the RFA. '''
'''Oppose'''; the canvassing spam predisposed me favorably towards this candidate&mdash; but not enough so I'd be able to get over the fact that this editor has absolutely no policy experience whatsoever.  Come back in a few months with some mop work under the belt and I'll likely support.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', alas, the complete lack of any projectspace experience shows that the user probably isn't ready for the tools yet.
'''Regrefully Neutral'''.  The nomination was definitely premature.  The low projectspace edits really cripple my ability to believe that you understand policy and the inner workings of Wikipedia.  Your response to question one also worries me because you could be doing all of these things without the tools of adminship.  I would be opposing this, but I thought the answer to question four was nicely put, and I will probably wait to see the answers to further questions before going further.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
Per Addhoc. Also there seems to be a slightly small number of edits per month.
'''Neutral'''. The candidate is a great editor but needs additional experience before I can support. The low amount of projectspace involvement concerns me.
'''Neutral.'''  Sorry, I hate to say this but 5000 is a bit low for me. Maybe come back in a couple of months when you hit 10,000? <strong>
'''Neutral''' - looks like a great editor but I'm unsure from the questions and the project space edits as to how much this candidate knows of WP policies and procedures. Maybe dig into Wikipedia-space and come back in a few months and I'll likely support -
Going to have to go with Alison on this one. A good editor, will most likely be an excellent admin, but I'd rather he spend a month or so getting his feet wet in projectspace before he's given the tools.
'''Support''' Sure, you seem level headed and a good candidate.
'''Weak Support''' I'm going to toss my hat in the ring in this section I think. I suspect the low overall edit count may be a killer to this RFA, but there we go (:. There are a few things I'd have liked to see more of (in particular your reversion of vandalism to warning user ratio seems slim - but that's just my pet thing about warnings - and the lowish AIV reports associated with vandal fighting). Flip side is, I granted you rollback in February and you seem to have (on the whole) used the tool without issue. Looking at your userboxes and contributions you are a mature, good faith and conscientious editor. You're clearly here for the right reasons. I would advise ''caution'' and a ''slow pace'' with the buttons if this request passes, however I don't think you'd go wrong or make poor errors of judgement. For those reasons a qualified support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Wrth gwrs, as Pedro '''
'''Support''' per Pedro and a review of edits. Bettia can be trusted to tread carefully while learning the ropes in areas he hasn't yet made [[Carl Sagan |billions and billions]] of edits to. In addition, clearly understands consensus; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_American_football&diff=prev&oldid=194876782 this example] of reaching across the <s>aisle</s> pond. ;-) <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Usually I like to write short essays why I choose to !vote in a certain manner, but this time Pedro put it so well, there is nothing to add. My WikiPhilosophy is after all: Skill trumps knowledge. Because with skill, you can gain yourself the knowledge you need, but just knowing policy without being able to learn does not make you a good admin. And I have every reason to believe that Bettia will learn whatever he does not know by now. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Weak Support'''- [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Bettia&auto=auto His editing history] is not as extensive as one might hope for, but the issue here is familiarity with WP policies, which I believe this user has, therefore I throw my support behind him. Cheers mate!
'''Support''' - yes, though editcount is low, I get a feeling of honesty and trustowrthiness, plus a desire to build a 'pedia, so OK ''(I mean really, a devious sockmaster couldn't concoct such an esoteric assortment of interests could they?? hehehe)'' Cheers,
'''Support''' Doesn't have the highest amount of edits, but that doesn't bother me - otherwise, seems well qualified. <big>
''' mostly, per Pedro''' and per other fine arguments presented.
'''Support''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates absolutely nothing, and the low level of deleted contributions indicates that the user has a low level of deleted contributions. --
'''Strong Support''': Looks like someone who is here for all the right reasons, rather than just to run up the score (AIV Kills, and such). If you've been here for a few months actively editing, you either get it, or you don't. 10,000 edits won't make Bettia get it any more or less... they get it now.
1,000 mainspace edits tells you exactly as much about an editor as 20,000 do. It's not like there's some magical edit threshhold where you determine a good user from a bad user. If a low edit count is the only thing ringing against him, then count me in as a '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - a constructive, reasonable and consensus-seeking editor.
'''Weak Support''', I would like to see a bit more activity and experience, but I also see no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Had good interactions with AfDs and prods with Bettia. He knows his stuff.
Per Pedro, and a good answer to Q4. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', moved from neutral.
'''Support'''. I think that if you read over [[WP:ARL]], you'll do fine. <font  face="georgia">'''
I don't think we should punish some one because they don't "have enough experience".  This user looks like a sane person, so I will support them.
'''Support''' per questions, especially Q3. I agree with Tex, except that I don't think anyone's intent is punitive. Rather, I think folks are trying to help improve the project by encouraging potential admins to get involved in the maintenance activities that keep the project running smoothly. My problem with the lack-of-experience opposes is that they just don't seem necessary. If people want to become admins, then ''of course'' they want to gain experience in admin-related areas. I think that lack-of-experience opposes encourage people to gain this experience for extrinsic reasons (e.g., to increase the odds of becoming an admin in a subsequent RfA), whereas the initial, if limited, experience may be infused with more intrinsic satisfaction from contributing to the project.
'''Support''' partly per Frank and Keeper, and to be more specific from what I've seen Bettia shows good judgement. '''
'''Weak support''' I actually '''do''' think there is something to be said for lots of mainspace and projectspace edits when evaluating an admin.  Can't draw a line in the sand because that "threshold"  is different for each person.  Sometimes you can edit hundreds of pages and never come across an editing dispute or a POV problem.  Sometimes you can spend a long time at AfD and not really get a feel for how people contribute and what sort of articles come down the pike.  but usually edits in those areas correspond pretty well with understanding.  But having said that, it isn't a dealbreaker.  This candidate seems like s/he has a good head on their shoulders.
'''Strong support'''. Good judgement, great contributions. Exactly the sort of person who could use the mop. +
'''Support''': Switched from opposition as the candidate has now allayed my concerns.
'''Support''' Some of the editors responses to people on here show they are very level headed. -
'''Support''' The testmaster is proud of the good edit fixing done by this user.  That is some good vandalism fixing.  Clearly a great candidate!
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge and low level of deleted contributions (16 total) indicates a likely lack of experience with deletion.
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience in areas the candidate wishes to work.
'''Oppose'''; Given the generally low experience, there isn't enough moppish work for me to support.  You look like a good editor, and I'm pretty sure I'd have supported if you had a couple of more months in your pocket.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', contributions show a lack of experience in areas the candidate wishes to work in, particularly speedy deletions. With 16 deleted contributions he's either very inexperienced or very bad at tagging, neither of which are good qualities for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' While the candidate's enthusiasm is commendable, the acute lack of experience is too obvious to overlook.
'''Oppose''' Too soon.  Good editor, but really doesn't have range or volume of contributions to demonstrate solid knowledge of policies. --<font color="purple">
'''Oppose'''. Definitely on the right track, great editor, enthusiastic, wants to help, but still somewhat inexperienced in the areas in which he wants to work. I think if he works a bit more in the Wikipedia namespace, I will be supporting next time around.
'''Oppose''' No intention to pile on here - Bettia deserves credit for his fine editing work but this is a premature nom. Needs substantially longer, wider and regular experience in the admin range.
'''Oppose''' Lack of activity in areas that this editor wishes to edit in. Per Wisdom technically.
'''Oppose''' Not enough work yet on the backend. Try again around the end of the year after ramping that up. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
Sorry. Pretty much per Stifle, but you need to expand on your work in the mainspace and namespace. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' All of the candidate's 1700 contribs are mainspace, low edit count for a vandal fighter especially, only 119 Wikipedia-space contribs, no activity in desired areas. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. I feel Bettia doesn't have enough experience and has a low amount of activity, with only 39 edits last month.
'''Oppose'''.  I could support an editor with only 1000 mainspace edits.  I could support an editor with only 100 WP space edits.  But only 91 talk edits?  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Bettia&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 Have a look].  And a large percentage of these are Wikiproject-related.  This user has posted '''exactly one''' comment to an article talk page since mid-July.  To me, communication is one of the most important skills an admin can have.  Not using talk pages is a big red flag.
'''Oppose'''. You said that you want to work on AIV, but can't support due to the lack of experience only having 8 reports. <small>
'''Oppose'''  Candidate does not meet my [[User:Winger84/Standards for Adminship|standards]] at this time. --
'''Oppose'''. Good quality mainspace contributions. However Bettia should be more active in discussions with others (e.g. Talk pages, XFD). I am sure that he will be ready in a few months.
'''Oppose''' — This user's lack of experience makes it difficult for me to judge how they would use the tools. Low edit count doesn't help, either. —'''
'''Oppose''' - Per Plutonium27. --
'''Oppose''': Complete lack of experience in many areas where administrative action is needed (e.g. AIV). <small>
'''Oppose''' - The candidate's experience is questionable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Great job in combating vadalism, ok, but not enough experience in other areas. Would like to see more interaction with users in improvng articles. Sry, but not yet.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89.--
'''Oppose''' Just not quite enough edits for [[User:Theoneintraining|my criteria]].--
'''Regretful oppose''' - fails to meet [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] at this time.  Bettia has done great work at [[WP:AfD]], and has made no big mistakes yet, but clearly is lacking in overall experience.  Come back in two months' time, and more edits.  I'll be sure to support at that time.  Best of luck!
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately, not enough experience. Fighting vandals is only one small part of an overall administrator position. Unlike internet fora, admins do far more in Wikipedia than simply preventing troll behavior. More main space edits, more administrator-like functions, some back end work, and we'll see what can happen. As for now, don't see it just yet.
'''Weak and regretful oppose''' ... just not enough experience.  Return to RfA in a few months :-)  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Argh...''' I'm so tempted to support, but I'm going to have to open the !voting with neutrality. I really feel aggrieved about this, seeing as you're a great contributor, but while you say you're interested in helping out at [[WP:AIV]], your vandal fighting history is relatively short and you've only ever made 8 reports to AIV. You show a good knowledge and understanding of the [[WP:DEL|deletion process]], especially [[WP:AFD|AFD]], but I'm just not sure that your knowledge of other admin-related policy areas are comprehensive enough &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=199052551#Cardiff_-_repeated_IP_vandalism this RFPP request] posted at [[WP:AN/I]], for example. Your article contributions are an area which you should rightfully be proud of, but I'm just unsure enough to be on the fence. I'll keep monitoring the RfA and will change that vote if my deductive reasoning is proved to be pants, as it inevitably is at this time in the morning. ''Pob lwc!'' <font color="#FF0000">
'''Regretful Neutral''' Contribs look good, but I echo Coren in that a little more experience is needed.
'''Very close to being an oppose''' I'm not in a mean mood.... but your edit history is too weak.... Personally i suggest you wait four months. However the answers to your questions were spot-on. I will support you IF you make another 50 edits before the poll closes
'''Oppose''' Your talk page is full of people telling you about your mistakes.  For what it's worth, thanks for not blanking it.
'''Oppose''' - doesn't appear to be ready. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Regretful Oppose''' - Sorry but the AFD for Steven Colbert did it for me. And this oppose is NOT just because I have been watching [[Strangers with Candy]] a lot lately.<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Oppose''' not yet ready.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Oppose''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Bigvinu&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 3 user talk edits ''ever'']. You need to work on interacting with other users more.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of contributions demonstrating an understanding of policy and procedure, and what appears to be a lack of approachability and communications with other users, all of which are important attributes for an admin.
'''Oppose''' as per Tinkleheimer; the fact that you AfD'd [[Stephen Colbert (character)|Stephen Colbert]], the man probably most responsible for heavy vandalism on Wikipedia :P, shows that you may lack the experience needed to be an administrator. Come back in a little while, when you're more ready. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Nothing much has changed since your last RfA in December, albeit possibly a little more article work, but nothing major. Insufficient answers to questions, not very active over the last few weeks (despite a sudden state of activity in January.) I don't trust you being an admin at this current time, unfortunately.
'''Oppose'''. Per QST.  General maturiy issues, also the fact that you transcluded this RfA with minimal answers and also improperly included a previous RfA for a different user. This should have been fixed before letting this go live. If anything, I would withdraw now per [[wp:snow|snow]] to ''at least'' deal with these obvious issues, let alone other long term ones.
'''Oppose''' - I echo the above. Little change from your last RfA. I'd also like to see a little more experience in the project space before I can extend my support. Cheers. Have you tried [[WP:ADMINCOACH]]?
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned with the low Wikipedia-space contributions, as well a lack of contributions outside of [[WP:AIV]].  Also, you say you want to help edit protected templates, but I don't see many edit-protect requests or Template talk: edits.  And of course, I'd like to see some AfD/CSD work. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Gwynand, definitely not ready yet. --
'''Oppose''' Self-nomination, lack of wikipedia-space contributions, and poorly answered questions. Spend a little more time making contributions and think a little more about why you want to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' No need for me to ask any addtional questions here.  I can see from candidate's history that he does not have the maturity to handle the mop.  Q3 is particularly worrysome. This RfA also seems to be a close copy of [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Billy|his editor review from 2007]].
'''Oppose''' per Wsanders and others. --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' -- Contributor of encyclopedic breadth, shown good judgement, good person to collaborate with.
'''Support''' - as nom.
'''Support''' I supported the previous time and it was not a "weak" support. This time he has improved in all aspects, but adjectives in votes work like advertisements, so I'll refrain.
I have had the pleasure of editing alongside Biruitorul for a long while now. He is a highly competent, highly intelligent, and unmistakably gentlemanly contributor, who has the rare trait of actively seeking to build bridges between editors of all nationalities, creeds, and mainstream political opinions, with the evident goal of generating superior and well-balanced content. I, like others who have expressed support for him, share little of his views on politics, but I have never seen him seeping in any content that would have been solely favored by his political opinions (or any political opinions for that matter), and I have witnessed him actively collecting and introducing reliable sources of all colors and presenting them neutrally and informatively. I have also seen him removing content that did not fit with wikipedia's policies, regardless of its political POV (or of his supposed one). Whenever we did elaborate on our respective political options (which is how I got to know his), it was amiably, and only around the various topics we discussed on our talk pages (or a select few other talk pages), and certainly not in mainspace. In the process, I had the pleasure to discover that, although we could never agree on political issues, his opinions are by no means extreme (under any definition of the term), and his outlook on life is more tolerant than that of many users who declare themselves more to the center.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Strong opinions (in and of themselves) do nothing to harm the credibility of an admin candidate. These are the stuff of [[Wikipedia:WikiDragon|Dragons]], and with a level head make for great admins. I have minor reservations about edit summaries (sure you know why you made the edit, but what about the editor tracking down vandalism?) but it's not exactly disqualification material.
'''Strong Support.''' This was an RfA I was disappointed to see fail last time, I would support enthusiastically now.
'''Weak Support'''. Good user, good contribs, not 100% confident though. <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support.''' Biruitorul is one of the finest Wikipedians I've had the pleasure to work with in my year and a half on this project. He is a gentleman of exceptional intelligence, breadth of knowledge, integrity, honesty and diligence. His contributions are of a consistently high quality and his seriousness and dedication to this project can hardly be called into question. The complaints that his strong political opinions would be a detriment to his skill as an admin are ludicrous: in all the time I have known Biru, well over a year, I have always been struck by his ability to keep his personal views and his mainspace contributions separate. From the first time I encountered him (killing time by reading a freewheeling political discussion on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board) to our tentative early association (mostly bickering amicably about Székely autonomy at two in the morning) through various slings and arrows of Wikipedian drama and the arrival at our current status as trusted colleagues and close comrades-in-arms, I have never known him to be anything but civil, articulate and professional; the very few times he has lost his temper were only after ''significant'' provocation. Let me stress this again: ''in all the time I have known him, I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest that his personal opinions will in any way impair his effectiveness and trustworthiness as an administrator.'' (Indeed, I dare say he, the conservative nationalist, is a good deal more open-minded than many self-described liberal internationalists I know.) Those who oppose this exemplary contributor's candidacy for adminship based solely on his political opinions, I challenge you to present any ''evidence'' that a Romanian nationalist, and specifically ''this'' Romanian nationalist, is incapable of seeing far enough beyond his own proudly Dacian nose to be a successful admin. I think that, once you actually look beyond his userboxes and look at his contributions to this project, you'll have trouble justifying your fears. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''': We need more administrators from this part of the world.
'''Support''', as my experiences with him are always pleasent. However, this RFA is sadly going to fail, because that's the way RFAs on CE/EE editors end out - ethnic bickering. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great editor who are personally responsible for many awesome articles. I will always support good candidates who create articles, not permanent opposers who didn't created single thing. -
'''Weak Support''', edit summary usage (or lack thereof) is worrying, however there is no reason to believe this user would intentionally misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Comprehensive experience, admirable even-handedness, very unlikely to abuse tools. I find the oppose !votes based on a user's personal beliefs [[thoughtcrime|absolutely reprehensible]]. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' as per K.Lásztocska.  I have worked with Biru on many occasions and speak from firsthand experience.  Biru's ethnicity has demonstrably NOT hindered the quality of his contribution.  Biru has always offered up and been persuaded by reason.  Despite (per Sceptre) the notorious difficulty of Central European editors to avoid overheated debate (EE/CE is a very noisy pub), there are some very good Central European editors and this is one of them.
'''Support''' per above and even more due to my personal experience. This mop shall not be abused :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
<s>'''Support''' - good user, good contrib, fights vandals...what more could one want? Good luck --
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' a great mainspace editor, my interactions with him have been constantly positive. He has made many small edits and many important ones, showing that he his far from monothematic like quite a lot of Balkan-oriented editors. Personally, I also find him very polite, which is all the more remarkable in an area where uncivility tends to be pervasive.--
'''Support''' A fine editor, with vast knowledge, capability, a good attitude and experience. -
'''Support''' I feel he would use the tools correctly and responsibly. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' as nom.
Wow. Lastochka wrote such a good support that anything I can say would be redundant. '''Support''' per her. &mdash;
'''Support''' Given the transparency of his political views, I doubt that as an admin, Biruitorul would abuse the tools to further his own personal agenda. Also, I have put up [[Barthélemy Boganda]] for FA consideration now. Excellent work there, Biruitorul. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' After perusing your contributions and seeing your involvement with not only ''editing'' to Wikipedia but ''participating'' in Wikipedia related areas I feel comfortable supporting you and your use for the tools despite some of the concerns raised by the opposes below. --
Still have some reservations, but Joe as nominator and candidate's commitment toward edit summary usage persuades me. Hopefully, this will also underscore to some of his compatriots that I am not out to get them (EE is a minor area of editing for me, at any rate).
'''Weak support''' - seems ''OK''... —
'''Support''' A neutral editor on subjects that badly need neutrality.
'''Support.'''  I have found Biruitorul to be well-informed, open-minded and courteous.  He will be a still greater asset to Wikipedia in an administrative capacity.
'''Strong support''' &ndash; for similar reasons to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBiruitorul&diff=90826686&oldid=90804125 my support for his previous candidacy]. Although my political opinions are almost diametrically-opposing to his, I have found Biruitorul to be highly professional when it comes to editing articles in the main namespace. Furthermore, his emphasis on dialogue and co-operation represents a core competence required by admins. '''
'''Strong support''' &ndash; as per Nihil novi, K. Lásztocska and Ronline. --<span style="border:1px solid red;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support.''' per Nihil novi, K. Lásztocska. With regards to some of the "oppose" votes concerned over "natonalism", Biru's editorial conduct is always courteous, inclusive, and informed and is one of the finest examples of "nationalism" meaning: motivated, informed, and informing through reputable sources and edits and letting those sources do the speaking. Not "nationalism" meaning slanted, twisted, disreputable POV pushing of agendas that have their basis only in opinion. Let's stop using "nationalism" as if it's a dirty word. On concerns over admin tool abuse, as he has indicated he is open to recall, the editorial community does have recourse should his use of tools reflect bias. (I agree with Illythr.) —[[User:Vecrumba|PētersV]] ([[User talk:Vecrumba|talk]]) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)—
'''Support''' &ndash; Great contributor -
'''Support''' Sorry about that...that hadn't crossed my mind. Anyway, I'm glad we got that cleared up. (Just in case anyone asks, I'm discussing the comment on [[User_talk:Spencer|my userpage]]. <strong>
'''Support''' as per nom and Vecrumba
'''Strong support''' To reject a user with a record as good as this, who has hewed immaculately to NPOV while holding such strong opinions, would send an unmistakable message that some personal views are disallowed within the Wikipedia community, regardless of how a user conducts himself.  I recently left a question on his talk page, regarding a view he held, and received a prompt, polite, reasoned response within minutes.  A clear model of the type of editor whose personal passions drive him toward a greater respect and understanding for NPOV than most will ever possess.
'''support''' answer to Q9 has satisfied me that he will not abuse the tools to advance his POV; everything else satisfies me that he will not abuse the tools for the sake of being an asshole. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''strong support''' Biruitorul has proven time and time again that he has all the qualities required for a good administrator. He has encyclopedic knowledge. He has experience with Wikipedia and has demonstrated that he understands the spirit of Wikipedia as well as the rules. He has a sound judgement and was able to use it in discussing delicate issues, showing that he can keep a balance. I admire him, not only because he has strong views but because those views do not prevent him from using his reason. Wikipedia has nothing but to gain by having such administrators. I hope he is successful in his bid for a position for which he is overqualified and which he fully deserves.
'''Support''' You won this vote for your answers to Q13 and 14.
'''support''' on the basis of support given by others more involved in these topics whose judgments I trust here, especially Piotrus. '''
'''Support'''. I had a couple of arguments with Biruitorul in the past. He was  reasonable, fair and ready to listen.
'''Support'''. Imho the central issues are: (i) Will he use the tools wisely and (ii), is there any danger he might abuse the tools. My answer: (i): yes, (ii): no. Therefore I support. --
'''Strong support.''' Abrech said what I was going to say, no fair! Seriously, this editor in good standing may have a strong POV, but then so do most of us. He has shown for '''years''' that he is not an abusive POV pusher. Good faith doesn't even need to be assumed here; it has been amply demonstrated. --
'''Support''' per my stricken !vote below. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' good user. '''
'''Support.''' I believe the ideal NPOV is achieved within each editor, rather than through negotiation, and Biruitorul is one of the very few able to do that, despite having his personal political views. This ability to judge things impartially is --- or should be --- a highly valued quality for any editor and even more so for the admins. I read all the oppose comments and couldn't find any argument against giving Biruitorul the mop. He's is one of the finest editors I crossed paths with, he's knowledgeable and polite, he's admirably capable to work with others towards reaching consensus as well as accept a consensus he doesn't entirely agree with. He will certainly be a good admin, a model for other admins to follow, and an asset to Wikipedia. —
'''Support.''' A competent and courteous editor with a good sense of judgement and always ready to listen, he gets my full support.
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with having strong opinions as long as you don't transfer that into the article space, and I haven't seen any evidence of Biruitorul doing that.
'''Support''' - I like his answers, he appears to be a strong editor. I do, however, recommend that you set edit summary usage in your preferences, so that it alerts you when you've forgotten to place one. Edit summaries should always be used as a courtesy. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' - per Vecrumba.  And all the others also.  He would be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Wow, this one took a ''long'' time to research. Had to come and go to read more and think about it. While some concerns are semi-valid, I kept coming back to a support opinion. I made my decision when I read Pedro's observation: ''"Categorical evidence that he is likely to be over zealous with admin tools in his prefered editing arena has not been demonstrated."''. I believe this is true. Just keep vigilent about those edit summaries (even if you don't agree, be a good sport and humor the rest of us who ''do'' find them important) and you'll be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - main reason for oppose seems to be "user is Romanian". I really, really hope the closing bureaucrat takes this into account.
'''Strong Support.''' Balanced and true to sources rather then "political correctness".
Seems like a good editor.
Going based on what I've seen from him.
Bearing in mind the reasons for oppose, I do support this candidate, because I think I've seen much more good than bad. -- <strong>
'''Weak support''' - more plusses than negatives.
'''Support'''. Well answered. Salut,
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' All the comments I could add I already added when he was first nominated: even though his political views are completely opposite mine, he never got into a fight with me or any other Hungarians. He can be neutral, and that's the most important here. –
'''Support'''. I know his activity, he is a valuable contributor.--
'''Support'''.  Some of the oppose votes note the editor's strong POV.  I have no problem with strong POVs as long as neutrality is adhered to in edits (as well as admin actions).  The barometer that persuades me is El_C's vote, since he has experience editing on the other side of Biruitorul and finds him as trustworthy for this role. --
'''Support''', one of the best contributors on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Everybody's from somewhere, guys. An admin whose regional bias influences their official activities can and should be admonished, sanctioned, or de-sysopped, as necessary. However, I do not believe this candidate is likely to abuse the tools in that manner. I strongly urge the candidate to tread lightly in their admin activities, and to very deliberately avoid areas where there may even be the appearance of impropriety - we have plenty of admins, and handing off a tricky or regionally-controversial issue is no problem at all. Good luck,
'''Strong support'''. He is a very effective wikipedian and one of the most important and usefull members of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Romanian military history task force|Romanian Military history Task force]]. I'm confident that after he'll receive adminship, he will continue in this good manner. --
I want the crats to decide on this one.
'''Support''' per questions well answered and general contribution history.
-- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Oppose strongly''' despite I like the guy. We worked amicably on topics where the candidate's views were not involved but when the topics did touch his personal views, and those are pretty strong, they always came before the commitment to neutrality. I hope we will still get around all right when editing together but I can't trust that his strong opinions in certain content topics would not affect his use of tools. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - 5% minor edit summary usage in the last 150 edits, plus a MAJOR dropoff in activity from January to February.  Only 790 Wiki edits doesn't make me comfortable either.  I feel admins need to have near perfect edit summary usage since edit summaries are a VERY important aspect of being an admin.
'''Oppose''' - Edit summary is erratic. I don't mind lulls in activity on Wikipedia - people are busy in real life - but, your Wikispace edits are weak.
'''Oppose''' per Husond. Try again in a few months and I may support. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
A fi de acord cu Husond. <!-- Agree with Husond --> ''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>-> changed to '''Strong  Oppose''' (see below). Biruitorul I think it's fair to say "loves Romania a bit too much" for some users. Nothing wrong with patriotism, but in eastern European articles there are a large number of different areas where different patriotisms encounter each other in ways that often conflict. The question though is, would giving Biruitorui mopship be a responsible thing to do in this context? Well, I've found low comprehension of wikipedia naming conventions and false accusations of incivility [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIa%C5%9Fi-Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u_Offensive&diff=182883245&oldid=182820286 evidenced here]. The latter comment by Biruitorul nearly two months ago makes it difficult to have the faith that he could be trusted to interpret policy and guidelines objectively, or that he '''would''' be trusted by a significant proportion of the community. His comments there at [[Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive]] provide strong evidence that patriotism will at least sometimes get the better of him. I really hate to vote against him, as he has a decent record as a contributor and usually comes across as a likable guy, but I don't think it would be responsible to award him that role.
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABiruitorul&diff=196519357&oldid=196481713 an indirect evidence] that this admin is expected to "defend" certain areas from "bad guys" like [[User:El C]], [[User:Mikkalai]], [[user:Irpen]]. While I don't deny the feedom of Romanian editors to hate my guts and love their Motherland beyond rational bounds, <s>I will '''change my vote''' if [[user:Biruitorul]] explicitely pledges that they will not use their administrative tools in the areas of potential '''[[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]''': relations among Romania-Moldova-Transnistria-Hungary and the corresponding ethnic issues. </s>If someone starts getting any ideas, please take a note that I demand nothing from him in the context of [[Russia]].   `'
'''Oppose''' -- per Mikkalai and Irpen. --
Oppose in the weight of those comments above me.
Per above. '''
'''Oppose''' per Mikka and Irpen also per [[WP:TIGER]]. With my occasional bumping into the Romanian topics I saw a lot of incivility and have not seen an effort to accommodate both points of view when there is editing of controversial material. Also the fact that I had to give him a 3RR block to stop an edit war does show that the user has a problem with his temper. I think that civiity, willingless to see both sides of the story and the self-restraint in editorial actions are essential for a wikiadmin
'''Oppose''', per above.  Needs a bit more tempering before getting the mop.
'''Oppose strongly'''. The exchange with Mikka above again proves that this is one of those editors who have come to Wikipedia to prove a point. Rid it of communist propaganda, rid it of Russian propaganda, rid it of Lukashenko propaganda or whatever. Too many of those already with too much power is precisely the reason why we now have special rules about any edit connected to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. So draconic that I have recently refrained myself from deleting absurd POV from a seemingly innocent page like [[List of countries by formation dates]] and I am probably not the only one, the problem being that this situation is leading to a) the serious hard-working to desist more and more and to disappear from Wikipedia b) the unserious to add even worse fringe theory entries, which means we need even more admin work (ergo, more admins) and even more draconic anti-(add your location in the world)-POV arbcom decisions. A self-feeding mechanism.--
'''Oppose''', per above.
'''Oppose''' — I feel must over-ride my Wikibreak to voice my opposition to this RfA. I do not believe that Biruitorul will use the delete function appropriately. Although I do not have any problem with deletionist administrators, even going through very recent AfDs, this user does not understand the notability guidelines; he believes that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evans_High_School_%28Georgia%29&oldid=196929999 this school] having won state championship multiple times in many different sports is not notable, despite the multitude of sources that are available; he claims this is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evans_High_School_%28Georgia%29&oldid=196930050 trivial]. As well as nominating the above mentioned high school for deletion, he also nominated [[Greenbrier High School|another]], which also has won multiple state championships in baseball guaranteeing multiple reliable sources. A reason for the deletion of both articles was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evans_High_School_%28Georgia%29&oldid=196930050 "highly POV"] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenbrier_High_School&oldid=196930021 "absurdly POV"], a problem which in the case of both these articles is easily surmountable. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockingbird Don't Sing|this AfD]] also from today, [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT| I don't like it]] is given as the reason for deletion - indeed he says [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMockingbird_Don%27t_Sing&diff=197002596&oldid=196987781 "the film is quite banal and, because its presence here detracts from the project's seriousness, we should invoke IAR to eliminate it"]. I would not trust any admin that would delete an article on that rationale. The point of [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] is to improve the encyclopedia, not delete sourced encyclopedic information because we do not like it. At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEve_Carson&diff=196839366&oldid=196833939 this] AfD (although deletion may be the best solution) I am worried by his possible "delete first, ask questions later" attitude and combined with his interpretation of [[WP:IAR]], I am concerned that he may use extrajudicial speedy deletion of articles that he does not like or think are encyclopedic, even if they do not quite meet the CSD criteria. I am worried that over-zealous application of his own deletion criteria may result in [[WP:BITE|biting ]] by deleting a newbie's article, without giving due consideration to wheter it meets CSD criteria or not. Given that these comments were made within the last 24 hours, makes me very uneasy and unable to support at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Too problematic candidacy. --
'''Oppose''' Yikes! I regretfully oppose, because while this user appears to do well in certain topics, the charges regarding nationalism in articles are scary. The contribs presented are scarier. --'''
'''Oppose''' - Per above <small>(lame, I know)</small>.
'''Oppose''' Recent contributions to AFD indicate lack of clue.
'''Oppose''' per EJF. Please note that my oppose has absolutely nothing to do with nationalist concerns; I was ready to support before seeing the AfD links that EJF provided. I think it's quite impressive that this user has managed to conduct himself so well in an area that is known for its trolls and vandals. However, it's clear that there are policy knowledge gaps.
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns above about nominee's ability to remain neutral when applying policy. Need to err on the side of caution because recall and the other means to remove the admin tools sound far more accessible than they really are.
'''Oppose'''. I have steered off the English Wikipedia because of such confrontational editors, and I'm sure that many others have as well. As administrators their corrosive impact on the community will increase exponentially. --
'''Oppose'''. I thought about this one for a while, but the only conclusion I can draw is that I would be rather uncomfortable with this user having the tools. I don't like to object on a gut feeling, especially seeing that the candidate takes much care to keep his personal opinions where they belong: to himself. The candidate recognises that Wikipedia is not the place for his rather strong views on certain subjects, and that things here work by consensus. Yet still, I feel something boiling under the skin of the candidate, and have the feeling it may come out at the wrong time. Add to that the rather odd AfD diffs above, in combination with his answer to Q1 (mainly AfD), I am going to go with my gut feeling here.

'''Oppose''' per concerns above, particularly EJF. This user has improved, but should try rfa again later on. --<small>
'''Oppose''' Snarky comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Biruitorul_2&diff=197382510&oldid=197376304 this] during the candidate's RfA seem a foretaste of what is to come. I'm afraid at present I am unconvinced you have the correct temprament to be granted tools such as block and protect. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Oppose''' Seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of policy in regards to AfDs (as EJF & GlassCobra suggested) and seems a little more hostile than I'd like (as Dihydrogen Monoxide & Pedro & suggested). However, if I saw positive improvements, I may certainly support at a later date. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' - I'd no sooner have a committed nationalist (to ANY nation) as an admin than I would a user named [[KiddyDiddler666]]. It has nothing to do with my personal views, or my offended sensibilities - it boils down to the same argument that's behind 90% of [[WP:UAA]]: Wikipedia is not censored, but there are image concerns, and in my view having a committed nationalist in a public position is just as bad and embarrassing to the project as a user with a silly (or downright "obscene") name. The [[World War I]] raging on in the !votes above mine is a perfect example of the chaos giving this user the mop and bucket will cause. Do we really want the potential of this sort of juvenile shitstorm following any decision Biru makes (no matter how right his decision was)? I don't care who's in the right or who's in the wrong, there's just too much time-wasting drama surrounding this guy. --
'''Oppose'''. Quite a few negative things came up during this discussion, which is a bad sign already.
'''Strong Oppose''' Answer to question 19 is very very weak.  As an admin, a user should be able to think and make judgements. This users answer does not indicate that they can do the job. Sorry
'''Oppose'''. My personal experience suggests User:Biruitorul does not practice what he preaches.--
'''Oppose''' per comments above and observed responses.
'''Oppose''' per various comments above, especially the AfD comments. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose''', per his intentional baiting of Irpen above, on 11 March at 1:35. This kind of "zinger" (as he calls it) would see an increase by a power of 10 after tools were granted. No place for it.
'''Oppose''' (switched from neutral) I've thought long and hard about this (and lost a previous version of this when my computer crashed). I'm opposing for a variety of reasons, but mostly I'm unhappy with some AfD contributions. I also think that the candidate missed an opportunity to shine by remaining calm in this RfA. There has been a lot of heat here and whilst I wouldn't oppose based on what you've said here, you could have actually impressed by rising above it and it's a shame you didn't. Your supporters haven't helped, really, by keeping the temperature raised when responding to so many oppose !votes (note to them - a quiet word on talk pages is a useful option on occasion, as is greater selective ignoring of opposes) That said, I trust you on the serious bias allegations and think you're a credible and nearly ready candidate for admin. If this fails, I assume you'll learn from it and sail past next time. Either way, good luck. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I like most of what I see, but the neutrality is a big issue, and I see some evidence of it popping up.


'''Neutral''' Boy, Um wow. I don't know whether to trust my [[User:RC-0722#My Dictionary|metasense]] or not. This is tough. I a swiss for a day. '''''
'''Neutral''' Doesn't seem to me that user is interested in wikispace things, and in general from talk I have read, he can come across immature amd overly pedantic in unbalanced ways on certain topics, his respone to admin age limits sums it up.--
A very tricky one. I accept the points raised by Irpen and others, but without being an administrator I feel I must assume good faith that the candidate would use them appropriately (ie. probably not at all) in relation to eastern European articles. That being said, I'm very tentative about supporting this RfA overall.
'''Neutral''' RfA/B's are referendums on the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] that a particular candidate will use the tools appropriately and in accordance with wikipedia's policy's and guidelines. At this juncture, I cannot be certain that will occur, but I am not certain enough that it will not occur to oppose. Good Luck! --
'''Neutral''' I don't find the oppose reasons above compelling, but I don't feel comfortable supporting either.
'''Neutral''' per Avi. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose. <b>
'''Neutral.''' Im a bit worried about some of the things that some people have brought up (pedro and the edit summaries). The edits are good but Im still in the middle for this one, but I don't know why some people are complaining about a Romanian nationalist ecoming an administrator. <strong>
'''Neutral''', as per everyone's comments on top. '''''
'''Oppose''' only 400 edits. <span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">
'''Oppose''' - User doesn't seem familiar with key policies and guidelines (based on
Oppose with moral support. The one thing I really liked on a review of your edits was the box on your talk page with your username and the word '''"Editor"''' boldly sat underneath it. I'd like to recommend that you continue to wear that badge of honour with pride Bjaco18. To be an editor on this work '''''is''''' something to be very proud of. Any other "title" realtes to technical functions and is far less important than actually editing this project. Best of luck, and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Kindest Reagrds. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Oppose. You say on your user page that ''This user seeks adoption by an experienced editor.'' Anyone who has sought adoption in the previous few months shouldn't be an administrator. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking adoption, but we're talking about two entirely different levels of experience and confidence. Happy editing! --
'''Moral Support'''. I can't give you my full support at this time for a couple of reasons. Your work so far is great. Keep it up and you'll be an admin in no time. However, you don't have enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace. You'll need to get some more experience there ([[WP:AFD]] is a good place to start). Also, you need to use edit summaries more. They're very helpful in letting other editors know what you're doing and/or why you're doing it. Also, bonus points for being Filipino, I spent a couple years in [[Isabela (province)|Isabela]].
'''Moral Support''' (reccomending [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]) per Useight. Also, it wouldn't hurt to become more active in the project space, but you're off to a nice start. You're a good editor, don't stop what you're doing. :-) --
'''Support'''. User has good insight as a moderator and wiki owner, having learnt to set up and run wiki software by deploying wiki software onto own servers, as well as being appointed global moderator at a few forums.
'''Support''' I believe this Wikipedian is experienced and trust worthy enough. We need more admins here to support this every growing project. And, personally, I think lack of edit summaries is not that much of a big deal. As long as we'll have more antivandals, that's fine with me. And even yet, if he makes a mistake due to the "lack of experience" you people noted, that can still be reverted. [[Special:Contributions/Felipe Aira|<font color= "#FCD116"><b>--</b></font>]]
'''Support'''.  I admire your honesty; it is refreshing.
'''Support''' as he seems to have a reasonable understanding of inclusion criteria per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies]] (as an unfortunate note, in that XfD, [[User:Graevemoore|an account]] turned out to be a ban evading sock that apparently did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Strawberry_Shortcake_fillies&diff=213032497&oldid=212912758 influence] the discussion).  I also like that the candidate has pleased other users enough to receive [[User:Blakegripling ph#Barnstars.2FAwards]].  One suggestion, though, would be to avoid using words like "fancruft" per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Verdatum&diff=176061328&oldid=169950712 Verdatum].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' — self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per Bwrs. Also, you have done a nice amount of anti-vandalism work and get bonus points for editing [[User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures]]. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support.'''Per answer to my question.''
'''Oppose''' Seems well-intentioned but also seems not to understand fair use rules. Article summaries is woefully lacking and aside from AIV I don't see much of anything in Project space. Also concerned about the length and content of answers above. Just not ready for the mop.
'''Oppose''' His edit summaries are lacking (per above) or insufficient to convey what has been edited without looking/checking the article. Also, he has problems in (uploading) images (per talk page). --
'''Oppose''' - Candidate lacks the requisite experience in the project space, unfortunately they do not meet my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]. Also, per the laconic answers to the questions, especially number 1, which seems to signify a slight misunderstanding on what it means to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - Heart is in the right place, but I find the lack of edit summaries to be a negative. Also, lack of experience outside of mainspace is not the greatest. Recommend you spend 3 months or so working to address the issues brought up in this RfA and reapply.--
The answer to the first question seems particularly weak, IMHO, betraying a concerning lack of non-admin experience in what admin tools can bring to the party. This is enough to outway the generally otherwise fine help given to Wikipedia so far. No doubt a future administrator but needs to consider '''why''' they want the ability first. <b><font color="black">
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' The user is a good collaborator and a nice person. However, I think he needs more experience. I suggest hanging out more on the Xfd pages and improve on other weakpoints. I also suggest that you request an [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|admin coach]].--
'''Oppose''', sorry, way short of experience.
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' [[User:StewieGriffin!|'''<em style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">StewieGriffin!</em>''']]&nbsp;&bull; <small>[[User talk:StewieGriffin!|Talk]]
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you're not ready yet. In Q5 you said you would give someone a cool-down block. You are '''''never''''' suppose to give people cool down blocks. That question leads me to believe you would misuse the tools, though not on purpose. Try again when you get more experience, and I would gladly support you:-)--
'''Strong Oppose''' - fails the trick question as regards the cool-down block.  I can't see a valid reason why this user should have admin tools. This user could report vandals to AIV and tag new pages for speedy. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' You seem like a good editor, but unfortunately, you don't have enough all-around experience. You seem to lack experience in admin-related areas, notably. Your answers to those questions are also less than ideal.
'''Oppose'''. Seriously limited knowledge of some really basic policies admins should know. Certainly well-intentioned but I can't say I could trust this user with the tools right now. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' Answers don't fit what I am looking for. Question 5 to me is what pulled the trigger on this, and the lack of edit summeries worries me. I also strongely oppose the answer to Question 7.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, no. Not satisfied re "wants tools" v. "why and what for"
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Strong oppose''' - Per answer on cool-down blocks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Oppose per answers to #1, #2, #4, #5. Also per weak experience in most areas. Canvassing is also a problem to be considered.
'''Strong Oppose''' - cool down blocks Q&A.
'''Oppose''' per Q5, and the canvassing. And you might want to look at your answer to Q1: I wouldn't want someone correcting my grammar who makes a mistake as glaring as "It would be like, deleting pages..." [[User talk:Xenon54|Xenon]]
'''Strong Oppose''' Answers to questions are terrible, project space is lacking, and activity is shaky.--
'''Not yet ready''' Answer to question one suggests a lack of understanding of the role of the admin. One need not be an admin to copyedit and improve articles. I assume form the answer candidate intends to do work with speedy deletions. I found no speedy deletion taggings among the candidates deleted content. Contrarily, there are articles and images that were created by candidate that needed deletion. Not english is not a valid deletion reason. The thing to do is tag for translation. Answer to question 3 does not convince me that candidate understands dispute resolution process. I saw some unsuccessful AIV reports, so I'd like more experience in that area and a review of the blocking policies. Also, more experience Recent Changes patrolling. OOO, just saw answer 5. Definitely review blocking policies. Communication is essential for an admin. I would like to see 100% edit summary usage. You can set your "preferences" to require edit summary usage. Policy does not speak as strongly against canvassing as I think it should. Cheers and happy editing.
'''Oppose''' I can't tell why this user wants or needs the admin tools, which is relevant in the context of the answers to Q1 and Q5.
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim. --[[User talk:La Pianista|<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="LightSteelBlue"><sup>La</font></sup>]]
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q1 is weak, and answers to Q4 and Q5 are plain wrong. While we may well feel the temptation to apply a cool-down block, they must ''never'' be used. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - very bold, very honest, and I respect that a lot. But the necessary contributions of a potential admin aren't really up to scratch, and the answers to the questions are extremely vague, and display an all-round lack of knowledge about adminship and policy. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' Generally unready.
'''Oppose''' Cool down blocks. --<span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Question 5. Cool down blocks should ''never'' be used as per [[WP:CDB]]. Not quite enough experience yet but would be a good candidate in the future with more experience with our policies and more quality edits. Thanks,
'''Oppose with good faith''' I have faith that you have potential. However, you still need a bit more to be trusted with the admin tools judging from your answers. Good luck! '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' I think you have the heart, you just need a little bit more experience.  Don't many editors face the same problem their first time going for admin, myself included.  I'm sure in time you will be nominated for admin again!  Keep at it!  :)
I appreciate your desire to help out but your contributions to Wikipedia space - where familiarity with policy and procedure is demonstrated - is fairly thin.  Right now I don't have a lot to go on as far as judging your readiness for adminship, and I predict that most will be willing to oppose on the low edit count (which in and of itself does not bother me).  I would suggest withdrawing this nomination for now, get involved with some of the policy related areas of the encyclopedia and try again when you've had a chance to get a real feel for it :)
Right now, I'm neutral. Although two of your fellow Tambays oppose your adminisip, I'm here for moral support. Right now, I haven't made my decision per your adminship. For now, hope for the best. Sysop or not, you have done the best job of keeping Wikipedia away from pesky fanboys. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Neutral with moral support'''. In the meantime, just continue editing with good faith and neutrality.
'''Neutral''' I will not oppose at this time, although it seems that the candidate lacks experience and policy knowledge, based on answers to questions. If later on the outcome of this RfA is in doubt, I will come back and do more research.  <font color="006622">
'''Neutral with moral support''' Notwithstanding that both Efe and Lenticel oppose your nomination, and despite the fact that I stand by what I said in [[WT:TAMBAY]] that I frown upon self-nominations for adminship, I understand that this nomination was launched in good faith.  However, your tenure in Wikipedia by my standards is still too short (I've seen a lot go by in the last three years, believe me), certainly not long enough to have a proper working knowledge of the inner workings seeing from your responses to the questions above.  Being a forum moderator does not necessarily translate to qualifying as a Wikipedia admin.  In the meantime, as this RfA progresses, continue doing on what you do while I evaluate my position on your nomination in the long run. --
'''Neutral with moral support''' per Useight/SJP/Q5/[[WP:NOTNOW]].  I don't think you're ready for the tools, and I don't think your policy knowledge is up to the point I could trust you to use them wisely.  That said, I believe your heart's in the right place and you will get to the point you're ready for adminship if you follow the advice others have given you here.  I would love to support your next RfA, but I can't support this one, right now.  Best of luck.  &hArr;
'''Neutral''' Kumusta, Blake!  I appreciate your sincerity in wishing to assist Wikipedia, but I think you may need a little more experience before you can step up a level to administrator.  You may want to increase your level of activity and come back towards the end of the year.  Good luck!
Sorry, I'm not very impressed by your answers to the questions. Agreeing with others, I think you just need a little more time so you can gain some experience. Read up on some policy, enforce policy when you can, and continue doing what you normally do. Please do try again later when you believe you are ready. --
'''Neutral'''.  [[WP:CDB|CDB]] is a big issue, but I think that in a few months you would be ready for adminship. Take a look at [[WP:ARL]].  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support.''' Long history of good edits, no concerns, vandal hunting++, looks good. Um, ignore the nom... not sure many people's 5th edit is to nominate someone for admin... I'll ask a question about it, but will support unless something is obviously awry here. <b>'''
'''Support''' I'm not seeing anything that would give me pause. Long history of positive contributions, never blocked, deleted contribs show he understands CSD; looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' — Does anyone remember that discussion we just had on [[WT:RfA]] about not depending upon the nominators? The candidate looks good, has an understanding of policy and a flawless block record. Let's go! —'''
'''Support''' Well, what isn't right here? That the community didn't manage to propose and compile a decent nomination for Blanchardb or that xe accepted the first that came along? I know him from CSD and (I think) also from AIV without - as far as I remember any report or tag where I felt it necessary to raise an issue and would trust him further.--
'''Strong Support''' 28,500 edits and no blocks would be enough for my support, but I've looked through your edits to [[Prayer]] and I like the way you are editing neutrally - bringing in and defending other religious viewpoints despite your user page making it clear that you have a particular and strong religious orientation. I think you could have perhaps made it clearer on this page [[User talk:Blanchardb#Adminship?|the spirit in which you accepted this unusual nomination]], and I'd suggest you check the box that prompts you to always leave an edit summary, but neither of those alter my opinion of your candidacy. Good Luck '''
'''Support''' This is actually pretty interesting, as it raises the question of how important the nominator/nomination (or lack thereof) is.  My vote indicates my feelings on this matter.
'''Support''', as the nature of the nominator no longer seems to be an issue, and aside from that [[:User:Blanchardb]]'s contributions appear to be very good. '''
'''Weak support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], but I am a bit concerned about accepting a nom from a vandal.  Best of luck!
'''Support''' with qualms about nominator. The candidate seems good...but considering this may come under review, I want to make it clear that it is the candidates history/clean record and not the nominator that influenced my vote. --
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blanchardb&diff=next&oldid=255570450 The vote fixing seen here].  Okay, so he's been here for 14 months.  In now way is that an excuse to try and vote-fix your RfA.  If this comment gets removed, I'm going to add it back in, but in that, it only shows that this user shouldn't be an admin if he tries to win through fraud.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Sandahl|Sandahl's]] comment in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blanchardb&oldid=255648841#Neutral neutral section (#8)]. —
'''Tentative oppose''' - Sorry, but I agree with Daedalus on this one, removing that comment tips it slightly over the bar for me. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - I don't understand why you would accept this nomination.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but even if the nominator has nothing to do with you (which I believe) it shows incredibly bad judgement to accept a nomination of this kind.  I'm sure in a few months you'll be ready enough that someone will nominate you, you already have decent edits as it is. --
I'd like to know if Blanchardb has any connection to [[User:JRH95]] (his nominator, who has a grand total of 13 edits) before I post an opinion on the matter. However, it's fair to point out that Blanchardb has been here almost 14 months and has never been blocked, which is always a selling point.
'''Neutral''' would be inclined to support except that I have to question the judgement of someone prepared to accept a nomination from someone with so few edits. I'm hoping for a plausible explanation.
'''Neutral''' This is ridiculous. Blanchardb is a fine user, but being nominated by [[User:JRH95]], who currently still has 13 edits, and ''already'' knows about RFA, adminship, vandals etc. If he is an old IP user, I would not be suprised. <s>but if he created an account just to nominate ''a random great user,'' (Sorry, I don't mean to accuse you, but assuming [[User:JRH95]] is not a sockpuppet)</s> I think the reason this user is nominated is toget some support votes for his own RfA. (See [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JRH95]]) For the reasons above, I would immediatly oppose, but the questions answers and your previous contribs are very helpful, so I didn't do that. Also, this user is nominate only "for waging war with WikiVandals." Not good enough in my standards.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose, although I'll have to think about this a bit more. As noted above, the nominator [[User:JRH95]] has a total of 13 edits and their main contribution so far seems to have been to push[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=255563678] the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Normally, the reputation of the nominator should not have much to do with considering the candidate, but this is rather an extreme case. Accepting the nomination from this kind of a user raises substantial questions about the candidate's judgement.
'''Neutral, with regrets''' I am familiar with the candidate, and last month I gave him a barnstar in appreciation of the fine work he has done.  But I am greatly bothered that he would blithely accept the RfA nomination from someone whose presence and activities are raising too many questions -- he seems completely unperturbed that a supposedly new editor would abruptly show up and offer to put him in the RfA spotlight.  Really, what's wrong with that picture? In my opinion, the candidate's judgment raises a concern, and at this point in time I am unable to offer support.
'''Regretfully Neutral''': I have noticed Blanchardb's editing, particularly in vandal fighting. In fact I was under the impression that he was already an admin. I'm sure he is not sockpuppeteering, I'm inclined to believe that [[User:JRH95]]is a new editor who is obviously interested in vandal fighting and decided to nominate a "pro" he just noticed. But the hasty acceptance of this nomination is making me think twice. Shouldn't you have considered a little about who is nominating you, what kind of an editor it is? Careless mistake? We can't have any hasty decisions (and mistakes) such as this from someone performing admin tasks.
'''Neutral'''  Just a quick look at the nominators talk page raises a red flag. Not to say that it's the candidates fault but, I have to question why accept the nomination from a user with so few edits and a questionable history, something isn't right here. —
'''Neutral''' I've seen this user around Wikipedia: vandal-fighting, CSD, excellent work. However, when I noticed that the nominator has very few edits, providing the link by Daedalus, the made me pause a little.
Weak '''support'''. If I was reviewing your contributions and I didn't know you, I'd probably be weak-opposing, to be honest; however, from all I've seen of you at the assorted transport infrastructure projects where we intersect, you seem to have a good balance of when to look for consensus, when to be bold and when to admit you're wrong. If you do pass, I very very very strongly urge you ''not'' to get involved in deletions, and especially not CSDs, until you've a lot more experience; your opinions on what is and isn't notable aren't as accurate as I think you think they are, and from a skim through your deleted contribs, you've virtually no successful speedy-tags.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Weak Support''' nothing wrong on the face with this user, and the fact that he plans to work in underadmined DYK? furthers my support. However, I would like it if you elaborate what incidents that you acted poorly in. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Weak support''' based on what I've seen.
'''Support''' due to no negative interactions.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' No concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' they helped me while I was being accused of bad mouthing the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, when I did nothing.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, too soon. You appear to be a great editor though. Not enough edits in general at this time, as well as to ANI/AN/wt:RfA etc.
'''Weak Oppose'''. I have a few concerns. For one, if you're currently being admin coached, it would've been much better to wait a little longer and have your admin coach nominate you when he/she thought you were ready. Secondly, I don't think your mainspace work is enough yet. You do have just over 500 edits there, but over a third of them are on a single article. Not a terrible thing, just kind of strange. I also thought [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Railway%2C_Butterley&diff=prev&oldid=211893828 this edit] was a bit much.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience, especially with preparing the next update for DYK. Keep preparing some DYK next updates over the several months to prove yourself like [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] did and I'll feel different. (DYK... that some people find it distasteful to respond to every comment to you in an RFA, right?) '''<font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Admin coachee, self-nom.
'''Oppose''' I'd probably had supported if you'd made some kind of mention about [[WP:TUK]] or your other projects, but you didn't. Iridescent said below that you practically run the place yourself, and it sounds a bit like you're going to abandon it.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Low number of edits and not to enough articles.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience all around, would have liked you to have waited for a nomination by your coach, and (for once in my life) per Kmweber.
'''Weak oppose''' - Was going to support per [[WP:WTHN]], but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=194440458&oldid=194429102 this] and the 6th vote (the latter not so much, as you have been quite open to a checkuser, it seems) have me worried. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''', like others I'd like to see more editing experience under the belt, including having been a registered editor for at least a full year and a great deal more edits, particularly in the main space and in the areas he's expressed an interest in working in. It doesn't appear he has finished his admin coaching yet either, and jumped the gun on this self nomination.  Issues with civility and editor disputes are too recent, to me, to show that he'll be able to deal with the contentions (and nastiness) admins often encounter. All in all, I just don't feel he's ready yet.
'''Oppose''' looks like he has barely begun admin coaching and has decided not to wait.  I fully support Admin Coaching when it is done right, but if you accept a coach, then there are certain expectations---for example, waiting for the coach to give you the green light to run.  Looks as if BG was too impatient for that.  Additionally, his edit count/history is very minimal and what he does have is captured in a single silo.
<s>'''Oppose'''- You haven't answered some key questions, and the current answers to the ones you have answered I feel leave something to be desired. I support admin coaching too, however he fact you decided not to wait, I feel is a poor decision, for that reason I'm opposing. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Weak Oppose''': Not ready yet. Very less experience. Only ONE DYK contribs as of now. You should initially help other DYK Admins by  particpating in [[Template talk:Did you know]] , helping to verify source / Length , before putting them on [[Template:Did you know/Next update]] . Most of your DYK edits on [[Template:Did you know/Next update]] and [[Template talk:Did you know]] page is just a few days old , which makes me feel , you suddenly realised that DYK is a laddar to Adminship ? :D . I dont believe you are socking [[User:Shanner191|Shanner191]] , But have you annoyed someone recently , who wants to create such a bad impression for your RFA ? BTW please dont nominate RFA with the expectation to fail. And You didnt even inform your Coach , that you have self nominated for  RFA ? :|  My personally suggestion is that your should  try for RFA after some time. -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Oppose with moral support''' - Not enough experience. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Neutral'''.  I think you should have waited for your coaches to nominate you first.  Right now you are not ready.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral, possibly going towards Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't think your ready for adminship just yet. You've been here for a good amount of time but you need some more quality edits. I see over 500 mainspace edits, most of which is on one article but I don't think your very experienced yet in project space, mainspace, and in different areas of wikipedia. Continue your admin coaching and maybe until someone nominates you. But your doing good so far. Cheers. --
'''Neutral''' - You seem to be a good editor, but I'm afraid there are experience issues/concerns. Also, I'm a little perplexed as to why you are self-nominating while undergoing admin coaching.
'''Neutral''' - I appreciate your help on DYK today, but I never saw you before.  You seem you may make a good admin, but I just don't know enough about you yet.--
'''Neutral''' - Sorry, not enough information to base a "support" vote, keep working towards that goal however, and coaching is a great place to start - they should nominate you when they think you're ready. Also half of your mainspace edits seem to center around a  few article.
'''Neutral''' You're on the right [[Rail tracks|track]] but I can't really vote support just yet. I have seen some good editorial work from you but not enough administrative type work. Keep up the good work and kudos for promising us you'll come back if you fail.
'''Neutral''' -- Not yet ready, come back in a few months. --
'''Neutral''' one should not self-nominate with an expectation of failure.
'''Neutral, leaning oppose:''' Still have some serious concerns here, but I'll wait for a response for the remaining questions. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Neutral'''.  I probably would support if you had a more positive outlook on this RfA.  Also, I don't think you're that experienced in policy enforcing or article writing either.  Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' with only 60 edits there is not enough evidence for us to judge how well you know Wikipedia's policies and whether you have the right temperament to fairly apply them. I suggest you get at least 2500 edits over several months before trying an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Best luck,
'''Oppose''' - Can't judge. lack of experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''Far too inexperienced.

Thanks for your interest, but I must '''oppose''' due to lack of experience. Pleaes also consider using capitalized letters where appropriate.

You have no edits outside this request. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' WP:Baseball participant.--
'''Support''' Yeah sure.
'''Strong Oppose'''; According to the edit counter you've got >6 (I can't give an exact number, it only shows the 10 most popular) contributions to the WP space such as AfD's; this implies little or no (closer to no) experience participating in a section you say you want to work in with the admin tools. In the last 2000 edits you've participated in ''one'' article for deletion. Not only does this imply experience but it implies you have no need for the tools; most of your work seems to be in WP:BASEBALL and similar doing maintainance and article work, not admin-related areas. I'm also a bit worried (although I appreciate support/oppose votes can have many reasonings) by the support votes; "yeah sure" and "WP:BASEBALL participant" don't seem to be good reasons (to me) to hand over the banhammer.
'''Oppose, verging on strong oppose''' pretty much per Ironholds. You cannot say you're going to work at AfD when your activity there is less than occasional. Oh, and for the record, I'm not counting the two AfD's since Ironholds oppose. As has been said in the past few unsuccessful RfA's, "you shot yourself in the foot on this one". I'm also strongly worried by the support votes, they offer little rationale. In short, I'm not sure you have the need for the tools (poor argument I know) but I can't even be sure that you're a net positive by your lack of admin-related activities. Keep up the good article work though, I like article creation. Just a little more activity in admin areas would be nice. —'''
'''Oppose'''- Per Ironholds. You say you want to work in AFD's, but I see little work in that area. I really don't see that you need the tools. Sorry.
'''Support''' Looks good. Solid contribs and enough experience in mainspace. Could use more edit summaries for minor edits, but that's no reason to oppose so good luck. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Support'''. I'd have probably supported anyone in the US military anyway, but having come across this editor during the [[Jim Bowie]] FA I'm doubly inclined to support. --
'''Support'''  Solid contributions, but could be more diplomatic.  ..
Moral support. Pile-on-opposing at this stage is not necessary. I'd agree that more experience in projectspace could benefit the candidate, but the current ratio (as of this comment) of 3 supports and 15 opposes seems like a wildly unjustified (albeit typical) RfA pile-on cluster-fuck. This is not a totally new or inexperienced newbie, s/he has more than 6.000 edits since February last year. '''
'''Support''', that's probably some of the most inoffensive canvassing I've seen here.  Supporting to avoid the pile-on, and to encourage the user to come back in a couple of months, without the silly canvassing I feel you'll sail through RfA.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Answer to Q1 is vague. No evidence of experience in the admin-oriented areas where the tools would be used, such as vandalfight and related blocks. The amount of friendly notices advertising this RFA is also not very positive. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Answer to question one doesn't inspire confidence when I am already unsure of your admin-related experience. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - user has been canvassing this RFA.  [[:Image:Kyle Field Expansion.jpg|Apparent lack of understanding of WP:NOR]] --
Recently licensing a image from the web as your own [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABQZip01&diff=176313763&oldid=176067567], not knowing the process to delete images [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AB&diff=176471255&oldid=176303913], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding/Definition&diff=prev&oldid=181572028 this comment]: "FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE INDENT YOUR COMMENTS!!!", ridiculous canvassing[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BillCJ&diff=prev&oldid=182665626] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Texink&diff=prev&oldid=182665477] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ntmg05&diff=prev&oldid=182665446] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hut101&diff=prev&oldid=182665415] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fnlayson&diff=prev&oldid=182665585], as well as unsatisfactory answer to Q1 makes me unable to support this request. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. This user seems to have a number of contributions to articles and is a good article writer. However, I can not say that I see particular need for the admin tools. Your Q1 answer does not instill much confidence, but when combined with the fact you have little AIV experience, it makes me nervous. The canvassing mentioned above does not help. So while I thank you for your contributions, I can not support at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
Oppose per egregious WP:CANVASS violations. <sup>
'''Oppose''' for using WP as a [[User:BQZip01/AggieTrip|free web host]] --
Moral Support <font color="blue">
'''Oppose''' Just not ready for the tools yet.
Apart from canvassing, agree with above - just not ready yet. Suggest withdrawing. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Regretful Oppose''' - I don't feel my questions were answered in a good way. I was kind of asking for processes which require admin assistance ([[WP:AFD]]/[[WP:RFPP]]). You just said you plan on banning and blocking, without saying where these banned and blocked users were found ([[WP:AN/I]]). Sorry :(
'''Oppose'''. He's too likely to fly off the handle in an argument, even in circumstances where consensus is on his side, in my experience. As a side note, I found this RfA after seeing canvassing on a bunch of user talk pages I have watchlisted. --
'''Oppose'''. Saw the canvassing, understand that it was delicately worded to avoid the appearance of any votestacking, still don't like it. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">
Unfortunately this user hasn't showed enough experience with Wikipedia's processes and policies, nor demonstrated an ability to apply discretion to a level which is required by an administrator, for me to support. Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' I don't feel that this user knows what adminship is, especially after the answer to Q1. Also, user was canvassing. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Regretful oppose''' - I think you're a great editor, but you need to fine tune a lot of areas just a little. I don't think the things you need to enhance are things you should be doing "on the job" as an admin. You need to understand mediation and civility policies above all else before coming up here. Your contributions are fine indeed, but not in the way that an administrator needs to display. Put your head into some policy and contribute to reporting vandals and do some monitoring at the page protection board. Once you've become thoroughly familiar with these things - the areas you advised you with to contribute to - and expand the general application of your skills, you should reapply, but I wouldn't recommend reapplying in the next three or four months. Head down, arse up and do these things, and you'll breeze through next time. --
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - too much opposition with legitimate concerns. Needs more experience.
Based on the above, is not in tune with the Wikipedia community yet.  May be ready someday, but not today.  '''''
Doesn't have much experience in admin related areas, and some possible canvassing has been going on.
I've been on your case to reassess you position on my ongoing FAC, and so far have only gotten a busy tone. If I have to pester you constantly to return and update your comments at FAC I have to wonder how open you will be to getting back other users at who will ask for your help or for a redress of greivences when you become an admin. In your defense, you have done a good job of editing the encyclopedia, and we do need more vandalism patrolers, and I am open to eassessing this if you can provide a good, reasonable, honest answers to my concerns. Also, I highly recommend that you leave this open for the entire time allotted, nearly every oppose vote you get will come with advide on how to improve, and since these are not deleted when completed you can constantly revisit the page to make sure that you are making the suggested changes.
''changed from oppose'' - I've revisited the canvass issue, and to avoid a pile-on about it, I've changed to neutral. My other comments, the low (mid-60s)% edit summary usage for minor edits, and the fake message bar on the userpage, still stand. (Please remove that bar, it confuses me every time). -'''
'''Neutral''' I don't feel this editor is yet experienced enough for the mop. I would like to see some more time doing admin-related functions as well as a demonstrated ability to think for oneself. It's one thing to be able to look up and quote wikipedia policy - it's another thing to have to make decisions in the gray areas around policy.
'''Neutral''' - As someone who has worked with BQZip on a number of occasions since he joined Wikipedia  early last year, I cannot in good conscience give an ''Oppose'' vote just because of the supposed "canvassing" accusations. How else was I supposed to know this witch-hunt was going on? I don't watch admin-related pages for stress-reduction reasons. In spite of having had many contentious arguments with BQZ, we have still been able to form a good working relationship. He is cabable of being relentless when needed, especially in fighting vandals, trolls and crufters. Of one thing I am postivley certain: BQZip will not mistake good editors for vandals and trolls, and harrass those good editors while ignoring the real problems users involved. My main objection to him becoming an admin ''at this time'' is two-fold: One, he has only recently begun abiding by 3RR, as he himself eloquently stated. As someone prone to revert quickly myself, I too have had to throttle back by reversions, and work on implementing the "Be bold-revert-discuss" guideline in more situations. Two, I believe he has stated that he will be entering an extended period of training in his non-Wiki-world job. As such, I'm not sure he can devote the time necessary to handle the admin duties required. In short, I do believe he has the makings of a good admin, as I would say with anyone with US military training, especially an officer. I believe he just needs a little more time to apply that sort of discipline to his Wikipedia work, and to address some of the minor issues raised by other editors here. -
'''Neutral'''.  The Canvass accusations coupled with the lack of experiences in admin related activities are too worrying to support.  '''
'''Support'''. Administrators have to be able to inspire trust, and BQZip01 does that for me, even though I may not agree with everything he's done or said. --
'''Support''' I see no compelling reason not to give the candidate the tools.
'''Support''' I don't see a reason why he  shouldn't be an administrator.
'''Weak Support / Moral Support''' &mdash; [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomStar81 2|I think you made the same mistake I did]], but I will not hold it against you. I think you need a little more paitents in your pursuit of greater responsibility, but I have seen your capacity to remain cool in the face of heated debate and your willingness to meet others half way, therefore I offer my support for your rfa and moral support should this one fail.
'''Support.''' Just do it. Solid candidate.
'''Weak support''' - User:Dreamafter says it's been less than a month since the last RfA. However, he seems solid in other aspects, including his ability to maintain his cool when he is in a heated dispute.
'''Support''' - No reason to assume any problems with this editor. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]]
'''Support''' - He and I are both involved in the Waterboarding arbitration case, and his comments there demonstrate level-headedness and a sound understanding of NPOV. I have no issue with the short lapse of time between the two RfAs; IMO the previous RfA should have passed anyway, and even if he wasn't ready then, he certainly is now.
'''Support''' Although the opposers raise some valid points, I believe nom has learned from prior mistakes and will do OK. That said, I will mindlessly add, "when in doubt, ask".
'''Support''' My persona interactions with this editor have been positive and I have no reason to oppose or remain neutral.--
'''Support'''.  The ''wait three months'' "rule" is for admin candidates that don't have enough experience in my opinion; Also in my opinion, it's not for those that get caught up in RfA rule creep (and over a rule that isn't a rule no less, and does not have a ''written'' consensus anyway, as you point out).   You have the experience and ran into opposition based on the ''RfA process'', and not on your contribution history, which is excellent.  There is no evidence that you will abuse the tools, therefore I am happy to support your self-nom.  The horrible irony here is that you were first opposed on a technicality, and now you're opposed on the technicality of not waiting long enough since that technicality?  Ick.
support. Splendid article contributions and ability to collaborate outweigh any other lack of experience concerns. Opposing simply because it is "too soon" is just instruction creep. My only plea would be that the candidate remember that this is a free content encyclopedia and take much better care ofver copyright issues on images. But I will AGF that that lesson has been learned.--
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]
'''Support''' as per Triona.
'''Support''' for the same reasons that I did last time.  I advise waiting at least a couple of months before your next try, though.
'''Strong Support''' I have found this editor to be a calming and concerned voice of reason. In a disagreement between myself and another, far more experienced editor, BQZip01 stepped into the fray and was the voice of wisdom and moderation. His Adminship would be very positive for Wikipedia. He is an excellent example of all that is and can be good about Wiki.
'''Moral Support''' Thank you for helping at [[WP:SSP]].  You may also want to spend time at [[WP:COIN]].  That's a fine place to learn admin skills. Come back in four months, and you should pass.
'''Support''' Per previous interactions with the user. ''Hook 'em''
'''Support''' BQZip has shown he is dedicated to making Wikipedia what it should be and is continuing to learn as, hopefully, we all are. I think this second RfA coming so quickly after the first is just an indication that he is willing to learn from his mistakes (namely [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|possible canvassing]] in this case) and get back on task. →
'''Support''' - His RfAs seem to implode, because he falls into RfA's recursive traps, but we should look past that.  He has a "do it, fix it, try it" mentality, he genuinely cares about Wikipedia and the people in it, and he's resilient.  These will make him a fine admin.  He needs more familiarity with this community's [[Idiosyncrasy|idiosyncrasies]], and this will come with time.   '''''
'''Encouragement'''. See it as a chance to practice a little more and be definitely back to collect your mop when you're fully prepared.
'''Support''' Good user. -
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Oppose''', sorry to be the first to comment, and an oppose at that, but it has been less than a month since your last RFA, I don't see that as long enough to wait. Again, sorry, and you do not have a lot of admin related tasks, and [[WP:FAC|FAC]] doesn't require you to be an admin. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Oppose''' 20 days is not enough time for me to judge improvement from the problems that had arisen from the previous RfA. Sure you may have improved within the time, but I wish to see consistency in the improvement for a few months, not a few weeks. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' poor policy understanding demonstrated at [[Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_7#Image:Kyle_Field_Expansion.jpg]]. --
'''Oppose''' per above concerns.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' not been long enough since the last RFA and the comment up the top "''Several people opposed because of "a vague answer to" Question 1, without bothering to ask any additional questions''" to me suggests a lack of civility
'''Oppose.''' I don't believe this user would abuse the tools. However handling of image copyright issues as noted above and a second self-nom so soon after the last one prevents me from adding support at this time. [[:Image:5lq2jj15.gif]] uploaded last May exemplifies the image problem. It was uploaded as PD-US with very little details as to author, date or other important details. Then 2 minutes later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:5lq2jj15.gif&diff=128866295&oldid=128866094 this] edit reveals it is an Associated Press photo and "needs to be deleted", but the PD tag was not removed and the image was never deleted, though I recently tagged it as missing source and license. That image should have been tagged immediately by the uploader and deleted months ago. A half dozen or so other images were uploaded with very little captioning information, though they were PD-USGov images, they did not provide sources or author information. [[:Image:MC-130W2.jpeg]] and [[:Image:MC-130W.jpeg]] appear to be the same image, uploaded twice, and originally captioned with only "MC-130W image from www.af.mil" and "from www.af.mil" not giving proper credit to the photographer US Air Force Captain Andy Biro. [[:Image:V-22 main engine closeup.jpg]] was uploaded as a government image sourcing himself. The image is a cropping of [[:Image:Osprey at Pensacola.jpg]] which was PD by User:Jacobst, but the cropped image did not link the original and the author not mentioned as a courtesy. Even after the fuss over images at the last RFA, these problems were not corrected prior to this RFA. --
'''Oppose''' I still have the same concerns as I did 3 weeks ago.
Oppose per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01]].
'''Oppose''' Only three weeks since last RfA is not enough. Please wait at least three months and try again when you're ready, and I will support. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - -you seem like a good editor on the whole but the image issues mentioned above bother me, as do some issues from the 1st RFA - I need a longer period of time to be sure of your familiarity with policies. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm impressed by the FA work, but I think a self-nomination only 3 weeks after a failed RfA and while subject of an [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding|ArbCom case]] shows overeagerness and bad judgement. I also find [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop#WP:NPOV_supersedes_WP:FRINGE_and_WP:UNDUE|this statement]] a reason for concern. --
'''Oppose''' for continuing to use WP as a [[User:BQZip01/AggieTrip|free web host]]; you haven't read and taken in everything from your last RfA just weeks ago.  --
'''Oppose''' <s>Please don't give the mop to an idiot (no offense to candidate).  At best it is a waste of a mop.[[User:VandleBlaster|VandleBlaster]] ([[User talk:VandleBlaster|talk]]) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</s> What I meant to say was: The candidate appears to spend more time in arbitration trying to win points than he does trying to resolve the problems.  My apologies to those offended by my 1st edit.  Corrective action was administered on my talk page.
Doesn't understand the issues with his Kyle Field image beyond fair use (the image was clearly original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia).  Administrators need to know image policy.
'''Oppose''' on a wide range of important issues. This user took personal issue with edits I made to [[Kyle Field]] and, to this day, continues to undo any changes I make to that article so that his [[WP:OWN|edits remain permanent]]. In response, this user (both as an IP and as user) made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_8&diff=183498211&oldid=183445884 several] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cumulus_Clouds&diff=prev&oldid=183496033 edits] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Q._Schmidt&diff=next&oldid=183497514 in] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Q._Schmidt_%28actor%29&diff=185501166&oldid=185487177 opposition] to my own, which touched off a lengthy dispute between several of the editors involved. User is fiercely protective over articles he has edited and generally opposes the inclusion of any information he deems insulting or derogatory towards his [[Texas A&M University|alma mater]]. Before he made this RfA, user deleted image [[:Image:TCEH.jpg]], which he used to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BQZip01&diff=186749192&oldid=185608366 demean] [[Texas Tech University|Texas Tech]] on his user page. User still maintains a list of demeaning terms for neighboring colleges on his user page, among them "tech tards, sand fleas." User selectively employs various protocols (like [[WP:AGF]]) when it suits his argument, but does not appear to have an appreciation of what these things mean. User (as IP) has also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt&diff=184265851&oldid=184225568 stated his support] for the unblock of a prolific sockpuppeteer as long as he "renounced his behavior." This does not reflect the behavior of an administrator and he would not have my confidence in that capacity.
'''Oppose:''' Possibly the most important quality an admin must have is good judgment, followed closely by intimate knowledge of Wikipedia custom and practices.  Anyone putting in/agreeing to an RfA ''three weeks'' after the last one is guilty of lacking either or both.  Three ''months'' would be well to the left of too soon.
'''Oppose''' Having read this thread to date, I'm sure RFA is stressful but BQZip01 is "certainly aware that appearances matter" and yet is becoming quite argumentative before even being challenged over an admin decision. "I saw little reason to wait 3 months", "you aren't the boss of me and you don't make the rules" - I've only been watching RFA for a few months and I've gotten the drift that consensus is to wait three months to try again, more importantly, make sure that you've solidly addressed ''all'' the objections before the next go-round. Surely addressing the concerns of the community with logic and brevity is better than arguing about what "isn't really a rule". Using the police analogy doesn't really help either, remember cops only ''lay'' charges, it is the judge who pronounces sentence; admins are often cops but always judges. Furthermore, what is wrong with testing your patience? Is that not an important quality in a prospective admin?
'''Oppose''' per many reasons above. Not does only a new self-nomination so soon after the previous RfA show questionable judgment, it shows insufficient patience, and we need both from our administrators. Also, I should think that someone who says he wants to focus on 3RR would have been more involved with 3RR reports along the way.
'''Strong Oppose''' Moving from neutral. Sorry, BQZip. Your very argumentative and overly procedural take on everything here has soured me on this a little bit, along with the "your not the boss of me" commentary, and this constant tone of admins being authority figures or cops, in a sense. Worship of policy for the sake of policy is, in a word, stupid. But arguing extensively over things that by reading a dozen or two failed repeat RFAs is obvious is just bizarre. RFA is a dog and pony show, but thats what it is. Looking more at your contribs and tone you seem to be always ready to leap headfirst into a lawyerly, overly legal and procedural defense. Common sense is what drives us, the whole "IAW" and Law Of The Land thing--no offense--is the way things work in the military, having known many, many, many, many military men myself, but not here. Rules are nothing more than what someone ''happened'' to write down as a record of generally accepted practice. They're not binding rules, like a US Penal Code or military code. Societal norms, however, do tend to be enforced more than rules here. In fact, I'd wager that societal norms are more important than rules. How you conduct yourself is of 100 times more value than how you dotted your Ts, filled out your RFCs, and formatted the I's on your citations. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Opppose''' per previous RfA, lack of experience, and no showing in his edits or his edit summaries that he had the necessary qualifications for be an administrator. He has shown [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues over any articles related to [[Texas A&M University]], and often seems unwilling to listen to or consider the views of other editors.  While he allowed my removal of the A&M seal from the A&M article to stand, so far, someone aiming for adminship who mostly focuses on university articles should have recognized the problem earlier, and not needed to have a [[Talk:Texas A%26M University#Seal double explanation]] as to why we should have not official university seals up in articles, and should have a better understanding of image related issues.  He also seems quick to assume bad faith, as shown in a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggie Bonfire leadership|current A&M related AfD]] and the whole issue with [[Kyle Field]], and does not show signs of having the patience or necessary skills to handle disagreements in a diplomatic fashion.  Perhaps with more experience (and waiting more than 3 months), he will grow into an admin ready editor, but I do not feel he is there yet.
'''Oppose'''.  Considering that this user technically meets most of my standards, as an active user, I still must oppose.  The userpage(s) are overly promotional; this self-nom is too soon; the user has demonstrated immaturity; the user's answers are very poor.  I'm not going to belabor these and other points raised by others against the gentleman.  Sorry, sir.
'''Oppose'''.  It appears to me that the candidate's application is blatantly self-serving, writing whatever the candidate believes is most likely to "sell" -- but a truer picture of the candidate's temperment is to be found in the ongoing discussion, which fundamentally contradicts the candidate's earlier assertions.
'''Strong oppose''' per many of the reasons above, especially immaturity. Admins frequently make mistakes, and when they realise they have made one, they are expected to correct it. From what I have seen here I am afraid that far from identifying his mistakes and acting accordingly, only the fact that  [[WP:WHEEL]] has been written down as a policy would prevent this user from wheel-warring. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC). Upgraded to "strong" after display of very poor self-restraint [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BQZip01_2&curid=15442752&diff=188490909&oldid=188489249 here]. --
'''Strong oppose''' Your patently offensive user name [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BQ here]], redacting of comments, agrumentative edits for the sake of winning your points, and selfpromotion thoughout the encyclopedia [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University Senior cadet photo]] are among the reasons that you should not seek adminship.
'''Very, Very Strong oppose''' This user has a complete misunderstanding of [[WP:IAR]] and would, at best, be useless as a SysOp, at worst, be corrupt. BQZip01 once created an image (see [[:Image:IAR doesn't mean this.jpg]]) which seems to suggest that the role of SysOps is "policemen." Later, he tried to add this image to [[WP:WIARM]]. It wasn't kept up, per consensus. However, somebody added an inflammatory caption. With this caption, it was later added it to the talkpage of [[WP:WIARM]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means&diff=165687207&oldid=165685922] BQZip01 approved of this caption. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means&diff=165571988&oldid=165363445] Based on this, he deserves not a ''shred'' of administrative authority, not now or ''ever''. I just saw a posting on RFC about him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=188685505&oldid=188685022] He removed comments from his talkpage, something that a lot of belligerent admins do. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BQZip01&diff=188682647&oldid=188656615] <font size="4">[[Zen|&#9775;]]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per a laundry list of reasons, including overly argumentative editing, [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues, poor understanding of policy, maintaining an attack page on another editor... not the sort of attitude I would want to see in an admin. User needs more experience learning to work collaboratively.
'''Neutral''' Far too soon after the earlier RfA, and therefore demonstrating a lack of appreciation of the general advice from the community previously. I shall not oppose since I see no evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools when they eventually get them.
'''Neutral''' - To avoid pile on.
'''Neutral''' I really liked what I saw, up until attention was drawn to the fact that this his his second self nom ''this month'', which has me questioning why he wants the tools so badly. Still, he really looks like a great editor, and definitely looks like admin material. Just wait a few months instead of a few weeks, work on the concerns mentioned by the opposes above, and I see no reason why you won't succeed next time.
'''Neutral''' per Faithless and avoid pile on. <strong>
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on.
'''Neutral''' I think this editor has the potential to be a great admin but I am a little concerned with his ability to over explain his actions. I think an admin should be able to make a point in a few words and make them pointed enough that the readers get the point. No need to be defensive. I would like to see a little more time between requests.
'''Strong Neutral''' - Switching from Support to Neutral, prefer not to take sides.
Per no negative interactions and no reason to '''oppose'''. The featured articles I like also. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per answers to questions and no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I like people who write featured articles. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' Meets [[User:Xp54321/Standards|my standards]],good article work.--
'''Support'''. I supported RfA#2, and I'm just as happy to support this one. --
Two tickets for "Mamma Mia," please.  Oh, wrong queue.  '''Support''' :)
'''Support''' - Seems to have learnt from his mistakes, and can't argue with a military man. Just stick to what you've promised in your nomination, and consider placing yourself under CAT:AOR. The community promoted you, and in my eyes they should be able to take it away.
Meh. Leave CC alone and write more articles. —'''
'''Support''' ''(groan)'' teh drama gives me a headache but contributions suggest dedication, just be ''careful'' out there....Cheers,
'''Support''' - last year, my encounters with the candidate left me with a negative impression. However, this year his conduct seems much improved, and the work at images for deletion has been generally good. If this attempt doesn't suceed, then suggest you re-apply in 3-4 months.
'''Support''' - After just taking a glimpse of this dudes userpage, I already love this guys(I love the pic of him breaking the speed limit). This user has a fair number of manspace edits(9,000 in a year is very impressive, this user is a very strong canddate and he'll be a very good admn too. Also not only does this user have an impressive article edit number, he also has impressive numbers image wise. Cheers to one of the strongest candidates I've seen.
'''Support''' he does seem to have a pretty dramatic dispute with CC going on but it does not appear that this user goes around being generally disruptive, looking at his behavior unrelated to CC he appears to be a reasonable person. Other things such as the extreme drive by voting is also a concern but the user seems to know what he is doing and IfD could use more administrator attention. In short I doubt he would abuse the tools. - '''
'''Support''', because this user reminds me of me, with slightly less self-restraint. I believe his intentions for Wikipedia are sincere, and the issues below seem to be isolated and I would wager that BQ is secretly contrite, even if he won't let it show beyond his military exterior. I don't mind a little personality with my admins, either. Mainspace contribs are solid. Forget about AOR; no point.
'''Support''' - Usually a voice of reason at IfD (no wonder he doesn't have many friends!).  Per the opposes, AOR is a crock of shit.  BQZip could easily say "sure", then if elected, set his criterion for recall to be a [[Graham's number]] of arbitrators demanding his recall over a [[googleplex]] of independent bad acts, and still decline to offer up his bit if it happened.  In conclusion, answer to number seven is the correct one, any other answer would probably be a lie anyhow ...
'''Support''' - Great article builder, good work at ifd and is open about past mistakes.
'''Weak support''' A couple of minor problems that I've seen (translation: dramaz), but I'm seeing more good than bad, so I feel this user can be trusted. Sadly, I doubt my vote will make much difference, but oh well.
'''Support''' given your undertaking to avoid [[User:Cumulus Clouds]].
'''Strong Support'''. Showed courtesy and respect to a humble newcomer. Shared knowledge and understanding, exemplifying all that Wiki should be. Dedication to improving Wiki shows in every article he edits. Willingness to negotiate (accepted by paties or not) shows leadership and patience. Even when pushed to a breaking point, was wise enough to back away from drama and reassess the situation.
'''Weak Support''' - I agree with TenPoundHammer - he can be trusted and he's waited long enough.  Most of the minor problems in the oppose section, are well, minor, and should not affect his being an admin.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Support''' (my first edit in a while, I've taken a long break for various reasons). I don't like the answer to Q7, but I've interacted with BQZip before and I trust him.
'''Support''', excellent contributions to Wikipedia and despite some problems in the past has apparently learned from them
'''Strong Support'''. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Support'''.  I think wikipedia could use another someone with experience dealing with IfD, and the man doesn't seem to edit in bad faith.  Also, he does appear to have the professionalism required, I think, to not abuse his powers in any case where someone is in a dispute with him.
'''Support''' for addressing my concern below in a civil manner.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,

'''Support''':You meet my criteria and in my opinion sufficient time has passed from your biggest errors. —
'''Support''' I have had a lot of interaction with this user from [[WP:IFD]] <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Weak support'''.  Six months is on the edge, but his response to comments by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles seem satisfactory.
'''Oppose'''. Per the pointless debacle at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments]].  Disgracefully disruptive. —
'''Oppose''', I've encountered problematic tendencies at FAC:  false statements that are personal attacks and a failure to AGF (sample, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=154753352&oldid=154752305 "after this discussion, Sandy went to pages where I edited/commented and opposed them because I did a thorough review. IMHO, this is out of line and is vindictive in nature"]), and difficulty in letting go of differences, even to the extent of making a pointy disruption that would negatively impact upon someone else's FAC as recently as '''May 2008''' (sample, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&diff=next&oldid=209507247] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BQZip01&diff=prev&oldid=209828460]). Combining pointy and stubborn inability to back off of a difference, failure to AGF, <s>and a tendency towards self-promotion[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs&diff=219852347&oldid=219851319 (June 2008)]</s> with admin tools = not a good recipe.  I'm concerned that because BQ so stubbornly hangs on to differences, and refers to them in subsequent discussions even months later, that he has not demonstrated an understanding of the characteristics and temperment needed in an admin.  If I see a change in this tendency, I'd be likely to support a future RfA, as he has done good article work.
'''Oppose''' - thanks to the above users for digging through the user's history to find those diffs. Since becoming an admin myself, I've learned that sometimes, you need the patience of a saint to deal with the 'angry mastodons' problem. The candidate's conflicts with other users shows him to have a streak of paranoia. He should not be given the block button. -
'''Oppose''' - Was going to support until I read the first two opposes and the diffs.
'''Oppose''' - User has a history of contentiousness. There's no compelling reason to promote such a user to admin and plenty of reason not to.
'''Oppose''' - user is involved in too much drama. Having read the links above (particularly the MFD discussion), BQZ appears to be somewhat argumentative and defensive, as a result of his ongoing dispute with CC, which leads me to believe he does not show the 'cool head' required for an admin. I'm also concerned by his extensive documentation of other editors' behaviour - while this is acceptable in certain situations, and BQZ seems to have always acted in good faith, it makes me think that as an admin, his dispute would distract him from improving the encyclopaedia.
'''Regretful oppose''', BQZ's description of this 3RR block seems at variance with what I can find about it. To me it appears that the edit war was over a fact tag in the lead, eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fightin%27_Texas_Aggie_Band&diff=157246052&oldid=157244083 diff]. It there fore seems to me that he learnt nothing from this mistake and is unwilling to admit honestly to errors. If my interpretation of this edit war is wrong I will reconsider. (See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Revert_warring_on_today.27s_featured_article AN/I thread].
I've been reviewing BQ for 2 hours now, and here is my opinion:#When Sandy votes, I listen.  Her example of his decidedly pointy edit has me greatly concerned.  Then there was his history with CC which resulted in an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds|RFC]], ANI, and  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments|series of edits.]]  While none of these are blantant signs of a problematic user, I just keep getting an uncomfortable feeling about him.  There are a number of edits, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABQZip01&diff=189883713&oldid=189852995 While I agree the spirit of the rules are to be followed, I disagree with your interpretation. Because I do, I feel you are accusing me of not following the spirit of the rules but following the letter. But how am I possibly doing that when it is explicitly permitted. I feel as if you are following your feelings and ignoring what is written.]  He was also warned for edit warring with CC in the exchange leading to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=191923960&oldid=191923433 this]  This eventually lead to Avruch "proposing that you and Cumulus Clouds be barred from further interaction"  In reviewing his history/edits, I get the sense that [[User:TheOtherBob]] was right when commenting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FCumulus_Clouds&diff=190574491&oldid=190573771 My personal view of BQZ thus far is that he's not shown good judgment or much maturity in this instance. He seems to me to have prioritized "winning" over building an encyclopedia, and seems to believe that any action -- no matter its effect on other editors, the community, or even his own reputation -- is completely A-OK so long as it fits within his interpretation of a rule.]  This was the only resolution to garner more than a few endorsements.---'''
'''Oppose''' Lacks experience, and unfortunately it shows in the arguments used at IfD and various other venues. Seems to vote on anything, whether they understand the issues involved or not. Even considering I had this nomination watchlisted and was planning to oppose anyway, the strength of opinion in the opposes above, most notably Tim Vickers' and Sandy's, both users I have the greatest respect for, confirm I was on the right track with this. I would be very uncomfortable with this person having the tools, not because of any risk they'll ''ab''use them, as I believe they operate completely in good faith, but quite possibly ''mis''use them.
'''Strong Oppose''' Lacks administrative experience.
'''Oppose''' per the temperament issues.
'''Oppose'''; administrators are likely to get into disputes with people who disagree with their actions, and are also looked to as examples to help mediate disputes.  Coming into adminship with a long-term dispute with another user that still seems to be going on does not seem like a very good idea. --
'''Oppose''' looking at the diffs, I'd say it's too soon for someone in a long-term dispute to get the bit.
'''Oppose''' - per Q7.  Very fishy.  You'll allow the community to give you the bit, but wont trust them to take it away?  Mmm...  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman and the AOR issues. '''
I generally avoid opposing RfA's, and have only done so in a limited number of discussions, but I strongly feel that appointing you as an administrator at this time would be a poor decision for the project. The temperament issues, as well as my concerns with your general approach (drama should be kept to a minimum, not a maximum, due to its uncanny ability to detract from what's important on here), raise some red flags for me, so I'm going to say "not now" to this nomination. Thank you for your enthusiasm for the project, however, and I do hope you work on the concerns. If I see you back at RfA in the future, coupled with a substantial improvement regarding the issues raised here this week, I may be pushed to reconsider my stance. '''Oppose''' at this time. Regards,
The only time I've come across you was [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive27#Restarts|this]], where IMO he acted extremely childishly. '''
'''Strong oppose''' - I couldn't have put it any better than just about anyone before me. I would not be happy to support giving this user the mop and bucket at this point in time, perhaps in a year or so I would reconsider. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per nom.
'''Oppose''' The links provided by Balloonman are too concerning for me to offer support. Furthermore, in question 3, you link to [[WP:AIV]] as a page to deal with disagreements. It is not; it is a page to report plain vandalism, and only vandalism. [[WP:AN/I]] would be the more appropriate place. If it was just oversight on your part, my apologies, but I'm mainly concerned about the drama, maturity and judgement issues. Good luck,
'''Oppose''': Candidate comes across as inexperienced and generally unsuited to administrator of the project at present. The final nail however was the argumentative and annoying behaviour from the nominator, which leaves me with an uneasy feeling about the nomination and such. I would urge the candidate to withdraw at this time and consider standing again in around 6 months time, and with a different nominator, if applicable.
'''Oppose''' Too hot-headed. Also, Q9 seems weird at first (which isn't a big deal), but after reading Oppose #2 it seems immature.--
(edit conflict)'''Oppose''' per all of the above. Suggest withdrawal.
'''Strong Oppose'''  Sorry, but I am not able to support a candidate who is unwilling to make themselves open to recall.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I've seen BQ around IfD and had some positive interactions with him, so I really wish I could support, but the diffs provided by Sandy Georgia and the Cumulus Cloud drama just create too many worries for me.  So, a regretful oppose, but an oppose I feel I have to make.
'''Oppose'''. Circular on talk FAC. (
'''Oppose''' per Terraxos's, KojiDude's, Anthøny's, and others' impressively nuanced ways of saying, [[WP:COOL|"take a chill pill."]]
'''Oppose''' per most of the above comments.
'''Oppose''' per Tim and Sandy.
'''Oppose''' ostensibly per Sandy. I have encountered you before, though only slightly on FAC and I found him to be impestuous and slightly abrasive. Having since checked through your recent contribs, I have found this situation to have eased only slightly. That you continue the crusade with CC and didn't even mention it in Q3 shows a lack of judgement. I simply don't think you have the tact and nature to be an admin. I think that you would inflame a number of situations and act impulsively rather than looking deeper into situations. Whilst a lot of that is my gut-feeling, some of it is from plain observation. I really cannot support an you becoming an admin at this time. Regards.
'''Oppose''' per potentially divisive userboxes on the user's page - such as "This user believes a marriage should consist only of a man and a woman." Not saying I agree or disagree with the sentiment, but I do not feel such a userbox, one which could create hostility, should be displayed
'''Regretful Oppose''' I loathe opposing at RfA, and I hate even more opposing experienced candidates who contribute as much as BQZ does. But I'm concerned at various issues raised here and that I've seen in the contribs and just feel that the candidate does not display the ability to ride smoothly over the kind of flak that will inevitably come his way once he starts weilding the tools. I've agonised over this !vote and I'd far rather be up ↑ there, but the fact that I can't even in good conscience place myself down there ↓ reassures me that this is the right way to go. Really sorry BQZ. --
'''Oppose.'''   After I read the candidate's answer to Question 4 ("my actions were construed as canvassing" ... "socks of a now-indef blocked user, interjected problematic comments/lies" ... "problems with people who felt I hadn't waited long enough" ... "some people felt i was being argumentative when I was trying to be thorough"), I found myself for a few moments tempted to simply post '''Eschew obfuscation''' here (fun, for me, but obscure and not helpful).  I considering placing myself in the Neutral section, but after I read "I believe you are a good-faith editor and wouldn't abuse the tools" I then realized that ''I'' believe you might, ''even in good faith'', abuse the tools.  —
'''Oppose''' - I usually don't care about the [[WP:AOR]] question; however the answer was not satisfying. Also per some of the concerns that Terraxos has already explained. <small>
'''Neutral''' for now, leaning toward support. Some of the points brought up by the opposers are a bit disconcerting; however, most of them were quite some time ago. I'm still weighing the matter.
'''Neutral''' I'm on the fence for now. '''''
'''Neutral''' changing from support. My earlier comments about your article work and knowledge of policy still stand, but recent diffs indicate that you just don't know when to [[WP:LETITGO|walk away]] from a dispute. You've dragged your grievance with Cumulus Clouds through numerous official channels and, though I think you probably wouldn't use the tools for a similar purpose, I'm just a bit wary of handing them to you just now.
'''Neutral''' for now, leaning towards oppose. I found the info in the 1-st oppose (by Wknight94) particularly troubling.  Also, I rather dislike the fact that the conflict with Cumulus Clouds was not disclosed by the candidate either in an opening statement or in responses to questions, particularly Q3. RFA is the time for full disclosure of significant conflicts and this one certainly qualifies (as recently as 20 days ago Rlevse suggested arbitration, among other things, as a possible way of resolving the conflict[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&diff=prev&oldid=226344651]. If this had just been a matter that happened 6 months ago, that would have been one thing. But the (whatever it is) between BQZip01 and Cumulus Clouds is, apparently, still ongoing. There is a longish contentious thread at Rlevse's talk page from mid-July regarding this, that I suggest people look up:[[User talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive11#MQS]]. I tried to wade through it but it seems rather complicated and to refer to a lot of prior history. I may be totally wrong here, but my superficial impression was that BQZip01 and Cumulus Clouds are a bit like two pitbulls who have sunk their teeth into each other and are refusing to let go. I know that Rlevse is a crat now and he may not be inclined to vote in an RFA for that reason, but I hope that he will at least comment here, since he appears to have some more direct knowledge of the conflict than do most of the rest of us here. If there are other users who are well familiar with the history of this feud, I'd like to hear from them too, in case BQZip01 is being judged unfairly in this regard.
I'm on the fence. On one hand, I did grant you rollback rights, and I haven't seen you abuse that, but your past history does give me pause. I'm going to have to think about this, do some serious digging, and let this RfA take its course and see if anything else comes up. I'll make a decision on the last day of this thing (as long as you don't withdraw early). -'''
'''Neutral''' Both sides, supporters and opposers, make valid points which leave me ambivalent and I cannot switch to one of the sides as of the arguments brought forth until now. '''
'''Neutral'''. This is an example of an RfA I would probably support if we ever got round to some method of making de-sysopping people easier. I fully respect this user's pledge to leave things like the Cumulus Clouds thing behind him, and I've seen great work from him too. But the overall feeling I get from reviewing the diffs presented by some of the opposes is that BQZip01 has some overall temperament and civility issues. Between the objection to AOR on principle and the overall difficulty in removing admins that later turn out to be suboptimal, I just don't feel comfortable supporting right now. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Neutral'''. I was all set to oppose based on SandyGeorgia's assessment and opinion mostly, but I cannot oppose someone that answers the AOR question so honestly.  I'd much rather have an administrator say "no, I won't, and here's why", then say "Yes, I will" and never does.
'''Neutral'''. IFD definitely needs more admin work. However I am concerned by the edit war with Cumulus, and by the disingenuous comments about the vandalism reversion of the main page featured article.

'''Neutral''' per SoWhy, who said exactly what I was going to say. '''
'''Neutral''' for now. Like Useight said, the issues mostly took place several months ago, but they are certainly still a factor to be weighed.
'''Neutral''' I have watched BQZip01 since his last RFA and I have much more respect for his contributions to the encyclopedia than I did then, mostly because "then" I was only seeing his conflict with CC, RFA too fast, and imo rigid adherence to written policy. We had some spirited disagreements and I think ended up with mutual respect (not agreement mind you, but respect). I'm even more respectful now, he tries to contribute wisely and in valuable areas. I don't think the BQ/CC conflict should be held against BQZip01 at this point. Nevertheless, I would have advised BQ against trying an RFA right now (in fact, maybe I did) - getting [[WP:POINT|POINT]]-y with Sandy over FA's is just a bad idea. Buddy! What were you thinking? Plus I still see a little too many IAW's - yes, that's standard military terminology BQ, but we're not the military, we're controlled anarchy. Written policy definitely applies here and we have one called [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]. I won't support, but I'm no longer inclined to oppose. I mostly think this should have waited another three months, BQ next time, give ''me'' a chance to rip you up down and sideways ''before'' you go live. :)
'''Neutral''' - I have concerns over the rigid demeanor and argumentative tendencies shown by this user, and the issues brought to light by SandyGeorgia worry me further. Still, the biggest issues I've seen are fairly deep in the past. I've had some interaction with BQZip01 on the FAC circuit, and I recall them being mostly positive. I'm not ready to support, but not ready to oppose either.
'''Neutral'''.  I like BQ and I think he is an excellent content contributor.  He understands many policies and is willing and eager to learn when he identifies a gap in his knowledge (for example, his recent image work).  I've noticed that in the past six months his communication manner has improved a lot and he is getting a bit more flexible, which tells me that he is willing to listen to feedback and modify his own behavior in response.  I do think that BQ should be a bit more careful in his use of sarcasm.  I get it and I usually think it is funny, but in an online environment, sarcasm can be difficult to identify, and (as evidenced above), it can be misinterpreted.  At the very least, avoid sarcasm with users you are (or have previously been) in conflict with; that will help ensure the conflict doesn't get inadvertently escalated.  I am close to supporting - could you flesh out question 3 a bit (see my comments under discussion)?
'''Neutral''' - Looks like a decent editor, but the opposes give me serious pause.  Try again in a few months.
'''Changed to neutral'''.  Still have concerns, particularly those raised by Balloonman.  On the other hand, I've changed to neutral because I believe you are a good-faith editor and wouldn't abuse the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''; you have some dark spots in your past&mdash; and not far enough in the past that I'd feel comfortable agreeing to give you the mop just yet.  Spend a couple of months showing us your best temper and I would probably support.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - Great editor, but very many dark spots. -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
'''Neutral''' BQ's done some pretty nice work, but there are some points in the opposes that caught my attention.
'''Neutral''' purely because I'm not sure whether to trust your attitude.  However, work so far has been quite good, minus a few blips.  Sorry.
'''Neutral'''--
This is for some moral support.  You're on the right track.  Come back in 3-6 months after getting an [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coach]], and continuing editing.  <font  face="georgia">'''
Although you have good experience with consensus and community decision etcetera. you lack the vital Wikipedia experience I'd expect in an administrator candidate, and the answers to the questions are a little insufficient. You are on the right track, but I'd suggest you try again in a few months time. Regards,
'''Oppose ''' Would you like to expand a little more on the questions? Like in question 1., could you state what exactly is "whatever admin work is most needed" that you will be working on? <strong>
'''Oppose''' - Per above, sorry insufficient experience. You look like a great article builder/contributor, but there are bureaucratic   areas of Wikipedia that you need to participate in before you have my support. I'd give it another 3 months and come back, my vote should be under the support heading. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' - answer to Q1 is too vague and generic; I'm not sure I follow your time-zone logic, either.
'''Oppose''' - Contributions show a distinct lack of communication and consensus building (Less than 1/5 of this user's edits are in talkspace). Admins have to be able to take and respond well to flak and I don't think a couple hundred talkspace edits is enough to develop this, and with no single talk page with more than 20 posts I worry that this user would rather post and run.
'''Oppose''' Good user and contributor, however this RFA is premature. I would probably support an RFA 5-6 months later
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''. A friendly editor, but weak answers and lack of experience concern me. --'''
Unlike Kurt, I don't believe this candidate exhibits power hunger. That said, I would like some more experience in the Wikipedia-space. Despite this, you aren't very far away from fulfilling [[User:EJF/Adminship standards|my criteria]] for support. By the way, you ''do not'' need 20% of your edits to be in the talkspace, most people would not expect that. I hope you act on the concerns and come back in a few months with some more experience. Sincerely,
I have seen nothing but good from this user: I have encountered BritandBeyonce work around pages to do with Beyonce Knowles and Rihanna, and I am always impressed. BritandBeyonce's work with images and knowledge of them is good too. Don't be discouraged if this doesn't pass: some of our best admins didn't pass RfA the first time either. ''
'''Support''' per Acalamari. I think all editors on Wikipedia need to focus on ''improving'' content, as opposed to just ''reverting'' content.
'''Support''' - I'm especially impressed with your answer to question #1.  I like your attitude.  We need more volunteers like you.  '''''
'''Support''' - Like the question 1, and as per The Trashhumanist, a nice attitude. // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Weak Support''' I have a feeling that your lack of project space contributions are going to sink this RfA, as recognised by VanTucky below (though six months may be a bit too long assuming you heed some advice). The relativley low levels of contributions in this area make me nervous, hence a weak support. However, per others above, your Q1 answer is ace, and a trawl through your user talk page shows a commited and civil editor. You clearly want the tools solely to help out further, and that's what it's all about. Like I say, if this doesn't pass I look forward to some slightly broader participation and a succesful RfA in maybe three months. Very best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Seems to understand use of tools for images. As Pedro says, is civil and committed. Meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards]].
'''Support''' - most of what I have to say has already been said: Your lack of project space edits is likely going to kill your RfA. The issue there is that every RfA turns into an edit count and a "How much adminstuff are they already doing?" poll. I believe that you are an excellent candidate who will use the tools productively, and that the fact you are not just an NP and RC patroller  does not pose an issue to me. Wikipedia needs more administrators who are willing to do more than blocking and deleting; admins who will work on page writing and use the tools as they see fit, not 24/7. Thus, I support this nomination and, though it likely will not pass, offer you congratulations for your work, and hope that you will continue to be such a productive editor. --
'''Support''' in the absence of anything damning. I believe that the experience in mainspace shows that the user has a good understanding of policy. And the general attitude convinces me that BritandBeyonce can handle difficult situations calmly. -
'''Support''' - this user does good work. -
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' - I'm not concerned that this user will misuse the tools. Inxperience doesn't worry me either; the teachable attitude demonstrated in the answer to question 1 is crucial for any admin candidate. An interest in image processing, which always needs help, is a big plus. Nothing personal against the oppose voters - we've all got our own viewpoints - but I feel there's a bandwagon of "per above"s forming here based upon editcountitis. If this user has demonstrated past behavior that is contrary to good Wikipedia practice, that's one thing, but I don't see that here. There've been ''plenty'' of good admins who started with less edits than this candidate.
'''Support''' - Nothing to oppose. Great user. '''''
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]]. -
'''Weak Support''' - The answers to the questions could have been better thought out...
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to support. --
'''Support''' Opposers have come up with a total of 0 reasons why he shouldn't be an admin... so I support. '''
'''Support''' I'm sorry, did I see someone say your edit count (6000+) was too low?!?!?!?!? People are nuts around here. Answers could have been a bit better, but the RfA process has nothing to do with edit counts. It's about whether or not you'll abuse the admin tools, and I see nothing that causes me concern.
'''Support''' Good content contributions, won't abuse the tools, and knows what he is doing with images. Most of the opposes strike me as particularly poorly aligned with what it takes to produce good content. His answers are not bad and who cares how many edits he has in a given namespace. That's just an excuse not to review the users actual contributions to decide if they will make a good admin. -
'''Support''' I am behind you 100%. 6000 edits in six months. That is extremely impressive after only editing for six months.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' What's there to oppose?--
'''Support''' Most of the opposer's are opposing for reasons I do not agree with.
'''Support''' He is deserving to be administrator.--
'''Support'''.  Just what's ''wrong'' with editing stuff on female pop singers, anyway?
'''Oppose''' per unsatisfactory responses to questions.
'''Oppose''' (reluctantly) This user has some really great mainspace contributions, I've mostly experienced their work through GA. However, with less than 200 projectspace edits, I seriously doubt they have the sufficient experience to deal with admin duties. Try again in six months after you've accrued a wider range of contributions, and I'd be more than happy to support.
'''Oppose'''. I would have liked to see longer and more thought out answers to the questions. I also find the lack of projectspace work troubling. I suggest that this user spends a few months working in several areas of projectspace and then tries again.
'''Oppose.''' Weak answers lacking content. Lack of variety of editing experience.[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BritandBeyonce%20&site=en.wikipedia.org] No visible need for the tools.
'''Oppose''': Not enough edits outside of mainspace, and edit count is a tad too low. Answers were lacking in content for the most part, and the tools needed aren't really enough to satisfy adminship.
'''Weak, Weak Oppose''' Per aboves. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - per the above comments. General lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' - though users that know image policy like the back of their hand is good, i feel like this users still shows a lack of experience. I would like to see more discussion with the community invloving policy.
'''Oppose''' - not enough experience, poor answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' Just not quite there yet... come back in a couple months perhaps.
'''Weak Oppose''' Can't support, sorry.
'''Weak oppose''' per Bearian. Also doesn't seem experienced enough in all the necessary areas. Come back at a later date though and request adminship, as this user has shown some good work so far.--'''
'''Weak oppose''' Needs more exposure to areas related to being an admin. Fine otherwise. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Oppose''' I would expect a candidate for RfA to make the most of themselves, and particularly in the answers to questions, I don't see that [[User:BritandBeyonce]] has done so here. This is not a criticism of him personally but the impression I get is someone with limited expertise and lacking the self-confidence to be robust when the situation requires. I am fully prepared to support candidate in the future if these issues are addressed and his experience is a little broader. --'''
'''Oppose''' per Bearian.--
'''Regretful oppose''' with support to this user's dedication. The oppose is due to the combined effect of two weak factors. First, with all due respect there is a certain simplicity and perhaps even lack of (wiki-)maturity to the answers to the questions. Notwithstanding supporters' assurances that BandB has shown himself able to learn (assurances I have not verified but am willing to believe), image policy is a particularly tricky part of wikipolicy combining a need for legal understanding, policy understanding, and human empathy and hence I feel a need for greater-than-usual assurance of maturity from someone who already intends to be active in this area. Second, while in itself a minor issue, I do think the BritandBeyonce username is a bit unfortunately fancrufty for an admin. I respect BandB's right to use the name and it is not contrary to username policy, but admins for better or worse represent wikipedia and I am worried about the reputational impact of someone with such a name "laying down the law" to, for instance, an experienced external expert (or upset BLP victim, or image copyright owner whose image has unfortunately been uploaded with the wrong license information) who is a wikipedia newbie and in need of guidance to avoid disruption.
'''Oppose''' Several of these reasons have been mentioned above, but I will also stress them. This user seems motivated and wants to help out here, which is great. However, I strongly agree with the comments about the apparent lack of (wiki)maturity. Yes, the username does add to it. I see that he's had a lot of featured article work and such, and that makes him a great editor, but not necessarily an admin. I like to see a lot of namespace edits, usually, to show an understanding of policy. Plus, I don't see a great range in his editing. He seems to mostly stick to articles relating to female pop singers. I'd like to see a broader range. I see a potential issue with username "BritandBeyonce" working on those pages. It would make Wikipedia seem biased, in my opinion. I'd likely support at a later date, once these issues are resolved. '''
I am this because the answers to the questions are poor especially question 1. If this answer at least could be expanded. Otherwise your mainspace and other areas show you are experienced and that although i am not sure about 4 months experience.
'''Neutral''' edit count is okay, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~escaladix/larticles/larticles.php?user=BritandBeyonce&lang=en articles] are okay, too. But the answers to the questions, especially question 1, are not okay. If you would say more clearly, why you ''need'' the tools, I'll changes to Support. —
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Simply south|Simply south]]; from question one I'm not too sure exactly how the tools will be used.  However; great mainspace work! <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Neutral''' I don't see anything YET that indicates he is familiar with admin actions and processes like blocking and deleting, nor do I see a real understanding of what an admin does.  Awaiting elaboration on answers above before making final decision, but leaning towards oppose... --
'''Neutral''' I'd like to support, but the opposes concern me. I can't decide whether to support or oppose.
'''Neutral''', because you haven't actually convinced me that you need the tools.
'''Oppose''' for now. Has only 275 edits in more than two years
Case of [[WP:NOTNOW]]. [[User:Frank|Frank]] contacted the user and asked him to consider withdrawal. '''
'''Neutral''' per not enough edits to evaluate. I've suggested withdrawal to the candidate. Would also recommend use of edit summaries in the future. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. The edit count and spread is far below that advised for a candidate, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABurhan_Ahmed&diff=250695490&oldid=250690312 this] brings into question the user's grasp of the CSD; a detailed knowledge of those guidelines and their application is a must-have for any administrator. The malformed and improperly transcluded RfA doesn't help either.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Lack of understanding of CSD (and multiple ignored requests to stop CSD tagging), multiple image copyvios, all within the last month or two. [[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]], really. (And yes, I know I fixed the malformed RfA; maybe other people will see promise here that I don't). ['''
'''Oppose/[[WP:Not now|Not now]]''', mostly because of a high number of incorrect speedy deletion tags in the last few days: <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamuna_Future_Park&diff=prev&oldid=249117463 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaozhou_Xianshi&diff=prev&oldid=249380583 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Captain_Alexander_Smollett&diff=prev&oldid=249117602 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_the_tragedy_money_can_buy&diff=prev&oldid=250674734 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PJ_Smoothies&diff=prev&oldid=250671690 5] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihand_Dam&diff=prev&oldid=250671798 6] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wik_Jongsma&diff=prev&oldid=250674406 7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defence_analyst&diff=prev&oldid=249117772 8]</span> --<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;">
'''Oppose''' per the above comments no need to say much more
'''Oppose'''  The candidate lacks understanding of Wikipedia policy as evidenced by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABurhan_Ahmed&diff=250695490&oldid=250690312 repeated bad speedy tagging], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Burhan_Ahmed&diff=next&oldid=251056429 repeated copyright violation] after previous warnings, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABurhan_Ahmed&diff=245655854&oldid=244965039 incorrect claims] about having taken pictures personally when they were taken from a web site. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry as per above.But you are on the right track to be an admin.It is only [[WP:NOTNOW]] .Please try again after some time .Good luck
'''Neutral''' Hello Burhan! Adminship provides users with very powerful tools, because of this, the process of discussing who meets the stringent criteria of adminship can be disheartening and depressing for those who do not meet the base criteria (which is around 2000 edits and 3 months of participation on the project for me personally, but is practically much higher). I urge you to not take the opposes personally and withdraw your RfA to regroup and return at a later date. Happy editing!

Maybe not as many contributions as I would like, but I cannot oppose a good-faith editor.
'''Oppose''' Your edit count and contribution time is too low. I cannot in good conscience support you in becoming an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' - You have very low experience on Wikipedia, and I would suggest you withdraw this.
'''Oppose''' - Far too little experience. You'll want to chalk up about 2000 edits before you have a chance at passing RFA. Please use edit summaries more. See [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|this page]] for an idea of what it might take to pass an RFA.
'''Oppose''' Per [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Camaeron&site=en.wikipedia.org ''very'' low edit count and no edit summary usage] as well as answers to the questions. I would suggest the same as Rudget. —
'''Oppose''' - very low edit count and answers to questions are too succinct, IMO. For exmample, Q1 is a fairly "generic" answer and doesn't show much evidence of serious thought as to how the tools will be used.--[[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, just not enough experience yet. Maybe later. -
'''Oppose''' - Far to little experience, suggest that you participate in areas that are more aimed towards admin functions, such as [[WP:ANI]] [[WP:AFD]] [[WP:TFD]] ect....
'''Strong Oppose''' Per above comments, not enough edits and not enough edit summary usage.
'''Oppose''' - not nearly enough experience, I'm afraid. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' - Not nearly enough experience. But I applaud your desire to help the community! I suggest withdrawing this nom per [[WP:SNOW]]. Come back in 6 months time and let's have a little look at your progress. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' Low edit summary usage (46% = Major, and 0% for minor). Also, usually to become an admin you should have at least 2000+ edits (usually). It seems that you have under 500. Experience is the problem here. Sorry :( -

'''Support''' - Your answer to Question 2 made me a little nervous, but I think you are just expressing enthusiasm for the RfA. In looking over your contributions going back a couple of months, as well as your deleted contributions I see someone who is doing some sound work in admin areas who could benefit from the mop. As the opposition in your first RfA was largely reluctant pending more experience, and as you took that advice to heart, and have since gained six more months of solid experience, I can't see any reason not to support you.
'''Support''' As a person who can find innuendo in anything, I must admit I got a chuckle from the two boxes in the upper right of your userbox section.
'''Support''', per [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]] and his obvious enthusiasm.  '''
Far away, this ship is taking me far away. <small>'''
'''Moral Support''' Your a good editor, but I think another few months of solid edit will tip the balance. Cheers! <b>
'''Support''' Whilst it can't help much now, I feel people might want to try harder to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. The user has tried hard to improve and I think they are doing a good job. I'd definitely trade [[User:JzG|JzG]] for him any day of the week. We need more positive enthusiasm, not less. Also, I must support due to prolific use of userboxes. One can ''never'' have too many userboxes! I encourage the candidate to keep up the good work and, if things don't work out, not to loose faith! Perhaps a mentorship is possible? --
Keep working at it, look at the concerns of the opposers, and you should breeze through a future RfA. Don't give up! -- <strong>
'''Strong Oppose''' - Two things that I can't get over... outside of templates, it appears you have no more than say... 5 - 10 ''actual'' talk message on user talk or article talk in the year 2008. I don't see any actual Wikipedia talk entries. You say you've worked on improving your AfD contributions, but I've reviewed that entire history of yours and most !votes seem to be done in drive-by manner with virtually no input to the conversation. I think on Feb 23rd you participated in 10 AfDs in under 10 minutes (or about that much). Whoa, and I ''just'' caught [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Archuleta&diff=prev&oldid=211629500 this] article space contribution, where you add homosexual allegations to an article about a teenage boy, and you think a site called frugalfag.com is acceptable as a source? I think all the edits you made to that page were pretty quickly removed per verifiability concerns, and more importantly, [[WP:BLP]], something that ''every'' admin candidate needs at least bare minimum knowledge of before running for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Archuleta&diff=prev&oldid=211629500 BLP violation] linked above.  I disagree with the above editor that how much time you spend on talk pages has anything to do with your ability to use admin tools (we are talking about janitorial tools that for security reasons aren't given out to everyone, not about electing a President).  However, a good understanding of [[WP:BLP]] is a necessity.  --
'''Oppose''' The answers that you have provided so far have not shown that you know the policies well enough to utilize them to the fullest.  The most especially worrying response that you have given me was the answer to Q4b.  You do not semi-protect a page that is predominantly edited by IP addresses.  What if that IP address was making a completely legitamite article?  Based upon what you said, you would semi-protect it.  I also do not support candidates that make BLP violations, as what was said above.  Cheers,
'''Strong Oppose''' per Gwynand. May 11 is way too recent for that kind of contribution. Carry on learning, try to get involved more with discussion and dispute resolution with editors (not just vandals) and maybe in a few months come back and impress us all.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Very little evidence of consensus-building and dispute-resolving experience on talk pages, as most of those contributions are minor or templates. This leaves me unable to judge how effectively you'd deal with people challenging your administrative actions or requesting your involvement in disputes. AfD contributions, as Gwynand points out, are rarely much more than "per above". The reason for recommending AfD experience last time was, presumably, to give you practice in applying and discussing policies - and to give us evidence of what you've learned. The kind of participation you've made doesn't really do either. Your answers to the questions are not brilliant either, in my opinion: 4e in particular sounds as though you would follow your own opinion over consensus when closing AfDs, and 5 shows no attempt to address the issue of possible [[WP:COI|COI]]. Sorry to sound so harsh: you're clearly hardworking and an asset to the project, but I'm not convinced you've gained enough experience for the mop.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:B|B]].
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[WP:BLP|BLP]] concerns. The concerns raised above are dealbreakers. I'm disturbed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Archuleta&diff=prev&oldid=211629500 this]. You'll need some time and additional experience before you're ready for the mop.
'''Oppose''' too recent.  You say you've learned, but that is just a few days ago.
'''Oppose''' - Mechanical and perfunctory AfD work and [[WP:BLP]] concerns raised above. The latter really shows a lack of policy knowledge, one of our most important, and it was extremely recent. Still, beyond this, while I enjoy the candidate's gusto and zeal, there seems to be little being done (per talk pages) than vandalism reversions.
'''Oppose''' Mostly per affore mentioned BLP violation but, overall, I believe that the candidate should solidify skills as an editor before applying for adminship again.
'''Oppose''' - you do seem well-intentioned and enthusiastic which are great qualities for an admin candidate - but I really dislike a lot of your participation in AfD in particular. The biggest thing that hurts AfD, in my opinion, is drive-by participation with minimal consideration; and that seems to be most of what you do there. To me it just doesn't really demonstrate that you appreciate the value of discussion to reach a consensus, and were more interested in racking up numbers of AfD edits in order to aid your planned RfA. I can entirely understand the motivation there (due to the overly-stringent requirements of some RfA participants) but I can't really condone it. With more reasoned contributions I could happily support you in future.  ~
'''Oppose'''. That BLP issue mentioned above was very recent, but the real clincher for me is your lack of communication with other editors. A vast majority of your edits on user talk pages is via templates (warnings, welcomes, or otherwise). Being an administrator requires a lot of communication, and I'd like to see some more of that from you before you become an admin. Other than that, I think you're doing a really good job contributing to the encyclopedia. Start communicating with people and you'll be an admin in no time.
'''Oppose''' - per the recent [[WP:BLP]] issue.  Mistakes in the past are one thing, however I have seen nothing other then your statement to show you have learned from this incident.
'''Oppose''' - BLP violations are a no-no.
'''Oppose''' per user edits. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=182902487 this edit], and the ensuing conversation, started by Carter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tvoz&diff=next&oldid=183041817#Reverting here] (responses [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carter/Archive_5#read_your_entry_again_-_uber_recentism here]). More recently, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nmon_Ford&diff=prev&oldid=177039175 this edit summary] isn't especially [[WP:CIVIL]], and given that the only reference listed in that article at the time was the subject's own web site, the <nowiki>{{unref}}</nowiki> template looks appropriate to me. Carter, your enthusiasm is clear, but please spend more time becoming familiar with and actually implementing WP policies before trying for RfA again. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
No. The diffs presented paint a very poor portrait of the candidate, but it was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=182902487 HRC edit] that leaves me wondering how exactly that would be a good idea... [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' I'm going to avoid piling onto the BLP thing. I really don't like the answers to the optional questions. They're not there show show that you know the policy verbatim, but that you can interpret them. ''That'' is what IAR is about, being able to interpret policy and make the right decision, which isn't necessarily what the policy says. I especially dislike 4d. Page protection is used for more things than the Main Page, Wiki.png, and <nowiki>{{ref}}</nowiki>; I think your answer shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. I respect your contributions to vandal fighting (it's basically all I do), but I don't think you're ready for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  Editor has a history of civility problems.  We already have enough non-civil admins, we don't need any more.  <font color="629632">
'''''Hellllll No''''' per answer to Q6. Doesn't consult the rules ''at all'' when making an edit until it's been reverted? Giving someone like that admin tools is like having somebody drive a 16-wheeler blindfolded down a city street. In the rain. During rush hour.--
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions 6 and 7 deeply concern me.  Answers to 4D and 4E show a lack of knowledge of all relevant policies.  Please consider gaining more experience and returning to RFA. '''
Per 6 and 7.
'''Oppose'' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACarter&diff=214460799&oldid=214460270 this] problematic comment.
'''Oppose''', per blp issues, weak answers.
'''Neutral''' at this stage although I may jump either way depending on issues others raise. However, I'm concerned with your behaviour at AfD; a flurry of weird calls ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Weaver&diff=prev&oldid=214392250 eg]), and a barrage of "delete per"s ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Vampire_and_Zombie_Agency&diff=prev&oldid=214402470], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crash_TV&diff=prev&oldid=214402370], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nerimon&diff=prev&oldid=214393359], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Shenton&diff=prev&oldid=214392885]) in the immediate run-up to this RFA going live, and no participation at all in Wikipedia space for two months before that, other that three AIV reports and one RFPP report. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Carter&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 user talk contribs] appear to consist entirely of automated templates, you've only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Carter&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 nine article talk contribs] this year, and you've only ''ever'' made two Wikipedia talk contributions. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but that doesn't seem to me like "the friendly editor". None of these are outright deal-breakers, but there's just not enough to judge how you'll deal with other users and how you apply policy.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral'''.  The concerns in the oppose section are worrying.  If these problems are fixed after ~6 months, you will probably see a support from me.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral'''.  Support per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaius Julius Caesar I]], neutral per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte, North Carolina in popular culture]], but weak oppose per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family guy episode]].  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
I don't think you're a bad candidate at all for adminship, because there are ''far worse'' candidates that get the admin bit anyways. My real - and unfortunately, deal breaking - concern lies solely with the BLP violation above. Adding that paragraph without a ''reliable'' source is detrimental to the legal status of Wikipedia and could potentially bring us into very serious situations - no offense meant, though.
'''Neutral''' I won't pile on another oppose, because I regard enthusiam as being important not to stifle, but there are too many concerns for me to support at the present time. Sharper grasp of policy, especially the critical ones, may make me change my mind in due course. --
'''Neutral''' I won't pile on, either.  But while acknowledging that Carter may not be ready yet for this responsibility, I would like to state my appreciation that he was willing to present his services for admin duties.  I hope that he does not take some of the harsher comments personally.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]].

yesssss <small>'''
I'm sorry, but I must oppose you. You've taken a lot of shit, but that's no excuse for you to return incivility with incivility. I'd like you to stay cooler more often. '''''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACertified.Gangsta&diff=214986752&oldid=214465303] You've crossed the line there. You might have been frustrated/annoyed but this is an unacceptable edit summary for an editor, let alone an admin. Remember [[WP:NPA]]; telling another editor to "get a life" is disruptive. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I agree with Bibliomaniac and DarkFalls - plus it appears that you have hardly edited at all for the past 5 months and not a great deal from July 2007.  Come back once these two items are fixed and I will reconsider. Best wishes.--
'''Oppose''' - I don't believe the candidate has the proper temperament to be an admin. On November 29, 2007, prior to a short lived retirement, Certified.Gangsta made a series of edits that, when read sequentially, reads "Fuck LionheartX, burn in hell, good bye." I shudder to think of the creative ways he will be uncivil with the extra buttons. --
'''Oppose''' too little activity (<50 edits) in the past 4 months --
'''Oppose''' Looks like some sort of Wiki-warrior. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. and after ec #@, per Bongwarrior
'''Oppose'''' - From that diff alone, no. But per Bongwarrior, absolutely not.
'''Moral Support'''
'''Strong Oppose''': User has barely any experience at all on Wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to give a user with [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=ChuckCoke&site=en.wikipedia.org 65] <small>(at time of edit)</small> (which almost all of them are on talk pages and absolutely none on [[WP:AfD]], which they said would be their main area of interest as an administrator) edits administrative rights. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' and recommendation for [[WP:SNOW|SNOW-y]] closure. Under two months of experience and with less than 100 edits. Only five edits to the mainspace.--'''
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:NOTNOW]]. When you have a couple thousand edits and some experience in adminny tasks, come back. You have less than one hundred edits. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', and without the feel-good implications of [[WP:NOTNOW]] or any of that.  Get to know how Wikipedia works first.  Get to know how to properly format an RFA first.  Understand what it means to contribute in Wikipedia project space (or in article space, come to think of it).  --
'''Strong oppose''' - Basically no experience in Wikipedia and the adminly areas. The answers to the questions are not good either. Less than 100 edits is certainly not enough for any user to become an administrator. Come back in a few months when you have amassed at least over 4000 edits with a good amount of quality edits within them in many adminly areas such as [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]] and more. Also, add some article writing also. Try expanding/creating articles to [[WP:DYK]], [[WP:GA]] and [[WP:FA]]. May I point out [[WP:ADOPT|adoption]]? You could use it. Thanks,
'''Not now'''  —
'''Oppose.''' A very premature RFA. Somebody please close this.
'''STRONG Oppose!''' This candidate appears to have some <s>maturity</s> civility issues, not to mention the fact they have less than 200 edits in the three some years they have been a member here.  Come back when you have a level head and about 5000 more edits over a six month span, then we can talk about the mop.
Oppose, same reason.  Way too soon.  --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CJ2005B&diff=209344111&oldid=209334010 being warned about edit-warring over flags in TV show infoboxes].  --
'''Sorry''' to pile on to your "bloodbath" (to use your edit summary words), but, No.  Not ready yet.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Strongest possible oppose''', per his behavior at [[User_talk:Islander]].
As per my rationale in de-listing this RfA, far too inexperienced. Sorry. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' Less than 200 edits and a three year gap is insufficient, I am afraid. Sorry. --
'''Support''' as nom
I'd like to see some more activity in those Q4 areas (from everyone!), but yeah, no big deal and all. ''
-- <strong>
'''Good answers to the questions.''' Not likely to misuse the tools is enough. I eschew copyright issues and AFD. There is plenty for an admin to do outside those areas, and candidate has no interest in those areas.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I'd personally like to see some more contributions to the ''Wikipedia'' space, but otherwise meets all of my [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|standards]]. Nice answer to question 6! '''
'''Support''' Have seen this editor doing good work on Wiki for months and I believe he would use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter. The articles mentioned in his Q2 answer are satisfactory examples of main space editing.
'''Support''' per convincing user page of worthwhile intentions and contributions.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' editing seems ok, I place more weight on those than answers to questions. should be a net positive. Cheers,
'''Support'''- No real problems, could do with the tools.
'''100% Support''' User has a great understanding, as seen above, and will make a great admin, maybe even a 'crat one day. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', I think Clpo13 shows good judgement, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Oppose''' Lack of Wikipedia space edits, user seems unfamiliar with to much. Q4 answer is clueless.--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry I do actually like this user but the lack of mainspace edits worries me. Clock up some more and I will probably support, good luck! --
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a decent editor, but his answers leave alot to be desired. Once he builds some more experience I am sure he will be a good admin. -
'''Weak, Weak Oppose'''. Most of what I see, I like. Good on mainspace contributions (which I personally think is very important), highly active editor, doesn't use Twinkle too much, uses edit summaries, communicates with other editors. The only problem is the little experience in the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia Talk isn't doing so hot, either). I think some more work in those two areas would help you get a better feel of the inner workings of Wikipedia. Do some more work in admin-like areas and I'll most definitely support.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience yet.
'''Weak oppose''' - After oscillating for a bit, I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not satisfied with both the mainspace, or the wikispace contributions as a whole. I'm sorry. However, I think that in 8-10 weeks you should be ready.
'''Oppose''' More project space edits equals more experience which may lead to my support in a future Rfa.

'''Oppose''' - Diff's provide by Balloonman are worrisome, and not becoming of a administrator, that coupled with lack of project space contributions makes me change my !vote to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman; lack of experience; and poor answer to question 4. The candidate shows potential and may be a fine admin one day. Right now Clpo13 needs more time and experience. Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' while I agree that there is a lot of potential here, a bit more experience and more time since the issues Balloonman pointed out are needed.
'''Oppose''' I feel that the user needs some more mainspace edits and gain some more experience. He seems to have the qualities necessary for an admin, so he should consider reapplying in the future once he gains more experience.
'''Oppose''' The diffs provided by Balloonman would give me cause for concern about this editor where he to be give adminship.
'''Neutral''' – Personally, I do not view this editor as any type of threat to misuse the tools.  However,  I would like to see more involvement in such areas as [[Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations|copyright violations]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Afd]] to gain a little more experience in policy issues, before moving to '''Support'''.  Good luck to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure how to take the answer to the 5th question.  Clpo13 states that IP addresses could change over a period so they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked, unless it's determined it's attached to one user.  But Clpo13 also stated that ones that are "attached to one user" (aka static) can change.  So it seems like a contradiction to me.
A little inexperienced, [[User talk:Clpo13/Archive 4|sporadic editing patterns]] (with that archive having only 12 threads, but spanning a 7 month period) - however, you do appear to be pretty good, so I'll go neutral.
'''Neutral'''.  Sorry, but I would like to see a little more experience in admin-related areas, especially those in the projectspace.  Probably admin coaching would be a very good experience for you, and after a few months of hard work I will definitely support.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''. I like the answers to the questions and I don't see anything to worry about in the contribution history. But there's just not much contribution history there, and a large part of what there is consists of semi-automated [[WP:TWINKLE|twinkle]] edits. (Not twinkle-bashing in the least here.) I'd love to support in a few months after more experience.--
'''Neutral''' Good user, as per the support votes, but there are concerns according to the oppose votes. But I can't decide whether to support or oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Requests for Adminship are at their core, a request for wikipedia project members to opine on a [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|given candidate's appropriateness vis-a-vis the sysop tools]], aka the mop-and-flamethrower. Overall this user has been a valuable contributor to the project. However, sysop's need to demonstrate the ability to handle difficulties with aplomb, as they are given the ability to control others' access to wikipedia through blocks. The fact that this user has been involved in disputes recently is not the issue for me; editing long enough in wikipedia will bring anyone into one conflict or another. My concern is with ''how'' the conflict has been handled. One can transmit the same information as is found in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=194506936 this edit], for example, without making it an overt attack (try saying "I have had a difficult time trying to reach a consensus with User X in the past" instead). Or the edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clpo13&diff=prev&oldid=194963879 here] is not necessary either. It must be noted that this editor ''has'' demonstrated civility as well during this conflict, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=prev&oldid=194962215 here]. While any and every one of us has had, and will have, bad days (whether we are editors, sysops, bcrats, or ArbCom -- we are all human) and any one of those can be understood, their presence, in combination with other concerns such as a relatively low number of edits throughout all the spaces of the project, prevent me from being able to support at this time, and the user's overall behavior, humanity included, do not lead me to oppose at this time, thus, the neutral opinion. --
'''Neutral''' per aboves. <strong>
'''Neutral''' While I'm leaning towards support, I'm concerned about civility issues; administrators should always be kind. The edit count thing is minor, though also could be improved.
'''Neutral''' - close to supporting, may need a bit more experience.
'''Support''' Knows his stuff. '''
'''Support''' as one of the noms.
'''Support''' - knowing him through ClueBot and WP:OP, i'm certain he can be trusted
'''Support''' Looks good. '''''
Co-nominator '''support'''. &ndash;''
'''Support''' - "Knows his stuff" sums it up pretty well. He's definitely learned from his first two RfAs.
'''Support''' - There is a reason I nominated... <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]

'''Support''' Good user.
'''Strong support''' Cobi is level headed and resourceful. He's worked extensively with MediaWiki (including adding reversions to wikipedia and the software [http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=29539 link one], [http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki?view=rev&revision=30871 link two]. ) and will be a great help to the "tech" side of the +sysop flag. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' for the second or third time.
'''Support''', come along and join the team :) &mdash;
'''Why, yes!''' '''''
'''Support''' Because I've been wondering why this takes so long to happen.
'''Support''' Supported on last one, will do so again.
'''Support'''. You answered the questions very well. [[User:Basketball110|<font color="#00BFFF">Basketball</font>]][[User talk:Basketball110|<font color="#FF8C00">110</font>]]
'''Support''' As last time. I would point the opposers to question 1, where Cobi clearly says that his main admin activities will be in the areas that he has proven to be very knowledgable in, and that he will not engage in areas where he does not feel comfortable.
Absolutely. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' It happens that I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCobi&diff=163508531&oldid=163495143 supported the first] (consistent then, in fact, with the very point GlassCobra makes above, one that ought well to be considered) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_2 the second], and I see nothing to suggest that my previous judgments erroneous.
'''Support''' (again). --
He really should stop pestering me to block the proxies... :) &mdash;
'''Support''' —
'''Reluctant Support''' Would usually oppose for lack of experience in the area of article building but have been swayed by the cool head he kept at [[Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback#Anti-vandalism_bots|his request for bot-rollback]]. I know haw hard it is to keep [[WP:COOL]] when your bot is insulted, and Cobi made an excellent effort to argue both reasonably and civilly. Excellent Admin material.
'''Support''', editcountitis, including wherearetheeditscountitis, is bad, and I don't see any reason to believe the candidate will be abusive or misuse the tools.
I do trust this user's judgment and that's enough for me to support. I do value article editing very much but I don't see why Cobi couldn't appreciate its pleasures in the futures. Actually, adminship may very well stimulate him to contribute in the mainspace. <i><b>
Not every admin has to be an article writer.
'''Support''', good editor that I've seen around enough to earn my trust. Good luck! <b>
'''Support''' His work on open proxies looks good to me. Having the tools would benefit this user, and the Wikipedia as a whole. He does not edit mainspace much, and I see the concern there. Not having much mainspace edits may mean that an admin does not properly know the mores of the "work floor" of Wikipedia. The answers the candidate provides however show that the areas he will be using his admin tools do not require such an extensive entrenchment on the floor. This is not a request for delicate dispute resolution, but for a mop and bucket. If he wants to mop, and the floor gets clean, everone is happy.
'''Support''' People bring different skills to Wikipedia - not everyone is a great article writer, but that is no reason to exclude them. Cobi can obviously be trusted with the tools.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - clearly isn't mental. What more is required?
'''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi|As]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 2|Before]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' Great commitment to wikipedia.Has contributed a lot.
He seems like a bright, reasonable guy with a good understanding of Wikipedia and a commitment to its goals. He may not do everything the way we usually see at RfA (witness his post below, explaining how he uses a separate account to report to AIV and makes RPP requests on IRC) but I still think he would make a perfectly fine admin.
'''Support''' - ''(sigh)'' I was going to oppose given he hasn't written anything..but then I thought, hey, he's been around awhile so I guess the length of time does build up a certain amount of trust. ok then...
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' for my reasons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCobi&diff=163649047&oldid=163646218 elaborated before]. No canvassing issues this time.
'''Support''' - been here long enough to be able to be trusted with the tools and assume that he is not going to abuse them. Good luck,
'''Support''' - Won't abuse the tools. So why not? --
'''Support''' - His ClueBots are a massive help in the fight against vandalism. For this, i believe he should be an administrator. <span style="color:green"> '''
'''Support'''.  Meets my standards now.  I was one of the folk who opposed Cobi on the first RfA, and changed to Support on the 2nd RfA.  Besides being an active member of the community, having created ClueBot is a great addition to English WP.  Ready now more than ever.
'''Strong Support''' - I supported his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi|1st]] Rfa, then his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 2|Second RfA]] and I will also support his third RfA cause as Rudget pointed out above, Cobi is human and to human is to err, so what if he is the mastermind of a bot that we all love (right :p), and that his edit count is low ..urgh [[WP:Editcountitis|Editcountitis]] is a problem for most editors and well above all that, he is a trustworthy/capable/hardworking and an excellent editor and above all, he is wholeheartedly committed to this project and thats all I want in an admin....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per the reason I failed my RfB ;) Aka article writing is a lackluster reason to oppose in my opinion.
'''Strong support for the 3rd time!''' per my support in Cobi's previous RfAs. PLEASE, let's hope that this RfA is successful. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Very Weak support'''.  The answers to my questions were ok at best, and I have concerns about his experience in the projectspace, as well as in article writing.  Nevertheless, Cobi wouldn't knowingly abuse the tools, and thus would be an ok admin.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - As per my last time! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' - friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable about the policies that regard to where he intends to be active.
(jumps happily)
I'm sure that the mop will help you in your never ending quest to destroy the [[WP:VANDAL|forces of evil]]! [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''Jus</font><font color="Red">tin''</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Wikipedia:Gmail group|<font color="808080">(Gmail?)</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support!''' Go Cobi! ≈ '''
'''Support''' Solid editor and very much liked the attitude displayed in his answer to question 6.
'''Support''' good editor, knows what he's doing, and I see no need to nitpick edits in every different space.--
'''Support'''.  I saw this RFA and came to oppose based on your involvement of the railroading through of the "Non-Free Content Compliance Bot".  I went to find some diffs and see that you've backpedaled from that position, to my pleasant surprise.  Everyone makes mistakes, but alarmingly few people around here admit it.  Willingless to correct one's own errors is one of the most important qualities of an admin.   &#10154;
'''Support'''- said the co-nom <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Support''' - I don't usually participate in RFAs, but I have watched this user since December, and he demonstrates a good understanding of the project and consistent civility.  Back in 12/07, one of his bots mistakenly reverted an edit by one of my IPs, and he was quick to address the issue - polite, thoughtful, and with no prejudice against an anonymous user; it was textbook AGF, which is all-important in a vandal fighter.  Though I usually prefer a strong percentage of mainspace edits, I believe there is clearly room at the encyclopedia for a vandal fighter this innovative and this good, and that conferring the tools on such a person can only lead to good things.
'''Support''' You're not a sysop already? <strong>
'''Support''': There's nothing that makes me think he wouldn't use the tools in a sensible fashion, writing articles is all well and good, but it's not everybody's cup of tea. There's certainly vast areas in which Cobi knows his stuff and can apply that to administering WP.
'''Weak Support''' I agree that not every admin needs to be an article writer, although I prefer our admins to be cognizant of the various areas to which they will be called. I also see that the preponderance of User:talk edits are templates or bot related, but I came across a few in which the user is having a dialogue with other editors, and I did not see anything that stood out as egregious. The user has helped the project in a large way due to his maintenance work regarding bots, and maintenance work is mainly what a sysop does. While I would prefer to have been able to see more directly, based on the user's answers here and my own investigation, I can be reasonably confident that the user will use, and not abuse, the tools and can have the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] extended to him. --
'''per nom statements and this should be a net positive''' We can't all be great article builders. The candidate's answers convince me that will use constructively and will not misuse them. Seems careful and thoughtful enough to not stumble into mistakes.
'''Support'''.  I don't see any major flaws here.  Notwithstanding the canvass issue from RFA2, Cobi likely would've passed then. No canvassing this time around.  Good editor, unbelievably good technical abilities, civil, and clearly states that he will tread slowly in unfamiliar areas of adminship.  What else is there? I support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I trust Cobi to not abuse the tools. '''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - I feel that Cobi is experienced and capable enough to be trusted with the administrative tools. I have no problem with the lack of article contributions, I feel that his experience there is enough. Finally, he definitely has the clue necessary to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - I support Cobi and appreciate his dedication to the community with his fantastic bots!! You rock, Cobi! <font color="orange">'''
I do not think this user will abuse the tools, so [[User:Ral315/WTHN|why the hell not?]]
Normally I would oppose a user with this little experience and in fact I've opposed Cobi in the past.  I've decided to support here and I hope some of the opposes consider this reasoning.  I think Cobi is extremely sincere in wanting to help with behind-the-scenes tools, like the incredibly useful ClueBot, because of a genuine desire to free up time for article writing and all the other activities that go on here.  While many, and possibly even most, admins who eschew article work are a net negative for the project, I do believe Cobi to be one of those exceptions.  I would encourage people with doubts to read his paper on ClueBot, although [http://24.40.131.167/ClueBot.pdf the link] is not currently working for me. --
'''Support'''; the Time has Come.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Cobi has enough experience and enough trust from the community in order to be trusted with the admin tools.  His work in fighting vandalism has definitely benefitted Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - definitely a great candidate for the mop, especially with his experiences with bots and open proxies. <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - no problems here at all. Good luck! -
'''Support'''.&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' Very trustworthy user. I wish I was earlier, I would have co-nomed
'''Support''' - He knows what he does and wants to contribute to Wikipedia and how to fight against vandalims.--
'''Support''' Will do fine with the mop. -
As I have always done. -- <strong>
Obviously cares a lot about Wikipedia and has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. -- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Support''' per above. The candidate is a good user, unlikely to abuse the trust of the community. I join my colleagues in encouraging Cobi to contribute in some manner to the mainspace (that being the whole point of this project, after all), but will not disqualify him in the meantime.
'''Support''' As first and second nomination. I still trust in him with the tools.
I supported the last two RfAs of Cobi. I didn't think he'd make a bad admin then, I don't think he'd make a bad admin now.
'''Support''' I trust him with the tools ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Weak Support''' I am going to lean on [[WP:NBD]] here and say that while there may be few edits here, I think he has grasped a majority of the policies and will not misuse the tools. I feel that some people below here are being nitty-picky here and making a big deal out of nothing. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Strong Support''' - Cobi has a brain in his head, which is ever-so-firmly mounted on his shoulders. While he's not edited the encyclopedia much, that's largely not what the tools are about. Having been around the block more than once, he knows the policies, and I'm confident he'll use the admin buttons to benefit the project. '''&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' My reasons still have not changed, he definitely deserves it. --
This has been a very tough RfA for me to make a decision. My personal philosophy says that a good admin candidate is an article writer, but also works on maintenance tasks. This makes sort of a conflict of indecision - Cobi's not really an article writer, but his contributions to the upkeep of the 'pedia are outtanding. I try to not set arbitrary standards to decide whether I trust a user to b ea good admin. Now, to comment more in depth on the candidate here. Cobi's contributions to Wikipedia are exceptional - he's created ClueBot, an anti-vandal bot that has made something like half-a-million edits to Wikipedia. He also has even contributed  many more other ClueBots, even having a special ClueBot Commons account to help organize all the other accounts. On the other hand, Cobi's contributions to the mainspace are a bit lacking. I do, however, commend him for making some effort to edit content; he created around 50 asteroid stubs. My view on really short articles are frankly, mine, and shouldn't be a reflection on the candidate, but I suggest looking at contribution to quality content. (Stuff like [[WP:GA]], [[WP:FC]], and [[WP:DYK]]) So when presented these two main points, it becomes a very tough decision. I think that we can certainly trust Cobi to not go rogue - we trust Cobi to run many different bots. Is Cobi experienced enough to be a good admin? I think the answer to this question is yes, as well. Cobi seems to be more of an observer than a do-er. He has the sense to be trusted to run bots in different areas of maintenance, and I think he knows what his doing in relation to admin chores. I think Cobi having the admin tools can make other's lifes easier. His bot frequently nominates pages in its userspace for deletion frequently, and if this simple function could be done through Cobi's sysop account, it'd make life a bit easier for others. I think making Cobi a sysop would a positive for Wikipedia. As for article-writing, I sincerely hope that Cobi takes my concerns and the concerns in the opposes about article-writing seriously and contributes more content. To recap, even though this long-winded statement goes on and on and, however nothing like Gurch's, I think the point that needs to be made here is that Cobi being a sysop would be a net positive for the encyclopedia, however, Cobi should contribute more to content. To make it clear, I '''support''' Cobi for adminship. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''You will do well as an admin'''. Not every single admin is a content-building admin. We need more maintenance admins, like myself.
I'm in the same boat as Maxim, and so I'm going to AGF and support, as I did in the past. It's hard, but I hope Cobi, if sysopped, doesn't let me down. ''
Cobi may not be an article writer, but that doesn't mean he can't help the encyclopedia with the tools. Writing a DYK or GA won't make any difference on his ability to use the buttons responsibly. He's clearly qualified for the extra buttons and even the opposers know that.
While the heart of the encyclopedia is its content, the truth is the flip side of [[WP:NOTPAPER]] is that this is an online community. There is place on WP for a specialist admin whose expertise is in online maintenance and vandalism fighting. He has shown he can be trusted, and I assume that Cobi will exercise appropriate discretion in areas with which he is unfamiliar.
'''Support'''
'''support''' '''
'''Support''' wiki will obviously benefit from Cobi's ability to block open proxies, block vandals found by his bot, his ability to edit protected pages and see deleted contribuions. There is some risk that having almost no experience nor passion over article writing Cobi would make incorrect decision with regard to passion article writers and editorial conflicts. I think we can take the risk as the potential benefits are quite strong.
What this all comes done to is trust, and I trust Cobi to do the right thing. I therefore '''Support''' Cobi in his requests for adminship. I would also like to ask that if you pass please don't put rfa thank you spam on my talk page  --
'''Support''' - Cobi's been a great guy the whole time I've known him, on Wikipedia and off. He'd make a great admin. // [[User:Hackmiester|hackmiester]]
'''One-step-closer-to-[[WP:100]]-support'''!  Good luck!  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Weak Support''' pending the answer to question 20 (above).  Cobi seems to have a legitimate use for the tools, but adminship is bigger than that, culture-wise.  --
'''Support''' would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I know knothing of him outside his bot, but he seems like a wonderful user. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
[[WP:100|Yet another one on the pile]]. Quite a competent user.
'''Support''' per above, particularly [[User:Nick|Nick]]. There are many areas that Cobi will be valuable asset in with admin tools and his great technical expertise. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Article writing in the mainspace is kinda why we're here, but it's not everyone's speciality. I don't think anyone can deny that Cobi is an asset to the community, through his immense amount of work with the ClueBots, and as such I seee no problems at all in giving him the mop :). [[User talk:Islander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''Talk'''</font></sub>]]
'''Support''' With his technical expertise, he will be a useful admin in many areas, I don't think he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' every confidence that he will be an asset
'''Support'''ing this time around. However I do not see much change from the last RFA except the lack of canvassing. That said I am waving the AGF flag this round. Although he still seems unexperienced in many areas there is nothing that leads me to believe the user will jump in with admin tools and go crazy. <b>
'''Support''' [[User:ClueBot]] is more productive than any five administrators. Article writing is good.  Improving the signal to noise ratio by protecting those well-written articles is also good.  There are different ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Cobi has done great things, and I think they can be trusted not to use sysop tools in areas where they might not have the strongest understanding. Every administrator needs to understand their strengths and weaknesses and act accordingly.
'''Support'''. No question whatsoever that promoting Cobi to sysop is a good step forward for WP.
'''Strong Support'''. I'm looking at the Opposes and I see "Well maybe if his edit count was higher...". '''Edit Count Has nothing to do with skills, none-the-less Adminship!''' Adminship is based on how much someone helps the project. By looking at how Cobi answered the questions, he obiously posses the skills required to be a syops. Also, if Cobi isn't good at article-writing it doesn't mean he is going to be a bad syops. As he said, spending 30 minutes coding a bot that reverts a huge amount of vandalism, is more helpful to the wiki than fixing minor POV and making stub articles that will be AFD'ed or Speedied. Good Luck Cobi :) <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' While I think you should spend some time looking at the arcanes of content issues, I think you having the tools would be an asset to the project. --
'''Support'''. Cobi works hard, does good, and is helpful. I see no red flags.
'''Support''' Dedicated, hard worker - politely answered '''20''' questions on this RFA - which shows he has good communications skills  --
'''Support''' yeah. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' weighing the pros and cons, this seems like the correct move -
'''Support''' I trust the user will use the tool appropriately. --<small>
'''Support''' Seems worthy of the mop and to have learned and grown from his past. Nice answers to the questions too
'''Support''' - Cobi's goals are in line with the encyclopedia - his specialization in bot, vandalism, and other technical areas makes up for a noted lack in other areas.
'''Support''' - there are a variety of ways to contribute to the project, and writing a helpful bot like ClueBot is an excellent one.  It takes a good grasp of policy to be able to automate a bot to revert unacceptable edits.  Cobi has demonstrated commitment to the project, trustworthiness, common sense and an even-keeled temperament.  I would have no worries if he had access to the tools. --
'''Support'''. We need bot people...and cobi seems ok. Cheers!
'''Support'''. I opposed last time, but I think Cobi can be trusted with the tools. He doesn't get stressed and sticks to what he knows. I don't agree with the oppose argument that he doesn't have enough mainspace experience: Cobi has shown a willingness to try writing and improving articles, and it's just not his [[comparative advantage]]. Good luck, Cobi. -
'''Support''' As per last time.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. --
'''Support''' as with previous RfA's. An excellent contributor who has experience in areas related to adminship - he'll be fine with a couple of extra buttons.
'''Support'''. I recognise the concerns raised by the opposing editors, but I offer my support regardless, in the hope that the project will both gain an efficient and effective administrator, and that Cobi will work on those points highlighted. I know he can do a good job, and if he takes the first while slowly, and takes care to develop his contributions to the article-space, then we'll be +1 great sysop. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
'''Weak Support''' I am more loath to support now than I have been in the two previous RfAs as I see little difference in the candidate from those RfAs. However, I still think that the community will benefit from Cobi being an admin, so I will still be supporting. If this RfA fails, please work on the things that the opposers suggest before trying again.
'''Support''' per noms.--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]]|
'''Support''': I have no complaints about this user; who will make a great admin from what I can tell.  -
'''support''' - per above
'''Support''' - I'm confident Cobi wouldn't abuse the tools, although I would hope Cobi would work on some article on a comp.sci. topic he knows well.
'''Support'''. Cluebot etc. <font color="green">[[User:Vivio Testarossa|Vivio<font color="red"> Testa<font color="blue">rossa]]</font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:Vivio Testarossa|Talk]]
'''Support''' Seems fine <font color="Green">

'''Weak Oppose''' - I'm most likely going to be in the minority here, and I hope I don't receive much flack for it, but here's the deal - I am immensely impressed by this user's technical ability. Cluebot and subtypes are fanfreakintastic. With that said, the candidate claims he wants to work at [[WP:UAA]],[[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AIV]] etc..etc.. yet has edited those spaces maybe a half dozen times. Also, where are the mainspace contributions? No article building, no talking? Sorry, I must oppose this given my criteria. Cheers mate. Good luck.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has done some good work, but needs more experience, per Wisdom89. Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' I went back through the contribs since December and saw next almost no actual content work. I feel that's it's quite important for admins to have experience there, apart from vandal fighting. In addition, even the policy areas he's commented/worked on have mostly been bot related. There's a really narrow focus on bot and vandal fighting activity (with some proxy stuff throw in) nearly to the exclusion of everything else. I think it's critical for admins to be familiar with the issues and frustrations that the normal everyday editors have. I don't need a bunch of FA's or anything but ''some'' work in the mainspace is important.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Last time there was discussion about the total lack of article contributions apart from machine edits. Well in the 3 months since then, there are about 400 machine edits and less than ten manual edits, all of which were small tweaks. So it seems as though the candidate has spent maybe approximately a total of 5 hours in article space since then. '''
Sorry, but the concerns from last time, especially the empty record on article writing or building, has still not been alleviated. It is not necessary to be a prolific writer of featured articles, but there should normally be some experience with locating sources, deciding what is good research, bad research and original research and so on. Administrating an encyclopedia requires some skills in building an encyclopedia. In addition, contributions to *FD, policy page discussions, and so on are also lacking (though none of these are essential by itself). Policing the encyclopedia is something the candidate does well, and he has by no means done anything wrong in doing so, but the administrator tools of "delete" and "protect" are pretty powerful and they cause unintended consequences in the hands of someone without a hands-on experience with articles beyond reverting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' - While I feel that pile on,  opposes are anything but constructive or helpful I do not feel Cobi is any where near ready for adminship. I echo what all the above users are saying in the fact that Cobi has little to no edits outside of bot related duties and as such does not have proper experience to use all the tools. After reading over the nominations it appears that every one only stated Cobi’s expertise when it comes to bots, no strong evidence of solid admin related contributions and clearly no need for the tools. When asked whether he eventually branch out into new admin areas, he stated and I quote “Yes, but only after I have observed the process, read and understood all relating policies and protocols, and feel confident that I understand how things are done in that area.” – Adminship is not the time to observe the process and to read up on policies, that needs to be done as a user. Why request the tools and only state that you are planning on using a few of them, and how are we to know that he will only use those few? We are discussing issuing all the tools to this user, and about whether or not we trust this user to use the appropriately. At this point in time I do not trust Cobi to use them appropriately, with only a handful of contributions to [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], [[WP:ANI|ANI]] ect… how can we see a ability to properly use the tools. Admins need to be well rounded, I am not saying they need to be experts in every part of the project, but well rounded, which Cobi is not. I feel this RfA is more of a popularity contest, due to the fact that Cobi has made a bunch of wikifriends here. Another issue was the use of cluebot to canvass users to !vote in his previous RfA, while that was dealt with it, and was a honest mistake, it really rubbed me the wrong way. If a user is only going to make bot related edits, then use (abuse) it to his gain? I personally do not know Cobi but from the few 2800+ contributions I reviewed, I was not impressed.
'''Oppose'''. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Strong oppose''' While I could support an editor with negligible mainspace contribs, and ''possibly'' one with weak projectspace, I cannot support an uncommunicative editor. The tiny number of Talkspace edits is understandable, given lack of mainspace work, but when I looked at his usertalk contribs ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Cobi&namespace=3&year=&month=-1]) they're mainly automated notices or vandal reversions. Admins need to discuss their actions, be a human face for our policies and idisyncracies. On the current evidence, you have way too many deficiencies as a candidate - and this one would be sufficient for me to oppose you over on its own. I'm sorry, because you're clearly one of the good guys. --
'''Oppose''' - Struck my support after consideration of the low project space edits.  While bot work is good, it's not germaine to being an admin.
'''Weak oppose''' - very useful bot, however almost complete lack of article edits.
'''Oppose''' Really sorry but you really ought to clock up a few more mainspace edits. I will probably back you next time...good luck! --
'''Fairly Strong Oppose'''. His bot is effective, but if you check [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my standards list]], running a bot is irrelevant in my mind. Not enough mainspace work, his last 500 mainspace contribs goes back to September 16th. Of those 500, 488 are reversions. His last RFA failed because of his lack of mainspace contribs and he hasn't really fixed that (well, he has added about 250 mainspace contribs since then, but almost all are reverts). On a positive note, he's stopped using Twinkle for all of his edits, so that's a definite plus. Another downside is that he has edited no mainspace article more than 5 times. Isn't there some topic of the world that you just really enjoy and would want to edit often; join a WikiProject. And only 29 article talk edits isn't all that impressive. Not to mention that 25% of your edits are to the userspace. You say in Q1 that you want to work at WP:UAA and CAT:CSD, yet I do not see a whole lot of work in those areas. Your last request for speedy deletion was 2 weeks ago, and you only have about 250 of those, anyway. Sorry. You do good work, but I don't think it's in the right place. We're an encyclopedia building community, and I just don't see enough of that. Please see my RFA standards, linked above, if you have any questions.
'''Oppose''' - Grrrr, I hate doing this, and it is the second time I have done so with Cobi, because your bot is fabulous, but I have to admit I do not regard ClueBot as a reason to promote you to an admin. Experience still needs to be attained in many areas, for example, Wikipedia-talk, where the vast majority of edits are to Bot related spaces. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' -  Regretfully – To be honest, I was on the fence on this one.  However, your answer to the question posed by [[User:Dweller|Dweller]] (in question 9) was the deciding factor.  I disagree with your reasoning.  The foundation and principle of [[Wikipedia]] is the dissemination of information.  If you feel that a stub is below the standards of [[Wikipedia]] or below your worth of time to create or edit, what is the purpose of this project?  If it was not for editors contributing, and in many times as '''Stubs''', which have grown to [[Wikipedia:FA|FA]] status, {that brings information to the [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]]}, why have [[Wikipedia]] at all.   I, for one,  come back, time after time, after time, to gather information and contribute.  Many times creating articles that are classified as stubs.  Sorry, just not a true grasp of the project yet. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Cobi, you're an absolutely brilliant bot builder, but I too must agree with the concerns above. Though the ClueBots and such are fantastic, and you are a very capable editor when it comes to maintenance, an administrator, at least in my eyes, must have considerable experience in communicating with others and article writing. I don't think anybody is asking you to go out and write an FA. Article improvement does not even need to mean writing. It can simply be reading a plot summary and pruning out the un-needed details and trivia, or just rewording an awkward sentence written by a person who does not speak good English. I really do not think you are a bad editor, or even deficient, just a very specialist one, and sysops need to be well-versed in all categories. Sorry. <font face="Courier New">
Oppose per Blnguyen. --
'''Oppose''' Taken alone, your contrib history would not be reason to oppose you. However, combine a history in which your best contribs are via bot (according to you) with some just plain poor answers here, and that makes you untrustworthy. A sysop should have a firm understanding of policy, and your answers here give me serious doubt that you possess the sufficient policy knowledge to be a trustworthy admin.
'''Oppose''' - User-space contribs outnumber meager mainspace contribs.
'''Weak Oppose''' I have had very little interaction with Cobi, though I am sure he is a fine and knowledgeable editor. I would also trust him with the tools. Also, he deserves all the praise he has received and more for ClueBot. My concern is this: on January 14, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cobi&diff=184323414&oldid=184299913 asked Cobi a question] on his talk page, and never did receive a response. I later realized that as it was a question about his bot, I should have asked the question elsewhere; however, I don't feel that this is an adequate reason to completely ignore a question posed to you. I think we've all ignored the occasional "y did u deleet mah paige??/" message, but I think it is unacceptable to ignore a legitimate question asked by an established user. As an admin, this is something you have to deal with very often, and you can't just not answer people. Furthermore, as great as he is with code, we're writing an encyclopedia here, and to my knowledge Cobi has no article writing experience to speak of. I appreciate that Cobi is not a writer, and don't expect multiple GAs and FAs from him. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to choose a topic he's interested in, join the WikiProject and cleanup a half dozen articles or so, just to show that 1) he can do it and 2) he's willing to act on advice given in his previous two RfAs.
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits, infact a terribly low number of edits. And not nearly any demonstration that he is familair with the finer points of policies for articles that adminship would need. I also think that RFA's 3 times for a user with just 3,000 edits is a drain on everyone, look at how big the responses have to be to get their point across. Dissapointing behaviour, should have waited longer.--
'''Stronger than average oppose''' Content shy, minimal experience as a mandarin, three nominations in 9 months. User is gunning for the position and doing the minimum to earn it. No way. Great bot work obviously, but apart from that has shown the community little evidence for obtaining this position other than ambition.
'''Oppose''' I echo the concerns of the editors who have posted before me in this section; that communication is essential to any editor who requests administrative priveleges. I, and others I am certain, greatly appreciate all the hard-work you have put into Wikipedia but I do not feel you are ready yet to be endowed with the tools. More community interaction - maybe going to areas outside of your - well - favorite areas. Lord knows I ''hate'' voting on AFD's <sub>(...but so often am nominating articles for AFD...?)</sub>, but I try from time to time to make the effort to go and have my say. All I am saying is that I do not think you are a threat to Wikipedia or not worthy in any way, just that at this time I do not feel it would be appropriate of me to support you in this RFA if I was not fully convinced you could handle ''all'' of the aspects of being an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' per the experience concerns and Blnguyen.
<small>I won't be entering into any discussion about this, or retracting it. Feel free to respond, though.</small> '''Weak oppose''' - I have to say, Cobi's description of how s/he behaves when a fault is found with their bot (''false positive'' isn't a terribly honest phrase...) reminds me greatly of how bot-owners can be patronising and defensive of their programing. While I'm sure that "all bots" '''do''' suffer from faults, that in itself isn't an explanation. Sorry. —
'''Oppose'''- to paraphrase (with slight changes to reflect new RFA) [[User:Meegs]] from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi_2&diff=177377976&oldid=177377839 last RFA] <small> -''Some'' experience working with articles is an absolute must. Nearly all of the people opposing Cobi's previous RfA cited his extreme lack of mainspace contributions, and I'm not at all encouraged by his decision to accept this third nomination without attempting to address those peoples' concerns. </small> - That is how I feel, I agree with yellowmonkey and LRAdrama above.
Agreeing with Blnguyen, I am disappointed that the good advice at the previous RfA has been totally ignored. I would be unable to trust this editor with the power to speedily delete articles because they can demonstrate no significant knowledge of writing them. The ''asteroids for creation'' really don't make me feel any better about this aspect. That people would support an RfA because the candidate has demonstrated the ability to write a bot seems odd indeed. I fail to see any connection between these things. I appreciate and applaud Cobi's work on bots, a significant benefit to the project, but being sysopped is absolutely not an extra-super-special barnstar.
This is probably the most difficult oppose I've had to make in a very long while, but per Dweller and Fusionmix. I cannot in good coincience support someone to deal with article disputes and other administrative tasks that they have no prior experience in. Sorry,
'''Strong Oppose''' I generally hate the argument about seeming power hungry, but 3 RfA's in less than 8 months?  But I have other concerns, he uses a bot, but has only 3K edits?  The most edits he's made to any one article is 5?  And the failure to adhere to the advice from previous RfA's.  Being an admin is about trust and about showing that you can listen to the expectations of the community as a whole.  Yes, that does mean jumping through some hoops, but it is like any job or school, in order to get what you want you sometimes have to do things you don't want to do.  Playing with a bot does not endear trust or validate expertise with policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose''' per the concerns raised by BInguyen and Balloonman.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but where's the article development experience?  All I saw was Bot related, vandal fighting and stub creation.  I also echo many of the concerns above &nbsp;—
'''Oppose''' The bot is awesome, but I can't disregard the lack of serious article work (non-machine). I see you've just created a few dozen stubs. That's great, but I would like to see more consistency. Should this RfA fail, I would like to see some more consistent non-machine contributions to the encyclopedia. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Three RFAs in less than six months?  Nah, not gonna buy it.  This guy clearly WANTS to be an admin--which means he's probably totally unsuited.
'''Strong oppose''' - technically a great asset to the project, but Cobi has disregarded advice given on prior RFAs to do some real content work.  Admins need to be trusted to act appropriately outside of their comfort zone, which requires that they have broad experience on the wiki, and have had lots of user interaction on the wiki.
'''Oppose''' Very poor breadth of edits as discussed above, and generally not a huge amount of experience with editing or interacting with other users (has not been editing very long or very heavily). An example is vandal fighting. The nominee's bot may have been heavily involved in reverting and posting to AIV, but the nominee certainly hasn't. Without this hands on experience of dealing with vandals, I don't think they are ready - and vandalism seems to be the main thing they have experience of. Outside of vandalism, there is even less experience of editing and interaction. Writing bots may have made Cobi an expert at programmatically identifying vandalism but, when it comes to being an admin, it is no substitute for interacting with vandals or other users. Need to do something to show he understand key policies and also demonstrate how he interacts with others.
'''Weak Oppose.''' As per Wisdom, I do not agree with Kurt whatsoever. But I think 3000 is too low for me. I dont think you're "power hungry" or as Kurt likes to describe people who "want" to become an admin but come back when you clock 10,000 with at least 2-3000 mainspace. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Whilst I don't think arbitrary standards such as half of edits in mainspace are helpful, I do think that an admin needs mainspace edits that are not simply vandalism. As an admin we all have to deal with problematic articles and problematic editors with tact. Building articles, doing what we are here to do, helps a user to understand and empathise with the many problems that editors face. Whilst I don't think that you have to have 1 FA or GA etc, I do think you have to have knowledge of building articles to be an admin. I have to go with Blnguyen on ths one and agree that these concerns were brought up last time and you have done little to remedy it.
'''Oppose'''' with almost no edits in WT space, there is no way to tell if the candiadate actually knows how to apply policy. I dont go all that much by answers here alone. this is not counting edits, but evaluating participation and demonstrated knowledge. '''
'''Oppose'''. Too little improvement since the last time I opposed. I find the paltry use of article talk pages particularly worrying.
'''Oppose''' - I admire the bot and Cobi's work regarding that. But do not see much improvement on the article space, the main concerns from the previous time. With a much bettered mainspace contributions, I would support. -
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen.
'''Oppose''' - the reasons have been stated numerous times above.
'''Oppose''': Hats off for your bot but, not enough mainspace edits. --[[User:Lahiru_k|<font color="blue">'''♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪'''</font>]] <font color="blue"><sup>[[User talk:Lahiru_k|walkie-talkie]] |
'''Oppose''' With apologies, and though I've been away for a while, I was steadily becoming less and less impressed by Cobi's judgment. Add to the fact that he hasn't learned at all from his two previous RfAs. Sorry bud, but I can't support you this time around.
per Blnguyen -- <b>
'''Oppose''': He may seem like a normal and useful contributor, but one time I asked him a question about his anti-vandalism bot's fast ability at reverting, but didn't reply. I reply to most of the messages on my talk page, and I have a lot of mainspace edits. Looks like a little more knowledge is in hand.
'''Oppose'''. I want the crats to decide on this one.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen.  I think that lack of mainspace is an issue that has not been addressed well enough.
'''Oppose''' I thought about this for a long time. I was wishing that the candidate would do article work (that's why I opposed on the first RFA), but in this case, he didn't. So, I am sorry, I have to    oppose on that issue, as well as some of the issues explained above.
I find that I can't bring myself to support this request, because Cobi has shown no inclination to assuage the concerns of editors in his last RfA who spoke to his lack of mainspace contributions. Maybe this shortage should be an issue, and maybe it shouldn't - but a willingness to listen to such concerns and compromise with fellow editors is one of the most important attributes of a good administrator, and Cobi has rejected the concerns of his fellow editors out of hand.
'''Neutral''' Cobi is an excellent user, and has made amazing conntributions with the ClueBot, but has few mainspace edits outside of edits related to the bot. I don't find this enough reason to oppose, but feel I can't really support. Also, it seems to me that some of the issues from the previous RfAs have not quite been addressed. He is an excellent user, but just needs a little more work to get to adminship. It appears that the majority is supporting, so good luck, and I hope that adminship is not too far off for you.
I appreciate the work you do, but I think you're here for the wrong reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to show off your coding skills. '''
I can't support because you have shown disregard to the opinion and recommendations of the community. In your past RfAs, you were told that more article work would be needed to pass. And yet, you're here again, and nothing substantial has been done. I personally do not subscribe to that school of thought, but when you have failed two RfAs because of it, and then come back here ''again'' without addressing it, I have a problem. However, you do a lot of good work, and so I cannot oppose. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Neutral''', moved from Regretful Oppose. I am much reassured to hear that the candidate was testing a script when the out of process speedy nominations I observed were placed. :) I don't feel I can quite move to support, though, since I think running such a script was probably a misguided choice, and it also leaves me nothing substantial to judge CSD experience by. Speedy deletions—nomination or follow-through—should be weighted carefully, I think, since they are potentially about as bitey as we can get. Anyway, whether the editor gets the tools or not, I do think he's a ''very'' valuable contributor, and I feel at least quite sure that he will ''not'' misuse the tools intentionally. Hence, even if I don't quite feel I can support, I'm pleased that I no longer feel I have to oppose. --
I see very little evidence that you've learned from your previous RfAs, nor that you have any experience in the areas you wish to work with. On the other hand, you're a good guy who obviously cares about the project. I kinda hope this passes, on the one hand, but I can't support based on my personal belief that RfA is to be a learning experience, and you have shown very little development. Fwiw I'm a big fan of the bot, am absolutely stunned by your coding skills, and very much think we need and want you around. Ugh, this one's tough. ~
'''Neutral''' basically what Riana said. Sorry, —
'''Neutral''' ClueBot's great, and I mean ''great,'' but I think more article work is neccessary. Sorry.
After much thought, I'm switching from support to neutral. I apologise for this relatively late change, but after re-reading the opposes and re-evaluating what I stated earlier, neutral is the best option for me. And per Riana as well.
'''Moral Support''' I must applaud you enthusiasm, but unfortunately your lack of experience isn't going to get you adminship. Keep on editing, fighting vandals, and being a great contributor to the project and you can come back here to try again. Every RFA deserves a support vote :). <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience or understanding.  I need faith you will know to follow policy.  You need to demonstrate that before I would support. '''
Very little activity.
'''Oppose''' Sparatic activity, good chunk of your contribs (which are sall enough as it is) are to your own userspace, and very little WP/WT work. Sorry, dude/dudette, but you're not there yet. You might want to withdraw this and ask for an editor review/coaching.--
'''Suggest withdrawal''' - Sorry man, as you said, you don't expect this to pass, and I think if you don't withdraw soon it will be closed per [[WP:SNOW]]. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' You may not want to withdraw, but it will be [[WP:SNOW|snowed]] in any event as you have approximately 300 edits, plus sporadic edit summary usage.
'''No'''.  Sorry, but with 300 edits, this is a [[WP:snow]].
'''Oppose''' (ec) 151 main space edits is great! Keep going... However, in order for the community to support you ''as an administrator'' you need a much higher volume of edits than you have along with diverse experience across and within many namespaces, particularly main, project and user talk.  I have no doubt you can learn what to do but you may wish to look into admin coaching if your goal is to become an admin. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Oppose'''- I don't like the fact that he's only contributed to mainspace articles. He's never done RC Patrol, as far as I can see, never really posted anything on anyone's talk page but his own, never reported anyone to AIV, never nominated something for or participated in a XfD(anything for deletion). An administrator will need such experience. I suggest that ComputerGuy890100 do some of these things, get comfortable in these fields, and then come back(with a higher edit count, I may add).
'''Oppose''' - user is inexperienced, cannot remember his own password and has created two new accounts because of this, etc. --'''
'''Oppose'''; as Rschen said, this user has had to use two different accounts because he lost his password. Personally, I cannot entrust a user with the mop if he can't handle the most basic element of an account: logging in. --
'''Oppose''' needs more experience, work in admin related tasks, and better use of the edit summary usage. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Oppose'''- more experience necessary here - also the fact that the user has replaced his account and used edit summarys less than 15% of the time in mainspaces is of very great concern to me.  Not to mention his intent for use of the tools is too focused on a section of the encyclopedia and not the whole &nbsp;—
'''Oppose''' - Inability to remember password is my primary reason. I don't necessarily trust the user to misuse the tools on that basis, but I'm not sure s/he would be able to use them if they can't log on. Also, writing the password (and probably name) down might make it possible for someone else to get ahold of it, which would definitely be a bad idea. A bit more experience, and an easier to remember password?, might do a lot to remove such reservations, though.
Less than 50 edits total, the only edits in 2008 were to prepare and transclude this RFA. Reccomend [[WP:NOTNOW]] closure. –<font face="Verdana">
Recommend telling it like it is. This a joke, right? --
Endorse NOTNOW closure.
'''Oppose''' - Not now.  Too green.  <b><font color="Indigo">
As nom. --
beat 2 noms support ;p but seriously, i was under the impression that he was one. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' - Seems prone to gnomism but also seems dedicated to improving articles. Particularly impressed with concerted effort on [[Che Guevara]]. Shows no inclination towards abuse.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - <s>[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig|per oppose #1]]</s> Great candidate with great nominators, over all no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Net positive.
'''Support''' his talk page is dotted with Thank You's so he must be doing something right!
'''Support.'''  Patient and diplomatic, Coppertwig has been helping out recently at the 3RR noticeboard. I first ran into Coppertwig in late 2006 when both of us were helping to translate the article on [[Hellenistic art]] from the French Wikipedia. Something Coppertwig finished recently was a project with Moonriddengirl and others to create new wording for all the message templates for [[WP:CSD]], to agree better with the policies. (For instance, see [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_29#Suggested_new_wordings_for_CSD_templates|this talk thread]]). Completing this reform shows a certain grasp of the Wikipedia policies and an ability to work with others.
'''Support''' Appears to Assume Good Faith in every instance possible. That's what I like and what I think we need. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''' as a generally well-rounded user who keeps his cool.
'''Support''' - Per Tiptoety. Net positive.
'''Support.'''  Outstanding neutrality and civility above and beyond the call of duty.  Firm grasp of core policies and their practical, common sense application.  A willingness to confront difficult, time consuming issues with diligence and patience.
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse tools.
I am supporting on the condition he is not involved in science-related issues with the admin tools, as I am concerned by the issues raised in opposition. Coppertwig, I would appreciate a comment in relation to this condition. ''
'''Weak Support'''.  The opposes bother me, but, like DHMO, I'm sure you'll keep away from science articles as an admin.  '''
'''Support'''. Coppertwig engages in constructive discussions. I don't always agree with Coppertwig, and from what I remember of Iantresman I have grave doubts about whether he'll be able to contribute positively, but that's okay. I only expect admins to be able to follow consensus instead of their own opinions, and I'm sure that Coppertwig will do so; admins don't have to agree with me all the time. By the way, I've never discovered any unorthodox leanings from Coppertwig's edits of mathematics articles and I'd welcome Coppertwig's use of admin tools there. --
'''It's OK''' to have POVs.''(vide Oppose 5 reg. anti-science POV!)'' All of us do. Hell, I have POVs. Being an admin for me is more about prioritizing quality of the article and integrity of Wikipedia above one's POVs, and I could not find a reason to think that this editor would do otherwise.
'''Support''' based on my interactions with this extraordinarily civil, thoughtful, diplomatic, and intelligent editor. Coppertwig describes his/her best contribution as shortening the [[circumcision]] article, which I had the pleasure of observing. It was boldly done, extraordinarily skilful, and yet with evident desire to ensure that the rationale for each edit was transparent, and that there was consensus throughout. I was delighted to sit back and watch in stunned amazement. Since then, Coppertwig and I have interacted regularly, sometimes in agreement and sometimes not, and I invariably look forward to reading his/her contributions. Last but not least, while we have our disagreements from time to time, I respect and - above all - trust Coppertwig.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support'''. First the discussion and opposes have latched onto a single incident that concerns them and frankly is a little concerning to me. [[User:Iantresman]] was not banned because he had a POV. He was banned for his bad conduct. But as regards [[User:Coppertwig]], the idea that everyone must understand every situation in the exact same way is unwise. It's obvious the nominee sees the Iantresman case differently and suggested that the user be rehabilitated. While we may not agree with his conclusions we should respect that he has a right to speak his mind. Coppertwig did nothing wrong and worked transparently and within the system to bring about a change he thought proper. It's embarrassing for him to be opposed so vehemently because his opinion differs from others. Someone show me evidence that he would have wheel-warred over this or that he would reject consensus? He has shown coolness and cordiality which is always a useful characteristic. Therefore I conclude that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary he should be given the tools. -
'''Support'''.  Seen you around.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''', no evidence whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  A quiet, reflective Wikipedian, not likely to abuse the mop.  I don't see a problem.
'''Support'''. Over the 18 months that I have been aware of Coppertwig I have found him to be contributing to WP in ways well above normal. I have '''never''' seen Coppertwig "loose it", engage in personal attack or edit disruptively. Rather he has worked towards consensus. Coppertwig will do good work as an admin.
No evidence to suggest his alleged point of view will stop him being a rational, neutral admin.
'''Support''' as co-nom. :D I didn't realize we had gone live. --
Support. Stellar noms.
'''Support per the nom statements and other supports above.''' Adminship for the candidate should be a net positive for the Project.
Natürlich. Pro co-nominierung. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''. Accepting the "opposers" accusations as true, Coppertwig's views aren't that outlandish to warrant a ban on him becoming an admin, ecpecially when there's no history of him violating any policy. --'''''
'''Support''' Excellent editor, no reason for any concerns as an administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' due to reasonable statements I've seen the candidate make in discussions.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">

'''Support''' I do not think that one bad call, some months ago, should be allowed to bar the adminship of an otherwise excellent candidate. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' - Fair, objective, polite, calm, steady, helpful, and collaborative. One of the best editors I have come across on Wikipedia - who I believe embodies what this endeavor, is about. &nbsp;&nbsp;[[Image:Smile icon.png|14px]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' Win.
'''Support''' I trust that this user will be fine with the tools. I also like this user's answers. Good luck! Cheers.--
'''Support''' This user's outstanding temperament and ability to remain civil and neutral in any situation makes me confident that they will be fine with the extra buttons.
'''Support''' - Coppertwig is smart and capable.  Admins are not granted any special powers in content disputes--the old line about being "regular users with more buttons" is only too true--and although some may disagree with his willingness to engage in contentious debates and argue minority viewpoints, these kinds of editors are indispensable in the creation of a neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia.  More to the point, I have no concerns that Coppertwig will misuse the extra buttons either unintentionally or maliciously, and I would ask those opposing below "per [[WP:AGF]]" to reconsider their opinions. --
'''Support''' this user has done some really nice work, really good and constructive. OK, the POV concerns below raise an eyebrow to everybody, but he ahs already recieved so much stick for it, that I'm sure that sole lack of understanding will not occur again. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support.'''  I met Coppertwig at [[Uncommon Dissent]], and appreciated his efforts to point the editors there toward an atmosphere of constructive collaboration in accordance with policies and guidelines.   On matters of content, his input was helpful and perceptive, and on behavioral issues, I found his judgment to be dead-on.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I don't agree with everything Coppertwig says but he's a dedicated editor, calm and reasoned in his interaction with others, and should benefit the project as an administrator.  I notice a group of editors opposing below because they don't approve of what they feel are his "opinions about science".  Give me a break.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin, sensible, smart, and polite.
'''Support''', looks like they'll make a good administrator, not convinced otherwise by the opposes. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' I'm with [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] on this. Simply because someone doesn't agree with your own POV doesn't mean he won't make a good admin. The user has never forced his opinion through tag team editing, incivility, and revert warring... unlike others.
'''<s>strong</s> support'''- he even managed to de-escalate a row between [[User:Redthoreau]] and [[User:Mattisse]], which I think helped both avoid a block.
'''Support'''; civility is such an important thing to have in an administrator, and Coppertwig seems to have unfailing amounts of it.  Additionally, even though there is much disagreement on the affair with Iantresman, I am impressed the Coppertwig has respectfully defended his viewpoint without being agressive (from what I have seen).  Seems to have a lot of integrity.  --
'''Support'''. —
'''Sure'''.
'''Support'''. --''
'''Support''' Polite and thoughtful. Claims of 'anti-science POV' haven't gained much foothold with me to dissuade.
'''Support''' Yes, defending Ian Tresman might be a mistake - but since I've spent a reasonable amount of time defending [[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] and [[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]], it would be hypocritical to oppose on this. I personally think supporting ID is absolutely crackpot, but looking over their history I do trust them not to let it skew their judgement on adminny-type decisions.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' per Cla68, Jayjg, Merkin's Mum, Krimpet, the noms Avraham and Rudget and Moonriddengirl, and per the opposes of Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin. ++
'''Support'''. I just don't see the anti-science POV, or I would oppose. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Do not believe user will misuse the tools.
Ok, here's the deal. I give you my '''moral support''' per [[User:Merkinsmum|Merkinsmum]]'s comment [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Coppertwig#comment explaining my slight change of vote/ plus question about his mediation with Mattisse/Redthoreau|here]]. Take those valid points to heart and try again in a while. <big>
'''Support''' per the pot calling the kettle black. --
'''Strong Support'''. I have taken the time to review the supports and opposes here. In the end, I see an editor who works civilly, constructively and openly within the consensus model. Regardless of how one feels about the particular POVs involved, Coppertwig is working transparently (and extremely politely) within the system ... exactly as we expect. I do not see anything to indicate that he will abuse the tools or run roughshod over the principles of Wikipedia; quite the contrary, he seems to hold the principles of Wikipedia very dear in practice.
'''Support''' per, especially, the comment regarding the scientific method. Scientists will often test even the most outlandish theory, and will fully investigate every criticism of their work that they receive, to see if there is any merit in them, so that they may receive the best possible result in their work. Unlike the layman (such as I) who either believes or disbelieves in science, the scientist only believes in the scientific <u>method</u> and the conclusions drawn from vigorous testing of the model. This does not translate as being in sympathy with some of the theories under test. In so far that I believe there is unlikely to be abuse of the mop if granted, I support.
'''Support''', nomination by Avi would tend towards automatic support, but after reading through all of the questions, supports, opposes, and examining the last 1000 contributions, I am convinced that there is nothing pernicious in this user's activities that would interfere with the admin areas he desires to contribute to.
'''Support'''Totally! Why not?--
'''Support''', I trust Avi's and Moonriddengirl's judgment, regardless of Coppertwig's arguing for a user we are better without. I have reviewed this carefully, and see no reason to suppose that Coppertwig would not accept community consensus about indefblocks if an admin, which is what the oppose votes should be focusing on. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''
'''Support''', more likely to address the issues and content *after mature review* , not before, or shoot-on-sight-because-I don't-like-it playing sides.--
'''Support''' - I was very impressed with the calm, rational way that ''Coppertwig'' dealt with {{User|Tbrittreid}} regarding a couple of recent AN/I posts.  --
'''Support''' - The Iantresman thing was actually a plus on your part, being that you assumed good faith on his part, even though he may have been a POV pusher. Also impressed with your answer to my question, which shows you will be calm in all adminy situations. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' - Not the ideal candidate, but then again, who is? Also, kudos for [[WP:CIVIL|being civil]], something I myself have trouble with. I'll also think there is merit to Cla86's point. --
'''Strong oppose''' Too quick to come to the defense of POV pushers and fringers, giving them the benefit of the doubt where no doubt exists. I've had concerns about his sense of priorities in the past, but his advocacy for unblocking [[User:Iantresman]] is the last straw.
'''Oppose''' per Raymond and strong reservations about editor's tendencies.
'''Oppose''' well, unless hell froze over.
Per Raymond. The evidence given is troubling. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' even if hell froze over.  Raymond is putting it succinctly in the Iantresman unblocking push by Coppertwig.  Anti-science POV editors cannot be expected to be admins that can uphold NPOV.
Oppose per Raymond. Coppertwig has a troubling habit of, for want of better phrasing, equating nonsense with sense; NPOV does not mean giving equal weight or respect to the two. Supporting editors who promote nonsense is not fair or just; it is harming the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Oppose''' as per Raymond Arritt and others above. There have to be sensible limits to [[WP:AGF]]. --
'''oppose''' per Raymond. Demonstrates failure to understand [[WP:NPOV]], especially the undue weight clause.
'''Oppose''' per Raymond and the differences he provided.  This user clearly does not understand the [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:AGF]] policies/guidelines.  Until he does, I cannot support this nomination.
'''Oppose''' per his lack of insight into the effect of the destructive behavior of [[User:Iantresman]] on other editors, and offering himself as Iantresaman's mentor (for which I believe he is not qualified&mdash;see below) and other lapses in his judgment in evaluating POV issues although he appears to be very well meaning. He injected himself as a self-appointed mediator in the [[Che Guevara]] FACR, and took the side of one editor with a strong POV immediately (an editor whose edits had resulted in the recommendation in FACR that a POV tag be added to the article). He presented himself in a position of authority. I thought he was an administrator at the time and would proceed fairly. Among Coppertwig's first interactions with me were to formally  threaten me with a block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&diff=next&oldid=199825060] for making statements of fact and to threaten to revert my edits if the edit summaries did not meet with his approval [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Che_Guevara&diff=201693890&oldid=201692419] although he acknowledged he knew nothing about the subject matter. He seems to fail to understand [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:AGF]] and has little understanding of basic MoS despite his willingness to police the editing of an article in FARC.  &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - As per WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong oppose''', as most of my work here consists of removing POV.
'''Oppose'''.  I had been impressed by some of [[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]'s contributions, but Coppertwig's sustained push to reinstate [[user:Iantresman |Iantresman]],   makes me question his  judgment. (Iantresman was a tendentious editor, a single purpose account or the next thing to it, and a frequent wikilawyer.)
'''Weak oppose''' - After looking at some history, he seems to have a few too many lapses of judgment, although I have not ruled out of changing my opinion.--
'''hmmm'''.  I have a ''huge'' amount of respect for Avraham, Moonriddengirl, and Rudget.  Three editors I've worked with and trust to the end.  It was I thought enough to make for an automatic support.  I, however, also have a huge amount of respect and trust for several of the opposers here as well, and the diffs provided, the allegations raised, are concerning.  I haven't had much contact personally with Coppertwig personally, but on balance, I cannot support this candidacy with this many doubts from fellow respected editors, and in my own mind.  Opposing.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose'''. "I'm not aware of any good reason for a probation tag here. I support the use of the usual, objective remedies such as 3RR, and oppose giving admins extra powers to define users as disruptive according to subjective opinion." &mdash;Coppertwig. [[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=197061874 not aware] of the POV problems with the chiropractic article. The problems have been going on for over a year and is getting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&curid=7738&diff=210870823&oldid=210869524 worse]. We need administrative action and not admins who don't understand the [[WP:POVPUSH|problem]] or the [[WP:POINT|disruption]].
I have seen several things that make me question Coppertwig's judgement or understand of policy, most notably the Iantresman issue.  Thus, I feel I must '''oppose''' his RFA.
'''Weak oppose''': Let me start by saying the following: Coppertwig is one of the most genuinely civil and pleasant editors I've encountered. He's a good example of what [[WP:CIVIL]] ''should'' mean in practice, and an excellent role model for editors striving to remain civil on controversial topics. He's made very solid encyclopedic contributions. I also have a great amount of respect for all 3 of his nominators and their judgement. I think a number of the opposes above are a bit harsh or unfair. But I still feel compelled to list myself under this column.<br>Yes, it's mostly the Iantresman thing. Coppertwig wrote: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACoppertwig&diff=206393510&oldid=206382580 "I support unblocking Iantresman, on the grounds that the user has apparently done nothing wrong, unless complaining about injustice against himself is considered disruptive."] Iantresman wasn't blocked because he held minoritarian opinions; he was blocked because he placed the promotion of those opinions above Wikipedia's policies and the goal of creating a respectable and serious encyclopedia. The inability to perceive a distinction between those two propositions is concerning. As is the idea that someone reveiwing Iantresman's history would conclude that he'd done "nothing wrong" beyond justifiably complaining about injustices. This is relevant because as an admin, your decision to unblock someone (or support for their unblock) carries quite a bit of weight, and I'm not comfortable at this point that Coppertwig is going to make good decisions in that arena.<br>That's just me - I'm one person and that's my personal opinion. This is a regretful oppose, because as I said I think Coppertwig does a lot of things very well and I hope he continues to be a prolific contributor and a role model for dealing with thorny disputes, but then you don't need to tools to do those things, and I'm not comfortable enough to support the additional buttons right now. I hope Coppertwig will consider this in the spirit in which I'm writing it, regardless of whether the RfA passes or not. '''
'''Oppose''' - (EC, and I'm with MastCell on this)[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] had been blocked six times when you made a stand on his behalf. Six times. That is simply a staggeringly challenging accomplishment for anyone who intends to act in accordance with AGF and NPOV. You have the technical sophistication to make a fine admin, but judgement such as that employed with [[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] would represent a considerable failure on your part to protect the countless editors of this project who actually participate in the [[WP:AGF|right spirit]]. I have no problem with anyone who extends an olive branch to tendentious editors. I do it myself. But you have to know where to draw the line with anyone who is here simply to cause problems.
'''Oppose''' --
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' per the apparent NPOV confusion.
'''Oppose''' Misunderstanding of NPOV is troubling, inability to recognize and appropriately deal with fringe POV is a deal-breaker.
'''Oppose''' per Raymond Arritt.
'''Oppose''' per Raymond and Mattisse.
'''Oppose''' per Raymond Arritt.
'''Oppose''' per all the doubts about neutrality expressed above. --
'''<s>Absolutely not</s> Strong oppose''' - Very little need to explain, just see above. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' - From what I can tell, for the most part, the candidate is a well-meaning, generally helpful, and [[WP:EQ|polite]] editor. That said, I have concerns about some things in the candidate's responses to the questions (not just the ones I asked) which indicate to me the need for more experience.  In most of the candidate's explanations I repeatedly noticed steps missing. (For example: Taking an admin straight to arbcomm right after an AN/I discussion?) And I found the answer to the question on consensus troublesome. Perhaps, next time. I wish the candidate well. -
'''Oppose''' based on fringe concerns. Thanks,
'''Oppose''' Based upon my personal experiences with him and what Raymond said, he is not admin material.
'''Oppose''' per Arrit --
'''Oppose''' per Raymond Arritt
'''Oppose''' - In my interactions with this user I learned to question his judgment and understand of our core content policies.
'''Oppose''' Regretfully. We need more admins who are willing to take the time to understand long-term abuse of Wikipedia. The short-term obvious stuff is pretty well taken care of. Coppertwig's approach to the Iantresman affair leaves much to be desired. <font color="#0000b0">
'''Regretful Oppose''' You are a very civil and kind user, but I am concerned with the issues that Raymond brought up. RFA can be a pretty harsh place (trust me, I've been through it 4 times), so don't sweat it. Don't worry, because even if this does not succeed, you can always improve and try again. I'll gladly support you if you resolve the issues brought up here. Hope this comment helped you out.
quoting '''the other opposes'''. --
'''Oppose''' per Raymond, and Coppertwig's apparent inability to understand [[WP:NPOV]]. ♥
'''Weak Oppose''' sorry, but Mastcell summed up what I would have said. The civility is great but the huge problems that would have resulted from an unblock mentioned above would have been majorly disruptive. I am not sure how you can win back trust after this but possibly a few months more civility may do it. Cheers,
'''Weak Oppose''', although maybe I should be supporting just based on this candidate's ability to confuse the hell out of ordinarily sure-footed Wikipedians, which is worth some respect.  I was going to sit this one out, but one of Coppertwig's edits [[WT:Words to avoid#"claim" in fringe articles| last night]] on a page I care about decided me. - Dan
'''Oppose''' - As per the "confusion" statement bnoted above, I saw [[User_talk:Coppertwig#Hostile_editors_and_threats|this reply]] and as far as I am concerned, the answer is not an answer.  Despite this being an article I am involved in, we have a newbie user who can't even sign posts properly complaining about actions taken entirely in line with policy (the user in question replaced a link that was taken out ''with reasoning'' twice, and threatened to keep putting it back in until somebody "gave him an answer" rather than waiting for the answer first).  Coppertwig's reply was weak and vacillating - newbie Netiquette means not jumping into things you don't understand, and when it involves threats of policy violations, something a little stronger than "blah, blah, blah, try to reach consensus" is required, and it can be done while maintaining civility.  The lack of a strong response is indicative of a lackadaisical attitude, which is not good in an admin.
'''Oppose''' I find that non-self nominations increase the cabalism of Wikipedia.
The defense of Iantresman, is at least in the short term, very disappointing. I'd like to see some evidence that Coppertwig can spot the signs of long-term civil POV pushing next time around.
'''Oppose''': Civility is something that should be expected from every editor and any effort to keep cool, assume good faith and be civil is admirable. Still, that doesn't really say anything about how someone will use his or her admin tools. Being able to deal sensibly with difficult users (such as pov pushers) is an important quality for an admin to have. Such problems often require tough decisions and I think most editors feel a bit awkward when approaching that kind of problem? Unfortunately I agree that Coppertwig have shown incredibly poor judgment in this area so far (as shown above). And from what little I have come in contact with Coppertwig before haven't inspired confidence in this regard. I'm also a bit concerned about support for some dubious RfArb's (and as far as I know there was no discussion with the subject before jumping on the RfArb). Having looked through some of the edit history of Coppertwig I feel there is reason to question how well he/she understand policies. –&nbsp;
Need to sleep on this and do some more research <font color="006622">
Pretty much per Mr. Steel. I worry that Mr. Twig may be too willing to extend the olive branch of peace to personalities that the encyclopedia is better off without. The diff provided by Raymond, above, is troubling - while Mr. Twig was not vehement in his desire to get a troublesome editor unblocked, the very fact that he made such a statement without (apparently) actually familiarizing himself with the history is bothersome, as is the lack of a definitive final word for or against his original position. It just seems to fizzle. That said, this may be an anomoly in an otherwise level-headed and sane editing history, so I'll remain committedly-non-committal for now. --
I am really on the fence with this one. Will do a little more research and chime back in. For now I am neutral.
I'll have to look into this further.
Pretty much my only interaction with Coppertwig was at my own RfA - therefore, lest I be seen as acting in bad faith, I will not oppose, but I would like to have my say here. In my very limited interaction with Coppertwig I have found him to be argumentative, petty and a poor communicator. From what I've seen, he lacks the levelheadedness and good judgment to make an effective administrator.
'''Neutral''' - I am just... entirely confused.  I'm seeing diffs here and there, and... just entirely confused.  When I followed Raymond's oppose to the user in question, I could see where others take issue with advocating the readmission of a particularly distruptive editor.  However, his outward demeanor seems to win others over (with the exception of the fine man above).  I am just entirely confused by this candidate.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral'''. I really leaned toward support because I trust the judgment of the nominators, moonriddengirl in particular. But the more and more I read into this editors past history and the difference quoted above, the more uneasy I am about giving him the mop. I might still lean toward support as this RfA play out, but for the time being I'm just seeing too many red flags.
'''Neutral''' -- At first I was all for this user. Then I researched some of the users diffs and now I am not too sure, though the incidents seem to be a few months back. Perhaps Coppertwig could elaborate and answer the rest of the questions and I will reconsider my vote..if not I'm staying here in Switzerland = )...--
'''Neutral''' Gut feeling. <strong>
neutral.  normally I support, but the strength of opposes from a bunch of people I respect was alarming.  I need to read up a bit.
'''Neutral:''' This is a first for me. I don't think I've ever come up neutral in an RfA. My personal experience with Coppertwig has been quite positive. He(?) AGFs almost to an extreme degree, perhaps even overly so if that's possible. I've seen him be a productive and calming force in arguments, mediating to reach compromise. This is a good and excellent thing. However, his actions on behalf of [[User:Iantresman]] seem so ill-considered I have to wonder about his good judgment in other situations. Perhaps his AGF is a drawback in some situations. An admin also needs to be able to make decisions and take actions that will offend and upset people. This is almost an inevitable part of the job. Not everything on WP can be solved through mediation and/or talk, as much as we might like it to be so. Thus I find myself in the neutral section.
'''Neutral''' Given the impressive contributions from Coppertwig and the unsettling issues over POV pushers not being held to account. --
'''Neutral''' I am concerned how his POV enters into his decision, and how that might be amplified in his adminship.
'''Neutral''' - There are too many questions that still linger in my mind, particulary regarding fringe view issues. Still i wouldnt oppose outright. I would be inclined to support if he stayed away from science topics. That might sound odd, but if it were not for that one issue i really wound support the nomination. Im probably going to take heat for that statement but im just trying to be honest. If it wasnt for the science issues the candidate would be a net-gain in my opinion. Please dont hit me too hard with your mops.
'''Neutral'''  I had opportunity to observe [[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]]'s attempts at mediation at [[Che Guevara]] and, while I see that these attempts were absolutely well-intentioned, I fear that they were somewhat naive and even, as [[User:Mattisse|Mattisse]]'s contributions above evidence, ultimately counter-productive.  (Please note that I am not saying that I agree with [[User:Mattisse|Mattisse]]'s assessment of the situation.)  --
'''Neutral''' Like Pigman has said, I've seen Coppertwig work hard to de-escalate disputes and behave in a very civil, good faith manner.  And I have a lot of respect for these efforts to calm things down, however as per MastCell's and Raymond's opposes, the position Coppertwig took on the Iantresman issue is beyond my understanding and beyond AGF.  I agree with SheffieldSteel in almost everything they said.  I know Coppertwig would never willfully abuse the tools but as per Pigman's words there's a judgment issue here, at least at the moment--
'''Neutral''' I wasn't going to vote in this RfA, but since it is fairly close, I decided to look into it more. I would really like to support, but some of the issues raised in the Oppose section have me worried. As a vandal-fighter ''par excellance'', (if I do say so myself) I think that vandals and trolls are given '''''way''''' too much respect already. Copper, I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to support this.
'''Neutral''': The opposition has raised real concerns, but then again, maybe the user just a ''reaaaallllly'' nice person who forgives others far too readily.  Actually, what concerns me most is this user's proliferation of excessive user pages.  I thought WP was not a web host.  Otherwise, the editor meets most of my standards for adminship.  So I'm going with neutral.
--
Not this time, but keep it up and wait ~3 months and it will be a smooth sail for you next time. <big>
'''Support'''Actually, it is a good idea to use admin tools in areas of familiarity. The problem would be if you used them to bludgeon someone in an edit dispute or to act against consensus. Being familiar with an area means you are more likely to catch subtle vandalism. It is also helpful when performing housekeeping tasks that require the tools, like deletion/redirects. Sometimes the requirement for a "wide range of experience" is counter-productive when it prevents an editor from being useful in their particular niche.
'''Oppose''' - I'm afraid that you just don't have enough experience in administrator related areas. Also, you mention in your answer to question 1 that you wish to participate at [[WP:AIV]] and use your "administrator privileges" on the Wikiproject ''you'' are a member of. It's not a good idea to block, protect, etc..etc.. on any article/s you work on. Sorry, this likely indicates lack of experience as well.
'''Oppose''' Too few edits to the Wikipedia space.--
'''Oppose'''. You're off to a great start. Very active in the mainspace, I like that. But not enough experience yet in admin-like areas. You'll want to get some more experience in the Wikipedia namespace, then I think you'll be ready.
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid that you don't have enough experience in administrator related areas. --
'''Oppose''' You look like a potentially great editor, but I'm going to have to oppose. Like some other people, I don't think you've demonstrated a commitment to admin areas. I would contribute to XFD's, RFA's, RFC's etc and demonstrate an admin 'mindset'. Especially if you say you want the tools to contribute to AFD's I'd be looking for some evidence of contributions to the debates. Your response to the 3rd Q really impressed me though; I wouldn't hold that against you in the future. People make mistakes, we just learn from them. So, oppose for now, but would probably support in the future, when you've demonstrated some involvement in the above.
'''Oppose''', I was going to support against the flow of things, because you look eager, enthusiastic to help the project, contribute to articles, and seem to have good intentions, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=219044753 this report to AIV] was a bit worrying to me.  Neither of the IPs had been adequately warned before being added to that page.  I feel that an admin, especially one who wants to work in that space, needs to demonstrate a bit better knowledge of things than that.  Give it a few more months and some more experience, and I see no reason why I couldn't support in the future.
'''Not yet''' My biggest concern is the lack of interactions and experience. You only have 14 AIV edits and 5 Deletion discussion edits. In addition, only 2 RfPPs. In a while, with more experience, sure. However, now isn't the time. You should get away from article building a bit and try to get more involved in vandal fighting.<span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
[[WP:NOTNOW]] - but your enthusiasm and commitment to the project so far is appreciated. Hopefully this RfA will be positive in terms of feedback and information for you. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' But '''Moral support'''. You are a useful editor who does good work, but more experience in admin-related areas is needed. I'm afraid [[WP:NOTNOW]] comes into play here.
'''Oppose''' as ''all'' AfD participation was for deletion.  We need to see more balance from admins, i.e. clear evidence of what kinds of discussions candidates would likely see as a delete and what ones as keep.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per above. Can I also recommend aiming for some recognised content? I realise that may be a little difficult in the areas you work in, but I know I prefer admin candidates who have some experience working with decent articles (or, if they aren't a great writer, at least have the dedication to get a few DYKs).
'''Oppose''' - I would have to agree with Wisdom89. Try to get some more experience with the areas.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89, and [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Now's just not the time. --
Less than fifty project space edits.  –'''
'''Neutral with moral support''' - Not ready yet, you have only just started to get into editing. You are doing well though. You have a cool name, Im kind of jealous actually. If you try again in the future I would definately consider supporting. Upon further research I can't oppose outright. Best wishes in your RfA. Regards. —
'''Neutral''' May be a fine admin down the road, but it seems to be a bit too early to provide full support.
'''Moral Support''' You are a good editor, not too many problems, but even I'd like to see more in the way of admin-related stuff: AIV, CSD, AFD, RFPP, ANI, AN, AN3, and UAA are just some areas where you can be of assistance. Get some more experience in these areas, and you'll have my support if I spot you at RfA again. <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Moral support''' per cheesy [[Hackers (film)|Hackers]] reference. I wish you good luck in the future. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I'm afraid you lack sufficient experience. Your lack of edit summaries is troubling, and you haven't participated much in many Wikipedia namespaces. Also, you don't really sell yourself in your answers or nomination. You certainly have potential though. Come back in 4-5 months and I'll probably support.
It wouldn't be fair on you if you were promoted at this time, there's so much to see and do and without having a healthy amount of experience, adminship can be much more difficult and confusing than it otherwise need be.
'''Oppose'''. Too few contributions.
No, doesn't seem to understand fully the functionality of adminship; you don't need the tools to improve articles and remove vandalism. -- <strong>
Sorry, but '''oppose''' on the basis of this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.226.101.101&diff=prev&oldid=194055945] to a new editor, which was totally out of proportion to the alleged vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deion_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=194053536].&nbsp;—&nbsp;
I'm afraid this is a premature RFA because: The answers to the questions are bare and you might want to expand them, not enough edit summaries, not enough wikipedia namespace edits. Perhaps in 4-5 months you should consider adminship. <strong>
Your heart is in the right place, but you need to lower the temperature a little. It would be better to start with test1 type warnings and then progress to the heavier warnings if it becomes clear the person does not intend to contribute constructively. [[User_talk:Altenhofen#Bret_Hart|Here you jumped right to a test 3 for what looks like an easy to make mistake.]]  When dealing with less experienced editors, it is best to [[WP:AGF]] until it becomes unrealistic to do so. I would recommend getting a coach.
'''Oppose''' - Administrator candidates need more experience in many areas, especially neutral tone, before tools can be granted. An effort to give more complete engagement to questions would have demonstrated more commitment to this process. Someone should snowball this process, or the candidate would be wise to withdraw.
'''Oppose''' mainly for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.226.101.101&diff=prev&oldid=194055945] to a new editor and lack of edit summaries is a worry. Not ready yet. Suggest you withdraw? <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Oppose''' sorry, but adding a fake block notice to a user's page is pretty serious abuse - effectively passing yourself off as an administrator when you are not one. That combined with your tendency to bite new editors, shows you are a fairly long way from being ready for the admin tools. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Simply reading the content vs. vandalism discussions on your [[User talk:Crash Underride|talk page]] gives me pause. I’m sorry, but you tend to be way too abrupt with other users which is not a desirable quality in admins. —
'''Oppose''' After reviewing your contributions I was troubled by some of your biting[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.226.101.101&diff=prev&oldid=194055945] comments. --
'''Neutral'''.  Try to get a [[WP:ADMINCOACH|coach]]. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' As per Malinaccier.Never question your commitment.Please try again after a few months.Good luck
'''Neutral''' - To avoid pile one. Suggest withdrawal, and try a [[WP:ADMINCOACH|coach]] like Malinaccier said. Best of luck.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Cream] ''
'''Strong oppose'''. It's less than three months since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=201473905#Proposed_User:Cream_unblocking this].<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Strong oppose''' per block log. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - [[User:w00t|w00t]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose'''. The half-hearted answers to the questions do very little to convince me that this user can be trusted with the tools. Question 3 strikes me as particularly dishonest, if he was serious about this process he would mention his previous actions and what he has learned from them. Question 1 also indicates a lack of knowledge about the tools available to administrators - we do not have checkuser rights and can do little more than regular editors in terms of finding sockpuppets (I am resisting the obvious comment here).
'''Strong oppose'''—I'm worried by some of his IRC behaviour, as well as the block log. --'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' per iridescent and giggy.  Most of your two years experience were as an inactive alternate account for [[User:EpicFlame|EpicFlame]], who was put under a community ban.  You've made efforts to reform, that's good, but it's WAY too soon for adminship.  Sorry.  &hArr;
'''Oppose''' OMG i didn't see you were blocked!  And so soon!  Wait a while. <font color="amaranth">
'''Strong oppose'''.Blocked '''3''' times!! Not good my friend, not good at all.''
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:SNOW]]. Block log is too long.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, man. I originally thought I'd be supporting this. But I didn't get a chance to review your merits until now because my phone rang here at the office. Now that this is back on the docket or whatever, I see your very recent block. It's very unfortunate because you do good work, I just can't support with this incident being so recent.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
I have a few concerns. While you may have turned around and become a better user on wikipedia, some of your past IRC actions leave me concerned. Specifically speaking, you have used botnets to attack various wikipedia-related channels, and have disrupted and attacked many IRC users. Since most of my concerns are IRC-related, I don't feel as if it would be fair to place this in the oppose section. Still, my thoughts will not change for a while, and until then, I cannot support you in this RfA.
Suggest [[WP:SNOW]] close. &ndash;
Sorry, Crimson, but [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]].  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I like the answer to Q1 and the idea of blocking IP addresses.
'''Oppose''' sorry, but you have fewer than 50 edits in total and you have misformatted your RfA. This tells me you don't have the experience with Wikipedia required to be an admin. I would suggest you withdraw this RfA since it has no chance of passing and consider trying again in three to four months when you have at least 2000 constructive edits to show that you understand and can apply Wikipedia's [[WP:5P|policies]] and guidelines. Best,
'''Oppose''' per malformed Rfa and little editing experience.  Request closure per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' Lack of edits, experience with the project. --

'''Support.''' as nominator.
'''Support.''' Does a lot of work in all the right places.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''STRONG OPPOSE''' The fact that his admin coach was preparing an RfA for him a few weeks ago, but then indicated a problem and isn't his nominator/co-nominator doesn't sit well with me.  That's bad etiquette, now there is no requirement that a coach nominate a candidate, I would expect the candidate to tell the coach---especially, when the coach indicated that he was working on an RfA. The problem was in relationship to an AFD discussion wherein Ctjf83 !voted, "Keep the article is useful" for an article on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series]].  Ctjf83's response to his coach was, "Well I think it is useful for game players...is that not a good enough reason to keep?"  Now I don't necessarily have a problem with one bad !vote, but this followup questions clearly shows a lack of what is acceptable and a lack of familiarity with [[WP:NOT]] particularly [[WP:NOT#GUIDE]].  So I went in search of other AFD's he's participated in to see if this was a typical vote or a single isolated case of poor judgment... to which I discovered that in his last 3000 edits or so, he's only contributed to about 6 AFD's---four of them after the above mentioned one, when he asked his coach if he should ''Vote on some AfD with better responses?'' (The only AfD I saw prior to this Grand Theft Auto !vote was so weak, that even he came back and changed his vote.)  While he gave decent answers in his coaching, I saw nothing in his edit history to demonstrate that he knew how to apply policy.  Giving good answers to questions is one thing, demonstrating that you understand what those policies mean in real life is completely different.  I also didn't like the fact that his coach gave him some advice on his questions for this RfA, but those recommendations went completely unheeded.  And I just noticed this, but he has a political user box on his page... now generally, I don't care what user boxes people have, but when they have one calling a person (even a politician) "a worthless piece of shit" then, I have to question if they have the maturity for the Mop?[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] ([[User talk:Balloonman|talk]]) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)  Increasing oppose to strong oppose per Silk Tort's link below.
'''Oppose''' The user does have experience in article editing. But reviewing his deleted contribs, I see very few and infrequent CSD nominations and very few if any deleted contribs that indicate PROD was used. As Balloonman points out, there also appears to be very little AfD contributions. As deletions are one of the three Big Things admins do (page protection and blocking being the others) and are the primary thing non-admins can participate in to show they understand policy application, I feel this is an important area of contribution. Also, in reviewing the edit counter summary, I noticed very little participation outside of AN/ANI/AIV. I would like to have seen some major edits at one of the other noticeboards or edit abuse forums, as I feel they show an ability to handle issues outsides of one's topical interest/specialty. Additionally, I am concerned that Z-man was not consulted prior to accepting the RfA nom. I know that he is quite busy, and may not have had the time to write a nomination. But I would've expected either an initial support vote or a note on Ctjf83's that he was ready to go up. I'm aware that this may not have been a condition of the coaching relationship, but I feel that admins are expected to know to consult relevant parties in significant situations. If Mr. Z-man can explain this (off-wiki conversation, etc), I am willing to re-consider to Neutral. '''
'''Oppose''', for the obscenity in the userbox.
'''Oppose''' - firstly per a very sparse track record in AFD for someone who wants to be closing them.  Second per the polemic userbox ("This user knows George W. Bush is a worthless piece of shit") - our [[WP:BLP|BLP]] policy applies to userspace, too. I've removed the userbox, but someone who wants to be an admin really should have a reasonable enough grip on policy to know such a userbox is unacceptable.
'''Oppose''' The user box was a very poorly though out idea, and on another note[[User:Dustihowe/Sandbox|Wikipedia is not MSN instant messaging]]. The entire discussion there seemed to have no bearing on encyclopedia building at all. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Sorry, but I must '''oppose'''. After seeing the userbox in question, I really must say this user is not currently ready for adminship. <font color="green">[[User:Vivio Testarossa|Vivio<font color="red"> Testa<font color="blue">rossa]]</font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:Vivio Testarossa|Talk]]
'''Oppose''' because of behavioral issues and willingness to violate policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ctjf83&diff=177079737&oldid=177055307 This] diff has an ever so polite edit summary. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_recurring_characters_from_The_Simpsons&diff=177035747&oldid=177034414 This] diff refers to good faith edits as vandalism. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Michaelbeckham/Dem&diff=190330471&oldid=190330421 this] diff reinstates a fair use image onto a userbox when he'd been informed two months earlier that such usage was not allowed (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ctjf83&offset=20071218171231&limit=20&action=history userpage history on December 8]). Lacks the maturity to be an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' per ''that'' userbox and all it demonstrates.
I've seen quite a bit of work from this user, and I was reasonably happy with the progress, but I have to oppose per the diffs by Hammersoft and the above comment by Nick.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry but the oppose arguments outweigh the support ones. Indeed I find the fact that your Admin-coach didn't co-nom deeply unsettling. --
'''Oppose''' Per the comments about the UBX, and the coaching, it seems to me that this editor needs more time to demonstrate character traits that would help the project as opposed to harming it. At this point, I do not think this user has demonstrated the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] that I would want to see applied as a sysop. --
'''Oppose''' per the aggressive impatience shown [[User_talk:Mr.Z-man#Admin_Coaching|here]]. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' BLP userbox is troubling. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Strong Oppose''' No responses to concerns, the userbox shows a lack of understanding of [[WP:BLP]], apparent unfamiliarity with core Wikipedia policies and processes, and the unsettled issue with his own admin coach. '''
'''strong oppose''' I'm sorry but I don't think your ready. You concentrate to much on the Simsons and other things that has nothing to do with helping out vandalism and ect. I suggest not just helping in one area, but helping in many other areas. I know you help in other places, but find more places to work at.--'''''
'''Oppose''' per the above. At this point, the candidate is far from ready for the tools.
'''Neutral''' Giving the nom the chance to answer the questions and repond to the issues brought up in the opposes but I would find it hard to support at this point. <b>
'''Neutral''' to avoid the pile-on.
'''Neutral''', waiting to see the answers to those last questions. <small><span style="border:1px solid white;padding:0px;">
'''Neutral''' - Pending answers to my questions. Leaning toward oppose at the moment though.
I would like to at least give moral '''support''' as you have not been blocked and do seem genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia, so I cannot in my look cite anything that necessarily makes me concerned, but do take others' suggestions regarding experience in good faith and never feel as if you should not try again down the road if this one does not work out.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!
Been here for two and a half years, a whopping 4300+ edits, no bans, blocks, warnings (as far as I can see), no evidence of POV pushing or disruption, no evidence of anything other than a good faith intent to improve the encyclopedia, in short, no reason why not.
'''Support''', nothing here to indicate that the user will maliciously misuse the tools.
'''Support''', would trust that the tools would not be abused.
'''Support'''.Very trustworth, I have not found anything in his/her past to say other wise.
'''Oppose''' - Not nearly enough experience in the project space in areas you wish to participate. This means you fail my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]].
'''Oppose''' - I brushed through your contribs and took a look at your edit count. You have enough mainspace edits, but most of that is reverting vandalism and stuff - which Wikipedia does need in order to maintain its articles. But I just think an admin should have more experience, as Wisdom said, in the project space. With that said though, you seem to be a good guy and a Cubs fan. ''Some year they're havin', huh man?'' '''''
A good start with the encyclopedia, but would like to see you be more orientated with the internal processes, especially [[WP:AFD|the deletion process]] given that you indicated that you intend to work in speedy deletions. Would also like to see more content-writing. Likely to support in future. -
I think some material at [[WP:NOTNOW]] may apply. No problems that can't be fixed with some more time, and as Mailer Diablo says you're off to a good start. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - hardly any participation in Wikipedia space, other than scattered reports over at AIV. Not an overly-active user, looking at edits per month. Most mainspace work seems to have come from reverting vandalism. Not ready yet, but the start you have made is not bad. P.S. the admin rollback will help you no more than does the rollback you have been granted, as it is basically the same tool. It only started getting handed out to non-admins in recent months. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Weak Oppose'''. The candidate needs additional experience in admin areas such as AFD.
'''Oppose''' As Mailer Diablo says you are off to a good start, but the lack of participation in the Wikipedia space worries me. The edit count is very spardic, one month you have 44, and then another month you have 688. It's a very spardic count. I've also noticed that often you fail to use the edit summary. [[WP:NOTNOW]] may apply here. Continue working on the comments abopve, and one day ytou will be an admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom. 4000 mainspace edits is great, but that doesn't win you trust. The only thing your contributions show me is that you know how to use rollback, and I can't judge how well you know policy on that.--
'''Oppose''' per above. --<span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Seems a bit gung-ho with regard to blocking IPs (Q5–7).
'''Neutral''' Low Wikipedia space edits (29) concerns me, as does the low Talk space total of 96.  I'd like to see more work at the noticeboards and AFD/RFPP before I could support. '''
'''Neutral''' You're a Cubs Fan, which is awesome right off the bat. However, it just seems you do not have too much experience in areas related to Wikipedia, which isn't bad at all. The encyclopedia is why we are all here, but I feel admins should have a little more experience in Wikipedia areas. :) <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Neutral''' For me to support a persons Rfa I must trust them, and I don't trust you to use the tools in an appropriate manner. Nothing has been brought up that indicates you grasp policy, so I don't know if you'll use the tools correctly. Also, I have doubts you'll ever use the tools, but that isn't why I'm not supporting you. Have a nice day, and I hope you continue to edit here:-)--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' If only for your lack of AfD activity. I'm sorry, but I find this vital in understanding WP policy, even if you do not plan to close AFD discussions. Best of luck. --
'''Neutral'''. I won't oppose, because adminship isn't [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|that big a deal]], but I agree with those above who have expressed at least a bit of concern about lack of WP space edits. I would definitely support you in the future, once that concern is addressed. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
As nom.
'''Support''' good user, clueful, plays wierd games with block-happy admins on IRC, seems like a perfect user to me; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', can't see any problems. Has clue, will travel.
'''Support''' I've known him for a long time as a very useful contributor to Wikipedia, and I feel that he will make good use of adminship to further benefit Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Good natured, open to troutslapping, good contributions. --
'''Support'''  trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' An editor im sure we can trust and will not misuse tools. No problems. <font color="blue">'''
Per lack of interest to content writing and evasive answer to question 3. --
Disinterest in article writing is a bad sign, especially when planning on policing articles by attempting to combat edit-warring. CWii has had the rollback privilege revoked on two occasions for misuse, specifically reverting constructive edits without explanation - this doesn't inspire confidence in future AIV work. Lastly, I have noticed them being particularly brusque towards newbies in the past (sorry, no diffs atm), and this unfortunately continued today with a rather ill-mannered interaction on IRC. Some people just can't change their stripes. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' While I am not inherently opposed to minors becoming admins, I want to see proof that they are the exception to the rule and that they are capable of handling the responsibility in a manner benefiting the project.  My exposure to CWII is somewhat limited, but the incident that I know of stemmed from [http://giggyisms.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-not-to-treat-newcomer.html this summary of events] that lead to an AN report against Giggy, and to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Compwhizii/Leaving&diff=prev&oldid=203871942 CWii's leaving the project].  When I investigated the incident above, as I was coaching Giggy at the time, I found CWII's behavior to be deplorable.  I told Giggy, "that CWii's behavior here has a negative connotation for other 13 year old editors... heck, it has connotations for other editors under the age of 18. Many people are reluctant to trust them with additional authority because they can act rash and immature."  CWII's behavior in this case is too soon for my tastes---especially from a minor.  Again, I am not opposed to minors getting the mop, but I need long term proof that they are mature and capable of the bit in a mature reasonable manner.  I just don't see it from CWII---CWII does not personify a minor who stands heads and tales above other teenagers, but rather possesses the attributes people are concerned about when they see a 14 year old run for adminship.  I MIGHT have been able to over look this incident IF he had been upfront with issues such as this, but his vague answer to 3, leads me to wonder if there are other similar issues.---'''
CWii retired this year after being criticized. Based on the effect the criticism had on him, I don't think he's going to be able to handle the potentially much stronger criticism he will face as an administrator, which an administrator needs to be able to do. There's also his interactions with [[User:Jakezing|Jakezing]]. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakezing&diff=249579365&oldid=249577463 Here] he continues to badger a dispute, reverting the users's removal of a discussion. This dispute was then several days old, and he still hadn't disengaged. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jakezing&diff=247277665&oldid=247058465 This] earlier edit seems needlessly aggressive, threatening "other actions" if Jakezing didn't respond. But my oppose is mostly the ability to handle criticism issue. '''
'''Oppose''', an admin should have an interest in writing articles. Not being very skilled at it is understandable, but not a lack of interest. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. Moved from support per concerns cited by east718, Balloonman, seresin. I did think CWii was an admin already, but now think that another few months would probably be wise before granting the mop. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' this time. Although CWii has done some excellent work here, the lapses in judgement highlighted by east718 and Balloonman demonstrate a lack of maturity; I'm not reassured that this candidate will [[Big Stick Ideology|speak softly]] and act in a measured, thoughtful manner. The lack of interest in article-writing is also a concern, as it implies a fundamental misunderstanding about what we do. Wikipedia is sustained by writing and editing articles; it's the most important job there is, and the admin tools exist only to facilitate it.
'''Oppose''', childish behaviour and trivial consideration of blocks is not what we need.
'''Oppose''' because of a lack of maturity.  Within the last 150 edits, CWii's edit summaries include: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CWii&diff=prev&oldid=249591297 "lol spacing"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan_k_is_gay&diff=prev&oldid=249578651 "whoops lol"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CWii/JB2script.js&diff=prev&oldid=249499691 "rawrrawrrawr"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:021201-N-0000B-003.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=249499475 "what the fuck, really"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spinningspark&diff=prev&oldid=249274887 "lol fail"], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Test/Editcounter&diff=prev&oldid=248270633 "lol"].  These suggest to me a little too much immaturity.  I'm okay with a user using those types of edit summaries in their personal space from time to time, or in more friendly conversations with other users, but when they're posting warnings to newer users or editing the image space, I believe that these have no place.  I also find it ironic that he has [[:Image:Lolcat2.jpg|this]] posted on his talk page in light of what others have raised about a lack of mainspace experience.  Per this lack of immaturity, and the points raised by others, I must oppose at this time,
'''Oppose'''. I don't expect much in the way of encyclopedic contribution, but I expect something. I also think the tooling around with DragonflySixtyseven belies a lack of maturity, disappointing in both CWii and DragonflySixtyseven. The block button's not a tool.
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately, per Balloonman and either way. Will definitely support in a few months if you work on those problems. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' East718 and Stifle said it best...and first! (I need to set my alarm clock earlier).
'''Oppose''' Per east718 difs and others.--
'''Oppose''' fails to offer a single example of content creation.
'''Oppose''' I have occasionally voted for minors to be admins.  Not this one, though.
'''Oppose''' My Self Being A Minor, Not Even Have I Shown This Much Melodrama On Wikipedia. Balloonman said it all...
'''Oppose''', per east718 and either way. I don't think I could trust this user to do anything, really. --
Change from support per Balloonman, again. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Neutral'''. Moved from support per items brought to light in the oppose section.
'''Neutral'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Compwhizii&diff=prev&oldid=203413515 This exchange], linked from the post on Giggy's blog, worries me. But, it was in April, and I'll [[WP:AGF|assume]] that he's changed since.
'''Neutral''': The lack of article building is not a problem to me, I think all sorts of users are needed to maintain Wikipedia as it is. But I'm concerned about the 'roughness' in his actions. Certainly not something that should be in an admin, someone that other users will constantly seek assistance and advice from. An admin should be umm... well, nice and helpful - not intimidating. So, neutral for now.
'''Neutral''' Good contributer, no question about it, but Chamal puts it best why I am not able to support at the current moment, at least not until I heard something from the candidate in reply to those problems named. Lack of aticle building is surely not a reason to oppose (I would have had to oppose myself then^^). '''
'''Neutral''' I really like CWii, but some of the concerns brought forward make me think this RFA is still a bit premature, maybe in another couple of months. '''
'''Neutral''' CWii seems like a VERY good person to work with '''lately'''. The concerns raised in the oppose section seem to highlight past problems. Just keep working in a positive light, and maybe in a few months, you'll get it. And, try to gain some steam in getting interest to improving articles while your at it CWii, that always helps. Oh, and at least '''try''' not to even think about considering playing that blocking game or whatever it was I saw you doing on IRC, as per Fish&Karate.
'''Support''' - Looks like he's very trustworthy, and I know he will be a great addition to Wikipedia. The only thing I am worried about is that this user has only a little above 5,000 edits, but it shouldn't be a valid reason why I should object. –
'''Support''' because of his answer to question 6.-
'''Support''' he has a foot print all over the place.  He's on the help desk, at ani, in the news, and helps out others on a regular basis.  I was very pleased to review his edits, particularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=197114009 this one.]
'''Support''' I'm seeing good consistency and experience. '''
'''Support''', per question 7 mainly, although in general the user seems responsible enough to handle the tools properly.
'''Support''' - trustworthy and helpful editor.
'''Support''', seems fine.

'''Support''', looks like a solid candidate.  No evidence that they'll abuse the tools
'''Support''' A trsuworthy editor, who is very active with the Tropical cyclone WikiProject, and also spends much of his time reverting vandalism. Having encountered this user before, I think he'd make a fine admin.
'''Strong support''' - Brilliant wikipedia user, will make an even better Administrator...Good luck! --
'''VERY Strong Support''' From what I can see I think that this user would be a top notch admin! --
'''Support''' seem like a strong candidate. <b>
'''Support'''. As said before me, quality matters more than quantity. It's nice to see an admin candidate whose edits don't just consist of hiding in the corner tapping the revert button. The help-desk work is good, and I haven't seen any examples of this user being rude. The one small suggestion I can make pertains to last sentence of the answer to question three, there's a rather interesting typo there. Good luck, <small><span style="border:1px solid white;padding:0px;">
'''Support''' - Consistent, thoughtful contributer.  Great antivandal work, and more attention to AIV is always welcome.
'''Support''' - As long as the candidate reads up on [[WP:3RR]], you will be a good admin, good luck.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Supprot''' Has high quality edits. <strong>
'''Support''' - Thank heavens for clear heads. Strong support for this request based on my observations in [[WP:ITN/C]]. -
'''Support''' - looks good, meets my standards, great answers to questions.
'''Support''' As per nom.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good work and general understanding of core policies; please be a bit more careful to be civil (like calling a heading "What the hell?"), sometimes things just don't come off well online.
'''Support''' Tools aren't that big of a deal, and this user is qualified. --'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewart_Shining&diff=199766704&oldid=199765592 Smarter than me]. Just be a bit cautious with delete buttons (all of them, for that matter) until you're sure of what you're doing. '''
'''Support''' Just take it slow for a while at first, and remember that we're all here to help you!
No big deal, assume good faith, trustworthy user etc. <font color="404040">
'''Weak support'''.  I've gone round and round with this one.  You do great work and seem to have clue.  I don't see anything glaringly wrong or incapable in your edits.  I'm "weak support" because I'm a bit nervous about your limited experience in AfD/deletion policy, but you answered my question above nicely.  The example "close this AfD" I gave you at random, was randomly brutal and perhaps a bit unfair, but you handled it as well as that mess could be handled by even a seasoned admin. You've stated though that you don't intend to work much in that area of the wiki, so I'm ok with your admitted lack of experience in the area.  If you do decide to venture into deletion/Xfd closing, go slow, ask questions.   Going with my gut here, you'll be a fine admin.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Hard-working. Non-aggressive. Capable.
Satisfactory experience, appears to be well-versed in core policies.
'''Support'''. You seem to have Wikipedia's interests at heart. You might not do things exactly the way I would, but no matter - I think you'll help build a better encyclopedia.
'''Support''' seems good. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' per answer to my question (12).  Admitting and learning from mistakes is very important quality.
Seems like a good chap who probably gets it. ''Still'' no big deal, and I trust Keeper, especially when he's writing long supports. :) ''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
Despite a low level of project edits, it seems that this user will not misuse the tools and will become more knowledgeable in regard to policy over time.  –'''
'''Support''' Good editor. His level of project space involvement is just about enough.
'''Support''' I think that he can handle it. I trust this user. '''
'''Support''' Per Q10 :) (Seriously, however. You seem have a clue... I'm not going to nitpick over some magical ratio....)
Seems capable.
'''Support''', vandal-fighting isn't rocket science so a modicum of experience is perfectly adequate. I'd caution CWY2190 to take it slow and avoid the more difficult areas at first, such as closing AfDs or trying to deal with POV-pushing.
'''Support''' - I echo TimVickers, except that about 50% of AFDs are extremely easy to close, since they're pretty much unanimous.  But I think avoiding difficult areas is good advice for all new admins.
'''Support''' - looks like a good user, can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' - Seems like a deserving candidate for the extra tools. --
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong with specialist admins, provided CWY2190 takes it slowly when it comes to other areas of the wiki. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Support''' - good user; trusted by many. <b>
'''Support''' Trustworthy, understands policy well, will do good.
'''Weak support''' Many of the diffs provided below show relative inexperience and perhaps, if you'll excuse the ageism, a little bit of immaturity. Heart's in the right place though and I see no evidence that he's unwilling to correct mistakes. Sure, we can wait two or three months for RfA number 2 and if he addresses the concerns voiced here, he'll have a smooth ride. Still, if he listens to criticism and asks for advice while familiarizing himself with the admin tools, he should be ok. Adminship is not rocket science.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Been around a while, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker.  Why not? --
'''Support''' - Fantastic contributer, seems responsible, great understanding of the project.
'''Support''', the opposes don't convince me.
'''Support''' Seems to me that the positive aspects of having this user as an admin far outweigh the limited concerns raised below. --
'''Support.'''  —
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''', unfortunately seems to show a lack of understanding of policy. -
'''Oppose''', per low edit numbers and misunderstanding policy.
'''Oppose'''. Lots of good article work, but almost all of it seems rather minor. I'd like to see more evidence of article building, greater participation in deletion procedures especially AfD, and more dialogue with other editors.
'''Oppose''' Changed from neutral - the thin veil of admin-related work troubles me too much, likely indicates a lack of the requisite knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - this user is not ready yet. More experience, especially in Wikipedia-space areas is needed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' The nominee does not enough appear to have sufficient experience in the areas he plans to use the tool in. The main area he mentions is vandalism, but he only has 21 edits to AIV. I would expect a user who was requesting the tools to have posted there many more times, firstly to show they have good experience of the warning escalation process and also to indicate a need for the tools in that area. Apart from the low count, the nominee last posted there 6 weeks ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=190000952], the two posts before that were 2 months ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=185062217] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=185053238], and the one before those was almost 7 months ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=154091770]. Such an infrequent interaction with AIV, coupled with their plan to focus heavily on using the tools for vandalism fighting make me think that the nominee needs more experience first.
'''Oppose''' - changed from neutral, sorry, but I am just not seeing enough project based contributions to make me feel comfortable supporting. I know that with a few more months of solid wiki based contributions will ensure a very successful RfA in the future. Best of luck,
Per TigerShark, I don't feel that the candidate has enough experience just yet. Sorry,
TigerShark summed up my comments. Not enough experience as of yet. &mdash;
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry, lack of experience - due to low edit numbers. Especially namespace. I would suggest more time and solid editing would do the trick. <strong>
'''Oppose''' This user only got rollback rights on the 21st March 2008. I think he/she is quite fine just using that to fight vandalism for now. Also, a userbox states that this user is only 18-years-old. I will probably support his/her next RfA. <span style="color:green"> '''
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience quite yet... wait a while and will probably be able to support next time.
'''Oppose''' for now - general lack of experience, & the fairly recent edits given by Moonriddengirl below.
'''Oppose''' a little more time and experience, and per below the comments by [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]].
Hm. Weak oppose per above. ''Also'' (PDRTTFIJSINAFLMBINTBFMO / please don't respond to the following, it's just something I noticed and felt like mentioning, but it's not the basis for my oppose), I don't know if this is a joke, but the candidate has the userbox "This user does not enjoy reading" on his userpage. Speaking of userboxes: I think I've finally made up my mind: I will never again support anyone who has a userbox featuring the [[:Image:Police man update.png|retarded policeman image]]. The kind of mindset it conveys should be court-martialed. Also also, like many other "legitimate strategies", [[Camping (computer gaming)|cowardly hiding]] is lame. But if you think it's ok, why don't you just camp some more and I may support next time.
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral) for evident [[WP:BITE|misapplication of vandalism label to a new contributor]]. (For context, see my stricken neutral below.) As nominee has edited this page and has not provided any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for the use of the tag, I feel I must oppose. I can't be sure that this nom fully understands and will correctly handle vandalism. I realize that this is one incident, but I find it a serious concern nevertheless. Like [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]], I fear that edits like that will drive contributors away, and, indeed, it might well have done so. I don't see sufficient enough communication with other editors to allay my concerns about what seems to be a serious mishandling of this one. I've spent some time looking for it. It did, however, raise an additional concern about readiness for the admin role that, along with concerns addressed above, helps decide my !vote. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=196666752 This help desk contribution] from March 8 displays no familiarity with the problem of [[Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves|cut and paste moves]], although the user's question reasonably should have raised that red flag. (It did in me, and, fortunately, an admin who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=next&oldid=196674107 also read it].) He was quite correct that the now deleted edit would be evaluated as vandalism by any editor who had no reason to suspect otherwise, but his handling of this situation leads me to suspect that more time in admin-related areas would improve his ability to deal with the varied situations that admins encounter. More project space contributions and more dialog with other editors seem like valuable preparation for adminship here to me. It can only improve his ability to recognize legitimate disruption and to understand how best to help a new contributor attempting legitimate contributions but thwarted by inexperience. --
'''Weak oppose''' The two incidents raised by Moonriddengirl are a bit disquieting, and, when viewed alongside general concerns that aren't yet wholly allayed, leave me unable to determine that the candidate might not misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he is not greatly acquainted) the tools, such that I don't know that I can conclude with a sufficient deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]] ("weak", though, because there is much to commend CWY, and because neither those things that dispose me to support nor those that dispose me to oppose are particularly strong or significant).
'''Neutral''' due to concerns about the candidate's answers regarding [[WP:3RR]]. Three reverts is not an entitlement. <font color="006622">
'''Neutral''' Of the 1300+ user talk edits, the vast majority are templates. Based on those, as well as the 300+ article talk edits, I could not get a good feel as to how this user would react under the added stress dealing with the janitorial aspects of wikipedia provides, so I cannot in good faith say that I have a good enough understanding of this user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] to support, but do not see enough for me to register an oppose, as a lack of familiarity with some of the various portions of the sysop job can be easily picked up, so I will abstain from this request. Good Luck. -
'''Neutral''' - I can't get off sitting on the fence for this one, the helpfulness is a big plus, but i would like to see some easy-to-digest evidence of article-writing. The best thing to do is make a Good Article, which anyone should be able to do with some guidance and help. Moonriddengirl's material above pushed me from weak support to a regretful neutral, some more article writing would make it a net positive again. Cheers,
I was definitely tempted to support until I looked at the [[Kumbia all-starz]] episode. This is the kind of thing that can drive away potential editors, particularly the inappropriate {{tl|db-vandalism}} tag.
'''Nuetral''' Great editor, just not enough ''prima facie''. But still a great editor. <font face="terminal">
'''Neutral''' per low WP-space/total edits ratio. --
'''Neutral''' Originally was a weak oppose, but I'm changing to neutral, per TheProf. '''
'''Moral Support''' - Good editor and accomplished vandal-fighter, and I would encourage him to submit a second RfA in a couple of months' time (which I will definitely support). His civil responses to the opposers below also show that he has the right kind of character to make a good admin. However, he doesn't have enough experience yet in admin areas (as noted by opposers below), and q1 doesn't show a clear understanding of admin tasks. I am pleased to see that he has applied for admin coaching.
'''Support''' Sure. Read the new-admin handbook and I probably wouldn't block/delete/protect anything until you feel confident in your knowledge (but you don't seem like the type that would do that, anyway). Maybe take some time to watch what other, more experienced, admins are doing. Also, you're doing an excellent job being civil, polite, and demonstrating a commitment to the project. Keep up the excellent work, keep contributing, and continue the positive attitude! I'm sure you'll be a fine administrator.
Strong moral support per Walton. It's a bit too early, but you're definitely on the right way.
''"...however, the chance of it succeeding and me being able to further help Wikipedia makes it seem all that much more worthwhile...".'' Bravo. What an excellent sentiment. I'm afraid this RFA will not pass, and I am of the opinion that you do need more experience, but I can't but not put in a '''Moral Support''' for such an '''excellent''' statement. Best wishes and Happy Editing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' due to no negative interactions I can think of with this editor.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' - I hate to be the first, but pursuing your contributions, there really is a paucity of admin-related areas you've actively participated in. You're a good editor though, and hey, we have similar topical interests. However, I think just a few more months of [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:HD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:RFPP]] participation etc..etc.. would benefit you. Try [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] too. Cheers matey.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you don't have enough editing experience yet.
'''Oppose''' About four month full-scale participating; too early, sorry.  --
'''Oppose''' Obviously on the right track.  User has taken an interest (albeit small) in contributing to things like AIV, 3RR, etc.  Just needs more overall experience.
'''Neutral''' Would probably make an ok admin if promoted now, but another couple of months experience would be best.
'''Support'''. He wants to work with AIV and CSD, so taking a look at his work there, I found quite a few reports to AIV and going through his deleted contribs, what I found there seemed to indicate a good understanding of what should be speedied; he meets my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|criteria]].
'''Support'''. Cyclonenim is a worthy candidate. He will use the tools reliably.
'''Weak support''' - there have been some silly mistakes made here and there, and I still think a brushing up on the Wikipedia-policy-knowledge is in order. But there is something about this user I think will make him a good admin. This candidate is well spoken, and the answers to the questions so far are detailed and thoughtful. There is some stellar article work under his belt too. He has also dabbled in some Wikipedia-related areas (although it is ''there'' where the mistakes appear to have been made). Despite this, I believe some [[Wikipedia:Administrator's reading list|essential reading]] and some good work at the admin school will make this user a good admin indeed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' as I did last time.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support'''.  Have seen this user around, and I trust him not to make mistakes with the mop. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Aye!''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Moral support''' &mdash; You need more experience, but if you come back in a couple months with more know-how I think you'll do well, best of luck until that day. :-) &mdash;
'''Support'''. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Weak support''' - excluding the vandalism, nothing overly concerns me about the candidate.
'''Strong support'''--I am eager to see how this editor would do with tools.
'''Support'''. constructive and helpful. has communication skills so can learn readily. Glitches like those highlighted below can be sorted. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Any/All of my issues have been met.
'''Support''' - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support'''&mdash;in my experience, as well as going through cyclonenim's records, I've found him very responsible and helpful contributor. My experience has been with him at [[WP:MCOTW|Medical Collaboration of the Week]], which has been particularly pleasant, and goes to show he can be a good tea-person. He keeps his cool, too, and his conduct hardly invites conflict. <span style="font: small-caps 15px times;">'''
'''Weak support''': Most of the oppose reasons doesnt really convince me of denying him the mop. I am sure that he will be really able to learn and correct if made any mistakes.I have seen well established Admins making IP blocks even with very few edits.It has to be on a case to case basis. Vandalism should not neccessarily be weighed upon by no of edits. Many a times you dont need to wait till the vandal 'deleting the main page' (Though not possible for them :) ). You can understand whether it is an intentional vandalism or just editing tests by a newbie by the editing patterns.. Btw a bad signature is '''NO''' reason to deny adminship. --
Did I vote on this one yet?
'''Support''' - Also per two diff's seen in oppose section. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ross_Golan_and_Molehead&diff=prev&oldid=216177309] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozzarella&diff=prev&oldid=209895744].
'''Support''' per incredibly annoying signature.
'''Support'''. Definitely there are some experience issues, but overall your behaviour in this RfA and elsewhere pretty much tells me that you have the [[WP:CLUE|clue]] and maturity to take things slowly when it's appropriate. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' to spite the opposition. If this vote does not get removed, then '''shut down RFA indefinitely'''. --
'''S'''upport. Content-focused editor with good collaborative skills. Unlikely to abuse tools and likely to use them constructively.
'''Support''' per my original reasons.
'''Support''' -- The user would not abuse the tools. That suffices for me. Additionally the user is very active and productive in science related articles. If this rfa does not succeed consider admin coaching. Best of luck. = ) --
'''Support''' Opposes are unconvincing to me.  Misapplying CSD categories by accident is pretty bottom of the barrel, as are short, tentative AfD nominations (note that the article in the diff provided below was basically [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ross_Golan_and_Molehead|snow deleted]].  So all the diff shows is that the editor was not verbose.  The diff does not show that the editor introduced a bad faith nomination (a problem for me) or a nomination based on unreflected ignorance (another big problem for me).  Reflected ignorance is ok.  I couldn't care less about [[John_Handcock#Famous_signature|how big his signature is]].  I also see nothing wrong with [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/吴国|this nomination]].  '''NOTHING'''.  Administrators may be ignorant of some of the hundreds of non-admin projects here.  The claim made in the nomination ("Definitely wrong project, not sure if it's notable for inclusion in a foreign project since I can't read this language.", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%E5%90%B4%E5%9B%BD&oldid=226017146 hist]) is perfectly acceptable.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%90%B4%E5%9B%BD&oldid=226017141 This] was the page in question.  How, if ''you'' saw that string of text as an article, would you react?  All of the text (along with the title) is non-english.  Certainly if you know which language it was and which project could take care of it, you cold send it there, but why is CSD (and later AfD) an inappropriate choice?  And why, if it ''is'' an appropriate choice, is the wording somehow improper.  All in all, it seems to be making mountains out of molehills.
I like your answer to question 14.
'''Support''', meets my criteria.
No particular concerns -> default support. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support'''. I like his work and his style. The guy is honest, even in a place where honesty about past mistakes is obviously a bad idea. That shows character. Details like an annoying sig pale compared to that. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Obviously still learning, aware that he is still learning and prepared to change/alter when given good reason... I wish there were more current admins like that. The mop is no big deal and any good faith mistakes can be sorted out.
'''Support''' for vandal turned good-guy. --
This user appears to need more training in the Wikipedia field.  He seems confused and unready.--
'''Oppose''' The user's first RFA received many opposes based upon lack of experience in admin related areas. The user seems to have tried to rectify this by making a small number of edits in such areas, including involvement in a small number of xFD discussion (about 10 in the last 3 months, with nearly half in the week following the RFA) and a small number of reports to AIV (about 15 in the 3 months since the last RFA). After having a quick look through half a dozen of those reports I quickly saw two that raised concerns. In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=216007139 first], the IP's last edit is at 17:37, they are given a final warning at 17:38, but then still reported at 17:40, having made no edits. A similar situation occured in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=216500818 second report] where the IP's last edit was 22:26, they were warned at 22:28, but still reported at 22:55, with no further edits and nearly half an hour after their last edit. Cyclonenim has, I believe spent a very small amount of time trying to accumulate somes edits to address the concerns, but in doing so has really gained no more experience in the processes. The mistakes at AIV show a lack of understanding, or possibly a desire to accumulte those edits without expending too much effort.
'''Oppose''' - I don't see that much improvement from the previous RfA. As Tiger Shark points out above with diffs. I personally witnessed those questionable reports.
'''Oppose''' On June 2, 2008 (<s>11</s> 41(?) days ago) an new user, [[::User:Earfer|Earfer]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Earfer|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Earfer|contribs]]) created a page [[Minhs life]] which was correctly marked for speedy deletion as G1 (nonsense).   Earfer then blanked the page, an indication that he agrees with the deletion.  Instead of marking the page as G7 (author requested) Cyclonenim reverts the edit and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEarfer&diff=216602917&oldid=198543774 warns] Earfer with a general vandal message.  Earfer continues to blank the page, and Cyclonenim continues revert his edits and warn him with general vandal messages, see [[User talk:Earfer]].  In the end earfer blanked the page 6 times and one time replaced the page with "please delete this page". Cyclonenim never explained to earfer that the page is going to be deleted as he wants, and that there is no reason to blank the page, instead he just reverts and warns.  In the end earfer was block indefinably for vandalism.  While I can't say that cyclonenim was wrong, as removing a speedy template is considered inappropriate, his actions lacked wisdom. I expect administrators to be able to communicate effectively to defuse conflict, not create conflict by mindlessly following the rules.
'''Oppose''' Per Wisdom89. The 2 links that Wisdom89 included concerning Cyclonenim's AIV reports worries me.
'''Oppose''', per this statement: ''I think it's fair to say that an unblemished record after that date makes it overwhelmingly unlikely for me to ever vandalise again.''
'''Oppose''' per diffs given by TigerShark and Wisdom89.<s> Also, just a small thing, but I'm not sure how [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozzarella&diff=prev&oldid=209895744 this] could be considered a [[WP:AGF|good faith edit]].</s> '''
'''Oppose''' per Jon513. --<span class="plainlinks">
per incredibly annoying signature. —'''
'''Oppose''' Questionable understanding on how AFD is supposed to be used.
'''Oppose''' Don't really want to pile-on, when the user seems a good Wikipedian with excellent intentions. But as well as points raised above, looking through the contribs I don't see evidence the user actually talks and works with others. An admin should be a leader, someone who can work with disparate people and help them work together, a conciliator. An admin has to resolve disputes, to do that you need to be able to understand other points of view. Can I suggest you get involved in some article work and try and act like an admin in adminny places. You don't need the tools to be a leader here.
'''Oppose''' - per Giggy. <font face="Verdana">
Oppose per CSD blanking incident, apparent vague understanding of AfD (as brought up by Sasha above) and the diffs presented by Wisdom89.
'''Oppose''' per Jon513 above.  While the candidate's actions were technically correct, I believe that they show an all-too-rigid mindset when it comes to administrative tasks.  Admins should be comfortable using their discretion in situations like that, not simply applying the rulebook when that produces a clearly nonsensical result.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - Per Wisdom and Jon. I know, I hate 'per' votes too. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''per John and Wisdom'''. please review the relevant policies. please, do, make signature a normal sized font. thanks.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with the arguments raised above. Also, you have an interest in medical articles (which I do too). Some of your diffs are imprecise. For example, I would have reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypoglossal_nerve&diff=prev&oldid=215783881 this] edit <s>and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physical_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=215781200 this]</s> edit had I seen you do them. -
'''Oppose''' Regretfully. I admire much about the candidate, but the brief flurry of recent Projectspace activity is not sufficient to make me think Cyclonenim is ready yet. If this is unsuccessful and you decide to run again with more experience under your belt, please do drop me a line because I'd like to think I'll be able to drop a support !vote on it. --
'''Oppose''' i'm afraid. Your previous RfA shows little experience in admin-related area's as a concern, something which you seem to have rectified, but if [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/吴国|this]] is your idea of a good nom, one made ''during an RfA'', then i'm not convinced you'll make a good admin.
'''Oppose'''. Four days ago on this RfA you were advised by Wisdom89 that "not sure" is not grounds for bringing an article to AfD, yet yesterday you  '''''still''''' [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%E5%90%B4%E5%9B%BD|nominated one]] on that basis - after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%90%B4%E5%9B%BD&diff=224589583&oldid=224589540 incorrectly tagging] it for a G1, and on both instances, failed to even whack it through a machine translator. You're a good editor, but your hazy understanding of deletion and failure to do really rudimentary things makes me unable to support you having the delete button at your disposal. No prejudice against supporting once you are able to demonstrate a really cemented, solid understanding at a later date. Regards, <font  face="Century Schoolbook">'''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry CN, you've come a distance since your last RFA and whilst your article work has improved, I'm still not sure about some of the administrative decisisons I think you would make. <font color="#312AB6">
'''Oppose''' Per jon and tigershark
Q12 shows a major misunderstanding of [[WP:N]], notability has nothing to do with originality, peer review, or neutrality. If I had to guess, I'd say the user confused [[WP:Notability]] with [[WP:Reliable sources]]. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' Though you say you'll primarily work in AIV and CSD, I count in your last 500 edits 3 in AIV and 2 CSD proposals (though numerous notices). Also per TigerShark and Wisdom89's comments. Maybe you should have waited for someone else to nom you after your last self-nom. Good luck in the future, Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' per questionable edits mentioned above. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' Not quite experienced enough yet. <font color="#156917">
'''Oppose''', based on AfD problems, and past vandalism of the project. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Neutral'''--
'''Abstain''' per the worrying scenario brought up in the oppose section (involving CSD blanking by the author of the page).
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose''' - not convinced. I think the candidate needs more experience based on Q&A so far.
'''Neutral''' The sig worries me and puts everything else into a bad light.  <font color="006622">
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' Cyclone definitely has good intentions and a good understanding of the encyclopedia. However, I think this candidate should work a little more in admin-areas (as Mazca said). I'm caught on this one.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' good user already, would put tools to good use; both quality and quantity, I like it! --
'''Moral Support''', user is obviously well-intentioned and I do not think there would be any deliberate misuse of the tools.  Get some serious Wikipedia-space contribs under your belt, and I'm sure you'll do better next time.
'''Oppose''' - Excellent editor. Unfortunately, I don't see much in the way of bureaucratic contributions - Wikispace confined mostly to project pages for editorial purposes. User claims wanting to fight vandalism but I don't see any participation in [[WP:AIV]] - just as a for instance. Also, you don't need the tools to revert vandalism and remove peacock terms from articles.
'''Oppose''' - Based on my review of this candidate - only 69% edit summary usage for minor edits, should be close to perfect after 2+ years on WP; no participation in Afd, Afc, Rfa, or AIV.  Plus the candidate has been editing mainly in NASCAR related areas.  I like admins to be multi-dimensional, not just focused on one.
'''Oppose''' - Per Q#6, per [[WP:CDB]], cool down blocks should '''never''' be used, as they only make things escalate once the block is expired. The answer to this question also backs up some of the concerns raised above, with a lack of wikipedia space participation comes a lack of knowledge of polices as shown here. I do feel that your intentions are good, and don't see any evidence that would show that you would abuse the tools, but lack of experience along with Q#6 makes me oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Per edit summary usage and unsatisfactory answers to questions. '''''
'''Oppose''' based on Q6. If the candidate wishes to participate in vandalism patrol (as in Q1, altho the candidate does not explicitly state blocking, but isn't that part of vandalism patrol?), the candidate needs to have a clearer understanding of the blocking policy.
'''Oppose''' A good contributer but the answers to questions 6 and 8 indicate a lack of understanding about what having administrator tools means and how they should be used. Good luck with future editing.
'''Oppose''' Not quite ripe yet; with some more time in the Wikipedia space and focus on learning policies, I look forward to supporting later.
'''Oppose''' At this point, especially in light of some of the above answers, I am afraid that in my opinion, the user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] is not one I would wish to see exercised in contentious situations (ala cool-down blocks instead of [[WP:DPR]]). Perhaps more time and more exposure to all of the areas that require mop attention would help. Sorry, and best of luck! --
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you seem to be a keen and a good editor, but you need to learn exactly what the administrator tools are for. Read [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]], and come back in two or three months with better answers and more rounded experience.&nbsp;—&nbsp;
'''Neutral.''' Sorry, I like some things about this guy (specifically his anti-vandalness) but also oppose his answer to question 6.
93 edits, 49 of which are too your own userspace. Sorry, dude, but I don't see enough work/experience here to be able to say I trust you with the tools.--
'''Strong oppose''', only been a registered user for two months, with only 28 main space edits (and then to only two articles). Over half his edits are to his own user page and what appears to be experimenting and playing around. Far too inexperienced to be an admin. Candidate has little understanding of Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies. From the candidate's recent hideous attempt to start a new bot that will "Will make a few edits to the Main Page" and "Will make some edits around Wikipedia", his playing around with making a self-named page in the Wikipedia mainspace, various bad redirects, and lack of any real edits beyond a very few to two articles which were vandal reversals, etc. this seems more like another of the candidate's testing and experimenting than a true RfA deserving consideration.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you need more experience.
'''Oppose''' and snow close. Patent joke nom.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' - For being [[WP:BOLD]] and giving this a whirl. Come back when you have experience mate!
'''Support''' d00d, danielaustinhall12 is teh shit--
'''Moral support'''.  You may have great spirit, but you unquestionably need more experience before getting 'the mop'.  Maybe some day in the future...
'''Oppose''' sorry, but with fewer than 150 edits, there simply isn't enough evidence available to support you. In general at least 2000 edits over 3-4 months would be required to ensure you understand Wikipedia's [[WP:5P|policies]] and can apply them in a fair and calm manner. You don't use [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] which is pretty much a requirement, and the answers you gave to the questions above show that you don't really understand what an admin does.
'''Comment''' I would strongly urge the candidate to withdraw this nomination as soon as possible.

'''Recommend withdrawl''' <strong>
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol.
'''Strong Oppose - suggest withdrawl'''. - Is this some kind of a joke? You started around a month and a bit ago. You have 12 edits in the namespace and four of those are because of editing this RFA. And you also tried to speedy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_climbing_the_Reichstag_dressed_as_Spider-Man&diff=prev&oldid=206555977 a page on humour] clearly showed that it was supposed to be kept for a humourous purpose. Come back in a year. <strong>
'''Oppose''' More experience needed, and you don't seem to have a clear idea of what adminship entails. Please come back after some more months. '''
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' and recommend SNOWing. Nominator appears to be an alternate account of the nominee, and neither are anywhere near qualified for the tools. '''
I would agree that this user is on the right track, but I think he should wait a few months onger before re-applying. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Neutral''' – Please [[WP:SNOW]]. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' Per ShoesssS. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Screw-it support''' for now, you seem like a really nice guy and I don't think you'll have much trouble with being an admin. It's a little concerning that you've only been active again for a month but to be honest, you seem to have got straight back into it with hardly any problems. If something substantial comes up, I might switch, but for now I don't see why you wouldn't be a ''net positive'' for this project. Good luck with your impending opposes (I guarantee they'll be a few) —'''
'''Support'''-I trust that this user will use his powers for good, rather than evil.-
'''Support''' - The low activity isn't a problem for me, since it's the only thing I can see that could be construed as "negative". Net positive.
'''Support''' - though he has only recently returned to regular activity, I am confident he has the good sense needed to become an admin. <font color="#cc6600">
Plenty active, has clue. —'''
'''Support''' &mdash; Appears to be a conscientious and helpful editor.  I checked out a few pages of contribs and found no problems, although use of the mandatory-edit-summary tool would be a good idea for the future. '''
'''Support''' - I believe that he would be a good admin.
I think taking breaks, or at least editing at reduced levels of activity, should be mandatory for everyone. It prevents people getting too vested in the project and allows them to look at things with a clear mind. '''
'''Support''' I'm not concerned about the recent low activity level. &ndash;
'''Support''' Low activity is not an important reason to oppose. I rather like quality than quantity and I rather have more admins even if they are not very active than no more admins. Those complaining about low activity should look up users with high activity and nominate them for adminship. As long (at least) as there are admin backlogs, we need more admins. And this user seems like a good candidate, who understood the most basic rule: You cannot know all rules by heart but you should be able to make yourself familiar with them if needed. '''
'''Support''', no significant reasons not to.
'''Support'''. I like the reasoning behind many of his answers, particularly #4-6. I also think his talk page contribs show good reasoning and an ability to remain calm.
Seems absolutely fine to me. Good candidate.
Model Wikipedian. The opposes don't have much to go on. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' all self-noms, because anybody who wants adminship should automatically have it.  Adminship is "no big deal", right?
'''Support'''. He's got experience and he knows the policy. It doesn't bother me that the majority of his contributions were last year.
'''Support'''. I nominated Daniel last time because I believed he would be a net asset to the community in an administrative role. That remains the case. If he wishes to volunteer his time to do janitorial work, and there is no reason to believe he would use the tools abusively, then we should welcome the help.
Per good interaction, mostly on IRC, but more importantly, on here. '''
'''Support'''. Looks like the user will use the tools wisely. '''
'''Support'''. I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. I've had the pleasure of interacting with daniel through IRC, where every so often we edit the same articles (the spotlight group; IRC helps to coordinate the task, with real time conversation) in an attempt to expand, verify/source, and transform articles into [[WP:GA|good ones]]. While some of these articles are not tagged as GA just yet, I believe them to be very good candidates, and have rather enjoyed the experience. I see no other issues that are strong enough to merit my opposition. '''
'''Support''': Seems ready, willing, able, and [[WP:CLUE]]ful. As for the wikibreak, I concur with naerii.
'''Support''' - Overall I think you have a good record and granting you adminship would be a net benefit to the project even if you are not always that active. It is clear that you have built up quite a lot of experience and contributions, particular with templates. I have reviewed the [[Template:Obnoxious]] controversy and I have not found anything which really concerns me; I am overall getting the impression from your user page that you have learnt from the incident. The answers to the questions are quite impressive; I have no concerns over the answer to question 4 which is well justified. No concerns over civility either, I see you are also doing some good work at [[Wikipedia:Editor review]]. Good luck.
'''Support'''; owns a clue.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak Support''': oppose reasons dont convince me. This RFA may fail but I am looking forward to support you next time --
'''Support'''; little difference my !vote will make now, but I trust
'''Weak Oppose''' for now. A month of edits doesn't (for me) show you have enough experience with ''current'' wiki policy (rather than October 2007 wiki-policy) for me to feel able to trust you with the tools. My vote may change based on questions.
'''Oppose''' Activity in the past 9 to ten months has been very low, and I would have troble trusting you with the tools with that record. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Fails [[User:Xp54321/Standards|my standards]]. One month of activity is simply not enough.--
Unfortunately, I must question the wisdom of any candidate who uses his or her real name. An administrator often finds themselves the center of a lot of controversy, regardless of whether or not they intend to perform controversial actions. Said controversey can easily mushroom, and the potential real-life implications can cause unwarranted complications both with the administrator and the project as a whole.
'''Oppose''' per not enough time from the last RfA to demonstrate clear progress. --
'''Oppose''': Sorry, doesn't meet my criteria. —
'''Oppose, not ready yet. Needs more experience in admin related areas. ''' Since last RFA, I see < 20 deleted contribs. Of these, none were the result of tagging for speedy deletion. Of the 250 edits prior, I found 5 that were the result of tagging for speedy deletion. I found one user talk page notice of speedy deletion. Of the last 500 Wikipedia namespace edits, dating back to May of last year, I found 3 contributions to [[WP:AIV]]. Of the last 500 article space edits, dating back to Septmber of 2007,  I found 14 reversions using twinkle. I find troubling [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gang&diff=208249221&oldid=208248856 this edit from April 26, 2008], in which he removed a list of "notable gangs"  that contained only blue links, because the section was "leading to too much vandalism". Candidate has been remarkably inactive until this month-- at an editing level effectively comparable to a Wiki break. It has been nearly 1 year since user's prior RFA and period of high activity. Policy, interpretation of policy, and consensus change over so long a period. Candidate has not demonstrated in practicle, measurable terms having kept up. In the prior RFA, candidate had problems from impetuously jumping in-- which I think led to some of the conflicts in question 3. No decison on whether this RFA indicates that problem persists.
'''Oppose''' Not enough recent activity to determine whether the candidate is trustworthy.
'''Oppose''' More activity is needed for me assess this candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough recent activity to assess whether supporting is a wise idea. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Oppose''' (sorry) - the opposes from the previous RFA were a concern...and then there's a long break and some contributions above. There was a lot of conflict cited by the opposes at the previous RfA, so a concrete display of collaborative eidting I think is needed to dispel this aura. GAs and FAs require collaboration, so producing a GA or two at the minimum shows an ability to negotiate with others which is needed here. Cheers,
'''Weak oppose''', per Ironholds and Casliber.
'''Oppose''' per Ironholds and Asenine. One month of recent activity is just not enough to run for adminship. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' You're right, it is sad. Erik the <font color="red">
No consistent activities to justify the request
'''Oppose''': I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. That and having only one months worth of recent activity isn't enough for me to throw in support at the moment. <small>
Weak oppose. Sorry, but I don't agree with "one month of activity". :) &mdash;'''

'''Oppose''' per Seicer and JPG-GR.  /[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>(
'''Oppose''' per your wavering answer to 9A.
'''Oppose'''. Although I do feel this editor means well, just a month of ''recent'' activity doesn't qualify for the power and tools of an admin (and yes, I'm aware of the full 10 month activity).
'''Oppose''' Not Now. Please display your judgement in Afd and newpagepatrol before you receive the button for speedy delete.
'''Oppose'''. I'm certainly not saying never, but there were some very legitimate concerns expressed at the last RfA. I don't think one month of heavy activity, one year from the RfA, is enough to assess whether these problems have been fully addressed or if you fully understand current policy. I raise no accusations, I just don't feel the sample size is large enough for me to draw any definite conclusions about your suitability for adminship at this stage. I will be happy to re-evaluate my position next time round, but I can't support right now.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. you haven't edited much in the last nine months and only one month of activity is simply not enough. --
'''Neutral''' for now. Aside from this month, you haven't edited much in the last nine months, so I'm not convinced as to your familiarity with the project.
'''Neutral''' - You seem to have been slightly inactive the past few months, besides this month like what [[User:Useight]] said above. Can't really support this user just yet until I see more activity around Wikipedia. Thanks,
'''Neutral''' Apologies, but your activity on the project hasn't been enough to gauge your experience with any degree of accuracy. We simply haven't seen enough. Come back after a few more active months.
'''Neutral'''-- I like you but coming back too soon is a problem. I would also recommend using the "force edit summary" tool. --'''
'''Neutral''' - Can't support due to the lack of activity. Try next time (and get someone to nominate you <code>;-)</code>). <small>
'''Neutral''' He is amazing with [[WP:SPOT|Spotlight]], but I don't think he knows the policy well enough. He won't intentionally misuse the tools, but he may not be able to know how to use them quite the right way. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
I'm sittin' on the top of the fence, wastin' time... Heed the concerns offered by the opposers, give us an opportunity to assess your general stance and abilities and ideally wait for someone else to nominate you in a three or four months. Normally I'd say 2 months at most for someone with your already-attained degree of knowledge, but speaking from experience a one or two month waiting "penalty" is warranted, otherwise you ''will'' draw some opposition for trying again too soon. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Neutral'''.  A few more active months and you'll be good. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm for the project is commendable, but I believe your RfA is a bit premature.
'''Neutral'''. I'm concerned about your having only one active month since the first RAF. Even though the first RAF was 10 months ago, I can't tell if the issues brought by the opposes in the last RAF are improved on during your active month. I also agree with Macy's advice.
'''Neutral''' - I don't think I want to vote Oppose yet because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I'm going go to vote neutral and see how you respond to additional questions before I make my decision.  I might even post some questions.
Not convinced - per Jameson L. Tai.
'''Neutral''' - meets some of my standards, but I think he's not quite ready yet.
'''Neutral'''. Recommends withdrawal.
'''Neutral''', I cannot oppose with such good answers to the questions (especially 4 and 5d), but I also believe strongly in looking at recent behavior as the best indicator. There isn't enough recent editing to make a valid determination one way or the other there, but I would see no reason not to support in a couple of months if the current trend continues.
'''Neutral''' - I've always thought that quality is more important than quantity (despite my slight case of Editcountitis when it comes to vandalism, but I digress) and I believe that his edits are truly helpful to Wikipedia, especially his contributions to templates. However, his creation of the template "Obnoxious," I feel, was not only redundant, but also felt quite severely written and may cause further problems, rather than fixing them. Also, he hasn't been very active recently, and I'd like to see at least another month of this kind of fantastic editing before I say "yes." Besides that, I think he's a fine candidate.
'''Neutral''' - While reading over this RfA and paging through Daniel's contribs I found myself coming to the conclusion that I was going to oppose this candidate. But after reviewing his answers to the questions, I can't. I think all that is needed here is more time and experience, and getting that is easy!
'''Neutral'''  Based on the excellent answers above the Rfa seemed like a slam dunk, but then I saw the previous RFA! I would still lean toward support but my gut tells me you should give it a few more months. --
Supporting for now to counter a truely lame oppose. —'''
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Moral support'''. Frankly speaking: [[WP:NOTNOW]]. You simply have too little talk and project space participation. Keep it up though, [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies|make yourself familiar with the community's general expectations]] and ideally wait for someone to nominate you in several months. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''', I trust this user to use the tools to the best of his ability.
'''Moral Support''' - Your heart is in the right place... now just show your commitment to the project and in a few months get reevaluated.  I beleive I could trust you with the tools, you just need to show you can use them.  :)  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Moral support''', nothing looks problematic in the edits I see and there is nothing to make me believe this user would abuse the tools.  I would normally like to see a bit more experience in relevant areas to gauge the user's familiarity with policy and general administrative tasks.  Also pointing out that relatively low edit counts don't bother me.  Essentially this is a candidate that just needs a bit of polishing.
'''Moral support''' as well as I do not wish to discourage the editor for continuing to contribute.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose'''. 2000 mainspace edits in 2 years is not particularly good statistically. From looking at the edit count your two years is from Oct. 2006 to present; you effectively vanished from the beginning of 07 to may 08, and I can't give admin tools to someone who just leaves for over a year, since it's effectively wasted. In addition you've only got 63 talkpage messages and 54 talk messages; this doesn't inspire me to believe that you'll be a great communicator as an admin. You say you want to work with reverting vandalism and so on, but you've so far had 6 reports to AIV, which doesn't convince me you have enough admin-related experience to know how to use the tools. Large chunks of your edits are without summaries, which seems a fairly basic thing to get right. If you stop vanishing and stay here contributing for 6+ more months I might consider it, but right now it's a no.
'''Oppose.''' ES usage is 89%, not good enough for major edits, and the 44% for minor is still bad. I'd prefer to see a 100% for major and 85%+ for minor at the very least. Lack of recent edits is also a worry, and most admin related tasks seem to be done by Twinkle. Need to be shown this editor is able to do some admin tasks on his own, or ill have to stay opposed. Talk page seems to show little experience in dealing with users, let alone the ones he would encounter as an admin. I'll have to say not now on this one, maybe after a little more experience. Also the misuse of AWB is a little worrying, and shows an inability towards reading and understanding the rules.
'''Oppose''' Whilst I do not think that this user will necessarily be a bad admin, I would expect far higher talk page use from a potential candidate. Other than that, I would just say use the edit summaries and get a bit more involved with admin-type tasks - for me this is an experience issue rather than anything else. I don't believe that disappearing for a year is a problem, I did it myself and I neither went rogue nor felt any compunction to hand in the tools. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, it is up to each of us to decide how much time we wish to devote to editing.
'''Oppose'''. You haven't been active in admin-related areas for very long, and so there's very little basis for determining whether you can be trusted with the tools. I'd suggest gaining some more experience, and trying again in a few months time.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure that one day you will make a good admin; first you need to make more edits - try to improves mome more articles, [[WP:GA|GA]] and [[WP:FA|FA]] articles always look good on a [[Resume|CV]]. You should also take part in some [[WP:AfD]] discussions, or focus on vandal-fighting, general admin areas. As mentioned above, you should try to take part in lots of [[WP:RfA|RfA]] discussions before you apply again, just to get a feel for what the community expects in a potential admin. So although I am opposing now, if you apply again in say 6 months, and you've taken more part in the project, I may well support you then. Good luck! -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
I don't have a problem with you taking a year off cos that's life, but the problem is that you only have about 800 edits in the last 18 months. This is a problem for me and I think this RfA is way premature so unfortunately I am unable to support this time. At the moment I don't think you have the overall general experience necessary for adminship. The other thing is, as others have raised above, you don't have many talk page edits. Communication is a major factor in adminship and there just isn't enough here to get an idea of your textual communication skills or how you will react under different circumstances. Looking at your user talk edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Darth+Mike&namespace=3&year=&month=] the largest majority of them are mechanical templating, and since December 2006, you only have about ten or fifteen user talk edits that aren't templating. Also, a large bulk of your mainspace edits seem to be mechanical (AWB) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Darth+Mike&namespace=0&year=&month=] and since December 2006, you only have about six Wikipedia-space edits excluding this RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Darth+Mike&namespace=4&year=&month=-1] I also looked at your deleted edits and since March last year you have only tagged successfully about 30 pages for deletion. Since 20 December 2006 you've only reported two users to AIV and you haven't commented on any XfD discussions since 20 December 2006. I really hate being an edit counter but these figures just aren't high enough for someone going through RfA on the basis that they want to help in these particular areas. I feel that you are editing in good faith and I don't think you would deliberately misuse the tools, but I think there is a very strong chance that you will misuse them inadvertently because you just don't have sufficient experience. Please continue editing and get a few more months general experience, and in particular in the administrative areas that you would like to work in.
Overall, you're okay and on the right track but the numbers of edits to Wikipedia project space is severly low for an admin candidate. Try to improve your participation there (and elsewhere) perhaps becoming involved in a WikiProject, which can vastly improve your knowledge of the Wikipedia system.
'''Oppose for now''' Your heart does seem to be in the right place but I don't think you're ready for admiship right now because I don't think you're fully aware of the type of crap and drama that administrators here have to deal with on a daily basis. Give it a few more months of steady editing and see if you still feel the same. Good luck!
'''Oppose'''&mdash;I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Strong Oppose''' There is not enough to show that this user can be trusted to act responsibly with the tools at this time. [[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]].
'''Oppose''' — I'm not a fan of editcountitis, but I believe that 2419 edits in 2 years are not enough; while I believe that ESU is not necessary for adminship, I think 89% is unsatisfactory. <small>
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I'd prefer if you were active for more than two months. After a little more experience, I hope I'm in the support column next time around.
'''Oppose''' Darth Mike looks like a good guy, but 2000 edits in two years isn't particularly great, it sort of worries me. I count six edits in AIV, which isn't very much for two years. Usage of edit summary, not as good as I'd hope. Overall, it's the lack of experience (and the year of disappearence) that worries me.
'''Oppose''' 17 Wikipedia namespace edits, 4 Wikipedia talk edits definitely concern me and shows almost no evidence of admin-level policy comprehension. From April 2007 to May 2008, the user had 5 or less edits per month. No edits to AIV and only 2 CSD tags in last 500 edits, both are areas he wants to work in. Only 63 user talk edits does not demonstrate communication skills vital to a sysop. This self-nom is probably premature, you might want to consider withdrawing and go for it again once you have more policy experience and more edits. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' It's not so much the edit count that concerns me, but rather the 17 project space contributions. I'd say get some more experience in XfDs, AIV and ANI and you should be good to go next time.
'''Oppose''' User has implied that [[Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS|number of Google hits]] is a good enough metric for determining notability in AfD: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Midwest_Gaming_Classic&diff=prev&oldid=228443096], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vbuzzer&diff=prev&oldid=228444163]. <font color="#9eee00">
'''Neutral''' While I think the user may well be a good admin, some points led me to choose to remain neutral in this case: You have only 600 edits within the last year, you use rarely edit summaries on minor edits (which I think vital especially when doing those), you seem [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darth_Mike&oldid=228329238#Insignificant_edits to have misused AWB] for insignificant edits and lack involvement in article talks and Wikipedia internal procedures. So while I love every editor who sees pride in doing all those little tasks needed to make articles better (which I do myself often), I'm afraid I can't support you right now. But due to that, I will not oppose it either. '''
'''Neutral''' Although the overall edit count is encouraging, and I view self nom's as having the self confidence an admin needs, I'm afraid that consensus and policy change over time and the gap in editing is too long to feel comfortable with candidate's understanding. I would suggest fixing the edit summary thing in preferences and returning in another 3,000 edits. I would recommend article building/creation mixed with admin related maintenance tasks. Cheers,
This is basically an '''abstain''', per Qb's "moral support." I could definitely support a future candidacy. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Neutral'''.  Get active with editing again, and try doing some non-mainspace work. Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''. Mike potentially has the skills to be a good admin, but would benefit from more interaction with other editors via Talk page discussions first. I could be persuaded to support him in a few months time.
'''Neutral''' - I'm not a fan of [[WP:editcountitis|editcountitis]], but more than half of the pretty-low-count are with [[WP:AWB|AWB]], which makes the count lower, in my mind. Nothing wrong with automated tools, but let's see more varied involvement, per above. Basically, I'm saying [[WP:NOTNOW]], and see you in <insert-single-digit-integer-here> months. You are definitely making positive, valued contributions, and if you make sure to use edit summaries and not worry about the quantity but the quality of your edits and the breadth of your admin-type experience, you'll make a fine admin. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''NotNow Neutral''' encourage candidate to gain more experience per concerns in opposes.---'''
Excellent assistance at SSP, good calls at AIV. Other work is delightful.
Great Contributor & very helpfull[[User:1362|<b style="color:#c50">13</b>]]
He knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
I've known D.M.N. since I started out on Wikipedia, a year ago (next Thursday). Ever since I've known him, he has been nothing but kind and helpful. He has helped me though some rough times and is always on my watchlist editing constructively. I believe D.M.N. really deserves to be an admin, and will NOT abuse his powers...I can guarantee you that. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''--
'''Support''' - Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
'''Support''' because he has shown maturity in being able to handle himself in situations as of late. In regards to his talk page, theres the possibility that he was unaware that that would be counted against him. He seems to know what not to do having been there and this shows that since he hasn't made those mistakes again, he is fit for the job. Regarding his vandalism, he has shown in the time since then that he is a mature editor in that he has distanced himself from his misdeeds by doing good things. He does not seem the type to abuse his powers and this shows in how his statement was stated above. All in all, he will make a good administrator.
At least '''moral support''' in that editors can habe been indeffed previously, but made successful and productive returns.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Strong oppose'''. User, as previously known as Davnel03, has a well documented Wikipedia history including vandalism, legal threats, impersonation of administrators, block evasion, sockpuppeteering and insulting of the mentally ill. However well the user may be appearing to come across now, I can't be certain that this will never happen again. Furthermore, the abuse happened over a long period of time, suggesting that it wasn't merely a moment of madness. I am quite willing to let the user improve the encyclopedia but there is no way I could trust them with the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Your interactions and hastily cleaned up talk page show that the concerns from your last 3 rfa's have not been fully rectified.(Side note: I am sick of having to vote oppose on the Rfa's I vote on, because the ones I support have already snowballed while the ones I oppose have little feeback, sigh).--
I see some ''extremely'' immature behavior.  Yes, from more than a year ago, but I don't care.  I don't believe for a second that people really change that quickly.
With the history, it would take a very long time for me to support.  --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - Reluctant given the history - sorry. An indefinite block is an eye-opener for me. Always will be.
'''Oppose''' per Readro and Wisdom89. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' To many issues with other accounts, and the leagal threats scare me. And for once, per Kurt. One last comment - immpersonating an admin is not right. I have a lack of trust of this user.
Gotta say no here. Extremely worrying concerns.
'''Strong Oppose''' per legal, Kurt and Friday. --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose''' Sure, you're a great editor, but your contributions to WP:ANI tell me you'd be a terrible admin.--
'''Strong oppose''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Davnel03 No way]. I, like Friday, feel that people do not change that fast and to be honest the idef block was only issued December of last year, not long enough for me. If there is a candidate for potential abuse its you.
'''Oppose''' for the first time, per Kurt. --
'''Oppose''' - I think it requires more than a year of good editing to make up for six months of blatantly disruptive editing, sockpuppets, copyright violations, and a legal threat to top it all off.  No for now, and probably in the foreseeable future, regrettably. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''', a good content-writer but many of his interactions with other editors leave me puzzled.  For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=prev&oldid=219715256 this threat] to file a WikiQuette alert and an ANI post because an FAC reviewer didn't answer his request for copy-editing. --
'''Oppose''': Sockpuppeting, impersonating an admin, and legal threats.
'''Strong oppose'''. I normally wouldn't pile on here, but there are some seriously disturbing diffs, as well as an indef block here. There's just no way I can trust that you would not misuse the tools. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Strong Oppose''' Your long history of acting inappropriately deeply bothers me. My first major issue with you is your history of sockpuppetry. <strike>You ''admit'' to making socks, and that makes me seriously doubt you're telling the truth about [[User:Davnel03]] being compromised. I believe there's a ''good chance'' you vandalized some articles using the Davne account.</strike> The second issue I have is that you were ''indef blocked for legally threatening Yamla''. If you were an admin at that time I fear you would of blocked Yamla, which would be abusing the tools. If you were willing cause a fairly major problem for a person by taking legal action against them, then I don't believe you would have a problem with blocking them, which would just be a minor problem. I'm not saying you would block someone in a situation like that, but I do believe there's a chance you would. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=prev&oldid=219715256 this recent threat] indicates you haven't had a big enough change of heart. I'm sorry for being a bit harsh. I do recognize you've done good for the project as well, and I do hope you continue to constructively edit wikipedia. I just don't trust you with the tools.--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' - I hate doing this, really hate this, because I have met D.M.N through [[WP:F1]] and have interacted with him a number of times. He also gave me my first barnstar. D.M.N comes across as a nice person, and I have enjoyed working with him, most of the time. That is what makes opposing this so hard, and awful, but I have got to do this properly. :'( You see, D.M.N has had a past of rash decisions and behaviour to others which isn't quite what is expected of an administrator. D.M.N didn't mention the fact (as Davnel03) he was involved in a brawl that caused [[User:Pyrope|Pyrope]] to (temporarily) retire from Wikipedia, and the Formula One Wikiproject for which he had worked so hard. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pyrope/Archive_2007#Davnel03 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pyrope/Archive_2007#Davnel_issue this] This saddened the whole [[WP:F1]] community. D.M.N has also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AD.M.N.&diff=219721462&oldid=216924550 "retired" from Wikipedia] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AD.M.N.&diff=178783476&oldid=177066902 least twice] due to certain goings on, and I doubt this all translates well into becoming an administrator. D.M.N, I'm so sorry at having to do this, because I know you well, but I hope you understand that I have to do my job here right. Sorry, and best wishes, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' -  to clear up misconceptions. When I first met DMN, I had no idea of his problematic past. I wasn't going to support this RfA and it initially had ZERO to do with what happened in 2007. I worked with him a bit on copyediting an article and was quite impressed with his ''editing'' skills. A couple of weeks ago, he told me he was considering a run for adminship, then later he got upset with an issue with Tony1 at ANI, he retired, then semi-retired (I think), then unretired, all within the course of maybe an hour or two. What concerns me most about that situations is that it caused a bunch of problems for him in terms of how he was interacting with other editors and how he was making use of ANI. I honestly believed that he learned something from it. However, just a few weeks later, he was ''right'' back at ANI with a frivolous, drama-filled post at ANI regarding a similar issue with Tony1. I was confused with this gross misjudgement, seemingly making an obvious mistake twice. Finally, the very fact that he thought this was the time to come to RfA bothered me. I had my eye on him as a ''potential'' candidate, but maybe 6 months to a year down the road after he deals with some of these drama-filled issues. DMN deciding to come to RfA despite such recent issues shows me a certain anxiety to get the tools that I am uncomfortable with.
'''Neutral''' for the moment.  The first place I always look is User:Talk.  Your user talk starts with a very unwelcoming and glaring "WILL BE MOVED IMMEDIATELY" message, in bright red.  Ironically, the next box is the Jimmy-diff about "we should all be nice and work together."  I'm also remembering an ANI thingie, but it's slipping my mind ATM.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Neutral''' A good editor, but should try not to inflame situations such as [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive437#Incivility and personal attacks by Tony1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29|this]].
'''Neutral''' - Per your own introduction and the opposes already mentioned. Sorry. You seem like the type of person that might go on a vandalism spree when you get bored of wikipedia and decide you no longer care. —
'''Neutral but will probably support''' before this gets to SNOW, my personal impressions of DMN have always been positive and I thought he was an admin already.  Issues from 1.5 years ago, are non-issues in my book... but I will have to investigate further before actually offering support.  Consider this moral support at this time with encouragement to others to investigate before opposing.---'''
'''Neutral''' pending the answer of my question, but leaning towards oppose at the moment. You don't start an ANI post "'''against'''" someone you start an AN/'''I''' post about an '''incident'''. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral'''- Some good contributions to mainspace, but apparent power hunger, some immature behaviour, an indef block and occasional incivility make me hesitant to support.<font face="Forte">
'''Neutral.'''  (Posting here to stay out of the pile-on in the oppose section.)  Dude, you're not ready.  Give yourself six months to a year before doing this again.  —
'''Neutral''' - on the positive side your mainspace contribution has been excellent, your Wikispace work shows a knowledge of policy and you've worked collaboratively with a range of users on some pretty good articles. On the negative the most recent indef block <s>was in December last year</s>, and the sockpuppetry and legal threat were pretty bad. Everyone makes mistakes, and full marks for sticking around to make up for yours. To shift this to support or oppose, could I ask why you need the admin tools to continue your work, compared to those available to a regular editor?
'''Neutral''' I believe the candidate should get some more positive contributions online (if only to further distance himself from previous errors in judgment) and reapply by year's end.
'''Neutral''' So much mud being flung around I just can't support. <strong>
Can't support unfortunately but also don't want to pile onto the oppose section so I'll stay down here in neutral. I think you've made good progress over the last year and I hope you will continue to grow as a 'pedian but I do think this RfA is premature.
Sorry, not enough to positively support at this time, questions still remain about how you will use the tools.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think you have enough experience per the amount of time you have had an account. Maybe next time, given more experience. Regards.
'''Oppose''' Less than 1000 edits, sporadic editing activity and edit summary usage, and not enough experience in admin related areas such as UAA, Afd, AIV.  Improve on those areas along with some consistant activity, and 6 months (and 3-5k edits) from now your next Rfa should pass.
'''Oppose''' - I appreciate your want to serve and improve the project, but this RfA is simply too soon.
'''Oppose''' For a lack of experience and policy knowledge. <s>Also, while I do believe in reforming vandals, I haven't seen enough edits since these rather offensive diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men&diff=prev&oldid=118289159] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men&diff=prev&oldid=118292563] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bomb&diff=prev&oldid=118294368] to indicate true reform.</s> --[[User:Bfigura|<font color="Green">'''B'''</font><font color="Blue">figura</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Bfigura|talk]])</sup> 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) <small> Update after close in light of Barneca's comments. --
'''<s>Strongest possible</s> oppose'''<small> post-close downgrading after Barneca comment</small> The candidate didn't understand that Wikipedia is a community where users are judged on their contributions and that we respectfully don't care about real life. Right now, it's premature, the user is unaware of our main policies and guidelines. There's a general lack of experience, maybe, in some months or years, it'll have a chance. And the diffs above just make me go away. <small> a plausible explanation has been given, assuming good faith </small> -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Frankly, I'm not sure you know exactly what adminship entails. It's not necessarily being a CEO and having leadership. It's using tools like [[WP:RfPP|page protection]], [[WP:AfD|deletion]], and [[WP:AIV|blocking]]. If I were you, I would go through [[WP:AC|Admin Coaching]]. They will take a look at how you have been editing and how you can improve. You seem like you can be a great admin one day and you are obviously eager to get the mop, but you just don't have the experience necessary.
'''Strong Opppose''' A CEO who leaves his computer logged in so someone can use their account to add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men&diff=prev&oldid=118289159 racial slurs] into articles? Terrible judgement
'''Oppose''' Looks like [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] in the forecast.  George's evidence says it all. --

'''Oppose''' I appreciate your enthusiasm and potential, but I believe that a few more months of experience and knowledge will be great for you. Edit on. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - I think the candidate doesn't understand what admins are/do. This sentence: ''"I believe seeing as I'm a CEO in Real Life, that I am qualified to become a admin on Wikipedia."'' in particular. I would respectfully suggest that the editor withdraw their nomination. -
'''Neutral''' I am a little discouraged in this user's answers, more specificly, question #1 as it shows no admin work really and just normal contributions as in the candidates statement. Will reconsider !voting when further questions are clarified/answered. Cheers.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but the introductory statements is poor, as well as the answers. You claim to know what Wikipedia is about and have good grammar, well, I've noticed several grammatical errors both in this statement and your userpage. You are too inexperienced for adminship, unfortunately.
'''Oppose''' You have only 126 edits in total, with 114 of them being made in the very immediate past. You have as yet not given yourself an opportunity to demonstrate competence in admin-related topics. You can only show this by amassing experience; a minimum of three months and two thousand edits, spread across the various sections of wikipedia, are expected, and more is better. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Administrators on Wikipedia must have the trust of the community, and your relatively short time on this project, and contributions to the encyclopedia, do not give sufficient evidence for such trust. I would advise you to focus on improving the encyclopedia and its articles (you may wish to select an article in your area of interest, and work from there); I also noticed you have joined a WikiProject—that is a good way to get to know the Community, and it would benefit you if you collaborate with other editors there, if you so wish. Finally, you might want to provide your opinion in a [[WP:XFD|deletion debate]] (e.g., [[WP:AFD|AfD]]), where proposals to delete a page (articles go on [[WP:AFD|AfD]], templates on [[WP:TFD|TfD]], etc...) are posted for community input. However, at the present point in time, I am afraid I cannot offer my support to your candidacy.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you're probably extremely well-intentioned - That's no doubt, but I'm afraid this RfA is premature. You simply do not have the experience. No one is doubting that you know how to edit, but there are other aspects in the namespace that you would need to inundate yourself with. Better luck next time dude. Come back in like 6 months.
Sorry but I feel that 17 main-space edits and 11 Wikipedia-space edits aren't quite enough for adminship. Perhaps you could come back in a few months, when you have considerably more experience especially in [[WP:AFD]] and some [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrol]] as well as perhaps some article writing, as other editors will oppose due to your inexperience. I would recommend withdrawing this RfA per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - Regretfully - Well intentioned user, but very low mainspace count, in terms of individual articles that is. Weak Wiki-space contributions. I feel you lack the requisite experience that an prospective admin should have. I recommend coming back in a few months and another 3000 or so edits. Try admin coaching or [[WP:ER]].
'''oppose'''.  Far too little experience with contributing to encyclopedic content for me to have confidence in him. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
It looks like 500 or more of your edits are simply welcoming new users with a script. While this is nice, its not really admin-related at all. Fewer than 200 Wikipedia-space contributions, which is where most admin work is, is not near enough experience. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' – In reviewing your Discussion page [[User talk:Dendodge|Dendodge]], I have major concerns with honesty here, sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. I'm a bit concerned about the amount of edits to the mainspace and project space (371 total, 18% of total contribs) as opposed to userspace and user talk (1564, 77% of total), as well as the fact that the overwhelming majority of edits to the latter are with Friendly. Another concern is with the way you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&diff=195351723&oldid=195351679 handled the announcement of a major Help Desk bug fix] that was posted on the Help Desk - most of Wikipedia's rules (policies excepted) should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception (to quote the guideline template), not enforced to the letter as you did there. Finally, you have only been active for two months; in my eyes that is not long enough to learn the policies to the level that an admin should know them.
'''Oppose''' The "this user successfully campaigned for the deletion of ___" buttons on your user page strike me the wrong way...I hope deletion never becomes a core value. It has it's place but to celebrate it....
This user feels power hungry to me, placing logos at the top of his page for every successful AfD nomination almost like a point system.
There exists a gulf between [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Dendodge contributing constructively to the Project].  More edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=prev&oldid=194762780 this] and fewer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dendodge&limit=500&action=history like these]</span> and I will happily change to '''support'''.  <span style="font-family: monospace">
From what I've seen, he looks like a great candidate. Q1 may not be the strongest explaination, but [[WP:WTHN]]?
'''Support''': no clear reason to oppose. Has clue, will travel.
'''Support''' - Promise me you'll do a road article if you pass. :P - Anyway great editor. I have minor concerns, but they shouldn't be a problem.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="maroon">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="brown"><sup>(
'''Support''' Good interactions. <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Hopefully, this will be your last RFA. No problems here. Good luck!
Hello, I'm the new proctologist in town and I need to buy some medical supplies -- can I please get a crowbar, a plunger, a...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: '''Support''' for a highly qualified candidate who embodies the concept of "net positive." As an admin, he won't make an ass of himself (that's a little proctology humour).
'''Support''' appears to have grown with experience. Net positive. Instinctive response to tenuous oppose arguments.
'''Strong support''' - The [[WP:RFPP]] thing is the only blemish I can find, and it's not even a big one. Besides, I thought you were an admin already! --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Support''' Hello, I'd like a #6 combo meal with extra fries and a chocolate shake...damn, wrong queue!
'''Support''' - Knowledgable user, very trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Yes, this one is per nom. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ''
'''Support'''. As co-nominator. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Have seen Dendodge around doing good work on Bealtes-related articles; as to the opposes, fair enough but I think nine months is a fair time to wait since the last RfA and the fact that he's had Admin coaching gives me confidence that he's less likely to screw up. --
'''Support''' —
Appreciate concerns below, but would rebut with the argument that a candidate who is willing to help out is somebody we ought to be striving to elect, rather than turn away. Status-seeking never looks great, but Dendodge has held of RfA for some months now; it's probably no longer an issue. Otherwise, candidate seems trustworthy and competent. '''Support'''.
'''Weak support'''.  While not someone I am that familiar with, seem releatively reaosnable from the examples or arguments I looked at and the Barnstars, having not been blocked, and being nominated by Wizardman are all pluses..  Sincerely, --
'''Support'''.  Trustworthy, competent, good nominators.  Good firsthand interactions. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak support'''
'''Support''', decent editor. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - I like a lot of this user's contributions.--
Hmm &mdash; I do agree with Skomorokh... but you're a good candidate, so what the heck. &mdash;'''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">'''C'''</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">eran]]</font><sup>
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen his work at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk]], and Dendodge sure knows a lot of Wikipedia policies and understands them well. Obviously loves to help others. Has done some decent work in other places also. Would make a fine administrator. Thank you. &ndash;
'''Support''' While I will oppose for coaching that doesn't do the job, here it did.---'''
'''Support''' The opposes are almost entirely unconvincing for me. I've only had good interactions with this user and I'd support whether it be his/her first, or his/her five millionth application for adminship. The number of fails is irrelevent, look at what the candidate is like ''now''! —'''
Decent count, good mainspace edits and good intentions. Well then, it has to be '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Quality candidate and I believe he deserves this.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' concerns but find them unpersuasive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - have seen the candidate around, seems trustworthy and sensible. Mostly agree with the oppose 'voters' about problems with admin coaching, however, I don't believe the concerns are sufficient to justify opposing.
As coacher and supposed co-nominator, I must support.
'''Support''' no glaring problems, don't see any reason why I shouldn't jump on this bandwagon. <span style="outline:2px dotted #a1aaff; border:medium double #0f1c9d;">
'''Support'''. What I read down there in the oppose section was very amazing to me in a sickening sort of way. '''''
'''Support (from Neutral)''' - Reading through the ADCO page and the talk pages give me no reason to oppose, really. - <font color="navy">
'''Support.''' As an long-term admin, I find the oppose reasons below mainly absurd.
'''Support''' Actually was planning to be neutral but after checking the track and rechecking it found that there is no chance of misuse of tools by the user and that the user is nomed and conomed by users I trust and  that the fact of the user's age swing votes in this RFA against the candidate in a RFA which even otherwise  is close and perhaps heading to the wire .It is impossible to find the age or gender of users unless they mention it or mention they students of a university or school etc but feel candidates should be judged only on basis of  there editing track.While I respect the opinion of editors to vote against candidates on basis of there age.
'''Strong Support''' There must be no reason for why this third RFA should not suceed. He is a great editor.
'''Support'''. I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that I should oppose. Candidate's apparent willingness to submit to administrator recall should solve any problems should they arise (which I highly doubt). <font color="777777">
'''Support'''.  <s>I really don't understand the opposes; the BLP business was just an awkward word, and I didn't think his language in the AN thread on [[Virgin Killer]] was inflammatory.  I often find myself opposing candidates under 16, but this candidate has been working hard on Wikipedia for a long time, and I've always thought his comments were mature.</s>  I'm striking my reasoning because, after going through the comments on both sides, I'm coming around to the position that "dueling" short justifications have a net negative effect at RFA.  I'd rather see a justification that's so short that it's hard to argue with, or a long boring justification with lots of links and some sensitivity to both sides of the RFA arguments.  So, here's mine: I follow that Dendodge sometimes uses the wrong words and sometimes might slip up and make things worse, but I think he's studied and worked hard, I'm guessing he will continue to do the same, and I think he's trustworthy. - Dan
'''weak support''' The answer about BLP concerns me but the followup makes me less worried. Everything else appears to be in order. The rest of the opposes are not convincing.
'''Support''': I've come across him at the Help Desk often, and I have seen enough to know that the user knows his way around Wikipedia. I don't think the age is really a problem, it's not he can't be responsible and trusted.
'''Support''' Not convinced by the opposes.  No reason to suppose he would abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' User seems to know what he is doing. Have no reason to believe he would abuse. Good luck. &ndash;
To cancel out these age related votes, I became a admin at 17. BLP question was a mistake but at least he clafified it.
'''Support''' as per the various reasons cited by Dlohcierekim and Pascal above. Clearly a reasonable candidate who, while not as polished as a solid and experienced admin, is no threat to the project. Has a clue, and demonstrates the ability to adapt and grow. Sad then that this RfA is on the verge of being the next case study on tendentious oppose votes.
'''Hesitant Support'''- There are a few slight worries, but I am confident that this user would not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - because Dendodge is a great chap, reasonable and open to communication - he'll start off good, I reckon, and get better with time (like a fine wine really).....
'''Weak support''' - not the strongest candidate, but he meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].
'''Support'''. Committed, smart, and helpful. <font color="Brown">
'''Support''' I was originally going to oppose due to some questionable habits of this user and reasons brought up in the opposition, but then I realized something; he's only human. Yes, that's a cliche, but it's true. All of the issues cited could easily be remedied (I'm going to ignore the age issue completely, as replying to that isn't even worth it). "Bad" answer to Q7? Simple, just reread the policy, go check out how someone else deals with BLP, and learn to do it acceptably. There's not much to it, and this isn't rocket science.
'''Support''' I don't see age as any inhibition, only the actions that may (or may not) result from that age. If a 3 year old came to RfA, demonstrating sound knowledge and experience (although I have no idea how that would work) in all the needed areas, I'd vote support (however unlikely that is) without hesitation. It's ''actions'' I take into account. Finally, per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' Age should not be a factor in this. Maturity should. Dendodge has shown a considerable amount of maturity, I think he's ready for the mop. '''<font face="Verdana">
Cautiously. —
'''Support''' Unless something scandalous comes out from this point on I've decided on a weak support. I've considered the opposes carefully and all the fuss being made over question 4 and 7. While he clearly needs to learn about BLP, the answer to 4 was simply honest. However I would advise the candidate to be tactful in his jokes, as not everyone picks up on sarcasm, especially in written form.
'''Support''' The oppose reasons are not compelling.
'''Support''' - I do not think that Dendodge will kill the encyclopedia, and I don't really agree with the opposers.
'''Support'''Some answers are not ideal, but I was a teenager once too. The real question is do I trust Dendodge? And the answer is yes. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy. I echo some of the concerns to the BLP questions, but at least the reply wasn't generic. ''Anyone'' can make a generic reply :-p
Instinctive oppose. Whenever an Rfa shows up with digits like 3 in it, the question immediately arises "why does this person want to be an administrator so much?" When the editor fails an RfA and then appears to restructure their entire editing patterns around passing the next one, you wonder what their motivations for editing the encyclopaedia are. Your adminmill pages (are designed to?) show nothing but safe answers, and no critical engagement with prevailing norms. This is exacerbated by your answer to question 9; I find it incredible that someone could be active on Wikipedia for such a length of time and intensity of editing and not disagree with a single policy or guideline. That suggests to me  someone who a) does not engage critically with what they are doing (terrible trait in an admin) b) disagrees with plenty of conventions but will not say so here for political reasons c) is a true believer (enough admins with us vs. them / Wikipedia is always right mentality) or d) just not that interested. The "aw, shucks, I just want to help out" answer to question 10 just does not fly, not from someone rolling right off the adminmill. Yes, this oppose is quite lacking in assumption of good faith, but adminship can only be easy-come when it becomes easy-go. A one-in-five chance of promoting an authoritarian to admin-for-life ain't worth it. I'm very sorry if it turns out I have completely misjudged you. Sincerely, <font color="404040">
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' - Skomorokh said a lot of things I wanted to say. Firstly, when I looked at this RfA, I was going to automatically vote support because of the nominator and co-nom. However, a careful inspection raised many concerns, aside from what Skomorokh already said. I looked at the previous RfAs and the first red light for me was the apparent heavy usage of automated tools (please correct me if I'm wrong). Next, I noticed that the candidate was admin-coached - something I personally dislike in general, but it becomes a lot worse when you're nominated every few months. Nine months is usually a long enough period between RfAs, but it certainly raises some questions when it's the third RfA 'attempt' in less than a year—smells of RfA-shopping of sorts. Next, there's the issue of article edits; the work on the Harrison article is impressive, but this seems to be the only article the candidate really put an effort into. Combined with the automated edits and less than 3,000 mainspace edits in general, this signifies nothing good on article contributions. Forgive me for being rude, but I think that somewhere in the admin coaching process they forget to mention the fact that writing articles, and not vandal fighting or non-admin AfD closures, is what Wikipedians are all about. Finally, the answers to the questions are short and don't always show insight; the fact that so many follow-up questions were asked clearly shows this. Especially concerning are the answers to Q4, Q6 and Q10. Having said all of the above, I don't necessarily think that this user will make a bad admin in his niche, and appreciate the help desk (and similar) contributions—just that I believe that an admin has to have general knowledge of everything going on on Wikipedia, and this is mostly gained from real article contributions. I sincerely hope that the candidate writes a few articles and researches content for a year or so, and then comes back as a new person. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Skomorokh|Skomorokh]] and [[User:Ynhockey|Ynhockey]].
'''Oppose'''. A brief look at the edit history showed some bizarre unreferenced entries on Dendodge's most edited page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristallnacht&diff=prev&oldid=213557472] ; oddly enough, it remained in mainspace to date. Granted, it was half a year ago, halfway through his edit history, but still I feel distrust to a user who invents non-existent info and includes it in articles.
The candidate's commentary at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses]] was pretty clueless: proudly "hounding" the IWF with what was essentially a blackmail message reflects very poorly on us. (This just reinforces my belief that having children administrating a top 10 website is a bad idea from a PR lens, but that's a discussion for another day.) Insufficient interest in content writing: [[Stephano (Shakespeare)]], which is entirely written by Dendodge, is pretty underwhelming. [[Transit of Venus March]] is also a 300-word start-class article. Product of admin coaching; I have elaborated at length as to why attempting to learn common sense from neatly packaged quizzed is undesirable elsewhere. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' You're under 16 and too immature IMO, concentrate on your GCSE's instead.
BLP does not state that "no content in articles related to living people should contain anything offensive." The followup didn't help any &ndash; the example he gave was pure vandalism, not something that should be removed specifically under BLP. WRT to Q11, his answer shows he didn't do any research before responding; which is not a trait we want in administrators. His answer to Q5 is also wrong: he should not be denying an unblock request for a block that he made. Finally, I agree with Skomorokh; the answer to Q9 is extremely political and noncommittal, which indicates he's just trying to jump through hoops to pass RfA. '''
Comments at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action]] were immature and escalatory when there was no need to be. And 16 =/= legally accountable, so no, sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' - Per seresin and also because I see too many signs of haste and immaturity. Dendodge's comments in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses]] thread are one example, and some of his remarks and answers here don't sit well with me either: "any half decent administrator is a net gain for the project", "I'm not being paid, so why do a job I don't enjoy?", the "Republicn propoganda/vandalism" logic, etc. Finally, his off-wiki blog remark "Even the law is ageist nowadays"[http://dendodge.blogspot.com/2008/08/ageism-on-wikipedia.html] made me almost spill my drink. I don't mind being used as a bad example in the blog, honest, and I know the blog hasn't got anything to do with his Wiki-work, but it does show me there's still a lot to learn. So, no, sorry. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Oppose'''. I have mixed feelings and significant reservations about promotong any under 16 user for adminship. I think it may be justified in some cases where a candidate's record is particularly outstanding. That does not appear to be the case here. In fact, there are sufficient reasons to worry about both the grasp of policy and general maturity issues. Initial answers to RfA questions were too short, luckluster and sometimes plain wrong. As noted by Seresin, the answer to Q5 was incorrect: you should not decline a block for an unblock you had given and leave it to another admin to make a decision on an unblock request. The answer to Q7 regarding BLP was also problematic. As noted by others, the article-writing record is somewhat underwhelming. The WP:AN discussion link provided by East718 is particularly concerning. It involves a discussion regarding fairly controversial, complicated and dicey matters of some WP article images on Wikipedia being classified in the UK as child pornography and the legal implications thereof for WMF (I think Gurch has just gotten a 3RR block in relation to the controversy arising from that WP:AN thread). In my opinion this exactly the sort of an issue where an involvement by a user (and even more so an admin) who is a minor would be particularly inappropriate and the aggressive and immature comments by the candidate in WP:AN thread were quite worriesome.
'''Oppose''' mainly for the reasons stated above me by some, but also because I see far too many signs of hasty actions without any direct thought. Your comments regarding the UK ISP issues would have been bad for the project: houding the IWF is not a sensible and mature thing to do; especially when you haven't actually taken the time to look into what they do. <small>''(Yeah - actually, I think it's EU-related too - maybe a non-UK European could check it out to see if they're blocked too?)'' </small> I think being a good admin is about knowing when to step back and shut up and I don't thing you have an adequate grasp of this to become an admin at this time.
'''Oppose''' because he made too many foolish posts to
'''Oppose''' per the wrong answers to Q5 and Q7, the bad answer to Q11, and the non-answer to Q9. I'm not a big fan of the admin coaching either, though that's not a major reason for my opposition.
'''Oppose''' - For not understanding what constitutes BLP. Sorry.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I'm very wary of making this vote, but I'm leaning far enough to the oppose side that I suppose I should end up in this camp. For me, the only thing causing me to vote this way is the rather weak article contributions; I have no objection to the user's age (particularly considering its proximity to my own). The editor has a habit of using only primary sources to write articles without asserting any notability (see [[Daz 4 Zoe]], [[Stephano (Shakespeare)]]). Many of his articles show un-reliable sources cited: see [[I'll Keep You Satisfied]] ([[Geocities]] is cited; the Geocities page is simply the lyrics), [[Positive Discipline]] (one in-line citation with four clean-up tags), and [[SingaLongaWarYears]] (which cites Amazon Customer reviews in its infobox as the only reviewer). I'm just nervous about the mainspace edits, especially considering that his two best articles by his own statement are [[Transit of Venus]], a respectable start class article, and [[George Harrison]] which was quickfailed at GA (though I have no doubt that it'll be up to snuff soon enough). These problems in his mainspace articles are just enough to push me towards oppose, though I'm not set in stone with my vote. --
'''Oppose''', as the evidence provided by others of immaturity and trying to avoid giving an honest opinion in answering the RfA questions worries me. '''
'''Oppose'''  While several editors I respect are supporting you, I find the combination of multiple RfA's and the poor BLP an inexcusable combination: If you don't grok it by now, why would you ever?
'''Oppose''' - I am worried by the stuff I have read above, but I won't pile on by writing a big load of blah and potentially cause drama like has occured above. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
The cluelessness of the candidate as pointed out by other editors seriously worries me. -
See initial support. Some concerns raised by the opposers above me are worrying; Q11, in particular, is ''very'' shaky.
'''Oppose''' I'm trying not to oppose things lately, but a lack of understanding of BLP is a dealbreaker, even if I could just about overlook the open political bias '''
'''Oppose''' I will very occsasionally support a candidate under 18, but only if he or she has a pristine resume.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, way too young. I understand the reluctance to being ageist, but there is definitely a limit. Below 16 and have the tools should be something used in extreme circumstances. On top of that, the need to become an admin is obvious, and it shouldn't be such a necessity. Stay an editor, give yourself a couple of more years, delve deeper into the encyclopedia and then see where it goes. Not yet.
'''Oppose''' Per Skomorokh, Ynhockey and east718 with some caveats.  Age is not important to me.  I respect decisions made by people who would be less willing to support an admin under a certain age (though not those decisions where age is treated like a brightline).  Further I don't think that changing behavior following an unsuccessful RfA is a sign that the user is here only to be a sysop or isn't grounded in their desire to edit the encyclopedia.  An RfA is a nervewracking and sometimes horrifying experience.  Mine was successful but for someone who does not have a successful RfA, the appearance can be one of rejection.  They may say "well, it is clear that I'm not editing the way that people think I should be" and change behaviors.  I also am unconcerned about "adminmills" and admin coaching.  In my mind, most "admin coaching" involves a user who is already seen as a good candidate for the bit learning some of the tropes and idiosyncracies of RfA.  This is ''far'' less important now that we have fewer "cookie cutter" questions about blocks and bans and CDB's and what not.  Admin coaching was (IMO) partially designed to get around the possibility of failing an RfA by saying something silly like "A ban is where a user is indefinitely blocked" instead of the proper (but c'mon, equally silly) "A block is a technical measure used to prevent a user from editing and a ban is a community decision to...".  But the questions raised about your understanding and assessment of wikipedia policies are valid.  It is a red flag (to me) for a user to have been here as long as you have and not be able or willing to produce an answer to question 9.  Specifically, the answer produced was a complete dodge.  So I can't support this candidate.
'''Oppose''' - the candidate's comments at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action]] are not the work of someone who ought to be an administrator. On a matter relating to child pornography, I interacted with the IWF when I was an administrator, and any admin ought to be able to do this without inflaming a conflict and misrepresenting the real problem of child pornography. The candidate also has a tendency to bludgeon the oppose votes. -
'''Strong Oppose''' per most of the above.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I don't care about your age, your blogpost or the answer to Q9, and I share your view of rap music in Q15. But I don't agree with your answers to Q7 and 11, especially Q7 as [[WP:BLP]] is something you'd be likely to have to police as an admin. Many BLP's contain material that is offensive to ''somebody'', but thats not the criteria for determining whether to include it in the article. Material in BLP's should be verifiable, neutrally worded and not based on or containing original research or synthesis. Undue weight and similar are also worth considering (as you noted in your supplementary answer). On the other side of the ledger, the Help Desk work is impressive as is your recent article improvement work. A weak oppose only.
'''Oppose''' - See his alarming answer to Q11.
'''Regretful Oppose''', I'm sure you mean well but you need more experience I think. —
'''Oppose'''. Per Skomorokh and Ynhockey. Dendodge hasn't quite grasped the ropes just yet.
'''Oppose''' While I trust the nominators, I have to oppose you. As said above already, I too noticed you quite often the last days and weeks but never in a good light. Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action&diff=prev&oldid=256274725 this] on a page that will definitaly be read by the press make us look bad, although I can understand the frustration in this case. But it is one thing to be frustrated and another to go around calling others names. I have no problem with underage admins, some of our very best admins are not 18+ years old, but you are simply not ready for the tools. Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - lack of maturity.
I don't think his answer to question 7 is quite developed enough. Seems to lack some of the needed judgment. I think Dendodge will make a decent administrator someday, but I just don't think he or she is quite ready. (And an issue not weighted in my opinion is his or her hideous userpage... e kala mai.) Mahalo. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Lack of maturity -- not really suitable for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Q7 and Q11 raise deal-breaker concerns.  Not qualified.
'''Oppose''' Q7 and Q11 are unacceptable. I might support a 4th one; I think you'll eventually be a net positive, but not right now.
'''Oppose.'''  He wants the tools, but he's not ready for the responsibility.  —
'''Oppose''' - Some things don't concern me, such as your age, the number of RfA's you have had and the answer to Q9. Other things do however, your answers to the questions overall show a lack of necessary experience for the tools, particularly Q5. I am also a bit concerned over comments you have made across Wikipedia times, some of which make rather sweeping statements that may make unnecessary controversy - administrators can have jokes but should be generally mature and professional when communicating. You are certainly a good contributor, but I have unfortunately come to the conclusion you are not ready for the tools yet.
'''Oppose''' - I am mostly concerned about a lack of understanding of BLP issues as evidenced by Q7. This is far more serious than most work an admin or editor will do. It is so important that it almost brings an automatic oppose. Your youth is a factor too. Those candidates under 18 only receive my support when I see a stellar history here. Unfortunantly I just don't see that exceptional work here.
'''Oppose''' No sorry, I don't believe you are ready for this role.  Adminship is no big deal but it is a damn hard voluntary role.--
'''Oppose''' Some answers to questions were pretty bad. Just seems clueless in many important areas.
'''Oppoose''' - many concerns.  Does not appear to be familiar with BLP - suggests he'd be open to recall, which should always result in an oppose.  Others suggested above.
'''Oppose''' 1) The Answers - ouch ouch ouch. 2) Age - IMHO those still at the compulsory education stage need to demonstrate manifest exceptionality that overrides the inherent lack of life experience. Necessary for the required level of judgment. This candidate, alas, has too often just oozed immaturity instead. 3) Adminship-is-a-big-deal-to-me symptoms.
'''Oppose''' a fair few concerns in the contribs that suggest lack of understanding of BLP and lack of maturity/experience. As the age question has been raised - I do not think age is important, I have strongly backed younger candidates before, and I've opposed a fair few immature adults (the only requirement for adulthood is chronology, not experience or passing a test or such like). Speaking as an admin myself I've had to handle some rather nasty situations where careful diplomacy and judgement is a must, and given that adminship is for the whole project with no limitations, I'm not sure from observing you that you would not have inflamed one or two of those situations to the point of an RfC.
Due to the concerns echoed above, I cannot support you at this time. '''
'''Oppose''' per Skomorokh.
'''Strong Oppose''' - many, many concerns that others have already thoroughly brought up.  I think the common, unifying theme is a lack of circumspect thought, highlighted of course, by the dubious BLP reading, but mainly by the hot-tempered insinuations of being under attack ("Republican propaganda" against Obama, IWF battling WP ("Because we get more Google hits"), and the ageism on- and off-wiki crusade).  A good admin must be able to see an issue with a non-judgmental approach, in order to make good decisions.  -
'''Oppose''' Apologies, Dendodge, but I'm not really satisfied with your answers to my questions. I don't agree with the points raised by Skomorokh, but as I said, he's entitled to his opinion. The above oppose from Seidenstud sums up my thoughts accurately; BLP views aren't quite right, us-vs-them mentality, and since I don't believe that ageism is a valid reason to oppose, it shouldn't be a valid reason to combat opposes either.
'''Oppose''' I find the age here an issue and maybe I am wrong for that and also lack of understanding of BLP is a concern. <strong>
'''Oppose'''. Inadequate understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' because of the concerns that have been raised about your maturity for adminship.--
Sorry, no thanks, not at this point.
'''Neutral''' - Somethings keep my opinion bouncing between support or oppose. <s>I'll return I just don't know where</s>. '''
'''Neutral''' <small>from support</small> Rethinking...Q5 and Q7 worry me more than I thought. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Neutral''' The BLP thing and - to a lesser extent - your reluctance to give IPs a <nowiki>{{2nd chance}}</nowiki> are slightly concerning, but not enough to push me to oppose. Best wishes,
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' (from support) The BLP question is a problem. Also, I'll freely admit that I'm a (proud) ageist and although I first decided to overlook age in this case, the blogpost dug out by Maxim makes me regret this. It takes a fairly high level of cluelessness to equate ageism with sexism and racism. I'd love to see a disgruntled teen who has been refused adminship on Wikipedia go and tell [[Rosa Parks]]: "If you think your life is tough, wait 'til I tell you what I had to go through". Teens can be competent admins, adults can be incompetent admins. But keen judgement, ability to handle conflict, ability to justify one's actions are essential qualities for admins and the fact is that these are skills that most teens are still developing. No shame in that: some adults never even get there. But it's fair to assume that younger editors are less likely to be ready for admin responsibilities.
'''Neutral''', not the best answers to questions. Could use a bit more developing. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
A number of concerns.  I want to reiterate Pascal's point however.  I think you are a good editor, but you should probably reflect upon the differences between racism and ageism and why it's not a particularly acceptable comparison. --
The concerns raised by the opposers, conduct at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action]], yes-man concerns, and apparent structuring of conduct in order to become an admin are troubling.
'''Not Now''' I'm afraid that's something for the [[WP:NOTNOW]] clause. I am afraid you lack experience and edits to become an admin here... '''
Your enthusiasm is definitely noted, but I don't think you've been contributing to Wikipedia long enough to be considered for adminship. I might also suggest removing your real name from public view, unless you're not too worried about that. –<font face="Verdana">
Your edits here so far have been good, so keep them up, it's just a little too soon. We haven't got enough evidence to know how you'd use the tools effectively. Your edits that you've made so far don't need any admin intervention, so just carry on plodding on as you have been. You might be interested in getting involved with some [[WP:AFD|deletion discussions]] - it really helps improve your knowledge of many of our editing guidelines. If you need any help in the future, please feel free to ask me.
'''Oppose'''; you've got 30 edits. I recommend you withdraw it, this is never going to pass.
'''Oppose''' at this time. The good news is that I've reviewed every one of the candidate's edits... the bad news is that it took less than ten minutes. I just can't find sufficient grounds, in this short history, to trust the candidate with the tools. I think this good faith application should be withdrawn and I would urge other editors not to oppose a further application on the basis of this one.  <font color="006622">
Remove per [[WP:SNOW]], less than 100 edits. Sorry, try when you have more experience.
As I described to you on the Help desk page, I don't think your current experience at Wikipedia is broad enough for me to trust that you fully understand Wikipedia policy. You seem enthusiastic, so I recommend that you review pages like [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] to get a better idea of what admins can do here. Your questions are on the brief side and don't demonstrate that you are entirely familiar with admin activities. Again, this is not to disparage your work, but to encourage you to gain admin experience if its what you seek.
Little to no usage of edit summaries, only 60~ edits according to his edit count (nearly half of which in Wikipedia space, though none of which appear useful), and doesn't seem to have a very good handle on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry, but it's just too early for you to request such a thing. //
Your enthusiasm and desire to help is appreciated, but it does not appear you have the experience or familiarity with policy at this point to assume administrative duties.  There are many ways in which non-admin users can help defend the 'pedia against vandalism and I highly encourage you to make the best of the tools that are available to you - if in the future you find yourself in need of more tools, perhaps give this a try again :)
'''Oppose''', per Arkyan. Sorry, try again after a few more months and more edits.
'''Oppose''' due to answers of the questions. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Less than 150 edits, per answers here the candidate is obviously unprepared to use the sysop tools wisely.
'''Support''', yes I do want Dihydrogen Monoxide to become an administrator. '''
Yes, Yes, and Yes.
Need I say more? Spebi and Rudget have my thoughts already planned out. &mdash;
Unless I'm in the wrong place...? -- <strong>
'''Support''' - Effing Yeah! This user has basically been an admin in my eyes for the longest time. I feel he has a way about doing things. Good luck!
You bastard Giggy:p You deliberately put this RfA online when you know I was going out. Didn't even have enough tact to wait until I finished my well-prepared co-nom... (It's a joke peoples. No offense meant.) In a more serious matter, I believe that Giggy has what it takes to be an administrator. In my opinion, he regularly shows good judgement and clue. He is also a content writer; a firm editor who has driven many articles to FA. I believe he would make a great addition to Wikipedia as an admin. --
'''Support''', from a not-so-proud member of the "He's not an admin already!?!?" club.
'''Support''' It is about time. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Alrighty then. ;) ~
'''Support''' per noms. Gifted writer & helpful fellow user.
'''Support''' I was neutral last time, as I felt the timing was wrong, however I believe issues from the past have been addressed and that DHMO will be a '''net gain''' to the administrative team - and in the final analysis if something is of benefit to the project we should seek to embrace it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - H2O is sensible and will make a great addition to the admin team. I have no concerns. [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Kei'''</font>]][[User_talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">'''lana'''</font>]]<sub>
I have no concerns whatsoever about this prolific contributor.
'''Support''', as the candidate has a high degree of knowledge in areas where the tools may have the most benefit. I don't have any concerns about the candidate as such, but would note that some of our colleagues who oppose this RfA have very valid points that the candidate should address if this request becomes successful. I cannot say that I agree with the comments at the Editor Review linked above, but that's a disagreement on point, not procedure. Good luck,
Calm, civil, intelligent, understands policy. There's no reason not to '''Support'''.
'''Support'''' Yeah, oh yeah.'''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
Oh man, how was I not one of the first to come here? H2O has addressed a major concern from his previous RfA in that he has adapted his editing style to get in some excellent writing. He will make a fine admin, if he is willing to change in such a big way if the community feels he should. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
I was a member of the "He's not an admin already!?!?" club before it even existed. I've seen this user all over the place, always making positive contributions, and I honestly thought he was already an admin without bothering to check. --''<span style="color:#0000f1">
Same as above! '''Support''', duh! &asymp;
'''Support''' for substantially the same reasons as last time, and I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the opposers' concerns. Firstly, I have read the now-deleted IRC chatlog he posted on-wiki some considerable time ago. In that particular chatlog, Majorly did appear to be threatening Giggy (as was) over an oppose on an RfA with which Majorly disagreed. Majorly has since explained that the threats were intended as a joke (and I accept his good faith on this matter), but it doesn't come over that way in the log. It was certainly inappropriate for Giggy to post the chatlog on-wiki; however, given the circumstances, and the fact that it contained no private personal information of any kind, I don't think it was an unforgivable, or even a very serious, lapse of judgment. (As a side point, I personally dislike IRC and have never used it. Almost everything about Wikipedia should be discussed openly on-wiki; stuff that contains private personal information should be discussed by e-mail. Secretive backroom discussions are never a good idea.) I'm not condoning the posting of private discussions on-wiki, but for me it isn't a deal-breaker in this instance. The second incident to which Majorly and AndonicO refer involves DHMO's reference, in another user's Editor Review, to certain off-wiki comments allegedly made by Majorly and AndonicO about that user. Again, this is a lapse of judgment but not a catastrophic one. DHMO should not, in the circumstances, have ascribed those private opinions to individual editors ([[Chatham House rules]] should, perhaps, have been applied in this instance), but again, it did not involve the posting of any highly sensitive information in a public forum, and so is a forgivable lapse. With regard to Miranda's oppose, I have examined the diffs she presented. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miranda&diff=prev&oldid=179536782 This one] appears to be a perfectly civil comment - ironically, it was an apology to Miranda herself - and does not deserve to be characterised as "conspiracy theories about contributors". What he actually said was ''"You are one of the few people on this project who have this encyclopaedia’s goal at heart…and not Veropedia’s. Keep it up :)"'' I think the smiley, and the context, make it completely clear that this was substantially a light-hearted comment, not any sort of attack on those contributors who choose to participate in both Veropedia and Wikipedia. To address one further point (made by Majorly): to criticise him for using the terms "raped" and "sexy" in a humorous, light-hearted context is, with all due respect, yet another manifestation of the [[political correctness]] which is unfortunately becoming prevalent in Wikipedia culture. In context, these terms have their place in a humorous context; and I do not think we should all be spending our lives carefully considering every word we say, and censoring ourselves, on the off-chance that we might inadvertently give offence to someone. Plus, I've known plenty of admins to use the term "sexy" in a humorous context. It isn't a sign of immaturity. To return, therefore, to the main issue at hand: DHMO is a fantastic editor. There is no need for me to list his countless valuable contributions to the project, as others have done this already. He is one of the most experienced and capable non-admins, and is active both in article work and in projectspace. Will we choose to waste the skills and talents of a willing volunteer due to a few minor lapses of judgment in the past, or will we choose to look beyond them? Remember that perfection is not a pre-requisite for adminship; while we sometimes have candidates who ''appear'' to be perfect, they are often hiding things from the community. DHMO doesn't pretend to be perfect, but is honest, trustworthy and experienced, and it is time to make him an administrator.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''.  Per the noms.
'''Support''' - 17 GA's and 4 FA's = Good work. Plus, I have seen this user around quite a bit. The opposes below did "raise an eyebrow" for me. However, I trust Riana's judgment (as nom) and plus this candidate is willing to join administrators open to recall. So here is my trust.
'''Support'''. ''(audible groan at material revealed below)'' ...''(sigh)'' ultimately a net positive. Though WP is not a social club, H2O/Giggy/Alex/whatever has a good mix of friendly morale-boosting banter and article writing and collaboration. I am noly supporting on the strength of ''quite significant'' article improvement in the face of issues outlined below. Any less and it would have been in net debit but there you go...cheers,
'''Support''' A great contributor, and given the behaviour of certain admins [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence|recently]] you seem mature by comparison.
'''Support''' -- He continues to improve, to do better for WP, and has learned from past mistakes; he's ready now.
'''Support''' Seen this editor around a fair bit, and have always been impressed.
'''Support''' can't believe I didn't support earlier...in fact, I can't remember if I did, so remove thisif I have...--'''
'''Support''' even though all of the below has come out, that doesn't lead me to believe Dihydrogen Monoxide will abuse the tools, and Walton One's support comment above reinforces that. I have seen him around in many places and believe he is an asset to the project. —
'''Support'''. Like Junglecat, the opposes "raised an eyebrow" for me as well, but I have seen this user around Wikipedia and feel that their contributions will benefit them as an administrator. If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]].
'''Support''' per Walton and my own interactions with the user.
I support this nomination, just like I've supported all of the times DHMO has been nominated for adminship, and again, I have something to say: First off, ''every single one'' of my interactions with DHMO has been positive since I first met him back in very-early May of this year. I have found him to be a civil user with great knowledge of policy, and doesn't bully newcomers or revert-war his way across the encyclopedia. Now I won't deny that he's made mistakes and made errors in judgment (we all have, ultimately), but from what I've seen of DHMO, he's someone willing to learn from his mistakes, and due to learning from errors, he is a better editor and person overall. With the last RfAs, I believe that the concerns raised in them have been addressed, and I do not think that they should be continually used again him; however, I will say that the ''only'' thing I am worried about is what Majorly's mentioned below about the chatlog issue; I don't know why DHMO felt it was necessary to mention it again, but I think that DHMO realizes that it was wrong to mention it. In the end, I believe that DHMO will be a good administrator: he is an excellent article-writer, he collaborates and works well with people: him being an administrator will be a benefit to the project. The marvelous nomination from Riana (who, I have to say, strongly opposed his last two nominations), only gives me more reason to support, and the co-nomination from Anonymous Dissident is a bonus.
The TRE review is really the only thing going that had me concerned. I think the style of the review was probably inappropriate, regardless of any recent prior interaction between H20 and TRE - but TRE did go on to delete the main page (twice??). Jeffpw's point that we need less, not more drama is well taken - but, I'll hope for the best in this case.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; Will make a good admin.  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support''', seen his contributions.--
'''Support'''. I agree with the nominator, noting that she has changed her mind about this candidate. It is time he is given the tools. --
'''Support'''. Would make a good Admin.
'''Support''' I have given this some thought as I have not always agreed with DHMOs (and previously Giggy's) activities here at Wikipedia, seeing him as more interested in the social aspects of the project.  The last few months, however, have seen a great improvement in his focus and a maturity not always evident before, to the point that I see him as an asset to the project.  Applying my only real test I use at RfAs, he is unlikely to abuse the tools and therefore deserves my support. Further, opposing based on views held about policy are, to my mind, flawed.  As long as he follows existing policy when using the tools, he has every right to work to change policy he disagrees with. Good luck with the nomination. --
'''Support'''.  Of course.  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' and on reflection, I should have supported last time as well.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' <span>
Per Acalamari. '''
'''Support''' Giggy's article contribs shows he clearly knows what this project is all about. Even if this ends as no consensus, he'll be an admin in the future. So he might as well get the tools now instead of going through another RfA that will inevitably succeed.
'''Weak Support''' Experienced in many areas, great article writer. The opposes below do concern me but I trust that you won't do anything like delete the main page. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' While I don't always agree with H2O, I generally find him to be a good, trustworthy editor. He has made mistakes in the past (notably the chatlog fiasco), but who hasn't? I believe he has learned from this, and doubt anything of the sort will happen in the future. Basically, he knows what he's doing, and won't abuse the tools. No good reason to oppose.
'''Support''' And I hate giving reasons for support, but I don't want to be reminded of the opposes below, as I have seen them. The opposes are of no concern to me because they are the summation of 'how an admin' should act. A perfect admin has excellent grammar, improves articles, takes no sides, is never terse, is unbiased, and always fair. That's great for a bot. This user is flawed. He has opinions, asserts them, can show bias, and doesn't always bite his tongue. I'm tired of robots. We speak of gaming the system, but being a 1950s American wife incarnate is not my idea of adminship. Having dealt with conflicts, having said shitty things, and getting your hands dirty is the tragic flaw that fails RfAs but gains my support in this case because I support for exactly every reason that is given as an oppose. This user is not the model per se, and we should not aspire to be models, but moreso to be those who are flawed, and carry those flaws over in order to deal with real life situations. Admins should not be held to any higher standard that any other editor, IP or registered. Cops with 4 year degrees are great cops, academically. Those who have been through admin school are great because they have been groomed to follow protocol. This guy's contributions to all areas of Wikipedia have been done with heart,and what's better is that he has made great contributions. Admins can better deal with the 3 extra buttons when they have been on the inverted end of the stick. I'll take experience over grooming any day.
'''Yah''', don't think I could say it better than the undertow up there.^^ —
I opposed this user's RfA on Commons however his behaviour since convinces me I was wrong to do so.  Is this user perfect - no - just the same as the rest of us.  Will he make mistakes - yes - just the same as the rest of us.  However my interaction with this user around wikis makes me quite sure that a dialogue with him is always possible, friendly & worthwhile.  That is a very important quality in an admin.  Additionally I trust him. --
'''Support''' He is a trustworthy guy.
Without reservation. Fantastic candidate.
'''Support''' A great editor and I think undertow summed up nicely to handle any concerns I had.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Stop changing your fucking name :) - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per all above
'''Support'''.  All this guy does is help and help.  I keep bumping into him, and he's a nice, civil editor.  Good luck, mate.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - I was torn on this one. Leaning towards neutral, actually. However, upon reading through both the supports and the opposes and taking into consideration his article building and experience as an administrator on Commons, I believe that Alex has gained the necessary maturity to take on the extra buttons. I also believe that he's learned from his mistakes and I hope that he proves his opposers wrong and avoids such mistakes in the future. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' I wouldn't want to turn a blind eye to the posting of the chatlog, which I am sure we all agree was a [[bad thing]], albeit an isolated incident; but the bottomline is that Giggy is well-intentioned and a great contributor, and that, for me, is a far more mitigating reason why I should support.
It's upset certain editors I dared to oppose this user, so despite the fact I don't trust his judgement with sensitive issues one bit, here's my support anyway. What the hell. '''
'''Support''' - Honestly already thought this user was a admin. Reason ot belive they would abuse the tools? No. Shows evidence that they understand the core policies to make good administrative decisions? Yes.
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal and this user has a good head on top of the shoulders.
'''Support''' - I like what I have seen from him, and feel certain the tools are in good hands.
'''Support''' - definitely. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - Nothing wrong with a little chatlog publishing.
'''Support''' - Would be a great admin.
'''Support''' - Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' User has an admittedly eventful history, and has made, and admitted, mistakes. Most of us make mistakes, but not all of us can admit them, learn from them and move on. I have interacted with this user on a number of occasions, and always positively. And I seriously trust [[User:Riana|Riana]], who opposed previously but now believes in him deeply enough to nominate. I also trust this candidate. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' Nothing wrong. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Well deserved, Giggy.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' because he's an outstanding article writer, has familiarity with every significant aspect of the project's operation, and interacts civilly with other editors.  (I haven't forgotten that he nominated me for adminship, but that's only a minor factor in my thinking.)  I see nothing wrong with the editor review of The Random Editor, and I'm not convinced by the link to the Digwuren arbitration.  If these reflect badly at all, the damage was minimal - it's not like he ever vandalized Wikipedia (I'm trying to be ironic here...).   Really, look at the big picture, and you'll see what I see.
'''Support'''.  Appears to be an experienced editor in many areas of Wikipedia and will be able to contribute to reducing backlogs of admin work.  Some of the oppose concerns appear to me to be non-issues.  Others are not deal-breakers and I'm sure the candidate has learned from having such mistakes pointed out.  Note that the candidate's admin recall policy is very generous. --
'''Support'''; H<sub>2</sub>O is a valuable editor, trustworthy, and could use the mop.  Nothing else needs to be said.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I see '''Dihydrogen Monoxide''' frequently at the GA pages and his behavior there seems OK to me. Until I read through the opposes below, I would not have realized that the editor has been anything but a great contributor. Considering what adminship is, I do not really see how his past problems would affect his trustworthiness as an admin. Put this way, if his past problems as an editor were serious he should have some blocks but {{user|Dihydrogen Monoxide}}, {{user|Giggy}}, {{user|G1ggy}} and {{user|DHMO}} all seem to be free of blocks. I am not even certain if I understand the nature of '''Dihydrogen Monoxide''' scandalous indiscretions: they do not seem more than silly banter. Cheers!
'''Support''' I trust the candidate, plain and simple. The undertow's comments are in line with my thinking on this matter.
'''$upport''' Very well earn't - also as per Riana nom and the_undertow's comments. <b>
'''Strong oppose''' It bothers me that only two months ago, H2O posted [[Wikipedia:Editor review/The Random Editor 2|these comments]]. He misquoted myself and Majorly (right after getting opposed in two of his RFAs for [[User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly|similar misconduct]]), threw [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] out the window, and scared off a recently nominated admin (who he had co-nominated only a week or so before). · <font face="Times New Roman">
HELL NO!
'''Oppose'''.  Productive, successful editor in the mainspace - however, objections by Majorly and AO, and the substance behind them weigh too heavily.  --
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and Miranda.  Too many examples of poor judgment. --
'''Oppose'''. The Majorly log posting incident and[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence] lead to believe that the admin tools will likely be misused (though not necessarily ''abused''). I don't trust the candidate's judgement at this time.
'''Oppose''' -- an excellent and hard working contributor, however comments made at the editor review referred to above raise concerns with judgement and maturity. I like to see a good solid history of level-headedness in potential administrators, and those comments were made as recently as October. Happy to reconsider in the very near future should this editor choose to nominate again. -
I don't see any one the issues raised in the past as a deal-breaker. However, there are many lesser problems that cause me serious concern. After reading your three previous RfAs, I find that each one had a different one for failing. The [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/G1ggy|first one]] failed primarily for inexperience; however, if it had continued longer than it had, I believe the answer to Q4 would have caused it to fail instead. I find that answer a serious problem. Your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy|second one]] failed for the essay [[Wikipedia:Template the regulars]] and posting of private conversations on wiki. I agree that both of these incidents are cause for concern. Finally, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide|your most recent one]] had the most conerncing issues of all. Two concerns were your renames, and your views on who should be administrators. I don't particularly disagree with the latter, although how you phrased it could have been better, and I [[User:Seresin/name|clearly shouldn't]] comment on the former. The major concern, and in my mind most inexcusable, was the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence presented by Bishonen|GA passing issue]]. That is not good behaviour at all. Finally, on this RfA, the TRE review. The first thing I noticed when reading it was your tendency to repeat other editors' off-wiki comments. It was very inappropriate to name those people without their consent. (I assume, based on their comments here, that this was not the case). In addition, the review was not civil, as AndonicO has said. These are the most prevalent concerns I've seen in your RfAs. These issues, combined with an overarching theme of lack of maturity and poor judgment, plus other little things here and there in opposing comments of your RfAs cause me enough concern to oppose your RfA. I am sorry about this, really. I wanted to support you, but I cannot in good conscience do so with the concerns I listed above. You are an excellent article writer, and I hope that you continue to do so, and after several months of addressing these concerns, (or at least giving enough time after them to show you've changed your habits) and editing, I hope you have another RfA I can support. '''
Apart from failing to meet my usual RFA standard of at least 20-something FAs and being a horrible admin at the Commons, '''</joke>''' Majorly presents some serious concerns. I know I'm not one to talk about immaturity, but whatev... --
I'm quite impressed with the 'pedia building.  But I'm still concerned that your cliquishness will cloud your judgment.  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/EVula_2|Just last week]] you rudely attacked another editor for opposing EVula's RfB and accused Cecropia of assuming bad faith by asking questions.  I understand that these discussions do get frustrating but comments like "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_bureaucratship%2FEVula_2&diff=179105459&oldid=179089455 Grow up Nick. You've opposed, you've had someone prove you wrong and give a long list of reasons why that's the case. Restating your case will do nothing for you - give us a real argument, withdraw your oppose, or leave us alone]" are completely unacceptable.  Look, I disagreed with Nick too, but nobody proved his ''opinion'' wrong, and you can't treat people like this.  You're nice to your WikiFriends, but you have to start being nice to the rest of us too.  We're all in this together.  Also maybe slow down a bit?  Four RfAs in 8-9 months as a contributor? --
'''Strong oppose'''. Although Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the best article writer's I've come across, I agree with Majorly. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Changed to Sadly Oppose''' - While looking through some of Miranda's concern and Majorly's add-on, it seems that you have a hard time differentiating between humor and secondly "Per Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly (admin only)"..Chatlogs publishing is so so wrong :| and also [[Wikipedia:Editor review/The Random Editor 2|this]] since you leaked private info/conversation and thus can not really be trusted..soory..but you are a Great Guy and Crikey I would love to have you as an admin, but your immaturity takes the better of you..<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

The concerns expressed above lead me to believe that this user tends to develop a fortress mentality that is not conducive to being a good administrator.
'''Sadly''' I've supported your RFA's in the past, but I can't per the comments and concerns raised by Jayhenry, and Majorly.
'''Strong Oppose'''. At first, I thought I was the only unlucky person to experience breach of privacy from DMHO. Little did I know that other editors, such as Majorly, also experienced similiar problems. This issue was shown on my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OhanaUnited|unsuccessful RfA]]. In here,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FOhanaUnited&diff=169073878&oldid=169049942], DMHO said " since you got my MSN details onwiki, it's an onwiki matter for me". Let me remind you, DMHO, I emailed you (using Wikipedia's email user function) when I discovered you're about to leave Wikipedia through your userpage. I did not obtain your email/MSN '''unless''' you replied back. You personally requested me to add you on MSN to discuss about why you're leaving (DMHO, check it out yourself, you send it on September 5, 2007 at 12:52:22 AM). I admit I was wrong when I changed my MSN nickname to the RfA link, but isn't that so-called canvassing the same thing as posting a notice on my userpage announcing that I'm going through an RfA? To sum things up, I feel very unconfident that when you become admin because you'll be able to access a lot of personal information when your previous records counts against you.
I wouldn't trust him as an administrator. He seems unstable and has an unhealthy air of rogueness about him.
Unfortunately, too liable to give into the temptation to say things he knows perfectly well he shouldn't. '''
I might have let the whole Majorly log posting incident go as old news, if he had not brought it up again during the RFA last month. --
'''Oppose''' - I respect the nominators greatly, and his contributions to the project are admirable. But through my personal experiences with him I really don't think he's mature enough to use the tools wisely. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose''' → [[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]]'s & [[User:Majorly|Majorly]]'s arguments, mainly. I do value privacy offwiki, and I don't want a user who appears to disregard privacy so much to access deleted revisions. Also, we've got completely different view of adminship [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMelburnian&diff=143653184&oldid=143648437]. And I do not like [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]'s evidence at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen|Digwuren's rfar]]. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' Don't really trust him enough. --
Per Majorly[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDihydrogen_Monoxide_2&diff=180802718&oldid=180799412], and in spite of Walton's support rationale. Posting bits of private communication (and repeatedly) is a total deal-breaker; total as in '''never'''. I&nbsp;
I cannot support at present and must '''oppose.''' DHMO does fine editing but there are some maturity issues here. After the imbroglio over the chatlog issue, he did bring it up again in November which has the effect of re-posting it to admins only. You brought it up there in order to affect the voting. You simply did not learn. In addition there are other issues which couple to together to make me uncomfortable. I'll not support if I am going to have to worry about the new admin. I am sorry. -
'''Oppose''' My own experiences with the editor continue to suggest there are significant concerns regarding his level of maturity and judgment.
'''Oppose''' - After some reading and thought, I have decided to oppose your RfA, friend. Concerns about maturity put me off mostly. But also the revealing of private chat logs is also quite worrying. If a contributor needed help with a personal problem that required quiet discretion, would they be more inclined to request help from someone who has published private material in the past? I think if you became an admin, user's who know of your past (specifically the Majorly thing) wouldn't be able to trust you with sensitive predicaments. Sorry, you ''are'' a great article writer, but trust is an issue.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' From experience at GAC/FAC, I know Dihydrogen Monoxide is a phenomenal article writer. However, a number of civility and maturity issues have been brought up in the above opposes. If they were minor, I would let them slide, but some of them appear quite serious, so I must oppose this RfA, unfortunately. I suggest you keep up the excellent article work, but be cautious with your comments to other users. If you exhibit an improved level of maturity and civility, then you should be fine, come your next RfA. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence] is the killer for me.--
'''Oppose''' Until I see a good explanation for this issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence] which was raised, but not really tackled, at the last RfA.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to my question, and to the nominee's answer to question number 1.  <font face="Comic Sans">
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above.
'''Oppose''' I could write a long treatise here on how Wikipedia is not Myspace, how we're writing an encyclopaedia and how the things referenced by the opposition above are not a big deal, but your reactions in the debate about them (on this very page too) ''are'' a big deal. Such a treatise would contradict its message, so I will not write it here.
'''Oppose''' Maturity issues and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence] .--
'''Oppose''' Per above cited Bishonen evidence. --
I do not trust this user with the tools.
'''Oppose''', per all above. --<font color="darkblue">
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence].
Multiple rationales, see above. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence] and maturity issues as mentioned
'''Oppose''' because of Bishonen's evidence and the Random Editor editor review.
'''Oppose''' too many concerns this time. Hopefully next time.
'''Strong oppose''' per the above concerns.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  1) Wilful fraudulent disruption of the GA process per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen Bishonen's evidence]. I personally can't believe he is still allowed to review, and have no respect for his claimed GA contributions. 2) Three previous RFAs, under three different user names, within four months' time (2 of which being self-nominations); He has tried to give reasoning behind the multiple name changes in these previous RFAs as "Wiki-Stalking" but frankly this does not make sense to me personally, as there was history behind each of these names that led directly to the new name anyway. Question whether or not to hide history/linkage.  Motives questioned and cannot be trusted.  3) This user seems all too anxious to attain a "mop and bucket" as is evidenced [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Riana/Archive_35&diff=prev&oldid=171330271 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmlk17&diff=147934595&oldid=147932594 here].  (I've seen more comments such as this, but this is what I could find in a hurry).  Again, motives questioned.  4) This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Marlith&diff=164423588&oldid=164421244 language] is not befitting of an administrator.  Only one example.  5) Other multiple objections in previous RfAs that are just too hard to overlook, ever.
Will add himself to recall, and already has policy... We don't need the drama associated with ''that'', and I don't want DHMO to be an admin if he is so committed to something that constantly causes drama. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' - needs to address the above concerns before being granted further responsibility.  '''''
'''Neutral and Abstaining''' I want to support, I see a lot of good qualities in this contributor, but his comments at ''random editor'', and other previous WP:CIVIL violations concern me greatly. I don't feel I can support right now, but I don't oppose either. If we don't see any more comments like that for a few months, I will be more willing to give my full support.
'''Neutral''' I also want to support, but for the same reason as Mr Sensless, I must abstain. Good luck though, Dihydrogen Monoxide! <strong>
'''Neutral''' - I was coming here to support, but the issues raised in the opposes, the fact that many of the opposes come from editors and admins I respect a lot, and the attacks on people who oppose force me to remain neutral here. While I don't think he'd delete the main page or indef block those he is in conflict with, Wikipedia has enough tension and conflict with adding another possible source.
'''Neutral''' DHMO is a great editor, and I see him around all the time, be it on my watchlist, beating me to reverts, and whatnot. However, the issues brought up on the opposes above, plus on his last RfA, make me too uneasy to support; I guess I'm just getting mixed messages.
'''Neutral'''. I must echo all of the above neutrals: I see this user around often and am always impressed by the amount and quality of his work. I have even wondered why he is not an admin. However, reviewing the opposes above, I understand. This user has not shown the level of maturity or level-headedness that I expect in an admin. As said above, I have no doubt that this user would never abuse the tools. I can not, however, be so sure he would never misuse them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I couldn't be more neutral, which is sad. DM's a valued user with plenty of experience for the admin tools, but I must echo some of the concerns raised by the opposers, especially DM's temperament. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' - I want to support, and came here to support, but after reviewing (for over 1 hour) the issues raised by the opposes, I cannot give my support at this time. The other users who are neutral also echo my sentiments. -'''
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure I want Alex to have the tools, but I am sure that he's an excellent article writer and, in general, a good, good person. There are some damning examples of misjudgement above, but my personal liking of DHMO stops me from getting in the way of his success by adding another oppose. After all, I'm not sure I want him to have the tools, but that means that I'm also not sure I want him to lack them. --
'''Neutral''' I respect Giggy a lot, but its rather disturbing to see so many issues brought up by so many other respected Wikipedians; the seesaw is now hovering.--
'''Neutral''', though I hope that if does not pass you will continue to make productive contributions to the project. —
'''Neutral'''. Good user, may have an elevated idea of the importance of holding admin tools. Too many real question marks raised above for me to support at this time. --
per John. Note that Giggy's an admin at Commons now... perhaps being an admin there will be of benefit in giving Giggy more experience in dealing with people and situations in a calm and reasoned way. ++
'''Neutral''' I admire your work and effort on the good articles project in particular, but I am worried about some of the opposed comments, especially relating to how you might use the tools if you were given them (based on your judgement in a few past examples above). While I myself have no personal reasons to oppose you, I also think there are too many valid opposed opinions to support you. Because of this, I'm voting neutral for now. Best regards,
Per all above, I must remain neutral. Please don't be discouraged, though. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Neutral''', [[Don't ask, don't tell]]--[[User:Uga Man|Uga Man]] ([[User talk:Uga Man|talk]]) <font color = "red"><small>
'''Neutral''' - other than tossing a coin, I can't make a vote either way. And by the way, as the original delister of the DoSO article, I [[Hanlon's razor|don't think Giggy was particuarly spiteful, just rather silly]]. '''
'''Regretful Neutral''' - I really ''really'' want DM to become an admin! I would love nothing more than to say, yes, he's should have the tools. But I can't when he continues to make comments and poor calls like the ones expressed by the oppose voters. I don't feel the need to vote oppose and pound more nails into DM's coffin - I don't want to make such a fine article editor so disgeartened that he may leave... Cheers,
'''Neutral''' You have done some great work in articles; but some of the oppose comments prevent me from supporting.  Cheers, --<font color="#006600">
'''Strong Support''' Haha, he has more article experience than many other admins, but ... erm ... yeah ... two wrongs don't make a right. Or do they?
''''Oppose''' I agree with the above admins ironic view. This wont last long.
'''Oppose''' Your best article is a redlink? I don't think so.
'''Oppose'''. A lack of experience, not to mention this RFA is malformed.
'''Oppose''' Lacks experience.  Suggest early close per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Oppose''' Needs to spend a great deal more time familiarizing himself with the project.
'''Oppose''' Hate to pile on, but far too little editing experience, including an almost total lack of experience in the Wikipedia: space, which is absolutely essential for admin consideration. '''

'''Support''' Great user, never hesitates to jump into new things, has done tremendous work here over the past long time, and is overall a very nice user.  You get my support vote.
On behalf of Kmweber, ouch. On behalf of J-stan, '''beat the nom support'''! I've seen you many times, and I have nothing but respect for you. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' I have come across your contributions and find no reason to think you would not be an asset. Enjoy the mop!
'''Support''' Has experience. [[User:Blow of Light/Guestbook|&mdash;]][[User talk:Blow of Light|<font color="black">B</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|o]]<font color="red">
'''Support''' - obviously, great editor. Will make a very good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''', experienced and level-headed.
'''Support''', everyone makes mistakes, and you seem to be able to admit yours and retract them, which is something I want to see in an admin.
'''Support''' per above. I've found you to be a nice editor (apart from that below).
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Dreamafter has every to question what some would say is a dodgy rationale for opposition. The comment he made was perhaps a painfully honest remark to Mr Weber, perhaps too honest. I will [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] that it was nothing personal.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, and the oppose reasons seem minor to me. ''
'''Support''' - H20's diff ''is'' a little pointy, and Dreamafter shouldn't do that anymore, but it's really a very minor issue and not worth scuttling the RfA over.
'''Support''' I seriously thought he was an admin already.  Great user.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', I've worked with Dreamafter on many article move/deletions, as well as blocking vandals. Dreamafter has shown good judgment in these areas and I think would weild the mop effectively.
'''Support''' [[WP:DEAL]], user has largely positive history, and I don't see anything in it that suggests he will misuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' The one diff provided by DHMO has not swung me at all. I came here expecting to support a nice user who would be suited to the tools, and that's what I'm doing. One comment is one comment, not proof that Dreamafter is like that all the time. I have encountered Dreamafter only being nice to everyone. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - per your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ibaranoff24&diff=prev&oldid=180025768 below the belt-comment] which was really an attack but not well judged..This sounds weird but judging  someone for adminship based on a just one single edit is just "so lame"..You contributions uptil now has been excellent and apart from that "kmwebergate scandal" everything checks out fine..you will surely make a fine admin...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per nom. '''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Weak Support''' Certainly has the experience for sure and has great edit summary usage and significant contribs to some and various Wiki-related pages. Only concern though is the little contribs to [[WP:RFPP]] and [[WP:AIV]] which explains the weaker support then above.--
'''Support''', based on his experiance.
'''Weak support''' as meeting [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]] but is somewhat weak as a candidate.
'''Weak Support <s>Support</s>'''. Another example of a RfA that's probably going to go down because of the 0.02% of the user's edits which are somewhat questionable. If we forbid every person from being an admin because they had publicly made a fool of themselves, we wouldn't have any admins left. Aside from one edit that was '''mildly''' questionable (and seriously... If you are doing something as obnoxious as nixing every admin candidate sight-unseen just because they self-nomed, you are asking to get jabs taken at you) this editor otherwise has an excellent record, definitely not one I would consider a risk for abusing the tools.
'''Weak Support''' per above, but very few concerns in few of the oppose votes.
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ibaranoff24&diff=prev&oldid=180025768 this comment] and Q4 answer (you should be leaving, yet you ask for adminship?). [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
Per Dihydrogen. I'm also a little bewildered why you felt it was necessary to highlight your edit counts, awards and positions in various wikiprojects in bold. Although a minor concern, stating your accomplishments like that shows a lapse in judgement, in my opinion. Looking over your deleted edits and particularly your focus over RfA, may I say that adminship should not be a goal or trophy. Sorry, but I am unable to support this RfA at this time. &mdash;
Dreamafter is a very good user, and I acknowledge their contributions, but the diff regarding Kmweber is worrying: it's not behavior I'd like to see in anybody. I'd be willing to overlook it if a good deal of time had passed since the incident, but it only happened a couple of weeks ago. I am glad, however, that Dreamafter struck out the comment, but even so, I feel it shouldn't have been made in the first place.
'''Oppose''' - per that nasty little diff pointed out by DHMO. -
'''Oppose''' You list AIV, RFPP, RM, AfD, and I think SSP, among the things you will need admin tools for (editor review and ACC don't require any), yet over the last year I can only see 2 substantive contributions to RFPP, 5 to RM, 8 edits to AIV (4 blocked, 4 not blocked), no edits to SSP or RCU, and less than 30 to XfD. When people talk about edits to Wikipedia space, they are normally referring to enough edits to judge how you will use the tools in those areas (deletion, protection, blocks). I either see not enough experience to judge, or no need for them. You seem to be a good and helpful editor, but I believe you should probably get several months of experience in admin-tool related areas before considering acquiring the tools. You are welcome to persuade me I'm wrong. --
'''Oppose''' DHMO's diff just sort of hit me the wrong way.
'''Oppose''' After some heavy deliberation, I must come down strongly on the negative side. Dreamafter does seem to have made some progress since his last full RfA at the end of October; he's gathered 3000 edits and done some good work. However, I must take into account, as Qst did, that this is his third RfA in 2.5 months; not the best sign. Further, the past history between the two of us, specifically brought up in the first RfA, does still affect my judgment a bit. There's still the matter of nearly all the WP-space edits being to various sandboxes, zzuuzz's comment about how there is little activity in areas that would supposedly be a priority as an admin, ''and'' the rather unsatisfactory answers to my questions, particularly 8 and 9. This all comes before taking into account the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ibaranoff24&diff=prev&oldid=180025768 diff] regarding Kweber. I'm afraid that I can't really find a place for this type of comment in the environment that we're trying to foster. Whether or not it was a joke, and it doesn't really seem to be, it's extremely POINTy, as mentioned under DHMO's oppose. Also, admins are expected to exhibit a level of maturity that is clearly far from achieved in this candidate.
Oppose per DHMO, DarkFalls, GlassCobra, and my long-held belief that this user lacks the ability to apply discretion and lacks sufficient Clue to be a good administrator at this juncture. However, the latter is merely my perceptionary opinion (and has been built up over a long period of time rather than specific edits), so I can't/won't be supplying diffs, and I concede that it is relative unpersuasive in this discussion but I feel it needs to be noted. '''
Answer to Q8 misses the point as [[WP:CSD#A7]] clearly distinguishes it from a question of non-notability. Answer to Q7 shows that Dreamafter hasn't considered it seriously enough or didn't read the question properly. "If another admin ''deletes'' an article...," asking on its talk page would likely not attract the attention needed. Answer to Q5 tells me nothing about the candidate's actual thoughts on the matter, despite having "a lot of thoughts" on it (I would find the thoughts themselves irrelevant, but this is a communication issue). –
'''Oppose''' → per GlassCobra, Daniel & zzuuzz. And yes, Q8 shows total lack of understanding of the criteria. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry man, but I really can't see where you intend to use the admin capacity. What you do right now mostly constitutes non-admin areas, that coupled with some civility issues from last RfA and also the fact that you've posted your edit counts, even barnstars... to me, that shows that your understanding of this is kind of like another trophy. Please don't take offence to this, but it's obvious you're proud of your un-deleted edit count, barnstars and your triple crown and I view you toting these efforts as being a bit of a vanity thing and I think that you may carry that pride into adminship. And we [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand|don't need]] more proud admins, I'm sorry. --
Per Q8, Q9 and the Kurt Weber diff.
Oppose per answer to Q10, Kurt Weber's diff and also the answers to Q8 and Q9. The issues with regard to [[:Image:Swtiefightercd.jpg]] include that a fair use rationale is not supplied for each article, and (I would argue) that the image is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter on either of the two articles where it is used. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the evidence presented by Kurt Weber, DHMO, and the answers to questions tell me this user just isn't ready for adminship.

I don't trust Dreamafter's ability to delete articles tagged as meeting CSD criteria &ndash; "''When it is one their books, songs, etc...''" &ndash; real people, corporations, websites and groups. Nothing else. I also agree with Daniel's and GlassCobra's points in relation to the lack of discretion and proper judgement you apply to everyday situations on the project. Sorry, but I don't feel confident having you as an administrator here. '''
Not ready yet.  Would gladly support a future RfA after the above concerns are remedied.  '''''
'''Oppose''' per aboves <strong>
'''Oppose''' Answer to Question 8 is incorrect, and shows a significant lack of knowledge regarding a key point of policy.  Answer to Question 9 is nearly incomprehensible, and causes me to fear the unintentional damage the candidate might make with the mop.
'''Oppose''' Xolov practically said it for me.  Also, some of the other answers simply don't seem thoughtful enough -- they don't reflect the gravity with which this process should be treated.  For example, the answer regarding recall reads like lip service to the question -- answer it straight, darn it.  For another, few of the answers go into much detail.  I get the impression, though cannot prove, that adminship is going to be just another barnstar.
'''Oppose''' the notes above concern me quite a bit.
I find your answer to question 8 disturbing. --
'''Oppose''' per [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]].
'''Strongly Oppose''' I don't even know where to start. Some of his comments to other users is quite contemptuous. For example, it's quite rude to say "Fine, whatever" to another editor over a small disagreement in the removal of red links. But then again, it may be a cultural thing where it's perfectly acceptable to say that in another country. If so, please correct me. Also, I just randomly clicked on about 4 of his recent edits in the main namespace (having to go through numerous AWK edits), and this candidate made very obvious spelling/punctuation/grammatical errors that were still present when I read it. I feel it could have easily been identified if he would preview or re-read it before hitting the "Save page" button. Finally, I have a strange impression that this candidate is probably an arrogant kid judging from reading his responses to other people. I think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia that this <s>Sephiroth</s> Dreamafter should continue to contribute without having an "administrator" label. There are other things too but I don't feel it's necessary or it's too minor to mention.
'''Oppose''' Given some of the diffs pointed out, I simply do not feel comfortable giving this person admin tools.  Perhaps try again in a little while?
'''Neutral'''. Don't get me wrong, mate, I think you're a good editor, with some good content contributions (i.e. two good articles under your belt), as well as outstanding work at [[WP:ACC]], however [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ibaranoff24&diff=prev&oldid=180025768 this] comment at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24]] left me feeling a bit uneasy of your ability to be civil, and, whether this actually had been meant as a joke, it certainly didn't appear that way, and the edit summary is displeasing, it may as well say "beat this insult", as that is basically what it appears as if you meant. That comment strikes me as rather rude and somewhat insulting, and, whether we like Kmweber's opposes or not, we have to accept he is not going to stop. Thus, I am remaining neutral. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Moral Support''' With some advice. (and I know there seems to be a sense that a moral support is a waste of time, but I'm doing it any way). This won't pass, and edit count be damned. You've made some distinctly dodgy [[WP:CSD]] calls only today and that would be enough for me to oppose normally. However, I can't not admire your enthusiasm and your pleasent and civil comments. You seem to be a communicative editor with a sincere desire to help the project. So some help. 1) No more RfA's until you hit that magic 3.5k+ edits (or a bit more) for those that like to count them. Sorry, but it's true. 2) Find a subject you like and either create new content or better yet work on a drive to improve an article. 3) Don't obsess on RfA commenting - I did that when I was newer, and it can blur/bend your views on adminship. 4) Keep on enjoying the place and 5) Do '''not''' be down hearted. This is a pretty "serious" website in that it ranks 9 (8 now?) of the most popular sites in the world, so the fact that you are already well respected and that the opposers have nothing but respect and advice should make you feel pretty pleased with yourself. Best regards, but I recommend you withdraw this particular request. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[WP:ADMINCOACH|Admin Coaching]] and [[User:SuggestBot/Requests|SuggestBot]].
'''Regretful Oppose''' I like your enthusiasm a lot, but I think you need more edits to show that you've truly grasped the hang of things around here. Best of luck to you!
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I don't think you've been active for long enough. I think an admin should be a good contributor rather than just a good mopper. And your spelling mistakes are annoying me (I'm just old fashioned in this).
'''Oppose''' - I reccomend you spend several months of heavy editing than try again.  There is no hard and fast edit count or time requirement but you currently have less than 500 edits.  Many RFA applicants can have thousands and thousands of edits. Please dont rush another RFA, please feel free to ask for a second opinion from a respected editor and ask them if they feel if you are ready. I will offer to give you my opjnion on if you are ready to pass an RFA at any future time, just drop me a line on my talk page.
'''Strong oppose''' - I do not like to base my opinion on edit count, but with only a bti over 500 edits with most of them to usertalk space and only 94 to mainspace i feel that this user has very limited knowledge of key policies that would help them to make good administrative decisions. Just not time yet, needs more experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Repeated invalid tagging of articles for speedy deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moonbae-sool&diff=182796792&oldid=182796365][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiang_K%27ang-Hu&diff=182789722&oldid=182789157][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Finn&diff=182790926&oldid=182790831] (and giving templated warning to the admin that turned down the speedy! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edgar181&diff=182793008&oldid=182758502]) clearly indicates that this user is not familiar with deletion criteria and likely to use the admin tools improperly.  Incorrect tagging for speedy deletion has continued after being asked to re-read speedy deletion criteria.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elliot_Manyika&diff=183693127&oldid=183690125]  --
Sorry, but I have to oppose per [[User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Requirements|my prerequisites]]. Specifically, your editing just isn't as active as I prefer to see. Of your less than 500 edits (with my personal standard being 2,000), only 82 are in the main namespace; we are here, first and foremost, to build an encyclopedia, as given the frequency with which admins are expected to weigh in on encyclopedia-oriented matters, such a dearth of experience is a deal breaker. Also, you don't meet my personal requirements for activity; of the 10 months displayed in your edit stats, you only broke 10 edits in a single month three times (and all of them being only in the past four months). Sorry, but the time for you to be an admin hasn't come quite yet. Increase your participation and in six months time I might be singing a different tune. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' - sorry, not nearly enough experience. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' per Edgar181. You probably should read up on the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and get experience in admin areas (requesting page protection, reporting vandals, etc.) before trying again. Also, try to get at least one [[WP:GA|Good article]] before your next RfA - you definitely need more mainspace contributions. Finally, attempt to leave an edit summary for all of your edits. Do these things, and your next RfA should run smoothly. '''''
'''Oppose''' for a variety of experience related reasons. While I hate editcountitis, less than 100 mainspace edits, most within the last week or so, is just not a lot of experience. Add to that the recent incorrect speedy tagging [[User:Edgar181|Ed]] pointed out (and noting that all were within three minutes of page creation - rather [[WP:BITE|bitey]] in my book for things that aren't vandalism or attacks), and I'm not seeing someone who is ready for the mop at this time. I'd encourage you to get about 10-20 times as many '''quality''' mainspace edits, work on using edit summaries, and read up on policies like [[WP:SPEEDY]] (especially [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense]]) before trying again. --
'''Oppose''' I think the ''Kurt Weber'' applies here.
'''Neutral''' - A good attempt at the introduction, and a well-rounded editor in terms of basic experience and "[[WP:CIVIL|civilness]]" - but still too unfamiliar with areas that are key.
'''Neutral'''. It may sound strange, but I believe that the lack of participation in any conflicts in Wikipedia is, for the admin candidate, close to a flaw, and definitely not an asset. Just like with credit history in the US, where you have to build up the trust of the bank by showing you're behaving in a credible way, also in Wikipedia participation in conflicts (e.g. by informal mediation) shows how you're going to react under strong stress and if you are able to stay cool, which may be important in adminship. Also, I was not persuaded by your rationale for mop, and the CSDs you filed  may be held against you. The low edit count is not of crucial importance in my view (I want to believe we WANT admins, who edit little, but are credible and trustworthy), but it doesn't help, either. You are a good editor and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you the next time.
'''Neutral'''.  Suggest withdrawl.  '''
'''Neutral''' to avoid pileon. Only 500 edits, 90 to the mainspace (which is the main reason we're here). Doesn't use edit summaries enough. I do like your work in the Wikipedia namespace, I just need to see more activity. I recommend you don't run another RFA until you meet [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|these standards]], it'd give you a much better chance of passing.
Gaps can be overlooked. Wikipedia editing is not something one forgets. Experience in Wikipedia editing is applicable in a lot of other areas, and is recollected (in the Platonic way) just about every time one reads anything.
'''Support''' Sorry about the <<sneer>> Wikipedia Inquisition!! </sneer>>, but "the gap in editing" is going to be a major oppose point, and I needed to dig deeper. The answers to the Benon et al. questions tell me you are not likely to abuse the tools. You seem instead level headed and one to discuss and work within consensus, even if your personal opinion may be at odds with that of others. The support arguments may not be sufficiently convincing for this RfA to succeed, so I leave you some words of advice if this should prove to be the case. 1) Please wait another three months and 3,000 edits. You don't want auto opposes based on insufficient time. 2)Please continue to build experience in all of the admin related areas. The broader your editing, the stronger your experience and the more people will feel comfortable trusting you with the tools. 3) Please continue to create and build and improve articles. The experience is valuable even if one is primarily a wikignome. Please see [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards]] for info on my personal views on RfA. Cheers, good luck, and happpy editing.
'''Support''' This is a unique case. I have never before seen someone gone for a long time, then request adminship (not counting Kelly Martin, but that was different).  I think if the prior experience qualifies the user for adminship, the qualifications do not really deteriorate over time, which is why we don't desysop retired admins such as Interiot and Filiocht.  Dycedarg is familiar with various aspects of policy and community workings.  He commented on the Daniel Brandt deletion review last February, if that gives some perspective.  A lot of his edits use bots/scripts/automated tools. My impression is that he'll mostly do harmless, repetitive admin stuff.  I don't think it's wise for him to start closing controversial AFDs.
'''Support''' - no convincing arguments to oppose. I believe he has enough experience to be able to use the tools competently.
'''Support''', answers to the questions show experience, thought, and the ability to communicate clearly. And to be quite honest, I'm ''glad'' to have an admin candidate who can simply decide "I need some time off" and take it rather than burning out.
'''Support''' - based on his contributions, and his answer to Q1, I think he would use the extra buttons wisely.
'''Support''' This was a pretty difficulty decision for me. Not enough to oppose, but just barely enough to support.
'''Support''' Past edits seem to show experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policy.
'''Support''' per Shalom and per excellent answer to q15. Doc is right in his assertion that we shouldn't create admins who are "allergic to articles", but I think this candidate has enough substantial mainspace editing experience to be able to do the job competently.
'''Support''': Good answers to questions, good contributions, good number of contributions, has been registered for a good while... Will be a good administrator. '''''
'''Support''' solid question answers and good intentions will make for a good administrator '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Support''' - Answers to questions show user will use the tools well.
'''Support''' Well, if this user wants to tackle stuff in the background first, I don't mind. Although there's not a ton of mainspace edits, this user wants to wait until he/she gets more experience to work on XfDs, so I don't think it's much of an issue. Even if this admin never goes out to working on the mainspace, he/she won't hurt anything. '''
'''Weak Support'''.  This is a really difficult RfA to vote on.  Per [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|my criteria]] you fail the two B-Class articles section, but pass everything else.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with your great vandal proof and twinkle work.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Oppose''' Just recently came back, and still somewhat lacking in general experience.
'''Weak Oppose''' Yeah... there's been a hiatus since April 2007. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I could not care less about the break - but there is simply a lack of mainspace engagement. If you can't point to half a dozen articles you've significantly contributed to, I will have to oppose. We are all editors first. Administrative specialisation is fine, but people who are basically allergic to articles are problematic. Two or three days of solid article work and you'll have my vote next time. (Remind me if I forget)--
I agree with Doc.  Admins need to be strong editors, familiar with MOS-based editing and referencing.  Though I think that'll take more than 2 or 3 days.  Dispute resolution experience would be good too.  Keep up the good work with vandalism reverting and typo fixing.  '''''
'''Weak Oppose''' Come back in a couple of months. I'm worried @ all the above concerns. <font face="Forte">
Per Doc. Administrators will end up having to deal with disputes surrounding articles, and the best administrators in these situations are those who have experience in article-creation and article disputes. Knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene, when to use protection instead of blocking or vise-versa, and how to deal with SPA's, editors with a strong COI, and how talk page discussions work in disputes are essential for administrators.
'''Weak Oppose''' (sorry) - a GA or two and you'll be in the 'credit' range for mine next time. I need to see some 'pedia building cheers,
'''Dead Neutral''' Wow, this is tricky. Your edits look good, gnomish work and plenty of accurate looking vandal fighting. Contributions regarding usernames show good policy knowledge. Answers to the questions seem okay. But that huge gap is hard to overlook. Things change so rapidly around here it makes me nervous. I really wish you'd held of until say the start of March, at least to give us two months of edits to go through. I'm not going to oppose, but I really can't support at the moment. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Pretty much echo Pedro exactly. I think your contributions are excellent, but I'd like to see you around for another couple months.
'''Neutral''' A lot can change in several months of inactivity on Wikipedia. To be completely truthful, I cannot trust someone who has taken a long wikibreak and might've changed a lot. I need a few more months' experience to review so I can make a definite support/oppose decision.
'''Neutral''' It's difficult to either support or oppose when there just is not enough recent concrete information to form a proper judgement. Lack of edit summaries is a minor niggle, and would help, but at present I feel it would be wrong of me to express an opinion either way. A month or two down the line, however... --'''
'''Neutral''' - Per Pedro.
'''Neutral''' You do good work, but need more recent experience.
'''Neutral''' per Pedro and the opposers' concerns. Also, re my question Q15.1: the article in question had at least an ''assertion'' of notability and thus is not eligible for A7. While I don't think that this is enough to oppose, I definitely can't support, sorry. [[User:Xenon54|X<small>ENON</small>54]] | [[User talk:Xenon54|talk]] |
'''Neutral'''.  For me, adminship centers around the processes of deletion/retainment.  I think it's hard to fully appreciate the thinking and the emotions of the several parties in any case of deletion/retainment if you aren't (haven't been) yourselves a substantial contributor in the mainspace.  Count on me next time when you come back with that track record.  --
'''Neutral''' per Tiptoety. '''[[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt comic sans ms">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral''' I believe you have some very good edits but could use some more experience at of late. I understand about you absence, but I just don't think is quite ready for Adminship. Keep up the good work!
'''Neutral''' Mainly because of a lack of recent experience despite the 200 edits in January. Only 5 edits from May to December 2007.
'''Neutral'''.  Not enough evidence yet, sorry.
'''Neutral''', needs a grater range of experience across Wikipedia, but no strong reason to oppose.
I support my nomination for my great qualities that I have mentioned above.
Less than 100 edits since join up. Most have been on own userpage/talk page.
'''Oppose''' - Look, you just started in Wikipedia. You need to work on the mainspace and to gain more experience. You must show us that you have full and complete understanding of Wiki policy.
'''Support''' - no reason not to trust the user with tools, no signs of incivility or abuse. [[User:Secret]] is however correct in that commenters/voters often look for a few months more experience before supporting a candidate at RfA; still, do not let any opposition dampen your enthusiasm for Wikipedia, and enjoy editing!
'''Oppose''' you need three+ months of experience to even have a chance of passing an RFA, please withdraw.

'''Neutral'''. No reason to suggest you might mis-use the tools, but after less than a month it's likely that there are aspects of policy which you're not yet familiar with, due to sheer inexperience and no fault of your own. You need to find your feet as an editor before running for adminship &ndash; don't feel that you need it in order to be a better contributor. <font color="#FF0000">
As nom. <span>
As co-nom. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|delusional]] ¤
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  Best of luck Eastlaw! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Because his name reminds me of Clint Eastwood...--
'''Support'''. Looks to me as though he'll make a good admin. <font color="Brown">
'''Support''' — Nothing wrong here by the looks of things. Switched from neutral. —'''
'''Support''' I always wondered why this great user was no admin yet! '''
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN]] and the utterly ludicrous first oppose below. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''' good answer to my question, also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support.''' I've never bought the "no admin-related experience" argument, I didn't have any more experience than this candidate did when I ran, and I've been an admin for 2.5 years now. Content-building=sane=good candidate.
'''Support''': Great dedication, and very, very helpful when I first joined a few projects. <sup><small>
'''Support''', nothing particularly alarming in this candidate's history, as far as I can see.
'''Support''', per [[User:NuclearWarfare/Admin Standards|Standards]] - <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. I did my review a month ago. I was impressed and was waiting for this. '''
'''Support'''. Satisfying answers to questions, the first oppose below isn't very convincing. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support''', I trust [[WP:AGF|Jerry's judgment]].  I'm thoroughly unimpressed with your reaction to the oppose commenters below, notably Ecoleetage.  Admin talkpages get inundated with far worse than that, and you'll need thicker skin and less reactive stances when someone challenges your thought processes. (saying "I'm not defensive" is actually quite defensive sounding, for example).  From what I've researched, you're an excellent candidate that does excellent mainspace work, and the tools will be of use to you.  I believe you when you say you'll be able to walk away from the computer when the editing gets sticky and opinions flare, and I'll chalk up your responses and notably your edit summaries on this rfa to exactly that:  this RFA, which is much more stressful than adminship itself.
'''Support''', The candidate has provided adequate answers to all the questions, and frankly I'm not worried about any of the opposes. <span style="padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">
'''Support''', Have seen to be very good editor. <font face= xirod>
'''Strongest possible oppose''' based on "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" userbox.  Wikipedia doesn't need administrators who feel compelled to be so smug and divisive.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but Eastlaw's answer to question Q1 is actually really worrying. It seems to provide clear evidence of lacking experience in admin-related areas. In some of the areas, in which he wishes to work as an admin, he obviously has completely no experience — Just to mention two examples: He intends to work at [[WP:RFP]] and wants to block vandals. He has just 9 edits at [[WP:RFP]] and none at [[WP:AIV]]. Indeed, there is no need to have great experience everywhere for an admin (candidate). However there should still be some experience, especially in the areas one wishes to work in. Finally, not even 300 edits in the Wikipedia-namespace since 2006 (!) until now is not very much. Therefore I have to oppose, regretfully. —
'''Weak oppose'''. While you seem a reasonable editor with a long history of uncontentious editing, you don't have sufficient participation in administrative-related activities. You only participated in a handful of AfDs and CfDs.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of admin-related experience. Sorry.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Strong Oppose''' A lack of administrative-related experience and the acknowledgment (in the acceptance statement, no less!) of having a "temper" -- wrong combination, sorry.
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong Oppose''' per Question one and the temper mentioned by Ecoleetage. Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' Per the above encounter with Eco.
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia needs less short-tempered admins, not more.
'''Weak Oppose''' It is rare that I oppose based solely on what I see on the RfA page, <s>but we don't need users who are militant about their beliefs and </s>short tempered as admins.  I find his attitude not the type that I expect to see at an RfA.---'''
'''Oppose'''. I was just about to support, but then I read the exchange with Ecoleetage. Eastlaw's temperament: confrontational and defensive, leaves me concerned about the potential for escalation of conflicts.
Per my reasoning in the neutral section (now stricken).
'''Very strong oppose''' per response(s) to Ecoleetage (currently O5). If you're like this on ''your own RFA'', I dread to think what you'll be like with a "why did you delete my page you asshole" frustrated newcomer.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Oppose''', and I feel terrible about it. I know that RfA is stressful, even when things go right.  I understand Keeper's support, where he decides that what we see here isn't what we should judge by, because "this RFA ... is much more stressful than adminship itself".  But I don't see how the RfA process can work unless it's formal, unless there's a certain decorum to be maintained by the candidate.  Per Eco's first link, this is not the time to be deriding the opposition because they were blocked last year (what does that have to do with the arguments in this RfA?  This is ad hominem) or because they're "trolling" (ad hominem, and also not supported by your diff, which is Keepscase's entire history), or because they're "friends" of your enemies (AGF?), and it's not the place for snarky edit summaries.  You're being evalutated here; they're not.  I don't care much for some of Keepscase's arguments either, I understand why you felt attacked, but I really, really want admins to stay cool when they feel attacked.  I don't hold this episode against you, I think your contributions are great, and you'll make a great admin.  Just not today. - Dan
Per Keepscases. Believe what you like, but be mature enough to keep inflammatory opinions to yourself. '''
'''Q1'''.
From the experience level I would support, but the response to Ecoleetage is less than exemplary, and using the word "nazi" in Q1, even as a joke, is not acceptable.
Good editor. Competent, potential administrator.
'''Support'''. I'm going to go out and say that Eclipse will do fine with the tools.  While s/he hasn't had much experience in the projectspace, I believe that a quick look at [[WP:BLOCK]], [[WP:PROT]], and [[WP:DELETE]] will be all that Eclipse needs.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
Good guy. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Weak support'''.   More project-space edits would be beneficial, but definitely would make a competent administrator.  '''
Per overwhelming number of project-space edits, and fantastic nomination statement. '''
'''Support''' I am bending the rules on my own requirements here but I think this user is worth it. The answers provide the wikipedian maturity that usually has to be provided by cruder means. Good luck! --
'''Support''', appears to be mature enough, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
User assumes good faith and has a brain. Thus, I trust him. [[WP:SARCASM|The nomination was tl;dr and the answers to questions indicated power hunger]], but I will still support because I don't think he'll screw up. ''
'''Support''' Self-nom, and nearly enough Wikispace work.
'''Support''' Has good intentions.
'''Support''' due to no negative interactions.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' due to great and thorough answers to questions. '''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">[[User:Redmarkviolinist|ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ]]</font>''' <sup>''' [[User talk:Redmarkviolinist|Drop me a line]]'''</sup>
'''Support''' net positive. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Nothing alarms me in sifting through the contributions, and I like the statement and the answers to the questions. Last time I checked, Admins lack actual superhuman powers, so claims of power hunger amongst the opposition do not concern me. That said, I will now attempt to use my X-Ray vision on some lottery scratch tickets to see if these admin powers are as diabolical as claimed.
'''Support''' I trust him. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Moral Support''', partly to counterbalance the "Oppose, self-nom" votes below. (Don't tell me the Weber philosophy is actually catching on...) I do have some concerns, in that q1 and q5 demonstrate a slight misunderstanding of the admin tools, and the candidate doesn't have quite enough projectspace experience. Regardless, he is clearly a trustworthy and well-intentioned user who might well make a good admin one day, and I encourage him to apply again in a few months after gaining more experience.
Agree with Walton One's rationale: I'm actually disappointed with some of the reasons provided for opposing this candidate.
'''Moral Support''' I feel that you ''will eventually'' make a good admin, but this RFA doesn't have a chance. So far you have shown that you make good judgements and can think, which means your halfway there. I suggest that you have a Editor Review to see where you are. Also, I'm glad to see your working in a variety of places. If you need anything, [[User talk:Dustihowe|let me know]]. Good luck EclipseSSD. <font face="Ravie">
'''Support''' Plain and simple: He's trustorthy. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''' Seems like a reliable editor with no issues. See no reason, per [[WP:NBD]], why they should be denied admin status. --
'''Oppose''' not because I distrust EclipseSSD, but I feel that he needs more experience around Wikipedia, especially in the project space.  55 edits is underwhelming.  I like his answers, but I think he could be more involved with other editors and in more varied places on the project space.  That way, he can achieve a better understanding of what it means to engage in dialog and use the tools accordingly.  I would encourage his continued involvement, as I foresee that he will be a better candidate down the road. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">
'''Oppose''' - Simply more experience needed.
'''Oppose but with strong moral support''': I'm not being ageist, but more project space edits is fundamental, not least because you're only 14. Come back in a few months with experience under your belt and I look forward to supporting your RfA at a later date.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry bud, gonna have to rely on the age old lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. Also, the answers to the questions were just a tad too vague for my taste. I was a little confused reading about how you'd like to use the tools in areas you currently work in, which, frankly is the mainspace. I understand you were probably referring to disputes and vandalism, but administrators shouldn't concentrate their efforts on articles they contribute to, at least not exclusively. And, it gives you a chance to block and ban people? Strange thing to say. I know you tempered it with "last resort", but the tools shouldn't be desired to give you the chance to start blocking and banning users. Come back in 10-12 weeks after some moderate to high level activity at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFPP]]. [[WP:HD]], [[WP:ANI]] etc..etc..
'''Oppose''' per everyone above. Also because of the low number of edits in general (not just the low project edits). And it's a self-nom. And another thing to mention, out of your last 500 edits only two weren't marked Minor.--
'''Oppose''' - I happen to be disagreeing with my admin coach here, interestingly.  EclipseSSD is a user is in good standing, but fails to have enough experience to fit my criteria.  Hardly any experience in the admin related areas of interest.  The user doesn't, therefore, have experience to know when blocks are used, which means learning by doing, as well as taking a look at [[WP:BLOCK]]. The answer to question five is also incorrect, per [[WP:BAN]] and [[WP:BLOCK]].  And finally, the answer to question one also gives me the impression that he believes that administrators also ban users.  The only time a single administrator bans a user is when that administrator happens to be Jimbo Wales.  Sorry, but a bit more work in these areas and you would be a good candidate for adminship. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
Sorry, just can't support at this time.  The answers to the questions leave me a little ill at ease.
'''Oppose with moral support''' - You're intentions are clearly valid and morally justified, you simply need a little bit more experience (especially in project space). I've not a problem with your age either, i'm only 16, young editors can still make correct decisions and excellent edits. Kind regards with best of luck too! <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' per the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Wisdom89]] but reluctantly as I don't want to stifle enthusiasm. The age issue is irrelevant to me, but I believe you need a little wider and deeper experience than you currently have. I think everyone here wants you to succeed but don't feel you're quite experienced enough yet. --'''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but just not enough experience yet. Great intentions, but the answers to the questions show a need to gain more familiarity with WP policies and what exactly it is that admins do. Keep editing, and participate in policy discussions for a while. Best wishes, - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Oppose''' 2500 edits and hardly none in the namespace - maybe when you get some more experience. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Too few edits and not enough information on the what and why you need admin tools? FWiW
'''Oppose''' Self-nom, and not nearly enough Wikispace work.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience and not even an intro to tell us why relying on qs the community asks except to say an active contributor since July? You will learn.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Low amount of project-space edits, and your nom is supposed to tell me why I should support you. [[User talk:Xenon54|Xenon]]
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] and because the answers to questions (see comments above; for me 1, 5 and 6 were quite worrying).  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' I do not care about the age - we have had, and have, younger admins - but the lack of experience in admin-related areas is important, and the answers to questions 1 and 5 are worrying. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' because I'm uncomfortable with someone who declares "with the admin tools, it will be a chance for me to block and ban any people". Almost certainly a poorly phrased statement rather than a statement of a desire to block people, so it's more the lack of judgement that led to the statement rather than any thought that the candidate has a perverse wish to go around blocking people for the fun of it. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''': Far too few edits, especially to areas outside of articles; and per SilkTork. <small>
'''Oppose''' per the Kurt Webber principle because, after all, we have enough power hungry admins without nominating any more.<font color="Purple">
'''Strong Oppose'''You just seem a little to anxious to get power.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' per age, lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience and expert knowledge of policies.
'''Oppose''' Talks the talk without forcing an instant headache but not up to scratch: way too young, too inexperienced, too self-loving, too fond of power, too overall problematic. Soz.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Paradoxsociety|Paradoxsociety]] and others.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, you really seem to have the makings of a great admin, but wait a bit and get some more experience, the answers to q1 and q5 are worrying. Age however is no consideration.
'''Oppose''' Your answer to question 1 sounds vague and long-winded and like you really don't know why you want to be an admin, except for wanting to join the club. You say that you plan to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia, yet you don't say which parts specifically. You say that you are planning to prove yourself once you become an admin, yet you don't say why you need the admin tools for that. What worries me most though, is that you say you plan to block users, however [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=EclipseSSD&site=en.wikipedia.org this] record shows that you have almost zero experience in doing so. You haven't reported any users to [[WP:AIV]] or [[WP:RAA]] as far as I can see. I know from my own experience in reporting users that it is easy to get it wrong in the beginning, and that some of my reports were erroneous even if well-intentioned. I have reported dozens of users to AIV, and I would not trust ''myself'' to be an admin yet. Blocking a user isn't always a simple decision (even if it is most of the time). It requires a lot of experience in this area and detailed knowledge of wikipedia policies. Get involved a little bit more in the WP namespace, come back in a few months and I will support you.
'''Oppose'''.  Mostly because of few Wiki-space edits.  With some more edits in that area, I would probably support in a few months.
'''Oppose.''' Editor has more to learn before administrating others.
'''Neutral''' A little more project-space involvement is needed.
'''Neutral'''.  Fabulous contributions so far, good editor in general (age is irrelevant to me).  I agree with Epbr that I'd like to see more project space work from you before I'd support giving you the delete/block/protect buttons.  Would you abuse them?  Absolutely not.  Would you misuse them?  Hard to say, I don't have much to look at as far as the traditional editcounting, project work, AIV reporting, CSD/AFD nominating.  Not a strong enough reason to oppose a good candidate otherwise though.  Good luck!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Neutral''' To avoid piling on - A good user to be sure, but just needs more experience. His age doesn't even factor in, but I like to see around 5000 edits, and if an editor has less than that I want to see some extraordinary contributions. I could support in the future, but you just need a few more edits under your belt.
'''Neutral''' Will not knowingly abuse the buttons, but needs more experience to be trusted with them. Seemingly knows aspects of policy pretty well, mind! ;~) Should be a prime candidate in a few months.
'''Neutral''' - not quite there with experience, but maybe in a few months?
'''Neutral''' Needs a tad more experiance, though not necessarilly in the Wikipedia namespace. Try to get involved in somee major work. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Neutral''' Not enough experience to support, nothing too bad to oppose.--
'''Neutral''': Per Experience - and some of the other user's reasons. --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Neutral''': While I would like to see some more experience, I also would like to see this user become an admin; I've seen few RFAs where the questions were answered so thoroughly without any fluff. I can't oppose or support; I'm a bit on the fence in this one. If he comes back next time with around 4500 - 5000 edits, this will definitely be a support. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Neutral''' I believe that taking the constructive criticism here to heart, and demonstrating it by actions around the project, will be very helpful in passing your next RfA. Good Luck. --
'''Neutral''' with Moral support. I'd really like to see you as an admin one day, if only because I believe you'd bring the number of admins in [[Hampshire]] to 3!!. I think you're on the right track, but not there yet. Please don't take this RFA too hard and continue your dedication. If you need any help please ask! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - I think that more experience is required before I support, however, I do think that you are an excellent editor. I hope that yuo take this on board, and work hard to alleviate the criticisms that have been levelled against you. Good luck. ;) ♥

'''Oppose''' due to the mix up of creating this RfA and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug&diff=188125753&oldid=188109813 this] extremly curt "your help is not wanted" message. Please follow the helpful advice of [[User:Dlohcierekim]]. Also - please also don't reply to everyone who comment on your RfA on their talk page imploring them to change their stance. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlohcierekim&diff=prev&oldid=188174617] Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Hello? I'm definitely in the right queue. In front, even. I like his work, style and attitude. Can't think of a reason not to support. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. After taking a random sampling, I like his work at UAA and AFD. Has fixed his problem with edit summary usage. He's only been editing for five months, but I see his name here and there and think he's sufficiently experienced. Good mainspace work, knows policy, communicates, and is civil. I think he'll be a net positive. Even though he only has 2 edits this month (oh, wait, I only have six). However, I ''do'' suggest you start archiving your talk page.
'''Support'''. This is the sort of prolific, hard-working and genuine editor we want to have the tools. Great work at AfD. He writes most of the articles I wish I did. Eco and I had a few arguments in the beginning, but those can be chalked up to misunderstandings and asshattery on my part. Now, I respect Eco as a top-notch editor and occasionally even try to emulate him. Hmm, a new adage - "what would Eco do?"
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Energetic, dedicated, fairhanded, high-spirited.  And if a review of his contribs and a look through his answer to Q2 aren't enough for anyone, I don't know what they're looking for! '''
'''Strong Support''' - How many DYKs is it now? (Also, you've helped me out. A lot.)
'''Strong support''' as nom. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Strong support''' - Ecoleetage, without a doubt, is one of the most dedicated Wikipedians I know. He's friendly, intelligent, and contributes to a huge array of WikiProjects and articles. He's even reccomended that I apply for adminship once, but he's far more qualified. It's safe to say that Ecoleetage is an excellent, if not perfect, candidate for adminship.
'''£337 $µpp0®7''' - 3(0£337493 \/\/1££ Ð3ƒ1|\|173£¥ ß3 4 9®347 |-|3£p 70 7|-|3 p®0_|3(7 4$ 4|\| 4Ð|\/|1|\|. Seriously though, Ecoleetage will definitely be a great help to the project as an admin.
'''Support''' I am new here -- can I vote? This editor welcomed me, and I read what he did with the Polish nun article. I hope he gets the job.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Hello, I am having a dinner party tomorrow night and I wanted to buy some Soylent Green for the appetizers, and...oh, wrong queue.  '''Support.''' —
'''Support''', I'm not the type of person who goes around supporting just anyone. Ecoleetage, has a couple of traits which has made Wikipedia a great project. First, he has made numerous well written contributions, which is the base of our encyclopedia. Second, he/she is a people person, someone who is level minded and has self-control. This is an asset when it comes to encouraging newcomers. I have spoken.
'''Support''' - their DYK work alone is enough for a support. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>
'''Support''' A great editor and a nice guy. He made me feel welcomed when I just joined up.
'''Support''' 500 deleted contribs-- so has good experience there. Builds and rescues articles, so not likely delete article that should be kept. Far too inclusionist at AFD for my tastes, but you can't have everything. (As a side note, this may be the first candidate for me to support after giving a "not now" on the first RFA. Well done.) Cheers,
'''Support''' most definitely.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' Eco is fast, apologetic, kind, and helpful. I'm surprised he hasn't become an admin already. :)--
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' Good editor and seems sensible enough, from what I've seen of him.
'''Strong support''' Ecoleetage is one of the best editors on Wikipedia. He is here to make Wikipedia better. I have talked with him before, and he is very civil. I am very glad to support one of the best human beings I have ever met in my life.
I'm
His mainspace work is good, and he shows experience and hard work in this area. This leads me to believe he'd also show dedication in administrative tasks. &mdash;<strong>
Cut down on the smilies tho. '''
'''Support''' I came across Eco multiple times and almost always I thought "well, another admin doing his job". Then I looked at his userpage and was puzzled, that he was not in fact an admin, but just another user like me. And I wondered, why that is (and I wondered whether I could ever become an admin if someone like him didn't)...[[Barney Stinson# Catchphrases|true story]]! So, to make it short: A great editor, who is civil, thoughtful and really active and will make a great admin I hope. Who cares that he only became active 5 months ago - what counts is what he did in this time! '''
'''Emphatic Strong Support''', you know, just the other day, I was shocked to learn that Ecoleetage was ''not'' an admin.  I thought to myself, "I really should offer to nominate him", but I never got around to it.  Thanks Cari and Ironholds, for making sure that this fine editor gets the chance to get the tools a lot earlier than they would have if he had to rely on me to nominate him!
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Strong Support''' - I would have co-nominated but I'm not around consistently enough for that recently.  Eco and I originally encountered when I responded to WQA.  Eco has grown substantially in experience and ability since I first encountered him.  He now regularly saves articles from AFD and then gets them a DYK!  An awesome editor.--
'''Strong Support''' Net positive-Pedro, i hope you don't mind if i use this...<font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Support''' Per the nom statement.
'''Support''' Duh. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Strong support''' - The problem with Doug is now irrelevant in light of what Doug has said, and what has happened after the incident. It shows well on a prospective administrator to be correcting any previous mistakes that they have made, and that is certainly what has happened in the case of Eco and Doug. From what I can tell by the answer to my second question, this user is friendly and welcoming to editors, and that is exactly what is needed from an RfA candidate. RfA is all about trust, and if I had not misread AniMate's comment about sockpuppets then he would have definitely got my vote the first time around, and not the second. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not, and all that, eh?]] Certainly. I do hope that you become an admin, and if you still don't understand how to archive a page please feel free to contact me on my talk page. :) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I haven't interacted with this user enough to be able to have strong feelings either way, but the interactions I have had have been very positive, and were evidence of a good level of attention to detail. With regards to AFD - as precisionist, I probably have relatively strict notability criteria but am more than happy to support a relative inclusionist who I feel is unlikely to cause or become involved in conflict.
Whoa, nearly missed this. ·
'''Support'''. A good editor who will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. As I welcome new users, I get a lot of questions from newbies. Q.8 above shows a really good interaction- calming down a disgruntled/bitten newbie and convincing them to keep trying.
'''Support''' Certainly has the right attitude and the heart at the right spot, is honest, and seems quite dedicated. No red flags. &ndash;
'''Support''' This editor went out of his way in the AfDs to save the articles on [[The Lost Patrol]] and [[Pyorrhoea]] from being deleted. We need more like him!
'''Strong Support''' Back in May, Ecoleetage nominated [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quirky_subject|this]] article for deletion. It turned out that the article was notable--and Ecoleetage, after reviewing the nomination's comments, withdrew it respectfully. I felt this demonstrated poise and the ability to learn from mistakes. And, I've gotta note my appreciation of the pun-filled AFD noms. They bring joy to my Wiki editing experience. Also, where are all of the "Hi, I'd like two tickets for Dolly Parton..." quips?
'''Strong support'''–clearly a valuable presence on this encyclopedia--<small>
Wow, finally made it to the [[Emerald City]]. Now if I can just locate that [[Wizard (Oz) |wizard]] so I can finally get a brain...oh, wait a sec; wrong place. I already have a brain - and it tells me to '''support''' Eco without reservation. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - no indicatins that this editor will cause any problems --
'''Support'''.  Dealt with Ecoleetage over [[Engkanto]] and found his attitude to be very good - he was happy to admit he made a mistake and was very polite about it all.  I think the correct attitude is one of the most important things an administrator should have and Ecoleetage definitely has this.  This incident was two and a half months ago and I'm sure they've learnt a lot since then so not worried about the slight policy mis-understanding.  Have also seen him a lot on AfD where he is making productive comments.  (This is my first ever RfA comment so should probably be taken with a pinch of salt).
'''Support''' Seems like someone I can trust. '''
'''Support''', of course. BTW, some users have an almost religious attitude toward automatic archiving of their own Talk pages. I, however, similar to Eco, decide by myself what stays, and for how long. Some entries have a shelf life of no more than five minutes, and that’s already a lot by my personal standards. --
'''Support''' Great work in the WikiProject Bodybuilding articles, and on the [[Kevin Nee]] article. .
'''Support''' The ability to admit and learn from one's mistakes is an important personal criteria for an admin to me.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support'''.  Although I am trying to quietly distance myself from ''Wikipedia'' and am strongly considering a username change or right to vanish request due to certain off-wiki concerns and although I have actually NOT agreed with this candidate in [http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=4&user1=Ecoleetage&user2=Le+Grand+Roi+des+Citrouilles&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= every AfD in which we both participated], I have found the candidate to be exceptionally nice (one of the nicest I have encountered on and off-wiki) and open-minded (seeks and is receptive of feedback).  As such it is actually worth my logging back in today to support.  And besides, I like to end on a positive note!  So, enjoy the remainder of summer to everyone (although I am not really watching my talk page, I may check my Wikipedia emails here and there) and good luck to Ecoleetage and Everyking in their RfAs!  Both are fine candidates who would serve ''Wikipedia'' well!  :)  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
<s>Hello, I'm hosting a gathering of Wikipedians, and I need Eco, Blofeld... oops, wrong queue.</s> '''Support''' No seriously, Eco is the most civil user I have come across. You have impressed me with your constant stream of DYKs, which has even beat my own record and shows your dedication to creating content. You have impressed me with your excellant contributions to the world of AfD (aka sharing my view of extreme inclusionism). You have impressed me with lightening up a situation when it gets too hot to touch. You have impressed me with... ah, shut up Ed. In a nutshell, you will be very responsible with the extra buttons. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' - per the well-answered questions. <small>
'''Support''' —
Definitely.
.  Umm....yes.  Ecoleetage is communicative, helpful, smart and determined.  I have no doubt that he can be trusted to handle the tools in an appropriate fashion.
A name I've seen around the place enough to know that this is an active, helpful user, and the extra tools would be used well, I'm sure.
'''Support''' Anyone who can write good articles about bad movies like "Zombie! Vs. Mardi Gras" and "Box Head Revolution" deserves praise.
'''Support''' Ecoleetage is an extraordinarily hard-working and extremely-fair editor. He is also very generous and congenial. He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor. I would say '''strong support''' except for my concern that I may be unable to come to him for advice and guidance if he is no longer "just" an editor and must take so much of his time away from editing to learn about and to deal with administrative functions and matters. Having said that, I would emphasize that a stronger desire for fairness and lack of personal interest in an administrator trumps my own more-personal wish to maintain an informal mentor/mentee relationship with a non-administrative Ecoleetage. I do hope that Eco will have time to maintain some of his so-needed editorial functions and relationships with the rest of us editorial contributors to Wikipedia content. Of course, I wish him luck with this new endeavor, as it appears that his nomination will be successful, given such support and strong support from so many others. (Please excuse any gaffes of protocol; this is the first time that I have commented in a RfA; E (as others do) tells me to be less wordy, but in this case I think that such words of praise are due him and may be helpful to others in the other sections below to see.) --
'''Support''' Definitely. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. Very good candidate.
Insert some silly comment about being in the wrong queue here. —'''
'''Support''' - Wow, I remember you from about 4 months ago. And I've seen you many, many times at [[T:TDYK]] since I commonly work there. You are certainly dedicated in that area. I've noticed you in various other places too. I am happy to support you, Ecoleetage. :) Good luck,
'''Support'''. Definitely. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per the above (Everyking says it particularly well).  Also great answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - yes. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - Thought you were an admin already! Good luck should the RfA succeed :)
'''Support''' without hesitation. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' per answers to questions.  &ndash;
Absolutely!
'''Support'''- No brainer.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''''.  Yup.  I have an entire, barnstar and diff filled, [[tl;dr|lengthy]] support worked up in my mind about Ecoleetage.  If I had noticed this RFA earlier (meaning if I'd been online in the last 72 hours), I would have put it either in the nominator's section, or as one of the first few supporters.  Eco is one of our best editors.  He should be an admin Yesterday.
'''Edit-conflicted Support''' Other than the image question (which is a non-issue to me because I don't see any evidence Eco intends to involve himself with images) I see nothing but good contribs from this user. (Also, + an LOL @ Husönd's support...)
'''Support''' Great taste in movies, sure to be a great administrator.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Good contributions and good answers.
'''Support'''. An excellent wikipedian although I hope being an admin won't reduce his activity in the main space further.
'''Support''' This is probably just piling on at this point, but Eco would make a great admin. Cheers! <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''' - ''love'' the answer to #7 (insofar as not being soured by the experience is part of consensus, imo), among other things :-)
'''Support''' - I have mainly (but I don't think entirely) interacted with Eco in regards to [[WP:UU]] where I have been impressed with his desire to increase content and with his desire for feedback from other users. He evidently has made some errors (see oppose section below), but seems willing to learn from them. I advise him to be cautious with deletions that may be contentious (''e.g.'' take them to AfD if uncertain).
'''Support''' - Adding to the pile -- always seems to be making positive contributions. His collaborative nature will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' The few mistakes that he has made in CSD which have been pointed out in the oppose section need to be viewed in context that this editor has a prolific amount of CSD nominations.
'''Strong support''' I've known Eco for most of his Wiki-life, and he's been an excellent user to help learn the basics. Always polite, refreshingly honest, dedicated, thorough; I'll spare the thesaurus for everyone. Sure, he's made some mistakes, but he's improved on them tenfold and is an excellent candidate for adminship. Cheers, Eco!
'''Strong support''. Ecoleetage has made a few mistakes, but nothing sufficient to warrant my opposing. Great answers to questions, and I don't think the opposers have brought up enough meaningful concerns. Admins can still tag articles as AfD, or even tag them as speedy deletion.
Kind, [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and makes huge things seem like nothing. Good luck. --'''
'''Support''' No concerns, good luck. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support'''. I don't expect admins to be perfect but to simply try to do better and continually improve in attitude. Ecoleetage's work to improve the project is admirable and I think will help them view newby editors in a welcoming fashion.
'''Support''' I like the fact that he's been selflessly building articles, and not just going out to earn "ribbons and medals."
'''Strong oppose''' <s>Rather reluctantly.</s> There are some good, even great, contributions. However, his interactions with and support of [[User:Gp75motorsports]] and his welcoming of and interactions with [[User:G2.0 USA]], Gp75motorsports' [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gp75motorsports|confirmed sockpuppet]], make me very uncomfortable.
'''Oppose''' reluctantly due to the excellent contributions in many areas.  Ecoleetage has shown an interest in being involved in CSD work, but unfortunately, I see a number of inappropriately applied speedy tags.  During the last month alone, there has been the following declined speedies, most of which show very clear claims of notability or apparent lack of understanding of CSD criteria [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mashrafee_bin_mortuza&diff=prev&oldid=233914396][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friends_of_Coal&diff=prev&oldid=233578533][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Kiviat&diff=prev&oldid=232013871][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delancey_Street_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=229975980][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Brimhall&diff=prev&oldid=230662081][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P18_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=230665049].  Tagging and obviously deleting articles can be very bitey to newcomers.  Ecoleetage says that s/he learns from mistakes, but I would like to see a month or so with fewer errors before trusting this user with the delete button.  Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' due to poor understanding of non-free content policy.
'''Oppose''' I note the great body of support for this candidate, but the opposers have some strong points.--
'''Oppose''' taggings within the past month of articles for A7 deletion, despite claims like "It claims a membership of over 50,000", and "He has produced 11 specials for 20th Century Fox Television, most notably "Alien Autopsy," one of the highest rated special in the history of television" (see above diffs) are just clearly not good CSD taggings, and I would expect any admin to realize this. At best this shows he tends to want to delete substandard articles (both articles were quite poor), which is understandable but misguided, at worst it shows he doesn't understand [[WP:CSD#A7]]. Unfortunately the latter seems possible, as he says as justification "claims in the article are not independently confirmed", which has never been a part of CSD policy. At any rate these nominations were so recent I must oppose. --
'''Oppose''' Came here intending to support, as my experiences with Eco have been uniformly positive.  Unfortunately, Slp's citations strike at why I don't contribute content to the project - overzealous use of the Speedy Deletion process by a small number of editors who would rather slightly under-include than slightly over-include.  <s>I imagine this RfA will pass, but please just be careful with these going forward - other than this, I think the candidate will make a great admin.</s> [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)  / Expanding my oppose per badgering of opposers (aiming strawmen at mine) and the weird email issue - apparently Eco mentioned his RFA in an email to two users, and ended up with a neutral and an oppose.  I'm less confident about the candidate's judgment now.
'''Oppose''' per the issues raised in my previous two comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEcoleetage_2&diff=235701336&oldid=235698655 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEcoleetage_2&diff=235901903&oldid=235899953 2], including but not limited to: Uncivilness, Not assuming good faith, begging for barnstars, canvassing this RfA and rudely pushing a user to nominate him, lying about past events, and a few notes I've received from the candidate via email.  Most of these issues are discussed in my comments.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
In light of Eco's angry (and disproportionate) replies to DT, along with [[User_talk:S._Dean_Jameson/Archive_1#About_that_page_you_wanted_to_create...|this]] conversation I had with Eco, I must '''regretfully, but strongly, oppose.''' In the interests of full disclosure, I mentioned in early August that perhaps Eco should run for adminship. At that point, I had experienced nothing but positive interactions with Eco. That would soon change. In late August, Eco (after having told me that he didn't feel like he'd be ready for a run until 2009) approached me, asking me to write a nomination for him. I said I'd look into it, and he proceeded to accuse me of "breaking my word." I told him that administrators I respect had told me that a conom from me would be stronger than a single nomination from me, as a 3-month-old editor. He became quite angry, and took it off-line as well. I spent the majority of that evening reviewing his history, and having a couple of editors I trust and respect doing the same. The next day, when I declined to write the nomination, based upon some civility concerns he went "over the edge", you might say. He stayed mostly off-line with it, but it was one of the worst verbal batterings I've taken online. He made a ton of accusations against DT (none of them founded), and then, when it became clear that his frustration at me wasn't going to change my mind, he apologized to me for how he treated me, saying he hoped we could be friends. I said I'd work with him if there were a project we were both interested in, with the implication that I don't choose to be friends with people who treat me (and other editors as well) that way. I was going to simply abstain, but given his angry reply to DT, and his defensiveness regarding his errant CSD tagging, I felt I must temporarily end my wikibreak. I had planned it during this time specifically not to have to face his wrath, but I can't just stay silent about this. I feel Eco is a great editor, and -- for now, at least -- a poor candidate for adminship. Apologizing after the fact does not excuse the initial incivility. I admire the content contributions, but do not admire the way he deals with conflict. His temperament in the midst of heat doesn't bode well for how he might use the more controversial administrator tools. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|<small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>]]
'''Oppose''', per his reaction to Diligent Terrier's oppose above as well as the issues that user brought up. --
'''Oppose''' - Switched from Support above - I am no longer comfortable in supporting this candidate for adminship per the diffs provided in the oppose and neutral section. I don't like the temperament I'm seeing, nor do I want somebody who is inclined to expunge articles incorrectly.
'''Strong Oppose''' Switched from "Strong Support". We have enough uncivil admins as it is. Also of concern are the diffs provided in the neutral and oppose sections. In addition his reaction to Diligent Terrier's oppose. I should also note when I and two other editors reviewed him some time ago(He got the results over email, I was forwarded the email) incivlity was cited as one reason that he was not yet ready to become an admin. Apparently, this has not changed. Completely unacceptable behavior.--
'''Regretful but firm Oppose''', sorry (switched from support). After checking the diffs brought by Diligent Terrier, and especially after seeing your response to his oppose, I've realized that you should not be made an admin at this time. The barnstar begging sequence is particularly disturbing. The hostility, if not raw spite, directed at Diligent Terrier for his frank description of your standing as a candidate, and his honest concerns, is unacceptable. You are an excellent user indeed, but a lot more time shall be necessary for me to verify if you possess the character and maturity that I believe is essential for wielding the mop. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', poor answer to Stifle's question.
'''Strong Oppose.''' I had seen Eco at various AfDs and have been generally positively impressed. It is clear that that he has done a lot of excellent work on Wikipedia and is an asset to the project. But this RFA has raised too many red flags, starting with those CSD tags cited by Slp1 and getting worse from there. The interactions with Diligent Terrier and S. Dean Jameson are very off-puting and show definite problems with temper and judgement. The diffs provided in the oppose and neutral section also concern me a lot, particularly the ones where he is asking for barnstars in return for the ones that he had given himself. Sorry, but that alone is enough for me to oppose, even though those barnstar diffs are a bit old. Also, serious concerns about canvassing here as well. Not ready for adminship.
'''Weak Oppose''' most of my concerns from a month ago were minor dealing largely with a lack of experience... but there were some surrounding CSD.  While he has worked in this area, I am not completely comfortable with them.  CSD is one of my pet areas where I expect near perfection.  It is the area where an admin can do the most harm if done wrong.---'''
'''Oppose'''.  I've been mulling this over for a few days and have decided to oppose for several reasons.  1) Paradoxically, given his excellent DYK creations work, I get a sense that Ecoleetage is a bit more of a deletionist than I'd like and worry that he may be slightly heavy handed with the delete button based on the answer to Q9 and speedy tagging history; 2) I also get a sense that he's overly sensitive to his own articles being nom'd for deletion and may sometimes fail to assume good faith on the part of the nominator.  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogers Orchards|This]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McAbee|this]] caught my eye; 3) Canvassing such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYScholar&diff=234578016&oldid=234455527] where you say "if you feel I am correct, feel free to jump in" or in other words, "please come and support me", is frowned upon; 4) I find a candidate needing to respond to [nearly] every oppose vote very annoying and would likely oppose on that basis alone.  Even if you disagree with a rationale, this is a time that you need to force yourself to step back and let the community discuss.  On the positive side, Eco does excellent work at DYK and welcoming.  He should be commended for defusing a miserable situation recently when offering to mentor
I hate to do this, I do, but I'm going to have to oppose this request. If people are curious to know what the deal-breaker is among what I consider to be the other, imho comparatively minor concerns: It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecoleetage&diff=next&oldid=225676800 this]. While I personally don't care much for the precise momentary wording of any given policy, it's the ''spirit'' behind them that is non-negotiable and must be observed by each and all at any time and that can under no circumstances ever be [[WP:IAR|ignored]]. Instantly removing another user's comment like that is unfortunately entirely incompatible with the spirit of [[WP:CIVIL]], and it's a total deal-breaker for me personally, actually far worse in its self-righteousness and Eco's apparent belief that he did nothing wrong there than things like, say, throwing a curseword at a fellow user once or twice. Mind you that even though they may have pulled it together later, this is not as crucial here as the fact that Eco did it in the first place and may do it in the future, which would make him just another criticism-resistent admin, and the fact that he apparently sees nothing wrong with it, which -besides the obvious concern- also raises question of the level of his understanding of the fundamentals of this project. Neither has Eco done this only once.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecoleetage&diff=225040969&oldid=225018799] I'm so appalled by the attitude and temperament such an edit betrays that I have serious doubts Eco can ever be trusted with the tools and a position of trust in this project. I may not oppose him in a future RfA, but I don't think I will ever be able to support unless he undergoes decicive behavioral adjustments and contemplates on the value and true meaning of the spirit of our policies and guidelines. I'm also underwhelmed by his response to DT's oppose. This may come as sort of a surprise to people who've seen me around and who know fucking well how uncivil --superficially, I maintain-- I have often been. But such instand removal of legitimate comments from one's user talk page, while officially allowed is not something an admin should ever do. Ever. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
Changing to '''Oppose''' in light of the comments above ("those who clearly more interested in tearing people down than building a community". No, we're ''not'' here to build a community, and it's one of the more thankless parts of the admin role enforcing that on those people who think we are. I don't want someone who'll turn a blind eye to (or encourage) the next Award Center or Esperanza-wannabe. Genuinely sorry about that as I did come here to support.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
<s>I don't recall ever interacting with Eco, yet</s> I received a non-personalized request to vote from him via wikimail. I don't consider it against a policy, but spam is slightly annoying. In any case, I vote neutral - one spam is not enough to make me vote against, but I have no reason to vote for, neither.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
I was going to support, but then I noticed that he responded to almost every oppose/neutral vote, and that struck me as being too defensive.
<s>'''Regretful Oppose'''</s> Changed to Neutral. I have a lot of respect for you Ecoleetage, and probably would have supported if I saw it when I was patrolling RFA (which suprisingly I haven't done in awhile...), but when I got the email from you asking me to weigh in here, serious concerns of canvassing has arose. I respect you a lot, just a little bit of poor judgement. :( ''After viewing what he said above, I think he just misunderstood the canvassing page. I still respsect you a lot and you are magnificient. I might change to support after thinking a little bit more. '' <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Neutral''' — Due to concerns about attitude towards.. well.. everything. Off-wiki emails have led me to believe that canvassing is not an issue here, but I just get an uneasy feeling from the defensive replies to opposes and neutrals. Best of luck. —'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''': Nom by 'crat = win.
I've only seen good things from Ed Poor in my time here. He should be given a second chance.
Good guy, no question in my mind.

When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, I really admired Ed's history of contributions and experience.  I believe he will definitely be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' --
I've been slightly torn by how to respond to this. When I saw Ed Poor's renomination, I almost suffered a heart attack because I was not expecting, of all people, Ed Poor to come over into another RFA. No siree. As with MastCell, I've always felt Ed to be polite and sincere. In my early time here, I was influenced by his editing, among others. I feel that he's learned from his past mistakes, but I would support a careful watch to make sure we don't see AFD deleted next morning or something of the sort. :) '''''
(edit conflict) '''Weak support, might change once I read a few more oppose votes''' — I don't know anything about your history and since it's in the past, i'm not going to judge you by it. If anything more ''recent'' comes up, however, I may switch. You seem like a capable guy and you've clearly got knowledge of the tools from prior experience, so [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]] for now. —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
Was there when the car was invented, got the keys, been around the block, crashed and bumped into a couple of lampposts, license revoked, patiently waited on curb, learned how to drive, asking for keys back. Trust him driving now. (Not the best analogy, but you get the picture). --
'''Weak Support''' - The oppose reasons are clearly thought out and important. But this user knows what's what, he is immensly experienced, we shouldn't hold mistakes of the past against candidates unless they are recent, and I still think he can make a good admin. But, if he even ''thinks'' about misusing his privaledges this time, he knows what will happen...he's had more than enough warnings now. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
With the exceptions he volunteered above, Ed handled the mop very well in his earlier tenure as an admin, bcrat, and dev.  He's also epitomized civility and the "[[WP:BOLD|be bold]]" approach, both as a regular user and with additional rights.  As a somewhat controversial figure from the early days, Ed's admin actions will probably receive quite a bit of additional scrutiny, so I doubt he'll pull any more crazy stunts like deleting VfD.  Finally, I believe that he has learned from his earlier mistakes.  I'm happy to support this nomination. -
'''Weak support''' - bygones and all that. He's had the tools before and, while there were incidents (like the VfD one), I don't expect a repeat performance. Time he had the tools back -
Strong support, of course! <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' An old and trusted friend of ours who deserves a second chance.
'''Support''', plenty of time has passed since "past transgressions", and I am willing to take him at his word that he's cleaned up his act (and have no reason to suspect otherwise).
'''Support'''.  Massive experience and knowledge.
'''Support''' While a sysop, remember to delete AfD! --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' -- just be careful, yeah, Ed? You're one of the good guys. Try not to blow things up.
'''Support'''. If he says he intends to be careful, I intend to trust him. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support'''. Deserves a second chance &mdash; ''That was then; this is now; the moment is never the same twice.'' &ndash;
'''Support''' I hope, one day, to regret this!
'''Support'''. No litmus test, and he can make content. I hope that he would make this his home though.
'''Support'''. Of course I trust Uncle Ed. Someone with his mileage on Wikipedia will inevitably have made a few cock-ups, but Ed is honest about it, and I am confident that he has learnt from his mistakes. Ed comes across as a solid contributor and I'm sure he'll make the best out of his experience.
'''Support''' Ed's opinions with respect to a great many things are almost exactly opposite from mine;  The events being discussed are from before I joined Wikipedia, but I have read them through, and the desysop seems to have been entirely proper. However, I think he knows enough now to do here what is expected. I think his experience would on the whole be positive.  '''
'''Support''' should have learned from his mistake. Cheers.
'''Support''' When Ed Poor was dragged before ArbCom in December 2005, I had exactly one logged-in edit.  That tells me everything I need to know.  It's been long enough and then some.  The answers to questions and the familiarity with policy are more than sufficient.
'''Support'''. Ed Poor is a controversial figure, but I trust making him an admin again would be a net positive for the project. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' I believe his sentence has been served. --
Moral '''support''' in that I believe in second chances.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' I acknowledge that the editor has a particularly colorful history, and I acknowledge the possibility that he may backslide. I feel that the editor will not abuse the tools. His de-cratting was not a case that alarms me. He did the wrong thing for the right reason, and acknowledges that. He has spent a very considerable length of time in productive penance. Finally, though it pains me extremely deeply to say this, I ... hope... I am not seeing POV in some of the Opposes. The very hint of that possibility weakens their impact in my opinion. So.. after long thought... +S [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>

'''Support''' I can't really hold his contributions on another wiki against him.  Maybe he uses a public restroom and doesn't flush IRL.  what does that have to do with admin access on wikipedia?  As for past problems, bygones are bygones.  As this wiki gets older and bigger, it will be harder and harder to find admins if we keep looking backward.  Clearly a dedicated editor.
'''Moral Support''':I am inclined to trust him and making use of his extensive knowledge of Admin tools ( for good :) ) if made an admin again--
'''Support''', simply on the basis that if he does misbehave, I sincerely doubt it'll take long for the ArbCom to correct the matter. —
'''Support''' I think he'll be decent.
'''Support''', for what it's worth.
'''Conditional Support'''.  I'm not wild about the idea of letting a radical conservative with a history of abuse loose with the tools, but I will support as long as the user sticks to the "I'll stand for re-RFA if any 3 users who support my successful RFA request it." and makes it binding upon himself.  I think this demonstrates a laudable commitment to accountability.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to give him another chance. I don't think he will repeat his mistakes.
'''Support''' I agree with everyking, it's time to put the past in the past. Is Ed a little crazy? Sure. I think Ed is sincerely needed to keep some of the rowdy science editors from tearing this project apart. His firm, but polite approach is just what the doctor ordered. I totally disagree with Ed's politics and views on science, but I recognized long ago that having differing voices is always better. --
'''Support''' - Oh, go on with you!
'''Support''' &mdash; I agree that, ultimately, he shouldn't be a community servant--but the Arbitrary Committee, being illegitimate, has no legitimate authority to desysop someone.  If he needs to be desysopped, only the community at large has the legitimate authority to do that.  He should be resysopped, in accord with the original consensus to make him a servant of the community, unless and until the community at large expresses a wish to overturn that decision.
Doomed, hopeless but for-the-record '''support'''. I have a long history of disagreeing with Ed's POV, but (a) he has apparently been back for months, yet I've barely noticed him at GW. He has clearly learnt his lesson (b) I never had any complaints about his use of admin tools; as far as I can tell he always kept that scrupulously away from his editing (c) his original desysopping was clearly wrong (I was tempted to vote no on the grounds that he now appears to believe his original de-sysopping was wrong, so his judgement must be flawed :-)
'''Support'''. I believe that Ed has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I'm prepared to give him another chance.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Oppose''' - User has manifested bias in the past as pointed out in 3B. Too much drama. We don't need anymore sysops like that.
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Drama&diff=prev&oldid=226019770]''' Really? I'm inclined to disagree. Admins are not here to get people to "shut up" <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but Ed has a serious past history of abuse with any tools he had. If this was just one desysopping, I could overlook it given the time frame, but Ed has lost bureaucrat, developer access and adminship in previous incidents. I just don't believe things will be different this time.
'''Oppose''' - I have no reason to believe that he won't repeat the past, regrettably. (Hey! Now ''I'm'' the opposition that gets to be spited!) --
I think Ed is a very nice, very pleasant man, who genuinely means well and sincerely wants to help the project, and I thoroughly regret that I must '''oppose''' him.
Per DS: no reflection on Ed Poor personally, as he's always struck me as polite, sincere, and well-meaning. The Conservapedia thing doesn't bother me - in fact, I'm glad he recognizes that a certain approach is more appropriate there rather than trying to force it here. I just don't think that the extra buttons are a good idea; we're not talking one isolated incident, but a well-developed pattern that suggests that things are likely to come to grief. He's doing well as a contributor, and the rationale for returning the tools seems weak. Rescuing worthy articles from premature deletion is a laudable goal, but not one that requires tools (though if you need deleted revisions to work on something along these lines, let me know). '''
'''Oppose''' There's a palpable irony that the author of [[User:Ed Poor/POV pushing|this]] has been disciplined for POV-pushing.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans] Thanks for your work, Ed, but I don't think you need the sysop bit. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' - I find you to be rude at times, not just on wikipedia either. For the sake of wikipedias credibility, you should not be an admin. —
'''Oppose''' this user regards the tools more as a position of authority than a way to help improve the wiki, this is exemplified by statements such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=225872913 this] where in debate he highlights the fact that he was a "former sysop" to help advance his position in debate.
'''Oppose''' Ed Poor has clearly abused any position of authority he has ever been given at Wikipedia. The issue in this nomination is if he has some how had a "come to Jesus" moment and will not do so again in the future. Because I think this is the major sticking point his behavior off site, specifically at Conservapedia bears examination. Not only has he demonstrated an extremely heavy hand there but his arbitrary creation and application of rules and the shear amount of glee he takes from abuse of power does not bode well his behavior on ''this'' site.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor Ed Poor's contributions on Conservapedia], I see a lot of arbitrary enforcement actions that definitely wouldn't fly on Wikipedia.  Check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= his block log over there], for instance.  The [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page= deletion log] gives me reasons for concern, as well.  I'm aware that Conservapedia is a separate project from Wikipedia and that it has different rules and goals, but I don't think I'd trust any Conservapedia sysops to perform sysop duties on Wikipedia, either.  --
'''Oppose''' in recognition of Ed Poor's conduct on Conservapedia.
Years '''oppose'''d to Ed Poor becoming admin: <1.
'''Oppose''' - No indication user will not use tools to decrease the drama.  So best to prevent the ArbCom from a future desyop case by opposing now.
'''Oppose''' per lack of need for the tools, see candidate's answer to the question "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" You don't need any special tools to improve pages on AfD through regular editing; it isn't "admin work" at all. Ahem, Uncle Ed, the point of that question was to give you a chance to show that you do need the tools. Adminship isn't a medal, it's for use. Also, per Ryan, I'm worried about the way the candidate has so far abused any tools he ever had. And thirdly, the good [[yeoman]] service that is claimed for him over the past 30 months is just left ''so'' vague! (Kingturtle says that "he knows policy inside and out", but there I'm afraid I simply don't agree.) But if somebody were to give a convincing answer to [[User:Sarcasticidealist]]'s question under "Discussion" above, I might change my mind about opposing; that one's the clincher.
'''Oppose''' ''as per'' [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor#Ed Poor's misuse of access]]: <br/> ''("Ed Poor has a history of misusing any permissions given him, which has resulted in Ed losing both his developer and bureaucrat access. / Passed 7-0")''.  — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC) <br/> <small>'''NOTE:''' my awareness of this RfA is solely from the [[:User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report|Tangotango report]]. —
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate.
'''Strong Oppose''': Due to Ed's repeated abuse of power provided by Ryan, in particular this one with I find very disturbing: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor]] --
'''Strong Oppose''': has failed to use tools correctly on ever occassion he has been granted them. No thanks. --
'''Oppose''' Per Ryan P above. <s>and per your block log[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Ed_Poor]</s>.
Surely you have better things to do with your time than invoke drama as an admin again. —'''
'''Oppose''' per Elkman and others. I was enthusiastic to support you, but we can't have something like ''that'' happen again, and, frankly, I can see it coming. Sorry. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I'd agree with Ryan. User's had plenty of chances with tools in the past, and was forced to resign tools 3 separate times to abuse or concerns of it.--
RFAs are tricky because we're almost always trying to guess how the candidate will utilize the tools. In this case, we're spared the usual stabbing-in-the-dark exercise because we have three arbitration cases and a wealth of knowledge about Ed Poor's past actions in an administrative capacity to go on. <small>(Found out about this via several of my sockpuppets, all of whom will be showing up here shortly.)</small>
'''Oppose'''.  I don't question Ed's commitment to the project but this strikes me as a bad idea.  After over two solid years of willfully ignoring policy Ed's reformed period is a lot shorter.
'''Strong oppose'''  This editor has a long history of abuses of the admin tools.  Even now, he attempts to skirt the letter and spirit of arbitration decisions.
'''oppose''' Ed does produce some very good content. However, the history of RfArs forces me to oppose. [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor]] for example is where Ed was desyssopped, after having already been decratted. I might be able to support after that, especially since that was over 2 years ago. However,  after that, Ed continued to engage in serious POV-pushing, resulting in another arbitration case, brought by me- [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2]]. The ArbCom in that decision found that Ed had 1) engaged in deliberately disruptive behavior to [[WP:POINT|make a point]], 2) created myriad POV forks on multiple topics and 3) repeatedly made edits against consensus as well as repeatedly editing technical subjects of which he by his own admission had no basic understanding. This ArbCom decision occurred after a heavily attended RfC which did not alter Ed's behavior at all. The ArbCom in that decision put Ed on a general probation to which any uninvolved admin could prohibit Ed from an article or group of articles. Despite this massive cluestick, Ed continued to engage in exactly the same behavior as prior to that RfAr to the point where Raul had to ban Ed from editing any articles related to [[intelligent design]]. This behavior makes me very worried about what would happen if Ed had access to the tools again. As Ed describes above, he started being involved in Wikipedia when the project was young. Since then the community has found need now three times to reduce how much trust it gives Ed to the point where his default level is much less than the level we give a new user. I therefore have a large amount of trouble thinking that giving Ed back the tools would be a net benefit to the project.
'''Oppose''' pre-disclosure: I heard about this at RW.  When you combine [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Drama&diff=prev&oldid=225874743"Shut up and get back to work!"] with [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Writing_plan Conservapedia's writing plan] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Writing_plan&action=history note the author]) you have a person who is trying to squelch consensus building and debate and using their perceived authority to do it.  Furthermore, you have an individual who looks to find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ed_Poor&oldid=226038117#Controversies controversial topics] and insert his own POV (as has been demonstrated [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Proposed decision#Creation_of_POV_forks|here]]). There doesn't appear to be any change in behavior compared to what lead to the original arbitration decisions. --
I do not believe that giving Ed the tools would have a net positive effect on the project, for many reasons listed above.  I did not, incidentally, hear about this on any other wiki.
'''Oppose''': Can Wikipedians ''trust'' Ed Poor? I don't think so. He has shown not only a vituperative behavior, but also serious [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|COI]] with a number of articles, most notably those related to the [[Unification Church]]. Also, I've witnessed his work on Conservapedia, and '''he hasn't changed a bit''' since he was desysopped here at WP. --
For more reasons than I can count, but I'll give just one: when I was still fairly new, he threatened to block me because I gave a Delete position on one of his POV forks on Vfd (as it was then). I have seen nothing to make me think he'll do any better if he gets the tools again.
'''Oppose''' The original [[WP:SPIDER |Spiderman]], I think we'd need really clear and compelling evidence that's given up scaling public buildings. I don't think we're there yet considering some of the other evidence presented here.
'''Strongly oppose'''.  Ed is one of the architects of Conservapedia.  http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Best_of_Conservapedia gives a long, long list of edits on Conservapedia by Ed, and by others in the power structure that Ed regularly defends, that demonstrate contempt for alternative viewpoints, disregard for facts, and sheer delight in being a bully.  I don't have a diff to show you; there are hundreds at that page, pick any you like.  I wasn't canvassed, I check RfA regularly. - Dan
'''Oppose''' This is my first vote but I feel strongly enough about this to vote. Ed has been disruptive as can be seen from the ArbCom cases (I think he got of lightly in the Fuelwagon given Fuelwagon never returned after the incident). Also his behaviour and poor quality edits at Conservapedia should also be taken into account (especially his tenancy to delete maths articles rather than improve them on the grounds he doesn't understand them and blocks users for creating them). I know Wikipedia has checks against this but this does show power play behaviour. More than anything I oppose Ed's nomination because Ed represents something of an old guard around here. This project has grown and moved on from the days when any person that showed up got to be Administrators and articles were two lines long created on nothing to pad out the encyclopaedia, but Ed still behaves and creates articles in that way (Ed's edit history is full of these). We need to move forward instead of picking Admins because they were here first rather than their ability to deal with what is happening.
I do not believe that restoring Ed Poor's sysop rights at this time would be helpful to the project.
'''Oppose''' and delighted to have the opportunity to do so. Will without question abuse his tools again to push his POVs. An exemplar of all that's rotten about Wikipedia, so not now, not ever.
'''Oppose''' due to Ed's eons-long history of astoundingly bad decisions and truculent POV pushing &mdash; Ed cannot be trusted with any tool more powerful than a standard edit box
'''Oppose''' Ed has shown several times over he is unsuited to the role. That, and his response "but these past couple of years I've just left those areas alone for the most part" is untrue since it was just January that Ed disrupted one of those articles enough to be banned from the article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2&diff=prev&oldid=183465332]
Very weak reason for wanting the tools is far outweighed by the history of abuse, no matter how long ago it was (on this site, at least.)
'''Oppose''' Not a trustworthy administrator in the least. We already have a lot of bad eggs with the tools, but that doesn't mean another one just like them can get to play as well.
'''STONGEST OPPOSE EVA''' I cant support someone with a more colourful history then me ;)
Oppose.  Per the ArbCom cases and the almost Arbcom case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor here].  Also per former arbitrator [[User:the Epopt|the Epopt]], above, based on a combination of his comment here and his rejection of the RfAr previously linked.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor#Ed_Poor.27s_misuse_of_access Absolutely not] and '''strong oppose'''.
'''Oppose.''' I was quite willing to forgive the old pre-desysoping transgressions (and I think that his activities on Conservapedia are not relevant here) if the conduct in the last year had been good. However, as JoshuaZ pointed out in his comment in the Neutral section, Ed was banned from a particular article and its talk page as recently as January of this year for POV pushing, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2&diff=prev&oldid=183465332]. Given that that is exactly what the old problems were about, I can't say that this user has sufficiently reformed his behaviour.
"Ed Poor has a history of misusing any permissions given him, which has resulted in Ed losing both his developer and bureaucrat access." Sorry but no. I don't have any problems with Ed on a personal level or as an editor and I know the arbitration cases were a long time ago, but I haven't seen enough "reformation" to make me feel he can be trusted with the tools.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' There's a fair chance I might be biased, but we are talking about a user that helped develop what is essentially a Wikipedia attack site (Conservapedia), right? I also worry about the apparently inability to grasp the point of NPOV, additions of conservative Christian propaganda, ''and'', and this was the clincher for me, past history. A reformed vandal running for RFA is one thing, but this is a completely different story. Sorry, but I can't possibly support this.
'''Oppose''' Seems like a nice guy, but major concerns about creating and supporting articles with dubious non-neutral content as mentioned by FT2. <font color="#156917">
'''Oppose''' I would genuinely like to believe that Ed has changed, but the abusive nature of his behavior at Conservapedia makes me think otherwise.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not sure with the history of having ''multiple privileges'' taken away that I can really trust him using them again. In addition, the conservapedia edits show that the problem still remains that caused those privileges to be removed; yes, it's a different encyclopedia, but the problem here seems to be based on the users personality, not where they're working.
'''Opppose'''. No thanks, Ed has a history of doing some very, very daft things with the tools on multiple occasions. The things he is best at, he doesn't need the tools for.
'''Strong oppose'''. Assuming this is the same Ed Poor who throws his weight around and acts the bully at Conservapedia, he is quite unfit for adminship. <small><b>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry - the risk of further drama is unacceptably high for mine. A series of mishaps suggest this will be recurrent behaviour. Cheers,
'''Strong oppose'''; Will definitely go ''Sideways'' with mop. [[Machiavellian]]. Comes in close second to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2|Kelly Martin]] for being one of the worst editors for permanent [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD|wrecking]] and blatant disregard of [[WP:VFD|process]] when accorded with powers. -
'''Strongish Oppose''' - From the things I've seen on this RfA, diffs clicked and links followed, I must say that your actions terrify me.  We dont need to speculate about what you'd do with the tools... we can see.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Strong Oppose''' - I found out a couple of days ago that Ed Poor is the sysop Ed Poor on Conservapedia. There is '''no way''' I could support anyone who "contributes" to that "encyclopaedia". It goes against everything that we're trying to do here at Wikipedia; contribute to reality, not acid-induced fantasies. Also, I don't believe he deserves the tools again after his previous desysopping. We don't "reward" POV pushers here, they might do that on Conservapedia, but not here.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Endorsement of and adminship within Conservapedia is rather incompatible with the trust, balance and neutrality required for adminship within Wikipedia, the Free (and Actual) Encyclopedia. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' way too many problems for a prospective administrator. Demotion from multiple positions of authority here, a history of POV-pushing (which clearly hasn't gone away as he has been banned from a large number of articles this year) and appalling behaviour on other projects all contribute to this. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose.''' I was not around at the time of the previous drama surrounding Ed Poor. But http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Ed_Poor and the example in the (as yet unanswered) Q. 28 above are not indicative of a mindset compatible with holding a position of trust in a collaborative, neutral encyclopedia project. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one. Good one. But aren't we taking this joke a bit far?
'''Strong Oppose''' - I simply find it impossible for Ed Poor to divorce himself from what he has become on Conservapedia.  Everything seems to fit a clear pattern.  Ed was demoted at Wikipedia for POV-pushing, so he took his ball and went to Conservapedia where he would be free to do everything he could not do at Wikipedia.  In my opinion, adminship at Conservapedia and Wikipedia are mutually exclusive.
'''Oppose'''. A lengthy history of abuse of power at Wikipedia, followed by a lengthy history of what I can see as even more egregious power abuses at Conservapedia, basically tells me that Ed is, unfortunately, inherently unsuited to having sysop powers here. His contributions as an editor are fine but I see no particular evidence to suggest it would be helpful to the project to give him admin tools again. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Strong Oppose''' We don't need any more drama, counts of power hunger and abuse earlier at WP and currently at Conservapedia. His activity there contrary to so many WP policies is especially concerning, and it would be extremely hard to diverge himself from those sysop activities over here. Erik the <font color="red">
Although I've never met the candidate on occasions prior to this RfA, I feel that with the luck of hindsight what could and possibly will happen if the administrators bit was to be implemented as a feature. Clearly we can see that although time has passed (quite a bit of it, I might add) we have some recent edits which are concerning; notably the one posted here by Pedro in the #2 oppose.
'''Oppose'''. The oppose comments above conviced me. Better safe than sorry when it comes to admins. --
'''Oppose'''. Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politicization_of_science&diff=prev&oldid=181008299 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politicization_of_science&diff=225885257&oldid=222098643 this] lead me to believe that you can't keep your biases in check.-
'''Oppose''' - unfortunately Ed has a history of letting his personal beliefs get in the way of the NPOV policy, and has previously used his position as an administrator to enforce his own version of the rules. Although he should be allowed every opportunity to change, the many unanswered questions and his actions elsewhere demonstrate that he is nowhere near ready to become a janitor.
'''Oppose''' for lacking common sense judgement required for admin rights. --
'''Oppose''' So long as Ed Poor remains a sysop on Conservapedia then there is a serious COI with him being given admin rights at Wikipedia. Ed aquired his rights here by virtue of being an early arriver. I don't doubt that he actually made some useful contributions to Wikipedia but his abuse of those rights showed that he is ill-equipped to wield power. Following remarks made above I have checked his blocking history at Conservapedia. Normally I would say that edits on external sites should be disregarded but his Conservapedia history seems to indicate that his character has not changed. Ed is not a foolish youth who might be expected to acquire wisdom and maturity and become deserving of a second chance. It would appear that he is still the same person that he was. Ed has been a significant contributor to Wikipedia and long may that continue. However, he does not '''need''' adminstrator rights to continue his work.
Wikipedia does not need an admin with a neo-con/fundie viewpoint and a proven track record of abusing the tools in pushing said POV.  --
'''Oppose''' This user has demonstrated a very biased POV, abuse of power and 'power tripping' on this and other Wikis. He has also made his extremely negative opinion of this wiki known throughout the internet. It is hard to believe he has the best interests of this project at heart.
'''Strongest possible OPPOSE'''. In this case I think we must take account of the evidence from outside WP. Ed Poor acts like an ignorant bully on Conservapedia. That sort of behaviour fits in just fine there, but we do not need it here. He is welcome to contribute to the project, but he is not fit to act as an admin. <small><b>
'''Strong oppose''' - Answer 7b brought concern, then I began reading the oppose arguments. While I normally believe it is inappropriate to consider off-wiki information on-wiki, in this case, it seems extremely relevant. The diff posted by Scarian, regarding Wisdom's "uncivil" (not even in the remotest possible way was that even bordering on ''maybe, sort of, kinda'' uncivil) comments and his blanking of them. The apparent abuse of power there leads me to believe he would treat the tools similarly here. Considering his extreme views and pushing of them, I don't see the need to risk granting Ed the tools again, also considering the various abuses that caused him to lose all of his previous positions and no real indication that he's changed.
'''Oppose.''' There are many other contributors who aren't nominated who could be a good admin.
'''Oppose'''. I don't often opine here, but in this case we have someone who has been shown in the past to have serious problems with power - and who has been dinged for it at every level of access. Off-site activities may not relate directly to on-site actions, but they provide a good indication of how a user thinks, far as I'm concerned, and the admin actions on Conservapedia make me think that it won't be long before we'd have another issue, another ArbCom case and even more drama. We've already got more drama than a cable TV network, we don't need the addition.
'''Oppose''': Although I originally went against the grain (and, for what it's worth, against my own political leanings) and supported, I've begun to feel the weight of the opposition, largely because: A) the ''anti-Wikipedia'' nature of Conservapedia is starting to become apparent to me, and is starting to get to me. If you don't like Wikipedia, then why seek additional influence on it? To mold it to your liking? By the way, special thanks to [[User:RogMcDog]] for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paul_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=360291 this. '''Look at the edit summary.''' '''''Wow''''']. B) Ed's ''history'' of poor judgment and bullying makes me skeptical of what his future contributions will be like. Has he had an epiphany in  [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathoreilly&diff=485894&oldid=485890 the past 16 days] that should incline me to AGF to a greater extent with him than he did with the user in that link? (This line of thinking is largely courtesy of [[User:L'Aquatique]] above.) Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on Ed. And, yes, I know that Conservapedia is (nominally) a project distinct from Wikipedia. But I think there's a little more to RfA than simply trying to determine whether or not someone will abuse the tools. We're looking for an ''exceptional community member'' whose use of the tools, whose personality, etc. will combine to produce a very net-positive effect on both the content and the atmosphere of the project. I generally like to avoid opposition (see [[WP:NBD]] and [[WP:WTHN]]); I think that, in a community this big, there are thousands and thousands of potentially exceptional members. But, as [[User:Olin]] wisely implies above, perhaps we should be devoting our energy to helping some of the ''other'' folks among these thousands and thousands.
'''Oppose''' per answer 21C: ''"I would not use admin tools to resolve these."'' I believe that no administrator should ever use admin tools to resolve anything. I accept that there are different interpretations of what an admin is around here, but my own feeling is that the mop is mostly for cleaning up and for preventing damage to the encyclopedia. Disputes are a grey area, and wielding a sysop bit - whether you're involved in the dispute or not - isn't the way to go. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''', switching from neutral, below. I concede that my esteemed colleague [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] has strong feelings on the matter, justifiably so - but his position has been made quite clear in his oppose (Currently #33, above). The fact that he takes offense from the range of support for this RFA is unfortunate, but not germaine to the discussion of whether Ed should be an admin or not. I recognize Ed's long and extensive work with this project, and applaud his dedication (and his not bailing despite extensive drama). However, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=315534&oldid=315529 this] and the answer to Question 28, above, lead me to believe that, while he might well be an effective admin, it is unlikely that he would be able to perform administrator tasks in a neutral manner. I stress that this might not be because he would insert his biases into his work, but rather because others would assume that he had done so, given past history. The result, unfortunately, is the same - adminship under those circumstances would be untenable.
'''Oppose'''. Mention of [[same-sex attachment disorder]] did it for me. If such a thing exists, I can get all kinds of disability, right? Nuts. I would not trust this admin to treat LGBT articles fairly, and they are some of the most contentious that need a good, even admin. --
'''Strongly oppose''' Ed has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not have the temperament necessary to make an effective sysop.
'''Oppose''' Ed's work on Conservapedia and also his answers to questions here as well as the previous AbCom/RfC decisions make me highly skeptical of Ed's understanding (perhaps deliberate) of [[WP:NPOV]].
'''Oppose''' - Echoing most of what East718 said, we have evidence that this user cannot be trusted with the tools because of a profound contempt for our policies and a habitual abuse of any rights he's given on Wikipedia. "Fool me once" and all that.
'''Oppose''' per concerns regarding POV.
'''Oppose''' - per above - enough to make me switch sides. '''
'''Oppose''' - Ed has obviously incurred a great deal of controversy. I don't think that it is for the good of the project that he be saddled with extra responsibility. Especially as there are many other editors with better track records who could be given a chance.
'''Oppose''' The available information seems to strongly indicate that Ed is well suited to being an admin and editor on Conservapedia. Given this impression, and his past abuses of power, I see no reason to believe that Ed has undergone the sort of fundamental change necessary to inspire trust in him now.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' Per a lot of folks, and my own experience.  And SheffieldSteel makes a damn good point.
'''Oppose''', per some serious concerns raised in above comments by {{user|NuclearWarfare}}, {{user|Tmtoulouse}}, {{user|Scientizzle}}, {{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}}, and others as well.
'''9''' (
'''Strong Oppose''' You've shown in the past that you can't be trusted with any tools that could empower you to ignore wikipedia policy and the opinions of other editors.  It seems clear to me that this part of you has not changed since you were desysoped.  Sorry, but between [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CIVIL]], I don't think you're capable of upholding policy here.
'''Oppose''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=315534&oldid=315529 this] really bothers me, and all of the above [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPOV]] concerns. <small>(Note: learned of from Tangobot report)</small>. --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose''' You can certainly talk the talk: your statements are very well written, and you manage to include links to a lot of the good work you have done for the project; certainly you've done more than I, and I thank you for that - it would be a different place here without you. I do, however hold strong reservations about your ability to use the tools well. I certainly understand that due to your presence here in wikipedia's infancy, you never had the same sets of guidelines and policies as us jonny-come-latelys, but your prior infractions show that you aren't the kind of admin I want to see. I don't much care about your work at Conservapedia - as much as I disagree with juust about everything that goes on over there, your views are as valid as mine, and they don't necessarily prevent someone from being an excellent admin here. The crux of it is, you've broken basically all the rules of adminship and more and I just wouldn't trust that you could apply the tools well, in a way that is positive for the community. I really do hate to be here, opposing someone who has contributed as much as you, but I feel I have to. So, please carry on contributing, as you are a valued editor, but no thanks, not for me. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Strong oppose''' per [[User:Dank55]]. We don't need to give a POV pusher like this access to the tools.
'''Oppose''' Profoundly untrustworthy. [[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] ([[User talk:Steven Walling|talk]]) <sup>formerly
'''Neutral''' While Ed has done great work in mediation and as a developer; however, the ArbCom case does scare me. It may simply because I wasn't even a Wikipedian back then, but I simply do not have enough background information to make a good decision on this.
'''Neutral''' While I think a bureaucrat's nomination, co-nomed with an admin, weighs a lot, in this case I feel it's not enough to automatically support. Both supporters and opposers are mentioning some valid points (and some prejudice as well I'm afraid) and I could not make my mind up by looking through his contribs and thus I will stay neutral in this case. '''
'''Neutral''' for now, because I am not familiar with Ed's past. On the one hand, I see that he seems willing to defer to others on matters - neglecting to do so seems to be one of the reasons for his losing rights in the past. On the other hand he doesn't seem willing to offer the hypothetical user in Q4 a second chance without another admin taking the initiative - thus, on the face, it appears as if he himself wants a second chance but isn't willing to grant one of his own volition. –<font face="Verdana">
'''SUPER ULTRA OMEGA RED AWESOME DARING INQUISITIVE DECISIVE BUFFALO NEUTRAL''' per xeno, really. I've never !voted Neutral before, so I have to make a big deal out of it, but I really just can't get this. There was bad conduct, yes, but that was 2 years ago. There was other bad conduct, but that was reverted. There was ''more'' bad conduct, but that was on a different wiki. Taking away all of that, you've got a reasonable caniddate for Support. But, All of that past is still a thorn in the side. I'm going to watch this, and (hopefully if it doesn't get SNOW'd on) will come back later to be swayed by other's !votes.--
'''Neutral''' - I believe in second chances, I believe in the ability of someone to change, but my concern is the drama that this could create.  It wouldn't even be Ed's fault - but given the way some users work, everything Ed does would get watched like a hawk and result in 50K ANI sections.  In short, though I would support Ed returning to adminship, I don't support the baggage that would come with it. --
Would like to see a couple more Q&A, such as to Q12.
'''Neutral''' His work on other comparable sites does not strike me as consistent with the ethos here.--
'''Neutral'''.First, IMO work on other projects, which have different rules, is of limited value in determining if a candidate will comply with the rules here.  So, I discount that concern.
'''Neutral''' - I know you are a great editor, but the ArbCom case reveals that maybe you are not as easygoing as you first appear.  By the way, I read this over and found the other editor not at fault, rather, you I found guilty. --
'''Neutral''' - for now... <b>
Changed from support. The concerns that have been raised since I initially voted are too serious for me to ignore. Under normal circumstances I'd oppose, but due to Ed's tenure at WP I'll go with neutral instead.
'''Neutral''' (changed from support).  Some of the concerns are simply too significant to ignore, but some of Ed's past deeds inhibit me from opposing. —
'''Neutral'' per Paragon12321. I see some excellent developing and editing contributions, but the ArbCom case prevets me from supporting.
'''Neutral'''.  Well, I was thinking "Well yeah this guy was desysopped over two years ago!  This is a good case of reform!"  But when I learned you lost multiple other tools besides adminship, it made me nervous.  I just can't support because of this.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' Sure, why not?--
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' I've seen him around; he does good work.--
'''Support''' I don't see anything alarming.
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|it's no big deal]]. However that ''your friend'' before you sign does piss me off a bit. --
'''Strong support''' I have always found Editorofthewiki to be a committed, good-faith editor who has always given his best to this project's goal &ndash; ''building an encyclopaedia''. I have had nothing but good interactions with him. His commitment to creating content is proof of his good intentions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keeper76&diff=prev&oldid=233738726 This post], among others, shows the need for Ed to have the tools to function efficiently here, instead of asking and waiting for others to do the work for him. More DYK admins are needed, and Ed has shown his competency there, by creating, nominating and adding articles to the next update template (WP:DYK/N). He has cocked-up at times (haven't we all?) but the "civility" incident is firmly in the past, and he has learned from it. The FAC incident is still too soon in the memory, but the tools will be used for uncontroversially deleting/moving pages, not in that area. All in all, I ''trust'' him to use the tools judiciously and competently where he has stated he will; to quote a famous user: "Nothing else matters".
'''Support''' as nominator, but sadly I don't think this will pass now. --
'''Support''' to counter some of the frankly ludicrous opposes. Also, I like the lolcat.
I don't see many alarming problems. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Strong Support''' I am going to keep the "wrong queue" jokes in the closet today and speak up in favour of someone who has done marvelous work for this project.  I am genuinely in awe of Eddy's efforts to expand the depth and scope of Wikipedia's contents, particularly in regard to African-related articles.  I am also highly appreciative of the kindness and support he has shown to me and to his fellow editors.  Eddy works wonderfully with other editors and he has the best interests of the project in mind.  I have to echo SWATJester's comments about "frankly ludicrous opposes."
'''Oppose'''. There are quite enough misguided civility police on the admin payroll already. --

'''Strong oppose'''. Your friend <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong oppose'''. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karanacs#Oppose|Unabashedly using an RfA to demand a token apology from an editor]] is either fantastically, profoundly over-sensitive, or just plain bullying. Dunno which option is better-faith. Some may believe that personality issues of that nature may vanish in the span of three months. Some also may believe that [[David Icke|Jew Lizardmen control the Earth]]. At least the second belief has some slight metaphoric value. There also exist rather substantial  communication concerns as incidentially highlighted in the diffs provided by Useight (massive oppose #2 above). Not only does having such poor (some might even say "sloppy-looking") communication in an administrative role have a poor effect on outside perception of the quality of Wikipedia's articles, but it has the obvious potential to cause substantial amounts of frustration for other editors of the wiki. [[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 03:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ''Changing to "'''strong oppose'''" per candidate's continuing catty belligerence, including, but not limited to, his response to Promethean in the thread below, his downright nasty (and wholly misguided, policy-wise) response to Sandstein (oppose #28 at the time of this writing), general drama-mongering (all over this RfA), inability to judge, or even spell, "consensus" (replies to Sandstein's oppose, replies to iridescent, oppose #13 at the time of this writing), tendency towards dishonesty (see jbmurray, oppose #25 at the time of this writing), general lack of maturity (all over this RfA), and the utterly '''dreadful''' shenanigans over at FAC (see SandyGeorgia's "neutral" below, #2 at the time of this writing).''
'''Oppose''' I think Ed has made very impressive contributions to the 'pedia. Nevertheless, a review of some of the issues provided by Useight and a perusal of his contributions lead me to think that Adminship is not for him. This is only compounded by some of his responses to the opposes in this RfA. One of the tricky things in life is realising what you're good at. EotW is a good editor, but I don't think he has the temperament nor the judgement to be granted access to the tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Occasional bad judgement, including the matter in answer to question 3, which is recent. (Incidentally, you need to edit the last sentence of the first paragraph of that section.)
'''Oppose for now.''' Ah. Well, I know that many folks maintain that content contribs are irrelevant to mop handling, but.. it's the lack of maturity '''behind''' the content contribs that are the problem here. In short, EOTW just doesn't seem to have a clue regarding Wikipedia, or perhaps doesn't know how to respect Wikipedia, at least not yet. Harsh words? No. Wikipedia is (or should be.. I doubt that "is" still applies) an encyclopedia, not a hangout for all the cool gang. I think EOTW loves the latter and has no clue regarding the former. The recent FAC was a telling disaster. I would never have imagined that someone could copy/paste content from the English and especially French Wikipedias without verifying an alarming number of key facts & then toss it up to [[WP:FAC]]. Let's not email the French Wikipedia folks (again!) and repeat the claim that Ling.Nut is accusing the French Wikipedia of substandard work. I don't know '''where''' the gross factual inaccuracies, significant omissions and especially the POV-laden text (with spurious verification, no less) in EOTW's FAC nom came from. It doesn't matter; the point is that EOTW never bothered to track down an alarmingly large number of facts and try to verify them. Anyone who has such disregard for FAC has not yet understood the encyclopedia's reason to exist. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Per Ling.Nut, Karanacs, and Badger Drink. Too much evidence of treating Wikipedia like a [[MMORPG]].
'''Oppose'''. Per all of the above + SandyGeorgia, this "will try to confine myself to relatively calm editing which is my norm shall I be accused of such again" (in response to MF above) shows two things to me; "try to" - you acknowledge you have a problem, which although is good, doesn't mitigate it and "accused" this is a discussion, not a court. You say to others here to "assume good faith" but the only person I say here not assuming good faith is yourself.
'''Oppose''', the user's heart is in the right place, but I cannot honestly support an editor who engages in the type of "retirement" nonsense highlighted in [[User:Useight]]'s oppose above.  It shows a pretty immature attitude, and such people tend to attract drama, and those sorts of people are not the ones we want in the admin seat.
'''Recommend Withdrawl''' Per above i have seen enough, nothing else to add.
'''Oppose''' - A lot of problems have been raised in this oppose section, I am especially concerned about having a massively solitary nature on such a communal site. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">

'''Oppose''' Way too many concerns have been brought up here, and various things I've seen from Ed. SandyGeorgia's points back that up, and somehow, while adminship isn't a big deal, I don't like the fact that you've placed an lolcat on your RfA. &ndash;
Per userpage.
'''Strong Oppose''' Only nine months on wiki, low edit summary usage, and this from his userpage: "Welcome to my user page. You really should be editing right now. So why are you wasting your time reading this sentence? I could just go on an on about myself, but why should I? Since you are still here right now, I will welcome you under this comfy blanket."
'''Oppose''' To many boubts of incivilty. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent.--
'''Oppose'''. A sincere editor, with excellent work to his name, yet who has shown a lack of judgement on occasion, such as the aforementioned civility issues. He readily admits this, and that's a good start towards steadying the ship. So I believe him when he says he has resolved to try harder. But I think a little longer with a clean record in the areas mentioned above is required before a renomination, whereupon I'd be glad to reconsider my vote if someone gives me a nudge.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Lack of trust, also per SandyGeorgia and EOTW's comments in reply to her. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Editorofthewiki&diff=prev&oldid=241526685 This] makes me question why this RfA is still running.
You're awesome, Ed. Seriously. But I don't think you have enough experience. What happened to [[User talk:LordSunday#Re:Adminship|"I don't want to run an RfA for a year]]? Cheers, &mdash;'''
I have a tremendous amount of respect for EOTW as an editor, but right now I'm not sensing that this RfA is open for the right reasons. Interpreting the discussion, the diff by KnightLago and the other comments around, this strikes me more as an editor review than a request for adminship. I fully understand the hope that constructive criticism can be found by keeping a request open, but requests shouldn't be kept open this long if there is little chance of success. Indeed, if the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Editorofthewiki&diff=prev&oldid=241526685 candidate] doesn't believe it would pass, then this is an issue that needs to be reviewed. I would suggest a withdrawal - there's no shame in this - and a detailed editor review specifically on weaknesses and the possibility of a RfA in the future. I don't believe it's wise to use RfA for this specific purpose, but it is, after all, the candidate's call. Best wishes, and good luck with your work; it's great so far!
I thought your comments in Karanacs request were pretty disturbing, to say the least. I feel like if you invite criticism of yourself you shouldn't cry a river when someone criticises you. That speaks volumes about how you will respond to comments on your actions as an administrator. Probably wouldn't support for a long time. '''
'''Oppose'''. As per [[User:Useight]]. --
'''Reluctant oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1964_Gabon_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=239154906&oldid=239152531 this edit] and its backstory.  In short, I was copy-editing the article in question, and raised a couple of queries about the sources.  EoTW [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1964_Gabon_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=238068533&oldid=238068315 replied suggesting he had double-checked the source].  It turned out that this wasn't the case.  I recognize that EoTW has apologized, and I bear him no ill will: he is enthusiastic and wants to help, and this should be encouraged.  But he is too quick to cut corners, and the fact that he mis-spoke (to use a phrase current in US political discourse) was rather discouraging, to say the least.  --
'''Oppose''' Opposing an RFA to demand an apology, and the recent "retirement" seem to indicate a high risk of drama from this candidate.
'''Strong Oppose''' per inexperience, lack of maturity, and civility issues. The huge signature that you kept for about a week after I told you ''per policy'' that you needed to change it really was annoying, and telling every editor you meet that you are their friend is quite frankly, stupid. I once saw a vandalism warning that read, "This is your final warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Your friend, EOTW." That's like saying, "Fuck you. Your friend, Bob." It doesn't work. You can be civil without being obnoxious. Changing to Strong per exchange with Sandstein. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Editorofthewiki&diff=241595570&oldid=241592512 removal] of a question on this page, which is in conflict with established norms of talk page conduct. (Not ''answering'' the question would have been OK.) Moreover, the maturity and civility issues raised above are a concern. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' <s>'''Oppose'''</s> For essentially the same reasons as TigerShark above.  Sense of perspective seems mis-calibrated.
Per all the above. Demanding an apology from an editor on her RfA, the ''severe'' content problems discussed by SandyGeorgia below, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Editorofthewiki&diff=241197191&oldid=238924434 this] absolute ridiculousness, the lack of professionalism in your comments (spelling), your retirement, your confrontational answer to Sandstein above, general lack of maturity (userpage and signature), and keeping this RfA open when it will not pass? Terrible judgment and lack of maturity. '''
'''Oppose''' for removing sandstein's question and then lecturing him about it.  Refusing to answer would have been sufficient.
'''Oppose'''. Per Useight's oppose. Editorofthewiki seems a little dramatic. Also, to this statement: ''I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up.'' [[Wikipedia:Apology|It is better to wait for an apology, instead of demanding one]]. Removing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Editorofthewiki&diff=241595570&oldid=241592512 this question] and claims a false consensus. Simply, not professional behavior.
'''Oppose'''. sorry, per jbmurray, and the Karanacs note above, and the generalisation when removing Sandstein's question. OK to cite why you wouldn't answer it, not OK to remove and generalise your opinion to policy. I get a sense of a rollercoaster ride when there really needs to be a sense of calm. Contributions are great though, and maybe an extended period of editing and calm will see you through. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per concerns above, and '''withdraw soon'''. --
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support.
'''Neutral for now''', but may switch to oppose if necessary.  EOTW, I am surprised that you would submit to RfA so soon after a FAC you submitted was archived because you google translated an article from the French wiki, without consulting the original sources while admitting that you don't read French. Your action on that FAC caused a lot of work for a lot of FAC reviewers; work that could have gone in to helping maintain and promote FA standards on other articles.  Understanding and respect for our core [[WP:V]] policy is fundamental to what we do here, and you show a great deal of immaturity to submit to an RfA nom (from someone who has been editing only two months, btw, where are the editors of long-standing repute who might nom you?) so shortly after this incident. ([[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1#Closing rationale]]).  Adminship duties are not something to be approached impetuously: I hope you'll consider withdrawing for now, and spend some time in dedication to serious editing and improving your track record at FAC (both in terms of nominations and in terms of supporting other FACs without engaging [[WP:WIAFA]]) before resubmitting.  You seem to be a person of pleasant disposition; if I see a solid respect for the featured article processes from you in the future, I would likely support, but spurious Support declarations at FAC and ill-prepared noms create an extra burden for editors who strive to maintain FA standards and shows a lack of maturity or understanding of the seriousness of our [[WP:V]] policy.   Of course, there remains a large concern about what research you did on the DYKs and GAs you racked up, whether you consulted the sources on them, or whether you also google translated them from other Wikis without verifying sources.  I'm concerned that your article editing might have comprised the integrity of more than one article. At a time that a task force should be evaluating all of your past contributions for compliance with [[WP:V]], it is stunning that you would submit to the scrutiny of an RfA, which shows that you don't understand the seriousness of what you did.  You can raise my respect level by withdrawing this RfA.
'''Neutral''' - Good mainspace edits, but some less than desirable interactions pointed out in the opposes as well as the nomination lead me to think this user might not be ready. I have a bad gut feeling about this editors attitude and immaturity, and paired with my other concerns leads me to be neutral. And please, change the colour scheme on the big black red and white box on your userpage. It stands out, sure, but reading it causes what one could consider to be a minor concussion. My eyes are still re-adjusting after a good five minutes. Good luck, ''
'''Neutral.'''  I was inclined to support for use of the tools as he specified, "deleting articles to make way for redirects, blocking particularly disruptive users," and helping out at [[Template:Did you know|DYK]].  However, he seems to be on a steep stretch of the learning curve where readiness is not yet apparent.  As well, it's not appropriate to be dismissive of edit summaries, particularly as an admin is something of a role model, like it or not.  I don't want to wonder what someone's done, I want to see a description there every time.  ([[Special:Contributions/Useight|Useight]] said it well: "they make it much easier for another editor to discern what you're doing and/or your reason behind it, and it is not a fault for Wikipedians to want you to use them.") <br> BTW:  I think what was meant by "I demanded an apology, which is something I always do when I mess up" was that when he messes up he apologizes (which is good, if a little startling as written ;-)  but better to ask than demand, or just let it go.  —
'''Neutral''' per no bad experiences with this user (personally) but extremely good points put forward by {{user|Iridescent}} and {{user|SandyGeorgia}}. I strongly suggest you withdraw this RfA if you have any intention of reapplying in the future. —'''
'''Neutral'''. The candidate has good potential, but will benefit from additional experience. Ling Nut and SandyGeorgia raise all too valid concerns. Keep up the good work, Ed.
I like Ed; he's a prolific writer and has good intentions, I think. Some things brought up in the oppose section are... strange. I'm not swayed by Ed being here "only" nine months or *shudder* not using edit summaries, heaven forbid, but Iridescent summarises everything about Ed that worries me, particularly the overall lack of clue. I'm rather torn by this nomination.
There are too many concerns in the oppose section for me to support.  Maybe next time? <font  face="georgia">'''
I am strongly anti-wikidrama, even more so when it comes to admins. I won't oppose in this case, but I will look for a much more consistent, drama-free history going forward in order to support a future RfA. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral'''. I was inclined not to comment, but as the candidate asked to see if anything positive could come of this: my major concern when this started was that Editorofthewiki seemed to be saying that there were problems in the past, but these wouldn't recur in the future. This seemed to be inherent in the answer to question 3, with the incredibly low requirements for recall (if "one user in good faith thinks I messed up ..."). The problem from my perspective is that this is about trust, as judged on past behaviour. Thus what I really want to see is not "I messed up, but I promise not to do it again", or even "If I mess up it will be easy to remove me", but a demonstration of "I messed up in the past, but learnt from that and ''haven't'' done it again". Time is the only thing that will help with this. (Well, time and careful editing, I suppose). My initial concerns were then supported with the behaviour in this RfA. It is a stressful process, and this one must be particularly stressful for the candidate, but being an admin is likely to bring stress as well. Thus responses such as that made to Sandstein ("Never do it again"), don't show a good response to the stress, while the response to Promethean, "It's not karma, its just that RFA is so f***ed up that people fail to recognise how effective I would be as an admin" suggest something similar (along with, perhaps, a degree of arrogance which won't help the case). Similarly, I don't think that the candidate really understood Badger Drink's concern - it doesn't matter whether or not the apology was given, but the process of saying, effectively, "I'll only vote for you if you give me an apology" is the wrong attitude. Anyway, I'm certainly not convinced that Editorofthewiki will never make a good admin, but focusing on good, civil editing for a while will do a lot to address many of the concerns raised in the RfA. -
You may want to reconsider your answer to question 1, though. It is about admin work you would want to do. --
'''Moral support''' - this won't pass, but keep up the good work. <span style="font-family: verdana">'''
'''Oppose'''. Few edits, frequent usertalk warnings, a notice on ''your own userpage'' saying you rarely edit the wiki and a badly transcluded RfA are not good signs. I would advise that you spend a lot more time editing and learn the ropes of the system.
'''Oppose''' and suggest you withdraw. "I would edit the main page" is something that needs (endless!) debate, not something you should throw yourself into;, changing the featured article is a process, not something that any admin does when they feel like it; removing vandalism and greeting new users are something anyone can do.<font face="Trebuchet MS">''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose'''. (ec) I appreciate your enthusiasm to help out, but you don't yet, in my eyes, have enough experience. Spend some more time learning policies and procedures and I hope to be able to support you in the future. You might want to withdraw this request.
'''Oppose''', [[WP:SNOW]]. Don't argue with "kindergarteners", ever!
'''Oppose''' - Per above reasons, and suggest [[WP:SNOW]] closure by a 'crat. &mdash;'''
I'd suggest [[WP:NOTNOW]] rather than snow, and closing by any editor in good standing asap. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW]]. Sorry, but you need more experience. &ndash;
Not going to pile on. You have good intentions and that is a great start. I'd encourage you to get some more experience in writing the encyclopaedia, and at the same time try to expand and get some experience in areas such as [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:RFPP]] etc. Don't give up, come back in 6/7 months with this experience and I'll, for one, be happy to reconsider. —'''
'''Nom-support''' - He's just awesome.
'''Strong support''' Enigmaman is a civil, helpful and conscientious contributor and I have total confidence in his ability to work effectively at AIV, RFPP and SSP.
'''Support!''' →
'''Support''' with pleasure. I once had an issue with Enigma in which we differed in opinion. He was cordial and well mannered. I think he is very knowledgeable and ready for the role and I'm absolutely sure he can be trusted.
'''Co-nom support'''.
'''Strong support'''.  Actually, I'm pretty sure I offered to nominate E-man at least twice.  He (probably wisely) turned me down in prior attempts, to gain more experience.  E-man has been a superb editor with high quality editing.  A pleasure to support, absolutely no hesitation on my part.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' Proud to say yes here. Best of luck to you, Enigmaman!
'''Support''' - I have great trust in VirtualSteve's judgment. What I've seen from Enigmaman has been positive and I find nothing to give me pause. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Strong Support''' good candidate.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support per nom's.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. This editor knows his stuff. Plenty of experience and communicates civily. A fair amount of his mainspace work is automated reverts, but he's got some other mainspace work mixed in there as well. Should be fine.
I need to start paying more attention. This is the second candidate that's come up recently that I didn't realize wasn't already an admin. *facepalm* [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Those of you who watch the RFA talk page have probably seem me mention a potential coachee that I turned down because he didn't need coaching and coaching would be "gaming the system."  Well, now you know who I was talking about.  I reviewed E-man about a month ago and thought he was clearly ready for adminship.  I did, however, notice that he stubbed his toes with a rollback issue and suggested that he wait a few weeks before running.  I'm glad he did so.  I'm only disappointed that he rejected my offer to nominate him.  E-man is one of the few people who meets my criteria for '''[[User:Balloonman/RfA_Criteria|Strong Support]]'''
'''Über support''' I have interacted with Enigmaman on several occasions, and have seen a lot of good things from him. '''''
'''Support''' reliable user. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Have seen around and have been impressed. I watchlisted this about 4 weeks ago during his participation in a discussion with which I was particularly impressed. Very unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck.
'''Support''' have seen Enigmaman around and I see no issues with his contributions. I see a good amount of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kobe_Bryant&diff=prev&oldid=215502559 work on and discussion about] improving articles and nothing that would make me question his ability to be a solid admin. <sub>
'''Strong Support'''. I'm sure this guy was close to an RfB, rather than an RfA, he's that good at what he does. Definitely feel he'd be a great admin. '''
'''Support''' - I've only seen good things.
'''Support'''.  This is an RFA I've been watching for.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Of course''' '''
'''Support''' There's nothing enigmatic about my support for this candidate.
'''Support''' - The AN3 thing was a technical mistake, but the interpersonal issue with Deacon didn't even look that heated. I mean, where are the caps for goodness sake? Its not a virtual argument until someone starts virtual yelling. "aghhh... stop yelling, you're too loud for my eyes to read you." *sigh*... I really crack myself up sometimes. Anyhow, back to the point, this editor looks like they'll do just swell with the mop. Good luck!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like a very good editor. From what I can tell he's civil and he's good with fellow editors. Several thousand user talk edits backs this up, although I realize much of that is warning vandalis. I'm seeing a good balance between mainspace and Wikipedia edits, although I'd like to see more template and category edits. I see him around quite often, and I think he'd make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Okay, first off I would like to say that the answer to Q#4 is better than most candidates I have run into, but still disappointing. Just because there are more than 2 users edit warring, does not mean you can not block, and ultimately I would prefer you to block over protecting the article. As I like to say: "Take the keys away from the drunk driver to protect others on the road, but do not close the whole road down because a few drunks  are a danger to other drivers". But I think that the answer to Q#8 really balances out my concerns, and think that the answer to that question was great. 3RR should not be a set in stone rule, but instead something to help stop an edit war from continuing, and if 3RR gets in the way of stopping disruption to an article then [[WP:IAR|ignore]] 3RR and block the user for edit warring. Overall your answers show thoughtfulness and I hope you carry that on as a administrator. No concerns supporting. [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Changed to '''Weak support''' per concerns raised by Irpen. I guess I need to do more investigation than I did :(
'''Support''' No real reason for concern. Equiping this candidate with admin tools would be a net benefit to the project. By the way, I like the answer given to Q1 regarding not enough attention being given to [[WP:SSP]] - I fully agree.
'''Support'''. Has my trust, no problems here. Good answers to questions (esp. #8).
'''Support''' nomination describes a very good potential admin. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I've enjoyed entirely positive personal interaction with the candidate. I would advise Enigmaman to take it easy, per concerns in oppose, but I trust he will ask before acting when needed. Other than that a Net Positive. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Pedro (I hate to do a "per XXXX" support, it's just he said almost exactly what I was going to say....)
'''Support''' Dammit, I told him to canvass me when he ran! '''
'''Co-nom support''' - belated by world time differences and glad to see such numbers in support already.--
'''Strong support''' Of course. I always forgot that he was not already an admin. He thoroughly knows policy and is civil & friendly. Best of luck. '''<font face="times new roman">
'''Strong Support''' First off, I've known Enigmaman for about 3 month now. I was very impressed of his contributions and his knowledge of wikipedia policies back then. I even adopted him. I asked him questions and he answered all of them correctly with brief reasonings and explanations. His questions and answers are located at [[User:Enigmaman/Adoptee Tests/Finished Tests]]. Although the adoption didn't last long, Enigmaman was a very fine editor back then until now. He does a good job at reverting vandalism, improving articles, and a lot more. I've been watching his talk page and there are no problems with this user's editing. I believe his experience as an editor can be brought to the next level. He is a trusted user to me and I believe he is ready for that mop. Good luck! Regards,
'''Strong support''' - perfect candidate. No valid reason to oppose this one. Can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' While I have never really communicated with Enigma (he's kind of hard to figure out at times......... get it? "hard to figure"....  enigma?  ..... nevermind...), I've always been very impressed with what I've seen and my literal thought when I saw he was going for admin was: "You've got to be kidding me, he's not already an admin??!" A quick review of his contribs and talk page revealed no major issues <s>and I am not overly concerned about the "American criminals" incident as I feel he handled the issue reasonably well. Also, hs answer to Q8 was very well-written.</s> <font color="#3300ff">[[User:Thingg|Thingg]]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">[[User talk:Thingg|&#8853;]]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">[[Special:Contributions/Thingg|&#8855;]]</font></sup> 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC) strike that, I was looking at the wrong oppose... I still don't think you will make a bad admin, but you may want to take it a little easy if you encounter a similar situation in the future (especially if you have sysop powers. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - excellent admin qualities.  —
'''Strongest Support Possible''' Good luck bud, your ol' adopter is very proud. You'll be a great sysop. Cheers!
'''Support'''. I believe that Enigma will be a net positive to the project with the tools. '''
Prior to the issues raised here, I had this RfA watchlisted. I thought I could easily trust Enigmaman. The issues there are concerning, and I may switch, but at the moment I hope and feel I can still trust this user. ''
'''Support'''. communication skills make up for lack of 'pedia building thus far, but hopefully we'll get you writing stuff as well. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Pains me to go against Deacon, who I think raises some valid points, and to a lesser extent, east(although I do not agree with the characterization that Enigma is totally disinterested in article building), but I totally agree that Enigma would be a net positive with the tools.
'''Support''' will be a good admin.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around and had good experiences. <strong>
[[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support''' Please, someone, tell me when Wikipedia gets easier...every judgment call seems to require different judgment.  In this case, I'm supporting because the points raised by the opposes are not on topics that cause me any great concern.  Scarian's support, turning down previous nominations, generally solid and careful (with one obvious mistake)...that all works for me. - Dan
'''Support''' No concerns about abusing the tools in stated areas of interest. I like the answers to the first three questions that show a willingness to acknowledge and learn from incidents. <nowiki>--</nowiki>
<s>'''Support''' Looks like a solid contributor with a lot of promise. I would feel better if a little more time had passed since the last controversial episode, but I am reassured that he is being mentored, which I hope continues into the first part of his adminship, and that he rely on senior admins for advice until he gets comfortable with the tools.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll#top|talk]] | [[User:Filll/WP Challenge|<font color="Green"><small>wpc</small></font>]]) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)</s> I will no longer participate. I have had it with the threats and intimidation and I refuse to take part in these charades any longer. See my talk page for details.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] ([[User talk:Filll#top|talk]] |
'''Support''' I have to in this case. <font color="blue">'''
<big>
'''Support.''' Hey Enigma, I thought I told you to let me know when you were having an RFA! :P ·
'''Support.''' Solid.
'''Support''' - I thought his answers to two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 were fine and I note the capacity to learn and the awareness of policies --
'''Support''', appears to be a capable editor who won't misuse or abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' as I think that Enigmaman's learned from the incident raised by Irpen, and otherwise I'd agree with the statements by Keeper76 et al. --
'''Support''' - good enough track record and reasonable answers to the questions. The comments accompanying the opposes below really have failed to sway me in any strong way. Nor have I seen an civility or BITEiness issues with this candidate, and that's a big concern of mine at RfA. He should be just fine! -
'''Support''' Trust And Needs are met :)
'''Support''' I gave this user a barnstar recently and he deserves my support. '''''
'''Support''' Does a good job, but I hope he adds more content soon though. --
'''Strong Support''' Enigma is a heck of an editor and I agree with Scarian - he is awesome. A highly dedicated, motiviated, and positive editor, his prowess with wikitools is almost such that admin rights are almost superfluous, he is exactly the kind of wikignome who would make good use of them, and ought to be trusted with them. I must take issue with the "trigger happy" characterization. This is an unfair [and non-AGF] spin on how quick and effective Enigma is at reacting to vandalism. Enigma's presence on Wikipedia makes it a better place. He is extremely dedicated to making it a better place, and I have total confidence that he will use admin rights to continue to make it a better place - and with humility at that. I am happy to support this RfA - if anything, I'm surprised it's taken until now to get him to accept the many offers to nominate him.
'''Support''' Even after reading all the opposes below, I still don't see anything that would lead me to believe that would abuse the tools if he was given them.  Adminship is just not a big deal. --
'''Suppport:''' Heck, people call me a deletionist, but I still think the frothing-at-the-mouth image deleters are well over the top and keep moving the goal posts.  If he called them "jihadists," that's much milder than others have said.
'''Weak Support''' The only main concerns I have are the lack of article work and possibly too much reliance on automated tools. I think you're trustworthy.
'''Support''' - Per Nominations. I don't see anything wrong with his no. of edits in different areas...
'''Support''' as a fellow target of the particularly abusive [[User:Seancarlin84|Seancarlin84]]. He's earned it.
'''Support''' Good experience with candidate at WP:AIV, and otherwise appears unlikely to run amok with the mop.
Totally!--
'''Support''' on balance, I think there's nothing in the opposes that show that Enigmaman will not be a good admin as long as he takes those comments on board and does not run before he can walk. On that basis, yes. --
'''Support''', per my comments above, and also per Rodhullandemu, with whom I agree. --
'''Support.''' At first glance I thought this was someone who needed more experience in mainspace, but no. When you have thousands of edits, even a smaller than average mainspace/total ratio still means plenty of mainspace experience. This is an individual who can clearly be trusted to put the tools to good use. Too many of the oppose explanations below fail to address that basic point.
I '''support''' a calm and rational user who is open to feedback and constructive criticism. The reasons given for opposing him are blown out of proportion. —
'''Support''' - What does it matter when it comes to the percentage of mainspace edits? I can still see some great article work. Infact, there are lots of small incidents that've got blown out of proportion. I think we have a great editor here, who will be a good admin. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' My personal interactions with this user leave me comfortable in [[USer:Avraham/RfA-B|trusting]] the user not to abuse the tools and to evidence reasonable judgment, although exercising more self-control would certainly be helpful [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]]. --
'''Strong support''' I have encountered this user in the past. Enigmaman is a civil, helpful and conscientious contributor and I find many of the opposes to be frivolous and in bad faith.
'''Strong support''' - I like what I see.  Strong character.  Strong skills.  Experience.  Intelligence.  He's qualified, and his track record shows he can be trusted.  He learns from his mistakes, and he has improved over time.  I think he's ready to accept more responsibility.
'''Support'''. A few weak areas (in terms of occasional civility lapses and hypocrisy) but nothing major - overall the picture I get is of a conscientious and trustworthy contributor that knows what adminship entails and will do a good job of it.  ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Weak support''' due to my discussion with candidate and Keeper76 below.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Weak support''', as long as he takes it slow for a few weeks and doesn't rush into things all at once, I trust that Enigmaman will make a good administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Support''' - yeah. :) &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. I trust that he'll take it slow with the tools at first. He's definitely got the skills and experience to handle them well.
'''Support''' He is one of the editors I have seen for some time here so I was aware of his work before this RfA. I have looked at the opposition's opinions, and the concern about insufficient mainspace edits strikes me as unfounded. He has over 3800 edits there.   It stands on it's own. The point that I really don't get the opposition for acknowledging David Shankbone's contributions and the "deletionist Jihadists" issue has been explained to my satisfaction. I don't see anything in the opposes that show that he hasn't learned from whatever mistakes he's made, none of them major. In fact, I don't trust someone that hasn't made at least some mistakes, since it shows overwhelming risk avoidance, not something we want in this job. Ideally make some mistakes and learn from them. The only real issue in an RfA is can the community trust this person with the tools that, in the wrong hands, can do considerable damage. Also, I trust the co-nominators and other supporters, too many to name without leaving someone out. The fact he turned down nominations also speaks well for him. He has my trust. The rest he can learn, like we all do in a new job. —
'''Oppose''' per limited main space contributions, currently only around 35 % of total edits, less than his activity on usertalk space.
Yes, as stated, ran into this user a little while ago. The mistakes he made aren't uncommon in the wider user community, and it wasn't my finest hour either I should add. But the performance is worrying coming so close to his RfA. Particular concern was the misuse of rollback ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Hoffa&diff=prev&oldid=207751200 see this and edits around this]) and subsequent defense by attacking me and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_of_Pndapetzim&diff=207762538&oldid=207760744 incorrectly identifying the reverted edits as vandalism]. I told him that such use leads to rollback privileges being removed, and he accused me of threatening him ... which I guess was one way of putting it, but hardly a mature way of depicting the admin's responsibility to enforce rollback use. Scarian came on to my page the next day telling me Enigmaman knows policy well and that I should ignore all rules when it came to this, which probably indicates where he got it from. But temperament and block-keenness are concerns for me still. He is astute sometimes though and firm with the vandals, and has good social networking skills. I '''oppose''' however for my normal reasons to which the former stuff is incidental ... namely because of his lack of article-building experience/inclination. We don't need any more such admins until the balance is redressed, though in this case, in the unlikely event of the failure of this RfA, another few months of vandal-zapping experience may make me overlook this in favour of his merits there.
I had your talkpage on my watchlist when the Deacon incident occurred and was quite concerned. Too soon for me. <small>'''
'''Strongly Oppose''' No more block happy, chattering non-content contributing admins, especially ones who misunderstand basic policies. I shared in the above mentioned encounter with this user last month. He had incorrectly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=207748445 filed a 3RR report], to which [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim]] correctly listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=207753949 as no violation]. He then   [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=207751132 pestered Deacon to block him anyway], which Deacon refused to do. As you see, Engimaman accused the user of doing "nothing but edit warring", but the first thing you could see on Enigmaman's contributions was Enigmaman massively reverting the user in question and abusing rollback to do it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandy_Berger&diff=prev&oldid=207751441] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_Morris&diff=prev&oldid=207751426] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._M._Fowler&diff=prev&oldid=207751231] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_G._Gross&diff=prev&oldid=207751227][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_B._Fall&diff=prev&oldid=207751223] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Hoffa&diff=prev&oldid=207751200] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Eilberg&diff=prev&oldid=207751191] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hicklin_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=207750626]. Deacon told him that misusing rollback like that leads to it being removed, so Enigmaman instead of acknowledging he should comply with policy started leaving irate messages on Deacon's talk page accusing him of "threatening" him: "Your comment <b>was</b> a veiled threat, because it came from an administrator. I am very familiar with [[WP:rollback]], and I used it in this case because the user's edits are vandalism."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_of_Pndapetzim&diff=207762538&oldid=207760744]. He left a few more belligerent  posts, which prompted me to intervene and point out his misunderstanding of these policies, and he then accused me of "harassing" him and was generally impolite.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=207777198]. What is hardest to understand about his misunderstandings of [[WP:vandalism]] and [[WP:Rollback]] are that just two days before this he had chided [[User:SynergeticMaggot]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=207288144 for exactly the same thing]. Enigmaman might be ok [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&diff=prev&oldid=207873789 being baby-sat] by Scarian and others, but out on his own would probably be disastrous. --
Agree with Irpen and MK. More contributions on mainspace would fare well with this user. '''Note:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalee_Holloway&diff=215566772&oldid=215566172 appreciate the last minute effort]. I don't appreciate you edit-conflicting me on the article that I was copyediting. I had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalee_Holloway&diff=215574875&oldid=215570990 revert] your mistakes due to you not understanding [[WP:MOS|MOS]]. However, my oppose still '''strongly''' stands. '''
per Miranda and Irpen.
'''Oppose''' per Dean, Irpen and Miranda
Just say no to cookie-cutter admins.  I don't like to see candidates who have prepared (or been prepared) for adminship.  Training people to pass an RFA is very dubious.  Adminship isn't something we're supposed to prepare for, it's just some extra tools we give editors when we notice that they're ''already'' clueful.
Less-than-flattering editing from less than a month ago? I'm all for appreciating that people learn from their mistakes, but that's way too short a time period to prove that you won't do it again. Per Deacon and Irpen.
per Dean, Irpen, Miranda and Friday (above).  Also failure to answer Filll's question(s).
'''Oppose''' per the above.
No more admins that are uninterested in content, please.
Friday has a good point. The latest Giano debacle has shed new light on what sort of admins we certainly don't want here. --
'''Oppose''' - Per Friday. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' -- per the deeply troubling diffs above. Sorry! --
'''Oppose''' per Cameron right above; wikipedia needs '''responsible''' admins that will prevent [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo|this]] from repeating.--
'''Oppose'''-per Irpen, East.718, and failure to answer Filll's questions. -
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hall_%28Oklahoma_governor%29&diff=207746411&oldid=207730439 this] is too recent.
'''Oppose''' per same diff as Phil ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hall_%28Oklahoma_governor%29&diff=207746411&oldid=207730439]) - saying "how dare you tell someone to stop edit warring" in the edit summary while edit-warring?  No thanks.
'''Oppose''' for several reasons. First, the many problematic things noted above. Second, for a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is. People who police fair use image abuses are called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=191339315&oldid=191338901 "Deletionist Jihadists"] by comments restored by him, and then he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=next&oldid=191340442 defends restoring the personal insult] as a "funny rant". Yet, if someone calls his target a "fat nerd" he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=199267778&oldid=199265983 reverts it as vandalism]. How is "fat nerd" vandalism, and "deletionist jihadist" not? I also do not like the conflict of interest in his closing an RfA per [[WP:SNOW]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nothing444_2&diff=prev&oldid=207735298 just five minutes after he made the first oppose on it]. This does not bode well for AfD work. Completely unprepared to be an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' The "deletionist Jihadists" comment really bothers me.  Some of the other comments also bother me.  I've written recently that civility is one of the most important criteria by which I judge administrators, and I'm not impressed by some poor choices this candidate has made.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=prev&oldid=191339315] as above.  When a user removes a message from their own talk page, it is taken as acknowledgment that they have read it and, obviously, it follows that they do not wish to reply.  Restoring the comment, particularly when it is nothing but a personal attack, shows a severe lapse in judgment. --
Strongly, per all the above. '''
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. I'm concerned about the possibility of yet another trigger-happy administrator without any significant content-building experience. --
Zomg dramaz.  '''Weak Oppose''' per all above... (Friday, Irpen, Phil, et al...)  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; People who do not produce should not be in a position to restrict or exert control over those who do.  These kinds of people view Wikipedia as a game to be won, rather than a project to get something done.  They're second-handers; the Keatings and the Boyles of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. Enigmaman needs more experience, IMO&mdash;editing experience, and experience remaining cool when dealing with difficult cases. The incident with Deacon shows a lack of observance of basic WP policies (both technical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=207870341#User:John_celona_reported_by_User:Enigmaman_.28Result:_No_violation.29] and behavioral [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Archive_X#A_note]) and is too recent to discount.  I think E would benefit from s-l-o-w-i-n-g down a bit. Otherwise, his heart seems to be in the right place. Perhaps give it a few months.
'''Oppose''' per Irpen.
'''Oppose''' per Irpen and East.718.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with Friday: "I don't like to see candidates who have prepared (or been prepared) for adminship." Clicking on the diffs in this RFA, especially of the interactions between Enigmaman and Balloonman prior to nomination, I come away with an impression I don't like: of a candidate being intensively, obsessively groomed for adminship, whether ready or not. Followed by opposers getting dogpiled on by the nominator and others on this page, getting told that they need to move their !vote, that they're casting stones, etc[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215720111&oldid=215718712] (no way of winning that one: if you ''don't'' give a reason for opposing, you're failing to "discuss"; if you do give one, you're casting the first stone).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215633893&oldid=215633650][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215633650&oldid=215633600][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215634545&oldid=215633893][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215635373&oldid=215635365][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215665903&oldid=215665053][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215667639&oldid=215666903] The nominator feels Friday might as well object to pre-marriage counselling.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215631638&oldid=215631395] .  But the problem there, for me is the impression that the candidate is being trained for his wedding (=his RFA) rather than for actual married life (=adminship). Do I got to move my !vote to another column now?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman&diff=215667639&oldid=215666903] I don't think so. People are in fact permitted to support or oppose based on their ''impression.'' Feel free to follow this comment with a thread about how ridiculous and baffling I'm being, of course; but it might be as well to take it straight to the talkpage.
Poor behavior in the incident with Deacon, as Irpen had noted. &mdash;
'''<s>Strong</s> Sort-of-strong-but-not-as-strong-as-it-was-before-the-strikeout-but-still-strong-enough-to-use-the-word-"strong"-and-certainly-not-weak-at-all Oppose'''. I agree with the issues raised by Friday and Irpen, but my main concern is Hammersoft's oppose. While the diffs provided are troublesome by themselves, the ensuing "discussion" reveals a rather ''dire'' lack of reading comprehension by Mr. Enigmaman. For reference, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEnigmaman&diff=215837533&oldid=215837424 refactoring that I am aware of] does not seem to change the flow of this particular portion of the conversation - if the conversation has been further altered, I would like to know, but no way am I trudging through the diffs all by my lonesome. In the version I see, Mr. Enigmaman mis-reads <s>"People who police . . . by comments restored by him" as "People who police . . . by him",</s> (''see discussion below this statement'') "attempted to justify it while removing 'fat nerd'" as "attempted to justify it with the term 'fat nerd'" (or something), and then continues to dispute that he ever said "deletionist Jihadists" when it was already explained that this was not what was being claimed. Cookie-cutter block-happy, chattering admins are bad enough, but when they can't even chatter properly... no thanks. Wikipedia can get stressful enough without throwing communication difficulties into the mix. That said, if Hammersoft significantly refactored parts of that exchange that I am not aware of, I would appreciate being corrected. --
'''Oppose''' per Daniel. I'm still not quite comfortable with those type of edits (cited by Irpen) - especially that they were made so recently. <tt class="plainlinks">
If the difs and concerns listed above were not enough, the poor skills shown during the interaction with Hammersoft in this very section clinch it for me.
'''Oppose''':  I agree with Bishonen, above, and also Irpen.  Look: the "votes" are the opinions of people who investigate. It's nice to have friends, but it's out of bounds to try to buffalo people.  Persuasion is good.  Intimidation is evil.  The interactions during this RFA are very poor, and I get no sense of why this candidate ''needs'' to be an administrator, as opposed to why he ''wants'' to be one.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with arguments of Irpen and Bishonen. Moreover, Irpen is one of the most polite users I met in wikipedia. To offend him several times is something special. Lack of maturity is a concern.
Weak '''Oppose'''. Per above examples by Irpen (Bishonen raises a good point I had not considered before). <s>Also, the first two sentences of this comment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diligent_Terrier&diff=216008981&oldid=216007874] ''"My RfA isn't going to pass anyway. Also, I'm not going to change who I am because of an RfA. I am who I am."'' Sounds unwilling to accept and act upon behavioral assessments and learn from the past. Demonstrates fatalism and a lack of maturity and responsibility. </s>--
'''Unhappy Oppose''' per lack of understanding of WP policies and guidelines, as demonstrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=191339315&oldid=191338901 this] reversion and subsequent discussion. Users are entitled to remove any messages on their Talk pages, even if they don't contain personal attacks. Editors are responsible for all their edits, including reverts. Edit warring to restore a personal attack to a user page is thus doubly bad, and "arguing the toss" over this (see responses to earlier comments) just makes it worse - and brings it bang up-to-date.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' I'm not really convinced about the depth of policy knwledge shown by Q4 and Q5. '''
'''Neutral''', leaning toward an unhappy oppose. I see too many instances of needing to be right, and also needing the other to be wrong. This impression comes in combination with an operative hecticness I'm not unfamiliar with but don't like too much. I have seen fresh administrators assiduously getting involved in all sorts of places, posting at all the *choke* "high-drama" places at once, instead of focusing on one locus where they could actually be helpful with depth and due diligence. I am not saying this is the kind of administrator Enigmaman will be, but currently the concerns outweigh the rest. On a final note, not all supporters did the candidate a favor (or the process any service) the way they pounced on some of the opposers. This behaviour should stop, period, but I guess the comment doesn't really belong here. I'm only mentioning it because it annoyed me enough to post this statement. Still, it isn't Enigmaman's fault if he is being protected by a pack of pitbulls, so I'll put in "neutral" rather than "oppose". (Or maybe I'm just scared of being bitten). ---
'''Neutral''' This is finely balanced, with plenty of valid arguments on both sides.--
'''Support''' per nom. '''''
Yes yes yes. Someone enthusiastic about article content is exactly what we need more of. ''
'''Support''', indeed. Ran into s/he at FAC, saw nothing but constructive contributions.
'''
'''Support''', active and encouraging contributor to the GA and FA process. The mop and bucket can only make him/her more effective.
'''Aye'''. <b>
'''Support''' excellent contributions. Good luck.
'''Support'''. This user can definitely be trusted with the tools. Best of luck, <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support'''. Very good editor, and will make a good admin. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] (
'''Strong Support''' Should have been given the mop long ago. Epbr is dedicated, knowledgeable and worthy of the highest trust.
'''Support''' Everywhere I run into this pedian, he is doing good work.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Support''' - This looks excellent. I trust this user not to abuse the tools and to wield them wisely.
'''Support''' will make a great admin. <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Support'''; Invariably, the candidate's contributions are a benefit to the project, and I have no concerns whatsoever about their use of the tools. Good editor.
'''Support''' - should get the mop. &nbsp; '''

'''Support''' - Give em' the mop!
'''Support as co-nom'''
'''Support''' have worked with him before... can be trusted
'''Support'''.  Even though I don't see article work as incredibly important, 7 FAs is the sign of a true experienced editor.  Should be good enough with the mop.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
Per co-nom.
'''Support''' - Experienced, dedicated, and competent candidate.
'''Support''' Does good work, learns from mistakes.
'''Support''' You mean he's not one ''already''? I'm shocked. '''''
'''Support''' 7 FA's look awesome, and looks like a trustworthy editor. -
'''Support''' An excellent editor.
'''Support''' - great team player. Tons of experience, non [[WP:BITE|BITEr]]. Will be just fine -
'''Support''' I've seen Epbr123 around for a while and have been impressed.  A quality editor.
'''Support''' - 7 FAs + 34,000 edits + will use map wisely = support. ---
'''Strong support''' - great encyclopaedia builder, established editor, absolutely '''no''' reason why not.  Well done, and good luck!
'''Support''' Well-rounded, knowledgeable user. Will use mop well. <strong>
'''Support.''' Per the noms, per the answers to the questions, per the user's very impressive content contributions, helping to raising articles' status to FA and GA quality.
'''Strong support''' - brilliant editor. '''
'''Support'''. Epbr is a dependable staple of the FA and GA processes and a dedicated hard worker.  I tangled with Epbr early on at FAC (can't even remember why or on what article, it was long ago), and I most certainly think Epbr learns from mistakes and has become a fine editor.
'''Support'''. thought he already was one, let's try to fix that.
'''Support''' From the above, he seems to be getting the job done and knows well how to handle a variety of situations.<font color="Purple">
'''Support''' You're not an admin? '''
Yes, I thought you were an admin. '''Support'''. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Completely support, have seen at FAC a lot and am impressed.
'''Support''', switching from neutral after responses from Epbr here and on his talk page.  Obviously a highly qualified candidate, definitely knows the ropes.  His responses have left me confident that the civility issues will improve.  The examples brought up by Pete in his oppose did pretty much suck, but that was a while ago, and after a very thorough look at Epbr's recent contribs, I've seen nothing like that. He's willing to accept feedback in the future, too, in case he does slip up.  He knows he's got stuff to work on and has shown a lot of willingness to.  Like I said in my <s>oppose</s> [der, I mean neutral], he's been given opportunities to get in fights lately and didn't take them.  The issue that stopped me from supporting at first was pretty minor and I feel it's been addressed.
'''Support''' per GAN/FAC work (among other reasons).
'''Support.''' Candidate has demonstrated a thorough and sufficient knowledge of administrative duties by nominating several previous suitable candidates.
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin - does good work in many areas and seems eminently mop-worthy
Has improved his civility greatly, and has done a lot of good work here. I think Epbr123 will make a good administrator.
'''Support.'''  This editor is hardworking and has shown a willingness to listen to others.  I don't see any reason to deny him the tools when we need more admins.  Best regards, --
'''Support''' looks like the right choice. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' I believe he would make a fair and impartial admin. Even when we had disagreements, we resolved them in amicable terms.
'''Support''' - Epbr123 has allayed my concerns. Best of luck,
'''Support''' No problems with him receiving the mop.
'''Support''' Candidate should do just fine.
'''Support''' indeed! --
'''Support''', this editor's efforts are in the right place.  Does great work in article processes such as FAC.  Knowledgeable and trustworthy. --
'''Support''' Though I've had no personal contact with Epbr123, his edits and contributions to FACs and their reviews have impressed me.
'''Support''' I can't say I knew Epbr was involved in an RfC. Personally, given a reading of the complaints listed there, it seemed that some editors got annoyed that he was nominating articles without batching. There's a ''lot'' I could say in defense of Epbr (especially since I used to batch articles, but then people would say split them off, et al) but that doesn't mean I condone him acting rashly. However my experiences with him at GAN and related pages have always been positive, and I am more inclined to support based off my interactions. <font color="#cc6600">

'''Support''', without personally attacking the opposers. '''D'''or'''ft'''ro'<!-- -->''tt'''el&nbsp;(
'''Support''', user seems to have reformed himself in the months since the RfC.
'''Support''', I often review the same FAC noms as Epbr, and he always seems to have a good grasp of guidelines, is willing to discuss his concerns with the nominators, and is generally pleasant.  FAC can be trying for reviewers at times, and I have yet to see Epbr lose his cool, no matter how...interesting...the replies have gotten.
'''Support''', dedicated editor. --
'''Support''' I have worked with him at GA, back when I was active there, and he showed that he is capable of doing adminsitrator like actions with skill and comportment.  The RFC is somewhat troubling, but not a deal breaker for me.  I honestly feel he will be a good admin, and I trust him to use the tools well.  --
'''Support.''' Epbr123 has demonstrated remarkable capacity for self-assessment. I first noticed this when I saw him updating [[User:Epbr123#Style and prose checklist]] and [[User:Epbr123/words]]. Rather than dismiss all these little lessons (that we all encounter) and go about his business, he kept track of all these little things. This written record illustrates a desire to learn and work within the structures of the system. Likewise, he has demonstrated behavioural changes. At FAC he has reformed from [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive23#Five noms|obnoxious aggresiveness]] to a genuine WikiGnome (compare his last 500 article edits with the FAC list and recent promotions). At GAs he shows nothing but deference where he regularly [[Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 23/2/2008|thanks]] participants (since June 2007). From [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123]] and [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Epbr123]], and his actions since, I see an editor learning his actions have impacts, a desire to participate, and a willingness to learn behavioural skills. I have no doubt he will be responsible with admin tasks and adapt well. --
'''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
Just the kind of WP we need in the ranks of the janitors: honest, diligent, balanced, good editor, too. I support this strongly.
'''Support.''' Happy to support this passionate and diligent editor, who has learned a great deal through difficult encounters, and whose insights will lead to a responsible and thoughtful use of the broom.–&thinsp;<font color="blue">Noetica</font><sup>♬♩</sup>&thinsp;
'''Support''' will make a great wiki admin, opposers v weak! Good luck... --
good contributor --
'''Oppose''' - I don't think he learned from the RFC.
'''Strongly Oppose''' - Epbr123 hasn't the first clue how to be civil or amicable towards other Wikipedians. His RfC brings light to some of such behavior. He is condescending and not fit to be an administrator. To be more specific, in addition to this behavior the real problem is that he refuses to engage in any dialog or discussion about his behavior - instead becoming increasingly hostile and [[WP:NPA|attacking other users' credibility]] and [[WP:AGF|inappropriately questioning motives]]. Please note that being "directly engaged in Epbr123's RfC discussion" does not disqualify someone from opposing this user's adminship. If anything, it makes us ''more qualified'' because we were involved in a perfectly sound process by which his inappropriate behavior was brought to light. Also note that Epbr spends a large amount of his time voting/nom'ing other people for adminship. Overwhelming support may be a bit... exaggerated[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Epbr123&diff=prev&oldid=194008168]. --
'''Oppose''', along the same lines as Aboutmovies, above. I came in on the [[Oregon State Capitol]] nomination a little late, and was puzzled by the lack of collegiality in Epbr's approach. His/her initial feedback was helpful, but the lack of followup seemed dismissive in a way that I couldn't understand. The issue was ultimately resolved, and I'd be inclined to say no harm, no foul. But [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive23#Five noms|this discussion]] concerns me. Legitimate concerns were raised by numerous editors, clearly good faith efforts to clarify what was and was not acceptable behavior, and in no way casting doubt on Epbr's character; yet Epbr's first comment was to "demand an apology" from one of the editors, unnecessarily raising the tenor of the discussion, and utterly ignoring all other comments. I will say that I've had pleasant interactions with Epbr on [[WP:GA]], but the items listed above betray what I consider a pretty significant lack of collegiality. I would be happy to reconsider my opinion, but would need to see some specific commentary from Epbr on those two incidents that indicates an understanding of the problems I've raised. -
'''Strong oppose'''. I'm a bit disappointed to see that people are dismissing the RfC as ancient history.  It was only a few months ago -- really quite a short period of time, in terms of fundamental changes to someone's behavior -- but perhaps more importantly, many seem to be characterizing it as merely a civility problem.  But that was only the surface of the problems as indicated in the RfC, as well as indicated by his own ''behavior'' during the RfC.  He was certainly uncivil, but he also showed complete contempt for the process, as well as vindictiveness after the fact (his long stream of pointless lists of links to edits by his detractors that had zip to do his case).  His responses to the complaints struck me as massively missing the point -- the equivalent of "I promise not to do this anymore even though I never did" -- coupled with a (typically) long stream of leading questions -- even challenging people to discuss the merits of his ''edits'' and ''deletion proposals'' in his own RfC.  The only reason that the RfC didn't proceed further was lack of energy on the part of the participants, not to mention the obvious point that absolutely nothing would come of it except a slap on the wrist.  This is the sign of someone being difficult, not someone who should be entrusted with admin privileges.  That he has both laid low for the last few months and (probably not concidentally) concentrated on nominating others for adminship is probably both not a huge shocker and shouldn't be an indication of any concrete change in his behavior.  Especially since during his RfC troubles, someone else offered to nominate him for adminship and, at that time, he refused, knowing that he had no chance whatsoever.  I should also point out that those who don't think much of the significance of the RfC should probably take a step back and carefully read [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epbr123|its talk page]].
'''Oppose'''. The RfC was not a long time ago, and although Epbr123 says he has learned from it, statements like this don't really provide tangible evidence of it&mdash;anyone can say that they have ''learned'', and won't do it again, but it is ''their behaviour'' that must carry more weight. This is not an issue of failing to assume good faith on my part, but is a clear-cut issue of relative evidential power and weight in assessing, in this case, changes in behaviour. The evidence shown in his behaviour as pointed out by [[User:delldot]] (in his comment under the "Neutral" heading) occurred as recently as 17th February, 2008. Additionally, as pointed out by the other oppose opinions so far, it seems that the important changes in behaviour had not started to happen during the RfC. I also note the possibly unwise moves he made during [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Malleus_Fatuarum the failed RfA of Malleus Fatuorum] in November 2007, that essentially searched through and listed many of Malleus' comments to hold up as evidence of his unsuitability of being an administrator, and which additionally made some rather unwise comments about canvassing and other comments. These happened in the context of (a) Malleus making a statement against him in the RfC (b) more recent comments by Epbr123 on other RfA's indicating that, he is prepared to say (on 16th February, 2008) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FIcestorm815_2&diff=191889472&oldid=191876786 here] that another nominee will have learned from his mistakes (and this nominee did not speak out against him.) At the least, it suggests a lack of sensitivity and/or even-handedness concerning the legitimate concerns others might have of his behaviour. Note that it does not conclusively show any evidence of partiality or bias, but in the context of other behaviour, pointed out in the opposes here, it does support and strengthen the idea that, although Epbr123 may believe quite sincerely that he has changed his behaviour since the RfC, he may not be able to assess his own behaviour in a sufficiently unbiased manner for his comments on this matter to be given much weight. I wish him well, and expect he will eventually be successful in his desire to become an administrator, but I think at the moment he needs more time to show us by his behaviour (rather than his statements about his behaviour) that he has really changed. Note that the burden of proof is not upon us to show why we think his behaviour has not changed, but it is upon him to show us that it has, and I don't think it is quite there yet.
'''Oppose.''' Having read all comments, as well watching one incident with him myself (I wasn't involved, just snoopy), I feel that the nominee is very uncivil.
'''STRONG Oppose''' See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Epbr123|talk page]] for my essay.
I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that "notability" criteria are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FHikari_Hino_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=182326937&oldid=182269114 pseudoscientific at very best]. If used at all, they should be applied some degree of common sense, not so rigidly that we can't even think twice about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biruaslum&diff=prev&oldid=191943580 forsaking our own creations]. I suspect I will have some difficulty explaining how and why the edit in the second link worries me the most. I mean, I figured if you were going to draw the line somewhere, this would be the place. I realize nobody wants to seem like a hypocrite, but it will happen anyway, both here and in the real world, so better not to worry too much about it. We're all humans here, I think. —
'''Oppose'''  Having read the RFC, the reply to the query about it above, and some of the diffs of subsequent behavior, it is clear to me that this editor did not learn what he should have from the RFC and that this editor does not demonstrate suitable behavior for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to change my vote, Epbr123. I think you're an excellent editor and have contributed to Wikipedia sincerely. However, civility is one of the key factors for every editors especially admins to have. I missed to take a look at the RFC because I did not know what it is. I have worked with Dekkappai for Korean film project and trust him in many ways, so honestly, his long explanation affects to change my mind. I respect your regard toward guidelines in Wikipedia but flexibility is also required sometimes. --

'''Oppose'''. I really don't feel comfortable with him having admin tools. Most of my specific concerns have already been addressed regarding his sometimes unpredictable behavior within the community, incivility, lack of tact and tendentiousness. He has improved a lot as an editor since my initial encounters with him, and he certainly contributes well to a wide variety of areas (in particular I have appreciated his pedantry about the MOS at FA/GAC for some articles I have worked on), but I think he needs at least a little more time to work on his "people skills" before I would consider him admin material. I am in no way opposed to supporting an admin candidate with a few "skeletons," but I think his need a little more time to gather dust before I would consider a support. If this RFA doesn't succeed, then maybe next time.
'''Oppose''' for now.  I feel that this person can be a bit too confrontational at times and under those circumstances am not comfortable with an endorsement at this time.
'''Oppose''' - My main reason for opposition is, as stated many times above, the RfC that the user had not too long ago. In addition, though I have not looked into this as it is only secondary and I may be wrong, his main interests seem to be in article-building. According to certain answers to the questions at the top of the nomination say that the user "has reported about 60 users to AIV". No offense but: that's it. For a user who said he wants to take part in dealing with vandalism, that does not seem like a lot of experience. As for his AfD experience, I believe that his AfD comments were what led to the RfC, which everybody, including myself, seems to be holding against him.
'''Oppose''' - Seems to be a knowledgeable, motivated and productive editor, but also (as e.g per his own link above) overly rigid in his understanding of our ever changing guidelines as something disconnected from the editors who write and interpret them, as well as rather at antagonistic in relating to others with a different view. I am especially concerned about his interaction with [[User:Ddstretch|Ddstretch]] on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Epbr123|this RfA's talk]] who really tried hard to reach him. As longs as he finds it so difficult to appreciate the opinions of those he considers his critics without continuously questioning their motives, it is hard to be confident enough that he can learn from his mistakes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Epbr123&diff=194050270&oldid=194047360]  --

'''Oppose''' per the RfC; if there are examples of Epbr learning and listening to others, I would like to see them.
I had intended not to take any part in this RfA, but I have now found myself dragged into it on this article's talk page. --
'''Oppose''' Agree with several above about the civility issue and reinforced by the response to this talk page discussion.--
'''Regretful Oppose... VERY regretful''' I wanted to support ever-so-badly, but the opposing side has shown me a few concerns that just keep me from doing so.  Epbr123 is a great editor and Wikipedian, but I just cannot support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Despite giving me the answers he knew I'd like. The civility problems are too important. A considerably longer period of doing things right in this respect is needed. '''
'''Oppose'''. The serious concerns raised in the RfC last September about this user's behaviour are too recent for the editor to have gained my trust. As many have pointed out, it takes time for behaviour to change, and a few months isn't enough.
'''Oppose''' I have read through your contributions, talk pages and count log - but the strength of the argument of those that have opposed your RFA nomination and have caused me great concern about your ability to remain civil during disputes. --
'''Oppose''' The RFC wasn't that long ago, there are some long term serious civility issues that probably need some more time to see if they've cleared.
Does not realize that policy is only normative.
'''Weak Oppose''' There are some pretty serious concerns here; I don't feel comfortable supporting at the moment.
'''Oppose''' Per the concerns raised above regarding interactions with other members of the community.
'''Oppose''' - per concerns outlined above. More time needed for Epbr123 to be able to clearly demonstrate that these concerns have been taken on board.
Civility concerns.
'''Neutral''' -- unknown quantity.
'''Neutral''', all of this user's incivility is in the past, I think.  However, the user's total lack of contrition or remorse for their actions is deeply troubling.
'''Neutral''' Epbr123 appears to have improved significantly since the days when he had issues with incivility (I remember a couple disputes we were involved in). However, I'm still not entirely willing to support just yet, but I won't oppose. --
'''Neutral''' - Moved from oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
--'''
'''Support''' Opposes unconvincing. We give someone a tool and then oppose them for using it? What more experience do you need to recognize vandalism than reverting it? Huggle just helps the candidate be more efficient. The candidate still has to use judgment in using the tool. And I think a couple thousand vandalism reverts  are enough to learn how to recognize it. I also think some of the oppose comments are outright insulting in their sarcasm.
Moral support.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, and in protest against what are, in my opinion, some very feeble rationales for the oppose votes below.
Of course! '''
'''Support''', they already told the reason.
'''Strong Support'''.Great vandalism fighter. Very good editor. Deserves the tools.''
'''Strong Support''' Adminship is a janitorial position, and this user should be able to graduate from one of those little broom thingies to the mop. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. I see no trust issues, and I don't have anything against using the tools that are available to do what they are meant to do.  Support, here, is a no-brainier for me.  &hArr;
''' Support''' — I use Huggle, does that mean I won't be accepted if I chose to reapply for adminship? I sincerely hope the community wouldn't judge me on the legitimate use of a tool they supplied. Maybe i'm missing something? — <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' I see no real reason to not support this user. All of the "issues" brought up below aren't valid reasons to oppose, in my opinion. This user is an active vandal fighter, and I believe he'll use the tools to block vandals. I also don't see anything that indicates he will misuse the tools.--
'''Support''' maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia is important, and I thank the user for his efforts against vandalism. Giving him the tools will enable him to further what he is contributing to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' — self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I just went back through over 2,000 article edits by you in the last month before I found (I think, I could have glanced over an edit along the way) a non-revert to an article.  Actually, it does look to be a revert, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavor_of_Love_%28season_3%29&diff=prev&oldid=213622911 the edit summary] attached to it is ridiculous.  While I appreciate what you do in your reverts, I don't feel comfortable supporting a user who appears to have very little outside of reverting.  I also have concerns that the user doesn't really discuss anything.  The vast majority of talk page edits are warnings or reverts.  I think focus needs to be placed on things other than reverting before I'd considering supporting.
'''Oppose''' - Poor understanding of the role of an administrator. There is more to it than just combating vandalism. I'm concerned by your lack of content writing as well. Reverts are fine, especially for anti-vandalism, but as things currently stand, I cannot judge how you would handle the tools.
'''Oppose''' Two months of Huggle reverts and you think adminship beckons? I think not. Please do carry on with your Huggling though, if it gives you pleasure.
'''Oppose''' primarily because this is an encyclopedia, not a club. IPs do have as much right to contribute, and since they could actually have multiple people on the same IP, it is very important '''not''' to characterize them as "those kind of I.P.s". It's true that some IPs (and accounts) vandalize - some repeatedly until they are blocked - but the decision on a particular edit should always be about the content. Regarding the diff I asked you about, the editor was using census data from a different year than the rest of the article, so there was some validity to what was being said, even if it was ultimately not correct ''for that article as it currently stands.'' I'm not supporting a suspected sockpuppet, but rather noting that each particular edit must be judged on its own. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Per Metros.
'''Oppose''' per RHMED. Endless Huggle revisions doesn't establish trust.--
'''Weak oppose''' While I have a great amount of respect for someone who can sit spend any extended period of time mindlessly reverting vandal edits, there's way more to Wikipedia than that. While I strongly doubt the user would purposely misuse the tools, I'm equally certain that you cannot possibly pick up all you need to know to be an admin from Huggle. Just my two cents.
'''Strong oppose''' per ''everyone'' above. You all make solid points; I greatly appreciate the vandal-fighting, but you may need more experience yet, and some of your actions show some signs of immaturity. Come back in a little while (say, 4-6 months), you'll do well, I'm sure. --
'''Oppose''' for now -- should have longer non-vandal-fighting baseline first, imho.--
'''Oppose, with moral support'''.  Definitely experienced, but I don't like the '''big bold "don't-blame-me-blame-huggle"''' message at the top, and there is no article work there.  Sorry, but I'm sure you'll do well next time.
'''Oppose''' I find that you don't have enough patience for the tools. Article building and collaborations are good ways of learning patience and other aspects of adminship--
'''Oppose''' Per Wisdom89, Metros and Frank, huggle and any other anti vandalism work just doesn't prove that you understand how to be an admin. Advise withdrawal.
'''Regretful Oppose''' - Normally I wouldn't oppose, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EricV89#Before_you_vote_in_regards_to_me_using_the_Huggle_tool this?]. I think it's over the top, and, to echo the above, there is more to being a sysop than reverting vandals. Sorry. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]]
'''Oppose''' For now. Normally I wouldn't oppose without investigating closely, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EricV89#Before_you_vote_in_regards_to_me_using_the_Huggle_tool this] is enough to oppose in itself. We need more vandalism reverters, but adminship is not just reverting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' Three things tell me your not ready. I really don't feel like your ready for the tools. Then your Huggle explanation as Juliancolton said is reason to oppose already. And three, this edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavor_of_Love_%28season_3%29&diff=prev&oldid=213622911] gives lack of confidence. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I am normally am a big proponent of specialist admins, but you have only been actively editing for about 3 months, you have only used one type of anti-vandalism technique, and you haven't diversified even a little bit. Recommend you spend another 3 months doing other things like patrolling new pages, maybe some afd, join some wikiprojects, etc. I won't go as far as some others to say you need to be exposed to everything, but some breadth of knowledge is useful to gain perspective.--
'''Strong Oppose''' This user lacks the experience, patience, and seems to have a poor attitude in general. He is somewhat uncivil at times as well. Furthermore, you do not need tools to revert vandalism. He seems to at times mindlessly revert IP's just because they are IP's. Admins should have better writing skills, not saying his are bad but they could be better.
'''Strong oppose''' There are some very good editors using Huggle, but someone who relies on a tool like this – which by its nature generates a stream of complaints – needs to demonstrate that they can communicate and explain their actions. I don't mean to sound rude, but reading your talkpage and this RFA you just come across as petulant whenever anyone disagrees with you. And [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EricV89#Before_you_vote_in_regards_to_me_using_the_Huggle_tool|this]] is just plain ridiculous.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict). Sorry, but you need more experience. Only 85 edits in the Wikipedia namespace and 0 to Wikipedia Talk are good indicators of this lack of experience. Also, I don't like it when editors use automated tools like a crutch (a vast majority of your last 2000 edits were via Huggle), right before an RFA. Also, you've only been actively editing for three months. More experience (and doing your own work by hand) is needed before I can support.
'''Oppose''' per Steve Crossin and Juliancolton. '''
'''Oppose'''. You said you want to be involved in the speedy deletion process, but I observe your lack of involvement with [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]]. You are doing a good job fighting vandalism, but I would like to see that you have some experience with the internal processes within Wikipedia to obtain the mop. Suggest that you do some content-writing as well. -
Absolutely not, per Metros and Iridescent.
'''Oppose''' with '''moral support''' - this user's heart is clearly in the right place and I ''strongly'' encourage them to continue with the most helpful vandal fighting.  However, neither this RfA nor the candidate's contribution history indicate that the right kind of experience has been accumulated for adminship duties, particularly some of the intended duties named by the candidate.  In a nutshell : While this user looks to be on the right track there is not yet enough substance for me to decide whether I can trust them with the mop.
'''Strong Oppose''' After reviewing  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.150.50.65&action=history this] IP Talk page history, I think the candidate does not yet have the experience or maturity necessary to deal with problem editors. I would guess that several months experience discussing content issues would be necessary. <font color="006622">
'''Strong Oppose''' Per the reasons offered by [[User:Iridescent]]--
'''Strong oppose''' The answer to Q1 is very worrisome. It suggests that the user equates (or nearly equates) NPOV violations with vandalism. Vandalism is just junk - while it may be a NPOV violation in some cases, that's wholly irrelevant to why we remove it. On the other hand, an NPOV violation is not necessarily vandalism (I think [[WP:VAND]] explicitly mentions this...) and the drive-by reverting from recentchanges used for vandalism is a poor way to deal with potential good faith users who make some biased edits as well as a great way to [[WP:DTTR|misuse warning templates]] and start an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. Further, [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] are about the least backlogged admin areas. While we generally do need new admins, we really don't need any who specialize in antivandalism. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' He seems to have a lack of patience and a poor attitude in general. --
'''Oppose'''. 1) Huggle, Twinkle, AWB, whatever you want to use is fine. It's the "rapid fire" mindsets that a lot of the heavier users bring to the table that are the problem. 2) "''I've become use to reverting pages more than once becuase''" - two typos in one of the first sentences of your request for adminship does not bode well. See #1, "rapid fire" mindset. 3) Overdone sigs tend to have a pretty positive coorelation (not that coorelation is causation) with maturity issues. 4) Communication issues (awkwardly written sentences such as "''I do not considor contributions by those kind of I.P.s to be correct in helping stability in a article.''"). 5) No evidence that you have a knowledge of the technical mechanics of blocking, article protection, and so on. --
'''Oppose''' Per reason above. --<strong>
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
A couple of factors bug me - (a) absence of article work, (b) a bit too much sarcasm and volatility in handling important issues, which may possibly become an issue if you obtain the blocking and deletion buttons. I think what is needed here is participation in writing articles and helping with other admin-related tasks to show you can handle other important work. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I generally want to see a broader skill set than purely anti-vandalism work, 85 edits to the Wikipedia: space as well as the low number of article Talk: edits concerns me, try diversifying and come back in some time. '''
'''Oppose''' This is just my view, but shouldn't an admin be responsible for more than simply anti-vandalism? Wikipedia is meant to be a medium for people to have access to substantive knowledge and information. Anti-vandalism is important of course, but I feel that an admin, which is trying to request high authority in the Wikipedia community, should be contributing information and knowledge to Wikipedia which is what the project was meant for, instead of simply fighting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' – in 3 to 4 more months come back than.  Take this as a learning experience of what you need to do and you will be a fine addition. <font face="Times New Roman">
Administrators need to be able to communicate well.  I counted thirteen mistakes in the opening paragraph of this nomination.  Sorry, –'''
'''Oppose''' The argumentative, defensive attitude displayed here wouldn't bode well for adminship.
'''Oppose''' (changed from Neutral) per SheffieldSteel.  —
'''Oppose''', the large, bolded, argumentative comment about Huggle use gives me the impression that this user would not be very successful in interactions with other users.
'''Strong oppose''' Sorry, there's really only two months of activity, and there's no real article exposure.--
'''Oppose''' - Two months of activity is not enough for me, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavor_of_Love_%28season_3%29&diff=prev&oldid=213622911 this] edit is not something I would expect to see from a candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' The Huggle Paragraph is not something I'd expect a Wikipedia admin to post.
'''Oppose''' - I didn't even look at the candidate's contributions before voting here, and trust me, I never ever do that, and I disapprove of people who do it. The reason I am bucking this trend, is that the candidate's over-passionate attitude shown in the opening of this RfA and the answers to the questions show that this person sees adminship as a position of power, where people who edit negatively ("vandals") are slayed simply for pleasure. There is so, so, so much more to adminship than slaying vandals. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. Communicating properly with other users is well-respected, and the statement in regards of using Huggle is preposterous.
I like your style.  I wish there was a way to give you some tools to help out, but you don't show the in-depth knowledge of WP that makes me want you to have the full set, either.  If you came back in six months with fuller experience in different areas of the website, I'd be happy to support.
'''Neutral''' I can appreciate your sincerity in wanting to provide assistance, but I think you need more experience in a variety of areas within Wikipedia.  Keep at it, and do not be discouraged.
Not piling on oppose.
'''Neutral'''I'd like to support, but I do believe some of the oppose reasons are valid. Try some work at XFDs, CSDs, Prods etc. I do however, support your statement on Huggle, and I think <small><small>Oppose Two months of Huggle reverts and you think adminship beckons? I think not. Please do carry on with your Huggling though, if it gives you pleasure. RMHED (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC) </small></small> is just plain rude. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Neutral''' I'm disappointed at the incivility of some of the Opposes, and they seem way too concerned about the Huggle stuff, but I do see some of their points.  So far you've done a good job of combating vandalism, and I hope you keep it up, but I'd like to see some more experience in a wider range of WP stuff before I support.
'''Neutral'''.  Participate in a wider range of activities to broaden your perspectives and get more experience in key areas.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''  ([[User talk:EricV89|comments]]).  By the way, use of huggle is just fine.
'''Neutral''' I'll keep this neutral as there are already enough pile on opposes. Early this month, I noticed that a vandal you were reverting was spamming your talk page with my picture. (he had recently vandalized my talk page too) When I made a comment about it, you responded as if I were the vandal. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEricV89&diff=216777175&oldid=216776908] Before you are given the power to block users, you need to learn to tell the difference between vandals and their victims.--
I am not impressed by some of the above opposes. Good job on combating vandalism, but I have a few concerns. You seem to have problems keeping [[WP:COOL|cool]] on some occasions, and yes, your knowledge of the inner workings of the project is a bit limited. Please become active in more areas outside vandal-reverting ([[Special:Newpages]] and [[WP:AFD|AFD]] can always use an extra hand or two), and don't feel disheartened if this RfA doesn't go as you expected. We can always use admins to help fight vandalism, and I hope you make another request in the future as you could certainly be a very beneficial member of the community. --
Too new here. No. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Insufficient experience. Lack of mainspace edits, and total edits. It would also help if you answered the questions. Your edit summary usage is also poor. Sorry, I would be really willing to support if you came back in a few months with all these things improved. Start working in [[WP:AFD]], reporting to [[WP:AIV]] etc. Sorry. -
'''Oppose''' sorry, but you have fewer than 300 edits, so there simply isn't enough evidence to conclude that you have the policy experience necessary to be an administrator. Add to this the fact that you haven't properly completed this RfA (no description of yourself, no answer to the questions) and there is no basis to support this request. I suggest you withdraw your RfA, gain some more experience contributing to articles and demonstrating a clear understanding of policy and then seek an [[WP:ER|editor review]] to gain further feedback. Don't be disheartened. Best,
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but this RfA is premature - but kudos for wanting to take the plunge and go for it. I advise that you ramp up your mainspace and wikispace editing, get yourself an [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and go for [[WP:ER]]. Come back in about 5-6 months and let's re-evaluate your progress. Take it easy. Cheers.
'''Oppose''', lack of experience. Only 6 mainspace edits.
Thank you for wanting to serve the community, it is greatly appreciated. But with only 168 edits and a little over 1 month of editing you have not demonstrated a clear understanding of wikipedia policies. Gain more admin related experience in areas such as [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AIV]], and read up on [[WP:ADMIN]]. Best of luck,
'''Oppose'''. I see that you intend to be a productive editor, and I applaud your enthusiasm, but I don't think you quite have the experience I generally look for in a successful candidate. You indicate that you would like to be mentored by an experienced admin, and that would be a great first step - perhaps, once you've edited in a productive manner for a few months, [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|admin coaching]] would be in order. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' – I would ask that you come back in 6 months.  With less than 30 days involvement with the project, you only have your little toe wet, lets see if you still want the extra buttons after you are dunked a few times.  Best of luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' as neither enough time nor edits, make a thousand edits, half to the mainspace and come back when you have been here 3 months. Also you do not need admin tools to make minor grammatical corrections and arguably its not necessary for anti-vandalism work either. Thanks,
'''Oppose''' Per lack of experience and this comment that indicates past behavior issues [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALar&diff=203904594&oldid=203634694]. '''
'''Oppose''' Come back in 6 months. You need experience in making mainspace edits, dealing with conflict, wikipedia policy etc. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' - Experience. Suggest a close per [[WP:SNOW]]. Try [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and [[WP:ER]]. Cheers!
'''Oppose''' Roughly no experience with editing the encyclopedia, let alone admin-related areas. '''
'''Opppose''' - at ''least'' six months.  <b>
''' Very strong oppose''' Per your answers. Q1: That is not a good quality of what administrators should do. deleting, protecting, and blocking random pages and users. Q2: Again, not good. Vandalizing under your IP address and trying to keep your account safe. Q3: That is not a good reason to become an admin, just because your bored. <s>Sorry, but it is ''way'' too early to request for adminship.</s> You only have 68 edits, ONE in the mainspace and you haven't been active. I highly doubt you know our policies. Try to gain more experience and wait a few months. I like the enthusiasm, but you are not yet ready. Try out [[WP:ADOPT|adoption]] so an experienced user can tutor you and you can gain more experience and then try [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]] so you can learn what admins do and what you they should know. Thanks,
'''Support''' as conominator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' as I respect both Durova and Everyking who have made my lists of [[User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#While_not_articles.2C_the_following_posts_from_the_below_list_of_wise_Wikipedians_also_provide_some_of_the_finest_arguments_I_have_read_on_Wikipedia:|wise wikipedians]] and [[User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Nice_comments_other_contributors_said_about_or_in_support_of_me.21|nice wikipedians]] multiple times.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support'''.  Immense quantity of high-quality contributions to the project, and I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' dedicated and active Wikipedian, lots of good article work, who has been around for years. '''
'''Support''' - I had toast, eggs, and tacos for breakfast this morning. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support''' A good egg.
I believe Everyking being an admin would beenfit the project.
'''Support''' Per Coffee. <!--Really because I can't see a reason not to--> &ndash;
Everyking is a dedicated and hard working editor who has done a tremendous amount of work for the project. This is a guy who has put up with a boatload of hassle and a string of bizarre and unfair ArbCom sanctions (indeed, an ex-arbitrator said recently that one of the sanctions was simply because he was irritating), and ''despite this'' has continued to edit and improve the encyclopedia (across a vast range of topics). There is no question in my mind that he is a trustworthy and diligent editor. '''
'''Support''' unequivocally.  —

I'm happy to see this, and don't find it difficult to support.
'''Support''' Per Majorly.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and support. I've had concerns about Everyking in the past, and have previously reviewed his various ArbCom cases. I think a major problem was that Everyking jumped into situations without really getting a feeling with what it was about. After looking over some recent comments made my Everyking, I think he's certainly improved his communication skills and evaluates situations well before commenting. His heart in in the right place and his ethos is one of the best on the project. All in all, I don't think we're going to see previous problems arise again. '''
--
'''Aye''' Deletionist supports inclusionist shockah - seriously, it is time to give Everyking the tools back. <b>
'''Support''' per Everyking. --
'''Support''' [[User:Sbharris|<font color="blue">S</font>]][[User:Sbharris|<font color="orange">B</font>]][[User:Sbharris|H]]
'''Support'''. I concur with Ryan P, above, that Everyking appears to have improved his approach to the project, and I think that ultimately it is the project that will benefit. No objections to this candidate.
I have reviewed the discussions regarding the removal of sysop access, and saw many familiar drama mongers advocating his removal. The entirety of these discussions left a horrible taste in my mouth. I will '''strongly support''' a reversal of the ridiculous soap opera from 2006, '''on the condition''' that he attempts to avoid the nonsensical drama from the usual suspects. I greatly appreciate your dedication to this heavily fucked up project.
'''Support''' Everyking certainly has opinions that I disagree with. However, I believe he is trustworthy regarding the tools, considering he never was shown to have actually abused them before, and demonstrates good sense regarding their future use.
'''Support''' Awesome contributor, don't see any problems at all that could be described as recent, am confident that Everyking will only be an asset as an admin and no evidence he will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. It's about time. '''''
'''Support''' - has learned from his mistakes. '''
'''Support.''' - Per the noms, {{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}}, {{user|Antandrus}}, and {{user|Majorly}}.
'''Support'''. In general I am not a fan of Everyking (we've tangled in the past), but there is absolutely no evidence that he would misuse the tools, and I think the circumstances of the original desysop have been overtaken by events. '''
'''Support''' &mdash; Don't like him, but as only the community has the legitimate authority to de-sysop, the proper course of action right now is to restore the ''status quo ante''.
'''Weak support''' I was not active very much back in 2006 and 2007 to see the previous RfAs, so I can review this unbiasedly. I see that Everyking is a good editor who makes some excellent contributions. But he does not use [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] in most of the cases, which I think is unfitting for an admin. We scold every newbie for not using them, so I think we should do the same here. But it's not enough reason to not support but to weaken it. '''
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Although I have a few minor concerns regarding Everyking, I am satisfied that he has the clue and judgment available to function as an effective administrator. I think he's trustworthy, although he should realize that what with his past history, there will be quite a few eyes watching him, and poor decisions will be viewed with less sympathy than that allocated to the average administrator. The arbitration case is sufficiently far in the past for it to be a major factor, what with the steep curve of improvement EK has embarked upon since that decision was passed. Good luck, and be careful if this passes: I wouldn't like to see you lose what I suspect is your final, final chance at sysopship.
'''Support'''-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' a good editor i don't think he would do anything wrong!!! Also absolutely dedicated and blatantly trustable.
'''Support''' Let's turn the page and stop treating Everyking as if he's the devil that supports and enables destructive trolls.
'''support''' - user seems to have mended his ways.  if only everyone could without having to have punnishment details first.  --
'''Support'''. Satisfactory answers to questions, knowledgeable and experienced, seems to have an extended record of good judgement at this point. We fall so we can pick ourselves up, and all that.
'''Strong support''' per my interactions with the candidate. —
'''Support''' — Meets
'''Support''' I am fully convinced that Everyking will exercise due discretion if granted admin tools. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' any big future clangers will surely be dealt with if they arise. Cheers,
'''OK''': I think it's probably second-chance time. Everyking is certainly saying all the right things. I'd like to pin down the recall thing a bit more, not because I suspect Everyking of anything, but because it's been an issue in other contexts and the more specific it is, the less potential for drama down the road. Beyond that, barring some significant issue which I'm unaware of, I'll sign off on this one. Please don't let me regret it. :) '''
'''Strong support''' - I already know what Everyking was like as an admin, and I certainly have no problems here whatsoever. I want to make one thing very clear here, however. I'm more than familiar with the Amorrow issue that Everyking was involved in and have followed it all in detail. In my opinion, Everyking made a mistake in reverting Amorrow's edits. This is [[User:Majorly|not the first time]] someone made this mistake, and in my opinion here, Everyking was not aware of the full nature of the problems behind this editor, nor of what he'd actually done. He ostensibly stepped hard on one of those Wikipedia landmines, that [[third rail]] that causes major problems, and it is my opinion that he did so inadvertently. I happen to know for a fact that he regrets this deeply and, having given the opportunity, would have ''never'' reacted like that given what he knows about the situation today. I have personally had a lot of dealings with the banned editor in question and it's a matter I do not wish to discuss here (or anywhere else, really), but I absolutely do '''not''' and cannot hold this against Everyking in any way. This issue aside, I think he has been, and will be again, an excellent admin. Indeed, given what happened in the interim, I suspect he's a whole lot stronger and more mature as an editor and admin. Please give him back the bit -
'''Strong support''' - ArbCom themselves stated his use of the admin tools was superlative. His content contributions are exemplary. He's made mistakes in the past, but he's learned from them. Perhaps you don't agree with his views, but the fact remains that he has a record as an admin, and it shows him to be trustworthy with the tools. Wikipedia's pathetic ability to deal with real-life stalkers is its own problem, and Everyking's opinion on the matter does not, as far as I can see, affect adminship. This is further exampled in the statement I edit conflicted with above from Alison who has a great deal of knowledge with the situation. Considering his past mistakes, should he misuse the tools, I would not foresee difficulty in having them again removed via ArbCom, however, I don't believe it will be necessary. I have full trust in Everyking.
'''Support'''.  "...use of the admin tools was superlative." hooks me after it all.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I opposed Everyking's previous RfA, but in retrospect, I should have supported. I guess that the best thing that I can do to remedy this is to support now.
'''Support'''. It's been long enough and Everyking definitely deserves another chance. He's dedicated, experienced, and knowledgeable; I think he'll do fine.
Supporting very strongly, of course, as the nominator here. I'll add to my support rationale if it becomes necessary later on, but for now, all I want to say is that if there was any, ''any'' doubt in my mind about Everyking's abilities, then I would not have nominated him. I've been interacting with him these last few months, and he's been polite, kind, knowledgeable, helpful, honest, and willing to learn. As has been said above, Everyking believes that admins should separate their views from their usage of the tools and should always abide by the community's consensus; he has learned from his past mistakes and has acknowleged them; and his answers to the questions and responses to people are more than excellent. Everyking will once again make a brilliant administrator.
'''Support''', although I often disagree with his views or his reasoning I believe him to be trustworthy with the tools.
'''Extremely strong support''' &mdash; The project will be much better off if we can welcome our best editors back into our trust, and deeply impoverished if we cannot.  Everyking is one of the best and most dedicated people Wikipedia has. '''
'''Support''', especially after checking his contributions on WR. A decent sort whose term in purgatory should end.
'''Support''' has paid debt to society, had enough retribution, time for rehabilitation. --
'''Support'''. I see no reason to not give him back the tools. --
'''Support''' One half-slip way back when does not a bad admin make.
'''Support''' as per nomination (which I hope is accurate in its details) and the idea of giving a second chance. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''.  Some legitimate concerns here on the oppose side, but what I've liked what I've personally seen from him.  In balance, I find the noms and comments above, particularly Alison's, to be convincing.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' I know what it's like to be screwed.--
Meh, why not. —'''
'''Strong support'''. Last time I opposed his RfA, but it's become clear that the circumstances were not quite what I thought they were. I've found Everyking's comments on admin noticeboards to be very thoughtful and helpful, something that was apparently a problem in the past. It may yet prove to be too early for him to get the tools back, but I'm sure he'll do it in this one or the next one. I believe he'll be a strong credit as an admin.
'''Support''' I never personally agreed with a permanent removal of the tools the last time...I'd be more willing to see it finally reversed.--
'''Support''' per [[User:Jennavecia]].
This candidate's "issues" occurred well before my time as a Wikipedia user, so after reviewing several pages worth of edits and reviewing all of the comments on this page, I will '''support''' per the opinions expressed by several editors whose opinions I wholeheartedly trust, including Ryan P. --
'''<s>Support</s>''' '''Ultra Strong Support''' Strong arguements by both noms.--
'''Absoloutely''' Everyking - while not someone I always agree with, is someone of principle who is dedicted to the task at hand.
'''Support''' -  He's earned it. --
Support in spite of the candidate's inclusionism. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support'''.  I think that the time is right to give Everyking a second chance.
After reviewing the RfA, the answers to his questions, the nomination statement, the ArbCom cases, and the desysop situation, I am placing my comment in the "support" column. He was desysopped for what appears to be a mistake in judgement - we all make those. The community overreacted to it, in a serious lack of [[WP:AGF|AGF]]. He's learned from his decisions and mistakes, and I see no compelling reason to oppose.
'''Strong support''' I see no reason why Everyking shouldn't be an admin again. He has more than 100,000 mainspace edits. He has made more than 100 edits to 25 articles.[http://toolserver.org/%7Esql/sqlbot.php?user=Everyking] I really appreciate his contributions.
'''Support''' Because he was desysoped for something he "didn't do" and for something he said "somewhere else" --
'''Support''' based on observation of his participation in the project. '''''
Content builder+Africa+civility='''Support'''. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' I don't claim to be overly familiar with the original de-sysoping situation, but based on what I've read/discovered, I think Everyking deserves another chance. IMO, the average person would not continue editing as consistently as Everyking has since the de-sysoping and I believe that says something.
'''Support''' No one is beyond redemption, and an admin who would be as scrutinized as Everyking couldn't exactly screw up without Arbs and half of the community on his head. The AC is these days more than willing to desysop for even actions not directly involving the [[User:Bedford|abuse of tools]] so I'm not worried that Everyking will abuse the tools at this time. Few if any people are experienced as Everyking at building an encyclopedia--not even Jimbo or some of the Arbitrators. Support. <font color="#156917">
'''Support'''  Regards,
'''Support'''.  One of the project's most prolific, consistent, steady, experienced, and dedicated contributors.
'''Support'''. I have disagreed with Everyking a few times, sometimes strongly (most recently I argued "hell no" to his proposal to unconditionally unblock Kohs), and he is sometimes a bit liberal in keeping articles which would be more newspaper material. But his activities in the past year have been clearly positive and on those issues where I've disagreed his reason has still been rational. His activity with the rollback function have been exemplary after he gained that.
'''Support'''. One of the project's most prolific, consistent, steady, experienced, and dedicated contributors. And Durova and JoshuaZ approve.
I'm
'''Support''' a great choice. --
'''Support''' per Rootology, among others.
'''Support''' — The Arbitration Committee has a history of poor decisions. Desysoping Everyking is just one of them.
'''Support'''. One of Wikipedia's finest.
'''Support''' - an excellent contributor from the start, generally good record as an administrator, and I am confident that the type of situation which led to the desysoping would not arise again.
'''Support''' - I haven't witnessed any bad move from Everyking since a long time now. Past is history for this good contributor. I assume good faith and I have no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' - learned from his mistake, unlikey to go haywire again :P ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - pros are overwhelming and the mistakes seem to come from the past
'''Support''', as overdue.
'''Support''' I have done a little in the African related articles and to remain civil there is sometimes a challenge. I remember the original mistake and always thought the perm de-sysop was not in the spirit of AGF.
'''Support''' per Durova's nom.
'''Support''' per second chances. Also per Juliancolton. '''
'''Support''' - I dont have a problem with off wiki postings.  Never should have been brought up on wiki to begin with.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - Very happy to support one of Wikipedia's best editors and formerly one of the finest admins.
'''Support'''; Everyking has already demonstrated his ability as an admin, despite the grievous errors in judgment in the past (who, truly, never makes a blunder?).  But Everyking, ''please'' take heed of of the oppose (and the supports) and lay off the drama sauce!  If your RfA passes, you will remain under scrutiny and chances are the community would be very unforgiving if you stray.  &mdash;&nbsp;

'''Support''' - should never have had his bit removed in the manner he did, if at all. Making an offer is not the same as doing something. Everyking has more mainspace contributions than nearly anyone else, too.
No questions about it. Everyking is more than capable of using the tools to great benefit. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' - Most of the qualms I may have had were soothed by ''Alison`s'' statement above.  As such, I do not fear that this long time contributor will abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - due to a very solid answer to question six --
I don't normally join pileons (either way) but this one warrants an exception.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support'''. The fact that he's continued to be a good contributor after everything he went through speaks of his dedication to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - a genuinely thoughtful and considerate editor.
'''Net positive'''
'''Support'''. Should never have been desysopped in the first place. There are a whole bunch of other admins who DO misuse their tools, and they get a free pass from the ArbCom. So, lets right one wrong here to start with! --
'''Support''' There should be more tension between ones principles and arbitrary rules and, providing the compromise is to the benefit of both, is irrelevant in executing the role of sysop.
'''Support'''; seems like a good guy whose opposition is mostly BADSITES paranoia.
'''Support''' strongly per Editorofthewiki as well as some of the comments in the section below. Time to give another chance.
'''Support per Nom''' - I trust EveryKing with the tools. Desysopping was unjustified and unwarranted.
It's a tough one, but I'm willing to give him another shot.  The large number of opposes by old-timers is concerning, but 1) he's still been around a long time, after all that, apparently without causing trouble, and 2) nobody has complaints about how he used the tools.  The only thing we're considering changing here is whether he has those tools.  If he screws up, I can see there's a large number of people ready to pounce, so I don't see where he can really cause any harm.
'''Support''' This is a no-brainer. Yes Yes Yes!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The sheer volume - and quality - of contributions, and knowledge of the workings of the site can add great value here.
'''Support'''. Gosh, it's taken me an hour to review the relevant material here. On balance, Everyking is a fine contributor, has the required and (in my opinion) is unlikely to repeat the same mistakes. [Although he is sure to be carefully watched.]
'''Support'''. It seems like he made a mistake, stepped on a landmine and the drama became the scrapegoat of some drama. Also, if we ever want to get a proper system for community de-admining, we need to show that it is possible to re-gain adminship after losing it. As others said above, great and trustworthy editor. --
'''Support'''. Should be given a second chance, given that no one has cited actual misuse of tools when he was admin. Permanent de-sysopping seems like an overreaction to the alleged (potential) offense, and it seems like his real "mistake" was posting on Wikipedia Review at all (as well as riling up the arbitrators on other matters). The scandals that have come to light since that time, however, have shown that we need to be open to investigating criticism, not paranoid and defensive. --
'''Support''' I don't normally get involved with RFA, but I'll participate in this one, since it seems like Everyking is getting a raw deal. This guy has devoted thousands of hours researching and writing on topics that most editors have neglected. I find it hard to believe that, given all the energy he's invested, he's going to somehow destroy the encyclopedia once he gets the tools. Just let him into the club.
'''Support''' Seems like now ex-arbcom Raul654 had an axe to grind at the time and from reading the opposes, is going to continue to grind that axe "until hell freezes over" against someone he has personal differences with. Six figures of good edits is enough to show this guy is otherwise a great contributor and his record of sysop tool usage as described by the arbcom itself is flawless, something that cant be easily said for some in opposition.
'''Support''' First-rate editor. Has experience and proper understanding of policies. Has demonstrated firm commitment to the project. Never lost his composure as far as I can see. Cannot expect more of an admin. --
'''Support''' The nominators made a good case; seems to me this editor would make a good admin. --
'''Strong support''' -- one of our most accomplished and prolific editors. He obviously cares very passionately about this project. Sadly some of the opposes seem tied to an underlying expectation of political reliability and cultic loyalty -- I don't see why we need those in an admin since we're just supposed to be building an encyclopaedia. Aren't we? --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''. I was around but barely involved when the RFAR-related desysopping happened. There was a lot left unclear, maybe necessarily so, and everyking's behaviour was sometimes rather annoying then. However, in several recent discussions I have felt that Everyking has been a voice of reason or at least of productive counterpoint. I see every reason to trust any undesirable behaviour will be well controlled and watched for. Alison's support is reassuring. The stridency of some of the oppose comments below does not inspire confidence.
'''Support''' For all the reasons cited above, but also in opposition to the discussion by [[User:Raul654]] and [[User:Badger Drink]] below.  --
'''Support''' Because while I mostly disagree with him, he communicates well. Although I can see the reasons for the original demotion, I don't agree that this is part of a pattern.
'''Strong support''' - I don't understand why the adminship process is so hard on candidates. He's made mistakes, sure, but some of the diffs put forward in the opposes are simply laughable. It'd be a shame to see one of the best editors on this site be denied these tools when he could obviously help in a huge way. Fantastic candidate, full support. --'''''
'''Support''', and I hope the closing bureaucrat gives some of the "reasons" given for opposing this excellent contributor their appropriate weighting (ie, none).  Holding opinions that stray from the median at times does not mean Everyking would be a bad administrator - the two are completely unconnected.  Thoughtcrime is not a valid reason for opposal.  Everyking has been playing Wikipedia for many years now, has amassed more XP than most, and is ready to level up.
Should have been only temp-desysopped anyway, and per Neil.
I haven't seen him around as long as others, but I've liked what I see, and I don't see a reason not to give him the tools. I mean, I know he's going to be on a short leash with the opposers keeping a close eye on him.
'''Support''' <font color="#00ff00">
'''Support''': I carefully considered all the points presented till now. I think most of the intelligent people have tendency to learn from the past. He is not an exception. Let us give him one more chance. --
'''Support''' I believe the project could be greatly helped with this candidate's access to buttons.
<s>'''Oppose''' - not enough experience.</s>  Just kidding.  I've been going back and forth on this one.  Given the lack of recent examples of wrongdoing and the time that has passed since hs desysopping, I'm willing to AGF and give him another shot.  So I '''support'''.  --
'''Support''' Overall good editor and I think past troubles can safely be left in the past. -
'''Support''' per naerii and numerous others. --
'''Support''' - What's done is done. There's no reason to oppose a perfectly good user just because of something he did in 2006. There's no way he could reverse that, and I don't believe that he won't learn from the past. Anyway, the opposers will be watching him closely if he's promoted, so he'll be less likely to do inappropriate stuff.
'''Support''' EK has shown a great deal of progress as an editor and I believe the original reason for removing his adminship was invalid. Therefore, he should be given the tools back. --
'''Support, moved from Neutral''' Okay, kids, make room...Eco's in the house!
'''Support'''.  I think Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#List|12th highest contributor]] merits serious consideration for this not-a-big-deal role.  My overall impression of Everyking over these last several years is positive.  Yet since there are many people I respect opposing (as well as many people I respect supporting), I have carefully read through this RFA and examined more closely to see if I am swayed to oppose.  The only negative I see regarding Everyking occurred in the past--his excessive commenting on *everything* at AN to the point of annoyance, but that was dealt with, he improved, and I have no reason to think he would abuse admin tools, particularly since he never abused them in his first round as admin.  His very prolific content contribution on this project demonstrates dedication that I think outweighs any prior annoyances.  He understands policy, and while he may be opinionated, and at times borderline confrontational, he is not uncivil. Our community sometimes shuts out those perceived as critics, but it would be to the project's benefit to be more openminded and listening.   I think Everyking provides much-needed balance to our repertoire of admins. --
'''Support''' I've spent an hour or more looking through arguments from both sides and am happy to trust this user with the tools. A one hour block in October last year does not trouble me at all. <font face="Comic sans MS">'''
'''Support''' Should not have had the tools removed in the first place. '''''
'''Support''' per Grand Roi. Very wise Wikipedian [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mel_Gibson_DUI_incident&diff=106278958&oldid=106277518]. —
'''Support''' Net positive to the community.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support'''.  This user has lots of experiance. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Uh, so where in the [[WP:Arbitration policy|arbitration policy]] does it say "unilaterally desysop admins without a hearing, chance to present a defense, or any due process whatsoever?" In fact I would think points 5 and 6 under "Scope" protect against exactly this kind of thing. Let him have his tools back.

To nullify Skinwalker.
'''Support''': What a ''bizarre'' reason to have been desysopped. I smell lots of needless drama but see no reason not to [[WP:AGF]].
'''weak support''' Ok. Back to supporting now. I have looked through Everyking's previous admin actions in more detail(which isn't easy since I have only intermittent internet access right now).  Everyking does have a strong  tendency to say things or argue about things that he has little background in and I have no strong reason to think that has changed. Indeed, some of his recent comments strongly suggest that he has not. However, as far as I can tell that tendency has never actually influenced how EK used the tools. I have little worry that giving EK the mop will result in any serious problems.
'''Support''' - your use of tools has been fine, you haven't broken any rules, and it seems that had you offered to post the deleted revision anywhere other than WR, you wouldn't have been desysoped. I also beleive that, had the revision contained anything dangerous, you wouldn't post it. I think that we can trust you to employ the tools well, as you did before your desysoping, and you are a benefit to the project. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Support''' I don't really care about this user, and I wasn't really comfortable supporting someone who supports the recall system in its current form, but canvassing is unacceptable - hoping it stays above 70% so that bureaucrats get the opportunity to actually use their brains. --
I've worked with EK in the past and always found him to be a decent bloke. The deadminning was fair enough, but it's a long time ago. Looking at things today, I think I agree with Neil. And it's only fair that I acknowledge the part Raul654 played in informing my decision.
'''Strong support''' - What I've gained from a random sampling of the opposers is a [[wikt:travesty|travesty]].  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support'''. Everyking should never had been de-sysopped in the first place. While I don't agree with all of his admin actions, he has my trust. Giving him the tools would be a net positive.
'''Support''' I'd trust Everyking with the tools.
'''Support'''.  The ancient history (in WikiTime) is a mixed bag, but it's clear that even then there was problematic behavior from more than just one party.  Two to tango and all that.  I recall thinking, though perhaps don't have all the possible details, that sometimes Everyking was more the aggrieved party than the aggressor.  In my time on the project, I've never seen anything from this editor that raises alarm bells, and I've seen many, many sensible comments.  And I think his contribution speak for themselves. --
Per brenneman ++
'''Support''' He says he wants the tools for vandal fighting and dealing with article protections. Those are, most of the time, standard tasks completely unrelated to the points raised about his past behavior.
'''Strong support''' Having seen their edits all over Wikipeida due to the amount of time and energy they put into the project. ~
Changed back to '''Support''' <small>This is a big page and I want to get my moneys worth</small> (Still) not comfortable with how polarized this nomination is. Any controversial admin related action he takes will instantly turn into a pie fight. We get enough of those. Great editor for sure, but I'm not sure of his judgment. As an admin, I'm not sure he'd keep his eye on the ball (which in this case is what's best to facilitate writing an encyclopedia) rather than acting with a wiki-political agenda. He also seems unable to admit fault and I'm not sure I like all the adolescent backslapping at WR he participates in.  All the endless carping about his Arbcom sanctions, his relentless negative interactions with Phil Sandifer, his insistence on changing the way Wikipedia is governed...the list goes on. It just all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But the thing is, I think he does care about Wikipedia underneath it all and makes all the right noises about how admins should carry out their role. So if you boil it down to "will he abuse the tools", I think the answer is probably not. Ironically, outside of one or two instances of fork bendingly bad judgment, I think he has a better idea of how an admin fits into the grand scheme of things here then many current admins (especially those from the last year or two). And it is true that much of the considerable trouble he's gotten into has been acting as an editor and not using administrator tools. So, even though I never thought I'd actually say this but I'd support this RFA. I just hope he doesn't go sideways on the whole thing.
'''Support''' per Aaron, and I trust James. -
<s>'''Provisional support'''</s> - I am not convinced that Everyking would have really given out personal info of anybody just because he said he can get a diff. (And anyway, revisions with personal information need to be oversighted, not just deleted. Since we don't really know who all the admins are, some admin could be giving whomever all sorts of personal information, and since they wouldn't be doing it in public, there's no way to know.) As for criticizing admins - in my experience, most of Everyking's critcisms were correct, but for purely historic reasons (Hi, Phil!) his comments got (and sometimes still get) jumped on and interpreted in the most extreme ways, in line with the reader's preconceptions, and Everyking then got increasingly defensive and started making overblown accusations. There's an example of this in the oppose section - the !voter says that Everyking suggested an alternative course of action after trying to block a person for weeks didn't help, and considers this a reason to oppose. <s>James, to make the provisional support into the regular kind, I'd like a clear statement that you've given up the grudges and don't take Wikipolitics personally (or seriously) any more. There's a lot of stuff that's wrong and unjust, but this is a volunteer project with a goal, not a country you were born into. It needs fixing like a broken watch, not a revolution like a broken government. Getting angry doesn't help.  [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)</s> After re-reading some of the !votes, I realize that this is just a RFA - all that we're deciding is the extra buttons. Raul's !vote had me on the fence for a while, but Alison's account above seems like assurance enough for the deleted diff thing, and the rest has nothing to do with having or not having the tools. Changing to '''strong support'''. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support''' We have many worse problems to worry about than a temporary error that resulted in no actual harm.  Support per Acalamari.
'''Support'''. Taking as I find rather than as I hear about, Everyking impresses me as a highly able and conscientious editor. His work on Anglo-Saxon articles goes a long way with me (Anglo-Saxon history is all about evidence and microscopically fine judgement).
'''Support''' per [[The Holy Bible]]; forgive and forget.
'''Support'''; don't particularly think it was a good idea to leave him desysopped in the first place but I think he has satisfactorily demonstrated that he can return to administrative tasks.
'''Support'''- was desysopped just for thinking of doing something, rather than doing anything. I haven't actually noticed him around much so he can't be that much of a drama-monger, as if I've read any comment of his on AN/I I haven't considered it shocking enough to recall it.:)
'''Support''' - What happened in the past is unfortunate, but I think the evidence and arguments made make a fair case for you to be given back the mop and bucket. You are one of Wikipedia's top contributes, and while adminship is not an award you should be given a big consideration. As ArbCom put it you generally used to perform admin actions superlatively, and I see no reason why you cannot do it again. You have made some mistakes, which resulted in your desysopping, but they were not based on longterm mega abuse of the admin tools in my opinion, and seem to be frequently misunderstandings on your and other users part. Clearly, you still continue to made great contributions to Wikipedia despite the sanctions, showing real loyalty, and appear to have learnt lessons from your mistakes. Your actions at AfD do not concern me - in fact I think many of your comments there are quite fair to be honest! In any case, all the best.

'''Support''' It took me quite a bit of time to make up my mind.  I've read over the questions a few times, I even went back and dug through the arbitration case and AN/I archives.  This has taken me much more research than I expected.  What's even more frightening to me, is that it's ABrenneman's comments that sum it up best for me...it's gotta be solid if I find myself agreeing with him on something. ;)  --
'''Support'''. Contra Raul, I ''do'' remember when this user caused drama, and even then user did not abuse the tools. Since then, user has been committed to the mainspace, and his work is excellent. The tools were originally created to serve the encyclopedia (that is, the mainspace), so giving user the bit would be a strong net positive for the project. I'm very disappointed with some of the personal attacks below. They're especially surprising because some are directed at third parties. For whatever you might say about everyking, he has never posted anything so nasty.

'''Support''' I have reviewed the events that led to his desysopping, and his desysopping was unprecendented, in my opinion. Several current administrators have gotten away with much worse. Not a reason to support on its own, but considering the work that this editor has done, and considering he never lost my trust in the first place, I am moved to support this RfA. '''
'''100% Support''', Absolutely, there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves to be an admin. and has the experience and ability of becoming one of the great ones.
'''Support''' I think we should make him an admin now and save time, because if we don't, he's bound to pass the next RfA.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' and geez, I thought adminship was no big deal anyway? --
'''Support''' – one mistake is not enough reason for me to believe that this user would be a harmful influence on the site. However - his thousands of edits are, to me, the clearest indicator that he would be a great influence because he has displayed a clear knowledge of policy and a clear desire to improve the encyclopedia.--<small>
'''Support''' (switched from neutral). I had not fully assimilated Everyking's intentions not to close deletion discussions were he an admin, which alleviates my concerns about his views on judging consensus. All in all, I am happy to give Everyking a second chance at adminship. My interactions with him have been positive - even where we have disagreed - giving me a strong feeling that mistakes made in the past will no reoccur. Everyking has showed continued commitment to the project throughout his time here and I feel can be trusted with the tools. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' I do not have confidence that Everyking will make good choices when  handling matters dealings with banned users.
'''Oppose''' Lots of contributions, but an extremely bad history and too many bad choices in the past.  A good editor is not always a good administrator.
'''Oppose''' Seeing as he skipped over in Q3 a major dispute I had to bring up in Q7 I have serious doubts as to his fitness for adminship. '''
'''Oppose''' As per MBisanz. <b>(&gt;O_o)&gt;</b>&nbsp;<i><font color='#0000FF'>
'''Oppose''' views simply too far from the median for me to feel comfortable trusting with the block button.
'''Oppose''' because reading Q&A's, I get a real bad feeling about this user having sysop tools! A lot of good points have also been made by the other opposers. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Oppose'''. Too many bad choices, and too little indication that the propensity for such choices has changed. --
'''Oppose''' As in several previous cases (ie. any of my votes on RfAs for Shalom Yechiel), I am more than willing to put old drama behind us for the good of the project; as Naerii very correctly notices, it is an extreme testament to Everyking's dedication to this project that he continues to edit. However, I believe that completely separate of all this drama, there are still things that worry me enough to oppose here. I see Everyking quite often at AfD, making !votes that are contrary to the final close, are against policy, or seem to disregard policy completely, in the case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antigua_honeymoon_murders&diff=prev&oldid=231417275 this]. As an inclusionist myself, it's rough telling someone that they're too inclusionist, but I have concerns as to how he'd close AfDs.
At this time, I am regretfully unable to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.
No, I can't support James.  I trust his judgement ''less'' now than I did when he was de-adminned.
'''Oppose''' — with respect to his excellent content contributions and other stuff, I am not comfortable with the judgment he has displayed in prior cases. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per MBisanz, Guettarda, Merzbow, Gamaliel.
'''Oppose''' until hell freezes over. EK has a history of harassing other editors ([[user:Reene]] quit because of him), and criticizing other administrators based on little or no understanding of their actions (the arbcom found this in their FOFs in his '''3''' arbcom cases). When confronted with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3/Proposed_decision&diff=27072608&oldid=27052474 transparently obvious] fact that he didn't do a modicum of investigating before shooting off his mouth, EK repeatedly denied it, until (predictably) it cost him his admin bit when he offered to provide some deleted revisions containing personal information without finding out why they were deleted first. (And only then did he admit that he hadn't done his homework, while claiming that had had done his homework all those other times he obviously hadn't). Since then, EK has gone into deep denial about his past, claiming it was a conspiracy to get him rather than the predictable consequence of his own misbehavior. Worse, he's started a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Everyking&diff=prev&oldid=230136951 vigorous campaign] to rewrite his history here, to con others into believing that fairy tale. Since his antics predate many of the current users, a lot of them are not aware of how much disruption he has caused in the past. Needless to say, however, I most certainly do not trust EK.
'''Oppose''' Propensity for decisions that may not be in the project's best interest.
'''Oppose'''...completely unsuited to adminship.--
'''Oppose''' Concerns over past decisions, though his positive contributions made this a tough call.
'''Oppose'''. Decent editor much of the time, but too much history of failing to maintain perspective.
'''Oppose.''' Was one of the worst admins in the history of the project; I see no need to repeat the experience.
'''Oppose''', generates too much drama. --
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
'''Very strong Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' I rarely oppose RfA's but remember the past drama too well and can't shake the feeling that this user will only generate more of it in the future.  Great contributor but not suited to adminship.
'''Weak oppose''' per Sam Korn and Raul. <small>Changed from support</small>
Per Raul and Sam Korn. —
'''Oppose''' - most of my reasoning has already been mentioned above, but admins need to have consistently good judgment and be willing to become informed about the issues they comment on. Everyking has a history of trouble with both that I believe those issues continue to this day. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Strong oppose''' There are too many comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=230747664#Community_Ban_proposal supporting a POV editor], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=229189975 complaining about closing discussions], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=229089195 attacking a good editor and admin], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=229088383 supporting desysopping of a top editor], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2&diff=prev&oldid=226509364 supporting one of the worst Wikipedia editors ever for adminship], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Orangemarlin_and_other_matters&diff=prev&oldid=222598734 supporting secret hearings by not stepping up to admonish FT2].  This nominee too often generates drama, or continues it by supporting editors who's sole purpose is to cause trouble.  I cannot trust this nominee's judgement, and isn't that really why we support admins?  This person is unsuited to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' - Troublesome answers to questions, troublesome past.
'''Oppose''' based on the premise that all this drama must follow him for a reason. His offense to question 15 hints at what a little research shows to be true—he is quick to take offense and slow to apologize. I would also like to note the astonishing lack of transparency in the nomination, which went well out of its way to paint his previous mishaps as little bits of silliness.
'''Oppose''' per Plasticup and Raul.
'''Oppose'''. I lack confidence in his good judgment.
'''Oppose''' Way too much drama to be worthwhile given that adminship is a service role.
'''Oppose''' Per the above..--
'''Oppose''' There were many, many problems with Everyking's use of the tools when he had them, I remain unconvinced that anything has changed - his mainspace contributions notwithstanding. Everyking has consistently displayed a pronounced lack of judgement and interest in assessing situations before wading in - both vital skills for anyone requesting the tools. As Raul has already suggested, the lapse in judgement that cost Everyking the tools last time was not unpredictable and I have no reason to believe that a similarly egregious, avoidable error might not happen again. Simply put: I do not trust Everyking with the tools, not even close.
'''Oppose''' I do not trust his judgement with the tools.—
'''Oppose''', looking over the concerns raised, they are too numerous, too serious, and from too many respected editors to be ignored.
'''Too many issues'''. (e/c) No one of them is too big to overcome or look past, there are just too many concerns brought up by respected editors.  I've seen you around, like your work, cannot support an RFA at this time however.
No. I like much of what everyking has been saying and doing recently, but I am insufficiently confident in his judgment.
'''Oppose''' per Jayjg, Raul, FloNight and others.
'''Oppose''' lacks the temperament for the mop.
'''Oppose''' Agree with FloNight and Spartaz. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''', sorry. Multiple serious concerns, as per above. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''', primarily per Jim62. Too often, Everyking seems to be contrarian for contrarian's sake alone, without regard to the proverbial rhyme nor reason. Contrarians are fine - their schtick can be annoying at times, but fine - but [[WP:WHEELWAR|don't need the mop]]. His support of Ed Poor for admin (a candidate who was removed from multiple positions over a course of multiple incidents) speaks volumes for his willingness to ignore all reason just to [[Absolutely Free|support an unpopular policy every once in a while]]. [[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ''changing to'' '''strong oppose''' ''per Merzbow, below''
'''Strong Oppose''' per Raul, continues to comment on adminstrative manners without the slightest appearence of actually having looked into the matter. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=223865145|here], on the [[User:Giovanni33]] community ban. He beings with "I object to the premature closure of the discussion", which was SNOW-closed twice by two different administrators. OK, whatever, one can legitimately argue about how long a discussion should be open. But then he then says that "I am not yet convinced that this user's actions warrant a ban... Perhaps Giovanni could be asked to avoid a particular article, if that article is a source of controversy?" If Everyking had taken two seconds to actually read the discussion, he'd be aware the user in question was caught socking by RFCU (and indeed was shortly banned by ArbCom for mass socking). It requires an utter lack of clue to suggest that a bitter, months-long conflict with a sockpuppeter could be resolved by ''politely asking him to avoid an article'' - Giovanni was not being accused of disruptive actions on his own account, the disruption was with socks he refused to own up to in the first place. -
'''Strong oppose''' - There are serious doubts about this user's judgment, in my opinion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Strong oppose'''. Abso''lute''ly not. Per Raul, etc. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. (Really wanted to find something to say but everything's covered by people opposed above already and it seems foolish to repeat what others have already said)
'''Oppose''' - have no confidence in the nominatee's judgement and ability to couple that judgement with the tools.
Some of the opposes (and supports) hold sound reasoning and logic. However, I feel I can't comfortably support based on the concerns raised.
'''Oppose''' Common sense indicates too much acrimony here for a successful outcome, sorry..
'''Oppose'''. Too much drama, too many bad decisions, sorry. Being an good editor and contributor to the project doesn't necessarily make one suited to be an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. My contributions to RfA, with a few exceptions, are normally opposes on the "this guy an admin? Over my swiftly cooling corpse!" basis; this is one of those. Constant DRAMAH, acrimony and general inappropriateness tell me that this user does not have the temperament for the mop. Possibly some kind of dustpan and brush, though.
'''Oppose''' Too many clouds in the past.
'''Opppose'''.  Being the subject of ''three'' ArbCom cases raises eyebrows.  His response to question five is troubling, suggesting that it was a failure of ArbCom that got him banned from AN rather than his own conduct.  (I note the findings of fact regarding his lack of research and sniping received unanimous support from the Committee; it wasn't a divided opinion.)  Edits like the one Merzbow cites suggest that he still isn't diligent about doing his research before proposing action.
'''Oppose''': I believe that people can learn from their mistakes, but they need to demonstrate they have learned first, and make restitution. Has not displayed the judgment necessary to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Merzbow and Gamaliel, among others.
'''Oppose''' - per Gamaliel. Also has a very problematic history with little evidence that he has changed since the ArbCom affairs took place. --
'''Oppose''', reluctantly, as I admire and esteem any editor with as substantial and impressive article contributions as Everyking. I also admire and respect the opinions of many of his supporters, but I cannot overlook the lack of judgement as noted by the other opposers. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I respect the views of the old timers who are objecting, and the more recent behaviour lends me to believe that times haven't changed. --
'''Oppose''' Looking at some the diff evidence provided (such as that by Raul), it is clear to me that the candidate is supremely untrustworthy - we hardly need the kind of negativity and drama that Everyking continues to stir up. The article contributions are great, but allowing Everyking to have the tools again would, in my opinion, be extremely detrimental to the project. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' No second chance draws needed with 1500 people on board.--

'''Vehemently oppose''': Too much drama surrounds Everyking, including his having been banned from the Admin discussion pages and his prior indication that he would email deleted material to anybody who requested it.  <font face="Comic sans">
'''Oppose''': Inclusionist to an extreme. Does not recognize the value of [[WP:N]] in terms of making judgements about what articles should and should not be included in Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. Him needing us is trumped by us not needing him.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  He doesn't need the tools to create more drama.  To paraphrase, Everyking needs the tools like a fish needs a bicycle.  --
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns here.
'''Oppose''' The question has to be, is this editor less likely to "step on landmines" than they were? I cannot get past the answer to Q14, which seems exactly wrong to me, and implies that the candidate's inclusionist philosophy would inform their approach to blocked and banned editors. Reading further discussion (particularly the opposes) adds further concerns. Undoubtedly this is a great editor and a prodigious contributor, but I do not think the risk of handing them the tools would be worth the benefit.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' per concerns brought up above. <tt class="plainlinks">
I strongly disagree with his views on inclusion, but I try not to let such considerations affect my support. My main problem is his tendency to involve himself in situations of which he has little to no knowledge. That's a terrible trait, and it's what got him desysopped in the first place. Had he done his homework, he would have known about the privacy concerns in the revisions. That lapse in judgment was a long time ago, but there's no indication that this characteristic has changed. '''
EK has a long, checkered past; adults are generally unable to change their stripes. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' given past history. Sure it ''may'' have been possible for the account with the history to be abandoned in favour of a new account per the [[WP:RTV]], and then contributed with positively to give it a shot of passing RFA by now, but (based on the socks etc. that get caught) it is very hard to stay under the radar in such cases. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>
'''Never.''' Let the fact that this is just my second logged-in edit in seven months show just how vehemently I oppose this man once again getting the sysop tools. He has made incredibly poor choices in the past over and over again, and I have no reason to believe he wouldn't do so again. Maybe this is a vote based as much on emotion as on fact, but (long ago) I was personally offended by Everyking many times, as were many editors I trusted. If I were to sit idly by and let him grab the mop again, not just would I be doing a disservice to myself and Wikipedia, but I would be actively attempting to hurt this great encyclopedia. (This is not to say that people who support his adminship are hurting it, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions and ideals; this is just talking about me from my point of view.) The point is, I feel that he would not just be less-than-helpful as a sysop, but possibly be quite detrimental to the goals of WP. I will not support James getting the mop- I never have and I never will. --
'''Oppose'''. EK has taken several actions that are not in keeping with admin responsibilities. While we all make mistakes, he seems to have difficulty accepting his. Instead, he typically engages in long discussions and rationalizations of his behaviour. We need admins  who can learn from their mistakes, adapt and move on.
'''Oppose''' I'm not confident that Everyking is well-suited to be an admin, given the past issues. --
'''Oppose'''. Nor am I.
'''Oppose'''. I am not comfortable giving admin tools to someone who is so prone to involving himself in arguments and debates before taking the trouble to inform himself. Nor am I happy with the history of ArbCom cases and restrictions.
Adminship is not a reward for good editing, and while Everyking is a prolific editor, his administrative actions were often questionable, and I do not think he has the judgment to make correct choices as an admin.
'''Oppose'''.  Three ArbCom cases, and some sanctions are still in effect, as recently [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Modified in open motion|verified in February 2008]], and due for re-review in another year.  Administrators should be users in good standing, and I cannot support an admin candidate who is still under sanctions.  So first show that behavior has improved enough to get all the ArbCom restrictions lifted, and only then can we talk adminship. --
'''Oppose''' – a difficult call, as obviously able and a good contributor, but too liable to involve himself in drama to the detriment of the community, and for me the necessary trust in wisdom isn't there. . .
'''Oppose'''.  Not easy to pick here, but the opposers include many people whose judgement I've found to be trustworthy in the past.  Raul's comments in particular pulled me off the fence.  I should add that I've had no negative experiences with Everyking myself, but I see no reason why he can't continue as a valuable contributor without the admin bit.
'''Oppose''' - Its a matter of trust. I don't see why this user needs Adminship from anything I've read, and the trust issue is strong enough to not warrant such privileged in this instance. Sorry.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Not sure why user needs the tools. If I knew of a very good reason, I might change to neutral, but as it stands, there is a lot of evidence.
'''Oppose'''  This has taken a few days to ponder.  While I think Raul has gone a bit overboard against him, looking at the history and so  on, I just am not convinced that more "explosions" will not follow. Editor - great.  Admin - no.
'''Oppose''' for drama -- <b>
'''Oppose''' following our discussion at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22]] regarding Crash Of The Titans, where Everyking stated that he has always rejected completely the notion that admins should close deletion debates based on strength of arguments rather than counting of votes; and where he called for the overturning of a deletion on the grounds that the deleting admin made his judgement based on strength of arguments. I just can't support adminship for someone who fundamentally disagrees with such an important principle of an admins' duties. --
'''Oppose''' for several reasons.  I admit I've some sympathy for the implied position that it's not okay for admins to use their judgment when he's had several cases of egregiously bad judgment, but y'know something?  I look over a lot of the Support votes, and so many of their RfA votes come down to some niggling knee-jerk triviality such as "Not enough AfD experience, we can't trust his judgment" or "She said something arguably mean in three edit summaries, we can't trust her conduct."  But here we have someone who's screwed up big time, unambiguously ... and some of the same folk are defending him tooth and nail.  How about we reserve the slack we cut for able editors who've never done anything wrong and cut a little less for desysopped admins who have?
'''Oppose''' - Per above.
'''Oppose''' based on Everyking's [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22|interpretation of what consensus means]]. Stating plainly that consensus is judged solely on the numbers is radically out of line with the rest of the project, and I don't trust that this view is strictly in the case of AfDs.
'''Oppose''' Per FloNight and a dozen comments above.
'''Neutral''' While I am hesitant because the user has been blocked, there is overwhelming evidence that shows they have learned. However, my concerns remain.--
'''Neutral''' too many cons to support, too many pros to oppose. So I'm stuck here in No-man's land. :) Erik the <font color="red">
'''Neutral''' from initial Support. Mainly per Erik the Red, but some of the Oppose votes have some very weighty arguments to them. I'm sorry. :( &mdash;
'''Neutral''' Given I was cited as implicit justification for a support, I will clarify that in this case I have no firm opinion. '''
'''Neutral''' Changed from "Weak Support". Concerns brought up in "oppose" pulling at me. Not sure what to do, now. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I've been involved in a lot of the same projects with Everyking since 2004. Ever since then, some of the behaviors he has exhibited have given me pause. Indeed, there was once upon a time in which I said I would never trust him with those tools again. There was something he said to me once, a couple of years ago, in IRC...I don't even know if he remembers saying it, but we were involved in a dispute in which he thought I could see his side and he asked me for compassion. I almost voted oppose today, and now I'm giving him compassion that I didn't before. I still cannot support him...I just can't...but I can say I won't be opposing. I know it may sound hollow and it may not look that way, but I believe I'm doing this out of goodwill. Hopefully Everyking will understand.
I have great admiration for the work Everyking does on some African-related articles, and for the vast thousands of minor edits he makes to improve the project. I have even given him a barnstar for his efforts. (Whoopee!) But I cannot support him for reasons that I have already discussed with him privately. I was disappointed when he appeared to revenge my lack of support by piling on in an uninformed way when there was a complaint against me on ANI recently. I think Wikipedia is lucky to have his participation, but that his talents are better suited to editing rather than administrating. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Neutral'''. What I know about Everyking, his contributions to articles related to African politics are excellent, to say at least. I also commend his ability to keep NPOV on political issues. I'm not going to express support or opposition, since it would ask more research, and I do not generally participate RFA discussions anyway.
Per MBisanz. There's no need to pile on, and it looks like this one will succeed anyway, but I cannot support. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - per Erik the Red, there are just too many concerns here. --'''
'''Neutral''': Wanted to [[WP:AGF|give a second chance]] but there are too many concerns that makes me unsure whether to support. --
'''Moral Support''' [[WP:NOTNOW]].  Not enough experience. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''': I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. That and there is a complete lack of understanding on copyright policies, coupled with an extremely low edit count. Sorry, but if you continue on the right path, I'm sure you'll eventually become well qualified. Good luck. <small>
'''Weak oppose''' unless I can see some more clueful answers to the questions. Delete ''what'' artic[l]es? And what does deleting them have to do with making WP "safe for people of all ages"? As for edit conflicts, can you point me to one you've been in? And what is it that you "try again"? Do you try making the same point, in the same way, to the same people (let's hope not)? My oppose is "weak," by the way, because I hate to oppose RfA's, but I can't in good conscience lend support ''this'' early in your wikilearning process. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', sorry but I don't think you've really grasped what admins do yet. I strongly suggest you read the [[WP:ARL|administrator's reading list]] before you try another RfA - from your answers to questions, you seem to have missed in particular that [[Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored]] and generally what [[WP:COPYRIGHT|copyright]] is on Wikipedia. Admins are expected to have good knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and I don't think you've got there yet, unfortunately. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' and close per WP:SNOW. Less that a thousand edits, no understanding of Wikipedia besides the edit this page button, and desire to censor pages for young'uns. [[WP:NOTCENSORED|You can't do this]]. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I like your enthusiasm but you are not ready to have the tools just yet. --
'''Oppose''' As if the previous opposes weren't clear enough, Q3 seals it. Cheese us kryst, dude, if that isn't a fail I don't know what is.--
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I'm not going to pile-on, so I'm just going to leave it at that. &ndash;
Please withdraw now if you wish to avoid unpleasant comments in your direction. You are, I'm afraid, not going to pass and are wholly unqualified to weild the admin tools. Firstly you have no understanding of deletion policy, have no meaningful interaction in the wikipedia namespace so will not understand our core policies. This is reflected in your comment that you want to delete wikipedia to make it safe for all ages. Er, no, that's not going to happen because wikipedia is not censored.
[[WP:NOTNOW]], sorry. Please continue with your article editing and creation, and try expanding to a few administrative areas such as [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AfD]] etc. Once you have some more experience, you're welcome to reapply for adminship. —'''
Wikipedia isn't harmed by well-meaning but inexperienced admins. Quite the opposite. '''
Per naerii.
This is A Bad Idea. You obviously mean well and will someday be a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, no doubt. But, now, there are major issues. You seem to have no experience in policy-related discussions. The answers to the questions are short, lacking, and even imply some off-policy actions (original research, solving a dispute by reverting, etc). There is a lot of focus on treating Wikipedia as a social forum or blog, as evidenced by the secret page. You can be a great editor here, you clearly have the brains and the technical talent to be one. However, you have work to do before being ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''', unfortunately Tan has got it exactly right. You're obviously well-intentioned and can make a great contribution to Wikipedia, but I really think you need more experience of the policy side of Wikipedia and to get a better feeling for exactly what admins do and why. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Per above, specifically what Tan brought up. I get a [[WP:MYSPACE]] feel in your contributions, since you edit your user page and sub pages pretty often. Wikipedia is '''NOT''' a myspace. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - simply because of your inexperience. I can't tell from what you've done up until now how you will cope with the pressures and responsibilities of adminship. I think you should wait until you've got about 3000 edits and a least 5 months, with a good quantity of mainspace, [[WP:AFD|AfD]] etc. edits, and I would consider you afresh. All the best until then though! –  <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' Extreme lack of experience. Only three articles created that I can find and well under (my typical minimum for RfA support) 10,000 edits. I would also like to see you have at least 18 months on-wiki before I would support you.
'''Oppose''' Too soon since last try, too soon altogether, obviously did not get the clear message sent last time.
'''Oppose'''. Tan hit the nail on the head, I'm sorry to say. You only have a thousand or so edits which is generally okay, but you could use more experience. I would suggest taking up [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] if you wish to try again. All the best, &mdash;
Please see [[WP:NOTNOW]] and please stop thinking the end result of Wikipedia is to be an admin - which is what I read from this. It very much isn't. Your contributions are appreciated, very much so, but you really need to spend some time studying past RFA's and the candidates contributions to understand the reason for failure for RFA 1. Perhaps that will assist. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Various problems with the user. Lack of experience, low knowledge of policies, very low edit summary count along with a fairly low edit count. I could go on, but these problems alone is enough for my oppose.
'''Oppose''' — Severe lack of experience comes across from simply reading the user's talk page. —'''
You're a great editor so far, and I would ''really'' like to support this. Unfortunately, I have to agree with what Tanthalas39 said. No doubt in my mind you'll make an excellent administrator within a year or so. &ndash;
[[WP:NOTNOW]] ...
'''Nominator support'''- See the nomination statement.--
'''Oppose''' at the moment as I can't see any significant mainspace contribs other than reverts. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do; however, if you ''do'' have some significant article work that I've missed due to the "burying" effect that mass bulk edits have, I'll happily reconsider.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AExcirial&diff=224549601&oldid=224547601 this edit]. I really think the user would do a good job, but this edit worries me. Iridescent puts it best to.
'''Oppose''' - completed mishandled an encounter with me as described above. --
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately, since I've had good interactions with this user before. However, the above concerns me, and yes, I'm going to analyze his UAA contributions as that is where he intends to work. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=211278222 not offensive], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=212591342 not every username with the term "spam" in it needs to be blocked immediately], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=212594226 this is a stretch], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=212606011 this is offensive? To who? People who love puppies?], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=212635432], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=212608980 confusing? Looks like another language]. Anyway, given the amount of intense automation, coupled with these kinds of biting reports, I cannot support.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom's diffs. Spceifically,  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=211278222] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=212606011]. Doesn't seem like Excirial can understand what is and isn't offensive (seriously, anybody who thinks the puppy thing was offensive needs to grow a pair) and would likley mis-use the block button.--
I see your potential in high-volume editing/tasks, but looking at the above evidence provided by those who objected you need to work on your communication approach and prove that you are able to advance beyond Huggle in more complex situations. -
'''Oppose'''. I'm not going to oppose you just for using automated tools, I use Huggle, too, but an extreme majority of your work is automated. You haven't edited articles much aside from reverting vandalism. You haven't done much communication with other editors aside from warnings. Communication is a very important trait in an administrator. Also, per a couple of Wisdom's diffs above. You're a prolific vandal-fighter, but not well-rounded enough for my taste.
'''Oppose''' a number of curious and worrying edits brought to light above, some of which are rather too recent. :S There is potential though, the mistakes just need ironing out. Huggle make up a vast majority of the article work - all automated - which I also do not like. Administrators have to show good decision-making and interaction skills, which can't be achieved via tool / bot usage. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on.  You seem nice enough, but defending a Huggle revert is never a good choice of action -- especially by rubbishing [[WP:DTTR|DTTR]].  Sorry.
'''Neutral''' I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting to improve the quality of the Wikipedia environment, and I am impressed by your anti-vandalism work. However, some of your communications with other editors have been less than diplomatic, and I am concerned that you may use the admin authority to block people first and ask questions later (if at all).  I also haven't seen much in the way of content creation and expansion (unless I am missing something in my research). At this stage, I would vote Neutral and hope that you can improve on your work for a future RfA. (And, yes, where did Q4 come from?)
'''Oppose''' - The blocks and sockpuppeting were too recent, just in September.  Glad to see this editor has changed their methods, but I think that more than just two months should pass between an indef block for sockpuppeting/vandalising and being given the keys to the shop.  Try again in 6 months and it will be a bit easier to be open minded.  <font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><strong>
'''Oppose''' It looks like this candidate got unblocked specifically so they could run for admin. I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools. Let's first see a demonstration that they won't abuse their editing privileges.  <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' - we don't need admins who believe Wikipedia "...is just a website for fuck's sake anyway". <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - purely owing to past behavioural issues. A steady pattern of editing and staying out of trouble for several months wouldn't hurt at a future RfA though.
'''Oppose''' - the block log, possible sockpuppet cases and attitude demonstrated in this RfA all lead me to not be able to trust this candidate. '''
'''Neutral'''. There's a lot of good edits to review, many of them Huggle-assisted vandalism fighting. Candidate is credit to team, as they say - but the block is bothersome. Even if it was unwarranted and unjust - as the candidate claims, and on which I have no opinion - it was an indef block that was lifted less than 24 hours ago. There are going to be a lot of editors who see this RfA and wonder how on earth someone who was so recently blocked can possibly expect to get the tools. My view - the best way to prove that you're here to edit productively, and possibly to prove the critics wrong, would be to edit normally for a while and get back into the swing of things, showing that you can edit within policy. Then come back in a few months. I know you want rollback (as you note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FRollback&diff=253182925&oldid=253108525 here]), but this might not be the best way to get it. Good luck to you,
'''Moral support''', you're certainly a good user, but I'm afraid you will have large difficulties passing due to your low edit count and little experience with editing mainspace articles. --
'''Oppose''' - Hey there, thanks for expressing interest in helping with the project by offering to be an administrator. Unfortunately, your lack of edits in vital Wikipedia areas doesn't give me enough information or the confidence to judge whether you could use the administrator tools accurately and wisely. I'd come back in about 4-5 months of heavy editing in various namespaces. Regards!
'''Oppose'''. You're on the right track so far, but it'll take some more work to give the community evidence of your experience and knowledge of policy. Please try an RFA again when you are in the 2000-3000 edits range. You may wish to take a look at [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my admin criteria]] for a sample of what some users expect in an admin candidate. Good luck in the future and if you ever have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom and Useight, really. You need more experience in all the namespaces but that shouldn't take too long. Hope to see you around in a few months. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you need more experience in admin-related areas; [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN/I]], [[WP:UAA]] etc. I am sure that with a little more time you will get there. Also, please try always to use edit summaries. You can enable a reminder in the preferences tab, above. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong oppose''' anyone who believes that replacing a user's page with "'FUCKINGGG RACIST IDIOT SUCK MY DICK LEAVE ARGENTINA ALONE" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:D%C3%BAnadan&diff=prev&oldid=187410910] is in any way appropriate, is clearly a long way from being an administrator. This was just a few months ago. You need a lot more good editing to get past that.
Lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. I concur with Rudget; the candidate looks like a good contributor, but I would like to see several more months of quality participation before an RfA. I also suggest that the candidate change their preferences to force the use of an edit summary, as that (edit summary usage) is a critical factor for a successful admin. There are additional resources that may be of benefit, including coaching, but the first step is simply more experience. Best to you,
'''Oppose'''. It is good to see that you're keen, but I also would like to see several months of participation. 298 edits is not only underexperience, but please consider responses to your RFA will use the figure as a basis for your dedication to the project (not necessarily the quality of your contributions). I'd also like to point out to you that if you seek to be an admin here just for the sake of it, commentators on your RFA will not find it very endearing. But I shall assume good faith here and assume your intented undertakings as an administrator would be advantageous to the project, so please consider this RFA constructive criticism, and I hope I can support a future RFA at a later date. If you are truly intrested in contributing to Wikipedia then remember there are still reams of things you can do without being an administrator. Regards,
'''Oppose'''. The candidate needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' 'I would like to be an admin because i have made  a contribution to wikipedia' that really does not seem like a good reason why you should become an admin. Come back in a few months and learn about wikipedia policies and read some admin material and I will consider supporting you. Around 300 edits is now way enough experience, and there are no answers to the questions.
'''Oppose''', heart is really in the right place, but a bit more experience and familiarity with admin-related tasks is required.
'''Strong Oppose''' The candidate is nowhere near ready. ALmost half of his edits are to his user page. I first encountered this user when he copied a section of the main [[The Simpsons]] article and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_the_declining_quality_of_The_Simpsons&diff=prev&oldid=188209400 moved it to its own article without changing a thing] and resisted attempts to merge it with messages such as "stop deleting this page it is useful" and at one point had created two pages with the exact same thing ([[Critisms of declining quality|the other]] has since been deleted). This was less than two months ago, and I haven't seen any growth or improvement since. As well, not long after he started this RFA, he uploaded [[:Image:Simpsons-cast.jpg|an image]] of various Simpsons characters that is clearly from a poster or some kind of official work, but he claims it is his and used a PD tag. This shows he has no knowledge of image policy. --
'''Oppose''' As per the above, candidate needs a lot more experience before he can handle the mop.
'''Oppose''' Lacks sufficient experience.  Suggest close per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
Per above. For an idea of what is expected of a candidate before they submit an RfA please read [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA]] . I hope to see you back here with more experience in a few months time. Regards,
Nominator support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] | [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] |
'''Support''' - reviewing the contribs shows a user who demonstrates understanding of processes here, is polite and reasonable, has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart etc..  No reason to not support -
Of course. ?'''
Such a noble creature. A quality we sometimes lack. We will add your distinctiveness to our own. ?<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Ever since I met this user a few months ago, I've always seen Finalnight doing some constructive editing. Looking through most of this user's contributions, I'm even more impressed at what this user has done. Good answers also. Would be a great administrator. ^_^ --
'''Support''' I have never had interaction with this user, but he looks like he has a clean slate, and I know I can trust him with the tools. Good luck!!
'''Support''' Go for it!
'''Support''' One of the best RfA's I've seen in a while.
'''Support''' Generally, I don't contribute to "certain to pass" RfA's, but I'm willing to make an exception. Over a thousand high-quality mainspace edits, good experience in policy (almost 300 wikipedia edits), and over 700 user talk edits show an ability to communicate vital to an admin. I could learn a thing or two from this user, it seems! :) Good luck from Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Because I'd like to balance out an 'oppose' that seems to be based on the editor's wikistance. He also has a much more "productive" mainspace to supporting space edit ratio than I do. :) He has more comments on GA nominations than deletion debates--it hardly helps to hang him out to dry over alleged deletionism. He uses edit summaries fastidiously, wikignomes, and his very first edit was to join a project. He is almost the complete opposite of me, in short, a perfect admin candidate. :)
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Meets my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]].
'''Support'''. Yep. &mdash;
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - use of Huggle doesn't bother me one iota, and you have done very well at [[WP:ACC|account creation]] so I do not see any problem in giving you this right.  Good luck,
'''Weak support''' - I actually found this a tough one. I took Keeper's introduction, Finalnight's statements and the oppose/support reasons into careful consideraton. It has taken me a while. Negative points I picked up on included what remains a relatively low Wikipedia-space participation, but that is because he has only been with us about half a year. There is also a disappointingly low interaction rate with other users, both on his own talkpage and others'. But while automated tool usage was pointed out to be factor, it was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be. This user is an excellent vandal fighter, and will make good use of administrative tools. Good article builder too, and essentially knows what he is doing. And the in-depth, thoughtful answers to the questions are impressive. In light of this, I am just about willing to offer Finalnight my support. :) I recommend a thorough reading of [[Wikipedia:Administrator's reading list|this ''essential'' stuff]] and lots of practice at the admin school before putting the tools to use in the "real Wikipedia world". <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">[[User:Lradrama|<span style="color:red">Lra</span>]][[User talk:Lradrama|drama]]</span> 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - isn't a vandal and therefore meets my criteria for having the buttons. --
'''Support''' - Despite concerns about lack of work in certain areas as ohers have outlined, I have reviewed your contribuions and feel that your work is a net positive to the project and that I can trust you to work for the benefit of the community. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' Net positive for the project.

'''Support''' - My only concern is the lack of portal talk edits. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Weak Support''' Come on, that was funny.
'''Support''' - seems sane & not likely to baleet the mainpage -
'''Support''' Net positive to the project.
'''Support''' Definitely trustable. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' Everything I can find shows him to be a trustworthy editor who would make a trustworthy administrator.  I don't think he'd abuse the tools, and I do think he'd use them for good.
'''Support''' ? After reviewing his contributions, I think that (s)he will be a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' - Looks like he knows what he is doing; deletion discussion is picky.  I certainly don't expect him to be stomping thru the AfDs...
'''Support''' I don't think ou will abuse the tools.  <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">
'''Support''' Per nom. '''
'''Strong support'''--Per [[User:Gears of War/RFA Review#Finalnight|here]].
'''Support''' - Seems to be a good editor. Why not?<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''', no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''- Trustworthy user.--
'''Support''', per nominator's statement, and the fact that this editor easily meets [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|my criteria]] for supporting an RfA. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''' per nom and (long) answers to questions.--
'''Support'''. Meets my admin criteria of January 2005.
'''Support''': I have no concerns regarding Finalnight. <small>
'''Support''' See no reason not to. '''
'''Support'''. Some of the opposes have weight, but not enough to push me into their camp. Communication skills look good, overall attitude is great, I've had a bit of experience with the nominator. I trust this user.
'''Support''' per Tanthalas39. And candidate's sense of humour is a plus.
'''Support'''. I am particularly pleased by the response to question 10.
'''Strong support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]]? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' -- per Tanthalas39. Good luck. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per whatever
'''Support'''.  I like the way he answered the questions and it looks like he'll be a good sysop.  &ndash;
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, he seems to know what he's doing and have very good intentions. Nothing in the oppose section really concerns me. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. Have no doubt that Finalnight will wield the mop in a thoughtful and considered fashion.
'''Weak oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic and cartoon characters named after people]] (cites the ''proposed'' [[WP:FICT]] as a "guideline" in an AfD that was overwhelmingly "keep") and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuked the fridge]] (now this one was far from unanimous in its closure, but if you look at the article, it seems to go beyond a dictionary definition in the origin section).  Because these examples are the only two experiences I had with the candidate and as they are only two experiences, I am saying "weak" in my stance.  With that said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Finalnight&namespace=4&year=&month=] seems to show an overwhelming amount of deletes, with limited merges and keeps (yes, I know I personally argue to keep more than anything else as seen at [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions]], but I am not an admin and I think balance is important for admins), but I am not quite as knowledgeable about those topics (hence why I did not participate in the AfDs) and so defer on someone else if the stances were reasonable there.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy Festival of [[Castor and Pollux]]!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose''' Most of this editors edits are via the use of tools.  He has a total of 14 edits on Wikitalk pages, about 750 edits on user talk pages---almost all of which are via the us of Vandal Proof (or Huggle.)  His edits to article talk page is a little better, but over 4/5th of  his 260 edist are cosmetics (Eg results of AfD, changing the rating/class, etc.)  In short, I see very little in the way of consensus building.  He has very few edits demonstrating meaningful dialog---he only has 16 edits on his page and 11 on his nom's page and no more than 8 on any other user!  Then there are his edits, it is rare that I see as blatant of deletionist as we have here.  Finalnight does an excellent job with edit summaries, which makes looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Finalnight&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 how he voted very easy.]  Unfortunately, I was surprised at how rarely he votes to keep (He does close edits as keeps, but that is the only way non-admins can close AfD's.)  While he does give more than a "Per X" !vote at XfD's there weren't too many places where he appeared to revisit previous edits---eg it seemed like a lot of drive by !votes.  (While he has some CSD's none jumped out at me as blatantly wrong and there weren't as many as I expected.) Most of his article edits are also template/cosmetic.  While I see a lot of potential in this candidate, I just can't support right now.  Then there is his choice in sports team... oh wait, we can't oppose for liking the vikings can we?---'''
'''Oppose''' per Le Grand, Balloonman. The exchange with Nsk92 (see below oppose vote) has also shown me that I cannot place my trust in this user at all.
'''Oppose''' On June 28, 2008 finalnight nominated an article for speeding as a hoax which was not in my opinion blatant and obvious ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Jason_B_Burnett&timestamp=20080628051321&diff=prev deleted edit]). This concerns me greatly.  His answer to Q7 did not allay my fears.
'''Not now'''. I looked through almost all of Finalnight's AfD contributions and, though keep !votes are sparse, he's been quite reasonable. (I take it he is applying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davnel03_4&diff=prev&oldid=224863961 this] reasoning to his AfD participation, which is fine with me.) What concerns me is that I see no participation in XfD besides AfD -- no IfD, TfD, CfD, UCfD, SfD, RfD or MfD. Also no DRV. I don't care much about some of these, like SfD and TfD, but I'd at least like to see some participation in IfD and DRV (most/all of them would be ideal). Finalnight doesn't list these as areas of interest in his answer to Q1, but virtually all admins work in these areas at some point. I rarely cast these types of votes, but this seems like an extreme case. I would happily support with more rounded experience. ?
'''Weak oppose''' first off, I must admit that I have spent less than 5 minutes writing this comment ''and'' have not not even read all your answers to the questions, but, ''non-admins are not allowed to close AFD discussions as no consensus'' as you did with the following diffs.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seven_Days_Confederate_order_of_battle&diff=prev&oldid=222493025] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Time_%28Frankie_J_album%29&diff=prev&oldid=222494290] -
<s>'''Oppose.'''</s> This edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGabriel_J._Chin&diff=225664922&oldid=225608654] rather worries me. If you are going to nominate something for an AfD, at least do a few google searches first. It is certainly not enough to simply "look at the structure of the article" before listing an article for an AfD. If an article can be improved, it should be improved, not deleted; this is one of the tenets of deletion policy. Also, the claim that in this case the article "did not have any reliable sources or claims to notability" at the time of nomination is incorrect. There was a list of academic publications of the subject that could have at least suggested that the subject is regarded as a significant academic expert (the current standard of [[WP:PROF]]). There was also a mention of the subject's article in relation to John McCain's presidential eligibility and the fact that the subject holds a named chair appointment at a major research university (the fact that in practice was always regarded as sufficient to pass [[WP:PROF]] in the past AfD discussions regarding academics).  In view of the other AfD concerns raised here (oppose no. 1 by LGRdC and the preceding oppose by Icewedge), I do not believe that this candidate is ready to be trusted with the deletion button yet. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' per exchange below. Questioning my motives based on bad faith assumptions was bad enough, but refusing to let go and admit any mistakes demonstrates a judgement problem and an unsuitable attitude for an admin.
'''Oppose'''.  In nearly three years as a Wikipedian I have only opposed an RFA once before; I've supported nearly every time I vote, but not here.  Finalnight's mainspace work is borderline on the light side, but what really raises red flags is how unreservedly he takes credit for other people's work.  What did he really do for [[Star Trek:First Contact]]?  Eight edits to the talk page.  For [[The Tales of Beedle the Bard]]?  Seven edits to the talk page.  Actual mainspace work to either article doesn't even show a blip on the radar in his edit count report.  Yet he answers question 2 ''I think I have a lot of really good contributions. I would point out my help with getting the Star Trek: First Contact and The Tales of Beedle the Bard articles to GA.''  Whoa, not good.  Full stop. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - per the frightening points Durova has brought up. If there is one thing that I really do not like, it is claiming credit for something one did not do. Finalnight could not have helped bring those articles to GA just by editing the talk page a few times. The credit goes fully to the ones who actually editing the article. Also for failure to answer question 10. <span style="padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">
'''Oppose''' unimpressed with exchange with Nsk92 (the exchange more than the original diff, the diff wasn't good, the exchange was worse).  Then Durova's points tip me over to oppose (Keeper76's exchange with Durova isn't helping, but I'm not holding Finalnight responsible for Keeper's actions).  The talk page contribution are more substantive than the typical talk page matter... but the sum leaves me feeling that I must oppose this time.
'''Oppose''' per the weak article-writing experience and the comments made by Durova and Pete.Hurd.
'''Oppose''' per the weak article-writing experience and the comments made by Durova and Pete.Hurd. Copy and Paste is fun :)
'''Strong Oppose''': By Keeper's description alone it is evident he is a fanboy. He made Finalnight sound like a ninja while simply describing the things ''every wikipedian'' does (make edits without saying I MADE AN EDIT LULZ!!1!). Also, almost every support simply says 'I find no reason to oppose', one even openly admits 'I've never interacted with him ... but I trust him completely'. So would you guys support the accountless IP addresses for adminship too? <br> but seriously, claiming other peoples work as your own is really low; using their work to give yourself undeserved admin tools - down right rotten. There is nothing wrong with nominating your friends, Keeper, but be open about it - it makes it look like you have something to hide. I '''oppose''' because of the opposing points made by other users above, and the failure of Finalnight to address them acceptably.--
'''Oppose''' per Pete.Hurd. He said it before I could. <small>?Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Change from support''' per Durova. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Oppose''', essentially per Nsk92 and the following testy exchange. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGabriel_J._Chin&diff=225664922&oldid=225608654 This] isn't what I expect a potential admin candidate to ever say. "I saw an article that did not have any reliable sources or claims to notability and nominated it. I didn't even notice what the subject of the article is talking about, I just look at the structure of the article and apply the community guidelines to it." You think so seriously? Sorry, but you do not seem to understand what AfD is about. I'm afraid I cannot trust you with the delete button at this time. --
Per Durova.
Oppose, regretfully. I feel that at this current moment in time that the candidate has not fully expressed the true credentials he ought to have before running at an RfA. Project & Project-talk (P & PT) space edits are rather low and as some point out this could infact demonstrate a lack of knowledge in particular areas. Candidates should have at least 1000-1100 edits to the (P & PT) areas. I am thoroughly dismayed by the apparent lack of understanding of the AfD process as brought up by PeaceNT above, with yet another oppose by Durova to be considered. Overall, I should think you know yourself this RfA will be unsuccessful (as shown in recent edits to the nominator's talk page) and hopefully with that in mind you will relinquish any negatives here and carry-on demonstrating your merits to a higher standard.
Per Durova and PeaceNT. Sorry, Finalnight, I'm sure you are a good guy and will make a fine administrator at some point.
Per Durova.
'''Oppose''' per most of the above. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Switch to oppose''' per Durova. —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
On the fence here.  I have reviewed FN's edit history, and I see an intelligent, capable, and ethical editor.  Still, the evidence presented in the first oppose disturbs me greatly.  One of the greatest threats to our encyclopedia is by-the-book OR hawks who seek to outlaw common sense.  Not sure what to think on this one.
Per lazy immediatism in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel J. Chin]]. I would prefer that those with the power to delete the work of others, block contributors and protect articles from editing would show diligence and consideration in their actions. Nominating for deletion an article others spent time and effort building without bothering to research the topic or improve the article first leads me to doubt whether Finalnight would show those attributes as an administrator. Of course, this is just one out of thousands of edits, and everyone makes mistakes, but the point is an important one nonetheless. <font color="404040">
'''Neutral''' : I am not a big fan of huge edit counts but the candidate's lack of considerable main space edits worries me whether he could really handle the AFD closures properly. Otherwise a good wikipedian with good attitude and definitely promising. I wont oppose because it wont be unfair to him , for a person of great potential of becoming a good admin. Frankly I like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keeper76&diff=prev&oldid=181277072 this] very much. Non admins with [[WP:ACC]] and Rollback rights are usually trustworthy, I believe. No reasons to think that he will misuse the 'power buttons' intentionally. Btw Best wishes... Looks like this RFA is still likely to pass :) --
'''Neutral'''. Some of the items brought up by the opposers are a bit concerning, but not enough to oppose. I also don't appreciate the candidate badgering (for lack of better word choice) many of the opposers.
'''Moral support''' You seem like a good editor, but I'm afraid this request is probably too early to have any chance of passing. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a couple of months. --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate your dedication to the project, but I feel that you have too little experience on Wikipedia. You joined on November 4, 2006, and you edited heavily in November, but sorta died off in December. You have been a good vandal-fighter and article-builder, and I commend you for your work in this namespaces, but if you want to be an admin, you need to have more edits in the Wikipedia-namespace (at least a few hundred), and also more edits in general (2000+ is a good number). I suggest you withdraw the RfA after receiving some more RfA votes, and then consider re-applying once you have more experience with the project. '''
(edit conflict)'''Oppose'''-You've only been here for two months. You're too knew. It also doesn't seem like you need the tools that much. One of your reasons is to create articles. You don't need to be a sysop to do that. Lastly, you only have 600 something edits. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose''' You only have 600 edits, and you appearently don't know what what the sysops tools are. You lack Wikipedia space-edits, but a good vandal-fighter. Recommend [[WP:ER|editor review]].--
'''Weak Oppose'''. I'm not one to count edits, but your lack of Wikipedia namespace edits show a lack of working with process/procedure. Good faith nom, of course, but just needs more time and familiarity with the system. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you just need more experience.
'''Oppose''' per above and Q1 did not leave me inspired. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too early. Work on the advice you receive in this RfA, and come back after becoming more familiar with the policies here and with some more edits. ←
Moral Support - give it another year, or two. --<font color="blue">
Sorry, but the answer to question 3 is disturbing. You cannot give blocks to people who you are in a dispute with. &mdash;
No. Last one closed on the 29th. You are not experienced enough by a long-shot. I suggest you withdraw. Keep at it, and come back in a few months and, we'll see. -- <strong>
<s>How's about we close this one and refrain from feeding this particular troll for a bit?  He's a member of the Colbert Elephant Tripling Nation and has completely disregarded the closer's advice from his last attempt.</s>  I may not have given him his due - he ''could'' be a good faith contributor.  But if you are, Footballfan, you need to heed the advice [[User:Keegan]] left you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFootballfan190&diff=180762129&oldid=180745011 here].
–
Whilst I admire your enthusiasm, less than a week between RfA's is not going to endear you to the community. Please, this will not pass and I urge you to consider other avenues such as [[WP:ER|editor review]] and [[WP:ADOPT|adoption]] if you wish to obtain feedback or receive advice on how to help Wikipedia further. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you're short on experience. Please take about six months, explore the links Pedro gave you, and enjoy your stay at Hotel Wikipedia. As an aside, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elephant&diff=prev&oldid=180732152 this] is not original... Or helpful.
I think in many months you may be able to re-apply and gain successful administrator status. Admins generally have a large amount of experience and edits, and both of these you are lacking.--
[[WP:SNOW]]
Per DarkFalls.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I feel that this RfA is a tad premature - with just over a 1000 or so edits, it's likely that you have a few more things to learn about wikipolicy. This coupled with almost nonexistant article building and localized project space work leads me to believe that you require further exploration. Also, the answers to the questions are pretty perfunctory and generic. Doesn't really do yourself justice. I suggest [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and another few months work in admin-areas such as [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AVI]], and [[WP:XfD]]. Cheers, and happy editing to you.
'''Oppose as well'''. I removed this self nomination once, and it was brought back. To soon, not even finished before added here and really doesnt stand a chance.
'''Oppose''' Not ready. Still.
As I said on your talk page, there is a lot you need to work on.  You almost never use edit summaries.  I realize this was 7 months ago, but if you still believe [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007&diff=prev&oldid=180766025 this edit] that you reference above in question 3 is a good idea, that's a very bad sign.  Though you do a lot of good work, you aren't really at a point where I think the admin tools would be a good idea. --
'''strongly oppose'''. You must be kidding. You should learn the basics about NPOV and reliable sources first. Example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=226399768] --
'''Oppose''' Fourth RfA in seven months, poor edit summary usage, etc.
'''Oppose'''. You have 1808 total edits, and now you're starting on your fourth RfA. Hey, you need to sit down and think about what you're doing. We want people who want to build an encyclopedia. We... are not an Internet hangout where you can build up a high score/rank like a video game or something. I say this with all kindness: Is Wikipedia the place for you? Do you want to '''work'''? It's a lot of work. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Strong oppose''', and the massive and very recent POV issues prevent me from even giving any moral support whatsoever. You are not suitable to be an admin, and a quick glance tells that you're never going to be. Please don't waste your and the community's time. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Oppose''' - Way too soon since last RfA. I don't see the improvements necessary to trust you with the tools.
'''Oppose'''- This candidate's nomination is slightly combative in tone, their answers to the questions a bit too abrupt. These things don't inspire me with confidence that they won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. You weren't kidding about crossing the 10,000 edit threshold "not terribly long ago", you have 10,020 edits. Doesn't do quite as much communicating with other editors as I'd like, but at least he does it manually instead of using Twinkle. Has 40 reports to AIV. He's been around a long time, so I don't think experience is an issue. Does some manual article work as well as automated vandalism reversion for over 6000 mainspace contribs. Excellent candidate from what I've seen. I didn't like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imhotep&diff=prev&oldid=211599003 this edit summary], but it was the only one I could find like that. Actually, no I found another one [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.69.206.197&diff=prev&oldid=176972000 here]. Please try to remain coolheaded in edit summaries.
'''Support'''. Clear evidence of 'pedia building. I have no problems with more careful consideration of content rather than outright dismissal of it. Cheers,
'''Support''' Outstanding!  Here is a true contributor to the encyclopedia with 2 years experience and 10,000 edits.  We are incredibly fortunate to have him as part of the project and also willing to be an admin.  The criticism below of his honesty about inclusion seems unwarranted.  I too am concerned about irrational exclusion, but this is not to say that those of us with such a concern are advocating an open-door to junk.  Good luck! --
'''Weak Support''' Was originally neutral, see below. I've since reviewed the candidate's action in a load of deletion debates, and I'm satisfied that the inclusionism thing isn't a problem: keep votes all seem to be intelligently thought out, and there are plenty of delete votes where that's the sensible course of action. Article building seems impressive. Still slightly concerned by the civility / AGF concerns mentioned by Collectonian below. Checking through his talk page edits I believe they're the exception rather than the rule, but It'd be easier to feel sure about that if such a high proportion weren't just templates (hence my 'weak' support). On the whole though, looks good.
'''Support''' His inclusionism doesn't seem too extreme, as he does often argue to delete articles. I think he can be trusted to remain neutral when closing AfDs. His comments are sometimes prickly, but not too bad.
'''Support''' -- per my love for manuals! Manual reverting shows time and effort being put into the 'paedia! Good luck! --
'''Support'''.  I'm not worried about the inclusionism one bit.  Keep up the good work!  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''- hard working (monotonous writing, manual editing) and a good writer. Intelligent and trustworthy. The whole inclusionist thing doesn't bother me, apart from worrying me a little that people are so concerned about it.
'''Support''' Good balance between the areas of contribution. No concerns about misuse of the mop and bonus points for self-nom given the auto-opposes that come with it. <nowiki>--</nowiki>
'''Support per Kurt''' (No, I'm not picking on him.) Kurt seems to be saying that user would do fine, except for being a self nom. (I've already beaten that dead horse today, and my arm is sore.) Candidate seems to have the requisite knowledge, understanding, and experience to not abuse the tools. User has a concern that we are sometimes overzealous in deletion. That's true. Sometimes we go too far the other way as well. That's neither here nor there. Net positive.
'''Support''' excellent editor, has plenty of experience and cares about content writing. I have no concern at all. --
<small>'''
'''Strong Support''' The answer to Q2 is bar none the best answer to that question I've ever read at any RfA.
'''Support''' a self-nom is ''prima facie'' evidence of a willingness to work.
'''Support''' – I chuckled to myself when I read the '''Support''' and '''Oppose''' opinions!  What one individual views as a negative, and states that as the reasoning for opposing, another editor may view as a plus.  Me, being one such editor.  Over 10,000 edits – reviewing all of your talk page, no sign of incivility, even when confronted by a hostile editor – a user since 2006 with a consistent edit count.  I trust you with the extra buttons.  In fact, I view it that if you do make a mistake, it will be on the side of caution and inclusion rather than recklessness and deletion.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
I assume people who have been around a while should get the extra editing tools unless they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy or liable to create friction or problems. I look for reasons NOT to support a candidate rather than reasons TO support. I was a little concerned by some of the civility difs shown below, and then a little more concerned at lack of evidence of consensus building through negotiation and talk in talk pages - the bulk of FMF's communication has been warnings to IP vandals. But these are not solid reasons not to give someone the tools. The civility comments are very minor and I'm sure FMF is going to take on board what people are saying about those. And there is evidence of some discussion and debate on a few talk pages, plus FMF appears aware enough of the need to let people know what he is thinking, and giving people warnings, not to fear that FMF will act first and explain afterwards. '''Support'''. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Moderate support'''. I would like to see more experience, but this editor seems to show promise.--
'''Support''' per the strong answers to the questions and my belief he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' User seems mature and was able to give us insight into their thought process on some complex issues and although I might not agree with all of it, diversity is rarely bad. and per [[WP:AGF]] and the fact they used the word "reckon" in their answer to question 1. <b>
'''Hurrah''' After reading the thoughtful answers to questions, I'm sure this user will not abuse the tools.  <font color="006622">
'''Support'''. I've weighed this out, and cannot bring myself to do anything but support.  You have a logic based, and well written, way about you, which is the best we can hope for in a typing world.  <s>Useight's edit summaries worried me at first</s> The edit summaries that Useight pointed out worried me at first.  Your response above is spot on.  My only advice, whether you get the extra tools or not, but especially if you ''do'' get the extra tools, is take it easy on the edit summaries.  No need for all caps, EVER!  Once you are the one that starts deleting things in [[:C:CSD|the speedy cat]], and once you are the one that closes a debate as delete, your talkpage will most certainly and directly become rather ridiculous.  Respond nicely, directly, honestly, and completely.  Follow up. And most importantly, don't stop being an article builder. Oh, and don't use all caps.  All my rambling to say, as a total picture, I trust you with the mop.  Best of luck.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' per Keeper.--
'''Support''' For a great response to my question.
'''Support'''.  I've looked at both sides of this, and I see no conflict with [[User:WBOSITG/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].  Good luck.  '''
'''Support''' support support.  Strange to me that being up front about philosophical bias (Inclusionism) would count as a strike, also that self-nom would necessarily be seen as power hunger-- haven't you ever looked at a situation & gone "gosh, I wish I had the tools required to fix this."  Not only does FMF labor on things like ancient greek what-nots, he also participates in the debate on more controversial articles-- I for one want admins who pay attention to the nooks as well as the peaks.  --
'''Tentative support''' - Would probably be beneficial, however I feel that this user will allow their inclusionist philosophy get in the way of closing XfDs ''objectively'' by consensus, i.e. giving undue weight to openly inclusionist contributors, or disregarding certain arguments for deletion as weaker than they really are.  An administrator's judgement towards closing an XfD discussion is confined to determining what consensus states, not that administrator's personal judgement towards the article's worth of inclusion. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Very weak support''' -- Collectonian brings up some very valid points. I do not know, however, if that is enough to justify an oppose. --
'''Support''' - Y<sub>0</sub>? —
'''Support''' - I find the tinge of sarcasm to be ''prima facie'' evidence of an experienced editor who will continue to be a net positive while (gasp?) having a wee bit of fun. The opposes below are duly noted, but I hope we aren't setting the bar at only giving the mop to "perfect" editors. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - enthusiastic contributor; will do the job with integrity.
'''Support'''.  Given his deletion arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (2nd nomination)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlito and Santino Marella]], criticizing him as an inclusionist is simply not accurate.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Experience with mainspace disputes, clueful, no obvious concerns.
''
Not very impressed with the "Oppose, not in my political party" comments below.  This isn't Congress.  This is a good user, a patient encyclopedia builder, and nothing to suggest that because he said the word ''inclusionist'' he would therefore ignore consensus.  The candidate even acknowledged he argues to delete as often as keep.  Somewhat absurd and definitely unhealthy bipartisanship.  The candidate's only mistake was not realizing that "inclusionist" sentiment (when he's talking about not biting new users) was politically incorrect. --
'''Support''' good answers, and I'm not too concerned by the Oppose arguments.
'''Support''' No indication that this candidate will abuse the buttons, or that they don't have the breadth of experience to understand their use. I loath the username (as I quite enjoy [[Ford Madox Ford]]) but that is no reason to alter my thinking regarding the candidature.
'''Weak Support''' Good answer to my question, but the issues brought up still concern me a bit.
'''Support''' Fantastic answers to questions. Very best of luck to you!
'''Support''' Frankly, the inclusionist thing is being blown way out of proportion (and note that I'm personally closer to the deletionist end of the spectrum). If anything, I'd rather have admins which are reluctant to delete articles, especially in the speedy deletion category: too many things are being speedy deleted beyond what the guidelines prescribe. Besides, I don't understand how the candidate's comments can be misconstrued as divisive. Let's face it: there ''are'' differences in the way various users approach deletion. You can say "my own threshold for what should be included is above average" or you can say "I'm a deletionist" as a shortcut. Bottom line is that if you're willing to accept that things that you wish were kept/deleted are being deleted/kept, this is not a problem. Let the editor who has never used the word "listcruft" or written "Wikipedia is not paper" in bold cast the first stone.
'''Support'''.  My experience with him is that he is a fine user who will not abuse the tools.  I am especially unconvinced by the BLP argument with respect to the [[Celebrity sex tape]] article.  Due to its sensitive nature, I've long had that particular article on my watchlist, and Ford has consistently been an active BLP enforcer to remove additions of dubious or poorly sourced content.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''.  If you can make Kurt amend his standard response to self-nominations, you must be very good.  No concerns. Good answer re [[WP:V]] being the most important policy - people forget (or never realised) [[WP:BLP]] is nothing more than an offshoot of [[WP:V]] with the sourcing criteria applied more stringently.
'''Support'''.  I've been hesitating here.  I sure as heck would have voted to delete [[Celebrity sex tape]].  And [[List of Wikipedias]], while we're at it.  But I thank this user for introducing me to [[Calvin Demarest]] and (if only virtually) to [[Billy's Topless]].  Plus he has one of the best usernames out there.  He seems very sane.  --
'''Support''' per [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]], though I had to spend ''quite'' a long time thinking about it. Statements like "I wanted to see more avowedly inclusionist contributors get the mop" ''do'' raise my eyebrows as they suggest a more politically divisive view of adminship than I like. Admin function should be, in my opinion, to implement the will of the community, and the community decides whether Wikipedia has tight or lenient standards for inclusion by consensus at AfD and shaping of policies and guidelines (notability, verifiabily, CSD, etc.) If contributors perceive that the community is swinging too far in one direction or another, it is not to admins to correct it, but to the community. As [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] notes, "There is very little extra decision-making ability that goes along with adminship, and it does not add any extra voice in consensus decisions." If there is actually a bias to delete beyond community will among admins, that should be handled by addressing the problematic admins, not by attempting to correct bias the other way. '''That small essay aside''', the candidate's varied response at AfD suggests to me that in practice he is not simply promoting the position of inclusionism, but is appropriately addressing concerns within individual articles. Also, I very much like his answer to Q4. Although I do not agree with every position I have seen him advance, he seems to have a good grasp of policy and basic good sense. I would be very surprised if he misused the tools to promote an agenda. With regards specifically to the Celebrity Sex Tape article, that seems to have spiraled somehow out of hand, but I can't attribute that specifically and solely to this contributor. The candidate's contributions to the talk page show a long history of sensible application of BLP to that article, and it's kind of difficult to argue with his assertion that BLP does not apply to Marilyn Monroe, who has been by all accounts dead longer than many Wikipedians have been alive. I think that could have been handled better by a number of contributors, including this candidate, but it does not cause me to fear admin abuse or misuse or lead me to think this candidate is unsuited to adminship. I'll quote [[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] here: "He seems very sane." I ''would'' like to request, though, that he remember to drink his coffee before editing. :) While admins exist to serve rather than direct the will of community, some (particularly new) contributors ''do'' view admins as more "official" representatives of Wikipedia. Recognizing that, I think we need to be particularly careful to reflect behavioral guidelines in our interactions. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to the questions, particularly #4. Verifiability is and always will be the most important factor in content decisions. —
Should be fine.
'''Support''' Seems like a trustworthy user, with a history of good contributions.
'''Support''' I had to think this over for a while, but I don't think his opening statement is an indication of an intention to attack "deletionists" with admin tools and I found no major problems in his contribs. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''; despite initial reservations at starting out talking about attitudes of editors, I was very impressed by the answers to his questions that followed.  He seems very rational, reasonable, and down-to-earth.  Even discussing his attitude towards deletions, I don't feel like he will be unfairly biased in that and other administrator work. --
'''Support''' I think he's fair-minded & will use the tools well. His opinions on the AfD being discussed below were well within the range of acceptable views here, and I see him as a firm supporter of BLP policy when used appropriately. '''
'''Support''' A clever, reasonable and hardworking Wikipedian. I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't be an admin. Snarky remarks in the past are just that. These things happen and everybody does that sometimes, including established admins. Besides, people grow and change. (Finally, a self-nom by established editors is ''prima facie'' an indication of their willingness to work even harder and accept more responsibilities. Whatever happened to 'assume good faith'?) <span style="background:#FFFF80">
'''Weak Support''' - weakness coming in for civility concerns, none so major that they cannot be corrected. Have seen you around. Like your answers too.
'''Support''' Why not, good answers to Q's. I trust you won't go on a undeletion spree.
'''Fuckin' A!''' - Neutrality is shash. Everybody is biased, whether they know or admit it or not.  And it's impossible to not be influenced by your own biases, in the long run. Fordmadoxfraud has been very straight-forward in revealing his biases, and I admire that.   Meanwhile, most candidates simply avoid mentioning theirs, which is a lie of omission. Besides, inclusionism isn't bad if it is intelligently (strategically) applied.  I don't believe he wants to include garbage in the encyclopedia, but stubs that have the potential to grow into meaningful articles are a good thing.  He's highly discerning, and level-headed.  In a word: sane.  A breath of fresh air.  He's got my vote.
'''Support''' (from original oppose). Being a decent content-contributor largely outweighs the cumulative weight of the opposes below. I'm confident the disapprovals in the oppose will have an effect on the user, and that this will be enough to effect his actions in the posited positive direction. And where they don't, he's entitled to have an independent mind. User didn't answer either of my questions relevantly, but I'll let him off for that too as his editorial history elsewhere has demonstrated that he has enough intelligence and commitment for the mop, per [[WP:NBD]] and the probable net benefit thing.
'''Support'''. I enjoyed the users diatribe on inclusionism, and I think there user has the maturity to allay civility concerns
'''Support'''.  Nothing tells me he will go on a block and delete spree when he gets the tools.  Meets my standards. -<small>
'''Strong support''' - understands [[WP:N]].
'''Support'''. Not being eager to apply the tools suggests you'll make a good admin and your answers to the questions and the descriptions of your actions in both the support as well as oppose votes seem to all indicate a reasonable (if sometimes flawed, but who isn't!) person. Q8 was interesting and it would have been nice to see a more fleshed out response (for purely academic reasons). --
'''Strong support'''.  User seems to understand what should and shouldn't be deleted; since we need more such admins, he has my full support.  <font color="629632">
'''Weak support''' He meets my standards, quite clearly.  I concerned about his strong opinions, but I am more convinced that he probably will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' This user is experienced and the opposers bring up nothing concerning, in my opinion. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' this promising candidate.  —
'''Support''', don't see a reason not to.
'''Support''' Believing as I do that one's failing to understand adminship as purely ministerial (to understand, that is, that admins act only to divine for what actions a consensus of the community exists and then to carry out those actions) commends him/her quite poorly to adminship, I am altogether sympathetic to the arguments advanced by several of the opposers, and the concerns raised by Taxman and Pedro in particular might, when viewed alongside certain of the putative instances of curtness or incivility (the presence of each of which characteristics is of course pernicious in an admin) not entirely unfairly adduced, lead me to oppose a candidate who might not own certain redeeming qualities that readily present themselves here.  FMF, though, seems, consistent with the analyses of (to name three) Regent, Moonriddengirl, and MrPrada, possessed of a sound sense of judgment, a deliberative temperament, a keen intellect, conversance with policy (and of the nature of the areas whereof the policy governing which he might not be acquainted), and a collegial, collaborative personality, which conclusion is, on the whole, bolstered by the history of his involvement with certain BLP issues, including those surrounding [[Celebrity sex tape]], discussed infra, which involvement demonstrates an ability to apply policy consistent with the community's understanding of policy, if not optimally to communicate relative to that understanding (it should probably be noted, too, that the inclusion of the "Rumors" section about the propriety of which there appears to exist some dispute seems to have commanded a consensus of involved editors before protection&mdash;whether that has since changed, I haven't undertaken to see, but ''post facto'' changes in the views of the community wouldn't seem particularly useful to one seeking to adjudge FMF's actions&mdash;and that Sceptre's construction of BLP, one that he would, I'm sure, admit is much more strict than that embraced by the community, was rejected by many editors, if not always in the unfortunately curt manner adopted once or twice by FMF, blunting, certainly, submissions that the substance of FMF's behavior bears out a misunderstanding of policy and practice or is somehow wrong; in any event, we have enough admins who err, to the multi-faceted detriment of the project, in applying BLP absolutely, and it is heartening to find a candidate who appreciates nuance in the same way the community writ large do), such that I am able to conclude with a good deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor and trusted user.--
'''Oppose'''. The opening statement does not speak well at all of the candidate's ability to be neutral in dealing with CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs. In particularly, I find it distributing that you seem to feel that people who are "deletionists" as "emphasizing exclusion and exclusiveness" and are prompted by the leavings of your real life friends and own feelings to want to support "avowedly inclusionist contributors." An administrator should be able to neutrally apply the policies and guidelines of the site, regardless of their own personal preferences, and shouldn't open their RfA by unintentionally insulting a large number of contributers in such a way.  Some of the candidate's comments on their talk page and in several AfDs do not indicate the candidate has yet mastered the necessary patience and communicative skills to deal with annoying and stressful situations. For some quick examples, in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity sex tape]] the candidate makes several seemingly snarky and sarcastic remarks in response to other people's delete/keep notes. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedias]], he accuses the nominator of nominating the list in bad faith with no actual evidence and in total violation of [[WP:AGF]]. Useight has already pointed out some questionable edit summaries. In all, I would like to see more evidence the candidate could be neutral and even tempered in dealing with issues, following guidelines, and applying policies. Would also like to see more useful edit summaries. He has a 100% summary rate, but many of them are 1-2 words and rather undescriptive, or auto added by the software when hitting undo.
'''Oppose''' - I am in full agreement with Collectonian above. The fact that you denounce perceived ''deletionists'' and laud ''inclusionary'' behavior is odd, and somewhat concerning. The two are simply sophistic inventions by a collection of editors on Wikipedia. I dislike such fractionating, and it has no place on an encyclopedia that strives for harmony and neutrality. I feel that such a mentality might cause you to act in a disproportionate manner if granted the bit. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Per Collect. Major concerns.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; While this individual clearly has (or appears to have) a reasonably correct understanding of what should and should not be deleted, that is not enough to outweigh the fact that a self-nom is ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - I wholeheartedly agree with [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]]. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''', although weakly. The user describes himself as being happiest writing articles, and states that he will use the admin tools slowly; based on his responsense I can't see any compelling reason for him to have the tools at all, he is perfectly free to continue to be happy writing articles without them. I wouldn't use Kurt Weber's language above, but I get the impression that the user has decided to apply for adminship based on an arbitrary edit count number and a whim. -
'''Weak Oppose''', you seem to have good intentions and obviously I have no problems with inclusionists being the mop, but I'm hesitant per [[User:Wisdom89]]'s comments above.
'''Oppose''' per Collectonian, and user's inclusionistic attitude leads me to believe he would substitute his personal opinion for policy in the deletion field.
'''Very strong oppose''' - doesn't understand BLP at all. I cannot oppose an editor who thinks publishing (about) severely unflattering rumours with little press coverage about living people is acceptable (q.v. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_sex_tape&diff=210225051&oldid=210224841]). '''
BLP issues, particularly [[Celebrity sex tape]].
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89, the factional view of Wikipedia is not a helpful one to take. The BLP issues by Sceptre are somewhat disconcerting as well. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose.''' From what I have seen, I don't believe he adheres to NPOV as much as I would like to see an admin do. Also per BLP concerns raised above. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose.''' I'm getting a little weary of Wikipedia factionalism myself, and for a nom to pick up his rifle and declare a side in the battle in his opening paragraph doesn't fill me with confidence that his purpose in wanting to become an admin isn't to push an agenda.
Absolutely not. The last thing we need are more inclusionist admins who want the divide the wiki with an "us vs them" attitude. Or deletionist ones, for that matter. Subscribing to one or the other of the philosophies is fine, but the nomination shows an awful attitude toward the debate, and I do not want an editor who is so willing to inflame this dispute even more to have the ability to influence it with admin tools. '''
'''Oppose''' per above. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' An offhand accusation of bad faith -- with no explanation, and against someone who has been on the project since 2004 -- doesn't inspire confidence that the candidate has judgment and discretion expected of an admin.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_Wikipedias&diff=208246706&oldid=208246551]
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. --
The exchanges at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity sex tape]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedias]] don't inspire confidence.
'''Oppose'''. We all have biases, but we should all make efforts to set those aside and work together in the spirit of improving the project. The us vs them mentality that Fordmadoxfraudts sets up in his nomination is an example of the opposite and the fact that he placed it as a reason for his nomination shows that he fails to understand what adminship is for and increases the likelihood that he will misuse the tools if granted to him. The incivility I don't find as compelling a problem as others, but when you add it all together it shows a certain immaturity that we don't need in admins. -
'''Weak Oppose'''. Although there is much to be liked here the accusation of a bad faith nomination at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedias]] really was poor. I agree to an extent with Taxman above as well "I do my morning vandalism reversion..". Plenty of good news here as well, but I'm unconvinced at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - took me a while to think this one over. I often consider many opposes as minor offences compared to the bulk of a candidate's other contributions, but the problems we have mentioned above concern me. We appear to have talks of one's own views of what's right and wrong, in a way that suggests imminent rivalry with others, in the opening paragraph of all places. I'm not convinced... <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - per above reasons.
'''oppose''' - Also as per the aforementioned cited reasons.--
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_sex_tape&diff=210225051&oldid=210224841 this edit]. Admins are suppose to be more cautious with [[WP:BLP]]
'''Oppose''' per Alex Bakharev. --
'''Oppose''' for now per Collectonian. --
'''Oppose'''Per all
'''Neutral''' I can't decide on this one... there are things I like, but there are definite concerns raised by Collect.
'''Neutral''' : as I see no oppose or support reasons -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Neutral''' until I have a chance to do a more in-depth analysis of this user's contributions. The answer to question one concerns me, as regular editors can do the majority of the same things that an admin can do. For example, if you had good experience with CSD, you could specify that you wanted to focus on that, or at least try to participate in it as much as possible. To state that you don't know which areas you are experienced in leaves me on the top of the fence until I can take a closer look.
'''Neutral''' I really did like you. But the concerns raised, well, concern me. <font color="blue">'' '''
A good editor, but I can't really support, but... urgh. '''Neutral'''.
'''Support''' as a net gain to the project. No reason to believe you as an admin would be anything less than A Good Thing.
'''Support''' Ironholds says it all. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Weak support''' because I support by default but, per fish&karate, please read [[WP:TROPHY]].
'''Moral support''', but I recommend [[WP:NOTNOW|withdrawal]] unless you want to be [[WP:SNOW|snowed]] by opposes. I don't think you are gaming the system (i.e. taking the MMORPG approach), but some editors got that impression because of your sig & user page, and because you've only contributed substantially to a few articles. Based on what I've seen at RfAs that tide is very difficult to reverse. I found your article contribution genuinely positive, and your involvement with mediation in good faith as well (I reviewed the case). You have good writing skills, so you can definitely use those in upcoming months do dispel the idea that you're doing it for [[WP:TROPHY|promotion]].
'''Strong Support''' - the answers aren't bad. I've seen a lot of good article work being done in userspace. Not bitey, rude, full of himself, or otherwise likely to run screaming into the night. I'd like to see you do an editor review, but your determination to see the RfA through to get feedback on what to change is not a bad idea. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' A GA, to me, suggests an understanding of how things work in the mainspace - and it certainly isn't a crime to use the userspace to make article improvements, so that explains what appears to be a paucity of mainspace edits. I also see project space experience. Fine by me.
'''Support''' - Good answers, stable contributions. This guy will be will certainly be a benefit for the project. --'''
'''Support''' Giving this editor the tools will be to the advantage of the 'pedia.
'''Support''' A GA is a great contribution. Seems like a net positive for Wikipedia, though some more time on-wiki(As in experience) would have been better. I'd suggest changing the username though.....;)--
I am a bit bothered by the asking for a nomination, but outside than that the opposers have brought up very little I find troublesome; he has [[BootX (Apple)|a GA]], fights vandals, contributed to AfD's, is civil, has never been blocked, ect. Using huggle is not a crime, making jokes about MMORPGS's in not a crime and I really don't see that much problem with the username, its neither confusing nor offensive really. '''Weak support''' though for several reasons I would have a hard time explaining, but, I have no doubt that the <code>+Sysop</code> for his account would be anything other than a net positive for the Wiki. <font color="#708090">
'''support'''.  And please don't be discouraged this got off on a funny foot and that you'll probably have to come back in a few months.  You did absolutely nothing to deserve the "ill-intentioned" jab that I can see.  Very sad that so many endorsed that pointless attack.  RFA is sometimes crazy and unfair, but (I think) pretty reasonable in the long run.   Keep up the good article work, get the name changed, work on the opposes that can be addressed, and I think you'll make a good administrator in the not too distant future. --
Moral '''support'''.  Nothing wrong with asking for a nomination.  <s>Better ask publicly than in private.</s>
'''Support''' I've seen Atyndall's work, especially when I was adopted by him as a new user. While his mainspace edit count seems low he explained that. Otherwise I think he makes an excellent candidate. He knows his way around the policy, and philosophy of Wikipedia. As well as having significant contributions to his areas of interest. Some of the opposes I see are ridiculous, hopefully this doesn't discourage you Atyndall! <span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
From neutral. It seems the opposition is scraping the bottom of the barrel for their rationale. '''
'''Support'''. He was very helpful with disputes at [[Bates method]] involving at times difficult users.
'''Weak oppose'''. Of the 1400 or so namespace edits, almost ''all'' of them are Huggle or Twinkle - including the last 1000.  While I don't expect that much, some kind of encyclopedic contribution is helpful.  And based on your userpage (" have many roles on Wikipedia as I am trying to gain enough experience to become an administrator"), you seem to think Wikipedia is a game, and the purpose is to become an admin.  I do not want people like this being administrators, sorry.  See [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG]].
'''Oppose with moral support''' - Please change your user name, then I will looking further at your contributions. —
'''Oppose''' - In addition to the above, for some reason I have a bad feeling about the candidate. This is not unjustified, it's just more of a general worry. Replies to this oppose will likely not be answered, as I genuinely am not entirely sure why I feel so uncertain about the candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
I dunno. I just didn't find [[User_talk:Giggy/Archive/September_2008#RfA_nom|this]] particularly promising. And now I feel bad because he did come and ask for help, etc., so sorry. Please do change the username, by the way—a crat clicking a button doesn't mean it's a good username (just because you can doesn't mean you should... useful mantra).
Ill-intentioned, not enough experience with article writing.
Per Daniel, and of course, please change the username. Recommend candidate to withdraw application asap.
Per answer to Q6. While I'm not faulting the user for not knowing that admins should not decline unblock requests for blocks they have placed, making the user wait it out when they are showing interest in contributing constructively is unnecessary. Vandals are a dime a dozen and reblocks are cheap, constructive contributors are golden. Also, the jump to a six month block after a 1 week is taking too much of a hard line (especially for a semi-permanent dynamic assignment that can be recycled if the user turns off their modem or releases the IP). –<font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Oppose''' per Giggy. A bit more experience is needed (and also, please don't respond to every oppose, even if their comments are completely unreasonable.) I disagree article work is insufficient. A GA isn't insufficient. --
'''Oppose''' from Neutral - per response to Ncmvocalist's oppose.  "Seeing the RfA through to the end come rain or snow" does not indicate particularly strong judgment - admins need to be able to evaluate consensus and respond appropriately before being forced.
'''Oppose''' I think an RfC probably would have been a good next step in looking into adminship, instead of self nomination. As mentioned by a few people already, you have some glaringly obvious issues. Plus, I seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously... seriously '''HATE''' your user name.
'''Oppose''' - Simply not enough wide range experience. Administrators need more skills than just anti-vandalism.
'''Oppose''' due to so much badgering of opposers.
'''Oppose''' Per Daniel, and as stated above, it might be good to change your screenname. Suggest [[WP:SNOW]] closing.
'''Oppose, but keep it open''' - the user needs as much feedback as possible. I'm opposing because of the username - how do you prounounce it?  It should be linguistic, not hieroglyphic!  I talk to people all the time about Wikipedia, and mentioning this person's name would be awkward at best, like "The Artist Formerly Known As [[Prince (musician)|Prince]]". But this time it is even worse, because there is no previous name to refer to.  It's an inappropriate name, especially for an admin, and it sets a bad example for others which would likely be emulated.
'''Oppose''' per Giggy (that request for a nom reads very uneasily), per the 'come rain or snow' comment (shows a lack of good judgement in my opinion), <s>and of course per the terrible name (though I completely aknowledge that the user has agreed to change it)</s>. Seriously, ''seriously'' suggest a close per [[WP:SNOW|snow]]: I reckon a snowball has a greater chance of surviving in hell than this RfA does of succeeding, and it strikes me that all the constructive critisism that there is to be said has been said, in triplicate at least. [[User talk:Islander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''Talk'''</font></sub>]]
I'm afraid I'll have to '''weak oppose''' here.  I definitely think asking for a nom constitutes power hunger - although you probably didn't want to make it sound that way.  I don't care what your username is (it could be "Iblokdunowwhatugonnadu" for all I care) but the overall reliance on Huggle is also a major factor in my position here.  I would definitely have supported if I had seen more evidence of article building rather than blind reverting (not suggesting you are, but that's how huggle works).  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Per WBOSITG--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' per most of all statements. <small>
'''Oppose''' per A6 and username as well as [[WP:MYSPACE]] concerns. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. Haven't had a lot of interaction with this candidate, but by reading the opposes above, a few problems such as the username and less article building concern me.
'''-_-''', per many of the concerns raised above. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose''' Because, with the new name, I suspect Foxy Loxy is leading us Henny Pennies and Chicken Littles into his den :-) But mainly because I don't really like this habit of porting stubs onto user space, working on them, and then porting them back into article space, even if for the right reasons. Wikipedia works best as a collaborative encyclopedia and it would be much better to edit directly in article space because the edits may attract other editors who would have something to contribute. This porting method, to me anyway, gives me the feeling that either the editor wants to have ownership of the article or wants to avoid conflict by presenting a complete work (which will, presumably attract less attention). Either way, it seems not in the spirit of wikipedia. --
'''Neutral''' Nothing ''extremely'' concerning, though there are some things that leave me sitting atop a fence. First, your past 500 mainspace edits are almost entirely Huggle-related, and I can barely find any mainspace work. While I'm not looking for 12 FAs, some general writing/maintenance/cleanup of articles would be nice to see. Your talk page doesn't show anything that would make me oppose, though the most recent thread leads me to believe that you might not fully understand the GA process, which might indicate an overall lack of understanding of policy. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' As per the previous comments here.
'''Neutral''' - Currently I wouldn't want to look for 'citations' behind the user's identification -- which in my opinion is not a name -- and their signature, both of which together may be rather confusing to the typical newbie.--
'''Neutral''' - I would have ''morally supported'' but there are too many factors which mitigate that premise of weakly supporting. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''...and might I add that it is a bit [[WP:POINT|pointy]] to report someone at an RfA to [[WP:UAA]], especially when it has already been addressed. If you don't want this person to be an admin, then oppose them...don't try to get them blocked for something that has already been resolved. --
Um, sorry, but I don't think you have the experience yet. Sorry for the um, I'm not really committed to either support or oppose without piling on, so i don't know exactly what to put here. Anyways, good luck ;)&mdash;'''
'''Neutral''' Overall feeling of uncomfortableness, maybe because of the apparent lack of experience in either the mainspace or the DR realms. '''
Great work so far, and I'd like to see it continue. My only problem is that I feel you lack experience in some areas. Good luck, and I'm sure I'd support in a future RfA. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Neutral'''  The candidate's mainspace edit count concerns me, but on the other hand, I can accept their reasoning for that, as I have known many editors who choose to edit in that fashion.  I may revisit this vote at a later date after I've had more time to review the candidate's contributions in detail.  --
'''Neutral''' - slight lack of experience.  Continue with consistent effort and I think I'll be able to support you down the road.
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a good editor, but Foxy Loxy's inexperience is a little concerning. Definitely not a reason to oppose, though.
'''Strong support'''. Excellent, dedicated, sensible person. His pithy remarks are almost always right on target.
Geni's okay. It's been a good length of time since the desysopping, and he hasn't been in a hurry to re-request adminship, in fact, he even turned down rollback not too long ago. He'll be fine.
'''Support''' I often disagree with tone, but he's generally close to the truth. Long term editor whose commitment can't be questioned. For institutional memory alone, this should pass.
'''Support''', plenty of time to consider mistakes, good moment for a second chance.
I have given this request a great deal of thought, and my primary inclination is to '''support''' the request. Geni has come on a great deal since he was originally desysopped during the Arbitration decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war]]: he has presented an exemplary level of civility in inter-editorial communications, and has been happy to handle enquiries concerning his on-Wiki contributions. I find it encouraging that he has not appeared hasty to regain the administrator tools, although he has been happy to participate in the type of duties that one often sees in administrators: [[WP:SPAM|spam links]] patrolling ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atcham&diff=prev&oldid=179763524]), policy development ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=188495425]), etc... Geni has not been afraid to voice his opinion on matters since he lost his administrator bit, which is similarly encouraging: it is all too easy to revert to "perfect wikipedian" mode in preparation for a re-sysopping RfA, and the fact that he has remained an honest, fair editor, who is not afraid to hold down the truth, for fear of opposition at a future RfA seems to suggest that he will not be afraid to undertake non-routine actions, so long as they benefit the project. All things considered, I am confident that Geni's regaining the access to the administrator tools will benefit the project as a whole. I would advise him to be more careful in the future, and to avoid a repeat of the Brandt incident—having said that, I don't think Geni is stupid enough to wheel war a second time. Good luck with your RfA: it will be a controversial one, but one that I hope you can pull through successfully. I only hope this week is not too painful :) Best regards, <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
'''Support'''.  One high-profile mistake (well, 3 technically) can be forgiven, and Geni has a firm grasp of both policy and common sense, and I feel the answer to Question 7 rings true.--
'''Support'''. Common sense candidate.
Support per the above comments, all which I agree with. I would also note that Geni is an admin at Commons, and has been a great asset there - which I think would be the case if Geni were an admin here. --
'''Support''' - I'm a sucker for rehabilitation.
Forgive, but don't forget. The recent edit warring as recently as January is very disturbing, but I believe he wouldn't do such a thing again, or anything close to it.
I've decided to support - Geni could be a great admin, and I sincerely hope that he will.
'''Support''' A dedicated editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', this user has been around a fairly long time and has a lot of experience on Wikipedia. It's been over a year since Geni was "temporarily" desysopped by Jimbo and I have no reason to believe this user will abuse the admin tools. Geni may have edit-warred recently, but I find it telling that the arbitration committee restricted the person Geni was reverting, not Geni. --
'''Support''' - Geni was a respected admin and the desysopping a bad idea and an overreaction to a bad situation. --
'''Support''' Geni has been around forever and I always enjoy hearing his valuable, unique perspective on things.  Short answers?  That’s Geni’s style, but he gets his message across.  He’s dedicated to the project and I believe him when he says he’s learned from his mistakes.  The tools will help him in the work he’s productive and good at doing.  --
'''[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]'''  I'm willing to forgive some prior misdeeds, and I don't think Geni's use of the tools would be incorrect (even if it might be controversial).
'''Support''' without hesitation. —
Would especially be always helpful on images deletioning. Spprt. Mahalo. --
Arbcom case was what, a year ago? Per Ral315.
Yes, I trust geni implicitly. Has a huuuuge amount of knowledge about images, stays mostly uninvolved in drama, gets work done... yes. Please. -- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Support''' Seems to have reformed and made many useful contribs. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''', one of the most conscientious admins I've seen around.  A very hard worker on copyright-related issues who could use the tools.  I'd be surprised if there are any administrators who don't make any mistakes over the course of 3 years, so I'm quite willing to forgive and forget (especially as I don't think that desysopping was required in the first place).
'''Absolute trust'''
'''Support''': Fine for me - past is past. --
There are a variety of reasons on offer to oppose this, but none of them leave me entirely convinced. Yes, he was righteously deadminned, but it was a while ago. On the whole, I think the project will benefit from giving geni back the extra buttons.
'''Support''', Geni has always struck me as a reasonable, independent thinker. It is incredible to me that people are saying that this user must "change" or "reform", as if he or she is some kind of incorrigible convicted criminal. An occasional mistake or excess amidst a sea of good work is not evidence that a person needs to "reform". Who among the active players in the Brandt wars behaved ''well''? It was an exceptional situation and people were acting rashly&mdash;we can call an amnesty on that mess.
Despite the fact that, like most wikipedians, his pride prevents him doing the unequivocal mea culpa which might help his case, I can't see him making the same mistakes again. I supported the desysopping, but I'll now support the resysopping (for what it's worth).--
'''Support'''. His bluntness has given the candidate troubles, but his criticisms are often, perhaps usually, on target. Good record for adhering to consensus as well, and I think the desysopping was an overreaction.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''support''' Geni has I believed learned and will not wheel war again. Geni's work on copyright issues would be greatly improved if Geni had the tools.  To be blunt the risk of a wheelwar isn't really that big a deal. If it occurs, Geni will be dessysoped quickly and won't ever get the tools back. The temporary issues that might lead to for a few hours won't be permanent by any stretch of the imagination. Overall, the benefit of giving Geni the tools again overrides the possible downsides.
'''Support''' - I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of self confidence.
'''Support''' - I believe that people can learn from mistakes and that small mistakes can be forgiven. --
'''Support'''.  Didn't realize the wheel war thing went down since I've been here (a simpler and happier wiki-time :-).  But having looked at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war |the case]] and per AGK's comment above, I have to support.  I appreciate that he didn't rush his renom (plus that he's here at all, he could have bypassed the community and appealed to ArbCom), and I appreciate the forthright manner of his work here.  I figure veteran editors probably have their own firm conclusions about what happened, but I encourage newer ones here to dig around into the circumstances surrounding the desysop.
'''Support''' - I am always prepared to offer a second chance.
Geni made some mistakes, got de-adminned for them.  It's been a while. I'm convinced that he has the best interests of the project at heart.  He isn't about to do anything malicious with the tools, and he's smart enough not to do anything (else) stupid with them.  '''Support'''.
'''ROARRing support.''' Regret to see dogpile on little user. Wheel-warring not well or logically defined at time of ArbCom case (not so hot today either). 'Zilla not impressed by ArbCom findings or reasoning. Little Geni replies to questions above show maturity, 'Zilla impressed, especially by reply to important Question 7, and point about lack of clarity, Question 9. Not believe little user needs all the "reform" questioners call for in 9, 13: clear and frank replies better than reform. Sorry ArbCom desysopped user, present responses suggest very difficult ever get admin bit back. Note ArbCom not company of archangels, community need learn more critical look at ArbCom high authority.  Little user good admin: mature, self-reliant, good sense. ('Zilla with some reluctance prepared overlook reply to question 20--that reply not sensible.)
'''Support''' based on albeit my limited experience of this user and his undoubted track record. Thanks,
'''Oppose''' - Narrow-minded as it may sound: I don't even bother to review users' statistics if their answers to the first three (and possibly most important) are this short. If you would like to "extend" them I may be minded to review the situation...--
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Other parties have edit warred|Absolutely]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by The Uninvited Co..2C Inc.|not]]. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Strong Oppose''' Wiki is not a child porn site. Sorry
'''Oppose''' Edit warring that occured less than 2 months ago on a sock account occurred too recently to show you have changed. Try again in 6 - 12 months and perhaps you will have proven yourself.
'''Oppose'''. While I do thank you for the prompt answers to my questions and those of others, I'm still not convinced that you would not undertake actions in violation of policy again. Your responses are short, unenlightening, and in several cases (Q's 5, 7-11) you appear to be trying to avoid the question entirely, providing only a vague answer that doesn't really help, or making so short a response that there wasn't much point in asking the question in the first place. Your responses themselves are also rather worrisome - your response to question nine provides no information about how ''your views'' have changed in respect to those issues, but how the project has changed to make those situations less likely. While that is still important, an admin who is not willing or able to learn from his mistakes still provides an opportunity for wheel warring regardless of how fool-proof the system has become. Stating that you "no longer really have the time to be involved in that form of conflict" tells me that you no longer really have the time to be an administrator. I'm sure you know that conflict has a strange way of seeking those in authority - even if you don't go actively looking for trouble, trouble could likely come your way if you are granted the tools again, and you will need to be able to handle it as an administrator to the best of your ability. Ignoring this expectation may help prevent further cases of wheel warring, but is irresponsible and does not demonstrate that you need the tools once more. I wish you the best of luck as this RfA continues, but I do not feel as though I can support you. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Strong oppose''', not convinced that user is reformed. Added strong upon realization that he created the image placeholder system.
'''Oppose''' - This is one of the exceptionally rare cases where I didn't bother to look at the candidate's contributions. Per Seresin, nope, I am sorry.
'''Oppose''' - given Geni's history, I would require strong evidence that reform has happened, and that he has no intent to perform questionable actions.  I'm bothered that in one of Geni's statements, there's a reference to (not a direct quote) "admin unblocks himself, no problem, let arbcom deal with it."  To me, that implies that Geni thinks that individual choice and corporate (group, in this case) responsibility is not crucial in these situations, and that complicated or questionable decisions are not a big deal because they can just be referred to arbcomm.  That's a misunderstanding of what I believe o be a guiding factor on Wikipedia: the individuality of self and the responsibility to be accountable to one another and to the community.  I'm afraid that I think Geni's attitude and talents are best suited to other ways of helping the community.  -
'''Oppose''' Geni's and his alt-account's edit-warring on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_First_Commandment_%28Stargate_SG-1%29&action=history The First Commandment (Stargate SG-1)] just two months ago leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, especially since two editors had at that point provided (and even linked to) the discussions where a clear consensus had already been formed about the article's future. &ndash;
Poor communication, and I don't believe behaviour has changed, per Seresin. ''
'''Strong oppose''' - sorry, Geni, but you were desysopped for good reasons and I don't get any sense that you've improved in any way.  The answer to question 7 sums it up. "I won't be wheel warring any more, as I don't really have the time" - that's a very poor reason to no longer be wheel warring, and it suggests Geni doesn't understand why his/her actions were wrong. Also, poor communication skills are a concern; as an example, in this very RFA, there's four uses of "[[SEP fields]]" - even if someone knows what that means ("Someone Else's Problem fields"), it doesn't really make any sense in the context Geni uses it.
'''Oppose''' - Numerous issues as brought up by other editors, primarily concerns of edit warring, and the answer to question 7 as brought up by Neil.  The candidate has not adequately demonstrated reform after their de-sysop.  If you try again in a few months I'll be happy to re-assess you. &mdash;  <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size: 14pt">
'''Oppose'''.  In many cases, I sympathize with Geni's point of view.  However, I think there remains a persistent communication issue underneath the cases, as if much of the drama can be avoided.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of... oh, wait, that's Kurt's line.  Let me quote from the ArbCom decision, then: "For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place indefinitely. Geni may reapply for adminship privileges at any time or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement."  One question that comes up in RFA discussions is: "Will the candidate abuse the tools?"  Well, we've already seen that Geni has abused the tools.  Geni also asserts that things have changed on Wikipedia since the Daniel Brandt wheel war.  I don't think his own attitude has changed.  It's also possible for admins to abuse the tools in this "new" environment, whatever it is -- look at former admin {{admin|Archtransit}}.  Maybe this self-nom is verging on power hunger after all.  --
'''Oppose''' - Per the whole arbcom case issue.
'''Oppose''' Consensus through various cases is that Geni stuffed up using the Admin tools. I can't see any real sign ( in the answers above and various revert wars) that a lesson has been learnt and the future will be different -
Firstly, I must say that, tendentious edits aside, Geni has done great things for the project. However, that doesn't always equate to good adminship abilities. Unfortunately, Geni has edit warred extensively on policy pages, such as [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:BLP]], and was recently subject to an arbitration case levied partially against her. In this case, I must oppose. May you return in 3-6 months, preferably longer, with renewed decorum, and I'll consider supporting.
'''Oppose''', previous abuse of the tools, edit warring... sorry, I can forgive a lot, but I'm just not willing to take the chance at this point.  Sorry.  (Although your answer to Q8 is correct).
'''Opppose''' - his use of socks such as [[User:YetanotherGenisock]] to edit war with other people to keep his main accounts editing record clean is not the type of behavior i expect from an admin.
'''Weak oppose''', although you have many edits and have been here for a long time, your abusive usuage of sockpuppets leads me to oppose rather than neutral.  This has nothing to do with Q8 (which was a great answer imho) but I don't feel you've learned your lesson about the 'puppets.  Sorry.  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Oppose''' With the nominee's track record, they need to show significant effort to change their outlook and behaviour towards other editors. I see none of this here, and stating that "conditions that caused the problem are somewhat unlikely to reoccur" hardly demonstrates a commitment to change or even a real acknowledgement that they were culpable in the first place.
'''Oppose''' - Just not comfortable going for support. Also with regards to the Arbcom issue. (I have read many of the links on this page.) I am not fearful that Geni would intentionally abuse the tools. I do not fear that he would become a dictator. I do, however, fear, that he would have a lack of neutrality in resolving conflicts and problems. -
Per Hersfold. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' With his history he needed to present a good case of what he could do for wikipedia. I don't think he has done that. Seems to be blaiming everything (conditions/policy/others) instead of making a clear apology over the arbcom. Even with bad conditions and bad people it shouldn't happen.--
'''Oppose''' Not trustworthy
'''Oppose''' Just too many issues, drama, and past problems.
I'm sorry, but no. The concerns raised by those above me, and the past concerns voiced, which were obviously enough to merit a ''de-sysopping'', prevent me from placing any degree of support for this candidacy. -- <strong>
Per Philippe. Sorry but I have doubts on the ability of this user as an admin. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' - I see enough character issues here that I don't think you should ever be an admin again.
'''Oppose''' Oh dear, this is not an easy decision. Geni has definitely been an asset to the project, especially in the area of copyright violations and images—areas where the tools are helpful. Furthermore, I am a very strong believer in the ability of editors to change and to learn from their mistakes. So I went looking at more recent history to see if I could find evidence of behavior that would indicate that Geni can demonstrate better self-control than he has in the past—which would be imperative in my opinion for restoring his access to the mop-and-flamethrower™. Unfortunately, I found too much to indicate that the Geni-of-old remains in the bottle. Edit sequences such as the one  discussing tags on [[Russell Bishop]], especially edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FT2&diff=prev&oldid=178336250 this one] really concern me. Baiting people should never be countenanced. Similarly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anomie&diff=prev&oldid=179418977 this edit] is disconcerting. The continued use of socks, while technically not a violation, and perhaps not an issue preventing support in other candidates, '''do''' indicate Geni's current mindset and current wiki-behavior—too similar to his prior behavior for me to be comfortable that Geni's future behavior will be sufficiently different from his past behavior to warrant the community's restoring its [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in his judgment]] at this time. Very unfortunate. [[image:face-sad.svg|25px]] --
'''Strong Oppose''', will go ''Sideways'' with mop. I believe that it is only a matter of time before he acts Rambo again and wheelwar with other admins if awarded adminship. Full disclosure, I was a party to the Brandt Arbcom case where he wheelwarred to undo my action. -
'''Strong Oppose''' May switch to support pending a '''straight''' answer above, however, I feel that this user isn't coming back here for the right reasons. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' - while I would really like to be able to support, continued problems with edit warring and incivility would lead me to oppose even if the candidate hadn't lost the tools do to misuse before.  I'm also concerned that we're seeing answers from the candidate like "enough time has passed" and "wikipedia is different" instead of "I see where I was wrong".  Not looking for anything long winded, but a simple acknowledgment would go a long way.
'''Weak Oppose''' only because of the Arbcom case ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Oppose''' -- Due to this editor being desysopped by ArbCom.
'''Oppose'''.  As Avi says, this is a tough one.  Geni is definitely an asset to the project in many matters, esp. relating to copyright and law, but awfully abrupt.  Especially when "right", I have found Geni to be confrontational under the guise of being "matter of fact".<div style="text-indent:3em">"''A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.''"</div>
'''Oppose''' Too many valid concerns have been noted here.
'''Oppose''' because of a solid history of wheel warring.  The use of sockpuppets also concerns me. I find it amusing that you accused Jimbo of introducing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geni&diff=prev&oldid=134214135 "flawed policy without discussion"] but that's exactly how I would describe the fromowner system.&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;
'''Strong oppose''' Way too many concerns. ArbCom ruling and evidence shown by [[User:seresin|seresin]] makes me really worried. Not only did you edit-war, you also created sockpuppets to join the war.
Still too confrontational at times. Also, I'm not impressed by this user's consistently less-than-perfect usage of the English language.
Oppose, regrettably, per Avraham.
'''Oppose''' based on the details revealed in the ArbCom case. With most RfAs we have to judge if a person can be trusted with the tools, in this case we have evidence that Geni cannot. Geni says that the conditions are unlikely to reoccur, and that a year has passed, however I find this statement compelling: "Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools." One or two incidents can be overlooked, a series of concerns would require compelling evidence that trust can once again be restored. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' - I understand trying to present yourself in a positive light when seeking adminship, but [[User:Geni|Geni]] greatly minimizes his role in some recent edit conflicts. He has tried to spin himself as a seeker of compromise, when in fact he has been a strong participant in conflict. That's his right (I have contributed to conflict myself, but I'm not seeking to be an administrator). I'm not accusing him of improper behavior as an editor, but some of his statements about his approach to conflict are misleading. These problems are too recent to make him an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - a lot of issues still need addressing. And the answers to the questions don't seem the language / content that seems to appealing to those granting admin tools. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
<s>'''Leaning oppose'''</S> please provide more links including to the arbcom case and examples of how you have been "reformed".   I am not against a second chances, but if you are looking for redemption, then you need to give complete meaningful responses.... not short garbage ones.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] ([[User talk:Balloonman|talk]]) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC) '''True Neutral''' I really want to be able to support this nom, but right now I can't.  I won't oppose.
Per balloonman. <strong>
Sorry Geni, you are a very talented and experienced editor, but recent evidence of large-scale editwarring and your responding to the questions in a somewhat brusque manner make me unable to support. Please try again in a couple of months with sufficient and clear evidence of improved communication skill (i.e interacting positively with other editors instead of reverting) and I hope to support you then. --
Per Ballon and NT. '''
Neutral per my comments in the oppose section.
Too much going in each direction, but kudos for [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-March/092258.html telling it as it is].
'''Neutral''' I'd hate to oppose, but I can't comfortably support given this user's recent issues. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' - leaning toward support. The ArbCom was before my time, and I acknowledge circumstances have changed since then. I don't doubt the editor would almost certainly be a good and effective administrator in his chosen field, but have some reservations about how effectively he communicates. I do want to express my sincere gratitude for the nominee for all their work, however, and hope that won't be changed by any potential negative outcome of this request.
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, but I feel that your not going to be very serious with the tools yet.--'''''
'''Neutral''' pending better thought out answers to the questions. I also have some concerns about communication skills and whether the user has truly learned from previous misconduct. I'd [[WP:AGF|like to think yes]], but there is no evidence for it here. Present some and I will reconsider. --
'''Neutral''' because of the recent edit warring.  Admins are exemplars of good behavior, and this is not appropriate behavior.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' Due to the issues outlined above. The edits are good but sockpuppets? come back in 4-6 months <strong>
'''Neutral'''. I've seen both good and bad things from Geni, and I don't know how I can lean either way at this point.
'''Support'''. Judging someone from problems a year ago seems unfair as there's no problem (that I'm aware of) since then. If a new account had the edit history Geni has since then, it would probably have no problems passing RFA; it seems unfair to penalise someone for their honesty in not creating a fresh account. Enough people will be watching for various reasons that it's vanishingly unlikely Geni would do anything controversial without discussion – and I trust someone who sticks around after taking all that heat to have the welfare of the project in mind more than I'd trust someone who'd flounce off in a huff.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Geni is highly knowledgeable on images and copyright and I've long thought that s/he is an asset to the project. '''
I've had the pleasure of meeting Geni in real life, and can safely say that he isn't evil or crazy. He's very dedicated to this, and related projects like Commons, very knowledgable, and has been around for years. The wheel war was over 18 months ago. It's long-forgotten history. Strongly endorse this candidate! '''
Yes, of course. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
Per iridescent. An excellent user who used (and hopefully will use) tools very well. I'm sorry that you were desysopped in the first place. --'''
I spprtd last time, and does so agains. Mahalo. --
Support - Geni is a good guy, and I'm pleased to see him run again. A couple of lapses in judgements let to Jimbo getting involved with his desysopping - I honestly doubt that he would have been desysopped if Jimbo didn't fire up his steward bit. I believe that a long time has passed since these incidents, and Geni can once again make a fantastic admin. '''
'''Support''' Iridescent raises the most important points already. Geni will be more closely watched than any other RfA candidate and knows full well that the mop will be taken from him in a fraction of a second if he returns to the style that lead to abovementioned ArbCom-case. That said, I see no reason to deny him the mop, seeing that he did not in fact revert back to that old self yet and I am a firm believer that people can change. It's worth the risk, so to speak :-) '''
'''Support''' per Iridescent and
'''Support''' based on conduct over the last year.
'''Support''' - desysopping Geni indefinitely was excessive.  Geni always did an outstanding job as an admin - in particular, his/her work with image issues stands out in my mind. --
It's been five months since the last request, and I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGeni_2&diff=198654493&oldid=198653603 supported that one too]. Geni's a good user and while he's made mistakes, I think he's learned from them.
Hello, I am here to see my parole officer, and...oh, wrong queue. '''Support,''' of course! :)
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative intereactions.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' knowledgeable and helpful on copyright issues. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. It's been well over a year since the desysopping. I think Geni should have the tools back.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''', Geni has been here a long, long time and has always demonstrated great dedication to the project.  I have no worries that he'll abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per Wikipedia's (supposed) policy of a second chance.  Hell, we do it in the UK with murderers and suchlike - I guarantee Geni isn't that bad :P
'''Support'''. A dedicated Wikipedian with a wealth of experience. His conduct since the desysopping (which was almost 18 months ago, making it practically ancient history in wiki-time) does not raise any concerns, and I believe he has mellowed somewhat since then.
'''Support''' - despite all the hate in these comments, I find nothing that has been brought up in the opposes to be worrying at all. --
I don't want to go neutral on this, so it's '''support''' on the condition he'll be de-sysopped ''immediately'' if he fugs up again.  Give the guy a second chance. One remark: Geni, please, get your <big>''','''</big>-key fixed. <font color="#8080ff">
He's a dedicated user. He's messed up, as all of us have. Give him a chance. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' all self-noms.  Anyone who wants adminship should automatically have it.
'''Support''' Everyone deserves a second chance, and I can't see sufficient evidence of of the possibility of a repeat offense that would warrant an oppose.
Was neutral last time, but I'm happy to '''support''' now. Geni has addressed the concerns raised in the previous RfA. Answers are clear. Q10 is good.  I also subscribe to the belief that a mistake in the distant past shouldn't come back and haunt a user at their RfA. --
Geni was rightfully desysopped for a single incident of gross misjudgment. In the eighteen months since then, I've seen nothing but professionalism, equanimity and an appropriate level of decorum from him, despite working in several tough areas that draw numerous complaints and regularly answering the Foundation's mail. I also find a couple of the specious reasons for opposition below to be moral pygmyism: people who harbor grudges; people who refuse to forgive. Geni seems to have learned a lesson, let's give him the opportunity to prove it. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
Geni is sure to have learned his lesson. Let's see him put it to use. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Moral Support''' I can see no valid reason to oppose, this user has had past issues and enough time has passed. It would not only be punitive to dwell on past issues but would also be a slap in the face and a discouraging setback for a user who has tried so hard over the last 18 months.
'''Strongly support''', good editor, good admin, probably didn't deserve to be desysopped in the first place.
'''Support''' I've reviewed his wiki-history and I believe he deserves to be an admin again.
God forbid, a candidate who can't play [[WP:MMORPG|the game]]. I opposed last time, I think. But meh, what's the worst that <s>can</s> will happen? —'''
'''Weak Support''' - Advantages outweigh disadvantages. --'''''
Decent guy. Though it's an inevitability that this nomination will fail. :( '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Qualified candidate. Past episodes are past, and it seems unlikely there's any danger of reoffence.
'''Moral Support''' per [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] --
'''Support''' (changed from neutral).  If he blows it again, he'll be de-sysopped much more rapidly than before with far less debate.  That would effectively guarantee that any subsequent RfA would have a near-zero possibility of passing and close the issue permanently.  —
'''Support'''.  Obviously, Geni has strong experience with Wikipedia and its policies, and the community and its expectations.  I believe more than most, Geni understands the importance of accountability, and I believe he will use the tools to the benefit of the project, and therefore I support.
'''Support''' (changed from neutral). Looking through Geni's recent contributions, I see absolutely nothing objectionable or that would suggest he would misuse the admin tools, and several edits that suggest he could do good work with them. He is sufficiently experienced that he clearly knows Wikipedia's policies and mechanisms very well, and has no problems working with other users. The reasons for opposing brought up below seem pretty unfair, on closer inspection: his de-adminning was a long time ago, over a seriously controversial dispute where nobody behaved well; while his actions at the time may have been wrong, I think he's long since learned his lesson, and deserves a second chance. His 'edit-warring' back in January was in fact a good-faith attempt to revert serious, repeated, anti-consensus changes to many articles, and he was not sanctioned by ArbCom for it. And as for his terse answers to questions - well, firstly, the questions are optional, and secondly, as a former admin, he really doesn't need to answer them in as much detail as a new user. Overall, I see no major reason not to trust him with the tools, therefore I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and supporting, as I should have done in the first place.
Unless anyone can come up with some problematic behavior that is less than a year old, no reason not to support.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Net positive: Geni's contributions as an admin outweigh possible damage if Geni wheel-wars again. --
'''Support''' per above. —
'''Support'''. As far as the wheel war goes, at least he was one of the  admins restoring rather than deleting the Brandt article. --
'''Support''' Geni should have never been dragged that deep in my little shit storm.
'''Support'''
The bit above here that says ''If you are unfamiliar with the nominee...'' isn't there for laughs. If you follow that advice you can be pretty damn sure what Geni would do as an admin by looking at what he did already. And the deadminning and stuff is ancient history now.
'''Support''' Y'know, if were not that it was Daniel Brandt (and the particular sysop action taken) I have the feeling that that "misuse" of the tools would be viewed appropriately as historic? I don't understand the template problem, so my response is on the rest of the data available; definite support - we let first time candidates have access to the mop with far less grounds for suitability. In the likely event of this candidature failing I suggest that Geni take this back to ArbCom on the basis that it is unlikely that there can be a truly impartial response to a further RfA, and let them judge whether subsequent actions are indicative of unsuitability for having the bits restored (and don't let them worry that the decision may be unpopular - being given the buttons is always a reason for people to dislike the wielder...)
'''Support''' per short but correct answer to xeno's question. '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support'''. I think it's time to give our trust to Geni, a competent and experienced editor, once again.
'''Support'''. I never had any personal issues with her, and I think with the Daniel Brandt article finally deleted it's time to give her a fresh start on this one.
'''Support''' Keep up the good work. --
'''Weak Support'''. Similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGeni_2&diff=199095561&oldid=199095436 last time] Geni stood for RfA, I felt that it would be appropriate to investigate Geni's contributions to see if there had been any changes since the last RfA. There is no doubt that Geni's edits are, as a whole, beneficial for the encyclopedia, but Geni has had the (mis)fortune to be embroiled in enough "wikidrama" that having Geni with the tools was deemed inappropriate at least once in the past. Last RfA, I found significant enough evidence in the recent past that Geni still dealt with other editors in a bellicose fashion, and that was sufficiently worrisome for me to oppose the request. This time, I called up the approximately 1500 edits since Geni's last RfA in March, and went through hundreds and hundreds of them, focusing on ones that carried specific and directed communication with other editors. I was pleased to see that in my sizable, but incomplete, sample, I could not find anything more pointed than understandable frustration. Based on this analysis, I do have the opinion that Geni has listened to much of what the community has said, and has implemented changes. I understand that Geni's past is rather storied, and while I do have some reservations, I have always been a strong believer in the power of people to learn and grow, and I believe that Geni has earned the right to the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community's trust]] once again, especially knowing that with the strong misgivings that abound, a trip to [[WP:ANI]] and a discussion of a long-term block/desysop will be a constant specter for the near and mid-term future. My hope is that by 12 months from now, we will have all forgotten this debate as Geni will continue to act with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. --
'''Support''' &mdash; Time for a second chance.  I admit that I find the circumstances of his desysopping sympathetic, but one way or the other, let us give Geni a chance to put it all behind him. '''
'''Support''', I am confident that the risk of wheel wars, and the like, is very small, or will be distant enough that the net benefit will be high.  I was wavering as I find Geni's communication style difficult at times, but the recent contributions have no sizable issues in them (as Avi also found), so it is time for us to put this in the past, and cross bridges at such time as we are looking at them. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
After much thought, I think Geni should be suitable as an admin once more. His views and outlook on Wikipedia have seemingly matured and expanded, and he also seems to have grown as a Wikipedian since his desysopping. &mdash;<strong>
'''Weak support''': Although I share Badger Drink's concerns, I believe in second chances (usually) and think that equating RfA terseness with poor overall communication skills is sorta judging a book by its cover. Even so, RfA would be a good place to demonstrate any relevant skills, so my support remains weak.
'''Support''': Geni's been an admin longer than most people on this page have been editors. I lack any evidence to back that statement up, as I'm far to lazy to actually click on everyone's contribs, but I'm going to bet it is true nonetheless. Getting the mop taken away was definitely not a great example of using one's better judgement, but he didn't run away with his tale between his legs and chose to remain a valuable member of this project since then. Obviously, if you get the mop back, you'd be on a shorter leash than most admins insofar as scrutiny over your actions is concerned, but I don't get the impression you'd be inclined to act irresponsibly again... and if you did then you'd be toast anyways, so its in your own self-interest not to revert to any bad habits.
'''Support'''.  I think that it's been enough time to get over the wheel warring and such.  People ''can'' change in my opinion. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''support''' I'm convinced we should give Geni another chance.
'''Support'''.  It's been a year; in retrospect, the Daniel Brandt thing is a small drop in a big pond; and Geni is typically a reasonable and even-handed who has proven capable of handling responsiblity through OTRS and at Commons.--
'''Support.'''  More than anything else, Geni's relaxed attitude reassures me that a repeat of the Daniel Brandt wheel-warring incident is unlikely to occur.  I much prefer this kind of evidence of a real change in approach to groveling and promising over an issue that has passed.  I believe Geni's experience is a good reason to grant access to the tools, and I don't think we'll see any more problems.
Yes, sure.
'''Support''' Seems a good candidate.  The controversy was before my time but I see no reason to worry about it forever.--
'''Support''' Solid, dedicated Wikipedian.
'''Weak Support''' - well, at the end of the day, he knows what's coming if he misuses the tools... <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Knows what he's doing; no reason to fear misuse.--
'''Support''' I believe that the potential benefits of Geni's access to the buttons greatly outweighs any possibility of misuse of tools. Net positive.
'''Support''' Positives outweigh the negatives and per answer to question #5.—
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Astonishingly brief and vague self-nom statement by a de-sysopped former admin. Its hard to believe there isn't an assumption that no-one without an intimate knowledge of the details and personnel of the Daniel Brandt affair (never mind any anyone who's only joined in the last "1 year and 5 months") would care to be involved with this RFA. The initial omission of a link to the de-sysop decision page is an ominous oversight - sloppy, if indeed one is comfortable to [[WP:AGF]] and accept the somewhat disingenuous 'but-it's-right-there!' when prompted to provide it. However, I am not convinced that any possibly forthcoming expansive explanations / justifications / promises could dispell my reservations, which really boil down to considering The Ultimate Project Gain. Future Oversight may endeavour their best to ensure the candidate can't get Happy with the tools again but I can't see the drama and effort being sufficiently worth it. Certainly, the candidate has not provided a self-nomination statement to justify it either.
'''Oppose''' per vague and brief self-nom, short and sloppy answers to questions, especially Q1, and general sloppiness that doesn't really clear up my concerns. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' I don't really mind too much about vagueness, however, I am still perturbed about your history and I'm having a difficult time getting past it. Wheel warring, edit warring with a sock account. No. I opposed the candidate back in March, and I'm still opposing now.
'''Oppose'''. We all know I'm a critic of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_placeholders&oldid=112545199 this], plus it takes a lot to get desysopped. I can't in good conscience support.
'''Oppose''' I can in no way trust that this user will use the tools responsibly. Regranting access may only serve to damage the project further.
'''Oppose''' based on the Arbcon findings from the Daniel Brandt wheel war and the answer to Q10.
'''Oppose''' per Plutonium27. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]].  --
'''Oppose''' I'm trying to wrap my head around the particularly parsimonious prose (sorry, couldn't help it) in the answer to my question.  In my opinion the only valid question for a new admin is whether or not they can be trusted to use the tools properly.  Different people make that determination in different ways, but here we have a case where the community (or some subset of) explicitly made that decision in the past.  I'm not saying that Jimbo and arbcom '''have to be right''' here but I also don't see any contrition about past actions.  Either they were wrong (broadly or narrowly) and the user is applying to regain the tools via normal channels or they were right (broadly or narrowly) and the user has changed in such a manner as to void the past concerns.  The answers to Q10 don't show a defense of past actions or contrition.  I'm sorry.
'''Oppose''' - remarkably terse answers to the optional {{fact}} questions highlight overall poor communication - even on this RfA, the candidate's seeming aversion towards commas makes understanding him somewhat tricky at times. I believe that administrators with poor language skills reflect poorly on the project - it's similar to seeing a 300 pound slouch working the front desk of a weight loss clinic.
'''Oppose from Neutral''' I would love to support, as I believe in second chances, but I honestly must go along with Wisdom89. Good luck.
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Other parties have edit warred|Absolutely]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by The Uninvited Co..2C Inc.|not.]] '''
'''Weak Oppose''' Per answer to Q1; very sloppy and short.--
'''Oppose''' - First 3 questions are too short. <small>
'''Oppose''' Weak answers and too problematic history with the tools. Should have included a link to arb case and discussed it upfront.
'''Oppose''' - Candidate didn't answer several questions, instead giving a British politician's answer to them. The answer to ''" Why, in your own words, were you desysoped?"'' isn't ''"why do I think I should have been desyoped?"''.
'''Oppose'''. No need to guess how you'll use the tools. Others have very good points against you as well.
'''Oppose''' At first I supported, but on second thought I have to oppose. I believe in second chances but I agree With Wisdom89. Sorry.
Geni's desysop was not solely due to a single instance of wheel-war to have things his way.<sup>[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Geni.2C_with_history|RfAr/DB, Res 4.1]]</sup> Even after that, he went on blatantly with a sockpuppet to edit war.<sup>[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Evidence#Editors engage in edit-warring with TTN in ignorance of strong community consensus|RfAr/EAC2 Evd]]</sup> If given the mop, is very likely to go back to his old ways to get his point across. Going through the ArbCom to have the tools removed once is painful enough. Can we really afford to give him the tools again, when he doesn't think that he has done anything wrong in the first place?<sup>[Q10]</sup> ''I'm
'''Oppose''' A very mealy mouthed and evasive opening statement given the circumstances does not inspire confidence at all.
'''Oppose''' per Nick mallory, Mailer diablo, and Wisdom89. [[Ghost Rider (film)|Ghost Rider]] deserved a second chance, but here I'm not so sure. Mr. Cage did an awesome job in that movie, by the way.--
'''Oppose''' based on short answers. Previously being an administrator, I would expect a little more thought into it. Sorry. :(<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Oppose''' When someone asks you why you were desysopped, it is best not to avoid the question. Astonishing that anyone will support someone this evasive and inconsiderate of new users.
'''Oppose''' This user greatly misused the tools during his last adminship and I don"t see anything that shows he has changed.--
'''Oppose''' I don't trust someone who is so evasive concerning the perceived abuse of the trust of others. Responses have an air of lawyering and unhelpfully narrow interpretation of what is being asked. Give a radically honest account of your desysopping and your real motivations in regaining access and I might reconsider this stance. Sincerely<font color="404040">
'''Oppose'''As I recall, Geni's desysoping came after a series of misuses, not a single error of judgement. The remarkable lack of contrition and candidness shown in this RfA, along with the general air of aloofness, does little to convince me that the same problems will not come up again. I do believe that, given the tools, Geni would have a lot to offer, but I simply cannot support any candidate who is so evasive in their RfA (particularly in relation to the circumstances of their desysoping).
'''Oppose''' The candidate has proved themselves clearly untrustworthy through their past misuse of the tools. What is needed to get past all that is a complete and unequivocal recognition of what went wrong the first time around, and clear evidence that things have changed. I simply don't see that. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose'''. I'm not a great one for grudges, but you have a rather negative history that likely won't disappear soon. I know you can't change the past, but I am very loath to support someone with skeletons like that in your closet. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Mostly per Mailer Diablo. I don't feel that Geni understands why his past conduct was  unacceptable well enough to avoid repeating his past mistakes.
'''Oppose''' - not worth the risk. <b>
'''Oppose''' - bad history with user's administrative decisions. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">
'''Weak Oppose''' Cookie cutter self nom leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Mostly, per Rje, who sums up my beliefs.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' per Mailer diablo. —
'''Oppose'' - Mailer Diablo put it best; there were several issues that led to the de-sysop - Geni's lack of up-front explanation and evasive answers when asked about it directly give me no confidence that the tools will be used correctly this time around. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
I see no arguments to sway my opinion that this would not be repeating a mistake made in the past.
'''Oppose''' - I do not trust this user.
'''Oppose''' – clearly does good work, but the current application doesn't inspire confidence. .
'''Strong Oppose''' - Absolutely not. First three questions are much too vague, and I dislike this user's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGeni_3&diff=234501750&oldid=234501236 can't be arsed] attitude. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', too prone to wheel-warring last time round.  I haven't seen anything that convinces me this would have changed, given Geni has refused to admit fault.
'''Oppose''' per the reasons I cited in my neutral vote at 15:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC). As [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGeni_3&diff=234501750&oldid=234501236 this] was how the candidate chose to address those concerns, I'm convinced that the candidate is not ready for the tools.
'''Oppose''' ( changed from Neutral )  : Same as Ncmvocalist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGeni_3&diff=234501750&oldid=234501236 this] reply is NOT befitting any RFA candidate --
I probably won't change to either support or oppose, but I was worried about the findings on the Brandt wheel war. ''"Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools. Notable misuses have included a protect/unprotect war on an Arbitration Committee election page, an edit war over the site notice, and unprotection of an article listed at WP:OFFICE."'' Can you please elaborate on the findings (a simple explanation of what happened) and how you would do things differently if each incident occurs again. Cheers. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' so far, sorry. It's not been massively long since your last request and I'm not sure all that much has changed since then. I'm concerned that your reputation for edit-warring (and the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Evidence#Other_parties_have_edit_warred|multiple-account]] edit-warring thing) will not mix well with the admin tools -
Neutral for the moment as this develops. It seems like geni is too quick to judgment, too quick to take action - and also less willing than he ought to be to question himself before or after taking what he sees as decisive action. I agree that his history since losing his bit has been without serious incident, that I'm aware of, which speaks well for him. On the other hand, he hasn't been an admin in that time period (obviously) so his opportunity for unilateral or hasty action has been limited. Perhaps his answers to further questions or the comments of others will sway me to switch to one of the other two sections.
'''Neutral, leaning toward Weak Support''' per Ali and Terraxos. I'd like to support, but I'm rather wary.
'''Neutral''' because I simply don't understand why he couldn't give a simple answer to a simple question.  He appeared to resent the question, even though he must have realised that it could hardly be avoided.  And these two comments just bug me: "but I would argue that over the last year and 5 months both the project and myself have changed somewhat to the extent that he conditions that caused the problem are unlikely to reoccur" & "I also have more experence so am less likely to be winging things in future."  I don't mind too much that he was previously desysopped; what I do mind is the overly simplistic attitude of, "well, I've changed.  Isn't that enough?"  According to [[User:Geni|Geni's userpage]], he made 10,000 edits by 2006, plus he's been around since 2004—why wasn't he changing ''then''?  There are some successful RfAs here where the candidate, although not new, isn't remarkably senior and doesn't have tens of thousands of edits—then I could understand some lapses in judgement or some hasty overreaction that resulted in a desysop when Jimbo steps in.  But something just says to me that he should have known better by then, or at least could be more specific in the answers to the questions instead of sidestepping them.  [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] stated that it would seem unfair to penalise someone for their honesty in not creating a fresh account.  I certainly agree with that, in cases where a brand new user (especially if it's a teen male!) makes a couple of vandalising edits, sees the error of his ways, but keeps the account, with the corresponding "shame", even though it would be easy to move to a new one.  But regarding Geni keeping his account, which had, at the time, 3+ years of history and invested time and contributions, honesty probably had nothing to do with it!  Unfortunately, that's one Support reason that I don't see the sense of.  I'm keeping this at neutral though, because he is obviously a dedicated Wikipedian and, as others say, is unlikely to make the same mistake again.
'''Neutral leaning Oppose''', if Geni had simply fessed up in his initial statement to his prior indiscretions, I probably could have forgiven, forgotten, and supported this.  However, the evasive answers worry me a little, although not enough to oppose given the candidate's otherwise largely positive record.  I might be willing to consider supporting further down the track.
'''Neutral'''. Geni is a committed editor. He knows the policy. However his generally short answers, and particularly his evasive answers about the desysopping, give me reservations.
'''Neutral''' The answers to the questions given seem to indicate some good understanding, but they aren't filled out enough to turn me to support. I haven't reviewed the Arbcom case in question, so I have no opinion on that. The less-than-perfect grammar puts me off a bit (as a stupid grammar freak, I know). I can't find anything really "off" in his contributions. However, I'm not totally sure about this. So - neutral.
Per ncmcovalist. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' - I'd like to support, and am not fussed about edit warring as such in the TV episodes debacle as that was a rather large mess with combative behaviour all round, and the SV revert was a while ago. However, I do think you could have phrased the questions a bit better, especially answering ProtonK - that was pretty important to be unequivocal about really, and I am not a fan of socking anytime. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' - I can't see what's changed since the past actions.  Maybe Geni should let things calm down more.  We all make mistakes, but sometimes time really does heal wounds.
Trustworthy and has common sense. '''
'''Support''' - Took a look at your contribs and edit count. Your edits cross all areas of the Wiki and I'm glad to see your edit summary usage has improved to 100%. I would trust this user with adminy stuff -
'''Support'''. I was inclining towards oppose in light of Wisdom's diffs, as UAA has such a high bite-potential, but they're all well in the past. I'm swayed into support by George's intelligent commentary in virtually every debate I've seen him in, whether or not I agree with him (and anyone who throws themself into the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=227482612 Great Age Debate] immediately prior to RFA deserves a bonus point in the Wikipedia MMORPG for sheer balls-of-steel).<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Weak Support'''. I've thought about this one long and hard, and I'm going to keep thinking about it longer and harder, as well. But here's what I've got so far. Indeed, there have been a few questionable reports to UAA, but he has a lot of reports there and a vast majority are fine. However, I do have to question his experience a bit. Indeed he has been around for eleven months longer than I have, but he has only 2300 edits. Now don't get me wrong, that's quite a bit and it ''is'' above the 2000 threshold that I normally like to see, so I tried to delve deeper into his experience. I found that his edit count might actually not be a very good indicator of what his actual experience is. His edit count is kind of bloated, with sometimes a whole lot of quick, consecutive edits to one place, such as nine consecutive edits to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision‎]] on February 29th, or four edits to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cabals]] in a two minute span, or eight consecutive edits to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RyanLupin 2‎]] on June 28th. But, on the other hand, based on the content of his contributions, he appears to be quite experienced and knowledgeable (at least from what I've seen so far). I'll keep taking a look at this candidate and will come back to this later, but for now, weak support it is. Also, only having 68 edits total in the last three months is kind of worrying.
'''Support'''. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Strong Support''' - Of course!  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Default support''' aka "neutral," but ever since I heard some comedian (regretfully, I forget which one) ponder people calling in to answer a poll with a passionate "I don't know!!!" I've figured it's nice to get off the fence. [[WP:WTHN]]?
'''Support''' per Iridescent and Useight. - '''
[[WP:BADSITES|zomg common sense]]. —'''
'''Weak Support''' - Whilst I do have a serious problem with people refering to themselves in the third person, he seems skilled and ready to be accountable for his actions.
'''Weak support''' I should like to have seen a higher level of activity over recent months but I am swayed by the ''quality'' of the edits that there are. George seems to have a good grasp of how things work around here and on balance I cannot see any reason not to think that s/he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' - Wants to work at UAA, but submits dodgey reports [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=194565078], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=215989788], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=185773913], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=183546341] No more bitey UAA admins.
'''Oppose'''. The edit count triggers all kinds of alarm bells in my head; while a low edit count is not on its own a reason (for me) to oppose, I'm not willing to support an admin candidate who's contributed 100-odd edits in the last ''4 months''; as things stand I can only judge your competence as an editor on outdated reports and material.
'''Oppose''' What concerns me is the amount of total edits, and the lack of mainspace edits.--
'''Oppose''' per rationale for deletion and comments made at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Song]], as well as diffs provided by Wisdom.
'''Oppose'''.  I see little evidence of interest in the actual encyclopedia aspects of our project -- not just the small number of edits, but that they are mostly one click reverts.  Absent some article work, I'd want to see evidence of exceptionally good judgment.  Instead, I see some evidence above of questionable judgment.  I find your comment at the WP:Song MFD to be a bit ironic, really.  Like you said, Wikipedia is kept going by donors.  People are donating money to the creation of an encyclopedia.  Yet if you feel that way, why do you spend so little time creating an encyclopedia?  I've agreed with many comments I've seen you make around ArbCom, but that's not enough to tip the scales for me. --
'''Oppose''' Per Jay. '''
'''Oppose'''. I wanted to support, but these guys all make good points and I can't ignore these issues. You've got the right stuff. &mdash;
'''Weak Oppose''' - Normally I wouldn't oppose but per LAA, I have to. --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Easy Oppose''' While a large number of edits is not an indicator of experience or knowledge, a lack of edits can be.  2300 edits is way below my minimum expectation for a potential admin... but not only that, but I expect to see 6 months of active editing prior to granting the bit.  I define active editing as 100-150 edits per month--which I believe is extremely doable by somebody with any degree of commitment to the project.  By that definition, George has not been active on Wikipedia in 4 months.  Why would we grant the tools to somebody who isn't active?  Also, if we are willing to overlook many transgressions after 4-6 months,  I see no reason not to overlook past positives.  While he may have done good things in the past, they are in the past, not current and thus not relevant.---'''
'''Oppose''' - 1) I've seen quite a lot of inactivity looking through [[Special:Contributions/George The Dragon|George's contributions]], the last 500 edits lasting a few months back, around the middle of February to be exact. Like Balloonman said, an average of about 100-150 quality edits would be enough for me to refer to you as an 'active" editor. 2) Not enough total edits with only about 2400 edits to say your experienced in editing articles and such, and would certainly like to see more article writing. As of total edits, I would like to see at least 3000-4000 quality edits . May I point to [[WP:DYK]]? Looks like a good start for you if you were planning to do some article creating/expanding. 3) There are a few other concerns I have, but since most of which have been brought up above, there's no use in repeating what has already been said. Thanks,
'''Strong oppose per above concerns''' I've found that consensus and interpretation of policy can be changeable enough that one must be more active than this to keep up.  Especially with XFD's. What was once common practice can become, in so far as consensus is concerned, the height of folly. As a matter of fact, I had a several month period in which my activity dropped to a similar level, and I called it a wikibreak. So, I would urge ramping up the activity level by about 30X. I'm hard pressed to find any article building. Article building knowledge does carry over in wielding the mop. I see few edits beyond RFA's and AN/I over the last couple of months, so I would suggest a gaining much more experience at CSD, XFD, and Username's. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace edits and the UAA diffs brought up by Wisdom. While I agree that article building is not the most important factor when becoming an admin, most admin-related activities are related, both directly and indirectly, to article work. A user with little-to-no mainspace activity will find it more difficult to assess deletions, protections, and when users complain about subtle POV-pushing or possible BLP violations, I see no evidence that the user will know how to deal with this effectively. When the user has more article development, perhaps at DYK/GA, I'd be happy to support, but until then, I am uncomfortable. Good luck,
'''Strong oppose''' - Ageist and discriminative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Song here], not happy with his work at UAA, and his edit count does not satisfy me. Forgive my anger, but I really dislike ageists. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Absolutely no way. His comments in the age discussion, and his frequent opposes on RFAs are ridiculous and help to poison the atmosphere. As well as hypocritical, he's constantly negative. We need fewer negative admins (and editors) not more. '''
'''Oppose''', moved from Support. I had recalled seeing this user somewhere prominently before, but couldn't remember where. Thanks to Majorly for helping to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=227479897 jog my memory]. I find myself a little swayed by those mentioning the lack of recent activity. Also, while I'm glad that the candidate is sticking to his guns as per his answer to my question, the response from Dloh shows that it may not necessarily be a good idea, and certainly should not be required of all admins.
'''Oppose''' (switched from weak support) As per the diffs shown above. I do not want to judge by the views people hold or not, so I do not care that George thinks all admins should disclose their personal data or that people under age should not edit. But the way he articulates the last bit leads me to believe that he will not only think so but actively act in a manner that discriminates against users under 18 years in age and that is not a particularly good skill in an admin. Also, the diff provided by Asenine shows that he does not understand what criteria exist for deletions and what is not a criteria. '''
'''Neutral'''; George the Dragon seems to be a reasonable editor have have a calm temperment, both important traits for an administrator.  However, I think just some more experience around the encyclopedia in general will make him an overall stronger, more confident candidate for administrator. --
'''Neutral for now''' while I wait to see if any new major concerns are raised; if not, I'll likely support.  The small volume of editing (in total and recently) does worry me here, though this user also seems to know what they're doing.  This could potentially be a difficult decision.
'''Neutral'''  Okay, I've come back to my original vote because - while the edit count worries me - I can not find any major issues otherwise that would lead me to oppose this candidate.  As such, while I strongly advise the candidate to seek more experience and perhaps broaden his scope on the project, I am not disagreeable to the thought of him having the extra buttons.  Best of luck!  --
'''Neutral'''.  I don't think that there's anything wrong with George's edit count numbers because I prefer quality-over-quantity; however, I do think that experience is what counts.  There are times that I have chosen not to edit an article because I prefer to see how someone with more experience would do so in order to help myself formulate a correct decision matrix.  If George could provide evidence of experience irrespective of edit count and time, I will be impressed.  I do think that a calming temperament is required for administration and, from what I've seen, that is evident.  I may fully support Mr. The Dragon's petition after seeing the answers to some of the newly posed questions, especially Xenocidic's.  I do wish him luck, however.  —[[User:ArchonMagnus|<span style="color: #050; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.1em;">Archon Magnus</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:ArchonMagnus |Talk]] |
'''Neutral''' &mdash; <s>failed to read self-nom instructions thoroughly.</s> Also, pending answer to Q8. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' You have low edits to the mainspace, and lack of edit summary usage. I would recommend coming back in a a few months after more experience in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFPP]], and other admin areas. I would also recommend keeping a better edit summary usage. Good luck next time! '''«'''
'''Oppose''' as Milk's Favorite Cookie noted, you do not have nearly enough edits for use to judge that you understand Wikipedia's [[WP:5P|policies]] and know how to apply them in a wide variety of situations. You also don't understand [[WP:FU|fair use]] well enough, as shown by your tagging of [[:Image:PrimeMinisterMalta.jpg]]. I'm afraid until you can demonstrate a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, you are unlikely to be supported as an administrator. Good luck though,
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. I'd suggest you withdraw this at the moment as it's not going to pass yet; have a read of [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies|some successful RFAs]] to see the kind of thing we're looking for here, and come back in a couple of months when you can demonstrate it. (I wholeheartedly agree we do need more Maltese editors at all levels, too.)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral'''.  I really really like what you've said in the answers to your questions.  The only problem is that you've not been editing (at least on this account) long enough for us to be sure that you will make a good administrator.  My suggestion right now is for you to keep up the good work, make sure you use an [[WP:EDITSUMMARY|edit summary]] for every edit, and to get experience in the many different aspects of Wikipedia.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' -  Everyone needs at least one supporter!  I admire your enthusiasm; however, there are some concerns that have to be addressed.  First, as you state on your talk page here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GO-PCHS-NJROTC#admin], you say; “…I need to try now because I'm going to be slowing down here shortly.”  My question is why do you need the tools than?  Secondly, thank you for the vandal fighting.  We never have enough administrators in that area.  However, to be an administrator you need just a little bit more experience.  In reviewing your talk page, I noticed that you just recently joined [[Wikipedia]] in early December of 2007.  Sorry to say, that in just four months ago, you have just scratched the surface of the responsibilities that come along with the role of being an administrator.  Either way this goes, Good Luck, and keep coming back, remember this is only a very small speed bump.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong oppose''' Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Mmbabies]] and its archives for examples of his ways of dealing with the Mmbabies vandal, which include trying to "out" Mmb's supposed real-life identity. These events are far, far too recent for this user to be trusted with the tools. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Insufficient experience concerns, low mainspace participation. Also, insufficient edit summary usage. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Not comfortable with answers to questions. --'''
'''Oppose''' - The Mmbabies comments aside, you simply lack the experience I'd like to see in a candidate. There are a few things that I suggest you work on. The primary one, never make abusive edit summaries. Additionally, I like what I see in your project space contributions so far, keep that up, but continue to garner experience and delve into other areas. Same with mainspace. If you continue down this path unmolested by incivility then you'll probably be ready for RfA in about 4 months. Cheers and good luck to you. This will probably be closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' per above about experience.  5 months is simply not enough.  Try back in about 7. You might also want to check the box in the preference tab regarding edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' - Concerns raised above lead me to believe that he will abuse the tools. Abusive edit summaries is not something I want in an administrator. Try back in a few more months.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience (about a year or more) and I would like 100% in edit summaries. (check the box in the my preferences section) ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Oppose''' per above, low mainspace edits
'''Strong Oppose''' - Please withdrawal, this will not pass, as I've seen this kind of nominations that close per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral''' - I'm a little concerned by your edits at [[User_talk:209.26.221.66]]. I don't really like to oppose vandal fighters (because i am one). So for now i'm neutral. I would like to think if this fails you will try again in the future. Then i will probably support. Thanks '''
'''Neutral'''.  Look at [[WP:ADCO]] and get more experience in other areas besides vandal fighting.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' Really sorry, but keep up the good work. <strong>
I certainly would support someone editing for over 3 years.  I do suggest you be a little more specific in the answer to the first question, though.  &ndash;
[[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#Doesn't need the tools]]. ''
'''Support''', candidate asked too many questions in such a small span of time.
'''Support'''. Even if this user performed only one edit requiring the tools in all of his/her time as an editor, that would still be a plus to Wikipedia. If he's/she's trustworthy, then why not? '''''
Been here two years and not done anything terrible, has managed to not get sucked into the MMORPG atmosphere, has done lots of content work and has his heart firmly in the right place. No qualms.
'''Support''' as he's a good article contributor.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong Support''' - way too many questions.  The user is a good one, and should do well as an admin.
'''Support''' I see a good contributor here who does not appear to be someone who will abuse the tools. '''
I agreed with the comments by Naerii, WBOSITG and MBisanz, but none of the opposes struck a chord.
'''Support'''.  Please give this man a chance; a review of his contribs shows he is a productive and enthusiastic editor.  We need more admins that are hard-working article editors too.
--
Of course. '''
'''Moral support''', user has kept their cool and done a good job of remaining positive in spite of being browbeaten with questions :)  Also, while relevant experience in "admin-related areas" may be thin I don't think this user would cause problems with the mop.
'''Support'''. I don't see no red flags here. Didn't someone once say something about that it should be pretty easy to become an admin? Kid wants to be a janitor, let the kid be a janitor (''janitor'' is meant positively here). --
'''Support''' as above.  Being an administrator is no big deal and I see no reason this person would not do just fine with the tools.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Unwavering Support''' An Admin should be someone who has a good understanding with content and how to work to stride to improve WIkipedia. Good Luck!
'''Support''' Good work in the article namespace.
'''Oppose''' First of all, you're a fine editor, and a asset to the encyclopedia. Please continue working on aviation articles:-) Being a great content editor doesn't mean you should get the tools though. I have looked over your last 500 edits, and you really haven't demonstrated a need for the tools. Also, you haven't demonstrated that you know policy well enough, and to the contrary, some of your edits have shown you don't know policy well[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.112.21.100&diff=prev&oldid=199911915]. IPs don't have to create accounts.--
'''Weak oppose''' Three years? Wow, a brilliant asset to the encyclopedia. I do have some general issues though. Question 1 can be misinterpreted, I suppose, but I'm concerned by the lack of experience in admin-related areas in general. I believe that a potential admin should have at least a bit of experience in those areas, because as an admin, you will undoubtedly branch off to other areas. Admin-fighting is the area you're most active in, so I've granted you rollback which will help, in case this RfA doesn't succeed. Continue that, and also consider working more in [[WP:XFD]] discussions, because that'll improve overall policy knowledge. Best,
'''oppose''' Good article writer (something we need more of), but I fell that the tools have very little use to writers. I suggest you get involved in fighting vandalism, have some more interactions, maybe mediate a [[WP:MEDCAB|MEDCAB]] case. But you should focus more on other things on Wikipedia. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
'''Oppose''' Three years of experience is wondeful, but I feel you need more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Per Rudget.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions, especially 9-15. Also, ''really'' lacking in the Wikipedia-space. You'll need more experience to get the +sysop.--
'''Oppose''' Answers to several questions show a lack of knowledge of policy. Please learn about cool-down blocks, BLP and so forth and then re-apply. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' per question answers and SJP's diff. I'd like to see more Project-space edits, but I'm not usually too picky about that (notice I have only roughly around 300 Wikipedia: space edits and less than 100 Wikipedia talk: contributions), because that would make me hypocritical. Best of luck for a future RfA; it's just a matter of experience. --
Simply needs more edits (to demonstrate trustworthiness) to the project space.  –'''
'''Oppose''' per SJP's link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.112.21.100&diff=prev&oldid=199911915 here]. Read up on policy, demonstrate your knowledge, and try again soon. Editor obviously has Wikipedia's best interests in mind.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions. I don't like to pile on, but admins '''must''' be familiar with basic policies. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' per questions #1, #13, #14 and #15. <small>
'''Oppose.''' Greater variety of experience is needed. Need for tools is unclear.
'''Oppose'''. Three years on Wikipedia is great, and no doubt you are a great editor, but I'm not entirely convinced by the answers to your questions.
'''Oppose'''. Not yet enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace for me to discern whether this candidate has a solid handle on policies and procedures. Also, cool-down blocks are not to be used.
'''Oppose'''.Yes you've been on Wikipedia for three years, that awesome. Yes you've created great articles, that two is great. But though theres some great stuff about you but there is some stuff that concerns me to oppose that may not be clear to others. One, I dont like the fact that you havent deleted a single article, I havent actually seen an edit of you contributing for a AFD(though you may have) but I have not seen one. Next not enough experience for me. Useight said it perfectly "Not yet enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace for me to discern whether this candidate has a solid handle on policies and procedures". I do think that in maybe another year to get ready for another RFA. In that time prepare yourself, studdy the comments here, and get involved with some of the stuff mentioned to you.''
'''Oppose''' Per answers to questions #13, #14 and #15. A cool-down block should ''never'' be used, and I don't think you understood #15. The answer to #14 isn't terrible, but it could be better.
'''Oppose''' I was mildly concerned at some of the answers above which showed a lack of understanding of policy, but I was ready to overlook that based on the good talk page communication. However, giving an [[User talk:82.206.64.206|IP address a level 3 warning]] (with no previous warnings) over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SkyTeam&diff=220858176&oldid=220840725 this diff] seems awfully [[WP:BITE|bitey]] to me. Not a trait I look for in an admin.--
For now - comes across as a bit too green. Take some time to gain the understanding and experience necessary and you'll pass without doubt :) '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''': The answers to questions #9 and #14 bother me. I think you are a great asset to the community and on the right track to becoming an admin in the future but I think at the moment there are some things you still need to gain experience in. I think you should read up on your policy a little bit and work on experience in admin related areas. If you do that I'm sure you can pass easily. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''': Lack of experience in the Wikipedia space indicates a lack of policy knowledge.  Also, you seem to have problems communicating with other users, which is a problem that enough admins have already; we don't need any more.  <font color="629632">
'''Oppose with regret''': An outstanding editor, great asset to the encyclopedia.  Please come back to RfA again when you are more familiar with the policies and processes that apply to the admin buttons you wish to use. Oh, and sorry about all the homework.  --
'''Oppose'''. While I agree that Golich17 is a very good editor, I do not feel that the answers given to the above questions indicate the prerequisite understanding of policy that I would expect from an admin candidate. This is an easy fix however, and I would be delighted to support a future request when Golich has demonstrated a firmer grasp of policy.
'''Oppose''' Sorry.  Wait about 5 months to improve your edit summary usage, up your project count and participate in more XFDs. <font color="amaranth">
Candidate isn't ready - ignore stupid bloody timescales people are obsessed with here, follow the advice given above and come back when you're ready.
'''Oppose''' Agree with Hroðulf above. Though you have good edits, your contributions (though outstanding, by the way) don't demonstrate to me the necessity for the tools. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SkyTeam&diff=prev&oldid=220858176 This edit] also concerns me. The "I know people" source isn't with WP:V. I also see very few vandalism reverts in your past 500 edits, an area you claim to be active in. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_Air&diff=prev&oldid=199920174 this edit summary] concerns me, as the user both was not blocked (or notified if he was), and saying that he "does not know what he is doing" is not the greatest WP:AGF statement. Learn more about policy and I'll check in on (hopefully) your next RfA.
'''Oppose''', but very likely to support some months from now after the concerns in user Gazimoff's thoughtful post in the Neutral section are addressed.  —
'''Oppose''' per SJP's link -- "You are not permitted to make any drastic changes" shows a reasonably-current misunderstanding of policy. I'm also concerned about his placing 3RR over [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]].--
'''Oppose''' per Shapiros10. '''
Answers do not adequately tell me that the user understands the kind of issues admins face on Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' - user does not understand policy, especially "cool down" blocks, which can never be used. If Golich17 studies important policy better and gets a good grasp on it, I'll be willing to support in another RFA. --
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - The candidate should brush up on policy, and then come back. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Sorry''' - does not meet [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]]: virtually no input on Wikipedia space or talk pages; not enough experience to show knowledge of [[WP:5P|rules]] or need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' - Excellent article writer, but thats as much praise I can give, sorry. Extremely low Wikipedia-space participations, with a vast portion of the work coming from this RfA alone. Not ready yet. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - You don't need to be an admin to maintain articles. Do you have something else to add? Also, as for your response to question 3, "moving on" is not really an option for admins in solving disputes. Admins have to face and deal with disputes.
Good work with articles, but not enough participation in the Wikipedia space.
'''Neutral''' per Rudget. --
'''Neutral'''- Just because you have a lot of mainspace edits doesn't mean you should be an admin.  Do some work on [[WP:Afd|Afd]], [[WP:Xfd|Xfd]], and other stuff like that-trust me, its a huge boost. ~~
'''Neutral''' The candidate's sincerity is not in question, and his contributions deserve commendation.  But some of his answers to the questions seem wobbly.  I might suggest doing a bit of brush-up on Wikipedia policies and returning to RfA by year's end.
'''Neutral''' - You're a good editor, and I really hope that your experience at this RfA doesn't affect that, but I'm afraid I can't support this at the moment. There's a couple of things that I hope you'll take on board in order to further your development and round yourself off. The first of these is looking at opportunities to see how WP's various policies work in practice - they effectively fit together like cogs or gears in a machine, each of them being a requirement to keep the machine running smoothly. The second thing I'd suggest is adding the various noticeboards to your watchlist and read through the debates occasionally - you don't have to participate but it gives you a real feel for how mediation in disputes is almost always sought and how blocks are usually the solution of last resort. Thirdly I'd encourage you to look at how the mop would benefit the work that you do - we already have a number of admins who keep track of vandalism intervention requests, but there are other areas that require administrator work that have backlogs. You may feel that those areas could benefit from your support, as well as giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your sound judgement and level-headedness. I apologise if I'm speaking out of term - I'm a relatively new whippersnapper here, and I don't mean to sound patronising, but I really hope these words are of use to you. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' This candidate really does not look like the power-hungry Machiavellian fiend that Kurt's oppose hints at. On the contrary, they seem much more like ''exactly'' the sort of [[Hong Kong Phooey|mild-mannered janitor]] that we need around here. So I really can't oppose at this time. On the other hand, and you ''knew'' there would be one, they clearly do not have the grasp of policy and accepted best practice (because they're not always the same thing) needed for an admin. SJP's diff demonstrates a worrying tendency to [[WP:BITE|bite the newbies]], in addition to an incorrect view of policy. Should make a good admin, but not yet.  <font color="006622">
'''Neutral'''.  Later you will definitely get my full support.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' I think the user needs to have a wider range of edits. Just vandalism reverting doesn't cut it for me.--
'''Neutral'''.  I trust your motivations: I see no reason to believe you would use the tools maliciously or in a self-serving manner, so I will not oppose.  That said, I am concerned by what I feel to be some misunderstanding of policy.  (Especially the answer to Q8, Q9 and the answer and followup to Q14.)  I do not trust, yet, that you would not overact with the power to block, even though your intentions are good.  Blocking is an awesome responsibility, perhaps the most dangerous ability of an admin, and I feel you should better familiarize yourself with policy in this regard and come back with a new RfA after taking some time to consider.  In regards to your answer to Q9, I don't think an admin should look for some other cause to justify the issuance of a cool-off block.  I can't support right now, because I am concerned about your discretion, but your heart is in the right place, so I won't oppose.  If you return to RfA, I may well be able to support when that day comes.  &hArr;
'''Neutral''' for now, with a penchant for '''oppose'''. While I still am concerned about the ability of the candidate to handle heated discussion, my initial concerns about his ability to communicate seems disproportionate with reality. His "best" handling of a debate seems to be a normal debate with no extremes position held, and as such it is hard to gauge his ability to remain cool. Failure to provide link to his "worse" behaviour is concerning, but RfA is not over. Seems to have the heart in the right place, but I am concerned about his ability to assess what is NPOV, as he expressed the desire to removed systematic bias from articles, yet leaves articles full of [[WP:WEASEL]] and [[WP:PEACOCK]] violations, as found [[Virgin Atlantic Airways#"Dirty tricks"|here]].
'''Oppose''' - The account was recently blocked for vandalism, and appears also to be a sock.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:SNOW|weather forecast]].  Close it Rudge.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' Thanks for applying to become an administrator! While we appreciate the work you've done so far, being an administrator requires a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. With only 22 edits, you haven't shown that you have this yet. I would recommend that you withdraw this RfA, do some work in the various namespaces, and come back in a few months. Good luck!
Sorry to crush your adminship dreams, but I don't think you are ready, yet. Edit for at least a couple more months and get to know the place.
'''Oppose''' - formatting issues and he doesn't even sign replies on his own RfA? I need look no further. --
'''Support'''.  As nominator. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak Support'''. Indeed you have made a few mistakes in tagging articles for speedy deletion, but nobody is perfect. You have been around for a long time and have done quite a bit of mainspace work. I'd prefer to see some more experience in the Wikipedia namespace, your AFD contributions look like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Tunnel_Rats&diff=prev&oldid=188963637 this] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G.D.O._%28Stargate%29&diff=prev&oldid=221703442 this], so they're not the best. So, I'd prefer a bit more experience in admin-related areas, but I trust making you an admin would be a net positive.
'''Support''' I am particularly impressed by the quantity and quality of articles that you created.
'''Weak Support''' I see no issues, but as Useight said, I would like to see more Wikpedia mainspace.
'''Support''' The user is a great asset to WP. A read over of his talk page shows a general pattern of civility and he seems to know his way around at least. The users in the oppose section do bring up valid points but a few CSD tags declined out of 135+ is not that bad and while the user does show some inexperience with the A7 criteria RFA is a great learning experience and I expect the user will have the correct use of A7 hammered into his head by the end of this RFA. (something I would like to add to the opposer's however is just because an article is later deleted at AFD does not mean a SD tag was correct as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norchase&diff=prev&oldid=218213730 this] seems to indicate you believe). In short per useight. -
'''Support'''. I'd reccomend that you review [[WP:CSD]] a bit more before being given the delete button, however. Still, the pros outweigh the cons immensely, and I cannot oppose for this; just make sure you know fully what you're doing before you do it. :-) --
'''Support.'''Great candidate indeed. I like his work with good articles, very good with AIV, has an understanding for adminship, racked up a amazing amount of edits in his short time here(and there not just any old edits, these are vey good edits), a great candidate who I whod like to see as a admin.''

'''Support''' Although [[WP:CSD|CSD's]] seem to be a problem, and I have the same problem, everything else looks good to me.
'''Support'''.  Your edit of [[Columbia, Missouri]] from average Wikipedia quality to printed-encyclopædia quality is nicely done.  As for speedies:  when in doubt, I recommend using {{tl|prod}} instead.
<s>'''Weak Oppose'''</s> - If only for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enrique_Castillo&diff=221777718&oldid=221776129] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernesto_Jimenez&diff=221763670&oldid=221763306]. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Grey+Wanderer&namespace=3&year=&month= these special contributions]. You seem to be extremely trigger happy with CSD tagging, and those articles that ultimately were not deleted were just plainly tagged wrong. I'm sorry, but I don't trust this user to work at CSD.
'''Oppose''' When considering whether or not to support someone I look for three things. I look to see if they will actively use the tools, if they will misuse the tools often, and I look to see if there attitude is fit for the role. Out of these three the most important is the second one. After quickly looking at your contributions I noticed you tagged 16 articles for speedy deletion. Out of these 16 times you made 4 mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes, and the issue isn't that you have made a mistake, but making a mistake '''1/4 of the time is a little bit to much''' for an admin. BTW, I really wish I could support you, and I hope you become an admin someday, but I don't feel comfortable supporting someone who may make a mistake with the tools 1/4 of the time.--
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid candidate is not yet ready. Does not demonstrate knowledge/understanding of speedy deletion criteria. Per Wisdom and SJP above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Mouse_City&oldid=221364135 Misapplied CSD A7 tagging]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrtis_Dightman&oldid=216938009 Tagged for speedy deletion despite assertion of notability.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Springhouse_Middle_School&oldid=216939578 Others may disagree, but the title gave sufficient info to identify the subject and determine notability, search for sources.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beertongue&oldid=216939928 Again, A7 does not apply.] There are more, in less than a month's time and less than 1,000 edits. Anyone can have an off moment, or miss an assertion of notability, but I believe that there is a pattern off not readiness.I do think looking on Google before tagging is a plus, though. It's amazing what you can find, and if you can find notability or context or verifiability on Google, you can add it in..
'''Oppose''' as the user has recently tagged articles for speedy deletion incorrectly.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Mouse_City&oldid=221364135][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myrtis_Dightman&oldid=216938009] If this user shows he understands [[WP:CSD]] however, I will happily change my vote.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Dlohcierekim]] above.  While this person has been a positive to the project and I'm sure that they would not maliciously misuse the tools, the rather sloppy misapplications of CSD A7 has me worried.
'''Weak Oppose''' per the above. The mainspace contributions are great, but I don't trust you to close deletion discussions, let alone CSDs; the examples raised above seem to suggest you think "It's a bit messy" is a valid deletion reason.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
The trigger-happy deletionism worries me. —
'''Oppose''' You're a good contributor, but there are far too many bluelinks in your CSD tagging contribs. I'm just not comfortable supporting to give you the delete button at this point.
'''Oppose''' Per Wisdom and CharlotteWebb. Incompotent when it comes to deletion.--
'''Oppose''' - user does not meet [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]], because of incorrectly tagging articles for CSD. I'd be glad to support later on when Grey has a better understanding of the CSD process. --
'''Oppose:'''  I'm sorry, you're obviously well-intentioned, but your CSD understanding is just slightly below  adequate.  Come back in a couple of months, demonstrating a better understanding of valid CSD criteria, and I will happily support<span style="cursor: crosshair">......
'''Oppose.'''  The candidate is an asset to the encyclopedia and may be more ready for adminship after a few more months of experience. —
'''Oppose.''' The arguments for opposing above were a concern, but not enough to persuade me to do more than express a neutral opinion.  Your answers to Questions 4 & 5 above swung my vote to oppose.  In answering number 4, you made numerous typos and grammatical errors.  Making typos and grammatical errors are understandable in editing, but become disturbing here, given that you should be striving to make the best impression you can in a request for adminship.  The answer to Question 5 is at odds with [[WP:BLOCK]], a policy designed to protect not only editors but the integrity of Wikipedia itself.  Persistent copyright violation is a clear reason to block. --
'''Oppose.''' I'm afraid candidate is not yet ready. --
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits and poor answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - clearly you intend nothing but good and there are many worthy aspects to your contributions, but the wide-scale dubious CSD tagging combined with the expressed desire to work substantially in that area suggests to me that you need to work on your policy knowledge first. Another RfA in a few months with a ''lot'' fewer bluelinked speedy nominations in the history would almost certainly get my support - but right now I think the risk of overzealous speedy deletion isn't worth it. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Neutral'''; CSD issues are of some concern but otherwise looks good. --<s>[[Truman the Tiger]]</s> —
'''Neutral''' trigger happy bad, but article work ameliorates this somewhat. Still, I don't think this will pass. Good luck next time though. Cheers,
'''Neutral leaning toward support'''.  I don't see any trust issues with your intentions, and do not expect malicious or self-serving misuse of the tools (my primary criterion).  However, the CSD issues have me concerned.  That's not enough to oppose, and this is otherwise a support, but for the moment, the trust isn't quite there that you won't overdelete.  I reserve the right to change to support depending on how this RfA goes and how you show you grow and learn.  &hArr;
'''Neutral'''.  CSD tagging seems to be the issue for you, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toe_Jam_Puppet_Band&action=history just removed] a tag on an article that had two references for a band.  One reference was a feature length article about them (independent of them), the other documented one of the band member's appearance on [[Oprah]].  Your tag was an A7 non notable tag.  While I think the article may not survive an afd, it is clearly not a speedy.  Won't oppose for one tag, and I haven't looked further through your contribs than this.  Good luck, [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Neutral''', this user seems overall trustworthy but some recent missteps with CSD tagging indicates a little more experience with policies and a bit more polish in terms of admin-type work may be called for before supporting.
I also agree with the CSD problems above, though opposing simply on the ground of CSD issues seems a bit harsh in my opinion. Your other edits to the project are quite nice, but since you stated that you plan to use the tools for CSD purposes, I feel a little uncomfortable with you having the tools now. I believe that once you get a better hang of CSD, you'll become a very useful admin. Please try again later when you have a little more experience. --
'''Neutral''' Seems like a civil and generally good editor. CSD issues will block this nom, please work on them and try again 3 months. Otherwise, keep up the good work in the mean time.--
'''Support''' - perhaps not the most experienced user, but no warning flags. Anyway, a self-nom is proof of '''[[WP:BOLD|being bold]]''' and that is a good trait in an admin. Looks good.
'''Support''' - as above. Sure thing, good luck.
'''Conditional support''' I have no doubt you'll make a good admin once you have more experience, and you haven't any big muck ups so I see no reason to deny you the tool, however, I am supporting under the condition that you watchlist [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]] and respond to posts on those boards, and close some [[WP:XFD]]s before this RFA comes to an end.--
'''Support''' per answers to questions. A little light on experience, but some folks learn faster than others. <sup>
'''Support''', looks like a stable, level-headed user.  No editcount elitism here.
'''Support.''' Would be more than a satisfactory addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Looks like a decent and [[WP:AGF|good-faithed]] user. I'm not convinced by the opposition, some of which seem to be editcounting and not actually checking to see if this is a quality user, which Gromlakh appears to be.
'''Support''', per above and what I can see in contributions.
'''Support'''. The user seems to be pretty experienced in terms of the work he has done and does not seem likely to abuse the tools. That is good enough for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. The opposes seem to be made of pointless editcountitis (unless some opposers want to clarify which of his thousands of edits show inexperience).
Gromlakh may not write too many articles, but instead is one of those editors who chooses to focus on the upkeep of their quality: in my opinion, this is conducive to being an administrator who does excellent maintenance work. Additionally, the answer to Q9 demonstrates sufficient Clue.
'''Support''' - experienced, smart, and trustworthy.  He'll make a good admin.  '''''
'''Support''' Good editor. <strong>
'''Support''' Not so much experience, but I think you can make that up by working hard.
'''Weak support'''. Could use more experience, but great answers to questions.
'''Support'''.  Users should not be denied adminship because of borderline edit counts, and lack of experience is not so much a detriment if the user has good intentions.
Lack of exp. --<font color="blue">
'''Oppose''' I do not like to oppose RFAs of editors who have been great users and haven't done anything wrong in their time working on Wikipedia. However, I must oppose for the same reason as stated above. The nominee has less than 2000 total edits and not even 1500 mainspace edits. I suggest that you keep doing what you're doing and continue contributing for a few more months, and, after you accumulate some more good edits, preferably well over 1500 mainspace edits, you can apply again and I will gladly support. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Oppose''' Regarding experience...I would like to see a larger amount of user interface in an RfA. Otherwise, a pretty good candidate.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience as per Timmeh.

'''Oppose''' Just not there yet in terms of overall experience.  Sorry.
'''Weak Oppose''' A good editor, but lack of mainspace edits is a concern here, our admins should be the elite of Wikipedia and less than 1500 mainspace edits just doesn't seem to me to be enough, coma back inn a few more months maybe.
'''Oppose''' - I don't see what administrative duties you could contribute to efficiently with your experience. Proportionately, you're on the right track (I like to see around 75% mainspace) but you just need to sink your teeth in a bit deeper. I'm guessing this won't be successful, and I'd encourage waiting until you've got at least around 5000 edits until reapplying for adminship, and of those 5000, keep the 75ish-% (around 3500 - 4000 of 5000). You look like you may have the makings, but I don't feel you're ready. --
'''Oppose'''.  Not yet enough evidence of a productive, successful mainspace editor. --
'''Oppose'''.  A bit low on experience for me. Should be fine in a few months if you stay active.
'''Oppose''' - see [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards]].
'''Oppose''' The candidate has woefully little experience in project-space, domain of so many admin-related activities.  Perhaps related to this inexperience, his answer to Question 7 leaves me concerned.  The answer isn't completely ''incorrect'' (there are times when his choice might be the right course), but no consensus anywhere can ever violate [[WP:5P|core policy]], a crucial point he fails to address.  The distinctions in this area of policy are quite fine, and I don't believe the candidate has a workable grasp of them yet.
'''Oppose''' based on the Q/A I think more experience is needed. Keep up the good work and try again down the road.
'''Oppose'''. A good contributor who needs some more experience (both in the Main Space and Wikipedia Space) before becoming an admin.
'''Neutral''' - <s>Based on pending answer for Q4 and diffs for Q3. [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</s>I feel your on the right track, but I feel you need to get more involved at places like [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:ANI]]. Do this, and possibly get an article to GA or FA status, and I see no problem why you cannot be an admin in a few months. I feel your a little inexperienced. Leave a note on my talkpage if you go for RFA again, and I'll be happy to give my opinion. You can always try admin coaching before hand. Good luck for the future!
'''Neutral''' I won't oppose because you gave very detailed answers to the questions and I think you're a pretty good user; however, I'm concerned with a lack of experience. You only have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gromlakh&namespace=4 83 Wikipedia namespace edits], which I definitely do not think is enough. If you have maybe a month more of active contributing and 500-1000 or so more edits (including at least 200-300 more Wikipedia namespace contributions) I would be willing to support you, though. &nbsp; '''
'''Neutral'''.  Though there is no reason to believe that you would abuse the tools, so I cannot oppose this RFA, but I wish you had more experience in the projectspace.  If a genuine knowledge of policy is demonstrated later, I would be more than happy to Support you.  Sorry,  '''
'''Neutral''' I like what I see, but agree a bit more experience is needed. Having said that, I most certainly would not oppose adminship for someone like this, who has the makings of an excellent contributor.
'''Neutral''', I too like what I see, and the user should be encouraged by the fact that at ~2000 edits, they are still holding at 50% support, where other editors would probably have been snowed under by now.  A bit more experience, and will make a fine admin.
Bans are not to "punish" disruptive users, but to prevent disruption. This is not specifically stated at [[WP:BAN]], but I believe it is, and at any rate should be, the case. Answer to Q3 by Avruch suggests that you have not read the page entirely. Answer to Q2 by Avruch suggests that you may not think closing a discussion you have participated in is a bad idea, though it may be reasonable in that case. Recall does not necessitate another RfA; it's merely a concept of a process. Your answer would fit nicely inside the table at [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria]]. There's no need to add a bold neutral at the front of this comment because I'm very clearly neutral. I suggest not taking the opposes above based on edit count too seriously, even though a higher edit count would be beneficial, which is unfortunate. –
'''Neutral'''; You're ''almost'' there, I think, but you need a little more experience with what [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] really means, and perhaps a little refreshed on [[WP:AFD]] procedure (your comment about participating in an AfD then closing it is... off).  Otherwise, you're on a good track and I look forward to working with you once you get the mop (if not this time, next time).  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' as co-nominator and part-time admin coach. —
'''Support''' per answer to Q3.  I like what I see.
'''Cautious Support''' Okay, weak in the main space I grant. But a pretty thorough review of your last 1,500 edits was interesting. [[C:CSD]] seems accurate and vandal fighting / reporting looks all okay. Fairly solid work at request for articles. Could be a bit more communicative at times I think, with some slightly short responses, but nothing to suggest an uncivil or less than helpful attitude. Possibly a bit deletionist, but I think you'll hold that in check with the actual delete button. I was '''particularly impressed''' with your nomination statement at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Sue and The Pirates]] - that seems ''very'' much the attitude. A word of advice if this request passes - ''If in doubt - don't''. Overall a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]] I think. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''[[Tmesis|Abso-fricking-lutely]]'''.
'''Support''' Noting the opposes, not everyone can write articles. Anyway, it's not like he ''never'' edits mainspace. Sure, he's not as active as some, but he's there plenty enough. His other good qualities push me to support. --
'''Support''' I have every confidence that he will use the tools well.
'''Support''' Pedro said everything I would have. &ndash;
'''Support''' Balloonman's oppose is compelling, but isn't enough to sway me.  It isn't so much (for me, at least) that you need to show that you have produced work XYZ for Wikipedia.  Rather that helping to make work XYZ will give you a better look at how this place operates and how and where content intersects with conduct.  If this RfA doesn't pass, I hope that you would take some time to find an article on a subject you love and bring it up to GA (don't worry almost every subject our there has one or two articles that can be improved considerably).  See the conflicts you run in to, the discussions you have and so on.  I think it will be easier to come back after an experience like that.  So why am I in the support column?  Work at AFC, to me, looks pretty good.  It shows that you deal with new and IP editors on a regular basis and you do so willingly.  That you work there and do anti-vandal work shows that you can separate the impression you get from RCP (all new editors look like vandals) from the reality (most aren't).  That is harder to do than it seems.  The answers to questions are also good--straightforward and helpful.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN|A net positive if I ever did see one]]. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' Mainly per Pedro, Protonk and the questions. '''
'''Support''' - honest answers to questions represent someone who can be entrusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - Always good to have another dedicated vandal hunter. -
'''Support'''; not everyone can write articles (I myself am one of these people). Net positive.
'''Support''' per RockManQ and Protonk - not everyone is good at article building, and what I've seen is a trustworthy user, so why not? :-D '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Net positive'''
'''Support''' I would trust the user with the tools.  Article building has nothing to do with trustworthiness in my opinion; the candidate seems to "get it" about what's being built here.
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Weak Support''' per Protonk. &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F"><small>'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="00008B">1''7'']]
'''Support'''. Can't really do otherwise, given my own circumstances.
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]] and question 3.
The opposes haven't got me convinced. At least, not in a negative way. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - The response to Q3 is most persuasive. The opposers, on the other hand, are not.
'''Support''' I always held article building as a reason for [[WP:BS|barnstars]], not adminship. Adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and here [[WP:WTHN]] applies. Candidate seems to want to contribute in a positive way and has shown to do so. Answer to Q6 shows that he does not want to create articles just to net in support-!votes but rather wants to do what he knows best. So let him do it. '''
'''Support''' Lets give more tools to this trustworthy vandal fighter.
'''Support''' cautiously, but I ''strongly'' disagree that article writing is not a big deal. Adminship is not always simple "block", "delete", "protect"; there are other aspects. Admins will often be asked to help with disputes and other situations, because of their experience. Those disputes will almost always involve articles. Article writing helps with policies like [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], in a way that vandal fighting cannot, which is why it is extremely important. That said, the mainspace count is still high, so I will support cautiously.
'''Support''' - I always see this guy at the help desk, asset to the wiki.
'''Weak support''', my opinions are a mix between Protonk's and Balloonman's, moving from N to S on good faith.
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and seems neutral, unbiased from discussions we both participated in.  --
'''Support''' Between Protonk and Balloonman, I think the various stances have been well stated (at least for anything that would concern me on this RfA). Plus, I feel like the axiom of "[[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]]." is lost a bit too often in cases like this one.
'''Support''' Seems good enough to be trusted with the tools. There's a difference between writing an encyclopedia and maintaining an encyclopedia, and if this user wants to maintain, let him do so. <font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold">
--
'''Support'''. I see no indications that this user cannot be trusted with the tools.--
'''Weak Support''' I see where some are coming with in the lack of article writing, but I will still cautiously support, as giving him the tools will likely not hurt the wiki. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' I don't really see how article contributions have anything to do with this; I realise that this is a personal issue for most, but admin tools are purely for admin activities, which this user has observed a lot (according to the 100+ AIV reports, etc). I just don't see the logic in this; you wouldn't deny a brain surgeon a job because he didn't know how to clean toilets.
'''[[WP:AGF|Support]]''': After reading all the opposes ( I hardly read most of the support votes in an RFA :) ) and analysing your contribs ... although I agree with some of the comments of Balloonman and Wisdom,  at this point , only one question comes to my mind . '' Can I trust you with the extra buttons ? '' [[WP:FAITH| Yes]] ! Dont worry, deletionists will be always compensated with inclusionists and that is why WP still exists !. Regardless of the success or failure of this RFA , I strongly request you to help in article building further. As Giggy rightly said, WP is an encyclopedia. --
'''Weak Support''': I have see this editor's contributions at the [[WP:HD|help desk]] very often, and I know from them that he knows his way around Wikipedia very well. The opposes are quite strong, but I'll also [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and support him for this reason, though weakly.
'''Oppose''' I saw this nom pop up almost as soon as it was transcluded and have been reviewing Gt ever since.  I started with his user coaching page, where I felt like he was getting info on what he needed to do to pass an RfA, not on how to be a better Wikipedian/Admin.  GT is a deletionist with virtually no experience in article building.  While I am willing to support deletionist (see Protonk's RfA) I want them to have some meaningful background building the project.  The article that Gtstricky has the most edits (14) to is [[BoatUS]] which has multiple issues.  He only has one other article with more than 10 edits [[CNN-YouTube presidential debates]] where [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN-YouTube_presidential_debates&diff=174837868&oldid=174837530 this] appears to be the most meaningful edit (on either page) where he isn't simply adding a source/wikilink.  He has very little experience in any of the talk areas---despite having over 2200 edits on user Talk Pages, there is only one (besides his own) where he has made more than 10 edits.  And no wikipedia talk, where policy/procedures are discussed with more than 10.  He only has 3 articles where he has edited the talk page more than 3 times.   These are clear signs of somebody who over relies upon tools---which looking at his contribs further highlights.  I see Twinkle, Huggle, AWB, and Friendly all over the place... I just don't see enough [[USER:Gtstricky|Gtstricky]].  I do commend him for his working on the Help Desk and encourage him to continue to do so, but I simply cannot support somebody who has absolutely no meaningful experience building the project.---'''
'''Oppose''' - Article creating/expanding isn't always a deal breaker for me in an RfA, however, from what I can see in the user's contributions, and given what Balloonman has already said, I see a complete dearth of article work. Yes, I realize the candidate has taken an interest over at articles for creation, but seriously [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Gtstricky&namespace=0 this does not inspire confidence in me at all].
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Nothing personal, but I don't want more admins who work with deletion and don't write articles. --
'''Oppose''' I too like to see admins with more article building experience, at least insomuch as they really understand what goes into each and every article.  Agree with Balloonman's reasons. --
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman, Wisdom89, Giggy, Aqwis, and Banime.
'''Oppose''' it's really a combination of smaller [than expected] contribution to content ''and'' short overall presence here. Either of these factor would not be decisive, but together they make me wonder: can a brilliant vandal fighter with this record be just as good in judgements on POV or RS or some thousand-year-old ethnic conflict? Maybe it's already there, but I don't see it, hence distrust.
'''Oppose''' - Per everyone above, my feelings on this issue are already well known. —
'''Oppose''' Balloonman says it well.
'''Oppose''' Per Wisdom and Ballonman. Also, Charles Edward, coluld you provide a reason for your oppose. Chances are the closing crat will throw out your !vote if you don't.
'''Oppose''' - No encyclopedist, or at least no evidence of such a creature.  --
'''Oppose'''. Balloonman put it as I would. No article building whatsoever.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman. Also, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:II_MusLiM_HyBRiD_II&diff=244125331&oldid=244124875 This]] I was just asking a question about a troll, i wasnt really asking for personal details or some crap. I just wanted to know like did wiki actually crash that day, because i was on, and tehre was a lot of AVRIL LAVGINE ROCKS MY SOCKS everywhere. So yeah. Didnt want any personal info. Correct me if '''I did the wrong thing instead'''. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' -  Per Q8. While I think the basis of the answer is correct, I disagree with the fact that you would block instead of protecting if there was only one editor who was edit warring on other articles. While full protection is needed in some cases it is never needed when blocking is a better alternative, and that can include blocking more than one user. Edit wars can be resolved in other ways than simply protection, and often protection does more harm to the project than good. Block the disruptive users, and let the others continue to contribute.
'''Oppose''' for numerous reasons. Any user who has an extreme viewpoint either way (deletionism/inclusionism) cannot be trusted with the "delete" button in my mind. The answer to Q8 is also concerning. Why not block a couple of users, instead of blocking ''everyone'' from editing the article, which is effectively what full protection is. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Balloonman--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''', in the absence of both content creation and discussion on Talk pages.
'''Weak oppose''' Sorry, I really need some decent experience in article work and talk page discussion before I support. I'm not asking for 100 FA's and GA's, but some evidence that you know what goes into this project is essential. Kind regards, —'''
'''Oppose'''  Per the concerns raised by Balloonman and others previously.  --
Per Giggy.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman and Tiptoety. All this user needs is some more experience in content, then I'd vote support. '''
'''Weak oppose''' per lack of article work. Granted, not everyone can write articles to FA standard but it really isn't that difficult to get a few DYKs or make more than 14 edits to one article. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
Reluctantly agreeing with Balloonman, sorry.
Per Balloonman. I need to see some content-building contributions; not a lot, but more than this.--
Oppose per Balloonman, but neutral for technical reasons (don't ask, it still hurts). <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Neutral''' per Balloonman, and some sketchy article work; can you spare some of your time working on an FA or GA soon? --
'''Neutral''' per Balloonman (who knew that Balloonman was such a neutralizing factor?).  Understanding the plight of article builders is not the same as being an article builder. Had the candidate been more active in creating content, support would have been easy.
'''Neutral''' I won't shut the door, but I do think more refinement of your editing style is needed before you would be best suited for adminship. '''
'''Neutral''' - I don't want to !vote negative solely based on the fact that the nominee is not as active as some in article writing, but I can't support: there needs to be a bit more emphasis on writing, if not something extreme like "1000 edits more to articles then I'll support"; answer to the page protection question. Also, too many users want to be admins just so they can work on CSD deletions rather than just being able to tag new pages and wait for deletion. I respect the fact that GT wants to work in that area, but it seems to me that that is not an area in which we need as many admins as nominees seem to think. --
'''Neutral''' More work in article space is needed. After a few months of work, I'd be happy to support.
'''Support''', see no reason not to.
'''Support''', per [[User:Guest9999/Rollback]], seems to take great care with his actions, realizes his mistakes, and takes steps to correct them.
'''Support:''' Looks to be an excellent contributor, [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not?]] <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
'''Support'''. Has lots of experience with deletions, is a mainspace contributor, doesn't rely on scripts, and is civil. He has made a few mistakes, but is always apologetic and rectifies the error. Meets [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]].
'''Support''' I have reviewed a large chunk of Guest999's recent AFD contributions. The candidate had added real value to every discussion they have participated and the only occasion when their recommendation did not mirror the eventual close was when fresh information came to light. This is clearly an insightful editor who does understand our inclusion criteria and who would close AFDs with maximum levels of that illusive clue. What I really like is that all the contributions demonstrated careful attention to detail and thinking through before commenting.
'''Support'''.  Seen you around, especially at [[WP:WPHP]]. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Aye''' Been impressed with this editor whenever I've seen them. <b>
'''Strong Support''' For knowing what [[WP:IAR]] means!!!
'''Support''' - Any editor that is willing to be instantaneously honest, upfront and candid with past mistakes, realize when they've made some errors and take responsibility for them has my utmost respect. I think with this attitude you will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' -- per Wisdom89. Good luck! --
'''Strong support''' - Learns from mistakes, very well intentioned, everything this encylopaedia needs in an administrator. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not]]? <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Useight|Useight]], good distribution of edits, i like his rollback page, seems like someone who wants to learn from mistakes, wouldnt abuse tools. Self nom doesnt bother me. See no reason to oppose. Good luck.
'''Support'''.  Definitely meets my criteria.  '''
'''Strong Support''' -- A particularly strong candidate for the mop. Hell, I thought he was already a sysop! --
'''Support''' good answers, attitude. Honesty and frankness in recounting past errors and conflicts is most commendable.
'''Support''' - [[WP:WTHN]] if i'm honest. Very honest and open about past mistakes, plenty of good experience in admin related areas. There is simply no reason to oppose, although I can guarantee you'll get at least one.. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - Mr 9999 clearly has able experience to be a great admin and I have no concerns that he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Has good record with edits, the rollback page is a definate plus... but the biggest thing is that he is willing to admit and try to fix his mistakes
'''Support'''  - Self-noms usually make me a little uncomfortable, but after reading the existing commentary here and reviewing recent edits, I believe this candidate is "in it for the right reasons."  Good luck!  --
'''Very strong support''' User has proven exceptional ability to stand on own two feet by self nomming even though he knows he'll take flak for it, and not having to hide behind more well known editors, has demostrated ability in the mainspace, and many other areas, and his answers tot eh questions were absolutly brilliant.--
'''Support''' – I’m sure that opinion caused a few heads to turn, coming from me :-).  I am in full agreement with [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]].  I believe [[User: Guest9999|Guest9999]] has a tendency to express his/her opinions from the deletionest side of the fence.  However, every time he/she has expressed their opinion, it has been well thought out – well within policy - logical and more importantly civil.  I believe that is what we are looking for in[[WP:Administrators|Administrators]] not necessarily individuals who agree with our point of view, but individuals who will respect our point of view when it differs from their own, and will judge on all points a view.  I believe we have a name for that,[[WP:consensus|consensus]] I trust you with the tools.  Good Luck.<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''': I've been waiting for this one for quite a while.  Good luck. -
'''Support''' Mmm hmm '''
'''Support''' A highly qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per rationale in answer to Q.4 (and lack of obvious mop wielding deficiencies)
'''Support''' per good AFD participation.
'''Support''' I '''do not''' view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. Great AFD work and nice Q4 answer.
'''Support'''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''— I would trust this user with the mop. Guest9999 seems to know his way around Wikipedia and its policies rather well and I trust he will use his admin tools responsibly and constructively, even if he is a bit of a deletionist. --
'''Support.''' An editor with good temperament, good contribution record, and an honest attitude. The initial answer to Q4 worried me a little bit (I would not want a user who actually applies IAR all the time become an admin) but the answer to Q6 clears out that worry. I would have also liked to see a somewhat more extensive record of the main space contributions, but in the grand scheme of things it is not a big deal. A very deserving candidate overall.
'''Support''' Good user, trustworthy.  <strong>
'''Support''' Contributions show good knowledge of policy, and that the candidate is willing to acknowledge & correct mistakes (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rnb&diff=prev&oldid=202176800 here] - since nobody is perfect, that's a good quality). Additionally, candidate remains calm and points towards policy when faced with incivility (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_the_Phoenix_%28organisation%29&diff=158241910&oldid=158174698 here]).
You supported mine <tt>:D</tt>... but, as one of the editors on the other side of many of the debates linked to below, I'd say that that indicates more than anything that that era is over; let the past be: we've both grown a few brain cells since then. <font color="forestgreen">
'''Support''' Answers to Q4-Q6 show good character, something more admins should have.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', need more deletionist admins.
'''Support''' - While a couple of the AFD noms discussed below are troubling, the vast majority appear to stem from agood faith interpretation of policy and procedure; the fact that the community disagreed with that interpretation doesn't bother me, as the candidate accepted that consensus and moved on. I like the candidate's responses to the questions, especially 7 - it isn't really deletionism when articles tagged for CSD are improved and kept instead, which is part of what the tags are intended to accomplish. A good candidate.
'''Support'''. Hard working candidate, AfD participation looks good. No problems here.
'''Support''' per the very detailed answer to #3. Bonus for having confidence to self-nom. <nowiki>--</nowiki>
'''Support'''. no red flags. experienced. learns from mistakes. good intentions.
'''
'''Support''' Candidate will be a net positive to the project as an admin. No reason for concern.
'''Support''' I don't visit RFA too often, because the only qualifications I care about are: "Is this editor civil" and "do they respect consensus whether they agree with it or not" not all these other niggling little details that come up when someone goes through the painful rectal exam that is RFA. Anyway, this guy meets both of my standards handily.
'''Support''' Good recent track record; I see no issues with AfD activities. Some of us are inclusionists, some are deletionists, some in between.  <b>
'''Support''' Solid editor. Strong and commendable AfD work.
'''Support''' Although I disagreed with a good number of the AFD opinions demonstrated below, I can't see that Guest9999 was tendentious or problematic in any of the discussions.  I don't see any reason to believe he'd close such discussions against consensus and I notice that many of the opinions that I disagree with are rather older.  I was very impressed with Guest's response to Neil above. --
'''Support'''. Bold answer to question 4. Nomination would likely have succeeded if held in January 2005. I see no reason to inflate my RFA threshold in mere 3½ years.
'''Support'''. Recognises his mistakes and builds on them, thats a quality that frankly more admins around here could use I think. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''<s>Very strong</s> Oppose''' due to overly harsh inclusion criteria and weak arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Phoenix (organisation)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sycamore Trails Pool]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spelljammer crystal spheres]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm]], i.e. subjective claims of "[[WP:JNN|not-notable]]" when community consensus believes otherwise.  Other arguments based on consensus-lacking [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]].  See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom locations]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of volcanic eruption deaths]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bestselling novels in the United States]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spells in Harry Potter (3rd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner's End]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Dragon]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LJY-Netzer]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmuck]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Augustus Hilton]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compass direction using a watch]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banishment in the Bible]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate sex]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Hour Propane People]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Wars]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in the Firefly universe]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horcrux (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Richler]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Published alternate histories]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magical portrait (Harry Potter)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken (young gay)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncoat]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrial Book]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (2nd Nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooster School]], etc. i.e. overly biased against lists and fiction articles as well as questionable mass nominations of articles with widely different quality from one article to another.  Please note, it is not merely that I disagreed in some of these discussions, but ''he argued to delete all of these examples and none of them were in fact deleted''.  Moreover, I rarely if at all noticed instances in which the editor argued to keep.  One that I did find ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites]]) in which he argued to keep actually closed as delete.  Yes, I know that I argue to keep a lot, but there are actually dozens of times that I have nominated or argued to delete as well.  <s>Also, some [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Guest9999 seem concerned with the username].</s>  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Answer to Q4. <font face="Arial Black">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, I found dealing with all the deletionism shenanigans at AfD highly unpleasant. However I do notice you've been there less lately, which is a good thing. I can't support until I see some more article writing to get some empathy into the situation from the other side. I think that is essential in this case to make for a well-rounded admin. If you had a GA under your belt I'd happily support and will help you write one if you want whether or not this nom succeeds. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Poor article building skills. I suggest that you improve articles to at least GA status so you would appreciate articles more. I don't want you to have admin tools (specially because you will focus on Afd's) until you know how it feels like in the other side of the Afd equation.--
'''Oppose''' Can't support here. Experiences with this editor in the past have been negative; found him to be somewhat standoffish and hostile in the AfD of [[Spells in Harry Potter]] months ago, and the examples from Le Grand Roi demonstrate that his AfD behavior has not changed much.
Per Le Grand Roi, I have reviewed those AFDs and I think your views on deletion are excessive. Taken seperately those AFDs aren't a problem, but when viewed as a whole they represent a concerning pattern.<small>'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I think an admin who gets involved in deletion should have more experience of article building so you can view AFD from the other side. Combined with the AFDs cited above I can't support at this time.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Le Grand Roi and others. I would not feel comfortable with you closing AfDs.
'''Oppose''' Agree with Davewild here. You need experience at article writing, at interacting more with article writers before you are given the ability to close contentious AFD discussions. I simply wouldn't feel comfortable with you becoming an admin at this time. As such, it is something of a gut feeling.
Per the above, I am not confident that this user has a well-rounded understanding of the issues being dealt with at AFD.
'''Oppose''' Wants to delete way too much stuff that should stay.
'''Oppose''' Seems to focus too much on deleting articles and admin powers could be abused to close AFDs early/incorrectly. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''
'''Strong Oppose''' I have supported many deletionists here. I essentially co-nominated one yesterday.  What I want in someone who closes AfDs --regardless of their general tendency-- is two things: one is that they know the standards, and the other is that they are not reckless, a sign that  they will  not follow their own opinion rather than the community. On the first point, some of those AfD opinions are in clear ignorance or defiance of accepted standards: for example the one on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)]]--a type of article which is accepted and not a content fork--and this is a particularly good one of its type. Or the one on [[Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008]]--where a whole group of good articles were nominated--a nomination of his that almost nobody supported--and where in fact the articles were specifically supported as an example for a policy page.  Or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people]] one of a type of pages that is also well established. Or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken (young gay)]] where he seems not to have even do a gsearch before nominating--as pointed out to him there were hundreds of hits each in GBooks and GScholar.  (I'm not going to talk about the popular culture ones, where standards are not well established--I won;t blame anyone for disagreeing with me on these.)  On the second point, he admits he came here reckless, and I don;t see how anyone could take the chance that he's had a total change of mind. He expects the community to give him power to do what he knows he does in defiance of standards and established policy. If there's any inclusionist who does similarly, I'll oppose him just as strongly.  '''
'''Oppose'''. Not concerned over deletionism as such, but I feel that the candidate's pursuit of his goals has been overly aggressive, and I don't fully trust his ability to evaluate consensus fairly. I am also in general agreement with DGG's evaluation.
'''Oppose''' per Grand Roi and per Kurt. —
'''Oppose''' - Far too deletionist for me, and to a point that makes me question if this candidate will use the "delete" button correctly. Per Q7 and DGG.
'''Oppose'''. A strong contributor in many respects, but not ready for the mop, IMO. Some answers to questions were lacking (esp. Q4). Also some valid questions have been raised about handling AfDs. Seems unreasonably deletionist, at times.
'''Oppose'''.  Candidate appears to have insufficient understanding of our deletion policies.
'''Oppose''', per DGG, and Les Grand.
'''Oppose''' too much deletion concern is not helpful at all. Regarding Q4, I'm afraid whether he could handle deletion button properly or not.--
'''Oppose''' too many troubling AfDs have been presented here.  Admins' own opinions can be out of the mainstream, but not out of touch.
'''Strong Oppose''': Delete buttion is just too risky at your hands. Seeing your AFD contribs, I will feel myself irresponsible if I stay Neutral here. I am sorry , frnd -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
Per DGG.
'''Oppose''' for questionable judgement and uncertain temperament on the evidence presented in this AfD - no need to look any further. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' Too risky with the delete button. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Oppose''' The deletion tools would be at risk of being misused here. As per the differences above, this admin candidate's stance on several Afd's have been the exact opposite of what was consensus. --
'''Oppose'''  Deletion concerns.
'''<s>Delete</s> ''' I mean '''Oppose'''
'''Weak oppose''' My concerns are not quite as broad or deep as those of the inestimable DGG, perhaps because I do see there to be a good bit to commend the candidate and to speak well of, in particular and most relevantly, his judgment; I do, though, find a good bit, as outlined by DGG, et al., that disquiets, and I find in the end that, even as I am certain that Guest9999 should not abuse or misuse intentionally the tools, and even as I think him on the whole to be conversant in policy and to know well whereof the policy and practice surrounding and guiding which he does not know, I am not sure that he might not misuse avolitionally (e.g., by substituting, knowingly or not, his views with respect to policy for those of the community, a quality that is not so pernicious in the interpreting of community-wide, consensus-based discussions, where the views of the community are often borne out clearly and where decisions are, in any case, readily seen, but is rather problematic in the undertaking of speedy deletion, where deletions undertaken in an overbroad fashion, one inconsistent with the mandate of the community that the criteria for speedy deletion be construed narrowly, often go unchallenged or unnoticed, to the detriment of the project, the good faith of the deleter notwithstanding), such that I cannot conclude with any grand degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]]; my oppose is, though (not that this really matters), "weak", largely because I imagine (but can't at this point reasonably expect) that the deliberative temperament and sense of judgment of which Guest9999 appears, at least on a somewhat cursory investigation, usually to be possessed might work well to mitigate the effects his beliefs about what policy ought to be (which he is, of course, welcome to hold and welcome to advance, and for the holding and advancing of which he surely ought not to be knocked) might have on his performance of the purely ministerial role of sysop.

Not sure about the AFDs but his answer to Q4 is excellent. --
I'm very loathe to do this, but I feel that the concerns brought up by DGG, one of the editors I find to have a high level of expertise and fairness in "deletion circles", has given me enough pause that I cannot support.  I won't oppose though.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Upon second thought, and reading others' concerns, especially DGG's, I am going to go '''neutral''' on this one.
'''Neutral''', leaning toward support. I'll be frank in saying that my hesitation has a lot to do with Guest9999's deletion views. I wouldn't oppose an RfA for deletionism alone, but if I expect the editors' views to substantially influence their interpretation of deletion policies and guidelines and XfD/DRV consensuses, I consider that sufficient grounds for opposition. In this case I'm fairly certain the candidate would apply his slanted (though reasonable) interpretations of policies and guidelines in closing XfDs, but he doesn't strike me as an editor who would blatantly disregard a clear consensus. Also to his credit, I've always found Guest9999 to be civil in XfD discussions. —
'''Support'''.  Great editor. <s>(Except they s/he needs to accept the nomination officially. =D.)</s>  '''
I strongly support this nomination. Gwen Gale is an excellent article-writer, good at vandal-fighting, experienced, and overall, a nice user. My interactions with her have been positive, and I'm sure she'll make a fine admin. ''
'''Support''' - although we have had limited contact, editing skills and personal interaction appears great.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nominator. Excellent editor, Gwen will make a great admin.
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Support''' As per Acalamari and track.
'''Support''' per nom and answers to questions. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' Wonderful editor, will put the mop to good use. Very happy to support. --
'''Support''' Don't see any reason not to. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, will surely make an excellent admin. -
'''Support''' as per my experience with Gwen's excellent, collaborative work on the [[Oral Roberts University]] article.  She proved herself to be both calm and even-handed when dealing with rabid POV-pushers on that article, so I have zero concerns that she would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support'''.  I hope you'll be conservative with the deletion of municipal politicians, since it's often hard to call how they'll go at AfD, but I confess that this is something of a personal bugbear of mine, and it would be churlish to oppose a good candidate on that basis.  I'm also entirely satisfied with Gwen's discussion of the Arb Comm ruling and related events.
'''Support''' - Seen this editor around and impressed with their work. Any concerns about how safe the tools would be have already been addressed to my satisifaction. Also, this is one of a few times that I am ignoring my own [[User:MBK004/RfA#My_Standards|standards]] with regards to the arbcom ruling. -'''
'''Support''' I'd find it impossible to support any admin subject to editing restructions but its clear that these have expired. The candidate has been an exemplary contributor in recent times and thoroughly deserves the mop.
'''Support'''. Impressive contributor with a clear ability to learn from her own mistakes and improve. I believe she will continue to improve. Also, I would like to point out that I am not Sarcasticidealist's personal ''anything'' ;) -
'''Support''' Appears unlikely to use the mop other than as required. Only (minor) concern is the occasional non use of edit summaries; I suggest Gwen Gale turns on the option of forcing edit summaries, communication being vital for the role of sysop.
'''Support''' - of course. She's been great here, never BITEy and should make a fine admin :) -
'''Support''', changed from neutral after the candidate elucidated her answer to Q2.
'''Support''', I have a great deal of respect and admiration for this editor's work. I would be delighted for her to be an admin. Please give her the mop! -
'''Support''', A fine editor, discussed the Arbcom ruling quite well. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''25th support''' Hopefully I don't run into an edit conflict. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' An excellent candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''': an excellent editor for as long as I've known her, which is quite some while. --
'''Support''': Seen her in action, and she is quite professional in her attitude. --
'''Support''' Experienced and cool-headed. Will be an asset. --'''
'''Support'''
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' <s>Yeah I know I would point the small detail of a significantly low number of WP contribs - (however it has involvement in several aspects, like the village pump, afds, ani and 3rr but very little of RFPP and AIV. </s>The experience also is significant too.--
'''Support''' Seems to to be a good, experienced editor.

'''Support''' My past interaction with Gwen was positive, and her willingness to walk away from a battle to avoid disruption shows excellent judgment.
'''Support''' I would like to see a little more projectspace edits, but everything else is outstanding.
'''Support''', with pleasure [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px|]]. —
'''Support'''. Record seems fine, and I don't believe this editor is likely to misuse the admin toolbox. --
'''Support''' for her very fine and thoughtful edits.
'''Support'''. It looks like she's made mistakes in the past, but has learned from them, and is otherwise a great contributor. I trust her with the admin tools. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' - per edit history and answers to questions.
'''Support''' I certainly don't like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User_talk%3AThe_Witch&timestamp=20060117220018 this] (diff provided by Ral315 below), but it was two years ago, and I have generally found Gwen Gale a decent and civil editor. I haven't seen anything recent which would give me pause, so I support.
Removing my opposition; given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&oldid=186661282#User_history discussion] with Gwen Gale, I understand the underlying issues there.  I admit I'm a bit biased regarding Gwen Gale's previous history, and I trust other users' beliefs that Gwen Gale is generally civil these days.  I hope my comments of a few days ago don't sink this RFA.
'''Support''' I feel I can support the user, and I trust that any incivility issues have subsided.
'''Support''' I have had delightful experience with Gwen ( particularly in [[fondue]] ).
'''Oppose''' <s>(change to support)</s> While Gwen has a strong record of contribution, my interactions with her leave me with decided reservations  about her temperament and style of editing. In particular, I found her to be excessively aggressive over what I thought was a minor issue in this discussion: [[Talk:Fred_Noonan#Presumed_dead]]. Based on this, I'm not at all convinced that Gwen would bring the right attitude to difficult situations.
'''Oppose''', the editor has a history of POV pushing and edit-warring at [[Abraham Lincoln]]. An admin should abide by [[WP:NPOV]]. --
'''Oppose''' reverts too much. See the history of [[Abraham Lincoln]] around 9-11 Nov 2007. She definitely broke the 3RR only two months ago and did about 7 reverts in about 27 hours [although she wasn't blocked]. '''
'''Oppose''' - In my assessment, Gwen Gale possesses many of the requisites of a good administrator but lacks adequate trustworthiness and good judgment, based on what we've uncovered in questioning above. [see talk for comments].
'''Strong oppose''' - this editor has a long history of problematic edits.  Her edits on Lincoln (in addition to the reversion problems noted above) also indicate some rather serious POV pushing issues.  I'm very concerned that she would abuse her admin position to continue POV pushing at a more serious level.  Lastly (per above) construing my absence in any manner whatsoever is also highly inappropriate.  In short, this editor has frequently and recently shown poor judgment and should not be given additional tools.
'''Oppose'''. My experience of Gwen Gale/Wyss is that s/he edits disruptively, and reverts a great deal. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen, Rklawton and BusterD and the disruptive edit warring on [[Abraham Lincoln]]. It's not to say that this editor is not good contributor, but I can not trust this editor with extra tools. Maybe someday but not at this time.--

'''Oppose''' (ec with Coppertwig) After looking over her contributions and the histories of pages she has edited (apparently she has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_1&limit=500&action=history little] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_1&diff=171889707&oldid=170106466 use] for the 'show preview' button) and the discussions above and on the RFA talk page, I'm not convinced she is admin material at this time. Too much POV in the wrong places. -
'''Oppose''' I am not impressed by the user's conduct in this RfA, specifically her comments toward BusterD and Rklawton. I am also not comfortable with the edit warring and 3RR violation on [[Abraham Lincoln]]. I believe that it is evident that you violated 3RR, but you still maintain that this was a borderline violation, while the reverts say otherwise. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose'''. In addition to issues raised above, edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Irving&diff=177694985&oldid=177673131 this] concern me.
'''Oppose''' - the behavior that I've seen in researching this RfA does not move me to believe this user would be an appropriate admin.  I find the user to be unnecessarily confrontational,<s> particularly in the diff cited by Ral above.</s> (struck through as  Ral has removed his opposition.  After further review, I retain my opposition, with regret.)  -

'''Oppose''' per civility concerns, particularly those raised by [[User:Coppertwig]] above. These are recent; I note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leni_Riefenstahl&diff=prev&oldid=184251123 this particularly unhelpful comment] was made about two weeks ago. I'm fairly taken aback by the tone of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwen_Gale&diff=173552155&oldid=173522201 this reply]. (Particularly given the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian_sexual_practices&diff=173522469&oldid=173382189 state of the article at the time].) "before arbitrarily trying to enforce your individual notions of WP policy and readership needs. All the best"? A request for sourcing is not arbitrary or individual; concerns of redundancy could have been just as swiftly dealt with by a more cordial pointer to conversation. --
'''Oppose''' - Mainly per Coppertwig's diffs, the editting battles are worrisome to me as well. -
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I must oppose here. And I've spent some considerable time reviewing this debate and associated threads. Civilty concerns and warring on articles is hardly ideal in an admin candidate. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''oppose''' after viewing all the discussion, the diffs, and the answers, I choose to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. In my dealings with her at [[Abraham Lincoln]], I was accused of edit-warring, personal attacks, and all manner of wikipolicy violations, none of which I'd committed. She couches her accusations of bad faith in faux politeness, but they remain unsubstantiated allegations, as she never supported them in any way. In addition, ''she'' edit-warred at that page, badgered against consensus, and displayed some quite blatant POV problems at the talkpage as pointed out above. It's disturbing to me that this candidacy is so close to the line of acceptable promotion.
'''Oppose'''; I cannot support someone who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3AWyss&timestamp=20061113014335 replaces] her userpage with "Tell the Wikitruth", followed by a rant about how we're an "autistic care group for the obese and unemployed", and then defends it in that state for months.
Per Blnguyen.
'''Oppose''', while I wish I could say otherwise, I find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGwen_Gale&diff=173552155&oldid=173522201 this] too concerning. Sourcing is a ''requirement'', not a nicety, and a challenge to unsourced material is 100% OK. The only possible responses to such a challenge are to provide sources or agree to removal, not something else. I'm also a bit concerned by the understanding of BLP given below in response. These aren't insurmountable problems, and I think you've done a good job starting to get things turned around. I hope next time I can be in the column above.
'''Oppose''', the people before me have more than done their job compiling loads of pure bitter nastiness that has spewed from this user's mouth. The last thing we need out of new admins is more drama. Don't bother replying here or on my talk page, my mind is very firmly made up.
'''Oppose''' per Moonriddengirl, SlimVirgin, and others.
'''Oppose''' - you need a longer track record to put the past behind you, and appease those who fear a relapse.   '''''
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipdia-namespace contributions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' Disruptive in the too-recent past.
'''Oppose''' per PoupouOnToast. '''
'''Support''' - Incredibly clueful editor, one whose work I've looked at for a while and been solidly impressed at. No hesitation in supporting. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Of course. Amazing patience, impeccable policy knowledge, is incredibly more suited to being an admin than I am, and you folks voted ''me'' in. Definitely time to show our trust.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' An intelligent, reasonable editor who I expect will do the right thing. (three ecs? gee!)
'''Support''' - I was waiting for this. Strong and solid.
'''Strong Support''' - (after four edits conflicts!) I have only known this user for a couple of months, but he has helped me a lot on Wikipedia, giving me good advise, and helping me [[1995 Japanese Grand Prix|work on article stuff]]. I am confident Gwynand will not abuse the tools, so this is a strong support from me. =)
'''Support'''. This is one of the few RfAs I've had watchlisted, and was happy to see if finally accepted. Gwynand has a strong understanding of policy and an even-handed temperament that is required to be an admin. He is a solid editor, and I have no doubts he'll make a great admin. Good luck! -
'''Strongest possible support'''.  At around 600 edits, this user came across the same way as an administrator - a calm, civil, yet straight to the point and concise at the same time.  This was at 600 edits.  You just know a user is going to do great things if they come across this way that early.  Now, after (even) more maturing time, he has once again exceeded all expectations and done the most amazing feat in the space of time between then and now - got better.  I am honoured to support this candidate.
'''Support''' good user. —
'''Strong support''' &mdash; I was ready to support before the answer to my question, but then he knocked it out of the park. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' From what I've seen, this is a solid candidate.  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Gwynand would be a great admin.  He's calm, civil, insightful, respectful, and all those other great qualities you look for in a sysop.  His participation in AN/I is impressive.  His contributions to AfD are meaningful, and I have a firm belief he'll be a wonderful interpretor and closer of debates.
'''Support''' - Insert not an administrator quip here. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support''', every time I have seen this user's signature tacked somewhere, it's surely a sign of clueful behavior.
'''Support''' — <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - {{user|Gwynand}} is a good, collaborative editor.  His article space edits are matched by a proportionate amount of discussion on the article's talk page, and the significant number of user talk-space edits is indicative of further collaboration.  However, this is not all:  this user's contributions in the Wikipedia namespace, particularly in some admin-related areas, are prolific.  The overall edit count may seem low for a user who has been editing since January 2007, but looking at the contributions themselves beyond the raw count, this seems to be because the edits are lengthy, well thought through, and make good reference to policy.  This editor is acting like an administrator in the way that he interacts with users, offering advice, and providing guidance.  I therefore see ample evidence of sufficient experience in policy areas, positive interactions with other users, and consequently no reason that Gwynand should not be  given the tools.  In summary: large net benefit.
'''Strong Support''' -- I too have been waiting for this one. Very hard working ánd polite editor. Best of luck! --
'''Extremely Strong Support''' Per Cameron. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' As per the previous comments.
'''Support''', with a few reservations, as the problems East outlines below are not without significance. However, this user ''does'' satisfy [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|my criteria]] for supporting RfAs, and I don't feel that the concerns are significant enough to not support. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support'''. A sensible editor I've got no doubt will make a sensible administrator. --
'''Support''' I have had nothing than good interactions with this user.
'''lulz i beats teh nomz support''' Nothing but positive encounters with Gwynand. I think he'll make a good admin.--
'''Support'''; although I do agree with many of the very rational things said by those both opposing and voting neutral (and hope that Gwynand will keep them in mind), I do not think that they will make him a poor administrator, and I think that the incredible amount of consideration he puts into his actions here will make him a calm, respectful administrator, which is very desirable. --
Sure, I think you would do just fine.
'''Support''' First off, I must admit I was a bit biased when I decided to support you. I saw you were nominated by Keeper76 and while I do not want to suck up to him, I must admit that I usually think that he does have a good sense of choosing candidates. But I am usually skeptic nonetheless and thus I of course did not want to post "Support as per Keeper76 nom". But his contributions look good, he makes good use of edit summaries, he seems to know how to act logically and not impulsive and the answer to xeno's question was, to be frank, pretty good. I think he will make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' for conscientous work on articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1995_Japanese_Grand_Prix&action=history|1995 Japanese Grand Prix], which somehow landed on my watchlist. WHile we're not talking about re-writing the encyclopedia from A to Z, Gwynand shows dedication to articles he's involved with and works to improve them. While I recognise some of the reasons brought forth by the opposers and those !voting neutral, I overall think he'll be a net positive to the project. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Support''' See no convincing reason to doubt will do well. Cheers,
I think you'd make a good admin, hope I'm right.
'''Weak Support''' A bit of apprehension, but not enough to !vote neutral or oppose.
'''Support''' - insightful, level-headed, dedicated user. Will use the tools well. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per the universal constants.
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this one. Gwyn'll make a good administrator for sure. &mdash;
'''Support''' Although I agree with most of the opposes below, I think Gwynand has learned from that. As for article writing, I see not much activity in that area, but I think he can become a great admin. He is sought out by others for his help and he acts in a manner consistent with our top admins. I have every confidence that he can handle the tools, even with the low edit count in mainspace. --
'''Support''' No problems here. Seems trustworthy enough.
'''Support''' - I can trust this user. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Weak Support''', I don't see any evidence that this user would abuse the tools.  Has been a bit bitey in the past, but given the contrition below in Naerii's neutral vote, I'm willing to believe this was more a lapse of judgement than a major attitude problem.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards]] particularly point number 4, and [[User:Pedro/Net Positive]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak support''' - Wow! I've seen this user around such a lot, and I have to admit, it was to the extent I thought he was already an admin. Imagine my shock then at finding such a low edit count / length of participation. But looking into these edits, there appears to be a large amount of knowledge and experience gained, from extensive work on the noticeboards and over here at RfA. That must indicate some sound policy knowledge. There is ''some'' article work, and relevant discussions on how to move articles forward. I find myself willing to offer my support, but the [[Wikipedia:Administrator's reading list|admin's reading list]] would need a ''thorough read through'' before commencing with admin duties. Practice extensively at the admin school aswell. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - After reading everything the opposes have to offer, I cant shake the fact that I believed you were an admin anyway.  And a pretty decent one too.  So, in spite of all of your "cons", you have one giant huge "pro".  :)  Good luck.  <b><font color="Indigo">
Gwynand often provides a reasoned voice of opinion which always seems set to a compromise between two different ones. His mainspace and wikispace edits could do with a rise, however. Overall a good candidate, but user talk editing will have to talk a break for now.
Sure thing. I'd expect more mainspace contributions, but it is no major concern. What you've been doing, you've done it well. Very wise to visit RfA regularly to get a handle on things. I have no problem with this, either. --
'''Strong Support''' I don't see any significant problems. I'm sure he'll be a great admin.--
'''Support'''. Weak mainspace contributions are not, to me, a deal-breaker. Apparently the candidate is rather interested in the process side of Wikipedia and hence spends a lot of time there - and that's where most of the admin jobs are. A sensible and thoughtful candidate that would make good use of the tools, I see no problem. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Heh''', I just realized I never put "nom support" in here.  Oops.  I support. :-)
'''Support''' Per WBOSITG.
'''Trite "I-thought-he-was-one" support''' —
[insert RFA cliche here] --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''', see no reason at all not to.
'''Support''', should be fine.
'''Weak Support''': (switched from Neutral!) I still do have my reservations regarding your lack of considerable mainspace activity. But then [[WP:WTHN|WTHN ?]]. I waited to see if somebody has any other serious issues with your contributions or behaviour ..All I require is a trust that the user will not use the tools for misdeeds.With hoping that you will have more activity in the article development also in future, I changed my opinion to weak support. And Do continue to participate in RFAs in future too even after passing this :)  --
I am hard pressed to find any substantial article contributions; lack of interest in content writing is a bad sign. The more troubling thing I found was that Gwynand does not seem to be interested in editing, but rather the trappings of editing, mainly in socializing and commenting on the inequities of others on friends' talkpages. Indeed, user talk edits account for a vast majority of the candidate's contributions. Examining this lack of interest in articles and excessive commenting on others together with Q1 ("I think the ability to respond with admin actions to issues at AN and ANI will be of use to me and the community"), I am left with the impression that this is just another candidate who is attracted by the notion of telling others what to do, "running" the site and chatting away. This is a dangerous game and has a negative impact on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first rather than a place to mingle and banter about the drama of the day.
'''Oppose''' per east718. User's level of admin-related experience isn't great either.
'''Oppose''' with regret. I've reviewed your contributions and you're on the right track, but I have concerns. One thing that I did notice is your huge participation at RfA - I've got to say, your standards are high. The problem is, I don't think your high standards transfer into your editing. A few of your opposes I've seen are based on admin experience - I certainly believe this is important, and I see no adminship experience other than AfD participation in your contributions. I have no idea when you'd speedy delete button, or use the block button correctly. Yup, you said you aren't going to work at AIV, but the tools come in a package, and to support, I'd like to see some contributions in that area to know exactly when you would block a user. I just think you might need to get out of the RfA arena and become more well rounded.
'''Oppose''' - Overall article work is lacking, and the same can be said with admin related work, so that makes me question your reasons for being here, and as such I must echo the concerns of east and Ryan.
'''Weak oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature)]], i.e. did not see the [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state|potential]] for what became a [[Talk:Clover (creature)|good article]] and did not revisit the delete comment in the AfD after improvements were made, which resulted in the keep closure. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
Sorry, I think you have good intentions and this is nothing personal but I agree with East and Ryan and I'm just not comfortable with the overall spread of experience or the ratio of edits in the mainspace to everything else.
Oppose per East.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Absolutely not.  Gwynand's choice of username is, unfortunately, particularly apt.
'''Oppose''': While I'm not hard on users with lower edit counts to the mainspace (even I wasn't a top article builder), after reviewing some of your comments on other users RfAs, I don't particularly feel comfortable with what I've seen.  As said above by a couple of people, you've got some fairly high standards for admin candidates.  While that is no problem, you should definitely hold yourself to those standards, and even exceed them if possible, which is something that I don't believe that you've done. -
I think Gwynand just needs more experience with Wikipedia in a number of ways. I'm not basing that solely on the number of edits or the time frame involved, but also on his answers to questions and the type of work I've seen him do. I think, in time, Gwynand could be a fine administrator. Nothing in his history is disqualifying or evidence of unsuitability, in itself - he just needs more history. Editor -> experienced editor -> administrator -> experienced administrator.
At this point in time, I have enough reservations that I feel I should oppose. I'm sure you'll make a good administrator in the future, but not right now. Mahalo. --
'''Oppose''' per East and Ryan. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Not Now''' Get more involved with the meat of the wiki, and come back in a few months or so.
'''Oppose''' - encourage the editor to become a more experienced editor in articlespace before trying hand at the tools.
'''Oppose''' Wants to be an admin but doesn't want to contribute to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an '''encyclopedia''', not an Internet hangout. Repeat after me: '''encyclopedia'''.[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' Gwynand has less than 1000 mainspace edits. I think he should focus on creating and expanding articles. He seems to be a good person and it is unlikely that he will abuse the tools. If he makes more mainspace edits, I will support his next RfA.
'''Oppose''' Per user Shot Info--
Per Iridescent in neutral, only I feel a bit more strongly about it.  Knows how to talk the talk at RFA after spending time here and rubbing shoulders with the right people, but I'm not sure you know how to walk the walk when it comes to the actual reason we're here.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and  I think admins with only peripheral interest in the encyclopedia aspect of the project, even when they are smart and well-intentioned, are a net-negative. --
'''Oppose''' Simply not experienced enough. [[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]] ([[User talk:Steven Walling|talk]]) <sup>formerly
'''Weak oppose''' per JayHenry, but willing to change to neutral or support if candidate can refute that position to my satisfaction.
I feel a bit weird doing this, as a few months ago I actively encouraged you to run. So I'm sorry that I can't support, but - lately I've noticed various comments from you towards other people, especially in the area of rfa, that I think can be rude and/or condescending and/or bitey. For example a few days ago I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bigvinu#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FBigvinu this] thread, which IMO comes across as pretty condescending and pretty harsh, when there is no need to be. I also find myself agreeing with some of east's comments above - it's pretty astonishing that you have the same amount of edits to user talk as you do to the mainspace. I'm not going to oppose as you do make interesting, helpful comments. I just don't really feel like you're ready or have a particularly good feel of what (I think) an admin is meant to be.
This leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, but I've run across Gwynand so often that it would look odd were I not to comment somewhere here. I agree with pretty much every word Keeper says in the nomination, and don't distrust Gwynand at all, so I'm certainly not going to oppose. However, I have to say that I agree with Ryan & East here; I ''do'' genuinely believe that Wikipedia is all about the articles and that the socialising, the userpages and the dramaz are just the lace on the knickers. (I can trot out the "being given power over those that do" speech again, but I know you've heard it before). In light of all that, it would be hypocritical (and unfair to all those I've opposed recently on similar grounds) to support an editor with [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Gwynand less than 30%] of their contributions in mainspace and more user talk than mainspace edits, just because I happen to be a bit more familiar with the name.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
I have always thought of you as a nice editor so I will not be opposing, I don't think you would deliberately abuse the tools for a second. However, since your name is so familiar I was surprised to see such a low main space count. —
Well, I'm rather impressed with your answers to my questions. Your answers are almost "too good", if that makes sense. (Previous note to self, any time something is too good to be true, it probably is.) Perhaps that makes me [[paranoia|paranoid]] regarding this, I dunno. But the others' concerns about your selected edit history "may" also be a concern. And even you suggest that you may not need the tools at this time. So I'm not certain as to the "need" behind the request. Based on all of the above, therefore, I think I'm going to stay at neutral, at least for now. -
'''Neutral''', per East718. I too am bothered by a high proportion of edits to user talk pages and the fact that they actually outnumber edits to WP mainspace. Also, the period of active editing on WP is a little too short. The account was open in Jan 2007 but the first 250 edits run through Jan 2008, which gives about 6.5 months of active editing, which is a bit too short IMO.
'''Neutral''' Good answers to questions, good involvement at ANI, and good edits, but only 750 out of 2500 are mainspace. More user talk than mainspace edits concerns me. I think I'd support at a later RfA if you have more mainspace edits and less of a focus on socializing, and of course keep up the good edits. :) Erik the <font color="red">
'''Neutral, lean oppose'''  IMHO you do not have enough experience to be an admin and need more time before becoming an admin, but others already see you as an admin and that speaks volumes in my book.  I also really appreciated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGwynand&diff=226349122&oldid=226348479 this] comment.  So, while I can't support, I'll give you a neutral...---'''
'''Neutral''' - I've run into Gwynand in the past and whilst we didn't agree, he certainly acted like an admin (and I thought he was). This would be a good reason to support, but sadly I agree with a lot of other comments about lack of edits and active time, so whilst I can't oppose, I can't quite bring myself to support either. <font color="#312AB6">


'''Support''' per Malinaccier. Vandal fighters can benefit most from the tools and this user has no immediately noticeable issues. '''''
'''Support''': I think most active users have came across HalfShadow once or twice, and I have nothing negative to say. -
'''<s>Oppose</s> Support''' Great user. Couldn't find a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Good Vandal fighter and track.
'''Support''' per... no reason to oppose! <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' Very good user. Makes great and constructive edits + fights vandalism. <font color="1900FF" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - great user. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I think I've seen you around. <strong>
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' User Self-nominated </sarcasam>
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mercury&diff=prev&oldid=184138854 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=184140224 series] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mercury&diff=prev&oldid=184140115 of] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=184142292 diffs], where the user hit a former admin with a templated vandalism warning for accidentally screwing up the formatting on the administrators' noticeboard, refused to participate in discussion, then accused him of vandalism again after being offered an explanation.
'''Weak oppose''' Fine user, but East718's diffs above appear to reveal a rather hostile behavior. Also, user should enforce edit summaries. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Sorry, that incident was only the other day. Way too hostile over such a petty thing. I don't want to imagine what would have happened if the user was newer. '''
No, shows civility issue which we do not need with administrators. I think some time should pass demonstrating greater civility. -

'''Oppose''' Civility concerns shown above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&oldid=184704000 this conversation from today] seems to indicate a lack of policy knowledge regarding the difference between PROD and AFD. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[[WP:DTTR]]. (*waits for jaws to drop ;)*). Sorry, not at this time - maybe some time in the future when we've forgotten about those diffs above.
'''Oppose''' for what I see as an unwillingness to admit mistakes. Also, I rarely ever oppose for lack of policy knowledge as I believe it's easy to learn and understand wikipedia policy if and when situations arise, but when someone points out a basic flaw in one's understanding of policy, I expect an admin (or any other user) to double check the relevant pages. I do not see that in the exchange with Mercury and in the mentioned by Bencherlite below. -
I'm not going to want an administrator who is not understanding and who does not do homework or care. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=184138563 Reverted a good faith comment] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mercury&diff=prev&oldid=184138854 considers that good faith edits are vandalism].  Additionally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mercury&diff=prev&oldid=184140115 does not use judgment with regards to editors], "Does not care" about "background" or "history".  Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=184140224 not communicate] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=184142292 very well].  So, in light of the judgement and communication issues, I'll have to say no right now.  '''Adminitrators need to communicate and use good judgement''' when dealing with these things, or he might block for what is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mercury&diff=prev&oldid=184140115 vandalism "where he comes from"] instead of thinking about it.  So, '''I oppose this candidacy for adminship'''. Disclosure:  Those diffs are really about me, but this candidacy is really about halfshadow and the project.
'''Strong oppose''' The diffs from today that Pedro posted indicate very basic confusion about the deletion process; hopefully, the candidate will study up and get a better grip on our procedures; with a little effort this kind of problem can be fixed in time for another RfA in a couple of months.   The diffs provided by east718 are much more troubling because of the civility issues. In my experience here, if an editor has problems with this, it takes quite a while to grow past them. I worry that if made an admin now, HalfShadow will create more problems than he fixes. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose''', I could overlook those diffs if they were from a couple of months ago, but such a major lapse in judgement so recently sets off alarm bells for me.
'''Strong oppose''' Sorry, but before I could support you in another RfA, I would need to know that you had not only understood why the errors of judgement have been taken seriously, but also that you had a very large number of edits demonstrating that the tools you seek would be used by a careful, thoughtful, even-tempered person of sound judgement.
Unfit per above.
'''Oppose''' per Bencherlite (in "neutral"). '''''
'''Oppose''' - Per East718. That was just to recent.
'''Oppose''' as per diffs from ''east718'' and ''Mercury'' that lead me to question if this editor has the temperament required for adminship.  --
'''Oppose''' per East718 (applying a vandalism warning to an established user, when it could have been a simple formatting hiccup or something) and Pedro (not understanding the [[WP:PROD]] process).  Also, the diffs that Bencherlite provides below are troubling, especially when he submitted a report to [[WP:AIV]] without even giving the user an adequate series of warnings (which would have been inappropriate anyway in the circumstances).  When I check out reports at [[WP:AIV]], I research the incident thoroughly to determine whether someone is indeed committing vandalism, and I ''hate'' it when someone submits a vandalism report without truly understanding the circumstances and policies.  --
'''Oppose''' for now. I could understand reverting and even warning Mercury-- we all make mistakes and don't always know each other as well as we should. I could even overlook the "I don't care comment" as a heat of the moment utterance. However, adding to all that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHalfShadow&diff=184142292&oldid=184140727 removal of Mercury's comment on his talk page] suggests nom was out of control at this point. Then there's the prod/AFD confusion. We all have our off moments, but the pressures from making decisions  and consequences of our mistakes increase with the extra buttons. Perhaps when the nom is better seasoned and more experienced.
'''Oppose'''. This user has shown repeated questionable judgment. The [[User:Mercury|mercury]] issue alone is enough for me to be uneasy about granting the mop to this individual. But even if that was an isolated incident, there's still more than enough evidence to suggest a lack of basic understanding of Wiki policies.
'''Neutral Leaning Support''' per East718's diffs. To his credit, HalfShadow did own it and admit that he was in the wrong. Still, this was so recent, I can't support, though his honesty in admitting his mistake (not to mention his willingness to be so forthcoming about it) and his answer to Q3 tell me he's a good editor and potential admin. Bad timing, it would seem; his biggest lapse in judgment came just before his RfA so it's highly visible.
'''Neutral'''. Surprised that an admin candidate appears not to know how prods work or the difference between prod notices and afd notices. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_THIRUVAMCODE_CHURCH_%28%22ARA_PALLY%22%29&diff=prev&oldid=184678263 Halfshadow] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_THIRUVAMCODE_CHURCH_%28%22ARA_PALLY%22%29&diff=next&oldid=184678762 has] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_THIRUVAMCODE_CHURCH_%28%22ARA_PALLY%22%29&diff=prev&oldid=184700583 repeatedly] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_THIRUVAMCODE_CHURCH_%28%22ARA_PALLY%22%29&diff=next&oldid=184701979 readded] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_THIRUVAMCODE_CHURCH_%28%22ARA_PALLY%22%29&diff=next&oldid=184702657 a prod] to an article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AConnectjoby&diff=184678470&oldid=184674551 warned the original author] as if the author had been removing AfD notices, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=184700872 reported] the author to AIV (no level 3 or level 4 warning before this AIV report, incidentally), and then, when I point HalfShadow in the direction of [[WP:PROD#Conflicts]] (which says that prods shouldn't be readded to an article, even if the prod was removed in bad faith), inaccurately [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABencherlite&diff=184703546&oldid=184600357 tells me] that {{tl|uw-afd1}} etc are templates for warning people not to remove prods from articles.  Not familiar enough with HalfShadow's general work to know whether this was an isolated lapse, hence not opposing.
'''Neutral'''.  I cannot support you after the difs shown by many of the editors in opposition to this, but I will not oppose yoiu either.  Sorry, '''
'''Moral Support''' While I appreciate your enthusiasm to help Wikipedia via adminship, you're still too new. Such few edits like you have doesn't give the community enough evidence with which we can judge your knowledge of policies and procedures. It is an extremely rare event that an editor with fewer than 2000 edits gain adminship. You'll probably want to wait several months and a couple thousand edits and then apply again. You'll also want to get more experience in admin-like areas, such as Articles For Deletion, Vandal Reporting, etc. If you ever have any questions about anything, don't hesitate to ask me. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose with moral support''' — Sorry to be the first one to do this but it's really for your own benefit to hear it! I'm sorry to oppose, I like your attitude towards this so far and you have made some positive steps in becoming a good contributor to the project and there is no reason to believe this enthusiasm won't continue into adminship. However, you do have a lack of experience in many areas since you're still so new to the site. I'd encourage you to participate more in this process, RfA, and focus heavily upon areas such as [[WP:RFPP|requests for page protection]], [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and [[WP:AIV|reporting vandals]]. You say you use good grammar too, but I've seen several mistakes in your application (using unnecessarily many capital letters, lack of punctuation etc), so I'd work on that too. You may wish to obtain an [[WP:ER|editor review]] and possibly [[WP:ADCO|admin coaching]] at some point in the future. There are other areas to participate too, but I'll leave you to discover those on your own. You have my sincere support for any future applications unless there is any logical reason not to at that time. Happy editing! —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''':Little or no experience in any and all areas. I ''really'' wish noobie editors would read the guide to adminship before applying; 3 or 4 times a week I see people who have ridiculously low edit counts and experience applying despite the [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_to_see|Clear information in the guide about what is usually expected]].
'''Oppose'''- as Cyclonenim said. I must say that in the three days you've been here you've got off to a good start, but you just haven't been here long enough for me to judge how you'd react in unpleasant or tricky situtations. Hang around for a while, get to know the policies and processes of the place and come back in three or four months.
'''Oppose''' - per [[User:Chet B Long/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. Sorry but you just don't have enough experience here. Come back in 6 months and if you are doing good I'll support you. --
I'd suggest to the candidate to withdraw because this will definitely be closed as [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Great thing you want to help but currently we cannot judge whether you can be trusted with the tools. '''
'''Neutral''' - I don't want to disillusion you, but I recommend withdrawal of RfA, I think that you're too new for adminship. I recommend you to start contributing a little more and you'll gain experience with policies. Greetings,
I like your username; it reminds me of Bruce Willis's character in [[Lucky Number Slevin]], but I doubt that was your intention.
No reason to believe you'd go crazy with them.
&ndash;
His edit summary use is better than mine. His Q1 answer shows the right motivations. 4024 edits is nowhere near not enough experience. Anyone who can write about Baryons obviously has intelligence, and thus clue. Why the hell not? ''
Strongly - edit summary usage isn't all that important, and while his mainspace count to simple edit-counters is rather little, most of those edits are to one article, which vastly improves my opinion of his mainspace work - the fact that it looks like it's passing a FLC right now doesn't hurt either. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could think [[WP:NOTNOW]] is applicable to this user - I had an uncontroversial RfA with a full thousand edits fewr than the 4000 this user has, and about the same experience in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], etc. though admittedly I had quite a bit more work in [[WP:XFD]]s. I really can't see that any of the opposes make any sense at all.
'''Support''', user plainly has good intentions, and I see nothing that would indicate that this user would maliciously misuse the tools.
'''Weak Support''' This user has indicated they will use the tools to help combat vandalism on articles relating to physics. I think its good to have admins who specialize on a certain topic, and that is the first reason why I'm supporting this user. The second reason why I'm supporting you is because I don't think you'll misuse the tools when doing the work you have stated you'll do as an admin. My support of you is weak because of your inexperience, and because your contributions thus far indicate you won't be a overly active admin.--
'''Support''' From my interactions with this editor, he seems to have his head screwed on right (despite his username), and I'm confident that he will use the admin tools with care. My only (small) concern is that this nomination is a bit premature; a little more experience (of order a couple of months) would have been good.
'''Support''' due to no negative interactions.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' The candidate is a highly intelligent individual who is an asset to Wikipedia.
Of course. '''
'''Support''' because I absolutely do not want to be called upon to assist in any issues related to physics, and this editor clearly has an understanding of the subject superior to my own. Diversity amongst the admins is often lacking. Having someone who is competent in a complex subject area, and therefore can use the tools to do more than block vandals, or maintain the integrity of [[Battlestar Galactica]], is an asset, rather than a limitation.
'''Support''' I think that Headbomb would be an excellent adminstrator. He has done a lot of work for wiki project physics and  can be trusted with Admin tools. His interactions with other editors so far have been exemplary. The real test here is how you deal with a problematic editor who makes outrageous comments. As I explained in my comment below oppose vote #18, he passed that test with flying colors.<br>There are a few valid reasons one might be concerned, these are mentioned in oppose votes #3, #4, and #20, basically lack of experience I think, however, that that lack of experience is not a big concern here. Headbomb will work mainly on the physics articles and unlike most of the rest of wikipedia, that's a peaceful sector of wikipedia. For an Admin to be able to function effectively here, it is much more important that the Admin is a physicist than that he is a battle hardened wikipedian. In fact, given the permanent state of war many wiki politics articles are in, one has to question the relevance of many of the criteria that are used to approve a RFA in general.<br>Will Headbomb abuse his Admin Powers to settle content disputes in articles he is involved in? Again, this is not a potential problem. It would be if Headbomb were very active on political subjects, because then there are usually two sides to an issue and for POV reasons you don't what an Admin to be a fanatical supporter of one side. In the case of scientific articles, an involved Admin is usually not a problem because the nature of disputes on scientific topics is usually completely different. Usually one side is wrong, the other side is right and you really do not want the side who is wrong to get any foothold in the article. That requires the Admin to have at least some background in the topic. The [[Global warming]] article is a very good example of how involved Admins (Connoley and Raul) can be very effective<br>So, all this leads me to conclude that Headbomb should be allowed to  become an Admin. I also note that there are only 3 votes based on valid arguments against, so perhaps this RFA should be closed and he should be given Admin status right now?
'''Support''' Good editor, smart guy. I really don't know much about adminship, but he's made every physics-related article he's been active on better.  To me, that's the most important thing.
'''Support''' — self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Unwavering Support''' Wikipedia is meant to be a medium of delivering qualitative information to researchers and others. Therefore, I believe an Admin should have extensive content credentials, and you seem to have a good record as an editor and a contributor, good luck!
'''Support''' We need admins who understand the areas they edit in.--
Right, this is ridiculous. I expect to see the closing bureaucrat discount ''all'' the !votes that claim Headbomb was votestacking/canvassing based on his posting a neutrally-worded note on the relevant wikiproject, exactly in line with policy. Regulars on this noticeboard have figured out an easy way to get disproportionate influence on this project and their attitude to so-called "canvassing" (even when it is no such thing) is a transparent attempt to protect their self-appointed position against the rest of the editors who generally have better things to do.  FWIW, let me say that (i) Headbomb has been posting so much to [[WT:WikiProject Physics]] recently that I didn't even notice his RfA post; I eventually clicked after following the watchlist header link to the RfA poll. (ii) Headbomb's decision to take over WP Physics is not necessarily guaranteed to endear him to the regulars there and in fact they have not been piling in in support. (iii) Headbomb has been doing good work nevertheless, both on individual articles and on galvanising a rather somnolent wikiproject, and has clearly been slowed down by not being an admin. Therefore '''Support'''.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:PaddyLeahy|PaddyLeahy]] ([[User talk:PaddyLeahy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/PaddyLeahy|contribs]]) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> (Drat: sinebot got there first.
Sorry - but you need to better use edit summary's - you hold use it around 75% of the time. Also, I'd like to see more experience in admin related area's ([[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:UAA|UAA]] etc.) Sorry, '''«'''
Per the answer to question 1. Nobody requires the tools, and certainly not for a Wikiproject they themselves work on.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Looking through your contribs, I see some really good work on the Physics WikiProject. However, your mainspace edits are somewhat lacking, only 850 out of 4000 edits, but that isn't too bad. However, looking at your experience in admin-related areas, you have 3 edits to XFDs, 27 RFPPs, 0 to AIV, and 0 to UAA. That's not a lot in those areas, so I don't have a lot to go off of when gauging your knowledge of policies and procedures in admin-like areas. You don't really say in this RFA which, if any, you plan to work on. Plus, your use of edit summaries isn't great. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=220859371 this edit] was not the greatest idea.
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. While you have your heart set in the right place, the vast majority of your 4 thousand edits are in the past few months; thus, I think a few more months of experience is needed. Looking through your contributions, most of the past 1,500 of your edits are talk page assessments in the past week. I saw little or no participation in admin-related ares such as AIV, UAA, XfD and CSD. Also, I was looking at your talk page archives, and as recently as last week, your responses to editors regarding the MOSNUM dispute were rather abrupt and dismissive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Headbomb#Albert_Einstein This thread] also concerns me based on a lack of complete understanding of simple guidelines such as the assessment scale. You have done good work, but you are not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  My largest concern is that you feel WikiProject Physics needs leadership, and you say as an admin you'd provide that.  Adminship isn't about leadership, it's about maintenance.  It's a technical matter, not a social matter.  Nothing prevents you from providing that leadership now.  Many projects are well coordinated by non-admins.  I'd prefer to see your need for the tools come directly from your work on the encyclopedia, not because you want to assume a leadership role and you feel the tools would help you accomplish that.  I'm sorry to have to oppose this.  I don't like opposing RfA's, and it's not something I'm prone to doing, but I don't feel comfortable with this RfA at this time.  &hArr;
'''Oppose''' Lack of edit summeries, and I don't see much activity in and around admin duties. Get more experience, and try again later.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of edit summary usage, lack of contributions to admin-related project pages, and per the discussion of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Comparison of temperature scales]] below. Whether one uses their admin tools in a small area or across the board, a lack of understanding of the speedy deletion requirements is troublesome.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per Aubrey. Nothing I can really add to that except that going fr user to admin isn't like going from Private to Sergeant. You don't get any extra authority, just extra responsibility.--
'''Oppose''' per JPG-GR, it's important to use the pages that gives admins a tiny bit more responsibility, such as [[WP:AIV]], to show you know who to block/who not.
'''Oppose''': While I feel the lack of edit summary and lack of some more months experience are good points I cannot support based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=220859371 this comment]. I feel that you definitely have good intentions and you may one day become a good admin but even with that last line saying "feel free to not support me" it seems you are still trying to get their attention and perhaps the results of the RfA could be skewed. While there is the argument of who better to comment on your edits then those that know you best, I think those that have no previous interaction with the user can give the best advice and insight since they have no prior dealings with the candidate and are neutral. You definitely don't seem power hungry and it doesn't look like you were doing it to have a better chance at becoming an admin, I would just prefer you have another RfA in a couple months when you have more experience without a comment like this. You're definitely on the right track, I just don't think you're ready yet. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per others and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Comparison of temperature scales]]. --
Oppose. Per Aubrey and Ave Caesar above. I'm not sure about this whole "leadership" thing, you don't need to be an administrator to show that you are capable of co-ordinating a project. Secondly, there are quite a few admins already on the WikiProject, so either the candidate has not researched his claim thoroughly enough (something I don't wish to see) or just made the statement in an attempt to make sure that he can become a leading member of the project. Stating above that "When you review about 3000 articles in two weeks, sometimes you cut corners" is the final nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Aubrey above, you keep saying you need the admin tools in order to lead the Physics WikiProject, but you haven't specified which ''specific'' tools you need and what you intend to do with them. Why do you need to protect pages, or block users, for example, in order to organize the WikiProject? Indeed, I'd be very concerned if you intended to use the admin tools for content pr project development - they're explicitly not for that purpose. As far as I can see, everything you want to do is achievable without the tools, and none of the tools are allowed to be used to achieve the aims you mention. Given this, I am reluctant to give you the tools. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I need specifics to allay my concerns that you intend to use the tools in an inappropriate way. That said, you are doing '''excellent''' work as a contributor, and I sincerely hope you continue with that. Best,

Weak '''oppose''':  mildy [[WP:IU]].
'''Weak oppose.''' User needs to grow and learn.
'''Oppose''' was neutral, but then saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect&diff=prev&oldid=221042766 this] which he describes as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Headbomb&diff=221045160&oldid=221043564 how he typical handles things].  I don't feel comfortable with an administrator who dismisses others like that.
'''Oppose'''. I was leaning towards neutral (with moral support) because of the low number of edits, most occurring in the last two months, and the lack of edit summaries. But reading the candidate's responses to concerns here have shifted me over to oppose. An argumentative streak is not a good trait for an admin in my opinion. Sorry.--
'''Weak oppose''' - I see nothing alarming, but the lack of experience (only four months), and the limited scope of those edits makes me conclude that it is not yet time --
'''Oppose''' - Headbomb does not pass [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria for adminship]]. He was rather uncivil in his conversation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect&diff=221042601&oldid=221032704 here], even though I cannot say that the other user was being civil either, but you should still try to be calm in a discussion. --
'''Oppose''' Judging from this RfA alone, I could see that you're easily riled. I don't think that you will abuse the tools on your own but it will be easy for others to manipulate you to do so. Come back when you have more patience.--
'''Oppose''' per Useight.  User is too inexperienced in areas where admins should be knowledgeable.
'''Oppose.'''  Wisdom89, Juliancolton, AubreyEllenShomo (∫ÆS), Koji Dude, Rudget, and Gwernol covered the ground, so I'll avoid repeating it all.  —
'''Oppose''' Wait to improve your edit summary usage, and your project count.  Also a little advice.  Get active in XFD and AIV.  Those are admin-related areas that will further your knowledge. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' per alot of folks here (pile-on, I know), and also due to responses to opposes. <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' for many of the reasons above, but in particular this RfA reads like the intent is to gain some kind of special position of authority over one or more Wikiprojects.  Furthermore, while the candidate's responses to the opposition here is largely civil, the volume of it comes across as being somewhat oppressive and tendentious and I'm not sure these are qualities befitting an admin.
Just no.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I believe you are a bit inexperienced and haven't really helped a wide range of Wikipedia topics.--
'''Oppose''' per confrontational comments on this page.--
'''Oppose''': Sorry, but you replying to virtually every oppose leads me to think you need to think about your conduct towards others in this RfA. (I did read the response to SheffieldSteel by the way.)  Also, you don't seem to understand, per Q1, when to use the tools to good use.
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about approach towards adminship; it is [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not#General|''not'' command authority]]. This is not an army, you don't need to be a 'commissioned officer' to 'run' a 'platoon' of WikiProject-mates. And you don't have sufficient experience just yet. -

'''Oppose''' as per [[User:mbeychok|mbeychok]]. --
'''Coming out of retirement using your alt account Oppose''' Nope. Just no. <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Oppose''', not impressed with the candidate arguing with every other oppose comment.
'''Strong oppose''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics&diff=prev&oldid=220859371 votestacking]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Although this user has been an asset to the Physics Wikiproject, I am not convinced that this candidate really ''needs'' to be an admin. I ''know'' that this user has been extremely honest in his introduction and has even answered some questions that people were bound to ask, but looking at your overall way of working, I can't support you just yet. Please don't argue with this oppose, because you should take them all on board, and use them to improve yourself. That will do you a lot of good. Contradicting people won't get you anywhere. Spread your wings into more areas of Wikipedia too. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - You seem to take these opposes personally. You just have work on that.
'''Neutral'''  - I would like to support.  You seem trustworthy enough and I am sure you would not intentionally misuse the tools.  However, you do not appear familiar enough with WP policies, procedures and guidelines at this stage.  In addition, WP:PHYSICS does not stand apart from the rest of the wiki.  The same basic policies etc. apply there as well and you should be familiar with them to use the tools even in that limited subject area. '''Note''': I was prompted to participate in this discussion by a notice on my talk page, should others wish to treat that as canvassing. --
'''Neutral'''  This is a drive-by neutral to register my appreciation for Headbomb's great and irreplaceable work.  I don't know how to vote on this one.  For better or worse, WP:RfA serves as a community vote on whether someone is on the right path, and Headbomb is in some ways clearly headed in the right direction.  On the other hand, like most scientists, Headbomb has a kind of "listen to me, I'm right" way of talking that works great for science and not always in article talk pages or XfD discussions.  It would take me a while to sort out how to vote, so I'm going to weenie out. - Dan
Edit summary usage or an extended signature are easily actionable, but Headbomb is inexperienced and has an odd need for adminship.  Next time, –'''
'''Neutral''' No behavioral issues and has good experience, two good things for me, but I'd like to see a bit more knowledge of policy, etc before I'd feel fully comfortable supporting. '''
'''With moral support, I recommend withdrawal for now''' I'm giving moral support because I can see you have the qualities and intentions without doubt, but you need more knowledge and understanding of what adminship entails. Be cool, take a couple of months to gain the understanding and re-apply; you'll pass with flying colors :) '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' I ought to support any candidate capable of slaying the dragon of the IEC prefix "debate", but concerns about the candidate's interaction with critical editors on this RfA are sufficient to prevent me from doing so at this time. Perhaps the candidate should gain experience in admin-related areas (e.g. AFD, COIN, SSP, EAR) and come back in a few months time <small>when they will be opposed for not having enough content creation experience, being a manufactured candidate, and so on and so forth</small>.  <font color="006622">
'''Neutral'''.  I may come back to this one, but for right now I think you're too inexperienced. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' based on [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], he's ''very'' close -- but not quite there.  Needs some improvement in edit summary usage, a bit of experience at AfD, and a second nom in two months' time, and I will support.
'''Neutral''' Sorry Headbomb but I can't support at this stage but I'm also not going to oppose because I'm not comfortable with the pile on going on in that section. I think you are well meaning and have positive intentions for your contributions on Wikipedia, but I also think you need more and wider experience so that we can be sure you have a good grasp on policy. I hope this experience doesn't put you off and that you take on board any useful and sensible feedback you've received here and then go away and get more experience and then come back in a few months. You also might like to spend some time looking through successful and unsuccessful RfAs so that you can get a better insight into what people are looking for in candidates at RfA.
'''Neutral'''.  A disappointing fraction of the opposition is for spurious reasons, but I still think this user needs more experience to be an admin&mdash;there's a whole set of rules and pages that admins need to know that others don't.  And honestly, I would rather see you continue to do the good work you're doing on physics articles than try to please everyone here at RfA.  Being an admin is often just a distraction from the real work, believe me. --
Supported you last week, don't believe you've suddenly gone insane since then.
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=223614504 This] comment doensn't sit well with me. The bitterness there is not something I want to see in an administrator. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Too soon after last RFA.
Way too premature, indicating an extensive lack of judgement. I am also dismayed by the candidate's opening statement which would seem to suggest that rather he feels that the reasons for the prior RfAs unsuccessful outcome was a result of the opposers, rather than accepting responsbility for what role he may of played. The whole point of the intermittent period between RfAs is to reflect and judge yourself based upon what the community wants of an administrator, with actions upon that. In two weeks, you couldn't have done this and the regretful statement in the link by Seresin should have avoidable.
Its strange to re-apply so soon and its disappointing even to your supporters, who would like you to prove the critics wrong by patient work and positive attitude. Don't you see that your re-applying composes entirely of defiance and combativeness? Yes the opposers on your last RfA may have misjudged you but this is not the way to respond. This also feeds the notion that you are anxious to obtain the tools.  '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. (edit conflict) Running RFAs two weeks in a row is not a sign of having a good understanding of the community. I opposed your last RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Headbomb&diff=220861133&oldid=220860137 here]. In that oppose I cited that you had 3 edits to XFD, 27 to RFPP, 0 to AIV, and 0 to UAA. Since your last RFA, you added 3 more edits to RFPP, and none to any other of those areas. That's not why I'm opposing, though, it really comes down to the fact that you just had an RFA last week. You did manage to add 1400 edits since then, but, yeah, I'm citing the unfamiliarity with the community indicated by the RFAs in rapid succession as the basis for thinking that you still need some more experience and I'm using that inexperience as the basis for my oppose.
'''Oppose''' - what were you ''thinking''?  This makes you look rash and too thirsty for power.  Regardless if you are or not.  <b><font color="Indigo">
In the immortal words of Stan Lee, ''''nuff said'''---'''

Why doom your chances doing it this way? You're wasting your time and ours, and potentially depriving yourself of any chance of a successful request for at least the next 6 to 10 months. <strong style="color:#000">
'''Strong oppose''' coming back so soon after the community rejected your last RfA shows a contempt for the community and the opinions expressed in the last RfA. It also demonstrates a profound lack of judgment - what makes you think that the outcome could possibly be different just a week later? You are confirming the doubts expressed before, not assuaging them.
No, this is ''exactly'' the kind of thing I hoped you ''wouldn't'' do.  :(
To avoid pile-on oppose. Too soon since last time, and questionable comments in various areas.
'''Moral support''' I suggest withdrawing, as you don't have enough experience (see [[WP:NOTNOW]]).  '''But''' I just want to try to quash the meme that this is a vandal, or someone who's name we can feel free to make fun of.  ''If you actually look at their edits'', this is someone slowly trying to figure out how things work around here.  There are one or two test edits that might stray slightly into the grey zone, but I think in general we have a good faith attempt to help here, so please take care to not treat this as a joke request, and keep comments about "recent level-4 warnings" in perspective; that warning was not justified, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any true vandalism in their contributions. Please don't chase off a good faith contributer who's only mistake is not understanding how RFA works around here. --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough contributions to effectively judge grasp of policy and a recent history of level 4 and final warnings.
'''Oppose''' - You have a history of recent vandalism, recommend withdrawal per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Edit summary useage too low. User does not show an understanding of what adminship is. User does not appear to know what areas admins are needed in. User does not appear to know how to handle conflicts. Not sure the user understands some core policies. User has no experience working in maintenance areas. User has had a significant number of edits reverted as vandalism. This is just a selection of issues. Suggest withdrawl. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' obviously. Incidentally, how do you square your "I am against censorship" userbox with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_delete_the_main_page&diff=prev&oldid=251189457 your attempts to censor Wikipedia]?<font face="Trebuchet MS">''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. User is too new and has vandalized, that and they spelled "weasel" wrong in their name.
'''Oppose'''. The aforementioned complaints (little experience, recent vandalism) lead me to believe that the user does not have the sufficient amount of maturity required of a Wikipedia admin.
Just, no.  You can't vandalise and become an admin in the same year.
'''Moral Support'''. You have ~500 edits and an irregular editing pattern (8 edits in Nov 2006, virtually disappeared until Jul 07, then disappeared again until last month) and neither are good for a prospective admin. Get more experience and don't disappear months at a time and hopefully another RfA in about six months will yield better results. [[User:Xenon54|X<small>ENON</small>54]] | [[User talk:Xenon54|talk]] |
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter. If this request doesn't work out, then suggest you re-apply in a few months time.
'''Moral support''' - you need more experience, in general, and I recommend you focus on article development the most.  '''''
'''Support''' You'd make a pretty good admin, but you might need a few more edits to swing these other guys...
Sorry, but you've been an active contributor for only a little more than a week. Your userpage says it: you're a novice editor. You're doing a good job so far, but you're still new to Wikipedia. Keep up the good anti-vandal work, maybe see if anything else suits your fancy, and consider adminship again at a later date. That said, I don't mean to be an antagonist really, but I don't think this RfA really has a good shot at passing and suggest that you withdraw it, continue your constructive contributions, and again, consider an RfA in at least a few months. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Same as above. If you can keep up decent activity for six months or so, I'm sure you'll see better results.-
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''', suggest withdrawal. Sorry, but a week isn't nearly long enough for you to gather enough experience to become an admin. You have gotten off to a good start, though. Keep this up for a few months and you should get better results if/when you try again. --
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Oppose''', due to only having been a regular contributor for one week and not having much experience in other Wikipedia processes such as [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|FAC's]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] or show any real skills in mediation. Id say come back again when you have done some of the above and shown a good and broad understanding of wikipedia policy.
'''Oppose''' Good editor - but more experience and active editing is needed. -
I look forward to supporting you someday, just not quite yet. Keep up the good work and come back here in a few months.
'''Neutral''' per Seraphimblade-- you're doing good so far, try again in a few months. &nbsp; '''
'''Neutral'''.  I would suggest a few months of solid, consistent editing.  '''
'''Neutral''' A few months more experience and I will support. I didn't oppose because [[WP:DEAL]].
I can't support you because you do not have much experience. Experience is very valuable. Wait a few months before trying again. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' – Sorry to say, at this time.  In reviewing your talk page, I noticed that there are more than a few comments concerning policy as recently as last month.  In that you will have the tools to enforce policy, I believe you should also know policy.  Come back with some more experience.  Good luck to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Reluctant oppose, I don't feel you have the experience required to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' apx. 25% of your edits are to your user page or sub page. I appreciate you may be an admin on bondpedia but we need evidence on en.wikipedia I'm afraid. In addition your Q1 was very dispointing. Also, perhaps you might like to consider forcing an edit suammry via your preferences. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', lack of edit summary usage, patchy knowledge of policy as per user's talk page.  I can see your heart is in the right place, but I don't think you have the necessary experience yet.
'''Strong Oppose''' less than 1000 total edits, and spotty edit summary usage.  Recommend closure per [[WP:SNOW]].

'''Oppose''' Needs experience. Please pay attention to the suggestions above and try again down the road. <b>
'''Oppose''' Looking at your contribution history, I believe that you have not spent enough "in-wiki" time to understand our policies and guidelines, let alone how to enforce them. Further, edits such as ''"self proclaimed 'Head of Bondpedia Advertising on Wikipedia'"'' demonstrate a '''lack''' of understanding of wiki policies, in my opinion (see [[WP:NOT]]. I counsel a self-withdrawal at this point until such time as you better understand, and take part in, the project. --
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience is the issue here. I recommend [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and [[WP:ER|editor review]] as time progresses for constructive criticism/analysis and didactic experience. Good luck mate! Also, this should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Just not enough experience yet. Doesn't use edit summaries. For an example of what many editors require in an RFA candidate, please see [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my standards]]. If you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to contact me.
Regrettably. I would advise you to carefully learn Wikipedia's policies and to gain more experience at [[WP:XfD]] and [[WP:CSD]]. Some more experience reverting vandalism and becoming more familiar of [[WP:AIV]] would also be pleasing. The answers to your questions are also a bit short, and it is preferred that nominees give more detailed answers as to why they need the tools and how they would be used. Turning on "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" (found in My preferences → Editing) would be helpful as it is considered necessary to always use edit summaries as they provide useful information to fellow editors. Also, keep up the article writing and I would suggest to come back in 3-6 months with more editing experience, preferably at least 3000 more edits. Regards,
As nom--
'''Support''' as per Q&A above - I'm sure the mop with be adequately lubricated by this user before letting it loose on the floor. --
'''Support''' Excellent user - opposers don't appear to have picked up any problems, other than the fact he's eager to help and he uses a tabbed browser. Guess I fall into that category too. '''
'''Weak Support''' - per my support last time around. I do agree though that 6/7 weeks after the closure of the last is a bit much. But as Pedro puts it nicely, it's not a steadfast rule. So can't oppose based on that.
'''Support'''. (edit conflict) Have worked with this user on AFD occasionally, and I would definitely trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Support''' -  a fine user who I trust with the tools. Sorry, but I don't believe that an argument that this is too soon is sufficient. If he's shown the required change from his last RfA then it should not matter - I believe he has made that change and has a different attitude toward Wikipedia. Whilst I understand Pedro's oppose about drive by AfD comments - I've done the same before, read a load of articles and AfD's then take time to reflect followed by making what appear to be comments without very little thought.
'''Support''' - HSR is extremely competent in the area of AFD and will do a great job in that area. Also, I don't have a problem with short times between RfAs ''if'' the candidate has shown him or herself to have significantly improved in the areas that were indicated as problems in the last RfA. HSR is one of these users. [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Keilana'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' Keenness shouldn't be seen as a negative. A good contributor more than ready for the mop.
'''Support''' has seemed remarkably reasonable many places I've seen him comment. I think he deserves proper consideration here. --
Supporting solely to counter some specious opposes; if editing too fast was a Bad Thing, I'd be most unwelcome here.
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' Sounds good to me - I see no issues with the short span between requests. Editing is good, and trust is established.
Agree with Majorly and Ryan Postlethwaite. Also, with the quick AfD participation, I believe it could have been tabbed browsing as well, and it's not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] to say that HisSpaceResearch wasn't using tabbed browsing. I sometimes use tabbed browsing when participating in RfAs, and while it may look like I gave a bunch of votes in a minute or two, in reality, I've read the RfAs. I don't think this user will be abusive at all.
Edits articles. Does stuff. We could do worse. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
per east718. Tabbed browsers really aren't the cutting edge technology they used to be. To oppose because an editor is too fast is like blocking for editing too much.
'''Support''': have frequently come across this editor, whose contributions always strike me as measured and constructive. Have no worries he would misuse the tools.
<font color="blue">
'''Support''' A good contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support. I'm going to take the time to write a damn good rationale, so please read it.''' Firstly, the speed of his AfD contributions is not in itself a reason to oppose. I agree that poorly-thought-out AfD comments just to increase editcount would be a reason to oppose; however, his AfD comments are generally well-reasoned and intelligent and demonstrate a good knowledge of policy, cf [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teen_pornography_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=182009052] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bravery%27s_source&diff=prev&oldid=181844409] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kulaxingu_Kambamjiji&diff=prev&oldid=181844161]. He has explained that the short time interval between posts is because he uses tabbed browsing, and I see no reason to doubt this. Secondly, the short time interval between RfAs is not a reason to oppose. The last RfA failed without very many good reasons; the only legitimate issue raised by any of the opposers was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scottandrewhutchins/Userboxes/user_Body_Modification_No&diff=prev&oldid=170232683 this diff] cited by Qst, in which he wrongly attempted to apply T1 to a userspace template (something I warned against in an MfD just before commenting here, incidentally), but for me, one mistake a couple of months ago isn't a deal-breaker. Thirdly, the essays he wrote (some considerable time ago, incidentally) were not in any way problematic. They were all intelligent and well-reasoned. It is ''not'' necessary to agree with Wikipedia's policies, even its core policies, to become an administrator. What ''is'' necessary in an administrator is a willingness to follow policy and community consensus in the exercise of sysop powers, even when it conflicts with his/her own views - and I see no reason to doubt that HSR would be capable of doing this. I note, further, that he has recanted some of the views in his earlier essays. I have some sympathy with Malleus Fatuorum's comment that being bullied into changing one's views shows weakness of character or immaturity, as people should stick to their honest beliefs; however, I don't believe that this is the case here. Rather, I think that HisSpaceResearch has, like all of us, changed his mind and developed a more sophisticated understanding of Wikipedia over time, and accordingly his views on some issues have changed. That is perfectly legitimate, and is not a reason to oppose. I think that some of the opposers need to seriously reconsider their reasoning here - do we really want to rob Wikipedia of a good administrator, just because he failed to jump through the arbitrary hoop of leaving enough time between RfAs? Yes, I understand the common argument that it takes at least a couple of months to address the concerns from the last RfA, but as I've said already, there ''were'' no major concerns that the candidate could address, other than one incorrect speedy tagging from early November. Most of the opposes in the first RfA were based on the premise that a candidate who does not agree with Wikipedia's consensus groupthink on every major issue is not suitable to be an administrator, and that is fundamentally untrue and wrong (not to mention dangerous, as it risks stifling diversity of opinion).
'''Support'''. I have interacted frequently with this user, and found marked improvement.  Like all of us, his standards at [[WP:AFD]] have evolved, so we find ourselves agreeing more per [[WP:CCC]]. This user is often [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and [[WP:IAR|sometimes bends the rules]], but [[WP:NAM|never gets angry]], so I can trust the user with the mop. I supported this user's first RfA, and do so again.
'''Support''' This user has show remarkable improvement since his last RfA and excellent contributions to the quality of articles. With four years of experience I hope to see him use the tools well. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' good work with AfDs, I think you would make a very good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I had a look at some of the delated essays and I can't see what the fuss is about.  I think it is a very natural process to question the structure of an organisation when your new, I'd far rather that than instant acceptance of the status quo. And yes I think its natural to want to remove some of your early (adolescent-stage) writings. The real question is can he use a mop and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise. --
'''Support''' - I see not a single concern that this user is going to abuse a few buttons. It's simply [[Utilitarianism]], and we are better off with this user as an admin.
'''Support''' - and here's to tabbed browsing. I've seen him at work - will make a fine WikiJanitor ;) --
'''Support''' Plenty of experience which is surely an important factor,
'''Support''' I read Walton's missive and I think he makes some damn good points.
'''Support''' - I believe I can trust user.
'''Strong support''' - per [[User:Walton One]].
'''Support''' - convinced by the weakness of the opposes.  I view HisSpaceResearch's eagerness/enthusiasm as a positive.  '''''
'''Support''' Wanted to do this ages ago, so Phoenix Wiki won't be getting a support from me :) (only kidding) // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Strong Support'''.  He is an amazing user and has some very good edits.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' The mop isn't that big of a deal. He's minimally qualified. --'''
'''Support''' We seem to have an excellent 'pedia builder who dared -- the madness! -- to think out loud about some of Wikipedia's dogmas.  He's otherwise fully qualified for adminship thus the only real question is this: will he use the admin tools to somehow remake the Wiki in his image?  Of course not.  And '''Wikipedia is not a cult'''.  <small>(Maybe I'm wrong, I guess [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a cult|it]] ''is'' a redlink...)</small>  The low quality of the oppose<s>r</s>s leaves me with no concern. --
'''Support''' Great user!
'''Support''' per Walton. It's okay to have opinions, and it's okay not to have them anymore.
'''Support'''. --'''''
'''Support''' another one I see at AfD all the time. Good solid contributor. I trust him to take the mop.
'''Support''' [[User:HisSpaceResearch]] has given satisfactory answers to all questions and accusations against him. I fail to see a significant reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support''' I have no problems with this user getting the tools.
'''Support'''. Seems level-headed, open-minded, and unlikely to abuse the tools. Six oppose votes in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch|his previous RfA]] based (at least partly) on his disagreement with "[[WP:INTRO|anyone can edit]]"? Since when did independent thought become something to be scared of? ''--
'''Support''' I believe that if errors are made apparent then an editor or admin can amend their behaviour in an instant, and it is against [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] to propose that some arbitrary period is needed.  An RfA itself is a learning process and I am sure that you will take all the criticism seriously, being well aware that your every admin action is available for review. --
FWIW, support per Walton. '''
'''Support'''. The candidate's answers to the questions from myself and others are quite good, but Walton One sold me - I find his rationale to be persuasive. The candidate does not have to agree with policy, so long as he follows it in any admin actions he performs. I also see much improvement overall, even since the last (too recent, I agree) RfA, and I hope to see further improvement as time passes. An excellent candidate who has addressed all of my concerns. Best,
'''Support''' per Walton One as well.
'''Support''' - not knowing this RfA existed, I was going just now to check any old RfAs before nominating him. '''
This is only 6 weeks since the last request failed abysmally. This hasn't a hope of passing - many editors will usually expect a failed candidate to wait ''at least'' 3 months before reapplying. I'm also not seeing in the commentry any real evidence that the candidate has learned from the issues brought up last time. Sorry, but this is too soon even though my own experience of the candidate has been positive. I strongly recommend you withdraw this now so as not to prejudice your next application any more that you have already.
'''Weak Oppose''' It's no one thing it's a combination of minor things really. Firstly I agree that 6/7 weeks is a bit close between RfA's allthough this isn't a hard and fast rule, and with respect to Spartaz I can't really see it stacking up as the only reason to oppose. Secondly a review of your contributions shows periods where you are commenting on multiple [[WP:AFD]]'s in a very close period of time like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20071230063716&limit=500&target=HisSpaceResearch here] where you commented on 7 in 11 minutes, between 12:05 and 12:16, and 7 in 18 minutes between 04:13 to 04:31. and 12 in 25 minutes, between 14:49 and 15:14. Now I appreciate you may have reviewed them and then serial commented, but it just all looks like a bit of a rush to bang in as my edits to AfD as possible. And this trend seems to have been an ongoing one. <s>Thirdly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Going_Blank_Again&action=history here] you made 18 edits to one article in an hour and six minutes - that just seems, well, odd.</s> Fourthly, your talk page did not make the happiest reading, with a caution that your Twinkle tool had not created an AfD correctly and a reminder to sign your posts. I'm sorry, as there's also a '''lot''' to like here, and that's why my oppose is weak. I'm just worried that, per your answers, you want the delete button badly and I see an editor who would delete first and repent later - causing more headache for other admins and not less. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose.''' This is premature given how recently the previous RfA failed.
'''Oppose'''. Making several 'voting' so-to-speak edits to AfD discussions a minute ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080103052341&limit=100&target=HisSpaceResearch here]), only just over a month since the last RfA. I cannot lay my trust in this user at the current time, especially not with the delete button. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm sorry, but a few things are just resting uneasy with me, and for that reason I can't support. For a start, my personal opinion is that there hasn't been enough time since the last RfA (yes, I know that this is an arbitrary thing, yes, I realise that a tonne of people will disagree with me as they've done to those above, but it's my opinion). Someone stated above that a person can 'change' overnight. True, to an extent, but they certainly cannot proove that they have changed in an equally short space of time, though having said that HSR does show positive signs. ''However'', regardless of comments in the discussion above, I get the feeling that the essays were indeed just deleted to hide those views, rather than the views changing. I opposed his last RfA on the basis of his views, and so my view hasn't changed now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHisSpaceResearch&diff=170984449&oldid=170981828 This] diff from his talk page worries me, particularly the line "I think I might request deletion of all of my Wikipedia essays and not have views against anonymous editing.", suggesting that his behaviour has been modified to suite a future RfA. As previously mentioned, the rest of his talk page is somewhat worrying, with signature warnings and suchlike moderatley recently. A good user, contributor, and asset to Wikipedia? Hell yes. Suitable for adminship? In my opinion, no, at least not yet. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' and suggest candidate withdraws. Valid points have made above re the time necessary to show that he's walking the walk rather than just talking the talk. More time, please. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose''' I don't believe the issue(s) from the previous RFA have been addressed.
No-where near enough time to satisfy the opposers in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch]], myself included, that this user has changed "for good", especially when some of the opposes were based on philosophy which could easily be masked for a short period. '''
'''Oppose'''. Anyone without the strength of character to stand by what they believed to be true only, what was it two months ago, just to become an admin is not mature enough to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''' I'm somewhat inclined towards voting neutral, especially as there isn't any diff evidence provided  in the opposition arguments here. But honestly I must say that there is something distinctly unsettling about this candidate. I don't think that the issues brought up at the last RFA have been settled, and someone without the patience to wait more than a couple months to reapply for the tools doesn't inspire me. I suggest waiting for the dust to settle over your last RFAs before trying once again.
'''Oppose''' - per Malleus Fatuorum. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Oppose''' regretfully.  I think he needs time to establish a consistent set of standards and demonstrated beliefs.  The improvements made right after issues are pointed out are easier than maintaining those improvements over the long haul.  Hence the recommendation for 3 months minimum between RFA's.  <i>
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. Not ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose''' pattern of deletion votes that seem to be based on a desire to vote as quickly as possible without apparent serious attention to the merits of each particular article raises strong questions in my mind about the individual as an editor. Given this pattern of AfD participation, there is no evidence that admin responsibilities will be taken with the proper focus and consideration. The fact that there has been so little that has changed since the previous RfA only adds to my concerns.
'''Oppose.''' The impression I get from the answer to question 8 is that when the candidate encounters someone the candidate strongly disagrees with, the candidate will label the user "disruptive" and an "extreme POV pusher", revert the user's edits, immediately warn the user, and then try to get the user blocked if the user continues to edit.  An admin should have a much better ability than that to get along with users and form consensus rather than blocking.  --
Per above, especially Pedro. Please allow more time between RfAs as the community can not adequately judge your improvements and see that issues have been dealt with in the last RfA. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I'm extremely disturbed by the suggestion made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_25#This_may_sound_ridiculous.2C_but... here] and the comment 2 sections below. I'm afraid he might be a little to trigger happy with the delete button. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' --- stated that mistakes from prior RfA were about mishandling RfA, not about the validity of other editors concerns. Appears to have rewritten history about his take on anonymous editing. Mr. Z-Man's edit, just weeks old, is damning. This user is probably an awesome WP contributor, but currently seems to be ill-suited for adminship.
'''Oppose''' sorry, just not comfortable at this time. Too many people are uneasy.--
Strong oppose. I do not, and cannot trust HisSpaceResearch with such administrative tools.
I don't feel as if I can trust this user.
Each case must be evaluated individually.  I think this one needs more time.  Regards,
'''Neutral''', unfortunately. You have recently taken down certain, controversial statements of opinion from your userpage, directly in accordance with concerns raised in your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch|previous RfA request]]. The connotations of that are that you are simply twisting your contributions in order to appear "the perfect candidate" pre-your second attempt, and that's something that causes my confidence in you to slump to such levels that I cannot support your request. Under normal circumstances, I do not oppose RfAs unless granting the tools will actively cause damage to the encyclopedia; nor, however, can I express my confidence in your request. What am I saying here? Be yourself. Who you are may not be to ''everybody's'' liking, but trust me: the people that oppose because your opinions are not entirely conforming to the "correct" viewpoint are not the people to please.
'''Neutral''' Because it's too hard to decide between support and oppose.
'''Neutral'''. I considered this for awhile and eventually ended up here. I do feel that this user would do significant work at AfD but I can not get past both the notions about the user brought up at the last RfA and the points brought up by Pedro. Best wishes, <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Hmm.... —
'''Neutral''', while the editor is definitely on the right track, I think that they need to work on maintaining the high quality of their edits over a long period of time.  I think if they can do that, then they will be an excellent admin and they'll have my enthusiastic support.
'''Neutral''' Good user, but some concerns. Can't decide whether to support or oppose.
'''Neutral'''; I ''do'' feel it is too early since your last failed RfA, and I see what seems to be a little ''too much'' eagerness in your actions that seem contrived to make you ''look'' better for an RfA... as opposed to simply contributing as best as you can.  I cannot support with those concerns.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''.  I find the answer to question 4 satisfactory, and the answer to question 5 superficial, not thoughtful.  --
With barely over 100 edits, may I suggest that you spend a little more time around wikipedia before trying again? --
'''Oppose'''- As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, you just don't have enough edits to your name that I can be sure you understand the policies well enough. By all means try again later.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Not enough experience. Regarding your answer to question 1, you don't have to be an administrator to remove vandalism, help new users and keep Wikipedia helpful. All that can be done as a non-admin. Keep up the good work though, and try using [[WP:EDITSUMMARY|edit summaries]] more. &ndash;
'''Oppose and speedy''' per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but with only 7 edits, you won't have the experience necessary to be an admin. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Oppose''' - and support speedy closing. Generally 5,000 edits are prefered, not 7.
'''Oppose''' - recommend candidate withdrawl. <strong>
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry to have to oppose at this time, you're well-intentioned and on the right track. However, you lack experience as of yet. You've only been editing for one month which isn't long enough to quite learn the ropes yet. You want to work in deletion, but I don't see much evidence of working with speedy deletions or much with [[WP:XFD|articles for deletion]]. Also, please use edit summaries more often, they are very helpful in determing what an editor is doing and/or why they are doing it. Your work with articles is great, but I can't support until you have some more experience working in the "background".
'''Oppose''' not a good idea to accuse editors of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=233634114 plain stupidity], given that you consider criticism of Wikipedia to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=233042903 hurtful and insulting]
'''Strong Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]--

Still green and has a long journey waiting in exploring the internal workings of the encyclopedia. Please do not be discouraged, but work towards learning the ropes here. -
'''Sorry''' I suggest withdrawing and gaining more experience before applying again ——
'''Neutral''' Recommend withdrawal/closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  This will not pass.
'''Oppose'''. I think you have made a fine start, but I think you need a more balanced approach to WP editing than you have shown to date. In particular, I'd like to see at least some time spent on admin-related stuff - AfD, image tagging, AN/I, etc. There's just not enough here to allow a determination of how you will behave under pressure. Also, I hate to say it but edit summaries are abysmal. You really need to start using them and understand why they are important to admins. I wish you luck and look forward to supporting you when you have addressed these concerns.
'''Oppose''' - comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boston_Red_Sox/Newsletter/12-30-07/Look_back&diff=prev&oldid=180906508#Eric_Gagne this about Eric Gagne] not just on a talk page but on something that purports to be an official part of a project are horrific. Having an opinion about a rival player ... whatever ... expressing it on a user talk page ... whatever ... but this is a project newsletter.  I'm also concerned about your user page being basically a sports blog and a total lack of mainspace edits [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=HPJoker&site=en.wikipedia.org]. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:B|B]]'s link. Also, looking at [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=HPJoker&site=en.wikipedia.org this], I think you should use edit summaries more often as well as editing the mainspace more. <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Oppose''' Lack of a firm grasp of what is needed for admin mop.
'''Oppose'''  Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Socby19&diff=prev&oldid=172545259] calling out another user, really aren't things I like to see.  And the behavior described in [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HPJoker]] really makes me question things, but I'll admit people can grow and change.  I'd really like to see involvement (not a FA/GA thing, but more contributions) in a content space (Article, Image, Category, Template, Help).  Also, any users can revert vandalism or edit baseball articles, so I'm a little concerned that you might not understand what things an admin does and doesn't do.  From your edit history, a great use of Edit Summaries would be a good thing.  And I understand your limited as a non-admin to doing things that an admin does (protecting, blocking, deleting, etc), but you really should contribute something (a report, a comment, etc) to [[WP:XFD]], the [[Template:Editabuselinks|noticeboards]], or [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]/[[WP:Helpdesk]].  You might look into [[WP:ADMINCOACH]]ing to find someone who can help you round out your experience set. '''
BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boston_Red_Sox/Newsletter/12-30-07/Look_back&diff=prev&oldid=180906508#Eric_Gagne]
The link provided by B is concerning, these plus the other characteristics you have don't reflect what is needed in an administrator, mainly discretion.
'''Oppose''' [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=HPJoker&site=en.wikipedia.org 274] mainspace edits are not enough, you do not use the edit summary, 0 reports to AIV. Sorry, you do not have enough experience. :( —
'''Oppose''' We need to see a significant involvement in admin-related articles; [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AN/I]], [[WP:AfD]] and so forth. This is the only way in which the community can judge your potential skill-level if granted the tools. You also must form the habit of using edit summaries, which you do very infrequently. (You can set your preferences to remind you to do so.) For the moment I suggest you withdraw this application and re-submit in two to three months time.--<font color="Red">
You have a total lack of experience in admin areas, have left immature comments fairly recently, and in general you do not have an incredible amount of experience. Please improve, and try again later.--
'''Oppose''' Not much experience anywhere and poor usage of edit summaries. I suggest a few more months of experience before attempting to help out as an admin.
'''Support'''. Not quite ready for the tools just yet, but I like the answer to my question.
Certainly isn't packing blanquillos.
[[WP:ADMINCOACH|Admin Coaching]]
To avoid piling on. Any 'crats up for [[WP:SNOW]]?
'''Technical Oppose''' - Only the 90 or edits made from the registered account can be examined, these do not indicate the kind of experience required to convince me that the user will not misuse the tools. Still good luck with this RfA and future editing.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but without some sort of verification, there is no way for anyone to judge your anonymous IP edits, thus we can only judge you by your account edits, which only number 94 as of this post, which is nowhere close to the amount of experience needed for the community to judge your experience.  Also, the many malformed requests that you had over the last hour shows that you have not fully grasped the way things work here and wiki syntax.  Recommend close per [[WP:SNOW]].  Good luck though.<br/>
'''Oppose''' Judging from the answers you have provided to the questions, I think that you definitely need some more time learning about adminstrator functions. "Blocking silly users" alone is cause for me to be more than a little concerned. Being "silly" is not a blockable offense by itself. Also... I suggest you follow and perhaps participate in some RfA's to learn more about how the process works.
'''Oppose''' per above. well stated concerns. Please [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards]] for an idea of what I look for in an admin candidate. Good luck for the future. I look forward to your next attempt 3 months & 3,000 edits from now. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''You haven't been here long enough to have enough experience and knowledge of policy to use the tools.
'''Oppose''' As put above.  Experience is a major negative factor.
'''Oppose''' Q7.
'''Oppose''' Although he seems willing, he needs much more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Thank you for helping out at Wikipedia. I'd suggest that you gain some additional experience before considering sysoping. Cheers,
'''oppose''' <s>I do not trust admin tools to users who have [[autism]] as they may be unstable.</s> Lack of experience as shown by his answers (eg. "blocking silly users", calling others "ignorant")
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience and better answers to questions. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Not good answers to questions. <strong>
'''Oppose''' I would like to support, especially considering the answers might only be short and non-descriptive only because of the user's autism. However, lack of experience moves me to oppose. Unless I am provided with the ip addresses that were used to edit since March 2006, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Per Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q9. Sorry, but the answers to those questions show that you are very unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. However, I like the answer to Q6 as well. '''''
'''Neutral'''. I applaud the candidate's effort to support the project, and look forward to seeing them gain more experience as an editor.
'''Neutral'''.  Get more experience with policy, and maybe an admin coach.  '''
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience. Also, wikipedia isn't about accumulating barnstars or [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis]].
'''Oppose''' Experience + answers to questions... -
'''Strong Oppose''' per response to Wisdow89 above. An excellent example of why this user is not suited to adminship at this time. I would strongly urge the candidate to withdraw their RfA at this time.
'''Oppose''' User should gain some more experience on Wikipedia before reapplying again. Keep up the good work!
<b>Moral Support</b>  I did this when I wasn't fully experienced too, but you got to have some more experience. And remember, it is [[Wikipedia:NBD|not that big of a deal]]. Try again in a couple months.   <font size="+1"><font face="Vivaldi"><font color="red">'''''
'''Oppose''' not enough experience yet.  User needs to take time to mature and learn the policies of Wikipedia.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Night_of_the_Yankee_Dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=251206086 This] speedy deletion tag is a prime example,
'''Oppose'''. Enthusiastic, but unfortunately Iamawesome800 does not have enough experience to demonstrate a good understanding of application of policy/guidelines or collaboration/interactions with other users.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, particularly in policy areas, sorry. But you're on the right track; keep contributing, start testing the waters in projectspace, and come back in six months. //
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Consider helping around at "admin-ish" areas ([[wp:xfd|XfD]], [[wp:rfa|RfA]], etc.), then get a good rep on the [[wp:rd|RefDesk]] (that's never a bad thing...), then perhaps you can try again with more success. <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawyer]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Flaming|c]]</sup><small>[[User:CheeseDreams|never]][[User:-Ril-|for]]
'''Oppose'''/notnow because overall answers to questions confirms general inexperience.  In particular:  Answer to question 5 was incomplete, answer to question 4 did not discuss possible alternatives to page protection, including using the article talk pages to announce a reminder after the 1st or 2nd such IP-posting that the signing should not be included in the article until it's official. Again, semi-protection may be warranted, but the candidate's lack of depth of understanding the options confirms he needs some time to grow.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience evident on user's talk page and in answers in this RFA.
'''Oppose''' Not enough enough experience yet; did not delete acceptance line. Don't worry, none of the opposes are personal.--
[[WP:NOTNOW]]...
'''Neutral''' [[User_talk:Iamawesome800#Your_RFA|see my comment here]]
'''Strong Support'''.  I looked through this user's contributions, didn't see any red flags and thought "[[WP:WTHN]]".  The attitude portrayed in this user's nomination statement is refreshing, because '''''he honestly wants to have adminship to help Wikipedia'''''.  Because of this, I'm sure that this user will do great with the mop. <small>Kurt should take a look before opposing for power-hunger for sure.</small> <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''', I can't see anything particularly worrying here.  There might be horrid things in the deleted contribs as stated in the oppose section, but as I cannot actually see them for myself I can't really hold that against this user.
'''Support''' per reasonable arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikitruth (5th nomination)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion gestapo]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Since there seems to be a pile-on oppose at this RfA right now, I think I'll go against the crowd and support this contributor, for a couple of good reasons. Firstly, I don't feel the same specific concerns that the other opposers feel - For one thing, the deletion summaries do not significantly concern me, as the articles themselves were subsequently deleted, and I think the tagging-summary hardly shows anything at all, there have been worse. Secondly, Google verification is a widely-used method, so widely used in fact that even a few current admins do it (though I can't give specific examples and I admit it shows a very slight lack of understanding of the policy on [[WP:NOTABLE|notability]]. Also, I don't believe that edits to Wikipedia talk namespace are reflective of interest in policy, but that's just my personal opinion and open to scrutiny. After giving it some thought, I decided to support, as I see a good-faith contributor here to assist the project in any way he can.
'''Weak Support''' per weakly answering my question.
<s>Provisional</s> '''Strong oppose''' although I may change my mind after a more thorough look through your contribs. A look through your deleted contribs shows (aside from [[WP:CSD#G7|G7]]s) virtually no articles correctly tagged for deletion (by any process), two articles correctly tagged as {{tl|prod}} in your entire time on Wikipedia, and a worrying tendency to tag articles for deletion with no edit summary ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Effex&timestamp=20080513003216&diff=prev 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Robert_Bosch_Power_Tools_Sdn_Bhd&timestamp=20080510050028&diff=prev 2] in the last week alone, for example). You also appear to think "Hoax" is a speedy criteria ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Nargic&timestamp=20080323191709&diff=prev 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G.i.b&diff=prev&oldid=212502681 2]), and seem to rely exclusively on the Google test to determine notability ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kitsap_regional_library&diff=prev&oldid=212967518 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theresa_Vucko&diff=prev&oldid=212968919 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adriano_Santos&diff=prev&oldid=212955865 3] ''today alone''). This wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker; what ''is'' a deal-breaker for me is that you have a grand total of 20 Wikipedia talk edits, which gives me a very strong feeling that you have no interest in Wikipedia policy whatsoever. If you can provide a very good rebuttal — or if I find something fantastic in your article-space contributions — I'll change my mind, but at the moment, no.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Strong Oppose''' [[User_talk:Iridescent|Iridescent]] nailed it... I could give more reasons, but wow Iridescent is completely correct.  You are not ready.
'''Oppose''' at this stage though I may be persuaded otherwise. My concerns are similar to those above by Iridescent. But in addition, I also find your own statement that you have no "best contributions" slightly sad. Perhaps you are just being modest, but an admin should understand article building and dealing with article editors, this doesn't seem to be something you've much experience at. Anyone deleting material should understand the perspective of someone creating it. I'm also discomforted by the opening section of your statement where you talk about why you think you need to be an admin, quote "I have decided that I could benefit from Administrator tools". Admin tools aren't for your benefit, you should be here to serve the rest of the community. I'll look back and see if other points are made to change my mind as I prefer to support people.
'''Oppose'''. As Iridescent correct summarized, the candidate seems to be lacking in basic knowledge of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. While I may agree that hoax pages should be an available speedy criteria, they are not and one can not decide to use it as such anyway. I'd also like to see more participation in the various areas of interest, including participating in the relevant discussion areas and being more active in the Wikipedia namespace in general. Candidate's edit history shows very little interaction with other editors in the user space and the article talk spaces. Combined with his own self-effacing statements, I'm concerned he doesn't have the necessary confidence and "chutzpa" to be an administrator. An admin can't really be a wallflower or so willing to just back down from any disagreement without a fuss. I'd recommend the candidate work on getting more confidence in his work, perhaps by diversifying more and taking steps to correct his own self-perceived weaknesses, and coming out of his shell, so to speak, to get more active and interactive with other editors. That said, it seems like the candidate is also a bit confrontational and can be badgery when he wants to, such as here and in AfDs, which is not a good thing either. Balance both. An admin should have patience, confidence without arrogance, an even temper, an ability to admit he is wrong, and, like all editors, a ability to accept constructive criticism with grace. Also, while the candidate has been a user since 2006, he has only really been active since May of last year, effectively having just around one year experience. I think he is on the right track, but has a ways to go yet. Maybe retry the failed editor review, or look into admin coaching.
'''Oppose''' per iridescent's points above. Also, the way I've seen you act at RfA's, and the badgering that you're giving the opposes here, gives me the impression that you're somewhat "mean" (or maybe just really assertive).--
'''Strong oppose''' - I agree with Iridescent and KojiDude. I simply do not trust you enough to give you support. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - Most unfortunate because I have an aversion for pile on opposes per a few users/their provided diffs, but the arguments brought forth by the aforementioned are just too worrying for me to feel comfortable that you would be a net positive to the project with administrator tools. The ghits don't bother me all that much, as the internet is excellent for determining notability, but the way you go about it, just counting is simply..well...wrong. Since you indicate you wish to work in deletion, this is eyebrow raising. Anyway, I'm not saying adminship is hopeless, but, at this time I can't extend my support to you.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. As a CSD patroller, people tagging speedies with entirely non-speedy reasons is something that I feel is particuarly irritating. I'm sure you'll make a good admin at some point, but not right now.
'''Oppose''' Good vandal fighter, but the above comments say a lot. Come back in about 6 months and improve the points mentioned above, and I would gladly support you.
'''Oppose:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FIcewedge&diff=213001818&oldid=213000104 G7...??] <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' due to spamming as shown by Iridescent.
'''Oppose''' - for all Iridescent as said.  Ironic that '''Ice'''wedge might be seeing some [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]].--
'''Oppose'''  Per the answer to Q4. <font face="Arial Black">
'''Neutral'''.  Good AFD participation and judgment, but I would have to be convinced about ability to be NPOV since the nominee runs a wiki dedicated mainly to disrupting/sabotaging Conservapedia and stalking Conservapedia users.  By the way, if hoaxes aren't speedy deletion criteria they should be.
'''Neutral''' Great vandal fighter, but I'm concerned with the things [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] brought up. <strong>
'''Neutral''' -- I may change my mind but for the moment it will have to be a neutral. I really like your anti-vandalism work but the points raised by  iridescent are worrying. --
<s>Provisional</s> '''Oppose'''. On randomly clicking through your recent contribs, the second one I came across was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Miserlou&diff=prev&oldid=212622021 this]. Unless I find something fantastic in your history, that's already a dealbreaker. Sorry...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' not knowing enough about the Wikipedia namespace is enough for me have to Oppose at this time. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry not enough edits, you spend months away at a time inwhich time things change. You need to have a solid period of editing before i would be willing to support. Youve been editing well for 2 months now, come back in two or three months and i will likely support.
'''Oppose''' - Lackluster mainspace and project space work. But you're on the right track, that's for sure.
'''Oppose''' around 1500 total edits, 2 months active edit history (with a long gap and 2 months of history before that.)  Lack of diverse edits and <s>the attitude that I see above</s> convince me that this is a  SNOW possibility.
Sorry, but you've only actually been actively editing for a couple of months, and then another quick little burst back in October; as frequently as policies and guidelines change, I'm not entirely confident that you'd be upholding ''recent'' rules and regulations as an admin. [[User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Requirements|Personally]], I prefer to see a lot more activity from prospective admins. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''': With only 2 months and over 1500 edits I will have oppose. I don't think you have been around long enough to prove that you are familiar with the policies and that you know how Wikipedia works. Also it'd be nice to see some more article building. Wait a couple months without a break and I'm sure you can have a successful RfA if you keep up the good work, but right now due to the lack of experience I cannot support. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' User states,''"Being an admin would increase my activity on Wikipedia."''  A users activity should not be based because they are an admin or an established user.
'''Oppose''' User calls groups of policies, policies. This is an important detail for admins to understand.
'''Not ready yet.''' Would like to see greater, more frequent activity. I saw deleted articles that had been tagged and AIV reports that resulted in blocks, so you are going in the right direction. I would like to see more article building as well. The problem with long absences is that interpretation of policy changes over time, and you might make a mistake based on the way things were done in the past. Best of luck for the future and happy editing.
'''Support''' My interactions with iMatthew have been positive and good. Clearly a trustworthy editor, with a couple pieces of featured content as a bonus. I have full confidence iMatthew will make a terrific admin. &ndash;
'''Support'''. I know him to be civil and trustworthy. Does good mainspace work. Seems knowledgeable in the areas in which he desires to work. I believe he'll do fine as an administrator.
'''Support''' per nom and experience. '''''
'''Support''' - I don't think I've ever talked to him, but he seems to know what he is doing. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Yes, please. Erik the <font color="red">
'''iSupport''' - iI iSupport iMatthew iFor iAdmin. i
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' per nom and Q1.
'''Support''' — We need more content-writing admins. This support pends no serious opposes in future. —'''
Gadji beri bimba clandridi / Lauli lonni cadori gadjam / A bim beri... – oh, this is iMatthew, not [[I Zimbra]]?  Sorry, wrong queue.  But while I am here, '''Support''', of course, for a worthy candidate (even if he's not part of Talking Heads).
Great editor. You don't need luck, you have perfect timing. &mdash;'''

'''Support''' - no problems. Btw I love your userpage ——
'''Support''' - for your hard work on bringing multiple articles to GA and FA status. Aesthetically pleasing user page too :) --'''
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''' Why not, i've seen this editor around, and think he would do a great job with the mop!! Good luck!!
'''Support'''—Looks good. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
Sure. :)
'''Yes''' – a good, reasonable user that will be a net positive. No reason to consider not supporting here; I've looked through his conversations with others and he appears to maintain good civility. An experienced user, and most of all, I trust that he'd make decent decisions. :-) Cheers,
'''Support''' - Very detailed questions, don't see any problems here. Let him have the tools.
'''Support''' this is the user that inspired me to stop being so [[WP:FORUM]] <font face= xirod>
<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Support.''' The answer to my question shows the user has a good understanding of the nature of adminship.
'''Support''' I've had good interactions with iMatthew, and he isn't afraid to ask questions when unsure of something, which is good.
'''Support''' per excellent article work, good experience and positive attitude. --
'''Support''' - good contributions, will use the tools well. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Adminship is not a big deal.  I've had nothing but positive interactions with this user.  I'm sure he will be a net positive to the community.
'''Support''' trustfully user ''
'''Support''' Would use the tools wisely --
'''Support''' Looks good, no reason to suspect they will abuse the mop, uses talk pages and edit summaries, and good interaction a month or so back.
'''Support''' Definally a trustful user. Will use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''.  I trust the nominator, and I've seen IMatthew around.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' despite your hideous signature.
'''Support''' Thought you were an admin already... &mdash;[[User:La Pianista|<font face="Century Gothic" color="darkblue">'''La'''</font> <font face="Century Gothic" color="dodgerblue">'''Pianista'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:La Pianista|<font color="696969">'''T'''</font>]]•[[Special:Contributions/La Pianista|<font color="696969">'''C'''</font>]]•
'''Support''' Me too. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''' &ndash; He may not be [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Olfactory]], but as far as I'm concerned, this candidate smells like he'd make a fine admin. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FStwalkerster_2&diff=200635861&oldid=200634043 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FStwalkerster_2&diff=200640121&oldid=200639419 here] for the original joke. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|20px]]) —
'''iSup--''' oh, it's been done..
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Weak support'''. I'd like to see more evidence of speedy tagging but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
'''Support'''. I'm satisfied the candidate is aware that unverifiable content cannot be added to articles even where consensus exists, and similarly, that verifiable content cannot be added to some articles where no consensus exists for its inclusion.
'''Support''' My interactions with iMatthew have been positive and good. We are good friends and I support Matt all the way, plus he is my co-adopter. I'm sure he will be a net positive to the community.<span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Support''' Experienced + long history of dedication + answer to Q5. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''iSupport''' &ndash; I've known iMatthew for a while now, and have had nothing but good interactions with him. Very civil, helpful, acts like an administrator already, and giving him the tools would only benefit Wikipedia and our community. If he wants to help the community of the extra assistance with the tools, and if he knows how and when to properly use them (which he has proven to me), then I have no problem with Matthew becoming an administrator. Respectively yours,
'''Support''' - In regards to the opposes due to his answer to question 5, I think that iMatt simply worded what he was trying to say incorrectly. I edited with him for months, and I've seen him defend policy in the face of local consensus, saying bluntly that policy trumps consensus due to policies actually being large consensuses. He understands what a policy is, and that local consensus has no bearing on whether or not it should be enforced. Anyways, I support sysopping iMatt because, to a large degree, he has already filled the role for some time. He's deserved the mop far longer than he realizes. His humility is what attracted me to him when he arrived on Wikipedia, and I watched him develop into a fantastic editor more quickly than almost any other editor who has arrived during my Wiki career. iMatthew will make a fantastic administrator; he will not only fill his role well, but bring honor to the title. Between his humility, knowledge, willingness to question himself, and deep-seated respect for Wikipedia's policies and community, he is everything that an administrator should be. No, wait, he is everything that an administrator should aspire to be. '''<span style="border: 3px #082567 solid;background:#50C878;font-family: Serif">
'''Support''' a civil, pleasant and committed editor.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools.  And the nominator's judgement is usually fairly sound on these things =).
'''Support''' The interactions I've had with Matthew in the past have been very positive. Matthew will make an excellent admin. His dedication and hard work on professional wrestling related articles, combined with the fact that he seems to be a good guy, leaves me feeling confident that he can do the job. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' The original answer to Q5 was poor, but don't see any other problems (and other answers were fine - particularly impressed with answer to Q13). The support of those who have worked with him persuades me that this was just a blip and he is aware of the importance of verifiability. I can't see him misusing the tools.
'''Support''' I like what I see. As for the Q5 issue, he quickly learned from it and that's what's important.
'''Support''' Good user, more or less trustworthy.--
'''Support''' I see no reason for concern. Solid content builder, solid grasp of policy and other mechanisms that allow the project to grow.
'''Support''' Will do good. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' - Matthew is a dedicated user who has made few mistakes. I'm confident he would do well with the tools. '''
'''Weak support'''. I don't like that fact that you changed your answer to question five, but overall, seems like iMatthew will benefit with the tools.
'''Support''' In my experiences with IMatthew, I have found him to be a helpful user. '''
'''Support''' Partly per wholly positive previous interaction. OK, he cocked up a rather tricky question (Q5). He learnt from it and '''held his hands up'''. The ability to learn and be honest about a mistake is a key thing. We can undo errors. We can't enforce honesty or a learning mentality. For sure we don't need admins making endless errors but I feel IMatthew is very unlikely to provide additional workoad through mistakes and a lack of [[WP:CLUE]] and more likely to benefit WP with +sysop. A [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|Net Positive]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support'''. While the opposers' concerns below have more merit than do the opposes in many RfA's, I believe this candidate has a good level of experience and understanding of policy in the areas where he has indicated he intends primarily to use the tools. His answers suggest that he would ease relatively slowly into more complex areas as to which he has acknowledged his familiarity with policy is less complete. As with all new (and experienced) administrators, I would urge the candidate, if successful, to consult with colleagues rather than to act unilaterally in any situation where he is unsure of the correct way to handle the issue. If this RfA is unsuccessful, I urge the candidate to continue his work on Wikipedia and try here again in due course.
'''Support''' -  per past interactions, and per his willingness to admit he was wrong.
'''Support''' Very helpful user [[User:1362|<b style="color:#c50">13</b>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions. Tripped up on the trick questions. However iMatthew will use the tools sensibly.
'''Support''' My experiences with this editor have been positive and fairhanded. Additionally, I feel that NewYorkBrad's statement above reflexts the remainder of my opinion on this candidate. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' if the only reason to oppose is question #5.  I'm having a difficult time imagining this.  The edit is "reasonably trivial" yet it replaces some amount of text and adds a source?  This is ''not'' relatively trivial.  It's a bad question and I don't fault IMatthew at all for not coming up with a perfect answer that pleases everyone. --
'''Support''' I'm going to go out on a limb that if Matthew has an FA and the other article credits that he does, he will be able to assess such policies as verifiability and consensus. '''
'''Support'''. Swing and a miss on Q5; if he reacts to all mistakes in this manner, he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I've known iMatthew for ever now, he's allway's been one of my best friends on here and I can definatly say he will not abbuse the tools and will do a great job. To sum it all up IMatthew is a great user and will help Wikipedia in great way's. <font face=tahoma>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' from the evidence of the candidates contributions and this [[WP:RFA|RfA]] I do not think that they will abuse the tools and find it unlikely they will accidentally misuse them. I think the user has the relevant knowledge of [[WP:POLICY|policy]] and the demeanour that if the tools were ever misused once informed they would act in the way I would hope an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]] too act.
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me. i see no reason to oppose. - -
'''Strongly support''' very good editor, knows what to do and what not nto, and seems to know when a user is doing something right or wrong and will take action if necessary. <font face=system>[[User:The SRS|<font color=red>'''SAVIOR'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/The SRS|<font color=red>'''_'''</font>]][[User talk:The SRS|<font color=orange>'''SELF'''</font>]]
'''Support''' because an ability and willingness to think through a issue or problem in a process which moves towards a constructive outcome benefits everyone and ensures prospects for growth over time --
'''Support''' - Great editor, fully trust him.
'''Support''' - Looks fine to me.  Clearly meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] - [[:fantabulous]] user page, rollback rights, longtime editor, no concerns.
'''Reluctant oppose'''; I don't have any ''a priori'' objections to administrator that plan on using the tools rarely, but I admit I'm a little worried when you plan on using them in the areas where you edit; this is the place where you should ''not'' be using your tools because of your involvement.  Given that you have little experience in other areas, I'm not comfortable giving you the tools.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Opposed''' per handwaving answer to 5, which demonstrates a lack of policy knowledge, and for his off-base and contradictory comments at a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWereSpielChequers&diff=241195906&oldid=241195294 recent RfA]. Badgering RfA candidates for their humor is quite [[WP:BITE]]y. Do we really want someone who doesn't know enough about fundamental policies to answer a question that routinely gets asked in RfAs, someone who makes contradictory statements, and someone who attacks people for harmless humor to decide page protection? He stated that RFPP is his first choice for use of admin tools. As the recent Sarah Palin ArbCom case demonstrated, this is one of the most sensitive areas of adminship. Based on the applicant's previous actions, I cannot trust his judgment in such as sensitive area. Good article writing does not require adminship.
'''Opposed''' based on question 5 also. Local article consensus can not trump one of the pillars of wikipedia. I am also concerned about the contradictory statement given in the WSC RfA and wonder how that looks when he is explaining his decisions and policies to a newbie.
Core/foundation policies can't be overridden on any article by even the strongest consensus.
'''Q5''' <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Opposed''' due to question 5 answer.
I don't believe iMattthew is ready for adminship. Looking at his [[User:IMatthew/Admin coaching|admin coaching page]], I'm not exactly filled with confidence. There's a lot of general lack of knowledge shown in most of the page, such as not knowing AOR is not binding, not knowing vandalism removal is excepted from 3RR, not knowing why a wheel-war is bad, not knowing IPs cannot create new pages, not knowing userpages are almost always protected upon request, not understanding that dicussing with the owner of a vandalbot is not likely to be productive, not knowing bans only apply to en.wiki, switching the definition of the word neutral with its opposite (in this example, he also shows lack of thoroughness, saying he didn't even fully read the line he was being tested on), not knowing G4 doesn't apply to speedies, not knowing unverifiability is a reason for deletion. Granted, these answers are two to five months old, and he should probably be more knowledgeable by now. However, the page is so positively rife with examples of his lack of clue that I am very concerned. I also just get a general vibe of being too eager for adminship from the page. Looking further, I see he has both a signature shop and a guestbook page. While those aren't neccesarily bad things, they don't seem like particularly mature things to have. And finally, on question five. Consensus is always determined with respect to policy. Therefore, consensus on a local article cannot override verifiability. '''
Not something I want to do, but Q5 does raise a few concerns. I agree with Seresin on many points, and having looked at the admin page of iMatthew, I would expect a candidate to know that IP's cannot create pages and most of that stuff. Also, consensus on local articles almost certainly does not override Wikipedia-wide consensus, same with the MOS I guess - a particular project cannot have a MoS that is 100% against Wikipedia MoS. As a suggestion to the Candidate, I would suggest exploring new areas on Wiki, "Widening the Wings" I'd call it to gain more experience. I'm almost certain, should this fail, that you'll learn from past errors/mistakes and pass the next RFA with flying colours.
I also have the same concerns as those expressed above, and I think the only way to resolve that concern is by gaining more experience and trying again at another time.
<s>Audi</s> Q5.
'''Oppose''' per Q5 (even though the original remark is struck)--
'''Oppose''' per q5. It's not really the answer (any of them) that's bugging me. It is the way you answered. According to yourself, you thought of the answer, read an rfa opinion, and then decided to answer differently. Then, following negative responses here, you changed your answer. To me it seems that you, in both answers, just answered based on what you perceived as popular opinion. This of course is just my perception on things, and may not be the case. But at this time, I don't feel that I can trust you with the tools. '''''
'''Oppose''' per Rami R. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRyRy&diff=234059333&oldid=234059079 This comment] springs to mind, and could be applied here. I can't trust him to make (as he plans to in Q8) controversial blocks. An admin should not so impressionable, and should think for themselves.
'''Oppose''' per Coren and Rami R.  Neither would have driven an oppose alone, but together...  --''
'''Oppose''' per Coren and Rami R. I've known Matt along time and talk to him quite frequently via IM. However, as Rami R said, you seem to have answered question 5, looked at another RfA, and changed your answer based of others comments and what you read. Like Rami R said, this may not be the case, but that it what I perceive. Sorry, but that is just how I feel. --'''''
'''Oppose''' because of the candidate's answer to Q5. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding, not just a lack of knowledge on a technicality. Having changed the answer, the candidate seems surprised by Caspian Blue's oppose. He seems to feel that that as long as he got the answer right eventually  there should not be any concerns regarding his policy knowledge. However, with a mistake this fundamental, the candidate needs more time to understand and demonstrate that understanding.
'''Oppose''' per most of the comments above on Q5, particularly perhaps LAX's.  --
'''Weak Oppose''' - I went back and forth on this one, but I think you misinterpreted what I had said in my !vote on that RFA. I specifically said it depends on what and who the consensus is, in Q5 you were given a specific incident which should have been handled differently than you answered. I think likewise you might misinterpret policy wrongly, or consensus. Sorry but I have to oppose. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Weak oppose''' per Q5 (sorry) - being an admin isn't about going with the flow if it is against policy. There are other reasons why a minority source may be a problem. also noted and agree with seresin's issues. Maybe hanging out in an area where conflict resoloution is needed, like article merges or deletions is worthwhile. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' I actually do like some of what I see in the contributions, but some of the rest worries me.
'''Weak oppose''' due primarily to the Q5 concern.  An ability and willingness to consider new facts and opinions when taking a stance is a good trait, but the way it was handled here seems to be an overly eager desire to give the "right" answer and appease folks.  Sometimes admins are called upon to take actions that are not immediately "popular" and may indeed raise the ire of many involved editors, rather than appease a crowd.
'''Oppose''' per Q5, an admin should give what they believe is the correct answer, not what they think people want to hear. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - Moved from support because of worries over his ADCO answers. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry about this, hope I don't get on your bad side, but I never paid attention to the answers to your questions, and then I ran across Q5, and it puzzled me as admin should know that consensus should never be ruled out of the situation, I also have to give a reluctant oppose because you mainly only work at [[WP:PW|Wikiproject Professional Wrestling]], you need more exposure to other projects and other areas in Wikipedia, as well as increasing your Wikipedia exposure. Sorry.--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry I have to do this, but, I think its necessary. The fact of the matter is that the answer to Q5 is/was alarming. Matt, your a great editor and I respect that a whole lot, but I don't think your ready to receive the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''''Extremely'' Reluctant [[WP:NOTNOW|NotNow]] Oppose'''- Sorry Matt, from my interactions you've always been polite, you always greet me when I log onto IRC, you're hardworking and honest, and I actually came here expecting to be squarely in the support column. But the fact remains that being an admin attracts trolls, vandals, and nutjobs extraordinaire and if you have never really experienced controversy, you can't really know how you're going to react. I don't see a huge problem with your answers, even question 5 wasn't really a deal-breaker for me. I just don't know if you're ready to be plunged headfirst into the swirling toilet of adminship. Unless something insane happens or this passes, I will support your next RfA for sure. Keep the faith, man! [[Rosh Hashanah|<font color="#000">Shana tova</font>]]!--
I was rather concerned when I saw this RfA go up the other day. I have seen IMatthew around and while I believe wholeheartedly that he is a very well intended, good faith user, there's something about the comments I've seen from him that makes me very uneasy and I'm just not comfortable with giving him admin rights. The admin coaching page is quite troubling to me as it displays a surprising amount of lack of clue and while I don't really care about the Q5 above, I think the fact he gave an answer which wasn't what he really thought reflects a lack of maturity and a desire to blow with the wind of popular opinion. I am rather concerned how this might affect his decisions as an administrator, that he might do or say things according to what he thinks others want him to say or do, rather than what he really believes is right. I'm very glad to see he has contributed some excellent content in the form of FA and GAs, but I'm not impressed with the "My Spacey" aspects - his shops and his focus on user and user talk page (about half his total edit count is to user/user talk and he has double the number of user/user talk edits than mainspace contributions and I think this is unbalanced for a non-administrator). So unfortunately I can't support this RfA. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 05:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Addit: And I'm afraid that this sort of biz [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IMatthew&diff=prev&oldid=241900708] just confirms and reinforces my concerns about maturity.
Seems like a nice enough guy... but I am not sure this candidate is ready to be an admin, per Seresin's concerns, which I share. Also, while I do not think age is a reason to oppose a candidate, unwillingness to even answer whether or not one is of the age of majority on the grounds of "likely to cause drama" seems evasive. It is a reasonable question and deserves an answer. Also "signature shops" and guestbooks are not part of our core mission. ++
'''Oppose''' Q5 stuck out to me, as did the main focus on Wikiproject wrestling.  Perhaps a few more months of more varied experience. --
'''Oppose.''' While it is of course your right to decline to answer question 13, this causes me to proceed under the assumption (in view also of your focus on wrestling) that you may be a minor. I am of the opinion that, because of the real-world impact of admin decisions, minors should only be admins if they have displayed exceptional merit. This unfortunately does not seem to be the case here, as shown by your response to question 5, in the criticism of which by many here I join. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per answers to some of the questions, particularly 5. Also, my working with this candidate on a previous sockpuppeteering case related to [[WP:PW]] left me feeling decidedly uneasy as you went after a particular editor who'd been socking and had been duly dealt with. For some time later, you brought them back to ANI on other issues and this left me with the impression that you had a streak of vengefulness with I definitely do ''not'' ever want to see in an admin. I'm sorry, but it's been to soon since that for me to feel comfortable supporting -
'''Oppose.''' per Q5. As someone pointed above, local article consensus can not trump one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It is important for an admin to have a very good understanding of the policies of Wikipedia.
Nice article work etc. But it's all rather "safe", would have liked to see work on more controversial topics/BLP's, to see how you handle content disputes/draw consensus. Hopefully you won't victimize us article writers by dragging a content dispute over to AN (something I was just victim to lol).  —

'''Neutral''' but leaning toward support. The initial response to Q5 is troubling and I don't know what to make of the rewrites. The SandyGeorgia question is troubling because the candidate is running on the quality of article content and any question by Sandy would then be troubling. The response to Q2 is a cause for concern but I don't have enough experience with the candidate to know if it will be an issue down the road. I liked the responses to most other questions (good job with q4 and 11 in particular) and you seem to be a great editor and the number of edits on user and article talk pages tells me that you probably like consensus over conflict (as also your initial response to Q5 :-)), all good qualities in an admin. I'll probably end up supporting but will sit on the fence and watch for a day or two first. --
'''Neutral''', moved from support.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but 400 edits is not nearly enough to judge competence in admin-related areas.  Sorry, but please try again soon!
'''Oppose'''Based on what I see from your special contributions, you lack the necessary experience to be an administrator. I am unable, at this time, to make a judgment call on your knowledge of policy. Give it another few months and come on back.
'''Support''', no problems here. I trust InDeBiz1 will use the mop responsibly. --
'''Support''' [[WP:BOLD|Bold]], experienced, subtle, smart... quality admin material.--
Yes. <small>'''
'''Support'''. Seems to be experianced enough. The below linked "threat" was not actually one at all but rather telling a user to stop otherwise someone (not you or the Wikimedia foundation) may want to sue them. Not exactly your best action here, but we all make mistakes. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Moral support'''. clearly [[WP:CLUE|clueful]], though participation in adminly areas is lacking.

'''Weak Oppose''' - User needs to spend some more time at/in admin-related areas, especially [[WP:AIV]] if they wish to deal with vandalism.
'''Oppose''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.16.61.141&diff=prev&oldid=216750300 legal threat].
'''Oppose''' - Per [[User talk:76.16.61.141|legal threats]] and insufficient experience in admin related areas (eg. AIV).
'''Weak Oppose'''. You mention in Q1 that you want to help fight vandalism, but you have fewer than 3 edits to [[WP:AIV]]. Also, you don't have a whole lot of experience in the Wikipedia namespace as a whole (and that's where admin-related tasks reside). Those, combined with only have 5 edits to Wikipedia Talk don't show a whole lot of experience yet. I went through a bunch of your contribs and liked what I saw, but I think some more time and experience is necessary before passing RFA.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Tiptoety]].  You're a dedicated editor, but I'd like to suggest that you withdraw the nomination, take the constructive criticism here to heart, give [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]] a try once you've built up a bit more experience, and then try again in four to six months.  Good luck! --
'''Oppose (EC)''' poor understanding of Wikipedia policeis. We don't threaten to report people for off-wiki legal action. Whether the anon in question was posting links to a subject's "official" site  is not relevant. That they were making spamacious or disruptive edits is. Warning a user to not post spam or make disruptive edits is/would be the way to go. That you are "in the business" along with this threat to use off-wiki contacts to deal with a user raises the question of whether or not you can act within Wikipedia guidelines and be impartial. Iw ould also like to see more experience with article building as well as more participation in admin related areas. Cheers,
'''Oppose and motion to close per wp:snow''' this isn't going to get very far, too inexperienced, try again later in the year.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Fairly strong oppose''' per the legal threat. Also, you say you've been participating to RfA but i've never, to my recollection, seen you around her, so I don't think you contribute that regularly. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' now, may support a later Rfa when this user has more experience.  <small>'''NOTE'''</small>:  per courtesy to those with other views, I do not support swift closing per [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|WP:SNOW]].  —
'''Oppose''' - just in the last few weeks, I see one very dubious contribution at XfD ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_28&diff=prev&oldid=215411159]: a speedy keep with no rationale of an image that may be a copyright violation), plus one violation of [[WP:3RR]] (this sequence of edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepped_On_My_J%27s&diff=prev&oldid=214327179], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepped_On_My_J%27s&diff=prev&oldid=214327787], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepped_On_My_J%27s&diff=prev&oldid=214328804], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepped_On_My_J%27s&diff=prev&oldid=214329903]). These, plus the general lack of experience, do not lead me to think that you'll make a good admin at this time.
'''Oppose'''. You seem a little inexperienced, and I am concerned about judgement from the quasi-legal threat and from the speedy keep cited by Scog. I would also like to see some article contributions- I appreciate that it may not be your strong point, but it would be nice to see some recognised content or DYKs.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.16.61.141&diff=prev&oldid=216750300 legal threat]. Once you are an admin, you will deal with a lot more trolls and vandals. You can't sue each of them for harassment if they insult you on your talk page or create articles like "InDeBiz1 has a crush on xxxx".
'''Regretful oppose, moral support''' - We all make mistakes. On the basis that the candidate will hopefully find this experience constructive, I daresay he will realise the over-zealousness of his otherwise goodfaith attempt to stop a vandal, and he won't be repeating it. I would like to see more Wikipedia space edits, and a GA and/or some DYK contributions would go down well too. Consider reapplying in a few months once you've got more experience and solidified understanding under your belt. I don't think that this should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]] though. Let's give the candidate as much time as he wants to accumulate pointers and ways for him to improve his contributions without any prejudice should he wish to withdraw the nomination. Regards, <font  face="Century Schoolbook">'''
'''Oppose:''' Errr ... threatening to report someone to a legal department is a legal threat, no ifs, ands or buts about it.  No matter how it is being justified, I'm quite surprised InDeBiz1 wasn't blocked for it. [[User:Dlohcierekim|Cierekim]] is dead on the money here.  Beyond that, InDeBiz1's previous comment to the same editor was quite stern as it was, and if that didn't get the editor's attention, screaming harder and waving legal threats around instead of dropping in on AN/I or otherwise getting the attention of an admin showed poor judgment.  The degree to which we can play self-appointed traffic cops has limits.
'''Neutral''', as the candidate does have good contributions. I am concerned by the threat noted above; It's obviously a good-faith attempt to get a spammer to stop spamming, and in that it is commendable, but it may have been a little too much (as noted by my colleagues above). I would advise the candidate to put in some time on [[WP:AIV]] and elsewhere, both to increase their knowledge of the admin processes they seek to work on, but also to demonstrate their committment to doing so properly and consistently (and, incidentally, without threatening anyone). Best wishes,
'''Neutral''' for now. Good contributions, but as others have pointed out, threats are not appropriate and some more experience overall would be helpful. No reason to think this wouldn't be successful in 6 months. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' - sorry. You are off to an extremely good start, but a month or so of editing isn't enough to get a solid grounding in site policy and community norms. ''Please'' come back in 5 months. //&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' and "moral support" per [[WP:NOTNOW]], although I usually recommend a year not 6 months.
'''Oppose''' and '''moral support''' as above you are on the right track and see you have made over 1200 edits in less than a month and you have several  good contributions but it is only [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try again later.Sorry but wish you good luck for the future.
'''Support''', I see no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''.  Has over 9,000 edits and over 2 months of experiance.
'''Support''' - for whatever my opinion is worth. He's been active across a broad spectrum of editing areas - sure there have been some possible erroes, but even experiended admins make mistakes..... :-) In my limited dealings with him, I've always found him courteous and friendly. What I '''am''' concerned about is that this RfA seems to be moving towards, not an opinion of his editing and/or contributions to WP, but to his choice of userboxes. Taking that to the logical extreme, that would imply that no editor with anything other than uncontroversial WP edit-related userboxes could be trusted to give an unbiased review to any article - atheists would be biased against religious articles, LGBT editors would object to anything said against Judy Garland, Protestant editors would be vandalising Catholic articles, Trekkies (or is it Trekkers these days ?) would be adding articles on quantum flux in photon torpedo matrices.. etc. etc. - none of which I believe to be the case (except maybe the Trekkie one.. :-)) - someone please tell me if I'm wrong. Editors MUST try and retain an editorial impartiality - for those occasions where they don't, WP has multiple review processes. As I read this, the particular userbox mentioned, which the candidate did not create themselves, has been approved for use and is probably used right now by other editors - so does that mean they're all unsuitable for adminship ? If so, then presumably, anyone with a 'I believe in religion x' userbox should be excluded from adminship for the same reason ? What if an editor was given adminship and then decided to add this userbox afterwards ? Does that mean they're suddenly not an impartial editor and will start biasing their editing ? Can we please drag this back to an opinion of whether this person would be a good administrator or not ? '''IF''' he exhibits a bias against religious articles, they can be easily reverted, and his adminship removed. Ok, that's the longest paragraph I've put on WP - I need a lie down :-)
Moral support. Looks like this RfA won't pass, but I wouldn't oppose for that userbox. People are people, they all have unpopular views and biases. I'd rather know about them than not know, and if you delete something that someone cares about they will be unhappy with you regardless. Having your views out on the table doesn't hurt the collaborative process, it helps - anything that introduces clarity to debate (such as knowing where editors are ideologically coming from) assists people in coming to acceptable compromise. Whether that userbox is the absolute best way to alert people to your background is debatable, obviously. Some folks might be offended, but I think fewer than some in opposition would expect. What we're seeing mostly is people who are ''not'' offended worrying about those others who ''might'' be offended. The other oppose rationales have been perhaps a bit anemic, but that can be attributed to the dominance of the userbox issue. If, before this is closed, someone comes up with a solid non-userbox rationale to oppose I'll just say this: Being an admin isn't that important, and if you wait 6 more months or a year, it won't hurt you or Wikipedia. <strong style="color:#000">
'''Weak support from Neutral''' Please be more careful, per criticisms below. Please check more carefully for assertions of notability. Sometimes it's better to revisit an article rather than tagging it to soon. You also have options of tagging for improvement, redirect, or for AFD. Found 349 articles that had been deleted after being tagged for CSD. Mistakes may have been abberation.
'''Moral support''', and the only thing keeping me from full-fledged support is a slight propensity towards [[WP:BITE|bitey behavior]].  Learn to lighten up on the newbies and I think you'd make a fine administrator.  For what it's worth, I find opposition based on userboxes (and this RfA is not the only case) to be rather silly.
'''Support''' Firstly because I can't find anything that worries me, secondly because some of the oppose votes worry me greatly. Userboxes an issue? Please. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.  <span style="background:#FFEE91">
'''Support''' (as userbox host) if only to counteract the.. people.. that opposed simply due to a bloody userbox. '''''I would for one much rather an admin who is not afraid to state his views and work with others regarding his biases''''' than one who acts all smiles on his user and then goes postal with the mop. I am in complete and utter shock over some users underneath me in the Oppose section. I am on the verge of feeling sick, and I have run completely dry on words. Ironholds is a solid experienced editor that I am lucky to get behind and support. +
Although I disagree with the user page deletion.  Additionally, capitalizing your I's and some article writing would be appreciated.  –'''
'''Support''' I've looked at your edits and don't see any reason why you can't be admin, you've edited a wide spectrum, got a lot of edits.
'''Support.'''  Switched from neutral after studying the candidate's contribs and the other posts on this page further.   (Question:  have users whose opposition is based on irrelevant non-admin userboxes been hijacking this Rfa?)  —
I won't pretend I'm neutral on the userbox issue: I agree with most of those statements. OTOH, I also agree that prose may be less potentially divisive. However, nothing in the candidate's contribs suggests he might misuse the tools. Far worse are people [[WP:HONESTY|who never admit to their biases]] and instead let them influence their editing. <big>
'''Oppose''' based on last userbox in profile.  Being an atheist is fine; being intentionally disrespectful towards others' beliefs is not, not for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davidhater&diff=217816661&oldid=217678367 this] New users having <s>speedy</s> deletions on their userpage can be put off the project. Plus, there's nothing wrong with test pages in userspaces, which would suggest this user's misunderstanding of the <s>speedy</s> deletion criteria.(My mistake, it was nominated for MfD)
'''Oppose'''. I was looking over the contributions and I was going to support, but I read #1 and it gives me pause. I am agnostic/atheist as well, but the ubox would make me mistrust any administrator who displayed it to judge fairly on those kinds of topics.
'''Oppose''' not enough article work, You're far too eager to be an admin, your userboxes are far too political for my taste, you're an overt deletionist and I don't really trust you enough.
'''Oppose'''. I'm going to have to oppose per the diff brought up by Peter Symonds. The history shows you originally tried for a speedy before taking it to MFD. Testing in the userspace should be '''encouraged''', not discouraged. Too bitey, I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' I sense power hunger here. Your userboxes concern me slightly, but I really shouldn't base my opinion of of that. More importantly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davidhater&diff=217816661&oldid=217678367 this] leads me to believe you don't have enough experience.
'''Oppose'''.  I am also a bit unnerved by some of the userboxes and the candidate seems a bit too biased in regards to deletion/inclusion criteria.  Plus, somewhat inexperienced (only an editor since April of this year on this account).  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose'''. There are several reason for my oppose. First, as mentioned above was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Davidhater&diff=217816661&oldid=217678367 this edit] in which '''you MFD'd a userpage of a user who was trying to figure out formatting ''in his userspace'''''. And this occurred on the ''same day'' that that particular user created his account. And what makes it worse? That user has not returned to Wikipedia. Also, '''I don't think you communicate enough'''. Communication is a valuable trait in an administrator and you only have 6 edits to Wikipedia Talk (both accounts combined). You ''do'' have a lot of User Talk, so I checked into it. '''Of your last 500 User Talk contribs, 395 of them were templates via Twinkle.''' Also, I don't think setting up an RFA while on a Wikibreak is the best idea in the world and your userbox at the bottom of your page is ''definitely not'' the best idea in the world. You can be Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc, I don't care. You can even put a userbox stating your religion or lack thereof, I don't care. But bashing other people's religious beliefs is unacceptable. But that userbox is just an aside, my real reason for opposing is for that MFD a couple days ago and for being uncommunicative. One other note, and it's incredibly minor and had no weight when I was composing this oppose, is your consistent use of "i" instead of "I". As a WikiGnome I found it rather annoying, but know that I am not and never would oppose someone for something that petty, I just wanted to point it out to you.
'''Oppose.''' It's my policy to oppose candidates who display divisive ideological content of any sort on their user page. Administrators make decisions with real-world consequences; they must avoid even the appearance of ideological bias. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' You could worship your horses's left nut for all I care, but when you insult other people it makes you seem immature. Immature admins tend to [[WP:DDMP|do immature things]].--
'''Weak Oppose'''.  As a fellow atheist, I naturally have no problem with your userbox.  However, your nomination statement says to me that you have little experience of [[WP:ANI]], something infamously valuable as an administrator.  More experience in that area and I would support next time.  Thanks for self nomming, which is why this is a weak oppose.
Oppose.  Go for quality, not quantity.  And the [[User:Davidhater] thing was not quality.
'''Oppose''' I promise this isn't about you're userbox. If I were you, I would have blown the box up to take up your entire User page just to mess with everyone. However, I am concerned with your lack of experience in basically anything non-Twinkle, especially in article contribution. I sympathize with you as an atheist, a gnome, and a Twinkle addict; but you're just not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' - While I don't see it indicated direct by the candidate, I've seen some pretty bitey and borderline reports to [[WP:UAA]], which I can only assume is an area where they will end up working.
'''Oppose'''-I don't give a damn about what the user has to say about religion, and I don't think a user's thought about religion should be a criterion. However, I am concerned about the user's lack of non-twinkle experience. If I was you, I would have waited for a reply on admin coaching before self-noming. I personally am scared about his only 32 mainspace talk edits.
'''Oppose''' I was floating around on MfD earlier and my main thought on seeing your massive pile of contributions to it was that "Wow, this guy needs to relax and stop scouring peoples' userspaces for trivial violations", but it didn't bother me at the time. Upon now connecting that to an RfA, it bothers me a lot more. ~ <font color="#000000">
<small>Most of it's done through automated javascript tools, so i dont see how it could be bitey.</small><br>If you're running some sort of unauthorised bot on your account, you don't know policy and shouldn't be an admin. If you're blaming the automated tools you're using for all of your errors, you're unsuited to a role of responsibility, and should't be an admin. If you can't understand how crap username reports are bitey, you shouldn't be an admin. You and only you are responsible for every edit you make to Wikipedia, whether you use tools, bots, divine intervention or magic to edit - trying to shirk the responsibility for edits you made yourself is a most undesireable trait. Userbox isn't great either, and I'm just not seeing anything that makes me feel comfortable giving you access to additional tools at this time. I'm also not liking the attitude shown towards the 27-year-old Finish man - you're not a bloody doctor so you sure as hell don't decide someone is a scizophrenic. That's sort of pushing me towards the "Never, ever, ever" level of Opposition here, actually. Final words of advice, stop digging and withdraw your RfA.
'''Oppose''' I oppose too... Seems he's not well enough trained in the Wikipedia ways... There's much work to do in articles... --<strong>
'''Stong Oppose''' I changed to oppose once i saw the message behind the userbox, it is disgraceful and hurtful to other editors. Perhaps if it was slightly different noone would be offended. It is very "im right your wrong" attitude and for that reason (+ your inexperiance) i'm of the opinion that you are incompetent to be an admin at this time.
'''Oppose''' A user that can't even assume good faith and assist a new user should not be given the mop.--
'''Oppose''' I can't support someone who MFDed the test user page of a brand new user. There would have been no benefit in deleting it but a huge downside in that a potential editor has been scared off. --'''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose''' I clearly see that you are in hunger of power here.
'''Oppose'''. I think the userbox thing has been blown out of proportion, but (as an atheist who studies religion) I can see why it would be offensive. However, I am seeing poor judgement in places, (plenty of stuff has already been brought up) and some recognised content would be good- not everyone can pull a featured article out of the air monthly, but good articles and DYKs aren't too hard to come by. To expand on this point- you behave in a very gnomish way, but an article you actually list on your userpage ([[The Bright Ambassadors of Morning|this one]]) has plenty of niggling little MoS flaws- short article with no stub tag, reference as a bare link, reference after a space and before punctuation (a pet peeve of mine), references below a navbox, missing some italics and speech marks, unneeded caps on a section title... Just look at how much I changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bright_Ambassadors_of_Morning&diff=218382272&oldid=216620811 in this edit]. See where I'm coming from with this?
'''Strongish Oppose''' - Per a lot of above. MFDing the userpage of a newbie editor on his first day was maybe a bit OTT. The userbox issue doesn't bug me as much as others, although I'm not sure I'm keen on you openly trashing others beliefs. You're free to believe that [[Christianity]] or any other religion is a load of bullshit, but it might be a bit nicer if you didn't say so so obviously publicly. What bothers me most and makes this an Oppose rather than a Neutral is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=218375307&oldid=218372796 this diff]; even if you are a Doctor/Therapist/Anything Vaguely Related in real life, I think your comment there was out of line (and there was yet more religion bashing). I don't see that as appropriate behaviour for an admin as, as I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=218381514&oldid=218376879 my comment on the AN thread], I think it's a personal attack. <font color="#312AB6">
Things generally look good, but without knowing your other account, we can only make a judgment based on your current account. I found the following reports you made to [[WP:AIV]] in the past week that were turned down: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=217982241], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=217694020], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=217211044].
'''Neutral'''. I want to think about this one a little. Contributions are OK, and I see that edit summary usage has improved greatly since the candidate's last RFA, which ended on 19 march.
'''Neutral''' This user simply appears not to be ''getting it''. However, if (and hopefully <u>when</u>) they do get it I suspect they will make an excellent admin, and it is for this reason that I am not opposing - they are so close and yet so far.
'''Neutral'''.  I don't like the userboxes, but I agree with your statement, in principal, that they aren't as important as contributions.  But I cannot help but feel that they certainly taint your future contributions, specifically your administrative decisions related to areas of the wiki that you will be able to edit.  Keep up the good work, (I've seen you're good work, I think at MFD), happy to support next time if this is not a successful request. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Neutral'''. I'm not convinced about the way this user speaks about himself in the opening paragraph. Issues raised in oppose (minus the userbox one) all worry me, but you are definitely a good user, and I hope you continue doing what you're doing.
'''Neutral'''.  I'm pretty sure I can support after a few months.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' Firstly, I would like to say I find the number of opposes based upon the atheist userbox rather worrisome.  I don't think that that's any reason to oppose; the mere statement of some of the views I see on many userpages is just as "offensive" to me as the userbox in question seems to be to some of the people above. I personally chose some time ago not to display any political userboxes on my userpage because of the way I noticed I was prejudiced against some users based on their views, and I did not want other users to share similar prejudices towards me; however, I still maintain that if users choose to do so, I will do my best to make no objection or judgments based upon such userboxes.  That being said, I don't see enough experience here to indicate that the user is ready for adminship, and ''that'' is the reason I can't support.  Sorry, but come back later, perhaps after building some more articles and participating in more deletion discussions - I'm sure you'll do fine at that point.
'''Neutral''' I must have come in late, because I don't quite understand the concerns over the userboxes.  I am interested in this editor's experience, or perhaps the lack thereof.  I believe this editor will be a fine admin in the near-future, and I might recommend getting a bit more experience first and then revisiting the RfA process, maybe in the late autumn.
'''Neutral''', I sincerely believe that this user means well, but things like the MfD and other errors around the deletion process make me too wary to support.
'''Nueutral''' for now. I do see from this user's contributions and his answers that he could be a trusted admin. I may move to support later on. --
'''Strong Support''' As nominator. Ironholds is an asset to Wikipedia at every possible level. No "wrong queue" jokes here -- I am completely serious in backing him and I'm in the right queue!
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' an excellent editor. The fact that he donated his RfA to test this experimental format only makes me support him more not less, I don't see how it shows bad judgment, as RMHED has suggested. <font color="#708090">
I'm
'''(EC) Strong support''' - I think the candidate has learned from previous RFAs and adjusted contributions accordingly. In that he avoids the cesspool of drama-mongering that is AN/I, he earns bonus points. We don't all need to be there, srsly. I'm pleased with his answers to the questions, even impressed by some. I think it's admirable that he volunteered himself to test this format, and any opposes for it should surely be discounted as pointy and shameful bs. (Anyone who feels inclined to ask me to strike that, save it, because it won't happen.) His heart is in the right place and, as always, I ask myself ''Can I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools or the position?'', and my answer is a resounding "Yes."
'''Strong Support''' As someone who opposed his previous RfA (and saw my comment in one of the questions, actually), I think that the candidate has learned well since his previous RfAs. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Absolutely'''
'''Support''' - he could benefit from the extra tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. Nonwithstanding my great annoyance with the format of this RfA, Ironholds is an experienced and dedicated editor who will be an asset as an admin.
'''<small>Absolute ultra super-duper</small> Support <small>with sprinkles on top!</small>''' This user will be a credit to the admin group/right/community/whatever, there are many reasons why a user would have many RfAs, the cynical and assume bad faith side could say that its because Ironholds is power hungry, but I believe quite the contrary, this user is determined to help the Wikipedia community to the best of his/her ability. It's good to see that you are also experimenting with the RfA format, shows that you are open to change; A Good Thing. Good on you Ironholds! And keep up the good work! <small><small>It might also be worth mentioning that Ironholds meets my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]] as well :-)</small></small>
'''Support''' I have see several bitey comments of yours in RFAs, which is not exactly adminlike behavior. However, it must be recognised that we are all human, and people must look through the trees to see the clearing (or something tlike that) I recently <s>miserably failed</s> snowed my RFA basically due to one opposition that your nomintor agreed with (eco rocks my socks). I could have toned down my statement a bit, as I assume you would have had you the oppurtunity to turn back time. Your work with DYK is impressive, which clearly shows a dedication to building the project. Oh and all that admin stuff yada yada. You are qualified, Ironholds, to be on The Administrator Cabal! :) ~<strong>'''<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkRed">one of many</span> <span style="color:#FF7F00;font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support''' He might have been a little mean in RfAs, but he has enough experience with policy and he seems reasonable. I like his ideas about improving the reliability of Wikipedia articles.
''' Strong Support'''See no reason to believe will abuse the tools. Iwas impressed with his CSD experience. Has grown remarkably since last RfA. Per Icewedge and Jennavecia as well.
'''Support''' - User demonstrates the qualities of [[WP:BOLD]] admirably, even in the face of quite appaling opposition. Opposing the process rather than the candidate? In terms of barrell-scraping, I think we just hit a new low. '''''<font color="green">
'''Weak support''' Ironholds is an experienced editor who could really use the tools, and has created '''''273 articles?!?!!!??!?!''''' That's a lot - I've only got 114. But I read Acalamari's oppose, and it seemed a little bitey. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support.''' Ironholds is an asset to Wikipedia and I don't think he will abuse the tools. Acalamari has raised some concerns, but adminship is not a big deal.
'''Support''' Ironholds is one of the best people for the job. Also, I note that most of the opposes are pileons or [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|people saying they hate the formula]] which was actually the thing we were trying to prevent. <font face= xirod>
'''Epic support''' — This user put himself in the firing line for four entire days without a flaw. The only valid oppose I see is by Acalamari but I am not swayed by it. RHMED's oppose is entirely inappropriate and quite frankly, rude. I wholeheartedly support this candidate and I think you'll make a great admin. —'''
'''Strong support''', per DHMED and Giggy's opposes. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support.'''  I think Ironholds will be a good admin, and I hope he joins the [[:Template:Did you know|DYK]]-updating crew.  I support the experiment as well:  inviting discussion on the RfA talk page two or three days before the RfA !voting phase opens is an intriguing idea and worthy of further testing.  —
Not my perfect candidate, but per nom and per above, positive qualities definitely outweigh negatives.  Many of opposes are reasonable, even though I disagree; the others based mainly on the format are depressing. And Ironholds, thank you for sticking your neck out and giving this a try. --
'''Support''' per Acalamari's diffs.
'''Support''' Why not? - -
'''Support'''. Notable improvement since his last RfA.
'''Support''' &ndash; per CSD tagging (which is frankly, outstanding) and the shared sentiments in barneca's support above. Not my perfect candidate, but good enough for support.
'''Support'''. After an intense interrogatory that failed to find any substantive faults in the candidate, the opposes are based on the candidate being outspoken and making use of colorful language and sarcasm at times. These actions are labeled as uncivil by the opposition. This seems to be the new standard of wiki-political correctness, which I must oppose. Outspoken and blunt ≠ uncivil. My experiences with the candidate have been positive.
'''Support'''anyone who answers 43 questions deserves support and anyone who reads all the answers deserves a medal!  Not a good process but despite all of this the candidate will not make a bad admin in my opinion even if some find him a bit short tempered or rude.
'''Support''' Ironholds and I have an almost opposite pattern of voting behaviour at RFA, so I was perturbed at some of the allegations of him being bitey and the frequency of him voting oppose. However almost all of his opposes were to unsuccessful RFAs, which I take as a sign of his good judgement. I read his comments as blunt but focussed on the edits not the editor. I have seen some very uncivil votes at RFAs, but I do not consider Ironholds as uncivil. '''
Irrespective of the process employed in this RfA, the ultimate question remains: do I trust this editor with the Sysop bit? Yes I do, therefore '''Support'''. Nothing else matters.
Well, I congratulate Ironholds for being bold to test a new RfA format, but I have some reasons to oppose this request. To begin with, I came across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tutthoth-Ankhre&diff=prev&oldid=237738524 this oppose] which, in my opinion, was incredibly biting, as were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HappyCat12&diff=prev&oldid=232382762 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Borgarde&diff=prev&oldid=235634923 two]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Everyking_4&diff=prev&oldid=234564028 This oppose], like a couple of the ones I mentioned above, was unnecessarily uncivil. I also came across a few other opposes that came across as aggressive in tone and/or lack the assumptions of good faith on behalf of the said candidates: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Islaammaged126_5&diff=prev&oldid=229101527][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MrKIA11&diff=prev&oldid=228824923][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Derfboy&diff=prev&oldid=227875883] I'm also not happy with an event surrounding Ironholds' last RfA: two weeks prior to it, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Izzy007_2&diff=prev&oldid=215249287 tells another editor to wait to be nominated, and that is what he (Ironholds) was planning to do], yet he goes against his own advice and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ironholds&diff=prev&oldid=218201928 self-nominates]: I do not consider that to be good judgment. On top of my other concerns, I have two more: I came across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=220374008&oldid=220334107 this], an inappropriate hidden comment on his user page, and is still on his user page as of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=229852298&oldid=225894980 most recent edit] (note that the most recent edit may change during the course of this RfA). Lastly, note in the first part of how I congratulate Ironholds for running in an experimental RfA? Well, ''I still do'' congratulate him, but I noticed part of his reasons for opposing two other candidates, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ali%27i&diff=prev&oldid=219111868 Ali'i] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mr._IP&diff=prev&oldid=229634944 Mr. IP]: in Ali'i, he mentioned, "''In addition, applying to prove a point makes a mockery of the process. Yes, admins are technically no more important than users, but RfA in a way shows the quality and quantity of your contributions to Wikipedia; debasing that to prove a point is almost disruptive."'': the RfA for Ali'i was somewhat of an experimental one, and Ironholds partially opposed her on that basis. As for Mr. IP, I found that more worrying; Ironholds' entire rationale was: "''Oppose. This RfA does nothing but disrupt the process and create DRAMAH. If you want to test the RfA policy then you can contribute to the discussions about overhauling it, not waste peoples time here. By posting this RfA as a "test" you've proven yourself an inappropriate admin candidate.''" That oppose was uncivil, which was bad enough, and now that Ironholds himself is running in a "test" RfA, after accusing two other people of “disruption” and/or “DRAMAH” for doing the same/similiar thing, and he has not followed his own words. Suffice to say, I am not comfortable with Ironholds' judgment for the time being.
One thing that I've noticed about Ironholds is that he frequently makes rude, bitey, empty or unecessary opposes. I was going to dig through his contribs and provide some links, but hey, Acalamari did all that work for me. '''
'''Oppose.''' Agree with concerns raised by {{user|Acalamari}}. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Acalamari, I'm sorry. You're a great editor (I love [[Court of Common Pleas (England)]], hope to support it at FAC one day), but too many unnecessarily harsh comments at RFAs. --
'''Oppose''' per RHMED. --
'''Oppose''' While I have high respect for the user, I must go along with the comments above.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I must oppose per Acalamari as well.  The candidate's contributions in the mainspace are definitely of a high quality, I don't think anyone could dispute that.  But some of the rather flippant and bitey comments shown just go too far, in my view.
'''Oppose.''' Per Acalamari. Those types of comment show disregard for the civility standards we ask of all editors, let alone admins. These diffs show lack of understanding of adminship.
Per RHMED (yes, my opinions on the format do carry over here... and yes, you're welcome to express your disagreement with my doing so) and Acalamari (incivility = meh, but criticising an experimental RfA and then running one yourself isn't impressive).
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=220374008&oldid=220334107 This] comment on his userpage, that was mentioned by Acalamari above, is ''absolutely'' and entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. Indeed it's simply not better than vandalism. —
'''Oppose''' - Like America69 said, I have high respect you, but some of the points brought up by Acalamari are concerning. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Tentative oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I agree with [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]]. I have lots of respect for what you have done and continue to do, but I can't truly support when points as concerning as have been brought up are at hand. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Acalamari brought up very concerning points. Candidates seems incivil and lacks good judgment, and though I don't want to sound rude, seems hypocritical. The hidden comment on his userpage doesn't help either.
'''Oppose''' All of Acalamari's points, especially announcing his plans for getting someone to nominate him for admin, and opposing people who try experimental RfA processes when he did the same thing.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I was set for support based on your impressive answer to my question in the "pre-voting" phase. Reading the opposition and support I was still fairly convinced - until I saw the diff provided by [[User:Aitias]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=220374008&oldid=220334107] . Okay, it's over three months ago, but the attitude portrayed there really is not what I'd like. You get ''far'' more abuse as an admin, and if you're then tooled up with the block button I think you're likely to cause more harm than help when dealing with it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=220374008&oldid=220334107 Oh dear]. A bit hypocritical?
'''Oppose''' I think Jennevecia said it best, One of the biggest problems with RfA's are the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=243421289&oldid=243413620 Chronic opposers and the sheep that pile-on per them. There are some bitter people on this project who have been on the receiving end of some RFA abuse and now they're hell bent on bringing down anyone they can. It's obvious in looking over the RFAs from recent months, and it's terribly unfortunate. It seems to be a "if I can't have admin, no one can" sort of mentality.]  Ironholds has opposed over 75% of the RfA's he's voted on... only supporting around the time he runs for admin... in addition to his overwhelming oppose rate, his opposes are bity, and his comments elsewhere can be kurt as well.---'''
'''Oppose''' Failed to answer questions 43 through 47 within six minutes of their being posed.  More seriously...it is in part the candidate's willingness to make available to the community, by way of answering our many questions and by participating in a form of RfA that theoretically lends itself to a thorough examination of the candidate and then to a broad explication of the merits of his candidacy, whatever information it should desire toward the adjudging of his fitness for adminship, that makes this oppose a regretful one.  There is, in fact, I think, much to recommend the candidate for adminship, and I do not doubt that he is largely well acquainted with policy and that he knows whereof he does not know, such that he should be (exceedingly?) unlikely to abuse or misuse avolitionally the tools because of an unfamiliarity with policy and practice.  It is the candidate's temperament and demeanor, which are, it must be said, most commonly unproblematic, though, that, per a few of the others, give me pause, and in the end, in view of that and, less significantly (I would have opposed in any case; my !vote might simply have been "weak"), of the candidate's apparent regard for BLP (admins act ministerially, to determine for what actions a consensus exists and then to take those actions, but we have a few admins who interpret their role vis-à-vis BLPs more broadly, and although actions that do not command the support of the community are oftener than not addressed and reversed, we would probably do well not, absent compelling reason, to add to the BLP-hardliner admin corps, who are, one may say with hope, otherwise on the wane [I do not propose precisely that Ironholds is a BLP absolutist, and on the disposition of that issue my opinion does not turn; I mean only that I get a bad feeling whenever a candidate speaks so reverently of BLP, or of a sense of BLP that may be inconsistent with good practice]), I am unable to conclude with sufficient confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose'''. Even more than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=220374008&oldid=220334107 arse-blocking] issue, I'm troubled by the "ask me first" comment, which shows a basic misunderstanding of GFDL copyright and wiki principles. I'm also nervous about giving the Delete button to someone who, at least until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ironholds&oldid=220334107 four months ago was a self-declared deletionist]. In his answer to Q5 Ironholds admits English isn't his strongest suit, but I find his use of Greengrocers' apostrophes and random capitalization simply embarrassing.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''': I agree with the sentiments expressed by Acalamari. That said, this is neither a pile-on, nor is it a cheap shot oppose as I asked a question along such lines during the Q&A process. In fact, the reason I asked Q12 was that I think Ironholds represents a lot of what's wrong with RfA to begin with. I'm all for trying new things with RfA, and I think we've done that here. The experiment is not counted as successful only if the candidate passes, and we'll have good data regardless of the end result. I rarely oppose these days because I think the project needs more dedicated users with the mop. However, I see an editor who upon failing consistently to earn the community's trust to wield the mop has devised an alternative system in which he presents himself through rose tinted glasses, and tries to limit opposition by indicating that all opposition should be dealt with in the Q&A period.
'''Weak oppose'''. The weak is because you had to go through the pain and bothering of answering over 40 questions. That's commendable in and of itself, so I can't full oppose. Now, I didn't read the questions (i don't base my decisions on those, but on contributions themselves), but I did read Acalamari's diffs, and they are very troubling, too much for my tastes. Could certainly be a great admin in the future with some self-assessment though.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Acalamari, and would have had most of the same comments had I gotten here before him to comment. I also very much agree with Balloonman. I had noticed his oppose tendencies in the past, and this attempt at an experimental Rfa smacked of an attempt to slide in the back door. -
'''Oppose'''; don't trust him to be able to civil once he's passed his RFA.
'''Neutral''' - waiting on responses to questions. -
'''Neutral''' per Acalamari. (I may take a switch as constructive consensus builds up and more responses are seen.) Otherwise, candidate, I congratulate you for taking such a bold and innovative twist at the RFA front. --
'''Neutral''' I did support until I read Acalamari's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tutthoth-Ankhre&diff=prev&oldid=237738524 oppose] I have decided change to neutral. If you want my support you need a good explianation. Because I really do not [[Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism|give a fuck]] either way.--
'''Neutral''' I came to support and I think you are a great candidate but those diffs presented by Acalamari show a side that may scare many newbies when an admin acts like that. I like the new format though and I congratulate you on trying such a bold move. Note: I will happily reconsider my vote if I am convinced that the civility problems pointed out above will no longer happen, because other than that, you are a great candidate. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' Can't support based on the concerns expressed in this section and oppose section; but I'm not sure I can oppose at this point either.
'''Neutral''' I was planning on supporting when I came here. However, after reading the comments in the Oppose section, I simply can't do that. For example,  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIronholds&diff=220374008&oldid=220334107 this] would be unacceptable behavior of an administrator. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' Almost exactly the same views as JulianColton.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Neutral''' (Leaning Support).  I generally find people who have serious oppose votes to not be taken lightly, but if you consider the overall quality of this editor's work, I'm sure giving him the mop should be a net positive to the community.  (And that user page diff is kind of funny, not necessarily a comment to be cause for concern since immediately following he had this page repeatedly vandalized.  My question is why did HarryPotter fix the typos?!)
'''Neutral''' - I would like to point out that not one, not two, but indeed the first '''seven''' diffs provided by Acalamari were opposes in RfAs that '''did not succeed''' for various reasons. They <s>may seem</s> are a little bitey, but I can make a case that a strong, swift response early in the process is better for the candidates and for the process itself. It's a weak case, but let's face it - we've all seen RfAs that go on way too long. Now, maybe Ironholds doesn't need to be the [[pit bull]] [[first responder]] every time, but it ''is'', after all, a job that needs doing to some degree. I'm willing to be convinced that the diffs given by Acalamari above are isolated. I am going to try to find evidence that these are not the norm so I can be pushed into the support column for this productive editor; if you have this evidence, show me the diffs! <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Per Juliancolton.
I admire this candidate for putting themselves up for 47 or more questions, and this candidate does valuable work on the project but the diffs presented give me considerable pause. However, not sufficiently so to actually oppose. There might be a few "lessons learned" from this RfA as to whether the new process needs (some / a hell of a lot of) tweaking.
'''Moral Support''' I am afraid, this one will be a victim of [[WP:SNOW]] as well, but don't let that discourage you. With not even 200 mainspace edits you will get opposed certainly but if you continue to contribute in a good way and make yourself known and if people one day think you should be admin, then I bet someone will nominate you. I doubt tho that many self-noms will get you there, now some people will oppose just based on that fact. '''
'''Moral Support'''. Sorry, but this is going to fall under [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I admire your spirit and willingness to help out, but it's going to take some more experience (both in the mainspace and in the project space). It's an extremely rare day that an editor with fewer than 2000 edits pass RFA. You're on the right path, it will just take a little while longer to gain the necessary experience. If you ever have any questions about anything, don't hesitate to ask me.
'''Oppose''' You definitely need a higher mainspace count.  With only about 1/10 of your edits being to the mainspace, and half to the user talk namespace.  Also, listing your userpage as your best contribution to the encyclopedia worries me. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' - Strange phrasing in question 1. You don't need to be an admin to revert vandalism or adopt users. Makes me question your knowledge of the role of an [[WP:ADMIN]]. Also, you don't have much experience in the project space, especially in the areas you wish to work: ANI, AVI (from your allusion to vandalism) and RFPP. This means you fail my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]].
Your edit count has been very low for the past few months. I'd like to see a little more dedication to the project.
'''Strong, ''Strong'' Oppose!''' The answers to the questions reflect a complete lack of understanding of adminship, and when a user claims that some of his best contributions have been to his own ''User page'' I get worried about his quality as an editor nevermind as an admin. Question three worried me even more; you had a disagreement with a user where you were clearly in the wrong and "as far as I know they left". You have 170-odd mainspace edits in almost a year, and I normally average that in a week; again, not too certain you have the experience.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not one to cite [[WP:NOTNOW]], but with only 200 or so  mainspace, I have to do it. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|'''S.''']]
'''Oppose''' Nearly no mainspace experience as well as nearly no experience in admin related areas as far as I can see. All in all not enough experience to be an administrator, sorry. —
'''Switching to oppose'''Okay just caught something. Shapiros reminded me of Kate and I reviewed it again. I'm not happy with those numbers. My gut said "Support" but not good numbers. Also, you've been here since late 2007, you should be a bit more experienced.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' Lack of knowledge about adminship, believes best edits are to userpage,lack of mainspace edits,failure to follow self-nom instructions correctly,'''5 self-noms'''.--
'''Oppose''', [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Nowhere near enough experience, either in admin areas or in Wikipedia as a whole. I seriously recommend having ''at least'' 1000 mainspace edits and some more concrete contributions outside userspace to point at before trying again. Nothing personal about you, but it's just that right now it's just very hard to see how you'd work as an admin. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' Editor has good intent, but doesn't have nearly enough experience. I almost always hate to go by edit count, but just over 1,000 altogether and 175 mainspace edits just aren't enough. The answers to the questions are odd, and don't seem to show that the user has a comprehensive understanding of policies. Also, a user who believes his best contributions are to his userpage clearly doesn't understand the concept of the encyclopedia.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; Failed to follow self-nom instructions thoroughly. Also pending answer to Q4. –<font face="Verdana">
To avoid a pile-on, but the quality of this RFA indicates that the candidate doesn't have much in the way of familiarity with policy/procedure or what is really required of administrators.  I would encourage the candidate to look in to beefing up their participation with the project, become a little more familiar with the finer intricacies of how the place is run and try again in a while.
'''Support''' Should be ok considering main interest in the tools. Caveat-- do not close AFD's until you have had much more experience, preferably involving a tutor, mentor or coach. Don't see the basis of the "lack of interaction" based oppose. Seems to be able to exchange ideas in a civil, calm manner. Cheers,
I find the opposes unconvincing. When it comes to RfA I think it is the character of the candidate that is important rather than the amount of edits they have made to AFD (which is something I find irrelevant). '''
I see no reason to believe he would misuse the tools. I'm sure he'd do fine.
I'm going to take a stand here and '''support'''. We have an editor with a steady level of contributions in specific areas s/he is interested in, and I might add that image work is one area (admin or otherwise) that can always use more help. Add to that communication ability displayed on editor's talk page, willingness to interact with others as both the initiator and responder, a DYK (we '''are''' mainly about content, after all), willingness to change opinion when appropriate, rather than dig in, no blocks, no evidence of canvassing (user hasn't even placed a talk-page RfA notice), no apparent incidents to explain...what more do we want of an admin? Sure, some will say "2000 more edits of same stuff", but do we really have any reason to expect there would be any difference at that point? The only diff offered in the oppose section was politely discussed and reasonably explained. Other than that, I see no diff that shows improper behavior, lack of knowledge, or any reason to actively oppose; the opposes all seem passive to me. I'm not questioning the opposes, just noting that there's none of the usual "oppose-per-this-edit" we see. In other words, this editor hasn't done any harm but opposers aren't sure there's enough to reasonably say that no harm will be done. Well, I see some good &mdash; enough to reasonably believe it would continue in the future. I would also note that there are a good many RfA regulars who are staying away from this one. Come on folks &mdash; as has been pointed out before, this isn't rocket science, and we should encourage this type of editor. Note to candidate: having said all this, I don't expect my contribution to change the tide; I would strongly encourage you to continue doing exactly what you've been doing rather than try to satisfy criteria. As you've already found out below, you'll not be able to satisfy everyone anyway. And as others have said below - even opposers - thanks for your contributions so far. I think I speak for many when I say I hope you'll continue. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Moral '''support''' due to no personally negative interactions.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' because of his work and also because of the civilized, calm way in which he discussed Kurt's usual oppose vote with him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/It_Is_Me_Here#Kurt.27s_oppose_discussion This], in my opinion, shows true 'admin material'. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support'''. Perfectly fine admin candidates dismissed due to relative details... one of the most annoying things I see on Wikipedia. You know, I'm sure if you spent a few hours poring over my past record of admin actions, the verdict would be to, oh, have me excommunicated or something, judging by some of the fiery oppose comments on this RfA... it's so silly.
Meets my standards, appears experienced and trustworthy. Interesting how much RfA has changed since 2003, when this kind of request was commonplace, and easily passed as successful...
'''Support'''. Plus: good manners, good communication ability, a DYK and administrative interest in specific areas. Minus: less then the currently expected standard of experience.
'''Support''', I see no evidence that this user would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. The candidate has clearly shown the areas where he intends to use administrator privileges. He acknowledges that his admin activity should remain away from unfamiliar areas. I have no problem with this.
Weak, but real (not moral) support.  Most of what I see, I like, there's just... not that much of it.  Certainly been around long enough that you aren't some sleeper cell agent waiting to vandalize the main page; that's a silly concern anyway, and reasonable people aren't worried about it (this kind of bad admin is easy to get rid of).  Policy knowledge is a little lacking, but as you showed by your answer to Q5, you can read policy pages, and learn what you need.  Indications are that (Kurt's fears aside) you aren't going to be a drama seeker.  Civil and thoughtful, yes, I just wish there were more examples.  Think of it this way: if you had only 1 month and 300 edits worth of good work, you would understand it if everyone opposed you.  Everyone has their own cutoff for how much information they need to them to make a decision (sometimes crudely measured by edit count, but not everyone who's opposing is just looking at that).  You've basically found my limit; I doubt I would support anyone with less experience.  Others have different limits.  That's why it really isn't crazy to say "keep doing what you've been doing"; many people just need a little more to go on here.  --
'''Automatic support'''. '''
'''Support''' - I can find no good reason to oppose.  This is a courteous and cordial editor who is interested in the project and who I believe would refrain from making dodgy administrative decisions.
'''Support''' I've been thinking on this for a bit, but I've decided that I support your nomination. You are polite and engaged in a particular area of the project. Further, I've noticed in your responses that not only are you intelligent, but you pursue sound and civil discussion with other editors--in a non-confrontational manner. This character demonstrates to me that you would be an admin who actively pursues consensus.
Regretfully, I'm going to oppose. You have less AfD contributions than I thought and I'm now struggling to find much administrative related activity altogether. One of the few AfD's you have proposed was also kept, when you nominated for delete, which can be found here ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_reggae&diff=229878215&oldid=228858661])As I said in the neutral vote, your lack of human interaction via talk pages worries me a little. Combining all these factors makes me a little weary to know whether you'll use the tools correctly, and whether you genuinely have the need. Happy editing! —<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
'''Weak Oppose''' I don't have enough to judge how the candidate would deal with admin related tasks.  1226 edits is not usually enough to judge a candidate, and in this case it is especially true. Most of the edits relate to non-controversial changes from png to svg; which is great - but it doesn't tell me anything about the candidate I want to know.
'''oppose''' here is another case where an argument could be made to give out the ability to edit protected spaces piecemeal, but as we can't do that, I have to oppose based upon lack of experience.---'''
'''Oppose''' - Per lack of experience. Needs to get more activity going, but you are certainly are a promising candidate. --'''[[User:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="green">Meld</font></font>]][[User talk:Meldshal42|<font face="papyrus"><font color="red">shal</font></font>]]
'''Oppose with moral/come-back-later support'''. It's good to be able to say I've reviewed all of your CSD taggings that resulted in deletion, but that's largely because there's only twelve of them, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=HeadCount_index&timestamp=20080730111825 this] (admins only), which is not [[WP:CSD#G1|G1]]. Notwithstanding that deletion isn't your immediate field of administrative interest and regardless of how tentatively you would approach it, I really cannot support making the delete button available to a candidate that has only eleven edits to the [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] space. No prejudice against supporting you when you've got more experience. <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''
'''Oppose''' per Jon513. I'm sorry, but you just don't have enough experience. Users generally wait until they have three or four thousand edits to run for adminship. Wait several months and keep doing what you're doing, and I would probably support you. I suggest withdrawing. Thanks, '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' Per lack of experience.--
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, not much work in admin areas, fails [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xp54321/Standards my standards]. Come back later. That's all.--
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience in admin areas and edit count is very low. Come back in a few months with more experience and i'll support. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', little bit too soon. --
'''Oppose''', as per reasons already expressed above. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]].  --
'''Oppose''' per above statements  --
Very few edits to admin-related areas, even in templates, where the user wishes to use admin tools, contributions are very minor, and only one edit-request to a MediaWiki talk page. There's really not enough to go on here. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' - For me, this user isn't experienced enough yet, but solid progress is being made. Keep at it, and try again in a few months. Take not of what other's have said in their opposes, and use it to improve. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' per question 4, in particular, "''I would not lift Block 2 and, in fact, fully expect that, given his track record, IP will resume vandalism shortly after Block 2 is lifted and that I would have had to permanently ban him''". IPs are rarely ever banned except in certain instances of constant abuse (static IPs of highly problematic vandals or sockpuppeteers, for example). Furthermore a ban is only ''de facto'' when no admin will unblock, or when it is discussed at a consensus-driven venue such as [[WP:AE]] or [[WP:AN]]. This (as well as general concerns about experience) does not give me confidence that the candidate understands admin-related policies. The candidate has done some excellent work, and I will no doubt support in the future, but [[WP:NOTNOW|not right now]]. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' - Per the lack of experience in admin-related areas. Wait a little more and you'll be more experienced. Greetings,
'''Oppose''' Because the answer to Q4 shows he doesn't have enough experience to know what he's doing, and per leaving this open.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Per unforgiving answer to Q4, lack of knowledge of the difference between a block and a ban, violating policy in suggesting and indef block of an IP, strong lack of experience in admin areas ie 14 WT edits and <250 WP edits, as well as extremely un-adminly response to Kurt's oppose. I am extremely wary of anyone who wants the tools for the specific purpose of editing fully protected pages/templates. It reeks of self-service rather than the community service that the tools are supposed to be about. Also has a paucity of user talk edits (50) that do not demonstrate the ability to communicate with other editors that is vital to an admin. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' based on the above.
Sorry, you don't meet my criteria. —
'''Neutral with Moral Support''' [[WP:NOTNOW|Not yet]], come back in a few months. While I don't doubt your intentions, you simply don't have enough contributions to this wiki for me to confidently support you.
'''Moral Support''' The candidate is inexperienced, but I don't see any danger of him knowingly misusing the tools. <small>Moving here from support.</small> '''John Sloan''' (
'''Neutral''' Not going to pile on. It would be great if the tools could be unbundled, and I trust what the candidate says in question 1, but, unfortunately, as an administrator, you will actually be turned to for potentially controversial actions, and you will end up doing other administrative tasks. That's just how it is. As of right now, there is nothing in the edits that can help me judge your abilities. So per Balloonman. Cheers dude.
'''Neutral''' For now, as you need some more experience before I can support. &ndash;
To begin, thanks for trying to gain the tools to help the website, rather than for the sake of it - but you're not experienced enough, in my view, to operate them at the present time.
'''Neutral''' Attitude is fine, but too little experience as yet. --
'''Neutral''' Your interest in helping the project deserves commendation, but the timing on the request is a bit premature.
'''Neutral'''. An excellent contributor, so I don't want to pile on, but slightly inexperienced as of yet.
'''Neutral wishing to support'''.  From what I can see, you are a very intelligent user with the correct attitude desired in admins.  The only problem with me supporting this RfA is that you do not have the correct amount of experience in what are referred to as "adminly areas."  My suggestion would be to read [[WP:ARL]] and get a little experience here and there in the areas listed on that page (but don't spend too much time on tasks you do not find enjoyable).  Please consider re-applying for adminship once you have more experience. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' towards Oppose... it is obvious by the badgering of Kurt that this user is not around RfAs, AN, AN/I, or RfCs much.  Those things are pretty important re: the everyday workings of Wiki.  I always cringe when I see someone who has never encountered a Kurt vote get indignant.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral, Moral Support''' Once you're around 4,000 to 5,000 edits, I'll gladly support. You have great potential.
'''Neutral.''' - Per {{user|Rodhullandemu}}.
'''Neutral w/ Moral Support''' User shows understanding of policy with a willingness to learn what he doesn't know. I can't get over the fact that he doesn't have enough experience yet, so I'm going to nuetral. I would support in another 2500 edits or so.  <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. Well, moral support, as this appears to be a good editor who needs only to branch out a bit to be successful next time. No reason to expect misuse of tools.
'''Support'''. I think they can be trusted with the tools, and I think that's what really matters here. Look at their edit history and decide for yourselves. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You have participated in only three AfD's since July (looking at your last 1500 edits) despite this being the area you wish to focus in. Your edit summary usage is poor.  Your answers are weak and vague.  I don't see a great deal of interaction with other editors via talk pages, just a very narrow range of edits in the area of music with which you are no doubt familiar. Try to branch out a bit more, have a look at [[WP:AN]] for ongoing admin discussions, participate in the deletion processes, and come back in three months. --
'''Oppose''' - Need some more experience. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I cannot support you. Very laconic nomination and answers to questions are terse and generic. You're a decent editor, I'll give you that, but I think 4-5 months of high activity in admin related spaces would benefit you. You should be alright the next time around.
'''Oppose''' – First, let me say, that the oppose opinion is not due to the fact I am a [[Hagstrom]] user!  Rather to the point,  with only a little under 2,600 edits I feel that a little more experience would take you from a good editor to a '''Great''' editor.  The questions [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]]  asked and your responses just demonstrated that. Though you are well intentioned, the experience is just not there yet.  Come back in 3-6 months, with the same contribution record, and you will be welcomed with open arms.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' User should have a better grasp of the edit summary concept.  What troubles me is that Q#8a (which I feel is a VERY important situation for any admin) was left unanswered - perhaps user is composing the answer to be posted later?  Also answers to questions were very short as if they weren't very thought out.
'''Oppose''', brusque answers to questions, spotty edit summary usage, and lack of actual admin-related tasks so far.  Happy to support you a bit further down the track once you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' lack of [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]] and lack of demonstrated guideline knowledge (in AFDs). Build up a track record of participating in admin type work and come on back. See Balloonman's guide to [[User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA|how to pass an RFA]] Sorry and Cheers <b>
'''Oppose''' - I think that a potential admin should have more edits, and certainly more average edits per day. Try again soon - also, your claim of AfD activity seems to be a little exaggurated? [[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Three AfD edits in the past 1500 per what Stephen said, and this is what you want to focus in.  A bit more activity here and I'll support in few months.  <font face="Book Antiqua">
I feel like an idiot doing this, but I must '''oppose'''. Isn't as active as much, lack of experience, and the answers to questions are not good enough. Get more experience and I may support you in a few months. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Oppase:'''  Vague answers, in fact one question went completely unanswered.  Whilst you probably have good intentions, your edit summary usage and vague answers mean I cannot support you at this time.  Sorry, [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
Quick review. Overall, I liked what I saw. I would recommend seeking an editor review before submitting your next RfA. [[User:Izzy007#Articles I've Created]] shows you have created about 120 stubs. I estimate that this translates to about 30,000 bytes. This meets my (brand new) minimum article building requirement. The absolute edit count is right on the cusp for me, so I added the Benon questions. I like some of the answers. I would recommend reviewing the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process and getting deeper into all of the policies. Laconic works for me, but not for others. I would recommend resuming your prior activity level. You have had a wiki-break. It would be good to address that here. I would like to see greater communication. Please set your preferences to require an edit summary before saving a page. I would like to see more experience in [[WP:AFD]], in recent patrolling, and in [[WP:CSD]] tagging. This includes notifying other users about deletion taggings. I saw CorenBot notices, but you fixed those. Overall, you were doing good work, but you need to get back in the swing of things. Consensus changes over time, and you've been away a while. You  created many stubs. I would like to see greater expansion of these articles and/or creation of more substantial article ins the future.
'''Neutral''' - Per Dlohcierekim. Recommend [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]]. Best of luck,
'''Neutral''' Per the above. <font color="#006600">
'''Neutral'''  Whilst I don't think your answers particularly display it, I think you have the best of intentions in relation to your involvement at the time. I can't support you at the moment, but think that if you were to take a bit of time, a bit of admin coaching, and come back in a few months, you'd be in a position that I would be able to support then. <sub>[[User:The public face of Gb|The public face of]]
'''Neutral''' per Dlohcierekim. I think you will be great in the future.
'''Neutral''' Promising user ... come back in a few months.
'''Support'''.  You seem like a good editor to me.  You've been here over a year, and you've learned from your early mistakes.  Your talk page has stayed relatively clean in the last few months.  I don't see any problems ini Afd either, and after looking through Wisdom's diffs, I found that you "had it right" several times. I had no problem with your "rationales" as many times the rationales that you've given ended up being what consensus showed to be correct.  (and not always delete either -- you !voted keep too, and articles were deleted).  Glad to support, good luck!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Moral support''' You have had your issues and mistakes, but it appears that you've learned from them. Everybody makes mistakes, but from what I can tell you've shown generally good contributions (although I havn't looked past a few hundred). Some of those AfD diffs make concern me just slightly, but the majority of the time your !votes are perfectly legitimate and correct. You seem to have a good balance of edits, with roughly half of them in the mainspace. More Wikipedia edits would never hurt, as I see you only have a couple hundred. I noticed, however, that you seem to dissipear from editing for several days without notice, so as an admin I recommend you either keep a steady stream of edits, or add an away notice to your userpage. Good luck,
'''Support''' Like Keeper said, most of your Afd work (as shown by Wisdom) seems to be spot-on. Considering adminship is no big deal, I can't think of a legitimate reason to oppose. Except, of course, the fact that you listen to The Who. But, like I said, ''legitamate''.--
'''Weak support''' I believe that you've learned from your mistakes, and I don't think that you'll misuse the tools. The low amount of Wikipedia-space and user-talk edits is a little concerning, but I don't think that it will affect you as an admin. —&nbsp;'''
'''Weak support''' while I feel a more concerted effort resulting in a GA at least would have been helpful, I see no actual deal-breakers suggesting the candidate would be a net negative. Cheers,
'''Support'''. I don't see any major reasons I shouldn't support you, and adminship really is no big deal. &nbsp; '''
My personal opinion on this contributor is that, from what I see, he is somewhat of a deletionist - to me, that's fully acceptable, so long as he follows the guidelines outlined at [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. Also, other than that, I don't ''personally'' see a lot of reason to oppose this contributor, who seems perfectly trustworthy and experienced.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would maliciously abuse the tools.
'''Weak Support''' -- The user seems to have done some great article space work and there is no reason to believe the user would abuse the tools. Good luck. --
'''Support''' due to no negative interations.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - You seem to be doing good, and I'm sure you'll be better prepared for your next RfA, just get some more experience.
'''Support''' Appears to be a qualified editor who would do a fine job here.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good addition as far as I can tell. Per above, good luck.
'''Support''', reasons to oppose are overblown and do not indicate user would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Moral Support''' One must evaluate two things in an RFA (in my opinion), would admin rights assist the user in his/her duties and can the user be trusted, Ive seen enough not to indicate otherwise --
'''Very weak support:'''  I can see no evidence that you will deliberately misuse the tools, but I recommend reading up on policy before you use them (should they be granted to you)<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']] .. <small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Strong Support''' to spite all the opposers. Screw them. Opposers, I DARE YOU to remove this vote. GO AHEAD AND TRY.
'''Support''', You're a very prideful editor and you are on your way up to your highest performance! [[User:WikiZorro|<font color="DarkOrange" face="">'''Wiki'''</font>]][[User talk:WikiZorro|<font color="#FF4500" face="">'''Zorro'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''', Nothing wrong with self-noms :-)
'''Weak Support''' I do not believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools, but if you pass, you should probably try to get an experienced admin to be your mentor.
To counter nonsensical opposes. <small>'''
Totally!--
'''Support''' Quixotically, I offer this candidate moral support.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - You've done some good things here, but perusing your special contributions at [[WP:AFD]], your rationales for keep or delete are typically thin, tenuous and weak. The same goes for just general project space contributions.
'''Weak Oppose''' While I believe you to be a good potential candidate, I just don't think that it is a good time now.  After reviewing all of the differences that Wisdom89 provided, I concur with him and agree that they show that you do not have a good enough understanding of the policies and guidelines that all administrators need to know in order to do the job right.  Another thing that is not very good is the fact that you don't combat vandalism.  If you don't combat vandalism, then there is no need for the protection tool or the block tool.  I would also like to see more edits to other adminly areas (like [[WP:MFD]], or the talk page of your favorite policy pages, because it looks like the only admin-related Wikipedia namespace page that you edit is the [[WP:AFD]] page.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Some of the diffs Wisdom89 found were concerning, especially the first one. Another thing that concerns me is your lack of communication with other editors. You only have 40 edits to User Talk this year, most of which were templates. Good communication is a very important trait in an administrator. I don't mind you having a focus at AFD, in fact, having a focus is a good thing, but I'd like to see a little more experience there. One minor point, no pun intended, is that you don't ever mark your edits as minor, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberty_Records&diff=prev&oldid=212740756 removing an underscore], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Del-Fi_Records&diff=prev&oldid=211701845 adding a period]. You have a lot of excellent mainspace experience, which is a super big plus in my book and you have begun using edit summaries, so you're definitely close. As an interesting side note, you and I both created our accounts in the same month, so we're both "Class of December 2006" or whatever it would be called.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Very deletion-heavy editor, no work on article improvement.  Rather than so much "Yeah, go ahead and delete it", I'd like to see some "Well, we should really keep this, this is how it can be improved".  <font color="629632">
'''Oppose''' Still lacking enough experience since last RFA, not sure user is experienced enough in policy to properly implement tools available as admin. Perhaps a bit more time, and an adoption by an experienced admin may help.
'''STRONG Oppose''' In three of the past five months he has made fewer than 50 contributions per month.  That means that only in two months this has has he made more than 100 edits.  These are the same months that we are reviewing to see if he's made a significant improvement since his past RfA which Snowed?  Almost all of his edits to the Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk space are on music related Wikiprojects---and even that isn't too extensive.  He's made a total of 29 edits on his own User Talk space, and the next person to whom he has talked the most is at 6.  Since January his TOTAL number of comments on User Talk (including his own) is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50&contribs=user&target=Izzy007&namespace=3&year=&month= less than 50!]  Which means that I got to review ALL of them... the only ones which weren't templates are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Izzy007&namespace=3&year=&month= an apology for putting a tag on an innocent person's talk page]  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dlohcierekim&diff=prev&oldid=194567820 a message whose total content is "thanks"] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icrosson&diff=prev&oldid=201723163 another mistake apology] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icrosson&diff=prev&oldid=201723163 another apology message] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bridwater&diff=prev&oldid=202118025 a response to a helpme template] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bridwater&diff=next&oldid=202138479 follow-up on helpme.]  In other words, his total non-template user talk amounts to 6 edits---three of which are apologies for templating/warning people wrongly.  During the same time period, he has made fewer than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Izzy007&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 fifty edits to the general talk space.]  Most of those have been in the past two weeks where he was simply tagging articles with a wikiproject tag.  How about contributions to wikipedia talk?  He's made a total of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Izzy007&namespace=5&year=&month=-1 3 contributions] to Wikipedia talk since January---and all of those are to announce a new task force he set up.  So how about the Wikipedia space?  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&contribs=user&target=Izzy007&namespace=4&year=&month= there he has almost 100 edits] since January.  About 20 of those are on his RfA's and 15 on his task force.  The remainder are on AfDs... so that's about 50 AFD's he's contributed to since January.  Of those 50 or so AFD's Wisdom found how many that were "per above/nom?"  There is zero indication of policy knowledge, zero indication of collaboration, zero evidence that he can work well with other.  I can't see any reason to say that this candidate has improved much since his last RfA was snowed... about the only difference that I see is that we would be citing [[WP:NOTNOW]] instead of SNOW.
'''Oppose''', low level of edits to the Wikipedia namespace (and others) indicates likely lack of policy knowledge (and general experience).
'''Strong oppose''' - Per Wisdom89. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Weak oppose''' - I hate doing this, as you've done some stellar article building. I was going to repel Balloonman's comment about the talkpage participation, as your edit count would indicate you do what a lot of users do & reply to comments on your own talkpage, but that is not the case. I would love to support, but apparant inexperience in the Wikipedia-space & a so far minimal interaction with other users means I can't support yet. Just work on these pointers and you should be ready. Try again in a few months. With the very best of wishes, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
I do not believe that you yet have the required experience to take on this role. However, if you keep working at it, improve your level of participation in the Wikipedia: namespace, and demonstrate better understanding of policy and protocol, you may just pass an RfA in a few months time. For now, however, I recommend withdrawal, as this RfA has little to no chance of success. Best of luck, -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''. You've made some nice article contributions but, as per my usual opinion, article building does not necessarily make a good admin. Your contributions to the Wikipedia: namespace seem to be mostly made up of drive-by !votes to AfDs with minimal thought or discussion, I just don't see much evidence of real understanding of policy, particularly considering you stated AfD as a particular area of admin interest. More thoughtful contributions to AfD and some other aspects of the project namespace and I'll happily support in a future RfA! ~
'''Oppose''' per poor answers to the questions- particularly, you do not seem to understand what 'patent nonsense' is, you may want to reread that. Your answer to question seven bugs me a little- maybe I'm just not reading what you intended to say, but it seems to me like your knowledge of the blocking policy is pretty weak. Also, question 8 gives the impression you would send template warning messages to an experienced user, something I cannot support. Low discussion rates (not template messages) combined with low recent editing rates are also a cause for concern. Apologies if it seems I am just listing reasons to oppose you- I am trying to offer constructive criticism.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Weak Oppose''' - While I don’t think that the candidate would abuse the tools, I would like to see a bit more experience in admin-related areas before supporting. —
'''Oppose''' - Due to inexperience and poor skills in deletion related pages. I'm also concerned with the candidate's view regarding CSD's. I suggest an improvement deletion skills and contributions to the other XfD's after this RfA.--
'''Oppose''' - Inexperienced. 3000 edits, yes, but for an admin candidate that isn't anything special, especially when you see that only 1400-odd individual pages have actually been edited. I'm also quite worried about the answers to the optional questions; most of the comments and "what i'd do as an admin" seems to be CSD/AFD based; a bit narrow. Admins should diversify, not focus too much on a particular section. AFD reasoning also seems a bit weak; not something you really want from someone who, if made an admin, would be closing the discussion as well as commenting. From question seven your knowledge of blocking policy also seems a bit iffy, so i'm afraid i'll have to go for oppose. Sorry if i sound too damning; you've made some excellent contributions. My advice would be to read through the comments here and institute any suggested changes, similar to what you did with your first nomination. Then give it some time before you apply again. It's probably best to wait till you're nominated by someone else (that's what i'm planning to do) since if there is another editor who has an NPOV view of my contributions and finds them worthy enough for me to be admin-material, it's less likely to be shot down in flames. Again, sorry if i sound damning.
Oppose, per Balloonman who presents a well versed and coherent argument. I'd also like to point out that I closed the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Izzy007|first RfA]] Izzy had in February and since that time I don't see reasonable improvement to an administrator standard. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Oppose:''' "I believe that Wikipedia's main problem is that a lot of people do not believe in it's accuracy due to everybody being able to edit it."  He has four spelling and grammar errors in his nominating paragraph, too.  My reason is basic: I can never support an admin candidate who lacks a sound command of the English language.
'''Oppose''' - I see little to no improvement from his previous RfA and that shows a lack of willingness to listen to the community and change appropriately which is something I look for in a candidate. Also per Ballonman.
Per Tiptoety. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Strong oppose''' My own check agrees with Balloonman's very clear synopsis.  I'm sorry Izzy but you are simply not even close to ready at this stage.--
'''Oppose''' with reluctance.  Clearly has the potential to be an admin, but not yet ready.--
'''Weak oppose.''' I just don't see any reason to think this person is ready to be an admin.
'''Neutral''' - You have made definite positive contributions to the project. I'd like to see a little more experience, though. For example, these four new articles don't seem to me to be what we'd expect an admin to be creating: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Glick&diff=prev&oldid=212958101] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stella_%28guitar%29&diff=prev&oldid=214016597] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramer_Baretta&diff=prev&oldid=214704497] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fender_Amplifiers&diff=prev&oldid=211716250] In order to be a good admin, I think you need to have a good grasp of what makes a good article and what sources are appropriate (and not). I'm not saying they are bad articles or bad topics to have an article about, but I do think that some editors might tag them due to lack of [[WP:RS | reliable sources]], or in the case of the Stella and the Fender Amps, lack of any sources at all. It seems a little puzzling that you'd want to spend time in AfD and yet you're creating articles that might be tagged pretty quickly for other issues, or even end up in AfD themselves. (These are not automatic candidates for deletion, in my opinion...just not what we'd expect an admin to create.) I'd say stick around and try again in a bit. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral''' - I can see the points raised by both camps, and neither have been able to sway my own indecision arising from my review (good dedicated application on ''geetah'' related subjects, worrying number of copyvio warnings). I look forward to re-appraising your application in a few months time, when the good should outweigh the old worries.
'''Neutral'''( with weak oppose inclination)  - Your arguments for AFD is definitely very weak and personally I feel that you are not mature enough to have the final say in closing AFDs. Definitely '''needs lots of experience''' both on admin related tasks and article improvements. -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
This editor is right at the borderline of [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]].  Try again soon.
'''Avoiding-the-pileon neutral'''.  Wouldn't misuse the tools, rather would not know how and when to use them.  '''
'''Neutral'''.  I delayed my decision on this one, but I still am going neutral.  I think that in 5 months or so, you will have enough experience to make a great admin.  In about two months, I'd file a request at [[WP:ADCO]].  Happy editing, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''  [[WP:NOTNOW|Not right now]].  Your intentions are well-placed, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting.  As I believe that you might be on the right track, I am not opposing.  --
'''Neutral''' Like InDeBiz1, I think this is a case of [[WP:NOTNOW|Not right now]]. My comment is not an oppose. I think your willingness to help is good, but that you could consider taking on board some of the concerns expressed in the various views given here, act on them, and come back with more experience in a few months time. Showing that you have listened and learned will be a point very much in your favour, and I'm sure you will do better. During this period, always have in your mind "Have my actions benefited wikipedia?" and refer to the various guidelines and policies to help you decide when in doubt, because they give some standard kinds of behaviour that ''normally'' will benefit wikipedia if they are folllowed (but there may be exceptions to this in certain specific circumstances). Make sure you are always open to learning, and show evidence that you have, and I think you will succeed. Good luck in the future.
'''Neutral''' Right attitude, enthusiasm can't be faulted, but as yet, a little short of experience in mainspace. If this nom were a little further down the line, difficult to oppose, but as yet, sorry, not quite ready. --
'''Nominator Support''' [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support per nom''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|meets my standards]]. With all due respect to the opposers, I gotta support anyone who makes 3000 edits in a month. The tools do not require great writing skills. Just knowledge of when to block users and delete or protect pages. Sure, out of 3000 edits, you will find a few mistakes. However, I saw a lot of good AIV reports and speedy deletion notices. If this does not succeed, I hope to see you back in 3 months and 3,000 edits. Please use the time for article building and taking part in community discussions as well as the admin robot-like tasks. Heed all the good advice that is likely to come from the opposers especially. Balance out your portfolio as Pedro suggests.
'''Oppose''' 3,000 machine like edits with no content contribution does not impress me. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Uncensored&diff=193604779&oldid=193604619 this] [[C:CSD]] tag is, well, totally wrong. I'm sorry, I see nothing outside of whack-a-mole vandal fighting. Now that's great, don't get me wrong, but I'm afraid I'd like to see a demonstration of policy knowledge (e.g. via further article writing, [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:RFPP]] and maybe [[WP:HELPDESK]] or [[WP:ANI]] etc etc) before granting +sysop. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eli_Manning&dir=prev&offset=20080210035132&action=history] seems to contradict your Q2 answer (unless it's a different batch I should be looking at), while [[Panasonic DMP-BD30K]] shows a lack of knowledge/proficiency with [[WP:MOS|MOS]] that I'd hope an admin would have. ''
'''Oppose''' - per Pedro, and the fact that vandalism fighting is not a game, though some scripted tools do make our job easier, creating content on wikipedia is also appreciated and as pointed above by Pedro, policy knowledge is also very important..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I have a couple issues with this nom.  Only 722 edits through the end of 2007, and only utilizing one area of WP (fighting vandals).  Admins, by default, shouldn't be "one dimensional" as this user appears to be.  Rather - they should encompass ALL areas of WP.  While vandal fighting is a noble cause, it is not enough to be an admin.  I would recommend withdrawing your nom until your WP experience is more rounded.
'''Oppose''' - Agreed. Lack of versatility. Only reverting vandalism and making robotic reports to [[WP:AIV]] (while having merit), by itself does nothing for me. Answers to questions demonstrate a premature understanding of Wiki-policy. Recommend a withdraw as I'm convinced this nom will ultimately fail. You should be fine next time around though if you branch out a little more. Cheers mate.
'''Oppose''' - User appears to have good intentions; regrettably, I must oppose due to the lack of experience outside vandal fighting. —
'''Neutral'''.  To avoid a pile-on.  You show no knowledge of writing skills, and only of what constitutes vandalism.  Sorry, sysops need to know more.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' I don't want a pile on. Though your anti-vandal work is good, sysops need a wider range of skills. <strong>
'''Suggest withdraw'''. Experience totally aside, 115 edits is not nearly enough to develop a level of trust anywhere near that which is required of administrators, even if you do have "~1500" edits under an undisclosed IP address.  - '''
'''Ditto'''. Even counting the IP edits, which are very difficult to verify, that's still far too few.

'''Suggest withdraw''' As pointed out above, the point is not that you have a low edit count, the point is that we cannot safely judge your skills with such a small amount of data. I'd suggest withdraw and retry after a few months. After all, it does not do any harm and you can build up a track record for your next RfA :-) '''
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]''' Not enough edits to establish trust
'''Nominator support'''. —'''
'''Moral support''', very promising user. More experience won't hurt though.
[[WP:ADMINCOACH|Admin coaching]].
'''Weak Support''' I believe has some very good edits and does a lot of work with [[WP:NPP]] but could use some more experience. I do support though.
'''Support''', nothing in the edit history that spooks me or leads me to believe that this user would misuse the tools.
'''Moral Support''' A very good user, but a premature RFA, unfortunately. ·

Premature RfA, but '''Moral Support''' per Wizardman et al. <b>
'''Support''', good user, seen him around.  Good luck, and happy birthday for when it comes!  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I have a good feeling about this user, and my intuition is rarely (if ever) wrong.


'''Support'''.  Jameson is not scared off by difficult or technical subjects (computer science, engineering, robots).  Both his technical knowledge and his fearlessness deserve recognition and support.  Obviously that by itself doesn't rate adminship, but comments so far seem to indicate a lot of goodwill both towards him and from him, and his explanation below concerning 5 years of experience seems plausible and even obvious given his output. - Dan
'''support''' Im pretty sure Jameson is a quick learner and will know what is the right way to use the tools.
'''Support''' Knows policy well, no obvious concerns. '''''
'''Support''' - Per [[WP:DEAL]], I don't believe the opposes have raised sufficient concerns about this user to keep him from being an admin.
'''Weak support'''
'''Support''' I could not find anything in the editor's history or questions that would cause me to be concerned to have them be endowed with the administrator's tools. --
'''Opppose''' Unless I have read the stats wrong, this editor has only really been active for three months and around a quarter of their total edits have been made this month. They do good work using AWB to fix typos, but is there any need to grant the mop to continue that work? In either case, I'd like to see more time active on the Wiki for an admin, and more non-automated/semi-automated edits
'''Oppose'''Not really enough experience. <s>I didn't understand this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jameson_L._Tai&diff=89303747&oldid=89303489]. You create the page, then blank it the next minute?</s> Maybe later, though. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Not quite enough experience, although seems to be heading in the right direction (well as far as the AFD's).--
'''Opposte''' per lack of experience, and lack of knowledge of basic policies and templates, per above comment.
'''Oppose''' - Not quite as familiar with policy as he needs to be, nor is there a demonstrated need for the tools (i.e. fixing typos and improving articles don't require the mop).  I'd suggest a little bit of [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]] and a little more experience in admin-related areas.  I look forward to supporting you in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' Just needs a bit more experience before I can support.
'''Oppose''' 3 to 6 months... maybe, but not yet.
'''Oppose''' Continue editing actively for a few more months, then apply again and I'll gladly support.
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience, lack of variety. Needs to get involved in a greater variety of Wikipedia activities to be better able to help with many requests that would come an admin's way. Hard to see need for admin tools to continue the work this user is already doing. Seems a good enough editor to become admin someday.
'''Oppose''' As above: Lack of experience, give it a couple more months.
'''oppose''' not convinced that this editor has the length, or breadth, of experience required.  Relatively short substantive editing history, and limited range of topics covered in article space edits...
'''Oppose'''. Seems to lack understanding of speedy deletion policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mondli_Makhanya&diff=182499272&oldid=182499235] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mimi_Pond&diff=182498959&oldid=182498383] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Endroit&diff=prev&oldid=181830370] and to overtag articles to a ridiculous extent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Payanam_Village&diff=181826966&oldid=181826863] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AirportWatch&diff=182521863&oldid=182521658] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patea_Dam&diff=181826051&oldid=181825918].
'''Oppose''' Spend more time to interact with other users.
'''Strong Oppose''' 3 months of active editing just isn't enough for me. Try again in a few months at the earliest (a year would be preferable). ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Oppose''' - This editor looks great, a really nice college student, but he has not been active long enough (3 months?) for me to evaluate this user.
'''Oppose''' - While i know this users intentions are good, i think this RfA is premature. I feel that edit count is just a number, but when the user only has 4,000+ edits and most of them are typo fixes or minor edits i just dont see the need for the tools, i guess i also have a adequate time assessing the cadidated because they are limited to what they do and there is not a whole lot of it. I also feel like this user is a bit trigger happy when it comes to tagging articles for deletion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Execom&diff=186131096&oldid=186131089 this] article clearly shows that, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eulogies&diff=185301773&oldid=185301612 this] article could have just been improved instead of tagged, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvatore_A._Lagonia&diff=183580730&oldid=183580467 this] one should have been sent to AfD, and im not quite sure what happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4th_Generation_Warfare&diff=prev&oldid=185301540 here]. I also dont feel that the supports above have any good reasons, as they are based on someones intuition, and many others state he needs more work. This user needs to gain some more experience in admin related ares in try in 3-4 months.
'''Oppose''' for now with moral support. I’m concerned that he doesn’t completely understand the CSD, particularly G1 ([[WP:NONSENSE]]) per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jamesontai/Archive_2#Nonsense.3F this discussion] I had with him last month. —
'''Neutral''' With interactions with this user, I know that this user is a good user; he have made contributions mainly on Florida related articles. However, there are some experience concerns; has only been active for about three months. I will support if you try again in a few months. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. A good faith editor but inexperienced as shown by the multiple AfD nominations mentioned above and the uncertainty about CSD A7. Also, adminship is not really an appropriate birthday present, nor an award...
'''Neutral'''.  Sorry, but I can't support you without a few more months of experience.  I have no doubt you will make a great admin then.  '''
'''Neutral'''. Per [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic"  color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]]'s second point, I don't have a problem to your answers, just your experience, and I wouldn't call adminship a birthday present...'''
'''Neutral''' - you seem like a good editor, but I don't have 100% confidence in you just yet. A little more experience, and I'm sure you'll be fine.--
'''Support''' I can't see why not. His edits seem fairly good and his responses to questions seem reasonable.
'''Nominator support''' —'''<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' I actually had a very early experience with Jameson back many months ago, back when he had just started.  I'd like to think I have taught him a thing or two ;)  I am glad to support Jameson tonight.  Back in his last RFA, he was too inexperienced.  But as his nom said, 8 months later he has really grown into a highly productive editor.  I fully trust him with the tools, and he will be a net positive to the community.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Weak Support'''. I'm exhausted (it's 1:33am here), but I did go take a look at this candidate's merits (not quite as deeply as I'd like, but sufficient). His work seems good, he's civil, and seems to know what he's doing. Support is weak because of the endless automated edits and I couldn't find a single article that he has created this year (aside from a couple of forks and redirects). I'll look over the candidate again when I'm not so tired to verify whether I want to remain at weak support.
'''Support''' Did not succede last time due to lack of experiance, its been sometime now and the user has gained experiance. Breif view of contributions is encourageing, attitude seems well fitting for an admin.
'''Support''' - Very much improved. I don't see any glaring missteps or anything of the kind, so support.
Should really have passed last time.
'''Support''' per Wisdom89. —'''
'''Support''' - RfA is all about trust, and I trust this user. [[WP:WTHN|...and why the hell not?]] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
我是
Excellent. Hope this RfA isn't shattered, you'd make a good sysop. &mdash;'''
'''Strong Support''' How can I not, this guy is very dedicated to Wikipedia. Will be a asset as an admin. Well said on the discussion page - upgraded form support to strong support--
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Sorry, wrong queue...sorry, wrong queue. I '''Support''' Jamesontai as a great editor, and will be a great admin.
No trust issues here. ·
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - I seriously thought this guy was already one.
'''Support''' - he will make a good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - This guy is very motivated and will not let us down.
'''Support''' - Has plenty of experience I can support. <b>
'''Support''' Good enough for me. &ndash;
'''Support''' Nothing but positive interactions. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. I trust this user from what I've seen. However, the answers to a couple questions, primarily Q10, are admittedly concerning to me. Not enough to hurt my support, though.
'''Support''' - He's a good guy who does a lot for fairness. Has my support.
'''Support'''. He's cute. --<strong>
'''Strong Support''' Would make a very good sysop very helpful and responds very quickly to a person inquiry. [[User:Staffwaterboy|<b><span style="color:red">Staffwaterboy</span></b>]] [[User_talk:Staffwaterboy|<sup>Critique Me</sup>]] [[User:Staffwaterboy/guestbook|<sup>Guestbook</sup>]]
'''Support''' A very excellent editor! We can't all make thousands of edits to [[Michael Jackson]] related articles, and vandal fighting is ''very'' useful. Admins who only write don't have the experience needed for admin rights. We have several highly excellent admins who ''only'' vandal fight, so there you go. And I'm sure he's learnt his lesson with the IP thing. P.S. Giggy, WP:BITE is merely a guideline, not a policy. There's a big difference. '''
'''Weak support''' I really can't take the lack of GA, FA & DYK into account; they are not pre-requisites for ability to wield the mop. Horses for courses, and all that. What qualifies my support is the response to a newbie mentioned in the opposes; [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BITE]] are very important in regard to new users, and let us not forget it can take about three months to find your way around here properly if you want to be a committed editor. However, I've seen enough of Jamesontai to hope that that would not be repeated. Hence my support. I'm sure he'll take all comments on board. --
'''Support''' Having read through your answers above and browsed through your posts, I think you'd be a decent administrator <small>
'''Support'''.   He seems to have demonstrated good judgement - I've no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.  He says he plans to use the tools for vandal-fighting - that's good, we'll always need more vandal-fighting admins, the more the better.  I'm mystified by the complaint that he's not been involved with DYK, GA or FA.  The complaint seems to be that his edits are less editor-ish and more admin-ish.  --
'''Support'''. As a active member of [[WP:WikiProject Robotics|WikiProject Robotics]], I interact with Jameson almost on a daily basis, and have worked with him on many different occasions, from writing to vandal fighting, from project discussion to assessment drive. I cannot think of a better candidate, and I know the various WikiProjects he is involved in will certainly benefit greatly from a responsible administrator. --
'''Support''' - I provided some admin coaching earlier this year, however I have been very busy recently and have not been editing much at all. Jameson is very useful to Wikipedia. I do not find the biting mentioned below to be serious, he was not aggressive just a bit cold in his response. The diffs provided are definitely not enough reason for me to oppose this RfA; [[User:Hughcharlesparker|Hughcharlesparker]] puts it quite well (2 supports above this one). <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Weak Support.''' I do not think that participation in FA, GA, DYK is necessary for being an admin. The candidate has a solid record of both mainspace and projectspace contributions. The diffs re interactions with IPs are somewhat worriesome, which causes me to qualify my support, but looks like a good admin candidate nonetheless.  Good answer to Q5.
'''Weak support''' I recognize that content contributions aren't everyone's bag (Mine are fairly limited), but I feel that more work on content with editors would help ameliorate some of the concerns about biting.  However, I think the answers to the questions are good (in the main, there are some I wish were answered differently) and the opposing arguments don't present a pattern of behavior that would indicate a propensity to misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I trust this editor to do the right thing or if they mess up to  fix it and change their style to be more effective at everything they do.
'''Support''' &ndash; Really, not giving a wikilink to a list of policies?  I've seen much better opposes in my time.  As for DYK, GA, or FA, take a look at DerHexer, and you'll see that he's been nothing but an asset for his entire administrative career. —
'''Support''' per his (long) statement under Majorly's Support. Shows good character and good intentions. ''Trust me'', opposing for the lack of article writing is just being paranoid.--
'''Support'''.  The point is ''article work'' it's not DYK/GA/FA, and I say that as a fairly prolific contributor to those processes myself.  Although I choose to do my article work that way, it's ''by no means'' the only way to work on articles.  And to think it is would be a grave misunderstanding of our project.  So combine that with a single terse answer to a new editor?  Yeah, it's not the right way to respond to a new editor, but it's a ''single edit'' blown way out of proportion.  What a disheartening and superficial evaluation of the candidate from some of the opposers.  James deserved better. --
'''Strong Support''' I feel this editor will make an excellent admin.
'''Again?!''' Of course! [[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|BoL]] (
'''Strong Support''', an interesting response to my question really gives hope for the long run. I look forward to seeing what he can do. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I believe Jamesontai will use the tools responsibly and effectively, and that remains the most important litmus test, in my mind, at least.  In any event, he's done some great work on the project, in a ''number'' of areas, and I think he will only be able to accomplish more once he's provided a mop.
Hello, my brother-in-law was eaten by a shark and I would like to buy a nice thank-you-card for the shark...oh, wrong queue.  While I am here: '''Support''' -- a fine candidate who would do well with a mop.
'''Support'''.  As far as I can tell, the "oppose" section revolves around one or two diffs amidst your several thousand diffs available for review.  I'm not a big fan of any RFA candidate that "over-contributes" to the oppose section of their rfa, but at the same time, I'm also equally unimpressed with those that say "per ''xxx'' without looking at contribs.  Your contribs are fine. You [[WP:BITE|bit]] an IP once, and deleted something from your talk once.  EGADS!!!! Where's my f***ing banhammer!!!!!.  Seriously, you are a net positive.  You've obviously learned (the hard way, unfortunately) that a single diff or two will tank an RFA if presented by the right person, and early enough in your RFA.  The opposers are right, you were bitey.  Where they are completely '''''wrong''''' is that they are using a ''single diff'', maybe two, to characterize you as some sort of villian, anti-Wikipedian.  You likely won't pass rfa, the ship has sailed on this, but take heart.  Many, ''many'' good Wikipedians, (including [[User:Giggy|some]]) of the opposers below, haven't passed RFA.  RFA is corrupted by self-importance, even though it usually gets things right.  Keep your chin up, Jamesontai.
'''Support'''. Incidentally, since when has RFA become some sort of interrogation session? All I want to do is comment on candidates and I have to scroll like 500 lines before I can find the place to vote... and yes, I am a terrible, awful person because I don't spend 50 hours of my life investigating candidates before voting for them.
'''Support''' - this is totally random, but it's pretty late where I am and I'm not wearing my glasses... anyway I was trying to read this and I got really dizzy. So, I guess I'll never know why everyone's voting against my buddy James but I'm sure as heck not. All my experiences with him have been positive. He's smart, knows his stuff, and has a nice sense of humor. From the one diff I managed to read there may be some problem with biting newbies but I'd like to think after reading that and whether or not this rfa passes that is something he can work on. After all, every single one of us is constantly and slowly improving ourselves, bit by bit- that's what life is all about, right? Good luck, dude.
'''Support''' - I think he can be trusted with the extra tools. He is a pleasant editor and certainly has the best interests of the project in mind. I'm also put off by a lot of the opposes. There's nothing in BITE, last time I looked, that said we are not to direct IPs to review policy. They are supposed to be treated equally, no? There would be no issue with him directing a registered user to our policies, so I really don't see what the issue is. Best to link the policies, but nothing to oppose over.
'''Weak support''' Careful not to bite the newbies, Jamesontai, but you seem like a fine editor. <small style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic,Arial;display:inline;padding:5px;background-color: #ff0000">
'''Weak support''' per SpecialK.
'''Support''' I believe that Jamesonai has what it takes to use such tools.
'''Support''' Good interactions with this user. '''
'''Support''' to spite the opposition. --
'''Support''' per well thought-out, honest answers, and being rather willing to talk policy. <span style="font: 13pt 'Arial';">«</span>&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' nice answers to questions, would make a good admin. - <font face="Kristen ITC" >
'''Support'''. Not a thing to worry about, from the looks of it. &mdash;
'''Support'''. This user seems reasonably active on a number of key areas, including AfD discussions and so forth.
'''Support''' - Good Luck!
Little to no interaction with DYK, GA or FA. —
Per Realist and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJamesontai&diff=238004675&oldid=237977858 this shocking comment]. Sorry... maybe next time...
'''Oppose''' He makes about 150 edits a day using an automated tool, half of which are rollbacks, the other half template warning message. This demonstrates very poor communication with others; also, when a new user asks him for help he simply says "look up the policies and guidelines", and when an ip makes a comment he tells him to sign in. I haven't seen him take part in any collaborative editing at all, all solitary reollbacking with an automated tool, and this leads me to believe that he would make a poor administrator. He doesn't have much article writing experience, but that's a secondary concern...--
Well, I guess it's a mistake that 'many people make', but then again, many people wouldn't make very good admins. I would be happy to support this request in the future, but first I would like to see a more helpful attitude from the candidate towards IP editors. Remarks like that aren't ostentatious examples of 'biting the newbie', but they add up to make the an uninviting atmosphere for new editors. The newbie in question wrote a fairly long paragraph about why he thought the article shouldn't have been deleted, and was given a one-line response that was completely unhelpful and confusing. It wouldn't have been so very hard to give a few links, and explain why it was deleted. Dealing with newbies is hassle, fair enough, but if you can't be bothered to explain yourself when they get confused by our sometimes-arcane policies, then you probably shouldn't be working in an area that is so closely related to the edits of new editors. I think you should get more involved in collaborative stuff and spend a bit less time fighting vandals. Q1 was a bit weird too - what do WikiProjects and IRC have to do with administrative tasks (well, I shudder to think about the latter one..)? '''
Per Realist and Giggy. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
Per Realist. '''
I'm definitely seeing some [[WP:BITE]] here. Administrators should always try their best to help new people understand Wikipedia's policies. I'm seeing the opposite in this candidate. <span style="padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;background-color:#f5faff;border:#cedff2 1px solid">
'''Oppose''' - No more "anti-vandal" only candidates, also per Q9 (which is blatantly wrong).
'''Oppose''' Per Realist2 and Giggy. You need more than just "anti-vandal" skills.--
'''Oppose'''. Jameson is a fine contributor. However I am disappointed to see the response to the new user Sherriec and Jameson's subsequent defence of his comment.
'''Weak Oppose''' While I see a solid edit count, I must go along with Realist.
'''Oppose''' - I was all set for a support, but I ''really'' dislike the content and ramifications of the diff provided by Giggy. The last thing we need round here is yet another admin who couldn't give a toss about newbies (and we have plenty, believe me). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Agreed with Realist2 and Giggy.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, I am in favour of administrators who have had experience in more than rollbacking edits or performing vandalism reverts. I personally feel that a candidate should be well rounded, and have interactions or dealings in FA/GA or article writings in general. <small>
Per the evidence above of unhelpful comments, as well as rollingback an edit to his talk page because it did not follow his "posting policy". '''
Per Seresin.
'''Oppose''', while I applaud your obvious skill at vandal-fighting, your people skills could use a little work.  A little too bitey for my liking, being an admin requires handling situations delicately sometimes, and things like the talk page "policy" don't inspire confidence that you will be able to do that.
Per Giggy - mostly.  Those kind of slip-ups should never come out of admins.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJamesontai_2&diff=238449216&oldid=238448035 this] (and some of your other responses to comments here), although I came here to support. If [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJamesontai_2&diff=238443304&oldid=238442765 Mr IP's oppose] was really "unnerving to read to the point I wanted to announce retirement", then you're not temperamentally suited for the job; even the most laid-back admins get a stream of trolls, lunatics, and good-faith editors who happen to be angry, constantly questioning and challenging their actions; we really don't need another drama-escalator. "I am a regular user on #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-robotics and other rooms" isn't endearing you to me either.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''', sorry, per Giggy and Iridescent. You are a fine user but a different approach to certain groups of users is necessary. I will gladly support in the future if you address the concerns hereby presented by the opposition (which are not too hard to address, really). <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Has a [[WP:BITE|bad attitude]] and doesn't see anything wrong with it. We don't need even more admins like this.
'''Oppose''' Not seeing potential benefit to the project.
'''Strong Oppose'''. The I.P. incident presented by Giggy is... questionable enough on its own, but Mr. Jamesontai's "defense" is worse. I'm someone who'd easily misplace my head if it weren't firmly screwed on to my shoulders, and even I have to question exactly where a person's head would be that they would simply "forget" such a basic, ground-level norm. It isn't even the issue itself that's so disturbing. I'd compare "forgetting" that I.P. editors are welcome to [[Rosa Parks|"forgetting" that people with dark skin have to sit on the back of the bus]]. Right or wrong, I'm sorry, but even with a whole crate of [[WP:AGF|this stuff]], I can't buy it. The spotty communication also documented above is likewise troubling. I also can't help but at least question the judgement (and lack of aesthetic sensibilities) of anybody who would include [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Qxz-ad106.gif this utterly '''hideous''' 1.57MB .GIF] (or any template which even has a ''chance'' of showing aforementioned hideous eyesore) on their talk page. Certainly not a deal-breaker by any means, and I'm sure someone reading this feels it's silly to expect someone to examine over a hundred potential images - but, as a counterpoint, I feel it's silly to blindly include a rotating template, rather than just display a fixed image or three of the WikiProjects / WikiCauses you, personally, are interested in. [[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 06:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC) '''Changed to "strong oppose" per candidate's seeming inability to follow what is a rather simple comparision (see below). Communication skills are an absolute must for any administrator candidate.'''
'''Oppose'''. As Giggy notes, you really do have to basically be idiot-proof as an admin, and that comment is not befitting expected admin conduct. I was also alarmed by your talk page, which not only attempts to override the default MediaWiki article title but the entire header seems uncivil - it is as if you are rolling your eyes at having to deal with these newbies. I find your lack of patience in these cases completely understandable (and part of why I could never go for adminship) but if you ''do'' wish to become an administrator you're going to have to work on those. Sorry, other than that you're a pretty alright all-round editor, though increased participation in certain areas (and at the very least a familiary with them) as noted by Realist would also work to your advantage. Good luck! +
'''Oppose''' - Per Giggy. Some of the edits definitely come off a bit harsh and aggressive, even though they man have not intended to do so. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - I don't care about article writing but this time I agree with Realist2. <small>
'''Oppose''' - mostly per Giggy; that strikes me as a pretty bad [[WP:BITE|bite]], which if delivered by an admin would probably scare off most new users. While most of the criticism over this oppose is "one diff of thousands", I argue that this event has been ''far'' too recent to simply overlook. Additionally, some of the responses to opposes above leave me feeling a little nervous about him. Sorry, you seem like a good guy otherwise. &mdash;/
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Absolutely not.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Giggy's views here, unfortunately. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I don't usually ''per'' oppose any RfA, but Giggy and Husond make good points with good reasoning behind it.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Whilst on the surface it appears that the user is a good editor, there are some very disturbing edits that don't make me feel comfortable that they are suitable to an admin role. [[WP:Bite|biting]] new users and not assuming good-faith is terrible for encouraging potential editors. I also wonder how much the user relies on automated tools for editing which doesn't make a good administrator in my opinion, although it is reputable.
'''Oppose''' Too many questionable edits and interactions.  Perhaps with a few more months of experience and cool-headedness. --
'''Oppose''' Per Serviam.
'''Oppose''' As per above, especially the points raised by Giggy. Perhaps a few more months of work, and more interaction within the project, especially with other users.
'''Weak Oppose''' I'd like to support, but Giggy brings up some valid points.
"forgetting that IP editors are also welcome" is a reason for concern when someone requests the mop. What else will he forget? Can't support this RfA, I would like to see the candidate consistently showing a more helpful attitude first.
'''Neutral''' I came here to support, but unfortunately, Giggy's diffs forced me to go neutral. I just can't support an admin who sometimes forgets not to [[WP:BITE]] the newcomers. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Neutral''' I don't have an issue with the lack of GA/FAs, but the bitey issue is a stickler. '''
'''Neutral''' More BITE-problems make me reconsider my vote. Also, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJamesontai&diff=238004675&oldid=237977858 this case], which I previously stated as BITEy, I requested the deleted article from {{admin|Xenocidic}}, which he thankfully [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASoWhy&diff=238488869&oldid=238325202 provided at my talk page] and I think this was also a case of mistaken CSD#A7, even if it was deleted under that tag. But I see clear claims of notability, enough to fail A7, and if I am correct, then I cannot support someone who would send such articles to speedy deletion. I am sorry because I otherwise think this is a good candidate. '''
'''Neutral'''. Answers to questions show a bit too much fence-sitting.
'''Neutral''' switched from oppose, my comments can be seen above. Can't support at this time. --
Not really no, not really yes. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Neutral''' This was always going to be a difficult one. On the one hand, the candidate has performed some sterling anti-vandal work, but on the other hand he does seem to have a collection of concerns. The reason Realist mentions GA, FA or DYK work is because he is looking for examples of where you have collaborated with others in order to produce good quality work. Article writing is hard when done properly and by demonstrating that you have worked in these areas gives participants in an RfA comfort that your opinions will be more balanced when examining articles at AFD or CSD. The bitey-ness is of concern as well - as an admin you almost become an ambassador for the project, extolling its virtues and encouraging the concept. It means that when interacting with other editors (especially new or IP based ones) that you take the time out to support them, explaining why you made the decision, which policies supported that decision and what you recommend that the user can do in order to work within the policies. That way, not only do you direct them to further reading, but you also give them a headstart to being able to make more meaningful contributions. It's this approach that will hopefully turn a new editor into a long term contributor. Hope this makes sense. '''''<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' Can't support because of the reliance on bots, won't oppose because I don't see a reason to - the Giggy diffs strike me as minor and easily fixed goofs, and in general the candidate doesn't strike me as BITEy, just perhaps a little impersonal... which isn't always a crime.
'''Neutral''' The Giggy diffs are worthy of note, but not necessarily undue concern, as I haven't seen a pattern of such behavior. I would feel better if they were further in the past than they were, and if Jameson did not defend them here so strongly. Admitting and acknowledging a lapse of judgement is preferable, IMHO. You have clearly learned from your first RfA, and I have no doubt that you will learn from this one, pass or fail.
'''Neutral''' This is a tough call. I can fathom, based on Jameson's account of his the real life stalking experience, why he may be reluctant to engage new editors in detailed discussions on deletions. I can also see his point that a few curt messages out of many thousands are getting blown out of proportion here — a few moths on Wikipedia were enough to convince me that there are (unfortunately) worse samples of admin behavior. The problem, as I see it, is that by getting the admin bit Jameson will have more interaction with and exposure to various troublesome individuals. I'm not sure how this would be better for him, and consequently for or for Wikipedia, since he's doing quite a bit of work already. I would say [[WP:NOTNOW]], not because any stats or diffs, but because he needs to recover/grow a thicker skin.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to support, but can't because the editor isn't quite ready yet, per things noted by Giggy.  Take your time and when people start to think you are already an admin, or admin start telling you to stop bugging them for admin services and go to RFA instead, then come here.
'''Neutral''' communication is a vital part of building an encyclopedia anyone can edit, which makes Giggy's diffs concerning. Given those comments plus the extensive amount of automated edits I can't support this editor for admin at this time but neither can I oppose. --
'''Neutral''' Again I remain undecided. Though the question answers are great, there are civility issues pointed out under the Opposes. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - limited XfD experience --
Jamie will make a great admin! '''
'''Strong support'''. Kind editor and great article writer. Very experienced with Wikipedia and will be a major help to the DYK backlog. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' - likes High School Musical :p Seriously, '''support'''. '''
'''Support''' - Great interaction, although I had no idea she was female...
'''Support''' Good editor. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''', based on my interactions with her, I have found her to be a very mature user who will be an asset as an admin. We need more DYK admins, we've lost two in the last few weeks. '''<font face="Rockwell">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="43AA54">Maxim</font>]] (
'''Support''' No good oppose reasons so far.--
'''Support''' Even if some people think otherwise, I think age is not a reason to oppose. This user seems to behave more like an adult than many users here who are legally adults. As far as I could see, this user is civil and helpful and knows her work around Wikipedia. I also think that users who adopt others and work at the help desk show a certain willingness to help other users. <small>Note: I may change this vote pending further questions.</small> '''
'''Support'''. Appears to be a trustworthy, level-headed user with no visibly troublesome contributions. Best of luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' As co-nominator. &ndash;
'''Support''' Good editor. No reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' &ndash; Kid?  Yes.  Behaves like one?  Definitely not. —
'''Support''' my first editor review was from ''her'' (I completely thought you were a guy, though!) —
'''
'''Support''' - Don't let the ageist editors get to you. The fact you choose to disclose your age is admirable. People should consider looking at their maturity level rather than their age. After all, if she never said she was high-school-age there would never be such a dispute.
'''Support''' - Nothing alarming. Looks good to me.
'''Yes''' If I knew of this, I would ask to co-nominate. Amazing job in Spotlight, and I can't say anything about age because I'm [[Middle School|younger]]. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor who seems to continue finding new ways to support the project.  I believe every indication is that she will utilize the tools responsibly.  (Disappointed by the <s>haters</s> ageists.)
'''Support''' - looks good to me. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - My experience with her on DYK has only been positive, both from seeing her work as a reviewer and as a contributor. Her articles have been solid, well-written and well-referenced. I can't see how she'd have a problem being an admin.
'''Support''' - I think she'll be a great admin, and... the ageism opposes. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''YES'''. Absolutely yes. If I had known about this, I would have co-nommed. Great editor.
'''Strong Support''' Of course.
'''Support'''. Although she's a new editor to [[WP:WPTC]], she has already proven to be a considerable asset to the WikiProject, and to Wikipedia at large. I'm also rather disappointed in the ageist opposition. I was promoted to admin when I was still "not an adult", and I didn't burn the barn down. I find it against the spirit of [[WP:AGF]] to oppose for that reason without any effort to find evidence that a candidate is not suitable due to any other circumstance.
Has done excellent work for the project. --
'''Strong Support''' - Opposing someone based on their age is downright silly, its like ," Hi I'm 90 years old"..ohh no ..you are too old to be an admin..If you really can't find a valid reason to oppose, don't vote at all...I have known Jamie for a long time, and I trust her to use the tools wisely..Just look at [[Wikipedia:Former_admins#Desysopped_by_ArbCom.2C_Jimbo_Wales_or_otherwise|this]] and tell me how many of those were actually "kids"?...Looking at her [[User:JamieS93|userpage]], you can see that she is devoted to the Project, we need those type of people.and not those that never make any real contribution to mainspace..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - due to strong positive interactions with the candidate. Additionally, I feel that age can be a very impresice mechanism with which to calculate maturity. '''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' &mdash; Looks like a good editor to me, with none of the issues that sometimes prevent good editors from becoming good admins.  I feel that age is an issue only insofar as it impacts judgment &mdash; and in the oppose section, I see no major lapses of judgment that would be unacceptable for an administrator.  Very unlikely to harm the project in any way, and very likely to continue contributing to it in whatever capacity she chooses. '''
'''Support''', I've had a look, and I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.  Without looking at her user page, I would not have been aware she was a teenager, and she has so far displayed admirable maturity and good judgement.
'''Strong support:''' Her work with the [[WP:SPOT|Spotlight]] is amazing, and she would almost certainly not misuse the tools
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Trust Majorly. Net positive. Ageism is not a valid oppose rationale. I'm really surprised to see this keep cropping up in light of the capable admins and crats we have who we would not under this age based rejectionism. Also, one need not have a GA or an FA, or even be a strong article builder to wield the mop. When you come down to it, most deletion or block decisions are pretty obvious. If the candidate has any doubt, she seems bright enough to seek advice or to discuss with those more knowledgeable, seek consensus at [[WP:AN/I]], etc. Does not seem likely to go berserk, block out of spite or anger, or delete the main page. Cheers, and happy editing.
'''Support'''. Obviously, the candidate will need to refrain from making any mistakes, ever, seriously, if they wish to be a successful administrator.
'''Strong support''' per nom, willingness to adopt and welcome new users, and overall sense of genuineness and maturity.
'''Strong support''' - Not just per nom by Majorly, but by personal feelings. I know Jamie well, and I really feel that she should be an administrator. To reply to Sandy, I had 4 GAs and 1 FA at the time of my RFA. I really doubt that's a really good reason to oppose. Also, to the ageism folks, does AGE mean EVERYTHING to you??? That is ridiculous. I am a high school student, and I passed as one as well. Age should not be a reason to oppose, even for freaking high school. If it was a 9-year-old I may see a problem, but there are adults who don't act as maturly as some teenagers do. Good luck, Jamie.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><sup>(
'''Support''' — How many teenagers have started a war?
'''Strong Support''' - a great article writer and can be trusted. I see no reason not to approve --
'''Support''' You have my support.
'''Support''' per 1) answers to questions and 2) disagreement with reasons to oppose listed below (particularly the maturity issue - the candidate has handled this RFA and the comments herein confidently, openly, and appropriately).
'''Strong support'''. I've had nothing but positive interactions with JamieS93, and I disagree with almost all of the opposes. So what if she isn't a certain age - she has shown exemplary judgement in my view, and that qualifies her for the tools. I'm pretty disgusted at how this turning out, to be honest, although I'm not going to go into details, but here we have a user who is more than qualified for it, and we're denying her adminship. People complain when people don't have enough GAs, and here we are with an editor who focuses mainly on building the encyclopedia, but doesn't have a big pile of GAs to show for it (Jamie is obviously an editor who focuses on the drive-by cleanup tasks), and I think thats as good as any number of GAs. Strong support, good luck. :)
'''Strong Support''' Not a problem with this user being an admin. <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as good article contributor and due to no memorable negative interactions.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
JamieS93's answers to questions and conduct during this RfA have been very good, and I'm not seeing any immaturity in them whatsoever. In fact, if she hadn't admitted she was in high school, no one would have guessed how old she is. Regarding Majorly's "badgering", I feel that is a word that is used way too often: we are supposed to discuss in RfAs, and labeling comments and responses as "badgering" does not contribute to a healthy atmosphere. By posting this support, I know and understand that someone may want to respond to me, and I welcome that. This user has contributed positively to the encyclopedia and will be a positive admin.
'''Support''' A good user who has done some article work (1 GA is fine for me and the article work is hardly some isolated incident; higher standards are fine, but 4 opposes about this is a little unusual), is reasonably mature (there are a decent amount of people on WP who are generally immature and it's not totally linked to age), because their conduct is great (opposing because the nominator tried to discuss a vote says ''nothing'' about the candidate) and because they don't use IRC as a social networking tool or a place to make decisions.
'''Support''' Very good editor and no reason she isn't trustworthy
'''Support''' - seems fine to me. :) —
'''Support'''–awesome editor, great person--<small>
'''Support''' Having looked over this user's contributions, I find an editor who is generally conscientious, incredibly civil, and genuinely concerned about the way the encyclopedia appears to the most important people - the non-contributing readers. While mistakes have been made, she is contrite and seems sincere about learning from them. I can find no evidence supporting the idea that the tools would be misused. [[User:JamieS93|JamieS93]] has my trust, and full support. '''
Ridicoulously intense and honest '''Support'''. Don't worry! You'll get it! --<strong>
'''Strong Support''' I believe Jamie is ready to be an definitely admin, and I don't buy the reasons given by the opposition (i.e.: age)  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Strong Support'''. I'm familiar with JamieS93's editing, and I know she's ready for the mop. Good luck! <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''. I'm familiar with Jamie, enough to know she is a thoughtful and careful editor. Leaving aside things such as low edit count to project namespace, I've found her answers to be very thoughtful for not editing there. For example, many of the opposer's are citing her answer to BLP as wrong (even when she says in general she thinks it should never be ignored/IAR), which I disagree with. I've also put some thought into her choice for nom's. While I think that she should have known the potential controversy for accepting from Majorly, I'm willing to [[WP:AGF|assume]] that she thought it shouldn't matter who presented her. Majorly obviously does not speak ''for'' her, so opposing this should not be a rationale in and of itself (Majorly: when will you learn that there is a time to remain silent, and a time to speak out? Don't you realize that your actions periodically run counter to your intentions?). And lastly, age. This means nothing. We already have admins who are her age, and do quite well. Her actions and behavior here have been excellent, so I see no issue with maturity. '''
'''Strong support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93&curid=19011961&diff=234285253&oldid=234277017 this]. Despite only being a teenager, which is not really a big deal. This user is by far one of the most mature, level headed users on this project and to be honest, she puts a lot of the current sysops to shame! Good luck Jamie, and if this fails. Please try again, because you have to pass this joke of a process one day! Happy editing :-) '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''' Age is a huge and prejudicial red herring. Some admins get better with age, some get worse. I see no reason to believe that this one would get worse, and if she gets better, that will be good indeed. Good luck, Jamie, however this turns out. --
'''I like JamieS93's statement in the discussion section above enough that I will support, support'''
'''Support''' The whole age thing is very unfair. Animum is 13 and he is a good admin... Why would a 15-year-old be worse? ≈ '''
'''Support'''. This is not going to pass, but you have my support. Everything looks good. A little low on communication in the Wikipedia Talk arena, but other than that, I think you'd be okay.
'''Support''' I wasn't sure, balancing a comprehensive Interiot count against a lack of editing experience (the type that comes with extended exposure to the environment), until I reviewed the deleted contributions section. Very, very few blue links indicating an excellent grasp of what is and what is not suitable content. As for everything else, it can be learned while on the job.
'''Support''' with [[WP:ADMINCOACHING|Admin Coaching]]: I've interacted with this user on IRC for some time now.  Seems to be a good content builder.  I don't believe her age bothers me too much, since I've seen current administrators who are only 13 years of age.  The oppose vote regarding the AfD votes does bother me slightly, but I'm sure there's a better explanation for that.  Administrators aren't perfect, and punishing a person's age rather than the ability to contribute and the depth of these contribution bothers me as well.
This may end up being an moral support, but if it's a real one I'll be happy with the outcome. I like what I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=JamieS93&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 here]; even though I think Icewedge makes a strong point, I see helpful, constructive work in the project namespace, and a steady, consistent approach to AfD.  It seems to me that JamieS93 is very unlikely to misuse the tools, and very likely to use them to the benefit of the encyclopedia.  That said, I urge her to fill in the holes in her knowledge of policy pointed out in the oppose section.
'''Support'''. Reasonable answers. Good contributions.
'''Support'''.  Nothing to indicate that they'll abuse the tools.  Age is irrelevant.  <font color="629632">
'''Support'''. Strong article work, good answers to questions. Physical age, in my experience on Wikipedia, has little to do with the maturity affected here: witness the 13-year-old competent admins, and the thirty-year-olds who throw a hissy fit if My Own Personal Article is deleted. --
'''Support'''. I don't really see why not. Age isn't the issue here, the issue is will she get the job done and my belief is that she will.-
'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder. Cheers,
'''Weak Support''' I've been back and forth on this one for days. I'm echoing Darkspots and a couple of the other supporters; certainly not perfect policy knowledge, but we're all human. For me, it came down to Jamie having a very sensible head on her shoulders, and the ability to know when she might be getting in over her head in any way and to know where she still might need a bit of help. She's clearly displayed the determination and commitment to this project that I like to see from potential admins, and the age thing doesn't faze me all that much. Good luck. :)
'''Support''' Would have breezed through the RfA process if she hadn't voluntarily revealed her age. I see nothing at all to suggest that she is incapable of handling the tools.
'''Support''' Good contributions, and while I see no real need for the tools I also see no evidence that the user will not abuse them.
'''Support''' For all the reasons cited above, but also in opposition to [[User:Badger Drink's]] long winded attack below.  --
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable person.
'''Weak Support''' Please don't become discouraged if this doesn't pass.
'''Support''' I liked these well reasoned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93&diff=prev&oldid=234285253 comments] about your RfA.
'''Support''' - I see nothing to warrant an oppose. <b>
'''Support''' - per [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User is X]]. <small>
'''Support''' per Acalamari, and to contradict the ageist opposes. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
The candidate seems to me like they would be a net positive for the project. Not convinced that any of the opposes amount to any kind of serious problem.
I think she would make a great admin ——
'''Strongest support''' I would have (co)nominated but there are enough noms already. I'm glad I get a chance to say this in an open forum - Jamie is an extraordinary contributor. I was one of the first contributors to notice Jamie's work and I've been following her since then. We have worked together a lot on Christian music articles. I don't even bother to look over her edits on articles because I know that they are ALWAYS high quality. I recently gave some constructive criticism in a peer review on her first GA, and she was real receptive and eager to learn - just like I was at my first GA attempt. I know that others are concerned about her age, but be assured that it doesn't show up in her work. Our interactions have show her to be very professional and I am certain that she would make a great admin. My experience with her has been first class, and I believe she is ready join the list of admins. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Big Support''' to spite the opposition. If you remove this vote (you should), remove all the others that go age-age-age and nothing else. --
'''Support''' She'll do fine. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', I see no apparent reason not to support. --
'''Support''' -- regardless of age. Best, --'''
'''Support''' - Good article work, very mature, hope to see you here again sometime. :)
'''Support''' - I personally don't believe age should be something to oppose about in any RfA what-so-ever. !Voters should be looking at RfA candidates as [[WP:WIKIPEDIAN|Wikipedians]], not age.  IMHO, Jamie shows the most maturity and civility I've seen in a while. When I first met her, probably when I saw her name around [[T:TDYK]] or [[WP:AFD]], I thought she was an adult. Though, getting to know her more, I was surprised she was only 15. Jamie is very dedicated to the project from what I've seen, always working at music-related topics. As one of my main areas is [[WP:DYK]], I have seen and noticed her work around that area as well. I'm sure she'll be able to help update [[T:DYK]]. DYK certainly needs some more active updaters, having lost two active ones recently because of them being desysoped. I see no instance or evidence where she will misuse or abuse the tools. By the looks of this RfA, its mostly likely not going to be unsuccessful, unfortunately. :( But Jamie, you have my utmost '''support'''. Always remember that us supporters think you ''will'' be a good admin. You should be proud of the many supporters you have, and what you have done to Wikipedia! We'll always be there rooting you on, no matter if your an administrator or not! So continue your work at Wikipedia, you've done great things for this encyclopedia, sharing the gift of knowledge to our readers, making positive changes to our world. That's why we're here, ain't it? :) Kind regards, --
'''Support''' - After a good think I have decided to support. I think overall you have the maturity, civility, and enough experience for an admin. You could help out a lot with admin actions in the areas you contribute. While I respect where the age based opposes are coming from they are very much generalising and your contributions can rebuttal them. Your amount of article writing does not concern me either.
'''Support'''. I had thought prior to my impromtu resignation of my administrator bit, that the ''RfA proccess'' was on its way to recovery, with hardly any horrifically, injustifiably unsuccessful RfAs in recent memory. Evidently, I was wrong. Pedro makes good points on [[WT:RFA]] that with the development of the project that admins have to become more associated and familiar with the site and its workings to be even considered for the role of being an administrator. Since when GAs/FAs mean that your account is less likely to be compromised and/or means your more likely to ruin the international reputation of Wikipedia is, well, beyond me. JamieS93 has some very good contributions and is responsible from what I've seen her do, with some good answers aswell. I really disapprove of people coming to an RfA with the mindset that they should oppose until they can prove otherwise. They seem to think that perhaps that someone has got an opppose, so ''by default'', there is something wrong with the candidate. RfA is a discussion and a discussion involves opinions, not always facts. So, instead of 'piling-on' or whatever the fashionable term is nowadays, why don't we ''really'' assess the candidate and reflect upon interactions that we've had with them (unless you can't relate to that) instead of following others and cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Kid admins have generally poor judgement, and bring the project into disrepute.  [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)  '''PS''' I've made extensive comments elsewhere, but just to clarify just a little bit: I've seen no sufficiently compelling evidence of unusual maturity.  I understand that exceptional youngsters exist, but I cannot accept the hand-waving arguments that this implies that ''this'' youngster is exceptional.
'''Oppose''' - High school? Too young, sorry. I'm not saying being under 18 equals being immature but I do believe that admins should have more life experience than a high schooler. They'll mostly be dealing with people who are adults, after all. That's not ageism, that's realism. Also, the ''93'' in her username (and the ''90'' in the username of her real-life sister WordyGirl90) lead me to ''assume'' she's born in 1993. In other words, 14 or 15 years old. If I knew for a fact she's 14 I would have voted "strong oppose". <font color="#8080ff">

'''Oppose''' My one interaction with Jamie was her poor judgment call on a recent DYK nomination I put forth (a senior editor immediately overrode her and took a rare step of chastising her take on inline referencing). Her enthusiasm to help the project is commendable, but her RfA is extremely premature.
'''Oppose''', the editor is presented as mostly an article writer, but <s>has no article above B class</s> has only one GA and no evidence of strong content contributions.  There isn't enough to go on here as far as knowing enough about this editor; if article writing is her strong suit, we should see some strength in that area.  And this from her nominator isn't a strong endorsement:  "I've known Jamie for a couple of weeks now, and we've talked quite a bit over IRC."
'''Oppose'''. Sandy sums it up perfectly, so I won't repeat it.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per SandyGeorgia.
'''Weak Oppose''' If article building is meant to be your trump card.... Also lack experience with dispute resolution/consensus building on disputed material/articles. —
'''Oppose.''' I hope you won't take this personally, Jamie, as you are obviously a great editor, and I thank you for your contributions. But given the substantial real-life impact admin decisions can have, I feel that non-adult editors should not be admins unless they have already demonstrated exceptional suitability for the job. The reasons above indicate that this is not yet the case here. In particular, I would expect a length of service of more than two years and/or an edit count in excess of 10'000, as well as profound experience in most areas of Wikipedia administration, from a non-adult candidate. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Per Sandy, I'm afraid. (Yes, I've seen Majorly's response.) —'''
'''Oppose''', I'm concerned about knowledge of some admin areas you want to work in. Of the few [[WP:AIV|AIV]] reports you've made, at least two ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=212353430] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=208744821]) were reported as "vandalism after final warning" when that had not taken place, the users had stopped vandalising after a level 3 or 4 warning had been given, then you reported them anyway. Combined with the lack of meaningful contributions to AfD that Icewedge highlighted, I'm afraid I'm just not seeing much evidence you really understand our blocking or deletion policies particularly well. I'll happily say your article contributions are well-done and you're a great Wikipedian, just not one I'd be entirely happy with as an administrator at the moment, sorry. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' per Sandy and Majorly. (I initially wanted to put as such, but oh well, was afraid what consequence would be waiting for me. Too bad for the candidate) --
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Age is irrelevant, but Sandy, Icewedge and Mazca all make good points; I'm not seeing enough evidence that this (otherwise excellent) editor has a sufficient grasp on the policies that they will need to know. <b>
'''Oppose''' - per age and (lesser so) Majorly's badgering of opposes.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' per mazca as well as the answer to Xeno's usual question. Any admin should never decline an unblock request to a block that they themselves made. Also, seriously guys, age doesn't matter. Think of every editor in this wiki as anonymous. In fact, that's why many of us made accounts to begin with, to be anonymous. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more experience before I would feel comfortable supporting. '''
Per Sandy and Icewedge. Nothing really strongly sets me against this editor, and its likely that if she returns for another RfA at some point in the future she will have easily addressed the concerns I have relating to evidence of judgment. I do want to say that Majorly's conduct on this page and the talkpage (or rather, whats been moved to the talkpage) is damaging the candidate's chances.
'''Oppose''' For lack of experience and understanding of the relevant policies, Age has nothing to do with it--there are some excellent admins in HS and some much older ones who are nowhere near as competent or mature in the relevant dimensions. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Friday and SandyG. --
'''Oppose'''.  Overall, I agree with Friday that young teenagers should not be administrators due to maturity issues.  To overcome this objection, I'd expect to see some truly excellent collaboration skills and in-depth knowledge of policy, and I don't think that this editor is at that point yet.  Continue working on articles, continue learning about policy, and don't be in a hurry.
'''Oppose''' per Icewedge and Giggy. AfD work isn't good, and your article work is lacking. I usually could care less wether candidates are good article writers, but if you claim it to be your specialty you better have something to show me. The answer to Xeno's question bothers me too, shouldn't decline an unblock request on your own block. And, to be completley honest, I have such little faith in Majorly's judgement that the fact that he is your nominator is a red flag as well. Age doesn't bother me though.--
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Sorry, but too young.
'''Oppose''' per Koji and all of the others that have gone before him.  But Majorly's nom and subsequent behavior here and elsewhere taint his judgment when it comes to RfA's.  I was trying to overlook my dubiousness of his nom, but Koji and QB are right, his judgment is suspect and Julian's nom can't overcome that deficeincy.---'''
'''Oppose''' per concerns the user may not be legally accountable
Sorry, but I have to '''oppose'''. You do some great work here. However, the BLP question that I posed earlier shows that you quite don't have an understanding of some of the policies. Your response was ''If the policy were to somehow get in the way of truly improving the encyclopedia, it could be ignored within reason.'' BLP is a very big legal issue for Wikipedia and shouldn't be "ignored", per [[Seigenthaler incident|this]]. I also oppose on some of the concerns above. '''
I feel bad for piling on but there are three concerns: 1. A candidate of admin material would have quietly or publicly asked Majorly to knock it off by now.  2. A candidate working on a resume of an article builder should probably have more good/featured content under their belt (I know this is disputable, but it is my opinion).  3. Per DGG.  I'm sorry.  All three of these concerns are fixable over a few months.  If you spend some time in policy discussion areas and such, you can help this.  Or (alternately), if that really isn't your bag, you can knuckle down and put together more content.  Either way, this is a temporary hiccup.  Please don't take these oppose votes as a direct comment on your character or as a sign that they don't value your contributions.
'''Oppose''' I was thinking of what to write here, but Protonk said it well. The candidate is not quite ready. And yes she should have told Majorly to knock off by now. Majorly's behavior as an editor, nom, and admin here is utterly appalling.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQueerbubbles&diff=234144300&oldid=233937321 I had toast for breakfast this morning]. <small>Let me explain myself. This is not about the candidate's age. I have three major concerns. 1) The candidate shows an inability to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in her answer to Xeno's question, and also handles the unblock request for her own block, which to me is a red flag. 2) The candidate sells herself as primarily an article writer yet has only 1 GA under her belt. I only say this because the user sells herself as an article writer. Also, Majorly, getting an article to B class isn't that impressive. 3) The candidate does not understand the vital policy of [[WP:BLP]] well enough for an admin, especially an article writing one, as demonstrated by response to Q7. These three concerns make me oppose. Cheers, Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Regretfully. Essentially per SandyGeorgia (and yes, Majorly, I have read your response), Protonk and per answer to Q7. I don't wish to pile on but the reactions of certain individuals here has prompted me to add my bits. I too am concerned at the accountability and life-experience maturity of a high-school-ager when considering the realities. Age is a valid issue, and will remain so. The (somewhat paradoxical) bawling slung at anyone who raises such concerns won't change that. It is, however, incidental to this particular Oppose.
'''Oppose''' I could care less how old you are. In fact, I really like that this community welcomes and protects youth, and my own RFA coach/co-nominator was a teen. But anyone who says they haven't been in any conflicts on Wikipedia is either lying or is simply not ready to be an administrator. Being a sysop on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean you'll get in to nasty conflicts of your own, but it ''does'' mean that others will bring their conflicts to you to solve. Someone who's never been in a editing conflict (even a completely civil one) of their own is not likely to be the best moderator in those situations. To have my vote of confidence, I need to have see some history of how you react under pressure. Your mainspace contributions are superb, but I'm just not comfortable with the idea of any sysop, young or old, being thrown to the wolves with no conflict resolution experience behind them. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' My apologies, but per Q#7 BLP is a serious real life issue above meerely improving the encyclopedia.--

'''Oppose''', probable lack of experience and knowledge relating to Wikipedia policy, as evidenced by low level of contributions in Wikipedia namespace.
'''Regretful Oppose''' as I do not feel truly comfortable supporting the RfA at this time.  However with several more months of experience with the project, I feel that ''JamieS93'' would make a fine admin.  --
'''Oppose''' the nominee has not shown the breadth and scope of contributions necessary to justify selection as an admin. I would encourage the nominee to continue and expand her participation in creating articles, DYK and XfD, the areas in which she has shown some aptitude, and prove to me and other editors that she is ready for prime time. A strong potential future admin who will merit serious consideration by me in a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' - Although this user has been ''quite'' active on [[WP:AIV|AIV]], I would like to see more experience at [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:ANI|ANI]] and possibly help out at other places on Wikipedia. Out of his [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=JamieS93&site=en.wikipedia.org 4,469 edits, only 394 are in the Wiki-space]. However, this user has demostrated a good knowledge of Wikipedia so far, and I am confident, should this user wish to fulfil another RfA in a few months time (with more experience and with a few more thousand edits), it will pass.
'''Oppose''', per answer to Q5. Your answer indicates that you have some belief that they may in fact come back to contribute constructively, so why make them wait? Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap, but constructive contributors are golden. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose.'''  A thoughtful editor who is dedicated to the project but unready at this time for adminship tools.  Note:  This oppose is <u>not</u> based on chronological age: the nominee's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93&diff=prev&oldid=234285253 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)] comments above, about what I have come to see as a ''[[Lord of the Flies]]'' atmosphere generated by Majorly, clearly demonstrate levelheadedness and maturity.  —
'''Weak oppose''' - Quite a few problems, both in this RfA and generally. I'd like to see more evidence of policy knowledge... perhaps come back in 6 months and I may have a support for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''+O''' Not yet. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
'''Weak oppose'''. While I think the age opposes are absolute crap, some other opposes are very valid and have convinced me. Certainly the candidate can be ready soon though, shouldn't take too much effort.
Sorry, but the candidate's answers and contribution history do not indicate they are prepared for admin duties at this time.
'''Oppose''' Weak contributions.  I am opposed to kids being admins (if you lack legal right to vote in most English-speaking countries, I discriminate).  And answers to questions confirmed my attitude.  And per SandyGeorgia who is 100% correct.  I'm sure I'll be badgered too.
'''Oppose''' Not enough wikipedia space edits.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Sandy Georgia.--
'''Oppose''' per SandyGeorgia and to a lesser extent Friday. -
'''Oppose''' for several reasons. (1) Although it appears there may be some experience with consensus building and article building, I feel there is insufficient knowledge/experience in: (a) the dispute resolution system, (b) the important fundamentals behind certain policies, and (c) in Wikipedia norms. (2) I'm personally not convinced that the candidate has had sufficient experience in admin-related areas (which is directly relevant). (3) Per Nuclear Warfare, this concern is further heightened by the candidate's apparent failure to understand a fundamental point - while it's okay to accept an unblock request for the block you yourself instituted, you should never decline that unblock request if you yourself made the block. (4) Per Miranda, BLP issues are of utmost importance to Wikipedia and they cannot be ignored (even in theory). (5) Per Friday, I understand that exceptional youngsters exist, but I've seen no sufficiently compelling evidence of unusual maturity, particularly in the absence of experience in more contentious content areas. (6) As a separate note, not forming a reason for me opposing: expecting FA GA or DYK medals as a criteria for adminship can be disgracefully unreasonable - quality content contributions can be (and are often) made in the absence of going through any (or all) of these processes that some users have their own reservations over. [Note: I don't think this candidate has any reservation relating to this, so he should probably consider getting more involved in these processes - it can act as a fast-track to gaining insight into some important issues relevant to content areas of the pedia, as well as some other wiki-norms].
Weak content contributions. Additionally, having children hold positions of responsibility on an influential website is inviting a PR nightmare. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''', per Friday and Icewedge. There are also valid concerns about sufficiently good understanding of WP policies, raised by others above, such as opposes by Mazca, NuclearWarfare, and Miranda.
'''Weak oppose''' – tending towards neutral, but think Wizardman has it right: with more experience of difficult situations a good candidate, but not just yet. Balloonman raises very valid concerns. ..
'''Oppose''' - Maturity concerns.
'''As above, waiting for answers.
per sandyG and similar. --
Would love to support as I see no indication whatsoever that this user would abuse the tools, have seen them around and been happy with what I've seen, and believe they would make a good admin. The opposes, while not convincing me to join them, however, do give me pause - it's a timing issue more than anything else. Had I been nominated three months before I was, I quite likely would have had a rough ride here, and certainly would have had a hard landing on the other side as an admin. The FA development process is pretty much unique - I can spit out B-class articles with a couple of hours work, but my last FA took me 1-2 months and my present work towards one looks like being much the same. I've seen the efforts by the [[WP:BANKSIA]] crew in that regard too (although I'm not suggesting [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia telmatiaea|scaling cyclone fences to get obscure photographs]] as a necessary hurdle for adminship :)) My advice would be to select a finite class of articles within your field of knowledge or capability of research, improve them to B/C as appropriate, and then selectively improve a few to GA/FA. Once you've done that, I'd be happy to support. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' for the moment. I'm not quite sure what opinion I will develop regarding this RfA, though some of the conversations on the talk page does concern me quite a bit - RfA's shouldn't be this dramatic.  Personally, I see age as an issue only important when the position carries significant legal responsibility along with it, such as checkuser status, and the wikimedia foundation already has a system in place for checkuser.  Short of that, the maturity of the individual user should be all that is relevant.  If a user did not reveal their age and was mature enough, people would have no idea how old they were.
'''Neutral''' because I don't know the candidate, but the ageism rampant in the opposes sickens me.  <font face="Comic sans">
'''Moral Support''' Clearly an editor with his heart in the right place. I suggest that perhaps you focus more on articles and less on your sub-page lists, which seem to have little value to Wikipedia. I also suggest that you force edit summaries (it's in "your preferences"). Perhaps an [[WP:ER|editor review]] may help you with some pointers? I'd also recommend you read up on our image policies. Sadly, you RFA is a bit premature. Candidates are ''normally'' (it's not set in stone) likely to have a fair few more edits and be able to demonstrate policy knowledge through XFD contribution, [[WP:AIV]] reports and the like, as well as article work. Please don't be dejected though - you're clearly providing some valuable edits to articles of interest to you, and I'm sure a future RFA will be a success. Until then, Happy Editing! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' --sorry too little experience in admin related areas. Sorry! --
'''Strong Oppose''' First, 1000&nbsp;edits is not alot. Second, almost every single one of them is to your userpage or userspace subpages. No experience in article writing and admin-related areas, including vandal fighting, AFD XFD, UAA and such.

'''Oppose''' Half of your edits are to your user pages, and your edit summary usage could be better.  Plus, as above, not enough mainspace edits or participation in admin related areas.

'''Strong Oppose.'''Per the lack of understanding in answering questions. User is not givig enough reason why he hould be a admin. Very unalabrative. Lack of experience. 3 months is not eough time to be ready for adminship. Wait for another year.''
'''Oppose''' - Inexperience issues, terse answers to questions. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boudella_el_Hajj&diff=prev&oldid=222305927] is not something that I'd expect from someone wanting to work at AfD. Doesn't meet my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|standards for adminship support]]. Also, poor edit usage summary. This usually doesn't impact my decision at all, but it is important to be as communicative as possible, and in conjunction with the other issues, it's a red flag.
As recently as a month ago you were seeking to delete a list [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_in_Playboy_1990-1999] on the basis that wikipedia is not a collection if lists. It was snow kept. This says it all really. You clearly have insufficient grasp of our deletion policies to be an admin just yet. Come back when you have 5000 edits and at least 6 months experience. Some friendly advice, this is going to turn into a bloodbath please consider withdrawing now to protect yourself.
'''Oppose''' that [[Anal Sex with Sluts]], an article you created,  was speedy deleted as vandalism does not fill me with confidence about your judgement.
'''Oppose''' - Nancy stole my answer. --
Consistently clueless.
'''Oppose''' - per your inappropriate contribs to [[Sluts]] and your lack of edit summary usage as well as your two recent blocks.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Very limited experience both in terms of time here and in number of contributions. Very superficial and brief answers to questions. And on your userpage you state that you often edit wikipedia while high on marijuana, which means that your judgement cannot be relied on. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - but if Wikipedia ever starts a [[WP:SPADE|TROLLCOM]], consider yourself my first selection. --
'''Strongest Oppose''' The answers are horrible, and RFA is not a vote. Badger Drink is so right!! Three months is not enough time to be an admin. His consstant vandlaism of "Porn" related articles worries me and the lack of edit summeries makes me wonder. This RFA does not stand a snowball's chance in hell, as in [[WP:Snowball]]. This user also says he's "autistic", which to me is an insult. I happen to know a dear friend of mine who's autistic. I don't understand why he would put that.
Sorry. [[WP:NOTEVER]].... if someone cares to be realistic (or ABF as some would call it) enough to write it. Clearly unsuitable as an administrator per the comments above. If the candidate sincerely wishes to help Wikipedia then withdrawing this RFA would be a good start in demostrating this. <b><font color="black">
'''Oppose'''. JeanLatore needs to consider the reasons why so many of his edits are regarded as counter-productive. If he does this, and demonstrates consistently good quality edits and discussion, I would consider supporting him in the future.
'''Neutral''' - RFA is not a vote. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Oppose''' This is a vandalism RFA. Read his opening statement. Never will support this user.
Stop trolling. –<font face="Verdana">
'''No.'''
'''Oppose''', suggest WITHDRAWING PDQ. Disruptive nomination; his last RfA ''just'' closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Come on. <font  face="georgia">'''
lol... that was funny to read.--
I'm sure you're a great editor, but perhaps now is not the best time to become an admin. I suggest you withdraw, and follow advice given by the <s>pile-on</s> opposers below. '''
No. Various reasons, not least of which is my concern that this user just doesn't have enough experience. Also, they have very unappealing answers. -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''. Your statement, answer to questions, comments about "steps to be an admin", the comment on your talk page from your adopter and your low monthly contribs gives the impression that you lack the experience and understanding of Wikipedia and administrators to become an admin. Please get more experience on Wikipedia, and not just as a "step to becoming an admin" but because you love this project and love contributing here.
'''Oppose''' - Your answers are very short, too short to even consider supporting your adminship, and you don't seem very enthusiastic about it. I'm sorry, but they're just simply too vague. I see you only have 1,912 total edits, and you aren't using your edit summary 100%, which is is another concern. —
'''Oppose''' - I am opposing due to the fact that your answers are way too short. I would expect that a candiate requesting for adminship would write more longer, detailed responses showing exactly what they will use the tools for. You haven't convinced me enough. I will be happy to change to support if you can elaborate more on your responses.
'''Oppose''', sorry, but not at this time.  Your answers are a little too short for me, and your lack of any solid recent contributions is a little worrying.  You definitely seem to have the right attitude, so with the right work in the future I would be happy to support you.
'''Oppose''' – I m sorry [[User talk:Jet|Jet]] but in reading your talk page, even you mentor does not believe you are ready yet.  If he/she cannot support you, I feel it is a little unrealistic to expect a majority of the community to express a support opinion,  I believe with some more experience you would be a welcome addition.  However, at this time no. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Virtually no contribs in 8 months, with a Wikibreak sign on the user page. A huge number of deleted pages, nearly all of which are in the user's space. I would recommend 3000 or so more edits in admin related areas and article building before trying again. I would recommend paying more attention to mentor's instructions. Could not find link to talk archives, so had trouble reviewing talk pages. The low level of activity is worrisome in that policy and views on consensus evolve over time and user simply has not been keeping up with the rest of the community.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
Lack of contributions and experience. Try again in a few months with much more experience and I will support. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Total lack of answers. For any chance of support, I recommend you substantially expand them. Sorry. -
'''Oppose''' - Lack of answers to questions, overall this feels like a rushed RfA. Maybe get someone to nominate you next time and spend more time answering questions, along with gaining more overall experience. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' even if he does give better answers. I'm just not impressed by the candidate's overall contribution record.  He has just less than 2,000 edits, and a lot of those are "cheap edits" such as welcoming new users, that don't require much thought. I see no commitment whatsoever to building content, and no history of discussions in XFDs and such.  I suggest withdrawal.
'''Support''' so I don't pile-on. Seriousley though, you need more experience in the areas you've decided to work in before you get the tools. And like Wisdom said, ArbCom is a last resort in disputes. The best thing to do is just talk it over.--
The time has come to make things right <small>'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry to be the first, but you have a low mainspace count, and also a very low talk page count. This is not enough for me to support, because I can't judge a user's ability to communicate with so few edits. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. You're definitely on the right track, just not quite there yet. Since communication is a very important aspect of being an admin, I'd like to see more of that with other editors (of your last 500 edits to User Talk, at least 300 were via Twinkle or Welcome templates). Looking at your mainspace contribs, you do a good job there and you have nearly 1000 edits there, so that's pretty good. However, you don't have a lot of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, which is comprised of areas with admin-like tasks. I'd like to see some more experience there. If you have any questions, feel free send me a message any time.
'''Oppose''' - I applaud your desire to contend with the endless barrage of vandalism that hits Wikipedia, but for someone willing to work in such an area I need to see contributions to [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:AIV]], which you are sorely lacking. You're certainly on the right course, as pointed out by Useight.
'''Oppose'''.  Your reasons for becoming an admin are...strange.  But, striking that, your edit count is poor for such a long time here, no activity at XfDs, and answer 3 is discerning.  Sorry.  '''
One feels that this RfA is probably a [[WP:NOTNOW]] </shameless> candidate. Disarming Q3 and lack of overall consistent contributions I'm afraid. Sorry, and please don't feel that your work is not valued - it is. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. The candidate's first nine sentences all have typos or clumsy English.  Obviously that doesn't mean they can't be a useful contributor in articlespace, as long as they know their limitations, but when they are this unsteady with the language, they shouldn't have a mop.  This is a bigger issue for me than suggesting Arbcom without a good reason, although that's big too. - Dan
'''Oppose''' - Like everyone here, we all think you are on the right track and applaud you for your want to serve wikipedia further and hope that this RfA does not stop you from contributing to this brilliant project. ''But'' you are not yet ready to hold the my [[WP:ADMIN|mop and buck]], and that is pretty simply due to lack of overall experience. Such places like [[WP:AFD]] would be helpful for your to participate at, along with simply working on creating or improving articles. Also your answer to question 3 is a bit off seeing as the first step in dispute resolution is talking with the user you are having the dispute with, not sending it off to [[WP:MEDCOM]]. Also 5a and 5b, are well...wrong. Might I recommend reading over [[WP:ARL|Administrators' reading list]], and possibly participating in the [[WP:ADOPT|adoption program]]? Like I said before, I hope to see you back here in 6 months or so. Best of luck :)
'''Strong oppose''' per, quite frankly, unsuitable answers to my optional questions. Sorry. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''', if you know the IPs, a checkuser isn't going to tell you anything more than you know already.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, your just not quite there yet, in some months, infact many months you only make a few hand full of edits. Im just not convinced your ready for it im afraid, agree with some of the comments by [[User:Pedro]] and [[User:Useight|Useight]]. Please apply later though.
'''Oppose''' Answers to the questions suggest that you might not understand what an admin actually does or where their powers and duties start and end, and on
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you don't seem ready yet. Maybe next time. Try gaining some more experience and waiting for a trusted user to nominate you. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Oppose''' per everything that everyone else has said... not now, English language limitations, low edit count, poor answers.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' per the poor answers to my questions (Q 7 and 8). This user doesn't seem to understand the tools and what to do. Sorry, try again in 3-5 months.--
'''Oppose''' His answers to the questions were basically "tell someone else" or "it depends". I don't think he has enough mainspace edits to become an admin. Interestingly, one of his userboxes says, "This user sometimes or always feels useless on wikipedia." Not a good thing to feel useless when you're an admin. :) Cheers, '''''
It's my humble opinion that pile-on opposition is a self-esteem crusher and discourages good-faith contributors into feeling that they aren't trusted - which is why I'm not placing this into the oppose section, but I am in fact neutral due to some fairly good contributions. However, the big deal breakers for me are 1) your answer to Q3, which shows that you may not know or fully understand the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|the dispute resolution process]], and 2) Earlier today, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=214565873 asked] why there is a 3RR policy, which to me speaks a lack of understanding of policy in general - don't worry if you accidentally violate 3rr, it's there for those who prefer to edit war as opposed to discussing changes. Come back in a couple months, with more experience, and I'll be happy to support.
Fail --
You seem dedicated, I've seen you before, and you've improved greatly since the last RFA. So why not? Good luck.
Sorry to be the first with the cliché but - you're not one already?
'''Support''' 18 months of editing... well over 19,000 edits... I see a great adminsitrator in you allready!
<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' - Support for your massive amounts of experience and your excellent answers to the questions. <span style= "font-family: papyrus; color:blue">
'''Support''' Plenty of experience. <strong>
'''Support''' per interactions. Has a good grasp of policy. --
'''Support'''. A single mistake on an AfD closure is hardly grounds to oppose. In reading the ANI report, this seems like nothing more than a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] mistake. '''
'''Strong support''' For this user clearly is a fine user and great contributor to this site. He makes good and valid edits and following his editing history he has a relatively good record and very fine contribs. You have my vote, John, you deserve adminship, and you're a valuable help to this site!
'''Support''' Probably a little more inclusionist than me, though often with a different emphasis. But I think he's always rational about it. Good answers to the questions are free of cant and blind policy repetition. I think he';s made some mistakes, and learned from them. I expect he will continue to take problems to AN/I when warranted, rather than go off on his own about them. Personally, i think that policy pages should be discussed before being boldly changed (except in minor ways), but the present policy is that BRD applies to them as well, so the block was unwarranted. '''
'''Support''' Per answers + saved some good articles at DRV.--
'''Weak support''' Following the user's answers to above questions, I'd say he knows where he's talking about. The edits he made all look fine, and he showed the communtity he has widespread knowledge on several ocassions. I am most pleased with editors like this. I have some doubts, however. Maybe you should try again in a few months from now. I'm not sure... For now, you've got my support, and that's what counts! I might change ,y mind, but that would be gighly unlikely.
'''Strong support''', good answers, thorough grasp of policy, an exemplary Wikipedian of ability and responsibility.
'''Support'''. This is tricky, since there are some Opposes below from editors I highly respect. However, as the question is now largely academic (since this will probably not pass) I'm comfortable supporting. Looking through the opposes briefly: yes, that AfD closure was questionable ''for a non-admin'', but it wasn't actually an unreasonable close in itself. Inclusionism on AfDs is OK as long as he's willing to follow community consensus in closing them, and set aside personal opinion; note that DGG (who supported above) is an arch-inclusionist and also one of our best admins. Although I see that some people feel he's too quick to go to DRV and to be harshly critical of admin decisions, I personally think we need ''more'' editors like this, not less; all power needs to be subjected to constant scrutiny, lest it be used arbitrarily. So, with reservations, I am willing to support.
'''Support''' - has experience and sound judgement, as displayed in various places. I understand iridescent's concern when citing the overturned AfD verdict, but it happened quite some time ago, and is only one of the many excellent AfD closures that I have seen performed by John254. A few wrong AfDs or DRVs incidents shouldn't come back and haunt him on an RfA at all. His deleted contributions indicates a solid record of tagging articles as speedy items. More writing work is definitely needed, but I think I can entirely trust him to use the tools well in AIV, AFD & CSDs - areas that he'd like to get involved in. -
'''Support''' - I think has very good contributions and would make a good administrator. I liked answers to questions given, and i think has good edit summary usage. I think would contribute right a way by reverting more vandalism and blocking users that vandalize.
'''Strong Support''' I don't even understand making a mistake in an AfD closure is a reason for oppose. We learn from past mistakes and experiance, and the AfD that was cited was probably a very good learning experiance for the candidate if not anything else. Also, the fact that this candidate actually actively tries to close AfD's means that he has the enthusiasm to participate in this administrative task, which is always an asset. Closing AfD, like anything else, is something that requires skill and experiance, and you can only get this experiance from actively participating in the closure of AfD's. I have no doubt that he will learn from these mistakes of the past and become a fine admin.
'''Support''' This user seems to know what he's doing. He edits in a good way and thereby greatly contributes to this website. I do not see any reason not to place this great user in the position of administrator.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as he seems [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramona_Moore reasonable], intelligent, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Statement_by_John254 experienced].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, and although has undoubtedly has made many mistakes in the past, I am convinced that he recognises these and can learn from them. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' This user first came to my notice following his bizarre [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore|closure of an AfD]] with only two "keep" comments, one of which was from the article's sole editor, for which he was then hammered at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_24&diff=prev&oldid=167917908#Ramona_Moore_.28closed.29 DRV] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive107#Jennifer_Moore|AN]]. Since this incident brought him to my attention, all I seem to see of him is multiple posts to DRV and AFD arguing what seems to me to be an ultra-extreme "keep everything" approach ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Adams_%28Beekman_Town_Supervisor%29|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Medic_Droid_%28band%29|2]] in the last couple of days, for example). On a browse through his contribution history, I can't see him ''ever'' believing that an article should be deleted. Given that his mainspace history seems to consist entirely of reversions (I went through the last 4000 mainspace contributions and there's ''not a single edit'' other than reversions and AFD closures), and his user talk history consists entirely of boilerplate warnings, there are no quality article-space contributions or thoughtful talkpage discussions to counterbalance my feeling that this is an editor who just doesn't understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. I'm also very put off by "I would also delete pages meeting the criteria for speedy deletion encountered in newpage patrol" - while I appreciate that a lot of admins do things that way, deleting things without a second opinion, except in th most clearcut cases, seems dubious to me, especially from a new admin. As he says he intends to work in AFD & CSDs, I can't support, given that admins working in those areas have to be able to make controversial decisions and defend them.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' Simply put the candidate doesn't get our deletion criteria and recently poor to bad judgement over a number of very pointy DRV nominations. Is very argumentative when people disagree with them and, while standing your ground is important in an admin, an ability to see things from other points of view is also necessary.
'''Very, Very Strong Oppose''' I had a conflect with John the other week, and he decided to look through my logs, and did some [[WP:POINT]] DRV nominations of deletions I did that was borderline harrassment. Two was easily endorsed and the last one was overturned and redeleted in AFD. Sorry but not now
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJohn254_2&diff=185497108&oldid=185495116 Oppose #1].
Wikilawyer extraordinaire. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. <font color="Purple">
per above. The issues with Dmcdevit still leaves a sour taste.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''', has a habit of filing often frivolous RFARs when there is only a hint of conflict. Admins should resolve disputes, not throw them to someone else.
User has given unhelpful opposes in other people's RfAs, as demonstrated in the following diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_4&diff=prev&oldid=182058015][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide_2&diff=prev&oldid=180829232][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Michaelbusch&diff=prev&oldid=168837423][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Betacommand_2&diff=prev&oldid=157514836] I agree with Sean William's oppose too, <s>and I also agree with Iridescent that most of John254's user talk edits are templates: I like vandal-fighters, as they're necessary, and we need them as admins, but I believe even they need to have other user talk interaction besides templates.</s> ''
I just have a bad feeling about this editor as an admin. There have been too many times when I just did not trust this editors judgement, too many times where I thought he was campaigning for things in way too wikilawyerish a way, too many AfDs that left me scratching my head in befuddlement... the excessive RfAr requests give me pause, while it is true that the IRC one, for example, might have ended up at arbitration no matter what, his starting it down that road rather early wasn't helpful. I also think he doesn't quite have the right balance with respect to BLP matters, his rather strident campaign recently about a particular DRV was rather worrisome. I don't think he'd necessarily "blow up the wiki" but I don't think he "gets it" and I'm not convinced he has a "deft touch". So, with some regret, '''oppose'''...  ++
'''Oppose'''. The tools are not needed for you to litigate disputes in DRV and RFAR. I'm also not convinced that you won't wheel war. I support your editing, even controversial DRVs, but I think you would do wikipedia most good without the mop at this time.
I'm with Lar on this and frankly some of your behaviour recently at deletion review has been unhelpful and from what I recall, there was too much focus on administrators and not enough focus on the content of articles when nominating articles for deletion review. I recall having to point out to John on a couple of occasions why the deletion review and undeletion of an article might well be justified, but his rationale certainly wasn't. Nominating a number of articles for deletion review by going through the logs of one user isn't helpful either. There may be perfectly good reasons for undeleting a number of articles speedied by one administrator, but  such behaviour isn't helpful and it shows a lack of the diplomacy needed for the role of administrator.
'''Weak Oppose''' per the above concerns. Try again in a few months and I might support you. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''', regretfully, per above concerns. '''''
Loves drama.
'''Oppose''' - my only experience with this user is with his role in highly misguided and problematic processes. '''<font color="#ff9900">
Iridescent (as always) puts it rather well. The closing comments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore]] look like a keep argument; not a good sign.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above, especially the tendency to bring matters to [[WP:RFAR]] rather than bring disputes to an end via alternate, more amicable means. —'''
'''Oppose''' per multiple valid concerns presented here.  Possibly consider ''nudging'' the supporters with a trout.  Too often, we let people pass RFA, just because they have keep trying, and many edits.  Bad idea.
'''Oppose''' per Ramona Moore.
'''Oppose''' per Lar. --
'''Oppose''' Not willing to trust with tools after viewing AfD behaviour links provided by iridescent.
While he is a good editor, the non-admin closures leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. '''
'''Regretfully neutral''' - John is a highly intelligent editor, who is determined to improve Wikipedia. His decision to request [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RodentofDeath| this arbcom case]], was proved correct by the result. He is doubtless going to be an administrator eventually. However, the concerns raised prevent me from supporting this time around.
'''Neutral''' Very strong at vandal fighting, and process, but a lack of sustained participation in any one article space (outside a few) indicates a lack of ''touch'' for me. Again, far too little evidence of discussion with other users. Mostly, though, I am concerned with the sheer quantity of edits in a period; perhaps there is less time given for contemplation than is wanted in making sysop decisions? I do not think this editor is anything less than committed to Wikipedia, but cannot support at this time for the reasons given.
'''Neutral''': Good editor, but is quick to pull the trigger at times. May be convinced to change decision.
'''Neutral''' He answered my question fully and reasonably.  The bad AFD closures prevent me from supporting.
I do appreciate your desire to contribute to the project and willingness to help as an administrator - but I don't think you are ready yet.  You don't indicate in what way you will contribute as an administrator, and the plethora of licensing issues on your talk page shows that you may want to become a little more familiarized with policies.  I see practically no edit history in Wikipedia namespace to demonstrate a familiarity with policy and procedure, either.  You've made many useful contributions to the project but I would suggest withdrawing this nomination until you've had a chance to better acquaint yourself with the duties of an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]].
Weakly oppose. The lack of edit summary use, the talk page notes regarding non free images, and the total lack of any project space edits indicate that you probably are not likely to meet the communities current RFA standards. The pluses are a long term account, focused on quality content not whack-a-mole vandal fighting. The spirit of [[WP:DEAL]] says support, but I'm afraid I'd really need to see at least a modicum of evidence of working in admin areas, and more importantly better evidence of communication skills. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
What Shereth. Also, your lack of [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] is really disturbing and is a sign of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. I also would advise you to reconsider the nomination to make yourself familiar with the job that an admin has to do. But please do not regard this as criticism of your contributions and I think a new RfA in a few months will be much more positive if you consider above advice. '''
You said you plan to use the tools to give articles utmost care, you do not need admin tools for that. Good luck. :) <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
Your answer to question one, along with just 12 Wikipedia-space edits point to a lack of knowledge of the role of an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]] and lack of experience in administrative areas such as [[WP:AfD]]. Before your next RfA (as you are a good content contributor, and I don't see why you can't make an excellent admin in the future), read the [[WP:ARL|administrator's reading list]], take part in some [[WP:AfD|AfD discussions]], maybe head over to the [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol]] and get experience with [[WP:N|notability]], [[WP:DEL|deletion policy]] etc. Most of all though, take part in some [[WP:RfA|RfA]] discussions so that you know what kind of things the community expects in a nomination and admins in general. Good luck in future, but [[WP:NOTNOW]] methinks.-  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Weak provisional oppose''' at this stage but willing to reconsider if persuaded. Your contribs look fine, but I think "because we are normal members we can't even give them a warning about it" shows a lack of understanding of policy which would concern me in an admin.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' per above. I'm not one for opposes based on edit counts, but 282 total edits and a general lack of experience is not something I look for in an admin candidate. Good luck next time though.
'''Regrettful Oppose''' - I personally don't approve of using edit counts to determine possible adminship, but I usually think a minimum of 500 is needed.
'''Oppose''' needs a few more rounds in the ring. --
'''Oppose''' - Overall edit count, with few contributions to admin related areas, not enough experience or evidence yet to be a administrator. This self nom well does feel a bit power hungry, I usually do not care for this reason alone, but i feel that this circumstance shows it. Recommend withdrawal. Cheers!
'''Oppose''' - Per above.
'''Oppose''' - I find answers to questions worrying; "seek and destroy" (Kill 'Em All) vandalism? It's not a war or anything like that, you're simply making the encyclopaedic cleaner. You need more experience in places like [[WP:AfD]] etc. to get a better understanding of how/what [[WP:ADMIN|admins]] do. Good luck in your future endeavours, friend.
Seek & destroy???? per all of the above. --
'''Oppose''' Could not gain support on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#New_Admin.3F|WP:PW talk page]], yet self-nominated anyway. If he cannot heed consensus with familiar editors, we cannot expect XfD's to be handled any better.--'''
'''oppose''' answer to Q8 alone squiks me enough.
'''Oppose''' per 12 Noon, and others. Also, it seems as though [[User:Kmweber|Kurt]]'s usual reply might seem appropriate as well. -'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but not yet.  -
If you like.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't think less than 3 edits at [[WP:AIV]] is sufficient for someone who wants to block vandals as an administrator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Although I see this user very dedicated in the mainspace, <s>I don't see how this user would really need the administrative tools. Only 3 edits to [[WP:AIV]] which shows no need for the block tool, not many edits to [[WP:XFD]] and not many deleted edits which shows no use for the deletion tool. Not really very good answers either. Try participating more in [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:XFD]] and subjects like those that show a need for the tools and come back a few more months.</s> I do not trust this user enough. From what he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimmetrow&diff=217902254&oldid=217892821  here], it generally shows he would loose his [[WP:COOL]] and possibly misuse the tools purposely.  I'd say more experience is needed, more knowledge of our policies, and a few months of wait.  Thanks,
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimmetrow&diff=217902254&oldid=217892821 "I hate you"] (June 8) is much too recent and surprising for an established editor.
'''Oppose''' - Per "Sandy", hate, admins just can't say that (at least not openly). Sorry. Its just too recent. Also I agree with "Gary King". Sorry again. —
'''Oppose'''. Wow, you indeed have a lot of edits. Yet only 52 to the Wikipedia namespace? Sorry, but even though I'm a big supporter of mainspace editing, you don't have enough experience in admin-like areas.
'''Oppose''' - Completely unbalanced in edits. It's been a while since I resorted to such a rationale, but with so many mainspace edits coupled to an average of less than 2 per article, and then double digits in the project space? No experience at all in admin areas. Also, the I hate you comment is just plain wrong.
'''Strong oppose''' - Great way to interact with the community by saying you hate people, yeah. Just like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimmetrow&diff=217902254&oldid=217892821 this]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' – the candidate's edits very frequently pop up on my watchlist, and unfortunately I have to say that, from my observations over a long period of time, the vast majority are not particularly constructive. I have even in the past rolledback many of the type of edits that SandyGeorgia mentions above, and from my recollection, the user isn't especially responsive to questions. The candidate hasn't demonstrated the experience necessary, in my opinion, for adminship – despite a long and very active contribution history.--
'''Oppose''' per inactivity in admin-related areas, as well as Sandy's troubling diff.
'''Neutral with Moral Support''' - I dunno; you seem to be up to the task, but I'm not really that sure about you as an admin (even I have doubts about myself as one), but I'll support you for that... God Bless and good luck, Joe...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Joshuarooney No].
Hi, Joshua. I am afraid I have to reluctantly oppose your request at this time. It is '''not''' because you “went off the rails” as you put it. That was long in the past and everyone has the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. However, have less than 300 edits, less than 100 in the past 18 months. That is usually not enough time or exposure for the community to get a good feel about how you would react in various situations and how your judgment would be exercised when called upon. As such, it is very unlikely that the community would be willing to extend its [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to you at this time, and you may wish to consider a voluntary withdrawal. If you have learned from your past and are willing to help the project, I am sure that after a short time of active editing you will be more able to be opined upon by the community. Good Luck. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Not nearly enough editing experience, plus you have shoddy edit summary usage.  Come back in about 2,000 edits or so, and work on your edit summary usage.  I recommend this nom either be withdrawn by candidate or  closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry I haven't even bothered to view your stats as I am not happy with your answers to the questions. Perhaps next time you should put more thought into the answers and spend a bit more time contemplating them. There is no rush, sorry! --
'''Support'''.  I wasn't around for this particular bit of "history" cited by R.Postelthwaite, but if M.Animum and Jouster have "kissed and made up", then I don't see the harm here.  Length of time of service outweighs the admittedly low edit count over said time period and convinces me that this user will not misuse the extra admin buttons because I'm convinced he understands policy (how could you not after 4+ years?).  Very explicitly states above what he will and will not be doing as an admin, and fortifies it with some of the most liberal [[CAT:AOR]] criteria that I've seen to be able to quickly remove the bit if needed.  You have my support.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. (I was inclined towards this anyway when I asked Q5, but wanted to get a better idea of the situation.) I don't know how many admins frequently look at [[CAT:PER]], but it often gets filled up with the non-technical requests that require a good understanding of how to handle edit warriors that are insisting 'zOMG WRONG VERSION!' (I mostly work on the technical and noncontroversial requests there, which were often backlogged at the time when I applied for adminship, but which have since got better, mostly due to the hard work of other administrators.) Requests to change something on a page protected due to edit warring have been known to mount up, and many admins (at least me, and probably many others) wouldn't have the skill or temperament to work on them. (The one time I tried, it lead to a minor controversy.) The risk of an abuse of administrator tools seems low; I have no reason to believe Jouster to be a POV-pusher, and with the bar for desysopping voluntarily set this low, and the self-restriction on the administrator tools to use, I don't think there's much other chance of causing long-term problems. If a user can demonstrate that it would be to the community's interest for them to become an administrator, that greatly inclines me to support, especially in a case like this where the risk of tool misuse is low. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 20:20, 27 February 2008 (
'''Support''' — After a review of his recent edits (which was quite easy, BTW :-D), I believe he is qualified to do the work he wishes to do. So I'll assume good faith and give the guy a chance. After all, he seems truly willing to help out, even if only limitedly; that's always a good sign, IMO. --
'''Support''' - [[WP:AGF]] - has experience despite a low edit-count. No recent problems. And why can't he ask himself a question? Other candidates have at their RfAs.
'''Support''' on the basis of the AOR criteria laid out by the candidate. --
'''Strong support'''. I am sure he won't abuse the tools, since he isn't even very interested in most of them. His attitude suggests that if he does become interested, he will learn to use them appropriately. In fact, I support a candidate who has an earnest, serious want for the tools (or only one tool); it's far easier to assume good faith with them. --
'''Support''' - [[WP:AGF]], is open to recall.
'''Support''' — Yes, we definitely have our history, some of it I wish didn't happen, but facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored <small>([[Aldous Huxley]])</small>; we both have to come to terms with it, and have (see his talk page and response on mine; I won't provide diffs because you'll look for them yourself if you truly want to see the exchanged words).  "[...] You had three neutral admins very much ready to block you and start an RfC over it [...]" – this may be true, but if you reverse the viewpoints and look at things from another perspective, you will find that I instigated many of the arguments and word battles, but that's not to say Jouster didn't respond in a manner that refueled the process.  However, his recent editing, collaboration with [[User:The Transhumanist|The Transhumanist]] over [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] and his labor for the Arbitration Committee by clerking relentlessly are compensation for all of that, not to mention that the fault of reciprocally exacerbating each other's anger probably falls more on my shoulders than his.  On another note, I would ''not'' recommend placing yourself in [[CAT:RECALL]] indefinitely without criteria that would eliminate any possibility of being unjustly de-sysopped (if this RfA is to pass, of course [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]]).  Best wishes, —
AGF. ''
'''Support''', if you can make peace with the Animum, then you must have at least some maturity and responsibility.
'''Support''' per answer to question 4.  --
'''Support''' I trust him with the tools, and even if he just uses them for limited purposes, it is worth it if he uses them to just one good effect. -
'''Support''' &mdash; a clear example where a division of admin tools would be beneficial to the project.  --
'''Support''' -
'''[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]'''
'''Support''' per Maximillian...--
'''Support''' per many of the above comments.
'''Support''' I think he'd make a good admin. '''''
I suggest you come back in a couple of months after researching the stringent requirements of most RfA voters these days. You'd have passed easily a couple of years back. Nothing has changed, people are just more fussy these days. Some admins were made admins before the blocking policy was even created. And I expect it's changed since I last read it (October 2006). Pretty petty reasoning with opposing per experience, but these days people think edits = experience, when it doesn't really. I'd rather have an admin who actually put thought into each and every edit they made, instead of pressing the R key thousands of times a day to revert on Huggle. While there were problems with Animum last year, guess what? I forgive you. You apologised, we all make silly mistakes. That's one thing a lot of users lack: forgiveness. They'll hold a grudge for one little mistake and it'll curse you forever and ever. Anyway, while this RfA will fail, I hope you come back after a few sessions with Huggle or Twinkle and the edit counters' requirements will be fulfilled, and perhaps you'll have more of a chance? Happy editing. '''
I find the above argument by Majorly very convincing, as well as the other arguments in support of Jouster.
'''Weak Support''' I think you would make a good admin, but I have noted some harassment cases from the past. However, this does appear to have changed for the better now.
'''Support''' I have no [[litmus test (politics)|litmus test]] for my !vote.  I explicitly reject [[WP:ITIS|edit count]]s and similar numerical measures of an editor's worth or suitability.  This editor has been here since 2003.  They have not [[Battle of Jericho|pulled down the walls]] yet.  Nearly 5 years in this community with '''no''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3AJouster block history] and evidence of resolved conflicts makes me confident in supporting this RfA.  A minor consideration in my decision is that editors whom I admire are supporting Jouster while an editor whose judgment I find questionable is a loud voice in opposition.  We're getting a bargain here in that we can apparently increase the admin count without increasing the ego count.  Give Jouster [[WP:ADMIN|the tools]].  If a problem develops, they can be [[WP:AOR|taken away]].  It's really [[WP:DEAL|no big deal]].  --
'''Very reluctant oppose''' – I’m sorry Jouster, you’re obviously dedicated but I can’t help but still be concerned about your harassment of [[User|Animum]] from July. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Animum&diff=prev&oldid=144886030#Redirection Here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Animum&diff=prev&oldid=142704397#This_has_got_to_stop here] are some of the threads you started on his talk page, not to mention a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=142926852#Obfuscation Village pump thread] about it. You got warnings off me[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jouster&diff=145104041&oldid=144415307] and various other admins [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jouster&diff=next&oldid=145104041] which lead to a [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive272#Jouster|AN/I thread]]. I realise that this is a long time ago, but you have made less than 500 edits since then and I therefore do not believe sufficient editing time has passed to show there will not be a relapse of this behaviour in the future.
'''Strong oppose''' - I do not believe you are admin material, quite frankly.  For one, you don't have nearly enough editing experience, nor is it very well-rounded.  Secondly, you posed a question to yourself (#4), that by it's very tone, isn't very serious, which leads to my doubts as to how seriously you would handle admin functions.
'''Oppose''' – The first and main reason for my opinion to oppose is the lack of experience.  You have just over 1,100 edits.  Personally, nowhere near the amount of experience necessary to have the responsibility that comes along with the tools.  Secondly, just read the question you yourself submitted as question 4.  I am all for light heartiness, to a point and from my standpoint (pun intended) I believe you crossed that threshold. Are these concerns insurmountable, of course not!  This brings me back to my original stance, just a lack of experience.  Good Luck to you and with some more time here at [[Wikipedia]] would be happy to support next time around. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Lack of experience, too little edits. Get more experience and I will support in a few months. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - Can't do it in good conscience, sorry. You lack vital experience in the project - and your Q4 is, quite frankly, strange and frivolous.
'''Weak oppose'''. A friendly user and a dedicated user, but one that ultimately lacks the experience to wield the mop. I'm not basing this solely on Jouster's edit count though (as Jouster mentions, it's the quality of the edits, not the quantity), but his reply to Question Four and his lack in participation of the deletion process (such as AfD) concerns me. An administrator needs to be well-rounded when it comes to contributions, as it's generally unacceptable for an admin to have no clue on a task that he is obligated as an admin to do, such as closing deletion requests. The conflicts pointed out by Ryan worry me as well.--'''
'''Weak oppose'''.  "You don't participate at WT:RFA, you can't name the categories of WP:CSD, and you show no appreciation of blocking policy. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools?"  That kind of says it all.  <font face="Book Antiqua">
Sorry - without even looking past your nom statement, I know I can't support. There is no guarantee that you will abide by what you say, and it will be quite difficult to censure you for, say, making a 2 hour block when you said 1 hour was your limit. As noted above, the Archtransit RfA is a good example of why we can't approve admins with self-imposed restrictions as to what they will do. It would be admirable if you were to say that you would not involve yourself in areas where you lacked insight or experience (until you acquired one, the other, or both), but thats not what you've said.
'''Oppose''' Issues bought up by Ryan, the infrequency of editing since those issues and mostly your personal Q4 which, when you really consider it, was hardly going to be in your favour at RfA; Hence shows a concerning lack of judgement. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
No, per Ryan and lack of experience. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' serial assumptions of bad faith, pretty shocking behaviour around Animum as brought up by Ryan. I rarely oppose when there's an opposing majority, but I must regretfully make an exception here. Sorry. ~
'''Oppose''' - Marginally meeting my standards, but the concerns pushed me over.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - You have got to be kidding me: if there is one thing I have learned from my RFA experience, which is not much, it is not a good idea to state you do not know the blocking policy or [[WP:CSD]]. The user's own words clearly states that he does not need nor will he use the admin tools, so why should he have them? In addition, there are other problems, like the certain user conflicts others are mentioning above as well as the lack of experience that a lot of people are concerned with.
'''Oppose''' - Not knowing the blocking policy is mainly what got me. Sorry, not this time. Also, less than 2k edits isn't very strong.
'''Oppose''' This is a little too out of process for me to be comfortable with.
'''Oppose''' Far too early for me to feel confident in it.
'''Oppose''' -Per above concerns, sorry! [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Oppose''' -- per blocking policy concerns and the issues raised by Ryan Postlethwaite.
'''Oppose''' due to low edit count and blocking policy concerns above.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''': I do not believe that Jouster is ready for adminship nor do I feel comfortable giving a support :( <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' "You don't participate at WT:RFA, you can't name the categories of WP:CSD, and you show no appreciation of blocking policy. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools?" I don't trust you either <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Oppose''' - No, I am sorry, friend. When you say you won't block beyond 60 minutes... that tells me you've never seen another admin block someone else before. I would consider a 60 minute block a "cool down" block, which aren't recommended. Please grab some more experience in other areas and we'll see how you're doing in a few months. Sorry my friend.
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' I can't support because <s>1)You have admitted to not knowing the [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]],</s> 2)Not enough expirience, 3)There is no way to enforce the restrictions you put upon yourself, and 4)60 minute blocks are ineffective in almost every circumstance. You are a very good user and I would be able to support an RFA in the future '''[[iff]]''' 1)You wait 3 months, <s>2)You learn the blocking policy,</s> and 3)You don't use restrictions on your use of the tools as an argument for why you should get them
'''Oppose'''; lack of experience can be cured, but requesting adminship before you took the effort to learn the blocking and deletion policies show a ''serious'' lack of understanding about what the position entails.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose:'''  Not only is your edit count low, you have harassed users in the past and lied massively.  For example, your edit count shows less than 2,000 edits (the bare minimum for admins), yet you claim over 42,000.  This is not acceptable for an administrator.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Oppose''' I don't like the look of your past history here with regards to other users, and I'm not all that convinced by some of your answers to the optional questions above. Maybe in a thousand or so frictionless edits, but not right now. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Oppose''' Firstly, if all you are interested in is {{tl|editprotected}} and [[WP:SNOW]], there is no need for the tools for that. Drop a line on a sysop's page. Regardless, sysop's have the ability to protect the project through protecting or deleting pages and blocking users or ranges of users. This protection can be misused, and, therefore, should only be extended to people whose [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment can be trusted]] by the community to be exercised rationally, reasonably, and properly. Of course we all make mistakes and anyone can have a bad day, but someone with a history of being exhibiting incivility when involved in difficult discussions is someone who may be more prone to abuse the tools. Time and learning from one's mistakes heals many things; perhaps a significant stretch of time demonstrating the patience, self-control, and heightened levels of civility required by sysops will change many of these concerns, but now I too must reluctantly oppose. --
Per above and per Ryan.
Per many of the points made above with regard to editing history and the need for the tools.
'''Oppose:''' Per many of the above points made by users regarding to your edit history... very weak amounts of edits in months, and highly been inactive and also the way that you say in answer to Q1 you are going to do very little with the admin tools, which is not really why editors are promoted to administrator status. With only 1139 total edits and 351 Mainspace edits, there is no way I would be willing to support. [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' I do not feel you have any need or use for the tools nor do I feel particularly comfortable endowing you with them either. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I am sorry, but I do not feel that you have the experience nescesary for an admin, I am not qiute sure why everyone is so het up over q4 it was in my opinion a chance for Jouster to stste why we should trust him and what he would do, further than before.
'''Oppose''' I personally do not feel that you have enough experience. Also, question four seems ''nearly'' [[WP:POINT]]y. Not quite, as I certainly wouldn't say that you're being disruptive, but I still get the overall feeling that you're going through a major Wikipedia process just to prove a point. You say yourself that on the whole you would not use the tools, hence you do not need them. Sorry. [[User talk:Islander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''Talk'''</font></sub>]]
per Q4 and blocking policy.  --
'''Oppose''' - I love the humour, it's grand, and we all need a bit of that. :-) But Wiki-wise, I feel you don't yet have enough thorough experience and some rather curious remarks in your answer to Q4 raised my eyebrow. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - you seem to be interested in only doing certain specific admin tasks; the sort that we don't need another admin for. Only blocking for up to 60 minutes isn't really helpful to the project, IMO... try again soon with broader intentions. [[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·'''
'''Neutral''' pending answers to my questions above. The pledge to block for no more than 60 minutes makes me feel uncomfortable. Although I firmly believe that we need sysops to perform maintenance tasks as much as we need them to directly help with content creation and improvement, I would also like to see a broader area of tasks to be worked with, not simply edit protecting and working with non-controversial AFD discussions.
'''Neutral.''' Though the AOR response is ''extremely'' welcome and admirable, I feel he is limiting the scope of the proposed admin activities a little too much, particularly because his approach could benefit many more areas than those in which he has said he would be prepared to act as an admin (though this last point is not really a point against, but just a plea for more scope!). In certain cases, a block of greater than 60mins may well be required as well. If these could be addressed so that they were less retrictive, I would be happy to change to support.
'''Neutral''' This is the sort of RFA which makes me really wish that there was an admin recall standard.  The applicant says that he intends to use admin tools only for very specific purposes, and seems to be qualified to wield them for those purposes.  By his own admission, there are far more things that he's not qualified to use the tools for, and he doesn't intend to use them for those things.  If sysoping him and then de-sysoping him if he oversteps his competence was an option, I'd be all for it.  Unfortunately, it isn't, and while very few admin candidates are capable of properly doing all of the things admins can do (I'm still not), Jouster's just too far short of that standard.  Sorry.
'''Neutral''' I'm a bit worried about how you have expressed unfamiliarity with CSD and how you feel that you won't block anyone beyond 1 hour or so. I feel that you are almost looking for a "part-time" adminship. I appreciate your enthusiasm to help out, but I'm afraid to say that it would almost create more work if you were promoted to admin. It will be too difficult and time consuming for you to hunt down another admin to extend a block. Another thing is that, although admins might not express it to you, I can guarantee that eventually we will grow tired of you trying to ask for advice and "holding your hand" through the process of blocks and almost every other aspect of adminship. I'm very sorry if this message comes off as negative, I just want you to be aware of the negative things you will encounter if you were to be promoted. If you are willing to work up on your knowledge on admin material, and show that you can work independently for the most routine of things, than I would gladly support you next time! Cheers, <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Neutral to avoid pile-on the oppose'''
'''Moving to neutral''' While I still believe the user needs more experience, I look forward to supporting in a future RfA when that experience is gained.
I'm afraid I can't actually support this RfA, as per some of [[User:EVula/opining/RfA ramblings#Requirements|my standards]]. You're a decent enough editor, which is why I can't bring myself to Oppose, but you're not active enough for me to Support. I understand your "net benefit" statement (and it ''is'' rather compelling), but it's only a net benefit if you have the experience to help the project; I'm not convinced that you do, and the "I'll never block for more than 60 minutes" is worrisome. Basically, your answer to Question 4 makes me think that any net benefit of your adminship (helping with edit requests, etc) will be negated by the additional level of hand-holding required for more than the most rudimentary admin action. I'm sorry, but that's not what we need. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
This is a joke nomination. The user's primary "work" so far has been to push the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen.
No. Nononono. No. Just...no.
'''Strong Oppose''' Editor isn't even established, he's been here for about 15 edits.  Whoever supports this, I hope you have a good reason.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>
'''Strong Oppose''' JRH95, it's great that you're excited about vandal-hunting, but you don't need to be an admin to do it.  Check out [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|this]] article and you'll be well on your way to vandal-hunting.  Also, lay off the conspiracy theories.<b>'''
'''Very Strong Oppose''' 13 edits as of now. Enough said.
'''Oppose''' - edit counts are not always important in RfA's, but when you only have 130 edits (half of which are to your blanked talk page), it's clear you don't have enough experience with Wikipedia to apply for adminship. Could I suggest some solid article-writing experience, followed by contributions to the main non-article pages like [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]], the Help Desk or Village Pump, and maybe involvement in a WikiProject or two? You're also interested in vandal-reverting - most vandalism-reversions can be done without admin tools, so just jump right in and give it a go.
'''Oppose'''. I don't like doing this, but I can't go any other way. Although your account has been around a while (editing since late 2006), your edit count and patchy use of edit summaries is reasonable grounds to say you don't have the experience. I would go with Euryalus' suggestions and build up some experience editing articles and participating in "admin areas". And next time, I would suggest letting someone else nominate you.
'''Oppose''' Nowhere near enough experience.
Not anywhere enough experience. While I maybe wikipediholic and all that stuff, 136 edits is not much more that what I do in, say, one hour and half. And in this 136 edits, you managed to candidate for adminship twice. Also I can't say that I appreciated your answer to Q3. <i><b>
'''Oppose''', I appreciate your enthusiasm by coming here, but I'm afraid that you simply don't have the experience.  Your answer to Q1 in particular is illuminating; you do not need the admin tools to contribute to articles or fix vandalism.
'''Oppose'''. Would not normally pile on a self-nom which is obviously going to fail, but this is a ''second'' one? I'm no fount of wisdom, so ignore this if you will. But have a look at [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|my own criteria]] for RfA - which are probably a little on the liberal side for some editors. Until you can meet these, I don't think any RfA is going to have a chance of succeeding.
'''Oppose''' - per all the above. Regarding the answer to question three, have you misinterpreted what it's asking you?
You've barely edited since your last RfA. Please take a look at some of the other active RfAs if you're interested in adminship, but some better advice is to not be. Don't think about adminship. Ignore it. If you're here to build an encyclopedia, adminship will follow. It doesn't work the other way around. ''
'''Oppose''' You currently have 213 edits, I would need to see well over 5,000 before I could be confident that you have a broad enough experience level to handle admin tasks.  Also, you need to make better use of edit summaries and need to get more involved in all aspects of WP, articles, [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RCP]], etc. '''
'''Oppose''' 213 edits yet you're on your '3rd' self-nom? Edit some more and forget about RfA for a long while. In addition '103' of your edits are to your user page and your edits are rather sporadic. You also claim to want to help fight vandalism, yet there is very little evidence of any such vandal fighting already taking place. You're just too inexperienced and constant self-noms are not a good sign at all. --
'''Support''' as co nom. Beat the other nom support.
'''Support''' as nom. Can't beat the co-nom since he beat me.
'''Moral Support''', Wisdom makes a very good point.  Perhaps this was an, erm, impulse decision?  '''
'''Support''' -- the user may not be all too active in all areas...but he has a good edit count, good edit summary usage and good knowledge of wikipedia. I also doubt this user would abuse the tools...Best of luck! --
'''Oppose''' - While I've come to realize article building admins are beneficial, you've stated in Q1 that you wish to work in areas you've virtually never participated in. Sorry. This likely indicates lack of policy knowledge in the project space.
'''Oppose'''. I do not trust his judgment yet. There are other problems, but that is the biggest reason I am opposing. ♬♩
'''Oppose''' I didn't mean to comment in this RFA as I've barely come across you but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/British_Rail_Class_37%2C_37427&diff=prev&oldid=208230948 this comment] posted less than 10 days ago is very possibly the worst argument I have ''ever'' seen on an XfD, and after seeing it there's no way I'd trust you with a block or delete button.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' per above. Specifically, per comment in Neutral that admins don't work on articles, and per Iridescent.
(edit conflict)'''''Conditional'' oppose'''.  I'd like to hear from the admin coach; in the meantime, Iridescent has a good point.  --''
'''Regretful oppose''' Remove my comment from neutral, as for some reason it was being edited by the nominee. Haphazard nom, from a medium we should be eliminating, not encouraging. No input from the admin coach and the AfD comment and the comments on this RfA tip the balance into oppose I'm afraid. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' I would like to support via [[WP:WTHN]], but I just can't. I just simply don't trust your judgment enough yet, sorry, nothing personal. :) <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - If for no other reason than just in watching this nomination. The editor appears to not be ready. Quietly, and respectfully suggest that perhaps this should be withdrawn. -
'''Neutral''' - As much as I like JC enough and everything, I just do not feel there is enough Wikispace contributions, and he does have a problem with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. He is good with vandalism reverting and such, but in my mind, its not really enough to say he's ready. Sorry man.<FONT FACE="Anderson Supercar" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red"><sup>
Little to no experience in administrator related areas. Candidate isn't aware of importance of accepting the (currently) short nomination. JOM needs to look towards expanding his involvement in various admin projects, become a member of a wikiproject and frequently discuss topics with other editors.
Lackadaisical tranclusion, lack of experience, vague answers. Give it 3 months at admin-related areas then come on back!
More experience needed in article-building, conflict resolution and admin-related work. Edit summaries also need to be used more.
I think this candidate will probably make a great admin one day. However, the risk of giving them the tools right now seems to outweigh the benefits. Deliberate abuse is far less likely than the prospect of good-faith errors that nonetheless disrupt wikipedia. More experience is needed. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose'''. Under 500 edits, not nearly enough experience in any given area. Vague and lacking answers. Seems like candidate is on right track, but this RfA is extremely premature.

'''Strong Support''' I was the one who suggested this.
Wikipedia isn't harmed by well meaning but inexperienced admins. Quite the opposite. '''
Moral support per Naerii. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
Good contribution so far, from what I can see - but that is unfortunately not much.  Please gain some more experience before running again.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; You will have to improve in all major areas (edit summaries, evidence of admin duties, strong work committment to helping around the encyclopedia in a diverse number of tasks, article work etc.). I'm not seeing that at the moment.
'''Oppose'''; contributions so far are good, but there just isn't enough for me to accurately judge your temperament. Tutthoth-Ankhre's "suggestion" was premature to say the least.
'''Oppose''' Not enough overall experience, not enough experience in admin related areas, no real explanation as to what the candidate would be doing that specifically requires the tools, I had to correct the way you ''spelled your own name'' to get this RFA on track, that's a really bad sign, overall a [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Per [[User:Caulde|Caulde]]. You still need more experience in areas. [[WP:NOTNOW]] applies here. &ndash; <font color="navy" face="cursive">
'''Slight oppose''' and '''withdraw''' per concerns; please come back when you are more experienced. --
'''Oppose'''. For the lack of experience that may lead to lack of policy knowledge. The answer to question one doesn't exactly tell me what admin areas Jupiter Optimus Maximus plans to work in (though this isn't part of the oppose).
Sorry, but this is '''definitely''' premature. &mdash; [[User:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">Ceran</span>]][[User talk:Ceranthor|<span style="color:#008000;font-weight:bold">thor</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ceranthor|[Formerly]]
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]''' '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' Try Working A Little More
You're on the right track, but right now you aren't ready for adminship.  I suggest continuing to edit for six months and then considering an RfA, but right now you aren't ready. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm to assist the project is commendable, but the timing of this RfA is premature.
'''Strong Support''' Of all the admin requests this is one of the stronger ones.  His answers are great!  - I really like his answer to the first question.  Second, he really wants to be an admin.  I believe he is being true.  His contributions may be a little weak but I believe his professionalism makes up for it.  Good luck.
'''Oppose''' - Just to soon. Your contributions seem to be very scattered over a couple of months, with other showing little to no contributions. While I appreciate your enthusiasm anti-vandal work is not the only important aspect to being a admin. Might I recommend that you familiarize yourself with [[WP:ADMIN]] and get a [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coach]], participate in more admin related areas such as [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AN]] ect… give it a few months and try again.
'''Oppose''' - I've looked through the edit summaries of all your articlespace contributions (~ 2000 of them), and the overwhelming majority are reverts. I disagree on principle because I feel wikipedia needs writers, not traffic cops. I've also seen your contributions to [[Wicca]], and my opinion has not changed. --
'''Oppose''' Your answers to my questions were a little vague to be honest - especially Q3. I would have liked a more detailed response. However, I have some issues. As an example, did you actually think these warranted direct admin attention? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=194193882], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=194186815], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=194043099], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=196069771]
'''Relectant Oppose''' I think you have a good outlook but it just seems too soon. Administrators need to be more consistent and show a detailed knowledge of policy. I just can't see that you've done that.
'''Strong Oppose''' I checked out this users edits and he seems very ready to apply speedy tags to articles.  And I didn't agree with many of the reasons for them, for example, he tagged [[Ramesh Maraj]] as blatant advertising.  The article probably should be deleted (via AfD) as non-notable, but the article isn't blatant advertising.  If this is blatant advertising, then many of our other articles would have to be deleted.  I see virtually no real interaction with other users (other than the fact that his page is a constant target for vandalism.)  And I found his answers to be extremely weak.  In short, I hate to say it, but I have very little reason to believe that the tools won't be abused by this user.
'''Moral support''' - you're obviously here with good intentions, but I have a strong feeling this will not pass. '''
'''Moral Support''' - Please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a few months or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. - <font color="navy">
'''Moral Support''' - Editor still needs more experience about Wikipedia before earning the community's trust. I beleive an [[WP:ADMINCOACH|apprenticeship]] is in order.--
'''Moral Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions (assuming good faith) and as candidate has never been blocked.  Sincerely, --
'''Avoid the pile-on support''' Don't be disheartened, contribute more and rerequest later on in your "career" here :) <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. 4 months and 170-odd edits are not enough, I'm afraid.
Sorry, but this isn't going to pass. It's ''way'' premature. Your edits are good so far, but being an admin takes a huge deal of preparation. &mdash;'''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">'''C'''</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">eran]]</font><sup>
'''Oppose'''. While I appreciate that you've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gawkk&diff=256371284&oldid=256340306 removed] incorrect speedy deletion tags, I cannot support you since you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latvian_Centre_for_Human_Rights&diff=prev&oldid=253629535 incorrectly tagged] an article for speedy deletion very recently yet plan to help in that area. --
'''Oppose'''- way too soon. Thanks for volunteering to help though, and best of luck if you try again in the future.
'''Oppose''' You are on the right track and I support your desire to contribute to Wikipedia.It is only [[WP:NOTNOW]].Please try again later sorry and good luck.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. User has great intentions, and 4 months wouldn't normally faze me, but under 250 edits strikes me as disturbing. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Moral Support''' - Please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a few months or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards.
'''Oppose''' - not nearly enough experience demonstrated on the project. Suggest withdrawal or close per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. //
'''Oppose''' While I welcome your desire to contribute to Wikipedia.User has been around since March 2008 and has only 248 edits [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Kalajan&site=en.wikipedia.org] hence would recommend you try later as per [[WP:NOTNOW]].Sorry but good luck .
Q1 doesn't really explain a need for the tools, and Q3 confuses me. You say you were blocked but your log's clean...
'''Oppose.''' Too few edits, and your answer to Q3 does not explain how exactly will adminship help resolve an issue like this. Your answer to Q1 does not explain why you even need an admin's tools for such tasks. Maybe when you get more experience... --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Moral Support''' please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in half a year or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future one's will. Kind regards. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and the sorta-answers to the questions, which don't really show anything about the users temperament, attitude and so on.
'''Oppose''' No experience in admin related areas, unstaisfying nswers to questions, few edits overall and in a limited area and none for two months before this RfA. --
'''Oppose''' You've got less than 500 edits, which is nowhere near enough for me to decide if you've got a decent knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and practices. Your answers to the questions are brief and uninformative. Please try again in a few months.
I'm going to avoid what will be a [[WP:SNOW|snowy]] pileon and say: work on making more contributions and becoming more oriented on Wikipedia before running for adminship. You'll be considered at that point (I can't say specifically when) and will be more likely to succeed. --
'''Support''' as nominator. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
'''Support''' as co-nominator. –
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Strong support:''' As co-nom<span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']] .. <small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''', no reason to believe user would misuse or abuse the tools. Those opposes are absolutely absurd; too many co-noms? What does that have to do with anything? Program-assisted edits still help the encyclopedia, and the user still has thousands upon thousands of non-assisted edits. --
'''Support''' -- Seen the user around. Always up to good. --
Support because this user looks like a good candidate, and because the opposes (as usual) are baseless and absurd. '''
'''Oppose''' Mainspace edits are too spread out, and Wiki-space has alot of automated edits. Being able to revert/report with automated scripts doesn't make you trustworthy or any more deserving of the tools.--
'''Oppose''' KojiDude has is just about right - your history seems to be largely human-bot hybrid mechanical tasks, with no significant article space work that I can see. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA (I've never once worked on one), I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. Your boasts (and those of your nominators) about the amount you do on IRC also makes me very uneasy, as I firmly believe that, aside from a few special cases such as urgent discussion of a possible libel, IRC goes against the principles of openness and collaboration we allegedly stand for. The combination of [[Wikipedia:Spotlight|Spotlight]], [[WP:AAU|AAU]] and most of all the statement that ''"I think its important for all users to remember that editing wikipedia should be fun and interesting, and that is why I spend most of my time when I edit on IRC with users talking to people while they edit, and I find that this part of wikipedias community is essential because it keeps users happy"'' sets off too many alarm bells that this is a user who's here to recreate Esperanza, not to build an encyclopedia.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Upon reviewing the entirety of Kerotan's contributions, I found that he has never made an edit in the mainspace that was not either minor and/or with an automated tool.  –'''
'''Oppose''' I have to pretty much agree with Iridescent. I'm not opposing due to use of or lack of use of automated tools, nor editcountitis, nor too many co-noms (all weak reasons IMHO); but due lack of broad enough experience in collaborative encyclopedia building. The noms seem to think IRC activity = wiki adminship, no, nom him for IRC channel op instead. As for wiki adminship, get more encyclopedic experience and come back later please. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose'''. Wikipedia isn't a social club; I want to see administrators with some ''real'' experience of article building. --
Per iridescent & Malleus.
'''Oppose''' - concerned about high proportion of quick-fire automated edits - particulary recently and there is scant evidence of mainspace work beyond reversions. I was prepared to be swayed by the Spotlight co-ordination until I saw that as recently as 26th May this position appeared to be a matter of dispute with one of the noms[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spotlight/Members&diff=prev&oldid=215148769]  and then followed the [[Wikipedia_talk:Spotlight#Kerotan's election|most extraordinary "election"]]. Can't put my finger on it but something makes me uncomfortable.
Moral support, please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in half a year or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future one's will. Kind regards. —'''
Moral support. Candidate clearly wants to help the encyclopedia. Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] this will most likely fail, but good luck in the future! <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' - half of your 54 edits are to your userpage. Unsubstantial answers to questions. <font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script">
'''Oppose''' and ''very'' strongly suggest withdrawing, as you've no chance of passing at the moment. That's not a criticism of you – it's just that we've nothing on which to judge you.<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' Agree with Iridescent, you haven't really started yet. Get some more experience, and maybe try again some time when you've done a bit more. --
'''Oppose''' per above, and suggest withdrawing. Also, please remove the barnstar that you awarded to yourself[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKinderboy&diff=240336664&oldid=239852826] from your user and talk pages. Barnstars are supposed to be awarded to one user by a different user, but not self-awarded, see [[WP:BARNSTAR]].
'''Oppose''' per lack of activity.  Keep at it though!
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience.  Less than 10 days as registered user, less than 60 edits, over 50% edits are to own user page, less than 10% to Main space.  Kindly suggest withdrawal.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Less than 60 edits, and most to userpage? No, sorry.
'''Neutral''' Recommend candidate withdrawal, or closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]].
"Good Spelling/Grammer". I'm sorry, maybe in a few months with more experience? Best wishes, &ndash;
'''Oppose'''  Sorry...you are entirely too inexperienced for adminship.  Your list of contributions is very short.  I recommend doing several months of editing and other work before resubmitting request.<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. Far too inexperienced. I also note from his talk page that he's been warned for (among other things) vandalism and page ownership.
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced.  In several more months.  Please consider withdrawing, you shouldn't be discouraged by these results. --
'''Oppose''' I'm really sorry, but I'd recommmend you withdraw this request. With under 100 edits and some deeply concerning answers to the questions this RfA will not pass. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', really does sound like a misplaced request - there is little hope of this passing with your lack of experience (due to the answers and nom statement, not just the underpar edit count).  Sorry.  '''
'''Oppose''' More experience needed.
'''Sad oppose''' -- Sorry Kourosh but you need to work a little more on admin tasks before you come to Rfa. Might I recommend some areas such as [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:HD]]. Although I don't believe you would vandalise articles you need to demonstrate to the wikipedian community that you would make a good administrator first. I will be sure to support if you work on the afore mentioned articles. Regards --
'''Strong Oppose:''' I guess you came to a wrong shop. You dont need admin rights to create good articles. Your major contribution till now is the article about yourself [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari]] -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Regretful Oppose''', create some good articles and come back in a few months, and you may stand a better chance of passing.
'''Oppose''' from me too I'm afraid. Certainly not "never" for adminship, but certainly not "now" either. In short, lack of experience and exposure. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Fnord''' --
'''Support''' as nom. -
'''Support''' Looks like a solid long-time contributor. Although, I recommend being cautious in areas you have little to no experience in if granted the bit.
Tentatively, to keep this from being closed early due to dubious opposes. —
Per Wisdom and Charlotte. '''
'''Support''' candidate has been here for years, loads of civil and clueful dialogue on their talk page, and having read the Opposes I think modesty becomes a nominated candidate - I would worry about a self nom who wasn't sure what they would do with the tools, but this is someone we are persuading to take on some  duties that will help the community.  '''
'''Support''' per ϢereSpielChequers. Although I certainly wouldn't have minded reading some more detailed question answers.
'''Support''' Communication on talk page is civil and encouraging (though you might want to consider archiving some of the old stuff, ha).  Freely admits that he doesn't have vast policy experience at this point, but I think the candidate would be a solid administrative contributor to the areas he concentrates in - he's demonstrated a firm commitment to the HOCKEY area, and I can't see the candidate being anything but responsible with the tools given the amount of time he devotes to that area and his past history of civility and positive collaboration.  So the candidate hasn't been admin coached; I don't see that as a negative.
'''Support''' per longtime positive contributions and lack of posts to AN/I.
'''Weak Support''' - need to see more AfD and mediation-type experiences , but I don't think they'll misuse the tools. I'd like to see more ANI work too, but you have time to improve.--<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
'''Support''' Have worked alongside him for several years now, and seen him to be one of the most calm editers I've come across. Without making a big deal of himself, he has continued to improve the project, and time and time again has shown the skill that is necessary as an admin.
per Charlotte.  I'll review contribs and confirm later, but this has the gut feeling of a good one we're letting get away for not necessarily critical reasons. --
So far, the opposes have been pretty bad IMHO. This is a long time editor with good intentions. Mistakes can be fixed. —'''
'''Support:''' Candidate and I've disagreed on a number of points, but he is a thoughtful, able editor who is willing to listen to all viewpoints.  From what I can see of the Opposes, they're largely of the fuzzy kind that's poisoned RfA for a long while: what the pluperfect hell does experience in (or achieving) a DYK have to do with whether someone will make a fit admin, and what about it makes having done so a prerequisite without which no one can be fit for the job?
'''Support''' Opposes are either not worrying or cause to support. Good user.
'''Support''' - The opposes don't really worry me, looks like Krm500 would be a net gain to Wikipedia if promoted. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''': No hesitation. -
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - Good, stable sport-related and article contributions. A benefit to the project --'''
'''Support''' - The mainly Hockey experience doesn't bother me as most niche interests need a couple administrators anyway.  He seems able to be trusted with the tools, especially after his edits and seeing his initial reply to Djsasso's query of nomination. He can learn anything he doesn't already know, the important thing is trust and willingness to learn. --
'''Support''' Seems reliable, I have no concerns that tools would be misused. Good luck!
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Obviously acting in good faith to improve the project. If that one IfD is the most he's "lost it" in all that time, he'll make a ''fine'' admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Is honest. --
'''Support''' I certainly used the wrong approach in disagreeing with some oppose below, but I'm most likely will limit my participation here with a statement, that over knowing Krm500 for quite some time, I'm sure he'll make a fine admin and I trust him to do a great job. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' seems sensible and knows his way around. A net benefit if he gets more tools to use with little probability of abuse.
'''Support''' Candidate is civil and seems reliable. I trust he will not abuse the tools. –
'''Support.''' Per {{user|TimVickers}}. '''
'''Support''' see nothing that makes me think they can not be trusted. <b>
'''Support''' per the honest answer to Q1; I have no problems with a prospective admin not knowing what area he will be best suited for. I trust this user's judgment enough in any of the admin areas, and to ask for help whenever he needs it. Does fine work around the project.
'''Support''' appears sensible and reliable, not likely to abuse the tools and a solid content-based editor. Not everyone knows exactly what they'll do when they hit the ground - unlike content development, adminship tends to be reactive (responding to a situation) rather than proactive.
'''Support''': User knows what an mdash is (see answers), obviously someone how knows that will go far ;) Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' - just take your time with stuff you're not familiar with. No reason to presume granting the mop will instantaneously reduce him from a sensible chap to a burbling dolt.
'''Support''' Per [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#7_admins_created_in_Sep_08._Crat_happy_to_nominate_.22unusual.22_RfAs.|my efforts to encourage slightly unusual but trustworthy candidates to step forward for RfA]]. We need more admins. At its basis, RfA is about "do you trust this user?" I do. And if you are reading this and you are interested in becoming an admin, read the link at the start of this support and drop me a line at my talk page. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I note that the candidate has undertaken to resolve the edit summary issue, which was my only concern. The basis on allowing a candidate access to the tools is trust, and there is nothing I can find in this candidates statistics that makes me think they would abuse the mop.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Support''' Per [[User:Theoneintraining|Theoneintraining]]'s idea. - -
'''Support''' Trustworthy.

'''Support''': A bit limited in scope, but no worries, and he's demonstrated plenty of common sense.
'''Support''' Generally trustworthy, and will avoid areas with which he's not familiar.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy, and the hockey wikiproject needs him. --
'''Support''' I trust him, he won't abuse the tools, and given the feedback, I'm sure he'll educate himself more about being an admin.
'''Support''' I've mulled over this one for a while.  In general, I respect the claims made by opposers below that the candidate might not have enough experience for us to judge his use of the tools.  I don't agree with the arguments surrounding AIV counting (really, no offense to RCP or vandal blockers, but AIV is not the hardest part of having the tools)--I think that dealing with obvious vandalism is a slightly mechanical task that a candidate with some discretion can accomplish without error.  I do not expect this candidate to use the block button in a case of reported vandalism without first checking to see if it was really vandalism and ensuring that some warnings were given.  We have bright-lines at AIV and 3RR to make this very easy but even in the case of determining borderline cases I trust this candidate to make the right choice.  In re: the sandbox issue.  Just because it isn't a reader facing space doesn't make typing "fuck you" in the sandbox an ok action.  I'm not interested in jumping into the somewhat beardy discussion of whether or not an invective without a target is a personal attack.  That's academic.  It is right to revert it and it is right to warn the user about inserting content and contextless profanity into a space designed for new editors.  I'm also not convinced by the "you don't need the tools" arguments.  Not every candidate will be like[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JPG-GR|JPG-GR]], where they have already undertaken a job that would be made considerably easier with the tools.  Most administrators are just article writers who happen to protect pages or block users.  This candidate wants to be just that.  We really come back to the basic question of "do we trust this candidate to make the right decisions and ask the right questions".  I haven't worked with this candidate personally so I can't judge from direct experience.  I can, however, make a guess from looking at the answers to questions and a few of his contributions.  I think we can trust this candidate.  That is what matters (to me).  So I'll support.
'''Support'''. Thank you for answering my question. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support'''; been mulling it over for a couple days and will be a net positive.
'''Oppose'''. This is reluctant. Krm500 is clearly a conscientious editor who has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. However, a dig through the contributions reveals a few things. First, experience is a bit one-sided - I know he's interested in hockey, and that's fine - but that's all there is. Save a few random contribs, virtually every edit is to a hockey article. The candidate is lacking experience in many areas (he admits so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krm500&diff=prev&oldid=242849784 here]), and I prefer a more well-rounded candidate. Secondly, the candidate's adherence to fundamental Wikipedia policy isn't always apparent, as in his creation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rune_Johansson&diff=prev&oldid=242192716 this article] without any references. Combined with an edit summary problem and other minor yet apparent issues, I feel this candidate isn't quite ready. I always hate the "come back in three months" statements; most of the time it's arbitrary. In this case, one or two months of concentrated policy-arena experience will show me if he possesses the qualities an administrator needs.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate openly admits lack of policy, which is a great part to administration. I'd like to see Krm500 become knowledgeable in this area.
'''Reluctant Oppose''', see my neutral comment.
'''Oppose''', lack of policy knowledge evidenced by low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' As per this comment: "To be honest I can't say that I know what I will end up doing if I'm granted the administrative tools."
Lack of work with DYK, GA or FA, little evidence of dispute resolution skills. —
'''Oppose''' Q1. We don't need admins who don't know what they want to do.
'''Oppose''' If you don't know what you'll do with the tools, how can you be prepared to use them? Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' without prejudice. Not quite ready yet...I would think a candidate should at least be able to imagine himself using the tools if he were truly ready.
'''Oppose''' Per Tan's diff (the article creation) and the incident I mentioned in Q#5.  I'm not going to support giving the block button to someone who issues a final warning to an IP who edited an article responsibly, then removed a maintenance tag from an article twice, was warned for it three times, and then (a week later) said "fuck you" to the sandbox.  I agree with Naerii, who commented in the neutral section, AIV blocking is simple, but it has to be done with attention, and it's one of the two areas of interest indicated in Q#1.  And as Ironholds points out, there's not a lot of vandalism fighting here—some earlier stuff (widely dispersed), then less than a hundred user talk warnings using Twinkle, all in the last three weeks—and three of that set of warnings were for "vandalizing" the sandbox.
'''Oppose''' for inconsistent use of Edit Summary and answer to Q1. No need to wait three months--come back next week with a good idea of what admin work you plan to do and a solid use of Edit Summaries, and I'll gladly support.
'''Oppose''' Concerned that the candidate does not have sufficient experience in areas that they feel most experienced in and which they intend to target. Specifically AIV where the candidate has only posted 14 times, which does not give sufficient exposure to the escalation process for me to be confident in their knowledge.
'''Oppose''' Not experienced enough for me to trust with the tools. Certainly no prejudice for future attempts (after a bit of work in areas that demonstrate a good understanding of policy). <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' Not ready yet.  As our warning templates ask editors to conduct further testing in the [[WP:SANDBOX]], it is both counter productive and confusing to vandal warn them for doing so. <s>(While my struck comment is generally true, the vandal in question  was more long term, with an established pattern of returning to vandalize after each set of warnings. It was reasonable to assume this was the same person who had already seen multi warnings.) </s> (Unstruck earlier strike out per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.31.138.108 Darkspots]) Also, it's usually best to start with a a level one warning and work up. I do urge the candidate to gain more experience all the way around. I don't see FA's, GA's and DYK's as ''essential'' to adminship, though. They do not anymore guarantee readiness for adminship than anything else. And the candidate should please wait at least 3 months before trying again. The community usually needs that much time for a new assessment. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience yet shown by actions elicited by sandbox question/response. I think you'll be ready in a couple of months.
'''Oppose'''; sorry, not enough demonstrated understanding of the policies, yet, and a few incidents which make me think his judgment needs refining (the sandbox warnings stand especially out).  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak oppose''' per unclear admin intentions. Try to find some work at [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:AIV]] etc. and come back in a few months. --
'''Weak oppose'''.  As a rule I am not opposed to prospective admins who don't have much of an admin plan in Q1.  I guess I don't see why candidates looking to be admins should be required to state that they mostly only want to partake in admin work.  Qualified users who pitch in and use the tools only infrequently must surely be better than qualified users denied the tools who won't ''ever'' use them, no?  But this user's unacceptably low frequency of edit summary, coupled with their shallow breadth of experience in the namespace and in subjects alien to hockey ... branch out a bit and come back in a few months.
'''Weak Oppose''' I have an over all general positive feeling for the candidate, but would like to see more policy knowledge and proof of expertise.  While I like to see niche candidates, I prefer to see niche characters in back of the house areas, not in the article space.  Krm will be a fine admin, after gaining some experience elsewhere... He's a candidate that would benefit from some coaching---definite clue, just needs help rounding the edges ---and if he's interested, I'm available.---'''
I'm sorry, but I genuinely believe that another couple of months will help. I'm of the opinion that at the moment you are likely to be more harm than help with admin buttons, but also of the opinion that you can quickly demonstrate a new understanding and prove it through your edits. Not at the moment, but please prove the opposers wrong in the next few weeks. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - While I do not wish to pile on, I must agree with what has been said above. Try again in a few months! :)
'''Neutral'''. Not compelling answers. I would also like to see evidence of a good understanding of policies & guidelines.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good contributor, but the lack of admin work concerns me.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Neutral''' - good editor, but not well-rounded enough to be an admin.
'''Neutral''' - Sensible, but so-so question answers and what seems to be a questionable understanding and experience in admin work raise concerns. Still, I doubt he would misuse the tools. It's mostly the apparent lack of total and complete understanding. Also, I wouldn't count an edit to the sandbox vandalism, even if it did appear to be bad faith. Better the sandbox than an article. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Per [[User talk:Krm500#Possibly living_people|this]] discussion on the user's talk page - I am a little concerned with the user's approach to [[WP:BLP]] and I believe that it merits consideration. Not opposing because I feel that it would be biased, but I do feel that it's important for people to know and come to their own interpretations/conclusions. Cheers,
'''Neutral'' no major reason to oppose, but not enough experience to support. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''' for same reason I gave last time.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
It's been less than a month and a half since your last RFA and as far as I can see, you haven't addressed the concerns that were raised there. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I've looked to see what you have changed since your last RfA that was snow closed. You were told that work in admin-areas was neccesary, specifically the project space, but just about all of the edits you have made there are automated template types to wiki projects (technically in the project space). It looks like in one instance you went through a handful of AfDs, the last to !vote on all of them, essentially reiterating what everyone else had already said. Since your last RfA, it looks like you simply tried to get your wikipedia space count up without making any other changes. You haven't even changed your answers to the RfA questions since last time. Finally, both your nom statement and answer to Q1 show you don't likely understand the point of becoming an admin; virtually everything you have written has nothing to do with adminship. It's been about 7 weeks since your last RfA, I reccommend a quick withdrawal and starting up an [[WP:ER|editor review]] if you want to gain constructive feedback.
Per Gwynand.  --
'''Oppose''', per Xenocidic.
'''Oppose''' per above
'''Oppose''' I would like to request a NOTNOW close due to the close proximity of this self-nom to the last. No need to make this a pile-on bloodbath. Thank you.--
'''Oppose''' - recommend a withdraw or a [[WP:SNOW]] close. You're still a good editor, but I'm extremely concerned by the lack of improvement from the last RfA, which wasn't that long ago to begin with. I need to see some growth. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per xenocidic. Recommend withdraw. '''
While you do help the encyclopedia, there really is no major contributions, making me go neutral.--
I must admit I can see this editor as an administrator one day, but poorly constructed arguments at AfD (the only real measure I can view, in the absence of others) and some non-participation in vital areas puts me firmly neutral.
'''Neutral''' - I see lots of dedicated effort in military articles in areas that seem like few others wish to be involved in. I appreciate the effort and the desire to do more for the encyclopedia. However, I see some troubling signs from the point of view of adminship. For example, in actual article building, I see a small tendency toward original research (but small enough that I won't paste any diffs). I see stub templates being added to articles seemingly only to identify categories for the articles. <s>As a purely personal preference, I am not thrilled with three spelling errors in your nominating statement.</s> (Note: spelling errors were fixed quickly.) These are individually mostly minor things but add up to a collective opinion of [[WP:NOTNOW|not now]], but you're on the right track. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Not going to pile on here. Perhaps a SNOW close is in order? [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
Support - looks like a fabulous editor. '''
'''Moral Support'''. I applaud on your translation effort, because you did twice the amount of work for each translation edit comparing to others (first time is for translating Belarus language into English, second time is typing it out). Unfortunately, edit count only shows numerical value, but doesn't show the time and effort spend on each edit. You need more experience (in terms of both time and editing), but you are definitely on the right track. Try improve your edit summary usage. If you don't mind, I can give you admin coaching because you're a sensible editor (really! getting a barnstar after 1 month of editing is a big accomplishment)
You're on the right track with your editing, but I'm afraid that this RfA will not pass due to a lack of experience. You may find [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA#Snowball|this]] a useful read. I noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kubek15/blogend&oldid=178998719 this], which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKubek15&diff=207149560&oldid=207147251 Dustihowe advised you to take down] - it is best to avoid profanity, as administrators are expected to act "mannerly" at all times. (I did like the nomination, which was somewhat similar to Wisdom89's ;-) Best regards and happy editing,
Per above, inexperience and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kubek15&diff=prev&oldid=207145823 this]. Your translation efforts are appreciated greatly, however.
'''Oppose''' sorry, but I don't think you're quite ready yet. Despite advice, you still haven't been able to properly format your RfA (the ending date is not set). If you can't follow the RfA instructions, I don't have confidence that you can properly follow and apply policies and guidelines. Your experience is good so far, but I would like to see a little more, with a concentration on getting involved with vandal fighting and policy application, since that is a good way for us to judge that you understand and can properly apply policies. Make sure you continue your recent trend of using edit summaries. Best,
'''Oppose''' - I have to agree with the above editors. The malformed RfA isn't exactly a problem, but your experience is sorely lacking. You are ''definitely'' on the right track though. I like your article work.
'''Needs more experience'''. Per EJF's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kubek15/blogend&oldid=178998719 diff], I think this whole RfA was <nowiki>{{1}}</nowiki>. This application will not prejudice me against supporting in future; the candidate just needs more experience of working in policy-related areas. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' - First let me say sorry for the oppose opinion.  It was very reluctant!  In all honesty, I like your work with the translations. We need more editors with this special skill.   In addition, you gained almost pedestal status, at least with me, with your save of the [[Susana A. Herrera Quezada]] article from [[WP:AFD|AFD]].  The only drawback I see is with experience, and this can be easily fixed.  Give it another 4-6 months, with the same work ethic you have shown to this point, and I would not only be happy to support, I will nominate.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' - good article work, and like Wisdom says: you are on the right track. I think that you just generally need to familiarize yourself with wikipedias policies a bit more, and gain some more admin related experience, maybe even try [[WP:ADMINCOACH]]. Best of luck,
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''': On the right track... but your responses indicated a lack of experience overall. <small>
'''Oppose''' Good intent, but not nearly enough experience. Also per reasons above. [[WP:SNOW]]?
'''Neutral''' per Shefield above. I think that you will be a good admin in the future, but you need more experience in projectspace. I also suggest that you spend time participating in RfA's and other related functions to get a better idea of how the administrative tasks work.
30k edits, a good article, a featured list, here for ten months, never been blocked? Certainly. '''
'''Support''' per majorly.  Sorry this isn't going well, but you seem to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.  I find it highly unlikely that you would become the topic of debate as far as misused/abused tools, and therefore I'm happy to support.  Good luck!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Agree with Majorly. Looks like a great editor.
'''Weak Support''' per Majorly. <strong>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' - It'd be nice to have an admin who actually works on articles <s>as well as</s> instead of creating drama.
'''Support'''.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - I note that Kumioko has made a number of mistakes in communication in this RFA but the opposition at present is not a balanced view of the candidates suitability for admin so I am going to support.
'''Support''' - not going to misuse the tools, what's the big deal?
<s>'''Auto-support''' for being asked too many questions.</s> Granted, the lack of projectspace experience is concerning, but I trust that the user will remain where they are experienced. Plus, I thought we wanted more article-writing admins :P Since the questions have been dealt with, I'll strike that part but keep my support.
'''Support''' - He may not know exactly what he is going to do with the tools, we are not given that much evidence how he'll handle them, but somehow I trust that he'll be doing something useful with them without sinking the ship. Nothings is likely to change in six months anyway, if he is more the training-on-the-job type. --
'''Support''' - User is highly unlikely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. However, this user's record as an editor is excellent, and there is no reason to believe that Kumioko would abuse the tools.  We have seen successful nominations of users with little mainspace experience, and there's no reason we can't have an administrator with the opposite issue, as long as we have faith that the person can learn and handle the required tasks while on the job.  Given Kumioko's long history as a good-faith editor, there is no reason to stand on formality and deny the opportunity to learn administrative skills on the job.  Unless, of course, you think adminship is a big, big deal.
'''Support.'''  I think this candidate has solid potential to become an excellent project administrator.  —
Per answers to questions 2, 15, and 21. Meets [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA Criteria]]. ''
Common sense support. ·
'''Support''' Won't cause problems, has my trust, also per answer to question 21.
'''Support''' - Kumioko has changed my mind. As noted in my original oppose vote, I was reluctant to oppose based on general agreement with Majorly. I did not get the impression that you really knew why you were here (in the RfA, not Wikipedia generally). Since my original vote, you have convinced me that you'll be fine by addressing the ridiculous number of questions posed to you in a knowledgeable manner.
'''Switch to support''' Like the aplomb with which has handled ''25 <s>bleeding</s> questions'' in the face of an unsuccessful RfA.
'''Support''', I would have nominated this user myself.
'''Support''' Isn't it natural that good editors can grow up to be good admins? The candidate's answers to the questions show integrity. He (?) has said several times that when he is in over his head, he'll defer to a more experienced admin. Knowing your limits is a good thing, being able to ask for help, once you've reached those limits, is a better thing. While looking at the candidates userpage, I get the distinct feeling that Wikipedia stress won't be anything worse than he has already handled in Real Life. And lastly, and not leastly, I've seen admin candidates with low project (non-article, mainspace) edits who were not torn up like this. I just feel no particular reason to oppose.
'''Support''' The answer to question #24 did it for me, it was perfect!<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
Weak support.  I was a little underwhelmed by the answer to my question, but Jesus, there's like 25 fucking questions right now, I can't expect him to write a book on mine.  I think we should be more open to the idea of learning on the job.  We just need to be convinced of (a) the editor's good intentions to the project (I am) and (b) their willingness to go slow, accept criticism/correction gracefully, and learn from mistakes (I mostly am).  The slightly aggressive tone in some of the responses in this RfA make it a "weak" support, but I think an RfA is more stressful than day-to-day adminning, and I'm willing to cut some slack for that.  If given the tools I think Kumioko would be a net positive. --
'''Support''' - Per Majorly.
There is no indication that this editor will abuse the tools.
I don't see any serious problems, nor do I honestly believe that you'd abuse / misuse the tools.
I'd like to see Kumioko become an admin after reading his answers to the questions and reviewing his contributions. Level-headed.
'''weak support''' The edits are good but I see low namespace and admin related edits (AIV - AFD). <strong>
'''Support''', not the strongest candidate ever, but the intentions are good, and I consider it unlikely that this user would deliberately misuse the tools.
Support/ Yes, candidate seems worthy, despite opposition. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Despite the answer to Q1, and after looking over everything since I made my orignal comment in the discussion section, I am willing to give this candidate the [[WP:AGF|benefit of the doubt]].
'''Support''', since I see no risk for abuse, and I am hopeful that the candidate will contribute positively to Wikipedia with the tools. --
'''Support''' Don't see that he would abuse the tools, and we need more content-related admins.  Also impressed with the way he dealt with all those, er, questions. <b>
'''Support''' because if he was a dangerous wingnut, he wouldn't have answered all the questions. I wouldn't have, in his place.
'''Support'''. Why the hell not? I like your answers to the stupendous amounts of questions. <strong>
'''Support''' - basically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], although is weak on the WP space work.  May be a valuable vandal-fighter.  No concerns; lot of edits.
'''Support''' - Likely that [[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] wouldn't abuse them and can use on article space. Editor is unlikely to step into situations he isn't conversant with so move from neutral to support. <font face="Sans Serif">
'''Moral Support''' for a good editor with many excellent article contributions (not to mention an honourable record of [[USMC|service to his country]], more than most of us can say of ourselves). This probably won't pass, and more experience would be better before becoming an admin, but the answers to the questions reveal sound common sense. I am sure his next RfA will pass, and I will certainly support it.
'''Support''' -- good editor with an good record and I record a support vote on that basis. Further, nothing those in opposition have said has convinced me that this user shouldn't be given the tools.
'''Support''' Good answers, especially for number #10.--
'''Support'''; not much project space experience ''before'' this RfA, but the barrage of questions allowed Kumioko to demonstrate how to do lots of work fast and carefully while under pressure.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Level-headed candidate with remarkable tolerance and civility, as demonstrated by answering all the questions. Don't see how we could go wrong with this one.
'''Support''' - Whatever--
'''Support''' as per majorly. '' '''
'''Support'''. Good track record of encyclopedia contributions. He could make use of the tools and is unlikely to abuse them. However I would point out that policy formulation and discussion is open to all editors, not just admins, and always will be.
'''Support'''. At this point I think it will only be moral support, but nonetheless I hope that you won't be too discouraged by this RfA and hope that you will take the suggestions (read:criticism) that you have received to heart and use it as a guide to preparing for a new RfA four or five months down the road.

'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I don't think you fully grasp the concept of an administrator given your answer to question 1, and the last line in your self nom. Being an admin does not give one any authority over anything, and especially not on pages against other editors, say, in a debate or edit war. Also, you lack experience in the project space - out of 30,000 edits, only 94? Sorry, must oppose.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Per Wisdom89, per response to Wisdom89, and per edit summary usage below the least acceptable. I may support in the future if you become more involved in admin-oriented tasks, but right now it is clear that you do not understand the roles of an administrator. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
(double edit conflict)'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace, which roughly translates to "not enough admin-like experience". Your answer to Q1 doesn't really make it seem like you'll do a whole lot with the tools, if granted. This is further evidenced by the dominating mainspace edits, not to nitpick, but 95% of your edits are mainspace. I am a big supportor of mainspace work, since that is the whole reason we are here, but if you want to become an admin, you'll need to get experience in admin-like areas (such as AIV, ANI, UAA, etc. Plus you don't do a whole lot of communication, which is a critical skill for admins.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' - it appears as per the last sentence in the self nomination that the user wants adminship so as to have more weight to throw around, which is in my eyes weak but tangible evidence of at least some degree of power hunger.  May change my !vote as more information arrives.  In any case, I will reassess this later. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' - Lacks experience in project namespace, what experience the editor has is on the nomination of two articles for featured list status. Seems like an avid (and prolific) contributor but disproportionately small amount of communication. Also per Wisdom, seems to misapprehend the role of admins.
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q1 indicates the candidate needs to research what the moptools are and why they are used and why they are restricted to certain users.  Also answer to Q4 is a little perplexing (privacy act?).  I am sure this well-intentioned user can work toward a sucessful candidacy in 6 months or so, if a coaching program or thorough review of the adminship documentation is undertaken.  Further experience in the various namespaces would also be important. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]] ¤
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Only 230 or so edits to user talk space is not enough data for me to get a sufficient understanding as to how the user will interact with others, when under pressure, if user has access to the bit. --
'''Oppose''' Out of 30,000 edits a whole 29,000 or so are mainspace. Not that there's anything bad about being a vigilant editor, but only 94 project edits? Also per Kurt Weber.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not enough experience, there are many roles that admins play on wikipedia, you dont need to be one if your only doing the things you mentioned in question 1. Agree with the many points above.
'''Oppose''' -- I will reconsider if the answers become longer. At the moment you seem a brilliant editor, I just can't see why you need the tools? --
'''Oppose:''' Not answering the questions takes it from support to neutral, and the last line of your nom shows that you will possibly abuse the tools.  Sorry, maybe in a couple of months.  <span style="cursor: crosshair">[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Oppose''' since self-nominated.
'''Strong oppose''' You do not fully grasp the role of being an administrator.  Your answer to #1 scares me.  I agree with what Wisdom has said.  Maybe try again later?
A lot of the experienced-based arguments have some merit, though I wasn't 100% swayed by them (it ''is'' possible to get on-the-job experience, after all). I was considering sitting this one out entirely, but Kumioko's comment above of "I don't like to waste my time"... yeah, no, that's absolutely the '''wrong''' attitude to have about RfA opposition. Unless its something specifically stupid, like "User has a puppy and I'm more a cat person", then comments in the Oppose section should be considered valuable feedback, and not so readily dismissed. You're turning a deaf ear to feedback when you're an editor, which makes me very, very concerned about how you'd respond to feedback as an administrator. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' - Sorry i just don't think you are ready for adminship yet. Maybe next time! Also, per [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]]. '''
'''Oppose''' Re: '' I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis.''  You can participate in policy discussion as a regular editor, without the "tools". <b><font color="Indigo">
Based on the answers to the questions, I would perhaps have been neutral, due to concerns about the candidate's experience in areas relating to policy and admin work. But based on responses to Oppose comments, I believe the candidate isn't suitable admin material at this time. There is no deadline, and sometimes one will not get recognition or thanks for one's work. That's not why we do it. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' - No reason to assume there would be abuse, but maybe too many mistakes. I think this user has a little more learning to do before I am willing to hand over the mop. Like Dlohcierekim said, I recommend getting a admin coach. I think your article contributions are wonderful, and like to see a user that is here for what this place is created for, and for that reason I hope that you try again (give it about 3 months).
Not ready yet; this user doesn't have enough experience and also lacks edits in the project-space pages (pages that starts with "Wikipedia:", such as [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard]]). Get more experience and be part of the discussion on the project-space pages and I will support you in a few month once you are ready. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Editing experience not varied enough, too tightly focused.  Mainspace edit count artifically inflated by trivial semi-automated edits.
'''Oppose for now''' I think Kumioko would benefit from more admin-related edits and tasks before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' I thought about this one for days. I'm not a big fan of telling a candidate what I believe they should be doing to get my vote, but I'd say my oppose comes from the fact that I am not sure how Kumioko will handle tough admin situations involving lots of drama. More involvement in the project space could be what satisfies me. I may be in the school of editors who throws ''no big deal'' to the wind, but I'd like to think of an oppose vote in a situation like this as protecting the community from ''an unknown'', not from the very good editor that Kumioko appears to be. In this RfA, when he had opposition, he responded with diffs like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKumioko&diff=205789897&oldid=205789875 this] which really bother me. It looks like heat-of-the-moment editing, no sig, it was bitter and immature. If an editor can't fully respect oppose voters (and shows that they can't), I don't feel comfortable with giving them the ability to block. As I've said before, ''it is potentially much more damaging to the community to promote inadequate admins than to reject a potentially good admin that we are unsure about''. To sum up: I am quite unsure, and considering the admin abuse I observe too often for comfort, I don't feel comfortable supporting someone--despite their great editing--who is a very big question mark for handling ''tough admin decisions''.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, your contributions are admirable and you should be praised for it. But adminship is not the way. Once you get the mop you stop looking at articles.
'''Oppose''' Looks like you may use admin tools for your advantage in edit wars and debates. --
'''Oppose''' I can't even remember the last time I voted in a RFA but I have to say that anyone who suggests that adminship would be helpful because it lends credibility to policy shouldn't be one.  There's too much indication of potential use of admin status in conflicts.  Given his work, I'd love him to be an admin, but his responses here worry me.  I fear more wheel-warring in the future. --
'''Oppose''' per unacceptable response to Queerbubbles' oppose.
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Also several poor responses to questions and oppositions.
Oppose. I feel uncomfortable with someone wanting to become an admin in order to bypass the need to explain and negotiate when discussing policy. And I feel very uncomfortable with this comment: "I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience." This comment gives the impression the user is impatient and dismissive of the process the community goes through to judge if an applicant is trustworthy, and also feels their time is rather more important than gaining the community trust in the future. Probably just a poorly phrased statement prompted by some disappointment at the way this AfD is going. I do hope that Kumioko will take on board the comments that people are making and will consider applying again in 6 months time. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
''Oppose''. 30 000 edits in ten months indicates a desire for quantity of edits, not quality. It seems Kumioko is a good editor, evidenced by a GA and no blocks. Sometimes it's better to keep doing what you're good at ... used to be called the [[Peter Principle]]. There is not much evidence of discussion and the candidate mentions in one of his replies that he thinks these discussions are one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. I disagree. Discussion is a prime tool that admins need. I suggest he keep on editing and contributing to the Pedia, not because he would make a bad admin; rather, he makes a better editor.
'''Oppose''' Good editor, great asset, but not experienced in the right areas yet.  Also, per Kurt.
'''Oppose''' - response to oppose #30 lacks maturity ("I'll take my tools and will ''never'' '''ever''' apply for the mop again... well, I mean, unless you ''really'' '''really''' want me to" - reminds me of the [[Bloom County|Gary Hart non-resignation resignation technique]]) and also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process (RfA is more than a simple majority vote - even at its most votey-est, it's still not a simple majority). --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger as well.<font color="Purple">
I'm in two minds as to this request. On one hand, Kumioko is, per Majorly and the other supporting editors, an excellent article contributor, and that very often provides an administrator with robust inter-editor communication skills. It could also suggest that he'd be competent at article-related administrator duties, such as protection. Having said that, we also have an editor who has very little administrator-related-activities experience, insofar as I can observe, and that brings some doubts into the equation for me: I fear Kumioko may not have a sufficient grasp of admin. duties, and may (unintentionally, of course) cause damage through some bad calls. Whilst I'm sure that would improve with time, it concerns me: there's simply not enough experience here. Perhaps if Kumioko could expand on the RfA standard questions with some strong answers, I'd be willing to support, but at present, they are very thin, and really don't do anything to sway me to support. On the fence for this one, depending on a response from Kumioko (which I'd be very happy to see forthcoming), and further developments.
'''Neutral''' I don't think this editor is ready yet for the tools. --
'''Nuetral''' I'm not convinced either way just yet.  Will change to support or oppose base on further actions within this RFA (e.g. questions, responses to votes, etc. . .) --
'''Nuetral''' More admin-related experience needed.
Mainspace work doesn't necessarily mean you should be an administrator. Also per EVula.
'''Neutral'''.  I'd say that you should review everything at [[WP:ARL]] and try again in a few months.  A short bit of admin coaching may also be helpful to you.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral'''. Oppose until/unless question 15 gets a more extensive treatment (I am very strict ^^;;) Support for answers to Scepters questions. Total ends up neutral. Either way there's definitely hope for you. Try and do some more thinking about question 15, and I may yet switch :-) --
'''Neutral''' - He has been a tremendous asset for anything [[Medal of Honor]] related. He always pops up in my watchlist cleaning up and improving articles. However, for that many edits, Wikipedia project space participation is just way too low. ----<span style="color:#0000f1;font-weight:medium;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral''' - I don't want to support, but I don't want to oppose either. You're doin' a good job with the [[Miliary]] related articles, but I don't think you have enough experience with the fields that an admin works in.
'''Neutral''' because I don't pile-on stuff.
'''Neutral, within touching distance of support'''.  Ngghh, this is hard.  You are obviously a good contributor to the project, but under 100 Wikipedia space edits doesn't seem to say that you need the tools.  However, you would not abuse the tools, I'm sure about that.  '''
'''Moral support''' Ooh, I like the looks of you, and your temperament seems ideal for adminship, but can't bring myself to go S for now. If I measure you right you'll take good note of the more useful comments in the Oppose section and come back in a few months and zip straight into [[WP:100]] never mind adminship. --
'''Neutral''' I wasn't going to comment or place my name in any list, but the answer to Q.22 is excellent and I believe indicative of someone who will make a good admin. Maybe just not this time.
'''Neutral''', switch from oppose.
'''Neutral''' does not deserve an oppose. '''''
'''Neutral''', very low number of edits to talk pages, and the Q&A above doesnt move me to look deeper. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral'''.  I rarely vote neutral, but this users lack of wikipedia space edits worries me, on the other hand though, he seems dedicated to the project.  So, I can't support or oppose.  Maybe support in a couple months.
'''Neutral''' per my comments in oppose section.
'''Neutral''' per Dweller. Spend some time in the nuts and bolts of the operation, and I'll very likely support in a few months.
'''Neutral''' AGK's reasoning tracks closely with mine.  The occasional intemperance aside, Kumioko appears to be possessed of the sound judgment and deliberative temperament that commend one well to adminship, but I can't conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that he knows whereof he does not know (and there do appear to exist areas in which his knowledge of policy and practice is not complete; the answer to question four, for instance, isn't stellar in substance or form), such that might he might not inadvertently misuse the tools, and so in the final analysis cannot say with sufficient confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed would be positive]], but I come relatively close to so saying and so almost certainly can't oppose.

'''Support'''. Seems experienced and knowledgeable enough for me. Probably should archive that talk page, though, and this is the first time I've supported someone who was blocked two days before submitting to an RFA. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AUseight&year=&month=-1 know how it is] to be blocked errantly.
'''Support''' - Seems like a good contributor --'''
'''Aye''', because I believe Kww would be anet positive here, and despite the horrible diff quoted below by JayHenry - almost any word (i.e. "unproductive") would've been OK there, but not "vandal". <b>
'''Support'''; that comment below was poorly worded, but the sentiment is understandable.  Administrators ''should'' care about policies and about applying them.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Aye''', the only reason I can think of to oppose is on grounds of serious disagreements over philosophy and principle.  I don't have it in me to do that.
'''<s>Weak</s> support''' (Logical Premise has some good points) per Black Kite's support and Ecoleetage's neutral.
'''Support''' I think he's a net positive.  Jay's diff and reasoning are sound and I would normally lend more weight to them if I hadn't interacted with this candidate as much as I have.  He's articulate and largely professional.  This RfA will probably fail, but you should have no problem coming back in 4-6 months and showing that you put this behind you.
'''Support''' even though this editor doesn't really meet most of my criteria. I'm sick of this attitude that people are free to simply create unsourced, unverifiable garbage of no encyclopedic value, and that anyone trying to get rid of it somehow wrong. If someone is a new editor and has never used WP and makes an unsourced article then that's one thing, they're new, you help them out. If you have an experienced editor making unsourced articles that violate WP policy? They should know better. Either way, if an article can't be easily sourced , why is it here? Admins HAVE to make calls on this kind of thing, daily. I'd rather have someone who's going to be able to make the call rightly than simply sit on his hands with the lame-ass explaination of "well, I don't want to delete it because it ''might'' get ''some kind of sourcing one day''. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399">&nbsp;'''Logical'''&nbsp;</font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKww&diff=242490628&oldid=242489770 Allayed my concerns.] Willing to set aside own view for consensus at AFD. [[User talk:Missedwardcullen|Interaction here was particularly heartening.]] The JayHenry dif was from 6 months ago. Net positive.
'''Support''', overall you can be a little overly vociferous in discussions, but you nearly always do have a well-thought-out and valid opinion. I see a thorough understanding of policy and an appreciation for consensus, and your generally excellent answers to the questions above have settled any other concerns I have. I should add that while JayHenry's diff in oppose #1 is vaguely concerning, the length of time that has passed since then and the lack of a pattern of similar statements reassures me well enough. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support'''.  I suspect the candidate and I differ somewhat on how to apply some of the content policies and guidelines, but in fairness that diff is neither typical of what I've seen from him when I've come across him, nor of what I see in his contribs. I trust that he would strive to use the tools within policy, and where appropriate as guided by consensus.
'''Support'''. Though the dif pointed out below by JayHenry (and the related beliefs and edits) is slightly concerning, the work overall of this editor definitely seems strong and I'm sure he would not use his powers liberally. I've never interacted with him, but it seems to me that the comment was just poorly worded, perhaps in a moment of anger (that hopefully would never bubble up again during adminship).
'''Support''' - Forgive and forget. Also per question 8. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Support''', this is likely to fail, but my extend my moral support to the candate. [[Human|We're all human you know]], and I would gladly vote again for the canadate if he comes back in 3-6 months.
'''Support'''. If all the naysayers can come up with is some strongly worded language it is evident that this editor is admin eligible. --''

'''Support'''
'''Support''' zOMG, an editor that gets passionate about things and argues? Say it ain't so! Come on, people, Kww does fine work around here. Passion is ''good'' for the project.
'''Support''' - a good editor; knowledgeable and level-headed.  A poor word choice on one six-month-old diff does not negate this. -
'''Support, switched from Neutral''' I am switching to Support because, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of seeing yet another candidate get shot down by having isolated comments (or, in this case, a single sentence) from distant months yanked wildly out of context and magnified a thousandfold, thus creating a warped history that bears no resemblance to the genuine depth and scope of the candidate's full contributions to this project.
'''Support''', from neutral. Overall a good candidate, I think, and a net positive to the project as an admin. On the balance, no real reason not to support. See also: [[WP:AGF]].
'''Support''' Having worked extensively with Kww on a BLP to bring it to featured status, I have always found him level headed in his approach to our policies. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, to see yet another RfA turn into a one-diff-witch-hunt. Opposes like "where there's smoke, there's fire" are ridiculous and unhelpful. Kww has acknowledged mistakes he has made in the past, and granting him adminship would have a positive result on the project. The link provided by JayHenry has been blown out of proportion to a disgusting level, and it appears many opposers haven't taken the time to actually evaluate the candidate. -
'''Support'''.  I actually thought kww was an admin already, too.  Yes, he holds very strong viewpoints on some issues - there is nothing wrong with that.  The WP:FICT nightmare has been incredibly acriminious in the past, and the diff cited below came at the heat of the arguments.  Kww was not the only one to lose his temper and say stupid things during that debate.  I'm satisfied that he has enough clue, and an ability to look beyond his own prejudices, to be a good administrator.
'''Support'''. does good work in a very difficult area and has convinced me that the knows the difference between his opinions and the work of an administrator
'''Support''' I got confused earlier, he was trying to solve the problem. My mistake sorry, he deserves adminship for dealing properly with "annoying newbies and IPs" in the correct manor
'''Support''' – does have very pointed views on many issues, and I'm willing to forgive the diff from [[WP:FICT]] as something said in the heat of the moment. I consider myself to be a calm and patient individual, but per Karanacs, that debate was very heated, with plenty of sniping from either side, including myself. I don't believe his views will impact how well he can use the tools. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Support''' – I am sure that, as others have noted, it would be a net benefit for Wikipedia if Kww were granted access to admin tools. In my dealings with him, I've found him to be an even-tempered and conscientious editor. —<font color="007FFF">
'''Support''' -I was one of the editors at What the Bleep Do We Know  when kww worked to reach a compromise lead that everyone on all sides could agree to.  He never lost his temper even when sorely provoked,  never bullied or insulted anyone, and though it was like herding cats, he kept at it til it was done.  He would make an outstanding administrator.  And also, he was kind to me as a newbie when I didn't know how to do anything; that seems to be a rare trait here.
'''Support'''. Probably won't matter, but moving from oppose in light of comments in Talk:RFA and a little more digging on my part.
'''Support''' Not ''weak'', but with an opinion that I deem the candidate sufficiently trustworthy to use the tools impartially despite the misgivings on viewpoint mentioned in the oppose/neutral sections.
'''Support''' Never had any problems with the candidate personally and in areas in which they and I have worked simultaneously, they have been civil and cooperative with good ideas. I think it's kind of sad that things go to pile-on sometimes but sometimes it takes an RfA to lance a boil like this and then a second RfA down the track (say 4 months later) is decidedly less eventful so long as the user has not shown any signs of a repeat in the time since.
'''Support''' I don't believe it a problem that we have an admin with extreme views, as long as the admin knows how not to let their judgment influenced by their personal viewpoints. A look back at Kww's contributions shows commitment to improve his interaction with other editors. That comment made in April was badly worded - there's no question; but as our project needs more admins, we can afford to base our votes not only on a diff made rather long ago, but also on the editor's history of hard work and his experience with article editing and Wikipedia internal process (the latter should have made Kww an otherwise excellent admin candidate.) I think it safe to trust him to use the tools wisely and fairly. --
'''Support''' Candid and thoughtful answers to questions -- especially Q9 -- are persuasive evidence that [[User:Kww|Kww]] offers a finely balanced point-of-view which seems under-represented. --
'''Support''' Orderinchaos makes a good observation: I regret this isn't going to pass and hope that Kww has another go. IMHO we need him.
'''Support'''. Finally, there's someone with enough guts to delete a few million unsourced stubs. Go button go!
'''Support''' Fine editor, who I've worked with for a year in getting [[Natalee Holloway]] to FA.--
'''support''' Although I doubt it is going to make a difference. I disagree strongly with Kww about inclusionism/deletionism issues. I am confident that Kww's extreme views on the matter will not impact Kww's ability to use the tools correctly and in accord with community consensus.
'''Support''', Kww may have strong views about the notability policy, but I don't think that alters people's ability to use the "delete" button in line with the consensus on AfD. Speaking for myself I also have pretty strong views on the notability or otherwise of fictional characters, but it is quite simple to either put your own views to one side or move on to another AfD where you are disinterested. I trust his ability to do the same.
'''Support''' - Yes, Kww has strong opinions but I think they have shown that they will not act on those opinions without community consensus and I would fully trust them with the tools. If having a strong opinion on certian issues was a reason to deny a person adminship then we'd have a lot of de-sysopping to do.
'''Support'''--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Support.'''  I think Kww would actually be a good admin.  —
I don't think it'd be wise to support anyone who's such an active and dedicated partisan in the interminable notability wars.  That you ever thought editors who, basically, disagree with your notability opinions should be treated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28fiction%29&diff=202544073&oldid=202542955 "as vandals, as opposed to editors"] you need to be kept away from having a block button.  This led to an RFAR clarification and you completely gloss over this in your nomination.  If I need a link it's [[WP:BATTLE]].  Step away from the notability wars for three or four months and I could support.  It's not that you're deletionist or inclusionist.  It's that I don't sense any capability to disengage.  It's not healthy to be here so heavily for one cause.  It never ends well. --
'''Oppose''' Very concerned by the view expressed by the candidate in the link provided by JayHenry. Classifying good faith editors as vandals is serious enough, without access to the block button.
'''Oppose''' due to major concerns indicated by JayHenry.
Sorry, while I agree with you more than 50% on notability stuff, the way you go about discussion there (especially with regards to TTN) is a bit too extreme (for lack of a better word) for my liking.
'''Oppose''', per JayHenry. This user doesn't seem to understand WP:AGF and shows signs of zealotry in the link provided by JH. --
As much as I hate "per.." comments, '''Oppose''' per the lack of good faith showed in the diff provided by JayHenry.
What you said in the diff given by JayHenry was just shocking, tbqh. '''
'''Oppose''' As much as I dislike to pile-on, that diff provided by JayHenry is enough to oppose in itself. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry and initial answer to question 4 - we ''all'' have to reconcile our ideal views to what consensus is, and the comments and guidelines are liberal enough to be interpreted quite loosely as is anyway. To ignore consensus in a manner described would completely ignore at one major commonsense/intuitive guideline remaining. no thanks. I shoudl add I can see alot more DRVs a-coming as well this way...Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per Jay Henry. Maybe I'm misreading this...but it seems that you believe people who create articles like [[Bulbasaur]] are vandals? --
'''Never''' per JayHenry. We already have enough of these with the tools. There's not room for one more soldier on the imaginary [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]].
'''Oppose''' per the link by JayHenry, which I brought to the attention of ArbCom. I disagreed with the proposal of banning Kww from fiction topics over it (it was a single ''faux pas'', and Kww has been willing to negotiate in the FICT conflict). However, the fact that you defended to that edit as a "civil contribution" on my talkpage does not speak well for judgement. Deletionism is OK, but I think Kww has tendencies to being overly aggressive in the pursuit of this. I don't think that I can trust him with a block button in such a situation.
I believe Kww's word choice has improved since April, but I have seen no such indication regarding his attitude. —
'''<s>Strong</s>Weak Oppose''' per JayHenry and others. Ugh, I could never trust him with the tools, his viewpoints are too ridiculous for my tastes.
'''Oppose''' Was neutral at first because the incident occurred some 6 months ago. On reflection and based on my own analysis of certain comments he made recently, although his wording has improved, I'm not at all convinced he's ready, or that he properly understands the problems that arise if he were to take on such an approach in practice.
'''Oppose''' It's one thing to say you think WP has too many articles on ''x'' or that WP should crack down on articles on ''y'', but it's entirely another to call editors vandals simply for working on an article you don't like... and when the article in question is a (now former) featured article with a lot of good-faith contributors, that's worse still.   Maybe when that's ancient history things will be different, but a few months after?  Not yet.
'''Oppose'''  Not comfortable providing this candidate with the tools, at this time. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Extremely misguided per the link provided by Jay Henry. Suggests a parochial understanding of policy and guidelines, and essentially what Wikipedia is all about.
'''OPPOSE''' Per the link by Jay Henry. Truely troubling.
'''Oppose'''. JayHenry has it in a nutshell.
'''Oppose''' Does not know what a vandal is, and so should not be trusted with the ability to block them. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' - Per JayHenry and Q9. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  Kww may not be a bad person, but he does a really bad job at researching the items that he deletes.  This guy deleted images from my talk page that had NO copyright violations, only his "suspicion" of such.  It was a picture of womens legs.... and you want to nominate someone this petty as an admin?  Please!!!!  He also accused me of uploading images to [[Brandy Norwood]]'s page, (check out my talk page) but if you check the history you will see I never uploaded anything there. I could change my opinion if he shows better judgment in the future.
'''Oppose''' per the link provided by JayHenry. <small>
'''Oppose''' I've been looking through Kww's edits, with the notion that Jay Henry's portrayal of him has been blown out of proportion.  Or more accurately, that people are attaching too much weight to a single dif.  While I do think the dif has been blown out of proportion, there is enough smoke in other areas that I have to oppose.  Too many small areas where he's been involved with too much drama for me to support.  People aren't coming to him because he is a problem solver, but rather because he is involved in the problem.  Now, he might not be the problem itself, but he too intimiately associated with the problem for me to support.  I don't have enough time to delve into all of the nuiances to "vindicate" you of every issue that you've been involved with or accused of being involved with.---'''
'''Oppose''', where there's smoke, there's fire.
'''Weak oppose''' position on notability seems too extreme.
'''Oppose''' Seems to wish to delete articles about fictional characters, which I strongly disagree with, and so not comfterable giving him admin power.
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry. I'm not confident that you'll be un-biased with your admin tools, especially the delete button.--
'''Oppose''' Most drama isn't too bad but I still have to oppose per JayHenry. --
'''Oppose''' bad judgment and decisions. does not accept others views.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' per the diff linked by JayHenry, unfortunatly. [[User talk:Islander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''Talk'''</font></sub>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=243186905 this recent diff] on [[WP:AN]] appears to me as a desperate plea for support. Normally I wouldn't pile-on oppose but in this case I feel it's definately appropriate. '''''<font color="green">
'''Oppose'''.  I really didn't want to pile on; I know how mindless these things can get.  I'd been assuming that that diff was going to have been blown out of proportion and be less shocking than people have been saying, but then I read it, and yeah, wow.  Vandals?  Really?  I certainly wouldn't like to be judged by the stupidest thing I've ever said on Wikipedia, but that comment was still comparatively recent and does not, I would hope, reflect the attitude of someone we wish to have admin tools.  Sorry.
Per Gazimoff, extremely inappropriate. '''
Canvassing per Gazimoff.  Refactoring half an hour after someone opposes for it seems a bit suspect too.
'''Oppose''': First, per JayHenry's diff, and secondly, for a generally unfriendly attitude toward those he disagrees with. I can't support people I feel don't get along well with those who disagree with them.
'''Oppose''' No, [[Bulbasaur]] is not vandalism also you seem to want to delete pages that are fictional characters.
'''Strong Opposition'''. The nominee's crude attempt to intimidate those he disagrees with here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=240066845&oldid=240061552] and his uncivil haranguing (indicating a failure to assume good faith) here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=213573334#Request_for_clarification.E2.80.93Episodes_and_characters_2] and his harassment of/personal attacks on an administrator whose efforts to defuse a content dispute rankled him, see here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=186849856], demonstrate that this abusive user is unfit to exercise authority over others.
'''Strong oppose''', Anyone who would treat editors who create articles as vandals is unfit to be an admin. An admin has ''got to know'' what vandalism is and what vandalism is not. And for an editor to have such a strict view of notability while creating articles like [[GTD-5 EAX]] is absolutely laughable, and hypocritical. --
'''Moral Support''' - we do have too many Pokemon articles. --
'''Neutral''' - leaning support, strong edit count, understandable recent block, but also giving me a hint of [[WP:NOTNOW]].
'''Neutral''' - I've always mistaken the candidate with admin, [[User:Kwsn]] :). Well, I was actually going to support you before reading the immense opposers' reasoning. I think I need more time.--
'''Neutral'''.  Really wanted to support, but not ready (as shown by JayHenry).  I think that in six months you will definitely be ready for adminship as long as you show that you can act neutrally in regards to deletion. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Not going to pile on. I feel inclined to oppose per JayHenry's diff, though. &mdash;
'''Neutral, on the edge of Oppose''': I ''am'' a little worried because [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&oldid=181522725#Doublechecking_myself you got blocked] on account of this [[WP:3RR|3RR dispute]]. (Sorry if I went harsh during my initial decision.) However, you might improve by the time you're set for you next RFA, maybe in half a year. --
'''Neutral'''. The "Bulbasaur" incident is worrying. Although it was several months ago and Kww appears to regret the comment now.
'''Neutral''' - while technically meeting most of [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]], with an especially strong edit count, I am a bit disturbed by the tone of some past comments.  I see a lot of good things out of this editor, and, given four or six months, I could support a second RfA from this editor.  Best of luck.
'''Neutral''' I have not had the time to dig into Kww's contribs, from what I've read here, it would be quite an endeavor. However, I would like to make a few comments. I think the diff JayHenry gave, while disturbing, is ultimately irrelevant. First, it is many months old, and we are all entitled to our own personal opinions about how things ''should'' be, but we are ultimately bound by policy and consensus. Second, I think it is twisting the comment to say that Kww was calling ''all'' editors who add fiction type of edits/articles "vandals". Kww explains this issue extremely well at the top of this page when discussing how s/he would handle closing AfDs (Q4). It doesn't matter what our personal feelings are, all that matters is the consensus. Additionally, in case nobody has noticed, this is an editor with a '''huge''' amount of experience with images. Kww probably knows more about the IUP and image issues than most administrators, and that's a giant area in need of experienced, knowledgeable admins. Take a look at the discussions he had [[User talk:Forever Kenny|here]], for an example. While it appears this RfA is not going to pass, I would strongly encourage everyone to realize that just because someone is passionate about topics, doesn't automatically mean they would be an impulsive administrator. Also, I would encourage Kww to continue the excellent work on images, and hopefully the next time, the community will recognize the value your experience would bring to that area in particular, and the passage of time will see the community support you for RfA. <small>
'''Support''' I think he'll be fine.
'''Support''', Indeed, why the hell not? --
'''Support''' Bud, you deservse this, why the hell not? :) <font color="amaranth">
'''Proud to support''' LAAFan, as he is my former adoptee.  He was a great adoptee, and I've always been impressed by his diligent work and humbleness.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitarka&diff=prev&oldid=237594747], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ALLEA&diff=prev&oldid=232598332], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ko_Lipe&diff=prev&oldid=235407058], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bert_Glennon&diff=prev&oldid=232601397] and most especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Dornford-May&diff=prev&oldid=237594500] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Redundancy&diff=prev&oldid=237066124], all in the last few days. There's a difference between "reasonable deletionist" and "trigger happy and sloppy", and these were all way over that line; if you had a delete button, these articles would all now be redlinks and there'd be a reasonable chance their creators would have left Wikipedia in disgust.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Regretful oppose'''  Candidate appears to be a decent contributor, but the diffs provided by [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] raise some concern.  Also, this candidate does not meet [[User:Winger84/Standards for Adminship|my standards]], specifically those relating to registered time as a Wikipedia user and main space edit count.  Finally, for someone who has stated that they intend to spend time at AI/V, I would like to see more edits to that location prior to an RfA.  I have no doubts that this candidate would make a quality administrator with a bit more experience, but I regretfully can not support at this time. --
'''Oppose''' (2 ec) I was about to give a bunch of diffs, but Iridescent beat me to it. Overall I see way too much haste when tagging for speedy deletion, and I'm skeptical as to how you'd do with the delete button. [[User_talk:LAAFan/Archive4#Rash_speedy_deletions|This]] furthers my point. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per above --
Sorry, but I don't think you have enough experience in the admin-areas. Does your admin coach know about this? &mdash;'''
Premature RFA, I'm afraid... I see you're being admin coached, but you haven't interacted with your mentor that much, nor did you ask them if s/he thought it was a good time to stand for RFA. Also per the diffs irid provided and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&diff=prev&oldid=237807870 your response]. I would advise withdrawal at this time. FWIW, I do appreciate your willingness to provide the hypothetical user in Q4 a {{tl|2nd chance}}. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Strong oppose'''; a cursory review of recent CSD taggings show less than 50% success rate&mdash; you desperately need to familiarize yourself with [[WP:CSD|the speedy deletion criteria]] before you apply again because you are ''much'' too trigger-happy with the tagging&mdash; and that's coming for a renowned deletionist.  Sorry, but you'll need a much better understanding of our policies before we hand you the bit.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per concerns from [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan/Wikipedia Welcome Squad|this discussion]]. While LAA later [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travellingcari#Olive_Branch apologised] for his actions and I accepted, I have concerns about such issues in an admin.  Being an admin can be stressful and I don't think LAA Fan has shown s/he is ready. Also per concerns raised by Iri re: speedies, not yet experienced enough <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Oppose''' A friendly and helpful user, but I'm not seeing administrator material at this point.
(ec with the three above) Regretful '''Oppose'''. LAAFan appears to be a decent contributor, and the answers to the questions seem reasonable. The diffs provided by Iridescent seriously concern me, though. I wouldn't like to have an admin who, rather than thinking about speedy deletion, rashly assumed that articles like those should be deleted. Try again when you have more experience, especially with regard to deletion. Good answer to Q4, though.
'''Oppose''' - Per concerns listed above along with the nom statement.
'''Oppose''' per your sloppy CSD tagging which makes me feel that you simply do not know deletion policy well enough to be given the buttons. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Tagging copyright violations for speedy deletion after corensearchbot without even bothering to look at the content? Sloppy Work.
Wonderful editor: I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3ALady+Aleena&year=&month=-1 gave her rollback], as I trust her with it. I am happy to be the first to support.
'''Support''' Seems to be one of those editors who gets on and edits rather than attracts drama - ie exactly the sort of editor we need as an admin. A good all-rounder and I have no worries the tools will be misused. Adminship is not a big deal, or a level-up, and this user appears to tick the right boxes. Good luck
'''Support''' No problem :) -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support'''. A proliferation of solid contribs, a general feel that you mean only the best for Wikipedia, and a general feel that you would use the extra tools well and within bounds.  A specialist is welcome!  Happy to support. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
To counteract the ridiculous oppose. '''
'''!Oppose''' - will not make requisite 50 deletions, blockings and page protections every day. Contributions are of good quality, and the tools will not be abused.
My first experience of her was when she removed some categories from my userpage when I was a n00b. Anyway, now the tally is back, I feel comfortable in supporting this user, although the oppose is very concerning (well, not really.) '''
'''Support''' Not much article-writing or admin-related experience, but her template and category knowledge is good.
'''Support''' Why the heck not? No warnings, no blocks, a good history of communication and contributions.
'''Support''' It is time to give her the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Inactivity isn't a problem for me. '''''
'''Support''' Has been around since April 2005 and has a period of inactivity but plans to get more involved.Track is okay no concerns.
'''Strong support.''' Rarely do I consider this, but I had thought, more than once, to nominate Lady Aleena for adminship. I have seen her work with templates, and it is exemplary, enough to convince me that she would be an ''excellent'' administrator.
I am confident that this user will not misuse administrative functions out of ill-intent or ill-judgement, and that once they feel comfortable with the tools, they will be an even more valuabel contributor to the project. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' a valuable contributor, seems trustworthy and civil.
'''Support'''. Was inactive there for a while, but the past is in the past, she's definitely active now. Does a lot of mainspace work, experienced in the Wikipedia namespace, sounds good to me.
The nominator shows up.
'''Support''': Fine for me. --
'''Support''' A good wikipedian who will make a fine sysop. --
'''Support'''. She doesn't seem to have any terribly ambitious plans for the tools once she gets them, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it a reason to withhold the mop from her. She has been around a long time, she knows what she is doing. I would surmise that the odds of her accidentally deleting either the main page or Jimbo's userpage are quite low. I see absolutely zero reason to think she would abuse the tools, so what the hell.
'''Support''' - I'm in that sorta mood tonight.
'''Weak Support'''.  Start slow, visit [[WP:ARL]], [[WP:NAS]], and check and re-check everything if you get the mop.  I'm slightly worried because of short answers to questions especially like that to 4b. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''support''' no evidence that this editor will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Not much trouble with this one. Seems to have a cool head. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Answer to Q4b is especially impressive.
'''Support''', seen her before and she can definitely be trusted, but check the [[WP:NAS|school]] before you do anything, to avoid mistakes.  '''
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Strong Support''' Everyone has periods of inactivity, so that concern is moot for me.  Candidate has a solid background.  Also am supporting because of the unrelated-to-RfA Q5.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', nothing but good from her contribs. '''
'''Support''' - Nothing amiss here, and I haven't seen '''[[Revenge of the Sith]]''' either. ;) --
'''Support''' Can't see any problems. Except maybe that you've never seen Revenge of the Sith. Classic story of power hunger, could be educational for ya.--
per Ryan's nom. Lmao @ your answers to the questions. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support'''...Wow. I have not seen ''you'' in a '''''long''''' time, LA! The last time was, what, back at the [[WP: GUS]] userbox "crisis"...well, maybe not a crisis, but still. Anyway, of course I will support you. <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''
'''Support''' per reasonable arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Centaur family of Xanth]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture]].  Plus, cool username.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' per [[Boniface College]], her score of 7813 on the [[Wikipediholic test]] and her "Edit philosophy" of Merging. (The Master wonders If the Lady thinks Batman and Bruce Wayne can actually co-exist?) <font color="green">
'''Support''' Great work <strong>
'''Support''' I don't quite see what the fuss is about question 4. Every admin learns on the job and there's no indication whatsoever that Lady Aleena will use the tools carelessly without taking the time to understand the processes. It's not rocket science.
'''Support''' She will not abuse the tools. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. I think the issues raised are good ones. That being said, I still can't oppose this RfA. I think that the honesty from this candidate is enough to make me believe that the tools would not be abused. She has already shown that she would read first when coming across something unfamiliar. She's also sincere and courteous, which doesn't meet my criteria for adminship, but I will overlook it, just this once (joke).
'''Support''', no good reasons to oppose.
'''Weak Support''', the answer to Q7 is very troubling, but despite this I still think this user could do good with the tools.
'''Support''' I think answers to Q4 were ok. -
'''Support''', from what I've seen she's done good work, and there's no reason to believe she'd abuse or misuse the tools. -
'''weak support''' I'm not convinced that she needs the tools and I  hope that she familiarizes herself in more detail with relevant policies but I can't see any compelling reason to oppose. I'm particularly perplexed by people who object to her answer to question 7   which frankly seems utterly irrelevant to her ability to use her admin tools.
'''Support''' &mdash; I can't find any compelling reason to oppose. I've only ever known LA to be a very dedicated and helpful user, and her gnoming skills would make a fine addition to our admin corps. --
'''Support''' on the basis of 'no big deal'. Some of the answers are unquestionably weak, but (to continue with the Oxfam shop analogy that begins below) I'd rather hire someone who is diligent, expresses a willingness to learn and who has track record of civility than someone who spouts all the right acronyms, but who I fear may patronise the customers rather then the reverse.
'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support''' I see plenty of experience and valuable contributions to suggest that Lady Aleena is a wise person capable of using the admin tools responsibly where she is practised, as well as seeking assistance in areas unfamiliar to her, for that matter. I also do not think "demonstrated need for the tools" is a relevant criterion; experienced and trusted users should be given the tools, regardless of whether they may need them often or not.--
'''Support''' - she meets my standards, has rollback, and I have no ''major'' concerns.
'''Support''' - Periods of inactivity mean nothing to me - it does not mean she does not have the ability to become an admin really. Answers to questions are fine, although some points were raised about question 4 - well, as she said, the questions were rather vague... <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Advocates''' for Lady Aleena. High Standards; Plenty of Experience; Valuable Contributions. '''"Make it so!" '''
'''Support''' - I think she's a trusted user who would make a fine admin. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''. She is a trustworthy, honest and civil user who will make a great administrator. +
'''Support''': No reason necessary, other than that I'm comfortable with her sincerity, directness and lack of dependence on sarcasm when dealing with others. --
Yes. —
'''Support''' Adminship is about being clueful and  being willing to learn from mistakes.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' I dont want to go to oppose because i think he should get a chance, but im not sure if this would be the time. For my vote i go with support! Good luck.--
'''Support''' - Like... OMG! This editor '''clearly has not been admin-coached'''... OMG! COME ON PEOPLE! This is mean girls at its worst folks. Yet another really pathetic display of crushing a good candidate. Lady Aleena [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lady_Aleena/Sandbox&action=history clearly demonstrates she will not abuse the tools or act impulsively in areas she does not understand.]If anything, the surprise of being nominated, and the genuine response to being nominated further demonstrates an honest humility sorely lacking around these parts. That she has not coveted this position and lurked here for months learning to game the system speaks better of her than her years of contributing responsibly to Wikipedia. Lets just get some focus on our priorities, and move this one over the bar folks.
'''Support''' - Fine User --
'''Support'''. Civil, never been blocked. One can expect a reasonable approach to admin issues. --
'''Support''' No problems here.  If you have look at admin coaching that'd be great! <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do. Oh, and same as above.--
'''Support''' as per most things already stated. No major concerns. :)
'''Oppose''' Not enough content contributions, so don't feel safe giving her deletion and blocking buttons. User is productive elsewhere, so if any positive substantial answers [to questions posted] are forthcoming I could change my vote.
I'm not exactly comfortable with her question to answer 7.  It seems like she is saying she can go against consensus because consensus can change.  One person going against consensus does not mean it has changed.  --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I've gone back and forth on this, but Q4a-e is just not right for me. The candidate's whole stance seems to me to be "I'll find out when I come to it", ''or'' "I'll ask someone else" ''or'' "I'll learn that later". '''No''', I'm sorry, I'd like you to learn it '''''before''''' requesting the tools. I appreciate your honesty, but if I went for a role at [[Oxfam]] I wouldn't think it unreasonable that they expect me to know how to organise the books or put the clothing in order '''before''' they ask me to help out. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Nah, I agree with Pedro here. My stance about the contributions being stellar still stands, but, based on the extremely short lackluster answers to questions, I felt compelled to change as the user clearly hasn't bothered to study anything before or during this RfA. Yes, you learn as you go when you're an admin, but a little understanding of policy would have been nice to see, especially with regards to consensus, something that should be easily apprehended by a general editor. Initially I was referring to questions 4 through 7 in my neutral. ''However'', the answers to the rest also leave much to be desired. Too many references to deference. Administrators are not dispute resolution mediators. I'm sorry, but I just don't think this user understands the role of an administrator. Read [[WP:ADMIN]].
'''Oppose''' - Question 4 worries me, really. The answers seem somewhat vague and give me the impression that the user doesn't quite understand what she'll do when she becomes an admin. Best of luck in your future applications (assuming this one does actually fail, which is certainly not decided yet!) Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
Per Cyclonenim.
I am bothered by insufficient interest in content writing. I elaborated elsewhere. --
Per Irpen and highly disagreeable Q7 answer. ''
'''Oppose''' per answers to Question 4 and Question 7, both are laughable.
'''Oppose ''per policy'''''' wow the answers to those questions particularly 4 and 7 (but I'm not sure I understand question 7 to myself, but 4 was awful.) People want to know that you know the answer to the questions or know how to find them.  answering with "per policy" isn't sufficient---and that's basically what you did.  You didn't answer them, you didn't even tell us where the answer was, you simply punted.
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but some of the answers to the questions leave a bad taste in my mouth.
'''Oppose''' an excellent editor but no basic knowledge of administrative roles. Everything that she wants to do in #1 can be done right now without the mop, and she'll do them very well. '''
'''oppose''' Answers to Q4 & 7 are really underwelming, doesn't give the impression of having adequate experience in matters of importance to mop-wielding.
'''Oppose''' Im sorry about this but i agree with the above comments in regard to qs 4 and 7. Question 4 especially, admins are supposed to have a thorough knowledge of the rules and policies without just saying 'if it meets the requirements' then i will do this. I will be happy to support once you fix this up.
'''Oppose'''. I have no problem with the period of inactivity. Some of us have lives that demand periods away from Wikipedia. That's life and family and they ought to come first since this is a volunteer organization. But when seeking adminship there is, in my judgment, a certain floor or threshold of knowledge that the community can and should demand. There will always be some level of on the job training but you need a solid basis to begin. I am afraid Aleena isn't ready today. Her answers to the optional questions either reflect a lack of knowledge or (and I do not think this is the case) a certain lack of seriousness. In either case I just can't give her the nod. A month or so of studying and activity and I will gladly reconsider and almost certainly support then. -
Per Answer 4 and those views expressed above.
'''Oppose''' Per many questions especially 4 and also 7, but in general I felt that the answers were rather slim. <tt>
'''Oppose'''. Poor answers to optional questions suggest current lack of understanding of admin-related policies.
'''Oppose''' - Not particularly due to the answer to my question (there are several editors I respect and who I think make good admins that have done the same thing, although it is obvious I disagree with the practice, see [[:Category:Rouge admins]].  I asked simply because I was curious.) but mainly due to the answers to Q4.  Most of them amounted to "I will do the action when policy says I should do the action" which seems like a non-answer to me.  Prospective admins should be able to answer all those questions citing specific scenerios and policy.
'''Oppose''' - Periods of inactivity aren't an issue, but the answers to Q4 are, and [[User talk:Lady Aleena/User Oxbridge|this]] shows a worrying persistence in pursuing own agenda in the face of consensus against.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions 4, 6, and 7. The answers to question 4, in particular, are troubling, and reflect a lack of understanding about the issues around which tool use revolve. I see few problems with her editing so far, and would likely support another RFA held in the future, if she familiarizes herself with admin functions. '''
'''No.''' per Q7.
'''Oppose''': I know this editor well, but her answer to questions 4b, c, d, and question 7 really concern me. Sorry. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Weak Oppose'''. I respect your contributions, and appreciate that everyone is entitled to ask things be clarified for them, but I must admit, I don't think I feel comfortable with some of the responses, they do strike me as a little "''I'll cross that bridge when I get to it''". I think the candidate means well but I really don't think this is quite the right approach.
'''Oppose'''. While I am not particularly bothered by your inactivity, I feel that your answers to question 4 suggest a certain unfamiliarity with policies that I think administrators should know. For example, pages can and should be [[WP:CSD|speedily deleted]] if they are obviously [[Wikipedia:Attack page|attack pages]] or copyright violations--an administrator needn't wait for a user to request deletion. Please understand that I don't think you are inherently unsuitable to be an admin; I merely feel that you are not ready at this time. I encourage you to study Wikipedia's policies, and should this RfA prove unsuccessful, you will be better prepared for next time. --
'''Oppose''', don't like Q7 answer at all, and Q4 answers are weak, sorry. <b>
A7 is a killer. Only tells us she is willing to [[WP:POINT|disrupt to illustrate a point]]
'''Oppose''' My sincere apologies, but the answers to #4 were disheartening. I personally require anyone who is applying for adminship to be throughly and absolutely well versed in policies before they even consider applying to be an admin. Again, sorry.
'''Oppose''' - (changed from support), the concerns raised are bothersome. Answers to questions are weak, and I am not sure you are taking the "right approach" to adminship. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' - lots of good points raised above, enough to offer the standard '''try again in (x) months''' oppose. In addition to that, though, I'd like to throw in a petty (or at least of rather tangled relevance) issue of my own: [[Mark Twain|Humor]] [[Aristophanes|translates]] '''[[William Shakespeare|incredibly]]''' [[Charles Dickens|well]] [[Terry Pratchett|to]] [[Douglas Adams|the]] [[John Kennedy Toole|written]] [[Tom Robbins|word]]. A pity that those who happen to have trouble discerning humor when not explicitly told what it is are usually those who are also the most [[panic|belligerently hot-headed]] in their moments of confusion. Minor point, but this particular meme is depressingly prevalent around here, a project that, at its core, is about the combination of writers and knowledge. Bottoms up --
'''Oppose''' - Insufficient mainspace editing.
'''Oppose''' - "That is one of the things that I will look into as soon as I become an admin." What?
'''Oppose''' - Some of her reasons seem to make me wonder whether she needs the tools ''at all''. If it is simply because she has made lots of edits then I will completely ignore that (seems somebody has contracted editcountitis), and if it is to show that she is an exemplary edit I will point you to [[WP:NBD]]. Also, the user's stance of "It'll be alright on the night" worries me. <small>
'''Oppose'''. Low mainspace contribution rate, and a lack of consistent recent activity (beyond the last couple of months).
'''Oppose''' per DGG and Horologium.  I wish you luck in the future!  Cheers,
'''Neutral'''. Aleena is a helpful editor whom I feel could go beyond her capabilities if she was granted Admin powers. However, the long periods of inactivity and her lack of content editing are swaying me from voting Support. However, if you are granted Adminship, congratulations. And if you aren't, you are a great editor anyway. Either way, if you show more activity and content, I will be very happy to change my vote to support. Cheers! -'''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">[[User:Redmarkviolinist|ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ]]</font>''' <sup>''' [[User talk:Redmarkviolinist|Drop me a line]]'''</sup>
'''Neutral''' - Candidate looks good overall, but the opposes are slightly worrisome. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
I don't mind the questions and inactivity too much, but from what I have seen from you I'm reluctant to support.
'''Neutral''' -- per scetoaux...particularly question four worries me! --
'''Neutral'''. User is far too nice to be an administrator
'''Neutral''' Sometimes one just doesn't feel comfortable either way, even after waiting and investigating. --
Per Giggy's excellent nomination. —'''
Good editor.--
'''Support''', per reasoning last time: valued contributor, has a load of "clue", and won't misuse the tools.  <small>this time though, I promise not to badger any opposers...</small> [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Yes. —
Per reasons in the last RFA. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''.  I had this watchlisted.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
As the nominator the first time 'round.
'''Support''' per everything good you could bring to the project. <font color="blue">'''
'''Zomg the cantidate may use IRC?'''. Well, that aside, I think the cantidate will do just fine.
'''Strong Support.''' As previous co-nominator.
'''Stong Support''' -- Best of luck! --
'''Support''' - adminship isn't a big deal. In my humble opinion, giving short answers to the questions is perfectly ok - this isn't supposed to be an exam.
'''Support''' Finally! '''
Despite Giggy's terrible nomination. :P
'''Support''' I don't fully understand what iridecent's link means (or what you did wrong) but that happened in like, April. That's like, 4 months ago or something. 4 months is a while. I'd bet my bottom dollar that you've learned your lesson there.--
An erratic contribution history, a shocking diff about fighting a CfD deletion and an unsightly number of categories on your user page leads me to  '''Support'''
'''Support''' Uses IRC to discuss improving the encyclopedia. ''
'''Support''' No issues suggesting the user is untrustworthy have yet appeared. If Giggy is satisfied with the user's policy knowledge - the only significant issue last time - I am satisfied too.
'''Support''' I know the user's personality from IRC, and the user meets all of what I consider good traits in a candidate.
'''Support''' -- not perfect, but shows willingness to learn, which is very important for the position.--
Per Sarek. '''
'''Strong Support''' as I'm happy to assume good faith instead of making assumptions about a person's character based on one's personal opinions regarding IRC. User appears perfectly trustworthy. -
'''Strong support''' for good arguments in the AfDs I have seen her at and for making my [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Nice comments other contributors said about or in support of me.21|list of nice wikipedians]].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support'''. I was fairly emphatic in my support for you last time based on a long history of demonstrated good judgement, hard work, and valuable contributions. I still feel that way. I looked over the dif provided in the oppose section regarding IRC, and don't see the problem. Taking things off-wiki to avoid situations that will just cause wiki-drama doesn't strike me as a big deal (and indeed, she could have had that conversation via email or telephone, and we'd have no clue). It also strikes me that fighting to protect a category isn't exactly egregious behavior, and the fact that the dif provided precedes your last RfA makes it rather irrelevant.
'''Support''' per IRC.
'''Support.'''  NOTE: this candidate's high edit count in userspace very likely has much to do with [[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help|Wikipedians looking for help]] activity.  See also: [[User:Ral315/WTHN]]. —
'''Support''' I believe this editor has great potential. Plus, last supporter made a great point in [[User:Ral315/WTHN]]. '''''
'''Strong support''' - a valued editor, I trust she'd make a great admin. '''<font color="#ff9900">
I remember being very unimpressed with her understanding of the goals of Wikipedia when I came across [[User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers]].  We can't have admins who don't understand what original research is.
'''Oppose for now''' I really don't like any of the answers to the questions. I will be happy to support if she adds more to each of the questions, espically Q1. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but [[User talk:Lady Aleena/Archive 4#Do you use IRC.3F|this]] is a dealbreaker for me.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Sorry, no. Understanding of policy appears to still be a concern and the answers aren't reassuring either.
'''Oppose''' - I see no distinctive differences between this nom and last time, which I opposed. Too soon to run again. You should have declined and then accepted later, which would have impressed me with editorial humility. Your answers are again lackluster. So, unfortunately, per the above.
'''Oppose''' ... [[User talk:Lady Aleena/Archive 4#Do you use IRC.3F|this]] is what changed my mind.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
''' Oppose''' Having duly referred back to previous noms, answers then and now are unsatisfactory and I'm concerned that these are presented as sufficient. Not impressed with candidate's overall application.
'''Oppose''' While short answers are not necessarily bad in RFA, your answer to Q2, combined with a look at your last several hundred edits, leads to me think that you're not ready to be an admin. To become an administrator, you need to demonstrate that you're an active member of the project who is dedicated to our goals and capable of dealing with the responsibilities that the tools entail. Appallingly lackluster answers here, combined with a contribution history overwhelming dominated by edits in the user and template namespaces does not show me that you are a sufficiently dedicated and experienced editor to merit support. ''Don't expect to pass RFA with sufficient support if you can't even summon up a single example of a positive contribution to the project since April.'' Additionally, your failure to convey (in words and actions) a change of heart since your recent failed attempt at RFA is disappointing. However, I will say that the IRC related diff doesn't mean squat to me. I really don't get what the big deal is there.
'''Oppose''', per iridescent and VanTucky. Also, it is really too soon after the previous RfA.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see some solid article for the next RFA, not just little cleanups, even if you don't get it recognised, expand it or create it.--
'''Oppose'''. I have a deep distrust of IRC users, and to have that confirmed by seeing evidence that there was an apparent attempt to cover up an onwiki situation leaves me with rather a bad taste in my mouth. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but VanTucky has a great point. ''Nothing'' you're proud of since ''April''? Think of something, and I might be swayed to neutral. '''
'''Oppose''' due to the way questions were responded to which I feel wasn't much of a response.  I get the feeling you are just not into this nomination as much as you should be.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't trust the user with the tools; it's pretty clear that the user is interested more in removing content than adding content.  Furthermore, a lack of understanding about the basic fundamentals about how wikipedia operates indicates that they aren't ready.  <font color="629632">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Diligent Terrier]]. --<span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I havn't seen anything to change my opinion from the last RFA.  For someone editing since April 2005, I find plenty to concern me about behaviour up to the last RFA four months ago.  Has there been a marked change in the last four monts?  The bit about "a tad more self-conscious of my edits" since then being an explanation for why there isn't any good material to point to for Q2 just kind of underwhelms.  I still see no evidence of familiarity with adminly matters, and plenty of evidence of a tin ear for the tone and rhythm of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Dilligent. --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Oppose'''. The IRC issue is a problem for me.
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns here.
'''Oppose''' - The candidate doesn't appear to be making Wikipedia any better by their actions, and leads me to believe that there would be a possibility of deliberate misuse of the administrator tools. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89. A premature nomination.
'''Oppose''' per the IRC concerns.  And stemming from that whole dark underbelly of off-Wiki drama, I have a hard time trusting anyone nominated by Giggy, after the circus that was DHMO 3.  His judgment was proven to be very poor.
'''Weak Oppose''' - too soon, and my attitude towards IRC is in the same vein as Email.  Best to keep wiki thinks on wiki.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' - miniscule answers to questions, which lack depth and show lack of effort. Is that because it's so soon after the last attempt? May well be...it needs time yet... I know I supported last time, but I can see no improvement since then, and, infact this RfA is in worse condition than the last one. I regret to vote this, but I do believe, if you give it time, you stand a much better chance. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose'''. User cannot be trusted with sysop tools. ---
'''Oppose'''.  I'm still not comfortable with the user's thoughts on consensus.  That and I feel it was too soon since the last RFA.  --
'''Oppose''' per my discussion above and per VT. '''
'''Oppose''' per my neutral statement below and uninspiring answers to questions (even the required ones).
'''Oppose''' – even after some of the questions that weren't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lady_Aleena_2&diff=223806623&oldid=223806047 summarily deleted] were answered, I'm still unconvinced (per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lady_Aleena_2&diff=223804965&oldid=223804798 my neutral] below). The fact that I was unable to find any on-wiki discussions between the candidate and the nominator regarding this nomination (except [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lady_Aleena&diff=223686868&oldid=223674900 this], when it was already created) strengthens my concerns about the IRC use (or if this wasn't discussed in IRC, off-wiki stuff in general). –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Per what I see is Slap Dash Question Answering raises questions about aptitude for adminship
'''Oppose''' per the evidence brought to light by Iridescent.  I need to trust admins will act and discuss their actions in the open.  That left me too uneasy to support, and it is an issue of trust, so I am afraid I must oppose.  I am sorry.  &hArr;
Related to Iridescent's oppose, I feel [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Category_talk:Wikipedians_interested_in_television_by_genre&timestamp=20080404041016 this] is slightly concerning, but I do have to learn of the context. If you could clarify that particular incident, that'd help. :)
'''Neutral'''  Not enough time has passed since the previous RfA for me to be able to support.  I'm somewhat concerned by some of the issues that have been raised in the oppose section, but I'm not sure - without diving deeper into the edits and/or the situations around them - that they would be enough for me to oppose.  Should this RfA succeed, I wish the candidate the very best of luck and will support their decisions around the project.  --
'''Neutral''' Diffs above are a bit worrisome. Nonetheless you're a nice editor, I will wait for something to move me to change my !vote to support. Until then, good luck. --
Lady Alena and I butted heads in the past over what I viewed was her propensity for contributing original research and material with dubious merit - but that was a long time ago, and not a good reason to oppose now. I am, however, concerned about her edit counts. Of her over 17,000 undeleted contributions, fewer than 3,400 are in the mainspace. Well over a third of her contributions are in the user namespace. I don't think I like what that says about her priorities. -
I can't oppose based solely on use of IRC, but from what I've read about it, I don't like it. With some of the serious concerns raised about this candidate above--particularly the sentiment ("fighting" any attempt at CFD) expressed in the link Iridescent undeleted--I also can not support at this time. Remaining '''neutral''' <small>(now ''leaning'' '''oppose''', based upon no attempt to answer additional questions.)</small> on this one, per further perusal of this user's contributions. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
Waiting for more Q&A...well more A at this stage ;)
'''Neutral''' I appreciate the candidate's sincerity in wanting to assist Wikipedia at a greater depth, but at this time I do not believe the candidate is ready to assume additional responsibilities.
'''Neutral''', I respect the candidate and the nominator here, but the things brought up in the 'Oppose' section are simply too troubling for me to out-and-out support.  That said, I believe this user is a good-faith contributor who has been a net positive to the project, if they actually rolled their sleeves up and did some dirty, menial project-space work (XfD, etc), then they'd probably deservedly breeze through this whole process.
'''More of a comment''' I just find it kind of low to undelete something from April just to devastate an RfA. It is slightly nauseating.
'''Neutral'''.  The diffs are a bit worrisome. But I think you're a hardworking and a nice editor. --
'''Support''' Seems fine to me.
'''Weak support''' - Not found anything wrong so far, but if something worrying turns up I'll probably switch. That said, your questions are very vague. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''
'''Support'''  Nice Mainspace edits, I'm still lookinig in contributions
'''Weak support, up from Oppose''' While I expressed my worry about the unfunny Kurt comment in the opening sentence (see below), I will acknowledge the candidate has the capacity to be an effective administrator.
'''Support''' You are civil, intelligent, contributor who will make a fine admin. No reservations.
'''Support''' per Keeper. Really, I see nothing incredibly worrying. XfD is an area you want to ease into though, so keep that in mind. Your Kurt comment in the nom was harmless and insignificant, but here on Wikipedia (especially around RfA) people like to make things a big deal, so don't take it personally.--
'''Cautionary support'''.  Without the IP comment this would be a full support.  You have all the experience needed to become an admin, but I warn you not to discriminate against IPs and new users just because of their status.  You will be asked to make judgement on disputes involving IPs and senior editors as an admin.  Other than this, you're perfectly fine. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Moral Support''' I still think you have a lot to learn, however, there's no evidence you'll abuse the tools ——
'''Support''' I for one understand being against IP editing, even through I have no strong feeling either way.--
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''STRONG Oppose''' Too many 'per nom' and other two-word votes at AFD that [[WP:PERNOM|add nothing to the discussion]]. Few examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nenad_Stankovi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=229352382][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Happy_Tree_Friends:_It%27s_Largest,_Biggest,_Longest_and_Cutest&diff=prev&oldid=224943165][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Tabiri&diff=prev&oldid=208338715][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Srila_Prabhupada:_The_Prominent_Link_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=200435831][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blobbo_Lite&diff=prev&oldid=193543297] The IP bias, per his [[User:Latics|userpage]] quote, ''"Before you accuse me, I'll admit it—I do dislike IP editors and strongly support mandatory registration. In other words, I HATE VANDALS."'' turns this into a strong oppose. I can not trust the user with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Dislikes IP editors.
'''Oppose''' - Rollback was granted rather recently and I would like to see more activity in admin related areas. Besides the anti-vandalism activity with 15 AIV and RPP reports respectively, I see rather few substantive contributions. E.g. i didn't find many CSD notices and the one of today also indicates that more experience might be needed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainfall_in_India&diff=234749797&oldid=234596251] You have a lot of mainspace edits, but many seem to be small updates and other fixes related to football. A wider experience would also be helpful to deal with whatever comes across you when you wield the mob.--
'''Weak Oppose''' I have to oppose for the fact the user will only work actively in one area. (AIV, see answer to Q1)--
'''Oppose''' IP editing is ''fundamental'' to Wikipedia. I cannot support editors who have a bias against IP editors&mdash;the vast majority of IP editors are not vandals. It appears the candidate has become jaded by too much anti-vandal work. Sorry, but I can't trust Latics with the tools to block fairly, given that AIV is where he plans to work.
'''Oppose''', I have to agree with EJF and SashaNein above. IP editors are vital to the continuing growth of Wikipedia, and administrators should not have a bias against them. --
'''Extremely strong oppose, switching from support''' &mdash; Wow, I reviewed his contribs, but didn't check the userpage.  I'm so glad that others spotted Latics' statement of prejudice against IP editors and his desire to see them eliminated from our project.  That goes against everything I stand for on Wikipedia, and I am ashamed to have supported this RfA and given this user my trust. Anonymous editing is a pillar of Wikipedia, and I cannot support those who seek to destroy our foundations. I would sooner support Willie on Wheels. '''
'''Oppose''' I am switching from Netural to oppose because of the comment about Kurt in his opening, and the comment above where he bluntly said he dislikes IP's. As Wisdom said in the Netural column, you shot yourself in the foot.
'''Oppose:''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. <small>
'''Oppose''' Opened the nomination by taking a swipe at another editor.  Pass.
'''Oppose''' If you're going to tell people you're matured since your last RfA, perhaps you shouldnt start by taking a pot shot at another editor.  To make this clear, I am not opposing ''because'' you made the comment, but rather due to questional maturity.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' - I can just about overlook starting an RFA with gratuitous rudeness and SHOUTING, but... While I'm on record as saying I believe account creation should be mandatory, that is not the same as your "''I do dislike IP editors and strongly support mandatory registration. In other words, I HATE VANDALS''" stance. Also, AGF notwithstanding, G7-deleting your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3ALatics%2FOld&timestamp=20080409001901 old userpage] – complete with inflammatory "This user highly despises Barack Obama" – immediately prior to an RFA has a whiff of track-covering. No.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  Ack.  Too many issues.  Didn't catch the "political affiliation issue", which brings up POV issues, I was willing to overlook the IP editing issue as something you needed to be careful about.  Overall, too much for me to support.  Moving to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but IP editing is a [[meta:foundation issue|foundation issue]], and is just as important as the remaining four. Require registration would be the same as subverting any of the others, say, our free license or NPOV. Also, not liking the Kurt Weber thing or Q10 (don't indef an IP). Wait a couple months for this to blow over, keep working at AIV, and them come back.
'''Neutral''' I don't see anything wrong with the Kurt comment, which wasn't insulting or degrading.  but I'm neutral until I can look at contributions more thoroughly.
'''Staying neutral from support''' due to concerns about IP editors. As Wisdom said below, you shot yourself in the foot on this one. Sorry. —'''
'''not going to pile on''' - You shot yourself in the foot.
'''Going neutral per Mr IP.''' Anonymous editing is a fundamental principle. I would recommend removing that statement from the userpage and gaining more experience in the admin areas in order to remove the perception of anti anon bias. The comment indicates a lack of readiness for the tools. Enthusiastic reversion of unconstructive edits and education/warning those responsible are not the same as "hating vandals." The two are easily confused. Experience sufficient to have the tools should bring on  an awareness of that difference. Blocking is a last resort, to be used only with those for whom education and assumption of good faith have proven futile. When one "hates vandals," it's too easy to forget that. Cheers,
There are qualities that make me want to support, and qualities that make me oppose. I don't think the IP thing &mdash; ''I hate vandals'' &mdash; was meant to be as harash as some of you are taking it, but anyway, this editor is pretty helpful to our project. However, some qualities make me think you are not yet ready for adminship. --'''
'''Neutral''', from support. I disagree with your stance on IP editing, and - from a prospective admin, it's a stance, not an opinion. It also means that, unfortunately, every administrative action you take in regards to an IP edit or editor would be suspect. I don't think you'd act in anything other than a proper fashion with IP editors or edits, but there it is - it's a ''perception'' of bias, and it's enough. I'd even remain at support if you clarified your position ''on your userpage'', saying "You know what, I said this, but I meant this" or something. But, when I went to your userpage to find the quote that has created such a stir, I didn't see it - until I saw your recent edits, where you removed it without fanfare at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Latics/Userpage&diff=prev&oldid=234858124 this diff]. Even a note here along the lines of "Per your concerns, I've removed the offending quote..." would be fine - hell, we've had candidates [[User:John Carter|change their username]] as a result of their RfAs - one comment isn't the end of the world. But not mentioning your removal feels like an attempt to brush it under a rug, which bothers me. Sorry, you're a great editor, but... ugh indeed.

I had actually been contemplating a nomination myself, believe it or not. I think Lawrence is a very promising newcomer (who happens to have a very cool first name :) but I digress. ) that can bring a lot to the project. Avruch raises some good points, equanamity is a good thing, and I'd advise Lawrence to keep the concerns raised in mind. Passion is a good thing, as long as it does not take us too far. That said, I '''support''' this nomination because I think the project will be better off if LC has the tools. ++
I disagree with Avrush, something tells me this is gonna be a great success--
'''Strong Support''' - While Lawrence is certainly passionate about topics that interest him, he maintains a clear block log.  He understands not to go too far and I trust that he will not administrate in areas where he is editing.
'''Support''' - I've been continually impressed by Lawrence Cohen's actions and judgment ever since I first interacted with him sometime in January. (I accidentally spent about two hours reading [[Storm botnet]] and its references because it was so well written...)
'''Support''' based on my experience of this user. Thanks,
He's not an admin? I need to pay better attention.
Weak support. Being openly passionate about the project is generally a good and all-too-rare quality in admins, but the opposition's concern are nevertheless valid. Should this request not succeed, by all means keep going and try again in a while.
'''Weak support''' per Dorftrottel. I've interacted with Lawrence several times, most notably over the [[Waterboarding]] issue where we were on opposing sides of the debate. I thought, and still think, that he was entirely wrong about it. But I nevertheless support this request, because in all my discussions with him, I see many positive characteristics: a powerful mind, coupled with a passionate commitment to the project and to doing the right thing. Yes, he can at times be opinionated and argumentative (like me, in fact), but this is not necessarily a bad thing; I respect editors who are not afraid to engage with controversial issues, and, to his credit, he is always willing to engage in constructive debate. Furthermore, I respect his integrity, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he would be an abusive administrator. (Indeed, the worst administrators are often those who avoid controversy pre-RfA, pass with 100% support, and then become increasingly rogue once given the admin tools, knowing that they're unlikely to lose them.) Lawrence has a clean block log and does not have a history of edit warring. As no one has called into question either his experience (which is more than adequate) or his fundamental good faith, I see no conclusive reason to oppose.
Support - may be controversial, but reminds me of many current admins. Just the problem is, he's not already an admin, and thus saying things that he sometimes says will kill any chance of successful RFA. I don't think he'll abuse admin tools, but as this will probably not pass, I suggest keeping such comments for when you are already an admin. '''
'''Weak Support''' This user is a fine editor. He has done much to help improve wikipedia, and we are all appreciative of that. Thanks for your work so far. He is not without controversy however. He has a tendency to be very passionate, however, he has never "crossed the line". I don't believe he will abuse the tools, so I will support you.--
'''Strong support''' — works ''tirelessly'' to uphold NPOV. I agree entirely with Majorly.
'''Support''' evidence of 'pedia building is a positive. Civility could be better but not a deal-breaker for mine. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Prolific and thoughtful. See also Lar.
Switched from oppose, Lawrence has the best of intentions and appears to me to genuinely care about the encyclopedia. In the recent MFD I also made the same observation that the nom was in bad faith, albeit only to myself in my head and I can't really criticise someone for voicing my own thoughts. As Majorly notes above, if he had kept his head down and only opened his mouth once he became an admin no one would really have had a problem with it. I don't believe Lawrence will misuse the tools in a way that will drive newbies away from the project as to my recollection he's never advocated blocking or deleting when smaller measures will do. I just reviewed his last 1000 Wikipedia space contributions and I think his behaviour in the Mantanmoreland case was exemplary. Furthermore, I wish more people would get involved in controversial topics instead of brushing it away with hand waving about how we should all get on and edit the encyclopedia. I don't see how it can be claimed that he's only interested in drama as he has FAs, Gas and DYKs to his name and has created a bunch of articles. That in itself says to me that he has the best interests of the encylopedia in mind. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' – This editor is a contributor to [[Wikipedia]], almost every single one of the oppose opinions, to date except for a few, state the value of this editor;”… First rate editor,  valuable Wikipedian, impressive article-space work, I am all for being passionate” and so on and so on.  The crouch of the oppose opinions is the temperament of [[User: Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] and I have to say [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#00008B;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety’s</span>]] reference, that he supplied, pushed me to support.  Thank you [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#00008B;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety’s</span>]] for the research.  In reviewing [[User: Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] comments are they a little trite and to the point yes!  But sometimes you do need that to move things along.  Could [[User: Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] be more [[Wikipedia:Civility|PC]] at times, of course, couldn’t we all, especially me.  Overall [[User: Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] not only has earned the extra buttons, but in his hands [[Wikipedia]] will benefit from his use of the extra buttons. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' – Careful and intelligent work on Blackwater-related articles. --
Tempermemt issues aside, I believe Lawrence is a trustworthy editor. There are admins with ''far worse'' temperment than he has, and they are valued and respected contributors.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I first of all feel that Lawrence has the judgment necessary to use the admin tools well. He has had some temperament issues, but he ''is'' human, and I think that Lawrence would be a net positive (to use Pedro's phrase) if he were to have the admin tools.
'''Strong support''' - Has the judgment to use the tools appropriately, his contributions to debates have been solid and common sense. Shoessss's and Jehochman's contentions above are pretty spot on. Good luck.
'''Support'''. He speaks his mind and is passionate about the project. He does excellent work in article space. He brings important arguments to controversial subjects, both meta and non-meta in nature. We need more admins who are willing to advocate for their fellow editors. --
'''Support'''.  Wow, seriously?  Yes, please.  &#10154;
'''Support''' As nom. '''
'''Support''' I trust the judgement of this particular nominator. Also, Lawrence is the sort of colorful person who isn't afraid to state his opinion and stick to it. Make sure you don't get too carried away though.
'''Support''' Met him on WP:ANI. Pretty damn intelligent. Like a computer on Wikipedia policies. Oh and by the way, as for his temprament issues that others have brought up, I don't find that as an aggravating circumstance for adminship - that would be purely intent mentalities which I am against. Needless to say, I *love* drama. So what if he's controversial? People whom like things to stay simple tend to have simpler minds. So there's nothing wrong with making things more dramatic - it makes you think outside the box and get a better grip on both sides of the story. I personally don't find it useful for admins to have simpler minds anyways. We do have a Wikipedia: request for de-adminship, and that's a solution, so I really don't care about hypothetical situations.
'''Support''' A thoughtful, intelligent editor with judgment who cares about the encyclopedia. Passion can be taken too far, but if you're thoughtful, sincere and not reckless you can rein it in, and I'm confident he can. Wikipedia would be better off with Lawrence as an admin. I was impressed with his comments at the Mantamoreland RFAr and with his ideas on community arbitration.
'''Support'''. Does a great job at the afds's. A little personality can't hurt. --'''''

I haven't always agreed with LC's positions on various dramas, but no doubts about his commitment to the project. On the whole I agree with Majorly and Noroton.
'''Support''' after reviewing the concerns expressed below, I don't see any major problems with his being given administrator privileges.  I respect that he is placing himself subject to recall.  Lawrence is a dedicated and productive contributor to the project.

'''Support''', a great wikipedian and the first recipient of the Uga Man presidential barnstar.--[[User:Uga Man|Uga Man]] ([[User talk:Uga Man|talk]]) <font color = "red"><small>
'''Support'''--
Absolute '''support'''.
'''Support'''.  It looks like some people are trying to torpedo this on political-correctness grounds because he didn't take the (losing) pro-deletion stance with regard to the podcast with all the banned users in it.
'''Support''' There is ''absolutely no reason'' to believe he would misuse or abuse the tools. In response to opposers, please remember that "too controversial to be an admin" is not a convincing argument. <font color="green">
I like his answer to Q5, although I confess it's a close call between this and neutral because I can certainly see some validity in the comments below.
'''Weak support''' - I had to think over this one for some time. When I met Lawrence Cohen first, it was over the whole [[Waterboarding]] debacle and the subsequent ArbCom case. Throughout all that, I thought he handled everything excellently. Since then, I've met him again and again at RFCU, mostly relating to Grawp and incarnations and once again, he's been great. I've seen him debate passionately (maybe a little ''too'' passionately?) over policy matters. What makes me a little twitchy, though are the diffs cited below by Tiptoety and thus, I'm afraid that he might be a little too [[WP:BITE|BITEy]] and quick to anger. However, on the whole, his track record elsewhere is keeping me out of the neutral zone. I think he'll be okay -
'''Support'''. Seems honest enough, little risk of abuse. Re: Alison's point - there are [[WP:BITE|BITEy]] admins already, can't say he's necessarily more [[WP:BITE|BITEy]] then those.
'''Support''' man of integrity, not likely to abuse his tools in any way. Frankly people opposing because of his support for that podcast are looking rather like a bunch of foxes with sour grapes here.
'''Support''', good editor, offers good input on controversial admin-related issues.
'''Support'''. If "sometimes can be an asshole" disqualified candidates from adminship, we'd have about 2 admins left.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support'''. Qualified and dedicated user. I trust that the candidate will carefully consider the concerns expressed here, and will adhere to his commitment not to use the tools in any dispute in which he is otherwise involved.
'''Support''' Thought he already was an admin, and has the judgment needed to be one.  Unlikely to abuse the tools.  Probably could moderate his language some, but we have other admins that could stand to do that.
'''Support'''A responsible and very level headed editor. He thinks things through thoroughly before opening his mouth. As an admin he would be a complete asset to the project.
'''Support'''  Lawrence isn't the least controversial admin candidate we've seen. He has opinions, and doesn't hold them back. But at least we know his opinions, unlike many RfA candidates; and, when carefully parsed, most of his positions are entirely in line with the Five Pillars. He has also demonstrated his ability to address ethical issues, by his willingness to leave the admin tools behind when dealing with areas in which he is involved. He could do with a bit more self-moderation from time to time. So could about half the admins we have now, most of whom I'd never consider recalling.
'''Support''', because I like what I see enough to think sysoping this guy would be a good move.
On the principle that administrators are allowed to be human beings.
'''Support'''. Being passionate about Wikipedia policy isn't a disqualification from being an admin. I've followed various opposers' links to the "dramas" he has participated in (which wouldn't be "dramas" if there weren't large portions of Wikipedia who thought they were important), and in all of them I see him making strong, coherent arguments toward a sensible resolution.
'''Support''' I think that too many RfAs fail because of "temperament problems" or "This user flies off the handle too easily". Everyone has bad days, and I think that the question should not be "Is this user ''always'' civil?", but rather "How does this user try to rectify the situation if he has made an error?"  and "How does this user react when he is called out for his actions?". When I ask myself those two questions, I think Lawrence would be a good admin.
'''Support''' The passion and eloquence that people like Lawrence bring here keep this project alive. It's clear that this candidate has above and beyond the experience and tenure that we look for in admins, and I do not think that he will misuse the tools. I am disappointed that this RfA is faltering because this user is not afraid to argue rather than turn the other cheek.
'''Support''', capable of clear discussion on controversial topics, abuse unlikely. --
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support.'''. With some candidates, you don't really know what you're getting. The candidate has behaved well for a couple of months, written a few articles, reverted vandalism and reported some vandals - but you don't really know how the candidate will act under stress. That is not the case with this candidate. I've mainly interacted with Lawrence on the waterboarding debacle, where he handled himself well through some very frustrating interactions with others over a long period of time, culminating in an arbitration case. On that basis alone, I think he is suitable for adminship. He is willing to engage in controversial areas, perhaps a little too willing, which will always lead to at least some people disliking him - it goes with the territory. While he will argue his case passionately, he will also listen and reconsider his positions if given rational arguments. The opposers make some good points, however I think Lawrence would make a good addition to the admin team. We do not just need quiet and demure admins, we also need passionate ones. <strong>
'''Support.''' The fine people above have summed it up well. Lawrence is a great editor, everything points to him being an excellent administrator. If all else fails, we can recall him.
'''Support''' - adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and Lawrence has certainly made clear where he will draw the line. I suspect he could actually be a very good admin, if given the chance. I would suggest he not respond to too many of the oppose votes, or even not respond to any, or at least only politely to correct mis-statements of fact. Going completely off-topic, I see that it is nearly ''three months'' to the day (9th January) since rollback was switched on (I am going by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback&diff=183275890&oldid=181465168 this diff] for the date). Wasn't something meant to happen after three months? Maybe everyone should take up the idea expressed below to only post five times on any one topic and then move on?
Excellent contributor to the 'pedia, and unlikely to abuse the tools. THat's all that matters to me. Perhaps there's been temperament issues in the past, but they were relatively minor and I'm willing to overlook them.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad and candidate's willingness for binding recall. I don't think it'll likely prove necessary though. I have no reason to think the editor will abuse the tools, even if once in a while he can be a bit opinionated.
'''Support:''' He has shown a willingness to work with people that is laudable, a command of logic that is admirable, and a good temperament.  While no doubt some in the "IRC case" who were themselves insulting and bitter found his remarks unpleasant, they were measured, and Lawrence has, when opposed by anyone in good faith, ''consistently'' attempted to understand the other person, accommodate that person's point of view, and achieve harmonious editing.  I personally have little confidence in those claiming to have found him difficult, as they point to times and places where they themselves were violating the "battlefield" guidelines.  This is a very clear and easy support case.
'''Support''' I think that the incivility concerns are not large enough to cause me to oppose.
'''Support'''  He is an excellent editor and has had great input in controversial disputes. When this guy speaks, it's worth a listen. -
'''Support''' Have thought very hard about this. Lawrence goes off the deep end too often, and doing so undermines the arguments he wants to make. However, I don't see enough evidence of sustained incivility, rather than hyperinvolvement, to oppose. His efforts at keeping fringe-iness out at waterboarding are more of the sort of thing admin candidates should be encouraged to do. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">
'''Support''' We need more admins willing to plow head first into the areas of WP that few dare to travel.
'''Support'''. Sigh. As Neil pointed out below, we all know the game; keep your mouth shut and act like a mouse, get the bit, then you can start behaving like a real person. Granted, a few real people do sneak through from time to time (Moreschi, a great editor/admin, comes to mind), but it's rare. I am greatly opposed to incivility, but that's not what I'm seeing in these diffs - just strong opinions. (Really, demanding that AGF apply to obvious socks is ludicrous). -
'''Support''' Yeah you sound real, real is good.
'''Support'''. Lawrence may have ruffled some feathers, but his impact on the encyclopedia has been positive, and he'll do even more good with the tools.
'''Support'''. LC, I've made a lot of comments on your RFA, both in the neutral section, responding to supporters, and responding to opposers.  All along though, I've been uncomfortable with my own assessment of your contributions to Wikipedia as I was basing my impression on you based on one ANI thread where I thought you had gone too far in a "back and forth" commentary with another user.  That's all I was basing it on though.  You've stated that you'll be open to recall, which is good. You've stated that you'll refrain from using admin tools in disputes/content that you are involved in, which is good. You've remained civil during this RfA despite a large pile of good faith opposers, which is good. As I read, and reread the supporters and opposers (and neutrals) here, as I read, and reread your answers to questions above and responses to comments below, and as I look deeper into your contributions into this '''insane''' website, I think you'll make a fine admin and deserve to have the tools.  My apologies for my earlier waffly impression based on our one interaction.  Happy to support, you'll be a positive addition to adminship.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''.  I consider Lawrence to be a proven quantity - he has handled conflict well.
'''Support'''. Just turn down the tendency to bite and seek to diminish drama, and abondon the need to "have the last word." Learn to just walk away.  No indication he would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - seems to be a good admin material. IMHO his interest into righting the wrongs and solving controversies is extremly helpful
'''Support''' - Will be one of the few admins who has [[WP:FA|featured material]]. Some of the reasons made by the opposers are ironic.
'''Support''' - Strong content contributor, and I just don't see the whole "NTWW" thing as a big deal. There are arguments to be made on both sides, but I don't see anything that Lawrence did as being in bad faith, and to use that as a stick against his adminship run smacks of petty politicking. I'm opposed to the notion, as others above are, that an admin who engages in controversy can't ever become an admin. I will [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] that he will take to heart the constructive criticism expressed in some oppose/neutral opinions and become a responsible, level-headed mop-wielder.
'''Support''' good on yer, Lawrence.
'''Support'''. Lawrence clearly has the experience and dedication to the project needed of an admin, and I see no indication that he would misuse or abuse the tools. His tendency to get involved in controversy may have provoked the ire of some, but I think it's clear, as he's explicitly pledged, that he wouldn't use his sysop bit in disputes. I trust he would make a fine admin. '''<font color="#ff9900">

'''Support''' While he has made a slight misstep recently, and I hope it's something he learns from, I say that is outweighed by  his general behavior and I think there's every indication that he'd be a fine admin and use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''' Honest, hardworking, open to recall, funny, [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]] was a great idea.
'''Support'''. Experienced as any other, and I think he has a good grasp of what adminship is when he wrote ''"We do thing by consensus and communal norms here, not by fiat by lone people and/or arm twisting from any or all directions."''.
'''Support'''. Since this seems close, I'd like to add an opinion here.  I share some of the concerns of the opposers about the occasional lack of restraint; calling Nonvocalscream names a few days ago almost pushed me into the oppose column.  But I think I'll take Lawrence [[WP:AGF|at his word]] when he says he will never use his admin tools in a dispute.  If he does, I'll be at the head of the [[WP:AOR|pitchfork brigade]].  It is obvious enough that he is clueful and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart; as long as I am confident that, for example, he would not have actually used his tools in the NTWW MfD, I think Lawrence having the tools would be a net positive. Please prove me right. --
'''Support''' - and a general note to opposers... this recent incident was possibly affected by <s>various potentially misleading statements (...) on NonvocalScream's part</s> Some statements NVS made that I think were - unintentionally - open to misinterpretation. --
'''Support''' - sure. &nbsp; '''
'''<s>Cautious</s> support''' - I've been going back and forth on this one for a few days.  There are a lot of editors I hold in high esteem on both sides of this debate, and they're all making pretty compelling points.  He clearly meets four out of [[User:Sarcasticidealist#On_RfAs|my five admin criteria]], with the missing one being "A damned near sterling record of adherence to [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:AGF]], and [[WP:NPA]]" - not that his record here is appalling, it's just some distance from sterling.  And if he continues to spend time in Wikipedia's ugliest parts, it's reasonable to think that civility issues might get worse.  On the other hand, if he can stay on the good side of those aforementioned policies, he'll be very valuable as an admin willing to do the ugly work (we definitely need more of those).  Given that he's open to recall, and given my general predisposition towards optimism, I have to come down on the support side.

'''support''', per [[User:Tanthalas39|Tanthalas39]]'s switchback reasoning up at #33. Ta/
'''Support''' No need to repeat all the good things said about this person who can handle himself.
{{blue|'''Support from Neutral'''}} Really like the user, but the NTWW nom is worrying. {{blue|Regardless, I've been persuaded to support because I remember he wanted to reduce the amount of witchhunting in the dispute resolution process}} '''
'''Support''' - One of the most consistently thoughtful, productive, and overall excellent editors I have seen. Effective in tracking down and shutting down persistent abusive sockpuppets, good in mediating disputes, constantly on top of things--this person represents the best we look for in an admin, as a community.
'''Support''' - I see you all the time, doing the exact sort of things I'd expect the ideal admin to do.  Excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' May be temperamental, but does not seem irrational. Willing to take a chance.
'''Support''' A mature, level-headed voice. --
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support''' Wiki would certainly benefit from him having the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support.''' Per the great nom statement by {{user|MBisanz}}, per his answers to the questions on what tasks he wants to focus on as an admin, per some great [[WP:FA]], [[WP:GA]], [[WP:DYK]] content contributions, as well as contributions at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:RSN]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AFD]], and his willingness to be open to recall per his nom acceptance statement.
'''Support.''' –
'''Support''' - Admins are just regular editors with more buttons; he won't be able to stir up more drama as an admin than he does as a regular editor, and his contributions and level of commitment tell me that he'll use those buttons just fine. --
'''Support''' - again, one or two losses of temper have resulted in a pile-on of opposes, and that is sad, because Lawrence Cohen is a fine editor. Everybody, I say everybody, (excuse the [[Fred Elliott]]-style structure there, I just couldn't think of any other way of emphasising my point other than the use of bold/italics text) goes through times when ''one looses one's rag'' as they say. I've done it, and I bet all of the people who have voted on this RfA have done it. We learn from our mistakes, and by golly, there are enough opposes on this RfA to make a fair point. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - I like this user's answers, I think he'll make a fine admin. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - see nothing wrong with his role in waterboarding article. -
'''Support''' - after much thought. I don't think that he would abuse the tools, I like his answers to the questions and, per [[User:Henrik|Henrik]] above, we know what we're getting.--

'''Support''' - My unequivocally strong support goes to Lawrence for his ability to be rational in heated situations and because he is willing to go to great lengths to help people out in tough situations and explain complex policy decisions to newer users. Lawrence has an excellent knowledge of policy and a fair hand to administer it. I have no doubt that Lawrence would use the tools well and that he would represent this encyclopedia and its community in a positive and forthright manner. Good luck, LC.
'''Support'''. Bottom line is that this user with tools is, as I read it, a net benefit to the project. 95% of the time when I come across Lawrence he has been level-headed to the point that I have been impressed with his thoughtfulness. I hasten to add that 100% of the time I've come across him it's in situations that are semi or very contentious (which might - possibly - also say something about me). I think there is a bit of attraction toward drama for Lawrence (and in that regard Edison's advice in support-vote-thingy-72 above to "seek to diminish drama, and abandon the need to 'have the last word'" is particularly useful), however I think he is drawn toward contentious situations because he truly cares about the project and feels he has good ideas about how to advance it. That's basically my belief as well, and thus I feel that he can be trusted with the mop.--
'''Strong Support''' Seems like a nice guy and would be a great admin.--
'''Strong Support''', per Claa and George and my own judgment that here is a candidate worth coming out of retirement for, briefly, in order to support. The petty-mindedness of many in the opposition is truly disheartening...even by Wikipedia standards. How many of YOU, oh noble, wise admins, would make it past the Rfa gauntlet today? How many  of you would be willing to put yourselves up for recall? Damn few I bet. Those who would, would then have every right to vote against this fine candidate. But suit yourselves...it is your project, not mine. In the end Wikipedia gets the admins it deserves.--
'''Support''', would be an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Of course!  '''
'''Weak Support''' This candidates strengths outweigh his weaknesses.  --'''
'''Support'''. Good content contributor.
'''Support''' per others.
What else needs to be said? An all around fine guy. '''Support'''. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. I am suprised to see this RFA. I thought Lawrence Cohen was an administrator. Lawrence is already doing regular admin stuff!
'''Weak Support''' I had to think quite a while about this one. Although many opposers seem to raise valid concerns, particularly regarding Lawrence's temperament, I believe such a dedicated, experienced user deserves the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, his temperament doesn't seem to equal incivility. At all. Lawrence appears to engage perhaps too deeply in conflicts, but drama aside he certainly seeks only complete resolution of situations that he finds problematic. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Looks alright to me.
'''Support''' I've seen Lawrence around during the last couple of months. Drama is a principle reason for being part of Wikipedia and looking at the contribs I can't see any which would make me raise an eyebrow unless it was months ago. certainly no blowing up. -- <font face="Sans Serif">
'''Support''', an honest editor who would never abuse tools. Also, impressive record of content writing. -
'''Support''' I can't agree more with Alison, and she expressed what I think exactly. I think Lawrence can be an asset to the project as an administrator, as long as he remembers that being passionate is great, but can backfire very easily when words are written. --
'''Support''' Reluctant support from Neutral.
'''Support''' on balance, impact of his promotion should be a net positive.
'''Oppose''' per behaviour across Wikipedia, much of which is fairly similar to the behaviour displayed at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6]]. I understand Lawrence's comment above, but the fact that is required an administrator to weigh in and clarify a policy like AGF would tend to suggest that he's not nearly ready to become an administrator.

'''Oppose''' with regret. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6&diff=prev&oldid=203311839] for an example of the sort of thing that makes me uncomfortable here. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose'''. I have put a lot of thought into this request. I very rarely oppose editors on requests for adminship, but I feel somewhat inclined to do so in this case. Of course, this is with a touch of regret: Lawrence is a first-rate editor, and does some impressive article-space work. However, in a similar vein to the above opposing editors, I simply do not think he has the temprament suitable for a project administrator. I get the feeling that his use of the sysop. tools will inflame a lot of disputes he encounters, rather than neutralise them. The link given by Guy, above, is but one example: there are plenty more. I simply don't think that, at the moment, he is suitable or ready to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per many of the others above. I too believe their are serious temprament issues here and I believe that this would only increase if he got the tools. I've seen him attempt to increase drama a little too often, most recently with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=203524372#Request_for_clarification:_User:Privatemusings this] pointless request for clarification at RfArb that has been speedily archived.
'''Oppose''' current interest in WP seems to be engaging in controversy.  There is reason to fear he might use the tools inappropriately. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ((based on the many links above & now below, which i saw no reason to repeat here--comment added) '''
'''Oppose''' - Mainly because of temprament issues, and a bit too much drama as shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183564808 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183575676 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183579275 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183627790 here]. I am all for being passionate about something, but there is a fine line.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but too likely to cause controversy.
'''Oppose''' Per above concerns and the argument by Tiptoety. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' I've seen him several times at ANI, but his way of speaking tend to make more drastic dramas. We want more calm and neutral admin who don't speak inappropriate comments. '''mice'''? nice.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lawrence_Cohen&diff=prev&oldid=203762726] --
'''Weak Oppose''' <s>per Avruch,<s> sorry. Allow me to add that wikipedia doesn't need more drama. Lawrence is a good editor, but I have to go with my gut. <strong>
'''Oppose''' - tendency to make situations more dramatic than necessary.
Keeper76 put it really well once, on ANI. I can't remember the exact wording, nor can I find the diff (well, I could if I searched, but I have a life! :), but it basically went along the lines of; "Lawrence, I looked over your contribs. Today, you've commented on the Muhammed images, you've commented on the latest request to overturn a ban, you've commented on three different ArbCom cases, you've commented on a stack of BLP cases, and you're commenting here. Every comment is basically a 'omigosh how can you say something that rude - retract at once' comment."&mdash;We don't need more admins who are going to tell us to think of the children. ''
'''Oppose''' per East718, the immediate jump to "bad faith nom by sockpuppet" on that MFD is ''really'' disturbing and not the kind of thing I would want to see from an admin. <s>I should also note that while the "bad faith nom by sockpuppet" part was stricken, ''"Carry on with trolling"'' and ''"AGF except when a user is obviously disrupting Wikipedia: You/disruptive sockpuppets"'' were never withdrawn and I see no evidence of an apology to Scream either.</s> <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''', sorry, but I share the temperment concerns as described above, particularly the issue with scream.  We need admins who are focused on cooling things down, not escalating them.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Oppose''' In Lawrence, i believe we have an excellent contributor, who sometimes gets a bit heated. Keep your contributions at the high standard you have set, just cool things a bit, and id definately support you again. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' - Changed from an extremely early support vote (see above). After revisiting this discussion sometime later and combing through the entire discussion, I've come to the conclusion that the candidate exudes a recklessness and acidulous attitude per all of the diffs that have been provided thus far. Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, I am compelled to change my !vote. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' - For an admin to have a certain level of passion about Wikipedia is not necessarily a bad thing.  The level of passion displayed is certainly intriguing.  But an administrator needs to be able to curb their passion at times and look at the situation in an objective matter.  That's not to say that an administrator can't make mistakes, or get involved in community discussions.  But when a user is imparted with tools that display the community's trust in that user, I expect that the user makes their edits with care.  The diffs above, particularly those provided by [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]], it appears that this user does not apply the same personal restraint and self-control that I would expect from a user with the capability to delete pages, close AfD discussions, and block users. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' Good editor but needs to control his temperament better.  As scetoaux put it, passion is a good thing, but an admin has to be able to separate his emotions from many situations and as another editor put it, I feel that the user may inflame situations instead of help them.  All that said, the user is a great editor and an asset to the community.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Oppose''' The recent NTWW MFD did it for me. Passion is more clearly expressed without personal attacks and a hot temper. The volume overshadows the argument itself, and LC needs to learn that before entering the janitor's closet.
God no, enough of a drama lover as it is, no need to involve the tools.
'''Nope''' -- per Avruch mainly, but also because he seems to insert himself into drama-laden situations when there's no need for his commentary. I seriously doubt his good judgement.
Well, in February I was impressed with his ability to recognize [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop|a couchful of elephants]], but in March I had to wonder whether he was trying to introduce ''[[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 17#BLP applies everywhere|an exaggerated wording and an aggressive implementation]]'' to BLP policy or if he just comes off that way. Sorry. —
'''Weak oppose'''  Good guy, I just wasn't a fan of the hubub at the waterboarding article.
'''Oppose''' because of the lack of calm in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode_6]].
I'm just not sure about temperament concerns.
Significant and ongoing issues with temperament. Maybe in a few months' time. ~
The only interaction I recall is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=193106785 Section "User:Mikkalai"] where he showed himself completely unsuited in temperment to the role of an administrator, and proceeded to inflame a conflict rather than diffuse by attacking one of the participants.  I simply could not trust this user with access to the block tab.
'''Oppose'''. Per temperament issues discussed above. I don't see admin material here.
'''Oppose''' The main quality the community looks for in an admin is trustworthiness, especially under pressure. While admins have acquired the status of village elders, this status can also be acquired by non-admins of character and individual strength. The main role required of admins is a calm, unbiased use of the tools on behalf of the community. Creating drama, being of strong opinions spoken forcefully with little respect for discourse, and having uncertain temperament are three qualities that should automatically rule out anyone from being an admin. Having a powerful mind, coupled with a passionate commitment to the project are qualities great for the village elder speaking at meetings, but are not needed for complying with a community request which the admin doesn't personally agree with. Lawrence can continue to speak out and make his views known without the admin badge. Better that way. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose''' per diffs previously provided. To be perfectly honest, your attitude reminds me of my first RFA. Learn to pick your battles (in RFA and elsewhere), and treat all with common courtesy whatever the situation. Avoid drama at all costs, rather than inflaming it (even when your intentions are admirable). Show a change in behavior over the next few months and try again.
'''Oppose regretfully''' - based on others' comments, there is far too much Wikidrama, which indicates a risk as an admin.  Please come back in a few months after you prove your ability to [[WP:NAM|stay calm]] and [[WP:STICK|walk away from fights]].
'''Oppose''' After reading the above comments and weighing both supports and opposes, I cannot support at this time. There is no doubt that Lawrence is a fine editor but his proclivition towards compounding a tense situtation and making it worse is not a good trait for an admin. --
'''Oppose''' More than enough drama as it is...
'''Oppose''' Once again, this is not the easiest decision. However, as FT2 says below, and has been mentioned elsewhere on any number of occasions, RfA's and RfB's are at their core, a community referendum to opine on a particular user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] and whether or not the project is comfortable in [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusting]] the user to exercise good judgment and decision making when using, or at times more importantly, '''not''' using the mop-and-flamethrower™. While Lawrence has, at times, shown intelligence, wit, and an understanding of wikipedia policy and guidelines, he also, has demonstrated enough interpersonally frictive comments that lead me to, regretfully, feel that without a longer period of demonstrated control, withdrawal from wikidrama, and positive interactions with people with whom he has differences of opinion, the potential for an unfortunate incident to arise with the bit is sufficiently great enough for me to record my misgivings at this point. --
'''Oppose'''. Drama magnet, or at least magnetically drawn to drama wherever it appears and not above trying to cause some if things are quiet. The whole thing at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=193106785#User:Mikkalai this ANI thread] shows him in not-unusual action. ➨ '''
'''Very reluctant oppose'''.  Judgment and an even manner may be the most important qualities in an admin -- particular one who participates in dispute resolution.  I'm sad to say that when Lawrence joins a dispute, it seems like things get ''more'' heated, rather than less.  I really like the guy, and I agree with him often -- but I don't trust him enough yet to want to give him the tools.  In particular, this bothered me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Cumulus_Clouds#Needs_to_be_deleted].  Marking an RFC for deletion on the question of whether a certifying editor's certification was valid...well, it may have been technically correct (I don't know), but in the situation seemed like poor judgment. --
'''Oppose''' per[[User:JzG|Guy]],  [[User:DGG]], [[User:Tiptoety]], and others, as relates to temperament/drama issues. Will certainly support in a few months time as per FT2 comment below.
'''Oppose''' Seems too keen to push his strong opinions without tempering them in the manner required in a collaborative project and even seems to take pride in doing so. Therefore too likely to cause the drama feared by many above.
'''Oppose''' - I have the same temperament and drama-bomb concerns as others above. Not only is there an issue with the way Lawrence handles issues, but in my view he actively seeks out conflict and interjects himself into it. Drama-mongering does not help the expansion of the encyclopedia. '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Oppose''' - Given the previso that this editor has made some valuable contributions, there seems to be insurmountable testimony that his temperment isn't quite right at this time.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' per the tempremant issues and the LaraLove oppose.
'''Oppose''' Regretfully the temperament/drama issues make me unwilling to support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal, sorry.  Not this time.  ——'''
'''Oppose'''. Needs to work on temperament and interaction. Not ready for adminship yet, but hopefully will be in the future.
'''Weak oppose''' Netkinetic's view roughly mirrors mine.
'''Oppose''' There are some real temperament issues here, there are too many times demonstrated above where his involvement in a developing issue increased the drama level rather than decreasing it. Basically it's a judgment thing...
Like a mosquito or a moth to the porch light, I see Lawrence gravitating to the ZDOTW (ZOMG Drama of the Week).  I'm not sure, to be perfectly frank, that we need more admins rubbernecking at the ZDOTW and expressing the opinion that this or that remedy is [[Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible|The Most Important Thing Possible]], which I seem to regularly see.  Lawrence is, I think, a moth -- kind and certainly more reasonable than many of the usual suspects and drama mongers at ANI/RFAR.  But I worry it's only a matter of time before the tools are used, er..., creatively; ANI moves to RFAR;  RFAR moves to some project page; strong opinions derail that process; etc., etc., ''ad nauseam''.  Sorry, and look, I'm neutral, but the way to break out of the cycle is by letting go every now and then unless it's really an issue that you're involved with.  We don't need to enlarge our professional drama corps. --
'''Neutral''' -- wow this is my first ever neutral! The user meets my criteria but the concerns raised by Avruch are very worrying! Sorry --
I have gone back and forth on this one.  I believe that you are a great editor, but I don't think you'd be suited for an admins work.  Like others have said, you are a "drama-magnet."  I would be willing to support an RFA from you after three months with no drama beyond the norm.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''', because I had positive experience with the candidate in the following discussions: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantha]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Six Feet Under deaths]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (fourth nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Links]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blessing Way (The X-Files)]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)]], but I am not quite as confident in the judgment expressed in these: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverfield (creature)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lost ships of Starfleet]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nirvana band members]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Worms weapons, tools, crates and objects (2nd nomination)]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charter School of the Dunes]].  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''', I have seen good things from this user, but the potential for drama worries me.
'''Neutral''' as well. This is out of respect as you meet my requirements yet the concerns raised are good and valid points. I'll be happy to support at a later time. Good luck.
'''Comment and encouragement''' Lawrence focusses on improving the encyclopedia, and generally is a level voice on that score, making contributions in different areas. The concerns about a propensity for drama are ones I'm less familiar with, mostly as I don't track this user around the wiki. (I wasn't aware of his content work either.) In general, drama (the unnecessary choosing of heat over light, strident voices without much information, or hyping up of cases into trainwrecks) is completely to be avoided. It's hard enough to solve problems with good thoughtful input all around; the presence of yammering voices and vocal demands, often missing a chunk of the issue, is a prelude to disaster a lot of the time. Even for good reasons, that's to be avoided. My own [[User:FT2/RfA|preferences]] for administrators have a marked preference for ''problem solvers'' against problem ''antagonizers'', for good ''attitudes'', and for people who explain and enter dialog rather than fanatical approaches or politiking. In that light, I've reviewed my limited awareness of Lawrence, and some of the cited incidents/diffs above ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=203524372#Request_for_clarification:_User:Privatemusings][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183564808][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=183575676]) and my own instinct still leans greatly towards "tentative trust", that this is a user who wants the project to be better and is willing to say so, and listen to others and be responsive, rather than bull-headedly ignoring other views. For example at RFAR/IRC, a heated drama-ridden case,  Lawrence stated firm views, but reasonably so, and they were analytically to the point and good questions, for the most part. For me that's crucial, it's a major distinction between people one can work with, and people one cannot easily work with. Likewise I remember discussing the npov noticeboard that he created, and I found him reasonable to talk to, aware of issues, and focussed upon project benefits even when told of possible difficulties.<br /><br />On the other hand, RFA concerns by a large number of users cannot be set aside because above all RFA is a test of communal trust, and each user measures trust their own way. That some 35% of users (at this time) have concerns enough to oppose, says to me that there is evidence the community is in doubt right now, and the reasons they give seem to be based on diffs not emotional whim. The doubts center around drama areas, getting "drawn into disputes" a bit much, and experience in judgement. There is nothing wrong with wanting to go to the real issues and get involved in them, so in a way this is about reassuring others, and that the aim is to address and solve problems rather than escalate them. There's a skill to that, which comes with experience. If this RFA does not pass, then I would urge Lawrence to definitely consider a second RFA in some months time... but to consider the concerns and advice of others (which I am sure he would do in any event) and possibly even seek a bit of mentoring or input when tough situations come up, to help round off his otherwise excellent input to the project. In summary, I suspect Lawrence is a user who works towards genuine resolutions of good quality (rather than say, carrying on when the matter is already closed), and people like that are often an asset to the project long term. He is already "acting as an admin", as the saying goes and seems to speak with integrity and a [[WP:CLUE|clue]]. I don't see him as a tool-misuser so it's all down to trust that he'll help reduce and not add tensions, and use RFA-ship (if granted) with good judgement. If he is the kind of person I think he is, he'll set himself to learn from the feedback on this page however it goes.
I cannot in good conscience support because of the issues listed above. '''
Neutral as explained above in my initial oppose.
'''Neutral''' - The fact we already have some aggressively incivil, drama-mongering admins doesn't mean we should have more rudeness on the other side to even it out; rather, we should get rid of the bad apples we already have.  It makes me smile to see some of them opposing Lawrence based on civility grounds, when they have been a hundred times worse and gotten away with it, chiefly because they waited til they got the bit first.  As it is, though, I can't support anyone with Lawrence's track record of incivility for adminship. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' after reading all the supports and opposes. I'd like to think Lawrence will get adminship at some point in the future. I'm just not 100% sure it should be now. Having said that, it would'nt unduly worry me if he does pass this RfA. So all i can do is vote neutral and say, good luck! '''
'''Neutral''' (switched out from Oppose) '''
'''Neutral''' does not deserve an oppose. '''''
Unfortunately, with only 117 edits you are far too inexperienced with Wikipedia to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Daniel. Also, your answer to Q1 tells me you don't know what admins do. '''
Thanks for offering to help with admin tasks, but more experience is needed I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' regretfully as you don't have enough experience yet. However, I really hope you stay, as we need more people writing about HK/Macau — our coverage of them is currently very patchy.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' Candidate has been an editor less than one year and has only 117 edits of which only 40 are to articles. Not nearly enough experience to be an administrator yet.
While the vandalism edit below is of course disconcerting, I still say '''support''' per reasoned argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (6th nomination)]] and as someone who has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=225689709&oldid=225662218 nice] to me.  So, good judgment and attitude in my personal experiences with the candidate.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy Festival of [[Castor and Pollux]]!  Sincerely,
Users edits look to be very nice. If I recall, he has saved my userpage once or twice from vandalism. While the vandalism is a little worrisome, when I look at the amount of greats edits and vandalism reversions he has done, it seems very strange that he would vandalize, so if he were to get adminship, he would have to be extremely careful where he uses his account.
Support - I was trying to remember where I saw that edit at before, and I remember seeing it on his talk page (after I was done thanking him for a fix on my userpage). I was confused by it, but it made sense from the explanation given. It was a mistake, and everyone makes mistakes here and there.  I have no reason to believe he will misuse the tools. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' I've had frequent contact with this candidate and I've been highly impressed by his intelligence, his easy going personality and his dedication to improving and expanding the depth and scope of Wikipedia.  Unlike many of the candidates who come to this firing squad range, this candidate is actually interested in building new content, which is a major plus in my book. As for the "vandalism" -- oh, please, a teeny aberration for which the candidate already apologised (and for which the administrator who questioned him has already accepted as a closed case).  I am looking over this candidate's '''full''' record of contributions (not one mistake) and I like what I see. I am very happy to lend my support to this candidacy.
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_English_words_containing_Q_not_followed_by_U&diff=prev&oldid=220893930 this] is vandalism from three weeks ago. And a month ago you were misapplying [[WP:CSD#A1]] tags.  You need more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose''' for recent vandalism. Not now, probably not ever.
Per ''I can only say for sure that for the first few real experiences with the tools will be in '''banning IPs that were properly warned.''''' IP addresses are [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]], not [[WP:BAN|banned]]. '''
'''Oppose''' - Mistakes, vandalism, inexperience in project space, and a strange quote suggesting that you do not understand when it is appropriate to block.
'''Oppose'''. Recent vandalism coupled with the inconsistency in attempting to explain it away. This does not instill trust. For now, sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Vandalism? That's really not a Good Thing. Incivility, perhaps, if you've learnt from it, but vandalism shows a deliberate will to cause harm to the wiki. Sorry, I can't support. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' The vandalism doesn't bother me as much as the new examples (I provided the diffs) that [[User:Stephen]] has shown. No context CSDs are applied to articles that clearly have context. I don't know if it's because that's the only CSD reason you use for CSDs? But anyways, sorry, those happened too soon. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. Vandalism is one strike and you're out for me, within less than a year of the RfA. Even worse is the fact that this vandalism was ''much'' less than a year before the RfA. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
The worst part is that you apparently don't know how sequ'''e'''l is spelt.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_English_words_containing_Q_not_followed_by_U&diff=prev&oldid=220893930] <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Oppose''' - I believe that the 'vandalism' may have been done by another person while this candidate was logged in. But Stephen's examples of misapplying the criteria for speedy deletion convince me that this user is not surgical enough in applying the criteria. What we don't need is an admin who will be heavy-handed with the 'delete' button. -
'''Oppose''', candidate has (at best) been very careless with their account security.  I am not confident that there won't be another similar lapse in the future, and if the user had the tools, the amount of damage caused could be amplified.  Not worth the risk, I think.
'''Oppose''' - Just not ready yet. Mistakes have been made, some of which seem to have occured too near this RfA for my liking. And a "vandal-fighter" who yet goes a vandalises articles just 3 weeks before opening an RfA? Or if not, leaves his account open for friends to play with? This is not the behaviour or attitude expected of an admin in the slightest. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Recent vandalism, no matter how good and nice a user may be, isn't acceptable editor behavior, let alone admin behavior.
'''Oppose''': Per above stated reasons regarding recent vandalism (although you have offered up an excuse) and for a lack of experience ("...realm of IP bans and such..."). <small>
'''Oppose''' per Metagraph and Iridescent. Completely untrustworthy.
'''Oppose''' Giving full AGF about the vandalism edit, the CSD A1 diffs are too concerning.--
'''Oppose'''.  Nothing I can really add to the unsettling arguments above, but I feel that account security is of utmost importance for admins, and thus afer that recent incident I cannot support.
'''Oppose'''. I can overlook the vandalism thing, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Parris_(footballer)&diff=219621978&oldid=219621929 this] was ridiculous.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' To much vandalism in a too recent short period of time.
'''Oppose''' - reluctantly. Your heart is clearly in the right place, but it's just too early. You need to gain more rexperience in project areas, and with policy in general. Take time to learn the policy better, continue editing normally and in a good few months you will be better placed. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std; font-size:12px; ">'''
Oppose per ''I can only say for sure that for the first few real experiences with the tools will be in banning IPs that were properly warned'' and Iridescent's diff.
'''Oppose''' per all of above comments. --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral'''. I'm not going to judge you, but if the vandalism you did not commit but your friend did you shouldn't really have admin rights until you only use this account at your home, in order to prevent an attack. However, you do have good contributions, but personally I don't think you ready yet. [[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|BoL]] (
'''Neutral'''  im also stating something on this part because im not sure at this second if he is ready. however i also have to support him.  so this comment is neutral.
'''Weak Support''' I have done a pretty good look at Llamadog's CSD related edits and I could find only a few questionable edits. (Among the questionable edits is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFrancium12&diff=221967401&oldid=217691841 warning a user of a speedy deletion when no deletion is taking place], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Gomez&diff=222079771&oldid=222079376 nominating a borderline A7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine_Champagne&diff=222078775&oldid=222078737 and a borderline A1]).  Which is very impressive considering how many of his edits I checked.   Nevertheless the complete [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Llamadog903&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 lack of talk space edits] implies that he is not been involved with content creation and conflict resolution, which worries me greatly.  Without creating content and "fighting" for its merits with other editors I don't think you can really understand what wikipedia is about, and specifically what a user feels like when an article he worked hard on is being deleted.    I believe his lack of conflicts he refers to in Q3 is a reflection of this.   My weak support is based on his answer to Q1, and the implication that he will limit himself to areas where he is knowledgeable.
Q4 is retarded. Anyways, you've been here since 2006, so I'd hazard a guess that you probably know more about how the encyclopedia works than the majority of those opposing. Supporting per the fact that you've been here for two years and haven't managed to get banned.
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' Your experience is good, but you really had short answers to questions.--
At least '''moral support''' to encourage the candidate who seems well intentioned.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy [[Bastille Day]]!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose'''. You're off to a good start, but some more experience is needed, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. You have 10 reports to AIV, so that's good. You also do some good work in the mainspace. So, so far so good, but I need to see some more experience before I can accurately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures on Wikipedia. Also, please try to use edit summaries more often as they are very helpful in letting other editors know what you're doing and/or why you are doing it.
'''Oppose''' per Q4.--
'''Oppose''' for now. I like where you're going in your Wikipedia career but I think you need a bit more time to hone your skills. Your lack of experience is evident in your inability to answer Q4 as it was asked. If you were to spend a few months at [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:RFA]] discussions, you'd be very familiar with the dilemma posed by that question. Give it some time, participate is some (a lot!) more discussions and you may get quite a few support votes the next time around.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Useight.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Oppose''' per Useight. It would be a good idea to turn on automatic edit summaries in your preferences. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - Useight has said it best, however, allow me to strongly recommend branching out in the project namespace) (beyond AIV, try [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:HD]], [[WP:AN]], and [[WP:ANI]] discussions. Put yourself up for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] to glean feedback from you compatriots.
'''Oppose''' Per Useight and the answer to Q4. I must also say, and this is not why I am opposing, but you might want to try to use edit summaries, it is helpful.
'''Oppose but with moral support''' - You need a little more time here doing active work which in admin areas before I can support. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but 48 edits in the project space doesn't prove to me that you have enough experience.
'''Oppose''' You say your main work will be in AIV and CSD, areas where you have little to no experience. Try to use edit summaries more. Your answers to questions were short and vague. You might want to consider expanding. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Strong Oppose with moral support''': You have very little experience in AIV and CSD, you've got a non-existant edit summary usage (you have a 1% for major edits, WAY too low. 90% is fine.), and <s>you've had 2 socks vote on your RFA already</s> (as far as i've seen). You've also just crossed the 1000 edit mark, and for two years on the project you should have much more. As an admin, you'd be expected to be alot more active. I recommend withdrawing per [[WP:SNOW]], you're just over 1000 but this doesn't have much of a chance. I'd recommend making at least 5000 mainspace edits, participate in about 100AfD's, as many RfA's as you want (they're fantastic for gaining experience), and to be a lot more active. I can't support here, but i hope we see you soon again! Sorry!
'''Oppose''' per Useight. I'm sorry, but 1000 edits are just not enough for someone running for adminship. Also, try to use edit summaries more. I suggest trying again in several months. '''
'''Neutral''': Answers to above questions are too short and vague to give me much sense of the person. I'd appreciate some elaboration and some ''examples'' of the maintenance edits or article-creation edits, etc., that candidate believes to be among his best. Some examples of errors or poor judgment would help, too, to demonstrate an editor who's conscious of his weaknesses and limits. This is the sort of thing that question #3 tries to get at, but candidate's answer didn't say very much.
'''Neutral with moral support''' per Koji. I can't oppose, though. &mdash;
'''Neutral''': I didn't see any large problems, but I felt unsure because of the short answers, especially to Q4, which I felt was very important, but the nominee did not give me a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, I'm providing strong moral support (I love any users who dedicate their time to vandalism reversion).
'''Neutral''' I respect your eagerness to be of further assistance to Wikipedia. At this time, though, I might recommend waiting a few months and getting further involved in other areas of the site. You are on the right track -- you're just running a bit early.
'''Moral Support''' please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in half a year or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future one's will. Kind regards. <font color="amaranth">
'''Moral support''' — I recommend you heed the advice given by others here by withdrawing before this is taken off per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. This doesn't meet you won't succeed in the future, it's just the time isn't currently right to give you the tools :) Keep up the good work on the en-wiki. —'''
I feel bad to be the first one to do this. However, you have practically no Wikipedia space edits. Administrators maintain that space and delete the poorly created ones. Gain some more experience there, bud. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' with supreme moral support. Your answer and statement in question 3 is impressive, and we need more editors who hold the same values. Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] I must oppose, but I'm sure I'll be able to support 3-6 months down the line. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal, you have less than 2000 edits, and all of them to the mainspace. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' you need some more experience overall.  Come back in several months. Good luck! --
Per [[WP:NOTNOW]], get some experience and try adminship later. —<small>
You have almost no edits in the Wikipedia-space, thus I cannot judge how you would handle those related tasks, like fighting vandalism. You should fight it as a user, [[WP:WARN|warning]] vandals and reporting them to [[WP:AIV]] and reapply for adminship when your work in those areas can be judged correctly. I suggest you withdraw your RfA for now, lest it will be closed as [[WP:NOTNOW]] soon. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' and recommend withdrawal / closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]].  SoWhy is right on above.  Best wishes.
'''Neutral'''. I helped out Londonfella somewhat a few months ago when he was really new. I know his intentions and motivations are in the right place, but unfortunately not enough experience in the Wikipedia space for me to adequately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures. If you have any questions about what I mean, don't hesitate to ask.
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, but without more experience, it is impossible to judge your abilities as a potential administrator. Get out there and dig around for stuff in the Wikipedia namespace to do. :-) &mdash;/
'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm to help the project is commendable, but your candidacy is a bit premature.  Keep up the good work, though, and soon time will be on your side.
'''Strong Oppose''' Very, very little experience. I suggest running on the account you actually contributed more to. I suggest withdrawing this RFA or else this will be [[WP:SNOW|snowballed]].--
'''Oppose''', hasn't edited for four months then applies for adminship, sorry, I suggest withdrawing this, very little experience (for this account), can you prove that you have another account and that that one has experience? Because we're voting on this account, and to just say "I had another account with more experience" just isn't enough I'm afraid. <tt>
(e.c.) '''Oppose.''' Apart from you not revealing your old accounts, which is a show-stopper already, you have a total of 28 edits as this account. This is way below par. If you don't want to be associated with the "drama" of your old accounts, you also can't take the credit for their experience. Moreover, a brief glance at your contributions indicates that you do not yet seem to have the experience required for the job. The article you created, [[Sextilia]], is unsourced and your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Zongian_Royal_Family_%282nd_Era%29&diff=prev&oldid=206834154 only AfD contibution] is [[WP:JNN|poorly argued]]. I recommend withdrawal.
'''Strong oppose''' it seems likely that you are a sockpuppet account of [[User:Redmarkviolinist]] despite your claim that you are not. The fact that you are attempting to use this sock account to hide you previous problems on another account is clearly abusive. If you really are redmarkviolinist, then your use of a sockpuppet to attempt to subvert the RfA process is a blockable offense. I suggest you tell us who your other accounts are and immediately withdraw this RfA.

Beat the noms! To expand somewhat, Malleus' article writing skills and refreshing attitude means he will be a definite net-positive.
I'd-be-silly-not-to-'''support!''' Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' No reason to think he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' obviously.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —

'''Support''' as nom. Once again, editor is a fine article contributor and there is no reason to deny him use of the tools should he need them!
per Pedro.
'''Strong support''': You really have to read the nominations to get a feel for what this RFA is all about. Malleus has been headstrong, challenging, constructivly critical, and always seeks improvement within Wikipedia. We have a process here to select admins that works from the bottom upwards, which has its weaknesses and probably won't favour Malleus. Admins ''tend'' to be selected on the basis of their unquestioning conformity to process, and being a little bland. I'm looking at this objectively not from the point of view of "who would I want to manage me?", but "who would I want to choose to manage my employees/business? Who can I trust to look after my affairs?" -- Malleus fits the bill of someone who can take this website further with these fairly minor tools. Give this man a chance to help us all; he works for us. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - always helpful & supportive. Will use the tools constructively.&mdash;
I agree that the issues raised in the oppose section are concerning, and that there are things that Malleus needs to work on, but I don't think that he'd be an abusive admin.
'''Support''' I believe this candidate will be a fine Admin.
'''Support''' While I'm not seeing as much experience in admin-related areas as I would like, I've encountered this user a couple times, and I know that this is a very helpful user. Easy to communicate with, and has excellent article writing abilities.
'''Support''' I have no problem with his attitude.
'''Support''' I've seen Malleus give thoughtful input into [[WP:FAC]]. It's Wikipedia's policy to grant the tools to those who have been active for a few months and can be trusted with the tools. He will use the tools in his area of expertise, the mainspace, and he  has said that he will not use some of the tools outside that area. While I appreciate that it's a package, the question is: is the user to be trusted with having those extra buttons even if they're not used? The answer is yes.
'''Strong support''' per noms, especially iridescent. Malleus is a fine article builder, and an editor who strives to improve wikipedia with his every edit, and he will be able to contribute more to the project with admin tools. Unafraid to voice his opinions, I find him a breath of fresh air; the project needs diversity of opinion to survive and Malleus provides that. I firmly believe that he will use the tools wisely and fairly and wish him the best of luck.
'''Strong Support'''. All I need to say has been said already, or in the comment I made in his first RfA. They still apply. Better to have someone wo gets into disagreements because of the volume of edits he makes than have someone with suspiciously low numbers of disagreements for a large number of edits. Now that Jza84 has expanded his reasons, I'd have to specially mention my strong agreement with his reasons.
'''Support''' Everyone seems to agree he is exceptionally helpful and an outstanding article writer and editor. He just doesn't seem the type to go into some area he knows little or nothing about and start making decisions at random - he cares too much about the project. The totality of his behaviour proves that. Yes he can be grumpy and stubborn. But none of us are perfect. He'd be among the most truly helpful people here. I'm disappointed in the direction this is going and hope things can yet turn around.
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' great user and a very dedicated member of wikipedia. Can see no problems with him becoming an admin as I am sure he will make good use of the tools. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Okay so I wrote out an oppose, and changed my mind and wrote out a neutral, and then decided to give in and support. There have been lots of instances where I've read something you've wrote and frowned, or at least disagreed with you, but I think it's pretty clear from your contributions that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Yeah, you've been a little brusque with some of our longer-established editors but I can't honestly tell myself they didn't deserve it and I can't imagine you behaving that way with newbies. The question is meant to be, "Is this guy going to fuck up with the tools?" and in this case the answer is probably no. <small>'''
'''Support'''. Malleus is hard-working, trustworthy, and a wonderful content builder. He's a great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' – Let me get this right – we have a candidate that by all opinions (Both '''Support''' & '''Oppose''') praises this individual as an article builder, and if I am not mistaken, as noted in an Oppose opinion, not only a good editor but '''“…is a fantastic article writer”'''. Been with the project coming up on two years next month – has accumulated over 16,000 edits – No blocks – has worked in all facets of [[Wikipedia]] – including a good working knowledge of [[WP:Policy|Policy]] and the vast reason for a majority of the Oppose opinions are is that he is “Rude”.  My, My, My. My. My have we all become that fearful of honesty that we shout, “He’s being Rude”, I can’t trust him with the tools, he may holler at me, '''IN CAPS'''.  Am sorry, if I am wrong tell me I am wrong – If I screw up an edit – tell me I screwed up an edit – do not sugar coat it or spend a half hour trying to figure out “Just the right way” to tell me – Be honest enough to spit it out.    Best of luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' clearly a valuable 'pedia bulder. I have seen many of the exchanges and agree there is an acid tongue there but I don't get a sense of maliciousness as I have done elsewhere. I sighed when I read the exchange on the 8th of May with Raul but hopefully that will not happen too often. Ultimately a net positive though I have crossed my fingers...Cheers,
For what it's worth. ''
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to.--
'''Support''' based on only a couple casual interactions but also an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Lgwilliams.com_2004mona.gif image] since removed from [[Mona Lisa]] and later deleted. The candidate demonstrated--with zero prepping--an outstanding understanding of a tough choice and I am convinced that good judgment comes naturally. Best of luck. —
'''Support'''.  I am saddened this is failing.
'''Weak Support'''.  I have concerns about civility and all the rest, but I think that if you use your tools only in the approved ways, Wikipedia will be benefitted.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' Pedro makes excellent points. I too have disagreed with Malleus on occasion,  to the point where the best response was to just walk away so as too not make an unduly rash or harsh statement. [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|Recently there has been a trend toward rigorous '''editcountitis''' based opposes. I do not believe they are always the best way to decide on a candidate's suitability.]] I believe that Malleus ''does'' understand policy, that he has the fortitude and communication skills to, [[User:Dlohcierekim/questions|"justify himself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour."]] I believe that he has the Encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and that I can trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' per nominators and just about everything else that has been said, especially per Jza84 and DDStretch's statements. If anything, it seems to be the confrontational nature, not so much the civility, that occasionally bothers other editors. If I had the impression that Malleus is trying to be confrontational for the argument's sake, I probably wouldn't support, but after reviewing, I see his actions as being driven by a care for the encyclopedia's content. Confrontation, unlike drama, is necessary and often the only way certain mainspace difficulties can be overcome. I admire and wish to support editors who don't shy away from contentious areas (and occasional annoyance) as long as they have the encyclopedia (and not their point of view, or their ego) in mind. Malleus Fatuarum looks like a good candidate. ---
'''Support''', per nom#3.  I'm extremely glad I was offline this weekend, I woulda had to apologize to a lot of people below.  Malleus is a fit candidate, and is taking this in stride, for which I'm glad.  But I'm extremely disappointed in the rehashing going on below in some instances (not all) [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. No problems with an admin with some personality. Net positive.
I believe Malleus is incorrect that good admin candidates must be good content creators.  I also believe many of his opposers are incorrect that admin candidates must have experience dealing with deletion and blocking.  His indications of where he plans to use the tools, and where he doesn’t, seem to correlate well with his experience, so I have no worries there. Yes, he can appear combative.  I wish he wasn’t, much as I bet he wishes I’d contribute more to article writing.  But, last I checked, we’re not deciding whether or not a candidate is our perfect vision of an admin (i.e. usually a copy of ourselves); we're not deciding whether he would make a good politician; we’re deciding if the encyclopedia would benefit if the candidate had the tools.  From everything I’ve seen, I expect he will still argue with people.  I also have every reason to believe he won’t use the additional tools to gain an advantage during such an argument.  Indeed, due to his feelings about admin accountability and abuse, he is probably less likely than others to do so. My overriding question is: do I trust him to use the tools to improve the encyclopedia, not abuse them, and not significantly damage the encyclopedia during his learning curve.  The answer, of course, is yes. --
[[Reconciliation]]. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Support'''. Malleus is a strong contributer who has demonstrated excellent judgement. His use of the tools would benefit WP. He has an occasional sharp tongue, but I find his penchant for ''telling it like it is'' refreshing. Most of us cross the line at times. He has, but only rarely.
'''Support''' After looking through your contributions I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. To paraphrase LBJ, probably better to have you on the inside of the admin tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.
'''Support''' without hesitation.  True, this editor has displayed an unwillingness to walk on eggshells around other editors but I don't view that as a negative.  My interactions with him have been overwhelmingly positive and he displays excellent dedication to the project. --
'''Support''' Knows what IAR means.
For what its worth... '''Support'''- just because you tell it like it is doesnt mean people should be sensitive and withold something that could turn you from an excellent contributor to an exceptional contributor.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''.  I don't think I've worked directly with this editor but have seen his/her work and interactions with others and have nothing but favourable impressions.  We need strong-minded administrators.
'''Support'''.  Barneca said it better than I could.  --
No experience at AIV or CSD, spends virtually none of their time vandal fighting. This leaves me no option but to '''support'''.
'''Support''' Based on my experience working with MF, I do not think he will abuse the tools. He certainly calls a spade a spade, mind.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' I have observed this editor's valuable contributions over many months. I have no concerns about any difficulties in the past: sometimes the most talented editors have a choppy time of it in the earlier stages. I expect that Malleus will continue as the spirited and committed Wikipedian that he is now, no matter what the outcome here; but I am very confident that the community will gain if he is entrusted with the tools.–<font color="blue"><sub><big><big>'''[[User_talk:Noetica |⊥]]'''</big></big></sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup>N<small>oetica!</small></font><sup>
I’m sorry, but I’m going to oppose here with deepest regrets. Malleus is a fantastic article writer, along with being a great contributor to the FA and GA processes. However, he has no experience in the tasks that admins have to undertake. Now, I’ve only gone back to November (about 9000 edits if I’m correct), but on the deletion side of things, he’s participated in less than 5 XfD debates, so I have no way of knowing how he would judge the notability and suitability for inclusion of articles. A look at his contribs, and deleted contribs show he has not tagged any pages for speedy deletion, so again, there is no way to tell how he would judge articles in [[CAT:CSD]]  as to whether or not they could be speedy deleted. I also have no evidence that he knows what all the criteria for speedy deletions are, and therefore I do not know if he will be use the deletion button correctly. Moving over to the block button, I see no participation at AIV, and no active work with disruptive users who would require blocks – I therefore do not know when, or when he wouldn’t block a user. This oppose for me boils down to the fact that I have no evidence he has the correct knowledge of admin tasks to perform the job well, and nothing to gauge him on. This isn’t about abuse of the tools, it’s because I believe there could be accidental misuse because of lack of experience. I’d simply like to see a lot more experience in admin areas before I could support. That all said, well done with your article work – it’s great.
Oppose - 1. You need to stop assuming bad faith. 2. You need to work in some admin areas. 3. You need to stop thinking admins are a "cabal" and against you. 4. You really need to chill out and write some more excellent articles. '''
Weren't you the user that was blanket-opposing admin candidates if they didn't want to be in recall? '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Very Strong Oppose'''.  Malleus is fine as a content editor, but frankly: he's one of the rudest and most immature editors on the entire project.  Q3 sounds nice, but if you're looking for ''ad hominem'' attack and sophistry look through Malleus's contributions to talk pages.  It's not just unprofessional, but often cruel and boorish to the point of being fatuous.  It is precisely as a content editor that I oppose.  Some of the most frequent targets of his savagery are the hardest working content editors on the project.  I was surprised Iridescent linked to Larry Sanger's farewell: "To treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will".  Is that a joke?  Malleus fails at this spectacularly.  A good copy editor who demoralizes 50 other editors is not making a positive contribution.  This seems harsh, and brings me no joy at all, but it's nothing compared to what he dishes. --
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and Jay. '''
'''Oppose''' - Per the above most definitely. Attitude is just not what I'd expect from a mature editor. I've seen some pretty outrageous comments made by this user, and nevermind the fact that I have absolutely no way of determining if this user is fit for adminship, as work in the project space is sorely lacking. Yes, I understand that he has already stipulated that he will avoid deletion and blocking situations, but, to be honest. No, it'll come up, it inevitably does and you'll be forced to act..and act with little to no experience. I'm sorry, too uncomfortable.
'''Oppose''' - The user's had a Request for Comment only a month ago, and only last week he was accused of [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Accessibility|trolling]] by a bureaucrat. The current drive to promote content builders has gone too far if we're now ignoring civility and maturity issues.
''''Oppose''' per responding to a users good faith querys by making fun of his/her spelling.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalleus_Fatuarum&diff=207187185&oldid=207186016]
'''Oppose''' per Jay, Wisdom, and Majorly. Jay used alot of big words I don't understand, but I agree with what he was trying to say. MF seems too rude to be fit for adminship, from what I've seen. And Majorly just hit the point spot-on. Stuff like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peterloo_Massacre&diff=prev&oldid=207168936][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=212903481][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=210961986][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=210967397][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=210971218][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parallel_computing&diff=prev&oldid=207745366][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=209981398][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=209753679] isn't really how admins should act (IMO).--
'''Regretful Oppose''' -- Per maturity concerns. Sorry dude. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Apparantly civility is now more important in an admin than good judgement and on that basis alone this candidate is going to struggle. That alone wouldn't be enough for me to oppose but I echo Ryan's concern that this candidate simply hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of admin activity. I looked through their last 1000 wikipedia area edits and didn't see any significant edits that would have indicated any experience in tool related policy. As such I simply can't judge if there is sufficent knowledge/judgement in admin type areas to support. I did consider Pedro's support carefully as he made some very valid points.
'''Oppose''' after seeing the diffs above.
'''Oppose''' I saw MF's recent interaction with Raul at [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates]] and honestly, whatever the source of their disagreement, I thought the insulting manner that MF used was utterly inappropriate. Admins should not deal with respected users like this. If he feels free to insult Raul like this, how will he deal with new editors as an admin? He can't be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Pretty much per Ryan and Majorly, but I also recall finding this user rather uncivil in the recent past. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' It looks like you've done some great article work, and the lack of experience in "admin areas" doesn't concern me as much as it seems to concern some other editors; my personal view is that admins aren't required to use all of their tools in every area of the encyclopedia, and should not be required to show expertise in every area if they show the knowledge and maturity to know what decisions they are and aren't capable of making.  However, many of the past issues of incivility presented above concern me - I ''do'' believe that admins should be required to be calm, mature, and civil - representatives of how wikipedians should act towards one another.  Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the maturity or civility needed here to be trusted with the mop.  It pains me to oppose given your excellent contributions to articles here, but I feel I must.
'''Oppose''' You have done some good content writing. However, one can do good content writing without the sysop bit. --
As per JayHenry, Maxim and Majorly/Al Tally. '''
'''Oppose'''. I've seen your article work and I have been impressed. I was originally planning on supporting this, but some of the diffs that KojiDude and Balloonman were able to find were examples of ways an admin shouldn't act (some of their provided diffs weren't bad, but some were just disrespectful, particularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FNorthernThunder&diff=200462150&oldid=200446683 this one]). On top of those, you said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum&diff=prev&oldid=213336076#Your_RFA here] that you don't see a reason to "improve your civility" and that you wouldn't use the admin tools anyway. Sorry.
EEEK! An admin with an attitude! Not a good combination. It's analagous to giving a pyromaniac a flamethrower and some dry leaves. Cheers, '''''
'''Oppose''' - Civility, English isnt my first language and i can say from experience that its very hurtful when someone makes fun of your spelling like that.
'''Strong oppose'''. The respect I have for some of the supporters gives me some pause here, but it is only temporary. Putting aside what Pedro wants to describe as personal "miffs", and even putting aside Malleus Fatuarum's "miffs" with other established users, how can we put aside the manner in which he responds to the less established users with malice? Such has never been, and never will be, appropriate for an administrator. I also do not sense a strong need for the tools, especially for someone that has so vehemently put down this process while making the issue more divisive within the community. Nor do I sense the experience to use them correctly if granted.  Simply put, this would be a mistake. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' Two months ago I met this user while he was indulging in rather pointy behaviour at Sceptre's last RfA. Both there and in my [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum/Archives/2008/March#Sceptre.27s_current_RfA|subsequent dealings with him]] on his talk page I found him to be singularly hostile and incivil - including a false claim of harassment after my first communication with him simply because I attempted to raise an issue, and this gem after my reply to the previous: ''I seriously don't give a monkeys what you think'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalleus_Fatuarum&diff=200123764&oldid=200116331]. I have not dealt with them since, but have seen them in action in similarly regrettable fashion elsewhere. Despite this user's strong content contributions I believe this user having the tools would be a net deficit to the project. I oppose with some sadness as I personally would like to see more content-strong admins, and also because I hold two of the nominators in considerable respect (I am unfamiliar with the other).
JayHenry says everything I would've said. Sorry mate. ~
'''No''', and '''probably never'''. Unless I saw a dramatic transformation in attitude change all-around, I don't see how my mind could change. He simply isn't suitable and I don't think he will be barring a [[America%27s_Next_Top_Model%2C_Cycle_5#The_Girl_Who_Needs_A_Miracle|complete makeover]].
'''Oppose''' per Epbr, Orderinchaos and Balloonman. Recent RfC, blanket opposes, and rampant assumptions of bad faith combined with a pretty nasty attitude is a no in my book.
Per JayHenry. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per JayHenry, Epbr123, Icewedge, KojiDude and others. The candidate doesn't have enough experience and has civility problems.
'''Oppose''', my past interactions with this user have not been pleasant.  Malleus can be rude, abrasive, and uncivil.  What's more, he apparently doesn't see any problems with violating [[WP:CIVIL]] whenever he deems necessary.  I acknowledge his fine work in the project space, but his temperament makes him unsuitable for the tools.  If he can chill out and conduct himself with some more decorum in the future, I'll be happy to support him down the track, however.
'''<s>No.</s>''' The candidate's behavior on this very page, while recently improved, has in the past bordered up on appalling.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman & Orderinchaos. Abrasive at best.
'''Regretful oppose''': Content-building and in-the-trenches experience are huge plusses for any admin candidate, and MF has them both. But the problem is this: admins need a thick skin. It's indispensible. Especially in the current climate, admins are expected to absorb abuse without losing their cool. There's currently a willingness to extend 6th or 7th chances to problem editors while pouncing on an admin's every mistake, uncivil remark, etc. I'd like for that to change, but it is what it is. If an editor has trouble staying cool at baseline, the problem is going to be a hundred times worse when they become an admin and get a big target painted on their back. It's unfortunate, but I really think that adminning MF would not be doing him a favor; it would lead to (or accelerate) a process of embitterment and burnout that seems to be a common pattern hereabouts. My 2 cents, anyway. Keep up the good work. '''
'''Oppose''' Serious attitude problems have been brought to light and pointed out above.
'''Strong oppose''' - Per serious maturity/attitude problems. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per an apparent necessity to have the last word in every discussion, even when additional commentary is not necessary.  Some of the responses that the candidate has offered to various votes in this RfA raise maturity concerns, in my mind.  --
'''Oppose''' per incivility concerns raised above. '''''
'''Oppose''' per ryan. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' for failing to review the situation before accusing me of trying to speedily close this RfA, when in reality I was attempting to isolate and remove vandalism that resulted in WP:RFA being invisible. An administrator should be able to review a situation and comprehend the status of things before going to bother others. --
'''Oppose'''.  A quick review of talk contributions and history indicates incivility problems.  <font color="629632">
'''Regretful oppose''' - ''MastCell'' summed it up best: while I have great respect for this candidate's contributions to the project, admins are required to take a lot of abuse whilst living under a microscope.  Rather than risk burning MF out in the meat-grinder that is adminship, I would much rather see him continue his excellent working in building content.  --
'''Oppose''' - Malleus exhibits exactly the opposite interpersonal behavior that is required of an admin. What's more, he flatly refuses to recognize minor changes that would make him an exceptional candidate. His thread in the neutral section below with Dan is particularly disturbing. In particular his boast of not suffering fools... the very concept is entirely subjective, and though he seems to be throwing it around for dramatic impact, it displays a rash, immature approach to other editors that would not be suitable. Not only must an admin suffer fools, but also, an admin must contantly question whether or not they are themself the fool. That this debate is transpiring in his actual RfA, rather than off the cuff at some distant, more irrelevant point in the past leads me to oppose. I would say that I would support in the future, but as Malleus has already strongly indicated no reason to grow or change, then I see no reason to reconsider him in the future. He is what he is, and is proud of it. To that end, let him continue to be the valuable and strong contributor that he currently is.
'''Neutral''' Too much inexperience in admin-related areas makes me unwilling to support. Sorry!
'''Neutral''' I have had ''many good experiences'' with this user.  He or she is enthusiastic and believes strongly in the project, and is working hard to improve the encyclopedia.  On the other hand, he or she rather easily becomes frustrated, and has a tendency to "flounce" (for want of a better word).  I can seek out diffs for those interested, but I'm thinking for instance of a series of declarations that the user would leave the GA project.  WP can be a source of frustration for many reasons; I think admins should be people who can help cool things down rather than stir things up.  --
'''Neutral'''  -- I see this user around quite a bit and his/her work is always positive, however there are some big issues (as raised above)...--
'''Neutral''' I can't support at this time as I do see civility issues being a major hurdle.  But if he can get both Pedro and Rudget to support him after his blowouts with them... Like I said, he is a hell of an asset to the project. If only he wasn't such an MF sometimes ;-)  One of my unofficial criteria for support is, "will I ever regret giving this person the tools?"  Unfortunately, while I <s>think</s> know he will <s>generally try to</s> use them positively, civility concerns make it impossible for me to say, "I won't regret it."
'''Proposing a compromise''', because that's what needs doing.  Many Wikipedians, including myself, including Malleus, have flaws.  Some of the Opposes are getting it wrong; Malleus is not by nature incivil or childish.  He cares more about the quality of articles on Wikipedia than many other Wikipedians, and he is lacking a few of the skills common in Wikipedian admins.  This is not a character flaw; this is a matter of learning how to choose words correctly (or alternatively, learning how to do without the mop :).  Skills can be learned.  I'd like to propose a compromise: will the community be willing to look at another RfA for Malleus soon, if Malleus will accept a little schoolin'? - Dan
'''Neutral''' I think Malleus would be a good admin, but needs to develop the political skills to cope with the [[No quarter | take-no-prisoners]] environment that has come to prevail here. Whether Malleus wants to develop such skills is up to him. I have a lot of respect for people who take a WYSIWYG approach, more than those who say "oh yes, please, I'll do ''anything'' if you make me an admin!"
'''Neutral''' I've had some good experiences with this user, but the concerns left by the oppose section leave me leery. <strong>
'''Neutral''': Good contributor. But I have real concerns on reading the oppose arguments by many people -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Oppose''' - Per experience issues. See [[WP:NOTNOW]] and [[WP:GRFA|Guide to RfA]].
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, Manadude2, but adminship is typically only given to experienced editors.  The links Wisdom89 gives are useful, and are worth reading.  Thank you for being willing to help; please don't let this put you off.  Keep up the excellent work and come back in (say) six months, after you have gained more experience.
'''Oppose''' per Q1, as you don't need to be an admin to clean up unacceptable text and images.  Also, I like candidates to have a bit more experience in the project space.  On the plus side, [[Bamford Church]] is not a bad article, and I'd encourage you to read Wisdom89's links above and try again at some point in the future.
'''Oppose''' I admire your enthusiasm in wanting to assist, but you need some more experience.  Plus, you got off to a bit of a rocky start (it happens to the best of us, trust me) and more time is needed to get your record into shape.
'''Oppose''' For a number of reason, inluding theat you were blocked less than 4 months ago, your edit summary usage is not up to standards, and you have basically no projectspace edits.  Wait  5-6 months and contribute to places like XFD and AIV. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' I just have to many concerns with you. You haven't demonstrated a need for the tools, you haven't demonstrated a knowledge of policy, you are inexperience, you were recently blocked, etc. If you try again later, and improve, I'll probably support you, but I just can't support you now. Sorry:-(--
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Read some more about what RfA and adminship in general entails, get some more experience, and I'm sure you'll do much better in six months or so. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Neutral''' with moral support. Learn to walk before you run and we'll see you in six months' time. Keep up the good work. We need more editors (like you) who contribute to the content. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''', per my nomination and Mark's replies to the standard questions. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' per nom. Support as a [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Tyrenius|"specialist admin"]]  who will be able to benefit the project by using the tools in the area in which he has particular knowledge, in that he will be able to recognize vandalism others might miss.  I would caution going cautiously in closing AFD's and deleting CSD's at first, as there is not a lot of experience in those areas, but should do well if chooses to err  on side of caution.
'''Support'''. His participation in the [[Thylacoleonidae]] fiasco was a great aid. -
'''Support''', excellent work done, will do no end of good with the tools.
'''Support''', I have worked with Mark, and in my experience he communicates well with talk messages.  Edit summary usage should be simple enough to clear up.  I have no reason to think he won't pick up admin tasks quickly.
'''Support''' per Wisdom89 and Iridescent. '''
'''Support''' - NBD. '''
'''Support''' No problem here.
'''Support''', no indication candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''',I think this user will be fine admin and the current opposes do not concern me. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Easy support'''.  [[User:Keeper76/RfA|My criteria]] for adminship are as follows:  CLUE + at least 4 months tenure + clean talkpage + communicative + content focused + reasonably clean block log = support.  There is no valid reason (presented yet) not to allow this dedicated, intelligent, content focused editor access to the additional tools.  I'm even more impressed by this editor ''because'' he doesn't loiter around noticeboards/discussions outside of his comfort zone/expertise.  He [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Mark+t+young adds content] (Yes, that says 83% mainspace, I number I will never ever attain...)  Excellent admin candidate, because he wont' abuse the tools, and based on whatever I can glean from his "personality", likely wouldn't dare misuse them either.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |

''[[User:Malleus_Fatuarum/WikiSpeak#R|With respect]]'', candidate has too few template talk edits for me to oppose. ''
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools, therefore I support.  &hArr;
'''Support''' per Dlohcierekim, Sceptre and Keeper76. Good editor.
Per Firsfron, no worries here. I won't go as far as to say the opposes are without merit and if Mark had a shorter tenure here it would be a worry, but in two years of editing he's managed to go without any blocks or any drama and that says to me he's probably not going to start banning people he doesn't like the second he gets the tools (admins usually wait a week or two for that). The fact that I haven't seen him at any of the dramaboards is a plus.
'''Weak support''', user seems to be an excellent contributor and would likely be a good administrator.  I would like to see some more activity and experience in relevant "admin areas" for a full support, however.
Has contributed solidly to the project for two years without causing any memorable dramas, so no reason to think he'll turn into a rampaging monster if sysopped. Keeper sums things up nicely for me.
'''Support.'''  A good candidate who is likely to become a good admin.  Perhaps ironically, my support became stronger after reading some of the oppose views ...  —
'''Support.''' a good 'pedia builder and a clear net positive as an admin. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Impressed with your rather fine article work. --
'''Support''' - but please make sure to use edit summaries. That's a big deal. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support.'''  A candidate likely to become a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like the nominee's focus on mainspace edits. We need more editors as admins. --
'''Support''' A worthy contributor who can be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Support''', but please ensure you use edit summaries by fiddling with your preferences.  My edit summary usage was rubbish until I switched that on. After a while it becomes second nature.
'''Support''' We have a candidate with two years of experience on wiki who is active in a WikiProject to improve a large range of articles, and has some familiarity with administrative issues.  I checked the Wikipedia-space contrib log.  There are fewer than 50 items, as others have noted, but they are well-distributed among AFD, AN3RR, ANI, FAC and WikiProject.  I have no qualms about letting Mark t young learn about adminship on the job.  From what he has done until now, he certainly will know what to do and when to ask for assistance.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor who concentrates on article improvement.
'''Support''' - No concerns.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not mess up with the tools.  —
Content is purpose of the encyclopedia, and this user consistantly contributes content.  While there is not great depth in wikipedia-space contributions, the comment below by  Editorofthewiki is a cogent one: Someone who writes large amounts of content without problem has ''de facto'' demonstrated policy knowledge.  It also demonstrates tempermant, something that cannot be taught.  I'm confident that this user can be taught how to use the tools wisely.  If he can't I believe the candidate will bne happy to
'''Support''' The more actual writers we have as admins the better, there's much more to the role than just 'twinkling' out of existence anything you haven't seen on MTV that week.
'''Support''' per Nick, above.
'''Support'''  clearly a trustworthy editor highly unlikely to abuse tools.
Oppose: too "young" (bad pun :P). In all seriousness, as I don't see any trust issues, and as that's all I really look for apart from a few months of experience, I '''Support'''. Good luck with the remainder of this RfA (apologies if my attempted pun is too bad... or if you've heard that one done to death :P ) <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per Aaron. Yes, he is totally correct. Looking at his contributions, this user has created a pleathora of high quality work. Worrying about edit summaries is, quite frankly, ridiculous. --
I don't see any major reason to oppose this candidate: regarding edit summaries, I don't see how that's a problem if his usage shoots to 100% during this RfA, and remains that way; plus, I find new opposition based on edit summary usage disappointing. His answers to the questions are good, as is his behavior, and he seems experienced enough. If he just takes it slow, goes to the [[Wikipedia:New admin school|new admin school]] and the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]] upon (or even before) promotion, and talks to more experienced administrators if he needs some help, then he'll be fine.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. Appears to be a solid, trustworthy article builder. I also note the recent major improvement in edit summary usage.
'''Support''' - an editor asking for editing tools.  Admin tools are editing tools, they aren't about ''governance'' - that only arises incidentally because only admins can do blocks or deletions.    Based on past observations, he seems reasonable and level-headed.
'''Weak Support''' This user will use the tools in areas where he feels comfortable, thus I doubt he will unintentionally misuse the tools. Also, nothing indicates he will intentionally misuse them. This users attitude seems good. Nothing indicates his attitude makes him unfit to be an admin. Since he won't misuse the tools, and his attitude is right, I will support him. His inexperience, his lack of using edit summaries before this Rfa, and the fact he probably won't use the tools that often weaken my support of him a fair amount.--
'''Support''' A trustworthy inclusionist at AfD would temper any risk of imbalance there. (I speak as a deletionist.)  {{User|Cazique}} incidents handled with maturity.  I can see every reason to trust that he won't use any admin buttons until he fully understands the process and community behind them. --
'''Support''' Based on trustworthiness of the candidate. If the candidate were to make admin at this point I would hope and expect he'd go slow with the tools for a while.
'''Support''' Seems to me that such a long term editor who has added a considerable amount of content without getting into any real trouble though that editing has enough of a handle on policy to be fine here. These are the types of editors we should be encouraging at RFA. He's navigated the maze of content policy well enough to be an effective editor, no reason to think that same experience doesn't give him (?) a good enough basic foundation so that he won't blow anything up as an admin.
'''Weak Support''' Really no issue, just the lack of edit summaries makes me think...
'''Support'''.  This user may not have been taught all the ins and outs discussed below, but in my judgment he has a grasp on the things that can't be taught and that's more important anyhow.  Good builder, subject expert, seems like a nice and reasonable guy, etc.  The thoughts of Sir Firsfron, Mr. Mallory, Ms. Naerii, and Mr. Brenneman echo my own. --
'''Support'''  Decided to switch from strong oppose after further review of his edits show a strong support of science, in other words, he lacks that anti-science POV that is ruining this project.  He addressed my concerns about edit summaries (please use them).  And the candidate is not a part of the admin coaching garbage.  I'd still prefer more experience, but I hope he'll continue to edit articles while being an admin.
'''Support''' (switched from neutral) - the massive spike in edit-summary usage after it was mentioned, combined with the answers to the questions, convinces me that his relative inexperience in some areas will probably not result in problems, as he'll learn what to do before doing it. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. No problems here. User's obvious maturity, intellect and attitude surely makes up for any lack of experience in any given area. I have zero concern that Mark (Mr. Young?) will abuse admin privileges.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' User does not seem as he would abuse the tools, and seems more than competent enough to understand the various admin duties. Lack of vocal participation in an area does not ecessarily imply inability to function properly. --
'''Support'''  Unlikely to abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Mature, easily addresses issues such as low edit summary usage and unlikely to abuse the tools. ~
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry to be the first. First of all, I'm deeply concerned by your lack of edit summary usage, and I recommend that you force edit summaries in your preferences. These are important for administrative actions especially. Secondly, you revert a great deal of vandalism, but have no edits to [[WP:AIV]]. I'm just curious as to why that is, but it is slightly concerning for me. Thirdly, you say you wish to work at AfD, but I see no edits to deletion debates in the contributions I looked through. The count analyser would also seem to confirm that. Also, with few edits to talk pages, it's difficult to tell how you would communicate as an administrator. I think you are on the right track, but feel it's [[WP:NOTNOW|too soon]] to offer my support. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' - I think you'll need some more experience at [[WP:ANI]] and various other noticeboards before you take up the role of an administrator. Great start though. You appear to be a good contributor. I'm also concerned by what looks like a lack of collaborative effort in the mainspace, as well as little communication. [[WP:NOTNOW]] for me.
'''Oppose'''. You specifically say you want to work in AFD/CSD, but a look at [[Special:DeletedContributions/Mark_t_young|your deleted contributions]] shows that you've only ever twice successfully nominated an article for deletion (once [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalattosuchian|incorrectly]], since you'd already spotted that it was a copyvio, and once [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Polmont_F.C.&timestamp=20080427225119 a rather dubious (but successful) speedy]). There's nothing there to judge whether I trust you or not.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Very little Wikipedia-space edits. Alot more experience is needed to be an admin.--
'''Oppose'''. Excellent work in the mainspace, which I like, but you'll need more experience in the Wikipedia namespace doing admin-like tasks. You may want to participate in more XFDs, report some vandals at AIV, participate in RFAs, post at ANI, etc. It'll help you become a more well-rounded editor and more prepared for adminship.
'''Oppose''' You seem like a good editor. However, I don't think you're ready for adminship. First, 42 project space edits just doesn't cut it. 23% edit summary for major edits is not near enough; nearly 100% is expected of administrators. You have very few talk edits, so I cannot predict if you have good communicating skills. Again, you're a good editor, but I'd say wait six months, and you should be good to go.
'''Oppose''' primarily per the reasons expressed by Wisdom89, i.e. upon reviewing your contribs, I see only a few AfDs, all of which seem to be deletes.  I do like that you earned some barnstars.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong Oppose''' One must really wonder if you NEED the tools, you seem more like a writer to me and this role does not REQUIRE admin tools, in ur antivandal work you have never reported a user so u obviously dont need the tools for that. Lack of edit summeries is '''DISGRACEFUL''', (I being an antivandal find it extemely frustraing when people dont use meaningful edit summerys as it wastes my time having to check an entire edit when the user doesnt include a summery).  You have not been active (above 5 edits) for six months in a row Participation in admin related tasks is also seems to be in short supply. Consider admin coaching if not adoption!!!
'''Oppose'''.  In your last 500 edits, you haven't participated in a single deletion debate, which is extremely worrying because you say you want to go into the deletion area.  I am also concerned with the edit summary usage, and your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Mark_t_young very few deleted contributions] (which shows limited activity in speedy deletion policy areas).  My advice is to get more experience in deletion and other administrative areas and re-apply in 4 months or so.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''

'''Oppose''', regretfully.  A demonstrably excellent contributor, but too rarely in the areas in which we want our admins to be well versed.  A couple months spent working on the areas which other editors have highlighted here, and I think this user could make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' – First, great work on prehistoric subjects!  However, sorry to say, with over 50% of your contributions in just the last 6 weeks, you have not demonstrated enough experience working with other individuals to determine temperament. Good luck to you.  <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' You indicate you want to "continue and further my contributions to the WP:ANI and WP:3RR noticeboards.", yet I count 6 to the former and 5 to the latter.  This is out of 42 overall edits to the Wikipedia: space.  I generally expect at least 100 edits at the lower end of my range, to show a candidate has participated in a reasonable number of XfDs and noticeboard discussions.  I'm sure you can improve this over time though. '''
'''Oppose'''. Poor depth of experience (little participation in Wikipedia space), few deleted contributions & little frequents to the XfD area (whilst wanting to get involved in deletion) makes me wonder whether the tools will be misused; not intentionally, however. Theoretically, having to go around undeleting pages is an arbitave task for any administrator.
'''Oppose''' Wait to improve your edit summary usage and contribute more to the Project namespace, such as AIV and XFD.  <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - Excellent article work, but work in Wikipedia space and overall participation isn't sufficient  yet in my eyes. The edit summary issue also needs fixing too. I'm saddened by [[User:Prom3th3an|Prom3th3an's]] comment, and I hope you aren't upset or put off by it. See these opposes as constructive criticism, designed to improve you to standard in which you can try for RfA again. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the lack of experience is a deal breaker. Users should wait until they have had more experience.--
'''Oppose'''. More experience needed in the Wikipedia space and with general admin-type activities. A good future potential for adminship, but not yet.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Singopo. Mark is a good future potential for adminship, but not yet. I am opposing because of his relatively low proportion of edits in the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces.
'''Neutral''' - per the directly above and per PeterSymond's oppose. I do however think you would make a good specialist admin. I also think you should work on your communication, hence the neutral. --
This is a tough one, for an editor who meets some, but not all of [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my fairly strict standards]]. He's obviously a brilliant person, and a solid editor, having made over three thousand useful edits.  He has roll back rights. He has an interesting user page. However, he appears not to know much of policy, which is what admins really need, nor does he partake much in the way of community discussion. On the whole, I'll remain '''neutral''' for now.  I'd be inclined to support with more evidence of Wikipedia space involvement.
The lack of Wikispace edits and edit summary usage are too concerning. However, you're a dedicated editor who's been good for the project thus far., so I can't oppose.
'''Support''' - past interactions convinced me this editor will be a valuable help in carrying the old mop'n'bucket.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user around, and I would agree with him that he is ready for the mop.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' I have also seen him around and thoroughly impressed with the work he does. :) <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Support.'''  [[User:Masterpiece2000|Masterpiece 2000]] understands Wikipedia's mission, has contributed substantially to its furtherance, shows an impressive grasp of available tools, takes initiatives that aid other editors in their work, and not least, is the soul of tact, courtesy and forbearance.  He will make a welcome addition to the pool of Wikipedia administrators.  I look forward to working with him in his enhanced capabilities.
'''Support''' hard-working editor. No problems, '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Wholly good candidate. --
'''Support''' The candidate's ability to '''create''' articles (more than 140 to date) is a very strong selling point for me -- too many would-be admins are hungry to simply delete and stomp out, but this individual has the capacity and the talent to build and expand, which I greatly respect.  The opposition votes picking at his sparse "as per nom" answers in the AfD discussion, in my view, do not hold water -- sometimes a person comes in very late to a discussion and doesn't want to repeat what has already been stated over and over. (And is there specific Wikipedia policy forbidding a weigh-in by saying "As per nom"?)
'''Support'''Due to your awesome contributions, though I would like to see you at least try to answer some optional questions.''
'''Support''' Seeing a strong editor here. '''
'''Support''' At this point, it might end up being a ''Moral support only'' vote (I hope I'm wrong, though) but I do believe that our project could very well benefit from an article building editor, such as this candidate, having the extra buttons. Any AfD issues that have been raised so far are legitimate, no doubt about that, and I would like to ask the candidate to refrain from closing any AfD's if and when he's granted the mop until such a time when he would open himself up to the community's scrutiny of his AfD contributions and the community reaches a consensus that Masterpiece's contributions at AfD raise no more concerns regarding his ability to close them in the most appropriate manner. Also, I would very much encourage the candidate to add himself to [[WP:AOR]] during that time in order for any gross violations of deletion policy to be dealt with swiftly and severly. Clearly, this would be completely voluntary and completely non-binding since the ability to close and delete would be at the candidate's disposal even if the community's concerns have not been alleviated. The bottom line is that, in my honest opinion, the benefit of granting Masterpiece the extra tools far outweighs the potential risks. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Masterpiece2000&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 these]. Drive by !voting at AFD, and lousy rationales to boot.
'''<s>Strong</s> oppose''' per really weak non-arguments in AfDs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alien_and_Predator_timeline_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=218405359&oldid=218399272] (why is it?), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_psychic_abilities&diff=219617569&oldid=219613744] (strong delete for article that was kept), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_homeschooled_individuals_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=213242727&oldid=213242082], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darth_Vader%27s_helmet&diff=210049444&oldid=210046179] ([[WP:JNN]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Revenge_Of_Chucky&diff=220946461&oldid=220935027] ([[WP:VAGUEWAVE]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imoen&diff=207080039&oldid=207076971] ([[WP:PERNOM]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_park_animals&diff=201250229&oldid=201249985] ([[WP:PERNOM]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pig_mask&diff=184945592&oldid=184881090] ([[WP:PERNOM]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gears_of_War_Weapons_List&diff=182296819&oldid=182266738] (the problem here is the old lack of considering [[Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state]] as some of the weapons can indeed be sourced by such references as Evan Samoon, "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at videogame weaponry to reveal the good, the bad, and the just plain silly," ''Electronic Gaming Monthly'' 230 (July 2008): 48.  For example, The Lancer weapon was recently featured in an Electonirc Gaming Monthly article that discusses its practicality and historical precedents. Weapons expert Keirsey criticized this weapon by noting that real "chain saws are heavy", among other things. He noted that "medieval bludgeoning weapons are the closest" historical precedents."), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_lost_ships_of_Starfleet&diff=181565999&oldid=181452316] (well, those who created, worked on, and argued to keep the article must think there's a need for it), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dimension_X_%28TMNT%29&diff=181565412&oldid=181486703] ([[WP:JNN]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Babula&diff=180961645&oldid=180878583] ([[WP:JNN]] and [[WP:PERNOM]]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Gatorade_flavors&diff=179910424&oldid=179856708] ([[WP:PERNOM]]), etc.  In other words way too overly exclusive interpretation of inclusion policies and guidelines to trust judgment on closing XfDs.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Weak oppose''' - based on your edit summaries (which are very consistent and helpful, by the way), it looks like you've !voted to keep 10 articles and delete 136 articles. I'd have a very hard time believing that as an admin you would close XfDs in a thoughtful and impassionate manner without being heavily influenced by predispositions. Looking at a handful of the XfDs confirms this. I try to ignore such views in RfAs, but this is a red flag. The evidence doesn't suggest that you're inexperienced, untrustworthy, malicious or anything of that sort, but it is good reason to believe that your participation as an admin in the deletion process would be tendentious. —
'''Oppose''' - Has created  a lot of useful stuff and I'm willing to trust that he has shown a collaborative approach elsewhere, but caught my attention with schematic and early votes of the per [[WP:XYZ]] type at AfD, a declared interest of admin work, that focus overly on the current state of the article. What I find worrying is that he <s>doesn't </s>rarely revisits these discussions once actual good arguments or possible sources turn up. With respect to speedy deletions he has indeed tagged rather few, so I am not sure enough about his general judgment in that area either.--
'''Strong oppose'''&mdash;dozens of extremely poor drive-by votes, often of the form: '''delete''' per nom. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or "(subject of article) is not a notable (video game, place, footballer...) <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" If the candidate learns the [[WP:DP|deletion policy]] and makes several months of constructive contributions at AfD, I would support next time.
'''Strong oppose''', candidate has shown through two-worders and other "thoughtless" !votes in AfD that he cannot be trusted with the power to close contentious AfDs. Yes, people make mistakes but you've made a little too many for me to trust you with the admin tools at this time. Start putting more thought into your AfD !votes, then come back in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't trust you to close AfD's. Having seen your participation in some recent AfD's I have no confidence in your judgement.
'''Oppose''' per XDanielX and RHMED. Not trustworthy.--
'''Oppose''', seems well-intentioned but the huge pile of awful drive-by AfD delete votes, many of which are textbook examples of [[WP:VAGUEWAVE]], makes me doubt how seriously and neutrally this user will behave while closing AfDs.~ <font color="#000000">
Regrettably. I am sure I have seen some good contributions from this user, but the aforementioned 'drive-by' edits to AfDs is rather concerning.
'''Oppose''' based on above AfD diffs, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_psychic_abilities&diff=219617569&oldid=219613744 this one]. I am not confident that this editor would close AfDs appropriately, which is a clearly stated intention.
'''Weak Oppose''' Everything looks good, but the all the comments about the Afd's really tells me no. I'm sorry.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Better arguments needed in AfDs.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  I am sorry to jump on the bandwagon, but the AfD arguments you made brought up by [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]] give me great pause.  Your AfD arguments offer many examples of [[WP:AADD]], from your brief waves at policy, without argument, to your per nom style votes.  The votes expressing a personal point of view, like in the AfD for List of Psychic Abilities are of the greatest concern.  While I might agree with the sentiment you expressed, that is not the standard for inclusion in wikipedia, and I fear if your votes are biased by matters other than policy your closures may be just as biased.  &hArr;
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose.''' While I will never vote against an RfA because of a editor's positions on afds/xfds/an-is due to the risk of stifling dissent, I do find an issue with how the positions were presented in the diff's that were linked above. It seems like the editor was rushing in his afd responses which is something I have seen on vandalism patrols and could unfortunately carry over to his other syop contribs if he became one. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' - Per Finalnight. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Oppose - unconvinced user understands the principle of being involved.
I find his comments at most AfD's he edits to be distinctly unhelpful (or, non-helpful).
'''Neutral''' I think Masterpiece has the best interest of the project but he seems to have a rather strict/absolute sense of notability, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Torres]] for example. While I realize he ultimately changed his !vote, I think far too much time was spent debating awards rather than fixing the article. While guidelines are necessary, I don't think they should be treated as absolutes. I worry about his ability to judge consensus if it doesn't align to strict black and white, but rather falls in a gray area, as discussions often do. That said, I don't think he'd abuse the tools so I'm not opposing. It's a concern and I may change my !vote <sub>
'''Neutral''', did not thoroughly read self-nom instructions. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' I'm impressed with the large amount of mainspace edits, particularly all of the new articles created by [[User:Masterpiece2000|Masterpiece2000]] that have furthered wikipedia content as regards BLPs. In my opinion prospective admins should have made a large amount of contribs to the primary aim of the project (i.e. building a reliable encyclopedia). However, from a a quick look at wikipedia space [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Masterpiece2000&namespace=4&year=&month= contribs] to [[WP:AfD|AfD discussions]] there do appear to be a large number of ''per nom'' (i.e. no argument given) comments. As the user has stated that closing XfD is a primary intention as regards need for admin tools I am rather concerned regarding this. I'd love to support but I can't really do so based on this issue. Cheers,
'''Support''' as nominator. '''''
<small>'''
'''Support''' Had a look through all user talk contributions, lots of anti-vandalism and welcoming of new users. Good article editor. Why not :) Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' - Oh yes, finally not a " anti vandalism-only" candidate.
'''Support''' Liked the level-headed response to 4a. Not only not likely to abuse the tools, understands the importance of ''educating'' new users by welcoming them before laying on warnings and blocks. Reviewed talk pages and found the ability to admit mistakes and apologize while offering help. Did not find any incivility or responses to alarming behavior. Would have preferred more substantial edits and admin related edits, but I have the sense user will proceed with sense and caution.
I have read through the opposes, and your article building and potential CSD monitering brings this to a '''support'''. Lack of Wikispace contribs is fine, sine many users around here forget this place this is an encyclopedia for crying out loud. As Tiptoey said, finally we don't have an anti-vandalism only candidate. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak support''' - Per [[WP:WTHN]]. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
This is what no big deal is all about. Looks like a solid candidate, and appears to have enough experience to deal with the tools. Regards,
'''Weak support'''.  The oppose section has a few points, but I believe that after ADCO you will do fine as an admin.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' I see nothing that would lead me to believe the user would abuse the tools. <b>
'''Strong support''' per intelligent argument at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Redfield]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.  After reading the oppose section regarding your "communication" or "lack of", and now having seen you clearly, concisely, civilly respond to the concerns, I have no worries about your communication abilities.  Happy to support a solid Wikipedian, good article contribs (great actually), obvious dedication, and a solid nomination. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''', don't see any larger problems going through his contribs. The low talk space edits thing seems like another (hopefully soon) passing fad. Talk pages are only ever a means to an end, not a goal on themselves. The point is to improve the encyclopedia, and if he can do it without talking about every change he makes and doesn't feel the need to draw attention to himself, good for him. When he's actually needed to discuss something, he has. What more do you expect? -
'''Support'''; although Mastrchf may not be well-versed in all areas of administrator work, from reading the answers to his questions, I would trust that he would properly research the relevant policies before taking action.  Additionally, he seems level headed and very open to communication - even if there is not lots of evidence for detailed communication that he has undertaken, he seems to see its importance, and I think that if there were occasions where indepth discussion was needed, he would not hesitate to undertake it.  --
'''Support''' I have talked with Mastrchf91 and he has been a great user overall. He helps out a lot with [[WP:WPTO]], is a great vandal fighter, and is very kind and civil. I think Mastrchf91 would make a great administrator.
'''Support''', obviously a fine contributor, no history of abuse or reason to believe that they'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' per Lankiveil - a simple and sufficient reasoning.
'''Weak Support''' - since the user is running on the editer ticket i originally had reservation that his article building wasnt strong enough, however looking at his sandbox'''s''' i see that he has done enough to just about turn me. Good luck .
'''Support'''. I have had nothing but good experiences with him since he decided to revive [[WP:WPTO|WikiProject The Office]]. He's taken a leadership role that belies his editing history, and communicated quite well during the recent FARC on ''[[The Office (U.S. TV series)|The Office]]''.
'''Support''' And I loathe ''The Office''! Seriously, the answers are very impressive and well-stated.
'''Support''' I really can't see any reason to oppose other than arguments based upon the distribution or quantity of your edits, and I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose; furthermore, all of the questions were answered excellently. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - Obviously over-qualified for Wikipedia's janitorial work.  Would be a waste of a great editor.  The mop would merely detract from this editor's efforts in article space.  Why water that down? Mastrchf91, keep up the good work, and I hope never to see you in here again.  ;)
'''Oppose''' You look like you'll be a fantastic candidate in a few months.  After looking through your Talk and User talk contributions, I noticed that almost all of them are either automated or repetitive, so there's just not enough material for me to feel confident supporting you at this time.  I need to see more direct interaction with other users before I'll feel comfortable.   Keep up the good work and I'll be happy to support you when I feel there's enough here to justify it.  --
'''Oppose''' I've reviewed the entirety of your talk contributions. I cannot find more than a handful of actual edits relating to some conversation, most of them are just templating. Not to be overly nitpicky, but the goof false new message bar at the top of your talk page shows how little back and forth conversation you are involved with... since it is identical to a real new message bar, it will probably repeatedly "goof" people who come to discuss something with you. ''Virtually'' harmless, but a little immature, none-the-less.  Talk contributions are very important to an admin, and for me to support, I need to see more constructive activity in this area so I know how you will interact with others. Otherwise, you seem to be a solid contributor, good amount of work in AfD, etc. As capitalR says, come back in a few months after there is more substance... mainly, engage other users in talk.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Complete lack of conversation that does not involve automation of some sort. Scripts are fine, but when relied upon as much as this, I can't at all get a feel for how you communicate. Your communication is just very stilted. You also have little participation in admin-related areas. There is also some mild misunderstandings at AIV: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=203094343]. IPs are not vandalism only accounts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=189843313]. Reasoning is iffy.
'''Oppose''' per above comments about automated edits and the low conversation examples. Your most editted article is [[The Office (U.S. TV series)]], to which you've only editted the talk page 4 times. Your most-editted wikipedia-sapce article (which only has 29 edits) is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US)]]. That talk page only has 2 edits (one of your grand total 4 for wiki-talk). Also, the most times you've editted a single talk page is seven. Now, it's perfectly OK to not want to talk to people much, if that's what tickles your fancy, but you have to realize that most of an Admin's job involves talking to people. People will look to you for advice, answers to questions, and to settle disputes (not to mention the numerous "Why'd you delete my article?!" and "You protected the wrong version!" complaints). Most users (''especially'' new users) hold Admins in very high-standing, and expect kind-of-alot from them. I don't doubt that you're a worthy candidate, but you have to show that you can converse with people on a steady level before you get promoted (or, at least before you get my support).--
'''Weak Oppose''' I liked your answers, I really did.  But then I was surprised by your lack of meaningful contributions.  First there is user talk space.  You've only made 15 edits on your own talk space and that is the user talk where you've made the most contributions.  There are two other users where you've made more than 10 contributions.  Besides those 3 pages, there is not a single talk page (whether User, Wikipedia, Mainspace, or Template) where you've made more than 7 edits.  This tells me that you don't discuss issues with people and have little to no experience developing consensus.  It also shows that your understanding of policies and guidelines is strictly up to your interpretation---you've not discussed them to ensure that your position is consistant with the broader wiki community.  Your contributions to Wikipedia space is almost non-existant as well.  There are only five pages where you've made more than 10 edits---3 of them are related to The Office.  As a vandal fighter, I would expect more edits to AIV than 17. Second, most of your user talk space seems to be centered around the Office Newsletter and sending out a confirmation request.  Or it is automated via twinkle.  I saw very little that was personalized.  Third, and this really is kind of minor, while I liked the participation in CfD's (its nice to see a change from AfD) I saw a lot of "Per nom" !votes---which actually caused me to laugh when I read [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_27&diff=prev&oldid=208524586 this!]  I want to see how you react and interact with others before I give you the tools.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]].  Your statements above are promising, but I looked over your last 500 contributions and didn't see enough variety in the subjects to make me believe that you have enough experience across genres of articles to effectively use the admin tools, at this time.  I'd be happy to support you in the future, should this RfA fail, if you show a broader range of subject coverage.  Respectfully, --
'''Oppose''' -- I'd much rather this user stick to improving what truly matters about Wikipedia (the articles) instead of getting caught up in the ever-growing bureaucracy. Yes, I am well aware of what [[WP:AAAD|arguments should be avoided]]. That being said, I've seen too many good article writers turn into mere janitors when given the mop. And while I understand that the likelihood of such an extreme transition is unlikely with this candidate, I feel that this user should stick with what they're good with. Based on both my own personal convictions and the diffs provided by above oppose users, I feel that if this user were to gain the mop, Wikipedia would probably lose an effective and prolific contributor and gain a possibly inexperienced admin. --
'''Weak oppose'''-- per Wisdom, I really would like to support you but you need to communicate to become an admin. Although, you do have email enabled which is positive...--
'''Oppose''' - low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough Wikipeida space edits. 1/3 of his edits are automated.--
'''Oppose''' I would really like to vote support for you at some point but I can't do it just yet. You're on the right track and you just need to build up more of what the community needs to see in order to gauge you as a potential administrator, not just an editor.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Answers to questions are trite, meaningless, Obama-esque non-answers.
'''Weak Oppose'''. This editor does excellent mainspace work, not too much reliance on Twinkle, I like that. You fight vandalism, I like that. But, the problem here is not enough communication. At first glance, you've made 667 edits on user talk pages (which isn't bad at all), but I took a close look at them after reading the other comments about your communicativeness (if that's a word). Of those 667, 255 were via Twinkle, 24 were via Friendly, 172 were adding a welcome template (copy and paste), 86 were delivering a newsletter (copy and paste), 30 were confirming wikiproject membership (copy and paste), and 14 were to your own talk page. That leaves only 86 meaningful, template-free, comments to other users. Your Wikipedia talk edits are almost non-existent. Everything else is great, you just don't talk enough with other editors, and I think it's very important that an admin be prone to discuss things.
'''Oppose'''. Your lack of communication is bothering me too.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate needs some more experience with communicating and collaborating. Additional article-building experience would also help. Keep up uht good work.
'''Oppose''', although weakly. Again, the user seems happiest writing articles, and long may he continue. There is nothing wrong with his contributions in this respect. But there is nothing in his answers that convinces me he really truly wants or needs to be an admin. Given that an admin's job is basically a mixture of drudgery and lengthy policy discussions, I can't see him enjoying it much. -
Oppose. Not enough admin work (XfD, etc.). Cheers, '''''
'''Oppose''' - Lacks experience in admin related fields e.g. AFD etc. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''
'''Neutral''' - Opposes make good arguments, but voting "oppose" as well seems a bit too harsh.--
'''Neutral''' - ''Oppose'' would be too harsh for this User. He is relatively inexperienced ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Abd_2&diff=prev&oldid=190523213 Same reasoning as his :) )] inspite of being active since 2006 ( just 3K edits since 12/06). Most of the articles are in the comfort zone of [[The Office (U.S. TV series)]].. That is not a bad thing.. My personal suggestion is to get your hands on variety of articles more.. If you want to help in DYK , I suggest to start helping the DYK admins by verifying source / length for [[Template talk:Did you know|suggestions]] , help them to post on [[Template:Did you know/Next update|Next Update Page]]... Anyways Best of luck. I will support you  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mastrchf91 2|on this page]]  -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Neutral''' Unlikely to abuse the mop, so I cannot oppose, but there is not enough evidence to say the candidate can be trusted with the buttons. Somebody mentioned "comfort zone" above, and I concur that a little more exposure to a wider variety of encyclopedia tasks will be of great benefit.
'''Oppose''' and suggest closure per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. I suggest you take a look at the advised experience for admin candidates; I'm afraid your edit level falls well below that.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose.  You simply haven't been active enough over the past year (i.e. less than two hundred edits in the past 14 months is not acceptable).  Also, your prize-article, [[Shinzo]], doesn't contain a single inline citation.  My vote is "oppose" for these two reasons.  —'''
'''Oppose'''. The candidate needs more experience in both admin and content-building areas. I'm also concerned that the candidate minunderstands what it means to be an admin, per the nomination statement. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. (ec) You're obviously well-intentioned and have been here for a long time, but I don't believe you have enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace to make me feel confident in your knowledge of policies and procedures. You only have 6 edits to the project space in the last calendar year and one of those was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=prev&oldid=255977317 requesting rollback] an hour ago. Obviously, requesting rollback isn't a bad thing, in fact, it's a good thing, but I'd feel more comfortable if you'd use rollback for awhile, edit more consistently, and demonstrate your knowledge of background workings via participating in the Wikipedia space and its related talk pages.
'''Oppose''' Hi. I feel that you mean well, but you misunderstand the position of adminship. Also, your edits here could be ramped up in number for sure. - <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' The start of the nomination statement indicates profound misunderstanding of the admin role.
'''Oppose''' - Scant experience. Suggest withdraw or closure.
'''Moral Support''' - Please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a few months or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. - <font color="navy">
'''Moral Support''' - If you don't have major edits, you just can't earn the trust you will need. You probably don't have a chance, but keep your fingers crossed. If all else fails, run again. You can do it! And remember, if you don't make it, it's [[WP:NBD|not a big deal!]]. '''''
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. As for Q1: you "might be irresponsible with it"?!
'''Strong Oppose'''. I rarely find the need to oppose candidates and I would far prefer to '''morally support''' a candidate, but if you claim you might be irresponsible with CSD tools, I cannot do so. CSD is not a game. <font color="777777">
'''Oppose'''- only 500 edits, of which over a third are to your user page or talk page, does not give me enough material on which to judge your contributions or policy knowledge. That, and your answers to the questions are quite worrying. I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but I don't think you should have the tools just now.
'''Oppose'''- MHLU, I think your intentions are good, but you really need to get a lot more edits and experience.  Your answers also make me a lot nervous.  But please, keep trying, and thanks for the good edits you've been doing since your block.  Also, please try to write edit summaries for your edits. <b>'''
'''Oppose'''. Not much experience with reverting, and possibly might be irresponsible with admin tools. The sockpuppetry also worries me.
'''Very strong NOTNOW''' very tempted to snow-close this now but I think another few hours of politely worded NOTNOWs will help this editor in the long run.  This editor claims to be a primary or secondary student so unlike adults who exhibit poor judgment, there is a very good chance that this editor will mature - pardon the pun - with time.  This editor should not re-apply for at least 1 year and at least 2,000 non-tool-assisted edits, if then.  I echo the other's comments that he should keep editing and I echo NuclearWarfare's moral support as an editor.  However, we would be doing both Wikipedia and this editor a major disservice if we were to give him the tools that, if misused even accidentally, could tarnish his wiki-reputation for a long long time.
'''Oppose''' - your enthusiasm is great, but if you apply for adminship again, please spend more time on your answers to the questions. I cannot work out what some of your answers mean, e.g. "I would ban users who were blocked repeatedly and sufficiency 7 times." and "But if I have it, I will deal it as making the edit soon". I also suggest reducing the number of banners at the top of your talk page, but as those above me have said, the best advice is to just work on increasing your experience and policy knowledge. Regards,
'''Oppose''' I only needed to get three sentences into your candidate statement to come to my decision. Anyone who has socked in the past five months is completely unqualified to be an administrator.
'''Neutral''' Your intentions are admirable, but your timing is premature.  You require much more experience before seeking out adminship.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, experienced, could use the tools.
'''Strong Support''' I have seen Oreo contribute alot on wikipedia. He will be a very good admin.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Strong Support''' As co-nominator
'''Strong Support''' - had this RFA on my watchlist.  Seen this user around, does great work, will make a great admin. <b>
'''Strong Support''', obvious.
<sup>Apologies to Mailer Diable for the near-copy of his support style.</sup>This '''support''' is endorsed by ·
'''Definitely'''<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' - No way am I going to pass up this chance! <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' - Reviewed this editor recently.  Experienced and trustworthy; I feel this editor's strength lies in administrative tasks. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support''' -  I already had this watchlisted quite a while back.
'''Support'''. Yep. -
'''Support''' - Good guy. '''<span style="background:Red;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' per my co-nom. --'''
'''Support''' as nom. (Aah, I always forget) &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - I really had thought Oreo was already an admin. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''iM'''<font color=#00ccff>'''at'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''th'''<font color=#00ccff>'''ew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=#0000ff>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I would have co-nominated MFC, but I came here a bit too late.  Excellent editor.  Helpful, nice, and very knowledgeable. &mdash;  <span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size: 14pt">
'''Support''' - Per personal interactions with user. I see him everywhere and his comments are thoughtful, helpful, insightful and exude policy knowledge. A real asset.
'''Support''' Solid user, knows what he's doing, understands pretty much everything about the project.
I certainly support whom I consider to be a level-headed and well-rounded editor.
'''Support''' Saw his name in AIV many times. I trust to give him the tools and buttons.
'''Strong Support''' - Sorry MFC i hadn't seen you had been nommed otherwise I would have co-nommed ;). I have seen this user quite often on WP:AIV, seems like MFC could use the tools to me. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support'''. This was one of those times where something didn't feel right, and I needed to do some deeper investigating. What I decided was that some of the oppositional votes just didn't feel right. Examples: Marty Rockatansky states below that this candidate closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination)]] via [[WP:SNOW]], and "there was still discussion going on". Well, Marty was the sole remaining delete !vote in an 11-1 consensus, with one editor changing his delete !vote to "strong keep" after a revealing source ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Bergman_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=199120318&oldid=199118799 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Bergman_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=199215328&oldid=199196076 here]). While I am in no way discounting Marty's !vote or his right to oppose below, I personally would have closed this as the candidate did. I'm sort of preempting Q10, I know, and I reserve my right to change my !vote based on the answers to the pending questions. However, even after circumspect weighing of Shoessss's and John's arguments below (arguments that certainly make one take pause), I feel this candidate will serve the best interests of Wikipedia and will be a net positive. Mistakes may be made, but that's no reason to oppose, in my opinion.
'''Support'''
'''You mean you're not an admin?!?!'''  I honestly thought you were already.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Support''': I have seen you around, especially helping at [[WP:ACC]] -- good work! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' - Very expirenced editor. I'm confident this user would make a great admin! <span style="color:green"> '''
'''per above'''
'''Strong Support'''<font face="High Tower Text" size="3px">'''
Hang on... let me just check you aren't one already.... '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Weak support''' I see him around everywhere, and I think he knows what he is doing. I'd say that I trust him with the tools. '''
I trust this user not to abuse the bits.
'''Strong Support'''.  I have had only positive interactions with this user.  I trust him to make good decisions with the tools.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Strong Support''' The user has always been friendly and civil.  He is fully capable of being a administrator.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]]<small><sup>
'''Support x10^<math>\infty</math>''' thought you already were or at least acting on that high of a level--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''[[Uber|Über]] ultra strong support''' Has experience to be a trusted admin. Trusted, friendly, and civil.
'''Strong support''' I see this user around so often, and he always up to something good...this user will do wikipedia a world of good! --
'''Support''' I've seen much improvement since last RFA. <strong>
'''Support''' No concerns--
'''Support''', prolific contributor, no evidence that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', knowledge of policy and guidelines is irrelevant when the user is a so good article editor as Milk's Favorite Cookie and also willing to learn, which I am sure he is. --
'''Support''' - I have seen his work and think he would make a trustworthy admin and a great role model - <font face="Batik Regular">''
'''Support'''- Per [[WP:DEAL|Jimbo]]. I have seen this editor around doing alot of work, I see no evidence that he will misuse the tools.--
'''Strong Support'''. I'd trust him as an admin, and do as an editor.
'''Strong Support''' - Dang, I really wanted to make this support on '''Friday'''. I'm going to support because this candidate is a teenager. Pure and simple. Sound illogical basing a decision on age? Sure does to me.
'''Strong Support''' Great editor, would make a great admin for Wikipedia. No way he would abuse.
'''Strong Support''' I have interacted with this user several times and was very impressed. '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' - seems good but I am worried about some of the opposes below. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-color:#003153;color:#003153;">—
'''Support''' Sure, why not?  Meets my standards by far, has made mistakes, but overall is excellent.
'''Super-mega-slightly annoyed you didn't tell me so I could co-nom ¬¬-support'''.  Well done!  <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' Of course. Good luck Oreo!
'''Support'''.
<small>What [[User:WBOSITG|WBOSITG]] said... But '''''I''''' started [[Heuschrecke 10]] and asked you to help...</small> ~ Cheers!
'''Support''': User deserves the tools, and I do not see how he could abuse them. I was neutral before, but it was a mistake on my behalf. Good Luck! <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Uga Man|Uga Man]] ([[User talk:Uga Man|talk]]) <font color = "red"><small>
'''Hot potato Support''' I can't see why not. <strong>
'''Weak Support''' Good user but maturity and judgement are issues here.
'''Strong Support''' - you should get it you know??
'''Support''' Sreaking amazing guy. Very ''prima facie''. <font face="terminal">
'''Support''' User seems just fine.
'''Support''' - Good luck!
'''Support''' - It took me a long time to reach a decision here. An excellent contributer and works really hard it seems. Just '''please''' take care and put a stop to the issues raised below. Being thoughtful rather than impulsive goes a long way. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' An excellent vandal fighter and very active editor. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' I have dealt with this user fairly frequently, and he is a very responsible and helpful person. I see no reason to think he would not be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' Milk's favourite nom.
'''Oppose''' 3rd RfA in even fewer months.  Calm down.

'''Oppose''' per the lack of understanding of the non-free image criteria and copyright. The majority of the images that have uploaded under fair use have been deleted, due to a lack of source, no justification of the purpose of the image, incomplete fair use rationale or none at all. As an example, [[:Image:Son of the shark cover.jpg]], [[:Image:Bervin Alexander wiki screenshot.jpg]], [[:Image:Cambell john poster.GIF]], [[:Image:Dammerung Im Traum screenshotalbum.jpg]], [[:Image:Live in orance county albumshot.jpg]], [[:Image:Ss contrefacon cover.jpg]] (fair use rationale was added later by Europe22) and [[:Image:Spikejones stero.jpg]] had incomplete or no fair use rationales. [[:Image:Daniel_Craig_McCallum_image.jpg]] is another example, it was licensed and uploaded as fair use even though the image was taken in 1878, which would make it exempt from copyright as it was created in the United States before 1923. I also see some questionable speedy deletion tagging. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=48_Hours_To_Life_%28CSI%3A_Miami_episode%29&diff=198457541&oldid=194596505], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prey_%28CSI:_Miami_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=198457458], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oedipus_Hex_%28CSI_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=198457292], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_In_A_Flash_%28CSI_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=198456710], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Driven_%28CSI:_Miami_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=198456570], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_and_Shut_%28CSI_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=198455388], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miami_Confidential_%28CSI:_Miami_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=198455237], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Without_a_Trace_%28season_3%29&diff=prev&oldid=198454549] and many others in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080316172833&limit=500&target=Milk%27s+Favorite+Cookie] could have been easily fixed by removing the plot, but it was tagged it for deletion instead. Please note the second point in CSD G12, stating "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_General_Insurance_Company_of_Pakistan&oldid=196815844] is also pretty questionable. The article does not seem to be a copyvio of that site. In all, I feel I cannot support this until these issues are addressed.&mdash;
Oppose per Hbdragon88, DarkFalls, Dschwen and my comments in neutral. I don't think the candidate will be a good administrator at this time, especially given the candidate has very little in the way of encyclopedic contributions and will struggle to use the administrator tools when stepping in to resolve a content dispute, in an effective manner.
'''Oppose''' I have no idea why he closed AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination)]]. There was still discussion going on. He's not even Admin yet but already tries to act like one.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, still needs better understanding of policy, occasional poor communication skills. On my one meeting with him, he nominated a featured picture I took and uploaded for delisting without informing me. Another user pointed this out, I was informed, and I uploaded a larger version of the picture. The picture was kept as featured, but I was left with the impression that the picture could have been delisted if that other editor hadn't stepped in. That would have been a shame. The whole process (which can be seen [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg|here]]) could have achieved the same result with a single message to me as the uploader. If it sounds petty to oppose based on one incident, take this as being the recent interaction that tipped me from neutral to oppose. A fine editor, but more experience required. --
'''Oppose''' -  At this point you have made '''22, 253''' of your total edit count of '''22,282''', in just over the last '''3-1/2 months'''.  I believe that works out to '''99.9'''% of your edits in less than 4 months.  Goodness knows, there are fast learners out there, but *^#% that is fast.  Personally, I would like to see, just a tad more experience in administrative duties.  Is this a reflection on the work you have done so far?  No, great work.  Is this a reflection on well-rounded experience and a thought process, that goes into a decision making, where both sides may have valid arguments, Yes.  Sorry, the Yes wins out.  Either way this goes, good luck to you and great work, up to this point<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I feel pretty bad for opposing since every time I've seen the user I've been impressed by their contributions and demeanour but the concerns raised above and some other niggling issues to me paint a picture of a great user who is just not quite ready.
Per Daniel, DarkFalls, and Marty.  The AFD close is particularly disturbing as it is recent and snowing it was an obviously bad decision - for an admin or anyone else. --
'''Oppose''' - Excellent as an editor, but I don't think he's quite up to the skills needed as an admin yet.  There have been some questionable actions tagging speedies and working in deletion discussions and a general lack of communication.  I'm also concerned by the number of RfAs, the inflated award count and that almost all edits have been performed in just the past few months. <font face="Blackadder"  color="#2B0066">
Per above. –
'''Oppose''' - Milks is an enthusiastic contributor, and I think that's great, but my experience with him is on the DYK page where he has made numerous nominations that fail to meet the DYK rules. In spite of being informed that his nominations don't meet the criteria, that he is wasting the time of reviewers by making bad nominations, and that he needs to pay more attention to the rules, he has continued to nominate articles which fail to meet the criteria, which indicates to me a careless and slapdash approach and a lack of consideration for other users. Also, I think six months of solid contributions is an absolute minimum for adminship, and then only for the best candidates. So I cannot support adminship at this time.
"''I would love to take it one step further''" (Q1) - not comfortable with someone who would enjoy blocking. ''
'''Weak oppose''' I struggled with this one.  I have a good impression of MFC from my personal encounters with him and seeing him around, but the DYK issue and questionable speedy issues make me oppose.  As does the point observed by Shoeless above.  over 22K edits in 3 months, I can't see how anybody can make that many edits and ''think'' about what they are doing to make that many edits.
'''Oppose''' MFC has have been around for only 3 months and has done an amazing amount of wiki-gnoming.  However I do not see much evidence of actual encyclopedia building.  When he answered (Q3) that he hasn't been in any conflicts this does not indicate that he has been able to keep cool under fire, but that he hasn't been editing articles in a way that can create a conflict.  Most indicative is the lack of the talk page edits.  Of the 1603 about 20 of them relate to rating the article as a a "good article" and the rest seem to be assessment, or "oldafd".  I cannot find any instances of disagreeing with another editor on how to edit and reaching a compromise.  Disagreement among editor and how it is dealt with is the most important user interaction on wikipedia, and without experience in this area I cannot support.
'''Oppose''' This was a difficult one to oppose. There are some issues regarding your judgement in AfD debates, which is unavoidable. Yet youve made over 22,000 edits in the last 4 months, which is somewhat astonishing. You have good skills in regards to your dealing with other people from what ive observed. Id just like to see some more experience, come back in 3-6 months, and i'd be certainly ready to hand you the mop. Thanks.

Per Daniel, Shell Kinney and Dihydrogen Monoxide. I think this user is a little too focused on the counter-vandalism aspects of administratorship, which all though may be seen as a good thing, isn't my cup of tea.
'''Oppose''' This user is admonishing me about a change I've made in 2005. Lack of common sense.
'''Oppose''' per above, and the general feeling I get that the user is here to be an admin first and a contributor second.
'''Oppose''' Good contributor, but from my experiences, I feel he isn't ready for adminship yet. There are still some unresolved maturity issues that need to be addressed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Twaz&diff=198773939&oldid=198773628 random example]). <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' Seems to have some issues with some Wikipedia etiquette (per example above).
'''Oppose''' based on inexperience and questionable decision making.  Please be patient.
'''Oppose''' In addition to the understanding of policy concerns raised by others, I, too, have concerns.  To provide an example pertaining to [[WP:V]]/[[WP:RS]]/[[WP:SPS]], I found myself somewhat taken aback by MFC’s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FHeuschrecke_10%2Farchive1&diff=195933426&oldid=195924843 support comment] for the [[Heuschrecke 10]] FAC of “well cited”, when the article utilizes personal sites, hobby sites and a likely copyvio.  A firm understanding of sourcing policies and judicious application thereof is critical; despite being an enthusiastic and helpful editor, I don’t think MFC is there yet.
'''Oppose''' A very active user with good contributions. But the examples above are cause for concern, WP:SNOW is to be used very carefully, afds are sometimes subject to complete reversal, and this post to Twaz just killed my eyes. Not mature enough for the mop, I don't trust his judgement right now. It may change of course, in some months. Seriousness and consideration are necessary qualities for an administrator. Expeditive unconsidered admin actions have many times resulted in massive drama, and it's very bad for WP and the people involved. <strong>
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. Clearly a dedicated user, and I'm not one to oppose on most philosophical image issues, but has had non-free images in userspace as recently as February ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie/Top&diff=prev&oldid=188275348 here] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie/Top&diff=prev&oldid=188275282 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User:Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie/drafts2 here (admin)]) in addition to the concerns raised above lead me to question this user's ability to interpret policy.
This editor is a kid (and more importantly, ''acts'' like a kid.)  Short tenure, too immature, plus eagerness for the tools equals unqualified candidate. Try again in 10 years or so.  (No, that last sentence isn't a joke or an insult.  I just think admin candidates should be adults.)
I am not comfortable with his having the block button; he reports people ''on''their final warning to AIV way too often. Above concerns as well. Sorry. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' I would really like to support, but I think the candidate lacks experience, and some of the decisions they've made as a user would suggest that they
'''Oppose'''. I've thought long and hard about this one. MFC is a prolific wikignome, and does much good work. But I've also encountered a few questionable speedy noms, and the examples given of AfD closures (including the one MFC listed as a clear [[WP:SNOW]] bother me.--
'''Oppose'''. Apologies, because I do respect your contributions MFC, but for a number of the stated reasons above I can not say I trust you will the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. per ''DarkFalls'' and ''dihydrogen monoxide''
I came here to support, but I'm afraid that I have to oppose, and very firmly. Aside from the AfD mistakes, the relative lack of article-space work, that one water guy's concern, and the various other stumbles pointed out, I feel that you're on Wikipedia solely to become an admin, which... trust me, is not very different from being an editor without any fancy delete buttons. Also, this is an [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]] first and foremost, not some [[WP:MMORPG|roleplaying game]], though I admit such a game might be quite fun.
'''Oppose''' per Gatoclass (I also noticed MFCs odd DYK submissions) and others - active contributor, but doesn't seem to understand many policies. <small>~&nbsp;</small>
'''Oppose''' I just don't see an admin level knowledge of Wikipedia Policy in this editors answers, great editor though. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience and seems to rely on auto-tools a bit much.
'''Oppose''' Hasn't been active for very long; questionable judgment in AfD debates
'''Oppose''' - per DHMO.
'''Weak Oppose''' Apologies, but there seem to be some pretty serious issues that need to be resolved before I can feel completely comfortable supporting.
'''Oppose'''. I am uncomfortable with giving the mop to someone barely a week after something as inappropriate as the action taken in [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Twaz&diff=198773939&oldid=198773628 random example]. '''-Bwowen is now a
'''Oppose''' - too many instances of poor communications recently, and too "automatic" for us to tell if he has the judgment needed in admin decisions. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose'''. Unfree images on userpage shows a lack of commitment to the principles of the Free Encyclopedia.  &#10154;
'''Oppose in the slightest''': Pseudo-admin closure of an AFD, little understanding of [[WP:Images|image policies]], an upsurge of recent editing activity, and various other issues expressed elsewhere. The way these and his RFAs are going, he needs to wait another 12 months. --
'''Reluctant oppose'''; sorry, but the knowledge of policy just isn't ''quite'' there yet.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I hate to jump on a bandwagon here, but the FAC vote brought up by [[User:Elcobbola]], detachment from writing per [[User:Nousernamesleft]], and concerns about FU in userspace leave me no choice here.
'''Oppose'''. He seems like someone who does things in a hurry and leaves behind a mess for everyone else to clean up, displaying a serious lack of judgement. It's like his goal is to do as many edits as possible, without spending any effort (eg. machine translating articles from languages he doesn't speak, and not bothering to clean up the resulting nonsense, this would apply to pretty much all articles he's started). Those are not good qualities for an admin. -
'''Neutral''' Contrary to the above answer to a question about [[WP:SNOW]], MFC recently did a non-admin close on the AfD for [[Lunar ark]] less than a day in and after only four votes. Not sure they can be trusted with the tools if that is what qualifies as "a snowball's chance in Hell."
I find it a bit odd that MFC states ''My best contributions are probably my featured pictures.'' yet he has not contributed a single of those pictures... --
'''Neutral'''. It's not a very good rationale, but I have sort of a gut feeling. I don't want to oppose, but I feel unusually hesitant to support. I would have liked MFC to wait another month or so before pursuing an RFA. I'm probably going to get berated for this, but I might change to support later. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>

Sorry, but you're too new; I prefer admins to have sizable contributions spread out over a much longer period of time than yours. All it shows is that you can amass a number of edits in short order, which isn't necessarily a good thing (just as it isn't necessarily a ''bad'' thing, either). The fact that you keep coming back here (this being your third RfA) is ''extremely'' worrisome in my mind. I think there might be a net positive to the project if you're an admin, which is why I'm neutral, but I still can't help feeling like you could do with some more time here. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''For the moment, neutral''': I can't reach a firm conclusion until you answer more questions. I know they're optional and all, but they look important to me.
Both ideas have got their reasons. Maybe in a few month. ''
'''Neutral''' not sure at the moment. '''''
'''Neutral''' per Speed CG. '''''[[User:NimiTize|<font color="red">Fa</font><font color="blue">ll</font>]][[User talk:NimiTize|<font color="blue">e</font><font color="red">n</font>]]
'''Neutral''' MFC is very dedicated to improving Wikipedia and is obviously a hard worker. However, admins face a lot of situations rife with conflict and MFC's stated limited experience with conflict situations gives cause to wonder how MFC would react under those condictions. It appears that MFC has the makings of a great admin with some more experience under his belt, but I cannot support at this time.
I'd really hate to oppose MFC, due to his having made some progress from previous RfAs. Even so, I'm afraid I don't think he is quite ready. Several months of good edits, especially outside of the anti-vandalism arena will make the next one a dead cert. Spend a while writing a few DYKs and getting away from Huggle for a while. Regards,
'''
Support for work at DYK. Admin bit means he'll be able to participate even more by updating the template.
'''Strong Support''' - No worries with this one. I actually thought you already were an admin. = ) Best of luck! --
'''Strong Support'''. I rarely give a "strong support" (see [[User:Useight/RFA Participation]]), but MFC deserves one. Tons of article work (football-related, too, bonus points), 293 reports to AIV, good communication skills, very civil, knowledgeable in the ways of policies and procedures. Has my trust with the tools.

'''Suppourt To A high Degree This guy is so amazing it's like he is Jimbo's son.color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Extremely Strong Support.'''  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Weak Support''' - Strong candidate. Experienced in AIV, AfD, ''and'' article writing (!!!) No question here.
'''Strong support''' He works hard to improve the project in many ways. I have seen his work at DYK, FLC/FL as well as FAC. My assessement is thus based on editorial contributions, but this is sufficient for me.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Strong Support''' Looks good.--
'''Strong Support''' Worked with user before. Would make a fine admin.--
'''Strong Support''' Definitely trustworthy.
Change of heart. Why not?
'''Support''' Definitely deserves the tools.
Absolutely. I've worked with MFC a few times, including in a place where he could actually use his tools (account creation - BTW [http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/users.php?viewuser=31 these are his logs there]), and, this user's always been great to work with, and, seems to have a great grasp on policy.
'''Strong Support'''. Even though this is his fourth (!) RfA, I believe that MFC continues to mature, gaining from his errors and grasping criticism with zeal. I believe, due to his vandalism fighting experience, that the tools will only aid him and subsequently the project as a whole. Also, we don't need any more American football FLs. =P (ec)
No problems here, gets better each time... edit-conflict '''support'''.
'''Strong support''' - Undoubtedly will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Shows a willingness to contribute, he's a great vandalism fighter, and he has my trust. Good luck MFC. ;) Thanks,
'''Strong Support''' - Are you Jimbo Wales? --
'''Support'''. I was definitely in the oppose camp last time around, and I've been impressed with how much progress MFC has made since then. The maturity and clue level in the last few months have been impressive; I'm not worried about the mop anymore.--
'''Support''' Don't see anything worth worrying about.--
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support''' I love milk, and clearly milk endorses this cookie, so I'm totally in. Oh, and here's a cliché for you- I thought MFC was already an admin. [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px|grin]]
'''I've-been-waiting-for-this-one support''' Great editor. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' – I have every confidence that MFC will address issues that are brought to him on his talk page per a quick scan of it.  However, due to the concerns raised in the oppose section, I advise the candidate that he watchlist pages or check them regularly to respond to queries, just to err on the side of caution. —
'''Strong support''' ''Even the first oppose'' makes clear that this user is actively looking for ways to improve the encyclopedia at all times.  That's the sort of person who usually makes a good admin.
'''Support'''. I think its time. '''
'''very weak support''' bordering on neutral per my reasons in the neutral section.---'''
'''Support''' - A great user, would be an asset to the project.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' per WBOSITG's comments. After looking his contributions, I think that MFC will do great use of the tools. <small>
'''Support''' Four RfAs in a year would normally be cause for an alarm (See also: Giggy) and tempt me away from supporting, but I believe MFC has continued to work on the issues raised at previous RfAs and the project would benefit from him having the mop. In supporting this RfA, I would like to echo Animum's comment above about responsiveness. This has been raised in the oppose section, especially in regards to ignoring some users when discussing an article/list/whatever. If he bears this in mind, MFC will become a good admin and (even more of) a beneficial resource to the project. <font color="#312AB6">
'''Support''' Some of the diffs mentioned in the oppose section are troubling, but imho they do not negatively reflect on MFC's ability to use the tools wisely. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' Those diffs in the oppose section are slightly concerning. I'm sure I could find plenty of things that happened in recent months to base an oppose or a neutral off of, but I've seen this user do way too much good work for the encyclopedia to do so. IMO, while it would be good if MFC would follow up with his FLCs and do more work on his FACs, that's no indicator that he would abuse the tools. He has written and significantly contributed to several FLs, nominated numerous FPs, and made quite a few edits to [[J.R. Richard]]. He is also an excellent and devoted vandal fighter. Everybody has flaws, but Milk is certainly an asset to the project, and will do just fine with the mop.
'''Support''' I trust this user, the evidence presented in the Oppose section is not overly concerning, and I agree with Keeper76 and Balloonman. Very little reservation. Good luck, '''
'''Support''' &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support''' Some valid concerns raised in the oppose section, but nobody's perfect, and this user seems to be aware of that - I don't think he's going to rush to judgement with the tools. Good luck,
'''Supported''' the last one, I see no reason to do any different this time around.
'''Yee-Hah!''' Because saying "Support" 42 times gets a little monotonous.
'''Strong Support''' - I trust this user and am convinced they will use the tools well.  The number of RfAs simply shows me that he wants to help out; I say let him. --
'''Obvious support''' - Tons of edits, seems to have strong technical and policy knowledge, and good demeanor. He has also shown a strong ability to communicate with lots of talk edits.  What more do we want from our admins?  I also find the oppose rationales to be weak and unconvincing (previous RfAs don't bother me, and I don't care if an admin wants to "socialize" a little if it doesn't compromise his ability to use the mop).  So, to summarize, hope you make it through and best of luck either way!
'''Support'''. You should already be an administrator. &mdash;

'''Support'''.  I trust your use of the tools will be considered and appropriate.  The opposes below, while sincere, do not seem to indicate a lack of responsibility or judgment.  Break a leg.
'''Support''' Can be trusted with tools, and per everything else that has been said above. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' : 4 nominations in 7 months is of a concern, but I think his 27,000+ edits justifies how useful the tools will be to this candidate.I have seen him all around: FLCs, DYK, BRFAs etc. '''[[WP:WTHN|WTHN]]??'''. I dont think anybody has any concerns of possible misuse of powers as admin. OMG, What is the problem having a beautiful userpage ? It doesnt violate any rules of [[WP:NOTMYSPACE]]. He has only wikipedia relavent information on his page... Considering his participation in various areas of WP, this is not an oppose reason at all...Q7 answer was brave and honest! Appreciated ! [[User:Newsletterbot]] is very useful. I see no reasons to oppose. Best wishes --
'''Support''':  Seen him around, looks like a good addition to admin ranks,  Plus, the opposes seem a bit shallow.--
Certainly.  &ndash;
'''Oppose''' due to [[American and British English spelling differences#-our.2C_-or|inability to spell second word in username correctly]] :-D
'''Support'''  I have no doubt he will use the admin tools well.  --
'''Strong support''' - I think MFC does just fine with what he does. In fact, he's fantastic at vandal fighting and would use the block button well. I've read the opposes, and I just don't agree. Last time people said come back in a few months when you've corrected the minor problems, so he does just that, and he's getting opposed for it? It's a little disapointing that expected standards can change so much in such a short period of time. MFC wouldn't misuse the tools - they would help him do a better job at what he already does. It's not big deal, just a couple of extra buttons. I trust MFC, that's all that matters.
I'm supporting, as the opposes don't bother me: they're relatively minor issues, and he'll '''definitely''' be a helpful admin. ·
Looks like a great editor to me. I've read the reasons for opposition, and I find myself unconvinced. In the past MFC was opposed for doing too much vandal-fighting, so he's not doing as much of that, and has done a lot of (very good) article-writing. Several people cite immaturity and lack of communication as reasons to oppose; well, I have yet to see any evidence of immaturity, and as for communication, MFC has been good at that from what I've seen. Regarding "MySpacey tendencies"...I'm trying to work that one out: Nishkid64 mentions above about people coming to MFC for help, hence a lot of user talk edits. That again, doesn't make sense: people go to him for help, and if he responds and helps, he ends up increasing his user talk count, getting opposed for "socializing too much", and if he ignores people, he would gets opposed for "not being communicative enough". Finally, with the "too many RfAs" issue, I note that MFC has ''been nominated'', and hasn't self-nominated; in addition, I have complete confidence in the nominator. I can support this.
'''Support'''. He's waited four months, done pretty much everything that was asked of him in the last RfA very well, and seems a generally well-disposed and friendly individual. I see no problems at all.~ <font color="#000000">
'''Strong Support''' Wonderful contributions, and the opposition has done nothing to convince me otherwise.
'''Support''' - Very good user, well-improved. -- '''
'''Support''' as adoptee. Just to add to the list of admin-worthy attributes; MFC has never failed to be helpful as my adopter. Helping n00bs is an important trait for a potential admin.
'''Support'''. I think it's a geat shame when editors strong in some areas are opposed at RfA for a perceived weakness in others, particularly when comparing what might be called "technical" candidates and content-builders. Vandal fighters are advised to go away and write a couple of GAs, content-builders are advised to go away and whack some vandals. In other words, both are advised to do something they have no interest in and perhaps even no aptitude for. I'm pleased to see that MFC has begun to enjoy article writing, but that ought not to have been necessary, and I'm disappointed to see that in some cases his efforts have led to a new raft of opposition. ''C'est la la vie.'' RfA sucks. --
I'm
'''Support''' - no problems here, and I don't care how many RFAs he's had this year.  <b>
'''Support''' I am confident that the user would make a good admin --
'''Strong Support'''according to his contributions and answers to questions, I see no problem in giving him the mop. Good luck!--
'''
'''Support''' I think you'd be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Teens who "Myspace" make great admins. I don't care about his age, and I don't care about his socialising ability. I just know he won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Great editor, knows what is right and wrong, and most importantly he will be a <u>net positive</u> to Wikipedia.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''', never had any problems with this editor and it would be good for him to have the tools and help out at DYK.
'''Support''' - I am very surprised that you are not an administrator already! You're contributions are very valuable. --[[User:ComputerGuy890100|CG]] was here. ([[User talk:ComputerGuy890100|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/ComputerGuy890100|C]] -
'''Support''' I don't care how many times he applies for adminship in a year. He is a hard working editor and qualified to become an admin.
'''Support''' - would be a good administrator. That he lists his extensive work on articles on his main page as a reason to oppose is completely beyond my comprehension (disclaimer: I maintain [[User:Sephiroth BCR/Accomplishments|this page]] to list my article contributions). <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' - Great work in the mainspace, extensively experienced in the Wikipedia-space, and stellar interaction with other users. I see this user all over the place, everywhere I turn to, he seems to be helping out. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''The candidate's energy and ability, if applied to vandal fighting, can improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - per record, answers, and my previous support.  Age is not a consideration for me.
'''Support''' due to list of good and featured articles on his main page.  And yes, I too enjoy oreos... --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' I have no concerns.
'''Weak support''' I didn't check the candidate very well, but he seems fine. We don't need all admins to be the same. --

'''Oppose''' After the many and varied concerns raised in previous RfA  not enough time has passed to change my opinion.
'''Oppose''' per Maxim's points. Also I just find you too obsessed with becoming an admin, you've devoted far too much time to your User page and I get a strong MySpacey vibe from you.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Fourth RFA in less than a year, too bubbly, too young.
'''Oppose''', per the first part of Kurt's oppose. Your desire for the admin bit just seems, well, all too .... desperate. Weak however, because my interactions have been wholly positive and this does make me feel like I'm throwing those interactions in your face and wish it were otherwise. However changes of user name, repeated RFA's and the diffs above fuel my disquiet. Apologies,. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' Kurt has hit this one on the head. Social-networker who, with four RFA attempts in a year, appears to see the mop as a "badge of honour" rather than a way of serving the community. However, this user seems to be improving - just a shame they didn't wait a little longer to give us doubters that little bit more evidence needed. I don't like to oppose a Majorly/Al Tally nom as I normally see his point of "if the user won't do damage, why not support" - but that feeling is just overriden by my worry of fluffy, huggley-puggly MySpace-ness
<s>'''Weak</s> Oppose'''.  On one hand, the user has a demonstrable history of positive contributions to the 'pedia and generally seems aware of policy and procedure.  On the other hand, the 4 RfA's all since the beginning of this year kind of makes me leery.  A check of the user's last 500 edits shows a relatively disproportionate amount (fully 1 in 3) to the user_talk namespace, which also fuels the concerns above re: socializing.  Granted, the majority that I personally reviewed did seem to be concerned with Wikipedia, it is an inordinate amount of time talking about things compared to actually getting something done.  As mentioned above, this user does seem to be improving as time moves along but it might have been worth waiting just a little longer.  It's not that I distrust MFC, just feel uneasy about it at this time.
Strongly, per Maxim and George.
Per Daniel. —'''
'''Weak oppose''' - Editor has a clear problem responding as seen above, I have also noticed this trait in Milk's personality. —
'''Oppose''' I do not trust that this user will use the administrator tools responsibly.
I get the same MySpacey vibe as mentioned above, and am also concerned by his four RfAs in seven months. Sorry, but no. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Kurt, basically: concerns re maturity, repeated RfA attempts and per answer to Q7 weighed against the FLC and DYK concerns above.
'''Oppose''' per Maxim. I have an impression that he wants a "title" so badly per his DYK nominations --
'''Oppose''' as before - I don't see evidence that he has improved his maturity or communication skills, and he seems too focused on the MySpacey aspects. '''<font color="#ff9900">

'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I can't support. While you've done some good editing since your last RFA, the diffs that have been pointed out by some of the opposers are rather concerning, and I generally feel that four RFA's in this year alone so far is oversaturation. Sorry. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]]
'''Oppose''' - adminship is not a trophy.  I never thought I would say this, but oppose per Kurt. --
Reluctantly oppose per Giggy per (all of the above). You seem like a nice guy and all. Significantly, no one has raised meaningful red flags about any misbehavior etc. Why don't you.. just.. wait a while? Work on more articles? [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling]].[[User talk:Ling.Nut|Nut]] <sup>
Oppose - Is there a record for the number of RfAs in less than 12 months? (Noting in fairness that my second RfA followed close to my first.) That aside, while there are definitely positives with this user, my assessment of the user's contribs leans me towards opposing per [[User:jc37/RfA/Criteria|my criteria]]. I'd say let me know for next time if this doesn't succeed, but I have a feeling it won't be long off... -
'''Oppose'''. From what I've seen of him, he's too immature to be an admin and lacks the common sense needed to deal with more complex issues. The rate of learning he's demonstrated in the other places I've seen him in would indicate that he'd make too many mistakes before figuring out the correct way to handle the simpler tasks, which is especially important at places like aiv and rfpp, where he says he'd work. An admin won't be of much help if he needs someone to look over his shoulder at all times to make sure he's not breaking anything. Pending the answer to the 11th question (by George the Dragon), you should probably try again in a few years. -
Per Maxim's concerns. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Comparatively few substantive edits to main encyclopedia.  What there are are heavily focussed on a few particular articles.  I suspect this is an attempt to gain featured article or list status for personal plaudits. This fits in with the appearance of being desperate to gain adminship - is this just another trophy for your Wikipedia account?  Much has been said about the previous 'come back in x months' experiences, but I think this should be 'go away and ''forget about it'' for now'.  If at some point in the future a pattern of substantive edits in established and adminship seems a natural progression for MFC then by all means go for it again, but establishing some kind of history solely in an attempt to gain adminship seems a bad idea from the start.
'''Weakest oppose of all'''. There is a little thing that I dislike. As what others have said, I dislike your deperate attempts to be an admin. Your personality is fit to be an admin I suppose. My apologies,
'''Oppose:''' per Kurt (god in heaven, I never thought I would see the day I'd say that) and Maxim.  Four freaking RfAs in seven months?  I wouldn't want to see another one for at least a YEAR with that hyperaggression.  I have nothing against narrow focus of interest (I doubt more than 10% of my edits are outside hockey articles, AfDs and generic NPP), and I applaud nom's sensible decision to cut back from an insane 8000 edits in a single month, but what is the freaking hurry?  It seems like nom's out to take any criticism of inexperience, apply a tornado of edits to that area for a few weeks, proclaim himself as having rectified it, and holds out his hands once more for approval.  This is one of the signal weaknesses of the RfA/admin coaching culture, in that people get the (unfortunately accurate) notion that voters judge you on whether you've hit certain thresholds, so all you need to do is get X edits on ANI, Y edits in mainspace and Z edits on Talk pages and you're golden. Man, they shot me down because I didn't have enough article-building props?  Well, here ya go, look at all these DYKs I just went out and did!
'''Oppose''' Discounting the Myspacer aspect, I see many other serious concerns with editing and overeagerness. '''
'''Oppose''' Fifth RfA in  the same year, should you not wait a bit longer than that and per Maxim.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Ya know that kid in school who always raised his hand because he just ''had'' to answer the question and get the brownie points from the teacher?  Yeah.  4 RfA's in 7 months is a little too much.  Your interactions with the "myspacey" aspects of wiki also make me cringe.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' Due to the concerns raised above about depth of editing experience and the focus of the nominee's interactions with the community.
'''Oppose''' after having previously supported <small>(between #48 and #49 in that section)</small>.  —
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to do this, but I get a disquieting feeling about the candidacy. It seems too much like a campaign. He received dozens of barnstars in March, from other users who similarly focus too much on their userpages. I want admins to be encyclopedia writers. -
'''Long-winded oppose''': I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. Something's not quite right here. The Featured List and DYK brag sheet weakens a bit under scrutiny - I'm very interested in the answer to Sandstein's question above. MFC does good work vandal-fighting, and I even think the tools might help him do that job more effectively. If there was some way to guarantee that he would ''only'' use the tools to block vandals and handle DYK's, that might fly. But we can't un-bundle the tools, and I'm not at all confident in his ability to fulfill other administrative roles based on the presentation here.<p>I don't really need to see more evidence of vandal fighting, or even more DYK's or featured lists. I'd like to see some concrete, positive evidence of good judgement - a conflict where this editor has behaved maturely, or a thorny situation they've untangled, or even a case where they've cogently disagreed with an admin's actions. I can't subscribe to the idea that adminship is no big deal anymore when it's obviously untrue. We have enough vandal-fighters and RFPP patrollers. We need more admins with demonstrated good judgement, maturity, and a willingness and skill at resolving conflicts. MFC may very well have that skill set, but it's just not coming through here.<p>You're a good editor. You do good work. Adminship isn't a trophy or a validation, and if this doesn't pass you shouldn't take it as a rejection. Adminship is just a particular niche; someone could be a great editor, vandal-fighter, and encyclopedist, and not be right for this particular niche.<p>Incidentally, MFC, this RfA came to my attention through the behavior of your nominator. Fairly or not, his actions here reflect on you and influence this proceeding, and he's not doing you any favors. '''
'''Oppose''' - Being eager is one thing, starting the 5th RFA in 7 months is another. I don't expect admins to be all-round contributors (nobody is good at everything), but I do expect them to be patient. This looks like trophy hunting. I strongly suggest MFC that should this RFA fail not to try again before 2009. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' - I hate to be the one to say this, but adminship is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=217838607 no longer "no big deal"] and as such allowing users who treat Wikipedia like [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE|myspace]] would clearly not be in the communities best interest. Adminship is not a trophy or a status symbol, so please stop treating it like one.
'''Regretful oppose''', essentially per Kurt. The enthusiasm is much appreciated, but from looking at your contributions and answers above I just feel it is too much, too fast, too soon. I just don't sense the overall maturity I think we need from Admins. I have no idea of your age, and as others have said, in and of itself it is irrelevant. However, assuming that you are among our younger cohort, I think there is nothing specific you need to do except just let life in general and Wikipedia in particular soak in for another year or so.
'''Strong oppose''' Immature, willing to lie to support copyright infringement (see [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8#Image:Aston_mertin_lake.jpg]]). ˉˉ<sup>
'''Oppose''' per Anetode. I am sorry, but I simply do not believe that Milk took [[:Image:Aston_mertin_lake.jpg]] himself. A user willing to pass off the work of others as their own is a worrying trait in a Wikipedian, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in someone wishing extra responsibility on the project. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' per Kurt et al. I'd have liked to have seen questions 4 and 10 answered, also.
'''Oppose''' - I was originally going to support, as your contributions are overall, a clear net benefit to Wikipedia. Your age and the amount of previous RfAs does not concern me, nor does your willingness to help out editors in the user talk space and keep a nice userpage. However, I simply cannot ignore the [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8#Image:Aston_mertin_lake.jpg]] issue. The evidence suggests you uploaded the photo on a incorrect licence, and did not tell the truth when questioned about the photo. I have looked at the photo myself and I also think it is unlikely that you made it yourself. I also do not know how you managed to find a car with what appears to be a [[United Kingdom]] licence plate in [[Rhode Island]]. This quite a series issue as administrators are expected to respect Wikipedia's copyright policies and tell the truth. I have checked your user talk page archives and it appears nothing else happened after Anetode questioned your explanation except that you requested the image be deleted under [[WP:CSD#G7]]. I will reconsider my position on this if you will offer a clarification on what was the copyright status of the image, and if the answer is that it was not free, a confirmation that something like this will not happen again if you become an administrator. On a lesser issue, I agree with some concerns already given you are a little too quick with things, and how this will translate to your use of the admin tools might be of a concern - it is important that admins carefully review things before taking actions in complex situations, and I am not 100% convinced yet that you will do that. An example from personal experience that you were part of a sudden drive to get [[SimCity (series)]] to GA, the article went from Start to GA class so quickly (less than 24 hours) that those that had previously edited the article were left behind in the proceedings, and the article within a few weeks [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SimCity (series)/1|failed]] GA review. It would have been better to go at things more slowly here, and the same applies with use of the admin tools. So overall I must regretfully oppose.
'''Weak Oppose''' A few things immediately jumped out from reading this. A) You've tried to become an administrator too many times. Wait ''six'' months next time. B) You have greatly exaggerated your contributions to the site. Let us judge you on what you've actually done, not what you have claimed to have done.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I've seen MFC around a lot and while I really wanted to be able to support, in taking a closer look at all of the above (and my own concerns) I'm afraid I cannot. Spending his time working on his RFA when he knew he had [[Special:Contributions/Milk's_Favorite_Bot_II|a whole host of bot errors to clean up after]] was irresponsible and displayed poor judgment. Had he resolved them prior to working on and transcluding this RFA (rather than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080721205200&limit=6&target=Milk%27s%20Favorite%20Cookie&month=&year= making a partial rushed effort] only after I filed a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie_2&diff=227068368&oldid=227068134 neutral] because of that), it would not have been an issue - mistakes are inevitably made, and I won't fault someone for them as long as they fix them. But we're nearly 48 hours since MFC went offline, and some of those mistakes still aren't rolled back. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080721212000&limit=1&target=Milk%27s%20Favorite%20Cookie&month=&year= nature of his last edit] shows what he is most focused on, and I'm afraid that's troubling for me when our number one priority should be ensuring the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. My advice would be to stop trying to ''do everything'', you've got a wide breadth of contributions now, just focus on making sure each individual contribution is spot on. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per Maxim and RGTraynor. I have seen many of the things they mention from this user and that could be cause of some great concern if he were to have the tools. -
'''Oppose'''. I've never switched from support to oppose before, but the disturbing lack of honesty displayed in the interaction with Anetode is enough for me to do so. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Oppose'''. Despite the troublesome [[WP:MYSPACE]] aura permeating this "candidacy" (for lack of a better term), I held off on actually establishing my position here. However, the diffs provided by Anetode are a bit too troublesome to ignore (seemingly consistent with the <s>dishonesty</s> "''non-honesty''" expressed in Q12, as well). In addition, Mastcell (oppose #32 at the time of this writing) offers a well-reasoned viewpoint that far surpasses anything I could hope to muster. --
'''Oppose'''. Several serious concerns, notably Anetode's and MastCell's.
'''Oppose'''. While I have previously had a favorable personal impression of this candidate, I am highly concerned about the potentially poor ethics displayed [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8#Image:Aston_mertin_lake.jpg|here]], as widely discussed above, and his failure to follow through with demonstrating, if he was able, that the photograph was his. If it was not--as it seems likely--then his defense was a deliberate lie, which ''has'' to draw into question his integrity and whether or not he would, actually, do significant harm to the project. I am also concerned with issues raised in question #12 above. Given the potential deliberate lie about creation of the photograph, it is a little harder to AGF with regard to his requesting a DYK credit for his contribution to [[:Dorothy Canning Miller]] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorothy_Canning_Miller&diff=187534201&oldid=187027071 this]. The candidate seems to have understood at the time that substantial contribution was necessary; when he made the request for recognition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victuallers&diff=prev&oldid=187778360#Re:_dyk here], he had two sections above used the words "a good amount" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victuallers&diff=prev&oldid=187758920 here]). His only contribution to that article was a reference and the wikilinking of two years. None of these added anything substantial to the article, as the reference did not clarify the sentence further than the one already used. It is worrisome that the edits were made to an article already nominated for DYK, as it does seem potentially to justify the concerns expressed by some that this editor may have been trophy gathering. Additionally the (only just) deleted [[:Image:Bill_parcells.png]] (referenced in the oppose of [[User:DarkFalls]], currently #22) was a blatant infringement of [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/08/30/preseason/1.html an AP photo]. Given these concerns, I would be very uncomfortable supporting the granting of tools. The question of deliberate deception is ''far'' more worrisome than the other issues and, lacking a very good explanation, would not be easily overcome. --
'''Strong oppose''' per Anetode.  --
'''Oppose''' Change to opppose per copyright violations.
'''Oppose''' Changed to oppose because of the concerns voiced about copyright violations. Also, I would have liked the answers for questions 4 and 11. '''
'''Oppose'''. The concerns raised by [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] are serious enough for me to oppose this RFA.
'''Oppose'''. per honesty concerns that have been raised. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Strong Oppose''' per Anetode. The image is a copyright violation - it's on the internet at [http://www.rbok.com/blog/ http://www.rbok.com/blog/] dated May 5, 2005 and it's an oldish photo even then. The car in question is a UK spec Aston Martin Vanquish wearing UK plates, as issued to Aston Martin (quite a few demonstrators and press cars wore Y8xxMWL plates during early 2001 [http://www.ssip.net/upload/aston-martin-vanquish-driving-1_4.jpg same car] [http://www.netcarshow.com/aston_martin/2001-v12_vanquish/1280x960/wallpaper_0a.htm same car again different shot] [http://autodrum.com/img/media/wallpapers/aston_martin_vanquish_2006_01.jpg different press car]. Typing random bullshit into Wikipedia to convince others the image you've lifted from God knows what search engine simply shows you're a liar who can't really be trusted to edit, let alone be trusted to adminster the project. The decent thing to do know would be to confess you're a liar, apologise for wasting our time, withdraw and return with a decent nomination by a sensible and less argumentative, less childish, more mature nominator a year from now. Oh, are there any other image copyvios you want to confess to whilst we're at it, btw ?
'''Neutral''' for now, leaning to oppose.  I believe a good deal of the article work at [[J. R. Richard]] was done by [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]], and I have concerns about this editor's maturity and FAC participation, including a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ty Cobb/archive1|premature nom of Ty Cobb]] a few months ago (a poorly written article in need of reliable sources, and that MFC had barely edited).  The number of previous RfAs combined with the premature FAC nom suggest checklist-style admin coaching.
'''Neutral''' pending answers to question 10. Although this editor's first article [[Dense Fibrillar Component (DFC)]] leaves a great deal to be desired, his more recent additions are much better. However even now the history of some of the stubs he's created, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Bazin&oldid=187573329 Louis Bazin], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Henry_Johnson_%28baseball%29&oldid=192467211 John Henry Johnson (baseball)] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominic_Olejniczak&oldid=210229926 Dominic Olejniczak] indicate that he is still starting articles but not including references. I'd usually oppose for this, but his other contributions are pretty good. Will reconsider if there is a good reason for this.
Neutral for now. I think the answers above show <s>some infelicity</s> a lack of facility with the language, which is a problem in any admin but not a dealbreaker. More importantly, though, it looks like the answers are a bit careless and not well thought out - serious problems in an administrator, or an RfA candidate. I'd actually suggest that MFC reread the questions posed, his answers, and consider rephrasing what he has written (for instance, to a question of "Do you think it was fair you failed your last RfA" he replies "No" but seems to explain why it was, in fact, fair).
'''Neutral''' Just not sure what to do in this case.
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning toward Support</s> I am very impressed with how much article writing you have been doing lately, and I remember your anti-vandal work before your first (third?) RFA was good as well. <s>I will probably end up supporting,</s> but I am interested to see how you answer Xeno's question.
Pending more Q&A.
'''Neutral''' You claim that you have substantially edited 19 featured lists, but many of those lists have only been edited by you a couple of times.  I think you are a good user, but that this Rfa is premature.  You should've waited a longer time working to perfect all your areas of Wikipedia.  I understand that not everyone can edit all topics, because if you ask me a question about science, history, books, geography, or certain people, I can answer you almost immediately.  But not the rest, except Sports.  I also think you edit to become an admin, not to just be a normal editor.  Try to make your edits more subtle and do some underground work, and I might change to support. --
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning towards '''Weak Support'''</s> I think this candidate has done some fine work, and Keeper's points in the Discussion section are spot on for most of the opposes. I'm glad that MFC has found enjoyment in article work, and it's extremely disappointing to see people still opposing for that, even though it's what was recommended for him in his last RfA. His edit count and contributions are impressive; however, I get the feeling that adminship just may not be the thing quite yet. As I said, most of the opposes are rather ridiculous; however, I found Maxim's arguments to be fairly persuasive. I'm just not positive that MFC has the proper temperament for the mop. '''Update:''' Switching to just neutral per Anetode. Depending on candidate's responses to Q12 and Anetode's concerns, I may end up opposing.
'''Neutral''' Cookie has definitely improved from his previous RfAs, but I'm undecided on how he'd handle the tools.
'''Neutral'''. Originally, I was going to support. But after reading the arguments and evidences presented by both sides, I'm on neutral territory
'''Neutral'''. I don't think this user would misuse the tools, and the several Rfas are not a major problem to me. They just show the user wants to help Wikipedia, unless a major tool misuse is planned. However, I can't support because of [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8#Image:Aston_mertin_lake.jpg]], unless a reasonable explanation exists. --
'''Moral Neutral''' - to avoid pile-on at this point. I've been talking about this RfA extensively, and felt I wanted to weigh in. Reason I can't support is due to both maturity issues and specific photo copyright issues discussed above. The reason I'm not logging in a long oppose is because I've felt that MFC has been deceived by the community as to what constitutes a prepared admin. No one individual did it deliberately or with maliciousness, but collectively it appears MFC was led to believe that adminship can be aquired through x edits in y areas, and the whole concept of deep maturity along with the ability to handle tough situations was left to the wayside. He did was he was told, but was never told that maturity can't automatically be gained by spending a couple months doing featured lists and reporting some people to AIV. MFC - if you ever get around to reading this whole RfA, please ''do not'' set your next goal as passing RfA 5 (6?). I wont say wait 3 months, or 6 months, or a year, because I don't know when you will be ready, and frankly it's unfair to keep telling candidates to wait x amount of time when frankly we don't know when they will be ready. All I'll say is ''wait'', stop worrying about being an admin to the extent that's possible, and in due time you'll be ready, whether thats 3 months or 3 years.
'''Support''', I see nothing wrong with this user. Contributions indicate a strong grasp of verifiability policy on AFDs and image licensing policy, which are important aspects of the type of work he discusses in his responses above. Looks like a fine candidate. —
'''Support'''. Looks like a fine candidate. —
Oppose - doesn't meet my criteria of Pi<sup>42</sup> edit summaries per minute. ''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, and has turned on the prompt for edit summaries.
'''''Switch to strong per F/U rresponse to Q5'' Support''' Meets my standards. Reviewed talk and contribs.  Believe the one example and response Q5 were aberrations. PS I'm pretty sure that DHMO's !vote was intended as a support. He's to experienced to put it in the wrong column, and the criterion he cites would be impossible to meet. It's called a "joke oppose". Probably seemed funny at the time.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support''' Provided his commitment to start using edit summaries regularly sticks, I see no reason to Oppose. Keep cool though man, Q5 was a valid concern, a more civil answer wouldn't have killed you.  [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' I am supporting because he is a great editor, but come on, opposing him for just having not used the edit summary that often is something I do not agree with. I would like however to see him using it more often. Good luck. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''', encourage more use of edit summaries but it's not a failure criterion.
'''Support''' Generally good answers to questions, willing to assume that initial answer to number 5 was an aberration related to the difficulty of RfA.
'''SUPPORT''' good answers to questions; many, varied edits around wikipedia. Has conducted himself with dignity. Q5 answer is irrelevant to RfA. The edit summary debate is '''way''' overrated. Definately NOT a valid ''sole'' reason for opposition.--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''', also per follow-up reply to Q5. --
The answer to Q5 is "off topic", not "wrong". If giving an off topic answer is reason to oppose, perhaps we should rethink the question-answer system.
'''Support''' - I'm not a fan of the answer to question 5 but balanced against the extensive high-quality contribution and demonstrated understanding of the workings of Wikipedia, I'm perfectly comfortable giving support to this nomination. I'm a bit concerned at the exponential leap in RfA standards - it sometimes seems an editor needs a perfect record of creating multiple FA-class articles with nary a typo, adding penetrating insights to every policy page, preserving the grace and gentility of a saint at all times, and maintaining a 100% edit summary record even in the sandbox. On the specific issues - the article on [[Counterpoint LLC]] is a one-line stub that doesn't assert notability, but that surely isn't a heinous crime. Out of 17,000 contributions, a single minor mistake in creating an inoffensive non-notable stub is nothing. Edit summaries? Yes, do something about that, like turn on the automated prompt. The answer to question 5? Too aggressive, and not the right approach, but is offset by the rest of your record.
'''Support'''. With the critical issue of edit summaries now resolved, can't see any problem here. Comment on fair {ab}use images is heart-warming.
'''Support'''. Objections based on edit summary usage seem to be based on bean counting rather than serious examination of contributions. Mind meal uses edit summaries when they are useful, and not when they are not. In general has a great record of encyclopedia building and an understanding of what Wikipedia is about. As regards the objection to creation of an article without cast-iron sources, would we regard the creator of [[Mzoli's Meats]] as unfit to be an admin? There was another objection based on supposed incivility in an AfD; I don't see any incivility there - only a robust insistence that arguments should be based on policy and guidelines, demonstrating a good understanding of these.
'''Support''' –  a hard working editor who will definitely do more good than harm.  With regards to question 5, I am in '''Agreement''' with his answer. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Your editing pattern and your use of edit summaries seem rather spotty, to say the least. Would you not agree that a reasonable edit summary is both polite and helpful? --
'''Oppose'''. Edit summary usage is too erratic. Also, good editor, likes discussion, but at nearly 18,000 edits, only 650 in the  Wikipedia namespace?
'''Oppose'''. I have no real issue with the lack of edit summaries: you have said that you'll turn this option on and in any case I agree, sandbox edits hardly need a summary. My problem is with civility and a cool head. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viridae&diff=147649369&oldid=147648003 This edit] from last year is old enough that I wouldn't let it sway me now. But a much more recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bowman|AfD discussion]] saw some remarks from you that I felt were intemperate. Even though you were right and the article stayed - perhaps ''especially'' because you were right. You could have let your rational arguments speak for you and even win over your opponents. If you were to be an admin you would get into much more stressful situations than an AfD, and coolness under fire is one of my essential requirements for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Per edit summary, sorry! [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]]) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—
'''Weak Oppose''' per answer to question 5.  Sorry.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' per answer to Q5. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Oppose''' Per Q5 answer.  I know you can easily get scrutinized during the Rfa process, but I never took it as anything less/more than a learning experience to know where I could improve my work around here.
'''Oppose''' - Q5.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but like most of the opposers, I can't really appreciate your answer to Q5, to put it gently.
'''Weak Oppose''' - The answers to some of the questions and the lack of Edit Summary on Major Edits is of concern.
'''Weak Oppose''' As above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #006600;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. A good contributor, but per above, not quite ready to be an admin yet.
'''Oppose, for now''' - will be glad to support with more experience.  '''''
'''Oppose''' - Regrettably, I’ll have to agree with some of the above comments about your experience. You seem to be a fantastic article writer and editor, however I don’t see very much experience in the admin areas of the project. I encourage you to spend some time reviewing [[Special:Newpages]] and to submit some reports to [[WP:AIV]]. In other words, get some more ''para''-admin experience and you’ll be much better prepared to be an admin. —
'''Oppose''' As above.
'''Oppose''' - per TravisTX.
'''Neutral''' - good editor, but low edit summary usage concerns me. &nbsp; '''
'''Neutral''', I really want to support, but the lack of edit summary usage really does concern me.  Not opposing as the user is obviously a high-quality contributor to the project.
'''Neutral''' per jj137. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Great user. Edit summary use is too low, bump it up and I'll be glad to support you. '''
'''Neutral''' The image thing was soptty for me, but you seem like a great editor!
'''Neutral''' - I really can't oppose, since you have such great contributions. The things holding me from support are the low edit summary usage, and the answer to Q5. Regarding the low edit summary usage, I would strongly recommend turning on that setting in the preferences. It saved me, it should save you too. Regarding Q5, I kind of disagree with the comments other users gave. Those questions aren't mandatory, so you can respond like that. However, the problem with your response was that it contradicted one of the tips to RfA, that your edits will come under constant scrutiny. Don't be discouraged, just keep working harder! <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]] [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count]
'''Neutral''' Good user, I wanted to support, but I also have some concerns from the oppose section. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Can't support, but the opposes over the edit summaries are rather silly.
'''Neutral''' (to avoid pile on). I first met this editor yesterday. See [[User_talk:Roger_Davies#Deletion_Review_for_Caitriona_Reed|'''here''']] for information backfill. Anyhow, [[Caitriona Reed]] is now back in mainspace and the subject still isn't obviously notable and the article still doesn't assert notability. I'm not persuaded about calmness, judgment, or understanding of procedure. --
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' - strong editor and I don't think the editor would abuse the tools, but the [[Thomas Ponniah]] incident left a bad taste to me, specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJd027&diff=191092315&oldid=189998417 this], and other similar incidents to other users. Plus, I don't find the answers to the questions particularly satisfactory, but it's only my opinion.
Sorry, but because of the answers to questions I don't believe you have a firm grasp of what an administrator does.  Come back in a few months after you get an [[WP:ADCO|admin coach]].  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in admin-like areas, as demonstrated by only 59 Wikipedia namespace edits. A vast majority of your edits came during the last 6 weeks. Sporadic use of edit summaries. Answers to questions leave something to be desired. Some more experience is needed, perhaps [[WP:ER|an editor review]] or admin coach, as mentioned above, will help.
'''Strong Oppose''' Didn't answer the questions given in much thought. Also, I think this user isn't ready for the tools.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Oppose''' Your longest answer is 6 words. You can say a lot in 6 words but you failed to answer the questions to the extent that it would allow the community understand your desire to be an adim or your intentions once adminship was received. <b>
'''Oppose''' While your first edits was in june 07, you have only been actively involved for three months.  That is not enough time to assess your interactions on wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' seems to have little grasp of the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]] image policy per this upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Rick_Astley.gif&action=history].
'''Oppose''' answers scare me... particularly #3 where he would block somebody with whom he has a problem.  Recommend speedy closing this on...
'''Oppose''' Not the biggest fan of self noms. And your answers to questions aren't that in-depth. --'''
'''Oppose''' Very very premature -- user has been active less than a month. --
'''Strong support''' as nom. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Great help at TfD. '''
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom :D
'''Strong Support''', excellent editor, smart, fair-minded, great attitude.  Will make an excellent admin.
In my interactions with Mizu onna sango15, I found her to be a polite person who responds well to criticism, and someone who learns from mistakes. She'll be excellent.
'''Support''', per delving into her contributions. Yes, she made a few mistakes in tagging speedies. Most people who have tagged speedies have made mistakes there at some point. She has tagged ''far'' more correctly than she has incorrectly. What I most like about this user is her humility when confronted with her mistakes and her willingness to change and grow from them. I think she would make a very solid administrator. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but there's a number of inappropriate pages Mizu has tagged for speedy deletion over the past couple of months which means I don't think he has a good enough grasp of the speedy deletion criteria to use the delete button effectively. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PriceSCAN&diff=prev&oldid=220036100 Here] he tags [[PriceSCAN]] which has multiple independent sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Carey_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=214776515 This] tag for A7 has notability because [[Rick Carey (singer)]] was a member of the band [[Baha Men]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vincent_Cruz&diff=prev&oldid=211207782 This] clearly isn't nonsense, and [[Vincent Cruz]] has written several books. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Black_(judge)&diff=prev&oldid=211207696 He tagged] the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia for A1, yet it clearly had a context by stating his roles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reynir_B%C3%B6dvarsson&diff=prev&oldid=211203655 Here] [[Reynir Bödvarsson]] was tagged, yet there was a claim to notability by being responsible for the Swedish National Seismology Network. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Morris_(PC-1179)&diff=prev&oldid=211161286 This] just isn't nonsense - it's a good faith attempt by a newbie that could easily have been fixed with formatting changes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Morton_(cricketer%2C_born_1882)&diff=prev&oldid=210956539 Here] he tagged [[Arthur Morton (cricketer, born 1882)]], yet he had played first team cricket for the county of Derbyshire. Finally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_McKenna_(attorney)&diff=prev&oldid=210729833 here] he tagged an attorney that had been on numerous American TV shows (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_McKenna_(attorney)&diff=prev&oldid=210729833#Legal_Commentary the legal commentary section]).
'''Strong Oppose''' - I've seen this user working at UAA, and simply would not trust them with the block button. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=222563277], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=222516788 user didn't even edit], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=221577643], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=221577345], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=221375612], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=221353189 a question in an UAA report?] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=221241148 apalling]. There are more like this - tenuous, borderline, users who haven't edited.
'''Oppose''' The concerns raised above are legitimate. I am also concerned about the rather light edit history that has nearly 2/3's of all of this editors edits taking place in the past two months. There is definite potential here, and a broader edit history will go a long way to changing my opinion in a future RfA.
'''Oppose'''. Good editor, generally because she have a good heart willing to help others (adoptee program, etc). However, she seems to be emotional when conflicting to people who have other opinions. Tagging speedy deletion hastily to newly created articles is also a problem.--
'''Oppose''' I wish I could support  this very civil editor who does good work, but,  I don't think you are ready yet, the CSD diffs and UAA diffs indicate you need to become more familiar with deletion process and blocking policy. Work on those and retry in a few months and you will succeed.—
'''Oppose''' Try again in a couple of months (4-6 would be good). That way, you'll get some more experience and truly be ready.
'''Regretful Oppose''' The diffs Ryan brought up bother me very much. When doing new pages patrol you ''must be extra careful'' since a lot of new pages are created by newbies. You don't want to tag a perfectly fine page, and have the article creator leave wikipedia because of it. In the past few months you've tagged at least 9 appropriate articles. I'm not saying you're careless when doing new pages patrol, but you're not ''careful enough''. I trust you'd use the delete tool appropriately most of the time, but not enough of the time. Some of [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89's]] diffs bother me as well. If it weren't for those things I'd support you, and I hope you have another Rfa in the future:-) Sorry for opposing you this time.--'''<font face="Times New Roman">
Here for the wrong reasons. —'''
'''Support''' Proud to be the first to support. Long-time contributor whose edits have clearly been a net benefit to the project. I think most of the issues of the past have been resolved and I honestly do not believe that he ever deserved to have his adminship revoked by AbrCom. Regardless in his time as admin he did alot to help clear backlogs and considering his consistent editing to the project since then I believe he would be helpful in those tasks.--
'''Support''' - Darn it, not the first support.
Time to get back in the saddle.
'''Support''' -- knows this place better than most. -
'''Support'''  - clearly been around. can be trusted. good at 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support''' Solid contributor.
'''Support''' The fact that he sticks with this project after going through so much turmoil shows how devoted he is to bettering Wikipedia. I'm confident he will not repeat the same mistakes again, which weren't severe enough to merit desysopping to begin with. <font color="green">
'''Support''' A genuinely good contributor, who has hopefully learned from his previous experiences.
I'm willing to give him another try.
'''Support''' with pleasure. Mongo's a great editor and admin, and a very decent person. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' An extremely devoted contributor. Does all he can to help Wikipedia.
'''Support''' -- longstanding contributor. --
'''Support''' Mainly due to experience.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
I have not always agreed with MONGO, but I think the Arbcom was wrong to desysop in that case, and MONGO has done a good job in keeping the 9/11 conspiracy theorists at bay. Try to be a bit more diplomatic in your wording though (speak softly and carry a big stick etc.)
Absolutely. &mdash;
'''Support''' Anyone can learn from their mistakes, and I believe that [[User:MONGO|MONGO]] has done so. Deserves another chance. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' Most definitely. Best of luck to you, MONGO!
'''Strong Support''' There's no doubt that MONGO can be gruff at times; but, he's much tamer than many who still wield the mop.  He undeniably has the project's best interests at heart, and has the drive and experience to handle tougher tasks than most.  Giving him the mop again would greatly benefit the project.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more administrators willing to stop the pushing of nationalistic POV, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and original research. This is a difficult job that often creates controversy.  However, with MONGO's experience, I think he will be extremely careful not to repeat any past mistakes. We give editors many extra chances.  MONGO deserves a second chance too.
'''Support''' He works hard to improve Wikipedia and believes in our goals. Deserves another opportunity to serve as an administrator.
'''Support''' great contributor to the project, extremely dedicated in the face of stiff opposition and harassment in the past. Most would have abandoned the project by now under similar circumstances. After all that, I don't know why he would want to be an admin again, but if he's willing, I wish him the best of luck. --
'''Support'''. A fine editor who definitely deserves and should get the tools.--
'''Strong support''' per Xoloz.
'''Support''', great user with loads of edits.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support,''' with the comment for the record that the candidate (like any other administrator) should not use the tools with respect to areas where he is personally involved in a dispute.
'''Support.''' For the reasons stated by Dual Freq.
'''Support.''' MONGO has my full confidence.
'''Support'''; experienced, sane, and possesses loads of common sense.
'''Strong Support''' - Will definitely help the project with the tools.
MONGO has always had my confidence.  He continues to have my '''support'''.
'''Support''', MONGO has my confidence and support as well.  Good person, good editor.
'''Support''' - I belive MONGO has learnt lessons from past mistakes and will once again make a fine administrator on the project.
'''Support''' I agree with Xoloz. Mongo has produced some regrettable diffs but I think he's doing the right thing on a lot of articles, when you really get down to it. --

Yes of course.
I strongly support this nomination: MONGO is a great user: he's a brilliant content contributor, an effective user, and, despite what the opposition says, I've found him to be civil and kind. He cares a lot, and stands up to trolls and other bullies and cowards, and hasn't let them drive him off the project. Him being an admin again will be positive, and I don't believe he'll abuse the tools at all. ''
'''Support''' Indeed, I do encourage editors to read the thread Alison has referred to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alison/Archive_17#Checkuser_poll_or_vote here for convenience]. Read it through, especially what Mongo is saying and I think you'll agree that instead of "massive assumptions of bad faith" you'll find him bending over backwards to AGF. It wasn't Mongo who supplied the heat (such as there was) to that conversation. Mongo, while outspoken, has done significant good for Wikipedia. You don't have to be an admin to do good surely, but I think Mongo has reached the point where he understands the boundaries and will be fine. The Arbcom decision was borderline, and even Jimbo said at the time that he would support Mongo in the future. He was speaking as an editor obviously at the time, so take that for what it's worth to you. In the end, the questions is whether Mongo will be a net gain as an admin and whether he is likely to abuse the tools. At this point I think it's clear enough that he has a good enough understanding of tools not to abuse them and so would certainly be a net gain. Unfortunately there will be some opposes here based on content issues (especially 9/11 conspiracy theory related)...hopefully editors can see through those.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' - the conversation with Alison below is somewhat disturbing, but I think MONGO does a lot of good work and there's no reason whatsoever to believe he would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Known this editor for awhile. Mongo is a good contributor. He did his best in the face of pov pushers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists when most editors would have thrown in the towel.  I believe in second chances. We all make mistakes. I believe Mongo has learned from them and will make a better admin from the knowledge he has gained.--
'''SUPPORT'''
'''Support'''. I have only good experience with him. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', I believe this individual to be a net asset to the project. --
'''Support'''. Yes, MONGO is controversial and has strong opinions. This is in many ways a good thing, since it demonstrates his genuine passion for the project, as well as his essential honesty. But more to the point: the fact that someone is argumentative and opinionated is not ''in itself'' a reason to oppose them for adminship, as long as they don't abuse the admin tools to pursue a personal agenda. MONGO did not systematically abuse the admin tools, and, as pointed out above, there are many current admins whose use of the tools has been far more controversial. What I gather from the arbitration case is that, on one occasion, he got into a conflict with another admin, flew off the handle and performed a couple of dodgy sysop actions, and the ArbCom decided to desysop both of them to appear even-handed (and possibly ''pour encourager les autres''). Given his long record of ''good'' admin actions, a sound history of service to the encyclopedia, and the long period of time which has elapsed since his desysopping, I think we can trust him to be a sysop again. I should also add, briefly, that I fully understand his passion for the BADSITES policy, given that he's been a victim of harassment on ED (which is a truly repugnant site; unlike WR et al., which have some genuine claim to be reviewing Wikipedia and its problems, ED is basically a trollish slanderfest which is almost certainly going to be sued for libel at some point).
'''Support''', as someone who knows how to use the tools effectively and yet has had to work without them for more than a year now, MONGO is highly likely to use them with care and carefully avoid violating policy on the proper use of admin tools. So a return of them seems to be a good idea and beneficial to the project.
'''Support'''. Mongo has paid dearly enough for his one error which, in light of later developments,  was not as bad as it might have seemed at the time. He should be reinstated.
'''Support''' No questions, no doubts.
'''Support''', for a couple of reasons: a) on principle, I'll take someone who has learned from his/her mistakes over anyone who doesn't think that he/she is capable of making any - and he is very clearly wiser from his experience; b) nobody seems to be arguing with his ability to be prudent when he wants to be; I read [[User:Alison|Alison]]'s complaint below, and I'm not impressed. MONGO has every right to question the participation of people in WR, and he was very civil in his reservations and disagreements. I would urge him to take a deep breath when he finds himself on one side of a contentious issue. But if we were to clip the wings of everyone who got too passionate about issues, there wouldn't be many editors left here, and the articles wouldn't be as good. --
'''Support.''' MONGO's a guy with integrity but with a short fuse. I'll support that kind of admin over the mealy mouths any day. He's also never gotten enough credit for his devoted defense of [[WP:FRINGE]], a sludge where too few admins are willing to get their feet wet.
MONGO is one of the most dedicated editors in the project, and was harrassed by severe trolls and such and keeps on editing. Tools should have never been removed from him. Proud to support
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Disagree with Alison's comments.
'''Support''' - Overall a strong addition to the fray.--
'''Support''' - There are many administrators who are worse.  Doesn't seem fair to have a higher standard to acquire the tools than there is to retain the tools.
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''' Mongo.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support.''' He's learned his lesson. Let the community forgive him.
'''Strong support''' per all of the above and, to be honest, most of the below as well.  MONGO has learned what needed to be learned from past mistakes and the project needs people whoa re prepared to stand up and be counted. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Strong support''', this editor is brave and a true troll-slayer whenever I have seen him in action.
'''Support''' as per my past, positive interactions with this editor.  I have no doubt that he will make good use of the tools.  --
'''Support''', good editor. --
'''Support''' yep.
'''Support''' His hard work on Wikipedia far out gains an negatives and he is a major asset and deserves to have the tools again. ---
'''Support''' If not Mongo then who?
'''Support''' Time to right a great wrong.
'''Support''' - Yes. I am supporting him. --
'''Support'''. Giving him back the tools will be a strong net positive for the project.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Mongo understands and is commited to the encyclopedia and the community that writes it. With his experience as a writer and administrator, giving him the tools would advance the project.
'''Support''' with pleasure. --
'''Strong support''' MONGO's temperament has improved, in regards to dealing with those advocating 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I'm confident that he won't misuse the tools.  Nowadays, MONGO does much vandalism fighting, reporting blatant vandals to the [[Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism]] page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=176729987] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=176728310] but would be better if he could just block them himself.  He also does quite a lot of article writing, and has been an enormous help in getting articles I've worked on to featured status (e.g. [[7 World Trade Center]]). He's highly committed to Wikipedia and should have the tools back. --
'''Strong support''' per above.
'''Support''' You seemed to have dropped your mop. Let's just see what happens if you do get the tools back. '''<font face="verdana">
'''Support''' Experienced editor, learned his lesson. --
'''Support''' - I do not see any reason why not to restore his bit.
'''Strongest Possible Unqualified Support''' The good things that this editor has done for the project outweigh the negative by leaps and bounds.  I am confident that he won't misuse the tools.  Wikipedia needs more admins that are not afraid to stand up to POV pushers and junk science.  I think his de-sysoping was a travesty. --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' good things outweigh bad, he will not use tools in areas of personal dispute.
'''Support'''. Browsing through your contributions, you seem to be an excellent editor.
'''Strong Support''' - Too controversial '''not''' to be an admin..If you can speak your mind, then you deserve to be an admin..hope this works out..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''' He deserves a second chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a great contributor, thoughtful, a pleasure to collaborat with, sensible.  A valued part of the project!
'''Weak Support''' weak only due to the issues cited below - hopefully this will be resolved when being an admin, but he has been a very good contributor to the encyclopedia.--
'''Support''', Thinks with his head, and takes WP policy seriously. --
'''Support'''. Good editor, understands policy well, sensible approach.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Does good work, including some good cleaning-up and seems to have reasonable self-insight. --
'''Support'''. This editor has long shown his good intentions towards the project. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support'''.  MONGO has tread a longer road than many of us, and I think he's learned from that road.  I'd like to urge those who are judging him from past interactions to look at his behavior ''since'' the Arbcom case, which I think is well within the bounds of expected behavior.  I'd be glad to give him a mop and bucket again.
'''Support''' I peer-reviewed the Yellowstone fires article for MONGO, and was impressed by his attitude and writing ability.  Nothing has happened in the last year that would warrant a desysopping if he were still an admin now - including that unfortunate discussion cited by Alison, where I certainly disagree with MONGO's opinion.
'''Support''' - would make fine admin. Learned from past issues. I disagree with reasoning that just because a user edits contentious articles means he would make a bad sysop.
'''Weak support'''. MONGO seems highly experienced and has contributed a lot of good work to the project, and this needs to be kept in mind. However, the diffs provided below do concern me somewhat. I think he could use the admin tools well, which is why I'm supporting, but I'm slightly concerned that he might misuse them with deletions and blocking - for example, with the [[Salty Walrus]] article, since I'm not an admin I can't see the deleted content, but an article about a slang term for a sexual act describing it as such in a coherent manner does not meet any of the [[WP:CSD]] such as G1 [[WP:PN|patent nonsense]], even if it's obviously not a notable term, violating [[WP:V]], [[WP:N]], [[WP:WINAD]] and possibly [[WP:NOR]], this still isn't a speedy delete - that's just part of the deletion process which we go through (there is also [[WP:SNOW]] though, which I believe is a controversial issue). I must also say that becoming involved in disputes or controversy is definitely not a valid reason to oppose someone becoming an administrator. For example, I believe that MONGO's statements during the controversy surrounding Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the off-wiki [[WP:ATP|attack page]] about MONGO on ED were perfectly justified. He was also absolutely right to support the deletion of the ED article, because the website itself lacks non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources - certainly not enough to have an article with much information at all without violating [[WP:NOR]] - I would support having an article on ED if third-party coverage was significant enough to allow for an encyclopedia article, but it's not at the moment. The reason we don't have an article on it is because it fails [[WP:V]], not because it's a controversial topic.--'''
'''Support'''. Given all the crap he's had to deal with from persistent trolls and their enablers, I'm surprised he's still here. --
'''Support'''. Mongo has matured with his experience.
'''Strong support'''. Heroic and bearish admin, like those of legend. Desysopped on an aberrant process, IMHO. Has weathered a zillion papercuts from the ED luker brigade. Still a fine and stable page contributor. Transparent. Knows the dark streets.
'''Support'''. Tireless contributor.  A bit gruff which might come off to some as rudeness but is just plain speaking.  Moving to New York from the south, I thought all New Yorkers were rude.  They're not.  MONGO speaks his mind. --
'''Support''' -- I have no personal experience with MONGO's work, either as an editor or administrator.  But he has gone on record with satisfactory answers to the key questions I ask candidates for administrator.
'''Support''' — MONGO is a drama magnet, primarily due to his editing in the September 11 articles, but his civility (a problem in the past) has improved recently, to the point where restoring his admin tools is justified. Being at the center of a dramastorm generated primarily from a series of banned editors, single-purpose accounts, and POV-warriors is not sufficient reason to deny someone admin tools. While he was de-adminned in the past, there is no indication that he will make the same errors again, and unlike most others who have had the tools removed, he neither left Wikipedia in a huff nor requested the tools again in a matter of weeks. '''
'''Support'' Can be trusted to regain them.
'''Support''' Reading the oppose lobby I keep seeing ''Mongo is an excellent, wonderful editor, but...''. Well I think wonderful editors should be recognised. ''but...'' Well my experience this that it is easy (rightly or wrongly) for a small group to push out an admin -so what is the problem?
'''Support''' Although it's damn near pointless now. *sigh*. ''"I hope you'll allow me to serve the community as an administrator once again"'' Yes, that would be the ticket. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': --
➔ '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. People grow. People learn. I think Mongo's heart and brain are in the right place for this request.
'''Support''' - Kingturtle said it well. ←
'''Support''' per Dorftrottel.
I was considering opposing MONGO at first, but upon consideration, I realise he is more thoughtful than my previous impressions, I think he learned a lot from his previous status as an admin and I think he would not intentionally misuse or abuse the tools if they were given to him for a second time.  I am concerned, however, that the harassment that plagued him (and I do mean harassment) might return, if he were given the bit.  I guess as long as he recognises this and thinks he can cope with it, then so be it.  :)  --
'''support''' utterly committed wikipedian. Sure he's made mistakes, but given he's learned from them I'm more confident of him than any untested user we pass on the nod. It is ridiculously too hard to resysop.--
'''support''' what we '''don't need''' is to give rise to a crop of administrators who are so afraid of being criticized as "controversial" that they will back down when faced with nutcases who are more than happy to get into a fight to support their particular pathological edits.
'''Support''', ArbCom was completely wrong on his case and the de-adminship decision should never have gone through; '''it basically puts forth the principle that no admin can take any action, right or wrong, on any subject they have had any amount of previous participation in.'''  MONGO is a good editor and admin, and should still have has sysop bit. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per Xoloz and B; in other words, nobody's perfect.
'''Support''': Too many Wikignomes as Admins and this user is clearly committed to Wikipedia.
Happy to '''support''', nobody's perfect.
'''Support'''.  Anyone who deals with the garbage on 9/11 articles needs to be commended rather than punished. --
'''Support'''. I was not always happy with his comments, but I think he has learned a lot and is a valuable contributor. I won't hold having an actual opinion (and admitting it) against him. --
'''Support''' - needs the tools back. &nbsp; '''
It has been so long since I last edited a RfA... but indeed, this user appears to have had a change of heart. It is expected that controversial users fail their first RfA after an incident of magnitude, and though [sadly] I believe he will never be trusted by the community again, I am willing to give him a new chance. After all, I am controversial myself and [I think] can recognize when someone is saying something truthfully. --
'''Support''' - major contributor.
We have the unusual benefit here of not having to ''guess'' how this candidate would use the tools- we already know.
'''Oppose''' as user doesn't seem to be able to [[WP:AGF]].   [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#Socks_at_Rfa|diff]]  -
'''Quite strong oppose''' Whilst this user has demonstratrated the ability to use admins tools in a "good" way, he has a long history of asuming bad faith and generally seems to get involved in disagreements a lot. Admins are expected to be much more reasonable, able to [[WP:TEA|sit down and have a cup of tea]].--
'''Oppose''' - too many disputes and cannot trust user with tools.
'''Oppose''', although I've got no problem with MONGO editing on controversial topics, what I ''do'' have a problem with is the way MONGO always seems to get involved in drama when he does so.  Has misused admin tools in the past, and I'll have to disagree with those above, and say that I think his desysopping was very much warranted.  I acknowledge that MONGO has made a huge stack of valuable edits since his desysopping, but I just do not trust him with the tools again.
'''Oppose'''. My experiences with MONGO do not lead me to believe he would use the admin tools appropriately. -
'''Regretful oppose'''. I respect MONGO's dedication to the site and I think in general he would be a fine admin. However, following the admittedly highly regrettable personal attacks he faced on an external site, he has in my opinion advocated an understandable but overly simplistic agenda regarding so-called attack sites. That in itself (which could merely be called a disagreement of opinion and is frequent and desirable amongst dedicated Wikipedians) is not a reason to oppose. However, he has fairly recently continued to advocate this agenda with such passion and zeal that I cannot be certain enough he would not use admin tools to support it with actions beyond what could reasonably be called consensus on the matter. I'll be fully prepared to support MONGO in an RFA in a few months if either a) the so-called attack sites issue does not resurface and is shown to be passé or uncontroversial, or b) if it does resurface, MONGO either treats it with greater dispassion or stays away from it.
'''Oppose''' as an admin; suport as a wikipedian. MONGO is a wonderful asset to wikipedia, but we are better off with a touch less drama.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Seems to feed on drama, I've seen him in passing in rather questionable matters, and I am worried that he would in fact abuse the tools. Alison's diff below sums things up, I'd say.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Weak Oppose''' - While I can understand his position re. BADSITES and the dreadful incidents regarding himself, his [[User_talk:Alison/Archive_17#Checkuser_poll_or_vote|massive and ill-directed assumptions of bad faith]] on the part of others concerns me greatly. This example is obviously the one I'm most familiar with, but there have been others. I've seen him doing some excellent work on WP but admins need to be super-neutral on such matters and basically, convey the will of the community in as fair and as considerate a manner as possible. I'm not so sure he will do this -
'''Change to Oppose''' Per Alison's evidence at [[User_talk:Alison/Archive_17#Checkuser_poll_or_vote|massive and ill-directed assumptions of bad faith]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' essentially what Martinp and Alison said. May be a great editor but not someone I'd trust in a position of power. (adminship ''is'' a position of power, relatively speaking) -
'''Oppose''', per Alison. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Strong Oppose''' if I was deemed unfit to be an admin, Mongo certainly is. He regularly makes personal attacks, both on and off site. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' This user is not sufficiently inclined to AGF.
'''Oppose''', completely unsuited to adminship.
'''Oppose''', per his interaction with Alison and the over-zealousness on the BADSITES thing that it came from. <s>This user has become addicted to wikidrama;</s> His edit-warring on a policy page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=162715394], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=162815293], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=165208060], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=165210549], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=165212703], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=165577615], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=165660829], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=165675069], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=166221258], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=166221708], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=166225540], all within a two-week period in October 2007), shows that he fails to understand the spirit of [[WP:3RR]]; along with that, some of the edit summaries in those edits show that he does not adequately understand [[WP:CIVIL]] or [[WP:NPA]] either (ironically enough, the latter was the policy page he was edit-warring over; BADSITES again). I do not doubt that he thinks he is acting from good motives, or that he is a nice person. However, this kind of behaviour shows that he has failed to make the necessary improvements since his deadminship. Giving him the tools back would be a very serious mistake, in my opinion. --
'''Oppose''' User seemingly can not avoid drama, and has been involved in several (though unaccepted) requests for arbitration since his desysopping.--
'''Oppose''' Previous issues have been caused primarily by MONGO's attitude, and I see no evidence of that having changed. --
'''Strong Oppose'''Too many [[WP:AGF]] violations in the past with no evidence of change as stated by Tango. --
'''Oppose''' per Alison and others. I should note in doing so that I am impressed with this user's off-wiki efforts in combatting very serious harassment of Wikipedians. However, that does not for me at least mitigate this user's long history of personal attacks, failure to assume good faith and the endless drama generated from this user's disputes with others, especially on right-vs-left hot button political topics. That is acceptable with a user, as we have many fine contributors in a similar situation, but with admin tools it becomes a hazard.
'''Oppose''' Per Alison etc. The drama is drastically diverting this whole project. I am sure there are better un-drama editors out there to whom the bit should go. --[[User:Mceder|mceder]] (
'''Oppose''', sorry but this is bound to cause more drama. --
'''Oppose''' - per Alison and Martinp; I can't see an immense amount of improvement, espcially in AGF, since the (IMHO deserved) desysopping. <b>
'''Oppose''' We should have learned by now that otherwise-exceptional users who get in fights make bad administrators.
Absolutely not. While he might be good at writing articles, he is not fit for admin duties, as per above points. '''
No. I hardly even needed Alison's link to know about his massive and ''repetitive'' tendencies to assign guilt by association. He threw a lot of mud in "BADSITES part 2", and there was no "bending over backwards to AGF" there. —
'''Oppose''' Per all the sited diffs. Needs to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and be less.... dramatic. [[Wikipedia]] is not [[high school]]. --'''
'''Strong Oppose'''.  He's fine as an author of mainspace articles, but not so good as a person to be trusted with any sort of power or authority over others.  He has been a major force in the BADSITES nonsense from its inception; the oft-cited ArbCom decision constantly used in [[Appeal to authority|arguments from authority]] in that area had his name on it.
'''Oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&oldid=165183322#Final_warning_on_personal_attacks]. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' with deep regret. I really like MONGO as a person, and think he means very well. And he's often right about stuff, important stuff... But somehow I don't see him having the "deft touch" needed to be an effective administrator, so I cannot support this request. Not everyone is suited for the drudgery, general scrutiny, slings and arrows, and second guessing by the peanut gallery (here and elsewhere) that come with being an admin here... also, per Martinp and Alison. John, I don't think MONGO is necessarily addicted to drama, it rather does sometimes seem to seek him out instead of the other way round. ++
'''Strong Oppose''' Was incredibly incivil in my only interaction with him.  On the [[Salty Walrus]] article, an admin denied the speedy, and his response was to put it back on.  I removed it and asked him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=176086842 to take it to AFD].  His response was to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=next&oldid=176086842 remove it] and tag the article yet again.
'''Oppose'''.  The articles that he has worked on as the primary editor and nominated for Featured are excellent.  Unfortunately, however, he was a strong supporter of the BADSITES effort and, as far as I know, has never admitted that the campaign to censor websites that a small group of editors didn't/doesn't like was misguided and wrong.  He also refused to participate in an RfC concerning his behavior just a couple of months ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO_3].
'''oppose''' well known anger and paranoia problem.
'''Oppose''' Does not comprehend consensus, or how lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and has been far too easily baited (by users all to ready to bait), to be entrusted with dispassionate use of the mop.
'''Oppose''' due mostly to recent diff cited by Alison. I do not doubt MONGO's sincerity, good intentions, or dedication to this site, and he has made extensive valuable contributions. I also do not doubt his ability to perform many of the administrative tasks he cited above in his answers to the questions. I also firmly believe in forgiving past mistakes and not allowing "scarlet letters" to forever taint well-meaning editors. But I am concerned that he has displayed a long, steady history of failure to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and high reactivity to trollbait due to an "us vs them" mentality of WR, and aggressively pursuing suspected editors without sufficient evidence. I have serious concerns with how he would use his tools in terms of [[WP:SSP]], blocking, page protecting, and related areas. In his noble quest to rid Wikipedia of trolls and those who stalk and harass other editors, I'm afraid he's unintentionally fostered an environment of suspicion, accusation, and drama that is detrimental to building a strong Wikipedia community, and will affect his ability to wield the mop appropriately. ~
'''Oppose''' The above arguments are pretty convincing.--
'''Oppose''' per Alison.  Given the current mood, I do not think adminship is likely for MONGO for quite some time, then again, consensus can change.  However, I would ask MONGO to study these oppose comments thoroughly and learn from them - it is clearly not a trivial issue or human error that you are being denied the tools, it is a problem which you must fix.  Only then will you be able to regain what you have lost via ArbCom - otherwise the ArbCom move was pointless.  When someone is desysopped it isn't so much a punishment but a chance to mend one's ways and move forward.  It is difficult, because grudges may still exist from those whom with you argued and feuded over the issues you have become infamous for, but it is still possible.  Learn from these mistakes instead of cursing your opponents and the community will thank you for it.
Per Alison. There's also too much drama surrounding him for my liking. &mdash;
Mongo is an excellent, wonderful editor, whose article-writing I respect and admire in the utmost. However, he is far too passionate regarding issues close to his heart, and is immovable on positions he holds regarding important matters in the community. While I can absolutely understand some of his opinions regarding badsites etc, and his tenacity and defence of his positions could be considered admirable, his behaviour towards Alison and Krimpet in the recent past - two admins whom I have never seen acting in an untoward manner - and his serial assumptions of bad faith indicate that he is currently not suitable for this role. With enormous regret, ~
'''Oppose'''. I have never interacted with MONGO but I have read some of the fantastic national parks related articles he's created. I have to regretfully oppose based on Alison's post above. I encourage MONGO to keep up the good work with the parks related articles.
'''Oppose''' While most of the time I believe in 2nd chance, you had a history of misusing your tools. If your were blocked for a short period of time for misuse, I understand that and forgive it. But when you're desysopped by ArbCom, this must be serious.
'''Oppose''' The fact there was an RFC just two months ago, about constant civility problems, compounded by recent discussions (as noted by Alison), makes this vote inevitable for me.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry MONGO, but I have to oppose at this time. You have chronic incivility problems and being desysoped by the ArbCom for not handling disputes the proper way. I won't go into detail given all the reasons for opposing are listed above by the Wikipedians who participate here. <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. Based on his past history, very strong emotional reactions to certain issues, and problems with [[WP:AGF]], I'm not confident that this user would use the tools wisely.
'''Oppose''' -- I have lost confidence in Mongo's ability to ever properly exercise the functions of an administrator. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose''' per alison.
'''Oppose''' I've had to think about this. I've interacted with MONGO pretty extensively through my prior account [[User:Academy Leader]], and while he has always been civil with me, it's easy to tell that he isn't above carrying on a one-man edit war with people whose views on linking policy contrast with his. Compounding this are statements I've heard from him that participating in various [[WP:DR]] forums short of ArbCom, such as Mediation, were "a waste of time." While I have not and would not oppose anyone's RFA based on their political beliefs or opinions, I also can't realistically support for this reason, and further have to oppose based on his tendency to reduce complex, multi-sided conflicts to "either/or" "black & white" affairs, coupled with his apparent inability or unwillingness to see the other side once he's caught up in a [[dichotomy]].
This editor is unable to operate within the realms of incivility and feels justified in breaking those rules when dealing with those he dislikes. Whilst he is obviously a fine editor, I don't trust his judgement as an administrator and have concerns about impartiality.
'''Oppose''' per civility. If the newbies (and expierinced editors) were bitten they might as well leave.
'''Oppose''' - While I appreciate your desire to again serve the community as an admin, I'm afraid that I don't believe it to be in the community's best interest.  I think that you have a tendency to speak before you think (that's the AGF version: I sometimes wonder if you speak after you think in a way that's deliberately dramatic) and it's sure to stir up more drama.  I note with pleasure, though, your contributions to the community and hope that you will continue to take an active role.  I simply can't support +sysop for you.  -
'''Oppose''' → Not fit per Alison's issue of just weeks ago. <i><b>
One of the most uncivil editors on the project at times, does nto have the temperament for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Lar sums up my thoughts on this matter nicely. As for, "...MONGO can be gruff at times; but, he's much tamer than many who still wield the mop.": poor conduct in one user is not an excuse for allowing it in others. Administrators are supposed to be exemplary in their adherence to our policies on civility, and this candiate is not. MONGO is knowledgeable and obviously an experienced editor, but I would not trust him with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Alliances and obsessions are not what I look for in an admin.--
'''Oppose''' Per above to much drama --
'''Oppose''' My sole interaction was as one of the editors involved in the [[Salty walrus]] incident hbdragon refers to above, in which he struck me as incredibly rude in his comments, and arrogant in restoring a speedy tag three times after it had been denied by three different people. While I've never been involved in any of the big flareups around him, as an (occasional) poster to WR and Kelly Martin's blog I'm undoubtedly classed as a [[User:MONGO/Comments#Troll_enablers|troll enabler]]; it would be hypocritical of me to do anything other than oppose.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' per Friday and Everyking.
Better suited as an editor.
'''Oppose''' on the grounds that the following evidence indicates he is not suitable to be an admin: 1 "Despite widespread opposition and lack of any consensus, MONGO has reinserted Attack-Site-related text into WP:NPA a total of nineteen times", 2 harrassment of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alison/Archive_17#Checkuser_poll_or_vote Alison] and 3 getting blocked recently for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=165234939&oldid=165234444 incivil behaviour]
Wrong temperament, probably on thin ice (I wouldn't be surprised if the next arbitration case filed against him gets accepted).
'''Oppose'''. A good editor and an overall asset to the project, but at this point I feel that certain elements of the editor's temperament would interfere with the aplomb, control, and [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] a sysop requires and at this point in time, I am uncertain that this editor's being a sysop would be a net gain to the community. --
'''Oppose'''.  Candidate has not resolved his chronic incivility problems such that I trust him to not screw up with the tools.  Perhaps at some future date, but will need to demonstrate significantly more maturity than has been on display until now.  —
No way. Too incivil. -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''. It's not that he has strong opinions, it's that we've been shown through words and actions that he's been rather combative in expressing those opinions. It's like a guest from hell on ''[[Maury (TV series)|Maury]]'', quite frankly. Amusing but not anything to take seriously.
'''Oppose'''. I feel that he is a great article writer but can easily be baited into doing "the wrong thing" which is defined as harming the project. I also did not like the way that the [[WP:NPA]] language situation was handled. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Oppose'''.  Worth coming out of hiding for - the fact that he can even edit here anymore is problematic, giving him any extra responsibility given the track record is only asking for more trouble that the project doesn't need.  --
'''Absolutely Not.''' Most people know that I don't usually oppose these things, but MONGO's history when it comes to civility is astounding. No evidence that he's changed, and if there is and I've missed it, it's likely not nearly enough to undo my negative views of his style. Sorry. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Oppose'''. Too much effort being directed at counterintelligence aka witch-hunt. Not constructive.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think that he could resist the temptation to use admin tools to gain advantage in the inevitable POV disputes. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm a bit concerned by the Wikipedia Review paranoia. While MONGO has good reason to be wary of off-site harassment (I'm not going to deny that), there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, lest we end up with a lynch mob searching for witches. Not all sites critical of Wikipedia harass our editors. I occasionally read Wikipedia Review myself to get a different perspective on a given situation.
'''Oppose'''. past civility and drama issues.
'''Oppose.''' Too much drama and trouble in the history to feel confident that this individual would use the tools judiciously.
'''Oppose''' per Friday and others
'''Oppose''' per Lar, Cla68, Amarkov, John, MartinP, OhanaUnited, and most succinctly Eliz81. I've never voted to oppose anything, ever, that actually hurt me to do so. This will be the first. You have always been a fantastic, phenomenal editor and have done a lot--a whole lot--of fantastic things for Wikipedia, both in admin and non-admin ways. But for the love of the 'Pedia! Blocking someone with whom you have any sort of conflict is an absolute, unconditional Wiki-sin that merits permanent removal from the community of administrators. It's really that simple. Isn't that what happened here? Besides, anyone who seems scared of WR and its ilk really, really frightens me. But dang it, you are a wonderful editor.
'''Oppose''' - The project is strengthened when personalities who have come to be seen as polarizing -- rightly or wrongly -- are not burdened with the responsibilities of adminship.  Mongo has too many enemies who will certainly continue to bait and pester him as they have in the past.  That, I am sorry to say, leads to nothing but disruption when administrative actions are concerned.  An experienced editor such as Mongo can easily contribute much in the trenches with the common editors.
'''Oppose''' - The project will be better off if he is not given the administrative tools.  I've seen him as a cause of too much disruption.
'''Oppose'''. Creates fewer problems as a regular user. Probably the best possible situation for him and the project. —
'''Oppose'''. "... something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make."
'''Oppose''' per comments regarding "harassment" in the past. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.
'''Oppose''' MONGO never even attempted to address some major incivility issues over at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3|his recent RfC]].  Perhaps with a little more time to demonstrate that he really is ready to handle conflict calmly, I would be ready to support.
'''Oppose''' others have said it better before me; in short, hasn't changed. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Surely this RfA was submitted only as a means of trolling.  It should (and, apparently, will) be dismissed as such.  --
'''Oppose'''. As MONGO points out, he has had over a year to demonstrate his fitness to regain adminship. His conduct over that time, as in the following examples, doesn't give me any confidence that has been demonstrated. He made an accusation of  "''lies and misrepresentation''", failed to provide evidence, cited only his "''impression''", yet refused to retract.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/MONGO_2#Second_addendum] He left an edit summary of "''revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728] A Finding of Fact in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan|Seabhcan ArbCom case]] was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO.27s_habitual_over-reaction|MONGO's habitual over-reaction]], which included "''freely characterizing opponents in a derogatory manner,''" as well as "''misusing and threatening to misuse his administrative tools''". (The same ArbCom case cited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seabhcan&diff=next&oldid=64841533 a comparable edit] by [[User:Seabhcan|Seabhcan]] with an allegation of editing prejudice based on national stereotyping in a Finding of Fact, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Background_issues Background issues.]) Very recently in the conversation pointed out above by [[User:Alison|Alison]] with her and [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]]&mdash;both admins in good standing here who also contribute to WR&mdash;MONGO said, regarding WR-type sites, "''I see any participation in them to be akin to aiding and abetting trolls.''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alison/Archive_17#Checkuser_poll_or_vote] The ArbCom Finding of Fact, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO.27s_habitual_over-reaction|MONGO's habitual over-reaction]], cited an edit summary by him with an identical sentiment about "''two admins that support harassment''".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=88006828]. Change?  [[List_of_French_words_and_phrases_used_by_English_speakers#P|Plus ça change...]]
'''Oppose''' &mdash;
'''Oppose''', per above. Will consider changing my vote if MONGO waits a bit, and exhibits excellent behavior in this period.
'''Oppose''' - I have a bad feeling about this guy. However, if MONGO somehow manages to update [[Special:Ancientpages]], which is apparently no small task, before his RFA is over, let me know as soon as that happens and I'll change my vote to Support! --
'''Oppose''' He has a history of high-handedness that has earned him a succession of RfCs objecting to his behavior.
'''Oppose''' This is the exact kind of "admin prospect" who we should be suspicious of as a "wolf in sheeps clothing." His history of incivility and his strong POV suggests that he is not suitable as an admin: and this history is still too fresh for any serious reconsideration of his prospects.
'''Strong Oppose''' Having seen firsthand some of the behaviors displayed by Mongo on politically charged articles (State Terrorism by the US), there is very little doubt that the project is better off with keeping him as a regular editor. I have too much respect for Wikipedia as I think admins are to be role models of sorts; giving im the “mop” is more than that, it is an endorsement of the kind of culture WP embraces by those we as the community elect to be our admins. I have nothing personal against Mongo. He can be a very personable, friendly, and a likable guy in many respects. This is good and I’m glad.  '''However''', the problem remains like a giant pink elephant in the room:  he has shown over and over that he can't handle editing heated topics and abide by even very basic Wiki behavioral standards we expect of all editors--but especially of our administrators. Sure people can reform but after several Rfc and lots of drama, I did not see that he ever was able cure his tendency for over reaction, or lapse into some very serious policy violations, such as personal attacks, incivility, AGF problems, edit-warring, etc. When Mongo gets emotionally bent out of shape, I’ve seen some very ugly national chauvinism come from his pen, such as attacking “foreigners,” because they are not "American," --in particular a newbie based on his country of national origin, which I find totally unacceptable and reprehensible, in addition to calling his legitimate edit “vandalism,” and making threats of being banned—-all without any good cause other than a mere content disagreement!  To be clear,  I have no desire to drag out all any mud, show diffs, etc., but it remains true that unfortunately that kind of thing was not a time time insolated incident. Therefore, I’d have to see some serious evidence of tested reform  before I feel comfortable supporting an otherwise nice guy for a position of power and authority on WP. Also to be clear,  no one disputes that Mongo has always also done good work as an editor on many articles that are not too controversial or political in nature, but his being de-sys op-ed was the best thing for him and for WP; he severs the project better as a regular editor. As an admin I feel we are just inviting more of the same trouble, and intolerable drama, provocation (from both sides) as we have seen about every month before. Giving this kind of thing a symbolic  “green light” by the community is the last thing we should do here. Not everyone has the kind of temperament, maturity, and cool handed sophistication that that are necessary qualities for an admin—yes even if they do good work on main article space, and otherwise are likable. In Mongo’s case he doesn’t just fall a little short in these crucial traits to say the least. I do hope he continues to edit here and I still leave my mind open to see him change for the better, but until I see that clear evidence over a longer period of time, just exercising common sense prudence and caution based on the evidence demands that we give a polite but firm rejection to his application for adminship. Still I wish him the best on a personal level. Wait a year and try again. A lot can happen in a year to regain our (or editors like me) trust.
'''Oppose''', no thanks. Was previously incapable of carrying out the role competently, and I see no change in his recent behaviour that would suggest his competence has improved.
'''Oppose''' Not enough rationale to become an admin again. Your comment doesn't sound reasonable because you just seem to "enjoy" authority power and did't provide any public pledge how to improve Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Tendency to over react to drama, accused one user repeatedly of being a sock of different users every time, and has a tendency to edit war.  Before anyone says that "one user" I mentioned before was found to be a sock, it took at least 4-5 CUs and an arbcom case as well, all the while MONGO's actions could have been much better in regards to that. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per all the above and clearly this is not the right time.
'''Oppose''' While I deeply respect MONGO's recent recognition of his incivility in his interactions with editors of opposing viewpoints in his responses to the questions posed above  I think at this particular juncture, it is too little too late. The huge number of oppose votes here seem to indicate that the community is polarized on the subject of his adminship. As such, it would be foolhardy to go ahead and grant him adminship. Like Bless Sins, it is my belief that this should not preclude a request for adminship at a later date. If MONGO is genuinely committed to avoiding repetition of the mistakes that led to his de-sysopping and the lack of community trust in his ability to be an impartial and exemplary admin, the record from this point forward until his next adminship request will clearly reflect that. There is no need to rush into restoring his priveleges when the opposition is so great.
'''Oppose''' per Cla68 and others. Originally I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=prev&oldid=94026342 opposed to MONGO's defrocking by the Arbcom.] I also believed that outside of the issues of 911 conspiracy theories and Encyclopedia Dramatica, he was fairly reasonable and rational. Unfortunately, his words and actions since then have proved me wrong. He is a conflict magnet, who sees the world in ''Back/White, Good/Bad, Us/Them'' terms. Worse yet, he can be a persecutor with a demonstrated streak of [[McCarthyism]]; If the ''commies'' don't readily present themselves, he actively seeks them out, even looking under beds if necessary. Thus he has, sadly, made himself into an embarrassment. The ill-will and controversy he creates have come to outweigh any of his positive contributions. He's had his shot at the mop and blew it...''big time'' (because MONGO doesnt do small:). If you want to look for someone who truly deserves adminship based on their contributions, but who are not as loud and don't have tons of personal or political baggage, then look to [[User:Berig|Berig]] or [[User:Spawn Man|Spawn Man]].--
'''Oppose'''. As fun as it would be, no. -
'''Absolutely not''' appropriate to give the tools back to you Mongo.--
POV Warrior; Will definitely go ''Sideways'' with mop again. -
'''oppose'''. I do not trust MONGO with the powers of an admin. I also believe he is requesting adminship in order to validate his contributions. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose'''. Has demonstrated an inability to separate his opinions from his admin actions.
:O OMG drama –
Per Gurch, who puts it best.
'''Neutral.''' Some good contributions in the past, but the opposes bring up many strong points.
'''Neutral''' per Cirt. <strong>
Neutral for now. MONGO has definitely been a MAGNET for drama, but perhaps that isn't a good reason to oppose. I'd like to see some diffs from opposers during the course of this RfA to backup MONGOs part in the drama-factory. <sup>
'''Neutral'''. I'm in the same stance as EconomicsGuy. '''''
Per Gurch. '''
[[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|15px]] '''zOMG drama''', but we never have enough of it, really.
'''Neutral''' Whoo boy... MONGO is a great editor, but this whole issue is a bit too opposable.
Per Gurch and Misza13. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
Good user, but some concerns. I can support or oppose, but can't decide so I am voting '''neutral'''. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral''' I am of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, he's one of the few people who seems to actually care about cleaning up the mess surrounding the various Sept 11 and American political articles. On the other hand, he historically has been a bit overzealous with regards to blocks.
'''neutral''' - I would really like to support, but we don't need MOAR DRAMA, and as shown in recent conversation, the intent has maybe changed, but not enough of the behavior.  --
'''Neutral'''. I don't know enough about MONGO to support or oppose him, but I know that this is just another proof that simply being controversial generates enough opposes to sink most candidatures. RfA needs to be reformed.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Extremely neutral'''.
'''Neutral'''. Originally vote oppose for reasons I described in detail, but I was very impressed with MONGO's answers to questions 6 and 7. I still have too many concerns to support but did want to take my vote out of the oppose column. Consider this neutral the equivalent of "try again after 6-9 months of good behavior and I will probably support."--
'''Neutral''' The answers to question 6 and 7 makes me more confident that you may be ready after a few months of showing this in practice as well.
'''Not yet'''.  Come back later, like a few months.
I am concerned about some of the comments made here, but I don't have enough experience with Mongo to support or oppose.  --
The answer to question 7 lands me here. MONGO is dedicated, experienced, knowledgable and often on the "right side" of many disputes. He's also got an absolutely ridiculous amount of baggage associated with his editing history, some completely undeserved, and a considerable portion needlessly exacerbated by his own actions. I doubt I've ever directly interacted with this editor in any substantial way, but I've been lurking here and there long enough to have witnessed a lot...the humble response in Q7 (and the apparent unlikelihood of this passing) make me more comfortable in this section; however, consider me "leaning towards" an oppose. I abhor drama, but I'm an open-minded sort and ''maybe'' could be convinced to support in the future if MONGO can further improve his interactions with others. &mdash;
'''Neutral - Conflicted'''. The original desysop was a while ago, but I worry about the somewhat more recent edit warring on [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] (see most of [[Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks]] for details - I wasn't involved much, but watched, with horror). On the other hand, that was November which isn't that recent either, and I can't find it in me to oppose someone who writes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MONGO_2&diff=prev&oldid=186071050 this]. He seems genuinely willing to change, and all those featured articles are very nice ... Neutral. --
'''Support''' - I've found Morbidthoughts to have grown into a solid editor with a firm grasp of the various Wiki-related policies; one small example of this which I can think off the top of my head can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMike_Comrie&diff=233484185&oldid=233476614 here].
<s>Moral support on behalf of the [[WP:Counter Clusterfuck Unit|CCFU]].</s> <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Support''' per nom. Too early for moral supports.
Agree that it's too early for 'moral' anything. I reviewed Morbidthoughts' contributions and found nothing of concern, and find the responses to questions completely satisfactory. S/he seems to be willing to learn and has a good attitude, and on this very page has made several lengthy, in-depth responses to concerns, which I think shows that s/he can and will communicate in the future. I don't find anything brought up by the opposers to be a problem in the slightest. '''
'''Support''' I don't think he would do any harm with the tools; the opposes simply don't make sense to me, except for the first one. He seems like a reasonable person.
'''Support''' The candidate communicates well, and from what I've seen remains civil despite specialising in a controversial area. Having looked through some recent contributions and the talk page I see thoughtful edits and clear communication with a proper concern about verifiability and other Bio issues. But the clincher for me is the way that Morbidthoughts has defended Wikipedia against both [[User_talk:Morbidthoughts#Notability|the censorious]] and their [[User_talk:Morbidthoughts#Monica Sweet|opposites]].  '''
'''Support''' - changed from neutral, see comment in that section.
'''Support''' -  I see no reason not to. The cool down block question is just a dumb trick question to trip up people who don't regularly participate in RfAs. --
'''Support'''. I believe this user is ready for adminship. I have no problem supporting a user who has 2,600 edits. 2,000 well placed edits are worth 10,000 robotic ones. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I only occasionally participate at RFAs - usually only if I see a name I recognize or one, like this one, that seems to be garnering a lot of opposition.  In the latter case, I generally review it, decide that the likely SNOWBALL or NOTYET close will be well-deserved, and don't bother to add my thoughts.  Here, though, I'm completely mystified as to why this RFA is failing this badly.  Having reviewed the editor's contributions and responses to questions (including question 5), I think he's ready for the mop.
Per Sarcasticidealist (though only the second part, obviously) '''
'''Support''' Answer to Q5 and Q6 are perfectly acceptable. As T-rex noted, the CDB is a ridiculous trick question, and it is pathetic that this RfA is failing because of it. Q6 is a good question; however, opposing for the answer is similarly silly. It's obvious that WP has a blatant online source bias, our extreme diversity in terms of age and geolocation makes it nearly impossible to verify the vast majority of offline sources. How is that at all something to quarrel over? Also, answers to my questions were satisfactory, this user has clue and knows policy.
'''Support''' I trust him with the tools. Q6 doesn't bother me at all.
'''Support''' I am afraid that this RfA is going to fail, and that is in my view regrettable, given that the majority of the oppose !votes appear to made on the basis of what is in fact a perfectly good answer to Q5. Please apply again after a wait of 2-3 months.--<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' per question 5. --'''
'''Oppose''' due to limited familiarity with Wikipedia policies and processes, as evidenced by low level of Wikipedia-namespace contributions.
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q5 was a killer.--
'''Oppose''' sorry, not happy with question 5. Users may be blocked for incivility and violations of 3RR but you never impose a [[WP:CDB|cool down block]] as this will only inflame the situation. ——
'''Oppose''' The nomination is compelling, but he simply doesn't have enough edits under his belt for me to feel comfortable giving him access to the tools. Plus, cool down blocks, always a bad idea. A more experienced editor would know that.
'''Oppose'''. Morbidthoughts has provided valuable contributions in the Pornography project. However he would benefit from a lot more experience, both in AFDs and discussions in general prior to adminship. [Also, as others noted, Morbidthoughts didn't understand the meaning of "[[WP:CDB|cool down block]]". This points towards a general lack of knowledge of admin-related issues.]
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't meet my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]]. Shouldn't have mentioned AIV.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in admin areas he wants to work in the most. No experience in AIV, very little experience in CSD (one in last 500). Anglo-American biased admins are exactly why Wikipedia is often criticized for systemic bias. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Per lack of significant experience. No substantial article work. &ndash;
<s>'''Oppose'''; this admin hopeful's answer to question three indicates that (s)he has less than average experience with conflict, and admins see conflict and disagreement on a regular basis.
'''Oppose''' Per Q5.
'''Oppose'''- I hate to join in on the pile-on, but the answer to Q5, and some of the comments above prevent me from supporting.
'''Oppose''' as per question 6. Lack of understanding of [[WP:V]] many articles use paper published sources to establish notability because they arent available online doesnt make them unreliable.
'''Oppose''' - Does not show a fair understanding of [[WP:BLOCK]] or [[WP:V]]; believes offline sources are inferior because they can not be immediately verified and advocates practices that are contrary to the blocking policy. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>
'''Oppose''' per Q5, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per Q5 and Wisdom89.--
'''Oppose for now''' as you don't fill me with confidence at the moment. I don't see any harm in you getting more experience in areas related to administration. Unfortunately it seems that you haven't learned the "right answer" to the CDB question, and unfortunately came out looking a bit naive. I suggest spending some time at RfA just so you can jump through the hoops, and if coupled with some more experience, I don't just not object to you running again, I really hope you do, cause I recon you could make a good one. All the best! -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''Weak Oppose''' Meh. He looks like a good guy, and I doubt he would '''abuse''' the tools, but he doesn't have the level of knowledge and judgment I usually see in good RfA candidates. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' - seems like an uncommon guy, which are always nice to see on Wikipedia.  Lack of edit summaries usage caught my eye, lack of AIV disclosure was noble and honest.  Basically, I can see this user to be a good admin later on, just not right now.  I understand why the user wouldn't know what cool-down block is prior to this RfA, but I hope now he does.  I remember all of the oppose votes I got on my first RfA and I had over 4000+ edits.  I'd advise Morbidthoughts to do some more vandal fighting, [[WP:NPP|new page patrols]] (they're fun!! :D), more AfD participation, and provide some good feedback to the more controversial subjects on Wikipedia to help settle disputes.  Oh did I mention [[WP:ADMINCOACHING|admin coaching]]?  (''Moral Support'' for the user, I'm sure every editor who's on RfA goes through enough scrutiny for them not to get some decent moral support.)
Clearly in need of more experience.
Per Q5 cannot support
'''Oppose''' per stating the candidate would use cool-down blocks in question 5. It says at [[WP:CDB]], "Blocks intended '''solely''' to "cool down" an angry user should never be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." That speaks for itself, cool-down blocks should '''never''' be used, and the candidate says s/he would use them in certain situations. Also, you do have a rather low [[WP:EDITSUMMARY|edit summary]] usage. Would like to see edit summaries used more. --
'''Oppose''' Given the low edit count and the question answers, I would suggest Morbid gain a bit of experience with policy before running again, but other than that, he looks like a good future candidate. '''
'''Sorry''', does not meet [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]].
Not enough experience. Afd contributions are helpful, but there are more things to RFA than Afd contribs. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' - Although the candidate has little experience in the admin related areas he wishes to work in, I am also concerned about the response to some questions, but from a different angle. Admins need to be careful when conducting admin related tasks, but in addition to this they must be clear and unambiguous in their communication, especially when working in an area they are not familiar with. The confusion surrounding Q3 (vandalism types) and Q5 (cool down blocks) makes me feel that although his actions may or may not be solid, his rationales and reasoning might well be weak. This might be do to a misunderstanding or knowledge gap, or it might be due to an incomplete, confusing or ambiguous statement. I would urge the candidate to consider improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of what they write, at which point I would be happy to support. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' - Per Q5. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Oppose, but only for now. This user is certainly "on the right track" (I say that without the intent of patronising the candidate), but I don't see enough experience in areas directly pertinent to adminship to offer my support here. As stated, his work so far has been admirable, and, if he keeps it up and involves himself more in adminship related areas and thereby demonstrates in a pragmatic sense his knowledge of attached policy, I would certainly be looking to place my signature in the "support" section in a few months. &mdash;<strong>
'''Neutral'''; sorry&mdash; the ''rate'' of editing isn't an issue for me, but the ''quantity'' is.  Your contributions seem to be of a high quality, but I think you need more experience before I would trust you with the mop.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - I don't want to pile up at the oppose section, but I believe you need more experience on admin-related areas. <small>
Changing to '''Neutral'''. I was hoping to get some statement of understanding from the candidate at how the guidelines, when followed without common-sense interpretation, lead to the unnecessary loss of good contributions, and how this leads to a sense of frustration and futility among contributors to articles on non-traditional subjects. The candidate seems to prefer to stick to the "rules" regardless of whether good content and good contributors are lost in the process. But this seems to be current Wiki-consensus. I actually find his disagreement with Wiki-blocking rules to be encouraging. Clearly destructive, incivil and arrogant editors are too often allowed to continue and prosper here. At least one such editor has even played the game well enough to gain Adminship. In this case, the editor was desysopped, yet continue disrupting repeatedly to this day when he should have been perma-blocked long ago (in my opinion). This leniency towards disruptive behavior coupled with an overly harsh and skeptical view of contributions outside of the mainstream, also, I feel, leads to the loss of good editors. It would be petty and arbitrary to oppose Morbidthoughts' Adminship because I personally think the guidelines which he closely follows have gone beyond the point of being helpful "guides" they are meant to be when applied equally to all subjects. But I can neither with a clear conscience support a candidate who supports guidelines with which I have such strong disagreement. Morbidthoughts: Don't let the growing "Oppose" section discourage you. Keep working on articles (though this has really has very little to do with winning an AfD, it does make a ''good'' Admin in my book), polish up the stock answers-- Your nominator can help you here, I'm sure :-) -- and I'm sure you'll breeze through a second RfA with flying colors.
'''Neutral''' to avoid piling on the oppose section. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''--
'''Non-Pile on "Opposey" Neutral''' - WBOSITG says it best (edit: the first line about the foot and the shot and whatnot).  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm for the project is commendable, but I believe your RfA is a bit premature.
'''Neutral''' - not yet. &nbsp; '''
'''Neutral''': I dont think  you may abuse the tools, but I fear you dont have the level of knowledge and judgment for good admins . I am sorry. but Best wishes.. do come again after not more than 6 months --
'''Neutral''' - Just to avoid pile on at this point. Morbidthoughts, I think it would be best to take the constructive criticism listed in the oppose section to heart, withdraw this RfA, and come back in 4-5 months when you have a more experience.
'''Neutral''' IMHO, you need more edits with the same value and prove that you can expand into other topics.
Support as nom. --
I'm
Support. A brief look at contributions shows that this user is a fine editor and should not abuse the tools. Block log is clean, so no problems there.
'''Weak support''' - very good article builder. Wikipedia-space participation is a bit low, but what ''has'' been done seems good. Please use the edit summary ''all'' the time. I think you could make a good admin, from what I see atm. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - sure.
'''Support'''
- [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''per mailer'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; ''Office'' fan...can't ask for much more.
'''Support'''. Yes, I had planned to write a more detailed rationale, but thought better of it. —
'''Support''' Oh, this is not the numerical slot for someone with [[triskaidekaphobia]]. But it is worth the risk for this good candidate.
'''Support'''. Satisfies what I view as the [[User:S._Dean_Jameson/RfA_support_criteria|essential criteria]] for being an administrator. I have a few concerns with Q4, but not enough to prevent me from supporting. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Support''' as well as I am mostly pleased with what I have seen.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' -

'''Support''' -- Good Wikipedian, good article work... Good luck! --
'''Support''' Good, happy and nice Wikipedian. Will be a great Admin. Much success!
'''Support''' Overall looks good...although I really would like to see a bit more interaction in wikipedia space and more talk interaction. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Has over 3 years experiance.  Time to give her access.  &ndash;
'''Support.'''  No concerns about family member articles.   About using edit summaries:  aim for '''100%''' and remember that this is even more important when protecting pages or editing protected pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and issuing blocks or unblocks.  —
Sure.
'''Support.''' The main question is if we can trust the user with the tools. The contributions show that we can and Morhange has learned policy through her edits even though she is not a constant-vandalism reverter. I see some reverts which show the user knows what they are doing. However, she should enable edit-summary usage reminders in [[Special:Preferences]].--
'''Support''' No reason not to trust her with the tools. Also a note for the closing bureaucrat: the opposes are particularly shallow. They rely either on the good old "no need for tools" argument (widely discredited), the edit summary argument (and a tick in preferences can fix that) or the "does not really know about admin tools". Sure, the latter argument makes some sense though I'd point out once again that adminship is not rocket science. Morhange doesn't strike me as a loose canon and I have full confidence that she'll read the relevant guidelines when entering a new area of tasks. Most admins are active in areas they knew little about at first and are doing just fine.
'''Support''', I would trust this user with the mop.  The opposes are unconvincing to me.
<span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' Seems to be trustworthy, and is aware of [[WP:COI]] in regard to editing relevent articles. I believe that communication is vital in the performance of sysop actions and the candidate has now turned back on the force edit summary option, and I don't believe that an indicated need for the buttons should prevent them being given, so my default position must be support.
'''Support''' &mdash; Low edit summaries takes time to correct as a percentage, but tick the box and be cognizant and it's a minimal issue. Admin tool knowledge ought come best with access to them, just as editing format and markup is learned best through editing (hence the sandbox and Don't Bite the Newcomers). Candor in answering questions is of paramount importance (rather than prepackaged answers that are political and "sound" good). Realizing that editing BLP articles about family can introduce bias and yet working hard to prevent bias is noble and in the best interests of Wikipedia. Support of users such as [[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]] and [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] reinforces my confidence. While I do agree with [[User:Cosmic Latte|Cosmic Latte]] ("what differentiates her from countless ''other'' great editors who are not administrators") and [[User:Ssbohio|SSBohio]] ("wanting to delete articles, and there are plenty of admins willing to do that already"), perhaps more great editors ''should'' be admins, and even with plenty of admins willing to delete articles, there's always a backlog (is there not?) and current admins could always use additional support and help, eh? With faith, support this admin nomination. <small style="font:12px Matura MT Script Capitals,Harem,Arial;display:inline;border:#696969 1px solid;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;background-color: #0e0e0e;white-space:nowrap">

'''Support''' Thanks for not answering the questions.
'''Support''' No problems here, she seems like a decent person who wouldn't be a bad admin.
'''Support''' - Looks trustworthy and capable to me. No need to deny the tools even though it appears they will be rarely used.
<s>Looks trustworthy and capable to me. No need to deny the tools even though it appears they will be rarely used.</s> Oops, that's plagiarism. No reason not to support that I can come up with.
'''Weak support'''. I think you'll do fine, you answered my question well, and your contribs are good faith and with the best for Wikipedia in mind.  I'm believing that you won't misuse or abuse the tools and will go slowly (especially around articles that you are RL familiar with, as we all should).  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]] | [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]] |
'''Strong support''' - Strong contribution as an editor demonstrates trustworthiness, levelheadedness, an ability to learn the ways of Wikipedia, and enough experience with our culture and policies to function effectively as an administrator.  "No need for the tools" is a bogus argument.  Perhaps if we promoted more people like this, and fewer power-hungry loonies who devote all their time to inside politics, we wouldn't have so many RFARs consisting of little groups of squabbling admins or cases of power abuse.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong support''': I still believe that she was nominated prematurely, and I think that the nominator should bear this in mind when working with future candidates. But [[User:Mr. IP]]'s argument pretty much rocks my socks off. There's no doubt that Morhange seems intelligent, genuine, kind, down-to-earth, and willing to learn, and I sense ''no'' power-hunger or selfishness in her. It was silly of me to overlook these sheer ''human'' qualities in the candidate. Might be a bit weak on policy and procedure in the beginning; but insofar as she ''is'' able to contribute to admin-related areas, I believe she'll do so with an exceptional degree of respect and humanity.
'''Support''' see nothing that leads me to believe she would damage the project. Seems willing to learn. [[WP:AGF]] <b>
'''Support''' to spite the opposition. If this vote does not get removed, then '''shut down RFA indefinitely'''. --
'''Weak Support''' I think the already mentioned reasons allow me to support the nomination but a 25% ratio for edit summaries on major changes is really very low and she needs to change that. Even I got 95% there and I hated them when I started. But while it's important for an admin to summarize their edits in the summaries, I think she will be able to do so in future. Also, I think we need more female, geek admins ;-) '''
'''Support''' mainly to counter the baseless opposes. Just as editcountititis is very disruptive, its little cousin editsummaryitis is even worse. I had a few dealings with this user as an IP, and they showed they were a perfect adminship candidate then--and that was over 6 months ago! --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Oppose''' - Edit summary usage is too low, low Wikipedia-space contributions (almost no AfD experience) makes it difficult to gauge policy understanding.  I agree with Cosmic Latte in asking what differentiates you from others who patrol for vandalism, because you don't need the tools just to delete a few dozen redirects.--
'''Oppose''' per Q1). Not only shows no need for admin tools, but doesn't even seem to know what admin tools are. If being an admin is no "badge of honour" then what is the point of giving someone the tools who has shown no need for them and, even worse, no understanding of them?
'''Oppose''' I agree with George the Dragon. Also, the user's grasp of policy seems vague at best.
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q1 shows she doesn't understand adminship. It's not needed to clean up wikilinks. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' Lack of edit summaries bothers me as well.

'''Oppose''' Far to little involvement in anything related to the admin tools to judge her knowledge of policy. Only a very small number of xFD discussions and almost no experience of the warning escalation process for vandalism (or anything else). No evidence of experience in any other admin related areas.
'''Weak oppose''' - After revisiting this entire discussion and some intense mulling over, I'm actually quite concerned given the points raised within the opposition. I've also been a stickler for demonstrative experience, and I'm really not seeing it here. It's hard for me to judge this user's knowledge of policy towards admin-related tasks.
'''Weak Oppose''' I must say that after supporting, I am reconsidering because of the candidate not answering the questions. As Wisdom89 said above me, it's also hard for me to judge if this user has knowledge of admin related activities.
'''Oppose''' - I was going to wait until further questions were answered, but it's been a few days with no response and I'm not quite sure my concerns could be calmed anyways. Candidate appears to be a solid editor with helpful contributions, although a very limited editing history in the various admin areas. When this happens, it often means we have to rely on handling of the RfA itself to gain more evidence that the candidate "knows what's going on" in relation to the concept of adminship and what the tools will mean. Answer to Q1 right away makes me question whether she really knows what being an admin entails. I don't need to see an emphatic need for the tools, but when the answer shows a misconception of what the tools provide, I don't feel good about it. Q3 answer comes off as lazy and not well thought. Q4 though, is the most concerning. I'm not even sure if the candidate understands what COI really means, and the perceived benefits she sees from conflicts of interest don't jive with the project's core policies, nor again do they even make sense. Lastly, while initial candidate mishandling of the RfA procedure didn't bother me too much, the note she added earlier regarding the storm is again confusing... surely she understands that answers could've been typed off wiki than pasted in? It almost seems that she doesn't understand that she doesn't need to type directly into the browser window. In the end, all this adds up to a sizeable concern about misuse of tools--not from a bad-faith perspective, rather from problems with general maturity issues and understanding of core policy.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, you are a good editor, however your answer to Q1 is somewhat vague. If this request isn't successful, then I suggest you re-apply in 6-8 weeks.
'''Weak oppose, open to reconsideration''' -- The first answer this editor gives is about wanting to delete articles, and there are plenty of admins willing to do that already.  Coupled with that, the answers to the questions above are insufficiently descriptive and give no basis for evaluating the user's judgment on admin issues.  Lastly, the very low rate of edit summaries concerns me.  I'm open to reconsidering should these issues be thoroughly addressed. --
'''Oppose'''.  [[WP:ARL]] and [[WP:ADCO]] would go a long way.  Next time I will support. Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Oppose''' Scope of activity much too limited.
'''Oppose''' I wanted to wait and give you the benefit of the doubt by answering the questions.  I was gonna oppose this morning, but you said you had lost power.  Its now 13 hours since your last request for more time.  Even I dont sleep that long.  I might revisit this depending on your answers if/when they show up... but thats not looking likely.  At this point, its just disrespectful.  There are alot of valid questions out there.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''', basically [[WP:NOTNOW]]. A good editor, with excellent contributions to the royalty articles, but not ready to be an admin yet. Her honest answer to Q1 (both the original answer and the extended version) shows that she does not have a good understanding of what an admin actually does. The part about wanting to delete redirects to [[Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece]] is particularly bad. That is what [[WP:RFD]] is for, this has nothing to do with being an admin. She says that she is interested in fighting vandalism and in the AfD process. That is great, but her record in this regard thus far is just too thin for us to be able to make intelligent judgement as to whether or not she would do a good job as an admin there. She has a grand total of 3 AIV reports, and a fairly small number of AfDs where she participated in (I went back and founf 9 AfDs in the last 7 months). There is no AN/I or UAA participation so far either. While it may sound cliche, but in this case the candidate definitely needs more experience in admin-related areas. Regarding other matters, I am moderately bothered by the lack of edit summaries (but not enough for that issue alone to justify an oppose) and a bit more than moderately bothered by the answer to Q4 regarding COI.  Editing an article about a family member is ''always'' a COI, there is no "Yes and no" about it. Overall, I do think that this candidate may make a good admin in the future, but now is not the right time.
'''Nah Ah''' Sorry its just not working for me, Lack of edit summaries and admin work is very short supply
'''Oppose''' - per Q&A, needs more knowledge, time and experience.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately for several reasons: the answer to Q4 is troubling as it shows unfamiliarity with basic tenets of Wikipedia such as [[WP:ATT]] and [[WP:NOR]].  Edit summary usage is also quite weak.  The only real WP space work is in a handful of AfDs.  But my biggest concern is the extremely low count of Talk and User Talk edits (500 and 100 compared to 7000 mainspace edits).  To me, this indicates that the user may not be communicative enough to be an effective administrator.  I'd suggest working on your edit summaries, participating more in AfD and other WP space work, and using Talk more.
'''Weak Oppose''' I will happily support in three months if this user brushes up on Wikipedia policies and the role of an administrator.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I have to agree with TigerShark in regards to experience in admin-related areas, coupled with the answer to Q1.  --
'''Very weak oppose''' - The answer to Q1 is... questionable at best. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per answer to questions one and four. If the first thing you'll do after becoming an admin is something you can do without the mop, it doesn't demonstrate any need for the tools. You answer to question four, "information that a normal encyclopedia can't provide" violates WP:OR, and I think it is almost impossible to contribute to articles about family members without some bias or conflict of interest. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' but request again in a few months, demonstrate greater understanding of what you're being nominated for at that time, and I would anticipate supporting.  I agree with Cosmic Latte's indented statement under Oppose #1.
'''Oppose''' after giving a few days for you to work through the questions a little more, I'm still not really sure you're ready. Certainly you have the potential, in future, to be a very good admin. But right now I just don't think you've given much thought to why you could use the tools, and how best to do so - your understanding of many relevant policies seems lacking, as does your understanding of exactly what admin tools are for. With more experience in the relevant areas I'd very happily support in the future. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' per lack of sufficient experience. Sorry. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I wanted to wait and give you the benefit of the doubt but after I read the answers to the questions, it led me to believe that you need some more time to get a better understanding of the administrative tools. --
'''Neutral''' Edit summaries are pretty important to me, and 21% for major edits just isn't cutting it (Nothing below 95% for major edits is reasonable for an admin in my books). Also, would need to see answers for questions 6,7,8,9, and 12 (the most important question, in my opinion). I'd be much more comfortable with opposing here, but you've made some pretty good contributions.
Not quite '''Support''' since low use of edit summaries, while concerning, can easily be improved going forward (my preferences -> Editing -> [x]Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary = job done). I'm sure the candidate will not abuse the tools, but it's also necessary to communicate well, which is why this isn't yet in the Support section - I'm waiting for a statement from the candidate acknowledging this.  <font color="006622">
'''Neutral''' pending more Q&A
'''Neutral''', I really want to vote support, because I believe that this user won't deliberately misuse the tools, but the editing of family member articles and the edit summary usage has me very wary.  Could be persuaded to move over to the Support side though.
'''Neutral''': I personally don't feel the user needs the admin buttons on seeing the answers. Please take care of your edit summaries also --
'''Neutral''' for now, I'd like to hear more on the Conflict of Interest topic, so will look for answers to some of those questions.  I have no qualms about "not needing the tools", for I'm sure she would find uses for them (as all administrators end up doing). --
<s>'''Neutral''' pending answers to the questions.</s> –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<font color="black">'''xeno'''</font><font color="#DCDCDC">cidic</font>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</font> 03:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) <small>switched to oppose</small> Switched back from oppose - candidate's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Morhange&diff=226231549&oldid=226154475 most recent statement] has indicated solid judgment. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' - she's pretty good as an editor, and has an interesting user page, but I think she ought to have waited a bit longer for RFA.  With more experience and consistency of edit sumamries, I'd gladly support the next time around.
'''Placeholder neutral''', brain overloaded, unsure at this moment. --
'''Neutral''' - A rare neutral vote for myself. By your record alone I would vote support, but I am a little confused as to why exactly you want/need the admin tools. If any more clearer plans are posted for your adminship, this may change to support.--
Definitely. --'''
'''Support''' due to no blocks and no negative interactions (i.e. assuming good faith) with candidate.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' I see nothing, absolutely nothing, which makes me think this candidate would abuse the tools intentionally or unintentionally. Isn't that the point?
'''Support''' I commend you for taking the time to show how broken RFA is. <font color="amaranth">
'''Strongest possible support''': I'm going to go against the grain and throw myself completely behind this user, who thinks outside the box and happens to have an edge (wow, can I possibly fit any more idioms into this sentence?). What really impresses me about this candidate is his sense of Wikipedia as a ''human'' endeavor. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mr._IP&diff=229523155&oldid=192170949 defense of IP editors] is provocative, regardless of whether or not we agree with it. He also gave me a serious wake-up call during another user's RfA: I was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Morhange#Oppose|opposing]] like some sort of wannabe politician, until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Morhange&diff=225748687&oldid=225741783 this candidate's input] made me realize how silly I was being. Mr. IP is one of the most thoughtful and reflective editors I have encountered on this project, and I am happy to give this "experimental" nomination some very-much-beyond-experimental support.
'''Strong support'''.  Genuine.
Mr. IP, from what I've seen of him, is a good-faith editor, and this nomination has been submitted in good-faith. I actually find it somewhat saddening to see this nomination regarded as a "joke" or "disruptive" when I don't believe it's been intended to be either of those. From his statement and questions, he has a sense of humor (a fine quality), but that doesn't make this a "joke".
I view self noms as prima facia evidence of good initiative and an attitude of wanting to help.
'''Support'''. What an odd RfA. While I see the reasons for the opposition (basically, non-reverence and disrespect for the RfA process), when I boil it down to the usual relevant question - "do I trust this user with the tools" - well, I do. I don't agree with every opinion he has, but none of his contribs raised an eyebrow or caused me to do more than utter a "huh." As it turns out, a fifteen minute ''tour de contribs'' of this user was a pleasant experience in what we want Wikipedia editors to be.
'''Strong Support''' I most definitely trust this user, as strange as that seems. I've ran into this user a lot of times, so many I was incredulous to learn he only has 500 edits. This RfA is exactly what the RfA process needs. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Strong Support''' I thought the same thing as Erik above in terms of the number of contributions. He seems like he would make a great admin with his sense of humor.--

'''Indeed''' An RfA where sincerity and honesty is mixed with intelligent humour - a winning formula.
'''Strong Support''' -I've seen IP around quite a bit, and I'm extremely glad he wants to be an admin. Wonderful editor.
'''Support''' - I strongly concur with IP that RfA has become much more of a big deal. I believe that the question asked here should not be "is this irreverent of the '''process'''?" but rather "will Mr. IP cause harm to the encyclopedia with the tools?" After looking at his recent contributions (the most recent 150-200) I have found his opinions to be well-expressed and thoughtful&mdash;though I don't agree with all the opinions he holds. He's done some nice gnoming work ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_about_Detroit&diff=prev&oldid=229166239 example]) and copyediting ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trail_blazing&diff=prev&oldid=229176697 example]). One other thing that struck me was his courtesy to anonymous editors, a quality that seems to be in short supply as of late ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.16.75.88&diff=prev&oldid=228537584 example]). All in all, I don't think that Mr. IP would cause harm to the project if given the tools.
'''Support''', seems like a good user, and that's a good nomination statement.
'''Strong Support'''. Adminship has become such a big deal these days, with people wanting certain percentages in editing categories, certain number of edits. There's admin coaching, theres the process of voting for people so they would then vote for you, theres pushing for featured articles not for the sake of writing good content, but rather to put another notch on their userpage, etc etc. These days to become an admin you basically have to be a politician. On the other hand here we have someone whose history and demeanor demonstrates that he/she cares about improving wikipedia rather than getting credit/amassing barnstars/making allies/whatever. I respect this.
'''Support''' See no reason to think he'd abuse the tools
'''Support''', I see no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.
Much as I love you for [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_of_emergency_measures_in_C68-FM-SV|providing the lulz]], I wouldn't really trust you as an admin. —'''
'''STRONGEST POINTY Oppose''' let's see a total of 503 (undeleted) edits.  18 total edits in wikitalk.  I'm sorry, but you want to hold yourself up to make a [[W:POINT|POINT]] claiming that you want to see if adminship is a big deal or not... but all it is, is disruptive.  You know that you are no where near the expectations of the community, but you want cry "it is a big deal" when your RfA goes down in flames.  Normally, I wouldn't be this harsh with a person with as few edits as you, but you set yourself up as a person who reads ''Requests for Adminship every day'' and you want to write an essay on '''I plan to write a Wikipedia essay about my RFA experience.'''  You know it is going to fail.  This is beyond pointy, it is borderline disruptive.  As for it being a big deal, even Jimbo Wales has said that adminship is a bigger deal than it used to be... that's old news.---'''
'''Oppose''' - I didn't get past the first two sentences in the nom statement.
'''Oppose'''- I don't think this candidate has nominated for the right reasons, and I don't think he takes adminship seriously enough.
No, I'm sorry, but Wisdom and Balloonman are absolutely right. &mdash;
Ehh, the Colts thing was a turn on, but nothing else was. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - I think on the whole you are very well intentioned, but this RFA is disrupting Wikipedia to  make a point, so I'm not sure I can trust that you won't use admin tools to do the same in the future. --
'''Oppose''' - this is disruptive. You're clearly unsuited to adminship with such low experience in every area for admins working and with a rather distractive attitude that could possibly lead to users who have never been to RfA before think this sort of RfA is acceptable (which it isn't).
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't have minded participating in this experiment if you had been low-key editor with a year experience and a couple of thousand good edits in obscure topics, but not knowing you is a deal-breaker. Behaving well in 500 edits over a span of six months is easy for a troll who aims to hurt wikipedia after gaining adminship, and at this point, you could be such a destructive person or the best admin candidate ever. Too risky. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''.  From times I have seen Mr. IP around the encyclopedia, I haven't gotten the impression that he has an attitude that would make him a successful administrator. Unrelated, the answer to question No. 5 was quite funny. --
'''Oppose''' This is an "experimental" RFA, so not really a serious attempt at adminship. Most telling, the candidate has claimed about 500 edits ''under this username.'' So this is an experienced user toying with us. While RFA is not a big deal, it is not a game or a toy or a lab in which to conduct psych experiments. Also, as we know nothing of the person behind the user's other accounts, it is hard to feel trust in someone who may already have an admin account, may be a banned user, or who may conduct further experimentation by abusing the tools. I see others have come right out and mentioned disruption and [[WP:point]]. If you are attempting to gauge the strength of "no big deal," you have failed. If you were trying to annoy a bunch of people who take RFA, flawed as it may be, seriously, then you have done so.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman, Wisdom89, and Reyk. I know RfA's have become a big deal lately, but I'm sorry, with just over 500 edits, and less than 300 mainspace edits, I have to oppose. '''
'''Oppose.''' For one thing, as noted above, this RfA itself is basically a [[WP:POINT]] violation: the candidate knows full well that he does not satisfy the current community standards for RfA candidates, knows that this RfA will not succeeed and admits that the main reason for the nom is to write an essay about the experience. This is a textbook [[WP:POINT]] case.  Second, the available contribution record of the candidate is too short (and the info about previous account names/IP contrib was not provided, as shown in the answer to Q7 above). The current account goes back to Feb 2008 and there are only about 500 contributions on it, total (mainspace, projectspace, everything taken together). The candidate says that he loves Wikipedia, deeply cares about its mission and would never abuse the tools. That is very good but such self-proclamations are not sufficient. The trust of the community for the use of admin tools has to be earned first, by a substantial contribution record to the project. Right now we have little other than self-proclamations of being trustworthy to go on. That is certainly not enough.
In all the RfAs I'm voted in (and I haven't even been active in them for the past four months or so), I think I've only opposed in one or two, this being the second or third. As far as I recall, I did not oppose "per" someone else's oppose argument. Unfortunately, after slogging my way through the entire nomination and all the questions, and looking at the support and oppose votes, I have to say that I am '''opposing per nearly every other oppose vote'''; I can't really single out one opposing comment that's better than the others. I'm sorry. &mdash;
'''Stong Oppose''' (giggles) [[WP:POINT]] admin ship isnt that big, but it is bigger than your making out.
'''Oppose''' on account of [[WP:POINT]] nomination, failure to disclose prior accounts. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I view [[WP:POINT|pointy]] self-noms to be prima facia evidence of a higher probability of abusing the tools. --
'''Oppose per nom''' (no that is not a mistake) <tt>:P</tt>  I'd like to think that you'd would at least be serious about adminship.  Your self-nom convinced me to oppose.  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' - this isn't the first time someone has done the "Experimental RfA to test the 'no big deal' theory".  It won't be the last, either, I am sure.  I'm going to be taking a stance of opposing these nominations without making any specific judgment toward the candidate themselves.
'''Oppose''' I honestly think you are not taking this serious enough as Diligent Terrier said. I can't support.
Per Tim Vickers below.  This is not a valid experiment. --
Xeno brings up some good points about the validity of whatever kind of "experiment" this candidate is trying to run. I'm certainly not opposing for the sake of this candidate being unconventional; however, Mazca hit the idea right on the nose...without being able to find most of your contributions, I just can't trust you with the tools. Accountability is extremely important for admins.
'''Oppose''' All you have done is to postulate a self-fulfilling prophesy, in that your nomination statement is obviously and inevitably going to generate a lot of oppose votes. And that is a pity, because I suspect that an honest and straightforward application, including your experience under other names, might well have passed. --<font color="Red">
''Time was, anyone with a demonstrated commitment to the project and some knowledge of policy could make it through.'' The issue here is that this experiment's aim (as determined by the content and context of that statement) are flawed. The ideals of RFA (to grant +sysop to dedicated reasonably knowledgable editors) have not changed one whit. The criteria and standards to prove commitment and knowledge have however. This is a result of wider circumstances, not least of which is that Wikipedia is now the 8th most popular site on the net. The vast damage that can be caused by poor deletions and bad blocks are no longer small things. And the technical ability to replace the main page with the image of an erect penis now has far greater reach then a few years ago. Whilst I don't disagree RFA has huge failings I am also of the opinion and understanding that our best output in all areas (main space, projects space, software implementation etc.) comes from discussed changes. Yes, [[WP:BOLD]] is good. But [[WP:RECKLESS]] is not a guideline or policy. I respect the debate this RFA has created, and I understand the intentions of MR. IP and would be pleased to support him in changes to the community's approach to adminship. But not in this fashion. Therefore let us disregard the "experiment" aspect of this RFA, in which case it boils down to the basic RFA criteria of ''"Do I trust you to use the buttons correctly?"''. On the evidence of contributions, not yet. Certainly not "never" but not yet. I'd also request that he perhaps now discontinue the experiment as I can see no further value that will be gained from it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. This RfA does nothing but disrupt the process and create DRAMAH. If you want to test the RfA policy then you can contribute to the discussions about overhauling it, not waste peoples time here. By posting this RfA as a "test" you've proven yourself an inappropriate admin candidate.

'''Oppose''' I don't feel labelling the RFA an experiment should automatically make it a failure. Nor should whether or not he wants to write, even whine, about his RFA experience - many people who fail RFAs do that. But it does seem to me the editor wants it both ways. He wants to be assessed as an experienced editor, but has just 500 edits on this account. Asked to specify previous accounts, he says that's too hard to remember and he wants to leave the past behind. But if he is to be assessed solely on this account, the only answer can be that more experience is needed.
'''Strong Oppose''' per above. You are, essentially, doing this just for the purposes of causing drama. You're wasting the community's time by doing this and you know it. Also, from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKmweber&diff=229452218&oldid=228664176 this] "...Shadow Arbitration Committee... [is] essentially a bit of political theater aimed at the legitimacy of the actual Arbitration Committee, which I intend to either reform or delete", I can gather that you're here to cause trouble. Wikipedia is not "a bit of political theater{{sic}}" for you to cause drama on. Are you from [[Wikipedia Review|WR]]? Not revealing your previous account(s) is also a big no-no. How can the community trust you if they don't have access to your past?
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:POINT]]
'''Oppose'''. Most of the points have already been given above, but I'm going to cite inexperience as the deciding factor as to why I'm opposing. However, I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Oppose''': not qualified yet.
'''Oppose''': I dunno what to say... ☝ have stolen the things i wanted to say and ☟will say things i will say in the future. <div style="text-decoration:blink">☺</div> --<strong>
'''Oppose''' Whilst I also regret the fact that adminship is now treated as a bigger deal than it once was, an RfA is really not the place to discuss this issue. That aside, I would find it very difficult to support a candidate with such a low edit count who admits to editing using other accounts, and being blocked, but is circumspect about actually naming these accounts. I am willing to let bygones be bygones but 500 quality edits in six months really doesn't convince me that I can trust you; using your RfA as a soapbox doesn't help, especially given the problems we've had in the past with admins acting unilaterally. At this stage it is far too soon to judge whether you are a good-faith, reform-minded editor or something more sinister. Your edits with this account ''have'' been good, don't get me wrong, but, given the circumstances, I am going to err on the side of caution.
'''Confused Oppose''' - Okay, I'm lost. One, what other username do you edit under? Two, are they usable per policy or are they sockies? Why should you be an admin if MR IP must be you main account and you main account has only been here about as long as me?
'''Oppose''' adminship may be no big deal, but you still have to know what you are doing. <span>
'''Oppose''' - for not supporting the Indianapolis Colts --
'''Oppose''' [[WP:POINT]]. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
'''OPPOSE''' I do not trust this user with the tools. '''
We do not need administrators who make disruptive proposals.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Oh dear, where to even start? Lack of trust, [[WP:POINT|pointy]] RfA, [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]], no need for the tools....overal a very strong oppose. Please do not re-request adminship.
I take this user's comments at face value, so I assume he really is an experienced, good faith, user.  Besides, even if he wasn't, he could easily get a few thousand more edits a la Archtransit.  My concerns are that, first, he's apparently unwilling to divulge the majority of his contributions, including the block he admits to having received in the past and second, I don't believe he's sensitive enough to BLP concerns to be an admin (the link I posted in Q6 is troubling to me, because I have a lot of apprehension towards promoting anybody who thinks that Dragon695's approach to BLPs is praiseworthy).  BLP approach matters not only for content disputes, but also for use of admin tools: some substantial portion of my protections, blocks, and deletions are BLP-related, and I think it's an important area for admins to be sensitive towards.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Granted, I am still new on Wiki, so I am still familiarizing myself with the RfA process. However, after reading his opening statement, I was already thinking that I wouldn't want him to have the tools. Then after taking into consideration [[WP:POINT]], that sealed the deal for me for opposition on this one.
'''Oppose'''. Adminship shouldn't be seen as a ''huge'' deal. But neither should it been seen as such small deal that someone with less than 300 Mainspace edits, less than 50 User talk edits, and less than 500 edits overall should be considered an appropriate candidate. More general experience and familiarity is needed to earn community trust for adminship tools.
'''Weakish Oppose''' - You seem genuine, and yet, not.  While I realize that, on the surface, there really doesnt seem to be a concrete reason to oppose besides the block... I just dont feel right going on trust alone.  You seem like a nice guy... but then again, so did my last boss.  I'd say come back in about 6 months, when there is a firm history on your part; but you wont.  And thats fine, too.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' - please conduct your breaching experiments elsewhere.
While I like the answer provided to Q4 (except he shouldn't decline it even in the latter case of continuing bad faith), I have to agree somewhat with B-man and Wisdom. If you want to do an experiment, you don't come right out and say it. That kindof defeats the purpose of running an experiment. On the fence for now. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral'''.`Let me ramble a little: Firstly, I think your answer to xeno's Q4 is truly excellent, one of the best answers I've seen to that question. I also genuinely laughed out loud at your pre-emptive Kurt answer`- in fact many of your question answers are very good indeed. Unfortunately, the blatant 'experimental' nature of your RfA, combined with a difficult-to-impossible task of actually finding the majority of your contributions, makes me far too wary to support this. For the first point, we've had two fairly-recent 'is adminship really a big deal?' RfAs, and neither of them succeeded - [[WP:Requests for adminship/Ali'i|Ali'i]] stimulated some good discussion and a lot of support, but ultimately failed with a lot of well-argued opposition too, while [[WP:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2|RMHED]] did worse, owing mainly to it being just as experimental and rather less polite. So, in my view, conducting this experiment to see if RfA is a big deal is akin to running an experiment to test whether air is breathable - it clearly is, as has already been demonstrated. In fact, while ''adminship itself'' probably still isn't that big a deal, ''the RfA process'' very clearly is, and that should be clear just from looking at a few recent RfAs. Hence, I don't really think you expect this RfA to succeed, given that I've seen you at RfA a lot recently and I hope you've noted the same as me about the general criteria. As a result, this pretty much falls into the category of 'disrupting Wikipedia to make a point', or just 'making drama', and I don't really want to support either of those things. My other concern, the sparsity of your contributions that we can actually review, is another point I know you're keen to demonstrate - that allowing IPs to contribute freely is important. Unfortunately, the biggest problem with IPs is that they are generally dynamic, and so while I fully agree that IP editing is important to Wikipedia, for specific exercises in community trust like an RfA it's just insufficient - because we can't get a handle on how you behave overall in the long term. In summary: (1) Nice question answers, I suspect you're entirely well intentioned (2) but I can't really tell that for sure, and I don't like the method you used, and (3) Wall Of Text hits you for 2521 damage. You have died. ~ <font color="#228b22">
Agree 100% with the first third and the final third of Mazca's comment immediately above, disagree with the middle part.  I actually like your answers (well not thrilled with the BLP answer, but other than that) and attitude, and agree with the general idea that adminship should be less of a big deal than it currently is, but it shouldn't be '''that''' small of a deal.  If you had signed up for an account earlier, I suspect I'd support.  But IMHO, a review of a reasonably long contribution pattern is crucial, and we just can't do that for your IP edits.   The part above that I '''don't''' agree with is that this is disruptive.  It's no more disruptive than starting thread #6534 about how RfA is broken on [[WT:RFA]].  The only way this would be disruptive is if someone was holding a gun to my head, and forcing me to comment.  I wonder (probably assuming less good faith than I should) if "disruptive" isn't code for "not showing RFA the respect it deserves"? --
This is a hard RFA to simply take a side on, and I'm not sure why you went through with this RfA in the first place other than to prove a point and "experiment."  I think you have good intentions, but it's hard to know for sure.  Also, you can "re-do" [[WP:RFPP]] without admin tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
Not bothering to pile-on the oppose.
Your experiment fails to test your hypothesis and appears more more like an attempt to create drama. I'd recommend that this RfA be closed since it is not performing any useful function.
'''Neutral''' - I really liked some of your answers to the questions (specially Xenocidic's quetion). However, I don't think that you're ready for adminship, you only have 498 edits, at least I recommend 900+. Also I agree with Mazca's comments. <small>
'''Neutral''' I don't want to hurt you by opposing you. It is quite clear that this RfA will be unsuccessful. Please made more edits and come back after sometime.
'''Neutral''': same reasons as mazca and barneca above. I appreciate the idea behind this RFA, and I would ''like'' to support, but I just can't - because your contributions with this username are not sufficient to be an admin, and that would be true whether this nomination was an 'experiment' or not. If you revealed all your previous IDs and allowed your edits with them to be examined, I might change my mind, but as it is you just haven't given people enough reason to trust that you'd make a responsible admin.
'''Moral support''' Not sure what benefit there is to '''very strongly opposing''' someone who doesn't really know how RFA works yet, and who is just offering to help. Thank you, mr kc, for offering.  In a few months, hope to see you back here. --
'''Moral Support''' I'm going to be frank. It is ''Extremely'' unlikely this RfA will pass. But all the same, I don't wish to join in with the pile-on. Come back with more experience in a few months, and I'll be ready to support. Cheers! <font face="Forte">
'''Strong Oppose''' - Bad answers to all three questions. You need a lot more experience so that you can get trusted as a good admin. This is likely to be [[WP:SNOW|snowed]].
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you're just not ready, as exemplified by your answers. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Very Strong Oppose''' I'm sorry but your really not ready yet, you seem to have no experience in admin related fields at all, as your answers to the questions show.
'''Oppose''' - per the above concerns. Make sure to get a pre-determinate experience before listing here. Good luck with the next one though.
'''Oppose''' - answers and record do not reflect understanding of Wikipedia or need for administrative tools. The answer to number 2 just completely blew it. --''<span style="color:#0000f1">
'''Oppose''' Not enough edit experience. The answers don't show understanding of wikipedia. <strong>
'''Oppose''' No XfD's until after RfA was submitted, and then his !votes were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Ferguson I see nothing wrong], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nostradameus No comment], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SecurDisc No comment] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_Boy <literally no comment>]. Also, used different signatures in the nomination and in the first support vote. Needs to gain much experience and earn trust over time.--'''
'''Neutral'''.  You haven't been contributing long enough for us to trust you with the tools.  Come back in a few months when you get some experience.  '''
'''Neutral''' - To avoid pile on, this RfA will not pass, but do not be discouraged, try contributing in admin related areas and come back later and try again.
'''Strong Support''', this user is a strong vandal fighter who could further fight vandalism with "the tools", that's why I nominated him.
'''Not ready yet.''' A quick reading of [[User talk:Mr Senseless/Archive 1]] shows candidate has not yet developed the knowledge/skill/judgment for adminship. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti_Christian_Movement_of_1922_%28China%29&diff=181964186&oldid=181964007 Hasty deletion tagging Janujary3.] There is sufficient context given to believe the subject will turn out to be notable. We don't all create adequate stubs on our first edit or two on the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discos_Fuentes&diff=182150802&oldid=182150230 Over hasty PROD.] A record label based in Colombia with sales in Mexico, Spain and the US is probably notable. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_Harbor&oldid=191346609 A movie starring Alan Rickman] is probably notable. [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dorftrottel]] is just plain weird, but it also raises a question about judgment.
'''Oppose''' - I don't feel comfortable with someone who's only been on Wikipedia for 4 months becoming an admin, because to date candidate has shown poor judgement in some cases.  More experience should help with that.  Almost half of his edits have been to talk pages. I really don't see much in the way of admin skills yet.

'''Oppose''' - Just to soon, good vandal work but that is not all that is needed when it comes to admin work. Take adive from above and come back in 4-5 months and you will do just fine.
'''Neutral''' I would like to encourage [[User:Mr Senseless|Mr Senseless]] to make more mainspace edits and to continue honing his skills in the realm of speedy deletion. I have see him do some excellent work in the latter. I would be happy to support him at some point in the future, as I believe has the potential to be a good administrator.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Appears a good faith editor who works hard, has not shown any signs that he would abuse the tools, and meets
'''Mmm... fresh fish...'''
Answers to my questions were excellent. :) Great user: will make good use of the tools. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]]

'''Support'''. Tools will be useful for him and he will make good use of them. I see no indication that he may abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good answers all around, contributions look solid.
'''Support''' Identifies the areas he needs to know more, so he'll be cautious with the mop. '''
I don't see any serious problems. Best of luck!
Because it's no big deal, I '''support'''.  '''
'''Weak support''', could do with a broader range of experience, but good answers to the questions.
'''Weak support'''.  The concerns addressed in the oppose section are worrying, but I can still support you without feeling guilty.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Strong Support''' because Wikipedia always needs new admins!--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry. I cannot support you at this time, while I see some good article work and you are involved at [[WP:AIV]], there is more to being an administrator than fighting vandals. For instance, you don't seem to communicate all that much, which raises my internal alert sensor, and outside of AIV, there doesn't seem to be a lot of participation in the areas which you want to work in. You would need more experience in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' Im sorry but you claim you would contribute in a variety of area's (eg [[WP:AFD]]), why then do you not have any experience in these areas? Surely somebody so eager to work in these areas would be keen to take part in these tasks prior to becoming an admin. AIV edits are commendable though, sorry...--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry I couldn't support, but I don't think you have enough edits in WikiSpace. Other than that, you're a very good editor and Wikipedian and would make a great administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000FF;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Mainly because of questions one and four. With his answer to question one, MrFish asserts that he intends to jump headfirst into areas where he has little or no experience if he receives the tools. This is just asking for trouble - not that he would intentionally misuse the tools, but all new admins should start out slowly, and his overeagerness to use the tools in areas which he has never even participated in worries me. As for question four, to be honest, I'm not a fan of these silly questions. "No big deal" is one thing, but I'd like to see the RfA process taken a little more seriously. Nevertheless, his answer suggests to me that he would not be great in handling a dispute (we certainly have more than a few smart-ass admins, but we don't need to add to them). Basically, if he ran into an abusive user, I don't think he would be able to keep his cool. Less importantly, he has one of those "I want to be an admin" userboxes, which I personally don't think much of, and he's relatively inexperienced in projectspace. I could potentially support MrFish, but not right now.
'''Oppose''' While I am a big fan of admin coaching, I don't see it as a pass to RfA's.  At this point I cannot support.  First, your talk page edits are almost non-existant.  If you look at the User Talk, then your edits since October/June 2007 are 90+ percent templates/warnings---and there aren't that many of those!  Then there is the non-user talk.  In the past year (April 2, 2007-present) you've had exactly 50 edits in the talk space!  And you've had less than 25 wikipedia talk posting since you joined wikipedia.  Most of your article edits are usually fighting vandalism or minor.  <s>But one that I did find is, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_Crossing&diff=196659999&oldid=196119899 this one] which doesn't inspire much faith.  First, it is uncited OR. Second, it is linkspam.  Third, you didn't appear to know how to create a proper reference (inline citations shouldn't be used in articles, you should be creating footnotes via <nowiki><ref> citation </ref></nowiki>.</s>  Then there is your lack of experience in the areas that you claim to want to work in.  I'm sorry, but participation in about a dozen XfD's over a 2 year period is not enough experience to make me comfortable with your familiarity with the process.
'''Weak Oppose''' sorry. This is the RFA that Useight mentioned at [[WT:RFA]] and I had a chance to review then. [[User:MrFish/Admin_Coaching#Last_set]] and your opinion on reverting other admins actions. I'd prefer candidates be very much of the opinion that you don't revert '''at all''' without discussion (except in clear cut issues which would be very very rare). In addition I'm not convinced that your contributions and Q1 match up. I appreciate as well that there's lots to like here, hence a weak oppose, but I'm not sure you're really  quite seasoned enough at present. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I don't think he has enough experience in the areas he says he will help out in,
Per Baloonman.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89's reasoning.
'''Oppose''' Low mainspace edit. Only 2549 mainspace edits, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=MrFish&site=en.wikipedia.org] and not enough edit in individual articles. Highest number of edits is in [[List of Amtrak stations]], i.e. 27. Which means majority of the mainspace edits are vandal reverting. Not enough experience in article building. Sorry I have to oppose here. '''
'''Oppose''' per everyone. '''''
'''Oppose''' – Sorry [[User:MrFish|MrFish]].  In reviewing your [[User talk:MrFish|talk page]] I noticed that you just applied to the [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|coaching program]] on March 9th and which finally matching you with a coach on March 16th.  That’s less than three weeks ago!  I do not mean to sound critical, but isn’t that a little fast to go through the program?  Especially given all the areas you would like to be involved in that you referenced in question one.  Possibly if you had a higher edit count, but less than 5,000 edits, and only 1.46 average, means that a majority of your contributions have mostly been vandal fighting.  This is a noble job.  However, I would like to see a tad more participation in areas such as article building and areas such as  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Afd]] which involve generating and gaining community consensus along with gaining knowledge in policy.  Either way this Rfa goes,  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
Per above, plus the fact that this user is not as active as many admin candidates would be. Try again in a few months and once you're ready, I will support. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', grudgingly. Just not quite enough experience with admin-related tasks. Seems like a good-faith user who is (and will be) an asset to Wikipedia, but I'm not comfortable handing the tools over quite yet.
'''Oppose''' - per Wisdom89, and Ballonman. Sorry, you make great contribtuions but just are not there quite yet.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom. Sorry. <strong>
'''Neutral''' not enough familiarity with editor, so neutral.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.  In looking through your contribs, I see that you are very active and collaborative in the video games project. Specialists welcome! I'm glad you found somewhere to edit that you find rewarding.  You do great work there!  You've presented a case here for what you'd use the tools for.  I see that you don't "participate" often in XfDs and CSDs, but do a lot of del-sorting, which is terrific gnome work. I would advise that you work '''very slowly''' with the tools in the deletion areas if the tools are granted.  I believe you will be a net positive to the project with +sysop. Clean blocklog, communicative when you need to be, but not chatty and myspacey, bonus.  Oh, and please use edit summaries from now on, for every edit (you can force a reminder on your preference tab).  Minor issue really, and easily fixed, happy to support.
Keeper76 has provided a good rationale to ''support'' MrKIA11, who looks like an experienced editor. He hasn't been blocked, is communicative, hard-working, and knowledgeable. It's unfortunate that trivial issues such as lack of edit summaries are being used to oppose this user, and the fact this editor primarily contributes to video games (what's wrong with that? Don't we normally edit what interests us?). I see no compelling reason to oppose this user, and instead, see reasons to support instead.
'''Support''' I took a cursory look through your contribution history and was impressed. I notice that you are heavily involved in the Video Games WikiProject, which is fantastic -- Wikiprojects are a great way to organize collaboration. As well, I noticed the edit summary usage was not particularly high, but that's not a supreme issue for me. I would counsel that you set your preferences to remind you when you make an edit (that's what I do). Anyway, I think you would make a fine admin and that you have sufficient experience. (edit conflict)
Perfect candidate. Um, hello? Hard working, active, communicative, etc. And a complete lack of drahma involvement. '''
'''Support''' Changed from oppose, per answers to questions. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' - Yup, the guy doesn't use edit summaries all the time - no big deal really given that the majority of admins don't use them at all. MrKIA11 would certainly benefit from having the tools -  he's tagged many pages for deletion due to housekeeping in the video Games Wikiproject when he could easily have done it himself if he had the tools. Whilst he may not have participated in that many XfD's, after looking through his contribs, I think he's got a firm grasp about how we work here and I trust him to close them where the true consensus lies. '''
'''Support''' - Yeah.  Dude.  You're the pefect combination of innocuous and bold.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Support''', as the fact that he specializes in video games is a ... umm ... "unique" reason to oppose, and I [[User:S. Dean Jameson/RfA support criteria|can't find any real reason not to do so]]. Also (even though I dabble about in it) namespace contributions as a reason to oppose ''this type'' of candidate (looking to use the tools mainly for cleanup) seems a bit weak as well. (And even though he fell into Kurt's trap, I still think he will not abuse the tools. You should know, though, that "cool-down" blocks aren't acceptable. Blocks are preventative in nature.) [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Weak Support''', on the basis of the candidate's strong involvement with Wikiproject:Video Games. I think generally that the candidate is hard-working, dedicated, and reasonable, but I am a little concerned by some of the answers to the questions. As noted, we don't do cool-down blocks 'round here. That said, I think the candidate would be a good, solid, drama-less admin provided that we experienced admins provide guidance where necessary.
'''Weak Support''' (changed from weak oppose). Based on the questions I guess he will use edit summaries from now on and I think he will be able to learn all the things needed to be an admin. And as mentioned before, I think WikiProject-specific admins are nothing bad. I think WP:VG has more than enough work to occupy multiple admins. '''
<s>Moral</s> '''Support''' &mdash; You do great clerical work at [[WP:VG]], but I think this nomination was a little rushed, as I hinted at on your talk page before it was transcluded. Should this request be unsuccessful, consider participating (not just clerking) in adminly areas more often. See also [[User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA]]. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Very Strong Support''', MrKIA11 is awesome. because of him we never miss any new articles created under WP:VG. He makes sure we always find new articles. He is an awesome help. Also: GO WP:VG!!
'''Support''' Though I would suggest reading up on policy some more (as mentioned by some other users here, IPs are not usually to be blocked indef, nor are "cool down" block permitted), I think that the sysop bit would be a net positive here.  However, I'd suggest taking it slowly, and staying out of areas you feel shaky in.  That being said, good luck
'''Support''': I definitely think MrKIA11 would make a great administrator. He has shown a strong grasp of policy in editing discussions and AFDs, and has always been civil, even encouraging of civility in others. There might be a few blips on his record, but if we [[WP:AGF]] we can attribute these very minor issues to the learning process. How is someone supposed to become a good administrator if we expect them to know every nuance of administration before they take the job? MrKIA has already demonstrated enough policy knowledge and a strong willingness and aptitude for learning. If this doesn't work out, I might suggest going to your preferences and asking Wikipedia to prompt you for edit summaries. A few users commented that they did not like this about me, and I had a lot of trouble fixing it until I let the technology help me.
I don't see any significant reason to oppose this candidate, from what I see. Edit summary usage could use improvement, but otherwise, I see a trusworthy contributor worthy of the tools.
'''Support''' per correct close at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2)]], for having received two barnstars as seen at [[User:MrKIA11]], and for having [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MrKIA11 never been blocked].  I would recommend being more consistent about using edit summaries, however.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Support''' - Looks like a diligent, reasonable, and competent editor. He obviously cares about areas that he does not fully unerstand, and is willing to learn as he goes. I seriously doubt any meaningful percentage of admins understand how to do all things on day 1. I've had the mop since last fall, and only figured out how to do a range block this week. I knew what they were, but did not apply one until I figured it out. I suspect MrKIA11 will behave in a similar fashion (though not so similar, since he already said blocking isn't his thing). Best of luck!
The longer I'm here, the more convinced I become that “problem admins” don't become problems because they don’t know everything on day one; they become problems because of their belief in their own infallibility, their willingness to get in over their heads without knowing they’re in over their heads, and a belief that now that they’re an admin, they don’t have to be nice anymore.  From a review of his talk page and archive, and a representative sample of his contributions, I have no reason to think any of these things will happen with MrKIA11.  In a perfect world, he’d be more familiar with blocking policy, and know how to answer the ubiquitous cool down block question <small>BTW, will I be desysoped if I say I can at least imagine a situation where a cool down block might work?</small>, but based on what I’ve seen, I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’ll go slow and be careful.  MrKIA11, whether this passes or not, please increase your edit summary usage (it helps your fellow editors a lot), go slow in areas you’re not familiar with (i.e. don’t block anyone for a while), and don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know how to do that; I’ll help you find someone who does.” --
'''Support''' - with a "thank you" to Barneca for explaining my reasoning for me. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - Per Barneca.
'''Moral Support''' - you seem like a good and responsible user generally, but like some others above, I feel this RFA may have been a bit premature. I don't have a problem with your low use of edit summaries, or your editing being concentrated on one topic; but I am concerned about your lack of experience in certain areas, such as participation in Articles for Deletion. I'm supporting anyway on the basis you'd learn and improve as an admin, but if this fails, I would advise seeking experience in more areas of the project before trying again.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. If this attempt doesn't work out, then I suggest you re-apply in 6-8 weeks.
'''Support''' - honoes!  He got tripped up on the dreaded ''cool-down blocks'' question.  Does the candidate mention anywhere that he intends to do a lot of work in areas that pertain to blocking?  No.  Puh-leaze.  No candidate has got the answers to ''all'' of the policy related questions up their sleeves - I've had a mop for a while now, and I still learn new things.  It'd be one thing if the candidate said they planned to do a lot of work at [[WP:AIV]] or the like, in which case a strong familiarity with the blocking policy would be in order, but is it really worth getting worked up over a mistake like this - particularly when the candidate has demonstrated a willingness to better familiarize themselves with policy as the need arises?  Really?  Nothing in this candidate's contribution history raises red flags, and I have no reason not to trust them.  I will support.
'''Support''' per [[WP:DGAF]]
'''Moral Support''' per [[User:Terraxos]] --
'''Moral Support''' - Based on two things: this RfA won't pass and I feel bad for the candidate over Kurt's question and the fact that Kurt's questions are just the dumbest pieces of propaganda crap I've ever read. I'm completely sick of him being an asshole trying to fight for what he thinks is "right". :-)
'''Moral support''' because failing because of the CDB question is stupid. '''
'''Support''' Per [[User:Barneca|barneca's]] persuasive arguement.--
'''Support''' Editor clearly shows that he would treat the tools with respect.  I have a great deal of admiration for editors who work silently in project pages and template space.  These are ''very'' important parts of the project and they help all of us collaborate more efficiently, but they are less 'fun' to work in than AfD and less visible than article space.  As far as edit summary usage, I treat that like commenting code--if explanation is needed, provide it, otherwise if the diff is self explanatory, I don't think we should hold back the tools for failing to provide the summary.  The answers to the questions provided were honest and clear.  Hope this passes.
'''Moral support''' - extensive Wikiproject participation, despite not being an admin-area, does indicate ''some'' definate knowledge of the way the whole process works. I think there is something there, and am willing to give this user a chance. But, practise long and hard in the admin school and you will do a lot of good be reading [[Wikipedia:Administrator's reading list|all of this]]. And use the edit summary! If you do not pass this time round, there's a lot of useful things left down for you by people who have both supported and opposed, that you can get round to addressing. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I hope this vote is not in vain and that this user does not get denied the ability to help this project at least within the area of his own expertise. I, personally, don't think there's anything wrong with him as an editor nor that there might be any problems with him as an administator. Good luck.
I would not support on the available evidence, but there are several petty opposes that I would like to cancel out.
'''Support''': I had no idea this had already begun. :-p Anyway, I feel MRKIA11 would make a very good administrator. Though most of his efforts are localized around video games, he has branched out beyond his specialty and done so in a helpful manner. He is knowledgeable of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has exercised good judgment in his overall editing.<br>While he may not know everything—who can honestly know all policies and guidelines inside and out—he knows enough to be an effective administrator that will be an asset to not just the Video games Project, but other areas of Wikipedia as well. There are no perfect editors and thus no perfect administrators. I believe his willingness to learn and correct his mistakes more than makes up for any shortcomings he may have. Just like I'm sure he's already learned new ways to improve himself as a Wikipedian from this RfA.<br>I see MrKIA11 getting an extra set of tools as something that will only help Wikipedia operate more smoothly; I don't foresee him using them poorly. And in the end, [[WP:NBD|adminship is no big deal]]. (
I didn't use an edit summary for this support vote, nor did I simultaneously vote in an AfD. Thanks the Gods I'm not an admin. The candidate has a brain, that's all he needs, right? —'''
'''Support'''. ''“Problem admins” don't become problems because they don’t know everything on day one; they become problems because of their belief in their own infallibility, their willingness to get in over their heads without knowing they’re in over their heads, and a belief that now that they’re an admin, they don’t have to be nice anymore. I have no reason to think any of these things will happen with MrKIA11.'' Yep, that's a straight quote from Barneca (#18) above. I couldn't have put it better myself. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' to spite the opposition. I dare you to remove this vote. --
'''Support''' per messedrocker and Kurt. '''
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, and in protest against Kurt's oppose below.
'''Support''' per lankiveil. --'''
'''Support''' per Keeper, although I should point out that the answer to Q4 kinda rubs me the wrong way. It sounds like a case of saying-what-you-think-people-want-to-hear. Although it's certainly nice when someone who adds a comma has an "adding a comma" edit summary, by no means is it necessary. If you mark an edit as minor, there's no reason for us not to [[WP:AGF]] and assume that it is, in fact, minor. Actually, this requires the same sort of AGF-ing that would be required if you ''did'' leave edit summaries for minor edits, because in that case we'd AGF by assuming that A) the edits are minor, and B) the edit summaries are honest. But when B is true (regarding a minor edit), it implies that A is true, so it's arguably a bit redundant to leave edit summaries for minor edits. The practice ''is'' also defensible, but my point is that, if you don't like to leave edit summaries for minor edits, it can come across as somewhat ''dis''honest to emphasize their "importance" simply because a question pertaining to them arises in an RfA. I realize I'm saying a lot about an issue that doesn't even affect my support--but hey, nothing wrong with some free advice, right? :-)
'''Moral Support:''' If for no other reason than to (only partially) offset Kurt's blatant exhortation for admin candidates to violate policy.
'''Support'''. I would like to see some participation in broader subject areas (other than video games), but I don't see how that would affect your mop-weilding abilities.--'''
'''Support''' - This is a competent and reasonable editor who actually cares about the work he does and the state of Wikipedia. He is logical and considerate, as I have seen when working with him on [[Template:WikiProject Video games]] and the above mentioned CfD project. There is absolutely '''zero''' potential for abuse of privileges. The idea of not passing this RfA based on the fact that his attentions have hovered around [[WP:VG]] is '''absurd'''. In all fairness, a person who cleans one room exceptionally can probably do the same in any other room. I feel completely comfortable that he will lend his services and attentions wherever they are needed, and if a good portion of that is at WP:VG, I know [[:Category:WikiProject Video games members|1,031 people]] that will appreciate it. As far as XfD's, he was the one that nominated some [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_24#Category:WikiProject_Video_games_XXX_pages|categories I made]]. I have since forgiven him. ~ '''
'''Moral support'''. I would vote neutral, as I don't think he has quite enough experience, but several of the opposes are based entirely off of the rationale that "he doesn't know this random admin thing, so he must be a vandal". This RFA probably won't succeed. Apart from the ridiculous cut-and-paste opposes, though, many of the opposes are pretty weak. Try again in a few months, if you fail this one.
'''Support''', I see no reason not to support. Many excellent editors and admins edit only articles related to one or a few topics. In addition, I don't believe in the necessity of admins knowing the ins and outs of adminship ''before'' gaining it - good intentions and a willingness to learn is by far more important than anything else. From the candidate's answers and contributions, I see no indication that they do not meet those requirements. --
'''Support'''. Ok, you mixed up the term between block and ban, but in reality it's 2 things that are really similar and shares the same blocking interface once granted the tools.
'''Support''' Per Acalamari and Giggy.  It would be a pity not to have someone of this calibre as an admin.--
'''Support''' Good answer to question 16. Even if this user only contributes in the Video Game Section other users will have more time to contribute outside of them. Lack of tool need is not a reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' I trust the user with the admin tools. --
'''Support''' - MrKIA11 is one of those gnoming editors who does a lot of strong work, but often gets unnoticed in the wider context. In terms of knowedge, MrKIA11 is active in the new page patrol area. Although it is in a limited sphere (video games), he is quick to stub-sort, categorise and rate new articles. He also CSDs, prods and ultimately AfDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_of_Masterpiece_PC_Games_Union articles] that are not suitable for inclusion. This isn't just limited to the mainspace - he's also proficient at tracking new aditions to the template and category mainspaces, working tirelessly to keep clutter down. My interactions with this editor have been superb, and I have no doubt about his dedication to the project. yes, he has flaws as much as we all do, but I am sure these can be easily overcome. '''''<font color="green">
Switched '''Weak Support''' from Neutral per [[WP:WTHN]] amd I know I wouldn't wan't this to happen to me. '''''
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more work in the Wikipedia name space that is not part of the Video Games portal. --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose'''; look somewhere other than video games! And I can't really find any experience with admin related tasks; if I search for AfD's or CSD's in your last 500 edits, for example, I find lots and lots of AfD contributions, wonderful! Until you realise that rather than debating, arguing delete or keep or in any way gaining experience in deletion discussions you've just added the articles to the list of video game related deletions in small letters at the bottom. Wonderful video game edits, yes, but that isn't something you need admin tools for, and I find no evidence of any contributions to the sort of tasks you say you're looking to do.
'''Oppose''' I do greatly appreciate your work on [[WP:VG]], but I must oppose at this time as I do not enough have enough trust to support.
'''Oppose''' Per SashaNein. I would also suggest using edit summaries more often. Sorrfy.
'''Weak Oppose''' Cool-down blocks are completely against block policy and an IP address cannot be blocked indefinitely. Lack of knowledge concerning block policy and the tools does it for me.--
'''Oppose''' (switched from neutral. In what I see as an otherwise decent candidate, I have some maturity concerns and see the answers to many of the questions botched and leads me to question understanding. Answer to Q1 might just be worded poorly, but answer to Q7 is very concerning as a "permanent ban" would be a poor way of handling the situation. Answer to Q9 oversimplifies things to the point of being almost wrong, but again I'm not sure if this is just poor wording. Answer to Q 10 seems to indicate that candidate isn't certain as to what a "cool down block" means, although I am willing to let that one go for the most part. With this in mind, I'm not sure the candidate is prepared to fully analyze consensus in XFD discussions, and almost seems to be suggesting that he'll only close when he sees a very strong consensus to delete.
Per answer to Question 10.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Oppose''' I understand that everyone has specialties, but every editor still needs to be widely experienced in order to become a sysop. Try getting some experience elsewhere than video games. --
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' I waffled a little on this one... great edits... but needs more experience in developing consensus.  Great concern when he indicates an area where he wants to work but doesn't participate in the discussions.  Discussions is where you show your understanding and have it shaped by others.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]'' 19:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Changed to normal oppose per some of the opposes below that I find compelling.---'''
'''Oppose''' its a tired only line but this user needs more experience in admin related areas. By his own admission has never participated in the discussion at an XfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MrKIA11&diff=228849216&oldid=228849209] and as far as I can tell has never once edited [[WP:RPP]] or [[WP:AIV]]. - '''
'''Oppose''' for now. I think you will make a good admin in the future, but I think you need more experience. Your answers to questions 9 and 11 in particular have made me draw this conclusion. I will be happy to support you next time around if you contribute at xfd and get a feel for Wikipedia's policies in action.
'''Oppose''' - your answers to some of the optional questions troubles me. Especially question 7 - permanent blocks for IPs are generally not required/recommended - according to [[WP:BLOCK]], "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely", and this doesn't strike me as an exception. Also your response to the [[WP:CDB|CDB]] question is unsatisfactory. I feel that these questions reveal some lack of [[WP:POLICY|policy]] knowledge in some pretty important administrative areas. I'm sure that your heart is in the right place, I just think you need to learn the policies and guidelines much better, and I'd certainly have no problems considering afresh another RfA in a while.  -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
'''<s>Reluctant</s> Oppose''' While the candidate's sincerity is obvious, the weak answers and spotty experience suggests a premature RfA.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience outside of video game related article, no experience in XfD, an area he wants to work in, weak answers to questions suggest a weak RfA. Also per answer to Q7, you cannot indef block an IP, and bans (which he obviously does not know how to distinguish from a block) can only be delivered by Jimbo, ArbCom, or community consensus. More policy experience needed. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose.''' Please review [[WP:N]] and the related pages. Notability does not depend on Google hits, or even in lots of media coverage. Quality can be more important that quantity. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Per answer to Q10.  Cool-down blocks are in fact perfectly acceptable.
'''Oppose''' Not enough edit summary usage, and browsing on the past contributions for about a month seem to be nothing but minor edits.
'''Oppose''' - No more administrators who don't bother to work in admin-related tasks.
'''Weak oppose''': User doesn't seem to have the required experience in admin areas.  Wanting to clean up XfDs is great but without any previous XfD experience how can we judge, for example, your ability to weigh the merits of arguments to determine consensus?  How can we judge your knowledge of the core policies.  Sorry, but your experience doesn't demonstrate the knowledge required for the tools yet.
'''Oppose, but would support in 3 months''' User needs to spend more time learning policy, such as in AfD, AN, AIV or just reading the policies. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' - Overall answers to questions are a bit concerning. Give it a few more months, get a bit more experience and give it another try. Best of luck,
'''Weak Oppose''' I like the conciseness of your replies to the questions, but I feel you need to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies. Perhaps you could hang out at the RfA / AfD areas, and slowly make your way through the policy documents, boring though they can be.  --<div style="padding: 4px;"><font style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 10px;"><b>
'''Oppose'''  Not enough experience over a broad area of the project for me to support at this time.  --
'''Oppose''', regretfully. While no doubts the user does a great jobs in videogames area, adminship requires experience and judgment in dealing with human wikipedian conflicts. I briefly looked thru last 2,000 contribs and didn't find enough evidence. `'
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience in substantive matters.  Wants to clean up XfDs, but hasn't participated in an XfD, is just the tip of it.  Oren0's points above are all so to the point that the candidates seeming not to know that this would be a problem, is a problem.  For example answering Q1 as he did despite having no AfD participation is an obvious red flag, worse for an admin candidate is not knowing how it would be perceived.  That shows a poor sense of how Wikipedia functions in practice.
'''Oppose'''- Not yet. I can see that you're a very good editor and have the makings of a responsible admin. But I'm concerned that you don't have a thorough enough understanding of policy at this point. In three months or so, if you've demonstrated that you've familiarized yourself with areas of Wikipedia outside your current focus, I think I'll probably be supporting you but not right now.
'''Oppose.''' As OrenO said, there is too little ''direct'' evidence for us to make intelligent judgements on how well the candidate understands WP policies (in particular the deletion policy since the user intends to deal with closing XfDs and speedy deletion nominations), how well he is able to judge consensus and to justify his decisions (which would be necessary to do in the AfD closing summaries and in dealing with editors unhappy about AfD outcomes). Yes, some things can be learned on the job but a certain minimal initial level of proficiency is necessary before a user can become an admin. In this case, with so little direct participation in AfDs and in other admin-related areas, there is really no way to tell.  The answers to the questions do not do much in helping to overcome these concerns. E.g. the answer to Q9 regarding notability is a bit problematic. The number of google-hits (especially for a plain google search) as such is not indicative of notability: you really do need to find coverage by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Some specialized google searches, such as googlenews and googlebooks searches, are generally good at finding such reliable sources, but a plain google search is not. I have no problems with trustworthiness of this editor, and in about 3-4 months, provided a reasonable amount of direct XfD participation in the meantime, there will be no problems with passing an RfA.
'''Oppose''' - User's ''"it'll be alright on the night"'' views make me uneasy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I'll like to see more contributions to the Wikipedia namespace that are not related to wikiprojects (e.g. [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]]). <small>
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned that MrKIA11 wants to close XFDs, but has not made many contributions yet. I'm also concerned by the about-turn on "cool-down blocks". This shows a lack of understanding of policy. [Incidentally, I have no problem with an administrator confining himself to one particular WikiProject.]
'''Oppose''' You don't know policy. If given the tools now, you will mis-use them. I could care less how many "good standing" editors like barneca or Keeper support you, their reasoning is misleading to other voters and yourself. Review yourself, and think about what you need to improve on.--
'''Oppose (changed from neutral)''' - per answer to Q10, more specifically the word 'deserve'. A block should only be used to protect the project from harm, not because someones deserves not to be able to edit the project. That is infact, our motto and core policy and per Jimbo it is the most sacred of all policies. ES usage is low which automatically turns me into an opposer, next time (and i hope their is a next time as you are a fantastic editor) read blocking policy and make sure your edit summary is above 95% for major edits, and 100% for minor. You should have no problems then. I've seen you saying that you wont misuse the tools, but without any proof of this (for example, some work with XfD's) I still have to oppose. You should be fine after a little more experience however. Best of luck,
'''Weak Oppose''' I initially wanted to support, as I love this user's contributions to his wikiproject. However, I just can't get over some of the choppy answers that seem to indicate a poor understanding of the blocking policy and some lack of experience. Though admins can learn on the job, which is perfectly normal, your answers questions 10 and 11 seem to show that too much learning is needed in a relatively short period. But you have a lot of potential &mdash; come back in a few months with some experience at XfD and possibly another admin-related area (maybe vandal fighting?), and you'll have no problem passing. Also, be sure to start using edit summaries consistently, as, among other things, it helps reviewers at RfA have a better understanding of your edit history. You're a good editor, and you'll make an excellent admin someday.
Demonstrates lack of policy proficiency. I believe that more time and experience, with some participation in process (particularly [[WP:AFD]]) would orientate him with some of our processes and policy knowledge here before he receives the mop and bucket. Please keep up your good content contributions though. -
'''Weak Oppose''' I was very neutral but the quick and abrupt change of Q10 from one side of the spectrum to the other shows that maybe the user either doesn't know policy, or that their own personal view of policy can be swayed easily. -
'''Oppose'''.  It's nigh on impossible for an administrator to know everything about being an administrator, but it's very important to take initiative to look up and learn about the things which she doesn't know (but is presumably being queried about).  I am a little worried by the lack of this shown in the answers to the questions.  MrKIA11 seems to have a good temperment for an administrator, however, so I'm sure that with some more experience and familiarization with the contents of the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|Administrator's reading list]], he will make a great candidate. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. After you get a bit more experience in the project space I'd feel more comfortable with giving you the tools. I look forward to supporting in the near future.
'''Oppose''' Sigh. Yet another VG-heavy candidate lacking the rest of it and jumping in anyway.
'''Oppose''' Weak question answers, not enough different experience.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' Unconvincing answers highlighted by the flip-flopping over q 10 to gain support / not garner opposes.  Video games aside, lacks experience.
'''Regretful oppose''' - horrible edit summary usage; otherwise, looks good. P.S. I have no problem with admins who work in a single WikiProject.
'''Oppose''' Lack sufficient experience in administrative tasks.<span style="font-family: verdana;">
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, flip-flopping over important questions, this user must be [[Barack Obama]].
'''Neutral'''.  In 3 months for sure.  For now, read over [[WP:ARL]] and start contributing in other areas of the 'pedia. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral.''' Lack of edit summaries (the nasty long red lines in editcount) and answers to Q10 (first one) and Q11 keep me away from support. MrKIA11, you have a plenty of potential, but you have to familiarize yourself better with the admin rights and chores. Also, it seems like 80% of his contributions in WP namespace is related to WP:VG.
'''Neutral''' I really can't support after some of those question answers, but I can't oppose either. At this point all have to stay neutral. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' I would like to support, however, the opposers have some very good arguments. I advise getting more experience in admin areas, rather than mostly working in [[WP:VG]]. Also, try to use edit summaries more. Run again in 3 months or so, and you'll definitely have my support. Thanks, '''
'''Neutral''' He definitely looks like an editor with good intentions, but the edit summary usage sort of worries me - I recognise that he has pledged to use it more often, but I'd like some more demonstration. A little more work in admin areas would do fine - the Q11 answer was so-so, as LittleMountain pointed out above. If you were to obtain more experience in admin areas, I would most likely support. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' - It looks like this RFA is going to fail, which I think is probably a good thing.  I just hope the candidate takes note of how weak many of the opposes were (I'm speaking here of "weak opposes", not of opposes using rationales that I consider weak) - there's definitely recognition from most of the people here that MrKIA11 is admin material, but that he needs to spend a little more time in admin-related areas and learning relevant policy before he gets the bit.  Please don't let this RFA sour you on giving it another shot in a few months.
'''Neutral''' I think you should come back after three months.
'''Neutral''' The merits of this candidate are undeniable. Notwithstanding some weak points in the oppose section, some comments do stand out as concerning. Although I don't foresee any major problems - the candidate isn't going to on a blocking spree or majorly revamp {{tl|!}} - I find lack of experience to be a concerning factor. It's true that an admin doesn't have to branch into everything between A and Z, and there are many good admins working in specialist areas, but MrKIA primarily wishes to work at CSD and AfD. Lack of experience in this area is a concerning factor. Any admin action can be undone if they are blatantly mistaken, but I believe it would be more helpful to the candidate if he developed more experience in admin related areas. There's [[WP:DEADLINE|no rush]], so working for a few months in the areas of adminship that may be problematic would be beneficial, and "playing it safe" with adminship will only improve the candidate's already good qualities. Good luck,
'''Neutral''': I am not outright opposing this RFA, but I'm not outright supporting it, either. I would like to see more broad edits to the project that are outside of the scope of video games, and I would like to see greater involvement in areas which you state you have an interest in -- such as in the fields of CSD and XfD. I would also appreciate the greater usage of edit summaries. You do have a great contribution history, and I would support a future RFA if you take this to heart. <small>
Of course.  --
'''Support''', A quick flick through some assorted parts of your contributions suggests you know very well how to identify vandalism and how to maturely deal with it and with the users involved. Good speedy tagging, too. Evidently you know what you're doing and can make good use of the tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''', essentially per nominator.
'''Support''', has clue. I specially liked the answer to question 2, by the way. You do excellent, oft-overlooked work. It may not be as pretty as a string of FA's but it's just as important as fancy writing; gnomish and AV work leaves big article-writers free to write without vandals spoiling their pretty words.
'''Conditional support''' per Colton. --
'''Support''' per amusing limerick. ;)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I should have some reservations, because no two lines of a limerick should end with the same word, but I'm throwing caution to the winds just this once.
'''Support''': Looks fine to me.
'''Support''', great work on DOY pages, no concerns. <b>
'''Support.''' Per nom by {{user|Rick Block}} and answers to the first three questions. Should be a positive force as an administrator. '''
'''Support''' Candidate seems willing to do thankless work and presents no obvious reasons for concern. Good luck!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like he's in control and knows what he's doing. Best of Luck!
'''Support''' I'm convinced. --
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Moral Support''', nice limerick.
'''Weak Support'''; while some of the oppose rationals are concerning, I believe that this user will be a net positive.
'''Support'''. I believe this editor is trustworthy.
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and per awards on the candidate's userpage.  --
To outweigh this nonsense about a non-communicative admin. I don't think you'd do badly.
'''Support''' - Seems a nice enough guy who [most likely] wouldn't intentionally abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've seen some missteps but nothing that makes me fear this user would abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Oppose.'''  Sorry to be the first one in this section, but this candidate seems much too eager to delete articles rather than create or enhance them. His very recent attempts to put an A7 tag on a new article about a French band that opened for [[David Bowie]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Place] and his nominating of articles on major party candidates for ongoing U.S. elections [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Jeandron] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monty_Lankford] do not inspire confidence. I’ve seen no evidence of the candidate making any attempt to save at-risk articles, and a severe lack of experience in article creation doesn’t help. As Juliancolton pointed out, his overreliance on Twinkle and Popups is not a good thing. The number of weak and conditional prefixes in the first dozen Supports confirms that even his supporters feel this candidate is traveling with baggage that may create problems down the road.
'''Oppose''' This string of warnings to admin Hemanshu [[User_talk:Hemanshu#Calendar_edits]] raises strong question to me of this user's willingness to explain their position or try to work with fellow users.  Firing off 5 templated warnings to an experienced admin without ever explaining the context for those warnings or trying to counsel them, and labeling this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_18&diff=next&oldid=240031165] 4-im vandalism is not something I would expect from an admin. Quite frankly, if I had seen you reverting that edit as vandalism, I would have seriously considered revoking your rollback rights and/or disabling twinkle. '''
'''Oppose''' I just feel that an Admin should do more to contribute to Wikipedia than just revert vandalism. While reverting vandalism is good, it is more important for a user to spend most of his time writing articles and participating in discussions. It's great that you spend a lot of time reverting vandalism, but I think an admin should have more experience in other aspects of editing Wikipedia.--
'''Oppose''' due to candidate's recent CSD tags [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McGill_Street&action=history].
'''Oppose''' per MBisanz. I don't want an admin to fire string of warnings to experienced editors without ever explaining the context for those warnings or trying to counsel them.
'''Oppose''' Per AdjustShift.
'''Oppose''' Changed from support. The points that MBisanz raised are indeed extremely concerning. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - per [[User:MBisanz|Mbisanz]].  Whoa.  <b>
'''Oppose''' — Per MBisanz. Templates can only go so far, I need an admin who can talk to me personally. —'''
'''Oppose''' per lack of understanding of [[WP:TEMPLAR|TEMPLAR]] (yeah, that thing) and quite a strong tendency to [[WP:OWN|own]] date articles.  I realise that in this case the admin was persistent and unforgiving but that's not really much of an excuse.  I can't trust you with the power to block experienced users for being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] on the first edit you don't like.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Speedy deletion should only be invoked in clear cases.  The curtness of answers to the Template Questions above would normally be a plus for me, but in this case they regrettably reinforce the concerns above over candidate's strike-first, help-later attitude.
Diffs show a deletionist who communicates through templates. Most of the Q&A responses are indefensibly vague. The user page "I think, therefore I revert" is too true to actually be funny. This user seems to be missing a grasp on the big picture, that or his name is missing a couple of syllables. I cannot in good faith support this. —
Per Q7.
'''Oppose''' per MBisanz. Hmm. --
'''Oppose''' - Matthew has brought some serious issues to light, I simply cannot support with such problems, but if they are demonstrated to be corrected by the next RfA you apply for (if you do), I will no doubt be ready to change my stance. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Candidate seems a little "deletion happy". Lacks communication skills as well.
'''Oppose''' - Per {{User|MBisanz}}, clearly this user needs some more experience.
'''Oppose''' Overall some good contributions, specifically anti vandalism.  However, I usually desire more well rounded candidates.  I also have many reservations due to what MBisanz brought up. --
per MBisanz, bad communication by one party in a dispute doesn't excuse it for the other. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' per MBisanz, it's a very bad idea to give vandalism warnings to an experienced editor for edits that were obviously not vandalism. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose''' per MBisanz, seems too eager to delete pages. I've had an experience with this editor, he put an A7 tag on [[Who's Ya Daddy?]] despite the fact that they are notable. They already had an article, but I didn't know that. Too eager. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Oppose''' - doing well, but [[WP:NOTNOW|not yet]]. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' Aftering factoring in MBisanz's comments with my initial mild concern. <font face="Optima LT Std Medium">
'''Oppose''' Ironhold makes a good point - not everybody can write articles and the project needs everybody - BUT the project does not need template throwers with poor communication skills as administators
'''Oppose'''. Not following [[WP:DTTR]] shows Mufka's ineffectiveness to communicate effectively with editors. Also, giving warning templates in increasing severity over a span of 11 months sounds a bit excessive.
'''Oppose''' per the first few concerns above by Ecoleetage and MBisanz.
'''Strong Oppose''' An admin who doesn't know how to communicate, and is unforgiving and deals out blocks capriciously? No thanks. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Switched from Support. I'm sorry, but the links brought up by Ecoleetage and MBisanz are concerning. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Oppose''' - owing to the diffs identified above. This candidate is likely to end up warring with other admins over good-faith actions. -
'''Oppose''', unfortunately, there are too many admins who don't understand where CSD A7 applies, we do not need another.
'''Oppose''' - not to pile on or anything, but I would think we need more admins who are going to work in all areas of this project - it is, after all, an encyclopedia. Yet another speedy-patrolling admin is not what we need; that the nom is willing to do so is commendable, but I would like to see some more work outside of that area. --
'''Oppose''' per Parthsian. More all-around experience needed. '''
'''Oppose''' - sorry to pile on, but this does not look good.  Maybe with more time and experience?
'''Oppose''' - Haven't interacted with this user but MBisanz's concerns can't let me trust on the candidate. —<small>
'''Neutral''' as I really cannot say who is in the right re. [[:User:Hemanshu|Hemanshu]] (especially seeing as I am partially involved in the matter and the situation regarding that user is still being looked into at time of writing), and Mufka did help me when I asked for clarification re. Hemanshu on his talk page, but he then directed me to [[WP:WQA]] when that thread was later redirected to [[WP:AN]] as it didn't belong on [[WP:WQA|WQA]], which suggests an incomplete grasp of policy. Just not enough there to make me support, I'm afraid.
'''Neutral'''.  I've been thinking this one over, and I really cannot support right now due to the misuse of user warning templates.  In time I will be able to support.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''': Proper Communication and good judgements are the keys to a good admin which I am unsure about the candidate at this point. Perhaps a good Admin coach can help him out. --
'''Neutral'''. Mufka is a good contributor. However he has made some notable mistakes. Also, the answer to question 7 isn't quite right: we shouldn't be including personal information (such as phone numbers), even with reliable sources.
'''Neutral''' Good contributor, but misuse of warning templates. Sorry--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Neutral''' - Both Mufka and Hemanshu were in the wrong in my opinion but the communication concerns are still a sticking point. Templating Hemanshu was not the best course of action, it wouldn't have been that difficult to request they stop without restoring to the templates, but still a good editor nonetheless. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
I would have opposed per A to Q7, but I did not want to pile-on while the number of opposes are greater than supports. I strongly recommend the candidate withdraw asap.
'''Weak Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. This candidate is clearly eager and trying their best to improve the project and a quick look through the contribs reveal no major flaws. I do suggest using [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] ''all'' the time (Best to check the box in your preferences to force you to) though and to be a little bit more careful with {{tl|uw-vand4im}}, for example in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=244516460&oldid=244516422 this case] it was simple test-vandalism, nothing so grave it required to assume the bad faith needed for 4im warnings. But with some guidance, maybe by a senior admin (there was a proposal for something called [[WP:ADMENT]] some time ago, maybe we should put it to use?), I think this candidate can grow to be a good admin. '''
Strong support, excellent encyclopedia contributor.
Australian Cabal support.
'''Support'''. He seems mature enough to warrant the tools, so why not?
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] Good candidate, looks like a net positive. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
I'm
'''Weak Support''' I know that you want to help Wikipedia and that is why I am supporting, but you also say you want to work in AIV, but as pointed out, you have zero edits there. You may want to consider gaining some experience there. Anyway though, Good Luck!
As if AIV needs more than two brain cells. '''
'''Support''' I trust him with the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I do note the opposes, but I'm sure before diving in the deep end you'll start with the blatant vandals first, then work your way up to more "complex" cases. Per Naerii, it's not rocket science, and certainly ''not'' worthy of a strong oppose. Otherwise, a good editor with a lot of experience. --
'''Support''' Jj137 said it all. Sure, I would feel more comfortable if the user had more contributions in admin-related articles, but I trust the user with the tools. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Adminship ''shouldn't'' be a big deal. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good mainspace contributor and virtually no experience in admin areas, now that is a plus point.
'''Support''' Per nom. - -
'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]]; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
Oh come on! This applicant's application is really well written, the applicant clearly wants to improve Wikipedia and has the ability to do so. They have stated that they aren't going to jump in at the deep end, I think benefit of the doubt and why the hell not is called for here. —'''
'''Support''' per Mizu onna sango15. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support''': A bit inexperienced, but I really see no indication that this is a reckless or rash individual. Contributions are sound enough to give him a chance.
'''Strong Support''' - I have been working with Mvjs for about a month now and I can tell you this user is ready for adminship. He always uses [[WP:CIVIL]], and is one of the nicest users on here. -
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|it's no big deal]].--
Hello, I'm Wonder Woman and my invisible airplane is having its engine overhauled, so I'll need to get one first class ticket on the 7:35 flight to Schenectady, N.Y., please...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for a perfectly fine candidate who has made impressive contributions to the project.
'''Strong Support''' - Brilliant editor, no doubt in my mind that this guy will make a fine admin. --'''
'''Support''' Mvjs was the first editor who welcomed me into Wikipedia. He has since continued to assist me whenever I requested help, not afraid to get into articles to do hard work. He has been very capable in his Anti-Vandal efforts, and Wikipedia would be better with him as an admin.
'''Weak Support''' I am a little concerned about the AIV based opposes especially as that is the first thing you list as an area you'd work in; But you've been here long enough and done a diverse enough set of contributions to show sense and commitment, and a clean block record is a positive thing. Close to the minimum level for experience and if you don't succeed this time I hope you return, but I think you are ready now. '''
'''Support''' I trust this user.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support'''.  I've read the nominee's presentation, and I've read all Oppose-s up to the present. I think the nominee has a plausible plan to iterate towards a good adminship, in addition to the encyclopedist that he/she already is. (The only potential trouble is that the nominee may be a promotor of [[British English]]. Never mind.)  --
Excellent answers to the questions. —
'''Support''', competent and friendly editor. I do not see any valid reason to oppose. +
'''Support''', I'm comfortable that you know what you're doing in the areas you wish to work in, and are intelligent enough not to wade crazily into things you don't understand properly. Certainly there are experience concerns, but not major ones. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Oppose''' (and I hate to be the first). Not enough experience. You want to participate in [[WP:AIV]], but you have '''no edits to that page whatsoever'''. 81 edits to the project space in total (12 of which are to this page) just isn't really enough. Regards, <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough work in admin-related areas.
'''Strong Oppose'''Almost no edits to admin related areas. Sorry.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience with the admin areas, as stated above. --
'''Oppose'''. Little to no experience in admin related areas candidate plans to work on.
'''Oppose''' You want to participate in AIV, but you've ''never'' reported anyone or dealt with a report. You've got no experience in AIV, AN3, ANI, and haven't done anything with your Wikipedia-space edits (that I've reviewed) to make me think you've proved yourself trustworthy and knowledgable.--
'''Oppose''' learning on the job is okay, but learning ''everything'' on the job is not. Erik the <font color="red">
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge, and deleted contributions indicates a lack of recent work on new page patrol, speedy deletions, etc. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to '''strong oppose''' due to haranguing of opposers.
'''Oppose''' - Does not meet [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|my criteria]]. Vacant experience in the project space - nearly all areas that candidate wishes to work.
'''Oppose''' - With only 3500+ edits, I see few that are outside of vandalism reverts. While I understand that anti-vandalism is a much needed service, I just personally feel that it alone does not give you enough needed experience to be successful as an administrator. Another concern was the lack of CSD tagging, though the few that Mvjs's has done appear fine. Personally the only button I may feel comfortable giving you at this time would be block, seeing as you have little experience in any other areas related to the other tools.
'''Oppose''' Per low edit count and only 93% edit summary usage on major edits. I could possibly ignore 93% for minor edits, but not for major edits. Also, lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' I think you need more experience in admin related work.--
'''Oppose''' No harm no foul in nominating, but you're just not quite ready. If this is something want, try to be as active the next 6-8 months like you were in the late spring/summer, and try to spend 1/4 of your time on Wikipedia space, admin type stuff. AFD, AIV, RC, etc etc. At the same time, write articles. That's most important. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
<s>'''Oppose'''; Inadequate experience in admin related areas.
'''Oppose''' per lack of Wikipedia-space edits. --
'''Strong oppose''' - as
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned that the candidate lacks experience in admin-related areas. Also, the bulk of the candidate's mainspace and main talk contributions are in a fairly narrow and specialist field of Australian aviation, particularly Melbourne airport, and I would like to see how the candidate does branching out into other areas. Given the user has the borderline number of necessary edits generally expected in admin candidates, I really think they need much more broader experience, particularly in more controversial areas so the community can get a better idea how the candidate would handle themselves dealing with controversies as an administrator. Also, this hasn't really got anything to do with my oppose, but since the candidate is running at least on the partial platform of a perceived lack of administrators in the Australian community I just want to note that I don't think the Australian Wikiproject is especially lacking in administrators. In fact, I think on a per user ratio we're probably rather highly represented in the Administrator community compared to other projects. There is always plenty of work, though, and I imagine that we would never consider we have "enough" administrators, and there are lots of Australian users I would support at RfA but given we have quite a few Australian administrators I don't find it a very convincing rationale for a premature RfA. Certainly, there are many other users in the Australian community much better qualified.
'''Neutral'''. Good contributions. However Mvjs doesn't really show activity in the areas where he intends to use admin powers.
'''Neutral''' - Sorry, you seem like a good, mature contributor that could potentially make a good admin in the future, but some of the opposes (Erik especially) make a valid point. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' Please try again after a few months after taking into consideration the points raised.You have shown great commitment towards Wikipedia.Do not foresee a misuse of tools from you.Did not want a pileup but really it is only [[WP:NOTNOW]] Good luck.
'''Neutral''': A sound contributor, but little experience in administrative tasks. <small>
'''Neutral'''.  After a few months of contributing in the projectspace, you'll be ready for adminship (take a look at [[WP:ARL]] for ideas for administrative tasks). Can't support now however. Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' - looking over your history here and reading the above, I see no reason to oppose, but feel that a support would be forthcoming in a few months hence '''''<font color="darkgreen">
'''Neutral''' per Axl (neutral #1).
'''Neutral''' Great job so far, but the opposes bring up valid points - as do the supports - so I must remain neutral. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Neutral''': Keep up the good work. But I wish you had a more than 3 edits to the admin areas you want to work for, atleast to show them in the count tool... But definitely not like all of them after the start of this RFA (the only 3 AIV was on 12th Oct2008  :)  ) --
'''Neutral''': Your responses to the questions & comments above clearly indicate that you are a responsible editor, but there is the fact that you don't have enough experience in the areas you plan to work in. Otherwise I'd definitely be supporting.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but it appears as though you lack vital experience, especially in the areas that you wish to work in. I would give yourself 5-6 months of straight moderate to heavy editing in both the main space and project space and come back. You may want to try [[WP:ADMINCOACH|administrator coaching]] at one point in the near future.
'''Oppose''' - per [[User:Wisdom89]]. You lack of experience on the areas you want to work.
'''Oppose''' you've been here for a week. No one has ''ever'' passed adminship in such a short time. I find knowledge of various policies in the answers troubling for a week old user. Have you ever had another account? '''
'''Oppose'''. While there are no official requirements to becoming an admin, you'll need to have been editing for several months and at least 2000 edits. Please see [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my personal requirements]] for more information on what is typically needed.
'''Oppose''' - I have seen great work from you, but only one week? Sorry, that does not give me enough time to make a adequite  decision on whether or not you will abuse the tools or clearly understand policy. Keep up the good work, wait 3-4 months and come back.
'''Neutral''' This RfA has 0% chance of passing.  Knowing that, I can not [[WP:AGF|in good faith]] support, nor oppose.
'''Oppose''' - you have a mere 68 edits, 7 of which were on this RfA, which I had to correct. -  <span style="font-family:Hobo Std.; font-size:12px; ">'''
I appreciate the thought but this is a [[WP:NOTNOW]] case. I notified the user and advised him to think about withdrawing. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' due to extreme lack of experience.  Suggest closure per [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience editing, come back in a few months. '''
'''Oh-posse!''' Not wanting to pile but second the rest. Take your time and you'll do fine.
'''Oppose'''. With a bit more experience you may be ready for the mop. But right now you have fewer than 100 edits and little experience in admin spaces or article building.
'''Nuetral''' - I agree [[WP:NOTNOW]] I don't think you should, but MyNameIsKyle said it question 1 he only wants to grant roll back and retrieve articles but you still need a bit more experience. Keep on editing!
I remember Naerii from her previous accounts, which are listed above. From my observations of her, she is someone who I think is unlikely to be abusive. I can support this request.
'''Extremely strong support''' - anyone who lists ArbCom for deletion should not only become a sysop, but a 'crat, checkuser and oversighter as well. '''
Weak support.  I'd hope Naerii has learnt from experience and can close the tab and make a coffee, and take it gently.
From what I've seen, this user's primary "fault" has been frustration at the double standards administrators enjoy.  (Perhaps there are other things I've not seen, but this seems clear to fail so this support is primarily intended to note that this frustration is hardly unreasonable.)  Frankly, I want to see more users like this who don't believe admins and arbitrators should be treated as wikigods.  We promoted the user who MFD'd RFA, so I can't see how doing the same for ArbCom is a disqualification. --
Per Acalamari, Monobi, Dan Beale-Cocks and JayHenry.
I thought you didn't want to be one? (Maybe that's the whole point.) ''
Per JayHenry. Also, drama is not necessarily a bad thing. Quietly and passively accepting the pronouncements of those in authority, in order to ingratiate oneself and become an admin, would be a bad thing.
'''Support''', because I don't believe one leak should sink a ship. I think Naerii is a quality contributer and 99/100 times makes thoughtful decisions - my personal requirements for adminship aren't perfection. He knows policy and he knows when they should be invoked. Also, support because Naerii is shrewdly setting up this RfA, knowing it will fail - but all the opposers will get the ArbCom thing out of their systems, and he can come back in 3-4 months and pass with flying colors. It's just how this game is played nowadays.
'''Support''' &mdash; MFDing the Arbitrary Committee is perhaps the one thing that can outweigh a self-nom.  The Arbitrary Committee has got to go.
'''Support''', don't see any problems beyond the obvious, which really seems to be blown out of proportion. Says she'll work on AIV, and I didn't see any reports that were without merit (or didn't lead to a block). And I'm sure she'd do a good job at closing afds, given pretty much all of her edits there were well-thought-out and reasoned (my only problem was with [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiseek|this one]], but I'm sure she'll get back on that after being reminded of it). -
'''Support''', obviously a controversial candidate, but a willingness to admit that they were wrong and to take punishment on the chin if justified (per Q4) is impressive.
'''Support''', The user has a very good contribution history to mainspace. The user is sensitive to the problems of BLPs and we need more admins like this. I have no problem with an MFD of arbcom from a procedural point of view, I would probably !vote keep to such an MFD but it doesn't break any rule of wikipedia.
'''Support''' per no memorable negative interactions and appears to contribute to mainspace constructively.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' People are allowed to make mistakes.
'''Support''' - good editor, would be a good admin in my book! -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' It's only two months since you [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (2nd nomination)|MFD'd Arbcom]] for god's sake.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' You've retired twice in the past 6 months.  Been involved in an arbcom case---my guess based upon the above nomination is that you disagreed with their verdict which is why you nom'd it for deletion?  But that's besides the point, I want to see more stability and continuous activity from potential admins.  The fact that you quit wikipedia twice---and then came back under new accounts---is somewhat bothersome.
'''Oppose''' Per the above.
'''Weak oppose'''. zOMG DRAHMAZ.  Sorry, but to soon after all the drama.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose''' You have a lack of stability and the fact that you've been dealing with alternate accounts because you've ''retired'' from the Wikipedia twice in the past 6 months is not a good thing.  You answers to all the questions have me concerned, especially Q1, which pretty much says that you are going to be a deletionist and that you would not deal with the other areas that an administrator has to deal with.  Also, because of how short your answers to the questions are, that might mean that you might not take the time to review each page before you delete it, which means that you might not use the tools to the fullest.  I am, sadly, unable to support this nomination at this time.  Good luck in the future!
'''Oppose'''. Never. Immaturity is one thing, but MFD'ing Arbcom, well, thats a new level of siliness.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. A good editor, but being blocked only a month and a half ago shows that it's not time yet. Please see my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|admin criteria page]] for furhter information.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent and Balloonman.--
'''Oppose''' Per most of the above, but primarily the [[WP:MFD]] Arbcom debacle.
'''Oppose''' Even if I can overlook everything else, the fact that you have been blocked less than three months ago automatically earns a 'no' from me.
'''Oppose''' - per the above concerns, and [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm just too worried about this candidate.  The wikipedia weathermen are forecasting [[WP:SNOW|a snowfall]].--
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent. It's too soon since the [[WP:MFD]] Arbcom incident. The candidate will need to regain the community's trust.
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' I don't like opposing unless there is truly a good reason, but I see the emotional reaction as a huge warning signal. At this point, I'd suggest the candidate to give it some time and come back in half a year or so.  I'll be happy to forget about this unfortunate incident then.  --
'''Oppose''' for the reasons above - the block's too recent, and [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Naerii&lang=en edit summary usage] could be better. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&#151;
'''Strong oppose''' - [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (2nd nomination)|This]] particularly worries me. <small>
'''Oppose''' Serious drama regarding the ArbCom MFD and multiple accounts. <s>Also, I've seen this editor !voting multiple times during RfAs with the Kurt-esque "power hunger" excuse; I can't condone that, especially since this is a self-nom.</s>
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  I considered '''supporting''', for being [[wp:bold|bold]], but there is a point where [[wp:bold|boldness]] goes too far, and I do think you crossed that line last march.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - the MfD of ArbCom is a bit too much drama for my tastes. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Far too much drama and other issues.  There's already more than enough of it as it is.
'''Oppose''' per Useight above. Sorry. '''''
I'm sorry, but your MFD of the ArbCom... I mean, its fair enough to try and move things towards the dismantling of what you view as a useless body, but to MFD it was just [[WP:POINT|POINT]]y. Some would argue we need more POINTy admins to inject some common sense, but this was just a disruptive, pointless and time-wasting gesture. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' as per Useight, you haven't given it enough time <strong>
'''Oppose''' - No, too much drama.
My apologies for doing this, but oftentimes when I see this editor participating in discussions, his or her comments oftentimes add to the drama aspect of the encyclopedia. This editor has left me the impression that he lacks the maturity to be am administrator, and therefore I must oppose. That being said, I do value his contributions very much, and hope he doesn't get discouraged by this. :)
'''Oppose'''.  I can understand what it's like to be frustrated.  (Ask me about Highway 33 sometime, as an example.)  However, I'm concerned about Naerii's response to stressful situations.  MFDing ArbCom and moving [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians]] to [[Wikipedia:Mob rule]] are easily undone, as are other user actions, but misusing admin tools in a moment of frustration could really cause problems that go beyond user-level frustrations.  I'd like to see some evidence that she's learned from this problem and that she can get through future frustrating situations without reacting negatively.  Being an admin pretty much guarantees that you'll have to deal with difficult situations and difficult people. --
Not enough experience in administrator related areas, what I see as incivility, MFD of ArbCom et al. I would not consider supporting for at least another 9 months or so. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Oppose''' - based on their editing history to date, one must assume they will end up being desysopped, if they were permitted to pass this RfA, so the sensible thing to do is ensure this RfA doesn't pass, thus bypassing the needless drama that would result in the desysopping.
'''Weak oppose''' I fine Naerii to often be thoughtfull and intelligent, presenting good challenges of real value to opinions of others - a good thing to move the project forward. I also find excellent contributions in other areas. However, the question I must ask is - do I trust an editor, who acknowledges their block of March this year was down in part to linking to attack sites, with a page protection button? No. I'm afraid I don't at this time. Also, per Nick above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose''' - you have made some good contributions, and some not so good contributions. I think this nom is too soon after the [[WP:MFD]] Arbcom incident, and I think you need to do some work to prove that you can be trusted with the tools in the future. I wish you the best of luck, but I advise you to keep your head in future. ;) ♥
'''Oppose''' - A little more time and a little less drama; try again in a few months and I'll be more open to supporting you.  --
Great user, but the ArbCom thing worries me.  I don't like to pileon so its a neutral from me.  '''
'''Neutral''' -- pending answers to <s>mine</s> and Balloonman's questions...--
'''Neutral''' - some difficulties noted above which make it difficult to see the user as a net positive currently. However I do see the beginnings of some article development and certainly some concerted action in this area over the next few months would be beneficial. A couple of successful Good Articles will highlight the user's ability to engage in collaboration and negotiation and make it easy for folks like us here to see that it is possible. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' Blocked less than 2 months ago. Won't oppose because I don't like to pileon. --
Per WBOSITG. '''
'''Neutral''' If it hadn't been for the lack of judgement... --
'''Neutral''' Other than the arbcom incident, I'd support, but with this I cannot. Perhaps in about 3-6 moths when this cools down. Don't worry, I overract a lot too. [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Neutral''' Gut feeling says not right now.  Arbcom has nothing to do with it, that needs fixing anyways. Hope this doesn't [[WP:SNOW|snow]] on you. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' Having been blocked several months ago, i dont think youre ready. A bit more experience and a slightly harder shell will do a world of good. Good contribs though.
Prank nomination.
'''Neutral''', per WBOSITG and Sharface217.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
Per my support last time. --'''
Wikipedia needs more administrators with guts, who can make snap decisions. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' She's had a bit of a "controversial" past, but she's overcome that, as per her answer to q2. Also, I believe both of her blocks were misplaced; Wikipedia Review is regularly linked today without a problem, and the admin of the second block reversed himself. Other than that, she's very experienced all over and very dedicated - thus, will make a good admin in my opinion. <big>
'''Support''' per my support last time around.  Perhaps slightly impulsive at times, but has the best interests of the project at heart, I think.  Although her old userpage was better =).
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' — Nice article work. You intend to work at AIV and, presumably, with images, so I don't find the deletion concerns ''too'' worrying. Just spend a lot of time thinking before you press any delete buttons, m'kay? Best of luck! —'''
'''Support'''. Sure, she's done some controversial stuff, but she also seems able to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danielfolsom_2&diff=235352081&oldid=235351956 detatch herself] and keep things in perspective.
'''Support'''. Contrary to one of the other supports above, we certainly do not "need more administrators with guts, who can make snap decisions". Whilst Wikipedia is one of the few places where "all mouth and no action" is a compliment; I actually do trust Naerii ''not'' to make impulsive actions, as opposed to talking about them.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I thought you were an admin, I never knew about your past issues before today but they seem to be in the past. Done some nice article work too. —
'''Support''' Dont see why you wouldnt make a great admin although you have had a rough past you seem to have gone past that now.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Clearly has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.  An understanding of BOLD and the nature of wikis are sufficiently rare that I must lend my strongest support to this candidate.  Policy pages are not article space, and the encyclopedia has not been disrupted for 99.9% of readers just because a policy page went into MfD.  Though some in the oppose section have cited problems with CON, I ask you to consider that this editor has that uncommon awareness that ''consensus can change'', and that putting consensus up for renewal every now and then is the best kind of BOLDness.  '''
'''Support''' Absolutely. The removal of the cool-down blocks nonsense was a pretty excellent show of your good judgment. I also find the nonsense about policy being write only pretty depressing. Policy ''reflects consensus'': if practise finds something is stupid, then clearly the policy is wrong and should be changed. Consensus is a wishy-washy concept and things can get inserted into policies without proper discussion - if something has been, it is absolutely not a bad thing to remove it.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FNaerii&diff=209969220&oldid=209969096 As before]: Naerii is someone who is very unlikely to abuse the tools. From what I know about her, abusing the tools would go against her opinions and thoughts on adminship. She's experienced, and I think she'll be fine.
'''Strong Support''' per Synergy and extreme unlikeliness to abuse the tools. Naerii has the best interests of the Wiki at heart. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' Good faith user. Everyone hates the arbcom (and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Prod, for that matter]].) --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' A logical Wikipedia who reasons before taking decisions. I enjoy this user's contributions to discussions
Two tickets for Papa Bear and His Oompah Band, please...oh, wrong queue.  Well, why I am here: this candidate has experience, intelligence and the ability to successfully move beyond a rough past (hey, what's your secret?). '''Support'''
'''Oppose'''. It was only a few days ago, that you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=prev&oldid=235567341 removed] the [[WP:CDB|CDB]] sentence, which I put back in. I left a message on your talk page, and there was no response. This could be because you have your archive set for ''one day''. I would prefer that such edits be discussed, since as an admin you would have to discuss any possible objections over your actions. While you do look like a net positive as an editor, you give me no reason to suspect you would be trusted with the tools, or even need them. Also, even though its in the past, it was pointy to MfD ArbCom, I haven't been able to locate where you thought it was a mistake or resented having done it. Would you mind providing that diff please? '''
'''Oppose''' - I could never support someone who attempted to MFD ArbCom, note that I had made the decision to oppose before I read the nom-statement. (edit conflict, so I will add) Seems that you have not really learnt from past experiences: changing policy without consensus. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>
'''Oppose''' Unilaterally removing the [[WP:CDB|CDB]] sentence is far too bold. As the use stated in Q1 is for blocking other users, I don't think candidate has sufficient understanding, and acceptance, of blocking policy. MFD'ing ARBCOM? What's up with that. Yoicks!
'''Oppose''' Deleting the cool down block policy was [[WP:POINT|pointy]].  Doesn't match up with candidate's vow that the MfD'ing ArbCom type stuff is in the past.
'''Oppose.''' per Townlake. I'd support, but I just don't think the right time has come.
'''Oppose''' - I agree, deleting the cool down block section was being ''too'' bold, and ''too'' [[WP:IAR|IAR]]-like. I would support, if this was a few months ago, but the fact that this was a few ''days'' ago is too much for me.
'''Strong Oppose''' - The ARBCOM's MfD is enough to oppose. <small>
'''Oppose''', per recent CDB episode. There was a recent extensive discussion of the cool down block issue at [[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Cool down blocks]] and it was abundantly clear then that there was no consensus for removing the CDB provision from the policy (in fact, I think there was explicit consensus to keep it). A unilateral removal of the provision, like this one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=prev&oldid=235567341], in such a situation was clearly inappropriate.
'''Oppose''' per same reasons as AmeIiorate and Dlohcierekim. I also think that on this case Kurt's ''prima facie'' argument applies, you should've waited until someone else thought you were ready. Where's the fire?--
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately I cannot see enough reason in the supporting votes, and alas, far too much reason in the opposing votes, to support this nomination. I'm sorry. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' The article work is great, however, the MFD of ArbCom and removal of WP:COOLDOWN are simply too radical and breaking off from clear consensus. I do, however realize that the two blocks for Wikipedia Review linking were perhaps not appropriate, and I haven't used them in consideration for this.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but there are simply too many pointy events in your edit history for me to overlook. —
'''Oppose''' Because the candidate thinks that practice = policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=prev&oldid=235567341], we already have enough admins who make that mistake.
'''Oppose''' per Synergy and  miquonranger03. Wether people use them or not, Cool Down Blocks are against policy. If they are current practice, that means the practice is '''wrong''', not the policy. Like last time, the ArbCom MfD shows alot of [[WP:POINT|pointy]]ness, and blatant disregard for authority. I also find the response to Oppose #1 "I changed ''Policy X'' per ''Essay X''" to show a huge misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Yikes, definitely not. Naerii says she's "calmed down," but there's still a lot of contentious pointy events in her recent history.
'''Oppose''' - Just '''no''', we don't need more admins that think that think policy shouldn't be followed. The [[WP:CDB|CDB]] policy is there for a reason, it shouldn't be removed just on anyone's whim against consensus. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
'''Oppose''' First, though ArbCom can always be improved, that MfD was enough to oppose in itself. Otherwise I just don't trust his behavior and judgment. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' (for now). I have seen this editor around often and I often thought, that it is weird that he/she is no admin. But reviewing the previous RfAs, some things mentioned there are concerning; but I will wait to see if others noted that those problems are still existing. Also, whenever I see him/her participating in an RfA, the only comment is usually "Support" or "Oppose", without any reason. And every time I feel that this user is thinking that numbers matter more than reasoning  (see [[WP:NOT#DEM]]). While I will of course think that this is not true ([[WP:AGF]] anyone?), I think an admin should not be so brief on words but rather explain his/her reasoning to everyone else. While this is not enough to oppose, it (and what I read in the previous RfAs) is enough to stop me from supporting, for now that is. I will most likely change my vote as the RfA progresses. '''
'''Neutral''' The MfD of the ArbCom scares me, but you're a GA reviewer and article writer, and we could always use more of those. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
NOTNOW, but at some later time, sure. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Neutral''' - Not going to pile on. I thought Naerii was an administrator already, and I wasn't intimately familiar with the above actions until reading the above thoroughly. the CDB and MFD are enough to prevent me from supporting.
'''No-Pile Neutral''' - MfD ArmCom caught my eye.  This user seems to want to take a step in the right direction. I just think that this RfA is a bit immature.  I think 5000 edits in two years may be a little bit low when considering there were two retirements.  However, I do recognize naerii's article contributions.  (''Actually I'm listening to Black Holes and Revelations right now...'')  I don't want to vote oppose, I hope more consistent contributions and active participation in AIV and other processes will help naerii secure the mop in a few months.
'''Neutral''' seen the name around and generally impressed, but the cool down blocks issue suggests a lack of full understanding of the admin role. Feel sure it will come with more experience, just think this is a bit premature. . .
I've seen NF24 many times and have interacted on at least one occasion. Always impressed with demeanor.
'''Support''' Definitely, with all the help that the user has provided, where I have seen at [[Wikipedia:Help Desk]] and more. Very helpful and am quite sure that won't go crazy with the tools! (P.S Beat the nominator!) '''
'''Support''' as nom. (I was at class :P)
'''Support''' the caba...I mean, the Wiki could use him as a cab...uhhhh, Admin.
'''Support''' Well, I've got to admit that there's all the reasons here that often get my alarm bells (<small>read lack of [[WP:AGF]] on my part!</small>) ringing. Secret Pages, garish user and talk page (with wonky code in IE for your user page, just to let you know) heavy use of automated tools.... '''but''' actually your [[WP:HELPDESK]] work shows great WP process knowledge, sensible [[WP:AFD]] and [[C:CSD]] calls re-assure me, and you have article work on your area of interest as well as vandalism reversion. I was going to be hard here, but so far there is simply nothing I can see that makes me think you'd abuse the tools, or make more work for other admins through poor use of them. I think you're doing a great job and the bit will only help further. Good luck, and best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' As per track and the fact Wizardman is the nom(who has nominated some good users before)
'''Support''' How can I phrase this gently... uh....let's see.... DUHHHHHH!!!
'''Support''' I've seen this user's work, and with his knowledge, he will make a great admin.
'''Support,''' but with a caution. There were many appropriate CSD taggings, so the three questionable ones out of the last 500 edits are not sufficiently concerning for an oppose.
'''Support,''' and not just because he has great taste in drivers. Especially impressed with what I've seen at the Helpdesk.
'''Support'''.  Seen him at the help desk.  '''

'''Support''' Editor is able to read newspaper.
'''Support'''. Helpful and polite; will make a good sysop. --
'''Support''' I've seen him around; good experience. <strong>

'''Support'''.  Great contribs, especially on the helpdesk.  Good job! <font face="Trebuchet MS">
Needs the mop.
'''Support''' Wish to cancel out oppose I don't agree with.--
Add my support. <sup>
Good user from my observations. Regarding recall, if NASCAR Fan24 wishes to place himself in the category, I see no reason to hold that against him. People used to get opposed if they said they ''wouldn't'' place themselves in the category. Age is not a factor either, especially if the candidate has proved to be an effective and mature editor. ''
'''Support'''. --'''''
'''Support'''. Hard working Wikipedian who seems ready to use the tools.
'''Support''' I've observe this users edits in long periods of time and I believe he is trustworthy for the mop. You may have a few flaws here and there, but it shouldn't hinder your performance when going backlogs and dealing with trolls. Opposing based on age is wrong, as there is minimal proof of this user's immaturity. I trust this user with the tools. <font color="red">
'''Support''' I think NCF24 deserves the tools, he won't abuse them. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' He's a good guy.  I've seen his work and I found his secret page...haha.  But seriously, I personally hope someday I can have enough common sense as this guy.  Best of luck to you.
'''Support'''. Even with the concerns raised within the opposes in mind, I don't see anything that indicates [[User:NASCAR Fan24|NASCAR Fan24]] will misuse the admin tools (intentionally or not). There is a lot to be said for on-the-job training, and I suspect this candidate will have the foresight to take things slowly if granted adminship. Good luck! -
'''Support'''. I've had a few interactions with this editor and while I don't agree with all his interpretations I believe he knows what he is doing and is trustworthy.  Hey there are a couple flaws but we're all human here.  I am concerned this user has a bit of a quick trigger finger with CSD tags, which I can relate to because I have the same problem, but he has been sufficiently open to discussion and removals of these tags in the past so I don't see this to be a large issue.--<small>
'''Support''' No real problems here. Oppose votes not concerning enough, especially the ones regarding age.
'''Support''' Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' Good user. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
Recall willingless allows me to AGF on this one.
'''Support''' Positive, uncontroversial contributor with a temperament well suited to the thankless, truly ''administrative'' functions of an admin; his less-than-perfect understanding of certain policies--which will improve over time--are more than offset by his substantive experience patrolling pages and helping new users.  Would not misuse sysop tools.--
'''Weak Support''', I am concerned at some of the stuff brought up in the Oppose section, but not enough to make me think this user is unsuitable.  Uncontroversial, solid editor, should be given a chance.
'''Support'''. The isolated reasons to oppose which have been found have been accepted by NASCAR Fan24, and s/he has not tried to justify mistakes but has given assurances that they will not be repeated. Shows a mature response to the questions and criticisms that are an ievitable part of this RfA process - bodes well for admin duties.
'''Support''' - needs the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen NF24 around, and he is a great vandal fighter and editor overall.
'''Support''' Will do just fine on the job. :) '''[[User talk:AL2TB|^_^]] <big>
'''Support'''. Changed from neutral below. I think that although this user may have made a few slip ups, NF24's responses and discussion here has convinced me that he will take care when given adminship. Overall NF24 has a strong record and deserves the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' Will be useful for the AFD's - seems that I have seen his involvement often there.--
From my experiences with the user, I don't feel that he or she has an adequate understanding of Wikipeda procedures. I'm sure that with a few month's time this user would be ready, but I don't feel that the user is ready now. --'''
Only been here as a user for a few months. <s>In addition, his age in real life (which I assume to be early teens since he is taking PE) may conflict with some of the things he does on Wikipedia, leading to poor, immature decisions.</s> --
'''Oppose'''.  Would you want somebody still of the PE age to be instrumental in the deletion of your (presumably) learned article?  I don’t think so.  All this reminds me of the dot-com and “new economy” manias – the invitation to  suspend reasonable disbelief.  Sure, there are the Mozarts etc. but for every prodigy there are a zillion wannabes.  Not for me.  BTW, is Eprb123 some kind of serial nominator?  What’s going on here?  --
Your statement about admin recall strikes me as only an attempt to give socially acceptable answers. If you did actually believe it was "important for the community to be able to revoke my admin tools", you would be aware that simply putting your name in that category is completely meaningless, as people can (and do) remove themselves from that category at will whenever it becomes inconvenient to them. Political correctness does not score you any points with me.
When there is a situation involving BLP and/or [[WP:OTRS|OTRS]], it is certain that the material being discussed is sensitive.  Therefore, if a discussion was occurring on-wiki and subsequently deleted because of BLP, that's an indicator to switch the discussion to private places, such as IRC or email.  Furthermore, these discussions (on-wiki) also must be oversighted due to the sensitivity.  Besides all that, I have a feeling that this user is strongly prone to jumping the gun when he does not understand a specific situation; one example would be [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Newsroom#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2|volunteering to write a newsletter story about an arbitration case]] when understanding is minimal.  If this principle is coupled with clearing CSD, creators of perfectly good articles would yell at the user, potentially escalating to ANI, and worst of all, ArbCom and desysopping.  With that, it's okay to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]], but there are other times when being bold is not a good idea.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns over CSD tagging. I've encountered (and sometimes overturned) speedy requests a number of times from this user, often tagged within a minute or two of creation. ([[Henry Bond|This]] comes to mind, and [[Phyllis Modarelli - Such A Time As This - CD|this]] was overturned by another admin.) I would hope that someone who wants to be an admin would be taking the couple of extra minutes to read the criteria. However, I see a lot of good contributions, and I really hope NASCAR Fan24 will work on the issues brought up here and come back for another try in a few months, because I think there's potential here.--
'''Oppose''' Not good on understanding the procedures. Sorry...
''"First I'd check the AfD to see if the subject of the article requested deletion. That's a sure sign of a BLP violation"'' — no, it isn't. ''"I would avoid going to DRV because we are talking about libelous material here"'' — no, not always. ''"If the discussion establishes a consensus to endorse deletion and I cannot find a reliable source that backs up the material, I will let the article stay deleted"'' — sources don't mean undeletion; articles with sources can be deleted per the biographies of living persons, and just because you have "a reliable source" doesn't give you the ability to undelete it. I cannot support this user for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, the speed of deletion concerned me, but this comment in another RFA pushed me to oppose.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden&diff=185334935&oldid=185329630]]  High schools consistently pass AFD due to article improvenents  in the afd period.  The suggestion that it might be speedied (although qualified in the comment) leads me to oppose.--
Like Daniel, Q14 troubles me.

'''Oppose''' per Daniel.  His very confused answer to Q. 14 is a sure sign that he isn't yet ready for the mop.  He certainly is unprepared to handle the complexities of BLP cases.
'''Oppose''' per Q9.
'''Oppose''' per Q14. --
'''Oppose''' particularly about BLP. that the subject of an article requested deletion does not prove a BLP violation.
Per Daniel &mdash;
'''Oppose''', problems with CSD.
A thorough understanding of BLP is important if you are to deal with deletions. –
'''Oppose''', I was brought here after viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=185748071&oldid=185747753 this help desk response] advising against citing a youtube video. Although citing a video ''may'' not be the best option, both the wording and the lack of "here's what you can do instead" options make me feel the need to oppose. --<font color="#617599" face="Courier New">
'''Oppose''' per Q14
Knowledge of the BLP policy is absolutely essential if you want to deal with deletions (and even if you don't want to deal with them). Your answers to the some of the questions demonstrate that you don't have this. I can't support.
I'm sorry, and realize that these were almost three months ago, but I also have some concerns, having noted some difficulties with knowledge of CSD criteria, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N._M._Kelby&diff=166092920&oldid=166092828] and rapid referral to AFD without much research [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N.M._Kelby], though give the editor credit for rapid withdrawal of the nomination.  Unfortunately, I also note a number of more recent declined CSDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=NASCAR+Fan24&namespace=0&year=&month=-1](see January 8th 2008 for example) which cause me concern that full understanding of speedy criteria has not yet been learnt.--
As much as I'd like to support, I cannot do it at this time, for much of the same reasons as [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] above.  I have had several positive interactions with the user, but I've also noticed, on a few separate occasions, things that do not positively demonstrate the users knowledge of some policies, guidelines, and procedures.  Looking for the diff's now.  -
'''Neutral'''.  Not yet there.  Not active long enough for me to tell whether he might mess up with the mop.  Good job so far.
'''Neutral''' per concerns raised in the oppositions (except the age-based reasons); I've seen this user around and like his edits, but I can't give my full support yet.
'''Neutral''' I think that this editor will make a good administrator, but not yet. I don't consider age to be an indicator of maturity...you can see that just by the vast volume of vandalism that comes from IP addresses registered to colleges. However, I find that [[User:Revolving Bugbear|Revolving Bugbear's]] argument in opposition of this candidate is too compelling. Making a decision on AfD's without first weighing the information provided is an abuse of the system, and if this editor is going to make a small abuse here, I simply cannot trust that he will not make larger abuses once he has the tools.
'''Neutral'''. I was satisified with the answer given to my question above and it was a non issue in determining my comment. I would recommend changing names no matter what happens because it misled me about the nature of your contributions. The name NF24 to match your signature would make sense if it available, but of course it's entirely up to you. Anyhow, there's a few things that don't totally add up yet in my mind. The main reason for my neutral comment is that I think he needs to be around here longer. I probably would support in around three months. Another concern is being too fast at commenting 'delete' might mean he would delete too quickly without thoroughly assessing everything. I see a lot of stuff at listed at [[WP:CSD]] that should run through the full process instead of speedy, and I'm concerned that he might delete almost everything that's nominated without thinking enough about it. On the positive side, he has contributed a lot at WP:AIV and helpdesk which are very commendable. His high number of user talk contributions with a maximum of only a low number shows that he does lots of talking with lots of contributors. Ability to talk to contributors is extremely important to an admin, so keep it up! Keep you head held up high if this RFA fails. All you probably have to do to pass is make a few minor changes and keep on doing what you've been doing.
'''Neutral''' -- good potential but not ready yet as evidenced by the oppose comments regarding rapid deletions. For instance, on an AfD, I'd hope you'd take at least several minutes to read the article, its talk page, check out its refs and do a 30-second Google search. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral''' (changed from oppose, see above): NF's comments on other people's RfAs have actually reassured me that he's taking people's comments to heart and realizes what he needs to do differently. I'm still not quite ready to support until I see these changes go into practice, but the apparent good judgment takes the wind out of my inclination to oppose. -

'''Neutral''' - a little too green. I once read a wise comment form long-time admin [[User:Centrx]]. Learning the ropes of being an admin takes time. It's not an indication of character, but of human nature; 4 months is probably not enough, IMHO. I say wait another two, and show more knowledge of the deletion procedures.
Support: we need this fella, <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''- you've had less than 50 edits all year, which makes it extremely difficult for me to judge whether you'd use the tools responsibly. Besides, for the work you're doing and intend to do, I don't think you even ''need'' the mop & bucket.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW]], also creating sock puppets to support your own RFA is not the best idea. - '''
'''Oppose''' per... Just Oppose, it should be obvious. I also recommend a sock report after this.
I just can't make up my mind on this one. —
Failed to follow self nom instructions and took a break. Sounds like good admin material. —'''
Per Giggy. Seems like, you know.. a normal person. '''
Agreeing with Giggy and Naerii (who also agreed with Giggy). Nothing wrong with not following the self-nomination instructions: the part about removing the acceptance line is a silly rule, and it was silly for it to have been added in the first place. Nothing wrong with a break either: it shows this editor has a ''real life''.
'''Support'''. There's nothing wrong with not following the self-nom instructions. The acceptance line part is rather silly anyway. Also, what was wrong with taking a break? The purpose of RFA is to ensure that users who become administrators can be trusted to use the admin tools correctly. How does taking a break indicate that he won't? It just shows that he has something else to do. The only reason to refuse an adminship request is that one expects said user to misuse the administrator tools. There's no reason to believe that he will. Adminship is not a trophy, and it does not require one to be a "super-editor".
'''Support''', overall I like what I've seen so far having a look through your contributions. Some nice work at Images for upload is what makes me happiest to support - we need more admins that are competent in image policy and it certainly seems to me that you are. Good AIV reports too, and no evidence that i've seen indicates you're some kind of crazy nut or anything! Looks like a good candidate to me. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' - Very impressive. Though you failed to follow the self nom instructions, you are a very good contributor. Impressive number of edits for 6 months of experience. I see no reason to not give you the tools.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia&diff=prev&oldid=228914603 Good use of IAR, self-aware], for instance.
Yep. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' &mdash; I view self noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of admin potential. &mdash;
'''Support''' per xeno :P  ... I do think the user would make a good admin at this point.  The year long break has no effect on my opinion, and he/she has a right to take a break.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Weak support'''.  I think it's likely this candidate will make a good administrator, although [[User:Balloonman]] brings up some important points in the oppose section that are enough to make me qualify this support.
'''Support''' I for one probably '''need''' a wiki-break.--
'''Support''' per Gears of War. [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] '''
'''Weak support''' because, although I do share some of Balloonman's concerns, I feel that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Natl1&diff=prev&oldid=110565319 this well-selected quote] pretty much overrides them.
'''Support''' Gave the best possible answer to Q7.  Wikipedia, even admin work on wikipedia, is not a job and priorities should not be focused around it.
'''Oppose'''  I am not comfortable with this candidate being given the tools, at this time.  The nearly year-long gap in editing concerns me greatly... even having a "real life" should not prevent a prospective administrator from visiting the project on a semi-regular basis to contribute, if only just in the realm of reverting vandalism or participating in a few XfD discussions.  I don't see enough user talk edits to make me believe that this candidate has established an ability to successfully communicate with other users, either.  I would also like to see some more activity at AIV for someone who states that they would most likely be contributing there, if granted the tools.  With all due respect to the candidate and their willingness to contribute to the project, I must oppose at this time.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' Let's get this straight.  The user failed a previous RfA and leaves the project in a huf.  He takes a year off, during which time new issues and policies have come to light.  He returns about 6 weeks ago, makes about 1500 edits during that time---primarily using tools (Huggle) and now wants to run for admin?  I'm sorry, I want to see 6 months of continuous commitment from a candidate as a minimum.  I can overlook a single month for a good reason, but a whole year because the candidate is upset about failing an RfA?  No way!  When people mess up, the general guideline is that it takes a year to forget their faux pas.  If it takes year to forget the bad, then the same holds for any goodwill---which wasn't enough to pass an RfA then.  As far as I am concerned, this RfA has about as much validity as any other RfA of a person with 6 weeks experience and 1500 edits.---'''
'''Oppose'''. This user apparently has insufficient experience, since he only spent around 6 months in WP. I had interaction with him at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#russian_healthcare this occasion]. In this particular case he sided with two Russian users who practically [[WP:OWN|own]] article Russia. He was also telling outrageous things, something like "Russian citizens who live illegally in Russia" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia&diff=228862654&oldid=228860780 this diff]). I think this is all because of insufficent experience. If he can improve in the future, I will vote for him.
'''Oppose''' Balloonman couldn't have said it any better. I am in complete agreement. The user returns after a lengthy pouting hiatus to make edits of questionable quality and then reapply for adminship? Fails my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]] for contributions and misc - petulance.
'''Weak Oppose'''. An editor can, indeed, take time off, no problem, this is a volunteer project, after all. However, a year off is a long time, so that means it'd take awhile to get reacquainted with what has changed in that time. You've only been back for a month and a half. In that time a lot of what you have done was via Huggle (which are not edits that help get you back into the swing of things). If you take a look at my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|RFA criteria]], you'll see that I prefer that automated tools aren't used too much, especially immediately before an RFA. However, I use Huggle, too, so I won't discount an editor solely for using it, just for using it ''a lot''. You also haven't done too much work in the Wikipedia namespace either, since your return. That's a lot of talking, what I really want to say is that it'll take a little longer before I'm sure you have a good handle on current policies and procedures.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman. He made several good points that I agree with.
'''Oppose''' - The first three answers to the questions are very weak, I can't support a candidate that just answered too little in the main questions. <small>
'''Oppose''' - agree 100% with Balloonman, I see no problem with actually taking the time off, but candidate needs to be a wee bit more established after that long of a break.
'''Oppose''' - I strongly agree with Balloonman. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - This user stormed off because an RfA didn't go their way. While there's nothing wrong with taking time off, it makes me worry that this candidate can take setbacks too personally. I'd like to see this candidate edit level-headedly for a few months in a row before I'd consider supporting them.
'''Oppose''' - As per Balloonman and Wisdom. --
'''Strong oppose'''. Nothing has changed since your first RfA. Please, do us all a favour and stop this cycle, which consists of an RfA, a long break, a few quick edits to jack your count up, then re-RfA. When I saw this, I knew it wouldn't pass without even having to look. Get some proper content contributions, remain active and make a little more effort to prove you're here for the right reasons. Then, and only then, will I even conside support a future RfA of yours.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman; I also accept Reyk's point; going off in a huff hardly shows the temprament required for adminship.
'''Strong Oppose''' - While I'm new here (Over a month now.), I've read this, and I agree almost 100% with Balloonman, While taking some time off, it is obviously an angry, over emotional response because of their previous RfA's decision. If this is denied, I think an assessment of their reaction afterward would point to whether this assessment is accurate. I'd like to say, as a new user, while we do understand Administrators are ''Janitors'' we also look up to them for guidance, maturity, and assistance in times of need. I think, their previous reaction is exactly what a new user would be thrown by, and would gain a negative experience of Wikipedia and the Adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Failed to follow self-nom instructions, and a yearlong break isn't something an administrator should be doing.  Otherwise good. <font color="amaranth">
'''Neutral''', for now. I don't like that you've only been actively editing for a couple months since your year-long gap in contributing.
'''Neutral''' Too soon after the year-long break, I'm afraid.
'''Moral Support''' Good contributions, civil editor. Needs more work in admin related areas and better use of edit summaries. --
'''Moral Support''' please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a little while or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions (assuming good faith) and as candidate has never been blocked.  --
Candidate displays annoyance at RFA process, clearly demonstrating sanity.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy. --
'''Oppose''' - not yet, although you do have a good amount of useful contributions. You're going good so far. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose'''; sorry but there's a couple things wrong here, especially use of edit summaries (or lack thereof). The answers to the questions were relative short for my standards. <s>Almost suggest closing via [[WP:NOTNOW]]</s>. Not enough admin-related work, I'm sorry but you just don't meet my standards for adminship.
'''Oppose''' - Does not meet my [[User:Wisdom89/RfA philosophy and criteria|criteria]].
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:NOTNOW]]. <small>
'''Oppose'''. Definitely on the right track, but not enough experience yet for me to accurately assess his knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures.
'''Oppose'''. Not exactly an active contributor. Out of eighteen of the past twenty-one months, there are less than 20 edits, with only the last three months with ''some'' activity. Relatively low discussion, <s>with less than 15 at the most on ''any'' type of talk page, excluding candidate's own.</s> Definitely [[Wikipedia:Not Now|not now]].
'''Oppose''' - Although I don't like to oppose for any reason, this users edit count is frightfully low for adminship. It might pay to withdraw and try again in a few months so this RfA doesn't negatively influence any future chance at adminship. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal — almost no relevant experience in speedy-tagging, images, AFDs, requesting protection, page moves, etc., which is pretty much everything you said you wanted to work on. A hint for next time: replying to almost every opposer tends to get pile-on opposes for badgering them. Especially when your opposition, like to DiverseMentality and Useight, is so hostile.
'''Oppose''' Seriously no no no. User not active, negative influence, I dont trust him to become and Admin, its a big mistake.
'''Oppose''' Good content building, not enough experience overall.  The way you are handling this RfA has pushed me over into the Oppose column. --
'''Uber Oppose''' Candidate did not read (or didn't comprehend or even worse, [[WP:STICK|ignored]] as he did with the above [[WP:NOTNOW|withdraw]] requests) [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#Things_to_consider_before_accepting_a_nomination|Guide to requests for adminship]]. Enough Said.
'''Basically neutral''' I'd like to provide some clarity about the "edit summary" comments.  People are looking for indications that you will use the admin tools properly.  Since we can't observe you blocking users, protecting pages and such, we need some basic proxies.  What most people look for as a proxy is that you are communicative and trustworthy.  The consistent use of edit summaries falls into the "communicative" end of things.  If (and this is largely, though not always true) you consistently use descriptive edit summaries you are more likely to telegraph your actions and intentions to other users.  Of course, that isn't perfect.  I could have 100% edit summary usage but never edit a talk page (though that would be seen as well).  But by and large it is what we have to go on.  I hope this helps explains some of the "opposes" above.
'''Neutral''' [[WP:NOTNOW]]...
I'm leaning one way already, but whether I'm leaning strongly or weakly will depend on more Q&A.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANitrogenTSRH&diff=231491396&oldid=229245607 this] and particularly the statement show this candidate does not understand the structure of Wikipedia or the role of an administrator.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Not enough experience, extremely low edit count, etc.  —'''
'''Oppose''' - per non-answer to my question, addition of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANitrogenTSRH&diff=240532458&oldid=231491396 copyvio] within the last few months, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANitrogenTSRH&diff=228324290&oldid=228291452 notification by Jayron] that 6+ months and a lot of hard work required to become admin, assertion that user is excellent with wikicode (see [[User:NitrogenTSRH|userpage]]), general feeling that user doesn't have 20K edits under their belt. //
Didn't need anything more beyond [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux&curid=20290706&diff=255920926&oldid=255920380 this], and then I more reasons when I got here. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]
'''Support''', per AGF for the time being. Contributions look good, generally. --
'''Strong support''' I strongly support this user and hopes this user will become an administrator, I truly believe this one deserves that!
'''Support''' I think I have to agree to Aqwis. ''
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Weak Support''' (due to incorrect speedy tagging)- A little experience in fighting vandalism would be handy, but other than that, everything checks out. Also please be more careful when tagging for speedy deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibrahim_Didi&diff=prev&oldid=252135442][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HNoMS_Strod&diff=prev&oldid=252135624][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angelo_State_University_College_of_Liberal_and_Fine_Arts&diff=prev&oldid=252137322]--'''
'''Support''' - Agree with Agwis ; Good luck
'''Support''' - I see no reason to distrust you, so I support without reservation.<s>, from my review so far of your edits.  (Incomplete, but I [[WP:AGF]].)</s>  I like your initiative.<s>, so I'm getting my support in pending the completion of my review.</s>  Best of luck in your RfA.  &hArr;
'''Support''' we ll see --
'''Support''' I would have liked to have nomed you :) I think you will make a great admin and I have no outstanding problems with your work. Good Luck! <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' He seems willing to learn, acts responsibly, and really hasn't given me a reason to worry.
Knows [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], maintains a cool head in discussions, is knowledgeable regarding the [[WP:USERNAME|username policy]] which is important considering he will be working at [[WP:UAA|the relevant noticeboard]] (which has a tendency to become backlogged), and he learns from his past mistakes in a mature and modest manner. Overall, granting him access will be, in my view, a net positive.
'''Support''', seems sensible, no reason to believe user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I really like the comment the candidate left on his own talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nja247&diff=251810118&oldid=251805026]. That seems to be the sensible and well thought out thinking we find desirable in administrator.
'''Weak support'''.  I considered opposing because of a low involvement in the projectspace, but looking at your answer to Q1, I thought it would be alright to trust you with the tools.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I would have liked you to be more active, but I can overlook that.
'''Support'''; my primary criterion is, and will always be, "Do I trust this editor to not abuse the tools?".  A survey of your edits show that my answer is "Yes" despite the low level of contributions.  An administrator that only makes the occasional ''positive'' use of the tools is still a net gain for the project.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and as I do not recall having any negative interactions with the candidate.--
'''Weak Support''' - per Master & Expert + Nick. —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], and we could use another [[Lawyer|legal eagle]] as an admin at [[WP:WikiProject Law]].
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to have to be the first in the oppose column, but I don't think the candidate is ready for adminship. The overall contribution record is fairly limited - 2877 edits total in more than 2 years, with long periods of inactivity or low activity. In a situation like that I would would to see particular excellence in at least one specific area, but that is not the case here either. In particular, the mainspace contribution record is not very impressive. A fairly small number of articles created. Of them one, [[The National Society of Leadership and Success]], has been deleted, and another, [[Buckeye Leadership Society]] is a clear candidate for deletion and is unlikely to survive an AfD if nominated. Being a GA reviewer is certainly good, but again the candidate's contribution record to the GA project does not seem, at the moment, sufficiently extensive. Also, the candidate has been a fairly inactive editor for most of this year, with quite low edit count for February-September and only 156 edits in October. Sorry, but this record just does not show somebody who is sifficiently experienced to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' I wasn't going to get involved in this RfA, as I don't like to oppose candidates that IMO have zero chance of passing, but when I see an admin whom I respect saying that they would have nom'd the candidate, then I have speak out.  A candidate with fewer than 3K edits is a hard sell to begin with, but while I am sure this candidate is a good guy, I can't see giving the bit to an editor who has only made 630 edits this year TOTAL.  A candidate who has 4 months where he has made fewer than 10 edits.  A candidate who only has 2 months with over 150 edits (and that's only because he used tools).  Before I give the bit to somebody, I want to see somebody who is active in the project, and I define that pretty loosely at 150 edits in 5 of the past 6 months.  That's a pretty low threshold (I know semi-retired people who make more edits than that!)  I ask for those edits not because edit counts are important, but rather because it gives you a good gauge on how the candidate acts and thinks over an extended period of time. In the past 5 months, there is a 3 month period where Nja has a TOTAL of 11 edits.   He has not been involved in the project enough to get a good sense on how he thinks or acts... this is especially true when you consider the fact that a fair percentage of his recent edit use Twinkle or Friendly!---'''
'''Oppose'''. I am not happy with the attitude expressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMac_OS_X%2FGA1&diff=249814696&oldid=249743477 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMacBook%2FGA1&diff=249812421&oldid=249737745 here], especially from an editor who claims to be active in, and so presumably a supporter of, the GA project. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Lack of admin-related experience.
'''Regretful Oppose'''. The candidate needs more experience, both in admin areas and otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum's example shows that the candidate is still learning the ropes. In time, Nja247 could very well be a fine admin.
'''Tentative oppose''' - I like what you're doing, I just don't think you have enough experience in admin areas to demonstrate that you'd be a net positive to the project, sorry. That said, if somebody comes back with some diffs demonstrating experience around the board, I'm open to changing my stance. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nja247#Your_RfA].
'''Oppose''' Also per Balloonman on the candidate's talk page.  I'll repeat here what I said there: "Balloonman is doing something here that I and others have asked for as a way to improve the RfA process.  If some of the guys who have a LOT of experience at RfA can say "Ahem, you might want to look at similar RfAs, they didn't do very well, would you consider withdrawing?", then a lot of good things happen: it saves the time of reviewers, it makes RfAs less contentious, it gives the candidate some other similar RfAs to study so they can figure out what they might need to be able to pass, and it may shorten the time that they should wait before coming back.  Of course, this only works if the "old" guys are perceived as doing this in the best interest of the candidate.  My feeling FWIW is that Balloonman has your interests at heart here, Nja, and I agree with him, but I hope you don't feel badgered.  I have categories for admins in my own head (maybe shared by no one else), and you'd be what I think of as a "content admin"; I'd want a content admin to know the content policies and content-related guidelines.  I think a problem here is that there isn't any community-wide process that gives people a "thumbs-up" other than the RfA process, which is a shame; if you were running for "certified Good-Article reviewer" or something, the criteria would be different.  But we're stuck with what we've got." - Dan
[[Image:Florero de decoración.jpg|20px]] '''Oppose''', same as
'''Oppose''' You're in the right direction obviously, with some good contributions, but simply the low frequency of edits, especially recently, has to make me oppose.  I don't like citing "edit count", because that's not exactly what it is, its that I can't see the kind of experience that I'd use to judge how good of an admin you could be.  So for now, oppose. --
'''Oppose per Nsk92 and Banime''' Although I'm very glad my quick survey of edits showed additions of citations, I'm afraid that the quality of edits does not offset the paucity of edits. I see mostly wikignome and page patroller type edits, and if one follows that route, the editor needs a greater number of edits to gain the requisite experience for the buttons. So, I'd like to see greater experience and activity in terms of tool related edits and/or article building.
'''Oppose'''. Nja247 has generally good quality contributions, but not enough to demonstrate a good understanding of application of policy and collaboration with other editors.
'''Oppose''' - many of this candidate's edits are the kind that, if I saw them being made, I would feel the need to re-edit. I invite the candidate to continue editing, but it's a case of not-ready-yet. -
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman. Im not so sure that we would like to have an admin who would contribute 10 edits for any 3-month period. Sorry. Yet, edits more focus on value, not total. ;)
'''Oppose''' &mdash; As much as I hate to vote "per User:X", Balloonman said it all. The low level of projectspace contributions in particular was a deciding factor in my decision here. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' more admin work and activity all over. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Oppose''' No experience in Wikipedia-space and admin areas, very low activity. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a probable lack of policy knowledge.
'''Very weak oppose''' Per above, mostly Balloonman (activity issues) and Malleus Fatuorum (still seems to be learning, which isn't really great). I doubt this user would ''abuse'' admin tools, but I can't be sure there won't be any ''misuse''. Very sorry, maybe in a few months, with more activity and knowledge in more areas? Best wishes, &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Overall low activity, lack of quality articles (DYK, GA etc.), low level of edits in admin-related pages and low level of edits in Wikiprojects. However, I think the candidate is on the right track, it is just too early get the tools yet. I suggest that the candidate become more involved in their preferred admin related pages and Wikiprojects.--
'''Neutral''' Sorry after taking into account the opposes .Good contributor but feel it is [[WP:NOTNOW]] .Please try again later and you will have my support.But you are on the right track.Good luck
'''Neutral''' Per Pharaoh of the Wizards.
'''Neutral''' Your content creation skills are a plus, but the lack of admin-related input (cited in the oppose section) is problematic. As Pharaoh stated, timing is a bit off.
'''Neutral''' Per Pharaoh of the Wizards.
'''Neutral''' due to lack of activity and input to the project over 2 years. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Neutral''' Mainly due to lack of activity. I wouldn't oppose since I believe he is a good contributor, but this is holding me back from supporting.
'''Neutral''' - You are a good contributor and potentially a good adminship candidate. I am however a bit concerned over the amount of experience, particularly within admin areas and with policies, at  the present time. All the best.
'''Neutral''' - While he probably won't use it wrong in any way, I'm afraid to say that Nja doesn't have the amount of experience to become accustomed with the tools. Cheers. '''

'''Support''', seems level-headed enough, and no evidence that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as nom. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' per lanki...--
'''Support''' Meets [[User:Mr Senseless/RfAStandards|my standards]].
'''Support''' Good user. -
I think the answers to questions are mostly fine. Try not to use the word "punishment" when referring to blocks. Also, per nom.
'''Support''' Looks good. '''''
'''Support''' This user has steadily matured through several years of consistent WP participation. He has been a good team player with our efforts in WikiProject Virginia articles. He has also made himself available to mentor new users, something many of us who are admins do not take the time (or perhaps have the patience) to do.
'''Support''' This user understands the wiki project.  He is here for the right reasons and is an exclellent editor.  It is clear he will make a great admin.
'''Oppose''' - Excellent editor. However, a few issues: Wikispace contributions confined mostly to Wikiproject spaces for editing. Minimal activity at [[WP:XfD]], and other admin related areas. Candidate wants to work at [[WP:CSD]], but has maybe tagged less than 3-4 articles as such. Sorry, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Per Wisdom89 (excuse my lack of a good reason)
'''Weak oppose'''. Other than participating in Wikiprojects, the candidate hasn't really addressed the issues brought up in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2|previous RfA]].--'''
'''Oppose''' More activity in the XfD areas and your next Rfa might be successful.
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I feel the user doesn't have enough experience here to handle the tools properly. Not that I feel he/she would misuse them, but I don't think this user is ready for them just quite yet. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''oppose''' per answers to 6 and 8, and other concerns raised here. Candidate's failings appear to be primarily lack of experience and knowledge of policy, so are likely correctible.  <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' the answer to Q8,first item, is by itself enough to show the candidate does not understand NPOV. The answer to q9 shows in addition that he does not understand how checkuser is granted. '''
'''Oppose''' - the answers to the questions demonstrate a limited knowledge of some of wikipedia's core policies and practices (in particular q4, q8 and q9). '''''
'''Oppose.''' A good Wikipedian, and I thank him for his service to the encyclopedia, but I don't think that he should be a sysop just yet. Argyriou is right that he could gain more knowledge and experience related to performing administrative tasks, but it concerns me that after researching the answers to some of the optional questions, those are the best answers that he could give. Yes, some of the answers are hidden just a little deeper than others, but the big green box 1/6 of the way down the page at [[WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goal]] isn't terribly deep, and I would expect any administrator candidate with a shot at achieving consensus to know this.
Per WODUP.
'''Reluctant Oppose.''' This user seems to be headed in the right direction and mean well. However, sysops, in my opinion, need to holdt themselves to higher standards of wikipedia policy and guideline adherence, as they are the ones entrusted with upholding said policies and guidelines. I am afraid that I cannot support, at this juncture, entrusting someone with the flamethrower portion of the "mop-and-flamethrower" if they are not cognizant of the various policies and guidelines. The above questions are like an open-book test; the answers are all on wiki, and I would hope that a sysop, when in doubt (and we are all human) would be able to check the appropriate policy and interpret it reasonably before implementing a protective measure. Hopefully a little more time on-wiki handling the janitorial issues will round out this editors education. Sorry, and good luck! --
weak oppose per Wisdom
Per WODUP.
Per Wodup. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Much inconsistency in answering of questions.  Seems you have an answer then you change it.  Familiarization with policies and guidelines is essenstial to gaining trust &nbsp;—
'''Oppose''' - Per Rami R and WODUP.
'''Oppose''' per WODUP.
'''Oppose''' per answers to Question 8. Calling Crick & Watson's interpretation as "erroneous" is not neutral; nor is calling Darwin's theory the "most widely accepted scientific explanation," unless the statement is cited and says who thinks it's so widely accepted. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' too many niggly worries about this user. Recommend he withdraws his nom and runs again in some months' time, having addressed them. --
'''Oppose''' Very weak on questions of policy.
'''Oppose''' per Avraham and WODUP. This user's answers to the questions are a little weak; I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time.
'''Oppose''' per the answers given. Maybe think about [[WP:ADCO|admin coaching]] <b>
'''Oppose'''. While there is no evidence of malevolence or bad faith in No1lakersfan, I feel that in order to make the subjective decisions required of a (useful) admin, a firm grasp of Wikipedia policy is ''de rigueur''. I am typically not an "editcountitis" sort of Wikipedian, but in this case 10,000+ edits doesn't seem to have delivered a strong policy background. The answers to the questions are rather weak (and, in a few cases, initially wrong). Statements such as "I intend to make sure that my actions as an administrator are approved by all" are curious.
'''Oppose''' due to poor understanding of non-free content policy. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Oppose''': As anothers.
'''Oppose''' I am usually reluctant to oppose so as not to discourage, and I was going to vote Neutral to avoid pile-on on the basis of what I see as a weak understanding of policy; however, when I see that this is not a first RfA, sorry, I don't think you are ready to have the tools yet. --'''
'''Neutral''' <s>for now, but I'm tending towards a support based on the fact that he seems trustworthy and has helped the project along so far and abuse of the tools by him is unlikely. Once I see the answers to the questions I'll make up my final decision. [[User:Poeloq|Poeloq]] ([[User talk:Poeloq|talk]]) 11:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)</s>. Sorry but the answers didn't convince me that you fully understand the policies questioned, but I still believe that you would not make a terrible admin. Therefor I remain neutral and wish you good luck,
'''Neutral'''.  Answers to questions do nothing to alleviate my concerns.  Try getting an admin coach to develop knowledge of policy.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' - slightly vague answers, I felt. —
'''Not-piling-on-Neutral''' - This user does mean well, but the answers to your questions really do scare me. <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Neutral''' - has his heart in the right place, but the answers show lack of information.  I'll surely support the next time.
Beat the nom '''Support''' I can trust this user with the mop.
'''Support'''. RfAs are community discussions as to the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] of a particular candidate, and whether or not in can be felt that the candidate can be trusted with the tools. Most of the time, this decision, at least for me, needs to be made based on a significant wiki history, in order to have a suitable basis on which to make the decision, and a relative certainty that the character traits exhibited are real. Rarely, there comes an exception to this. I have interacted with NonvocalScream, and seen how he handles certain very difficult cases on behalf of wikipedia and other projects, and these observations allow me the comfort to be able to extend my [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to NonvocalScream, notwithstanding his lighter-than-average wiki experience. --
'''EC Support'''. After a while looking through contribs, I see nothing glaring to fault. But one thing; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Furman&diff=prev&oldid=201481043 please preview before saving]: it may look like you're trying to boost your stats. '''
'''Support''' - absolutely trustworthy and has considerably more clue than most who get the nod from the community (invariably for all the wrong reasons).
'''Oppose''' Between the two accounts, less than 400 mainspace edits, almost all minor reverts; [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Guppy (2nd nomination)|one of the silliest AFD noms I've yet seen]] only only three days ago; a week before that, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Moon|taking "subject requests deletion" as a deletion criteria]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cass McCombs|again a week before that]]. Despite the many articles you've nominated for deletion, a look at your deleted contribs shows that you've only ever had the community agree with you on two occasions ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Mueller|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Papadopoulos|2]]), one of which you then blanked for no apparent reason. For all I know, you have a fantastic record on your other accounts, but going by the two accounts you've given us, there's nothing to support.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' - Three hundred and sixty mainspace edits in 4.5 months isn't enough to judge a person's fitness for adminship.
'''Oppose''', I was really unimpressed with your behaviour in an MFD a month or so ago (I don't remember what it was for, but it involved LawrenceCohen IIRC). Whilst you were not solely to blame I felt your obtuse and confusing responses (I only edit by this account name/I have accounts on other wikis) escalated the conflict when a simple explanation would have done. And add to that the fact that you only have an (observable) history from the last two months - not really enough experience, especially not in the mainspace. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Weak oppose''' -- Although I view edit counts as a very crude way of determining user's abilities, I think you ought to wait a while until you have some more...sorry!--
'''Oppose''' While you may be on the right track, the track is a very long one and you have a-ways to go.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I think NonvocalScream handled himself well at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Guppy (2nd nomination)]], a sure sign in my opinion that he can work with concensus when it goes against him.  However, I am concerned with his policy understanding - he cites his best contributions as being in the BLP area, yet he doesn't seem to be familiar with arguably the most basic [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First sentences|style guideline]] regarding these articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Johnson&diff=next&oldid=208574388].  --''
(ec) '''Oppose'''. Not enough experience yet. You're getting there, and your work is pretty good (a few mistakes here and there, but who doesn't make those?), but I am a big supporter of the mainspace (it's the whole reason we're here). Please do some more mainspace editing and keep up the good work. I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''I'm really sorry but I have to oppose''', you simply do not have the necessary experience for me to trust you with the tools. I'm not sure, exactly, what [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] was on about because your edits do not seem to all be minor edits/reverts; however, you still do not have the necessary experience. Sorry and good luck and happy editing! Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Weak oppose with moral support''' - Come back with some more mainspace edits in say, 6 months or so and I will more than likely turn this into a support. :) <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - I normally eschew pile ons. 1.)Edit count isn't that great an indicator, but sometimes it works. Your article contributions are sorely lacking. 2.)Your tenure here is shortlived. 3.)I see some experience issues that need addressing. I suggest [[WP:ER]] at a few points down the road. Come back in 4-5 months.
Sorry, not enough edits in the mainspace. On the right track though, and once you have 2,000+ edits there I'll support. '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Oppose''' -- Yeah, way too soon. --
'''Firm no''' Too many bad judgement calls for my liking. We already have enough drama-mongering admins among us. Appears to be more interested in process and politics than writing an encyclopedia. Sorry, but I can imagine too many issues with you being promoted. '''
'''Stong oppose'''- behaviour looks suspiciously familiar lol- could we possibly have a checkuser please, if any possibilities can still be checked?  If we might have this person as an admin, we have a right to know who we're getting.  On the other hand, no doubt this person has waited for any previous accounts to be unable to have expired from checkuser and unable to be checked, before going to RfA.  A lot of people know or suspect full well who this is- why aren't we allowed to mention what other voters need to be aware of to make an informed decision?
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Four supports prevents me from speedy closing this, but I strongly suggest withdrawing the nom.  1200 edits and 4 months of activity isn't enough to show competency with the policies/guidelines.
'''Oppose'''  Not ready to support this candidate yet, although I believe that they may be decent sysop in the future, should they be nominated again.  I simply do not believe this candidate has enough experience yet.  --
'''Oppose''' Keep up the good work and in a few months I'll probably be willing to change my mind.  You say you want to do work with page protection and deletion, so make sure you keep spending time there so we can see how you interact with others when your next RfA comes around.  --
'''Neutral'''. Thanks for the diffs for Q4.  While I believe you certainly have the best interests of Wikipedia (and its articles and article subjects, specifically Living Persons) at heart, I'm not convinced of your aptitude as an admin because of a general lack of experience.  You have used, presumably, your [[WP:RTV|right to vanish]], which is fine, but again, as a new user in that case, with no history to rely on for determining a level of trust in your contributions,  I don't see enough to support. The good news is that I don't see enough to oppose either.  Cheers, thanks for answering my question.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Well rounded in deletion and administrative areas, but opposes are a tad in the negative direction. Nice nomination statement. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
IMO, you should get more experience in the Namespace, brush up on your editing a bit, and try again in 4 months.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
I am weakly leaning towards trusting this account, in spite some of the issues above. However, I am unable to support because of <s>the issues raised by</s> this person's past account<s>, which are yet to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner</s>. (And I agree, it did have a clean block log...consider that "certified".) ''
'''Neutral''' - to avoid pile on. Sorry Scream, but I agree with much of the comments in the oppose section.
'''Neutral''' because I'm worried about who this user may be and I can't back someone who may have done something outrageous in the past, yet can't oppose someone who may not have
Support- Has the requisite level of trust.
'''Support''' - Well known, active wikipedian. What more could we want? The user has learnt from past experiences. Good luck. = ) --
I opposed [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mercury]], but that was over half a year ago now, and people learn and change. NonvocalScream has the experience, and I think re-mopping will be a good thing. Just be careful.
'''Support''' per this non-admin, no consensus AfD close [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign]].
'''Strong Support''' I was a vocal and strident voice for recall before. Mostly because this candidate was failing to listen and  learn from community input in their actions. I am convinced that this is no longer the case. Mercury was never an abusive admin and they deserve the trust of the community again. well worth returning to wiki one last time to support.
'''Weak support''' I've seen Nonvocal around (in quite a few places which is nice), and his contributions look good. My only concern would be if any of the previous opposes on his previous RfAs still apply. If that reason was not existent, I would provide all the support I can give. Wonderful user. Good luck.
'''Support''', for now anyway. A look through the various recall things and some previous RfAs leads me to believe you could make good use of the tools and have learned lessons from past mistakes. But there's a real confusing pile of stuff to review here - it's appreciably a more complex situation than the average RfA. I'll have a further look tomorrow at your contributions and see if the oppose votes have brought up any concerns. ~ <font color="#000000">
NVS means well, I am convinced of that. Have there been issues? Yes, there have but I'm convinced that NVS has learned from them, and further, has learned the value of seeking guidance and counsel first before acting hastily. I normally give less credence to a candidate's stance on [[WP:AOR|recall]] nowadays, since well over 10% of admins are now in it... it's an idea that has proven its mettle, but given how the first recall of NVS unfolded, the fact that NVS has agreed this time that he will be recallable, and will have firm criteria and process, gives me confidence that if there is an issue sufficiently serious, there is a way for the community to deal with it. So I'm hopeful, and I'm pleased to assume good faith and assume things will go well and offer my '''Support''' ++
'''Strong Support''' - I think Mercury made some pretty poor decisions, and I think NvS set off on the wrong foot rather... but my feeling is that he's done the hard yards, been lightly roasted for it on occasion, and still plugs away trying to help. He, like us all, is going to make tons of mistakes in the future too, and because I truly feel that adminship should represent less of a big deal, I offer this genuine, and moral, '''support'''.
At least '''moral support''', i.e. heart in right place.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose''' rejection of recall after being open to recall created drama and was an overall negative to the project. Also, when the user went through their latest rename, they initially refused to be open about their past - which is not necessarily a bad thing - until they bowed down to pressure coming from a certain other site. Listening to those on other sites would not be a very clever thing for an admin to do.
'''Oppose''', respectfully. Ever-shifting usernames, several sudden dramatic departures from the project, and a half-dozen unsuccessful RFAs do not, to my mind, instill any confidence that you will be a consistent and reliable admin. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Absolutely not''', per self-nom, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCowsay_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=169208000&oldid=169207523], and wholly unacceptable remarks at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive108#User:Kmweber]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kmweber&diff=next&oldid=168395908] (under old account [[User:Mercury|Mercury]]), plus a ton of previous RFAs make it clear to me that he desires nothing more than power.  And that's just what I personally know of.
'''Oppose''' Showed what I feel to be poor judgment as an admin and then went for RFA as a different account without giving away your past. I don't feel you would be a good admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Kurt and George make some good claims.
'''Oppose''' - you were an administrator less than a year ago, and you created a lot of problems. I'm not convinced that you've changed.
'''Strong oppose''' I have to agree with Kurt on this one. Calling Kurt a troll for not following AGF is, to say the least, hypocritical.It's to soon after recall to be self-nomming, indeed I am generally automatically opposed to self-noms after recall.  The best judge of whether you've improved enough is someone else. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Strong Oppose''' per EtR and Kurt Weber. Your last request was ''two months ago''; did you not consider maybe waiting? You said yourself that wikipedia changes, but not that fast; I can't see how you're expecting a different result in this nom than the previous one.
'''Strong Oppose''' I felt like I was being given the runaround on the last RFA with you hiding your past as Mercury while a few select admins seemed to know who you were. I do not trust you or any drama monger with the tools whatsoever.
'''Oppose''' per blatant misuse of the admin tools in closing your own AfD nom. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose.'''  An admin's net effect should increase project stability rather than decrease. it.  What I am tempted to call [[How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?|head-of-pin-dancing]] (''cf.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NonvocalScream/recall&diff=prev&oldid=226855169 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NonvocalScream/recall&diff=prev&oldid=226881371 this]) is not encouraging.   —
'''Strong Oppose'''.  I cannot trust that the tools will be used wisely. --
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' Was away for much of the earlier drama, but just on the evidence seen so far, the candidate apparently believes that a man should be blocked for having a strong opinion and voicing it repeatedly.  Kind of scary, really.
Absolutely not. Assumes bad faith frequently, and has bad judgement in several areas. '''
'''Oppose''', per George. I usually don't oppose quickly but this RfA doesn't make me feel good at all, sorry. I'd suggest to try again in 6 months or so. Win some more trust back, first. <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">
'''oppose''' he could have waited a while longer, I also haven't seen him around much, so he hasn't done anything to change the reputation he earned under his previous username for mercurial behaviour.:)
Basically never.
'''Oppose''' per previous RfA; two months is way too soon to establish trust after such a [[WP:SNOW]]. Sorry, it takes longer than that, and that's ignoring the history. --
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but I have no confidence in this candidate.
'''Strong Oppose'''A liability to the project. He is power-hungry and paranoid, which caused stress and drama among the community. Wikipedia will be better off without him. His dishonesty with his identity during the last RfA is borderline sockpuppetry.--
I was extremely concerned by his antics at Wikipedia Review before admitting he was Mercury.
<s>I don't doubt that NonvocalScream has good intentions regarding the project.</s> However, the user's past actions as an RfA perennial, as an admin, as an editor, and as a former ArbCom candidate do not assure me of his suitability for adminship. Also, his seeming aversion to the concept of patience and propensity to create drama rather than mitigate it causes me, with the interests of Wikipedia in mind, to '''oppose''' this nomination. —'''
I don't really see evidence of reform since the trouble took place.
'''Strong Oppose''' Answers to questions are short and the user seems a bit power hungry with the many rfas.--
'''Oppose'''. It has been a long time since I have opposed a request for adminship. But in this case I feel I must. The accusation that [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] "supports Wikipedia Review" is outrageous, unsubstantiated and shows a complete lack of judgment. I cannot support an admin so ready to leap to ridiculous conclusions. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Oppose''' Per many reasons cited above, for me the recall that was closed early makes me wonder about judgment. The combative statements made during the height of the debate over Kurt's RFA votes were over the top also. Overall, I wouldn't trust him to act as a respectful and civil admin here.
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe. Also, you seem prone to things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NonvocalScream2&curid=18515752&diff=226921892&oldid=226921773 this], especially in (but not limited to) this RfA. It's almost as if whenever someone dislikes a statement you made, you retract it, like it never happened. That gives me the impression that you're weak, and that I wouldn't be able to trust you to stay true to your word as an admin.--
'''Oppose''' I don't like these sneaky name-changers.  I thought Mercury retired.--
'''Neutral''' - I feel that NonvocalScream has improved somewhat, but not enough for a support.
'''Neutral'''  Some of the concerns raised above in the oppose section really worry me, but I would like to believe that the candidate has learned something from their experiences.  However, I do not feel that I can fully go in either a support OR oppose direction, hence this neutral.  --
I think your best bet would be to completely ignore adminship. Contribute, as you intend to, and adminship will come. ''
I can see you come with the best of intentions, but I'd ask that you get used to Wikipedia before requesting adminship. I'd recommend reading [[WP:NOTNOW]] - feel free to reapply once you have shown some experience with Wikipedia, it's policies and processes. All the best, '''''<font color="green">
Please hang around and contribute more to the encyclopedia.  Regarding your answer to Question #1, please read [[Wikipedia:No original research]], one of our core policies.
Keep editing as you are. Too soon I'm afraid. I have no doubt you'll make a great editor. In the future, maybe in 6 months come on back to RfA.
Sorry, but you don't have enough experience with Wikipedia. As Giggy said, put adminship out of your mind, and eventually it will come to you. I'm afraid this is going to have to be [[WP:SNOW]]'d.

'''Support''' -> right size of the answer to the questions. And also, no usual twenty pages of how good and nice the candidate is :) <i><b>
'''Support''' I'll stick my neck out and support this one, I think. I've certainly never heard or seen the user do anything bad, and what's the worst that can happen.
Has the right attitude to adminship, sufficiently experienced, longevity shows dedication.
'''Support''', looked through the contribs, and there's not anything alarming in there.  No reason to believe this user will abuse the tools.
'''Moral Support''' This editor's heart is in the right place. --'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
. '''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
. '''Oppose'''- Laconic self nom, answers to main questions are disappointing and leave a lot to be desired, low wikispace work, barely any talk page activity. In fact, most of it consists of the candidate blanking their talk page after receiving warnings/notifications about images and speedy deletions.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience in places demonstrating an understanding of Wikipolicy/guidelines.  Virtually no talk or project experience.
'''Oppose''' glad you are being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] but based on your experience in the WP areas, your limited answers, and your 30% edit summery on minor changes I must oppose at this time. <b>
'''Oppose''', largely on the answer to Q1. Administrators aren't empowered to use bans to maintain order on wikipedia. Not yet, anyway. --
'''Oppose''' User needs to show a greater understanding of Wikipedia policies (e.g. usage of cool-down blocks).
'''Oppose''' – I am sorry, your answer to question number one is the area I have the major concern with, followed by your response to question number 9.  My personal opinion, is that blocks are the very last resort for any administrator, and '''“Cool”''' blocks rarely, if ever work.  In fact, again personal opinion, have the opposite effect.  Sorry, just not ready yet.  Give it a few more months, working within policy, and try again.  Good luck to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Answers to questions leave much to be disired, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of policy. Cool down blocks should never be used. Overall this RfA feels rushed.
'''Oppose''' - per Shoessss (almost said he was Pedro, that sig threw me off) a review of [[WP:BLOCK|the blocking policy]] is necessary. Your answers to the questions and lack of participation in administrator areas that often require blocks indicate as such. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but I don't feel that your answers to the questions are to my satisfaction. Also, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> is helpful. Maybe next time. Good Luck :), <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Oppose'''. Not sure candidate has done any research at all into the RfA process. Editing experience looks okay at a cursory glance, but the short, dismissive (and in at least one case, wrong) answers preempt any show of support from me. Get a coach, do your homework, and we'll see you in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Doing good work as an editor, but "enforce rules" and "keep order"?  I think there's a misunderstanding of adminship here. <font face="Blackadder"  color="#2B0066">
'''Neutral, Leaning Support''' Er, try actually INCLUDING an intro paragraph, and make your question answers slightly longer, and then I'll switch my vote. And while you're at it, I stuck in a little question there. Every admin should know how to handle this. '''[[User:21655|<font color="red">Two One </font>]][[Special:Contributions/21655|<font color="#990000">Six Five</font><font color="black"> Five</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk: 21655| τ]]</sup><sub>
'''Neutral''' - From a look through your contribs, you are actually a very good contributor to a variety of articles.  I think you probably have enough experience to perform admin tasks.  However, I do not feel this RfA will pass unless more detail is added to your answers above.  I also feel that blanking your talk page on a regular basis is not conducive to the openness with which administrators are usually associated. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Neutral''' More experience needed in admin related areas.
'''Strong Oppose''' per your previous RfA and per lack of serious contributions to encyclopedia. '''
Sorry, but you're not ready yet.  First, the block was too recent for comfort.  Second, you seem to think Wikipedia is a game which is accentuated by the phrase "...if I win..." in your self-nomination statement.  Simply put, you're not ready.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Oppose'''<sub>(edit conflict times 2, aww I was hoping to be first)</sub> Again? I suggest you withdraw this and come back in a few months, your last block was what, a week ago? You're not ready period. <tt>
Too many recent blocks. <font face="Broadway">
Your involvement in the recent "cabals" drama didn't impress me. You have a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a game; Your behaviour exemplifies the comments by some critics that we are increasingly becoming an MMORPG. Your block log is also far too recent. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' Blocks, socking, lack of experience or understanding the place. '''

'''SuperDuperUberEpic"ThisUserIsNotAlreadyAnAdmin!?"StrongSupport''' '''
'''Support''' per previous comment. &ndash;
'''Support''' - good janitor. //
'''Support''' Looks great. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. How the hell were you not already an admin?
'''Support''' See him around often, trust his judgment.
'''Strong Support''' You deserve it! I was shocked that you were not an admin in the first place. Good Luck! '''''
'''Strong Support'''. I was going to vote "Moral Oppose" because he's too perfect, but was convinced not to do so. Anyways, on to my reasoning. In my year (or two) of knowing this user, he has shown both maturity and a clear head, two absolutely key requirements for an admin. As my confident, he has seen most of my bad sides, and has surprising retained his good judgment even when faced with an extremely stressed out and moderately insane friend. I have never seen NW angry. While I've seen him moderately annoyed, he somehow manages to pass off his annoyance with jokes and a smile, an ability I would very much like to gain from him. As for his actual contributions, he does, or has done, a bit of everything. I've seen him helpdesk'ing, in discussions, doing content creation, and battling vandals. This isn't even a net positive case, I'm sure that NW will be a superb admin. <small>''Note: I am a good friend of this user''.</small> (I just editconflicted twice >_<) <font color="777777">
'''Strong as a Bodybuilder Support''' '''''FUCK''''' yes.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Hell, yeah.
'''Support''' As per Newyorkbrad and Darth Panda.Outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' - yes, please. Additional comment: Having read the oppose from Ecoleetage and having looked through the diffs he provides, I am entirely convinced to maintain my support. NuclearWarfare shows a level head and a very reasonable attitude. -

—<small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
I've seen his name pop up many times, and I'm pretty sure he'll be a fantastic administrator. Very dedicated and pleasant to have around.
While I disagree that NPWatcher can't cause damage (Newcomer articles come to mind) you did a good job of dodging the bullet (Q11), and I hope you become an admin.
'''Support''' I am, actually, floored that NukeWar (rawr) isn't already an admin.  I came here expecting to make some absurd '''oh wow I thought you were...''' sort of support, but decided not to.  The points made by the opposes and the neutral are largely compelling to me.  In order of concern I would consider Skomorokh's the most troubling, then Icewedge, then Eco's comments.  I won't go so far as to attach as many adverbs and adjectives as Skomorokh does to that edit, but it is troubling.  Icewedge makes the good (though vague) point that the candidate doesn't resist the 'bandwagon' enough.  If substantiated, that is a troubling accusation.  I'm left with some dim memory (and feeling from the questions) that this is true about the candidate but without some more substantial evidence (e.g. diffs of the candidate reversing support as the mood changes and so forth), I can't oppose based on that.  Eco brought the most concerns to the table but they are least troubling to me.  [[WP:DTTR]], taken in isolation, is not a compelling reason for me to feel that a candidate is not qualified.  It is my opinion that NW is right: lvl 1 templates serve as an easy means to inform people of something and are not just for new users and vandals.  But even setting that opinion aside I can't see how it represents poor judgment.  I object '''strongly''' to the characterization of his AfD closures as 'inept' (a word that Fram never uses).  The word would be "hasty" and I see no evidence that NW continued to close AfDs early following that discussion.  Eco's comment about editing other user's posts and then getting touchy about it gets pretty close to the mark.  It does appear that NW bolded that vote (uncool) and then invoked IAR when asked about it (puzzling).  Eco's summary is also worth listening to.  The specific points are not compelling but his 'feel' on NW is valuable.  If this RfA is successful I encourage NW to take that feedback 'onboard' as it were.  But I have confidence in this candidate.
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and after reviewing the stats on his activity, I am immensely impressed by the energy and dedication NuclearWarfare has put into Wikipedia. Some of the opposing opinions raise some concerns about his style, but they don't come close to suggesting that he'd abuse admin tools. After all, the question is about whether he'd use administrative tools properly, and all the available evidence suggests he cares deeply about the project, has a clear sense of the role he wishes to play as an admin, and will be a benefit to Wikipedia as an admin.
'''Support''' I have had good experiences with this editor and trust him.  <b>'''
'''Support''' I always thought NWF a [[WP:CLUE|CLUEful]] editor (not only because he copied my (old) UBX layout ;-) who should be an admin. I do understand the concerns by the opposing users and I trust their judgment usually (especially template-warning a seasoned editor like Ecoleetage is very stupid) but I am confident that NWF is mature enough to admit his mistakes and to learn from them. '''
'''Support''' Good editor. —
'''Support''' Every time I've run across NW's edits, they've been helpful and/or informative. Would be a net plus. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Strong Support''', Is very friendly and civil. A very good and trustworthy editor.  He would make a very good administrator here on Wikipedia.
'''Support''': Articulate, friendly, civil and has the common sense we need in admins. No doubt that this individual would be an asset to the community as an admin.
'''Reserved support.''' I believe I can trust the user in the areas for which the tools are requested. I would ask the candidate to carefully consider the criticisms from the opposition. (An apology or two may be in order.) I would encourage the editor to partake more in the joy of creating, sourcing  and expanding articles. I would urge the candidate to ''not'' close any AFD's that have not run their full course for a while.
'''Support''' - <s>Per Eco.
'''Support''' — Per everyone above, really. Good editor, net positive. —'''
'''Support.''' All the arguments for it have already been given. I have nothing against someone expressing a POV on one's own user page, as long as it is marked as such. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
That, why are you not an admin already kind of '''support!'''Seen this user around, really great vandalism fighter and all round editor.
'''Strongest possible support.''' Based on your admin coaching page, answers to above questions, and everything else. Good luck! <nowiki>[</nowiki>'''
'''Support'''. None of the oppositional diffs strike me as particularly concerning. Overall, it seems this candidate is overwhelmingly qualified.
'''Support''' Already a janitor, let him have a mop.
'''Support''', if for no other reason than to counteract Keepscases's discriminative and frankly offensive vote, at least until it is struck. I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. +
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' I usually only vote on RFAs to oppose, where I feel it's necessary to protect the project in my own tiny way, but support might make a difference here.  Candidate seems trustworthy and opposes are unusually unpersuasive here for me.
'''Support''' Trustworthy, deserving, hard working etc. You got my vote.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Strong support''' - meets all of [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] including having rollback rights, doing admin coaching, fighting vandals, nice userpage, etc.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' you are not allready a sysop??? ''
'''Support''' - I've seen him here and there frequently, and I don't doubt his capability.
'''It's about time''' support. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Brown">
'''Weak support''' <small>(Moved from neutral)</small> - Well, Skomorokh makes a valid point, but I trust this user not to abuse the tools, so [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]]? --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Oppose.''' The candidate does little to resist the [[Bandwagon effect]], also for the occasional lack of good sense, as illustrated [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_148#Non-administrators_nominating_candidates|here]], and, this has nothing really to do with my position, but the candidate might want to reread the definition of a minor edit. <!-- due to the rather subjective nature of my !vote I doubt the epic debate that usually accompanies oppose votes in RfA's like this I will be fruitful, but don't that stop you, I love to argue, just don't think we can get anywhere. -->
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I feel the candidate is not the least bit qualified at this time for adminship. My first and only encounter with the candidate came in October, when he decided to give me a Level 1 warning for not marking CSD tagged articles as “patrolled.”  I then noticed he was on a templating kick and did the same to other editors. When I pointed out that giving template warnings to people who are not vandals was not appropriate, he seemed touchy and refused to strike out the templates (here is the exchange: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=244020681&oldid=244017126#Templating]). In reviewing his work since then, I see nothing that strikes me as being admin-worthy. He has already been called to task for inept AfD closures [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=247338468&oldid=247279251#AfD_closures] and for editing other people’s contributions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=246180083&oldid=246175598#Not_a_big_deal.2C_but...] – in both cases, he’s touchy when informed of his mistakes. Content creation appears to be nonexistent, which doesn’t help. The answer to Q7 is bizarre – first he won’t answer, then he abruptly claims (with zero evidence) that content creators are more likely not to delete articles. Content creation skills enable an admin to pinpoint how to enhance an article – after all, we are here to build, not destroy. The points raised by Icewedge and Skomorokh only confirm my feelings (and it looks like he was going to badger Icewedge, but caught himself before too much damage was done). Someone who prefers templates to talk, who bristles at benign criticism, who isn’t creating content and doesn’t acknowledge the value of that skill is the wrong person for this job.
Per answers to 2,3, 7, & 11. The reason is I vote against non-content contributing admin candidates is because too many vandal-zapping or mandarin admins damage the health of the encyclopedia. Leadership from such sources tends to promote discipline and style matters over substantial matters of content, promoting for instance editor-centered policies like "edit warring" at the expense of reader-centered policies like verifiability, npov, etc. "Deletionists" are fine for me! :)
'''Oppose.'''  This candidate's severe lack of understanding regarding the rules of use concerning [[WP:AWB|AWB]] and his contentious post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAutoWikiBrowser&diff=256724906&oldid=256722874 here] prove that he is not qualified to be administrator.  Also, this candidate is himself using AWB to make date delinking edits to scores of articles at a furious rate in violation of the AWB rules of use, a fact that he should have disclosed in his post.  See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agust%C3%ADn_Tamames&diff=prev&oldid=256516511 this edit].
'''Oppose''', clearly unfamiliar with consensus building process and general Wikipedia policies. —
'''Oppose''' - I have talked to you on IRC a number of times, and you come across as a polite, modest and collected person. However, stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IWF_block_of_Wikipedia&diff=256753731&oldid=256752807 this] worries me not just a little (which would make me neutral), it worries me ''a lot''. I'm not liking the badgering above either, but I guess that isn't your fault. You are certainly a good janitor, as Roux said, but I am having problems with trusting your judgment at this particular moment in time. If you were to come back again (that is, assuming that this doesn't pass, which it may well do) I would not hesitate to consider changing my !vote. Keep up the good work, <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' I do not trust your judgment, nor your [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em|AFD work]].
'''Oppose''' Per Ecoleetage.  Smug atheist userboxes don't help his cause, either.
'''Oppose'''. I wasn't originally planning to comment either way on this one, as I've had virtually no interaction with you, but seeing all this discussion has prompted me to do some checking and you're being outright misleading – almost to the point of plain lying – about your history. Of [[Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle|the Good Article for which you claim credit]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sozin%27s_Comet%3A_The_Final_Battle&diff=255122097&oldid=254856106 this] was your entire contribution, while the sum-total of your contributions to [[List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes]] was to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Avatar%3A_The_Last_Airbender_episodes&diff=256513627&oldid=247918776 fix a couple of wikilinks and add one paragraph about Region 2 distribution]. If you were requesting RFA purely as a Huggler, while I wouldn't be supporting (I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or [[m:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do), I wouldn't be actively opposing, but since you're explicitly making claims about article work ("I am 3/5 of the way to a Featured Topic, with three pieces of featured content and two more hopefully on the way"), it makes me wonder what else you're exaggerating and/or distorting, and whether this kind of attitude is consistent with a role based entirely on trust. This, coupled with an apparent lack of common sense and understanding of how Wikipedia works ([[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_148#Non-administrators_nominating_candidates|this]] is a shining example), plus an apparent wannabe-cabalist IRC mentality ("If you contact me offwiki, I shall be happy to explain what I think" ''in your own RFC'', for chrissake!) pushes me over the "oppose" line.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NuclearWarfare/Admin_Coaching&diff=prev&oldid=254164601 I feel that administrative decisions could be made on IRC if and only if... logs are placed on wiki]". Total nonstarter; ideas born in the chat room should not be used as the sole justification for actions taken here, and besides, the posting of private correspondence is verboten and sanctionable both here and at Freenode. BLP-violating userboxes are a nonstarter. Stealing FA credits so you can [[kill stealing|get to the next level]] is a nonstarter. Need I go on? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
I have to agree with east718 here regarding Internet Relay Chat. Discussion should take place on-wiki. Headache-inducing possibility too great. E kala mai (sorry), Nuke. --
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescent and East17. Your ambitions are those of a level-upper, rather than a [[Leveller]].
Per iridescent and east. o.O '''
'''Oppose''' I hate piling on but East718's oppose nails it.
Reluctant '''Oppose''', per East718 above - I was thinking of going neutral until I read his vote. Taking actions on Wikipedia based solely on discussions on IRC is an ''extremely'' bad idea, even if the logs are posted (which has its own problems); not all Wikipedians have IRC, and holding content discussions there prevents editors from commenting who might otherwise wish to do so. There are good reasons why actions on Wikipedia should be based on on-wiki discussions only, and I'm prepared to oppose over that alone.
'''Oppose''' - do not trust their judgment based on past interactions, and the above gives more pause.
'''Oppose''' The candidate should write some articles, in order to gain an understanding of why we're all here, rather than just say he has in order to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' Iridescent and east718 make already convincing points. The userboxen version linked by Terraxos included [[User:Lenerd/VP]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ANuclearWarfare%2FUserboxen&diff=241026268&oldid=240937131] which said at that time that "This user thinks Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] should be [[hanged, drawn and quartered]]" and was deleted per [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lenerd/deadprez|MfD]].  With respect to the above mentioned straw poll on the importance of the RfA nominator, I also don't know what to think of highlighting now the nominators int the transclusion[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=256731170&oldid=256728803] --
'''Weak Oppose''' on this one. Iridescent isn't quite on the mark, the reply from the candidate addresses her point about his level of work on the Avatar articles (namely, that most of the work was done on pages transcluded onto the main list page); I wasn't really impressed by the assumption of bad faith there that he'd be intentionally misleading us. Also, I find the userboxes kerfuffle to be quite silly -- we've passed [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Philosopher|candidates]] before with userboxes on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. However, decisions being made on IRC is a ''very'' bad idea, and the edit to the IWF controversy page was a pretty poor choice as well. NW, I'm sure you do good work here, keep it up and come back in a little while.
'''Oppose''', too much argument with the opposers.
'''Oppose''' To many valid concerns, best as identified by east. '''
'''Oppose''' per east and iridescent.
Not an appropriate candidate.  There are more detailed and valid reasons above, several of which I agree with.  But simply knowing that the candidate is a chat room kid is almost always enough to make a good decision.
'''Oppose''' Schmoozer.
'''Oppose''' Game player who lacks sufficient maturity - East is spot on '''
'''Oppose''' Hate to pile on, but there are waaaaay too many maturity issues to even consider trusting with the tools.
I don't believe this user is ready. Partly per indiscriminate delinking edits, willingness to post logs publicly, taking credit for the work of others, considering template bitch-slaps to be constructive communication, and so on. However it is the revelation in question six ("voting" against what your heart tells you because of what a guideline says) which worries me the most. Sincerely. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC) If my argument needs more ''Umpf'' I should mention where the candidate voted to '''delete''' a Russian folk tune for "lack of notability". However, minimal research would have revealed that it was the '''theme from [[Tetris]]'''! —
'''Oppose''' I rarely oppose RfAs but in this case I think lack of proper article-building and some poor judgments must make this a "no" at present. --
'''Oppose''' per east718.  And I just love how a person can support per nom, but if you dare oppose, your argument damn well better hold up in a court of law (even after other Wikipedians chime in and do their best to directly discount your opinion).
'''Weak oppose''' - I'm with east and Iridescent here. For disclosure, I am an IRC user and believe it can be useful but I also note that this is not the time to have another admin who doesn't understand that irc is fully secondary to on-wiki work and discussion. I certainly will consider supporting a future RFA however.
I was leaning support, but am seriously unimpressed by the judgement shown by the candidate in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IWF_block_of_Wikipedia&diff=256753731&oldid=256752807 this edit]. Ill-considered, counter-consensus, edit-warring, drama-inducing, and putting politics ahead of the quality of the encyclopaedia. <font color="404040">
'''Neutral'''.  I like that the candidate has contributed to featured lists and has never been blocked, but (and in the hopes that I am not "nuked" for being objective!) Ecoleetage's concerns above seem somewhat compelling and I generally do not like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Korobushko&diff=232828883&oldid=232828783 this] sort of [[WP:JNN]] style of "vote" in that they do not seem to offer sufficient explanations.  So enough of a blend of positives and concerns that I cannot really oppose or support at this time.  Sincerely, --
'''Netural''' I can't support, but yet I don't want to oppose. I'll just sit out on this one.
'''Neutral''' pending a response to Iridescent re contributions to a Good Article and Featured List. I don't think admins ''need'' a string of good or featured articles, but I don't like the suggestion that credit has been claimed for some where the contribution wasn't central to their status. In fairness we've only heard the claim and not your response - is there anything you'd like to add?
Hmm &mdash; personal experiences are nice... but can't make a moral decision. &mdash;'''[[User:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">'''Ceran'''</font>]]♦('''[[User_talk:Ceranthor|<font color="#990000">speak]])</font><sup>
'''Neutral'''. NuclearWarfare is a good editor, but I'm concerned about the FA and GA claims put forward in this RfA.
'''Neutral'''.  I would like to support, but the opposition has some points.  Perhaps next time. Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral''' per Skomorokh. --
'''Neutral''' A thoroughly polite and well intentioned user who appears to have a good idea of the machinations of Wikipedia in terms of AfD and vandal work. Some of the "opposition" have raised valid concerns about NuclearWarfare's editing. Personally I think NW is ready for the tools now but I also think he would make an even better Admin, with full community support, if nominated in six months time. In addition, I believe that not being an Admin would not affect the quality of this user's contributions to Wikipedia.
'''Moral Support''' It looks like the weather's getting a bit [[WP:SNOW|choppy]], so I'll be quick. You've got excellent [[WP:AIV]] work (astounding would be a better word), but it seems like you just need to read up on policy a little more, so you can understand how this place works. I'd still love to see this RfA pass, though.--
Sorry, but I have to oppose as per your responses to Q1 and Q2 of your self-asked questions.  The short answers there imply that you ''might'' just as easily think that much about blocks, protections etc..., and with only 500 mainspace edits, you just aren't quite ready yet.  Sorry,
'''Oppose''' - "Self" answers to Q3 and Q4 indicate lack of policy knowledge, or rather, forethought. Reporting admin abuse should probably be brought to [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]] first. And [[WP:AOR]] is a reconfirmation..not a quick desysoping. The answers to your other questions are lackluster and unremarkable. There also seems to be experience issues here.
'''Oppose'''. If your cite as your best contribution an article on [[Eastern Glow|an unsourced Myspace band with no releases]] I don't believe you understand [[WP:N]]; since you explicitly say you want to work in deletion, this is the one policy you ''need'' to know inside-out. (I've refrained from {{tl|prod}}ding the article for the duration of this RFA.)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
SA3 and SA4 show that the user is not familiar with policy.
Sorry, I'm not really an edit counter, but you don't seem to have enough experience yet. Keep editing and come back in a few months!
'''Moral Support''', as I think the candidate would be a good admin overall, but I'm not entirely confident that their time has come just yet, based on the answers to the questions thusfar. Let me think on this one.
'''Neutral''' "No big deal" says you're okay, but more experience would be preferable.  I would strongly disagree with your answer to Q5 about contacting the Arbitration Committee by email.  I've done that myself recently, and as cooperative as they try to be, they are massively overworked and should not be contacted unless you really, really need to bother them.  Try other methods first.
'''Neutral''' advise withdrawing nom.
'''Neutral''' Sorry  - Less than 3,000 edits and a majority of them to your User page and Sandbox, cannot support at this time.  However, that is problem easily fixed!  Just branch out a bit and would be happy to review in another 3 months.  You have done nice work to this point, your contributions are appreciated. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Moral Support''' It's clear that you're getting there. You will want to heed the advice of the opposers below. Also, try to become familiar with policy. Participating in [[WP:XFD|XfD discussions]] is a great way to do this. Otherwise, keep up the good editing! '''''
Wish you had more [[edit summaries]]. Sorry, more experience required. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Soory, but out of 2593 edits, you only have five to article talk pages, thus leading me to believe that you do not discuss articles, which is good for discussing improvements in cases of revamps. The poor edit summary usage is also a worry. You're on the right track, however.
'''Weak Oppose''' - you're on the right track, but your insufficient answers to the questions doesn't inspire me with confidence that you know all the policies you should do when you're an admin. &mdash;
'''oppose''' the essays are people's first impression of many candidates.  Your's leaves me completely uninspired.
'''Oppose'''. Discussion is an important thing for me, as are edit summaries. Not quite ready yet.
'''Oppose'''. I think you're not quite ready yet, but keep up the good work. --
'''Oppose'''. While the total number of edits is not a problem (I don't subscribe to any particular minimum limit) the recent distribution is a bit odd: July 146 edits, August-November inclusive 6 edits, December (already!) 286 edits. If I have read this right it does not yet speak of a steady commitment which I'd like to see in an admin.
I'm sorry, but I see no evidence of the dedication I expect to see in an RfA candidate. Not even editing in the past couple of months is one of the nails in that particular coffin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' It seems that you don't understand that adminship is a serious task. Sorry, but your lack of experience, history of disruptive edits, and has less than 500 edits in total shows me that you just need to serve as an ordinary user for a while, and once you master that, you could try again. Cheers, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:0px;">
'''Strong oppose, suggest withdrawal''' I agree 100% with the above user. Adminship is a totally ''serious'' task, and a user like you -- with only ~500 edits, most of which are vandalism -- probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining adminship.
'''Oppose''' - Per the above. Should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]]. Lack of experience, generally candidates should have a good few thousand edits under their belt before applying. But I applaud you for being bold.
'''Strong Oppose''' Doesn't understand how Wikipedia or RfAs work. Inexperienced. Disruptive editor, as you can see from the user's talk page and quick scan of contributions. '''
'''Oppose'''. Needs way more experience.
Not our most active user, but waht the heck, he's been here a year and knows his stuff, he deserves adminship.--
'''Very weak support''' - I view self noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of being '''[[WP:BOLD|bold]]'''. However, I would like more use of edit summaries and more edits especially in the Wikipedia-space. I also would have liked months of solid contributions instead of one large fest. But good luck--
'''[[WP:AGF|Moral Support]]''' I'll be honest / blunt. This RfA will not pass. Although you have been here a while one months actual contributions are not enough to convince most editors I'm afraid. However I'd wager that you spend a lot of time actually reading this work (and my boring old mantra goes here - editing is '''not''' the number one thing on Wikipedia - our readership is) and that helps far more than can be proved by counting edits. Your desire to help further is deeply appreciated, and I look forward to a full support in the not to distant future. I'd also suggest turning on forced edit summary (via your preferences tab). Please don't be discouraged. Very Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Moral Support''' - You seem like you are on the right track.  Stick around, make more edits, participate in a [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject|Wikiproject]], as well as participation in [[WP:ADOPT|adopt-a-user]].  Good luck.
'''Support'''. Moral support, as it appears this nomination is not going to be successful. You are a good user, definitely on the right track, but just not ready for the tools, yet :) <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' per answer to question 10. I dislike cut and paste questions, but this one line answer is probably the best one I've seen to this question so far.
'''Support'''. You know what, this guy has been here for over a year, has written some good articles, and is always constructive. I don't see any reason why this RFA should not pass. To me, Wikipedia is a community organization, and as long as you are not disruptive, do not cause problems, and work hard to make constructive edits, then you should be granted adminship. This is an easy "accept" for me.--
'''Support''' per Kurt Weber.  Give it another couple of months contributing at the rate you have been, and you should be in like Flynn (although you could stand to use edit summaries a little more).
'''Support'''--<font color="darkblue">
'''Support''' - appears trustworthy.  '''''
'''Support''' - good user. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but while it is true he has been here for a year, all but a very, very few of his edits are this month; and less than two thirds have edit summaries. I also see very little evidence of experience in admin-related topics. I admire this users enthusiasm, and hope to be able to support in two or three months time. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' as above. You're a conscientious, hard-working, confident user who'll do great next time around when you've had experience. Good luck anyway.
'''Oppose''' He's here since 499 days and did in this time just [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Ohmpandya&dbname=enwiki_p 2077] edits. In my opinion that's not enough in such a long time. Never seen him in recent changes patrolling. Sorry. :( —
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but lack of experience is a real problem here, one month simply isn't enough time.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but at one month of active editing, you have nowhere near enough experience. Add to that the fact that just six days ago you uploaded an image which has since been deleted, for a lack of a source from the look of your talk page, I'm afraid it just shows that you don't have enough experience. Finally, your low use of edit summaries is not great (easy to cure, though - set your preferences to force you to add one). I would probably suggest withdrawing this RfA, as, with all due respect, with one month's experience, this will never go in your favour. [[WP:SNOW]] and all that... Sorry.
'''oppose''' insufficient experience, one month's experience, needs more time at the coal face.
'''Strong oppose with moral support''' - This user is very good at article work, and has shown it, but if feel that they have not yet demonstrated knowledge of wikipedia's core policies that help an administrator make a educated decision. With only 46 edits to Wikipedia mainspace this user   shows little experience with the processes that are used by administrators every day. This user has ''never'' filed a report on [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. This user has very rarely engaged in any anti-vandal work, has made no contributions to [[WP:AN/I|AN/I]]. After looking over this users edit history he shows a lack of experience creating articles and expanding upon them, most of his edits are those that constitue a [[Wikipedia:Wikignome|wikignome]], not to say that is bad, but not quite the qualities looked for in a admin hopeful. This user also lacks the use of edit summary's. I know that this users intentions are good, and i do not think they would abuse the tools, but i just do not think it is time. I recommendbecoming more active in admin related areas, such as [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:ANI]], and many others. If you do that and try again in 4 months or so i would be willing to vote support. (I recommend that you withdrawal at this time, [[WP:SNOW]].) Cheers!
'''Oppose''' Only one month of experience, poor edit summary usage, and doesn't seem to have a good understanding of many policies. However, <s>I see lots of activity at [[WP:AFD]] and</s> in the month he's been editing, many edits. I suggest waiting a few months, learn the policies a little better, and try providing more edit summaries. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Oppose''' Little experience on Mainspace and Wikipedia pages (over 95% of the contributions in December), 40% edit summary in minor edits and relatively short answers for the three essential RFA questions.--
'''Oppose''', primarily due to communication issues. Especially in the above answers, this user's English comes across as stilted and somewhat awkward. Considering that this is an Encyclopedia - an online Encyclopedia, at that! - and that admins are oftentimes called upon to communicate potentially-touchy subjects at a moment's notice, a more workable grasp of the written language would be ideal. --
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''': Per lack of experience and other noted concerns above.
'''Oppose''' as above. More experience, more mainspace work, and above all more consistency demonstrating maturity, and I will support your next RfA.
'''Oppose''' The edit count is lower than I'd like to see. In addition, I wasn't really satisfied with the answers. They seem to convey a lack of understanding of the necessary policies for an admin. Keep editing and working and try again in the future.
'''Oppose''' Per answers to question 1 and 12.
'''Strong oppose'''. According to your deleted contribs and talk page, you created a copyvio at [[air flow]]. You uploaded [[:Image:Linkin-park-sepia-5000875.jpg]] as GFDL - is this actually GFDL? All of your other uploads appear to be just as questionable. I really hope there aren't any more copyvios in your contrib history. ---
'''Oppose''' Switched from '''Support'''. Incorrect tagging and copyvios are inexcusable and a real threat to the project
'''Oppose''', copyvio issues and lack of experience. Contribute for a couple more months, learn more about [[WP:COPYVIO|Wikipedia and copyrights]], and other administrative functions and policies such as AfD and I'll likely support. Best of luck,
'''Oppose'''Per above statements. <strong>
'''Oppose''' at this time does not seem quite ready.  Best wishes.  --
'''Oppose''' not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Pellerin&diff=181305102&oldid=164303344 tagging as orphan] when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Joseph+Pellerin&offset=&limit=50&title=Special%3AWhatlinkshere&namespace=0 not], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohmpandya#Image_sources this]. <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="#02D3DA">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Oppose''' - needs more time as lacking in experience.
'''Oppose'''. I was on the fence, but RockMFR's diffs put me on this end.
'''Oppose'''.  Really sorry, but [[WP:SNOW]] comes to mind a bit here.  3 GA's is good work, but I think that 2000 edits is definitely too little for an administrator.  Try again in 3 or 4 months.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Regretful Oppose''' -  I HATE opposing (did I spell that correctly), but I personally feel that your answers were a little too short. I just didn't feel you understood the full grasp of it. But keep doing what you're doing. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' I don't really like self-noms very much. --'''
'''Neutral''' You're on the right track, but I feel that you need to gain more experience than just one month. It would also help you out next time if your answers were a bit more detailed. Keep going at it for a little while, and I'll be glad to support next time.
'''Neutral'''.  You are a good editor, but adminship doesn't seem right for you.  First, you need more than one month of solid editing.  Next, you need to think of your answers a little bit more, and make them more detailed.  It would also be nice if you contributed more to Admin-like tasks such as [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:RFA]].  You are, however, on the right track.  I see that you were just approved to use the Autowiki browser, and have some great tasks for article building on your to-do list.  After a few more months of editing, and some work on the Projectspace, I would be more than happy to support!  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''' [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''moral support''' Come back soon!! <small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' as nom. &nbsp; '''
'''Moral Support''' - wait about four months or so and then come back. Eight days is way too early to try again. '''''
Returning to RfA in less than two weeks time suggests a number of concerns that make it difficult for me to support at this time. Please consider waiting at least three months (if not longer) before your next request, even if someone offers to nominate you earlier. <sup>
'''Oppose''' Too soon as above, and his comment today on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 7610|this AFD]] suggests to be that he is not familiar with our policies on notability. <b>
'''Oppose''' - Way too soon. No way that time is sufficient enough to gain more experience, which was one of the major points which failed the last request.
I will go on record as saying it is utterly impossible to tell if someone has truly addressed concerns about inexperience in a span of time as ridiculously short as a couple of weeks. The ability to accumulate 5100+ edits in 14 days doesn't establish anything besides the candidate's amount of free time. The fact that you thought it'd be a good thing to pop right back here so soon after your previous RfA calls into question your judgement (a bit harsh on my part, I agree, but that's how I feel). If you want to be a good RfA candidate, learn patience. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Strong oppose'''. Far too reliant on automated tools and canned templates. My first encounter with him was three days ago, when he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krimpet&diff=183298807&oldid=183269709 slapped me with an automated template] warning me to use edit summaries (after I had made a few repetitive project-space edits without them). Practically all his edits seem to be automated with Twinkle or similar tools. Admins are supposed to be communicative, not robots; sorry. --'''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose'''.  Last time I was neutral, but coming back this soon was a bad move.  My suggestion would be just listening to the advice given here and try again in a '''few months'''.  Sorry,  '''
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I have some issues with this editor's views on deletion, with my concern increased by one of his answers above about wanting the admin tools in order to delete articles "on sight" without the chore of discussion or seeking a second opinion. I encountered Ohmpandya a few days ago when I contested a speedy deletion tag he had placed on the article [[Duncormick]] about a village in Ireland ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duncormick&direction=next&oldid=183958192 diff]), which had been created 3 minutes earlier. The tag was <nowiki>{{db-nonsense}}</nowiki>, which should only be applied to incoherent text such as random characters or complete nonsense prose, and in no way to applied to the version of the article on which it was placed which had context, made sense and was notable. When I contacted Ohmpandya suggesting this, and that he review [[WP:NONSENSE]], he responded saying that he "did the right thing", although conceded the article was now fine after some work by the creator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACanley&diff=183968465&oldid=183825229]. As a brand new admin myself, if I see an article I think should be speedy deleted, I will place a db tag for another admin to review and act upon if they agree. My concern from this incident is that if Ohmpandya goes around unilaterally deleting articles he is "sure" should be deleted without discussion, review or consensus, that new editors such as [[User:Hsdnalerio]], who has created a pretty good article on [[Duncormick]], will be scared off from the project based on the actions of an admin who seems to have a somewhat sketchy grasp of the policies, guidelines and politics of article deletion. --
Given one of his stated "interests" is looking at copvios, I think he needs to show a little more judgement.  He recently nominated [[Gordon Jacob]] for speedy deletion as a copyvio, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_Jacob&diff=183952717&oldid=172807214]  A little investigation would have shown that the violation actually went the other way round, the supposed source dated from November 2006, the wording had ben in the article since the first revision of [[2005-01-03]].  In any case, proposing speedy deletion when the questionable text only amounts to a sixth of the article seems a little drastic when it would have been relatively simple to paraphrase the material to avoid copyright problems.
'''Neutral''' - I would have opposed per BlackKite's link, however, being somewhat of an inclusionist myself I cannot oppose for that. Some would say, yes, the RfA is too soon, and I too would be inclined to think you should wait until March or so.
'''Neutral'''. He is definitely hard-working, have to give him credit for that, but he's only been an active editor for 2 months and previous RFA was too recent.
'''Neutral''', as I must concur that there has not been enough time to address the concerns of the previous RfA. Switched from oppose, above - and may switch to support as I continue to give the candidate a more thorough review.
'''Neutral''' It's way too soon to be going for another RfA. Come back in a couple more months. I'm also afraid that editing at this rate (>5000 edits a month) could possibly promote burnout.<font face="Forte">
'''Neutral'''. I think this user may have the makings of a very good admin, but I will not be comfortable supporting in that capacity until I can see at least a few months of ''strong understanding'' of policies pertaining to those areas in which he plans to use the tools. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_well&diff=182820096&oldid=182793562 tag] of [[Water well]] is concerning (as it explicitly does not meet the conditions at [[WP:CSD#G12]]), as is the subsequent nomination of it for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water well (2nd nomination)|AfD]] only a day after the nomination posted by his admin coach was speedy kept. (These events occurred last week.) I see that today he nominated an improperly formed redirect under [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezproxy&diff=prev&oldid=184263769 G1]. Yesterday, he nominated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Swan_and_the_Wanderer&diff=184258170&oldid=184258080 a film for A7]. He placed a "last warning" against vandalism at [[User talk:GManford203]] for, as far as I can tell, creating the article [[:Clenis]]. This was a dic def utilizing the 2nd meaning [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clenis at Urban Dictionary]. I don't see any evidence that the page was written in anything but good faith, even if it is a [[WP:NEO|neologism]]. I do not oppose this in an effort not to "pile on" an admin nomination that is unlikely to pass, but I wanted to comment because I feel specific examples might be useful to this nom in his work on Wikipedia and because I would like to strongly encourage this user to thoroughly read and understand policies and guidelines ([[WP:CSD]], [[WP:DP]] and [[WP:Vandal]]) before acting on them. --
'''Suggest Withdrawal'''. Two weeks? I expected better of the candidate. I gave moral support last time, but now I'm worried about your ability to judge situations well. Sorry, and I hope to see you back here in three months or so, with less automated edits ideally, and I trust that then I'll be happy to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I admire how keen you clearly are. However you have too few edits in your contribution history that are not to your own user space to judge you by as a candidate for adminiship. Please don't be discouraged however, as you're doing great so far. Some pointers; Try [[WP:ADOPT|adoption]] for help in developing your work, and [[WP:ER|editor review]] for feedback. Also, '''please remove''' the fake orange "you have new messages bar" from your user space. It's off-putting and will confuse new (and old!) editors. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - You're clearly a very promising mainspace editor, which is great because we need a lot more of those than we have.  But I just don't see that you've got experience in any area in which admin buttons would be required.  I don't see that you've ever reported a vandal, requested page protection, or participated in any deletion process except the one for [[St Thomas More High School for Boys]].  If you really want to be an admin, I'd advise you to start working in those areas a bit more.  But there's no ''need'' to be an admin - if what you want to do is create good articles, then just keep doing that.  An extra set of buttons doesn't make a contributor any more valuable.
It appears you are on the right track, but we generally ask for more experience from editors before they can be granted admin tools. Please hang out and keep contributing and come back in a few months! <sup>
I do not consider self nomination ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger, but I think this one may just be.
'''Oppose''' For the reasons listed above, as well as the reason that you aren't ready for it yet.  You aren't experienced enough to be an administrator at this time.
'''Oppose''' I would need to see a much deeper track record of editing as well as user talk for evidence of judgment and civility under duress.
'''Oppose''' a bit reluctantly, but I think you are too inexperienced as yet, and also a little too limited in the range of experience. You should also really make more edit summaries. But a point made above is valid - there is a LOT of things you could do as "quasi-admin" without asking for the tools. Make a start there, and see how you feel in six months time.
'''oppose''' - For reasons listed above. Try gaining some more experience and trying later. Cheers,
'''Strong oppose''' Sorry, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Olz06&dbname=enwiki_p no]. More experience is needed. :-( —
Yep. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' as nom. :)
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Sort of. I know you're a good contributor, but UAA reports like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=190163348 this] are a little troubling. I blocked the user for an indefinite period of time but not for the rationale given when reported. And, how come there is a big time range between your Wikipedia edits? Like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080212055724&limit=50&contribs=user&target=OverlordQ&namespace=4 here] for example. Apart from that, nothing else I can find.
'''Support''' per [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|my standards]]. I reviewed the user talk pages, and nothing stood out. First time I've seen a 'bot related comment expressing concern that the bot was down (as contrasted with the usual comment that the 'bot should be put down). In reviewing the last 1500 contribs, I saw lots of CSD warnings. I like that. I did see a couple of possibly hasty taggings, but I'm sure the nom knows the difference between tagging and actually deleting.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Support'''.  Trust nom, and am sure the user won't abuse the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' Intelligent and friendly, based on past interactions. --
'''Support''' per above. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' good contributor.
'''Support''' He is a good user. Best of luck! <strong>
'''Support'''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - Trustworthy user.  I don't think he will abuse the tools.  Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Al&diff=next&oldid=166414146 has beaten ClueBot].  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Weak Support''' - Good contributor and trustworthy, but he could use more contributions to writing articles and I would like to see more mainspace edits to stuff other than [[Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive]].--'''''[[User:Sunny910910|Sunny910910]]''''' <sup>([[User_Talk:Sunny910910|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sunny910910|Contributions]]|
I trust ya, and, I know you won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Great user and will be a great admin. Good luck. '''
Although the rather weak AfD comments cause me some concern, I do not find any convincing reasons to oppose OverlordQ. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
Per the most idiotic oppose (take your pick). User:
'''Support''' - Per Dorftrottel; I don't see any problems. The arguments are weak and some people's are abilities are better aimed at vandal fighting than article building. There is no point telling someone they need to create more articles if thats not what they want to do.
'''Support''' (leaning towards weak): The low number of article edits is a concern, however that is a quick [[OJT]] fix. The main jobs needed with the admin tools are the ones that with which s/he is already proficient. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Excellent v-fighting.
'''Support''' without hesitation.  Valuable contributor to Wikipedia.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' I don't see this user as likely to abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support''' - no valid reasons to oppose. Plenty of invalid ones though.
'''Support''' No problems with him receiving the mop.
Give him the MOP! Now!
'''Strong Support'''.  4000 edits, over a quarter in the mainspace, a good amount of Wikipedia edits, and seems to know policy.  Would make a great admin after a while learning how to use the tools.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">

'''Oppose''' - No experience in article building - low mainspace edits per count, which means that even with over 1000, the user is most likely reverting vandalism - which has much merit, don't get me wrong, but there is no editorial experience. Fails my criteria. Sorry. Also, the diffs from the other oppose worry me.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Wisdom. I would like to see more articles from this user.
'''Oppose'''. The above diffs, and the fact that this editor has very little article building experience, seem to indicate a tendency to take the path of least resistance - it only takes a few seconds to revert and report petty vandalism, or to say "delete per nom", but to find sources to build articles, or to help to keep articles on valid encyclopedic subjects, takes a lot more effort. I don't see any evidence that this candidate has the experience to understand the editors who put  in that effort when making administrative decisions.
'''Oppose'''. The automated edits, the lack of mainspace contributions, and the short AfD comments that do not cite policy all lead me to believe the user does not have significant or sufficient experience on consensus and policy, two areas I feel will be necessary as an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I was leaning to neutral, but SorryGuy's summation rings true. Please dive in and participate more in ''collaborative'' encyclopedia building.
'''Oppose''' There are too many problematic areas: terse afd comments, excessively automated editing, very short answers to the questions being asked at the AfD, that just echo the standard nutshell positions.  I don;t hold with always requiring mainspace activity for people in specialised areas, butt he plans to work in the mainstream of Admin activity. I am not convinced that he has yet taken the trouble to  understand policy. The part which bothers me most is the almost total lack of substantial activity in WP Talk space. A particularly compelling  particulars, I note his comment at his nomination of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.rite]] "since I'm too lazy to add every page as he makes them, just look here", or his 3 comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East German jokes]]:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_German_jokes&diff=182993044&oldid=182987997], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_German_jokes&diff=182995959&oldid=182994769], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_German_jokes&diff=183029631&oldid=183009247]   He leaves many form notices for people, but no personal comments or advice.  Perhaps someday he may learn what is really involved in working here.  '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too much concerns.
'''Regretful Oppose''', sorry OverlordQ, I think you're a great user, but the combination of little actual article work and the rather short AfD "arguments" leads me to believe that you're not quite ready yet.  Get some more verbose AfD arguments, and get some decent article contributions under your belt, and I will eagerly support you next time around.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building.
'''Oppose''', per answer to Q6, user did not say what the '''difference''' is between a ban and block, the user only said what a ban was, and did not elaborate on that enough to show that they grasp the policy. Sorry, but I don't think the user grasps the ban or block policy well enough to be an admin. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Reluctant Oppose''' - You're a great user, but looking at the other opposes, I have to agree with all of them. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Weak Oppose''' Unfortunately, as much as I want to see this user become admin and as much as I'd like to separate article-building from Wikipedia discussions, the odds are against OverlordQ. I do not really mind the "per nom" deletion discussions as sometimes it is just a waste of time to write a reason for an obviously deletion-worthy article. However, it is the lack of mainspace edits that I am concerned with. I think that if a user has actually experienced the article-building process, then they look at articles a little differently. Maybe I'm wrong. However, I still keep to my oppositional opinion. Maybe the user could try running again after helping out an article or two.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate is  good contributor but needs more experience. Keep up the good work.
Needs more mainspace, I think. ''
'''Oppose''' You're on the right track, but I still feel that you need more experience before you can be handed the tools. Best of luck next time! <span style="font-family: Palatino;">
'''Oppose''' - I'm concerned about the answers to the questions, the other concerns, and first and foremost, the seemingly misunderstanding/misinterpretations of policies. It may cause some disenlightenment to say that I think that you should focus a little more on material article contributions. Not the dime-a-dozen minor edits on 1,000 different pages with no particular purpose, in which there's nothing wrong with minor edits, but some edits that are working towards some kind of tangible goal with the encyclopedia first, some future RFA second, or less. This may cause some thoughts because some would remark that this is a forum for discussing trust with the tools, however, I personally could not confide in a person that is not here for the encyclopedia, but for a fast track to adminship. Also, per [[User:DGG|DGG]] above.
'''Oppose''' unless an experienced admin is prepared to coach very closely, and only permit use of the tools as and when the mentor feels the candidate is ready. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Oppose Weakly''' The only fear I have is some of the answers above. I think the experience level is of concern.
'''Oppose '''Needs more experience in the area of writing articles.
Depends on how much help he gives me merging [[USB connector]] into [[Universal Serial Bus]]. I believe that new articles which appear redundant should not be "blanked" with a redirect, but that the new information should be merged into the existing article first. Or else the new article can be maintained as a breakout from the parent article, in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]. --
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but it seems you could use better edit summary usage, which is 87%, and really should be 100%. Also, with an total of less than 2000 mainspace edits, it shows a little lack of experience. -
'''Neutral''' - good so far, but there is a distinct lack of experience after all this time.  I will not be upset if this user becomes an admin, as there are no major concerns.  I am right on the edge.
You aren't really that unsuitable, as the opposers suggest - but, I would prefer a little more experience (when I look at the answer to question 2, I do expect article work to be mentioned, even if really minor &ndash; that's why we're here, right? <tt>:)</tt>) Just do some minor work to articles, and take advice from the opposers and you'll pass swimmingly in a few months' time. '''
'''Oppose''' not enough editing experience and didn't set up the page right, sorry I just can't support--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry mate - you lack the necessary experience. I'd advise you to find an admin coach or visit [[WP:ER]] as time progresses to have the community evaluate your work. Come back in about 5-6 months.
'''Vehement Oppose''' + '''Speedy''' [[WP:SNOW]] anyone? Disruptive, insulting, and not experienced to boot.
'''Support''' 6,500 edits and no blocks, a civil talk page and looking at your contributions the articles you have recently nommed for deletion are now redlinks   '''
Candidate seems trustworthy and I hold no real concerns. Not terribly active in the "usual" areas we see RfA candidates at, but that does not unduly concern me; Paste will probably not be a hugely active administrator, but even sporadic use is a net plus. Answers to questions are fine, too. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Solid edit count, and I have no doubt he is ready for the mop!
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Has created over a 100 articles, so I think his article writing is sufficient.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions and a solid history of good contributions to the project, especially with regard to [[WP:CSD|CSD]].  The candidate's interest in CSD and AfD work are a big plus as these are areas that typically have backlogs, sometimes quite large.
'''<s>Weak</s> Strong Oppose''' - A thorough look at the user's contributions reveals an extremely weak interest in building an encyclopedia, but a rather strong interest in deleting content. I don't have anything against deletionists on the whole, but I find this balance unacceptable. Furthermore, AFD rationales are unimpressive.

'''Oppose''' per Balloonman's finds. The speedy deletion thing is a big issue; I don't care if 95% of your stuff is well-tagged, if 5% is badly tagged then it is an issue. 5% doesn't sound like much, but it says "X found this a good rationale for deletion" when it wasn't; something like that cast doubts on your appropriateness to hold the Delete button. In addition the talking problems are a big'un; 8 conversations? No (real) way of judging the users interaction with other users, something key to a good admin.
'''Oppose''' - Per Baloonman, sorry, you seem like a nice enough guy though. If you were to come back in a while, I would have no hesitation switching if the problems were gone. :) <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''', in light of the [[:WP:CSD|CSD]]-tagging issues brought up by [[:User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]. '''
'''Oppose''' - thanks to Balloonman for the work put in, which saves me from doing an extensive search of my own. Speedy deletion is, in my view, an area where a zealous admin can damage wikipedia irreparably. I believe that the criteria should be interpreted strictly and that all controversial cases should go to AfD or some other consensus-building forum. Paste has a lot going for him, and could make a good admin, which means that I have to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' - I decline a db of his today (as link'd above).  With so many careless new page patrollers active, admins (especially those who're likely to touch that are) can't be careless.
'''Oppose''' per Baloonman. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Oppose'''. Balloonman brought very concerning issues of Paste's CSD taggings. But if that weren't enough, Paste's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Paste&namespace=3 user talk] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Paste&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 talk] contributions are very low, with most of the user talk contributions being automated by Twinkle; I fail to see much discussion coming from Paste.
I would like to take this moment to thank Paste for volunteering to assist with adminship work, but I don't believe he is quite ready for the mop yet. I can ignore some examples of improper speedy tagging; for instance, I wouldn't make a big deal out of a [[WP:G1|G1]] tag for something that should have been tagged [[WP:G3|G3]]. However, a lot of what Balloonman lays out above is concerning, as too much improper tagging could potentially turn new editors to the project away. In particular, this point stuck out: "''A day the is rumored to be the day after cyber monday. In fact it is just dirty lies spread by business teachers which give there students something to do.'' was tagged G1.  G1 explicitly excludes hoaxes or poorly written articles." [[Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes#Dealing with hoaxes|Speedy deletion is generally not the way to deal with hoaxes]] - the proper way to handle them is to put a <nowiki>{{hoax}}</nowiki> tag at the top of the page, and [[WP:AfD|nominate it for deletion]]. My recommendation to the candidate is to review [[WP:CSD|the criteria for speedy deletion]] thoroughly, gain some more experience in the area, and return within a few months after demonstrating a more solid understanding of deletion processes, and I will hopefully support.
'''Strong opposum'''. He thinks that ''′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→§·ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy–—…‘“’”°″′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§'' is not nonsense but vandalism.
'''Very Weak Oppose'''. per Balloonman.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman. Most newbies come to Wikipedia with good intentions, so when their articles get speedy deleted, it is important that they know ''exactly'' why. Of course, criteria G3 and G10, and extreme cases of A7 (e.g. ''John Doe redefines "awesome," end of story'') could be regarded as an exception to this rule of thumb, but somehow I don't think that someone who writes an article about an upstart garage band is coming to Wikipedia with bad intent. Yes, they have to know that Wikipedia is just not a free web host, and that means we must tell them exactly that. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Oppose''' Very unimpressive afd nominations and poor deletion calls after years of involvement in Wikipedia. I do not trust this user with the tools.--
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89 and Balloonman. You should certainly try again once you have addressed all these issues here though! Happy editing :-) '''
'''Oppose''' as there is a lack of experience with AIV and other Administrator Related fields besides deletion. Could use a lot of work, then I will support in another RfA. '''<span style="background:Blue;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' Irresponsible with speedy deletion.  Thanks, Balloonman.
'''Oppose''' Sorry to pile on here but Ballonman's findings are too unignorable. The extra buttons seems a bit risky at your hands at this moment. Contribute fairly to article building, make precise tagging of deletion needed articles and come back again--
'''Neutral''' –  Wasn’t sure if I should place this here or up in questions.  Here won. Right at the moment I have some concerns with experience regarding [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrative duties]]and interaction (or lack there of with other editors.  In reviewing your archived talk page, shown here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paste/Archive_3] I noticed just recently, November  (paragraph 79) a well respected [[WP:Editor|editor]] and  [[WP:Administrator|Administrator]] commented that your reasoning, in both nominating and expressing opinion at [[AFD]], may fall short of what is expected and may even be taken as agenda pushing.  Likewise, I saw similar comments from other editors expressing the same concern within your talk page.  In addition, I saw very few responses from you to a great majority of comments or questions placed on your talk page.  As a [[WP:Administrator|Administrator]] I would hope for more interactions and thoughtful comments.  Can you explain how and what have you done to correct these perceived shortcomings.  Thanks. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''On the Fence''' I don't want to oppose you, you do understand what should and should not be deleted. I'm just troubled by the lack of cooperation with others. If you show more action on talk pages and AN and ANI, I would consider nominating you.
'''Neutral''' The candidate's vices and virtues are too evenly balanced for me, so I am sitting next to Yanksox on the fence.
'''Neutral''' - don't want to pile on. I think the concerns raised by Balloonman are valid- as a new page patroller it's okay to make some of these mistakes because an admin will always be there to fix your mistakes. However, as an admin, you don't have a back up, no one looking over your shoulder. That said, you seem dedicated to the project and it takes a large amount of courage to nom yourself for adminship: I respect that. Consider this a [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]] neutral, and I look forward to when I can support you. <span style="outline:2px dotted #a1aaff; border:medium double #0f1c9d;">
'''Neutral''' - To avoid pile on at this point.
'''Moral Support'''. There's a lot of work you are going to need to do before you submit a new RfA. I suggest you begin familiarizing yourself with administrative tasks and participate in other people's RfA's to get an idea about how this entire process works. I looked at some of your writing, and it's pretty good...but just as the housekeeping side of the project can't survive without the writers, vice versa is true as well. More than anything else, I suggest you find an admin coach to help teach you what you need to know to make your next RfA successful.
'''Moral Support''' - I can see your intentions are good, but I feel that you aren't ready for it yet. I'm also not convinced you fully understand what adminship is, but I offer my best wishes to the next RfA, as I can't see this one pass :) '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Moral support''' - candidates who are selected to become admins typically have experience editing thousands of pages.  I look forward to your return.  '''''
'''Support''' - per the oppose by SorryGuy. Your edits are fantastic, and I encourage you to list yourself at admin coaching requests, try to get more involved in wikipedia areas, and as a definite try and answer questions at the Help Desk, because it is there that I believe I gained the necessary understanding, improving both my understanding of policy and user interaction. Happy editing,
'''Regretful Oppose''' - I am sorry, but I do not think you are ready yet. You only have about 100-200 edits, and noticably no experience of policy. It also seems that you do not even intend to use the administrator tools. Good luck in the future. :)
'''Oppose''' - malformed RFA (you added a comment about yourself in the neutral section), 183 edits is not sufficient experience. --
'''Oppose''' per both of the above. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose'''. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and for your proactive actions in seeking to help the community further with administrative tools. However, at this time, I do not feel as though you are ready for them. Firstly, as said above, you have not listed your request in the customary manner. You may want to read the guide to making requests at [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|the guide for making requests]]. Also, as said above, you may want to review what the tools actually are, as the intentions as you state can all be done without the tools. Review other requests on this page to see why the tools are generally requested. If you still want them and are committed, you may want to find an admin coach at [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|admin coaching]]. Regardless, good luck and happy editing, <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Malformed RFA, very low editing experience...
'''Oppose''' - Per all above.
'''Oppose''' Your enthusiasm and willingness to serve as an administrator is commendable but 183 edits really isn't enough experience.
'''Oppose''', your intentions are doubtlessly good, and I commend you for putting your hand up, but you don't have enough history here for us to judge whether you'd make a good admin.  Try your hand at [[WP:AFD]], recent changes patrol, or new pages patrol, and see how you like that, and if you do, come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral'''.  Get some more experience editing, and try again in 5 months or so.  Try a bit of [[WP:AFD]], for a little admin-like task.  <span style="color:red">'''Happy Holidays!!'''</span> <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''', but wish I could support. You simply need more experience. Perhaps work on establishing a schedule where you make 10-20 edits per day, nearly every day if possible, for maybe four months. This type of schedule would put you up around 1,000 edits, which is often considered a "bare minimum" of edits. If you did this, and included some Wikipedia-space editing, for say 6-7 months, and got closer to 2,000 edits, I think you would be a shoo-in. As it is, I say keep up the good work you've been doing. I look forward to supporting a future RfA for you.
'''Oppose''' Nothing you've said you want to do is in any way connected with admin powers. I don't think you understand what the job is that you're applying for.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Opposed''' - Though they seem to be pleasant enough I have concerns that they lack the experience necessary to use the tools properly, and that they haven't been in enough conflicts to judge their ability to handle such. I am also concerned over the disuse of edit summaries and the apparent misunderstanding of the admin's role on the wiki. Overall a solid editor but it's just too soon for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Your editorial work aside, I just don't believe you have the first clue as to what an administrator is or what work an administrator does.
'''Oppose and [[WP:SNOW|Snow close]]''' Frankly, I'm not sure you know what an [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] actually does. Keep working at this for a few (at least 6) months, then check out [[WP:Admin Coaching|Admin Coaching]]. You're a good editor, just not a good potential admin.
'''Neutral''' - Experience is the main issue. I'm also not sure due to your pithy answers, and well..specifically Q1. Doesn't appear as though you conceive the role of an administrator.
(e.c.) f I see a more convincing answer to q 1 (i.e. not non-adminy) then i'll change! '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
'''Neutral''' - per Wisdom89.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Less than 200 edits (only 6 in the last two months), no experience in admin related areas. I find the answers to the questions fairly vague and insubstantial, and not being able to tranclude your RfA isn't a good sign either.
'''Oppose''' also [[WP:NOTNOW|NOTNOW]]. I despise [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|EDITCOUNTITIS]], but just not enough experience, sorry, and no meaningful experience in projectspace. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Hi! I applaud your enthusiasm, but This will probably get close per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#Things_to_consider_before_accepting_a_nomination|this]] for other things to do to help out. Sorry, and good luck in the future! <font color="black">'' '''
'''Sorry''' I appreciate the offer to help out, but I'm afraid you need substantially more experience. Why not see [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] for some hints and tips on amdinship. Also [[User:Paulyb|your user page]] is a bit of an issue for me. I'd suggest not putting things on a user page that make it look like a system error. Thanks for helping out around here though! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
While I admire your pluck, with only 32 edits under the belt, I would ''strongly'' urge this candidate to reconsider his level of experience with the project before nominating himself for admin. --
'''Oppose''' I would suggest that you withdraw your nomination until you gain a lot more experience because I fear that, at this point in time, you may not even benefit from constructive criticism from editors who oppose your request.
'''Oppose''' & recommend towel closure.
'''Support''' - a very good contributor to Rugby and soccer related articles and "Wikipedia Edits" is not important even though its a bit too low and would make good use of the tools if given a chance..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
<s>'''Weak</s> Support''' - adminship is no big deal. <s>Although the answer to Q1 sounded like the candidate was prepared to use admin tools to gain advantage in edit wars, I'm sure that's not what s/he meant to imply.</s> <font face="Verdana">
Support per Cometstyles reasons
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with this candidate.  Admin should be no big deal.--
'''Support''' &mdash; no actual flaws with relation to how well s/he could use the [[WP:SYSOP|Mop]] ~
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you only have 17 Wikipedia-space edits and you have only used edit summaries in 25% on major edits and 26% of minor edits. Both of these should be increased before I support.
'''Oppose''' Less than fifty contributions each to the user Talk and policy spaces show that you need to interact more with editors and demonstrate a knowledge of [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] with participation in XfD debates, RfA topics, [[:WP:AIV]] reporting, [[:WP:AN/I]] reporting, etc.  You're on the right track and the points of improvement mentioned above, coupled with time required to do so will see a successful application in another few months' time.  Try forcing your edit summary contributions in your preferences for a start.  Regards,
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not enough evidence that you're sufficiently experienced to be trusted with the admin tools. You need to increase your Wikipedia space participation, as well as your edit summary usage. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned by the editor's contributions to [[Talk:2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict]] and the subsequent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=127708390&oldid=127611607 Request for Arbitration] which was rejected as premature. There are a number of complaints of [[WP:NPOV|non-neutral]] editing against this user on their talk page. Together it looks like PeeJay2K3 doesn't fully understand the notion of a neutral point of view. He also isn't doing a stellar job of remaining [[WP:CALM|calm]] and [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] when discussing these issues. There was a recent uploading of [[:Image:Ryan giggs.jpg]] which was deleted as a copyright violation. The user rarely uses edit summaries. Add all this to the answer to Q1 and I am concerned that PeeJay might use the tools to promote his point of view in conflict disputes and not communicate well with those he is in dispute with.
'''Oppose''' - reasonable answer to Q1, however when you find articles that are irrelevant, I would suggest nominating them for deletion. Overall, you are on the right track and suggest you reapply in 6-8 weeks.

'''Oppose''' - Very low wikispace edits and your answer to question 1 isn't very satisfying--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:The Sunshine Man|The Sunshine Man]].
'''Oppose''': Low edit summary usage, also edits not quite consistent, only about 4 months of solid editing not including this month. Also Q1 seems a little off. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, and rarely uses edit summaries.  Increase both and I can then support.  Come back and try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Only 20 edits in Wikispace and 4 in wikitalk do not indicate that you will be adequately familiar with policy in these areas which an admin must be familiar with. Edit summary count is low - you camn set your preferences to force you to add a summary.--
'''Oppose''' Q1 is a little troubling, frankly. The use of your "status as an admin" just makes me uncomfortable.
'''Oppose''' Q1 is bad, but the stance on BLP is confusing and arbitrary: one sentence the nominee says leave it, the other says delete and discuss it. [[WP:BLP|BLP]] is there for a reason, and we shouldn't leave obvious libel around with a fact tag and no sources for any more time than needed. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']]
'''Oppose''': I hate to be negative, it's not my thing, but there are many things that trouble me about the nominee's candidacy. There is the limited experience, seemingly only being built on in the last few weeks. There is the fact that the range of articles to which the candidate has contributed is frankly limited. There is the fact that I think that much of the edits in the past few weeks have been minor, seemingly in the attempt to bolster the nominee's credentials... and there is the responses provided to the RFA questions, which range from the bizarre to the perturbing. I wish the best of luck, but I certainly cannot approve this RFA now. --
No, per answer to question 5.--
'''Oppose'''. Edits and experience are decent, but I'm not sure you understand exactly what adminship entails, due to your low projectspace count and a rather poor answer to question 1.--
'''Oppose'''. I find the answer to Q1 a bit troubling; you need to build your experience more. '''
'''Oppose''' Your answers to questions suggest you don't understand what being an admin is, and you appear to have insufficient experience in user interaction and policy for us to understand how you'd handle difficult situations. Bone up on policy, interact more with other users in a helpful way, participate more in XfD discussions ([[WP:AfD]], [[WP:CfD]], [[WP:MfD]], [[WP:RfD]] etc.), proposed changes to policies, etc., and come back in a few months. You should be aware that it is frowned on for admins to use admin powers to further their own edit wars. It is not the job of admins to act as arbitrators (admin poswers should be a last resort, particularly in disputes between expereienced editors, and informal communication and voluntary mediation is helpful). Your answers should clearly reflect that you understand this. --
'''Oppose''', on the grounds of the lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. You say you're an "experienced" editor, but it's safe to say that you only really started significantly contributing some four months ago, in February. --'''
'''Oppose''' not enough experience. —
Answer to Q5 illustrates that this candidate has insufficient a) knowledge and b) desire to protect the project from harm. This is the type of user which creates problems for the WMF, and I cannot do anything but oppose giving this user the mop. '''
'''Oppose''' per Q5 and the low amount of talk usage. Cheers,
'''Neutral''': Have some more experience and come back later, then I'll alter my decision. --
'''Neutral''' - The evidence provided does not make me confident enough to support you for adminship. I would recommend you re-nominate later on when you have more experience and have improved your edit summary usage.
'''Neutral''' although here since 2005, 70% of your edits are within only the last 10 weeks '''
'''Neutral/Swaying''' - The amount of edits you made are not that many in numbers compared to some other sucssesfull administrator nomanations. Come back with more experience, and you may see your results change.
'''Support''' Laughed my ass off with the nom.  People need to get over this whole "single-out Kurt" view.  Plasticup was poking fun at a situation that pisses a bunch of people off and is a big controversy.  I think what Plasticup was getting at was that he knew Kurt was going to oppose him for the self-nom, and since Kurt's sig says Go Colts! that he would try and get him in a good mood.  Obviously this was a joke and not meant to disparage Kurt.  We all know Kurt has taken a lot more crap then this little joke, let's judge the merit of the user.  S/he is will be a net positive to the community if made administrator.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' I know the comment about Kurt was in jest, and some people just don't have a sense of humour. 4FAs=good. I really can't see anyone's logic that content creators can't be admins. You may not block 5,000 vandals, but merely use the tools to delete articles in the way of redirects. And that's the kind of user I want. Peace man --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support'''. Being a Colts fan myself, I took the comment in the nomination statement as it was intended - homorously. I'm seeing a lot of AWB-assisted edits, especially in July - but, I'm also seeing a lot of good work on a variety of articles dealing with Hurricanes, and I'm impressed. On the balance, I think this user could be a good administrator, though as Xeno notes there's a time and a place for everything, and some tact may be of benefit in dealing with potentially sticky situations. Overall, adminship here would be a net benefit, I think.
'''Support''' I see no reason for concern and I doubt that even Kurt would think that the opening remarks by the candidate were meant to be derogatory in any way.
'''Support''' I don't see the jest in the nomination as anything more than a harmless joke. Regardless, I have seen plasticups good work at the reference desks which is more than enough reason to support. What happened to supports per [[WP:WTHN]]? Best, --'''
'''Weak support''' I don't really find the joke much of a problem, more people's attitudes towards it. Going with Cameron on [[WP:WTHN]] for now. —'''
'''Support'''; good contributor I would have supported ''even'' without the nomination.  My mom always told me, as I was growing up, that "if you're not worth a laugh, you're not worth much"&mdash; Kurt is a conspicuous feature of RfA, and is well aware that his views are both marginal and subject of regular attention; I would be surprised if he takes that particular good humored ribbing any worse than any ''other'' self-nomination.<p>And besides, who knows?  Maybe Plasticup is right and a Colts win ''would'' have mollified Kurt.  :-)  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' nice balance of good communication skills and useful editing. I would hope Plasticup would have the good sense not to use the tools in unfamiliar areas like deleting things. '''
'''Support''', some people need to lighten up, I had a quiet chuckle at the joke in the nom and I'm sure that Kurt wouldn't mind.  Also, nothing to suggest this user would misuse the tools in a malicious fashion.
'''Support''' although I doubt it'll make any difference now. Hurricanes are a tricky area to work in as you have some fairly high standards set by other editors there, and I can't see any problem with you. I somehow can't imagine Kurt complaining about someone making sarcastic comments in an RFA.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]].
'''Support''' Despite the very solid points brought out by the opposition, my sense is that the candidate is not likely to abuse/misuse the tools. Sometimes we become a little obsessive in our drives. I'm sure I do. His motive in seeking the mop isn't to wield it like a sword or a club. He just believes it might be usefull from time to time to do a little light cleaning. And I have to resepect anyone who amasses this many constructive edits that aren't machine-like vandal reverts or CSD taggings. While admins should try to grow their skill sets, it is more important to know one's limits, and I think the candidate does. Cheers,
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Article-writin' admin who seems to have a lot of CLUE.  I hope some of the oppose !voters reconsider opposing this candidate over a simple joke that almost certainly did not offend its subject in the slightest. '''
'''Strong support''' I, too,  hope some of the oppose !voters reconsider this candidate as he contributes largely to the project.  why should administrators time be taken up with his housekeeping when it could be better spent doing more constuctive work if plasticup had the necessary tools;  this is one way of removing the backlog!  !vote on the on the question "will giving him admin status improve wikipedia or not?" rather than on the appreciation of his sense of humour
'''Support''' per article work. Modest answer to Q1 impressed me, too.
'''Support''' Impressive honest answers (and to a certain degree, the 4 FA's). Cheers mate!
'''Support''' His answer to question 1 is entirely correct. The mop allows you to do things normal editors cannot... so anything that it allows you to do is an administrative task. To single out certain areas as more administrative than others is wrong (though we could say some are more helpful to the community). The joke about Kurt is accurate, appropriate, and is no more or less appropriate in his nom statement than anywhere else on the 'pedia. A contribution is a contribution. He does not, however, meet my standard of 4000 edits per day to qualify as a regular editor, but as he has been here longer than most regular editors, I will ignore this for now so long as he promises to include some additional fiber in his diet, open himself up to being open to the possibility of agreeing to think about submitting himself for voluntary recall.
'''Support''' — Plasticup won't misuse the tools, in my opinion. Why are people concerned if the candidate doesn't plan to actively take part in standard admin business? The point is, we will have one more administrator! Even if the candidate only uses the tools for personal edits, we have incrementally decreased the amount of work each individual admin will have to perform. Magic! Why does it matter if Plasticup takes an extended break? What an editor does with their life is none of our business. It boggles my mind that we will only allow people to be admins ''[[if and only if|iff]]'' they promise to let us control their life. I like a candidate with the candor to say "I'm probably not going to help out, just use the tools when I need to". Otherwise we are inviting candidates to play the "good admin" and claim they will help with XfD, RfC, and "blah blah blah", even if they have no intention of doing so. —
RIP humor on Wikipedia - you will be sorely missed. Srsly. (Won't abuse the tools.)
'''Support''' - Seems like a nice fellow.
'''Support''' - Hesitated a bit because I'm not sure I like the idea of an admin who wants to use the tools in areas where he/she edits but, on the balance, a good sense-a-humor and honest answers to questions are worth a lot! --
'''Support''' The explanations for a couple of the strange things are good. You seem a good editor, and the Kurt thing is astonishingly overblown.
Seriously, his nom statement was funny.  I see no reason to oppose him. --
'''Support''' - Dam good editor and fine Wikipedian in general, I think he has proved himself and would make wise use of the tools.--
First sentence of nomination shows dedication and seriouness needed for adminship, while answer to Q1 shows that this person is actually here to build an encyclopedia.
'''Strong support''' - More admins need to have a sense of humor. Too many stuffy people bringing the atmosphere down here. I also do not believe candidates need to have experience in all admin areas. We volunteer to edit here, adminship is all the same. I came into adminship with ZERO XfD experience. I closed a few AFDs on request one day, totally effed it up, reverted it all back and stayed away until I felt like dipping my toe in again. Did them all right that time, but still don't much care for it. And that's fine. We need all the help we can get, and the oppose section of this RFA examples pretty much every shameful vote that shows how broken this process has become. From POINTy opposes that disregard the candidate completely, to those that conflict with tradition and a few that conflict with each other. The long standing "one should not have to show a ''need'' for the tools" has been chucked for this RFA. Last week everyone maintained, as it has been from the start, that "adminship is no big deal", but for this RFA it is now a big deal (which I've been saying for months, but now it's hitting the oppose section). Having a sense of humor is a show of poor judgment?! And now, apparently, if someone doesn't have as much time to spend on the project as others, their small amount of time is not as valuable. Why do we not want someone who makes 125 edits a month to devote even 12 of those edits to admin work? That's 12 less edits on the backlog each month. And what if he finds he enjoys a particular admin task and spends all of his 125 edits there, or maybe increases his involvement? Take what you can get in time and quantity when you're looking for free labor. Clearly, this RFA is beyond saving, but Plasticup has his heart in the right place, and he's working to improve the project with what little time he can. The beating people take in this pathetic process is horrible. He made a joke in his nom statement and he basically gets stoned for it. Like Kurt said, lighten up. It's the internet, this is just a website, and it was just a joke.
Non-moral '''Support''' - I don't see anything wrong, and shows a need. Doubt that anything bad'd come of it.
Sadly, not this time. I dislike the attitude in the self-nomination, attacking another editor in the process. Answer to question 1 shows little interest in adminship, and getting the tools to assist with your own articles, as it seems to me, isn't really appropriate. I'm sure you can wait a bit for articles to be moved by an admin. Good job with your article(s) though. Show more interest in adminship, then I'll support you another time. Thank you. <big>
'''Oppose''' agree with Maxim.  Not good form to single out an editor in a negative way, even in jest when opening an RfA.  Oh another reason, in order for me to consider somebody an active participant, I consider 150 edits per month to be active.  By this standard, he has only been active for 3 months in the last year.  If you drop that down to 100 edits, then only 4 months in the past year.---'''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; forcing a user to sit out a week seems unnecessarily punitive when they could start making good edits right away (as this editor did). vandals are a dime a dozen, and reblocks are cheap; constructive contributors are golden. also, the kmweber comment in the nom statement was probably meant to be funny, but it displays poor judgment. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I don't at all see the experience I come to expect.
Per nomination statement. It '''is''' a big deal, after what I've seen over the last few days in the popular press, and your total lack of creating the collegial atmosphere one would hope we ought to have gives me no confidence in granting a block button to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I agree with Pedro; wikipedia needs to grow up. A nomination statement that justifies itself by reference to what the nominator perceives to be an unpopular editor is both childish and unconstructive. But what is worse, it leaves a taste of gang mentality. --
'''Oppose''' It's weird that this is the third oppose I've given in the last month that's partially based on the nominee trying to bait Kurt Weber into the RfA.  Obvious maturity issues here; administrators often represent the project to outsiders without realizing it, and accordingly they need to behave like grownups.
'''Oppose''': I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. (Seriously.) I don't find fault in poking fun at the situation, though I'd like to see more overall experience. <small>
'''Oppose''' The joke in the nom wasn't too bad but did display poor judgement for a potential admin.  Question 1 also seems that admin would be almost completely wasted on you.  Decent experience but I'd just expect more from an admin. --
'''Oppose''' - Per Pedro. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=217838607 Adminship is a big deal]. Also, you really have shown no need for the tools and your nomination statement along with your answer to Q1 reinforce that, remember adminship is not a trophy.
'''Oppose''' At this time, I am regretfully unable to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I see the answer to '''1.''' as a reason ''not'' to grant admin tools. You're saying that you don't have much experience in certain processes (e.g., XfD), but ''do'' work on those processes from time to time. Going along with How do you turn this on, I don't see a real ''need'' for access to these tools... when it happens to me, I just do something else and check my watchlist periodically. Additionally, I agree with xeno in that vandal IPs should be given a second chance in the event that they make a "sudden reversal"; it takes a little extra time to watch that user, and a persistent vandal will just come back after the block anyway. I will say however that I disagree with the above comments that the nom was in poor taste (now that I ''get'' the joke). &mdash;/
'''Oppose''' I'm seeing too much article writing, and not a lot of admin participation. To be honest, the joke about Kurt was funny. I don't see why anybody would get on your back about that. If someone finds "''I was hoping his favorite football team would win so he'd be in a better mood''" insulting/mean, they need to grow a pair. But, yeah, get more admin experience and I won't have any concerns.--
'''Oppose''' Per unforgiving answer to Xeno's question, jab at Kurt in the ''opening sentence'' of a ''self-nom'', and self-admitted lack of admin work or desire for admin work. What's the point of getting the tools if you won't use them? To [[WP:TROPHY|hang them above the fireplace]]? Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' - Seems a bit bitey to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Eric and Balloonman's comments. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' - Inactivity and per Balloonman's oppose. <small>
'''Oppose''' Per the inactivity and Balloonman and Pedro. Was it also nesscary to single out Kurt. He is intitled to his own opionin, just like you are.
The joke was obviously meant to be non-offensive, but it shows poor judgment.  But beyond that, the answers to the questions, particularly xenocidic's question, appear far too rigid.
'''Oppose''' I am glad to see that people are finally finding the Kurt wisecracks to be immature and unfunny. To repeat a line I used the last time a candidate started off with a snarky Kurt remark: to make a spin on that line from the film ''Jerry Maguire,'' you lost me at "Hello."
'''Oppose''', the first time I have ever done this in an RFA. I would have voted neutral over the Kurt comment, since it suggests you aren't taking this seriously, but then your answer to Q1 was just wrong.<p>Yes, for those of us who do a lot of editing the tools are wonderful to have to extend our reach — you can restore a deleted fair-use image and write a proper rationale for it, which is a lot easier than having to find it, download and reupload anew. But first, the whole point of having the tools is so you can do administrative tasks. Even clearing out [[C:CSD]] on a semi-regular basis is of value to the community. Second, anyone who thinks they can just administer on the side while they create ever-more wonderful featured articles with the tools' help is seriously deluded. ''Every'' administrator on this project has gotten that talk page message or email right at the point where you're about to call it a night from someone who noticed you were an admin or picked one at random from the list begging for help with some article or with some user. What would you do in that situation, especially if it involved some complicated administrative task? An administrator must be ready to do everything an administrator can do, even if they never have to do it.
'''Weak oppose''' - not impressed with some of the above answers, and per Pedro and Balloonman -
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but this editor has not been a regular contributor, and with several concerns raised, and a sparse user page, I'm sorry to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Just doesn't instill confidence in me at all in regard to his attitude and activity. Sorry.
Sorry, '''oppose'''. Daniel Case brings up some very valid points. I don't expect every admin to be knowledgable or active in ''all'' areas but you want to limit the use of your mop too much. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Oppose''' because it's a self-nom but wow...lighten up, people.  I can see the argument that jokes of that nature, regardless of the subject, don't belong in an RfA '''period''' (although I don't agree with it), but...wow.
'''Oppose''' - Not sure you have the experience necessary for an admin candidate. Admins are expected to be available at least most of the time (the inactivity of some is a case that could be argued) so to be not, is not someone I'd support as a candidate. '''
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q1. If you don't intend to participate in admin work, then why are you asking to be an admin? --
'''Weak oppose''' because of the answer to Q1. I agree with Smashville. Why would you like to be an admin if you don't want to do anything as an admin?
'''Oppose'''. Based on your answer to Q1 I don't think you need the tools, and your nomination statement doesn't inspire my trust. Sorry,
'''Oppose'''. As the others said, your answer to Question 1 was controversial. Especially the "I would simply like to be able to do that for myself". Sorry this didn't go as planned. Sincerely,
'''Neutral''' because of ''that'' nom.  I realise you were only having a laugh but it's not nice to single out Kurt.  I'm worried if this attitude continues into the admin role.
'''Neutral''' Plasticup is a great editor, and does excellent work for the [[WP:WPTC|WPTC]], and I hate to have to go neutral. However, Maxim and Balloonman are right about your nomination statement. I'm also concerned about the answer to my question. Sorry, &ndash;
'''Neutral''' : Not enough adminly activities for me to support. Nice article work but talk page editing is low. Concerns about your abilities with dispute resolution. At least your honest.—
Per Juliancolton mostly. I tried to state that you were a great content builder, but that comment was unacceptable. Also, I see you have not been active for six months, as usually required at RFA. Try working more at the wikipedia space and come back soon. :) &mdash;'''
I would oppose, but this user has also made positive contributions to Wikipedia, so I would make this a '''neutral'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Mostly due to answer to Q1. Good article work, so I won't oppose, but asking for something you aren't going to commit to seems a tad pointless. --
'''Neutral'''. <font  face="georgia">'''
Basically oppose, but by now there's no reason to pile on. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Neutral''' per Everyme.
'''Neutral'''. I'm not going to suddenly jump into the oppose column for one sentence, although I do think the joke would've been better without mentioning any names (but I did find it clever). Out of thousands of edits, one alone carries little weight. I do think he knows what he's doing and is plenty familar with policy. ''But'' he's only been active for about three months and quite a lot of his edits were via automated tools. That's the reason I can't support.
'''Neutral''' (actually, an oppose with some moral support) - I won't oppose for just one joke. Maxim and Balloonman are right about the joke, and I wouldn't like such an attitude in an admin. I am, though, concerned about the answer to Q1. Why request admin tools if you'll barely ever use them? Plasticup is an excellent contributor, but doesn't seem to need adminship or to have the right attitude about it. Adminship is no big deal, but there are some expectations with regard to RfA candidates. There's no reason to pile on here, though - this RfA will probably fail anyway, and I find it somewhat annoying when hordes of users vote on the oppose section of a request for adminship, especially when the user is a good contributor and the RfA has practically [[WP:SNOW|snowed]] anyway.
'''No-Pile Neutral''' - I don't think I can support this candidate just yet.  This is not because of the joke.  As mentioned before by others, Q1 is an issue.  I don't doubt this user's contribution record, just the need to use admin tools.
'''Neutral''' - can't get off fence. Kurt comment was silly, contribs are good. This is not going to pass anyway, sorry. Give it 3 months. Cheers,
'''Neutral'''. Excellent mainspace contributions. However Plasticup should engage more in discussions with other editors, either through Talk pages, XFD or elsewhere. This would help in unfamiliar situations when consensus needs to be established.
'''Neutral:''' As long as RfA remains a clear popularity poll, where >75% always passes and <70% always fails, then Kurt's voting will remain a disruptive issue which will continue to require three Support votes to offset it.  Congratulations, folks: RfA has become a process where half the action revolves around Kurt Weber, and numerous RfAs succeed or fail around that.  Is there a single process or section anywhere on Wikipedia where a single editor has such an enduring impact?
'''Neutral''' - I think this issue over the opening statement has been overblown a bit, but both the supports and the opposes have valid points. The choice of opening statement does show a bit of a lack of judgement, but I don't think an RfA should fail just for that, we all make mistakes from time to time and this one could just be a classic wrong place, wrong time thing. Good to see lots of contributions, but I would like to see just a little bit more experience in admin areas and a little bit more long-term experience overall (your edits are very concentrated towards recently). Overall, I am close to supporting, but not quite off the fence.
<s>'''Oppose''' and suggest you withdraw at this stage. With [http://toolserver.org/~sql/sqlbot.php?user=Plyhmrp less than 400 edits], only 142 of which are in mainspace, there's not enough to judge how you'll act.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Strong oppose''' - 387 edits including those made to this request (just noting). Poor participation in administrator areas, edit summary usage is low and the answers are too brief. I don't like what I see at the top of the nominee's talk page.
'''Oppose''', less than 500 edits, very little participation in adminly areas, and failure to read the self-nomination instructions. I also recommend withdrawal. –<font face="Verdana">
[[WP:NOTNOW]]. Try [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and [[WP:ER]] after some time. Come back in a few months. Cheers.
Oppose for now. Your intentions appear to be good, but is apparent even from your initial statement that you lack the necessary knowledge of what adminship entails, or even what it is that you are requesting (I refer in the latter to your reference to becoming a "staff member"; this is not what you are here asking for). If you keep your game up, have a read through some [[WP:POLICY|policy]] and come back in a few months, I may be able to place my support. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Too few edits, too little use of edit summaries, lack of participation at [[WP:XFD]] and noticeboards, lack of extensive article creation and/or discussion. '''
C'mon, you have only 400 edits, and over half of them are to userspace. Please come back in 4-5 months, when you have at least 1000 mainspace edits and over 2000 edits total, otherwise you have no chance to succeed at all.
'''Oppose''' Most of your Project namespace edits are to this RFA; more experience in the namespace is needed; also, per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">

'''Moral Support''' - It appears you were extremely light on comments here because your RfA was not transcluded onto the main RfA page. If there were a chance that this RfA would succeed, I would ask for time to be extended. As it stands...sorry, but there's just no way this will happen right now. I'm not a fan of [[WP:AAAD#Editcountitis]], but I can't imagine that your fully prepared for adminship after only 120-ish edits. The fact that this RfA is indexed under "USERNAME" (meaning you forgot to change it) and you didn't transclude it speaks volumes to your current level of inexperience. If you really want to be an admin, I'd suggest continuing to contribute, getting further involved in Wikiprojects, and maybe considering [[WP:ADCO|admin coaching]]. Good luck!
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience for the moment in my opinion, + account is only a couple of weeks old.
'''Oppose''' Account created January 19. Also I'm curious as to the 3 edits on 3 different IP talk pages on January 21 posting notices that said IPs were blocked indefinitely for being compromised and one for "for Trolling" when in fact, they weren't blocked at all. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">
Sorry, just withdraw now I'm afraid. Nowhere near enough experience, as this mangled RFA demonstrates. -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience, no proof of knowledge of Wikipedia policies/guidelines, edits are a concern.  I am especially concerned about the "Editing the Main Page" bit; that's a fully-protected page and can't be edited except by administrators. -''
'''Oppose''' Come back when you have a few more months of edits under your belt.  If possible, ask a more experienced editor to nominate you.  Also, many of the things you describe above do not need [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] permission, which makes me wonder if you realise what you're asking for here.
'''Oppose''' And asking Bureaucrat to close this early as a possible "test" page, given this [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pookeo9]] creation by the same user.
'''Oppose''' with '''Moral support'''. Per all above comments. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]] [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count]
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. User has not shown significant wiki-growth since January and is still under 500 edits overall, mostly to non-article space. I suggest that the user build up more on their article growth, vandalism fighting, and maybe in a couple years.
[[WP:NOTNOW]] for me too, m'fraid.  Sorry, you're on the right path, but I need more evidence to support the granting of tools.
'''Oppose''' [[WP:NOTNOW|Not now]].  Answers to questions leave much to be desired.
'''Oppose''' With only 149 edits, over half (at current) of them on your own user page or subpages, I am afraid that you do not fully understand the requirements of the janitorial work needed as a sysop, nor have you given the community enough evidence on which they can determine your ability to be [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusted]] with the tools. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per the above reasoning. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - sorry but you do not have the experience or time on this project to be a suitable admin candidate yet.  I suggest taking Dihydrogen Monoxide's advice in the discussion section above.
'''Strong ([[WP:SNOW|SNOW]]?) oppose''' - with all due respect, becoming an admin with only 150 edits is utterly ridiculous; you clearly don't understand the process here, or how Wikipedia functions in general. —
'''Oppose''', your heart is in the right place, and I encourage you to apply again when you've got a bit more experience under your belt.
'''Oppose''', You're off to a great start, but there's a lot more to being an admin.  For now, when you find persistent active vandalism, log an entry at [[WP:AIV]].  Usually it gets handled in a few minutes—if an admin agree it's a valid report.  There are plenty of editors with 6+ months experience and thousands of edits who have been deemed too inexperienced for adminship, so don't let this widespread round of opposition to your nomination get you down.  As a non-admin, you can revert vandalism and warn vandals.  That is extremely valuable work.  —
'''Strong Oppose:'''  As per [[WP:SNOW]], I reccomend that you withdraw your RfA until you have more experience to avoid disappointment.  You do not have a snowball in hell's chance of passing with only 149 edits.  Your arguments were not very well presented.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Oppose''' Not anytime soon.  Sorry.

'''Support''' His level of article-building experience is acceptable, he seems to polite enough, and his CSD and vandal-fighting work looks good.
'''Support''' You seem to be a civil contributor. I ran through some of your contributions (there were a lot in a brief period, so I apologize I couldn't read them all) and everything seemed courteous. I would advise to take the sysop-ing slowly at first and use the opportunity to watch and learn from others. Also, be careful not to get burnt out! We want you to stick around! Keep up the good contributions.
'''Support''' per [[WP:WTHN|why the hell not]].  Will not abuse the tools.  '''
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' In a review of contributions over the last month, candidate looks like a solid contributor. However, the candidate has only been actively editing for under 1 month. Not enough experience in general, and outside of reporting vandals, I don't see much activity in wikipedia space.
'''oppose''' prior to last month you only had under 800 edits in 3 years. Then last month you had over 5000. It is hard to judge your editing style and your approach to different situations with such a skewed history. I would suggest you look into [[WP:ADCO|admin coaching]] and spend the next couple of months building up a consistent track record for review and then come back. <b>
'''Oppose''' Candidate's contributions have been helpful, but, being mostly reverts of vandalism and additions to lightly-edited articles, they don't indicate much about editorial judgment, good or bad.
'''Oppose'''. Your work is good, but I think an admin candidate should have several consecutive active months, see [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my standards page]] where it says, "At least 100 edits per month for last several months." You only have one. And also where it says, "Doesn't challenge all the oppose !votes."
'''Oppose''' - I can't get a feel for how this user operates give the sporadic/erratic nature of the editing. Furthermore, your answer to question 1 is confusing with regards to adminship. And by confusing, I really mean irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, you seem like a great contributer (good anti-vandal work too), but I don't think you fully grasp the idea or the role of being an admin. <s>And I'm also suspect of your first support vote. Although, I will admit that I'm willing to disregard it in this oppose.</s>
Too inexperienced. 5000 edits in the past month is not enough time to gather and mindfully know all policy that is associated with administrator duties. Could support in the future, but not now.
'''Oppose but with moral support''' - A month with 5000 edits does not give me an image of dedication or continuous maintenance to the encyclopaedia, but keep it steady and this oppose might just turn into a support next time. Keep reaching! <small>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I must agree with my compatriots in saying that you need a more consistent track record.
'''Moral support''' - keep up the good work, read everything on adminship, develop some articles, and request adminship again in about 3 months.  (In the meantime, it would be a good idea to withdraw this nomination.)
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' I hate to [[WP:SNOW|snow]] on the parade but I have to say that I oppose this request based on the timing, I do not oppose it based on the editor. Also, Prashanthns, based on what the general consensus seems to be building towards, please don't think that the last month's edits were in vain. You've done great work and no one is challenging that. I don't doubt that only a few more months of that type of contribution to the project will get you another nomination. However, I will echo Kurt Weber's concern and advise that you wait until someone else in the community nominates you. When you're truly deserving of the mop, which I believe you will be one day soon, your work will be noticed by others and they will take the initiative to nominate you for adminship. Keep up the good work! Peace!
'''Oppose''' not much I can say at this point except, per all above.--
'''Neutral''' for the moment. I want to look through some of your many contributions this month, but don't have time at the moment. I'll note, though, that you do seem to have a good grasp of policy, and you have been very, ''very'' active in vandal and CSD work - and I also see several articles where you removed CSD tags and assisted in copyediting to create some workable stubs. Just curious, do you have a particular article where you've done a lot of work? Good luck,
In 3 months of productive, consistent editing.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Oppose''' - Ok, the answer to Q#4 settled this one for me.  That situation didn't show good judgement at all, and what's to say that you won't show bad judgement again with the mop?
'''Oppose''' With the amount of user talk edits it appears that you just use WP as a social networking service. '''''
'''Oppose''' You have a grand total of a little over 2100 edits. That's decent in my opinion. Your edit summary usage is good. However, you have 900+ edits to user talk, and 150+ edits to user. And only 537 edits to the mainspace does not show enough experience. I would recommend AIV reports (looks like you are a great vandal fighter), and voting in AFD's and I would be glad to suppose in 3-4 months. Sorry -
'''Oppose''' Per MFC. A little more experience with AIV, XfD, RFPP etc..etc.. in lieu of just bouncing around wikipedia and patrolling. You seem to be a socialite, which is cool, but a little flighty.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, but due to all the above and past social interactions, I'll have to pass this time :-( <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bennyboyz30002 This] may be a long term bar for adminship for you. Sorry.
'''Weak support'''.  This may not pass, but I think that you will make a good administrator despite a low edit count.  You should probably take a look at [[WP:ARL]] before performing any administrator actions.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' I suspect that this user would do fine with the tools. Talk page shows user is courteous and has not been read-off for inappropriate reversion, tagging, or incivility. Of the the CSD taggings I saw, only one was rejected, and I can understand not seeing the thing as asserting significance. There was one dicey AFD nom. Again, I can understand viewing the article as needing deletion. The ten AIV reports I saw were appropriate. I did not review for article building. Clearly, this user asseses as being on the right track-- a civil, knowledgeable user. Regrettably, more edits more often would instill greater confidence in overall ability as well as having kept up with shifts n policy interpretation. I do hope to see this user try again if this does not succeed. I do not have a problem with self-noms. Power hunger would be more likely indicated by a wiki-politician wheeling and dealing, glad-handing other users into liking him, and then getting someone else to nominate. The actual tools give one very little power. Power comes from the ability to get others to agree with you or do your bidding. Self-nomming does not do that.
Moral '''support'''. If you don't get it come back and try again. <b>
'''Weak oppose''' -- Sorry, I love the enthusiasm but experience is the main problem here. You only have ca. 2000 edits (I prefer to see a few more to prove reliability). And you have a low AIV-count for someone who 'intend[s] mainly to fight vandalism'. Sorry! --
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per low edit count spread over a long period of time, and pretty unconvincing answers to the questions. I'm not convinced you have the policy experience. I reserve the right to change my opinion pending answers to other questions.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose with moral support'''. It's always good to see someone take the initiative on their belief that they can improve Wikipedia further, but 104 Wikipedia space edits does not particularly show much experience specifically around the project. Come back when you've got it under your belt and I have no prejudice against supporting you at a later date. Regards,
'''Oppose''' - Not enough in the way of Wikipedia space for me to be able to justify trusting this user with the tools, unfortunately. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - On the right track, that's for sure. For someone so interested in fighting vandalism, I don't see much activity at [[WP:AIV]], which is odd. Not to use "edit count" reasoning, but your project space activity just isn't what I like to see from a prospective administrator, especially given you claim long tenure. Also, the article writing is weak too. Sorry. But like I said, you're on the right path. Keep it up and come back in like 3-4 months.
'''Moral support but regretful oppose''' - This won't pass, unfortunately, but you're certainly on the right track. You simply need a bit more experience all-round and some with article editing to a decent standard (although that is simply one of my criteria, not everyone else's) and once you've done that, hey presto. Good luck and happy editing. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' - not nearly enough overall experience, with only 1202 main space edits over a two year spam. Editing as a whole seems sporadic and very low volume, which would fit with candidate's note that he's been "experimenting" rather than being an active editor. Also not seeing a lot of work in any of the areas of interest. Also notice candidate does not appear to have learned what is and is not a minor edit, with an extreme number of edits edits tagged as minor. That's one of the very basics of Wikipedia editing. On a whole, I feel the candidate needs a be a more active, more diversed in their activities, and get more experienced before attempting adminship.
'''Oppose'''. You're on the right track, but I need to see more experience in the Wikipedia namespace before I can support.
'''Oppose with moral support''' - Regretable, i dont think you would abuse the tools however its only recently that you,ve really started editing. Please continue as you are doing, come back in a few months and i would willingly support. Very best of luck.
Poor timing - but should make a good admin. ~
As far as I'm concerned, vandalism fighting is his way of helping the 'pedia.  I know he's learned from the past incidents, such as the AfD of a cricketer for which he received some flak; the extra block button should aid him on RC patrol.  However, I'm not at all impressed with the somewhat spur-of-the-moment submission of this RfA. —
'''Support''' R is a good user/editor, I have nothing but good expectations from him.
'''Support''' as I think that since the last 5 RFA's (which is a lot) you have changed and would not abuse the admin tools. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' per my nominating statements and extensive comments on the prior nominations.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. '''
'''Support''' as Newyorkbrad. '''''
'''Support''' He's ready, and eagerness is something I particularly look for in an admin candidate, especially one who can handle the job. Brad said it well.
More specialized admins, please.
'''R U MAD support''' - Sure :) ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

See what I said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FR_2&diff=159892740&oldid=159892216 here]. No good reason to oppose.
'''Support'''...again.  But I do wish you'd made a few more edits b/w the last one and this.  But regardless, I !voted yes on the last couple and I stand by that.  -
'''Oppose'''  Only 65 edits since last RfA, mostly consisting of a few reverts on articles, some edits in userspace, voting in the ArbCom elections and a few RfAs - impossible to tell whether concerns that were raised last time have been addressed. <b>
Strongly, as per last RfA, and the fact this is the ''second'' time that after one of his RfAs failed, he stops editing. Nothing has changed since the last time. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose'''. Six RfAs in little more than a year demonstrate to me that being an admin is too important to R. And comments like this "I had just gotten bored and annoyed with Wikipedia ... ''and users much newer than me were getting adminship already'' (my emphasis)" demonstrate immaturity. --
Oppose by principle, and not because this would set a bad precedent. RfA isn't a place to keep trying until consensus changes, or to make people say the same things over and over. The opening statement is depressing, and I suggest the candidate continue to do other things with his life. –
'''Oppose''' Not nearly enough edits to show maturity over last RfA. After five unsuccessful RfAs, you do not seem to be any more mature. I suggest you withdraw and make many more edits over the next few months to prove that you have matured and are ready for adminship. Patience is needed in a good admin, and that is something that you obviously do not have.
'''Oppose'''. Nothing against the candidate but someone whose talk page says that he is taking a prolonged wikibreak and an editing history to match is not an appropriate candidate for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Same as others above, you've barely edited since your last RfA, haven't dealt with any of the concerns raised in any of the previous RfAs, poor answers to questions, fixation on adminship. This mentality of trying to forcibly bash in the janitor's door without responding to the concerns raised in previous RfA is just unbelievable.
'''Oppose''', I have never opposed R before, and have always supported if I saw an RfA for him/her. But in this case I have to agree with the above, especially Sarah. <span>
'''Oppose''' Agree with above statements really - I'm sorry, but your opening statement is somewhat depressing. If you're sure this will fail, why bother? For the sixth time? [[User talk:Islander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''Talk'''</font></sub>]]
'''Oppose''' Agree with Sarah.  Nothing significant has changed since last RfA.  The opening statement was not encouraging at all. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. I supported R 1 and almost decided to support R 2, but sadly this RfA is, well... i don't know what to say. You fail an rfa, stop editing, then try another one? Can't say I've seen that before. Constant RfA attempts is like picking a scab. Unless you leave it alone it's only gonna get worse.
'''Oppose''' - User cant take advice/criticism from the community, as they have made 60-70 edits from their previous RfA and requested another one, not becoming of a administrator.
I've tried to review this impartially. It didn't take long to look at every edit you made since last time. Nothing there is inspiring.
'''Oppose''' Self-noms tend to be from those who wish for the tools for the title. As this is your 6th RFA, I'm not sure what to assume. --'''
'''Oppose''', sorry. This entire RfA is quite self explanatory of why you should not be an administrator. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' — because of the little attention you've paid to the comments made by users in your previous RfAs, it has become quite clear to me that you don't listen to people. That's not exactly a good trait in an administrator. --
'''Oppose'''; maturity concerns undressed since previous RfA, lack of encyclopedia-writing. --
'''Nyerrrr'''.  That you've only made about 70 edits since your last RfA is concerning, as is the partisan notice on your user page.  I'm really awaiting your answer to Astral's question. Thanks,
'''Neutral''' Good user, but the above concerns made me not support. I also don't feel like opposing this user, so I voted '''Neutral'''. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you have 155 contributions, which is not enough for me to determine if you would be suited for adminship.  Please consider gaining more experience editing and reapplying down the road. '''

'''Oppose'''. A look through his contribs shows him to be, well, a vandal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=244051428] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=244050782].
'''Oppose''' Um, the form is not filled in right, the answers are very short (with poor grammar/spelling), and the edit count is lower than the # of times I have accidentally edited without logging in.  I do not yet see this as a benefit to the project.  <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - You have a fairly low number of edits here on Wikipedia, and I don't see a lot experience in the areas you stated. Your logs say you created your account in late August 2008, which makes you kind of new to the project. Try waiting a few months and improve your work on the desired areas and I'm sure your next RFA will be better.
'''Moral Support''' for being so bold as to nominate yourself for adminship. I'd like to suggest that you consider [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]], a great program that will set you up with another administrator who will guide you through useful practices to better yourself for your next RFA. As the others have already said, I'd suggest you enable edit summary reminders by going into your preferences and clicking on that feature. The reason that you're being asked to come back after some time has passed is because the community wants to see if you are knowledgeable about wikipedia's policies. You can demonstrate this by getting involved by reverting vandalism you see at the recent changes screen, reporting vandalism to [[WP:AIV]], getting involved in deletion discussions at [[WP:XFD]], tagging pages for [[WP:speedy|speedy deletion]] at the new pages screen, contributing more via: media, article writing, fixing typos, etc. Once you are familiar with these things, and have read through [[WP:ADMIN]], then you will definitely be ready!
'''Moral Support''' - While I'm not down with [[WP:AAAD#Editcountitis|editcountitis]]...you're just too new, having been here for less than a month. While I don't see any obvious red flags, this RfA is unfortunately doomed to fail. I think if you read up a bit on the policies and keep contributing positively, there's no reason you couldn't come back in a few months and try again.
Not enough experience yet. Maybe in a month or two with 1000-2000 more edits. Sorry. &nbsp; '''
Appreciate the enthusiasm, don't feel discouraged if this RfA doesn't go the way you wished. Please keep contributing and come back in 6 months or so! <sup>
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but low edit summary usage, low amount of time here (less than a month), and very little interaction with users does not make me want to support right now. Come back in a few months and try again. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]] [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count]
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure if non-'crats can can close a RFA per [[WP:SNOW]], but if they can, I would.
'''Oppose''' - This user does not show they really understand what a administrator does after reading their self-nom, i would be worried he would be to trigger happy. Overall this RfA feels rushed, and just not enough admin-related experience.
'''Oppose''' - short history looks shakey, [[In My Ghetto]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In My Ghetto|the AfD]] plus the various discussions on his talk page about [[:Image:Fat-joe.jpg]] raise some concerns about giving him the bit.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid the above concerns show you need a greater understanding of policies and guidelines. Don't be discouraged, few noms are ready at the 1500 edit mark. Please try again in about 3000 more edits and 3 more months. Cheers
'''Oppose''' for above concerns. Lots of work done, that's good. But you're focused in a very small area, not sure you have explored too much around Wikipedia in general. No discussions on Deletions? Other RfAs?
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but 69 main page edits and a block only a few days ago? I really do suggest that you withdraw this RfA, as it doesn't have a [[wp:snowball]]s chance in hell. --
'''Oppose''' and echo what Malleus says above in suggesting you withdraw. None of the "admin tasks" you say you want to do in your answer to question 1 ''involve'' admin powers, and you were blocked less than two weeks ago.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' needs a little more experience. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you need more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience quite yet, though your intentions are good you have not provided the community with enough evidence to support you at this time. Try contributing to admin related areas such as [[WP:AFD]]. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - though the circumstances of your block obviously should not be held against you when it resulted from a good faith misunderstanding of policy, calling the blocking admin  a bully does not give me confidence. --
'''Oppose''' – Far too little experience and less than compelling responses.
'''Oppose''': For all of the reasons pointed out above.  Although, a recent block, that has merit (meaning that it was an acceptable block), for nearly any reason, will cause me to oppose. -
'''per above''' While I appreciate enthusiasm, I would recommend taking the time to read our polices and guidelines. The recent block is troubling coming so recently. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of policy. To be clear about this, the admin buttons allow a user to block/unblock other users, delete/undelete pages, and protect/unprotect pages. Users can and should participate in RCPatrol, vandalism reverting/reporting and reviewing GA candidates (and other encyclopedia building activities) '''before ''' getting the admin buttons. As a further bit of advice, some RFA participants will not support a nom with < 5,0000 edits. I look forward to your submitting an RfA about 4,000 edits from now. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' very little experience and a recent block. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  On the right track, but not enough experience yet.
'''Neutral''' - I like your style.  Come back in a little while, and I will definitely support you.
'''Neutral'''.  Withdraw and try again in a few months with more experience.  I'm sorry.  '''
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience in Wiki-space - mostly editorial projects and some AfDs. The latter is good, but there isn't much in the way of diversity. You seem to be a competent editor, but I feel that this self-nom is still premature. Also, the answers to the questions are a little generic and taciturn. Same goes for the nom.
'''Oppose''' A bit too close to RfA 1 <s>given the level of input since</s>, (I note RfA 2 was aborted and nothing to do with you) but mostly linking the word '''Kills''' to your '''contribution history''' link in your signature. Exceptionally bad idea on a whole number of levels, and until you understand why that is I'm afraid I'd rather you didn't have the delete button. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' Perfunctory answers to the standard questions. Also the Previous RfA was withdrawn before it went [[WP:SNOW]] on opposes only 7 weeks ago. Seven weeks is not sufficient time to fix the issues identified back then, and demonstrate that they are fixed. Give it at least 3 months from the close of this RfA before applying again IMHO
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but 5 months of service on the 'Pedia is just not enough time put in to even be considered for the mop.  Come back in about 7 months time when you have more experience (and a few thousand more mainspace edits, concentrating on the requisite admin areas) under your belt.
'''Not piling on'''
'''Oppose'''. So, you have registred your accont in 2006, but You haven't edited any article! Well, you need more work in Wikipedia, or either, you must know what mean the world "Wikipedia" to launch your RfA; Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' - This should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]] - you are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to get even 1 support vote since you have less than 10 edits to your credit, and half of those are trying to create your own Rfa.  Come back when you have  a couple thousand edits under your belt.
'''Oppose''' - Need more experience, thanks for your interest in serving the community though!
'''Oppose''' - I SNOWed the last one - someone else field this. Thanks for your interest in helping the community though. Edit hard and come back. Cheers.
'''Support''' I don't think I've ever been a nom and the first to support (and I waited until it was transcluded too)... I [[User:Balloonman/RfA_Criteria#Nominees|usually wait]], but in this case I am making an exception.  It's been leaked to me by two separate sources that there is an IRC conspiracy planning on torpedoing this RfA... please review the candidate for yourself... don't let those who live at IRC dictate your !vote!---'''
'''Support''' as co-nominator, obviously. --
'''Support'''. I didn't think this was going live until Saturday, in which case I would've been on vacation and probably missed it, but I'm glad to give my support. I've worked closely with Realist<sup>2</sup> and I know that he has a very clear understanding of what he's doing. He'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Seems experienced enough. Great contributions too. --
'''Strong Support''' Great article work; keep it up! Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Support'''. Experienced, willing to learn, not a threat.
'''Strong Support''' per the excellence as evidenced by the  high quality nominations, and per ''However important on wiki discussion must stay on wiki. Transparency is very important. IRC is a useful tool if used correctly.'' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom and A4.  --
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate and very trustworthy.
'''Support''' Overlooking the fact that I trust the judgement of Balloonman and Iridescent enough that I would probably never oppose a candidate nominated by both of them, Realist2 is a very trustworthy and intelligent editor who would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an editor. Best of luck!
'''Support''' Per everything already mentioned.--
'''Support''' ''
'''Support'''
'''Strong '''hoped-to-beat-the-noms-but-failed-miserably''' support''' — Good God, yes! Fantastic editor, won't abuse tools, net positive in every way, shape and form. —'''
While I have major issues with his incredibly tight [[User:Realist2/RfA Criteria|RFA standards]], unlike some, at least he is out with them ''before'' the RFA, and not after. Too many times I've seen people support every person coming, then as soon as they're on the ''other'' side, they flip over and start opposing everyone for petty reasons. While I don't expect Realist to change his voting habits, I can't very well oppose someone who managed to get an article like [[Michael Jackson]] to FA. And that Andrew Kelly looks like a troll, so anything that can be done to keep religious bigots away from RFAs is in the end a good thing. '''
The fact that ballonman summed him up in less than 1500 words says something about his abilities! :-) Anyway I have seen realist2 around a lot and for me, all his comments and edits have been sound as well as his judgement and so '''Support''' from me.
—
'''Oppose''' I've seen instances of being [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 6#Oppose|overly combatitive or needlessly prolonging drama]]. He seems very, very quick to losing his cool. I just don't think he has the right attitude for having the tools on this project.
'''Oppose''' in agreement with SashaNein per [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/SoWhy#From_Andrew_Kelly.27s_oppose|this]] which I witnessed. Seems very quick to lose his cool and kept things going long after several people (me included) had attempted to shut it down. The other person ''also'' being uncivil is not a reason to flip your lid, and does not show the temperament I'd like to see in a candidate.
'''Oppose''' no trust at all. —
'''Troutslap the nominators oppose'''.  You guys bring us ''this'' candidate, seriously?  I just can't fathom it.  Now I remember that I've seen this editor before.  He's just an overly dramatic kid, with all the trimmings.  We need less of those, not more.  Sasha is right, but the example given above is not remotely the only cause for concern.
'''Oppose''' - I do not like it when people oppose based on lack of article building alone. In addition, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gladys_j_cortez#Oppose], he opposed for no DYK or GA or FA. While in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Choess#Oppose] he opposed for only 1 GA, which is contradictory. He opposed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Krm500#Oppose] for no DYK or GA or FA, even though they had an FL. He also can cause confusion by not linking to his standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/It_Is_Me_Here#Oppose and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danielfolsom_2#Oppose). Gives questionable reasoning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Xymmax_2#Oppose here]. I can't support due to lack of communication, and doesn't unserstand that a lot of maintence work happens in WP.
I support this user, though I oppose the blatant mistruths in the nomination and condem Jean for the harm (s)he's doing to the candidate. I suggest withdrawl/wiping that nom and starting fresh. —'''
'''Support''' - I'd like to echo what giggy has said above. Jean, your unique brand of humour is probably best left out of the RFA-nomination arena. Oh, and because we need moar admins who (almost exclusively) edit video game articles. Deleted contribs look spot-on as well. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Red Phoenix, you're a fine editor and I'm sure you'll make a great admin. Accepting Jean's nomination was probably not the wisest decision, but we won't hold it against you as you may not be familiar with the editor. Keep up the great work in article-building, and try to gain some experience in admin-related areas. ''
'''Weak Support''' With a new nominator, I am ready to support. I am sorry to oppose, but this just seemed like a bogus RFA nomination. But with an editor I can trust as the nom, I am proud to support!! Good luck.
'''Weak support''' per the new nomination by Giggy. I'm a little disappointed that you would accept such a deceitful nomination, but other than that, you appear to have enough clue to be a decent adiministrator, and I believe you've learnt (more-or-less) your lesson. --
'''Support'''.  While it looks like you ''just'' don't have enough experience, I looked through your contributions and saw that they were high quality.  Your WProject work is good, as is your article work. Also, you have good experience at [[WP:AFD]].  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per nom. Not the first one, but the other one. Y'know, the [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide|wet]] one.--
'''Weak support''' with the hope that he spreads his editorial wings throughout Wikipedia rather than concentrating on administrative issues, at least for the next few months.
Yep
'''Support''' I disagree, not everyone on here needs to know how to be sophisticated at Wikipedia just have enough trust... and taking nominations from other editors should not reflect on their status. No need to [[sterotyping|sterotype]] other people. You have my support buddy. --<font face="Bookman Old Style" color="green" size="4">
'''Weak support'''.  Excellent article work, but accepting such a nomination questions your judgement and decision making skills.
Your article work is rather mediocre, so I originally wasn't going to support, but I've decided to due to the significant opposition. This isn't one of those hypocritical "support per opposes" votes, by the way - it's just that if it's already obviously passing, my opinion is pretty much worthless, but since it's controversial in this case, I'll go ahead and tentatively support - I can't find anything warranting otherwise.
'''Strong support''' RP is a good editor and has done very good on writing articles. The position of administrator would certainly be a big help with his edits.
Per not having sufficient judgement to refuse this nomination.
'''Oppose''' Despite the strike-through (and I was writing this as it happened), I cannot trust someone who allowed <s>a pissant troll like JeanLatore</s> to lead them over here within a wiki-blink of soliciting their talkpage. Judgment has to be much better than that.
'''Oppose''' - Per Friday.
'''Oppose''' - User does not meet [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. --
'''<s>Strong</s> oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fictional Pandas]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robotnik (other media)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic weaponry in popular culture]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knuckles the Echidna (comic character)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobians]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Saharan Republic]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roboticizer (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super transformation (other media)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photos and interactive media on Che Guevara]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Next Gen Series]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouge (Sonic The Hedgehog)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep on keeping me]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gens (emulator)]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VI Music]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft]], i.e. far too much desire to delete and for some reason specifically articles associated with [[Sonic the Hedgehog]] as well as use of the distatesful "[[Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft|cruft]]".  In the last month or two I did not really see any arguments to keep and yes, some of those were legitimate reasons (particularly the hoaxes), but while I know I ''usually'' argue to keep, even I have at least forty arguments to delete in XfDs (see, for example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas]]).  Thus, it is important that admins demonstrate balance with regards to their approach to AfDs.  It is hard to gauge what and when they might close as keep or no consensus if they only argue to delete.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Oppose.''' First, I am really sorry about the mess JL caused for your RFA, there really should be some kind of punishment for pulling stunts like that. Second, for your nomination itself, sorry, but I think it is too early for you. You have only been an active editor since January 2008 and I can't really support anyone with less than a year of active editing on Wikipedia, except for some kind of truly extraordinary cases. Your edit history is a bit too short and you need to be given a bit more time to grow as a Wikipedian (accepting a bogus nomination is a judgement error that is indicative of having  insufficient experience as well). You have a fine contribution record already and if you come back in 6 months or so, even as a self-nom, I don't think there will be any problems then.
You've probably already realised that you shouldn't have accepted the initial nomination by JeanLatore, but I must clarify this was, by my judgement and review of contributions, only one event in this user's history. However, regardless there are some problems with your standing (example, fairly weak distribution of edits across the namespaces). You're not that involved in the main processes of Wikipedia (which in itself, an administrator candidate should do) but you are, however, on the right track and I would be willing to nominate you in 4-5, possibly 6 months time.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support - Despite spending a fair amount of time looking at contributions and the rest of the RfA, I just can't make up my mind. You've made some great article contributions, you seem to definitely have the good of the encyclopedia in mind, and I liked your answers to the questions. On the other hand, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' points about you being extremely deletion-focused in AfD caused me to pause. And, while I hate to blame you for someone else's actions, accepting that ludicrous RfA nomination from [[User:JeanLatore|JeanLatore]] just, to me, smacks a bit of "not looking before you leap", which is something to be avoided with admin tools. I'll keep thinking, and might well change my vote as the RfA progresses - thanks for providing me with something to contemplate! ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Neutral, suggest considering withdrawal''' Candidate obviously has a high degree of policy knowledge and likely would use the tools responsibly.  The key issues here seem to be experience and the unfortunate procedural circumstances of this nomination.  It might be wise to withdraw this request - continuing this one is a roll of the dice, and will build an opposition record in the event it doesn't pass - and coming back in a few months under an untainted nom and with added experience to address doubters in that area.  (This is no offense to Giggy, by the way; stepping up to recalibrate the nomination was admirable.)  Best wishes either way.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Plenty of good work so far, willing to listen and learn, good judgement on articles for deletion.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Thanks to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for providing diffs, however the book mentioned is published by Paramount Pictures, and so I think Redfarmer's 'vote' was correct.
'''Support''' -- Looking pass the minor mishaps one can see participation in plenty of admin-related areas...Good luck! --
'''Support'''. Pedro's concerns caused me to do quite a bit of investigation on the speedy issue, and I can't say I agree. About 1 out of 50 (2%) of the speedy noms in the first 300 or so are blue linked. Yes, one was requested as an A7 when it wasn't eligible. The Caveman Williams thing is a judgement call, IMHO -- I can see both views. More than half of the rest ''were'' speedily deleted after Redfarmer's request, and then recreated. I can hardly hold that against him, unless we expect him to watchlist every article he requests a speedy on. (I do that personally, but I'm weird that way.) I also checked out the communication concern brought up by another opposer. There were a few cases where Redfarmer let another editor answer the question (but the questions '''were''' answered) on the questioner's talk page. But when Redfarmer did answer the question, the answer was well thought out, relatively complete, and helpful. All in all, I think Redfarmer will be a net plus having the mop.--
'''Support''' - I was on the fence, but Redfarmer answered Q6 in a way that can only be described as ''exemplary''!  Definately someone who looks into things rather than act on a whim; I feel I can trust this user with such powers.
'''Support''' No major issues here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I don't see anything jumping out at me, that is really '''that''' serious. No reason not to trust. We all make mistakes.
'''Strong support'''. Answers to questions were superb. Deletion history (from what I can access) looks fine with a few minor mistakes, which we've ''all made before''. If anyone here is perfect in their history, speak up and I'll strike this line. Userbox opposition is relevent, not relevent, in either case I don't see it as affecting this user's responsiblity as an administrator. I see a responsible user who leans on the deletionist side of the fence for the right reasons.
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions, no reason to mistrust.
'''Support''', deletion history does not look unreasonable to me.  No reason to believe user would abuse the tools.  The George W. Bush AfD proves this user has a sense of humour, which I think is very important in an admin.
'''Support'''.  Don't think they'll abuse. '''
'''Support'''. This took me a while.  First, I read balloonman's, Roi's, and Pedro's comments, and started editing the "oppose" section.  Then I stopped, having realized I hadn't read anything you wrote above or looked myself at your contribs.  The answers to your questions are ''superb'' (and getting Le Grande to switch from strong oppose to neutral is no small feat! :-) I convinced myself to look further.  I've come to the conclusion that you will be an asset to the admin group.  Your userboxes don't bother me.  Their userboxes.  I disagree with most of them, but meh? I would recommend getting rid of them, admin or not, as they are not worth the trouble.  Your deletion history doesn't bother me, you do more good than harm, are willing to work to save articles, are willing to apologize for mistakes, and are willing to change your opinion if shown an error in your logic or !vote. The MfD in particular doesn't bother me (other than being too soon).  The subpage, in the end, should be deleted, it is spam, the article as written is insalvageable because the subject matter does not meet [[WP:WEB]], and had I noticed the MfD I would've said so.  Also, according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redfarmer&diff=prev&oldid=198218403 this diff], the user is working ''beyond'' COI, it's actually a [[Wikipedia:Username policy#Sharing accounts|blockable user]] as a multiple person account, run by a ''committee'' that is focused on getting ''their'' article in mainspace.  Only other contribs of this COI multi-editor seem to be adding linkspam.  You made a good faith nom (albeit too early) that was snow kept with !votes by the editor that userfied and Obuipo Mbstpo among others.  To sum up, your answers above are clear and precise, your CSD/AFD trackrecord looks fine to me, more positives than negatives, and the MfD passes.  You stated quite clearly above that your personal beliefs/opinions, both [[Atheism|in real life]] and [[WP:DP|on wiki]], won't affect your admin duties.  [[WP:AGF|I believe you]]. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
Genius answers to questions and extensive contributions force me to '''Support'''. '''[[User:21655|<font color="red">21</font>]][[Special:Contributions/21655|<font color="#990000">6</font><font color="black">55</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk: 21655| τalk]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose. Good luck! '''
'''Support'''. Reasonable responses, solid editing history (I'll get there in about ten years!). I can't believe that people would oppose an admin request because of a userbox that discloses a position that the user holds. Wouldn't you rather know what views a person brings into wikipedia than not? --
'''Support'''.  Being a little rough around the edges doesn't concern me.  This editor has the potential to be a good admin and the best way to polish those skills is to use them.  I find the opposes largely unconvincing, and the hand-waving about his anti-god userbox being "offensive" is preposterous.  I am unaware that being politically correct is a requirement for the admin bit.
'''Support''', good answers, I see no issues in his history, and all the opposes are for completely moronic non-issues. -
'''Support''' The deletion concerns are not harsh enough (IMO) to warrant opposing.
'''Support''' Nothing I can feel seriously concerned about when compared to candidates considerable merits and abilities.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' per nom. I'm saddened that religion proves a divisive issue again. I trust the editor's objectivity on editorial issues.
Switching to '''weak support''' following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=203485319&oldid=203190016 this] edit.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - I have no worries about the tools being misused and I think the 'pedia will benefit if the tools are given. I also like admins to be logical, and therefore I take comfort from the very userbox others are complaining about below
'''Support''' &ndash; Per answer to question 7. —
'''Support''' per answer to question 5, and to balance one of the "you show no respect for my belief system" votes.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' based on "anti-God" box in profile.  Being an atheist is fine; being blatantly disrespectful towards religious people is not, not for an administrator.
'''Strong Oppose''' this user is so much of a deletionist that it isn't even funny---it's quite scary. Of about 3/4ths of the edits I reviewed were CSD related and the article building is nominal at best.  A quick review of his edit history will show tons of CSD nominations and you haveto look for something else!  His involvement with names appears to be limited to his new page patrolling.  I fear that if he were promoted to Admin that his policy would be to delete first and ask questions later.  There is little, if anything, to indicate that he understands and appreciates the wider wiki-community.  Sorry, I cannot support.
Per [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com|this MfD.]] '''
'''Oppose''' on
'''Oppose''' per the MfD mainly. Too recent and the lack of AGF is indeed worrying. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' I am just flabbergasted; nominating the Bush article for deletion mere hours before accepting an RfA nomination shows mind-bogglingly poor judgment. You're free to hold any opinion you want, but we're a neutral encyclopedia, so check your opinion at the door. (For the record, I don't care about the userbox; people should be given some leeway on their userpage. But when you take your personal views into the mainspace, then I have a problem.)
'''Oppose''' per Roi and seresin for attitude in deletion related debates. Sysophood would not be a net positive. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' While I took your AfD nom of George Bush for exactly what it was (a Fool's Day joke), I don't see much else of [[WP:AGF|benefit of the doubt]] reasoning to be able to support you with the mop.
'''Strong Oppose''' Sorry I cannot support your nomination. You have low mainspace edit i.e. only 2416 [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Redfarmer&site=en.wikipedia.org]. All you mainspace edits are in [[Last of the Summer Wine]] i.e. 401. The next article in which you have contributed significantly is [[Law & Order]] with only 35 edits. Individual article edits are low. You are not enough experienced in article building. I have to oppose here, will support after seeing some more article work from you. '''
'''Strong oppose''' - Some of the articles I have been seeing you create breach NPOV by large amounts. That is a worry, and so is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com|this]], which I found. A well meaning editor, but these issues and your low number of mainspace edits worry me enough to oppose you in your bid for the mop and bucket. <small>
Per above, and needs to do some more article writing and then I will support you if you're ready. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - mostly per all the above. I do not like that this user is an extreme deletionist, would like to see more admin related contributions (CSD tagging is find though) and having a controversial userbox in your userspace really rubs me the wrong way. All of these little things add up to one big thing and force me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman, Casliber and Tiptoety.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, I just can't. You seem like a good user, but the MfD mentioned above and the userbox concerns me. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' too many rash decisions it seems, and a very imulsive user. I'd suggest an admin-coach for him. That'll smooth off the rough edges and make him a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Per the cited MfD and the lack of editing outside of deletion-related areas. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' Per multiple issues noted in the comments above.--
'''Oppose'''. After weighing all the comments I found the opposes to be quite significant, and I'm uncomfortable with having this user as an admin.
'''Oppose'''. I read the concerns raised, including lack of communication. I noted Redfarmer's comment about mainly talking on other user's talkpages so I looked through Usertalk history and found a long list of speedy deletion tags, often 2 in the same minute - and very little in the way of actual discussion. When I got to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darren_%27Jack%27_Jackson&diff=197704195&oldid=197704158 this dif] I felt uncomfortable that someone would speedy tag such a page within the very minute it was created, even though there are assertions of notability and references. The culmination of the concerns by others along with my own research lead to my oppose. I can't see how any of these concerns are moronic! <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Neutral''' I've vacilated on this a lot. Plenty to like, but the candidate has made some dodgy [[C:CSD]] calls (amongst many good ones) and the contents of archived user talk are worrying. Proding articles with under construction tags, a dubious [[WP:UAA]] and [[WP:AIV]] report, and some basic errors in creating AFD's. Nothing glaring, just a combination of little things that lead me to think a little more time would be beneficial before having sysop tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per Pedro. Excellent user and trust the nominator, but the oppose above is worrisome.
'''Neutral''' - For now I suppose - Per Pedro. I checked the archived talk pages, and it worried me. See above.
'''Neutral''' at the moment. I tend to agree with Pedro's points about a little more and slightly broader experience being helpful.
'''Neutral'''. I'm definitely on the fence. On one hand, he has done quite a bit of work in admin-related areas. However, the CSD and AFD problems worry me, as do the talk pages (as Pedro put so well). I can't oppose on that, but I don't feel at all comfortable supporting. I'll keep an eye on this to see if anything changes, though. Some more time would be the best remedy, and I look forward to seeing you back here in a few months if this doesn't succeed. :) Best of luck,
'''Neutral''' Oppose per AfD, MfDs is worrisome, but there are other aspects of good.  This user indicates to me that they have the ability to learn from their mistakes, and will likely learn from this RfA, pass or fail.  I am undecided and am likely to remain so, so I claim neutral. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
<s>'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but when you are a pass judgment and add critical maintenance templates on articles as much as you do, then you really ought to do some work in actually building articles (or saving articles) before taking on the position of adminship. Without such experience, you will appear to be an authoritarian policeman admin who hunts down people, instead of a peer contributor admin who helps people. The George Bush AFD nomination was of course an April Fool's joke, but that joke is not funny anymore; I have seen it several times earlier, and it gets tiresome. Posting it just hours before accepting an RFA was not very smart. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)</s>. Switched to '''neutral''' after a review of the candidate's answers. He has clearly more experience with article writing than I thought. Some concerns over the use of speedy tags, but they are relatively mild. Withdrawing opposition.
'''Neutral''' – Yes, I wimped out – I always hated neutral opinions in that they serve no purpose.  However, this time I make an exception.  I believe [[User:Redfarmer|Redfarmer]] will cause no intentional harm to [[Wikipedia]] and most likely will be a true asset.  More so, the nominator in your case, is an individual I hold in high regard and respect their opinion.  However, my concerns lie in the area of experience.  Yes, you have been around since 2004.  Nevertheless, in reviewing you edit history 6,000 of your 7,000 edits has been in just the last 6 months.  Sorry to say to me, that means just one thing, mindless reverts.  Alternatively, to say another way, vandal fighting.  Is this job needed, absolutely yes.  Do you need administrative tools to do this job no.  In my personal thought process, when I express an opinion to '''support''' or '''oppose''' an individual for an administrative position, I ultimately look to what decisions they will make on the calls that could go either way.  Moreover, sorry to say, you have not been involved in any of those situations where I can make a fair judgment.  Hence '''neutral'''.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' Pedro makes a good point. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Enough demonstration of various [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgments]] that lead me to be wary of supporting at this time. --
'''Neutral, leaning support''' per Pedro. Speedy deletion is one of the areas of admin work where care and good judgment are essential; although any deletion is reversible in seconds, an inappropriate speedy may drive away an inexperienced user who is confused as to why their new article was deleted, and may never even be noticed or brought to DRV. It is therefore essential IMO that an administrator should fully understand [[WP:CSD]], and, in particular, should not interpret CSD A7 too broadly (as Redfarmer did in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mazza_Gallerie&diff=202176299&oldid=202176227 this diff] cited by Pedro above). I won't oppose, though, because this candidate is a good editor with a broad range of experience, and the vast majority of his speedy taggings are absolutely fine. I also don't give a damn about his atheist userbox.
'''Weak Neutral''' Would like to support, but a perusal of the objections the opposing side raises just keeps me from doing so right now.  I will almost certainly support in your next RFA.
'''Neutral''' I dont know. I think he should edit the mainspace more based on his contribs. <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px">'''
'''Support''', would not abuse the tools - but I'll see your answers to forthcoming questions in case.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Moral support''' - You can be a helpful editor, but you really need to become more familiar with CSD. This has next to zero chance of passing, but come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE&diff=prev&oldid=189278108] Strange. And then I find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=She%27s_Nubs&diff=prev&oldid=186574287] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyngard_Tracy&diff=prev&oldid=186348278] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War/Dance&diff=prev&oldid=186346464] Plain wrong. Sorry, but low number of edits, lack of edit summaries, garish user page and '''very''' dodgy [[C:CSD]] calls all mount up I'm afraid. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the diffs pedro gave. <strong>
'''Oppose'''.  Pedro's diffs are extremely worrying.  Plus, your own coach doesn't think you're ready for adminship [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Transhumanist#RFA].  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose''' Pedro's first diff was actually the second speedy tagging of that user page by RMV in rapid sucession: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE&diff=prev&oldid=189277546].  Hey, everyone <s>deletes the main page</s> makes an honest mistake from time to time, but twice in three minutes?  Please edit slower.  Also, please make your user talk page more legible.
'''Oppose''' You request two times in a row the deletion of one of Wikipedia's main contributors as patent nonsense. One mistake can happen. Two in a row? And maybe you should stay away from [[WP:CSD|CSD]] anyway, the other diffs are not ok for me too. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' Redmarkviolinist appears to have a poor grasp on deletion policy and unfortunately is too quick to nominate items for deletion. He gives no answers to two of the standard questions and a poor answer to the first - again indicating he doesn't understand the role and an admin and basic Wikipedia policies. I'm sorry but you simply are not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' - Rushed RfA, along with diff's provided by Pedro.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience. CSD diffs are troubling. Vandalism in October on another editor's userpage is unacceptable. Doesn't meet [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my criteria]].
'''Oppose''' - Fails my experience meter by a long shot, no offense intended. Also the diffs provided by Pedro are..well...troubling to say the least. Complete lack of comprehension of [[WP:CSD]], either that or ''tremendously'' rash.
'''Oppose'''.  Tagged [[User:Blofeld of SPECTRE]] for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE&diff=prev&oldid=189277546 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Blofeld_of_SPECTRE&diff=prev&oldid=189278108 here] using [[WP:TW]].  He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redmarkviolinist&diff=prev&oldid=189278579 explained that it was a mistake], but I'm worried about the possibility of making such a mistake as an admin.  I don't want someone to delete the [[Main Page]] by mistake.  Also, walking away from a computer while logged in at a public library could invite someone to walk over and use admin tools to delete [[Main Page]].  Finally, I would expect answers to questions 2 and 3 from someone who's making a self-nomination.  --
Was gonna sit this one out, but losing control of account during an RfA is not good. Suggest withdraw, get with your coach, consider advice I offer at [[User:Dlohcierekim/On_RfA#Snowball]]. Better luck next time.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
First of all, I'd suggest withdrawal, as I highly doubt that this RfA will pass at this point. Second, walking away from a public computer is a bad enough idea with a normal account, but doing it with a sysop account could have greater consequences. I don't like the lack of an answer to questions 2 and 3, especially if it's a self nomination they should be answered with at least a vague answer. I also have issues with this user's comprehension of [[WP:CSD]]. I would suggest admin coaching, and please do come back in 3 or 4 months' time, if you have shown improvement I would be delighted to support then.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]], rushed and incomplete RFA, and Pedro's diffs. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Oppose''' per all the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I think that enough has been said, but I would like to strongly suggest that you heed the advice of Dlohcierekim and Keilana and withdraw this RfA. —
'''Oppose''', doesn't seem to understand what a CSD G1 is.  Seems to be reckless with regards to account security, which is not something that we want in an admin.  I invite you to read up on CSD criteria and wait another few months for another try.
'''Oppose''' Frequently inactive, experience concerns, and questions 2 and 3 are not answered. Try again in a few months with much more experience and good answers to all questions and then I will support. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Moral support''' I can see your commitment and desire to do more for Wikipedia .Please do not demotivated by the opposes .You are kind and helpful towards new users and are prepared to help them.Please try admin coaching.Good luck.
'''Support''' 4,500 edits is close to my minimum for an admin candidate, but you've a clean block log and diverse activities here. I've skimmed through your contributions back to June, most of the articles you've thought worthy of deletion are now redlinks, and looking carefully at a couple that aren't they were  rescued or otherwise borderline. I enjoyed reading [[Battle of Marion]], (glad to see you are actually building an encyclopaedia) and couldn't find anything you said that was incivil - even when stressed. You have my trust. '''
'''Support''' I am not doing any "wrong queue" jokes here, because I feel the candidate is getting a raw deal and there's nothing funny about that. The candidate's content creation skills are highly impressive, which is a big plus in my book.  His commitment to the project and to working with people appears to be in order, and his willingness to help redesign user pages shows someone who knows how to help others.  The fact the candidate has the ability to acknowledge error shows a mature demeanor. Everybody makes mistakes, but only the intelligent people learn from them and move on to do better.  The clean block record is impressive, too. And let's also not (pardon the pun) kid ourselves -- the candidate's age is clearly cited on his User Page and I am sure that's turning some people off. As far as I am concerned, Redmarkviolinist is in tune.
I see him as quite experienced in various areas of the encyclopedia and am unconvinced by the opposition.
'''Support'''.  Age is not an issue for me as long as you can act responsibly.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
He's not going to destroy the databases or crash the servers or overthrow Jimbo Wales as far as I can tell (though the last perhaps is not a bad thing).
'''Utmost Support''' My encounters with him has been very pleasant. He is willing to accept critizism, and is very helpful. Good luck on your RfA!
'''Weak support:''' Everyone makes mistakes, but yours aren't numerous enough for me to oppose.  Your edit count is near the minimum for me to support, but I don't see any reason no deny you the bit. '''
'''Support''' as candidate has never been blocked and has a creative user page.--
'''Support'''; I don't see any decent reasons to oppose. Admins don't have to be good at writing content or editing images.
I have serious doubts about your judgment and your ability to communicate and respond to queries. As an admin you will have to respond to queries regarding your actions from irate editors. That you ignored two [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redmarkviolinist&diff=247125770&oldid=245613683 requests on your talkpage] to remove an outdated userbox strikes me as odd; in the end someone had to remove [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Redmarkviolinist&diff=248354729&oldid=241794812 it for you]. <s>That was indicative for me of a user who wants power, who wants titles and rewards.</s><small>struck, wrong tone, not entirely what I meant to say: comment was more about acquiring status and not doing the work that that status entails.</small> Your gaming of the last tag and assess drive for MILHIST, where you didn't accurately or properly assess articles in order to gain the title of highest number of articles assessed, seemed to me to be once again indicative. I note that you have listed [[User:Redmarkviolinist/List of Mistakes|it as a mistake]], but at the time you were extremely unresponsive and I don't feel that you have learned from it enough. I really do think your edits to the encyclopedia are valuable, I respect your content contributions and all the recent tagging for milhist, I just don't think you have the right skills to be an administrator at the time. My gut feeling is that you are not ready. Regards.
'''Oppose''' - Unsure that candidate is ready for adminship, also per Woody (partly, I don't agree with all of it though). I'm keeping this vague so as not to cause pileon, regards <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''': I see a pattern of issues which indicates this editor lacks the maturity to be an admin. Saying this, I want to be crystal clear that I do not oppose admin candidates who are under 18. The issue here is not age, but maturity on the Wiki.
'''Oppose''' I have similar doubts to Woody about your judgment – in particular, your tendency to hasty decision-making – and concerns about your inability to engage with the consequences of those decisions. My impression, which may be entirely wrong, is that you are attracted by the status which various wikipedian roles confer and easily deterred by the hard work that accompanies them. I am sorry to have to oppose in these terms but I believe this nomination is way too premature. --
[[Image:Florero de decoración.jpg|20px]] '''Oppose''' - as
'''Oppose''' I think you lack the consistency and moderation that Administrators require.
'''Oppose''' Have seen some shaky decision making and rushed decisions.  Some of the opposes above say it well, but I don't think you are ready right now, maybe in awhile with a number of good edits and better decisions. --
'''Oppose''' - Roger Davies and X MarX the Spot describe exactly what I feel when I go through your contributions and discussions. Sorry. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry mate, but I do not believe you are yet ready to be an admin. As others gave expressed above, I think many of your decisions are rushed and you have not yet learnt from your mistakes. For instance, even though it is on your "list of mistakes", you recently quick failed a GAN due to its length even though it was comprehensive, which is what matters. Also, your comments above stating you get easily distracted concerns me.
'''Oppose''' This is probably the first time I've ever responded to an rfa but I have to agree with Woody that your skills in assessing articles have been very sketchy in my observance. The recent assessment on [[Japanese World War II destroyers]] shows that you really have a lot to learn about assessments. That and a couple of really strange GAR's. Not knowing how to correctly assess articles relates to adminship in the sense that if you don't have a grip on assessment protocols then giving you the admin tools isn't going to be any better. --
'''Regretful Oppose''', I do believe that this user wouldn't do anything deliberately malicious, but there are too many shaky and questionable judgement calls in your recent past.  Keep editing, do some good work, and you should be a good candidate in the future.
'''Oppose''' per Woody, Roger, Abraham  and Brad. I think you need more time to show that you understand all the responsibilities that comes with <code>+sysop</code>. -'''
'''Oppose''' - Mainly per Woody's argument, but also due to a number of GA Reviews I've seen you make that were very poorly done - and you've continued to review articles poorly despite several editors asking you about it and to improve.
'''Oppose''' - I think there's a need for the candidate to demonstrate the level of maturity required in an administrator, and that maturity must be demonstrated over a long-ish period of time.
'''Oppose''' - Per the arguments brought forward by Woody, Roger, Abraham, & Skinny.  Though your editing enthusiasm is incredible (of which I am very glad to see), your ability to make difficult judgement calls needs to improve significantly (and this is something that admins are often required to do).  Kudos to you for your enthusiasm, but this nomination is premature.
'''Oppose''' - your formatting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Retching_Red_%26_The_Twats&diff=prev&oldid=242037773 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_number-one_albums_in_Australia_during_the_1970s&diff=prev&oldid=234810562 here] is wrong, and other editors have to come along and fix it. Your picture [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Red_Flower&diff=prev&oldid=218531916 here] shows bad composition and lighting, and you didn't point the camera at the actual flower. You nominated it as a featured picture without knowing what species it was, and it looks like [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Flower|the FPC discussion]] is going to fail. No offense, but you need supervision; you're not ready to be a supervisor. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but Question 6 really said what i thought. I mean sure, we all make mistakes, but seriously, why would you tag the [[loch ness monster]] page? He was doing vandalism. You would revert it, not tag it. Sorry again.
'''Oppose''' - With more experience you'll learn CSD, like every other Wikitask, is not a race.  Please mind your edits, as you may have the best of intentions of helping the project, but if another editor has to fix your error, then instead of helping... it becomes counterproductive.  Just relax, spend some more time editing, you are on the right track.  Don't worry about this process too much, each RfA teaches you something new.  :)  [[User:Jamesontai|'''''<font color="#000066">- Jameson L. Tai</font>''''']] <sup>''<font color="#660000">[[User talk:Jamesontai|talk]] ♦
'''Oppose''' needs to work no judgment. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> —
'''Oppose''' - per Lankievel and my viewings of him. Sorry Redmark, but while you do seem to have some [[WP:CLUE|clue]], your GA failure of [[Boston campaign]] along with your reviews of Belhalla's noms is mostly why I am opposing. GA reviews, even if they are failures, are supposed to help the main editor(s) of the article improve it! One sentence failures with no clarification of "why" they failed do not help. Again, my apoligies, —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]]&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Far too capricious for an admin. Judgement and maturity are issues. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Maturity is not a problem to me as long as you have good judgment, but you don't seem to have enough of that yet (I'm not saying you don't have, just not enough...) I don't find your answers to the questions very satisfactory either. I think you'll need a bit more experience.
'''Neutral''' for now. I'd love to support, but the oppose from woody stays my hand (although I disagree with its tone).
'''Neutral''' Can't make up my mind.  I'd really rather not oppose, but I don't think I can support.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; As with above, I really can't decide. I think it's great that the candidate has made plenty of mainspace contributions, and knows what it takes to write an article. However, I'm going to have to agree with some of the points raised in the Oppose section regarding maturity. (Not related to age in the least) &ndash;
'''Neutral''' You are an alright candidate, one that would normally lead me to support per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]], but many of the issues the opposing people raised do resonate within me. Because of this, I'm going to have to [[WP:IAR|make an exception]] to my criteria and say, for this RfA at least, I am firmly undecided (contradiction anyone?). Keep up the good work, make another 500-1000 good edits, couple more months of good experience and you will get in. Please do not take this, or any of the opposes for that matter, personally.
'''Neutral'''. Redmarkviolinist has fairly good contributions, but does not yet demonstrate a good enough understanding of policy. I don't regard the "loch ness monster" page as "[[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism]]", but rather as a test page from an immature editor.
Sorry buddy - I'm going to have to stay in the "not-voting-and-proud" camp (that's neutral to you and me) because I do'nt feel you're quite ready yet.  To be honest, you strike me as powerhungry.  Sorry mate.
'''Oppose for now''' I have always been a fan of the ''all arounders'' as I like to call them - editors who don't have one specific purpose on Wikipedia but who, rather, do a little bit of everything, depending on their mood or any perceived need for help at a certain part of the project. However, I personally believe (and others may disagree with me) that I haven't seen enough of that kind of communication and activity from you that would help me make a better judgement call on you as an administrator. I would also like to see you use the edit summaries a lot more than you do now, currently you only use them about 50% of the time. I think you will be a good <s>editor</s> administrator one day but I can't lend my support just yet.
'''Oppose''' I can't see much evidence of CSD involvement, so it's hard to judge the user's readiness for this type of work. The short answers above, the recent inactivity, and the lack of article-writing experience also make me wary.
'''Oppose''' - too much tearing down, not enough building.  [[WP:WikiImp|drive-by tagging]], poor use of edit summaries, especially when removing text. not much effort put into answering questions and the long inactivity prior to the RFA is peculiar.
'''Oppose''' - Candidate pretty much stated they are solely interested in doing CSD work, but I do not see too many solid contributions in that area. Also, poor answers to questions make me oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Experience concerns. I don't see much CSD work, there is minimal communication with editors. These are especially unhelpful [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G0dz1lluh&diff=prev&oldid=128375179] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VolkovBot&diff=prev&oldid=128372130] and uncivil.
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' not enough CSD contributions (the field that user wishes to specialize in), less than 50% of his edits are in mainspace, poor use of edit summmaries. --
Would like longer answers, if applicable. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
You have done a lot of things that I like in an admin. Mostly your admin-related tasks. If you could use the edit summary box more, go to your [[Special:Preferences]] Editing tab and check the last box, it will tell you when you haven't used it. I also suggest more article writing, but otherwise, very good.
'''Support.''' Article writing is so not necessary for adminship. Speaking as an admin (I've been one for over 18 months), I almost never deal with articles. Unless he wants to specialize in BLP or other article-related tasks, he doesn't need article experience. In writing my nearly 80 articles to date, I've never needed to use my tools. It's all where you work. I usually only deal with [[WP:TFD]], so my admin abilities are never used in editorial disputes. Opposing a mainly anti-vandalism user on the grounds of not writing articles is like denying someone a boating license because they can't ride a bike.
'''Support''', per RyanGerbil10 above me. Rgoodermote would be great for administratorship, and with some training and help from other admins, he could become one of the best. One job of administrators is to fight vandalism, and Rgoodermote is committed to fighting vandalism. I believe that giving him better tools to properly do his job would be better for all of Wikipedia. —
Very very weak support, bordering on moral support. Although I have no problem with specialists having the sysop bit, I also agree with Malleus fatuorum in the oppose section that basic writing skills should be demonstrated so that people (=we) can trust you to correctly evaluate many of the issues you would be confronted with as an admin. Being an admin regularly entails much more than just setting a block for blatant vandalism (or so I'm being told). Write an article or five, and people will be much more inclined to trust in your capabilities to correctly use the sysop tools. '''
'''Support''', writing a great article is desirable, but it won't help you fight vandals.  Likewise, you don't need to know how to write a great article to put vandals to the sword.
'''Moral Support'''. I substantially agree with RyanGerbil10 that article-writing ''per se'' is not crucial for adminship, as the two things are more or less entirely unrelated; vandal-fighting is far more likely to give rise to a regular need for the tools. However, I think that an admin who focuses on maintenance needs, at the very least, to have some experience of XfD or FAC discussions, or something else which involves discussion and a more sophisticated and subtle understanding of policy. The mechanical, repetitive nature of vandal-fighting means that it isn't enough, on its own, to allow me to determine whether this candidate has the good judgment and discernment to be a capable administrator. Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roast_%28comedy%29&diff=prev&oldid=182574224 this] show that the candidate is on the right track and that he has some understanding of [[WP:RS]] and other policies and guidelines relating to content; however, I urge him to get more involved in XfD and policy discussions, or in collaborative improvement of content. It doesn't have to be article-writing, as I realise that isn't everyone's cup of tea; how about helping out with the [[WP:WIKIFY|backlog of unwikified articles]], working on [[WP:PORTAL|portals]], or becoming a [[WP:GA|good article reviewer]]? Any of these things, along with some participation in XfD debates, would allow me to judge whether the candidate has the requisite grasp of subtleties to make a good admin. If he acts on these suggestions, I will give him my full support at his next RfA.
'''Support''' My only concern are the candidate's use of edit summaries. On Wikipedia, communication with every edit is extremely important, no matter how insignificant or minor an edit seems. Edit summaries make sure everyone who might contribute to a particular article or project is on the same page. I also strongly encourage him to get involved with [[WP:AFD]] discussions. Other than that he meets [[User:Mr_Senseless/RfAStandards|all of my standards]] and I have no doubts that Rgoodermote will make a great use of the tools. Best of luck to you, cheers!
Good work against vandals.
I'm concerned with lack of edit summary usage (only 46% on major edits) and some parts of your editing: only ten edits to the template namespace, and very little article writing experience. Sorry. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose'''. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, so I think it's important that every admin has solid article writing experience, if for no other reason than to understand the problems that regular editors face when trying to develop articles. I'd probably have supported if I'd seen more evidence of doing the basics. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Good vandal fighting, but lack of mainspace editing.
'''Oppose''' Vandal fighting is important, but so is building the project.
'''Oppose''' with regrets. You're doing great work here, but I'm disturbed by the lack of article-writing experience. A bit of encyclopedia-building work will provide useful insights on how editors construct articles, approach issues and interact with other editors.
'''Oppose''' Will make a good admin after some more article writing experience.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Needs more writing experience. Will make an excellent admin soon. '''''
'''Oppose''' - per Jmlk17.
'''Oppose''' - lack of mainspace edits is ''not'' really a concern for me, however is answers to Avruch's questions (#1 is basically wrong, while #2-4 seem to indicate a lack of confidence in his own discretion as an admin) are.  I think he needs a little more experience, or at least a little more confidence, but seems like a likely strong future candidate.
'''Oppose''' per aboves. More time is needed. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per Sarcasticidealist above (answers to Avruch's questions demonstrate a lack of understanding and self-confidence). Also, the lack of article writing bothers me. With more time and experience I feel that this editor would make a good administrator. --
'''Weak Oppose''' - My main concern is simply a few of your answers, as well as your edit summary usage.  A little bit of cleaning up, as well as a little bit of reading, and I will gladly support.

'''Oppose''' per ST47. The answers to Avruch's questions are puzzling, at best. It shows you still need to read some important guidelines and essays to get a better idea of what adminship is all about. Also, admins have to be ready to make tough decisions at any given time, so you should try and answer future RFA questions by providing your own personal analysis on the scenarios presented as much as possible. Remember, anyone can click on the block, protect, and delete links, but RFAs are made to study your knowledge and rationale over their use (and misuse.) - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Strong oppose''' - Per above concerns, but most importantly the answers to Avruch's questions, shows a lack of understanding of core policies, do not feel this user could enforce them.
'''Oppose''' per ST47, with moral support. I believe you're well meaning, and appear to be on the right track, but your answers to those questions makes it clear that you are unfamiliar with policy. Write a few articles, bone up on policy and you should definitely succeed in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Some good contributions, but as uǝʌǝs pointed out, answers suggest that user doesn't understand policies well enough.  <b>
'''Oppose'''. While I hate editcountitis, and I definitely feel that writing lots of articles is not a prerequisite for adminship, I don't see enough experience to get a feel for how this editor will use the tools. Most of the mainspace edits are reversions of obvious vandalism with [[WP:TW|Twinkle]], which are important but don't give me a feel for this person's judgement. Most of the user talk page contributions are also automated warnings issued by Twinkle, which also doesn't give me a feel for how this person will interact in stressful situations. The answers to the questions, especially Avruch's, reinforce my feeling that more experience is needed. --
'''Oppose''' the answers to [[User:Avruch|Avruch]]s questions suggest a lack of understanding of important aspects of wikipedia sufficient at this time to preclude adminship. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, needs more Mainspace experience and better understanding of block/ban policy. Not yet.  --'''
'''Oppose''' Hmm. 1230,— edits in the mainspace are not really enough and [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~escaladix/larticles/larticles.php?user=Rgoodermote&lang=en just one] [[Charles H. McCann Technical High School|article]] is not enough, too. Sorry. :-( —
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience as argued by others.
'''Neutral'''. I think that this user is going to make a spectacular administrator, but not quite yet. I would like to see some experience article building and I would like to see that edit summary percentage go up to near 100%. Other than that, this user is civility personified - three months from now I will happily give my support.
Sorry. Your answers show a slight lack of understanding of adminship, and your answers to Avruch's questions are a bit avoidy. Your first answer doesn't offer any insight into what you think a block and a ban to be in a wikipedia context, and the next two are especially avoidy (hint, the second one should include discussing it with the editor directly), and the answer to the last one is not a trick question. NPOV relates to article content. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Neutral''' -- I see potential in this user.  I'm not going to hold his lack of article writing against him, because dealing with vandalism is an important admin function as well (of course, I'm a bit biased).  Give a little time, and I see plenty of "supports" in your future.
'''Neutral''': For now. I see great potential in Rgoodermote, however, I would like to see more non-mainspace edits and experience ''elsewhere'' in the encyclopedia. A great editor otherwise, and I would throw my support in a few months once that has been accomplished.
'''Neutral''' Excellent user; however, some areas could still use polishing, and I'd like to see a bit more article writing and more varied editing. Good job so far, though! Cheers,
'''Neutral''' - I can't make up my mind. ''Advantages'': Very civil user, vandal-fighter with the 29 scars to prove it, no big concerns, lots of edits.  ''Disadvantages'': Poor use of edit summaries, not a lot of encyclopedia-building, not much experience at XfD.  Try in another few months.

'''Oppose''' A prolific vandal fighter (and "fighting" is, as far as I can tell, the term most used to refer to it) but doesn't show any desire toward article building and collaboration. How can a user be trusted with deletion if they've never built an article? I can't support such a narrow focus. (Not a big fan of edit summary usage either)
'''Oppose''' - Fairly good wiki-space work, especially in the vandalism realm, however, I must echo the concerns above. Unilateral reversion for vandalism isn't everything. This wouldn't be such a problem though if you had prolific contributions in the mainspace toward article building, which, unfortunately, I see virtually nill on. Same thing with article talking. Doesn't even matter if it's just a handful, but there needs to be ample evidence that you understand mainspace editorial policy, and possess the ability to communicate in that arena.
'''Support''', I see nothing in your edit history that leads me to believe you'd misuse the tools.  If this doesn't pass, I'd encourage you to try again in a few months with a higher editcount.
'''Protest support''' - editcountitis over the sake of a few dozen edits does not appeal to me in the slightest. I don't see how the user would abuse the tools.
'''Oppose'''Sporadic log-ins, but does good maint.  --
'''Oppose''' per the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You only have 488 edits to mainspace, while 568 to Uset talk and 315 User. While this does represent a diverse editting expertise, you need more mainspace edits. Sorry. <strong>
'''Oppose'''; I'm sorry&mdash; I don't subscribe to editcountitis, but you have far too little experience just yet to be able to trust you with the mop.  You're definitely on the right track, however.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' As good as you are, I hope to see you come more often.
'''Oppose''' per above. Needs more experience and I will support you in a few months if you are active enough.
'''Neutral''' pending answers to questions. User doesn't have too many edits (<2000) so need to use candidate responses to judge suitability. <sup>
'''Neutral''' Seems like answer to [[User:Avruch|Avruch]]'s first question is copied. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Neutral'''.  This editor's work is good, but there's a few things. First thing that keeps me from supporting is that he doesn't meet a whole lot of my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|standards]]. Fewer than 2000 edits, no mainspace article with more than 5 edits. However, he's been around a long time, a year longer than me, so I'm confident this user has a decent handle on policies and procedures. On the other hand, 18 of the 26 months since his account creation have fewer than 25 edits.
'''Neutral''' - per above concerns.
'''Support''' At least being enthusiastic is a start, it's never a bad thing. However, I think you do need to participate more on Wikipedia and get a good understanding on how everything works on Wikipedia before you submit another RfA.
'''Support''' The opposes have some good advice. You have good traits from looking at a few of your contribs. Thanks for the good work and don't be discouraged. Your good work is appreciated.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, not enough experience yet. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' 120 edits is very far away from the range of edits you should have for an admin. Also, considering that you have barley used an edit summary... Sorry :( -

'''Oppose''' Sorry but I don't think you will succeed as you only have about 120 edits. Please stay longer and rack up more mainspace edits and come back. Also take the advice above. Best of luck!
'''Oppose:''' You're doing well without the Administrator tools, which is a great thing.  One does not need Administrator tools to enforce Wikipedia policy or to help get things done.  Enthusiasm is always great which is why I hope you do not get too disheartened by this.  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
'''Oppose''' per all the concerns above. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You need a lot more edits and much more experience, and I suggest that you start providing edit summaries as much as possible. Thank you for offering to help, but reapply in a few months and a few thousand more good edits and I will gladly support you.
'''Neutral''' per above.  You seem like you will become a great admin, and you look like the type of person who won't abuse the tools, but I can't support because you have a few mainspace edits and the lack of time.  Maybe in the future, when you have more experience, I will vote support.--
'''Neutral''' Come back in a few months and I might support (depends on my computer). But even if you don't make it, I want you to get a combine and race the Amish (if you're wondering what this means, read my userpage).
'''Neutral''' per above.  I think, with time, you will make a great admin.  Please come back in the future, when you have more experience. Best of luck in the future, <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
Well I was going to be neutral but perusing his deleted contribs and edit history he has an good grasp of CSD policy - lots of very solid and knowledgeable calls removing improper speedy tags from articles. --
'''Support'''.  I think RHMED is a good user, and will do good with the tools.  W.Marsh is right about the CSD knowledge also.  Good luck, '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - Looks trustworthy to me.
'''Support''' I don't see any possible way that you would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as experienced Wikipedian. I was surprised that RMHED wasn't already an admin.
While I did harshly warn him about some improver AFD closes a few months ago, that shows that he is experienced with the deletion policy, and proud to support.
'''Support''': Without hesitation.  I am not voting for what this user will do (whether or not you add yourself to [[CAT:RECALL]] is your business - although I have my opinions about it), but what this user ''has'' done; and this user has done great things.  I see no warning flags that this user will abuse the tools, thus I support. -
'''Weak support'''. I was close to going neutral, but decided it wasn't a very strong one. Some of your AfD contributions worry me a little, and I am not convinced that you have serious AIV experience. Still, you seem you know your way around CSD and can be trusted to only make those that truly necessary, and that sounds like an administrator I can trust. I also would like to apologize for furthering the clutter below. At any rate, best of luck and warm regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Helpful and responsible contributions. Knowledgeable in policy and guidelines. Every reason to believe he will do well with the tools.
'''Support'''. I have never interacted with RMHED, however he seems to me to have the knowledge in the inter workings of the pedia to make a good administrator. I do not believe that just because a person has not responded that he or she will be willing to place themselves in the Admin Recall is reason enough to determine that said person would not make a good administrator. All administrators are subject to having their powers removed regardless of wheather or not they place their names in the Admin Recall.
'''Support.''' Looks like a fine editor who will put the tools to good use.
'''Support'''Since you would not be open to voluntary recall I must vote supported. My apologies but any potential admin who does not accept recall is one I can in good conscience entrust with the mop. '''
'''Support''' Know of no reason to oppose. Except for him being wishy-washy on recall, of course. =P
'''Support'''. I agree with Bstone that recall is good, and I am always inclined to be more lenient with admin candidates who pledge to be open to recall (since, if they prove to be a poor admin, we can get rid of them). I think Bstone needs to review his oppose in the light of the fact that the candidate has now agreed to be open to recall.
'''Support''' I agree with [[User:Walton One]]. I agree that Bstone should review his oppose. Otherwise, I think this user is up to handling the mop. <strong>
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. A worthy candidate.
'''Support'''. Per oppose #1.
'''Good Luck'''
'''Support''' - no reason this editor shouldn't be trusted with the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Although there have been some problems in the past with this editor, specifically in AfDs in November and Decemeber, I believe the editor has matured enough for adminship. Also, per oppose #1.
'''Support''' inexperience in some areas is not a great reason to oppose, that can come later if it needs to. And I know as well as anyone else should that recall is entirely voluntary; there are easier ways of dumping incompetent admins, not that I foresee that arising in this case. --'''
'''Support''' Some of the answers are a little iffy, but your contribs look good.
'''Support''' But please get more AFD and DRV experience before taking on AfD closings. Believe me, there is plenty to do in other areas.
'''Support''' The AfD's were a little worrying. The interaction about these on the talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RMHED/Archive_1#Inappropriate_closure_of_Ocean_Finance_AfD] showed a bit too much arrogance. However, more recent non-admin closes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Nemenyi&diff=prev&oldid=181403844], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Lee_%28scientist%29&diff=prev&oldid=187754115] seem to me more inline with what I would expect for a non-admin. Perhaphs some [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] might be in order. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by

'''Weak support''' Good user, but weak per the oppose concerns. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt Algerian">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt Algerian">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' Quite experienced, I think you will do OK.
'''Oppose'''Since you would not be open to voluntary recall I must vote opposed. My apologies but any potential admin who does not accept recall is not one I can in good conscience entrust with the mop. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] ([[User talk:Bstone|talk]]) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) And in addition he removed a CSD tag from an article which I tagged but to my knowledge only admins can remove CSD tags. Little concerning.
'''Oppose''', due to a number of incorrect AfD closures and uncooperative response when other editors (including administrators) approach you with concerns regarding your actions. E.g: I find it worrying that you, as a non-administrator, decided to close [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination)|this AfD]] as ''no consensus'', after only ''two'' days of discussion; this is another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dorothy_Walker_Bush&diff=172778902&oldid=172777904 no consensus decision] on a one-day-long AfD. (AfDs normally run for 5 days, FYI). I noticed you closed [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Finance|an AfD]] that you'd participated in, and when an administrator advised you not a perform such closure, you responded shorly "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMHED&diff=172981921&oldid=172943038 I disagree I think I acted perfectly correctly, and would do so again.]", and when a second administrator explained to you where you were mistaken, you gave yet another one-sentence answer "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMHED&diff=next&oldid=172984268 I disagree, aznd would act accordingly again.]" You seemed to keep your words, as I could see a few days later, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Postal_Dude_%28Postal%29&diff=176277018&oldid=175825345 closed another AfD] as "no consensus" (which was later overturned, unsurprisingly.) I'm not discussing whether such premature closure was correct or not, but the deathly stubborn attitude, combined with the lack of helpful response and a complete disregard for others' opinions, leaves much to be desired. If you believe you are right, at least clarify your position; it is most disturbing when an administrator keeps on thinking they are right but is never able to defend their actions. Thanks, -
'''Oppose'''. Per PeaceNT.
'''Oppose'''. Mostly per PeaceNT (closing AfD's inappropriately, then refusing to accept criticism about it, and continuing to close AfD's inappropriately afterwards.  The [[Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions|page]] pointed out to the candidate several times says ''"it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results."'', yet as pointed out above, the candidate subsequently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Postal_Dude_%28Postal%29&diff=176277018&oldid=175825345 closed] yet another AfD as "no consensus".) The candidate's contribs contain much apparently good reversion of vandalism, and other useful work, but I didn't see anything particularly impressive.  The following edits are somewhat unimpressive, for example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_Ombudsman_Service&diff=prev&oldid=184343888 deletion of a db-inc tag] with edit summary ''"an important UK service,"'' which doesn't explain what's important about the service and leaves the article itself still in a state of not asserting significance or importance;  and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ropsley_Panther&diff=prev&oldid=184360725 this] delete vote, which simply describes the article and then states ''"Encylopedic, I think not."'' without really explaining why the candidate doesn't consider it encyclopedic. --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDanny_Welbeck&diff=188064415&oldid=188062130 this] AfD comment, which shows a lack of understanding of two key policies. ''"Currently just scrapes through [[WP:BIO#Athletes]]"'' was incorrect - the guy failed the criteria as he has not competed in a fully professional league. And ''"quite likely to gain greater notability in the near future"'' violates [[WP:CRYSTAL]].
'''Oppose''' due to self-admitted inappropriate AfD closings.  We've turned down other candidates who showed an excessive eagerness to close prior to Adminship AfDs they shouldn't have been closing. I think it shows at best an over-eagerness to take on admin tasks, a feeling that this is an opportunity, rather than a responsibility. '''
'''Very week oppose.''' Whilst some of these concerns are spurious ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_Ombudsman_Service&diff=prev&oldid=184343888 this] is perfectly reasonable) and non-admins are welcome to close afds, there are just too many iffy actions here. They indicate a general failure to learn from criticism and a certain carelessness. Please keep closing afds, but do it for a few more months, getting it right, and learning from mistakes, and then I will be happy to support. It ''is'', however, good to see an admin candidate who is isn't allergic to improving articles - well done for that!. --
'''Oppose''' Very good points made.  AfD's are a glaring oversight.
'''Oppose''', per DGG.
'''Oppose''', sorry, per PeaceNT and Number 57. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Due to the AFD related concerns discussed above.
Closing AfDs early should, in my opinion, be reserved for, in general, unambiguous consensus or when BLP is a serious concern.  I think that I am, however, more concerned about the apparent difficulty to take criticism in stride.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I think the AfD process can be improved but per the above the nom's actions appear to have exacerbated uncertain situations. --
Per PeaceNT, given this user has an interest in closing AfD's.
'''Weak oppose''' due to AfD closures noted above: but would support in a couple of months if improvement in judgement shown, per [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|my criteria for RfA]].
'''Oppose''' - per PeaceNT's expertly-put AfD concerns. If there's one area where admins should lean towards policy-wankery, it's deletion, and RMHED seems determined to just wing it. --
'''Oppose''' - no evidence to have reason to support, e.g., user page.  See also above.
'''Neutral''' (from support) I think I could overlook those AfD issues cited in oppose except that on review your Q1 states you specifically intend to work in that arena. "Dubious" AfD closures are a real risk to creating more workload for other admins, not lightening the load. I won't oppose due to the other good stuff, but I'd prefer to see a couple of months without the "iffy actions" as Doc G rightly calls them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' pr DocG. cheers,
'''Neutral''' the afd issue concerns me now, learn more and be more open, maybe later.
'''Neutral''' I agree with Pedro. Everyone makes mistakes, but since this it your area of interest, it makes me a little bit nervous.  However, I would not totally abject to you getting the mop, either, as you could ''probably'' do fine. I'm just uncertain... hence, being neutral. '''
'''Neutral''' Per hwmith, and awaiting answer to my question.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Weak Support''' because of your astonishingly honest nomination.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I've seen RMHED around in my time at AfD and DRV, and he makes thoughtful contributions there.  Looking over his last 100 or so contributions, he does use sarcasm quite a bit, which may come off a bit [[WP:BITE]]y to new editors, but I trust he knows when not to use it.  You've got enough experience in deletion to make me comfortable with giving you the tools in those areas, and while I haven't seen much work around [[WP:RPP]] I trust you have sufficient clue to figure it out.  Failure to answer the set questions doesn't bother me, though I believe I will ask some specific questions later on.  --<font color="green">
'''Support'''. I consider self-nom as a sign of being power hungry - which I'm fine with, we need more people with a bit of fire and ambition. Plus we are desperately short of admin and you don't seem to a vandal so you meet my minimum requirements. --
'''Support''' I think that your honesty and brevity are refreshing. -
'''Strong support''' per such excellent AfD closer work as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars pez]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon City (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide booth (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (6th nomination)]], etc.  Correct closes and explanations of closes are both encouraging.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy [[Bastille Day]]!  Sincerely,
Per hilarious nomination statement. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Support''' —As much as I loved the bold nomination (though I do not condone the lack of answers to valuable questions), my support arises from this users contributions. The opposition brings up good points, but while perusing them, I found more good then bad.
'''Support''' most of those questions are of the "so what is your worst quality" type.  RHMED is honest and direct.  I appreciate working with him even though we are on opposite sides of arguments.  This nomination is very much in line with who he seems to be throughout the rest of the wiki.  Looks like this one will go down in flames but take note, any RfA that has Allemantando, me '''AND''' Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles on the same side of the debate is on to something good. :)
For not answering the questions. —'''
I like your style. <font color="404040">
Ageism worries me somewhat byut RHMED otherwise seems like a excellent candidate ergo weak support, not that it will do any bloody good. —
Don't like the attitude but I'm not bothered by the so-called 'ageism' (i.e. common sense), or the closing of AfDs (if you feel like doing that you go for it).
Which part of [[Wikipedia:Be bold]] is so hard to understand? If the closes had been terrible, that'd be a damn good reason to oppose. They weren't, so what's the problem here? I am really puzzled, and perhaps even disappointed, by some of the opposes from people who usually support boldness and getting things done. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to play some MMORPG.
'''Support''' per Angusmclellan above. You've shown good judgement in your AFD closures so far; I see no good reason not to grant you the tools and allow you to close them as 'delete' as well as 'keep/no consensus'. The desire to help out with backlogs elsewhere is also a good sign. This RFA is probably going to fail, but I'm supporting anyway to make the point that there should be nothing wrong with (i) not answering ''optional'' questions, and (ii) closing AFDs as 'no consensus' when there really is no consensus.
I laughed at the AFD close, and, I agree one hundred percent with Angus. I guess we need to reinforce that the questions are '''optional''' as well somewhere.
'''Strong Support''' Thank the lord for a RfA which is not yet another clone of the last 210203 of them.  Vive la difference!  Why shouldn't an admin have a personality?
"'''Support''' He should have passed last time, has a solid history over a number of years making good faith contributions, and a demonstrated history of knowing what to do, and how to learn. That he has learned that the RfA is a joke is in no way a reason to oppose. His first RfA was approached entirely in good faith, and really only went down because of a difference of opinion on policies which are essentially open for debate.
'''Support'''.  So he's closed some debates that he ''technically'' should not have.  Were any of them overturned as being an incorrect read of consensus?  The only logical conclusion I can come to here is that this user puts the goal of ''end results'' before a sycophantic devotion to ''procedure for its own sake'' and in my opinion this is an ''immensely good thing''.  I'll support.
I completely agree with Shereth. So he didn't follow the rules and closed debates that a section of a policy might disallow. Were any of these closures ''overturned as incorrect''? None have been listed. So, basically, what I'm getting from the oppose section is that even though he closes AfDs correctly, he [[WP:IAR|''doesn't follow the rules'']] and would therefore be a horrible sysop. That is absurd on its face. We are a wiki. We do not follow rules to follow rules. If the closes are a correct reading of consensus, then it does not matter who makes said closures. The next oppose reason is his attitude toward this RfA. Last time I checked, a common complaint was that people take adminship too seriously. And here we have someone who does quite clearly does not take it too seriously, and he is being opposed for it. This community is schizophrenic. And then there's the ageism (or adultism, if you prefer) opposes. Those are just ridiculous. Why on earth does believing that most young people are unfit to be an administrator make one unqualified to be an administrator? It doesn't. Like Doc Glasgow said, opposing someone because he is ageist is more stupid than opposing someone because of their age. '''
'''Support'''. Very impressed by this nom.
'''Strong oppose''', sorry, I can't support a candidate that willingly refuses to answer the questions. They really do help in determining whether or not you can be trusted with the tools, and your refusal could be taken as an unwilliness to cooperate. Best, &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - For closing AFDs as no consensus. Willfully ignoring the common practices (but not in the form of IAR) strikes me as arrogant. You shouldn't have done that. It's not up to you.
<s>Interim</s> '''oppose''' at the moment. You're perfectly within your rights not to answer the questions, but if you're going to do that you need to tell us something about yourself. If you're not going to help us, I don't have any reason to think you'll help editors with a problem.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescent, and also because, you've proven to me personally that you're lazy and have no business being an admin. Maybe you should have put up an editor review instead? All the best, '''''
In the month of July, I have counted 18 non-admin closures, several of which were closed as no consensus. This is not only discouraged, but in my mind a violation of the [[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure]] policy. I still like your honest statement, but after a quick look through your contribs you are definitely not admin material right now. '''Oppose'''. Granted, I have no problems whatsoever with you not answering questions, too many fluff ones are asked.
'''Oppose''' Over-eager NAC's strongly concern me. '''
'''Oppose''' Grave concerns about the candidates attitude and approach to others. Seem likely to be an example of the kind of user who believes they are "getting the job done" by "telling it like it is" and ignoring the rules, without having a clue that their impact on others actually leads to an overall negative for the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' Didn't answer questions, an automatic oppose for me.--
'''Oppose''' I have little trust because you did not answer the questions. I must also say that closing AFD's wihout consencus makes me worry deeply. Sorry.
'''Strong oppose''' No answers to questions gives me little to go one besides contribs. In my opinion, consensus is what keeps Wikipedia functioning as well and as fluidly as it does. The "I'm right, so there's no need for consensus" opinion is what puts a halt to this process. Self-nom also gives me very little reason to support you. Sorry. Erik the <font color="red">
Not well suited by temperament in my opinion. <strong style="color:#000">
Oppose - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRyan&diff=221528413&oldid=221526811 this] (we have plenty of perfectly capable 12 year old admins), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRyan&diff=221529757&oldid=221529489 this] - I'd prefer someone who can give solid reasons for their actions. I thought you were joking with that comment at first. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''—I'm quite worried by Majorly's diffs. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Strong oppose'''--Per his hurtful comments to younger editors about age and adminship.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Mizu onna sango15, and Majorly's diffs. '''
'''Oppose''' The candidate's flippancy suggests he does not take the process seriously. Perhaps it would make sense if the process did not take the candidate seriously?
'''Oppose''' - Per Majorly's diff and a rather lazy RfA, take a little pride in yourself.
'''Oppose''' - Per Majorly's diffs, but the second one is more controversial. There are quite a number of young admins on my home wiki.
'''Strong Oppose''' per all comments above, mainly though because user refuses to answer RfA questions. --<span class="plainlinks">
Flagrant disregard for the restrictions placed on non-administrators closing AfD discussions suggest a bigger problem which we don't need, namely non-application of the blocking, deletion and protection policy.
'''Oppose''' per the comments about Spartaz.
'''Oppose''' User does not seem to have the temperament to respond to the inevitable stresses that come with the mop in a consistently civil and respectful manner. The overeagerness of the non-admin closures, combined with the often flippant and borderline disrespectful remarks that come along with them, serve to further prevent me from trusting that this user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] would be applied appropriately in sysop-required situations. Sorry. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Per all above
'''Oppose''' - gotta pile on here, sorry. Admins don't need the sobriety of a judge, but should try to remain 'above' nonsense. What I like about wikipedia is the fact that we ''don't'' have arbitrary administrators who ignore other people's rights like most websites do. -
'''Oppose''' — You're too old for adminship.
'''20-Mule-Team Oppose:''' - My only experience with RMHED was in a deletion review he filed on a number of prods I had made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2]  In the review, of which he didn't inform me and I found out by accident, he came up with lines like "Yes process can be irksome at times, but generally it is there for a good reason."  To see him be a champion now of [[WP:IAR]] and of the notion that guidelines are only guidelines, to be ignored at will, is startling.  While this is a pile on, I can't ignore the stark inconsistency, and wonder whether what he really means above is that rules are optional only when he himself finds them irksome.  I also would prefer admins not to publicly question the motives behind a decision in reviews where they pointedly exclude the decisionmakers from the process.  Finally, the closest I come to Kurt's kneejerk POV on RfA is when I see overzealous non-admin closures at AfD; it's always struck me as power hunger akin to "Look at me! I can do what admins do!"
'''Oppose''', some might say that this user "tells it like it is" and "calls a spade a spade", but some would say that this user is unnecessarily rude, hostile, and harsh.  No thankyou.
'''Oppose''' - Not admin material. Not admin behaviour or attitude. I wouldn't be altogether comfortable giving this user the tools in the current state of this RfA. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' The attitude's a little much. <font color="amaranth">
'''Oppose''' - While I admire the boldness of the nomination and found some good arguments in favor listed here, the opposing arguments are quite convincing as well. What made me oppose is the fact that when looking through his contribs, there were virtually no discussion edits on any talk pages within the last 6 months. While it's important to have editors who know the procedures and how to use them, I think every admin should also have experience in discussing problems on talk pages (problems with the content that is, i.e. consensus building). I doubt he can manage this when he needs to as admin, given the already mentioned rude comments about other users. '''
'''Oppose''' Mostly for Naerii's diffs.--
'''Oppose''': "OK" user? Not a lot of effort put into this RFA. <small>
Woefully inadequate self-presentation of credentials. Over-eager NAC closures and the diffs by Majorly are concerning, to the point of strongly opposing.
'''Oppose''': apparently answering the standard questions will not be useful, but inviting incivility here will be? No, sorry.
We don't need more people who clearly intend to go ''Sideways'' with mop. -
'''Oppose''' - Yes, I realize it's a pile-on at this point. But we certainly don't need administrators with attitude, regardless of how one feels of current administrators. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''strong oppose'''- he's not very friendly, he also does some very strange closures at AfD sometimes which are not in accordance with [[WP:NAC]], and in general seems to think he is above others and he can behave how he wants on wiki.
'''Strong Oppose''' Nomination statement, replies in this RfA (specifically to America69), and AfD closes show an ''astounding'' ammount of arrogance on your part. Completley unfit to be an admin.--
'''Oppose''' while I do not expect all admins to be perfect, I do anticipate that the ability to resolve conflict and to have an air of neutrality to them would be the norm. Your nomination draws hostility and reflects on your attitude which I find not acceptable for the tools. <b>
'''Oppose''' Your nomination statement implies either 1) You don't realy care about adminship/being an editor/Wikipedia (in which case I don't trust you with the technical ability to replace the main page with porn) or 2) You really have the non-communicative, rude, aggresive and uncivil attitude that is precisely what we don't want in any editor. Either way I suggest you re-think what this work is about, and why you help here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' per the rather flippant attitude displayed on this very page.  Also suggest close under [[WP:SNOW|snow]] guidelines.
'''Oppose''' - Hmmm, this took a while.  I think I kinda understand where you are coming from; "what you see is what you get", etc., but it really comes off as very flip, and open and honest can go right to arrogant and rude in a heartbeat.
I wish we'd stop pretending that nonchalant arrogance is some sort of impressive virtue.  I'm unconvinced that it takes bravery or skill or something to adopt this posture.  Go to a shopping mall on any school day and you can find some 15-year-old playing hooky who possesses the exact same "honesty" and also "DGAF".  Yawn.  It's as impressive here as it is at the food court.  I'm extremely unconvinced that Wikipedia would benefit from having this attitude in greater abundance. --
'''Oppose''' — Lazy RfA, don't know what happened to the original questions... <small>
'''Oppose''' per the attitude displayed here.  Comments listed above are also startling.
'''Oppose''' I could be rude myself, but I'll just say per Jay Henry.
'''Oppose''' - Erm...<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Strong oppose''' I haven't taken part in RFA much recently, but I just happened to stumble across this and had a read through. All of the diffs posted above are very troubling. Not only is this user prone to generalisation ("User is 12 years old"; why do you oppose 12 year olds? Because they're immature? Fine, find a diff of the user in question being immatureand post it, don't write an oppose like that), almost every talk page comment they've made has been ridiculously aggressive. All this portrays quite a bit of arragance on this users part. I'm sure he would be prone to look down on non-admins where they to become an admin.--
'''Strong oppose''' There isn't really much else I can add to comments already made.
'''Oppose''' Entirely unsuitable behaviour prior to, but particularly ''at'' RfA. And I don't mean not answering optional questions. If this RfA is a leg-pull then I apologise for being humourless, but when I last checked today wasn't [[April Fools Day]] and adminship, while not being a "big deal", isn't a "big joke" either. (And if it is a joke, we've had ''much'' funnier mock RfAs, appropriately on April Fools Day) --
'''Strong oppose''' per Iridescent and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRyan&diff=221529757&oldid=221529489 this].
'''Oppose''' &mdash; for not withdrawing this RFA yet. be bold, but don't waste our time. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. I wasn't going to jump in and pile-on on this one, but since it's still open, I suppose I will. Opposing as per pretty much everything said above and per the lackadaisical answers.
'''Oppose''' per a tendency to game the system. I also witnessed several abusive closures. I have the feeling that the candidate acts in his own interest and doesn't realize how serious administrative actions are. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">
'''Oppose''' - Per everything everyone opposing has said thus far.  When you're this far down on the oppose count, there isnt much more to say except that you agree... and pile on doesnt seem to be a concern at this point.  So... yeah.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Strong oppose''' - Lack of effort with this RfA has me thinking that there will certainly be a lack of effort in his adminship. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
''' Oppose'''. While I respect your attitude to the tedious "optional" questions, your admission of "mostly positive contribution" and "very occasional fuckwit" does not fill me with confidence.
'''Oppose''' -- Per the afd closure diffs. Sorry! --
'''Oppose''' - candidate is no where near ready to be an administrator.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]] [[User talk:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Oppose''' - Pretty poor attitude in all times I have encountered him on here and an over zealous use of non-admin closures in situations where it should not be used. -
'''Oppose''' - per Majorly's diffs. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' - Candidate does not seem to be serious about work, and I doubt that he will utilise his admin tools efficiently. Also see America69's link ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chao_%28Sonic_the_Hedgehog%29&diff=prev&oldid=224669783])
'''Strong Oppose''' due to refusal to answer the questions, the aformentioned difs, and (IMHO) not taking this situation very seriously at all.
'''Neutral''' I misread RMHED's edit comment as "tiddly porn" and having read the transcluded text I can only say that I am most disappointed. Apologies if this isn't in keeping with the spirit of the RfA; I couldn't tell.   <font color="006622">
'''Neutral'''. One part of my brain is squealing "support this user, that self-nom was brilliant and he doesn't appear to be an idiot". The other half is equally shrilly informing me that this really shouldn't be the way you go for adminship, and generally behave, in a collaborative project like this. So I'm just going to put a post here and acknowledge the terminal indecision. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Neutral''' - I have seen this editor around quite a lot, when I saw you were nominated I expected to see bells, whistles, balloons and possibly 5 co-noms. Yet all I see is this rather...charmless introduction. I really don't know what to make of it. —
'''Neutral''' — I appreciate the honesty, it's a huge factor. That said, though, I really do need more from you to support. I need answers to optional questions! — <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">'''
'''Damn''' Why d'ya have to come at here like this? Ya [[On The Waterfront|could've been a contendah]]
'''No-need-to-pile-on-neutral'''. Brave to be so honest, but some of this honesty reveals some truly concerning issues. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Neutral''' Pardon me , But are you really serious about this RFA ? --
'''Neutral''' I admire your honesty  and  am bothered by the vengeful users who voted against you because you voted against someone else. How petty! Anyway, call this moral neutral. I wouldn't want you to have the power to block me, that's the only thing stopping me from supporting. I guess I'm selfish.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to applaud to RMHED's honesty to the issue, and I'd like to support him, but it looks like there are certain issues still not worked out by the editor despite his best of efforts shown.  I'd have to go neutral on this one.  I'm sure that your continued productive efforts will catch the attention of other editors and in the future will become knowledgeable admin.
'''Neutral''' for sheer bravery and there is no reason to pile on opposes like drive-by shootings.--

. I have helped users, such as Ur a der.--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, with so few edits it is impossible to get a feel for your comprehension of policy and guideline here on Wikipedia. I suggest withdrawing the nomination, giving yourself 6 months of heavy editing at a multitude of areas. Also, you may want to give [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and [[WP:ADOPT]] and [[WP:ER]] a shot in the future to come.
'''Oppose''', reccomend snow closure.
'''Oppose''', I strongly suggest you withdraw: 29 edits is nowhere near enough. Also, you should spend more time on the questions in the future. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid your contributions to date aren't sufficient for me to form an opinion on whether you would make a good admin or not. I'd like to suggest that you withdraw this RfA as premature and reapply when you have more experience. Don't let this discourage you, I think you may have the makings of a good admin.
'''Oppose''' - Admirable that you wish to help! But, sorry, sorely lacking in experience. Virtually no activity in Wikipedia namespace, and only 650 edits total. Not there yet. Give it a few months and come back and I'll re-evaluate.
'''Oppose''' I agree with the above sentiments, regardless of the answer to my question above.  You are clearly here to help this project, and not hinder it, but you need more time and more experience to be ready for adminship.  Keep up the good work!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |

'''Oppose'''.  Simply not enough edits, not by an order of magnitude.  And what about these missing edit summaries (to return to a not-so-important aspect by itself, although a favorite on these pages, and an important ''indicator'' of editing quality in general)?  In any case, good luck!  --
'''Neutral.''' Needs more experience, but will likely become an admin if he sticks around long enough. ·
'''Neutral''' Needs more experience, see [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|Admin coaching]]. <strong>
'''Strong support''' I've had only good interactions with this user. He's not the type to go on a rampage. He's been here for a long time, has good experience and I think he'll make a good admin. '''
'''Support''', mainly [[WP:AGF|assuming]] that nothing bad will happen if the user were to be promoted.
Support. Civil and level-headed. I don't think he'd ever abuse the admin tools, though he should probably go to [[WP:NAS]] before making any big decisions. ·
'''Strong Support'''.  I don't see anything that gives me pause about trusting you with the tools, so I will support.  &hArr;
'''Support''' - he seems to know what he is doing around here. &nbsp; '''
'''Very Strong Support''' - Opposing based on his age is really immature ..thats' just sad, I know one good admin who is 12 years old and probably more mature then all the opposers combined, plus I value experience more than anything else.....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Mainly because I am tired of opposes based on age. Well, not really. I think this is a good editor who was done an excellent job at contributing, regardless of age.
'''Strong Support''' per Cometstyles. My personal opinion on all this age mess is RfA's should be based on experience, NOT age. There could easily be unmature 40 year olds (or any age, for that matter), running for adminship, and you wouldn't support them because of their age. So why oppose a mature 12 year old just because of his age? '''
'''Strong support''', a trustworthy editor. The ageist oppose votes are repulsive. --'''
'''Support.'''  I like his attitude, and he knows what [[WP:CSD#A3]] is ([[WP:CSD#G2]] would also apply), so I'm taking this flying leap into the unknown.  — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) <br/> And I concur with Xp54321: "anyone who demonstrates the understanding of policy, civility, and maturity necessary should be able to become an admin." —
'''Support''' The accusations against this young man's character and abilities, based solely on his age, are truly emetic.  I think he would be a fine admin -- and a mature one, too.
Moral assume good faith support.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' — self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
Default good faith '''support''' vote, strengthened by his comments during this RFA.--
'''Moral Support''' You're a valuable user now--you'll likely be fantastic when you're older and more experienced.
'''Support''' - per Keepscases. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - I've seen you around the project, there's no evidence to suggest you'd abuse the tools. To be honest, I think your age is irrelevant when it comes to admin candidacy. I can't see this RfA succeeding but if you were to run again, you'll have my vote. <small>''Also you have a kickass name and I once had a request declined to acquire that username''</small> ——
'''Oppose''' at this stage. I'm not a fan of editcounting, but you only have 418 non-automated mainspace edits; your automated edits are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WBC&diff=prev&oldid=221424468 of this nature]; e.g. the kind that [[Wikipedia:AWB#Rules_of_use|you were expressly told not to make when you signed up for AWB]]. Additionally, all your AFD participation appears to be cut-and-paste "per noms". You may be fantastic, you may be terrible; there's just not enough to judge, and the failure to follow the AWB instructions pushes me over the line from "neutral" to "oppose".<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose''' you want to carry out admin actions at AfD's, yet you have very few AfD contributions and even those leave a lot to be desired. Oh, and you're 12 years old, which for me is too young for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry, but there are a few issues I found in your last 700 contributions. First of all, you listed several ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ryan/Window 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ryan/Window 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ryan/Rywel 3], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ryan/upcoming 4]) pages in your userpace at [[WP:MFD]] when you should have tagged them with <nowiki>{{db-u1}}</nowiki> or something similar.  This shows you may not have a full knowledge of speedy deletion policy and other aspects of deletion process.  In these 700 contributions, I only saw one edit to an [[WP:AFD|AFD]] which worries me because you state that this will be one of your main activities as an admin.  My suggestion would be to do less automated editing (per iridescent) and to get a wider range of experience.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Oppose'''. I do not want to see another 12-year-old administrator. Ever. --
'''Oppose''' Per Malinaccier and Iridescent. I also went back and looked over his edit count. From August 2007 to January 2008 he made few to no edits at all. I am wondering why??
'''Oppose''' per Malinaccier and Iridescent. I don't see anything that really shows me you have a clear-cut understanding of the deletion process.--
Sorry, 12 year old admins is a no-no.
'''Oppose''' 90% on the automated edit and age issue. I'm not a big edit count guy but 400 are just isn't enough to show enough interaction. The short, uninformative answers don't show enough to make up for the rest.  10% on Majorly's badgering.
'''Oppose''' per Malinaccier. I've been keeping an eye on things (filing closed discussions) over at MfD for a little while now, and his last two MfDs which are from [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ryan/Rywel|yesterday]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ryan/ Freiddy|today]] are troublesome (notice that it was explained to him yesterday that an MfD was not needed). Frankly I'm a bit shocked to see this request so soon. Come back in 6 months, given that you've improved. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
<s>Too <s>young</s> immature</s>. ''[[user:giggy|giggy]]'' <sub>([[user talk:giggy|:O]])</sub> 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (creatively struck to satisfy a third party... ''
'''Oppose'''. Nothing to do with age, but I'm opposing because of lack of experience. I don't like seeing such an overwhelming majority of an editor's contribs immediately prior to an RFA be automated. That was a horribly-worded sentence, I might have to fix that. Also, not quite enough experience yet in the Wikipedia namespace. I think that if you tone down your use of automated tools and instead work manually, I hope I can be in the support column next time.
'''Oppose''' due to poor Xfd understanding as shown by the Mfd diffs. I can't trust you with the tools for Xfds yet. Come back in a few months with better Xfd rationales.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Useight]]. I'm not saying never, but definately not yet. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Virtually no "real" contributions to article talk, very little interaction in user talk. This makes me ''very'' uncomfortable with a user who intends to start blocking. Contributions to XfD are weak, don't show much knowledge of policy. Answer to all questions thus far are weak and uninformative. WP:COOL is not a policy. Answer to question 6 is the worst though... maybe you should have had some confidence in this before coming to an RfA where you state you want to become an admin to participate in AfD? General maturity issues.
'''Oppose'''. I know of several admins promoted at the same age as Ryan, I also know of at least one bureaucrat promoted in his very early teens. Age is not an issue, there are very good young editors and some very poor older editors. I firmly believe that all RfA candidates should be judged purely on their own merit. Unfortunately, the answers given by Ryan indicate that he does not yet have an understanding of key issues vital to being a successful administrator - particularly one working in the areas that he has indicated that he wants to work in. If these answers were given by a candidate who had not disclosed their age I would oppose on grounds of inexperience, so I feel it is only appropriate that I oppose Ryan as well. I would encourage Ryan to read [[WP:ARL]] and apply again when he has a better grasp of policy and the correct use of the buttons.
Unfortunately, no. Not only do you have weak mainspace contributions, which is usually the deciding factor for me, your participation in nearly all areas is stunted, even the AfDs you profess interest in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ryan/Rywel This] is also rather troubling, as it shows an astounding lack of knowledge of the CSD criteria. <s>As others have said above, your youth/maturity is also a concern.</s>
'''Weak oppose''' Sorry, Ryan. Looking even deeper into your contribs, I'm not fully confident you know CSD all that well, and you could use more experience in other "adminny-tasks" such as XFD, RFPP, and the like. Come back in about 4 months, and I'll be happy to support. Thanks, --
'''Oppose''' per Malinaccier and Iridescent. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per Iridescent and Mal. Wants to work in deletion area, yet experience is lacking, drive by voting at AFD doesn't sit well with me.
'''Oppose''' for now, as it appears the candidate isn't familiar enough with deletion policies, and the use of AWB to make null edits is a bit troubling. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''oppose''' should have asked for editor review instead. Not sufficiently sure of policies etc, and just a very young child- all of us don't have the best judgment at that age- this isn't an assumption, the brain isn't even fully physically developed.
'''Oppose''', seems to be on the right track but as mentioned above, just doesn't seem ready for the mop yet.  Not enough relevant experience for me to judge how trustworthy he will be with it.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate needs more editing experience, particularly in mainspace and AfD. I'm also concerned that the candidate may not understand core policies.
I have no problem supporting a twelve-year-old administrator, but Ryan's not ready yet.
'''Strongest Possible Opppose'''.  User clearly doesn't understand policy.  Now that administrators can do anything under BLP per the recent ArbCom ruling, I don't think its a good idea to be giving uberfied lazermops with autocannons that haven't read the manual first.  <font color="629632">
'''Oppose'''. I'm not concerned with the age issue and prefer to look at a candidate's maturity, regardless of whether they claim they're 12 or 40. We don't really know who/what people are unless they self-declare and even then you have to take what people say with a grain of salt and I think young people who have aspirations of becoming administrators will just stop self-declaring their age if their age is going to be used against them as an RfA standard. Trust me, a 12-year-old is not going to wait until they turn 18 to become an administrator, they just won't tell you how old they are. So I find age-based opposes rather misguided and self-defeating because ultimately young people will not self-identify and you won't know they're 12-years-old when they come to RfA. I personally prefer to look at maturity when reviewing any candidate rather than going by what they say is their age. However, I have to oppose this RfA because I agree with what Iridescent said at oppose comment 1. Looking through your edits, it is very difficult to get a handle on your understanding of policy because you have so few non-automated edits and your XfD edits don't give me a great insight into your ability to apply deletion policy. Please consider making more non-automated edits and participating more in discussions so that other users can get an idea of your understanding of our policies and how you would apply policy if you were an admin.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  Also...he's 12.  Seriously.  Someone that young should '''never''' be an admin, period, full stop.
'''Oppose'''-Most websites that allow user contributions, etc, use 13 as the cut-off for participation/membership due to [http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm United States Law] and this is a US based website. 12 is way to young to be an admin. I am not saying he will magically mature in one year, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (Otherwise I may nominate my 8 year old niece). I also understand this does not apply to a non-profit like Wikipedia Foundation, but its a good guideline.--
'''Oppose'''. I haven't even looked at Ryan's contributions.  12 is too young.  I don't care if we already have 12 year old admins - we shouldn't.
'''Oppose'''. Even if the candidate was 21 years old, he's woefully inexperienced and unsuited to be an administrator, but at 12, that's way too young - there's a lot of really unpleasant stuff that's happened to administrators over the past year and it's unfair to expect any 12 year old to put themselves through the increasing levels of harassment that some administrators have suffered in real-life over the past year or so.
'''Oppose''' - really sorry but, per many of the others. 12 is too young, IMO. To the peanut gallery watching, that's a comment on chronological age, not maturity, mm-kay? -
'''Oppose''' - Age.  You're not able to be ''legally'' held accountable for anything... <s>it</s> my oppose doesnt have anything to do with maturity, it has to do with legality.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' - Really sorry. Has nothing, and I repeat, '''nothing''' to do with your age. I looked at your answers, and I would have NEVER guessed that you are but twelve (''twelve'', not 12) years old. Unfortunately, your editing is average, and not well-rounded. You may be a good admin if chosen, but I don't feel that you'd be able to assist well in mainspace help, not having a good amt. of experience. As to your age, I really could care less. I guess that the U.S. law thing is important, but as long as there's no law on Wikipedia, I don't care. My suggestion is, try to get some more mainspace (meaning articles, if you didn't know) contributions, show that you can help Wikipedia on the front lines, so to speak, and try again in a while. (You'll be older by then anyway. ;)) BTW, it's great to know that kids your age have an eager interest in helping people (by becoming an admin, and by contributing at all to Wikipedia). Great job. Cheers, '''''
'''Oppose'''. Age.  Sorry.  My son is that age and I wouldn't let him even edit Wikipedia (hmmm - as far as I know).  And in any case, edits.
Oppose. I can't oppose for the age-related criticisms noted above me, since I am young myself, but in my opinion, the candidate is inexperienced in too many areas, whilst some of the diffs located above, the userpage 'socialising' aspect and the poor answers to supplied questions can not be ignored either. I'd also like to express my concern at some of the attitudes some have shown here at this RfA, some of which are completely inappropriate to the assessment of a nominee.
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see come contributions, at minimum a DYK. Many admins here haven't made any content contributions recently, and are great admins, but things have changed a lot since they became admins. I'd like to see some decent contributions first, so I can know that you understand how to do basic stuff, such as reference an article, and that you could cope in content disputes on your own when attempting to calm things down. Just to clarify, this is not age-related, rather the fact this RfA is too early.
I hate doing this - its certainly not your age; I was, I believe a responsible and intelligent fellow when I was 12. Its the absence of a circumspect editing record - while your efforts to fight vandalism are commendable and responsible, your edits to your own userpage account for more than 20% of your edits; in comparison, your mainspace work is miniscule. At the same time, the monthly editing pace (actually ~ 300 is quite reasonable in other circumstances I think) is not sufficient in the sense that it doesn't look good that you spend a lot of the time you do spend on your userpage and automated edits. The advice of Sarah above is most sound and I am also perturbed by what Finalnight has to say above. With the greatest respect, I suggest '''withdrawal for now'''. Come back in 6 months or so ith a better record of content development and doing chores - might take the rest of 2008 to shake off the age critics - and you'll win a lot of respect and support for your demonstration of patience and maturity. All the best, '''<font face="Verdana">
I have no issue with your age, the fact we have had a 13 year old crat and two 12 year old admins that I know of, proves that argument to be false. I am concerned with the weak Wikipedia: space contributions, as well as some of the deletion issues other users have brought up and would encourage you to seek my experience and reapply. '''
'''Support''' As nom.
'''Strongest support possible'''. Through his edits, proper usage of tools, advice and helping hand, and his overwhelming polite and friendly personality, I believe he'd be a fine addition to the Admins of the 'pedia. - <font face="Georgia">
Great user: I'm the administrator who granted RyanLupin rollback, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyanLupin&diff=185126558&oldid=182397630][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3ARyanLupin&year=&month=-1] and he's been great with that as far as I know. He's improved greatly since his last RfA, and I think he'll make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' I'm glad to support.  You look to be a fine editor whose recent contributions cause me to expect you to be a fine admin.  Hilarious old AfDs and RfAs are of no concern to me.  &hArr;
'''Support'''.Strong editor all around and has the experience for the job.''
<s>'''Support'''</s> ''' Weak support learning towards neutral''' RyanLupin shows that he is responsible enough to handle the tools, and that he knows what he will be doing. His contributions show that he can go further from what he already does as a non-admin and he can do certain related things with the tools, which shows he wouldn't misuse them. I trust that RyanLupin will be a fine admin. Nothing wrong here. Good luck. ;) --
'''Support''' I've been impressed with what I've seen from Ryan. I don't think there's much of a COI problem with the Joseph McManners article, as it seems neutral and verifiable enough.
'''Support.''' Now where was it I saw you... oh, right, everywhere. ;P ·
'''Support''': Despite recent minor disagreements, I have to support this user.  Excellent contributor, and I have no objections.  -
'''Weak Support''' with nearly 300 AIV reports the user demonstrates a definite need for the tools and while I have not reviewed his contributions the outpouring of support here already suggests such a search is unneeded. -
'''Support''' - Demonstrates decent judgment, has a life, communicates well, good track record. Looks like administrative qualities to me.
'''Support''' With such a completely inappropriate webcam whore picture, I would be remiss to stand in the way of such undeniable brilliance. Also, a competent, mostly level-headed editor (hey, nobody's perfect) who will clearly be an asset to the project.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen Ryan around, and before this I thought he was an admin.
'''Strong Support''' Indeed Leonard is right. Ryan Lupin conducts himself like an admin and certainly does the work. Good luck!:D--
'''Support''': Has the experience and has excellent edit summary usage. Also I like how this user conducts himself. I like how the user was honest for Q2. Overall, I think this user will make a fine admin. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
''''Strong Support'''I'v seen ryan round too much recently. He is generally a really good guy <font color="blue">'''

'''Support''': A worthy candidate, he has clearly confessed to article writing not being his strong point so the McManners problem isn't too bad. His work elsewhere will counter this '''''
'''Support''' most definitely.  Civil, and is a great aid at ACC.
'''Support''' Appears to be a fine candidate.
'''Support''' hard-worker; mistakes in the past, yes, but nothing tells me he won't improve or be responsible. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Cool, composed, and disinterested. All very good traits in an admin. --[[User talk:La Pianista|<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="LightSteelBlue"><sup>La</font></sup>]]
'''Strong Support''' Very active user, very mature, will do great as an admin. <font face="Segoe script">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Geez, I think I looked at every damn diff for this candidate. May was certainly an active month. Anyway, the only opposition that concerns me is the POV article editing, and I really don't think that will color Ryan's judgment as an admin - not to mention that he straight up confessed that article writing is not his forte. It also seems that a lot of the diffs causing opposition were from quite awhile ago, and none of the civility diffs trouble me at all. Dorftrottel ''was'' completely out of line with his edit summaries and Ryan wasn't exactly Miss Manners when informing Dorf; big deal. I don't see ''any'' evidence of him biting the newbies or really being at all disruptive to the project. How [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AXp54321&diff=221545940&oldid=221545732 this diff] was a "dealbreaker" for an opposer below is somewhat eye-opening - is this how we're judging admin candidates? Anyway, bottom line is that I feel Ryan would be a net positive to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' — appears to be quite [[WP:CLUE|clueful]]. participating in admin coaching shows willingness to learn and take direction from those who are more experienced. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Because the question we should be focusing here is "can this user be trusted with the tools?" Ryan passes with flying colors. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support'''. He can be trusted, as I can see it. -
'''Support'''.  I'm not so worried about RyanL becoming an admin.  He'll learn quick and has a head start because of [[WP:ADCO|ADCO]].  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' An examination of his edit hist. for the month shows nothing that would concern me. He has good judgement, linke when he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIlikepie2221&diff=219368605&oldid=219251516 here]. He kept a cool head when I did so and apporpriately warned me. I know some people might say that "That user has a vandalism history per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIlikepie2221&diff=219368605&oldid=219251516] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIlikepie2221&diff=192962588&oldid=192090725] here, but I assure you people who might say that, those were isolated incidents and they won't regularily appear on my talk page. [[User talk:ilikepie2221|<span style="color: red;">DA</span>]]
'''Strong Support:'''  I was always puzzled as to why this user isn't already an admin!<span style="cursor: crosshair">......
'''Oppose'''. Am not convinced either of the candidate's level of participatory maturity, nor of the breadth of WP project interest. The COI is not a deal-breaker but IMO generally adds to my feeling that the candidate's interests and efforts involve a considerable quantity of enthusiasm and effort directed towards too few areas.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; RFA-game-coachee.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose because of "COI" but I see things like ''"Within days of his debut album release, McManners' talent rocketed into the classical music charts"'', ''"opposite the likes of Simon Pegg"'', etc, the whole thing just has a terrible promotional tone to it. I'm going to go clean it up right now, in fact.
'''Oppose''' - Naerii has hit the nail right on the head for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' changed from neutral following Naerii's remarks, which are expressed in the way I was thinking.
Doesn't assume good faith.
'''Oppose''' per [[Celebrate 'Oliver!']] created by Ryan on 8 July 2007  which is  a cut and paste [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]] of a  Western daily Press Article "Oliver's Army" published 15 December 2005.  Evidence can be seen via (free) registration [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12070004_ITM here].
[http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XcRZSshJNUUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrate_%27Oliver!%27+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrate%2520%27Oliver!%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au] —'''
Per Nancy (will happily reassess in light of new information).
'''Oppose''' I'm particularly not comfortable with the McManners business, the use of fair use images in a bio about one of your own friends and someone you could presumably obtain a free image of, and I'm left feeling like I wouldn't trust you to act appropriately as an administrator with BLPs when you have failed to do so as an editor.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per Nancy and Daniel. I would like to add that I am now going to storng oppose because of the way he responded to [[User:Everyme|Everyme]]. The way he responded here clearly shows that he is '''NOT''' ready to have the mop. This worries me to where I am having a trust issue now.
'''Oppose''' per Giggy. It doesn't bother me at all that you use "peacock terms" when you write (which seems kind of irrelevant anyway) but the copy-vio did it for me. Either you don't know policy (which is bad for admins) or you're an idiot (which is bad for admins).--
'''per most of above''' For the future, would like to see candidate rewrite the existing articles to remove the promotional tone and/or create/expand other articles that are neutral in tone, well sourced, and substantive. Preferably, candidate should write in areas without a personal connection and out of  his  comfort zone. (Switch from neutral on reflection)
'''Oppose''': Both in Ryan's editing style and in the copyvio, I read a lack of the judgement and experience necessary for the admin role. Over half of Ryan's total edits occurred in May 2008. With learning on Ryan's part and evidence of consistent, and balanced, contributions, he might re-apply in, say, six months.
'''Oppose'''- Changed from support above per recent diffs. Editing skills are sorely lacking, copyvio is troublesome. Per giggy.
No. Lack of maturity, COI, and especially his response to Dorftrottel in this very RfA.
'''Oppose''' per COI issues, copyvio issues and per the diff above from [[User:Nousernamesleft|Nousernamesleft]], which clearly shows maturity issues.
''Oppose'''. You're a good user from what I've seen, but Giggy's diff and other comments really make me want to not give you the tools.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but the problems with your friend's page, especially the fact that you didn't see them, shows a blind spot that makes it impossible for me to support you at this time.  Start becoming more [[Mindfulness|mindful]] of your contributions, and that blind spot will fade.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Sorry, due to the information that was recently brought to light (i.e., COI and copyvio), changing to oppose.
'''Oppose''' - lots of worrying evidence brought up in recent times. Not good in terms of policy knowledge. Please don't become too dependant on ''Huggle'', in terms of RfA, it can be a killer. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - your response to Everyme was appalling, and not something I would like to see in an administrator. That response and the concerns brought up by Nancy, Giggy, Nousernamesleft, Naerii and others tell me that you are not ready for the tools. --
'''Oppose''' per Giggy. Copyvio issue is a great concern to me. -
'''Oppose''' per most of above. D= <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
'''Oppose''' for a few reasons. The first and most pressing is the copyvio mentioned by giggy. That's enough already. Then I saw the way he handled the Everyme thing &mdash; the irony of accusing somebody of being a "dick" for incivility seems lost on him. A minor thing that wouldn't be a dealbreaker is the issue of a conflict of interest. Finally, I get, from reading his comments, that he doesn't really understand policy. I am certain that he knows policy like the back of his hand, but that's exactly his problem &mdash; I get the impression that he would mindlessly enforce rote-learned rules and regulations without any concrete understanding of why they're enforced, or when they need to be enforced and when they need to be ignored. For instance, giving somebody a "warning" because they "violated [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]" shows a knowledge of policy, but leaving a personal note saying that he seems to be creating more heat than light shows an understanding of policy. A good administrator should be able to change people's behaviour without referencing policy or placing blocks, and I am certain that this prospective administrator does not understand this. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' per '''[[User:Werdna|Werdna]]'''. Although I can't listen to you, I really don't like the tone in answers to #4 and #5.
'''Oppose'''. I am concerned by the non-neutral edits. [However admin coaching should be encouraged.]
'''Oppose'''. Per Giggy --<span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''': You don't seem to be putting in effort to answer questions, and are only providing minimal answers with the scent of defensiveness.  Seevral times, you've chosen only to answer part of the question, instead of fully answering. You need to demonstrate skills appropriate to [[WP:ANI]] before I'd trust you with such a responsibility. --
'''Neutral''' I'll have no problem supporting you when George The Dragon's concern is straightened out, but until then, I will have to remain neutral. From what it appears, you do indeed have a conflict of interest with the subject of the aformentioned article. --
'''Neutral''' - switched from support since the COI stuff came to light; that page about your friend is overly promotional and I don't think it sets much of an example to anyone. Rewrite it and/or just get away from that topic altogether, and I'd happily support in future as otherwise you seem good. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Neutral''' Good work at AIV and unlikely to deliberately abuse the mop, which is why I will not oppose, but I am more concerned that - after a failed RfA which concentrated on low edit count - that half of the non-deleted contribs are for the month preceding this candidature. I see no breadth of experience in dealing with the aspects of admin work that isn't vandal related.
I'm really sorry, but some of the issues raised above, especially the copyvio issue, worry me greatly. Admins need to know policy, and the above issues make me question how much you know them. Please read up on policy, and follow it, and if you submit another request I will happily support. --
'''Strong Support''' Yes, I get the first support! Anyways, I have always found RyRy to be a very friendly and helpful editor. He has great knowledge of policy and Wiki-Markup. When I first met him, I though he already was an admin! Since then he has learned from his mistakes and gotten even better. He has excellent [[WP:DYK]] work, very good article work and designed or redesigned multiple user pages. I have great respect for him and have no doubt he will be a great administrator.--
'''Strong Support''' - I know he'll make a great admin and would never abuse the tools. Obviously, support. &nbsp; '''
Problems previously? Sure. Reformed? Absolutely. I can’t believe how much RyRy has come on over the past few months, I really can’t. I thought he might be on his way out, yet he’s turned it around completely. He’s got the experience to make an amazing admin here, and he truly cares about the right things here. Good luck. '''
Those who know me know that I don't often comment on RfAs anymore.  In this case, I am honored to encourage my friends and colleagues to look past Ryan's early indiscretions and consider allowing him access to the administrator tools.   Ryan has my confidence and '''support'''.  When first I met RyRy, it was in answer to a complaint left on my talk page by another user that I respect greatly.  There's no question that RyRy's start was... shaky... but Ryan has my full and complete confidence now.  That's not to say that he'll never make a mistake - we all do - but experience has proven that Ryan works hard to overcome those mistakes and to make them right.  He has demonstrated an amazing willingness to listen to feedback - both positive and negative - and to learn from it.  Further, he has demonstrated a willingness to humble himself and admit his own errors.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' no problems here. - '''
'''Support'''. Not sure I've seen any Wikipedian mature and grow as RyRy has.
'''Support''' - You meet my criteria, a lovely person. Not sure if you have any GA's but your 16 DYK's make up for that. —
Everything, I stress, ''everything'', Philippe says is true for me as well, right up to "Those who know me know that I don't often comment on RfAs anymore."
'''Strong Support''' I have had the pleasure to learn from RyRy, and all I can say is he will make a fine admin.--
'''Super Strong Support''' Ryan has been one of the nicest and most thoughtful users I have ever met. You clearly show a dedication to the DYK field, with 16 of them and an ever persistant will to make sure that all the articles are acceptable for the main page. Furthermore, you have shown an amazing increase in maturity since I first met you (when I guess I was also sorta immature.) Your CSD taggings are, of course, top notch. With the extra tabs, you would only increase you productivity as an edity, not decrease it. I've been waiting for this moment for a long long time. Kudos for being an honor to work with. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
Hello, I am having a dinner party tomorrow night and I wanted to buy some Soylent Green for the appetizers, and...oh, wrong queue.  '''Support'''
'''Support''' &ndash; For two reasons: 1) RyRy has definitely improved and shows exemplary judgement from my interactions with him; 2) I just decided I ''also'' need some Soylent Green, so I thought I'd come to this store, but then I realized I really wanted some trout.  Some dude decided to make a joke, so I made [[Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout|good use]] of it.  Eh, #1 is really the only one that matters. —
'''Strong Support''' I've known RyRy for most of my time on Wikipedia and my interactions with him have always been positive. I think he'll be a great admin. Good luck man.
'''Oppose'''. I've thought a fair while about this one, as I've periodically intersected with RyRy since his early days, and I generally respect the noms' judgement. This RFA probably will pass, but I can't support it. As Balloonman says, RyRy had a wretched start on Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RyRy/Barnstars&oldid=230079011 this] IMO embodied everything that was worst about the "Barnstar Cabal"); also as Balloonman says, RyRy has turned around and has recently been a productive editor.<br>''But'' (you knew there was a "but" coming) while I think he's definitely improved immeasurably as an editor, I don't think his qualities translate very well into what I expect in an admin. One of his own userboxes sums up my main problem: "This user has made over 17,000 contributions to Wikipedia, over 5000 of which were to articles". I assume most of those reading this (and any closing crat) already known my "everything else only exists to support the mainspace" position; one of the instant warning flags to me is any editor for whom user talk contribs > mainspace contribs. I can overlook this (and have) in users where there are substantial mainspace contributions to back them up – however, I can't really see any here. As [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/George_The_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=230982684 RyRy said in an RFA a couple of weeks ago], "I would like to see at least 3000-4000 quality edits"; while I think that's a very high threshold (as I've discussed with him previously), it's not one he meets himself.<br>Ironically, the second half of Balloonman's nomination statement pretty much sums up what, to me, the problem will be here; while I have no significant doubt about RyRy's technical ability or good faith, I think he has far too strong an interest in Wikipedia procedures and policies, and in the letter of the law over common sense. We have far too many admins who see the medium as the message and throw themselves into technical arguments about the exact interpretation of policy, and I honestly believe that if given the buttons at this point RyRy will become another.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Things like [[User talk:RyRy5/Archive 11#Climate of North America]] and [[User talk:RyRy5/Archive 11#Final warning about copyright violations]], plus the several removals of rollback are still too fresh to me.  I still also believe that RyRy holds things like rollback, DYKs, and adminship as [[WP:TROPHY|trophies]].  While I can appreciate the growth he's gone through, I still have a really bad taste based on these things that happen just a few months ago.  I know myself and others were really close to blocking RyRy on several occasions, so it'll take awhile before I can support him.
'''Oppose''', also a great deal of thought because I've seen this coming. First I want to say that he has come a long way -- especially with DYKs, but I still have concerns. Three main reasons for oppose: 1) ties in with the trophy Metros mentions -- over and over RyRy has said he wasn't going to do this for a good amount of time but now because people have asked he's "given in." This speaks to his maturity and ability to know when the time is right. It raises concerns that someone blocked may ask repeatedly and he'll agree to unblock before it's time as well. It also ties into the need for "acceptance" and repeated requests until the person gives in. Being an admin requires a great deal of initiative to take the right action without asking everyone for OK before doing it. Need for validation so frequently is not a sign of someone ready to handle admin duties. The second reason is sadly beyond Ryan's control. During the recent months when he's worked to improve his Wiki skills, and I agree these have improved, he worked with Steve Crossin. Given recent issues, I find the need to question the guidance Steve provided. I think that in his quest to learn more about Wikipedia (a good thing), he may have unwittingly learnt some bad habits. While this is not a huge reason to oppose, it raises a red flag for me right now. That said, I know he has worked with Useight and Baloonman and I believe they have helped him to learn good habits. 3) While Ryan understands that he can't create copyvios and while there are things he did that resulted in the loss of rollback, I'm not sure he understands why they're wrong. I think he's learnt not to do that exact thing again, but I don't think he gets the bigger picture of why not to do something. I suggest more "study" and a decent amont of time between RFAs if this doesn't pass. I thik Ryan will be ready at some point, I don't think now is the time. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Oppose''', on the concerns raised by Iridescent and Travellingcari; also, this candidate has been editing for about six months, and has 138 edits to the article he has most contributed to ([[Baseball uniform]]) compared to 112 edits to his own barnstar page.  Considering involvement with Awards-center related activities, this editor hasn't yet shown the time, maturity or content building on Wiki that satisfies my basic threshhold for demonstrating that we know the editor well enough to establish ''trust''.  I'm always concerned when someone has taken an admin-coached trajectory, and I'm not convinced yet that enough time has elapsed to absolve concerns about the admin-coached, Award-center based "rocky start".  With more content building experience, I would be more likely to support in the future, as this editor seems to be on the right path towards improving relative to these issues.
I'm pretty familiar with RyRy.  It's true he's improved drastically- a few months back, his edits were harmful about as often as they were constructive.  I assume this is no longer the case, but he has a long way to go.  What made me notice him a few months ago is the same thing I see now- an editor getting involved in various areas, without really displaying any ''understanding'' of what he's getting into.  I hope he keeps learning about the project, but giving him access to the block button?  No way- he's probably many years away from being ready for that.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, RyRy, from what I have seen you are a civil and dedicated editor. As well, you have demonstrated a sincere committment to learning from your mistakes and improving yourself -- and I commend this. However, the copyright and plagiarism concerns raised above by Metros are too serious and too recent for me. I harbour no prejudice against supporting you in the future, and I hope that you continue your positive trajectory. Kindly,
'''Oppose''' per Metros - plagiarism is one of the top things we as an encyclopedia need to guard against. --
'''Oppose''' - (ec x 3) I'm sorry, but I just can't support. The concerns raised in the oppose section are just to much to ignore. While you have improved greatly since you've gotten here, you still need more time. The copyvios brought up by Metros were too recent, in addition to rollback removal. Travellingcari also makes a good point about how he can give in after repeated asking. Being an admin requires you to hold fast to some decisions. I'm a little nervous not as much to someone who would go crazy with the block button, but the unblock button. I hate to oppose someone who is so dedicated to the project, who has lots of potential, but the concerns are just too much to support. I'd just prefer more time here.
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent and SandyGeorgia. This editor definitely needs some more experience-while 17,000 edits is quite a lot, much of it seems to be made in vain (an unprecedented 112 edits to his barnstar subpage). Moreover, a mere six months doesn't seem like enough time to provide a user with sufficient experience to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' I really don't feel comfortable supporting here. I find myself actually mostly echoing Friday; yes, he's come far since his less-than-stellar beginning, but improvement from the bottom of the barrel doesn't mean he's ready to be an admin yet. The incidents posted by Metros aren't from all that long ago, and really make me doubt this candidate. I'm still also getting a really Myspace-y vibe from this editor, due in part (yes, this will probably get me in trouble) to his age, and the fact that he spends a lot of time designing peoples' userpages. Overall, Sandy puts it fairly well; we just don't know this editor well enough to establish trust in him.
While he has indeed improved greatly, I don't believe he has the maturity and judgment necessary to be a good administrator. '''
Oppose per Metros and Iridescent.  They have expressed my concerns with the same links I know about.  RyRy has gotten better as an editor, but the concerns expressed are too recent.  RyRy could make an admin one day, but there is still a lot of learning to do.
'''Oppose''' immature, trophy hunting, overly coached. --
'''Neutral''': I originally voted strong support, but after seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RyRy5/Archive_11#Climate_of_North_America this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RyRy5/Archive_11#Final_warning_about_copyright_violations this], I've changed my vote. I can't quite muster an oppose, so I retain my '''Neutral'''.
'''Abstain''' - I would have liked to support, but I believe I would have a [[WP:COI]] in voting for this user. Best of luck to you though RyRy --<span class="plainlinks">
Clearly well versed in all aspects of policy. <small>'''
'''Oppose''' regretfully per [[User_talk:Iwilleditu#WP:COUNCIL.2FP|this]] and lack of experience in admin-related areas, IMHO. Sorry again and good luck in the future. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' - Editcounts are A Bad Thing etc etc but you have less than 50 mainspace edits - we've nothing to judge you on.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''', with strongest possible moral support.  Good attitude, but not much experience, and you're canvassing through your signature.  Sorry, '''
Please come back in say 6 months time showing experience in admin areas and ill take another look. Id withdraw this because i know many will agree with me. Might make things easier for ya :).
'''Oppose''', the answer to Q1 provides no indication as to how this user would use the admin tools in the areas identified.
'''Oppose but with moral support''' due to lack of experience but with absolutely no prejudice against supporting in a few months when you have a wider experience of admin-related areas. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;">
''
'''Support''' - per my nom. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' Your answer to the IAR question swayed me - we need more experienced editors with that sort of attitude to be honest. Adding later - agree with Cometstyles's comments below. Also he is pretty young and people do mature fast at that age.
'''Support''' - yes. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <s>sorry I haven't written the nom yet…it was almost done when I accidentally turned my computer off without saving it. :(</s> I wrote one from the hip just now. :) &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' - Sceptre is very 'controversial' and many will oppose him due to his previous abuse of sysops, but that was in wiki term, ages ago, and since then, I haven't seen anything that will make me think twice about opposing him because he has very much improved since then and as far as I'm concerned, he will make an excellent admin yet again and if people don't make mistakes,they will never learn anything, and Will has learnt his lesson, after all, he is only human..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong Support''' Cometstyles says it all. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Net positive'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Eighteen months is an awfully long time here to hold something against anyone; we don't do that except for the most recalcitrant vandals! I've studied Will's contributions, and they are enviable, he knows policy, and I feel justified in supporting a second chance here. --'''
Clusterfuck support.
'''No'''. That behaviour was more than unacceptable, no matter how long ago it was. Wikifun is one thing, but when it boils over into physical intimidation that's quite another thing and can never be excused. --
'''Strong oppose''' Within the past few weeks, I have seen Sceptre tell editors to "shut the fuck up" at [[WP:AN/I]] and accuse them of having a "hard on" for other editors. This egregious incivility is absolutely unacceptable for an admin. In addition, Sceptre has abused the rollback function on numerous occasions, even after warnings. If Sceptre cannot be trusted to use one admin tool correctly, I certainly cannot trust him to use the other two. -
'''Oppose''' I do not think an admin should have "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies" on their user page for any reason. Plus his answer to #9 is just wrong and when it comes to blocking you can not be wrong. <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but your answer to Q9 concerns me.  Also, "doing what's best for WP", to me, means being civil, and your statement regarding that is another concern that I don't believe you can overcome.
'''Oppose''' as Gtstricky states on user page states that not a fan of AGF or Civility.  A non starter for me.--
'''Firm oppose''' My concerns about the candidate's temperament and judgment are broad and significant, and I do not imagine that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being (re)sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''' Per above. '''''[[User:NimiTize|<font color="red">N</font><font color="blue">i</font>]][[User talk:NimiTize|<font color="blue">m</font><font color="red">i</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. This user has made many contributions to the encyclopedia, but to be perfectly honest I don't have a great deal of confidence in his judgment and thus certainly cannot support him for adminship. Unlike Sceptre, I happen to think civility is extremely important and thus am quite disturbed by the comments referenced by AuburnPilot. Sceptre's user page comment "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies when they hinder actual work" is also a bit of a deal breaker for me. Even if the emphasis is on "when they hinder actual work" I find that formulation unacceptable because whether or not being civil or assuming good faith is "hindering work" will always be a judgment call. We don't have [[WP:CIVIL]] because we want "civility for civility's sake" as Sceptre suggests above. We have it because it helps us write a better encyclopedia. The nonchalant attitude toward civility combined with Sceptre's (refreshingly honest) admission that "you'll probably see me issue a large number of blocks" gives me the image of a would-be Wiki-cop blocking folks left and right and dropping uncivil comments along the way. That is something I cannot abide. There is obviously a policing aspect to being an administrator (the "janitor" euphemism is inadequate in that regard), but I am quite suspicious of users who seem particularly anxious to have access to the block button. Such suspicion is only compounded by a stated antipathy for our core civility policy. I'm sure Sceptre could clear a lot of backlogs as an admin, but I'm too worried about the damage he might do.--
'''Oppose''' - Massive civility issues here - which is a big red flag for me. [[WP:IAR]] is beneficial for enforcing the spirit of the wiki, but '''not''' at the expense of civility and good faith. Not at all.
'''Oppose'''. Per this quote from candidates page: "I am not a big fan of the civility and AGF policies when they hinder actual work". Sorry, whatever WP's problems may be, an ''excess'' of civility and AGF is most decidedly not among them.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry Sceppy, even as a fellow [[WP:BRC|cabal member]] I cannot support your RfA. A few things about it have made me unhappy, not least of which is Chet's constant harrassment of people in IRC.
'''Strong Oppose''' Too immature to properly represent WikiPedia in a professional manner, as evidenced by a few recent ANI postings referenced above. Lack of patience could potentially lead to hasty blocks or intimidation of novice users. Seems to be self-serving, doing things the way he wants to until capitulating will benefit him in some manner, such as correcting his signature all of a sudden. We can do without inevitable drama that would follow if this were to succeed. --'''
'''Oppose''' - Civilty issues is a huge no for me. I recommend withdrawing at this time.
'''Oppose''' there is ignoring rules on a case by case basis, which IMHO should be rare. Then there is the blatant disregard for the rules or basic etiquette.  I cannot in good conscious support a candidate who is obtuse to this distinction.  If we approve a candidate who openly decries these two core principles, then we are undermining them entirely and setting the stage for all to break them in the future.  Sorry, can't do it.
'''Oppose''' per the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Admins should solve problems, not cause them.
'''Strong oppose.''' Has absolutely nowhere near the temperament to be a proper admin.
'''Oppose'''. Honestly Sceptre seems like a good guy from my experience with him and I was about to support. However, looking at the debate during his prior RfA, I'm personally very troubled by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User:Benon/sceptre&timestamp=20060919043744 this incident (admins only)], where it seems he threatened to "blackmail" - his words - a female administrator, to the point that Jimbo was a hair away from banning him personally. I have grave concerns about giving admin tools to people with a history of behavior like this. :( '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Regretful Oppose''' It is with great sadness that I write this. I've known Sceptre for quite a while; since 2006, I think. He's a very mature person for his age, with great powers of judgment, quite a good taste in music (anyone who listens to '''[[The Wall]]''' is good in my books), and is overall a tremendous user. However, even though he's regularly virtuous, I've seen more than one instance where he's done very questionable things. Now, while I acknowledge that having an ED page and losing a lot of your privacy is quite devastating, it seems that Will has reacted to this in a very irrational manner. Just two months ago, he made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=181758712&oldid=181758570 this] edit, which I found quite rash; however, he proceeded to go to the user's talk page and redirect it to [[Virgin]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:Blue0ctane admins-only link]), then when the user reverted this, he reverted back. That incident stuck with me, as I don't think an admin should ever, ever act that way. It's inexcusable. Aside from that, he's a great editor, but civility and good communication skills are the most important things to have. Sorry, dude.
'''Oppose''' Insufficiently collegiate and takes on too many unwinnable battles. I'm struggling for diffs here because I just remember a couple of incidents where we rubbed shoulders but I wasn't very imnpressed with his attempt to get RFC/U shut down. It may have issues but a better way for handling this would have been to have a discussion before marking historical. To my mind this was just stirring up drama for the sake of it. No thanks.
'''Oppose''' Tends to have issues with just rollback alone and almost got it removed.  Needs to correct these issues first before moving forward.
'''Oppose''' Concerned by attitude to civility.
'''Oppose''' -- sorry but reading the opposes has left me deeply concerned also some of the answers are rather doubtful in my mind... --
'''Oppose''' I do not think that he shows sufficient maturity yet. On the plus side he has made many many reverts of vandalism. On the minus side, many of those reversions were in hindsight wrong. I have seen him to be quick to agree to his mistakes (a big plus) but there are just too many in recent times. My advice (for what it is worth); go for quality rather than quantity. An admin role needs a more boring person. --
'''Neutral''' I'm not one for process either, but Sceptre going out of his way to tell people to go away, and impolitely to boot, is wrong. He violates core policies and guidelines (I'll add WP:NPA) for (what I can see) little to no reason. However, he obviously knows what he's doing, which is the only reason I stayed my hand from an oppose. RFA is as much about ability of the user in question as it is about trust in the user, tbh. --
'''Neutral''' Having looked through the discussion and the evidence provided, I am staying neutral. Sceptre clearly knows what (s)he is doing in regards to policy, and makes excellent contributions, but to be honest, I am concerned about the civility issue here. Leaving the message "just fuck off" on a talk page, even if there is a evident frustration behind it, is, in my opinion, quite frankly, unacceptable. If Sceptre was that frustrated, he should have a taken a time-out, spent a few hours doing something else, and come back with a cooler head. For me, I am left with neutral after reviewing this. Sceptre, good luck to you, but please try to rationalise before leaving such abusive comments in the future. ♥
'''Neutral''' I am very happy with the FA contributions and would like to support based on that, but the civility remarks noted above worry me. Sorry. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' He made an egregious mistake quite a long time ago; I'm all for second chances, and would have no problem giving one here (especially as he could have simply requested his tools back, but chose a reconfirmation RfA instead). However, as was pointed out above, his answer to Q9 is just flat-out wrong. I appreciate Sceptre's refreshing honesty in most matters, but this is either a blatant disregard or a complete ignorance of an extremely pertinent policy. If Sceptre revisits the question and addresses this concern, or can satisfactorily defend his answer, I am very willing to switch to support.
Extremely competent, coherent understanding of policy, acquainted with what the project is and my interactions have always been postive and the time since the last RFA is lengthy so I should really be supporting, however civility issues, in particular the one MoP provided is concerning and the other civility issues are worrying, so based on that, I'll go netural.
'''Support'''. As the nominator. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' has definitely improved, and has proven that he now meets the before given criteria in the previous RfA.
'''Conditional support''' upon good answers to optional questions. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''', mostly appropriate taggings for deletion and AIV reports. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Gedda&oldid=212917810 Tagged as an attack page a stub about a fictional character.] [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22For+Gedda%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS240US240 Google search for "For Gedda"] would have prevented that, so I would suggest checking more carefully before deleting. Perhaps a bit too hasty in taking offense, per Malleus below. I would definitely like you to work on stress management strategies. The likelihood of having to remain calm in the face of incility or heated discussion definitely goes up when you have the mop. Cheers, and happy editing.
'''Already-thought-you-were-an-admin-support''' -- This user has done many great things for the project and wield the mop efficiently and without malice. --
'''Support''' per my question.
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - Should have been an admin a while ago. <span style="font-size:7pt;font-variant:small-caps;color: #fff;background:goldenrod;letter-spacing: 2px;border:2px solid green">Soxred93 (
'''Oppose''' -  I’m sorry to be the first one to oppose, but let’s look at some of the facts. First, let me get on my soapbox.  I currently believe there is a rush to nominate candidates to administrative positions that does not take into account the candidates disposition to the process.  In fact this [[WP:Rfa|rfa]] is a prime example.  Here we have an individual who is doing great work.  However, when you look at the contributions over half their edit contributions have been in the last 20 days!  In addition, you have a person that has, realistically, only been involved in the project for 3-1/2 months.  Is that time enough to have the extra buttons?  Again, sorry to say in my opinion no!  To the candidate, give it an other 3-6 months, with the same record of accomplishment, and I will nominate you myself.  To the nominators, you are playing with people’s emotions, shame on you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''No way'''. Far too inexperienced, has seriously edited no more than one article, which is now an FAC running concurrently with this RfA.  He had launched an RfC in his first serious month, only btw two months ago. Suffice it to say I can't give my support here. Perhaps in another 6 months when the account has proven its goodwill, its experience and also its commitment to wikipedia and its encyclopedic content I will heartedly give my support.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I know the how the whole "offering up one's apology thing at RfA" is starting to become frowned upon, but, I do oppose here with some regret, and I really didn't think I would be when I opened up this page. Unfortunately, Balloonman's comments nagged at my cerebral cortex for a while, so of course, I did my own special contribution investigation. I can't help but feel like there is glaring experience problems here. The user upped the mouse button activity only like 2 and half months ago. I usually don't go with active tenure, but, again it's something that is a real concern.
'''Oppose''' Given that the bulk of your edits are very recent, then for me, you have too short a track record to tell if you can really be trusted with the buttons. You really should have held off running for at least a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; RFA-politician coachee.

I am the user that Scetoaux raised the RfC against. I believe that he acted hastily, that he was wrong, and that the deletion of the RfC proves that. I do believe that Scetoaux has learned from that experience, but it happened too recently for me to be able to support this RfA. --
'''Neutral''', because I'm not really sure I'd trust his judgement in any difficult or contentious issue, but can't really oppose because being an admin isn't usually rocket science. He'd probably do a good job pushing buttons in the obvious cases as would most everyone else, but I don't know him well enough, so I won't know if he'd be satisfied with that. He doesn't seem to do much on his own initiative, and I couldn't find many examples of his contributions being crucial to any discussions. The answer to q7 shows the same, since he seemingly didn't even think to look at what else [[User:Jirgrfdsfg9764]]<nowiki>'</nowiki>'s been up to. He'd probably benefit from less admin coaching and more of finding things out by himself. -
'''Neutral''' per Malleus.  I realize that you (and I) and he had our differences at RfC (and on his talkpage).  I also said I would support your RfA after conversations with you where we were able to reconcile our difference of opinion(s).  I was impressed with your willingness to move past a dispute, and still am.  For that reason, I won't oppose this, but it is not only too soon since the RfC that you initiated prematurely (showing judgment issues), but it is all around siimply too soon since you've begun editing. I'll be happy to support at a later date.  I firmly believe you have the right ideas in mind for Wikipedia and I also believe you wouldn't abuse the tools.  Just need more time under your belt.  Cheers, [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''
'''Support''' - Looking through your contributions, you seem to have a good grasp on policy and a fairly good level of involvement across the various areas of Wikipedia.  Your speedy nominations are good, and I didn't see any red flags. --
He's a member of the [[Civil Air Patrol]]. OK, considering that and other work, he will make a fine admin. '''«'''
'''Support''' This issue addressed on this nom's [[Wikipedia_Talk:Requests for adminship/Scetoaux 3#My support !vote|talk page]]. --
'''Support''' - I don't see anything that would make me oppose.
'''Support''' - I opposed last time due to experience concerns, but I feel that sufficient time has passed with a reasonable increase in thoughtful comments at RFA and AFD. Speedy deletion work looks pretty good too. Wants to work at AIV and RFPP - Sure thing. Good luck.
'''Support''' Even if a bit low on edit count this month, from what I saw this user is civil and makes good contributions. If you let me comment on one thing though: On replying to a user complaining to be reverted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scetoaux&diff=prev&oldid=220296227], you should have taken more time to explain to the user what vandalism is and provided a link to [[WP:VAN]] maybe. Just to keep in mind. But other than that, nothing struck me particularly oppose-worthy. I have confidence that this user will grow when granted the tools. It's [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] anyway ;-) '''
'''Support''' but only because of the whole 'net positive' theory. —
'''Support''' Understands and applies relevant policy in vandal fighting, and in XfD's.
'''Weak Support'''. Sometimes you seem a bit too hurried in your communication with others, most of your mainspace work was via Huggle, and you only have ~40 edits this month. However, this is a volunteer project so I can understand taking some time off. The reason I can give you my weak support is because you appear to know what you're doing in a vast majority of cases; you have sufficient experience with AIV, UAA, and RFPP; and your speedy deletion log looks good. I would advise you, though, to take it slowly when/if granted the sysop tools.
Meh. Why not. —'''
'''Support'''. Scetoaux has enough experience and knows enough about policy to be trustworthy. However this comment worries me: "''I've since learned that drama is to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary to escalate matters.''" Look at [[WP:DRAMA]].
'''Support''' A good editor.--
'''Support''' due to no memorable negative interactions.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Strong support''' - Best, --'''
'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support''' per answers to
Baseless opposes = support from me '''
'''Support''', no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools, and is committed to existing civility policy.
'''Support''' I am switching from Neutral based on this comment from the candidate: "Perhaps I have just demonstrated a tendency for me to speak my mind at consequence to myself." Although the candidate struck out the message out of politeness, these words resonate with me.  A true leader is someone who is not afraid to speak his or her mind, even if it is not an expedient thing to do. That's leadership in my book and we could use more leaders like Scetouax. With this candidate, I'm on the right queue! :)
'''Support''' Has waited enough time since his last RfA, clearly has the project's best interests in mind. Not swayed by the Juliancolton diff, everyone's got bad days. Also extremely unimpressed with Balloonman's shenanigans in the Neutral/Oppose section; Scetoaux was not only within his bounds pointing out the hypocrisy, but completely correct.
'''Weak Support''' - power hunger worries aside, I feel that Scetoaux would not go mad with the power that he would receive.  Also, is very civil and hardworking.
'''Support''', at least in part to counter the weak opposes. I don't have a problem with your 'inactivity' (clearly just a summer wikibreak), or your repeated RFAs; and I see nothing wrong with your now-struck comment to Balloonman. I do see the cause for concern with your answer to #3, but think it was just badly worded - I agree with your underlying point there, if it was that sometimes creating 'drama' is a sad-but-necessary by-product of doing the right thing. Apart from that, I see a user with sufficient experience, the ability to work with others, and good judgement. In particular, I like the ability to moderate yourself you showed here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrislk02&diff=prev&oldid=226332853]. If you can keep up that attitude as an admin, you'd make a good one.
'''Support''' per [[User:Scetoaux#Adminship|user's own reasoning]]. Or, in my own words, I see supporting RfAs as (largely) an extension of [[WP:AGF]], and (generally) will not oppose unless I see evidence that [[WP:AGF]] is moot in a given user's case.
'''Support.'''  This nominee is able to think clearly under pressure and will address admin issues effectively (ref. [[User:Scetoaux#My username]] "SCE to aux").  —
ALL CAPS SCREAMING '''Support.''' He has my support. --<strong>
'''Support'''.  I think Scetoaux is ready for adminship, though I question his running now rather than later. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''<s>Weak</s>Moral support''' - I would have prefered you to have waited a little longer since your last one, but to be honest adminship shouldn't be so hard on good editors. ''When'' you get the tools, make sure you think before you act and you'll be fine. --'''''
'''Support'''- meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], and appears to have learned lessons from past mistakes at WP.
'''Support''' - Scetoaux and I once crossed paths over an article being edited by its subject which led to his giving a BLP warning to the subject. When questioned about it, Scetoaux was very civil and thorough in explaining his actions, and I was impressed with his rationale even though I thought the warning was a little hasty at the time. I believe he would make a good admin because he responds to criticism/conflict in a constructive manner.
'''Oppose''' for now. You've been effectively active for only 6 months, and during that time your level of activity has been all over the place; with only 40-odd edits this month I don't have anything recent to really judge you by. A quick note, by the way; your last RfA was only 3 months ago, and it's recommended to wait far longer than that between each one.
Indicated interest in involvement with [[WP:CSD|speedy deletions]], but has little participation in the [[WP:AFD|deletion process]]. Contributions since RfA are mostly Huggle reverts, preferable to see candidate expand on scope on Wikipedia he is working on, as we need more well-rounded admins. Content writing is somewhat substantial, but would like to see more; Hopefully in future would see more DYKs/GAs/FAs in future, I believe that content writing helps improve one's judgment on content-related issues (such as disputes and deletions), having one's own experience with content first hand. -
'''Oppose''' per not being a decent encyclopedia builder. What, btw, does ''I've since learned that drama is to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary to escalate matters'' mean? ;)
'''Oppose'''. I am not happy with the block button in the hands of someone so keen to rush off to RfC over trivia. --
'''Oppose''' Not much activity, and seems a bit power hungry.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Deacon, I just can't support due to Q3 and the editor's answer.
'''Oppose''' - Easy decision, too soon since your last attempt for me. —
'''Weak oppose''' Some good things, some bad things. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=220293175 This] certainly made my decision a tad easier. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' not enough experience, come back in 4-6 mos with more seasoning.
'''Oppose''' This is difficult, as I would normally go neutral in an instance like this, but my major concern is that there appears to be a ''lack of application'' from this candidate; this is best indicated by the decision to go for RfA following a lean spell of editing - it just appears that this was a date on the calender since the last RfA and the candidate is again throwing their hat in (I know this sounds personal, but it is simply how I am reacting to the information provided). I don't think this person regards adminship as a means to contributing to the encyclopedia but a progression in "status" (again, I apologise for the possible appearance of a personal attack).
'''Oppose''' due to the fact that you have nommed yourself for adminship 3 times in six months. Also per answer to Q3: it is never necessary to "escalate matters". Also per perceived lack of understanding of [[WP:TROPHY]]. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' per Malleus Fatuorum. --
'''Weak oppose'''. I've seen Scetoaux doing good work in the past, however, I'm concerned that this user doesn't have the experience necessary to take the job as an admin. The edit count is a bit low for my tastes, I admit. 61 edits this month? Meh. The answer to no.1 puts me off a bit: Once you've 'got more experience' in AfD? If you're applying, then you should already have all the experience you need to get right to work. My main concern here is lack of experience as opposed to bad intentions. I'm leaning towards neutral, but I'm going under oppose. <font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:IceUnshattered|I]][[Special:Contributions/IceUnshattered|<font color="#9CBCC9">''c''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - per Ironholds and IceUnshattered. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Oppose''': Three adminship requests in a very short period of time. I'm not seeing a whole need for the mop, and the rationale is not very strong. <small>
Rather not. Per others and per remaining unimpressed in an exchange with the candidate a while back (working on the diffs; it wasn't anything spectacular either, just left me thinking that Scetoaux wasn't really "getting" that problem IIRC). <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''[[user]]:
'''Oppose''': For the reasons Tan and Balloonman man base their neurtral comments on. I don't see this as a question of never supporting you, but when to support you. If anything, it really looks like you want the mop a little too much at the moment, and that makes me nervous given what does not appear to be a strong embrace of neutralizing drama. Take some time away from running for the mop, and you'll have my support.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Self-nom, 3rd RFA in 6 months.
'''Oppose''' As per Kurt Weber.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' because, for maybe the second time ever, I agree with Kurt. Not on the self-nom bit, but I think that it was probably not the best decision to submit another RfA so soon after the previous one (or two). The candidate has many fine qualities but is not, in my opinion, ready for the mop. —
'''Weak oppose''' - There is something wrong with someone saying "fixing spelling and grammer". It suggests being unfit for purpose to me, but I don't know. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
''' Weak Oppose''': OMG Finally I have to agree with Kurt :)! 3rd RFA in 6 months ! I am sorry .. Please get more experience and come back after 6 months... Just my 2 cents! --
I must say, I never thought the day would come when I would agree with reasoning given by Kurt in an RfA, but - unfortunately - this is that day.  To me, three RfA runs in six months makes me believe that the candidate views adminship as something other than what Jimbo has stated ("...not a big deal...").  Sorry, I must '''oppose''' this candidate at this time. --
'''Oppose''' - Too many RfA's and not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' - How many RfA's is it now? <font color="green">
'''Oppose'''  I don't think multiple RfA's are evidence for not supporting, but so close together and not appearing to take to heart the reasons for failed RfA's in the past is reason enough to oppose.  Get mentored by a respected admin or editor, take some time to show us, then come back.  NO guarantees however.
'''Neutral'''. Essentially a good editor and definitely has the project's best interests in mind, but I don't get a good feeling of "adminly behavior" - or even potential adminly behavior - from the contribs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=220293175 Things like this] pop up here and there. I dunno, Balloonman summed it up. I just don't know. Maybe I'm being hypocritical. Someone push me into the support camp, please.
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' - This user has only been active for six months and is already on RfA number three. While better positioned then in the first to RfAs I still feel that this is "prima facie evidence of power hunger" --
'''Neutral'''. I'm very uncertain about this one as there are just reasons to oppose and support, but I'll abstain on this one. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - Don't know if to support or oppose. Some are good answers, some not. <small>
'''Neutral''' - can't get off the fence - Tan39 summed it up well. Cheers,
'''Neutral'''. I was neutral last time, but "last time" wasn't long enough ago, making this feel very much like you are seeing "adminship" as some sort of end-all success point.  It isn't. Trust me.  I won't oppose, you are a fine editor, perhaps a bit too quick to cast a judgement, here and there, but overall, very good.  Keep editing, come back in 6 months to a year.
'''Neutral''' per T-Rex.
'''Neutral''' - I see enthusiasm, but I can't bring myself to support this candidate just yet. I'd like to see this user on Wikipedia for another few months before he is run for adminship again. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - I have talked to this user on IRC to clarify some of my questions, but I'm not yet convinced this is the right time to self-nom in six months.  I don't think he's power-hungry, just very enthusiastic with a sense of initiative.  I remember him saying that he doesn't want it for the glory, just so that he could revert vandalism and block when necessary on the fly without waiting 20 minutes for an admin or something like that.  I think he will make a good admin in about four to six months of consistent contributions as well as some more involvement in AfDs.  I would also suggest some good [[WP:ADMINCOACHING|admin coaching]].
<s>'''Support'''</s> as nom. At last I get away without being beaten to the punch! <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong support''' I trust Husond and JD's nominations and I like the look of his talk page archives.  "No missteps" sounds good to me, and he obviously has experience in the area he seeks to work in.  This is the kind of user I like to think is watching the 'pedia while I sleep! '''
'''Support''' All of my interactions with him have been positive.
'''Support.''' Per {{user|Husond}} and {{user|J.delanoy}} and the user's positive contributions to this project. '''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - Nothing wrong here.
'''Weak Support''' I paged through this users contribs a while back wondering if I might want to nom him sometime myself and I found a few things that are less than ideal for an admin so I decided not to make the offer myself but none of the thinks I found are severe enough to warrant an oppose. - '''
'''Support''' Seems ok. Unlikely to fly off the handle or anything. Why not? Incidentally, I don't believe "getting annoyed by bots reverting faster than me" is what the question is really asking for.
'''Support''' Why not? I do not mind admins that only work in one area. I will never understand opposes based on "Not enough experience" because he does have experience - just in a certain field of experience that is. I rather have a great admin in one field than no admin. For example, if I may, I noticed yesterday a case of an user running an automatic script, destroying hundreds of wikilinks. It was reported to AN/I at 11am but it took an hour until an admin finally read it and acted upon it. My point is, I think we need more admins who do such housekeeping because it is vital for this project and this user has proven, that he is more than willing and capable to do those things. SoWhy not? (if you allow me this pun on my user name ;-) '''
Support - plenty of good things here, no sign of naughtiness.--
'''Support''' Great Contribs. He is ready to be an admin!!
'''Support''' -- Loved answer 3, hehehe. Good luck! :) --'''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, candidate seems well qualified for the position.
'''Support''' Have seen him around a lot, will make a great admin. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
His experience on the vandal front is commendable, but close inspection reveals he knows his stuff in various other areas too. &mdash;<strong>
'''Support''' as co-nom. Finally got this in, didn't I?
'''Support''' Candidate appears unlikely to abuse/misuse the tools in areas requested. A pleasant and friendly user who interacts well with others. Has been recognized for his efforts with a number of [[User:SchfiftyThree/Awards|Barnstars]] that appear well earned. Found no reversions I could quibble with and appropriate reports to AIV.
'''Support''' - looks great, give him the mop!
'''Support''' Level-headed guy, great vandal fighter. He's not going to do anything stupid. Give him the mop. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Weak Support''' Per nom's and I recognise the tough vandal efforts this user has done over a large period of time and he deserves to be rewarded, although I would like to see more responses to some of the questions posed.
'''Weak support''' - [[WP:WTHN|WTHN?]] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' →
When I'm doing RC patrol (not often), I'm either beaten by SF or J.delanoy. You're too fast! &mdash;'''
<s>'''Support'''</s> He may be using automated tools but if he uses them to make this sort of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=235947220  nuanced] call then I'm happy. '''
I don't see why not. '''
'''Strongly support''' — I certainly notice the candidate's contributions at least once every day.
'''Support''' Though, I would like to see more [[WP:CONCENSUS|consensus]] building and more work on articles, I trust SchfiftyThree will do just fine, especially with AIV and vandalism work. --
'''Support''' I see nothing alarming about this candidate.
'''Support''': Net Positive ! No alarming concerns ... Btw let Bots do what they are meant for. They make our life in WP easier. Then you have plenty of more meaningful things to work on. Best wishes --
'''Support''' Nice guy and will help improve the wikipedia. Ease into the tools and you'll be OK. '''
'''Support''' A good editor, won't abuse the tools, [[WP:WTHN|WTHN]]. &ndash;
'''Support''' Good editor, will do wonders with the tools, vandals beware!
'''Support''' per nom, answers, and all those above. <big>
'''Support''' - we can always use more vandal fighting admins. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' No recent XfD experience outside of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ClueNet this pile-on.]  Doesn't mesh well with candidate's stated desire to be a CSD'ing admin.
'''Oppose''': Weak article building/consensus building. —
'''Oppose''' - The answer to question four is a bit concerning, and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to the protection policy. First off protection is not the end all know all when it comes to edit wars and often it is a select group of editors that are being disruptive opposed to everyone envolved, and that can often be resolved with blocking those who are causing the disruption. Second, SchfiftyThree stated above: "''If edit wars happened on an article I was involved with, I'd discuss the situation on its talk page about the constant edit warring, and if the users have been warned for edit warring, I'd probably direct them to the discussion on the talk page according to the edit war, and if I protected the article until the situation clears out, I'd let them know.''". He could not be more wrong, admin tool should ''never'' be used when the admin performing the action is involved in the dispute, and simply notifying the involved parties that you are taking admin action X does not make it ok. I feel like SchfiftyThree's answer to this question is one from a user who has a whole lot of anti-vandalism experience, (judging by him mostly wanting to protect for vandalism reasons) and not a whole lot of dispute resolution or article related experience, and IMO that is needed to be a successful admin.
'''Oppose''' As per the answer to the first question. If your main reason for seeking adminship is to block people -- as opposed to helping other editors or enriching the depth and scope of the project's contents -- then you appear to have your priorities out of whack. Points raised by Townlake and Realist also deserve consideration.
'''Oppose.''' The candidates reasons for not unblocking the IP in Q8, as well as the very limited view he has on 3RR in Q5, together made me pause. The answer to Q4 concerned me as well, and I share all of Tiptoey's concerns. I therefore cannot support as I think the candidate needs to gain more experience in the relevant areas.
Sorry, but oppose. I think I've seen the candidate around, and initially I thought WTHN, but the wrong answer in Q4 plus the failure to follow [[WP:TALK#Own comments]] concern me. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Looking forward to blocking users is the wrong attitude. --
'''Oppose''' The answers do little to convince me that this user has the necessary grasp of the finer points of policy to be an effective admin at this juncture. Valuing consensus over verifiability is the absolute deal-breaker for me, but the answers to q5 and q8 aren't great either. I will be happy to reconsider my opposition in a future RfA if Schfifty demonstrates an improved understanding of the workings of policy. I would add that Schfifty's vandal-fighting has been excellent.
Rereading the reply to Asenine's fair and important Q9, it strikes me as a real deal-breaker. The main issue is that local (i.e. article talk) consensus cannot possibly trump the spirit of [[WP:V|verifiability]] or [[WP:NPOV|accuracy]]. More importantly however, I'm afraid the candidate didn't even understand the question, which is actually far worse than if he merely held a different viewpoint (which might still be sufficient reason not to support). His focus, in contrast to the phrasing of the question, appears not to be on who displayed the objectively ''better'' behaviour (yes, the newbie with the source), but who did something ''wrong''. The consensus-bunch did, but ''not'' in not notifying the newbie about the removal, but in the removal of verifiable content itself (barring other potentially more valid concerns not expressly contained in the scenario, like undue weight etc). The candidate's reply gives the impression that he thinks the newbie in the scenario is "more right" than the other editors ''because they were wrong in not notifying the newbie about it''. Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is far more complicated than that and I cannot risk supporting you at this time if you don't get the very basic points in that scenario. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
'''Oppose''' Can't possibly support if the nominator has withdrawn his own.
'''Oppose'''. I have three concerns: the initial answer to question 8 sounds suspiciously like a [[WP:CDB|cool-down block]], not a lot of XFD or general discussion experience (as highlighted by [[User:EJF|EJF]]), and the nominator's own withdrawal of full support.
'''Oppose'''. Actual content of answers aside, the candidate's language skills seem somewhat sub-par ("The policies and guidelines that I believe are most important would include a large number of them.", "I would amend them that they should get an account", "I feel that they would happen if, on an article, has become a constant target for vandalism for a long time", and, of course, ""This policy has [[erection|brought me to my attention]]"). While I appreciate the candidate's dedication to the project, I believe that administrators (who are oftentimes called upon to communicate with new users at a moment's notice, i.e. "why was my page deleted") should have communication that is coherent and clear, articulate and eloquent. Poor communication is a serious hurdle that everybody on a collaborative project must face, and the hurdle is raised higher when the poor communication is coming from a "superior" - which anybody with the power to block and protect is, by virtue of said tools.
'''Oppose''' per nom....---'''
Anti-vandalism work seems to be very good, To support what is a request for a full set of tools, I'd need to see more experience related to other areas of administrative or project work and more actual encyclopedia building. I've gone through some of the articles listed as 'worked on' and find many completely unsourced apart from IMDB. The answer to question 3 also doesn't reassure me, but rather reinforces the idea of having worked so far effectivley in one particular field.--
I don't like Huggle-bots. However, I cannot oppose for this. --I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Neutral''' Oh, no. I trust J.delanoy and Husond a lot, and this user looks like a good editor. However, I cannot support because of answer to Xeno's question and valuing of consensus over verifiability. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Neutral''': I'm on the fence on this one. You would make a great administrator, and you would like to help out at CSD where it often piles up. But you have limited experience with XfD's, and I believe the two are interconnected. I'd like to see more involvement with the XFD's; otherwise, I'd give a hearty support. <small>
'''Neutral from Strong Support''' Per Erik. <font color="amaranth">
'''Neutral''' - like others I'm on the fence on this one. While the nom and co-nom are from people I trust, I'm concerned about the responses to some of the questions. In particular, the question on policies etc worries me. You didn't mention WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP or even WP:IAR. More than that though, there wasn't a mention of howthe policies work together like cogs, each supporting the others around it to create a harmonious editing environment. I think that this perspective probably comes from a lack of in-depth consensus building work, either through the XfD environment or through article development. Then again, you seem like a reasonable person and you do solid work looking after articles. So, both positives and negatives, hence the neutral. '''''<font color="green">
'''Neutral''', a lot of fence-sitting in the answers to questions.
'''Neutral''' — You have exemplary anti-vandalism work here, and I encourage that, but the points raised by the opposers have convinced me enough not to support. I'd also like to encourage you to get involved in a little more article work. This isn't to say you're not going to be a good administrator in the future, I'm almost certain you will, but first you need to expand your areas a little. —'''
'''Neutral''': I have no doubts about this user's ability, but I share Stephen's and Ecoleetage's concerns about attitude.
'''Neutral''' per lack of broad experience, & points raised above. I looked at [[Todd Field]], where his contributions are fine, but not much to put up as his best article-building work. Only 6 articles have edits into double figures per the talk page stats.
'''Neutral''' for now, and I'm interested in seeing his responses to Protonk's questions.  His experience seems a little narrow, and I searched and searched his talk page and contributions for some sign of conflict, communication, collaboration: something to gauge how he handles himself when things get a little hot – but I couldn't find anything (I admit I gave up around June, page after page of Huggles!).  I accept that he makes very good reverts and, searching his contributions, I saw several instances where he caught his own mistakes absolutely immediately.  But he's working in a very "clear" area with a powerful tool, and I'd like to see the approach he would take when things get a little muckier and not so cut-and-dry.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you don't have nearly enough experience. ~20 edits doesn't give you enough time to become familiar with Wikipedia.  Furthermore, you request sysop status to fight vandalism, but vandalism fighting doesn't require being a sysop.  I suggest you withdraw and try again in 3-4 months minimum.  --
'''Oppose''' Reasons are self-explanatory. I asked the user to removed this nomination as it might have not been the best choice to make.
'''Oppose''' - no evidence of real experience on Wikipedia. Please consider using your spare time to get to know Wikipedia and its policies, [[Wikipedia:RC patrol|fight vandalism]], and, more importantly, to work on and improve articles. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - ''far'' too few edits to be worth of consideration.  --
I'm persuaded. However, I don't want to sound negative, but you're going to get opposed for "insufficient" edit count, lack of "wikispace" edits etc. Some advice here - come back in a couple of months or so with more admin related experience, and you'll pass fine. Good luck '''
As above. I think you need a little bit of help, but make sure to come back here in a few months with a little more. The very best of luck,
'''Oppose''' 1140 edits is not a lot, but I would not oppose just for that reason. However, those edits do not show any significant involvement in admin-related tasks, and this is necessary in order that we can judge your ability within these parts of the project. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - Lack of wikipedia mainspace edits, just does not show that this user has had experience discussing policies with the community, not sure if they would know how to come to a consensus. Fallow Majorly's adive above and you will do fine, (try contributing to [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:TFD]] ect,  see you back here in a few months.
'''Oppose''' – I’m so sorry to do this Seth, but I really wish you’d taken my advice with this one. You do ''some'' good things here like welcoming new users, but I see very very little of anything else. You have the odd article edit, but nothing related to what adminship is about. If I’m being honest, you’re a little silly at times – you use random strings of letters as edit summaries and I’m not sure how appropriate “[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sethdoe92&diff=120002152&oldid=119936784 ass cream]” is as an edit summary, and I repeat what I said to you back in March, “''you need to stop using wiki mark up, so for instance stop placing <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> signs all over the place. I actually nearly blocked you without warning for those comments on the Rfa's. What was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&diff=prev&oldid=119167549] this about? This is the sort of thing that could easily lead to an indefinate block, as people would mistake you for willy on wheels. Also, don't put userboxes into articles like you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sponsor_%28military%29&diff=prev&oldid=118122074 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bittu_bhaizee&diff=prev&oldid=118121745 here]  and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_mat&diff=prev&oldid=118122785 here] (they're not the only ones but there's too many to add all of them), this could be considered vandalism, even though you were trying to do something good. Articles aren't rated for appropriate content because wikipedia is not censored. What exactly are you aims for wikipedia? I mean, do you want to revert vandalism? Edit articles? Add stub and clean up tags? Check new pages (by going to the new pages log) for suitability and tag them for deletion if required?''” – All in all, just take some advice and you could possibly make a sysop in the future, but you really do need to change somewhat first.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawl. With five times as many user talk edits as your 102 mainspace edits this doesn't have any chance of passing.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry to have to do this, Seth, but I don't think much has really changed since me and Ryan were telling you about your behaviour back in March (me being [[User:Tellyaddict|Tellyaddict]], incase you're unaware). The opening sentence of "really deserves it" comes over as a little arrogant, unfortunately. I just don't see you being able to use the tools wisely at the minute, but it could happen, someday. Good work on the welcomes and stuff, though. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Oppose''' and suggest that you withdraw.  Very little experience, questionable behaviour, and no experience at all in admin-related areas.
'''Oppose''' - little experience. <s>I don't even see the acceptance mark.</s> Insufficient answers to questions, and sockpuppetry.
'''Strong oppose''' withdraw per WP:SNOW. Sockpuppetry is not acceptable.
'''Oppose'''.  Very little experience in the needed departments, and sockpuppetry is just not good.  '''
'''Oppose''' *cough* No. Just...no.
'''Oppose''' - Under 50 contribs (sorry to get editcountis). You have no experience in admin-related areas ([[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:UAA|UAA]], etc.). And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battlefield_2:_Modern_Combat&diff=prev&oldid=197516053 this] is simply unacceptable. Sorry. '''«'''

'''Oppose''' A little under 500 edits.  This does not show enough experience to be an administrator.  The large focus of these <500 edits are user and user talk.  Spend more of your Wikitime with article work and policy-based work before applying next time.
Per Metros. Inexperienced in many areas.
'''Oppose''' With twice as many edits in userspace as in mainspace, and only around 500 edits total, I am afraid that you have not given the community enough evidence on which they can determine your ability to be [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusted]] with the tools. Perhaps after more time and on-wiki experience, but I must reluctantly oppose for now. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Per Metros. This request is very similiar to my own failed request not long ago. I too thought I had enough experience and edits to be a sucessful admin. Since then I have realised that I didnt have enough edits and needed to review my situation, I propose you do the same. Also I would concentrate on more mainspace edits! Good luck next time! --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry pal, lets take a look in about 1500 - 2500 edits shall we? I know that edit count != good editor, but we really can't tell until then. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]

'''Oppose''' Syas that his main area of admin work would be ''"editing articles"'' - this can be done by any user and does not generally require admin tools. Still good luck in your future editing.
'''Oppose''' - Yeah, gonna have to oppose, sorry. It looks as though you may lack understanding ofthe role that administrators play on Wikipedia. [[WP:ADMIN]] might help. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' - While i can see that your intentions are good, you just do not have enough experience under your belt. Along with how rushed this RfA appears and the lack of quality answers to the questions, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry for opposing but you have less than 500 edits and very short answers to the questions. I recommend an [[WP:ER|editor review]] and maybe 5-6 months from now another RFA would be appropriate
'''Oppose''' While your enthusiasm is commendable, you just don't have the experience necessary.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. 12% edit summary usage, and 0% ESU for minor edits isn't acceptable. Come back in a couple of months. Go through admin coaching, get adopted, etc. I will be glad to support in 3-4 months. Also, 82 edits in the mainspace is a little to low. Sorry. -
'''Oppose''' Per above concerns, mainly number of edits and terrible edit summary usage.
'''Strong oppose''' - aside from poor edit-summary usage and abysmal answers to questions (''editing articles'' is '''not''' admin work!), this editor appears to be merely looking for an [[Wikipedia:Editor Review|Editor Review]], given their opening sentence, and this isn't the right place to be making such requests. —
'''Support''', it's been a long time coming, I dare say. (beat every nom, haha!) Take what the opposers say to heart though, most of them are ones that you should be able to fix/improve upon without much trouble.
'''Strong support''' - I was waiting for this.
'''Nominator's support'''.  As stated in my nomination, this user is ready for the resposibilities of adminship.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' per my co-nom. - [[User:Milk's Favorite Cookie|<font face="Snap ITC" size="3px" color="#4D0100">'''M'''</font>''''']]
'''Strong Support''' as the original nominator, yet one of the last to cast their official support. Whoops. I'm not sure I've ever seen so many co-noms... [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support''' he seems to know what he's doing around here. He deserves the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' per huge nominations and excellent preparation. Hesitant to !vote before the usual deluge of questions, but I guess I could always change my stance. For now, looks like an excellent candidate.
'''Strong Support''' Great work at [[WP:AWARD]] <strong>
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools.  A willingness to publically admit mistakes is also a trait that I view extremely positively.
'''Support''' the good humour and award-work are morale building. I do agree some more concerted article work would be good (and was almost but not quite a deal-breaker). Net positive (just). Cheers,
'''Support'''. As above.
'''Support'''. Sharkface may not be the wiki's most prolific article-writer, but it is to his credit that he does try; his answer to q2 reveals a long list of new articles created. I don't see any evidence that he's "only here for socialising", as the opposers assert. As to the "mistakes page", I see that as a strong point. No Wikipedian should take themselves too seriously, and we should all be prepared to laugh at our own mistakes, while at the same time learning from them.
'''Support''' The opposers have not convinced me would abuse/misuse/go haywire with the tools. Cheers,
'''Strong Support''' He is a really good candidate. Help the wiki a bunch. <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px">'''
'''Support''' I do not see why socializing makes someone not suitable to be an administrator. As long as plenty of work gets done (as is the case with Sharkface) there are no problems at all.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Very weak support. Despite the opposition's concerns, I believe giving him the tools would carry a net-benefit.
'''Weak support''' - While I agree with some of the concerns raised below I do not think they matter when it comes to handing out the mop. Sure would I like to see Sharkface217 take wikipedia a little more seriously and treat it for what it is, an encyclopedia? Yes, but at the same time I do not see any harm that is done to the project by boosting morale, and recognizing other users good work and dedication. We are ultimately discussing whether the user is ready for the tools, and whether or not they will abuse them, and the opposes do not raise either of those concerns (at least not with me). I think the Sharkface217 has shown that he has learned from his mistakes and for that reason I must apply [[WP:AGF]]. ''But'', having said all that, I hope that Sharkface217 will carefully take all of the opposes to heart and learn from them.
'''Weak Support''' You are not the perfect candidate, but who is? You need to focus more on doing article work, and less on socializing. That is my biggest problem with you. However, I don't see that as a huge problem, because I don't see any indications that you will abuse the admin tools. Good luck!--
'''Weak support''' per Dorftrottel - giving him the extra buttons would be a net benefit to the project.
'''Support''' A couple concerns here and there, and a bit uncertain at times, but still trustworthy enough.
'''Strong Support'''. Good editor, won't abuse.
'''Strong Support''' - You really seem to have the qualities needed as an admin, not only are your answers consice, truthful, and honest, but as it looks, your experience with the MediaWiki coding also shows you have what it takes to be an admin, Good Luck!
'''Support''' When someone is conominated by 3 people who I've  heard of and respect, I think that they will be alright ~or~ take a turn for the better. <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''
'''Oh go on!''' -- respected nominators and I think this editor has matured such that his previous indiscretions should be set aside. Nothing those in opposition have said has convinced me Sharkface should not be granted access to the tools.
'''Support''', mainly to oppose the oppose arguments.  I have had nothing but good interactions with Shark and I have no evidence that he will abuse the tools.  Citing a user subpage is not a very valid oppose argument, particularly when that page is aiming to give Wikipedians the recognition they deserve and hardly ever receive.  A social admin is a good admin, and I'd rather he was an administrator than many administrators we have with us now. '''
'''Support''' - the concerns raised below don't worry me. Someone who likes to socialise isn't necessarily going to abuse the tools. And an admin needs to be willing to talk to others rather than being held-back and withdrawn. However, whatever the result of this RfA, take note Sharkface217, they do have good advice, but I do not think that socialising and giving out barnstars are a reason not to support this RfA. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Sharkface's award center shows me that he is willing to reach out to newer users, and trying to make them feel important on Wikipedia. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
I have never seen Sharkface as someone interested in the encyclopedia, but rather, as one interested in socialising and in earning (and giving out) as many barnstars as possible. Furthermore, his blatant preparation for this RfA (I echo Majorly's comments [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2|here]], at least to some extent), for instance, his removing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASharkface217%2Fscrewups&diff=203176003&oldid=100076836most of the unfavourable content] from a page that has been oft cited in the nom here ([[User:Sharkface217/screwups]]) and his jacking up his edit count with [[User:Sharkface217/rfa|something most people do in 3 edits at most]] doesn't sit favourably with me. Open to discuss. ''
'''Oppose''' - not sure about your maturity, which, to your own credit you admit is an issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Happy-melon&diff=prev&oldid=188057899].  I don't read RFAs as much as I used to, but I can't think of one I've seen without you commenting on it (the signature is hard to miss) and your RFA !votes and AFD !votes are sometimes a minute apart.  Rarely can you come to a reasoned, researched opinion about the quality of a candidate or an article in a minute and if you can, it's probably already in the pile on stage anyway.  It's a far greater service to Wikipedia to cut the number of times you opine in half and make sure that they are well though out opinions, not just "x per y" or "support - looks good" rubber stamping of someone else's thoughts. --
Usually I don't comment on RfAs, however... I read what DHMO had to say, and I agree with him when he states you are here only for socializing. It appears you have made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sharkface217&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 less than 500 edits to the article space in the past year]. While I'm not a die-hard "article writers only" kind of guy, this is less than TWO mainspace edit a day (41 edits a month in the article space). You really haven't even contributed to the Project space - most edits are to the user talk page, and when you aren't improving articles (which, user talk pages are used for collaboration), I'm lead to believe that you are simply socializing.
The three opposes above raise the two concerns I have; I do not believe Sharkface217 will make a good administrator at this time.
I have several concerns with this candidate. First of all, he has very few article edits. I don't need to see FAs or GAs, but, as Monobi said, he has barely more than 1 edit/day in the mainspace. Second, though there are quite a few very mature young editors, I am concerned about his maturity. This meads me to think that he will have problems as an administrator - civility and maturity are paramount. Also, the excessive socializing worries me. I see a lot of badly though out !votes and comments, often very close apart. I understand that in some cases it's open-and-shut, but the quantity is worrying. I would suggest admin coaching first. Regards,
per Daniel. There are too many concerns for me to support. &mdash;
Giggy's got that good. Here to play games.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide|Dihydrogen Monoxide]].
'''Oppose''' I am very disturbed by the tendencies of some editors to value style over substance, and even more disturbed by the concept of dangling barnstars out in front of users to entice them to create new content. I can't say I've taken part in many RfA's, but I don't remember seeing anyone add "[[bells and whistles]]" to one before.
'''Oppose''' I really have a problem with awards that are given based upon mere quantity rather than quality.  By making his award center, and giving out awards for meeting certain edit counts, he is engaging in the worst possible type of [[editcountitis]].  Additionally, he seems to be a master at reviewing AfD discussion.  For example, in a 12 minute on March 21, he was able to read, assess, investigate 17 different articles---highly prolific or careless?  Prior to that he assessed 22 articles in 17 minutes.  Could it be that he is going after edit counts to meet the criteria within his own guidelines for barnstars? Between 3:13 and 3:16, he was able to  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMG_LASSO&diff=prev&oldid=203442370 tag this article for references,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomy_Statute_of_Cantabria&diff=prev&oldid=203442329 and this one for references and expand], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Benedict_High_School_%28Chicago%2C_Illinois%29&diff=prev&oldid=203442260 this one for neutrality] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Side%2C_Kansas_City&diff=prev&oldid=203442135 his one for references] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raynham_Center%2C_Massachusetts&diff=prev&oldid=203442067 this one for references] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Manzo&diff=prev&oldid=203442003 this one for references] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Games_Factory_2&diff=prev&oldid=203441930 this one for references].  That's 7 tags in 4 minutes.  Which of his awards is he seeking?  Might this be an overly cynical perspective? Yes, but when you run an awards center whose primary criterion is edit counts, it casts your rapid edits into question.  I should also mention that I am uncomfortable with somebody who cites a desire to work in virtually every area where Admins are needed, but doesn't have a strong foot print in all of them.
<small>(double edit conflict, sorry for the timing to seem like a pile on)</small> My opposition is based on what I believe the administrator's function on Wikipedia was fundamentally built upon: maintenance of the project that requires trust to give access to, as a janitor does.  I do not feel that the user is trusted to receive the tools in those regards.  I spent a good while reviewing the users contributions, and I agree with the above opposition reasons regarding the use of the website as an ''encyclopedia''.  Don't get me wrong, I've only ever written two articles and my interest in Wikipedia has always lay in relaxing and reading, many many many many more hours than my edit count would suggest so I'm certainly no "Article Builder!" opposer.  My issue is that the user has virtually no experience in dealing with users that they are unfamiliar with.  Looking over the User_talk contributions alone gave me caution- this place ''should'' involve dealing with the unfamiliar with regular use of the encyclopedia.  Heck, posting in Talk: space is what first motivated me to register my account.  Even warning vandals gives experience in how to handle the situations that were expressed in the answer to question one.  How can I trust someone to resolve an issue on the COIN when they have never dealt with COIN in starkness?  The answer to Q1 is a litany of duties that seems to me to be derived to please the audience.  Personal opinion, not a judgment call there.  I feel the user doesn't truly understand the principle of an administrator on Wikipedia.  This isn't a crown or status, it's a greatfully accepted burden.  Sharkface, you are a valued member of the community and you should remember that.  I want to see you branch out into the world of maintaining the encyclopedia, which is doable without writing but not without working in the mainspace.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, coupled with my feeling(s) that the editor isn't here for the right reasons at times.
My apologies, but I don't believe you are quite ready yet. You lack experience in several areas. And while I'm not a huge opposer regarding experience, and while your edit count isn't small, you still need to become more proactive in editing and/or maintaining the encyclopedia before requesting for adminship. That being said, you are a respectable and valued contributor, and I encourage you to continue contributing the way you do. Basically per [[USer:Keegan|Keegan]].
A keen user who has good intentions at heart, but not enough experience at the 'proper-work' of administrators. Potential sysops need to express their thoughts eloquently and make sure they have experience in the right areas. Immaturity (not at all related to the age of this particular user, I think) is quite a problem, and an administrator who could be open to making mistakes every couple of days or so, is not someone I'm comfortable with the tools. Also, per Dihydrogen Monoxide.
'''Oppose''' - some scary accusations of possible misuse of tools! Well, and also the fact that the candidate mainly seems to spend time handing out barnstars and chatting on talk pages. I'd like to see more "hard" contributions - more than stubs - and maybe I'll reconsider. The candidate would be well advised to demonstrate more commitment to the project that way.
Per [[User:Sharkface217/Award Center]].  Some people may not understand this reason.  I'm not sure it's productive to try to explain it.. you'll either see what I see or you won't.  If you don't, it's unlikely further explanation will help.
'''Oppose''' there are just too many worrying concerns raised above for me to support or neutral. Baloonmans arguments are very good. Also doesnt meet my requiremnts... --
'''Oppose''' - I have heard many good points in this oppose column, and I don't really trust that this user is telling the truth about his plans and whatnot. <s> The fact that he self-nominated and then had a flurry of co-noms looks suspiciously of either sock puppetry or meat puppetry.  Otherwise one of his conominators could have just nominated him.  Given the discussion about barnstars and so on, I would guess at meat puppetry, people trying to get awards. </s> Also, given the rather low edit count considering that most of these edits were quick and easy tagging, minor edits, I don't think the user knows what it truly is to edit.  I get the strong feeling that he doesn't want the mop to do actual work (and given the short length of thought made in posts, perhaps that's a good thing) but is rather trying to do this as a form of social promotion.  There is very little talk on talk pages, the editor does not seem to discuss things with others about articles very often.
Per DHMO. I'm a hardcore article-building RfA evaluator, so I feel that I can't support such a candidate.
'''Oppose'''. Many above have expressed it better than I will, but I'll say it anyway. I have strong concerns about maturity (which is ''distinctly'' different than age -- I know a number of immature 50 year olds and a number of very mature 12 year olds), lack of encyclopedia building, policy knowledge, a viewing wikipedia mainly as a social club. Sharkface seems to be part of a group that view adminship as a social trophy rather than a commitment to making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I just can't support.--
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry for the pileon here, but I have to agree with Fabrictramp, DHMO, and balloonman.  Not ready yet.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above.  My support was written after inadequate assessment.  I do not believe this user has demonstrated that possession of the tools will help maintain the encyclopedia. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
Per Friday, and immaturity concerns.
'''Oppose:''' Per above concerns. '''
'''Oppose''', per DHMO, B, and a few others. I don't think Sharkface is here to "play games", but he does spend too much time doing unnecessary things, and I don't see how he would help if he had the tools. ·
'''Oppose''' Past interactions left me worried about maturity (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APete.Hurd&diff=155762545&oldid=155238657]), and whether the editor had ever had any experience using an encyclopedia, or any other authoritative reference source, before deciding to write in one (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSpace_warfare_in_fiction&diff=101466752&oldid=101433849][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APete.Hurd&diff=101732813&oldid=101732102]).  The diffs I just listed are quite old indeed, but the [[User:Sharkface217/Award Center|Awards Centre]] is an example of recent behaviour that makes me unable to trust with the bit, for fear that it will result in more noise and distractions for productive article writers to work around, and mop pushers to plow through.
My gut feeling is that the maturity thing will keep popping up.
'''Oppose''' As has been said above, the social-network aspect jumps out at me.
'''Oppose''', per all the concerns mapped out here by several editors, I must oppose. --[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="blue">'''/'''</font><sub>
'''Oppose''' Sharkface is a very civil editor, and contrary to what some people have said above, he does ''value'' the project.  However, that value is popping up in the wrong places at the moment.  Its great to see how he likes to acknowledge the importance of editors on this project and rewards them with a motivating barnstar or two.  But of course, too much of his focus seems to be placed on that and his criteria for awarding needs some revision.  Also, this type of endeavor makes him appear too focused on socializing and not enough time editing.  I also think he needs a bit more time showing his experience as far as ''tool'' wise.  Admin coaching would probably amend concerns about experience easily though.  I think there exists good potential in Shakeface to make a good administrator, all that is required is that he take what has been said in this section to heart and work off of it.
'''Oppose''' per Rudget. Couldn't have said anything better in my own words.
'''Oppose''' Per Rudget and dihydrogen monoxide.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, the roughly 1:5 ratio of mainspace to other edits deters me from supporting at present; it shows that whereas your edits may be good (and the ones I've seen are), I think you need more experience in article building for now. --'''
'''Oppose''' mostly per Rudget and DHMO, seems to be some maturity concerns. However, I do agree that this user seems to have the best interest of the project at heart, and if he can get his act together, I would support in the future.
'''Oppose''' maturity concerns, a user who seem to be here to get credit and awards more than actually help the encyclopaedia. Sorry to pile on.
'''Strong oppose''' - Both via the fact I see a lot more socializing than encyclopaedia building, and per [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide]]. <small>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide]].--
'''Oppose''' unfortunately, per Dihydrogen Monoxide, Rudget and Persian Poet Gal. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">
'''Weak Oppose'''.  per dihydrogen monoxide and the others above, I don't fell this user is ready for the mop.
'''Oppose'''. While (I believe) this is the first time I've commented on an RFA, and I'm not exactly a beacon of righteousness either, I think the first three comments above have detailed more then enough reasons to hold on to the mop for a bit longer.
'''Oppose'''. The replies given [[User:Sharkface217/screwups|here]] give me little confidence in the ability of this person to communicate effectively. The replies don't look open and clear responses to me. Rather then saying, "man it was a prank, I was just having a funny moment", there seems many politically correct replies and the same can be said for replies #5, #6, #7, #8 in the question list.
I feel that Sharkface would be a greater asset to the project ''without'' the tools; consequently I '''cannot support'''.
Keen to learn, but still has a lack of article-writing and admin-related experience.
Leaning oppose per answers to question 3, but awaiting responses to other questions before I pass final judgment.
'''Neutral leaning toward support'''. I want to take a closer look at this candidate than usual. I see the points of both the supporters and opposers, I like what the noms have to say and they are respected editors. But this isn't about them, but about Sharkface217. I don't like his gigantic answers or his userpage formatting, but I'm going to take a real close look at his contribs before taking sides.

'''Neutral''' Gut feeling. <strong>
'''Neutral leaning towards support'''. I have had some experience with this editor, and I do believe he is a good person. His Award Center, imho, is a valuable tool. I have read all the AFDs for it, and I think that, whatever the motives, it ''has'' significantly improved Wikipedia. However, I cannot bring myself to support this nom mainly due the issues raised by Dihydrogen Monoxide. While I disagree that Shark was trying to jack his edit count when he started this RFA, (It is '''FAR''' easier to read than any of the others I have seen) I cannot ignore the other issues.
'''Neutral leaning towards support'''. I simply cannot oppose this one; The work invested in the award center is tremendous, and i am absolutely sure that this initiative helped Wikipedia forward a lot. But at the same time i just cannot get myself to support due to a feeling the editor is still a little to green on the project space. While i am quite certain that there is nothing but good will, i am a little scared that mistakes will sneak in; Personally i made my fair share of those, and i certainly won't want to make those mistakes as an admin
'''Leaning towards oppose.''' '''[[User:21655|<font color="red">21</font>]][[Special:Contributions/21655|<font color="#990000">6</font><font color="black">55</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk: 21655| τalk]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Neutral''' - Will probably support their next RfA. '''
'''Neutral''' - No point in piling on, but I will note that overly busy Wikipedia user space pages hurt my eyes, just like overly busy MySpace pages. -
'''Neutral'''. I could really go one way or the other. I always look for article contributions first, but barring that, I really respond to the user questions. I do not believe the candidate has enough questions up top to help me decide one way or the other. None of the opposes up above really give me pause, but I will evaluate this again after it has gone on for a bit longer.
'''Neutral''' per Spencer. '''''
'''Neutral''' - good editor, with useful contributions and a great user space.  Not yet ready for prime time.  Sorry.
'''Neutral''' - More time and taking the opposer's constructive criticism to heart will likely help this editor pass their next RfA. --
'''Neutral leaning toward oppose''' A slight maturity issue here, but good contributions, I really could go ether way. [[User:Mww113|Mww113]]    [[User talk:Mww113|(talk)]]
'''Strong support'''  Shoemaker's Holiday has my full trust: a fine Wikipedian who has been through the ringer (mostly undeserved) and returned to continue being a prolific featured content contributor.  Earns props for resilience. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Fully trust this editor.  Pleasantly surprised and glad to see them back.  Also, Durova says it better than I can above.
'''Support''' - I trust Shoemaker's Holiday with admin tools.
'''Support'''. Shoemaker's Holiday has my 100% trust and faith.
'''Oppose''' less than 30% of your edits are to Mainspace and you don't seem to have made any contributions to AfD. All I could find was this [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolfing]], which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the soundness of your judgement.
I'm very sorry to do this, but I feel morally obliged to mention that you are in fact {{Userlinks|Vanished user}}, who was desysopped by arbcom for a period of 6 months in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman]]. I didn't agree with that decision at all - but you are still in that 6 month period given that the decision was made in February. This isn't the way to go about it - if you'd have waited one more month and applied to ArbCom for your tools back, it would have got due consideration, but asking the community to decide this, without all the available information isn't fair.
'''Oppose''' - Per Ryan.
'''Oppose''' per info display above.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan. I don't know anything about the particular ArbCom case in question, but even assuming that their decision to desysop was completely wrong, significant information like that should have been disclosed by the candidate up-front, at the start of this RfA.
'''Strong Oppose'''This is not a valid RFA. He was desyssopped for six months by arbcom and can only get it back through them. See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman#Vanished_user_provisionally_desysopped_for_six_months]] <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Per 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC) comment. —'''
'''Oppose''' per Ryan. '''
'''Oppose''' User should not get tools back. Period. -
'''Neutral''' the candidate is a competent Wikipedian and the behavior that lead too his de-adminship was not extremely egregious but the fact that he failed too acknowledge this anywhere in his statement moves me to !vote neutral. -
'''Neutral''' for now; as a party to the ArbCom case, albeit in a peripheral capacity, I have some lingering concerns that might be better addressed by an application to ArbCom under a clarification brought under that [[WP:RfARB]]. Personally, I would not object to a resysopping on merit alone, as long as the issues of that ArbCom were addressed. However, those issues seem now to be long gone, and it may be time for a fresh start, with appropriate caveats. --
'''Support''' - A great user who has shown excellent experience in deletion debates, always doing thorough research and often fixing aricles that are going to get deleted. He's also done some great work fixing copyvio's and he'd use the delete button well in cases where they can't be easily fixed. A warning to editors always follows vandalisn reversion and I believe he'd use the block button correctly. Certainly qualified and will a great addition to the administrative team.
'''Support'''. Tons of experience, knows what he's doing at AFD and AIV. Plenty of mainspace work. Meets my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|admin criteria]] by a mile. He'll make a fine administrator.


'''Support''' - Per Al tally. This isn't RfB.
'''Support''' — self noms demonstrate the [[WP:Be bold|boldness]] demanded of an admin. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support per Ryan and Xenocidic and Useight.''' I believe the candidate can use the tools to the benefit of the project. Has the requisite experience and policy knowledge. I would like to suggest notifying article creators of speedy deletions, if you are not doing so already. You might also what to address how you come across to other users based on feedback from the first few opposes. While it's good to have high standards, it's detrimental to appear harsh or bitey. Cheers,
'''Support''', per my comments on [[User talk:Shoessss#Admin?|his talkpage]]. [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Trust editor, I view self-noms as'' prima facie'' evidence of bravery and admirable self confidence. —
'''Support'''.  I see a fine editor, who I'd trust with the tools (my primary criterion), and I don't think someone's standards at RfA should be held against them in their own RfA.  I'm probably way-over-lenient with my supports, but I don't have a problem with someone who opposes more often than others would prefer.  &hArr;
'''Weak support''' The opposers make some good points, but not quite enough to sway me.
'''Support''' I see self-noms as [[Louis Prima]] evidence of free-spirited behaviour (case in point: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX_7DmnAp_E]). Seriously, my encounters with this candidate have been pleasant and I would welcome having him as an admin.
'''Support''', sure.  No reason not to.  Plus: a self nom.
'''Support''' the RFA comments are irritating but this is not RFB and he seems to be a good contributor in other areas. -
'''Support''' - per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]]. Also I don't see how this users RFA participation should be a reason to oppose their own RFA, if they participate in a pile-on whilst opposing then so be it, but that isn't a good enough reason to prevent them from having the tools for adminship. If he became an administrator, how would his opposes be any worse or better than they are now? An argument like this belongs at RFB not RFA. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I recall [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shoessss&oldid=184350044#How_do_you_feel_about_mops.3F running] into this user and wondering why he wasn't an admin already. Displays competence and knowledge of policy key to filling the role of admin, and has clear experience in relevant areas. Comments in the oppose section, especially about accidental reverts of WikiBreaks and "probably lack of content contributions", aren't convincing.
'''Support''' Why isn't he already an admin?
'''Support'''. The contributions wowed me. Rational comments at AfDs and especially careful work at SCV. The delete button can be a handy little tool when it comes to correcting copyright violations, so the self-nom I think is due to real need for the tools. Looking at the account's first edits, I believe user cares a lot about article writing, so he seems to be here for the right reason,  not power or that stuff. Trusted editor, and I don't see how his high standard at RfAs has any bearing on his use of the admin tools. --
'''Support'''. Devoted user, knows policies and is willing to help even when the things get more complicated. In brief. Cheers. --'''
'''Support'''. I've long seen Shoessss around at AfD, and very often his comments are intelligent, clueful, and helpful.  He fully understands the policy in the area he plans to work in.  The issues raised in the oppose section don't bother me much.  First off, if one looks back to around mid-May, Shoessss's RFA contributions are much more mixed between support and oppose, and all are thoughtful.  The only issue I can find to take with this candidate is occasional bad grammar and spelling, and new versions of Firefox have a spelll chekker built in so it's no biggie.  Overall, he'll make a great admin.  --<font color="green">
'''Support''' - seems like a good candidate, and no pressing reason not to presents itself. Some of the RfA comments are perhaps a ''little'' open to being taken badly, but nothing like bad enough to make me worry that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Based on demonstrated technical capability. That said, I share many of the sentiments expressed by those who oppose, in particular Acalamari.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Frequent opposes on RfAs shows me this user has little to no idea about the reality of what being an admin involves. Much too strict for my liking; I can imagine since he opposes so much, he feels adminship is some kind of trophy, which it isn't, and if promoted will treat the position in an improper fashion. People who frequently oppose on candidates that end up passing clearly don't have the necessary "clue" needed for adminship. As you like to say on your own opposes, come back in three months with some less strict voting and I'll support happily. '''
'''Oppose''' Per the points mentioned by Al Tally, which are really worrying in my opinion. I am concerned as well that he “''will treat the position in an improper fashion.''”. Sorry. —
'''Oppose''' Strongely per Al Tally. And also for once, per Kurt Weber.
Due to unfair comments (not high standards) on the RfA candidacies of other people: first off, I remember this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EricV89&diff=prev&oldid=221756108 unhelpful non-support] from the other day, which didn't serve any purpose at all, followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EricV89&diff=prev&oldid=221756670 an oppose] to the same RfA; in addition, the oppose was #34, with only 13 supports: the RfA was clearly not going to pass, and the oppose was adding to an already large and unnecessary pile-on. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/wolfpawz&diff=prev&oldid=208392499 This neutral], and comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tkgd2007&diff=prev&oldid=213387027 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danielaustinhall12&diff=prev&oldid=207271359 this] also added nothing to the said RfAs, and came across as [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|biting]] to me. I also found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Thfrang&diff=prev&oldid=207344530 this oppose], which was just a pile-on oppose and pretty much gave no new constructive criticism to the candidate: when an RfA reaches a pile-on point like that, unless you have something helpful to the candidate to say, why add another oppose to the pile-on? Shoessss seems like a good editor though, I'll give him that, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable supporting at this time.
Oppose based on clueless comments shown in the diffs above, candidates inability to link to [[WP:RFA]] in their comment above, inability to correctly use Wiki markup in one diff above, all of which suggest the candidate isn't sufficiently knowledgeable to help administer WP at present. And someone please hit Useight with a stick for suggesting we should all keep pointless records of voting habits in RfAs - we're here to write content, not pointless bloody lists.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and Acalamari's diff's. Forget about the fact that they are from RfA for a second. I'm concerned about the comments ''themselves'' as unproductive and a tad bit bitey. Not something an admin candidate should be displaying. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot|<font color="#444444">Maggot</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Oppose'''. I am concerned by flippant remarks during another user's RFA. This demonstrates a lack of maturity.
Rather regrettably. I am concerned by the diffs provided above, and some various comments that I've seen around the wiki (I won't provide diffs, but they are along a similar tone to the above, i.e. quite bitey). However, I will take this opportunity to encourage Shoessss to carry on with his work elsewhere and continue the great work at SCV (which is such a rarity in candidates nowadays, its brilliant!).
Oppose, per Al Tally, Acalamari, and Kurt. At the top of [[WP:BITE]], someone (recently?) added "''Civility, Maturity, Responsibility''"; I think that was a good idea. I don't doubt your maturity or responsability, but civility seems to be an issue; maybe re-read BITE (and I don't mean just for the SNOW-RFAs). Also, all the questions were answered weakly. <sup>I do, however, [[User:AndonicO/My Signatures|admire your sig]]. ;)</sup> ·
'''Oppose''' per Majorly's argument about your flippant opposes at RfA. Regretfully, but adminship is most certainly not a trophy, and shouldn't be treated as one. <s>Besides, some of your comments at RfA are borderline [[WP:POINT]]INESS, and that's not a Good Thing for an admin to possess</s>. --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miranda&diff=next&oldid=193814381 i'm] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMiranda&diff=194843701&oldid=194805762 sorry]. '''
'''Oppose''' per Al Tally. <small>
'''Oppose'''. based on "meaningless" comments at RfA that demonstrates a lack of maturity. --
'''Oppose'''. Agreeing with Al Tally and other comments regarding maturity.
'''Oppose''' after reading the above, and then reading through [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional brands in South Park (2nd nomination)]] I find myself scratching my head, and unwilling to endorse for extra powers.
'''Oppose''' - I don't like the evidence I am presented with in both the discussion at the top, and in some of the opposes. Although I do feel that Al Tally (or Majorly or whatever you want me to call him) has been a little "tit-for-tat" in his attitude, he does have a point somewhere in his reasoning...this user's answers to the questions are vague, messy and don't indicate to me a clear understanding of policy. Further more, some harsh opposes on RfAs he has participated in show that he is reluctant to see others "achieve" an admin position more often than not, whilst giving some strange reasons thus. I wouldn't be comfortable giving this user the tools tbh, not yet anyway. A little too-relaxed attitude to some opposes which contain evidence of edits not expected from an admin, Miranda's for example, also raises an eyebrow. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' Treats the RfA process like a joke, as pointed out above.  Kurt gets it right for once.
'''Oppose''' per above. <sup>┌</sup><sub>'''
'''Strong oppose''' - Wow, Kurt was actually right this time. It seems that maturity is lacking here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Inconsistent in correctly providing links to Wikipedia policies (see, e.g., the discussion under Oppose #2).  Disorganized in formatting responses to discussion questions, using seemingly random numbers of colons.  Administrators need to give other users the impression they are keeping the place organized.  With respect, this candidate does not.
'''Oppose''' per Al Tally. '''
'''Opppose''', I actually agree with Kurt, this nomination appears to be far more of wanting to be a syop than wanting to help the community. Also, very uneven distribution of edits from month to month (we really don't need any more inactive syops). Also, edits in talk/wikispace areas suggest a lack of thought before writing (hence the references to flippant comments above).--
'''Oppose''' - Per answer to Q2. I would like to see some more mainspace contributions before I can support your RfA. -
'''Oppose''' per Al Tally and others.
'''Weak oppose''' per reasons discussed above.  Also, lack of wiki knowledge (see tons of bad wikilinks by nominee above, e.g [[Rfa]] instead of [[WP:RFA]]) isn't inspiring regarding being able to use the tools properly.
'''Neutral leaning toward oppose'''.  I'll start out by saying that I would've opposed this except that I feel it would be unfair (for some reason).  I must also agree with Majorly's oppose.  Your comments and standards at RfA can be quite damaging and also thoughtless.  Normally this would be minor, but a previous interaction with you at RfA left a bad feeling in my mouth and I was unimpressed by your self-admitted soapboxing on the RfA.  As an administrator, you can't be so flippant with your comments because you will be representing Wikipedia.  I'm sorry, but I cannot support you right now and I may even change to a full oppose later.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''', I am highly appreciative of the candidate's contributions and experience in AfD where (s)he intends to contribute as an administrator, and likely would have supported except for the numerous problematic diffs being pasted in the opposition leave me unable to do so.  Familiarity with policy and procedure are highly important as an administrator, but the behavior demonstrated there is not really befitting of someone who intends to become involved in what invariably become heated debates.  I'd like to see more time pass with more mature communications before I can support.
'''Neutral''' - The edit history seems a bit backwards. The edits in the last 3 months are significantly less than previous months. Not the pattern I would expect for someone looking for more authority and responsibility.
'''Neutral''' -- The opposes make a pretty strong case but I do not wish to join in the pile-on. My advice for this user is to take some time working in the mainspace for a bit and being a bit more careful about his [[WP:RFA|RFA]] activities. --
'''Neutral''': Support per reasonable arguments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional brands in South Park (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illuminati in popular culture]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs (3rd nomination)]] as well as [[User:Shoessss#Barnstars]], but oppose per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Resident Evil 5]] (AfD is note a vote), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States Presidents (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Hundred Nights (film)]] (clear keep), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky]] (essentially a [[WP:PERNOM]]).  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Still thinking - more Q&A (as usual) would help, but might add my own - who knows.
'''Neural'''...but still contemplating! --
'''Oppose''', < 1000 edits and first edit on this account was 3 March 2008.  Please try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per spamming link to this RfA in their signature.
'''Oppose''' Newbie, under 100 edits to project space. ''Almost'' per [[WP:SNOW]]. <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">
'''Oppose with Moral Support'''- Truly, you seem to have perfectly good intentions at heart, and while I'm not doubting your IP edits,There's simply no way to check your IP edits without your adress. Even so, ~1000 edits isn't quite enough experience in the Wikipedia community for an administrator.  Come back in a while, with a  bit more community involvement, and I'll support. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' like Perfect Proposal.
Uh no, not yet. I think you still have gain a fair bit of experience before you can be given the tools, so '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' To recent since last RFA, too few edits, too little experience, questionable nom. '''
'''Oppose''' - Way too soon, sorry.  I'm also suspicious of your nomination. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' - Way too soon after your sockpuppetry case and various blocks.
'''Nope'''.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' Sorry - You have less than 500 edits, with under 100 to the mainspace. You also have poor edit summary usage. Come back in 3 to 4 months of active editing, with better edit summary usage, and working in admin areas such as [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:UAA|UAA]], and [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]]. Sorry, '''«'''

'''Support''' I have seen Slgrandson around, seems to be doing a good job. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - The user is an established and trustworthy editor, with applaudable goals.  While he lacks experience in several key areas, his history of constructive editing and demonstrated familiarity with policies leads me to believe that he shall become acclimated in no time at all once given the trusty mop.  Policies are not too difficult to learn; it's following them that seems to cause people trouble, and this user is one of the few that doesn't seem to have much difficulty there either.  You'll make a great admin! --
'''Support''', as he's a very helpful user, and it does not concern me that he's not done much AIV work, (per Liempt: he will learn). ·
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Per Q2.
'''Support'''.  No problems.  AIV experience isn't always neccesary if you take it slow at first.  <font  face="georgia">'''
Per all. '''
'''Support''' per above and [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA|meets my standards]]. While more experience in the admin areas would have been preferable, user has sufficient experience to use the tools constructively so long as caution, [[WP:AGF]], and common sense are given rein. Oh, yes. Self noms do not trouble me one bit.
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Support''' - a good editor who is friendly and capable. Will make a good Administrator.
'''Support''' Nothing in any of the contributions history, ansers to the questions or the oppose comments leads me to believe that this editor will abuse the tools . --
'''Support.''' Know from a long time ago. Obvious support.
'''Weak support''' - user is OK. Wikipedia-project-talk could have been much higher (interaction with others in project space), but other than that, nothing stands out that should deny this user the tools. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
AGF. You'll learn on the job. ''
'''Support''', sensible user, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - per above. <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - I see no red flags. Slgrandson is reasonable and reliable. P.S. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of self-confidence.
'''Weak support''' - I change my mind. I think this user has a little learning to do, but don't we all? Nice answers to questions, so [[WP:AGF]].
It's okay if he only has a few edits to AIV: in my second RfA, I mentioned that I wanted to help out at RFPP, yet I only had about ''two edits'' to that page at the time, no one opposed me for that, and I haven't gone wild protecting pages. Also, Slgrandson is ''not'' in a hurry to re-request adminship, for his previous RfA was almost a year ago, and he's been editing since early-2005. Any evidence to show that he will abuse the tools?
'''Support''' - I was somewhat on the fence because your answers comes off as a little wishy washy, but I really don't see anything that inhibits my ability to trust you. You have been an active editor far longer than many Admins have even been editing, so you clearly understand the project and know your way around. Good luck!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Seems to me this user has been here for a long time, and has lots of experience so I trust him. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Looks well established and experienced.
'''Support''' friendliness and helpfulness are appreaciated. <strong>
'''Support''' - Great user, i'm confident he will make a even greater administrator! '''

'''Support''' - User is likely to continue the bias at Wikipedia against anonymous IP editors, and unlikely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights.  However, the user's overall record and contributions are extremely solid, and this user would be likely to make a good administrator in other respects.  Therefore, I reluctantly lend my support.
'''Support''' Like I did last time.
'''Support''' Even though he doesn't have many edits in [[WP:AIV]], by posting this, it shows an extreme want to help out the community.  Therefore, I find no reason to deny him the flag when we have a person who just wants to help out the community.  Good luck in the future!
'''Support''', I'm of the belief that Slgrandson has been a member of Wikipedia for sometime now and is quite capible of being a good wiki-citizen in an administrative capacity. Support.
'''Support'''. I think the nominee has full understanding of WP's policies and I see no risk that he may abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Candidate is well equipped to be a helpful administrator with indications of future improvement.
'''Support''' Enthusiastic candidate with enough knowledge and trust of the community to become an administrator. Not much else to say!
'''Weak Oppose''' - You indicate that you wish to work at [[WP:AIV]] to start, yet there seems to be a pittance of contributions to that area. Granted, it's not really brain surgery, but, I would still like to see experience in the areas you wish to work in as stated in question 1. Also, I didn't see much in the way of [[WP:CSD]] participation. I saw some red links which looked accurate, but CSD is starting to become a tricky area to work with. I'd like to see more contributions in order to feel comfortable supporting.
'''Oppose'''-- I agree with the directly above. So many people come along claiming to want to work in AIV have about 2 edits there. I can only (yet again) emphasise what brilliant preperation for adminship AIV really is. --
'''Weak Oppose''' - Per [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']]'s explanation. You seem to be a good user, with articles under your belt, and I'm sure you will learn - but just a little bit more working in the areas where you say you will help when you are an administrator will be good! --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' - Self-nomination. Agree or disagree doesn't matter. It's a point of view supported in some quarters.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' It concerns me greatly that a person who is running for adminship has as many articles/pictures nominated for deletion and/or license validity questioned.  While anybody can have an occassional article/picture questioned, the consistency of yours being nominated raises questions as to whether or not you know and can apply the standards.  I am also concerned with your stated goal of having created 300 articles.  This is pure editcountitis.  But, what is worse, is that looking at the articles that you've created, there are quite a few that could be nom'd for deletion.  Looking at a haphazard sample of your articles, it looks as if you are simply creating stubs with the desire of getting to your goal of 300.  Then you leave the stub for others to clean up/expand.  I'd rather see somebody making more commitment to develop articles than take pride in the 'raw number' of poorly written stubs.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - While my own few interactions with Slgrandson have been quite pleasant, I feel an admin should have a good understanding of some of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, such as proper image uploading and adding appropriate FURs to non-free images. I also feel he needs to continue learning more about the proper use of CSD, PROD, and xFD before working in such areas and would like to see more xFD participation beyond the much appreciated delsorting :) I also feel leary about a self-nom, but but have to have kudos for having the self-confidence to do so :)
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman and others. A much better understanding of policies is needed, as well as a (slightly more optional but no less important) demonstration of the ability to see a project through.
'''Oppose''' Nominee states that they will focus on AIV but has only made 14 reports, and only 5 in the last 10 months. Also, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=185325388 this recent report], the nominee asked that an IP address (with no apparent previous block history, and only a handful of warnings) be blocked for "at least 3-6 months". This seems far too heavy-handed and completely against policy. I can only come to the conclusion that if the nominee had the block button they would indeed have blocked for that length of time.
'''Oppose''' per diff presented by TigerShark. Not only is a 3-6 month block for a likely-dynamic I.P. utterly against policy, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_Advance&diff=prev&oldid=183307753 user's] "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destination_Films&diff=184548523&oldid=182845900 problematic]" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chipmunk_Adventure&diff=prev&oldid=185286718 edits], while ''quite possibly'' [[WP:HOAX|outright fibs]], seem '''more''' than borderline enough to warrant actual ''communication'', rather than generic uw-vandalism''x'' garbage. Automated tools (TW, AWB, etc) are no longer in vogue on RfA, and actions like these show why. --
'''Oppose'''. Mainly per Balloonman, but the diffs presented by TigerShark & Badger Drink also worry me, though I don't know enough to evaluate the IP's contributions.
'''Oppose''' the time to learn about policy is before you apply for adminship. The time to apply for adminship is when you have made enough discussions of policy in WP space or elsewhere that we can see that you do in practice know it, instead of having to rely on answers to questions here. '''
'''Oppose''' After looking this candidate over, I feel he needs to brush up quite a bit on policy and have more participation in admin related areas.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Fails to show enough proficiency in the admin related areas of stated interest.  Otherwise good. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' - I'd rather people with admin power had an interest in contributing to more serious articles. Perhaps this will inspire him to do more contributions in these areas.
'''Weak oppose'''  I think you need to brush up on policy, specifically WRT image tagging and block policy.  Please come back and try again in a couple of months. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', poor experience dealing with this user.
I don't believe this user knows the importance of anonymous editing.
'''Oppose''' We were all anonymous/IP users once. Implementing this candidates' IP user policy would stifle new blood coming into Wikipedia. --[[User:Speakermeonce|Speakermeonce]] ([[User talk:Speakermeonce|talk]]) 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)<small>—
'''Oppose''', self-nominated.
'''Weak oppose''' with the same concern as [[User:Balloonman|my other half]]... we don't agree often on RfAs, but here is one case. I was surprised to see an otherwise experienced candidate with a ''recent'' fair-use image warning on his talk page. I think this user acts very much in good faith, and thus would not ''abuse'' the tools, but does not have the understanding to properly use them in this area. --
In my understanding, requests for adminship have always been about the community's assesment of the judgement of the candidate. The points raised above, specifically those of the application of various image issues etc, prevents me from affirming this user's judgement at this moment in time.
'''Oppose''' The candidate's answers to questions worry me that mistakes might be made which could have the effect of biting newbies. I feel that more experience of working with policy would be helpful. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' per balloonman, rudget, DGG, and Scetoaux, who've all said it better than I could.  Just too much to overcome at this time.  Looking forward to supporting a future RfA when concerns are alleviated.  Sorry,  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' per DGG, this seems just a little too soon.  Please try again in 6 months or so. <font face="century gothic"  color="#eeff00">'''[[User:Jerry|Jerry]]'''  </font><small>[[User Talk:Jerry|talk]] ¤
'''Oppose''' per Kurt Weber. Also, his answer to Q9 seems very strange (and somewhat frightening).--
'''Oppose''' Per Baloonman. Instead of creating 300 articles (many mediocre, esp. with regard to sourcing), it would have been better to create 3 or 4 that are substantive and well sourced, and fill a real gap in WP. Also, if you are going to create articles, please, please, please read [[WP:NC]]; I have had to fix (via move) many, many of these.
'''Oppose''' Can't write.
'''Neutral''' <s>Pending answers to the questions.</s> --'''
'''Neutral''' does not deserve an oppose. '''''
'''Neutral''' There are good sides and bad sides to all arguments posted here. I, at this time, do not feel comfortable taking a side here. I feel that while you '''might''' make a good Admin, your past actions concern me. I suggest an updated Editor Review. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Neutral''' Not good enough for a support but not that bad for an RfA.
'''Neutral''' --
'''Strong neutral'''
Good user, but concerns per the oppose reasons concern me. But I can't decide whether to support or oppose, so I am voting '''neutral'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Good and bad points. Either way good for me.
'''Neutral''' I've looked about and i'm really not quite sure with this one..
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' should do fine, just watch the 3RR... <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' User:Snocrates does an excellent job editing. Thank you-
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''SUPPORT!''' - one of the biggest contributors (in quality & quantity) to CFD.
'''Support''' - would be glad to have Snocrates on board, who would be even more of an asset with some extra buttons.
'''SUPPORT''' It'll be good to have another admin who's seen both sides of blocking.
'''Support.''' A great contributor who will make great use of the tools - and will really know XfD to help clear its backlogs. It's great to see your name here. (And I'm glad to see that your latest edit summary bar is completely green.)
'''Changed to Support''' You look like you'll do well, just remember to always use an edit summary. Cheers! <span style="font-family: Papyrus">
'''Support''' - I'm going to be terse here. Support. That's right. Support.
'''Support''' Nice answers to questions, great user, and entertaining comments in the oppose section ;) <strong>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As per  Acalamari and everything is fine as per track.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''20th Support''' per above; good user, and hopefully I don't run into an edit conflict. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' a great contributor at CfD. I trust this editor. <font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Support''' - I trust Grutness' judgement.  '''''
'''Support''' - Per Dlohcierekim. The user needs to ensure he is civil to others. Otherwise, nothing wrong.
'''Support''' always good at Cfd, where we need more admins
'''Oppose''' The only times I have encountered this admin he was extremely rude and uncivil and the most recent time I have seen it was a month ago. An admin needs to be able to be civil as they will be frustrated at times. -
Sorry, but your conduct [[User_talk:Djsasso#Steve_Smiths|here]] is disgraceful. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djsasso&diff=184341456&oldid=184307189 "And then, to f-up the talk pages in the process — well, that just demonstrates what we're dealing with, I guess."] is far from the conduct I would expect from an aspiring admin. Admins should remain civil, not belittle people who they are in dispute with using vulgar language. I really hope you consider your conduct when speaking to other users in the future.
'''Switch to oppose per Ryan and Djasso.''' Wow. See bold on my former support.[[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Oppose''' Due to the diff provided above. No way. That's totally unbecoming of any Wikipedian, let alone one about to run for RfA. Suggest plenty of water under the bridge before running again. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', switching from neutral.  Sorry, just not ready yet.  I will support in three months with evidence of improvements in talkpage dialogue.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' based on what I consider very clear-cut evidence of the abusive use of sockpuppetry, originally uncovered by another user, who I am quite certain is '''not''' [[User:CheckIntentPlease|CheckIntentPlease]].  The abuse is documented at [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates]].  It has been confirmed by a Checkuser.  ''This is not an innocent alternate account or an aborted name change; both accounts have participated in the same CfD's, supporting each other's positions. The two accounts tag-team edit warred on [[Dieter F. Uchtdorf]]]], leading to the blocking of {{checkuser|HLT}} for 7 days on 11 Feb 08.''  <br><br>A final note that Snocrates has been a highly prolific user, and appears to have done quite a bit of useful work.  Except to gain an advantage in a meaningless edit war, I am completely at a loss as to why the sockpuppet was created.  It would be a shame to lose Snocrates' impressive categories work, but this is clearly unacceptable, especially in an admin candidate. --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoporific&oldid=191435113 Absolutely not.]
'''Oppose''' per my standards, comments above.
'''Absolutely not''' [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Snocrates]]. Administrators are trusted members of the community, sock puppeteers not. <i><b>
Switched to '''OPPOSE'''. A disgraceful turn of events. However, like other fallen admins, always has the potential to make ammends with time.--
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' per the disgraceful behaviour mentioned above, the sockpuppetry and general deception present. The very fact that you accepted this RfA whilst knowingly using multiple accounts in violation of policy is distressing.
'''Strong oppose'''  - zero tolerance to abusive sockpuppetry. It will take a while before you will have gained enough trust to run again.
'''No'''.  We do not allow proven sockpuppeteers to become administrators.
'''Not likely''' per sock confirmation.
'''Oppose''' - Lack of civility would be reason enough to oppose, but abuse of sockpuppets is the proverbial icing on the cake.
Sock confirmation.
'''Oppose''' based on sockpuppet confirmation.
Absolutely. [[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]] ([[User talk:Messedrocker|talk]]) (
Sorry but I cannot support you on your word alone, not really knowing who you actually are.
I am pushing near confirmed when I say this is a troll RFA. Your account was created at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Sock%27s+Favorite+Puppet+&page= 10:53, 26 March 2008] (today) which was shortly after a block on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Having_a_wonderful_time Having a wonderful time], who also ran for adminship today. Please just stop this disruption.
'''Oppose''' -- Sorry, I understand why you do no want to disclose your other account name but even though I assume good faith I must treat your Rfa according to your statistics...--
'''Oppose''', would need to know who you really are, before I know if I could trust you with the tools.  To be honest, this RfA seems ill-conceived at best.
Part of adminship is openness and accountability. I'm not sensing that here.
'''Oppose''' Assuming [[WP:GF]] to vote for a RFA.To support the admin tools ,I need to know your track and contributions.Without which it is not possible.Please disclose your real user account or try again after a few months after editing if you do not wish to disclose your indentity.
'''Oppose''' - per Dlohcierekim, we might need disclosure from you regarding your previous account since this account has under 40 edits and will be heading to [[WP:SNOW]] very soon...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' Not only no basis on which to support, not even anything for a neutral. If you previously had 6,000 edits in 11 months under the old username then I suggest 3 months of solid contributions (given your experience) would likely provide a foundation on which to make a further application. Also, consider providing a senior wikipedian with your previous identity by email so they can vouch for the old account in a future nomination.
'''Neutral''' User is obviously a sockpuppet.<!--I beat Gurch?!--> --
'''Neutral''' until the full story behind the username/account change is made available. '''[[User:TheProf07/Vandals|The]]
'''Support''' good interactions with this candidate, and he works on maintenence... that's always a good sign. --
'''Support''', no reason to believe that they'd misuse the tools.  Unpopular views re: fair use images may be unpopular, but so long as he stays within the currently established rules I have no problem with the user having them.
'''Support''' - good editor, no reason why not. &nbsp; '''
'''Moral''' I think you are a good vandalfighter, but I really think you need more time before getting the tools. You can also assist in creating articles as well. Also, [[WP:ADMINCOACH|Admin coaching is always open]]. Cheers.
'''Moral''' Per Miranda. // [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
From his userpage "This user thinks fair use images should be allowed in userboxes." - clearly not understanding fair use.--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup> g - [[cat:WARR|ask me for rollback]]</sup> 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I was considering switching to neutral, as my reason to oppose was perhaps trivial, but I see NO article contributions worth talking about? Please tell me if that's wrong - I'm 1,000 miles away from a 1FA standard, but I like admins to be editors of some sort.--
Experience, and why I'm nuetral. --
Per doc. The fair use image issues are troubling. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Only had 21 edits since 12/2006 to 9/2007. Since then, there have been a lot of edits. I would probably wait for a longer period of time, just to gain edit experience. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I'm a huge supporter of the mainspace, after all, it's the whole reason why we're here.  I just don't see enough experience there.  Only 451 total mainspace edits and no article with more than 7 edits to it. I do like your work, I just want to see more of it.
Inexperience and a failure to prove discretionary ability.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience. I will support you in a few months if you have enough experience.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, good things here but your response to Siva was actually very much '''not''' the kind of thing I would expect from an admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Pedro: an RfA is '''exactly''' the kind of place you need to be on your best behaviour, demonstrating your soundest judgement and your coolest head. Responding in this way here does not bode well for other interactions,  held further away from immediate scrutiny.
'''Oppose''': Needs more edits -- 1778 is simply not enough. I do like the general direction that you are heading, though.
'''Oppose''' Per question 7. I believe the user is not knowledgeable enough about the policies to become an administrator yet. Consider investigating [[WP:BLOCK]], and there you will also see things related to open proxies, sockpuppets, legal threats, enforcing Arbcom decisions, evading blocks, etc. There is a lot to think about when becoming an admin. Look over some more material, get some more experience, and you'll have my vote next time!
'''Oppose, but with moral support'''.  Sorry, but less than 2000 edits doesn't seem to be nearly enough experience for an admin.  Keep editing, and in a few months try again.  Sorry.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Soxred93&site=en.wikipedia.org 455] edits in the mainspace are not enough. :-( —
Hmm..quite a mind-teaser. I've seen you about and it was mostly good but with low experience in key areas, I fear the tools that may be granted may be ''misused'', but definitely not abused.
'''Neutral pending further reading''' - I think you're a good editor. You certainly keep the place clean. I don't see a huge amount of interaction in your contribs with other user's (Apart from notifying of deletions and warnings to IP's), why is that? One important trait that I, personally, look for in an admin is the ability to communicate with other contributors. I just don't see enough of that to be able to judge how'd you react to different users in different situations.
'''Neutral'''. Was ready to support, but doc's oppose is very definitive that you need more experience and more understanding of the fair use policy. Please keep working with images though, we certainly need more help there.
'''Neutral'''. I would like to see more experience and at least a little bit of article building. There is also too much evidence that this editor requires much more reading up on Wikipedia policy in several areas.
<s> '''Oppose.''' </s> '''Neutral.'''  Sorry.  From the little I've seen of this candidate on this page and some of the candidate's contributions, I get a general impression that the candidate is well-meaning but inexperienced.  I have two concerns with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instituto_Loyola&diff=180467194&oldid=180464300 this] edit:  first of all, I don't see what it is about ''"has grown to be one of the most prestigious schools in Nicaragua"'' that ''"does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"''.  Secondly, the user seems uninformed about what I believe is a de facto policy (whether such policy is a good idea or not) that high schools are considered [[Wikipedia:Notability (schools)|inherently notable]]. --
'''Almost, but not quite'''; you need just a ''little'' more mainspace experience, and perhaps a long, good read through [[WP:NFC]].  Copyright, annoyingly enough, is not a matter of support or consensus &mdash; but stringent and capricious laws we must obey.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' As [[User:Coren|Coren]] said, Mainspace experience would be good, and a longer time of consecutive edits (no large breaks). Good Luck :)   Cheers, <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Neutral'''. The candidate has done good work, and would assist in areas where there is a need for willing admins. However, the comment above to Siva is a little troubling. I can't oppose, but I'm not prepared to support at this time.
'''Neutral'''. While I don't want to discourage the candidate, I cannot whole-heartedly support at this moment - fair use, argumentation (lack of admins? I totally agree we should aim to the ideal of having all editors trustworthy enough, but I don't think there is any scarcity of admins at the moment...), and perhaps a bit more experience (although I do admit the user is doing great job - keep on!).
'''Strong Support''' - My first first support at an RfA :)  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support''' I like his answers. '''''
'''Support''' I have seen this user in action on the accounts-en-l mailing list and am favorably impressed with his dedication and cordiality to the applicants. I think he will continue to be an asset to the project, and the sysop tools will help in this regard. I am comfortable extending [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|my trust in this user's judgment]]. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' I've worked with you a lot over the creation of accounts-en-l. You've got a great head on your shoulders, and, a firm grasp on policy here. I think you'd make a great admin. I honestly thought you already were an admin, or, I would have nominated you myself.
'''per above, mostly SQL's ringing endorsement'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems at all. Opposes are very weak (except the image one, but everyone makes minor mistakes). Good user...good luck! --
'''Support'''.  Everyone makes mistakes, and it may be very, very soon after your last RfA, but I still support as you are a great editor I see everywhere.  Good luck!  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Weak support'''. Plusses: has rollback already, meets my standards, has made great contributions, appears to have learned to take himself less seriously, and has created a nice user page.  Allegations of incivility make me pause. Best of luck.
'''Support''' I see him all over, and I like his answers to the questions. Good luck!
'''Strong Moral Support''' <font color="blue">'' '''
'''Strong Support''' More reasons to Support than to oppose, everyone makes mistakes. Good Luck :) <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' Good luck!
Some reservations about the speed of your renomination and your lack of content creation, but I don't think you're a danger, and I think you have useful skills that would be enhanced by mopship; so I'm adding my '''Support'''.
'''Support''' I would be on the fence but in the honor of [[WP:AGF]] I will support. <b>
per majorly -- [[User talk:Naerii|<font face="verdana" color="hotpink">'''Naerii'''</font>]] ·
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of wanting to improve yourself and wishing to better Wikipedia. I see abuse of the tools as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. Good user, and answered questions nicely.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''', though I consider the above reason to be utterly silly.  On at least three occasions - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Orange_Julius_logo.svg&diff=prev&oldid=195709648], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nine_hd_logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=194349507], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Citi_Field_logo.png&diff=194131072&oldid=194128359] - in the last week, you stuck {{tls|nld}} on images that are obviously logos and have very well-written rationales for fair use.  The reason for that tag is that if a user uploads an image that he or she created and does not provide a license (GFDL, CC-BY-SA, etc), then we have no idea what his or her intentions were for licensing reuse of the image or even if he or she has such intentions.  So we use that tag.  But media being used under a claim of fair use is unlicensed anyway.  In probably fewer keystrokes than you can add {{tls|nld}}, you can correct the problem by simply adding the correct boilerplate fair use tag.  Tagging these things for deletion instead of adding the correct tag only creates busy work.  I am also unimpressed with [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wheels for willys|this SSP report]], which again, only creates busy work.  On March 1, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=195194561 asked] for essentially preemptive s-protection of [[Universal health care]].  I'm sorry, but I think you need more experience.  --
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm sorry. I opposed at your last RfA over a civility concern and looking at recent edits I find things where you really do need to brush up before launching an RfA. As well as issues identified by B above, You can't G4 something when it's been speedied [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrian_Picardi&diff=195736981&oldid=195715572] Lots to like as well, so this is a weak oppose. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Sorry - the deletionist attitude B presents concerns me too much. Just fix the images yourself, it's easier for everyone. That said, I loved ''[[The Chocolate War]]''. :) ''
'''Oppose''', per issues raised by [[User:B]].  I'm no radical inclusionist, but such tagging is really counterproductive.
'''Oppose''' per B also, admins should be more helpful.
My gut questions this users' judgement and discretionary ability, and per B's specifics.
'''Oppose''' - A little more time needed to polish up yet. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Per deeply unpleasant interaction with this user. '''
'''Oppose''' IMHO, to soon since the last RfA. I believe that there should be at least three months between candidacies. Also per the issues B brought up.
'''Weak Oppose''' - This user had a lot more experience than his last RfA, but the user still, as said above, needs to look over policy a little bit more, specifically copyright and CSD policies.
Sorry, but I cannot support ''at this time''. In tagging images as {{tl|di-no license}}, you need to be <u>extremely</u> careful that the image you have tagged does not show an obvious license. You cannot rely on templates themselves. Although I trust you will not abuse the tools, I am unsure whether you're experienced enough to refrain from unintentionally misusing it. In your response to Daniel, if the image tagging issue was isolated or unique, this will not be an oppose. However the mistakes were many, and exhaustive for others to clean up, and so I am unable to support this RfA. &mdash;
Oppose. I have doubts about this user becoming an administrator so soon, primarily because of judgement issues, but also the image tagging issues that B brought up and overall inexperience in areas where experience really is the defining requirement.
'''Oppose''' per B. Such elementary mistakes indicate that more experience is required for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Tagging images incorrectly means lack of experience in my eye.  Come back when you have at least 1500 (preferably 2000) mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' For several of the already provided reasons but mainly because of a)inexperience and b)short period of time since last RFA. Quite frankly it would take an outstanding candidate for me to consider supporting anyone with under a year of solid editing and while Soxred shows promise in some areas i think there is much room for improvement.
'''Oppose''' He doesn't seem up to the challenge. I'm sorry but maybe sometime later! --
'''Oppose''' I don't think he has been on wikipedia for enough time <font color="#00bb00">
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Issues raised by B concern me. Indicates a lack in experience...--'''
'''Oppose''' Too soon after last RfA.
'''Oppose''' → '''B''' raised correct points, mainly the SSP report. Also I tend to trusts Majorly's points, just to watch them being removed. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' per B, Majorly, and others.  While we need more admins, I feel we need fewer admins with a deletionist bent.  Solely in my opinion, if the instinct on finding a "problem" article or image is to tag it (or delete it once you're an admin) rather than to fix the problem, that's just not the philosophy I think will help our goal of building an encyclopedia.  Too often, I see us throwing out the bathwater without retaining the baby.  While I respect your contribution to the project, I have to oppose in any case where the nominee's instinct seems to be for deletion over improvement.  --
'''Neutral''' - Ugh, this is tough. I have to go neutral for now. I have to mull this over for a bit. I have no doubt that this user has been lurking at the relevant admin-related areas in the wiki, however, my main concern rests with the very few mainspace and talk contributions. I know this is not a decision based solely on a statistical measurement, but the breakdown for articles contributed to is extremely low. I don't understand how the user can really claim improvement of articles since last RfA with such low numbers.
'''Neutral''' - good contributions and bad image tagging cancel each other out. '''
'''Stuck'''.  I'd really like to support this, but the opposition has raised several good points.  I'll check up on this later to review, but right now I just can't support.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
Per B.
'''Agh, Neutral''' - How I hate neutrals, but i do not feel that I can support due to the issues raised above, but do not feel like piling on is helpful nor are they reason enough to oppose. Sorry,
'''Neutral''', I agree with the above users, in that you might need a bit more polish, but then again you do seem to know what you are doing. So, I can't really pass judgment on this one. <span>
'''Neutral''' I wanted to support, but per the oppose reason, I am going to vote neutral. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Soxred is a great guy, and I love talking to him on IRC; however, the issues brought up in the oppose sections are concerning. Also, I see existence as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger. <tt>;)</tt>
'''Neutral''' I hate pile-on opposes, but this RfA is a little too soon.
'''Neutral leaning toward Support''' - Per some of the Oppose reasons. As MOP said, you are a great guy and are always friendly on IRC, but it maybe a little too soon! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Neutral''' a month or two premature, but still Soxred is a very good user, but there are a couple things that need to be polished up more. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Soxred93, I'd wait at least good, full 3 months before you go for another RfA, and make sure that you clearly know fair use policy. Take this time to make many positive mainspace contributions, as well. Wait until someone offers to nominate you for an RfA. Trust me, someone will, if not me, myself... as I can tell that you will eventually make a great candidate. Cheers, '''
'''Neutral''' - wait a bit longer, at least 4 months, I'd suggest. Furthermore, your problem that you "can't create accounts similar to another" really begs some questions... ''why'' would you want to? Is it appropriate for the project to have similar accounts? —
'''Neutral''' Can't really give you an support, as per above. <strong>
Good guy, some of the opposes seem entirely vacuous, but perhaps needs a little more time. Sorry :( ~
'''Neutral.''' For lack of experience, I can't support. That would have been enough to oppose except that so many of the oppose reasons come across as pretty thoughtless that I felt you deserved better. Opposing for tagging problems instead of fixing them all? That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is so chock full of problems that we need the problems tagged so people can methodically fix them.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but no. Partially because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fat_Guy_Strangler&diff=next&oldid=195821085 this] revert of my edit to "[[The Fat Guy Strangler]]", which was removing excessive plot detail. Yes, it did contain a few, minor grammatical errors (all of which have now been fixed), but this user's decision to revert me blindly calling it an "unnecessary edit" rather than just fixing the few mistakes leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Plus, the extremely long signature and poor grammar. I've lost count of all the spelling and grammatical mistakes in this RfA nomination. Its just too early at the minute for you to become an admin, I think.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, Large, unexplained gaps of several months in contribs log, lack of understanding of what a Wikipedia admin does.  --
'''Oppose''' Looking at your edit history, in my opinion I do not believe that you have demonstrated an understanding of the various processes that are required of wikipedia sysops. Also, most of the descriptions that you mention in your preamble do not require sysop status. Keeping the site clean requires editing, and drop notices at [[WP:AIV]] for recidivist spammers. Maybe in the future, but unfortunately not at present. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Not enough mainspace edits; poor spelling; poor edit summary usage; unsatisfactory answers to standard questions.  Plus, this appears to be a self-nom, but candidate accepted it anyway?!?  Enough evidence here for closure per [[WP:SNOW]].
This was withdrawn by AGK, two days ago. I suggest an urgent withdrawal.
'''Oppose'''. You ran, what - two days ago? Loads of grammatical and spelling errors, excessive sig, not knowing how to format an RfA. Please, instead of planning your next RfA - why not write an article? Its much more fun.
'''Oppose''' whilst you have just reached my required wikipedia edit limit you really do have a shockingly low mainspace edit count (48!). I really do suggest you take Rudget's excellent advice and come back another time. Generally it is a good idea to wait a couple of months before running for adminship again! You may want to read [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]] too before coming back. Here [[User:Camaeron/Rfa]] are my personal requirements but it should be noted that they are relatively low compared to the majority of editors! Good luck next time! --

Sorry, not enough experience yet and Kurt Weber-like concerns.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience yet, I think this RfA says it all. Better luck next time,
'''Neutral''' for now.
'''Oppose''' - Even though this isn't transcluded properly right now - experience my friend. I'm afraid that you lack it currently. Suggest taking 5-6 months and do some heavy mainspace editing. Also suggest getting yourself an [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] and going for [[WP:ER|editor review]] after a few months time for an evaluation. You are most certainly welcome to come back and try again. Good luck dude.
'''Oppose''' - 69 mainspace edits, far too few to judge if you would make a good admin or not. Suggest an early withdrawl.
'''Oppose''' - I suggest withdrawal from this RfA, since it has pretty much no chance of passing.  Try again later, but not too soon. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but this is too early still. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Oppose''' - per VegaDark.  You have 240 userspace edits, but only 69 namespace edits, and very little talk.  It also seems you have edited only in very, very obscure articles that, though I haven't checked, tell me if I'm wrong, have been very uncontroversial.  This also reflects in the the answer to Q3.  Each of the answers were also very short, probably because you don't have a lot to talk about yet.
Sorry, too soon after your block - come back in a few months! Also, your answers to your questions seem a bit short - while they are optional, i'd like some more info, especially on the one about your Edit War, and if it is definitely over. '''<font face="Gill Sans MT">
<small>(ec)</small>. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shandong_Agricultural_University&diff=prev&oldid=217082689], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:StewieGriffin%21], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_Page_Patrol&diff=prev&oldid=216863312], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats&diff=prev&oldid=216222475], [[User:StewieGriffin!/Guestbook]]. The third and fourth link are of particular interest of your clear mis-understanding that admins have authority. Its not the right time now.
'''Oppose''' That you have created another RFA so soon after your previous one which was snow closed after your block for sockpuppetry, shows to me that you lack the judgement needed to be an administrator. Get ''at least'' 6 months of good, clean editing under your belt. Show your maturity, show you have changed and show that you understand all aspects of policy before I would even consider an RFA.
'''Oppose''' Just not ready. Needs a stronger concept of what an admin does. Also per Woody, needs to show that he/she can be trusted
'''Obvious oppose'''. It's less than a week since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SimpsonsFan08 3|your last RFA]]. What do you think has changed in that time? Please stop doing this as all you're doing is damaging the chance of passing in future.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Strongest possible oppose''' - I blocked a fair few of your socks. There is no way that I'd ever give you the mop.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. Great editor, unlikely to abuse the tools. However, I do have one microscopic concern - the diffs in Q3 aren't conflicts but in fact vandalism to your userpage. Vandalism is not a conflict (IMHO, a conflict is something that leads to an edit war, discussion, or [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]). That's really not concerning enough to oppose, however. Hopefully the 3rd RfA will be the charm. '''''
'''Support''' - edits look good, I remember seeing his name at this ridiculous AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jumping_Jesus_Phenomenon]. Will not abuse tools.
'''Support''' know him from places, though the noms are a bit old :-)--
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' I've heard of him, and the nominations are strong.
'''Support''' Good man, great editor. --'''
'''Support''' I've seen you around somewhere. I forget, but you did well. <strong>
'''Support''' It's about time. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' of course. Great editor and vandalism reverter (he consistently beats me), and has done an amazing job with [[WP:SOX]]. He will make a great admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Weak Support''' What I have read below really concerns me and I have very little experience with this editor. My support is basically coming on the backs of the four very reputable nominators and the hopes that they have throughly reviewed this candidate before nominating. The review I made myself didn't bring up any issues, and I think that what I'm seeing below is possibly a very, very small percentage of otherwise good edits.
'''Support''' The strong nominations alone are enough reason to support.  Seen this user around, and I've been impressed.
'''Support''' This editor is definitely trusted by the community, seeing all his nominators. Good contribs. Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' This user has done great work in Wiki-Projects, and I see him often in recent changes reverting vandalism.
'''Support''': Yep, I have seen you reverting vandalism a lot, good luck :) '''
'''Weak Support'''.  I don't like the frequent RFA's, but I trust the nominators' decisions, and I'm pretty sure you won't abuse the tools.  '''
'''Support''' I support this user's try for adminship. The user Stormtracker94 3 (odd name btw) seems to be a good candidate for adminship and I most certainly hope this RfA will end in a for him succesful way.
I don't think that Stormtracker94 will be abusive at all: just read up on some necessary policies. Regarding number of RfAs, I remind people that there is no limit on number of RfAs, and since the last one was three months, that's a decent time to wait. If three months between RfAs is too short, then I shouldn't be an admin because my second RfA took place one day before three months after my first one ended.
Three months is more than enough time for an RFA.
'''Weak Support''' per candidate's pledge to add himself to [[CAT:AOTR]]. Still not 100% happy with CSD/AIV track record, but as long as he's recallable, I'm willing to support. Admins don't have to be perfect.
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support'''
All looks good. '''
Haven't done this in a while.. Having looked at the candidate's talkpage(s) and Q1 of this RfA, the math does not add up. Part of the reason I am opposing is because no-one else has. The way this is going, it would be reassuring if they put themselves on Administrators Open to Recall because the candidate does not look like administrator material.
'''Oppose''' While the above does cause me concern, I am more worried that an editor would seek adminship three times in just four months. It's not meant to be a big deal!
'''Oppose''', per a few of Dlae's reasons, and the answer to Q3 seemed a little weird to me.
'''Oppose''' per AfD participation, specifically too quick to vote delete on articles in a rapid (even multiple deletes in under a minute: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/My_F%2A%2Aked_Up_Friday&diff=prev&oldid=180429398], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sava_Grozdev&diff=prev&oldid=180429332]) fashion with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator per nom] or other brief "arguments" rather than to improve them instead.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per Dlae and the fact that this user essentially avoided giving out specific examples of conflicts he has been in. If he gives a better answer to Q3, I may reconsider. Also, adminship may be no big deal, but those with the mop and bucket could do potentially do much more damage than those without (for example, I couldn't delete the main page, while an [[User:AndyZ|hijacked admin]] could) so the position does require a relatively high degree of trust. The answer to Q7 therefore worries me.
'''Regretful Oppose''' - per Dlae, general feelings about editor needing more experience, plus brief time between successive RfAs. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
Weak oppose since Wizardman has the unnerving ability to pick good admins :), but I am concerned about the issues stated above by Dlae. Basic inexperience is the main problem. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' Too many noms in too short of a period of time.  This isn't a game of "nominate until the decision goes my way."--
'''Oppose'''.  I question the nom's thinking behind the frequency of the RfA's.  Not a good sign.  --
'''Oppose''' DarkFalls puts it perfectly.
'''Oppose''' — per DarkFalls. --
Candidate hasn't demonstrated the qualities which make me confident in supporting, and the above rationales plus my general perception formed over many months means I must oppose.
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid, per DarkFalls and Dlae. I don't feel confident giving you my support at this stage.
'''Oppose''' Weak answers to questions, questionable judgment on vandalism, lack of rounded experience. All of us make mistakes (God knows I have and do) but I think yours are because your areas of participation are so narrowly focused on baseball and football. I also have trouble with someone so quick to !vote deletion in such rapid-fire fashion – it certainly takes more than a minute to thoroughly investigate a legitimate article, no matter how short, and we are talking about giving you a 'delete' button to go with a 'delete' comment. I suggest participation in other areas of the project prior to another nomination, which (I think) shouldn't be any sooner than May or June.
'''Oppose''' I'm not comfortable with the lack of experience. Nor has Stormtracker given me confidence from what I've seen of their general abilities, judgment and Wiki knowledge to overcome that lack of experience. The admin tools can help experienced editors - I'm not convinced Stormtracker is yet in need of the tools, or has the understanding of Wiki process to use the tools appropriately. And, given that blocking is something that Stormtracker is keen on doing, I would like to be more confident in someone before allowing them to potentially cause fuss and upset by using poor judgments. A much longer, more consistent and more assured period of displaying good judgment and gaining a wider confidence from the community would be advised. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Regretful, weak oppose'''.  What a great vandal fighter and a useful editor, who reports frequently to [[WP:UAA]] and [[WP:AIV]].  Sadly, this user's instinct is too deletionist, to the point of [[WP:BITE|driving away newbies]] and [[WP:CIVIL|being curt]] at [[WP:AFD]].  I like the large number of edits and good edit summary usage.  Maybe in 3 months, I will have  a better picture of this user.  Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose'''. Tolerance and patience for newbies are important for an administrator. They are of the ''utmost'' importance for those who plan to work in a newbie-blocking process like WP:UAA.
'''Oppose''' I don't like his actions on the Afd's. I usually see his delete per nom comments then vanishes from that Afd (meaning no defense or reconsideration after some action such as a cleanup or referencing has been done). I don't trust him with the tools as he might just use a "fire and forget" strategy with it.--
'''Neutral''' After a good bit of contemplation, I can neither support nor oppose. I accept Stormtracker94's explanation for the issue I raised in the discussion area, but going through his/her edits I wasn't convinced to support. Perhaps in six months. Best,--
'''Neutral''' - I really want to support you, but the opposes sway me away. --
'''Strong Support''' As co-nominater.
'''Strong Support''' as a nominater.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' Good range of Wikispace contributions.  Looks to be a good fit for admin tools.
'''Support''' No major problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around and I like his attitude and demeanor. Just a little bit of advice. Your [[WP:AIV]] looks darn good, as do most of your [[WP:UAA]]s, however, I noticed a few of the latter that were borderline. Nevertheless, I find that this area can be tricky. Just remember that, generally, usernames that match a company or some other commercial entity should only be reported if they are spamming or making promotional contributions. Other than this minor thing, I foresee a great administrator.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator.--
'''Support''' Good [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]] experience.
'''Support''' as co-nom. <span style="border:1px solid brown;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I nominated Stormtracker94 in his 3rd RFA, so I definitely believe he's ready. I'm disappointed that he didn't inform me that he was up for RFA again...
The editor says they have "lots of experience" at UAA" - ''how?'' and ''why?''
'''Oppose''' Your comment in your FACs regarding AFD worries me. You were told, I assume, to actually add to the discussion rather than !vote to keep/delete/etc, but your solution has been to avoid AFD and instead move to MFD. That seems a little odd. Also, I don't approve of "hassling" opposers [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanBealeCocks&diff=prev&oldid=206986295 as appears to be happening here]
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:New adminship proposals|This page he created]] (created 6 days ago, now deleted) doesn't really show, in my opinion, good judgment.  It was overly bureaucratic and unnecessary as far as I can tell.
'''Oppose''' I'd like to support because of your work with [[WP:AIV]], but Metros's points above make me question your integrity. I'll easily switch to Support if I can have some assurance that you won't abuse the tools in the event of a "bad day".--
User's "Stormtracker94: Frequently addressed concerns (FAC's)" should be replaced by real FAC work if he wants my support. ''
'''Oppose'''. In his contributions, he doesn't show the maturity necessary to be an administrator. (I am as opposed to ageism as anyone, which is why I emphasize ''maturity''.) Also, I severely doubt he has "UAA experience"; I believe he is just clicking buttons in TWINKLE without being familiar with the username policy at all.
'''Oppose''' - Lacks the maturity that is fundamental to administering this encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per general lack of maturity and judgement. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stormtracker94_3&diff=prev&oldid=195421414 This] diff (and surrounding diffs) I find problematic for numerous reasons. The fact that you attempted to alter statements in a previous RfA so  it would justify you running earlier was bad. What is ''worse'' though, is that you didn't realize how badly this would come off to other editors. We can read the entire history of your edits, yet you still thought it was a good idea to attempt that. I think you only changed back so quickly because you were caught almost immediately and the other editor told you to revert. To give you the tools, I need confidence that you understand how wikipedia works and attempts at deception by simply editing your old edits is so ... bad. If this RfA doesn't pass... take your own original idea in the last RfA... wait ''at the very least'' 6 more months.
'''Oppose''' You have done great work to contribute to this project, but you are writing almost as if you are already an admin. Giant red tags, answering questions before they are asked, writing your own optional questions? Sorry. I would love to support in another few months.
'''Oppose''' I think that this user is going to make a good admin someday, but not quite yet. I don't see enough of a change from the last RfA. I still see consistently poor judgment and a lack of maturity that are both crucial to being given the mop. I suggest waiting six months and quit being so eager for the tools.
Unconvincing responses to opposes; possible maturity issues. ·
'''Oppose''' This is going to be a long comment, so I'll apologise in advance. Firstly, I'm again surprised that the candidate is here at RfA, so very soon after the last RfA, which was just over a month ago. I made a comment on that RfA which prompted the candidate to withdraw the RfA and admit that accepting a nomination was a clear error of judgement, so I said I was happy to withdraw my comment and treat the RfA as a declined nomination, but we're back here at RfA after another month, now this is the 3rd request in 4 months and the second which has been accepted. I'm a little disappointed at the nominators, so I'll start there first, they're all fairly intelligent people who should really know that nominating a candidate a couple of months after their last RfA outing is likely to result in another failed request, so I'm at a loss as to what the hell they're doing. I can quite happily shout at candidates self nominate every other week, but when someone is being poked and prodded with nominations from users who really should know better, it's only natural they'll assume they do know better and are likely to accept a nomination. That doesn't absolve them of responsibility to determine whether they should be at RfA, and in that respect, I'm still not happy that Stormtracker94's judgement is up to scratch, especially when I told them to wait more than 5 or 6 weeks before accept another nomination. Potential administrators not listening or professing to listen then ignoring advice worry me. The deleted page about trying to change RfA (which again, I seem to have been the first to comment on) was, I feel, an indication that the user has an unhealthy interest in passing RfA, which on it's own isn't a bad thing, I don't care if someone who I feel would make a great administrator passes RfA after having a great deal of interest in it, but when it's someone who has recently failed one RfA and had a second withdrawn, mildly outwith process, as I was obviously in a very charitable mood that day, it starts to become rather troubling. I have a few concerns which I'll share, my first concern is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGiovanni_di_Stefano&diff=206973395&oldid=206954920 this] which is in no way sensible behaviour for any user, and it worries me immensely as to how such an attitude would impact on the project if the user was given access to the block, deletion and page protection tools. I'm also left wondering how much the user knows when it comes to the biographies of living persons policies and the role of OTRS volunteers within the project. I don't even see any evidence that the user even paid a cursory glance at the AfD, which Lawrence provides all the details of the situation they are asking for in the diff above. The deleted page detailing the new RfA process the candidate here wishes to propose again showed signs that the candidate had a impulsive response to something, and there's again no evidence they had looked at WT:RFA or were familiar with the subject of adminship reform. I believe I checked the users contributions at the time and saw no recent edits to WT:RFA, which I believe demonstrates an inability to communicate with interested parties on a subject. I'm a little concerned that I had to fix the comments of the user in their own RfA, they appear not to be able to correctly format wiki-markup, which is a tiny little problem, but admins have access to the MediaWiki namespace, blacklists and such, where a little error can prevent a spam filter or titleblacklist working, and I've just got the feeling it's indicative of an overall lack of experience - that's something difficult to quantify, but that's my thoughts. Finally, I'm unhappy with the candidate agreeing with the endless harassment of those Opposing above, that's jolly bad form and again begs the question how they would behave if given access to administrator tools.
Strong oppose per Nick, per three of the four nominators, per the last part of the name of this page, and per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 3]].
'''Oppose'''. Apologies for not waiting for the response to my question, but really either way I am going to oppose per Nick. There is a considerable amount there that bothers me. He also points out what bothered me most looking through your contributions: You see to avoid centralized discussion whenever possible. I do not see you use talk pages much, particularly those in the Wikipedia namespace like RFA or the Village Pump. This alone is not worth opposing for, but it does make one wonder about your abilities as an administrator to grapple with the increase in exposure and pages like [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:AN/I]]. Best of luck in the future, <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Per Nick and per my lack of faith in the vetting by the nominators, as well as the many recent RFAs.   5 in 8 months is far too many. '''
'''Oppose''' - Not to be rude, but the nominations are not all that great. This RfA also has an appearance of an over being far too prepared, and thins like adding templates like “Stop! Read first before commenting" is just well...silly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=206579286&oldid=206578103 This] makes me feel uncomfortable as well. Along with concerns raised above I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Nick and Gwynand.
'''Oppose''' Many concerns above needs to be addressed. &mdash;
'''Oppose:'''  I won't bother with a comment, just read Nick's again.  <span style="cursor: crosshair">......[[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000"> Dendodge</em>''']].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
Appears to be lacking in good judgement.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate says they would like to work on images, but judging from edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mike_Nagy.jpg&oldid=206878994 this], it looks like the candidate doesn't really have much experience with image work. It looks as if the candidate uploaded an image, decided it was too small so decided to upload a better version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nagy_3.jpg&oldid=206879469 here] with a different filename. They could have overwritten the mistaken small image or at least requested deletion, rather than leave non-free content floating around. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Huanbychrisliu01.jpg&diff=199654213&oldid=199028179 Here] they tag an image for deletion; this shows a lack of knowledge of image policy. I think it's fine not to be familiar with all areas of the 'pedia, but you can't say you are going to work on areas that you don't really know about. That shows poor judgement to me.
'''Oppose''' -- Editor has shown very poor judgment. Should not be given the tools.
For every thirteen edits the candidate makes, they make one edit to their own userpage, which seems like an awfully high ratio. Then there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stormtracker94_3&diff=prev&oldid=195421414 this], which is just weird. And what happened to RFA #4? I don't know what to make of this candidate - the contribs list seems very sterile, many of the edit summaries being automatic - hence, neutral pending greater understanding. <font color="006622">
Not going to !vote for support or oppose because this RfA is not going to succeed.
From my observations, I am of the opinion that this contributor is intelligent and contientious, but unfortunately not quite seasoned for adminship yet. Return in 3-4 months and I'll gladly support.
<s>'''Neutral''' I see some promising this from the candidate, but there are still concerns. Like Valtoras, I suggest you return after some time. <strong>[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#006400">Spencer</span>]]</strong><sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:Coral">T♦</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:Coral">C</span>]]</sup> 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)</s> <small>Didn't see nomination was withdrawn, my bad. <strong>
Way too soon.  5 edits, including 3 for this RFA.  --
'''Oppose''' - low edit count, neglected to read self-nom instructions. reccomend snow/towel/notyet closure. For what it's worth, your two contributions prior to preparing this RFA were spot-on. Keep it up!
'''Oppose''' I view self-nominations with only two contributions to Wikipedia as ''prima facie'' evidence that this RFA will trigger a WP:SNOW.
FAIL --
Ignore the above comment, you haven't failed, but unfortunately you just aren't ready yet to become an admin. Consider reading [[User:Pedro/Not Now|this essay]] which explains why, and also some advice [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA#Snowball|here]]. Thanks,
'''Strong oppose''' per EJF. Happy editing. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' I was at Suntag's user talk page to add a 50 DYK Medal and saw this <s>AfD</s> RfA nomination. Suntag has a broad range of experience in participating at XfD, but also has strong work creating and improving articles, a vital asset when considering and judging the work created by other editors. It's fascinating that Suntag cited the [[Tom Collins]] article as among his best contributions to Wikipedia, as it was the article that earned the 25 DYK Medal, and one that ought to show how any editor can take a stub and turn it into an excellent encyclopedic article.
'''Support''' as co-nominator. &mdash;
'''Support''' - an excellent editor. 50 DYKs and 2 GAs are enough content work for me. &ndash;
'''Support''' Are you sure you're not already an admin?--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Excuse the language support''' Abso-*@#&ing-lutely, positively.  Every debate I've seen suntag in (including many where we were on opposite sides) he (she?) has been measured, intelligent and clear.  I have seen no circumstances where this editor has been rash, incivil or unreflective.  Suntag's possession of the tools will be a net positive for wikipedia.
'''Support''' as a strong content creator with a level head and definite, helpful plans for the mop. -
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, has a good judgment. We could do with some more admins at DYK too ;)
'''Support''' due to nomination by Wizardman (good guy), multiple barnstars on user page (works well with others), multiple good article credits on user page (here to build an encyclopedia), no blocks, no memorable negative interactions, and Merry Christmas!  Sincerely, --
'''Support''' I actually thought you were an admin already. Excellent contributions certainly don't hurt this nomination.
'''Support'''.  I read the two GAs quickly; the language and orthography aren't perfect, but I can understand everything they're saying ... what's wrong with them?  DYK work is impressive, and nom from Wizardman and enthusiastic support from Protonk suggest that I'd be surprised if something sways me the other way (but I can always be persuaded if new information comes up).  Ottava's link says more about Ottava than Suntag. - Dan
'''Support''' A strong contributor to the encyclopedia who is willing to collaborate and learn, and doesn't presume to know everything already. This is the type of flexibility and consideration that best serves the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' &mdash; Overall fine editor. I have seen some impressive work from Suntag at [[WP:DYK]]. I always see Suntag at discussions at [[WT:DYK]]. Suntag could do a lot more for [[WP:DYK]] (such as moving hooks to next queues) as an admin, and s/he would make a fine one. I trust Suntag as an administrator. &mdash;  <font face="cursive">
--''
'''Support''' -- Helpful when I needed good references for some of my DYK articles.
Yes please. Suntag is an excellent reviewer at DRV and his contributions are solidly based on policy and common sense. He listens to other views well and can and does change his position if a better argument comes forward. This is a crucial quality for an admin as it is important that those wielding the tools are receptive to comment and learning from errors.
'''Strong Support''' due to the excellent answers to questions, good DYK work and to balance out against Ottava's ridiculous, spurious and jerk-worthy oppose.
Excellent, prolific contributor of content and clue here on Wikipedia. Terrific, exemplary contributors tend to make terrific, exemplary administrators.
'''Support'''. In my encounters with Suntag at [[WP:DYK]] have seen no actions that would make me question his commitment to this project. Would do nothing to harm Wikipedia. &raquo;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I am reassured by the user's answers.
'''Support''' As per Wizardman and good editor.
Hello, I need to see a lawyer -- I just performed brain transfer surgery between my brother-in-law and a chicken, and the Animal Rights League is suing me because they say the chicken is now at a cerebral disadvantage...oh, wrong queue.  But while I am here: '''Support''' for an editor who has a commitment to creating content and not drama.  You go, Suntag!
My own interactions with Suntag have been positive. The six months thing is crap; as long as he shows he's ready, he's ready. ~<strong>'''''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
++
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Merry Christmas Support''' Looks good. <em style="font-family:Impact"><font color="black">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - This is a user that will be an excellent addition to the admin group: this user answers Q's in a good manner and is a good editor overall. [[User:MathCool10#top|<font color="green">Math</font>]][[User talk:MathCool10#top|<font color="red">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="darkblue">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' His work at DYK, which I've seen since he became involved, shows good evidence of content building, policy understanding, and cooperation with other editors. Nothing suggests to me that he'd do anything detrimental with the tools.
'''Support''' per evidence that he has demonstrated good qualities and good work at [[WP:DRV]], an area where more admins would be helpful. --
'''Support''': Ho Ho Ho! <small>
'''Support''' per many of the fine arguments above. Would caution against over boldness.
'''Support'''
'''Very strong support''' - When [[Sarah Palin]] unexpectedly was put forward as a VP candidate, any Palin-related articles were virtually overwhelmed by pro- and anti-Palin IPs and new accounts, most of them new and clueless as to our policies. Suntag spent many hours upholding our editorial integrity at a time when it was especially important and we had tenuous control of the situation with new [[Wikipedia:Content forking|POV forks]] every hour. Suntag stayed courteous in the process. An ideal admin. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' ''
There's nothing to suggest his being an admin would harm Wikipedia. Thus, '''support'''. &mdash;
'''strong support'''- really nice, collaborative, friendly, supportive, helpful, when I encountered him via DYK.
Eco beat me to the wrong queue, I was going to do that! He, he. Anyway, on a serious note, '''Strong Support''' great editor, trusted by me with the tols. Deserves adminship.
'''Support''' good works to DYK and everything other than that seem fine to me although the editor has only about 5 month experience (hmmm...).--
'''Support''' Why not. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - The answers to the questions are excellent (except for Q9; unblocking someone you blocked is generally frowned upon). Hell, it took [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] this long to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3|become]] a sysop, and it took [[User:Golbez|Golbez]] only slightly longer, so what's the timeitis about? --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
I'm
'''Support'''. —<sub>
'''Support''', per the noms by {{user|Wizardman}} and {{user|Politizer}}, per the answers to the first three questions, per some great contributions in many areas of the project, and per [[User:Suntag/DYK|this]]. '''
'''Strong Support''' - In my mind there are two non-admins who really stand out in the work they do at DYK. Suntag is one of them. <span style="font-family:tahoma;font-size:80%;font-weight:bold;">~
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support.''' Good work, no red flags. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Yep!
'''Support.''' Solid contributio to DYK. I respect his/her views. I have read the arguments below and maybe Suntag does have a flaw or two (I have!), but I trust this person in the normal sense of the word. We have bots if we want perfection, admins are human.
'''Strong support''' as this user has clearly shown good patience and [[WP:UCS|common sense]] in answering the questions. I have no doubts this user will make a fine sysop! '''John Sloan''' (
'''Support''': Satisfied with the relaxed attitude and article-building skills. <sup><small>
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
<s>'''Delete'''</s> '''Support'''. I see no problems here. I think that the neutrals and the opposes are splitting hairs at the atomic level.
'''Support''': Solid user.--
'''Support''' - User has shown to be an excellent content contributor, in addition to an all around great user. In my opinion, Suntag has proven himself as someone who would make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent and dilgent DYK and all-around contributor; no objections to giving him tools.
'''Support''' I've never understood the dismissive attitude some wikipedians have towards so-called 'edit count boosting' boring-but-necessary minor edits.  I see a solid contributor with a very cool temperament. --
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around DYK and can find no objections. Surprised to learn he has been around for such a shortish time and expected he was an admin already. --➨♀♂<span style="color:red">[[User: Candlewicke|Candlewicke]]</span> <sub>
'''Support''' - good answers to questions.
'''Support.''' DYK is good experience.
'''Weak support:''' See [[User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Suntag]] for an explanation. '''
'''Support.''' Appears to be level headed and not prone to capricious acts. Wikipedia needs more admins with these qualities.
'''Support.''' Seen around at DYK and AfD doing fantastic work. [[User:Bsimmons666|'''Bsimmons<font color="#990000">666</font>''']] ([[User_talk:Bsimmons666|talk]]) <sup><small>
'''Weak Support'''. I am not thrilled by several of his answers to policy-related questions, but I have no reason to think Suntag would be a net negative to the project as an administrator.
'''Support''' Based on personal experiences. '''
'''Support''' Based on his answers, he knows the hook, even if it's qite a bit too early to nominated (6 months? Give me a break.)  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong support'''.  I have found Suntag's articles to be quite good and his temperament is calm and cool, even as discussions often become heated at DYK.  I think he would be a capable and trustworthy admin.
'''Support''' Suntag has proven to be a reliable contributor and his help at DYK has been excellent. Am I the only person who finds the number of questions to be too many with all of the rephrased and repetitious questions? There's way too much badgering in this RFA. '''<font color="#000000">
'''Support''' : Based on my interactions with Suntag, I found him to be a reliable and trustworthy person. I dont care whether he really needs to extra buttons , but I am sure that he will not use it abusively . An new admin will not [[WP:DDMP|press all the buttons to see if it works]]. This guy will use it cautiously and that is all I care about. And of course we need more admins at the DYK spectrum!  --
'''Strong Oppose''' - user has extremely little experience, which has come up before in some very key areas. The user also lacks experience in other areas of content and discussion. Admin does mean something, and it should not be handed out lightly. This user has also not proven themselves as able to deal with things neutrally, and he has rushed into things without a background for what the problems are based on. There is plenty more, but I wont fill up the whole page.
'''Oppose'''. Two deeply unimpressive GAs show no real knowledge of what content building is all about. Looks to me just like ticking the box in preparation for this premature RfA. --
'''Strong oppose''' Editor seems to have been imperfectly candid when requesting rollback to the reviewing admin, Efe, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Denied/November_2008&diff=next&oldid=253397309 here], concerning claim that he had "come across many blatantly unproductive edits and had undid them".  See Question 11, above.  I asked him to name a few, he could not do so and more or less admitted that what he had said in his request was other than the case.  Given the powers of adminship, candor is an essential quality in a candidate.  This took place less than five weeks ago. This is just too recent to overlook.  Strong oppose.--
Ottava Rima makes some good points. I'm not saying that Suntag isn't trustworthy, but simply that he hasn't ''completely shown'' himself to be trustworthy ''yet''. Try again in a few more months, maybe. Do some more article content too.
'''Oppose''': Per [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] and [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]]. While adminship is "no big deal", they are still looked at by the vast unwashed masses as the figureheads of Wikipedia (including myself who is fairly new around here, but I'm sure I'll learn). [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] has been editing for barely 6 months, with under 20% of those edits being within articles. Simply not enough time (in my opinion) to be sure that [[User:Suntag|Suntag]] can be trusted with the tools. --
'''+O ''' Inexperienced. Hanging out in DYK for a few months does not = committed & experienced editor. Will probably +S in a couple months, barring anything unexpected. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] and [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]]. The issues raised are very troubling, and I believe, have the potential to undermine DYK and therefore Wikipedia. This inexperienced editor is overly involved in one aspect of Wikipedia, DYK, where he is having undue influence. &mdash;
The answer to question 8 is completely wrong. Non-free images of living people should ''never'' be used on Wikipedia, because they are always going to be replacable as long as the person is living - anyone could take a photo of the person. This may sound strict, but it's supposed to be the "free encyclopedia". I think you may need a little more time. '''

'''Oppose''' regretfully, as I see his good work at DYK and don't share Ottava Rima's concerns about it.  But I don't think he is ready - he was turned down for rollback rights just a month ago, and the baronet Afd nom in November shows inexperience. I think he's made a good start on article-building, DYK and other areas, but needs more experience. I'd say give him rollback now & I would expect to support after a decent interval.
'''Strong oppose'''. It's less than a month since [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edge Baronets|this]], and your trying to wriggle out of it with "I've learned that the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants needs to be considered in determining consensus, in addition to looking at the strength of argument and underlying policy" is deeply unimpressive, particularly with something like this where it's not a matter of "judgement and feeling overriding policy", but where we ''have'' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Articles_on_baronetcies|a clear and unambiguous policy]] which you ignored in favour of what is essentially "I've never heard of it, delete". There is no way I'd trust you with a delete button.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''
'''Weak Oppose''' per Iridescent, and the feeling that a number of the answers are weak or show a vagueness of understanding. (Some answers - i.e. Q14 - appear to be clearly incorrect, as there are [[Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions|clear exceptions to 3RR]]). <b>
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Good work at DYK but too inexperienced for adminship at the moment. The AfD mentioned by Iridescent and a largely bungled answer to Q8 about non-free images of living people (where the candidate essentially entirely missed the main point), demonstrate this pretty clearly. The recent denial of rollback episode is also somewhat concerning. The user is very much on the right track and there should be no problems in 3-4 months.
A considered '''oppose''' after a great deal of thought. Great work clerking at DYK but contributions in other areas do not show the judgement necessary to be a good admin although I am sure that this will come with time and I could see myself supporting in the future. There is just something that does not feel quite right. I am also disquieted by the several mentions in this RfA of being awarded barnstars as if they were some kind of [[kitemark]] which I should usually ignore but in this case it just adds to the general feeling of unease.
'''Oppose''' per Iridesccent and Nancy. Sorry, but I can't support this time around. '''
'''Oppose''' - I do not doubt that Suntag has best intentions at heart, but he is not ready in my mind. Answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Something also makes me wary of this RfA, I agree with Wehwalt to some extent. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Good DYK work, but something doesn't feel right here. Ottava Rima's points and Iridescent's showing of the bungled AfD make me oppose.
'''Oppose''' per number 11.  Let the Oppose-stalking begin.
'''Weak Oppose''' - It isn't really anything anyone has said, but rather a culmination of some chats with a few of the opposers and another general overlook of [[WP:DYK]]. It's still just a general feeling of "I don't think this user should be an admin yet" rather than "This user should not be an admin," which is why it is a weak oppose. <font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent's oppose. While the DYK'ing is a definite plus, just like everybody else here, I've had this feeling that there was something wrong. I still can't put my finger on it yet, but NuclearWarfare's oppose is probably the most accurate. Nothing against another RfA in a few months or so, but just not now. Sorry, and best of luck in the future! <font color="777777">
'''Oppose''' for now. Along with Johnbod and iridescent, I feel the user needs to get some more experience before I fully trust them with the tools. Someone turned down for rollback just a month ago is not ready. Please continue the good work you've done so far, and gather some more contributions that show you've learned from mistakes like the Edge Baronets AFD, and I'll support in another few months. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, user not ready.  --
'''Oppose''' per NuclearWarfare and Iridescent. The user needs a tad more wisdom, just a tad.
'''Oppose''', basically per my neutral below.  More experience is required before Suntag will be ready for the tools, although I'm sure they'll make it eventually.
'''Oppose''' - Per Matisse, Iridescent, and Oren0. I think this is too soon. As an aside, I'm also getting a slight 'trophy hunter' alert but I could be wrong about that. Like a few others said above, something just doesn't feel right. That feeling alone wouldn't be reason enough to oppose but the things brought up by Matisse, Iridescent, and Oren0 are. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Oppose''' Candidate is well intentioned, but quite apparently not yet ready to fill the role they want as reflected in Q1.
'''Oppose''' Enough questions exist that it would be best to hold off at this time.--
'''Oppose''' as trust has not yet been established and per
'''Oppose''' per many of the comments above such as Oren0, Iridescent, Matisse, and Majorly.
'''Oppose''' there are some people whose opinions catch my attention.  When Majorly opposes, I take note.  While his support doesn't say much to me, his oppose says a hell of a lot.  Majorly does not oppose candidates lightly or often.  If he is opposing, there is a solid reason behind it.  This combined with my own misgivings about the candidate during my initial review, have pushed me into the oppose camp.---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''<small>
'''Oppose'''.  I dislike the answer to question 7 ("feelings"?  seriously?).  I am also concerned that this user has never been in any kind of conflict, so how are we to judge how well he can handle future conflicts?  Administrators make people mad just by enforcing policies, and I'd like to see how administrator candidates resolve disputes that they are involved in to gain an understanding of how they will deal with those future angry editors.  I think Suntag needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' per some of the above.
'''Opppose from neutral''' per the above. Majorly makes a good point, as does Iridescent. I can't support or even neutral in light of some things brought up since the thought of you as an administrator ''at this time'' is disturbing. I'd be happy to reconsider in future if the things above are corrected in your nature. —'''
'''Oppose''' I regret that on a close reading of this (regretably brutal) RFA I believe that you will be more harm than help with the admin bit at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. For various reasons stated above.  As an aside, the welcoming message on Suntag's userpage says  ''"I like to travel and been all around the United States"''  and ''"seems like ever where you turn"'' and ''"it feels good to help an editor get Main Page recognition for article they developed"''. Then there's ''" XfD has lead me to writing/editing a topic"'' and ''"I interested in everything"''. Awful. Ability to write good English is important IMMHO even if it has little to do with the motivation of a sysop in the use of the tools. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all, and sysops are senior contributors to it. Does ''lead by example'' come to mind?
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions, in particular 7 and 8, coupled with the recent Edge baronets AfD do little to convince me that Suntag is ready for adminship at this stage. This is more an experience issue than anything, I am sure these issues can and will be rectified in the near future.
'''Oppose''' When I began reading this RfA, I thought I could easily support, but the more I read, the further I must oppose, per many issues raised above.
'''Oppose''' The candidate has done impressive work on different forums like DYK and DRV, etc... but the replies to the oppose camp's objections has worried me more. I think candidate needs to work more on content building also. Surely the next RfA would be much more easier for candidate if he improves on these few points. But as of now, I am much worried to support or even go neutral. --
Same opinion here.
'''Neutral''' per all above.
The two times I have noticed Suntag's edits left a bad impression on me. First, the deletion nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Announcements/French Christmas logo]]. The nomination was excusable because, until I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Announcements/French_Christmas_logo&diff=252757694&oldid=252563545 this edit], the page nominated for deletion could quite easily have been mistaken for a hoax. However the fact that he didn't seem to come back to the nomination sends alarm bells ringing in my head; a deletion nomination is potentially the most drastic action that can be performed on a page, and it's imperative that nominators watch their deletion noms closely. He was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20081120171124&limit=200&target=Suntag quite active on Wikipedia at the time]. Secondly, the conversation [[User talk:Random832/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive2|here]] and [[User talk:Suntag#Sandbox archive|here]], that I found through the what links here tool, is interesting. It's good that he has the curiosity to go this deep into the bowels of Wikipedia, but it's fairly easy to find out that I'm an administrator from my [[User:Graham87|user page]] and [[Special:Listusers]], so it would have been more logical to ask me directly why I made that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive2&diff=next&oldid=198115850 crazy edit summary] (which was a joke, seeing as I've done a lot of admin work in the sandbox). I realise that these edits are to unusual topics, and I'm more fascinated with the history of Wikipedia than most people around here, but something seems ... off here. I don't feel strongly enough about it to oppose, and there are [[WP:AGF|possible good faith explanations]] for these edits, so I'm !voting neutral. Merry Christmas to all, '''
'''Neutral''' leaning toward oppose. I just can't plop myself elsewhere, because I do trust the user, but [[User:Ottava Rima]] is gonna kill my support. Sorry though!
'''Neutral''' Concerns and reasons to support are imho equally divided, so I cannot support or oppose. Regards '''
'''Neutral''' - I'm not opposed to editors being nominated before the hypothetical six month benchmark, but I am concerned about editors who don't hold trust in the areas in which they work. I understand that we encourage new editors to be bold in what they do, but that has to go hand in hand with being careful - making sure that the action you're going to carry out isn't going to cause a heapload of work for others to fix if it's wrong, or that you ask around for advice/guidance before carrying out something that may be controversial. I hope that makes sense, and I'm really sorry if it comes over as unduly negative, but I hope that it'll help you in your own development on-wiki. Many thanks '''''<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' - lots of good and lots of not so good, and the not so good is too recent to ignore.  Try again in 6 months, and spend that time in other areas of the project that will force you to get a better grip on [[WP:RULES|the rules]].  You've got a decent grip, and you know where to find the rules which is good, but I'm afraid if I give you the bit now you'll embarrass yourself and hurt someone else unintentionally a few times before you get your footing.  Hang around in xDF, deletion review, BLP patrol, prod and speedy patrol, etc., watch and learn, and do the adminish things that don't require the bit and you'll be ready to reapply in 3-6 months.  I'd wait 6 months just to be on the safe side though.
'''Neutral''' - a first for me. I cannot support (see my comments re DYK in the Oppose, for one problem) but neither can I in all good faith and conscience oppose a candidate who is no worse than evidently inexperienced and - through no fault of his own, I suspect - concentrating his efforts in areas that have been poorly evaluated and don't offer the requisite breadth and depth of decision-making and content building. My opposes are invariably based on the contrib. consideration but are also swayed by unsuitable temperament/maturity/motivation (viz. the kind of things that, sadly, can be reasonably predicted to go the same way a few months hence). Don't think that here. So.
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user around.  Concerns at last RFA were over experience, but this has been cleared up.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''
'''Support''' - dedicated, knows his stuff, and has gained tons of experience since his last RfA. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''okay'''
'''Support''' Seems like a trusted user. I've seen this user contributing in many places. Regards, [[User:RyRy5|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5</font>]] ('''''[[User talk:RyRy5|<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk</font>]]
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already. (Guess I was too lazy to look ;) ) Seriously, a great editor. <font color="#3300ff">
·
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Zurek]].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. a voice of reason in a field of non-civil, overzealous-with-deletions admins would be a great thing to have to even out the field.  <font color="629632">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A very good and helpful wikipedian. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' per my good experience with this user (and my barnstar!). Best of luck! --
'''Support''' - Anything this guy is not solid on yet, he is clearly willing to learn. I saw an oppose for him only having over 2,000 edits since his return. Outside of Wikipedia, when was the last time you did something 2,000 times and got called out for lack of experience? Never mind if you did the same thing 10,000 times before you did it 2,000. He'll do just fine, and is clearly able to grow in the role.
'''Support''' Agreed. Willing to learn, maybe not perfect yet but close enough.
'''Support''' Only 1 Imagespace edit. Still the user has a lot of experience in other areas of editing.
'''Support''' as (belated) nom.  ^^ '''
'''Support''' although the opposing arguments are valid, I like the way the nominee is showing a good attitude and enthusiasm. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Some of the answers are indeed questionable. However, I feel SynergeticMaggot's strong points outweigh his weaknesses. While Syn might not be perfect, I highly doubt he'll abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 5a is appallingly unthoughtful, crudely explained and partially ''seems'' at least to contradict itself. I could overlook that as lazy writing (which I do myself often enough), but I cannot overlook a potential admin with such low  experience in article-building and content-conflict proposing to patrol AN/3.
Sorry, but I'm going to take a cue from Kmweber on this one. You seem to view policy as the end all of everything (the attitude of, I'd say, most Wikipedians) however, it should IMO be descriptive of a long term consensus but of which can be changed. And, they should be a suggestion to follow and not the end all of everything in the spirit of [[WP:IAR]]. We do have several processes of which to discuss actions of a particular user. Also, I'd like to see a bit more article contributing, as that's what we're all about. I'm an '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]

'''Oppose''' I've spent a lot of time reviewing Syn, then reloaded the page. I have to say, the answers to the questions haven't been good. Specifically 5a and 5b, most of Transhuman's question, now also Q 7 (these numbers might change if transhumans questions have numbers added). Then I caught issues with XfDs. Let's be fair here... the ANI ''and'' the RfC aren't horrible, but they aren't that great either. I've read through both of them and think that Syn should have taken the advice in them, but just seemed overly defensive. Furthermore, I'm really quite surprised he didn't address these issues in Q3. He doesn't have to, yes, but I don't think there is any way around it but to say that his Q3 response is at the worst deceptive, at the best, poorly considered. If there was an ANI and a RFC about a candidate, the community is going to want to see it. Bottom line, Syn isn't a horrible candidate, but all of these concerns add up to some serious worrying from me, and I have to oppose at this time. Also, just noticed his interaction with Collectonian... only third oppose in and this is coming off as overly defensive to a fair oppose.
'''Oppose''' This user is far too quick on the SNOW closes; despite several people telling him that, besides cases of blatant spam and vandalism, there is no harm in letting an AfD go the full five days, he continues to close AfDs and get in trouble for it. This causes me to question his judgment, his collaborative skills, and potential damage if granted the tools. Also, per Collectonian.
'''Oppose''' - Ugh. I'm just not comfortable with SM working at AfD or any other consensus driven discussion given the links provided above for ANI and AN. I was present for one of them, and opined a defense comment, as the candidate was working with [[WP:IAR]] in mind. However, upon reflection, I see that these discussions reveal an critical mis-evaluation of that policy. Some of his non-admin closures have been downright incorrect. I feel that there is insufficient assurance that this will not transmit over to the buttons.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Self-nom, advocate of speedy deletion, incorrectly believes so-called "policies" and "guidelines" to be prescriptive rather than descriptive.
'''Oppose''' _ I'm really unhappy with the answers to questions 5a and b. Really sorry, but I'm concerned about your depth of knowledge regarding policy -
'''Oppose'''. SM is a generally friendly and helpful user (once kindly correcting me when I was making an error with AfD closes soon after becoming an admin) who makes good contributions. But after reviewing this there are too many concerns. Like Alison, I was rather bothered by both of the answers to question 5, particularly 5a (there's just no getting around the fact that that is a bad answer). Indeed I'm rather underwhelmed by the answers overall. Likewise the initial response to Collectonian's oppose comment is rather snippy which I really don't like to see in RfA's. Probably most importantl though are some obvious problems with AfD closes. I'm all for non-admins closing obvious keep AfD's, but there seem to be some real problems with how SM approaches this (despite a lot of good work). The threads linked by Collectonian are worrisome. Specifically (and I did not look in great detail, these are just a couple of quick examples) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Baksh&oldid=204380757 this close] is just not acceptable. Not that keeping was necessarily the wrong decision, but with 3 delete !votes and 2 keeps this is not an AfD for a non-admin to close (this was a month and a half ago). Similarly, but less obviously, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Sunday (1969)|this]] was not a speedy keep. Despite article improvement, there was still a perfectly viable delete comment present and discussion had only proceeded for about 24 hours. The fact that it was almost certainly going to end up a keep is not the point, we generally keep AfD's open for the full five days if there is any doubt as to the outcome, bearing in mind that new information might come in. I can offer strong moral support, and in 6 or 9 months without problems would probably support, but I have too many concerns about judgment at this point. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''', would not be comfortable with this editor closing moar AFDs.  Glasscobra sums it up well.
Way too quick and erratic on the AFD closures for my comfort.
'''Oppose''' While I disagree with two of kurt's reasons, his point about SynergeticMaggot2 believing policies to be prescriptive is definitly a good reason to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' I hate to sound like someone who has no original thought of their own by repeating something that's been said several times already but I really, really am not comfortable with your answers to 5a and 5b. Mind you, I have not ever supported or opposed an admin candidate based on just one answer (even if my oppose/support vote condemns/praises said answer) rather I am left with a feeling that you might swipe your mop incorrectly (?) if you were put on the spot to make a decision to either block someone when blocking them might only make matters worse or protecting an article and thereby halting progress on its improvement. P.S. please forgive my mop joke if it's much more asinine than I intended for it to be.
<s>Pending answer to question 8.</s> '''Neutral''' - maybe I understood wrong, but it seems a bit like there is no difference between the current "activities" done by this user, and the admin "activities," so I don't think it matters, as it has already been established that it's no big deal. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Neutral''' - Nice enough user but answers to my questions were not satisfactory, really. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Neutral''' After reading the answers to questions above, and without spending a good deal more time reviewing this candidate's contribs, I would like to post here to voice a concern, which can best be illustrated by searching for the word "quickly". There is no deadline - no need to revert vandalism "as quickly as possible", and certainly no need to respond quickly to a user who's being incivil to you. <small>Sorry if this sounds like a lecture</small>  <font color="006622">
'''Support''' I've interacted with this user on a number of occasions, and all I've seen is good work. I'm especially impressed by his boldness when closing XfDs. You have my full support. &ndash;
'''Support''' No question in my mind that Synergy is responsible, understands the needs of the community, and understands the role and limitations of an administrator.
'''Support''' Contributions will equal a net positive for the Community.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
'''Support''' '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
'''Support'''- I see this user around quite a bit, and I've always been impressed with their edits. Excellent answers to the questions too. I have no issues about giving Synergy the tools.
'''Support''' &mdash; The article sourcing gruntwork that he does is extremely useful, the concerns from his last RfA have been addressed, the concerns from his first RfA have been tempered by significant experience, his talk and process contributions show an accessible and fairminded editor, and he doesn't seem to get into pissing matches or slapfights.  The former maggot (does the name change mean he has graduated to fly status?) will make a good administrator. '''
'''Weak support'''. Support for the answers to the questions, the weakness for his mainspace contributions, as pointed out by [[User talk:Giggy|Giggy]] in opposition.
'''Support''' I've worked with Synergy via [[WP:SPOT|Spotlight]] on the Lafayette article. I found his contributions to be helpful and on-point. Additionally, I have seen Synergy around on various noticeboards and am impressed with his clear and generally neutral postings.
'''Support''' OK, so I have seen a few, erm, "dry" responses, but I get a sense of honesty which is refreshing. ''Thinks'' about things, which is a plus, and I am pleased about the mainspace contribs. Cheers,
'''Support''' a very sensible user, answers to questions are decent. Opposes don't bother me at all. The claim that he is inclusionist beyond reason makes no sense as Syn votes 'delete' just as much or more often than he votes 'keep' (at least as far as I looked; last 2 months). The other diffs presented by the opposer's worry me not at all; that article work is more than sufficent and (IMHO) and while they criticize him for clinging too tightly to policy they act like its [[Watergate]] that he once told someone something that is common knowledge but is contradicted by a tiny line that was written several years ago (yes the questions are denoted as 'optional questions' but are not treated as such, just see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2]]). - '''
'''Weak Support'''. I'm not a fan of candidates who use automated tools excessively immediately prior to an RFA, but in this case, I think the pros outweigh the cons and making ex-SynergisticMaggot an admin would be a net positive.
'''Support''': Looks good. Excellent answers to all parts of Q5.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - Wonderful interaction with the user! Best of luck, --'''
I'm
'''Support''' per my nom in his second RfA (as SynergeticMaggot).
'''Support''' No major concerns here.
'''Net positive'''
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''' Icewedges response to iridecent got me. I'm more or less convinced at this point that Synergy would make a great admin, regardless of how minor his article work is.--
'''Support''' - Opposed last time, support this time. My concerns are alleviated. Also, per Koji above.
'''Support''' I'm going to go with my gut right now.  I won't say that I am completely without concern, there are some issues that demonstrate some immaturity or areas for growth, but overall, I think he'll do a decent job.  When he asked me to coach him, my initial question to him was "Why did he need it?"---'''
'''Strong Support''' - Have known editor for a while and have had only positive interactions with him. I have also found him to be very helpful, knowledgeable and reasonable in interactions with me and with others that i have seen him interact with. Is someone i would like to see have the tools. '''
'''Support''' - I have no issues with the user, and the opposers haven't brought up anything sufficient to make me oppose.
Wow, yes.
'''Strong Support''' <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' No negative interaction. <font color="amaranth">
'''Support'''. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - I've had a lot of interactions with Synergy, and watched his editing on wiki. I don't see any reason for him to not have the tools. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
Following in Balloonman's footsteps here. Also to help even out what I consider a bit of a pile-on for non-deal-breaking reasons. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
Links from Wikipedia Review don't convince me that a candidate is untrustworthy. What matters most is Synergy's on-site contributions, and from what I can tell they are sterling. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support'''. I've had nothing but good experiences with Synergy, I really get the impression that he knows what he's doing and could make great use of admin tools. I waited a while to see if anything was brought up to concern me in the opposes, but most of them are either based on differing criteria (I personally feel that major article-building experience is a fairly irrelevant requirement for an otherwise-clued-up admin candidate, but many others disagree), or interpretations of situations that I don't see a problem with. Overall I have no concerns, and as far as I can see nearly all of his XfD closes have been pretty sensible. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' I recognize the reasons for other editors to oppose below, but I have interacted with this user on Wiki, esp on IRC.  I think Synergy will be a net positive to the project.
Hello, my brother-in-law got his head stuck in a tuba and I need to buy a blowtorch to get him...oh, wrong queue. All seriousness aside: '''Support''' -- I have no qualms about this candidate's ability and intelligence (my brother-in-law, however, is another matter).
'''Support''': Contribs seem solid enough.  Sure, the user isn't perfect, but who among us is?  The relevant question to ask is: will this user (accidentally or otherwise) cause significant harm if given the tools?  I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe that this user will, therefore I support.
'''Support'''. My interactions with Synergy have been nothing but positive, and he seems to have a firm grasp of policy. If this RfA is successful, I suspect he'll be very productive as an admin. Good luck! -
'''Support''' per Oren0.  --''
'''Support''' due to a great experience with this user recently. —'''
'''Support''' i see this user alot on wikipedia.
'''Support.''' As much as I do dislike Synergy's inappropriate XFD closings, I don't see a way how can that make him a bad admin.
'''Support.''' Seems solid enough; makes mistakes, but nothing alarming. -
'''Weak Support''' Some misgivings, but overall net positive <font color="amaranth">
'''Weak Support''' : Net positive. Mainly because the oppose reasons still doesnt convince me. <small> ( Still researching ... ) </small> --
'''Support'''.  I dislike Synergy.  I find his overeagerness to close XfD's early distasteful and misguided, and, as Eric the Red below was trying to point out with misplaced sarcasam, he just really rubs me the wrong way.  However, he just wants to do good work for Wikipedia.  I don't think we should begrude a good-faith user that.
'''Support''' Can't believe I haven't supported yet! To be honest, I read through the entire request, and I understand where some of the opposers are coming from, but I honestly don't believe they're big enough reason to warrant an oppose. I am, however, pretty disgusted at Sandstain's oppose (disclosure: we have had disagreements on RfA talk, but there you go... I'm not the only one who thniks this, judging by the long thread after his oppose). I hope the closing bureaucrat makes a fair decision here (and provides a rationale as per Synergy's request on the noticeboard). Some of the opposes here (i.e. EJF's) make accusations about Synergy that have no evidence, and appear to be about another user, which I think is grossly unfair. <big>
'''Support''' as last time. However, I'd advise you give heed to some of the opposes below. In particular, Fut. Perf's.
'''Support''' This user knows what can be done, needs to be done and I see no reason that he should not be granted with adminship. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''.  I seem to rarely agree with syn/mag about anything, and yet, he continues to be a good guy.  Maybe I really am the bad guy. While disagreeing, Synergy remains civil in his discourse, good with communication.  Has some quirks, but we all do.  Support, net asset.
'''Support'''; nothing to indicate to me that the nominated will abuse the tools.  <font color="629632">
long time since I've commented on one of these, know this user from WP:SPOTLIGHT, does a good job with articles. —— '''
'''Support''' Why not?
I wasn't originally going to comment in this RfA, but since it is going right down to the wire, I decided to. My interactions with Synergy have been largely positive, and none of the issues brought up in the oppose section particularly worry me, but there ''are'' quite a few of them. I just don't think Synergy is going to run off and do something stupid, so I guess I'll '''support''' this. If you do pass, please take it slow for the first couple of weeks until you get a handle on what you're doing.
'''Support''' I think that, on the balance, well worth the risk. --
Nah, mainly per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Synergy&namespace=0&year=&month=-1], as well as per Editorofthewiki and GlassCobra at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SynergeticMaggot 2]]. —'''
Sorry, but '''Oppose'''. Synergy is someone I have a number of different problems with, none of which are "killers" in themselves, but which together add up to "not enough to trust him", and a general feeling (right or wrong) that this is someone who has an over-rigid "policy is there to be enforced" mentality, except when it applies to him. I've gone through every AfD contribution of his from the whole of August, and I can't find ''one single example'' of him saying anything other than "keep", aside from a single "redirect" [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postville Raid|here]]; extreme inclusionism is all well and good, but there comes a limit. While (although I'd consider myself an inclusionist) I disagree with the hardline stance of, for example, [[User:DGG|DGG]], I trust DGG to weigh issues fairly when closing XfDs, and to be honest – given the number of times I've warned Synergy about his inappropriate non-admin closures – I don't trust him at AfD, which is the first place he says he specifically wants to work. Yes, these were in the past, but they weren't "borderline" decisions; these were outright [[WP:ILIKEIT]] decisions, most notoriously speedy-closing [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center|this MfD]] as "keep". Only a couple of weeks ago, Synergy was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASynergy&diff=232926411&oldid=232926173 explaining to a 'crat] that "the questions aren't optional", despite the "You may wish to answer the following <u>optional</u> questions" at the top of every RFA/B. And the combination of "[[WP:IAR]] should be applied rarely if ever", coming from an editor who only a couple of months ago was posting [[System Syn|unsourced fancruft]] grates on me. Sorry, but while Synergy is fine with the dot-the-i's-and-cross-the-t's side of maintenance, I don't trust him to exercise common sense in the Wikipedia space, which is where I suspect from his history he'll end up spending most of his time.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', has shown poor judgment on the few occasions I noticed him, most outrageously [[User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/Archive_13#Accusations|here]] (cf. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks|background]]).
I agree with Giggy in this instance. '''
'''Oppose''' per his unique comments and judgments on ANI.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but it's just too risky given your abusive comments and lack of understanding of policy, etc. <small style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic,Arial;display:inline;padding:5px;background-color: #ff0000">
'''Weak Oppose''' - Stronger article building needed, too soon since your last RfA attempt for me and incivil comments. —
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And, answer to #8 doesn't show me that you need the tools. '''
'''Strong oppose'''.  Then called Synergetic Maggot, this user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards_Center&diff=220523873&oldid=220523784 speedy closed] a controversial MfD after only two hours.  He then left an increasingly bizarre and often belligerent series of comment [[User_talk:Jbmurray/Archive_5#MfD_reopened|on my talk page]] and on his own.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Synergy&oldid=220654216#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FUser:Sharkface217.2FAwards_Center] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Synergy&oldid=220654216#A_request] I don't object to the fact that he screwed up.  We're not looking for perfection in administrators.  What most concerned me, however, was that at no point did he ever seem to get the point that he'd screwed up.  Indeed, just a few hours after being told that his speedy close was out of line, he ''added'' the following text to his user page:<blockquote>I believe that if an XfD is found to be frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith, it should no longer take place. I frequently close them on this basis, but not on this basis alone. If others can delete pages, that are not backed by current policy or guidelines, then others can keep based on good old fashion [[WP:COMMONSENSE|rationale]].</blockquote>  The clear implication was that, despite being told otherwise by multiple editors, he still believed that the MfD in question was "frivolous, out of place, out of order, or in bad faith."  In my view a user is unfit for administratorship if he or she believes that belligerence and bravado are the correct responses when their mistakes are pointed out to them. --
Sorry, but I think that all these opposes offer good reasons for you not to become an administrator. Being an editor is one thing, being a sysop is another. I think you need to gain more maturity on the site and just keep all your anger inside you when you're annoyed. Civility is a <big>huge</big> thing on RFA. I'd like to support, but too many things <s>the Diligent Terrier comment</s> are forcing me to hold back for right now. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' Can't support here. Synergy is still closing XfDs when he shouldn't be, even after several editors brought it up as concerns in his last RfA. Further, even though I'm not as strict on requiring content contribution, the total lack of involvement in this area does influence my decision.
The issues that concerned me in the last RfA haven't gone away. Adding to that, iridescent's analysis really worries me. So '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose.''' Thank you for answering my question. I am of the opinion, though, that administrators should have substantial content creation experience, which it appears you still lack. <s>Also, the tone and substance of your personal website that is linked to in a deleted version of your old userpage is of concern to me, because it is not how someone I would like to be in charge of anything would choose to present him- or herself to the world.</s> Thank you for your understanding. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose''' per  iridescent - if Synergy agreed not to close XfD discussions, then I would reconsider.
'''Oppose''' Mainly per Giggy, but I believe most article writing experience is needed. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
'''Oppose''' per Q4. I would find Xenocidic's hypothetical a little hard myself; I would not have gotten to a week's block that soon. But it's a gullibility test: a calm response, immediately following a profanity which immediately follows the block, is very likely to be an act. That Synergy does not consider the possibility, especially when reversing someone else's block (as he stipulates) is dismaying.
<s>'''Strong Support''' How could I not, when you haven't made any mistakes since June, and have such an [[Three|unbelievable]] amount of edits to RFPP in your last 500 and an even more [[Zero|incredible]] amount of edits to AIV and UAA in your last 500, all of which being areas you want to work in the most. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small>(<font color= "maroon">[[User Talk:Erik the Red 2|AVE]]</font>·<font color= "orange">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|CAESAR]]</font>)</small> 19:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</s>Per lack of recent activity in 3 out of four admin areas he wants to work in, irresponsible XfD closes, and lack of improvement on RfA issues. Sorry for the sarcasm. Erik the <font color="red">
Hate to say it, but "doesn't show a great understanding of the rules (examples above)", plus "can't point to significant examples of content creation" just means "not ready", as far as I can see.
Nope, sorry per xfd closes and incivility brought up above. There is a difference between incivility that can be overlooked, said in times of stress and a blatant attack.
'''Weak oppose''' - Sorry, don't trust your judgment. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I've generally got an OK impression of you here, but this edit (<nowiki>http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Ryan_Postlethwaite&diff=1997680306&oldid=1997639711</nowiki>) on ''my'' ED page really gets to me and makes me question your judgement. There's two explanations; you were either trolling ED, which isn't a good idea because it could lead to attacks or outing of other contributors, or you were suggesting that ED should dig up some more dirt on me. Either way, I'm not sure that I trust your judgement with the tools. '''
'''oppose''' It seems you are ''trying'' not to be as hasty and condescending as you have been [[User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive2#AfD nomination for NVC|in the past]], but I don't see enough improvement to merit support, and I just can't support a candidate that holds [[WP:IAR]] in such low regard.
'''oppose''' just too much controvercy, too much emotion, and not enough concensus to support;  Administrators should be there to pour oil on troubled waters not rock the boat
'''oppose''' - too many XfD related concerns --
'''Oppose''' - Overall good edits but not satisfied with answers to questions, most importantly question 6.  Also per Beeblebrox --
I see a few things I don't like, namely XfD concerns.
No; largely per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASynergy&diff=237234172&oldid=237229734 this]. We don't need more admins who can't admit they're wrong.
'''Oppose''' per civility concerns articulated above.  Also  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Instruments|this closure]] while undoutably correct as to outcome seems uneccesarily [[WP:BITE|bitey]] and unhelpful to me.
'''Oppose''' Sorry must oppose, mainly per FPaS and Nousernamesleft. -
'''Weak oppose''' The followup to Q7 is more disconcerting than the answer.
'''Oppose''' - As a user who has on numerous occasions been proved wrong and such. I can see too many similarities between myself and this user. I would certainly not be given adminship and, I cannot see enough differences to warrant this user being given adminship.--
'''Oppose'''. Too many mistakes, including XFD closure and poorly chosen words when discussing with other editors. (I'm assuming good faith here.)
'''Oppose''', I still believe that user is a net asset to the project, but there are too many "little things" being brought up in this oppose section that make me feel that the candidate would not be a good admin at this time.
I would oppose but I wonder if my judgment is clouded by my past encounter with this editor.  I refer to what I felt was a hostile, insulting and uncommunicative response ''to my neutral'' at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gazimoff#Neutral|Gazimoff's RFA]].  Maybe this is his only such bout, and if so it wouldn't be fair to oppose for the time lightning struck and I happened to be involved.  Gazimoff's RFA was clearly passing and I just wanted to note a concern.  I think his behavior in that encounter directly contradicts his answer to Q3.  He claims he tries to be understanding, yet when I attempted to talk to him, he was rude, explicitly uninterested in understanding what I was saying.  He was even bothered by the idea that I'd try to explain my opinion on an RFA at that RFA.  That's just about the opposite of an editor interested in understanding. --
'''Neutral,''' at least for now. Can't quite make up my mind either way here. Would rather like to see an answer to Q7 of Protonk, especially in view of XfD issues raised at previous RfA and since the candidate states in the answer to Q1 that he intends to be active as an admin in the AfD area.
'''Neutral''' I find compelling arguments from editors I respect on both sides and will have to ponder longer. I may switch and am leaning toward support. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Neutral'''. I can't come to a decision, despite examining scores of Synergy's edits and the agruments made by both pro and con camps. Some of the accusations leveled at Synergy hold little merit; however, I'm too concerned with Synergy's tone in some interactions to be able to cast a supporting vote.
'''Neutral''' I came here to support, giving the amazement I felt in the past, when I often wondered whenever I encountered him, why this editor was no admin already. He was always acting like one and usually that is a strong argument for an RfA (based on that if users believe you to be an admin, then you should be one). But the concerns raised by the opposing side worry me a bit and I cannot support yet without having a bad feeling. I will await further development and maybe switch my vote then. '''
'''Neutral''' I'll have to think this one over.
'''Neutral''' for now.  Several concerns have been raised, but not so serious as to cause me to oppose.
'''Neutral''' at the moment.  I don't think that the user displays much maturity, but it's been a while since I've seen this user in action so have put the RfA on my watchlist and may come back later.
'''Enthusiastic support''', as nominator.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''', could do with more time here, as you only have four months here doing a lot of editing, but you are doing a lot, and have done well here, and I agree a lot with what Keeper has said. Good luck mate! <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' Will do fine with the mop. -
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Can be trusted with the tools. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt comic sans ms">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt verdana">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. <s>The only thing that made me nervous is the number of unanswered posts on the user's talk page, however despite this, I still think that Tanthalas39 can be trusted to make good use of the tools.</s>  I think this user will make good use of the tools.  ''According to [[User:Hennessey, Patrick/RfA Reviews/RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria v1.0]], Tanthalas39 gets a [[User:Hennessey, Patrick/RfA Reviews|score of <s>92.8%</s> 94.3%]].'' <span style="font-family:Futura,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Stats look good and I trust Keeper's judgement. '''
AGF. I'm not overly concerned by the opposition arguments; 4 months is fine, and in response to Mr. Arritt, we wouldn't have spotted Archtransit no matter when we sysopped him, or whatever is being argued there. We shouldn't disadvantage other candidates because someone skillful got through. ''
Looks OK and I don't think he is Archtransit.
I hope he is Archtransit. lulz
'''Support'''.  I definitely trust this user with the tools.  S/He will make a great administrator.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Weak support''' Really like the users work and fulfills all my requirements but some´thing is bugging me. I will def. add it if I put my finger on it! --
'''Support''' A good candidate who, as noted, contributes in a thoughtful and considered manner. I would encourage the candidate to tread lightly in their first days as an admin, as lack of experience is a (minor) concern. Good luck,
'''Get the sense nominee won't abuse or misuse the tools.''' The only way to prevent an Archtransit would be to routinely checkuser everyone in so far as the sock puppetry. Afraid I know no way to gauge the likelihood of going rogue within a month, but that's rare.
'''Strong Support''' Again, I am going to bring up [[WP:NBD|No Big Deal]] here. We tend to throw this around some, but it seems that its made a big deal during [[WP:RFA|RFA's]]. This user is a prime example. He is strong in policy's and understands what Admin's are here for, and the power of the tools. He may not have a ton of experience, but look at [[User:Keeper76|Keeper's]] comments above and see that he actually pushed for this RFA to come. He may not have been here for 4 or 5 years, but he grasps the concepts and know's what he is doing. Good luck [[User:Tanthalas39|Tanthalas]]. I wish you the best. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - Looks like a very solid candidate. He's experienced enough for me. -
'''Support''' (from weak oppose) Okay, I'm buying this. Sure, there's some experience issues. Yes, we haven't got categorical evidence from contribution history with respect to the "finer arts of adminship" <small>When someone finds out what they are, can they let me know as well</small>. But the candidate seems ready. Why? Well 1) Look at the calm way he's dealt with this RfA for one - nobacklash, no snarky edit summaries - just a willingness to be transparent and honest. 2) The optional Q's - nothing here that's wildly outside of norms and expectations, and some insightful comments there as well - reasoned and collected thoughts. 3) '''It just feels right''' - about the worst reason there may be to support but after further extensive, and I promise very extensive, review and deep consideration I just can't see how this is going to be anything but a .... '''net positive''' to Wikipedia. Yes, mistakes may happen but the benefit will outway any possible "harm". Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I'm persuaded that Tanthalas39 would make a good administrator. Like Pedro, I've found the way he's handled himself during this RfA to be quite persuasive. --
'''Support''' per Pedro. <strong>
'''Weak support''' - [[WP:AGF]], While i generally oppose because of lack of experience, I don't feel that that will be an issue when it comes to Tanthalas39's judgments along with the fact that I trust keeper to nominate users who will be a asset to the project. Best of luck,
'''Support'''. I support this candidate for several reasons.  His obvious desire to further the good of Wikipedia , His sound knowledge of Wiki Policy (and in such a short time especially supports my first point), and lastly ability to take the barrage of criticism with grace and professionalism.

'''Weak Support''' Also, I ''strongly'' disagree with Raymond Arritt's vote to oppose simply because of the Archtransit debacle. I personally will be assuming good faith on this one.
'''Weak Support''' - I casted my oppose early in the process before any actual questions were asked, and regretfully I might add. After thoroughly reading the answers to each question, I was shockingly impressed by the user's level headedness and sound knowledge of policy. This coupled with the user's activity in [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:AFD]] has made me re-evaluate. It left a good taste in my mouth. My balance criteria is going to take an ephemeral wikibreak on this one.
'''Weak support''' Seems trustworthy. I'm not worried about tool abuse. '''
'''Strong Support''' This user clearly has the skills and has strong references.  If I was interviewing this user for a job I would hire him before they walked out of my office.  "not enough time here" is a poor reason to turn this excellent editor down.
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions particularly the follow-ups, time and experience are all relative and this editor has a good grasp of what is necessary.  Time in project space is great, but should never be a litmus test.--
'''Support''', seems fine.
Trust nominator.
'''Weak Support''' because of the lack of experience, but I feel they will use the tools properly. --<small>
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - good work in admin coaching; better than average answers to questions.
'''Support''' after reviewing his record: well-written articles, commitment to NPOV, refreshing support of IAR. He wants to help in areas that badly need help and has pledged himself to recall in the unlikely event he abuses his office. Let's allow him the opportunity.
'''Support''' - strong nom, seems very willing to learn, and no indication that he can not be trusted with the tools. <b>
'''Support''': Been around a while, appears to know the rules, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker.  No reason to oppose. --
'''Strong Support''' I believe that intent, trustworthiness, communication, and quality of edits are the most important thing for a potential sysop to have, of which Tanthalas has shown all. Edit count is just part of the picture, and improving an article in four edits instead of fifteen should in no way be counted against a contributor. '''
'''Support'''.  Unlikey to block good-faith contributors with clear demonstration of concensus to do so first.  &#10154;
'''Support''' I have no experience with this editor but thought the answers to the questions are very reasonable (and thoughtfully articulated!). Clicking through to comments on a few contentious issues noted here, my impression is that Tanthalas will be an inclusive administrator in the sense that Tanthalas will try to listen to all voices, but will not hesitate to act in obvious cases of bad faith (perhaps becoming the Teddy Roosevelt of admins!).--
'''Support'''.  Great policy knowledge!  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''' Happy editing! '''''[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">K</font>]][[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">im</font>]]
'''Support''', per solid answers.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around and I have only positive impressions. I have no reason whatsoever they'll abuse the tools and I believe they have enough commonsense to be circumspect while picking up the finer points of using them. --
'''Support''' - looks good, meets my standards, decent answers (although I'll only block for a max of 3 months for homophoic vandalism).  Bearian, a/k/a
'''Support''' - Tanthalas39's time as a user may not be very long, but I think his contributions are of very high quality. I think this user would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor and competent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' Looks good to me ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' As recently as one year ago, someone with Tanthalas39's experience would not have encountered serious opposition by more than 2 or 3 people for being too new.  I see his recent contribs reflect sufficient familiarity with the way Wikipedia works to be a competent admin.  In addition, I '''strongly support his answer to Q9''', and I am baffled as to why anyone would allow such a vandal to run rampant and not block on sight.
Trust Keeper76 as a nom; opposition appears to be superficial.
Looks like a good editor to me.
'''Oppose''' I looked at Tanthalas a few weeks ago as a potential admin coachee myself and thought that he was about 3-4 months away from being a viable candidate.  When this RfA came up, from a contributor I respect, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and looked at his contributions again with a fresh eye.  My opinion remains unchanged, I think Tanthalas will make a good admin, but I don't think now is the time.  Tan became an active contributor in December and almost immediately requested coaching.  He has about 3 months of active editing (Dec, Jan, Feb.)  If you look at the number of edits on articles, he has about 90 edits on the 15 articles he's edited the most.  He's only worked on one article for more than 10 edits.  His contributions to article talk space is even worse.  He's only made 40 edits on the 15 article talk spaces that he's edited the most---none of which is for more than 4 edits.  This shows a complete lack of article development experience or consensus building.  User talk is the same story---if you ignore his own page (where he has 22 total edits) he hasn't communicated with other users to a great extent.  The only Wikipedia category he has an extensive history (with 77 edits) is AIV.  Wikipedia talk has a TOTAL of 5 edits.  While I personally like him and think he may be a fine admin in the future, I don't believe that day is today.
'''Oppose''' per Wisdom89. Given that we've had some adminships blow up in our face lately <s>(the worst case being [[User:Archtransit]])</s> it's prudent to observe candidates a little longer than four months.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman. I don't see anything that says that candidate ''will'' abuse the tools but there just isn't enough time spent in discussion to show composure under heated debate or a desire for article building. Just needs to spend more time collaborating and come back with a bit more experience. I agree with Wisdom, discuss things a bit more, participate in article building and come back in a couple months.
'''Oppose''' - After looking this candidate over, I cannot support at this time.
'''Oppose''' - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' Some more experience needed.
'''Oppose''' you are not for my liking, lack of experience. Try again in a few months time.
'''Oppose''' at this time.  Will support in future.
'''Oppose''' Too little experience to enable judging of policy knowledge and also temperament. The diff provided by Yngvarr, also raises concerns about how the candidate views adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman and Raymond arritt. However, I think Tanthalas39 is a very good editor and I will support his next RfA.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient experience, as yet.
'''Oppose'''. Balloonman raises some good points.  However, in light of Keeper76's comments about the timing of the nomination, the quality of some of the edits, and the work in admin coaching, I could live with the relative inexperience.  Certainly there is a potentially good admin here.  The issue that moves me to oppose relates to question 14.  Tanthalas39 admints that he "might have waded into waters over [his] head", and chose to back away - I can accept that, especially as he did look into the situation before commenting (not thoroughly enough, as it turns out, but that too could be excused due to inexperience).  Unfortunately, in reflecting on it, Tanthalas39 evidently still does not see the problem:  it isn't whether or not he was supporting Whig, or commenting on content, or whether I "didn't like" his comments.   Characterising a discussion with contributions from three admins, two of whom do not edit in the disputed area, and one of whom was Whig's former mentor as seeming like "a group of editors interested in one area, and who do not agree with Whig's style, are ganging up to ban him" demonstrates neither good judgment nor an assumption of good faith.  My advice to Tanthalas39 and Keeper76 is as follows: if this RfA fails, I suggest Tanthalas39 could spend time contributing to some of the more complex issues that come up at AN and ANI.  After each has settled down, reflect on those contributions in light of the resolution adopted - were they consistent with the path ultimately adopted - and reflect on whether those contributions could have been better.  It is inevitable that admins make mistakes.  This isn't a big problem if they learn from those mistakes, which requires good judgment and reflection; ultimately, my doubts in this area prevent me from supporting this RfA.
'''Oppose.''' T39 needs more experience and greater diversity in experience. Get more involved in discussions so we can learn what you'll be like as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Per Balloonman, perhaps next time. --
'''Oppose''', insufficient article-space experience. [[Tahquitz]] is now a bit more than a stub, but I'd like admins to have a bit more idea about writing the encyclopedia than that.
'''Oppose''' insufficient experience in wikipedia space also. Comments in AFD's generally miss the point and gives to much benefit of the doubt for things to eventually establish notibility etc. Has even pointed out sources to apparently show nobitility, but not added it to the articles as the sources not seem notable. Needs more experience.--
'''Lukewarm Oppose''' - Adding another deletionist to the ranks of admins would exacerbate the (unintentional) [[systematic bias|systemic bias]] toward deletion already existing.  If this editor had more content creation in their history, it could counterbalance the impression given in their answers above, but, lacking that, I have to sincerely disagree with their approach to this project.  I've seen more than one encyclopedic topic [[terminate with extreme prejudice|terminated with extreme prejudice]] because the article wasn't up to scratch.  Encyclopedias are written by adding and editing content;  deletion should be a last resort, not a [[first strike|first strike weapon]].  On the other hand, I'm quite impressed by the editor's willingness to look for sources rather than remove content, where possible.  It's an approach I'd like to see more widespread.  --
'''Oppose''' per Balloonman (also endorsing Balloonman's other comments elsewhere on this page; opposition not personal, etc.)
Too soon, I think, without prejudice towards another request a few months down the line.
'''Oppose''' Tanthalas39 is quick to attack other users and jump to conclusions about their edits. After reviewing Tanthalas39's contributions, I see a pattern of this behavior. Many of Tanthalas39's edits appear to be geared toward gaining adminship status instead of the best interests of the Wikipedia community. Tanthalas39 appears to have a high level of enthusiasm and shows great promise to be a good administrator eventually. In the meantime, I think Tanthalas39 needs to be given a bit more time before becoming an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Wiki doesn't need any more career admins with little experience of serious article building. Too many already. Not that experienced in the trainee career admin stuff either, so definite no.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits to wikispace.
'''Oppose''' Just not quite ready yet.
'''Neutral''' My original concerns [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tanthalas39&diff=197445358&oldid=197440313] are still there, but during this process, the candidate has handled himself commendably, which prompts me to move from ''oppose'' to ''neutral''
'''Neutral'''. <broken record>Requests for Adminship in wikipedia re, at their core, a referendum on a given editor's judgment, and a discussion amongst wikipedians if the community as a whole should extend its [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in the candidate's judgment]]</broken record>. In my opinion, I have not seen enough activity by this editor in areas that concern me to feel that I have a comfortable enough feeling to extend trust to this editor. At the same token, I have not seen enough from this editor to register an oppose. In this user's 1660+ User talk edits, the vast majority of them are templates. There are too few non-templated warning/informative edits for me to get a good feel as to how this editor would act under the inevitable pressure that janitorial duties bring. The editor does seem to have experience in vandalism prevention and AfD, a plus, but not enough to counteract the lack of edits in article talk space discussing articles and wikipedia space at this point. I am certain more exposure to other areas of the project will round this user out admirably, and I do appreciate his responses here. Good Luck -
Needs more time, but not opposing simply because of this reason.
I'm a bit torn on this one. I'm concerned based on what Avraham (Avi)'s brought up, but the concerns raised by opposers (especially the "too new" ones) don't sway me either way. There is nothing to say that Tanthalas will be a bad admin, but little to say that he will be a good one, either. I'm simply stuck on the fence. I will keep an eye on this to see if anything comes up that may change my mind.
'''Neutral'''. Not sure - too low edits for my liking but I m happy with the mainspace and such. Not much experience but you still have me to convince. <strong>
I'll support this one.  I don't think the candidate will abuse the tools, and has come a way in improving.  Need more admins, and this one is good.  Regards,
'''Support'''. At this point, he makes an overqualified admin. --'''''
'''Support''' [[User:Blow of Light/Guestbook|&mdash;]][[User talk:Blow of Light|<font color="black">B</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|o]]<font color="red">
'''Support''' --- thought he already ''was'' an admin; a good sign, I think.
'''Strong Support''' I thought he was an admin, too. Look what he's done ''without'' the mop. Imagine what he'll do ''with'' it! Best of luck to ya!
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' - I have seen him regularly around Wikipedia, and I also thought he had the tools. He seems well-balanced, keen and responsible. Go for it!
'''Support''' - Does great work around Wikipedia. --
Both I and my otters '''support''' this nomination.
I&nbsp;
'''Support'''. He is very involved in the AfD process, and although the opposers say that TPH has made a few judgment errors in the past, I can trust that he will be more keen. Overall, he would make a great asset as an admin. '''
'''Support''' I previously opposed TPH for swinging his hammer a little too readily but I'm sure that with the extra experience he's gained since his last RfA he'll be a fine admin.  A lot of people stomp off after failing an RfA or simply ignore the suggestions of other editors but TPH has kept working hard and deserves to succeed this time around.  We all make mistakes but I think he's always open to discussion and that's the main thing for me.  As I want this RfA to succeed I would urge him to perhaps leave the more contentious closes to others, at least to start off with, to assuage some of the concerns of the opposers.  An article which can be improved is not an article which should be summarily deleted and I take him at his word that he'll search for sources (and add them) himself before taking things to AfD or speedily deleting them.
'''Support'''  A hardworking, civil committed member of the community who would not intentionally abuse the tools. Perhaps a little too deletionist for some but we have a [[WP:DRV|mechanism]] to correct poor deletion decisions. I'm sure the candidate will listen to concerns raised on their talk page about borderline (and not so) decisions and will learn from experience. If you get the tools, please start off slow.
'''Support''' First saw TPH on AfD and that's where they shine. We all make errors once in a while (in reference to the comments below). <humour>But isn't sharing an account with a couple of otters in violation of [[m:Role account]] and possibly [[PETA]]?</humour> =P '''''
'''Support''' This user can be trusted with the tools.  I like that he is very responsive to opposing points of view if they are backed up with evidence.  It seems to me like TPH will continue to work to improve his editing, and his work ethic is impressive.
'''Support''' The user here is civil and well versed in how we do things around here. I was a little concerned over his AfD's until I examined closer and realized that while he does not think the articles belong, he is not attempting to have them speedied. He's bringing them to the community for a decision. Of late he is not contentious when people oppose him but in fact often withdraws his own nominations when he sees consensus is against him. That, to me, is a sign of someone who wants to work with people to build a fine encyclopedia. -
'''Support''' have seen him at work, a fine man for the mop I say. Cheers,
'''Strong Support''' - Will be a great administrator addition to the AFD logs.
'''Support 110%'''. This guy helps Wikipedia no end. Has definitely learned from previous mistakes, and I really think Wikipedia will benefit from his being admin <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' add me to the list.
'''support''' demonstrably a constructive member of the project, has earned my trust for access to admin tools.
'''Support''', as previously. -
'''Support''', this user seems to have a good grasp about AFD, and although he makes mistakes sometimes, we all do.
'''Support.''' As for deletion concerns, which seem valid, anyone who gets taken to DRV frequently as an admin learns how to correct their behavior quickly - it's not always a pleasant process.
'''Support''' well involved at afd and his arguments are always well thought. As others have pointed out, we have [[WP:DRV|DRV]] if he has too much of a deletionist bent.
'''Support'''.  Work with him in AFD, very good editor.  Good luck!! '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. I think he might have invented AfD :) [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' I know it's the oldest RfA cliche there is, but it's true: I'd long assumed he was one already!
'''Support''' good user, seen him around.--
'''Support''' puts in the work, makes a few mistakes, but who doesn't.
'''Support''' <strong>
'''STRONG support''' per questions 2 and 3.
'''Support''', user has had plenty of useful commentary, advice and (esp.) experience to prepare him for the bucket. --
'''Support''' A solid contributor to AfDs and not afraid to bring items up at that forum for resolution to seek consensus on their suitability for Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' For the same reasons I supported the last 3 times. Should have passed at the first attempt, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. Following a read through the nomination statement, the points raised both above and [[#Oppose|below]], and the candidate's contributions, I see no considerable reason to oppose. However, I would offer Hammer the advice that he work on the concerns raised by those opposing, and particularly Le Grand's comment about being a little to quick to delete ;)
'''Support''', but needs to be less quick with deletions. '''''
'''Support'''. From what I've seen looks to be careful, trustworthy and reliable. --
'''Support''' From what I've seen, TPH is a trustworthy, reliable editor. The deletion diffs are an issue, but not a glaring one; I'd advise the user to take more time when considering an article for deletion.
'''Strong Support''' I've '''''opposed''''' the candidate's last two RfA's, admitedly the last one based on timing. I've interatced often with this editor and find them to be courteous and willing to accept other view points. TPH's energy and efforts to this project are without question. Furthermore I trust this user to take it steady with the delete button. Very best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I don't think there's any question that this editor would serve the community exceptionally well with the mop. If I hadn't known otherwise beforehand, I might have thought he already was one.
'''Support''' - I am not particularly pleased with the answer the candidate gave to my question, as I think it is good to have some thoughts on the processes one's involved with, but it is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' May make a mistake here and there but seems willing to recognize when he does.--
'''Support''' TPH helped me a couple of times and I think he'll help more editors with mop in hand.--
'''Support''' I don't normally participate in RfAs, but I do like to keep an eye on them. I've seen this editor around enough, and would give him my support based on my own observations. As for any possible mistakes, etc, (which I may or may not agree with) the best I can say is that everyone has flaws to one degree or another, and this editor doesn't look likely to fly off the handle. <font color="green">
Again. [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' In general, has done alot of good work on music-related articles at AfD.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Whenever I go to AfD, I always see a slew of signatures from TPH. He is very well experienced in this field and while the concerns noted previously and currently are indeed valid reasons to not grant admin powers to the candidate, he is more than willing to admit his mistakes and make an effort to undo any damage done. Several of the AfD's cited in the Oppose section below were withdrawn after it was evident he had made an error. However, the majority of the arguments presented by TPH that I have seen are exemplary and demonstrate a more than sufficient understanding of policy. He has a good understanding of consensus, which in AfD is one of the more important abilities of an administrator. I am confident TPH will continue to improve upon himself as he has done and resolve the remaining few flaws in his ability. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Support'''.  TenPoundHammer is just so completely approachable and civil that even if he did delete something a bit off, I don't think he'd make a big stink if it was appealed.  I think that's how it was supposed to be, really.  So many editors make up their minds, never change them, and fight to RFAR that their initial snap judgment was correct.  TenPoundHammer has the exact opposite mentality.  It's extremely healthy, conducive to discussion, productive, etc.  Many of the diffs provided by the opposers show, to me, an editor with an extremely open mind and a lack of self-righteousness.  I really don't have any concerns.  (Well, agree with VanTucky about the AIV report, but I think it's unlikely to recur.)  We can trust the Hammer with the rest of the tool box. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as before; an experienced and knowledgeable editor who will benefit the project as an admin. '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' Civil and friendly editor. But sometimes CSD and afd becomes controversial though. I hope, he'll improve those issues ASAP.--
'''Support''' See no reasons to suspect user would misuse or abuse tools, although I do think that a reread of [[WP:VAND#NOT]] may be in order. [[
'''Support'''.  Yes, it's well known by now that we disagree frequently at [[WP:AFD]] discussions.  However, he is always civil, sometimes convinces me to delete, and has scads of experience.  Meets anyone's possible standards for admin.
'''Support''' - I've seen TPH working in a couple areas I frequent, including AFDs; personally, my view is that yes, in the past he was too quick or reacted in a manner that didn't really work for the situation in those areas, but with three RFAs and all their constructive criticism, he's learning more and more each time. I honestly don't think that he'd misuse the tools, and from what I've seen he's quick enough to respond when there is a potential problem that if something came up, it could easily be rectified and he'd learn for the future. My two cents, anyhow.
'''Support''' - Everything I've seen him do or contribute to has been very constructive. --
'''Support'''. A great editor who is dedicated to the project and knows what he's doing. I do recommend following the advice of some of the opposers in shaving a pound or two off the deletion hammer.
'''Support''' an admin whom I've worked with on several AfD's, and whose body of work is impressive. I acknowledge that there are some concerns with CSD tagging, but I submit that they are mistakes made in good faith, and not made in undue haste or sloth or malice. Do I believe that this candidate will act without fault or failure as an admin? Absolutely not. But, I do feel that I can ''trust'' this candidate as an admin. That's enough to earn my support.
'''Support''' Will certainly help for AFD's as he has been very involved in that part and 30 000 edits the experience is there. Fourth time should be the charm.
'''Support''' We can never have enough people doing the thankless job of making the AfD process run smoother.
'''support''' Everybody makes mistakes. THis guy seems like he knows what hes doing.
'''Support'''. Although I have never had any direct interaction with the user, he seems well-reasoned and responsible. So while I understand the opposes, I feel as though after this RfA the user will be very considerate with the tools. Overall, it is my feeling that the net result will be positive, particular in AfD work. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Always thoughtful and knowledgeable. And deletions can be reconsidered and undone with almost no effort at all, so I don't see how that warrants opposition.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Need more like him.
'''Support''' A regular on AfD and I see no indication that he would abuse the tools. Also, keep in mind that most AfD's are actually fairly easy calls that just needs an admin to do the work. Also, I trust Wizardman's judgement here.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Great track helpful user with great commitment to Wikipedia.The user is very civil.
'''Support''' despite some legitimate reasons to oppose.  When I was going through a period of tagging CSDs and answering for why, I wanted to say that there's a difference in the care needed to tag a CSD versus actually deleting the article.  Anyone with high activity is bound to stumble on controversial cases. Basically, I think TPH understands the process, and he should have a chance to make mistakes like everyone else.
'''Support'''.  TPH is very versed in AfD's, cites policy appropriately, and as such, would do well with the added buttons.  Although I've held the opposing view on a few AfDs with TPH, he's always civil and backs up his views with policy and guidelines where appropriate. When he is wrong, or too fast to the CSD, he says as much.  When his noms are proven incorrect through additions to the article, he withdraws the nom.  All in all, I think he would be very trustworthy with the buttons and would only do what consensus tells him to do in closing AfDs.  I would trust The Hammer.
'''Support''' TPH appears to have a good temper and I don't believe he would abuse the tools. <font color="Green">
'''Weak Support''' After a careful re-appreciation I believe that TPH deserves the benefit of the doubt for his clear improvements. Besides, he's unlikely to abuse the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' you're a very good user and I think you'd make a pretty good admin. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' would make a great admin. Mopify him--
'''Support'''. I see this editor reguarly at AFD and he seems to have good judgement.--'''
'''I can't believe the opposes, SUPPORT''' excellent editor with best wishes for wikipedia in mind.  No REAL reason not to have the tools.
'''Weak support''' per above.
'''Support''' He's excellent at AfD.
I support this nomination, but I think a re-read of speedy deletion criteria will be a good thing to do.
'''Support''' With minor concerns as voiced above regarding being "quick on the draw".
'''Support''' I have no reservations.
'''Support''' Have noticed his great contribs and involvement in afds recently.
'''Just barely support'''; but ''please'' watch the knee jerk deletions.  By most accounts, I'm a rabid deletionist myself (just ask [[User:DGG|DGG]]) and I sometimes come across !votes from you on AfDs that give me pause&mdash; and that's probably not a good sign.  Given that everything else you do seems okay to me, and that this can be fixed with a little guidance, I'm willing to trust and give a chance. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Giving this guy the mop is already way past due. I read through this entire RfA and while I do have some concerns, the odds of him abusing his authority are remote at best. I'm disappointed to see that after a four month wikibreak I have returned to find that the time-honored yet ridiculous practice of dickering over every single mouse click an editor has ever made before allowing them the miniscule authority of adminship is still alive and well.
'''Support''', but only just. Your taste in music almost lost it for you.   ;) Have the mop. I know you'll use it well. You've got a heavy opposition here, but I'm sure you'll pass (crat, please read this) because the nature of the opposition you're getting in natural in the pages you frequent. Unfortunately, you can't help but to step on a coupe of toes, especially clocking up over 30,000 edits. --
'''Support''' - He is good.
'''Weak support''' - needs to take note of the notes left in the oppose section, because they need addressing, but apart from that, a decent set of contribs. Furthermore, I always trust [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] to make great nominations. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - I see this user all the time at AfD. Fifth try lucky? How much torture do we need to put experienced editors through? I am confident he will use the tools wisely.
<span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' While more of a deletionist than I, I feel he addresses this well. He always seems to be the first to comment on articles I nominate.--
'''Support''' I do think that the deletion concerns are enough to oppose.
'''Support'''  I belive this RfA has show TPH where he needs to be careful, and there are enough editors who pore over every deletion and debate to ensure that he learns to act with greater discretion. --
'''Change back to support''' per Stephen.
'''Oppose''', maybe bordering on neutral, primarily because I seem to still be seeing too much quickness to want to delete stuff rather than improve articles.  I do, however, acknowledge that TenPoundHammer has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=180026138&oldid=180022760 polite] with me even if we do disagree in AfDs.  He even nicely [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Request_for_adminship_thank_yous thanked] me for participating in an earlier RfA that I opposed.  So again, I am just a bit concerned that there may be a quickness to delete good articles or close articles as delete that we really do not have a consensus to delete.  Maybe if I saw even more effort to rescue articles, I would feel differently, because personality wise, I think Hammer does put a good deal of time into this site and as I mentioned above is certainly one of the more pleasant editors with whom I have disagreed.  It is reassuring at times that with some editors, we can disagree and yet still be able to do so civilly and be pleasant on other matters, even if it is simple things like holiday greetings.  Thus, my opinion of Hammer has certainly improved over time and so on one hand, I commend him for participation such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nine_Hundred_Nights_%28film%29 here]; however, part of my concern with the AfDs is that there are a handful of users using TW to nominate numerous articles in one day, perhaps more than can be thoroughly discussed and attempted to be improved by the handful of editors who participate in these discussions.  There has been some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive117#User:Pilotbob controversy] about using TW in this fashion.  In any event, good luck and happy new year!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">

'''Oppose''' The examples cited above makes me not want to trust him with a delete button. I'd rather see editors put effort into improving articles rather than deleting them, and it seems like he would press the delete button on articles that should be improved instead.
'''Oppose''' I still see the editor making many minor mistakes in his speedy-closing of XfD debates fairly regularly: nothing so glaring as to stand out in one diff, but a pattern of mistakes that (combined with editor's high activity) make me worried should he be given the delete button.
'''Oppose''' per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.
'''Oppose'''. I find the lack of understanding of speedy deletion criteria, as shown in Moonriddengirl's examples above, disturbing, and in general I see far too much enthusiasm for deleting articles rather than improving them.
'''Oppose''' Just way too many simply incorrect CSD taggings: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_in_London&diff=174976913&oldid=174976166], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summer_Spins_EP&diff=prev&oldid=181127812], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerie_velazquez&diff=181125341&oldid=181118852], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Saginaw_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=179341443], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynn_Valley_Elementary_School&diff=prev&oldid=178670459], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Island_Town_Center&diff=prev&oldid=178436039], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Friedman&diff=175807997&oldid=175802147], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Reskin&diff=prev&oldid=175582940]. Those diffs just cover some of his taggings in the past month, a few of which lead to protracted and unnecessary drama. The candidate doesn't seem to respect that A7 requires just a ''claim'' of importance, and that it only applies to narrow classes of articles, or that A1 requires there only be enough context to identify what the subject of the article is. At this point, given how long the candidate has been here, it would seem to be an intentional disregard for these things. This seems to be direct evidence he would make bad speedy deletions as an admin... we don't need more of that. --
'''Oppose''' He's improving, but he's still too impulsive. I don't think it's really intentional, but i think it would result in improper use of the buttons. It was made clear in the previous RfAs about nonadmin closures and such things, and he still can't resist them. Unfortunately still not ready. Being flexible is not enough--agreed he';s good-natured about it, but he needs to actually understand and follow the policies. Some of the people saying support above are qualifying it so heavily that i think they mean he is not yet ready, but might be so in the future. If so, that's a oppose, not a support, even a weak support. He has to show that he knows first.  '''
'''Regretful Oppose''' I do not believe this candidate should have (as of now) the power to close AFDs and delete articles based, among other things, the evidence provided above. I have come across this user in AFDs and while I was very inclined give my vote of support for this user (as tend to not vote against somebody just because they interpret Wikipolicy differently from me), I would not yet like to see him with said powers. I am sorry. --'''
Oppose per W.marsh and, to a lesser extent, Le Grand Roi des Citrouille and DGG. Knowing and being able to correctly apply the speedy deletion criteria is crucial for administrators candidates who say they will work in that area. We have the potential to lose valuable contributors and contributions through errant deletions, and I'm not sufficiently confident about this users' understanding of the application of the speedy deletion criteria to be able to support them, sorry. '''
Per W.marsh and Daniel. I am not confident of the user's ability to judge speedy deletions yet. &mdash;
The candidate has made multiple clearly inaccurate speedy deletion taggings in the last month alone, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerie_velazquez&diff=181125341&oldid=181118852 this, two days ago], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_in_London&oldid=174976913 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay_Friedman&diff=175807997&oldid=175802147 this], both a month ago. This suggests he doesn't understand the speedy deletion policy, and therefore shouldn't be given the tools.
'''Oppose''' - concerns that the behaviour is not consistent with good 'pedia building due to above points raised at AfD. Concerted work on article building would benefit next time 'round should this fail to pass. cheers,
'''Oppose''' I have issues trusting this user with deletions.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' I'm right with DGG on this: TPH shows a positive learning curve, but displays an itchy trigger finger far too often when it comes to AfDs and speedy deletion tags. The hardest part about cleaning out CSD & prod backlogs isn't deleting obvious crap, but saving mediocre-quality work with proper attention and research. I appreciate that TPH is dedicated & cooperative, but recent examples provided by W.marsh indicate a significant range of improvement needed before I would feel comfortable supporting. Keep up the good work, continue improving, and come back in 4-6 months. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I trust this user to close AfDs (although I ''frequently'' disagree with his comments on them).  But I'm seriously concerned with his outlook on speedy deletions, per many of the examples from [[User:W.marsh]].  I really want to support this user, and I don't want to let our differing deletion philosophies stand in the way (while I don't think he should have listed the Kennedy and Wallace campaign articles, to name two examples, I'm quite confident that he would have closed those correctly), but overuse of the A7 criterion is one of the biggest problems with our current deletion process.
'''Oppose''' I was all set to support, when I read your answer to question three. By your characterization of the incident, the user was in a conflict over content with you. Vandalism is the deliberate intent to do harm to the project. This is not the same as taking a position on content that you oppose. The fact that someone is ignorant of policy or the reliability of certain sources is not proof of bad faith. Taking that to AIV and calling it vandalism shows an assumption of bad faith and a glaring ignorance of what constitutes vandalism. Despite your valuable mainspace and AFD contributions, I cannot in good conscience trust you with the tools if you can't properly recognize the difference between a good faith content dispute and vandalism.
Way too fast in dropping the deletion hammer.
'''Oppose''' per VanTucky and W.marsh. --
'''Oppose for now''' - due to the deletion issue.  Will gladly support in next RfA if deletion acumen has improved.  '''''
'''Oppose''' Transhumanist puts it perfectly.
Unfortunately, I don't feel confident giving you my support. Criteria for speedy deletion is not a simple policy and it is essential that potential administrators know it well enough not to slap blatantly-non-criteria-meeting articles with giant speedy deletion tags. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I can't support you because of the deletion issue. If you correct your errors, I will support your next RfA. Good luck.
'''Oppose''', based on the comments of [[User:DGG]] and [[User:Picaroon]], among others.
'''Oppose'''  Sorry, too many deletion related issues raised above. --
'''Oppose''' Definitely needs more time.  Makes plenty of minor mistakes that could've been avoided.
'''Oppose''' Quite concerned per comments by [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] and [[User:DGG|DGG]]. Perhaps a little more time is needed to take in the constructive advice from the community and improve for next time around. --
'''Oppose''' reluctantly, often noticed TenPoundHammer as a good contributor at AFD but the concerns raised above, particularly about speedy deletions, where I agree with what Walton has written in the neutral section about discouragin the creators, just make me unable to support giving the tools at this time. Would be delighted to support in the future after a period where the concerns raised here have been addressed.
'''Oppose'''
'''Weak Oppose''' An unfortunate focus on deleting articles, exacerbated by nominations of articles that had already made clear statements of notability. While I have seen some improvement in the recent past in this regard, I am unsure that Hammer is appropriately prepared to pass judgment on Wikipedia content up for XfD. I hope to see continued moderation in the future and, based on past trends, I expect to be prepared to consider supporting the AfD at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer number 6 or 7.
'''Oppose''' - I stumbled across this RFA all ready to give my support, however, after reading some of the concerns above, I have to regretfully oppose to per [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] and [[User:DGG|DGG]].  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. Not ready for adminship yet.
'''Reluctant oppose''' per W.Marsh and DGG - I like TPH, but there are far too many very links to poor speedy tags above. '''
'''Oppose''' needs a bit more policy experience to avoid problems like the deletion tagging pointed out.
'''Oppose''' per Le Grand Roi, DGG, W.Marsh.
'''Oppose''' Per [[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] mostly, tagging issues plus maybe a little too jumpy in the tagging. I hope I don't sound too antideletionististic. -
per Xoloz -- <b>
'''Oppose''' - Sorry guy, had to change my opinion base on the Afd nomination as of this morning. Shown here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unmistakable_%282nd_nomination%29] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I agree with DGG and W.marsh and am going to have to throw my two cents against this.  Over- and mis-interpretation of CSD is a peeve of mine ever since becoming an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per the clear issues recognised by many on both sides above. When a very active specialist is showing weaknesses precisely in the specialised area, it's time to draw back.
'''Oppose''', while I hugely respect the nominator, the concerns brought up are quite serious. -- <strong>
He's usually right on the nominations, but I'm still not comfortable having TenPoundHammer close AfDs. Aside from some of the specific instances listed above, the perceived deletionist leanings continue to indicate to me that having him close AfDs will result in an uptick in entries at DR - which would not be a plus for the project.
--<font color="blue">
'''Neutral''' - Very good user, do not think they will ''purposefully'' abuse the tools, but think they may be a bit button happy when it comes to deletion per diff's at [[WP:AFD]]. This user is very civil, still unsure whether to switch to support.
'''Neutral''': The issues addressed above are concerning enough.  However, other than that, I've had several positive interactions with the user, and am leaning toward support, but I'd like some more time to go through TPH's contributions. -
- too quick on the CSD button in examples above for me to support. Administrator's should be conservative with CSD - when in doubt, send to AFD. Especially marking db-bio for a high-school, db-context for a valid stub, etc. If the user would promise not to mark things as CSD when they're not so obvious, I may change to support.
Switch to '''Neutral''' <s>'''Weak support'''</s>. I'm in a similar boat as [[User:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]] (down in neutral), even though (no offense, Tiptoety) I ''really'' don't want to be there. I think [[User:TenPoundHammer|TenPoundHammer]] is an excellent editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia, which is why I'm in support, but I'm somewhat concerned with a few things I found in contribs, which is why I'm tentative in that support. The AfDs mentioned in oppose do not concern me, especially as in a number of them the nominator withdrew the nomination once it was demonstrated to him that consensus was against him. I note that in the same period of time, he listed a number of mall articles for AfD that ''were'' accordingly deleted by consensus: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoppes at Blackstone Valley|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Mall (Pensacola, Florida)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Square Center|3]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compton Fashion Center|4]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Hills Mall|5]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniontown Mall|6]], to name a few among the many. It's not like the nom is working to delete articles on former English kings, here—there is obviously legitimate need for discussion over what renders a mall notable and what does not. However, I've gone through his recent contributions (deleted and otherwise) with an eye for locating mistagged speedies, since I think those are probably a better indicator of misuse potential, and I do have ''some'' misgivings about some of those, particularly in [[WP:CSD#A1]] territory. A1, no context, is for articles that cannot be comprehended because there is insufficient material in them to parse what they're about. This seems obviously to me not to apply to the following: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summer_Spins_EP&diff=181127812&oldid=181123415 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Island_Town_Center&diff=178436039&oldid=172977457 2] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parties&diff=prev&oldid=173193528 3]. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Product_Market&diff=174153664&oldid=174153263 This one] is hardly a stellar example of an article stub, but it was tagged 2 minutes after creation—surely not enough time to allow the creator to establish the article? I tend to think it might be better to watchlist an article in such a case and come back to it later.) Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_in_London&diff=174976913&oldid=174976166 this A7 nom] is concerning given that the article asserts a charted hit. The fact that half an hour later, after the speedy was declined, nom admitted "didn't catch that, they have charted a hit" in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made in London|AfD]] doesn't reassure me. We ought to read the ''whole'' article before !voting for delete, much less tagging for speedy deletion. :( So, given these misgivings, why am I in support? I've thought for a long time about it. I feel very confident in his work overall. I do not believe he will willfully abuse the tools, and these indicators of potential misuse are '''very small''' in proportion to his overall contributions. He is overall very familiar with policy, and given his obvious desire to work within guidelines and to seek consensus, I believe that once an issue is pointed out to him, he will work in good faith to correct it. Still, while he says above that "lately, I've been making sure to think twice (or even three times) before I act" in terms of deletions, one of those A1s was placed on 12/31 and that unread A7 was only a month ago. I would ''really'' like to be an enthusiastic supporter of this RfA, but can't without some additional assurance that he's going to be careful with deletions to apply policy properly and to thoroughly evaluate candidates before deciding that an article should go. --
'''Neutral'''...Moonriddengirl explains it well. Ten pound hammer is an apt pseudonym, as sometimes subtleties or details are missed in favor of deletion (I'm concerned mainly about the overuse of speedy deletion, you don't seem to have trouble following consensus in discussions). However, you do a lot of great work bringing up reasonable discussions and doing non-admin closes, you're able to recognize mistakes and change your opinion as the situation changes, and you're very civil in discussion, so I'm reluctant to vote no for these reasons. I hope you exercise caution if you do become an admin, and that you continue to keep up your devoted work if not. I think you're a real asset to Wikipedia and I'd like to confidently support a slightly more caution TPH in a future RfA.
Experienced as any other, and does good work on the project, but I am concerned over the tendencies towards rushing through things as noted above. I don't think the person will do anything in bad faith however. Undecided.
'''Neutral''' - Excellent editor who I would love to support, but I am concerned with the speedy taggings cited above. I do not have an issue with the fact that his views are somewhat more deletionist than the general community norm; controversial AfD closures can always be taken to DRV, and I trust that he wouldn't ignore consensus in favour of his own opinion. However, speedy deletions turn on the judgment of a single administrator, and he has demonstrated that his views on what should be speedied are not in line with community consensus. An incorrect speedy deletion, even if later overturned at DRV, can demoralise the article's creator and drive them away from Wikipedia. I don't doubt that he acts in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and FWIW I don't totally disagree with his views on deletion. But it is essential that an admin should follow community consensus even where he disagrees with it, and even more essential that the CSD criteria should be construed narrowly; where there is ''any'' doubt as to the CSD-ability of a new page, use a prod instead, or take it to AfD.
'''Beat the nom support''' Ok, so I didn't actually beat the nom. But that's how enthusiastic I am! Anyway, TPH is an invaluable contributor in XfD related areas, and I'd trust him fully with the tools.
'''Nom support'''.
'''Support''' Great experienced user. --
'''Support''' - Seen this user around [[WP:XfD]] a ton - very knowledgeable about policy - a huge asset to the project if you ask me.
'''Support''' Just like in his other RfAs, I am supporting.
OK.
'''Strong Support'''.  Very good editor.  Work on [[WP:XFD]] is phenomenal, and I know he will make a great admin.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - TenPoundHammer and his otters deserve the mop.
'''Support''' - I've interacted with TPH on a number of occasions and always found him to be a good user. Also willing to explain points/guidelines/etc. to newer Wikipedians (i.e. me), which will suit him well as an admin. Never seen any issues with his work <small>'''TRAVELLINGCARI'''</small>'''<sup>
'''Support''' because I think he answered the questions well. Good editor too... won't abuse magical powers.
'''Support''' Supported his last RFA, Still support.--
'''Support''' Trustworthy for sure.
'''Support''' Yes.  Works in good areas, and will be a great asset.  Oh yeah, and 5th time can be a charm. :)
'''Support''' Seen him at [[WP:AFD]] many times ~ <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">
'''Support''' - It's time. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' - Give 'im a ten pound mop. --
My failed noms are 4 for 4 in subsequent RfAs. Let's make it 5 for 5.
'''Support''', but I absolutly '''Oppose''' giving mops to his otters. --'''''
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - he improves all the time, and I'd be happy to trust him with the mops, especially after absorbing the concerns from the previous attempts.
Support. No problems with this one, except he has made morally good but tactically bad choices, picking his enemies.
'''Support''' The candidate wants to use the tools to help out in deletion discussions, which he has contributed to solidly in the past.
'''Strong support.''' Flat out one of the most experienced users in matters pertaining to AfD.
'''Support''' - don't see there being any problems.
'''Support''' - very experienced, especially with AfD. I trust him with the tools (but not his otters :p). <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per all of the above. Ridiculously high level of participation at AfD. Extremely civil and cooperative editor with loads of experience. No worries from me. --
'''Strong support.'''  The user is civil and is a extremely great contributor to wikipedia.No concerns absolutely.He has loads of experience.TPH has been around since Dec 2005 with over 40000 edits with nearly 28000 mainspace edits.User is very helpful.
'''Support''' Experienced user who has learned from his past RFAs. Five should be the charm! --
'''Support''' - TPH looks like he'd make a good admin, especially when it comes to deletion discussions. --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' per my question and a look through the contribs, looks like he's resolved the past problems and is ready for the mop.
'''Strong Support''' Please, this tme. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''support''' trust with tools (hmmm, there really ought to be a way to replace that bold number at the left hand end of this line with "'''numberwang'''")
Per [[User:TenPoundHammer/Pages I created|this]]. Please write a GA one day - it's fun! I'll help! :) ''
'''Support on Steroids''', user makes consistently good contributions at AfD.  I have no doubts whatsoever that they would make a first-rate admin.
...again.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Obligatory "I thought he already was one" support'''. '''
'''Support''' I'm very happy to support an all round great wikipedian. Good luck! <span style="color:green"> '''
Funny, I was looking at TenPoundHammer's last RfA yesterday and wondering when he would next be coming up. I thought I was going to have to wait another few weeks — but no! TenPoundHammer is probably '''the''' contributor at AfD by a long way. I have total trust in his abilities and despite Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles concerns, he appears quite neutral in AfD, and is not overly inclusionist or deletionist, and is careful to follow policy and guidelines. Make this an '''über otter support'''. Regards,
'''Strongest Possible Support''' We need more like him. An invaluable asset to the project.
'''Support''', logical, valuable contributor to XfD discussions, grasps wiki-policy and good answers to the Qs.
'''Support''' doesnt look like there's anything left to say...Seen this user around a few times..v. hard-working...Good luck! --
'''Support''' At this point, I feel this user couldn't be more aware of how Wikipedia works. I'd trust him as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' — an asset and I'm sorry I missed the last RFA. More [[framing hammer]]s needed. Cheers,
'''Support''', from what I've seen of TenPoundHammer's contributions at AFD and his professional behavior during my time here, I mistook him for an administrator already. I see nothing that would give a clue as to him abusing tools, and in my opinion, him having access to them would benefit the wiki greatly. <small><span style="border:1px solid white;padding:0px;">
'''Without hesitation'''. <small>this is copy pasted from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4|TPH4]], which I had hoped would've passed...I profoundly [[Vanity|agree with myself]]: </small>  "TPH is very versed in AfD's, cites policy appropriately, and as such, would do well with the added buttons. Although I've held the opposing view on a few AfDs with TPH, he's always civil and backs up his views with policy and guidelines where appropriate. When he is wrong, or too fast to the CSD, he says as much. When his noms are proven incorrect through additions to the article, he withdraws the nom. All in all, I think he would be very trustworthy with the buttons and would only do what consensus tells him to do in closing AfDs. I would trust The Hammer".   Yep, its time.  Long overdue even.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' again - long overdue :) '''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' His XFD edits look quality, and the description of being a "non-biast" XFD contributor also sounds like he is worth having the tools.
'''Support'''. Doesn't hesitate to acknowledge and remedy occasional lapses in judgment. Knowledgeable about malls.
'''OMFG YES SUPPORT''' I was thinking about asking him to run before his last failed nom... and think he got the shaft then.  I don't even have to look at his edits/answers to know that he has my FULL UNRESERVERD SUPPORT!!!
'''Support''' Wait, 10LB's NOT an admin? Please fix this and give this man the tools he rightfully deserves!
'''Support'''. I've seen lots of good, conscientious work from this user around Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Good User.can handle the admin tools.--
'''Oppose''' the Hammer, but Otters rule! :) [[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
'''Support''' - the fifth's the charm!
'''Support''', per VanTucky and Krimpet. If he wants it, I don't see why we need deny him it. Sure, he's energetic, but that's a good thing: if a guy is willing to go through RfA quintuple, then just think what a difference he can make to the backlogs :) I say go for it! <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
See, recognise, trust, respect, '''support'''. <font color="006622">
'''Strong Support''' Bobby, I've just gone through about this RFA. (As I previously supported) This time you'll defenitely make it. Man, Hit The button with HAMMER :)--
'''Support''' - I already thought he as an admin. Excellent work in [[WP:XFD]], and this is long overdue. Good luck with the mop. ♥
'''Support.''' No concerns.
'''Support''' Although 5 RfAs makes me a little wary, I think he'd do just fine with the hammer...er, mop. ;)
'''Support''' - Will not abuse the tools. [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Outstanding AfD work. I trust him to use the extra tools well. &ndash;
'''Support''' Like last time. Great contribs at AFD. <strong>
The number of RfAs is a slight concern, but it's not really serious.
'''Support''' per the otters.
'''Support''' Has improved since last RFA (in which I did not support). Ready for the tools. --'''
'''Strong Support'''. TenPoundHammer and I have interacted a few times and it has always been good. I supported him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_2&diff=146045160&oldid=146044729 twice] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_4&diff=181753335&oldid=181749499 before] and I support again. He's extraordinarily hard-working and dedicated to the project. This will reach [[WP:100]].
'''Strong Support'''. I agree with the above statement. Keep those otters working!!!--

TenPoundHammer has gone through 4 RfAs and this is his/her 5th. He/she has improved in the past and deserves the mop. No reas to oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
Tenpoundhammer is an excellent contributor to the project, that muchs need not even be stated. He is well-rounded in his experience on Wikipedia, from article creation to [[WP:AfD|deletion discussions]], and his ability to provide logic and reason in discussions clearly and capably shows that he will be able to clear misunderstandings with maintenance work. The civility concerns raised by [[User:Elonka]] are, in my honest opinion, minimal. Generally he is fairly civil and that, being an isolated instance, is not really enough for me to personally oppose an RfA, when there are administrators on the project who are far less civil than TPH (I'm not addressing specific contributors). The concerns with mistaken CSD tagging are not of tremendous concern to me, because everybody makes mistakes. If these mistakes were frequent enough, I would likely oppose, but seeing as they are not, and especially with the fact that TPH is in himself a trustworthy figure and an "administrator without the tools," I'm going to support this nomination.
Administrator TPH? sounds good to me.
'''Support''' No real reason to oppose. I like the variety in the contributions I'm seeing. Also, I like the answer to my question (this has nothing to do with my support, but lightens the mood). Good luck! '''<font face="verdana">Cheers,
'''Support'''. This guy has been waiting far too long to get the tools, and it's time he had them. I see no reason to oppose this candidate and have confidence he will be a great admin.
'''Support'''. I don't see how eagerness to become an admin is necessarily a bad thing, but I am somewhat discombobulated by the ridiculous questions. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''', excellent and invaluable work in cleaning up the results of the "firehose of crap" - as some refer to the Newarticles log.
'''Support''', in spite of the shopping mall articles.  Clampuppet indeed.
'''Support''' Very informative comments in AfD. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
(ec x2)'''Support''' - If others have concerns about your judgment in certain CSD areas, you can always keep the otters out of those areas for a while, at least with toolbox in hands.  There are plenty of deletion discussions to close and I'm confident you can read consensus quite well.  --
'''Support''' Good work in AfD. :) <font color="#006600">
'''Aye'''. Won't abuse the tools, has improved policy knowledge, that'll do for me. <b>
Getting tired of supporting this guy. This better pass! [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''Jus</font><font color="Red">tin''</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Wikipedia:Gmail group|<font color="808080">(Gmail?)</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support'''. Though he was one, already. --
'''Support''' Just don't go crazy with the deletion hammer. Will help wikipedia more if he has the tools.--
'''Support'''.  Will do great with 'dem tools.  --<font color="green">
'''Support''' It's been well worth the wait. Ten Pound Hammer will become an outstanding addition to the AFD crew.  His answers show a thorough understanding of process and policy not normally seen in the typical admin candidate who has less experience in these areas.
'''Support''' - Maybe I'm being nonsensical, and this is a break from my past RfA votes where I tried to give a detailed reason for my position, but I'm supporting this candidate because of Kmweber's comments below. They suggest to me that this candidate is definitely qualified and should be given the figurative '''tool''' right away. Sorry for any confusion that may result from this strange expression of opinion. '''
'''Support''' - And people seem to be confusing our RfAs. --<small>
'''Support''' again. Just like last time, TPH is always everywhere at AfD, always with good sense, and the even better sense to recognize when he is wrong and to correct any errors he may have caused (which doesn't happen often). Definitely trust him with the mop. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/
'''Strong support''' He has created lots of articles for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - had to oppose last time, but I'll gladly support this one.  <b>
'''Support:'''  It's saddening (if not surprising, given the way things work in RfAland) that such an able and dedicated editor hasn't gotten the mop before now.
'''Support''' - based on my observations of his work on music related articles. He is patient and careful. I trust him.--
'''Support'''. We differ often, but TPH is always reasonable. He certainly has the experience and I think he'd do an excellent job of representing the community. —
'''Support''' See him around plenty, trust his judgment. Ordinarily I would probably oppose anyone's ''fifth'' RfA just on principle, but this is a special circumstance. Maybe he is a tad power hungry, but mops can always be taken away. Not that I expect this to happen, I suspect TPH will make a fine admin. One word of advice: one of the opposes below mention that he behaves like an admin already, and there is some truth to this. I strongly suggest to take things very slowly early on: you're going to have quite a bit of power, and while some will tell you it's not a big deal, with great power comes great responsibility. All that being said, I trust your judgment, and giving you the tools will benefit the encyclopedia. Just use them judiciously. Good luck!
'''Weak Support''' Hopefully this time will be the charm.
'''Support''' TPH is a voice of reason in AfDs, so I have no doubt that he'll use the admin tools responsibly --
'''Strong Support''' per Wizardman. I know this is the fifth RfA in a year, but see here - only one (the second) was a self nom, and the third even notes that (had he not been nominated) he would have waited a while before seeking Adminship again. The first and fourth RfAs were not self-noms, and this request was initated by Wizardman, of all people. TPH keeps finding himself nominated for Adminship, not unreasonably so. I don't think there is a question of power hunger, though it is clear that TPH seeks to help the project through the use of Admin tools. Rather, I think enough people believe that TPH would make a good admin that they keep pushing for him to finally get the tools. That's not unreasonable, if you're familiar with the candidate's work at AfD and elsewhere. While [[WP:SNOW]] obviously does not apply to this RfA (and NEVER as a reason to grant the tools), it is telling that a deluge of 100-some-odd editors have already supported this candidate after only a day and a half.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around. He's a busy little soul, and clearly committed to the project. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Support''' - I think that it’s time to support TPH. With his experience, the extra buttons will be put to good use at AfD and elsewhere. Pick a strong password to keep the otters from abusing the tools, though. —
'''Support''' per the other 100+ supports above me.  <b>
'''Support'''. I've been apprehensive about TenPoundHammer in the past, but in my opinion he finally has it. I understand the concerns the opposers bring up: this ''is'' his 5th RfA, and his last one was only 2 months ago. However, I think that if he wants adminship (honestly, most people actually want it, but are too afraid of garnering oppose (!)votes to say so) it is for noble reasons. He will be an asset closing AFDs, and is definitely committed for the long haul. Therefore, I support his candidacy.
'''Weak Support''' I have seen TPH around DYK and he is dedicated. Hopefully he will help update DYK. My only concern is his deletionism as expressed in earlier RFAs. I hope that he takes the time to think out each deletion decision by spending the time to wring out the mop before scrubbing the floor. Good luck!
'''Support''': Does great work at AfD. See no reason why he wouldn't make a great admin.
'''Whoa, he wasn't one already Support''' I thought you were an admin already....no reservations here. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' - User knows his way around Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Weak support''' - Still a lot of deletions overall rather than article improvement, but has made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Nice_comments_other_contributors_said_about_or_in_support_of_me.21 my list of nice Wikipedians four times] now and has addressed any advice or questions I made throughout this RfA in a satisfactory and respectable manner that I'm ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''', as always.
'''Support''' for basically the same reason as last time.  I don't think his tagging is perfect, but every time someone expresses concern TPH has been willing to revisit, respond kindly, and very often change his mind when presented with new arguments.  I think he'd be an all around positive, rectifying any small mistakes he might make himself. --
Complete and otter '''Support''', I see no problem with repeated RfA that are not self-noms, and his judgement on AFD has been fine every time I've encountered him. --
'''Weak support'''.  Dedicated, lots of experience, and a good communicator.  Deserves to be given the rope to hang himself by, if he so chooses.
'''Support.''' Very meta-involved. Long overdue. —
'''Support''' It is finally time to make TenPoundHammer an administrator. This RfA is excellent. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support''', great editor.  <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' would use the tools wisely
'''Yip Yip Yip''' Yay! <strong>
'''Support'''
Long overdue
'''Support''' Yes, long overdue. Lots of evidence that the mop will be in good trustworthy hands.
Ye old Ten Pound support, per above and Q15. Viele Glück! --
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px">'''
'''Strong support''' like last time. Absolutely no valid reason why he shouldn't have the tools.
'''Support''' based on ridiculous AfD experience and strong knowledge of wikipolicy. I trust him with the tools, and it totally looks like he knows what he's doing. -
'''Strongest Possible Support''' An absolute pleasure to work with, does fantastic work for the project. I think he has learned from his past AfD's and will certainly not misuse the tools. '''
'''strongest support''' Works hard, and removes uncontrovertible bollox articles from the wiki.  We need more people handling the backlog of obvious closes, that otherwise sometimes accumulates at AfD.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''<s>Weak</s> Support'''. Lots of experience, appears to be entirely "for the good" of Wikipedia. Has user been perfect in the past? No. Still will make an excellent admin - just don't go nuts right out of the gate.
'''Support'''. I supported last time saying there was a net positive to be had. I still believe that. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''weak support''' I share many of the concerns expressed in the "oppose" section and was not completely satisfied with the answer to my question (Q10).  Nevertheless I think that overall TenPoundHammer would be a good administrator, even if I would occasionally disagree with him.
'''Support''' for TenPoundHammer, and fresh fish for all his otters. A tireless contributor.
'''Weak Support'''.  Weak only because of your deletionist attitude, but support because your contributions outweigh this concern.  <font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support Again'''. Devoted music-related article editor of quality. This isn't a nom for ''head of surgery'', people.
'''Support''' I think that this user's exceptional knowledge of Wikipedia Policy would make him a great Admin :).--
'''Support'''.  The times that I have worked with him, he has always been level-headed and extremely helpful.   A great editor.

'''Support''' based on both well-reasoned deletion debates as well as on good new articles (even if they are country-related :P ).  //
'''Support''' per my comments in his last RfA. --
'''Support''' for the fifth time. TPH doesn't play the wannabe-admin game, he is prepared to make difficult and contentious decisions and give his opinion. Sure, he has made mistakes, but with no greater relative frequency than most current admins. I'm sure he realizes that he could walk an RfA by sticking to deletion discussions with blatantly obvious outcomes for a couple of months; that he has repeatedly chosen not to do so is to his credit.
'''Support''' - seen him at AFD, he seems to know what he's doing.&nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Per [[User:Elonka|Elonka]].
'''Strong Support''' A great user in every way I have 100% confidence in him.
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse the tools. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
Excellent editor: unlikely to abuse the tools.

'''Support''' Have seen him around, generally have a good impression of his edits over a period of time, believe he will be a good admin. Some of the opposes do carry merit, but I am not swayed by them - I think the candidate is capable of taking those concerns on board if successful.
'''Support''' first class editor - will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Otter be a good admin.  &mdash;
'''Support''': A great editor and proactive at XfD. Nominating articles for deletion will always draw the ire of someone at some point; it's only natural that some will jump to calling others "deletionists" for doing cleanup work. <small>
'''Support''' AfD needs all the help it can get, and here's the man to do it. Anyone who can retain their sense of humor, let alone their sanity, after five <s>complete rectal examinations<s> I mean RfA debates, ought to be able to handle the mop.
'''Support''' Fantastic editor, will be a fantastic administrator.
'''Support'''.  No obvious reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''. AfD would really benefit from the help, and TPH is a strong candidate to do just that.
'''Oppose''', of course.  C'mon, folks--his FIFTH RfA in less than a year?  This guy REALLY REALLY REALLY wants it, and that's a bad thing.
'''Oppose'''. As unfashionable as it appears to have become, I am in agreement with Kurt that five RfAs in less than a year is too many, and perhaps indicative of too great a desire to become an administrator. --
I have concerns about TPH's use of [[WP:SNOW]] in deletion discussions, and eagerness to become an administrator.
Per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_4]].
'''Oppose''' Too soon since last RfA (and the one before, and....).  Pleasant guy, but too many of his nominations are not well-grounded in policy or are under-researched - I mainly see his Cfd nominations (usually unsuccessful) or Visual arts AfDs.  No heckling please.
'''Oppose''' some of your early afd closures bother me. '''
'''Oppose''' - He nominated a deletion of Olia Lialina without any apparent attempt to cross reference his decision, nor to inform himself on the subject matter.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I can't remember which of the previous four I've voted in, but I think 3 of them.  My feelings are unchanged.  TPH uses the mop now, and cannot be trusted with real tools.  I've seen him about with some articles, but I don't get the impression he really creates articles, he just deletes them (when necessary).  And 5 RfA's????  If one of the better admins would nominate him <s>(self-nomination is getting tiresome</s>), maybe I'd reconsider.  I just think he wants this thing more than anything.
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Minor Oppose''' Your last RfA ended just over 2 months ago. Give yourself more time and I will reconsider on your next RfA.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately I do not think you are ready for adminship yet. There has been many instances, although they have been in decline, where your speedy deletion tagging have been, in my view, wrong. For example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elementary_cognitive_task&diff=prev&oldid=199012911] (This has sufficient context to identify what it is talking about, although it isn't written well) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Cone_Rule&diff=prev&oldid=199246070] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burford_County_Combined_School&diff=prev&oldid=198047275] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Vojnovic&diff=prev&oldid=194716548] (obvious hoax or vandalism? No.), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dubcat&diff=prev&oldid=198754316] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawkins_Cookers_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=190710555] (No assertion of notability whatsoever on the article?) <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shops_at_Ithaca_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=185559418] (I am a little disturbed on how you would rather delete the article than try and fix it, as one look at the history will tell you.)</s> Overall, although you have improved since your last RfAs, I am hesitant to support the nomination due to these diffs. Disturbingly, some of the articles you have tagged have survived AfDs, such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary cognitive task]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burford County Combined School]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Vojinovich]].  I feel (strictly my opinion) that your knowledge of speedy deletion, especially the G3 criteria, is a little awry in regards to this area. To a minor note, I echo Alisyn's concern about the timing of this RfA, although I will not solely oppose this RfA with it. &mdash;
Oppose per concerns raised above, especially DarkFalls' comments.  In the first diff presented by DF (2 days ago), a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elementary_cognitive_task&diff=prev&oldid=199012911 speedy] on a new article (one sentence, but with a reference) within a minute of its creation. . .that worries me. Sorry,
The instances above do not give me confidence with his judgement in evaluating articles for deletion.
I'm a bit of the fence - TPH seems to jump in and nominate articles for deletion where even a cursory check for information would reveal an abundance of sources (cf. the AFDs for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power of the Dollar|Power of the Dollar]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Drought 3 (2nd nomination)|Da Drought 3]]). Normally I wouldn't oppose over something like this, but TPH has expressed that his primary administrative area will be in article deletion.
'''Oppose''' per East718 and OhanaUnited.
'''Oppose''' - Q4 is what did it for me as it is a definate [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] issue.  Also, 5 RfA's in one year seems to indicate candidate is desperate for the mop, a trait that I don't find desirable in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per the diffs posted by [[User:DarkFalls|DarkFalls]].  He just seems a bit too eager to drop the hammer, rather than improving a marginal article.  While deletion is necessary to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, we should be a little reluctant to do it, rather than defaulting to it.  And, seriously, 5 RfAs in a year?
Agreeing with Kurt here. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' because of erratic judgment and hasty decisions, such as the one outlined in question 10. I think the ed. has good intentions, good will,and a good attitude, but still is to quick to judge and too likely to make mistakes. I simply do not trust him with the buttons. His eagerness for non-admin closures has been commented on adversely by numerous people in his previous AfDs--it is still present--even just these last few days before this AfD, and shows an unfortunate haste and desire for what he sees as the power of an admin. we've had an unfortunate rash of early closures lately, and he's been a major contributor. AfDs are supposed to last 5 days in almost all circumstances.  They're discussions, and there should be time for people to discuss.  '''
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, TPH, but some of your recent taggings, as mentioned above, just strike me as hasty and unconsidered.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q10 is worrying, not because a mistake was made, but because the nominee still doesn't seem to understand just how far of the mark he was or seem to be overly concerned that his reasoning was wrong, when he says: '''''"Maybe it wasn't quite blatant enough for a G3 (A1 probably would've been closer, as the page only comprised one sentence), but the page was deleted and turned into a dab anyway."''''' It was absolutely nowhere near being a blatant hoax, and just because the page was eventually deleted doesn't negate the fact that it was incorrectly nominated in the first place. This leads me to doubt his judgement at the moment with respect to deletions. If this failure of judgement was itself a one-off, then it would perhaps be OK, but it seems that this has been a major concern for others at least as far back as his last RFA. Because his answer to Q1 indicates that deletion related work will be his focus, and that this is the are where he has the strongest knowledge - I think the nominee needs a bit more time before getting the tools. He can add a lot of value now, but somebody with a little more experience needs to review his nominationa before the delete button is hit.
Oppose per pretty much all the reasoning in relation to AfD and speedy tagging. I don't think I am able to trust your judgement as an administrator yet.
Per Friday, DarkFalls, Kurt Weber, and Q10.
'''Oppose'''. Poor speedy deletion tagging. ---
Sorry, I just can't imagine supporting someone with 5 RFAs in less than a year, certainly not without some serious introspection and analysis as to the reason for the failures.
'''Oppose'''. Great editor with a lot of valuable contributions also to deletion discussions, but also many striked-through opinions and hastily applied speedy tags. As an admin he would evaluate already tagged articles, so [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Jinjer|endorsing]] two days ago an incorrect speedy tag during an AfD isn't reassuring (and it is more than one sentence that asserts importance). Overall, that points to a quality of correcting himself, but also to a certain reliance on others to look more deeply, which makes me not confident enough with him making the final call. I'd also like to see more experience in other administrative areas than article deletion (and the answer to question 14 is rather vague).--
'''Oppose''' - per above. --'''''
'''Opposed''' Surprised to find myself in agreement with Mr Weber with regards to RfA, but here I am. 5 in a year is just really pushing it. Sorry. ~
'''Oppose''' per DGG and RockMFR comments.
'''Oppose''' per tagging concerns as well as prima facie evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''.  I do understand that TPH does a lot of great work in AfDs, but I have to wonder about his ability to handle stress, especially based on what I've seen of his actions over the last day or two, such as engaging in an edit war at [[Trace Adkins]] and pushing in unsourced knowledge from "seeing him in concert."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trace_Adkins&diff=prev&oldid=199950401][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trace_Adkins&diff=prev&oldid=199958567]  Then some of his reactions to the other editor involved, {{user|KellyAna}}, were not as helpful as they could have been.  KellyAna does freely admit that she occasionally has trouble staying civil, but TPH's comments, calling her rude,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malinaccier&diff=prev&oldid=199957626] and justifying his own actions because he's "out of sorts"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KellyAna&diff=prev&oldid=199949571] were the kind of thing that escalate a situation, not de-escalate it. Further, when KellyAna challenged his unsourced additions, TPH responded by placing a "bad faith" warning on KellyAna's talkpage,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KellyAna&diff=prev&oldid=199960299] asking ''her'' to supply a source that his information was incorrect.  Sorry, but that's not how [[WP:V]] works.  The responsibility for providing a source is on the editor wanting to add the information, not the one wanting to remove it (and as it turned out, KellyAna was right and TPH was wrong).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trace_Adkins&diff=prev&oldid=199961886]  And I am especially concerned that TPH was taking these kinds of actions during his RfA (when most people would know better than to get involved in something controversial such as an edit war or uncivil comments). It is essential that those who are seeking administrator access be able to set a good example of calm under pressure, and, if they're going to get involved in disputes, they need to show that they are the kind of people whose participation will ''de''-escalate a dispute, not escalate it.  But based on what I've seen today, I have to really wonder about TPH's judgment and ability to handle on-wiki stress.  As such, I'm sorry, but I cannot endorse this nomination. --
'''Oppose''' per delitionism concerns and Friday. --
'''Oppose''' for the reasons well-stated by DGG.
'''Oppose''' per the deletion concerns.
'''Oppose''' per Q 14. &#10154;
'''Oppose''' just too many concerns here, especially those by DarkFalls and east718, as well as Kurt to some extent. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' I see a good editor who wants to help out and feels he is ready for the tools. Unfortunately some of the oppose comments raise very valid concerns. If you want to be a deletionist that is fine but you must gain a more nuanced understanding of what the rules for deletion are. I would like to see some article creation or improvement to balance all this deletion too. Work on your people-skills, and let a little longer go by before your next RfA as, rightly or wrongly, people are very nervous of power hunger here. --
'''Oppose''' Per Stifle and DGG.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but any editor which has a strong deletionist approach to wikipedia and has rights to be able to enhance his power of this is a very bad thing. I;m sure he has done some good work on wikipedia and is often correct about AFD'S but tools given to a user who ihas that kind of approack is a potentially damaging one. Sorry
'''Oppose''' I'm not crazy about the focus on deletion, and the [[Trace Adkins]] sequence just above is really concerning, not least because of slapping a editing in bad faith template on a longterm editor. Fighting over something like this during your RFA and turn out to have been wrong all along...seems like pretty poor judgment. Put these 2 together and I'm feeling like it's a recipe for admin drama down the road.
DGG, DarkFalls and Elonka raise issues here that make me think that this is not yet the right time.
'''Oppose''' per deletion concerns and the 5/year --
'''Oppose''' This doesn't seem like the right time, and per [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]], [[User:Riana|Riana]] and others above. -
'''Oppose''' Wow ... five noms in so little time. I gotta say Kurt's got a point. Would have overlooked this for the good qualities 10£Hammer has to offer and the better things he could potentially do with the mop, but Elonka has swayed me to oppose. Maybe on nom 6 or 7.
'''Oppose'''.  Too many RfA's in too short a time.  No time for reflection.  --
'''Oppose, regretfully'''.  Viewed in a vacuum, this RFA is excellent.  However, this isn't a vacuum.  I have grave concerns about the deletionism issues raised above (and I'm a bit of a deletionist myself) and question some snap judgements by TPH.  In addition, I think it shows a fairly serious lack of situational awareness - which is ''the'' key tool in an admin's toolbox - to submit this RfA at this time.  I'm afraid that every subsequent RFA is simply exponentially hurting this candidates chances to "pass" RfA.  I strongly encourage TPH to take some significant time - perhaps even a year - before reapplying.  That would, I think, mitigate the "too much/too fast" issue that I and so many others seem to have.  I have a great deal of respect for TPH's work here, but am afraid that these issues are prejudicing the discussion.  -
'''Oppose''' per DGG and previous RfAs concerns. TPH I really appreciate your work on AFD and CSD, but you should focus on ''quality'' not quantity.
'''Oppose''' Per Elonka. Needs to be more constructive to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Per previous RfA concerns and above.
'''Oppose''' While the editor's dedication is admirable, I remain unconvinced that he is seasoned enough to avoid damaging the project.  There is plenty of prior evidence that the editor is too quick to make decisions, and little sign of positive development in this regard since the last RfA.
'''Oppose'''. I believe I have supported this user at least once in the past, but don't feel comfortable doing so this time around. Civility is a neccessary trait for an admin, and in this respect, the concerns raised by Elonka (and others) give me pause as to this editor's ability to deal with conflict, etc. I'm also a ''little'' troubled by the frequency of the RFA's.
'''Oppose'''. Per concerns raised by Darkfalls and Elonka.  I have no problem with multiple RfAs; they do invite scrutiny but should not disqualify a candidate automatically.  I'd also be inclined to support in the future if the issues (particularly the incorrect tagging) don't show up again.
I don't really trust him with speedy deletion, given some of the above evidence.
'''Oppose''' per DGG, Philippe, and others. Unsolicited advice to the candidate is that his chances will be much improved if he waits 3 to 6 months before RFA #6.
'''Oppose''' per all the above. I understand the good intentions of TPH, but he seems to be a bit too trigger happy, and is likely to misuse the tools. Misuse of the deletion functions is likely to cause more damage than just plain abuse.--
'''Oppose''' Given some of the diffs shown here and the short amount of time since his last RfA, I'm afraid I just don't see the need at this time (still). Like some people have said, 5 RfAs in 1 years times is a tad too much. --
'''Oppose''' per Darkfalls and DGG. I had hoped to be able to support this go, but hasty speedy tags remain a concern. I'm particularly concerned about the near-instant placement of [[WP:CSD#A1|A1]] on a one-minute old article on March 18th. I brought up my concerns about A1 usage in the last RfA, including the speed of application. [[WP:CSD]] itself recommends against deleting articles that are young for concerns related to completeness, since as we all know many editors construct articles incrementally.) One minute after the speedy was challenged (and, edit history suggests, being worked on), he sent it to AfD. At [[Talk:Elementary cognitive task]]. He noted at the talk page that he "wasn't trying to be overzealous in speedy tagging or anything" but "honestly thought it to be lacking in context". Why go straight for the speedy? Why not tag for {{tl|context}} and see what happens? In the early withdrawal of the AfD, the candidate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elementary_cognitive_task&direction=next&oldid=199012738 indicated] that this was a learning experience. I hope it was. But the concerns that caused me to go neutral last time persist: "I would really like to be an enthusiastic supporter of this RfA, but can't without some additional assurance that he's going to be careful with deletions to apply policy properly and to thoroughly evaluate candidates before deciding that an article should go." Since they do persist in spite of the concerns expressed by many at that time, I feel I must at this point oppose. --
'''Oppose''' there have been many valid expressions of opinion given in relation to this RfA. The answers to Q9 are of a concern, for an editor with an apparent pro-deletion disposition finding it acceptable to just close AfD's in which they have participated is a concern. Combining this with great desire to have the mop only heightens my concerns.
'''Oppose''' per Elonka.
'''Oppose''' I've had my eye on this RfA as I check this page on a daily basis. I've taken a close look at everything and have decided to oppose. The primary reason is that of controversial use of speedy delete. TPH seems to act in good faith most of the time, but I'm looking for admins that can answer the tough questions and exemplify wisdom in AfD. I simply haven't seen that in TPH's case, rather, it appears to be in many cases the opposite. ''By itself'', I don't believe that opposing based on 5 RfAs in a year is very well thought out, but I think there are some valid reasons to oppose TPH in this instance. That being, I do detect a very strong desire to become admin, basically waiting the ''minimal'' reasonable amount of time then having another go. This might be acceptable if all previous issues were properly acknowledged and dealt with, but that doesn't look to be the case... hence I think in this case he clearly should have waited at least a few more more months... consequently this potential 5th failure could hurt long term chances for future RFAs. I'd reccomend waiting ''at least'' 6 more months until the next request, primarily to adequately address issues brought up, but also to show proper acknowedgement of the many editors that have issues with 5 RfA's in a year. Even if TPH disagrees with this, he needs to respect that many have this opinion and will always be a part of these once-every-few-months RfAs.
'''oppose''' per Johnbod, Gwynand, Moonriddengirl, Xoloz and others. Way too willing to delete things and in general too impetuous.
'''Oppose''' per many of the above, especially DGG and Moonriddengirl.  I'm afraid that I may have reached the point where I just don't think that TPH is ever likely to be an admin candidate I can support (although I'll give #6 the same consideration I gave 4 and 5, if it comes to that).
'''Oppose''' per many above and the give it up already clause.
'''Oppose'''. Way too keen to do things quickly rather than properly. Many contributions to AfDs seem to be delete recommendations within a short time of nomination, showing that no great effort has been done to look for sources or otherwise see if an article can be improved rather than deleted. Also far too often tries to pre-empt AfDs by nominating for speedy deletion while they are in progress. Apart from attack pages there's no need to short-circuit discussion in this way. This leads me to believe that the candidate would not not give enough consideration when processing speedy deletions.
'''Oppose''' per prominent pro-deletion stance which would exacerbate what I see as pro-deletion sentiment among admins -- we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to erase one. The concerns raised foremost by [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|the Great King of the Pumpkins]], but also by JoshuaZ, DGG, Colonel Warden, Deacon of Pndapetzim and others make me doubt whether popular support for this adminship candidacy differs from that for this editor's previous RfAs.  I'm willing to reconsider given a better commitment toward keeping and improving content, particularly [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex|controversial articles]]. --
'''Oppose''' Too many times, TPH seems to rely on the rationale given by the nominator, and don't check the facts or thoroughly search for sources. Coupled with this tendency to speedy things, it may be a source of problems, not benefits. Not only in the CSD or XfD area, TPH says himself that he is not a prolific vandal fighter. I've been a bit confused by answer to question 1, when talking about vandal fighting, he says "revert unhelpful edits", but many unhelpful edits are not vandalism, from his following comment, I assume he can make the distinction, but I'd like to see more examples proving it. So, if he lacks experience there, I'm not confident in giving him the block button. The candidate is certainly a good contributor for the rest, but it's not the main quality needed for an administrator. I agree with the vast majority of the above oppose comments, and these concerns need to be addressed ''before'' he gets the mop. Btw, I removed the CSD tag that TPH placed twice on [[Best Believe It]], because it's not a blatant hoax, even if TPH is completely sure it's one. {{t1|hoax}} is enough to warn a potential reader, and the afd will go on and close with delete.  No need for speedy action here. Again, this attitude is worrisome.  <strong>
'''Oppose''', I cannot say I would trust this user with the delete button. And the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 4|4th RfA]] closed just two months ago. What's the rush? --
'''Oppose''' per Darkfalls, orangemarlin, East718 and DGG, all of whom summed it up better than I could. Sorry. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' While the candidate may or may not be qualified for adminship, five RfAs in less than a years is really too much. Last one two months or so ago? No, I'm sorry. I'd welcome an RfA in another six months, maybe. But candidating regularly every two months seems ridiculous to me, sorry. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' per East718. -- <i><b><font color="004000">
'''Weak Oppose''' - per snowolf and also your last RfA was just 2 months ago and to most it will seem like desperation which to me is not the case, I would have gladly supported if you had waited another month or so but as with most if not all RfA's, timing matters and sadly I believe your timing was not right, I hope this doesn't dishearten you because you already have over 150 supports which is astounding and I believe in your next request, which i hope will be after 3 months (if this doesn't pass i.e) you will gain more support since looking through your edits it shows that you are really very must a valuable member of this project..Good luck ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
I wanted to support, but based on concerns mentioned above and some private concerns, I have to regretfully oppose.
'''Oppose''' - a good editor in many ways, but in my opinion a little too eager to speedily delete articles or close AFDs early without doing enough research. --
'''Oppose''' - per DGG, Moonriddengirl, East718, and others, I don't think TBH is ready for the mop. I have seen him at AFD and sometimes he judges articles to speedily, instead of thinking through his decisions as any possible admin should. Also I think that having this RFA so soon after his previous one, and having 5 in just the past year, is a little too much. What's the rush? I'd be happy to vote support in another RFA in 6 months if this user becomes more thoughtful with their decisions. Cheers, <span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, TPH, but I think you really need to chill out on becoming an administrator for a while. The concerns raised about heavy-handedness and being a little quick with closures and judgments are exceedingly valid, especially those raised by DGG. Give yourself a big berth of time and then come back to RFA with the evidence that you can curb them. Thanks for your continued hard work and persistence. '''-Bwowen is now a
'''Neutral'''. I am sorry, but this is not the first time I've seen this user having an RfA in my short months here. His last RfA just closed a little over 2 months ago, and I'm sorry, I just can't really support nor oppose, but standing on the sidelines, I've seen you fumble the ball in your last RfAs. If 4 have already failed, I'm not so sure you're really ready... although you do edit and revert and you to me are a magnificent user. --
While I think TPH is one of the best voices we have at AfD, I can't help but be concerned about this fifth RfA in less than a year. I don't agree with Kmweber on pretty much everything, but the drive for adminship is a bit concerning. Also, the speedy history on the talk page, although at ~91%, is not great. Especially when you consider that the 9% is 17 articles. But like I said, the AfD contributions are outstanding, so I can't oppose, but I strongly encourage you to be more careful with your delete button at [[:CAT:CSD]]. '''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Neutral''' This is one of those I would have sat out in the past; however, with the community's clear mandate that silent abstains are prima facia evidence of non-participation (sorry, Kurt), I am letting y'all know I am here and have looked at this candidate, and still wish to abstain at this time. [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]]. --
'''Neutral''' - I've a gut feeling TPH will make some poor calls that cause unneeded drama.  It's not enough to oppose on without decent evidence however, so neutral.
'''Neutral'''. I really, really want to support, based on my numerous interactions with this editor at AfDs. Always has a reason (rather than just a !vote), and the reason is often well-reasoned, so to speak. But the speedies really concern me. I think the mop would ''probably'' be in very good hands, but the speedy issues give me just enough doubt. Sorry.--
'''Neutral''' - I've never gone "neutral" on an AfD before, and don't usuallly see the point, but I feel it's the only fair opinion I can provide here.  I supported TPH in one of his earlier RfAs, but opposed him in a subsequent one when his work at AfD crossed my screen.  In the (recent) past he's been very quick with SNOW closes, which have had to be reversed or reopened.  I (and other editors) have mentioned these hasty decisions to him several times on his talk page, but it seems that this has not always produced effective results in his M.O.  I really do like to give the benefit of the doubt, which is why I'm not going "Oppose" again, but I'd really feel more comfortable if I saw some consistent positive contributions at AfD.  The frequency of the RfAs don't bother me, nor his desire to be an administrator, that's fine... I would just like to be assured that granting him extra tools won't result in more work for the other administrators where the removal or retention of articles is concerned. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]]
'''Neutral'''' I switched from Support in looking at Elonka's extremely recent (March 21) diff's on TPH's quick fuse, I am not convinced his conflict resolution skills are developed enough. Combined with that, I can't as easily overlook the 2 things I had reservations about: 5th RfA so soon, and the marking deletions as "minor". Taken together, while I am convinced TPH is of great value to the project and inevitably will become an admin, I can't support this RfA quite yet. If this RfA is not successful, I would also strongly suggest waiting at least 6 months, as Kurt brings up a good point. --'''
'''Neutral''' moved from Support. There are just too many valid issues raised by those who are opposing this RfA. TPH, I still believe you are doing very good work for the project, and I very much hope to be supporting a future RfA. You have a wonderful opportunity to become an even better editor by taking note of the issues raised here and correcting them. I still believe your positive contributions far outweigh the few negatives raised here. Good luck and please don't be disheartened. Best,
'''Neutral''' due to my poor understanding of non-free image policy as pointed out by BongWarrior.
'''Neutral''' I've met this user a couple months back editing [[Carrie Underwood discography]]. He has willingly helped me solve several disputes and is currently actively providing a third opinion between a dispute between myself and a certain user. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I7114080&oldid=200705052] However, I am a bit concerned with his speedy deletion and aFD's nominations. One example is [[Last Name]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Last_Name] I'm just not sure if he is ready for the admin tools. Sorry TenPoundHammer. <font color="red">
'''Neutral''' Moved from support. Having watched this debate ever since I added my support have regretfully had to move to neutral as the concerns raised by the opposers do concern me (except for the 5 RFAs in 1 year). I am totally confident TenPoundHammer would not oppose the tools (which is why I am not opposing) but worry at the possibility of rather more mistakes (which might drive off possible new contributors) than I would be comfortable with. Sorry and please do continue to contribute at AFD and elsewhere where I do feel you make good contributions.
'''Neutral''' An unfortunate focus on deleting articles, which has shown some signs of improvement, but not there yet. While I have seen some improvement in the recent past in this regard, I am unsure that Hammer is appropriately prepared to pass judgment on Wikipedia content up for XfD. I hope to see continued moderation in the future and, based on past trends, I hope to see the change needed so that I can be prepared to consider supporting the AfD at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer number 6 or 7.
'''Support''' both Ten and his otters per [[Numberwang|Wikipedia:Numberwang]].
'''Support'''. (ec) Great editor. Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' as nominator.-'''
'''Support''' I've supported him in a previous RFA, and I see no reason to change my opinions.
'''Support''' per Kurt Maxwell Weber (even though he hasn't !voted yet) and Naerii.
'''Support''' - Good guy, trustworthy.
'''Support''' great editor. --
'''thought you were an admin already-Support''' — I view times such as these ''prime face'' evidence when I should support.
ec'''Support''' yet again; knows his stuff when it comes to deletion discussions, manages disputes well and doesn't have a problem looking for second opinions when it's necessary, has done a nice job of editing in all kinds of areas, experienced all around far as I'm concerned. This time.
'''Support'''- I see this candidate around quite a bit, but mostly on AfD. He knows what makes for good content in an encyclopedia, has a firm understanding of policy, and handles disputes with good humour. Prime admin material. To be honest, I'm surprised his previous nom fell through.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I constantly see this candidate doing useful work around the 'pedia and he has developed a fine degree of discrimination in the application of standards to deletion discussions.  He understands policy, plays well with others, doesn't bite newbies and, yes, I'm also surprised a previous nomination did not succeed.  Considering the amount of work he does without the mop, I'd have no hesitation in handing it to him and letting him get on with even more of it.
TenPoundHammer again? Good God. Why don't we just give him the tools so we don't need to go through a 7th request? ;)
'''Support''' - coincidentally I found myself wondering "Huh, wonder if TPH is gonna try for admin again" after spotting his name while perusing AfD earlier today. Anyway, I trust TPH and feel he's ready for the mop.
So famous around AFD that he has his own law. Gets my vote. '''
'''Strong support''' This editor is reflective, humble, smart and bold.  He is an asset to AfD and to any project he brings his work to.  I have every reason to believe that this editor will use the tools properly and helpfully.  He should have been an admin a long time ago.
'''Support''' - An extremely good editor who really needs the tools. Yup, he's had 6 RfA's, but that's because TPH really needs the tools for the work he carries out here - it'll make life easier all round to give him them to someone we can trust. '''
'''Support''' I've seen you around, noticed your work on AFD, seen you participating. All discussion seemed civil, intelligent, and thoughtful. Also, it is admirable that you continue your dedication to the project despite the past RfA failures. I could not see you maliciously causing any harm to the project. Good luck.
'''Support''' - Can't say I had it bookmarked, but...I've been waiting for this one. TPH knows what's going on around here and is a positive influence to the project. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' Has a clear need for the tools and a look through his contribs shows no major issues. <font color="#3300ff">
'''Slam dunk support'''  Has a [[WP:CLUE|clue]], is very knowledgeable, knows when to [[WP:IAR|IAR]].  One of the easiest support decisions I've made in a LONG time.  --
'''Support''' I'll admit I was one of the many that thought TPH was an admin. He'll make an excellent janitor. Have fun!
'''support per nom and other great reasons above.''' aside from not believing that you can want to be an admin too much, and that that's not grounds for oppose, TPH has tons of experience, has been working in admin related areas and has my full confidence.
'''Support''' - TenPoundHammer has demostrated that he needs the tools and I strongly support him. <small>
'''Support''' &mdash; 6th time's a charm? –<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Bizarre indeed that this will end within days of the anniversary of your third RFA. But TPH is a good candidate, an excellent editor, and an asset to the project. No reservations whatsoever about granting the tools.
I continue to believe that TPH will be not just a good, but an excellent administrator.  I've always felt we were missing something important with TPH, so I'll say it again: He's tagged some articles that I'm not thrilled were tagged, but the important thing is he's always been so open-minded about feedback.  If everyone responded as positively to a "hey, you shouldn't have tagged that," an occasional error wouldn't be a big deal.  Too many admins, when they are questioned, dig in, get defensive, stubborn and stupid, and refuse to admit error.  TPH is the opposite.  You have two newspapers.  All newspapers make mistakes, but one is diligent about running corrections.  Which is the better paper?  TPH is like that better newspaper. --
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''': I clicked on the link for the RfA and saw the number 6 and thought someone was being funny. TenPoundHammer seems to be a rational editor and will benefit the encylopedia by having admin tools. --
'''Support''' Just a very helpful editor over at AfD.  I've supported (I think) his last two RfAs.  In the meantime, I've tapped him for a couple of AfD-related questions and problems that needed solving, he's always quick and knowledgeable. TPH + tools is a great idea.
'''Support''' As I had promised at RfA V ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_5&diff=200878065&oldid=200871996 this diff]), I thought that TPH was trending towards a support vote on my part by RfA VI or VII. With number six here, a review of TPH's edit history over the past few months shows a broader range of expanding and improving articles, a sea change from an earlier focus on deletions, some of which were a bit questionable. I think TenPoundHammer has earned worthy consideration as an admin.
'''Support''': I wish you were around as an administrator a long time ago TPH. Your work for the project has been invaluable. <small>
'''Support''' I have had nothing but positive experiences with this editor, and I am surprised that he hasn't gotten the tools yet. That he's stuck with this this many times, an experience which has turned some other quality editors into banned users, and continued editing away only reflects well on him. I attribute the failure of the other ones to vendettas. If we had unearthed serious problems in past RFAs, we and he wouldn't be here right now.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. While I have some reservations, I can't really explain what they are... maturity? Capriciousness? Anyhow, TPH has had too many positive contributions for me to wallow about in the neutral section. Just be careful, as I am sometimes not ;-)
'''Support'''. I wish you could have waited longer and been more patient, but I think that you are an able user. '''''
'''Support''' - I believe the editor can be trusted to work for the better of the community with the administrative tools. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">
'''Good-God-Give-Him-The-Buttons Support'''. --
'''Support''' I never thought I would say this in an RFA, but I actually did think this user was already an admin. Maybe I was confusing the sheer number of RfAs with actual adminship :) Plenty of experience, good attitude &mdash; good enough for me.
'''Support''' Lots of hard work at AFD - actually researches subjects before !voting, and has improved and saved numerous articles.  //
'''Support''' Should do fine, though I think TPH should be extra careful with the delete button, if only to reassure those who see him as potentially too trigger-happy. In particular, it's good to remember that in doubt a) admins can still tag articles for speedy deletion and let another admin do the actual deletion and b) PROD and AfD are still available options to admins. Oh and we have to find some way of avoiding the "once you've failed an RfA, you don't get a second chance because you're over-eager".
Yeah, sure. I thought you already were...?
'''Support'''. But be careful with the delete button. Admins can still nominate for AFD, PROD and nominate for speedy deletion. TPH is a bit reckless with AFD. If he isn't reckless with the delete button, he should be a good admin.
He's been around enough, seems to make good decisions most of the time, admits mistakes. I think that he would make things better, not worse. <joke style="pun" quality="bad">He ''otter'' be an admin.</joke> <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Fine by me, though I do caution TPH again to take the advice of the participants here, and go easy on the delete button, especially at first.
'''Support''' I have seen TPH around a lot, and trust him with the tools <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">

'''Support''' I have seen this user around quite often in AfDs and I see no reason not to trust this candidate with the tools. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:tahoma;">'''~ Ame<span style="font-family:arial;">I</span>iorate''' <sub>
'''Support'''. Long overdue. &mdash;
'''Support''' Absolutely excellent editor who should have been made an admin at his very first RfA.
'''Support''' - It's about time. -
'''Support''' Why aren't you an admin yet ?! :-)
'''Strong Support''' As at RFA's 4 and 5. Whilst multiple RFA's are often a warning flag to me (and I acknowledge the comments in oppose to this effect) in this instance I'm more than happy to ignore them when the '''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|greater good to the encyclopedia]]''' will be in granting TPH +sysop. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per sterling work at AfD.
'''Support''' Good user, knows what to do, Wont break stuff. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' TenPoundHammer is an overall great user, who shows he is ready and would do just fine with the tools. He has done just most impressive in adminly areas as a non-administrator. I'm most impressed in his [[WP:AfD]] work he has been doing for a significant amount of time. He shows he knows [[WP:POLICY|Wikipedia policies]] by how he !votes in AfD debates, always pointing to policy. He does [[WP:NAC]]s on AfD debates just fine, showing he has just fine judgement. TenPoundHammer has the qualities an administrator should have, and he has shown just that in his areas of editing Wikipedia. TenPoundHammer shows he can be a good article writer also by looking at his fifteen [[WP:DYK]] entries and his two [[WP:GA]]s. I've also seen him around [[WP:AIV]], some [[WP:XFD]]s, significantly at AfD, [[WP:RFPP]], and a few times at [[WP:UAA]] which shows he will be good as an administrator in adminly areas to take care of most of the problems lurking about. Many of these subjects I've brought up can easily be seen by looking at [[Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|TenPoundHammer's contributions]]. TenPoundHammer can even clear the AfD back logs with his experience. I'm sure TenPoundHammer will be able to help update [[T:DYK]]. DYK is sometimes late on updating, and I'm sure TenPoundHammer will be around to update DYK on time. He probably knows how to update DYK by watching other administrators do it, and I'm sure he can do it himself and having access past that protected DYK template. He has had seven RfAs I believe? In his last RfA, I believe he has cleared all the problems brought up by the opposers and has certainly improved on them now. I have every confidence in this candidate, and he certainly has my trust, and hopefully the community agrees also. :-) Best,
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Just give him the tools. He is already doing excellent without them. &ndash;
'''Support''' per his impressive record at XfD, which can only improve by possession of the tools.
'''Suh-trawng Suh-pawt''' - This-a guy-a would-a make a good-a admin! <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Numberwang''', er, '''Support''' Sorry to break up the gang, £10 Hammer, but if you become an admin, the otters will have to go. They don't even have opposable thumbs! <font color="#00ff00">
'''Support''' On balance, he will benefit the project with the tools. The vast majority of his contributions are fantastic; just be careful with the G3 tagging. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' per [[You Can't See Me|this album's]] first track, dedicated to [[User:TenPoundHammer|you]]. -[[User:Ianlopez1115|iaN]][[User_talk:Ianlopez1115|LOPEZ]]
'''Support''' because he deserves it and per all the dumb reasons in the Oppose section.  <b>
'''Support''' - I'm more than happy to add my support for TPH. An always reasonable editor and dedicated contributor. He and his otters have set a good example for me since I've been here. <b><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''', already.
'''Strong Support'''. My interactions with the Hammer (and his otters) have been nothing but positive. As an admin he will be an invaluable asset to the project.&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''support''', you are astoundingly ''prolific'' at XfDs.  You have a strong interest in voicing your opinion in the process, you are very comfortable with it and understand the process thoroughly.  It's no ''wonder'' that others are able to pick out the errors, they have a large field of contributions to dig through.  After reviewing your contribs, I feel that, percentage wise, your "error rate" (and there are definitely errors) is ''extremely low'', and your "rescuse rate" (as evidenced in your answer to Question #2) far outweighs your "accidents" in adding a speedy G3 to an open AFD (it's one of my pet peeves actually, because it means the article will get speedied, instead of AFd-deleted.  Someone asked "what's the difference?"  The difference is, if the ''community'' decides it's supposed to be a redlink, if/when it gets recreated, it can be speedy G4'd without significant improvements.  When the redlink of a previous ''speedy'' goes blue again, it can't be re-speedied - let the AFDs run!).  Anywho, yes, you've made some errors.  Tyere are lots of diffs down there in the next session, some old, some recent, some personal grudges, all legitimate.  I agree with most of them that they are true errors.  The only thing I can say you are "guilty" of though is that you are prolific and passionate in that area of the wiki.  I strongly believe your "error rate" is likely below 5%, if not below 1% and will be even lower once you are "more careful" as an admin.  For every bad diff, I could probably find 95-99 good ones, in other words.  If you become an admin, you will still make errors, don't let anyone tell you that an "admin error" is "harder to reverse" or "more damaging" or whatnot.  It isn't more difficult if you don't let it be. (meaning, be as flexible post-rfa as you have been pre-rfa).  Keep yer damn otters away from the new buttons, or I'll find a 10 pound trout...
'''Support''', a constant and sensible presence at AfD, TPH is both mature and trustworthy.
'''Support''' a good editor, he does mostly good things.
'''Support''' Is an AFD machine.  <font color="amaranth">
'''Support''', after some consideration. Extremely prolific AfD person who really does know what he's doing. I am a little worried by some of the slightly overzealous applications of CSD tagging, but the AfD work is plenty good enough for me. As long as he is a little more careful with "IAR speedying" and/or overuse of G1, I'm not worried. Given your past contributions I'd probably expect to see a couple of your deletes appear at [[WP:DRV]] every now and then, but that happens to most admins that do much deletion work, and that's what DRV is there for. But overall, what I'm seeing here is a dedicated and enthusiastic user who does know Wikipedia policies very well, and who deserves and could make good use of the admin tools. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' Per all above! Will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' per my comments in the past RFAs,; enough said
'''Support'''. I concur with PeterSymonds's analysis (#1 above).
'''Support:''' Nothing shows me that I shouldn't<span style="cursor: crosshair">......
'''Support''' I wanted to nominate TPH for adminship. TPH has worked hard at AFDs. He has made some mistakes, but he is a human. We have to look at his overall contributions. TPH has made more than 28000 mainspace edits and also contributed to several DYKs. I believe he has what it takes to become a good admin.
'''Strong Support''' - I've already encountered this user in the first week i've been on here reverting vandalism. A little unsettled the two por choices of AfD's pointed out in the opposes, but everyone makes mistake.
'''Support''' I find TPH's reasoning and contributions at AfD spot-on the vast majority of the time.
'''Support''' :D -- <span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">
Holy moly, this many supports already. I predict numerwang drama. —'''
'''Support''' Dedicted editor who needs the bits to work more effectively. Thats good enough for me. (
'''Support''' per nom. Please, though, be careful not to [[WP:CSD]] when [[WP:AFD]] might be more appropriate (not that I haven't made that mistake myself).
'''Support''', I have faith he won't abuse the bit. <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support the otters, and TPH too :P''' My contact with this user has mainly been on IRC, helping newcomers to Wikipedia in the help channel, and I have seen no bitey behaviour at all. Yes, he is 'enthusiastic' about deletion, but I feel that as long as he takes a deep breath, and reads through the AfDs etc. before hitting the button, he'll be OK. Good luck TPH! <nowiki>:-)</nowiki> '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Granted, I'm a deletionist, but still.
'''Support''' I trust the thoughts of SQL and PeterSymonds (among many others) on this and I trust TPH.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''' Anyday. --'''
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Great commitment,friendly user ,helpful,civil.Not one oppose states the user will misuse the tools.
'''<s>Radda radda radda Radda</s> Lead Farfel-sized Support''' Six noms, six! Still very surprised to see he doesn't yet have the mop, most of the opposes give undue weight to his XfD contributions which doesn't take into account the other great things the otters and occasionally him do. I can't forsee the misuse of the tools and he seems like the reluctant admin sort anyway so there you go. You have my support, bunny cat kid. <font color="#94887C">
'''Otterly firm support''' </lame> Anyway, yeah, he makes a lot of contributions to CSDs and the like. He may make mistakes, but if being perfect were an RfA requirement, we would be lacking in the &#123;{NUMBEROFADMINS}} department. —
'''Support.''' I was confused to realize a few weeks ago that this user wasn't an admin. This has to be corrected, quickly.
'''Moral Support''' Sorry this isn't working out Hammer :( --
'''Support'''... I think again. <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''
'''Support''' I strongly considered going neutral on this one in light of some of the CSD mistakes pointed out here, but in relation to the total volume of deletion-related work he does, it seems like a fairly minor issue.  I'm not saying it doesn't worry me, I'm saying  that I think the sysop bit would help here more than it would hurt. Furthermore, the number of RfA's here doesn't really worry me - if someone didn't really want to be an admin, they wouldn't throw themselves into the mess that is RfA - he's not "power hungry"...
'''Support''' - Is '''99''' [[Numberwang]]? <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve Crossin]] [[User talk:Steve Crossin|(talk)]]
'''Extremely Sexy Support''' He's muy muy sexy! --<strong>
'''Enough already, give him the tools.''' --
'''"WTH, he wasn't an admin???" support''' - Definitely!
'''Oppose'''. I think this number of RfA's in rather too short period of time demonstrates that this editor want to be an administrator too much. Why? What's so special about being an administrator? --
'''Moving to strong oppose''' <S>'''Oppose'''</S> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lady in My Life]] then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Realist2&diff=227942471&oldid=227909880 this], arrogant, snappy and belittling. Not the nicest way to lecture someone who is new to the AfD process. He also made a laughable report against me to AN/ANI because I didn't reply to his messages on my talk page. Also how many requests is he on now? Seem like his tactic is to wear us down until we give in and say OK,OK. —
The large number of RFAs suggests an over-eagerness that makes me uncomfortable.  Is there any evidence that anything has changed since those?  I don't see it.  Someone mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=225926634 this] report to the admin noticeboard.   Someone is removing talk page messages- OK, so what is an admin expected to do about it?  This indicates a lack of understanding of the role of admins.  He's been around 2 years, wants adminship a ''lot'', but apparently doesn't know what it's about?  That's not good.
'''Oppose'''. I concur with the first post, user should add more edit credits prior to submit for reconsideration.
'''Strong Oppose''' Nominee continues to misuse CSD tags, which was a common reason for opposition in their last RFA, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_reggae&diff=prev&oldid=228862996 this recent tagging]. Just as worrying is the nominee's comment on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_reggae&diff=228863313&oldid=228859172 eventual AFD], with a range of inaccurate or non-valid deletion reasons. At the moment his actions are being reviewed by others because he doesn't have the delete button, I think it needs to stay this way until he has shown that he understands deletion policy and is not likely to circumvent it to such an large extent.
'''Oppose''' - I really enjoy reading the candidate's contributions to AfD, and I ''really'' wanted to !vote 'support'. However, I think that he can't be given the delete button. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Vojnovic&diff=prev&oldid=194716548], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawkins_Cookers_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=190710555] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burford_County_Combined_School&diff=prev&oldid=198047275], for example. I know that the candidate acts in good faith, but a user who does not have a 'delete' button of his own still has his participation in AfD/CSD 'supervised' by administrators, since he cannot delete articles himself. I ought to say that I've made mistakes with AfD/CSD before, and I've disagreed with other editors on XfD before. But I think this candidate is ''too'' deletionist, and too sloppy with the CSD criteria. -
'''Weak Oppose''' - I've seen the Hammer around, and want to be supportive, but deletion-trigger-happy admins need to be avoided, and it is overall for the best if they are stillborn.--
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=225926634 this AN report], I'm not sure TPH understands what administrators should and shouldn't do.  While Realist's removal of the comments may not have been the nicest way to handle the situation, reporting the incident as if it were a serious issue is completely out of line.
'''Strong Oppose''' Last time I was concerned about an edit by TenPoundHammer which nominated an article for speedy deletion that in his opinion was a hoax even though it was not obvious.  When I asked him about it I was not satisfied with the answer, but nevertheless I thought I was being a bit hard on him for drudging through his deleted edits trying to find something wrong so I weakly supported.  However now I see far from being a one time event TenPoundHammer regularly nominates articles for speedy deletion because he believe they are untrue (besides the links above there is also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Camp_Rock_(TV_series)&timestamp=20080808034228&diff=prev this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Cheeks_Island_Pigeon&timestamp=20080806220714&diff=prev this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Taboo_Curran&timestamp=20080806224621&diff=prev this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit this] and his reference to this behavior in his answer to Q1). So long as the  community has not changed the rules of CSD to allow the speedying of hoaxing (a move I would strongly oppose) speedying of these articles is highly inappropriate and opposed to the community consensus. What is worse is that this kind of misuse of admin power is large uncorrectable.  An admin can unilaterally delete many articles that he in good faith believes is untrue, and it is hard to correct him for this behavior.  You just sound silly saying "this shouldn't have been speedily deleted; it should have been regularly deleted".  For the most part these deletion don't cause any damage until he deletes one that really is true.  At that point, most users who's article got deleted would just leave and we would never know that we lost a valuable editor and a valuable article.  And even if he  stuck around and fought for his article, there would still be no consequences for the admin.  The admin would apologize and we would all forgive him because after all it really did ''look'' like a silly article, and he ''thought'' he was helping the project.  Also these deletion took place after an AfD was already in progress.  While it is allowed to speedy article that are undergoing an AfD, I consider it inappropriate to do so except in clear cases.  There are many articles that are borderline A7 or G1 or G3 and the original nominator made a decision that it didn't meet the requirement.  I strongly feel that we should defer to this decision.  Otherwise every borderline speedy that some reasonable people think qualify and other reasonable people think do not is always speedied by those who think it qualifies.  Slowly, as all these borderline cases are always speedied it becomes more and more acceptable to delete these article.  Again this kind of abuse is hard to undo.  It is hard to fight against a speedy deletion when you think it should have been a regular deletion;  It just makes you look like a silly wiki-lawyer.   I strongly believe that this kind of unilateral deletion does significant irreparable harm to the project.
'''Weak Oppose''' - from what I've seen of the CSD work, I'm not confident in your ability to delete without your decision being reviewed.  Haste in deletion, and the general feeling that you would delete because it "looks wrong" rather than an actual CSD criterion (examples are the various mis-tagged "hoax" articles above) lead me to oppose.  Weakly because this is the only problem I have with you.
'''Oppose''' I am changing my vote from Neutral because I cannot, in good conscience, provide tacit support of this nomination by voting Neutral.  In addition to my earlier concern with TPH's rush to delete the "I, Claudius" article (see below in the Neutral section), I am also reminded of his sloppy and reckless desire to A7 the article on the metal band [[Pyorrhoea]] because he claimed this band had no notability and that the link to its label was for a defunct TV show -- again, he made no effort to locate references and fix the obvious errors in an article about a very notable band [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pyorrhoea] (I wound up doing the research to determine notability that he should have done -- and I am not a metal fan!)  Then there this wildly inappropriate non-admin closure (you don't close AfD discussions where you are a voter, TPH!) coupled with self-congratulatory crowing about his embrace of the [[WP:BOLD]] and [[WP:IAR]] tenets [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chip_Berlet_%282nd_nomination%29].  And, again, his reopening a closed AfD discussion for the insertion of a completely irrelevant last word: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/To_Kill_The_Potemkin_%282nd_nomination%29]. If this kind of careless and silly behaviour is typical of his non-admin activities, I hate to imagine what will happen if he had buttons to press. Sorry, TPH -- like the Corleone family says, it's nothing personal...it's strictly business.
Beyond the praise he is receiving ''en masse'' for his heavy work at XfD and his diligence at that forum, the diffs and comments the opposition before me have presented are both illuminating and disillusioning. It seems that while TPH does much great work, his recurring mistakes relating to deletion and CSD continue to be black marks on his record that I don't feel comfortable ignoring when I consider whether I'd like to see him given the mop. Sorry, but, no, not this time. When the mistakes go away, so does my oppose. -- <strong>
'''Sorry''', but too many incidents of not understanding speedy deletion is too problematic.  Several examples quoted above, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_reggae&diff=prev&oldid=228862996 This] was less than two weeks ago.  Admins don't need to know every policy inwards and out, but they need to be familiar with those in the areas they're active in.
'''Oppose.''' A lot of very good work with AfDs but too trigger-happy with CSD tags and does not do enough homework before deletion nominations. This is not just a past problem but a current one as well. The diffs provided by Ecoleetage (both in the oppose and the nutral sections) particularly worry me.
'''Oppose''' (switch from Neutral) The diffs shown by the users in the oppose section, especially by Richard Cavell and Ecoleetage, raised some concern. I think an admin should be able to use CSD tags correctly, although of course I know he might have acted in good faith. But there are several cases in which he added CSD-notices to articles where AfD's where already open (and resulted in keep) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CINTAX&diff=prev&oldid=227904366] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5_Elementz&diff=prev&oldid=227893525] or requested speedy that was declined [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Els%C5%91_Pesti_Egyetemi_R%C3%A1di%C3%B3&diff=prev&oldid=226169502]. Of course that does not make a oppose reason by itself but it gives me the impression that TPH is eager to delete first and ask questions (or consensus) later, which ''might'' well result in a large number of articles who actually were not eliglible for CSD to be deleted. I think his work at XfD is without any question great and much needed but I simply feel that he should not be the one actually deleting things. Also, I am not comfortable with his answer to Q6 because his example contradicts current articles: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MARRS&oldid=116255296 This bands article] was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MARRS&diff=128601319&oldid=128601253 redirected (i.e. deleted and redirected)] to [[Pump Up the Volume (song)]] which is in fact notable even if the band was not. By his example, he'd have deleted the song as IAR. '''
'''Oppose'''. I fear TenPoundHammer will go around deleting things with no discussion or oversight. Not worth the risk.
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' because of his sarcastic and arrogant funmaking of another editor at Support #8. Very bad behaviour for an admin. <span style="background:#C0C0FF"><font color="#FFFFFF">
'''Regretful Oppose''' I really, really, really wanted to !vote ''support'' but I regretfully can't do so. TPH is an invaluable asset to this project as an editor but I simply can't convince myself that I would be comfortable knowing that he has access to the delete button without any kind of a failsafe. Incorrectly tagging articles for CSD is no big deal when a cautious administrator is right behind you wagging his finger and saving someone's incomplete work from permanent loss to the project. The ability to speedy delete articles suspected of being hoaxes gives the rest of the community no opportunity to say "hey, I know this may seem like a hoax but I can provide a link to verify these claims". Personally, as much as I wanted to believe otherwise, I fear he may not have learned much from his previous 5 RfAs - he still does outstanding work as an editor but he still makes the same mistakes. Editors' mistakes are always easier to fix than administrators' mistakes. Sorry, TPH.
'''Oppose''' per most of those above. Deletionists provide a useful service as editors by bringing potentially unworthy material to the attention of the wider community, but there's just too much history that suggests TPH as an admin would beconstantly making poor unilateral out-of-process deletions; [[WP:IAR|IAR]] should be a last resort, not a badge of pride.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' too many RFAs. There is a line between following "[[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]" and throwing yourself before different audiences [[WP:PARENT|in the hope]] one will like you at some point, and I believe this user has crossed it.
'''Oppose''' I share the same concerns as TigerShark and iridescent in their opposes.  Additionally, the answers to Q6 ''(would invoke IAR in AfDs)'' and Q9 ''(candidate doesn't think he's careful yet)'' concern me, and, I also agree with Endorphina - the mockery of Kurt in the Support section of this RfA is unfortunate at best.
'''Changing to Strong Oppose''' <S>'''Oppose'''</S> My experience with this candidate has not been good...
'''Oppose''' I regret doing this, because I used to see TenPound doing a lot of good in music editing, but I think his judgment at AfD et al. lately has been impaired. His efforts to clean house are throwing out too many musty or slightly broken curiosities of considerable encyclopedic worth. And there's no need to request adminship 6 times.
'''Strong Oppose''' Trigger-happy and arrogant. I absolutely do not want any '''more''' admins that act like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish reggae|this]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=225926634 this]. I have zero trust that he would be a competent administrator.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too much incorrect CSD tagging.
'''Oppose''' User's signature, demeanor etc. prevents me from taking him seriously.
'''Oppose''' per Ecoleetage and other opposers who have pointed out the reasons why his judgment and personality will not make for a good admin.  Sorry!  '''«''' <font face="Tahoma">
'''Oppose''' from neutral. So many concerns raised, bad tagging, trigger happy, arrogant, also userpage mentions "pursuit" of adminship and how the user wants it even after five failed attempts. Adminship is not a "level-up". While we're all volunteers and should be having some fun from time to time, the off-the-wall wackiness and maturity issues do worry me.
Regretful '''oppose.''' Clearly an asset to the project. But the diffs provided by TigerShark, Richard Cavell, Jon513 and others indicate that Ten Pound Hammer does not understand [[WP:CSD]], or that he has decided that it does not apply to him. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Regretful oppose.''' CSD is one of my hot buttons... too much damage can be done by violating or "ignoring the rules" when it comes to CSD.---'''
'''Oppose''' - While I am all for users performing [[WP:IAR]] actions, and consider myself a user who uses that "rule" quite often I also find that there is a place for process and that IAR is not always the best solution. Looking over some diff's provided above, along with my own interactions with TPH I must say that I am not yet sure this user has used or will use IAR correctly. I also have strong concerns with the number of RfA's in such a short period of time, and to be honest it is getting a bit tiring seeing the same arguments every three or four months and is borderline [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]], I mean is it not clear that previous issues have not been addressed when they continue to come up ''every'' RfA? One thing I really like to see in a return admin candidate is the ability to listen to past criticism and opposes and better themselves because of them, this demonstrates a certain level of maturity that comes with admin work along with an ability to listen to the voice of the community and it saddens me to say I do not see this in TPH. I feel that at this point it TPH is a net positive and an asset to the project right where he is, and that is an editor without the mop and bucket. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per nominating [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kmweber/Some AfDs to fight]].  There are lessons to be learned about how to deal with Kurt Weber, and you clearly haven't learned those lessons yet.  (Neither have I, of course.)  I don't want you to repeat the same kind of mistake that I made 13 days ago.  Oh, and I just noticed that you're [[WP:TW|Twinkling]] through these MFDs as well.  That shows an even worse lapse in judgement.  --
Didn't realize till just now that the above MfD was nominated today.  My concerns are the same as the last time, it's better that this editor just nominate articles/stuff for deletion -and not have the ability to do it him/herself.
'''Oppose''' Poor judgment in deletion areas. '''
'''Oppose''' I was ready to support, until I saw the argument users made in the oppose section.--
'''Weak oppose'''; Sorry TPH&mdash; I supported you (if barely) on attempt number four because I felt you could keep the overzealous deletions under control with some guidance&mdash; the fact that you did not accept that ''two'' failed RfA mostly on those terms were a strong hint that you should correct your deletion aim worries me too much for me to agree with your getting the bit at this time.  I would recommend you wait at ''least'' six months before you try again and that you work ''really'' hard at refining your delete-fu in the meantime.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' due to the speedy deletion concerns. Incorrect speedy deletions are a great way to [[WP:BITE|drive away newcomers]], and the candidate seems not to have learnt from the previous times these concerns were raised. Do not trust with the delete button.
'''Oppose''': Wikipedia doesn't need a deletion happy admin.
'''Oppose''' No more deletions.
'''Regretful Oppose''', per [[User:TigerShark]].  I really wanted to Support this, and I believe that the user really does mean well, but those are some pretty elementary errors from a user that really ought to know better (especially since this was brought up at the last RFA).
I just see too much willingness here to stretch the bounds of speedy deletion; its hard to swallow the claim that he's still making these same "mistakes" after all this time.  Also, since this has been the bone of contention at most of his RfA's, the candidate seems to be willing to ignore the community on this and keep doing his own thing.  Just not good traits for the admin bit. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
As per above. After 5 RfAs, he still does not understand the deletion criteria. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Hasty deletionism. Also, he should be more ready to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].
'''Oppose''', per Tigershark.
'''Oppose''' Alot of people have given examples of you jizzing-up at XfD. Too worrying for me. Something that contributes to that is the number of RfA's — to clarify, it doesn't bother me if you have a lot of RfA's in a short ammount of time, but it isn't a good reflection on yourself that after so many RfA's you still don't get the deletion process.--
'''Sad oppose'''. I opposed one of his early RFAs due to his impatience with full discussion (involving not just inappropriate CSDs, but snowball early keeps), but with the hope that he would learn to be patient, so I could support him in the future. Unfortunately, after several failed RFAs which have been sunk by this same issue, it has become apparent that Hammer is a leopard who can't change his spots. Even some of his supporters have advised him to be cautious with the delete button if he passes, but there's little hope of that: he hasn't been able to take the advice he has been given in past RFAs to heart, and his answer to Q1 proclaims, "The work I plan to participate in the most is deletion work." Note that my main problem is with hastiness, more than deletionism ''per se'' - the candidate can also point to articles he has saved, nor is he the most unreasonable person once a discussion gets going. Also, no one seems to be questioning his snowball keeps lately, so maybe he has improved on that score - if he has, it may have ironically made him seem more deletionist. I also feel he has waited "long enough" between RFAs, so that doesn't bother me. --
'''Oppose''', to put it bluntly, per all above, I do not trust this user with deletion. I will admit I am fairly inclusionistic, and in that regard I may be biased, but I cannot reconcile the fact that TPH seems to overly jumpy/hasty when it comes CSD/AFD. -
'''Oppose'''.  I'm a strong deletionist, but <b>six</b> failed RFAs inspire no confidence.  Wikipedia is not a MMORPG, and we've got a lot of terrible admins who looked at RFA as a social promotion.
'''Sorry, must oppose'''. I consider myself a deletionist, but having the admin deletion toolset requires more consideration and care than I have seen from TPH in this regard.
'''Oppose'''.  Why would TPH try this again, without a good long time passing?  The lack of patience is a sign of lack of maturity, in my opinion.  And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEzra_Wax&diff=227679081&oldid=227665238 this comment] which got an editor going in an edit war, was not appropriate.  Especially since the consensus was that TPH was wrong in intent and result.  TPH needs to stop these RfA's until he shows significant maturity.
OrangeMarlin's diff above got me; you don't close non-obvious AfDs early just because you disagree with the rationale; that's what the space beneath the nomination statement is for. '''
'''Oppose'''. To me this editor does not show the maturity needed by an admin. I'm concerned by his statement, "While it would be "cool" to be an admin, that's not my only motivation by a long shot." I'm glad it's not his ''only'' motivation - but it does seem to be a significant one.
'''Oppose'''. I am still uncomfortable with his approach. He says "Also, by surfing around at random, I tend to run into things that look like they might be deletion-worthy.". In my view he needs to give greater weight to [[WP:BEFORE]] and look to see if articles can be improved first. Taggings such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burford_County_Combined_School&diff=prev&oldid=198047275 this] indicate to me a lack of undestanding of policy and that he might well delete pages incorrectly.
'''Oppose''' Too eager for the tools, too immature from what I've seen around WP.  Agee with TerrierFan re trying to improve the articles rather than just shuffling them off to Buffalo (no offense to the natives of said town  :).
'''Neutral'''. Agree with Tan on this one. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 23:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Still neutral. Its not time yet. '''
Somewhat on the fence. Has been really nice to me at times, but I do still see some over zealousness with AfDs and now more than ever perhaps am I seeing overall too much zealouness in general to delete articles that should not be redlinked. So will have to think on it. One thing I will say, is that I do not see multiple attempts at adminship as a bad thing, as we should encourage editors to work to improve themselves and give them other chances to do so.  Even if it is on someone's sixth or so attempt at, we should be able to say that they have done enough since the fifth attempt to either convince us or to try again later.  I would never fault anyone from trying every so often and I do not believe there is any bad faith in these repeated efforts either.  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Neutral, leaning towards support''' – I see him around frequently at AfDs and he definitely leaves the impression of someone who would be a hard-working admin whose use of the tools would provide a net benefit. Still, I am concerned with some misapplying of speedy-delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Severin_Sisters&diff=228928966&oldid=228927716] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Mulhern&diff=229468038&oldid=229466681] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_reggae&diff=prev&oldid=228862996]. The last one, combined with a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polish_reggae&diff=228863313&oldid=228859172 total rubbish]" comment was surprisingly WP:BITEy for someone so experienced. He also applied a "G3 blatant hoax tag" to [[UK Physical Singles Chart]] which was not a hoax (though it was non-notable). So I'm a little concerned about over-eagerness to delete without sufficient discussion. <font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Neutral, <s>leaning support</s>''': TPH is someone I've interacted with frequently on Wiki and he's a great resource for questions from his experince with the project. <small>And he has great taste in music :)</small>. I think he's worked hard to address the issues raised in his RFAs and his AfD noms and !votes have improved since AfD 5. That said, I agree with some of the concerns raised about it showing a possible over-eagerness to be an Admin. While non-admins can't delete an article, they can certainly influence the process through strong discussion at an AfD. I think TPH does this well and while no one needs the tools I wonder how having the tools is going to enhance his wiki work. Hmm that's feeling like a question. See above. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">
'''Neutral''' <s>''leaning toward support''</s> I'm involved in a lot of AfDs and have seen his work around a lot.  I usually find what he does to be quite reasonable and civil.  But in an AfD nom something like "just some in-universe info relevant only to very obsessed fans of Mad" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cowznofski] is perhaps not as polite as is ideal, and I've seen things like that pop up fairly often (I'm equally conserned that he didn't appear to do a google news or book search before putting in that nom).  That said, I've had a great deal of respect for what he has done for the project.  And even though I'd call him a deletionist and I'd consider myself an inclusionist, I think the vast majority of what he's done has been solid.  I just worry about civility and his ability to close AfD's per consensus rather than his opinion (a problem that I've been seeing more and more recently by various admins).  So Neutral.
'''Neutral''' TPH is a great user but overzealous application of the SD criteria worries me. I would agree that the SD criterion as they stand are too narrow but the answer to that is not to delete pages for reasons that they obviously do not meet. - '''
'''Neutral''' per several people above: namely, I've seen him around, been impressed with his work and was at first planning to support, but the now-apparent over-zealousness in AfD and particularly CSD give me cause for concern. Will try and find the time to make a more detailed delve into his contributions after the weekend.
'''Neutral''' I won't oppose a man without a full and fair review of his contribs, which I don't have time for right now &mdash; and I am doubly reluctant to oppose someone with a strong history of contribution and dedication to the project, as is obviously present here.  However, I can't support &mdash; there are just too many examples already of AfD nominations made without due consideration or research, something I take very seriously.  It seems to epitomize a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.  Would an IP editor receive this same treatment?  Blocked first, review later?  Don't good-faith article contributions deserve a bit more thought before they are thrown into AfD?  I won't rule out a switch to support, but these concerns weigh heavily on my mind, especially when what we are discussing is granting use of the block and delete buttons. '''
'''Regretfully Neutral'''. Moved here from support. I still believe TPH to be a great editor, but the MFD of Kurt's subpage, during an RFA? I'm sorry, there's no reason to just delete another user's Wikipedia-related subpage.
'''Neutral''' from support (as mentioned above on my previous support vote).
While I'm glad this user is helping out with closing AfDs, he isn't doing the job properly. In the cases of two articles I saw where he closed "keeps" he didn't add the AfD result template to the talk pages. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
This is a regretful neutral: in the past, I've supported TenPoundHammer's RfAs, for I have believed (''and still do believe'') that TenPountHammer is an excellent editor, wouldn't abuse the tools if granted them, and was going to learn from past mistakes. However, although I don't think he'd willingly ''abuse'' the the tools, I am worried that his many mistakes with deletions would lead to him ''misusing'' them. While the number of RfAs doesn't give me too many concerns, the fact that in most of TenPoundHammer's requests he has been opposed for deletion errors, and still makes errors with deletion-related areas as recently as a couple of weeks ago, leads me to go neutral on this nomination, albeit regretfully. In addition, I also recall [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Majorly|this MfD]], and although it was from three months ago, it was unnecessary, and there have been inappropriate XfDs from TenPoundHammer since then, as evidenced above. I really hope that TenPoundHammer makes an even greater effort at making less mistakes in the deletion area, and waits ''at least'' six months before applying again. As I said before, TenPoundHammer is an excellent editor, and wouldn't ''abuse'' the tools, but I worried about possible misuse at the moment.
'''Neutral''' I came here when I spotted this RFA intending to support. I regard TPH as an excellent contributor, a civil and proactive editor, and obviously committed to the project.  But some of the deletion diffs cited here worry me. I do a fair bit of CSD-based nominating myself, and I regularly find pages whose language is coherent but the content appears to be rubbish, but which don't easily fit any of the SD criteria. It's tempting to slap a tag like G1 on these articles, so the admin with the delete button must not be trigger-happy or material will be lost for the wrong reasons.  I don't have a problem with using a G3 tag for unarguable hoaxes, but it's depressing to spot an article that is factually questionable, go off to try and check it out, then come back a short while later to find it has already been speedied on some entirely spurious pretext, usually G1, which is the most abused of all the SD criteria.  I would be unhappy to help add another admin to the ranks of those who let this kind of thing pass.  Aside from this caveat I think TPH would be a fine admin, so I'd be happy to be reassured.  <strong>
'''Neutral''' I can't bring myself to support, but I can't bring myself to oppose either.
'''Neutral''' I would oppose based on his AfD work, but I understand that is just a facet of a good user. That said, since it is where he said he would use his admin tools, I don't feel confident giving him the bit. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Neutral''' - I feel the same way as TaborL just above. I can't honestly oppose a user who has done so much work to improve the encyclopaedia, and who would probably be a net benefit as an admin. But I can't bring myself to support either, due to TPH's somewhat aggressive, and sometimes dubious, use of speedy-deletion tags. Deletionism, in itself, is not a crime; it is a legitimate point of view (which I share), that there are too many articles on WP about non-notable subjects. But requesting to have articles deleted on grounds such as CSD A7 (when an assertion of notability, however weak, ''is'' made) or G3 (when the article is self-evidently ''not'' nonsense/vandalism) goes beyond that, and looks like misuse of policy to circumvent the AFD process. I have no doubt that TPH's intentions are good, and that where he has made mistakes, he regrets them; but a good intention does not justify bad methods, and I just can't trust him enough to use the deletion process correctly to honestly support. I wish it were otherwise, and if this RFA fails, I hope TPH improves his judgement to the extent I can support him in a future nomination.
'''Not bothering to pile-on'''
Unconvinced either way.
'''Support''', per [[WP:AGF]]. --
No time to review this candidate thoroughly, I'm off to bed. I'll [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] until the morning since I can find nothing immediately alarming. <s>That said, I am a little concerned about the nominator, who has only been a member since November.</s> Further look into the nominator has revealed no immediate issues, either. —'''
Why the hell not. ~<strong>'''''
'''Weak support''' due to awards on userpage, one block being several months ago, and for good argument in the lone AfD we both participated in.  Best, --

[[User:Miacek]] ([[User talk:Miacek|t]]) 09:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) As the nominator (see above). --
'''Weak Support''' Candidate works in a contentious area, but the opposes use a combination of edits from over a year ago, edits by other users and edits where the candidate is  being civil in a dispute, I actually take that as quite reassuring.  The answer to Q1 is not ideal and if this was a self nom I would oppose for it, but as candidate has been nominated a Q1 that implies to me that Termer doesn't quite know what he/she has let themselves in for does not trouble me unduly. Weak because the block is less than a year ago (though only by weeks) and I don't think we've had a commitment not to use the tools in areas where Termer is perceived by some to be partisan. '''
'''Strong Support'''. The candidate just about single-handedly resolved a very long running, intractable and dare I say bitter (resulting in an [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia|ArbCom case]]) content dispute regarding the article [[Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940]]. Termer is a great moderating agent and would be an asset to the admin crew.
'''Support'''. A good editor, but there is little chance an Estonian editor will be allowed to pass and become and admin.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Termer has ruffled some feathers, but it's because he's always been trying to do the Right Thing -- even in face of vocal opponents.  Good judgement and courage of action, not begging mercy from trolls, are the qualities that make good administrators.
'''Support''' The quality of his contributions seems much more impressive than the rationales of the opposers.
'''Support''' because I see nothing wrong with him. The fact that he was blocked, even if that was a long time ago, really scares me; but I think he is fine and good to go!
'''Support'''. We need more good administrators who are familiar with Eastern Europe subjects and controversies. He is also a good content editor.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q1 is absolutely not sufficient, sorry. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but, at the moment, your answer to Q1 doesn't make a lot of sense. Hoax articles are usually listed at articles for deletion, so being an admin doesn't change anything.
'''Oppose''' I don't like the tone of his responses.  Naming the editor he is had a conflict with in the response to his question is a cheap shot.  Seems prone to conflict.--
<s>'''Oppose''' for now, may change if the answers to questions turn out nicely.</s> '''Strong Oppose''' Looking at his talkpage archives (difficult because of the way they are done) shows (as wehwalt says) an editor prone to conflict. While it may be a issue to do with the area he edits it does not reflect well on him. Looking forward to the answers to questions. Additional: After recieving answers to the questions I and others posed I am extending my oppose to a Strong Oppose. The amended answer to Question 1 is not sufficient, and his answer to my question shows a user who answers with personal opinion rather than policy; not something I'm a fan of.
'''Oppose''' - The answers to the questions concern me, as Aitias pointed out with Q1, others raise eyebrows. I can't remember the last time I opposed either. —
'''Regretful oppose''' - Per Ironholds, Wehwalt, and Aitias. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Strong oppose''' Tremer has a long history of incivil behavior especially in articles related to Estonia.--
'''Weak Oppose''' I get that the block was 7 months ago, but still it's a block.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Oppose'''. Nebulous, but after reviewing contributions (an incredibly tedious task given the lack of talk and project space edit summaries), a "net positive" is not very evident. There is too much of a chance of drama and conflict. Also, not enough depth of project experience.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but not ready yet. No admin has to know every detail of policy at the start, but some rudimentary knowledge of the main points of image copyright policy  is essential even for those who won't be working there much. And some other answers similarly show a less than adequate understanding of the role. I suggest some wider-ranging experience over the next few months. '''
Too many concerns.  Not ready, primarily.
'''Oppose''' I hate to do it as the user is a decent contributor, though that does not automatically mean they'd be a good admin. From reviews of the edits noted above and further the comments placed by others and his replies to them on his talk page display (to me) the type of attitude I do not want to see in any more admins. Sorry mate.
Termer's incivility &ndash; combined with quite the shaky answer to Q1 &ndash; drives me to '''oppose'''. Sorry, Termer. Hopefully, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Termer 2]] will pass by July or August. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Oppose''' Weak immature editor, plus constant incivility.

'''Oppose'''. On one hand the candidate has an impressive article-writing record, which counts for a lot in my book. On the other hand, there are several reasons for reservations, at least at this point. The initial answer to Q1 was really strange, raising questions about how well the candidate understand the role of an admin. Part A of the answer to Q3 is also somewhat concerning, in view of the recent date of the event mentioned there. A rather bungled response to a rather basic copyright question (Q6) also adds to the overall impression that the candidate is not sufficiently familiar with policies and guidelines as of now.
'''Oppose''' I don't oppose often, but I am not convinced by the answer to the questions. Especially the non-free (fair use) one. Also I see too much wikilawyering on [[Template talk:Infobox Film]] although I might be biased there since I made a comment or two on the opposing side of Termer.
'''Oppose'''.  It is a sad fact of an admin life that a thorough knowledge of policies and guidelines is often more important than "common sense".  Putting an equal sign between adherence to the policies and wikilawyering, as the candidate seems to do when answering Q6, is a sign that it's too early to hand in the admin tools.  I may be willing to re-consider this in a few months if an improvement in this area can be demonstrated and no other serious concerns surface.—
'''Oppose'''. I have some previous experience with this editor and he tends to be very agressive in topics related to Estonia with a preference for referring to fringe scholarship and fringe views to further his agenda (see e.g. [[Talk:Varangians]] and [[Talk:Oeselians]]). I don't trust this editor's grasp of Wikipedia policy and I definitely wouldn't trust him with the tools.--
'''Oppose'''. Answers to questions do not show me the editor is ready yet. Also, please use edit summaries more consistently.
'''Oppose'''. Low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose'''. User's intent seems to be in the right place but it's abundantly clear that the policy knowledge just isn't there.  It's true that one doesn't have to know every policy, but if a user is unwilling or unable to look up policies to answer RfA questions, that doesn't give me confidence that the user will do so when making admin decisions.
'''Oppose''' per civility issues. I'd recommend withdrawal and a good while. Please remember to read up everything [[WPCIV|CIV]] related and follow it. <font color="navy">
'''Oppose''' Just to make it easier, I agree with neuro. Good luck.
'''Oppose'''. Normally I would do a neutral instead of a snowball oppose if the candidate's support drops below 50% but Foxy Lexy showed that you made personal attack right in the heart of this RfA.
''' Oppose''' Sorry, but I wait a little while. I recommend withdrawing and wait another 4-6 months.--
'''Oppose'''.  If you want my vote when you run again, I'll need to see evidence that you are letting impartial people make the difficult calls involving articles you care about and involving people you consider your opponents. - Dan
'''Oppose''' for now per answers to various questions and resulting discussions.  I don't mind admins who aren't familiar with all policies when their RFA starts, but admins who either can't or won't do the research to find the answer to a policy question raise issues.  With possible [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth|rare exceptions]], even admin candidates who don't plan on doing much policy-enforcement should know how to find  and interpret the existing policies.  Even though this editor didn't look like a [[WP:NOTNOW]] candidate early on, as of now, that's what he is.  The candidate should consider withdrawing and deciding if he really needs access to the tools.  If he does, he should familiarize himself with just what is expected of an administrator and educate himself accordingly.  Also, some other opposers have mentioned civility issues.  I didn't even look into this, I'd already made up my mind based on the questions.  If you have civility or other issues, please address them before throwing your hat in the ring again.
'''Oppose''' per Q6 & Q10.
'''Oppose''', I don't expect a prospective candidate to know policy back to front.  Hell, I don't, and I don't think that many other admins do either.  I ''do'' expect though, that when quizzed on something they're not familiar with, they'll take the time to look it up and understand what the current policy is before answering.  The responses to Q6 and Q10 are illuminating, in this regard.  Civility concerns are the icing on the cake.  Sorry, but I can't support you right now.
'''Oppose'''. I feel sorry whenever I have to oppose but I cannot support an editor who makes obvious mistakes. Common sense is good but to be an admin you need to be able to look up policy and guidelines you do not know, e.g. the answer to Q6. And I find it disturbing that you think edit summaries are just something that is optional, thus potentially creating more mess willingly. (Lankiveil edit-conflicted exactly what I wanted to say...)  Regards '''
'''Oppose''' - I see no evidence of article work, and I don't feel you're ready. '''
'''Oppose'''. Termer has generally good contributions, but does not appear to have a good enough grasp of policies & guidelines. I don't expect (potential) admins to know every policy. However I do expect them to be able to find relevant policies/guidelines when the need arises and act accordingly.
'''Oppose''' primarily based on the questions and answers, but that's the only reason, currently. If you keep up the good work you're doing and try again in 4 months I bet you'd get it. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">
'''Neutral''' It is difficult to overlook the candidate's positive contributions to the project, but the answers to the RfA questions wind up raising more questions.  I can switch to Support pending clarification on those questions.
'''Neutral''' - Good editor but per answer to Q1, doesn't really indicate what Termer would use the tools for. Will reconsider after clarification. '''<font size="2" face="Verdana">
'''Neutral'''. I had a big stink over hoaxes a while back, and frankly, only extreme hoaxes should ever be deleted on the spot. If the candidate thinks being an admin means he can simply delete pages he believes to be hoaxes without the support of an AfD, this could be quite problematic. However, I see nothing else negative about this candidate, so I'm willing to reconsider following answers to other questions. Thanks, and best of luck! <font color="777777">
'''Neutral'''. contributions a plus, behaviour (admittedly in a difficult area) is not. I'd recommend getting a short controversial article up to GA to show balance as a start and a three month delay while doing this. Need to show can keep a cool head and negotiate. Cheers,
'''Neutral'''.  Insufficient understanding of policy for an admin to have.  I don't see this passing, and if it does not, I would suggest reading everything up at [[WP:ARL]] and having a good look at [[WP:ADMIN]] to learn what role administrators are expected to have on Wikipedia.  Great article editor, but you just do not have enough knowledge of policy.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Recommend withdrawal''' in light of the concerns raised and volume of opposition at this time.
'''This may be my first neutral''': I see evidence that this RfA is itself becoming a mild ethnic battleground. There is an oppose voter who I have in fact advocated blocking, but your own behavior here makes it difficult for me to rally to your side. POV pushers, and in particular tendentious nationalist POV pushers are the bane of this project. The. Bane. They are what makes us a joke. Personally, I abhor them, and find it hard to respect those who give them the rope to hang themselves. Lord knows I've lost my calm with many of them, and to no benefit to this project. As admins, we must maintain our cool. When we lose it, it undermines our ability to act credibly. I'll support you if I see someone who can take the hits, and remain calm, while pursuing the academically accepted NPOV.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per Q1 - you don't need to be an admin to accomplish that goal, and an admin should understand that. Also a general lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' - Complete lack of experience, too few edits, answers to main questions indicate that candidate does not particularly understand the role of an administrator. Suggest [[WP:ER]]. [[WP:ADMINCOACH]], and [[WP:ADMIN]]. Also, this should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]] very soon. Cheers!
Hi. :) I'm afraid I have to '''oppose''' this time. [[WP:Admin|Adminship]] is not necessary for the things you mention that you would like to do, and while you seem very dedicated to creating these articles you do not currently demonstrate sufficient experience in the parts of Wikipedia for which adminship tools are required, like [[WP:DP|page deletion]] and [[WP:Block|blocking]] [[WP:Vandalism|vandals]], to judge how you would use them. I'd suggest you continue, learn your way around a bit more, perhaps join a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject]] and get a feel for Wikipedia in whole before seeking adminship. (As a start, you might want to read about [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]]. They are helpful in collaborating with others in building the project, since they make it easier for others to see what you're doing with your edits.) Good luck and happy editing. --
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']]  and [[User:Gwynand|Gwynand]]. --[[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' You have less than 350 edits, I believe that you need a lot more experience before you will be ready for adminship.  I suggest that you '''withdraw this RfA''' and try again when you are a lot more experienced
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]''' A few pointers 1)About half your edits are to your user page; please consider leaving it alone (it looks great now) and getting more into the encyclopedia. 2) Whilst not obligatory, some deeper insight into your motivation to be an admin would have come with more expanded answers to the questions. 3) Don't be put off - the essay I've linked to should also give you some handy advice as well. 4) Please review the process for [[WP:AFD]] per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_Parish_Church_of_Peebles&diff=230041416&oldid=230037294 this] I see your active there and that's great, but you need to learn about not removing tags. 5) Re: Q2 - please see [[WP:OR]] as well! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', as even without delving deeply into this candidate, s/he fails #1 of
'''Oppose'''. I'm not sure if this is is a genuine application, or if Tharnton is trying to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. In any case, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Tharnton's contributions and answers are wholly inadequate. Tharnton, if you would like me to give more extensive feedback, I'll be happy to do so at your Talk page.
'''Oppose''', inadequate... everything. Answers, contributions, even the initial statement reflect a WP:NOTNOW situation at best. I'm not willing to vote for someone who knows so little of policy that he can't even put his RfA in the right place on the page; I can see this getting SNOWed out.
'''Moral support oppose''' — [[WP:NOTNOW]], you did not follow the nomination instructions, you may wish to read carefully in future! Good luck. — <font face="rage italic" size="4.5px">'''
'''Oppose'''. Account less than a month old, less than 500 contributions, and placed a retaliatory !vote on Cyclone's RfA in response to Cyclose very gentle reminder above. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]]
'''Oppose''' - account is far too new, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Great_Editor_In_Chief&diff=prev&oldid=222701319 this edit] speaks to the editor's maturity. –<font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I view users nominating themselves for adminship after less than a month on the project as ''prima facie'' evidence of not being ready for the mop yet
I don't normally pile-on, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreation&diff=222701463&oldid=221124319 this] says it all.<font face="Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;–&nbsp;
Oppose. Will be glad to support with more experience. I'm being sarcastic, in light of their own vote. This is a '''support'''. (
I'm sorry, I just don't understand how this user is not becoming an Administrator. He is a very experienced user, who has over 30,000 edits. Right now, he is even coaching me on becoming an Admin. I just truly don't see why very few other users are supporting him, because right now, not having Administrator powers is just holding him back from doing truly great things on Wikipedia. '''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">
'''Support'''. His last RFA was over 2 months ago. He does tons of work, has lots of experience, and knows what he's doing. His "I desperately hunger for power" was obviously a back-handed stab at Kurt Weber, which I found hilarious. Blows away my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|RFA standards]].
Hate to be first, but Oppose. This RfA really does not look at all serious, and gives me the impression of a "doesn't care" attitude. As well as this, he admits it in the nomination - desperate for more "power". Just no. <small>And despite some of my recent RfA votes being "jokey", this one is deadly serious.</small> '''
I'm sorry, as I supported (albeit weekly) last time, having opposed the time before. I'm in full agreeance with Majorly, particularly where he rightly says that this RfA carries a "don't care" attitude, and whilst I'm up for humour your 4th RfA is probably not the best place to bring it. In addiiton "I've made 5,000 edits since my last RfA" - that's like editing for adminship not editing for the purposes of encyclopedia building (sorry, not very faithful but that's the way I kind of see it). You're a great editor, you really, are, but this haste and seeming lack of respect for RFA is unbecoming in a potential admin. Again, sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Nope''' Just doesn't get it
'''Oppose'''. I thought I might support, but after reading through the RFA, I'm not sure if this is a joke, or if you're just not finished answering the questions... ·
'''Oppose''' even though you are my coach. I was a little stunned when I first seen this nomination. You last had an RFA '''nine weeks ago''' community consensus I'm afraid is unlikely to change in nine weeks. You recently told me at my coaching page not to nominate myself for at least a few months, then within a nine week span, I see my coach at RFA again?! I think you should of waited till at least July-time before nominating yourself again. I would also prefer a more extensive answer to question 1; is AFD the only activity you would delve into? If so, other admins may not be interested if that's the only area you are going to patrol. I also feel that there is some kind of point your making behind this nomination, if so, I suggest you withdraw this nomination as it is only going to worsen the community opinion on you. I suggest getting down several more thousand edits, and possibly contribute to one or two GA/FA articles, and try and do a lot more article-related work. Also, stating "Because I desperately hunger for power", makes it seem like that you feel it is a badge of honor to become admin, it is not <small>(I don't know whether it was sarcasm, but you still shouldn't of said it.)</small>. Being an admin is undertaking daily maintenence duties from day-to-day, resolving situations, deleting articles, sorting out possibly sockpuppetry situations etc. Good luck for the future,
No indication that the substantive concerns from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 3|TT 3]] have been addressed. &ndash;
'''Reluctant oppose'''. I was going to repeat my '''support''' vote from last time, per my [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|criteria for RfA]]. Trying to be methodical I had a quick check of your talk page and the first thing I saw was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Weary|this attempted AfD closure]]. To try to prematurely close an AfD with four ''delete'' and three ''keep'' opinions (one of the ''keeps'' your own) is just not on. I'm an enormous admirer of your work here - I have looked through and benefitted from the admin coaching pages, and my user page is ultimately derived from your work. But applying my criteria dispassionately, I can't support this time. Suggest withdrawal to prevent souring the possibility of a future RfA altogether.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]].  Wow.  <b>
... '''<font color="#ff9900">
Being an administrator isn't a big deal, but it isn't a joke. 4 RfA's says something, even if it isn't clear exactly what it says. Your answers to questions are lacking, your participating in administrator coaching is seemingly inappropriate, your attempts at "practice closures" of contested AfD's was ill-considered. There is nothing wrong with being an editor but not an administrator, and based on this and your prior RfAs I respectfully suggest that you reflect on that fact for your own benefit.
'''Oppose''' A certain editor springs to mind having failed a number of RfA's took the communities advice, and quietly got on with his work improved in the areas that some felt he lacked experience, and then after a fair amount of time, let himself be nominated and then passed with an almost clean sweep. A lot of well respected editors gave some positive feedback in your last RfA but I'm sorry to say this, I see no evidence that you have taken these criticisms and used them to your advantage. Also I'm not sure what to make of your opening statement. <sup>
'''Oppose''' I really don't want to do this, but between the lack of time between RFAs, the very short and inadequate answers, <s>the closing of an AFD when he voted in it</s>, his practice closing of some of the AFDs, he seems to eager to want to become an admin and doesn't seem to understand the duties, viweing it as an award. His encyclopedic contributions have been great and very good though, which is why i feel bad opposing, but he just doesn't seem to "get it".
'''Oppose''' I have to oppose because of what I perceive to be an attitude problem. Don't get me wrong, you are a fantastic editor, I just don't think that you currently have the right attitude to be an admin. I think the tone of your RFA statement says it all; [[WP:SARCASM|sarcasm doesn't come across well.]]
I supported last time, but I was not impressed with the ridiculous amount of questions TTH added to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24]], which led to the candidate having to answer all of them, followed by a load of opposition for what several people called unsatisfactory answers. See Avruch's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FIbaranoff24&diff=180688231&oldid=180682561 comment] in that RfA as well.
'''Oppose'''.  Is this already piling on?  If not, here is my oppose, per this [[WP:DICK|opinion]]. --
'''Strong neutral''', I'm concerned about this - when I first viewed this request I thought that your account had perhaps been compromised or your RfA vandalised, but when I realised it had not, it caused to me doubt the reasoning behind this RfA. Perhaps it is too soon after number 3, but with a few months good editing and a good attitude I would be possible to support next time.
'''Sadly neutral''' In the past I've been prepared to co-nom your RFA but even you must see that regardless of your good qualities, you approach to this process is bound to get people's backs up?
'''Neutral'''.  Sorry, but the AFD closure wasn't good, and the oppose section has a few good points. '''
'''Neutral''' but can't bring myself to oppose.  I rather wish this RfA hadn't happened.  I think you have all the qualities of a good admin, but every once in a while you go and do something that makes me truly question your judgment.  This RfA is one of those.  -
Support, though that's a crap nom, if you have to do it again make it better, good user though, and very helpful.--
'''Weak support''' Although I know that The Transhumanist is an excellent, dilligent user, 5 RfAs makes me wary.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' — the nom's a little short, but I was looking at your talk page a minute ago, wondering "is he an admin now"? I think you can be trusted :-). <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">
Support - per nom and answers, fabulous editor, highly trustworthy. 37,000 edits was the deal breaker for me <tt>:)</tt> '''
Why yes, yes of course. Will be a net-benefit for sure.
'''Support''' - Ok, the answers aren't all that descriptive, but, it boils down to trust in the end. I asked myself, "do I trust this candidate?", and invariably the answer was "yes". The user boosts morale constantly, is very prolific (even though a lot of the contributions use scripts and what not) and has the requisite experience. Their attitude is positively winsome, which is something that is very important to me in an administrator. If we can have rough around the edges, we can have a little levity.
'''Support''', although I would suggest that TT suspend his RfA and write out a proper nomination statement.
'''Support.''' TT is one of the more hardworking editors around. A no-nonsense editor. Knows policy. Knows wikipedia. Knows how to irritate people :-)  TT is the one editor whom I truly was surprised to discover wasn't an admin. Good luck. 3 + 2 is the charm. Cheers!
'''Support''' This user never has given up on his dream- to be an [[WP:ADMIN|Administrator]]. <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"> — [[User:CG890100|<span style="color: #008;">'''''ComputerGuy89010''''']]
'''Support'''.  Been around a while, doesn't seem to be a troublemaker.  Why not? --
'''support!''' Being an admin is serious business, and you seem like a serious guy who can seriously be serious about his business. Seriously. -
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. Transhumanist is experienced. <strong>
'''Support again''' as with his 3rd RfA.
'''Somewhat weak support'''.  I have continually supported you in your requests for adminship, but the last two that have gone through have been puzzlingly odd.  If you would have simply not had either of these, I believe that the community would have promoted you before now.  My suggestion is to take a date ~5 months in the future and not submit another RFA until then or later.  Your over-eagerness and strange last two RFAs (including this one) have created mistrust where there should have been none.  Discipline yourself and prove to the community that they should have given you the tools a long time ago.  With regards, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Why not?''' - Competent and trustworthy, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin despite his refusal to follow RfA etiquette.
'''Support'''.  More reasonable than not in my experience with him in AfDs and he even made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Nice_comments_other_contributors_said_about_or_in_support_of_me.21 my list of nice Wikipedians].  Plus, he's never been blocked and has over 30,000 edits.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong support.''' I don't see a single reason to oppose. If this was his ''first'' RfA, he'd pass almost unanimously. Whether or not there's been others is irrelevant to me. He's willing to help out, he's proven his trustworthiness and technical skills, why the hell not? Give the man a darn mop already.
'''Support'''. Substance over presentation.
'''Support''', trustworthy and skilled user. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Support'''. Agreed with Espresso Addict. '''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. A dedicated user! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Support'''. The intro was a little bit funny and weird <strong>
'''Support''' - still don't think he'd go wrong with the tools. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' per [[WP:DEAL]].  I don't disagree with the comments that this nom could have been much better, but neither do I have any doubts about your trustworthiness as a user and potential admin.  And there's nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin--after all, we'd run out of admins pretty soon if nobody wanted to step up to the plate. --
'''Support''' Give him a chance.
'''Support''' - I supported his previous RfA, and I support this one. I don't care about the nomination statement being crap. This is not an election campaign for President of the United States, for God's sake. It is a request for administrator status on a website, a position which I trust The Transhumanist to fulfil adequately.
'''Strong Support''' - the opposes don't make much sense to me and since this is his fifth RfA, I believe he deserves a fair-go now atleast, if we oppose people on how long they wait for their next RfA, we are just telling them (not directly) that its better if you created a new account an go for an RfA after 3 months with that account and you will have a higher chance of passing that RfA than with this user account, we don't want that do we ? I have known TTH too long not to trust him and his judgement and if he hadn't made those few errors pointed out below, then he would have been a bad admin since no one is perfect, there is a saying "If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything" and by now the TTH has learnt his lesson, Give this Bloke a chance, you won't be disappointed, I assure you...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - The more admins we have on wikipedia the better, of course as long as they respect their position in the community and do whats asked of them. I was waiting and waiting and waiting for a vandal to be blocked and it took 10 minutes! I guess admins do have to get off the computer once in a while.
'''Support.''' Although 5 RfAs in 10 months is ill-conceived, TT replies to MBK004 (currently oppose #14) leave me convinced that this user can be trusted with the tools. '''''
'''Net positive'''
'''Support''' I think The Transhumanist has done a fine job for Wikipedia. I trust him. Good luck.
'''Support''' Agreed that adminship for this candidate would be a net positive for the encyclopaedia and he's very unlikely to abuse tools (especially after 5 RfAs, I think someone in that situation would be especially aware of community scrutiny of his actions). However while I respect the opposers I disagree with many of the rationales presented.
'''Support''' The Transhumanist has been a trusted user here for a very long time. Without doubt, has shown the dedication, perseverance, and commitment to this site that we look for when promoting admins. If users want to oppose over how he has presented this particular RfA, despite the fact that we know him exceedingly well from his previous four, that is their prerogative; however, it would be denying a worthy editor tools that would allow him to contribute in more positive ways. I am very confused as to why we are so strongly adhering to this vague notion of RfA "etiquette." This is exactly why RfA is so broken; we complain about the process, then complain some more when someone doesn't adhere to it properly. I would strongly encourage TT to apologize to Kurt Weber for his comments, though.
'''Support''' In two words, I agree with Dlohcierekim and Orderinchaos: "net positive". And although he could have had a little more tact here, I agree with GlassCobra that an apology would suffice. '''
'''Support''' and add that some of the opposes are the lamest reasons for opposing I've ever seen. Jeez, the laziness of some people is astounding... it's not like the questions have any worth anyway, as they read pretty much the same in almost every RfA. A review of his past contributions are likely to give a much more accurate picture of the candidate. Jeez, just 'cause he's not drivelling on about how he'll be active at AIV, AFD, MFD, TFD, IFD, ANI, AN, RFR, CSD, PROD all ''simultaneously'' whilst fighting off the trolls with his other hand is no reason to deny him the tools. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
The fresh approach that Wikipedia needs. The Transhumanist has been painfully honest throughout this RfA, and is a good editor that needs the tools.
Strong support switched from oppose due to answer of Q4.
'''Support''' per Q4. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' I have no doubts about your trustworthiness or ability to be an admin. However. I certainly hear what some opposes are saying about the general tone you've set in your answers above and to opinions here. While '''you''' may be de-sensitized to the RfA process by this 5th one, it is still a process to help editors decide on your ability to be an admin. To completely minimize your answers above on grounds that it has all been said in your previous RfAs and use sarcasm to respond to some opposes is rather insulting. I completely understand the "meatgrinder" aspects of RfA; I've been through it. It is a stressful and difficult process. Flawed it may be but it is '''still''' the process the community has for making this decision. Merely referring people to your previous RfAs gives the impression you haven't been changed at all from the past requests, that the opinions expressed in those RfAs don't really matter to you, that you view this as a kind of community affirmation of what ''you already know about yourself'': You deserve and have earned the right to be an admin. There's a flippancy in your attitude that is disturbing. My opinions here may seem overly critical for a straight support but I really hope you'll heed my words.
Y/N? '''Y''' No muss, no fuss.
Despite lack of formality in starting this RFA, I don't particularly distrust this contributor, and ultimately I don't think he'll back a bad administrator - I actually think he'll do quite well.
Because I love the answer to question 4.  Do you direct films?  Also, I must say that this was a crap nom (as said by many, many in the "oppose" section) and as such I do not expect it to succeed.  However, I have full confidence in him, despite his abysmal sense of humour... '''
'''Support''', if anything, on the grounds that I think you're okay, and this isn't the [[Westminster Dog Show]]; RFA shouldn't have to be about jumping through hoops like a damn poodle.
'''Support''' What I said two RFA's ago: ''The mop isn't that big of a deal, and this user has proven himself time and time again to be a worthy Wikipedian who is responsible enough to handle the tools.'' --'''
'''Support''' - no big deal. No reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Every reason to think they would use the tools constructively. Good answer to question 4.
'''Support''' &ndash; You can definitely be trusted. —
'''Support''' This user can be trusted. To me past Rfa's are an irrelevant factor.  I can tell that this user will be a fine admin. [[User:Mww113|Mww113]]    [[User talk:Mww113|(talk)]]
'''Support''' While this user and myself have very different views on some aspects of Wikipedia, in the end I don't think that's what Adminship is about. It's about if we can trust the nominee to act in good faith for the benefit of the project, and this user has good faith coming out his ears.
'''Support'''. I've done a lot of thinking over this. Although TT has been rather rash in this nomination, and the 5 failed RfA's in the recent months really concern me, after looking at his contributions and other users' comments on him, I am led to believe that I can trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Support''' Wonderful editor with many great contributions. Would surely use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - this RfA is, put simply, crap. Really bad. But I've seen work by this user, and I declare myself a fan. I know this editor is brilliant. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - <font face=jokerman>[[User:iMatthew|<font color=red>'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color=orange>'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color=blue>'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' with some difficulty. Your work in the project is excellent, and I am sure you will not abuse the tools. Your comments within the oppose section would have turned me off had I not taken the trouble to look through your work. If this RfA fails, may I most seriously suggest that you wait for a few months, and then apply again in a more serious vein? --<font color="Red">
After some more thought, The Transhumanist isn't likely to abuse the tools, and I don't think we'll see a repeat of Ibaranoff24's RfA (which I raised in the last RfA, and has been mentioned below). I don't think this nomination is a "joke" either.
'''Support''' This user really wants to make a difference. Who are we to stop him? In response to the people opposing The Transhumanist based off of his "Get a life" joke, he has been admonished enough. Perhaps we should whack him with a [[WP:TROUT|wet trout]] and move on...? '''<font face="verdana">Cheers,
'''Support''' reliable user. '''''
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:NOBIGDEAL]]. Long time contributer, supports the wikipedia mission, not a whacko, what's the big deal?--
'''Support''' Well after 4 trys im sure he will be a great admin.--
'''Support''' - User is a refreshing break from the "ideal" modern RFA candidate.  We need people who think differently, not an endless clone army of vandalfighters.
'''Support''' This user is a breath of fresh air.  So what if it noms himself?  Who knowns better that they are ready, than they who are the party who is ready?  I'm sure that after 4 RfAs, he got sick of the brown-nosing... hense the lighthearted feel.  Re: his contributions?  Just fine in my book.  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Strong Support''' RFAs are hard. :( ≈ '''
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy. --
'''Support'''
You are taking the piss aren't you?
This user apparently wants to be an admin very badly, has not sufficiently articulated the reasons for this desire (which is important, given that his initial reasons for wanting the tools were evidently not good ones), and is piling on RFA after RFA without apparently taking previous opposes to heart (and without putting much apparent effort into the self-noms).  At this point, I would suggest that he go a year or so without applying for adminship, ponder why he wants the tools and, if he considers these reasons good, come back then.
What Spartaz said. &ndash;
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong Oppose''' and strangely, I'm the first non-admin to do so.  I feel that this user, although they have a positive effect on Wikipedia, is just a little too eager to become an admin, among other concerns. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Oppose''' - 5th RfA in 10 months and 6th within 14 months, and a self-nomination at that. The nomination shows complete contempt for the community, giving those who spend their free time absolutely no information on which to make a decision. Useful advice handed down by other experienced users at previous requests for adminship has been completely disregarded which instantly makes me uncomfortable - if they can't follow advice about something that won't break Wikipedia, what are they going to do with advice that will break Wikipedia. Finally, and I hate to say this, but I get the feeling that this is nothing but a sledgehammer attack to gain adminship, the normal route of waiting, earning trust, submitting an RfA sensibly and filling in the request properly has been completely circumvented and it's not a battle between the user and the community to try and gain adminship, and I'm really not comfortable with that. I'll be extremly annoyed if I see this user here again within the next 6 months and probably within the next 12 months.
'''Oppose''', sorry. You're a good user, but for someone who's had 4 RfAs already and so often dwells into the responsibilities of admins, you really could've presented an RfA that wouldn't look so much like a newbie's. Also, you fail to mention how have you improved since your last RfA and how have you addressed the unequivocal opposition expressed thereby. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', for a clear lack of common sense. I hope you realize that people usually take time to review candidates, and your nomination, as it is currently written, is obviously not going to convince anyone who's opposed in your four previous rfas. Therefore you're just wasting everyone's time in order to whore for attention. Please consider withdrawing this nom. -
I think your contributions have been extremely helpful to wikipedia, no less. However, I do not see why you couldn't spend just a few minutes making this RFA seem less like a "let's see if this works" one, and more like a "I've improved since my previous RFAs, I think I'm worthy of your trust" one. Also, your answers to the question lead me to think that you don't need the tools (you say you won't expand the RFA, because you prefer to spend time improving wikipedia); you don't need to be an admin to keep doing what you've done, and, looking at your previous records, you seem to prefer not to change. In short, judging by your answers to the questions, and to the concerns of users (not just on this RFA), I think you don't really care much about the outcome. ·
–
'''Oppose''' - Is this a joke? Edit count and "not breaking anything" is not exactly a reason for me to feel safe handing over the mop. This strangely feels like a mirror of your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 4|previous RfA]]. Has nothing been improved?
'''Oppose.'''  The candidate's tendency to argue and rebut nearly every opinion offered by other editors in discussions, including the five (so far) Rfas, is a strong factor in my opposition.  —
'''Strong Oppose''' - <s>Um, nothing has been done to address previous opposition from the '''4''' prior RfAs,</s> The answers to the questions and the nom would lead me to think that the user is a newbie if I didn't know better. I agree with Nick above, and also question the "power hungry" remark from the 4th RfA (I know why you made it, but that was improper), and also the blatant disregard to RfA etiquette (The nom and answers to the questions are woefully inadequate). <s>I cannot in good conscious support this user in any RfA for at least a year because of the frequency of these RfAs,</s> I recommend that you wait at least six months and until someone other than yourself offers to nominates you. <s>-'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)</s>-'''
'''Oppose'''.  This looks like some sort of joke and/or editor review.  Also, his reasoning in his previous RFA, "Because I desperately hunger for power, I nominate myself for adminship..." makes me increadibly warry.
'''Oppose'''- Per my comments under Neutral. <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose''' You seem a little too eager for the mop, IMHO.  Plus this RfA isn't very well thought out, as far as the introduction, and this one is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_4|too soon]] after your last one.
I agree with Nick. --
Per Nick and AndonicO.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' The user, while definitely a good contributor, has already had four admin attempts to date and gives minimal information in his answers to questions for us to make a decision on.  I wish that I could vote support, but unfortunately, I can't. =( --
'''Oppose''' per Bobet.  At this point, the candidate's impaired sense of timing, lack of tact, and severe impatience do rise to the level where it can be said that he seems to lack common sense.  He should wait '''at least one year''' before reapplication here, in light of his inability to heed prior requests that he wait six months.
'''Oppose''' Pretty much know what you do on Wikipedia, so let's start with some praises. I like how you finally overhaul the list of basic topics. Ok, that's it for praises, now to the opposing reason. In your last RfA, your statement said "Because I desperately hunger for power, I nominate myself for adminship. The Transhumanist 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)". I think that is honest, but we don't need power-hungry admins.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  Also, this is his fifth self-nom in about 15 months.  He wants it, obviously.  That's a bad thing.
'''Oppose''' Bobet and Xoloz sum it up well for me.
'''Strong Oppose per Kurt'''. Yes, I never thought I would EVER agree with him on an RfA, but in this case I think he's right. the way he's going about wanting it is troubling. There's a fine line between really wanting to help the project, and wanting the power. Based on previous RfAs and this one, The Transhumanist is clearly in the latter category. Hasn't done anything that's impressed me in quite a few months as well.
'''Oppose''' Just no.  Has stated they're "power hungry" (which even if it ''is'' a joke, sucks).  The comment to Kurt is just further junk that doesn't have to be uttered.
No. You don't seem to take this process seriously enough to give any kind of serious well thought answers. The contents of the previous RFAs also give me reason to doubt your suitability for adminship. -- <strong>
The comment to Kurt?  Inappropriate.  I'm a sarcastic person, I often quip at others expense.  Online is a different environment; without body language snap replies are like venom.
I view get a life jokes as...oh, no, I'm [[User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On Kurt and RfA|not]] gonna go that far. But you know what I mean. ''
A simply illuminating nom... you've been on Wikipedia for a few years now; at least put some effort into the nom and make it look presentable. A person who's been on Wikipedia for an hour can do better than this. &mdash;
Nothing's changed. ~
'''Oppose''' - I am all for easy banter and light-hearted disagreements between editors.  However, both [[User:Dorftrottel#DT|'''D'''or'''<!-- -->ft'''ro'''tt'''el]] and [[User talk:The Transhumanist|<i>The Transhumanist</i>]]  crossed the line on [[WP:Civility|Civilty]] per your responses to [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') oppose.  '''Shame''' on you both. <font face="Times New Roman">
As the opposes have mounted in this RFA your responses have become ever more flippant. The response to Kurt was simply out of line. I really like your work, I really do, but this rush for the tools combined with a "not that bothered" attitude is just wrong. Now, you argue above that it's no big deal and just a request. That's true. But it's a request for tools that can really impact on other editors and our readership if used poorly. And I can only interpret the lackluster effort in this request, coupled with increasingly snakry comments, as someone who wouldn't care that much if they did use them poorly. For that reason I must oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I hate piling up but per rationale given by Nick and reply to Kurt, I fear the possibility of this user becoming an admin.--
'''Oppose''': Include/exclude standards do not match the guidelines, position on undue weight is unbalanced.
'''Oppose'''. No thanks.  I do not believe this user could ever make a good admin. I would expect an admin to exhibit some mild capacity to learn from their errors and to improve their behaviour and their communicative abilities.  The Transhumanist has failed on four occasions now - this being RFA #5 - to show any such improvement.
'''Oppose'''-- all the opposes outweigh the supports. And a piece of advice: Some users frown upon replying to every oppose. --
I can understand the reasoning behind the 'joke' nomination opposes, and I sympathise with that, but considering that ''The Transhumanist'' has been with us for some while now, we may be able to apply a little common sense here and look back at the previous answers in the last four requests. However, I do also support the Kurt position, five nominations (some self-nominations at that) in just over a year is a little worrying per the obvious reasons. I am also on the side of Neil and Riana here too, nothing much has changed and that's pretty sad. For everything that I wish ''The Transhumanist'' could be, they aren't&ndash;a few are the poor communicative abilities, miscomprehension of community expectations (which is clearly not been acknowledged in the response to Kurt's oppose) and to improve understanding of what is expected at RFA. Unfortunately, TT has treated this request with little (later it will be considered a regretful manner) regard with short answers to questions, a very small statement towards the beginning and responses to every oppose, not something (in addition to said above) I look for an administrator candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Was going to support based on your answer to question 4 then I saw your response to Kurt's oppose.  <b>
'''Oppose''', seems like a rather flippant approach to adminship. In view of the repeated and large volumes of RFAs, recommend waiting at least six months before reapplying.
'''Oppose''' If you're not going to do anything with the buttons (Question 5), then what's the point, Other than to make a [[WP:point|point]]? --
'''Oppose''' - This oppose is largely unnecessary, but '''per Kurt.''' TTH says that we should not judge his candidacy by this page - I think that is a ridiculous assertion. Actions here are viewed as a window into your participation on en.wp just like your actions on any other page are. We don't need to look farther into your contribs at this point, because this page is enough: Your disdain for community processes and norms becomes clear with your disregard for those things right here (and not for the first time). You assume that folks are making an error of logic because they use the RfA nom itself to help determine the suitability of a candidate - well, you are wrong. If the RfA nom is standard, then people look further. If it is a joke and an insult to the community, then we need look no further.
'''Strong Oppose''' - This comes across as a joke. As much as some people round here dislike Kurt's comment (including myself for the record), telling him to "get a life" is unacceptable, and makes me think you think that adminship is a laugh, which it clearly isn't. My fear is that you will make too many mistakes as an admin that could prove costly. 5 RFA's is just OTT in itself - take a six month break, get some hard contribs and renominate yourself. Your third RFA was in December 2007, your fourth in February 2008. Can I guess your sixth will be in June? Seriously, if you want admin tools, don't renom for at least five months. The more you nominte yourself, the more people will get extremely pissed off at you. It's in a way like your begging for the tools. For the record >> '''Adminship:No Joke'''.
'''Oppose''' - Per your response to '''Kurt''' and per '''Nick'''. I read through all of the opposes, and some of your comments to them, no offence, but this RFA seriously seems like a joke, or a dare. [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''', while it is true adminship should be "no big deal", that does not mean admins should treat their responsibilities and capabilities flippantly. This nomination and the nominee's behavior here does not give me any confidence in Transhumanist having access to those tools. And please spare us saying so again for a while, you've made your [[WP:POINT|point]].
'''Oppose''' I've seen nothing in his actions since that last RfA that indicates thats he giving any consideration to the communities opinions, as such I cant trust he would act within the communities standards.
'''Oppose''' - indicating that answers can be found in the previous attempts isn't being helpful enough. I'm concerned that if given the extra buttons The Transhumanist would give vague or unhelpful answers to questions about why he took a particular course of action.
'''Oppose''' - Self-nomination. Agree or disagree it doesn't matter as it is a supported view.<font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' sorry, someone who's been through five previous RfAs should be able to sell themselves better than this, and that's without considering the merits of the previous RfAs and other opposes. --'''
'''Oppose''' for refusing to take under consideration the advice from your previous RfAs and it doesn't even seem like you're taking RfA seriously at this point. Additionally, you had an RfA less than two months ago and it was SNOWed. Poor judgment. '''
'''Oppose''', I have seen this user do much positive work, but this RfA simply seems to be sloppy, ill-thought out, and poorly done in general.  The Ibaranoff24 RFA linked above in particular shows that while this user often means well, they often act rashly, which is definitely not a trait that I wish to see in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Neil at 34. I also fail to see how this user could ever become an admin. Perhaps the only way would be to exercise their right to vanish. return under a new account and wait 12 months, or however long it takes for someone to nominate them as there should be no more self-noms.
'''Oppose''' per Kurt and response to Kurt.  --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' - Transhumanist's reason for requesting adminship at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 4]] was ''"Because I desperately hunger for power, I nominate myself for adminship."''! So basically, for the first time ever, per [[User:Kmweber|Kurt]]! '''
'''Oppose''' - The only purpose of this RfA is to antagonize people into opposing you for lacking seriousness, or not respecting the more absurd reasons that people oppose noms. I get it. Most people here get it. I completely agree with you. Most of the serious minded people here probably do. However, admins rely on the respect of the community to function effectively. Turning yourself into a target simply to make a point is a waste of time. Then again, since that actually is your point, I suppose this really isn't a waste of time after all... Deep. Mission Accomplished.
'''Oppose''' - Fundamental lack of understanding and appreciation for the mechanism of this encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per Tiptoety and per the discussion on Kurt's oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Kurt and Wizardman, as well as the discussion under opposes by Kurt.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Kurt
'''Oppose''' per the "Subject to bureaucrat discounting" comments he's making on other RFA's ...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Slgrandson_2&diff=204804056&oldid=204800159], just plain silly. Also per his 4 lines of sig and plenty of other reasons laid out above.
'''Oppose''' This candidate's recent behavior (including this RFA) seems to show very poor judgment.  I would not trust him with the tools. --

I was going to sit this RfA out, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSlgrandson_2&diff=204810245&oldid=204807981 this edit] convinced me otherwise.
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm presuming there's a reason this person has failed Rfa 4 prior times. More to the point, I'm presuming there's a reason he's still trying. Sounds, as other people have pointed out, a bit power hungry and obssesed with the position to me.
'''Oppose''' The candidate's behavior during this RfA does not make me feel that I can trust the user with the admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' I'm with Balloonman. I find the Kurt notice a very uncivil joke, if it's meant to be a joke, or proof of poor judgement if it's meant seriously.
'''Very Weak Oppose'''. I see the points of both sides, so I was going to !vote neutal on this one, but then the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_5&diff=204381196&oldid=204380570 get a life] comment really didn't impress me. Sure, I've heard the wife/life thing before, but your own RFA is not the place to try to be slick and jab someone.
'''Oppose'''. The Transhumanist presents weak reasons for adminship. There is no suggestion that he needs the tools.
I'm dubious. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) (
I don't have a problem with the short answers given (after four RfA's, it gets a little silly), but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSlgrandson_2&diff=204807483&oldid=204800159 this] is not helpful. (''I am now '''strong''' in my '''opposition''' as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FThe_Transhumanist_5&diff=204878693&oldid=204873573 this] bit of ridiculous juvenilia - it almost seems like the only reason you got into that debate was so that you could be the first to post a link to [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]].'') --
Per the same reasons I opposed in previous Rfas - I don't believe this editor is suited for the tools.
I don't see any improvement from the last four RFAs and ability to take into account community input and adapt is required of admins.
'''Oppose''' I do not feel this user is suitable for admin tools, at least for now.
'''Oppose''' reluctantly, because I feel that TT has a lot to offer Wikipedia. At this time, I do not believe that TT is ready for administrator tools, due primarily to his attitude towards the RFA process. It's one thing to not take it ''too'' seriously, but it is quite another to not take it seriously at all. The flippant attitude he displayed during his fourth request (a rather pointed attempt to bait another user) and this one (which indicates that he's just going through the motions) to me indicates some judgment issues that need to be resolved before he gets the tools. Some of his responses to the opposes here are also ill-considered. '''
'''Oppose''' There really isn't much change from the last 4 RfA's--the [[WP:TEND|tendentious]] responses to nearly every oppose begins to get annoying.  Per all the other opposes too.
'''Oppose''' I started off wanting to support this Rfa, having read the Q and A section. I really take the view that people can and do turn over a new leaf and become fully acceptable. However reading the Transhumanist replies to opposers did indicate to me a significant problem, it's hard for me to define, I was going to say it's an attitude problem but that is not quite it, it's more like a misconception of how to deal with people <tonnes of rambling removed, Go read the book [[How to Win Friends and Influence People]]>. I'd be happy to support you in the future if I see a real change in attitude, I would even be happy to nominate you myself.
'''Strong oppose'''. Unnecessary rude response to Kurt Weber, way too many RfAs in such a short space of time; I also get the feeling that, well, you just don't care about what you do and the consequences of your actions.
'''Oppose''' for many reasons raised above as well as my oppose votes on his other RfA's.
'''Oppose''': As many people have stated, I am concerned with the amount of RfAs this user has participated in and the many self nominations. I also do not like the reply to [[User:Nick|Nick's]] comments above. User sounds almost like they think they deserve the mop because of the amount of time they have put into Wikipedia. The philosophy that should be followed is that adminship should be based on quantity not quality of edits. My suggestion is that you should wait until you are nominated by a respected user. I believe another self nomination regardless of the time between RfAs will result in a similar RfA as this one. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' (ec w/Orfen) I get the sense that you feel this is a trophy you deserve, and it's anything but that. I also get the sense you've never served in a real-life position of leadership, because if you had you would see why your RFAs keep failing. This is not a reward. It's not a prize. It's not a license to do what you want and say what you will. Based just on your behavior during this RFA alone, it's clear that much drama would ensue quickly if you received the tools. -
'''Oppose''' - The lack of effort expended on the basic questions doesn't exactly instill a desire to hand over the mop. As others have said, adminship shouldn't merely be earned by a massive edit count and being around for a long time. And perhaps more importantly, given that admins play a larger than average role in shaping the experiences of other members of the project (blocks, judging consensus in XfD's), attitude matters.  (There's also my concern about this being the 5th RfA and still looking like it does, but that's been better described by others). --
'''Regretful Oppose''' When I was on "retirement" for a while, I went back to Wikipedia 6 days later today to stumble upon your 5th RfA. I was initally going to support you based on your dedication and the records from your 3rd RfA, but when I look at your last RfA and this one, I was appalled. Your communication skills in this RfA and your over-eagerness in getting those tools worries me. Eagerness is good, but too much of it hurts. Also, when I look at this RfA, you seem to take this as a joke. Joking is good, but the most important thing is when the proper time to joke around (not RfA, but like April Fool's Day). You are a great editor in my eyes TT, and I'm willing to support you later, but this is not the right time. Sorry. :( <font color="red">
'''Opppose'''.  Nothing new to see here, move along.  --
'''Oppose''' Communication skills need a lot of work, and not everything can be taken as a joke. 5th RFA? Sorry, but you need to stop nominating yourself based on quantity of edits and your excessive need for power hunger, as you stated yourself. Have some patience and let someone else nominate you for good contribs and not edit count.
'''[[WP:SNOW]]''' -
'''Oppose'''. User opposes their own RfA?
'''Neutral''' - It doesn't look like a great deal of effort has been put into this RfA. I've seen this user around, but if he can't take the time to answer the questions and give a more substantial statement, why should I take the time to review his contributions? --
'''Neutral'''. I'm with Wisdom on this.  Good user, lots of RfAs. Seems like a half-baked effort here for #5.  What have you done since 1,2,3,4, and now 5 to warrant a passing RfA?  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Neutral''' pending further effort. If the candidate does not take RfA seriously, she/he should not expect respondents to take her/his candidacy seriously. <font color="404040">
'''Neutral''' per answer to question 5 (which, now that I think about it, was pretty close to question 1).  I'm going to have to review The Transhumanist's contributions and guess at the possible admin tasks he might undertake and how he might address them.  (As a side note, I've been an admin [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elkman|since September]] and I haven't done all of the admin tasks yet.  I specialize in a few areas.)  I don't have time to do this detailed review right now, though -- it might take a while yet.  --
Responding to an oppose vote with something along the lines of "Get a life" displays an arrogant approach unbecoming of an admin candidate. It's a pity, because Transhumanist has a mostly good record of constructive work.
'''Neutral''' - Per Sharkface and Keeper. -
'''Neutral''' Partially because your practice AfD closures in [[User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 10|January]] didn't seem to go very well - I don't think you're dispassionate (objective) enough to make a good admin at the moment. Also because you didn't take my advice this morning, and wait a few months before going for RfA again (and deleted my advice, though that's your prerogative on your talkpage) - especially considering your 4th RfA. Also because your bright signature still drives me nuts. Sorry. --
'''Neutral''' too many noms... '''
'''Neutral''' - Kind of soon since the last nom, don't haste things up, adminship isn't really a new "power", its more like a "lot of new little annoyances", one little mistake and you will find yourself involved in one of those notorious "admin abuse" threads on AN/I. While I also think that Kurt's "power hungry" rationale is usually very, very, ''very'' ridiculous that response went a little too far. -
Per Kurt Weber, although not strong enough to oppose. '''
'''Neutral''' I think this user is a pretty good user. But I do not like some/most of his answers. My vote is not strong enough to oppose. Good luck anyway. Cheers.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Neutral''' - great editor, but I can't support yet, especially with two half-hearted nominations in a row.  <b>
'''Neutral''' - yes you've been around a long time and yes adminship is no big deal, but I get a sense through many of the above interactions there is something missing in the communication/translation/negotiation aspects in your interactions with other people. I can't say WP would be worse off with you as an admin but I can't say it'd be better either. Sorry. Cheers,
'''Neutral'''. As noted, the candidate's answer to Question 4 (which I posted) is a good answer, and I think that the candidate would indeed be a benefit to the project if granted the tools. Some of the comments under oppose, both by and about the candidate, give me pause, however. I'd like an answer to my follow-up question (under #6 by Elkman) before supporting or opposing.
'''Neutral''' good editor, but Transhumanist could put more effort on his answers.
'''Neutral''' Tough call. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm having issues with some of your comments, namely [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddstretch&diff=prev&oldid=199578085], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gb&diff=prev&oldid=198005761] Strange, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamma286&diff=prev&oldid=197951318] not the way to handle warnings at all, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheBlazikenMaster&diff=prev&oldid=197437204] completely dismissive. I just find these slightly unbecoming, and a little unsettling. There also appears to be some civility issues as well. Finally, you fail my balance criteria - wikispace contributions are deficient in areas I consider relevant for an admin: [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AIV]] etc..etc..
You should try and answer the questions before transcluding the RFA.
'''Neutral leaning Oppose''' Lots of good points, but poor answers to the questions and some frankly deeply disturbing edit summaries. Swearing, threatening, refactoring comments at [[WP:AIV]]..... I'm not comfortable here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per [[User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA#No_big_deal]] despite the fairly weak answer to question 1. I think you seem to be saying you will use the tools to help your work with images. I saw no red flags on your talk page.
'''Support'''.  Everything here in the right tone.  --
'''Support'''.  Editor seems to do fine work.  Per Dlohcierekim's standards, and my own very lax standards, (so lax in fact, that they aren't even written anywhere) I say '''Sure.'''.  good answers to questions as well.  No evidence that this user will misuse the tools that I can find.
'''Support''' You seem eminently reasonable and reasonably eminent.
Yes. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' No problems here, although I am against administrator recall (too many problems and causes too much drama). Good luck.
I'll support for now, but I have to quibble with some of the answers. Administrators can unblock themselves - if an administrator does something that is blockworthy, they need to be desysopped and then blocked. Recall is for desysoppping, but it does not (and can't) result in blocking. As far as fair use - the reason that fair use images are excluded from wide use throughout Wikipedia isn't that Wikipedia is trying to be more conservative than the law requires. The fact is that fair use is an American legal concept, and the goal of Wikipedia is to provide ''free'' content that can be reused anywhere in any setting - including settings that, even in the US, would be ineligible to invoke fair use. The more we use fair use rationales to include content the more difficult it becomes to accomplish our ultimate goal, and its important that any admin working in image areas understand that. <sup>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''Would like to see an answer to the CSDa7 questions from WBOSITG, but other than that, no issues here.
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  '''
'''Support'''. I like the answer to my question and after looking at the contributions and edit history, I think this is a good one!
'''Support''' Very prolific user; definitely won't abuse tools.
'''Support''' - looks good. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. No problems with his answers (I especially like his honesty) and I appreciate his comments/work with the Twinkle bugs. -&nbsp;
''
<s>'''Oppose''' I view self-noms as [[prima facie]] evidence of power hunger!</s> Heh, an [[in-joke]] or two! '''Support''' Nothing wrong with this candidate, prolific user, nice username... a great candidate! --
'''Support''' Not enough reasons to oppose; among others.
'''Support''' I place my trust upon you. I personally like those editors who know and admit their weaknesses instead of boasting around their strengths. It's attitude like these that won my support. (And supporting to cancel out some opposers whom I think have a pretty bad reason (e.g. opposed for not writing a GA or FA))
'''Weak support''' per above with a few concerns. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt cooper black">2010</span>]]
'''Support'''. After some thought, meets [[User:Kim Dent-Brown/My criteria for RfA|my criteria]]. Gives reasonable account of need for tools, no prospect of using them for speedy deletion, and as this is the only area of weakness I say go for it.
'''Support''' User obviously deserves the tools. Good luck. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' CSD might be a concern, but  I'm confident that TheDJ will consider the concerns raised here. Overall, his judgement seems good, and I would trust him with the tools. --
'''Strong support''', I have full confidence in TheDJ using the tools in the area he intends to use them in, and that he will quickly acclimate to any admin tasks with which he's not as familiar.
'''Support'''. I've had good experiences with TheDJ in the past. —
Sorry, but you do not understand Speedy Deletion criteria, nor notability.  In Q10, item 1 you say "There is some claim of notability, but I'm sure there are many, many of c.c. with a record of 12 year, so it won't be sufficient." But "sufficient" is not the basis for passing AfD, it's any indication or assertion of notability.  it has to go to Prod or AfD.  For no.3, you'd delete the school article because 300 students is too few to be notable.WP:CSD specified that A7 non-notable can not be used for schools, because they are never unquestioned.  and even at AfD, the size is not the main criterion--its the notability as shown by references. a small school can be very important, and have  references to prove it. The school might well by many people's view be non-notable, but it wouldn't be because of small size alone. For Q4, you are again judging by whether the notability is sufficient (you are right that it almost certainly is not), but the article asserts it is, so it can not be a speedy for non-notability.  You clearly need more experience with policy. '''
I have to agree with DGG. An admin must understand speedy deletion criteria and notability.  Also, I couldn't find any articles that you have written or that you have provided considerable content to.  Wikignome tasks are important, but without content contribution it may be difficult to empathize with those whose hard work you have the power to delete.  To quote CordeliaHenrietta, "I just don't think it's possible to understand and act fairly towards people who mostly edit content if you have no experience of improving content yourself. Wikignomish tasks are important, I agree, but an admin should have been involved in at least the creation of one article or assisting with getting an article to GA."  All I could find were article tweaks.  If you can point me to an article that you have done extensive work on, including significant descriptive writing, I may reconsider.  '''''
Sorry, Question 10 did it for me. Considering that you don't give an indication of any specific areas you are intending to work in, I have to assume that you might be working in any or, indeed, all of them and I do not trust you with CSDs at this time.
''''Regretful Oppose''' As per others, Q10 is worrying. Article 1 (the city councillor) clearly has an assertion of notability. Whether the notability is actually there is a matter for a PROD or an AfD. Also, for Article 3 (the school), size is not necessarily an indication of notability and A7 does not apply to schools so this also should be PRODed or sent to AfD. Sorry, but I can't support a user who clearly is unfamiliar with CSD policy. [[User:Xenon54|X<small>ENON</small>54]] | [[User talk:Xenon54|talk]] |
'''Oppose''' per the items DGG brings up, which are reasonable doubts, and your answer to Q5. Fair use rules are not something you can tweak to your own preference - you just follow them. Violating them could put the project in legal danger, and that makes you untrustworthy in my book.
'''Oppose''' The deletion of articles issue is a bit unnerving.
'''Oppose'''.  Re your answer to Q10: next time, I suggest either carefully reading the policy after reading the question and before writing your answer, or else saying something like "I would leave this for another admin to handle since I'm not familiar with this area of policy". CSD A7 is just one paragraph, and contains the word "schools". I don't think an RfA question should be handled with less effort and attention than the corresponding admin action. --
'''Oppose''' per DGG.
'''Oppose''' I believe that CSD is a policy that admins must have a solid knowledge of, and you have shown that you do not have a solid knowledge of it. I do not believe you will abuse the tools on purpose, but I can see you doing it on accident.--
'''Oppose''' Can't come up with one article where her authorship is worth mentioning?  You have to know how to do something before you can guide others in doing it.
'''Oppose''' Per many of the arguments above. I really like this editor's contributions and I had every intention of supporting after looking at contributions, but at the same time I feel that there is just not enough knowledge of admin functions. I didn't know every single aspect of every single admin function when I became an admin, but then again I already had a pretty good idea of where I would be working at that time. I suggest that you get a more all-encompassing knowledge of admin functions, or find one specific area you want to concentrate on.
Sorry the CSD policy placed the nail on this candidate
Adminship is not for [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator conduct|kids]], Please [[WP:POL|grow up]] ;) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' per DGG. Sorry, but your answers were awful. However, your user page and past edits give me no major worries.  Can you try again in two months after you work a bit at [[WP:AfD]]?
'''Oppose, with Strong moral support'''.  I feel really guilty to have given you the question that would swing this from pass to fail, but I have to say that as an administrator candidate that should be common knowledge.  Also, you have plenty of time in answering these questions: '''nobody will oppose because you take too long to answer questions'''.  Once again, I hate to oppose an otherwise excellent (and willing, due to selfnom) candidate, but I have to.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Oppose''': You have made some great contributions to the project, however, the issues raised above cause too much concern. -
'''Weak oppose'''. I don't believe a liberal attitude toward "fair use" or a draconian attitude toward "notability" is in the project's better interest, and together they are a deal-breaker. <small>That having been said, I do share your frustration regarding the [[wheelchair symbol]] thing. For the benefit of all humanity, disabled or not, please do petition the International Commission on Technology and Accessibility. Request that they release the image into the public domain (or some other "free" license), if for no other reason than to spare us from the absurd scenario where the grounds-keeper painting the parking lot at your place of business can (technically) only add "handicapped" spaces by explicitly or implicitly claiming "fair use" (lol?). I'll sign it. Until then, we work with what we have, and if anybody asks, we explain why.</small> —
'''Weak oppose''' - Dont mean to sound like a broken record, but your answers to questions are not the best.
'''Oppose''' - per DGG. Wait a while until you know the process better, then apply.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Inappropriate speedy deletion is one of our biggest problems here at Wikipedia. I can't support someone who's careless about it.
'''Oppose''' - I haven't seen his contributions, so my criticism isn't pointed into that direction. He's regular contributor on en.wiki since 17 March 2006, that means, 1 year 10 months and few days (22 months). According to me, he's <u>not experienced enough.</u> I'm speaking from my experience (I'm on en.wiki since 30 June 2005, 2 years 7 months, total 31 month). A lot of that changed since I've been 22 months on en.wiki. Since en.wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, we cannot allow ourselves such luxury. I don't say that TheDJ is not good, I just want to say that he doesn't know what traps await him. With 2 years on en.wiki, with a lot of experiences on heated things, he'll be a wiki-veteran that 'll recognize things. However, than we'll have to look at the quality of his contibutions.
'''Oppose''' we can't afford to be lax on copyright violations.
Q10a was worrying, as it could scare off new contributors by deleting a half-decent article.
Your current answer to Q10 contains some errors, otherwise I would support.
Some changes of position, which a cynic might regard as just too convenient, make me worry a little. I think if you come here, you have to know and prepare your ground, and set out your stall. However, I don't see anything wrong with TheDJ's overall attitude, so I won't oppose, on the basis that perhaps a little more confidence in answering questions will make his next RfA sail through, and I look forward to being able to support it fully. --'''
'''Oppose'''. Contributions and talk page archives show that this user does not posses the temperament necessary for an Administrator. Rollback revoked barely two months ago for inappropriate use, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheNewPhobia&oldid=245231607 leaving] a month ago and even the candidate statement admits making "recent mistakes". In addition I can't seem to find any high-level article writing; Nicktropolis is a start-class article with a GA review the length of my arm.
Does not have the maturity to be an administrator. I've lost count of the number of times you've retired this year. Suggest withdrawal. '''
'''Oppose''' - Editing in an inappropriate manner because you are "[not] in the best of moods" is not acceptable in my book.  If you are in a bad mood or, specifically, in a mood that predisposes you to be "stubborn," you should not be editing at that time.  The very thought of an administrator acting in such a "moody" manner, scares me.  I am going to have to oppose.  —'''
'''Oppose'''. Sorry about this, but there are too many niggling problems with you to support. First and foremost, it's only two months since you had rollback removed for abusing it. At that point, rather than either attempt to defend your actions, or put your hands up, admit you were wrong and promise to be more careful, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3AJonathan&timestamp=20080921214440 flounced out of Wikipedia in a puff of drama] <small>''(admin-only link, I'm afraid)''</small>. Since then, and despite the fact that you have a stated desire to work on deletions, you have a grand total of three successful speedy nominations, no successful {{tl|prod}} taggings, and no successful XFD nominations of any kind. In the case of users with a superb mainspace history, where they've demonstrably shown they can cooperate with other editors and work within Wikipedia policies, the lack of admin-related experience, tendency to drama-monger (while I appreciate off-wiki activity generally isn't relevant to on-wiki behaviour, did you really think creating a WR account and reviving a dead thread of theirs headed "Nude photos of Jimbo's wife" ''four days'' before an RFA showed good judgement?), and userpage politicising ("[[User:TheNewPhobia#Other_stuff|I'm a democrat, because I'm smart]]", indeed) – not to mention that of your 8000 edits, around 10% are to your own userpages – could all be overlooked, but you have virtually no significant mainspace history other than the one article you mention, only 14 Wikipedia Talk edits (which is ''way'' too low if you want to demonstrate any kind of understanding of policy), and only 92 Talk edits.''&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">
'''Oppose''' Too new. More experience needed in article building, conflict resolution and admin related work, such as vandal fighting and [[WP:AFD]]. Edit summaries also need to be used more.
I'd recommend you read up on our policies regarding [[WP:OR|original research]]. I'd also recommend you not take things so personally when others edit articles you are interested in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westfield_Doncaster&diff=206188781&oldid=206112782 This] is not the way to handle edits you see as being poor. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Close per [[WP:SNOW]]? <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">
'''Oppose''' 62 total edits. Not at all ready. SNOW. '''
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epbr123&diff=prev&oldid=207328365 This] shows me they don't have the temperament to be an admin. I urge the nominee to withdraw, or for this to be [[WP:SNOW|snowballed]] <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="red">
'''Oppose''', if you can't even fill out the nomination form properly and completely, I'm not that confident that you'll make a good admin, I'm sorry.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. &mdash;
'''Oppose:'''  This being an encyclopedia, no one with such a poor grasp of grammar, spelling and punctuation should be an admin.
'''Oppose''' For obvious reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' – Sorry, can not even give moral support in this case. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I think its going to [[WP:SNOW|snow]] today. '''
'''Neutral'''.  Keep up the good work and try again in 6 months or so.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' as the co-nominator.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Good candidate. Will use the tools responsibly.
I gave Thingg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Acalamari&page=User%3AThingg&year=&month=-1 rollback], and he's been great with that. I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''': Even while just from watching this RfA unfold as it happens, I see that the oppose added by [[Special:Contributions/75.61.233.244|75.61.233.244]] is in reference to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portable_stove&diff=next&oldid=206707588 this edit]. Thingg [[User_talk:75.61.233.244|responded appropriately]], and also outlined politely why the link was inappropriate. Judging from this, and his previous contributions, I predict he will be a sound admin.
'''Strong support''' Will be a great asset as an admin.
'''Support'''. Seen him around a lot and I'm impressed by his work.
'''Support''', even though yesterday some IP was attacking him (probably about vandal work) on articles.  That's probably a good sign.  '''
'''Support''' Has done great work already and deserves the tools. --'''
'''Support''' Dedicated WP editor, fellow vandal fighter, and sparkles with trustworthiness. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' -- Good user, meets my requirements and per the noms...Good luck! --
'''Very Strong Support''' - Great editor, great vandal fighter and, most importantly, someone i trust. I'd go as far as to say, Thingg is one of my wiki-friends :-) '''
'''Knee jerk support'''.  Saw the name, know the history, no hesitation.  Wondering when this one was coming.  Easy support.  Do your thingg, thingg!  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support''' - Net positive to the project without a doubt. I'm sure there were some slip ups (a diff or two from the oppose section) and you know what? Who cares, we all make them. I also do not believe they should nullify the benefit this user will bring with the tools.
'''Support'''. Everything here would appear to be in order. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great AIV work. <strong>
'''Support''' Response to the second oppose and question 4 show good character.--
'''Count-on-left-hand Support''' The number of editors/bots who have beaten me to rving vandalism over a dozen times in one minute are few. In fact, I can count the number on my left hand. And I only have five fingers on my left hand. And one of those fingers would go to ClueBot. Another would go to Thingg. --
'''Support''' - Excellent user, would not abuse the tools, has the necessary experience to use the tools correctly. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around a lot, good participation on WP:ANI. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support''' An editor who would make very good use of the additional tools and responsibilities, and has shown good judgement many times over
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support''' - demonstrates consistent judgment. His participation at AIV is particularly good. Enjoy the tools. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Vandal fighter and has a very good track and no concerns.
'''Support''' Per an earlier review. Taking note of the opposers concerns, I agree that CSD is a little light, but I believe that the candidates in process, in guideline and in policy contributions elsewhere demonstrate that Thingg will be accurate in this area as well. On balance a [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net postive]] to the project. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Weak support''' - just meets [[User:EJF/Adminship standards|my standards]].
'''Strong support''' - Had an encounter with this user earlier today, reverting some vandalism of his page. I watched his talk page for a while and subconsciously reviewed his responses in my head and quite frankly, I can't see anything wrong with him or his views. None of the below opposes have provided me with sufficient reason to change my mind in thinking that [[User:Thingg|Thingg]] will continue to contribute excellently to Wikipedia and that his use of the tools will not be malicious in any sense of the word. Wow, an essay. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - not bad. <strong>
'''Strong Support''': I can't tell you how many of this editor's AIV reports I've dispatched in the past couple of weeks.  Stalwart vandal fighter and I firmly believe this editor is worthy of our trust.
'''Support''': Here goes my support for Thingg. I also liked the collections (Things that make me laugh) on your user page. --
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' —
'''Support.'''   --
'''Support''' Per nom. '''
'''Support''' - Looks like a fine editor to me. Keep up the good work. -
'''Support''' - I have seen this user around rv vandalism and think he will do a great job with the tools, keep it up and good luck.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good vandal fighter. DarkFalls' diff ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenged_Sevenfold&diff=206382982&oldid=206382849]) is obviously clumsy, but everyone makes mistakes.
'''Support''' Good editor, vandal fighter and i think he will also be a good admin. <font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' per inclusion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#Nice_comments_other_contributors_said_about_or_in_support_of_me.21 this list].  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Strong Support'''  I thought you were already an admin!  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Support''' Good user and well thought out answers to all questions. Although, regarding my question, wouldn't you take the situation to [[WP:ANI]]? <tt>
'''Support''' - overall a net positive. Few issues to iron out but can be done on the job :) Cheers,
I see no real reason to oppose a good-faith contributor whom I can say I trust with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' due to history of interaction with this user.  Cool headed, would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Excellent addition to the vandal fighting arsenal of admins. Good luck!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- I do some RC Patrol, and Thingg is constantly beating me to them. As 70.112.192.130 says, a couple edits mentioned in Oppose are slightly troubling. But what really convinces me is that he's perfectly willing in his answers above to admit that he doesn't know everything, and that there are some areas where he'd sit back and let a more experienced admin handle things. If admin is [[WP:NBD]], I think Thingg has more than earned his or her mop. Vandalism consumes a lot of the community's time, so adding admins in that area is something I'd strongly support. I would definitely trust Thingg with the tools.
'''Support''', good vandalfighter with a couple of slips with tagging, but I trust him to be careful and take things slowly in areas he's not experienced in.
'''Support''' I think he is experience enough for the mop. &nbsp; '''
Per [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]'s personal attack below.
'''Weak Support'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuBois_Middle_School_History&diff=prev&oldid=206286634 This] doesn't worry me all that much; strictly speaking, it could be argued Thingg was correct, since the article title was "Dubois Middle School ''History''", and while obscure middle schools are (for some bizarre reason) on the edge of notability guidelines, a purported ''history'' of said obscure school could well be construed to fall under CSD A7. (Yes, I know, lawyer pedantry. Don't blame me, I'm a law student.) As to the Avenged Sevenfold diff, it isn't a major concern; forgetting to check the history is an easy mistake to make, especially if you're tagging lots of pages for speedy. I do have some concerns about his understanding of image policy, but if he avoids using his admin tools on images (as I have done, since I don't really understand image policy either), I am happy for him to become an admin. I wasn't going to bother voting, but it looks like this RfA will fall right on the borderline.
'''Support''' Appears out of nowhere 4 and a half months ago, racks up a good edit count, and is presented by good editors for RfA? Suggests a good Wikipedian to me. We need more of that.
'''Support''' Definite net positive. Areas where knowledge is lacking are made up for with good faith, Thingg is not going to abuse the tools.
'''Support.''' Took a while to reach this decision, but I think the highlighted mistakes are not categorical in nature and would disappear quickly given some rudimentary use of the tools. I think Thingg would learn quite quickly the proper usage and go on to become a satisfactory administrator.
'''Support.''' As I spend more time around here, I see Thingg more and more often doing a yeoman's job and beyond. Keep it up! :-)
'''Support''' Trustworthy user.  ''Everybody'' makes mistakes here and there.  Honestly, what do people want? -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per everyone else.
'''Support''' Consistent editor with more than 1000 edits per month dating way back, even more than that in the current month, which is yet to conclude. 173 edits to the Playstation 3 article shows persistence and willingness to improve an article over a longer time period.
When doing recent changes patrol you will run into Thingg's work a lot - as tireless vandal fighter he is '''everywhere'''. I'll agree that he doesn't have all the answers, and  has sometimes made mistakes, but no one has all the answers and we all make mistakes. Sounds like a normal human being to me, as well as a good candidate for admin. '''Support''' per [[WP:NBD]].
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, doing great edits. I think will make a good sysop.
'''Support''' A decent article writer and vandal fighter. I think it's time for to give Thingg the tools. Cheers.--
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''
'''Support''' My metasense didn't go off, so I'm going to say support. '''''
'''Support,''' seems like good work here <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;
'''Weak oppose''' - I have seen this user around [[WP:AIV]] a whole bunch, and know that he has got the whole anti-vandal thing down, but now I would like to see a bit more participation in other areas that would require the tools, such as [[WP:ANI]] and especially [[WP:AFD]]. I also see little CSD tagging which makes me question this user knowledge of the deletion policy. My recommendation is to gain a little wider range of contributions and come back in a few months. Best of luck,
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1959-60_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_men%27s_basketball_team&diff=206713574&oldid=206713518 Mindless reverting]. Don't bite the newbies. ---
'''Oppose''' I agree with Tiptoety. In the deletion area, I've been able to find only these diffs through his contribs:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuBois_Middle_School_History&diff=prev&oldid=206286634], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Image:Xbox_logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=181784038], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Art_Gallery_Line&diff=prev&oldid=205822546], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Richard0612/Userbox_Archive&diff=prev&oldid=205408289] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Best_Vandalism_Lists&diff=prev&oldid=204308370], So I really think that Thingg is very inexperienced there. If it were, say, in the fair use area, I wouldn't oppose for that, but the deletion area is too important to be omitted and is inevitable for an admin. This is particularly worrying when he says that he'd like to clear up C:CSD and backlogs in his answer to Q1. This said, I think that he's a very good vandal fighter and makes a great job with Huggle, but it's not enough to determine if he'll do well with the tools. Also, more participation in community discussions (e.g. XfD, ANI...) would bring me to support in a few months. <strong>
'''Oppose''' As of now, I am unconvinced of this user's ability to become a good administrator. This is shown through the awfully awry speedy deletion tagging and lack of understanding of Wikipedia's fair use policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenged_Sevenfold&diff=206382982&oldid=206382849 Doesn't bother checking a page's history before asking for deletion], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuBois_Middle_School_History&diff=prev&oldid=206286634 ''"If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."''] Also [[:Image:PSN logo color.jpg|this]] is exceptionally troubling. ''"The reason I did not actually take a picture of my own is because I feel it is pointless to take out a camera, take a photograph of my television with my PS3 turned on, edit and touch up the image, and then upload the picture (which by then will look almost identical to this one) to Wikimedia Commons."'' This is called a [[derivative work]] and will still be subject to the original copyright. The fair use rationale of [[:Image:Coruscant.png|this]] is very, very basic; and certainly not what I expect from an administrator. RockMFR also has some good points above. If the editor adds context and makes the speedy tag redundant, you don't blindly revert; even if the editor removes the speedy deletion tag. Rollback is to be used responsibly; that diff does not demonstrate a constructive use of them. &mdash;
Per 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) comment. Shame, I had come here thinking I would support. Maybe next time. Sorry. ''
'''Oppose'''; that [[Avenged Sevenfold]] diff is bothering me. If you had tools, then that would be a high-traffic article with a long history deleted. I admit, that one would be spotted/reverted quickly, but not all would.
'''Oppose''' as I agree the reverting is a worry. This user needs more experience. I see user joined in November 2007 and already has 11,000 edits! Checking [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Thingg&site=en.wikipedia.org wannabe_kate] as I'm reading it now 6519 for April 08 so far. So number of edits not a problem for me. I just think this user could do with some more actual time on the project gaining experience, so not ready yet. Maybe I will support next time.--<font color="green" face="Vladimir Script">
'''Switched to not ready yet'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenged_Sevenfold&diff=206382982&oldid=206382849 per Dark's dif]. The tagging of an [[Avenged Sevenfold|article]] about a notability asserted subject as Vandalism seems overly hasty to me. One should check histories before tagging or deleting. It never hurts to Google the subject too, as there may be a notable subject lurking behind a badly mangled article. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' per J Milburn. I don't think the tools would be abused, but perhaps misused
'''Oppose''' Wanted to support, but the diff by Dark helped moved me away from it.  I was actually the admin who came across the Avenge Sevenfold article when it was tagged for deletion.  It only took 5 seconds to realize that the article should not have been deleted... could be an issue for sure.
Poor understanding of image policy ([[:Image:Coruscant.png|bad rationale]], [[:Image:Xbox barnstar.png|licensing derivative works as free]], [[Special:Undelete/Image:Xbox live logo free.png|uploading copyvios]]). And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenged_Sevenfold&diff=206382982&oldid=206382849 this] too.
Per answers to questions 4, 5, 6. Adminstrator candidates need to show common sense&ndash;giving final warnings to suspected hacked admin accounts isn't the procedure we have, and [[User talk:Pedro#COI.3F|thinking that commenting on another's RFA]] whilst undergoing one yourself is a violation of COI exposes some key components missing in this candidate. The Avenged Sevenfold diff is bothersome too. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' If Thingg had the deletion tools, he would have deleted the Avenged Sevenfold page, and would have then ''lost'' his tools if he was up for recall. Also with the hacked account, warnings won't deter somebody who has already hacked an account, and a different direction needs to be persued in that situation. '''
'''Weak Oppose''': I want to like, but I fear you might be a little too hair-triggered.  A little caution never hurts.--
'''Weak Oppose''' per recentness of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avenged_Sevenfold&diff=206382982&oldid=206382849  Avenged Sevenfold diff] and general concerns raised by other voters. Will support in the future.
'''Strong Oppose''' Appears out of nowhere 4 and a half months ago, racks up a good edit count with low page average, and is presenting himself for RfA? Suggests career mandarinism to me. We need no more of that. Answers to later questions are also concerning.
'''Strong oppose''' - I am not happy with the answers given to questions about how to deal with vandalism. The insistence on four warnings in response to Qs4. and 5. shows a lack of the necessary flexibility. The user appears to have a lack of understanding of Q.7 "A respectable admin account has started vandalizing relentlessly". This indicates that the account has become compromised and a compromised admin account puts the Project at serious risk. In such circumstances the account should be blocked immediately, to protect the Project, whilst enquiries are made.
The only worse thing for Wikipedia (than deleting articles rather than correcting the problems) is deleting them even after the problems have been corrected. I see this happen too much on AFD as it is. RockMFR's diff which shows you (only a few days ago) re-inserting a "speedy delete" tag which was and is no longer applicable is not a good sign at all. —
'''Oppose''' Unsatisfactory answers to questions. Appears to have the wrong philosophy for an admin.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions, abundance of supports from folks whose judgment cannot be trusted. --
'''Oppose''' -- not yet. I think you and the project will benefit if you wait a few months more.
'''Oppose'''. Has less than 5 months of experience, poor answers to added questions and per DarkFalls.
'''Oppose strongly''' per answers to my questions. I have no problem per se with admins who apply sanctions discretionately. I think it is sometimes useful.  I also freely admit that there are good admins among non- or little-writing editors. But non-writing admins who apply disretionary sanctions as ''they'' see is a dangerous game as those who don't write or write little often loose touch with what wikipedia is all about and apply tools on editors with a huge damage to the content writers and, hence, the project. --
'''Oppose''' vandalism warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement. Answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 are completely unsatisfactory for me. <font face="Broadway">
I find the answers to several of the questions, 4 to 7 in particular, to be rather worrisome. OTOH, I'm not seeing the dubious tagging as quite such a big deal. I make mistakes, and I assume everyone else is roughly as dim as me, so it's only fair that you should get to make mistakes too. What concerns me more is the very mechanical look of what you're doing, which more or less matches the problems I see in the answers. Variety is the spice of wikilife. Or, to put it another way, if you spend all your time playing whack-a-mole and hanging round AIV, you'll tend to get a quite slanted view of Wikipedia and its editors. I'd suggest trying something different from time to time. XfD and PUI can always use more considered opinions. There are gazillions of articles to be written, expanded, categorised, illustrated, de-POVed, wikified, templatised, unorphaned, and so on. We have noticeboards for every taste - fiction, BLP, RS, Fringe, OR and who knows what else - and a help desk and village pumps. We have articles for creation, article RfCs, third opinions, and even mediation if that's your kind of thing. Why not spoil yourself a little?
'''Oppose''' per Avenged Sevenfold issue mentioned above and per [[User:Sting au|<b>Sting au</b>]].
'''Regretfully oppose''' per Irpen's rationale and relative newness/lack of experience. Even for someone actively exploring all areas of Wikipedia's polcies and culture, 4 months is very early to be entrusted with the tools. Also, while RC patrolling and dealing with vandalism are important, the tools are not really necessary to do it (AIV is rarely if ever backlogged these days). My concern is that adminship is very much a big deal these days - recent ArbCom decisions have empowered admins with a remarkable degree of discretion - and in order to be trusted with that sort of discretion I'd like to see more evidence of article-writing and participation in the more difficult or controversial aspects of Wikipedia. I wrote "regretfully" because I think Thingg looks like an excellent editor and I can see supporting him in the future, but I think this is a bit premature. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Seems to have too mechanistic a view of policies and procedures. --
'''Oppose''' needs more experience, per most of  the above. The problems dont worry me about having the wrong attitude, just as needing more practice. '''
'''Oppose''' I hadn't chimed in on this RfA because it had a lot of !votes when I first saw it and it looked like it's fate was going one way.  But now that it is a borderline case, I decided to take the time to investigate this candidate a little further.  Based upon the opposes above and my general unease with this candidate, I have to side with the opposers.
Per Carnildo.
'''Oppose''' this time. Come back in a few months.
I'll stick this in here for now, I did see the name and thought I would be able to support, but some of the behaviour from your co-nominator has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and indeed, a couple of valid points have been raised. The reverting diff above is a particular concern, as it removed content being added to an article, it wasn't a simple case of adding back the speedy deletion tag, now we've got some over-zealous tagging going on already, people who go around whacking CSD tags on anything and everything, resulting in some articles with a lot of potential being deleted, but when the revert actually removes content, that's really not fair. I'm also noting that the article is still around, it really looks like no thought has been placed into adding the tag back onto the page, it was a simple revert and run. That sort of works (though it's really unhelpful behaviour and I wouldn't encourage anybody to behave like that) but when you're an administrator, delete and running isn't an option, careful consideration and research is necessary to determine if an article like that should be deleted, I would expect an administrator to spend a few minutes looking to see if such an article is determined to be notable under our notability criteria, check on the internet to see that it's not a hoax article and so on. The revert and run behaviour I'm seeing doesn't exactly inspire confidence you'll do that. Secondly, I'm less that impressed by the answer to question 4, it's tempting to have see a user on AIV, take a stroll over to an alleged vandals talk page, see if they've got a full set of warnings and block them, but sadly, naughty little people edit warring have been known to warn each other for vandalism, users suffering connection problem have been warned for vandalism and so on, and I'm not seeing any indication that there would be any review of the edits involved, it seems very clear cut how they would enact a block on an account, it's not always as easy out there on-wiki, there's an awful lot of bad faith being assumed out there, assuming malice is the order of the day and people are branded vandals completely unnecessarily. Likewise, sometimes an inactive account will return to life a year after they last edited, and will begin vandalising, sometimes they aren't warned (I don't warn vandals, and I know a great many others don't either, I see collecting vandalism warnings as building some sort of trophy cabinet, but that's personal philosophy for another day) yet there's no question the account knows they're misbehaving and no amount of warnings will stop them. Perhaps that's something you'll get the hang of as you become more experienced, but it's just something to be aware of. I'm not sure where this will end up towards the end of the RfA, there will no doubt be plenty of more questions and I think I'll wait until they have been asked and answered before deciding on how to comment.
'''Neutral''' I find the boilerplate answers to questions 4 and 5 to be unimpressive and lacking in any critical thought. Real life doesn't always play out exactly how Wikipedia policy dictates that it should, there are gray areas that need to be addressed by admins that can think on their feet. At this time I do not have any confidence that this nominee is able to think for himself when difficult calls are needed.
Too many concerns have been raised for me to continue to support. I probably should have gone with my gut in the first place. <font color="006622">
'''Neutral''' &mdash; good vandal fighter for the most part, but makes some reversions such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graniteville_train_disaster&diff=207854980&oldid=207853883] which '''a)''' could have been fixed with about two minutes of proof-editing the sentence and looking up a source to check whether the claim was true, and '''b)''' was not followed up with a message on the user's talk page. Prolific editors are not always the most diligent, although I believe that you could become both if you took a little more time and thought over your every action, rather than making some hasty decisions. <font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Very nice and has a great amount of good contributions. Deserve these tools. '''''[[User:NimiTize|<font color="blue">N</font><font color="red">i</font>]][[User_Talk:NimiTize|<font color="blue">m</font><font color:"black">i</font>]][[Special:Contributions/NimiTize|<font color="red">T</font><font color="black">i</font>]]
Weak Support. Strong candidate. Well experienced, excellent mainspace contributions, but <s>Nothing to worry about, in the slightest.</s>  answers to questions are concerning.
'''Support''' As nominator. [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Very helpfull and experienced editor
'''Support'''.  Maybe a bit weak in the projectspace areas, but I respect what you've done and think you will do fine with the tools.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' - in all my dealings with ThinkBlue, she has been very kind and supportive. She knows what she doing and will be an excellent asset to the community as an admin. ♥
'''Support'''. Good contributions--
-- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">

'''Support''' You have the potential. Go for it!
'''Weak Support''' Even though there are some concerning answers to questions, I have had good experiences with this user. <strong>
'''Support''', some shaky answers to the questions there, but I see no evidence that this user would misuse the tools if given them.
'''Support''' Well, those questions are ''really'' not the best, but I don't see anything telling me I shouldn't trust this user.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' Needs a some tweaking in some areas, such as not focusing on just wrestling articles but as many articles as can handle. But you got overall, my support.--<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Support''' Adminship is not a big deal, meets all [[User:Mr Senseless/RfAStandards|my]] standards. '''
'''Oppose''' - It's very unlike me to cast an !vote before any questions are answered, but, looking at you contribution history it appears that while you're a great editor, there is an alarming lack of project space contributions. Almost non-existant. Unfortunately, this means you fail my personal criteria for balance. Lack of experience is the issue here. Sorry, but good luck!
'''VERY weak oppose, and likely to change''' - I'm sorry, but per the answer to Q4, you didn't get the difference between the ban and block (the answer was too vague). Very sorry, but I'm gonna have to say oppose. <span style="font-family:Segoe UI,Verdana;"><sup>'''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but Q7 is the dealbreaker for me.  Judging by your answer to the question, I feel that you may use a cool down block at some point, and I don't feel comfortable with someone who would ''think'' about using that power.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry Blue, but there is more to it than simply vandals. If your going to be an admin, you need to do other duties than simply "block vandals", for instance close [[WP:AFD]]'s, promote other people to admin status, keep a very close eye on discussions at [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:VP]], protecting articles etc. You would also not be able to protect professional wrestling articles that you edit, as there would be a huge [[WP:COI|Conflict of Interest]] that other users may not like. I would also prefer a more, stronger answer to Q3. Also, I would like to see more contributions on other areas of Wikipedia, apart from within "the professional wrestling circus".
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions above are very weak.  She would delete if she felt the article wasn't up to wikipedia standards?  What does that mean?  Does she understand the criteria for deleting articles?  How can we tell?  Via her participation in AfD and CsD.  I looked at her last 4000 edits and could only find 2 times where she has participated at AfD.  One of her AfD !votes, [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trilon|no sources, no article]].  The ONLY other AFD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cow-Mo|this]].  So how about her CSD activity?  For somebody who uses twinkle, there wasn't a lot.  But a surprising number of those articles that are tagged are not deleted.  This leaves me very concerned about giving her the tools when one of her stated reasons is something she doesn't have much experience with.  Then there is the complete lack of experience in areas outside of wrestling.  There is nothing that shows she understands wikipedia policies and guidelines.  In fact, the fact that she has over 1500 edits on 4 wikifriend talk pages is also a concern.  Sorry, but I can't support at this time.  I am also troubled by her answer to the question about a person who vandalized her talk page---admins should not use their tools to block somebody who vandalized their own talk pages.  At that point the admin should report it to the appropriate page and let a third party do the block.
'''Oppose''' User does not seem to have a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies.
'''Oppose'''- the lack of policy knowledge worries me, plus the answers to the questions don't convince me.
'''Weak oppose''', leaning towards neutral/weak support.  Interesting case here.  ThinkBlue does have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and I don't believe she would abuse the tools.  I think there is a good chance that tools might get misused though based on policy knowledge, leading to unneeded drama and cleanup.  I spent a lot of time on the talk pages of TB, and about 3-5 wiki-friends.  Dizzying.  Lots of chatter and lots of off topic, non encyclopedic back and forth.  But then a funny thing happens in the conversations. One or another of the perennial talkers says something along the lines of ''Hey, let's go cleanup article X!'' And then they go right to work fixing up an article (usually in the pro-wrestling project, but hey, that's ok by me we've all got hobbies and projects here).  So this is interesting.  Lots of camaraderie=good.  Seemingly lots of article building/cooperation between friendly, non-threatening users=good.  Admin tools though?  Gives me pause at the moment.  Best of luck to you ThinkBlue, you're a great editor with good wiki-friends.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''': Per my above comments... --
'''Oppose'''. ThinkBlue is a popular, friendly and helpful editor, and it is likely that given more experience with a fuller range of admin activities would make a productive admin; at the moment the answers to the above questions reveal a poor grasp of admin responsibilities, and a lack of understanding of general Wikipedia procedures. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Er....uh...I hate to do this, but dude I have to oppose''' - While I think ThinkBlue (:P) is a great user and have had wonderful enteractions with her in the past I just feel this RfA is a bit pre-mature. ThinkBlue has not shown enough participation in administrative areas to clearly demonstrate a understanding of policy, and it shows in her answers to the questions. There are a few questions that worry me the most, those being #4, #7, #10, #11,  and #12. They all show a lack of understanding of policy. Might I recommend that you wait a few months read up on some policies, work in admin related areas, and continue to do all the other great work you do then come back and pass your next RfA with flying colors. I will be happy to support in the future, and once again: Thank you for all of your hard work here. Best of luck,
'''Weak Oppose''' ''I would intend to work on pro wrestling articles, as they become vandal-joy to vandals'' This seems to evidence a rather "narrow" level of interest. Adminship is '''not''' about protecting  [[WP:OWN|articles you like or have contributed to]].<s>I agree with Tiptoey above - a premature application, and</s> certainly a candidate who is a '''net positive''' with or without the buttons. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Oppose, unfortunately. I feel that you don't quite "get" policy that well yet, and I think you should try and further involve yourself with relevant areas; this will give you many opportunities to exercise your administrative judgement. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2F2007_WWE_Draft%2Farchive1&diff=180632155&oldid=180425704 this FLC] where she supported after she was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThinkBlue&diff=180631636&oldid=180540051 clearly asked to]. True, the user that asked him is more at fault, but an administrator should not participate in vote stacking. --
'''Oppose''' Another difficult oppose since this user is obviously [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/ThinkBlue|experienced]], but I'm concerned they may not understand finer points such as a Legal Threat from an admin not being Vandalism, but being something that should immediately go to AN/I if not IRC:Steward.  Also, I'm disappointed they did not address what they've learned since they were blocked multiple times early last year (not linking in case there is an RTV issue) over image issues.  And I'm concerned with the cool down block issue as well as the idea of wanting admin tools ot use in one's primary area of content editing.  '''
'''Oppose'''.  Definitely admin material wikipersonality-wise, but still needs to do some reading and some practicing.  Also, try to do some work on articles with subjects that you are not the expert about.  A variety of contributions shows that you care about the Wikipedia itself, and not just about fun stuff like professional wrestling.--
'''Oppose''' - Much of the Wikipedia-space contribs are to wrestling related projects, and not central to the workings of Wikipedia itself. More experience needed in crucial areas yet. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose'''. Seemingly incorrect answers to questions #07, #08, #10 and the first bit of #11, which too isinsufficiently answered. Overall, you're a good editor, but this RfA seems way too early and rather rushed.
'''Oppose'''. Answers to the above questions leave me questioning her knowledge of Wikipolicy. Good editor with strong contributions, but I'm wary to trust her with the tools as yet. -
'''Oppose''', sadly. You seem completely trustworthy, but in order to have the tools, you have to have a thorough understanding of policy. The answer to #7 is the most telling, as this is a question that's pretty much asked in some way on every RfA - not knowing the answer shows not only an incorrect understanding of [[WP:BLOCK]], but a lack of prepardness. Start participating in RfAs, learn your policy inside and out, and your second RfA should pass with flying colors (if this one doesn't). Also remember that your reactions here are as much of a barometer of your mettle as your objective qualifications. Please keep up the excellent work - people like you are what make Wikipedia work.
'''Neutral'''. Waiting for answers to the first 3 questions. I want to know where the editor is planning on working so I can take a closer look at their contribs in related areas.
'''Neutral''' Was going to support until I saw the answer to Q7. Doesn't warrant an oppose though. --
'''Oppose''' - not enough experience to show understanding of general policy, or understanding of the admin area--CSD--you wish to work in. Enthusiasm is good, please gain more experience and try again in a few months. //
'''Oppose''' per your reply to Q1, considering that your edit history shows no user talk edits except on your own talk page. We cannot tell whether you have a solid grasp of the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]]. --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp;</span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">
'''Oppose''' - Trust me when I say that I hate opposing candidates, but it seems to me that you'll need some more experience before being trusted with the tools. Your recent edits are great, though, so keep up the good work and reapply in a few months. --[[User:Dylan620|<font color="blue">Dylan</font>]][[User talk:Dylan620|<font color="purple">620</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|<sub><font color="green">Contribs</font></sub>]]
'''Oppose'''. Edit count usually isn't an issue, but you have less than 500 edits, and I'm afraid you lack experience.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. Sorry, &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Welcome your desire to contribute to Wikipedia.Please again later as per [[WP:NOTNOW]] Sorry and Good luck for the future.
Aww.
'''Support''' despite low edit count. What I saw showed me a low likelihood to abuse the tools. Talk page review raised no concerns.
'''Support''' User would make a good admin
'''Support''', no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' For sure. I've talked with Tinkleheimer before, and I've seen him around [[WP:AN/I]] all the time. What I haven't seen is a reason to oppose. If I had any balls I'd have nommed him myself, but you know me. My balls are always busy somewhere else.--
'''Weak Support'''. After reviewing your work, I thought it was pretty good. You only have just over 2000 edits, so you don't have a ton of experience, but from what I've seen so far, I couldn't find any reason not to entrust you with the tools. I did find one recent error, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=217021234 here] in a mistaken request for page protection, but if editors were required to be perfect, we wouldn't have any at all. I was also somewhat miffed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy:_Unlimited&diff=prev&oldid=217710591 this edit] in which you reverted yourself citing "reverting good faith edit". I also enjoyed your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinkleheimer&diff=prev&oldid=217355935 recent edit here] accidentally congratulating yourself (before sending the congratulations to its intended target, Xenocidic). P.S. - I noticed two errors on your userpage you may want to fix: 1) You have "of" instead of "off" in [[User:Tinkleheimer#What_I_Feel_an_Administrator_on_Wikipedia_Is...|this section]]; and 2) You have the Nintendo WikiProject userbox twice.
'''Support'''. Edit count seems a little low relative to usual RfA standards but it doesn't bother me too much. Tinkleheimer seems to have a great attitude towards the project and after a look through his contribs I think he'd make a great addition. ~ <font color="#000000">
'''Support''' After reading the [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions| Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions]] guidelines, it seems that Tinkleheimer fill the role of admin well. After reading the comments made by the other editors above, I was able to make my decision with more confidence. I only wish that those that didn't give their reasons would have. In the guidelines given in the afore mentioned [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions| Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions]] page, editors are strongly encouraged to give their opinion in addition to their vote. If it weren't for those who gave good arguments in their vote, I would not have been able to properly weigh Tinkleheimer's ability to mesh with the Wikipedia community, an important attribute for an admin.
'''Support''' He's taller than I typically like a prospective admin to be, but he's also a ''Project Runway'' fan, so they pretty much cancel each other out. In all seriousness, I haven't been this torn over an RfA in a while, and am close to going neutral. The bare minimum of edits that I can support is 2000, so he just barely clears that. Also, his userpage and the diffs from Daniel seem to suggest that Tinkleheimer is susceptible to Wiki-drama (for instance, the Giggy userbox, even if I agree with you, strikes me as inappropriate and not becoming of an admin candidate). Those being the negatives, now for the positives; Tinklehammer seems to be an extremely well-intentioned editor who is highly unlikely to abuse the tools. The edits he has made (though few in number) don't give me any particularly strong concerns. I will just say this: if and when you are given the mop (and I do think it's a 'when' if not this time around then in a few months), ''please'' take things slowly! All new admins should heed those words, but I think it's particularly true in your case due to a relatively low edit count. Before becoming active in admin tasks, make sure you know the relevant policies in and out. tl;dr I trust this user.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools.  Assuming good faith.
Those that want to help at DYK get an auto-support from me, but I ask the candidate take the opposes to heart and gain some more experience.
Maybe a slightly marginal candidate; shows good work, good attitude.  Quite frankly "oppose rationales" are among the least compelling I've ever seen here.
'''Moral support''', head is in the right place. Perhaps seek an admin coach?
'''Support''' I'm just echoing what's been said earlier: assume good faith.
'''Moral support''', this user is definitely on the right track and does indeed have their head and heart in the right place.  I feel that the net effect of granting this user the admin bit would be a positive one for the project.  The somewhat thin "resume", which is undoubtedly a point of concern for many, may mean that admin coaching is in order for a future run, but if this nomination does not pass I would simply suggest the user remain on the same track they are currently in, and a future nomination would likely pass without any difficulties.
Oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaraLove&diff=prev&oldid=212985614 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaraLove&diff=prev&oldid=212988555 this]. Revert-warring in userspace does not reflect very well on you at all. Even if you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=212987342 agree with what the userbox says], reverting multiple times while discussion is taking place over the issue (per your edit summary, you were aware of it) is not acceptable behaviour on your part. It only worsened the situation, given you were previously uninvolved, and you interjecting stalls discussion on the general issue of long-term inclusion/exclusion to deal with your reverts. This, coupled with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=207410989 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATinkleheimer%2FGiggy&diff=215672142&oldid=209389127 this], which doesn't reflect too well on you per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tinkleheimer/Giggy&diff=prev&oldid=215683710 this], mean I cannot trust your judgement overall. You have not got terribly much experience here, especially in metaissues like the ones cited above, so the dubious-to-good ratio is not high enough to mitigate what I link to above. Sorry,
I feel that Tinkleheimer has good intentions and I think he will be okay in the longterm so I don't wish to discourage him. However, some of the comments I've seen from him on the noticeboards have not inspired me with confidence and I think he is really lacking in general experience on Wikipedia. The diffs raised by Daniel are very problematic but again, I think it is a lack of experience rather than anything else. I'm really not at all confident in his understanding of or ability to apply policy and so must oppose this request. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also I must add that I completely disagree with the statement that it is an admin's "...responsibility to not make the CEO angry." With CEO linked to Jimbo. It's an admin's responsibility to do the right thing by the project, period, and whether or not it upsets Jimmy personally is really beside the point. It also isn't an admin's responsibility to fix or make better all complaints brought to them. A large amount of the time we make people who bring complaints to us *not* happy because the right thing to do for the project is not what the complainants want us to do.
'''Oppose''' The diffs Daniel brings are very concerning, also the apparent lack of knowledge of policy and edit warring at user pages greatly concerns me as to how this user would act with the tools.  Possibly after a long period of editing, I will be convinced that those were aberrant occurrences. '''
'''Oppose''' on the basis that you view an admin as "a team leader or a manager", and per Daniel and Sarah. --
Weak '''oppose'''. Not sure I want to trust Trevor with the tools yet; he seems a bit unstable, to be honest. While his judgment usually seems good (note: I rarely see him outside of RFA, so my perspective is pretty limited), something worries me&mdash;not sure what, exactly, though. ·
'''Strong Oppose'''. A very low edit count means i'm not comfortable with the idea that he has enough experience to make a good admin. Has only created two pages, and the area's he says he would be involved in aren't ones he has had particular experience in. Also seems to misunderstand the role of an administrator, first saying an admin isn't above anyone else on a project and then comparing them to a manager; if this ''was'' a job, you wouldn't hire someone who doesnt have a proper understanding of what the job ''is''. Claiming to be a level-headed user is fair enough, but brings into question the message on his talk page "The content was deleted via MfDs. Please do not re-insert it. The content is an attack on other editors. You should not be participating in attacks on other editors. The content misrepresents the Foundation. You should not be making unsubstantiated claims about what the Foundation endorses". From your contributions you dont seem to have an accurate understanding of wikipedia guidelines and policies, and your edit history is slightly worrying; i dont think an admin who makes edits normally and then vanishes for 2-4 months at a time is really appropriate. You've only really scaled your editing up in the last month; keep that up for another 6 months, get to understand the policies and contribute to more varied area's and reapply; if you've done all that i'd be happy to support.
'''Oppose''', since you have very little experience in the areas you'd like to be involved in. You don't have to be an admin to comment on the hooks at [[T:TDYK]], yet you've never commented on anything besides your own two noms. You don't even have to be an admin to edit the next dyk update, but you've never done that either. I could find less than 10 edits on wp:aiv, so I can't really be sure you'd always know what to do there either (although the process is usually very simple, you seem to view it too mechanistically, which could lead to trouble, since blocking people is a big thing). -
'''Oppose''', Per [[WP:NOTNOW]] The user is good at heart, but I dont think your established enough to be an admin just yet. Have you considerd admin coaching?
'''Oppose'''. I think the candidate is going to be a good admin someday, but unfortunately, today isn't that day. There's certainly no [[Heat death of the universe|deadline]], so plenty of time is available to you to expand some content, work on AIV and other areas, and generally show that you're capable of handling the admin tools. You're eager to help with DYK, and I urge you to do so - call it an apprenticeship, if you will. Once you've shown that you understand how these tasks are performed, I think many of my fellow opposers would find no further reason to oppose. It's an experience thing, and you should not be daunted at all because of it. I look forward to supporting you in the future. Best,
'''Oppose''' per above - lack of experience in admin areas.
'''Oppose''' per Bobet.
'''Oppose''' per admin is a "team leader or manager" comment. Veers dangerously close to making an admin a [[WP:Very Big Deal]]. --
Oppose, rather unfortunately I may add. In addition to the multitude of concerns presented by Daniel, the candidate also doesn't understand or know in part, our [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=214998034 image policy]. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Opppose''', pretty strongly, actually. [[User:Tinkleheimer/Signbook]]—silly signature books, almost no content contributions, over [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Tinkleheimer&site=en.wikipedia.org 220] edits to your userpage when you don't even have a quarter of that to a single article, not to metion the silly fake of the new messages bar which was previously on your userpage until recently. Even the signature suggest immaturity. Not at the minute.
'''Oppose''' - Wikipedia is not a place to "[[User:Tinkleheimer/Signbook|make friends]]", nor is it [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE|Myspace]]. Administrators are not a "team leaders", and silly annoying pranks like fake new message bars shows you are here for the wrong reasons.
Per all of the above (especially lack of mainspace work) as well as uninformed accusations of canvassing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDihydrogen_Monoxide_3&diff=216871855&oldid=216871774].
'''Neutral'''.  I do feel that Tinkleheimer would be a good admin, but it's the experience I'm worried about. Daniel's diffs are concerning, but a review of his last 500 edits brought up no concerns for me. I feel that Tinkleheimer should wait a few months just to ensure that he is absolutely ready, and won't make any obvious and avoidable mistakes. He is certainly on the right track though. :)
'''Neutral''' for now, noting also comments by Ironholds in the oppose section and by Peter Symonds above in this section.  The nominee's intention "to participate in areas could use another set of hands" like checking proposed hooks and preparing noms for DYK at [[Template talk:Did you know]] can be fulfilled without admin tools.  —
'''Neutral''' Good: [[USer Talk:Tinkleheimer#Quick Question about Using Wikipedia|this section]]. He seems like a friendly user who probably will not abuse the tools. However, mistakes such as [[USer Talk:Tinkleheimer#WP:RFPP|this section]] and the low edit count makes me uneasy. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]]
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose at this time. Diffs from Daniel in oppose and the last paragraph of the nomination in particular. Tinkleheimer, that is really not at all what admins are about I'm afraid. '''However''' I have only ever enjoyed positive and civil interaction with the candidate, which keeps me from an actual oppose. I just think he might hinder more than help with admin tools at the moment. If this passes I'd suggest going ''very'' cautiously, and if it doesn't then I'm sure a future RFA will be succesful provided Tinkle learns from the comments made (something I am sure he will do) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I was thinking of supporting, but then I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=217019970 this RFPP report]. For now I'm afraid I'm going to have to go neutral.
'''Neutral''' I am going to take the very comfortable position of sitting on the fence, since while I believe that Tinkleheimer is an accomplished user, and nice and polite one at that, I believe that there is still work to be done, before they get my unreserved support.--
'''Neutral''' - I think it's important to keep in mind that adminship is not a reward, just as blocking is not a punishment. I'd rather see more experience before supporting this RfA. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
Please get rid of the signbook. <big>
'''Moral Support''' -- Heart is in the right place. --
'''Oppose''' - Sorry bud, but experience is the big problem here, tenure, edits (place ''and'' number this time). Come back in like 4-5 months and let's see how ye did. Cheers.
'''Oppose'''. What I've seen of your work, I like. You're an excellent editor who's on the right track. However, you just don't quite have enough experience for my taste. You have less than 2000 edits (and it is very rare that an RFA pass for someone with sub-2000). You do a good job with images and with the mainspace, but you don't have enough experience in admin-related areas yet, with only 60 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. I see you used to have somewhat of a problem with edit summary usage, but I'm glad to see you rectified that. You'll probably want to wait 3 more months, with a total of 2000-3000 edits and a few hundred in the Wikipedia namespace. Then I think you'll be ready. Please also take a look at [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|my admin criteria]] for a sample of what some users expect in an admin candidate. A little more experience and I'll be glad to support. Feel free to contact me if you ever have any questions about anything.
'''Oppose''': While you are definitely on the right track I think the main issue here is experience. You have little work in the Wikipedia namespace and a not too many overall edits with less than 2000. What you have so far is quality edits and while quality is a lot better than quantity it'd be nice to see you have some more edits so you can be expose to a more wide variety of experiences. I'd say you are on the right track, just wait a little longer for your next try at adminship. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' sorry need more experience---less than 1500 edits isn't nearly enough.
'''Neutral''' – Nice work to date.  However, I would like to see just a little bit more experience.  To be honest, you are going to be slammed on your edit count.  Try again in 4-5 months, with 3,000 edits and keeping the same track recorded, you will be an excellent candidate.  Good Luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
See no problems. Seems to be very helpful around AfD (which always could use the help), and no civility issues from a quick glance through.<Small>And #1, yay!</small>
'''Support''' I see no issues that would warrant an oppose. Frequent activity at the Help Desk, UAA and around XfD's seal the deal for me.
'''Support''' I have looked through the user's contribs and have found him a very helpful editor, who does participate in many needed areas. I am quite confident that he will be a good admin and trust that he will learn to use the tools before rampaging through AfDs and CSDs. I only found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elin_Palmer&diff=next&oldid=233563276 one occurence] that placed a minor question mark in my reasoning - in this case the CSD tag was wrong and he might have googled the text first (and the fact that the article still exists shows that it was not CSD#A7). But that's the only thing I noticed... '''
'''Support''' The user is experienced and I see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''. He'll be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Good work at AFD and UAA.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marc_estrin&diff=prev&oldid=233413975 Not likely to abuse the tools. ]
'''Support''' Good work in AFD's. Good luck in this RFA.
'''Support'''. Looking through his contribs (especially at UAA, AFD, and his deleted contribs), I'm confident that Tnxman307 would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. No reason to doubt that he will use the tools wisely
'''Sure''', makes a clear case for how he will use the tools, and I have no reason to believe after looking thru contribs that you'll abuse or misuse them.  Looks good!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Good work in admin areas.
'''Support''' - demonstrates need of the tools and provides good evidence of competence along those lines. Also provided decent answer I respect for optional question, and no major things popped out on a spotcheck of contribs. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will be a great admin.
Hello, I'd like to report a lost camel -- his name is Sheldon, he has two humps and...oh, wrong queue. While I am here: '''Support'''
'''Support''' Definitely no reason for opposition. I like your prompt response to my inquiry at [[WP:HD]], as well. Cheers, &mdash;
'''Support''' an admin candidate who actually has AfD experience- ''gasp''. Also per answers to questions. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Support''' will do fine. If the RfA passes, the much discussed oppose of Roi below should be taken as a reminder that trigger-happiness is a major source of mistakes by admins. I say that as someone who's probably more inclined to deletion than the average editor. So do remind yourself that in doubt articles should not be speedy deleted but tagged with prod or sent to AfD. The only cost is a bit of extra work for the community but it avoids a lot of frustration.
'''Support''' Satisfactory answers to the questions, especially honesty about lack of strength in article work. This user demonstrates sufficient clue.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. '''<em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"><font color="Black">
—'''
'''Support.'''  This candidate is ready for [[Wikipedia:New admin school|new admin school]].  —
'''Support'''.  I'm semi-familiar with your work as a Wikipedian (I think I wannabekated you once) and I came away impressed.  You will have little need for content building as an admin, and I trust you with the tools. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak Support''' Supporting but encourage the candidate to work more on article writing.
'''Weak support''' - Although I trust this candidate, and a good attitude is conveyed too, I would recommend extensive practice at the new admin school and a good reading of the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]] too. <span style="font-family:Miriam,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. While I hope the answer to Q8 is merely a function of the candidate trying to straddle the fence, I see no reason to oppose. Seen him around, no problems here.
'''Support''', no good reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards|my standards]], see no strong reason to oppose.
'''Support''', candidate seems to have a sufficient knowledge of policy and procedure, and seems trustworthy.
'''Support''': Net Positive and [[WP:WTHN|WTHN ?]] . [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marc_estrin&diff=prev&oldid=233413975 This] was impressive and I hope you may use the delete button only with good reasons and understanding. A good attitude and fair answers. Please do work on article improvements further . I trust you. Best wishes --
'''Support'''. After watching this debate over the past few days, I'm going to hop in under the Support column. I think the candidate has comported himself well, and I'm unconvinced by some of the reasons for opposition. Looking at the editor's contributions, I think his adminship would bea net positive to the project, and that's enough for me.
'''Support''': Great history, but talk about beating a dead horse. Geez. How many questions can you legitimately ask a candidate who has already competently answered about eleventybillion questions? Credit given to Tnxman307 for calmly answering some of the more absurd, or downright lazy questions I have seen in an RfA. I just remembered why I don't usually read that section of an RfA. Honestly, I want the last ten minutes of my life back.
'''Support'''.  over 7000 edits in 10 months, surely that's more then enough experiance.  &ndash;
'''Support''': Everything looks fine and dandy. And Q16 rocks my socks off.
'''Support.''' I was somewhat unconvinced either way, and I suspect that I wasn't the only one who felt this way (possibly?) which is why there are so many Q&A. But when it comes down to it, the opposing reasons do not convince me at this point, and I feel that you are trustworthy (and will offer something positive when you're granted the tools). Don't let us down ;) -
'''support''' Not much in the way of direct article work, but the edits he has made to article space have been fine. Moreover, his work in non-article space suggests a decent understanding of policy and general community procedures.
No real issues here, should be fine. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
Net positive.
'''Support''' net positive. Here's hoping this will tip you over the consensus margin. ;) Best of luck, --'''
'''Support''' - all of his edits that I've seen are excellent edits that definitely show a good grasp of both policy and, more importantly, what's right. His work at the Help Desk is always top-notch, as well as his participation in AfDs. --
'''Support''' solid answers to the questions and seemingly plenty of edits.--<small>
'''Support'''. Projectspace edits are good, that's all that concerns me.
'''Support''', no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools.  The thoughtful and polite response to Kurt's oppose below sealed the deal for me.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of Mata Nui]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lance de Masi]].  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,
'''Weak Oppose''' : Lacks article building skills and hasn't contributed significantly to any controversial/disputed articles. Lacks consensus/dispute resolution skills. You do have your help desk work going for you though, that's good. —
'''Oppose''' - per a general lack of experience. For someone who wants to do work in an admin role at AfD I don't feel that this user has enough experience in that area. --

'''Oppose''' because of answer to Q8. For that kind of vandalism, a one week block is perfectly reasonable and should be upheld. I like my sysops to be firm with vandals! '''John Sloan''' (
Not enough content building experience or experience in areas to demonstrate yet we can trust him with the tools.
'''Oppose''' I do not trust in this user's ability to correctly close AFDs. Questionable interpretation of policies, including the purpose of blocks. Article work is also very weak.
'''Oppose''' I'm not worried about deletionism being relevant here. I am concerned that the amount of article work is too minimal to indicate a sufficient experience with the actual problems that confront people writing articles; an understanding of the actual contributors is important in making correct decisions as an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
Per DGG. When you're asked twice for significant contributions, and you can't mention even a single article you've worked on (unless I'm misunderstanding the reference to Xavier) then that is a problem in an RfA candidate. You seem like a reasonable and intelligent guy, and with some article background I'd be happy to see you as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Tnxman has made more than 4,000 mainspace edits, but he has made ten or more than ten edits to only four articles. He should focus more on article building.
'''Oppose''' As an admin, Tnxman307 will have broad powers to decide the fate of articles and other Wikimaterial at XfD. My review of the nominee's edit history shows that much of the mainspace edits are vandalism reverts with very little meaningful participation in creating and expanding articles. Greater involvement in building the content of this encyclopedia can only lead to an admin with a better understanding of the XfD process and I cannot support a candidate with such minimal experience in this area. If this does expand, and if there is an answer next time to the question of what articles you are proudest of, I will be more than willing to reconsider my opinion in a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' per  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.  Too deletionist for my taste; I'm afraid I'd rather not have another admin who is willing to go around eliminating valuable information from the mainspace.  <font color="629632">
'''Oppose''' believe it or not, per RMHED's question, 12. [[WP:IAR]] is the most important rule on Wikipedia, by far. <span>
'''Weak oppose''' - Per Q12. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' needs wider experience. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience building content.
'''Oppose''' needs more article work.
'''Oppose''' - Per Q12.
'''Oppose''' for now (changed from neutral). You will make a fine admin one time, but you lack the article writing experience that I also look for. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
Seems uninterested in content writing; this is a red flag for reasons I've elaborated on elsewhere. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
I am generally supportive of candidates who wish to use the bits in areas in which they are already active, but in this instance I think the candidate is just ''too'' unfamiliar with the sysop remit. I think the editor needs to get involved in a few other areas of Wikipedia, so they get a better understanding of the "big picture". As this currently looks as if it is going to be successful, I suggest they anyway do look to expand their interaction with other areas of the encyclopedia to enable them to be a better admin.
'''Moral Support''' - You seem like you have a good heart for the project, but not all the experience needed. I suggest looking at various admin tasks, and learn them inside and out. I would also suggest when editing, provide an edit summary. It makes things a lot easier for people to see what is going on their watchlist. =D Happy Editing!<b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
No worse than the rest of them. <small>'''
Moral support. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
Moral support. Please consider getting more involved in [[WP:AFD]] and [[CAT:CSD]], but make sure you read [[WP:CSD]] for the criteria. Deletion is, along with blocking, one of the most contentious admin activities, so it's good to get a lot of solid experience before getting the tools. Your heart's in the right place though, so another few months and I'm sure you'll be fine. :) Best,
'''Oppose''' Sorry, while I'm not a fan of editcountitis, I can't be sure you know policy if you have less than 1000 edits and 2% edit summary for major edits. I don't see any evidence to deletion discussions, speedy or XFD, and there is also limited Wikipedia namespace. I would recommend getting more experience and coming back in a few months. <span style="font-size:7pt;font-variant:small-caps;color: #fff;background:goldenrod;letter-spacing: 2px;border:2px solid green">Soxred93 (
'''Oppose''' - I know it was a long time ago, but a block is still a big thing for me at least. Also, edit count should usually not be relied upon to tell a user's contributions, but I cannot consciously put my trust in a user that only has 986 edits (and only 800 of those in the mainspace). Your answers are also very vague. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with the comments above: you need more experience beyond the 1000 edit you have before I can make a proper judgment of your ability to use the tools, and you'll need considerably more experience in working with other users via talk pages.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry but without experience of the areas where you are interested in using the admin tools cannot support you. If you are interested in deletion then suggest getting experience of AFD and correctly applying speedy tags. Come after a reasonable time with that extra experience and will be happy to support then.
'''Oppose''' with incredibly strong moral support.  Sorry, but you're simply not ready for the responsibilties that come with the tools.  '''
'''Oppose''' with moral support as well, per comments above. Attitude-wise I'm right behind you. Develop a habit of using edit summaries and get a few months' practice working on deletion discussions and the like, and I'd happily support.
'''Oppose''' with ''strong moral support'' : Come back after a few months with lots of experience ( lots of Mainspace contribs, AFDs, Right use of Speedy Deletion Tags, DYKs , ( preferebly GA or FA ) etc. Enable ''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'' on your Preferences/Editing Page -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Oppose'''.  Moral support and encouragement, as above.  When you try again (after a suitable period gaining more experience), you should also probably spend some more time on your nomination, telling the community about yourself and going into more detail as you answer the questions.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry to pile it on but 'specialist in wikipedia' is not fooling anyone. Less than 1000 edits just doesn't cut it. I think your heart is in the right place though. '''''
'''Oppose''', user had a good attitude, but I feel needs more experience, both in admin-related tasks and regular editings tasks. --
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', Why not wait a few more months? You need a lot of expirence in the namespace to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''': I don't doubt that you entirely mean well, but I just don't think you've got enough experience looking at the things admins are generally required to be competent in. I'd happily support you if I could see more evidence that you need and understand the tools - you don't need to be an admin in order to contribute to Wikipedia. ~
'''Sad oppose''' I applaud the enthusiasm but it would be best to wait a while on this one! I will support next time! Good luck anyway! --
'''Oppose'''. Alarmingly low edit summary usage, very low edits in the Wikipedia space and talk spaces. Although you have been with us a little while, you aren't a very heavy editor. Perhaps if you get a little more policy experience and up your editing a little, I will be willing to support next time.
'''Some more moral support''' - You've got the right frame of mind, you just need some more experience in namespace (i.e. [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:DELT]], [[WP:RFPP]] etc) and try and read up on a few policies here and there. Given a few months of solid experience I see little reason why I wouldn't support in the future. Good luck and happy editing. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''

'''Support''' per my nomination.
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''5th Support''' Participates in WikiProject EastEnders which also includes vandal fighting as well. No reason to oppose. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. --
After much deliberation, I feel this is the only option.
'''Support''' I have come across this user many times, and I only have good things to say about him. Slightly worried by the earlier discussion, but overall I feel it would be a net gain.
'''Support''' would help Wikipedia in many ways and could do help a lot in the sockpuppetry area. Not sure about answer to question number 4, but seems to know most policy's well. Good Luck!
'''Support'''-As per Level 2 in my test(ver 1.1). See test[[User:Quek157/Rfa Test]]--
No idea what the opposers are talking about. Answers to questions are fine imo, and the diffs given are irrelevant.
'''Oppose''' I have worked with Trampikey on some soap opera articles, such as at [[Talk:Pauline Fowler]] to get the article to FA status. I got the sense of someone who means well, but is a bit too short-tempered at times, and who is more inclined to support a personal sense of what an article should be like, rather than what Wikipedia guidelines and policies require.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauline_Fowler&diff=prev&oldid=187354855] This is especially a concern considering the controversies over how much "in-universe" information should be in soap opera articles, an area where Trampikey participates almost exclusively.  I think that Trampikey is also unaware of just how stressful that adminship can be, and I don't think Trampikey would yet be well-suited to dealing with vandals. It's one thing to revert and block vandals, and it's another to deal with the fallout when the vandals come back and attack you and question your decisions. Based on my observations, I don't think that Trampikey would handle those challenges well. It is my hope that perhaps later, after Trampikey becomes more familiar with and supportive of Wikipedia culture, and also develops a thicker skin in dealing with disagreements, adminship might be a good idea, but I just don't think Trampikey is ready yet, sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' → sysop tools don't help in identifying sockpuppets, and the exchange with Majorly and Pedro wasn't impressive either. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' - Per issue raised above with pedro. Also i do not care for the answer to question number 7. I would have liked to see this user state he would [[WP:AGF|AGF]] and contact the administrator who he believes made a "unjust" action ''before'' undoing/reverting their actions. <s>Also it appears that you have been a current edit war [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grant_Mitchell_%28EastEnders%29&action=history].</s>
'''Oppose''' sorry but there's some big names putting across some valid points under oppose. Also question answers are very putting off - you needed to demonstrate your excellent understanding of policy, not just a blanket generalized response. But keep up the good work :-) '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Oppose''' very good editor, but his answers above just don't demonstrate a particularly good understanding to of the policy's. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Oppose''', per above.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions #3 and #4 above. #3 . #4 misses a key institution in the mix: ArbCom. Contact me on my talk page if you want more information/perspective on my two cents. I am willing to have my mind changed on this if you can satisfy my concerns. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME ANSWERING. You have some time to formulate an answer. Don't rush it. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">
'''Oppose''' Answers to question are just a bit disconcerting.
No. Evidently not ready, as amply shown by others signing in this section. Please try in a few months time, I may support then. -- <strong>

'''Oppose''' I'm sorry to do this, as I almost always vote in favor, but this user just doesn't seem ready. Happy Editing,
'''Oppose''' per unconvincing answers to questions, esp Q7. <b>
'''Oppose''' Per answer to number 4.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  While you have many good contributions - [[EastEnders]] is a great article - a few answers to the questions are bugging me.  Why not try [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]]? <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Oppose'''. Uncomfortable with answer to questions #7 & #8. Except in an emergency, it's almost always a good idea to speak the involved admin before reverting them. <s>As to #8, I have no idea which admin tool it is that helps identify socks. Is there a hidden ''checkuser'' function buried in one of the screens that I somehow missed?</s> on re-reading this comment, I find it rude and I apologize.
'''Oppose''' Q4 does it all.
'''Oppose''' - per your comment to Pedro, and Q4. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]] [http://tools.wikimedia.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Soxred93&dbname=enwiki_p count]
'''Oppose''' per ''very'' weak answers to questions. --
<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral''' [[WP:AGF|While I can't oppose]], I find some of the answers above an indication that the candidate doesn't understand the role of an administrator, and therefore, I'm not confident in offering support either. I recommend seeking [[WP:ADMINCOACH|coaching]] and coming back in a few months.
'''Neutral''' I'm afraid the answer to question 7 indicates over boldness. One should not be overly [[WP:BOLD]] when reverting another admins actions, even if one thinks they are "unjust" or "a mistake. (Why else would you revert them?). If you adamantly believe in the wrongness of an admin's action, and they believe as adamantly that the action is correct, what then? It could lead to a [[WP:Wheelwar|Wheelwar]]. I haven't seen anyone express a concern about wheelwarring in a while, but in the past they have caused damage and disruption out of all proportion to the matter in dispute. Eventually, the arbcom had to unravel the mess. It would be better to politely and respectfully (even regretfully) approach the other admin, explaining why you have a concern and proposing a remedy. If that results in an impasse, then a neutral third party opinion should be requested. If the matter remains unresolved then, discussion at [[WP:AN/I]] or an RFC should be helpful. Failing that, you still have the arbcom, but you've gotten there with less disruption and upset than otherwise. [[User:Dlohcierekim| <font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]]
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. Questions 4 & 7 are most concerning, as others have said. 7 especially, because it shows a reluctance to talk it out with the other admin first. Hopefully, another RfA in six months or so will yield better results.
'''Support''' -- As nominator. = ). --
'''Support'''. I understand the concerns that others have because of the block logs on the other accounts, but it has been six months since those were blocked.  Any user can change their ways, and I believe that you have.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support'''  I’ve had a single incident with this editor – he came unannounced to my Talk Page with the mission of clarifying an issue where I had a disagreement of policy interpretation with a third party.  I’ve found Treasury Tag’s communication to be polite, friendly and professional.  I did not agree with the points he made, but he respected what I was saying and was never rude because I did not absorb his opinion.  While I can understand the concerns that some people have expressed about his previous hiccups of perceived incivility, I am also aware of the policy of [[WP:AGF]] and I would like to believe that this editor is serious about making an intelligent contribution here.  Perfection is an elusive commodity, and I am not in the habit of holding past mistakes against people who wish to conduct a serious effort to make amends.  I have no qualms supporting this candidate.
Far too many blocks in the last year across his multiple accounts, and extensive warnings for disruptive behavior on the current account. Too much recent incivility as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&curid=16870435&diff=208163346&oldid=208161214].
I do not believe TreasuryTag has the necessary demeanour for an administrator. There are also some serious NFC problems.
He's a good guy, but I have to kinda agree with Matthew and Phil. '''
The large amount of blocks makes me wary. I'm not sure whether your behaviour over the last few months is enough to enable me to look beyond past incidents. The diff presented by Phil is troubling.
Switching account names does not magically make past disruptive behavior disappear.
'''Oppose''' - I appreciate the sincerity of TreasuryTag's commitment in Q3, but really, we don't need to be promoting candidates who already need to put in caveats about where they will allow themself to work as an admin. I see a fairly consistent amount of edits that are borderline uncivil and in my opinion inflame situations. I was going to link diffs in this regard, but really, it's the ''general'' tone of your editing in difficult situations. One last thing, and this is ''not'' assuming bad faith, but I honestly don't know what TT would do with the tools in certain situations regarding BetaCommand. A side note - the signature is way too long, makes it quite difficult to look at diffs of TTs editing.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Ukrainian political crisis]] (never say "never"), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline]] (use of "[[WP:ITSCRUFT|cruft]]"), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction]] (argued to delete article that was ultimately kept), [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (2nd nomination)]] (non-argument), and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales]] (typical claim of "non-notable" only to have others find sources).  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''
'''Nope'''.  While I agree that time can fix some wounds with solid behavior, the diffs provided by Sandifer from a month ago where T-Tag called someone Pathetic among other things, does not instill confidence in my mind for how he will react when someone comes to his talk page with similar complaints as he's brought to others. I'm not saying the other editor was necessarily an angel, but two wrongs... Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Yes, you haven't been blocked in 6 months, no you haven't reformed enough since your last block to warrant adminship.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose''' per Phil above.  Serious incivility issues.
From my experience TT is disruptive and prolongs drama. He has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudget&diff=next&oldid=203501768 demanded] I do things in the past and the comment log above concerns me. Some other serious other incivility issues, especially at RFP. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Oppose''' - A good editor, but too many recent issues in my memory on noticeboards like AN/ANI where the user's comments ranged from "unhelpful" to "lynch-mob-ish." We don't need admins with a proclivity to increase drama. Also, the bit about the admins' IRC channel in Q1 seems to suggest that the user puts too much stock in what other people think of him. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]], [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] <s>and per your previous abuse of the [[WP:AutoWikibrowser|AutoWikibrowser]] abuse.</s>
'''Strong Oppose''' - Simply does not have the demeanor and disposition that I look for in a potential administrator. I see some good things here, but some vastly alarming and eye opening drama. I absolutely cannot, in good confidence, support you. I believe you would hamper more than help.
'''Oppose''' - I view adminship as similar to being a judge. If a candidate feels he must, as a condition of elevation, preemptively recuse himself for lack of ability to be objective about a particular subject, I think the appropriate temperament is not being displayed. In addition, not to "pile on," but I do find the candidate's high level of activity on this page to be a little disconcerting. Yes, this is a discussion, but I'm concerned that the level of discussion here is not resulting in any consensus-building. Sorry to sound harsh; I'm a little new to this RfA process myself, but I'm starting to feel that certain candidates just jump off the screen at you as obvious choices, and some don't. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' Sorry; while I've had no problems at all with your current incarnation, I took too much from Porcupine to support this soon down the road.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' I don't feel comfortable with the idea of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&curid=16870435&diff=208163346&oldid=208161214 uncivil] admin. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
'''Oppose''' I love Doctor Who too much to let loose an un-civil admin onto it.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I've declined quite a few of your protection requests, which would indicate that you'll be too ready to press the protect button. These generally occur a few hours before [[Doctor Who]] starts in the UK, and last week (or the week before) it was [[The Unicorn and the Wasp]]. You were asking for pre-emptive protection, which is absolutely against [[WP:PROT|the protection policy]]. Admins should generally be familiar with all policies, and only a month ago you requested an oversight on an article. I gave you a link to [[WP:RFO]], but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=206858750 you didn't seem to know what it was], which is concerning for a potential administrator. Also, when an editor was logged out and you reverted his edit, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2008/Apr#Your_warning_re:Donna_Noble notified you that he was an administrator]. This was probably to let you know that he's familiar with policy, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23skidoo&diff=prev&oldid=206704854 reply you gave] was unhelpful, and gave the impression that he was power-flaunting. Granted his addition of "administrator" before his signature was ill-advised, the reply was too over-dramatic and uncivil. Various issues above are also concerning; I don't think you're ready at this time. Nevertheless, your content is good and I hope you keep up the good work. Best,
'''Oppose''' I do not believe that Treasury Tag is ready for the tools. The extensive block logs of previous accounts, coupled with some more recent examples of contributions that tended to ratchet up drama (I am specifically referring to the block of Betacommand and the reams of discussion which followed; Treasury Tag's contributions to the threads on that issue were not particularly helpful, and definitely inflamed the debate) make me believe that he does not currently possess the temperament desired of an administrator. '''
'''Oppose'''. I am not convinced that Treasury is trustworthy enough to be able to use the tools carefully and competently. My own experience with him has left me with a less than desirable impression of him, and it seems the vast majority of his encounters with others fail to correct that impression. My current concerns could not allow me to support this candidate.
'''Oppose''' per most of the above, particularly Phil Sandifer.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Sorry''', but you don't seem ready enough for the duties of adminship.  Unfortunately some of the 'mistakes' you have made in the past are things not quickly forgotten, and it takes a large span of time to show that this behavior has, indeed, changed.  I do like what I see in terms of improvement recently, and so long as that trend continues, a future nomination may prove to be more successful.
Candidate lacks a firm grip on the difference between edits that violate our [[WP:BLP|biography of living persons]] policy and edits that he just doesn't like (to wit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence_in_the_Library&diff=prev&oldid=215236287], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forest_of_the_Dead&diff=prev&oldid=215236238], and so on).  I fear he may back that nonsense up with blocks, protections, and deletions.  However, his sensibility in aggreeing not to use admin tools in Doctor Who articles leaves me ambivalent.  &#10154;
I've had passing interaction with TreasuryTag and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AuburnPilot&diff=prev&oldid=208163647 seeing discussion like this] makes me hesitate about his/her ability to handle difficult situations. It's not enough to oppose, but it made me hesitate. <sub>
(moved from support) I'm really sorry, but your recent incivility balances out any good interaction I've had with you.  Apologies, but I'm on the fence here.  '''
I do feel somewhat tempted to support, as there's ample evidence for me that you've outgrown most of your previous immaturity, as shown by the lack of any blocks in the last six months. But some of that real blatant incivility within the last month... I'm just not that sure you'd reliably keep your head in a stressful situation. I wish you luck, with an improvement in civility I do think you'd make a good admin. ~
'''Oppose'''. I don't feel you are ready yet. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Treelo/Archival_Quality/May_2008#Reverting_ip_address_and_talk_page This] has had a slightly negative effect on me. I'd recommend you come back in 3 to 6 months, given improvements. Regards.
'''Oppose''' 7500 edits in May... um no... we don't need a bot as an admin.
'''Oppose''' An extremely high number of edits, which has a negative effect on me. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yngvarr&diff=prev&oldid=214223499 this comment] wasn't appropriate. Sorry, I don't think it's the time. Best wishes,
'''Oppose''' You've had some issues with using the rollback tool in the past, and with only 7,500 edits in May, you do not have the experience required to complete the task of administrator at this time.  Also, I don't like self-nominations.
'''Oppose''' Per the diff from Peter Symonds and [[User:Treelo#usernames_for_admin_attention|this little exchange]] which comes across as slightly agressive, unfriendly and unhelpful. Calm down, stop using HUGGLE to make millions of edits and just start enjoying the WP experience instead. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''', I think Pedro sums it up nicely. I don't feel that you are yet admin material.
'''Oppose''' per these diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Particleman24&diff=215396484&oldid=215384319], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Treelo&diff=215395606&oldid=215394891], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Treelo#usernames_for_admin_attention]. Pedro took the words out of my mouth, there is no excuse for uncivility. It does not matter what another user did, telling them they have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Treelo&diff=215395606&oldid=215394891"shit for brains"] is about as uncivil as it gets.—
I liked your answers, and was wavering on support, but the weak articlespace work coupled with advocating speedy deletion on articles that don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion (for example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Duncan]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman quickscript]]) makes me think otherwise. <small>'''
'''Neutral''' per Naerii. Plus, you've got to work on your civility, and your number of edits is quite low when discounting Huggle edits, so a bit more experience is probably needed. There's nothing wrong with using Huggle, but it doesn't add to your suitability for adminship. Your level of article-writing experience isn't too bad though, and you have some non-automated admin-related experience.
'''Oppose'''. On your user talk page two experienced editors told you that your application was far too soon. Why persist? However gently worded the oppose messages may be, they will still be depressing for you. Something you could have avoided by waiting. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. Candidate has good desire, but most of the edits are to his userpage, and there's not a lot of experience.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter. Though, possibly needs more experience before closing AfDs.
'''Support''' I saw her contributions and she have a lot of good things..she will help the wikipedia and help us.--
<s>'''FUCK YES SUPPORT'''!</s> '''Yes,''' I agree. She will make a wonderful admin. Cheers.
'''Support''' - Every interaction I've had with Triona has been positive and she's a good vandal fighter. I think she'll make a good admin :)
'''Support''' - of course! -
A capable editor in their capacity, and reflects the true qualities of what is needed in an administrator.
'''Support''', good user. - <font face="Skia, Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Yeah, a good editor. —
'''Support''' I do not feel that intermittent editing is any sort of bar to adminship, nor do I feel, per the first Oppose, that there is any requirement for a minimum number of article creations. We are looking for a skilled editor with demonstrable competence in admin-related procedures, and the willingness and eagerness to use these skills for the benefit of the project. Triona is such an editor. --<font color="Red">
'''Edit conflicted Support''', I have had nothing but positive interactions with her, and she has a sensible and cool demeanor.
A good choice. '''
Whoa, thought you were one already.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak Support''' I have not seen anything that leads me to believe this person will abuse the tools. I do have a problem with her lack of experience though. She has not been in any conflicts, and she only seriously started to edit last month. I have learned from experience the value of experience. However, I do not consider lack of experience a good enough reason to oppose, or go neutral, so I will support her.--
Wow, of course.
A non-idiot. &ndash;
Support. Qualified candidate.
'''Strong support''' Great user, ready to be a sysop. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt cooper black">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt lucida sans">2010</span>]]
'''Weak Support''' Not enough to oppose, but I'd like to see how this user handles pressure.
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable and trustable. --
'''<big>+</big>'''  I've seen her around a long time, and I trust her judgment.  Lack of article writing does not mean the user doesn't know what is and is not policy.
I was thinking about asking Triona if she wanted a nomination in a month or so's time. I'm not worred about her inactivity: there are no shortage of mops to give out, and I'd rather see the tools used rarely and correctly than often and abused. No concerns here.
'''Support''' Yay! to the vandal fighters.
'''Support''' while I'm concerned about lack of article writing skills, my experience with this user cancels that out.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''[[User:Seresin|seresin]] |
'''Support''' Vandal fighter and declined earlier RFA where she was nominated by another user as she was not ready shows User is macure and not power hungry.
'''Support''' Great Vandal fighter and very respectable person. Good Luck wit the tools. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support'''. Nice person who understands the project. —
'''Support''' "''To be honest, nothing particularly stands out''": Modesty is a bad bad trait to have on RfAs and it has predictably got you a bunch of opposes. And why shouldn't you call typo fixing and vandal fighting your best contributions? They are every bit as essential as article writing. So, good luck. But please note the concern that Casliber brought up. You say you have trouble assuming good faith with mass-removals of content without explanation but I believe that's exactly when you have to assume good faith more often... most beginners wouldn't know about edit summaries and getting to know about the feature through warning messages is discouraging and unwelcoming. -
'''Support'''. This user can use the tools, and I don't think the tools will abuse. That's a positive net effect.
'''Support''' interactions with the user have been only positive. A good vandalfigher. <i><b>
'''Support''' - Let's see here...do the opposes have anything at all to do with your ability to perform admin tasks? *quick review of oppose votes* Oh look at that, they don't! Again! Mop up!
'''Support''', can't think of any non-irrelevant problems with this candidate. --
'''Support''' There is simply nothing wrong with having little or no article writing experiance at all, totally irralevent. Administration is a different tast than article writing and it should be treat it as such, and if you are going to judge, there are much more important criterias than article writing, such as, but not limited to, user to user interactions, knowledge of Wikipedia policies, knowing how to effectively deal with vandalism, etc.
'''Support''' some people just aren't cut out for contributing to the encyclopedia (content-wise), but still wish to help and agree with the founding values of the project. Such users help the best way that suits them. Triona has obviously demonstrated a willingness to help and an excellent track record - give her the mop. '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Support''' You answers are fine with me, good luck! --
'''Support''' Se no problem with her having the mop.
In dubio pro reo, so you have my '''weak support'''. User:
'''Strong oppose''' I am not happy with her answer to question no. 2. A person who wants to be an admin must have created or significantly contributed to at least 25 articles. And, those articles must not be stubs. Vandal fighting is OK. However, we are editors first. She made only '''one edit''' from May, 2007 to December, 2007[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Triona&site=en.wikipedia.org]. She needs to edit regularly for few months. Sorry Stephanie. Better luck next time.
I have a fairly low content threshhold, but admins need to have at least some content editorial experience. Please spend a few weeks contributing to articles and then return and I will likely support.--
'''Oppose''' More than half of the editing has come within the last month, and while that is not the complete issue at hand, a LOT has changed around here (at least for myself) since I started regularly editing.  I can't really base a support decision off of just one month's editing.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not really one to oppose for lack of mainspace editing, but the answer to question 2 frankly gives me little confidence. '''''
'''Oppose''' on acct of a lack of substantial mainspace editing experience.  One should not be granted the exercise of the admin functions without an evidence of editing experience.  --
'''Oppose''' sorry - some people whose opinions I trust are supporting, yet this note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.153.120.116&diff=next&oldid=188613887] for this IPs edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whore_of_Babylon&diff=188613881&oldid=188613848] veers into [[WP:BITE]] territory. This alone I'd overlook if there was a substantive contribution history, say, a GA or two at minimum. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuwait&diff=188609033&oldid=188608928] was jumping the gun a bit too though kudos for communicating afterwards. Anyway, I'll feel more comfortable with some mainspace contribs. cheers,
'''Oppose''' - I'm not a great copywriter or anything, but an editor who can't point to anything they've written as being good is simply not what we need.  Until you've written a good bit of content, you can't be a guide to the process.
Per Q2, sorry. Create an article or improve one significantly and I'll support next time.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building.

Regretfully, but decidedly, per Coppertwig and Casliber. ''
'''Oppose''' with same sentiments as Doc G. I don't think admins need substantive editing in 25 articles, but they should have at least ''one''.
I'd like to have seen a bit more content additions from the candidate.  She appears to be a nice fellow and a good volunteer, and with some more article work, I'm sure I'll be a bit more supportive in the future [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' because of a lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' Weak responses to the basic three questions. While I don't wish to judge based on edit count, edit count pattern is so unusual, I'd like to see a more consistent contribution history before granting tools. No reason to assign the mop to someone who edits sporadically. No judgment intended here; I'm sure candidate is a fine user. Just no compelling demonstrated need for tools.
'''Oppose''' I almost never  oppose on lack of experience, but I don't think one month of real experience is enough. and I think it shows: no admin can possibly avoid conflict. To say you havent had any and dont expect to is unrealistic if you expect to be an active admin in the areas you want to work on. it is one thing to warn problem users; it is quite another to block them. It is one thing to ask for page protection, where someone else take the responsibility, and another to impose it. If you do the job as it needs to be done, you will be making some rather difficult people rather upset, and you will have to learn how to deal with it. at present you dont seem to know that you will even need to deal with it.  '''
'''Oppose'''. Triona made almost no edits between November 2006 and January 2008. I'd prefer to see a more consistent pattern of contribs and some content editing. <font color="Purple">
–
'''Neutral''' Although in the past month you have made a substantial amount of edits, it has only been one month. I would like to see some more months of edits. A very sporadic editing pattern does not look good. I need a longer span of solid edits to decide whether you'll use the tools effectively and not abuse them.
'''Neutral''' leaning to support. Your contributions look pretty good, but the answer to Q2 combined with relatively low project space edits gives me pause. If you could provide an example of work, especially in the project space, that you feel is very good, then I would be happy to switch to support.
'''Neutral''' Like VanTucky, I'm leaning towards support, good involvement in WP pages but your contributions are spread out over a long period (three years +) but over 80% of those are in two months only and over 60% over the last month.--
'''Neutrality''' - Per gurch....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Per Doc. Administrators will end up having to deal with disputes surrounding articles, and the best administrators in these situations are those who have experience in article-creation and article disputes. Knowing when to intervene and when not to intervene, when to use protection instead of blocking or vise-versa, and how to deal with SPA's, editors with a strong COI, and how talk page discussions work in disputes are essential for administrators. Your answer to Q2 means I can't support.
'''Sitting on the fence'''. While you seem to be an energetic and good person, and a definite asset to Wikipedia, I cannot give you a support !vote just due to your editing pattern. While I understand that real-life issues can deter one from editing, or facilitate it greatly (as can be seen in my own edit history), I'd like to see you keep up the pace. If this was April and your editing would be consistent, I'd definitely be willing to support though. Cheers,
A little more consistent editing, perhaps? I'm leaning 'support', fwiw. ~
'''Neutral''' I would like to see more consistent work on Articles during the next months. You are on correct way, good luck.
'''Neutral'''. I wish you'd waited a couple more months before this RfA, because then I'd have had absolutely no worries. Right now though I see you as an editor with about one month's experience - because your previous edits were so long ago and things here change so fast. I'm not voting against, because I see no evidence of problems. I don't usually bother with neutral votes, but as [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] says, this time it would have been rude not to show up. There's no rush to adminship: try again in May and I'm certain you'll sail through, if you continue to edit as you are doing. Though of course taking the opportunity to add some article creations in the mean time would not hurt at all.
'''Support''' - from his answer to Q1, I gather that he wants the extra buttons to block vandals. From what I have seen, his warnings and reports are mostly competent, and given that he acknowledges that he has only recently become involved in articles for deletion, I'm not overly concerned by the minor errors mentioned.
'''Support.''' Kind of a no-brainer, way more qualified than I was when I was promoted.
'''Support''' Good enough to be an admin...
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter, but I'd advise him to take it easy at AfD until he has more experience.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' - good vandal fighter; take your time at AfD and you'll be OK.
'''Support''' Good enough to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral support''' as it seems unlikely that any late rush is going to make this RfA succeed. It's very puzzling that, in a week when other RfAs are getting 100+ contributions, this one is almost closed and has barely a handful (support, oppose and neutral all in single figures still.) This editor makes appropriate warning tags and [[WP:AIV|AIV reports]], as far as I can see, and shows no reason not to be trusted. Would suggest getting more involved in [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion discussions]] before trying again, also perhaps a little more discussion on article talk pages to show how you can interact with other editors.
'''Weak support''' as he technically meets my standards, and I have no concern that the tools will be abused, but this is a weak candidate.
'''Oppose''' - While this user has made wonderful edits to improve the project i feel that there are still some areas of worry for me. Such as proper knowledge of deletion policy, this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%C5%9Eahin_K&diff=prev&oldid=182738540] is a AFD that you !voted as delete and was kept, your reasoning for deleting the article is worrisome, along with this one[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natasha_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=182378182]. I feel that with these !votes at AFD and overall lack of experience there it also shows that you do not have enough contributions in areas related to article deletion. And while you have made very good contributions to AIV, i feel that this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=184247544] report was made too hasty as the user had not had proper warning, nor where they even active and shortly after the report a administrator agreed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=184248008]. Though we all make mistakes (including myself) these were all within a few days of each other and too recently for me to support.
'''Oppose'''.  Per point made by Bugbear, above.  Bothersome.  --
'''Oppose''' In relation to Ultraexactzz comments in the neutral section.  This is your RFA.  If you aren't willing to try to convince us you're qualified, I have to oppose.--
Mainly per my fellow rogue non admin, Tiptoey. The first diff (per above) is OK in some situations, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natasha_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=182378182] bums me out - [[WP:BLP1E]]/[[WP:ONEVENT]] are highly important (anything with BLP in it is important ;) ), so I'd like to see a better understanding of them. Maybe next time.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natasha_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=182378182 this comment].
'''Oppose''' per Daniel.
Per Daniel.
Weak abstain, unless you support allowing moar cats.
'''Neutral''' I like what I see and so [[WP:AGF]] says support. But you have specifically stated you want to work at [[C:CSD]] and [[WP:AFD]] and you barely have any contributions to either venue so far. Deleted edits showed about 15 odd CSD tags in the last two months and your project space seems to be almost entirely [[WP:AIV]] reports. Don't get me wrong, we need vandal fighters, but I'm a little worried that you want to get involved in deletion processes with barely any experience. Tricky. I might change my mind as it's not a great rationale not to support, and I'm not opposing either, but at present I'm a little nervous. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per Pedro. I've just had another look over the contributions and they don't match up with the desired areas.
'''Neutral''' per pedro. Generally I have liked what I've seen in the past from this user, including no small number of chronic vandals he has sent my way at [[WP:AIV]]. However, I think that this RfA might be a little bit premature. I would prefer to see this user get a better grip on project space, and probably the help of an admin coach before coming back and trying this again in a couple months.
'''Neutral''' per Pedro and Trusilver. <strong>[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#171788">Spencer</span>]]</strong><sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:green">T♦</span>]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:green">C</span>]]</sup> 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)<s>'''Neutral''' - meets my standards, but I am right on the edge of supporting.  Perhaps he needs more experience at AfD before closing discussions. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</s> I changed my vote.
'''Neutral''' Bearian seems to have a good idea.
'''Neutral'''. The candidate seems to be a good editor overall, but I'd like to see the answers to some of the additional questions, particularly Avruch's, before supporting. I note with some minor concern that those questions have been posted for two days without answers, during which the candidate has edited elsewhere. Just a little, tiny, nit to pick, and not a major concern... but... hm.
'''Neutral''' per above.  You don't seem to have much experience with the areas that you claim to want to work in, which is worrisome.  On the other hand, is a good vandal fighter and I don't see any indications that you'd abuse the tools if they were given to you.  Hence, neutral.
'''Neutral'''. A large chunk of the Contributions to Wiki-pages are at WP:AIV with little if any involvment in AFD's and RFPP's.--
'''Switch to Neutral''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natasha_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=182378182 Daniel's dif].
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]]. No evidence of sufficient activity in admin areas, such as [[WP:AIV]], where you have only two edits in your four months here. Take your time - dig in and look around. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' per NOTNOW and the severe annoyance factor of the statement. Being an admin is not a big deal; getting there is. "Adminship is not a big deal" does not translate to "lets give everyone with 100 edits the banhammer".
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:NOTNOW]] and lack of experience. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Not experienced enough. Sorry. Suggest withdrawing.
You're going to fail miserably, so this is pointless, but what the hell, you had an interesting (if unusual) nomination statement and ''yes'', I am that easily swayed. '''
'''Moral Support''' - since this RfA is not going to succeed. It might be wise to withdraw now. You can always try again when you've had more experience.
Hate to be the first contributor to the miserable failure that Naerii predicted, but I'm afraid that you're just not ready.  Keep up your mainspace work, use edit summaries consistently, watch out for copyright violations, and respect different varieties of English.  From there, you might want to get involved in some of the nuts and bolts of how this place works ([[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] and [[WP:BLPN|various]] [[WP:NPOV|noticeboards]] can be good places to learn)...if you work at it, I'm sure you'll be able to pass an RFA someday!
Sorry, but I have to '''oppose'''. You have very little experience in general, particularly in admin areas. Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' I would close this RFA.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' Too little experience in any area. You might want to scrape up some dignity from the bottom of the bowl and withdraw before this gets [[WP:SNOW]] closed.--
'''Withdraw''' You have 160 edits. There is no way you can pass. Withdraw while you still have dignity. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. Editcountitis is a bad thing, but 83 to mainspace and 11 to Wikispace is, by any measure, ''way too low''.
'''Oppose'''. You're using your user page as a [[WP:NOTBLOG|blog]]!! That alone speaks volumes of your level of experience in Wikipedia. I also recommend you read [[WP:AAAD]] (the part about edit count in particular).
There's nothing wrong with the candidate, it's just a lack of experience. And since you're only here to help, I will not oppose, but your lack of experience is the reason I cannot support. <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
There's no reason to pile on oppose. Good intentions, but like Matthew above me here said, not enough experience. [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Two-face%20Jackie&site=en.wikipedia.org This link shows] your current edit count and usage of edit summaries. As you can see, both are rather low. But, beware, do not become obsessed with your edit count.--
'''Neutral''' low edit count. Try again in a few months! &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]]
'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm is commendable, but your timing is a bit premature. Some more experience will make you a stronger candidate.
'''Oppose''' with moral support. Tyw7, you have very little chance of success here. Many participants are looking for anywhere from 3000-5000 edits with a minimum of 6 months experience. I suggest you withdraw. (Notwithstanding the fact that the RFA is malformed). Continue contributing to Wikipedia as a user, as the areas you mentioned you would like to work in do not require administrator access..
'''Oppose with moral support''' — I really support your enthusiasm and your willingness to help others, but I'm afraid it is too soon for you to become an administrator. I expect you may have more luck in half a year or so, after learning more about policy, doing some more article edits and continuing your anti-vandalism work. You may wish to read [[WP:NOTNOW]], and try to rememeber that adminshop is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] :) Best of luck. —'''
'''Moral Support''' I am sorry to say it but the concerns raised at the last RfA are still to be addressed and 1224 edits (most of them without using [[WP:ES|edit summaries]]) do not allow us to judge you correctly. So I'd say, as Cyclonenim put it quite well, that this is a clear case of [[WP:NOTNOW]] and you should withdraw your RfA because it will be closed as [[WP:SNOW]] like the other two if you don't. You might want to read "[[WP:TROPHY|adminship is not a trophy]]" as well. Regards '''
Inexperience; You indicated that you wish to do vandalfighting, but I have not seen any contributions on [[WP:AIV]]. Would like to see more involvement in the internal processes, such as AfD. Please keep up the good work in your Wikiproject, though! -
'''Moral Support''' SoWhy put it exactly.  Best of luck in the future, bud :) <font color="amaranth">
'''Neutral'''.  Looking through the user's contributions, it looks like they're doing solid, useful work.  However, there are a few things that bother me, like the terse answers to the questions and the lack of edit summary usage, enough that I would not be comfortable supporting.  I would suggest to the candidate that at the very least that they should set edit summary usage as mandatory in their preferences, as low edit summary usage is a classic indicator of someone who's not quite ready for the tools.
'''Oppose'''. Just not enough experience yet. Only 1000 total edits and under 200 to the Wikipedia namespace. Only uses edit summaries half the time. Not enough experience yet to demonstrate knowledge of policies and procedures or to gain the complete trust of the community. I will support if you keep up the good work for a while longer; get at least 2000, if not 3000 edits and use edit summaries (it allows other editors to more quickly see what you were doing). Plus, I recommend that you change your signature to match your username (at least closer than "Metal Head" and "Undead Warrior"), it can be confusing. And your userpage is very long, I'd recommend you break it up into subpages. I do like your work in AFD, keep it up a while longer and you'll have my support. P.S. - we have something in common, I'm editing after 1AM, too.
'''Oppose''' With some, I hope, advice. 1) Your signature as identified by Useight above. 2) Turn on forced edit summaries 3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Emily_Sander&diff=prev&oldid=174837596] this comment here was very strange. I appreciate it was a vandalism reversion (use of the word "harlot") but ''"no one needs to know....."'' is not really the attitude editors should have. If it's true and verifiable people '''do''' need to know - that's exactly the purpose of an encyclopedia. Sorry, and Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. As the above have said, please change your signature and shorten your userpage, the latter almost crashed Firefox when I visited it. I'd recommend removing all the templates or moving things to subpages. Edit count also shows ~1k edits and instability in edit pattern (you came in March 07, became somewhat active in May, and disappeared until September) and admins need to show some sort of consistency - we don't want to give you the tools only to have you disappear in February but reappear in June. '''''
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I think some additional time would give you needed experience and would allay any concerns about your suitability for adminship. The username is confusing although that could be changed quickly enough. I would suggest two to three months and then come back. -
'''Oppose''' This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_Points] shows he doesn't understand policy yet.
'''Oppose, suggest withdrawal''' You do show some promise, but you're still not ready yet. The concerns brought up by other users are rather troubling -- only 1000 or so edits is way too early, and lack of edit summaries is a concern.
'''per above''' Would also recommend gaining greater familiarity with [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] processes. Looking forward to next te.
'''Oppose''' - More experience needed, try again next time.
'''Weak Support'''.  The answers to the questions have cleared up most of my doubts.  The only thing worrying me is that your rollback rights were removed, and if you are promoted you should stay away from [[WP:RFR]].  You won't destroy the project however, and I'm not opposed to you becoming an administrator.  Good luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Strong oppose'''.  Less than 5,000 total edits.  Only 1313 mainspace edits.  Only registered under this username for less than a year.  Many edits without an edit summary according to the edit count tool.  A bit overzelous with deletionism, including numerous weak arguments, repeated nominations, "per nom" votes, near sarcasm in some comments, use of the made up and non-academic word "cruft," etc. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_tomboys_in_fiction_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=197700834], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Jana_Shearer_%282nd_nomination%29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_in_popular_culture&diff=prev&oldid=194847203], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Dwire&diff=prev&oldid=194778319], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_shopping_malls_converted_to_outdoor_format_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=194363085], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obadiah_Newcomb_Bush_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=193855932], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_%288th_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=192829218], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kamen_Rider_Kiva_characters&diff=prev&oldid=190127896], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Rules_of_Engagement_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=188980683], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NeoGAF_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=187866725], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ygorl&diff=prev&oldid=187856670], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slaad&diff=prev&oldid=187487357])  Thus, I am not convinced of adequate inclusion criteria and article building experience to have the deletion button.  The shear [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080305025443&limit=500&target=Undead+warrior number and rapdity] of tagging for image deletion on March 4th is astonishing.  Also, some ANI controversy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=190411820].  To be fair, in the preceding diffs, I have focused on activity since his previous RfA.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' because of [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#An editor abusing Rollback privileges]] and [[User talk:Metros/Archive 9#Templates]] which occurred about a month ago.  The user abused the rollback priveledges, [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|wikilawyered]] over the rules, and showed a lack of understanding of what was a content dispute and what is vandalism.  I question whether the user would use administrator powers in disputes to gain an upper hand (through both his own consciousness and a lack of understanding of policies and guidelines).
'''Oppose''' - I have absolutely no problem with deletion tasks - however, there does seem to be some rapid-fire repetition going on , e.g "per nom" contributions. More thought should go into these processes. Secondly, I am put off by the above diff regarding roll back. Thirdly, your wikispace contributions are mostly deletion-related. There's some antivandalism, but not much. There needs to be more participation in admin related areas. Cheers.
'''Oppose''' - Not seeing a well rounded editor that I like to in a admin. The whole rollback thing put me off, along with not improving much from your previous RfA a little over a month ago makes me oppose.
Per Metros.
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't show enough interest in the talkspaces (ignoring User talk). Seems to need a bit more general tempering as an editor.
Per my co-nomination.
Per my nomination.
'''Support'''. Good vandal-fighter. Wikipedia would benefit from him having the tools.
A cursory glance of contribs and the links provided above gives me no reason to oppose. Good luck. :) — <span style="font-family:verdana;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold">
'''Support''' - Candidate appears extremely competent. My concerns from the last RfA are now gone as far as I can tell. Thorough and thoughtful discussions at AFD - AIV reports look accurate.
<u>'''Weak Support''' per well-researched nomination and honest and constructive attitude of the candidate.  He will make a few mistakes early on, possibly more than some new admins, but within a few months he should be a "net positive" for the project.  '''Weak''' per demonstrated lack of tact.</u>  <strike>Holding off for answers to question 5 and other optional questions not yet asked, but the nominators did a lot of homework and I'd be surprised if I wind up opposing.</strike>  If this nom passes it will serve as an example to other NOTNOW candidates.  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 02:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC) updated to change to support and <u>add comments</u>  [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])/([[Special:Emailuser/davidwr|e-mail]])</small></small> 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC) updated to '''Weak'''
'''Support''' I am concerned somewhat by the CSD tagging, and urge the candidate to familiarize himself with the [[WP:CSD|criteria]] as thoroughly as they can. However, I have confidence in this user, and believe that, were they promoted, they would do a good job.
'''Support''' SD criteria are easily learned, and this isn't even a huge problem here given that all the mistags are nonsense. Granted, not the brand defined by the criteria, but this isn't that big of a slip-up.
'''Support''' Nine thousand edits and no blocks, longterm user, candidate seems to be getting it right as to whether something should or should not be deleted. Not sure if the undead have hearts, but if so Undead Warrior's would appear to be in the right place.  I'm happy to [[wp:AGF]]. '''
'''Support''' My encounters with him have shown him to be a helpful person. Even thoguh he has made some mistakes, I believe he has learned from it. He'll do fine. <s>[[Special:Contributions/116.49.59.77|116.49.59.77]] ([[User talk:116.49.59.77|talk]]) 11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)</s>
'''Support''' - good editor who has a clue, besides the opposing arguments seem to be a tad too... picky. <b>
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Opposers raise some valid concerns, but consider giving him the mop would be a net positive.
'''Support''' - very nice contributions, should have been sysopped a lot earlier. (btw, the above was a joke) [[User:Fahadsadah|~-F.S-~]]([[User_Talk:Fahadsadah|Talk]],[[Special:Contributions/Fahadsadah|Contribs]],
'''Support'''  I have re-reviewed the candidate’s contributions and I’ve given a second look at what the opposition has to say.  I’ve decided to switch to support (up from neutral) because it has become painfully obvious that the candidate is more than qualified to be an admin and that the concerns being raised do not adequately define reasons for apprehension about his ability to handle the responsibilities of this position.  For starters, Undead Warrior has created over 100 new entries. Yes, they are on the shortish side – but I’d rather have a succinct stub or a solid start article than a padded, flabby longer piece. Sometimes you achieve more with less.  The fact that he’s filled a void in our coverage by creating these 100+ articles doesn’t seem to be acknowledged – to that, I openly say “Thank you!” to Undead Warrior for taking the time to research, write and upload all of this information.  The attempts to question the candidate’s ability have included the citing of 3 CSD tags (not 13, not 30, not 300, but 3) and a single AfD based on an (admittedly) obscure figure in U.S. history. Let’s remember that CSD is highly imprecise and subjective.  I’ve seen articles with references to major media deleted by admins (who insisted they were right!) while unreferenced articles with blatantly bogus information are kept because there was a micrometer of possible notability mentioned in a fleeting sentence.  Of all the arenas in Wikipedia, this one is the most freewheeling, and I’ve seen no evidence that Undead Warrior is a one-man wrecking machine in this part of the project. As for AfD, c’mon – do you know anyone who’s maintained a 100% perfect score in bringing articles to deletion?  Putting up a bum nomination goes with the territory - that's why we have the ability to withdraw nominations and give out barnstars for article rescue.  The original concept of adminship is supposed to be “no big deal,” yet too often these RfA discussions devolve into creating big deals where none exist. Last week, we had a candidate who was set upon because of two indelicate sentences out of more than 13,000 edits. Today we have a candidate being challenged because of three CSD tags and an AfD out of more than 9,000 edits. The question should be: can we trust this individual to work with people, to help maintain the content and character of the project, and to ensure that operations are not disrupted by vandals? I believe the answer is an unqualifed “Yes!” and I am bringing my !vote over here. Pardon the lapse into the painfully obvious, but I am in the right queue.
'''Support''' I think it's about time! Good luck!
'''support''' appears to be vaguely sane
'''Support''': Candidate poses no threat to the project. A couple of technically wrong speedy tags on articles that were... well... speedily deleted doesn't give me pause. Were the candidate stubbornly opposed to learning the ropes, then this would be an issue, but I see a desire to get it right.
'''Support''' Candidate has shown immense dedication to Wikipedia, and a few questionable tags on articles that would have been deleted anyhow strikes me as far too bureaucratic a rationale to serve as a disqualifier. As for positions at AfD, a difference of opinion at AfD is natural, and does not speak at all to likely actions as admin, which is a separate technical role. In short, from the descriptions from people who know the candidate's work, I conclude that the candidate would contribute greatly to Wikipedia's administrative underside.
'''Unexpected, but strong support.''' When I first saw the "Satan's Elite" boxes on your user page, I thought for sure that I'd be opposing you---especially in light of my comments below.  While I don't !vote per IDONTLIKEIT, those boxes raised some concerns.  To be honest, part of me wanted to find a reason to oppose, and I was expecting to find more in your CSD work, but your CSD work is above average.  There is one article listed below that clearly shouldn't have been nominated let alone deleted.  And the other two were mistagged, but still deletable.  That being said, why I am I willing to support you nonetheless?  Because you don't rush to delete articles.  You are very willing to prod articles or send them to AfD, which is IMO something people need to do more.  CSD should only be done in the most obvious cases---something you seem to understand fully.  Thus, I'm willing to overlook your few mistakes.  So I looked for POV pushing, I didn't see anything more than the natural occurance of participating in discussions that interest you.  But once you were involved in discussions, you didn't try to push an agenda, but rather pushed for what was best for the project.  So I decided to check out your edit page, there were a few allegations of incivility... so I investigated them.  Again, nothing worth opposing for...sometimes your words were questionable, but I think the people who tagged you with incivility, were a little overly sensitive.  Then there is the allegation below of retailiation against an oppose.  Tagging an image on an opposer during an RfA was plain stupid, but I don't think it was retailitory.  I think it was more your instincts.  You are active with images and deletion of images---these are areas where we are in desparate need of admins.---'''
Inherently suspicious of all editors whose primary content contributions relate to popular music or some other brand of popular culture (actors, sports, computer games, etc), but this is just my prejudice and the user is competent and decently qualified for the admin duties he is prepared to perform. Assuming it wasn't vindictive, I would urge Undead warrior to exercise better political judgment in future than tagging an oppose's image during the RfA. Political judgment is one of the qualities needed in a good and active admin.
Sure. I've had a quick look, all seems fine. Also, tagging an opposer's image for deletion shows a shockingly high amount of doing the right thing-ness.
'''Support'''. Do I think this candidate knows all policies and guidelines by heart and can recite and apply them in a perfect manner? No. Do I think this candidate [[WP:CLUE|has a clue]], will admit mistakes and learn what he does not know yet? Yes I do! '''
'''Support'''. After a careful review I find that while some of the opposers' concerns are legitimate, the first oppose comment which I do not believe has sufficient merit to warrant an oppose, appears to have been followed by too many other !voters without independent analysis. On this, please see my comments in the "discussion" section above.
'''Support''' A nod to the oppose !votes, I believe this candidate would be a benefit to the project as an administrator. Good luck!
'''Support''' Who gives a damn if most of the articles he's created are stubs?  Last I checked, not all of us are prose-machines.
'''Support'''. Opposers only present a bunch of admin-only links. Need better proof. --''
'''Support'''. I'd skimmed the RfA a few times and the concerns raised in the opposes made it sound like this was just another of the uncivil deletion-happy people that we can do without giving admin tools to. But on further examination I really can't find anything that actually worries me. Undead Warrior, while he can indeed be a little terse sometimes, has never really crossed the line into being a dick to anyone - and while I acknowledge that arguing with opposes is frowned upon, I have to say he seems to have a point in several cases. I'm taking Balloonman's points about CSDs at face value (being a non-admin, I can't take a closer look myself), and beyond the few mistakes from a few months ago which have been already pointed out I can't complain. Great image work, too.  This guy can make good use of admin tools and appears to have the necessary clue to do it properly. Best of luck. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Weak Support''' Pretty much the exact reason I wrote [[User:Pedro/Net Positive|my net positive essay]]. On balance you will do more good than harm. I particularly like the image work, (an area many admins particularly myself are poor in). I'm optimistic that you will (if granted +sysop) be cautious and I would strongly urge you to seek advice if unsure, as you have intimated you will. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Gone back and forth on this, but am persuaded by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FUndead_warrior_3&diff=258372690&oldid=258370217 rootology], Pedro, mazca  and Balloonman.
'''Support''' Image and AfD work looks ok. Probably needs more experience of article CSD tagging before getting too involved there though.
'''Support''' Good answer to questions, clean block log; per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support'''. Good all-rounder.
'''Support''' - Despite my dislike for admins who don't understand CSD criteria, I think the slipups mentioned on the talk page happened far enough in the past to safely ignore. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' per {{user|Ecoleetage}}, {{user|Tanthalas39}} and {{user|Balloonman}}&mdash;all make good points worthy enough for me to offer my support. &ndash;
'''Support''' Per {{user|Ecoleetage}}, {{user|Tanthalas39}}, {{user|Balloonman}} and {{user|RyanCross}}. <b><font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#9900CC">
'''Support'''. Generally good contributions. Minor problems noted in the opposition.
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' I have looked at this editor's record with some care, as I see have a number of highly respected editors. While I see a minor error in classification in [[WP:CSD]], this is an error from which one can easily learn, and I am sure that this editor will do so. I am certain that he can be trusted with the tools, and I urge that he be given them. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' an editor who stives to improve Wiki, whether with articles (stubs included) or by Bold editing. With respects to the opposers, and their repeated harping on early edits (Gee, were any of them perfect when they first began on Wiki?) this editor has shown an increased and growing exerience and a heartfelt willingness to take on tasks that many shudder to even consider. He would be an asset to Wiki as an Admin. '''
'''Support.''' Per the noms, per answers to the first three questions, per positive contributions to this project in multiple varied capacities. '''
'''Support''' per Ecoleetage and balloonman.
'''Strong Support''' as per [[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]. Cheers. '''<span style="font-family: French Script MT">
'''Support''' This User has a good chance of becoming a admin, although I did look at George Benson's AFD, and he was a notable quaker. Also, I think you could change this place into a better one! Best of Luck.--
'''Support''' An editor who stives to improve Wiki in the best way possible - don't abuse  too much if you win ;] '''<span style="border: 3px black solid;background:silver;font-family: Red">
'''Oppose''' - per faulty CSD taggings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Shadowmere&timestamp=20080902052555 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Willdabeast&timestamp=20080804060549 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Bob_Doletimate_Soccby&timestamp=20080804055841 here]. G1 is for ''patent nonsense''. None of those were incoherent nonsense, none fit under G1. [[User:Balloonman/Why_I_hate_Speedy_Deleters#G1]] explains in more detail.
''Oppose per Xclamationpoint. I can't actually see the CSD's myself (admin only) but I'm going to trust his ability to, y'know, see and all. Fault CSDing is a big problem, and having admins that don't fully understand the criteria is a bigger one. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)'' Moving BACK to '''oppose''' (never happened before, to me anyway). My earlier concerns and those brought up by other users show worrying tendencies in both CSD and AfD situations, and the responses of the candidate to opposers and to questions indicates to me that this user does not seem to have the temperament required for adminship.
<S>'''Oppose'''</S> '''Strong Oppose''' Eh, I just did a quick glance at the AFD work and I'm not impressed. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Benson (Quaker)]] exhibited poor research on your part and the closing admin noted that it was possibly nominated in bad faith. The follow-up at [[User talk:Bearian#RE:AFD]] had a very stubborn tone to it, in an "I don't care if it's 20 votes to keep with solid arguments, I think it's not notable and I'll delete it anyway '''per [[WP:RS]]'''." <small>I suppose I have to empathize a second time that this is not a direct quote, but the vibes that his posting style gives off.</small> kind of way. In another AFD, voting to delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Mr._Men_Show_(UK_Version)&diff=prev&oldid=256738824 "Per WP:SNOW"] and nothing else isn't going to fly. After this and the other examples above, along with your desire to work in AFD, I don't trust in your abilities to competently use the tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' very unimpressive Afd's, [[Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!|can't even be bothered to explain own nominations]]. SNOW kept afd shows lack of skill in article research. Most created articles are stubs, I can't trust you with the delete tools if you can't balance it with good article building skills.--
'''Oppose''' - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reforestation Services Heliport|Disagree]] on how AFDs should be approached, particularly with hierarchy of policies/guidelines/essays/WikiProject rules.
'''Oppose''' due to the concerns regarding [[:WP:CSD|CSD]] tagging that have been raised. '''
'''Oppose'''. While UW's attitude seems good and he has done a lot of good work here, I feel better judgment with regard to notability is required for adminship. Some of the articles nominated for deletion by various means were not well-judged, and UW seems weak as an editor with regard to citing reliable sources in articles. In the latest 10 articles created by the nominee, all within the last 3 months, I don't see a single reliable source cited as a reference. He's heading in the right direction, but I would recommend that he works on his skills as an editor, demonstrating the application of policy and guidelines, for a time before seeking adminship.--
'''Oppose''' After Baloonman's AfD mess, I will never vote for any admin candidate who doesn't exhibit the utmost understanding of Wikipedia policy, which, as pointed out in the first Oppose, this candidate does not.
'''Oppose''', this user has made too many mistakes in AfD and CSD to gain my trust. --
'''Strong Oppose''' due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tool2Die4&diff=258198363&oldid=258191470 retaliatory CSD tagging] for another user's oppose vote. --
'''Weak oppose''' - Unhappy with AfD and CSD work. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' due to excessive arguing with opposers.
'''Oppose''' - see related neutral below. On a similar note to Stifle above, I must take concern with the lack of tact, patience and above all the judgement I would expect from this administrator candidate - as demonstrated by the more-than-just-a-few erroneous taggings of articles as described above me. Similar concerns have been suggested at prior RfAs and this leads me to be worried about the overall quality of this editor and whether or not he will ever be a quality administrator; despite the time frames between the two candidacies.
<S>'''Oppose'''</S> '''Strong Oppose''' - no-one can make informed decisions about written words if they don't comprehend what is written. His reaction to '''''3 Strong Oppose''''' above is a good example. The opposer wrote ''"this is not a direct quote"'' but Undead Warrior responded with (I) ''"never said that quote you listed"''.
'''Oppose''' for not fully understanding AfD standards. Said above that " I've seen band after band, black metal or not, go to AfD with the reason that it fails WP:RS and watch it succeed with an overwhelming number of keep !votes". I checked Oct.30 as a random day and found 11 band afds: 1 keep, 2 non-consensus, 7 delete.  This is not my subject, but its clear from the stats that the candidate's view of what does or should happen at afd is very different from the consensus. '''
'''strong oppose'''- is a nice enough person but simply can't grasp what to most mature people count as [[WP:RS]], at least when it comes to bands he personally likes.  He just can't assess the level of sources objectively if it's something he thinks should have an article based on his own interests.  As a case in point, see his article [[The Mandrake (band)]] [[Dying Sentiment]], [[The Burning Horizon at the End of Dawn]] probably more.  If he can't assess even slightly objectively the sources for something he likes (internets sites, barely any mentions in real newspapers etc, demos and so on) how can he assess situations accurately as an admin- he will pick a side in a dispute based on what he likes and be unable to see it any other way, is my fear.  Hasn't grasped much about [[WP:RS]]; will put articles up for deletion, but won't subject things he himself likes to his own scrutiny (we're all like this a bit, but it's something an admin/potential admin should try to diminish in themselves before being appointed.)
'''Oppose''' - As has already been mentioned here, the AfD skills seem lacking.  I was also perturbed by a comment made by the candidate on this very page: "for the most part, finding sources that everyone is familiar with is really tough to do" as an explanation for poorly sourced music articles.  While just a single comment, this might seem petty, but I feel this shows a fairly serious lack of understanding of [[WP:RS]] (which is central to [[WP:N]] - an issue particularly germane to this RfA).  -
<b>Oppose</b> per exclamation point at the top of the page, and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Benson_(Quaker)|this]]. Also, if he wants to work to make wikipedia and wikipedians better, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.81.166.2#November_2008|Out of order]] warnings like that and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.6.240.24|this]] make me feel all the worse. I wanted to support!
'''Strong Oppose''', terrible AfD work, exemplified by a recent AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Benson (Quaker)]] where the candidate was the nominator. As the closing admin said, "Borderline bad-faith nomination".
'''Oppose''' - a history of bad CSD tagging has to make any candidate a non-starter.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Ouch. The CSD tagging rings of bad judgment, if judgment is even used. Administration relies on quality judgment and oversight, user has not proven this.
As others have pointed out, has demonstrated poor proficiency when dealing with deletion-related matters. Vigorous defence of his shortcomings here doesn't make things any better, either. -
'''Oppose''' per all above. —<sub>
'''Oppose'''. I was going to abstain here, as I'm utterly unfamiliar with the area of the candidate's major contributions, but the editor's arguing with the Oppose votes has tipped me into joining them. I am uncomfortable giving the delete button to someone whose AfD work seems so slipshod.
'''Oppose'''. I have to oppose this candidate.  I don't oppose because of any issues with CSD's, AFD's or article building.  I oppose because of the candidate's boarderline attacks on oppose voters.  A candidate for sysop-ship should be able to take criticism and learn from it.  He should, if the criticism is not valid, try to clarify things but be able to walk away when the other party will not listen to reason.  He has not shown that ability in this RFA.  In addition, regardless of whether the tagging for speedy deletion is valid or not, he should make every effort to avoid even the appearence of retaliatory action against those who opposed his adminship.  If there is a real issue with an image or article after all, it is not like this particular candidate ''had'' to tag the image of that other user.  I am assuming good faith; I am not saying he retaliated against that user, but the fact that he didn't take a moment to consider how tagging that image would look before tagging it says he lacks the necessary skills to become an admin.
regrettably. --
'''Oppose'''. My thoughts went something like this: An admin candidate who has concern for newbies? Sounds good to me... wait, what? The best example of his "concern for newbies" are a hidden comment and a templated welcome message? His contributions appear less than outstanding in his other areas of expertise, too (not that it's possible to make outstanding contributions using Twinkle).
'''Oppose''', initially, I was inclined to support, but there are just too many errors in his AFD work and in his CSD tagging for me to be confident.  Wikipedia already has enough admins that can't tell a G1 from an A7, we do not need another.
'''Oppose'''. AfD and CSD work is concerning. I can't really trust the candidate to delete articles flimsily; it will cause more harm than good to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Don't like certain answers and must say, I don't like the Satan's Elite stuff.--<!-- BEGIN SIGNATURE --><font face="tahoma">
'''Oppose''' per opposes 10, 12 and 14 - oddly, this page is 54KB long.  I wonder how that happened.  Also, the CSD tagging in retaliation was quite a stupid thing to do during an RfA; I'm not sure you have the best judgement.  AfD work is quite subpar, as is the attitude.  I understand RfA opposes aren't great Christmas presents but you needn't argue the point to death.  You will only get the oppose strengthened.
'''Oppose'''. The way that this editor has responded to criticism here has confirmed my previous impression that he lacks the necessary powers of judgement to be an admin. I think that by now it is pretty obvious that his response to any conflict is to fight, rather than to try to build a consensus.
'''Oppose'''. CSDs just scare me (though candidate shows a willingness to learn, this should be fixed as a non-admin, not as an admin) and the fact that he responded to almost every single oppose... Personally, I'd prefer if the candidate just took the criticism as a place for improving instead of disagreeing with every single critic. Sorry, but best of luck to you in the future! <font color="777777">
'''Oppose'''.  This candidate strikes me as too much of a conformist.  Experience has shown us that conformists make bad Wikipedia administrators.
While I believe Undead Warrior is a positive contributor to WP, I do note the CSD and AFD bits. I'd like to see this user work more to improve himself in those areas, and if he can turn that around, I will lend my support in a future RFA. <small>
I came here hoping to support, but the focus of the nominations appears to be on your editing statistics rather than your intelligence that will be used as an admin.  Your opinions about AfD also leave a bit to be wanted.  I may change my stance in the future. <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Neutral''' for now - would like to support, but the opposers have given some reasons for concern. I'll have to examine this candidate in more detail before making a decision.
'''Neutral''' Undecided and watching this unfold, just thought I'd vote somewhere given I've already participated in a few conversations above.
'''Neutral''' - I feel ''very badly'' that my comments when closing an AfD caused this user to over-react.  I did not assume bad faith, but I did note that the nomination was poorly worded.  The particulars of other AfDs and CSDs may indicate that this editor is merely a deletionist with strong opinions, and not his ability to be fair.  He technically meets my standards, but for the reasons noted above, I can't support this time.
'''Neutral''' I can't support after seeing some of these opposes involving AfDs. Furthermore on a more minor note, the spinning barnstar on your userpage is a little annoying.
'''Neutral''' as I do see some lingering concerns with the candidate’s nominations of articles for deletion in the opposes above, but while I opposed in a previous RfA, I am going for neutral this time around, as the candidate has become more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Undead_warrior&diff=201242888&oldid=200900689 neutral] as well and after his previous nomination asked for suggestions and help as to how he can improve should he run again.  So, enough to convince me for neutral this time, which means not unreasonable that in the future I might support.  Ecoleetage’s elaborate support above is certainly enough to make me not want to oppose this time.  Best, --
'''Neutral''' I am keen to support, as most of the opposes thus far have not assumed good faith and have made things out to be what they are really not, eg the non-existent retaliatory deletion. However I do not like poorly thought out nominations or responses, and some of the AFDs exhibit this.
'''Oppose''' - You seem to be a experienced and hardworking editor, but you don't inspire confidence in me. Not only do you fail to use the edit summary very often, you also fail to mention specific cases of conflict, or indeed anything less vague than "by my compromising ideas". I'm also discontented with the lack of elaboration on the other two answers, though as Rjd0600 mentioned, they're technically optional.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you haven't participated in any AfD's (at least back to Sep 06), and that is a must for an admin that wants to focus on deletion. The answers to the questions leave something to be desired as well - what specifically do you want to do deletion-wise? What compromising ideas?. Though you're a great encyclopaedia builder, you need more experience in admin processes.
'''Oppose'''Certainly the questions are optional, although the answers given do enable a more definitive judgement of an applicant's qualities to be made. On this basis, your superficial answer to Q.1, together with your very low usage of edit summaries, can only indicate to me that, in spite of your significant edit count, you are not yet ready for the tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Whilst the questions are optional, there's a good deal of (adverse) inference to be drawn from failing to answer them to a satisfactory degree. The unwillingness to respond fully demonstrates the lack of an essential attribute I think we need in admins. <sub>
'''Opppose''' I did not like the way that you answered the questions abruptly like that.  It made me seem like you answered them without thought, and that is something that an administrator needs to do in order to be a good administrator.
'''Weak Oppose''. An experienced editor, but low edit summary usage, and very short answers to questions don't inspire me. Wants to participate in deletion, but last AFD participation was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denvilles_railway_station&diff=prev&oldid=46465505 April 1, 2006].
'''Oppose''' - Editor is experienced, but has little if any experience in the area he said he would work in. Also, answers are far short of satisfactory, to the point that one might, emphasize ''might'', think he were hiding something.
'''Oppose''' - You have experience as a general editor, that much is apparent, however, you lack the experience in Wikipedia namespace beyond the scope of editing projects. Also, inconsistent use of edit summaries are a concern here. Branch out a little more, always make sure to use your edit summaries (change the feature in your preferences). Also, I was a little put off by your taciturn remarks in the opening questions.
I have similar concerns to the other contributors to this discussion. Your answers to the standard questions, and the somewhat unfulfilling nature of your nomination statement, do not provide much of a picture on which the community can judge you: many of us may never have encountered you before (I happen to have seen you about, but have never interacted with you), and I am unsure how you can possible expect us to make anything but an opposition to your nomination—you are doing yourself a disservice, as much as the community. Additionally, as pointed out in the "Neutral" section, you regularly fail to make use of edit summaries; personally, I believe they should be compulsary, and really are nothing but a common courtesy. Overall, there is something of a lack of effort coming from your end of the park: the fact that you do not opt to use edit summaries, and barely include answers to your questions, seems to suggest an absence of willingness to invest time and effort into editing, and as such I cannot envisage anything more from your administrator duties. For that reason, I cannot support your nomination, and regretfully, I '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose for now'''.  Very bad answers to the questions, but a good user.  Might support if better answers are given.  <font face="Segoe UI">
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Although you are an experienced editor, those answers are extremely unsatisfactory.
Neutral, leaning towards oppose, pretty much for the same reason Rudget gives.
See [[User:Rudget]]'s answer. You are a very experienced editor, but your answers don't reflect that. However, I would encourage a larger use of edit summaries. <strong>
I'd say wait a few months, and try again with longer answers.  Also work on edit summary usage.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral''' Avoiding the pile-on... try [[WP:ADMINCOACH|an admin coach]].
'''Oppose'''. While I appreciate your enthusiasm to help Wikipedia via adminship, you're still too new. Only 226 edits doesn't give the community enough evidence with which we can judge your knowledge of policies and procedures. It is an extremely rare event that an editor with fewer than 2000 edits gain adminship. You'll probably want to wait several months and a couple thousand edits and then apply again. You'll also want to get more experience in admin-like areas, such as [[WP:AFD|Articles For Deletion]], [[WP:AIV|Vandal Reporting]], etc. You're spreading your edits out nicely, so that's a good sign. You'll also want to improve your edit summary usage to 100% as communication is very important here at Wikipedia and using edit summaries allows other editors to see quickly what you were doing and/or your reasoning behind it. If you ever have any questions about anything, don't hestitate to ask me.
'''Support''' - I see no reason why this user shouldn't be an admin. If this RfA doesn't succeed, however, I will be willing to [[WP:COACH]] you :-) - Good luck!
'''Oppose'''. While Urban Rose has been a hard working Wikipedian to date, I would think that it would be better if she got a bit more experience under her belt before becoming an admin. I would certainly be prepared to consider support for another nomination in six months to a years time.
'''Oppose'''. A good editor, but not enough experience yet in the Wikipedia namespace and only 28 deleted contribs. Only two and half months isn't long enough either, but I'd support an RFA in 3 more months if the work in the Wikipedia namespace increases.
'''Weak Oppose''' I too see a need for a little bit more experience. However, I think in a few more months' time, Urban Rose will make a fine admin.
'''Weak Oppose''' I agree with the above. More experience is needed, but in a bit, I'll vote yes if you continue along the same route. <strong>
'''Oppose''' and recommend closure under [[WP:SNOW]] - more experience needed
'''Oppose''' per above. Needs more experience. Then I will support in few months if ready. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' No enough experiences, probably wait until the spring or summer before trying out again, to acquire more Wiki experiences. Although right, with your first edits you're in the right direction.--
On the right track and no evidence of an inclination to abusing the mop. However, the lack of general editing experience (despite the good answers to questions) means I cannot support at this time. I look forward to doing so in a few months time.

'''Moral support'''.  This isn't likely to pass (with some good reasons) but you're definitely on the right track.  Take a few months to build up some more experience in AfD, CSD and the like, maybe write some DYKs, contribute to a few GAs (or even FAs!) and I'm sure you'll pass next time.  All the best, '''
'''Moral support''' due to no memorable negative interactions with the candidate.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' However, I'm concerned with the discarding of past accounts. Hopefully, you will have a clearcut track record with this account the next time around.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately previous accounts have no bearing on whether or not an Rfa succeeds - it's what you do with your current account.  So far, there isn't much history built up.  Less than 1,000 edits, and your edit summary usage should be better (which your UserDoe account does show as good usage).  You really need more participation in AIV and Afd though.  Another four months or so with this account at your current level of activity, with no conflicts/bans, etc., and you should be good to go on your next Rfa.
'''Weak oppose'''. You've ''never'' participated in an XfD, and while a skim through your deleted contribs does show a lot of correctly tagged speedies, ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Wattle_Hog&diff=prev&oldid=209095633 this one] does concern me, as does the fact that you've I can't see a single recent mainspace edit on any of your accounts other than minor edits and reversions.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' - Scary diff, however, I'm more concerned about your lack of article work. This is an encyclopedia afterall.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Lack of experience mostly... and am disturbed by your "quick to abandon" attitude with old accounts.  Why abandon them for a "personal issue" and not choose to vanish?  <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' -  More experience needed. Given 5/6 months of regular contributions to various areas ([[WP:AIV]], [[WP:CSD]] etc) and provided there are no negative issues, i'd be willing to support. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose''' - This user would require more experience and activity in the Wikipedia namespace for me to turn this into a support. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' - Tooo lesss experience in Article Main Namespace. An admin should first be a article contributor <span style="cursor: crosshair"> --
Dodgy UAA reports, little to no participation elsewhere and a slight lack of experience. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Oppose:''' Little main space experience, less than 1000 edits, been around since 21 April 2008, still too new in my opinion. Also, user says will help out at [[WP:AIV|AIV]] but currently only has 19 edits there. Sorry! [[User:Thehelpfulone|<font color="red">'''The'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Thehelpfulone|<font color="black"> '''Helpful'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulone|<font color="red"> '''One'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' - Lack of overall experience, along with some UAA concerns leads me to believe that there will me misuse of the tools. Also (not that it swayed my !vote) but I noticed that this user had <nowiki>{{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}}</nowiki> on their userpage, a little hypocritical if you ask me :D. It looks as if it is starting to [[WP:SNOW|snow]].
'''Oppose''' - Just too little experience so far, but you're on the right track.  Try again in a few months after you've spent time working on more articles and I'll be more amenable to supporting you.  --
'''Oppose''' as above- not yet, but I'm sure you'll make a great admin candidate some day.
'''Neutral''' I'm close to supporting but I think another few months experience would help avoid the kind of blunders highlighted by Iridescent.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. I think that this is a little bit premature. You are an excellent editor, but I feel that you need to branch out and get a little bit more experience in other areas before attempting this again. I do not feel that you would abuse the tools intentionally, but with a lack of experience comes the tendency to abuse them unintentionally. With some more experience in other areas of projectspace, I would be happy to support a few months from now.
'''Oppose'''. While I believe you are sincere, I cannot support you at this time. I'd like to see you come back in 3-6 months with more edits to the mainspace and more admin related areas. And keep a close eye on the CSD tagging.
As your contributions only go back to February. I'm happy that you turned around, but I feel as if you need more experience. <span style="background:#87ceeb;border:1px solid #000;">&nbsp;[[User:Mm40|Mm]][[User:Mm40/home|40]] <small>([[User talk:Mm40|talk]] |
'''Oppose''' with moral support.  Sorry, but you simply haven't enough edits to prove experience, and there is minimal XfD activity.  Apologies.  '''
'''Oppose''' (also with moral support) - a little premature I think. I might also suggest [[WP:Archive|archiving your talk page]] rather than just deleting old messages. People like to see how potential admins interact with others and it helps not to have to dig through old versions. Widen your breadth of administrative-type activity per the above suggestions and come back in a few months and I would probably be able to support.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience yet, but don't sweat it (I applied early too). Come back in about 6 months and I will support if you keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' I really would like to see more experience over a longer period of time, before I could consider supporting. '''
'''Neutral''' I will not oppose, since there is nothing on which to base an oppose - as there is nothing on which to base a support. I suggest that getting involved in article space (you don't need sources to contribute, and you learn a lot about the important side of WP in doing so) and the discussion pages. I like the honesty and heartfelt commitment, and look forward to supporting toward the end of the year.
Great content contributor: fine work to James Bond-related articles. ''
An experienced user, with no recent conflicts. He now knows the difference between a block and a ban, so that's no longer a problem.
'''Oppose''' User does not know what a block really is.
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned by the misunderstanding over a block and a ban, but I'm considerably more concerned that this user thinks that a block helps user conduct. I (and I doubt I am alone) have seen situations escalate out of control very rapidly following a block that was intended to let a user cool down or to enforce some minor policy.
'''Oppose''' - per above concerns. Lack of policy indicated by answers to questions and the RFA in general.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but you have no clear understanding of the policies, and so I, like Miranda, [[WP:ADMINCOACH|would recommend admin coaching]], and another attempt in some months.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. Knowing what a block and a ban is and the differences between is fundamental for being an administrator. Also, few edits to Wikipedia namespace are of a concern, and it appears that you have made <6 (if any) reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP|Requests for page protection]]. I recommend admin coaching as others have. '''''
'''Oppose''' - Answers to questions worry me.
'''Strong Oppose''' See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive246#Vikrant_Phadkay|incident archive]] after a seriously angry outburst back in June.  It shows a temperament that admins should never have.
'''Oppose'''. As per Hbdragon88. That kind of behaviour is quite unacceptable from anyone, and certainly from an admin candidate. --
'''Oppose''' Someone who has been blocked twice for page blanking cannot be an Admin. He has been rude about other people's edits in his edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond_film_series&diff=158738567&oldid=158343135]. Support Hbdragon88 when he says his behaviour is unacceptable. He makes a false statement when he says he has not recently been involved in a dispute. Look at his Talk Page where he is being warned about being blocked again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vikrant_Phadkay#You have been warned]. He must never be an Admin.
'''Oppose''' per Hbdragon88.  The incident(s) cast serious doubt on maturity, civility and understanding of policy.  More troubling, however, is that the candidate did not disclose this in the answer to question 3 or accurately articulate the issues in question 4.  It’s understood and acceptable for people to have made mistakes, as mistakes are opportunities to learn/grow – but how can you learn from mistakes if you can’t acknowledge you’ve made them?
'''Neutral''' based on answers to all questions above.  You obviously have good intentions, and you are a good contributor.  Most of what you are good at you can do without admin tools.  I strongly recommend you take up Miranda's suggestion (above) and go through the coaching process if you feel the admin tools are of use to you.  Best of luck to you!
'''Neutral''' I would recommend more experience in the admin-related areas and try again. By this I mean [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol]], checking for vandalism and reporting it at [[WP:AIV]]; checking [[Special:Newpages]] for pages that need  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting|stub sorting]] or tagging for [[WP:CSD]], and taking part in discussions at [[WP:AN/I]] and [[WP:AFD]]. This will help you develop knowledge of the admin related areas and help others better know your strengths and weaknesses. Cheers and happy editing.
'''Neutral''' This user is a valuable asset to the project, and his mainspace contributions are sterling. I've had the pleasure of encountering his work through GA several times, and he has always been courteous. However, the lack of knowledge about some of the core admin duties is troubling.
'''Support''' Pleased to be first, per excellent and persuasive self-nom. Excellent work with Did You Know articles. I do believe his mainspace edit count does not reflect the work he does. Well qualified in other areas - thought he was one! Best wishes, --
'''Support''' I've had several interactions with the candidate, and they have been nothing but positive. I've always looked up to how you wrote so many DYKs in such short a time--and on thirld world countries to boot! While I'm not a fan of massive huggling, you are certainly a qualified candidate. Good luck on that FA! (P.S. Your answer to my qustion was awesome). ~<strong>'''<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkRed">one of many</span> <span style="color:#FF7F00;font-family:Papyrus">
'''Support''' per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]] this candidate seems to have a clean bill of RfA health, good DYK contributions, vandalfighting is not a crime, although I don't have editcountis the count seems good, keep up the good work, and if you branch into other areas, make sure to read up on how to do things.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.  50+ DYK entries should be enough to convince anyone that this user is valuable in the mainspace.
'''Support''' - as I've said before, and I'm sure I'll say again, you can never have too many anti-vandal admins. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - I have no doubts about this user.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support.''' I thought you already were an admin.
'''Support''' Naturally.
'''Support''' - In response to Wisdom's oppose, what we are voting on here is not whether this user meets a set of criteria or whatever, or at least we shouldn't be. RfA should be all about who is going to abuse the tools, and whether we trust the user in question to be a net gain to the project. Automated tools do not suggest that the candidate will abuse the tools, and thus I must default to support. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support''' per Wisdom89 in the oppose section... <code style="background:yellow">xD</code>. <small>
'''Support''' 6 months and 12000+ edits, I believe this editor is ready! Good luck!
'''Support'''. Looked through almost all contribs, no reasons not to trust editor.
'''Support''' per all above and my questions. [[WP:WTHN|I see no other reasons to oppose]].
'''
I'm sure Vish can deal with the highs and lows of being an admin with a suitable level of maturity and responsibility.
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Why_the_hell_not%3F|Why the hell not]], [[Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal|its no big deal]].--
'''Support''' good contributor. The text on your talk page is tiny though. An admins talk page should be easier to read than that. I urge you to change it.
'''Support'''. A committed editor. However I would like to see more active article creation such as a GA article.
'''Support'''. No negative interactions. Please utilise the tools wisely. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Opposition commentary offers no significant reason why giving Vishnava would be detrimental to the project, whilst the nomination and experience suggest quite the opposite, that Vishnava will be a significant benefit to the project with additional tools available to him.
'''Support''' I've seen Vishnava around before, and his words and deeds have always been positive in my book. Definitely trustworthy. <font style="font-family: Georgia">
'''Support''' the magical word of RfA is "trust." This is a candidate who is inarguably trustworthy - and the opposes don't say anything to assert that she's not. In fact, the only consistent argument is that she doesn't focus enough on article building - which is odd considering she made 59 DYK's during her time here. Additionally, regardless of whether or not mechanical edits are preferred, vandal fighters are valuable assets to the community, and one of the areas where administrative attention is needed. I have no doubts about her understanding of policy and see no reason to oppose.
Nothing really worth opposing for. The oppose column hasn't got me convinced. &mdash;'''
'''Strong Support'''After careful consideration.Editor has over 10500 edits of which only about 1600 edits are Huggle edits or Automated or script-assisted edits.Editor has done considerable work even without these.Further after checking the track find nothing that the user will misuse the tools.A commited editor and vandal fighter
'''Support''' I'm impressed by your work and our interactions, godspeed. -
'''Oppose''' - Most edits to the mainspace are mechanical reversions - no evidence of experience in 3RR or RFPP, or the other noticeboards that you indicate you will monitor.
'''Oppose''' Seems good but a little too inexperienced in general and in the edits I like to see in administrators.  DYK is nice and all but, as also stated by Wisdom89, it doesn't factor too highly in my decision.  Too little experience with GA/FAs, and only 6 months of work in general.  I'm sure you'll be a great candidate in another few months! I just have those reservations for now. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I would expect a user with 10000 edits to have more than 370 wikipedia space edits, and lack of mainspace talk edits shows little effort to build articles collaboratively. Erik the <font color="red">[[User:Erik the Red 2|Red]]</font> 2 <small><font color= "green">[[User talk:Erik the Red 2|~~]]</font><font color= "blue">[[Special:Contributions/Erik the Red 2|~~]]</font></small> 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) It should be noted that I am not opposing because of Huggle work. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge, and deleted contributions indicate little or no work with speedy deletion. I'm also not a fan of every oppose being challenged and argued.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry that I have to oppose in the end, as Vishnava is clearly working hard to improve Wikipedia and is a good vandal fighter. But in reviewing some of the recent successful DYK articles, various small (and one large) referencing problems turned up, leading to the thought that Vishnava needs more experience at interpreting references before being an admin intending to work in DYK. The minor ones were a tendency to slightly misrepresent articles "hoping to" became "planning to" in the article, "intends to invest" becomes "did invest". As one example, a source for [[Kazakhstan-Turkey relations]] stated "[http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373438 the mass importation of textiles—both second-hand from Europe and new garments, mostly from China—has led to the closing of 65 Nigerian textile mills]" was interpreted as "cheap Chinese goods ... led to closure of 65 textile mills ..." While they are common mistakes, and not overly serious, Vishnava is writing in politically sensitive areas (bilateral relations), so I'd rather see a tad more care. Of more concern was a big chunk of what appears to be copyvio: in [[Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict]] the section starting with "The agreement recognised the special status of the hill people" is identical to a section in [http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/C_0216.htm Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, 1997]. It is referenced to it, which is good, but given the low number of article writing edits, it stands out as a bigger problem. Finally, just looking at the last few vandal reverts, I've noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appleby_Spurling_Hunter&diff=prev&oldid=244386211 two] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBay&diff=prev&oldid=244386850 mistakes] - both quickly fixed by Vishnava, and the sort of thing that can happen on Huggle, but a tad more care might be warranted. Overall, a good editor, who's definitely improving and I'm sure will become a good admin in the future, but who I feel needs more experience interpreting references and a bit more care in identifying vandalism before becoming an admin who intends to work in DYK and anti-vandalism. -
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' Seems like a net positive, but I'm a little concerned about the number of mechanical edits.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Neutral'''  This is a tough RfA for me.  On one hand, I am pleased by the candidate's rate of activity over the amount of time that they have been here.  That shows me that the candidate is committed to the project.  On the other hand, however, I am a bit concerned over the perecentage of this candidate's edits that are mechanical in nature.  I believe this candidate would be a net positive to the project, if given the tools, but I can not - for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on - offer a support vote.  So, we'll call this a neutral vote with a moral support.  Best of luck!  --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''  This user is well qualified and will use the tools well.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font>
'''Support''' - I've yet to fully investigate your contribs, but you look fine at first glance. Good luck. &ndash;
Yup.  Well versed, no points off from me for not being a content writer (as I am not either).  Oooh, a rhyme...
'''Support''' - Looks Fine!!! -<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
I see no reason not to. I checked [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa|her most recent RfA]] and she seemed ready then &mdash; none of the opposing points convinced me that she would have abused or misused the admin tools were she promoted. I see no reason to believe she is any less trustworthy now, other than significantly decreased activity by contrast but since when should RfA candidates have to be total Wikipediholics in order to pass?
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support, this user seems to be perfectly sensible. I'm not fussed which account is mopped, but i would prefer the other account to no longer be used. --
'''Weak Support''' I have only briefly looked through your contibs, and they all seem great! ;) Although your edit count over past months is a slight concern. Good luck. '''
'''Support'''  —
'''Support''' No problems here. Good luck!
'''Support''', don't see any issues.
'''Support''': going through the edit history of, ahem, ''both'' accounts, I have seen a lot of help to the project. Some issues early on, but as of late I see a lot of thank you's and other project-helpful goodies. I think the project could benefit from a person who is eager to learn, edit, help, and climb through the ranks. Any self-nom naysayers will disagree, but I think that we lose a lot of prospective administrators because no one has noticed their contributions and they are afraid of the RfA rocks being thrown at them for being a self-nom. I support this candidate. Good luck, Vivio!--
'''Support''' Clean block logs, and plenty of experience, and I like the fact that the candidate has an alternate account for  editing from insecure  PCs, but I might suggest that if that is the only reason for an alt account you might find it easier to redirect one talkpage to the other. '''
'''Support''', because no one could possibly fuck up Wikipedia more than it already is.
Your activity level should not interfere too much with your use of the administrative tools, and as such I think you are ready for the mop.  Best of luck, <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Weak support''' - technically meets [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]]; lack of recent edits is not a huge deal for me.
'''Weak support''' - Lack of recent edits I guess would make it weak (though sometimes life catches us where we cant make edits), however the user does have 12000 total edits (unless im reading wrong) and seems not to have anything to suggest not to support. Work at the help desk is always important i think, so i believe they are familliar with policy and at least know where to find it by assisting with this. The intentions are there so ill support for now.
'''Oppose''' - <s>the last time you went over 100 edits in a month was in [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Vivio+Testarossa&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia July of 2008]; I'm sorry, but IMO that just isn't enough activity to prove to me that you have improved from your last RfA.</s> '''EDIT:''' See below Keegan's reply for my rationale, and apologies for forgetting to check the alternate account (though this is the first time I've seen an alt with more edits than the master....) —'''<font face="Script MT Bold">
'''Oppose''' per the_ed17 and your overall low edits during the past 10 months. I am totally unconvinced that you've been improved a bit from the last RFA. I looked through your most edited articles (37 edits are highest one) and your talk page archives, but your edits are just ''minor'' copy-editing. You had gotten an admin coaching but you did not seem to follow his advice ''again''; building contents. Given your deleted images unloaded by you, I'm not sure you're correctly understanding the image policy either. Besides after your last RfA, your edits are significantly decreased. 2008/05 (147 edits), 2008/06 (56 edits), 2008/07 (264 edits), 2008/08 (26 edits), 2008/09 (44 edits), 2008/10 (80 edits), 2008/11 (22 edits), 2008/12 (4 edits), 2009/01 (15 edits), 2009/02 (31 edits), 2009/03 (61 edits) I have doubt whether you can commit to the community. Therefore, I do not think you're fit for adminship.--
'''Oppose'''. Same as the last RfA. I was Vivio's admin coach briefly, but was forced to end that due to time constraints. During that time, I advised him to make some article contributions (I suggested working on a featured list together), but aside from a few token AfC contributions, I'm not seeing anything in that department that has changed since the last RfA. A rather complete lack of interaction with other users is also troubling; participating in the consensus building process in terms of making articles on talk pages is important for any admin, and his user talk contributions are practically all either warning templates or automatic templates given by Twinkle for CSDs and the like. — <font face="Segoe Script">
'''Tentative oppose''' - Not being active is not a problem. Being ''inactive'' is. Sorry, but I can't support with so little in the way of recent contributions - your contributions get too old too quickly to be effectively judged. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' Per neuro, inactivity is a problem, while being not active is okay as long as edit something on that day.--
'''Oppose''', more for the lack of evident improvement since last RfA than inactivity. I'll keep an eye on this, though.
'''Oppose''' Too many administrators currently.
'''Oppose''' as a 4th RfA--too eager to be an admin to be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' due to poor understanding of non-free image policy, as evidenced by the answers to questions 5 and 8.
'''Oppose''', per {{user|Sephiroth BCR}} and {{user|Stifle}}. '''
'''Oppose''' Recall is a broken process. Promises to be open to recall are unenforceable campaign promises.
'''Oppose''' at the current moment. I hate to base an oppose on edit count but less than 200 edits in the last 5 months (and not really that much more on the alternate account) are too little to allow me to evaluate your current knowledge or readiness. '''
'''Oppose''' I am very lenient with RfAs (see
'''Oppose''' not active enough over an extended period of time to judge or to get much out the tools when s/he has them.
'''Oppose''' per openness to recall - a broken process - but more importantly the answer to Q9.  Pseudoscience advocacy has no place in a respected reference work.
'''Oppose''' The answer to #9 unnerves me greatly.
'''Oppose''' as the user wants the tools too badly, and per inactivity. '''
'''Oppose''' Too few edits to judge the suitability of the candidate (yes, I saw the alt account!). Also, I'm beginning to feel that Hipocrite and skinwalker have a point (though, with the poor candidate stuck between a rock and a hard place, I'm not going to oppose based on that alone). --
'''Oppose''' Per neuro and recent incivility.
'''Oppose'''.  I commend the candidate for never getting blocked; however, per [[User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards]], I found the claims of "indiscriminate" in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users]] not compelling and that the argument in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy Recurring Gags and Characters]] was similarly weak.  Sincerely, --
'''Oppose'''. Per Caspian <small><b><span style="padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' given the major concerns raised about their deletionist tendencies, coupled with a clear urge to help with speedy deletions. Given that the user doesn't know much about our image policy, I doubt they'd be very good at dealing with that area, and overall the user also wants adminship too much. Also, a minor point, but the user stated ''"I will not bother putting in any more self-noms"'' at the end of the last RFA attempt.
'''Oppose''' per Sephiroth. The candidate has good qualities but doesn't appeal as someone who has the knowledge of policy and how to interact with others that is needed.
'''Oppose'''. This is your fourth RfA. That in and of itself is a bad thing; you're showing that you're getting desperate for adminship. The vote count at the end of that last RfA should have been a wake-up call: are you really ready for the mop? Your third RfA closed in late May of last year; you have made a grand total of 613 edits since 1st June of the same year. As others have said, how do we know that you are improved from the last RfA? Plus, your project-space contributions have been mostly to AFC; nothing that really demonstrates knowledge of policy. I'm sorry, but I can't support.
'''Oppose''' -- Mainly per above and inactivity.--Best, '''''<small>
'''Oppose''' - Much too many RFAs. You need to be '''much''' more active. Also, address the concerns of the previous RFAs you've had. Also, if you want to RFA again, make it a year after this, with about 10k-20k more edits. Cheers, '''[[User:MC10|<font color="MediumSeaGreen">Math</font>]][[User talk:MC10|<font color="Lime">Cool</font>]][[Special:Contributions/MathCool10|<font color="LimeGreen">10</font>]] <sup>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry Vivio, but even taking both usernames into account, I don't feel there's been enough activity since your last RfA to be able to judge your improvement.  With a bit more active contributions and more interactions with other users, I would definitely support. '''
'''Oppose''' per many; FlyingToaster says it well. - Dan
'''Oppose''', mostly because of the inactivity recently. We need to know you'll actually be using the tools actively. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per question nine. Inexcusable and execrable. Inactivity doesn't really bother me, considering how active other admins are. Previous RFA shows other policy weakness as well. --<span style="font-family: verdana;"> ₪
'''Oppose''' - The answers to the questions do not show that this user has the knowledge to become an administrator at this time.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems like a nice guy, but I have my reservations.  As others have said, inexperience may be a problem.  It's not the edit count that's a problem per se, I'd just like to see either a higher edit count '''or''' involvement with an FA or a couple of GAs.  My advice, Vivio to you, is to try your hand at writing an FA (if you find that an overwhelming challenge, then at least bring something up to GA status), and try back here.
'''Oppose'''.  Vivio, I believe you need more editing experience and community interaction spread over several months, or a year.
'''Moral Support''', you're on the right track, and I see nothing in your edit history to indicate that you would be unsuitable as an administrator.  Give it a bit longer (and possibly do a bit more article writing) and I think you'll fly through RFA easily.
'''Support'''--<font color="darkblue">
'''Moral support''' - I think in a few months you could become a good admin, just keep writing!
'''Moral support''' - try again in 3 months.  '''''
Sorry, only two months experience <s>and short answers</s> do not inspire confidence. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' - good experience with Articles for Creation, but very little mainspace editing and not much upon which to judge an understanding of Wikipedia policy (XfD's, contributions to Wikipedia policy pages, etc). The strong understanding of templates and tags from the earliest edits makes me wonder if there is a previous account as well. If so that's your business, but for an RfA on this account alone, there is too little experience across the range of likely admin activities to get my support.
'''Weak oppose''' account is too new; get at least three months of experience and I will support you.
'''Oppose''' - Per answers to questions. I think this users attitude is not becoming of a administrator, this RfA seems rushed and not thought out.
Not ''quite'' experienced enough, though I think in a few months I'd likely support.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I see you as a keen new wikipedian, and doubtless you will continue to improve. But. But you have little mainspace editing experience, your answers seem immature - possibly inexperience is at fault there - and I am not convinced that you can continue with the same energy you have brought at the outset. Will your keenness wear off? Give it some more time, some considerable more time, and let us reassess your readiness then. If you carry on as at present, I will happily support you.
'''Oppose''': Per above concerns -- you are a bit new to WP, however, give it another five months or so, rack up some great WP-namespace edits, and you should have no problem. Good luck in the future,
'''Oppose for now''' - I think you're on the right track and with some more experience will make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience is a problem here, in a few months try again. Also try to get an article to GA of FA standard.
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' Lack of experience seriously worries me, but with a few months time, I'll be ready to support. Happy Wikying! <font face="Forte">
'''Oppose''' simply because you haven't been on the project long enough. Give it 3-6 more months and if we're still seeing the fine contributions you've been making, I will give my whole-hearted support.
Sorry - your edit count is high enough, but I notice that almost half are in user talk and that there is relatively little contribution in policy or admin areas. Mix it up a little, and come back.
No sorry '''not just yet''' - keep editing and building up on content of policies and guidelines for some time longer. --
I can't honestly support at this time, given your lack of time here, but you seem to be a good editor in your own right. Try to get a stub up to good article status, for starters. [[User talk:J-stan|<strong><font color="Black">''J''-</font><font color="Red">ſtan</font></strong>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/J-stan|<font color="808080">Contribs</font>]]</sup><sub>
So close. . . . I was ready to support despite the low time count based on the high number of edits and high number of deleted contribs w/ deletion tags. Unfortunately, your answer to Question 3 dose not show a good feel for conflict resolution. Please review that. Also, I could not find talk page archives to review. It's important to know a user's temperament before giving the buttons. Also, you were totally puzzled by question 2. Many participants at RfA require significant article building before giving the tools. You might want to spend more time creating new articles and expanding existing ones. I look forward to supporting a future RfA when you have resolved the issues raised.
Good contributions, but answers to questions don't show a good understanding of policy knowledge.
A potential candidate, but needs more experience. Good luck.
I think two month are enough, I think his [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=VivioFateFan&dbname=enwiki_p edit count] is very good, too. But the answer to the questions don't show me for what he would like to use the new tools. I have never seen him in recent changes patrolling, so I think one month more would be fine -although I think generally 2 month with such an edit count should be enough-. Regards, —
'''Neutral'''.  In a month or two I would be happy to support your RFA, but you need just a bit more experience.  Sorry, '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''' Per everyone else; in a couple of months, I'll support you. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Per Dlohcierekim; you're certainly on the right track, keep it up!  --<font color="#006600">
'''Suppport''' With due respect to the opposers, the question is whether or not the user can be trusted with the tools. The automatic opposes based on the length of time since the last one are not really looking at the nom. And i a not concerned with self noms. They show enthusiasm. My concern last time was with Q3. I no longer have that reservation and am impressed that the nom will use the tools constructively and to the benefit of the project.
'''Moral Support''' Try again soon...I recommend Admin Coaching.
Changed to (still somewhat weak) '''Suport''' per Dlohcierekim.
''''Medium-Weak Support'''per Dlohcierekim as well. [[User:Xenon54|X<small>ENON</small>54]] | [[User talk:Xenon54|talk]] |
'''Support''' - A month is plenty of time for skills and procedures to be improved, and re-evaluation is called for.  Opposing on the time elapsed rather than evaluating how the editor made use of that time is ignoring the candidate, ignores the spirit of Wikipedia, and is kind of rude.  She's stepping up to the plate.  The least we could do is have a look.  In my opinion, nom has a healthy attitude toward Wikipedia and toward improving it.  VivioFateFan has shown she is trustworthy, takes criticism constructively, and learns from her mistakes rapidly.  And she's prolific.  We should put her energy to use.  Could use more experience building articles, but I believe her knowledge of content guidelines offsets this.
'''Weak Support''' - Per Dlohcierekim and [[WP:AFG]].
'''Weak support'''. I was initially hesitant about where to stand, so I asked a few questions. I can't deny that the one-month span doesn't concern me, but 2000 edits can make it seem like a long time. I believe that Vivio is knowledgable and will most likely not abuse the tools, but I believe that she will have a much more enriching experience if she expands her horizons to article building. '''''
"''while it has not been >=6 months yet since my first rfa''" - indeed, it hasn't even been one month. Sorry, I still have experience concerns.
'''Weak Oppose''' Whilst it has been indeed 30 days since close of your last RfA you are now some 2,000 edits stronger. But we try not to count edits alone in this context. So the questions is, have you demonstrated a greater level of experience? Well, maybe, but rushing to another RfA is not a good thing. You certainly can't rush at admin tasks. I'm sorry, you really should have heeded advice at your last RfA and looked to a 8-12 week gap to allay concerns. In addition, issues such as article writing do not really appear to have been addressed. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' You had a rfa earlier this month, I believe? I think more time is needed. <strong>
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Going Kurt Weber here.
'''Oppose''' per concers that you may be too quick to delete articles.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' Still lingering issues from a month ago.
'''Oppose''' only for the reason that you have no patience at all. Only one month since your last RfA is not nearly enough time. You need a few months more experience so you can prove that you know Wikipedia well enough to be an effective admin.
'''Oppose'''.  Under Support, we are advised only to ask ourselves whether we can trust nom with the tools.  Coming back in less than a month with another RfA shows such a lack of judgment that I don’t trust nom with the tools.   --
'''Oppose''' - not enough experience, but clearly on the right track.
'''very weak oppose''' I would suggest giving a bit more time between RfAs to implement what you learn in them. '''<span style="background:Black;color:FireBrick">&nbsp;
It took me a while to think about this, but I'm going to have to oppose. I appreciate your enthusiasm and your efforts since your last RfA, but I'd like you to have more experience editing the mainspace and adding content before you become an admin. I know that a lot of people claim mainspace contributions aren't relevant to admin tasks, but I think they're key for instilling the kind of attitude I want an admin to have. I think that it's important for admins to have been involved in creating or improving articles so that they can understand how people feel when their articles get deleted, and hopefully they will have more respect for content. I just don't think it's possible to understand and act fairly towards people who mostly edit content if you have no experience of improving content yourself. Wikignomish tasks are important, I agree, but an admin should have been involved in at least the creation of one article or assisting with getting an article to GA. I'm also a little concerned that you take things that happen onwiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VivioFateFan&diff=prev&oldid=181324479 a little too personally]. When I closed your last RFA I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VivioFateFan&diff=prev&oldid=181292523 advised] you to wait a few months before renominating - not something you ''have'' to do, certainly, but I'd like you to have been around for a while longer before I trust you with the sysop tools. This is nothing against you, I just think that as we have plenty of admins at the moment we can afford to be picky about who we promote and I think I'd rather wait another two or three months before I feel I can support you. Please try getting involved in some content processes - getting articles to GA is fairly easy! Album articles are especially easy to improve. If you pick an article you'd like to work on I'd be happy to assist you :)
'''Neutral''', though the candidate's contributions are good. One universal thread throughout the supports, opposes, and neutrals from the candidate's first RfA was that they did not have enough experience to show that they would be a good admin. Three of four supports recommended 3 more months of work before re-applying, and oppose and neutral editors agreed. I would submit to the candidate that they knew what they were talking about, and that it would be wise to heed their counsel. There is no deadline, the mop will be here in 3 months, when - with 3 months worth of good, solid work to show for it - I expect to support your third Rfa. Good luck,
'''Neutral''', but do try admin coaching.
'''Neutral'''. His work is good, but he didn't heed the suggestions in his last RFA to wait two or three months. He was informed of the "unwritten rule" of not applying at RFA every month when he was given that recommendation by several editors who commented in his first RFA. I like his contribs, but I can't support yet because his hastiness to submit another RFA shows that he didn't listen to suggestions in his first RFA.
'''Neutral''' Haste vs Enthusiasm? Tough call; however, 2000 edits in a month shows a commitment, even if they are all wikignoming edits. My overall impression is that continuing at the same pace, with some expansion of policy awareness will make this candidate's next RfA virtually unassailable, and I think that would be preferable all round to one that barely scrapes consensus. --'''
'''Support'''; the interactions I have had with him have been positive. Give this man a mop! -<font color="32CD32">''
'''Support''' Per my nomination statement.
'''Support''' Even though the user in question [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGogo_Dodo&diff=199209770&oldid=199197336 reverts Sinebot] Hahaha sorry WhD, I just had to bring it up ;-) But seriousl,y great contribs and an overall well-rounded user.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
With pleasure.
Support - seems a good wikipedian...will make an even better admin...good luck! --
Very strong support, excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - Generally a good editor. Just avoiding posting things (like the issues raised by Wisdom89) in Wikipedia-projects just for the sake of it. Two of the posts were unecessary. But otherwise, your work seems fine. Take note, and improve. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Over 5500 mainspace edits and track is good.
'''Support''' Looks great, and Wisdom's diffs are too old to be at all worrying.
'''Support''' Good choice here. <strong>
Tags for CSD correctly. Civil on talk page-- even self-deprecating. Eschew Username stuff for now. We can't all be big article builders.
'''Support.''' He's not an admin already? At least one vandal [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarthogDemon&diff=prev&oldid=199636107 thought he was!] Reviewing deleted contribs shows an acceptable understanding of [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]]. Good candidate. --
'''Support'''.  Heard of WarthogDemon before.  You'll do fine with the tools.  <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Support''' [[User:iMatthew|<font color="red">'''iMat'''</font>]][[User talk:iMatthew|<font color="orange">'''thew'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/iMatthew|<font color="blue">'''20'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I think the person who voted oppose below because of his involvement in UUA is making an !vote upon a weak position.  Just because a person doesn't like an area of WP doesn't meant that is a valid reason for !voting against a candidate who works there.
'''Support''' After some consideration, candidate seems solid enough.
I strongly support this nomination: I've had excellent interactions with WarthogDemon and I think he'll be a great admin. Regarding the concerns below, I glad he's corrected the rationales on those articles, and with UAA, as long as you plan to stay away from there you'll be fine, but I recommend reading more to do with [[WP:U|the username policy]] if you ever decide to want to help in that place.
'''Support''' will make a good admin, from what I've seen
'''Support''' After reviewing the opposers concerns I'm calling a '''[[User:Pedro/Net Positive|net positive]]''' here. I feel the candidate has learned from that error and will tread easy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' our interactions have been positive. A good faith minor error at UUA isn't enough to oppose IMHO. Plenty of edits show dedication to the project.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
''Iff'' you stay away from UAA and fair use stuff. ''
No significant problems have been raised.
'''Support''', as the user generally does good cleanup work, a few mistakes aside (suggest brushing up on the relevant policies, nonetheless).
'''Support''' I trust this user will know where he needs to learn more. '''
'''Support''' It's not as if people can't learn...
'''Support''' In regard to the mistake he has made with username policy, I have no problem with editors that make mistakes. Not learning from them is a different story.
'''Support:'''  The UAA mistakes are nothing major and seem to have been handled well.  I don't think WD will misuse the tools.  [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#008000">George D. Watson</em>''' (Dendodge)]].<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>
'''Conditional support''' per UAA. --
'''Support''' Looks good, but I hope you really brush up on [[WP:U]] and [[WP:CSD]]. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''', every single of the reasons to oppose this RFA is completely irrelevant. --
'''Support''', WarthogDemon has been a great help in fighting vandalism and is showing a positive and willing-to-learn attitude in this RFA.
'''Support'''. NawlinWiki said what my gut was trying to tell me.
'''Support''' I agree that the editor has made some mistakes in the past, but he seems to be consistently civil, respond to queries quickly and is willing to learn from and correct any mistakes he makes.  I think he'd be excellent for the tools, especially if he'll consider asking first about anything he's unclear over. <font face="Blackadder"  color="#2B0066">
'''Support''' - All the issues raised in the oppose section are preposterous! Everyone makes mistakes, and remember, Wikipedia encourages editors to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]]!
'''Support''' He'll learn the username policy quite well should he become an admin, and the rest of this user's contribs are not worrysome. Good luck Halo player. ;) ·
'''Support''' Other than the [[WP:UAA]] incident, I see ''no'' problems with this user, and I think that to deny him the mop because of such a small error would be [[Make a mountain out of a molehill|making a mountain out of a molehill]].
'''Support''' Everyone makes mistakes, but I think that he has learned from them and thus I support :).--
'''Support''' After the great answer to my question(s). I'm going to say, YES! Give this user a mop. <span style="color:green"> '''

'''Support''', run into WD around the site and have to say he looks to be a very competent editor. His willingness to take into account mistakes he has made and learn from them is a fan''tas''tic quality in an administrator. Any shortcomings I see are small, and as AndonicO says, he'll learn as he goes. Small mistakes should not keep a good user from receiving the mop. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Go the Zebras!''' Sounds great <strong>
'''Strong support''' I've had positive experiences with this user from day 1. He looks good to me. '''
'''Support''', a few borderline speedy tags, but in general an enthusiastic and thoughtful editor, I trust them to take things easy with the delete button at first.
'''Strong Support''' - per [[User:Chetblong/RFA-standards|my criteria]], I trust WarthogDemon with the tools. --<span style="font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Chetblong|<font color="aqua">Chetblong</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Chetblong|<font color="#00dc64">Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Weak support''' - on the whole, trustworthy, but the opposing comments give me pause.
'''Support'''. Would be a fine admin. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Could have sworn I did this a couple days ago...
'''Support''' I trust WD with the tools.  Will he make mistakes?  Probably.  Nobody is perfect.  My suggestion to him should the RfA pass is that he take things slowly and carefully until he becomes comfortable with whatever admin activity he decides to pursue.  When in doubt about an action, ask another admin for advice.  In the long run, I think that he will be fine and learn from whatever he runs into. --
'''Weak Support''' - I only say 'weak' because I haven't read anything on this page, I am offering my support based on one fairly contentious issue on which WarthogDemon demonstrated humility and flexibility: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anchoress#Thanks Mistaking American Zeitgeist for Zeitgeist, the Movie] - particularly with hot button articles, some editors can become so blindered that they refuse to give a quarter; WarthogDemon was the opposite.
'''Support''' Aw, freakin' awesome! I love this guy! Never had any actual interaction with him, but from his edits I could tell he was a nice dude. Anyway, I'm glad I can be on the ''support'' side. Yep, really good guy. <small>too bad about that daughter, though... kidding...</small> <font face="terminal">
'''Support'''. I've had many positive interactions with this user. Hardworking, conscientious, and friendly are just a few of the words I'd use to describe him. '''-Bwowen is now a
o'course. ''
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support'''. Support because I believe the net effect of his adminship would be positive. Weak because although I disagree with DGG on what and what shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia, I trust and respect his judgement when it comes to trigger-happy people. If the RfA is successful, I encourage WD to remember that in the face of the slightest doubt, AfD is always the way to go. Careless tagging for speedy deletion can be and often is undone by responsible admins. Careless deletion usually isn't.
'''Weak support''' somewhat ''à la'' Pascal just above. I am working on the basis that having been so thoroughly raked over the coals over username policy and speedy deletion policy, the user will have learned from his mistakes. We don't prevent otherwise-ok candidates from gaining adminship for having made a couple of mistakes. Making mistakes is a sign of being a human being. On balance I trust WarthogDemon will not make these mistakes again. I do hope I am right. --
'''Support'''. See him around, and am surpised that he is not already an admin.
'''Support'''.  No reason to think the tools will be misused. --
'''Support''' based on recent interaction.  He wasn't afraid to go out on a limb, ask a question and honestly listened to my answer and reasoning.  He has my respect.  I have read and considered the oppose reasons below, but I believe that he won't get in over his head - and if he does, he'll be smart enough to ask a question and listen as he did this time.  -
'''Support''' - I have confidence he will listen to advice and learn to use the tools wisely--
'''Support''', strong answers to #14.
'''Oppose'''- per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=194792256 this], you clearly do not understand policy very well, as the word "wiki" in a name is acceptable, where as "wikipedia" wouldn't be. A lack of policy and guideline knowledge tells me of a lack of experience and knowledge of how to assist sysops. It would be worrying if this user got the tools and blocked people for things like that, sorry.
'''Weak oppose''' - good vandal fighter, however lack of meaningful article contributions. Also, the fair use images that he's [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&format=html&img_user_text=WarthogDemon&order=-img_timestamp uploaded] are missing rationales.
Involvement in UAA is always a negative for me, but if you can't even do it right... :/ Sorry. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
'''Oppose''' Per the poor UAA report of the name "Wiki Greek Basketball", as it shows a patent ignorance of the username policy. If you can tell me why this report was incorrect according to the policy, I'd definitely consider supporting however. The majority of your contribs are great, but that kind of misunderstanding of the policy could have seriously negative effects if you were granted the tools.
'''Oppose''' Does not yet understand the basic speedy deletion criteria. Can therefore not be trusted with the buttons. Suggesrt coming back in three months after obtaining a better knowwede of policy. '''
'''weak oppose''' per DGG. I was going to support and was looking forward to doing so but the speedy thing is too much of a concern.
'''Oppose''' due to poor understanding of username policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=194974562]  and speedy deletion policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Feiner&diff=next&oldid=199752032] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_D._Weisberg&diff=prev&oldid=200225778] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Warshauer&diff=prev&oldid=199533737] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_McAdam_Freud&diff=prev&oldid=198251207], poor edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marieke_Hardy&diff=prev&oldid=199995649] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Highway_3_%28New_Zealand%29&diff=prev&oldid=198279633], using rollback to reinsert misspellings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&diff=prev&oldid=199235110]. The principal problem is with speedy deletion - a mere assertion of notability is enough to defeat a speedy deletion for CSD:A7 - and I am not convinced that this user, if given the power to delete articles, would apply the current policies correctly and consistently.
'''Oppose''' – I’m sorry - you do great work.  However, the misunderstanding concerning deletion policy, and the most recent incidents just a matters of days ago, causes me to be on the oppose side.  However, these issues can be easily rectified within a few months, by brushing up on policy.  At that time, would be more than happy to review and move to the support side.  Good luck to you. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per the diffs given by Stifle --
'''Oppose''' Considering many of his speedy delete tags were rejected as not meeting the criteria, I have concerns that if an admin such article might just end up deleted anyways. Similar concerns regarding username blocks. Also, not related to my opposition, but what does [[:CAT:AOR]] have to do with team work? Is an admin in the category more of a team player than one who is not?
'''Regretful oppose'''. I am persuaded particularly by [[User:DGG]] and [[User:Stifle]] that this contributor needs more time to fully grasp policies. This nom has good energy (and a good sense of humor!), and I think he does some great work for Wikipedia, but I can't support at this time in the face of evidence that the nom may not be as careful with CSD tags as he could be. CSDs are a big deal to me in evaluating RfAs, especially when the nom mentions specifically a desire to work in that area. Within the last month, we have these [[WP:CSD#A7]] tags which in my opinion (and those of the editors &/or admins who challenged or declined them) asserted notability at the time of tagging: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Feiner&oldid=199752496 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empireonline.com&oldid=198236337 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Zerajic&oldid=198241999 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_McAdam_Freud&oldid=198251207 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polbo&direction=prev&oldid=197122790 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_P._Farrell&oldid=195980646 6], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leading_Edge_Group&oldid=195980909 7] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberchump&oldid=196709459 8]. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leading_Edge_Electronics&diff=195981391&oldid=195981332 9] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhymson&diff=196194509&oldid=196194359 10], the nom himself agreed that the tags were wrong. It's great to catch your own mistakes, but the other A7s indicate that the user is continuing to make them. An assertion of significance or importance is, of course, much less rigorous than [[WP:V|verification]] of [[WP:N|notability]]. Since speedy deletions may go unchallenged unless the creators are able to understand [[WP:DRV]] procedures (and many of them can't even figure out who deleted their articles), I can't comfortably support somebody whose contributions suggest that they may be overzealous in flushing articles. If this nom does not get the tools, I hope he will continue new page patrol, since I believe he is a very valuable contributor there, but also slow down to consider more fully whether or not an article asserts significance/importance. If he does get the tools, I hope that he will be particularly careful not to delete A7s unless he is ''quite sure'' that the article qualifies. This seems to be an area where, with or without tools, he needs a bit more work. Given everything else I see from this nom, I ''am'' sorry I can't support. If this RfA is not successful (at the moment it seems it probably will), I hope to be in the top section next time. --
'''Oppose''' We do not need administrators who mis-apply speedy deletion criteria.
'''Very weak oppose''' I had a support post typed out but, once I consider the CSD and UAA stuff together (neither on its own would sink the candidacy - the CSD stuff in particular I think was mostly borderline, although [[Polbo]] stuck out as a little more egregious a tagging), I can't help but conclude that the candidate isn't quite there.
'''Oppose'''. If my criterion for an admin were editing skill you'd be home and dry, but it isn't, its a good knowledge of Wikipedia Policy's and Guidelines, and the concerns about your application of CSD is just a little to glaring to ignore. Do a little more CSD work to prove you know what your doing, and reapply, then you'll have my support. [[User:Ferdiaob/My_Musings|&#9775;]]
'''Oppose''', due to grave concerns about recent speedy deletion requests. My two biggest requirements for an admin are care in deletion of articles and not scaring off potentially valuable contributors. While your communications look fine (if a bit terse), applying incorrect speedy tags within a minute of article creation doesn't improve the 'pedia at all, and can scare off new contributors needlessly. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' this time, per problems with policy brought up above, lack of solid editing experience on articles, <s>and a bit also the erratic contributions volume  - under 50 edits Nov-to-Jan 08.</s> More experience needed.
'''Oppose''' There are enough questionable recent speedy tagging diffs above to make me uncomfortable at the moment.
'''Oppose''' - Changed from neutral (see below). I'm sorry, but concerns just have not been alleviated. Good luck with the process though! And happy editing.
'''Oppose''', per speedy tagging problems uncovered by Stifle and Moonriddengirl.
I'm sorry, but the misapplication of speedy deletion tags really grinds my gears. There are enough admins who don't understand the speedy policy, and I am somewhat worried that this candidate could be another. I would advise coming back in 3 months with a better knowledge of [[WP:CSD]]. Regards,
'''Oppose'''. This editor seems to have a bit of a maturity problem.  Furthermore, most of the "articles" he created or contributed to are somewhat on the insubstantial side.  I strenously object.  Perhaps he should try again when he turns 17 or 18.
Per speedy deletion concerns.
'''Oppose''' - Per speedy concerns, and UAA concerns. This user has a few things to work on, and once they do I will be happy to support next time.
'''weak oppose''' -- a little more deletion experience and I'll be happy to support. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral'''. The concerns expressed, regarding a somewhat lacking of ability in the [[WP:UAA]] area, make me hesitate at supporting here. I'm sure you'll learn the proper procedure in due course, but I'm afraid I can't support just yet. Good luck anyway. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:AGK|'''AGK''']]
'''Neutral''' The user's editing history does not stand out in either direction for me, and enough issues have been already raised above to make me not reasonably comfortable with this user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]], but I have not come across anything egregious enough for me to register an oppose; thus the abstention. --
'''Neutral''' - I can't really oppose here, because WarthogDemon is a very good and knowledgeable editor, and I hate opposing good editors. But I can't really support either due to the CSD issues, especially since that's an area he intends to work in. Sorry, good luck. --
'''Support''' While this user hasn't many edits under his/her current username, I'm sure he/she would make a great admin. He/she has demonstrated a good knowledge of policy during his/her time here, and is already trusted with the tools on another wikimedia wiki.--
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
what the hell !! :) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''<s>Strong</s> Weak Support'''. This user is one of those cases where we should throw editcountitis out the window, stomp on it a bit, and observe the candidate for what the candidate is, which is a great user.
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Weak support''' More experience would help but he has the aptitude to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy and reliable. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' - good editor, should get the mop. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose - meets my criteria, has the people skills necessary to do the job, and anything else can be learned. However, I would ask that you carefully read [[WP:ADMINGUIDE]] so that you know what is an admin's purview and what is outside it. Good answers to 7 - you seem to understand [[WP:N]] better than some current admins :)
'''Support''', I see no evidence that this user would misuse the tools.
'''Moral Support''' - I know this is likely to fail due to editcountitis, I see little wrong with your contributions and will again support when you have gained enough edits to please the masses. I'm sick of editcountitis. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Not regarding your rather long user name, of your sub 2,000 edits around 300 are to your own user space. Experience on other wikis, whilst admirable, is not necessarily a guide to aptitude here, and your referencing of them makes me move to oppose rather than neutral. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Extremely-Weak Oppose''' because I am unsure of whether or not this user has done enough in admin related tasks, but weak because this user has done a lot that is good for this project, so I suggest continuing on your current path. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Oppose'''. Recent mistakes referred to above, a misunderstanding that participation in GAN does not require admin privileges, convinces me that this candidate is not yet ready. --
'''Oppose'''.  You don't need the tools for [[WP:GAN]], and you should notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee after blocking an IP address listed [[Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses#Sensitive IP addresses|here]].  Not enough policy experience.  '''
I'm a little concerned about his knowledge of speedy deletions,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1695_in_Ireland&diff=180475390&oldid=180475284] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Talarico_di_Capace&diff=180484200&oldid=180484170] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Hiddleston&diff=prev&oldid=181611718] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canned_Laughter_%28ITV_sitcom%29&diff=prev&oldid=181612064] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOSYS&diff=prev&oldid=180434164] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atilla_Yayla&diff=prev&oldid=180433886]. As a follow-up, POV-pushing is not a reason for deletion by CSD. A general lack of experience is present in the answers. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Just not ready yet for the tools.  I suggest gathering some more experience and trying again in the future.
'''Oppose''' The answers to SI's questions and the diffs offered by Jmlk raise significant concerns about the candidate's understanding of the our [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and of the narrow fashion in which speedy deletion is to be applied,  and so even as I do not imagine that, qua admin, WBOSITG should misuse deliberately or abuse the tools, I am not at all certain that he might not inadvertently misuse the tools, such that I cannot conclude with any confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''' per Q9
'''Oppose''' mostly per Q7 and Q9. In Q7, IMHO, all the entries but the school (and maybe even the school, depending on your definition of assertion) include at least an assertion of notability, so they are not eligible for an A7 speedy. An A7 speedy would be something like "The Horse Rectums are a band from Hartford CT". Q9 is worrying per Malinaccier - tens of school IPs get blocked every day and open proxies are blocked for large amounts of time without a second thought. '''''
'''Oppose''', too deletionist.
Does not understand speedy deletion policy; dangerous answer to Q9.
'''Oppose''' - response to Q7 indicates too liberal use of speedy deletion.
'''Oppose''' you seem to have a lack of knowledge dealing with policy, your answer to Q9 shows that, the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee should be notified for [[Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses|Sensitive IP addresses]], not schools, or open proxies, cause those are usually blocked every day and [[WP:GAN]] does not require admin tools.  I suggest you study policy more and try again in a couple months.
'''Weak Oppose''' with a strong dash of moral support. This candidate is clearly a likeable, enthusiastic editor who is a valuable addition to the community, but I'm very worried about the answer to Q7, which demonstrates an over-liberal interpretation of the CSD criteria. Usually I don't expect a rigorous and detailed knowledge of the intricacies of policy from every candidate; however, in the area of CSD, admins have the potential to do massive damage. An incorrect speedy, while reversible in a matter of seconds, can often discourage and drive away new editors; furthermore, there's a matter of principle involved, in that where there is a genuine question as to notability the matter should be discussed at AfD, rather than decided through unilateral admin action. I can predict with 95% certainty that I will strongly support this candidate the next time round, but I can't this time.
'''Oppose''' - Answers to question are bothersome, along with all the concerns raised above, just cant support right now.
'''Oppose''' Very troubling answers to the questions per above. You seem to lack knowledge of Wikipedia policy and how it is applied. I'm particuarly concerned about your answer to question 13. If your greatest concern with undue use of [[WP:IAR]] is how vandals could abuse it I think you need to hang around a bit longer.
'''Oppose''' I think I could support you with some more experience under your belt. You just don't seem familiar enough with en-wiki to be an administrator right now.--
'''Oppose''' I really hate to do this, but I feel like with your answers, you might not truly be up to the task as admin. I feel like that (in reference to the question I asked, Q12) the time would have been past for warnings, and that an admin that uses abusive sockpuppets should immediately be desysoped by the Stewards, and at that point, it wouldn't matter if the admin is on recall or not. I feel like you could have gone the distance, but your answers are very troubling for me to judge you to be a competent admin. I'm sorry. '''<font face="verdana">
'''Oppose''' per unsatisfactory answers to the questions (Q7 & follow-ups, Q9, Q13) <i><b>
'''Oppose''' - regretfully; you seem like a good contributor, but per answers to Q7, Q9 & Q12, I don't think you're ready yet.--
'''Oppose''' per above. Needs to have better answers to questions. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' awaiting answers to more questions above (and not just my own).  I'm truly undecided.  I've seen <longusername> WeBuried...Garden </longusername> around and think xe is a fine editor with a lot to offer that will likely not abuse or misuse the tools.  I'd just like to see some more!
'''Neutral''' I don't know if he's ready yet. --'''
'''Neutral''' I have concerns about the answer to question #7.  IMHO some of those hypothetical articles deserve their day at afd.--
'''Neutral''' - What if they really did bury something (or someone) in the garden?  :)  '''''
[[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
I think NF24 puts it best. Good luck otherwise.
Weak. As a great editor. first one! woot! &mdash;'''
'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''.  A bit thin on the resume, but nothing to suggest that this user will abuse/misuse the tools.  Most of the rationales in the opposition I find rather unconvincing.
'''Support''' With over 11000 mainspace edits and nary a block, one can be quite confident that the tools will not be misused. (I particularly like that exchange with [[user:Otolemur crassicaudatus]]!) --
'''Support.''' '''NO CATS PLZ''' Oh wait, there's a good user history...
'''Lol''' - To detail: [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not]], [[WP:NBD|No big deal]], [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] and [[WP:ADMIN]]. Best of luck. '''''<font color="green">
'''Weak Support''' - probably would be fine, the answer to Q1 is convincing, and there is plenty of experience. 'Weak' because of excessive use of memes, however I'm possibly just being grumpy.
'''Support''' per RegentsPark, and my own interactions with this guy at (I think it was...) ''[[The Sword of Shannara]]''. Cheers, and good luck! &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]]
'''Support''' emphatically. Contributions leave me with no doubt this editor can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''', I'm no fan of internet memes, but I see no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' fits my criteria.--
'''Weak support''' per Shereth. Unique contributions per Q2, by the way. (I do ''not'' see the user's sense of humour--which is evident even in his user name--as a reason to oppose. Rather, I think it lends some warmth and joviality to the project.)
'''Weak Support''' - Weak because of a conspicuous lack of article contributions beyond reversions, however, I'm supporting because I do believe that you will perform adequately in the areas you've specified.
'''Weak support''' - I don't oppose, at this time, as I do sincerely think this editor would be a great admin in the appropriate areas, however due to heavy contributions to the mainspace I give weak support. Would not misuse given permissions and would do well in [[WP:CSD]] and vandalism reversion. Keep it up. -
'''Support''' The lack of article building does not make me believe that the candidate would abuse the tools in any way nor, as per areas of interest indicated in the nomination speech and Q1, that they would get involved in an area in which they are not well versed, such as content disputes. Furthermore, I find that the nomination speech has a mature tone underneath the light-hearted humour and I believe that the project would benefit with the candidate's access to the buttons. Good luck.
'''Support'''.  Long time user, positive contribs in gnomish and article building behind the scenes, and an absolutely ''brilliant'' self-nom.  I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.  Don't let the killjoys scare you off, humor is welcome and appreciated, and RFA needs the freshening up.  Brilliant nomination.
'''Support''' I noticed you managing to unconfuse an article I couldn't make head or tail of on my watchlist recently. Well done. You're a decent guy, and I don't think you'd mess up.
'''Support''' Just saw this comment in the oppose section : '' As for defending my work, well actually I've consciously tried not to,'' if that's not assuming good faith and not being abusive, I don't know what is.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions.  I would be '''very''' careful about your first answer to Q1.  Most fully protected pages in articlespace should probably not be edited at all.  But the rest of the answers show intelligence and reflection.  PLZ NO MOAR CAT PIC KTHX?
'''Support''' Adminship may not be a joke but RFA process certainly is.
'''Support''' Having a sense of humour and posting a cat picture does not necessarily mean he considers adminship a joke. From what I've seen of his wikispace contribution, the spiel chequer does his/her research and that is serious enough for me.
'''Support''', overall, I like the attitude, I like the question answers, I like the myriad of small-but-smart contributions. And as a bonus, I like cats. I have no concerns. ~ <font color="#228b22">
'''Support''' per Morbidthoughts and Mazca. Lighten up a little, friends. I see no reason not to support WereSpielChequers. Hardworking, fine answers, and a sense of humor as well. <font color="#8080ff">
'''Support'''. Answers are not perfect. However Chequers' WikiGnome contributions are remarkable. He knows where to find policies and act sensibly.
'''Support''' I support lolcats in RFAs. Opposes are in large part more of a joke than the way the user seems to be taking the RFA, which is to say not much at all. Find something legitimate to oppose about.
'''Support:''' I think that WereSpielChequers will use the tools well, ask whenever he's not certain, be friendly and adhere to NPOV.
Adminship ''is'' a joke. '''
'''support''' People don't like the formatting and presentation of the nomination? Lighten up. This isn't a special ritual formula where if you don't say it correctly the evil demons will burst out and devour the planet when you try to first use the admin tools. Look at the candidates contributions.
'''Support per great arguments above''' Net positive. Seems to know limits and seems unlikely to misuse/abuse the tools.
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' - [[Image:Squeaks Gatito Tigre.jpg|thumb|right|100px]] I looked over the candidate, as I always do. Then I read over the votes, as I always do. Only, I only made it through a handful of opposes before I decided that was a waste of time and decided he clearly deserved my support. Wow. This process gets more jacked by the day. An admin with a sense of humor? *GASP*... DO NOT WANT *facepalm* The [[WP:NBD]] is outdated and an epic ridiculous reason to oppose. There's a fundamental difference in opinion by many people on the big deal status of adminship. Anyone who clearly understands what adminship is the the potential damage a careless admin can cause at this stage in the project knows that adminship is, in fact, a big deal. That and the fact that you're basically elected for life. Backlogs need help, candidate has been on the project for a great deal of time. Has gained experience, as he pointing out in his nom statement before the dreaded cat pic (O NOES), and we can't expect every admin to start out knowing it all on day one. Do his contribs give the indication that he may abuse the tools? No. Is it reasonable to AGF on this one that he can be trusted? Yes. Do we need anymore stuffy, unfunny admins bringing down the morale of this place? Hell no. Clearly this project is losing its sense of humor. That's tragic.
'''Support'''. WSC is a dedicated user who has made few mistakes. I'm confident he would do well with the tools.
'''Support''' likes lolcats. Anyways, I'm okay with specialist admins (DYK, AIV, XFD etc.).--
'''Support''' This place needs to lighten up a little - I think you're the man for the job! --'''
'''Support'''. This user meets
'''Support'''. Because I like cats.
'''Support''' - not sure what was wrong with the answer to Pedro's second question; while it's true that software isn't A7-eligible, I think the candidate's response to the scenario was actually better than it would have been if he's just removed the tag, as correct as that would have been.
'''Support''' due to proper application of lolcats. --
'''Support''' - move from oppose. My sense of humor was momentarily lost in the washing machine. ;) <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''
Belated '''support''' – just realised that when I struck my oppose I never moved anywhere else.<small>&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Zapfino, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">
'''Support''' Cool well traveled guy, but that Cat image at the top is horrible, less of that if hes to become an admin
'''Oppose''' - the tone of the nomination doesn't sound like you are taking this seriously. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm leaving [[User:Coffee/RFA-standards|my normal criteria]] behind on this one, even though you have a lot of contributions that's not always what matters. You don't seem to be taking this seriously for one thing, and you don't seem to grasp what being an admin is; the cat, the joking nature of your self-nom, all give me a bad impression of what you think you'll be doing as an admin is. There are quite a few things in your self-nom I don't like, but I'll just mention one: the fact that you seem to think that verifiability trumps consensus most of the time, that actually depends on ''who'' the consensus is, and ''what'' the consensus is; our policies are made from consensus so any consensus that leaves policy is more or less new policy, or as it can be used [[WP:IAR]]. I might change my mind depending on what other people have to say here, but right now I don't think you are ready. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">
Ironically, you don't seem to be taking adminship seriously despite stating ''"...but after realising what a big deal <nowiki>[</nowiki>adminship<nowiki>]</nowiki> was..."''. Incidentally, I consider that a wrong POV. Please see [[WP:NBD]]. —'''
'''Strong oppose''' - Sorry, but you are taking adminship as a joke. <small>
'''Oppose''' per incredibly sloppy and unprofessional nom statement, 161 Wikipedia space edits and an astoundingly low (124) main talk edits, given his mainspace edits, which, for some reason, are all minor, even though they are not. Erik the <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' The humour doesn't bother me, but the inadequate experience does.
'''Oppose''' I really thing you are taking this RFA as a joke. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Problems all over the board, to be honest. It would seem that the candidate has inadequate experience, and whilst they may not be taking this RfA 'as a joke', I do believe that they are not taking it seriously enough. Adminship is no big deal, but it is a bigger deal than it is being made out to be. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
I hate to do this, but I must '''oppose'''. I do really love humour, as most people around RFA are quite stuffy. However, your only real mainspace editing (not including minor edits) are stubs. This could be forgiven if you participated in places that help people with article (AFD, FAC, FAR, etc.), but I do not see much (forgive me, I didn't search too long). Again, really sorry about this, but I do not think you can be an admin '''just yet'''. Your friend '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Eddy]]
'''Weak Oppose'''. Terrible answer to my second question (the answer I was looking for was "Software does not fall under A7"). I'd have forgiven that but your apparent overlooking of some questions to answer others (as well as you nom) seems to indicate that you need to work on your communication skills. Mostly however your slightly bizarre idea that you'd create a re-direct from one article to another on the basis of the name being vaguely the same seems to indicate more general Wikipedia knowledge/experience is required at the moment. Weak, beacuse the nomination does embrace the spirit that ''becoming'' an admin is no big deal. Oppose because ''doing admin things'' is very much a big deal.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia-namespace edit indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Also, adminship is not a trophy; if anything, it's more responsibility with no reward.
Per above, and per the answer to Pedro's question. I think more experience in policy areas is required here. &mdash;<strong>
'''Oppose'''. Per Erik the Red 2. The sloppiness and unprofessional nom makes me feel his adminship will be sloppy as well. Also, his best contributions are fixing spelling errors. As his response to oppose number six says, he states ''The vast majority of my mainspace edits are minor; reverting vandalism, correcting typos and correcting link''. I fail to see large contributions on his part to Wikipedia.
'''Weak oppose''' I too found the attitude in the nominating statement to be fairly problematic; plus a very low level of Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk participation (170 edits in about 1.5 years of having a registered WP account).
'''Strong Oppose''' I have to agree with much of the above - tone of the self-nomination (although I appreciate and expect humour more than most); the use of the "minor edits" for so long, which showed either a callous disregard for policy or a complete failure to understand "minor"; overall lack of experience ... which could be the precursor to my first two points. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''; For me, the tone of your self-nom played in your favor, but I'm affraid your lack of policy understanding (almost certainly cause by simple lack of experience) is fatal.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' The tone of the self nom, and lack of policy understanding per above. --
'''Weak Oppose''', at least for now. I'm actually very much a fan of the style of this self-nomination; that's definitely a big point in your favor. Unfortunately, the answer to Pedro's question, as he noted, was off, and there seems to be a lack of participation in other key areas. Apologies, I think you've got the right temperament and the tenure, but there are still some weak points, as Coren noted.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Not a lot of admin work really.--[[User:LAAFan|<font color="red" face="Times New Roman">LAA</font>]][[User talk:LAAFan|<font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan</font>]]''<sup>
'''Oppose''' - lolcats are generally wild cards (and it this case, it did not exactly fair you well).  I think this candidate has the proper sense of humor to handle the drama, but the inability to put together a clear explanation of why this candidate should receive the mop bugs me a little bit.  As an administrator, there will be frequent times where proper explanation and articulation is necessary to portray why policy is enforced, why certain articles are changed, why users are blocked, etc.  If WereSpielChequers wishes to run for adminship again in a couple of months with solid contributions, grab a nomination or just try again with a well-written self-nom, I'll consider supporting, but not now.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I adore cat so much, but the inadequate humor bothers me a bit.--
'''Neutral''' Interesting... which is only good in an admin if they are doing the right things in an amusing manner. I think that once this mindset has been directed at a few articles and some of the more mundane chores then it will likely to be of benefit in a future RfA.
'''Neutral''' - Provisional only. I am not sure; you seem like one of those candidates that wanders aimlessly into RfA expecting to get through by accepting every point thrown at you. I would have to see some strong evidence of admin-related activites with good community interaction and an excellent track in most aspects of what is needed in an admin. That cat is off-putting at the moment, not because of what it is, but rather what it represents.
'''Neutral''' for now, but leaning towards support - personally, I love the humor in your nomination. <b>
'''Neutral''' for now &ndash; looking at the two edits that you cite above as examples of your work, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_Island&diff=157029855&oldid=157023961 this edit] is missing a few punctuation marks (not a big deal except that you cite your attention to detail as a strength), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easter_Island&diff=157029855&oldid=157023961 this edit] contains a couple sentences that seem to have an unencyclop&aelig;dic tone<s>, and maybe one or two sentences that seem as though they might be a little bit non-neutral</s>.
'''Neutral''' - I can't support anyone who uses cat humor in an RfA, it seems like you're not taking the whole thing seriously. ''
'''Neutral'''.  I can't make a decision, but I wish you good luck.  Perhaps get a little more experience in deletion. <font  face="georgia">'''
'''Neutral'''--I can't even articulate a good reason for why I'm on the fence about this candidate. It's entirely a gut-level reaction; something about tone, I guess. And yet I'm a lolcat partisan, and yet I have a sense of humor...I really, really, really wish I could say what it is about this RfA that sets off my Gladys-sense; suffice to say there's SOMETHING. I can't oppose with no good reason, but my conscience just won't let me give an unqualified support at this time. WSPCH, I truly don't mean to be cruel or personally-insulting; there's just something about this request--and it's NOT the lolcat!--that doesn't quite sit right with me. When you run again, I'll surely consider you again. It's just...I can't go either way right here, right at this moment, under these circumstances. I think that's got more to do with me than with you, honestly...sorry, friend.
'''support''' —
'''
'''Strong Support''' - good editor willing to get involved in messy content. We desperately need both.
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable editor.
'''Support''' Great track and as per DerHexer and Sumoeagle179.
'''Support''' per the contributions and candidate's statement.
'''Support''': For sure!  -
'''Support''': Yes, of course. —
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Good editor, won't make stupid decisions.  '''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Seen this user around many times and couldn't find a reason to oppose.
'''Strong support'''.  Wikidudeman has the battle scars to prove that he can handle tough situations.  We need more admins with his patience to work in difficult areas of the wiki. --
'''Support'''. Why not? <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Thought he already was an admin support'''. Excellent editor, will make an excellent asset.
'''Strong Support''', he should have been one a long, long time ago.
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already... :) <font color="#006600">[[User talk:-Midorihana-|Midorihana]]</font><font color="#000099"><sup>
'''Dude''' Same as last time.
'''Support''' Excellant conttributer with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeopathy]]. <strong>
'''Thought-you-were Support''' :)
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Great user I've had experience with. (Do a barrel Roll!) <b>
'''Support'''. Should've been an admin a long time ago.
'''Support''' Yes, I like what I have seen over the months. Mop-capable editor.

'''Strongest Possible Support''' Per previous interaction and an ill-considered oppose then neutral on my part at your last RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I think he's made a lot of improvements since the last RfA, and I told him I would support him if he did. --'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' no worries for me, good luck.
'''Insert-cliche-here Support''' - <nowiki>{{thought he was an admin}}</nowiki>. Great editor, definitely a worthy candidate. --
'''Support'''  Most definitely yes!
'''I honestly thought this was a reconfirmation''' -
'''Support'''Seen him around.
A '''WTF? Support'''. Huh?
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. ·
'''Support''' okay by me.  -
'''Support'''. Wikidude. could clearly make use of the administrator tools, but I offer my support in the hope that he gets more involved in [[WP:AIV|AIV]] work and [[WP:XFD|XfD]] participation and/or [[WP:DELPRO|closure]], which he doesn't do much with at the moment. Otherwise, excellent work in the mainspace :) good luck!
'''Support''' - Give em' the mop.
'''Support''' - thought you were one already. Will make excellent use of the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Oh, and whilst you're at it, some more support..
'''Support''' Clearly has the experience.
'''Another "I thought you were an admin already" Support'''
'''Support'''.  In spite of his nasty and unjustified attempt to get me kicked off Wikipedia (attempt, not person), this user has generally changed in an extraordinary way since the early days when I knew him around the paranormal articles.  He has become a much more neutral editor, and he has stopped being a discordant influence.  He has apparently been doing good work at Homeopathy (where in his early days he would have been a disruptor and sower of contention).  I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools, and some reason to believe his is now a good editor.  ——'''
'''Absolutely'''
'''Already thought you were a mod support''' --'''
'''Same reason as Sharkface217 Support''' --&nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. It's no big deal. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Wait, you're not an admin?''' I mean, I even have JavaScript that tells me who's an admin, and I still thought you were one. I guess you seemed so admin-like that I assumed you were one and forgot to check.
'''Support''' - of course. He handles himself well in the face of adversity and I strongly believe he has the required skills to handle himself as an administrator. Personally, I thought his previous RfA should have passed.
'''HELL YES!''' Great editor! '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''

'''Support''' He really impressed me with his work as a moderator on the [[Homeopathy]] article.
'''Surf's up''' Almost !voted oppose because of that horrid username. Yes way. --
'''Support''' - Yes. -
'''Strong Support''' For strong efforts to Vandal-Fighting.<font face="Forte">
Contributions history indicate to me a temperment suited for admin.  Yes.
'''Support''', very skilled at technical aspects and extremely helpful in all my interactions with him.
'''Oppose''' User Self-nominated</sarcasm>, but seriously their is no doubt in my mind (or anyone elses it looks like) that he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I have been pleased in my dealings with him and have many times run across the same vandals at the same time, always correctly issuing warnings and reporting said vandals. Would make a good Admin. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong support''', I can safely say he has improved a lot since his previous failed nomination.
'''Strong Support''' One of the best: trustworthy, dedicated, knowledgeable and courteous. Wikidudeman regularly has gone above and beyond the call of duty in facilitating the improvement of contentious articles.
'''200% support'''
'''Thought you already were, and other clichés, support'''.  Good luck with the mop, dude.
'''Support''' yeah--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seen this user around a whole bunch; always courteous, always thorough.
'''Support''' - He should've been on the job long ago. Enjoy the mop. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support''' - Per world + dog. That, and Wikidudeman gave me a barnstar. Clearly I'm easily bribed.
'''Support''', a belated why-the-hell-did-nobody-tell-me support. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)'''''
'''Support''', Cheers!!!
'''Support.''' Has done some good work, could use the tools.
'''Support'''. I have no problems with this user getting the tools.
-- <strong>
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - your name reminds me of "[[Buddy Guy]]".   '''''
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''' - Yes, very good editor. --
Will be okay. ''

'''Support''' - Excellent track record. Tools reveals that user has the necessary experience and knowledge of policy to be a good admin - can be stern, yet fair. Good stuff.
'''Support''' Per past AFD encounters
'''support''' accurate, common sense editor.  Thought he got through last time to be honest.
'''Support''' indeed.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' – Should have been adminned long ago. —
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Ridiculously strong support''' I have seen nothing negative come from this editor. Not only have I seen him around helping the community, he's made me laugh before. He is definitely the kind of light-hearted, easy-going, knowledgeable admin we need. Good luck with the tools, and let me know if you have any questions in the coming months. '''
'''Support''' – very competent, and would be a great asset to the project as an admin. -
'''Support''', seems good.
'''Support''' - Strong contributions, involvement in various Wiki pages.--
'''Support''' - Good contrib history. I think his edits to [[David Irving]] are being completely overblown and do not see this user as a Holocaust denier, but one who was trying to err on the side of NPOV and include all views, but did not appropriately recognize the view as an extreme minority one.  He seems to have learned from this. --
'''Gigantically strong mega-super deluxe support''' becuz this candidate makes one very good administrator. I am very sure about that! Besides that, I think the name: "''wikidudeman''" (2?) is very, very cool sounding. That is why this member should be admin!
'''Support'''.  For the same reason ScienceApologist (Oppose, #29, below) ''opposes''.  Wikidudeman, though, I must say: judge language by it's usefulness in context -- does it efficiently and skillfully communicate what the people who speak it want to communicate?  This is the only standard one should use.  I was grateful for your approach to Homeopathy.  But I cringed to read your views on Ebonics.
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools.
I am a little concerned about some of your edits to [[Race of ancient Egyptians]], specificly because you thought [[Stormfront (website)|Stormfront]] was a reliable source, and not an extremist source, and therefore their white surpemacist views were acceptable to be quoted in wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARace_of_ancient_Egyptians&diff=161704085&oldid=161703261] '''
'''Oppose''' - Per Yahel, <s>also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jonathan&diff=prev&oldid=170824495 this] greatly concerns me - non-crats should not be closing RFAs, except in cases of obvious trolling.</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370&diff=prev&oldid=167839806 This] is also problematic.  This RFA is obviously going to be successful ... but please, sometime between now and the time you get your bit, please take a read at [[User:NoSeptember]]'s banner at the top of his page - it puts it better than I could. --
'''Oppose''' - I decided to actually take the time to go back over the last year and look at his comments, especially in admin-type disputes. Wikidudeman skirts dangerously close to POV-pushing in many disputes and on many talk pages, although he is good at cloaking his intentions and at "slow reverts." Having seen how dangerous it is to give admin tools to POV-pushers, I don't think the community should take a chance here.
'''Oppose''' - Wikidudeman is not a bad editor and often works towards compromise, but I feel he often lacks the neutrality that one would value in an admin. Yahel Guhan has raised an important point. I also thought that it was unprofessional and unnecessary to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Userpage_soapbox.2C_requesting_some_opinions bring a complaint to the administrator's notice board] about the user-page of a user with whom you have had several disagreements over article content. Especially when that complaint had little substance. I said as much, in that debate, but I feel that this should be mentioned here too. Admins must know how to draw the line between personal disputes and matters that they act on as admins.
'''Oppose''' per Futurebird.  Wikidudeman has often shown serious lapses of good judgement - for example, in the discussion of David irving.  A host of sources explicitly stated that Irving (a Holocaust denier) had been discredited.  Wikidudeman persistently argued that we could not use that word but indead had to use the word "dusputed" which in context was a weasel word.  There are two issues here: an inability to recognize what is an extreme fringe view (that the holocauset did not occur) as such, and second, a disregard for [[WP:V]].  Verifiable sources stated that he had been discredited.  This view was easy to identify (comply with NPOV) and source.  Instead, Wikidudeman insisted on putting his own view in - the view that denying the holocaust is "controversial" which may be so but which is NOT what the verifiable sources ''about David Irving'' had to say.
'''Oppose''' per Slrubenstein.  Sorry, but a POV that holocaust denial is "controversial" is not a good thing.  I'm pretty saddened by reading what I've read in this oppose group.
'''oppose''' per Futurebird and Slrubenstein. I've worked well with Wikidudeman in the past but this does show a general pattern he has of confusing NPOV with presenting all sides equally. These are not the same thing and I'd be worried about making someone an admin who doesn't understand that.
'''Oppose''' per Slrubenstein.
'''Oppose''' per Yahel Guhan and Slrubenstein. Trying to use Stormfront as a source on ancient Egyptians shows a serious failure to understand the content policies. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' I've changed my vote (at this late date), having read the other "oppose" comments and looking more closely at some recent and past discussions involving Wikidudeman. I hadn't realised just how many discussions on subjects dealing with race have included his dubious involvement. As I mentioned in my "neutral" comment, I'm skeptical about his judgement, but I have two new points that have persuaded me to change my vote. The lesser point is that, in mentioning conflicts he had been involved in, Wikidudeman only cited the AAVE conflict, and not any others - not even quite recent/ongoing conflicts, leaving the impression that such events were well in the past. The more disturbing point is a profound contradiction: that Wikidudeman has worked strenuously over more than a year to restrict the inclusion of parapsychology, homeopathy and other pseudo-science content in Wikipedia (an orientation I can agree with), while at the same time working quite strenuously to include content from racist and deeply misguided sources as though they are on an equal footing with authoritative sources. Surely any "information" from ''Stormfront'' is of far less value to Wikipedia than the work of most homeopathy advocates... (The views of ''Stormfront'' have absolutely no relevance to the question of the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, for example.) Reviewing the David Irving discussions was both a reminder of the wretched AAVE saga, and a further confirmation that Wikidudeman doesn't or won't understand NPOV and its bearing on different kinds of sources. I still believe he is a much improved editor, but I can't believe that someone with such faulty judgement and perception would be a good administrator.
'''Oppose''' per above, and my past interactions with him have been far from encouraging.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but he's just digging himself deeper and deeper with this Stormfront thing, in his response to SV. WP articles shouldn't give time to the opinions of people on unreliable, fringe internet sites. To suggest we need to mention some wild POV just because some random forum does speaks to a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of NPOV. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, per above, especially Slrubenstein. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''; I'm sorry, but per Yahel above, I have to withdraw my prior support. The Stormfront edits and explanations concern me greatly, and do not sit well with me at all. --
Oppose per Slrubenstein -- <b>
'''Oppose''' per futurebird and Slrubinstein. It is not that I think this editor may not be a good admin one day, but that what I have read on both sides now makes me somewhat uneasy about the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgment]] exhibited by the editor and I am unwilling, at this point, to extend a blanket [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust]] to the editor. --
Slrubenstein's concerns are deeply troubling. And I Already had concerns about being needlessly argumentative, not facilitating calm.
'''Strong oppose.'''  For all the reasons noted above.  I can't escape the feeling that the WDM's ''relative'' quiet recently is mere politicking.  When I examine his votes and opinions in matters at ANI and the ArbCom his old pattern hasn't changed.  His relentless, stubborn POV pushing in the face of widely accepted facts/sources provided to the contrary.  His staunch and ongoing support of rogue admins behaving badly -- which does not bode well for his conduct should he become one.  Further, he demonstrated at [[Talk: Afrocentrism]] an utter lack of understanding of what exactly POV is.  Rather than ask for citation of relatively well known facts, he branded the information POV pushing and deleted relevant and accurate article content.  Disingenuous edit notes while deleting, again, relevant and accurate text.  Such conduct in an admin is unpardonable.  Adminship?  Absolutely not!
'''Oppose''' per futurebird and Slrubinstein.
'''Oppose''' I suggest withdrawing the request and then addressing the concerns calmly and allowing time for discussion.  If the confusion can be resolved, a new request can be made and I would consider supporting it.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Jehochman. New information uncovered above is very disturbing to me, in spite of my strong respect of WDM for his work on [[Homeopathy]]. Please withdraw this RfA and do not start your adminship under a cloud. Explain the circumstances fully so we can have no second thoughts. Few if any events in history are better documented than the Holocaust. Someone who was or has been a [[holocaust denier]] and purports to be a serious historian has a lot of explaining to do, and their biography should be handled with extreme care on Wikipedia.--
'''Oppose''', per EL C, Jeochman and others.
'''Oppose''', per above concerns.
'''Oppose''', per new found evidence.
'''Oppose''' per above.  Legitimate concerns have been raised.  There's no way he should be promoted this way, regardless of the vote count.
'''Oppose''' Mainly on attitude. I've re-read the David Irving discussion, and it's not just the question of wanting to say "he is discredited as an historian" vs "he is a discredited historian"  To deliberately raise a distinction like this when it would have been clear any reasonable person that it was going to produce anger and disharmony seems to me like arguing for the sake of arguing, and very close to deliberately provoking drama.  '''
'''Oppose''' this time. However, WDM shows he probably can be a good admin, ''if'' he addresses the points raised above, especially those about NPOV and POV. I'd say retract this RfA and give him time to show that he can heed the criticism of his peers. Then, he can reapply.--
'''oppose''' I thought I'd stay out of this but I looked at the David Irving talk page discussion and I have to agree with DGG. -
'''Oppose''' While we need admins who are willing to fight against pseudoscience, we need them to be able to [[WP:SPADE|call it for what it is without waffling]].
'''Oppose''' per Yahel Guhan and Slrubenstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARace_of_ancient_Egyptians&diff=161704085&oldid=161703261]  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARace_of_ancient_Egyptians&diff=161704085&oldid=161703261].  Stormfront being used as a reliable source for information about the Race of ancient Egyptians  shows a lack of insight into policy.  To put it mildly, their views are just opinion (pov).  Links to  racist site have no place except their own article. The David Irving talk page discussion tells me that this candidate is argumentative to the point that they will not be fully open to compromise.--
'''Oppose''' per Slrubenstein. I am sorry, but your comparison that "he is discredited as a historian" with "I could find 50 sources that claim George Bush is an Idiot, Moron or Retarded" was unhappy. There is no way to compare these things, because ''idiot'', ''moron'' or ''retarded'' are personal attacks and ''discredited historian'' is not.
I like Wikidudeman, but I had some doubts about his judgment given some of his calls related to pseudoscience.  Couple that with the David Irving thing and the comments above and I'm more uncomfortable.  I just don't get the impression that he realises what the problem ''is''.  I'm going to err on the side of caution and vote to '''oppose'''.
Switching to '''Neutral''' - per Slrubenstein -
Switching to '''Neutral''' per various concerns raised above. <b>
I could careless about your personal opinion but what Slrubenstein is saying, IMO, is that you're not fully understanding [[WP:R]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. I don't think it warrants an oppose though, so I'm neutral. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately, given your record, I cannot judge whether or not I can trust you to wield the tools. I would recommend bulking up on some mainspace and wikispace edits and come back in a few months and give it another go. [[WP:NOTNOW]].
Sorry but I have to oppose, you only have ~400 edits, hardly any to mainspace, none that show that much use for tools. Reverting is something you can do already. Good luck. <b>[[Special:Contributions/Tinkleheimer|<span style="color:#800517;">&lt;3</span>]]
(edit conflict) '''Oppose'''. You have only 452 edits (over half of those are to the userspace), which doesn't give you a lot of experience by which we can judge your knowledge of policies and procedures. You also only use edit summaries about half the time, and these summaries are very important because they allow other editors to see what you're doing and/or your reasoning for doing it. It is very rare that an editor pass an RFA with fewer than 2000 edits. Plus, you were on the brink of retiring only two days ago when you submitted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username&diff=216000062&oldid=215999887 this username change request] that I saw at [[WP:CHU]].

'''Oppose''' Sorry, but although edit counts aren't a great indicator of experience most of the time, passing an RfA with less than 2000 edits tends to require exceptional circumstances; there simply isn't usually enough evidence to indicate that one is experienced enough to have use of the tools.  You aren't anywhere close to 2000 edits, and I can't see any special circumstances that would indicate you are ready to use the tools.
'''Strong oppose''' any editor who thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Someone_the_Person&diff=prev&oldid=216514043 this edit] is an appropriate way to treat another user's user page is highly unsuited to become an admin. Add to that the lack of demonstrated experience and the very poor answers to the standard questions and I suggest this user withdraws this RfA immediately.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, because I am sure that you mean well. But you have only 79 edits in total, which is only a small fraction of the amount of experience you need to demonstrate your readiness for the tools. I urge you withdraw this application. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - sorry you are just not ready yet and you have not participated enough in the right areas.  You have a very low number of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Wikipedian2&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 Wikipedia-space] contributions.  You have never participated in any [[WP:XFD|XFDs]] nor have you shown any work in areas where the tools are required.  You may want to read up on [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] and trying again in 3-4 months.  You would have a better chance then, seeing as you already appear to be quite a civil and eager contributer.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but you do not seem to have the level of participation which I require for my vote in a candidate just yet. Keep up the good work, try expanding into administrative areas like [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AfD]] etc. and come back when you have some more experience (8 months sound okay?). I'd second Anthony's request that you should withdraw this request, for now. —'''
'''Neutral''' I'm afraid that this RFA has little chance of passing.  Avoiding pile-on.
'''Support''' - has listed over 100 names at [[WP:UAA]], so if there was only a single error, he isn't doing too badly. Agree that it's better not to leave a message starting with "Welcome to Wikipedia" on an experienced editor's page, however overall I think he's a trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' When I look at Pedro's diffs I think you responded politely to each situation, and I think responding calmly is more important than knowing everything the first time around.  At least for me, the excellent encyclopedia building, particularly helping get Rush to FA status, and your academic knowledge which can be used to assess subtle vandalism in technical articles far outweighs the minor concerns below. --
'''Support''' per JayHenry, '''weak''' per Pedro. Continue to refine your judgment on [[Wikipedia:VAND#Types_of_vandalism|what is]] and [[Wikipedia:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not|what is not vandalism]] and you'll be fine next time around.
'''Weak Support''' Deserves a second chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Experienced and responsible editor.

'''Support''' per dorftrotttel. Although I would recommend going slower on actually deleting articles, has many deleted articles tagged for for speedy.
'''Support''' How can I oppose? --<font face=Broadway>[[User:Ryan Taylor|<font color=steelblue>Ryan</font>]] • <sup>[[User talk:Ryan Taylor|<font color=grey>Talk</font>]] •
'''Support''' Goodman
'''Support''', with strong improvements in the past 3-4 months.  I think he's ready now to take up the mop.
'''Tentative Support''' im sure he'll learn how to use the tools effectively.
'''Weak support''' per above. [[User: auawise|<font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda;ua&int;</font>]][[User:auawise|<font color="red">Wi</font>]]
'''Support''' - Seems like a highly capable user. I would advise him not to be so impulsive in the future though, and avoid sudden, rash decisions, like the ones Pedro has brought up. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">

'''Oppose''' Same concerns raised by Pedro. It seems that you have too much of an impulse to warn users when you see what you think is vandalism. When warning, reporting, or blocking an editor, it is always very important to be absolutely certain that they did commit vandalism and were trying to hurt the project. If you cannot be absolutely certain, it is best to leave a personal message explaining why what they did was wrong or asking them why they did it before jumping the gun.
'''Oppose''' per Pedro. [[User:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:black;color:red;font:10pt kristen itc">NHRHS</span>]][[User talk:NHRHS2010|<span style="background:red;color:black;font:10pt kristen itc">2010</span>]]
'''Oppose'''. The claim by the candidate that he has versed himself in the operation of speedy deletion isn't supported by his recent contribution record [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DesignTide&diff=184654325&oldid=184654043] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HotCha&diff=185805068&oldid=185804962] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GHQ_Liaison_Regiment&diff=185709916&oldid=185709710] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inagakuen_Public_High_School&diff=185709221&oldid=185709062] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chad_Robinson&diff=184919098&oldid=184919008]. As well as clearly not being eligible for speedy deletion these articles were nominated a minute (or in one case two minutes) after creation.
'''Oppose''': This user's recent contributions include tagging images uploaded on Commons as being eligible for speedy deletion locally, which is just plain weird. It's not a big deal on it's own, but it shows me one of two things, either, this chap doesn't look and see what he's tagging for deletion (and there's a worry that spreads to actual deletions if he were to have the capability) or he simply doesn't understand about images uploaded on Commons, which, again, is no big deal, but not something I would want in an administrator as it makes me question what other areas of policy are they uncertain about. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Nick. Sorry! <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''': Per the above concerns (and I do believe they are concerns) from Pedro, and Nick. -
Oppose - as Pedro. Sorry, more experience please.
'''Oppose''' - Per Pedro, there are some issue that need to be addressed before your next RfA, try again in 4-5 months.
'''Oppose''' - Per above
'''Oppose''' as per speedy deletion concerns above.  --
While [[DesignTide]] is an organization, the article is obviously about the exhibition. You don't stretch the criterion to get the 'right' result. HotCha winning a [[Jade Solid Gold]] award is a clear assertion of importance. Reasoning here raises doubt on the candidate's ability to tell whether any article fits the criteria, and these are the ones that matter compared to the uncontroversial deletions of the other 95%. –
'''Oppose''' - The CSD diffs above are worrisome to say the least.  A handful of declined speedies is acceptable if you're still learning about the policy, but so the fact that you have this many this recently tells me you're not ready for the mop.  On a related note, I think having a read through [[User:Ginkgo100/Speedy_deletions|this (partial) essay]] by [[User:Ginkgo100]] and re-examining your declined speedy deletion nominations would be highly benificial. --
'''Neutral''' good candidate, but concerns concern me. <span style="cursor:crosshair"><font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Neutral''' per above. <strong>
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but per Dreamafter.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Pedro | Pedro]]. See above in '''Oppose''' section. Good user, but Pedro's comments worry me. '''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">
'''Neutral'''While Pedro's concerns do not seem to be indicative of this user's actions, I'd like to see more time lapse before I support. --
'''Neutral''' Your talk page is bothersome, but could be a good admin with a few more months' experience and patience. -
'''Neutral''' Not confident enough to support yet, but excellent progress!
'''Support''' Per my nomination and everyone's desire to make Wikipedia a better place for our readership. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Nom support''' - per my nom and like pedro said: Net positive.
'''Support''' - You should be a good admin :) --<font color="Red"></font>
Support, and delightfully so.
'''Support''' Fantastic editor, knows what he's doing! I have no doubts he will make one of the best admins on wikipedia today. '''
I think Wisdom89 will be a great administrator.  I've seen plenty of solid contributions since the January RfA.
Rush fan eh?
Damnit, I was going to vote pre-tranclusion but for the rather catching notice in the discussion section. A+++++++++++++ eBayer.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' More than ready to be an admin. In fact, I thought he was an admin. --
'''Strong Support''' - No complaints about this user. &mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold; font-size:12pt">
'''Herculean Support''' - I'm a little bit of a nitpicker myself, so it is not that often that an admin candidate comes along that I can't dig up a single thing that I find troubling about them... but here it is. Give'em the mop.
'''Strong support''' I thought I recalled a good experience with this user so I checked by archives but to no avail. It must just have been a good impression (unless you helped me some other place than my talk page). Anyway I see this user around loads...very hardworking...and per 602 Usernames for administrator attention 247 Administrator intervention against vandalism 224 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 197 Help desk. This user will go far! Best of luck!--
'''Spartan''' ''(one step up from Herculean)'' '''support''' - Per disagreeing with the ridiculous oppose + only having good encounters with this user. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Strong Support''' I have known Wisdom for a while, and I have seen his tireless contributions. I actually thought Wisdom was already an admin for some reason, probably because of how well he has done here. I think that Wisdom will be a great user to give the tools to. Support!--
'''Support''' A competent user, often seen around the admin-related sites, and very competent therein. Will do well with the tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support'''  you weren't an admin already?--
'''Support''' No reason not to support. <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing: 2px;"><font color="#660000">[[User:Soxred93|Soxred93]]</font>&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[User talk:Soxred93|talk]]
'''Support''' as [[Omar Little|Omar]] would say, ''oh, indeed''. Definite net positive.
'''Support''' per KojiDude. Wisdom acts with calm sureness, I trust that he won't misuse the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid "#F5FFFA";padding:0px;">
'''Strong support'''.  I had a really long rationale for this, but I beleated it.  Oh well.  '''
'''Strong support''' Wisdom is a terrific example of an editor who I don't agree with 100% (granted, it's like 95%), but for whom I still have great respect. An excellent editor, thoughtful contributions, policy driven. These are the kind of hands in which we need to place the tools.
'''Support''' yep, of course. —
'''Strong Support''' Has overcame the issues raised in earlier and also taken Admin coaching from Pedro which shows both his commitment and desire and willingness to react positively to the points raised in earlier RFA.Great track and commitment.
'''Strong Support''' I have known Wisdom89 for a very long time on Wikipedia. Of any editor I have crossed paths with he is certainly one who understands what Wikipedia is all about. A dedicated editor and a candidate long overdue for the mop.
'''Support''' have seen his work about the 'pedia, and it's impressive. --'''
'''Theban''' (''they defeated Sparta'') '''Support''' I have always had the utmost respect for Wisdom89 and I was very surprised to find he was not an admin already when I first encountered him. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting him. <small>the only reason it took me so long to !vote was because I wanted to [[User talk:Pedro#COI?|make sure]] it wouldn't be a COI because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FThingg&diff=206723357&oldid=206722806 this].</small> <font color="#3300ff">
'''Support''' A dedicated, thoughtful editor who gets involved and, in my view, always provides insightful comments. <span style="background:#E8FFE8;">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''[[Ancient Thebes (Boeotia)#Fall|Alexander-an]] Support''' ''(at risk of being called out for being called out for frivolity)'' I can't believe Wisdom wasn't already an admin. Excellent candidate. IMHO, this is merely turning a ''de facto'' into a ''de jure'' and giving him the technical ability to delete pages, block users, and the like.
'''Support''' why not <strong>
'''Strong support'''. '''''
'''Strong support'''. I can think of perhaps only one non-admin (at least of those who I think will seek it) who is more qualified for the position than Wisdom89. I am sure once he has the tools, he will have a very strong positive effect on the project. Best of luck, and thank you for finally throwing your nomination in here. :P <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Good improvement since last RfA.
'''Support''' I'm more than positive Wisdom is ready for the tools. He understand all the policies well, and has done a good amount of both article and vandalism work since his time here. He has a massive 602 reports to [[WP:UAA]] so I know he will definitely be an active member there. He also has 247 reports to [[WP:AIV]] which both show experience in two key admin areas. In the articlespace, Wisdom has helped make [[Rush (band)]] a featured article, and [[Neil Peart]] a [[WP:GA|good article]]. He has been contributing since 2006, which is enough experience, and has maintained perfect edit summary usage since November 2007. I'm sure he will make a great administrator. <span style="border:1px solid brown;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Finally!!! '''
'''Support''' very helpful user. <strong>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' WTF are you doing not being an admin? Stop that right now! <font color="006622">
Per ''duh!'' although I '''very strongly''' suggest he take JayHenry's advice on board (as in, ''some'' of his RfA comments have been sucky, IMO). But otherwise, he's awesome. (Neil Peart made FA? Why didn't you tell me!) ''
'''Support''' Third time lucky, you deserve this i have seen you all over the place and you will make a great admin.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' Your not an admin already? I thought you were. <font color="green">[[User:Vivio Testarossa|Vivio<font color="red"> Testa<font color="blue">rossa]]</font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:Vivio Testarossa|Talk]]
'''Support'''. A no-brainer to me. Wisdom89 should be an admin. He knows his stuff, is experienced, communicates, works hard, what more could I ask for? This will reach [[WP:100]] for sure.
'''Support''' - There are a couple of habits that I wish Wisdom89 would reconsider--an apparent over-reliance on edit counts at RfA and a tendency to report borderline usernames to [[WP:UAA]] before the users have even edited are the two most obvious items--but for every time I've been less-than-happy with his edits there are ten times when I've thanked my lucky stars that he's around.  He's smart, capable, and the very definition of a net positive to the project.  He'll do great. --
'''Support''' - as per previous. Agree with JayHenry's points but feel will ultimately be a net positive. Cheers,
'''support''' first supporters signature reassures me--<small><span style="border:3px solid #004e00;padding:2px;">
'''Support''' - per all the reasons in oppose section.  <b>
'''WEAK Support''' Seen significant improvements in his awareness of other aspects of the project since prior RfA. <s>Fully Support now.</s> A recent revert by Wisdom89, during this process, was not followed up with an explanation to a new user. As such, I can't fully support anymore, because he should know about such things by now. (Edit was AGF style, not vandalism, and explanation would've been appropriate. I provided one.)
I don't see much reason to oppose. This contributor is reasonable and civil, which is what we need in administrators.
'''Support.'''  —
'''Support'''.  Sure.  <font  face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]]
'''Support''' - The admin coaching shows skills and the editor seems trustworthy.  Also I wasn't convinced by any oppose argument thus given. -
About damned time '''support'''. <sub>[[User:The public face of Gb|The public face of]]
'''
'''Support''' Absolutely. User has demonstrated commitment to the project and, equally important, a willingness to learn from mistakes and ask assistance when required (as coaching page shows). I hope user continues his excellent contributions. Also, I would note that I tend to disagree with user in RfAs, but I am sure he will make a great admin regardless.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Strong Support''' - What more can I say?
'''Support''' - I see continuous improvement from a good editor.
'''Yup'''.  Good editor, obvious dedication to the project.  Excellent nomination.  [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Support'''. <font color="red">[[User:Kubek15|'''Kubek''']]</font><font color="jade">[[User_talk:Kubek15|'''15''']]</font><sup><font color="teal">[[User:Kubek15/G| (Sign!)]]</font> <font color="olive">[[User:Kubek15/C|(Contribs)]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I cannot recall any significant negative interactions with the candidate.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Weak support''' - nice guy, but his answer to Q1 is the sort of vague nonsense that candidates spiel if they spend too much time in admin coaching.
'''Support''': Solid vandal fighter. Support without hesitation.
'''Support''' - appears trustworthy. The concern below over the supports before the transclusion is utterly ridiculous and has no bearing upon his actions as an administrator. I also don't believe that his RfA votes, although I may disagree with some of them, have any bearing on his ability to conduct administrator tasks. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per appropriate use of speedy deletion tags.
'''Support''' I'm almost ashamed of some of my fellow Wikipedians after reading through the opposes.  Honestly, having pre-existing strong support from Wikipedians at the time of nomination is not a reason to oppose.  If seven Wikipedians believe that he should be an SysOp and mobilize to that effect, more power to them; that's what this process was created for, so that every Wikipedian can have a say and the community consensus can be determined.  Why should it matter if a bunch of Wikipedians post at once or over the course of a few days?  The end result is the same.  Sure the user wants it.  What's wrong with that?  He wants the tools to make Wikipedia a better place, and you know what, I think he will.  I'm sick and tired of seeing these sort of complaints on RFAs.  How about we stop worrying about whether the user wants Adminship or not, and start worrying about whether Wikipedia will be benefited if the receive it.--
'''Oppose''' anyone who present the community with such a fait accompli. Seven supports before the community has chance to comment? That's not fair
'''Moral Oppose''' User may now be "cabal approved", but does not come across as an article builder (a few decent contributions though), rather clear career mandarin more interested in obtaining a mop than building free knowledge. We need no more of these. Sorry to those who don't like my reasoning, but this is an encyclopedia and its admin group needs better balance in the opposite direction from where this promotion will take us.
'''Oppose'''. This is a candidacy constructed entirely out of "admin coaching". He's had people teaching him how to do and say the right things to get promoted since his last RfA, and several of those mentors piled on to support this RfA before it was even transcluded. Despite all this coaching -- and ironically, given his username -- he still doesn't actually show the '''wisdom''' necessary to be an admin. He doesn't think through his actions very carefully. I've seen him in particular at UAA, where he is far too quick to recommend blocks based on incomplete understanding. All it takes is another incautious admin, and then we've got an inappropriate block being placed. If this RfA passes, he will ''be'' that incautious admin.
Deacon and rspeer sum it up pretty nicely.  I've seen this RfA coming for a long time (which is a bad thing).
Per rspeer.
Per the above, especially the comments by Rspeer.  Admins are picked for their judgment and their ability to make good decisions on their own.  I see you've worked well with Pedro, and that's great, but I need to see that '''you''' can make the right choices without being told what to do and how to do it.  You seem to be a great editor, and I see much improvement from your last RfA, but I would have liked to see a bit more time between the coaching and this RfA to see how you really do. -
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BirgitteSB#Oppose Poor understanding] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89#ATAIAD of adminship], Rspeer's evidence of lack of common sense regarding username blocks and the subsequent defence (which I hope no one ever uses), my personal dislike for "coached" factory-made admins. -
'''Oppose''' based on answers to questions, concerns about the editor's excessive desire for a mop (per nom, per so many RfA's in row as well as responses to oppose and neutral votes) and lack of significant interest in creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack the latter reason. I am well aware that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater '''interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia''' and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions suggest that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and content editors. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a strong net-negative impact on the Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. A candidate indicated an interest to involve himself into such decisions and his consulting IRC when doing this would only make the matters worse as shown from experience. He already shows signs of being coached (perhaps at IRC as well.) I feel the user is  a "nice guy" and I wish him luck in content writing but I cannot support his candidacy. --
'''Oppose'''. I see too many incorrect speedy deletion tags. For example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%2B1-868&diff=prev&oldid=202192867 this] was tagged as A1. I cannot understand how "Calling code +1-868 is the calling code of Trinidad and tobago" fails to identify the subject of the article. Isn't it a [[calling code]] for [[Trinidad and Tobago]]? Tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EqWorld&diff=prev&oldid=201471355 this page] was also questionable. The web page has reliable sources and is mentioned in multiple books. Surely that's an ''assertion'' of notability? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Dogs_Update&diff=prev&oldid=201349634 This] is also bad judgement. The article is definitely not complete nonsense (mashing the keyboard repeatedly for example.) and cannot qualify as completely nonsensical. See [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bojan_Lazic&diff=200158211&oldid=200155237 The tagging here] is also troubling. Does a professional football player playing for three of Hungary's top football clubs show no assertion of notability whatsoever? Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Mosquito&diff=prev&oldid=199778474 the speedy deletion tagging here] as A1 (no context) is questionable. On the article, it clearly states "Coastal Forces base ... This base existed 194* to 1945 as a repair and base for Coastal Forces boats." Doesn't bother checking the history before asking for deletion of a clearly notable group,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anonymous_%28group%29&diff=199276398&oldid=199276336 Anonymous] (Project Chanology). The sources for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endoxon&diff=prev&oldid=199272294 this page], as with EqWorld, also demonstrates an assertion of notability; and the tagging was wrong. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Blackwell&diff=prev&oldid=198791982 This] tagging was plain ridiculous. An actress appearing in four extremely popular (as well as notable) films/tv series is clearly an assertion. May I remind everyone that the diffs listed above only extend to March 17 2008, a month ago. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' Everytime I saw Wisdom89 opposing someone at RfA, it's always about "lack of experience in X-area". He's a big fan of edit count and his actions speaks for itself even though he claims that he's not a fan of edit count[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDeacon_of_Pndapetzim&diff=194349582&oldid=194345190], how ironic.
'''Oppose''' Gotta say no here, per DarkFalls and definitely per JayHenry. I've seen Wisdom oppose some pretty damn good RfA candidates. DF's diffs were worrying as well, and the points he made were valid.
'''No''', I think not.
'''Oppose''' per Giano. <sub>...and per rspeer (edit count elitism?) and DarkFalls.</sub> <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' per Irpen and TwoOars.
'''Oppose''', per rspeer's diffs on UAA. The fact Wisdom89 has been coached extensively yet still exhibits poor judgement is disconcerting; I don't think he'd make a good admin at this time.
Per rspeer and DarkFalls, amongst others. Usually these things wouldn't be such an issue for me, but after three RfAs and extensive coaching it's harder to ignore. The UAA reports in particular are concerning - that place is a hive of newbie biting on a good day, I'd rather not add another excessively bureaucratic admin to its ranks. -- <span style="background:#ffff00;border:2px solid #00bfff;">
Per DarkFalls. I don't think I can trust him to delete stuff wisely. '''
Need to avoid scaring off new contributors with inappropriate speedy deletions. The criteria were created to avoid it as much as possible, so the natural assumption is that deleting outside the criteria without a very good reason will lead to the loss of potential contributors. Per DarkFalls' evidence.
'''Oppose''' - I'm not certain if its just rush to judgment, but I see too many recent mistakes when tagging for deletion. I'm not sure if you're tagging for the sake of tagging, but I would advise slowing down. Everyone makes mistakes in this area (I certainly have) when rushing.
'''Oppose'''. Seven supports before the community has been given a chance to comment? I feel that IRC has been thoroughly mobilized to push this guy through, and I don't like it. --
'''Oppose''' Per Rspeer and Dark.--
Stop with the "admin coaching" nonsense already.   We need people with a clue, not just people who try to learn how to get promoted.  It's what happens after promotion that's important.  Many good reasons for opposition are given above (along with a few bad ones.)  Too bureaucratic, not enough judgement.  Those trying to teach people how to pass RFA, rather than teaching people what the project is about, should seriously reconsider whether their actions are helpful or harmful to the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per Rspeer. Seems to be a decent editor and I thought he ''is'' already a sysop due to his vigorous participation in Wikipedia areas but the diffs offered by Rspeer concern me about his ability to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Per poor judgment in the deletion area, as shown by DarkFalls, per Rspeer also. I have the concerns of Friday and others too, though I don't oppose for that, I never trusted admin coaching and I think that it spoils the process. <strong>
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Three RFAs in six months?  Absolutely not.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but I'm not sure of Wisdom's... wisdom... yet.  I share rspeer's concerns about some UAA comments and misunderstandings.  - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font  color="#775ca8">
'''Oppose''' - Really do not agree with his admin standards, but that's not enough for me to oppose. The recent wrong csd taggings are.
'''Oppose''' per DarkFalls, and even without that, "I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions", when you've just been called on an incorrect report, was enough on its own. <b>
'''Oppose.''' This user's previous oppose votes on RfAs lead me to believe that this user does not understand adminship.
'''Oppose''' Misread my posting in [[WP:AN]] recently and had the attitiude of wanting to antagonise rather then be constructive.
Per '''Friday''' and the answer to six looks scripted.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, too many RFAs too soon per Kurt. Adminship is no big deal, and that extends for not having it as much as having it. We don't need the bit to write articles, do research, and lend a useful opinion. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Oppose''' - Per Kurt.
Per Giano. Sorry, nothing personal.
Mainly per Friday and Giano. I've noticed Wisdom mainly through his participation here at RfA, and I'm not comfortable with what I see.
'''Oppose''' rspeer, Irpen and Friday have already said it best.
'''Oppose''' per Rspeer, Irpen, Darkfalls, etc.
'''Oppose''' The contributions adduced by Rspeer and Darkfalls, et al., prevent me from concluding with anything near the appropriate degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
I have concerns about this user's judgment.  My primary encounter with Wisdom is through his relentless [[WP:EDITCOUNT]] opposes on RFA.  Not-enough-X-space-edits, indifferent-toward-the-tools type rationales.  Lack of experience is a valid concern, but if an overwhelming body of evidence has been presented that though low in number the edits are extremely high-quality, it is the dreaded ''prima facie''-reasoning to continue the opposition.  His participation at RFA seems very rarely based off thorough analysis or familiarity with candidates.  Is his participation elsewhere based off more?  My comment could probably be considered superficial as well--I would contend much less so than guesswork based off Interiot's tool--but you'll also note that I'm neutral. --
'''Neutral''' Switch to neutral per rspeer's links.  I still can't put myself in the oppose category though.<span style="white-space:nowrap"><font face="Harlow Solid Italic">
Was going to support, but the diffs presented by DarkFalls concern me.
rspeer and darkfall provide worrisome diffs, so I'm leaning towards oppose.  But the edit summaries show a nuanced understanding of vandalism and unconstructive but good faith edits. Attempting to talk to a user called fickducker, rather than just reporting to UAA, is a good sign too.
'''Neutral likely to switch to support''' I like you answer to my question and I've liked your contributions here.  But I do have some concerns about some of the issues raised by the opposes.  I need to take a closer look at your other contributions before supporting.  (I can't see myself opposing, but don't know if I can support yet.)
'''Beat the nom support... rationale comming soon!---'''[[User:Balloonman|<font color="purple">Balloonman</font>]]''' [[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup><small>PoppaBalloon</small></sup></b>]]''' 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)He he... I beat the nom, for perhaps the first time ever!!! Many of you might be wondering how Balloonman, who claims to spend 1-6 hours per RfA before !voting could beat the nom?  The answer is simple, about a week or two ago I learned that this RfA was in the works.  I found out because I was researching Wisdom's edit history and checking him out to see if I could nominate him myself!  I had decided that I could when I realized that this was coming.  Wisdom is a person who should have passed last time, but a number of silly things killed his RfA.  Wisdom has the unique experience of being the FIRST person to ever receive an oppose explicitly because he went through admin coaching!  I've been watching him for about a year now and have always been impressed.  Personally, I think he is on the 'Crat track... I would not be surprised to see his name down below.  Over all excellent candidate.  And OH, I beat the nom... AFTER going LIVE!!!! YEAH---'''
'''Support''' without hesitation. Wisdom has shown over the past months that he is now ready and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' as nom. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' 22831 edits over three+ years. A relentless contributer to the encyclopedia - to articles as well as to wikipedia discussions. Whatever rough edges may be out there, this is a person who cares about what goes into this project. --
'''Support'''. As nominator.
'''Support''' Per first nom.

'''Support''' I'll admit the work at UAA seems a bit naive, but in this case the good qualities clearly outweigh the bad. Say what you will of the UAA edits, his contribs there show a diligent wikipedian, at the very least. His work/comments at [[WP:RfC/NAME]] are great, and always seem to be spot on[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=247309015][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=247197647][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=247197119]. He can tell the difference between preventative and punitive, and distinguish between vio's and non[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=247308870](in the same diff even). I've yet to find a single comment from him on that page that wasn't helpful[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=243277241][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=243563694]. Article work is a mix of vandal fighting, gnome-ish edits, and downright excellent work[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Wisdom89&namespace=0&year=&month=-1]. Together with the evidence from both noms, I'm convinced the candidate is trustworthy.--
'''Very strongggg Support''' : I just couldnt beat the nom.. One of the sensible wikipedians whom I want to add to [[:Category:Wikipedians who should be admins by default]] --
'''Strong support'''. Relentless. Positive. Contribution.
'''Strong support''' — No one can doubt this guy's commitment... —'''
'''''MEGA''''' '''Support''' : Absolutely, been waiting for this one. —
'''Support''' - absolutely.  Good user, good contribs
'''Support''' - I was going to wiki-link [[no-brainer]] but I don't want to be misconstrued: I ''do'' have a brain and it tells me to ''absolutely'' support Wisdom. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Support''' - good answer to Q1.
I really, really, really want this RFA to pass! Excellent user, supporting with absolutely no hesitation. &mdash;'''
'''Support''', albeit weakly. I share the concerns in the oppose section, but Wisdom is a dedicated and clueful editor. Leaning neutral, but I'll support per WTHN. Cheers, &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' - Wow, I'm glad to see Wisdom re-nominated.  Wisdom, though he may not know this, is one of the reasons that I am still on Wikipedia today.  I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, and when I was first getting started here, he was the first one to lend me a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Littlealien182&diff=217650127&oldid=202372180 helping hand].  Since then, I have always looked at him as a role model, and have observed nothing but good things.  He is logical, level-headed, and bold.  He is more than worthy of admin status.  —
'''Support''' - didn't realize you weren't one. <b>
'''Support''' per Regents Park and Juliancolton, above. There are concerns, granted - and I'd hope that the candidate will exercise the appropriate care in using the tools, particularly at UAA. But, to be honest, Wisdom is a great editor with plenty of Clue, and I have no doubt that he'll make a good administrator.
'''Its time to make him an admin'''. Too much petty bureaucracy stands in the way of us making many good editors, admins. A nod goes out to Rjd and the other opposes (so far only 3), but I don't think that he cannot be trusted to delete, protect, and block. '''
'''Support''' as arguments in AfDs in which we both participated seemed reasonable (thus, I would probably trust judgment in closing such discussions), candidate has never been blocked (it is easy to get accidentally or bad faith blocked eventually and thus never even being accidentally or bad faith blocked is great), candidate has a plethora of barnstars on his userpage (demonstrates that the candidate has worked well with and impressed many other editors), has contributed to good articles (is here to build an encyclopedia), etc.  --
'''Supporto senza riserva'''. Hey, he has Italian ancestry, I have to support him!!! ;-)<br/>But seriously, Wisdom is one of the editors I usually always thought to be an admin and he does great work. I am confident that he will heed the concerns voiced by the opposers and that he will not run amok with the tools. '''
'''Strong support''' - My nomination last time sums up my feelings on this candidate.
'''Yup'''. In the past i've had real objections to some things, particularly some of your RfA opposes. But all the recent things I've looked at seem to suggest that you're over any problems you previously had. The points brought up by the opposers don't really concern me, personally: I actually thought your behaviour in that bizarre ACC argument was pretty good. I think you're ready to wield some admin tools sensibly. ~ <font color="#228b22">
I'm
'''Vehemently Strong Support''' - about time. Cheers,
''' Strong Support''' As per Ultraexactzz. User has been around since September 2004 and has over 25000 edits.Do not see misuse of tools by the user.Fully trust the user to use the tools with discretion .User has shown great commitment to Wikipedia
'''Wait, what?''' Okay, so normally I have a pretty good idea of who is and who isn't an admin. I am shocked- shocked to learn that this user isn't an admin. Maybe it's because he is on so many "Admins that I trust" lists... Erik the <font color="red">
Last time around, I would have weakly supported.  Now, per the facts outlined in Pedro's nomination statement, I'm happy to do so wholeheartedly. --
'''Support'''. Most definitely. Awesome nomination Pedro. <font  face="georgia">'''
I admit that I am a tad concerned with the points raised by Ryan, and would recommend Wisdom reviews and fully comprehends the [[WP:UP|username policy]] so that he'll know when to remove names as a non-violation and when not to. But the fact of the matter is, I couldn't see him abusing the tools in this area, so much as playing a bit too conservatively - in fact, I think this demonstrates his willingness to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] with newcomers, a trait sought after in admin candidates. Something I admire about the candidate is not only how much "wisdom" he has; it's also how much wisdom he aims to have. He is constantly working to improve on himself, taking praise and constructive criticism in a positive manner, and as such has grown in many ways as a Wikipedian throughout his tenure here. He conducts himself in a manner reminiscent of an administrator, and holds himself to very high standards of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] and dedication. He is competent enough to learn the tricks of the trade without much difficulty, all the while having the dignity and common sense to ask for assistance when needed. On the whole, bringing all points into consideration - experience, intellect, and an overall willingness to assist the project - this request is ultimately no more than a formality.
'''Support''' Fixed all the problems from previous nominations. Definitely capable of the admin tools now. Just cause he has a lot of previous RfAs doesn't mean he can't have fixed his issues. '''<font color="midnightblue" face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' seems like a good user, I not believe that lenience at UAA is a bad thing, as xeno once said, although I'm rewording it, (this was mentioned by Frank above, I think) that vandals are a dime-a-dozen, but good contributors are hard to find. Giving users the option of renaming or creating a new account could very easily cause less offense that the big "you are blocked" message, and therefore, the contributor might stay and contribute instead of leaving because they have been blocked "unjustly" (in their opinion), although I would suggest that Wisdom read up on the current community standards on this. Also per my [[User:Foxy Loxy/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]
'''Support''' A great and dedicated editor! Best,
'''Strong support''' - Even if this user does make a mistake on the job, I feel confident that they will take the concerns of other editors seriously, and act on them appropriately. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash;
'''Support'''. I thought the candidate was already an admin. Definitely qualified.
'''Support''' per nom. Good luck. -
'''Support''' he certainly knows his stuff, he was ready months ago IMHO, no perfect but he wont be a problem. I too have seen Wisdom89 turn down usernames at UAA that should have probably been blocked but of all the sins an admin can commit leniency is hardly the worst. Also per the stuff that KojiDude said.
'''Support''' Candidate has experience enough to have earned our trust. I'm sure I've had some positive encounters with Wisdom somewhere or other myself. We do have very different voting records at RFA, and some of the opposers have mentioned candidates RFA contributions,  but I've trawled through [http://toolserver.org/~sql/rfap.php?user=Wisdom89 lots of Wisdom89's opposes] and most seem to be not nows to candidates with 10 to a 1000 edits, if Wisdom89 is as civil as an admin as in the RFA opposes that I reviewed then I have no concerns. As for [[WP:UAA]] I think a little caution can be a good thing in an admin. '''
'''Support''' User has enough experience to be an admin, and per what I said last time. <font color="purple">[[User:NanohaA'sYuri|Nan<font color="red">oha<font color = "blue">A's<font color="green">Yu<font color = "yellow">ri]]</font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_talk:NanohaA'sYuri|Talk]],
'''Support'''. This is one of those people I have an urge to IAR sysop. I don't agree with a lot of his opposes, but I believe that as an admin he will be very beneficial to us. '''''
'''Weak Support''' I mainly agree with nom, but Ryan brings up valid concerns.
'''Support''' &ndash; Excellent candidate for adminship. I've thought Wisdom was admin-material for quite a few months now, and I'm sure he will be very beneficial to Wikipedia as an administrator. He's one of those candidates I'm most impressed of. The opposes don't concern me. I'm sure Wisdom will do just fine. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Some errors at UAA, but not serious enough to oppose.
'''Support''' Editor has content experience - and the opposes just simply don't stack up on examination.--
'''Edit conflict Support''' - User has earned the tools through excellent contributions and long-term commitment to the project --'''
Sorry Wisdom, but I’m going to have to oppose this nomination. I’ve seen your work at UAA, and I don’t believe that it would be of benefit to have you as an administrator working there. You’re too quick to remove reports that should be blocked. Probably because you don’t entirely agree with the username policy, but perhaps because there were problems associated in your last RfA where people felt that you wanted to block usernames that weren’t against policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=249948506 This] username should have been and was blocked, despite you suggesting it shouldn’t be – a little research and you’d have clearly found that the term beaners is a racist term to describe Mexicans and that was even pointed out by the person that reported the name. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=241264891 Here] you state you’re discussing with a user with the name [[User|Downssyndrome90210]] – that should have been blocked on sight, no discussion at all needed with them. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=233178883 Here] you suggest that the username [[User|Drewuniversity]] shouldn’t have been blocked – he’d already made one edit which was to [[Drew University]], whether this was promotional, a role account or simple attempting to make his edits sound like they’re official from the university doesn’t matter – all should lead to a block. I also get the impression that you feel obliged to edit every single RfA and make your opinion known. In my opinion, RfA has deteriorated significantly in the last year and your involvement partly led to the page turning into an even bigger bureaucratic mess with set standards and bitey opposes. In my honest opinion, you simply want the tools to flex your muscles and you think that they will give you extra weight in discussions – I don’t think that’s a desirable trait in an administrator. '''
Though it probably won't make any difference, per Ryan. While you've cut down on your ridiculous RFA opposes, you haven't stopped completely as far as I am aware, and unfortunately I'm thinking you'll continue once you're on the "other" side. You seem to be obsessed with WP:UAA, and still can't get it right. There's assuming good faith, but there's also assuming ''too much'' good faith. I don't think you understand how disruptive a username can be; your frequent opposes on RFAs for candidates who correctly request a block on a disruptive name because they got it "wrong" (in your opinion) demonstrates this. A final point; I really can't see you doing a lot as an admin, since you seem so reluctant to block disruptive usernames. While I generally detest opposes based on that point alone, brought together with my other points, I can't see you being a net benefit as an admin, so it's an oppose. '''
I've been expecting this RfA for the past few weeks, so I'm not really surprised it's here.  I'm afraid I don't trust your judgment enough to support you.  Loosely based on the items mentioned above (although those are points of interest, and I wouldn't give them as much weight as Ryan and Al tally have), and per a recent encounter regarding [[WP:ACC|the account creation team and process]], I'd have to oppose, as I don't feel the least bit comfortable with the idea of you as an administrator.  It would appear that this RfA is off to a great start - as a result of that, if this should pass, I strongly urge and ask that you listen to the concerns brought to your attention, whether they be now, during this RfA, or after if you do become an administrator. -
I couldn't trust you with the admin tools at this time.  You're too unstable for my liking.  Lately you've been under the radar (at least mine), just keep that up and remember that we are here for the encyclopedia.
I'm going to have to oppose too. As with Rjd0060, I've been awaiting this RfA. I honestly don't feel comfortable with seeing Wisdom as an administrator. Not only with the ACC encounter and RfA opposes, I believe that he'll be too lenient when it comes to UAA. Already, he's assuming too much good faith with usernames, removing reports for usernames that could have been blocked. I could probably say this a little better, but I think Wisdom will be a little too firm, possibly acting in a way that goes against consensus (again, there is probably another way I could say this.) Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you would be a good admin.
<s>To date, the candidate has given Wikipedia four RfAs and zero original articles -- a strange ratio for someone who credits editorial input as his strong point.</s>  Q2 raises a red flag for me: the claim that he was "quite instrumental in getting [[Rush]] featured, and [[Neil Peart]] to good article status" is not confirmed by a review of either article's pre-award history -- in both cases, his contributions were overwhelmingly limited to edit reverts and very minor copy editing.  Furthermore, the claim in the nomination that he's done <s>2,500</s> 250 flawless CSD tags doesn't seem in sync with the UAA concerns raised here -- are we all talking about the same person?  Sorry, but I cannot support the candidate at this time.
[[Image:Florero de decoración.jpg|25px]] '''Definitely Not'''. <small>[[m:User talk:Macy|m]]
'''Oppose''' per Ryan. I think you should probably understand the consensus reasoning behind UAA better before being granted the ability to block users for violations. Or, indeed, try to get the consensus changed if you feel it needs to be. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:navy;">'''[&nbsp;
'''No''' per Ryan. I have seen this user and I have noticed their work; much of this is good. He certainly has developed as a user. But Ryan said it well, and I can't dismiss the fact that I distinctly recall seeing uncalled acerbity, multiple times, from him. Further to this, he seem to become deeply embroiled in heated discussions and drama with other users, hence the aforementioned acerbity. And, of course, there is your participation at RfA; much of what I have seen from you there I have not seen to be becoming of a sysop. I can't give diffs, but I exercise my right to oppose because of a bad feeling. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, and I know that Wisdom ''does'' do some good work, but I just can't support for now. &mdash;<strong>
'''Regretful oppose''' I have concerns about the sections highlighted by Rjd above.  While I might be able to live with a broad interpretation of UAA, I have trouble with the other points raised. '''
As far as I'm concerned an editor's suitability for the sysop bit is simple to determine. It's about trust. Can this editor be trusted with the tools? John Reaves and Ryan Postlethwaite articulate why Wisdom is not to be trusted as an Administrator. As a result I must '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' - (Noting that this was almost a neutral.) Besides concerns in regards to the concerns above, I'm not sure that I'm secure in feeling that the candidate meets my own criteria at [[User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria]]. -
No, per above. Not a strong or categorical no, but at least not yet. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">'''''
Per vote 5 [[Wikipedia:Edi|<span style='color:navy;background-color: gold;'>Leujohn</span>]] <sup>(
'''Neutral''' The concerns addressed in his last RFA do not seem to be much improved according to the opinions of the people in opposition. His overzealous desire to become an admin seems still evident per his RFA activities. I also met him once on UAA page, and he just removed it so quickly with the edit summary, "not so much offensive" (to him). On RFAs, the candidate frequently quote his essay on his ground to support/oppose candidates as saying "per my criteria".
Insufficient portal-space edits --
'''Neutral''' I can confirm this (zOMG drama). I'm leaning towards support as you are a new positive. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Neutral''' I am as torn as an old pair of jeans.
'''Wait, what?''' Bleh. Blah! Blargh! Obiviously, It's just opopse for this rsqeeut. --<strong>
'''Netural''' You could just watch his activites to conclude if he is fit to be an admin.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong Neutral''' I agree with Shapiros10, I'm Torn like Natalie Imbruglia singing Torn in a town called Torn.--
'''Neutral'''. Doesn't fail any of my criteria but I have a bad feeling for some reason that I can't place my finger on.
weak support.
'''Moral Support''' - Give yourself another 4-5 months of editing here, learn about the Wiki. Visit as many areas as you possibly can. Read [[WP:ADMIN]] and possibly get yourself an [[WP:ADMINCOACH]]. Cheers.
'''Moral Support''' Given enough time and experience, you too can become an admin. Just not yet. --
'''Oppose''' sorry, but with only 12 edits (apart from this RfA) there is nowhere near enough evidence available to judge if you have the knowledge of [[WP:5P|policy]] and ability to act on it in an appropriate manner. I suggest you withdraw this request, since it is highly likely to fail. Keep making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, and consider an [[WP:ER|editor review]] in 3-4 months to see how you are doing. Best,
'''Agree''' with Gwernol.  Keep up your good editing, and come back to RfA in a few months.  Assuming you continue to make solid and productive contributions, I'll be happy to support at that time.  Cheers, [[User:Keeper76|<font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Keeper76|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76</font>]]  |
'''Oppose'''. Gwernol's right, you should stick around on that account for a while longer so we can see that you are a civil, hard working admin-hopeful.  Come back in six months or so, and I'll definitely support you next time.  Regards, '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]].
'''Oppose''' more project experience needed. Return to RFA in a couple of months, and perhaps then I'll support you. Better luck next time. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:SNOW]] <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">
'''Neutra'' - [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]]. <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Moral support''' I moved your transclusion notice down to the sweet spot so that this RfA can be included.  I can't support properly at this time due to the apparent lack of familiarity with administrative work, but I have some recommendations.  First, a close reading of the WP texts included in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|this list]].  Second, go to "My preferences", click the "Editing" tab, and then check the bottom box, so that you are prompted every time you forget to enter an edit summary.  It works wonders &mdash; when you enter a summary for every edit, your fellow editors will be able to see what you're doing and trust your edits more.  Third, spend some more time at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] and gradually branch out into areas relating to process and policy, which you'll need to be familiar with in the future.  In general, after paging through your edits, I see a rapid improvement from the earliest ones, so you're learning quickly.  I recently went through a badly-failed RfA myself, and would note that you can learn a lot from the feedback in these things.  Good luck. '''
Failure to format this correctly and put it in the right spot alone shows you aren't ready. RfAs are serious business, even if being one isn't -
User does not have enough edits and has not done anything special enough that would qualify him as an administrator.
'''Oppose'''- You're clearly a hard-working editor, but I'm not sure what you want or need the tools for. Judging from your non-answer to Q1, I don't think you do either. I've been through your edit history and I see a lot of article work but very little on things like XfDs, which makes it very difficult to judge your knowledge of policy. I am unwilling to entrust the power to block uers and delete articles to someone without evidence they understand and respect the policies.
'''[[WP:NOTNOW]]'''. Firstly, many thanks for your hard work so far. However this RFA seems a little premature - the incorrect transclusion and no answer to Q1 are a bad start. Insufficent edit summary use (admins need to be clear in their communication) and a lack of admin related contributions also don't help demonstrate how you'd use the tools without creating accidental damage that can seriously harm Wikipedia. I'd suggest you read the NOTNOW essay and the associated links - this will certainly help you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span><font color="black">
'''Oppose''' - You're off to a good start I must say, but I fear you lack the requisite experience. Glad you want to help the encyclopedia by article building. I like that. Branch out a bit in some of the ''other'' Wikipedia areas where administrators put their nose to the grindstone: [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]] and [[WP:XFD]].
'''Oppose''' - I agree, your off to a good start, but your not ready just yet. 1) No answer to question 1? Would you know what administrators are and what they actually do? Its an optional question, but it is an important question. 2) Not much experience in adminly areas. These areas include [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:AN]], and [[WP:ANI]]. Would like to see more activity in these areas. 3) You have quite a low edit summary usage. Administrators should explain themselves of why/what they are doing while making an edit so others know what an admin is doing. Would like to see you doing this as a non-admin also. 4) You do article writing, which is pretty good, but I think you should try promoting articles to [[WP:DYK]], [[WP:GA]], and maybe even [[WP:FA]] if you work hard at it. 5) I think a higher edit count with quality edits would be necessary here. Administrators should have experience in making edits. In general, administrators show good judgement, knowledge in [[WP:POLICY|policy]], are always [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], article-writing and discussion showing--when necessary--knowledge of policy are also important to gaining adminship. Would like to see you do some of these if you want to become an administrator. Best,
'''Oppose''' - Given your tenure here, and the number of edits (but mostly the former), I can't get a good grip on how you'd behave/act if you were granted the bit. Sorry. Inexperience concerns for me.
'''Oppose''' - quite inexperienced, but more crucially practically no projectspace edits at all. <b>
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Xp54321]] as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quotient&diff=prev&oldid=214321808 this use of rollback] just an hour ago.
'''Strong oppose''' per Metros. --
'''Absolutely not''' It's less than three days since I last issued you a warning for your behaviour, and I see no reason to trust you; on the contrary, I see someone frantically abusing automated tools [[User:Xp54321#Editing_Milestones|to boost their edit count]], who appears to want adminship to add to [[User:Xp54321#Tools_and_Capabilities|their trophy cabinet]], rather than to do anything useful.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
There is a need for more admins for Hinduism and [[Vaishnavism]]. Zeuspitar is one such candidate. Thanks.
'''Oppose'''- One fundamental penetrating issue: Experience. This candidate lacks it. You have my praise for making an attempt though. I'd say come back in 5-6 months after participating in various other areas such as [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:HD]]. Also, get yourself an admin coach at [[WP:ADMINCOACH]]. Go for [[WP:ER]] after you've bulked up your mainspace contributions for community feedback, and help built some articles. Cheers and good luck mate!
'''Oppose''' <s>mostly</s> per Wisdom. Under 500 edits is just not enough to become an admin. Sorry. -
'''Support''' I looked through the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Zginder deleted contributions] as well as Zginder's talk page and contributions and this looks like a reasonable editor who has progressed to the point where they can clearly use the mop.
'''Support''' (and re-open the process, I'd say....) - I've taken a good solid look at Zginder's edits, and think he's absolutely ready and responsible enough for the tools. This process really does need to be slowed down a bit too.. no rush folks. In the interests of full disclosure, I should add that Zginder and I have met briefly over at [[WP:NTWW]] and I've expressed strong support for his concept of keeping an audio diary of this process - I think it'll be fascinating, and wish Zginder the best. I'd encourage all neutral and oppose voters to have another look at their comments and consider changing their vote if, like me, they perceive a rather foolish haste about this page.... cheers,
<small>'''
'''Support''' Needs the tools and seems a reasonable editor. Sounds like the perfect case to me! --
So then sometime later. <big>
'''Strong support''' User has put in a self nom even though he knows full well he will take flak for it. This clearly demonstrates he is able to stand on his own two feet, something we really need in administrators.--
'''Sure'''Simple reason - needs tools and requesting admins too often. He can do it himself. Trustable. Good track record.
'''Support'''Totally! Why not?--
'''Weak Oppose''' for now, I may change after I continue to look through the candidate's contribs. Just wanted to get down what I had so far. Candidate wants to work with CSD, and has tagged a fair number of articles for deletion, but only a few in the last couple of weeks. Thise included a couple that would a little disconcerting: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Martin%27s_Brandon_Church&timestamp=20080426211637&diff=prev this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=The_Heart_of_Myrial&timestamp=20080423215138&diff=prev this] definitely shouldn't have been tagged as nonsense, especially the first one. Also, candidate wants to work at AIV, but has only 3 reports there. I'm going to keep looking through his contribs to try to find evidence that convinces me that he'd be fine with the blocking tools.
'''Weak Oppose''' Lots to like here, but seems to me an unpolished diamond in this candidate at the moment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotTheWikipediaWeekly%2FHeader&diff=206098030&oldid=206091556 This] was '''not''' spam. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_Ensemble&diff=prev&oldid=210469469] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_museums_in_Portugal&diff=207706596&oldid=207706386] - wow ! 1 whole minute before slapping a speedy tag? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_Admiral_%28Honorverse%29&diff=prev&oldid=197367318 This] mystifies me - why do you need to point out that a comment is not an attack? In addition I think you could have made a clearer job of communication in your answers to the questions above. It's not one big problem, it's a host of little things that make me concerned. Sorry, and good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Good edit count, but opposed as per Pedro. <i><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' I have strong issues with an admin-candidate who would [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long_Term_Straw_Poll&diff=prev&oldid=209697074 support] admins being able to delete biographies on request. '''
'''Oppose''' - Not bad, but there are a some things that make me feel extremely uncomfortable, Pedro's diffs for example.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, you know when you get that odd feeling that you just can't trust someone despite there being little evidence to support those feelings? This is one of those situations for me. Also, Pedro's diffs are a little worrying. Good luck in the future and happy editing. Regards, <font face="Tahoma" size="2px">'''
'''Oppose'''. The candidate has potential but isn't quite ready.
'''Oppose''' per MBisanz.  --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' All things considered, I just don't think you're ready for the challenge quite yet. That's not to say that you're not on the right track.
'''Oppose''' per response to Kurt... <b><font color="Indigo">
'''Weak oppose'''. I don't see any evidence that he would abuse the tools, but I can't help but feel a bit more experience (# of edits) would beneficially prepare him more. The answers to the questions could have been clearer/fuller — as an admin I think it's important that you be able to express yourself clearly so there's no risk of misunderstandings.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for lack of understanding of deletion criteria. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_Ensemble&oldid=210469469 This] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_museums_in_Portugal&oldid=207706596 this] were mis-tagged CSD G1 ([[WP:NONSENSE|nonsense]]). [[Martin's Brandon Church]], with substantially the same information and format as the current article, was tagged G1 (and deleted!). I interpret [[WP:NONSENSE]] as meaning [[WIKT:nonsense|nonsense def. 1]], ''not'' [[WIKT:nonsense|nonsense def. 2]]. The first two examples ''might'' be the latter, but the third example is neither. Sorry, spend some time at XfD and read up on deletion then try again. —
While I am not impressed with Kurt Weber's oppose, I am going to oppose per TravisTX. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;background:red;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - Too many deletion concerns.
'''Oppose''', I really admire your moxie in going through the whole RFA meatgrinder and sticking at it even when it became clear that it would not go your way, but I'm afraid that I must regretfully oppose per [[User:MBisanz]] above.  Would probably have let it slip though, if it were not for the poor use of <nowiki>{{db-nonsense}}</nowiki> tags as pointed out by [[User:Useight]].
'''Oppose''' - I don't like to object when an editor clearly works hard and has good intentions. Nevertheless, I oppose per answers to questions 6 and 7, lack of answer to 10, and to a lesser degree, what I see as an unseemly bias toward quick and broad deletion. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">
'''Oppose''' per diffs provided by Pedro and Useight. Poor understanding of policy.--
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned with this user's policy experience, and the somewhat shakey answers to questions (namely 6), and deletion concerns. <strong>
'''Oppose''' Per Pedro, and per other things I'v seen. I just don't think this user has a good grasp on all of the policies.
Sorry, but you've got to be able to spot BLP violations like in Q8b.
'''Oppose''' per trying to make a point regarding Kmweber's oppose here (see the candidate's contribs on every non-self-nom rfa currently running). I really wouldn't like to see an admin who's answer to criticism (even if unfounded) is to make petulant responses to people who aren't even involved in the issue. -
'''Oppose''' per opposing other candidates just to make a point.
'''Strong oppose''' per Bobet. Shows immaturity that I don't want coming close to the tools.
'''Oppose''' as per Bobet.
'''Oppose''' per response to Kurt's vote. Not being able to tolerate criticism, as it appears there, is something that leaves me a bit sour. And the supporting of [[WP:OPTOUT]], well, that adds to my concerns, but I can't support a candidate that would delete bio's on request. Sorry. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">
Very disappointed in user's recent oppose to Coppertwig: not only does it shown complete lack of judgement, but also an infamiliarity with the community as a whole. Other concerns are even more disturbing. [[User:Rudget|<span style="color:#8B0000;font-weight:bold">Rudget</span>]]  <small>(
'''Oppose''' per apparent violations of [[WP:POINT]] regarding RfAs; agree with the first half of Steve Crossin's statement - if you make a point using your editors tools, intuition suggests that you may do the same with your administrative tools.  --''
'''Oppose''' Because of his statements in other RFAs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJbmurray&diff=212006620&oldid=212004551 like this] -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">
'''Oppose''' As noted above, to make [[WP:POINT]] opposes to uninvolved RFA candidates because of kwebbers oppose doesn't show the temperment needed for an admin.--
'''Strong oppose''' [[WP:POINT|point]]-voting and disruption are not expected from administrators. Try again next year, at the earliest.
'''Oppose''' Don't like the answers to some of the questions, and per all above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Neutral'''. I can't see a huge fault with this users article editing, but little to no involvement in XfD discussions, poor edit summary usage and no real need for the tools indicated, I can't support now. Sorry. (PS: The last one isn't a big issue.) '''
'''Neutral''' per Pedro's diffs.  - [[User:Diligent Terrier|Diligent]][[User:Diligent Terrier|<span style="color:orange">'''Terrier'''</span>]] <small>
'''Neutral''' per weburiedoursecrets -- --
'''Neutral''' per WBOSITG with the exception of that last qualifier. I don't feel that need for tools should be a prerequisite to getting the tools. However, A lot of harm can be done by admins who don't really have a solid foundation in admin-related functions. As such, I would be happy to support you a few months down the road after you have a more all-encompassing experience in project space. Good luck.

'''Neutral''' as per Pedro. '''''[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|Editor]]
a lot of edits are marked as minor - I didn't look, but there seem to be too many to actually be minor.  A small point, but this, and the opposes, lead me to be neutral on this editor.  Admins are allowed to make mistakes in theory, but in practice they get stomped on.  learning on the job seems to not be an option for admins anymore.
'''Neutral''' per WBOSITG. --
<s>Oppose.</s> Moved to '''Neutral'''. Pointy behavior in this and other RFAs, but not really enough to oppose because I've seen the candidate do well in other areas. ·
'''Support'''.  Nothing to indicate that this user wouldn't be a better vandal fighter with the tools.  <font color="629632">
'''Oppose'''. I don't expect administrators to know everything, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=216951062&oldid=216949665 this] edit on ANI just now, where you state you don't know how to handle the situation (what exactly the problem is you don't make clear, no diffs and all that), is rather telling of a lack of experience. I suggest a few months more editing before applying for adminship.--
'''Oppose'''.  Too many edits using automated features, not sold on this candidate's abilities at this time.  Should this RfA not succeed, I will not rule out reconsidering my vote in any future attempt, but can not support this time around.  Best of luck, however!  --
'''Oppose''' - Per Atlan, definitely.
'''<big><big><big>HELL NO</big></big></big>.
Not today. <strong style="color:#000">
Too soon. <small>'''
'''Oppose'''.  Atlan's ANI diff shows lack of confidence (which wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me), but I have noticed multiple other things.  First comes the notifications on your talk page about recent ANI threads about you ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ziggy_Sawdust#AN.2FI_discussion here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ziggy_Sawdust#Your_recent_edits_to_Lutetium here]) and multiple other things on your talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ziggy_Sawdust#Refdesk_manners maturity problems], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ziggy_Sawdust#A_friendly_request BITE problems], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ziggy_Sawdust#Speedy_deletion_of_You_wack_discipwine creating inappropriate pages notification], and[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ziggy_Sawdust#Don.27t_kid_yourself a problem with maturity])  My interactions with you on IRC (though I recognize that this is not official) have been negative because of spamming of profanity and things such as this.  I also don't really care for userboxes such as the ones at the top of your userpage--though I do understand you are just trying to make people laugh--and these added on to other problems I've noticed make a difference.  My suggestion to you is just to "sober up" and try again in 5 months.  Sorry, <font  face="georgia">'''
I respect fully banned users coming back to reform, and I welcomed Ziggy coming back with a new account and editing constructively and staying out of controversy. I however think it should be made known that this is a new account of {{Userlinks|Flameviper}}. I hoped he would just stay in the background, but  unfortunately he’s decided not to.
'''Oppose'''. Does not meet my 1 year criteria for editors applying to be admins. Plus I am confused as how he is allowed to edit at all and not indef banned based on his previous '''community ban'''. I thought ban meant you're not allowed back unless by consensus of the community.
Looking at this users contributions and answers, Ziggy Sawdust can be a good candidate in the future. This user has been here since February, but has a really low edit count, 500+ in mainspace and 1100+ total. Sorry, but try again with more experience in mainspace in a few months. --
I don't have time to go through your history in detail, but our paths have crossed this evening for the first time and I think that your nominations for CSD could use more experience.  At the moment, I wouldn't be entirely comfortable with you deleting CSDs. The two instances are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrzej_Kurylewicz&diff=216922928&oldid=216922695 this] has clear assertions of notability, and was tagged just 1 minute after creation; [[United Hospitals Boat Club]] was a copyright violation of the url mentioned in the article, not "nonsense" as you tagged it.  More experience (and less haste?) could be beneficial.
'''Moral Support''' - Please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a few months or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is [[WP:NBD|no big deal]] and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. - <font color="navy">
'''Moral Support''' Same as NuclearWarfare above. I tried running once when I had 150 edits (oops!) and tried going over the same thing you did. You clearly have more then that, but [[WP:NOTNOW]] will come into play on this. Work more on the things you want to go for, and in four to five months, give it another go. I got faith you can come thru later. Try again soon! <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' good intentions, however, significantly more experience is needed: less than one thousand edits, only eight conversations on user talk page, weak answers to questions.
Sorry, you're headed in the right direction, but you need more experience. Also, your recent mishap with changing an editor's talk page comment leads me to question your judgment. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Still inexperienced. Your judgment is also questionable from what {{user|Juliancolton}} mentioned above. Maybe in the future, but not now as you need more experience. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' You are in the right track.You have been here since Feb 2008 and have over 900 edits.As per {{user|Juliancolton}} .Please try after some time.It is only [[WP:NOTNOW]].Sorry and Good luck in the future.
'''Neutral''' Your desire to help the project is admirable, but your timing in RfA-land is a bit premature.  Keep doing what you're doing, and let's revisit this in 2009. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' Per Eco.
'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash;
'''Almost beat Xyrael in the IRC race support''' <strong>
'''Strong support'''. Duh. -
'''Support.''' I saw this user handling a case in the Mediation Cabal (I was not involved), and he did so expertly and thoughtfully.  I said on [[WP:ER]] that I'd support him for that reason alone, and I stand by that.
'''Support.''' would make a great admin. --
'''Strong support'''. ^demon may not have the traditional spread of experience but there is no doubting his trustworthiness and knowledge of policy as demonstrated by his mediation work. He is calm and level-headed- will use the mop well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I have to agree with Amarkov. "Support, duh" comes to mind here. &ndash;
Support, This is the current head of the [[WP:MEDCOM|Mediation Committee]]. Since being the head of the mediation committee requires a rather higher level of trust than an admin flag, I think we can easily trust ^demon with the latter. --
'''Support''' per Kim Bruning. '''
'''Support''' Considering that this user is in charge of [[WP:MEDCOM]] and runs a bot, there is plenty of reason to support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' Was thinking of nominating ^demon myself eventually.  : )
Sorry, but '''wtf support''' - you're not already one? WTF? &ndash;
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' About time for this candidate to become an admin.
'''Support''' per noms, answers, overall record. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Great volunteer to have on the project.  I'm sure giving him a few extra buttons will only help both ^demon and the English Wikipedia. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Seems overdue''', per all of the above. I'm sure this user will get at least one editcountitis oppose (693 mainspace edits?) but he's fully qualified.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Thought he was one.
Why not. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' ^demon is already highly trusted by the community as the head of MEDCOM, so this is a no-brainer.
'''Support''' qualified admin candidate.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support''' Excellent qualifications... --
Oh, hell yes. '''
'''Support''' per Daniel. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' A mediator that haven't received adminship?! I feel that we committed a crime. --[[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color= "blue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">'''''KZ'''''</font>]]     [[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<sup><small><font color= "red" face="Century Schoolbook">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] <sup>•</sup>
'''Support''' -- <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per nom and all of the above. —
'''Support'''
^R ^F ^A cliche #1.
'''Support''', he's not one yet? I cannot believe it.
'''Support'''. Given that ^demon already occupies several position of trust - mediator, bot-running etc. - it is clear that he can handle the responsibility of adminship.
'''Support''' Definitely! Runs a bot, mediator - has my complete trust. -
'''Support''' Excellent, well-rounded, experienced candidate.
'''37''' -- ''
I'm
'''Support''' per the nominations. '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strongest Support Possible'''
'''Support'''. I trust ^demon not to implode Wikipedia with a few extra buttons. Hand over the mop. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support'''

^demon has impressed me with his maturity and skills here, both as an editor and as a mediator on the MedCom.
'''Support''' ^demon is a great editor who I am sure will do a fine job as an admin. '''
'''Support''', no concerns at all.
'''Support''' very good editor, will be a good admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''', and this is an "I-thought-you-already-WERE-an-admin" non-vote. Clearly responsible; already doing hard work well; and as for "needs-the-tools" (the question brought up in "Oppose" below), admin access would have let ^demon retrieve the deleted bot code rather than do it all by hand, and also would let ^demon see, undelete, and protect evidentiary text that anyone else had tried to hide by deleting. These tools clearly relate to the job ^demon ''is already doing''. --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Mediation and templates...
'''Support'''. Great candidate. Good answers. Moptastic. --
'''Support'''. Candidate's has done a great job at everything else.  I have total confidence that will continue as an admin.  --'''
'''Support'''. I have interacted with this user before, and while we do not always agree, he has struck me as level-headed and fair, and thus I would tend to [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust his judgement]]. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' This user was particularly helpful in helping me get an older signature which I used to use working, he went the extra mile just to help, I definitely trust him with the mop. Good luck! <b><font color="0066FF">
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support'''. Caretdemon seems to be an excellent candidate, and I can find nothing which indicates otherwise. ···
'''Support'''. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support'''. Seems like a reasonable editor.
'''Support''' A fine user, who deserve my support. <i><b>
'''Support''' - I've crossed paths with this user several times and they seem to know what they're doing. Definately worthy of becoming an admin. //
'''Support''' Needs tools by all accounts.
'''Support''' User can certainly use the tools.--
'''Support'''-Great user. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' - Approachable, dependable, helpful, experienced. —
'''Support''' certainly based on history, answers, and apparent kind nature. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Very good user, as part of MEDCOM, he will use the tools at least for deleting expired medcom cases. Regardless, ''adminship is no big deal''. ——
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; excellent work for the [[WP:MEDCOM|Mediation Committee]], demonstrating a desire to achieve and retain consensus - a highly desirable trait in a [[WP:SYSOP|sysop]]; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Well demonstrated editor --
'''Support''', almost forgot I !voted oppose the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon|first time around]], but this is the most "improvement" I've ever seen between RFA's! :) —
'''Support''' I think Demon would make a great administrator
'''Support''' Someone whose work has made them a valued mediator will doubtless be even more valued with the tools. —

'''Support''' Trust is high, no dearth of support, enthusiasm is fulfilled, sealed with a sig.
'''Support''' per noms. '''
'''Support''' this editor is trustworthy, dedicated, and has what it takes to be an administrator. --
This person is a '''great''' user!!! I think that him becomming a admin is far overdue. Peace:) --
'''Support'''. Not a whole lot of mainspace hurts your standing. Yeah, I had to take the strong out, sorry. But you're still a  great user who deserves the tools.--
'''Support'''. Seen good stuff from him. -
''' Oppose'''. I don't think that this user needs the tools, and the answers to the questions don't do anything for me.
'''
'''Support'''. Mature and well expressed answers.  Good contributor.  I see no problems. &mdash;
'''Support''' positive contributor ''<font color="#000066">'''

'''Yes''' - wouldn't have minded a bit more experience, but your answers seem to look past what your editing experience presents. -- <strong>
'''Strong support''' excellent nominator nominating an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - This user will be definatly a great admin. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
<big>'''+'''</big>  More experience would be nice as noted by Anonymous Dissident, but the Requests for accounts was a nice touch.  Familiar with policy and process.
Solid candidate. '''
'''Support''' fine Wikipedian. —
'''Support''' - good answers and sufficient experience.
'''Support''' - I'm going to support. I believe this user has enough experience and expertise to make an alright administrator.
'''Support''' Trustworthy, impressed by answers to questions.

'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' <s>His grace under fire was very impressive, and demonstrated that he has a level head.  That, combined with his experience, will make him an excellent admin. [[User:JCO312|JCO312]] 15:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)</s>  I initially posted in the wrong RfA.  My apologies for the mistake.  I have reviewed @pple's contributions, and will happily maintain my support.
'''Support''' 10/10 username and anyone who will help out with old AfDs is great.
'''Support''', ''usuarium bonum est''. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. No problems with this candidate. I wish I could come up with a witty Latin phrase...
I'm
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' fine editor, no reason to oppose :-) <b>
'''Support''' seems to have simalar edits to me -
'''Support''' Sure...I like what I see.
'''Support''' Great editor, and nice username ;). -
'''Support''', no reason not to, plain and simple. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support'''. A fantastic editor with enough experience, and will be a fantastic admin! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
I see no reason not to trust you, please don't give me a reason. :-) '''
I will support.  User edited for six months so I assume he has enough experiance.
'''Support''' User appears unbiased and has good track.
'''Support''' Great answers, good history, no reason to oppose. '''Cheers,''' '''''
'''Strong support''' - excellent responses to the questions. Super editor. I've absolutely no issues here whatsoever. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my own question in such depth -
'''Support''' Excellent answers to the questions, genuine civility shown here and through contributions, no reason not to trust this candidate - they will only be a benefit to Wikipedia. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Good editor who is very experienced with Wikipedia. No concerns here. --
'''Support''', has improved the encyclopedia. <span style="padding:2px;font-size:80%;font-family:verdana;background:#E6E8FA;">
'''Support''', good contributor, I hope you become a good admin. Good luck.
Aww, my nominee nominated. :) Appears to be sufficiently sane. ~
'''Support''' Yes. '''
'''Support''', but originally neutral, based on the oppose vote by a now-banned sockpuppet.  You must be doing something right!

'''Support''' — A good guy. I'm confident he'll do a good job.
'''Support''' - excellent editor. A real credit.
'''Weak support''' - although I would like to see more mainspace contributions. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' Though I half expect someone to go neutral on the fact his name has the @ sign in it. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''&mdash;another good RfA candidate. &mdash; '''

'''Support''' &mdash; <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' Excellent answers given to the above questions, impressive▪◦▪
'''Support''' No major reasons to Oppose. Good luck.--
'''Support'''—good answers, fine contributions with nothing of concern. --
'''Support''' Looks a sound candidate. --
'''Support''' - Not as many cotnributions as various other candidates, but what there is is excellent and the answers above indicate a good understanding of the role and the policies.
'''Support'''  meets my standards.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, good answers to the many questions.
'''Support'''- I have seen some excellent edits by this user, there is no real discussion on whether adminship is deserved. Also, <3 the name ^.~

'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Everything is good to me (well except [[WP:RFPP]] participation, which you don't have to worry about).--<font color="red">
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions and solid contributions to encyclopedia building outweigh the slightly low edit count in this case.
'''Support''' Good awnsers, good user. [[User:Djmckee1|<font color="Blue" face="verdana">Djmckee1</font>]] - [[User_talk:Djmckee1|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">Talk</font>]]-
'''Support''' Plenty of reasons to support this candidate: just one is the amazingly detailed answer to Alison's question.
In reading @pple's answers, I saw so many grammar errors that I worry he/she won't be able to judge edit wars. An understanding of the structure of language is so central to the ability to think and judge clearly that I wouldn't be confident in @apple's abilities in other areas besides proofreading.
'''neutral''' leaning towards support. I've personally seen some solid contribs from @pple elsewhere, but I am not quite fully satisfied with his answer for the conflicts section, and I want to hear his answers to Alison and Miranda.
'''Neutral''' - Just a comment really.  I would encourage the applicant to more talk page activitiy.  An admin's first and most visible job is early dispute resolution on article talk pages.  currently the User has about a 0.14 article talk to article ratio.  More talk encouraged!  Best of luck.  --
'''Neutral''' - not enough article writing, for me, although from what else I see he has no real issues. Still, no reason he won't perform his desired tasks competently given the mop. <!-- [[Image:barnstar3.png|10px]] --><font color="#cc6600">
'''Before the start, strong support'''. I too wish to urge the community to support this candidate. A. B. is a dedicated editor who is highly experienced and has a wide mix of strengths, all of which can be a benefit to Wikipedia by giving him a mop and bucket. There are no objections or concerns from myself by giving A. B. the admin tools. Based on my long experience working with and along side him in cleaning up Wikipedia, I’ve always been impressed by his intelligence, dedication and candor. I proudly voice my strong support --
'''Nominator's support!'''
'''Strong support''' - I can think of few people who would be better-qualified for the admin tools.
I'd be hard pushed to find anyone I would support more strongly than A. B.  I came across him on the Meta blacklist a few months back and it must have taken all of a couple of days for me to realise I could trust him.  Since then my respect for him has grown.  He deals with extremely difficult spammers with patience and courtesy (& firmness!).  He is thoughtful and can be counted on to research & deliver reliable detail.  I've learn much from him & I've been trying to get him to go through this for a while now, I'm just pleased to be able to support him now.  He will be a great asset to the admin team & I would ask others to support this, thanks --
'''Strongest Support''' - as co-nom. The outstanding contributions by this user are viewable right across the board. A rare, and exceptional candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''', experienced, capable, responsible, and courteous to even the most hideous of spammers. --
'''Support.''' I know A. B.'s work from the spam and COI noticeboards. In my view he is extremely well-qualified, patient and judicious.
'''Strong support''' Wonderful fellow, very insightful -- his work will be a credit to the mop.
'''Strong support.''' I worked closely with A. B. for quite some time over at [[WP:WPSPAM|WikiProject Spam]] and can vouch for him unreservedly.  Since some minor, long-ago newbie issues that he freely mentions above, he has a developed into an exceedingly civil, mature editor with a cool head and calm demeanor. He is, in fact, a role model for many of us in how to effectively handle conflicts. His investigative skills (with linkspamming, not socks) and proficiency with policy and procedure are simply outstanding. A. B. is one of our most valuable editors, and his adminship is long overdue. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
<i><b>
'''Strong support''' - wow it took a month for him to accept..hehe..like [[User:Snowolf|Snowolf]], I believe he can do it..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong support''' - will make good use of the mop, I am sure!  --
'''Support''' You mean he's not...? A.B. does great work with WikiProject Spam (and a lot of it!), I love his answers to the questions, especially the ones about conflict, and nothing but good can come from giving him some extra tools to help keep the spam at bay.
'''Yes!''' -
'''Support.''' Even though I have not really interacted with this editor, I have seen them nearly everywhere, which bodes well.
'''Support''' per my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/A._B.&oldid=108061028 original nomination statement] from February (!).  He would have been an awesome admin candidate then, and he's even better now!
Yes, I'd like to order a single "he's not an admin?" cliche, please. To go. Thank you. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
At last! A hard working editor who is trusted on a number on wikimedia projects - a great candidate!
'''Yeps'''
'''Support'''. I'm not going to bore you all with [[WP:GLOSS#ITHAWO|RfA Cliché #1]], but A.B. would make an excellent admin. '''''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' knows the ropes and should wield the mop well.
'''Support'''. Like somebody else up the line mentioned, I'd been waiting for this RfA to go live so I could chime in here. —'''
'''Strong support'''.  At last.  I had this page watchlisted long before it was created.  Long overdue for the tools which I know he'll put to good use to benefit the Project. &mdash;
'''Support''' with no worry.  --
'''Strong Support''' - Absolutely no worries.
'''Support'''.  Fine editor, will show good judgement.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Very strong support''', a fine candidate. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, and an overall trustworthy user.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good judgement and lots of experience; no concerns from me '''''×'''''
'''Support''' - No concerns, great editor, will be a great addition. -'''
'''Support'''; well qualified; likely to be an excellent admin.

'''Strong Support''', and overdue. To say 'I've been very active with WikiProject Spam' is a bit of an understatement.
'''Strong Support'''. Works on a wide range of pages on Wikipedia in a high quality way.
'''Support''' - He is a very good editor. He will do a great job as an admin.
'''Support''' - A.B. does great work combating spam, going much further than just removing, warning, and moving on. He researches, makes sound and fair judgements (going out of his way to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who might possibly be well intentioned), and finds further patterns of spamming by the users/sites. For anyone who hasn't witnessed this for themselves, take a look and you'll be impressed. Wikipedia will be a better place for having as an admin someone with this much dedication, sound judgement, persistence, and interest in doing the right thing.
'''Excellent candidate'''
Of course.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent editor!  No problems here.
'''Support''', as A.B. is fine and will make a great admin, but I have no idea why Durova and Rudget felt the need to add unsolicited conominations.
'''Support''' An experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Suppport''', yet another case of "I could have sworn you had the mop".--
I'm
'''Support'''. Liked his answer to Q.3 especially. ;-) Experienced user, doesn't raise any red flags.
'''Support''' per [[User:EVula|EVula]]'s comments above. -
'''Strong support'''.  Wow, I can't believe I overlooked this user.  Huge number of edits, very useful and hardworking at AfD to rescue articles, and a great sense or humor.  Give this user the mop!
Oh my goodness yes. ~
'''Support''' <s>Spam, spam, spam and spam</s> (no more) --
'''Support''' great answers to questions.
'''Support''' Impressive contributions and strong support from well-known editors. Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' Not before bloody time. You could (and probably should) have been here a year back.
'''Strong Support''' Great user, will make good use of the tools! --
Yeah right, like you're not one already... hey, you're not?! Well, we're a wiki and can always correct things. ¶&nbsp;

'''Support''', of course. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
Support. '''
Per [[WP:AN#Community ban of spammer|today's developments]].
'''Support''' per above.

'''Support''' but I change to oppose if you don't use [[more cowbell]] :) —
'''Support''' --
I usually don't do pile-ons. but, I'm extremely impressed with your answers [[User_talk:Takenages|Here]]. Keep up the good work!
Good answers to questions.
'''Support'''. Incoming [[WP:SNOW|snowball]]! (well, it's winter now, eh?)
'''Support''' Levelheaded when confronted by others. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
Excellent user.
'''Support''' after seeing a very levelheaded attempt (currently ongoing AfD) at intervention [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell|here]], this editor is definitely [[WP:COOL|cool]] with me.  Based on the AfD, I assumed [[User talk:A. B.#A quiz|he/she]] was already mopping, then saw him/her here.
'''Support'''!!!! In my experience, A.B. is smart, mature, level-headed, and responsible. Adminship for A.B. will benefit Wikipedia, and hopefully also A.B. --
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' Very qualified user. I was under the impression that this user was an administrator already! <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' experienced user will be a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', of course. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Maturity and integrity. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy, no negative signs here.
'''Support''' Positive experience with nom as editor.  --
'''He's/She's not an admin yet'''?--'''''
'''Support''' - One of the earliest contributors I remeber interacting with.  I at the time thought they were an admin.
'''Support''' Per noms. Very qualified to be an admin. --'''''<sup>
'''Support''' per all
'''Support''' - All of my experiences with this editor have been both positive and pleasant.  I have no fear that A. B. will misuse the tools.  --
'''Strong Support''' Not even a chance of misuse of the admin tools  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Well, that should be apparent. I was the nominator, right? I have already wrote a good deal about the reasons to support him while nominating (and also at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/AA|his editor review]]). Never mind the flowery language. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">
'''Support''' A review of the last 1500 contributions shows nothing but good work. In addition your deleted edits show a raft of accurate CSD tags, so I have no concerns on your policy knowledge. You answers are clear cut. Basically ticks all the boxes for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Glad to give my support. I am confident that this candidate would not abuse the added tools given to him as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems to be a solid editor. --
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest this editor will do anything but good with the tools.
Sure, looks good. A great variety of contributions in many places, would do fine with the tools. <b>
'''Support''' No reason not to. I looked through some of your contributions from March, and they were all really good. I did notice, however, that you maybe made some typo's (Please don't bite my head off for writing this! It's only constructive criticism - and I hope it will be treated as such :-), e.g. "existance" instead of "existence". I ''honestly'' don't mean to be nasty or picky about it... Okay, I'll stop. I'm scared that people will interpret it wrong :-( But anyway! You have my full and complete, unwavering support!
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, no concerns with him/her having the tools. <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' had a look at your [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=AA&site=en.wikipedia.org edit account] and your most recent edits. You've got edits across the namespaces and according to Pedro (I'm not an admin) you know how to Speedy delete. All in all, a good user and you'll make a great admin--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support'''.  Well-balanced and experienced editor.  Seems to know what he is doing and I trust he will do well with the tools.
'''Support''' User has plenty of experience, and demonstrates an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia. Good Luck!--
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=AA&namespace=8&year=&month=-1 Too few MediaWiki] edits for my liking, but o well. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Not very many reports to AIV, but like he said, he's done a lot of deletion work. —
'''Support''' Qualified, and wants to help out in areas that need it.  Hell yes! :)
'''Support''' Seems like a reasonable, well-balanced individual who learns from mistakes and is unlikely to misuse the tools.
Fine with me. —&nbsp;'''
—
'''Support''' looks fine - good luck :) --'''
'''Support''' Good examples that show the kind of spirit we need here in our admins. I'm a bit concerned about the "perfectionist" stance, I hope the candidate won't go so far as to discourage the typically not-perfect contributions of newbs and occasional editors, and I do hope that I don't vote for a delitionist here. Also, more experience would be nice. However, I don't see facts seriously supporting my doubts, and the work done so far speaks for the candidate. Keep it up, and good luck, AA!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No problems that I can see. --
'''Support''' A good editor worthy of becoming administrator.  We all have flaws but AA's don't seem notable.
'''Support''' - Achieved a good lot since starting here, well done. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Even inspired me to joing Leeg of Copietidorz.
'''Support''' Good editor that is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. (AA is also the initials of one of my friends)
Article work looks pretty darn decent, and this fella appears to be a reasonable person who I can work with. That's all that's necessary.
'''Support''' Purely based on my personal experience of interaction with this user. On several occassions I requested help from him and got immediate assistance. This is the right kind of attitude I'd expect from an admin. '''
'''Support''' - Seen his name frequently on my watchlist probably due to some common watchlisted articles. He'll do good —
'''Support'''. Administrators who will make a close in favor of consensus despite their own disagreement are in just as short a supply as administrators who will perform unpopular actions that need to be done.
'''Support'''. Good all round contributor with a variety of excellent contributions. Respectfully with regard to the "oppose" section below, I think the reading of [[WP:V]] is too strict, since the word is "verifi''able''", not "verifi''ed''". "Unsourced" is not the same as "unverifiable", although it can be a serious indication. In many cases, the problem unsourced articles can and should be solved by sourcing them. The fact that AA has contributed to the [[Biman Bangladesh]]'s promotion to featured status is a far more reliable measure that the user "gets" the core content policies.
I'm
'''Support'''.  Lots of good edits - seems very competent and positive.  Good luck!
'''Support'''.  conducive to 'pedia building. I like people erring on the side of keeping rather than deleting in AfD debates. cheers,
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools. Plus, seems to have a good sense of humor, which is always (well, ''usually'') a good thing. '''
'''Support''' Great user with lots of experience in all areas of the project. --
'''Support.''' He did good work on the article at [[Biman Bangladesh Airlines]], and his ability to deal reasonably with content disputes is seen at [[Talk:Fatimah]]. I looked at the AfDs mentioned below, including [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Donner|this one]], and I do agree that you should not close a debate you have also voted in. In the discussion about [[Template:Islam]] mentioned by Yahel Guhan, I think AA's demeanor was quite reasonable. In general AA seems patient and civil.
'''Support.''' Great work on FAs, and level-headed user.
'''Support''' Great edits, cool temper, lots of experience, a fine wikipedian. AA has my confidence.
'''Support''' Good "clam" editor. --
'''Support''' Seems to have a good grasp on policy and a very even keel (as evidenced by response to criticism below).  Good reason to have the tools, very low risk to abuse them, and has made a positive difference on Wikipedia, so user has my support.  Plus, we could definitely use more [[clam]]s as admins.
'''Support''' An experienced, civil and level-headed editor. --
'''Support''' See nothing that persuades me this user will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' for apparently insufficient knowledge of core policies. On two current AfDs ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airpoints|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroBonus|2]]) the nominee recommended to keep two articles on reasonable notability grounds, which is fine – but he did not notice or care that the articles utterly fail [[WP:V]], an overriding core policy. [[Airpoints|One article]] (now deleted) was not sourced at all, and [[EuroBonus|the other]] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EuroBonus&oldid=159978080 currently] sourced to the article subject's website and to Wikipedia itself. I have not reviewed the nominee beyond these AfDs, so feel free to take this vote with a grain of salt.
'''Oppose''' in my many revert conflicts with AA, I can say I have concerns about [[WP:CIVIL]] from this user. Based on some of his edits, he/she probably will use his admin tools in articles he/she is actively editing. I find it ironic User:AA use as examples of afd's he/she'd close are on topics he/she normally edits. '''
'''Weak oppose''' I deny, as the principal author of today's featured article, that getting an article to FA shows anything much about knowledge of policy, especially this one, which had a softball review even by the current standards of that overburdened page; the chief FAC commentator was the nominator for this RfA. I do not think that handling your own CSD's is desirable; CSD's really should be reviewed by two people. There are no signs of knowledge or ability to handle dispute resolution, which every admin will be expected to do.
'''Oppose''' This user has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=162806725&oldid=162805524 here]. The user has stated that in arguing that a source is unreliable for articles relating to Islam, one must adhere to guidelines for editing articles.
'''Oppose''' per Yahel Guhan --
'''Oppose'''. I have no faith in the ability of AA to follow basic wikipedia admin procedures or to follow elementary manual of style rules. My first experience with him was when I noticed he was mass reverting articles in direct contradiction to [[WP:MOSISLAM| the manual of style (Islam related)]]. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Boniface_IV&diff=prev&oldid=146205294 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azadari_of_Muharram&diff=prev&oldid=146194371 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagar_Valley&diff=prev&oldid=146205284 and this]. Upon taking it upon myself to rectify the encyclopedia AA, without bothering to talk to me about it, then filed a bogus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=146955019 sock report].
'''Oppose''' Per Yahel Guhan and Arrow740's points.--
'''Neutral''', AA, but some of the above opposes have provided reasonable evidence that you become a little more experienced when interacting with others.  I really hate to oppose you just for that because you've made some very important contributions, but I'm afraid I can't give you my full support. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash;
'''Support'''. My experience of this editor has always been very positive. He seems to have a good knowledge of policy and spread of experience. Should make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Good candidate. '''
Daniel-supported :p --
'''Support'''.  Comments at [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance]] demonstrate good willingness to help users and an awareness of policy.  A review of deleted edits shows good tagging of speedy-deletable material.  The conflict at [[WP:UAA]] could have been handled better if someone had patiently explained the username policy, rather than threatening a block, which was excessively heavy-handed.  I think this user would make a fine admin.  Aarktica would no doubt be near the top of the list (well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50 this list of admins sorted alphabetically].)  --
Confident that Aarktica will do well with administrative abilities. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support'''.  This editor is experienced, aware of policy, and I believe he'll do well with the extra tools.  No reason not to trust.
'''Support''' With full confidence. Excellent and diverse editing, and your deleted edits show good knowledge of policy. I was also disapointed by the reaction at UAA by Nick, but respect that you just left it alone - which shows a good temprament, and a willingness to "rise above it" - vital for an admin. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Glad to give my support. This user will definitely make an excellent admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I believe you have bettered your editing since your last Rfa, and my gut feeling says "support", so here it is!
'''support''' per above.
'''Support''' - far from the best RfA I've seen, but still worthy of a support I think. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' with a good number and high quality of edits, willing to withdraw from an RfA before, and no problems.
'''Support''' Per all of the above, this user is trustable with the tools.
'''Strong Support'''. I work with this editor at [[WP:EAR]] (without Aarktica, would anything get archived? :)). User remains cool, helpful, and never [[WP:BITE|bites]] newbies.
'''Support'''. Particularly impressed with the way you handle abusive comments and question in stride ;)
'''Support''' although forgetting to sign an answer to a question is silly, good luck and I hope you get the mop, you deserve it :) --'''
'''Support'''- '''
'''Support''' A good editor. You'll do well as an admin. ;) -- <font color="purple">'''
'''Support'''. That an editor I like to support becoming admin! Honest answers to the nomination questions, not holding back anything. No reasons for any concerns about him in his diffs, as far as I can see, but lots of examples of helpful responses and support. Keep up the great work, Aantarktica!
'''Support'''- Hard-working contributor wanting to make Wikipedia live forever. And about the critics- when reporting massive amounts of usernames, sometimes there is mistakes - I'm sure he learnt from that, too. I didn't find the misses I found to be disqualifyingly silly.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Understands the policies.
'''Support''' Plenty of xfd experience, definetly nows what they are doing. Without a doubt, I support this user. --
'''Support''' <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''': Answer to my optional question has reassured me and there was literally nothing else that concerned me with Aarktica. Good luck.
'''Support''': Your answers on your failed RfA helped convince me you have a more holistic view on 'pedia building than this RfA suggests. cheers,
'''Weak Support''' per answer to nick's question. --
'''Support''' - Most admins don't participate much in [[WP:UAA]]. As the user denies herself any right to be active there, I see no reason why her bad reports there should be a problem.
'''Support''' your answers are OK to me, you have my trust. Good Luck.
'''Support''' - Definitely looks like an excellent candidate!
'''Support''' Everything seems fine. --
'''Support''' The [[WP:UAA]] thing bothers me a bit, but not enough to oppose. The pros definitely weigh out the cons. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Any mistakes should be forgiven if the editor listens to advice, and makes the necessary adjustments. -
'''Support''' Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Should be able to handle the tools well, although my only concern was the a bit-low mainspace contributions.--
I'm
'''Support''' although I'm sure I speak for a few of us here as I say you might want to hold off on acting on UAAs  and the like until you get a bit more acquainted with the guidelines there --'''
'''Support'''; Low mainspace contributions do not worry me&mdash; I'm mostly a [[meta:Metapedianism|metapedian]] myself and I can understand why someone would feel more confortable doing the behind-the-scenes work.  Given that the janitorial work you've done is good, the mop seems very adequate at this time.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' This editor gets extra credit for a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&diff=153306717&oldid=153304749 posting] at [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests]] which appears to be a grand tour of most of the Wikipedia policies. Evidently his policy knowledge is good. I went through his work at Editor assistance back to mid-August and I liked all his responses.
Not every admin is an expert everywhere... I've never done any SSP work and I don't intend to do it for a rather ''long'' time. Aarktica seems to me like a mature and responsible user and able to help the project with some extra buttons. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', as per nominator. Good editor. --
'''Oppose''' 15 out of 45 UAA reversions is unacceptable as a potential sysop. I want to see a better track record here before I'll be convinced to support.
'''Neutral''' (moved from oppose). I'm somewhat reassured by his response to Q6, mostly by the fact that UAA isn't where he plans to use his admin powers.
'''Strong support''', beat the nom. Acalamari is a really friendly and sensible guy, and has obviously learned a lot since his last RfA and knows what he's going in for now. I have complete trust in him with the tools and believe he'd be a great admin. Best of luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' - I supported last time, but I have to agree in hindsight that maybe he wasn't quite ready. If you look through his edits since then, what a difference there has been, he's taken on board the opposition like a true gent and is a much stronger character and can deal with anything that is hit at him in a way that any admin should. I give Acalamari my full endorsement.
Until someone says why not. When did you get desysopped?
'''Strong Support''' - worked alot with this editor and they would make an excellent addition to the administrative team hear on WP.
'''(edit conflict) '''Support''' as nominator. Would have been quicker except for conflict!--<font color="Red">
'''Strong support''' Kind, helpful, cares about the project, just what I like to see in an admin. Good luck! '''
I've run across Acalamari a couple of times now, and each time I felt like he would make a fine addition to our administrative ranks. No concerns. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''', again. He's a very promising candidate. I am sure he would make a good admin. —
'''Strong support''' Yes, of course. I was neutral the last time, due to some concerns about maturity, but Acalamari has truly changed phenomenally since his last RfA - I can think of few editors more mature than him! Hard worker, always civil, always gets along with people, and evidently cares deeply about us, which can only be a good thing.
'''Support''' per - 1) Nicely expanded and referenced answers to the questions. 2) Civility demonstrated in contribution history. 2) Activity demonstrated by count tool. 4) Anthony nominated and I have deep respect for his values. 5) Per Majorly. ''<small>Unless this gets edit conflicted again....</small>''<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - I missed it last time..I wont miss it again.. One of the Best Editors around..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''- per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Acalamari has a WikiCrush on Alison]]?! Looks like you've earned some notoriety. But seriously, I like the question answers and your vast range of experience. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support''' I like the answer to Question #4. And I'm glad that you're going to work on the [[:CAT:CSD]] backlog.
'''Support''' - Acalamari has changed quite a bit since his previous RfA. His skin has thickened rather nicely. Answers to the questions show just how far this candidate has come -
'''Strong support'''. Of course. I've been waiting for this one for a while. He'll make an excellent admin. Simple as that. :-) [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' WOW! A nom from anthony.bradbury? Will make a brilliant addition as a sysop. <font face="Papyrus">
'''Support''' I see a notable difference in the quality of editing in the period between RfAs from this editor, so no reason to believe that the admin tools will be abused.
'''Support''' I see Acalamari too often while editing wikipedia; meaning he is a excellent contributor who will never abandon their post. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">
'''Support''' Absolutely, for the same reasons as the previous time.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' Would make a great admin and good answer to my optional question (let's just hope that question won't turn into a heated debate in this RfA).--<font color="red">
'''Support''' - No evidence that this user would abuse the tools.  -
'''Support''' Significant experience, trustworthy, good person - plus we started on Wikipedia 13 days apart. It's time that Acalamari received the mop. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' A great contributer. I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Very good contributions to Wikipedia. <font color="Red">'''''Cheers, [[User: JetLover|Je]][[User talk: JetLover|tL]]
'''Support''' Per Mschel; no reason to oppose. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Support''' - very civil user with more than sufficient experience.
—'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' I was undecided about the previous RfA but Acalamari seems to have matured as a member of the community and I fully trust the nominator's evaluation.
'''Support''' for pretty much all the reasons outlined above. '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Answer to my question was satisfactory enough.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' I've seen this user around a lot, seems to be doing a great job. Good answers.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' No issues, nor reservations whatsoever.
'''Support'''. I supported last time but even if I hadn't, I think Acalamri has addressed the concerns of those who opposed. I think he'll make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' until I find a reason to oppose--not that that will be anytime soon! -
'''Strong Support'''. Acalamari is one of the most dedicated, hard workind and kindest editors I've ever encountered. He's an awesome candidate, just the kind that makes you think "I wish I was the one to nominate him!"
'''Support''', I don't see any outstanding issues. --
'''Support''' - good editor, will use the tools well, good luck with them! —
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. CSD and temp user pages needs more admins - often entries stay in there for a long time. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' per contributions and my many interactions with him. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' per a great many of the above comments, as well as the strong overall record and good answers to the questions.
'''Support'''. Appears to be a solid contributor.
'''Strong Support''' I have noticed this user when I vote in Rfa's and have noticed Acalamari in my recent changes patrolling. I am shocked that Acalamari is not already a admin. The reason why I am supporting Acalamari is A)because  Acalamari is a active wikipedian B) because Acalamari is a experienced wikipedian and C) because Acalamari is a very friendly person. I feel as if being friendly is a very important quality to have if you are going to be a admin. Good luck with your Rfa!:)--
'''Support''' I didn't read everything, but I'll just say this: I can't remember what the problem was last time.  Acalamari has contributed in a lot of useful ways, and will continue his valuable efforts.  Adminship will only enable him to do more.
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
<big>'''+'''</big>  Much matured since the last RfA.
'''Support''' My impressions of Acalamari's edits and actions are positive. He could use the extra buttons.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', good editor, will make good use of the mop :). Good luck- '''
This is a '''support''' comment, albeit one with some slight trepidation, but a solid support nonetheless. I feel that Acalamari is clearly dedicated to the project and I feel certain that he can be trusted to use the tools to the best of his ability in the best interests of the project.  My only concern is for him as a person. It has been 3 months since his last RfA and my own personal observations of him in that time have been very positive and have shown what I believe is genuine and profound growth in maturity, outlook and a reevaluation of the way he responds to vandals, trolls and otherwise difficult users, as well as the way he handles personal attacks and abuse. Three months is a very fair and decent time between nominations, especially when the first nomination didn't reveal any serious problems or deficiencies, but were mostly issues which emanated from a genuine concern for Acalamari, his sensitivity and his ability to cope with abuse and trolling. I feel some trepidation and apprehension that perhaps three months isn't enough time to be sure that there has been sufficient personal growth needed to let go of the insecurity, drama and hypersensitivity. And so my support comes as very solid support but with the proviso that he not be too proud to lean on others, on his friends, on people he trusts and respects and on the entire admin team if needed. In Acalamari's previous RfA, I was also concerned about his judgment, particularly pertaining to policy development and implementation of existing policy, most notably, as he has already mentioned above, at RFC/Usernames. Again, my hope here is that he will lean on Allie, Ryan and other more experienced admins he has come to trust and respect before jumping in at the deep end. All that said, Acalamari has '''my full support''' at this time. '''
'''Very strong support''' - I'd been hoping to do a co-nom, but missed my chance, as I was offline. :-( Anyway, Acalamari will make a fantastic admin, and I'm glad to see this request should sail through.
'''Strong support:''' Acalamari can make a fine administrator, even if some people can't pronounce his or her username. ;-) <small>—</small>'''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' add me without a doubt to the list of people he can lean on. <sup>
'''Support''' The growth this editor has shown in the last 3 months leads me to support. Acalamari is a good and dedicated editor. Keep up the good work and (echoing Sarah) continue to improve on your sensitivity and slight proclivity towards drama. &mdash;
'''Support''' — Acalamari-4-7-Alpha-Tango.
'''Support''' and passa the aioli.  ;-)  Acalamari has consistently shown to be a thoughtful and dedicated contributor, and we are lucky to have him.
'''Happy to support'''.  I've run into Acalamari on numerous occasions here and there and have always come away with a good impression.  I find the answers to the questions quite satisfactory.  Get the mop ready - this user will do good with it.
'''Support''' Acalamari is a great Wikipedian, and I have no doubts that he won't misuse the tools. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
Acalamari appears to be a terrific editor who can be trusted to click a few buttons.  And count me in for the people who can't pronounce his username, hehe! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Just adding my name... :) <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">

'''Strong Support'''. We need admins like this. :) ~
'''Support'''. I encountered this user only last week while following up on vandalism to [[User:Sarah]], and came away impressed. Glad to support a fellow vandal patroller.
'''Support'''.  I have seen this user's contributions all over the board and he always strikes me as a force of good.  --
<s>'''[[SQUIDWARD]]!'''</s> I mean, '''Support''', per everyone above. '''
'''Support''' a matured candidate --
'''Support''' You have quite an edit count, and good recommendations. I trust you with the mop.

'''Support''' per all of the above. '''Rahk E✘'''<small><nowiki>[[</nowiki> '''[[User_talk:Rahk_EX|my disscussions]] |
'''Support''', hardworking, dedicated, sincere, ok
'''Strong Support''' I have no doubt that this user will do well with admin tools. '''
'''Strong Support''' I'm fully convinced Acalamari will do an excellent job as an administrator.
Yes, yes, yes and yes... Trustworthy, maintains his civility, good article contributor, no negative interactions... To sum it all up, '''good candidate'''. --
I'm
After Mailer Diablo as usual! --
'''Support''' I see this user frequently and do not recall having any issues with his work. Seeing all of the support above from competent editors and I am happy to support.

'''Support''' - Per everyone. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Very solid candidacy
Definitely '''Strong Support''' - will make a fine admin! -
'''Support'''. What else to say? Strong contributions, and support from the community.
'''Strong Support''' Acalamari is a truly fine editor, Very kind and knowledgeable. I've come across his work many times and he would make a great administrator.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support, undoubtedly'''. Per above. He is a great editor and should have been chosen to be an administrator much earlier. I have really admired ''(and will continue admiring for as long as I can)'' his editing skills. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support'''. I'm not familiar with the details of the issues surrounding his previous nomination, but he seems very calm and level-headed now; he also does fantastic work on pop music articles, and adminship seems to be the next logical step for him.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' She's a good editor and works in an area where more administrator supervision could be an asset to Wikipedia.  Has been a great help on researching and editing some minor biographies of living people (outside of pop culture, including an African cardiovascular surgeon) in a responsible manner.  Takes criticism well, by actually weighing its value.
'''Support'''. "Let the good times roll". --
'''Support'''—Contributions look good; no reason not to support. --
'''Full Support''' Good editor, will be a good admin.  Would have been here to chime in sooner but I've been offline. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' (going for [[WP:100]]! :) Polite, helpful and experienced enough in my humble opinion. Acalamari, please bear Sarah's note above in mind—if you need any help in the future and I can be of assistance, I'm here :)
Wonderful user.
'''Support''' Shooting for [[WP:100]]! '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Excellent editor; fine addition to the admin-corps.
Superfluous '''support''' but trying to help him reach [[WP:100]]. --
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, kind, mature, and knowledgeable. <font color="Purple">
'''Support'''. Go to [[WP:100]]. '''
'''Support'''[[WP:100]] Lol-
'''[[WP:100|One hundred percent]]''' support, ''you're not already'' cliche-tastic.  Unnaturally strong support here, nothing but good things to report, I see you everywhere and I hope to continue to do so once you get three extra buttons.  Good luck!
'''Support''' for reasons described before on Acalamari's talk page. By the way, Acalamari, why did you not accept my nomination and accepted this one? Just wondering. Anyway, good luck, and I ''know'' that you will make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:ANNAfoxlover|<span style="background:lightblue"><font face="Times New Roman">A•N•N•A</font></span>]]
'''Support''' inasmuch as I think it rather clear, especially in view of the candidate's fine construction of [[WP:IAR|IAR]], that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Acalamari's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' Aw... I wanted to be #100... anyway, no reason not to. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', hello pile-on.
'''Oppose''' sorry this may seem petty... but after reading all 28 opposes in the last RFA, there is no way I can support this one. I don't think that the issues brought up in March (only 3 months ago I might add) have been resolved at this point. Sorry Acalamari... maybe next year. &nbsp;
'''Neutral Leaning to support''' You are a good and mature editor but still you don´t reach the level required by wikipedia. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Strong Support''' per my nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support ''' for the favorable impression I already had back then when the 3PO issue mentioned in Q3 took place as well as the nomination. --
'''Support ''' Heh, Pedro sees no problems, I certainly trust his judgment, and the user seems to be competent in all facets of the 'pedia!
'''Strong support''' excellent user. I seem to recall, very long ago, alerting A4T to some small point of policy he had slipped up about (very small - don't bother go looking for it in order to oppose :p) and he reacted extremely quickly, politely and pleasantly. Wonderful thing to see in a user. Bonus points for great answers. ~
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' - Has been recognised by the community, so yes!
'''Support''' - I trust Pedro, and A4T appears to be a very experienced user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' with pleasure. My encounters with this editor's work (primarily at the help desk and CSDs) gives me strong confidence that he will make good use of the tools. Every time I've encountered him and in what I see in his contribution logs, he is extremely polite and helpful, and he seems meticulous about user notifications, which in terms of CSDs I think has an important function in keeping new contributors active in the face of a first, disappointing experience. I believe under the circumstances his confusion about the behavior of the other editor involved at [[Philo Vance]] is understandable; in the absence of an edit summary or response to notes, repeated blanking of the page is hard to interpret in a positive light. --
'''Strong Support''' A very excellent editor who has remained [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and respectful to other users. It is my pleasure to support this great contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''.
Good candidate.
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good, helpful member of the community and has made solid editorial contributions.
'''Support''' nothing is wrong with this user.
'''Support''' per all. '''''
'''Support''' Impressive.
'''Support''' I see A4T on AFD quite frequently, always making positive contributions. A scan of the last couple pages of his contribs yields quite satisfactory results, and as some others have mentioned, answers to questions are impressive as well. Good luck, man!
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Support''' - Great job, you definitely deserve to be a sysop. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Will be fine admin. -
'''Support''' Qualified, to say the least. --'''
'''Support''' Speechless! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Strong Support''' Solid contributor, amazingly insightful, and possessed of a great deal of civility and respect for others. I have no doubt at all that A4T will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' experienced user which needs of the tools.
'''Support''' He's doing very well--sensible and willing to learn.'''
'''Support''', I recognise the name from AFDs and his contributions there already outweigh any reasons I might oppose for.
'''Strong Support''' Answers are good and I've observed excellent judgment in AfDs.
I'm
'''Support''' As per Riana ,Moonriddengirl and  Track is good  .In particular your detective editing is very good.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As per the impressive amount of work shown in the nom.
'''Support''' A respected editor who certainly will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support.''' Per everyone's reasoning. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks solid.
'''Quickie Support''' on the integrity of everyone else's supports --'''
'''Support''' evidence of coordinated 'pedia building a definite plus. cheers,
'''Support'''. This guy looks good to me.
'''Support'''. I have seen this editor around a few times and i think he has all the requisite qualities to be an admin.

'''Support''' this editor has been super active in new page patrolling.
'''Support''' - The data Pedro posted of A4T's contribs (in response to Mikka's oppose), has left me with the impression that this editor's contributions are constructive and improve the encyclopedia. I trust he'll make a good admin. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Strong Support''' per contribs, record, and association with a good admin, as well as another really solid admin candidate, whose record I researched a bit deeper.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  No evidence against them.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support''', seems to be a good candidate. --
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with deletion backlogs –
'''Oppose'''. Brief scroll thru last 1000 edits shows that like 90% of his work is greeting of newcommers and other non-encyclopedic work. To be an admin a person mut have a real feeling what it means to write an article and to take part in a dozen of edit disagreements. `'
'''Support''' as nom. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Good user. No reason to oppose.
Trust the nominator, encounters (albeit-rare) with candidate were positive. '''
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy - a good candidate.
'''Support''' Good article writing, appears to be an eminently sane editor.
'''Support''' — I view a nomination by WJB as ''prima facie'' evidence of a good candidate. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No concerns here. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - seems very trustworthy to me.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good history; one of those "I thought they were admins already" types. --
'''Support'''
I see no reason not to support. Good luck!--
'''Strong Support''' - No problems here, although the Wikipedia as-percent-of-total edit count is a bit low, and the User Talk count is very high. I don't see this as a problem, but some users might argue that you're not making enough admin-style AfD, etc edits. Everything, to me, looks good though. --
'''Support''' - every interaction I've had with this editor in the past has led me to believe he is prime admin material. --

'''Support'''.  Shows a good knowledge of policies and guidelines, and has been quite helpful in reverting vandalism and flagging pages for speedy deletion.  --
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' for another "I can't believe this user is not already a sysop."  An excellent vandal fighter, I run across this user frequently when I go to block vandals, and he's already warned them and reverted the vandalism!  See, ''e.g.,'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.77.104.162&diff=170394226&oldid=169678933].  He tried to save [[Loser (slang)]], which counts for a lot in my book, because it means he wants to construct an encyclopedia, not just delete the cruft.  Always courteous, and valuable as an expert in relatively obscure fields of interest, these are traits that would make him a great admin.
I've interacted with Acroterion before. Excellent user.
'''Support''' I know this user to be great! <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' based on observation in action and impressive responses to questions, particularly about CSDs. --
'''Support''', I have no reservations about Acroterion wielding the mop.  I interacted with him in the situation he alluded to in the answer to Q3 and I walked away impressed.--
'''Support'''
No issues here. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
Sure. -- <strong>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - good editor & excellent track record. Yup! -
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. I worked with Acroterion on that aforementioned death threat and, like Isotope23, walked away impressed.
'''Support''', looks like a great candidate.  Very impressive answers to questions.
I'm
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions, and I trust the nominator. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' - good interactions with this editor. --
'''Support''' - looks good. No concerns. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Great track and has been very active in the last 5 months with over 5000 mainspace edits ans over 12000 overall.--
'''Biggest Support I can give''' Thanks for watching my page and reverting vandalism! In fact, you're so good that at one point I thought you were one! -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support''' Great user, contribs are very nice, would make a great admin.
'''Support''' I've seen some fine work from this user just yesterday. There seem to be no concerns. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' From the contributions I see a lot of good stuff, reverting vandalism, etc. '''
Nominated by Scribey... --
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate --
'''Support''' despite "er"s, "um"s, and "ah"s in the nomination.  Don't see a reason not to, and couldn't find one.  We need more admins.
'''Support''' says what he wants to do, and has the experience. Good answer to Q2. Opposing because of the nomination is a poor idea. '''
He's a good guy and a good contributor.  I think he would use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' - good editor, will not abuse the tools. '''Comment''' Opposers who are opposing because they don't care for the writing style this editor has chosen for his nomination are apparently too darn lazy to look at any of his other contributions. He doesn't write this way in articles, and if you don't care for the conversational style writing which is, SFAICS, a semi-amusing method of making it clear he isn't a power monger, then I fail to see how that could possibly rationally result in a "No" position - it is no indication he is not a good editor who will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Nomination request may not quite be standard; but, I believe that it is the candidate's way of expressing modesty and humility.  These are excellent qualities in an admin.
'''Support''' This is one of the most pleasant editors I have worked with. He is productive, civil and reasonable with a good understanding of policy.
'''Strong Support''' I trust this user. Nomination request appeared fine to me. Saying "I'm trustworthy" is a difficult thing to say - it's far easier for not-humble trustworthy people like myself to say "I doubt the community trusts me." A self aggrandizing nomination should be hard for good adminstrators to write. I appreciate the honesty.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good editor, good guy, who cares if people don't get either his sense of humour or humility.  Next we'll cast votes based on hairstyles.
'''Support''' Has consistently shown good judgement and willingness to work constructively with others. ..
'''Support'''. Dedicated to being civil and improving the encyclopedia. Please use edit summaries all the time in the future. --
'''Support''' Appears to be a well-rounded contributor who is ready to take on more responsibility. I take the nomination as nothing more than a good-faith attempt by the nominee to present himself as a real person. Some people do find it difficult to sell themselves. There should be no criticizing of that.
Edit history looks good, appears to be friendly and level-headed. The opposition on this RfA is reaching to new lows of triviality. RfA is already too uptight and bureaucratic, let's not make it more so.
'''Support''' Nominee seems to dedicated to their field of interest and maintaining the integrity of such articles. Their personal behavior on their talk page is civil and polite and their edit history speaks for itself. Good luck! --
'''Support''' So he's not comfortable bragging about himself. This does not strike me as a ''bad'' quality in an admin. Everything else looks quite good, with the minor exception that it'd be nice if edit summary usage were higher. Should make a great admin. --
'''Support.''' '''Admins needed.'''
'''Support''' Per nom, observation and [[User:Durin|Durin]].
'''Support''' - the only question relevant is this: do we trust Adam? It's not exactly a trick question. His record speaks for itself.
'''Er, I dunno, I guess''' Seriously, he's helped write some great articles, been part of productive discussions on contentious topics, and knows his way around AfD, AIV, and the like.  As such, I think that Adam will make a fine admin [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' per previous supports. Maybe I'm being dim, but I'd rather have a bad request and good candidate than the opposite. Can't be long until we get to opposing RFAs for spelling misteaks.
'''Support'''.  Seems sensible, I see no serious problems. Opposition on the basis of his nomination statement is singularly uncompelling. --
'''Support''' as all the above.  Looking through Adam's history, I'm particularly impressed with his collaboration and discussion on some controversial articles. -
'''Support''' Diligent, conscientious, diplomatic, modest, produces excellent work. Sadly, he's not a humourless robot too but that can't be helped. --
'''Support''' Looks like a good user.--
'''Support''' I don't see any real issues or likelihood of abuse. Good luck! '''
'''Support'''. We need more administrators, and a weak nomination is no reason to oppose a candidate. User appears civil and has been editing for a full year. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' despite the meekly written nomination, the candidate has thorough experience in a broad variety of namespaces and seems well qualified.--
'''Support'''. I have met Adam in the past and he is a very helpful and capable editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I've seen a lot of good work by this user.  He keeps a level head on controversial topics.--
'''Support''' excellent editor; consistently productive on the evolution-related articles and a voice of reason on their talk pages too. And the nomination beats the pants off the ones that read like a job application.
'''Weak Support''' - I will look past the poorly done nomination due to other evidence of experience. Can still trust the user with admin tools.
'''Support''', will grow into the post nicely. <b>
Er, '''support''', uh, because.
'''Strong support'''. He has significantly contributed to bring [[W. S. Gilbert]] to the featured article status. You can see it [[User_talk:Glen_S/Sandbox3|here]]. <i>Happy Editing by <b>
'''Support''' -
'''Weak Support''' Poor self-nom, but that is no reason not to support a candidate that looks good. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]

'''Support''' per Durin.
'''Support''' Hard worker, good grasp of policy, and one who just walked an article on a contentious topic through FA using nothing more than common sense and determination.
'''Support''' - Great contributions, I see nothing but civility and friendliness looking back through his contribs, even in difficult articles like those related to evolution.  I think that when weighing a candidate, we should look with a broader scope than the edits that he makes to the RfA, even though those are of course most noticeable at the time.  Looks like he has use for the tools and I see no reason why he'd abuse them.
'''Support''' no problems, seems to be a good user.  We shouldn't oppose him just becasue he doesn't to talk about himself and expressed that in his nomination. '''
'''Support''' Seems to be a fine editor, I'd definitely trust them with the tools!
'''Support''' Personally, I think the candidate's modesty is a good thing. Plus, his contributions to evolution-related articles show a good understanding of policy and the ability to solve conflicts in a sensible way.
<s>Tentative</s> '''Support'''.  We need more admins, especial those prepared to tackle copyright issues.  And not least, I'd hate to see a self-nom go down for the reasons cited below.  We should be encouraging people to nominate, not criticising them for the way they do it.  Substance, not style, please.  Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)  Support per answers to questions.  And perhaps the tentativeness of the application should be seen as a credit to Adam - it has been said that the people who most want power are the last ones who should have it.  Regards,
'''support''' don't like the nomination but whatever, still better than 10 gushing co-nominations in my humble opinion. Other opposition reasons are thus far unconvincing. At any rate, I disagree with his answer to my question in that I'm pretty sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of malls with sufficient coverage... but nevertheless he seems to have a good grasp on inclusion standards even if he hasn't yet realized there are indeed many newspapers (mostly in the midwest for some reason) with nothing better to write articles on than mall renovations and so on. This really has nothing to do with his RfA though, he managed to answer my question just fine. --
'''Support'''.  Reticence is no bad thing, and both his writing and his negotiation skills are good (the Boisseau case was vexatious in the extreme, and Adam acquitted himself well there). I trust Adam not to abuse the tools. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support'''. A little humility goes a long way... The opposition is utter nonsense. From my (limited) observations, the candidate is well-qualified and dedicated, no matter whether the nomination sounds like it came from a student in Public Speaking 1001. Please improve your edit summaries, though.
I'm
'''Support''' I welcomed him to Wikipedia and have watched him learn the ropes. I've been very pleased by his work here and feel sure he will do well with the tools. Do not think the opposes are justified at all! I have a strong belief in the whistle while you work approach to our work.
He may, er, not be a [[The Pirates of Penzance|Thorougly Modern Major General]] but I think he'll make a fine admin. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' Introspection and a bit of self-doubt aren't bad things in an admin.  Far more dangerous is the admin who's adamantly convinced of the right of his own actions.  Beyond that, seems like a solid contributor.  I expect he'll put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' Just the sort of editor who should have the tools. I trust him, respect his editing, and have been impressed by his handling of disputes. I don't see his nomination as non-serious or disrespectful, and frankly I think one or two of the opposes should get over themselves, and stop thinking of RfA as a freaking cottillion.
'''Support''' I have very good impression of Adam's contributions, and I am confident he will be a good admin.
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' I actually like the RfA nomination statements—a nice change from people who approach this as the end-all be-all of their purpose for being here.  I don't like the low usage of edit summaries.  I do like the answer to optional question 6.  Overall, seems like he will do fine with the tools. —
'''Support'''  (changed from neutral) should make a good admin. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' Great nomination statement. Very [[Hugh Grant]] ;) Good user whom I've seen around doing good work, can be trusted. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''', will be a good admin.
'''Support''' per candidate's overall record on the site. Fully qualified.
'''Support''' I think that this user will be a good administrator. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate to me.
'''Support''' inasmuch as it seems quite plain that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of our sysopping AC should be positive]]; I join also, FWIW, in Killer Chi's thoughts w/r/to the style of writing the candidate has expressed here and the improriety of one's thence drawing grand inferences (I recognize, though, to be sure, that where one's jocularity is likely to confuse other editors&mdash;here, for instance, by suggesting a misconception of adminship, a lack of respect for other users, or an immature sense of judgment&mdash;he/she ought likely to write carefully; a failure to do so must not, I think, however, as one incident, be understood as reflective of, well, anything substantive.
'''Support''' should make a good Admin but I dont believe in self-nomination..anywayz hope U win..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose'''- rubbish nomination request.
'''Oppose''' is this an in-character self-nomination?  Sorry, I just don't get the joke.
'''Oppose''' - this isn't a joke.  --
'''Oppose''' - Failure to take the nomination seriously is a pretty strong indicator that the user wouldn't be a stellar admin. -
'''Oppose''' - Seems like a valuable contributer to mainspace and Wikiprojects, but I don't see a need for the tools.  Not much XfD participation and although he looks good at fixing vandalism, has only reported a handful to AIV. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Lack of a spinal cord in even a RfA does not bode well for a person asking to assume the very real responsibility of being an administrator on wikipedia.
'''Oppose''', My experience with this person hasn't been very positive. He failed a GA nomination for an article I was working on in the middle of edits without giving any detailed feedback.
'''Oppose''' -adminship is not a joke and any hint of it being so is not acceptable.
'''Neutral''', not impressed by the nomination request, but a lot of good work on Gilbert.  Perhaps too narrow in edits, averaging over 6 edits per article.  No real need for the tools at this time.
Per Rambling. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - I agree with Rambling about his nomination request and I also agree with BigDT that if he can't take the RfA nomination seriously then why should I trust him with the tools? But he appears to be a solid contributor and when he starts to take the responsibilities of being an admin seriously, then I'd support. Given his tone in the RfA, I don't know how he'd react to a negative reaction to one of his admin actions (such as a questionable block or contested Xfd).↔
'''Neutral''' per opposers, but candidate doesn't look too bad so I'm neutral. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Neutral''' per Jorcoga.
'''Neutral''' per all of the above.  The candidate seems to be a good editor, but the way he handled the nomination worries me.  Edit summary is also a bit low. '''''
'''Neutral''' Ambivalence does not become a candidate nor inspire confidence in me. I see no reason to oppose but really cannot support with a whole heart.
'''Support''' - Has been very active in the last 5 months and with over 6700 Edits, he has good mainspace and user talk Edits...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Experienced user w/ a clean block log. A vandal fighter indeed. --
'''Support''' A good candidate, no problems... '''''
'''Edit-conflict Support''' Just browsed through your recent contributions and I see good things. You have done some great article work and have a fair understanding of the policies. Would've only liked to see a higher project-space count, though. —
'''Support''' Good guy, level headed, trustworthy enough to know how to use the mop. --
'''Support''' - a good editor and participates well in admin area's. Best of luck! My only concern is that you haven't got a wiki-project endorsement, but I suppose I can overlook that!
'''Support''' per sufficient experience and no concerns.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - probably not insane, and I like the response to Kelly's concern even though I really hate those userboxes too -
'''Support'''. [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why not]]? I see no reason to believe this user will abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.  I see nothing wrong with promoting someone who wants to be promoted.  --'''
'''Support''' - Good answers to the candidate questions and a solid answer to the question about the userboxes.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. I don't see any problems.
'''Support''' I'm satisfied.--
'''Support''' Looks good.  An all around editor.
'''Support'''. Looks good. Appreciated the answers to questions. I understand you were relatively inactive until December, but your edits suggest experience more reflecting your first edit date. Best, --
'''Support'''. I like how he has handled the [[user:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ordeal. Shows that he is a true gentleman through his responses, and how he kindly counters Ms. Martin's criticism. --
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support'''.  I admire this user's candidness and courage to step forth and ask for more responsibility in a venue that historically has burnt users at the stake for being so bold.  Based upon his contribs and conduct on his talk page, I think we can trust him with the tools. '''''
'''Support'''. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. And I like your userboxes (weak reason, I know, but hey...) Adambro appears trustworthy. ···
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've had only the briefest of interaction with Adambro, in a situation with another  (rather acerbic) editor, but his demeanor and response to that situation was very reasonable and measured, and I was impressed by it.  If he can keep that cool when dealing with the daily grind of the mop and bucket I think he will do just fine.  His edits and answers look good as well.--
'''Support''' in order to cancel out Kelly Martin's vote. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Adambro has handled difficult situations admirably, and does his fair share of chores (particularly with anti-vandalism and AfD), so should become a good admin.  --
'''Support'''. Great user! -
'''Support''': Don't see any problems with the user and looks like this user has plenty of experience. Should be a good administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''': No reason to believe Adambro is untrustworthy. Plus I am mentioned below, so I had to come here. Hi mom! As far as that situation goes, I believe your replies are well written and informative, as well as logical to me.
'''Support''' per my comments in the section below and also: great editor, no obvious problems, excellent handling of the single oppose, good responses to the questions. -- '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We disagreed re the [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place|UK/Caledonia]] debate but your civility and common sense suggests to me you will make a fine Admin.
'''Support''' per David Gerard, and my experience of this user involving disagreements where other parties tend to to get quite upset. Usually keen to use calm down the situation - perhaps too optimistic in that regard, but that's probably not a bad thing!
'''Support''' I have been impressed by his calm and rational approach to helping calm down and re-focus disagreements that are quickly becoming squabbles and out of control. I think he would be a good admin, and I would have no hesitation in approaching him if I found myself in need of an independent, calm, and rational view about anything.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No reason not to, will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''', looks good.--
'''Tentative support.''' I dislike the userbox, and defcon paramilitary nonsense, but sound on BLP.--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''': a dedicated, experienced editor with a knack for keeping cool and resolving disputes. Will undoubtedly wield the mop with skill.
I have no reason not to '''support''' this good candidate.--
--
'''Support''' because of calm behaviour, although, like Y and Xoloz, I'd have liked to see more experience in project space.
'''Support'''. More projectspace contribs would have helped me make up my mind sooner, but candidate seems reasonably experienced and looks trustworthy. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Questionable user page content (specifically, the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, and the CVU "WikiDefCon" stupidity) compels me to oppose this candidate.
Insufficient projectspace experience to formulate opinion on user's policy knowledge. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' per Y.  A little more experience will do wonders here.
Ok, here goes. I think Addhoc has a pretty good edit record, with a wide variety of edits. According to EC, his main work is mainspace and unique pages. However, having been blocked is ''not'' a good thing, but Addhoc's honesty and edit record more than make up for this early nuisance. Another really good thing is the edit count, currently 17265. But his best record is the amount of time and edit summary record. There are no edits without a summary October 2006 on. Finally, I support him because of his wide variety of work. Cheers, <font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="blue">
'''Support'''.  Very experienced editor in a wide range of areas; no reason to believe that he would misuse the mop.
Should have become an administrator long ago. Lots of edits, much experience in image-related areas, and helpful as a mediator. <b>
'''Support''' overdue
'''Support''' I was very impressed with a mediation Addhoc did a while back at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle]]. Dealing in such an even-handed and fair manner with such a contentious and dispute-prone subject indcates Addhoc should make a great admin.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  MatthewFenton trolling RFA with another facetious (literally and figuratively) reason for opposing is always a sign that the user would make a decent admin.
—&nbsp;'''[&#8239;<!-- -->
'''Support''' One of my bros from the AMA, who helped make that organization a credit to Wikipedia, though we both left before it became overwhelmed and had to be discontinued.
I've seen plenty of him around before, and I know he'll kick ass! '''
'''Support''' &mdash; about time. ~
'''Support'''.  No reason not to.  '''
'''Support''' - He raises no red flags, and as H2O says, I'm sure he'll be great! Best of luck. Love,
great [[WP:MEDCAB]] work. <b><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
I am strongly in support of this nomination; Addhoc will be a great administrator.
'''Support''' No doubt a supurb Wikipedian, will contribute more with the tools.
'''Support'''. Without a doubt, he [[User:Vassyana/admin|fits the bill by my count]]. He additionally is savvy in dispute resolution, which is a very good sysop trait.
''''Support'''' Good user. -- <strong>
'''Support''' A great user. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Most certainly. '''
A down to earth, level headed user who would make a great admin - '''support'''
'''Support''' Solid all-rounder with an impressive editing record. --
'''Support''' per <s>Matthew</s> (oops). More than meets my
Addmop. Reasonable candidate.
'''Support''' without question.  Every interaction I've had with this user has been positive. --
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''
'''Strongest Possible Support''' - I first got to know Addhoc when he helped mediate and resolve a particularly contentious dispute on the [[Halloween]] article last year.  Since then I have seen him handle many admin-level tasks and situations with calm, patience and skill.  I have no doubt he'll be a fine addition to the team. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' - another case of "Ithoughthewasanadminalready" -<font color="#cc6600">
People who are opposing don't say anything I find particularly bad.
I am shocked this user is not already an admin! I am going to support this person because I do not believe that there are any '''real''' reasons to oppose. Good luck!:)--
'''Support''' as per SJP and overall track is good.
'''Support''' Yeah mate.
'''Support''' for giving support to maintain the neutrality of [[Sri Lanka]] related articles. --
'''Support''' very active, good contributions and experience. You need the tools. Good luck.
'''Support''' Contributions demonstrate solid policy knowledge, civility, article editing and discussion building. Ticks my boxes!  Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
blah blah blah yeah. —
'''Support''' much varied experience and understands policy well.
'''Support'''.  While this editor made some (admitted) mistakes in the past, since that time, has made a huge number of constructive edits, so can be trusted with the mop.
''''Support''' I have had numerous positive experiences with him... :) already thought he was an admin.
'''Support''' Keep up the good work! (
'''Support''' - this is an '''absolutely brilliant''' RfA! An excellent candidate. Need I say more? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' .
'''Support''' - proven track record, hard worker. I've never seen issues with [[WP:BITE|BITEiness]] -
'''Strong Support''' I quote this editor on my user page (although I have read a couple of comments where it is described as abusive--it is a compliment)!!!!!  Like I wouldn't support this candidate.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per Neil. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' – what, not an admin already? Excellent attitude to tagged images, no problems in my experience. ..
'''Blah!''' per Sir Nick.
'''Support'''. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Should handle very well the extra tools.--
'''Support''' Good candidate, no evidence they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.  The action for which he was blocked doesn't seem to have had any malicious element
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Great user, very good contributions, everything seems to be in place. --
I'm
'''Support''' per Jeepday.
'''Support.''' Good contributions. I checked some of his postings to [[WP:AN/I]]. He seems to be patient and have good knowledge of policy. I wasn't persuaded by the data given by the Oppose voter about his AfD work.
'''Oppose''' — I'm not sure I have faith in Addhoc's judgement, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_film/book_differences_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=158291000 this]. The topic (Harry Potter movies and films) is clearly [[WP:NOTABILITY|notable]] and it's quite clear the article is encyclopaedic (whether it belongs on Wikipedia is open for discussion). I've also ran into you before on another article, you stated every article must have secondary sources (when you know primary sources are perfectly acceptable), when in fact it's every article must have reliable sources. I'm also not convinced you'll stick to "1RR" if it's not convenient for you.
'''Neutral''' - I will forgive [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] for his poor judgment in many articles I work on, (as I know he doesn't know the subject matter  and does not know any better),  and I will forgive him for his poor support of me as my AMA Advocate (as I know he did not recognize the six sock puppets and I guess was intimidated by them in the Mediation), and I will forgive him for one last thing, if he will just stop! He seems to follow me around and change all my  <nowiki><references/></nowiki> to <nowiki>{{reflist}}</nowiki> for no reason (it is not on long lists of references but often on very short ones) and  I cannot read the small print very easily. So, Addhoc, if you would just stop that, I will withdraw my '''Neutral'''  --
'''Support'''. Well, I thought he was an admin, but apparently not. I think I will drown in RfA's if people keep up this nomination spree. '''''
'''Support''', as co-nominator. '''''
'''Support''' I applaud the consistency of the edits.
'''Support''' - Won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Should have done this awhile ago.
'''Support with my pants on:''' (ask bibliomaniac if you want to know where the joke came from) As nominator. <span style="font-size:97%;">'''<font color="#229922">''~''</font>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><font color="#229922">[[User:Magnus animum|Magnus animum]]</font></span>'''&nbsp;∵&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Magnus animum|∫]] [[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|φ]]
'''Support''' Although it's before midnight, I'll still support this user. He's demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and it looks like he could certainly use the tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
Support only if he changes his name to 12:01.
'''[[Eric Clapton|Clapton]] [[After Midnight|Support]]'''! <small>well to be technical [[JJ Cale|jj cale]] support. </small> ~
'''Haeyupppp'''
'''Support''' I did not find out till a few seconds ago that he accepted. I would have been number 3 if I had known.  Anyway, here is my support. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' A no-brainer.
'''Support'''. I see his great contributions all the time. A fine candidate. --
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate for the admin tools.
Enthusiastic support -- <b>
Most certainly. '''
'''Support''' has always impressed me --
'''Support''' looks good. —
It's not even noon yet but I'll support anyway.
'''Support''', it's too late here to come up with a time-related joke. Eh, will that one do? :) &ndash;
'''support''' - yes, nice chap, will do well. Per nom.
I'm
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent editor--
'''Support''' Great edit summary usage, great contributions to the Project, I see no reason to oppose, good luck to you!
'''Support''' [[Image:Original_Barnstar.png|30px]] - Will make a great admin!! --<font color="Red">
A top editor, good luck! '''''
'''Strong Support''' -Damn Iam late :).. wow this editor actually listened to me and is now up for RfA..One if not the best Editors On Wiki..Has contributed to everyproject and has the potential and ability to use the tools wisely..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Great user, dedicated to the project, very experienced.
'''Default'''. —
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor with contributions across the board, good answers to questions, seems to have a firm grasp on what's going on.  I couldn't possibly not support this candidate.
'''Support''' Looks good and am confident he will do well.
'''Support'''.  It's all gonna be peaches and cream if he gets adminship.  I'm confident he won't cause talk and suspicion, nor will he give an exhibition.  --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''- Good answers, and shows great dedication to the project- would make a great admin
'''Support''' I particularly like his reasonable answer on the password question. '''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps.
'''Support''' keep on ramblin'.
'''Support''', consistent editor. --'''
'''Support''' Good answers and solid wikignoming, but do give article writing a try: you might be surprised to find you enjoy it.
'''Support''' in agreement with Xoloz.
'''Support''' Great editor (good answers to questions too). —
'''Support''' experienced and understands policy well.
'''Support''' I've dealt with him before, and he's always been good with me!  -
I'm seeing nothing especially evil, adminship is no big deal. Why not? The candidate is most probably not crazy.
'''Support''' - good editor, should be just fine as an admin -
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support''' No oppose yet, so I´ll support. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support'''. The third sentence in Moreschi's comment (#45) inspires a lot of confidence in the candidate. <code>;)</code> If anyone wants the ''real'' behind why I'm supporting ... well, after reading After Midnight's answers and looking through his contributions history, I can't think of a single reason to oppose. -- '''
&ndash;
'''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">

'''Support''' - Long overdue. --
'''Support''' Good luck!!! --
'''Support''' Hope you enjoy your mop. --
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. --
'''Support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Best of luck, enjoy it.
'''Support''': A little late, but user has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent. I don't see anything wrong with this user. Should be a great assest as an administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' excellent candidate.
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good, experienced editor.

'''Support''' if you were a nacho, I would dip you only in the finest salsa. --
'''Support''' it is my pleasure to support this nomination.  After Midnight has been an invaluable contributor to all sorts of articles relating to beauty pageants and is fantastic to work with.  He is always a fair voice on any issues where there is disagreement between editors. I believe he would be an excellent admin. <small>
'''Support''', good editor, I hope would be a good admin. Good luck.

'''Strong support''' as co-nom, best of luck mate.
'''Strong Support''' i was considering nominating you myselfy, you are a great contributor to Wikipedia - all across the namespaces! Best of luck, you deserve the tools! <b>
'''Support''' - A really nice chap, I have plenty of faith he'll do a fine job. He's put plenty of effort into his RfA. Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' Nominator support :) ~
'''Support'''. Very nice job with the box and the tables. I applaud you. '''''
'''Strong Suport''' - A really good editor and he will make good use of the mop..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - as his admin coach and co-nom.  I feel sorry for vandals now.  :-)  '''''
'''Support''' without a doubt in mind. (although I think the yellow box is going overboard!)

'''Support'''
'''Absolutely support.''' Great answers to questions and demonstrates excellent policy knowledge, plus a yellow box to boot! [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''': Excellent edit summary usage, plenty of contributions and experience and also great answers to questions. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Looks good, and I am not convinced by the oposition. -
'''Support''' per the candidate's strong overall record. I have considered the opposer's concern but don't quite understand it.
'''Support''' - Excellent progress made since that RfA.
'''Support'''. I agree that you've made some problematic judgment calls in the past, but am supporting on the assumption that you will grow into the position, learn from mistakes, continue the progress you've shown, and be an overall benefit to the project. I believe you can do this. You've made a lot of very good contributions. --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Your mediation efforts in [[Jews for Jesus]] are appreciated and count for a lot. --
'''Strong support''' The overall experience level is more than sufficient, and the dispute resolution success is a huge bonus.
'''Support''' With the perfect answers to questions, the numerous accolades from esteemed editors and admins, how could I vote otherwise?  Good luck!
'''Support''', I've had several interactions with Anthony, and in all occurrences he has been pleasant and helpful. He successfully mediated a ''very'' tough dispute on [[:Jews for Jesus]], leading to a resolution all parties left happy with, and in general is civil and pleasant to interact with. Not bothered by concerns about "taking shit" (anyone who doesn't withdraw from their RfA after 5 minutes can take some heat), nor by trying to work in a lot of areas or a bit of name indecision.
'''Support'''. A very experienced editor. '''
'''Very Strong Support''' - with 3 nominators and a very comprehensive candidate statement, this has to be the most impressive RfA I've seen recently. The candidate clearly has extensive experience in dispute resolution as well as a good record on deletions etc., and has demonstrated a definite need for the tools. As some users have pointed out, I tend to support most RfAs; however, I would support this one even if I were a tougher voter. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' seems good enough for me. —
'''Support''' Upon extensive review of your contributions (yes, a free Sunday afternoon... ), especially your MedCom activities, your interaction with other users, and your general healthy attitude towards the project, I will support. The oppose comments are valid and should not be ignored, but I trust that the community will assist Anthony with any 'shit' that he might have to face in his first steps as an admin. Besides, we all know that your skin grows a lot thicker after a few trolls :) Oh, and I find your habit of [[link]]ing [[thing]]s [[cute]] : ) &ndash;
I find that I must support this editor for his willingness to close deletion discussions as delete (although I am disappointed that he knuckled under to intimidation on that issue).  I see enough evidence of collaborative competency to waive my endorsement requirement in this case.
'''Support''' I've had nothing but positive experiences of this editor, and since I hold his three co-nominators in a high level of regard, no doubt he'll make a fine admin.  Good luck!
'''Strong support''' I wanted to co-nom... Experienced user, friendly, devoted and trustworthy. Will make an excellent admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' This is definately a good nomination to support.
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support''' He seems to be a good editor. [[Shalom]]:)--
'''Support''' I'm not going to hold his enthusiasm against him.--
'''Support''' I think you'll be fine, good luck mate! '''''
'''Support''' Hmm, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, willing to admit his own shortcomings. I think he'll do fine. Remember, he will not be unsupervised and is his enthusiasm overflows on occassion it can be checked.
'''Support''': he may be a little ''too'' enthusiastic, but I see no evidence that his enthusiasm would be at all harmful to the project, and on the contrary it shows dedication. A very experienced, friendly editor who will put the tools to good use.
'''Very strong nominator support''' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Strong Support''': Wow, you come with strong recommendations. I know the mop is going to be safe in your hands. --
--
'''Support'''.  It's kind of nice to see someone having closed slightly ambiguous XfD debates, if just for the purposes of examining their judgement.  Apart from closing "delete" when that implies a need for further requests, the closes I've looked at were good; in particular, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline]] where I reached the same conclusion independently, unaware that a non-admin close had previously taken place.
'''Support''' I've encountered this user a few times and not seen anything to concern me.
I'm
'''Yup'''.
'''Support'''.  This editor has come a long way since his last RfA, and I have no qualms about supporting.  He shows superb initiative and adaptability, traits that will be tremendous assets as Wikipedia begins a period of more rapid change. --
'''Support''': Go ahead buddy. --
'''Support''' Good user, always had a good impression of him. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - no problems here -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I have interacted with this editor, and I am certain that he will be a useful and helpful admin.--
'''Support'''. I delayed participating in this RfA until the candidate had a chance to respond to the opposing and neutral comments made below, and I am more than satsified with how he handled them. The issue of improper formatting of RfD and TfD closes is a minor one that I don't think merits an oppose for a great editor. I believe the rule of thumb is: if each nomination has a separate page (AfD and MfD), note the result above the header; if nominations are listed in a daily log (CfD, RfD, StfD, TfD, and UcfD), note the result just below the header. -- '''
'''Support''' - I seem to be the only person who's interacted with him who's never had any kind of fight; even though we generally disagree, everything he's said has been valid. If any of these nightmare scenarios the Opposers are postulating did happen, so be it, I'm sure the project can survive. Besides, we need a few more railway-station-article-expanders. (Kelly, even though he's not a member of ours I'll throw in a voice of support on behalf of [[WP:Rail]] for him)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support'''. My experience with Anthony has always been pleasant, he is a credit to the project, and I think his desire for positions of authority will be leeched away after a few accusations of admin abuse. I'm convinced by any of the oppose !votes, and can see no reason not to have the tools.
'''Support''' Go Ahead!
'''Support'''.  Perhaps a bit over-zealous at times, but a fine editor nonetheless.  One request: please consider spending a little more time doing content-driven article improvement.  --'''
'''Support''' Although I share Majorly's concern that you might be taking things up too fast (biting off more than you can chew, perhaps), I think you will still be an asset as an administrator on Wikipedia. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''. I'm impressed with the improvements since the previous RfA, as well as AGK's enthusiasm for the project. I think that's a good thing. I see no evidence the tools would be abused, and plenty that shows they would be used appropriately. ···
'''Support'''. I recently approached Anthony with a few modest advices, and his response was both humble and enthusiastic. Anthony has proven to possess the ability to learn from his mistakes, recognizing them and seeing them as an opportunity to improve. This is usually the best sign that someone's ready to use the buttons thoughtfully, so I'm glad to clear him for the mop. -
'''Support'''. --
Yes, sure.
'''Definate support''', I see AGK's (and his previous user name) basicly everywhere on Wikia. I'm positive AGK won't abuse the tools, and has good reason to use them also. '''''
'''Weak support''' To be entirely honest, whilst I think it [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|likelier than not that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive]], I'd intended, inasmuch as, in view of the issues adduced by Daniel.Bryant and the inestimable WJBScribe, which raise a few questions with respect to AGK's judgment and his fitness as a repository of community trust, I couldn't reach such conclusion with any real degree of confidence, to be ''neutral''.  I am, contra Doc, quite heartened, though, by Anthony's reply to question eight, which evidences an understanding of BLP as standing alongside, rather than above, other [[WP:POLICY|policies]] and suggest that the, qua admin, AGK will be mindful of the ministerial nature of adminship and of the need properly and deliberatively to apply policy consistent with community consensus.
'''Support with my pants off:''' I thought he was one :p <span style="font-size:97%;">'''<font color="#229922">''~''</font>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><font color="#229922">[[User:Magnus animum|Magnus animum]]</font></span>'''&nbsp;∵&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Magnus animum|∫]] [[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|φ]]
'''Support''', see no problems. Plus with that many co-noms it's hard to not support.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. As long as you use your administrator priveleges responsibly. <font face="Verdana">— <small>
'''Support''' Dude, w'sup?! w'sup, dude?! --
'''Support'''
<s>Not convinced he can take the shit he'll receive as an admin. &ndash; [[User:Steel359|Steel]] 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</s> Struck with apologies to Anthony [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=126846510&oldid=126828305]. I'm still behind my 'weak character' statement and still believe that some things he'd come across as an admin would 'get to him' so to speak. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Anthony means well, but everything I've seen of his recent attempts to dabble in Admin areas have been a disaster, especially his closing of MfDs as '''delete''' in clear violation of policy. See threads [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Archive/19#Closing_MfD.27s_as_.22delete.22 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Archive/17#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:Sandbox.2FWord_Association here]. His sloppy close of the MfD for Sandbox Word Association lead to confusion as to what should be deleted and ultimately a DRV. The fact that he continued to close contentious XfDs despite concerns raised on his talkpage is a big issue. I am also worried by the recent indicisiveness he has shown over his username. Anthony requested a usurpation from "Anthony cfc" to "Anthony", he then changed his mind and decided to be renamed to "AGK" as he is known by this name on other projects. He then changed his mind ''again'' and requested the usurpation of "Anthony" again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChanging_username%2FUsurpations&diff=125863110&oldid=125836421]. He has now withdrawn the usurpation request. This does not bode well for making decisions as an admin... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' As a response to the question about contributions he is most proud of, the candidate mentions a template meant for userspace. I would like to see a candidate who is more interested in building an encyclopedia. <span style="font-family:Times; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:white;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">&#8212;
'''Oppose''' I've only come across this editor with regards to his repeated renaming requests. He hide his requested renaming to Anthony for the duration of this rfa rather than remove it - presumably so he doesn't have to wait 7 days. I am minded not to do it since he seems incapable of making his mind up.. He withdrew the request on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&diff=125629727&oldid=125622227 24 April], re-requested on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&diff=125863110&oldid=125836421 25 April]. On [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&diff=126749866&oldid=126747540 29 April] he hides the request '''using his sockpuppet''' [[User:Testcfc]] so that those who look at his contributions don't see it?  [[User:Anthony cfc]] was a name previous to the one he was renamed to, ignoring the current on-off renaming request..
Oppose per Secretlondon (above) and per the concerns of Ral315 (in Anthony's previous RFA which I can't seem to find at the moment). —
'''Oppose''' You only changed your username on 25 April and here we are already at RFA.  Most importantly in yout discussion with Majorly and WJBscribe about MEDCOM/MEDCAB roles you admit to not reading a diff and thereby completely misunderstand the issue being raised. That's not the kind of carelessness I'd expect to see from someone with the block button. --
'''Oppose''', for several reasons, including some voiced above. I guess my main concerns can be summed up as a lack of stability and reflection. Speed appears to be a very if not the most important quality for you (for instance, your answers to Q1, referring to 'backlogs' of several minutes), and while you're also quick to apologise for mistakes, it makes me very hesitant about you becoming an admin. You're very enthusiastic, which is good, but I don't think giving you the tools at this time is a good idea, not in the least because of your very recent username change. I'm also worried about your interpretation of GDFL (see Daniel's concerns in Q9). --
Weak on BLP. More concerned with editors than subjects.--
Using [[User:Testcfc]] and deletion to hide your userspace edit count is very shady.  I think the solution is to simply stop editing your userspace.
'''Oppose''', most especially per WjBscribe. I find user's behaviour too erratic at this time for adminship, although user is a great contributer.
'''Oppose''' - I'd have loved to have supported, and think that you're a great editor, but havinmg read this whole RfA, I have some concerns which can only be reconciled by time, mainly those pointed out by WjBscribe, and some memories brought back by DB's comments. <strong>
'''Oppose''' - I'm not convinced this user understands the GFDL licence sufficently and this raises further questions on copyright issues. Sorry. <span style="font-size:95%">--

As I opposed Anthony/AGK's last RFA, and have been outspoken in my worries about his suitability, I'll review his latest contribs and make up my mind tomorrow.
I'm still not entirely convinced, but assuming good faith upon some of the things that have come up by the opposers, I will not join in opposing your candidacy. However, I'm still a little uncomfortable with the things brought up, and so I will not oppose but not support, either. I hope you understand. '''
'''Strong support'''. Dedicated candidate who appears to have an excellent knowledge of policy.
I've seen this user around. Seems like a very productive editor. Any editor that spends enough time around [[WP:HD]] and [[WP:VP]] learns a wide range of policy very quickly. I'm happy to support.↔
'''Can't believe this is a self-nomination Support''' More article work would be preferable, but your good work in other areas outweighs that. Good luck! '''
'''Strong support''' - Helpful, knows policy, does lots of good work! &mdash;
'''Support'''. Has a lot of experience in areas where admins frequently roam. I can see nothing that leads me to believe the tools would be abused, and I can see plenty that leads me to believe they would be used effectively, correctly, and often. ···
'''Support'''
'''S. Support''' as per above. -- ''
'''Support'''Could've sworn you already were.
'''Strong Support''' This always happens lol, I consider nominating a user and they are edither nominated by someone else or do a self nomination lol. Anyway I've seen this user around at XFD and helping users via [[CAT:HELP]] and at the help desk. Definitely could be trusted with the tools, strong knowledge of policy - best of luck! <b><font color="0066FF">
Seen you around. Thought you were one. &ndash;
'''Support''' per good work at helpdesk --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Nihonjoe. Has always seemed like admin-material to me. I thought, like with <redacted>, <deleted>, and <inaudible>, this RFA would never be opened. I have every confidence in ais523.
'''Support''' Got experience. Should make a great admin. -
'''Support''' This candidate is more than ready for the tools.
'''Support.''' Your username is a welcome presence whenever I find myself answering a few [[CAT:PER]]s. Knows the project, helps out, and comes across as being pretty level-headed. I haven't yet seen anything that would lead me to expect any abuse of the tools. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Strong Support''' A great presence on the help desk, ais523 knows the stuff.
'''Support' <font face="monospace">
'''Support'''. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Wow! What a great nom and answers!!!!! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''': Useful around various help channels.  Always seems to keep a cool head - considering ais is "ice" in Malay, I wouldn't be surprised.  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
Nothing but positive experiences (for e.g. proved invaluable in getting the technical side of [[WP:AFDC]] off the ground). <u>Strong support.</u>
'''Weak Support''' Lack of article writing is a bit of a concern, but I've seen the candidate around the 'pedia quite a bit and his good-natured demeanour makes him well-suited for becoming an admin.  Also, I can see no reason why he'd ever intentionally misuse the buttons [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' a strong candidate who will benefit from the extra tools. Good luck,
'''Support'''. Clearly a well-qualified candidate with a wide range of experience and community confidence.
'''Support''' clearly good choice.--
'''Support'''. Trustworthy with plenty of relevant experience. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I've been waiting for this for a while now :) '''
Oh hell yeah. Can't believe this is a self-nom.... &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems like a good choice, across the board. -
I'm
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; cliche moment.
'''Support''' Yeah okay. -
'''Support''', usual cliches apply. --
'''Support''' This user will be a good admin, no doubt about it. <i><b>
'''Support''', for obvious reasons.
'''Support''' Woah! Great and detailed nom (and the fact that you are a great user). '''
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' I'm not thrilled about it, but if you can do admin work that other people can't or won't do, by all means go ahead.
'''Support''' Great answers, not afraid or unwilling to admit mistakes, willing to learn. IMHO great qualities in an admin.
'''Support''' I can't tell you helpful this guy has been in my short time on here. He really goes out of his way to be helpful.
'''Support'''He is a wonderful Wikipedian. I totally trust him as an admin. --
'''Support''', my observations of him have been overwhelmingly positive, and he has a strong understanding of policy. --
'''Strong support''' I've seen this user around and I am impressed by the edits. As this is a self-nomination, and Ais523 obviously put a lot of work into this nomination, I am even more impressed.
'''Strong Support''' He is a great editor. I have full trust that he will not abuse his tools. he also has a need for them:) --
'''Support''' good user, great administrator potential.
'''Support'''. Very helpful editor. Example: the helpful coding provided at [[MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext]], provided just when needed. There's no red flags with ais523, and a need for the tools. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Support'''. Level-headed editor who would use the tools well. -
Per nom. —
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Good self-assessment, strong desire to work for the betterment of Wikipedia, experienced, and trustworthy.  Ais523, I am happy to support your RfA. --
'''Support''' Ais523 most definitely gets my support. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' You've been around since I can remember; I'm not surprised if you've helped me once or twice at the Help Desk (and very un-[[WP:BITE|bitishly]] I might add). :-) ·
'''Support''' Very helpful & knowledgeable editor, must admit I assumed was an admin already. <b>
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Why not?--
'''Support''' Seems a very competent and valuable member of the project. A slightly low mainspace count does not matter; there is more than enough there to show that he knows how to do it.--
'''Support''' This user appears competant.  My only concerns are that the user does not have weekend internet access and that the number of articles contributed is low.
'''Support'''. I share concerns that the candidate's contributions to the mainspace are a bit on the low side, however, my observations have all been positive and so I am happy to support. '''
'''Support''' per  '''[[User talk:Sarah|Sarah's]]''' points, I think the actual number of edits isn't a concern especially in this case.
'''Neutral''' - Mainspace edits are low, but everything else seems good.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
'''Support''' can't see why not.
'''Support''' good user, great contributions, very good behaviour in managing conflict situations.
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose. -
'''Support''' - I don't see why not, pretty much everything checks out, trustworthy nominators.
'''Strong support''' A very outstanding editor. I've been working w/ Akhilleus on [[Atlantis]] and other related articles and his work impresses me. -- ''
'''Support''' Good, well-founded and original (!) answer to Q1. What's a mop in Ancient Greek? --
'''Support''' "'Father Zeus, watching over us from Ida, most high, most honoured: Grant that I come to Akhilleus for love and pity..." (''Iliad'' 24:308-9).
Good editor! I see no reason to oppose him:) Good luck:)
'''Support'''. I've been impressed by his work at [[WP:SSP]]. Would benefit from having the mop.
'''Support''' Balanced and even keeled. The type of person one would hope were an admin. --'''
'''Dang, I wanted to nominate him! Support''' Same as everyone else, I've been strongly impressed by his SSP work, looked at prior edits he had made, and, in short, I asked him to accept my nomination.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akhilleus&diff=prev&oldid=105151980] He didn't. :-(. The last guy I felt that way about was [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], and you know how that went. Just saying. <small>Actually, this seems to be a pattern. Why does everyone turn don my nominations, and accept someone else's?</small> But no matter how deeply, deeply hurt I am by being snubbed, I will get over it, and support here. Great guy. --
'''Support''' No signs of abuse, experianced, already doing thankless sysop type work and has proven himself capable of handling both articles and fellow wikipedians. Cheers!
'''Support''' Having read through significant information, I am pleased to offer my support for an editor with such impeccable credentials! --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per Durova's nom. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes. -
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' good, all-rounded user. Give him a mop. -
'''Suppport'''.
'''Support'''. Well-rounded editor, with some quite excellent contributions to various articles relating to ancient history. What's the closest equivalent in [[Ancient Greek]] for "mop"? --
'''Support''' per Tachikoma/Kyoko.
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' as I can see no reasons why Akhilleus can't be trusted with the additional responsibilities. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Sing, [[WP:TAN|Goddess]],''' Akhilleus' rage / [[WP:ROUGE|Rouge and murderous]], that cost the [[WP:SOCK|puppets]] / Incalculable pain, pitched countless souls / Of [[WP:VAND|vandals]] into [[WP:BAN|Hades' dark]], / And left their bodies to [[WP:BP|rot as feasts]] / For dogs and birds, as [[User:Jimbo Wales|Zeus]]' will was done. <small>[Iliad 1.1, tr. [[Stanley Lombardo|Lombardo]], adapted by
'''Support'''. Calm when faced with nonsense + does thankless work + experienced editor = Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Good editor, great admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' A fantastic contributor. Great work on [[WP:SSP]]
'''Support''' Looks like a great contributor who could certainly use the tools to aid in their SSP work (and other areas). '''
'''Strong support''' posting here because bots aren't particularly smart. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''; good editor, good work, I expect similar quality adminning.
'''Support'''; helpful and calm concerning contentious issues with [[Surrealism]] pages.
'''Support''' Quality candidate. --
'''Support''' per above.

'''Support''' Excellent candidate; superb addition to admin corps.
I'm
'''Support''' Rational antinationalist editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Virulently Firebrand Support''' - a fantastic wikipedian, he's always impressed me for his devotion and rigour. I was thinking myself of nominating him, but Durova' been faster than me! ;-)--
'''Support''' - Per nom.
'''Support''' I wish you would have considered this sooner.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Solid editor, no issues.--
'''Support''' - if only to get some more admin help at [[WP:SSP]]. Good candidate in general. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' -- and working on [[WP:SSP]] is always a good thing. My only qualm is the possibility that Akhilleus will only dedicate himself to that one area... but again this is only a hope.
'''Support''' without doubt. - '''
'''Support''' will do well. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support,''' per everyone else. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
<tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' per all.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Done good all times I's noticed. Stoked, dude. And I have a soft spot for [[Homosexuality in Ancient Greece]]. (er, that came out funny.) (er, part 2: as did that.)
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' look like a conscientious editor and a good candidate for admin.
'''Support''' per the comments above, a worthwhile candidate.
'''Support'''. Why not?--
'''Oppose''', if he's willing to follow that stricter view [http://www.nabble.com/Corporate-vanity-policy-enforcement-p6585535.html], then no.  Zero tolerance is the opposite of [[WP:AGF]]
i thought only employees could decided who can and can't edit.  are we giving premium access here? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Honda Pilot|Honda Pilot]] ([[User talk:Honda Pilot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Honda Pilot|contribs]]) 11:31, 4 April 2007  (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> <small>(User's [[Special:Contributions/Honda_Pilot|sixth]] edit. —
First one's free. Per nom. ++
'''Support''' This editor looks entirely qualified for the admin tools.  A good spread of edits across the main spaces & no problems as far as I can see in any of the random diffs that I chose to examine.
'''Support''' - no signs of abusing the tools..Goodluck..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Completely qualified as stated above; the right fit for the job!
'''Support'''. Clearly cool-headed and does good work. - '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
Should do a good job-&mdash;<font color='red'>
-- <b>
'''Support''' user has a good record of activity in all different spaces, has shown maturity in editing. He seems dedicated, let's give him a mop. —
'''Support.''' Fly like an eagle! :-) [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' Has a good grasp of Wikipedia policy. Will do well with the extra tools.
'''Support'''. I'm convinced that he will do a great job as admin.
'''Support''', as co-nom. --
'''Strong Strong Support''' - I have worked very closley with this editor through [[WP:AIRCRAFT]] and [[WP:AVIATION]].  Great collaborative spirit, great knowledge of policy and an amzingly civil editor in difficult situations.  If I knew he was going for RFA, I would have offered to co nom.
'''Support''' Quality contributor, solid knowledge of policy.

I'm

'''Support''' - Bueno.
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
'''Support''' I agree with [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]]: [[User:Akradecki|Akradecki]] is an active, balanced, civil, and constructive editor and would be a creditable addition to Wikipedia's administrator ranks.
'''Support''': While user has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent, user seems to have a firm knowledge of the policies and will make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' Ready for the mop.
'''Support''' per noms. &ndash;
'''Support''' Already an crew member, it is time to give him wings!
'''Support''' A fine looking user.
'''Strong and serious support''' Yes.
'''Support''' Q3 rocked.
'''Support''' A 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' Good editor, not afraid to remove information when necessary too. (An unsourced edit may be "true" but it's still unsourced.)
'''Support''' Good editor, good attitude, hard worker.
'''Support''' - looks ok --
<s>'''Oppose!''' Not enough portal talk edits!!! <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Seems versed in policy and experienced in editing, with uses for admin tools. I don't think burnout is much of an issue.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate --
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' per excellent answers
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support''' Get on it!
'''Strong Support'''&ndash; I was very impressed by his answers to his admin coaches.  He ''does'' clearly "get it" and he's not a yes-man either.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;

'''Support''' per noms. '''
At 30-40 edits per day, I'm afraid this user will burn out. I appreciate the number of contributions, but adminship is not a prize for making lots of contributions. I would prefer we promoted admins who are more representative of normal editors.
'''Support''' User has given me no reason to object
'''Support''' as nom. Good spread of experience - seems to know what he's doing... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per WJB, good Wikipedian. -- <strong>
'''Support''' 3 FAs, 128(That's a nice rounded number!) AIV reports and the Nom from WJB pretty much sealed the deal. --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
Trust the nominator's judgement, nothing seems amiss with the candidate. '''
'''Support''' - featured article writing, in addition to vandal fighting. Solid candidate.
'''Support''' if WJBscribe supports, so do I. But seems to be an excellent candidate --'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a good choice.
'''Support'''. Don't see any potential issues with this one.
'''Support''' This is a very experienced user. Glad to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''.  The CSD tagging and AIV reports look spot-on, and article building experience looks good. (I never would have guessed that a YouTube video could make Featured Article status, but I see how it made it.)  --
'''Support''' for excellent content contributions.  I enjoyed reading [[The Bus Uncle]]. -
'''Support''' No doubts here. '''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''  Has plenty of experience, will make an exceptional admin. --
'''Support''' Great editor, plenty of experience.
'''Support''' On a check of contributions, definitely seems worthy.
'''Support''' a candidate that deserves the mop.
'''Support''' Impressed by your FA contributions. --
'''Support''' Good experience of editor at AIV, generally appears unlikely to abuse the mop.
'''Support''' Great contributor, well rounded and has participated in many areas of Wikipedia.
Nominated by Scribey, supported by Falley. --
'''Support''' especially to the increased contributions over the past few months compared to the first few, with also significant portion of contributions to Wiki-related pages.--
'''Support''' per excellent answers to questions --
I'm
'''Support''' - I can't see any problems, doubt user will abuse the mop. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' as per WJBscribe an has been very active in the last 5 months with over 3000 mainspace edits.No concerns after checking the track.
'''Support''', I trust the nominator and the candidate. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support'''
Fine user.
'''Support'''.  I had some one-on-one interaction with the candidate over a problematic user and was favorably impressed with his attitude and approach.  Having closely watched Alasdair improve [[Jackie Chan]], I can attest that he plays well with others. -
'''Support''' I don't see any problems at all. —Signed by [[User:Kornfan71|<font color="red">KoЯn</font><font color="black">fan71</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:Kornfan71|<font color="red">My Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - Can't find a reason to oppose. G'luck
'''Support'''. Per the above; it appears they will be a good admin. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#C00000">
'''Support''' - from one Alasdair to another. <sup>
'''Support'''. Good editors inevitably make good admins.
'''Support''' - based on great encyclopedia building skills, e.g., [[The Bus Uncle]], one of my favorites FA's of the year. Can be trusted, of course.
'''Support''' - good credentials, your time has come. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' good work at CSDs - lots of deleted edits to prove it.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent editor, and a fine candidate for adminship.  --
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''', editor seems trustworthy, nominator's trustworthy, everything's good.
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
Sure. <b>
'''Support''' Great contributor, no concerns here. --
'''Support''' Nom beating or otherwise. A refreshing approach in the badly under resourced image section of Wikipedia. Contribs evidence a good understanding of policy, discourse and activity (particularly January!) and the essential civility. I'm delighted to see a potential admin who will work in this often slightly overlooked area by other candidates. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' as nom. Just missed being #1.
'''(S)''' (yes I did the support different [[Image:Smiley.svg|16px]]. Definitely.
'''Support''' Nom. Has always been helpful in policy clarification.
'''Support''' solid candidate with well rounded experience and appears to be thorough and civil. We can definitely use extra admins willing to tackle the image backlogs.
'''Support''' An excellent editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No issues here, nothing in his edit histor stands out and he seems fairly well-rounded.
'''Support''' - No issues.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Sorry but you have been nominated by a rouge admin whose only propaganda is to nominate good editors. He is trustworthy, reliable, experienced and a very helpful admin and I hope you can be just as evil as him..Good Luck..'''hehe'''..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''.  I can see no reason not to trust this editor with the tools.  --
'''Support''' per above. Solid edit counts, especially since November 2006, and no complaints.
'''Support''' as per above edits do not reflact any particular POV.Hence neutral and is a Good Editor.
Shows a need for tools per question 1 --
'''Support''' definitely. —
'''Support''' per above. -
'''Support''' Answers to optional questions were very good. Definitely a good editor. --
'''Support''' Jawohl.  I like what I see.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Can't see any reason to do otherwise.
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' I think Alex is a good person. He has done a great job for Wikipedia and we need more Wikipedians like him.
The name issue is minor and though I'm still curious about my question above, a review of contributions show this is the intelligent and reasoned sort of administrator we need and I am happy to support. --
'''Support''' Absolutely, and answers to the Qs were impressive. <b>
'''Support''' Experience editor, time to give him the mop! --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Well rounded candidate.
'''Support'''. Nothing worthy of opposing over. A great user nominated by another great user. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' - All-around perfect candidate. --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
I'm
'''Support'''. Civil and helpful. A fine candidate and all-round great editor. Plus he has a good taste in music ;)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I like what I see here. Images are most vexing to me, and adding another competent mop to this task is never a bad thing. The contribs look good, and nothing popped up to give me pause. Good luck!
'''Support''' Per [[WP:PRIVACY]], you didn't have to answer the RL questions. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' A solid candidate. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' - ha, I got ten A*s at GCSE.  Eat it!!!! <small>(um, yes, will do fine)</small>
Fine editor. 100% RfA? :-) <b>
'''Support''' We need morepeople who aren't confused by image copyright rules and laws. He would be extremely useful.
'''Support''' &mdash; <font face="georgia">
'''Strong support''' Need a great admin who knows images per Hermione is a dude. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support'''- I see no reason to oppose; he is a good editor who can be trusted with the tools, with intelligent answers to the questions.
'''Strong support''' another good candidate brought to us by [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]].
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate who appears poised to do useful and important work.
Pile on!
'''Support''' Good editor. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' the tools will help him.
'''Support''' The only thing that concerns me about this editor is agreeing to post personal information, since that sort of info tends to lead to death threats and admins leaving Wikipedia. That said, I doubt it will become a problem. --[[User talk:L|L]]<small>[[User:L|u]][[Special:Contributions/L|c]]
'''Support''' Yep. --
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I see no problems here.  Need picture help too so that is a +
'''Support''' per PEAR.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per Nick.  --
'''First to get here support'''. I have seen Alison around doing great work and believe she'll make a fine admin. Most experience in vandal areas but has enough XfD contribs to show understanding of deletion policy. Will use the tools well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Indubitably, one of the greatest uses here, based on Talk responses, XfD contribs, and dispute resolution.
'''Support''' Seems have very well-rounded contributions and a good attitude.
'''Unabashedly Support'''. Alison would make an ideal admin, and her ability to find good venues of compromise and a lack of arrogance and hostility are traits that I think all editors should aspire to. She exhibits a perfect balance of boldness and discretion. -
'''Support'''. Never had the pleasure but all the boxes appear to be ticked, and good editors good admins usually make. Best of luck!
'''Support++''' ~
'''Support''', excellent editor, no concerns.
'''Support''' works for me --
'''Out-of-the-box support'''
'''Support''' - But of course.
'''Support'''. The kind of editor who will make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' May I compliment you on the thoughtful and tolerant way in which you dealt with a difficult problem relating to [[User:Manopingo]]. Clearly will be a great admin.--

'''Strong support''' as co-nom, great user
'''Support''' should be fine. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' definitely admin material. -
'''Support'''Will be a great administrator. Good luck. --
'''Support''' Clear and fine. Just like the Emerald Isle.
'''Support''' Been around for a while; good editor ''and'' vandal-fighter.↔
'''Support''', yeh, I'd support Alison.  Although I had my disagreement, I carry no irk!-
'''Support''' - One of my favourite Editors...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Appears to be a well rounded experienced editor.  Would put the tools to good use.
'''Strong support as nominator''' I'm late; and since I am the nominator, I should have been [[Wikipedia: blocking policy|blocked indefinitely]] if I had opposed.
'''Instant support''' Hang around Alison's talk page for a couple of days and you'll see why she would make a great admin. She happily tackles controversial topics, accepts constructive criticism and coolly bears trolling, is a major vandal-fighter, highly active on all projects she is a member of... and ''already'' provides input in admin-oriented areas of WP. No-question support.
'''Support'''. We've never crossed paths, but after a review of Alison's talk page (see [[User talk:Alison/Archive 3#unclear edit|here]] and [[User talk:Alison/Archive 6#Vandalism|here]]) and some of her recent contributions (examples [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bord_Iascaigh_Mhara&diff=prev&oldid=108397375 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangor%2C_County_Down&diff=prev&oldid=76801449 here]), I'd gladly give her the mop. --
'''Coming out of wikibreak support''' I know Alison slightly and have been impressed by her contributions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&diff=prev&oldid=114824984 Here] is civility, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadowcrow&diff=prev&oldid=114378609 here] is welcoming, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=114015518 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.158.182.196&diff=prev&oldid=114015603 here] are effective uses of vandalism policy (vandal reversions are common and easy to find). If she has any dark secrets then she has hidden them very well. The fact that she is Irish, and that I like Irish people will not influence me. --
'''Strong Support'''. From what I've seen, Alison has been an exemplar of editorial sageness. Strong writing, plays well with others, and reasonable in disputes. Aye, I say, aye.
'''Support'''. I've been watching several articles she has been invloved in and observed her calmness and sensible dealings with many other editors.
'''Support''' per above, an excellent Wikipedian. Regarding Dragons flight comments, in my very limited understanding, [[copyright infringement]]  would be a very big deal, however this is a different concept than [[plagarism]].
'''Support''' per the nominators. ''
'''Strong Support'''. Alison is a well-rounded Wikipedian with an excellent grasp of policy.  Calm in the face of vandalism and trolling, she manages to AGF when mere mortals give up in frustration.   I have no reservations in giving her the tools - she knows how to use them, and will use them to protect and improve the 'pedia.  <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' - Her posts exhibit careful thought of the issue before her and regard for the feelings of others.  Along with her experience, she will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good answers and edit history. --
'''Support'''. I agree with Kathryn, although the mustache-twirling ABF side of me [probably resembles Terry-Thomas] wonders: "Maybe she's too nice, too reasonable". Still, if Alison is willing to do the unpleasant work, that's fine by me. I slightly shared in Dragons flight's concern, but the answer below settles that for me.
'''Support''' Good record and clear that there is no concern that there will be any misuse or abuse.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen you around in many places, and can definitely trust you.  You also (seem to) have a good grasp of policies and Wikipedia in general.  I think you will make a fine and productive administrator. '''
'''Support'''. A prolific contributor, seems well-versed in policy, good record of civil interactions, and if you will forgive the allusion, an [[Steve Jobs|insanely great]] admin candidate. --
'''Support''' I wonder about the semi-protecting your user page, but that is no reason to oppose given the reasons to support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' very balanced contributer with no problems on her record.  I have often noticed her to be very civil.  I doubt this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' per Ryan. I've seen Ms Ali-oops around and am confident she has the skills and knowledge to be an outstanding admin. '''
'''Support''' Even though there were the odd bumps in the road, she's a fine candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' -- ''
I'm
Acceptable, but please make more judicious use of the 'minor edit' checkbox in the future.

'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' --
'''Support;'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Appreciate all you do to fight vandalism - WP will be even better-defended against vandalism when you have the tools. —
'''Support'''. Good editor, shows extreme patience in difficult situations.
'''Support''' - looks like a great editor who already does admin-type work. Give her the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' as I can find no evidence leading me to believe Allison will abuse the twiddled bit. She seems very well-rounded in her experience on WP, and I trust her with the mop. ···
'''Support''' → I haven't found why I shouldn't ;-) <i><b>
'''Support''' Good users, no qualms. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' based on her contributions .. definately trust Alison with the extra buttons -
'''Support'''. Outstanding editor.
'''Support'''. Very good editor. I've liked what I've seen.
'''Support'''  The bitchstar says it all.  ;-)  Well-rounded in her contributions, very civil with other users (and vandals).
'''Support'''! <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">
'''Support''' have seen her around doing ''everything'', great worker, would do well with the tools. WP:100 please! :) &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' I have only good thoughts about Alison ... except why did she move from Ali-oops? I loved that name
'''Support''', deserving the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' Thoughtful and smart. And I do love me some vandal-fighting troll magnets. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Everyone agrees on this one. I guess... --- '''
'''Probably unnecessary pile-on support''' per all above. The response to the <s>oppose</s> neutral down there clinched it for me. '''
'''Support''' I think she will do well with the tools. The need for vandal fighting is something that will only exponentially grow and will get worse as Wikipedia keeps on moving. Yes, please… Give her "The Mop"
'''Support'''

'''Support''' per everyone else.--
'''Support'''.  Looks like a mature, balanced, intelligent editor who will make a great admin.
'''Support''' 7000 edits, friendly, serious vandal fighter, mainspace, RFPP. Almost all the qualities of an admin.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Great user! -
'''Support''' I think Alison is a great candidate for adminship. Her contributions indicate that she has no problem performing repetative tasks and she will only do good with the extra tools. --[[User:NickW557|Nick]]—<sup>
'''omg oppose'''. --
'''Pile-on of-course support.''' —
'''Strong support''' -- ideal candidate. Lots of experience dealing with contentious people and situations yet has shown good judgement. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' -- we had a conflict with the [[Steve Stanton]] article, but that was much more my fault than hers, and has been resolved amicably (see [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Alison | here]] & [[User talk:Yksin#Steve_Stanton | here]].  Everything else I've seen on her talk page reflects dedicated, good service to Wikipedia.  I would urge care regarding issues brought up by opposing & neutral voters here. But mostly -- good on ya, Alison. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' -- good editor, and experienced.
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support'''; everything looks good.
'''Support''' This editor's edits actions reassure me that she has, and will continue to exhibit [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trustworthiness and good judgement]]. Good Luck! --
'''Support''', per Xoloz.
'''Support''' Will be a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' per Dragons' flight. Copyright apathy is very bad. —
I can't recall every interacting with you before a few days ago, but I found those interactions very off putting.  [[User:Ryanpostlethwaite|Ryanpostlethwaite]] was revealed by me to have plagarized.  The identified problems were addressed, which is a good thing; however, I was surprised by the way you jumped to his defense.  Your attitude suggested you thought it all no big deal.  No, I don't think one should "presume innocence" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite&diff=prev&oldid=113739012] when it comes to the question of whether or not there were additional acts of plagarism.  Clearly that is a circumstance that warrants close scrutiny and investigation of past contributions.  (For the record, after investigation I don't think there were other problems, but it is not something to just assume away.)  And later you were the first to defend him again when I mentioned that I would give his future edits closer scrutiny, as if his being "contrite" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryanpostlethwaite&diff=prev&oldid=114377529] was more than enough reason to ignore the past pattern of bad behavior.  I am stunned that the community would [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite|promote]] someone (i.e. Ryan) who had recently committed plagarism, and quite disappointed that some members of the community, including yourself, seem to act as if plagarism is no big deal.
'''Neutral leaning to support''' - I really really really want to support you, but I've already put off my RfA standards once this week already for another brilliant editor, & don't want to do it again just in case some cataclismic event occurs. I think you'll understand... Well, you've had a long history here (early 2004! wow!), but you've managed to rack up very few Wikipedia namespace edits & very little in way of its talk either. You have a high percentage of user talk edits & you also have no GA's or FA's. But as I said, you are brilliant & I don't think you'd ever abuse the tools. I just thoguht I'd express my sall concerns as you are in no danger of losing this RfA. Don't hold it against me... Gulp... :)
Oh absolutely...has this been transcluded yet? [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
DAMN YOU DHMO!. Support as nom.
'''Support''' - yup. Good all-round candidate, everything looks good, seems kind and civil. -
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions, and very civil.
'''Support'''
Unquestionably.
'''Support''' - No reasons not to support.
Seems good.
Yeah, looks fine.
'''Support''' I like the answers.
'''Support''', and [[Savage_10FP|nice rifle]] btw. (My own firearms experience is a bit limited, due to [[United Kingdom|my country]]'s extreme gun-control legislation, but I have learnt to use the [[SA80]] through my membership of the [[Officers Training Corps|OTC]].)
'''Support''', Per nom. Happy editing--
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, no reason not to trust this user with the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' Knows his stuff--'''
'''Support''' Good answers & Track.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, really surprised me when he came on the scene and edited up a storm in the firearm area, but it was one of those good surprises. I don't see any indication he would misuse the tools of an administrator, he is civil, and knowledgeable.--
'''Support''' A great editor, definitely support.  Good luck!  <font color="#7BA05B">
'''Support''' The talk pages show a good record of dealing with people, some of whom may be armed. :)--
'''Support'''
'''Support''', user is reliable, helpful and sensible, a pleasure to support!
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Excellent answers to the questions. -'''
'''Support''', there is no reason to suspect his adminship would do anything but help improve the project. -
'''''
''"It's better in the case of BLP to err on the side of exclusion rather than inclusion, and I agree wholeheartedly with that"'' — amen. Just remember to contact the deleting administrator before anyone else if you disagree with it, and probably privately as well given it's most likely sensitive. '''
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  '''<span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''- Very good editor.  A successful RfA will be a great Christmas present for him!
'''Support''' - <font color=green>'''Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year'''</font> From what I see, a '''Great Editor''' --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Absolutely''' <strong>
'''Support''' experienced user, very good answers. Good luck.
'''Support''' experienced user, good humor a plus. cheers,
'''Support''', solid. --
'''Support''' per Sql --'''''<sup>
'''Support''' - Good track record, enough experience, well-rounded, etc. Oh, and an uplifting name. Sounds like a [[Polyphonic Spree]] song.
'''Support''' Excellent
'''Support'''Excellent user; no reason not to. <strong>
'''Support''' Can't see a reason why not. —
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''' Good luck! --
'''Support''' Man, you really like [[Helen Keller]]. Good luck. --
'''Support'''.
Excellent admin material.
'''Oppose'''. Has not made substantial contributions to mainspace. Adminship is a big deal.
'''Neutral''' - a good editor, who meets all my standards, but I have a couple of very small concerns: an inconsistent userpage (claiming not to push a POV, but doing so), and needing to do more work on WikiProject Firearms (for example, on [[Hunting]] and [[Hunting license]]).  But those are mere quibbles, and I would not oppose for those reasons.
'''Neutral''' per all support, but sadly per that oppose comment.Not worth a support, but not worth an oppose either.Godd luck!!!
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' I think I am in agreement with Snowolf on this one.  Good luck!
'''Support'''.  Satisfied with the answer to my question, see no reason to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Good edit summary usage, a good candidate for the mop and bucket, your answer to question 1 is a little weak but your still a good candidate. Best of luck!
'''Support''' -  work on dead-end pages indicates commitment to clearing backlogs.

'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose your nomination. Qualified for the job. Answers show a fair understanding of the way things run around here. —
'''Support''' Consistent contributions since January 2006.  Being prepared to help with copyvios is a plus too.
'''Support''' Wonderful candidate; very happy to see such an experienced hand taking up the mop.

--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I see no reason to deny; no indication of future problems.
'''Support''' Good contributor here and to [[Harald Tveit Alvestrand|the Internet in general]].
Good contributor, and his acceptance statement shows he understands the point of adminship.
I'm
'''Support''' - as per Mailer Diablo! --
'''Support''' No reason to oppose this user. I know this has nothing to do with adminship, but "Alvestrand" is a good-sounding username.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also good. I also like acceptance statement. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Trustworthy contributor. --
'''Support''' per the other supporters.
'''Support'''--

Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' but user should improve his edit summary usage. --
'''Support''' - Let's see.  We know his real life identity (he's a past president of the IETF and belongs in [[:Category:Notable Wikipedians]]).  Make him an admin if he's willing?  Hell, we should probably pay him a retainer fee as long as he's willing to edit here and not over at [[Larry Sanger|Larry]]'s [[citizendium|project]]. --
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support''' a very good contributor to [[WP:RFA]] and the general reaction to him on his talk page appears to be positive. I am slightly worried about his edit rate fluctuation though.
'''Support''' Nothing jumps out at me to raise any concerns. Talented, diversified, and long established editor who interacts well with the community, and has shown excellent dedication to growing the project.
Experienced editor who clearly won't abuse the tools. <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' although you haven't been very active of late, I see no reason to oppose --'''
'''Support''' A very good editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I've only seen good edits from you.
User can be trusted.
A keen eye for vandals and devotion to a project. You fit the bill. --
There's a bit of AfD there...not excessive, but we don't always need excessive admins. '''
'''Support''', no good reason not to.
'''Weak Support'''. A little inexperienced in projectspace, but that isn't enough of a reason to oppose, IMO.
'''Support''' &mdash; I see no indication this user will execute the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature fashion.  --
'''Support''' Have only seen good things from this editor.
'''Support''' Has only done good things for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' more inclusionist than the norm, but knows what the policies and should use the tools well.
—&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  See [[User:Amire80/Nominated for deletion]].  Originally oppose, but Amire proved it through this.  '''
'''Support''' On balance should not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' looks like a good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As per Nick mallory has nothing wrong.
'''Support''' Seems to have the qualifications, background and experience to serve as an admin.
'''Support''' An admirable editor. How much experience do people want?--
'''Weak Oppose''' You say you want to help fight vandalism and block, but I don't see any edits at [[WP:AIV|AIV]].  I like your editing, but I don't see much experience in areas that are admin-task related.
'''Oppose''' - as of yet, Wikipedia-space experience is too low. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose'''. Because of the way he defended the Siberian Wikipedia in the closure move on it. "I hate it when dialects die". Sorry, but I hate it when people die. I cannot do anything about it. And neither should Wikipedia try to stop dialects from dying. In other words, I am sure this guy has an agenda which I do not like. There were other things said then, about the POV and OR inherent in the Siberian Wikipedia. I gather that he now claims to have learnt his lesson, but he is still an administrator there. There is an expression in Englsih: you cannot have your cake and eat it. Now that the Siberian Wiki, is about to be closed, it is time to reflect on the bot wars (over the filthy link to Siberian Hamlet and the racist link to Siberian Ingria) and the aggravation it caused, all of which could have been better spent at creating articles. Sorry, no AGF in this case. --
'''Weak Oppose''' The candidate's other contributions, and their answers here, are strong. However, you say that your foremost duty as a sysop would be in vandalfighting, but I see no edits to AIV. If you can demonstrate to me that you understand the AIV process, I would be glad to change to support.
'''Neutral''' O.K.
'''Beat-the-nominator support''' - seems like a fine fellow. '''
'''Strongest possible support''' D'oh (lol), I wanted to be the first to support, as nominator.
'''Support''' - no evidence of problems. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I've seen him about, and he definitely "gets it". Was thinking of nominating myself, if it wasn't for that userbox... ah well, good luck Anas, and I look forward to seeing you as an admin! :) '''
'''Support'''-Definitely time for this. Good participation at RFA and over 4,000 edits in WP: space. Edit count isn't everything, but that shows it's time. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''Support''' - with no hesitation. <sup>
'''Support''' Great user. &ndash;
'''Strong Support'''. Great contributor.
'''Strong Support''', of course.
-- <b>
'''Support''' despite their short time on the project, this editor has shown a lot of dedication.  I don't believe that the admin tools would be abused.
'''Support''' brilliant --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' nothing but positive things to say about this editor.
'''Support''' - answers to the questions are excellent. No concerns at the present time. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' A great user.
'''Support''', Meets my personal criteria. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' Record of excellent edits and comments and help to new users.'''
'''Strong Support'''. As the nomination said, she is a model Wikipedian. I see her helpful comments all the time. --
'''Happily support'''. Wonderful user and awesome person.
'''Support''' Great work, will make very good use of the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Absolutely'''.
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support'''. Nice comprehensive answers to the questions and a user I certainly trust with the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' I have seen this user elsewhere and I think this user should be an admin.
'''Support''' More than happy to add my voice of support!
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''support''' - I've been impressed with anas for a long time, he's a dedicated user, and from comments he puts in other RfA's, I see he fully understands what is required for an admin.

'''Support''' - ahh.I missed again..should have been an Admin long time ago..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' this good fellow.. I like his edits and contributions
'''Support''', good answers and contributions that demonstrate eloquence and intelligence. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''', satisfied with the answer to my question, see no problems elsewhere. <font face="Verdana">

'''Support''': User has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. I have noticed this user around recently and have seen nothing but good work from this user. Also, I like the answers to the questions. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
I'm
'''Strong support'''. A very level headed, hard working and civil editor. This is the n time my ''vote'' comes just after Mailer diablo's one. So, i think i'll start to just say "as per MDiablo". --
'''Strong support''' Interactions always positive. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support'''

Although I knew he "wasn't already one" (as opposed to the popular cliché), I've always wondered ''why''. Expresses himself well, and has been extremely helpful and insightful in project and user talk space whenever I've seen him. Has proven that he doesn't snap, and doesn't make rash decisions. A model candidate. '''
'''Support''' Hard-working editor, he seems neutral too. --
'''Support''', have noticed positively, like the answers.
'''Support''' No worries at all. '''
'''Support''' Per everyone above. :) · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - good editor - seems capable of making a good admin.--
'''Support''' Would be fine. --
Almost forgot to '''support'''. Another user I had already accepted as admin... —'''
'''Strong Support''' as nominator. (Andonic already said he would accept the nomination) '''
'''Strong Support''' as Co-Nominator. Good luck buddy! <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Strong Support'''- I would co-nom, but I think one is enough... having met this user around especially at Strat game wikiproject, is an excellent user and I feel can be trusted with the tools. I thought he was an admin already...
'''Strong Support'''. I've been watching this RFA for about a month now, eagerly waiting to support. He'd do a great job with the mop. &mdash;
'''Support''' Nothing that worries me. Good candidate, will make a great admin. --
'''Super strong special brew support''' Only ever seen the good from AO. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' Trustworthy.
It's about time! '''Strong support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' I've had the pleasure of speaking to AndonicO, and I've been pleased with just about everything. Since I offered to nominate him, I must support. Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' without hesitation.  Good luck!
'''Support''' — per my interactions with this user.
'''Support''' - I have seen this user a few times around Wikipedia and I think he is an excellent adminship candidate. Well experienced, good contributions and fair to others.
'''Support''' I'm convinced.  Good editor with a wide array of skills.  Should become a great help around the site.
'''Strong Support''' - AndonicO really helped me out at first, with some image upload problems, and he seems to have over 8000 edits. Really, he´d make a perfect sysop, being a trustworthy wikipedian. Good luck... <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">TomasBat</font></font>]] <small>(''[[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]'')</small><small>(''[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|<font color="orange">Contribs</font>]]'')</small><small>(''
'''Support''' - Will make a very good admin..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I have been waiting for the chance to support this user. Ever since I first came to Wikipedia, I have looked up to AndonicO. He first gave me my welcoming into Wikipedia. Ever since then I thought to myself, "I want to be as good as AndonicO someday." I will definately support.
'''Support''' per featured article writing, vandal fighting and good answers to questions.
'''Strong Support''' Great editor, who has helped me in several situations.  Would make a fantastic admin. </br>'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''', looks like a worthy candidate.
Very '''Strong Support''' I've been around longer than he has; he's been around better than I have. &mdash;
'''Support'''- a good editor, and would make a good admin- takes time to answer questions and friendly to new users.
{{Y}}'''Strong Support''' Not only has great credentials, but he's honest when they weren't ''that'' great.  An amazing wikipedian.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">
'''Strong Support''' since I am a co-nom ;) ~
'''Strong Support.''' You deserve this. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Strong support''' per Reywas92  '''
'''Support''' per noms and candidate's strong overall record.
'''Support''' &mdash; twenty-five editors in good standing can't be wrong, can they? Some [[WP:RCP|RCP]] work would be the icing on the cake, but ''meh'', support. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Trusted user who understands policy. --
'''Support''' based on contribs and history. I think AndonicO would make a fine admin, and I can see nothing which leads me to think otherwise. ···
'''Strong support''' - firstly, the nominations are from 4 users that have my ultimate respect on wikipedia, I trust their judgement. Secondally, my personal interaction with AndonicO leads me think that the user would make a fine admin candidate - again, a user that has my ultimate respect.
'''Support'''. Looks good. ---
'''Support''': I do not see any reason why this user should not be an administrator. Has plenty of experience and user seems civil. Should make a fine admin. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I hesitated due to some of his answers, but let's give Big O the mop.
'''Support''' I have seen this guy alot, and all I've seen is good stuff.--
'''Support'''. An all around good user with an excellent nomination. It's about time we promoted someone with "brain washed wikipals" (''sic'') who "find the truth unpalatable" and practise "intellectual fascism of the very highest order". Not just any kind of intellectual fascism, mind you, but only that of the highest order. ;) <small>For anyone who has no idea what I'm rambling about, please see the discussion [[User talk:83.244.149.133|here]].</small> -- '''
'''Slam dunk support''' (to quote GRBerry).  The nominations speak for themselves.  I didn't even need to read the answers.
Yes, most certainly. '''
'''Support''' Edit history shows a substantial amount of project and vandal-fighting work, good work on categorization, effective interactions with other users. And quite an impressive set of nominators, too! Good luck. --
'''Support'''. Straightforward and honest. '''''
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor so often now & they're a very familiar face on AIV. Everything looks great, I've seen them in action enough times. Mop and bucket! -
I'm
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' excellent user, he'll be a good admin. —
'''Support''': Seems a good editor, Good luck. --
'''Support''': Does lots of good things around here. [[User:AxG/Userpage|<font color=royalblue face="comic sans ms">'''AxG'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/AxG|<font color=red>҈</font>]] <font color=red><sup>'''►'''</sup></font>[[User talk:AxG|<font color=black><sup>talk</sup></font>]]<font color=red><sub>'''►'''</sub></font>

'''Support''' When you got it, you got it. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Everyone else has already said why.
'''Support''' - Andonico is a responsible user and this is long overdue. <font face="monospace">
'''Ultra-Strong Support''' Arg! I wish I came back a week or so sooner. I would have loved to co-nom AndomicO. He is an incredible user with varied experience and a history of both improving Wikipedia while extensively fighting vandalism. He'd make a better-than-average Admin. -- '''
'''Support''' Experienced and friendly user, will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  A very solid contributor and I see no danger that you would abuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seen him around, and I have a positive impression. Nice answers. #4 is ok IMO, although some may find it too "blunt" (not to say they haven't been warned so, though).
'''Strong Support''' - I think we should judge a candidate by the value of there contributions and there value to thios encylopedia.  To oppose based on a signature we dont like, or because we dont like something on there userpage seems childish to me, similar to, he has sloppy handwriting, or i dont like his clothes.  This candidate has an excellent record here on wikipedia and nothing that i can see or forsee could lead me to believe that this candidate is anything but the most trustworthy with this projects best intentions in mind.
'''Weak support''' This user should make a good admin, but does not seem to understand IAR. It is not for ignoring other people, but for making non-controversial actions that would benefit the project but normally be prevented by the rules. Given this fundemental misunderstanding I can see why he thinks it should not be put into practice, but used correctly its practice helps the community rather a lot. <small>
'''Pile-on support'''.  Among other things, I am impressed by article-improvements and the approach to adminship expressed above.  Best of luck.  --
'''Not so much a pile on but I'm glad to see the candidate is taking the opposes seriously''' That makes me believe they will be prepared to learn from mistakes and that's the real acid test - not whether they will screw up because they will at some point but that they can learn how not to next time ...
'''Strong Support''' I am of the same opinion as the noms. '''
'''Support'''. I don't think I can say anything good that hasn't already been said. AO will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. From what I've seen of this user, I expect the mop will be well-used. '''''
'''Support''' Believe he will make a good admin, no evidence will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.

'''Support.''' Answer to question 4 should not sufficient ground for opposition (actually, if one is wrong in interpretting the "ignore all rules" policy, one would do much better to err towards the side AndonicO took rather than the other way around). Nothing else is problematic with this RfA.

'''Support''' Looks good; oppose comments unconvincing.--
'''Support''' seems fine. --
'''Support:''' Hmm, this one is hard :p '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;[[User:Magnus animum|<font color="#33ff33">Mag</font><font color="#33ff66">nus</font>]] [[User talk:Magnus animum|<font color="#33ff99">ani</font><font color="#33ffcc">mum</font>]]</span></span>''' <sub>(
4 noms? He's got to be good then.--
'''Support''' Useful vandalism fighter on [[Alexander Hamilton]]. I do not see the answer to Q4 as a problem;  better that attitude in an admin than "We can ignore all rules; I'm going to do what I want." He did not say, ''never use it'' to either. He should read [[WP:PRO]], however.
'''Strong Support''' Honestly, I was under the impression that he already was an admin. AndonicO has shown amazingly calm behavior, and made a bunch of good edits. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">

'''Support'''. I see Andonic everywhere, and everything I've seen has been excellent.
'''Support''' [[User:Geo.plrd|<font color= "blue">G</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''- I see no reason as to why I should not come out of Wikibreak to support a helpful, kind person. Don't forget AO's FPs as well! <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' per Oleg Alexandrov.
'''Support''' I can't believe I left it this late to support. Excellent user. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''
'''support''' in common to my [[w:de:User:ABF/Bewertungskriterien|evaluation criterions]]
'''Support''' I disagree with your position on IAR, but I don't consider that a reason to oppose someone who otherwise looks well qualified. '''
'''support''' <font face="Verdana"><small>↔
Support: I'll rather not want Andonic join the Wikipedia Corruption Clique (WCC), but if he must, then he has my full support. --
'''Support''' {{tick}} '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
The candidate has a vandalism counter on his user page, which shows that he does not understand the importance of [[meatball:DissuadeReputation|dissuading reputation]]. Also, userpage contains grammatical errors, which is evidence of sloppiness, and the candidate declares his intentions to become an admin on his userpage, which is a red flag for me. Combine this with wholly the unacceptable response to the question asked about about "ignore all rules" and there is absolutely no way that I could in good faith support this candidate.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> '''Oppose'''. A couple of things are bothering me here. I ''really'' don't like the answer to Q.4. Policy is not a suicide pact. [[WP:IAR]] should be used sparingly and with good judgment, taking full responsibility for doing so. But saying it should never be put into practice seems to me to have missed the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that the interest of the project trump the implemeting of rules for rules sake. Admin actions are ultimately reversable. As a far more minor thing, I'm not sure why AndonicO required 4 nominations (most of which don't add much more than a support comment would) and was unwilling to sign until all 4 had been made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndonicO&diff=124094212&oldid=124093809]. Is there some sort of number of co-noms competition I'm not aware of? Surely one nom is enough- the others can express themselves in their support comments. Anyway, I'm staying on the fence given the answer to Q.4. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - I'm not thrilled with the inflexible interpretation of policy and general policeman attitude. That plus the obnoxious sig (Two letters should not take up more than one line!) plus the arrogance does it for me.
'''Oppose''' Based on Q4.  There is a potential for wheel warring if an admin in good faith decides to ignore all rules, and [[User:AndonicO]] decides (in good faith) to uphold that particular rule[s].  However, the user seems to be a very prolific vandal fighter and should keep that up.  I oppose reluctantly.
'''Weak Oppose''' I get the impression the editor is a bit trigger happy, based on an entry in [[WP:AIV]] to block a user because of an edit a few seconds after the final warning.  Hopefully, it was atypical.
'''Oppose''' I know him from [[Muhammad]] pictures mediation. He is a very nice person but he failed to resolve the dispute. I think it could be mediated much better. He never properly steer the mediation towards conclusion and it was virtually mediator less. I believe that an good admin has to encounter many disputes I don't think that he will be able to handle disputes properly. I am sorry. ---
If you think the rules are infallible then I have serious questions about your judgement, and when I have serious questions about your judgement, I'm uncomfortable giving you the administrator tools. Furthermore, the "three XfD pages" you mention in q7? I'm not sure if you really understand Wikipedia if you think there are three xfd pages. But what seals the deal is that you had a <u>fair use</u> image, [[:Image:Aoe4and5.jpg]], on a
Per answer to Q4 and WJBscribe's diff regarding predicting the vote count.
'''Neutral.''' I can never support someone who doesn't believe in IAR. However, because so many respected contributors feel that this candidate is qualified, I will not oppose.
'''Neutral'''. I'm really not into giving users stick at their RfA, but I'm afraid what I previously said was based on not having read the answers to questions. AndonicO, I applaud your hesitance in using the snowball clause, because I've personally seen it abused, which of course goes back to the whole difficult "rouge" admin thing (yes, it's a satire, but it points to some real problems). Like Ryan, though, I can't honestly support someone who doesn't accept that there is a "right thing", and that the "right thing" may not at the time of execution be a recognised exception to policy. Having said I would support if you changed your signature, I can't really oppose you any longer, so I'll be neutral for now. I also happen to think that Ryan should oppose if that's his honest opinion. Don't be a [[Fraggle_Rock#Fraggles|Wembley]]! ^^
'''Neutral.''' I consider [[WP:IAR]] to be a bedrock of Wikipedia, and [[WP:SNOW]] to be useful in expediting the process of making decisions which are either inevitable or in the clear best interests of the encyclopedia. As per [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanGerbil10]], this is most certainly not enough to oppose. Good luck. --
'''Neutral''' per RyanGerbil10 ~
I think being ready and able to close XfDs is a necessary skill for a potential admin to have, but involvement with only about 25 XfDs doesn't show me that yet, so I'm neutral. You have told me that you don't plan to start closing anything yet until you get more experience, and that's good. Specifically I would ask you to get involved at [[WP:DRV]] discussions for a while before you close anything; there you'll get a feel for which sorts of closings get overturned and which don't. I think that'll help you a lot when you do close MfDs (and whatever else). Besides that, I have a good feeling about your ability to handle what may come. This should probably be a full support, but I'm picky. ··
'''Support''' Seems like a civil editor, and a nice amount of edits. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' candidate is a dedicated contributor, especially with articles concerning religion.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user.--
'''Support''' as nominator - wow you have to be quick round here. I've said my piece above.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Plenty of experience, this user will use the tools well. Happy mopping. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user.
'''Strongest possible support''': This is an editor who's prolific, dedicated to improving the encylopedia, has made excellent article contributions, is interested in helping with administrative tasks, and most importantly has proven time and again that he can handle controversial and heated issues with a [[WP:COOL|cool head]] and aplomb. I can't think of better qualifications for the mop, and support his candidacy without reservations. '''
'''Support''' for reasons expressed in my last minute co-nomination. -
'''Support''' Reviewed your contributions, talk pages, katewannabe, etc. and can see you are a very diverse editor, not only in Wikipedia and mainspace but ''images'' as well. I am confident and comfortable you can handle the mop. --
'''Support''' More than ready for the mop and seems very trustworthy. In addition, we definitely need more admins who have experience with articles on religion to help assist in resolving the seemingly never ending disputes on Wikipedia in this area. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
Definitely ready for taking on all the admin duties. I must say, I am impressed with the candidates lately; a change since the spree of unexperienced users who apply for adminship, fail and leave Wikipedia. Oh well, good luck Andrew! You will be a great administrator. <span style="color:#3366BB;" class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Spebi|+]]'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
Yep. '''
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' I've seen Andrew around, and he does good work. If he is willing to work in [[WP:CfD]], he can be of great help. —
'''Support''' He has been a civil editor, and I think it's time we give him the mop!
'''Support'''. Good and experienced user.
'''Strong support''' Great editor - very fair and conscientious. Will be a fab admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, and I can't see any reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' I don't think that the admin tools will be abused by this editor.
'''Support''' seems like a great user to me.
'''Support''', good luck!
'''Support'''  I've crossed paths with him on a few different occasions, and found him to do great work.  I think he'll make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' No oppose yet (the candidate must be good), so I´ll support. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse the tools and will put them in good use. Besides, adminship isn't a big deal. '''
'''Strong Support''' per everyone above. <font face="Papyrus">
'''Strong support''' When Andrew c sinks his teeth into something good things happen. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support''' I see no problem with  it.
'''Support''' and good answer to 6 - a very tricky question. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' More editors need to be like this. --
'''Support''' Good editor, no problems. We need a lot more dedicated admins, as I am sure from looking at contributions this editor will be.--<font color="Red">

'''Support'''- per [[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - No concerns. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' - Looks like a civil and well understanding user to me. --<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Yes support''' Good applicant.
'''Support''' - we need more admins who are willing to edit actual articles. -
I'm
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Its about time we gave him the vacuum cleaner..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' as per conomination above. Nice to see unanimous support (so far) for this productive and friendly Wikipedian. :D
About time!
'''Support'''.  All is well, here.

'''Support''' I have no doubt that you'll be a great admin. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support'''. A courteous and conscientious editor in my experience.
'''Support''' good user and good answer to my question.
—'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''. from neutral.
'''Support''' - fine editor. Polite and calm with all. No problems here -
'''Support''', good impression of this conscientious editor. I'm especially glad to see his respectful yet firm interaction with  LoveMonkey. All right, so it's not working... but as all admins know, sometimes it doesn't, all we can do is our best. Pages on religious subjects are some of the most sensitive and quarrel-prone we have, and I believe the fairness and patience demonstrated by Andrew c is exactly what's needed there.
'''Support''' Q7 is good and overall I suspect he will be problem-free.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will not make a good admin.
'''Support''' Hardworking, Polite and level headed in the face of trouble, OK
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Supprot''' : No big deal, can be trusted with the tools. :) --
'''Support'''. I see no reason not to issue the buttons here. --
'''Support''' per Wikihermit. Should make a good admin. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(

'''Nominator support'''. --
'''Support''' Looks like a good user. Probably will use the tools wisely.--
'''Strong Support''' Whenever I've met this wikipedian, I've been favourably impressed by his civility and dedication to the project.--
'''Support''' per sensible answers to questions. [[User talk:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong J.]]
'''Support'''. Great answers, good user. Though this user only has 133 project edits, they already demonstrate an understanding of the processes. '''''
'''Support.''' I've never believed that low Wikipedia namespace edits means infamiliarity woth process. I can understand the US Constitution, although I was a few hundred years too late to "edit" it.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support.''' I've worked extensively with Andrewsc on many Olympic pages and find him to be very pleasant to work with. He's done a great job in standardizing a large set of pages, and he's also very good at building consensus. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to questions and fine record of contributions. Unconvincing arguments from oppose voters.
'''Weak support''' good record of contributions. Quite low project space contributions but adminship isn't a big deal and that doesn't mean you don't have a grip of the policies. Not likely to abuse the tools. -
Edit history looks clean. Opposition presents no compelling rationale; the candidate's record indicates satisfactory familiarity with Wikipedia policy.
'''Support'''.  Polite, not likely to abuse the tools.  If an editor can accumulate 14,000 edits on a variety of projects without raising any significant ruckus, then that editor probably has enough good sense not to do something dumb with the buttons.  If, in that many edits, there isn't any evidence of a lack of familiarity with policy, I'd say that calling for a jump through the you-must-have-x-thousand-Wikipedia-space-edits hoop is unnecessary.  I trust that this editor will bring the same care and attention to detail to adminship that he has so far employed in his extensive editing.
'''Support''' per TenOfAllTrades. --
'''Support'''. TenOfAllTrades is right. If this guy can accumulate 14,000 edits without making Wikipedia explode, I think he can handle a few extra buttons without making Wikipedia explode. I'm all for it. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' I have interacted with Andrwsc as he tried to overhaul the Olympic project to make it more uniform.  Talk about a thankless job, having to interact with many users who have different views.  I was one of those that disagreed.  He was patient and discussed my issues using logic.  We very easily found a compromise solution.  While this user may not be familiar will the exact WP policies he is not the kind of user who will use admin powers to bludgeon his opposition.  In my experience he is very willing to learn.  Given the prominience of the Olympic project it will be very useful to have admins active in this area.  I trust this user not only to use the tools wisely but also to familairise himself with policies as the necessity arises. In my view, adminship is much more about maturity and wisdom; this user has plenty of that.
'''Support'''.  No evidence here that Andrwsc can't be trusted with the buttons.  If he wants to delve into policy, he can learn it as necessary. --
'''Support''' - excellent user, strong familiarity with policy, good answers to questions. All of the oppose votes are ridiculous and pedantic - this user has over 14,000 edits overall and has demonstrated very strong familiarity with deletion policy and other relevant areas. Support, with reprimand to everyone who voted Oppose.
'''Olympic support!''' I've edited with this user and been in collaboration for a long time and if there's one person who deserves adminship, it's Andrwsc. The user has devoted much time into bettering the Olympic-related articles, etc. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''.  (side note to candidate ... people usually get stroppy when you respond to all the opposes, just leave them be wrong).  Yes, I think they are wrong to oppose.
[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCenturyDriver]] supports you.
'''Support'''. I trust this user to make good use of the extra buttons.
'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins
'''Support''' I think you know [[Wikipedia]] policy, and I think you will be a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' - great work on Olympic content. He's also very measured in his work so I don't think he'll do anythign adventurous. '''
I'm
'''Support''' The reasons in the nomination, the answers, and a look at the nominee's record have me convinced.
'''Support''' good record, good answers.--
'''Support''' - why not? --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good editor who should be a good admin. Plus, there is NOTHING in the oppose votes that even remotely suggests that this editor might misuse the admin bit. ''
'''Support''' I see nothing bad. Thin perhaps in some areas but I have confidence in the editor's good faith and abilities.
'''Support''' Good editor.

'''Support'''. He's been here long enough that he should know what not to do with the tools. More projectspace experience is nice, but in this case it's not essential.
'''Support''' per Nomination and BryanG. While the number of project space edits is small, they all demonstrate a good understanding of policy and common sense.
'''Support'''; TenOfAllTrades and BlankVerse put it well. Unlikely to misuse tools.
'''Support'''. An excellent record, good answers, plenty of persuasive supporting arguments, and, conversely, no coherent reason not to give Andrwsc sysop rights. That's easy enough.
'''Support (changed from Oppose)''' I had concerns, but the responses to my concerns below allow me to feel comfortable that the candidate will use care before using the tools outside of the template space. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I think some of the oppose/neutral commenters raise reasonable concerns but I find Ligulem's articulate comments persuasive, particularly since this candidate has other plans for adminship than closing XfDs initially. I'm confident Andrwsc will be a good admin. --
'''Support'''.  Level headed and won't abuse the tools.
'''Oppose'''. 133 projectspace contributions, incl. many to Wikiprojects, is a solid indication that user is unfamiliar with process. -
'''Oppose''' per his post in response to the first oppose. Anyone who asks the questions 'did I vote on too many AfDs' is not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Tragic Baboon.  At certain very low levels, "editcountitis", normally a pejorative, becomes synonymous with "good common sense."  133 project-space edits presents such a case.  I will be happy to support once the record demonstrates candidate is well-versed in wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience esp with process in addtion to off color comments per KazakhPol.
'''Oppose'''. Spend some time in the Wikipedia space for a while. Spend a couple of months there to make sure you have a strong grasp of policy. ---
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. Admins who plan to delete need to have the requisite experience in deletion forums. ~
'''Neutral'''. I can't support someone with that few projectspace edits, but you seem to be a very good contributor so I'm not going to oppose.--
'''Support''' per nomination. I trust Majorly majorly. --'''
'''Support''' could definitely use the tools and won't abuse them. '''
'''Support'''. A great catch, Majorly. Anemone is a valued contributor to this project, and has demonstrated the maturity and need for admin tools. '''
'''Support'''- where on earth did you get your name from? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>(<font color="#f00">[[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#f00">Hi!</font>]]</font>/
'''Support'''-Seems good. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''. Well-rounded, but I have to ask the same question as Jorcoga. '''''
'''ZZZ thought you already were support''' nothing but good things to say about you and your contributions, good luck and look forward to seeing you make WP a better place.
'''Support''' per nominator. ''
'''Support''' - user is a wikipedian, and therefore deserves promotion.
'''Weak Support''' From my review of the nominee's contributions, I can't find any problem regarding trustworthiness. My only hesitation is the apparent lack of need for the tools, and very low participation in wikipedia space, particularly XFD discussions.
'''Support''' I see no immediate problems with this application.
'''Support''' per Majorly. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' A fantastic editor.  Great answers too.  i'm surprised to see you're not ''already'' and admin. '''
I'm
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.
'''Approval''' — Balance of main space edits is good, usage of summaries is good and you are also from the UK which is a bonus, we need more UK based sysops. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools. Good user.  --
'''Support'''-per experienced user.--
'''Support''' this nomination.
'''Support'''. I have only seen this user be fair-minded in discussions. All this talk of clearing backlogs warms my heart, too. —&nbsp;
'''Support''', a friendly user, one of the best, his adminship could only improve Wikipedia. -'''
'''Support''',I see no reason not to give this user the tools. Based on contribs I trust their judgement. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Clearing of backlogs sounds good and the fact that they are a friendly user.
'''Support''' per nom

'''Support''' One of the best editors of this project. Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', per Agent 86 and James086, only the possibility of limited tool use concerns me rather less.
'''Support''' Doesn't look like we'll need future support. Great editor. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''. I'd like to see more varied experience, but the participation he does shows he'd be a good admin.--
'''Support''' I only have good things to say about this editor. Mature and responsible.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': A very well-rounded and capable candidate. Looks like he knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia and won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''. Great user, I'm sure he will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Well-rounded, knowledgeable, could help clear those AfD backlogs that I've only worked on sporadically since I said I would work on them constantly in ''my'' RfA. If I had editpercentageitis (worse than editcountitis) I might be wary that this candidate has nearly 7500 mainspace edits and less than 400 Wikipedia edits. But that would be dumb.
'''Support''' - a valuable contributor who I belive will be a fair and balanced admin.
'''Support''', no real reason not to.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' AP appears to be an excellent Wikipedian and someone that can certainly be trusted by the community [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Tra|Tra]]
'''Neutral''' Since you list closing deletion debates as the area you would like to focus on as an admin, I would be interested in your thoughts on [[WP:CSD#G11|CSD:G11]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; background: #F0F8FF; line-height:8pt; width:30em;">&mdash;[[User:Malber|Malber]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]] <small>•</small>
'''Support'''! <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Yes, everything looks quite good.
'''Support''' - Anetode isn't as active as I'd like in a candidate, but there are no concerns and he promises to help with backlogs.
'''Weak support''' The edit pattern is erratic, but no reason not to support. I may change my mind in the future, however. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' per the nominator :). ''
'''Support''' The candidate is unlikely to be among the most active admins, but he will use his mop effectively if we give it to him.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' You are a strong contributor to this encyclopedia.  You've made thousands of edits, are extremely dedicated, and are willing to help in differnt ways.  Enjoy your mop.'''
'''Support''' Good contributions to the article space; reverts vandalism and warns vandals; contributes to XfD discussions with a knowledge of policies and guidelines.  In short, a good-quality applicant for adminship.
'''Support''' relatively low level of activity but dedicated and should do a good job on the backlogs.
'''Support''' I don't think there's a reason to oppose this great candidate. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Strong support''' Always exhibits excellent judgement at AfDs. Trustworthy candidate. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools. Level-headed and dedicated. Good candidate. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': Won't abuse the tools. Regards, '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' looks fine. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.
I'm
'''Support''': excellent editor who should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' Seems well suited, especially temperamentally by learning to be cooler in hot situations.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support''' Everything seems fine to me. '''
'''Support''' I thought you were one already. '''''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience, good judgement and civil. Came across anetode multiple times and can't remember any significant things that would stand in my way for supporting this nomination. -
'''Support'''. No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. The discussions on [[WT:RFA]] are working. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/

'''Support''', defintely a deserving user, hope it works out for you --
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' Good candidate, judgement.
'''Support''', per experiance with [[Wikipedia]].
'''Support''' - I very much doubt Angelo will be the busiest admin in the world - he's an extremely good content user and it would be sad anyway if he moved onto soley admin tasks, but I believe that given the tools, he will use them well. I have no doubts that Angelo will help clear the back logs at AfD.
'''Support''' as nominator.
Of course I'll '''Support''' this nomination. –&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' &ndash; although this user is undoubtedly a (primarily) content-focused editor (not that that's a bad thing - this is an encyclopedia, after all), I can see plenty of participation in the sort of tasks we rely on our Administrators to help out at: [[WP:AN/I]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive276#User:Deciiva]); [[WP:RFPP]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=146686851]), and I'm sure I've seen him at [[WP:AfD]] as well. All in all, a user who can definitely be trusted with the [[WP:AHTG|mop]], and (hopefully) make good use of it when we're a little backlogged. Best of luck! Cheers,
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I'm going to vote support. Good user, Good history as well as a good edit count. Shouldn't misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Great user, with plenty of experience. A great content contributor, and im sure you'll be a great admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I see no issues, other than edit summaries, but that can be corrected easily.
'''Support''' If you haven't already, set your preferences to force edit summaries for all edits; otherwise, a fine editor who won't abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' per above -
'''Support'''

'''Strong support''' - Excellent contributor.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A big contributor to articles within the Wikiproject Sicily area (I am a member of that Wikiproject too)!
'''Support''' Excellent editor from everything I have seen, no reason to think that she/she will not make an equally excellent admin.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great user as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Longstanding trustworthy contributor. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''', good luck.
I'm
'''Support''' Track is good
'''Support''' - everything looks good here.
'''Support''' - a fine editor. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">
'''Support''' - absolutely no concerns --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' We need more content-focussed admins.
'''Support''' good candidate. —
'''Support'''.  Angelo is a longstanding contributor who I trust would make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support''', a sound user.
'''Support''', ditto.  Has made a huge number of new articles and not run into trouble.
'''Support.''' Angelo is a big contributor in terms of mainspace edits, and in a quick spot check, I didn't see anything amiss. He seems to have good judgment in football articles. His percent of edit summaries is only about 67% for major edits and I hope he will work to increase that.
'''Support''' He seems to be quite willing to take the mop and use it well.
'''Support''. Angelo has been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time. As others have said, he may not use adminship to as much of an extent as other users do. However, that isn't really a problem. As the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, it's probably good. There's no reason to think that he will abuse adminship.
'''Support''' - Well balanced and experienced &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Its no big deal, and even if it were I'm sure that Angelo is now ready for the challenges that lie ahead.
'''Support''' Deserves the mop. '''<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#6666FF">
'''Support''' per nom. Great user.
'''Support''' after desperately attempting to find a pretext to avoid another Italian becoming admin ;-), I had to surrender: Angelo is simply a too good editor not to be more than perfectly qualified to be a great admin. Also, I'm impressed by his dedication to an often quite pretty annoying topic like Italian politics.--
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' — Your quality contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate that you can be trusted.
'''Support'''. A review of Angelo's interactions with vandals and POV pushers is firm but civil. He will do just fine.
'''Support'''. Great editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' Contributions look good. I trust he will do right with the tools.--
'''Support''' Good edior, got nomintated - must be good.
'''Strong Support''' Even though I have never met you, you are a great and capable user, 100% edit summary usage, approximately 24000 edits which 14K in the Mainspace, definitely can be trusted. Good luck! <b>
'''Support''' a very good editor with massive contributions across wikispace and the mainspace. Good luck.
'''Support''' Surely admins are needed at the area of expertise of Angusmclellan. -- ''
'''Support''' I really think I have absolutely no doubt. Seen Angus all over the place and has always left a good impression.
'''Support''' Great user, will make a good admin. -
'''Support'''. Always been impressed by his work around here, appears level-headed.
'''Support''' Never seen you around (or at least I don't remember), but you look like an excellent editor from your work. ·
'''Aye''' nae tother a' ball--
'''Support''' Genuine cliche moment, actually.
'''Support''' I've only ever seen good things from Angus, so I expect he'll make a good administrator. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Same reasoning as Bubba hotep.
'''Total Support''' - I've seen Angus on here for years around Irish articles. Flawless editor and will make an excellent admin -
'''Strong support''' good self-nomination and contributions. Plus, I thought this user was already an admin.
Duh.
Obvious '''support'''.  Been around long enough to know the ropes; no demonstrated tendency to cause any trouble.
&mdash;
'''Support''' of course.--
'''Support'''. I've run across this user's contributions a few times and been pleased. I don't see any issues.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''', asset to CFD, and after RobertG's departure he almost IS CFD, the sooner we give him the tools the better! I'll write a long co-nom esque support if need be :)--
'''Support''' Doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' No problems here, would make a good admin.
'''Support''' a fine user. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' All good and superb.
'''Support''' No reason not to. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''', nothing objectionable as far as I am concerned. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''', no reason to oppose. I have seen some requests for protected edits that would not be needed with the sysop bit, which is a clear justification for tools.
'''Support''' Good job! --
'''Support'''. Good editor, quite civil, rather productive (lately about 160 edits per day). I did run across him in connection with a CfD vote. He says above "I've also closed a heap of things at WP:CFD, not entirely in line with WP:DPR it's true.." If he does get elected admin, I hope he seriously follows the deletion process. I think his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_1&diff=prev&oldid=111865156 closure] of the deletion debate on [[:Category:Worldcon Guests of Honor]] was a bit eccentric. Nonetheless I'm supporting. I'm aware that there's a shortage of people willing to close CfDs, and it's a necessary but thankless task.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' He can be absolutely trusted with the tools. He'll be a good admin. <i><b>
'''Support''' appears trustworthy enough for the job.
'''Support''' An excellent editor and will make a fine sysop.
'''Support'''.
I have no problems with that.
'''Support''' exemplary editor.
'''Support''' per above and the FA push of the king of Picts.
'''Support''' - Angus for us.  Very trustworthy and will make a good sysop. --
'''Support''' Nothing more I can add, really.
'''Support'''. I don't think I've had any interaction with Angus, but his contributions look good enough that I'm willing to play a hunch here. -
'''Support''' Obviously. --
'''Support''' He welcomed me to Wikipedia when I first started contributing, so it's a name I've kept an eye open for ever since - his contributions show him to be mop-trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Good, hardworking and levelheaded editor.  I would trust him with the tools. --
'''Support'''. I've seen Angus around and I trust him.
'''Support''' definitely, trustworthy, capable, civil. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Trustworthy and friendly.

'''Support''' seems trustworthy of the tools. '''''
I'm
'''Support''' - experienced, fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - I revewed his edits--he seems neutral and observant. --
'''Support''',
'''Strong support''' --
'''Strong support''' Angus, I would have nominated you if I had known you were planning to ask for a mop. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I have only had good interactions with this candidate. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''... about time.--
'''Support'''. Great editors (almost always) make great admins. He is one of those who will.
'''Yeah'''. —
'''Support''' ----
'''Support''' - exactly the type of admins that we most need, editors with a strong committment to quality mainspace editing.--
I offered to nominate him a couple of months back, so '''Support'''
'''Support'''. I've seen him do consistently excellent work.
'''Support''': Hardworking great editor. --
'''Support'''Participated in more than enough backlogs, and has the experiance.--
'''Support''' Great set of mainspace edits - plenty of work in Wikipedia edits. --
'''Support''' per [[user:Tellyaddict]] -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Has experience, is a massive contributor and won't abuse the tools or privileges. Will make a great admin!
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''', looks like a good editor, and I've seen much good work at CFD.  --
'''Support'''.  Ran into Angus recently for the first time and was impressed by how helpful he was; I went and took a look at his user page and areas of activity, and remained impressed.  I'm glad to see him running for admin.
'''Support''' - Helpful and accurate editor, another one I was surprised didn't have the mop already. <b>
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Support''' per [[WP:ILIKEIT]].  Has been helpful in CfD; I didn't realize he was not an admin already. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Have seen he/she around and think they will go a good job.--
'''Support''' Has been a great help at WP:CFD, very hard working and fair minded. -- <i>
'''support''' of course --
'''A very strong Support''' - He is one of those editors who knows what he is doing and he deserves hte mop and maybe even a vaccum cleaner to make his job a little easier(I came back just in time 2 support him)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Strong support''' as nom. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
I've seen AD around a bunch, and I have little concern about his mop wielding. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' All my interactions with AD have been positive. He's also good at interacting with others. Has use for the tools and will be a good Admin.
'''Support''' without hesitation. A fabulous article writer, and a great member of our encyclopedia. Should be excellent. Good luck! '''
'''edit conflict support''' I've only seen good contributions from AD, who seems to be active in many different areas of WP, and I'd trust him with the mop.
'''EC * 3 support'''.  I've seen him a lot around [[WT:RFA]]. Great article writer and user in general, would make a great admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Yes, finally I get to !vote for this guy. Article writer, vandal fighter, template creator. Yes, yes, yes. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Been watchlisted support''' :-). <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - absolutely.  -
I leave to grab a bite and I'm this far down already? Wow. '''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' - I've just spent the last 20 minutes going through your contribs and I've got to say I'm very impressed, I couldn't fault you and I think you will be fine with the extra couple of buttons.
(edit conflict)#'''Über support''' - I wanted to nominate him, but Wizardman and Maxim got there first. :) He will make an excellent admin! Good luck! I'm impressed!
'''Strong support''': User would make a great admin, on top of his great contributions he has shown that he cared enough about the project to take the time to address the concerns raised in his last RFA. Nothing here worth opposing over.
'''Support''' - absolutely. Good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Strong Support''' I offered to nominate him last month, but he wanted to allow a decent interval since last RfA - which he has done. A quite excellent editor, who has shown a deep level of understanding of wiki policy and of wiki procedures, and who has clearly addressed the concerns raised in his last RfA. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate with a strong record of contributions.
'''Support''' Duh!  Give them the tools.
'''Strongest support humanely possible'''. This dude isn't an admin?!? ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?!
'''Support''' per nom. Good luck
'''Support''', looks solid to me -  no obvious trouble spots.
'''Support''' I have been waiting to see this RfA come around again. This user is extremely active here on enwiki, I have seen him on more than a few of my RC refreshes, its actually a bit unnerving to recognise someone so much on RC!.... But I say an active admin is a good admin. It will be good to have AD with the admin tools. aliasd'''·'''
'''Support'''. I've seen AD around, and all sightings have left me with no reason to oppose.
'''Oppose''' for launching this RfA while I was at school!!!! :-) Seriously, an ''excellent'' editor. The DYK work is exceptional. I think he'll be one of ''the'' best admins ever (no offense, Husond) :-) --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support''', in agreement with the statements by the co-nominator, {{user|Wizardman}}, above.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate wouldn't let me nominate them :'( [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Oh, yes. I have been waiting to support in this RfA for quite some time now.
'''Strongest possible support''' (How often do I get to write that?) I was one of the folks who opposed Anonymous Dissident's first RFA because of mistaken speedy deletion tagging.  It is plainly obvious that he has learned from his mistakes, and this is no longer a problem.  In all respects, he is a model Wikipedian, and totally ready for the responsibilities of active adminship.
'''Support'''. definatly deserves the mop!--
'''Strong Support''' should have been an admin before! -
'''Support''' Very nice answers and seems like a reliable person. However, I was just a tiny bit concerned on how in the beginning he neglected to write edit summaries but it seemed that he changed and have been actively describing his edits. -
'''Exetremely super strong support''' - Seen him on Afds for a while, this user will definatly be a great admin. Good Luck (wait....I shouldn't '''wish'''...I should '''expect'''). --
'''Support''' mopifying this experienced, versatile, trustworthy and dedicated user. Excellent job. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Has clue. ~
'''Support'''. Darn. Should have nominated them earlier like I planned to do. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support'''. I have only seen good things from this editor and think he'll make a first rate admin. Contrib history shows he knows what he's doing - time to give him the mop and bucket. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - I've seen AD around AfD for a while and he's usually right on the money. I think AD will make a fine admin. —
''' Support'''Great track ,experienced and inpartial.
'''Strong Support''' Brilliant editor. '''
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the added tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' &ndash; I'm satisfied with the current sysop potential of this user and with his maturity level.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support'''  AD is a fine contributor and great admin material.
'''Support''' Excellent editor with a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. --
'''Support'''. Only annoyed that I didn't see this until now. --
'''60 DYKs and 4 GAs Support''' Please keep up the good work! <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''.  Good writer and a nice person; why the heck not.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' great noms, article writing, seen AD around. Knows policy AND how to interact collaboratively, what a combo! :)
'''Support''' as long as you promise not to let adminship distract you too much from the excellent article writing you do! --
'''Support''' - His work on [[WP:DYK]] and helping us document which users are active there is quite helpful.<b>
'''Support'''. The nom has it right. --
'''Support''' - give the chap a mop!
'''Support''' - contribution history is excellent in both articles and technical work, and good reasons presented for wanting to be an admin.  I agree with [[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] though - don't let adminiship divert you from the article writing.
Oh yes, definitely. –
'''Support''' - Would have nominated him myself except I'm not good at writing nominations.  --
as co-nom. (Yes I know I am late, but I mixed up my times) --
'''Strong Support''' I have nothing but good things to say about AD, and I would feel very comfortable with him having a mop --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Support''' Strong all round candidate, the diff highlighted below and commented on by others does not concern me. I see an excellent, civil, friendly and helpful, user who I trust totally to use the buttons when required. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' For sure. Very competent all round.
'''Strong Support''' This young editor is very smart and gives good advice and a trusted Wikipedian. He would make an excellent admin.
Oppose - You didn't let me nom you. [[User:Giggabot|&mdash;]]
I initially had concerns when I saw this RfA about whether AD had enough experience in mainspace. I apologise for being so totally wrong, per the numbers in Q2. '''
'''Support''' AD is a civil and level headed user would would make a great admin and use the tools wisely. --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Candidate is an industrious encyclopedia builder. Should be an excellent admin.
'''Super-Stong support''' I was ''sure'' this user was an admin already--
'''Support''' I've seen this user around the project, and he's always seemed courteous and helpful to all. I have no problem with this guy getting a mop. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''I offered to nom him too support''' - his conduct on the project is exemplary, he has good dispue resolution skills, communicates well and writes brilliantly. Whats not to like?
'''Support''' Seems an excellent choice. -
Naturally. —'''
'''Support''' - all the best. <sup>
'''Really?''' An RFA for an editor who I thought had already got adminship? Seriously, I thought you were an admin. :-)
'''Support''' Candidate has made a tangible improvement since their last RFA, and I have no qualms about seeing them given the tools.
I'm
'''Strong Support''' I've seen his editing in various places, and he certainly is admin material. Plus, I totally figured out how to make signatures by (secretly) stealing his code. :x He certainly is a fine candidate and deserves the position to the fullest! <strong><small><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:Gray">-- Tommy Boy
<edit conflict>'''support''' crossed paths frequently enough to recognise this editor, nothing of concern.
'''Support''' seen this editor around and like what I've seen.
'''Huge Support''' He defiantly deserves this because he is a trustworthy user who is also a great contributer. I defiantly trust this user with the sysop responsibilities and powers.
'''Support'''. Sadly I didn't get to nominate him - I would have liked to submit a co-nomination, but too late now. Anyway, an excellent candidate, and it's good to see that being young is not a barrier to becoming an administrator; I'm glad that we can judge candidates on their demonstrated maturity, not on arbitrary factors. Opposers raise no serious concerns; submitting one RfCN nom in error is hardly a good reason to oppose, IMO (especially since the username policy is somewhat vague, hence why we have RfCN in the first place). And, with all due respect to Matthew, his oppose is incredibly unhelpful (as per normal).
'''Strong support''' as co-nom, excellent candidate. <b>
'''Strong Support'''- Offered to co-nom but missed the gun. Deserves the mop by now<font face="Impact">
'''Strong Support<sup>2</sup>''' Conducts himself to the higher standards by which admins are held. Wide range of experience. Thoughtful contributor. Trustworthy. I would have co-nomed. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Strong Support<sup>3</sup>''' Reports to AIV, my major point of contact with the candidate, always have the "t"'s crossed and the "i"'s dotted (warnings given, vandal active). Trustworthy, and then some.
'''Support''' Deserves the mop -
'''Support'''. I've been waiting for this... always an excellent voice in discussions in Wikipedia space.
'''Support''' Great Wikipedia maintenance assistance, and even better encyclopedia contributions. I look forward to seeing you do more at DYK. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' - a fine candidate. -
'''Support''' - absolutely no problems here, excellent editor, will use the mop well. <b>
'''Support''' This is about to set a record on the RfA that gained the most supports in a set amount of time, and definitely not without good reason. Anonymous Dissident has to be one of the wisest ''12-year olds'' (I'm slightly older, so I need to tend to my horrible back. :-P) I've ever met. He could definitely use the tools. &ndash;'''''
'''Support''' - I trust this user.  AD responds well to criticisms, and I have no worries about tool abuse.--
'''Support''' Your principal opposes in your last nom were for a tendency to be a bit too quick to tag articles for speedy delete without checking your facts. Looks like you've been around a bit since then and gained some experience on how this issue is handled, and you've otherwise been a generally good editor. Look forward to having you as an admin. --
'''Support''', changed from oppose, (see below).  After a bit of thought, I think he'll be just as trustworthy an administrator as he has been an amazing editor.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Excellent editor with plenty enough experience to make a great admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''EXTREME MAXIMUM SUPPORT''' I thought you were an admin! <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor. Lot's of support from others and good edits. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' You have an excellent record as an editor and I'm sure you will be trusted as an administrator. I find minimal or no flaws in your editing skills. :)--<font color="red">
'''Support''' - I've seen him around, and he knows his stuff.--
'''Strong Support''' - This user definitly knows what he is doing.
'''Strong support''' Great editor, great writer, helpfull person. Whats there not to like? <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
-- <b>
100th support, 100% with pleasure!
'''Support''' - good luck!
'''Strong support''', definitely. Rather overdue, methinks ;P. Good luck! '''
Keep, oh I mean '''Support''', per above.  We don't agree 100%, but so what?  He's amazingly prolific.
'''Strong support''' - I am surprised I hadn't gotten here sooner! And I don't think there is anything I need to say which hadn't been said already. --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' I've been highly impressed with AD. It is about time he got his mop.
'''Strong Support''', I've had the pleasure of knowing AD for a while, and I find him to be helpful, extremely knowledgeable, polite, willing to discuss issues without any sign of irritation, and an excellent Recent Changes patroller. His work at RFCN has been of significant assistance to me personally, when I first began participating, and I always felt I could go to him with any questions, confident he would offer his opinion, in a neutral way. I respect Justen, and understand his concerns, as we've had discussions on the RFCN Talk page. I do think that the issues raised had to do with interpretation, and the RFCN board is there for just that reason, to get input from the community, some of whom may see things differently than others may. I think in the case mentioned, RFCN served its purpose excellently. I have no concerns that AD isn't willing to listen, research, and ask questions and opinions prior to taking actions that may have repercussions, and I'm sure he'll tread lightly into areas that may be less familiar. In conclusion, I think it would be highly appropriate to grant this excellent contributor to Wikipedia the extra tools to allow him to assist in an even wider variety of ways. <sup>
'''Support:''' [[User:Dreftymac/Toolbox#Administrativa|ITYWAAA]].
'''Support''' Excellent editor. I think that now is a very appropriate ''moment'' for AD to be promoted. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
I find no reason to believe the editor would misuse the tools.  I'll support.
'''Support''' Excellent editor; it's time for the mop.
'''Support''' per noms and above.
'''Support''' An excellent editor, and I think that he'll do an excellent job with the tools as well.
'''Support'''. I was taken aback by his previous RFA, because I had always seen him as a cautious but productive editor, and was surprised at those diffs. He seems ever willing to take advice and criticism, and I think his new, deeper understanding of CSD is a good example of it. He'll be a good admin and probably even better as time goes on.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - I started editing Wikipedia at the same time as this editor and, seen as I've interacted with him on a few occasions, I know how he works quite well. This user is an excellent, absolutely '''excellent''' editor, who has made phenomonal progress since he started and I would trust him in a very big way with the tools. Just look at Kate's tool and the areas he works in, and the answers to the questions. That says it all. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Okay. —
'''Support''' Will mop wisely. Welcome to our nightmare. ;-) -
'''Support''' per Matthew.  Will make a fine admin.  --
'''Support''' nothing I've seen makes me worry about him abusing his position
Unneeded pile-on but oh-well
'''Unnecessary support'''.  I have run into this editor a few times, and have had only good interactions with him.  I honestly thought he already was an admin.  --
'''<font face="georgia">
'''Support'''--
<big>'''+'''</big> Might as well add my well respected name to the who's who of this support <small>Now removes tongue from cheek</small>.  Good editor, don't burn out.
'''Support''' I just feel the need to have my "tag" plastered over all RfA's --'''
'''Support'''  I thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''' this user has obviously benefited the project with stellar contributions (can't beat 4 good article contribs and <s>11</s> 61<--''that's stellar'' DYKs) and a nice bit of vandal cleanup.  Would be great with the tools...
'''Support''' - I think that this user has surely earned the trust of the Wikipedia community by now. As such, let's trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' Great editor. <font face="Fantasy">
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Better late than never support''' I've been very impressed with him
'''Support''' - seems to have the trust of the community.
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support'''. Strong member of '''D'''elta '''Y'''psilon '''K'''appa (DYK) team. :) -
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributions, very thougtful and insightful replies to the RfA questions as well as in day to day activities.  Great vandal fighter.  Can definitely be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' - appears dedicated to project and willing to learn.
'''∞ly Strong Support''' Best admin candidate for a long, long time.
'''Support''' Hmmm. Let me think for a second. No, wait, just a support :). Exceptional answers and contribs, as I would expect from my experiences with him. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate/contributor with impressive answers to the above questions ▪◦▪
'''Support''' I am convinced that Anonymous Dissident will make a fine administrator, and will address the concerns listed in the oppose and neutral sections.
'''Support''' I am also convinced. I have seen him around, he's friendly, and makes valuable contributions which will only improve when he's an administrator. All the best. → [[User:Jackrm|<b><font color="Red">j</font><font color="black">acĸrм </font></b>]]<small>( [[User_talk:Jackrm|<font color="Black"> talk</font>]] |
'''Support''' A very competent and dedicated editor who seems committed to Wikipeida.
'''Support''' also favorably impressed. --
'''Support''' well, very surprised this person wasn't an admin before, and unanimous pass, I think;
'''Support''', phew, so glad I made it in time - I wouldn't have forgiven myself if I didn't support this "awesome" candidate! ;)
'''Support'''. Answer to Q7 adequately addresses my only concern.
'''Support''', I expect that Anonymous Dissident will put his experience to good use as an admin.
zOMG!! Pile-on '''Support''' - super editor, excellent knowledge of policy. Tons of experience -
'''Support''' Good answer to Q7. When you are in doubt or if you think you are in the grey area, it is always a good idea to consult others. Appears to be a sensible person overall. -
'''Support''' Good answers from an experienced wikipedia editory. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - good Wikipedian from what I've seen of him. '''
'''Support''' I was half tempted to sign as "Anonymous Agreement", but I'll hold off on that. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''.  I've bumped into this candidate numerous times at XfD, AIV, and elsewhere, where they have consistently applied sound policy interpretation. Civil, mature, willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. And I'm downright jealous of their mainspace contribs.  --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I do believe this user is now ready for adminship, and even last time I felt bad about opposing such a fabulous editor. Best of luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support.''' I've seen this editor's work and have no concerns about him.
'''Support''' Very good editor.--
'''Support''' -Per above, yea, yea, yea. This doesn't even matter anyway because the closing crat will not be bothering the read this (unless the closing crat is Deskana :] ). Therefore, this is purely a vote. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' - definitely a user worthy of the status of a admin.
'''Support'''. There is ample evidence here (and from my personal experience) to show that you will be active, stay cool, value discussion, respect consensus, and learn from your mistakes. I was hoping for a more philosophical response to my question, mostly because I wanted you to help me dispel my own age-related qualms. Anyway, don't prove me wrong; I don't often add my two cents to runaway discussions. Have fun with your bits.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' - yes!! I thought you already were one. --
'''Support''' I think it's all been said already.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' - Give him the mop!
'''Support''' why not!
Sorry, not at the moment.
I'm worried about the editor's understanding of copyright, per DYK discussion on [[Oswald Tesimond]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=153355399#Articles_created_on_August_20]. In my opinion, merely paraphrasing occasional words while retaining the sentence structure of the original is insufficient. I don't have time to go through the editor's contributions in detail to see whether this article is an isolated case or a more general flaw, hence '''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral'''  I'm not at all certain you've learned enough since [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish speedway 1950s]] for me to be sure you should be deleting pages.  Though if you at least remember to A) check the history of the page and B) check the content of the page elsewhere, it might not be a problem.  But I do hope you'll at least take that as a lesson, and make a greater use of cleanup tags instead of deletion tags.
'''Strong support''' as nom - need I say more? Best of luck Anthony
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course! I supported last time, no reason not to now :) '''
'''Support''' good user. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' some more!
'''Support''' - I've seen you just about everywhere and yes, I'd trust you with the tools. Everything checks out -
'''It doesn't matter why I'm supporting!'''
'''Support''' - The big guy upstairs made me do it! Honest :-p
'''Support''' - the previous RfA concern was lack of project space experience, which has been fixed.
'''Weak Support''' I would have liked to see some more article writing, but he has demonstrated a need for some extra buttons, so good luck Anthony! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
I like what I see.
'''Strong support''' I would have nominated Anthony myself, but have been traveling a lot recently and haven't had the time. I have been closely following Anthony's Wikipedia career since I did an informal editor review of him at the start of the year. He is a reliable and dedicated contributor and vandal fighter who has a strong grasp of policy and the right temperament to step up to a greater contribution. He will make an excellent administrator.
'''Strong support''' Always struck me as a responsible editor. I was peripherally involved when he first proposed (on the pump if I remember correctly) the tweak to the semi-protection policy and I thought he did a good job of stating his case patiently. Concerns of previous RfA seem to have been resolved.
'''Support''' Per nom. --
'''Support''' without reservations, fully qualified candidate with an excellent record.
'''Sypport''' Very good editor. Per all above.
'''Support''' Yes, please. I opposed the last time, but Anthony has since improved exponentially, with varied participation in XfDs and WP:ADOPT. A civil, reliable, dedicated editor, who responds well to criticism, gets along nicely with everyone, has a good grasp of policy, and would do very well with the bit. (Consider this an informal, mini-conomination statement, because I was thinking about asking you sometime again!) Good stuff. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Hmm, I thought you succeeded in your last RFA. --
<tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - I believe you'll be a good admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' A dedicated, level-headed user who would make a great Administrator. '''
Of.course :) Anthony was a legitimate case of a "Not one already? Wow" candidate, for me; I was totally shocked by this nomination due to this. '''
'''Support''' due to significant improvement since previous nom. I think Anthony will be an excellent admin. ···
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  -
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin, though I saw this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blue82kb&diff=prev&oldid=117130169 edit] and thought potential admin advocating removal of notices, was definately an oppose, then saw you corrected it ;). Good luck <sup>
I'm
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Trying to think of some GP-related pun to accompany this support !vote, but can't. Candidate's adminship will be good for the health of Wikipedia in any case.
'''Support''' - virtually everything of relevance checks out, I trust the nominator, looks like another fine addition to the Brit Cabal. Just so long as you really do slay those backlogs when our American comrades are slumbering :)
'''Support''' sure. -
<FONT color="red">'''Support'''</font> - Another one who is already a semi-admin, once he gets the lock, keys, deletion tools and all, well, he'll do even better than he does now! [[Image:Smiley.svg|45px]]. --'''
I have seen nothing but good work from Anthony since he joined a year ago.
'''Support''' For the sheer volume of output on a wide range of topics since becoming an editor, for the tireless new page patrolling and for the support given to new users among other ways via the adoption programme. I think this level of commitment to the ideals of Wikipedia means the case for adminship is very strong.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; another cliche moment.
'''Support''' okay. -
'''Support''' Dedicated user, makes a great candidate.
'''Support''' Was happy to support before, am happy to support again.
'''Support''', there's no reason not to! <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 12pt">
'''Support''' Looks good. --
'''Support'''. Outstanding editor.
'''Support'''. Excellent response to my concerns last time around and, as far as I can tell, a flawless record since then. He will do great work, so I'm pleased to support.
'''Cliched Support'''. Need I say more? '''''
'''Support'''. Definitely mopworthy.
'''Support''' Now that the edit summary thing is out of the way, I fully support this stellar nomination.
'''Support''' excellent, and now experienced.--
'''Support'''' Anthony is a great user who will be a great administrator. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per nom. I was sure I had already. —
'''Support'''. I don't always agree with him, but he will never abuse the tools. A very good candidate. --
'''Support''' I've seen Anthony around - he's definitely admin material.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - (Dr)
'''Support'''. Great contributor, much improvement since last RfA.
'''Former opposer's support!'''
'''Support''' - Overall very good candidate. Would have preferred to see a full 6 months since last RfA, but I believe those concerns have been well adressed now. Give the guy his mop and let him get to work already!
'''Support''' - no problemo.
'''[[International Finance Centre|2 IFC]]-high Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHusond&diff=117559163&oldid=117558679] Will definitely make an outstanding admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Should be an admin by now. --
'''Support''' <font face="monospace">
'''64 Support'''. Anthony has definitely demonstrated his knowledge of policy, and has shown great work as an editor. He's definitely improved since his last RfA, so I think he's ready for the tools. '''
'''Support''' Good user. There's no reason I can see why he should not be an admin. IMHO he should have been an admin already.--
'''Support''' Seems reliable. Also his total edits and mainspace edits are high enough. --
'''Strong Support''' Definitely. I was neutral last time but I'm going strong this time. Great user. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Support, but urge not to delete too many articles.  Obscure ones are important!
V gubhtug ur nyernql jnf na nqzva! --
Ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. <!-- Guess how this is encryped ;) -->
'''Strong support''' (n° 70 / as per above). -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
After reviewing the event I mentioned below in my invalidated oppose, I am changing to '''strong support'''. There is no good reason to oppose this user; and since it was Ryan who nominated him, I have less reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. - Good candidate that continues to improve overtime through an ability to recognize deficiencies and overcome them. What's not to like? : )--
'''Strong Support''' I supported him before, I support him now, and with still more convction in his qualities.--
'''Support''' Will be a fine admin. --
'''Support''' since I have seen nothing but good since I first saw him. And per nom. &mdash;
'''Support''', will be great with the tools, the sooner the better.--
'''Support''' In my interaction with he was a reasonable, responsible editor. Can't ask for much more than that in an admins temperment. I trust him to do alright.--
'''Support''', his editing and talk-page contributions in the areas I'm interested in show him to be a careful and responsible editor.

'''Support''' I have seen Anthony around quite often and it seems he is very adapt to many of the duties that come with adminship.
'''Support''' Great editor and the sooner the better. I have no doubt that AB will be a even greater asset than he is now if given the tools.
'''Surprising: no mop yet?''' --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Extremely Strong Support''' We've needed an administrator like Anthony for a while. A brilliant idea.  <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''. You mean he isn't one already?'''
'''Support''' good editor, will make a fine administrator. '''''
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Extremely Strong Support''' - '''
'''Support''', nothing to complain about this user. '''
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
&mdash;
'''Support''' Great candidate.
'''Support''' Very good! --
'''Support'''.
I don't recall having any interaction with Anthony, but I've seen him around and noted him to be a courteous and conscientious user. I expect he won't bully anyone or break anything, so I '''support''' giving Anthony the tools. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Support'''. I think he's ready now.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
[[WP:100]] '''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' excellent candidate, per Ryan's nom. '''
'''Support''' have interacted a bit with candidate, not always agreeing with him, but always agreeable encounters! -
'''Support''' No reason not to.--
'''Support''', conscientious and clueful.
'''Support''' per above. Seems trustworthy and should do a fine job. <font color="Green">
'''Support''' per [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]].  The edit summary issue for minor edits is, to me, a minor one.  Now that "force edit summary" is enabled, it's probably a non-issue. --
'''oppose'''. I just don't see the qualities. --
'''Neutral''' I think the candidate could really be a boon, but there are two issues that together somewhat concern me. He's making claims about professional qualifications AND canvassing too. If it was one or the other I don't think I'd feel this way, but this reminds me slightly of [[Essjay]]. I mean no offense, it's the aggressive nature that makes me hesitate to offer full support.
'''Support''' - seen this user around and believe he will do well with the tools, no doubt a very cautious admin. Good luck
'''Support''' - Another good choice by
'''Support''' per nom. The candidate is experienced and well-qualified to use the tools well for the benefit of the project.
'''Support''', should be a fine admin.
'''Support''', bingo, great editor.  Gets my support, no question, good luck!
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support''' Experience gained since the previous RfA shows that the admin tools won't be abused by this candidate.
'''Support''' per nom. Also, things have moved on since the last RFA. Everything looks good here -
'''Support''' - It all looks good--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' per Nishkid and last time.
'''Support''' the edit-summary usage issue has been addressed. Good candidate. —
'''Support''' User looks like someone who would be a good admin.
'''Support'''.  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard|Last time]], I said "Seems like he'd be a productive and reasonable administrator."  I still think this is true.
'''Support'''. --
'''Strengthened support''' per Kelly Martin's neutral. I do not care whether a user is in a WikiProject or not; WikiProjects do not determine whether someone should be an administrator or not: experience, community trust, and civility matter far more than WikiProjects. While I agree that WikiProjects are important, they should not be used as a requirement for adminship. WikiProjects do not determine whether someone is qualified for adminship or not. Anthony Appleyard has 22186 edits to the mainspace. Kelly Martin's reasoning for neutral gives me more reason to support this user. Anthony Appleyard does plenty of mainspace edits; he does not need to join a WikiProject if he doesn't want to, and no one should force him. Most of the community wants to see experience and civility in a user who is running for adminship...not the amount of WikiProjects the user is involved in. I too, want to see those qualities; which Anthony Appleyard seems to have.
'''Support''' A competent and experienced wikipedian. The first oppose vote should be deleted as nonsense, the second reates to a single incident which is, in my view, trivial.--
'''Support''' per Bradbury
'''Support''' per Bradbury.
'''Support''' More than enough experience.  I don't think his application of deletion policy is anything to worry about.
Experienced, unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Obviously this user will help the community as an administrator, constructive edit history and good general involvement. -
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, works hard to improve the encyclopedia.
As founder and member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo]], I endorse this candidate.
On further review of contributions, I will '''support''' this candidate. He is also courteous, polite and sensitive to his fellow users, something we could all learn from him. Over and over, his presence has a positive influence on the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Acalamari]], looks like a good user.--
'''Support''' as someone else said, there's no reason no to. '''
'''Support''' - adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - seems like a good candidate.
I see no problems, either. —'''[[user:AldeBaer|Alde]][[user talk:AldeBaer|Baer]]''' <s>
'''Support'''. I've had nothing but good experiences with this user. I realise that 'not a teenager' probably isn't a good reason to support, but it's certainly a positive for me.

'''Support''' I supported before, and see no reason to change my mind.
'''Support''' Very experienced and level-headed editor. -- ''
'''Support''' Good editor, shows knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings. Responses to questions manage to be polite, matter of fact, and authoritative at the same time.
'''Support''' We need more cranky old guys, who write articles. Seriously, will be fine, I'm sure
'''Yes I support Anthony''' - has enough wiki edits all around to give adminship a good go and it's damn fine to see a potential admin that also writes articles.--
'''Support'''. Sysop is nothing big. --
'''Support''' good candidate, no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' He's a good editor!!! Also contributes images. --
'''Support''' Anthony appears to be a good fellow who has dedicated lots of his valuable time helping improve our encyclopedia.  I think his having some extra buttons can only enhance both his own volunteer experience and the project at-large.  Good luck! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Switch from oppose, which I likely would have withdrawn anyway, but responsiveness and matter-of-fact responses earned my support.
'''Support''' per multiple endorsements above.  No concerns.
AfD concerns are not sufficiently strong to withhold support, --
'''Support,''' experienced, approachable and highly capable contributor, have no doubt the tools would be used with all due care.--
'''Support''', valuable content editor and no chance of tool abuse. --
Genuine concern raised by Nishkid, but I still think this candidate is trustworthy &ndash; and I see no real worry of tool abuse. &mdash;
'''Support''' do not believe he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I share Nishkid's concern, and worry that our collective threshold of tolerance for non-encyclopedic material is much too lenient, but we all have our flaws and I support those with editorial experience taking on these chores.
'''Support''' - Most of the opposition seems to boil down to, 'he is an inclusionist'. Philosophical differences on where to draw the 'notability line' are hardly a reason to deny someone the mop. Good user with plenty of experience. --
'''Oppose''' I think this editor is too quick to delete articles.
'''Oppose'''. My concerns in the previous RfA were in regards to an AfD vote that the user made. I found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Dawson|this]] which just occurred six days ago. Of course, you can be an inclusionist, but you have to draw the line somewhere. The reasoning that the user provided for his choice to keep the article has nothing to do with the article. I question this user's judgment and I am worried what he would do as an administrator in such situations. If he saw prodded article, would he choose to keep it just in case someone wants to look up the information? At the moment, I cannot trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' AfD concerns were raised last RfA, and yet there are still !vote reasons against or neglecting policy. Answer to 5b is either a misunderstanding of the question, or a misunderstanding of notability. Wikipedia is not [[Snopes]]. –
'''Oppose'''. Although trustworthy, I do not think that Anthony has demonstrated enough applied understanding of process to be an administrator at this time.  For example, in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_%22Porky%22_Andrews&diff=prev&oldid=122310396 April 12, 2007 post] made today, Anthony asks whether the subject was "notable to the world in general." [[Wikipedia:Notability]] states that is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" There is no world geographic requirement for Wikipedia Notability. As for what is Wikipedia Notability, it says right in the text of [[Wikipedia:Notability]] that "a topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, [[WP:RS|reliable]], and [[Wikipedia:Attribution|attributable.]]"  Anthony's answer in Q5.B does not seem to express this.  I have reviewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=182&target=Anthony_Appleyard&namespace=4 Anthony's Wikipedia space posts] since his December 2006 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anthony_Appleyard|RfA#1]] and they generally do not demonstrate that Anthony has formulated an applied understanding of Wikipedia process.  Anthony's answer in Q5.C -- "If an *fD discussion in total pointed one way, but I tended to think the other way, I would follow the total discussion result." -- has me concerned as well. The [[Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus|rough consensus]] portion of [[Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators|Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]] talks about the need to determine [[rough consensus]], not "total discussion result."  In addition to administrators, experienced editors should understand [[Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus|rough consensus]] as it is important at deletion review. I do not see Anthony as being ready to determine [[Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus|rough consensus]] in an XfD.  In general, the language Anthony uses in his Wikipedia space posts, including his AfD posts, and his posts in this RfA leaves me with the impression that Anthony has not actually reviewed written process to the point where he is able to apply that written process. --
'''Oppose''' When I asked Q4 above, I was neutral veering towards 'accept'. However his answer to this and to Joshua's related question, and the examples raised by other editors above and on his previous RfA, seem to indicate that he considers [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] valid grounds for deletion (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAlicia_Rhodes&diff=96094046&oldid=96089721]) and he has recently repeatedly used [[WP:WAX]] as a reason for keeping. Consequently I don't feel it's appropriate for him to be in a position to close *fD debates. I am also extremely put off by the arrogance of "distinguishing fact from fiction is not always 100% obvious to all IQ ranges of viewers" in his answer to Q5.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Oppose''' Some concern over deletion activity
Based on the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, I'm afraid his actions will require too much monitoring.  He does seem to be quick to admit mistakes and to educate himself on policies, but it is only after the fact.  Administrators should be able to act unilaterally in many cases with the implication that they are making the right choices, and I'm not confident that the candidate has the knowledge to act according to that standard. --
'''Neutral'''.  Appears to be a suitable candidate, but the lack of a WikiProject endorsement forces me to withhold support.
'''Neutral''' per link provided by Nishkid64. Isn't 'somebody might come looking for it sometime' the rationale provided by people who get their band/company/[[WP:VSCA|VSCA]] articles deleted, all the time? An experienced user should have supplied an argument more firmly based in policy. Might sit on the fence with this one for a little while. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Neutral''' seems to be very good at editing, but some edit summaries aren't so good and some strange decisions, both inclusionist and deletionist.
'''Neutral leaning to Oppose''' Looks a goody, but I have concerns about user interaction (extremely low number of user talk interactions for someone with so many edits) but also for including in answer to Q1 actions that non admins can and do perform, such as warning vandals and discussing changes to Wikipedia. And your Q2 answer made me query your judgement... RfA is not the place to be shy about your contributions. There are only four set questions; you really do need to answer them to the best of your ability. Shame, because I wanted to support someone who learns from mistakes and is so dedicated. --
'''Neutral''', changed from support per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Dawson|this]] AfD vote and per Nishkid's arguments above. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I don't believe the candidate understands the reasoning behind [[WP:IAR|IAR]].  It's not about conflicting rules and policies, it's (at least, to me) about making decisions that are in the best interest of the project, even if the rules say differently.  However, since this is my first time asking this question, I'm not going to oppose anyone for responding to it.
'''Neutral''' - I found it a minor annoyance that the candidate would submit [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenTable|this AfD]] without doing the ten seconds of due diligence involved in clicking through to the press page to discover that [http://www.opentable.com/info/newsindex.aspx yes, this site has a pretty strong case for notability].  On the other hand, the article was in a pretty dire state at the point of his AfD, and to my knowledge there's no policy requiring any "extra" research of the type I mentioned, so it would seem unfair for me to oppose on those grounds.
'''Neutral'''. Great temperament, very approachable, but I am bothered by some of the answers. In particular I am unhappy with the broad interpretation of IAR and the comments about [[WP:MOS-DAB]]. If there is a problem in the guideline, work with other editors to change it; if there is consensus that your favored method is not beneficial, systematically ignoring guidelines is not the way to go about using IAR. I also hope that the nominee will take to heart that [[WP:SNOW]], in and of itself, is not a reason to close a discussion; the lines of thought in the comments themselves are the reasons. I really want to avoid seeing "closed per [[WP:SNOW]]" at the top of more archived discussions.
'''Strong support''' Great user, surprised he isn't. ~
'''Support''' Yeah, I definitely like what I see...best of luck!
'''Support''' I don't [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/AQu01rius|see]] any problems.
'''Support''' Seems to have an understanding of policy, and has demonstrated a need for tools...so I say let's give the admin tools to AQu01rius. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Definitely''' Knows his stuff, and is bilingual! Should be fine. Good luck! '''''
'''Tepid Support'''- I'm not sure if he necessarily ''needs'' the tools, but he's a great editor, and a nice guy. If he wants the mop, mop 'em.
'''Support'''. I've had a pretty good impression, and I've seen him around before. '''''
'''Support''' as nominator; better late than never.
'''Support''' Very well-rounded.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support.'''  I have had a lot of interaction with this user through [[WP:CHINA]].  He has done so much to improve that project and related areas of Wikipedia.  He is also always the first one to jump at [[WP:PR]] and [[WP:ER]], areas that can often be neglected by users.  He was patient with my questions about the [[Beijing opera]] article.  Overall, a great user, and worthy of my support.--
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' no problems <sup>
'''Support''' should make a great admin. —
'''Support''' I think he will do fine work as an admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Recall giving him an editor review a few months ago, and had a look over his contributions then. Nothing worrying. Probably won't block Jimbo. &ndash;
You mean that's not allowed? (just kidding, Jimbo). Good contributor, no hesitation '''Support'''.--
'''Support''' - a very decicated user who works in a number of area's, will do well.
I'm
'''Support''' Seems like a good user, your edit summary usage could be better but I'm not going to oppose just for that, its not really bad. Good luck!
'''Support''' - [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|as per Jimbo Wales]]..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Great wikipedian, knows the tricks of the trade. <b><font color="red">[[User:Dep. Garcia|Dep. Garcia]]</font></b> <small> ( <font color="green">[[User talk:Dep. Garcia|Talk]]</font>  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dep._Garcia&action=edit&section=new +] | <font color="blue">[[User:Dep. Garcia/Help Desk|Help Desk]]</font> | <font color="orange">
'''Support'''. Typability of username is a slight issue, but not even sufficient to weaken my support substantially. —
'''Support''' As co-nominator.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; excellent nominators.
'''Support''' Solid work.  He and Ideogram could have dealt with the differences that Ideogram discusses below differently, but I'm not inclined to oppose on the basis of a user with nearly 6000 edits being involved in a few conflicts.
'''Support:''' How in God's creation do you remember your username? <span style="font-size:97%;">'''<font color="#229922">''~''</font>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><font color="#229922">[[User:Magnus animum|Magnus animum]]</font></span>'''&nbsp;∵&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Magnus animum|∫]] [[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|φ]]
'''Support''' Being able to keep calm in a politicized subject area is very impressive. '''
'''Support,''' a fine contributor with a track record of general civility, no concerns of tools misuse at all.--

'''Support''' Per above. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' - no issues here. Username-from-hell, though, which has very little to do with being able to wield a mop or not :) -
'''Support''' I've seen him around in China-related articles, translation, etc, and he is an able editor who can responsibly use the tools.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, active, responsible. I was actually going to co-nom him.... --
'''Support''' dedicated contributor.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - No need to say anything else. --
'''Support''' Good contributor. Good luck! --
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. I have been intrigued with his articles for some time; he's a darn good editor who deserves the tools. --
'''Support''': User has a lot of experience, however, the user's edit summary usage isn't the best I've seen. While I see nothing wrong and this user should make an excellent administrator I'd prefer to also see the edit summary usage improved in future edits. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'' I've seen you around; you should make a great admin.
'''Support''' User is very competent at DYK pages, and would make a great contribution as an admin there to clear backlogs.
'''Support''', has addressed my username concerns. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Agreeing with Xoloz.
'''Support''' Good candidate for adminship.
'''Support'''. I see no reason not to. -- '''
'''Support''' absolutely.  I have had frequent and positive interactions with this outstanding contributor.  I'm glad that I came out of hibernation in time to participate here.  --
'''Support''' yip, yip, yippee! --
'''Support''' I see this user everywhere! '''
Considerable work at WP:DYK and WP:ER. Will be a model administrator, intelligent and kind.

'''Support''' looks good.  Has a great attitude.  Look forward to further work on DYK --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">

'''Support''' - Great work in [[WP:CANADA]] and related areas.
'''support''' I initially had some concerns looking through this users contributions since many of them seem to be very formulaic. For example, recently on May 9 the user made over 20 edits classifying the importance of various highways in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Similarly, on April 22, the user spent a large amount of time making redirects from "nth Parliament of Canada" to "nth Canadian Parliament". This makes the user's edit count of over 10,000 edits slightly less impressive than it might look initially and such edits make it more difficult to determine a user's knowledge of policy and general temperament. However, the majority of the user's edits are more individualized and as far as I can tell demonstrate a good understanding of policy (I do however disagree with his assertion on his user page that he is not a [[Wikipedia:Wikignome|Wikignome]]- a substantial fraction of his edits seem to be Wikignoming Canada related matters). I also had some concern about a lack of topical diversity in the user's edits, since having such a background helps also show understanding of policy and makes any potential problems more likely to turn up. This objection I have also found to be not a serious worry for two reasons: First, the user has a substantial number of edits that are outside Canadian subjects. Second, Canada is a very broad topic which covers a large number of different types of articles including articles about geography, politics, culture, science, and entertainment. Artic has edited extensively in all those topics in both mainspace and other spaces. Overall, this is a  candidate for giving the tools who is both competent and trustworthy. If I had known about the editor before hand and had known he was intending to run I would have been happy to nominate him myself.

'''Support''' per JoshuaZ. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Looking at this editor's edits across the main spaces, I see no reason to think that the admin tools would be abused.
'''Support''' I'm glad to have wikignomes around - hate to think what the place would look like without them. Give him the tools and let him work.
'''Support''' --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looks good...supporting.
'''Support''' All is well here.
'''Support'''. Good contributions and experience, and it's clear from his editing patterns that the tools would be put to good use.
'''Support''' browsing quickly through his talk page and contributions, I find Arctic a very good adminship candidate and more than qualified to use the tools. —
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around, does a good job. '''
I'm
'''Support''', cautious and bold in appropriate measure. --
'''No big deals here''' - Go ahead. --
'''Support''': User has a nice amount of experience, however user's edit summary usage for minor edits is very low. This is not enough for me to oppose or neutral, however I would personally like to see this improved in the future. Good luck! <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - After reviewing this user's wide-ranging contributions I believe he has need for and will appropriately use the admin tools. I am pleased he has improved his use of edit summaries as this is an important means of communication for all users, not just Administrators. —
'''Support''' Trustworthy, behind the scenes contributor who will do the right thing. --
'''Support''', Meets my personal standards. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' Looks like a good user to become an admin.
support but you reely need to work on user talk 240 is relly too low with over 10000 edits you have
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' from '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' Intelligent, well thought out answers to questions, pleasant to work with, never problematic, experienced.
'''Support'''  Good work in getting [[WP:FT|featured topics]] going, being civil when the project was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured topics|deletion]], and keeping up with the project as it has grown and gained attention.  Trustworthy, good admin candidate. --
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' See no reason will not make a good admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I would definitely trust this user with the mop. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]<sup>([[User talk:Nihiltres|t]].[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|c]].
'''Support''' go Sens go --
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''''$''upport''' Venerable and hard-working.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' - "''I don't care about Wikipedia being reproducible and copyright-safe nearly as much as...''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Arctic.gnome&diff=131479323&oldid=131478654] - We have enough admins with this unhelpful feeling. --''
'''Neutral''' To quote: <i>"The ability to move, delete, and semi-protect pages would help in my day-to-day editing"</i>. Although an active and excellent contributor I can't see any justification for the demotion here. Why do you <b>need</b> the tools? <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
First one here '''support'''.
Happy to '''support'''. Keep up the good work! --
I '''support''' too. Nice work all around &mdash;
'''Support''' Good work from this editor, under both names.
Another occasion for me to say MER-C beat me... :) '''Support''', this is one user I definitely can't see misusing the tools. All the best, <span style="font-family:century gothic">
'''Support''' - good editor. Will do well with the tools.--
Great user. '''
'''Support'''. Good candidate, no doubt he qualifies as an admin &ndash;
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Definitely'''. Appears he can make [[WP:100]] based on the amont of support within an hour with all the Americans asleep. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>(<font color="#f00">[[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#f00">Hi!</font>]]</font>/
'''Support'''. Grrrrrreat!
'''Strong Support''' I told you to tell me when you were nominated! (Luckily, I had this page on my watchlist before it was created. :-) | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate which will not abuse the tools. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. Good editor.--
'''Support''' I run into Arjun all over the wiki, and I believe he will make a fine admin.
'''Strong Support''' - as co-nom.
'''Support''' - Absolutely! You're just what I look for in an admin... good luck! --'''
'''Support'''.  Lots of vandal-fighting; he could make good use of the tools. --
Arjun won't misuse (but will make great use of) the tools. Likes to help write articles and great vandal fighter. He definitely has my '''support'''. Cheers, '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
-
'''Strong Support''' per Húsönd. :-) --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' no doubt a good and trustworthy candidate. He's all over Wikipedia.  --
I'm
'''Strong Support!''' Would have !voted earlier. I've known the candidate since October, and have nothing but excellent things to say about him. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator (dang you transcluded while I was sleeping! :-P). '''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' He looks like a good person to me. I do not know him much but whatever I found about him was good. ---
'''Support'''. No fair listing this when I'm sleeping. -
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - the quality of the user's edits, while being consistently high quality, have ben excellent of late, and I think that Arjun is now ready for [[WP:ADMIN|sysopship]].
'''Strong Support''' per above...
'''Support''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Absolutely. He's everywhere and very insightful/helpful.
'''Support''' This is my fifth RFA vote, and first ''Support'', having seen this candidate helping others with his Wikipedia knowledge. Please use the tools responsibly. I've no doubt you will.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Great combination of need and trust.
'''Support''' - excellent user, no doubt whatsoever.
'''Support''' - great user, great answers, and I liked how he told ''the truth'' about the person editing their own bio. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' per most above. Impressive record and fine attitude: I'm sure he'll do great.
'''Support''' Great user, and I have no reason to doubt him. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' absolutely fully qualified user.--
'''Support''' fully qualified and has determination to combat [[vandalism]], which is rampant here.
'''Support''' a real nice guy, is always willing to help and never shows any incivility.
'''Support''' seen him around everywhere and can definitely use the tools (he can be trusted as well). '''
Why not say you are being nominated? A helpful person here so '''support'''.
'''Support''' per pretty much everything above. No concerns, welcome to the ranks.
'''Support'''. Very good choice. -
'''Support''', when I've seen this user he's been good and that seems to the opinion of everyone else.
'''Strong Support''' Arjun is simply one (if not ''the'') best here on Wikipedia. Woo-hoo! :) <span style="color:#ff0000">♥</span>
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' - Whoops, would have !voted earlier if I had noticed.
'''Support''' per above. Great initiative.
'''Support''' per everyone. &mdash;
'''Support''' Quite dedicated in my opinion, the 187 edits in two days is a good example of that.  I think that you'll be a great admin. '''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' One of those Wikipedians who can always put a smile on your face. Has extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. He will put this knowledge to good use when he gets the tools. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''. I think his work here is quite excellent. <tt class="plainlinks">
Yes, it does. &mdash;
'''Support''' per above & what I've seen of him around
'''Support''' an excellent user.
'''Support''': An asset, and we require more asset than the liability here. --
'''Support''' a simply superb Wikipedian.
'''Support''' <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">
'''Support'''. I have seen this candidate around and he seems like a good Wikipedian.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' He does it all: vandalism patrol, welcomes newcomers, mediates disputes, and a great editor - all with a smile. Since I can't vote for Arjun for President, this will just have to do.
'''Strong Support''' - This user does it all like priyanath says. He reverts vandalism, mediates, even (gasp?) does some editing.<b>
'''Strong Support''' One of the most capable Wikipedians on EN Wikipedia. His work with Hindunism is incredible. '''
'''Strong Support''' a great editor, will be an ideal admin.
'''Strong support''' - I know this user fairly well and I know that he will become a great administrator. He is a true inspiration to all of us here on the English Wikipedia. //
'''Strong support''' I believe this is my first 'vote' on RFA, and I'm glad it's for a candidate as deserving as Arjun01. Productive, cooperative, knowledgeable and fair, he is a no-brainer for adminship. My only "cavil" would be <s>that</s> the hope that he does not let his innate civility come in the way of fair-but-tough execution of his admin responsibilities. :-)
'''Support''' Excellent contributions on topics related to Hinduism. I extend my full support. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Per personal experience and nom(s). <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5">
'''Strong support'''. I want to state my opinion on the silly opose but I won't :P--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''

'''Strong Support'''--Happy Editing!  [[user:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>Ninety</font>]][[user talk:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green><sup>wazup?</sup></font>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Nineteenninetyfour|<sup><font color=green>Review me</font></sup>]]
'''Support''' - Great user from what I can tell--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' based on his thoughtful answers and his participation on Afd, which I have seen.
'''Support''' Arjun is an exemplary editor both in Wikipedia space and article space.  Would use the tools well.
'''Hello!  Support''' Duh.  Completely trustworthy and has excellent experience. -- '''<font color="blue">

'''Ultimate Support''' - meets every possible standard. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' I fondly remember Seadog.M.S from my days as a newbie. I have no doubt he'll make a good admin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' I've seen him aroun a lot and could use the tools well. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support''' will make a good admin. —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson" face="Eras Demi ITC">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Super Duper Strong Support''' Why could I not say that? Good Luck Arjun! '''[[User:RyGuy|<font color="Red" face="Comic Sans MS">Ry</font>]][[User Talk: RyGuy|<font color="Blue" face="Comic Sans MS">Guy</font>''']]  [[User:RyGuy/ Signature Book|<font color="Darkred" face="Comic Sans MS"><small>Sign Here!</small></font>]]
'''Strong support''', an outstanding, trustworthy and excellent contributor. He deserves the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' - can trust this user to use admin tools properly.
'''Support''' - per all of the above. --
'''Support''' - per above
'''Strong support'''- per all above. ''' <font color="#000080">—</font>
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' 101 ~
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''', civil, pleasant, knowledgeable user. --
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support'''. per nom. —
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Suppport''' as above
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Strong Support''' Great vandal fighter, would do great work with the mop
'''Support''' I refrain generally from ''pile-on''s at RfA, but I must&mdash;tardily&mdash;support here; it is eminently clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Arjun's becoming an admin should be positive]], and it is on the disposition of the latter question, IMHO, as against, e.g., that of [[WP:1FA|1FA]], that an RfA !vote ought to rest.
'''Support''' per above --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo test]] ''sans'' exceptions.
I met Arjun as Seadog.M.S. when he just came to WP - we share some interests (hi!). With 4.5 months of experience at Wikipedia (under this account), this nomination just strikes me as premature. This is at least the third account held by Arjun: {{user|Seadog.M.S}} was mentioned; {{user|Littlewing1}} was not. Arjun, your desire to learn is clear, but I would like to a few more months of settling in. Also important to me is evidence that you have handled an active conflict, of the type that may arise as an admin. I understand that you don't create conflicts, of course, but as an admin, how will you manage those created by others? I'm sorry if the answers are presented here: I don't see them (the Swastika debate is too diffuse to glean anything from). Congratulations, though; you've done good work on Wikipedia, and your RfA looks like a success!  –
'''Neutral''' - I agree that this seems a tad premature.  Although a great candidate and contributor to wikipedia, I would tend to advocate a 6 month floor for admins . . . -
'''Support''' I thought you passed last time. I didn't understand the opposes then and I no doubt won't now. Yes, your mainspace edits are lower than some but certainly not unacceptably low, and as someone who regularly ran into you on XfDs, I never saw you as any kind of deletionist any more than I am<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Weak Support''' Weak edit count, and mainspace, but overall, nothing to prove you will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' As you have changed your deletionist view.
'''Support''' -- again --
'''Support'''.  Been around a couple years and hasn't done anything crazy that I know of.  Already doing AFD work, that's a good sign.
'''Support''' A good editor with experience--<span style="font-family: Eras Demi ITC; font-sizec : 10pt"><font color="LightSkyBlue">
'''Support''' Your mainspace edits are low, but you have done excellent work in the Mediation Cabal, and you are doing AFD work. I do not think you will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - good editor.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. Main worry brought up on last RfA was excessive deletionism, but reading the essay he linked to in the nomination statement, he has fairly sensible and coherent views on deletions (including a healthy respect for community consensus). Certainly long overdue for adminship.
'''Support''', as last time. <span style="font-family: Verdana">

'''Support''', recent AfD contributions appear to be very well thought-out and logical. Responses to comments seem polite and helpful, and certainly looks as though can be trusted with a mop. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Support:''' His AfD work's impressed me, and he's among those editors whose name has generally meant sound logic and reason to me.
'''Support''' per AFD interactions
'''Support''' - I do not believe this user will abuse the tools.  -
'''Support''' All issues from the last RFA seem to be addressed, and the ongoing commitment and civility of this editor leave no doubts in my mind. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support'''I'm supporting now. Whoever edits the count can ignore the neutral vote (if it even matters)--
'''Support'''. I hope you don't mind that I'm linking to your essay on deletionism from my user page :-) --
'''Support'''. I especially like your essay on deletionism, which, along with the late Elaragirl's essay really sums up the concept. Even though I'm not deletionist, I can see that you'll be an asset to the community. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' Good Editor and Track is good.
'''Support''' User certainly seems to be of admin material. Answer to question five is particularly impressive, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. ---
'''Support''' Have seen him around both the naming conventions debate which he has helped prod toward action after much circular debate and in AFD's and he seems to know the ropes and would be a good asset to the admin mop crew.
'''Yes''' - thought was one already, genuinely. -- <strong>
'''Support''' — I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of willingness to help the community :-) --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support'''. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Seems mature and gave a very level headed answer to my question (in contrast to another RFA where I was attacked for asking the exact same question).
'''Support''' Consistently good work at AfD, we can't all be perfect (go on, raise your hands if you are...).  I can't see that this editor would abuse the tools. <b>
Why not?
'''Support''' I trust this user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Looks a solid candidate. '''
'''Support''' Brilliant answers to opt. questions, and a well-written, well thought-out essay.<font face="Impact">
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' now, a change from no vote at all in June.  I am not a deletionist ''per se'', but we sometimes agree.  Arkyan seems like a good guy.
'''Support''', articulate answers and helpful contributions.
'''Support'''. Deletionism in the defense of Wikipedia is no vice.
'''Support''', we can use a few more deletionists around the place. For an ''editor'' (you know, that thing we all are around here), cutting is a virtue, not a vice.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support'''. Sensible person. Although I disagree with him on some deletion issues, Arkyan is someone who one can discuss and reason with. On [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn]] he displayed a refreshing level of acceptance of opposing viewpoints regarding deletion, and on [[Etivluk River]] he showed clear understanding and ability to work with the encyclopedia and not just bureaucracy. Easy decision.
'''Support''' changed from oppose. --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; should have been given the mop a while ago.
Well-reasoned AfD comments and great answers to questions; seems to be a solid candidate :) ~
'''Support''' I don't believe I've met you before, but looking over your contributions, you seem to be an experienced user. Good answers to questions, and, like Riana said, your AFD comments are good as well. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' I don't think there is any need for more experience. Arkyan seems more than capable to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' based on his participation in the Alansohn RFC I don't think he's one of these guys here just to delete stuff, whatever the excuse du jour is. Arkyan seems mature and reasonable... he claims he's a deletionist, but no one's perfect. --
'''Support''' - His deletionist beliefs are well thought out, and it is the well thought out part that establishes his trustworthiness. I disagree that worthiness should play the roll proposed by the nominator, but that is merely a difference of opinion rather than a basis to oppose this nomination. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' fine editor. <b>
'''Support''' per RGTraynor and Xoloz.
'''Support''' - Arkyan seems to understand that the real role of an admin (regardless of the acres of talk saying "no big deal") is to help with the problems, disputes, and such that exist.  Arkyan has about a 0.2 article talk to article edit ratio, which is higher than most recent Rfa candidates.  --
'''Support''' as a voice of sanity on [[WP:NC (settlements)]].
'''Support''' no concerns. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
Yes please! [[User:Giggy/Powderfinger|<font color="Green">'''G'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Experienced and level-headed user. No doubt he will make an excellent admin.
Per quality of opposes.
Long lasting history of unrepentant incivility, personal attacks, vandalism, POV pushing, has been unfriendly and opposed me in a debate (sorry I have no diff, just take my word for it), lacks experience, neediness for the tools (per self nom), heavy-handed deletionist... '''my kinda guy!''' —'''
'''Support''' Will make good use of the mop --
'''Support''' Considered responses indicate candidate will use tools per consensus, and not personal bias.
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' per all supports above.
Excellent answers to the content-related questions that I asked has cancelled out any doubts about this adminship request. --
'''Support''' per all the reasoning above. This is a great candidate for the mop.
Having reviewed the contributions and discussion here, I can find no real reason to withhold the mop from this candidate.  Contributions do not tend to lead me to concerns of abuse of these tools or marked incivility.  I value civility in every editor, and will use it as a criterion to adminship.  No real concerns in that arena.  Additionally,  I'll place weight in an editors ability to determine consensus, or a lack thereof in an application for the mop.  Looking at some of the candidates afd comments does not alarm me.  This coupled with the candidates response to the totally optional question '''5''' and '''11.1''' I am fairly confident the candidate ''gets'' consensus generating discussion.  This in my opinion is necessary when closing xfd discussions.  No real concerns here either.  The response to question '''11''' also indicates to me a understanding of account security.  While RFA is designed to keep these tools restricted to editors in good standing that have gained the trust of the community, also need to secure their accounts.  I'm confident this admin account [read: forward thinking] will not be compromised.  With regards to the other optional questions, and the editors contributions, I am confident this editor is familiar with applicable policy and guidelines.  I do not believe this editor will abuse the tools.  I will support this candidates application for the tools.  Regards,
'''Support'''. Thoughtful essay and answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Impressive and well-thought out answers. Although I haven't come across you, the duration you have edited wikipedia for (~3 years) is a bonus. '''
'''Support''' for the same reason as last time and per the excellent responses to Q5 and Q11.1. — '''
'''Support''' as last time; a tireless editor who has clearly striven to improve based on the feedback from his prior RfA. --'''<font color="#FFA52B">K<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''', you did a lot of work in the AfD, also your responses are very good. Definitely you will help with admin tools. Good luck
'''Support''', per all of the above, good strong demand for the tools, good sense of what goes on here.
'''Support''' As an inclusionist (well, mostly inclusionist) who's read Arkyan in various deletion discussions, I've been impressed by his thoughtfulness, civility, patience and dedication to thinking things through, even when I've pressed him in debate. At the end of an incredibly long [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14|deletion review]] on the plot of ''Les Miserables'' he met my arguments with good ones of his own and influenced my own opinions. We need more administrators with these qualities.
I'm
'''Support''', looks good. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Merge''' with List of Administrators.  Uh... sorry, I think I've been to too many AfDs lately :) [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span>]]
'''Support''' I participated in the AfD debate where Arkyan went and fixed up the [[Zona Norte]] article, and he certainly did good work there. His answers to the questions above seem good in terms of policy. His AfD and DRV votes left me with a good impression of his judgment, even if I wouldn't always vote the same way.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no major concerns raised. --
'''Support''' - I could think of many good reasons, but all had been used before! :-)
'''Support''' per numerous reasons above.
'''Support''' - I thought I already supported. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' — Sorry, but I see zero improvement since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arkyan|last RfA]].
'''Oppose''' - The last RfA was held in June, which is really not that long ago.  I am also a bit concerned that you may be too quick to delete rather than work on improving articles.  On the positive side of things, you do have a lot of edits (over 3,000) and have never been blocked, but again, I think this RfA is too soon after the previous one and I do have some concerns over a tendency to want to delete rather than improve articles.  Best wishes in any case.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience... keep up the good work though.
'''Neutral''' I have concerns over your ability to distinguish between an article ''you'' deem encyclopedic and one that meets [[WP:N]], or does NOT meet [[WP:CSD]]. If you get the mop, I see a lot of unneeded DRVs in your future, which wastes time that could better be spent elsewhere. Still, I don't think it's bad enough that you will go on a deletion spree of borderline pages, so I won't oppose --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Neutral''' - You seem to generally give reasonable answers. But the edit count is really quite low. Under 4,000 edits (including an underwhelming amount to Wikipedia-space) isn't brilliant regarding the time you've spent here. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - quite a promising user. From the contributions and answers to questions, he obviously has a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia policy. &mdash;
'''Support''' His answer to question 3 was pretty good. Im impressed.
'''Support''' Never heard of you but on a skim through your history you look fine.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Good stuff by the look of things.
'''Support''' Strong set of contributions, seems like a good candidate.  --
'''Support'''.  Won't abuse the tools, and will help the community greatly.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - I can't see how not Supporting would be a good idea.
'''Support''' Good history, understands policy.--
'''Support''' Understands policy well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm
'''Support''' - professional user, absolutely fine by me --
'''Strong Support''' I thought this user was already a sysop.
'''Support''' Strong showing. No doubt in my mind you'll do fine!
'''Support'''. I see nothing here to suggest the user would not use the tools correctly. Everything looks good to me.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' -- although I don't really understand [[:wikt:it's all Greek to me|portions of his answer]] to Question 2. By the way, is it just me or does seem like this is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography#Participants|WikiProject Cryptography]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3|week on RfA]]? Doesn't that violate [[WP:CABAL]] or something? --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - Very good user. He's well deserving of this position.<sup>
'''Support''' Shows excellent conflict management skills as per Q3. --'''''<sup>
'''Support''' Very patient and mature editor.
'''Support''' Experienced and professional user.
'''Support''' - a source of common sense, a scarce and valuable commodity. -
'''Support''' - Sure. --
'''Support''' Per your excellent answers to the questions. I particularly like the fact that you don't use bots and intend to work "old-school style". A review of contribs looks all good to me. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - flicking through the contributions, I can find absolutely nothing to oppose. Good answers to questions, and although it would be wrong of me to base my support on edit count, 11,000 edits has undoubtedly changed this user's interpretation of Wikipedia and the effect they've had on the community, which has been excellent. Well done.
Why the hell not? Good luck, have fun.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' - looks like a very good candidate, --
'''Support''' - I have had only positive experiences in all my interactions with Athaenara, I know of no one else so clearly deserving of the mop.
'''Support''', yep.
'''Smile''', I've waited a long time for Athaenara to accept.  Her dilligency, fairness, and thoroughness are legendary. -
'''Support''', I think I'm ready to be, and you're a great deal more ready than I am. All the best! --
'''Support''' I know Athaenara's work at the [[WIkipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]]. She has helped clean up many unbalanced problem articles by simply rewriting them so they  are shorter and more neutral. She's also a regular at [[Wikipedia:Third opinion]] where she has helped to moderate disputes. Take a look at the article she created on the American architect [[Martin Stern, Jr.]] as evidence of her abilities as an article-writer. I have no concerns at all about her becoming an admin and believe it is a well-deserved step.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate. It is time to give her the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Clearly a decent candidate.
'''Support''' trustworthy, experienced, good answers. No doubts you need the tools.
'''This vote is NOT an oppose''' Good user.
'''Support''' a fine candidate. Good luck. <font color="Green">
'''Support''' - A large amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' why not?? <b><font color="E32636">
Better late than never.
'''Support''' I had actually thought you already had the mop. No worries here: Athaenara's got strong contributions, knows policy, and I've only had positive encounters with this editor. --
'''Support'', fine with me.
'''Support''' with enthusiasm. Superb contributor, especially on [[WP:BLP]]-related articles.   Having the mop can only make her an even better contributor, to the great advantage of the project.
'''Support''' One of the best editors I've encountered. I'm sure she will make a great admin.
I'm
'''Support''' <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' In my dealings with Athaenara she has been level headed, fair, detail oriented and well versed on WP policies and guidelines.  She has no problem taking on the often very tricky situations of COI and BLP issues that others avoid.  She most certainly deserves the tools and would use them well to better WP.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As per Crockspot and this :* '''Comment:'''  Justanother has a right to oppose this or any Rfa.  I don't think it helps the encyclopedia to put his opposition under a microscope or spotlight.  Clearly shows that the user even with tools will not misuse them.Track is good .
'''Support''' - Per the nom.  There is a dirth of Administrators on the project that have a good grasp of [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:COIN]], and the danger this can pose to neutrality on the project.  I don't mean to say a dirth out of the ''current'' Admins, just that we need even more Admins who have shown to be specifically cognizant of conflict of interest issues.
'''Support''' - Good work at BLPs.
'''Support''' Need more users who are willing to spend time with BLPs.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - excellent work in undermanned areas.  Give the lady a <s>broom</s> mop (the slip must be because it's October). <font face="Verdana">
'''It's about time''', get her the tools already!
'''Support''' I see no compelling reason that the candidate couldn't be trusted. Good work so far!
'''Support''', because of all the work I have seen at [[WP:3O]].
'''Support''' thanks for all the great work you're doing, and I'm sure you'll do more as an admin --'''
'''Support''', helping the 'pedia grow..cheers,
'''Support''' - especially regarding her response to justanother's oppose.  More level headedness, and politeness, not less.  --
'''Support''' - careful, respectful, polite, smart, organized; cool under pressure; with a history of effective volunteering at project-stress-points like COI, BLP, and 3O.  And most importantly, proven to be worthy of community trust.  --
'''Support''' - Looks like this user could be trusted with admin tools, but I would feel more at ease if she were subject to recall, as I think ''all'' admins should be as a matter of policy.--
'''Support''' won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No significant concerns for me. All my interactions with this editor have been positive. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. A. is a strong contributor who will no doubt find creative applications of the mop and pail.
'''Support''' - Although I agree with George that the exchange he posted in his neutral vote is disturbing, it happened five months ago. I hope this isn't the kind of behavior we'll see if adminship is granted; I expect not. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''. I took some time to consider this candidate and the opposition. After reading over the links and surrounding context, I can accept that explanation that the mental illness analogy was just that ... an analogy. There are broad generic behaviors associated with the illness that in Anthaenara's view matched up with behavioral/editing patterns. At worst, I might say she's a little quick to pull out the [[WP:SPADE|spade]] when [[Spades|sitting at the table]]. I do not believe the sysop bit would be abused, nor that the net effect of giving her the sysop bit would be negative. Quite the contrary, I think Anthaenara groks policy and our goals perfectly well, including what admins should and shouldn't do. All in all, she fits [[User:Vassyana/admin|my standards]].
yes.--
'''Support''' I am reinstating a previously striken support. I think the Bishonen issue was a combination of a bit of misunderstanding, coupled with the clashing of strong personalities. The candidate has a tendency to get her hackles up when rubbed the wrong way, which I cannot really fault too badly, as I tend to react similarly. I do not think that she will abuse the tools, but I will caution her to try to be more patient and humble with editors, especially in situations where she will be using the admin tools. -
'''Support'''. She won't abuse the tools, and has a very high edit count.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Oppose''' - I had hoped that Athaenara would have had the grace to apologize for her graceless "analogy" but she apparently does not. By her own admission, she finds dealing with '''what strikes her''' as problematic ''"very stressful, however."'' In my case I found that she attacked me without having, as far as I could see, any previous interaction with me, any familiarity with my editing, and no great experience with the article or the subject area, a complex one (Scientology) fraught with POV and other problems. I had hoped that she had the ability to make peace when it would cost little to make peace. Instead she acted the pedant . . . again. To put it colloquially, she is wound too tight and too quick on the trigger to be trusted with the admin powers. Based on my experience and her response here, I must oppose. I had actually hoped to do otherwise. --
'''Oppose'''.  I've checked out the Justanother issue—see Justanother's Oppose just above, and the Optional Question 4—and Athaenara's post on Justanother actually looks like a personal, un-adminlike, and nasty attack to me, despite her statement that it was a mere analogy. I hope you'll all look for yourselves at Athaenara's comment in the thread Justanother links to—[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Schwarz_%284th_nomination%29#Munchausen_syndrome this one]—and form your own opinions. Note also
'''Oppose'''. It seems I once made this edit concerning the candidiate "''Your rhetoric (if that is what you wanted it to be) was misplaced and misguided. Your speculation as to whether I was working alone or in collusion was offensive and totally missed the point which is to improve wikipedia's standards. That is my goal - I sincerely hope that is also your aim. In short do not make clever snide little comments unless you want them addressed and are sure of your facts. Giano 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)''" Since that date I have yet to see anything to alter my opinion that the candidate is far too naive and inexperienced to be an admin. Her inexperience and naivity would cause mayhem.
'''Oppose''' Civility concerns; comparing Wikipedia processes with mental illness, and referring to policy instead of engaging in real debate, are not automatically show-stoppers for me but they do give me pause. Per Crockspot above I can probably still potentially be swayed, but on the evidence presented I have to oppose. Sorry. --
'''Opppose''' I have a really hard time with this edit, blowing off an apology like this is bad form for an editor and unacceptable in an admin.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Athaenara&diff=119162709&oldid=119162331 ]  (No - RV'd)??
'''Oppose''' per [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Subtlety#Entremet_as_main_entry_.28for_now.29]].  The habit of throwing acronyms in lieu of discussion is the very definition of a power trip.  Cooperative editing is cooperative, not petulant, and the matter at [[talk:Subtlety]], which the candidate still has not seen the error of, betrays a really fundamental misunderstanding.  I fear that, without changing her mind about how to cooperate with authors, we will end up with some trouble.  No one needs abasement from the candidate, but no one needs another administrator attempting to rule, either.
'''Oppose''' Athaenara barged into the [[subtlety]]/[[entremet]] conflict and for the most part played only a [[ruleslawyer]]ing game. The only thing resembling a factual argument from Athaenara was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASubtlety&diff=134464950&oldid=134447360 this] along with a citation of an online article on medieval cuisine written by an amateur scholar belonging to an American [[Richard III Society]]. Though somewhat useful, it was still full of errors and hardly an appropriate piece of literature to pit against the multiple print sources cited at the time. Simply making oneself heard in a discussion doesn't grant you the right to revert and obstruct at will. And after seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAthaenara&diff=168388056&oldid=167191961 this] I seriously doubt Athaenera's ability and willingness to compromise. With only one day to go it appears that Athaenera has enough support votes to make an admin anyway, and this behavior smacks of politicking rather than any honest attempts to smooth things over.
'''Oppose''' based on the subtlety/entremet affair and concerns per Bishonen. Athaenara seems to be a very good editor, but she clearly has dispute resolution difficulties and trouble dealing with direct and civil opposition. I don't think it is appropriate to accuse someone of WP:OWN for reverting their own text in favor of a newer version that reflects a more accurate understanding of the subject. I'm especially disturbed by the fact that she made no substantive contributions ''on the topic'' itself, only quoting supposed policy violations. That isn't the attitude Wikipedia needs in admins, even with the coming November flood.
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor around and would support them as an administrator!
Pleased to offer my '''I-beat-the-nominator-to-it support'''.  This editor seems reasonable and useful, and unlikely to do dumb things with the buttons.
'''Support as nom''' and pleased to see that support here is so fast I couldn't get out in front.
'''Support''', good nom & answers, good to see a bold anti-vandalism application and an honest approach to the XfD obsession.  All the best.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent Vandal fighter, like [[User:Persian Poet Gal|Persian Poet Gal]], [[User:Glen S|Glen S]], and [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]].--
'''Support''' per nom, the candidate's good overall record, and the commitment to help in some understaffed areas. I, too, was not familiar with or committed to participating in ''every'' area where administrators work before accepting my nomination.
'''Support''' Vandals, socks, speedies, and albums! What more could you want? And the honesty is much appreciated.
'''Support''': Excellent at opposing vandals. I find myself blocking vandals reported at AIV by this user all the time. More XfD could be good; however, what's there suggests a solid understanding of policy.
'''Support''' I see his reports to [[WP:AIV]] all the time. Excellent work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', only seen good from this user (and could've ''sworn'' you already were one).
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - absolutely!  A very qualified candidate and not a bad vandal fighter.
'''Strong support''' -- "support" because he's a good contributor and "strong" because of his fearlessly candid comments about XfD that made me smile. Normally I like to see XfD experience, but I respect his comments and I know he'll make a great admin handling all the other things admins do. --
'''<font color="darkorange">Air-prove!</font>''' Active [[WP:AIV]] reporter, will put the tools to good use. '''
'''Support''' - per solid article writing.
'''Support with FLYING COLOURS!''' - enough said, this guy should do well in his new role as admin! --'''
'''Support''' per fixed criteria for supporting RfA on my user page
'''Strong Support'''
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Strong Support'''-Great user. Thought he was already an admin. But then I remember that was Pilot''Guy''. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Ugh...was on my to-nominate list. AuburnPilot's a great candidate for adminship, and I have no doubt that he'll make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' I commented at one of the RfCs on Fox News Channel and I thought AuburnPilot handled himself well in that conflict. Plus, almost anyone who says they'll help at WP:SSP is going to get my vote, we need more admins addressing that page.
'''Support''' - even though your signature is blue and orange. --
'''Support''' (cliche omitted) —
'''Support''' Definately a good potential admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates no problems. The evidence to which Arjun refers is entirely unconvincing.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' --
- <b>
'''Support''', vandal fighter, needs tools. And XfD participation is only important if you're planning on closing them, which the candidate has clearly stated he won't. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' about time! <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' definitely. -
'''Support''' Oui, s'il vous plait.--
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''. Lack of XfD participation is no prob for an admin candidate who has no intention to close them. Knowledge of policy is shown through contributions elsewhere. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' He went to [[Auburn University]]. That's enough for me. While it looks like he's also done a great job editing WP, the Auburn connection just blows away any other qualification :-).--
'''Support''' in spite of highly questionable college selection (sorry, I had to...) Anyway, I've seen nothing but good edits from this user, the nom is trustworthy and the answers to the questions are fine. What's not to like? Not concerned with lack of interest in AfD, even though that's one of my main areas of focus as an admin. Not all admins work in all areas, and that's fine! It's natural to specialize in a few things you're good at and interested in. --
'''Weak Support''' Good answers to questions. Will raise to regular support if the candidate promises to put himself back up for rfa if the avulsion to xfds subsides and there's some contreversy due to the inexperience of not going into them prior to that (like making a questionable closing). If I could get a pledge that he'd be available for some kind of recall, i'd also raise my support level.
'''Weak Support''' I really honestly believe what it comes down to is trust, I have always said that. Trust to me is very important...and when I ask "do I trust this user for the tools" I have to say yes. However I am still going weak because I think that XFD's "are" important; but meh. ~
'''Support''' I really don't see a problem with specialization, when the candidate is a good ''editor''.
'''Support''' I find XfD dull too. Anyways, you look like a great user. ·
'''Support''' Quality editor. I appreciate the honesty about XfD--it's not for everyone. I feel confident that this user would effectively use the admin tools to benefit many other areas that always need attention. --
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Everything seems to be in order here. —<b><font color="orange">[[User:Pilotguy|P]]</font>
'''Very strong support''' I've crossed paths with AuburnPilot many times on Wikipedia, and I have always known him to be a fair, judicoius, and reasonable editor.  Our viewpoints may differ greatly, but I can honestly say that if there is ''anyone'' who's judgement and fairness on Wikipedia I trust, this is he.  I would have nominated months ago, but until recently he was not accepting applications.  I encourage the approval of this candidate ''post haste''.  /
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' looks like an excellent candidate.--

'''Support''' One of the most even-keeled and fair editors out there.  Would be an excellent addition to the mopped ranks--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' I believe firmly that Wikipedians need to apply themselves to the areas they have an affinity for. Admins as well. While I recognize the '''great need''' for XfD work from admins as basic WP housekeeping, this candidate's views on XfDs does not disqualify him in the least to me. Vandal fighting counts plenty in my book. 'nuff said.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions. Tons of AIV reports, bag 'em and tag 'em. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''-Excellent vandal fighter and editor, always willing to help out a newbie like me.--
'''Support''' Great contribs and great answers.
'''Strong Support''' Is he not an admin yet? His vandalism fighting history is awesome! --
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Very active user and a strong vandalism fighter.
'''Strong support''' Active contributor with refreshingly candid responses to questions. Will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' this user looks like a good candidate. Admins don't need to close XfD's to be useful. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Excellent editor that should be trusted with the mop. Won't close XfDs so not sure why the "I can't stand XfD" comment should be held against him. There's plenty of other work to do.
'''Support'''- A very Excellent choice (Dont Judge a book by its cover).XfD's are just excuses..Best of Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', I see no reason to anticipate abuse, so what if he'd personally rather stay away from AfD? AfD is not the only admin task.
'''Support''', good answers, good track record.  Irrelevant to your RfA, but I wish you'd reconsider involvement at XfD; staying away won't help to "relax our deletion finger a bit". · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have seen you around and have a good feeling about you becoming an administrator. '''
'''Support'''; I've always thought he was excellent admin material, but I remember a "this user is not an admin and doesn't wish to be one" userbox on his page for a long time.  I will presume that had to do with the XfD issue, and support, since I always wanted to.
'''Support'''. There is no question that Wikipedia will benifit of you beeing an admin. Good luck. -
'''Support'''.
Pile on '''Support'''.  Plenty of tasks other than XFD that need doing.  Regards,
'''Support'''. Thorough answers to the questions, and comments in regards to XfD show that he cares more about representing himself honestly than "winning" adminship.
'''Support''' - excellent responses, trustworthy contributor and I loved the comment about XfD. Self-deprecating honesty is an admirable trait and only helps instil confidence. --
You notice how most admins say they're going to help with WP:AFD? That's generally taken care of enough that we can have admins who do other work. '''support''' --
'''Support''' - excellent user. I met AuburnPilot some time ago at [[Talk:George W. Bush]] and was impressed with this user's balanced and levelheaded talkspace contributions. Also plenty of edits, and good answers to questions above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Oppose''', like Arjun, but with stronger sense, I find the statement "cannot stand XFD's" unacceptable. The work of admin considerably takes up on XfDs. Moreover, it seems that you're a bit reluctant to accept the nomination. If you succeed in this RfA, will you properly devote to your duties as an admin?
'''Conflicted'''. Seems like a great canidate except...yeah XfD. Still, this editor seems to be locked up on everything else and the fact that he has well and acknowledged his weakness in that area is a good thing. I'm hoping he will focus on his "weak area" as is needed when he is granted his adminship. If he were too assure me of that I would have no problem supporting this nom. Either way AuburnPilot will get it so good luck!
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''', partially for having the sweetest username ever, and partially for having a strong number of edits across a number of namespaces. --'''
'''Support''' &mdash; I've had nothing but good experiences with Audacity, namely his highly useful contributions during our collaboration at [[WP:WELCOME]]. The edit summaries thing is a bit of a worry, but to be honest something that can be solved by checking a box at [[Special:Preferences]] isn't a reason for denying somebody that I have confidence in the mop ~
'''Support''' - experience and edit counts is perfect and so is his contributions and would qualify as a perfect candidate..Good luck..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. I couldn't care less about edit summary usage, quite frankly, and no one's brought up any other problems. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I worked with Dan on the Welcoming Committee template overhaul.  I was impressed with how he handled himself, and with his css/wikicode ability. Sysop tools will be a no-brainer for him.  He'll make a fine admin.  '''''
'''Support''' changed from neutrality, as I like the answers to the questions, have heard nothing but good things about user, and am glad to support.
Good experiences with this user
Switch to support -- <b>
'''Musical support'''. He'll make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' I would be pleased to have him as an admin. Seems to have worked hard in areas of interest to him and made a good contribution in doing so.
'''Support''' --<font color="3300FF">
'''Audacious support!'''--
'''Support''' switched from "neutral". Looks fit for the role. —
'''Strong support''' as per my struck neutral comments. Good luck <sup>
I'm
'''Support''' known and trustable. --
'''Support''' Yes, I support "Iamthejabberwock", or more currently "Audacity". I see only good things from this user.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience however edit summary usage for minor edits are low and while this won't make me oppose I would just like it to be fixed in the future. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
'''Support''' I think so. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support'''. Why the heck not? —'''
I was a bit surprised to see this RfA, I kinda thought he already was one. '''Support''', can be trusted. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a good person to trust with the tools.

Longevity is impressive and demonstrates utmost dedication to what Wikipedia is aiming towards, and my albeit-limited interactions with him have been positive. Seen some very insightful stuff in project-space, also. Expresses himself well. Demonstrated knowledge and ability to apply discretion when required, and is articulate enough to express justifications (which is oh-so-important as an administrator) when required. '''
'''Support''' Edit summaries are descriptive, edits seems productive. Would make a good addition to the sysop corps. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Audacity is a great user and has even caught me out forgetting to close ref tags ;) <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I'll accept the answer to my question, although to be candid I would have preferred something that addressed it in more depth.  Seems to be strong in other areas so I'll back this bid for mopification. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' --
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Of course. // <b><font color="#800000">
'''Support''', no one's found a reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''[[Taragon]] $upport'''
'''Neutral''' Until questions have been answered, I agree you could get your edit summary usage up a little but I'll [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].<small>If I forget to change to support when you answer questions please leave a message on my talk page. </small>.
'''Neutral''' pending questions being answered ... normally, a malformed RFA gets an auto-oppose from me, but Snowolf, not Audacity, incorrectly listed this RFA prior to the questions being answered. --
'''Neutral''' - don't particularly like the answers to 5 and 6, but experience with the editor can cancels this out.  Thus, I am neutral. <font color="green">'''G1ggy'''</font> <sup>[[User:G1ggy | <font color="red">Stalk</font>]] - [[User_talk:G1ggy | <font color="blue">Talk</font>]] -
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Better Wikipedian than I am. --
'''Support''' - good user.
Woo, hoo!  Great work at AIV and RPP. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Had Me At Beer Pong Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Sorry, I was going though your contribs and got side tracked before I could comment. So - '''Yes''', 1) Contribs 2) Civility 3) Reasoned discussion 4) Talking to others across the whole 'pedia 5) Answers to Questions are ok and show understanding and a will to work at less common areas. 6) Everything in your nomination statement and answers is backed up by contribs. 7) Run out of things now but if your favourite [[cheese]] is [[Stilton (cheese)|stilton]] you can have a seventh reason as well. ''':)''' Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great editor, can't see any problems here. <b>
'''Support''' I like what I see, and see no issues.
'''Strong Support''' -- I still appreciate his support and encouragement when I was a new editor. Since then, I've run across him several times and he's always doing good work, both in article-writing and discussing edits on talk pages. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' A wise choice.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. A great user, nothing bad enough to oppose or even neutral :) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I like it when I can see that someone has developed over time.  Also, really impressive work on [[Beer pong]]!<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Strong support''' all is well here.
'''<big>+</big>'''  Good spread of edits, civil, knows policy and contributes quality edits.  Unrelated to the nomination, I'd like to mention that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_Island_%28British_Columbia%29&diff=124405535&oldid=122650470 this] image contribution to the only article I've written was most useful.
'''Support''' Like your answer to Q2 and 3 --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Would make a good admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I like your answers.
'''Support''' Good editor, might be of help with access to the buttons. —
'''Support''' - Great job on bringing beer pong to GA.  You have my support!
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong support''' I have worked with this user on a few articles, and he seems like a great, positive editor with adequate experience. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support''' good answers to questions, no obvious problems.  Not likely to abuse the tools, and has knowledge of policy and that is backed up by good contribs. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Support''' - Everything looks good. No objects.
'''Support''' - lots of relevant experience - good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''[[user:Jimbo Wales|Awiseman once said]]''' - [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|Y Not!!]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' &mdash;I've seen him around and he always seems to be doing things that make this a better place! &mdash;
'''Support''' Read through his edit history last night but never got around to posting. I like everything I see, certainly no red flags that would suggest to me that this editor will be anything but an excellent sysop.
'''Support''' - wide interests.
'''Support''' - seems to be a good candidate. --
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- Great editor. Very impressive, good experience, edit count, no reason to believe will abuse tools. Hope it works out, seems like it will.
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - one of the best I've seen on RfA yet. Well done. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Candidate appears qualified.
I'm
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and ready for the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' Good editor!
'''Support''' Full support, VERY happy with answers and I doubt he would abuse his powers.
'''Support''' as per nom
'''Support''' No concerns. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Comment''': Nominator, "I don't see any reason to not make him an admin" is not a very strong rationale in support of sysopping this editor. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
Naturally. ''
'''Strong support''', great template wizard and nice guy.
'''Support''', thought he already was one. Oppose reasons in the last RfA aren't valid and wouldn't apply now anyway. --
'''Support''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Strong support''' for this great candidate. Template king and a very nice chap. &#12484;
'''Support'''. Excellent nominee, but I would expect better answers, especially to question 3. '''<span style="background:#000">
Certainly.
'''Weak support'''. Great user. Weak answers, but good enough edits that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt --
'''Support''' per range of contributions.
'''Support''' per specialized purpose and stated need (those wishing to oppose should read the previous nomination). However I do wish you'd expand on any concrete examples in Q3 a bit more. -- ''
'''Support''', although I'd prefer longer answers to the questions. ''
'''Support'''. What shall I say more? --
'''Support''' Per Wizardman and per #7. Transparency brings credibility, which in turn helps the project. No reason I know of to oppose.
'''Support''' You simply look great.  I have total trust giving you admin. tools.'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Weak support''' No problems, except for the very weak answers. You should really expand these answers. &#8592;
'''Support''', the answers could be a little more elaborated but the work so far is fine. --'''
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' Your work speaks for itself, why worry about questions? --
'''Strong Support'''- excellent rvv and template work, need I say more? [[User talk:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Cheers to</span>]] [[2007|<span style="color:#FFD700;">2007</span>]]! [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' per nom and User:Tone. --
'''Weak support'''. Better question answers would be nice, but I'm really hard pressed to oppose simply because of questions. -
'''Support.''' Encountered the user before, positive interaction.
'''Support'''. Interactions have been positive. Good answers to the questions, though they could have been briefer. His comment at the ProtectionBot RfA was a cause for concern, but not enough to oppose.
'''Support''' As I said at the first nomination, I think he'll do good work on the mechanical backside of Wikipedia with the tools.  -- <font color="#668353">
'''Support''' Why do I have to keep doing this? Enough already. Give him the tools.
'''Support''' Although your answers are weak, I have seen your work here for Wikipedia and you certainly deserve the tools. '''
'''Support''' because then he can clear [[WP:AIV|AIV]] rather than backlogging it –
'''Support''' per other. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support'''. I'm satisfied the nominee could use the tools and will not abuse them.
'''Support''' This user looks honest, and I have seen his work on many occations.
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support'''. This is an editor who I think will use the admin privileges responsibly and who will be conscientious about admin tasks. ''
'''Support'''. Would have been ''strong'' support, but some of the answers to the questions are a little weaker than I'd have hoped.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Questions are a tad too..short, but overall, I think you're a trustworthy user, great with templates, and will use your admin duties responsibly, and respectfully. Before this RFA, I seriously thought you were an admin. (looking at some of the other votes, it seems as if I'm not the only one). --<font face="Verdana">
Definitely, <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' thought he was already adminned.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - Good user, been around a long time, stays polite even in trying circumstances. Long overdue. To the opposers, he's not eloquent (in English)... but that wouldn't stop him from being an excellent admin. --
'''Support''', per CBD and my own interactions with him. They've mostly been from afar, but they have confirmed my belief that he will a) use the tools well (and, by the way, actually needs them), b) not abuse them, and c) is a fine Wikipedian who builds the best Goddamn templates this side of anywhere.
I'm
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Good hard worker, friendly, no reason for me to oppose.
'''Support''' a good user. ---
'''Support''', his long history of excellent work easily outweighs his slight struggles at jumping through question hoops.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' Would be a good admin but miss certain things required for adminship.--
'''Support''' Respected editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I'm confident that this candidate will not misuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Good user, unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Oppose votes, as usual, verge on the ridiculous. Most existing admins wouldn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the policies, and would only be able to answer the interrogation here by looking up the pages in question. There is no practical difference between blocking and banning a lot of the time, particularly since many blocks are dished out punitively, regardless what the policy says about them. I see no problem with opposing adminning a bot, particularly one based on closed-source code, and wanting the tools to fight vandalism. No one who opposed it suggested that the purpose of the bot was a bad thing. What counts is that AzaToth seems to be an okay user and given that it's "no big deal", not a promotion to the nobility, there's no problem with his being adminned.
The user is a veteran, they've demonstrated their knowledge of wikipedia. I don't care about how long the answers are, they're answered, with as little fuss and personal perspective as possible, which is fine with me. I am surprised to see that many oppose votes have not been changed since Aza answered the requested answers. I accept Aza's faulty TFD nom as a learning lesson, anyone who has done XFD work knows that mistakes are made. On a brighter note, Aza is both a bot programmer and an extremely active vandal fighter. Based on this, I trust that the candidate will be an active admin who will not let dust grow on the admin buttons. '''I Support.''' '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Weak Support''' you could have avoided all of these questions by creating something like "test account," but this whole issue should not be attached more importance than it is worth, as should concerns over your short answers.  You have experience and will use the tools to better the project by blocking vandals.
'''Weak support''' per Amarkov and Dar-Ape.  Having supported rather strongly ten months hither, I was surprised to find myself to be, as others, beset by several (not entirely allayed) concerns, but I remain, I think, convinced that the candidate's judgment and conversance with policy are such that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and thus that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of his becoming an admin]] should be positive.  I would hope that, should this RfA succeed, AzaToth would be especially circumspect when acting qua sysop in the areas about his&mdash;for lack of a better word&mdash;qualifications for which some have been troubled (e.g., evaluating [[WP:CSD|candidates for speedy deletion]], as against, say, visiting [[WP:AIV|AIV]] or partaking of template/scripts work).
'''Support'''
Great user, but answers are woefully insufficient. I will consider supporting if/when AzaToth expands his answers. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per answer to Question 6. I assumed good faith in my original support, but together with the generally poor answers to the other questions I am changing to oppose. --
'''Oppose'''. Really weak and vague answers to all questions, especially Q6. I would have expected a bit more elaboration on blocking there. '''
'''Oppose''' You seemed to have skipped over question #2 which is a really important question. Question 2 is your opportunity to show that you have contributed to areas an admin is expected to know about. Your answer to question 7 does not address the ongoing main page vandalism, I would like to hear your alternate solution to this very serious problem. Your answer to question 3 does not tell me how you deal with confrontation, which as an admin you will have to do often. Your answer to question 1 is very limited, blocking users and CSD, do you have experience with [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:AIV]]?
'''Oppose''' Based on his excellent template work, I would've been tempted to support if the answer to question 1 had been 'edit protected templates and .js files', despite his serious lack of engagement with article writing. But I can't support someone who wants to block vandals but is confused about blocking and banning. My one interaction with this user did not leave me with a positive impression of his communications skills, which would be a minor matter if he were committed to specializing in templates, but is relevant if he's planning to make heavy use of the block button.
'''Oppose''' I would expect an admin candidate to have stronger answers to the questions. Also what is up with [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon|This TFD]]?
'''Oppose''' per crz and others, question answers leave me unsatisfied.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon]], which took place just 5 days ago and exhibited a clear lack of basic understanding of deletion policy.
'''Oppose''' - per Proto. That was basically a [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] nomination, which is probably ''worse'' than ILIKEIT and just plain unacceptable in admins. Policy does count for something. There also seemed to be questions about the ways in which IRC was related to that nomination.
'''Oppose''', I have no reason to think the user will ''ab''use the tools, but I do not have the confidence that they will not be ''mis''used, even if done so in good faith. Very weak answers to questions, and I have concerns about deletion policy knowledge, both from the recent examples listed above, and older ones (e.g. nominating [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meatball|meatball for deletion]] because it needed some cleanup) Regards,
'''Oppose''' per crz, Opabinia regalis, and Moreschi. Especially the ''why was the template nominated'' aspect of the TfD. We've had quite enough IRC-related wikidrama.
'''Oppose'''. Weak answer to question 2 especially, and the wdefcon TfD. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|Llama]] [[User talk:Llama man|man]]<sup>
'''Oppose''' per many of the points brought up above. I think a little more experience may be good before twiddling the bit here. ···
'''Oppose'''; I appreciate your answers to my questions, but I just can't support now.  I'm a little worried about your eagerness outweighing thoughtfulness when it comes to vital things such as the interface pages and scripts, and your answers to the standard questions don't tell me enough to be comfortable supporting at this point. I hate to be cliché but you seem to be doing a good job and I hope you keep up the hard work. --
'''Oppose''' various worries already well-stated by those above, but particularly for weak answers which are such an important aspect of RfA. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' not overwhelmed by answers provided and CFD of Wiki-defcon.
'''Oppose''' per incorrect and almost incomprehensible answer to question 6. -
'''Oppose'''. I'm not particularly impressed by his answers; and I confess that I find an incongruity between taking a principled stand against ProtectionBot ''but'' wanting the tools to fight vandalism. I don't think he would necessarily abuse the tools, but his answers leave me doubtful. Doc's comment that "I'm just not sure he 'gets it'" rings true for me.
'''Oppose''' per Nihonjoe.
'''Oppose''' per Mackensen - I'm sure that more experience won't do any harm. <strong>
'''Oppose''': could benefit from more experience first, and a little more knowledge of some of the policies.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral). Candidate seems very well meaning, but I'm just not sure he 'gets it'. [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon|This TFD]] worries me. Not that he nominated it (I voted delete) but the reasoning and unclear thinking. A bit more experience and maybe I'll be confident enough to support. But I think best not now.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Answers to questions not sufficient. '''
'''Oppose''' Concerns about gaps in policy knowledge
Neutral, leaning oppose, per weak answers to questions. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose, the weak answers, and misconstruction of the banning policy demonstration in A6 gives be reason for pause.--
'''Neutral''', leaning Support. I definitely think you should elaborate on questions, and after your time and edits here, I would think you'd understand the block-vs-ban policy. Other than that good overall user, who, in my opinion, needs to jump up on mainspace edits. Maybe if you elaborate on questions, I'll reconsider my position. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Neutral''' - Great vandal fighting, but I expect a better standard of questions for a RfA candidate.
'''Neutral''', I've seen you around and haven't seen anything ''bad'', but those are really some skimpy answers and don't reflect well on an ''understanding'' of policy. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/
'''Neutral''' - suggest you have another go at Q6...
'''Neutral''' I also urge the candidate to give more detailed answers, especially 2, 3, 5 and to review 6. But I do trust the user, which would push me towards supporting.
'''Neutral''' until my 1a question is answered
'''Neutral''': Leaning towards support, however, the answers are not very detailed, as mentioned by [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] and [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]]. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. The questions are disappointing, just not policy aware enough for me. I will probably support next time around (assuming policies are applied better).
I honestly can't support this candidate, because some of his answers are far from satisfactory, but neither can I unequivocally oppose; I am '''neutral'''.
'''Beat the nom''' - I've had quite a bit of interaction with Balloonman on the GA/R process. Good editor.
'''He isn't ''already'' a sysop?''' I thought he was, actually. Good luck, guy who apparently hasn't picked up his mop yet. --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Third beat the nom''' this is user will make a quality sysop. '''
'''Support''' as co-nom -- but you can still beat [[User:Firsfron|Firsfron]]. --
Seems like an ideal candidate. Good luck! ~
'''Support'''. Seems qualified.
'''Support''' He handled my incivility like admins should and he has a quite an impressive edit history.--
'''Support''' His grace under fire was very impressive, and demonstrated that he has a level head.  That, combined with his experience, will make him an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. I see no problems. No evidence provided (so far) in oppose section.
'''Support''' fine user from what I can see here.
(edit-conflicted) '''Support''' per noms. Wonderful editor.
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around, and I think he has the right attitude for adminship.  No indication that he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Nothing to complain about!
'''Support''' Notwithstanding that Balloonman has been an excellent editor who I have worked with in articles, I have also observe the uses of a calm civil demeanor from an editor that uses thoughtful logical judgment in dealing with people and issues, he is not somebody that I believe would abuse administrator privileges.▪◦▪
'''Support''' Is a good user to become an admin. -
'''Support''' Great user; will be a great admin. If  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_review&diff=148403548&oldid=148401654 this edit] is worth an oppose, I think we'd have exactly ''zero'' admins on Wikipedia. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Holy shatmongers (pardon my...um... language?), since when did RfA become all about attempting to find a single flaw to discredit the entire user's nomination? Look, this isn't about perfection, its about quality users who are willing to take on more responsibility to help Wikipedia. And this user is a fine example of a quality user. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support.''' I see nothing substantive in the opposes and see I plenty of positives for this user. His civility is admirable. If there are substantive issues raised I will re-evaluate.--
'''Support'''. No issues that are important enough to oppose or even neutral - A fantastic user, and having people disagree with you or believe you did something wrong is all a part of being an admin :-) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''. There is little to oppose to and I find few flaws.
'''Support''' Track is good.No reasons for any concern.
'''Support''' Well-rounded user with plenty of edits. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Terrific editor. Great attitude that is key for this editor, as well as communicating with other editors.
'''Support''' This editor is very frank and does remain in a diplomatic mode if things are apparent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paludis&diff=prev&oldid=151553006].  We need such people as Admins.
'''Support''' after reviewing the rest of his contributions to AfD, I see that plain !votes are an exception, and I'm glad to support. Trustworthy candidate. <b>
'''Support'''. Solid contributions to article building. A few slightly sub-par AfD contributions don't seem sufficient to oppose.
'''Support'''. Excellent demeanor and well thought out responses to oppose concerns; I believe he would handle the tools well.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools.  I wish him the best.  -
'''Support''' - In my interactions he has been thorough, rational and knowledgeable.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.  An excellent contributor and should be an asset to the project as an administrator.
'''Support'''. Smart, thoughtful, independent but not maverick editor with wide-ranging interests and no hobby-horses.--
'''Support'''&mdash;no major problems here. AfD is more of a philosophical thing, and with DRV, it's not an issue. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', looks good. <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' There are no major reasons to oppose this user. Good luck.--
<s>'''Weak support''' a good editor but weak support because of my newcomer question</s><br/>'''Full support''' Forget it, He's a brilliant editor <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' Helpful polite editor.
'''Support''' - Good experience acquired, including Wikipedia-space, which is good. :-) The answers given to the questions also portray intelligence and knowledge when it comes to working with Wikipedia, so yes, a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' [[Military brat]] was one of the best FAs I've ever seen.  DYK needs the help too.  I agree that the occasional single word "delete" votes aren't very helpful, but otherwise all looks great. --
'''Support''' Have had a good trawl through this user's edit history and he looks a goodie. I trust him. --
'''Support''' Experience with enough processes to know what's going on, even if he hasn't covered all areas. "I would seek guidance from somebody more knowledgable than myself on the appropriate action on a case by case basis until I felt that I knew enough to act on my own." This + civil demeanor = he knows how to handle the mop. —'''
'''Support''' Seems experienced, polite and reasonable.--
'''Support''' - everything looks to be fine. Reasonable answers to the questions, not too BITEy from recent edits. Should be ok -
'''Support''' I don't see anything I'd really object to so far from your contributions.--
'''Support''', Checks all boxes.
'''Support'''. Even the worst edits cited by the opposition look reasonable to me. I believe user has good deletion substance, if not style, and would gladly hand him the mop. Ginkgo100 should be chastised for ruining an otherwise blissful life, however. (Kidding.)
'''Support'''.  And I agree with him about the GA process being broken (personally, I think we'd be better off without it, and all article reviewing other than FAC).
'''Support''': This is the first RfA I have contributed to, but since running across Balloonman (during a lively debate on the GAR for Holocaust Denial) I have been consistently impressed with his readiness to offer help, his conscientious and civil approach to editing, and his dedication to making Wikipedia the best it can be.
'''Support'''.  I liked the answers to the admin coaching questions -- they show a good understanding of policy.  Also, he was able to defuse a tense situation with a rather upset editor.  Finally, I'm sure that Mrs. Balloonman (Balloonwoman?) will keep him in line if he does something wrong.  :) --
'''Support''' I've seen him around GA/R alot, he doesn't seem like he'd be unreliable as an admin. Some of the oppose votes seem to be focusing on his opinions concerning how he recommends to delete an article or what makes an article a GA or not in certain instances, but I don't see what any of that has to do with being an administrator, no part of the GA process requires frequent administrator action, and not giving explanations for AfD things doesn't seem to be bad, indeed, i've seen many AfD decisions closed with just "Delete" or something at the top by the closing admin.
'''Support''' Balloonman will do his best to become a good admin, that's all anyone can ask.
'''Support''' - Soild contributor and I don't see any red flags here.--
'''Weak Support''' Very good editor but a few things missing (not enough for an oppose or neutral). You could be using edit summaries more often and you should be participating in [[WP:RFPP]] once in a while (admins protect articles because of heavy vandalism). Other then that, you are ready for the mop.--<font color="red">
'''Support'''. I especially like the answers to the questions. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support'''- Absolutly, the answers and editing skills are more then enough for this member to be made admin. I truly hope you achieve this goal!
Restraint and keeping are things expected a sysop.  If he has this he is worthy in my opinion.
'''Support''' I'm sure I could find something I disagree with you about, or mistake you've made, but then, reasonable people can disagree over many things, and as a whole, I consider you a responsible enough editor that I don't object to you being an admin.  I just hope nobody pokes you with any needles.
'''Support''' - excellent - very nice to see an ''editor'' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' Per the noms and his answers.
'''Support'''. My only concern was in regard to the AfD comments highlighted by Corpx. However, after reading the candidate's explanation and browsing through a number of his other AfD comments, I'm left with a positive impression. — '''
'''Support'''. I've mostly encountered him at DYK, where he is helpful. I thought the answers to the questions were good. I agree that using AFD instead of RM is a bit odd and unexplained delete votes are not useful, but I don't see anything actually counterproductive and I think he'll use tools the judiciously.
'''Support''' Seems good and well qualified. [[User:Djmckee1|<font color="Blue" face="verdana">Djmckee1</font>]] - [[User_talk:Djmckee1|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">Talk</font>]]-
'''Support''' Some concern raised about AFD I agree with, but overall don't believe will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' It has been a pleasure to work with
'''Support''' I am preparing some balloons to celebrate your adminship ceremony. --
'''Support''' Having looked at the answers this user has given above, it strikes me that he is certainly admin material. Looking at the results so far, I can;t see this failing ;)
'''Oppose''' - I was disappointed with some edits in candidates history.  I will not say which ones, because the last time I did that, an edit war erupted over them that is still going on to this day. &larr;
'''Delete''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by Iran|this]].
'''Oppose''' Per the AfD issues raised, showing an unfamiliarity with admin customs and such.
'''Neutral''' per recent contributions to AFD - Like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PlayStation_3_technical_problems&diff=prev&oldid=151564363 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Hinckley%2C_Jr._in_popular_culture&diff=prev&oldid=151555508 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Cardfighters_Cards&diff=prev&oldid=150707642 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silent_Movie_Records&diff=prev&oldid=150710001 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Austin_Kincaid_%28second_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=150702273  this, when the DRV provided a link to the award], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_with_two_or_more_professions&diff=prev&oldid=150200120 this].   Its just the delete votes with no other reasoning that's bothering me, but these should not overshadow all the other contributions the candidate has made on AFDs,  so I'm leaning very close to support.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose per the diffs provided by Corpx. I like the contribs that I've seen before this RFA, but these make me pause to wonder if he understands policy well enough.
'''Neutral''' for now; active support would require more watching of particular edits than I have time for; but I have no objection to the apparent consensus.
'''Neutral''' - his wife is an admin; together, they could create a [[WP:CABAL|cabal]]! :P No, nothing personal against the editor, just some contributions I don't entirely agree on. If he becomes an admin, I won't complain, but I don't feel right opposing or supporting either way. <!-- [[Image:barnstar3.png|10px]] --><font color="#cc6600">
'''Strong support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' I honestly love the answer to the questions, especially number one.  Seems to have all the issues covered, and I look forward to working with you.
Yes. '''
Technically speaking, I beat all of you :P [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bduke&diff=150121832&oldid=150120494]
Support per thorough and persuasive nom from the resident Yellow Monkey.
'''Trust nominator''' -- <strong>
per YellowAssessmentMonkey... --
Hell yes. '''
Based on my experience. --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Strong support''' one of our very best. ~
'''Strong support''' for exemplary contributor. I've been waiting for this nom for a long time; he should have been an admin a year ago.--
'''Strong support''' for exemplary contributor.--
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. An excellent editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Bduke is a key member of our Scouting WikiProject and serves as our in-house mediator. He is calm, rational, intelligent, and thinks through issues well. He is very good at handling touchy issues.
'''Support''' - the candidate should be excellent. His articles are extraordinarily nerdy. -
'''Support''' Great candidate.--
'''Support''' per Daniel. -
'''Support'''. An examination of Bduke's interaction with other editors shows skill and patience and no sign of nastiness or abusive speech. His contributions are on point and without error that I can find. He should make a good admin.
I'm
'''Support''' excellent editor. <b>
'''Support''' per above.  Has excellent edit history, consistency, and great answers to questions.  We need more academics helping WP.
'''Support''' evidence indicates this is a great wikipedian.
'''Support'''. I like what I have seen.
'''Support''' persuaded by the answers to the questions and the user's contributions.--
'''Support''', though some guy said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bduke&diff=147428089&oldid=147426955 here], "In that case i suppose i might have to pee Cambridge off a bit more or just annoy you until such a time as you become [an administrator] or you die of old age."  Whatever that means.  --

I'll eat whatever the monkey kills -- <b>
'''Support'''- But of course!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Per extensive nomination --
Trust his judgement, familiar with his contributions.
'''Strong Support''' precisely the sort of admin we need.  I'd also like to note that Blnguyen's opening statement is worthy of "Featured Nomination" status. --
'''Support''' the nomination convinced me. -
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience in a variety of places. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' evidence for candidate is incontrovertible, and supported by a nominator vastly experienced with RFA.
'''Support''' Able to admit his faults, even when what he did wasn't too bad. Feel safe with him and the mop. --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
—
'''Support''' - No doubt.
'''Support''' - No concerns at all! --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Get on it. :)
per nom. &mdash;
'''Support''' - good luck.
–

Can't find any reason not to!--'''
'''Support''' Strong contributor, puts in a lot of effort maintaining wikiproject activities, and has a level-headed approach at AFD.
'''Support''', for the glory of [[chemistry]].
'''Strong Support''' until someone can point out a flaw :-) --
'''Support''' One of those non-admins you see around all the time, making a rational and positive contribution to the project. Definite support for his great help and involvement in the Australian WP community. --
'''Support''', excellent nom for excellent user.
'''Support''' seems fine.
'''Support''', everything looks good. <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' seems well prepared for it.
'''Support''' -- a worthy candidate. -
'''Support''' for his considerable experience and knowledge as well as excellent and thoughtful contributions across many areas of the project.--
'''Support'''. Looks well qualified. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''' Trusted user. Also, I think we need more admins from Australia. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' Trusted user and Australian double tick! --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - I think Bduke has that hard-to-find, measured characteristic which goes very well with the autonomy that the buttons bring. --
'''support''' this very good editor to receive adminship
'''Support''' - another strong candidate with a huge wealth of experience. Very major article contributions will be useful to enquiring newbies while there is precisely 2,000 Wikipedia-space edits as I write this message - a fine amount. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support:''' I like the number of Wikipedia edits.
'''Support'''- excellent editor. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support'''. A great editor, definitely trustworthy. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Yup''' <b>
'''Support'''. I trust this user with the tools. --
'''Support''', I saw the words "science" and "academic" together and well, coupled with his editing history, he is a shoo-in. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' If 72 Wikipedia editors could find no concerns about this user, then I know I can't either. -
'''Support''' need more specialist admins.  Looks fabulous.  --
'''Support'''—excellent contributions; nothing of concern turns up. --
'''Support''' per nominator, I trust that Bduke will make a terrific admin.
'''Support''' dusting off the old chestnut "thought he was an admin already"
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I reviewed the contributions and I think he will make an excellent administratior.
'''Support''', although by now the consensus should be obvious. :-) Bduke has great patience and skill for dealing with difficult people, which I think is a great asset as for an administrator to have. --
'''Support''', I thought it probably wouldn't be necessary, but I read through Bduke's contributions to the talk page at [[List of scientific journals]] anyway.  Well-reasoned points, respectful discussion, and tenacious -all good qualities in an admin.  I'm sure he has other good qualities as well, but I've seen enough to be convinced he would make an excellent administrator.
'''Strong Support''' I freely admit that my mere basic knowledge when it comes to areas related to chemistry, (not to mention computational and quantum chemistry,) would not allow me to comment on a great deal of Bduke's contributions, but I cannot argue that his background not only facilitates civility, but patience as well. While I'd personally prefer to see more activity on [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], and [[WP:RFCN]] with regards to handling vandalism duties, the few reports I did find in the past 18 months were all valid, and reported in keeping with policy. I'm sure from the response to the questions that Bduke would not dive into an area he is unfamiliar with prior to learning the necessary details about said area, so I'm not concerned. In addition, many editors and administrators I trust highly have voiced their support. It is therefore my opinion that Bduke's vast knowledge of scientific projects, [[WP:AFD]], and knowledge of requirements and policies for technical areas, would greatly benefit by his promotion to administrator. (And, if I may be so bold as to anticipate the outcome... Congratulations!) <sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I'm certainly sold.--
'''Pile-on support''' (or should that be [[Quantum superposition|superposition support]]?)
'''Support''' ' nuff said - good 'pedia builder.cheers,
'''Support.''' Strong contributions to the encyclopedia. I think this is the only time I've ever had that 'already an admin' thought.
'''Strong Support'''Will not abuse adminship.
'''Support.''' Excellent candidate▪◦▪
'''Support''' as per Blnguyen
'''Support''' Well reasoned, thoughtful discussion at the links Blnguyen showed. Deserves [[WP:100]]. :-). --
'''Support''' No oppose yet (the candidate must be good), so I´ll support. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' Few reservations. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Oh, sure... I hardly ever agree with you on anything, but you always seem to know what you're talking about.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' - Civil, competent, and some of the better answers I've seen in some time.
'''Support''' Solid record of contribution.
'''Support'''. Civil user who gives opinions backed solidly by relevant policies and guidelines at AfD. Should make a good admin. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Support''' He respects advice from smart people--
'''Support''' someone who declines a nom can't be all that bad.
'''Support''' Give this user the mop!
'''Support'''. Prolific, sensible contributions to AfD.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Absolutely. No reason to oppose. Solid candidate. '''
'''Support''' Certainly appears to understand policy, and I particularly like that he has (twice!) declined a nomination for adminship.
'''Support''' Strong support per significant participation on Wiki pages, good answers. --
'''Support!''' — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' Extensive edit count with quality edits, very organized and professional with answers, civil editor with knowledge of policies and has much experiences to admin-related jobs. He deserves to get the mop.
'''Support''' Great record. Pleasant and competent discourse.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Happy to give my support. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Great explanations in answers, as well as solid contributions.
'''Support''' Nice guy with an excellent record of contributions. --
'''Support''' - such a lot has been achieved since you started - a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' A very careful, sensible, and competent editor. '''
'''Support''' - Of course. Contributor show's a high degree of care, civility and commitment to Wikipedia which is very ''endearing''. I think it is little things like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bizplanet&diff=prev&oldid=159304215] - that discern a ''great'' editor from a ''good'' editor. Definitely has my support.
'''EXTREME Support'''. I wasn't going to bother voting on this RfA, since it looks like it's going to pass unanimously. However, I briefly looked through the candidate's recent contributions, and found his comments on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy]]. Most users would just post "Delete, fails [[WP:BIO]]" and move on, secure in the knowledge of adding +1 to the projectspace count (I admit I used to do exactly this before I became an admin, so I'm being somewhat hypocritical). However, instead, this candidate took the time to reformat the article, remove cruft and add inline citations, in the hope of saving it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=159305441] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Murphy&diff=next&oldid=159305441] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Murphy&diff=next&oldid=159305702] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Murphy&diff=next&oldid=159305850] So, even if we didn't mention his prodigious edit count (2,000 more than I had when I passed RfA), his civil and intelligent comments, and good relationship with other users, this would still be a candidate worthy of everyone's wholehearted support.
'''Support''' Bah. Walton beat me to it, but '''almost exactly''' the same thing happened at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk]] - per my Q6. Outcome was delete, yet Bearian made some 15 odd edits trying to save the article. And per his answer above  he lives by the communities decision to delete it despite his best efforts. Prime admin traits. Bring forth the mop please. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  I honestly don't remember having a dispute with this user - obviously if we did it was so minor (or so well resolved) that it's left my mind.  That's a good sign :)  In any case this editor's contribs look good, seems to display a good understanding of policy, and looks worthy of support to me.
'''Support''' - give the man his own mop!
'''Support per above.''' (Good to see other participants that remember the old mop and bucket.) Meets my
'''Support''' - I have seen Bearian around the wiki, and have the utmost confidence he will do a good job. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Bearian is a great addition to Wikipedia! -
Per Q4 answer.  Yikes! '''
<b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support''' I get a very good vibe from this user, and I have no idea why. But as for a much less arbitrary reason, he has demonstrated a willingness to actually try to ''save'' articles from deletion, something I greatly respect. And most of the above. &mdash;
'''Support''' Upon reviewing the candidates responses I have concluded that the problem lies with me and not the candidate; I see no evidence that the mop will be abused.
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns to me.
Newyorkbrad's rationale.
'''Support'''. I've seen this editor's work, and found him to be a civil contributor with good judgment. His participation at AfD seems knowledgeable, and he does try to fix up articles marked for deletion. He creates new articles from scratch on legal topics that appear well-balanced. He gave sensible answers to the questions above.
'''Support''' As per Newyorkbrad and has a good track and declined nomination shows he is not after Admin powers.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad and good answers to questions.--
'''Support''' Great answers to all questions, very good experience, and he is a knowledgable and civil editor.  He will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Every time I see this editor, another place of Wikipedia becomes even better. Full support. :) -
I'm
'''Support''' While I agree with you about 1% (maybe that's too high) on matters at Xfd, you obviously know policy and won't misuse the tools. I also will say, I admire those who fight the good fight against the odds often for the good of WP, even against a majority of opposition (even when I am in that opposition). WP improves best by vigorous civil debate and you have certainly been a good contributor to the vigorous debate and have remained civil - and I even recall when you so improved an article that you turned around virtually all of us at Afd but in searching through your edit history I couldn't quite recall which it was but the memory remains. Good luck!
'''Support''' A contributor who knows policy and whose first priority is solid encyclopedia building, with great interaction that is so important to dealing with other users as an admin. It speaks very highly to your character that those who often disagree with your opinions are also supporting you here. ~
'''Support''' Candidate appears very qualified, and I appreciate the dedication to improving articles to meet Wikipedia's criteria - that is, it's great to see a "Keep and clean up" voice that follows through on the "clean up" part.
'''Support'''. Looks experienced and competent. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - woah man! '''
'''Suppport''', even though I think you're fighting a losing battle at [[:City of Dublin Male Voice Choir]]. (*grin*) Still, you know policy, you think before you type, and you can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support''' - user is most certainly not insane. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]·
'''Support''' - However, I have not seen an psychiatric exam report (see above by ST47) showing either sanity or insanity.  WP requires citations.
'''Support'''. Good editor, seems trustworthy, and he treated me fairly when I was vulnerable. -
'''Support'''. Since the day I welcomed him, it was clear he'd be a good editor. I see I am not alone in that opinion!
'''Support''' - seems like a fine candidate. Good and comprehensive answers to the questions, and has a fine track record -
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
No comment. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Pile-on support''': I don't see any cause for concern, and I trust [[User:Shalom]]'s judgement as nominator. I'm sure Bearian will do good work - though I'm still a little upset that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMastCell&diff=156159596&oldid=156156376 he outed my identity]... '''
'''Support''' -- Thanks for answering my question.  Cheers!
'''Support'''  Very good answers and edit count.  Have fun!!! '''
'''Support''' Nice user, good answers, lots of contributions spread nicely among all spaces. --
'''Support''' Hopping aboard the steamroller. --
'''Strong support''' -- impressive, thoughtful candidate. --<font face="Futura">
'''Strong support''' - Level headed and reasonable. -
'''Very, very weak oppose''' User states he is currently editing from an internet cafe, be it from a personal laptop over wifi or the computers there this poses a slight security risk, heightened for a sysop. [[m:Don't leave your fly open|Don't leave your fly open.]]
'''Support''' as nominator.  --
'''Support''' Good contributer, trustworthy. Would make a fine admin. Cheers,
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Support''' '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Wicked-Strong Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' per nomination. I think he deserves the tools.
'''Support''' All is well here.
'''Support''' Very good user.
'''Strong support''' -- I've seen a lot of Dirk in connection with our work on WikiProject Spam together. Dirk is a key player in reducing the impact of spam, both with his tools and with direct interactions with spammers. He's firm yet I have never seen him be unreasonable and he resists the urge to get self-righteous in spite of considerable provocation by COI editors and spammers. --
'''Support''' Great answers, contribs., motivation...no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' key player in dealing with spam, per A. B., and goes well beyond the simple revert and template-warn reaction; he's willing to engage in discussion when appropriate and does an admirable job of it. Highly qualified. -
'''Support'''. No concerns here. --
'''Support''' I realize the following is extraordinarily [[cliché]]d and I don't believe I've said it before in an RFA, but <small>I thought he already was one</small>.
'''Support''' User seems very focused on a specific aspect of WP, but one that needs to be, and his access to admin tools can only be a plus. Interactions with other users on his talk page are exemplary. Best wishes Dirk!
'''Support''' Another good user to be made into a great admin.
Because the [[Spam (Monty Python)|bloody Vikings]] said so.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I have come across this editor on chemistry articles and elswwhere. He is clearly a top class wikipedian and I support everything the nom said about Dirk. He will be an excellent admin. --
I'm
What a brilliant candidate. This is the type of proven dedication to the project that makes me confident (and happy) to say '''support'''. '''
Looks like another fine editor to me... --
'''Strong Support''' I echo Daniel; this is a ''brilliant'' candidate for adminship. Should be an asset. —
'''Support''' Your comments in Q1 were refreshing and exciting. I think you possess more than just trustworthiness, maybe even the leadership to help us improve even more.
'''Support'''- Excellent editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Positive set of contributions, and will make a great admin. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support''' A man of sound common sense.

'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal. Plus, this user seems competent and highly experienced. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good user and particularly good answer to Q1. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support'''. Absolutely, without a doubt. --
'''Support'''. Nobody tells me anything these days. I'd have been a lot earlier to support or co-nom. Bah Humbug.
'''Support''' you are the wind beneath my wings --
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Catalytic Support'''--
'''Support''' Cool, sensible, ferocious work rate
'''Support''' Dirk's civility clinches it for me. His work "fighting" spam is invaluable, and certainly one of our most valuable editors on chemistry topics as well. I ''seriously'' thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''' Very good user, reliable, could  use the admin tools.--
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. Can find no reason to oppose, whatsoever. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
'''Support'''. Dirk is one of the rare editors who excels at both [[m: Metapedianism|meta-]] and [[m: Exopedianism|exo-]] contributions. He has a temperament well-suited for the role of admin and will make good use of the tools.  It doesn’t hurt that he’s wicked smart, too. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">

'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Seems to be the sort that should have the tools.
'''Support''' Top-notch contributor, will make good use of the tools --

'''Support''' - as per nom :) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' --
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support'''. See no issues.
Thought he was one, etc., etc.
'''Support''' - great editor & good track record. Will be a great admin -
'''Support'''! I was actually pretty sure he was one, with 20 000 edits and all. &mdash;
'''Support''' No concerns here. A great candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' one of the best. See his good work ''everywhere'', seemingly, and the answers to the questions are excellent. I'm delighted to see a nomination which does him justice.
In my experience of this editor, he's been nothing but helpful, civil, and knowledgeable.
Nom.
Obviously knows article policies per his good and featured articles. I always respect what Bencherlite says in discussion and trust his judgement. His AIV contribs show a need for the tools,  I think he'll be fine.
per Ryan Postlethwaite.
As above.  Good luck!!!
As a nominator.
'''Support'''. Very well answered questions and a fantastic range of work through-out Wikipedia. Good   luck! —
'''Support''' have bumped into his contributions on a few music related articles, and haven't seen any problems.
'''Support''' see no problems We need more admins at AIV.22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
'''Support''' - Although I don't usually want to support users who use AWB (as it's not actually manual work), I am glad to say that this use does meet all of my [[User:Rudget/policies|standards]].
'''Support''' - although you seem like too much of a "swell" person to be an admin I wish you all the best.  Just try not to "bombarde" the vandals, and don't just be a voice in the "choir", and I know you'll be "great".  </bad organ jokes>.  -
Took a reluctant look at your last few contribs, but after these first few responses here it seems clear you know your way round the wiki. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Has good knowledge of article policies. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm
For one of my triple crown bros - of course!&nbsp;
'''Support''' No worries.
'''Support''' Always a pleasure to deal with. An excellent and conscientious editor. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' Wow! That's all there is to say. You will make a great admin:) Good luck!--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No concerns here.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looks good to me, his article writing seems very good, and combined with his vandal work makes a great candidate for the mop.<br/>
'''Support''' Amazing editor and vandal fighter. Will make a great sysop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - no concerns. Good knowledge and understanding displayed in the answers. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - hey, how come you're not one already?
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  You answered my question fine.  Thanks!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' one of the most active new page patrollers around, clearly knows the biz - mop and apron him/her pronto.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, plenty of deleted contributions show a good knowledge of policy for [[C:CSD]], and [[WP:AIV]] looks all-okay, coupled with article work. '''A strong all round candidate''' that I'm suprised to see has not had that many more comments made at his RfA. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - article space edits show Bencherlite is ready for the mop & bucket.
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
A good candidate.
'''Support'''. Patient and friendly, I was left with a good feeling after having a discussion about overcategorization with him. --
'''Support''' We need more like him.  -- <i>
My "'''1st Support'''"...ever! --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' per my positive encounters and constructive interactions. —<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' Nothing but good from this user; should have been promoted long ago. &mdash;
'''Support''' - It's all good--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', no question.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; very trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Does great work with [[WP:AID|AID]] and from what I've seen will make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. Using the word "Conure" over "Parakeet" is a big plus....Good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' Meets all of my criteria and then some.
'''Support''' because, dammit, anyone who maintains an alternate account styled as [[User:Grammar-check]], even if such account is largely unused, absolutely rocks.  That, and, you know, what everyone else said, especially relative to the overdue nature of this RfA.
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user around, and I'm surprised he's not already an admin. He has shown himself to be a competent editor and trustworthy member of the Wikipedia community, and that's good enough for me!
'''Support''' - everything seems to check out. No problems here :) -
'''Support'''. Good user; I have seen him around and have no concerns about promoting him.
'''Support:'''Oh boy, one of the people in my "people to nominate for adminship backlog", so of course I '''support'''.--
'''Support''' Sure...more than enough experience, and a good, all-around editor.
'''Support''' I actually, thought this user was an admin already.  happy to support --'''
'''Support''' due to excellent contributions. Seems to be generally good all around. I also support due to lack of an endorsement by a WikiProject. ···
'''Support''' - Good Contributor and well experienced :)...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' &mdash; excellent editor, will make a fine admin. &mdash;
Good god <s>no!</s> yes :), since I offered... good luck! '''''
'''Strong support''' Good input throughout the EA debacle. Civil, polite and prolific. I endorse this candidate. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' - a great editor, always very thorough with his actions - he knows his stuff.
'''Support''' - no question at all <sup>
'''Support:''' As nominator (man, I was late). '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;[[User:Magnus animum|<font color="#33ff33">Mag</font><font color="#33ff66">nus</font>]] [[User talk:Magnus animum|<font color="#33ff99">an</font><font color="#33ffcc">im</font><font color="#33ffff">um</font>]]</span></span>''' <sub>(
'''Support''' Eh? I could have sworn I had supported you for adminship about three months back! · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - Bibliomaniac have done a lot especially in adopting new users and i am sure they would never get tired in helping w/ the admin tasks. --
'''Support'''. I have see his work, he will make a good admin. -
'''Support''' this here is a great user. He does some good work in Wikipedia and I am absolutely confident he will make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' - the candidate has the full support of wikiproject endorsements and is therefore entirely qualified.
'''Strong Support''' - Sorry I didnt see this before. Great editor, taken an interest in helping me with my [[History of poisons]] article. Good luck, and I hope you are promoted! <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Strong Support'''.  I normally don't comment on votes that are going to be landslides, but this candidate's worth it; I've most noticed his excellent vandal-fighting work, as that's the project in which I am most involved -- however, I'm also very pleased with his project and namespace edits; [[Komodo dragon]] is an excellent example.
Rather thought he already was one. Not perfect, and makes mistakes, but then so does everyone. Willingness to admit errors is a must, so thumbs up on that count. Seems like a user we can trust to use the mop with due care and attention. No reason as of yet given as to why not, so not-a-big-deal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've seen him contribute at AFD.  Anything else I would say has probably been said already.
'''Strong support''' Another one of those users who you think is already an administrator and you get a shock when you find out they're not one at all. :)
'''Support'''; definitely looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. What [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] said ... I really should check the [[Special:Listusers/Sysop|list of admins]] more often. :) -- '''
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' looks alright.--
Yes. [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|Buick]]'''[[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|C]]'''[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|en]]'''[[user talk:BuickCenturyDriver|t]]'''
'''Support''' Per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA|RfA info,]] Bibliomaniac15 has been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy.  Also, I think Bibliomaniac15 is trustworthy. --
'''Support''' I have seen this user in many places around Wikipedia, and I think that this user has a definate use for the tools.
'''Support''' Reliable, Responsible, Hard-working. Good luck mate,
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, mature and responsible.
'''Support''' I've only ever seen positive things from this editor and I can't think of a good reason why a few extra tools wouldn't be in order. Keep up the good work! &mdash;
'''Support''' Great guy, glad I didn't miss this RfA.
'''Support''': Plenty of experience and looks to be a very civil person. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' (edit conflicted) A fine candidate.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''': User is consistently helpful and well versed in Wikipedia-related stuff (yeah, probably not the most eloquent way to put it).
'''Support''': Biblio will clearly be careful with the tools when in doubt. I do recommend him to read up on template coding. There's no need to go into parser functions, but depending on what he means by complex coding, be might need to do some reading up on template coding. -
'''Strong Support''': Has a great variety of edits on different articles.
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support''' My mentor, who welcomed me to Wikipedia in the first place.

'''Support''' seen his work around the wiki. Why not promote him?'''''
'''Support''' per good answers to questions and the candidates overall record. The lack of any expressed opposition to date is noteworthy. The neutral commenter's stated rationale for "withholding support" remains completely unpersuasive to me. RfA candidates should not be placed in the middle of larger arguments about RfA reform and related issues.
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - Nothing concerns me, I believe bibliomaniac15 will make a fine administrator. I do not believe bibliomaniac15 would abuse an administrative position.
'''Support''' - got courage, seen loads of places, believe they know policy etc. Good contributor. Too late to co-nom.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. <font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Seems to be a great user; also, not even one single oppose yet! <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' Geez, did I come upon this late. Anyway, this is a completely reliable editor whom I'd have nominated myself - had he not nominated me last month.
'''Support''' - His answers are nice, albeit interesting.
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Support''' Seems solid, with decent XfD and article review experience.
'''Support''' seen him round, looks good. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Running-around-with-my-pants-down support'''.
'''Support''', great contribs, positive attitude, good experience, thoughtful replies to questions... brand new mop over here, please! And dear Bibliomaniac, one of these days, I'll teach you to [[Wikipedia:Song/52 Admins|pronounce my name]] if you wish! ;) -
Not that you need it at this point, but '''support''' nonetheless.
'''Support''' with my pants on. -
'''Support''' with my pants off.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Yes I support''' - good steady contributor - lots of pre-admin skills.--
--
'''Support'''. Seen him around. Like what I've seen. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''
'''support''' -- Good answer about disturbing images: placement is the trick, and selection. '''
Candidate has no obvious problems; support withheld pending endorsement from a WikiProject per my policy.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Yes.''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' - despite the fact he's a VT guy... ;) I give him props for being nominated by someone else, as well as working on article drafts in his user-space rather than subject us to poor-quality starter articles. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''. Good answer to #3 about having a short memory. --
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this admin candidate.
'''BigSUP''' ~ Editors knowledgeable about copyright is about the scarcest resource we have. I also looked at the mainspace edits and found them sufficient. I wouldn't support promotion based on them, but given that BigDT focuses on an area with much bigger need they're sufficient.
'''Support''' <s>But I normally expect at least 5000 edits a day from an RfA candidate.</s> <small><span style="color:white">*ahem* or not.</span></small> &ndash;[[User:Llama man|Llama]] [[User talk:Llama man|man]]<sup>
'''Support'''. I could have sworn you just passed RfA about a month ago. I can't say I share the opinion that people contribute to articles a lot, which anyone who has seen my edit count knows. I could get into a debate about it, but I won't. -
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable in policy, and had me fooled. I thought he was an admin already. Great answers to the questions. —
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor all over the place. Give this user the mop, since he already has the bucket! ''
'''Support'''. I'm convinced - the nominee needs the tools and will use them as they're meant to be. Seems to be level headed and thoughtful to boot. I was particularly impressed by the candidate's patience and foresight, as demonstrated by the way the nominee declined the previous [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigDT|nomination]].
'''Yes''' I see him at RPP almost everyday, and we need more admins. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Support.''' Jesus Christ. Even though the ''percentage'' of mainspace edits is low, he stil has over '''''1,700''''' mainspace edits. Lay off, we need more admins. Seems eminently qualified to me.
'''Weak support'''. I'd like to see more mainspace edits, but from what I see you should have no problems as an admin. --
OK, dude. You've gotta be kidding me. &mdash;
"I thought he was one already"™
'''Support''' I'm really not convinced by the opposing arguments. Nothing indicates that this user would be less than a fine, trustworthy admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' This editor has "only" 1,777 mainspace edits out of a total of over 12,000. A high proportion of the rest are useful edits in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. I suggest to oppose voters that if he had made less namespace edits they would have had no problem with him, which on close inspection does not make sense. If he is contributing to mainspace and at the same time contributing more than most to namespace he should be welcomed with open arms. What do you want - blood?--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Concur with Anthony Bradbury that 1700 main-space edits are hardly insignificant. He appears to have all-around experience in all aspects of the project. Finally, BigDT's views on the userbox war are heartening. A willingness to forgive, forget, and move on is essential in a collaborative enterprise such as this.
'''Support'''.  I seem to recall I got my admin bit when I only had about a thousand mainspace edits.  Also, a quick review of his last five hundred Wikipedia-space edits reveals that he is very actively participating in nominating unlicensed images for deletion, and also working on the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]].  Both tasks lead very directly into work which requires admin tools.
'''Strong Support''' Marvelous editor, friendly demeanor, absolutely trustworthy, clear asset to the project.
'''Support''' per all. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="dark blue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="seagreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support''', opposition is baseless.
'''Support''' Having a low ratio of mainspace edits would only be a serious concern if the overall edit count was low. It's not.
'''Support'''-Per Pascal.Tesson. Also, what does the writing quality of his article have to do with adminship? Adminship doesn't require writing articles. Most someone be a  good writing to protect a page, block a user, or delete an image? --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin. That just goes to show the respect and proper manner of behavior he has. --
'''Support''', would make a good admin, whether he's good at writing or not. The oppose reasoning is silly- everyone has an edit button, it's people who don't just edit articles that we need to be admins. --
'''Support''' - qualified candidate, good contributions and answers, interested in areas where we need more admin attention. As ever, this does not mean that I agree with every word the candidate ever wrote, or in this case with every image call the candidate ever made.
'''Support''', good bloke.  I was going to nominate him myself once I'd checked his contribs, but the work's been done for me. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support'''.  Like JzG, I was considering nominating this user myself.  Will make a great admin.  It would be a benefit to the project for this user to have the tools.
'''Support''' Good answer to #5.
'''Support''' I see no major problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', and urge others not to focus on editcountitis or a couple mistakes. Demonstrates a good understanding of knowledge needed by an admin, excellent answers to standard and optional questions.
'''Support'''. I see no problems here and want to counter balance those who oppose on the basis of a reasoned difference of opinion on fair use, where I believe BigDT was correct. --
'''Support''', per Eluchil404. --
<b>
'''Support'''.  There are many, many things an admin can do that a regular editor can't, and we have a very limited number of admins.  He's a good editor; he's done enough article editing to fully understand what that involves; and he likes to work on things that admins can do even better than regular editors.  Let's give him a mop.
'''Strong Support''' - glad to see someone not afraid to jump into taking care of image problems --
'''Support''' Copyright is important.
'''Support''' he looks fine to me. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom and almost perfect edit summary usage. --<b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
It's absurd to oppose a user because he isn't the world's best article writer.  We need more admins, and BigDT is highly capable of handling admin tasks.  RFA never was and never will be about determining how good of an article writer someone is; I do believe [[WP:FAC]] is the appropriate place for ''that''.  --
'''Support''' and I think it's shameful that the community hasn't clearly admonished the folks participating in this RfA who have used words like 'trivial' and 'insignificant' to characterize the nature of the candidates confusion.  Not everybody is Picasso, some of us need to mix paints and build canvasses too. - -
'''Support''': he's volunteering to do some badly-needed work on some big backlogs, and I see no warnings that he would misuse the tools.

'''
'''Support''' I have seen RfA noms short down in flames for not needing the mop tools - here we have a user that could do a lot of good with them, yet people oppose him because of lack of mainspace edits. Well not every Admin can be perfect - and IMHO BigDT having mop will be better for Wikipedia than him not. Cheers
'''Support'''. Lack of actual encyclopedia writing is a fair concern, but I think his merits carried out "behind the curtains" outweigh this. BigDT does well with what he does and in all my interactions with him I have found him to be reasonable. The tasks he wants to do will be enhanced by giving him adminship.
'''Support'''.  An excellent and detailed knowledge of the rules will make this editor a good administrator.  The lack of mainspace edits is regrettable, but considering the nature of his other edits, should be no impediment to adminship.
'''Support'''.  Good temperament for an admin -- will do well. --
'''Tepid support'''. I've seen plenty of well-considered contributions from BigDT. I applaud his courage in attacking FU abuse ''before'' getting mopped, given the frequently unjustified complaints this necessary work generates. None the less, I'd have liked to see a bit more variety, so lukewarm only. It would be singularly unfair, and unwise, to oppose someone only on the basis of badly thought-out support votes, although I have to say I was tempted.
'''Support''' - some opposers are complaining about BigDT's number of usertalk edits when this is a direct result of following procedure. Not all admins will act in all areas, but this one does well in his chosen field. -- ''
'''Support''', no problems here. --'''
'''Support''', I think BigDT is ready. He knows how to balance the needs of wiki with the needs of editors and articles. He's a fine choice at this time with all the image flux going on. I am confident he, as any admin should, exercise his admin role where appropriate.
'''Support''', BigDT is very good at his chosen area, admins specialize, just like the rest of us, but do suggest he do more article writing.
'''Support''' as per trialsanderrors
'''Support''' per nom. —
I find the opposition unconvincing. Wikipedia can always use another gnome.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' waaay active in image patrol ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' per nom.  I have had nothing but good experiences with this editor.
'''Support''' good editor, in particular I like his judgment on afds. The oppose votes don't sway me at all. If anything the user should be commended for his work on issues such as copyright/fair use due to the fact that working on such issues requires a refinied knowledge of them.--
'''Support''' copyright issues, fair use, images, anyone working hard with success and endeavour deserves the mop.
'''Support''' I think the candidate is ready for adminship.
'''Support''' per Rambling Man. Just promise to [[WP:AGF]] with images. :)
'''Support''' as I think BigDT will do a good job based on comments here and actions elsewhere on the site. ···
'''Support'''. This user clearly makes a valuable contribution to the project. Not only those who write FAs from scratch have value. If a contributor's skills suit him/her to contributing other than in the mainspace, or on making small changes to many articles, they should be encouraged to do so. Why waste a really good article writer by passing them the mop and distracting them from editing? A user with wide experience of Wikipedia and a demonstrated knowledge of policy is clearly a good choice for an admin.
'''Support'''.  A solid contributer, whose contribution to the project will be expanded by access to the tools.
'''Weak support''' For various (principally image-related reasons), I was ambivalent about this nom, but I have become wholly confident that the candidate is possessed of a sound sense of judgment and a tempered and civil demeanor and that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that one should be able to conclude to a reasonable degree of certainty that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive]].  Whilst one's being unfamiliar with mainspace might render him ill-suited for adminship, BigDT surely is familiar with article work and understands the policies underlying same, and so I would not be particularly concerned were he never to make a substantive edit again; work qua admin, though perhaps on the whole less productive than work qua editor, is better than no work at all  (and its completion, of course, frees up other users to edit).
'''Support'''. Understands policies, will not abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''', will make a decent admin.
'''Support''' this is a user who needs the tools. I changed from '''Neutral''' because after further thought I decided that BigDT's lack of mainspace contributions is negligible compared to the good he will do with a ''mop''. The mop doesn't help with writing articles and if image deletion is his primary task I (now) have no reservations in supporting him.
'''Support''' Lack of mainspace is a valid concern, but on balance a good candidate.--
'''Support''' seems a responsible candidate, and it takes all types.
'''Support''' as per Feydey. --''
'''Oppose'''. Too much emphasis on policing and too little on content writing. Continuous engagement in content writing is the only way to not ensure the editor does not fall the prey of [[Wikipedia:Adminitis]]. Candidate has recently demonstrated a flawed understanding of the image policies by submitting for deletion many images permissible under the policies. --
'''Oppose''', per Irpen. '''
'''Oppose''' per Irpen. His role [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:PETA_dumpster_incident_dead_animal_retrieval.jpg here] is to try to fight the fair use of an image which is clearly unique and important to illustrate a point in the article. IMO he should be more tolerant and flexible, and should suggest ways to properly justify the use the image, leaning towards the utility of WP as a useful source of information to its readers, rather than to be a strict and restrictive policeman.
'''Oppose''' I really want to support as he is a very good fair use fighter who needs the tools but I agree with Irpen and Chacor, lack of mainspace edits and article writing makes me oppose :(
'''Oppose''' per Irpen, Jarande and Crum375
'''Oppose''' regretfully, as Jaranda.  BigDT has done excellent work, but writing experience is vital in providing perspective and grounding (and, perhaps most importantly, something to focus on in times of frustration). --
'''Oppose''' - per Irpen, Jaranda, and Robth. Lack of articles - we don't need so many more -  isn't necessarily a problem but a lack of ''quality'' articles is. And the low number of mainspace edits is also a worry - half the number of projectspace edits? Seems wrong, as the encyclopedia should come first.
'''Oppose''':  Every portion of the project that we do not near is a portion we lose expertise on, and, while we can always use helpful and dedicated people to manage the image uploads and usages, I think that ''too narrow'' an interest hobbles an administrator considerably.  Given exposure only to bad people, one can come to think that everyone is bad.  This is the danger of the policeman, and I am concerned that we are now suffering from too much fear.  Oppose for the focus being a bit too exclusive.
'''Regretful Oppose''' Irpen is right. BigDT, although I know you are incredibly active in wikispace, you need more hands-on encyclopedia edits. I suggest you focus more on Wikipedia itself than getting tied up in wikispace. '''
'''Oppose''' sorry, to some extent you're getting caught in a swing of the pendulum. But you have ''more than twice'' as many user talk edits as mainspace edits. Admins should have substantive experience in article writing.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I commend this user for his level-headed attitude and for his work against copyright violations, and yet I do not see enough non-trivial content contributions to support. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. I share Geogre's and Irpen's sentiment (though I may agree with BigDT's strict interpretation of the fair use policy). &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Mark. At this time, I don't see the user as quite ready. In addition to the encyclopedia-building concerns voiced above, I do worry about the overly laid-back answer to question 5, about bios being edited by their subjects. The question addresses a serious problem in my experience, and not one to be dealt with just like "anything else". Compare the by contrast quite specific policies linked—taking those policy concerns seriously is not "a solution looking for a problem". As for checking subject-editing of bios for "unsourced negative statements", I hope and trust it's just a typo, and that the candidate meant to show awareness of the danger of unsourced, or unduly weighted, ''positive'' statements.
'''Oppose''' per Geogre.
'''Oppose'''. Too many people are being elected as admins who don't involve themselves in writing articles.
'''Oppose''' per Geogre and SlimVirgin.
'''Oppose''' per Irpen. —
'''Oppose''' - I'd like to see more edits in the mainspace. Sorry, <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose''' per Mark and Irpen.
'''Oppose''' - to much emphasis on fair use policing not enough on actually building the encyclopaedia. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' per an appaling lack of content contribs. --
'''Oppose''' per other comments regarding encyclopedia contributions. --
'''Oppose''' per Irpen, Jaranda and Bishonen. I think the editor MAY make a good admin some day, but needs to concentrate more on mainspace edits and contributing information, less on the additional stuff. I do find that his stance on IRC and secret decisions made behind-the-scenes is definitely heartening. Work on adding more content and come back later.
When your wikispace edits are almost double mainspace edits, it's a bit concerning that, per Irpen, there isn't enough focus on the encyclopedia itself. Added that your mainspace edits make up only about 10% of your total, it's hard for me to support. I look for someone well-rounded, and [[User:Chacor/RFA criteria|would personally prefer around 25%]] in mainspace. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - per Chacor. But otherwise, nearly a support for other qualities.
'''Neutral''' per Chacor. Like to see a little more hands-on building of encyclopedia. <font color="green">
'''Neutral''' I have seen many examples of BigDT's activities, and he has much to commend him, so I would like to support.  However, I agree with those who note his lack of building of the encyclopedia.  If this RfA succeeds, I hope that he will not let his admin work stop him from making mainspace edits.--
'''Neutral''' - Per James086. -- ''
'''Neutral''' - I remember asking him a question but I don't remember getting a satisfied or let alone a response. I'dd keep an eye out! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've seen him around in AfDs. Good article contributions. Level-headed and dedicated. -
'''Support''' I don't see a problem with this editor's contributions - active in the all the main spaces; contributes to XfD discussions; vandal reverts and issues warnings; reports to [[:WP:AIV]] too; active contributor to articles as well.
I'm
'''Support'''. I don't always agree with everything that BigHaz says, but I've seen enough of him to know that I can trust him to use the admin tools wisely. Can't ask for more than that.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I'd like to see more activity from the editor but everything he's done has been good so thumbs up.
'''Support''' Nothing problematic, and seems like a good editor in general. '''
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Weak support''' per The Rambling Man, a little more activity would be better, but you've been here quite a long time so I can see you're dedicated. '''
'''Strong support''' - Excellent editor who, hardly unsurprisingly has sold himself short and given others the impressions that he has low activity. He has hundreds of substantial edits though. [[User:BigHaz/DYK Collection]] shows that he has written 30 DYK articles. He is also responsible for the vast majority of the Eurovision coverage on Wikipedia. There have been 1000+ songs entered at Eurovision, and he has done all of them from Armenia up to Norway, so that would mean at least 500 start class articles that he has created for Wikipedia. I should import that nom I was already preparing. '''
'''Support''' per above. Seems to have a good head about him.
'''Support''' per experiance.
'''Support''' No real reason not to support and nice answers and knowledge of policy. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've always admired BigHaz's work here. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Good looking contribs, excellent edit summary usage (100% and 100% always nice to see).
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Passes the Test.
'''Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' Level-headed and always ready to back up his arguments with solid reasoning and knowledge of policy (and though he has got a Eurovision fixation, modern treatments can work wonders, so I can't object on that basis).
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per Blnguyen.--
'''Support''', coincidentally also per Blnguyen. I can't stand the Eurovision Song Contest but I have to recognise the excellent work.
'''BigSupp''' -- ''
'''Support''', great editor.--
'''Support''', BigHaz's interest in Islam/Middle East will add a welcomed aspect to administrative tasks. --
'''Support''', I have experienced and observed only good interactions with BigHaz.-
'''Support''' good answers and seem to have a cool head. --
'''Support'''-Good answers, good number of wikispace edits. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Impressive contributions &mdash;
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Checks out just fine from what I can see.
'''Support''' looks good! <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
Only if he promises to stop writing ESC articles and getting them up to [[T:DYK]]... (kidding!) '''Support''' ++
'''Support'''- The answers are good, and the contributions are great. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support'''not many edits for being around so long, but the length of time speaks of dedciation and he shows sound judgement.
Dedication is apparent. I trust this user, and I have seen enough to believe my trust extends to Admin actions. '''
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' ~

'''Support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''I beat the Noms Support''' Good editor would love to see him with the mop. <font color="SteelBlue">
I have no idea how the above person found this, lol. Anyway, '''support''' as nom.--
'''Support'''.  Everything looks great.  '''
'''Support''' per nom and inasmuch as the candidate seems possessed of the good judgment, deliberative demeanor, and conversance with policy the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I think one can say with much confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive]].  That, of several comments on his talk page from users whom he contacted about the improper uploading or use of fair-use images, each notes the patience and cordiality of his messages also speaks well of him; new editors are often quite irked to have improper image use addressed to them, and one who does such task pleasantly ''and'' successfully serves the project well.
'''Support''', the image backlog most certainly needs help. --'''
'''Support'''. User that's willing to help with the image backlogs? Give the user a [[WP:MOP|mop]]! '''
'''Support''' Again, I see no problems with this user becoming an admin.
'''Support''' A great user and with the massive image backlogs currently at [[CAT:CSD]] and [[Special:Unusedimages]] we'd benefit greatly from him/her being sysopped.

'''Support''' per all above. With any luck, it looks like you might get unanimous support on this one. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Yes, we do need admins to handle the image backlog, and BigrTex seems like the sort of person I would like working on that task.
'''Support''' -very experienced Editor..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' no concerns here, looks good.
'''Support''' BigrTex appears competent and polite. I'm especially happy that he works with image issues, as there seems to be a fairly limited number of people willing to do this.
I'm
'''Moral Support''' Great work over images. Even few times he kicked on my butt grrr... --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Has answered the questions well and has a detailed plans on what he will do with the tools. Also done some great work with images.
'''Support''': Excellent edit summary usage, and plenty of experience, answers to questions also very good. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' The way it says is the way it plays. --
'''Support''' I trust BigrTex to do what he says, and his answer to the questions are acceptable. He should rightfully be nomanated.
'''Late Support'''as co-nom.'''''
'''Support''' Changed from neutrality; good luck!
'''Support''' --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. Everything looks good. —
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''Support''' and an endorsement from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places]].  (Well, I can't speak for everyone in the project, but this member supports it.)  --
'''Support'''. Shows a clear need for the mop in his prolific work with images, and plenty of experience, dedication, and knowledge of policies and guidelines.
'''Support'''. Seen nothing but good from this editor.↔
'''Support'''. We need more admins who are both knowledgeable and comfortable in the Image space. Some of those backlogs can get pretty epic at times. (
'''Support''' In most circumstances, anyway, candidate's answer to Question 6 is the correct approach.  Thoughtful fellow.
'''Support''' - First because of my good impression on him; second because his experiences with many little-touched aspects of Wikipedia is strong enough to make him admin. --
'''support''' - From what I've seen, a competant user who would work well as an administrator, I can see him doing great work at IfD.
'''Support.''' I do think this user would be a good admin. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' Yes all in order. --
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|No problems here]]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' as per above. —
'''Support''' All good.
Per q.6. You seriously think that the views of the subject of a low notability bio are no more valid than any drive-by user?--
No valid reason to oppose has been brought up here.
I have seen this user's work with the helpdesk and am confident that Bjelleklang knows what to do and will seek help when necessary.  I trust this user with the tools and I believe that they will work in the best interests of the project. --
'''Support''', confident this user will not abuse the tools. --'''
'''Support'''. If the only reason to oppose him is his failure to maintain a superhuman rate of editing, he's okay by me.
'''Support.''' He has shown consistent dedication to the project.  Maintaining any level of editing for over a year is tough.  Trust me, I struggle with it all the time.--
'''Support''' Call this an unfair generalization if you must but opposers are no good at everything. All jokes aside, there is a real concern here with how strict people are getting on voting for administrators. Just because there's more admins these days doesn't mean you should tighten the rope... what's wrong with having tens of thousands of administrators? It shouldn't be that far of a stretch, after all, this is no big deal. <font color="red">
'''Support''' Helpful, has knowledge of policy and very civil. No valid reason to oppose. As for the low activity, users need not dedicate their lives to Wikipedia. We should be happy with whatever help we can get from fellow ''volunteers''. Also per Croat Canuck. -
'''Support''' Good user with a history of helping others. While the recent activity is a little low for an admin candidate, that's no reason not to support. Ten admin actions a day by this user frees up that much time for another admin. Cheers,
Maybe the admin tools will make him more active, maybe not. Either way there is no harm since we can trust this user. '''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I feel that an experienced, friendly user who knows the system and is willing to help out should get the mop if there are no major concerns.  Infrequent participation at times is not a major concern for me - even if the candidate logs in once a day and deletes one speedy candidate, that is helping out. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' - Definitely experienced enough to deserve the mop. However, user did not taken my advice into consideration in [[Wikipedia:Editor review|his editor review]], which is to maintain an average of 200-300 edits per month if considering for adminship. Others have pointed this out below.
'''Support''' per all above. It shouldn't be necessary to give up life and glue oneself to a computer screen in order to pass RfA. <font face="Verdana">
Change to support per convincing arguments -- <b>
'''Support''' per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
'''Support''' Solid answers to questions. Inactivity isn't a real issue here, as the editor never left completely.  If s/he now has the time to contribute to clearing backlogs, previous flirtations with having a life outside the wiki are easy to ignore! ;)
'''Weak, ''really'' weak support''' Honestly, I don't feel ''too'' comfortable supporting you. Your activity doesn't promise any much involvement as an admin. I'll assume you will not abuse the tools; that's what is most important after all. Good luck with your studies. —
'''Support.''' Will you abuse the tools? No? Good. I especially like answer to Q5. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' Contribs are balanced and show some interest in admin work.
'''Support''' on the condition that you review [[WP:Minor|what a minor edit is]]. (see TwoOars above) <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="grey">
'''Support'''. you're not an admin? ~''
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this one since March last year when I encountered him reverting serial POV insertions in the [[hanging]] article.
'''Support'''. The encyclopedia will be better, not worse, with Bjelleklang as an administrator. It is worth noting that he has stopped marking all edits as minor after TwoOars commented above.
'''Weak support''' No humongous concerns, all the bits working properly. Please do take some time to familiarise yourself with newer policies/ideas - cascading protection, the reformed speedy deletion criteria, new notability criteria - before jumping into administrative activity. Best of luck, &ndash;
'''Support'''. Good on you for coming back. cheers,

'''Support''' I think it is a positive that this editor is firm about his/her priorities (such as school and work)--demonstrates that as an admin he/she would be able to balance responsibilities.--
'''Support''', zero serious concerns. <b>
'''Support''' - sensible answers to questions and plenty of edits at the help desk.
'''Support'''. Seems sensible and level-headed.
'''Support'''. Positive impression of this editor. Although adminship is no big deal, seeking it does imply intent to step up more actively than in recent times, which I assume is the case.
'''Support''' per Daniel's oppose. We need more glory days and more admins. Who cares if they have 3000 edits a year or 600. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. While he may not spend all his time awake on Wikipedia (tut tut!), his continued contributions to helping newcomers, and his various Wikimedia-related software tools, not to mention, of course, his editing and housekeeping contributions, show that he would make a very good admin indeed. -
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why The Hell Not?]]  I don't think lack of edits is a reason to oppose if I can trust the user, and trust that they'll read policy and follow it.
'''Support''' See no evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I trust this user.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support''' Going through edit history I find no reason not to trust this user with the tools. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Weak support''' [[User:Daniel|Daniel]]'s concerns are those that are properly raised relative to inactivity (as against those that suggest that inactivity speaks ill of one's commitment to the project, one implications of which are that adminship is a trophy), but the candidate seems possessed of sound judgment, and I so will trust him to know whereof he does not know and to peruse present policy (or, if necessary, the discussion underlying the development/evolution of policy) before acting qua admin (although I would observe that the tasks of which Bjell intends to partake are not those relative to which policy has changed significantly of late); consequently, I feel comfortable concluding with at least more than a modicum of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Bjell's being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Support'''.  Actually, I don't think things have changed all that much in the last year.  Requirements for fair use images are a bit more stringent, some [[WP:CSD|CSD]]s have been expanded somewhat, [[WP:BLP|BLP]] issues are enforced more carefully, [[WP:CP]] is no longer used much, and protection policy is always changing, but never in uniform or universally agreed-upon ways.  None of that is all that big a deal, and I don't Bjelleklang will be at a serious disadvantage beyond any new admin.  If you find yourself confused about anything, please don't hesitate to ask any admin (including me) for assistance.
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' I believe that the candidate has a good grasp of policy, so the lack of recent activities isn't enough of a reason for me to oppose.
'''Support''' I've been looking through some of the diffs that came out of the diff-generator (see the talkpage); the only problem that anyone's found with this candidate is inactivity on occasion, and I don't see why that's a problem. (I'd like to suggest to the candidate that reading through the archives of [[WP:POST|the ''Wikipedia Signpost'']] may be a good way to get up to speed on any major changes that they might have missed during inactive periods.) --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 10:25, 21 May 2007 (

Inactivity is not a very compelling reason to oppose; nothing of great significance has changed in the past couple years. Nor do I think it's really necessary to make a lot of (or any) edits to stay abreast of what's going on here.
'''Support''' A review of his talk page shows that he is commonly approached by editors for help. This suggests to me that there is already a level of trust which we should recognize. The lowish numbers for his editing in no way suggests he will harm us..
'''Support''', certainly. --
'''Oppose''': Lack of activity and low edit summary usage. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - you had tons of edits in 2005 and then nearly stopped editing all together, with just a few spurts here and there. You haven't even hit 150 edits for the past three months combined. While the actual edits don't seem to pose any sort of a problem, the inactivity makes me uneasy about supporting. Sorry. I do wish you luck though. --
'''Oppose'''- we need editors, not people who lurk on IRC. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Lack of recent activity.
Wikipedia's changed a lot since you last edited recently, and things that are common-knowledge for administrators and administrator candidates you may lack the knowledge of. I really don't like noting this opposition, but I fear that a user who isn't up to date with the current ''everything'' on Wikipedia may make decisions which are now viewed as 'bad', which may not have been way-back-when. Sorry, but I'm not confident at this stage given your recent extended inactivity. '''
'''Oppose''' lack of activity as a general editor causes me to wonder why you need the tools right at this moment.  I also agree with Daniel's perspective directly above--
'''Weak Oppose''' Because of your lack of recent contributions, I must oppose. However, I am loath to do so since this is my only reason for opposition. Having more activity for about 2 or three months will make me support in the future.
'''Neutral''' While I see nothing wrong with any of your edits, and your contributions into wiki-namespace are clearly satisfactory, you appear to have been fairly inactive for about a year. I will change to support after a satisfactory explanation as to why this is so.--
'''Neutral''' I wouldn't say that it's sad to put things like school and income before a voluntary project.  Lack of participation isn't a bad thing when it is balanced by hard work in those areas.  You can try again when you can be more active with the project.
'''Neutral''' You use to have many edits, but much now. When you get more active, then I would happily support your nomination.
'''Neutral''' No reason for me to oppose , but limited recent editing doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools.--
Re Q4, XfDs are closed wrongly all the time, which is why we have DRV; it's just inevitable with so much traffic. Some DRVs ''are'' filed from a refusal to accept consensus, but not all closing disagreements can be characterized that way. Not a reason to oppose. But I'm not sure about supporting, as I also can't comprehend the first half of your answer to Q5. Daniel's point concerns me as well: I'm ''not'' bothered by the possibility that you won't use the tools often, but I'm not assured of your familiarity with current policy for when you ''do'' use the tools. I guess I'm leaning toward support, but I'm not yet persuaded. ··
'''Neutral''', per Daniel and coelacan. Can't see anything wrong with this editor, but I'd expect admins to be more active <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Neutral''' Moved from oppose.  You had many edits, and seem to be a very good editor, but your lack of edits as of late concern me.  I could easily support a bit later down the road if you get back into the project a bit more.
'''Neutral''' I think this user's sporadic edits are a bit worring, but I see nothing else to complain about.
'''Neutral''', it probably would have been a good idea for you to edit a bit before having an RfA. But, lack of recent editing isn't grounds for an oppose, so I'm just going to have to stay neutral here. '''''
'''Neutral''' Due to the inacitivity from 2006 Feb to untill this moment. --
As nominator.  —
'''Strong Support''' - Why isn't he an administrator already? ~ <span style="white-space:nowrap; color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">| <small>
I trust this user and, the nominator. —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
A very good user whenever I've seen his name, good answers to questions. '''
'''Support''' -I have reviewed this user's contributions and find no problems. I am impressed by his thorough analysis of his own weakness in the Questions above. Introspection is a fine tool when applied honestly. I think he has done this and will continue to analyze every admin decision he is called to make.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per his good answer to my question. My question was asked because I wondered if this was your first major inactivity, and I was worried that your activity would drop completely, in which case I would see no reason for you to have admin tools. I didn't check your contributions fully, as I'm in a bit of a rush, but you answered my question perfectly. His reply also shows he communicates very well, which is a real bonus.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions.
'''Support''' - A very good user with excellent contributions. Would be an asset to the Admin community.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' WP would be a better place if this user had the tools. I would suggest, however, that the user put a busy message on their talkpage.
per above.
'''Support''' A graduate study in math?  Dude...
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Bkell is extremely knowledgeable, level-headed, and helpful. He would make a great admin. —
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' I have worked with this user for almost two years (off and on), and have never been disappointed. I don't think you will be either. &mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Per above'''
'''Support''' <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="3">'''
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, seems clear on where he can best contribute, no red flags :-) - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' --
'''Definite Support''' Overall one of the most skilled editors I have seen on wikipedia. --
'''Support''' - looks well qualified. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.  No trust issues that I recall, or expect to discover, and very nice answers to the questions.  -
I'm
'''Strong Support''': Obviously.  Good luck!! -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per edit count divided by blocks over time on WP.
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' As per Track.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Good candidate.--
'''Support''' '''Support''' '''Support''' '''Support''' '''Support'''
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support'''. I've been waiting some time for this nom. '''''
'''Support'''.  I've run into this user multiple times on XfD discussions and have always been impressed by the contributions there, displaying a firm grasp on policy.  Easy support.
'''Support''' - a very good editor and his contributions to XfDs are marvellous and deserves the mop..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Everything I've seen from this candidate is positive.  RfA cliche. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - [[WP:GLOSSARY#R|Cliche #1]]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' definitely. I've been very impressed by Black Falcon's good judgment and his belief on the need for consensus and a productive civil environment on Wikipedia. He'll make a great admin and mediator.
'''Support''' While I've had a few minor (ahem!) disagreements with Black Falcon in the past, he's always acted impressively throughout.  Confident he'll do a great job as an admin.--
I first remember Black Falcon from a disagreement on an AFD-DRV-AFD cycle of [[List of tall men]]. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to exhaust his patience (or if I did, he didn't show it). I've found that he gives thought to detail before acting, and reacts calmly to criticism. I have no worries. ··
'''Support''', strongly. Is a very reasonable user. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
Total '''support'''.  I find BF's contributions to be consistently well thought out and constructive.  I consider him to be the best kind of Wikipedian.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support,''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Seems like a great nomination and user.
'''Support''' Seems well rounded and competent.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''', I don't see why he would abuse the tools. I've seen a lot of good-standing editors lately applying for adminship. '''

'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent user, great edit summaries made it easy to look through contribs, and even a fancy little table to answer Q1! <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' no problem.
'''Support''' for the consistently sound and thorough reasoning in deletion discussions. –
'''Support''' Maybe now <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki> will have some power.  And I've never seen a Q1 answer like that.
'''Support''' Tried to support earlier, but wasn't working.  More than happy to support now...should be a good transition to sysop.
'''Support''' Thanks for the thoughtful answer to my question.  I have some follow-up, but we can catch up later either via usertalk: or on IRC. --
I've seen Black Falcon all over the project and thought he was already clicking admin buttons.  A good fellow and a dedicated volunteer [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' (per Noms) Get on it.

Default '''support''' per nom. —'''
Seen him around Wikipedia, and everything looks good. Nothing bad in review of his recent contribs.. --
'''Support''' Diverse editing and a real <b>need</b> for the tools. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seen him around. Excellent user, good answers, and a real need for the tools. —
I'm
'''Support''' without reservation. Great user, deserves the tools, needs the tools, etc. Black Falcon has done and will do excellent things on WP. --
'''Support,''' No reservations. Good answers to the questions. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="#4682B4">Тλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="#00">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' I have seen you multiple times at XFD and I never saw anything bad, I like your edit count and the variety across the different namespaces, best of luck! --<font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' I have come across Black falcon in numerous Sri Lankan conflict related articles and I can say with 1000% assurance that he/she has always been neutral, to the point, cordial and sticks to wiki policy. Black Falcon deserves to be an admin long time ago
'''Support''' For his clarity in understanding difficult issues with detail communication to others[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka_%28Second_nomination%29&diff=134255264&oldid=134245673].
'''Strong Support''' I thought [[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]] was already one. :)
'''Support''' - Happy to add my first ever RfA comment and endorsement for someone who seems to have contributed thoroughly wherever I went. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Definately someone to support.
'''Strong Support''' - Black Falcon's comments at AfD and RfA are always well-reasoned, and <cliché>I assumed s/he was already an admin.</cliché> Definite support. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Strong support''' an excellent editor with a full understanding of our policies - will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Mostly from personal interactions - A knowledgable, civil user with experience.
'''Support'''. Very good editor, will certainly be a good administrator. --
'''Strong Support''' I don't think that there's a doubt in anyone's mind that he will make a superior admin, including mine. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support''' a good candidate to help clear those backlogs! --
'''Strong Support''' The candidate is a dedicated wiki-dynamo of seemingly endless energy, whose mophood will benefit the project as greatly as anyone's ever has.
'''Support'''. Will this editor cause damage as an admin? :) Nope. --
'''Support'''. Sensible person who'll do the admin roster proud.
I believe the list of
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Everything looks good here.--
'''Support'''. On the basis of the good work I have seen from Black Falcon, most notably at [[WP:AFD]] and (especially) [[WP:RFD]], I am satisfied that he would be a good administrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', no problem, good luck and good work.
'''Support''', lots of good work especially at AfD <b>
'''Support''' - Excellent editor with heaps of diligent work on xfD.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Do not believe he will abuse the tools.
'''<s>Moral</s> Support''' --
'''Support''', not that it's needed, but I've dealt with Black Falcon before and been quite impressed. We don't always agree, but he's always been considerate and civil in my experience.
Yeah, right on. Good head on his shoulders. '''
'''Support''' - Definitely an asset to the project.--
'''Support''' Very good asset to be an Admin. Keeps cool head and acts very civil. Works for the better of the wikipedia community as a whole. Good luck
'''Support''' Just like the silent bird of prey, Black Falcon swoops out of the night to save the world from the treachery of the Purple Buzzard and the Biege Canary --
'''Support''' - Great answers. You'll do fine and, like Danaman said, you're definitely an asset to the project. --
'''Support''' - From his conduct and experience, I thought he already was one... <b>
'''Support''' There is nothing else I can really say that has not already been expressed by others here, so I will add to the support pile-on. --

'''Support'''. yes plz. ---
'''Support'''. It's unanimous so far, must mean there's no reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' I have a generally positive impression of this editor, and my review of his contributions corroborated my impression.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I wanted to nominate this user a while back, but I've been amiss in my other WP duties lately as well.
'''Support''' From other's comments, and answers to questions, I can tell that this user would be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Trusted, experienced user.
'''Support''' Very Experienced very trustworthy.  <font color="SteelBlue">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Its nice to see Black Falcon here, users a strong editor and will use tools well.
'''Support''' - good answers and excellent track record. Should make a fine admin -
'''Strong Support''' I've seen him around, very respectful and shows a great attitude -
'''Support''' As above. Yup, all good. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">

'''Strongly endorse''' - It's about time! Blood Red has been an active part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management|WikiProject Disaster management]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation|WikiProject Aviation's]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force|Aviation accident task force]] for some time, and has consistently shown that he understands what this encyclopedia really should be. He's a holder of the prestigious [[User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle|Triple Crown award]], and has worked hard to bring seven articles to GA status and at least one to FA status. His tireless edits to bring quality to this place is probably the most important reason I believe he deserves the mop, and I have no doubt that "quality" will be in the forefront of his thinking as he wields said mop. One of the tests, in my view, is how someone handles themselves when others disagree with something they've done. Blood Red consistently handles himself with grace and dignity, respecting the views of others. As an example, consider his comments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budi Mulyawan Suyitno|this AfD]] of an article he had created. '''
'''Support''' as nom.
See no problems. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' I have not seen this user around.  Perhaps we just have not crossed paths.  But, in looking into the history, I do not see anything that blatently says that this person would not be trustworthy.  --'''<font color="black">[[user:BlindEagle|Blind]]</font><font color="blue">
''Support''
'''Support''' <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' per above comments.
'''Support''' - in the course of my dealings with the editor in question, and having looked over his history once earlier relevant to another discussion, I have no reservations whatsoever about the integrity or judgement of this editor.
Per Akradecki. '''Support'''--
'''Support''' A candidate that will be able to more effectively contribute with the addition of the mop, and per the nom.
'''Support''' - featured article writing, in addition to vandal fighting. Solid candidate.
'''Support'''. I met this user when I was active in [[WP:ACID]], and I'm pretty sure that they'll use the mop well. '''''
'''Strong Support''' Great Wikipedian, should have been an admin a long time ago. -- (
'''Weak support''' appears to be an excellent editor, I am worried about the low edit rate for the last few months though.
'''Support''' Has significant contributions to Wiki-related pages, excellent edit summary usage. --
'''Support''' Too many reasons to specify.
'''Support''' - clearly a good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' An excellent user. Would make a fine admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't see why not. [[User:Statusisat|<font face="Times New Roman" color="Olive">Status for Hirohisat</font>]]<sup>
I'm
'''Support''' based upon firsthand observations, Blood Red Sandman seems to have the right stuff for the mop.  I'm dyeing one scarlet for this occasion. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Seems like a quality editor to me :) <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' Looks like this is a no-brainer.  Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - great editor who I have seen around for quite awhile and have come to like very much.  Just give him the mop already!
'''Support''' Nice work on the articles, worked on the admin topics already, good luck with the mop <b><font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - One of the uncontroversial RfAs, and for good reason. This user has the right stuff for the mop. Good luck, '''
'''Support''' Has been a consistent contributor with over 7000 edits with over 3000 in mainspace.Nothing in the edits to oppose no concerns
'''Support'''. Good encyclopedia builder. The candidate has made substantial contributions to FA and GA articles.
'''Support''' I have worked with BRS many times at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force|Aviation accident task force]] and he has loads of contributions to the article-writing side of the encyclopedia. He will be a a good admin. --
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate. '''
'''Support''' - looks like he'd do a good job with a mop
'''Support'''
No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' - I've edited with this editor and seen some of their work, and I'd trust them with the tools.
'''Strong support''' - Will make a very un-disastrous admin. '''
'''Support''' Appears to be ready for the job. I don't see anything wrong. —Signed by [[User:Kornfan71|<font color="red">KoЯn</font><font color="black">fan71</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:Kornfan71|<font color="red">My Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' <s>oppose</s> No reason to oppose.
'''Strong Support''' Wish I could have co-nominated this user. BRS is an excellent Wikipedia editor, and I have always found his work here (in all aspects) to be of the highest quality. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support'''. A very-well proven candidate.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good canidate. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#C00000">
'''Strong Support''' - I've never seen anything but good from this user. --
'''Support''' Good evidence of even-handed work and understanding.
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Definitive support''' - I have often seen Blood Red Sandman at work, he's a good editor and a good person, kind-hearted and knows the value of editors and editing (I met him when updating [[Adam Air Flight 574]]). Cheers,
'''Support''' - lots of edits, a [[Scotland|Scotsman]], and vandal-fighting wounds; can be trusted as an admin.
'''Support''' - Lots of relevant experience. Great work so far on Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong support''' Despite my almost complete inactivity since, ironically, becoming a sysop (which is due to many varying reasons), I could not let this RfA go by without putting my full support behind BRS, someone whom I've seen frequently in the past and never lost faith in. He'll do a great job, just like he always has. --
'''Suppport''' good work at CSD and elsewhere.
'''Support''' good lot of edits, no reason to not be an admin..
'''Support''' A lot of good vandal fighting. --
'''Support''' - The user's extensive contributions to the Adam Air article and other mainspace edits is only one of several reasons for support.
'''Support!''' Looks like an outstanding candidate.  --
'''Support''' - looks good. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - BRS is a superior editor, top candidate and no reason whatsoever to worry here.  Good luck!
'''Support''' per Akradecki, my good impressions of [[Adam Air Flight 574]], and a look at some of his contributions.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've seen him around; great contributor. --
Nom support -- <b>
'''Support''': User seems to have plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. It's nice to see someone very experience in Images, should be able to help out nicely. I see nothing wrong, should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions; good edits; no reason to oppose.↔
'''Support''', looks like a well-rounded and knowledgeable contributor. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Good person to be an admin.
'''Support''', certainly no reason to oppose. --
'''Edit conflict Support''' for attitude towards admin tasks, experience and contributions too.  I never did see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%28aeropagitica%29&diff=prev&oldid=90650844 the diffs that I requested] in the editor review for evidence, did I?
'''Support''' The dedication shown through article creation and maintenance is impressive.
'''Support''' - I was considering nominating Bobak myself. I have had several positive experiences with this user since being here.
'''Support''' Great answers to questions.
'''Support''' That's one of the funnier nomination statements I've seen in a while.  It shows the candidate's forthrightness and willingness to learn.
I see no particular reason to not '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Good contributor, level-headed, some experience with process. Even deals with sockpuppets well.... --
'''Support''' After doing some reviewing of this users contributions I am changing from oppose to support as I believe that any edit wars this user's has been involved in he has handled properly and he would be a great addition as an administrator unlike I stated before as I admit I probably didn't do enough research, I am sorry for this but I give my full support to this user now.
'''Support''' Alright... sounds good.
'''Support''' for good contributions, procedural skills and pleasant attitude. --
'''Support''' If he handles all the assorted-instigators on wikipedia as calmly as he handled that wave of 10 sockpuppets on his own RFA I think he'll be a great admin. --
'''Support'''. Someone else who went to the [[University of Minnesota|U of M]]? Hells yeah! Looks good to me. (This guy's actually an alum, whereas I'm just an !alum.)
'''Support'''. I have no doubt Bobak will be a great admin. It's always been a pleasure to edit articles with him. Good luck.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per nom. No problems. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' per nom.  Welcome to the attorney sysop cabal! Right this way to be fitted for your cape . . . '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support'''. Very delighted to see this nomination, good luck.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose, this is a very good admin candidate, nicely spread out edits and generally good work, keep it up. Regards &mdash;
'''Support''': Much as it pains me to support someone who created a Wikipedia article on [[Fight On|this infernal dirge]], his record and answers look solid, and no reason to think he won't make a great admin. Plus, the RfA had the side benefit of exposing a sockpuppet farm, and he handled the trolling well enough. '''
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no problems with this candidate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' good record, no problems, good experience. Sure, why not? —
'''Support''' Like your answer to question 3. Will be a good admin--
'''Fellow jurist support,''' of course. All looks very good.
'''Support''' I see no reason to object, I checked your edit history and everything seems Aok.
'''Support''' and a tip of the hat for creating [[Mills District, Minneapolis]].  (Which reminds me: I still need to work on that history section.) --
'''Support''' This user has been a valuable and I'm sure would continue as an admin.
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
'''Support''' per MastCell, great work. '''
'''Support''' Great optional statement, no problems. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Good editor. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]]
'''Support''' no problems cheers,
'''Support'''. He'll make a good admin. Good luck. --
'''support''',Wikipedia will be benefited from his adminship. --
I'm
'''Support''' as a user who has shown a great deal of aplomb in handling conflict.  I find his creation of [[Spirit of Troy|this article]] deeply troubling, however. ;)
'''Support''' Dedicated and neutral, high potential for the adminship--
Bobak appears to be a good, trustworthy fellow whose letters alone make him well overqualified to click a few buttons :) [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Fight On!''' Bobak is a solid contributor and would be an asset as an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' No, major problems. Perhaps bit of bias that should be better restrained, but seems unlikely to abuse admin powers.
'''Support''' per the ever-capable nominator and inasmuch as it seems quite plain that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Bobak's being sysopped should be positive]] (and lawyers, IMHO, make, to be sure, the best admins).
'''Support''' - good candidate.
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support'''. Wonderful candidate. I'm really impressed by his hard work on uploading images.
'''Strong support'''. '''
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Support''', great candidate. ''Very'' thorough answers to ''all'' of the questions. We need more of these! '''''
'''Support''' Good luck as an admin. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' - Looks good. No problems here.

'''Support''' I would've preferred some more participation in the project space, but I'm convinced that you're experienced enough and will do a good job as an admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. The candidate has a good understanding of policy, is well-rounded (contributions to multiple namespaces), and seems good-natured. Good luck, '''
'''Strong support'''. This candidate made a favorable impression on me as far back as 2003 (??) with articles on SNK/Neo Geo titles at another site. Bobak continues to fight the good fight on Wikipedia! Secondly, we need more admins - there are only 0.27 admins per 1000 administrators. --
'''Support''' Nice answers to the questions. I like his edit count as well. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
<s>The concerns given in the opposition are troubling, but without concrete evidence of wrongdoing, which I can't find, I won't oppose for them. Rewording due to massive sockpuppetry... You do seem to have a few problems with editing neutrally, but not nearly enough for me to oppose for. I may consider changing to support later on. -
'''Strong Support''' My interactions with editor, as well as seeing what they do around here are reason enough.  Add the fact that Bongwarrior remains constantly civil in the face of numerous incivilities from vandals, and his persistence and dedication to the project make my support very strong.
'''Support''', an excellent vandal fighter.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' excellent work at CSD and fighting vandlism.
'''Support'''.  Has been doing an excellent job patrolling new pages for speedy deletion criteria.  We need more people to delete articles like {{la|Pooooooo}}, {{la|Nicoles butt}}, and {{la|Ass bandit}}, and to report bad user names like {{lu|Turdmuffin}}.  --
'''Strong Support''' per Mikka's cutting and pasting the same "no police" message into every candidate in opposition. Seriously, this editor looks like a fine contributor, and seems like they would use the mop well.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent record in fighting vandals and has been very active in the last 5 months.
'''Support''' Excellent track record of fighting vandals, intends to work in focused areas. Article writing is not a good indicator of the quality of admin work.
'''Support''' Excellent track record of fighting vandals.
'''Support.''' If your editing of mainspace articles is preparation to be an admin, there may be something faulty in the way you set about writing articles...
'''Support''' A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I can't say I'm a huge fan of your choice in usernames, but, to each his own. I've seen you around, and, you seem like you won't go nuts with the bit. Plus, we need more admins. You've got my '''Support''' :) <font style="background:#990000;color:#FFFFFF;border:2px solid #999999">
'''support''' Fights vandalism = yes
'''Support''' Could have sworn this guy was already an admin!
'''Support''' - [[Armageddon|November]] is almost upon us.
'''Support''' like what I've seen from this user.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' seen this user around. Unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' I think this user can make good use of the tools. I encourage the detractors below to consider what this place would look like if we did not have vandal fighters. This encyclopedia demands teamwork to accomplish our goals. I'm glad to have dependable vandal fighters and am happy to support their noms.
'''Support''' In line with an earlier support vote cast earlier today on another RFP, we need more admins on CSD and RC Patrol right now, and will need even more very soon. Bongwarrior has the experience, and demonstrated reliability to gain the mop.
'''Support''' You look to be a credible vandal fighter and most certainly deserve the mop.
'''Support''' I'm getting bored of re-iterating this, and no doubt the community is getting bored of reading it. Great article writing is important, but the '''number one''' thing on Wikipedia is not new or expanded content - it's our readership. We've got over 2 million articles for crying out loud, all be it stubs as many of them are, and we need more people with policy knowledge and a wise head to delete the rubbish, spam, attacks and copy vios that flood in, and manage the creators of those articles accordingly. Hats of to the great writers here but the janitors are becoming just as important now. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No reason not to trust the candidate. Their experience is more than the minimum desired.
'''Support''' Been handily reverting vandalism wherever it is to be found, moreso on my own project pages.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' opposer's points are just plain silly --'''
'''Support''' Seems reasonable, and is willing to help. —
'''Support'''  Opposed by two serial vandals.  Good enough for me.  &mdash;
'''Support''', we can always use more vandal-stoppers.
'''Support''', good reasons for wanting the tools, and indeed civility in the presence of incivility around these parts is something to be admired.
'''Support'''. Seen him around on recent changes and new page patrols, always struck me as doing a good job. Speedy tagging seems pretty good, based on the lack of declined speedies I could find.
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter; would make good use of the tools. <b>
'''support''' - I disagree with Mikka, we do need folks with the clean up tools, who by preference do the clean up work.  It only becomes "police"-ish when we are incivil to each other, and to the vandals/spammers.  --
I'm
'''Support''' - very strong candidate.  I like what I see.

'''Support''' - Have interacted with this user on one or two occassions, and would certainly support them in becoming an admin.
'''Support'''.  I also disagree with Mikka.  --
'''Support'''.  I haven't been here that long, so my input may not matter, but from what I have seen during my New Page Patrols, [[User:Bongwarrior| Bongwarrior]] would make an excellent admin. <font color="green">[[User:VivioFateFan|VivioFa]]</font><font color="red">[[User:VivioFateFan|teFan]]</font> <sup>([[ User_talk:VivioFateFan|Talk]],
'''Support'''. Whenever I look through New User Contributions, this editor always seems to be there. [[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] is a dedicated corrector of vandalism, and I think he would be even more effective with the administrator tools.  --
'''Support'''. It makes me sad to see people opposing because of lack of mainspace contributions, which are utterly nonessential for a potential admin.
'''Support'''.  The only thing I can find negative is the name Bongwarrior...kinda odd, but nothing to oppose adminship over.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support''' - I have crossed paths with Bongwarrior on an number of occasions and think he would make an excellent administrator.
'''Strong support''' - only good interactions, and in the face of some particularly nasty personal attacks has remained lvl headed throughout. <sup>
'''Support''' Hmmm nice name.. but other than first impressions of the name, all else is ship-shape.
Ready. -- <strong>
Candidate has indicated that they will attend to the speedy deletion backlog –
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Knows what he's doing. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter, will make good use of the tools.
There is nothing that leads me to believe this user will abuse/misuse the admin tools. Good luck.--
'''Strongest Support''' - obviously dedicated to Wikipedia. A key strength IMO. An excellent candidate. And to be honest, I never did really have to ''actually'' have to ask that question, did I?
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
Of course! How could I oppose someone who tagged the "Acalamari" article for speedy deletion? :) Heh, heh; Bongwarrior is a good user who will make great use of the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Very good user, determined to fight vandalism, and funny, too. I know he will do a good job when he's an admin. -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support''' experienced user, the opposer's arguments are weak to be considered. You are ready, good luck.
'''Support''' Great vandal-fighting user.
'''Support''' I think we need volunteer police here. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' Agreed with user above. '''
'''Oppose''' Insufficient contribution of actual encyclopedic content. Fighting defenseless teenage jokers is not what builds the character of an admin. I don't think we need professional police here. `'
'''Oppose''' per Mikka. The lack of good old article-writing worries me. Try creating some more pages, get a few articles certified as Good, and at least nominate an article to be Featured before coming back here. '''''
Insufficient evidence of interaction with the community.  You appear to be an interested and effective vandal fighter, but I expect more than that from admin candidates.  Right now less than 2% of your edits are in Talk/Wikipedia talk and from browsing them it appears that a majority of even that small number are strictly vandal reversions.  Keep doing what you are doing, as a vandal fighter, but I'd like to see you get more involved in the community before adminship.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
Would prefer to see some more solid contributions, if you feel you deserve admin then you should just wait until someone offers to nominate you, then I would feel more comfortable supporting.--
"Bongwarrior" is an unprofessional, inappropriate username.  Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum.  Every so often an administrator's actions are viewed as notable by outside media sources, and if they publish a news report talking about what "Wikipedia administrator Bongwarrior" did, we all look like idiots.  --
Can you give some examples of you taking part in policy discussions?  I looked over you WP space contributions, but was unable to find any.  I'm not suggesting that admins <u>must</u> have written reams of plolicy cannon, just want to see your understanding of the [[Gnomic|way things work]]. -
'''Support''' Look like a very good person to me and that is my basic criteria of supporting people. Furthermore, I do not get what is wrong if he will not be a very active admin? He can still work as admin whenever he will have extra time available. Less active admin will still be more useful for wikipedia than NO admin. ---
'''<s>Provisional </s>support''', <s>to prevent snowball closure of this until I have an answer to my question</s>. I don't understand why an admin should be opposed for inactivity. -
'''Strongest support -- he beat me to nominating''' -- I've worked extensively with [[User:BozMo|BozMo]] on spam investigations with [[WT:WPSPAM|WikiProject Spam]] and he's impressed me greatly. I was going to nominated him later this week when I had time. --
'''Support''' I believe he is dedicated to the encyclopedia, and simply because he was no able to rack up tons of edits recently should not be a bar to adminship as long as he is otherwise qualified.--
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support. --
'''Support''' Good anti-spam work, length of time with the project shows ample commitment. You don't need to live on Wikipedia 24/7 to be a good admin.
'''Support''' -- Being here a long time but not having been particularly active in the beginning is not a bad thing.  Those who think that 200-300 edits a month is not enough should take a step back and think about how much that really is (especially when it involves a lot of talk edits, which take much more time and thought than typos, categorizations, and vandal reversions) --
'''Support''' OK, so he comes and goes; many of us have a life in the real world outside wikipedia, and so long as his edits are good and sensible, and broadly spread over mainspace and namespace, which they are, I don't think that occasional periods of lack of activity are significant. His total count is fine.--
'''Weak support''' Wikispace edits are a little low for my taste but BozMo is a very thoughtful editor which I believe is very unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''BozMo's pioneering work with the CD release helped blaze a trail we are now following with [[WP:1.0]] work.  Putting the CD together involved an ''enormous'' amount of work, and it has put Wikipedia in many school classrooms and orphanages around the world.  In my dealings with BozMo, he has always been friendly, helpful and supportive, with a good sense of humour and realism.  He'll be a real asset to the admin team.
'''Support''' - my path frequently crosses with this editor and I believe the admin tools will enhance his already fine contributions. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''', my own edits/day do not reach, on average, much higher than 12/day some months, and people voted me on as a sysop unanimously. I see no reason not to trust that this user will make good use of the tools when they have time to do so. -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Inactivity is no reason to deny an otherwise acceptable admin candidate.  When he's here, he can use the tools, when he's not, what difference will it make if he has them or not? I fail to see the reasoning.--
'''Support.'''  Has been around a while; answered questions well, mature attitude, straightforward about admitting when he has messed up. Per [[WP:RFA]] I regard such qualities as more important than meeting arbitrary numerical cutoffs.
'''Support'''.Old wikipedian, with experience.--
'''Support.''' We needs admins, not edits-per-month-count-itis.
'''Support.''' BozMo would make a fine and trusted Admin. --
'''Strong Support'''. As an admin who doesn't make that many edits per month, I have to say I'm a bit disturbed by the oposing sentiment. RfA is about whether we can trust this user with the mop. Based on everything I have seen, I would say absolutely. Indeed, I am more comfortable with an editor who makes slow, cautious, and deliberate edits than someone who becomes over-invested in the project to the point of losing it. Adminship is no big deal, when it starts to become a big deal, that's when we get the admins who snap and start wheel-warring or become obsessively entrenched in a particular wiki-philosophy.
'''Support''' I see no problems, slow activity is not a concern of mine.
No concerns, satisfied he has the necessary grasp on policy.
'''Weak Support''' (switched from oppose) - I have concerns, as listed below, about the level of involvement in various administrative tasks and processes.  However, an expressed (and demonstrated) willingness to improve in the areas of concern, combined with strong anti-spam work, has convinced me that this user would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' It's not always about how many edits a user has, its what the person does with it. BozMo in my believe will be a quality sysop and should be entrusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. Let me put this quite bluntly - those who say that edit count or edit distribution show that he isn't committed to the project haven't been in [[WP:1.0]]. He has been simply invaluable there.
'''Support'''. based on response to Wizardman's !vote below. I think he'll make a fine admin. ···
'''Support'''.  Friendly, level headed, good answers, makes strong contributions.  It's clear to me this user's not going to abuse the tools.  Many opposes seem based on editcountitis.  It's easy to jack up your edit count without helping the project any.  For example, the candidate could stop working so hard investigating spam and start voting in every AfD without looking at the articles first.  So maybe the lower count shows a greater amount of integrity!
'''Support''' A very friendly and good user. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' because this is a good editor.  The mop should be the natrual progression for every good editor. ---
'''Support''' should be just fine as an admin.
'''Support''' per comments made by: [[User:A. B.]], & [[User:J.smith]]. --
'''Strong support'''. For all the good reasons listed above (and because I was unimpressed with most of the reasons listed in the oppose votes). ''
'''Support''' looks good --

'''Support''' Previously was opposed...but I don't know why.  I don't thin k it was actually me voting the first time.  I don't agree with the opposition about a low edit count ''at all''.  Best of luck, '''
'''Support''' per his work in the anti-spam effort and what appears to be a good ability to think through complex issues (although I do disagree with him over nofollow).
'''Support''' per [[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]] and [[user:Delldot|delldot]].
'''Strong and Moral Support'''. Good candidate. It's a shame that people think you shouldn't be an admin since you haven't met some arbitrary number of Mainspace edits. I love the CD, by the way. --
'''Support''', you may or may not make much use of the tools, but in my opinion you're not too likely to abuse them, which is pretty much my only criterion.
'''Support'''.
'''Cabal support''', I find the oppose votes less than convincing. Administrators are not essentially article contributors. This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Keep up the good work! &mdash;
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. The guy can and will put the admin tools to good use. -
'''Weakish Support''', I cannot see how you would cause any ''harm'' to Wikipedia by gaining +sysop. You've shown me enough to put my trust in you, although the opposers do raise a couple of valid points. '''
'''Support'''. Contributions look good; answers convincing. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Just returning from my wikibreak and see no problems here. :)
(edit conflict) '''Support''' - per above, a fine contributor all round :)
--
'''Support''': this user's anti-spam activities make them a "good guy" in my book, and frankly the "Oppose" rationales seem thin. HTH HAND —
'''Support''' per Phil Boswell. If we had half the number of admins dealing with spam that do vandal fighting, our work on the Spam projects would be a hell of a lot easier.  <font face="Arial">--Kind Regards -
'''Support'''. I am satisfied this user is trustworthy and understands policy.
'''Oppose''' - The last "contribution" I can find you made to the encyclopaedia (the thing we are building here) was on the 8th of January :-\[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Freedland&diff=prev&oldid=99311210] <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''', not really any clear cut demonstration of policy understanding, very few Wikispace edits, not quite active enough.
'''Oppose for Now''' per Ganfon. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per low edit count. ''
'''Oppose''' 897 main namespace edits over a period of nearly three years is ludicrously small for an aspiring admin. With most of the user's edits being to talk pages, one can reasonably question their commitment to building an encyclopedia and their command of content policies.
'''Oppose''' - Mainspace editing is not healthy enough - only 800 mainspace edits the bulk of which are reverts and small tweaks. The other thing is that in the last 6 months there were only a bit over 300. I feel that everybody should have a good and healthy level of work in the day to day encyclopedia before becoming an admin, as administration should revolve around improving article productivity, so having a solid experience is necessary here. '''
'''Oppose''' Low number of project-space edits suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' for now but will be willing to support in a couple of months. Good luck. -
'''Oppose''' - way too few edits, and it's simply asking for too much at this point. Applaud his efforts to date, have no reason to doubt the kudos among the supporters, but propose that he have about 2-3 times as many edits before he try again. --
'''Oppose''' too few edits right now.
'''Oppose''' I can't see how someone with only 900 mainspace edits could have the experience for adminship.-
'''Oppose'''. There are 900 edits to articles since April 2004.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. not enough edits on article pages.  --
'''Oppose'''. Far too few mainspace edits.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose - needs more edits in the mainspace and wikispace. Activity is rather low for an admin candidate.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support - more activity is required in admin and policy areas.  Contributions to XfD discussions that quote policies and guidelines would also be of service in identifying knowledge of appropriate policies in the circumstances.
'''Neutral''' per aeropagitica. I am a little uncomfortable with your activity. ←
'''Neutral''' Defenders make a good case, but there's only been a few months of real activity recently and I still have my concerns. Happy to adjust !vote to neutral in deference to well-reasoned arguments, but not enought to get a Support. --
'''Neutral''' per [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]]. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' A great user, but the low number of mainspace edits leaves me a bit unsure about how you will handle yourself with dispute resolution and other frequent admin tasks. '''
'''Neutral''' per Nishkid64. You're just not ready yet. '''
'''Neutral''' Please do reapply when you have a few more edits... <font color="green">
'''Neutral''' The editors commitment to the WPCD is admirable.  However, the contribution of content to the main space is disappointing.  It's not so much the edit count, but the general lack of content contribution.  No matter how level headed and committed the editor, if they do not have the experience of main space contribution it is unlikely they could truly understand the issues challenging the purpose of this project.  As for the spelling issues, the new Firefox includes a spell check feature.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
Deespite [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike the Headless Chicken|this]], I'm willing to '''support''' for now, though this one of those RfA's i'm gonna have to really look at.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', assuming that you don't start flaming the first person who opposes. That rarely happens with anyone who actually ''gets'' !votes before being delisted, so I'm not worried. :) -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great contribs, great answers to the questions, simply is admin. material. '''
'''Support''' Bumped into Brad a couple of times, always a good experience, and judging by his contributions, particuarly with vandal-whacking, I see no reason why he shouldn't get ''the tools''.
'''Support''' - participation in [[WP:XFD|XfD]] debates is always good; quantity of minor edits shows that the user is aiming for benefit of the [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]], not his own editcount and ego. Always [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and well-mannered, and has excellent answers to the questions above. Finally, participation in the Admin-Coaching program shows a clear acceptance to learn as an editor and as an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]]. Although I'd like to see some participation in [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer Review]] or [[WP:ER|Editor Review]], excellent progress has been made on the encyclopedia and the user is finally ready - in my opinion - for the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_how-to_guide|janitor's trolley]]. Regards, [[User:Anthony_cfc|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">Anthony</span>]]
'''Support''' Everything looks good. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support''' I think that Brad has answered all of the issues that I raised at his last RfA regarding knowledge of policies and guidelines and warning vandals when countering their efforts.  Happy to support.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, good candidate overall.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''-Good answers, good user. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' per <s>having username Brad</s> excellent contributions and answers, and demonstrated ability to learn from comments in the prior RfA and meaningfully address all the concerns raised.
'''Support''' I've seen BradBeattie around quite often editing in a variety of fields on Wikipedia as well as being a vandal patroller.   I am quite sure that he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Already thought you were an Admin. '''
Candidate has my '''support'''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Support''' everything seems in order.
'''Strong Support'''. --'''
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
- <b>
'''Support''' as per above
'''Interupting my wikibreak Support''' '''
'''Support'''
I'm
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' no reason not to. ←
'''Support'''.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' :) ''
With a tip of my [[deerstalker]] hat, I '''support''' this user. '''
'''Support''' a good candidate, for wading though those obscure web comics.  --
'''Support''' WOW Cuzz, this is a good track record.
&mdash;
'''Yup''' '''
Looks reasonable enough.
'''Support''', since he made an OS X Wiki tool (finally!) and helped write one of my favorite articles (0.999...). Plus he isn't too bad. --
'''Support''' good all-around user.--
'''Support''' Humble user with nothing but the best intentions in mind.  --
'''No-cliche-Here Support''' --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support''' Has helped many fight vandalism better with wikiguard. He also is a very friendly editor. No question that he would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' per nom −
'''Special Support''' for a user who helped [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof that 0.999... equals 1|save an FA]] from the jaws of the [[Special:Log/Delete|deletion log]]. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''.  Good work.  Will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Looks like a strong candidate and I always feel warmly towards those who remove vandalism from my UserPage.
'''Support'''.--
'''Bradsupport''' 1 ~
'''Support'''.
Impressive article work, very reasonable.
'''Support'''. Seems like a great candidate based on his contributions and responses above. ···
'''Support'''. I just like the cut of his jib. <font face="Arial Black">--Kind Regards -
'''Support'''. I have only good things to say about this editor.
'''Support.''' '''
I particularily enjoyed reading [[0.999...]], and as far as I can tell from 20mins of research through your talk page/contribs, I see no reason ''not'' to give you the mop. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like a decent editor to me. <font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  —
'''Support''' Great answers to questions, and seems to have improved.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Oppose'''
'''Support''' as nominator. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''' Been here around for a long time, 5 GA's, knows policy well, won't abuse the tools. Why not, anyways?
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' Having worked with this editor on a number of articles I consider that he has sound judgement and ample common sense, all combined with a firm grasp of policy.  I have no doubt that he will prove to be an excellent admin.  --
'''Support''' Great contributor, responsible and always helpful. --
'''Support''': Excellent amount of experience, and editor seems responisble and trustworthy. I would like to see a little better edit summary usage, but I can't see anything else wrong other than that. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Just set your edit summaries to be forced in your user preferences and that should remove that obstacle in future.  I see no problems with your contributions and I don't believe that the project would be harmed by you being granted the admin tools.
'''Support''' Yeah, seems like it would be a nice fit.
'''Strong Support''' As far as I can tell, he will and even better help to Wikipedia given admin tools. He uses edit summaries conistently (except for when he started, but hey. We all did that.) He has made significant contributions to United States socioeconomic articles, which were sorely needed.
'''Support''' I dig admins with editing experience.
'''Support''' This user meets my standards. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' I don't see anything wrong with this user. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
-- <b>
'''Support''' - Concerns in the neutral section are not serious enough to merit an oppose. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' rock on --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Probably would have co-nominated the BS-man (haha - I just made that up!) if I knew how to do so.  Really appreciate his contributions to automobile related articles.  These sometimes become a hotbed of conflict, especially when new models and concept cars come out and get kicked around; and also when well-intentioned editors go around snapping horribly-composed images of assorted cars they found in a local parking lot and just had to replace well established images, or litter the articles with more.  Need another admin or two in there keeping an eye on things, to try to clarify the rules of engagement and encourage consensus.  --
'''Support''' seems to be a reasonable and pragmatic guy on article talk pages, which is a fine trait in prospective admins, and no problems pointed out so far in this RFA. See no reason not to support. --
'''Support''' good person that I think will be a good admin.
'''Support''' qualified for adminship, good article work, nice activity, no concerns. —

It doesn't appear that the canadate will abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' - a pretty good choice I reckon..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - will be ok. cheers,

'''Support''' Seems like a good editor. I like the answers the standard Qs, feel the concerns raised in the neutral section were addressed and haven't seen anything of concern while looking through the (extensive) contribution history. --
'''Support from Neutral''' I am satisfied that Brendel doesn't make it a habit to use stats as a bat. The extent of your work, both in quantity and quality is impressive.
I'm
'''Support''' A fine user, from what I can see here.
'''Support''' Have seen good work from this user, and trust them with the tools. --
support per all above
'''Support''' - excellent user, no problems to suggest misuse of tools. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' appears that he won't push the red button in haste. (For red button, see [[Nuclear warfare]]).
'''Support'''. I actually thought you were an admin already. Am I confusing you with [[User:Interiot]]? Active, civil, knowledgeable. Seems like a safe RfA. ''--
'''Support''', yeah. --
Why not?-&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support''' Has done and will do well.
'''Support''' He seems like a responsible user who handles conflicts well and has a long list of good edits, furthermore he has been an excellent admin over at wikinews. I see no reason why he shouldn't have the mop.

'''Support'''. I only comment here if I already know something about the user. In this case I do  and I believe we can trust him to use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' I'm the nom, I of course have to support. :)
'''Support''' Trustworthy Wikinews editor, does not suck at Wikipedia as far as I know, and plus OTRS-men should have adminship.
'''Strong Support''' - A very good and responsible editor and good job by the nominator in finding him..Good Luck..Go.. [[All Blacks]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Track appears good.
'''Weak Support''' Seems like a good editor, however, Boricuaeddie makes a point. For that, I'm weak support.
'''Support''' I'm scratching my head at the first two opposes and the neutral. Clearly his long history of contributions here and at WikiNews is sufficient experience and if there are aspects of policy he's less familiar with on Wikipedia, we can trust him not to jump into it like a madman. As for interaction with other users, again, this simply boggles the mind: OTRS and arbitrator on Wikinews is not exactly something you can do without having shown communications skills.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support'''; if he can manage all that on Wikinews, he's probably not half as thick as many of the people we do routinely sysop.  I don't really care that the majority of his experience is on Wikinews.  Not mental, could use the tools regarding the OTRS stuff = make him a sysop.
'''Support''' per MessedRocker ~
'''Support''' per Pascal.  Policies on the wikis are not all the same, but they are similar.  I can see that Brian can be trusted to use admin tools wisely and with due discretion.
'''Support''' Oppose concerns do not concern me.
'''Support''' - he is positive, constructive, helpful and dedicated. A great help to us over at Māori Wikipedia too.
'''Support''' - strongly qualified.
'''Support'''. Deserves the mop and bucket, has done his bit around the project. &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, meets my requirements. A user with such high position on another wmf wiki should be auto-promoted, considering that thats what adminshp has always been about. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' - I'm going to support. This is obviously an experienced editor who has been here for quite some time and upon looking at his total edits, not simply his last few dozen edits, I can conclude with confidence that this person wouldn't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I personally doubt the oppose votes know how important is the OTRS. We need more people who is willing to do OTRS work. Only the most trusted editors are accepted for that.
'''Support''' &ndash; he's good enough for WikiNews, he's good enough for us. Best of luck! ~
'''Support'''.  I know his work better on Wikinews as well, but his work on Wikipedia inspires just as much confidence.  Plus, his OTRS work can only benefit from the additional resources.  <span style="font-size: 8pt;">
Strong support. '''
'''Support''', a reliable editor of long standing who already knows from other projects how the tools work.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''<big>+</big>'''  Seriously, you can't get more trustworthy than this user.  The sysop flag will only benefit the enwiki.
'''Support'''. I think you were my first non-support vote on an rfa ever, so I'll make it up to you. Well, that and the fact that you're certainly capable of being a good admin helps too.
'''Support''', Brian is trustworthy and experienced. Being familiar with his activities, I have complete confidence that would be an asset as a Wikipedia administrator.--
'''Strong support'''. IIRC I suggested to Brian a few months back that he would be good admin material. About time he was given a mop.
'''Support''' A well rounded contributor that is expiernced.
'''Support''' I'm still not very satisfied with experience with deletion or blocking (via AIV reports) here, but I'm willing to overlook those given other strengths, and also his OTRS work.--
'''Support''' Needs yet another mop for his ever growing janitors closet.
'''Support''' Even with the myriad of projects Brian has on atm, I believe that he will be a great asset to the project
'''Support''' Would be a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Qualified for adminship. Opposers' arguments are unconvincing. See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 96#No clear need for tools]].
'''Support''' he can be trusted.  --
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to think that he will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Natch.
'''Support''' Kiwi Support --
'''Support''' Obviously qualified in more ways than one.  The opposing sides ''do'' have good points, but I believe you have the abilities to learn quickly.
'''Support''' Of course.
Antipodean '''support'''. --
Brian having the tools would be an asset to the project. --
'''Support''' After looking at Brian's extensive contributions on *this* project I am happy to support, quite apart from his admirable work elsewhere which would suggest he has the technical and personal experience to use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''' Trust him 100% to use the tools wisely. Very mature editor with large amount of experience. -
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Weak Support'''- excellent editor but contributions [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Brian%20New%20Zealand&site=en.wikipedia.org exlcusively] to New Zealand related isn't very diversified. I'm sure your excellent editing would also be appreciated in other mainspace areas.
'''Support'''.  Brian has been around the traps long enough and done enough here and elsewhere that its clear he can be trusted; there is no good reason to oppose that I can see.  And I know that the extra buttons will help his OTRS work which is important. &mdash;
'''Support''' Experienced user, I trust him not to go mental and block me.
'''Support'''.  Clearly to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''Support''' Long time editor in good standing. I feel he's OK with the tools. At look at his logs on Wikinews is a good indicator that knows how to use them and can be trusted with them.--
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Having read the opposes as of this moment, I can discount them all. I see a hard working editor and member of the community who will do just fine with the tools.
'''OTRS>>Admin''', the level of responsibility required for OTRS alone is much  much much greater than that required for a mere wikipedia admin. Adminship is a job that can be done by an (admittedly smart and somewhat responsible) 15-year-old. What else can I say? Go Kiwi! :-) --
'''Support''.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Strong support''' per all the points Pascal Tesson has made. OTRS-work is playing in the big leagues of policy and dispute resolution since it impinges on the real world, as is working at the level of Arbitrator and Bureaucrat on other projects. I have no doubt this user can handle admin tasks here and I think we should snap him up as an admin for this project before we run him off. Thanks for agreeing to serve. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' If I base my statement on his activity and behavior on Wikinews, this user is an exceptional candidate.  I have seen his activity on OTRS, and let me say, that is ''far'' harder and to qualify for a position such as that requires more responsibility and trust, by far, than is needed for adminship on any wiki, let alone the English Wikipedia, with thousands of users to check up on you. '''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', excellent admin / bureaucrat at Wikinews.
'''Support!''' Hey -- Looks good to me! --
'''Support''' Trustworthy, and I think what was brought up in question #8 was a clicking of the "mark all edits as minor" button in preferences, and forgetting to change that or that he'd done it. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support''' I don't see anything wrong.
'''Support''' - See no reason to oppose
'''Support''' - merits the trust.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Trust flows. Layout is the same, if he can do it on Wikinews, he can do it here. --[[user:wpktsfs|w]][[user:wpktsfs/poetry|'''p''']][[user:wpktsfs|k]][[user talk:wpktsfs|'''t''']]
'''Tautoko''' Although my [[Maori]] is horrible, I guess that's why I'm here on English :P.
'''Support''' Definitely deserving of the extra buttons here. Outstanding editor, admin, and now bureaucrat, on the English Wikinews.
'''Support''' We need more like this. ''<font color="#000066">'''
—'''
Don't see any reason not to... --
'''Oppose''' — Not convinced you need sysoping. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Brian+New+Zealand&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 latest] mainspace edits don't inspire confidence within me. There's more to Wikipedia than OTRS or playing wikipolitics.
'''Strong oppose'''- You say you want to participate at AIV, yet I don't see many reports, so I do not know if you know when to block. I have the same concern with CSD. You say you want to participate there, but I don't see much new page patrolling or anything to indicate that you have knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria. Your work with OTRS is appreciated, but I don't think it's helped you prepare yourself for adminship.  I also could not find much interaction with other users, which I believe is necessary to sharpen one's skill at communication and dispute resolution; both of which are an important part of being an admin. Sorry. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' You haven't been very active in AIV with only 3 edits there. Is there anything besides OTRS that you do here.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew. While sysop powers are "no big deal", they are also not to given out lightly. Per his recent contrib history, I don't see this editor as carrying out tasks that vitally require sysop powers. I also see no substantial evidence of an ability to comport oneself with fairness and neutrality (in discussion).
'''Oppose''', sorry, even though we need more kiwi admins. I see little improvement since your last RfA, in a period which is also marked by a rather low activity and lack of participation in admin-oriented tasks (particularly [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RM]], where you plan to be helping should you be given access to the admin tools).--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', While I see a fairly well intentioned editor I can't see a requirement for the admin tools until a greater variety of tasks is undertaken.
'''Oppose'''. Has not been especially active since his last failed RfA. I see no evidence of this editor making significant strides since then.
'''Oppose''' Talk space edits are extremely low. For me, talk space edits show an ability to work collaboratively and a lack of such edits puts that into question. Additionally, contributions seem very focused to one area of the encyclopedia. I'd like to see you broaden your horizons and get involved in other areas. Gain some additional experience through that, and I think you'll make a great admin.
In essence, I'm opposing per Eddie.  You say you wish to help out at speedy deletion, yet according to GRBerry your last 50 deleted edits go back to June of last year (I'm not an admin, so I can't verify this).  That is a very, very small amount of CSD tagging, yet you wish to go around deleting such articles.  Sorry, I just can't trust you to do that.  Also a very low AIV count (4 or less, since wannabe_kate doesn't show it), yet you wish to help out there.  Experience spawns trust, and I just don't see experience.  Sorry mate, but WikiNews is a whole different kettle of fish; around here you just don't have my trust yet.  <s>By the way, go [[All Blacks]] :P</s>
Flame away, I don't think we need more OTRS admins at all. --
I'm not too sure about this user, no offence meant at all. He seems fairly good, but almost all of his last 500 edits are marked as minor, and his edit count summary usage is fairly low, and while mine isnt very good until lately, I think this is something i'd like to see more of in an admin candidate. Another minor problem is that he has quite low space talk edits. All of these things are minor, but they come together, at least for me, to be a '''neutral''', for the time being. Good luck all the same -- <strong>
'''(Edit Conflict) Neutral'''. You have enough on your plate with all of your other duties in the other projects. I'm not entirely sure how much dedication you would give to adminship.
I would support (strong support, even) because you seem to be an excellent editor, adminship is no big deal, and the primary concern raised by the opposers ("doesn't need adminship") is a [[WP:AAAD#User doesn't need the tools|very bad reason to oppose]]; adminship is not something that you get because you "need" it, but rather because the community trusts in you and believes that you will not abuse them. However, I cannot support until we get a satisfying answer to question #8, because marking all your edits as [[WP:MINOR|minor]] implies unfamiliarity with Wikipedia practices. <b>
'''Support'''. Brianga is a worthy candidate.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. Please de-bolden the answers to the three standard questions, as I do not believe they are meant to be; of course — the decision is yours.
'''Support''' Seems like a good choice to get the tools.  I kind of like the bolded answers, actually.
'''Support per nom''' shows readieness for the tools in requested areas. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.230.247.149 Able to revert unconstructive edits and warn appropriately w/o being bitey or unduly confrontational.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&limit=500&target=Brianga 500+ deleted contribs]. I personally don't care that the answers are bolded. It is not the way we usually do things, though.
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - will be fine.
'''Support''' This user has a broad range of experience with the areas that are specifically admin related. He has contributed heavily to AIV but also to some image discussions and copyright discussions. He appears civil and level headed. I can see no problem with giving him the tools. -
'''Support''' '''''
'''
'''Support''', looks good. '''<font color="red">
'''Support'''.  No bright red flags.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Everything here looks good to me. The answers could have been more extensive, but I think I can trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' - I see no problems with the user and I also believe that a lack of Edits in a particular section should not have an effect on your chances. Some people are much better at certain things...
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - I think he will do a good job as an admin.
'''Support''' No drawbacks here. And I ❤ wikignomes.
'''Support''' I'd rather have admins with experience developing articles, to be honest, but that's a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with having a wikignome admin. :-P I don't think you'll misuse the tools, from what I've been able to gather from your contribs.
<i><b>
'''Support''' I think s/he will be a fine admin and, in addressing the concerns expressed below: I think s/he, because of the extensive experience in vandal fighting and RC patrolling, won't be venturing into the intricacies of feature article promotion or be resolving disputes on the most contentious content subtleties on day one.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, and excellent vandal fighter. P.S. for Carlossuarez; it's a he. :)
'''Support''' Nobody voiced any earnest concerns about this candidate, and {{genderneutral|ey}} can need some support to counter an opposition that has been addressed. &mdash;
'''Support''' Don't see any problems and certainly don't have bias against wikignomes and looks a good one.
'''Support''' K.
'''Support'''. Changed from neutral. Good answer to Question 6.
'''Support'''.  Per the nom and the answer to Question 6.
I'm
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support ... ''but''''' please read Kurt Weber's oppose comment and reflect on his comment about "fortress mentalities". I've seen this too often among admins that have focused solely on external threats. I encourage you to do some article-writing or if nothing else, dig up refs to save some of the [[:Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability|mangy articles that have notability tags]]. Look for ways to say "yes" to content and to other editors. Otherwise you may just become an [[Groundskeeper Willie|old and bitter man with a mop]]. Good luck, --<font face="Futura">
Nothing suggests that this user will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Cleanup work is essential.  But when it's your primary means of contributing to Wikipedia, rather than actually writing and submitting content, that indicates to me that you're just interested in throwing your weight around.  People who spend the bulk of their time fighting off vandals tend to develop a "fortress mentality" that is just not conducive to interacting with users who make honest mistakes.  If you are made an administrator and this turns out not to be the case with you, I'd be more than happy to symbolically endorse you.  But at this point, I can't.
'''Neutral''' I don't see anything glaring, but I can't support somebody who has little to no experience developing articles.  There tend to be two camps "vandal fighters" and "non-vandal fighters."  While I don't require that anybody work in both arenas, I do believe people who are interested in Adminship show they are ready by delving into areas they may not work in the future.
'''Strong Support''' - As Co nom.
<s>'''Speedy delete''' as reposting of deleted...</s> um... sorry, wrong process page. Better make it a '''Support''' then. Good work on RCP, Stub sorting and the albums project.
'''Edited conflicted support''' same as co-nom but more so.--
'''Support''' Wrote 200 articles????? Wow!!!!!! Sounds like a good potential admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Strong support''' was going to be a [[User:Majorly|majorly]] nomination, but others beat me to it. Not surprised really, a great editor. Should do well as an admin. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' How did you write 205 article being active in [[WP:RCP]]?--
'''Support'''-Have seen this user around a lot. Great editor and RCP. Surprised he wasn't an admin yet. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''. Great candidate and will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and the only bad thing I can say is that his username doesn't have "llama" in it. :) &ndash;
'''Support''' I've seen Bubba around quite a few times and I've always had a very good impression of his work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Strong Support''' per Llama man :), but seriously this is one user who I have seen around a lot. I actually thought he was one. ~
- <b>
'''Support''' Well... duh. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Smashing nom! Splendiferus! Stylish ''and'' functional! Vandalbane as well!
'''Support''' Absolutely, I have seen him round and I have no doubt that he would make a great admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - Seems like a fine user--<font face="comic sans ms">
Seen him around. Great user. --
'''Support''' without any hesitation. -

'''Strong support''', nothing but good.

I'm
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per everything above - fully qualified and no concerns.
'''Admin yet? No one's noticed.''' --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' Excellent dedicated candidate.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''I thought he was one'''. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support'''.
'''Very strong support'''.  Not only was Bubba exceptionally helpful as I was trying to get an article off of AFD and up to GA status (and it [[Mr. Lady Records|got there]]!), he has an awesome name based off of one of my favourite films ever.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' - read nom --
'''Support''' Demonstrates a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and has done extensive work with WikiProjects, RC Patrol and article writing. Seems like a great candidate. =) '''
'''Support''', seems very capable.
'''Support''' can't find a reason not to. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' very balanced contributions and very aware of policy.  Would do excellent as an administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Article writing and new page/ recent change patroller too?  A good example for other aspiring admins.
'''Support'''. Seems knowledgable and thoughtful during discussions, from what I can tell. -
'''Support''' You've been everywhere on wikipedia, and done everything, how couldn't I trust a veteran? ·
'''Support'''. Decent nom, reasonable answers, an excellent record; everything's in order.
'''Support''' Looks like a solid candidate overall. Give-em-the-mop<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' -- <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - Seen this user around & he is very capable. I see no reason not to give him the mop... :)
'''Support''', great editor. Good to have more filmic references as well.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Outstanding effort. Support ber above. This user is one of the best nominees I have ever seen. --
'''Support'''.  He's one of my wikiHeroes. -
'''Ultra-Strong Support!''' Arg, I was hoping I could nominate Bubba hotep for adminship! Not only is he one of the best Wikipedians I have had the pleasure of working with, he is also the first Wikipedian who I bestowed a Barnstar upon. He is more than qualified for Adminship and should have become a sysop long ago. --'''
'''Support''' -- worthy candidate. -
'''Support'''. Absolutely top quality editor who I'm sure will make an excellent administrator. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great candidate, infact already thought you were an admin!
'''Support'''

'''Support:''' <small>
'''Support''' - A very Good Contributor to Wikipedia...why not?...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' the nomination and the answers make me sure that this user will make a geat and helpful administrator that we can trust with the tools. '''
'''Yes'''.
A late '''support''' is still a support.--
'''Support''' - Nearly missed this one. Glad I didn't.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - I had a check through your contribs earlier on and I see no problems - best of luck.
'''Support''' -- seems good. As a side note, might want to get more into the template namespace. But then again, not many people go there. <strong>
'''Support''' No concerns here. Looks good. —
'''Support''' Same as above.  Has the mindset, won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' I agree with the other supporters in their statements.
'''Support''' dedicated copyvio hunter... we've promoted several "graduates" of [[WP:SCV]] and they've all been great blue-collar admins. BSF is ridiculously active there, and I think he should be a big help with the various backlogs, especially copyright-related ones. --
'''Support''' No problems here :-). <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
But seriously folks... '''support''' this guy :P <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' I like the username better than the user, but what can you do?... I've seen his comments on occasion, but I'm really impressed by his focus on weeding out copyvios.  It's not easy, and anyone who is dedicated toward that goal deserves to receive the tools and continue working on it.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no significant problems with this editors' contributions.
'''Support''' Same as above.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Based on 1) Trusted Nominator 2) Strong contributions from a candidate who says he has little time to edit! 3) Civility evidenced from contribution history 4) Excellent and expanded answers to the questions. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No issues...good luck!
'''Support''' - Seriously folks..I thought he was one ;)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - We need more admins to deal with copyright... keep up the good work.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Strong support''' I thought Butseriouslyfolks ''was'' an administrator as well. I can trust Wizardman's nomination.
'''Support''' Fine administrator material.
'''Obviously'''. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''', nothing disconcerting about this user's answers or contributions.
'''Support''' Nice answer to Q.3...
'''Support''' Good range of experience, has useful skills especially in copyvio work; seen him/her around, no problems. Good candidate.--<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' A sensible candidate with great expeirence.
'''Support''' No concerns. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Strong Support''' -- Very actively editing, no apparent flaws in contributions. I'd say this user is more than ready for the promotion.<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; background-color:#FFFFFF;">
'''Support''' BSF is trustworthy and will not abuse the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' Good evidence and good attitude. --
'''Support''' Excellent communication skills, which is something very positive for admins.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' Doesn't have any outstanding issues.
'''Support'''
'''Suppose''' - a little low on mainspace edits, but then so was I for my RFA.
'''I suppose I support''': Ordinarily I do like to see more in the way of significant mainspace and article contributions. However, we're short on admins who handle image- and copyright-related issues, and Butseriously has a good track record there. I don't see any red flags. '''
'''Support''' seems thoughtful, and serious,
'''Support''' will provide valuable help in areas in need for admin attention.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Case of "What, he's not one already?" I had made this assumption from the user's widespread involvement, good conduct and thoughtful arguments at AfD debates, and improvement of articles. Deserves the mop.
'''Support'''. But seriously, folks. He would make a great admin, handling image and copyright issues (places I get perplexed on). '''
'''Support''' Excellent editor -> excellent admin - and I like the positive response to question 3 :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' I have worked with this editor, and he is ready.  His attitude is good, and he is willing to work with other people.
'''Weak Support''' - those who are opposing based on lack of "improving articles" should bear in mind that maintenance tasks are equally valuable to the encyclopedia, and that there are large administrative backlogs which require attention. This candidate clearly has plenty of maintenance experience and is ready to help clear the backlogs. As such, on the whole, I can't oppose, although I urge the candidate to take on board the points raised by DS1953 and Alansohn below; closing admins should not generally ignore opinions given in good faith.
'''Support''' Always a prolific contributor to AfDs and will make a fine admin!
'''Support'''. I've seen good work from this editor, and I trust him. <font color="Purple">
'''Support'''. Your current work in the area of copyright violations speaks for itself, and this is an area that could always use more active admin involvement. --
'''Support''' - I have no concerns that you will abuse the admin tools, in fact I think you will make good use of them. My experience with you makes me think you are civil and would make a good admin. I have no concerns on lack of "article writing".
'''Support''' We need good administrators like him.--
'''Support''' I note that this editor and myself clashed strongly the first time we met, and we still disagree, but he kept it civil, he was willing to listen, and he deserves to be an admin!
'''Support''' His work with images is necessary. Admin tools would help him in that work.
'''Support''' We need a group of admins of 'all the talents' and I see this editor as being prepared to undertake unpopular but essential work. I have sometimes disagreed with him on the knotty topic of school AfDs but he has always been civil and has been prepared to revise his opinion in the light of new evidence - which is often not done when  editors 'hit and run' on AfDs. Finally, I have appreciated his support in highlighting and standing up to disruptive elements.
'''Support''' — after reading his most eloquent ‘diversity speech’ down in the oppose section. I also read the rest of this page and found that I overall like this user's view of things and would feel comfortable with him as an admin. --
'''Support''', lots of good work in copyright shows good judgment. --
'''Support'''. Copyright work is not the easiest function to perform, and you do it admirably well. I think you will make a fine admin.
(Edit conflict) I don't find the opposes persuasive. This user seems like someone who is interested in helping the project run more smoothly. '''
'''Support''' I find BSF's reasoning solid while the oppose section seems unconvincing. Copyright issues are exceptionally important and I appreciate his work. As for many of the others I simply cannot understand their disdain for those who keep this place functional. We are here because we have both strong editors and strong cops. To suggest one is less important is poorly reasoned.
'''Support'''.  This editor has really helped the project with his work on the images issue and I think he'll provide valuable service as an admin.
'''Support''' I see no reason to think he will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Looks good, like his attitude. --
'''Support'''. Total edit count: Check. Cool under fire: Check. Adequate mainspace edits: Check. Already busy with admin-related work: Check. Issue the mop.
'''Support'''. I come across a lot of minor vandalism and miscellaneous silliness in WP. Often I find that much of the mess has already been cleared up by BSF. I'm wary of people who are very keen on "fighting" vandalism: they sometimes seem worryingly close to relishing the "fight" and perhaps even relishing the vandalism. By contrast, BSF seems sane and balanced (though I wish he'd use a signature with fewer bytes). --
'''Support'''.  I, too, have started to rvv on more than a few occasions, only to find the vandalism had already been dealt with by BSF.  I think he absolutely has earned the trust necessary to have the tools, and I think they will prove useful in his work.  <span style="font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support'''. I believe this user would make an ideal administrator and Wikipedia would only benefit from allowing this user to have administrator capabilities.
'''Support''', no evidence he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Oppose''' — I'm not really very impressed, you don't seem to do the important tasks such as improving articles — aka contributing. I'm also not really married to the idea of you [[User talk:Paul venter|going through]] an editor's upload logs and filling their talk page with warnings. There are tasks that I believe you could have fulfilled, which is only beneficial in educating the user better. Looking at your one fair use upload I see that you fail to include any copyright information (the tag does state "all available copyright information").
'''Oppose'''.  I do not agree with this editor's view on consensus as illustrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_5&diff=next&oldid=142795004 this edit].  If he believes that ignoring good faith opinions that he simply disagrees with can be equated with [[WP:ILIKEIT]] and disregarded, then I do not trust this editor with the power to delete. --
'''Oppose''' Your response at [[WP:DRV#Father Michael Goetz Secondary School]] is terribly informative of your approach to the role of a closing administrator. While I have no objection to discounting the value of [[WP:ILIKEIT]] votes, consistency and fairness dictate that the corresponding [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] votes -- which are equally devoid of reference to Wikipedia policy -- should be correspondingly discounted. The failure to demonstrate the ability to balance all sides of a deletion discussion in a balanced manner does not bode well for an administrator, particularly when this occurs in a discussion taking place while this RfA is still active ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_5&diff=next&oldid=142795004 See here]).
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building to make me comfortable with this editor becoming an admin at this time.
'''Oppose''' While running through CSDs today, I noticed a few dubious copyvio tags placed by the candidate.  Although I ended up deleting the articles for other reasons (CSD A7), I'm not quite sure candidate understands copyright well enough to be given the mop.  The repetition of a single declarative sentence, e.g. "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States", does not constitute a copyright violation. Facts are not copyright-able in themselves.  For written words to be subject to copyright, they must contain a minimal creative element.  Sometimes, single sentences do contain such, but a single declarative sentence often does not.
'''Oppose'''.  A lack of article-writing is not something that is often a priority to me.  In this case, however, the one article that BSF has made the most edits to, [[Jonathon Sharkey]] has serious [[WP:BLP]] problems, and BSF's participation seems to have made them worse not better (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathon_Sharkey&diff=103698629&oldid=103680489 here]). Longtime observers of the evolution of [[WP:BLP]] may find irony (or hypocrisy) in it being me who raises this, but I think we would wait until we see BSF edit some more articles so that we can at least know that the Sharkey page is not typical.
'''Strong Oppose'''  Another policeman candidate--more interested in policing the project rather than building it (both are necessary).  Too many applicants want to police rather than do things like foster consensus.  In addition, the applicants answer to 2 is just plain unacceptable.  Not enough time?  Then there's not enough time to be a fair admin.
'''Oppose''' You say nothing about how you would handle dispute resolution problems and yet say you choose an area with a high amount of stress.  People don't like to see their photos deleted.  You also claim how proud you are at finding public domain images of someone who has been dead for 100 years.  Just about any photo of Grover Cleveland is in the public domain, and there are a few at commons already.  And I agree with the above from orangemarlin: more editors, less cops.
'''Oppose''' per DS1953. Approach to that AFD close, dismissing all arguments he disagrees with as ILIKEIT, including an argument where sources were pointed to, indicates a too great a willingness to close debates based on one's own rather than on the opinion of the community. It is very annoying when someone makes an effort to make a policy-reasoned argument (sources) and then see it dismissed as being "I like it". I'll agree that overruling a majority or even a consensus when hard and core issues like ''verifiability'' are at stake and have not been addressed at all, but those situations are in fact exceedingly rare. To overrule consensus on the basis of one's personal opinion over what is and what is not notable should not be done. Also, share Xoloz's concern.
'''Oppose''' per orangemarlin, essentially. Wikipedia is not whack-a-mole, and if you don't have time to contribute content, there's no guarantee you'll have time to use the additional buttons fairly and accurately. -- ''
Per Alansohn -- <b>
'''Oppose'''. Candidate has minimal experience writing articles. Someone on copyvio patrol should be better versed at creating content. I'm also troubled by the candidate's edit summaries. When addressing potential copyvio situations the candidate should educate others on Wikipedia policy. Some copyvio patrollers embed links in their removal edits to copyvio policy pages. I haven't seen this in some of your recent copyvio edits. If you're going to cut corners on communication then you're not ready for an adminship. Take time to make substantial contributions to a few more articles.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]] and some others above.
'''Oppose''' I do not consider this candidate has adequate qualifications- lacking a track record of contribution of articles, and lacking knowledge of the law of copyright and Wikipedia policy regarding copyright.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per Matthew, Orangemarlin. Wikipedia is an  encyclopaedia, lack of   encyclopaedic contributions.--
<s>'''Oppose''' weakly and reluctantly.</s> '''Neutral''' My encounter with Butseriouslyfolks was through his tagging a few images I'd uploaded. He was cordial, honest and polite in our discussion, and for this reason my first impulse was to Support this bid for adminship. However seeing the lack of work in the creation aspect of Wikipedia raised some concerns. <s>And looking over his actions in the [[North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives]] deletion, (mentioned by [[user:Xoloz]] above), turned my vote to a reluctant, weak Oppose. The article, when I looked at it, consisted of two lines of (I was told) copyright violation. The same day it was created, Butseriouslyfolks, tagged it for speedy deletion. Xoloz raised concerns, yet Butseriouslyfolks did not lower the tag to AfD, or ask for a rewrite. It looked to me like it would have been a simple matter for Xoloz to rewrite the article from scratch-- it was a stub anyway-- and ''source'' it with a citation to that copyrighted material. When I checked back to see if this was done, the article was gone. Butseriouslyfolks had stuck to his guns. To me, this is an indication not only of cowboy-type behavior, but also of strict, literalistic application of rules which is against a few points fundamental to the Wikipedian philosophy, such as [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] and [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]]. Tagging the work of other editors for deletion, while necessary sometimes, is not a difficult task. It is not a way to gain full understanding of the project, and is just about a half-step up from bot-work.</s> (Though, again, my experience with Butseriouslyfolks was good.) At Wikipedia, as in real life, the Administrators who work up from the bottom, learning the ropes of every aspect of the organization along the way are almost always the best. Those who come in without experience, quoting the book and refusing to compromise generally create a negative working atomosphere, cause good people to leave, and are often of questionable worth. I do think Butseriouslyfolks will be a good administrator eventually, and, yes, we do need administrators working in all aspects of the project. However I believe every editor, from the top down, should first work to have a strong experience in the editing side of the project before he takes on new responsibilities. <s>It was my understanding, at first glance (I didn't get a chance for a second glance) that the [[North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives]] article was one of those cases that could be fixed rather than deleted. This points out the hazards of knowing all the rules, but not having sufficient experience in implementing them realistically.</s> When you know what it's like to have your work put up for deletion, and know how deletion can often be ''avoided'' through good editing and improving the work, your contributions to the project, even if they are on the side of deletion, can be much more positive. Yes, deletion is important, but before I can fully support his nomination, I'd like to see more experience in the creation/saving aspect of the project. No hard feelings, Butseriouslyfolks. If you win this time, I believe you will eventually be a good admin. And I hope to give my full support next time, if you come up for adminship again later.
'''Strong support''' as nom. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
-- <b>
'''Support'''. Edits seem reasonable, sufficient participation in policy issues, looks like a good candidate. --
'''Support'''. Well-reasoned participation in AfD, good answers to questions and experience. <font face="monospace">
A good candidate, most certainly. '''
'''Support'''. Experienced editor.
'''Support''' Knows policy.
'''Support''' Okay...I find myself agreeing!
'''Support''' another candidate that looks good for the admin tools.
WJBscribe nomination = instasupport. &ndash;
'''Support''', why not. --'''
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no concerns here. Seems qualified for the job. —
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good thoughtful answer to my question.  I hope you'll drop by [[WP:COIN]] and [[WP:SSP]] and help when you have the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' good user for adminship.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good candidate and has many edits giving him experience on how it is to be a regular editor.
'''Support''' Excellent editor; excellent nominator.

'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Insightful answers - I'm impressed. --
'''Support''' per nom.
I'm
'''Support''' - As per Mailer Diablo. --
'''Support''' per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
'''Strong support''' I'm pleased to say that this is another case of a great candidate with a great nominator.
'''Support''' as per FayssalF. --
'''Support''' - as per all..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per Steel. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Good answers to the Qs, by the way. --
'''Support''' per WJB. '''
Sure.  Excellent editor, and a trustworthy nominator.  Can't go wrong. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' In addition to mainspace edits, this editor is also well-represented at AIV; CfD; AfD, etc and well-versed in vandal warning and associated actions too.  A good candidate, so far as I can see.
'''Support''' - seems good, and I trust Shalom as a nominator. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Through understanding of policies and guidelines, good answers to questions, would make a good admin. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Support'''As far as I'm concerned, the candidate is fully qualified. It's the recent edits that count, and I see nothing worrying in those.
'''Support''' as nominator.
I've only had one memorable interaction with this user, which could have been negative, but was quickly resolved.  On that basis alone, I will '''support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good candidate, seems ready for the mop.
'''Support''' A great and thoughtful editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Long-term editor, reasonably wide experience & thoughtful answers to optional questions.
One of the better sports specialist users we have
'''Weak Support''' I like what I see, but would also like to see your talk edits rise.  I believe it is important to not just sit back, but to get more involved.
'''Strong support''' The only time I recall having any contact with Caknuck, he helped me settle a large dispute with another user.  '''
'''Support''' Consistency in editing is excellent.
'''Support''' Experienced in all the right areas. More participation on talkpages and you'll be perfect. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Track record appears consistent and good response.
'''Support''' - We already have so many admins..We Don't need one more.....do we ?.--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong support''' excellent nominator and an excellent candidate here. No problems here.
'''Support''' A [[Canuck|Canadian who can't spell]] is a great admin candidate. :-) All kidding aside, seems a solid contributor.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. This user has plenty of experience, in areas that matter. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Contribs indicate that user is experienced. Will not misuse the extra tools. --
'''Support''', great!
'''Support'''. Don't see any issues here, like his edit history. Give him the mop already.
'''Support''' per TheFearow and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], notwithstanding that I regard one's being a fan of the Texas Rangers as ''prima facie'' evidence of his being possessed of supremely bad judgment.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' seems to be a good candidate. --
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.--
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support'''.  Huh.  Thought you were already.  In any case, I've only seen good things from this contributor.
'''Support'''. Somehow I knew I would end up changing my neutral to support. —'''
'''Support''' Like the contributions and answer to Question #1, and trust Shalom as nominator.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions on deletions show understanding of policy '''
I'm
'''Support''' Great answers to all of the question.  Seems very level-headed and well-informed. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support''' - Trustworthy editor. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Suport''' not enough like this one ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, good answers to all the questions.
'''Support''' as Davewild
'''Support''' Great answers to '''ALL''' questions.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''.  Appears seriously committed to the project, very productive and we desperately need more admins working on images (especially admins with calm demeanors). --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I've met this editor numerous times. Great editor, civil and considerate. Knows the rules. No issues here at all! -
'''Support''' - Looking at this user's contribution history and talk page history indicates that she contributes to some articles that tend to be fairly contentious, and has received some talk page comments from others that I consider to be less than civil.  I am impressed with the fact that rather than lashing back at the editors who left those inappropriate comments, she responded very well and I believe that she has the necessary attitude and demeanor that an administrator would need to handle the firestorm that such a role entails.   I'm less impressed with her lack of edit summaries on many of her edits and hope that that she recognizes their importance and increases their use in the future, but for me, the lack of edit summaries is by far offset by her being cool under fire.
'''Support''' - experience in all the right areas. Good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I dig those who work with images. Keep it free, right?
'''Support''' Good when I've seen her around, & I don't share Neutral No.1's concern that she won't use the tools - I'm sure she'll find plenty to do.
'''Support''' Has strong commitment to making only useful edits and great attitude in discussions. I would expect this user to make only good use of sysop tools.
'''Support''' 1) Despite your response to Q3 I see you working in potentialy contentious areas so kudos for that as it has demonstrated... 2) Excellent civility in your interactions. Also 3) A good well rounded and original set of answers to the mandatory questions and 4) Work throughput is just great <small>(you know we don't get paid for this, yeah ? ''':)'''</small>. I am a bit confused on edit summary use though. Sometimes you write a really detailed rational and other times nothing. Perhaps you can turn on the prompt to remind you, as I think summaries will become more important as an admin. It's a minor niggle amongst a sea of excellent contributions however. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Pedro. That really covered all the bases.
'''Support''' I would like to see more work in administrator-related functions, but it's not such a big deal to me that I won't support.
'''Support''' - All because of your experience and exceptional contributions.. Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Lucky thirteen again?  I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Support''' - No apparent problems. I disagree with Anthony's comments; there's no problem with someone gaining the admin tools "for them to sit rusting". Less active admins don't ''harm'' the project; anyone who is both trustworthy and experienced can be given the admin tools, IMO.
'''Strong support''' fine user.
'''Support''' - Very experienced editor (looking back over the contribs of your prior user names to 2005), whith strong knowledge of images (my primary reason for supporting), and special focus on areas less frequented by other editors.
'''Support''' Does need to use more edit summaries, especially when tagging images.
'''Support''' trustworthy and reliable candidate. —
'''Support'''. Strong contribution history, good understanding of policy, can handle conflict very well from what I can see. Wikipedia needs more admins with image experience—and willingness to use that experience :) I am ever so slightly put off by the edit summary usage, but I could never in good conscience oppose on such grounds; I know I've forgotten to provide them (and use Preview :P) my fair share of times. Best of luck!
'''Support'''. The sort of candidate we need more of. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' She is a very good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Doesn't seem to be any cause for concern here.
'''Support'''. per nom.
'''Support''' per nom--
'''Support''' Sure, why not?
Support, yo.  Thanks for enabling the edit summary message! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Looks fine.--
'''Support''' Good nomination.  Calliopejen is an encyclopedia-builder first, which is the point.  --
'''Support''' Get on it.
I'm
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' 4 out of 5 wookies approve ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' People seem to like Callio, and from what I've seen Callio does deserve Adminship.
'''Support''' We need people like Calliopejen .Lot of edits.
'''Support''' Need good edits, and it's time to give him the mop.
'''Support''' See no evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see [[User:A.Z./Imagine]]. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Calliopejen1's merits: I just think no merits are required)
'''Support''': I was impressed by the way she did a cleanup job on [[Women and Islam]]. --
'''Support''': Clearly understanding of and thoughtful about deletion policy; and per much of the above. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Level headed and easy going. Additionally, she is trustworthy and is unlikely to abuse the tools. - <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' enthusiasm and thoughtfulness, I hope you manage them both well.
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support''' - I'm voting for support. Obliviously a great editor.
'''Oppose'''. Lots of useful encyclopedic contributions, but I'm worried about a lack of consensus building per eg splitting [[gluten sensitivity]] (see [[Talk:Gluten sensitivity#Splitting the page|talk page]]) & deleting list in [[female genital cutting]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_cutting&diff=136295039&oldid=136195363] (see [[User talk:Calliopejen1#On the Female Genital Cutting article...|user talk]]), both apparently without prior discussion. Also the edit summaries issue; not so much not using them, as not fully understanding their importance.
'''Oppose'''.See Oppose #1
'''Neutral''' &ndash; I'm split two ways on this one: one one hand, Calliopejen has many of the attributes required of a sysop: the ability to explain oneself properly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJordache&diff=122818639&oldid=122813263], often to new users who are a little clueless. However, on the other hand, I'm not seeing much participation in Administrator-related areas (e.g., [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s, [[WP:AN/I]], [[WP:AIV]], etc...) and I'm a little worried that Calliopejen will gain the tools for them to sit rusting. Nevertheless, we could do with somebody else who has access to the Mop + Bucket, so I'm going to sit Neutral ~
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support''' I am supporting him/her because this user is well experienced, knowledgeable, Tim Vickers nominated him for adminship, and because his great answers to the questions. Good luck!--

'''Support'''. Good work throughout Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Not a single wisp of doubt in my mind that CP is both trustworthy and knowledgeable. His work at GA has been commendable.
'''Support''' per above votes. --
'''Support''' Seems to know every GA rule by heart, makes me wanna be a bit Canadian actually.-
'''Support''' per the answers to my questions. Good luck with this RfA, eh? lol...
Someone [[User:Daniel/Sandbox/RfA|jumped the queue]] :) '''
'''Support''' Appears to have the gnomish aspect already sorted, nothing to indicate likely abuse of tools.
'''Support''' A very trustworthy user. The tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' For the benefit of the project.
'''Support''' Canadian Paul has been an excellent participant in the Good Article process, is very thorough in his reviews of articles, and will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' no problems here
'''Strong Support''' Seems like a great nomination, although he does write a lot :P  Seems to fully understand Wiki policies and will do a great job with the mop!<br/>

'''Support''' - an excellent editor as far as I can tell. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Strong support''' from another tragic player of [[Moraff's World]]. LOL. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Interactions with this editor have been pleasant, and seems to have kept a cool calm head in the few conflicts I've observed.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.  Great work in article-building, no concerns. --
'''Suuport''' --
'''Yes'''

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Known him for a while, no major issues.
'''Support''' - seems to have experience of all the relevant areas. No issues that I can see. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - good candidate with all relevant experience now acquired. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' after looking at his contributions.
'''Support''' - No issues, trust with tools. -
'''Support''' trust with the tools.
'''Support''' trustworthy. —
'''Support''' —
I'm
'''Support''' - gnomish and dedicated without mop, I trust he'll do even better with it. --
'''Support''' - looks good to me.-'''
'''Support''' Same here, looks good to me.
'''Excellent Contributor who is dedicated and active for a while, very trustworthy''' Support.
'''Support''' per honest answers to questions above.
'''Support''' Appears to be a good canidate for the role. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Would make a great admin, no reason not to trust --
Good user.
'''Support'''. I suppose the user above also supports. =)  '''
'''Support''' I have conversed with this user, and have seen them around, looks like a great candidate. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Neutral''' - I am concerned about this editor's attitude toward anon-IPs.  Edit summaries reading "Anons don't get to decide our priority" and his AN/I response[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=162966478] to this are not to my satisfaction.  Many IPs contribute usefully, and I think we should value their edits based on the merits of their ideas and not the type of account they used to post them.
'''Beat the nom support''' incredibly active and pro-active editor.  A few more WP edits with 30k total wouldn't go amiss, but you've been around the block, take the mop, use it.
'''Support''' -  Looks like a great user - hella experienced, friendly, looks plenty mop worthy.
Thought he was already '''Support''' - Especially pleased with the way he was able to explain the stub-process some time back. An ability I think an admin needs when dealing with newbies.
'''Support''', clearly works hard and is a dedicated stub-sorted which is a vital task.
'''Weak support'''. Stub sorting is completely irrelevant to adminship, so it's really hard to support here, but you do other things, even if they're hard to find. -
'''Strong support''' good contributor. Calm and steady reliable hand on the wheel. '''
'''Strong Support''' Excellent knowledge of policy and other relations. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
Per the nomination, I '''support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - plenty of experience and no reason to oppose --
'''Support contra Astrotrain'''. Casual examination of talk page reveals mucho DYK -
'''Strong support'''. Mmm, lets see- a highly experienced stub-sorter with strong policy knowledge. And admins are having trouble managing the backlog at [[WP:CSD]]. Exactly the sort of admin Wikipedia needs at the moment! <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' per nom and good answers to my questions. Similiar philosophy toward [[WP:BITE]] as myself. Kudos! ''
'''Support''' Great candidate. Convincing answers above.
Good answers; I '''support'''.
'''Support''' - Good content editor. <s>Though I would suggest a separate account for automated edits such as stub sorting</s> &mdash;
'''Support''', good answers, Wikipedia would benefit a lot if this user got the mop. '''
'''Support''' So will Carabinieri be allowed to join Administratte Rosse? ~
'''Support''' of course, I am the nominator.
'''Support'''; good candidate with nice answers. I can't see any downside to promoting.
'''Yes'''.
'''Support''' &ndash;

'''Support''' no problems here.  --
'''Support''' looks alright.--
I'm
'''Support''' Good editor.--
'''Support'''. Prolific editor, great work at [[WP:DYK]]. '''
'''Support'''. Seems calm, cool, and collected; decent answers. Could usefully contribute more behind the curtain, where calm is not always in evidence. Unless Astrotrain is being coy, there's no reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, good contributions to the encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A good candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' We definitely need more proletarian admins. -
'''Ja!''' Definitely. Sehr gut.
'''Support''' You answered all your questions quite well in my opinion, not to mention your fantastic edit count.  Best of luck, you'll be a great admin. '''
Ample experience, nothing suggests this user would be a problem. Trustworthy and levelheaded.
Another candidate I'm kicking myself for not thinking of nominating myself, a good deal earlier.
'''Support''', everyone seems to hhave said it for me.--
'''Support''': This guy's got it all. He'll make a good admin. '''
'''Support'''. Good user, with balanced contributions!
'''Support'''. Great editor, and probably will be an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' per nom and questions.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support'''. A worthy admin.
'''Support''' Deserves mop.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Very good experiences with this editor.
'''Support''' - very high level of dedication and experience.
'''Support''' A good content editor.--
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''' Though you might have fun branching out every now and again. <font color="green">
'''Approval''' — this candidate has my approval, I'd prefer to see some more active contributions and activity but you seem to be doing a good job at the moment. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''
'''Support''' inasmuch as, though Amarkov's proposition is not without merit, I think it quite plain that this user should neither abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I think it safe to conclude that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive]]; I am sure too that Nishi et al. will be quite happy to have another hand at [[WP:DYK]] and perhaps the [[main page]] generally.
'''Oppose'''- not experienced enough- most edits are stub sorting
'''Oppose''': stub-sorting doesn't mean a good admin. Get more experience and try another time.
'''Oppose''' per the history of [[Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II]]. It is an extremly POV and inflamatory article, basically stating that almost all Ukrainian men were busy killing Jews and Ukrainiang women were busy whoreing and bearing children to the German solgiers. Carabinery was not the main editor but if you look in the history all edits by Carabinery are pointed into making already inflammatory and biased article even more inflamatory and biased. I think the trust of the actions of an admin is to make articles more neutral and balanced, not the other way around.
'''Strong oppose''' - ''Carabinieri'' is from a long time the name of the Italian Military Police, that is also employed abroad (see [http://www.carabinieri.it/ link]). While some people might find that the [[Wikipedia:Username|choosen name]] is acceptable, I am afraid that using it for administrative actions, such as deleting pages, blocking users, protecting pages and so on can be misleading, when signed and logged with a name like that. At least to all the people that have happened to be in contact with this authority, especially because it is sometimes felt as controversial. (see [[Carabinieri|link]]). --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' as nom :)
'''Support''' Very good user who knows policy--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support'''. The candidate seems to be a good contributor, has helped to build many fine articles and appears to be trustworthy.
'''Strong support'''.  Really strong candidate. --
'''Support''' - In the times and places I have seen this user, they have acted with maturity, dignity and civility and they have made meaningful contributions to the encyclopaedia. I believe this user would use the mop well.
'''Support'''.  Per above - outstanding candidate.  --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - I've been after this Wikipedian to become an admin for quite some time. He's thoughtful, whether in dealing with articles, other Wikipedians, or whatever the topic at hand is. He's involved in policy and project discussions of nearly every level. (Indeed he is one of those who I tend to see involved in/commenting on a discussion before I ever get there.) He's heavily involved in the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth|Middle Earth WikiProject]]. And has helped several articles attain or retain their featured or good status. The bottom line: I trust this editor's good sense and discernment and discretion. -
'''Support'''.  No problems.  --
'''Support''' Absolutely. Carcharoth is an excellent candidate.--
'''Support'''  I strongly doubt this user will abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' Yes.  This user will be a great addition to the admin group.
'''Support''' experience, trustworthy, very active. No doubts, you need the tools.
'''Strong support''' You're ready. --
'''Sure'''.  He's been around a while, hasn't done anything unreasonable that I know of.
'''Support''' Talk about someone I thought already was one! --
'''Strong Support''' This editor is the embodiment of what it means to be a '''[[Wikipedian]]'''. It will benefit this project only further to have him join the admin team. A wealth of experience and sound policy knowledge. It's a pleasure to support such an excellent candidate. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
But of course.
Embarrassing to admit this considering how I like to lurk at RfA, but I thought he already had the twiddly bits. Time to fix that. ~
'''Well''', yes.
'''Support''' I assumed this person was already an admin. —&nbsp;<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate and per Pedro--
'''Support''' Everything I've seen seems good.
'''Support''' per above.  I've run across his name a few times before, and see no reason why he shouldn't become and admin.
'''Support''', I've only ever seen good things wherever this user's name shows up.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' Happy to chime in.
'''Support'''. Dedicated editor.
'''Support''' Great editor with absolutely no problems.
'''Support''' experienced, active and valid editor. To me he's okay. --
'''Support'''. Eh? I thought you were an admin. '''''
'''Strong support''' As per Angelo and Wizardman and  Has more than 8000 mainspace edits and more than 26000 overall.
'''Support'''. Highly qualified candidate, no issues or concerns at all. Welcome to the ranks, however belatedly you chose to join them.
'''Support''' on the basis that as I've seen your name around lots in connection with lots of excellent work, I'm sure that an additional ability to push the odd button here and there to help keep the place tidy will not be wasted on you!
'''Support''' per biblomaniac. :) &mdash;
'''Support''' no concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' Wow, I thought I was being punked.  I literally had to check his logs to believe he wasn't already one.  —
'''Support''' Have never seen any sign that this user might abuse the tools if given them.
'''For sure''' - would not misuse the tools. -- <strong>
'''Strong Support'''...although I despise [[Carcharoth]]. An awesome nomination written for an awesome Wikipedian; Carcharoth is well-deserving of the tools, and he has proved himself to be a knowledgeable and valuable editor. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support.''' I've seen many of his contributions on the noticeboards. A good record, and I have no concerns at all.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. Well-versed in all major Wikipedia areas from mainspace article content to discussion.
'''Support''' per good experiences with this user in the past.
'''Support''' A great editor who would make an excellent admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Yeps'''. Much abused cliche but I always assumed this user already had the tools.
Wow, IIRC I never hesitated any shorter to issue my '''strong support''' of an RfA. Civil and intelligent, hard-working and loyal. "Awesome Wikipedian" is as spot-on and succinct a description as possible. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
Of course! When he recently posted on my talk page, I was suprised to see that he could not see deleted edits - I had been sure he was an admin...
'''Support''' <s>as</s> per Daniel... --
'''Support''' Of course. --
'''Support''': <cliche>Insert suitable cliche here.</cliche>
'''Support''' Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought you were already an admin. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' I don't foresee abuse from Carcharoth with the mop.
'''Support''', the effort on [[Astronomische Nachrichten]] was exceptional, and from what I have seen of the contrib history it is also typical of Carcharoth's dedication.
'''Support''', a fully merited promotion (overdue, even) to moppiness.
'''Support''' - Only possible concern is 'too good to be true'... but I think we can risk it. :] --
'''Support''', as per a few above, I really did think he was an admin already.  Had I known, I would have been pestering to nominate him months ago.
'''Support''' Nothing to say after reading that nom, great editor.
'''Support''', of course.
<stereotype>'''Wha', he ain't one already?'''</stereotupe>
'''Support''' per nom. --
Me too. Hard to find a better all-round candidate than Carcharoth.
'''Finally!'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' seen this editor around, don't always agree, but he knows the ropes, give him a mop! :-)
I remember asking Carcharoth for help back when I was a new user and had no clue where to find the information I needed on Wikipedia, that was when he quickly came to my aid and kindly gave me directions. I've see him around very often since that day, and he's always sensible, thoughtful and well-mannered. It is without a doubt that Carcharoth will make an excellent administrator. Glad to '''support'''.
'''Support''' without hesitation. And count me among the many who thought Carcharoth already was a sysop. ---
'''Support'''.  Mostly I've agreed with Carcharoth's often boldly worded, always well thought-out comments on policy and editing, and very occasionally I haven't.  But I have no doubt he'd be a very good administrator. Welcome aboard.
'''Support''', an excellent, neutral, thoughtful editor that I believe will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Hope its not too late to jump on the Carcharoth bandwagon.--
'''Strong Support'''.  It never occurred to me that Carcharoth might not already be an admin.--
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', good editor, consistently reasonable. We should have made him an admin a while ago.

'''Support''', yes, a great user. <!--The following is a joke based on the username of the candidate, not a serious concern.--> However, I will be requesting your ''immediate'' desysopping if you should bite off Beren's hand. Keep that in mind. <!--Joke over. ;-)-->
—
'''Strong Support''' I did not think that he was an admin; but I certainly think that he should have been. A verey strong candidate with detailed knowledge of and experience in the project. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Always wondered when this would be coming —
'''Support'''. -*- '''u:'''
'''Support'''.  True cliche moment.  Super-abundantly qualified for the position, should have been mopped a long time ago.
Enthusiastic '''support'''.  Definitely a case where I thought he already was an admin.  --
'''Strong Support''' - This is one of the best candidate's I've seen in quite a while! Well done, I'm confident you'll make a great admin! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
Strong candidate.
'''Support''' an excellent Wikipedian.
'''86th support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate.
Have bumped into this user a time or two.  Seems consistently sane.  Hope he's not a time bomb. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Thought s/he was one, and I don't often write that.
'''Strong support''' thought of nominating him myself 2 or 3 times but never got around to it. Excellent user who has more than enough experience. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''. No brainer really ''(the argument ofr voting, not the nominee)'' cheers,
'''Support'''. This man is a hound. Appoint him immediately.
'''Support''' absolutely, this guy's great. I've had the fortune to meet him in a number of occasions and was impressed by his good sense and friendliness. I no this is banal to say, but the only thing that surprises me is that he's not already an admin.--
'''Make-it-to-[[WP:100]]''' support!
'''Strong supoort'''&ndash; Wizardman is a great admin, and if he thinks this user would be one too, then he must be right.  '''
'''Support''', surprised you're not an admin already.  -
'''Support''' I usually don't poke around here, but I've seen this user, thoughtful, looking to contribute, and doing so successfully. I would both trust him with the tools and have every confidence that he will use them, actively and productively.
'''Support''' For all the reasons above, and for your lengthy history of solid contributions. I appreciated your answer to Q3 as evident you learn from your own actions, which I believe is a strength any admin must have. Best of luck!
'''Support''' Looks great! I was very impressed by the candidate's answers, particularly Q3.
'''[[WP:100|Support]]''' Great user, very impressed with the way he engaged in civil discourse over on some [[WP:AN]] debates.  Was surprsied when checking Listusers to learn that he wasn't already an admin.
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian, excellent admin material!
'''Strong Support''' Insightful on ANI and elsewhere. Not a doubt in the slightest that Carcharoth deserves the mop. --
'''+1 Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I had previously offered to nominate him for adminship.  I almost missed seeing this, since I haven't been as active for the last few months for reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia.  I'm glad I can add my praise, respect and appreciation for this candidate. -- [[WP:CI|&#x2611; ]]<b>
'''Support''', good luck.
'''Support'''. Consistently civil user with excellent judgment. One of the best adminship candidates to come along in a while.
'''Support''' Clearly capable, fine selection. -
'''Support''' - Good editor. Unlikely to abuse admin abilities, though could have more AIV edits, I don't see any.
'''Well, duh!''' - pile-on support -
'''Strong Support''' User seems to have great credentials and it looks like everyone else agrees so far....
'''Support''' I've been really impressed with your comments about the whole ANI issue, so I naturally assumed that you were an admin already. I think different admins bring different skills to the job, and I totally trust you in the well-reasoned, well-thought out discourse aspect of it. ~
Oppose.  Hmm, only 26,000+ edits, poor edit summary usage 2 years ago, had fewer than 1000 edits in one of the last seven months, only 415 edits to Admin Noticeboard, has the trust of only 112 other supporters before me, didn't answer optional question 4, seems to know policy like the back of his hand, and has been a Wikipedia editor for under three years.  Wait, nevermind, '''Strongest Possible Support!'''  This guy will become an excellent administrator; he'll do great with the tools.
'''Support''' - I wish this new admin would devote some time to mainspace article building but otherwise seems like a good admin. candidate.
I'm
'''Support''' He isn't one already? He understands the policies, has a great track record of edits.
'''Support''' pile-on: long and honorable history of contributions, no problems.  Eminently moppable. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I normally don't bother voting on shoe-ins or clearly doomed RfA's but I make an exception for this user with great pleaure (Please no thank you notes when this passes, if possible :)  ). Long overdue. --
'''Support''' I'm afraid that this is another "He's not?"
'''Support'''--
'''Pile-on Support'''
'''Support''' -- Wow, Carcharoth, I thought you were an admin already! You obviously don't need another support vote, but I would be remiss were I to not publicly and enthusiastically support your admin candidacy. You will certainly improve Wikipedia with the tools, and I thank you in advance for taking on the additional responsibility.
'''Support'''.  What the-?  How the-?  Not a-?  A [[Talk:Main Page]] mainstay and I'm always up for new recruits to the Main Page cabal.  -
'''Support''' - butter and crappy Silmarillion joke. '''
'''Strong Support''' - I've never seen any reason to question this editor's judgement, temperment, or ability, and I've at least peripherally worked with him for some time. I have no doubt whatsoever that he would be an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support''' piling on. —
'''Support''' Should be a good admin.
'''Support''' Allow me to pile on...
'''Support''' Well deserved—
'''Support'''. Absolutely - perceptive and intelligent user well-versed in Wikipedia's policies. Should make an excellent administrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
A good candidate.
'''Support'''. Definitely. --
'''Support'''. I've been impressed by this editor's openness to other people's ideas. The Wikipedia model has a tendency to attract those who have a high opinion of their own opinion, so this is a rare and much valued quality. ''
'''Support'''. Like Dureo said. --
'''Support'''. Nice and helpful guy. --&nbsp;
'''Support''' Abso-positivelutely! I've had the extreme pleasure of a dialog with Carch in the past, and (s)/he was extremely helpful to me in suggesting that I turn what originally was simply a comment on a talk page, into an essay to help newcomers. Carcharoth worked with myself, and several administrators in the early drafts of the essay, helping it touch on the issues we all had in mind, and helping with the wording and formatting. I found this editor to be wonderfully fun to talk to, friendly, kind, gentle with suggestions, and yet able to explain policy and guidelines when stating items of note. I looked forward to our dialog, always assured that Carch would provide a rational explanation for any issues that arose. I think that Carcharoth will make a most excellent administrator, and with such a wonderful grasp of a wide variety of areas, will be able to contribute when and where needed. The fact that Carcharoth was not in a rush to become an administrator, but wanted to gain more experience first, is further evidence that the tools will be in the right hands, with no risk of abuse. Carcharoth's participation in [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:VP]], [[WP:RD]], WikiProjects, and the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|Help Desk]] further shows the talent this editor has with helping others, assisting in mediation of disputes, and working with others as a team. I have the utmost faith in this editor, and have often wished our paths have crossed more often. I eagerly look forward to being able to congratulate Carcharoth soon, and I am sure the community will benefit from this editor's experience and work ethic. <small>
'''Support'''- More than qualified. --'''
'''Tardy [[WP:138]] support''' per most everyone else.
'''Support''' - Solid candidate.
'''Support''' - I used to think the "thought he already was an admin" comments were a bit phony but I now find myself saying it.  I did already think he was an admin and was surprised to see him up for RFA.  Give him the damn mop already. --
'''Support'''. When I was active, I had some great experiences with Carcharoth in the middle-earth project. I am glad to see him becoming an admin, I'm sure he'll be a great one.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support'''. It's a pleasure to support such a fine editor.
'''Support''' Insert cliche here. Wait... <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
Not an admin yet?
'''Strong support''' This is about where I was, in edit counts, when I became an admin. Why isn't he already an admin? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Support, naturally. – '''
'''Support''' - before anyone beats me :-) --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support'''.  I couldn't find a single reason to oppose.
'''Support''' just as in the last RfA.  The opposition made no sense to me before, and since then this user has only further demonstrated a sound understanding of policy and the like.
'''Support''' Good editor! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' I opposed in the previous RfA for lack of experience. I think that has been solved and now I support.
'''Support''' - No concerns. --
'''Support''' - based on my experience and collaborations with the user. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust this user! --
'''Support''' seems like a good user here.
'''Support''' I checked his edits which were sound, and he did do work on those featured articles. Ton of work doing assessment - good for whatever wikiproject you're working for. (
'''Support''' Good, reasoned responses at AfD and all-around good contributions. Perhaps a bit on the anal side [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puerto_Ricans_in_NASA&diff=prev&oldid=154644290 here], but it doesn't seem to be a regular occurrence, and wasn't controversial anyway. Good luck. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Support''' based on my experience of this editor,
'''Strong Support''' He will make a great admin.
'''Support''' I've known this user since he came to Wikipedia, and I would trust him with my life. He's a great editor, and I believe that he will make a great admin. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Steel blue">The</font>]]
'''Support''', I have seen him around. He is a herd worker and as an admin. would be an asset to the Pedia.
'''Support''' A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No issues here. I've seen CHQ's comments all over the place and they always seem helpful and NPOV. A look though the edits this morning confirms my initial reaction on seeing this RfA - a great candidate who can only help the project further with the buttons. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - a fine user who will use the tools well. I am unconvinced with Maxim's neutral below that it will effect him as an admin.
I'm not concerned by the opposes and the neutrals at this time. '''
'''Support''' Meets
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy, good edit count (much mainspace edits); no serious concerns, so I support. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - A dedicated contributor. I trust this user. --
'''Support''' - I have yet to see one of his interventions in which he doesn't appear to be fair.  Fairness is an important quality in an admin. and the basis for trustworthiness.
'''Support''' - What more can I say.
'''Support''' -- I appreciate his work on some spam and sock-puppetry I encountered. I've read the oppose comment about his reasoning in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puerto Ricans in NASA|Puerto Ricans in NASA AfD]] and I think he had a reasonable point of view (even if I disagree with it). I think he'll make a good admin. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' a good track record and clearly show a neutral point of view.
'''Support''' Judging by the questions, I'm feel CHQ has a solid understanding of AfDs, and I trust him to close them. However, the "correct" answer to Q5, in my opinion though, is simply no consensus [reached]. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' I see no reason(s) why not.
'''Support''', I've had positive interactions with this user.
I'm
'''Support'''.  Vast edits, good answers to questions.  No concerns.
Like the contributions and good answers to questions.  Keep it up, —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support''' - Not terribly concerned by the points brought up below. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
Nothing worrying here... --
'''Support''', many quality edits in the mainpace, as well as in places like AFD.  Not only do you make quality edits, but your editing is very balanced — a few article edits here, some vandal work, etc... I'm certain you would make a useful admin, Caribbean H.Q! :) <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' good contributor, I do not see reasons to not support.
'''Support''' good pedia builder. cheers,
Why not? <b>
'''Support''' Have fun being an admin!
'''Support''' I've seen this user do a lot of great work. <small style="border:2px dotted #090;">'''&#160;
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
Hey CHQ, where have I seen you around before (probably under your old name)?  I remember it somewhere about the VG arena, but ''where''? <b>
'''Support'''. Quite well balanced. '''''
Support. No concerns. —'''
'''Support''' no reason to think they would abuse the tools or fail to understand policy.
'''Support''' We need more people at AIV. Will not abuse tools. --
Good contributor. '''
'''Support'''. I see fairness, a strong sense of honor, attention to policy and a willingness to face down bullying attempts: I therefore have full confidence in this candidate's ability to use the tools with integrity, skill and care.
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin. <small><font color="AE1C28">
Support, as below. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' I think your main space edits are great and that's what we're here to do, but the problems stated by Maxim are troubling. I'm sitting on the fence for now. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems to be a good user for adminship.
'''Support''' - An excellent editor. Great work regarding editing, conflict solving and vandalism reversion. —<i>
'''Support''' per nom. --'''
'''Support''' I must say I am pleased with the nomination; I hope the user can expand into sysop-hood, and prosper.
'''Strong Support''' per nice answer to Q1. Admins who will help with the CSD backlog are exactly what we need right now. <font face="Verdana">
I '''support'''. Good answers, no reason not to trust.
'''Support''' - good answer to Q1 and sufficient overal experience.
'''Support''' - Good candidate.

'''Support''' Good answers. Seems trustworthy. -
'''Support''' - Football area (soccer if you like) needs more admins. Good luck. --
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and an excellent edit summary usage. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Let's stack up the useful people.
'''Support''' - I see no reason not to. Good answers and seems trustworthy and reliable. --
'''Support''' Good answers and seems to be a good candidate, has plenty of time and experience.

'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will not be a good admin.
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' - besides being a great editor in his area of interest, seems engaged in Wikipedia's core mission. We need more admins like him. --''
'''Support'''. There's no valid reason not to.
'''Support''' <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' The concerns of Xoloz and Husond are surely not unfounded, but I think Carioca's participation here provides a history sufficient for one to be reasonably confident that he is possessed of a deliberative demeanor and sound judgment, such that one can be confident that he will act cautiously and avoid partaking qua admin whereof he does not know; because I cannot imagine that Carioca should abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, then, I feel comfortable concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Carioca's being sysopped should be positive]].

Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', edit history looks good, no concerns of substance raised thus far.
'''Support''', if 200 monthly edits is "recent inactivity" then I'm a bit concerned about editcountitis.--
'''Apoio''' este usuário. O segundo administrador brasileiro na Wikipédia no inglês, não é?
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Good editor, but there's simply no need for the tools and no evidence that this user is experienced enough to use them adequately. Very little participation in admin-oriented tasks in the past few months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Husond.  More of a record is needed (especially in project-space) to judge properly the candidate's fitness for adminship.
Recent inactivity is worrying, and I have concerns per Xoloz about this users' capability in dealing with issues arising in project-space which he will encounter when he gets the tools. Sorry, but at this stage, I don't feel you're ready. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Husond.  Weak in Wikipedia space, will he be ready when the admin challenges approach?  I'm not sure. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
Not awfully active lately -- <b>
As nom!
'''Support''' Good stuff.
'''Support''' Seems like a strong candidate, civil and patient.  --
'''Obviously''' - 'nuff said. -- <strong>
'''Support''' No problems here. Would definitely make a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per his answer to question 5.  Admins who block new users indefinitely for vandalism often forget that these users have no idea about policy.  I'm not going to rule out blocking but indef blocks should be reserved for severe offenses and users who have chronic block histories.  --
'''Support''' due to excellent quantity and quality of edits, use of edit summaries, great answers to questions, and work on AfD etc.
'''Support''' It's about time. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''.  I second Voltron's comment - excellent answer for question 5.  Good luck!  --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Appears to have a good amount of experience and should be a good admin ;) <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
I have seen this user around many times, and they will make a good administrator.
'''Support''', valid contributor with solid knowledge of the Wikipedia world. Regarding your answer to #5, let me note you can already speedy close and delete an hoax article with a presence of a high number of delete votes, per [[WP:SNOW]]. --
'''troppus''' (spell it backward)
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Eu apoio''' Precisamos de mais administradores experientes e eficientes, e já agora que falem português. :-) <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Keine Ahnung was Husond da oben so sagt, aber wenn hier schon mal kein Englisch verwendet wird, dann kann ich ja genauso gut einfach mal auf Deutsch kommentieren, oder? Jedenfalls, guter Benutzer so weit ich sehe und ich vertraue ihm auf jeden Fall die Werkzeuge nicht absichtlich oder versehentlich falsch einzusetzen. Also, warum zum Teufel nicht? —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' - admins with other languages are always useful, and Carlos seems very sensible.  Obrigado!  (sorry, that's the only word of Portuguese I know that isn't rude).
'''Support''' Editor shows quite a strong grasp of policy, although there may be holes. But, still warrants support.
'''Support''' an ambitious user. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me! Very impressive question answering.
'''Support''' - you appear to have a decent set of contribs there my friend. Your time has come! :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' track is okay with nearly 2000 mainspace edits.No concerns as per track.
&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''&ndash; It seems like this user would know how to handle conflicts on a case-by-case basis.  User seems to have experience with [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD]], and seems to be great in mainspace.  '''
'''Support''' - I don't see the candidate abusing tools, edit history is good so I see no reason not to support.--
'''Support''' Handled the conflicts at [[Brazil]] well.
I'm
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' - I like what I see.
According to his answer to Q6, he erroneously thinks there is a consensus to ''instantly block'' usernames such as "Amyyyyyyyyyyyyyy", and wants to start blocking at UAA. He could create another [[User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12|Ggggggggggggggg12 newbie-biting incident]] just by following his stated actions. I have to wonder if he's ever considered other ways to deal with minor problems that aren't blocking. I don't want someone with this mindset to become an admin.
'''Neutral leaning to Nervous Support''' Your answer to my question concerns me actually. Yes, check the editor has been warned, fair enough. But there would be no way whatsoever that [[WP:CSD#A7]] would apply. There are some serious assertions of notability. The first thing I'd have done would be to remove the speedy tag. Then go about finding some sources, and possibly end up at [[WP:AFD]] if they couldn't be found - but speedy? Nope. '''However''' the rest of your edits look good, although automated. AFD discussion seems spot on and the (fairly minimal) CSD tagging you have done seems fine. AIV reporting also seems okay. I'm just nervy you'd hit the delete button without need..... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
One should ignore a rule anytime the rule is preventing Wikipedia from improving or is harming Wikipedia. This is very simple. That's the only issue so I won't oppose, but I can't support.
Neutral leaning heavily towards support based on questions already answered. Excellent replies! :-D  One more question to go (clarified the wording, the situation happened a long time ago and has since been resolved, of course. :-) ) --
'''Support''' Has a good range of experience, and has contributed in essentially every admin-related aspect of wikipedia. --<font color="Red">
Although I don't see that much AIV or CSD work, the huge amount of work in CfD is impressive.  The candidate may wish to re-consider their question 1 answer though ;) [[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:G1ggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' - Very experienced, and am impressed with the CfD work - stands out. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - See no reason not to afford him the bit.
Has been here for a long time and has amassed a respectable amount of edits, good edits too, by the looks of things. -- <strong>
'''Support''' An impressive editor.
'''Support'''.  Most definitely.  CFD contributions are very helpful.  --
'''Support'''. I'm not seeing any major red flags in this user's history, and don't expect any admin abuse. -
'''Support'''. Fantastic contributions, I see absolutely no reason to oppose. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' A very experienced editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great answer to question three. Looks like a good editor overall.
'''Support''' - good answers show a thorough understanding of how things work. I'm sure this user would make a good admin :)&mdash;<font color='red'>
Knows what he's doing. Been here long enough to show proven dedication and commitement. Even if the block was legitimate, it's so far in the past that I'm willing to AGF and assume Carlossuarez46 has learnt from whatever happened. A great candidate. '''
'''Support''' no concerns here, got the experience. —
'''Support''' Experienced, can't find any reson why they can't take the mop.
'''Support''' - see [[Special:Contributions/carlossuarez46|Contributions]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', seems to be sensisble and bright enough.  Note that I don't think one block 18 month ago should be any kind of an obstacle.
'''Strong Support''', good editor, time to give him the mop!
'''Strong support''', like the answers and the contributions.  I've seen this user regularly over at AfD discussions and his contributions are always valuable and demonstrate a good grasp on policy.  This user would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. His edits history shows that he has an incredible array of experience. His comments in AfD discussions are insightful. I'm also struck by his extremely consistent civility. All in all, I think that he will be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' that block was at the end of 2005. That's not a reason to oppose. This is a good user.
'''Support''' - Has long been qualified to be an admin; I'm glad to see Carlossuarez46 stepping up to the plate. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' I like what I see...and I vote how I see it :).
I'm
'''support''' good editor from what I have seen from his edits.--
'''Support''' - I see a very broad aray of contributions, and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Storm_Rider&diff=prev&oldid=140019452 dif] I found as a very fine example of both your civility, and thoughtfulness in communicating with others here.
'''Support'''. Carlossuarez46, in regards to Jaranda's oppose below, as long as you read up on how to close AfDs I think you'll be fine. I don't see evidence that you will interpret AfD as a vote. '''
'''Support''', a great mainspace editor, that I have long admired for his ancient city articles and for his work with Smith's ''Dictionary''.--
'''Support'''. Long-standing editor with solid contributions to the encyclopedia and a reasonable rationale for wanting the admin tools.
'''Support''' A good, solid editor with a good understanding of policies and procedures.
'''Support''' I see no big reasons to not support him. Good luck.--
'''Support''' I don't know him personally, but his work is excellent, and he seems to have a good knowledge of policy and procedure.  I think someone who works hard, and earns trust should have a chance to contribute more.
Wow... I had no idea you were so prolific! -- <b>
'''Support'''1) Contributions 2) Knowledge of Policy 3) Activity 4) Civility. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why not? --'''
'''Strong support''' - Con mucho placer. Buena suerte aunque creo que no la necesitas. --

'''Support''' Great editor with many, many great contributions. Very trustworthy. I know he will use admin tools well. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' Thoughtful and always civil at CfD, if a bit deletionist for my taste. Knows policy well, and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' per interactions in AFDs
'''Support'''.  <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' but no more pointless per above votes in [[WP:AFD]]. Thanks
'''Support'''. Good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of ''wanting to help better the encyclopedia''. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Best of luck --<font color="#617599" face="Courier New">
'''Support''' Great editor. -
'''Support''' Fantastic editor. Good luck.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason to believe that he'll abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''--
'''Hell yeah.''' <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Rock solid. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''' I reviewed all of your contributions and can find no reason to oppose; you have a healthy involvement in the Wikipedia side of things (notably CfD's). Not only do I think you will ''not'' abuse the tools, but I think you will have an excellent use for them. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose'''. Statistically, carlossuarez46 looks like he'd be the perfect Wikipedia admin - lots of main space edits, many of them constructive rather than just maintenance, lots of participation in WP:space, etc., etc. But there seems to me a tendency to be a bit too combative, and a bit too touchy, which leads me to not trust him with administrative tools, as there is no recourse to remove him if he does abuse the tools. I believe the chance he'll be an abusive admin is low, but if that combativeness comes out, he could cause quite a lot of damage with no good way to remove him. Therefore, I must oppose. If admins were required to be reconfirmed, or were removable short of ArbCom, I'd support. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' For block ''two years ago''. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Nominator Support''' - :)
'''Strong support'''. An excellent member of the Wikipedia community; committed, trustworthy, supportive, handles conflict well.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - Yah. Cas is certainly a good candidate to be nominated for adminship. With the amount of contributions he has contributed to wikipedia, I believe he will do a better job as an administrator.
'''Support''' upstanding Wikipedian.--
'''Support''' great candidate with a good record of contributions. Seems very level-headed and trustworthy. -
'''Stegosaurus Support'''.  Mature and intelligent contributions throughout.  Cas is a superb Wikpedian who'll make a first rate admin.  &mdash;

'''Support''' in the spirit of Mailer Diablo's [[WP:1FA]], and for overall expertise.
'''Support''' I'd like to see more contributions in the project space that relate to admin duties rather than WikiProjects, but given Casliber's trustworthiness, I support him with the belief that he will not make rash decisions without fully exploring all applicable policies and guidelines. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Strong support'''. I'm very proud to have worked closely with Cas on so many dinosaur articles. Cas has shown himself to be incredibly intelligent (borderline brilliant), very calm, and is truly dedicated to the project. He has not worked extensively in the WP: space, but his work on various WikiProjects has vastly improved at least a thousand articles; I'm also certain Cas has contributed to more than 3 Featured Articles. Cas' professional demeanor and thoughtful attitude would be an asset for Wikipedia; he is ''always'' civil. As a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs, he is often cleaning up vandalism from school children. An administration mop might help him with that task. I appreciate Oleg's comments below, and certainly hope Cas will use an edit summary on every edit from now on. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' seems very qualified. -
'''Support''', though I think judicious use of "show preview" is in order due to high edits per page. I also recommend selecting the "force edit summary" option (as recommended by Oleg, below) as edit summaries are a very useful and important thing. ···
'''Support''' It is weird that i've never known Casliber before but looking at the contribs i find myself really amazed. The concern about the edit summaries explained by Oleg at the oppose side is important but is not a big reason not to support. Probably, Casliber would do their best in enhancing that aspect. -- ''
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support'''.  I appreciated his help with talking the mentioned user off the edge and helping him get back on track. :-) —
'''Support''' Casliber is dedicated to the betterment of Wikipedia, has the experience, and can be trusted. --
'''Support''' He's trustworthy, knowledgeable, and diplomatic.
'''Support''' - per nom. Looks like an excellent and trustworthy candidate -
'''Support''' A trustworthy and committed candidate who will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''-Seems fine. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' directly contributed to 0.7% of all FA's, one who'll use the tools wisely
'''Support''' per gnangarra [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of the above. —
'''Support''' <b><font color="#CD2682" face="georgia">
Answer to Q1 doesn't really address a need for tools, in my mind, but still an outstanding contributor who seems highly unlikely to abuse the bit, so '''support'''. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support'''.
I'm
'''Support''' - A strong contributor who has been helpful, friendly, hard-working and knowledgeable in a range of areas.
'''Support''' Top 'tributor, sterling, passes through my '''Bad Admin Sensor'''<sup>TM</sup> with no warbles.
'''Support''' Woah! 3 FAs?!  Casliber looks like a great candidate and will make a good addition to the cabal. :) '''
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Please keep up the edit summaries, otherwise looks like a great editor and admin, thoughtful and civil user. --
'''Yes Please''' --
Reliable user who also is a active wikipedian. Good luck!:) --
'''Support''' - A great contributor to the contents and community tasks of Wikipedia.
'''Support''': Sure, why not?--
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Big dinosaur type support'''...as long as you don't use your new-found power to claim dominion over Wikiproject Birds in the name of Wikiproject Dinosaurs :P !
'''Support''' good user. No reasons not to. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Always impressive at DYK and FAC. '''
'''Support'''.  Looks solid, despite prior low edit summary usage.  Impressive contributions to FAs.  --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I've just scanned your contribs and you look like you'll be fine (I'm very impressed with your XfD comments!). Best of luck.
'''Support''' per good answer to Q1 and helping new users.
'''Support''' → Can this user be trusted with the tools? I think so! <i><b>
'''Support''' This user is obviously calm and level-headed. But I am especially appreciative of her work with the adoption program. The attitude of helpfulness is a big positive.
'''Support'''. I see her around all the time. She will be a good admin. -
'''Support''' tis' all good. ~
'''Support''' as nominator; almost forgot!
'''Support''' Especially like the interest in saving borderline cases from deletion. (I do not particularly like autograph pages but that isn't a good enough reason for an oppose). I am sure my first RfA !vote is going to a worthy candidate. And you didn't even hint at this RfA [[User talk:CattleGirl#User:CattleGirl/Standards|yesterday]]! :) -
I'm highly disappointed, I was looking forward to nominating her myself. :-) '''Support''', obviously. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' No red flags, good answers to the questions, no reason not to support. Cheers,
'''Support''' - Looks like a fine candidate...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support.''' Bonne chance! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Yes''' looks fine. '''''
'''Support.''' Looks like a user who knows her stuff and helps out around the wiki.--
'''Support''' Per everyone, Good job!
'''Support''' - looks great. Am impressed with Ryan's diffs below, too. Good luck! -
I'm
'''Support''' Yes, I like!
'''Strong support''' I've seen her numerous times around XfD, and she looks great to me.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Great answers.
'''Moo''' --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Trusted and experienced editor.
'''Support''' Great candidate for adminship. Absolutely. —
'''Support''', good editor, helpful.
'''Support''', [[PATD]] would be proud of you. :) [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|icelandic]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|hur]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">ric</font>]]
'''Support''' CHanged my vote from neutral to support, I think you handled my comments veyr well and I was being to picky, good luck!
'''Support''' Hmmm, nice user talk page ;) Good user, experienced and trusted. &ndash;
'''Support''' I've checked the contribs; the tools will help with some of the work CattleGirl is already doing (such as the vandalfighting), and the interactions I remember with this user have all been positive. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 12:40, 8 May 2007 (
'''Support'''. Can't go wrong here. -
'''Default support'''. —
'''Support'''. Trustworthy. Lovely name too. ;-)
'''Support''': I have ran into this user a couple of times and everytime it has been nothing but a good experience. I think this user can be trusted, has plenty of experience and edit <s>count</s> summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' This wikipedian fits my criteria for adminship. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Easily support'''. She has shown nothing but class.
'''Support''' CattleGirl will make a great addition to the administrators.  -
'''Support''' calm and experienced
'''Support''' - CattleGirl has all the qualities needed for an admin. --
'''Support''' Totally deserves it. Will do Wikipedia proud.
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support''' always needs more people to keep an eye on CSD. --
'''Support''' I'm too new to know all the ins and out, but this person is the best of the bunch running.  I found this because I made an edit on another's page and saw that they had a RfA (which didn't pass because of inexperience).
'''Support''' Looks good!! You'll do fine. --
'''Support''', why not. --'''
'''Support''' constructive, trustworthy candidate.--
'''Support''' A good editor.
'''Support''' I love to see admins involved in WikiProjects. Go ahead. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good luck!--
'''Support''' - yep.  Give 'er the mop.
'''Support''' Her editing seems good, and I remember her to be very nice. :) · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Never hurts to have more vandal fighters. I don't see any problems. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''. Seen her around, good editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' yippie-i-o yeah! --
'''Oppose'''. Essentially for not being well-rounded. I rapidly reviewed this user's edits in 2007. While there are a large number of vandal reverts + warnings, I couldn't find any real substantive article edits (such as adding content, references, etc). About the best I could find was this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Chemical_Romance&diff=prev&oldid=100808679]. Her primary contribution to the article she cited in the questions - [[Nick Vujicic]] - dates to Nov. 2006. I also didn't see any evidence of participation in policy discussions/ pages. I expect more from prospective admins. --
'''Neutral''' Low Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. I have a high opinion of this editor, and believe he would make an excellent admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' I have only seen positives from this user's contributions and interactions with others and they look well rounded.

--
'''Support''' I like the cut of your jib.
'''Strong Support''' Why hello there Chase me ladies! I actually thought you were an admin, until I installed [[User:Wikidudeman/Hodgepodge|Hodgepodge]], and was quite surprised not to find your name highlighted in cyan! Anyway, you routinely make well-thought-out comments in AfD discussions and you clearly know policy well. I can't find any reason NOT to support! '''''
'''Support''', yes. '''
'''Absolutely''' a great editor. With regards to question 4, if you expect to a user to create a new account better make sure that the "prevent account creation" option isn't in place (just a technical detail, not a hesitation of any kind). Apart from that, big thumbs up! — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' I thought you were already an admin! You're more than deserving of the admin tools. ''Bon courage!''
'''Support''' Definitely knowledgeable, no evidence to suggest he's untrustworthy. Go get 'em!
Of course, excellent in NP patrol
'''Support''' - he's beaten me to the [[WP:TW|punch]] a number of times while on NP Patrol and has a good history. No reason not to support. --
'''Support''' I've seen this user in several places around the 'pedia, always contributing constructively. Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' Just looking through his list of edit's, and answers to his questions, I can tell he'll be a great administrator. --
'''Support''' primarily because I love your name (kidding).  Never noticed any issues from you.  Answer to question 5 is fine (with regard to deletion policy), though, as Z-man has noted, you would also need to address any BLP concerns by immediately excising anything that isn't fully sourced.  I'm sure you're aware of that and just forgot to mention it, but nevertheless, important to remember.  —
'''I Hereby SUPPORT this nomination'''.
'''Support''' Thousands of edits and years of experience makes this user a great choice (although not guaranteed).--
Love the name!
'''Support''' No concerns here. Happy to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Worst. Name. Evar!''' - great candidate, though. Helpful, kind, non-BITEy. Should make a fine admin. (PS: [[WP:CHU]] is just down the hall ;) ) -
What? Wow! I was seriously thinking of nominating you the other day! No joke! You seem calm, rational, smart, and, civil. And, from our interaction the other day, you're good at explaining things :)
'''Support'''. Good work, seems trustworthy.
Chase the vandals, you'll soon be admin! :P [[User:Resurgent insurgent|Resurgent insurgent]] (as
I'm
Offered to nom a while back.  Wait, no I didn't.  Why not?  *slaps forehead*&nbsp;
'''Support''' only ever seen sensible and constructive contributions from this editor, and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' A hefty edit count but not only that; the experience and question answers also demonstrate a well-qualified contributor who understands.
'''Support''' per Alison but also with Alison on the name:) --
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around a bit, doing good work, showing good use of policy. --
I'm [[User:SJP|SJP]], and I support this message:) Good luck!--
'''Support'''. Good work all around. Good luck. —
'''Strong Support''' and don't listen to the people complaining about your name, as I rather like it. Incidentally, as a member of the [[Officers Training Corps]] myself, I have the highest respect and appreciation for the British Armed Forces and everything you're doing to keep [[United Kingdom|this great country]] safe. Plus, you're a well-regarded editor who will make a good admin, as per everyone's comments above.
'''Over and Out''' - Roger that above.
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' I've seen the Cavalry ride through and make short work of vandals. <b>
'''Support''' - I've seen a consistently high caliber of contribution from this user, and have an extremely high level of trust.  Would be a definite asset.  -
'''Wah!''' What an ingenious username!! Should I ever request another username change, I'm going to ask you to choose for me. Regarding the rest of the issues: Seems pretty much in order. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' I often saw this user. We need your help on [[WP:AIV]].
'''Oh hell yes''' per excellent and well-reasoned work at AfD.
'''Strong Support''' I have seen this user make incredible changes to Wikipedia, this user will undoubtedly make and ''Excellent'' Admin.
'''Support'''. I keep seeing this user pop up at [[WP:AIV]] - good stuff.  And awesome name.
Yup, good user, great at AIV - also I've checked your AfD comments and fined you to be a great help there.
'''Support''' Seen good things at AIV, appears unlikely to use the mop other than as intended.
'''Support''' Good AIV work. Simply brilliant.
'''Support''' Nothing to make me oppose. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' Good man, good speller, good contributer, and soon to be good admin from the looks of it :)
'''Support''' First off, like other users mentioned, your user name is amazing and everywhere I see it, it makes me crack a smile.  Looks like a great nomination, understands policies, and I like to see editors go above and beyond the call of duty for Wikipedia.  I think it may be [[WP:SNOW|snowing]] ;-) <br/>
'''Thought you were already an admin Support''' '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''

'''Support''' Chased the some of the same vandals.
'''Support''' without hesitation, and a fantastic username to boot!  --
'''Support'''.  Seen him around, helps out with image issues, good attitude, killer username.  Give that man a mop!  --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support'''--
From a fellow user who has one of the "best usernames on Wikipedia". :)
'''Support''' Another "I thought you were already an admin."  Better make it official.  :) <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Okay.
'''Support''' I've only had positive interactions with Chase. And, gotta love the user name. --
Heh... per Gaillimh below :p --
'''Support''' - yet another fine candidate! Love the user name - always nice to see a bit of individuality! Good luck ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - good answer to question 10. -
'''Support''' - Another fine RFA. Happy to support, and love the Username! <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' - Good tone in comments, nice attitude towards noobs; a worthy wielder of the mop-and-bucket. --
'''Strong support''' - fantastically useful at XfD's, helpful attitude, great editor, can be trusted.
'''Support''' See this user around a lot, he's trustworthy--
'''Support (& thought was admin)''' Thoughtful answers to the questions. The whole PSU issue seems to strongly imply a responsible editor who can be trusted with a mop. --
'''Support''' (and, yeah, also thought was admin)... I have seen this user's intelligent, thoughtful and useful contributions in many places around Wikipedia and I know his work is based on a solid understanding of Wikipedia's underlying principles.  He will use the tools well.
I really like how well the candidate has responded to various concerns. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' because all the ladies are chasing him and not me. Hmph. <!--Yes, this is really a support.-->
'''Support''', because he's the cavalry, of course. And a trusted, experienced editor to boot. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' More than qualified.
'''Support''', very level-headed editor with an excellent record who handles disputes very well - I lent a helping hand with one of those SPAs mentioned above and appreciated this editor's calm demeanor and patient resolve.
'''Support''' , I have seen this editor around a lot in the short time I have been editing and have been impressed with the thoughtfulness of his contributions particularly when dealing with problematic/sensitive situations (and like many others I am surprised to find that he is not already an admin)
'''Support''' -- current opposes are completly without merit --
'''Support''' -- prodigious editor, very well versed in policy, handles himself well in difficult interactions.  I am sure he will do very well with the tools.
'''Support''' Dealing well with somewhat absurd difficulties here is a good sign. '''
'''Support''' Knows what he is doing and does it well. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' I have seen him around and seems OK.
'''Yup.''' We need more sane people wielding mops. Doesn't take himself too seriously, which is always a good sign.
'''Support'''. Does good work; will make an ideal admin. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' per all of the above, but especially because of his excellent user name.
'''GarryOwen'''
'''Spank me vandals I'm an admin'''. Thought I'd already added my input here. Based on previous interaction and some stunning input at AFD plus per the above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Was kind enough to welcome me to Wikipedia and answer my questions.
Bleh. I was going to nominate this user in about a month's time. I also have to say that I'm impressed by the degree of maturity shown by CML's willingness to change his username upon learning that someone else found it genuinely offensive. (Yes, this is my '''support'''.)
'''Support''' - Sensible and level headed, will wield the mop well. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Good understanding of process, both how it's supposed to work and how it actually works. No reservations whatsoever. The name just adds that much more win.
'''Support'''. A very active editor who has been seen all around the encyclopedia. Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''; I doubt this user would abuse admin tools and their work so far has been exemplary.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate should make for a fine sysop.▪◦▪
'''Support him ladies, He's the Cavalry'''
'''Support''' Per Wizardman <small>(even if I am male)</small>. —
'''Support'''. Good contribs to the community and well thought out answers. --
'''Support''' AV admins are always wanted. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', Seems a well versed and a seasoned contributor.
'''Support''' Seems very adept at protecting the project, and AIV is always getting backlogged, so he can help there. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">

Why would one chase the calvary?  Seems as though one would either be running away or cheering on from a safe distance, no? [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Outrageous username &ndash; excessive in length, inconvenient, churlish, infantile. Administrators sporting such generally turn out to be <big>'''X'''</big>tremely <big>'''R'''</big>ouge bullies who torment and bite newbies and drive established users off the project while conniving with the forces of evil!! —
'''Support!''' We've had differences, but Chochopk is civil, discusses matters, and understands that people have differing opinions.  He actually researches before acting, and that will make him an awesome admin.
'''Support'''  Long time contributor that has kept out of trouble.   Wants to work on TFD and clean-up other places as well.  A mop will come in handy.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' mainly to quench Chochopk's power-hungry cravings, but also because I am impressed with this editor's contributions. I expect that as an admin, he will work behind-the-scenes, maintaining templates at both an editor and an admin level, and handling [[WP:PER|protected edit requests]].
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Support''' per Kurt Weber ;) (In other words, there obviously are no problems) - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' This user is active, and reliable so why not support him?--
'''Strong Support.''' I close TfDs regularly, and see this user around very frequently. He/She always expresses thoughtful opinions and is one of the frequent TfD contibutors whose opinion I have come to search for when I close difficult nominations.
Hell yes. '''
'''Support''' I have no concerns about this user; they appear to have a solid handle on policy, conduct themselves well, and should make a good administrator.
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Has been on Wikipedia a long time. Contribs indicate that this user is active on Wikipedia and has been civil with others. He deserves the mop. --
'''Support''' Edits like a bandit, glad to support. Cheers!
'''Strong Support''' I am very confident we have an excellent admin candidate here. Has the experience, great answers, brilliant contributions. Hell yeah, let's give him a mop! —
'''Strong support''' I was really impressed by the exchange [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_January_16#Image:Pesos.jpg here]. -
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' seems to be a reliable editor, he's been around for a long time too. <b>
'''Support''' just been looking through the contribs and he looks good to me (lots of maintenance work, reverting vandals, that sort of thing) --'''
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools.
'''Support''' - Should have been an admin last time..but I hopes he succeds now.. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - This user follows guidelines. ;) Seriously, though, no problems here.
'''Support''' - I feel the user will use the tools properly. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' (in a Ted Kennedy voice) give him the mop mister bureaucrat.  '''
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Support'''. I've worked with him at the [[WP:NUMIS|numismatics project]]. He does an amazing amount of work, much of it drudgery. He always has respect for others' opinions and is willing to help out wherever asked.
'''Support''' Great with templates, getting consensus and compromises. :)  <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support'''. <s>I know I'm not eligible to vote, but</s> I'd like to express my support of Chochopk whom I know as a smart and knowledgeable contributor. --
I'm
I've seen him around the 'pedia -- he does a lot of good work, and always seems reasonable.  no reason he wouldn't make a good admin.
'''Support''' -<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Tim.bounceback--><font color="purple">
'''Support''', happy with the contribs and the answers.

'''Support''' It's obviuous dedication that gets you 20K edits and a second time to be abused here. I think you will do well.
'''Support''' I don't see why not. Sounds like a good candidate! --
'''Support''' Agree with Wpktsfs.
'''Support''' dedicated template contributions. –
'''Support''' Should make a great admin.
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' clearly demonstrated dedication to the project <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' dedicated editor.--
'''Support''' I am impressed by his wonderful edits. He has '''many''' edits, and is a valuable editor.
'''Support''' Third time's a charm :)...good luck!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' That many edits deserves adminship--
'''Support'''. Everything looks good and we could always use another template specialist. -- '''
'''Support''' Changing my vote per my discussion with the nominee (below).  --
'''Last Minute Support''' As above. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Nom''' Supporting as nom.
'''Strong Support'''He ran '''three bots''', and I trust him when providing the user status. -[[U:GS1|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[UT:GS3|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/IMG|op]]
'''Support''' -- Has close to 1,000 mainspace edits (good enough for me) and runs 3 bots, this would seem to indicate trust by the community; no blocks; and seems to be an all-around good guy.  Like his responses to the questions, probably would make a good administrator.  --[[User:FastLizard4|<span style="color:#228B22">'''FastLizard4'''</span>]] ([[user_talk:FastLizard4|Talk]]•[[User:FastLizard4/Links|Links]]•
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Support''' (ec) Lack of encyclopedia building isn't indicative of possible poor admin work. Nothing else looks wrong to me. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' - Doubt would abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''', bearing in mind that my RFA passed despite my unusually-weighted contrib history. Admins don't need to be good encyclopedists.
'''Support''' experienced, contributions in several areas, AIV reports generally blocked. I was a little concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Creighton%2C_2nd_Earl_Erne&diff=138947411&oldid=138947331 this], but his tagging has improved since. And as Neil says we need every admin we can get now. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - Has worked extensively at both CHU and other processes, and by my [[User:Rudget/policies#Edit count|standards]] passes outstandingly.
'''Support''' Per my previous interaction and confirmation on the candidates talk page that I would offer my support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' <s>I oppose "Pat's" oppose</s> ['''Edit''': Pat changed to support] Mainspace edits should not be indicative of how useful, trustworthy and able a future "mopper-upper" could be. I support Chris G because of his dedicated clerk work.
Per Neil. You don't need article editing experience to nuke obvious crap. Won't abuse the tools, has already proven trust. Programming expertise is a hell of a lot more dangerous to the project than three additional buttons.
'''Support''' I have decided to change to support after reviewing the work he has done on wikipedia. GOOD LUCK! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' I have personally interacted with Ghris G and have found him to be nothing but pleasant, helpful and with the project's best interests at heart. Good luck --'''
'''Support''' Very trustworthy and amiable user. Would make a great admin. '''''
'''Support''' A very great user. The added tools given to him would only improve this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Running those bots is dedication. Giving the user admin tools would help him continue to improve wikipedia.
I agree entirely with Neil.
I'm
'''Support'''. Helpful user - I've seen Chris doing a lot of good work around the Wiki. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Seems like a pretty experienced user.
'''Support'''. See no reason why not. Similar edits to myself, except alot more anti-vandal work. All the best! —
'''Strong support''', impressed. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Hardworking and trustworthy. Good luck! <b>
'''Support''' I am surprised that he is not already one. Three bots also helps quite a lot with maintenance.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A Vandal fighter and see the determination to contribute to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Per nom, and he deserves it for all the clerking work he's done.  He's also even open to recall.
'''support''' Experienced and hard-working. Operates several bots. Can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''. Has progressed well.
From what I've seen, you're smart and civil... I can't see any reason to oppose. <font style="background:#990000;color:#FFFFFF;border:2px solid #999999">
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. --
Yeah, ok. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Clearly this user has learnt from previous RfAs.
'''Support'''. Substantial and consistent levels of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]], owner of some useful [[WP:BOT|bots]], a general sense that Chris will make a good sysop. I also like the perk that the +sysop will assist his already-helpful contributions at [[WP:CHU]]([[WP:CHU/U|/U]]).
'''Support''' I've seen you around, and fully support.
'''Support''' Clearly you've learned from your previous RfAs. Outstanding editor.
&nbsp;'''
Very solid candidate. ~
'''Support''' Seems like a good choice. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
I cannot oppose a great user, you've gained a valuable amount of experience here, and [[User:Chris G Bot 3|Chris G Bot 3]] is just one example of your excellence on Wikipedia :)
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose this user.
'''Support''' Pretty straightforward for me, fully trust the user's judgement. Good luck. <i><b>
Good nom, SWAT. --
'''Support'''. Good user, plenty of experience and no good reason not to. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' I now feel confident that this user will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - Good editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' No reasons to oppose. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' It is hard not to be sympathetic to an admin candidate who has gone to the trouble of setting up some useful bots and getting them approved. His experience as a clerk is also useful, and it helps make up for the fact that he has only 814 mainspace edits, and a majority of those are vandal reverts. His background doesn't seem to qualify him for dispute resolution. I think that I and the editors who voted above are taking the gamble that an apparently helpful and civil editor won't misuse the tools even though he has limited experience at this time.
'''Support''' - Although my opinion doesnt carry much weight, i'd like to support this, based on his age. Diversity etc.. and a young brain is good for the wiki.
'''Support''' Level-headed editor, lots of great work. <b>
'''Support''' Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.  In light of your answer I have no hesitation to endorsing your candidacy.  Cheers!
'''Support''' little light on mainspace edits but 3 Bots approved shows that he can be trusted. I have no concerns about this user having the tools.
'''Support''' Appears responsible and no reason to suspect abuse of the tools.  More mainspace edits would be nice, but not essential. --
'''Support''' My acid test applied: Do I feel as if I can trust this user as an admin? Yes. --'''
'''Support''' everything is in order here. —
'''Support'''.  Nice bot work.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support''' Excellent answers, good choice.▪◦▪
'''Support''', great candidate. The oppose down there is ludicrous. --
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs –
'''Support''' Level-headed, friendly and helpful editor, has appropriate experience and has been a great help to Wikipedia with the bots. Would do a fantastic job with the mop in my estimation.
Why not? Good luck:)--
Whenever I see chris, I'm impressed with this thoughtful commenting, and I believe he'll be fine with a few extra buttons. Got to say, I hate the sig, what were you thinking man!?
Lack of experience at [[WP:RPP]] and deletion department.--[[User:Professional Deletionist|Professional Deletionist]] 11:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) User indef-blocked
'''Strong Support''' as nom.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Of course. I have great faith in this user and do not even contemplate that he would misuse the tools.
'''Support''' − Wikipedia can always use more admins, and you will certainly make an excellent one! Excellent vandal-fighting. −
'''Strong Support''' I wanted to nominate, :(. But seriously awesome user, one of those where you assumed he was an admin ~
'''Support'''. My only flaw in this is that it's pretty soon after your first nom. That being said, you didn't need to wait any longer, you're clearly deserving of the tools.--
'''Support''' Good user. --
'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I offered to nominate first! :-) I congratulate you on either your successful nomination, or your very near success. | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support'''. Since the last RfA, the user has gained valuable experience in dealing with many aspects of Wikipedia. Although I would normally be hesitant to support a nomination just two months after the previous RfA, I feel that Chris has demonstrated deep knowledge of policy and a strong commitment to the project. '''
'''Support''' Very good. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''. The only problem I can see is that there should have been a period after "conflicts" in the first sentence of Question 3... &ndash;
'''Support''' I opposed Chris on his last RfA, but have seen a great improvement in the nearly two months since. I believe he is ready and will make a trustworthy addition to the admin team.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He now has the experience under his belt. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''. [[User:Chrislk02|Chrislk02]] has matured rapidly as an editor, and seems cut-out for mop duty. --
'''Support''' Well deserved reward for project contributions.--
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Suppert'''- Good user with good edits--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' good user, good vandalfighter, can certainly use the tool.--
'''Support''' Looks like a much-improved candidate since their last RfA application.
'''Support''' a great candidate for adminship. It would be great to have someone like him with the tools. ←
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - some good work and vandal fighting.
'''Support'''. Great improvements.
'''Support''' as above.--
'''Support''', personally I would have liked a bit more expansion on Q3, but maybe that's merely because I like to bore people with essays :) In all seriousness, a very good candidate, and one who is ready to admit when they are fault and try to rectify the mistake is better than one who isn't. '''
'''Support'''. I have absolutely no reason to say otherwise &ndash;
'''Support''' Particularly happy to help promote someone who can admit mistakes.
'''Weak support'''. Not very impressed of his answer to question two, but he is an excellent vandal-fighter and shows experience with the [[WP:AIV]] and deletion processes. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make good use of tools, no probs.--
'''Support''' much improved. -
'''Support''' per above...
'''Support''' good user, trustworthy.
'''Support''' no concerns and the promotion of Chris will benefit Wikipedia. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support'''. I've seen Chris around and like what I see. I think Chris can be trusted with the extra bit. ···
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' An excellent user. Of course.
'''Support''' No possible way to deny that edit count.  A dedicated editor, a dedicated admin.  Good luck. '''
'''Support''' per very good editor.--
'''Support''' per my comment last time. Still tons of scripted reverts, but I also see some good editorial contributions over the last week. ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good answer to my question.
'''Support''' Great user with good contributions.
'''Support''', strong record, opposition is baseless.
Why would I oppose? '''
'''Support''' No evidence that admin tools will be misused.--
'''Support''' per Proto (#6, below). If the honest and admitted mistake of an automated revert of non-vandalism is his worst sin, he has my support. Sorry to personalize this, but in my view, if that is the sole basis for oppose, is this perhaps a [[rationalization (psychology)|rationalization]] of something else I'm not aware of?
'''Support''' like I said I would :) --
'''Support''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Although he is a bit green behind the ears, Chris has been very active here and demonstrates a good grasp of Wikipedia policy. '''
'''Support''' My one criterion on RfA is "Would Wikipedia be better off if this person were an admin?"  The answer here is yes.--
'''Support''' Didn't see anything in opposition to deter me from supporting.
I'm
'''Support'''. Good editor and no big concerns.
'''Support.''' On a personality level, I wonder if the candidate is a little full of himself - but as a vandal fighter, deletion gatekeeper, and other functions, I think his contributions so far make an irrefutable case in his favor.
'''Support.''' Per nom. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, strong anti-vandalism work. --
'''Support''' - vandal guy, and that's enough for me.
'''Support''' - strong vandal fighter, devoted contributor
'''Support''' - would have supported anyway, but asinine and illogical oppose votes encouraged me to go through this users contributions. I like what I see. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - user is civil, very hardworking, and devoted.
'''Support''', very well aware of Wikipedia's policy. Would be a real asset to the project.
'''Support''' Great vandal fighting and would not abuse the tools
'''Oppose''' This person has only been active as long as I've been active, since August. Second, his last RfA was only last month. Usually, people need to wait at least 2 months before applying for another RfA. Third, Wikipedia does not need any more anti-vandal admins. The [[WP:AIV]] page is usually checked every 10 minutes at most.
'''Oppose''' : (a) Half-a-year is, by far, too short a time to be entrusted with admin duties, (b) It's been only 7 weeks since his last attempt ("back then" indeed!), (c) Some careless writing exhibited in his answers.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons that many people cited during [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chrislk02|his previous RFA run last month]]: still too new (only active since October) and too inexperienced with policy application. Ratio of edits also skewed: lots of User Talk activity, but very little article-space or Wikipedia-space Talk, where substantive discussions occur. No work towards developing featured articles, that I see. As many others suggested on the prior RFA, please wait a bit before trying again. Four months of high activity tagging articles, reverting and issuing vandal warnings doesn't demonstrate enough commitment to be handed admin functions; vandal-fighting can be done with non-admin tools (as he's doing right now).--<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=103156133 You still autorevert things which are not vandalism]. I opposed you for the exact same reason last time... -
'''Strong oppose'''.  Per the diff Amarkov provided, I do not feel I can trust this user with the admin tools.  Rollback and its equivalent java tools are to be used for reverting vandalism, solely.  Not - '''''ever''''' - for content disputes.  Admitting it was a 'mistake' but then noting it is one he will make again in the future rather than pledging to not do it again strikes me as both arrogant and insultingly dismissive.  This was one of the reasons Chris's first RFA fell through, so it is clear he lacks the ability to comprehend why what he did was wrong; he has repeated the error and sees it as 'collateral damage' and 'it is going to happen'.  It's only going to happen if we trust people with the tools when they lack the basic understanding of what the tools are intended for, and the judgement to learn from their errors.
'''Oppose'''.  Using an automated rollback tool to label an edit as vandalism &ndash; when that edit had a clear edit summary explaining reasoning and did not otherwise appear to be vandalism &ndash; and writing it off as 'collateral damage'...just ain't right.  A rollback says, "The preceding edit is so obviously harmful and in bad faith that I can revert it without any discussion or edit summary."  (In addition, the tool used in this case specifically labels the reverted edits as 'vandalism' and links to the policy.)  Give it some time and show that you read the edit summaries of the edits that you roll back and I could support in the future.
'''Neutral''' Despite the fact that it appears the nominee has a need for the tools and has the trust of the community at large, I am unable to support only because "adminship is no big deal". While that term is often used in the sense that having the buttons is no big deal so that's no reason to deny assigning them to a user, to me it also means that ''being'' an admin should be no big deal. In this case, I don't understand the rush to become an admin. [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|There is no deadline]]. The nominee was very quick out of the gate in seeking adminship the first time around. Waiting less than 2 months to try again seems rather impatient.
'''Neutral'''. I still feel that this RfA is occuring much too quickly after the last one, but I'm not comfortable opposing any longer, and I wish Chrislk02 the best when this passes.--
'''Neutral'''. As said above, this is slightly too soon after the last RfA, and I am also concerned by some of the diffs raised by the oppose votes. That said, they are relatively rare and he seems in general to be trusted.
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) due to the candidate's attitude towards the rollback incident. There was a clear edit summary and brushing it off as ''colateral damage'' without an undertaking to be more careful in future is a little concerning in light of the previous RfA. Not enough to oppose, but I'm no longer comfortable supporting. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' - had the pleasure of working with Chris on a number of [[WP:FOOTBALL]] articles, no reason to deny mop.  Good luck!
WPF loves people like Chris, and my interaction in discussion with him in that subject area have left me with a very positive impression of this candidate. '''
'''Support''' As a member of WPF, I have met this user many times. No reason not to have the mop!
'''Support''' - After reviewing many of his contributions I am easily able to support this nomination. He appears to be a regular at AfD and displays calm reasoning in his decisions.
'''Support''' Although I had some disagreements with this user over the past concerning some [[WP:N|notability]] issues over football articles, I have no doubt that this user will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', with no reservations about the candidate. Good work on [[WP:FOOTBALL]] seals the deal.
'''Strong Support''' - along with the outstanding contributions, I couldn't possible question the judgement of Oldelpaso, by opposing.
'''Support''' Strong user, I particularly liked the mention of drawing on RL customer service experience; people skills are extremely helpful as an admin. Good luck!
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''', no concerns
'''Support''', a courteous and responsible editor who can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Strong support''' great user, great writer, great conduct. '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' K.
'''Support''' - very competent and responsible editor, appears to adhere to policies and I've never seen an example of this user breach [[WP:CIVIL]]. -
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - I have a Similar Job and Can see he has Excellent "People Skills"
'''Support''' Should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - looks great here. &nbsp;
'''Support''' <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="3">'''
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question.  Good luck!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. The years here show dedication.
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent choice, experience and savvy.
'''Support''' - Excellent use of talk pages, good contributions, clearly has a solid grasp on Wikipedia policies, and you couldn't ask for more dedication. --
'''Support''' - consistently excellent football edits.
'''Support''' although he's a total pain.  Seriously, he has a great number of useful edits, and can be trusted.
'''Support''' Although that username almost gained an automatic oppose from me. Looks a goodie. --
'''Support''' Good user. Just a note: I think you are a little low on edit summaries, especially on the minor edits, just so you know it. But I do mean to say support, to make that clear.
I'm
''''Support''' Would make a great mop handler. --'''
[[Brownhills]].  All I have to say.
'''Support''' Has been around since Dec 2005 and has over 12000 mainspace edits and track is good with no concerns.
'''Support'''. ''Literally'' was surprised to see this here and learn that Christopher isn't already an admin. Very strong record of contributions, fully qualified.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. In my experience has a good temperament for the job and his contribs show all the right experience. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. [[User:Durin|Durin]] mentioned [[User talk:Christopher Parham/Archive07#Adminship|here]] that he should be an admin, so I'll take that as an endorsement. --
'''Support'''. I often see this editor doing good work on the project. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]]
'''Support''' I see no problems in the last 500 edits.
Wow, great stuff! :) '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' - as per Majorly..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Great editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
Looks good to me! I see no problems. Best of luck! --'''<font color="green">
'''Support'''  Looking good!  I'm glad to support.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. While the examples brought up in [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]]'s oppose comment are concerning they aren't very recent and they seem to be isolated incidents. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Mopify''' surprised he wasn't a janitor already. --
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Support''' - sure, we should all be civil 100% of the time, but we're human. If Christopher's been editing here since 2004, and the below diffs are the ''worst'' incivility he's ever dished out, then hell, he deserves not only the mop but a halo and a seat on ArbCom. In all seriousness, his track record viewed as a whole demonstrates a commitment to civility and inspires a lot of confidence that he'll use the tools well. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Everyone loses their cool at times, and I have no reason to believe that Christopher Parham will not make a fine admin. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''', we all make mistakes, and I think that Christoper's good edits and experience outweighs the few mishaps he's had. Christopher's editing isn't what I'd call consistant, but I'm sure that it adds up enough to make him a fine administrator. '''''
'''Support''' as experienced as they come and I don't think that Oleg's diffs below are representative of the candidates usual demeanor.
'''Strong Support''' Although Oleg's diffs are minor negatives, one lapse in judgment cannot gainsay an impressive history of thoughtful work in every area of the project.  This day has been ''loooooong'' in coming (I first offered to nominate Chris 18 months ago, as I'm sure hundreds of others have also), and the project will be forever better now that is arrived.
'''Support''' with pleasure. Where is this lapse of which you speak? —
'''Support''' Excellent record as an editor, will be a credit to wikipedia as an admin.
'''Support''' Overall acceptable record as an editor and has a firm grip in policy.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Edit Conflict Support'''. One heated contribution in an already heated debate isn't enough to sway me against over 2 years of grade A encyclopedia writing. Good luck. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''', changed from neutral in the light of answer to question 4 above. --
'''More support'''. Christopher shows dedication to the ideals of Wikipedia, and moving to correct past mistakes is a noble goal for any person, Wikipedian or otherwise. The featured article contributions are impressive, but these other qualities are what remain most useful for an admin. --
'''Absolutely'''. —''
'''Support''', I first met this user in the school debate.  He had a lot of sensible things to say and kept his cool.  Definitely admin material.
'''Support''' good editor, good luck.
strong support agree with whoever said cant bevile that Chris is not admin looking at his edits he created many fine articls he fights agaenist vandleism he works with templeats my feeling we need more admin working in temepleates
'''Easy Support''' Answer 5 was concise.
I'm
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools. Everybody makes mistakes. —
'''Support'''.  Unlikely to misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' excellent contributor.
'''Support''' Seems like a great editor who will make a great admin.--
'''Strong support'''

'''Support''', Meets my criteria. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
I strongly oppose Christopher Parham's views on RfA and would oppose his RfB candidacy. However, his views on RfA (aside from the general dispositions they reveal) have nno bearing on his qualification for adminship. So, given that and the quality of his contributions, I am '''tentatively supporting''' his candidacy. Regarding the civility issues, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&diff=121300593&oldid=121298862 the comment] at Danny's RfA was inappropriate, but I think we can take that in context of the rather heated atmosphere of that particular RfA. It doesn't excuse the incivility, but it may explain it. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/068407.html This] I am more concerned about. I agree with the belief conveyed in the second sentence, but reject the conclusion arrived at in the first. The mentality that "If we ignore dumb people, maybe they'll be smarter" can very easily become "If you disagree with me, I'll ignore you." In the absence of other possible concerns (which I was not able to find), I will support this RfA. -- '''
'''Support''' - thoughtful, good judgment ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' --<font color="3300FF">
I have generally been impressed with Christopher's thoughtfulness, and in addressing his flawed choice of language in the comments complained of. I think that incident wholly out of character, though understandable given the heat of the moment, and it does not change my evaluation of him. We all (and I certainly include myself) should encourage better contributions to discussion, not simply criticize empty ones, to show the positive alternatives available. --
Overdue
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''' news to me that he wasn't one.  But then again, I'm usually clued out --
'''Support''' - I thought he already was one.
'''Support''' - seen him around, sounds cool and rational. Nice contribs too.
'''Support'''. –
'''Support'''. seems thoughtful and generally level-headed, and the article-writing is great.
'''Support'''. Thought he was one. I don't really see a problem with civility overall. Maybe a few pointed comments, but he's only human. And, though I voted oppose over there, some of the other opposes ''were'' pretty idiotic... &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Good answers and everything else seems pretty much ok, too. —'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' for his good edit summary useage and for his edit count on Wikipedia name space. --
'''Support''' since while the Talk numbers seem a bit odd, I am confident in his faithfulness to policy per his questions. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Weak Support''' Major concerns in the oppose section, but I think that this user wil stil make a good admin.

'''Support''' Great editor!
'''Support''' He seems a bit true to the policy and knowledgable. I like it! '''
'''Support''', no problem.
'''Support''' - I agree with Oleg below that admins should remain '''[[WP:CIVIL|civil]]''' and respectful at all times (especially in the face of adversity).  And since you have stepped forward to become a sysadmin, I assume you are ready and willing to accept this responsibility.  Good luck, '''''
'''Support'''. The two examples cited below were perhaps a bit uncouth, but not, in my opinion, a blatant breech of civility. Parham is an excellent contributor, though anyone who's around for as long as he has is guaranteed to make a few statements that upset people. If this is his worst, he's far better than most.
'''Support''' I was very surprised to learn a while back that he isnt one already! &mdash;
'''Support'''. A great editor who cares about quality. I'd like to see more article talk-page interaction in future, but otherwise Christopher's an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' per answers, and above
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' per [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/068407.html this post] cited by Oleg Alexandrov above. My problem, however, is not with incivility (it wasn't particularly uncivil) but with the attitude expressed in that posting. The line of argument was basically "well, if closing bureaucrats ignore RfA votes that they don't agree with, then this will make people cast more sensible votes." This principle is what is driving Wikipedia into authoritarianism. In RfA, XfD and all other processes, the vote (''not'' !vote) of an established user in good standing should ''never'' be ignored, even if the closing admin/bureaucrat views it as "idiotic". <s>We don't need more authoritarian admins.</s> <font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Purple">
I tentatively '''object''', first because of civility concerns as above, second because of a lack of interaction with other editors (evidenced by a near-total absence of Talk or User_talk edits throughout ''2007'', other than vandal reverts and "subst:test") and third because his usage of AFD is quite specifically limited to debates on schools, where his response generally boils down to "the other side doesn't have an argument". Not participating in AFD is fine; only participating to push a particular agenda casts doubts upon one's judgment.
'''Oppose''', incivility problems and worrying views, as noted by Walton.
'''Oppose''' Arrogant. ''"Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization."'' &mdash;'''
'''Neutral leaning Support'''. Looks very strong to me, but I'd like more information along the lines of what Oleg Alexandrov brought up. 2 diffs could still be 2 isolated incidents, but if they truly are indicative of a trend toward incivility I would have to oppose on the principal that admins should be ''nearly'' always civil. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
'''Neutral'''. It is not so much the incivility in Oleg's diffs which concern me, it is more the thought behind them, where opinions diverging with his are labeled as unworthy of acknowledgment, and that approach has led to a lot of the grief and the flame wars we have seen the past year. I cannot see that Chris has been the biggest offender in this regard however, and I hold his contributions in high regard in general, so I won't oppose, instead I'll just recommend that he takes some of the real concerns onboard.
I'm with Sjakkalle. In addition, though, you have shown that you are very capable ''generally'' with discussion, although there has been a marginal lack of it for my liking. Otherwise, no real problem. '''
'''neutral''' per Sjakkalle. Belittling people one disagrees with has become common and is a major reason discussions are so acidic and polarized nowadays... WP:CIVIL exists for a reason. --
Per concerns cited by Sjakkalle and Daniel. '''
I think you have the experience to be an effective administrator and your thoughtful responses at AfD shows you have a clear understanding of the wiki-way. Good luck.
'''Support''' Your mainspace history shows you understand what we're trying to do here, and your talk & AfD history shows you've got a good reason for wanting this. As I'm not familiar with you, I've checked your history more thoroughly than usual & can't find anything to object to<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' 400 edits in project space are far from meaningless. Looking through them, I see many cases of AfDs in which Chunky Rice participated in a real discussion over the whole course of the process which is a very positive sign. I also see sound comments at the Village Pump, reasoned discussion on the talk page of [[WP:NOT]], long-term involvement in a WikiProject. Unless I failed to notice instances where CR has dramatically lost his cool, I don't quite see what's not to like.
'''Support''' Edits are low, but no reason to think he will abuse tools.
'''Support''' Per above. See no indication that this user will misuse the tools;)--
'''Support''' This user has broad experience of the project, and his edits therein are good edits. for those afflicted with editcountitis, his score right now is 3,031, which passes the three thousand magic number for those for whom this is an important parameter. Clearly he will not abuse the tools, and is exactly the sort of editor we should be welcoming with open arms. --<font color="Red">
'''Weak support'''. The candidate is off to a promising start and has built some good articles.  However, mainspace edit count is a bit light. In this case the tie goes to the runner. Best of luck.
'''Suppoprt''' --
'''Support''' edit count is fine.
'''Support'''. You've been off to a pretty good start, but I would like to see more Wikispace edits and experienc, especially for someone interested in becoming an admin and closing Xfd's and stuff like that. '''''
'''Support''' per Anthony.bradbury and for good answers.
'''Support''' — I've analysed your past [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Chunky+Rice&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 50 edits] and I'm happy to give my support on the basis that you make actual article edits/contributions (for example you [[Deduction board game|created this]] yesterday).
'''Support''' CR, you've got Skills that Kills. :)
'''Support'''. I reviewed this editor's contributions in an editor review back in July and found nothing amiss. Solid contributions to encyclopedia, and thoughtful comments at AfD.
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' - like some others I think the editing history is a bit light. However, what there is is high quality and covers a fairly broad range of technical and mainspace activity. Good reasons for wanting admin tools, and nothing that suggests there will be any problems. Some gratuitous advice - your mainspace cotnributions seem very good. Don't let the technical side of adminship distract you from working on more articles.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - clearly bright enough, seems trustworthy, certainly not mental. No good reason not to.
Weak, per experience. —'''
'''Support'''. User has demonstrated better judgement and conflict resolution skills than most current sysops.
'''Support'''. Good candidate. Although the opposers bring up valid points about the candidate's relative inexperience in projectspace, I don't think this on its own is a sufficient reason to oppose.
'''Support''' The experience concerns are minor, so I will support.
'''Support''' - lowish edit count offset by article contributions, AfD involvement and vandal reporting.
'''Support''' - A look through your contributions convinces me that you are committed and thoughtful.  More project space contributions would be a plus, but I don't see any warning signs that you would act rashly or abuse the tools.  Your pattern seems to be that you are cautious until you learn the ropes.  That's a good pattern for a new admin, so I think you would do fine.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
No problems evident.
'''Support''' I don't see why not, go for it. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' don't think he would abuse the tools, looks fine. <b>
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support'''. There is no evident problem here and no indication of future abuse. I appreciate your offer to help. --
'''Support'''. He deserves it for all the hard work he's done. --[[User:Efansay|<span style="color:#000066;font-weight:bold">E</span>fansay]]---[[User talk:Efansay|<font color="Purple">T</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Efansay|<span style="color:Goldenrod">'''C'''</span>]]/
'''Support'''.  Based on answer to my question. Does not require follow up question.
'''
'''Support''' After carefully reading the oppose section and reviewing your fine contributions. The opposes are valid, but on balance I don't see that you will misuse the tools, and that is the only fundamental issue. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Experience is sufficient for me; answers to questions show familiarity with policies.
'''Support''' my concerns have been satisfactorily answered.  Thanks! &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Trustworthy. Best of luck as an admin. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''', seems to have sufficient experience.
'''Weak Oppose''' I wanted to support, but I just can't at this time.  You seem to be well on your way, and are quite on the right track as far as editing and building your skills, but I can't see your experience well enough...''yet''.
'''Oppose''' lack of experience in intended work worries me, as per answer to question #1 ''"Instead of tagging pages for speedy deletion, I suppose I’ll just delete them"'' - (I assume this will go for other sysop tools) with history in contributions I can't decide on good references to prove judgment, you would need to show evidence of seeking outside opinions in controversial issues. So few edits in spaces other than mainspace and talk leave me concerned about skills in making positive conclusions without outside input. This user comes across to me as making out that adminship is a badge of some sort, and by answering: ''"I plan to keep doing the same things that I have been, just with admin duties added on"'' that would mean (IMAO) that "I don't need or really have a great purpose for the sysop buttons, I just '''want''' them". But, still well on the way to becoming a good editor, focus on those project space edits and I hope to see you back here in a few months or less :-) --'''
'''Weak oppose''', per Ben's concerns, but I think more experience will resolve that. Another thousand or two edits spread across more namespaces, and I think you'll be there, you're well on your way though. -
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience in project space in particular - I count at least 110 edits there that are unrelated to policy - but I've no doubt with your legal background you can catch up quickly.
'''Oppose''' per Xiner.  The candidate needs more experience in mop-related fields before he can be trusted to wield the mop with care.
'''Weak Oppose''' While your work in vandal fighting has been good, I don't have enough confidence in your experience in dispute resolution and other sysop tasks that require more interaction with established editors. Some of your responses here felt particularly lackluster.
'''Oppose''' per Ben. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' - Definately heading in the correct direction. I would just like to see more experience, mainly Wikipedia-space, then this RfA will be one to be proud of. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - ~400 edits in project space isn't really enough for someone who wants to work in XfD, but you definitely seem to have a good grasp of policies and seem to work well with others. Keep up the good work! '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Neutral''' for now. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''', per Hersfold's comments. –
'''Neutral''' for now based on relatively low project space contribs. &mdash;
'''Support''' users who fight vandalism are always welcome to be sysopped.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good honest answers, good contribs, seems to know what needs to be done...bust out a mop. '''
'''Support''' I have no concerns. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. No big concerns, this user is trustworthy. Adminship isnt about what you're doing, it's about whether you can be trusted. You have definately shown that. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I'm just curious: after I vote the "score" will be (5/0/5).  Numbers notwithstanding, what happens if we get more "neutrals" than "supports"?  Okay, seriously, I have plenty of "name recognition" for CitiCat from [[WP:AFD]], and I admire his work at [[WP:DEAD]] also.  I see no reason to doubt his integrity.
'''Support''' Citicat handled the BLP issue I mentioned well, has intelligent contributions to AFD that indicate he will close discussions well, and a solid recent history of AIV reports followed by blocks. My only other comment is that we can't merge content from articles and then delete them.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewel%27s_Country_Album&diff=prev&oldid=137896008] We have to keep the old articles, even as redirects, to preserve attribution history under the [[GFDL]], our site license. See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dweller|Dweller's RFA]] for more dialog about this. Frankly, after your handling of the list I brought up below, I'm confident you will respond to criticism of things like this by simply correcting any errors, so it doesn't worry me.--
'''Support''' I like the way he handled the BLP issue, the answers are great, and Citicat seems like a trustworthy and reliable person. Citicat has the qualities of a good admin. —
'''Support''' - seems to have handled the issue well, showing he can react well under pressure and was civil about it. <strong>
'''Support'''. I like his tactful response to q4, which (with respect) was an unreasonable and loaded question to ask of an admin candidate, especially as policy on BLP is in a state of flux. Also, clearly an experienced editor.
'''Support''' is not a vandal thus meets my criteria for adminship --
'''Support''' for a honest answer to a difficult question. deals well with stress.'''
'''Support''' for good answer to Q4. '''
'''Support''' See no evidence will abuse the tools.

'''Weak Support''' I do not think he will abuse the tools!
'''Support''' the above.
'''Support'''. Plenty of activity befitting an admin-to-be, obvious need for the tools, responds calmly when occasional irate editors question tagging of their articles.
'''Support''' per my original observations - good vandal fighter and sensible XfD contribs. My concerns about BLP are largely satisfied by edits made to the article in question and his follow up below suggests he is sensitive to the need for rigorous BLP-like sourcing to articles of the recently deceased. Adminship is no big deal and on long reflection I think Citicat will make a decent one. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', no evidence candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. Is someone seriously opposing because the candidate didn't put one of those annoying templates that nobody looks at on a talk page? Ridiculous... --
'''Oppose''' You seem to be well on your way, but are lacking in just the all-around experience.  You have quite some heart it seems, but I am not sure of your readiness for the tools.
'''Oppose''' - Lack of mainspace contributions and lack of interactions with others. While Citicat has a number of mainspace edits, these related to deleting content rather him contributing content.  A review of Citicat's edit summaries between when he essentially started contributing to Wikipedia in January 2007 and today shows that most of Citicat's edits to Wikipedia are removal of content through reverting the work of other editors. When not reverting, Citicat helps delete content at AfD. While such edits are important, they do not provide enough broad experience to deal with the admin tools.  Citicat has had many user talk page posts. However, these mostly are follow up messages to let the contributor know that he reverted their work.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Citicat&namespace=3] Citicat has had few true conversations with others on Wikipedia. Because of the lack of actual participation in the encyclopaedia and concerns over the ability to communicate with his fellow Wikipeidans on matters urelated to deleting their content, I think oppose is appropriate. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
I agree with Jreferee above. Simply general experience issues. '''
'''Oppose''', I don't think you have enough experience to make informed use of the tools.  As recently as two days ago, you made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Porteau&diff=prev&oldid=142400002  keep] argument at AfD that doesn't reflect knowledge of [[WP:BIO]] guidelines.  I'm not comfortable with your making deletion decisions just yet. --
'''Oppose.''' Re [[Robert Rozier]] -- I'm disheartened to see someone applying for adminship citing as among their best contributions the biography of a living person untagged as such (I've just tagged).
'''Neutral''' per WJBscribe.
'''Neutral''' - as per WJBscribe..for now.. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral''' A tad early as the opposers correctly point out and if the candidate ''is'' given the sysop bit, I urge him to take things slow. Still, from my review of the contributions, looks like a solid editor with good judgement and I can't see him abusing the tools. But the lack of experience in interacting with other users is somewhat problematic, enough so that I'm not comfortable supporting right now.
'''neutral''' per Jreferee's oppose. I agree with his general argument, but it doesn't add up to an oppose for me. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support''' admin wrights.
'''Support''' muchly.
'''Strong Support''' see [[WP:MESO]], [[Sylvanus Morley]], etc etc. --
'''Support'''. What's with the [[malapropisms]]? '''''
'''Support''' solid history as an editor, excellent work in dealing with troubled users (if you haven't read the links in quesiton 3 you should) --
'''Support''' per great answers and edits.--
I am [[User:Arjun01|Arjun]] and I "trust" this user.
'''Support''' your answer to question one could be stronger, but you will still make use of the admin powers, and your great deal of experience means you will probably not misuse the tools.
'''Weak Support'''. What kept me from going with my original inclination to say "neutral" was the fact that adminship is no big deal and because this nominee's record, while very weak on indicating a need for the tools, does indicate that the candidate is trustworthy. My hesitation relates to the fact that the nominee does not participate much outside the mainspace, other than when a matter comes up relating to mesoamerican issues. In the last several months, I found very little AfD participation other than in the few mesoamerican-related nominations; same thing for image-related matters. I also find little evidence of knowledge of the "more obscure processes". While this indicates little, if any, need for the tools, what participation this candidate has made outside mainspace has been thoughtful and cogent - the candidate always takes the time to explain his position and supports his arguments and reasoning credibly. Even if it turns out this candidate conducts admin functions at a rate well below average, I am certain that the quality will make up for quantity.
'''Support.''' I'm new to RfA, so I'm not sure what to say here.  I think the candidate has answered all the questions appropriately.
'''Support''' devoted editors make good admins
'''Support''' I have seen this user being helpful, knowledgeable, and dedicated in the context of [[WP:MESO]].
The ammended answer in the discussion section does serve to assuage any fears that may have arison from question 1. I don't see any real reason why we can't trust good editor to become a good administrator, even when they don't state lots of needs of the tools. It's a pleasure to '''support'''.
No concerns, comes well recommended.
'''Strong Support'''. Good editor of longstanding repute. High quality edits both in mainspace and projectspace. XfD contributions show strong policy knowledge- that he hasn't been involved very recently doesn't seem like a problem, I doubt he's forgotten anything. Oh, and his answer to my question (Q4) is absolutely first rate and completely allays the fear I had when I asked it.
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools. ←

'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''', we have a paucity of admins knowledgable about some of the more esoteric areas of Wikipedia, and Mr Wright seems like he wouldn't misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  He has made many, many solid contributions to articles and has a calm demeanor when dealing with other editors, even on contentious subjects.  Would make a good admin.  And, not that it matters for RfA, but he has a very nice userpage.
'''Support''' Great answers, appears to be very dedicated, sign him up. '''
''Tentative'' '''support''', looks good, but would like to see the answer to my optional question. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''', for all the good reasons listed above.  There are other things that need admin attention beyond XfD.
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''', you will be a great admin! ''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' - one of the best editors I know on Wikipedia. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' A solid Wikipedian who could really use the tools well. '''
'''Strong Unreserved Support''' I know this editor from Aztec-related articles.  He is a good editor and a great project coordinator.  Cool and level-headed.  Absolutely 100% civil.  It may be true that lack of Wikipedia space edits may be indicative of lack of exposure to policy discussions but that can be learned.  This is an editor that can be trusted with the admin bit.  If there is an "Ignore all rules", there should also be a "Ignore all arbitrary RFA criteria when the situation calls for it".  This is a situation that calls for it.  --
'''Support''' per excellent response to Chacor and otherwise near-impeccable credentials. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy wikipedian, excellent nominator.
'''Strong Support'''. Contribution history and answers to questions indicate a very responsible and excellent candidate. ···
'''Strong Support''' - keeps the fundamentals of Wikipedia in his day to day work. '''
'''Solid Support''' I have no problem supporting a candidate who plans to use admin tools for article cleanup and maintenance instead of user interaction. He's a great editor. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm
'''Support''' This user seems like a proper, expierienced editor. He has sucessful contributions by reverting. I'm in. --'''Shaericell''' <small>([[User:Shaericell|Userpage]]|[[User talk:Shaericell|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Shaericell|E-mail]]|
'''Support''' for maintaining NPOV −
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I would rather see more XfD participation if that is an area you feel you may work in as an admin, however, on the balance of things it is not enough to make me oppose. '''
'''Support''' contributor with more than adequate experience to make sound judgements in the use of sysop powers.--
'''Weak Support''' -- I share the wish for more XfD experience, but I am swayed from "oppose" to "support" based on [[User:Richardshusr|Richard]]'s compelling comment above. Good luck (and please participate in 10 to 20 XfDs before closing any) --
'''Support''' per above :).--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support'''. Devoted editor unlikely to abuse the tools.
I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing admin-related work. That, plus your answer to question 1, implies that you don't actually do much like that now, but intend on branching out into it if you become an admin. I can't support a candidate like that for adminship. Just keep on doing what you're doing now; you're doing well, and you don't need admin tools to keep doing well. -
I'm with [[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]].  A browse through your last 500 contributions doesn't show a single XfD or posting on any admin board, or am I missing something?  You have great work in the Meso project, and that can continue without the extra tools.  --

'''Oppose''' no xFD experience, and lack of maintenance experience such as vandal-fighting, etc. --
'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''', good candidate but not enough XfD participation (needed if you say you want to close XfD discussions).
'''Neutral''' leaning toward oppose - I hate to oppose an editor (did I not believe that [[WP:ADMIN#Trivial_matter|becoming an admin is no big deal]], it would be oppose). But almost all of your project space contributions are to Wikiprojects, which shows that you have been involved precious little in policy discussions, and likely don't know many of the basics. -
'''Support''' -- seems like a good contributor with a fair edit count who wants to tackle vandalism and patrol the new pages.
Usually I'd like to see a bit more activity in the project namespace, but I think the Ck's solid mainspace contributions could be augmented nicely by a mop. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Weak support''' - I agree with EVula but I feel the user will still make a good admin. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose, especially as [[CAT:CSD|we need more admins]]. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' - Good Answers, Good Contributions and Good Editor...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' This is a good user who I am sure will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' - Because the contributions are good, the edit summary is good, there's a real <b>need</b> for the tools, the user looks trustworthy, civilty seems A1 and to balance [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]]'s oppose that, IMHO, benefits nothing but his editcount. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Good user = Good admin and good use for tools. I don't mind about the dip, I know what GCSEs are like (I'm doing them now too!)
'''Support''' your contributions do speak for themselves.  And to add my 2 cents to this discussion, Kurt Webber is entitled to his opinion on this issue, regardless of whether or not you agree with him.  '''
'''Strong support''' for good and thoughtful answers. Following regular support for his solid contributions and general civility. Btw: Struck supports look awful, don't they? Please forgive my little practical joke, I'm just trying to apply a bit of [[systematic desensitization]] therapy. —'''

'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Yes please! - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''', no reason not to.  I am actually inclined to favour self-nominations, as they show gumption.
'''Support''' Editor has demonstrated a use for the tools, and nothing to suggest that the editor will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' A trustworthy user who's far more civil than me, with good contributions and a need for the tools.
'''Support'''.  Edits to the project namespace are a bit thin but a review of them looks good.  ~200 edits may not seem like much to those suffering editcountitis but is sufficient to demonstrate the user has a good grip on policy.  Mainspace contribs are excellent as well, so I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' Let's see, good editor, no blocks, no huge controversies. Hmm?
'''Support''' I´ve always seen this user as a ''very'' experienced editor, plus totally trustworthy and civil. The tools would be good in his hands. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' No major concerns. —
'''Support''' Good editor, adequate experience, good answers, will be a valuable admin. What more can I say? --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I don't see why not. Sufficient answers. --
'''Support''' No major reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' Per reasons already stated --
'''Support''' I'm satisfied with everything I've seen, the contribs, the answers to the questions above, and the answers to my questinos below in the Neutral section.
'''Support''' No forseeable issues! '''
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per all supports; this user looks like he/she is ready to be an admin.
'''Moderate support''', I like contributions but not a perfect admin. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' Handled questions well, and I have confidence that he'll do good work.'''
'''Support''' now where did I put my sword? Think I'll just sit down and think about it... OW!<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' He has 2100+ edits, and a good bit of experience, and I think he's ready.
'''Support''' for many reasons stated above and not one good reason given to oppose.
I'm
'''Support''', I'm familiar with his work and I'm confident he'll do a very good job. Love,
'''Support''', contributions look solid, no indicate that the candidate will run amok. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per thoughtful answers and wonderful work on building the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' per PeaceNT.
'''Support'''. The very confident answers to the questions makes me very confident to support this user. Don't feel guilty on the self-nom bit either. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' Per edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Francis&diff=prev&oldid=95325911 incorrect reference formats] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ck_lostsword&diff=prev&oldid=38129353 editing others comments]. Most edits made with [[WP:VANDALPROOF|VP]] and [[WP:AWB|AWB]] and not a lot of edits in Wikipedia. Only made 27 edits in May. I see no need for the tools. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Neutral''' Not because I don't support, but I'm just not in a "voting" mood today.  Experience is more than enough, and you'll have no trouble learning on the job.  I'm a little baffled by your answer to Q1.  I revert a lot of vandalism, and I've found that it's usually a simple matter to identify a repeat vandal with or without access to deleted edits.  It's equally evident in most cases when to block for reports on AIV, though there may be room for discretion.  We don't want any [[WP:ROUGE|rouge admins]], but I think you will be more effective if you're not so squeamish about using admin tools once you have them.
First to support (it was watchlisted ;) ) - great editor, very communicative, all my interactions have been very pleasant. Has my trust. Go for it! (Must add - a great relief to see one of the musical editors being conscientious about fair use - we don't have enough of those... )
'''Support''' Oowaweewah, your contributions are excellent, I can't see any reason why the community shouldn't trust you with the tools.  However, if they're bestowed, please don't forget to continue making your great positive contributions.  Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' He is a good editor, and I believe I can trust him!
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks good to me
'''Support''' I generally only meet the editors of academic articles, but I have come across CloudNine because I am a Pixies nut. He has done the band proud with his five featured articles; he works hard, understands about sourcing, and responds impressively to questions or objections. He is also a good reviewer of other articles at FAC and contributes measured comments on the talk pages relating to featured articles.
'''Support''' - a great candidate. —'''
'''Support'''.  Seems to be consistently [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and composed, and has a fine track record of constructive edits. --
'''Support''' in agreement with [[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]].
'''Support''' Why not? He/she is a reliable user.--
'''Support'''. Very strong editor, and no reason to believe he'd abuse the admin tools. - '''
'''Support''' Support on behalf of the nominator.
'''Support'''- Great editor.
'''Strong Support''' - has made really good contributions and is very experienced as well ..:) --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''  ll the evidence says you'll be a great admin.  '''
'''Support''' I have not personally come across this user, but he clearly has a broad basis of admin-related experience over the whole project. And [[User:Riana]] supports him, which would be good enough for me anyway.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Has good taste in music. --
'''Support''' I disagree with your disambiguation thoughts on the article, [[Pixies]], but I still think you will make a good admin.
<span id="S19"> I was initially in two minds about this one, but after a long and thoughtful consideration of this candidate's username, userpage design and edit count (oh, and a few contributions, too), I have decided that they should recieve my support. Recently concern has been expressed that many contributors to adminship request discussions, particularly those in favour of the candidate's promotion, have not been elaborating their arguments in quite as much detail as might be desired. My opinion on this candidate is not one which can be distilled to a simple "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral", and I have both positive and negative points to make, as well as recommendations to the candidate for future consideration. However, I feel that, on balance, the project would benefit from their promotion. <br/> So. What do we have, here? "CloudNine" isn't a bad username – makes sense, even kind of catchy. Certainly this is not the sort of user who picks a dull, meaningless, monosyllabalic username and then somehow expects to be taken seriously. Definitely a plus. So then we come to the other key element of a candidate's suitability for adminship – the userpage. It's blue, it's organized, but most importantly of all, it has ''no userboxes whatsoever''. (The user has wisely decided to put them on the talk page, where they will blend in nicely with the insults, bad language and accusations of misconduct that an administrator can expect to have deposited there). In fact, it's so good that if my userpage wasn't already perfect in every way, I'd steal it and pass the design off as my own. It's spoilt only slightly by two minor blemishes. First, the box at the top constitutes blatant canvassing. While it's only their userpage, such blatand disregard for ... well, something is absolutely not on if this candidate is taking adminship seriously. Someone visiting that page might not have previously known that this request was in progress, and ''imagine the consequences of that''. Vote-whoring, I hear you cry? It gets worse. The userpage has a link not only to the user's edit count (which, being the gold standard by which all candidates are judged, is naturally a largely meaningless, often misleading statistic), but ''also'' their edit summary usage. How a candidate who feels the need to prove their ability to consistently fill in a box on a webpage expects to be handed a position of trust is beyond me. Were it not for the user's excellent first edit date (27th November 2004. Classic.) I would be opposing. <br/> Fortunately, the user is able to redeem themselves at this point, as I consider another important indicator of a candiadate's ability – the wording of the nomination. While this candidate's nomination has serious neutrality issues, fails our policy on biographies of living persons, and does not cite independent, reliable sources, I feel that the candidate can be excused, provided they are careful in future to accept a nomination by someone well-versed in our content policies. Where the nomination really stands out is with the nominator's description of the edit count as "riveting". 9161 may at first appear to be a fairly boring number, but not only is it prime, you can transpose the first and second and the third and fourth digits and then rotate it clockwise through half a turn and it looks the same as it did before! Clearly the candidate should be commended for this excellent achievement, which more than makes up for any reservations I may have had. <br/> A word of caution to the candidate, though. While I'm supporting them here, and wish them every success, a number of troubling metrics caught my eye when I fed this candidate's long and prosperous contribution history through the edit counter, like a beautiful, delicate flower being fed through an industrial waste treatment plant. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw the results – a complete lack of Category talk, Image talk and ''even'' MediaWiki talk edits is a bit worrying. The candidate's 798 edits to the Pixies article strongly suggests either a conflict of interest or an inability to use the Preview button (or possibly even both), and while it's a featured article of the highest quality thanks largely to the candidate's dedicated work over a long period of time, I don't really like their music, and if it ever goes on the Main Page the accusations of American bias will come thick and fast. <br/> There is much more I would love to discuss, but time and space do not permit; if the candidate would like me to explain myself in more detail, they are welcome to leave any queries on my talk page, and I will endeavour to ignore them as soon as I can. Just one final word, as no RfA rationale would be complete without an excessively broad generalization based on the voter's single, brief encounter with the candidate. I once reverted some vandalism to an edit by you, this shows you make edits, which is good. Thank you for everything you've done, have a nice day –
'''Support''' I've seen this editor round and about and I don't see a significant problem with their contributions to cause me any concern about them receiving and using the admin tools as part of their regular tasks.
'''Support''', I don't see any problems. --
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder.cheers,
'''Support''' You know how to use a talk page.
'''Support''' A ''very'' civil user.
'''Support''' per nom and especially per Gurch. :)
'''Support''' per contributions, experience, and most of all, Gurch. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support'''—Excellent contributions, and nothing of concern turns up; also, good answers to the questions.--
'''Support'''; Excellent article contributions, which speak to a commitment to the encyclopedia. No concerns. If this RfA succeeds (which I think it will, and should), check out the image backlogs at [[CAT:CSD]]. It's an area where many admins (myself included) lack confidence and efficiency. '''
'''Support''' per Gurch
'''Support''' Good editor, I see no problem with it.
'''Support''' more than capable&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support''' I believe we need more admins like this around here.
Following a need for the tools, good contributions, a very long speech (by Gurch), and a really bewildering oppose vote below, this user has my support. --
A solid contributor. Happily '''support'''.--
'''Support'''. :) A great contributor... (and I like your taste in music :) ) seriously though, I see no problems whatsoever. Good luck- '''
'''Support''' As probably the two biggest contributors to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music|WikiProject Alternative music]], we've worked together quite a bit, and I have nothing but positive things to say about CloudNine. Great editor, courteous and helpful, and dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Would make good use of admin tools, and can serve as an excellent example to others.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' amazing contributor; he does excellent work in the mainspace and has a real need for the tools. I feel very confident that CloudNine would make a great administrator. All the best,
'''Support''' per reply in neutral. No issues with [[WP:OWN]] indicated by the answer. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I trust this user, I'm sure he knows policy quite well, and he won't misuse the tools at all. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest that editor will misuse tools.

'''Support''' per Anthony.bradbury &mdash;
'''support'''
'''Support''' -'''<font color="green">Tim</font>'''<sup>{'''<font color="red">
'''Support''', won't abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Very capable editor.
'''Support''' per my analysis of his contributions, and his answer to my question.  --
'''Support''' - I have only one thing to say, per Gurch. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor with sufficient experience. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Big Support''' I've seen this editor around, I think he'll do fine. '''
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Go for it! Trustworthy, experienced, needed.
'''Support''' experienced and good editor.--
'''Support''', is there a reason not to?
'''Support'''. "Is there a reason not to?"  Not that I can find.
'''Support''' A great candidate. —
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think he's been around longer than I have... '''
'''Support'''. Judging by his contributions to Wikipeida he would be a great admin.
'''Support''' - No oppose yet (the user must be fit for the administrative position), so I´ll support. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will not make an excellant admin.
'''Support'''. See no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' - it was Gurch that got me there.  -
'''[[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|Musical support]]''' (my highest endorsement).
'''Support''' per everyone else and the well-reasoned response to Q4. -- '''
'''Support''' Ran into him once, helped me out politely. Has contributed alot. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Need more admins who are also great article writers, but the combination of skills is rare. -
'''Count me in''' - an excellent editor.--
'''Support''' per Gurch.
'''Support''' Gurch said it all plus some. --<font face="Futura">

Wow, how did I not see this RfA before? I've bumped into CloudNine a fair few times and have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about giving him the admin tools. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Oppose''' Sure, CloudNine will make a good admin, but if it's unanimous, it'll just go straight to his head. ;)<!-- yes, this is a joke --> [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. Looks fine. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. High quality contributor. --
'''Strong Support'''. '''
'''Support''' Looks like a great person to be an admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. Appears to be a solid editor with a good distribution of edits across multiple namespaces. A high number of edits per article suggests that judicious use of the "Show preview" button may be in order, but I do not consider this a good reason to not trust CMummert with the mop. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Support''', no reason not to.--
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''.  A high class editor, with a marathon-like endurance in putting up with problematic editors.  A subject matter expert with a nice array of contributions, in addition to putting in a great deal of time into [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Mathematics]], such as the new A-class.  --
'''Support''' knowledgeable, communicative, and has a long history of employing that rarest of qualities, common sense.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Community oriented, solution oriented, reality oriented. --
'''Support''' - I thought I was a geek until I looked through this guy's contributions.  Look at this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second-order_logic&diff=prev&oldid=109963062].  Good Lord. -
'''Support'''. I've seen [[User:CMummert|CMummert]]'s work in mathematical articles and usually assume he will be the voice of reason in any debate. If there is need to be shown evidence of his patience or civility, skim through the long, long history of [[Talk:Exponentiation]].
'''Support''' Mathematicians make great admins. (cough... cough...)
'''Support''' A spread of edits in the main spaces and a sensible attitude show that this editor will not abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' no reason not to. --
'''Support''' I haven't found a reason to oppose, and I trust the nominator. <i><b>
'''Support''' As one of the editors involved in the [[Exponentiation]] article who did get fed up with the problem editor, I salute [[User:CMummert|CMummert]] for his seemingly infinite patience.  His initial NPOV rewrite was brilliant and still stands largely intact.
'''Support''' – Always constructive. &nbsp;--
'''Support''' per [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg]] and [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia]].  An insightful, calm and clearly reasoning editor.
'''Support''' - clearly, for all of the reasons mentioned already.
'''Support''' good candidate. -
'''Support''' - Areh..Give him the mop..(we have a mathematics genius among us)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
I'm
'''Support''' - math is somewhere we can really push WP - not much POV there. :) &mdash; <span style="text-decoration: none;">
'''Support'''; ''sorta''-low wikispace edits, but some people can participate in 10 XfDs and learn what others can do only in 200. Everything else looks great. &ndash;
'''Support''' per nom. Guess I would even support only to convince him to stay. Wikipedia badly needs academic experts. —
'''Support''' looks like an editor of great value to WP.  I hope his admin responsibilities, which could be done by many, do not take away too much from his editing articles he is knowledgable about, which few could do.
'''Support'''. Contribs look good; community interaction is constructive and well-balanced. Give him the mop, eh? --
'''Support'''. I've never seen him to be anything but cordial and helpful. I'm sure he'll make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' This one's easy. -- '''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''', a thoughtful editor who does very good work. While he may not have had a hand in everything, I'm confident that he won't abuse the tools or rush into issues without studying them.
'''Support''' &ndash; A solid contributor with the patience of Job.
'''Support''' - will be a good addition to the admin community.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  I honestly couldn't care less what he's done with vandalism; what matters is that he's done good work, and thinks the tools would be useful.
'''Support''' I have seen this user around, extremely competent and calm contributor.  Will not abuse tools. -
'''Support''' Trustworthy, and I'm happy to have more admins watching math articles.
'''Support''': good temperament, clear need for the tools in a manner that fits with his experience working with templates, cautious demeanor about undertaking bold admin actions in his first weeks after RfA. --
'''Support''' Vandal fighting is not rocket science. This thoughtful user will do well with the admin tools.
'''Support''', ''not'' per CharlotteWebb. I trust this user and agree with his decisions in AfD. '''
'''Support''' per Ral315.
Late '''support'''.--
His editing experience is the narrowest I've seen. Minimal experience with vandalism, and he seems a bit confused when discussing it: "I have occasionally needed to post to [[WP:3RR]] or [[WP:ANI]] because of continued vandalism" does not inspire confidence at all. Says he is interested in closing AFDs, but he has participated in roughly a dozen of them, all of which I perused. I'm not going to comment on the merits of the articles being discussed, because I have no idea what they looked like at the time, and frankly I don't care, but will say I was not very impressed with his understanding of deletion policy. Specifically, he says "merge and delete" several times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Immigration_%28CA%29&diff=103148138&oldid=102988664] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_of_mathematical_induction&diff=65638626&oldid=65626628] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Regular_number&diff=62583942&oldid=62581099], but that is not permitted as the [[GFDL]] requires us to preserve edit history for all content we use. More broadly, he also has a backward view regarding policies and guidelines. I'm slightly appalled when he says ''"Lack of sources is not an AFD criteria"'' and ''"It is only notability that I think is the issue here."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emma%27s_Dilemma&diff=prev&oldid=99189798]. Verifiability is absolute policy. Notability is a subjective guideline, one which is vulnerable to systemic bias on all sides. I worry that he will delete valid, verifiable content because it doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (whatever) guideline he feels most closely applies, as he suggests at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decemyriagon&diff=prev&oldid=101842209]. That would be a huge disservice to the project. —
'''Oppose''' per CharlotteWebb - narrow range of article edited - for example very little [[WP:BLP]] experience. Admin candidates should understand that vandalism is reported to [[WP:AIV]] instead of [[WP:3RR]]. Also, doesn't have much experience in XfD and concur that several "merge and delete" 'votes' are slightly unusual. <s>Not entirely convinced that we bestow the mop to allow editors to modify protected templates either, I was under the impression that improvements can be proposed on the talk page.</s>
'''Oppose''' per CharlotteWebb. The sheer dearth of AfD experience is troubling enough, but when you add blanket statement like "[[WP:ATT]] is not deletion criteria" makes me worried about high error rate in closing AfD's. ~
'''Oppose''' per CharlotteWebb.
'''Weak Oppose''' I would like to see more evidence of work with IP vandals and other relatively hostile users.
'''Oppose''' per CharlotteWebb and Trialsanderrors. Too little experience of vandal fighting and XfD to show understanding of policies related to those areas and too much evidence raised to suggest the contrary. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per Charlotte and Trials.--
'''Neutral'''. Somehow something makes me feel uncomfortable, but not enough to oppose. ''
'''Nominator Support''' —<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support, beat the co-nom?''' - I've seen this person around, and I'm quite sure that he won't abuse the tools. //
'''Strong Support'''--
'''Pfeh!''' - about time "support" -
'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support'''. I have been very aware of Coelacan's contributions and have been impressed in all instances.
'''Support'''. Oh dear God yes. This user lurks around all kind of backwaters on Wikipedia doing stuff that is unpleasant but necessary, is consistently helpful to anyone who knocks on his talkpage and quickly learns from any mistakes made. Even when we have not seen eye to eye we have settled our differences in a civil and amicable manner that I believe Coelcan brings to nearly every discussion. Moreover he has a brilliant sense of humour and a seemingly endless supply of cat pictures for every situation. I have no doubt whatsoever that Coelacan will prove an exceptionally useful and helpful admin.
'''Support''' Honest to goodness, my first thought on seeing this one pop up was "wait, he isn't one?" -- I've been going on this whole time thinking you were, and had no problems with it, so I don't see why I should have any problems with it, now. Personal experience doesn't give me any reason to think the candidate will abuse the buttons. Good luck! &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''' No question about this one at all.
'''Support''', no problems here.--
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbatsell&diff=102341976&oldid=102341448 Support]'''. —
'''Rather late, but super strong support''' as co-nom - a great candidate (just read the noms :) )
'''Support''' undoubtedly an excellent candidate. —
Another user whom I had already accepted as an admin. —
'''Support''' I've seen him around, very good editor, no worry to give him admin tools.
'''Support''' Knowledge and experience with XfDs should allow him to close the most controversial of discussions. –
'''Support''' It's a shame there aren't more candidates like you
'''Support''' You seem trustworthy, and the image backlogs need all the attention admins are willing to give them. I especially like that you linked to specific examples where you didn't handle conflict well, and explained how you changed your approach after that.
'''Support'''  I know it seems glib, but "Er, what?  Yeah."  applies here.
'''Pile-on support''' I don't need to read the whole rigmarole.  I know this user, and I trust him.
'''Yea, verily'''.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Good candidate. -<small>'''<font color=blue>Lakers'''</font></small><sup>'''
'''Absolutely''' - I have only ever had pleasant interactions with this user, and I can't see a reason to withhold the tools. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' - No doubts here. <sup>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per good answers and overall experience.
'''Support''' - I have to resort to the cliche: ''I though you were already and admin!'' : ) -
'''Support.''' I've only ever seen good contributions from this user, too.
'''Support.''' Although [[user:Coelacan|Coelacan]] and I have been on opposing sides of a number of discussions, [[user:Coelacan|Coelacan]] has always stated his opinion rationally and reasonably, and while we may agree to disagree in the future, I believe that [[user:Coelacan|Coelacan]] will demonstrate good judgement in applying wiki policy and guideline as an admin and that he is worthy of the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|community's trust]]. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - Coelacan and I had a disagreement once, but we resolved it civilly, which is all the more reason to support. This user is also highly experienced across all aspects of Wikipedia. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per all comments others have made.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_4&diff=prev&oldid=120821163 This edit alone] shows that Coelacan has the required sense of humor to do a great job. (And if you don't like that rationale, Coelacan's participation in XfD shows that he's a reasonable editor who deserves to be trusted with the mop.)
'''Support''' looks good.--
- <b>
'''Support''' Like what I've seen of his work at XfD and elsewhere. --
'''Support'''. Very trustworthy user, good answers to questions and wants to work clearing incorrectly tagged fair use images where we need more admins. Excellent. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strong support''', was considering an offer to nominate myself when I saw that it was already happening. Handles tough situations very well, will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - In my experiences with this <s>[[Coelacanth|prehistoric fish]]</s> editor, I have observed good judgment. <font face="monospace">
'''Support.'''  I have seen this user making positive contributions to WP.--
'''Support'''-Seems good. We need more admins with image knowledge. --
Flawless user. Should be a superb admin. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support:''' Seen him at work on the Help Desk, and am impressed with it.  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support:''' I have seen his comments on some talk pages. I think he is a good guy. -:) --- '''
'''Support''', I have seen this guy do some good stuff and expect that he would do more as an administrator.
'''Strong support''' Ryan did the co-nomination; that's a great sign as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support, I've seen Coelacan's contributions and am confident the buttons will be well used and not misused. -
'''Support''' Meets or exceeds all of my expectations. This user is one of the better ones.
'''Support''' per nom, Dev920.
Hell yes? '''
'''Strong Support''' This person has not only improved wikipedia, they've made me a new and improved Wikipedian. Thank you, --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. About time. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Already doing lots of grunt work, which is a good indication that he'll be a good admin.  I especially appreciate the effort he puts into discussions. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy. ~
WTF? I don't get this. Genuine case of RFA cliché number 1.
I'm
'''Support''' Absolutely no problem at all. Great contributor.--
'''Support'''. All I can say is: Wow! -
'''Support''' - Very, very well rounded with regards to policy, and also articulate. No streaks of insanity. Yet, anyway <code>:)</code>
'''Support''', another "I could have sworn you had the mop..." situation.--
'''Support'''.  Thought he already was...etc, etc.
'''Support''' - well-deserved. -- ''
'''Support'''. All the contribs I've noticed by Coelacan have been level-headed and careful.
'''Support''' - All interactions have been positive with this user, even in the rare instances where we have disagreed. --
'''Support''' - As per recent interactions with [[User:PatPeter]].
'''Support''' Great work to date - keep it up after you get adminship please.--
'''Wikibreak support'''- wouldn't want to miss this one. An intelligent and persuasive editor with a lot of relevant experience. The number of ''supports'' form editor who have been in disagreements with Coelacan in the past speaks volumes. Has my complete trust. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Can trust to be reasonable with use of blocking powers and to respond civilly when questioned about his actions, based on prior experience with his editing. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support''' - '''
'''Support''', good candidate. Nothing but good interactions with this user. --
'''Support''', Coelacan adopted me about a month ago when I was floundering in the wikipit and has been very helpful! Cool-headed advice and prompt assistance. --
'''Support'''. I could ''swear'' I saw you delete something... -
'''Support'''. Excellent responses
'''Support''', sure.
'''Support''', good responses and a good editor all around.
Certainly.
'''Support''', seems to have the wisdom and temperament to be a good admin.
a great user --
'''Strong support''' Great editor, will make a very fine admin. :-)
'''Strong support''' urgh image backlogs. Great user, soon to be great admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''', good experience, good answers. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support''' Looks well balanced and fair answers.
'''Support''' - Very experienced ,very good answers and above all one of the most likeable candidates..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Weak support.''' Does seem a ''bit'' trigger-happy, but freeing up the images shows dedication. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''--
A D'oh! thought I'd already been here '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - will be good admin. cheers,
'''Support'''. Good, experienced editor.
'''Support'''.  First aware of this editor through [[Carlton Pearson]] and was impressed.  Continue to be impressed.
'''Support'''.  Experienced and trustworthy. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>
&nbsp;<small>'''
'''Support'''. Yeah, I'm late on this one, but I think he deserves more support anyway. Great editor.
'''Support''' → Not have found a reason why not! He'll be a good admin. (We need more) <i><b>
'''Support''' Very good editor, sound ideas.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Coelacan understands policy, is thoughtful in his posts, and shows strong evidence of thought behind his posts.  Coelacan will be a welcome addition to Wikipedia's admins. --
'''Support''' - seems like a good candidate.
(edit conflict) We've crossed paths a number of times and we've usually agreed. Then there are those times we've disagreed. Based on the manner of our disagreements and the likelihood that we'll disagree in the future, I '''strongly support''' the candidacy of an excellent editor. ;) Cheers,
'''Support'''. Superb user, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Thoughtful editor, will wield a Jeffersonian mop wisely.
'''Support''' (edit conflict) Despite the high tally and the concerns about vote-stacking, I support this candidate to support this candidate.  Great at Afd, always thoughtful and well-versed in policy.  --
'''Support''' based upon impressive ommunication skills and contributions.  <span style="color:darkred"><b>*Vendetta*</b> <sub>
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. Answers clearly denote experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''SUPPORT'''. '''Rah, Rah, Sis Coom Bah! Make Coelacan an admin THIS INSTANT!''' Just the needed change to make this a better place.
'''Support'''. Good impression of his reasonableness and civility. --

'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.

'''Support''' - Everything but over qualified - No FA, but made up for it by sheer amount of edits.
'''Rather weak support''' Interiot tool [[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Coelacan&site=en.wikipedia.org]] shows mainly active in last six months, and as his answer at the top says, he has not much experience in adding to or creating articles, which I think often shows in his CfD contributions. But argues his case when needed, & is more thoughtful than many on CfD.
'''Support''', trustworthy.
'''support''' <font face="Verdana"><small>↔ [[User:Z.E.R.O.|<sup>t</sup>'''z''']] ([[User talk:Z.E.R.O.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Z.E.R.O.|contribs]] •
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Coelacan has demonstrated knowledge of policy and has done extensive work with the encyclopedia. I have no doubts that he/she will do well as an administrator. '''
'''Support''' I am loathe to pile-on at RfA, but, inasmuch as this is a candidate on whose RfA I have long been waiting and whom I think to be exceedingly qualified, my disagreement with him apropos of his rather strict construction of [[WP:NLT|NLT]] and [[WP:BAN|BAN]] vis-à-vis [[User:Rbj|Rbj]] notwithstanding, I must offer my unnecessary support.
'''Oppose'''.  Not [[bandwagon effect|jumping on this]] [[Argumentum_ad_populum|bandwagon]]. Here is a reason this candidate is wrong for adminship:  not particularly honest and not particularly friendly to editors that oppose his/ POV.  Coelacan is part of a block of editors that want to make sure that Wikipedia articles do not violate the pro-gay or same-sex-marriage POVs.  when this group is opposed, one thing they like to do is silence critics simply by censoring them.  when i [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rbj&diff=109472637&oldid=109456420 undeleted these censored comments] (of someone else they were silencing) from my very own talk page, Coelacan [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=109481834 falsely accused me of making threats on Wikipedia] that resulted (because of an inexperienced new admin who now realizes it as a mistake) in me being blocked indefinitely even though i threaten no one at any time (and said so).  because it was an indefinite block based on a false premise (how does one agree to stop making threats they never made?), i had no choice other than take this to [[User:Jimbo|Jimbo]] who immediately agreed that i made no threats and unblocked me himself.  you can look at my talk page and see post after post of dishonest representation (that, until much later when i was just fed up, i responded to as politely as one can when i know someone is not being truthful to me).  Jimbo [[User_talk:Thebainer/Archive_8#Unblock_of_Rbj|made this clear]] to the blocking admin (that Coelacan temporarily successfully duped) that ''"I don't agree that Rbj restoring a deleted comment of someone else (who made a legal threat) to his own user talk page is the same thing as him making a legal threat himself.  Far from it.  --
'''Neutral'''; no obvious problems and seems like a reasonable candidate; would support if endorsed by a WikiProject.
'''Neutral''' because of the use of a fair use image used in their userspace which I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Coelacan/Warcry&oldid=122304221 just removed] and has been there for just over 2 months. Normally I would oppose for such things, but the article was copied there by another user, and although Coelacan was aware of this, making two edits after the creation and commenting out other items, I'm just not certain that this is a willful violation because of the other user involved and the lack of edits since. Though this certainly is a clear violation of the fair use policy/criteria for which I expect an admin to know and enforce.
'''Beat-the-nominator-support!'''  —
'''Support''' I believe this user is now ready for the mop.  Good luck, <b>
'''Support''' obviously (why do noms even have to comment here? grumble grumble) --
No problems here. Good luck.--
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' I think the time has come.
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support'''. No concerns here.
'''Support''' Unlikely to use the mop other than for the intended purposes.
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; not only does this user have a clear need for the tools, but they have shown that they will use them responsibly and maturely.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; Coren has helped tremendously over at [[WP:SCV]] in a number of ways.  CorenSearchBot is an outstanding tool for ferreting out copyvios, and Coren has been quick to modify it to refine its precision.  Due to CSB, Coren gets many complaints on his own talk page about pages tagged by the bot, and he is civil in responding, mindful that [[WP:C]] is not a simple policy.  Coren has also pitched in to process the possible copyvios reported by CSB and other bots.  We can always use more admin hands at SCV, since many of the editors who helped out there have become admins and moved on to other areas.  (And I believe this need will be more acute once IP's are able to create pages.)  Writing encyclopedic content may not be Coren's best quality, but he has increased his contributions in that area, and remember, it takes all kinds of editors to keep this project going strong.  We need the photographers and writers to create original content; we need the programmers to give us helpful scripts and bots; we need the policy wonks to guide our direction; we need the copyeditors and formatting geeks to keep us looking nice and professional; we need the vandal patrollers to keep the bad guys in line; and we need the wikignomes to categorize, add maintenance tags and otherwise take care of the clerical and janitorial things around here.  Coren qualifies as a programmer and for his quasi-admin gnome work over at SCV, and I believe he will be an asset as an admin. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' I feel that there are no major concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''<big>+</big>'''
'''Support'''.  Has handled himself quite well in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot|Sadi Carnot]] arbitration case by presenting well-researched, concise, and relevant evidence while sidestepping wikidrama.  Editors who walk the coals that well usually do well as sysops.  Coren already does plenty of the thankless moppish tasks, would be more effective with the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Answered the questions well, good contributions. No issues.
Level headed and calm. -

'''Support'''. Why not? Good work throughout Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''.  Great answers, seems to have fixed issues since last nomination, understands policy and seems very polite.  Will be great with the mop.<br/>


'''Support'''. Frankly, by continuing to let him run his bot, I'm of the opinion that the community has already given him as much power to damage Wikipedia as the average administrator has. Since he hasn't abused that trust, I see zero reason not to reward his responsibility with even more tools for him to put to good use. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support'''--
[[User:Butseriouslyfolks|Butseriouslyfolks]] pretty much covered everything I could possibly say.  Considering the amount of Wikistress placed upon him, Coren is impressively civil, he is quick to resolve problems (but yet not impulsive), and he still manages to get other work done.  I find that impressive.  He's conducted himself admirably in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot]].  Finally, Operating [[User:CorenSearchBot|CorenSearchBot]] is not easy; the few users that hate it hate it with a magnitude rivaled perhaps only by some of the hate expressed toward [[User:Betacommandbot|Betacommandbot]].  Adminship will be a breeze for him.  &mdash; <tt>
I'm ''not'' [[User_talk:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]], but I still '''approve''' this candidate! —
'''Support'''
I trust Coren's judgement.
'''Support''' Does not appear ready to run amok. Oppose argument, while lengthy, was not compelling. Corenbot's help is much appreciated in identifying copyvio's.
'''Support''' - Has significantly improved his editing, and has learned a lot.  Now ready for the mop.
'''Support''' - a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the last RfA and so much has been learnt. Should be just fine -
'''Support'''. I see no reason to not trust this user. He seems more than ready for the tools.
'''Weak Support''' A bit lacking in a couple areas, but nothing too bad.
'''Support'''.  I've seen this editor's work and agree that he's ready for the mop; I've seen some thoughtful and intelligent contributions.
Clearly a decent editor.
'''Support'''. Plenty of extra experience built up since last time. Seems to know what he's doing - should make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.  I was impressed with Coren's persistence and good will [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev|here]].
'''Weak support''' - mainspace work is rather low, but apart from that, this user is generally OK. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Support! <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
No biggie. Knows what he's doing and does it well, cares about us. ~
'''Support''' should do fine with the tools.
'''Support''' —
&nbsp;
I'm
'''Support''' - A candidate I've been watching some months now. Reliably civil, measured rather than rash, wiki-focused, clued in to the degree an admin needs to be, good understanding and analytic ability which is used well, does much that shows maturity, and able to make sensible decisions on his own account. As Riana says, "cares". Note also the discussion and the decision to [[User_talk:FT2#RfA|accept]] waiting a little longer for the community to see a more solid track record - ability to exhibit patience for others, and to state a reasoned stance honestly, are also good attributes. The couple of clearly good-faith CSD concerns and one difficult editor aside, Coren is likely to learn from such errors as may exist, and they seem comparatively rare in any event; they are unlikely to be a sign leading to future misuse/abuse of the tools.
'''Support''' Great contributions, likely to be a great admin.
'''Support''' - (psst, there is a backlog at [[WP:CP]]).
'''Support''' Strong contributions. I trust this user's judgment. —&nbsp;'''
'''Strong Support''', As the developer of CorenSearchBot, a very useful anti-copyvio bot, I don't see any reason to oppose. <font color="green">[[User:VivioFateFan|VivioFa]]</font><font color="red">[[User:VivioFateFan|teFan]]</font> <sup>([[ User_talk:VivioFateFan|Talk]],
'''Support''' plenty of experence, doubt will abuse admin tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">

Neutral. Staggered as I was to see W.marsh nominating someone with <s>nothing</s> not a lot in the article writing arena, one can only imagine my suprise at how the nominator glosses over [[C:CSD]] errors with "nothing in the last 500 except one". Reviewing the last month or so brings us; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Christain_School&diff=164717586&oldid=164639940| this was declined by the nominator] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inprocomm&diff=164641656&oldid=164640232| as was this] ?!?!? On balance the rest looks okay, but I'm worried that your nominator ignored CSD errors as the declining admin, I see nothing in mainspace, and my oppose at your last RfA has basically just moved down to neutral due to less errors but not much improvement. Sorry, because you bot is ace. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral, leaning toward support''' Sorry, but cannot support you just yet as I found that some of your answers to my questions weren't exactly satisfactory, although quite close. However, since I do not have a reason to oppose, I'm sticking to neutral for now.
Beat the nom. If Tennisman nominated, I '''support'''. :) &mdash;
'''Typical-Me-Nom-Support''' - Of course, while he is accepting, I am off RC Patrolling. Thanks for the !vote of confidence in me Springeragh. --
[[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' This user seems like a good sort of fellow that will make a good sort of admin.
'''Support''' Reliable user and we are in need of admins so why not?--
'''Support''' - Well he is a very good editor and and would make a great Admin :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' You've gained enough experience since your last <s>AFD</s>''RFA'' that I'm happy to support. Please do go slowly on the AFD closures and speedy deletes, though. Work your way into the more complex ones and you should be fine.--
'''Support''' Per Crazytales assuming good faith with Klinkerhoffen (whatever his name) who is now unbanned. --
'''Support''' I don't see any immediate issues that would make me think that the admin tools would be abused by this editor.
'''Double edit conflict weak support''' My interactions with him have been few but positive. The existence of the template {{tl|rfa-notice}} suggests that there is nothing wrong with Crazytales placing it on his user page to let others know he's running an RFA. While I don't condone the use of profanity directed towards other users, I understand why he wrote that edit summary. I hope there are no ageist opposers. --
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
In protest to the below. '''
'''Support''' - why not? Seems to be perfect for it, looking through contributions and reading the responses to the questions&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support'''. Seems an excellent editor and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies]] could certainly do with some more admin attention. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Excelent vandal fighter, see him around fighting vandals quite often.  --
'''Support''' I've seen Crazytales around everywhere, I think you'd make a great admin, not to mention the impressive answers to the questions, especially 1. Good luck --'''
'''Support'''. The candidate's dedication to the project, answers to the questions, and ability to identify the areas in which he would be best-suited to emphasize his work as an administrator persude me that he is suited for adminship at this time. I am confident that certain mistakes he made are in the past and unlikely to be repeated. I will suggest to the candidate, as I have done with many others, that if his RfA is successful he take things slowly and never hesitate to consult with other admins if he has a question or wants a second opinion about an action.
'''Support''' agree with the above.
'''Support''' - we certainly don't need uptight, cranky admins.  Sense of humor = [[Good Thing]]. --
'''Support''' - quality editor, reasons for oppose are possibly even sillier than the reasons I was opposed. Keeping a sense of humour about vandalism will be critical to avoid burnout.
'''Support''' - A good sense of humor is definitely critical to avoiding an overload of stress, and while he has made mistakes, I doubt he'll repeat them.
'''Weak Support'''- He is a good editor, who knows Wiki policy. The edit count is low, and that is why I say weak support.
'''Support''' Great sense of humour. Will make a fine admin. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
'''Support''' - In reviewing your edits, I see most of your mainspace edits are RV's - but in reviewing you Wikipedia space edits I see you are active in a moderate range of Wikipedia areas. I do not see handing you the mop as being a threat to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' per brouhaha below. —'''
'''Support'''- good hearted friendly editor. There isn't any reasons why I should think of opposing.

'''Support''' - The concerns in the "oppose" section seem misplaced and/or trivial, and your history suggests that I have nothing to fear from a Crazytales with a mop. <!--Besides, he's never marched a robot army through #wikipedia-en (I have), so he's obviously sane enough.--> [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]<sup>([[User talk:Nihiltres|t]].[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|c]].
This Candidate '''gets my vote''' as I see no reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' Crazytales has establish his/her trustworthiness and should be elevated to admin. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' sure, seems sensible enough. Unsure why first opposer seems to be hunting for a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - You are an excellent vandal fighter who I think will use the tools well; I also like your civil and friendly nature. The oppose reasons do not concern me, after looking at the evidence I still think you are mature enough for adminship.
'''Support''' --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Looks like a good candidate and I'm comfortable with the answer to my question (Q10) --
'''Support''' - from personal interaction, I trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' Advised by gracenotes to tone down my support message. But, we all know what was here =) --<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''You get my support too''' - good luck.--
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I have dealt with the user several times, and they would definately make a good admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]

'''Support'''. I trust this user. While I can understand the oppose reasoning, it looks more like he merely has a sense of fun about him than pure silliness. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''.  [[User:Miranda]] has seemed to have performed exhaustive efforts to torpedo this RFA, and her reasons aren't that convincing.  Therefore, I choose to support. --
'''Support''', I don't think we will regret it. And humour is not a bad thing when it is done in good faith :) --
What gaillimh said does make me nervous, but I think crazytales can take criticism to heart. —
'''Strong Oppose''' <s>Per [[WP:CANVASSING|canvassing]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Crazytales&diff=next&oldid=137802640 here].</s> New reason to oppose shown below. '''<font color="#990066" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - I feel that [[User:Crazytales]] still has a lot of maturing and developing to do before becoming an admin. Their average edits have been on the decline for the past few months and it seems that they only revert vandalism. While this is an excellent trait for admins, it does not warrent the need for the tools. I think more involvement in actual article development and editing will be key. Also, two failed attempts prior to this RfA does not give a good precursor to this nomination. -
I am strongly opposed to this candidate's request.  Regardless of what the nominator or the candidate have implied in their statements, Crazytales certainly doesn't add any meaningful content to articles.  In fact, he rarely edits them at all.  Since February he has about 150 mainspace contributions, and while I'm not sure I've ever referred to an "edit count" in an RfA, this statistic is telling in that his encyclopedia contributions have been rather overstated.  This sort of snarky behaviour is not the entire reason for my opposition, of course, although it's certainly worth mentioning, especially as Wikipedia doesn't need these types of people clicking extra buttons (in fact, we should eschew these sorts of requests, as the people making them do not fully realise our goals).  "These types" does not refer to what are colloquially known as "wikignomes", of course.  They refer to people like Crazytales, who are immature bullies (while I haven't been on IRC in some time, I've found him to lack any semblance of social graces and am a bit stymied as to how he's allowed to kick and ban people from channels, which he does at a rate of reguarlity, often just to show that he is able to do so).  While IRC stuff of course has no tangible bearing on Wikipedia itself (as an entity), it is certainly relevant in character assessment, as has been shown recently in other venues on-wiki.  Apologies for the strong language, but I feel it is necessary, as quite a few of the people supporting his request are people I have a lot of respect for, and I feel that they have been misled by this fellow and his nominator.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' as per gaillimh.  --
'''Oppose''' as per maturity issues described above. —
Maturity issues as per Gaillimh -- <b>
'''Oppose''' due to maturity concerns and per Gaillimh.
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure about this candidate, for reasons outlined above in the oppose section, but I do feel that the candidate should be ready for the mop. I honestly don't know what to thunk.
'''Neutral for now''' Could  you give the reason for the sharp decline in activity for 2007 as compare to the previous months? '''
'''Neutral''' I like most of what I see, but the maturity issues raised by several editors leaves too much of a bad taste in my mouth.  Sorry.
'''Neutral''' This is a request about which I am truly ambivalent.  There is nothing so glaring as on its face to disqualify Crazytales from adminship, but there are several minor issues&mdash;most troublesome for me, I should say, is not that the candidate may not have the mature demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious, but, instead, that he appears to embrace a broad understanding of [[WP:IAR|IAR]] for which a consensus of the community does not exist; I cannot say that I am entirely certain that he might not, qua admin, substitute his judgment for the collective judgment of other editors expressed in an insular discussion but in consideration of broader policies and guidelines to which the community has acceded, or might not, in any event, act in a fashion inconsistent with the idea that adminship is ministerial in nature (viz., that admins act only to divine for what action a consensus exists and then to effect such action)&mdash;that speak to his fitness for adminship, the cumulative effect of which is to lead me to believe that I cannot conclude with sufficient confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]]; neither can I say with any confidence that Crazy is likely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools or otherwise to have a net negative effect on the project, and so I !vote ''neutral''.
Way too few edits to make any reasonable conclusions. '''Neutral'''. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Uber-Support''' Great user. Knowledgeable and trustworthy. &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCremepuff222&diff=169047755&oldid=169047572 Beat-the-nom] support for an incredible user. <tt>:-)</tt> —
'''Support''' Great user, contibutions are excellent. Candidate should do great things with the tools. &mdash;
'''support''' Nothing to suggest user will use tools improperly. Great contributions. --
'''Support''' No evidence user would abuse the tools. Good luck.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Über support''' Great user! <font face="Maiandra GD"><b>
I strongly support this nomination. Cremepuff222 is an excellent user, and listen to advice as well. I know because I and a few other users reviewed him many months ago, and he went from a good editor to, as I said above, excellent.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' (Gah!!! edit conflicted). I believe I got acquainted with this user back in [[WP:MOTD|Motto of the Day]], and they've really matured greatly through what I've seen. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support!''' Cremepuff222 has been helpful, nice, and overall everything Wikipedia wants. Go Cremepuff222!
Sounds good. --
Are you sure this is your first RfA?&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Support''' looks ideal - all the best --'''
'''Support''' because he called me a nice guy. But seriously, he has lots of experience in a wide variety of admin related areas, plenty of common sense and he's a thoroughly nice guy himself. He will certainly be a great asset as an admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Great editor who is extemely helpful and civil. Now, where is his mop and bucket.
'''Strong Support''' One of the easiest supports I've ever given.
'''Support''' Do I have to give a reason? <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' For sure.--
'''Support'''. I have mainly interacted with this user over IRC, and all such interactions have been very positive. I also trust he will not do anythng naughty or stupid with the tools. --
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' No reason not to. A great vandal fighter as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Anyways, I've seen this user around since last spring, saying thank you to me when I warned one vandal (I will get mad if this RfA is unsuccessful).
'''Support''' All round great editor.
'''Support'''. My experience of Cremepuff has always been positive. I think he has the necessary experience to make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Thought you were already an admin!
'''Support''' I trust Cremepuff222, why not? <font color="red">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Odd, I was thinking just last night about nominating Cremepuff :) anyway, having scanned through the recent [[Special:Contributions/Cremepuff222|contributions]], I'm seeing some useful article contributions (including expanding articles and [[WP:WIKIFY|wikification]]), as well as [[WP:AIV]] contributions. One thing of note is that there isn't that much [[WP:XFD|XfD]] contributions on CP's behalf ... the last comment he made on a debate was too [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family guy episode]], back in [[17 October]]. Otherwise, an excellent user who makes highly useful contributions and who I know will at least make ''some'' use of the tools :)
'''Strong support''' —
'''Very Strong Support''' I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user. He is very friendly, mature, and has not shone any signs he will abuse the tools. This is, honestly, a no brainer. Good luck!--
'''Support''', yes, all good here.
'''Support''' — <s>you go, girl!</s> :-P --'''
'''Support''' - one of the most caring and trustworthy folks I have come across here. --
Let's get this over with. Trustable chap, no concerns at all on my part. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
Well if [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]] supports. :) No issues here, may review of the contributions reveals nothing... ''problematic''.
'''Support'''. No issues/concerns here.
'''Support''' - No reason to suggest this user would abuse the tools. However, I'm not sure about the experience. I came close to opposing on the basis if the majority of the mainspace edits being what look like semi-automated edits, but the support from others I respect, and the essays, swung me back into the support camp. I would suggest some more mainspace experience with heavy editing of a single article before taskling anything like complex vandalism or trolling.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' - having seen this user around the wiki and, though more casually, chatted on IRC with him, I am confident that he has and deserves the trust of the community and therefore should be given the mop.
'''Strong Support''' YES!
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''', per Mikka's "professional police" reasoning, except in reverse. I strongly believe that we DO need "professional police" here, if only to maintain order amongst all the chaos that a project of this size can become.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; per nom.  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - per nomimation and brilliant AGF user demonstrates.
'''Support''' - responses to R below are very encouraging. Admins need to be proof against this sort of thing. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' - Fair, experienced, useful editor.  I could list lots of diffs about how fair this editor is towards creators of articles nominated for  deletion.  While we don't always agree at [[WP:AFD]], I like the method of operation.
'''Support''' - Great track record of user interface. Very important in most effective administrators.
'''Support''' per R.  My understanding of the situation he opposed regarding is that Cremepuff made a judgement call off his own back to ensure stability of an IRC channel.  That shows sensibility to me.  Oh yeah, and he's good on-wiki.
'''Not an admin already?''' Do I need more explanation? :-)
Support. Responses to R demonstrate maturity and stability.&ndash;
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; He has a great attitude towards Wikipedia and life in general, and he does a lot of good work.  Nothing more I need to say.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' - an experienced vandal-fighter who could use the extra tools.  While there could be more experience in terms of time and article building, the tools of an Admin are like a mop and a bucket, and article expansion is not necessarily required.
'''Edit-conflicted support!''' Cremepuff222's solid contribution history and civil demeanor leave me with nothing to critique :) '''(
'''Support''' &mdash; I see no indication that this user will use the tools in anything but a mature and responsible manner.  Everyone should have tools, and only technical considerations prohibit this from being a reality.  --
'''Support''' - yup! A vandal fighter but with a balancing dose of AGF. Trustworthy and with a very strong nom from Ryan -
I'm
'''Support''' unreservedly per above. I trust Cremepuff will use the tools well and wisely, although his name always makes me hungry! --
'''Support''' Always reasonable and conscientious in his contributions. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support'''.  We need more Admin gnomes, and XFD Admins.  Do good with the mop <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''.  2 DYKs gets you over the line in my book...cheers,
'''Support''' - Absolutely fine with this candidate.  My only hesitation is that I think the answer to the question about IAR is a little superficial - I'd like to see a bit more demonstrated understanding of it (can you expand on it?) but I have no reason not to wholeheartedly support this nomination.  I trust Ryan, and I trust Cremepuff. (OK, that's a sentence I've never typed before).  -
'''Support''' Per Ryan's admin coaching results.  Looks like an outstanding candidate.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seems to know what s/he's doing.
'''Really strong support''' If I'd only know sooner I could've made people jump on the bandwagon...--
'''Support''' Obviously to be trusted.
'''Support''' The opposes are unconvincing, and I trust Ryan's recommendation. -
'''Support'''. As a side point, personally I have utter disdain for IRC. I see no reason why anything Wikipedia-related should ever need to be discussed there; we should always aim for 100% openness and transparency, and where privacy is ''absolutely'' necessary we can use e-mail. So if it were up to me, we would abolish the various "#wikipedia" IRC channels altogether. But anyway, returning to the main point: I supported R's RfA despite his alleged "immaturity" on IRC (which I have no way to verify, because of the secretive and duplicitous nature of the IRC medium). Likewise, I support this RfA for an all-round excellent candidate. I am disappointed to see that R (who of all people ought to understand the frustration of seeing a trivial or pedantic oppose vote) has opposed for such a poor reason.
'''Support''' per above, don't exactly understand the point of Mikkalai's oppose. --
'''Support''' &ndash; kind, level-headed, and contributes to content/maintenance thereof. Admin-gnome away, Cremepuff :)
'''Support''' The calm exchange with R below reinforces my decision.
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''', I'm almost surprised I forgot.
'''Support''', good answers, calm under pressure, can't see anything wrong here.
'''Support''' - nothing to suggest the tools will be abused. A decent set of contributions, although mainspace edits are a little low. But the Wikipedia-space participation and interaction with others and experience as an admin coachee under the tuition and guidance as someone as knowledgable and helpful as Ryan Postlethwaite, make you a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong Support''' - Cremepuff222's history suggests nothing but goodness, maturity, and stability (sorry Crazytales :/), thus there is no reason to vote against him. --
'''Support''' As per track and Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''' I don't see anything brought up that would really indicate CP would abuse the tools. I trust Ryan's judgment and know that if he trains someone via admin coaching, they've been taught well. I've had contact with CP on IRC, and found him quite helpful (cloak issues, general IRC commands questions, etc, completely non-Wiki related items). While I do understand R's concern, I happen to feel that IRC actions and behavior should be left at the Wikipedia door. I've seen many an editor act quite differently on IRC than they do here, and to me, it doesn't seem to be an issue. What matters to me, is how an editor conducts themselves within ''this'' project. Cremepuff went through the adopt-a-user program, and I'm sure during that time, many of the initial concerns were addressed, and cleared up. I don't really think that not having major article building experience is a reason to oppose, although I would strongly encourage Creampuff to do some work in this area, as without realizing it, a number of policies and guideline subtleties are learned via writing, and building up articles. However, there is certainly room and need for good, solid vandal fighters, and they fill a vital role. As an administrator, I'm sure that CP would stay within his areas of familiarity until gaining more experience and knowledge of the other areas, and I have absolutely no doubt that he would request assistance and advice, when delving into areas he was unfamiliar with. His reply to question 7 shows he respects the actions of other administrators, and would seek council if he disagreed. I'll just urge CP to make use of the resources here, the new admin school, the council of experienced admins and editors, and take it slowly at first (which is, of course, good advice for all new admins). But I feel that Cremepuff would make a fine addition to the administrative team. <small>
'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' per the above, and what they said. IRC does not concern me, Captain Needa.
'''Post Closing Time Support''' So I trust it will be discounted. Excellent editor, who will be a benefit to the admin team. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' with sincerest apologies to Ryan. Okay, here is a controversial one. My reason for opposition has nothing to do with an onwiki event, but an IRC incident. I know, how evil of me to relate the two. Basically, Cremepuff222 swore to me he wouldn't do something in an IRC channel a few days ago. Yesterday he went back on that promise (once again, that promise that he went back on was doing something on IRC). That shows me untrustworthiness, and I don't want to see that on Wikipedia. Can I really think of specific reasons of how trustworthiness makes a good admin? No, but just being trustworthy is a general trait needed in one. Now, why am I bringing up something about an incident on IRC when my own personal opinion is that IRC is not Wikipedia? Because it was relevant for some to talk about something 100% IRC related, 0% wiki related in my RFA, so why should I not here? Thank you, --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Strongly oppose'''. I am not yet convinced that the goal of this user is to create encyclopedia. I have an impression that this one is more for socisalizing here. When they joined wikipedia, the whole first month, like, 98% of work was creation of his user page, followed by half a month of various chats in user pages, followed by fixing redirects and fighting with anon vandals, with significant proportion of edits still in user talk pages. I firmly stand that an editor without significant content contribution and "hardened in fights with vandals" cannot be entrusted with tools that require judgement of other editors. `'
'''Strong support''' as nominator, let's give him his mop back. --
'''Support''' no reason to not have the mop again.
'''Support''' per nom.  Everything checks out, and it's time to pass the puck back to him.  --
'''Support''' just in case he isn't immediately resysopped. —
'''Support''' As a non-controversial de-opping, I've got no problem with him regaining his (now dusty) mop. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. However, in case of b'crat re-sysopping I can merely '''agree'''. —'''
'''Speedy sysop'''. :-) --
'''Speedy close''' -- <b>
'''Strong Support''' - very good mainspace edits but low Wikipedia edits..[[WP:ADMIN|who cares!!]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Speedy support''' The nominee could simply ask for adminship back (and has, in fact). No reasons have been brought up yet which would require desysopping (in fact, there has been no opposition yet at all). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 17:07, 2 May 2007 (
'''''
'''Speedy support''' Get your [[WP:MOP|mop]] back! '''
'''Support''' Did a good job last time and I don't see why it would any be different now.
'''Support''' <s>Thought</s> he was one.
'''Strong support''' Everything seems fine to me.
'''Support''' per above, give him the mop back! --'''
'''Support''' as a non-controversial re-opping. Bonus points for a non-acrimonious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Croat_Canuck&diff=prev&oldid=105270805 farewell message]. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' - agree that you should automatically get your bit back.
'''Support''' I see no problems with this candidate.
'''Speedy keep''' or something --
'''<s>Auto</s>Support''' Per Kelly :-)
'''Support''' This is one that a b'crat could close early with an immediate promotion. I am sure that, given the circumstances, a straightforward application should have been enough.--
'''Nominator support'''
Looks good. &ndash;
'''Support''' per nom and his own answers. Good luck and enjoy!
'''Support''' reasonable, respectful editor, and knowledgeable of policy. --
'''Support''' an editor that has contributed admirably to upholding the principles behind our core content policies. Most deserving of the support of the community.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' – Crum375 has demonstrated clear and consistent commitment both to Wikipedia’s goals and to its ideals. He has been sensible, intelligent, level-headed, fair-minded, infinitely civil, and even more infinitely patient and committed. I expect he will be in every way an admirable administrator, and that Wikipedia will be in every way fortunate to have him.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor who cares about the content policies, and who always stays civil.
'''Support''' looks like great admin material. --
'''Support'''. Of course :). ''
'''Support''' Sounds like a good user to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' - I believe he will make a good admin. ←
'''Support''' - Good candidate. --
'''Support''' - He has an extensive article writing history.  I had read the article on LANSA flight 508 before (it's fascinating, by the way).  As [[Fred Rogers]] once sang, "These are the people in your neighborhood."
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Tough stand on [[WP:OR]] on [[PETA]] related articles.  As for the block, I think it's nice to have someone an admin who's been on the other side of the system. --'''
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this editors' contributions to the project.
'''Support''' I think this editor would be very responsible in his use of administrative tools.-
'''Support''' per the answers to the questions. Candidate shows a good knowledge of policy and shows  willingness to take the responsibilities of an administrator. --
'''Support''' You look like a well rounded wikipedian!
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''; I can see no grounds for opposition, and he looks to be a potential asset to the latrine-duty squad. --
'''Support''' Good answers.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, good knowledge of the policies. Level headed. -
'''Support''' great adminship candidate. Good main space contributions. -
Well, it's a shame about the previous 374 Crum's, but support anyway.
'''Support'''. A fine candidate; no serious issues raised.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' seen him about doing good stuff, opposing comment seems irrelevent to me. --'''
'''Support''' - Kudos for having the persistence to hang in and make sure that an article on a fringe medical therapy met Wikipedia's standards, and kudos being involved in an ArbComm case in which nothing negative was said by the Committee about his participation.  I think this clearly demonstrates the candidate's ability to be an effective admin.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' - especially per [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]]'s comment. --
'''Support''' I worked with Crum375 on the [[Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907|Gol 1907]] article (albeit in a minor capacity) and was impressed by his commitment to the use of [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:V|verifiable]] data and his work towards making the article encyclopedic rather than editorial, quite a feat considering events were still actively progressing. I've no doubt he will use admin tools wisely.
'''Support.''' I'm learning a lot about civility by looking at how this user handles conflicts, and I like his answers above. --
'''Support''' excellently civil candidate.--
'''Support''' - per article work and unlikelihood of abusing administrative tools.
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' this well qualified editor for immediate mop-wielding, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' for a fully qualified candidate. Strong overall record and the diffs raised by the oppose and neutral commenters do not concern me.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per nom. A solid candidate.--
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Support''' More than qualified. '''
'''Support''' Can't imagine misuse of the tools will happen here.
'''Support'''. The opposers raise valid arguments, and although I agree with what was said by gadfium, I personally am not willing to oppose on that basis. --
'''Support'''.  Seems more than qualified.

'''Support'''. I have been given no reason not to trust user's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgement]]. Good Luck! --
'''Support'''. Crum375 has done a superb job in easing the complex disputes over [[BDORT]]. I don't see how the opinions expressed in the Everyking RfA in any way disqualify him. -
I'm
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' I've worked closely with Crum375 on occasion and can only say he's one of the best - balanced, conscientious, temperate, knowledgeable and humane.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - impressed by the answers to the questions. —
'''Support''', meets my criteria.--'''
'''Support'''. Impressive candidate and nice answer to questions, particularly No. 5.
'''Support'''.  I've had dealings with this user before, and he is as excellent as described.  I wish I had nominated him myself&mdash;something I don't believe I've ever said before on an RfA. --
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''', excellent user, though I have to admit it scares me to contemplate an editor who has ''never'' "posted an angry or uncivil message or edit summary". Is this user too good to be true? Will depths of cackling insanity be revealed once s/he's adminned and the mask is snatched off ? I'll go with "no," for now.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' I'm sure this user will help Wikipedia with extra tools.--
'''Support''' One of the finest editors to be found.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' seems to be trustworthy and a good editor. '''''
'''Support''' seems very good
'''Support''' Understands what being an admin is about as has read the material. Has dealt with an ArbCom request and has done mediation, so understands conflict resolution. Is someone who contributes to the article space (and was plagiarised!!!!), so definitely think this is good. has a brag sheet of articles contributed to - always a good sign :-) Great reasoning as to why he edits the project - for fun and for the pleasure of seeing an article's quality increase. Definitely one who will make a great admin. -
'''Strong Support''' A fantastic editor that genuinely cares about the project and has shown a true commitment to core Wikipedia values and policies. He will use his admin tools well. :)
'''Support''' per answers 1 and 9, this user needs the tools and has been here long enough to understand the wiki.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''; solid nomination, and the oppose votes don't convince me otherwise. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Very strong candidate, no hesitation. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - Very refreshing view on [[WP:3RR]].<b>
'''Strong Support''' '''

'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--Seems more than Qualified..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' -- I think this user has demonstrated the eventemperedness (the 3RR block incorrectly received, in particular, is a good example of that) and devotion to duty that are the hallmarks of a good admin. ++
'''Support''' Demonstrates knowledge of policy, and has done great work so far. '''
'''Support'''. Opposers have a point, but this guy is clearly deserving of adminship. Plus the consistency in his edit count shows he won't just fall off the radar.--
'''Support''' Very deserving of adminship. His answers to questions were good. I can see that what the nominator says does occur. His edit count shows his dedication. Yes, opposers have good reasons for being ones, but still, this person is deserving of adminship!
'''Strong support''' per nom. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', anyone who thinks that an admin can't be effective without using the admin noticeboard really doesn't understand how Wikipedia works.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Oppose''' per the above comments.

'''Oppose''' per gadfium.--
'''Neutral''' - Thank you for your replies to my questions - after reading your explanation for the block and looking at your contributions from that time, I find that to be very much a reasonable explanation and no reason to oppose.  But one thing bothers me a tad bit - this comment you made to Amarkov [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BigDT_2&diff=prev&oldid=98792224] on my RFA.  Of specifc concern is the bit about admins understanding "the editors they are policing".  The job of an admin is NOT to be a police officer.  An admin has three buttons that are not given to all users for security reasons.  That's it.  Admins are not the security force - we're the janitorial force and have no more right to "police" than any other editor does. --
'''Support''' as Nominator.--
'''Support'''. A model editor.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q1. --'''
Looks like a fine candidate for adminship, balance looks fine to me and questions are fine. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' [[User:Geo.plrd|<font color= "blue">G</font>]]
'''Support''' looks superb.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' admins needed, seems trustworthy. -
'''Support'''. Why not? ''
'''Support''' because this editor does a great job.  Simple.
'''Weak support''' per above and Anthony, '''
'''Support''' He has shown consistent enthusiasm for the project and contributed immensely to several major encyclopedic fields.  Can personally vouch for his trustworthiness.
'''Support''', seems solid.
'''Support'''. Fine all-round contributor, sound nomination, and good answers. No problems.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. '''
'''Support''' Definitely admin material. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Enthusiastic support'''. I ''love'' the answer to Q1, because it would be great to get more eyes and administrator keyboards over at [[WP:RM]].
'''Support''' I see no problems with this application.
'''Suppport''', RM is always logjammed, and anyone sensible willing to help out with that will be a valuable addition.
'''Support'''
I'm
&mdash;

'''Support'''.  Good editor with no inappropriate behavior - so, yeah, why not.  Nice work on that Prester John article, by the way.
'''Enthusiastic Support''' - damn, he's so good I should have nominated him myself :-)--
'''Support''' Good editor when I've come across him
Well, I'd like to see more wikispace edits oh who cares of course I '''support'''.--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Cuchullain is a great editor, easy to approach and engage in discussions, and certainly has the best interests of the project at heart.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' - I'd like to see you start leaving warnings after reverting vandalism in the future, but otherwise looks good enough.
'''Support''' For obvious reasons stated above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - per nom. --
'''Support''' excellent editor with great contributions who I am sure will make an excellent Sysop.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' You will make a fine admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini</font>]]
'''Support''' Solid contributor with generally balanced approach.
'''Support''' the lousy drunken bastard singing "Billy in the Bowl". ~
'''Weak support''', candidate looks good, but lack of experience dealing with disputes (per Anthony) knocks down the strength of this support vote. However, I'm still going to support because your record looks great otherwise. --'''
'''Support'''. Fine Wikipedian. -
'''Support''' - thanks for serving. --

'''Support''' - good candidate.
'''Support''' Seems good. I balked at the short answers at first, but they are just concise and said in a few words would have taken me many more. Civil, demonstrated need of the tools, little risk in giving the mop.

'''Support'''. Most RC patrol is just leaving warnings on user talk pages. I don't think doing that really shows you are interacting with a person. Anyway, Cuchullain has shown an understanding of policy, and is a prolific editor at Wikipedia. He may not have the user talk edits, but he  compensates that with discussion at article talk pages. '''
'''Support''' in the name of the Round Table. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support.''' I've only seen positive interactions and contributions from this candidate, and looking around some more I'm readily convinced they can find their way around wiki policy and procedures without any trouble.--
'''Support'''.  Good edits, though I'd like to see more consistent usage of edit summaries.  I'm also a bit concerned about time available, considering that quantity of edits seems to have been decreasing over the last few months.  But that's no reason to oppose -- I think Cuchullain will make good use of the tools.  :) --
'''Support'''. Solid contributor. We've worked on some of the same articles and, when I see his name pop up on my watchlist, I know things are probably under control on that article and I won't need to rush in to put out any fires.  This is all-too-rare and very appreciated. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' yet another good user. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Good editor,
'''Support''' This user has a good record and I think he/she will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Good track record. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' I delt with this guy a while ago and he kept his cool even when I didn't.  He was helpful in [[Shining Path]], and even got involved in the mediation of it desipite not being particularly interested in the subject (at least I don't think he was). Of course at this point, he doesn't really need my support anyway. --
'''Support''' good user.--
'''Good luck''' I have little doubt that you'll get access today.
'''Support''' Good candidate
'''Opppose''' for use of fair use images outside article namespace. An admin should know this indisputable part of the [[WP:FUP|fair use policy]]. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cuchullain/images&diff=74577213&oldid=61398585] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cuchullain/Leo_Felton&diff=46594331&oldid=40614950]. --
'''Neutral''' - although there is good participation in [[WP:AFD|AfD]], I can't actually find any participation in the other types of deletion debates: [[WP:TFD|TfD]], [[WP:MFD|MfD]], etc.. Participation in [[WP:RCP|vandalism patrol]] is not substantial enough to demonstrate a real need for the [[WP:ADMIN|mop and bucket]]. Low edits in the "User talk:-" space seems to me that the user doesn't really interact as much as is needed for an [[WP:ADMIN|sysop]]. I'm not really picking up any disputes the user has had brought to his [[User talk:Cuchullain|front door]], which raises the question over whether or not he would be able to handle the day-to-day [[WP:TROLL|trolling]] that all active sysops have to deal with. Definitely too good a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedian]] to oppose - especially with his commendable mainspace participation - but there seems to be no need for those shiny extra buttons at this time. ''Yours'',
Excellent project space participation.  I know I'm supposed to look at your articles too - and you've done great work there.  All round support. '''
'''Support''' -- has plenty of edits, fine articles (especially [[Ten-pin bowling]]), has admitted to mistakes, and has been around long enough to trust.
With the long experience that you have, and with quality not quantity, I will '''support'''. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support''' No problems here. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've briefly looked at user's contribs, all in order, and will give full support, unless there are serious concerns raised by potential opposers in the future.
No reason not no. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good mix of article work and admin stuff. No flags here.
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me.
I'm
'''Support''' A few weeks ago, I read a comment by this fellow where he complained about the high standards of RFA, saying that he couldn't make it.  At that time I checked his edit logs and thought about nominating him because he's experienced and up to standard.  I hope that other users who think they can't pass RFA, but know how to help, learn from Danaman's example.
'''Support''' Very reasonable, mature and intelligent.
'''Support''' I combed through your various contributions for several minutes and only found examples of good article work, solid collaborative efforts and pleasant interactions. I see nothing that would suggest you cannot be trusted with the tools. Good luck! &mdash;
'''Support''' - thoughtful and patient editor.
No convincing reason not to support.
'''Support''' - nearly two years of steady edits. Seems to understand policy and shows sound judgment. Sensible comments in discussions. I don't think any minimum "per month" edit count should be required, especially given the number of admins who burn out. Nothing wrong with giving the tools to someone who can be trusted to use them well from time to time... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' This strangely uncommented on RfA. Steady but surely is no issue for me, and your edits demonstrate calmness and knowledge of policy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' -- the slow but steady edit rate doesn't concern me -- if anything, this candidate may bring a calmer perspective to thorny issues by virtue of having a life off-Wikipedia. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''.  I spent a bit of time going through some of your contributions, and I have to say that I'm quite impressed.  I fully anticipate you will be a fine admin.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' Reviewing user's contributions, everything looks good. --
'''Support''' Good contribution to articles and at various points behind the scenes. Interactions with other users in talk pages demonstrates civility & patience, both good traits in an admin. :) Though he isn't always a prolific contributor, he certainly seems to be a dedicated one who has demonstrated a sustained interest in Wikipedia since at least December of 2006. (And far prior to that, allowing for a couple of lulls.) His primary stated use for the tools is at CSD, and his contributions to AfDs suggests he does, as he says, understand deletion criteria. I don't see any reason to believe he'll abuse the tools, but rather expect he'll apply them prudently. :) --
'''Support''' as per Moonriddengirl.
'''Support''' All looks good. --
'''Oppose''' - averaging 150 edits a month, one edit to AIV, none to AN, ANI, UAA - I don't see the experience. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Neutral''' I like what you are doing around here so far, but I can't support quite yet, as your all-around editing isn't exactly where I would prefer it to be.
'''Neutral''' - I'd just like to see more participation in Wikipedia space that's all. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral'''.  I generally won't support with less than 500 WP space edits.  If you can prove knowledge of policy, notify me on my talk page.  '''
'''Support''' as nominator.--
'''Support''' His contributions to this project is amazing. It is time to give him the additional tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Went back through the contribution history pretty far and saw a polite user with a satisfactory knowledge of policy. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Support'''. I've long noted Daniel Case's many contributions and helpful manner, even though our paths have rarely crossed. The project benefits by giving additional tools to valuable and reasonable editors. Not every admin needs to enforce every rule. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support'''. Can't see any problems. User has sufficient experience, and answers to questions show a good understanding of adminship.
'''Support'''. The candidate makes substantial contributions and has helped get some to GA status. I don't see any potential problems.
'''SUpport''', don't see any problems either. --
'''Support''', good user, plus we need more image admins.
'''Support''' - has been a good contributor to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places]].  I also checked his user talk contributions regarding a situation with the deletion review of [[Masha Allen]].  He's willing to speak up for what he believes in, even if the discussion gets heated, but he didn't get incivil.  That's a good trait for an admin to have. --
'''Support'''. Good attitude, good experience, good goals. ~
'''Support'''.  Does great work on articles, knows policies, and is friendly too... what are we waiting for? :)
Elaragirl memorial support.
'''Support''' Basic answers are great. I see no good reason not to trust Daniel with a few extra buttons. —
'''Support''' no problems with this user.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Heaps of experience, will definately do well. Good luck :) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
''Strong support''' - good user. Great with DYK.'''
'''Support''' hard working and polite user. -- '''

'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Give this user the mop. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' - I like the answers to his questions and the user seems polite an hardworking..Give him the vacuum cleaner..hehe..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' This is a good user. My support is not as strong as it could be because of the issues that where brought up below, but I still will support him.--
'''Support''' Commons isn't Wikipedia, as Vishwin60 often points out on Commons, so it's kind of ironic he'd bring up a non Wikipedia related issue here. So, disregarding that, I see no reason not to support. '''
'''Support''' Plenty of reason to support in this RfA.
'''Support''' He seems to be humble, and is smart enough to know that being a admin needs confidence. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Support''' Good candidate, trustworthy. Yes. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' My experience has been of positive interactions with this editor.
'''Support''' per the nominator.
—'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' I don't know this editor's work first hand, but I like what I have read above.  He also seems to know the image rules in some detail. I have not yet been impressed by any of the data found by the Oppose voters.

'''Strongly support''' Very good candidate, not a troublemaker. He'd make a great admin.<big>
'''Support''' more admins needed.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' Will make a good admin, nothing in opposes make me reassess this.
'''Support''' Good 'pedia builder. I note the reaction at AfD but an admin wouldn't block then either as they'd be a participant. Overall much more to be gained here by giving this person the mop.cheers,
'''Support''' Good candidate.  We need more admins. —
'''support''' experienced candidate with some article writing under the belt
'''Support''' seems capable, and hardworking
'''Weak support''' The diffs adduced by Bryson are rather disquieting inasmuch as, even though they are, it is plain, inconsistent with DC's demeanor as evidenced by his overall contribution history, they demonstrate a tenor and disposition that ought never to characterize even one edit that one might make, even the infrequent appearance of which when one acts qua admin might prove rather disruptive, but I think it can be safely said that there are some things that are in fact altogether aberrative and about the recurrence of which one need not to worry, and I think the incivility here to be one such thing.  On the whole, then, in consideration of DC's deliberative nature, reasoned judgment, and good nature, I think it quite clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
A solid candidate. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' You have done enough edits although they are not good enough --
'''Strong oppose''' although he is currently starting to upload to Commons, he does not do it correctly.  There are several [[:Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons#Note to Admins|crucial information left behind]] on the Commons copy.  Because of this and some FUC controversy, a need for the tools and setting the example hasn't been justified yet.  Even worse, admins are supposed to set the example for other users; he sure hasn't set the example for image policies.  This stuff is way too recent to ignore without an oppose right now. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:Vishwin60|action=edit&section=new}} →]
'''Strong oppose''' - Mainly because I do not believe his answer to number 3 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBride_Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out&diff=106983461&oldid=106980465], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBride_Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out_2&diff=139061085&oldid=139031979]. Two different editors nominate his article for afd, yet it is always a bad faith nom, it does not sound like he stopped to cool down.--
'''Oppose''' - Per his terrible reaction at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBride_Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out&diff=106983461&oldid=106980465] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBride_Has_Massive_Hair_Wig_Out_2&diff=139061085&oldid=139031979], as stated above. It was too recent. An admin should be capable of maintaining a cool head all of the time. Calling the afd nomination ''bad faith'' is unjustifiable. Also, Daniel asked the case to be "''speed-closed''" and the nominator to be "''blocked''". This is not how admin powers are to be used. --''
'''Oppose''' The issue raised by the prior two individuals makes me concerned that this individual would use administrative powers in content disputes.  In addition to what they mentioned, the second diff contains points that may reflect a lack of awareness that consensus can change.
'''Neutral''' for now. I still have concerns that you will enforce a policy you do not agree with, and indeed stated that you had issues with in Q1 of your RFA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I'm leaning towards support here, but am not quite ready to give it fully.  I believe the issues stated above with the unfree content can be resolved, but for now, they are enough to keep my support away.
'''Neutral''' Although I kind've like this guy, I think he needs to work on the wordage and presentation of his comments.  For example, I'm not too big of a fan on sentences that begin with the word "You" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=116700198] since people interpret them personally.
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom and per an investigation of the user's contributions. Nothing which would move me to oppose and several items which move me to support. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience, and answer to Q1 shows a careful and conscientious attitude. Good admin candidate. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Strong Support''' A rare quality of someone at RfA who can actually justify why they need the tools and therefore <i>deserve</i> the resulting demotion if successful. And if nothing else the "badge of honour" link above - truly a candidate at [[WP:BJAODN]] for the anon's comment.<small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support:''' I'm impressed by his edit count. Especially, the amount of mainspace edits. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' I like his attitude of learning in Q1. He has the background to do a good job judging by his commitment to editing.
'''Support''' - Good Answers and very experience (aside 9 months)..Good Luck...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', good luck. --
'''Support''', outstanding contributor to Wikipedia and the Commons, and a very capable candidate. I have no doubt DanMS will serve the community well as an admin. --
'''Support'''- I see no reason not to trust this user with the bit.
'''Support''': Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Looks like user will make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' DanMS has made a significant contribution to WP.  He has expressed very reasonable plans for his use of admin tools.  He appears to be very level headed and unlikely to do anything stupid or abusive as an admin.  One question I have is why is there a concern raised about him taking a break from wikipedia?  Are admins that sometimes take breaks due to career, family, health or other reasons less valuable admins when they are here? <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' Seems just the sort of sensible and mature contributer who will make good use of the tools.  He doesn't have to justify taking a break from Wikipedia, it's all purely voluntary and everyone has a real life to live.
'''Support''' Reasonable explanation of Wikibreak combined with strength of contributions.
'''Support''' I'm pretty happy with what I see; should easily become another good sysop.
'''Support''' 100% edit summary? Very suspicious. Maybe this user is ''too'' squeaky clean. Give him the tools. I applaud admins from all backgrounds and the image uploading is very cool. I trust him.
'''Support''' I see no problems. Sure. —
'''Support''' per great contributions.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent contributor. I don't see the extended wikibreak as a problem at all - in fact, I can sympathize with the candidate's reasons. The explanation was forthcoming and reasonable and there has been a sufficient amount of consistent editing after the break so that I am sure the candidate has caught up with any changes in policy there may have been. --
'''Support''' My only concern was addressed.
I am
'''Support''' despite a small mistake regarding [[:Image:Theodore_Bikel_Headshot.jpg]], DanMS has many images that should be the model of useage on Wikipedia. I have little doubt he will misuse tools. Should upload more/move the free images here to Commons, but at least he's a supporter/user of Commons now and again, will be a good example.
Default '''Support'''. —'''
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. --
'''Support'''--
I'm
'''Support''', great user. '''
'''Support''' Great user.  I don't think the word "Wikipedia" takes a [[definite article]], however (i.e. just "Wikipedia", not "The Wikipedia", although this is open to debate) —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' this user has demonstrated both the need and ability to serve as a good custodian. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' at the risk of piling on more snow ;) No apparent issues in sight, which is always pleasant. Take good care of 'er. --
'''Support''' Seems to me that you are a good person to have the tools.

'''Support'''. I couldn't find a reason not to. -- '''
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I ran across DanMS ages ago while doing [[Wikipedia:Bad links]], something he was helping out with too. I fully support wiki-gnomes and would like to see more wiki-gnomes made into admins. --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
Support of course! It's great to have you back. :)
Support. --
Support.
Support
Support.
Support.
Support enthusiastically.  Wish he'd never left in the first place. -
Support.
'''Very powerful support''' -- excellent user who should have had the tools a very long time ago. Very knowledgeable in policy, very deserving of the mop. I rest my case. -- <strong>
'''[[Curb Your Enthusiasm|Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty]] strong support''' <s>per shout-out in Q1</s> problems from last RfA have been largely resolved - I am confident that DF is entirely capable of keeping his cool, does not bite, and has a strong handle on policy. Good luck! ~
'''Support''' No problems here.
Support, <s>although I'd strongly suggest the candidate removes the ''big'' tags from his/her signature per [[WP:SIG#Appearance and color|this]], to avoid possible neutrals and opposes. Other than that,</s> per Anonymous Dissident in a very strong fashion. '''
Big, huge, x-large '''support''' to this excellent user who bears a somewhat sad name that doesn't do justice to his brightness and positive attitude ;) All the best!
'''Support''' - good luck!
'''Support''' - a long road has been travelled since the previous RfA and this editor has come on so much. Definitely ready for the mop and bucket :) -
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. From what you've stated in your introduction, you have improved a great deal. Also, [[WP:ANI]] is not something you see in every RfA.
'''Support''' I think all pertaining issues from before have been resolved, and a new mop & bucket is in order.
'''Support''' - I'm going to support this RFA. I don't believe I have any personal experiences or history with this user, however upon looking at the users history and statistics as well as previous RFA I can tell that this individual has improved greatly and is definitely suitable for the Mop.
'''Support''' I have seen nothing but good things from this user.
'''Support''' No Personal interaction but track is only.
'''Support''' I think you have addressed most of the issues in your previous RFA.--
'''Support''' No problem.
'''Support''' Seen this editor around AN/I and AIV recently and have been impressed. Latter venue indicates both need for and trust with the tools.
'''Support''' - impressed by contributions to obscure historical articles. Other contributions look fine. Nice restrained and well-written statement. Plenty of experience. Despite lack of personal interaction, I would trust this candidate with the tools.
Anything for a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis|tennis player]] :) [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' I see a good future admin. -
'''Seriously, you weren't one yet?''' Seeing him several times on the wiki, he will make an excellent admin. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Support'''. per Anonymous Dissident. A fabulous candidate. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]

'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Goodluck and Godspeed! -
'''Support''', well answered Q4, and I don't think he'd abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' You fly boys crack me up. But, seriously, I've known Darkfalls for ages noe and he is hard-working, civil, knowledgeable and trust worthy. Good luck!
'''Support''' knows policy well. —
'''Support''' &ndash; excellent statement (well-organised as well!) has demonstrated that this candidate clearly knows what he's on about <tt>;-)</tt> best of luck - I know you'll make a fine [[WP:SYSOP|sysop]]! ~
'''Support''' good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent answer to the question I posed. After reviewing your contributions & talk pages, I feel confident you will use the tools wisely and maturely. --
'''Support''' I've seen the user around in the past, I have consistently liked what I've seen. I am satisfied with his answer to Q4, give him the mop.
'''Support''' Good user.  Will make great admin.  --
'''Support''' Good Luck!
'''Support''' experienced editor, good answers. It's about time s/he got the tools.
'''Support''' seems genuinely prepared to do a good job.
'''Support''' - another "I thought you already were" candidates.  I like the answers and what I can see in terms of contributions.  Should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' for the sheer volume of work, persistence, and self-growth.
'''Support''' - a trustworthy candidate. -
'''Support'''- I can't believe I missed this. He is a very experienced candidate and I believe he will be an excellent admin. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Support''' - Great editor, actively worked to improve since last RFA.
'''Support''' - I was one of the parties in the [[Zadar]] dispute that DarkFalls mentions above. I was very satisfied with his level-headed approach to the issue. --
—'''
'''Support''' A full and detailed review of the support contributions above reveals that I've failed so far to provide input to this discussion. Great editor, trustworthy, personal interaction etc etc. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I have seen nothing but superb edits from this contributor. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good contributor who has improved since last RfA.
'''Support''' I see no problems here. I also don't have a problem with users nominating themselves if they think they can help out Wikipedia with administrator tools.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of ''wanting to help make a better encyclopedia, judged by the contributions''.
'''Support''' A fine candidate, no concerns here.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
I'm
'''Support'''!
'''Support''', from one Power Hungry Monster to another... Kidding aside, I don't see any reason to believe DarkFalls is going to abuse the mop and bucket.--
'''Support''', good user, no problems. Good luck.

'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.  Good nomination and answers to questions.
'''Support''', a hard-working user who has greatly improved based on the input from his previous RfA, and will make a great admin. --'''<font color="#FFA52B">K</font><font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' I'm impressed with this user's honest self-appraisal and review, and they've clearly made a huge effort to address the concerns raised in the previous RfA. Good luck! --
'''Support''' per those above, and my own poking around through the edit history.
'''Support''' Canley took the words right out of my mouth. This is a very honest, self-searching nom.
'''Support''' Good solid user, I think Canley summed it up. <b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I am not concerned that this editor would misuse the tools, and am quite impressed with his answers to the questions, frank discussion of previous problems and improvements made, and especially the thoughtful answer to a very difficult question 4.
'''Support'''. WP will benefit from him being an admin.cheers,
'''Support''' - good editor, and yes that means good ''enough'' for admin tools.
'''Support'''- DarkFalls is an excellent editor who has, I feel, addressed the concerns expressed in his last RfA, and can be trusted to use the tools very well. (And, I thought he was already one...) Good luck!
'''Support''' - good candidate. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - see neutral section below. &mdash;
'''Support''' Gives users good advice and honest. I think this user will make an excellent administratior.
'''Oppose''' — I don't believe my concerns have been addressed.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  While I have no specific reason to think this is the case with you (and I hope it's not), it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
'''Oppose''' Per 2. -
'''Oppose''' as above. Allergic to self-noms. This is how a cabal begins. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|JG Test]].
'''Support''' as nom. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' - Nice answers and good edit count--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - Good answers, good candidate. --
'''Support''', the nominator did a good job turning a potental vandal into a potential moderator.  I hope this supposed [[Star Wars]] fan follows [[User:Deckiller|Deckiller]]'s footsteps.
'''Support''' Everything seems pretty good. I really like the idea of a reformed vandal becoming an admin.
'''Support''' Smartly done. Cool with good judgment. Edit summaries are good. What's not to like?
'''Support''' per nom and SUIT and TeckWiz, the answers are really nice and I can see nothing wrong. —
'''Support''' per nom. Great answers and everything seems OK. Would've only wished she has a little more project-space contributions. -
'''Support''' per nom. Great candidate. I have seen her in action. --
'''Support''' I've worked with her for a long time and I know her to be calm, level-headed and fair. She also has helped many new users learn the ropes via the adoption program.
'''Support''' I would prefer a higher Wikipedia space count, but I've seen a lot of good work coming from this user and she seems experienced, devoted and trustworthy.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Suppport''' per all above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' excellent editor.--
'''Support''' - Scouting interest spells trustworthy.  Civil: She knows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.32.45.189&diff=prev&oldid=113196812 how to suggest that a post is troubled] rather than make an accusation that a post is troubled and I defer to Deckiller's nomination for the rest of my support rationale. --
'''Support'''. Of course. &mdash; '''
'''Strong support''' Excellent user; I've seen her edits a lot as well.
'''Support''' A vandal becoming an admin, might be a first--
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support'''. Candidate has demonstrated a great aptitude. Besides, my first couple of edits were vandalism too. :)
'''Support'''. Darthgriz98 seems to be an excellent candidate who will be a valuable asset as an admin. Twiddle that bit! ···
'''Support'''. Productive user who gives me no reason to believe the tools would be abused.
'''Support''' good answers, experience, shows a need for admin tools. Good luck! '''
'''Support''', vandal turned good contributor turned admin is a great story, and I think this is just the one for the job.
'''Twenty four''' -- ''
'''Support'''.  Good, responsible, and level-headed editor.  No reason not to approve.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A capable, committed, and loyal member of the Wikipedian community.
'''Support''' So it is written. --
'''Support''' a prolific and excellent user, I can find no reason to not support her, and the FA push of the scout article gives a plus.
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' - I have worked with this editor.  Very patient, very discerning, would make an EXCELLENT, and I do mean EXCELLENT addition to the WP administrative team.
'''Support'''. Solid contribs, good answers, and reading through your edits I was knocked out by the way you've dealt with other editors old and new. Other people like it too since there are a whole heap of very positive messages from folks you've dealt with on your talk page. Even when dealing with naughtiness you're tough but fair and polite. As the man said, what's not to like?
'''Support'''. Excellent user. This nomination is clearly overdue. --
'''Strong support''' a great user, and good answers to the questions. '''[[User:CattleGirl|<font color="blue">Cat</font><font color="darkblue">tleG</font><font color="black">irl</font>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk: CattleGirl| talk]] |
I'm

'''Support''' fully trust her.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
I've been '''support''' 39 several times recently. Not a bad thign though :)--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - per all above!
'''Support''' for reasons above and editor has a Wikipedia edit count that actually reflects her in interest at [[WP:AIV]]. --
'''Support''' She has a good understanding and the ability to implement it.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - reformed vandal now an admin? impressive! ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' A fine example that [[WP:AGF|having patience with others]] works.
'''Support'''. Great work at RC patrol and good answers. Cheers,
'''Support''' per the candidates good contributions and answers to the RfA questions.
'''Support''' One of the good ones. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Pile on! '''
'''Support'''&ndash; Anybody who has over 3,000 pages in their watchlist just to fight vandalism definitely is dedicated to the cause.  Heck, I don't even have 1% of that... literally.  I've got less than 30 pages in mine.  '''
'''Support''': As nominator.  —
'''Support''' Mr. elections Dave. --
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Per above reasons!! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' a dedicated editor who clearly shan't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. You seem extremely well-experienced with vandalism work, and the tools will help you continue. As has already been commented on, you've got great dedication!
'''Very good user'''--
'''Support''', definitely.
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' Great Track and Vandal fighter with 14000 edits and has been a very regular contributor.
Excellent user: no evidence to suggest that he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Very strong anti-vandal. Definitely seems worthy of adminship. '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Weak Support'''. Good vandal-fighting work. Some additional article-writing experience will make you an even better editor and admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Usually when I go to the 2nd lot of 500 contribs and pick at random 10 non-vandalism reverting ones, I find something I disagree with. Not here, will make a good sysop --'''
'''Support''' A great editor and vandal fighter. Time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Sure thing.
'''Easy (and Strong) Support''' per the same reasons I supported GlassCobra's above. Good editor, strong contrib set, good answers to questions, etc.
'''Support''' '''GOOD LUCK'''
'''Support''' Impressive, should make a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' - Over 50 reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]], ALOT of experience, great user! <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' - huge edit count, especially at AIV.  A vandal-fighter like this could use the tools, and will likely be trusty with them.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good work at CSD, more of an inclusionist than average, but knows the policies and won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I reviewed your contributions earlier and failed to then back that up with comment here!! Candidate ticks all the boxes in terms of CSD, AFD, Article work, civility etc etc. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - flicked through, looks fine.

'''Support''', a dedicated vandal fighter with a civil attitude, great combo.
I'm
'''Support''' Nothing to add.
'''Support''', seen this user a lot at AIV, great candidate with a good deal of experience. --
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with all article deletion backlogs. Somebody has to –
'''Support''' Woo, I'm not the only blatant inclusionist running! Good luck!
I see no reasons why not to oppose. Good luck:)--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - No reason not to. Best regards,
As nominator
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with this user. Good luck!--
Most overdue nomination in the history of overdues
'''Support''' I think user would be good at handling the role of admin-ship and continue to be an excellent editor.
'''Support'''.  This is a long overdue nomination indeed, the best of luck to you.
'''Strong support''' - in my limited involvement with [[user:SndrAndrss|SndrAndrss]], I frequently wished that David had been given the mop, because of his patience and commitment to policy.
No problem.
'''Strong support'''  We can scarcely ask for an administrator with better qualities: scientifically expert, knowledgeable about Wikipedia, always willing to help, clear-sighted about our goals, patient and resourceful.  And beyond that, he's really, really ''clever''. :)
'''Support''' - Reading through some of the talk pages of articles David D. has been involved in, his sheer amount of patience and civility in the face of obvious [[WP:COI]] and linkspam, is truly remarkable.
'''Support''' The more proper scientists here the better.
'''Strong support.''' I wish you the best. Keep up the good work. —
'''Support''' Partially based on the clarify/detail/truth of his answers to the above questions, and partially because of his edit summary. --
'''Support'''. A polite, cheerful, and witty voice of reason who argues brilliantly for the encyclopedia without ever being argumentative for the sake of it, and who always maintains his sense of humor. Good answers, though I'm surprised at one of the conflicts he mentions as an example for "having lost it". I followed that particular cluster closely, and remember David D. as being one of the coolest, least aggressive and most sensible voices throughout the disputes at the reference desk. The kind who never ''has'' to be right, but often is. ---
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per [[User:David_D.#Admin.3F|user talkpage]]. --
'''Support'''. Firm grasp of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''', absolutely.
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
'''Support''' not afraid to work on controversial articles, while keeping his record pristine. Attention to detail in his edits and interactions.
'''Support''' little likelihood will abuse the tools.
'''Strong support''': Good encyclopedic contributions, experience in the trenches, civil contributions to disputes, good answers to the questions, solid understanding of policy. Will be an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''' - I don't have time to closely examine this users entire history and edits, however I do trust that Tim Vickers would not nominate someone unqualified so I'm going to support. If serious oppositions arise and they concern me then I'll change my vote respectively. For now though I see no issues.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' looks good to me. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - I was reading some of the comments that you left on your Ref Desk buddies' talk pages, and well, you're a helluva lot smarter than I am, because I didn't get the pun either (or hardly anything else you were talking about).
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' should be a good admin.
'''Support''' per Sluzzellin above and the candid nature of David's answer to Q3.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' You want that mop. So do I. You deserve it.
Sure.  He's been reasonable in my experience, yet has a curiously low number of supports.
'''support''' I was pleasantly surprised that Enzyme made it to FAC. Very often for science articles we either dumb them down too much or make them not explainable to the laypeople but [[Enzyme]] was in the Goldilocks spot. However, writing ability has little to do with ability as an admin. Luckily, David has shown to be consistent, calm, reasonable and having a good background in policy. We should have made him an admin long ago.
'''Support''' - recognise this user from the Reference Desks and trust them to use the tools productively.
'''Support'''-in the strongest way I can.  I will never forget your kindness and your assistance, David, in the midst of some difficult times.  I think you will make a superb admin.
'''Support''' - per noms above. Good luck!
'''Support''' I actually have a friend called David D...
'''Support''' Minimally qualified. --'''
'''Support''' without hesitation. I would have co-nominated if I had had my eye on the ball. David is a superb editor, extremely reasonable and I trust his interpretation of our policies and that he has the temperament to implement them under sometimes challenging circumstances.
'''Support'''.
Good user.
I'm
'''Support''' - What [[User:Rockpocket]] said, and then some! (And glad I didn't miss this one as I usually miss these : ) -
'''Support'''. Excellent bloke.
'''Support'''.  It was (is) a pleasure working with David D.  Extremely thoughtful and insightful editor.
Crawling-out-of-the-woodwork-for-unnecessary-pileon '''support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - yet another fine candidate! Deserves to be made a sysop. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. Good editor, they'll do fine with the mop.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You are ready. Good luck.
'''Support''' per nom. —'''
'''Support''' as a great candidate for the tools. Cheers,
'''Support''' I was tempted to support based solely on my brief memories of David and his thorough and well-written answers to the questions, but I spent some time reviewing his AfD contributions and they only solidified my opinion. He may not be the most versed in admin-wiki-terminology (mostly restricted to AfD), but I feel his composure, Wikipedia goals, handling of conflicts, and understanding of policy make him a fine admin candidate.
'''Support''' as positive contributor and worthy of tools.
'''Support''' per what has already been said. He will use the tools well.--
'''Support'''. Since I watched some of the [[Egyptian fractions]] debate from the sidelines, I agree that David handled that well, and his civility is noted. He is a useful contributor to mathematics articles, and should make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  David Eppstein is one of the most consistently level-headed WP contributors I am aware of.  I am always impressed by the thoughtfulness and civility of his dealings with other editors even during contentious discussions.  --
'''Support''', good editor and good answers. Comments on that AfD mentioned in Q3 don't worry me in the slightest. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
Support based on my experience, especially with the events at [[Egyptian fraction]]. --
'''Support''' - His composure and logical clarity in deletion debates has not ceased to impress and reassure me. Best of luck,
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''.  Obviously.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' seems like a great contributor, and answers look good. -
'''Support''' Your contribution are solid, though i would have preferred a less ambiguous answer to question 1--
I '''support''' this user's request. I wonder if we have any other elected admins with articles. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''', admin material.
'''Support''' David has a need for the admin tools as demonstrated by Q1, and he's showed that he knows policy. Nothing problematic, either, so I don't see no reason not to support this request. Btw, nice [[Erdős number]]. :-P <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' - No reason not to afford him the admin tools.
'''Support''' based on answers to questions and his talk page - exemplary civility and collaborative spirit
'''Support''': knows his onions & gets things done.
'''Support''' although I hope the mop doesn't take too much time from his writing articles.
'''Support''', contributions look solid and I'm pleased with the answers to the questions.
'''Support''' I like what I see.
'''Support''' We have from time to time disagreed at Afd, but I respect his answeers and his reasoning and his standards.'''
'''Support''', looks good to me. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Tim.bounceback--><font color="purple">
'''Support''' -per nom .--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - I feel he will use the tools properly. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' Every edit I've of his that I've come across has been a boon to the encyclopedia. Though he might not make great immediate use of the admin tools, he is a responsible editor who will use them correctly when he needs them.
'''Support''' pretty obviously, sensible and talented editor. <b>
'''Support''' Looks awesome. His answers to the questions are, in no uncertain terms, superb. Have we ever had a "notable Wikipedian" admin before? (Besides those notable ''for'' WP, that is.) --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor. Savvy. --
'''Support''', contributions demonstrate trustworthiness. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' We rarely disagree, clearly demonstrating his superior qualifications. <tt>;-)</tt> Demonstrates [[David Eppstein|subject expertise]], writing skill, social skill, and effort. --
'''Support''', an absolute no-brainer!  He's super civil all the time.  Always looking for a way to help.  One of my models for how to keep cool in stressful situations.  --
'''Support''' I have seen a lot of good contributions from him. Great guy.
'''Support'''--
I must admit that I haven't seen much of David in the past, however a quick review of his contributions from the last two or so months, as well the answers and support above, make this an easy decision. Good dedication to the project. '''
'''Support''', very much.
'''Strong Support''' a no-brainer, couldn't trust this candidate any more. It's good to have people like Mr. Eppstein here. —
'''Support''' nice work so far, good luck.
'''Support'''.  By the way, let me know if someone eventually discovers that [[P = NP problem|P = NP]], or if there's a polynomial-time solution to the [[travelling salesman problem]].  I could use a quick solution for 10,000 deliveries. --
'''Support'''. I cannot see that your having the tools will have anything but a positive effect on the project, especially if they will help in the course of your regular (high-quality) editing. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' – Very effective editor, focussed on improving Wikipedia. &nbsp;--
'''Strong support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' Yay for academia! Admins with subject-area expertise are always welcome.
'''Support''' he's got his own wikipedia page, but hasn't edited it extensively, which I think is as good an indicator as anything.
—''
'''Support''' - fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' per top notch answers to questions and overall record. Good luck! '''
'''Support'''; one of the best candidates around; excellent all-around Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Excellent mainspace and image contributor. --

I'm
'''Support''', absolutely. '''
'''Support'''. Consistently helpful and sensible editor.
'''Support''' We need more admin candidates like this.  --
'''Support''', strongly endorse this worthy candidate.
'''Support''' as nominator (I almost forgot :)
'''Support''' Knowledgable admin. Gotta support someone who also comes from UC Irvine =) ----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:medium;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good mathematical contributions, and works well with others. Could possible benifit from some admin coaching. --
'''Support'''. Excellent Wikipedian, very qualified to be an admin.
'''Support''' your edits touch me in a special way --
'''Support''' -
I was cautious regarding Kotepho's concerns, below. Our non-free content is non-trivial, in two senses: it is not always easy to understand, and it is very important that we get it right. I am supporting because: 1) [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]] was in a state of flux during the month before the upload in question, one of the disputed versions would have allowed the upload until a free image was available, and David may well have read and familiarized himself with that version; 2) the discussion at [[Image talk:Eppstein-UC03.jpg]] has convinced me that David respects our policies and will enforce them; and 3) he hasn't indicated that non-free content evaluation was anything he intended to involve himself with, while he seems knowledgeable and capable in the areas he outlined in his answer to Q1. If he later decides to branch out his admin activities from those areas, then as long as he familiarizes himself with the relevant policies before doing so, he should do fine. ··
'''support''' this person to become a administrator very helpful
Thought he was one.  --
The latest discussion at [[Image talk:Eppstein-UC03.jpg]] eases my concerns.
'''support'''
'''Support''' Good user to have adminship.
'''Support''' I trust the user and account.
'''Support''' --
A notable person as a Wikipedia admin? If they show that they properly understand Wikipedia's purpose and rules, then sure, why not?
'''Support'''. Excellent work.
'''Support'''- Great editor.
I'm falling over myself to '''support''' this user for adminship, and so should you.  I am a little biased, though, as I studied mathematics in college.  His images contributions are great, particularly this one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:7x-torus.svg].   I'm confident that even without a lot of mucking about in project space, this user understands our policies well and will seek out more information when he encounters hazy areas.  &#10154;
'''Support''' A great editor. Would become an excellent administrator. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Has made strong contributions, seems trustworthy.
'''Support''', seems to be a good candidate, good luck.
'''Support''', sticking head out with respectable and reputed real life vocation. Brave academic with the attitude needed to work with often anonymous contributors.
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' - Great contributor; level-headed and patient.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Creative and does good work, valuable
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributions and thoughtful answers.  --
'''Support'''. Nominated by the fine [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]]. No more needs to be said. Regards, &mdash;
'''Strong support''' as nom - best of luck!
'''Support''' - I see no reasons not to support, everything looks good. Good luck :-).
'''Strong support''' as imaginary co-nom!!! ;) '''''
'''Support''': Nice amount of contributions, excellent quality of contributions, a great edit summary usage, I'm impressed. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Contributions in [[WP:NAMESPACE]] are possibly marginally low, but not low enough to fail to suppoert.--
'''Support''' I foresee no problems - should do a fine job.
'''Support''' Again, I see no problems with this candidate.
'''Support''' Get on it.
'''Support''' Fuch yeah! --

Support per Matthew reason also good luck
'''Support''' Qualified, to say the least.  --'''
'''Support''' Lots of edits, and I think I trust him to do what he said.
'''Support''' per nom. —'''
'''Support''' Qualified...'nuff said!
Can't recall any personal interaction, but do know that the username has always been associated with good stuff. And with a nominator like that, I'm honour-bound to support. :) &ndash;
'''Support''' Should do well. Nice work on Halo 1 and 2. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Strong support''' - good luck!
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate for the mop and bucket, with the current backlogs at [[CAT:CSD]], you could prove an asset there. Best of luck!
'''Support'''. Let me pile on to this long list of supports. You deserve the [[WP:MOP|mop]]! '''
'''Support''' - per Ryan and Matthew. Looks good.
'''Support''' per all support comments.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Not enough Edits (less than 3000) but is vastly experienced and has contributed significantly towards Wikipedia Projects...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. Being around a long time counts for something even if one doesn't spend hours editing every day. It shows. Good luck. --
I'm
'''Support''', definitely. --'''
'''Support'''. Very experienced editor. -
'''Support''' - more than adequate experience.
'''Support''' - fully qualified candidate. (I recall strongly disagreeing with him about something a few weeks back, but I don't recall what it was, and anyway he might have been right, so this doesn't reduce my support level.)
'''Support''' I've seen him around, good user. —
'''Support''' I had nothing but good encounters with and seen nothing but good work from David. I have no doubt that he will do a great job with the extra tools. --
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''You not an admin already? '''Support'''. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''Fuch Yeah! Support''' I first saw this user around a few months ago, and immediately considered a nomination for adminship. I was surprised that David was not a totally experienced editor on Wikipedia, but judging from what I saw, I knew he was qualified from that point on. David's a great editor, and a great candidate for adminship. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' I know David Fuchs because he was the user who reviewed me back in January.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEditor_review%2FAcalamari&diff=102272929&oldid=101678276 1] This is a decent user with a decent nominator.
'''Strong support'''. Looks like I'll have to find some other users to keep tabs on... '''''
'''Support''' great candidate. '''''
Yah. '''
'''Support''' <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' A good user I've interacted with several times. Adminship's no big deal, but I'd support even if it were. Cheers,
'''Support''', good user.
I strongly refrain from opposing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Does excellent work and I've had good interactions with him. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Sup'''  - Past interactions with this user make me believe that he will use the sysop tools wisely. -
'''Of course''' --
'''Support''' - Yep! -
'''Support''' - An outstanding editor and worthy of adminship.
'''Support''' per my comments below and an excellent contributions record. -- '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I wish all RfA noms were this easy to support. --
'''Support''' - need a mop? ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' experience with a variety of different things - will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' User has been around for enough time already. Also, he seems to be a quite experienced user; I noticed this when he reviewed [[Age of Empires III]] in its request for GA and gave us some tips on how to improve it... Following those tips, the article ended up passing the requirements. Also, with so much support, I suppose he is agreat user for the task! <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' Great editor that will be good admin. --
'''Support''' good contributor and all that jazz. --
'''Support''' I have no doubt Dave will be a fine admin. Good luck! · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I particularly like your reasonable answer to question 5, about when (not) to block users.'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Seems pretty good. Answer to 7 is a bit weak but can fixed by some reading :) I see a good faith nomination in the AfD cited in the Neutral section, and admins aren't expected to be saints so we can forgive a little frustrated sarcasm now and then. --
'''Support''', no problems with him.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. この人はこういう義務をできますよ。賛成！--
'''Strong support'''. I have worked extensively with Dekimasu on [[Bleach (manga)]] from the beginning of his time here, and have never had a single problem with his attitude, civility, willingness to help, or capabilities. From his very first edit (technically even before that, since he was helpful as an IP as well) I have been impressed with him, and my opinion of his work has only increased over the last year. I would be proud to see Dekimasu as an administrator, and fully vouch that he is indeed "up to the task". --
'''Support'''. Sensible contributor who appears to always provide thoughtful comments. Lots of experience in the areas s/he intends to do admin work in. –
This may change based on answer to Q4. ~
'''Strong support''' Although I've never worked with you or seen you around I can see easily from your contributions that you are a dedicated and extremely helpful user, your article maintenance work is also excellent, your an asset to Wikipedia! Best of luck to you!
I thought he was already an administrator.  (Really!) &mdash;
I'm
'''Support''' I think he's exhibited a cool head under fire and will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. Let's get 'em the mop! Cheers,
'''Support''' - [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|as per Jimbo Wales]]...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support.''' Even if adminship were a big deal, you'd deserve it. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support.''' Very helpful user, already doing admin-type stuff at [[WP:AN]] and other places, and knows Japanese...what's not to like?
'''Support''' - no problems here. Good answers, mediation experience and has a great reputation. -
'''Support''' Looks like a good choice for admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' He has the experience and his contributions to the Bleach article speak for themselves.
'''Support''' Everything seems alright, nothing but good work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' no concerns here. —
'''Support''' prolific contributions to Disambiguation page issues, friendly and helpful! --
'''Support''' per good answers, esp. to Moreschi's Q5. —
'''Support'''. -- <b>
'''Hai, ii desu''' -
'''Support''' - a user I've often seen around, and left only a positive image in my head.
'''Support''': User seems to have plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent as well. Seems to also have a nice knowledge of the policies. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' I found the answer to my question dodgy, but nothing condemning. Regardless of that, I know dekimasu as an editor to be careful and diplomatic in practice.
'''Support''' Have seen this editor around, no apparent problems.
'''Support''' - I had concerns that you had no experience in situations that may require a block, but you gave a good answer to Q.9, showing you fully understand the applicable policies.
'''Qualified''' --
'''Support''' - Dekimasu-kun wa sysop-dekiru to omoimasu! --
'''Support''' OMG where you have been until this moment? --
A review of your edit history produces no concerns and your answers to the questions demonstrate a firm grasp of policy. You have my strong '''support'''. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' — the candidate has been a great help at [[WP:RM]], and granting him adminship can only benefit that page and the whole project. --
'''Support'''. I met him at [[Talk:Japanese diaspora]] and he was [[WP:COOL]] and constructive. I believe he would be an asset for the project.
'''Support''' A fine self-nomination which I am glad to support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|WTHN?]] <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''support''' Good user.
'''support''' this person for administrator who provides very positive image
'''Support''' per tjstrf.
'''Support''' bu-bu-bu-buh, bu-bu-bu, yeah! --
'''Support''' — Has an excellent reputation, and I like the answers re Blocking policy. --
'''Support'''.  I have been impressed with your work and dedication at DPL.  Based on what I have seen, I have no concerns that you would abuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' — A no-nonsense person, always calm, and helpful to everyone; will be an excellent admin.--
'''Yes''', beat the nom and everyone else. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Beat the nom but beaten by the nom-beater support'''. Definitely has the necessary experience and judgment. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong support''' <s>He</s>She's a great vandal fighter and also a very friendly contributor, would do great work with the mop
'''Support'''. I've seen you around and think you'll be a good sysop. Oh look, I beat the nom too.
'''Supporting''' another great pick from teh Wizardman! Good luck. --'''
'''Support''' A good vandal-fighter and an active contributor to the article namespace. '''
'''Technically the nom supported in the nomination and beat you all support!''' and oh yeah, the candidate looks good too.
'''Support''', everything looks pretty good here, give 'em the mop! —
'''Support'''. Must be a good candidate - the nom has several spelling mistakes in his nomination, therefore he must have been in a hurry to get this person mopified :). ''
'''Support''' - seems to be a trusted user. --
Possibly one of the latest '''support as nom''' votes ever, lol. (in my defense I was edit conflicted)--
'''Support''' Yet another good candidate for the admin tools; no problems here.
'''Support''' Good candidate. '''
'''Support''' -- will be a good admin
'''Support''' Finally. A non-ideological potential admin. You definetly deserve my vote. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', definitely. Thought user was administrator already (oops) –
'''Support'''.  I have some medical knowledge and the articles are well written and referenced. -

'''Support''' - read above --
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' I can't see any problems here...
'''Support''' trustworthy. User has a good record of article contributions. I see no problems. -
I'm

Nice answers :) --
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. No problems here. &ndash;
'''Support''', per the fact you're willing to take only trusted votes and reject ones from vandals.  Got a [[dell]]?
'''Support.''' Good Lord, I'm such an idiot - and I'm a chemistry major!  I'm very impressed with this nominee's overall record.
'''Support''', solid answers to the questions, great RC patrol work and participation at AFC.
'''Support''' excellent contributions and excellent answers from someone who is consistently thoughtful and polite. It's also nice to see a candidate explicitly state an interest in helping new users.
'''Support''' I see no problems, she would make a good admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Replies to questions are great, I don't see any reason why this user would violate the community trust. ——
'''Support''', as the answers to the questions are excellent, and demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia policy.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Overdue. Thanks for agreeing to serve. --
'''Support''' per above, she would be a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Lots of quality edits on complicated articles.  No reason to oppose.  Seems like she'd make a good admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Not even gonna list my reasons either, as they should be obvious and they've been stated 40 times already above me (and probably more below me, soon). -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''', because the fine and upstanding editor [[User:Tnuocca ladnav|Tnuocca ladnav]] supports [[User:Delldot|Delldot]]. Sounds good to to me, I've got to agree with their wise words. Who am I to disagree with '''''37 years''''' of editing wikipedia?!
'''Support''' She's not already an admin? Give her the broom, the mop, the bucket, and any other Wiki tool she needs. An amazing editor!--
'''Support''' per ... pretty much everything. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Solid. Good work. Great. Groovy. --
'''Support''' fully qualified candidate.--
'''Support''' Without question... a great editor in all respects.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''.  You will do well.
'''Support''' qualified editor, wasn't being nosy but her talk page has several users asking for help, that denotes a good knowledge of policies and general editing and it shows she's trusted. We need an admin that will be open to regular editors when we need help.--
'''Support''' - many of the above reasons --
'''Support''' - certainly, for all the reasons above.
Happy [[Valentines Day]].
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' sounds like a fine candidate. '''''
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' Looks solid, with excellent article writing credits.
'''Support''', per above.
'''Support''' per nom and all of the above. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' See no reason this candidate should not be an admin. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' for handling a flammable (flaming?) situation very coolly. &ndash;
'''Beat both co-noms support''' - good luck!
'''Support''' Perfectly good candidate! —
'''Yes''' - I've been very impressed with DH - he's been popping up all over and I trust him to make a good admin.
'''Support''' A very impressive user. '''
'''The nominator didn't support first because he was busy watching Scrubs clips support.''' '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good user, seems to be a good admin at de, will be a good admin here.
'''Support''' - I was almost going to nominate him, but he already was.
'''Support'''. Past sysop experience a major plus, and solid vandal-fighting experience.
'''Strong support''' he should be an administrator. I see his name at AIV a lot too. :)
'''Strong support'''. Great editor who will make use make good use of tools.
'''Support''' Wow, I found that site casually. Really '''yes''' to this Request for adminship :-). --
'''Support''' <cliché> --
'''Support''' I've edit conflicted with DH many times recently on RC patrol. He's ready for and could really use a mop.
'''Support''' &#10154;
'''Support''' I'm pretty sure that he's the type of guy we want, especially since Will nominated him. ;) &mdash;
'''Support''' A helpful and civil user. If he can be a good admin on de. why can't he be a good admin here? Obvious support.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy, civil, ready. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''- I seem to run into this user a lot-- and he serves the community well and is well suited for the admin tools. Good luck! —<span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' (NB: Candidate is already admin on de.wikipedia and one of the best vandalfighters we have there.) --
'''support''' actually, en: doesn't really deserve our best vandalfighting admin, but, hey, lets take over this company ;) --
'''support''' Do you know: DerHexer means TheWarlock.--
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I've also had a few edit conflicts at RC patrol. He is indeed very fast, even reverting vandalism on my userpage without me realising it was vandalised.
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Support''' - A very active vandal fighter, who has beat me to reversions numerous times. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - my only gripe is all those edit conflicts he gives me while I'm trying to revert vandalism.  Keep up the good work!  -
'''Strong support''', when I think prolific vandal fighters this is one of the first names that comes into my head. Can he handle two mops at once? I think so. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - Bit difficult - on the one hand I do know him very well from de.wikipedia and he does a great job there and he would do so here too but on the other hand I hope he wont forget de completely since we need him there too ;) - But I'm sure he'll do it --
'''Uber Support''' Yeah... —
'''Support''' - A very able editor that will do well with admin tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Time for the mop!
'''Support''' About time!
'''I-thought-he-was-one-support''' <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' 1) Interaction 2) Contribution 3) We do need more clear up admins 4) Civility 5) Super quick delivery and as described AAA+++ Trusted <s>e-bayer</s> Wikipedian - would buy again..... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Actually, I'm fairly unimpressed with what this user does. Granted, he reverts a lot of vandalism, but he doesn't contribute content, and he practically doesn't interact with others beyond handing out warning templates. On the other hand, he certainly won't misuse the tools, also erteile ich hiermit meinen '''Segen'''. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''. I was just wondering the other day why this user has never been made a sysop. He is an incredible anti-vandal who beats me to the punch far more often than I'm willing to admit. Always civil, always helpful. Basically...If he doesn't have the qualifications to be an admin, nobody does.
'''Support''' Excellent activity. Could use the tools.
Uh-oh, does this mean that DerHexer will be ''even quicker'' at catching vandals? Puts me out of a job! ('''Support''' anyway!) :) --
'''Support'''. I see no reason not too. Nice vandal fighting. --
'''Support'''- Per above + Good edit count, great contributions, good weight of activity and wikipedia would benefit from this individual having extra editing capabilities.
'''Titanium Support''' - The question should be why isn't he an admin and I don't believe you need to contribute to encyclopedic content to request for adminship. Admins should be familiar with all the Wiki policies and that's all that matters and TheWizard has proved that time and again..Good Luck... ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Been more active in one month than I have in nine...Will definitely help removing Wikipedia's backlogs. --
'''Strong Oppose''' &ndash; user will make a great administrator :)
'''Support''' - One of the best players in the whack-a-vandal circuit. Only suggestion I have would be for this user to take a much-deserved vacation before assuming admin duties :) ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Number 50. Good luck!
Oh, it's running already. Ther will be a time the people will say about me "He's the one who nominated the Hexer the first time for Adminship" (at de:WP) - and then I can die with pride ;). There's not ny question, Hexer is the best Admin if ou want a "Admin at the Front". '''strong support'''. The only sad thing - I couldn't nominate him here at en:WP.
'''Strong Support''' als Mitleser^^
'''Support''' - It's good to see a mature editor on Wikipedia. Many have strengths, and for DerHexer it's fighting vandals.
'''Support''' per nom, notwithstanding my respect for Riana's oppose. I know this editor's work and trust him implicitly. --
'''Support'''. ''Deutsche Gründlichkeit'', German thoroughness, as well as cross-project experience is always needed here.
'''Strong support'''. Given his strong dedication to vandal fighting, I find it highly unlikely he would abuse the admin tools. Plus, we need more admins patrolling AIV, during some times of the day it is possible to send a report and have it sit there for several minutes while the user continues to go on a vandalism spree. --
I'm
'''Strong Support''' This user is a great vandal fighter who will not abuse the tools. Also there is no real reason to oppose him.--
'''Support''' He needs the tools.  I thought he was an -en admin until I saw an angry vandal hammering his userpage, and all he could do about it was wait and revert.  While I think experience in editing is important in an admin, I'm willing to cut some slack to non-native speakers of English who might not be so comfortable editing English.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I had the idea of noming him once XD. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' for reverting vandalism on pages including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NHRHS2010&diff=123568356&oldid=123568260 my user page]
'''Very strong support''' and I would have co-nommed if I wasn't slacking away on holiday. He has proven both in his time as an admin at the German Wikipedia and his time editing here that he will make an extremely capable admin and will be a true asset as one. He is fully qualified in my view with huge experience in reverting vandalism here, as well as some article writing, plus a lot more article writing over at de. I am extremely happy to give my wholehearted support and apologies for the delay! [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strong support''' he is really needed here. --
'''Support'''. An admin at de, thats more than enough to meet my criteria. Someone willing to take on AIV, gets my definate support. Two amazing admin traits in one candidate is more than enough. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Great vandal-fighter. Would make a good admin. -
'''Strong support''' of course. --
'''Support'''.  No doubt.  —
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per noms

'''Support with some reluctance'''. I would very much like to see some sort of article building or use of discussion. Vandal whacking is one of the most needed skills, but what about other backlogs like deletions? I can't do anything to change what the candidate does, but I hope that they will read their opposes and neutrals and expand their reach. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support.''' Know him as an excellent, trustworthy user on German Wikipedia and also appreciate his work here. —
'''Strongly Support''' I'd say strongly support. DerHexer has been fighting vandalism for the last several months, contributed to the Latin Language portal, and leaving warning message to vandals. He has never blocked a user before, so not only warning others and fighting vandalism. Blocking vandals if they don't listen. --
'''Strongly support''' I always see him on RC and he usually beats me to the punch, allowing him the admin tools can only be good for the project. We could do with another five like him.
+1. Does a very good job in de.wp and will not abuse the powers. --
'''Pro DerHexer'''.  Definitely.
'''Support''' Grade-A candidate. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' It's <s>editors</s> ''vandal-fighters'' like DerHexer that keep WikiPedia a usable source of information. —
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter with admin experience.  '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' I don't see any problems. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Awesome vandal fighter who will by no means abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' seen him on both dewiki and enwiki. Trackrecord on dewiki shows he can trusted and current level of activity here shows the tools are needed. Just a little note to DerHexer: There are slight differences between the two wikis in policy and practice, so take it slow when taking new actions as admin here and do a bit of research first.
'''Support''' no reason to suspect abuse of tools, which is all that matters, right? :) ~
'''Big Fat Support''' He's been reverting vandalim as long as I can remember. I think he deserves the mop. Go ahead, let him be an admin! <font face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><b><font color="red">[[User:Jonjonbt|JONJONBT]]</font></b> <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Jonjonbt|talk]]</font>•<font color="black">
'''Strong Support''' Wikipedia needs more vandalism fighters, and I'm all in favor of handing the mop to a veteran and prolific vandalism reverter.  I only wish I could be as active as he is in counter-vandalism.  --
'''Support''' It seems rather clear that one may, on the whole and inasmuch as the nature and quality of one's contributions to mainspace, except perhaps to the extent they evidence the soundness of one's judgment and the amiability of his/her demeanor (each of which can be borne out in other ways; one may not think either to be shown with any clarity here, of course, such that the points of Everyking and Riana are, IMHO, not unmeritorious), demonstrate almost nothing about his/her fitness for adminship, conclude with some confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''
'''Stongest Support''' Do I have to say more?? Go revert those vandals and better yet get them out of here!
How could I possibly do anything but strongly '''support''' someone who has defended my Talk page with so much zeal? ;) Thank you so much, dear DerHexer!
'''Support''' See no evidence to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''' as above (Anyone mention ''patience as a virtue'' yet?) <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' obviously trustworthy but equally in part as a protest.  The idea that not giving a vandal fighter vandal fighting tools will in some way benefit en wp does amuse me.  Sure there have to be some other contributions - there are --
'''Support''' What's taking so much time, admin him already!
'''Support''' An experienced admin in the German WP.
'''[[WP:100]]'''.
'''Support''' 100%.  I hate that I'm coming into this late, coming off Wikibreak, and I had actually planned to nominate this user if a nomination was not forthcoming.  It is, so yes.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' we need more admins, and this guy seems to be very experienced. No problems here. <b>
'''Strong support'''
'''support''' a good vandal fighter whom I've never seen losing his temper and doing something inconsiderate. --
'''Support''' Whoo!!!!
'''Support''', great!
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose simply because the candidate has fought vandals instead of written articles.
'''Oppose'''. You must write content on some kind of substantial level to be a good admin. Without that, you don't have the perspective and experience to hold the authority and responsibility; you're just mashing buttons, basically, apparently in some kind of semi-automated way. Moreover, what do we know about how you interact with people? An admin candidate should have a record of interacting with people on various issues without losing his or her cool, and ideally should have demonstrated some skill at negotiation and de-escalating disputes. I don't know anything about you except that you fight vandals a lot. We need to see your attitudes and views (on display in normal editing, not here), and we need to see that you have a well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia.
Oppose. It is pure hypocrisy to promote an editor to sysop if he has not written any articles. I don't really see how he can comment on whether articles are worthy enough for inclusion when he hasn't written any himself. Furthermore, I don't see how he can block editors for violating 3RR and suchlike when he himself has not collaborated on an article and seen how frustrating it is when you have a dispute and come to an impasse. I'm tired of seeing policeman admins pass, people who just revert vandalism for a couple of months and then request adminship. Reverting vandals requires no thought, no intellect, no particular good judgement. You see a diff where someone has replaced the page with "FUCK YOU!!" and you hit 'revert'. Rinse, repeat. Does this show thoughtfulness? No. Does it show any kind of thought at all? No, it does not. It's impossible to judge whether this editor is a thoughtful, clueful kind of guy and therefore I don't trust him with the tools. I also note that once he was promoted at de wikipedia his vandal 'fighting' slowed down hugely. <span style="padding:2px;font-size:80%;font-family:verdana;background:#E6E8FA;">
'''Oppose'''. There's nothing wrong with focusing on vandalism fighting, but when that's all there is, it's not enough for adminship. The account racked up 11,000 edits in April alone, and the 20,000 edits overall include only 399 to article talk. There needs to be some content contribution and evidence of community interaction. <font color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' Apparently an AI construct. --
'''Oppose''' Vandalism fighting does only part of an admin make; also, as mentioned above, doing 800 blocks per month seems, at least IMHO. excessive; it points to a certain trigger-happiness in reaction to vandalism which may not always be the right course. As a bythought: the ones amongst you who know a bit about de-wiki, mind that there is a different underlying ''culture'' there. I keep watching it from afar, but can not bring myself to contribute much.
'''Oppose''' per Slim, article writing is an important part of wikipedia and it helps understand key policy, like [[WP:N]] and [[WP:OR]] better, and same with vandal fighting, as sometimes a person can't tell if the edit is vandalism or not. You could still vandal fight without the tools. Thanks
'''Strong Oppose''' per KM. With 20,000 edits, you're highest article mainspace is 15 to Scooby Do? Those 15 edits were probably all done fighting vandals! With almost 10,000 mainspace edits, though, it's '''quite''' obvious that all you ever do on Wikipedia is fight vandalism, talk, and comment here and there on AFD, RFA, and AIV. You are quite the opposite of a model Wikipedian, and while I do not mean to convey any anger, you are not good for the job. I fight Vandalism here and there, and I know for a fact that it is mindless, and requires little attention. Writing articles...now there's something that takes more focus then masturbation.
This user does a really good job in reverting vandalism.  However, this user hasn't contributed encyclopedia content, such as creating pages.  My vote stands as '''neutral'''. '''<font face="georgia" color="black">
What else do you do with your life!?! You made 11,393 edits in just one month, made at least 1,000 edits a month since then! Do yourself a favour and take a Wikibreak!
'''Neutral''' per Miranda above. We need people to build the encyclopedia, not just maintain it. reverting vandalism is good, but not everything. -- <strong>
'''Neutral'''. Impressive vandal fighting record. That's also why I'm not supporting: while I love thwacking vandals, you should have more writing experience than you do.
'''Neutral'''. Whilst I appreciate the editor's commitment to vandal fighting, I'm worried by the lack of any evidence of encylopedia building on the English encyclopedia, as well as by the lack of consensus building discussion with other users. Neutral because of admin work and encyclopedia building on the German wiki, which my German is unfortunately inadequate to assess.
'''Support''' I see nothing terribly wrong here, the nominee seems like a good editor and the experience with the [[:zh-yue:|Cantonese Wikipedia]] is excellent experience. I lend my support. --
'''Support''' as nom. <font color="#0000FF">
Sure, why not? [[User talk:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong J.]]
Seems like a fair candidate who's long overdue.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' after all, adminship is ''no big deal''...
'''Support''' per experiance.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' no problems here. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Experienced Editor -
'''Sure''' -- ''
<span style="font-weight:bold;background:lightgreen;color:green;">'''(＋)'''</span> 我是
'''Support'''. An obvious choice. --
'''Support''', clearly.
'''Support'''. Right choice. -
'''Support''' This editor has really impressed me with his edits over the last year plus. --

'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' The above say it. I think we should give him a shot.
'''Support'''. Contribution is worthy of respect. Bravo!--
'''Support''' - no problems, good candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Helped promoting two article to FA? Support on sight! <i>Happy Editing by <b>
'''Support''' Looks good and plus he's already an admin on another [[Wikipedia]]. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''', good editor.
Support.
'''Support''' appears trustworthy. '''
Experienced and trustworthy. The incident mentioned below is from about 4 months ago and strikes me as mere quibbling, not a good reason to oppose a candidate.
'''Support'''. 支持。'''''

'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Tres smooth answers, long history, a slight bobble on fair use. All considered, what's not to like? Be thou admin, says I.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per contributions and above statements. -
'''Support''' Nominator makes a good case, and the nominee's record supports it.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' English is very good as well. Babel doesn't really mean anything, some people simply tag themselves as "n" due to ethnicity despite not having any functional skill in some language. Deryck has demonstrated a very good working usage of English. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- lots to like: admin experience elsewhere, English skills far> than the en-2 he modestly advertises, a good work ethic and very civil. We are very short of Chinese language skills on Meta, so I hope he will consider becoming an admin there in the near future as well. Thanks for agreeing to serve (and don't forget to review copyright issues very closely). --
'''Support''', of course. Just wish I had more of a chance to help him in our admin coaching. Nonetheless, he's more than ready.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' everything looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' excellent user, and we do need more sysops with localised knowledge. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' A very good Editor..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' for use of fair use image/logo in userspace. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deryck_Chan/lscip&oldid=84567497]. Clear violation of [[WP:FUP|fair use policy]] #9. User then used this page as a template posting it elsewhere further violating the fair use policy. --
I expect admins to at least understand why we don't allow fair-use images in userspace. '''Oppose''' per MECU. &ndash;
'''Neutral ''' I don't feel I can support the candidate, but I respect his contributions; this RFA is going to pass, even with a hundred sockpuppets against him. Therefore, I decide to change the Oppose to a Neutral, keeping my concerns in the oppose argument.
'''Support'''- From the start of my editing days right up till my peak and my lows, Nick has supported and helped me along as my wiki-father! He's a very helpful and smart contribution to the Wikipedia Admin team in my opinion! Good Luck Dfrg.Msc! <font style="border:solid 1px #FF0000; background:#000;">[[Drizzt Do'Urden|<font color="FF0000">Drizzt</font>]]
Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's awesome nomination.<!--Don't say anything :P-->&nbsp;'''
''Per Dihydrogen Monoxide's awesome nomination.''
➔ '''
I was about to oppose... but you're an Aussie so I can't do that... :p --
'''Support''' A very good user. I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' fine candidate. —
'''Support''', it ''is'' an awesome nomination. Past issues, yes, but a lot to like. <b>
'''Support'''. He has learnt and improved, and you can't say that of everyone.
'''Support'''. Has done good work.
'''Support''' per work on [[WP:NCR]].
'''Support''' Seen this user around, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' i though he was already a admin; still great user give em' the mop -- (
'''Support''' I've come across dfrg.msc on multiple occasions, and I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Yay.
'''Support''' - fine candidate.
'''Support''' - review of contribs shows no red flags, overall solid contributor.
'''Support'''. I supported his first one, and I have not seen any problems develop since then. --
'''Support'''.  I've seen this guy's work and it's always been impressive.  A dedicated and civil user who knows what he's doing.
'''Strong Support''' Community trust is a large part of a RfA, and I feel you have obtained through not  only your proficient contributions to Wikipedia, but also your significant role in Wikipedia Community. Dfrg.msc deserves the mop by now! <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' per Sam Blacketer. --
'''Support''' just like last time. --
Yep. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Have noticed your edits over the last year or so. An impressive contributor. And I love the example of a mistake in Q3. All in all, a good candidate. --
This editor is a good editor. From my personal experiences.
I'm
Seems like a good user.
'''Support''' though I'm not sure what DHMO meant when he talked about Dfrg.msc's name.

'''Support'''
I'm quite pleased that you are honest with your answers, and you ''have'' improved a lot since your previous RfA. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' Seems like a good chap. He should find adminship useful, no doubt. &ndash;
'''Support''' Honest.  <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">Carbon</font>
This user has huge amount of community trust, and abuse of admin tools is unforeseeable.  Great user all around; '''support'''. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' As per JayHenry and Track is good with nearly 5000 mainspace edits and over 7000 edits.
'''Support''' - Absolutely.
'''Support'''. You've grown, mate. '''''
'''Support'''. In my experience Dfrg.msc is a strong editor. No reason to believe he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per substantially everything above. Qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - No big deal. --
'''Support''' - I trust Dfrg. -- <strong>
'''Strong Support''' I'm popping out of ''semi''-wiki-break to post my strong support for Dfrg. He passed all my admin related tests with flying colours during our admin coaching sessions and exhibits a knowledge of policy and maturity to be a fine admin. Like all of us he's not perfect, but can I can say with 100% certainty he can be trusted with the tools. Fine candidate :) '''
'''Support''' trustworthy, experience. No reasons to oppose. Good luck.
'''Support {{subst:thoughtyouwereonecliche}}'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Super-ultra-über Tarragon Support''' ~
'''Pile on Support''' In Dfrg.msc we trust.  '''[[User:culverin|<font color="darkblue">Culv</font>]][[User talk: culverin |<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', looks ok --
'''Support'''. The candidate appears to be a good, trustworthy contributor.
'''Weak support'''.  Unfamiliar with this user until now, but his huge number of edits, vandal-fighting (with scars to prove it), and trustworthy supporters lead me in that direction. Wanting to close debates ''honestly'' is one reason I wanted to be a sysop.
'''Support''' - great candidate. Such a lot has been achieved. Keep up the awesome work! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Why not? Sounds good to me
'''Support''' - will use tools wisely.
'''Support''' A good candidate. -
'''Support''' Definitely! <span style="color:black;border:2px dashed red;padding:1px;background:transparent;">
'''Support''' He has much expierence and can be trusted well with the mop.
'''Support''' Quite impressed with your edits, especially to Portal:Graffiti.--
The sensible approach of the candidate towards the real, hidden point of my concerns and his decisive statement to dismiss all doubt convince me. Now I'm certain, 'Nick' can be trusted with a mop, a cigar or whatever. Accordingly, I switch my vote to '''Support'''. Congratulations!
'''Support''' Will not abuse powers. Good luck. --
Will the candidate be celebrating the outcome of this RfA [[WP:REICHSTAG|anywhere near the Reichstag]]? Oh, and I '''support'''.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I opposed last time but the reasons I stated then are no longer relevant. So no reason to oppose now. And people in bathrobes can't be very dangerous anyway. I think. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
Certainly a user who will not abuse the tools, I believe Dfrg.msc should have been a sysop quite a while ago.
'''Support'''. Experienced editor.
'''Support''' and ''insert witty (and humorous) comment here''.  -
'''Support''' per answers to questions 6 and 7. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Axolotl''' 1,230% support.
'''Support''' because I was ''absolutely convinced'' you were an admin already, and because of your answer to question 6.
'''Support''' and a poster of Gandalf. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' &mdash; I see no indication this user will use the tools in anything but a mature and intelligent manner.  --
'''Support''' - Absolutely. I've been waiting for this nom for a while now -- Dfrg.msc has nothing but great things to offer Wikipedia. Give this man the mop! <b>
[[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not]]? Appears to be a suitable candidate. Concerns raised in the previous RFA have been satisfactorily resolved. <b>
'''
'''Support''' &mdash; Well duh. —<tt>[[</tt>'''
Pile-on '''support'''. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Strong Support'''' &ndash; as before.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support'''.  As far as I can tell, this editor seems committed to expanding and improving our project (I even like his user page!).  Best wishes!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''.  I'm impressed with his answers to the questions.  Should do fine.  --
'''Support'''. This time it is deserved. i've seen good stuff from this person. --
'''Support''' per answer to Q.9, and lack of evidence that tools would be abused.
'''Support''' Its all been said.
'''Support'''. Same reasons as last time. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' I am exceedingly impressed with Dfrg's work with the various portals, to the point of being in awe of his coding expertise. I personally believe that a sense of humor is a great thing, and while I realize some people may think "fun" and "humor" are not appropriate for Wikipedia, the fact is that as a giant community of editors from all over the world, with different viewpoints and cultures, many conflicts are bound to arise. Humor and fun can both diffuse situations, and also help heal rifts caused by conflict. I don't think that Wikipedia is any worse for those who choose to "whistle while they work", so to speak, and I honestly think that it makes people laugh, which is a great thing when working on a serious project. Nick's use of humor via question 8 is a perfect example of this: While answering what may be seen as a completely nonsensical question that has no bearing on this RfA, Nick shows his special talent in table-making and formatting. Formatting is a big part of many areas on Wikipedia, and without editors such as Nick, awesome portals like the Graffiti portal may not be as eye-catching. On to other areas: I've run into Dfrg many times while doing Recent Changes patrol, and I've always considered him to be a great patroller, using proper warnings, reporting when appropriate, and understanding policy and guidelines. As with all editors, early mistakes have been a learning experience, and I really have no doubt that Nick would use caution in areas he was unfamiliar with, and request assistance from other administrators should the need arise. While I do understand the reservations Piotrus brings up about adding oneself to the recall category, I also think that the community has a pretty good system in place to review questionable actions by administrators, and resolution can be done via these methods. I have no doubt that Dfrg will be a great addition to the current Administration team, and I look forward to congratulating him in a few days. (The preceding comments are brought to you by ''Ariel Verbosity''© ™ ) <small>
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Impressive and hard working user.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Surely, superb and mature editor. Very witty, also.
'''Support''' - seems OK. Concerns raised by previous RfA seem to have been addressed. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - <!-- <humor> --><strike>Thinks ClueBot is awesome.</strike><!-- </humor> :) --> I think the community will benefit from sysopping Dfrg.msc.  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Last-Minute Support'''. The candidate looks like they will use the tools with great knowledge and support. &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
''"I participate in *fD debates, and would like to be able to close them"'' - upon review of some comments in XfD's made by the candidate around a month ago, I fear that the candidate does not understand the concept of [[WP:CON|consensus through discussion]], and (more concerning) [[WP:ATA]]. However, on the whole, I believe that Dfrg.msc could be a good administrator with some more reading and use of caution if/when he is made +sysop, so I won't oppose. '''
'''Neutral'''<s>Oppose</s>. Unfortunate, but I consider willingness to add oneself to [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]] and obligatory quality of all administrators. We are servants, and it should be easy to hold us accountable.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''''

~
'''Support''' from my recent interactions, and his commitment to building an encyclopaedia --
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and I like what I've seen. He has the policy knowledge and enough experience. --
'''Support''' most definitely. Sensible user, good communicator and not likely to delete the main page.
-- <b>
'''Support.''' I have seen DGG around AfD for quite some time and, although we do not always agree, he is consistently polite, articulate, and has a solid understanding of policy and procedure. A trustworthy editor who will make a solid admin. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support.''' This editor knows policy. I trust him!
'''Support.'''Experienced enough and has good knowledge of policy.--
'''Support''' Impressive answers.
'''Support'''. I often disagree with his arguments at AfD, but he's got a solid grasp on policies and is a good communicator. His answers to the questions show a commitment to keeping civil and resolving disputes. I trust he'll put the extra buttons to judicious use.
'''Support''' I disagree with his thinking in AfD (I think he places far too much weight on academic's rank in judging WP:PROF notability, comparing academic position to the average academic position.  I think the they ought to be judged according to comparison of average academic's impact outside their own circle, judged by being subjects of secondary sources) but such minor gripes aside, he's sane and reasonable and I trust him with the tools. He'll use them well.
'''Support''' ''enthusiastically''.  Exactly the sort of workhorse we need more of.  Yay for librarians and Ph.Ds! --
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor, and seems very trustworthy. I see nothing which would lead me to believe the tools would be abused. ···
'''RfA cliche #1''' Seriously, I thought he was one and I just missed the RfA.
'''Support''' Duh, why aren't you already?  In other words, great answers, great editor, good luck!
'''Support''' for sure. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support'''. An excellent, level-headed editor. This RfA is long overdue. -- '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. I am quite shocked to find DGG ''isn't'' an admin already. The candidate significantly exceeds my standards. Not only do I have no reason to believe he will abuse the tools, but instead I have every reason to believe he will use the tools well.
'''Support'''. I'm quite surprised you're not an admin already! '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' excellent candidate. Great answers. —
'''Support''' [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''': Oh yeah. --
'''Support''' - great user.
'''Support''' No need to hesitate. --
Not evil. Maybe.
'''Support.''' As Majorly writes above, DGG is "the kind of person this site needs as an administrator".
'''Support.''' I have seen him around and have a good impression from what I've seen.
'''Support''' I appreciate his honesty regarding his thoughts on Elementary schools. That's potentially  a bone of contention but he did not shy from it.
'''Strong support''' -- a thoughtful and hard-working editor will surely become a thoughtful and hard-working administrator.
'''Support''' —'''
'''Strong support''' Excellent candidate; extraordinarily thoughtful.
'''Support''' It is always a pleasure to read his thoughtful comments.
'''Support''' - How did I miss this(excellent Contributor)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong support''' good answers. A fine user.
'''Support''' per the answers to the questions, seeing the user around and [[User:Lankybugger/ASBS|my opinion]] on adminship. Cheers,
Looks great.
'''Support'''. I can't believe you're not already an admin! I always just assumed you were.
'''Support''' - I see DGG around frequently at XfDs, and he clearly has a good knowledge of policy. Through his XfD !votes and his answers to the questions, he's demonstrated a very strong respect for process and procedure as well, which is good. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' I'm shocked he isn't already. We need more people like him to defend common sense against the swarm of wikilawyer "it technically breaches policy because this newspaper's three readers short of being a significant source" deletionists who seem to currently be gaining in number on XfD<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' - clearly has the experience.
'''Support'''.  I've seen him regularly on XFD's and while we are often on different sides of the fence his opinions are always well formulated and thought out.  Excellent contributions to the project.  Can't think of any reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate - great answers to the questions, as well.  I am interested to hear your thoughts on the latest question posted above, though.  '''
'''Support'''. —''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Per nom and above.
'''Support'''; I have experienced this user being reasonable and calm first-hand.  My only concern has been addressed quite well in the answer to my question.
'''Support'''.  A sensible editor in my experience.--
'''Support''' as a reasonable frequenter of AfD. By the neutral comment below by W.marsh, DGG should attempt to reply to any follow-ups unless that is a very rare example given. By no means dominate a debate, but a debate should be seen to the end if any lingering concerns can be resolved with further clarification, elaboration, etc. –
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions, experienced and prolific contributor.
'''Support'''. as per various aboves. cheers,
'''Support''' excellent at contributing to articles, and generally a very thoughtful and calming editor (and I rarely look at AfD).

'''Support''' Good user, great potential.
'''Support'''. Jumping on the bandwagon; I have seen enough of DGG to know he is a good neutral editor who can only benefit from sysop status and will use 'mop'n'bucket' powers wisely.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. From my interactions and observations, I think that this user can be [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trusted]] to excercise good [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgement]] in the main. Good Luck. --
'''Support''' Is an excellent judge of the unquantifiable notion of notability and being a librarian, knows the value of knowledge, that may be obscure and not available through google searches. More such people needed especially since AfD needs no qualification.
I'm
'''Support'''. Based on my experience, [[User:DGG|DGG]] is fair and ready to listen to opinions of other users. I would only wish him to be a little bit more an "inclusionist".
'''Support''' ~
Satisfactory answers re BLP--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. <s>Me too.</s> *sound of crickets chirping* Uh, I mean, a reasonable, polite and mature editor who I trust will make a great admin. A no brainer, as far as I am concerned. --
'''Support''' per nom. DGG is an excellent editor who has demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of policy. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''. Looks good, and his answers to the optional questions are excellent. -
'''Support''' He looks like he'll be a great administrator. —
'''Give him a go''' - '''''
'''Support'''. I've seen you around several AfDs and, even where we disagree, I find your comments to be thought provoking and insightful.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' - regular contributor to AfDs - shows intelligence and a good knowledge of the relevant policies. Other contribs look good too. I suspect he may have a mild case of ''inclusionism'', but I think you can get pills for that these days... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Not concentrating upon a single subject, helping to clear backlogs, adding to the discussion and letting it continue rather than closing it if one disagrees or has something additional to contribute &mdash; many of these answers are what I would also say.  Indeed, some are what I ''did'' say back when I was asked.  &#9786;  It also appears that this person has a good grasp of the fact that being an administrator doesn't mean that one gives up the use of all of the non-administrator tools that one already has.  I think that entrusting xem with administrator tools will be a net benefit to the project.
'''Support'''  per reasons set out on my user page.
'''Support''': Nice amount of time here, plenty of good quality edits, and excellent answers to questions. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Response to my criticism was sincere, above supports are compelling. --
'''Support''' — per reasons and answers to questions above. (''Also, Q4 redirects to WikiProject Aircraft, and not ignore all rules :P'') –[[User talk:Spebi|<span style="color:#690;font-weight:bold;">Spe</span>]]
'''Support'''. I have interacted with this user in many places and I fully support him being made admin. He will be a good admin. --
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Strong Support'''.  Many favorable impressions of this editor (even if we don't always agree).
Less pragmatic than I'd like, but we're not here to find the ''ideal'' administrator. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Oh my gosh! [[User:Kelly Martin]] has voted something other than oppose! You should run for president!
'''Support'''; fine and qualified candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Go to town --
'''Support''' Have seen him at AfD and have been impressed by his judgement. Top user. &ndash;
'''Support''' Very reasonable voter at XfD and very civil and open-minded editor with a broad outlook.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user. —
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
strong support he is a great editor he does a lot of work on here i help him and he help me in the pass so yes he should be an admin
Happily '''Support''' -- I've worked with DGG on a few articles, as we have similar interests, and have always found him fair-minded, intelligent and sensible. He's got a good grasp of the fact that we're ''building an encyclopedia.'' And, a librarian! --
'''Support'''. I can't find anything wrong. -
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy and committed enought
Glad to see you here. What took so long? ··
'''Support''' In my experience his edits are rationalised and he always keeps calm. Have also seen him willing to change opinion based on changing circumstances.
'''Support:'''  Alright, DGG and I've gotten into it a few times on AfD; we don't often agree.  Where I ''do'' agree, however, is that he is a dedicated and thoughtful editor who fights his corner without going over the line.  He would be an asset as an admin.
Good fellow who I'm sure can be trusted with some extra buttons [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
{ec; almost [[WP:100]]!!!) Awesome user who can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' well-rounded & established candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor in action and I can say DGG operates with tact and politeness and a kind and honest demeanor throughout the project.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate. We have debated many schools AfDs and though we sometimes disagree he is always polite and rational in the discussions.
'''Support''' per everyone else.--
'''Support'''. Sensible user with good experience.
'''Support'''. A review of his edits and approach to other editors makes me want to be like him. --
'''Support'''.  I have seen DGG's work on AfD frequently on Wikipedia, and have always been impressed by his ability. --
'''Support''' I haven't had the time to dig up the diffs that an oppose vote really deserves and now that I've come back to look for them it's 108 to what...3? Most of the time when you're "that guy" you might just have a paradigm issue :). I still have reservations about interpretation of deletion criteria but I don't fear a misuse of the tools after his additional statements on closing AfDs. Besides with that kind of outpouring of trust from the community I might just have to entertain the idea that I'm batshit crazy. Good luck DGG.
'''Support''' especially per great work on AfD; <b>
'''Support''' To repeat the cliche, I thought he was one already.
'''Oppose'''. This user <s>has strong anti-Russian< some bias and</s> votes for keeping conspiracy articles like [[Internet brigades]] which are supported by sources at best linking to pure allegations without any real facts and some text was original research. <s>I don't think this user is equally pleasant with all Wikipedia users. And I am pretty sure he would would use his administrator's privileges for his personal goals.</s> He is also limited in his knowledge of foreign languages and his edits are clear pattern of that. He voted for keeping [[Internet brigades]] which were sourced by Russian only sources without any knowledge of Russian and without any research on Russian sources. Sorry DGG, but you didn't help with cleaning out the mess (original research, false translations) from the article, although you was too quick to vote to keep it. I don't believe  you would perform your administrator's duties timely enough. You also suggested discussion on a talk page, but look there - no single post from you although you voted to keep the article. See how many policies this article was violating here -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_%282nd_nomination%29. You haven't answered to these, but voted to keep the article. I don't believe you have addressed all these issues.
Seems quite suitable, but I find that I cannot adequately judge his collaborative skills in a reasonable time, and thus cannot support.
'''Beat-the-nom support.'''
'''Support''' seen this user around AIV, and his reports are always very good, would do great work
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, and he's doing good as an editor. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' This user looks very promising, and has gained experience in the needed areas. <small>
'''Support'''. Comes highly recommended and is even ''polyvalent''! Uses automation quite a bit on RC patrol, but actually leaves [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dell970&diff=prev&oldid=118291634 real human messages] when interacting with established editors. A big win for the project if Dgies gets the mop.
'''Support'''. Although I had a disagreement with this user over his MfD on [[User:Cremepuff222]]'s subpages, he was helpful and civil at all times. Also has impressive experience. <font face="Verdana">
Finally.  Can't wait for you to start helping out.
'''Support''' user has proved himself to be an excellent vandal fighter, will benefit the project with the acquisition of the tools. —
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor around and have seen nothing to be concerned about.
'''Support''' I've seen Dgies around Wikipedia a lot - I've noticed he often acts like admin, removing invalid AIV reports (as in his answer to question 1) and I'd intended to nominate him had he not been having admin coaching. He seems to be a well-rounded editor, experienced and will put the admin tools to good use. Best of luck. '''
'''Support''' Excellent anti-vandal fighter with quality and with good judgement.--
'''Support''' as nom.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Obligatory "You mean he isn't one?" Support'''.  He'll do good things.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Of course.
'''Support'''.  Appears to be an active vandal-fighter and editor; no reason to oppose.
'''<s>Moderate</s> Support''' Like Xiner, I didn't have a good initial contact with this user either, but I'm willing to overlook that for the benefits of Dgies being an admin, as it (the initial problem) was technically my fault.
'''Support''' Great vandal-fighter, does excellent work, especially in the Template space. <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' like Acalamari's. '''''
'''Support''' Looks good and has good potential for admin tasks.
'''Support'''. No concerns here.
'''Support''', a great user with experience in even the most discreet ares of Wikipedia. Two thumbs up! <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 12pt">
'''Support''',
'''Support''', he's always around the RFAs. I honestly thought he was one a long time ago.
'''Suport''' - per above.
'''Support'''-Your not an admin yet? Great user. He's at AIV all the time. We need someone to clear those backlogs. Who better? --
'''Qualified support''': I've encountered Dgies enough times to know that this is a very good-faith and quite civil editor.  I don't have any horror stories for you, sorry. :-)   My main concerns are (in no particular order): The user is less than 1 year wikiold.  However, I find the spread of edits to be both sufficient and very consistent with genuine vandal fighting, and proper vandal fighting; the high level of User talk:-space edits (and discussion at [[User:Dgies/Admin coaching]]) demonstrates that Dgies knows how to use, and does use, the [[WP:UWT|user warning templates]].  But Dgies may not have enough intuitive understanding yet of consensus, notability, conflicts of interest, etc.  Dgies's questions for the coaches at [[User:Dgies/Admin coaching]] even from less than a month ago, to me indicate a lack of deep understanding of the nature of such wikibeasts.  I think that admins need to "feel" these things, not simply have a stock of well-memorized answers to various situations.  I'm also concerned that Dgies may be too "nice".  The answer to the first question at [[User:Dgies/Admin coaching#Terence]] strikes me as far too forgiving (in the scenario laid out, the "well-known and liked in the community" sockpuppetteer is dreadfully, cynically exploiting and manipulating the community, in one of the worst ways possible, and should be dealt with on those terms.) Some of the other answers to questions there seemed a bit similarly wishy-washy to me.  On the other hand, I feel that Dgies has a very good handle on various admin processes, on own NPOV and mediation/behavior, is very clearly not an editwarrior, is quite vigilant for vandalism and POV nonsense, and seems to understand the interplay of things like V, NPOV, NOR, RS and N pretty well.  I think that Dgies would ''become'' a great admin over time, if cautious in the early days, but is unlikely to be a "great" admin right out of the gate due to still having so many questions and uncertainties. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">
'''Support''', I think I actually scribbled his name down on a sticky pad somewhere as a good reporter at AIV.  Would be fine with the tools, especially after the rather extensive involvement with his nominators.  Truly, an odd set of opposes so far.
'''Support'''Has been a good contributor and great editor.  I'm sure he'll find good use for the tools.'''
'''Absolutely support'''. I have noticed this user around Wikipedia a lot in recent months and have been very impressed. Great contributions to project space, particularly [[WP:AIV]] too. As a side issue, never have I been more confused about oppose votes than I was when reading the ones below. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Just the guy that should get the tools.
'''Support''' seen him around, will make a good admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
Anything to stop him from clogging up AIV ;) &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' per nom. If I remember correctly, I offered to nominate him in the past. These oppose !votes are beyond bogus.
'''Support'''.  All my interactions with this editor have been positive.--
'''Support'''. I have had good experiences of interacting with this user in a number of areas. Trustworthy AIV reporter. Has the relevant experience and is definitely trustworthy. Opposes seem rather weak, especially given that blocking vandal only accounts is not only sensible but standard practice. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Clichéd support''' - good luck!
'''Support''' - per the opposers, the "opinions" of whom the closing bureaucrat must surely disregard as not creditable. Come on, really. One theoretically guess, VoA's almost always get indefed, one oppose where I can't work out the actual reason for opposing, and one non-oppose per the actions of others - bureaucrat, have balls, ignore, please! Consensus that is not.
'''Support'''. Often I see Dgies' AIV reports as I am posting my own. He has done good work and I can only see good coming from his adminship. --
'''Support''' per nom (and per the well thought-out and civilly formulated arguments by SMcCandlish below). —
'''S''' extremely good anti vandal worker. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Per nominator, and especially the point:  "Dgies is a very polite, civil and communicative user."  We need more polite, civil and communicative users to become admins.
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' From Dgies's entire record, Dgies comes across as a trusted user who understands policy. --
'''Support''' A good user, excellent with AIV reports, however I think the opposers are <u>unfairly</u> criticising {{user|Xiner}} for having his own opinion! <b>
'''Support''' The name certainly rings a bell. Seems to me like he'd make a good, well-rounded admin. --
I'm
'''Support''' excellent user.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support''' General activity suggests will be a valuable adddition to the team.--
'''Support''' I have had encountered Dgies on a few occasions and think him to be possessed of the good judgment and generally even temperament the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious.  One can, it seems plain, conclude with some significant measure of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Dgies' being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Support''' per Husond, nice edit count in several areas, and a quick review of his answers in [[User:Dgies/Admin coaching]]. Has good answers to tricky policy questions. His two efforts to perform non-admin closure of AfDs looked all right.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' I've seen you around often, and you've always left a good impression. ·
'''Strong support''' A serious wikipedian. -- ''
'''Support:''' Per alphachimp. Seems to be a very active vandal-fighter. &nbsp;<b>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Steptrip_2|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">''~''</font>]]<font face="Vivaldi" size="3">
Yes :)
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Looks good! -
'''Support'''. Rounded candidate, obviously versed in policy and reasoned of action.
'''Support''' Yes - Edit count is particularly rounded in terms of mainspace and wikipedia numbers - Dgies is obviously keen on pursuing both user and admin duties.--
'''Support''' per nom and comments already given by other editors above.  <span style="color:darkred"><b>*Vendetta*</b> <sub>
'''Support''' Active in areas of the community I watch, so personal experience leads me to believe you'll be a fine admin. Email is enabled. Not aware of any reason to think they'll abuse the buttons. Maybe be a little careful with username blocks, at first (unless I have you mixed up with somebody else, on that), but overall I think you'll be a good asset for the project. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''' Excellent choice for the community.  --
'''Support'''. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. I've found this user to be a very able editor from personal experience. --
'''Support''', sure why not?--
'''Support'''. Seems to be a solid editor. <font color="Green">
'''Wholehearted support''' - dgies will apparently become a better admin than I do. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - A very Good Editor and one of the best I know...Good Luck mate..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''support''' --
'''support'''--
'''support''', join in. Looks well-prepared.
'''Strong Oppose''', per his answer to question #7.  Blocking "[[Template:Vandalblock|VOA]]" accounts could provoke SockPuppetry.  A 24 hour block cools him down, an indefblock make it only worse.
'''Neutral'''.  I am somewhat concerned at this candidate's strong focus on vandalwhacking; as always I am generally concerned with candidates most of whose experience is in vandalism management that the candidate has a proper appreciation that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than some sort of odd MMORPG.  This particular candidate, however, appears to at least show evidence of such an appreciation.  I am also bothered that there is no answer to question 4, above.  I would likely support if that question were satisfactorily answered and the candidate were endorsed by a WikiProject.
'''Support''' Of course. I've had this page watchlisted for a while.--
'''Support''' A strong all-round candidate who can clearly be trusted with the mop.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor (and candidate), whom I have seen around Wikipedia regularly over the previous few months. Good luck, —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
The usual "I thought he was already" response.
'''Support''': Of course.  —
'''Support''' As per my nomination statement. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Having reviewed [[Special:Contributions/Dlohcierekim]], I see plenty of [[WP:XFD|deletion discussion]] participation, [[WP:CVU|counter-vandalism]] edits and [[WP:AIV]] reports, [[WP:AN/I]]-and-related-boards participation, and all the other stuff we see in our best candidates. The trust factor is there, and I don't see any reason to oppose. Best of luck!
'''Support''' Has a need for the tools and will use them responsibly.
'''Support''' - no doubt. Great user. What I find amazing: nearly 2500 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and nearly 8000 user talk edits. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that many for anyone in a while. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - of course.
(edit-conflicted) '''Nominator support'''! I think I said it all in my co-nom. <strong>
'''Strong Support''': I trust this user will make a great admin., and has clearly demonstrated knowledge of our policies and guidelines.   -
'''Support''' I have seen only good things from Dlohcierekim and believe that I will see only good things as an admin.
'''Support''', of course. This experienced, hard working user will make a fine addition to the administrative body. Furthermore, we need more admins with unpronounceable usernames. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support!''' Good luck! <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="2">'''
'''Support''' Seems to be doing good work. I'd prefer it if not '''all''' edit summaries were marked as "minor" but this is, ah, a minor point.
'''Support'''. '''''
I'm
'''Support''' Another case of RfA cliche #1 -- this promotion should have happened ages ago.
'''Strongest Support''' - as per (was going to be) co-nom. One of the best candidates in ages, and I hope everone else sees that! :) -
'''Support'''
Yes, definitely, I trust Dlohcierekim's judgement. :) '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Wasn't one already? Let's remedy that! -
'''Support''' - good track record. As noted below, needs to brush up on AfD criteria just a bit. No biggie, though, and everything else is in order. Not BITEy either, and that's important in an admin -
'''Support''' - seems to have good judgment and priorities, and I think the AfD thing will be easy enough to improve. I think he'll be a good addition to the team. (Though, please, Dlohcierekim, go right now and turn off the thing that's marking every edit as minor, as it makes it hard to parse your contribs. I think you can fix it under the "preferences" menu.) - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support'''. User has not been perfect at AfD, but then again, everyone makes mistakes.  Good luck!
'''Thought-you-were-already Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' Contribs suggest a hard-working and mop-ready admin. And from what I've seen of Dlohcierekim, judgement appears to be spot on. (The ghit thing seems to be more or less addressed, in that it's been acknowledged as an area for improvement). --
'''Support''' Good luck!--
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I am confident that this user would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see nothing that would worry me here, --
'''Support'''.  I have seen this user contribute in a wide variety of ways, always with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart; a hard-working intelligent individual who will use the tools well.
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already. His signature pops up everywhere, it seems. :)
'''Support''' This user is very active all around the encyclopedia and has over a year of experience. This user shall not abuse the tools.
'''Support''', excellent user who does good work all over the place.  I trust the user would not speedy delete articles just based on GHits.  --
'''Support'''.  Seen you around, good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Very experienced, and the oppose diffs give me no reason to think that the candidate is untrustworthy in any way.
'''Support''' - I quite like the smiley in your sig. And you seem like a nice and dedicated user whom will not abuse the tools. All the best,
My observations of this user have been positive.
'''Support''' A sensible editor who will do well as an admin.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support.''' A very good guy. I have seen him around for along time, I had thought at several points that he was already an admin.
'''Support''' Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
Experienced, reasonable and civil. Actually, has had enough experience a year ago.
'''Support'''.  It's news to me that Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim are one and the same.  I looked, and did find [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_59#RfA_publicity|one discussion]] from 2006 May in which the use of two accounts may have been deceiving. With search engines no longer indexing many project pages, I can't say for sure if this has happened other times, but I doubt it. In all of the other pages that I was able to find containing both signatures, the two accounts were either used in separate discussions, or in such a way that it was obvious that they had the same operator. That one mishap is not going stop me from supporting this request because it was probably an accident, because it was a long time ago, because Mike has shown he understands sockpuppety rules (here, on his user page, and [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_66#Alternate_users|here]]), and because I'm sure he is going to be more careful in future.  Looking through the history of the two accounts, it is clear that he is trustworthy, skilled, and has more than enough experience for the job. '''''×'''''
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' Having run into the nom at various points of the project and having been favorably impressed when I've done so, I was a bit taken aback to find opposes placed here by editors whose opinions I very much respect. Because of that, I've spent considerable time examining his contributions just to be sure that I could stand by my impression, and I've come away convinced. While I can certainly agree with the opposers that it would be more beneficial to discuss what ''kinds'' of google hits are coming up in AfDs, by the nom's own statements ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Rodríguez|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur|here]]) he seems to understand the challenges of using Google to confirm or deny notability in AfDs. Moreover, I like the evidence I see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divaldo Pereira Franco|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New relationship energy|here]] that he is not only putting some thought into his AfD opinions, but monitoring the conversations and re-evaluating based on later input. I do not agree with every opinion he has ever put forth at an AfD, but I respect his familiarity with policy and his obvious desire to work towards consensus. With respect specifically to [[User:DGG|DGG]]'s impression that "Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here" may be an admission of lack of familiarity with policy, I interpret the nom's statement to admit lack of familiarity rather with Russian ''politics''. [[WP:BIO]] ''does'' indicate that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone". His decision to bring the subject to AfD rather than nominate it for PROD suggests an awareness that wider review might be beneficial, and assertions of notability in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farid_Babayev&oldid=173097307 as he found it] and in [http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2147085720071121 the source provided] are slim enough that his uncertainty about notability seems understandable. (That said, in such a case I might suggest tagging notability concerns and broaching the subject on the talk page of the article or a related wikiproject. But I'm ''not'' naturally [[WP:BOLD|bold]], and, even there, what I see suggests to me familiarity with policy & desire to seek consensus.) I do not believe the nom would misuse the tools, through willfulness or lack of awareness, but feel pretty confident that he would continue as he seems accustomed to do in working devotedly and cooperatively to improve the encyclopedia. I would, however, second [[User:Dorftrottel|Dorftrottel]]'s suggestion that he drop the smiley from his sig. I love emoticons, but fear using them automatically can lead an admin to trouble. :) Not too long ago, I got a very irate note from an editor who felt my use of the language from [[:Template:Nothanks-web]] was condescending. A lot of admin work leads to ruffled feathers, and minimizing those = a good thing. --
This user is not perfect and admits his mistakes. As Moonriddengirl says directly above me, he seeks consensus, which is good. I'm satisfied by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dlohcierekim&diff=prev&oldid=173431963 his explanation of his position on search engine results and notability]. He's been here a while and seems to know what he's doing. I'm pretty sure that the net effect of his adminship would be good, so I must support. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' :)
'''Strong support''' as a user who knows the rules and when to bend them.  Very active in WP community discussions.  Meets all of my standards, which also happens to be his.
'''Strong Support''' very good user who is also friendly. No reason to oppose.
He's got everything going for him in my eyes. Experience, post count... I have no worries for him. '''Support''', baby! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Support''' per answer to question number 4 above - great answer.  You obviously have your head on your shoulders where it belongs, and you are an asset to Wikipedia.  I haven't had any of my wiki-paths cross with you as of yet (at least I don't think so), but I hope I will!  Don't let the new mop (if you in fact receive it) drag you down - I say ''keep the smile'' in your signature.
'''Support''' seen him around and he's most definitely a force for good, and would be an asset to the admin corps. Bolding usernames in replies is at least more sensible than copy-and-pasting the recipient's entire sig in the reply (not too few people do that!)
'''Support''' easy one to support - a thoughtful and sensible candidate who appears able to be and treat others as individuals.
'''Support'''. I've had very positive interactions with nominee at AfD and elsewhere, and now that their two accounts are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMikereichold&diff=173723776&oldid=173660874 fully disclosed] I have no reservations whatsoever. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - The last thing we need is an admin who is misusing alternate accounts. I reviewed the 22,414 combined edits (including deleted edits) of Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim going back to December 2005. I found very few edits to the same pages by both accounts and nothing that would indicate a misuse of the alternate accounts. Dlohcierekim appears to be using both accounts from the same location, but has promised above to use the two accounts in remote locations. I'm listing what I found so others can draw their own conclusions. '''(1)''' Overlapping uses: In the November 2006 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination)]], !voted as Mikereichold[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_the_Swiss_Dairy_Cow_%282_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=90734568], but identified that signature as a mistake and switched it to Dlohcierekim [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_the_Swiss_Dairy_Cow_%282_nomination%29&diff=next&oldid=90734568]. A sock puppet and/or someone with the intention of misusing alternate accounts is not going to make such a correction. Used both accounts to comment in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHighInBC&diff=55459102&oldid=55458499][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HighInBC&diff=next&oldid=55459102][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.92.94.115&diff=next&oldid=54117600][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHighInBC&diff=55484027&oldid=55481966], but not to participate twice in that RfA. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_59#RfA_publicity|RfA publicity]], participated in the discussion as both Mikereichold and Dlohcierekim, but it does not appear to give the impression of two separate users supporting each other. In the September 2007 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amire80]], you used the Dlohcierekim account to !vote[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amire80&diff=prev&oldid=158409588] and used both the Dlohcierekim account and the Mikereichold account to make corrections.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAmire80&diff=158720748&oldid=158708787][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAmire80&diff=158409629&oldid=158409588] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAmire80&diff=158409588&oldid=158383613]. In the September 2007 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penwhale]], used both accounts[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPenwhale&diff=158152591&oldid=158152151][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPenwhale&diff=158161462&oldid=158157342][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Penwhale&diff=next&oldid=158161462][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPenwhale&diff=158198270&oldid=158196804][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPenwhale&diff=158245442&oldid=158241659][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPenwhale&diff=158721379&oldid=158716170] On one day, !voted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colonization_of_Mercury&diff=prev&oldid=52139627 Colonization of Mercury AfD] as Mikereichold and the next day !voted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colonization_of_Mars&diff=prev&oldid=52350163 Colonization of Mars AfD] as Dlohcierekim. '''(2)''' Dlohcierekim appears to be using both accounts from the same location: '''(A)''' Dlohcierekim 19:28, 24 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 19:32, 24 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 19:35, 24 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 19:43, 24 Sep 2007; '''(B)''' Dlohcierekim 13:27, 27 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 13:33, 27 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 13:45, 27 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 13:51, 27 Sep 2007, '''(C)''' Dlohcierekim 04:36, 29 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 04:44, 29 Sep 2007, Dlohcierekim 22:38, 29 Sep 2007, Mikereichold 22:43, 29 Sep 2007; '''(D)''' Dlohcierekim 22:29, 2 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 22:59, 2 Oct 2007, '''(E)''' Dlohcierekim 15:23, 4 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 15:35, 4 Oct 2007, Dlohcierekim 15:40, 4 Oct 2007; '''(F)''' Dlohcierekim 13:07, 12 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 13:17, 12 Oct 2007, '''(G)''' Mikereichold 17:26, 23 Oct 2007, Dlohcierekim 17:59, 23 Oct 2007; '''(H)''' Dlohcierekim 03:38, 25 Oct 2007, Mikereichold 03:47, 25 Oct 2007, '''(I)''' Mikereichold 21:44, 9 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 21:54, 9 Nov 2007; '''(J)''' Dlohcierekim 03:48, 14 Nov 2007, Mikereichold 04:22, 14 Nov 2007, '''(K)''' Dlohcierekim 20:39, 15 Nov 2007, Mikereichold 20:44, 15 Nov 2007; '''(L)''' Mikereichold 02:37, 16 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 02:39, 16 Nov 2007, Dlohcierekim 15:45, 16 Nov 2007[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyposaurus&diff=prev&oldid=171903282], Mikereichold 16:08, 16 Nov 2007[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clearwater%2C_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=171907093]; '''(M)''' Dlohcierekim 16:36, 20 Nov 2007[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.18.176.116&diff=prev&oldid=172724369], Mikereichold 16:43, 20 Nov 2007[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Largo%2C_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=172725586], Dlohcierekim 16:44, 20 Nov 2007[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.78.134.46&diff=prev&oldid=172725841] --
'''Support''' seems to know what he is talking about.
'''Support''' Good answers, looks like a good editor likely to be equally as good with admin tools. --
'''Support''' Been around long enough to get it, I hope. ;) ~
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - An outstanding editor. I'll trust them as an admin. --
'''Yes'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - All the best <sup>
'''Support''' Per Pedro's nomination statement--
'''Support''', good editor - I think he'll wield the mop well.
'''Support''' - no concerns, and needs the tools.  That's enough for me. --
'''Support''' seems to know policy, won't abuse tools.
'''Support''' No red flags here. '''
'''Support''' `'
Sure. -- <strong>
'''Weak oppose''' Probably a pointless oppose, but I feel this user does not understand disputes and does not understand the idea that adminship is [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|no big deal]]. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Oppose''' — apart from agreeing to some extent with CO, I see that you use number of GHits as a rationale for deletion '''a lot'''. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farid_Babayev&oldid=173098201 here] you said, "only 29 Google hits" and didn't even bother to search for refs, even when the subject was obviously notable. This also happened [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_Peniel&diff=prev&oldid=173188158 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chad_Hastings&diff=prev&oldid=173168133 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kewl&diff=prev&oldid=173173964 here], to name a few recent occasions. I also see some unproductive comments, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keese&diff=prev&oldid=173179772 this]. Sorry, but having a lot of GHits doesn't always make you notable, and having no hits doesn't make you non-notable. I'm afraid I don't entirely trust your knowledge of our deletion policies. Again, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per Agüeybaná's AFD concerns.
--
'''Oppose''' There's no one killer reason to oppose for me, but it's the sum of a lot of little things which, while not problematic of themselves, add up to someone who is either not conversant with wikipedia norms or chooses not to conform. The alternative username, bolding usernames, username with smiley, deleting based on GHits, marking all edits as minor are all little niggles.
'''Neutral''' ''changed to Neutral per Moonriddengirl's arugment above''   '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)  <s>.'''Oppose'''</s> I do not think you have quite enough understanding of policy, as admitted by your comment in  a recent AfD brought only a few days ago: "Nom withdrawn in the face of overwhelming keeps. Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here. Thanks y'all for showing me the error of my way" [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Babayev]]. I hope to support next time, as I think you are learning. '''
'''Support''' - lends a hand in some pretty thankless areas; he'd handle the tools well. --
'''Support''' - I have seen quite a bit of DMack's edits related to [[WP:CHEM]] and it is clear that he is a responsible editor and that he interacts well with other users.  He is the kind of editor that Wikipedia should entrust with the admin tools. --
'''Support''' - with one caveat; that DMack wear a cape whenever making edits.  If he is unwilling to do this, I will change my vote.
'''Oppose''' (just kidding) '''Support''' Good number of science-related mainspace and project space editing.
'''Support''' Seems fine to me:) Good luck!--
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Strong Support''' per answers to questions.
'''Support''' as exactly what an admin should be: consistent, consistent, consistent.
'''Support''' - no reason to suspect this user would be anything but an asset to the <s>dregs of Wikisociety</s> admin corps.  Look forward to working with you!  -
'''Support.''' —
--
'''Support'''. A good editor, who knows te system and will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' A good and careful editor from what I've seen, and he is already actively fighting vandalism and trying to settle disputes, so the admin tools should make a useful addition. --
'''Support''' - very active at [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science|the Science Reference Desk]]. Where the quality of his answers is outstanding.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', as nominator just back from holiday.
'''Support''' as we need another pedantic academic with a mop.  Seriously, this is a good editor and I have no reason to distrust.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' evidently I should pay more attention; Tim's nominating all the cool people :)
'''Support'''. A fine editor. <font color="Purple">
'''Support.''' Strong edit history. Great answers.
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' A very good editor and good answers.  I had a very positive interaction in the past when I didn't have a user account.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Valued contributor to Chemistry articles. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Great article work, great vandal fighter... no concerns :)
'''Support'''.  Reasonable answers to questions, does mopifiable work, no reason to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - solid editor and contributor.
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
I'm
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' - absolutely fantastic candidate! An experienced and dedicated Wikipedian. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. He seems to like this kind of work, and he is good.
'''Support''' seems ok here.
'''Support''' Seems to know the admin guidelines. --
'''Support'''. Committed editor.
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support''' No concerns whatsoever. Excellent article work, clear-headed, and my interactions with her so far (although I thought I was working with ''him'' :) have been excellent. DO11.10 seems to have the collaborative nature of Wikipedia down to a science (no pun intended, I promise!)
'''Support''', clear and concise answers to the questions. I am sure someone will complain about your low amount of Wikipedia namespace edits, however, but this doesn't bother me. --
'''Support'''.  Obviously intelegent and good-faith user can learn the admin ropes as she goes along. &#10154;
'''Support''' A sensible and well-informed editor who I would trust absolutely with the tools. Namespace edit count is in fact more than adequate for me, and general experience is excellent. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Involved in actual improvement of the encyclopedia. Good at otherr stuff too--
'''Support''' I liked the answer so you get my support.
'''Support''' - yep, great editor. I've seen her work on [[Poliomyelitis]] and some of the pharma stuff. Her edit history shows an editor who is polite and patient with others, yet knows the rules here. A copyright admin? Yes, please! -
'''Support'''. No concerns. Great article work.
'''Support'''
I believe that DO11.10 will make a good administrator.
'''Support''',
'''Support''' no reason to oppose this user. S/he has a golden Wiki award already.
'''Support''' I believe this quotation from [[User:DO11.10]] speaks volumes: "You've reminded me of the goals of Wikipeida, which many of us sometimes forget in the process of writing, editing, and critiquing articles. It really is about the people who read them." She exhibits the traits of a great editor: diligence, honesty, a striving for accuracy, courtesy, and humility. [[User:DO11.10]] should prove to be an equally great administrator.--
'''Support''' Great editor. Will make great admin
'''Support''' No problems, although recent months edit counts are lowish.
'''Support''', another fine Tim Vickers nominee.  Does great work and will be an asset to the admin community. --
'''Support''' No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': Get on that backlog! -
'''Support''' No problems forseen
'''Support''' doesn't seem to be any greeblies hiding in this user's contribs :-) Good luck, -'''
'''Speedy en-mop''' Solid all round candidate, flicked through the last 1,500 odd contribs and all looks solid. Excellent in fact. A pleasure to support. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' without reservation. Excellent user, will certainly make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' Very patient and calm editor.  Deals with conflicts very appropriately, plus knows her way around more than most.  Has my vote. --
'''Support''' seems to be a prolific user.
'''Speedily please''' -
'''Support''' Always a pleasure to deal with.
'''
'''Slight support'''. More Wikipedia-space experience is always helpful in assessing candidacy, which makes this one a bit tough. I'm confident, though, that DO11 can be trusted to exercise proper caution in using tools that may be unfamiliar. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Has been around since Jan 2006 and the user has a good track with no concerns with over 4000 mainspace edits.
I'm
Do want.
'''Support'''. I think she has done a great job. I wish we can have more Wikipedians like her. This is my first vote in RfA.
'''Support''' A committed editor.
'''Support''' A good mainspace editor, too.
'''Support'''.  Looked through your last 500 contribs and didn't notice anything bad.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''', yes, will be fine.
'''Support''' I don't know why, but part of me wants to say "weak support" but since I can't conceptualize my concern, I'll leave it as support
'''Warm support''' I haven't had the pleasure of collaborating with my fellow [[WP:MCB|MCB-er]] [[User:DO11.10|DO11.10's]] as much as I would've wished to.  However, our time together bringing the [[Immune system]] to [[WP:FA|Featured Article]] status (with several others) left me with a profound impression of her intelligence, expertise and friendly nature.  Since then, my experiences with her have only strengthened my first impressions.  I feel that she can be trusted to use the admin tools well and for the good of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - I share DGG's concerns. However, we need admins who can help resolve disputes in the big brain matters such as medicine and molecular biology. I'm going to put DO11.10 in my [[Rolodex]] as a medicine/molecular biology go to admin (once the 'crats elevate her to admin). --
'''Support''' I have no concerns. —&nbsp;'''
'' '''Changed to support''' on the basis of an evident willingness to go carefully and to learn, as discussed below.'' '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 04:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC) . <s>'''Oppose''</s>' I really regret having to say it, for she is an truly excellent editor. But I see no involvement in policy -- neither in policy discussion, not in XfD, neither about article nor images. A knowledge of WP policy is at the basis of the work of an admin.'''
Support -
oppose did not like the response to the conflict question --
'''Support''' as nominator. '''''
'''Support''' hoping to beat the nom, but…&mdash;
'''Support''' Ha ha! Glad I got in early. I've know Dooms for a while and have no doubt that he'll do an excellent job with admin tools.
'''Support''' per nominator. If he's good enough for bibliomaniac to nominate, he's good enough for me to support. An admittedly superficial glance at the candidate's contribs didn't unearth any deal-breakers. —'''
'''Support''' I've senn DoomsDay349 around, I think he/she would use the tools in a great way... especially with all the bcklogs that are building up around here. Good luck! --<font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' I see no ''major'' concerns. Those backlogs aren't getting any smaller, and we need admins. —
'''Support,''' Looks good to me. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="#4682B4">Тλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="#00">τ</font>]]
'''Support,''' as far as I've seen. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''. I have seen good work from DoomsDay and I see little evidence of immaturity on-wiki (though I have myself warned about the "not giving a fuck" status not being a great message). I am not prepared to oppose based on an IRC discussion I was not present for, but I advise those who who use IRC to comport themselves as they would were they editing a Wikipedia page. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. I don't see any serious concerns; contrary to what Gaillimh says below, looking at the candidate's talkpage doesn't reveal any obvious signs of "immaturity". Good editcount and experience, and we really need more admins. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' User seems ready for adminship.
'''Support''' Looks good. And I ''like'' the [[WP:FUCK]] essay. It's a pretty good message overall, albeit couched in less than ideal terms. Cheers,
'''Support''' I have had many interactions with this user, and I think he is mature to wield the tools with care and aforethought. This is Dev920, btw, using her sockpuppet account.
'''Support''' I have known DoomsDay since we met at [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]]. He is a good editor that will always think about his actions, and he is always trying to keep good relations with his fellow editors. I must oppose those that say he is immature, because DD is definitely ''not'' an immature person, given that he is about to complete the 8th grade. His answer to my own question was satisfactory; he clearly demonstrated that he can manage his time. I am confident that this user will be a good admin.--'''''
'''Support''' Being an administrator means that they will continue to contribute as needed, have a decent working knowledge of Wikipedia, and not abuse the tools. I believe DoomsDay349 fits into this category. Regardless of what is said below about "maturity", I took a good look at DoomsDay349's contributions, especially the discussion that seemed to be a personal attack, and think that he handled himself quite well - calmly reminding the other party of policy and being kind in every reply. As [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-February/001149.html Jimbo said], "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*...I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." As far as the [[WP:FUCK]] thing on his page, I would encourage anyone who didn't already, to not be superficial, and actually read the essay. What it is meant by "not giving a fuck" is not as you may initially think.
'''Weak Support''' I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by the opposing users, but my personal experience with this user is quite positive and I personally see no major reasons for denying access to the admin tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Could have cooled things a little more in the discussion highlighted by Majorly, but generally did well. I really think that the [[WP:FUCK]] issue has been blown a little out of proportion, and the fact that the user identifies with it encourages me, and shows a greater level of maturity IMHO. I would normally err on the side of oppose if there are maturity concerns, but I am happy to take the chance here.

'''Support'''. That spat with [[User:Cynehelm]] probably could have been handled a bit better, but really it didn't seem to be going anywhere at all without intervention. The WP:FUCK essay bothers me not, although I would advise that message to stay off the candidate's talk page, and possibly that he remove the "DGAF" userbox from his user page as well - it still might be misleading to a new editor looking for help. Other than that, no problems. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support'''. Though the WP:FUCK essay may be somewhat worrisome, I'd like invoke it by not giving a f*** about it. I have seen no problems with this user, and think DoomsDay is an excellent candidate for adminship. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Support''', satisfied with the answers to the new questions, and I believe the user can keep from having repeat performances of a snappy temper.
'''Support''', main positive - building a 'pedia - outweighs negatives. If events continue then there is always RfC. cheers,
'''Support''' Oppose concerns not enough to oppose.
'''Support'''.  Oppose votes are unimpressive and superficial.  The candidate obviously recognizes and corrects errors, which is the most we can expect from anyone.  He removed the link people had a problem with.  I'm confident that he will ask questions when he has questions and exercise good judgment. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' someone with such an uplifting user name couldn't be bad --
'''Support.''' per nom. Have seen around, have seen no problems.
'''Support'''. As being one of the people that got into an arguement with DoomsDay way back when he first started, I fully support. He has matured greatly since I have first had dealings with him, and to this day has been a great contributor to the Wikipedia. He quickly corrects mistakes, does great peer reviews, and has worked on many GA reviews. This whole "Fuck" issues is something people grasp onto, and is not something that should even been considered. I have seen people allowed to become admins with less work that what DoomsDay has contributed.--
'''Support''' Who hasn't put something stupid on their talk or user page before, especially early on? Good response by candidate -- everybody needs something pointed out here & there, and taking criticism well is a good sign. --
'''Support'''. A good editor who will be an asset as an admin. The opposes below that simply give the reasoning "oppose because he's 14" are ''hugely'' disappointing. Need I mention how many great admins we have who are that age or younger. Opposing for reasons of immaturity (and giving evidence to show this) is fair enough, but opposing merely based upon someone's age regardless of their work here is entirely unjustifiable. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Yey for young administrators! I think this candidate will make a great admin (despite my earlier slight concern) and we can always do with some younger admins. Yep, definitely. Signed, under-18 administrator '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' per high edit count.  '''
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Also, when people start opposing based on the candidate's age,    it probably ''confirms'' that there are no serious issues here :).-
'''Support''' - Matthew trusts this user and Matthew believes that he will make a better administrator than half of our present sysops. Matthew also believes that this user is not a silly twat, has a brain and would not do harm to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per being a great, trustworthy, and underage user. '''
'''Support''' who says age is a problem. I am a minor and am an administrator on other projects.
'''Support''', per [[User:Mr Stephen|Mr Stephen]]. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' - those agism concerns just make me want to support more.  No problems, no big deal. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' because most opposers have insane arguments. --
'''Strong Support.''' As a fellow Dragonlance editor and contributor, I can attest to this user's maturity and abilities. Although he might have went a little too far on his talk page, it is obvious that he was in a bad mood at that time and thus is excusable as non of us are perfect. In addition, as a fellow 14 year old student in high school, I find this prejudice against his age quite foolish. If anything, his willingness to concentrate on his school subjects should be considered as a sign of maturity as he is prioritizing his tasks. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' I see no problems here. I am confident that he would be an excellent administtator. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
While extra buttons are no big deal, this candidate doesn't appear to possess the necessary maturity to use these buttons responsibly and effectively communicate with others [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' Well lemme think...yeah I think anyone who wants to be an admin should give a f**k [[User talk:DoomsDay349|talk page]].
'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Nick mallory|Nick]]. An admin must be concerned about comments users send his way. Perhaps he's just trying to be funny but it fails.  Also, your user page doesn't belong to you. These two things are just signs of a touch of immaturity which I am confident he will come out of in time. But until then I cannot trust him with the tools. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''; immaturity seems an issue.  In response to supporters who've said opposes like these are ageist, this has nothing to do with age (I was 15 when I gained adminship), but general demeanor.  Also, confronted another opposer in #wikipedia; I have no problem with asking for clarification on a comment, but doing so in an open channel, rather than via PM or e-mail, strikes me as obviously problematic (almost like trying to embarrass the user into changing their vote).
'''Oppose''' I'm a little concerned that you think blocking usernames is such an important task, and that such a large amount of time be spent on it. Not that it's not of value, but the resulting aggressive blocking of newbies is a bad thing. I guess immaturity is a concern also, but has good energy/attitude. Probably needs a little more tempering...
Admin deletes controversial article ''X''. Deletion of Wikipedia article makes online news etc. Reporter follows link to deleting admin's page to get a little bit of info to add to report, finds "User does not give a fuck". Hilarity ensues. Also have concerns with maturity and the areas of focus, as well as not understanding Wikipedia's primary goal. '''
'''Oppose''' I appreciate editor's readiness to compromise, and respect a tentative approach to IAR.  I see many good signs here.  Still, editor has more to learn.  I'd think that a renom. around his birthday would be very well-timed.
I '''oppose''' granting the bit at this time, with no prejudice against a future nomination that I could probably support. I believe this user has more to learn before I would be comfortable with them as a sysop. Concur with Daniel and Xoloz in general. -- ''
'''Oppose''' per weak answer to question #1.  Also, per your comment that you "periodically report users" to [[WP:AIV]], I see only one edit that you have made there in the last 3 months, so that doesn't seem very periodic to me.  The one report that you did make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=134403724] was the day before your RFA started.  Oddly, it appears that next user who reported someone wiped off your entry and restored some from 30 minutes prior, so your request was never acted on.  I would have preferred that you had followed up on this.  I think that this attention to detail is necessary.  --
I cannot approve someone who does not show enough substance in their answers to 2 of 3 primary RFA questions.
'''Oppose'''.  No euphemisms: I would very much prefer that we did not have 14 year old admins.
'''Oppose''' per questions and maturity concerns.
'''Neutral''' - Some sterling work, but I recognise the concerns of [[User:Gaillimh]] above. Seems a touch [[WP:BITE|bitey]] and prone to rushing in which won't be so hot with the buttons - e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wam24&diff=prev&oldid=132541831] Using this type of template seems rather bitey and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akradecki&diff=prev&oldid=132544104] seems to have jumped the gun. Otherwise a great contributor but I'm worried about letting out the tools here at the moment - Neutral for now I'm afraid. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I read the essay on Don't Give a F**k, and while the philosophy is ok the use of language is immature. I will not oppose, as I think that this editor has real potential, but on the basis of perceived immaturity I cannot support at this time.--
'''Neutral''' for what I perceive as lack of maturity and conflict-resolution skills.
'''Neutral''' Seems well on their way towards becoming a superb editor, but the maturity and temper aspects concern me.  I realize the Internet is an anonymous venue, but Wikipedia strives to keep a cohesive sense of community.  I'm not exactly sure if this user could keep with that goal.  I like the edits and the future of the editor, but now is not the right time.
I am changing to neutral here, due to my misintepretation of the answer to my question {IAR). The reasons for support and oppose are extremely balanced, and although I am still leaning towards oppose due to reasons of bad temperament, there are numerous edits of experience and knowledge. --
While the FUCK essay has a good message overall, I am somewhat concerned about how the candidate applies it.  --
'''Neutral'''  I cannot get a strong enough impression of this editor to make a decision either way, so vote neutral.  I don't really give a f**k about his not giving a f**k.  As for his age, there are other successful younger admins.  Appears to have made a substantial contribution.  Still, I really did not get a great sense from reading the answers to his questions that he would make a stellar admin.  IAR basically comes down to ''exercise common sense.''  That for me has got to be one of the most important principles of Wikipedia.  Its exhausting seeing some of the things that wind up in XFD or otherwise tying up editorial time because IAR is not applied. <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around a fair amount and I've never seen anything that would stand in the way of adminship. Good luck! <font color="Green">
'''Support''' as having a broad variety of edits, and from his answers, a solid understanding of the rules and when to bend them. Seems trusty.
'''Support''' on excellent question answers --'''
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions and a solid understanding of policies. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Well all rounded user, can be trusted with the tools.
Weak support. ~400 edits in 6 months time ''is'' somewhat lowish, ''but'' you appear to be at it and have worked extensively on several articles as well as e.g. reported to AIV. I also like the tone and depth of your answers, so I'm going to give my recommendation for you. I trust you would —in the beginning, at least— rather consult an experienced admin or forum of admins before taking potentially controversial actions. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
<s>'''Support''' - but could do with a few more edits.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  Edit count doesn't matter one bit; user appears trustworthy.
'''Support''' - good editor, who has some experience of the deletion process and vandal reporting.
'''Support''' per above, despite the highest regard for '''Stifle'''. Meets
'''Support''', no reason to assume he wouldn't be able to cope.
'''Support''' - confirmed evidence of 'pedia building and diplomatic by the looks of things. cheers,
'''Support''' - Doubt this user will abuse the tools. Sceems very willing to learn on the job. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' per above. Absolutely '''no''' reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - good editor, great reputation and is civil to all-comers. No problems here -
'''Support''' - No problems here, good luck. &nbsp;
'''Weak Support''' I still have concerns about the low level of edits and it's resultant effect on possible lack of knowledge of current policy. '''However''' on reflection the spirit of [[WP:AGF]] has made me re-consider my position. I apologise to the candidate and community for my lack of good faith by my previous neutral in this RfA. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Demonstrates the right approach, conscientious enough to be trusted. --
'''Support''' I strongley believe he will be a good editor, but his low edit count concerns me. Support however. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' More than qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''. An editor of sound judgement, always sensible and civil based on my experience and observation. Nothing I see in Dppowell's edit history contradicts the entirely positive impression I have formed in the last year and more. Or I could have just said "per Alison and Irishguy".
'''Support''' as nothing serious would make me oppose. Low number of edits were a concern, but a few thousand is enough to demonstrate wikipedia dedication imo.
'''Support''', editcountitis is bad, and I'm entirely comfortable with the answer to the question I asked. Good luck! :)
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. Sensible and sound judgment.
Why not?
'''Support''' - Yes, s/he hasn't contributed much in the wiki-space. S/He seems civil and positive, and I feel that I can trust that this user will ask when confused and will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' per Ral's "why the hell not" essay and rationale. I like your wiki-thinking!
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Have seen good work from Dppowell, and feel s/he can be trusted. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' Solid contributor with good understanding. --
'''Support'''. Everything I see in contribution history looks solid. Long term dedication evidenced to the project, even if not the most prolific. I believe the candidate when he says he will not wade into areas with which he's unfamiliar. No reason to suspect abuse, and 10 minutes of good tool use a day is better than none. :) --
'''Support''' As per Moonriddengirl,Angus McLellan and Alison ,Track is good and user is very civil.
'''Support''' Impressed with answers, above. No issues about trust, given the body of the candidate's work to date. See also [[User:Ral315/WTHN|WTHN?]].
'''Support.'''
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely low level of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' per the esteemed Stifle.  In answer to Dppowell's question, I cannot be assured either of the candidate's policy knowledge, or of the candidate's demeanor under pressure, until I have a solid record of evidence on which to base my conclusions.  Wiki-space, with its "policy-laden" intense discussions, forms a valuable component of a well-rounded Wikipedian.  In the absence of a certain minimal number of edit, I have little record to evaluate, and I assume inexperience (based of evidence of having seen ''many'' similar well-intentioned candidates, with similar low wiki-space participation, exhibiting worrying gaps in policy knowledge.)
Per Xoloz and Stifle. Little experience in Wikipedia namespace. Please keep up the hard work, though. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Per Anonymous D.
'''Oppose''' Low amount of real text contribution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'
Mediocre answers and lack of wiki-space editing, may lack experience.--
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Neutral''' Per {{user|Xoloz}} in the oppose section.  Please try again later after more experience.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' I really liked his answers and intro... but i feel as if he needs more experience.  That being said, I don't feel that he needs so much more experience that he warrants an oppose.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' as co-nom. -- <strong>
'''Support'''Seems like a great editor.
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' with enthusiasm. Dreadstar gave us a big assist at [[Talk:Battle of Washita River]] by setting up straw polling in our article RfC, which helped enormously towards us developing a consensus & putting an end to a lengthy period of full protection on the article due to edit warring. I was too overwhelmed at the time by all the problems we'd had with that article to figure out how to do a good straw poll, or even to realize that was what we needed, so it was really a huge help. I've also been witness to Dreadstar's communications with one of the other editors involved in the Washita dispute, whose habitual incivility had already resulted in a user-conduct RfC. Dreadstar has had dealings with this editor at the Washita talk page, at [[Talk:The Holocaust]], & on the user's talk page, maintaining a firm but patient & civil demeanor throughout, despite plenty of provocation from the other user. Dreadstar is very well-suited to taking on the additional responsibilities that come with admin-ship. --
'''Support''' Good editor, see no major concerns. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' No doubt he will make a good admin.
'''Support''', per all the reasons stated above, as a proud co-nominator.
'''Support''' -- This user will apply the tools intelligently, and appropriately.  That's all I ask.  --
'''Support''' - having become involved in the attempts to unprotect and improve the [[Battle of Washita River]] article myself, I can echo Yksin's praises of Dreadstar's conduct, approach, and civility there. Everything I've seen from him makes me confident he has a thorough grasp of WP policies and will apply them fairly and use any new responsibilities wisely. --
'''Support''' You sound familiar. I think we've worked together, and I have no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I was recently just looking around at pages, and I saw his name, was curious, and asked why he was not an admin. Stupid question.
'''Support''' Dreadstar has often helped me in difficult editing situations by giving advice and pointing me to specific policies. I've been impressed with his dedication to Wikipedia and learned a LOT from the way he handled the major rewrite of [[What the Bleep]] -- an article that had  long been contentious and had serious violations of WP:NOR.
'''Support''' Yeah, of course! Good solid editor with a lovely sense of humour.
'''Support''' Good editor, good qualifications, and I trust the noms quite a bit.
'''Support''' all the best <sup>
'''Support''' as excellent editor, no problems, will make a good sysop.
'''Support''' a serious editor. -
'''Support''' a very helpful editor. --
'''Support''' Involved in a small way in the ''What the Bleep...'' discussions and found Dreadstar to be intelligent, thoughtful, calm, and very helpful in dealing with disputes.
'''Support''', despite issues raised by oppose comments, I see no reason why not to grant him the bit.
First time I've seen something which equates to opposing per edit count >_> '''
'''Strong Support''', I have seen Dreadstar's work in all of the areas he does work in, and I am thoroughly impressed.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Nice guy and never had a problem working with him. --'''
Disagreeing with someone's views on article content is not a valid reason to oppose, in my opinion. I am confident that this user will not abuse the tools in content disputes. <b>
'''Support'''.  It appears below that Wikidudeman is trying to sink this RfA due to personal conflicts with the candidate, which is completely inappropriate and unimpressive.  I don't see any reason the candidate could not be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  Rfas shouldn't be judged on their editing styles or what they believe in.  That's wrong and biased.  '''
'''Support'''.  Editor has been involved in many highly complex and contentious issues on Wikipedia, and these have lent themselves to mis-interpretation here.  But being so involved or even making mistakes is not a good reason to oppose his candidacy.  He seems to be a conscientious and thoughtful editor who is already doing many of the things which admins do.  I think he will do well. ——'''
'''Support'''. Dreadstar is a great vandalfighter, and does much vandal fighting at a time when fewer administrators are available. Whatever may have happened in the past on paranormal topics, I am convinced that enough time has past that he has learned from whatever mistakes he might have made, and would not use his admin powers in these areas.
'''Support'''. Looks like he would be a good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''It sounds like he would be a good admin.  Folks below are raising the paranormal stuff, but he has said he would not use admin powers in this area. I think we should take his word for that.
'''Support''' I think the opposers are taking some of the paranormal arguements a bit too far. I think this user can be trusted enough to have adminship.
'''Support'''. I don't particularly care if I agree with Dreadstar's content views or not. He's shown a willingness to learn from his errors and I have no reason to believe he will abuse the bit. This editor [[User:Vassyana/admin|fits the bill]] for me.
'''Support''' Per noms, and above, I see no reason to suspect Dreadstar will abuse sysop.
'''Support'''.  I have personal experience of Dreadstar encouraging collegial and generous behavior in other users. --
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support'''. When I first started writing here, Dreadstar (among others) was a very helpful mentor on how to edit articles. I sincerely support Dreadstar.
'''Support''' looks like someone who would fit the role.
'''Support''' We need more users like this user. Fully support.
'''Support''' The editing environment in Wikipedia is a very confrontational, I think, for the very reason we are seeing some of these questions requesting that Dreadstar account for positions he has taken in articles. I do not deny the right for any editor to champion a cause. I do seek to deny the right for an editor to push a point of view at the expense of rational and reasonable debate, as has so often occurred in the paranormal articles. I have seen nothing but the demonstration of respect for Wiki policy from Dreadlock. In my view, he will help bring respect and credibility to Wikipedia articles.
'''Support''' I fully support Dreadstar on the basis of his excellent contributions, as well as for the fact that we badly need an admin with strong knowledge of parapsychology and related areas. -
'''Support''' - If Phaedriel is co-noming, I can't see that bad attitude would be a problem with Dreadstar. Experience is no issue, either. Anyway, if this paranormal stuff does turn out to be real, Dreadstar, and you are one of the chosen ones, please remember that I supported your RfA and put in a good word for me. Thanks. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - I support Dreadstar's nomination for a number of reasons but also with a few concerns - the same concerns I would have about any admin with an interest in the paranormal. The paranormal is one of the areas where wiki has a real problem. There are three competing viewpoints in my opinion, rather than the two normally stated. There are strong believers in the paranormal, there is a middle ground, and there are pseudosceptics. All three are heavily represented on Wiki. In my view Dreadstar occupies the middle ground. Definitley the paranormal leaning side of the middle ground, but the middle ground nonetheless. For this reason I think he is in a good position to be an admin with regard to those subjects in particular (and they are the hardest ones). That is, there has been a recent paranormal arbcom case (although many writing here appear not to have taken on board any of its findings) and it would be good to have someone able to represent those findings accurately in the disputes that will continue on paranormal articles. Thus my support for Dreadstar's nomination. My concern, the same concern I would have about anybody here, is that with regard to paranormal articles on wiki, integrity is paramount. The proof of Dreadstar's integrity would only show in his involvement in disputes '''after''' becoming an admin. I have seen nothing to suppose that Dreadstar would not act with integrity but it is clear than admin status has made many here think they are above the law. As regards the other duties associated with adminship I have no doubt that Dreadstar would be able to carry them out fairly.

'''Support''' User track appears to be okay and to come back after surgery and contribute to wikipedia is great.
'''Support'''. After reading both sides of the fence, I don't know comepletely what to make of the candidate since I haven't had personal contact. However, co-noms by two of the most trusted wikipedia users to me means that he must be a good candidate.
'''Support''' I trust [[User:Phaedriel]]'s judgement in this case, and support this candidate based on his experience and qualification.
'''Support''' - I support any editor who attempts to bring a calm voice and neutral viewpoint to controversial topics, especially those labeled paranormal.
'''Support''' Dreadstar's contributions are a welcomed voice of reason during heated discussions.
'''Support''' A very good and experienced editor. Good answers to above questions. Also I hope your health is better now.
'''Support''' I am not convinced by those editors who have brought up concerns. The majority of these issues are months old; some dating back to 2006, most from the first quarter of 2007. In nearly every unsuccessful RfA, the candidates are advised to "return in 3-4 months" to demonstrate they have learned from the issues in question, and have properly changed the way they deal with them. I am confident that Dreadstar has done just that, and I believe this is best illustrated in his answers to the many questions asked here; his measured and thoughtful responses show he is more than able to retain a cool head. I have bumped into him many times during Recent Changes patrol, and I have never once noticed he acted in anything but a polite manner, his notices and responses even and calm, and his explanations thorough. His assistance to me when I have questions have been invaluable, and while I consider him a "friend", I did some serious looking at this RfA, before deciding to comment. I respect Wikidudeman greatly, and his concerns caused me to pause for quite some time, while I looked into Dreadstar's past history. I respect Wikidudeman for abstaining from comment now, as Dreadstar has agreed to be open to recall. The sockpuppet issue going on here with Deedstar and his multiples is very disturbing, but I would request that the closing administrators take the comments made by those editors with very little weight. There are editors I respect who have voiced opposition, and I gave their comments heavy weight in my final decision, but I again noticed that nearly every major issue brought up was over 6 months old. I believe in giving second chances, and I fully believe that everyone can learn from past mistakes. As far as the "paranormal" stuff goes in general, I honestly have no feelings about the paranormal articles. It does seems to me that there are a good many articles on subjects that are either known to not be true, or just suspected as such. The point is that if they are presented as items which were reported by the media, and strive to not offer any opinion, I see no reason these articles cannot co-exist with other aspects of the encyclopedia. I agree that in the past, Dreadstar may have used edit summaries that were not overly helpful, and that he has made mistakes in the past, but there is not one of us who can say we haven't. I truly believe that Dreadstar has not only learned a significant amount from these long-past incidents, but also since then, and I'm more than sure he's also learned quite a bit during the course of what can only be described as a difficult RfA process here. I truly think that Dreadstar would be responsible, cautious, and if faced with a situation he felt could be difficult for him, he would request assistance or request another administrator handle it. Therefore, it is my opinion that despite the controversies brought up, it will be beneficial to the community to allow Dreadstar to assist Wikipedia in administrative duties. <sup>
'''Support''' Dreadstar handled skilfully a difficult situation involving an entry where I had a particular interest.
'''Oppose'''. Looking through his contributions, I find that Dreadstar has spent a lot of his time on Wikipedia promoting one side of the paranormal issue, and I'm afraid he would use his admin powers to benefit that point of view. I'm most worried by a comment of his that makes me doubt his interpretation of reliable sources:<p>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomena&diff=prev&oldid=108219977 "With paranormal issues, there are generally millions if not ''billions'' of people who 'believe,' and a comparative handful of scientists who write or perform experiments to counter or explain those beliefs - so if we take a "majority rules" perspctive, the scientific view loses out. Is the skeptical Wikipedia community willing to support that standard in all paranormal articles?"]</p><p>I'm reluctant to oppose on this basis, since he is apparently a very fair-minded mediator on other topics, but when it comes to paranormal topics, I am unimpressed with his conduct. He seems to end up in escalating battles that are easy to avoid. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=119842536 Here's one] where he changed the meaning of one of his talk page contents after someone already responded, the other person changed it back, and then Dreadstar reported ''the other person'' to AN/I over [[WP:TALK]]. The misunderstanding would have been easy to resolve without escalation.</p><p>Note that I'm not endorsing the basis for Wikidudeman's oppose above, which seems to mostly be a personal grudge, and ends with arguments that don't even make any sense ("he took a Wikibreak, and that's bad because blah blah arbitration"? "Admin coaching is insincere"? "Editcount-while-hospitalized is too low"?). </p><p>Finally, I am unconvinced by his Q4 answer that his edit count is not inflated, especially since he has a userbox on his page boasting about his count. Though he gives VandalProof as a reason, he has only used it recently, yet he edited at the same frenetic rate in 2006, so it doesn't account for all the inflation. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</p><p>Based on later comments by Aldebaer, I'd like to amend this to a '''strong oppose'''. It is dishonest for Dreadstar to claim that he has "always remained civil": I saw a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070507055734&limit=500&target=Dreadstar swath of clearly uncivil edit summaries] in May. In short, I do not trust Dreadstar.
Per Rspeer.  This is an encyclopedia.  In an encyclopedia, the likes of [[John Edward]] do not get equal standing with [[science]].  Do not get me wrong, my support for [[WP:NPOV]] is absolute, and I've argued repeatedly not to delete articles on pseudoscience and the paranormal.  But the lead of our article on [[psychic]] says, among other things, "The existence of paranormal psychic abilities is highly controversial."  Wrong.  It is as controversial as "the existence of Hogwarts."  [[Carl Sagan]] once said, "Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing."  When I read a Wikipedia article, I still want to emerge from it with knowledge.  We have an obligation—to our readers, to ourselves—of nothing less.--
'''Oppose''' because of fears he might use his admin powers to skew debates in the paranormal realm.  Maintaining a neutral point of view doesn't mean that psychics are as likely to be real as they are frauds.  As an earlier contributer rightly notes, the existence of paranormal powers isn't a matter of controversy, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to substantiate any of these claims.  If well meaning people look up information on wikipedia they shouldn't be left in any doubt about this.  While editing to support ones point of view is fair enough, we all do it, using admin powers to do so would be entirely wrong and I don't trust this user not to do that.  Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose''' Pro-paranormal POV warriors have been disrupting many, many articles for a long time, per the diffs presented above and at the paranormal Arbcom case.  To be fair, Dreadstar was not very involved in the arbcom case, but the basic misunderstanding of NPOV in the comment rspeer cited is a textbook example of the philosophy of these editors.  The last thing we need is to grant one of them adminship.
'''Oppose''' An admin candidate's private beliefs are none of my concern provided they do not bias his or her performance. But in this case I must oppose, as I feel that Dreadstar (formerly Dreadlocke)'s interpretation of NPOV has been shown to be quite slanted towards the paranormal, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychic&diff=prev&oldid=104715564 as in this example]. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martinphi&diff=prev&oldid=104741258 complaints about "pseudo-skeptics"] also concern me.
'''Oppose''' per Aldebaer. The candidate's opinions on specific content issues have zero bearing, and frankly, bringing them up throws doubt on the credibility of any legitimate user conduct concerns. But there ''are'' legitimate concerns as pertains to this candidate's understanding of policy (both in the letter and the spirit of the law). Most seriously, per the diffs provided here I would not describe the candidate's behavior as exemplary. We all enter into conflict, but this user seems to have egregiously flouted the fact that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a battleground]].
Strongly oppose, per Jay Henry and Skinwalker.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Very Weak Oppose''' This is one of those times where I would like to see the user become an admin, but the issues raised above just make me feel you may end up making some mistakes - sorry --'''
'''Oppose''', per Jay Henry, and rspeer's concerns about your ability to remain neutral and your understanding of NPOV.  But mainly per the fact that if one of the opposers hadn't mentioned your editing under another name previously ([[User:Dreadlocke]]), we would never have known, as you don't admit it to it anywhere in your comments, and nor did any of the co-nominating statements.  That's either incompetent or disingenuous, neither of which instils me with confidence.
'''Oppose''' the edits flagged by Wikidudeman are troubling. The candidate's response to question 1 indicates that s/he intends to use the tools for vandalism fighting, but the flagged interactions seem to indicate that s/he doesn't know how to tell vandalism from strenuous debate. I also fear that s/he has a rather thin skin which is not a good quality for an admin: we have to endure sometimes quite nasty comments and second-guessing with civility and some good humor.  Perhaps the most troubling of the edits is the deletion on discussion page; what struck me was that it wasn't deleted in the heat of the debate but 3 weeks later. I cannot exactly put my finger on why this troubles me so much - is it evidence of harboring a grudge? or having to have the last word? or deleting something unsavory after people are noticing it are no longer paying attention because the debate has moved on? I don't know but it to me is really troublesome and none of the simple explanations is good. I really fear that giving him/her the tools will ultimately spawn an RFARB to take them away.
'''Oppose''' RfA was once a too intimidating place. I, for one, believe that it has now swung too much in the other direction. I will not reiterate every troubling aspect of this candidacy, but I have no confidence that at this moment, this editor can be trusted to wield the mop credibly.
'''Oppose''' as per arguments by Neil.
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns for comfort expressed above.
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> '''Weak oppose'''  Not convinced the editor would be an even-handed adminstrator.  [[User:Cardamon|Cardamon]] 04:22, 15 September 2007.  Changed to weak oppose.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Due to my past experiences with the user. He and another user came within a hair's breadth of becoming parties to an arbcomm request based on flagrant misrepresentations, mistruths, and just a general mess of POV pushing, which I (and others) ended up just disengaging from. (I'm not linking to the discussions intentionally. It's just not worth dredging up the past, except to explain my oppose. Besides, it's spread out over several user talk pages, several article talk pages, and the AN and AN/I boards.) In hindsight, it seems to me that there was more than a little of an attempt at gaming of the system by a user who obviously was trying to. I just have sincere doubts about this user as an administrator. -
'''Neutral''' - Somewhat convinced by Wikidudeman's comments, but not enough to oppose. I think contesting a questionable block, while not really productive, is certainly understandable. I think Dreadstar was [[WP:KETTLE|calling the kettle back]] slightly in discussions like [[User_talk:Wikidudeman/Archive#Randi_discussion|this one]], but I think that's pretty minor. I'm most concerned with the removal of comments on talk pages that Wikidudeman outlined, as I think most of those instances were not clear bad-faith comments and attempting to silence editors can be taken very negatively. Still, I think it's relatively minor. Candidate might make a valuable administrator -- hard to predict preemptively. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support'''.  My interactions with DrKiernan have been positive, and I see no negatives in his record.  It's fine with me if he only uses the admin tools incidentally as he edits; I don't think you have to pick up a lot of admin tasks to be trusted with the admin bit.  Mainly, though, I am supporting on the strength of the [[WP:FA|FA]] work, which demonstrates his commitment to the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. DrKiernan has already contributed six featured articles, the quality of which suggest a professional background. I expect he wants the tools to help him protect the quality of certain articles and subject areas, not so that he can become an active administrator away from his main editing work. I see no harm in that; in fact, DrKiernan is the last person I would like to see distracted overmuch from the process of creating articles. I am not going to apply to be an administrator myself, but I can guess why he wants to go in that direction, because I have found myself frustratingly unequipped to fight vandalism ''quickly'', as when articles I have been involved in have gone on the front page. That cannot all be left to uninvolved admins because bits of "sounds as if it could be correct" damage need attention from those who know. (I hope DrKiernan is a robust enough character not to be put off the project if this goes against him: administrator or not, we need contributors of his quality.)

'''Support based on contributions.''' His contributions show him working hard to maintain [[Portal:Biography]], and making sure the articles linked from it are well-referenced. In fact, the quality of his contributions has already been demonstrated ''six times'' on FAC. He clearly understands Wikipedia and is dedicated to it.
'''Support''' and all these opposes based on Q1 are ridiculous. Admins can use their tools as much or as little as they like. There is no requirement for activity and stopping him from making useful contributions based on it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Support''' based on high quality of work, and particularly on FAs. I've looked at opposers' claims of lack of knowledge of policy, but the limited evidence provided does not convince me. In addition, I don't find activity defined in pure numbers to be a convincing measure of someone's past or future contributions.
'''Support''' I was concerned with Alison's oppose but when I went through DrKiernan's contributions, I thought he/she is a reasonable editor. I went through [[WP:NOPRO]]'s talk page and I see that DrKiernan discussed well and when Alison objected to some edits, promptly came back for discussion. So I do not see the problem here. As ''no one'' in the oppose section has provided any diffs and the the major reason was "no need for tools" (especially when the candidate specifically stated that they'll tackle backlogs), I have to support. I will probably reconsider if the opposers can bring up some diffs. -
'''Support''' - Hardworking editor with 6 featured articles. May not become the most active sysop in history, but has enough experience to demonstrate an understanding of policy. To the opposers: please try to remember that adminship is no big deal, and that having as many admins as possible is a good thing for the project, even if they won't be active on a daily basis.
'''Support''' Self-noms are freely permitted, and adminship is (supposedly) no big deal. Better someone who wants the tools and will use them in a limited fashion than another admin who wants the tools to reshape Wikipedia; we have enough of those.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good candidate to me.
'''Support'''. Not being able to edit Wikipedia extensively for [[real life]] reasons is no grounds to assume he would inadvertently (let alone purposefully) misuse the tools. Nor is it necessary for a candidate to demonstrate a need for the tools. What is going on in the oppose section is once more '''ridiculous'''. —'''
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support''', don't see any substantial problems here. --
'''Protest support''' This RfA is going to fail but I'm banging my head against the wall when I read ''some'' of the opposes. I'd like to point out that a stated urgent need for the tools or a promise to be very active with them is certainly not a prerequisite for adminship. As has been said many times before, an admin who deletes one speedy candidate a day is still having a positive impact and since we're not desysoping admins whose activity is low I don't see why we should ask of future admins to be deleting, protecting, blocking and whatnot 24/7. Anyone who has the admin buttons knows that things like viewing deleted histories can help one make better, quicker decisions on various things and if an editor who is actively seeking to help the project can become more effective, then the whole project benefits. I don't think many admins could honestly say that the use they found for the tools matches exactly what they had in mind when they first applied. This doesn't matter: if you're a responsible editor, you'll use them responsibly for the good of the project. I feel DrKiernan is being treated unfairly and that some are failing to assume good faith: he tries to demonstrate his commitment to the project by pointing out his FA participation and this becomes "oppose, adminship is not a badge". Say what? He says "I won't be active because I still want to have time to do my usual editing" and this becomes "he doesn't care about admin duties and has no vision". The result is that the RfA will fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the candidate's capabilities and everything to do with him not jumping through the right hoops. In the end, we pass on a qualified candidate. How constructive.
'''Protest Support''' per Pascal.Tesson.  I'm mildly annoyed that the candidate hasn't given much in the way of answers, but I'm even more annoyed with some of the ludicrous oppose reasons.  Even if, in the extreme case, he were to only uses the tools once every six months to block a vandal that he noticed on his watchlist or in some other "small" way, who cares?  That in and of itself is a service to Wikipedia.  There are plenty of outstanding editors who are admins and active contributors, but have about one admin action a week.  What's wrong with that?  I sure can't see anything - we're better off than we would be if they didn't have the tools and the work didn't get done.  Half of Wikipedia wants to oppose anyone who doesn't spend their entire day arguing at [[WP:AFD]] and the other half wants to oppose anyone who isn't a featured article machine.  Both extremes are silly.  This is obviously a trusted user.  And as far as self-noms go, why not?  I have had users email me before asking me to nominate them (an idea that I really don't like for a lot of reasons).  If he were to have gone through that formality, would that make him a better admin candidate?  Would he be better suited to use the tools?  If he is a trusted user, he's a trusted user, regardless of whether or not anyone else nominates him. I don't really like the adminship reform discussions because everything proposed is worse than what we have right now ... but silliness like this convinces me something is necessary. --
'''Changing from Oppose to Support''' Who cares if they rarely use the tools? One vandal blocked in one week is one less vandal. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
I like self-nominations. User is not going to abuse the tools and that's is all I care about.
'''Support''' 6 Featured Articles? No signs of abusive or incivil editing? No evidence that he would abuse the tools? Sounds good to me.....not using the tools is not a form of abuse.
'''Reluctant Support''' I still think little of the way that this user presented themselves for RFA.  Its almot a dismissive approach, which is a big part suspect of why this RFA is going nowhere.  Nonetheless, I am supporting, much out of protest a per the above comments.  Also, as Yamamato Ichiro suggests, user will not abuse the priviledges.  Still I have to ask why put yourself through an RFA, then barely even bother answering the questions or engaging the editors that you are asking for your support.  It makes my support somewhat reluctant.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' (switched from oppose) - I'm beginning to agree that 'lack of need for the tools' is not a good reason to oppose in and of itself - DrKiernan does have some experience in XfD discussions, and contributing to 6FA's shows a dedication to the project and gives me the feeling that, even if he doesn't understand a specific policy, he'll be willing to try to learn what should be done.
'''Support''' (''changed from oppose''). As per comment added 16:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC) by me as a reply to my oppose (which has changed into this support). Several people have pointed out that I was not thinking entirely straight then, and was in a tense mood (due to exams, which are still going on by the way), so I have changed. Reasons by Yamamoto Ichiro, and Majorly and Pascal Tesson are all taken into account in this.
'''Apparently pointless support''' as it appears another editor has been driven off. I do love the "no need for the tools/you must be an active admin" argument. It makes perfect sense because of course we only have so many admin bits to give out, and by refusing them to trustworthy committed editors who would occasionally help clear the backlogs, we make sure the tiny supply we still have left doesn't run out and that the backlogs are truly enormous and a challenge worthy of that perfect candidate when they do come along.
'''Support''' Six featured articles? Wow! Great work, and good luck with this. '''
'''Support'''. The primary question remains, "do you trust this editor?" I see absolutely no reason not to. Excellent contribs and all round attention to quality. Of the many bad arguments put forth on RfAs, "no clear need for the tools" has to be the worst.
'''Support''' I see a good quality editor here. Pascal.Tesson and BigDT have given good reasons to support this user.
'''Support'''.  I'm sorry to come late to this; I usually avoid this room like the plague because of the effect I've seen it have on good editors like Dr Kiernan.  I've had nothing but good interaction with this editor on many FACs and FARs, and I don't find any of the reasons for Opposing to be convincing.  Wiki needs more good admins, not just more admins, and participation in a given area of Wiki isn't all that counts towards making a good admin.
'''Support''' What Yomangani said, only with the hope that it's not so apparently pointless. If DrK is indeed an academic as s/he presents, then Wikipedia needs more such admins. Especially supportive of the comment that areas like the Pokémon and Trek sections will not take up much of his/her attention. --
I don't agree with all his positions, but everything I see concerning this editor speaks of high quality.
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' due to his excellent contributions to the project.
'''Support''' I have been explanied to about his large gap in edits. Because of the conclusion he gave me on my talk, I will support him.
'''Weak support''' per [[Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal]]. I changed my vote from oppose to support because of the clarifying answers above, which got some misconceptions out of the way. <b>
'''Support''' I've changed my position on this as DrKiernan elaborated further on the questions and his/her intentions. I don't think there is a reason o oppose. This user will remain a valuable contributor whether an admin or not. --
'''Support''' Come on people, this is getting ridiculous. All of us are spending their valuable ''free'' time here at this project, someone wants (earnestly) to help, and some of you want to deny him this fabulous opportunity becuase he can't demonstrate the need for the tools? ...let me add that I feel almost tempted to [[Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout|whack]] some of the opposers.
'''Weak support''' While I'd still rather see a little more genuine interest in helping out with admin duties, like a desire to help clear out backlogs, the expanded statement above helps to alleviate concerns and shed a little more light on the candidate's views.  He'd still only use the admin tools to "do good".
'''Support''' because the opposes annoy me. Fine editor and is unlikely to abuse tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' Excellent editor, discusses civilly; note that I disagree with his stance on main page protection, but [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall well...]. --
'''Support'''. An excellent editor; mature, intelligent, professional. Being a vandalism fighter has never been a necessary attribute for RfA; indeed, a focus on that can often be problematic. His argument in favor of semi-protecting featured articles that are on the main page seems a very minor issue to oppose over.
'''WILL NOT MISUSE THE TOOLS''' which after all, is all that matters. What is up with the opposes? Not keen enough to push little buttons? Not bloodthirsty enough? Not power-hungry enough? Gee, all those things look like big plus's to me.
'''Support'''. I see no reason for concern, and DrKiernan has been a strong contributor to Wikipedia. The issue is supposed to be, as KillerChihuahua points out, whether or not someone will abuse the tools, not whether they'll spend all day combing the recent changes list and hitting the revert button. Admins who are actual editors, rather than vandal-reverters, bring an important and helpful perspective to the mix of admins.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I see no reason why not. Mature and capable editor.
'''Support''' Another admin, whether the powers are used every six months or daily, can only be a good thing (not least the fact that losing this excellent editor to admin work would be a shame), and it is extremely clear this user is not going to misuse the tools given to him.
'''Support''' - I would trust this candidate with the tools. I would like to add a reminder to use admin tools to help out in unrelated areas like clearing backlogs, to be cautious when using admin tools in areas you are active in (avoid controversial actions in areas you edit heavily), and to continue the excellent article writing.
'''Support''' My main criteria for adminship are trust, maturity, civility, ability as an editor, and ability to interact with people. I think this candidate does well on all of these. I expect him to be a good admin.
'''Support''' for encyclopedic contributions, and per "no big deal" movement. –
'''support''' Is an excellent editor. I would have been willing to nominate if I had been asked. Claims that the editor does not understand policy are unfounded given the large number of FAs under the editor's belt. Criticism that the answers to questions are "too short" is disturbing- are we now opposing good candidates because they don't follow rituals to every detail? Similarly criticism that there is no "need for the tools" is also hard to understand- even if a user will use the tools rarely or does not "need" them per se if the project will benefit from giving them the tools I don't see why we shouldn't give them to the user.
'''Support''' 6 FAs? The sort of admin we need.
'''Support''' I trust this excellent contributor and am sure he would be mature, civil and steady administrator. His commitment to the project shines through his work, and I am sure that he will use the tools appropriately. --
'''Support''' candidate shows they are a good 'pedia builder and is genuinely concerned at how said 'pedia develops.cheers,
'''Support'''This user has undergone a tough few days. <s>I would still enjoy an answer to question number 8, however, I might be  away by the time that this RfA closes and I get my answer to question 8.</s> I feel this user has undergone a transformation these past days, as has my vote. I feel that he has further explained his stance, has gone beyond the call of duty, and will make a fine admin. <s>Willing to change to support after answer to question 8. ''note: I originally voted '''oppose'''. My reasoning was:'' per the first sentence in the answer to question one. We need admins, but we need active admins. ''I am now '''neutral''' with these comments:'' Although I am still concerned about why he would not show intention to use the tools actively, I think the amount of edits he has is fair justification as to why he should be considered for the tools.</s> --[[user:wpktsfs|w]][[user:wpktsfs/poetry|'''p''']][[user:wpktsfs|k]][[user talk:wpktsfs|'''t''']]
'''Weak support''' for the six FA's as FM said.  I just wish this applicant showed a bit more enthusiasm in his application.  Maybe salesmanship isn't required, but it would be nice if he seemed like he'd love doing this job.
'''Support'''. With 6 FAs, thus trustworthy and having a good grasp of the main goal of WP, plus the willing to help in administrative work - this is the best mixture needed for a good admin in this project.
'''Support'''. An impressive, trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''  I noticed the good job the user has done in maintaining [[Portal:Biography]], and excellent article writing.  He is a valuable contributor who should have the tools. The issues with [[WP:MPFAP]] don't concern me enough to vote neutral or oppose, with positives far outweighing any concerns. --
'''Support''' He certainly helped those articles out, and although he has had disagreements, he has handled them maturly and has not resulted in an edit war. --
'''Support''' In part based on FM and KC's comments, in part because many of the oppose votes are utterly illogical.  Too many folks are acting as if the tools are a gift bestowed upon a user by the gods of Wikipedia, a belief that is utter nonsense.  As for the "not enough knowledge of policies" tripe: if you have no knowledge of policy, you simply cannot write 6 FA's.  Oh, one other point: what's this "no clear need for the tools" nonsense?  What is one supposed to do to demonstrate this need?
'''Weak support''' After going through his contribs, userpages, and thoroughly reading his answers to questions, I highly doubt that he will abuse the tools. He may not be perfect, but no admin is. I get an honest vibe from him, and I enjoy his truthful answers to questions, although he "beats around the bush" for question 6. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support''' Oppose section is turning into a witch hunt. Look at the user's actions and don't read so much into the responses. There are some horrible editors who can charm your feathers off. Talk is cheap. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' per RxS and per KillerChihuahua.
'''Support'''. He's taken the initiative to deal with the "John Wayne troll", a returning vandal. He's dealt with that problem user is a firm but fair manner. While I see some oppose the candidate because he hasn't dealt with vandalism enough, I think that dealing with problem users is more difficult that simple vandalism patrolling. There are many needs for the "mop and bucket" besides cleaning up "Chris smells like poop". This user would make a good admin, IMO. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support'''.  Balancing large number of oppose sentiments with which I disagree.  Apparently good-faith and trustworthy users with sufficient breadth of experience should be encouraged, regardless of activity level.  '''&there4;'''
'''Support''' - I had no big issues and you've handled this RFA particularly well.  Good luck.
'''Support''' It's not a big deal, he won't abuse the tools, ''six'' featured articles... '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - only occasional use of the tools is fine so long as I can trust they won't abuse them. ---
'''Support''' - I have changed from oppose because, after reviewing his contributions, his effort, and his need for the told more carefully, I believe that he would make a good administrator. --
'''Support''' - DrKiernan is a solid contributor. We need admins like him with strong editorial experience.
'''Support''' Even if he doesn't use the tools frequently, there's low risk of him abusing them.--
'''Support''' I believe the net results of this user having the tools will be positive. A demonstrated need is a ridculous reason to oppose, because any user who has shown that they can be trusted with them should ultimately benefit the project.
'''Support''', but please enable an e-mail address.
'''Support'''. "No need for the tools" is no reason to oppose, we need all the admins we can get, even if they don't use their tools constantly. The candidate wouldn't abuse or misuse the tools, so he should be given the mop. --
'''Support'''. Though I have some reservations, SlimVirgin has spoken, so... –
'''Support''' Answered my questions and has good enough experience with the article writing process with six featured FAs. '''<font color="#990066" face="georgia">
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. This editor has improved Wikipedia by adding to the encyclopedic content of articles, which I believe is a good background for an admin.
'''Support''' For reasons I have expressed at length in other discussions and which are at least cursorily summarized on my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines page]], I agree, of course, with Pascal on the apparently and unfortunately overarching ''need for tools'' issue, and although I am not altogether unconcerned about the user's somewhat capricious actions during this RfA (although I would observe that, far from being pernicious, an editor's suggesting that he might leave/take a break/something else in view of his being burned out/irked/whatever is quite fine; it is certainly preferred to his being abrupt with other users and acting irrationaly or disruptively, as so often some do), I am convinced that he is possessed on the whole of sound judgment, a cordial demeanor, and (at least usually) a deliberative nature, such that I feel comfortable concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of DK's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Oppose''' - sorry. Not enough of a broad range of experience of policy and no clear demonstrable need for the tools, per question 1. I'm unimpressed with the answers to the questions in general. I've also seen issues around [[WP:OWN]] and issues regarding your edits to [[WP:NOPRO]] -
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-nominations as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Strong Oppose''' user fails to show need for tools.  Also hasn't made alot of user talk page edits.  '''
'''Oppose''' While a fine editor, I just don't see a reason for admin tools in this case. Rollback is a feature used in several [[WP:CVU]] addons, such as [[WP:TWINKLE]] or [[WP:VP]]. As for using it for protection and deletion in case of the backlog, that is all fine and good if I see clear understanding of policy and warnings to editors. While you seem well versed in [[WP:PROTECT]], I don't see enough elsewhere to need to be a sysop, even though some think it is [[WP:ADMIN#No big deal|no big deal]]. --
'''Oppose''' - I disagree completely with the changes that you have made to [[Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection]]. We should not semi-protect the main page featured article. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - You don't intend to make wikipedia better with the tools, you just want to make your life easier. And your answers were too short. You should never nominate yourself. (My opinion)
Statement and answers to questions show too little substance for me to approve.
'''Oppose''' The nom and questions do not show me why this user should have adminship.
'''Oppose''' I think that the candidate should answer the questions better, and he barley represented himself in the opening. And I think we need more of a vandal-fighter, not to mention that the user stated "I do not intend to be particularly active. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Oppose''', vague answers to questions and does not understand what adminship is all about. I don't see any need for him to get the tools, lacks of experience anyway. Rollback? [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]] has rollback, you don't need the tools for that.
'''Oppose''', I see no reason to give admin tools to someone who is apathic about using them. --
'''Oppose''' per actions on [[WP:NOPRO]]/[[WP:YESPRO]], which does not indicate to me that candidate understands consensus or discussion.
'''Sorry, not at this time''' per answers provided in your nomination.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Though a good editor with FAs to his credit, by his own words, this self-nom does not really seem to have his heart in being an admin (see below) and what will he do with the admin tools when he can achieve virtually everything he wants to do without being an admin. Though he says he only edits anonymously, it would seem important, as a potential admin, to edit under ones name. I would also expect a RfA to be open with everyone and tell us about himself but instead he has no information on his user page and deletes his talk page edits which for me usually implies he has something to hide. I even see that he has now put in a '''request to delete his usertalk page''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKiernan&diff=next&oldid=138118228 here] which seems very odd indeed.
I oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKiernan&diff=prev&oldid=138118228 this].  and per Ww2censor. - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Oppose''' for weak answers and insufficient involvement. Edit history isn't impressive. Why does this person need admin tools?
'''Oppose''' per lack of understanding of policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKiernan&diff=prev&oldid=138118228] and concerns over the approach used to change [[WP:NOPRO]] expressed by Alison, ^demon, and a few others. I do not associate myself with any other opposes. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Concerns about user's experience relevant to the admin tools. Mentions reverting and blocking vandalism, the former can be done without the tools and the latter requires a good experience of warning vandals and raising reports on AIV (I see very little of either). This coupled with no strong plan for when the tools will be used (backlogs is too vague), means that I must oppose.
'''Oppose'''. My only interactions with this user have been negative. ---
'''Oppose'''. This editor's responses above don't explain how they will decide whether or when to use their admin tools, other than to point us back to policies without explaining how they interpret those policies.  The answers given don't overcome my initial misgivings about adding another pro-deletion editor to the admin ranks.  Further, the editor's talk page header indicates they don't consider it necessary to reply to most talk page comments, and they don't have email enabled.  To me, those are both major accountability issues when it comes to an admin.  With their not feeling compelled to explain their actions on their talk page or in email and with not being open to recall, I must, in good conscience, oppose adding anything to this editor's toolkit that can't be undone by an "ordinary" Wikipedian like me.  Odds are, this editor would preform as an admin within the bounds, but this isn't about playing the odds.  If you want "the keys," Dr., demonstrate that you'll "drive the car" with the utmost restraint.  Until then, continue your good editorial work.  --
'''Oppose''' due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Kiernan&diff=prev&oldid=138118284 shenanigans] during (but not on) this RfA.  Everyone has a bad wikiday every once in awhile, but doing it during ones RfA might draw unnecessary attention to oneself that might not have been received otherwise. &#10154;
Adminship is denied for <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKiernan&oldid=138118228 controversial reasons]</span>. —
Unfortunately, I must oppose on the grounds of temperment and knowledge of policy related to ''admin'' tools. I have no qualms about his knowledge related to articlespace, but the admin tools are more than that and I have reservations. Sorry; I hope this does not impact your editing <u>whichever</u> way it turns out. -- ''
'''Oppose.''' I have remained out of this as I had no strong opinion and didn't buy the 'why does he need the tools' opposition. But what makes me oppose now is DrKiernan's apparent volatility as expressed in the departure and swift return. For my part, steadiness and the ability to stay calm under pressure are vital to an admin. DrKiernan was put under pressure during this RfA but should have anticipated this: lots of good editors get hauled over the coals on an RfA and I think probably it needs a certain amount of [[WP:FUCK|what the heck]] to survive the process. If DrKiernan can't take a deep breath and ride out the RfA, then I have doubts about whether s/he can be the calm, measured presence an admin will sometimes need.
'''Neutral''' and I suggest withdrawal because this is not going to pass.  You're an excellent article writer, but one of the nasty ironies of this process is that article writing is not the main credential we are looking for.  There needs to be a balance of interests in policy-related concerns, such as deletion discussions and patrolling, and not just on featured articles and page protection.  That balance should be reflected in your intended use of sysop tools, which you did not state clearly.  I usually tell editors who ask to return in a few months, but I'm not sure if adminship is best for you anyway: it may be a distraction from what you really enjoy.  (Unfortunately, the days of "adminship is no big deal" seem to reside in the distant past.)
'''Neutral''' I wish to applaud the candidate for the work he is involved with on [WP:MPFAP]], however I too am a bit concerned about his lack of attention to his answers here and his appreciation for a fuller range of admin duties.
'''Neutral''' Per [[User:Gaff|Gaff]] and the ''not that bothered'' attitude I read in Q1. You are strong in areas and I'm trying to [[WP:AGF]] hence not opposing. However I disagee '''strongly''' with comments by [[User:Arkyan|Arkyan]] that an oppose based on need for the tools is not a strong reason. Given that adminship is '''[[User:Jimbo wales|solely about getting some extra buttons]]'''  then a lack of need for them is a very valid argument. To suggest otherwise seems to indicate that the reason for adminship is something other than a few buttons to help - because it's a medal or reward or something, which it isn't. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - I trust that you would do a good job, but the mutiple opposes have a point. I recommend you ask for this RFA to be closed early. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
I'm changing my vote from Oppose to Neutral because by the optional questions he has shown he understands what the job of an admin is.--
I realized that I might have acted too harsh in my previous oppose, and apologize for it. Points made by Alison and other editors are slightly concerning, but you do seem intent on improving the encyclopedia. --
'''Neutral''' While I'm still not comfortable supporting (per my reasoning in my oppose), I no longer feel compelled to strong oppose anymore. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Neutral''' I am convinced to withdraw my oppose vote by the change in the candidate's answers, and by arguments put forward by other editors. But cannot go as far as supporting.--<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' While the user does seem to have most of their editing capabilities together, the answers to the questions don't quite do it for me.
'''Neutral''' For reasons Above.
'''Neutral'''. It's far too much for me to oppose someone who's written six featured articles, but the vague answers and the lack of indication to understanding of admin-related policies is a little concerning, so I'm not sure. - '''
'''Strong support''' as co-nom.  Good luck mate!
You have these three for nominators, you must be good.
What I know about the candidate leads me to believe that he would make an excellent administrator.
'''Oh, hell yeah!''' &ndash;
A wonderful editor, kind, intelligent, thoughtful-a real asset to Wikipedia in every sense.  I cannot imagine anyone better in the admin. role.  Ever onwards, Canaries!
'''Strong Support''' this RfA is long overdue! No doubt an excellent candidate. —
'''Strong support''' as co-nom - best of luck sir!
'''Support'''.  Dweller hopefully doesn't remember an incident in which he was calm and clear-headed, and I was not.  A scan of recent contributions seems to indicate that these qualities of his have not changed, while his experiences on the wiki have grown.  Will make a fine admin. -
'''Strong support''' '''''
About time. --


'''Support''' Excellent hard working editor who'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' cue cliche "he wasn't one already?". <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I've seen him around and especially at the [[WP:VC|Virtual Clasroom]]. He's what we need.
'''Support''' In addition to being a valuable asset to this project in terms of improving articles, and a creative editor in terms of thinking about wiki-processes, Dweller is always helpful, both at the reference desk and when assisting less experienced users, such as myself, in dealing with Wikipedia's more nefarious users. Familiarity with policies combined with common sense and collegiality. Just the qualities I'd be looking for in an administrator. ---
'''Strong Support'''&mdash; as co-nominator ~
'''Support.''' Unimpeachable.
'''Strong Support'''. Definitely yes on this one. --
'''Support''' - a well rounded editor..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Oh? Not an admin? -- <b>
4 co-noms? I wanted to be the 5th but this is my '''support'''. --
'''Support''' Abso-freakin'-lutely.
'''Support''' just as [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]]. Superb user.
I'm
'''Support'''. No possible reason to oppose. --
'''Strong support''' an excellent editor who will make an equally excellent administrator. Good luck,
'''Strong Support''' Clearly a good editor. Knows all the processes. Perfect for admin.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Default support'''. <u>Suspiciously</u> little reason to oppose though, admins need to be ''somewhat'' controversial in order to prove their thick skin... :D —'''
'''Support''' - way past due :) -
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributor.  &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks good, no red flags and I trust all the co-noms.
'''Strong support''' Damn! ''Another'' user who you think is already an administrator, and then you see them here and realize how wrong you were! :)
'''Support''' will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Stated attitude for harmony and cooperation and appears less likely to be heavy handed.
'''Support''' A great editor and who will also be a great admin. --
'''Strong Support''': this is one of the strongest supports that I have given for some time. A formidable editor who will make a fantastic administrator, I have no doubt. --
'''Support''' Should have been given the tools already.
'''Support''' - Well experienced, kind and friendly; he should make a great admin. The nominators comments and answers to the questions were good also.
'''Support'''. Courteous, good-humoured, prolific... all the right qualities.
'''Support''' Thoroughly deserved. <u><font color="black">
'''Super Support''' - A great Wikipedian who is always out there to help others with any problems they have, especially in the Virtual Classroom. He's well experienced and very friendly so there is no reason to not have the tools. He should 'ave already had 'em! Good luck Dweller! <b><font color="#000066">
'''Strong support''' Absolutely without a doubt. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' O yes!
'''Support''' Wow --
'''Support''', you bet. --'''
'''Support''', no brainer. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Strong support''' from me, too. A good conscientious editor - should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Having seen some of the work he's done at WP Cricket I'm thoroughly impressed and am glad to see this nom up.
Overdue
'''Support''', a great editor. [[User:Tim.bounceback|Tim.bounceback]]<sup>(<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tim.bounceback|review me!]]</font> | [[User_talk:Tim.bounceback|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tim.bounceback|contribs]] |
'''Support''' His vast knowledge and experience will help Wikipedia if he were to become an admin. <b><font color="teal">
Very glad to '''support''', no concerns at all.
Hrm, thought he was already an admin.  Dweller is a dedicated volunteer who I thought was already helping out with some of the backlogs [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
I must pledge my '''support'''.
'''Support''' for all the reasons already mentioned, great contributor.--'''''
The lack of any problematic edits suggests that Dweller is exceptionally good at covering up all of his past misdeeds. I think anyone who can be that devious deserves to be admired and will therefore '''support''' his candidacy. <code>;-)</code> -- '''
'''Support''' - What more can I say. Well-deserved!--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
What Riana said. '''
What everyone else above said. --
What Srikeit said.
'''Support''' per the above, I trust this person to behold administrative tools.
For what it's worth, '''unreserved support''', one of the best eds I have come across. Thoroughly deserves this. &ndash;
'''Support'''. I've seen his hard work at [[WP:CRICKET]]. Reading this page has only made me more sure that he would make a great admin.
'''Support''' very experienced, very knowledgable, and... another cliche (gosh, Dweller, you must be getting sick of this one by now :), but...) I thought he was already an admin. Trusted editor. '''[[User:CattleGirl|<font color="blue">Cat</font><font color="darkblue">tleG</font><font color="black">irl</font>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk: CattleGirl| talk]] |
'''Support''' Didn't even take the time to read the noms or questions, that's how much I trust this guy (I'll do it later when I'm bored). · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Decent guy.
'''Support''' with a "bah!". I should've noticed he was a candidate myself. Don't you dare stop writing featured articles, though. -
'''Support'''. Lots of work helping [[WP:CRICKET]] and definitely deserves this.
'''Support''' Looks A Good Candidate and should get adminship. <font style="color:red">
'''Strong Support'''.  70+ Supports and not ''one'' opposed or even neutral (at this time)?  What the hell are we waiting for?  Give Dweller the mop, bucket, squeegie, broom, and dustpan; and best regards.  --
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around; no reason to think he wouldn't use the tools well.
'''Support''' Better than most, he likes to eat toast. Cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--[[User:Nenyedi|'''Nenyedi''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Nenyedi|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Nenyedi|Deeds]]<sub>
'''Support''': Plenty of experience, edit summary usage is excellent, editor seems very civil, and nice answers to questions. User should be a fine asset as an administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Good admin.
'''Support''' I find it extremely difficult to express how completely astonished I am to find out that this user isn't already an admin. If there's anybody else out there with the kind of record dweller has, please, please, nominate yourself for admin or find somebod who'll nominate you.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support'''  active participator and talker. cheers,
'''support''' it is my pleaseure to see this person become a administrator after all this time
'''Support''' - completely without question. Has been, and [hopefully] always will be an asset to the project. ---
'''Strong Support''' - hope you get the admin!
'''Support''' my only regret is that I have but one vote to give for this rfa. --
'''Support''' — impressive contributions, persuasive arguments by co-noms, [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]] when potential conflicts arise. --
'''Strong Support''' long live cricket.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate, no concerns with Dweller packing toolage whatsoever.
'''Support''' Great editor, strong answers.
'''Support''' per noms. Dweller is a great candidate, and I'm sure will make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' per co-noms. Good luck and good work.
'''Support''' - as a nominator, and his admin coach. Good job, Dweller.  ;-) '''''

'''[[WP:100|100]]<sup>th</sup> Support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' Know this user will be a great admin.
I haven't '''support'''ed him yet? Took me long enough.--
'''Support'''. I'll let it slide that you don't have enough MediaWiki edits. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Based partly on his handling of the situation below, and the rest on everything said above.--
'''Support''' Of course! --
As nominator. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Very Strong Support''' - He deserves to be an admin for all the hard work he has done over the years...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Very Strong Support''':  Great work on improving since your last RfA, and improving Wikipedia in general! -
'''Support''' Seeing as most of the opposition in the Previous attempts were simple no experiance i think it is clear that you now have significant experiance for this position. good luck! [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  It took me a second to remember which single-letter user was which... then I remembered E is that hard-working one with plenty of experience and dedication to the project. :) --'''<font color="#ff9900">
I figuratively got out of bed for this :P -- <strong>
But of course! <i><b>
As co-nom and E's admin coach, I give him my full support.  He's ready for the mop.  '''''
An ironic support. I was thinking of nomming him/her last night, how co-incidental! Great work is evident right across the namespace.
'''Support''' looks like a great candidate  with reputable users backing him. All the best, -'''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Support''' Great editor, lots of experience. Good Luck!
'''S''' (that is, not the user) --
'''Support'''. How rude, putting this up when I was [[GMT|fast asleep]], I wanted to be the first to support ;) Seriously, though, good luck, E.
'''Support''', nothing wrong with AWB contributions as long as he contributes in other ways too, which he does. --
This is quite remarkable, a subsequent nom where the user actually heeded advice from his previous nom! I say we should support. -
'''Support''' - Good work. I'd ideally like to see more substantial mainspace editing (i.e. building articles) but this isn't essential in an admin. I will be ''very'' disappointed if I see anyone opposing because of their disdain for single-letter usernames (indeed, such an oppose will destroy any remaining faith I have in the essential sanity and order of the Universe. :-))
'''Support''' I like your answer to Q5, I like your username too :)
'''Support'''; having admins who understand what the bots do (really, ''really'' understand) is a Good Thing<sup>TM</sup>. --
'''I-would-have-beat-the-nom-with-support-but-he-supported-before-this-RfA-was-transcluded''' —
'''Support''' I supported last time and my support is stronger this time.
Yah. '''
'''Support'''.  Sure, won't abuse the tools.  '''<span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big dea; I don't believe nom will abuse the tools. Adminship is not a reward for being a heavy-duty editor, and I don't believe the nom will confuse speedy deletion with hasty deletion.
'''Support''' Would be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Glad to be able to support this time.  Best of luck!
'''Support''', no evidence that I can see that this editor would abuse the tools.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Of course.  Good luck! <font color="#7BA05B">
'''Support''' Strong answers to questions.
'''Support''' - Per Master of Puppets. I like his answers.
'''Support''' I think he will do a fine job as an admin.
'''Support''', good participation in administrator-related areas ([[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:XFD|XfD]], et cetera). Trustworthy and likeable, and will communicate as well with his syop. peers as he has with the community at large, to date. Best of all, will use the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' Certainly ready for admin tools, will do well.
'''Support''' I think you're ready
'''Support''' - definitely. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as the previous comments have shown.
I thought he was ready 5 months ago, so why not now? ;-) --
I previously commented that article talkpage edits were disproportionately low - and this still seems to be the case. However since nobody else seemed to think it a big deal I should conclude that I was wrong and that the other good (and improved) aspects of this editors contributions mean I should support. So I do.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; I thought he already was an administrator ...  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support'''. Would make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' Sure a diff username would make him easier to ID, but then again, does it hurt the encyclopedia anymore than 20 character usernames?
I'm not [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer diablo]], but I approve
Of course - I've seen E around for many months now and I'm always pleased when I see his name in discussion - he knows his stuff and he's always civil.
'''Weak Support''' Even though he lacks mainspace edits, his/her well rounded experience makes me think he/she is ready to be an admin. Still, mainspace edits are important though due to conflict issues you might entangled. <font color="red">
Looks good. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Support''' Per Nom, E deserves to be an admin. <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
Provided he stays away from the stickier disputes until he's gained more experience. Oh, and I know that IRC has very little to do with Wikipedia, but I find him to be a good op in #wikipedia, measured and appropriate responses to incidents, and that is probably indicative of his overall attitude. ~
'''I forgot that I hadn't already supposrted support'''--'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' No qualms with this candidate. --'''
Strongly per Riana, and with a weak request that he changes his username as discussed below. Should make a fine administrator. I do understand the concerns raised by opposers about manual editing, but E (unlike so many candidates who fall into a similar category) has proven he has Clue. '''
'''Support''' per above. Lots of good edits.
'''Support''' I trust E not to go rouge or do anything stupid(well maybe a few muck ups while he gets used to the tools)  --
'''Festive support.''' I have known E for some time now and he has plenty of experience and knowledge of the project that will make him an excellent administrator. Definitely has my support. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - All arrows point to the bullseye. I don't think I've seen E around, even as Extranet, but looking through contributions, I suspect this is due to his gnomish editing nature. I think he'll excel as an admin. --
'''Support''' - Most of the reasons under Oppose are underwhelming; the only one that concerns me is the question of interaction with other editors, and I feel that IRC helps to offset that (even though it's off-wiki). Your contributions have been pretty good - I'm not too worried whether they've been done with tools like AWB, so long as they've been used correctly - and having the support of both of these noms, who tend to make good decisions, is encouraging.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose or to believe that tools would be abused. --
'''Support''' Looks like E would make a fine admin. --
<s> '''Neutral''': </s> '''Weak support.'''  I would like to support you, but is it normal for RfA candidates to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/E2&diff=prev&oldid=180211474 update the tally] on their own RfA?  Isn't that a conflict of interest?  --
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor. <strong>
'''Support''' More than enough experience.
'''Support''' per Kurt Weber.
'''Support''', though I acknowledge (from personal experience) that a one or two letter name or pseudonym can cause confusion, and an admin can ill-afford to have editors confused about who he/she is. Though I support the candidate even without a name change, I would ask that they at least consider it. Either way, the candidate's body of work strongly indicates that we should expect no problems with this user as an admin.
'''Support''' There is nothing wrong with wanting to be an admin. I would trust E with the tools. --
The concerns brought up here are not big enough for me to oppose, or go neutral. You are not the ideal candidate for adminship, but who is? Good luck!--
'''Support'''-3 unsuccessful Rfas is quite enough, I strongly support this user, he will make good admin!--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per Cometstyles (and Kurt Weber's oppose, which I completely disagree with). '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - The lack of article-writing doesn't bother me. I think that E will know his limits, and not get involved in situations that he's not ready for and end up over his head.
'''Support''' I don't feel that you would abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' I see an overwhelming amount of minor typos fixed with AWB, I don't think that's really the way to gain experience editing in the mainspace. Doesn't seem to have made any real progress on that front since the last RFA. Also, the repeated references to IRC duties don't have much to do with Wikipedia editing and experience.
'''Weak oppose''' per lack of encyclopedic work and weak answer to Q5. A better approach would be something like "I research whether the claims are true, feel slightly ashamed that we don't have an article about this notable author yet, and expand the article myself, dropping a note on the author's talk page inviting him to expand the page further. If the claims appear not to be true, I just delete the page." If you find a poor article on a worthy topic, your instinct should be to improve the article, not to tag it for deletion.
'''Weak oppose''' per RxS's concern.
Changed his username already, plans to change it again in a few months? We have enough anono-admins already with little connection to the identity they went through RFA as. Wait until you've figured out who you're going to be before you ask us to trust you as an admin. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; This user has four RfAs in the past year.  Admittedly, two of them were within about three weeks of other, and the last one was about six months ago; however, this user very clearly ''wants'' to be an administrator.  Frankly, that worries me.
'''Strong oppose''' hardly any contributions that were not mechanical - about 300 or so non mechanical article edits. Coupled with the high levels of RfAs, that is bad. '''
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' I'm not normally a stickler for experience, but user appears to have no <s>article-writing experience, nor any</s> experience in content disputes of any kind ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=E&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 32 talk page edits,] and many of those are reverting vandalism). I know that vandal-fighting admins don't need to be prodigious writers or wise mediators, but I doubt this user has enough experience to work harmoniously with others. And per Blnguyen, user's many automated edits and RFAs give me the heebie jeebies.
'''Oppose''' – relatively little activity in the mainspace beyond fighting vandalism and typos, and almost no substantive edits to the talk namespace. All administrators need a background in the mainspace, constructing articles and working with others. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' high volume of mechanical edits aren't the way to gain experience, its the lack of significant interaction with the community thats my part of my concern if it was this alone I'd have gone neutral.The other factor is the answer to my question about IRC, its well documented that when an admin reacts to an IRC discussion the resulting action ends up at AN/I. Also an admin is the one responsible for their actions alone, not on behalf of any one. All of this gives me the impression that when push comes to shove and due to a lack of significant experience E is more likely to respond to herd.
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced, too eager for adminship, some temperamental concerns.
With some regret -- I'm opposing mainly because I don't think E has had any real experience in disputes, even minor, and I think that's important for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen, although not as strongly.
I am opposing because I think that an administrator should have substantial (though not extraordinary) experience writing articles and interacting and attempting to resolve interpersonal conflicts.  I conclude, by examining E's edits, that he or she lacks these experiences.  Admittedly, article writing does not relate directly to administrative tasks, but it seems clear to me that administrators should contribute to the encyclopedia.  Some of our best and/or most prominent administrator, recently, have come to the same conclusion.   In my opinion it is, in part, because if an administrator or non-administrator does not regularly (though not necessarily often) contribute to the encyclopedia, he or she tends to become jaded, incompassionate and, generally (in the case of an administrator), not the person he or she used to be when he or she was given the +sysop flag.  I do not wish this outlook upon E or the encyclopedia he is to administer, and so oppose this request.  --
Per Blnguyen.
'''Oppose'''.  Nom doesn't meet my criterion of a productive, successful editor in the mainspace.  --
'''Oppose''' per my neutral comments below, and per Blnguyen. --'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' 99% per Blnguyen, but I would have liked to have seen the candidate step in and just give some of those users who have questioned those Opposing a little tap on the shoulder, and telling them to leave those Opposing alone.
I would like to see more encyclopedia-building from this candidate, especially as he seems rather ambitious in his desire to become an administrator.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Per Blnguyen and Xoloz -- <b>
'''Neutral''' I would have supported him but the mainspace contributions are a bit low. --
Leaning toward oppose, not confident that the user has enough experience in admin related tasks. <font face="Broadway">
'''Neutral''' Per concerns raised by Blnguyen, Iamunknown and Gnangarra - I don't feel strongly enough to oppose outright, but I believe the concerns are valid and the candidate would be well advised to take them on board. I think it comes back to the principle that some excellent editors do not necessarily make good admins, I'd like to see more demonstration of dispute resolution and good judgement in situations which require judgement (on-wiki).
'''Neutral''' I would have hoped for an answer from the candidate himself to the question I asked; it was not rocket science. However, he seems to have a firm grasp of the basics. For negligent delegation, I mark him down, as my talk page is always open. For being well-spirited, I mark him up. --'''
Neutral - I'd like to see more work in AN/I and substantive edits in mainspace. The lack of experience with conflict (outside of IRC, of course) is a little troubling but editors edit in their area of interest, and some areas just aren't prone to conflict. Still, much of the fires are put out at AN and AN/I (except for the ones that just flame higher to ArbCom) and some experience there would show your temperment much more clearly.
Neutral and suggest abandoning this account should this RfA not succeed (i.e. in case you're interested in helping out using the admin tools). Good faith, as far as not putting the ability to learn past fellow users goes, is practically nonexistent on Wikipedia. I&nbsp;
Sure. Seems competent. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - Looking through your edits you seem to have a vast majority of areas where you edit, and they all look good in my eyes.
'''Strong support''' This user spent about three years in Wikipedia, but hasn't had ''any'' RfA. I've seen this user around in many places like RfAs. I'll get mad if this RfA is unsuccessful.
'''Support'''  - Looks like east718 has the right attitude, and has gotten the necessary experience.
'''Strong support''' Wait... he's not already an admin? I could have sworn he was...
'''Another pile on!!''' <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' His contributions to this project is a great asset. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Yeah, why not.
'''Support''' A competent enough editor.
'''Support''' Without question...excellent vandal fighter and a lot more as well.--
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Support''' - Stronly doubt will abuse tools, and willing to learn more about the areas that he is not sure about before admining? <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate. Has a broad and comprehensive understanding of WP policies. Well done.
'''Support''' I see you doing a lot of good edits related to MMA. You have my totally trust.
I'm
'''Strong Support''' - East718's contributions to MMA-related articles are second to none. If anyone deserves adminship, this is the one.
'''Strong Support'''. Glad I came across this as I was hoping this user would seek adminship some day. Does excellent work, is extremely fair minded, and stays cool when the editing gets hot.--
'''Support''' Contributions have shown that he is trustworthy and can use the tools. Cheers! <b>
'''Give 'em the mop''' - East718 deserves nothing short of adminship. Very competent and friendly user who knows policy well. '''''
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Evident from the other comments above that he can use the tools, and is a good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
I always look at self-noms even more closely, but this is an EASY '''strong support'''.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Good and helpful contributor. Good answer to question n° 3. --
'''Support''' No problems with this editor!
&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''  Good editor.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' At least a year experience and over 5000 edits...Don't even need to check rest of reqs.
Strong track record, but please read through [[WP:3RR]] and [[WP:SIGNATURE]]. Also please do not let editing wikipedia stop you from staying healthy.--
'''Support''' Why isn't this guy an admin?? He has the makings of a good admin... [[Image:Original_Barnstar.png|50px]] --<font color="Green">
'''Support''' Track is good no concerns.
'''Support''' He's been here for a long time and has nothing but constructive edits. He's a great contributor to the MMA world and is a [[Fedor Emelianenko]] fan. :)
'''Support''' A great set of answers to the questions. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' Seems like a great editor, already should have been an admin. :) '''
'''Support''' you had the answer to Q1 that I should have put in my RfA ;-) --'''
'''Strong Support''' What else is there to say that others haven't said above? ^
Good user.
'''Support'''. This editor has a good record, with honest answers to indicate lessons learned.  We need more admins who can roll back vandal-prone articles such as [[Randy Couture]], as this editor has done already.
'''Support''' good user and lots of recent work at CSD.
'''Support''' Has done excellent work in writing articles and obtaining free images. Definitely experienced enough.
'''Weak Support'''. The candidate is qualified and has been a good member of the community. I would have preferred a more measured response to Q3.
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen his editing on politically controversial articles where there was great polarization (that is the true test)-- and to his credit easst718, without question, displayed fine qualities necessary for being an outstanding administrator: even handedness, open minded, consideration, fairness, putting WP policies ahead of politics, and generally staying cool. Did I say very fair minded? That too. His effect has been to help WP by moderating collaboration and reducing partisan conflicts. Prime admin material!
'''Support''' Solid candidate and per [[User:Neil]]'s argument regarding the [[Deluge (mythology)|issues that will affect all admins after the first week of November]] <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Per the above recommendations. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">


'''Support'''.  We need people doing the jobs that east is interested in.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Strong Support'''. I know this user for quite a time now and am convinced that he would do very good work as an admin, judging his skills, neutrality, friendly behaviour and judgment skills as I've seen them myself.
My interaction, though limited, have been good. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - good level of experience and a nice chap, great admin material.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but asserts that they will not deal with articles requiring deletion under [[WP:CSD#A7|criterion A7]]; this is unfortunate, as this criterion is the one which most often applies, and the extent of the candidate's assistance will therefore be significantly limited –
A lot of edits, and I think he will be a good admin! I also beat the nom!!!
'''Support''' - Strong Project space edits, and I believe this user won't abuse the mop. --
'''Support'''. Candidate has a lot of experience with AfD, and seems to generally give solidly well-thought-out rationales while remaining civil. —
'''Support''' I doubt this user will abuse the buttons, nothing too flashy in the contribs, nothing out of the ordinary either. --'''
'''Support''' as nominator. -
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions.  --
'''Support'''. Good solid editor, works hard, and fair minded. I'm sure I disagreed with him about something, but I couldn't tell you what it was, so it must not have left me with a negative impression. -
'''Support'''  Takes [[WP:A]] seriously and, I agree with TKD, contributes thoughtfully to AfD's. Also a tremendous help at the reference desks. Sound ideas, good judgment, mature editor, not a friend of wiki-drama. As long as he doesn't [[Nikola_Tesla#United_States|promise us a fortune]], I trust him with the tools. ---
'''Support'''. Excellent research at AfD.
'''Support''', I've seen nothing but good from this editor.
'''Support''' I thought he already was, and see no reason for him not to be. I do agree with Miranda that he might not be willing to ban someone who is disrupting or harming the encyclopedia, or has just plain exhausted the community's patience, but I also don't think that he will get in the way of those that are --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Support'''; absolutely.  Veteran editor, fair, sane, trustworthy.  Nothing but good here.
'''Support'''. A great editor that I highly doubt will misuse the tools provided for administrators.
'''Support''' good edit history, the candidate will make a good admin --
'''Support''' - great editor with solid edits; always does very good work at AFD, and seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' This user is a great editor. It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I have always been impressed with the candidate's thoughtful comments in AfD discussions.
'''Support'''. Well experienced, good all-round contributor.
Yes. This editor seems to be a prime choice for the mop. -- <strong>
Useful fella, come across him a voice of sanity on deletion stuff. Should do well, and I'm not fussed about the Qst comment. If he has inexhaustible patience, good on him. He'll likely make a far better admin than me, who does not possess such calm!
Lightbulb support.
'''Support'''.  To me, the strongest candidate on RFA at the moment, and probably for a while.  No concerns whatsoever.
Well, OK. Seems to have his heart in the right place and a good head on his shoulders. Not honestly particularly ticked off at the comment at the Qst ban, if it was just a general thing and not directed towards that immediate conversation. I do hope that you realise people, by and large, treat CSN as the penultimate resort before ArbCom. ~
'''Support''' - What I see here is a very strong candidate indeed. Bucket-fulls of experience in all the correct areas. This user should have been an admin a while ago. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Great editing track ,civil and with experience.
—'''
-'''Support''' - fine editor.
'''Support''' - Been on the project for a good while.  I've seen him around here and there and he seems sensible to me.
'''Support'''.  Edison has lots of edits, good work on help-boards and AfD (although we don't always agree), and has been very helpful throughout WP.  Will make a great Admin, with all the experience gained through past efforts.
Looks good, excellent answers to questions (especially Q3). No reason to oppose, sound editor. <b>
'''Support'''. He is a civil, reasonable, intelligent, and informed editor, and I have no doubts that he will be an excellent admin. — '''
'''Support'''. A dedicated editor, who has helped out all around WP. Has consistently brought intelligent, well-thought-out perspectives to debates, and his excellent judgment will be an asset in administrative tasks. --'''<font color="#FFA52B">K<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' Noticed him as an excellant contributor to AFD, believe will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Like Davewild and others I've seen Edison's good work at AfD.  Good judgment and I think will be a good admin.--
'''Support''' - fully qualified candidate.
Long overdue, didn't I ask to nominate you before.
'''Support'''. Friday's comments below sum my feelings up perfectly. Being calm, levelheaded, [[WP:DNFTT|stingy with the troll food]] and slow with the banhammer are all good things.
'''Support''' there is nothing wrong with this user.
'''Support''' - I'm impressed by most of what I see, but Miranda has a point. However, I will support. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
--
'''Support''' A calm and level headed editor, whose contributions (and discussion below in Neutral) lead me to believe he will pause before acting and reflect and review actions that are made. To whit, trustworthy with the buttons. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I've seen you around, you'll do a good job :) '''
'''Support''' I trust that this editor won't misuse the mop.

'''Support''' No qualms. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' per nom. Trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Candidate is a good member of the community and  understands policy. Edison appears to have all the makings of a solid admin.
I'm
'''Support''' This user would make a great admin, I am pleased by his responses regarding the sample articles. [[User:Nenyedi|<span style="color:green">'''Nen'''</span>]]
'''Support''' I know I've seen you [[WP:REFDESK|somewhere]]... ;-) · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''  more than meets my standards. Experienced user, patient and helpful with others. No evidence of incivility or acting out in anger.
'''Weakish Support''' Will not abuse the tools, IMO, so support. I should have liked more mainspace and usertalk edits recently... but then it is a question of trust, and this editor has mine.
'''Support''' have seen in AFD's and while we don't always agree, he is always civil and presents his position coherently.
'''Support''' From his answers to the questions, he seems to have a good understanding of deletion policy. (Stuff you would need to know to do speedies without making mistakes, not just AfD policy).  An all around good record.
'''Support'''. Good, experienced editor.
'''Support'''. Good editors, good admins make. In my experience he has always calm, helpful and considerate.
'''Support'''. Impressed by his answers to Q. 6. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions. Trustworthy and ready for the tools. Welcome to WP:60. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' as nominator.
A great vandalfighter - but I'm a bit concerned that you haven't been at AIV in a while.  Get back there, and you'll have my full support :) '''
The answer to Q4 shows a good understanding of the XFD process, and the answer to Q5 shows an ability to admit mistakes. The diff above was my only concern; other than that, I am confident that Erwin will make a fine administrator. <b>
<b><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''support''' Adminship [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal| != big deal]]
'''Support''' Not a big deal. Looking through the contributions may turn up a lack of experience in some areas, but not too concerning and I have all confidence the user will not abuse the tools. It ain't no big deal, y'all --'''
'''Support''' per Mike.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Glad to give him my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I'm not sure how much the candidate really understands about adminship, but it's not that complicated.  No major problems; no big deal.
'''Support'''.  Edit count is fine, and the editor won't abuse the tools.  '''
'''Support''', no good reason not to.
'''Support''' and strongly protest the notion that less than 3000 edits is a sign of inexperience.
'''Support''' &mdash; I see nothing to indicate that this user will execute the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature manner.  Not that I'm implying you're a "mature person" at only 37...erm...you know what I mean ;)  --
That's a lot of edits!
Support. We'll need admins like him if the Cybermen try to take over.
'''Support''' Having had the pleasure to edit a number of articles with this user, he has my full confidence that he would use administrative tools with maturity and consideration.  And he's a jolly pleasant chap, too, which would be handy in situations when diplomacy is required. --
No problems here.
—&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I would normally oppose candidates with less than 3,000 overall edits, but what you've achieved in both the mainspace and Wikipedia-space is just excellent. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', candidate can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' Cannot see anything to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' solid contributor.
'''Support''' I simply think Edokter will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Knowledgeable, articulate in answering RFA questions, good contributions, and no evidential diffs provided to convince me of the merits of opposition. A strong candidate.
'''Support''' As per VanTucky and no concerns nothing wrong in track.
'''Support.''' Good answers to the questions, and I found myself not being convinced by any data given by the Oppose voters. The uproar at [[Talk:Compact Disc]] (evidenced from one of the Oppose votes) would suggest that Edokter might have a fresh example to add to his answer to Question #3 above. I see that he participates at some of the admin noticeboards, and has good knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience.
'''Oppose''' - not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' - bias and cavalier attitude toward contributions (e.g., deleted [[Compact Disc]] Logos section). (And mangled numbering of this Oppose section with his response, now fixed.) --
'''Neutral'''.  It seems likely you will pass, and I think you will probably do fine.  I can't quite support based on the diff given in question 6 and your response to that question.  I can understand your initially thinking the nom was bad faith, but I think you should have done more to retract or apologize for that statement once you learned otherwise.  I think we ought to deal strongly with true bad faith, yet also be cautious about making the accusation.  However, I won't oppose and I wish you the best of luck.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
Definite support! I though Eleassar was already an admin! -
'''Support''' -  wel the contributions look ok and the user is also very experienced :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Looks good, contributions all over the place, civil, and trust is evidenced by adminship on another project as well.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - sure, a little bit more activity might be desired, but overall you seem to have been here a long time and seem to be experienced. --
'''Support''' as a fellow relative-outsider. A decent human being and a great help on templates, it would seem.
'''ZA'''; Good user, no problems and clearly trustworthy. - '''
'''Good user''', who wants adminship for the 'right' reasons.  Multilingual admins who can coordinate work across multiple projects are always an asset.
'''Support''' He looks good. He knows what he is doing. I would like to see a healthier edit count, more than 3500+, but other than that, he should be an admin!
'''Support''', looks good. '''<font color="green">Tim</font>'''<sup>{'''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - He looks good to me. By the way Rspeer, there is no need to jump on Politics rule. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''', candidate certainly would make a great administrator. --
'''Support''' This user seems like the sort that will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Looks pretty good. -
'''Support''' Experienced candidate and would put the mop to good use. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''- Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - good luck.
'''Support''' agree with all above.
'''Support''' no problems. Definitely qualified. —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' All is well here.
'''Support''' --Per above.
[[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' - from what I've seen, user will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Looks like a excellent contributor. —
I'm
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools.
'''Support'''. Appears qualified. Solid editing experience.
'''support'''
This Candidate '''gets my vote''' as I see no reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. They have had plenty of experience both here and in the Slovenian Wikipedia. Is willing to go with the flow and change with the wiki. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support''' Obviously qualified, very mature and knowledgable. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' under either name this editor has the experience to be a good admin.--
'''Support''' An instance where a specialist should be entrusted with the special tools.
'''Support''' -- obviously excellent candidate. --<font face="Futura">
'''No-cliche Support''' - Indeed a great candidate. --

'''Support''' I will gladly support here.  Best of luck!
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Great candidate, will do good work, I would like to see a bit wider of an area of work but in general a good user. This is almost a Support pile on. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Ja, prosim''' We need more administrators from Slovenia! :-) Now seriously, I would've preferred a little bit more activity, but this is obviously an experienced, trustworthy editor.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Experienced Wikipedian, lots of edits to Wikipedia space, interaction with other users, healthy amount of edits (4,000 +). Trustworthy. Also, wide variety of article edits, not only removing vandalism/nonsense, but also adding references and categories as well as general edits. Lots of experience with AfD too. Good luck. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', contribs look clean. Slight concern over seemingly a lack of usage of article talk pages, but your user talk edit count puts that doubt to bed. Looks like you could use the admin tools so I'm willing to support.
'''Support''' '''''Yet another high quality self-nom'''''. Civility looks great, loads of accurate work at [[WP:AFD]], where you have made a mistake you've quickly realised and reverted it which shows honesty and checking, plenty of other user interaction, good writing and excellent vandal fighting abilities. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessie_Davis&diff=prev&oldid=140371401 Support]. '''
Yep.
fair candidate. -- <strong>
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the extra tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems whatsoever.
'''Support''' this is an excellent candidate right here. Should be an asset. —
'''Support''' - Good diversity of experience, solid vandal whacker.
'''Support'''. Funny, I thought you already were an admin.  Anyway, answers are satisfactory, contribs look good, solid grasp on policy and the like.
'''Support'''. Strange, I thought that you were an admin too. Satisfactory answers, and a good grasp of policy. '''
'''Support''' Knows policy.
'''Support''' Per pedro--
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">

'''Support''' Well-rounded experience, clear understanding of policy, and will mop wisely. -
'''Support''' Sonic Youth is cool, and so is this editor. -
'''Support'''. Good editor, fine contribs. Have fun mopping!
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' a fine self-nomination here.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' Looks good.
I wish he had gotten into a conflict to see how his IRL skills would help out, but I can't oppose per that :P  The only surprise here is the self nom... [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''. A little inexperienced as yet, perhaps, but shows commitment to encyclopedia building, and record at AfD suggests reasonable understanding of policies.
'''Support''', no problem here. Good luck.
'''Weak Support''' Looks like a good editor, but I am weak support because I believe he has not been here that long, and may not know all things that you need to learn to be an admin. However, he looks like a good editor, and I doubt that he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''- per Lradrama. --'''
'''Support''' I've noticed his comments many times at AfD, ANI, and other places and he's always been helpful, knowledgeable, and civil... seems like a great mop candidate.
'''Support''' per [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]. Everything looks fine, I see no reason to distrust this user with the tools. <b>
'''Support'''. Civil, has thoughtful discussion and understands policy well.
'''Support''' - His answers shows he has a grasp on the jobs of a admin. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Weak Support''' Good editor, but I think a little more experience would help. -
'''Support''' Seeing him quite a lot of times, I thought he was a administrator all this time. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Haven't seen this editor before, but I like that he seems [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thundercross16&diff=prev&oldid=145794193 conscientious] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnny_Bravo&diff=prev&oldid=145633926 thorough] at first glance and has demonstrated a decent grasp of deletion policies et al. Not seeing any other evidence of it than the link he gave, but at least he's giving lip service to building consensus. The only thing that makes me at all shaky about this is that his first edit wasn't until 00:52, 12 December 2006.  That, however, doesn't matter nearly enough to warrant witholding the tools given his grasp of policy and his willingness to reach out to new editors while working the non-admin side of CSD-land.
'''Support''' - I have no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools.  Best of luck.  -
'''Support''' Solid user, focused plans on how to use admin powers.
'''Support''' Looks good.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' Excellent experience in a wide variety of admin tasks ''and'' editing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - a good user who is in need of the tools, I've been impressed with JR whenever I've seen him.
'''Support'''. Fantastic user, they will make a great admin. Impressive contributions. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I thought he was...
'''Support''' Only seen good things from this editor. No concerns regarding access to the buttons.
'''Support'''- Per above. Good editor. Would make good admin.
'''Yes''' --
'''Support''' May the wiki gods smile on on your works. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Believe it or not, I actually thought he already was an admin. As he isn't he should be. --
'''Support''' I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator.  ''Power to those who desire it!''  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Support'''. Good editor who will make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''. Of course. Good all-round work on Wikipedia, and my experiences discussing with him on chess related topics have been most positive and beneficial.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Weak support''' - good editor, however would suggest that you carefully review articles before hitting the delete button.
'''Support'''. Seems sensible, no reason to think he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' A good, reasonable candidate, in my experience. --

'''oppose''' anti-content tendencies evidenced at [[WP:AN#NN_character_articles]] and seen by looking through contrib history. We don't need more admins determined to "save" Wikipedia from verifiable stub articles by deleting articles or turning everything into redirects and hiding the content. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' Not that it will make a difference (so congratulations in advance), but I feel EliminatorJR lacks understanding of process. He placed a speedy tag (G12) on an article that was ''already'' on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007/08 Premier League Results|AfD]], asserting copyright vialotaion for a mere list of football clubs, which I removed. I had to revert him ''twice'', after which he ran off to WP:ANI to get it speedy deleted. While he found a supporting admin there, it does demontstrate his disregard for process. Not befitting a potential admin. --
'''Neutral''' I am leaning towards support, and would, but I have some slight reservations about your experience.  I like what I see, and, from the looks of it, you will be sysopped, but I would prefer a little more time for you personally to gain experience.
'''Neutral''' Going neutral because I have had some minor disputes with you that I feel were never resolved (and in fact, I consider the issues themselves unresolved as well), and while I don't oppose your nomination per se, I do think it'd be highly appropriate for you to exercise a high level caution in using admin tools in areas you consider of interest to you.  Particularly Chess related ones.  Of course, a level of caution is appropriate for all admin actions, but I think you'd be well served to kick it up a notch.

Sane. And a writing editor as well, which is a bonus.--
Hell yeah.
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Strong support''' - well-proven  track record. Absolutely no question in my mind -
'''Strong support''' for this experienced editor.
'''Support''' a fine candidate who I thought was an administrator. Good luck! '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Strong support''' ElinorD is a talented writer and a productive and fair-minded editor with a solid understanding of policy in both its letter and its spirit. There is no question in my mind that she will make good use of the tools.

'''Support''' Thiscuser shows a broad base of experience in mainspace and namespace, and is the first user I can recall seeing with<strike> 1005</strike> edit summary in all article. I would like to see answers to the questions, or a statement of intent not to answer them, but am happy to support without. A good user.--
'''Strong Support''' I have seen ElinorD around many times before. She is a decent user, and she will be very valuable as an administrator (of course, she's very valuable already).
'''Strong support'''. An excellent editor, very fair-minded, and shows a good understanding of policy.
'''Support''' Definatly a good admin.
'''Strong Support''' Kind, helpful editor, who is a tremendous asset to the project.  No one deserves the mop more.
'''Strong Support'''. A great editor! --
'''Support''' absolutely. A fantastic editor who will make a fantastic admin. '''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Appears to be keen to improve wikipedia and learn more about its policies
'''Strong support'''. Elinor represents the best of Wikipedia. Kind, polite and cheerful; and at the same time, serious, thoughtful and respectful critic when needed. I can thing of few non-admin editors currently active more deserving of the tools. Go Eli!
'''Support'''. Has all the right ingredients - smart, mature, kind, knowledgeable and writes well. Will make a great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --

'''Support'''  Good editor, strong contributor.  I suspect that we may not see eye-to-eye on issues of politics or religion, but I will support.  Seems to recognize the wikipedia is run (or should be) by consensus agreement on verifiable references, not personal viewpoints.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' Have seen her around often. Good contributor. No reason not to trust her with the tools.--
'''Support'''. Seems very level headed. Will make good use of the tools.
I rarely comment on non-controversial nominations like this, but she seems like the absolute perfect candidate.  I see no reason not to give her the tools.
'''Strong support''' with pleasure. 'Exceedingly clueful' is an understatement. I've rarely seen anyone so wise and mature without coming across as pompous and overbearing. Certainly will be an asset.
'''Support''' -- will be an asset with administrator tools.
Now that the questions are answered, I see no reason not to support whole heartedly.  Good luck with the tools! [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Editors who are habitually kind — as opposed to just civil or professional — are worth their weight in gold. Editors who remain friendly and courteous while editing subjects that arose strong feelings, and who still find time to counteract vandalism and write well-rounded articles, are even more valuable. Elinor is an asset to this project and will make a great admin. -
Excellent editor... Has a good understanding of policies.. --
Hey, isn't she an admin already? Oh wait...
'''Support''' no problems I can see --
'''Support''' I like what I see...will be a good admin.
'''Why not?''' Clear case of administrator-awesomeness. As long as she stays clear of the dark side of the broom, I trust her judgement. [[User:Mceder|mceder]] (
'''Support''' without reservations. —'''
'''Support''' nice editor indeed!
<font color="magenta"><sub>R</sub>O<big>A<big>RR!!</big></big></font> Smart little user.
Genuine surprise, thought already was one.
'''Support''' - I thought you already were :) .--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per all above. Besides familiarity with the admin tools, she's clearly a serious article-writer. Tho' the edit stats reveal an eclectic mix of article contributions: [[Roman Catholic Church]], [[Milk]], [[Diarrhea]] and [[Jimmy Wales]] - interesting juxtaposition. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup><font color="Purple">
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''' A fine user. Thanks for your work, now go mop!
I'm
'''Support''' based on answers and personal experience.
'''Support''' - fully qualified candidate, good answers to questions.
'''Support''' certainly won't abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, calm and intelligent.--
'''Support''' - an excellent user, will certainly be helpfull at AIV where she's always filing reports.
'''Support''' Her careful and reasonable approach is an asset on RC patrol; writes well on a variety of topics.
'''Support''' Great in difficult situations - will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' A great editor, always serious and sensible.
'''support''' proud to help give you the mop and bucket. '''
'''Support'''. I've often seen this editor being helpful. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Very impressive. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' hardworker, and serious

Wholehearted, unconditional '''support'''! Three cheers to ElinorD!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' This editor and I disagree fundamentally over part of the wording of a proposed policy. However in all those discussions we have had I have never had the slightest reason to doubt that this person is not well intentioned and would not comport herself to the standards of Wikipedia. I further believe she would make a fine admin, hence my vote.
'''Support''' Those contribs look Shiny to me! OOHHH!
'''Support''' Solid editor who ''gets it'' and has done great work here. ++
'''Support'''; everything looks good here.
'''Support''' for Elinor. A very helpful user in my experience.
'''Support''':  Good contributions and reasonable intervention.
'''Support''' Although I haven't had the privilege of interacting with ElinorD before, I have seen her around in what usually are heated discussions, and I was always impressed with what I saw. So, yes, sure. —
'''Support''' per full answer to question 4. Reason I asked was, I've seen vandal fighters instinctively use the tools to apparently settle content disputes with less established users who were not obviously trolling, and your quick response in those cases lead me to wonder how you'd react in further instances with the buttons at your command. I hope that we can continue to work together to settle policy differences without resorting to revert wars over minor semantic details.—
'''Support''' '''<font color="#1E90FF" face="georgia">
'''Support'''.  We can always use another good faith administrator and someone with skills in mediating and diffusing conflicts within the project.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - Have seen her around and see no reason not to trust her with the sysop bit. --
'''Support''', despite having some misgivings because of her willingness to treat an ArbCom decision regarding 'attack site links' as policy exempt from the normal need for consensus; I'd be hypocritical if I used this as a "litmus test" against an admin nominee as has been done to nominees on the opposite side of the issue.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support'''. Well-suited to the task.
'''Support'''. Good 'pedia builder cheers,
'''Support''' Why not???--
'''Support''' per Phaedriel. &mdash;
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around and support without hesitation.
'''Support''' Sometimes we've agreed at [[WT:NPA]], sometimes we haven't.  But everything I have seen from this editor has been thoughtful, mature, and with the best interests of building an encyclopedia in mind.  I'd be happy to see her with the tools.
'''Support''' - Just had a very constructive discussion with this editor, and from what I see she'll make a fine admin. <b>
'''Support''' A great editor. It is time to give her the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''' as someone who clearly understands both the rules and the reasons for them. '''
'''Support''' I'm not too worried about the reasoning provided by the opposers. This user has demonstrated a need for the tools, and clearly understands Wikipedia policy. I see no reason not to give ElinorD the tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' Are those space pants you're wearing? Because your edits look out of this world!  <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' I thought you were one. Oh well, that will be rectified soon enough. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' Absolutely first rate. I have no reservations about this candidate.
'''Support'''- Great editor.
'''Support'''
You mean ... you're not one? ;) You have my '''full support'''. -- '''
'''Support'''' - Good user, lots of reverts, many good edits, lot of barnstars, and armed with Twinkle.  Support here. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' - This is precisely the sort of editor who should have the mop and bucket.  Wikipedia needs more like her.  We're lucky to have her. -
'''Support''' - I've seen some of her work with religion-related articles and believe her to be a solid editor.
'''Support''' No reason will not make a good admin.
'''Support.''' We need more model editor admins.
'''Support''', a trustworthy, hopeful rolemodel admin. :). --'''
'''Support''' Oppose votes below are simply silly. I've seen nothing but excellent contributions by this editor.--
'''Support''' - mostly because of my obsession with powers of ten. I am confident that ElinorD will be a responsible admin.
'''Support''' [[WP:100]], and this user seems to be level-headed and contributes to the article space as well. --
'''Support'''. I'm liking this user's calm yet willing to learn attitude outlined in the answers to the questions and in Durin's commentary. Would make a good admin. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Support''' very qualified --
'''Support''', well done, good luck!
'''Support''' - fine contributor who would benefit from admin tools. I have no worries about this users judgement in the time I have seen their contributions. Cheers! --
Of course I '''support''', per nom. ;o)

'''Support''' great contributor who would be an equally good admin.
'''Support''' with the caveat that I would like to see ElinorD display more individuality -she has a tendency to usually agree with admins.  Not that that's bad, but I look forward to seeing her come into her own and become more independent and assertive once she's an admin herself.  Well done Elinor!
'''Oppose'''- too little experience.
See teh nom statement. Is absolutely qualified. -- <strong>
'''Nom Support''' - absolutely. Go Kitteh :)-
Finally! *counts on fingers* 3 months since I offered!&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' :)
I can't wait. --
'''Support''' - another good candidate! --
'''Support''' I have no concerns here. Happy to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Should have saved myself some time and just gone "per nom", but a review of your last 1500 contributions, 500 odd deleted contribs and talk page indicate nothing but an excellent user who clearly will benefit from the tools. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Suprt this candidet 4 admin! Mek her ceiling cat alreddy. ~
I have had very positive interactions with her in the past. She is very friendly, is not likely to abuse the tools, and is experienced. She 100% meets my criteria. Good luck!--
'''Support''' excellent candidate in my experience. <b>
'''Support''' User has the patience of a saint. :)
'''Strong Support''' Reviewing her contributions, didn't see any breakdowns of civility even in bad circumstances, good knowledge of Wiki-Policy, and looks like she will definitely benefit from the tools.
I'm
I strongly support this nomination. I originally encountered Eliz81 when she requested her user page to be protected at RFPP. Since then, I have monitored her, and I've found her to been a great user with high knowledge of policy.
'''Strong support'''.  I've had many positive experiences with this editor, and learned from her.  She will surely be a great admin.
'''
Absolutely.

'''Support'''. Why not?!
'''Strong support'''. A consistently patient, dedicated editor who will make a great admin. --'''<font color="#C31562">
&ndash;
'''Support''' Definitely!
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse the tools. Seen her many times at [[WP:CHECKUSER]].
'''support'''
'''Support''' Contributions show a knowledgeable, prolific, level-headed, and refreshingly friendly editor. A pleasure to support.
'''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' No worries at all. --
'''Support''' Users contributions have been extensive and positive. I can't see any reason to deny her the mop (why is getting a mop here a positive while elsewhere it is considered a negative...) <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Support.'''  Having had experience interacting with Eliz81, I can say that she is communicative, reasonable, and understands policy: the perfect combination of attributes for an admin.
'''Support''' The first reason is because she was nominated by someone I respect (which doesn't matter as I look at the admin specifically.  I looked through the edit summary.  Very nice.  The answer's to the questions, and a fairly low conflict level, seems to also be level headed (good for an admin). --
'''Support''' - Absolute and unqualified support.  -
'''support''' then hide... --
'''Support'''. Everything here looks good to me. I'm more than comfortable trusting this user with the tools.
'''Go Kitteh''' - Trust the nom, candidate's record looks good, I think she'll be a welcome addition to the team. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''', record is all positive.
'''Support''' DUH!
'''Support''' - A good candidate for using tools with trustworthiness.
jump onto the pile '''support'''! <strong>
'''Support''' - Okay, yes, can be trusted with the tools I think. Dedicated editor. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Good candidate, who can be trusted with the tools. Will be a strong asset. --
'''Support''' As per Alison ,track is very good and has been very active since June with over 5000 mainspace edits.Great coaching.
'''No-brainer support'''  Seen her many times at [[WP:AFD]].  More than qualified.
'''Good luck.''' -
'''Strong Support''' Well I haven't met her, but the contributions are <font color=green>good</font>, the attitude is <font color=green>good</font>, the numbers (this is support vote #46 I believe, plus edit count &c.) are <font color=green>good</font>…and [[:Image:Four leaf clover.jpg|here]]'s a four leaf clover just for luck. :) I look forward to working with you. &mdash;
'''Support''' this candidate seems both ready and capable.
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason not to.-
'''Support''' Seems like a good choice. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' I like what I read --
'''Support''' No major problems that I can see, apart from lacking an endorsement from a WikiProject... <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Its all been said.
'''Support''' - was just coming to offer you a nom myself and found this link on your userpage - I've checked over your contribs and think you'll be fine.
'''
'''Meow.''' That is, support. Good, well-rounded candidate. --
'''Support''' A strong candidate.
'''Unbelievably Strong Support''' Most people know, of course, that I go through the edits of any RfA candidate I offer an opinion on, and offer an explanation for my opinion. Sometimes, when a good friend is up for RfA, it can be frustrating, because of course I want to support, but at the same time, I will not let my friendship get in the way of objectivity, and I will be honest if I don't think a friend is ready. Even though I did review Eliz's contributions, I did not have to, because I've known her for several months, and I've actually watched her editing patterns, knowing she was being coached by Alison. I also highly respect both Alison, and Anonymous Dissident, as administrators, and as editors, and they both have excellent judgment. Just the fact that the two of them are nominators, says a lot, even without knowing anything about the candidate. However, I happen to know Eliz, and I think she is one of Wikipedia's kindest, most generous editors, always careful, always concise, able to explain things during heated conversations in a tone that is able to diffuse tempers. She is quite knowledgeable about policy and guideline, and at the same time, exceedingly tactful when required. I have watched the AN/I threads she has been involved in, and she's always very careful to state her expectations, but also mindful of policy. The same thing goes with [[WP:RFCN]], and [[WT:U]], where she has participated in a number of discussions about usernames. Even when others may sometimes be blunt, or abrupt, Eilz is always polite, careful, measured, explains her reasoning, and does not take things personally. I honestly believe that Eliz will make a wonderful addition to the current administrative team, and I look forward to congratulating her. <small>
'''Support''' Eilz from all that I seen looks to be a highly qualified candidate, She has a good understanding of policy, aside from patrolling vandalism and XFD's she also preforms many mundane maintenance tasks like fixing links to disambiguation pages and adding templates to their relevant articles.▪◦▪
'''Support''' - Well rounded, well trusted, well well! --
'''Support''' Capable and respected user. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - great candidate, will do absolutely fine. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Freebie nominator '''support'''.
'''Support''' - I had initial reservations about your block from 9 months back, but that seems to be largely over and learnt-from. Everything else looks fine here -
'''support'''.  Elkman has contributed significantly in creating new articles, expanding/wikifying existing articles, and contributing photographs.  When I have worked with him (which has been on numerous occasions), he has always been cooperative and open-minded.  We also met in person at a [[Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minneapolis|meetup]]. --
'''Support''' Would definitely be an asset as an admin.--
'''Support''' The editor's ability to take accountability for some admittedly serious mistakes indicate a sense of responsibility, and humility which I personally like to see in any admin. Beyond that, your overall history considerably outweighs your self-described low points, and your performance since then (a period of time longer than some editors with successful RfA's have even been here) tell me that you have addressed any concerns that might be raised. Your answers to the questions were also strong, and demonstrate a need for the tools. Best of luck.
'''Strong Support''' WOW!  This has to be the biggest "RfA cliche" moment for me in more than a year!  I would have wagered good money that Elkman had been a sysop for ages now.  Incredibly qualified... his not having been nominated before now verges on the obscene! ;)
'''Support''' A significant contributor who demonstrates a lot of maturity and valuable edits -- what's not to like? I think he'd be a great asset to the community. --
'''Support'''.  After reviewing some of his contribs, I was unable to find a reason to oppose this editor.  He'll be a valuable asset.  I hope he doesn't forget to leave an edit summary one of these days and ruin his perfect record!
'''Support''' Excellent Contributor, would make good use of the admin tools. The 'bad days' mentioned don't seem to be too recent, and your record other than this is clean. I'd suggest a 'bad day' would be less likely to occur considering the consequences of doing so whilst an Admin.
'''Support'''. Candidate has a good history of contributions and appears to be a good member of the Wiki community. He should make a solid admin.
—'''
'''Support''' A great editor. You'll be fine with the mop. -
'''Support.''' He admits his mistakes and learns from them, and there aren't any reasons to oppose that I can see, though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A4hr&diff=prev&oldid=53731280 he did forget an edit summary once].
'''Support''' This is actually an RfA I've been waiting for for some time.
'''Support''' I'm more than willing to forgive a small blemish on an otherwise impressive record - once.  You're making great contributions to the 'pedia, and I'm willing to take a chance on you.  -
'''Support''' '''FORGIVEN!'''
'''Support''' - seems to be an excellent mainspace contributor. Should be quite good. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - Awesome editor! --
'''Support''' Very impressive.
Model candidate.
'''Support''' - Looks great!
'''Support''' A great editor. An asset to this project as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': Fine editor with many fine contributions, all of my interactions with Elkman have been nothing but positive. Will be an asset with mop and broom.
'''Support''' Looks like they'll suit the grubby, worn and neglected mop handle perfectly --'''
'''Support''' Extremely helpful and knowledgeable.  Very trustworthy.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. Add a credit not mentioned yet, Minneapolis reaching FA, from my point of view thanks to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minneapolis%2C_Minnesota/Comments&oldid=89504123 him noticing] it was unreferenced.  -
'''Support''' contribs are impressive. <b>
'''Support''' Excellent editor. Elkman even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P.Haney&oldid=128704815 welomed me!]
'''Support''' Very trustworthy, edits like a bandit. Cheers!
'''Fully Support''' The times I have worked with you, you have been great to work with. I fully support you for admin.--
I'm
'''Support''' Good editor with 13000 edits with 8400 mainspace ones.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' A tireless contributor to main space; civil and cooperative.
'''Support''' Our paths have crossed in a few Minnesota articles. This editor has will do fine with the tools and I like the attitude of learning from some of the less productive situations. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Strong support''' '''
This editor's contributions most certainly do not keep the tent wher <!-- I do NOT mean "where" --> it is, and therefore I '''support''' the proposal. (Trust me, it's far too complicated to explain the reference; however, I expect Elkman will get it.)
'''Support''' sensible bloke - I remember the Elara thing, it was pretty uncomfortable for all concerned, and not through any fault of Elkman's. Not worried about anything here. ~
'''Support''' of course. All-round contributions to the encyclopedia and discussion pages are the most solid I have seen for ages.
'''Support''' - Some are born Wikipedians; others become Wikipedians through the school of hard knocks. To a fellow graduate of this school, I offer my support. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - a great contributor with an all-inclusive scope of editing. Keep up the good work. -- <small>'''
'''Support''' - there's nothing wrong at all with this user. A very good candidate. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Good people sometimes have a bad day. Everything else looks fine. --
'''Support''' What's not to like?  He is a great contributor.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. Has more than made up for problems in the distant past.
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools, any issues are from a long time ago.
Don't see any reason not to... &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks good. I like his answers a lot, and in particular, his explanation of mistakes he made last year. Lots of contribs across many namespaces and perfect edit summary usage certainly doesn't hurt. --
'''Support''' first thing I check when someone wants to whittle down the CSD backlog is their deleted edits (there ought to be a lot of them - tagging speedies so they can be deleted), and lo and behold this editor has the goods!
'''Support'''  Knowledgeable, helpful, modest, and committed.
'''Support''' per answer to my question.
'''Support'''. As a fellow participant on the Minnesota project, I've observed his edits for quite some time. I've interacted with him several times on wiki and once in person at a meetup. I'm confident he'll be a good admin.
'''Support'''.
i '''Support''' this editor to become an admin. --
--
'''Support''' (this user welcomed me when I was still vishwin60) A user who '''''admits their mistakes''''' is someone who has a sense of good responsibility, and that is a quality that I'd like to see in an admin candidate.  I was going to oppose because of some SRNC business, but returned to my senses that it was about a year ago, and that ''if we give him time he probably will come back around.''  Elkman has come a long way back around, and has also explained this low-point in his editing career.  I don't even care about the block because of this, where some uninformed users would.  Good users sometimes have bad days once in a while; I know I did, and so has Elkman.  However, the main focal point to this support is because of the way he handled it.  No doubt this user will make a great admin. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Support''', easy call.  Even if this was a big deal (which it isn't) I'd still support Elkman because he has the intellectual flexibility required to reassess his own position. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' I think Elkman is a good condidate. Should do well with extra buttons and I can't see any problems coming out of his promotion. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - Huge contributer to [[WP:WPMN]]. I'm sure the tools will get put to good use. -
'''Support'''. Valued contributor, seems reliable. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support'''. I would've nominated him before this myself if I'd realized that he wasn't an admin. -
A little concerned about the blocks, and vandilism he did. Also, I'm not sure he has a whole lot of experience. --
A little concerned about the whole SRNC debacle. Note the end of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minnesota_State_Highway_33&action=history] and has also posted vandal warnings on his own talk (can't find the diff, but circa mid-2006). SRNC was a stressful time for all of us, but some of what this user did concerns me. --'''
'''Neutral''' I can't decide over the disruption at AIV, but he is a pretty good editor...I just can't decide...so I'm saying neutral. <b><font face="Trebuchet MS">
I strongly support this nomination, being the nominator. Finally, I am first to support a candidate that I've nominated. :)
'''Strong support'''. My support of this RfA will probably surprise no one as I nominated Elonka last time round. I was disappointed that it was unsuccessful as I believe Elonka has a lot to offer the Wikipedia community. She is a long term editor who despite some early mistakes and a lot of adversity has persevered in contributing here. She has contributed a wealth of high standard content in her time on the project. Elonka has also had interactions with a number of difficult users, with who she engages politely but firmly, and has been of great assistance on troublesome [[WP:BLP|BLP]] articles including those where the subject has become angrily involved. I think it is regretable that editors who have been around for a long time and have become well known to the community sometimes suffer at RfA compared to newer editors who have had less time to rub people the wrong way. I cannot see Elonka becoming an administrator harming the project, on the contrary I think having this talented contributor with the extra tools will be of great benefit to us. Elonka has shown herself willing to learn from past mistakes, willing to hear the concerns of other users, and utterly committed to the project. She is in my opinion highly suited to adminship. <font face="Verdana">
'''Co-nom Support''' - absolutely :) -
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' long overdue
'''Support'''. This editor has improved substantially since I opposed her first RfA. --
'''Support''' I supported last time and I see no reason to change this time.
'''Strong support'''; she's a fine editor, and will be an excellent admininstrator :) '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' a long time contributor, that has learned from past mistakes and has applied the feedback received in previous RFAs in a constructive manner.
'''Support'''. I had reservations during Elonka's last RfA, as I was not familiar with her personally, and a lot of prominent editors were bringing up concerns. However, I have dealt personally with her in the months since - and have seen firsthand how much of a polite and friendly editor she is, and how she is willing to tackle difficult subjects with politeness and decorum. She's contributed reams of information to the project, and has always responded positively to constructive criticism. Elonka's work has been a boon to this project, and her dedication and judgment will be of great benefit to the administrative team. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''', it is high time to give this dedicated editor the mop. --
'''Strong support''' -- I wish I could find the diff ... I was trying to informally mediate between 2 normally good faith editors who had disagreed to the point of one of them inappropriately slapping a vandal tag on the other. I didn't get very far so I asked Elonka, who had edited some of the same articles, to see if she could help. She stepped in and graciously got them all straightened out. I won't say they were singing "[[Kumbaya]]" together when she was done, but it was pretty close. I was impressed by her diplomacy and peacemaking skills. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' as before.  She could have started a new account and become an admin six months ago.  Instead she took the honest way out.  Let's not make honesty into something punishable. --
'''Support''' as always. Elonka is beyond qualified to be an admin. -
'''Support''' It is time to give her the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as always.
'''Yes'''
'''Strong Support.''' An excellent candidate.
'''Strong support''' She has excellent common sense with regards to decision making, and really works for articles and sources with regards to verifiability rather than allowing articles to be overrun by those who are excellent debaters that try and pass bad material and sources. Sometimes those who attempt this understand nothing but a firm hand after all attempts at talking things out. We really need an advocate like her as an admin to help in preserving honest scholarly work.
'''Support'''. Great mainspace work.
'''Strong Support''' - If you want to fail an RfA by just saying that nothing has changed since the prior RfA, then you are definitely not looking closely at the editors contributions..make sense of your opposes before opposing...since this candidate really deserves those extra couple of buttons...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. It is a pleasure to work with Elonka. Her responses are accurate and eloquent, and she clearly knows the policies and can apply them with great prudence. &mdash;
'''Absolutely''' Great answers by Elonka above and excellent introductions by the Nominator & Co-noms, I find Elonka to be a bright, kind trustworthy editor, who I strongly believe wouldn't abuse adminship if given the tools.▪◦▪
'''Strong support'''. She's an editor with a wide breadth of interests and the ability to make  bold decisions in difficult circumstances; I've been especially impressed with her recent patience with mentoring a difficult new editor. To add to what WjBscribe said above, it often appears that editors who "play it safe" get adminship relatively easily. This is not the case with Elonka, and I think that in her previous RFAs she has been unfairly marked down for past involvement in handling controversial topics and editors, where it's impossible to please everyone and very easy to make enemies who'll turn up at the RFA in sufficient numbers to poison it.
This is an editor who stands out as among the most active editors on the project. And since her last RfA, after a quick glance of her contributions, it is obvious she has made great improvement. '''Strong support'''.
'''Support''', slipping in unnoticed at number 27.
'''support''' I have no fear that this editor will misuse the tools, and every confidence that giving her the tools will be a Very Good Thing for wikipedia. FWIW, I opposed her first RfA, don't seem to have expressed an opinion on her second.  I've since interacted with her a bit via things like [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stanley_Dunin_3|Stanley_Dunin AfD]] (where I disagree with her) and [[Talk:Laurent_Dailliez|topics related to the Franco-Mongol alliance bruhaha]] (where I was & remain deeply impressed by her work and comportment).  I give my strong & enthusiastic endorsement.
'''Support'''. I don't see any recent issues with civility, and overall she is eminently qualified and should make a fine admin.
Per Alison. --
'''Strong Support''' This is almost a "She's not?". Answer to #10 is more thoughtful than the question.
Seriously she isn't one already?
I don't see any good reason not to, and I'm ready to trust WJBscribe and Alison on this.
'''Support''' like last time. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Good answers to questions.
'''Support''' per nominators and her first rate work as an editor.
Another candidate that genuinely triggered the "''weren't they already an admin''" thought in my mind. Support. '''
'''Support''' She is a great contributor to wikipedia and personally i think she corrected all the problems from her first RFA in her second one itself. She should have got adminship at that time.--
'''Support''' The more admins who are writers the better.  That's what we're all here for.
'''Support'''; the answer to Q10 alone is sufficient to allay any concerns I might have had about her rocky past.  &mdash;&nbsp;
The work looks fine and a number of the comments made seem pertinent to me. --
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2|per last time]] I've still nothing more to add that has not been said by the nom. or above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''.

➔ '''
Absolutely without question.
Yeah! &mdash;
<span style="color:black;font-size:Large;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">This will be the first time I have given support to an admin candidate. This is a joyous occassion for all. <small>—Preceding comment added by [[Image:Tongue.png|16px]] • (
'''Support''' - Capable, and experienced.
At the last RfA I opposed this editor. However, I have reviewed her recent interactions with other users and now find no reason to oppose. I find her posts to talk pages to be kind, professional and firm. To date, most of the opposes and neutrals are expressing soft opposition or weak neutrality which suggests that much has improved. There is little downside to this nomination so I am happy to support. -
'''Support'''—Oh well, if Tim Vickers has co-nominated, the candidate must be good. But why does she want to become a (clerical) worker ant if she can write? With a few notable exceptions, WPians contribute either as good editors/writers/intellectuals ''or'' as mop-and-bucket people. PS Hint: Don't respond to the opposes.
I think Elonka's been ready for this role for quite a long time. She is courteous and pleasant both on and off-wiki, through thick and thin. She's certainly been around long enough to "get it", she cares genuinely about the project, and - well, really, no concerns here. Absolutely delighted to see this one going nicely, it's about time. ~
'''Support''' - good user. If even Matt57 is not opposing for her conduct, I don't see why anyone else should. '''
'''Support''' Elonka has responded to criticism and demonstrated her integrity.
'''Support'''. Competence, experience and willingness to do the work are a good combination. --
'''Agree''' that the issues raised in the last RfA have been addressed and cleared. She won't misuse the tools and that's all that matters. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good editor
Absolutely. —
'''Strong, Strong Support''' - Once again, I'm astounded that Elonka hasn't been made an administrator yet.  The arguments for opposing her RfAs are, in my opinion, trivial at best.  She is a pleasure!
'''Support''' Lots of the issues brought up in previous RfA's I don't see today. She is cordial and works through the process. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Support'''.  Committed and talented editor.  A review of her answers and contributions does not raise any red flags for me.  Seems to me that she's taken the criticism from previous RfAs to heart.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - Gee, I thought you were an admin already. Thoroughly trustworthy.
'''Support''' - on balance, I think this would be a net gain for the project.  Elonka demonstrates self-possession, and I think she is aware that her use of tools will be scrutinized, so she is unlikely to use them in a controversial way.  Please be careful and conservative. -
'''Support''' Good answers, good contributions, all my interations have been positive. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support'''. I still think Elonka is too eager to be an admin. However, unlike her last RfA, I don't see as much heated discussion and the votes are stacked pretty high on one side of the fence; so perhaps she's worked out most of the issues that surfaced on the last 2 RfAs, and the community is no longer so divided re: her being an admin. Certainly my perusal of her interactions and contributions didn't turn up any red flags. Besides, and also quite unlike last time, she's open to recall without any reservations (and Elonka, I'll hold you to your promise there). So this time I'm supporting her. Best of lucks!
'''Support'''. I think Elonka should be an admin. I pretty much know when a regular user should become a sysop or bureacrat.--~
'''Support.''' I have run into Elonka on a number of articles and believe she would be a good administrator. I know that she has been willing to step into stressful article debates where people are editing against policy, and try to sort things out.  My only advice would be that not all battles need to be fought to the end; sometimes you just have to put in your two cents' worth and let events take their course.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Elonka is obviously committed to the project; she has addressed the concerns people expressed on previous RFAs and improved.
'''Support''' Excellent, experienced and professional user. --
'''Support'''. It's at times like these where we have to ask, are Wikipedians truly able to forgive and forget for past grievances, or will they be like elephants and hold grudges and punish forever? I know I won't; hopefully everyone else will feel the same.
'''Support''' I met Elonka thanks to her talk about WP at [[Dragon Con]] 2007, and if I have a complex question about policy or procedure, chances are she'll have an insightful answer. I am absolutely certain that Elonka will not abuse the tools, and I know that she loves WP just as much as anyone here, even if it doesn't love her back. —
'''Support''' Sneaking in as an insignificant number 70-something. I'd watchlisted the most likely page for her next RFA, as she seems to me to have the "stuff" to be an admin...more so than even some of the admins I know...so I've been waiting to weigh in. I actually had never interacted with her until after her two previous RFAs, and didn't realize that she wasn't an admin until it came up in conversation. She just exudes the knowledge and authority of an admin (which shouldn't be mistaken for arrogance or entitlement, as some might seem to imply or infer).
'''Support''' <font face="comic sans ms">
Like the last RfA, I don't see any reason to think that Elonka won't be a help to us all with the extra buttons.
'''Support:''' I voted against Elonka in two of the previous RfA's, but I am switching to support here. Any concerns I may have had have been removed, and I believe she would be a capable admin, able to stand her ground firmly against people who do not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Good luck.
'''Strong support'''. I thought she was clearly ready for adminship the last time, and I can't imagine anything has changed for the worse since then.
'''Support:''' experienced and has learned a lot in her time here.  Would be a valuable admin.
'''Support''' - not insane, a credit to Wikipedia in public and will do just fine -
'''Extreme passive-aggressive salamander support, to the max, Quebec style'''. And that's all that needs to be said.
'''Support''' Will do good.--
'''Support'''.  This time will do fine.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. An obviously hard-working, dedicated editor. Being an admin is no big deal, so why make it a big deal? --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)--
'''Obvious support'''&mdash;great user. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.  Elonka has been working continuously to improve multiple articles despite past RfA's that were not successful.  Many people would have quit in disgust.  I beleive that she is genuinely concerned with improving wikipedia.
Definite net benefit for her to '''have a mop'''
'''Support''' Opposition duly noted, but I still think the project benefits if Elonka has the tools. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
AGF. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' - I trust her with the tools. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support.''' What interactions I had with her were productive, and the oppose reasons below are unconvincing.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' great user--
'''Support'''. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Happy to support''' (again).
'''Support''' as per Sam Blacketer #72. --
'''Support'''. Elonka is thoughtful and careful, I fully trust her with the administrator toolbox.
'''Support''' for the same reason as last time.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' a good user I've seen around. <b>
'''Support''' - as with last time. I believe Elonka is an excellent editor and very thoughtful in her responses. To answer the opposers, if this passes I doubt very much that she'll be the worst admin we have.
'''Support''' - a steadfast contributor to the encyclopedia who I'm sure will do just fine as a sysop.
'''Support''' - a good candidate who would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I have been very impressed with Elonka's replies to the comments and questions in this RFA.  She is obviously confident, civil, and knowledgeable.  She will do well with a mop. <i>
'''Support'''.  I've seen her work around, and always felt that she exhibited solid reasoning.
'''Support''' as last time.  Though I have the highest respect for several of the editors in opposition, I cannot find in Elonka's past lapses anything more than normal human frailty.  Yes, she errs occasionally, and is sometimes passionate regarding issues important to her, but that doesn't persuade me that she will misuse or abuse the tools.  In general, she seems kind and open to discussion; together with her long experience here as an indication of competence, I'm not sure what more could be asked of her.  Having said that, I am sure her admin logs will be examined with due diligence by those concerned with her conduct.  Adminship is a responsibility, not a decoration.  If she behaves as her opposers fear she might, her recall would be swift and just.  She knows this, and I expect will always employ the mop with care.
'''Strong support''' for general common sense, grace under constant pressure and being highly unlikely to abuse the tools.  In regards to the two opposes where I was mentioned, I was involved with both Matt57 and Mindraker's disruption of the Dunin articles (several times each unfortunately). I am unsurprised by their continued rancor and would highly suggest that their comments be taken with a large grain of salt. I would be happy to provide quick background/summary with diffs for anyone interested.
'''Strong support''' she's smart and trustworthy, and that's what counts.
'''Support''' per Tim! -
'''Support''' - I actually had a run in with Elonka regarding the ethnicity on her father's article way way way back. I could easily hold a grudge and vote oppose but this editor is clearly deadicated to this project. I know if I ever decided to run for admin I would have more than a few folks oppose me based on differences of opinion and not about my deadication to this project. Are there some differences amoung us? Oh course, but enough is enough. Best of luck Elonka! --
'''Support''' - excellent contributor and good quality answers. enjoyed working with her to bring [[Fustat]] up to [[WP:GA|Good article]] status.
'''Support''' - I read through some of the [[Kaaba]] diffs that the opposers provided.  It seems to me that Elonka was doing an appropriate and civil job of explaining her position (as well as the feelings of those outside the WP community) and offering suggestions without engaging in an edit war.  Regardless of whether one agrees with her, I can't see anything damning to an RFA.
'''Support''' So pissed off at Elonka for not telling me she was running for RFA so I could support... Anyone who's seen her Simutronics work would realize she'd be an ideal admin candidate.
'''Support'''. Some possible doubts arising from a few sources, but outweighed by overall good, effective and intelligent editing - and willingness to be recalled.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. After long consideration, I strongly wanted to support her but I also read the objections.  They ARE troubling because though she seems to be generally neutral and a positive editor, sometimes she seems to push a bit hard.  However, she has said that she would stand for recall -- and her standards for recall are RIDICULOUSLY easy. (It should not be six, it should be at least ten editors must make that request) but with such an easy standard of recall, I believe the tools would either not be abused by this wonderful editor or if they were abused they would be quickly given up.   With that analysis, I feel more than comfortable supporting. --
'''Strong Support''' - A good candidate, an active contributor and genuine supporter.--
'''Support''' - She is a very good editor. She will do a great job as an admin.
'''Support'''. The candidate's contributions to the project are extensive and well-documented. It's clear that she can become passionate about some issues, as noted above by [[User:Blue Tie|Blue Tie]] and others, and I strongly urge her to not use her tools in connection with any article or user with which she has or has had any issue of contention. With that in mind, I think the project would be well served by having this user as an admin. Best,
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''.  I supported her in her 2nd RfA, and have since only seen the best contributions from her.  Her opinions are often strong and sharp, but always useful and civil. She'll make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Elonka has demonstrated a knack for working with difficult users and remaining calm, even in the face of vicious and personal attacks. She is also a tireless editor who demonstrates full understanding of policies. '''
'''Support'''. Most of the reasons I support Elonka have already been stated above, so I won't bother repeating them. I would like to just note, however, that with someone as active as Elonka, she's bound to rub a number of people the wrong way even if she acts as a perfect Wikipedian. I think this was a big factor against her in her last nomination, as a lot of people who disagreed with her came out of the woodwork to oppose her on that basis alone. It's truly unfortunate that this quirk of the voting process has kept such a good potential admin from us for so long. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I have nothing but high regard for Elonka, her talents and her work. Please don't make me [[User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29/Archive05#Thank_you|come to regret this]]--
'''Support''' - She's dedicated to Wikipedia, maybe even addicted. If she wants to spend some of her seemingly endless energy on mop duties, I say we should let her.  '''''
'''Support''' as per nom - Sure, this editor has has some problems, but fortunately, most of her problems are with the right people. She is rather excellent -
'''Support'''.  ——'''
'''Support''' - I was impressed by a few things I saw. --'''
'''Support''' - I've known Elonka for quite a while, and believe her to be fair and reputable. --
'''Support:'''  As I mentioned last time out, I have had contact with Elonka in a previous admin role, and never knew her to be less than reasoned and able.
'''Support''': Moving from Neutral.  I can't say that all my fears are allayed, except that the community is well aware of the issues surrounding this candidate, and that means that the status change won't significantly grant license.  Furthermore, I'm really aggravated that we keep promoting candidates with 30 votes and little scrutiny.  The double standard is too much for me.
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions, I do not believe this editor would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' per statement I made in her last RfA.
'''Support''' - Statement made at last RFA. Still no real reasons to oppose or be neutral so I support.
Support. I've looked at this pretty thoroughly, and everything I've seen indicates to me that she'd be a fine admin. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' There's certainly some valid concerns, especially (for me) deletion issues. But she seems firmly committed to recall and there's no doubt she has heard peoples concerns loud and clear. She obviously very committed to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I just struck my neutral vote based on Elonka's response and her innate suitability and in spite of any reservations re Jimbo's rfc. Thanks,
'''Support''', as my experience with Elonka has always shown her to be very considerate and friendly, she obviously has the experience and on top of that remains open for recall. I'd like to add - as a word of advice to the respective editors - that several of the opposing votes reek of personal vendetta, while at the same time offering too little actual substance for me (as an uninformed bystander to these previous disputes), to have me consider otherwise. -
I believe that, even with concerns raised below, that Elonka being an administrator would be a benefit to the project. I do, however, hope that she consider the below concerns in the future. '''
'''Support'''.  Her placing of her name on the "subject to recall" list convinces me that it's fine for her to be an admin in spite of the concerns of my colleagues listed below.
'''Support''' Overly-qualified for the mop :)
'''Support''' on the basis of additional research and discussion. (switch from previous vote of neutral) --
I believe <s>Durova</s> '''Elonka''' would make a fine admin.
Support. '''
'''Support''' I think she will be an excellent admin
No evidence she'd abuse the tools. To the contrary, upon closer look, the opponent's examples work rather for her and against her opponents, such as PHG's gratuitous AN/I notice (where PHG refused mediation for no apparent reason) or Radiant's example of her being thorough. Since when is beeing thorough a bad trait for an admin? &mdash;
'''Support'''. Well said, Sebastian.
'''Support'''. Never had any personal problems with her. It's time to give this woman her due ... if there are any issues, I can't imagine she'd use the tools in anything less than the most conscientious way, not after having two RfAs fail over lingering conerns about them. Certainly cannot deny that she knows policy. As for past POV issues, people with more checkered pasts have become admins and have served in that capacity with no less than the highest distinction possible. Given her higher public profile than the average Wikipedian, and that she edits under her real name, she has a strong reason to wield the mop in only the best possible ways.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' For as long as I have edited beside Elonka she has only been concerned with what she thinks will be the best to help wikipedia.  Yes, she has been involved in many debates, and even a few arbitrations but she has abided by those rulings.  She is a great editor who will do the best she can for wikipedia, and isn't that what we need from our admins?
'''support''' I'm concerned about the time between RfAs, but Elonka avoided Dreamguy's RfC RfAr her perceived harassment of DG was a common thread in her previous RfA. Here's some [[WP:AGF|faith]] and recognising learning from past experience.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''.  Another case where I cannot fathom why the user hasn't been given a mop yet.  Sure, some bumps in the past, but the user has reformed and become one of the most productive wikipedians -- isn't that exactly what we'd want to see?
'''Support'''
''' Support''' --
'''Support'''. I have only ever had positive interactions with this user. I see no reason not to give her administrator tools. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. A fine user, experienced and well qualified.--
'''Support''' Her answers to the questions indicate she understands  policy. She has come a long way from her previous RFA’s. I feel she can be trusted but it was this  that helped me make my decision, ''I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff''.  We need more "boring admins".--
I '''support''' this nomination.  I understand the fears of the opposers here, but since the nominee has said that she will be open to recall, and since her contributions to this encyclopedia have been of high quality, I have no reason to doubt that she will use the toos of adminship responsibly.
'''Support''' obviously highly experienced and Geogre makes a good point in this regard.
'''Support''' Knows her stuff, has been dedicated to wikipedia for a long time. In my opinion should have been elected last time but these few months will have done her good and given her time to learn and prove herself more.
'''Support, with reservations''', per my comment on my previous oppose.
'''Support''' I like the answers, especialy 10. Speedy is an important issue for me, well answered.
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, and she's obviously dedicated to Wikipedia. I haven't seen any recent diffs that display incivility or [[WP:COI]] problems; that's been over for a year now. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We need some rational analysts. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Weak oppose''' <span class="plainlinks"> with regrets as I do realise this oppose is going to put me in disagreement with a number of those editors I genuinely respect. While I don't run across Elonka that often — we work in entirely different areas — ''every'' encounter I have ever had with her has left me with a nasty taste in my mouth, and a read through her contribution history does nothing to dispel the impression. Quite aside from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKaaba&diff=144835267&oldid=144833790 possibly the most out-of-touch-with-policy comment I've ever seen from an established editor] back in July (discussed ad nauseam in her last RFA) she seems to be the embodiment of what I think is wrong with a certain clique of editors: an obsession with "enforcing policy", despite an apparently hazy conception of what policy actually is (while it's been four months now, I still have fond memories of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABroadwater_Farm&diff=154188343&oldid=153969877 this rather surreal conversation]); a general impression that the correct way to resolve disputes is to nit-pick and wikilawyer against anyone who doesn't agree with her until they give up out of boredom; and a repeated history of making very dubious [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Rebuttal of Elonka.27s allegations of incivility|allegations of incivility]]</span> against anyone who doesn't agree with her. Couple this with her semi-permanent edit-warring (she appears to ''still'' be edit-warring as busily as ever at [[Franco-Mongol alliance]] — take a deep breath and have a stiff drink before you attempt to wade through the mess of [[Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance|the talkpage]] — although to her credit, in her answer to Q3 she has at least finally recognised that maybe she might not always be right), and her [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] approach to speedy deletion tagging, and you have someone I wouldn't trust with deletion buttons; not so much because she might delete things that shouldn't be deleted (we've all done that), but because I don't believe she'd ever admit she might have made a mistake and restore the content she'd deleted. All that said, given her nominators, I ''am'' willing to be convinced that she's improved; and I'd also like to take the opportunity to say that I ''don't'' agree with much of the criticism she received last time.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Sigh. '''Oppose'''. No indication that the problems that impeded her multiple past attempts to gain adminship have been addressed. The very acceptance of this nomination is rather tactless. Why should we all be spending time on failing Elonka's RfA every few months? --
Still not comfortable with her having the tools, sorry.
'''Oppose''' per my reasoning in Elonka's last RFA. I think Elonka is a good and valuable editor who shouldn't be an administrator.
I object. As also evidenced in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_2|previous RFA]], Elonka has a history of dealing with disputes poorly. As seen in the various requests for mediation, comment, and arbitration she been subject to or participant in, she has at various times dealt with content disputes by (a) finding every single bit of "dirt" she could find on her opponent(s), and using that to disparage them (for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=161194843 here]) and (b) misquoting people, or quoting people out of context, to make it seem they [[astroturf|support her position]] when in fact they did nothing of the sort. Having shown this behavior in multiple unrelated instances, including after the last RFA, makes it clear to me that she is not suitable as an administrator.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Sorry, it's gone too far.
'''Oppose''': I got abused by her and blocked by her friends because I was trying to clean up OR from her family articles (many of which are still unsourced and non-notable; I'm too lazy to do anything about them right now even though I can). This is as bad faith as it can get, so how can I not oppose her? I can fill up a whole page of what she did to me (example, told ''me'' stay away from her family articles, where she violated COI ''herself''). I appreciate Tim Vicker's co-nomination (you're a good person) but Elonka is confrontational, does not compromise and generally a bad-faith user. She manages to get into severe conflicts where you wouldn't guess there could even be one. I could go back and raise all the issues in her last RfA which are still left unanswered (Kaaba etc) but they are old issues so I wont harp about them right now. But you know what, she has 35,000 edits, so people are saying "give her the mop already". I can guarantee you all she will not do much good work that other admins do. You know why I say that? 4 months ago, she said ''"I dont care about blocks/deletions; I mainly want the tools so I can participate in Deletion Reviews"''. Well, the google cache link exists there for a reason so there, she doesnt need admin access to see what a deleted article looks like. She just wants to get the title admin. If that makes her feel better well, its not a big deal especially after 35,000 edits, so alright there you go. You'll probably get it. The approval rating is currently 90% and will likely remain so. There are tonnes of reasons for her to not be admin; they are all mentioned in the last two RFAs, more specifically the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_2 last] one. It will be interesting to see what kind of work she does as admin. It wont anything difficult, you can count on that (my famous last words here). --
'''Weak oppose''' I haven't had much personal contact, but after digging through her contribs I find that she prolly doesn't need the tools and that some of the reasoning above is sound. I don't put faith in wikistalking or in 'got a bad feeling about this' !votes, but disregarding past actions I just still see too many questionable edits, even if in good faith. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Looking through her history there are just far to many questionable edits to support at this time. She doesn't appear to have fixed any of the issues of the past. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant; I'm not convinced Elonka can handle conflict well. In particular, I feel Elonka was too aggressive on the recent (and perhaps ongoing?) [[Franco-Mongol alliance]] issue, as shown, in particular, by the edit war on the article in early November and by the discussion from [[Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance#Concerns about Dailliez (section break 2)]] to the bottom of the talk page. Granted, the same might be able to be said about her opponent, but this RfA is just about Elonka. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per the reasonings given by
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as in the previous AfD--I do not think the concerns there have been addressed sufficiently.  think she is a little more careful not to express her COI, but I do not credit that she will maintain that attitude once she gets adminship. I have great respect for the nominators, but I think they are being a little too trusting. The history of extreme POV --and aggressiveness about it--is still very much present in my mind. Not just  that she tried to get articles in about her relatives--its a human failing--but that she pushed them over opposition as hard as she did. That made an impression on me of how not to edit WP. My views about COI were rather forgiving, until I saw to what they could lead--and she was the strongest example of this. '''
'''Oppose''' per DGG's rationale. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per DGG & Iridescent etc. An aggressive personality almost bound to cause trouble.
'''Oppose''' Although I think well of Elonka as an editor, and as much as it paints me to oppose. The aggressiveness, POV pushing etc is firmly etched into the mind. Concerns have not been fully addressed since last RfA. Sorry.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Despite having supported him during his previous RfA, I feel now that while a great editor, Elonka when put under severe pressure may loose his cool, as has unfortunately happened in his protracted dispute with PHG, and this is a problem as admins are often subjected to vicious attacks.--
'''Oppose''' On one hand I have my own experience with Elonka, on the other hand I see countless other users who I have a high amount of respect for also supporting her. That, more than anything, makes me reluctant to oppose this RfA. Despite heated situations in the past, I've never thought Elonka was a bad person, or anything like that. I doubt she'd be the worst admin, or even close to it. However, I don't think she should have the tools based on how she has handled disputes. I thought long and hard about this one, and I don't want people to think it's because I hold a grudge. --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but reading through the diffs above, as well as the concerns of my fellow editors just leaves me feeling uncomfortable giving you the tools.  Elonka is a great editor, and I do wish her the best.
'''Strong oppose''' Elonka is a smart editor, but she is extremely partial and intolerant of other points of view. She even resorts to corrupting sources to push her point of views. She resorts to constant personal attacks. She behaves in tyranical ways, and I really do not think that she should be given the tools of an Administrator. For some of the details: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive305#Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka]]. For a blatant (and ongoing) corruption of the very concept of [[consensus]] to push her point of view, you can check [[Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite|here]]. Regards to all.
'''Weak oppose''' I like Elonka and I think she's one of the top notch Wikipedia editors; however, I also think that she was a little too aggressive on the [[Franco-Mongol alliance]] article dispute and all the other articles it spread to. A little too intolerant of other views imo.--<big>'''
'''Oppose''' -- The last time this went around Elonka thought she'd try to get me on her side. Surely getting the individual Elonka was permanently banned for harrassing (though the ban was improper and quickly overturned) on her side would have been a feather in her cap. She made promises, acted like she'd get over her continuing harrassment (going around tagging IP addresses as socks of mine, etc., with no evidence...  a move opposed by admins who undid the notices). Shortly after she lost the nomination she sent me very abusive messages (with lots of four letter words in all caps) for not supporting her to her satisfaction. She has never learned from past mistakes and always tries to blame some conspiracy of people working behind the scenes, when all it it is just people naturally opposed to her bad behavior. She's one of the last people who should get an admin spot, because she's been abusing her powers as a normal editor to promote herself and her friends with vanity articles and to harass those she has ever had any problems with (with me it was some three years ago or so and she's still pulling completely unnecessary stunts), imagine how much worse it'd be if she could just outright block people and so forth.
'''Oppose'''. I still think [[Alfred-Maurice de Zayas|people editing an article on themselves]] is a very bad idea, so bad, that it refelects on that person for ever, but I was not going to vote this time. However, if only part of what [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] claims is true, this is clearly unacceptable, as at her last request she claimed that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FElonka_2&diff=148090014&oldid=148088104 she had patched things up]. --
'''Oppose''' For many of the oppose reasons outlined in the last RFA. Since that time however, her conduct in the apparently tortuous [[Franco-Mongol alliance]] discussions makes me feel that not much has changed in the intervening months. If this RFA is sucessful however, I genuinely hope that Elonka proves me wrong, as she can be an excellent contributor. Her article writing is often excellent and her past colaborations to get articles to FA status are particularly impressive. I wish her well, despite my reservations about her suitability for adminship and this resulting oppose. '''''
'''Oppose''' per my reasons in the prior RFA.  No evidence of her behaviour having been improved since then.
Same as before.
'''Oppose''': She recently asked me to look into a dispute which she claimed was centralized in one section of one talk page.  When I poked further, I found myself travelling from talk page to reliable source page to ANI sub-page to other talk page, etc.  Rather than stamping out fires, she pours gasoline in carefully strategized places to direct the fires where she wants them.  —
'''óppose''' per radiant.
'''Oppose''' Many people above said all of this better than I could. Do I trust Elonka as a Wikipedian? Yes. But, given the POV pushing and COI abuses, do I trust her as an admin? No. --
'''Oppose''', per Radiant and per the merit of Mindraker's argument. --
Though it doesn't make me happy to do so, '''oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FElonka_2&diff=148653326&oldid=148650313 my comments in the previous RfA].
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, JHG, and answer to question 13.
'''Oppose''' - some of the concerns expressed by those above are quite serious, in my view. Sorry. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - per Radiant and evasive answer to Q14.
'''Oppose''' (sorry) - per Radiant - the evidence suggests to me that adminship in this case may facilitate further situations which are disruptive rather than constructive to the building of a 'pedia. cheers,
'''Oppose''' - A wheel war waiting to happen. Regardless of who started what when, drama seems to follow Elonka around, and this really does not make for a suitable admin candidate. I find a particularly odd double-standard coming from the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_3|most recent TTH RfA]]. This editor may be dedicated, but as plenty argued over there, adminship should not be a reward. In this case, her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElonka&diff=92161666&oldid=92160087 tendacy for melodramatic conduct] does not lend itself well (American attempt at British understatement :)) to the mop and bucket. "I'm one of the people who helps untangle things" flies completely counter to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence this 137KB page]. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84729665&oldid=84729133 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FNaming_Conventions%2FEvidence&diff=95225687&oldid=95217544 is incivility]? ''Really''?? --
'''Oppose.'''  With respect, per answer to question 1.  I feel like Elonka is trustworthy but there is enough negative feeling about her adminship that I feel reluctant to grant it to her when I feel like she doesn't really need the tools (although it might be nice for her to have them).
'''Oppose.''' - per last RfA.
'''Oppose''' - I can not abide by the answer to 10.2, "''When an admin is in full swing, they're deleting things right and left.''"  If an admin is deleting things right and left, and being judge, jury, and executioner, then they are likely not being cautious and contemplative enough in their actions. --
'''Oppose'''. Too much controversy; too many serious concerns have been raised by other editors. Adminship ''should'' be no big deal, but until we have a ''community'' de-adminship procedure in place, we need to be very cautious about giving out the tools, since it's almost impossible to take them back.
'''Oppose'''.  Prior RfA expressed valid concerns which are pretty recent, plus comments on Tlak make credible assertions of aggressive off-wiki behaviour.  Valued contributor, but not a great choice for the mop. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose'''.  a lot of points up there, but I think Radiant has the best information.  Elonka just doesn't seem to handle disputes well.
'''Oppose''' to many people I respect don't think she is ready and offer good rationale's to oppose.
'''Don't give her the keys'''. I have not often seen, on one hand,  such a bitter and polarised candidature, and on another hand such determination from a candidate to avail him/herself of admin tools. I feel firstly that Elonka does not seem to have advance convincing enough arguments as to why she needs the powers, because she already does most of what she claims to want to do without them. Furthermore, I ''don't'' feel that she may be a good custodian once she has them, bearing in mind the concerns expressed above. The apparently schizophrenic behaviour which has been pointed to above, although not entirely substantiated but not completely without foundation either, indicates there could be a [[Mr. Hyde]] lurking somewhere in the background. Her history of [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest editing]] will remain to haunt her - these were quite witting and in defiance of all the rules which testify not only to her poor judgement but her motivations to seek aggrandisement for her and her family - while behaviour can be moderated, these two underlying traits can rarely be changed. Certainly, she may be a good editor and a valuable contributor to wiki, but I feel that's how it should stay.
'''Strong Oppose''' per what Alex so aptly called the drama on the talk page and per Elonka's response to it below.  You allegedly were incivil to someone via email, this individual pointed it out, and you respond by calling him/her a troll.  That's not promising. --
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately, there are too many issues to allow me to not oppose, namely the [[COI]] Issue.
'''Oppose''' - conflict of interest concerns.
'''Oppose''' per DGG, Iridescent, and others. --
'''Oppose'''. Back in July I said "edit for a few months without getting into any dramas ... and there is no reason we couldn't promote". That still stands but I do not see it happening yet. --
'''Oppose''' per DGG, Radiant, DreamGuy. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Oppose'''. Per above, and especially per [[User:iridescent|iridescent]]. I've never had any run-ins with the nominee, and this would be my first RfA input. I can forgive the COI, and the number and frequency of RfA's, but I simply can't support someone who considers censorship a form of compromise. '''
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent, DGG, and a lack of a clear denial of DreamGuy's claims.
'''Oppose''' About twice as many voters have been attracted to Elonka's RfA as there have been to the next closest of the other 14 RfAs currently open. There are also a vastly disproportionate number of words about it, both on and off this page.  All of this adds up to much strong feeling. In my view, the effective admins are not those around whom emotional storms collect. That's my principal reason for my "oppose" vote.
'''Strong oppose''' Elonka is dishonest. She feigns politeness on-wiki while agitating against perceived opponents through back channels. Bad things happen to editors who cross Elonka - threats, false charges, blocks and outings enacted by administrators she's called upon as she sits back and enjoys the popcorn. Should she be allowed to wield the tools, there is no doubt in my mind but that she will abuse them: she abuses the ones she already has.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems tied to the punitive faction I'd like to see have less power and influence around here, not more.
'''Oppose'''. As others have said, a valuable contributor, but one where the project would problably be better off if she isn't an admin. I don't doubt her intentions, but she just causes, contributes to, or increases too much drama. Based on her life experience and positions, she should be much better at conflict resolution, but instead she tends to increase and/or draw conflicts. From observation of her interactions, I can only come to the conclusion that this will increase if she were to be an admin. Others have pointed out her problem behavior and some have noted it's in the past, but I don't think there has been time enough to change. People do change, but in my experience not many people do, and certainly not very quickly. Not having the tools won't keep her from being able to be a valuable contributor, in fact it will probably help in that regard, and thus Wikipedia will be better off if she remains an editor without the tools. Thus I don't mean any offense, but this is a strong oppose. -
Great editor, but '''oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose'''. Soothing editor worries with remarks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3&diff=177394881&oldid=177394090 ''"I'm actually going to be a boring admin, doing the dull backlog kind of stuff]"'' is not something I find to be in agreement with your [[User:Elonka/RfA_ponderings|long-term preparations to become an admin]]. You didn’t prepare yourself like this to become a boring admin... you want the reward for your hard work, and you’re going to make sure you’re noticed for it, which is not a bad thing. Too often however, noticing you, left me with the feeling that you could consider using the extra tools to convince your discussion partners of your opinion quite bluntly, creating the thing we generally would like to avoid.... I’m also quite sure that being unresponsive and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3&diff=177372092&oldid=177372006 referring] to [[WP:DNFT]] when people are discussing your [[WP:RFA]], was not the best way to resolve a more difficult situation, a thing an admin will have to deal with regularly. --
'''Oppose''' Admins are looked to resolve conflicts, something Elonka's history shows the exact opposite of. Last rfa did not suceede 3.5 months ago- why the rush for another?
'''Oppose''' Powerful arguments have been brought by both sides here.  On balance, the oppose ones seem stronger at present, though maybe the situation will be different in a couple of months.--
'''Weak oppose''' per Taxman.
'''Oppose''' per comments made by [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] and [[User:DGG|DGG]]. <font color="Green">
'''Hmm...''' I need to sleep on this one.
'''Chaotic (but mostly Reluctant) Neutral''' After extensively reviewing this topic in depth (reading [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2]] took forever), I have decided neutrality is the best course of action I can take here. Although Elonka is a highly prolific editor and contributor, her involvement in many conflicts here on Wikipedia, as well as possible concerns relating to self promotion, has made me uncomfortable to the point that I do not wish to take sides in this issue. That being said, while I do not belive this is a gambit to add another feather to her cap, I do have doubts as to the Elonka's long term dedication to the Wikipedia project. --'''
Tried to figure this out, still can't make up my mind. —
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose. Elonka is a very devoted editor and usually good editors make good admins, on the other hand I am worry that she tends to generate unnecessary drama and related to the conflicts to be a part of a problem rather than a part of a solution. I believe recently her behavior in this regard has significantly improved. Now we have a new [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3#Abusive_messages_from_Elonka|drama on the talk]] if she finds a gracious and polite way to solve the problem I vote for her, otherwise I would vote oppose
'''Neutral''', but leaning towards oppose.  While I can't dispute that this user has made some fantastic contributions, I also can't overlook the fact that she seems to be a magnet for drama of the most infantile kind.  She is not responsible for it, but I suspect that the first time she does something even remotely controversial with the tools, a massive dramabomb will detonate that, frankly, would not be good for the project.
'''Support'''. User has enough experience with policy and a fair amount of time active. No reason to expect abuse of tools. I beat the nominator to voting!
'''Support'''. This user seems to have dropped off in participation of late, and that bothers me slightly. However, his edit history is excellent and so is his communication with others. I see nothing to make me believe he shouldn't get the mop.
'''Support''' I reviewed all the answers, and I was impressed by the candidate's dedication, forthrightness, and willingness to learn.  In particular, the answer to Q4 shows that the candidate will actually read the article before pressing the delete buttion.  Another article is saved, and hopefully, another admin is added to the roster.
'''Strong Support''' - Very Good Mainspace edits, A very high Wikispace edits and very experienced..hehe..Y? Not ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''.  I've seen you around making useful and thoughtful contributions, and a look though your history shows much of the same.  Good answers to the questions (esp #4) too.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">

'''Support'''. The candidate helped write some articles. I see no reason to oppose.
Per nom and Shalom. —'''
seems to understand policy well enough. --
'''Support''', solid and experienced editor.  No problems trusting him to the extra buttons.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, and in my opinion, no valid reasons to oppose. We all make the occasional mistake. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''', good contributions, well-reasoned decision on [[Ajijic]].
'''Support''': has experience, good contribs, and a good answer to #4. —
'''Support''' good time for the user to become an admin. -
'''Support.''' You'll do fine.
'''Support''' fine editor.
'''Support''' good editor with no POV bias.
'''Support''' as per my nomination. -- ''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  I'm sure Eluchil404 will do just fine.
'''Support''', yep.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Ample experience, not likely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' - shows sufficiently developed skills in editing well.
'''Support''' - No evidence of problems. Concerns raised by Matthew are nowhere near significant enough to merit an oppose, or even neutral.
'''Support''' no major concerns. —
'''Support''' Can clearly be trusted with the tools.  Re Matthew's comments: the debate over whether someone needs the admin tools has been had.  Whether or not a candidate seems to need the tools, if they seem trustworthy then they should have them.  --
'''Support'''  Excellent editor; more than prepared for the mop.
WTF really? This guy is one of the best we have on the Wiki. --
'''Support''' per above.  He has extensive mainspace edits, and seems trustworthy.  I can't agree on everything with everybody.  We can use more [[WP:GNOME|wikignomes]].
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions. Especially #4.
I'm
'''Support''' per Kuru, 10oaT, Xoloz, Siva, &c. Surely time for Eluchil to get the extra buttons.
'''Support''' Competent user, and has been here for over a year (no problems with experience or level of activity).
'''Support''' After reviewing your AfD comments and speedy deletion tags, I trust that you have the knowledge in these areas to make appropriate administrative decisions. Granted, I had to go back to Novermber 2006 to review your last 15 CSD tags, but they were all accurate.
A good candidate. '''
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Support''' ... as per the usual. --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support'''. I like the idea of someone looking beyond google - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' good user
'''Support'''  -- good candidate. --<font face="Futura">
404 error: reason to oppose not found.
'''Support.''' I have researched your edits over the past 6 months or so. I am quite pleased with your demeanor in discussions. Such calmness is a needed quality for an admin and I support you fully.
'''Support''' see nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' No red flags here. Proven trustworthy. Let's give him the mop. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support''' - good contributions, good answers to the questions, over all a good candidate--
'''Support''' seems like a fine user.
'''Support''' - seems to have a wide breadth of experience.
Per Matthew ;)
'''Support''' - I haven't seen anything to alarm me from this editor, and no major concerns have been raised. --
Fine user, no reason to oppose, so I support. <b>
'''Support,''' have no doubt Eluchil404 will make a fine admin, have been impressed in my interactions thus far.--
'''Support''' Good user. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' The answers are detailed and in good quality. I support you.
'''Support''' Contributes like a bandit, has earnt the trust needed.
This RfA has my '''support''', user history convinces me editor will make a fine administrator. --
'''Support''' - looks fine &mdash;<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' - I see no outstanding reasons to oppose this editor.
'''Oppose''' — I'm not convinced you need to be sysoped. Your activity is quite low, though your mainspace edits are good. You've also uploaded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Eluchil404&page= several images] that fail the [[WP:NFCC|NFCC]].
'''Oppose''' Well on your way, but just not quite there with the editing experience...yet.
'''Oppose''' I don;t generally oppose on the basis of user edits before, but I am quite concerned by your answer that you activity is low, and likely to remain so. How can we judge on the basis of what you read, rather than what you do? I do not see how with limited activity you can keep up with consensus and discussions. For example, are you aware of any current discussions regarding the notability of university departments in general?  That's one of the areas you have interest in. '''
'''Neutral''' I don't feel Matthew's points are quite enough for an oppose.
Glad to be the first to support : ) -
actually im the first, see page's history ;) btw, '''support'''
'''Support''' without any reservation.
'''<s>oppose</s>''' this user has plenty of mainspace and project space edits. User is ready to be a sysop.

I see no reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Try to do some more AIV work though. —
Aye, despite the fact that I have tried to get this user to run many times and am bitter I wasn't even asked to co-nom.  Other than that major character flaw, user will use toolbox responsibly.
'''Support.''' I was very pleased to discover that this individual is being considered for adminship. I have been impressed with Emperor's objectivity, quality contributions, peacemaking efforts, and conscientious work. Give this emperor some royal authority.
'''Support''' 18,000 reasons to support. Talk page suggests level-headed editor who won't run amok.
'''Support'''. On the ball, fair, and unflappable. --
Support despite the ''major'' character flaw uncovered by Hiding. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
Support. Ready. -- <strong>
'''Support''' No concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  Great editor.  Will be a great admin. -
This is a no brainer.--
'''Support''' I'm just following the evidence. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Per SPJ.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good edits, seems like he will be a candidate for the mop, able to do repetitive tasks and is civil.<br/>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Give 'em the mop, and let 'em get to the housecleaning work!
'''Support'''. I've seen this editor mainly in the Comics project, where he is hardworking, patient, civil, and considerate of people's opinions while trying to maintain our policies and guidelines. That's just what I look for in an admin, so...
'''Support''' - seems like a fine editor to me! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' looks ok to me --
'''Support''' -- appears to be a useful editor.  No red flags.
'''Support''' —
No problems here.
'''Support''' - Top notch editor. -
'''Support''' - I wholeheartedly support this candidate!
'''Support''' The emperor shall command his armies  and navy to conquer the kingdom of Vandals.
'''Oppose''' ~
As nominator
Support –
'''Support'''  I see no reason to not trust this user.  The answer to the first question may be short, but you know what?  I'm not concerned; being a sysop just means you have extra tools, not that you need to use each tool.  If all he wants to do is update [[WP:DYK|Did You Know]] and help out with [[WP:RFPP|Page Protection]], so be it.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
'''Support''' - a good 'pedia builder.cheers,
'''Support''' I most certainly agree with {{user|Sasha Callahan}} - The folks at [[WP:DYK|Did You Know]] and [[WP:RFPP|Page Protection]] definitely could use more help.
'''Support''' per Sasha Callahan. &nbsp;
'''Support''' (edit conflicted). Great encyclopedia building. I hope you can join us. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' Good to see someone dedicated to building the project applying for adminship.
'''Support''' A prolific contributor.
'''support''' No reason not to trust this user. Good luck!--
<strike>'''Support'''</strike>'''Strong Support''' "Using admin powers to push your view is unethical; though they ''should'' be used to protect the views of others." based on this, and an overview of his contributions.  I think he would make a good administrator. Also based on his answers to the 2 optional questions (I believed he answered very well) I change to strong support. --
I really think this should have been done aeons ago.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - We need admins who can take care of the 'plants'. --
'''Support''', very good editor.
'''Support'''. Very strong candidate.
'''Support''' - per Neil. Seems a good editor.
'''Support''' See no reson not to.
'''Support''' A very ambitious editor, in the sense that he is a true believer in Wikipedia's potential to improve and keep improving. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>
'''Support''' Does great work.  I have run across him at [[T:TDYK]] often.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Support''' My experiences with [[User:EncycloPetey|Petey]] have always been great; he has a wonderfully positive attitude, knows Wikipedia well, and has good insights into how to do things better.  He's also a good motivator; he [[geas]]ed [[User:Cronholm144|Cronholm]] and me into working on ''[[Acetabularia]]''. ;)
'''Support''' Per above users positive sentiments.
'''Support''' I've worked with this user on Wiktionary and I trust his judgement --
'''Support''' Highly motivated Wikipedian who maintains his cool in sometimes tense conversations. Agree with everything [[User:WillowW|Willow]] has said above.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' would likely be a good admin.
'''Support''' per "no big deal", and the fact that this editor appears to be solid, and we need good editors to take up the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. I'm late to the party, but EncycloPetey is good people. He's been a fine admin for a while now, and will continue to be so on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Yea.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin. -
'''Support''' No reason to oppose this user.
'''Support''' Strong contributions and policy knowledge, definitely trustworthy.
'''Support''' Seen him on Wiktionary too. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
Honest in the answer to question 1.
I'm
'''Support''' Very levelheaded and constructive in his interactions with others. Appreciate this editor's fairness and promotion of a positive tone, especially on DYK discussion page. A good guy.
'''Support''' looks very capable indeed --
'''Support''' - his habit of being very level-headed on Wiktionary is something I aspire to.  --
'''Support''' - trusted editor.
'''Support''' - this recent few days has brought up countless excellent RfAs. This is one of them. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' -- trusted Wikimedian. --
'''Strong DYK support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' very valuable contributor and admin on en.wikt; also has a clear understanding of the difference between admin policy there and here
'''Support''' Keep up the good work. &mdash;
'''Support''' - This candidate is helping to build the encyclopedia - looks like you chose a good username ;-)
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Candidate looks like a competent, pleasant, and trusted editor, and will be a welcome addition to the ranks of mop-wielders.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Does a lot of good work on plant articles, no real issues that I'm aware of.
'''Neutral leaning on support'''. Answers to above questions along with edit count show the user has an intense affinity towards editing and managing articles related to flora, so the editor obviously has a strong work ethic. Only concerns lie in being able to manage edit conflicts and blocking, though I am certain that with the proper training that this can be averted. I am hoping that I can learn more about this editor that demonstrates administrative impunity.--
'''Beat the nom. Firm '''support'''. Vast experience. A lot of [[WP:NAMESPACE]] contibution Good range of edits in all parts of the project. What else can I say. Where have you been?--<font color="Red">
'''Strong support''' as the nominator. That's another one I've missed being the first.
'''Strong support''' All the variables are way above my usual standards. This includes my familiarity with eo in the community. The way he responded to a recent trolling comment from an IP on his talk page shows a perfect grasp of [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. Good luck.
'''Tentative support based on contributions.''' I should look at many more contributions, but I'm trying to get in before the knee-jerk supports of "OMG 18,000 edits! HI SCORE!" With that rate of editing, I expected to see nothing meaningful, but in fact a lot of the edits I'm seeing required some thought and helped bring an article toward correctness and consensus. He seems to interact with other users effectively and civilly, too.
'''Weak Support'''. You do very good work, but I'd advise that you exercise a bit more care in using the {{tl|uw-bv}} template, particularly on IP talk pages and talk pages of users with only one contribution. That is my only concern, and it's not enough to stop me supporting. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Strong Support''' on Wikipedia there is no more important fight than the one on vandalism.  '''
'''Strong Support''' I concur above with Black Harry. The most important thing in Wikipedia is fighting vandalism. I am a strong supporter.
'''Support''' - I'm not so sure that fighting vandalism is the absolute ''most important'' thing, but as an avid RC Patroller myself, I can safely say that it is not only one of the most important things, but we wouldn't be running without RC Patrollers and "organizations" such as the [[WP:CVU|CVU]]. Nice mainspace contributions. Support.
'''Support''' - He has ariund for a long time and has ammased over 18000 edits and even though his Wikispace edits is too low, I believe he has the right qualities of a good Admin..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Ericorbit has worked a lot on editing wikipedia, and has been a consistent contributer for 2 years. Also notable for reverts. -
'''Support''' Well qualified user for adminship.--
'''Support''' Needs more edits though...;-) '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
'''Support''' -- not to be an editcounter, but over 18,000 edits shows that the candidate is most likely very experienced on the project.
'''Support''' - user shows a strong understanding, and commitment, to one of our most understaffed and problem-prone areas; music.  Every edit I've examined looks good, edit summary is excellent, and his edits show a good understanding of Wikipedia policies -- especially relating to fair use, which is critical on music-related topics.  Only minor criticism would be that user does not show much interest in the [[WP:AFD|deletion process]], but I can't hold that against them, since they state they don't plan to focus on that area as an admin.  Superlative contributions, and well-due to have admins tools to assist in the work he's proven himself to be good at.  --
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user applying the admin tools to their tasks.
'''Support''' - looks good to me.  I do not believe this user will abuse the tools. -
'''Support'''. A great editor. He has the potential of becoming an established administrator. Wikipedia will, undoubtedly be a better ''place'' with administrators like Ericorbit around. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' A great candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', genuine need for the tools, no reason not to give him the mop.
'''Support''' — Fvzcyl n svar pnaqvqngr.

'''Support''' - No reason not to give the tools to him - he's experienced enough in administrative tasks for me.
'''Support''' - Excellent choice.
'''Support''' - Has the experience, should get the tools. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(
'''Support''' Good experience but does need to interact a bit more.
Very experienced user, no reason for ''abuse'' of tools... --
'''Support''' A high quality user worthy of the position.
'''Support'''. Seems like a well qualified candidate. &ndash; [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Admin tools will add to user's awesome vandal fighting potential. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Wonderful user! --
'''Support''' I think this user will be a good administrator.
'''Support'''. I'm very positive that this user won't abuse the tools, and he will learn what to do with them with experience. '''
'''Support''' per SlimVirgin, could do with more vandal patrollers, and I see enough article work to make me support. Down with editcountitis! :) '''
After having read the answer to my optional question, I didn't have the heart to oppose anymore. Obviously an intelligent person whose heart is in the right place and who won't do anything stupid with the tools. Strong support. —'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. Talk pages show this user can calmly debate with irate editors until a consensus is reached. A good indication for the cool head needed by an admin.
'''Support''' No evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and reasonable in replys. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' per Davewild. --[[user:wpktsfs|w]][[user:wpktsfs/poetry|'''p''']][[user:wpktsfs|k]][[user talk:wpktsfs|'''t''']]
'''Support'''.  Vandal fighters have a need for the tools; Ericorbit is a good one; I see no signs for concern.
'''Support''' I'm unconvinced by the opposition (though Radiant! brings a couple of problematic diffs) and I still think that the net effect of having Ericorbit as an admin would be positive.
'''Support''' - Somebody has to man the AIV.  Isolated edits shouldnt tarnish all the good work done.
'''Support''' an excellent user who will make a good admin.  And might I add a big THANK YOU for all your help reverting vandalism!  Vandalism is one of the most important problems on Wikipedia and it's very important for the project to have extra admins helping on this front -- I can't say how many times I've reported something at AIV, but because of the backlog, the vandal made a dozen more destructive edits before being blocked.  This user has more than demonstrated stability and resolve when it comes to vandal fighting and would be well suited to the tools. --
'''Support''' Editcountitis opposes are utterly unconvincing... did you actually look at his 689 article talk edits? Has the candidate actually said anything that indicates he isn't fit to be an admin, or are you just [[WP:ABF|assuming]]? Anyway, Radiant's diff shows a common bit of misinformation many people subscribe to but it's hardly enough to deny someone adminship, and I suspect the quote suffers from being taken out of context. --
'''Support'''. While I understand the concern with the low percentage of talk edits, I don't think it necessarily means low community interaction, here.  Sometimes, reverting vandalism causes you to gain a lot of ''uncontroversial'' mainspace edits in a short time, without building your talk count: no post on [[Talk:George W. Bush]] should be necessary to convince editors that "George Bush is a dumb Nazi Fag!" should ''not'' be included in the article. Instead, I think the talk edits have to be compared with the mainspace edits ''that might require community interaction'', and from what I've seen of the editor, I don't think it's cause enough for concern.  With respect to some of the later oppose rationales, that the tools are not necessary for fighting vandalism: what? Are you sure you want to stand for the idea that we do not need admins who care about responding to posts on [[WP:AIV]], protecting pages, deleting attack pages, and the like? To me, these things are a vital part of an admin's duties, and while I understand the concern of an admin ''only'' experienced with fighting vandalism, I think it's walking down the wrong path to imply that the tools are somehow "unnecessary" to combat vandalism.
'''Support''' - I am confident that you would make a good admin with plenty of experience, kind nature and great work in fighting vandalism, which will be further improved if you are given the tools.
'''Support''' per above. "Aargh! not enough user talk edits!" is not a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise good candidate. At least not for anyone who's ever seen [[CAT:CSD]] on a bad day.
'''Support''' per above. This user's prolific edits to wikipedia set a benchmark for all other users to follow in my opinion. This user is one of the best editors wikipedia currently has and should definitely be promoted to an administrator because with such privileges this user would no doubt improve wikipedia.
'''Support''' After reviewing your contributions I feel confident that you are trustworthy, competent and capable of handling the mop. --
'''Support''' A fine candidate.
'''Support''', sheesh, why do people oppose productive vandal fighters just because they're vandal fighters?
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned about promoting users who have focused exclusively on fighting vandalism, and in particular I'm concerned about the relatively low talk contributions: 689 to article talk in two years, compared to over 15,000 article edits (presumably mostly reverts). It suggests low community interaction.
'''Oppose''', poor experience dealing with this user. He rigidly enforces [[WP:CHARTS]], which was in fact only decided on by a handful of users with similar views.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.  I think fighting vandals is a noble cause.  You don't need admin privileges to do that.  I want admins to be a part of the community and this candidate, with so few interactions on the talk pages, it doesn't seem like they are part of the team.  But I wouldn't want Ericorbit to stop reverting vandals.
'''Oppose''' The two most important qualities in an admin are a stong grasp of policy and administrator responsibilities and the experiance and ability to interact successfully with the community under the worst of conditions. This user's edit history and answers in this RfA so not assure me of him having either. In addition to these red flags I don't see any need for the tools. While vandal fighting is important and often thankless it is not a task that requires administator tools.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. Adminship is not necessary for the use of "vandal fighting". —
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and Everyking. I'm not persuaded that this editor has enough experience of community interaction, nor that admin tools are needed for the tasks intended. I would like to consider a fresh nomination in the future after this editor has wider experience. --
'''Oppose''' Too little experience in community interaction and project-space for me to feel comfortable giving candidate the mop.  A few more months of solid wiki-gnomery could do wonders here.
I don't think I can support this user just yet, as per Xoloz, BrownHairedGirl, etc. '''Oppose for now'''.
This user hasn't demonstrated that they can apply discretion to decisions, and deal with complex disputes with non-vandals, sufficiently for my liking. '''
'''Oppose''' per Slim Virgin's first part: just way way way too few talk page edits.  Discussing issues with others when writing articles via committee is critical to keep the crap low.  Even if all you do is revert vandalism, oftentimes vandals need talk page info, or directed to talk pages, particularly when borderline.  However, I don't disagree with admin tools being given to someone who mostly fights vandals, that's a tough and thankless task.  Simply add more talk page edits, a lot more, please.
'''Oppose''' - per others here. Vandal fighting is fine, but admins need to have experience in interacting on Talk pages and creating real articles.
Per Xoloz -- <b>
I object, per the above. Lack of interaction, lack of experience, as evidenced e.g. by [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Little Thug song|this]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Record_charts&diff=prev&oldid=127473394 this edit summary].
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Record_charts&diff=prev&oldid=127473394 this edit] I have concerns regarding [[WP:OWN|OWN]] and [[WP:BITE|BITE]] and rejection of [[WP:BRD|BRD]]. --
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about extremely low level of interaction with other editors.
'''Oppose''' A review of recent contributions shows a regular failure to warn users when vandalism is reverted. User needs experience of adhering to the escalation process far more closely, before they get the block button.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Record_charts&diff=prev&oldid=127473394] The edit summary: ''DO NOT make changes to a guideline without discussion first''. There's 2 things wrong about that, first the editor didn't make a change to a guideline, he just changed an example used it illustrate the guideline, and secondly he decided to yell at the editor over a pretty minor change. I don't know if there's [[WP:OWN]] issues going on but we need fewer admins that yell first instead of more.
'''Oppose''' per all above concerns. More community interaction needed, as well as wider focus beyond vandal fighting.
'''Neutral'''. Changed from oppose; candidate has redeemed themselves by turning out not to be a banned user in disguise after all. Would like to support, but social pressures prevent it. Candidate is advised to immediately set about making as many talk-space edits as possible, in order to prove to <s>SlimVirgin</s> the community <small>(but especially SlimVirgin)</small> that they are not a sockpuppet. (Hey, remember the old days when we had this thing called "Assume good faith"? Good thing we got rid of ''that'' silly idea...) –
'''Neutral - leaning towards support'''. I am not sure about the amount of community interaction as outlined above, but apart from that, I see no reason to oppose. Anyway, I am sure he can be trusted, and we need more admins.
'''Support''' - No concerns. I believe this user would not abuse the tools, and also seems to be quite experienced with Afd. --
'''Support''' out of the gate, glad I watchlisted this and very glad that EA accepted the nom. A trustworthy, thoughtful and reliable user who will make fine use of the mop. ~
'''Support''' known to me for a while now.  Useful, consistent, thoughtful editor.  Can definitely be trusted with the tools --
'''Support''' will be an even bigger asset w/ the tools.
'''Support'''. We need more caffeine-addicted admins who can stay up late. <b>
'''Support'''. I saw EA was approached with the idea of becoming an admin, and I'm very happy to see that a nomination has now been made. I wholeheartedly support this nomination, as I have been impressed with EA's work so far, and think it would be further enhanced on becoming an admin.
'''Support''' — ''finally''; someone with satisfying contribs. Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Bacon&diff=157955319&oldid=157952945 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_Lathi&diff=prev&oldid=157658408 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Society_for_Cryobiology&diff=157614026&oldid=157554649 this] (to name a few) are ''exactly'' what everyone should do at AfD. Good work, man! --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Support''' I am happy to give my support to this user. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Wow the contributions of this user are impressive, and I especially like the fact that she values editors and subsequently deals with all in a friendly manner.
'''Support''' Definitely a good user and definitely one that should have adminship.
'''Support''' —<tt>[[</tt>'''
-- <b>
'''Support''' Surprised I haven't run into you before. Looks good<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Good user, good contribs.
'''Support''', Christ, I go to bed for a few hours and you guys all pile in before I'm ready. Typical.
'''Support''' Good editor.
I'm
'''Support''' Solid participation in Wiki-related pages particularly the WikiProjects, Afd's and editor review pages (being several being among the top Wikipedia edited pages by this user).--
'''Strong Support''' This is a great editor.  Someone I would have nominated, and I never nominate anybody. --
'''Support''' A strong candidate with valuable contributions.

'''Support''' Have had good interaction(s) with this user.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
Per Tim Vickers. —&nbsp;'''[&#8239;<!-- -->

Crap, I was going to nom and completely forgot...sorry mate, but you have my strongest support! '''
'''Support''' - Well, my head's spinning. Why, you may ask? Because for the first time in awhile, after going through someone's edit summary, talk page entries, and such, I can't find a reason ''at all'' to oppose. (And I love the fact that her first talk page edit included a reference citing where she retreived her information.) Everyone's human, of course. But this person is such a natural at [[WP:EQ]], that I don't think she even has to try. I guess it's just nice to see considering how much faux civility we may encounter. I'm pleased to support for admin, and really hope she goes into dispute resolution : ) -
'''Support''' (yay Cheshire) - no problems as far as I can see.
'''Support''' I think she has done a great job. Creating over 100 articles is not a joke.
'''Support''', really no reason not to be an admin.
'''Support''' - good enough for me.  -
'''Support'''.  Lots of good work creating new articles and at AfD.
'''Support'''.  No problem.  '''
'''Support''' have seen this editor at Afd's - knows what she's doing and can be trusted.
'''Support''' Excellent mainspace work (and I do mean ''excellent''), excellent AfD work, and I completely trust the nominator's opinion :) You'll make a top-notch admin; I just hope the mop and bucket won't lead you away from article work, which would be a shame.
'''Support'''.  An excellent editor whom I trust.--
'''Long live DYK''' '''
'''Support''' - Very much appreciate the answer to question one. '''
'''Support''', Tim Vickers' nominee.
'''Support''' Great you are back and contributing after a back injury and your track is good.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - sensible and good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' - Like the below mentioned [[User:Matthew Richardson]], I am also concerned about talk page participation by admin candidates.  This user has about a .3 article talk to article ratio.  More discussion generally leads to less use of admin tools.  --
'''Support''' - per nom
'''Support''' an excellent, conscientious, reliable editor, with a devotion to quality. '''
'''Support''' quality editors make for quality admins. —
'''Support''' - this user is just about ready. I think enough experience has been gathered in the correct areas now. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' A year is long enough, as long as the user appreciates that there's lots to learn in the first few months as an admin. "Espresso Addict is a calm... editor" does seem a bit of an oxymoron though ;) --
'''
'''Support''' No concerns. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''', <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' no problems.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems, the editor seems experianced enough and doesn't seem like one to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
A fine user who will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' A productive, highly literate, even-tempered and constructive editor is being considered for admin?  What a tough call. Guess I'll go along with the crowd.
'''Support''' Known him for awhile. Has what it takes to be an admin.
'''Support''' <s>anybody addicted to coffee will make a good admin</s> ;) um, that is, never seen this editor but the oppose votes are poorly constructed and there is really no reason not to support. :) Good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Trustworthy. Welcome to [[WP:60]]. --
Putting both sides into account, I would have to sit on the fence but leaning onto the Support side. Very tough call.
'''Support''' - Sure, editor seems strong.
'''Support''' I've never heard of you before (or [[John Mayer]], for that matter), but you seem perfectly good<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Esprit15d seems like a good user. I think she will do well as an administrator.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good idea.
'''Strong Support''' Has been a regular contributor since August 2005 and track is excellent with no concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Quite a good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Her admin status will only benefit this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''  Prime candidate, will be most helpful!  No concerns at all.  And haha, my opinion about Betacommand's "shoot first, ask questions never" approach to images is much the same as Iridescent's, so the warnings on her talkpage mean squat to me as well.
'''Support''' - Loads of experience --
'''Support'''.  Very good candidate. --
'''Support''', no concerns.  Betacommand's bot warnings should never be taken seriously.
'''Support''' nothing wrong with this user.
'''Support''' - I've crossed paths with this editor many times and taken note of their contributions. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - She has a large number of edits, of various types, and a good record. My only concern is that she just found out how to set her edit summary, but that is not a big deal.
'''Support''' Who?  Exactly.
'''Support''' Good contribs, definitely to be trusted.
'''Support''' I've had a few run ins with this user and she seems like she is suited for the job. --
'''Support''', all the right stuff.
&nbsp;&mdash;
I'm
'''Support.'''
'''Strong support''' extremely helpful. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' - Scarcely have I seen editors who're as dedicated as Esprit, but even moreso, humble enough to learn things when shown, but using wisdom to discerne often the greyest of areas. I don't think I'd support any other editor as strongly as Esprit. Truly an asset to Wikipedia. --
Everything I've seen of Espirit fills me with confidence about how she'll handle the new tools. Whole-heartedly support the RfA. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Experienced and dedicated editor, she will make a wonderful addition to the admin rank.
'''Support''' Quite an overlooked editor with the edits to boot. Mop for you!
'''Support''', great candidate with tons of experience. --
Weak support; candidate has indicated that they may occasionally deal with deletion backlogs –
'''Support''', solid candidate.
'''Support''' Solid stats, very helpful. Do be careful of [[WP:OWN]] on your good friend John, though. ;)
No real reasons not to support. Good luck!--

Great user who will be fine as an admin.
'''Support''' for the concise answers to all questions, but especially for number 4 (d), since there are times I find that the image policy needs exactly that, a degree in international copyright and a passport!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Picking three of her recent edits more or less at random from recent article contribs showed all of them to be excellent and substantial additions or reworkings of info. I like her forthright description of conflict resolution and reliance on founded and persuasive argument as a method of interaction. I swear this is '''not''' a pile-on !vote. I'm really very impressed. Good luck!
'''Support''' Has done excellent article writing. No reason to believe she can't do the same with the tools.
'''Support'''--per nom, don't see a problem based on history. Solid writing.
'''Support''' - looking through the contributions, can't see anything that would lead me to oppose.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
I guess I'll start the bidding then...answers look good, in absence of evidence to the contrary (a quick check of the contribs didn't throw up anything), looks like a support. '''
'''Support''' - I think he would make a good candidate.  Based on what I viewed in his edits he seems to have a strong understanding of wikipedia rules and regulations.
'''Support''' - Having a quick look, can't find anything to oppose with and the answers are truly excellent.
'''Support''' Ditto. Nothing terribly wrong from what I saw. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Probably not going to be the most active of admins, but that in no way prevents you from having the tools. I'd have liked a lot more experience in traditional admin areas, but as per your excellent statement above you clearly wish to focus in one area, and the tools will help you. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Doubt you would abuse the tools, nice answers to questions.  <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Very weak support''' - a disappointingly low Wikipedia-space edit count is countered by good answers to the questions given and an otherwise spotless set of contribs. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
(Forgotten) '''nominator support'''. While ''this is not a vote'', some reaffirmation won't hurt :-).
'''Support''' It is very unlikely that this user will abuse admin tools. An excellent editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I greatly appreciate the candidate's excellent, honest answers to the questions.  Good luck!  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
Seems like a good user.
'''Support''', as from whom I've seen above in his answers as an honest user, who admits mistakes, and is trying to fix up WP.
'''Support'''. Neutral arbitrator working towards settlement of conflicts. --&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I appreciate the user's honesty. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Weak Support''' Although I would've preferred a higher involvement in admin-oriented areas, I recall seeing some good work from Ev. Dealing with disputes and requested moves seem fair enough reasons to promote a user who's unlikely to abuse the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Good user. I would like to see Ev be an administrator.
'''Support''' <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' Definitely no probs with this editor!
'''Support''' - excellent answers of questions showing good policy knowledge - I think you'll be fine.
'''Support''' - although lower number of edits, excellent, thoughtful answers to the questions.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''': a calm and useful editor with a good understanding of policy in his areas of interest, which extend far beyond Kossovo.
'''Support'''  - evidence of 'pedia building and diplomacy a plus. cheers,
'''Support''' I've always greatly appreciated his dedication in taking such ungrateful work as mediating in ultraconflictual areas such as the Balkans. Ev is the sort of admins wikipedia desperately needs: not scared away by hot polemics, but instead always there with the bucket.--
'''Support''' I'm not sure if concentrating exclusively on article naming issues is a very helthy choice in the long run, but unfortunately these debates are sometimes necessary, and where I've seen Ev involved in those he's shown good sense.
'''Support''' good answers, I hope to see you more active in the project.
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''' I see nothing but good here.
I'm
'''Support''' Per answer to question 1, regarding encouraging more talk page discussion.
'''Support''' per contrib check and answers to questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I think the project could use more people who are competent and dedicated towards conflict resolution.  This in and of itself warrants my support!
'''Support'''good answers and a quick browse through the contribs turns up nothing troubling --'''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' naming disputes in Eastern Europe are a minefield and this editor seems to have done a good job in navigating it. Buena suerte.
'''Support''' Great Track and great work in the Balkans in particular and eastern Europe where he has done tight rope walking well.
'''Support''' I like what I see in Ev's collaborations with others, and I think the candidate will make good use of the tools. --
'''Oppose''', low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely shortage of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''', low level of real text contrbution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'
'''Support''' good luck!
'''Support''' Let's get this going the right way. A good editor. Best of luck! '''
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor, according to recent contribs and edit-count. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''support''' - I've actually got half a nomination written here that I wrote for Evilclown93 on Thursday so I might as well use it.... Evilclown93 joined the project in February 2007, and has since gained nearly 4,000 edits. He is an excellent vandal fighter, always warning appropriately after fighting vandalism, responding with extremely good reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] after a level 4 warning. He has shown that he has a firm understanding of the [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]] by helping remove non-violations from AIV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=139215024], I am positive he will be helpful in clearing the backlogs there that often arise. He is active on the [[WP:AN/3RR|3RR noiceboard]], offering helpful remarks to administrators to assist coming to a conclusion as to whether or not a block is appropriate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=139193370]. All in all, I trust this guy to not abuse the tools, and I'm sure he will certainly be a help
'''Support''' per 1.5 noms. —'''
'''Support''' - Good candidate, impressive answers to the questions, good experience with policy (he's a clerk at the 3RR noticeboard, where I saw his comments just a minute ago). Just as long as none of the ''I don't support anyone with fewer than 106,393 edits, with at least 1500 in Category talk'' crowd turns up, this request should pass unanimously.
'''Support''' This user was an easy choice to support with its impressive nom and nice answers.
'''Support'''. Great editor and good answers to questions. I have seen him around a lot and he always seems sensible and knowledgeable. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - Significant experience, demonstrated knowledge of process, trustworthy, respected, and generally an all around good person. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
I've seen Evilclown93 around before, and I've always gotten the sense that he has a strong grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no hesitations about allowing him a more active role in the enforcement of said policies and guidelines. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' Evilclown is a perfect candidate for adminship. His strong and solid contributions and his demonstration of knowledge in policy make me feel very confident that he ''will'' make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' - Yep. No problems here. Oh, you can't have [[User:Can%27t_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me|too many]] clown admins! -
'''Strong support''' Evilclown93 has been doing great editing since he joined; there is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' per Walton. I've seen him out and about Wikipedia and he looks like a good editor. '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' I am supporting him for a number of reasons. The first being that he seems reliable, the second, because we ''need'' more admins, and the third being that I think he would be a active admin. Good luck!:)--
'''Support''' Understands policy, has a need for the tools. Just a suggestion, but if you succeed in your RfA, could you create a userpage? As EVula noted, userpages usually make a person seem more approachable to newbies. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support'''- per [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I think this user would be a great admin! Just look at what work he has done. I wish you luck!
'''Support''' Have come across this editor from time to time, always favourably. Good range of edits, good range of experience, good range of knowledge. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' I don't usually support '''''editors''''' with less then 1.5 million Mediawiki edits and no user pages and with the name "clown" located in their username, but I'll make an exception. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Double-edit-conflicted Support''' Great editor, will be a great admin ;) –
'''Support''' - Will make a fantastic admin; all communications with this user have been positive and productive.
'''Support'''- Never came across this candidate yet, but I REALLY like their answers very very much.
Good candidate... --
'''Support''', a user I've seen around quite a bit. --
'''<s>Strong oppose for not having 300000 MediaWiki talk and 1400000 Category edits</s>Support''' - Who says there is no need for [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|more clown admins]]? Great candidate. --
'''Support''' - Yes indeed. This user seems ready for the tools --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' No reason(s) not to...will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Very good answer to the questions, and does a satisfactory amount of work in admin fields. I find the "no userpage" oppose to be one of the worst arguments, as evidenced in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G|this RFA]]. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support''' - Good answers, good contributions, great editor!
'''Support''' I normally do not support nominees under 10,000 edits - but after viewing your contributions, talk page (and archives) and katewannabe results I feel confident you can handle the responsibilities of the mop. --
'''Moral oppose''' We don't need any "evil" administrators."  In all seriousness, I support giving Evilclown the tools - he has sufficient experience and a helpful attitude, and this formality is long overdue.
'''Support'''. I've crossed by this candidate at least once before. His answers to the questions and his invaluable contributions convince me that he will be an improtant and active admin. Bonne chance! '''
'''Double edit conflict support''', certainly. Have seen this user around and he'd make a great admin, and certainly has the experience. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Full support'''- the guy is brilliant. Very friendly, cooperative. Ingenius, I was planning on nominating him myself. But looks like someone beat me too it :)).
'''Support''' I like the idea of a mild cannon getting sysopped.
'''Strong Support''' - Good answers, good Contributions and one hell of an editor ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''<s>Nooo, no userpage!</s>''' '''Yes, seriously awesome userpage!'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' 'No big deal' as per Jimbo, and no reason to oppose
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Evilclown93 is an assett to Wikipedia, personally I dont believe its right to ask a candidate to create a userpage as it is optional but if its OK with you. All the best. '''
'''Support''' Excellent all-round contributions, strong answers to the questions, and frankly the barn-star bit made me laugh - a lot! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per candidate's strong overall record. Minor (and completely non-serious) caveat: per your username, please avoid any troublesome interactions with [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|this user]].
'''Support''' can't see any problems with the promotion of this user.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. I've seen you around, definate support :) You'll be a great admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' EC is already "clerking" most of the admin pages he plans to handle, and his contribs there make clear he'll be a competent sysop.--
'''Support''' Page after page of contributions show this user to be courteous and to have a great understanding of policy. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Great Candidate!'''
'''Support''' a good candidate. --
'''Support of course''' seen nothing but good.
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' Per the answer to my question, as well as other factors.
'''[[Send in the Clowns]]'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No quarrels here.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' a very good and strong editor, would make a great admin. -
'''Strong support''' - Long overdue to become an admin! <font color="Red">'''''Cheers, [[User: JetLover|Je]][[User talk: JetLover|tL]]
'''Support'''-Seems good based on contribs, interactions, and everything else RFA people obsess over :) --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' &ndash; But of course.  Had assumed he already was one.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;

'''Support''' great editor will make great admin.
'''Strong support''' excellent candidate for the tools - good knowledge of policy; effective interaction with users and often seen around. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' answers to the questions are good and their contributions show understanding of policy. Needs the tools and seems trustworthy to use them.--
'''Support''' No need to worry about administrative misuse here. <small>—</small>'''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' No evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' after he clarified to my question.
I'm
per above
'''Support''' The barnstar issue is not funny but I really don't think it should disqualify him from using the tools.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' Every time I see a comment from this user it is always filled with common sense- trustworthy.

Though I virtually always support RfAs, I'm going to have to stay neutral on this one. The answer to question 7 is not satisfactory, in my opinion. Comparing good faith users to terrorists is not funny, and giving barnstars to vandals and telling them their vandalism was funny is '''encouraging''' them, not convincing them to stop, even if you say "I don't condone it in any way shape or form, so DON'T DO IT AGAIN!!!" I refuse to oppose RfAs unless a user is clearly contributing in bad faith, but if I did, I'd oppose this one. --
'''Sorry I agree with the above comments''' and can not support even though you are otherwise a good editor.
'''Neutral leaning to oppose'''. I was all ready to support until I saw the vandal barnstar which was only one week ago and per Daniel's concerns. '''
'''Nuetral''' see my other comment.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''[[WP:AGF]] Neutral''' (from oppose). Evilclown apologized. Although I believe that it was not his intention to make that comment sound uncivil, it's a fact that he should know that hostile comments are always uncivil. But this seems to have been an isolated incident, user appears to be a nice person (according to talk page).--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
I find Evilclown's actions since that RfA !vote to be demonstrating a good character and one who isn't above apologising for potential mistakes. Although I don't feel ready to support totally, and still have some nagging qualms, I won't oppose this RfA. '''
Review of contributions shows a sane and experienced Wikipedia editor.  Nothing to make me oppose.
Looks like a good enough candidate to me. Again, editcounting is just sad really. '''''
'''Support''' per my comment in the neutral section.
'''Support''' as nominator :) -

'''Support'''. Experience in the Wikipedia namespace is a little low, but what's there seems to be quite good. -- '''
'''Support''' Although I have not come across him, looking through his work he seems sensible and well balanced. Wiki-talk is limited but, in my view, adequate, given that what is there s good.--
'''Support''' &mdash; no red flags upon brief examination of [[Special:Contributions/Eyrian|contributions]]; good luck ~
'''Support''': While Wikipedia namespace edits are low it seems this user can be trusted with the tools. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Weak Support''' Due to Q1 answer.
'''Support''' I feel that Eyrian will make a great editor, and these tools can be trusted to be used correctly by him. His contributions, as well as his work in vandalism makes him a prime candidate for adminship, and I am looking forward to seeing more of Eyrain.
'''Support'''. While he has few WP namespace edits, what edits he does have there are solid and show a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines. An all-around good candidate for the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' Concise, well thought out answers.  Wikipedia edits?  This user wants to contribute to an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' fine user. I see no reason to oppose. —
'''Support''' - No '''[[Wikiprojects|real]]''' reason to oppose..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' due to reasonable answers to questions, no history of blocks, and because Adminship is no big deal. Cheers,
'''Support''' - I particularly like this candidate's answer to the question on process. Process is important, and this candidate is quite right that articles shouldn't be speedied if they don't fit any of the CSD criteria. No serious problems with experience for this user, and the oppose concerns are mostly trivial (Xoloz is right that more projectspace experience would be better, though). <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' looks experienced and qualified.--
''Support'''.  Good responses to the optional questions.  -- '''
'''Support''' - my dream candidate would have more experience in Wikipedia namespace, but when it comes right down to it, there's nothing here to make me believe this candidate would abuse the tools.  I would strongly encourage them to get a second set of eyes on XfD discussions and such before jumping right into closing them, though, just for mentoring sake.
'''Support''', substantial experience, no significant concerns presented so far, review of past contributions turns up no problems.
'''Support''' as I see no evidence that the tools would be abused, and Eyrian's contributions seem solid. I recommend heeding the suggestions below to always leave notices on pages after reverting, however. ···
The advantage of a candidate having few projectspace contribs is that its very easy to review all of them... Eyrian seems knowledgable about relevant policies and I see no reason to think he wouldn't use the mop well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. The candidate [[User:Vassyana/admin|fits the bill]]. Eyrian can improve by reviewing the rules a bit more, but I have no reason to believe there is a significant lack of understanding or an unwillingness to learn more.
'''Weak support'''. The candidate seems reasonably trustworthy; I have looked through some of the candidate's project-namespace edits and they seem fine. Although the nominee isn't creating significant extra work for admins without the tools, it seems reasonable that they would be able to help with them, and nothing that other editors have  brought up seems particularly concerning for me. (However, it ''is'' probably worth acting on what's come up in this RfA; warning users after reverting vandalism can be a good way to stop it in my experience.) --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 08:33, 2 May 2007 (
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
I'm
'''Support'''--
'''Support,''' not endorsed by a WikiProject is probable evidence of less cabalistic attitude. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''', very good answers to questions, as well as good knowledge of Wikia funtions. Programming experience is an up too, as any bot assistance in clearing backlogs is great. My only concern is your edit summary usage: only 99% for major and minor edits?? (I'm being sarcastic, of course ;) ) Keep it up! '''''
'''Support''' After sifting through your contribs I've concluded that you have enough experience for the job, however, I'd suggest that you ammend and rewrite the responses to the first three questions and provide diffs. The experience is there, but it isn't provided here, which is a bit misleading. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' no stinky --
'''Support''' Adequate experience and answers to questions, good recent edits, oppose issues don't seem huge. I strongly recommend you go to one of the free email address providers and create a special email address just for your Wikipedia userid. you don't need to reveal your regular email address and you'll have to live with some unfortunate spam, but Wikipedia administrators do need to be accessible privately. Also agree that you've  addressed [[User:YechielMan|YechielMan]]'s concerns about your Project space experience. --
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''Support''' See no reason will not be a good admin.
'''Support''' Although I am not without concerns, I think I can conclude with some confidence that Eyrian is possessed of the deliberative demeanor (evidenced, for one, by his proper appreciation for [[WP:PII|PII]]), sound judgment, and even, cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin are quite propitious, such that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive]].  Separately, I would observe as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BigrTex&diff=prev&oldid=128574944 did at the BigrTex RfA] that the general understanding of [[WP:BLP|BLP]] that Doc advances is one for which, at best, a consensus did not appear until four or five days ago and for which, at worst, a consensus does not yet exist (witness the present full protection of BLP in view of edit-warring over, inter al., the ''subject requests deletion'' section); I am confident that Eyrian will apply BLP consensus with the wishes of the community as codified in policy and demonstrated in practice.
'''Support''' → Lack of wikipedia-ns edits doesn't make, in my opinion, somebody a bad or inexperienced admin. There are many important admin tasks that aren't related to that namespace! <i><b>
'''Support''' Few Xdf's and namespace, but enough mainspace to [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/Eyrian|pass]].
'''Support''', per the very first comment in "support", I agree, looks like a very "sane", and balanced editor...  Will be a use to the project if given the tools.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience in project-space for me to judge adequately candidate's fitness, or feel comfortable entrusting candidate with mop.
'''Oppose'''- Only 125 Wikipedia space edits, which is one of the most important namespaces needed for becoming an admin. Also, Q1 had a very generic answer of "helping with backlogs". Specifics are good, especially something you're already involved with. I do like that you've been here a pretty long time though. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''Oppose''' - lack of understanding in relation to verifiability policy, per discussion below
Apparent lack of experience, sorry.
BLP - seems to imply as long as we can't be sued - stuff the subject.--
'''Oppose''' Per Doc.
'''Oppose''' at this time: not wide enough experience yet.
Per Xoloz -- <b>
'''Neutral''' I agree with YechielMan. You need more Wikipedia edits for adminship. Since there are no other problems, I am not opposing and am neutral as a result.
'''Neutral''' I'm leaning towards support as well, but some more experience would greatly improve user as an editor.
'''Neutral''' but definite moral support. I don't think the user has enough experience in the project space (note: not enough ''experience''). While we can't expect new admins to know everything about everything, it's preferable for them to have demonstrated some acquaintance with the underlying mechanics of Wikipedia. I also don't think the candidate has sufficient experience with interaction with other users. Of course what I do see all looks pretty good but I can't support at this time.
'''Neutral''' seeing as I'm here; looks good to me, I'm sitting on the fence purely because I've never come across this editor (our fields don't overlap at all) so I don't have an opinion<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Candidate appears suitable, but I don't have enough evidence of participation in collaborative editing to support.  An endorsement from a suitable WikiProject would likely alter my vote.
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose, as he indeed reverts lots of vandalism, but does not leave a message on the user's talk page afterwards (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Eyrian&namespace=3 his contributions]). An admin is expected to communicate more, and first try to persuade vandals to give it up and become constructive. In [[WP:AIV]], it is expected that vandals receive at least a level 3 or level 4 warning (preceded by level 1 and 2 warnings) before there is consensus that they can be blocked. Eyrian definitely needs to improve in this aspect. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Neutral''': per [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]]. --
'''Neutral''' per Xoloz. &ndash;
'''Neutral''', per reason by Errabee. Maybe a little more participation in the Wikipedia space will do you fine. '''
'''Neutral''' I still don't see any answer as to why the user needs admin. Vague reason as to what they are going to help contribute on. Low wiki space edits where admin powers more typically required.--
'''Neutral'''. Good answers to the questions, though I'm concerned about his understanding of image use policy. —
'''Support'''. Indeed a quiet editor. I believe she will be constructive if sysopped. '''''
'''Support'''. I don't see any problems. --
Yes, I was acually thinking about nominating <s>him</s> her as well.
'''Support''' — excellent work at [[WP:DEAD]]. Good luck! --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Support''' sound answers and a look at <s>his</s> her deleted contributions shows good familiarity with the deletion process. Good quiet gnome and should be a good quiet admin. And in case anybody feels like opposing on grounds of low vandal-fighting, low contributions to article writing or high semi-automated edits, let me preemptively note that a) the candidate is well aware of the fact that <s>he</s> she'll have to learn the ropes if <s>he</s> she wants to start blocking vandals and b) you can't wikify, categorize, deal with dead-ends, fix templates, etc for a full year without developing a keen sense of what Wikipedia is.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' - No worries here.
'''Support''' Solid contributor.
I've never seen Fabrictramp around before, but I'm sure (s)he would use the tools well. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Happy to give my support. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''; probably not mental + could use the tools = a yes from me.
Per Neil... --
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' as one of the people who follows her mopping up the slime trail of deadend tags, I feel she would make a great admin because of her edit history and overall contributions to cleaning this place up!
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''
'''Support'''.  Amazing edit count!  '''
'''Support''' Regular contributor with over 1000 edits per month.
'''Support'''. Sterling contributions to cleaning up some of Wikipedia's worst pages.
'''Support''' Seems like a fine editor.
Me too.
'''Support''' - Good answers to the questions and nothing to prove (s)he would abuse the tools. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Enthusastic support''' Nothing but positive interactions with this editor over at [[WP:WPBB]] (although the name change threw me off at first). As a self-admitted wikignome who specializes in baseball articles, I fully endorse the mopping of other self-admitted wikignomes who specialize in baseball articles.
'''Support''' Solid candidate who will not misuse the tools. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Female baseball fans are sexy. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Why not? At a quick glance I see nothing that would lead me to believe that this person would abuse the tools. On top of that, this user has plenty of constructive edits. Good luck!:)--
'''Support''' I think the work on dead pages is very helpful, and I liked her comments about how she deals with conflict there.
'''Support''' Good history, good to go.--
'''Support''' - Helping it snow.  I agree with all that she is a great editor and deserves the tools.  Keep it up!
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' appears to be a well-qualified nominee.
'''Suppport''' - looks like a good editor, no problems, trustworthy.
Fabrictramp seems fine. She will be a great administrator.
'''Support''' - I do not believe this user would abuse the tools, and wish her all best in what I hope will be her new role.  -
'''Support''' - Definitely. Looks like a great future admin! -
'''Support''' Great editor. -
'''Support''' - Fine editor, no reason to oppose. Good luck Fabrictramp!
'''Support''' good contributions and experience. You need the tools.
'''Support''' - we seem to be having a trend of absolutely brilliant RfAs at the moment. This user will be yet another valuable addition to the Wikipedia admin team. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - looks fine to me. Another candidate with a proven track record and reasonable knowledge of policy -
'''Support''' I spend a fair amount of time at [[WP:DEAD]] as well, and Fabrictramp's contributions there are definitely appreciated.
'''Support''' - I've encountered Fabrictramp at several AfDs. I'm impressed by her answer to Q3, and her interactions on her talk page show her to be patient and friendly, even when her visitors are difficult to understand, as at [[User_talk:Fabrictramp#text_copyrighted_problem]]. Her recent PRODS suggest she is prudent and thoughtful with nominations and keeps an eye on them (see, for example [[Mystic Angel]] and [[Forensic network]]). I think there's little reason to doubt that she will, as she says, "only be involved with work that is within my comfort level". She doesn't seem to be hacking & slashing away at good content. :) Her contribution history indicates dedication to the project, and I think she'd do well with the mop. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', looks fine, good luck! <b>
'''Support''' - looks like she knows what she's doing... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I'm
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Looks very good. --
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest she will abuse the tools.
'''
'''Weak Oppose''' Awesome house keeping skills. No doubt a very dedicated wikipedian that is an absolute benefit to wikipedia.  My only compliant is I would like to see more user interaction such as enforcing policy and mediating controversial edits. --
'''Neutral''', I don't know this guy so I can't decide.
'''Support''' Whats not to like?  A few more months maybe, but to be honest if Faithless hasn't come unstuck by now with the vandalism at Harry Potter, he/she is doing something right.  Good answers also. &mdash;
This user is always showing up my watchlist doing good things.
Seen around, been impressed. -- <strong>
Definitely, he'd be handy-''er'' than he already is with access to the block button :) '''
Seen him at new page patrol. Excellent user who rarely makes mistakes. --
Great new page patroller.
'''Support''', no good reason not to.
'''Support'''.  I've edited with Faithless, and he is a great editor.  Good luck!  <span style="color:red">'''Happy Holidays!!'''</span> <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Seen him a fair bit around HP articles; an excellent user who should be trusted with adminship.
'''Support'''. I agree, the candidate appears to have solid edits and a good understanding of policies. No concerns about granting the tools.
'''Support'''- A rare enough user who deserves the title of ''the'' user; has an extremely widespread edits throughout the Wiki. Takes part in [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:NP]] and goodness knows, possibly tons of other categories. Also has good (''very, extremely'' good) grasp of policies in Wiki. All in all, this is a user who will thoroughly bring the phrase "to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone" to the next level. Cheers, and good luck. --
'''Support''' Good all round experienced editor who would help the community.
'''Support''' answers give me confidence.
'''Support''' great answers, and all my encounters with him have been extremely positive. He is a very helpful person with my signature and user page
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. When I first saw him on [[Talk:Harry Potter]], I seriously thought he was an admin and spent half an hour looking for his RfA. With all the problems that he undergoes on [[Harry Potter]] and related pages and ''still'' managing to stay calm, he'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' Someone who knows what he's doing, no doubt. No reason not to trust him with the tools. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' - No reason not to. -'''
'''Support''' A well-rounded editor.
'''Support''' - Looking over his contributions, I see no reason not to, as he seems a strong editor- he knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' Consistently good reporting at AIV. Also in this case the narrowish focus on a group of articles is a good thing; things Harry Potter related will attract all manner of editing problems so it is likely this editor has had a concentrated exposure to many of the ills that an admin needs the tools to resolve. No qualms re misusing the mop either.
'''Support''' as a good editor.  Lots of edits, many for new articles. Admits to IP edits.  Has a sense of humor. No worries here.
'''Support'''. Keeps a level head, fights vandals, and excellent answer on [[WP:FICTION]] question. Give him the wand, er, mop. --
'''Support''', has clue.
'''Support'''. I saw FtWB making some nice contributions at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia|WikiProject Virginia]] and related articles, and I mentally tagged him as potential admin material.  Looking over recent contributions and his answers confirms my early assessment.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''.  Appears to be a well-rounded editor. <strong>
'''Support''' I think that this user will dojust fine as an admin.
Strongly per answers to Q4, Q4i and Q5. '''
'''Support'''
[[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
Could have sworn you were already! Best of luck. :)
Absolutely. Great editor, has admirable dedication towards the project.
I am satisfied, based on the answers above, that this nominee has the snarts needed to do a fine job. -
'''Support''' Handles disputes rather well and has a good knowledge of policy.  The oppose links actually pushed me close to a strong support: those links showed someone committed to protecting heavily trafficked articles from harm without being too bitey, arguing against OR and keeping rather calm in the face of personal attacks.
'''Support''', per the nom, the answers to the Questions, and a [[WP:DYK]] contributor to boot!
'''Support''' Editor has skills worthy of sysop tools, regardless of the anecdotal edit warring on the Harry Potter articles.--
'''Support''' With +8000 edits, I think he would be a great asset on the anti-vandalism front. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
This user seems qualified to be a sysop; no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - No Issues.
Agree with the above.
'''Support''' keenness outweighs issue below for mine. overall a net positivecheers,
'''Weak Support''' Sure, you may not be perfect, but then again none of us are. The perfect RfA would come at a later date for you, though I still doubt you'll make more mistakes with the sysop tools than the next one. :-) '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Support''' per mostly excellent answers to questions. --
'''Support''' - I see this user's name all over my watchlist. We have done work (him much more so than me I have to admit), especially anti-vandal work on Harry Potter-related articles, and I think all his contribs have been really useful to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy. I also feel the editor has grown out of the issues mentioned below.
'''Support''' Fine editor. I also liked his answers.
'''Weak Support''' seems like a great user to me....
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' You deserve it mate!. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Faithless has revert warred in order to impose original research and crufty elements in at least 3 Harry Potter articles. He was asked multiple times to provide sources for his claims but never bothered to do it. He doesn't seem to like contradiction and thus his attitude was several time very close to article ownership, talking to the other users involved in the debates in an agressive and insulting way. In my opinion, this is not the behavior an admin should have.
<s> '''Oppose''' </s> '''Strong oppose'''.  The editing and associated talk page discussion at [[List of Harry Potter characters]] Nov. 25-27 as mentioned above by Folken de Fanel reveals, in that one exchange, Faithlessthewonderboy editwarring, showing lack of understanding of cited policy ("OR" mentioned in edit summary), and an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Harry_Potter_characters&diff=173811423&oldid=173802443 unwarranted personal remark].  Reverting again after having said "please don't start a revert war" looks like a clear case of editwarring to me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Harry_Potter_characters&diff=173767817&oldid=173761422] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Harry_Potter_characters&diff=173800753&oldid=173798342].  Meanwhile, the policy-based and apparently (to me) well-founded charge of "OR" in the edit summary of the reverted edit was not directly addressed in the talk page comments.  Faithlessthewonderboy also seems to be implying [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Harry_Potter_characters&diff=173767817&oldid=173761422] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Harry_Potter_characters&diff=173769391&oldid=170429992]  that the other editor, who had already mentioned "OR" and explained it in an edit summary, still has the responsibility to start a discussion and "gain consensus" when Faithlessthewonderboy had not provided much or any argument against the charge of "OR".  This, along with the words "''an editor is trying to insist that...''" in the latter link, shows to me a lack of willingness to take other editors' concerns seriously and discuss them -- a tendency I wouldn't want someone with admin tools having.  --
'''Oppose''' I am really concerned about the comment "Yes, as usual you can't hold a civil conversation, insult other Wikipedians, engage in edit warring and harm the project rather than improve it" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Harry_Potter_characters&diff=173811423&oldid=173802443] when the previous comment was actually, despite what you say above, reasonably civil. And what leads me to oppose, is that it was only 4 weeks ago. (As it happens, I agree with you on the issue involved, but that's another matter).  You are not yet ready to have administrative authority. '''
'''Neutral''' &mdash; a very good editor, but as seen in Oppose Comments, I would be wary to give him sysop access just yet.  Maybe in the future.--
'''Neutral''' - per Ivo Emanuel Goncalves (aka Saoshyant), come back soon in my opinion. [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Support''' as nom. --
'''Support.''' A good catch, Wizardman. =) Although, I would like to see more editing as admin. Wikipedia will now be your life. So, you must now maintain an average of 250 edits per day, and no AWB cheating like Rich Farmbrough. '''
'''Yay!''' Definitely. :):):):):)'''
'''Support''' per usual quote about non-admins... ;) --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' strong image fighter
'''Support''' per general goodness. It's nice to have admins who can understand image stuff past "delete because nobody objected to IfD". -
'''Support'''. Another candidate who accepted at 0:00. :D [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Helvetica; color:#0095B6;font-size:95%;">SD31415</span>]] ·
'''Support''' Definitely, he knows a lots about image stuffs in Wikipedia.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' looks like a good admin material.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''. Solid nomination, excellent editor, could use the tools, and will use them as intended.
'''Support''' One of the first editors I encountered on Wikipedia and was always fair...not to mention the contribs. to back it up.  Seems like a prime-admin. candidate.
'''Support''' Per nom--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Nice quote, btw. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
support --
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin candidate.
Certainly.
'''Support''' good candidate. ←
'''Support'''.  I think you're well qualified and have a good amount of experience in diverse parts of Wikipedia.  You should answer the questions above more thoroughly, perhaps, if only to avoid a backlash from the people who are pissed off about that sort of thing. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
- <b>
I'm
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around, nothing I should worry about. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support'''. --
Naturally, --
'''Support''' -- giving this user admin tools will be a benefit to the project.
'''Support''' impressive.  Looks like another great addition to the crew --
'''Support''' Looks ok to me.  Wikipedians are often a wee bit odd, but humor sometimes helps in resolving rough discussions. :-)
'''Support''' of course. ''

'''Support''' - i'll never forget a favour. And the nominator says it all, really.
'''Support'''; I trust users who are evasive answering the questions.  Better to state your true opinion or dismiss the useless questions, rather than regurgitating the same "correct" answers from 100 previous RFAs.
'''Support''' Seems eminently qualified and reasonable. <font color="green">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Mega-support''' I thought Feydey already was an admin. I used to work with him quite a bit with img copyvios, and he helped and advised me a lot. He has an excellent understanding of policy. And, as always, attracting oppose votes for doing Good Things shows the candidate's maturity in dealing with problems. Declining him the mop is declining the community of an experienced, mature, trustworthy admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- good temperament for handling controversies (although I disagree with the AfD answer -- sometimes consensus never emerges, in which case "no consensus" is the right answer). --
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' per cut of jib ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''', thoughtful and competent, will be an excellent admin.
'''Oppose''' - Like 99% of our fair use policing admins you police the fair use but don't know our [[WP:FUC|FUC]] thoroughly your self, I also worry with the possibilities of you going rogue (I've watched it happen to much when supporting fair use policers). <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but someone as evasive as you have been in the questions is not someone I can trust with the keys.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Your question answers frighten me, particularly your apparent [[I know it when I see it]] attitude toward what warrants long-term blocking.  You should be able to ''some'' idea of how you would go about making that decision. ~&nbsp;
'''Oppose''', despite fair command of the English language and good work on the Project.  That said, I'm not comfortable with parts of your answers above&mdash;I especially share the concern of those who have voiced unease regarding your apparently somewhat cavalier attitude toward [[WP:BP]].  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose. Your administrative and editorial work is ''very'' creditable. But I'm unimpressed by your answers to the questions. They're sometimes evasive and generally poorly written; administrators are expected to have a fair command of the English language because they need to communicate with other users a lot. Also, some of your very recent edits just leave me scratching my head: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:POPart&diff=prev&oldid=97603347 declining to speedy obvious patent nonsense], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francis_Tyers&diff=prev&oldid=97623111 making a very odd talk comment] (although I don't know the context). Please take no offense, but you just come across a little... odd for an admin candidate.
'''Neutral''' for now. I wasn't impressed with the answers to the questions.
'''Neutral''' - Answers to some questions were too short.

'''Neutral''' leaning toward oppose. The answers to the additional questions make me hesitant.
'''Neutral''' on paper, a fantastic candidate, sadly, upon further investigation, this candidate appears to lack knowledge of policy, a random sampling of the past 500 WP-space edits show Wikignoming [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_US_Newspapers/Illinois&diff=prev&oldid=97565552]  and simple !voting on XfDs citing little policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Eco-warrior&diff=prev&oldid=98236428]. The questions were your real chance to show you know policy but the answers are terrible, weak, and evasive. The answer to the Spam question posted by Eagle is especially worrying, for someone with a mass of WP space related edits, you show little or no knowlege off [[WP:SPAM]], [[WP:EL]] or [[WP:C]]. I am, however, prepared to Support the candidate if they can expand their answers to the various questions (not just the Spam one) and show a true knowledge of policy. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose. Worried by answers to questions, especially Q4. Surely the candidate can at least provide an example of a situation where such a block is appropriate. I look forward to any further clarification.
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter and cool head, now with lots of experience.
'''Support''', obviously :-) as nom. I've said it all above. FisherQueen'll make a great admin... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart and a mop in your hand.
'''Support''' I have no doubt FisherQueen can expertly handle [[CAT:CSD]]. In terms of interaction, I've seen FisherQueen handle many situations with vandals and newbies well (I have a habit of jumping into others user talk pages on my Watchlist >_>). We worked together to try to defuse a sockpuppet situation at [[Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy]]. No concerns.
Okeyday. —
'''Support''' since I nominated her last time, and offered to many times since, it would be silly of me to oppose :) A great user, who I originally welcomed back in September, who I've seen only good stuff from. Best of luck! '''
'''Support''' WJBscribe as a nominator? FisherQueen ''must'' be a good editor. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Concur with Husond!
This user has been '''strongly supported indefinitely''' by a user called
'''Support''' - good vandal fighting, see this editor around regularly.  No problems here.  --
'''Strong support'''. Excellent user, no concerns whatsoever. Best of luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong Support''' - The user has the right attitude to become a very good admin..I support this nom wholeheartedly...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' enough time has passed since last RFA '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' Very good user. Would be a good admin in terms of vandal fighting. Is an experienced Wikipedian who contributed a lot and would ge a great admin.
'''Support''' This user will be a great administrator. — '''
'''Support''', without a doubt. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. I've delat with you alot lately, and I assumed you were an administrator! Definate support [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' This user appears to be a good administrator in the making.
'''Support''' - Her first RfA was unsuccessful, in part because of her 4785 total edits she only had 98 Wikipedia and 83 mainspace talk edits which in part evidence a lack of experience in some areas of Wikipedia. She had her own RfA#1 closed, promising in January 2007, "I'll work on the areas mentioned, and see you again in three or four months." She now has 11,911 total edits with 806 Wikipedia and 341 mainspace talk edits and she now has garnered the experience that she lacked during her first RfA. More important than keeping her RfA#1 promise was her willingness to accept the criticism of others and work to improve herself.  I believe it is time we made FisherQueen an admin. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions, any concerns raised previously have obviously been dealt with. Strong community support too.
'''Support''' a good candidate, who can learn from criticism.  A good admin trait! --
'''Unlimited supply of strong support''' Yes, yes, yes.
'''Support''' no-brainer. —
'''A380 sized support''' one of the best candidates I've seen in a while. <font color="Red">'''''Cheers, [[User: JetLover|Je]][[User talk: JetLover|tL]]
'''Support''' Time and experience are on your side.  I think that the project can only benefit with this editor becoming and admin.
'''Support''' After reading through your talkpages, reviewing your contributions/edit history and your katewannabe results, I can see you are versed in both mainspace edits and Wikipedia edits. I feel confident you can use the tools, effectively, and be of no threat to the encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' Always has a useful contribution to a discussion.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support'''- per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' This is a good user who is not likely to abuse the tools. Because of that and since we are in need of admins, I will give you my support. Good luck:)!--
'''Support''' She is qulified in every way.

'''Support''' will make a great admin.
'''Support''' good all-round record; looks good.
'''Support''' everything looks good. Cool user name too.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' &ndash; I doubt she will ever abuse the mop, and if she does, we can always block her... ''kidding!'' ;) Good luck Fisher, you will make a great administrator. <span style="color:#3366BB;" class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Spebi|+]]'''
'''Support''' impressed by the work on the ''dark side'' of the whole game - a good one to have at the barricades - strong support for what I have seen
'''Support''' - not a day too soon. :)
'''Support'''. Good user with sufficient experience.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good luck!
'''Support''' Previous RfA failed because of lack of experience; but, with over 12,000 edits now, I think the candidate is certainly experienced enough. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Support''' I've happened across her [[WP:AIV]] work; great contributions, well-qualified candidate. <b>
'''Support''', most definitely.  Editor can definitely put the mop and bucket to good use.--
'''Support''', have seen her work and liked it much. :-)
'''Support''' I have never said this before; I really thought she was an admin! From her contributions, she certainly should be; any problems since the last RfA have clearly been addressed, and I would support even if the big names in the top dozen or so !votes had not already done so.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support''' - The users seems ready for the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Easy to support this applicant''' - good edits since last RfA and a good time between applications.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. The nominator says it all... '''
I'm
'''Support''' - I've seen FisherQueen around, and I'm sure they will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I am confident that he will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I think she will be a good admin, using the tools correctly.
'''Support''' per nom and answers. From what I've seen of FisherQueen's contributions, she'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I see no problem giving her the tools. --
'''Strong support'''. Just after seeing you handle that almost amusing oppose voter I have no problems supporting.
'''Hell yes.'''  I've offered to nominate her time and time again -- FisherQueen rules.  --
I '''support''' this nomination fully. Competent, active, and solid responses to each question. &mdash;
'''Absolutely''' - FQ is a model editor, and has been a help to me more times than I can count.  -
—'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Suppport'''. Excellent personal observations of FisherQueen and per nom. '''
'''Support'''.  FisherQueen does great work in vandal-fighting... I've often found myself edit-conflicted by her speed at speedy-tagging and vandal-warning. :)
'''Support'''—Excellent contributions and nothing of concern turns up. --
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Weak support'''. Excellent user, plenty of experience, clear answers to questions. However, there's something nagging at the back of my mind about something bad that happened with this user - but I really can't remember what it was. Maybe I'm getting her mixed up with someone else. Anyway, that would be a totally unfair reason to withhold support, so I'm supporting.
'''Support''' I have serious reservations about your preference for [[Cyberman|Cybermen]], but I think this can be overlooked, all things considered.
'''Strong Support'''. Top shelf editor. Having interacted with for quite some time I trust her to use the tools wisely. She's knowledgeable, smart, level-headed and experienced, firm when necessary, able to deescalate, has a wicked sense of humor and is able to turn teen angst on its head in the blink of an eye. What's not to like?--
'''Strong Support''' - super track record. Knows policy well, is polite and patient and has a good sense of humour, betimes. I've never seen [[WP:BITE|BITEy]] edits from this editor, either. All good here -
per nom
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around and believe he will do just fine.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' - I like FisherQueen's replies to the RfA questions. I had noticed her (and [[User:Leebo|Leebo's]]) good work in handling the sock-attack on [[N. R. Narayana Murthy]], and later making the article better. Besides, I dig anyone with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AN._R._Narayana_Murthy&diff=123346275&oldid=123344794 sense of humour] (context: an ignorant sockpuppet was threatening to have the editors of the [[N. R. Narayana Murthy]] article "fired" and this was FisherQueen's response. The edit summary had me in splits for quite some time :-)). <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' I have seen lots of good work from this editor and expect the same with extra janitorial equipment. --
'''Support''' - Seen around, trusted and experienced. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
Has shown very good signs of being an excellent administrator. '''
'''Support''' the editor's record and his answer convince me that he/she will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' seems like a worthwhile janitor to me.
'''Support''', seems good editor to me.
'''Strong support''' She's beaten me to reverts countless times, I don't see why should she not have the tools. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''', impressive work record. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Definately deserves the Mop!--
Oops.
'''Strongly Oppose'''. As a relative newbie to wikipedia, I found FQ agessive, bullying and unwelcoming. I understand she has done good work with vandals, however she agressivly assumes all 'non expert' posts are created by vandals, which is clearly not the case. Further more, she highly offended me when she wrote 'dogfucking' on my own talk page (which to be fair, the first time she wrote it may have had some context), HOWEVER  when I deleted, and requested her not to repost as I find such language highly offensive, and has no place on a family site, she then reposted this language.  This is not admin material, until she can be more removed/controlled in conflicts.
As usual, I voice my support as nominator (albeit somewhat prematurely, since I'm pretty sure it's too early in his time zone for him to be online. But he did tell me he'd accept the nomination).
'''Support''', an excellent contributor, will make a fine admin. —
'''Support''' - Has a lot of experience with Wikipedia and has contributed a lot. I can find nothing that makes me think he would misuse admin tools.
'''Suupport''', the honour would be all ours.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. Yeah, I don't see why not.
'''Support'''.  Significant contributions, demonstrable integrity (especially transparency as evident on [[User:Fishhead64]]), polite, precise, much evidence of [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] and [[WP:Good_faith|good faith]].
'''Support''' Looking at Fishhead's user page and his answers here, I feel confident in trusting him with the tools.
Support. I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. —'''[[user:AldeBaer|Alde]][[user talk:AldeBaer|Baer]]''' <s>
'''Support''' absolutely. Seems very level-headed and experienced. Give him a mop! —
'''Support'''. Answer to Q1 is not too descriptive, but I don't see why this user cannot be trusted with the tools. Also, his name bears a strange resemblance to that belonging to a certain someone. Hmm...I wonder... Fish rhymes with Nish. If you awkwardly pronounce "Head", you can make it rhyme with "kid". And we both have the 64 covered. This seems too coincidental. '''
'''Support'''.  This user and I have a few articles of interest in common, so I have seen his edits and comments frequently.  Well-researched edits, civil comments, even when confronted by others who attack.  --
'''Support''' - Good guy, civil and thoughtful.  Understands process. --
'''Support''' - I think he is sufficiently open to others' point of view and to accepting their arguments, if valid.
'''Support''' - per nom and my own experiences of him as an editor.

'''Support''' - Sounds Good 2 me...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Can't see any reason to not support him.  An all around good editor.  Good luck! :)
'''Support.''' Seems trustworthy and sufficiently experienced. --
'''Support''' Seems to be that rarest of things, someone who always talks sense.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around, and he always seems to be making good edits.  No reason not to trust with the mop, etc.
'''Support''' - everything looks good. Honest answers to the questions. MEDCAB experience is a bonus. -
'''Weak Support''' Adequately meets [[User:Mr.Z-man/RFA|my criteria]]. Edit count usage is a little low, and Wiki-space edits are a tad lacking, but this is made up for by the otherwise great mainspace contibs. <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' per supporters' good reasons.
'''Support'''. I do not see any reason to oppose. -

'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this RfA.
'''Zero Sum Support''' in support of potential admins having opinions, esp in userboxes.
'''Support''' I have interacted with this user on the [[Roman Catholic Church]] article and, as he stated, he has been reasonably civil if perhaps a bit insistent on having his POV heard and accomodated.  He should make a good admin.  Would change to strong support if he would get rid of that guinea pig userbox. (that's a joke, don't take it seriously)  --
'''Support''' Valuable contributions and level-headed dialogue.--
'''Support''' Fishhead64 often contributes on articles and talk pages that are prone to cotnroversy, yet seems to always keep a level head and a civil tongue.  --
I'm
'''Support''' per the other supporters.
'''Support''', patient and conscientious. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' Seems like good admin material.
Was slightly concerned by a fairly limited area of wiki mainspace focus but not enough to deny my '''support''' for this request.--
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Good nominee - I support''' has a full range of skills.[[User:Bec-Thorn-Berry|Bec-Thorn-Berry]] 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC) <s>[[User:Terence|Terence]] 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)</s> Voted twice. Sigh.
'''Support''' I was also involved with the RCC vs CC debacle. While Fishhead had a POV, civility was always kept, and Fishead was willing to compromise in a situation that some editors took to be of grave moral and spiritual importance. I was very impressed by the talk page interactions during this heated dispute, and I feel that is a good indication of how Fishhead would perform under the pressures of being an Admin. -
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' roly, poly fishheads for adminship.
'''Support''' seems like a fair editor with good expierience. Also started the wikiproject - thats an achievement :) <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Tarragon Support'''
'''Support''' - Weak answer to question 1, but the user is extremely civil and does seam to understand policy. Can certainly be trusted with the tools.
''' Support''' - Seems to be a very solid candidate.
'''Support''', seems good.--
'''Support''' - He had a strong POV in the RCC/CC naming dispute, but I don't get the impression that he would use the admin tools to push that POV. I'm going to trust he will use the mop for unrelated *FD work.
'''Support'''. Polite, hard-working and comitted to the project - what else can we ask for?
'''Oppose''' I have also dealt with this user on the the [[Roman Catholic Church]] and related articles and have seen him to be an unrelenting POV pusher. There are already too many admins who ignore NPOV.
'''Oppose''', weak answer to question 1, I doubt that his decision to remove the "deletionist" userbox was accompanied by any improvement in his attitude toward the project. I'm not impressed with his image uploads either. Do we really need a "fair use" image of to show our readers what [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Melanesian_sisters.jpg three Melanesian nuns] look like? What is your [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale|rationale]]? Does it help illustrate any concept in the [[Anglicanism]] article where it's used? Do you still think [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Img_03_500.jpg "personal and public non-commercial use"] equals "public domain"? —
'''Oppose''' I am not impressed with his non-neutrality. Naming convention for the Catholic Church vs. Roman Catholic is particularly glaring. Is there a rule on how you can request the removal of administrator privileges?
'''Neutral''', I am a bit worried about his answer to question 1 looking at his contributions. While he seems to be okay with handling article deletions, I did not see any edits on [[WP:AN3]]. Also, I don't see him warning often when reverting vandalism. This makes me wonder how he would handle vandals if he had the tools. Would he use warns, go straight to blocking (fine if the vandal had just vandalized after final warning of course), or would he simply do nothing but revert the vandalism?
'''Neutral''', very experienced, also a member of the mediation-cabal and no issues with civility, basically a very good candidate. Neutral because answer to Q1 is slightly confused - would suggest clarifying.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' - absolutely.  I've seen you doing good work in lots of places.  Good luck.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Beat-some-noms-Support''' - Good God, why are you not already an admin!?! ''Excellent'' editor. Good luck! --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
'''Support''' as co-nom. (Damn you all! How did you get here so fast?)
'''Edit conflict Support''' per my statement. Wow, seems like a lotta people had this watchlisted! :) All the best! ~

'''Support''' - Definatly. No reason to not trust this user. --
'''Support''' very good contributions, I do not see problems here. Good luck.
'''Support''' You solved the Budapest problem very nicely. You could take interest in the disputed article [[Liancourt Rocks]]. (
<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Very much so.  Good luck!
'''Absolutely''' This is long overdue and this candidate will be a credit to the admin corps.
'''Support''' This user would be one of the most prized assets of the admin ranks should he be promoted. -- <strong>
'''Support''' While I've never dealt with this user personally, I've seen him around, and always assumed he was an admin. All signs point to yes.
I'm impressed with Flyguy's participation at RFCN.
'''Strong Support''' I see Flyguy everywhere, and every time I do, I wonder why he isn't an administrator. Glad this is finally being rectified. Flyguy is an excellent contributer, I have been extremly impressed.
Riana nom, I support :) --
'''Fall off the chair Support''' - it's been a while since the old "thought you were...." cliche came up and snapped Pedro on the nose, but it just happened! Extensive and dedicated contributions, trustworthy and knowledgable, an excellent asset. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''support''' Good contributor, nothing that suggests he wouldn't make a good admin. --
'''Support''' It is now time to give him the mop. A great user as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', no doubt he will use the tools responsibly. --
'''Support''' until someone comes up with a good reason why not. No personal experience with this editor but a quick flick through the contribs assures me Flyguy649 will make an excellent sysop. --'''[[User:Bennyboyz3000|<font color="Orange">B</font>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Bennyboyz3000 2|<font color="purple">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Great record, edit count. Time for the mop! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' But I thought... (insert cliché here) --
'''Support'''. Lots of experience both in mainspace and behind the scenes. Top quality candidate. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', I was thinking of nominating Flyguy649, but I was busy with other's RfA's, so I just didn't have the time. Flyguy649 is a regular at AIV, and he always files correct reports, and he is in my mental group of users that I trust to place a correct report, and as such, I don't investigate the user reported much, if at all. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Stong support'''. Plenty of experience - I've only seen good things from Flyguy... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Wow, with such nominations and the pleasant dealings I have seen from you, how could I not '''support'''?
Will do.
'''Support''' Edit count, editing activity in sensitive areas, answers to questions, and co-noms are all good signs this user will not abuse the privileges.
'''Support''' The evidence to suggest the candidate will use the tools wisely is overwhelmingly.
'''Support''' Very good editor, certainly trustwothy and wise enough.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' trust with tools++
'''Support''' everything looks fine, good answers to questions, a lot of experience. <b>
'''Strong support''' excellent user; Flyguy649 is always civil and helpful. Both he and Wikipedia will benefit greatly from him being an administrator.
'''Support''' Despite never hearing of the co-noms before I have seen this editors reports to AIV; all of which are really good. Good spread of edits, too. Likely to use the mop well.
'''Support''' good editor, will use mop well.
'''Give that guy a mop now!''' A though you WERE an admin! <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' Looks great!  I'm going to root for ya! --
'''Support''' Everything is fine with the candidate. -
'''Support''' I can't believe your your not an admin yet! Has done some great work, and is defiantly ready for the mop
'''Support''' - good answers and a strong contribution history. Also, good reasons for wanting to be an admin.
'''Support''' - well, duh! -
'''Support''' Good editor, good supporters.
'''Support''' Never had the chance to interact, but by reviewing his contribs and responses, I can tell he's a one of a kind editor. Can't wait to see him sysoped. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - superb contributions. Congrats. <font face="Verdana">
Indeed. '''
'''Shupport!'''
'''Strong support''' - I've been watching Flyguy with awe now for some months, he stays cool in difficult situations and always sticks to policy (which he knows like the back of his hand). I actually think this RfA is a little late - he has been fully qualified for some months now, that said, a round of applause for him for waiting until he believed he was truly ready. I was actually going to co-nom but got here a little late - doesn't look like he needs it anyway :-)
'''Support''' Impressive recommendations especially comments from [[User:Riana|Riana]], [[User:Kyoko|Kyoko]] and so many others above.
'''Support''' Great track with 11000 edits with over 4000 mainspace ones and has been very active this year.
'''Support''' No single objection. Good contributor and surely they would be a good admin. I trust them as a "pilot." -
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.  Has earned his administrator wings.
'''Support''' As committed to maintaining the project as he is to creating content.  With everything he does, I had forgotten that he wasn't an [[WP:ADMIN|admin]] already.  If there were such a thing, instead of ''support'', mine would read ''speedy admin'' --
'''Support''' per the comments above. --<font face="Futura">
'''What?''' He's not an admin?  I have had at least one positive interaction with him, and no negative interactions.
'''Support''' - Flyguy is a trustworthy editor and ready for the mop. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' I liked his answers to the questions, and his handling of the Budapest/Budapesth issues.
'''Support''' Why should anyone oppose him?

'''Support''' Great user. -
—
'''Support''', obviously. I like it when it's obvious :o) <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' Well-qualified candidate with a lot of solid experience.  I think he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support''' I was one of the guys at the [[Budapest]] war. He handled the situation very well, at some point admitting he's not an admin...
I'm
'''Strong support''' Aside from being nominated by three administrators whom I highly respect, I have had the pleasure of many conversations with Flyguy649, and have found him to always be suportive, helpful, and kind. When I saw the RfA, I decided to do some deeper digging, as I like to research prior to offering my opinion. What I found was a prolific editor, an excellent RC patroller, and someone who is not only dedicated to the project, but is careful, respectful, and supportive. A perfect example of this can be found from March of this year, where he ran into a blank page, but rather than slap a CSD tag on it and use a template on the editor, he took the time to request additional information from the editor in question, [[User_talk:D_elitza|here]]. He discussed the problems, found issues, and corrected them properly, all the while explaining his actions, reasons, and providing informative links to the editor in a respecful manner. Additionally, Flyguy's participation in [[WP:RFCN]] has been consistently helpful, and even with fairly controversial names, he is willing to admit when he makes mistakes, as seen  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=119519109#I_Dont_Like_Child_Molesters.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 here] with a controversial name from March. With all the names that were being created at the time, and the issues they brought up, Flyguy made a small error, but immediately corrected it, apologized, and explained his suspicions. This illustrates a perfect point: We will all make mistakes, but it is those editors who recognize, correct, and apologize for mistakes, who will likely be careful administrators. Flyguy shows a great amount of respect towards all editors he encounters, be they strangers, or long time friends. I strongly support allowing Flyguy to further assist Wikipedia in the role of administrator. <sup>
'''Support''', fully! And Ariel a comment above me deserves the "longest and most complete RFA rationale" barnstar! :D <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' pile-on, really good sensible editor, have fun with the mop. <b>
'''Support''', as long as we're not chopping down a small forest printing this RfA out. =) Flyguy's an excellent, responsible editor and I'm happy to see him going for (and from what I'm seeing, succeeding at) adminship. Man the mop, aviator!--
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; He's not one already?  o0; &mdash; <tt>

'''Support''' not at all hard, have been aware of this editor for some time and trust him completely; I am one of the editors that he is collaborating with on [[Adam Air Flight 574]], too.
'''Support''', per Alison and Ariel, the short and sweet of it.  I've seen nothing but good things from this editor.
'''Support''' Great user.--
'''Strong support''' I've seen Flyguy around all the admin "hangouts", and always find his work and comments constructive. Excellent article work, excellent answers to the questions—just the kind of editor who should get the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Reasonable, calm, sensible, and very solid contributions for everything he does (which is a lot - how can people be in so many places at once?) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support'''.
Your email made my day...enjoy the tools! <b>
'''Support'''.  <cliche>I thought he already ''was'' an admin.</cliche>  Good contributor, constructive worker, will be a great addition to the corps.
'''Support''' User has done good work at AIV. Will not abuse admin powers. --
'''Support''' pretty fly for a flyguy! Solid contribs, and extraordinarily helpful. ~
'''Support''' • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#C00000">
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with broad experience.
'''Support''', make that 87 well-deserved supports ;) Flyguy's a fantastic candidate, the kind that makes you say, "I wish ''I'' was his nominator!"
'''
'''Support''' thought he was already.
Seems to be a well-balanced editor, good answers to questions.  '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' good attitude - trustworthy.
'''Nominator support'''.
'''Just beaten by the nom support''' - good answers, good contributions, good editor.
'''Support''', very much so.
'''Support''' - I trust this editor with my life. He has brought much expertise and calm, logical voice to the Comics WikiProject.--
Foamy headed '''support''', outweighing a minor concern about balance prompted by the failure above to mention [[Orval Brewery|Orval]]. --
'''Support'''. I think, a very conscientious and reasonable gentleman, and better at English than he claims.
'''Support'''. Very happy to support this user, no qualms.
I say we get this smurf smurfed up to smurfing smurfhood. '''
'''Support''' My interactions with this user were related to a somewhat complex (and equally immature) spate of vandalism from multiple users (or perhaps lots of sock puppets). He maintained a calm and persistant demeanor in resolving the situation and its periodic flareups that occasionally still occur. His other contributions seem to demonstrate a similar judgement that would be well suited to a position of responsibility.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' .. and feeling very comfortable doing so. Seems trustworthy and dedicated. Great article work. Good candidate. -
'''Support''' only good things to say here... --'''
'''Support'''. A calm, experienced, and knowledgeable editor who would make good use of the tools. Geen enkel twijfel.
'''Support''' no major problems here at all. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I'm alright with this candidate.--
'''Support''' good candidate, I've seen only good actions from the candidate.
'''Support''' No problems here, a good candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' per above. '''
I'm
'''Support'''. The Belgians make, er, ''tolerable'' chocolate, but very decent beer, and - it seems - great Wikipedia admins.
'''Support''', despite the nominee's complete and total failure to name a [[Trappist beer]]. Good thing the nominee's editing record and trustworthiness ameliorated such a deficiency.
'''Support''' - Enjoy the beer!
'''Support''' No doubt. We need solid editors that can both create content and actually understand the deletion process to become admins.
'''Support'''. Good editor, & has already proven to have all characteristics one expects from a good administrator. To stay on topic: too bad he likes Palm, of course, but I am sure he does not mind my preference for Rodenbach or real English ale (yes, my British friends, I am crazy, but not so crazy as people who think they actually can taste the difference between Heineken and Stella). Vivat! Vivat! (i jeszcze jedno male)--
'''Support''', <math>\infty^\infty</math>. ''
Of course -
'''Support'''.  Is that [[Farm]] or [[Fram]]??  ;)
'''Support''' And about time, too.
'''Support''', excellent beer preferences. (And a good editor and all that too.)
'''Support''' seems to be a good editor.  '''''
'''Support''' Obvious strengths. Be a good admin!
'''[[Family Guy|Freakin' Smurf]]'''. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support''' Is there any reason not to support this guy? [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' no reasons not to.
'''Support''' looks good to me! <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Speedy support'''. You're on your way.  :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' editor, '''Oppose''' Heineken. ~
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' looks fine.--
'''Support'''. Not always agreed with him on AFD related issues, but I think he'll do fine.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''50''' -- ''
'''Support''' Great candidate.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose.
Following the pack, '''support'''.--
Luckily the crats are lagging so I can sneak in under the wire and support.
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support''' I like the thorough and thoughtful answers to the questions and a review of your recent contributions backs up Jossi's assessment. I see you were blocked for 3RR recently but that was (correctly) reversed as a mistake. I look forward to having you in the ranks of admins,
'''Support''' good candidate with a firm grip on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ''
'''Support''' ok, I take on board the edit summary comment. This is trivial in the face of this editor's vast numbers of contributions to all aspects of the project, and his obvious depth of knowledge thereof.--
'''Support''' No problems here.  Requisition one mop from general stores immediately and start swabbing the decks.
'''Support'''ing good candidate. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Support''' - we all need to learn to be more level-keeled, and cool-headedness is a valuable trait for an editor or admin alike. Plenty of mainspace, wikipedia, and user talk edits, so I'm happy we have a communicative user who doesn't ''only'' do RCP or chores. A good find mate, thumbs up for you. <font color="#ff9900">
'''
'''Support''' - no serious reason not to, excellent edit summary now.
'''Support''' Fantastic answers to the questions, great contribs., seems extremely dedicated...get the man a mop.'''
'''Support''' I can't see any reason to do otherwise.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Support'''. Anyone who puts boxes around answers to questions to make it easier for viewers is a true admin. Lol, but seriously...Great answers, great contributions, great user. '''
'''Support'''. You have a pretty broken up edit history, but you contribute everywhere, have great answers tothe questions, and there's no readon to deny you. --
'''Support''' good user, no reservations.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' More than qualified. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Long long overdue. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' You're much more than qualified for adminship. Great answers! ←
'''Support'''  My first experience with FT2 was in the context of an acrimonious conflict with Cheese Dreams.  At first, FT2 seemed to be working with her, but then I began to wonder whether she was just trying to drag him in on her side, or whether he was sincerely trying to mediate a conflict he did not understand.  No matter - my conflict with Cheese Dreams was resolved through appropriate channels and I immediately discovered that FT2 was a very thoughtful, constructive collaborator who takes our core policies (e.g. NPOV and NOR) very seriously and is committed to adding relevant content to articles.  My point is, for reasons that I think FT2 had nothing to do with my initial experiences created in me a very strong bias against him but countless acts on his part since them have long overcome that bias.  He is well-intentioned, accommodating, hard-working, and principled ... a great combination of virtues for an admin.  I endorse enthusiastically.
'''Support''' I can see nothing holding back the award of the mop here.
'''Support'''—
'''Support'''. No question about that.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' :)
'''Support''' per the strong nomination and the excellent answers to the standard questions, which are among the best I've seen in a long time.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''TLDR support''' hehehe (742 edits to [[Zoophilia]]?? Holy crap!) - <b>
I'm
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  —
'''Support''' without a doubt. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; absolutely trustworthy.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Fantastic user. I worked with him during the [[User:Ciz]] issue on [[Zoophilia]], and one thing that stuck out for me about him was his ''overwhelming'' degree of sanity and levelheadedness. I have seen users level the most rude and crude personal attacks against him, and FT2 has never lost his cool. Give him the bucket and mop, already! <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support'''. Seems like he'd be a good admin. -
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose to be found... --
'''Support''' based on my experiences with the user. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - I've had recent dealings with this editor, and like him very much. I would elaborate, but everything has already been said.
'''Support''', not just as a good friend, but also as an editor impressed by a lot of the work he's been doing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Per above, and nom I agree that FT2 will make an excellent sysop and should be granted the tools.
'''Support''' I think one of FT2’s best qualities is his ability to be calm and handle issues carefully and appropriately.  He also has strong principles, (as the nominator said) a good grasp of policy, patiently explains things, and has a strong presence at helping on real disputes. When we first met (and when I first came to Wikipedia with little understanding of how it worked) I started to lose my cool with someone who was being unreasonable.  FT2 used the proper channels and procedures to deal with this person that was eventually banned.  I was impressed with his ability to handle the situation and try to get policy followed and consensus for ages despite the 'flames'. He finally asked for other editors agreement for arbitration, all without becoming emotional or losing sight of things. Over time I have learned, by example and from him, how to use Wikipedia and synergistically work together with the community in a better way.  I have sought his council and help when working on articles (see article on PETA).  It seems from the link above that he has made many excellent project contributions which were adopted and accepted, showing his strong understanding of our policies. (I don't think the COI item below is an exception - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=101315774&oldid=101312133 this comment]). I believe he has been a valuable part of the Wiki-community and in my view he would make a very helpful and considerate admin.--
'''Support''' - problems with COI are not enough to not give this user the bit. He/she would not misuse it; in theory, admins have no greater say over policy discussions than nonadmins, so it's a mute issue anyway. I don't see any opposes explaining how user would misuse tools.
'''Support'''. Regardless of whether he's right about COI, FT2 is certainly not being unreasonable or quarrelsome. Overhasty at worst. In everything else, an excellent candidate. He had enough respect for the privilege of administratorship to withdraw earlier - I think he'll use his authority wisely. <b>
'''Support''' - I really don't like the COI changes one bit ... but if we disqualified anyone with whom any of us have ever disagreed, we would have a mighty small list of admins.  --
'''Support'''. I agree that redirecting an article without even bothering to discuss it with the regular editors is very bad form and very bad manners, but I think FT2 has learned from that experience and won't repeat it. And the COI edits really didn't impress me either, but aren't enough to convince me to oppose. I've reviewed a lot of FT2's other contributions and I can't find anything that makes me think that s/he cannot be trusted with the tools and so I feel happy to support this candidate. '''
'''Support''' Not perfect (who is?) but courage and initiative to address difficult and important issues, good communication skills, willingness to redress mistakes, commitment to project, sufficient knowledge of its workings.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' I may be a voice in the wilderness, but I must oppose because of FT2's misleading answer about conflict.  I draw his attention to [[Talk:Tie and tease]].--
'''Oppose'''. In my understanding, RFA's have always been about the comunity's assesment of the judgement of the candidate. The discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest]] prevents me from affirming this user's judgement at this point. --
'''Oppose''' (changed from support) per Avi. I think that having a strong [[WP:COI]] to protect us against outside special interests manipulating WP for their own purposes is crucial. By diluting the policy with admin related matters I think we are weakening one of our core protections and I totally agree with the Arbs that chimed in (they see these attacks every day). I cannot support an admin candidate that feels otherwise, sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Avi.--
'''Oppose''' Even if the case mentioned by [[User:Taxwoman|Taxwoman]] was not a conflict, it seems to me that it suggests that FT2 is not fully aware of how to improve the encyclopaedia.  This is a serious flaw in a potential admin. -
I'm not so sure if you're experienced enough if it takes you ten edits to get an AFD nom straight [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dudley_%28dog%29_%282nd_nomination%29&action=history]. Given the other opposition here I think you need more experience.
'''Strong oppose''' due to inappropriate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest&diff=99553349&oldid=99317138 edits to the COI guideline].
'''Firm oppose''' due to completely unacceptible comments on COI, and per Taxwoman. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong oppose''' I assume [[WP:AGF]] by those who don't agree with Taxwoman, but those involved saw it as a conflict, and FT2 has not dissented or apologised, nor has he commented on the relevant talk page.--
'''Oppose''' per Avi. -
'''Oppose''' In the case of the Tie and tease article, FT2 deleted all the content without prior discussion on the talk page on the grounds of tidying up.  When Taxwoman challenged him, he cited policy to justify his case.  Either he doesn't understand the policy or he was trying to pressurise Taxwoman to back down.  Either of these would be a fatal flaw in an RfA candidate.--
'''Oppose'''. (Changed from support.) Per Crum375, Osidge and Holdenhurst.
'''Neutral''' per various concerns raised in the Oppose section. ···
'''Neutral''' -- I wouldn't usually remark "neutral" on anyone, but in this case, I feel it's important.  The concerns raised in the oppose section mirror my experience with FT2 at [[WP:3RR]]... basically, that he's a bit too hasty to make significant changes to important pages.  However, he is totally reasonable in a discussion.  I would support, but I think hastiness in an admin is not a good thing, and I wanted to make the point to FT2 that he should be careful in the future.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> Regardless of the merit of the added content, major changes to extant guidelines should always be discussed in advance on the talk page. ~
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' I don't even need to look at this user's answers to the questions. I know this user will make a great administrator, and I look forward to seeing him out there, making Wikipedia a better place.
'''Support''' as co-nominator of course! &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">
'''Support''' well qualified, overdue
'''Support'''. He was one of the first Wikipedians I encountered here, and it was the kind of interaction that made me want to stick around.  Looking at his more recent contributions confirms my impression that he would make an excellent admin.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' - Everything looks good--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - bumped into this guy many times. Great editor & will make an equally good admin -
'''Support''' per answers to all questions, paticuarly my optional one. That was the answer I was looking for~


'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support''' - long overdue.
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support''' good, all-rounded user who can be very helpful with the tools in his hands. —
'''Support'''.  He'll be a very good administrator.  He's been looking out for me since I was a newbie, patiently and courteously answering my questions and correcting my errors, and I've been quietly admiring his work expanding the billiards articles.  I've never seen him other than civil; he knows Wikipedia policy and contributes in a variety of different ways.  -
'''Support''' My collaboration with Fuhghettaboutit on [[WP:BK]] has convinced me that he/she is level-headed and I'm confident he will do well with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Plenty of experience.  If problems were going to surface they would have done so by now. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; cliche moment.
'''Support''' His mistakes with the fair use criteria seem only to have increased his knowledge of the policy, and I love the civil, thoughtful response.  We don't need admins that never make mistakes, only ones that admit them civilly, deal with them, and learn from them.
'''Support'''. Certainly.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user who understands process.  Q5 seems more of a test, which Fuhghettaboutit passed. Q6 answer shows learning from mistakes. --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate with an impressive range of contributions to the project.
'''Support''' I am getting annoyed by all the RfAs saying that they are "Amazed the user isn't an admin yet," but still, the user is definately good enough for adminship.
'''Oppose''' - user has not signed acceptance. <!--I'm kidding, of course--> --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' good one.
'''Support''' no problems whatsoever
'''Support''' Seen him everywhere. (Been here much longer than me) Brilliant wikipedian.--
Of course, long history of being a useful contributor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' When I've seen him around he's a solid and responsible editor,
'''Support''' Wow! This user is a great all around guy. I think he's ready for adminship.
'''Support'''. Looks like another great candidate.
'''Support''' Great candidate who deserves a mop.
'''Support''' I can't fault his level of support of Wiki and his constant work ethic.--
Yes please.  I've long been impressed with this user's sensible and well-reasoned positions on AFD, and bumping into [[Irving Crane]] on NPP was particularly welcome amongst the morass of copyvios and other speedies I'd been finding at the time. &mdash;
'''Support''' per above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. A valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. I feel the above questions have been answered well and I am happy for him to be given a mop. cheers,
'''Support''' Wow, can we look forward to this loyalty test in future RfAs? Sheesh. --
'''Support''' More than 13,000 edits, and has more than the needed experiance in time.--
'''Support'''. I'll admit I haven't scrutinized this user's history, but I like the answers to the questions. I especially like the response to the question about the deleted images: Fuhgehettaboutit cleaned up after the images he uploaded were orphaned, and in another case realized he didn't fully understand the fair use criteria and decided to focus his contributions on areas where he did understand the policy. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Moreover, I like his explanation of en.wiki's mission.
'''Support''' I didn't even know what [[WP:ERRORS]] was!  I want to say something clever here, but whatever.
'''Support''', per (co-)nom, an experiment user and oppose arguments does not convinced me.
'''Support''', -<small>'''<font color=blue>Lakers'''</font></small><sup>'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  An impressive track record and a balanced and reasonable personality.  What more could we want?
'''Support'''. Impressive candidate. I also find the opposition unconvincing.
'''Support''', the candidate's long-ago errors do not bother me, and the willingness to respond positively to advice and feedback when they occurred is a great sign.
'''Support''' as an en admin of almost two years who got into a dispute over the copyright of several images I recently uploaded to Commons.  Beyond a firm understanding and unyielding stance on behalf of the 5 pillars, it is far more important for a potential admin to demonstrate an ability to take criticism and move on constructively than to have a detailed knowledge of any particular procedure or policy. -
I'm
'''Strongly support''' - in the last couple of months I don't think I've seen a single comment by this user in the traditional battlegrounds of AfD discussions & talk pages that hasn't been valid, even when I've disagreed with it. Judging someone by mistakes they made over a year ago is ridiculous. All the opposition thus far seems to be petty quibbling over technicalities rather than any good reasons.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Support''' - I'm puzzled by oppose comments based on 13-month old, good faith confusion over the concept of fair use. --
'''Support''' - '''
'''Support'''  Fuhghettaboutit demonstrates a strong knowledge of WP policy. Large spell check edit content is irrevelant.
+1 --
'''Support'''. Candidate seems intelligent and dedicated. As to the opposition: I don't mind Kelly and Gmaxwell screening for ideological purity but they've got to hone that test a little better. The question "Why don't we copy the Encyclopædia Britannica?" naturally lends itself to a lot of down-to-earth answers (like this candidate gave) long before getting to free content ideology.
'''Support''' of course. —
'''Support''' - A very dedicated editor and he shouldnt be judged on things he did ions ago because he improved a lot since then and he deserves the mop...Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per Maxwell and Martin. If he does not know the details then share your knowledge.  We are not trying to build an encyclopedia where only a select few get to call the shots. I have every confidence that this user will mature into an excellent user. If candidates such as this are being denied adminship, who can possibly have enough experience? Also, his response to Martin was tempered and showed the maturity of an admin.  I see no reason why Martin would strengthen her oppose on the basis of that answer. Given the discussion i think it was correct for this user to give their view on the point being discussed.
'''Support.''' I do think the opposes are not that relevant. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Strong support''', looks like a great editor, plus the opposes actually seem to be in bad faith.--
'''Support''' - my interactions with him have been consistently positive, plus I've admired some of his work from afar.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' rationales and find them wholly unconvincing.
'''Support''' Very good candidate, good answers to in my mind, will work well as an admin
'''Strong support''' per Newyorkbrad. I do not find the opposes convincing either.
'''Support''' Strong candidate, do not agree with opposes reasons.
'''Support''', does good work.  I don't think we'd get enough new admins if we required that they all be able to express our core mission articulately.  Expressing the mission through action is enough.  --
'''support'''
'''Support''' This guy needs a mop. '''
'''Support'''. I do not find the arguments opposing Fughettaboutit's candidacy to be convincing. On the contrary, my review of his record and his response has left me with a favourable impression of a diligent, responsible, and courteous person. I will not hold against him mistakes or mistaken understandings from over a year ago which he has corrected. If it was a ''death threat'' from 13 months ago, I'd probably oppose; but a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuhghettaboutit&diff=40200492&oldid=40198724 comment] that essentially reads "Thanks for letting me know about my mistakes, I'll try not to make them in the future."? That's to be commended, not scolded! Best of luck,
'''Oppose''' due to unacceptable answers to questions regarding core policy on nonfree content.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I too was not satisfied with Fuhghettaboutit's responses. We need to have administrators who understand, are committed to, and can explain our core mission. At best, I believe Fuhghettaboutit's responses clearly failed to explain even if he really does understand.  It is simply not enough that we can legally disseminate our content, it has to preserve the recipients freedom. Even this simple distinction between free-content and no-cost content which is fundamental for even understanding the tagline of our project was completely unclear in Fuhghettaboutit responses.  I asked questions about Fuhghettaboutit's position on these matters because it was not possible to determine it from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=175&target=Fuhghettaboutit&namespace=5 the fairly small] number of project discussion edits that he's made. I will not oppose, and may well support, Fuhghettaboutit in the future if his future actions remove my concerns. --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuhghettaboutit&diff=40200492&oldid=40198724]. Such a statement is contrary towards the goal of Wikipedia, and also what is expected of an admin. —<b>[[User:Pilotguy|Pilot]]<font color="#00FFFF">
'''Oppose''' per Kelly Martin's reasoning.
'''Support''', without reservations. Fantastic contributor, always ready to help. Deeply involved in admin-related tasks. Delightful to work with. Kind, civil and cheerful. Gosh, he's the [[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|very model of a modern wikipedian]]!
'''Strong support''' - I've been trying to think of some pharmacological pun all day to go with this, but it's just not happening! Fvasconcellos is an amazing editor, who basically runs the pharmacology wikiproject. He knows the inclusion guidlines like the back of his hands and I have full trust in his admin abilities.
'''Strong support''' A friendly, helpful and efficient editor with particular expertise in images. Also a strong edit record and broad experience.
'''Support''' - this candidate is clearly very strong in the areas many admins (including myself) lack, i.e. article-writing and collaboration. Good editcount, impressive candidate. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">

'''Support'''. Per nom. --
'''Support''' as per nom and responses to questions.
'''Co-nom Support''' - but of course! -
'''Support''' - I'm impressed by the answers to the questions. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent, experienced, level-headed editor will be a great admin.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' Concerns cleared up in Q4. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''- Excellent editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''', good answers. --
'''Support''' I am impressed with answers to the questions, the answers are very well thought out.  I am also impressed with the article writing. --
'''Strong Support''' I am sure anyone nominated by both [[User:Samir|Samir]] and [[User:Alison|Alison]] will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' An intelligent, productive, reliable, responsible editor who will make a fine administrator. --
'''Support''' I got my answers. Though from his interactions, he seems way too nice. Methinks he is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Gaming_RFA_-_a_case_study gaming the RfA] ;-)-
'''Support''' Good 'pedia builder.cheers,
'''Support''' He almost always beats me to fix the vandalism in my watchlist ''and'' has time to add a humorous edit summary. An artist and a gentleman.
'''Support'''. Looks good. I like the look of the contrib history, the question answers are good, and I have great respect for the judgment of the nominators. Clearly a trustworthy user. No issues. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Good collaborator, cool-headed, contributions show a dedication to the project. No reservations at all; just the kind of editor who should be sysopped. '''
'''Support''' No reasonable objections from me '''

'''Support''', no problems at all. –
Seems a good candidate and won't abuse admin tools.. --
'''Support''' as co-nominator --
'''Support''' as someone with common sense, who knows how to explain his positions tactfully. '''
'''Support'''I have no reservations whatsoever.
'''Strong Support''' - An excellent Contributor...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', looks like the candidate can be trusted with the mop. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Strong support'''.  Fv is not only a gentleman and excellent editor, but also a "jack-of-all-trades", willing to help out with a kind and helpful word whenever and wherever needed &mdash; whether vandalfighting on featured articles or obscure biographies, translating, working on pharmacology, medical or computer articles, or policy issues such as [[WP:MOS]].  No reservations whatsoever; Wikipedia needs more like him.
I'm
'''Support''' with pleasure; FV is an excellent editor.
'''Support''' one of the best.
'''Support'' why not? <font style="color:red">
'''Support''' - looks pretty good to me.
'''Support''' - Great answers+ contributions. [[User:Runewiki777|<strong><font color="#6495ED" face="Comic Sans MS">Ru<font color="#007FFF">n<font color="#1560BD">e<font color="#0000FF">Wi<font color="#00008B">k<font color="#120a8f">i</font></font></font></font></font></font></strong>]]
'''Strong support''' fantastic contributor, really nice guy, knows his way around. Strongest support I've given this month, I'm pretty sure. *checks* Yep! ;) '''
'''Support''' per reasons set forth on my userpage.
'''Support'''; Sandy said pretty much everything I was going to say.
[[Advanced life support|Advanced life '''s'''upport]]. Sterling editor, content-heavy yet fully up to steam with policy.
'''Support'''. Strong, thoughtful contributor with excellent community interactions. Bonus: good sense of humor. Extra-bonus: doesn't take himself ''too'' seriously. --
'''Support''' A good admin I think you will be.
'''Support''' A great candidate that knows the rules, and knows how to properly implement them. Good luck :)
'''Support''' stirling supporter of pharm/medical projects, polite editor, and excellent approach in answering Qs above. Will make an ecellent admin.
He is reliable, friendly, helpful, and a all around good editor. Good luck:)--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- Per Nom. Cheers!
Absolutely. FV has made fine contributions. I believe I participated in the FAR discussion he cites, and I found him willing to both talk and make fixes where they were pointed out.

'''Support''' I think you will see that his kindness and patience will go a long way in his admin work. Certainly conflicts will arise but he can diffuse the anger. After all, "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!"
'''Support''' A fine editor I'm sure he can handle the stress of adminship fine. <font color="SteelBlue">
'''Strong support''' A great candidate who is knowledgeable, helpful, civil, and ''who writes articles'', always a plus in my book. --
'''Strong support''' interacts great with other users and I'm sure won't misuse the tools.<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">

'''Support'''. The candidate has a great record of contributions and the responses to the questions illustrate an excellent understanding of policy and an ideal approach to avoiding unnecessary conflicts. -- '''
'''Support'''.  I've run into Fvasconcellos a couple of times.  After creating a stub for a drug... I'd come back and find it filled-out with more detail by one Fvasconcellos (e.g. the [[Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors]]- Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin, Vildagliptin).  The edits always seemed to be right on the mark.  I imagine with the attention to detail and meticulous editing I've seen-- they'd make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Good contributor, seems sensible.
'''Support''' per candidate's overall record. No concerns.
'''Support''' – Obviously an excellent reputation, and good answers to the questions. --
'''Support'''. No indicators whatsoever that the candidate might inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' a very fine, model Wikipedian. Would make an ideal administrator. I'm glad I didn't miss this one. —
'''Support''' - because oppose and neutral don't even seem an appropriate option. Aaah. If only every editor could have your calibre and integrity.
'''Support''' - This appears to be a capable and experienced hand.
'''Support''' A very experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' seems like a very good person. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fvasconcellos is always helpful and dedicated to improving Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. This is a very capable candidate.
'''Support''' beautiful... just... beautiful <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' absolutely. Consistently knowledgeable and always a pleasure to work with.
'''Support'''. Helpful, capable candidate.
'''Support''' No reason will not make a great admin.
'''Support''' Constructive editor with vast contributions made and will definitely make positive use of any other facilities.
'''Support''' - as Fvasconcellos is an exceptional editor, a kind person and an other admin in the medical sections would be absolutely helpful. Go on!
No conflicts? Ever? That worries me. You're about to encounter ''loads'' of conflicts when you get promoted to the esteemed rank of Abuse Magnet. Your contributions and the testimonials by others show you're working hard to help Wikipedia, which would normally lead me to support, but we have no idea how you will handle under stress, which would tempt me to oppose out of caution. That leaves me neutral.
'''Beat-the-nom Support''' - I don't want to fall victim to [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS|editcountitis]],  but just from that the candidate looks good. Everything is in order here. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Strong support''' Great contributions since 2005. --
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' Candidate has under 75,000 edits. I'm not sure they have enough experience to be an admin. <!-- For the love of all that is holy, do NOT move into the Oppose section. Please read, re-read, and realize how ridiculous my opposition is. I. Am. Joking. --> [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' - valuable contributor who responds to criticism with civility and an open mind -
<strike>Not enough edits, only has 45K. I look for over 100K</strike> I am shocked you are not already an admin. I am sure you will not abuse the tools:) Good luck!--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per FayssalF.
'''Support''' Goodness, yes!
'''Support''' a committed Wikipedian.
'''Support''', especially per FrankTobia's support. I admire that in a Wikipedian. Obviously dedicated. --
'''Support''' I offered to nominate back in August as it seemed to me then that this was a careful and solid editor. I feel embarrassed that time has passed and I didn't get around to doing it. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''
'''Unambiguously per EVula''' User should spend more time doing something. Can't imagine what.
'''support''' trust with tools.
'''Support''' although a haiku is 5/7/5, I appreciate the effort.
'''Support''' - Definately!! <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support'''.  Should have been an admin already.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per excellent haiku (much better than I could have written). :-)
'''Support''' to the best WikiGnome around.--
'''Support''' A trustworthy and experienced editor to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Tentative Support''', per good answer to Q#5, but lingering concern about inexperience dealing with "hot" situations.
'''Support''' Also surprised GC's not an admin already.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question!  <strong class="plainlinks">

'''Support''' -
I'm
'''Support'''. Nice haiku.
'''Definitely'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - This was a tough one.  I was happy with your edit summary.  I was also happy with your answers.  I went through your current oppose's and neutrals.  They all seemed fine except one.  The oppose was correct, your wikipedia namespace edit count is fairly low.  I am thinking that you would be a great admin, I just advice in starting to participate in some things in this namespace after you become admin. YOu need to try to become familiar with it very quickly (unless you already are) --
'''Weak Support''' - one hell of a lot of experience, and I can't stand that Kate's Tool ending at 45,000 edits. However, a lack of Wikipedia-space contribs is my only concern, although from what you've stated in your answers, that's not to crucial to the admin-activities you want to take part in. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' A great editor  ,see no concerns. --

'''Support''' `'
'''Support''' trust this editor with the tools.
'''Oppose''' I'm really sorry to do this -- I know you've been at Wikipedia a long time -- but, out of all those edits, you have very little experience in Wikipedia-space, an area in which much administrative work occurs.  I do think a certain minimal level of work there is necessary for an admin-candidate to be able to handle the mop competently.  I'm also not impressed with your answers to the later optional questions, particularly question #8, where your answer strikes me as (unintentionally, I'm sure) flippant.  When asked questions of policy, admins often must answer thoroughly, and I don't have confidence in this candidate's ability, based on those answers.
'''Beat the nom support''' - lots of good work on copyright issues, great vandal fighter, obvious need for the tools --
'''Beat-the-nom-but-beaten-by-the-nom-beater-edit-conflicted support''' - there is no reason this user should not be an admin, he has edits, he has experience, he has time, and I like the answers.
'''Support''' as nominator (oh yeah I guess we still have to do this...) --
'''Support''' - Definitely need copyright guys &mdash;
'''Support''' -- excellent candidate.  Giving Garion96 admin tools will benefit the project.
'''Support''' -- I don't really know the candidate, but no major red flags and we need more admins.  '''
'''Strong Support.''' For anyone who ''volunteers'' to handle copyright issues, and means it.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Bloody oath'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems trustworthy.
'''Shrug''' - again, I'm seeing nothing broken. Looks like another good RFA candidate.

'''Support''' No issues I can see. Seems willing to cut down on the backlog which is a must.--
'''Support''' admins needed, give him the tools. -
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''', and out of curiosity - does the 96 indicate the year you were born?  If so, blimey.
'''Support''' per my struck comment below and candidate responce.
'''Support'''.  Seems like a good editor.  No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; excellent nominator.
'''Support''', good understanding about the policies.
'''Support''', especially as copyright specialist, but in general too
'''Support''' – Good work on maintenance tasks and copyright problems; communicates and works well with others. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''- seems to be a good user ready to use admin tools.--
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' Changed my mind. AfD isnot a ''strict'' requirement. --
'''Support.''' Very strong nomination by W.marsh, and good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' per nom. Edit history is good, both in quantity and quality, appears to be generally civil to users. '''
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''  --

'''Support''' A great candidate for admin. I feel I can trust him with the tools and he has more than enough experience. '''''
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--
I'm
'''Support''' Edit count speaks for itself.  No possible way to oppose. '''
'''Support''' excellent candidate.--
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' of course.--
Definitely.  I've been noticing his excellent work with copyvios for some time now. --
'''Support''', per nom. And thanks for the warm welcome!
'''Support''' - good candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A very good vandal fighter. The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' -- <b>
'''Support'''. Everything looks great. ---
'''Support''' Strong in anti-vandal work and copyright issues are a particular concern of mine.

'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support'''good chap --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Support''' per our recent constructive interaction at [[reservation (law)]] and well-thought out answers to the questions. -
'''Support''' No reason to think user would abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support''' I remember you, you were the first person to help me here. You also welcomed me, back in August. Thanks. :-) · [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
You'll pass despite this, most likely, but I unfortunately don't see much policy discussion (which wouldn't be occuring on the deleted pages). Understand that this is only not an oppose because we do indeed need copyright guys, so I'm going to have lower standards for people who look like they will work on it. Apply caution in places you don't have experience; for instance, don't close XfDs until you've gotten some more participation. And typing this out, I realize I'm convinced you'll pass despite my objection. -
'''Strong support''' as nominator - I trust this guy.
'''Very Strong Support''' - I know this user for a very long time and I trust this user to use the tools wisely and with great respect..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Few realise how much I hate Postlethwaite for stealing all my prospective admin candidates. Having made that clear, I '''support'''.
'''Support''' I don't really see that much mainspace work (article writing and such) from this user, but my only reason for looking at a user's mainspace work is to judge how they can handle themselves in content disputes, mediation, and such. I think other aspects of GDonato's work such as his participation at [[WP:RFCN]] shows his professional manner of discussion. GDonato's done great work in other aspects of Wikipedia, and I think he could surely use the tools. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support.''' I'm surprised he's not an admin already (I know...).  He certainly knows policy to perfection.
'''Support''' '''1)''' The upmost in civility as evidenced by the last 1500 edits (I did not bother to go further.) '''2)''' Contributions across the project as evidenced by the count tool. '''3)''' Genuine need for a couple of buttons to help out - again as evidenced by contributions and vandal warnings '''4)''' [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan]] isn't that likely to make a mistake on a nomination as evidenced by nothing but my lowly opinion <b>:)</b> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' from what I've seen, a great user. And being on IRC is great too :) If anyone needs to speak privately quickly, it's easily done. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' I have always noticed GDonato's active participation in discussions, and I really think the tools will only make him a more helpful and constructive Wikipedian. —
'''Support''', good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' I've seen this user around a lot recently. Great user with a great nominator.
'''Support''' without question. A good editor, a good knowledge of wiki policy.--<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support''' I love that you want to help clean out backlog stuff, as I find them difficult myself sometimes, and would love the help.  I like your edits, your experience, and your overall enthusiasm for the project as a whole.  Plus, you have Ryan's full support, and I trust his choice.  Best of luck!!!
'''Support''' Lucky number thirteen!  A good editor and has demonstrated this in only six months' worth of contributions.
'''Support''' - GDonato is trustworthy and is ready for the mop. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
—'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''. You seem geared toward helping places of interest; things like AIV, the like. I trust you with the mop.
'''Support''' Too often has an admin been too impersonal. GDonato is nice, and I feel we need more of such admins. Besides, you can't really argue with over 4000 edits, and over 2500 unique pages. Keep it up! '''Rahk E✘'''<small><nowiki>[[</nowiki> '''[[User_talk:Rahk_EX|my disscussions]] |
'''Support'''. Great editor who I know will be an asset to us as an admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' I am confident that he would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' - Indeed. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''- per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a reliable person. He plans to be active in [[WP:UAA]] and [[WP:AIV]] and we need more admins devoted to cleaning those 2 places out. Good luck!--
'''Support'''. Great editor. Will make a great administrator. --
'''Support'''. Nice distrubution of edits, and even though his a fairly new editor, he shows great attitude towards serving the community. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">
'''Support''' - no problems at all here. Bumped into you just about everywhere. Good judgement and hard worker on [[WP:RFCN]]. Yup - all good -
'''Support''', good luck!
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Give him the buttons :) (That must be one weird mop, made out of buttons) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Strong Support''' per contributions and the many, many, many times I've seen/worked with this user, especially with the username noticeboards.  --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' - Good answers, exceptional contribs. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - all the best. <sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Like the contributions, very focused on maintenance tasks--and because he plans on working on the [[:CAT:CSD]] backlog.
'''Strong Support'''. Very friendly person. :) —
'''Support''' Good answers & good work in WP generally.'''
'''Support''' more admins needed.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
I'm
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' No evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per contibutions, support from community, answers to questions.
'''Support''', with a few words to agree in large part with [[User:Friday|Friday]], infra.  My thinking about IRC is not, I think, dissimilar from that of Friday, and were I convinced that GD intended to advance, the apparent views of the community to the contrary notwithstanding, a conception of IRC as an appropriate venue at which to undertake broad discussions and make specific decisions relative to on-wiki adminstrative activities, I would probably !vote ''neutral'' or ''oppose''; the IRC issue doesn't, though, seem really to be one of any great significance here, and I don't see the candidate as likely to act against consensus or inconsistent with established practice or policy.  Neither do I think it entirely unreasonable to oppose a candidate in view of his expressions of policy preferences (even if he makes such expressions entirely decorously and commits himself to comporting his editing, etc., with policy), as I imagine there to be some views the very advancing of which is prima facie evidence of one's non-fitness for adminship (I don't know that I would view any expressions thusly, but I don't think it inappropriate for others to view certain purportedly extreme expressions in that fashion; we have seen opposes on certain RfAs on the grounds that a candidate generally disfavored BLP, even as it was unquestioned that he/she would apply BLP consistent with the spirit putatively situated thereunder, and although I think those opposes to have been altogether wrong-headed, I don't think them to have been wholly unreasonable).  The instant candidate appears, though, to be possessed of a civil demeanor, a deliberative temperament, and a sound sense of judgment, demonstrated not least by his expressed narrow construction of [[WP:IAR|IAR]], for which construction a consensus of the community exists and the application of which construction demonstrates an appreciation of the proper role of consensus in a collaborative project such as ours, such that I think one might conclude with a good degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''- Per Nom&Above, Good editor IMO, Likely to make good admin.
'''Support''' per Mr Postlethwaite's nomination and endorsement of the candidate. '''
'''Support''' Good candidate!
'''Support''' No concerns, well prepared and an unusually high participation in [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]], areas where this user will certainly make good use of the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. See no serious issues.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems too eager to move Wikipedia functionality to IRC.  We need less of that, not more.
'''Nominator Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' answers to questions look OK.
'''Support''' good candidate. ''
I can '''support''' Geniac, but only '''weakly'''.  Not much recent participation in WP:project space, but some a few months back so it's not a deal-killer for me at this point. ---
'''Support''' - as per JS. Editor is well known around RCP and until recently done alot of wikignome work at [[WP:AFC]]. Is generally polite and courteous and sure will be an asset with the  admin M&B tools. <sup>
'''Support''' per the nomination. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no problems.  --
'''Support'''. &ndash;
I'm
'''Support''' Well, I do not have a problem here. A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. We need more admins on [[:CAT:RFU]]. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''' looks good since the questions are answered, will do us proud :). ~
'''Support''' per good answers. '''
'''Support''' NEED MORE ADMINS!
'''Support''' You seem very dedicated to helping boy the mainspace and the Wikispace and I think that's a fantastic quality to have as a new admin. '''
Plenty of experience, nothing to suggest a problem.
'''Support''' since we need more admins, and Geniac will make a good one. However, please don't quote "over 7800 edits" right after you said Geniac gave you a Welcome message. Over 2700 of those edits are to '''User talk''' pages, and Welcome messages are an easy way to ring up your edit count. Perhaps mentioning the more than 1300 '''Wikipedia:''' space edits is more flattering −
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, and has been a great editor on Wikipedia thus far. '''
'''Support''' Lack of XfD doesn't mean he won't become more active in this area once the tools are given. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; background: #F0F8FF; line-height:8pt; width:30em;">&mdash;[[User:Malber|Malber]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]] <small>•</small>
'''Support''' - Looks good overall, but I'd like to see some more Xfd participation in the future.
'''Support''' - Has the potential to grow in the new role.
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' - reasonable amount of experience.
'''Support''' -- lots of experience, cool temperament. --
'''Support''' Looks fine.--
'''Weak support''' Although I don't think the concerns of Agent 86, Peta, and Wizardman to be without merit, I am largely convinced that Geniac, qua admin, should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools (largely because I think him/her to possess a fine sense of judgment by which to determine whereof he/she is not particularly familiar and because I trust him/her to act with circumspection relative to the issues raised by some here), such that I can be confident that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his/her becoming an admin should be positive]].
-
'''Weak Oppose''' I see nothing that causes me concern about the nominee's trustworthiness. My main concern is the apparent lack of need for the tools and that there is little evidence that the nominee is familiar with key policies. I combed the nominee's entire contribution list and the only XfD participation I found was one instance of adding the {{tl|unsigned}} template and another to fix a header, both in AfD. The bulk of wikispace participation appears to be in [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]], for which one doesn't really need the tools. I do see that in recent months there has been some work in fighting vandalism, but not to the degree that it seems that there is a need for the tools or that it overrides the apparent lack of experience in other areas. Without any real evidence that the nominee has knowledge of the key policies and guidelines, I am unable to support.
'''Oppose''' doesn't appear to be active in or familiar with many of the more important aspects of WP. --
'''Oppose''' there's waaaaaaaaaay better canidates than this guy. --
'''Neutral''', not a terrible choice as an admin, but his answers to the latest questions are rather iffy.--
I'm in doubt about the apparent lack of experience with process (other than articles-for-creation).
'''Neutral''', I am not sure how well the candidate understnds the functioning and policies of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''': a good editor, giving good answers but lack of admin tools.
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Strong support'''.  I'm delighted to support Geometry guy; I think of him as a top-class editor and a very sane voice on talk pages.
'''Support''' Seems fine. Good luck!--
'''Strong support'''.  All around great candidate.  Particularly I want to highlight: "I took the point of view that it was better to try to engage and improve it than snipe at it."  Pretty much the perfect attitude for everything on Wikipedia.  A lot of our current admins could learn from that. --
'''Strong support''' as co-nominator.
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely —
'''Support''' Yes!`
'''Support''' Q1 leads me to believe won't abuse the tools. Articulate and able contributor.
'''Support''' I have seen a lot of the candidate's work on the various mathematics articles and I'm confident he'll be a good administrator. --
'''Support'''. Thoughtful, civil, and his technical knowledge is a boon to the project. I see no reason why this user could not be trusted with the tools.
'''Strongest possible support''' - G'guy is the most thoughtful, kind, helpful, considerate editor I have met. His participation in improving the GA project has been instrumental. He has been an inspiration to me, and his encouragement and guidance have been invaluable. I truly and honestly cannot imagine this man abusing the buttons. He has my full trust and support. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' &ndash; ☐: By virtue of his contributions; ☐: By virtue of his responses to the standard RFA questions; ☐: By virtue of his nominators. Instructions: ☐&rarr;☑
'''Support''' peR above.
'''Support''' per Tim's nom and Lara's ... umm ... gushing. ;)
'''Strong Support'''. A wonderful, well-rounded candidate. Geometry Guy is a great encyclopedia builder who works well with others. He'll make a great admin.
'''Strong support''' Great editor. '''
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' an obviously trustworthy and knowledgeable editor; prolific contributing and no persistent conduct concerns.
'''Support''' without question. G-Guy is a great editor: trustworthy, knowledgeable, patient, and dedicated. If we had a hundred more editors like him Wikipedia would be a much better place. --
'''Support'''. I do have two reservations: <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li> He doesn't agree with me on everything, so his judgment is not always perfect. <tt>;-)</tt> </li><li> I fear that like many fine editors before him the admin activities will divert him from editorial contributions. <tt>:-(</tt> </li></ol> Other than that, having conversed and collaborated with Gg on a number of projects, I am perfectly comfortable handing him a mop. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user.  He is thoughtful and balanced in his approach towards editing and discussing articles, and his involvement in the GA project has been beneficial.  He has participated in adminstrative style tasks at GA (archiving and acting on GAR discussions, for one example), and does so in a consistently positive manner.  I easily support him.--
'''Support''' a good angle on WP. cheers,
'''Support'''. G-guy will make a great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Strong support''' one of the most intelligent, hard working and level headed admins I've come across. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Ah man I'm late to the Party and Cronholm's already eaten all the chips Support.''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Support'''. With all due respect, I did not find Geometry guy's action at the GAR mentioned below to have been in any way inappropriate.
'''Support''', good editor, as illustrated by TonytheTiger.
'''Strong support''' per SandyGeorgia (hi!) and LaraLove.  GeometryGuy is extremely helpful on the math articles and is more deserving of adminship than most admins.
'''Support''' - All interactions have been positive.
'''Support'''. Shows reason and judgment, will wield the tools well. -
'''Strongest possible support'''. One of the most knowledgeable mathematics editors, with excellent judgement, extraordinary communication skills, great ability to find a compromise in a tense situation. Worked tirelessly on the rating project and patiently answered many angry questions from concerned parties, without losing his jocular demeanour. Defused tensions between the Mathematics project and the Good Articles project by steering the discussion in constructive direction and making many outstanding proposals. Very supportive of young and/or inexperienced editors. Great pick for an administrator.
At last, a GA regular I can wholeheartedly '''support'''.
'''support''' knowledgeable, hard working, and I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''. Shows judgment in Talk discussions, and has contributed to articles. Useful experience in the GA process. The entire complaint (in the Oppose vote below) seems to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_Perreault&diff=165876516&oldid=164835654 this edit] in which Geometry Guy closed a GA review, affirming that the article kept its GA status, and rejecting [[Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault |Tony's GA review nomination]] as inappropriate.  It's baffling that this could be thought to be a misstep, when no-one in the discussion besides Tony thought this was a valid reason to challenge an article's GA status.
I'm
'''Extremely strong support''' Geometry Guy is one of the best reviewers over at the GAR process.  Very solid editor who has my complete and utmost trust!
'''Support''' An impressive contributor, and an impressive co-ordinator.

'''Strong support''', excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. Another editor that I thought is an admin already. And thanks for sweeping math GAs.
'''Support''' Clearly deserving - the issues raised by those opposing are still training to aspire to the trivial.
'''Support'''.  With not a single reservation.  --
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. Among the finest editors we have. &nbsp;--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Editor has been a valuable contributer to the article review process, and will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' See no reason why he shouldnt have the mop. <br/>
'''Support''' Responsible editor.
'''Does whatever Lara does support'''
'''Support''' - One of very few editors that I see consistently and frequently attempting (often successfully) to avoid and resolve conflicts, steer disagreeing parties towards compromise, and so forth. Many of us do this some of the time, but it seems like Geometry guy does it 24-7. --
'''Support''' - you've been here for less time than me and I'm frankly amazed by what you've achieved. Well done! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I can't see any reason not to support this useful user. Have you ever thought of going to [[Geometry Wars|war]]? <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - seems very trust- and mop-worthy
'''Strong support''', as he has been of great help at [[WP:1.0]] and [[WP:GA]], to name a few places. The reasons given in reply to both of the oppose comments are reasonable. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the [[WP:REVERT|mop]] and the [[WP:BLOCK|flamethrower]].
'''Support''' Huh.  There's a lot of people that I thought were already admins that're coming up with RfAs, and this is one of them.  Support!  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Hell yeah!''' what more can I say?--
'''Support''' seems like will be a good admin.
'''Support''' takes the critique well, seems like he will be a switched on admin
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''
Of course.
'''Oppose''' My only interaction with Geometry guy was a very troublesome one for me.  I strongly disagreed with his handling of a situation.  I was having a serious editorial problem at [[Gilbert Perreault]].  I had worked hard to take it to [[WP:GA]] in July and August.  Then [[User:RGTraynor]] determined it was overcited.  If there is one thing I have a decent feel for on wikipedia as the lead author of over 1% of the Good articles on WP is what it takes in general to make a good article.  I am not the best writer and add photos from a point and shoot digital.  My articles are useful contributions largely due to the fact that the reader can easily [[WP:V|verify]] that I am using a [[WP:RS]].  Most important facts I add are done so according to [[WP:ATT]].  Many users have not caught up with the times for good articles and still feel general references are sufficient, while state of the art GAs use inline citations for each notable fact.  RGTraynor and I debated extensively on the need to cite articles.  We could not agree, we took the article to talk at [[WP:HOCKEY]] and [[WP:WPBIO]] with no response.  At [[WP:PR]] the only response suggested inline citations are helpful.  After getting this lone feedback RGTraynor decided to remove a whole bunch more citations.  We then agreed to take the debate to [[WP:GAR]].  This is where experts on whether an article is adhering to [[WP:WIAGA]] come together to monitor questionable articles.  These experts were unanimous in their opinion that the citations should in large part be readded.  Then Geometry guy closed the debate as an inappropriate and sent us off to other forums that are not as expert in good articles.  The current [[WP:RFC]] again is heading toward no consensus.  I feel his act defrauded me of the ability to protect the good article contributions by wiping out authority to add back useful citations according to the experts on such matters and falling back on the opinions of those who are not as attuned to the intricacies of such matters.  I question his ability to properly administer controversial matters.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Oppose''' per the issues raised with [[Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault]] (which was closed only last month).  [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]: both editors involved in the dispute over the inline citations in [[Gilbert Perreault]] agreed to take the matter to good article review [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGilbert_Perreault&diff=160296822&oldid=160263598].  [[User:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]] inappropriately closed [[Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault|the good article review]] based on a procedural technicality, without articulating the clear consensus that the disputed inline citations should be restored.  Furthermore, [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] had a very good reason to open a discussion of the matter at a good article review rather than an article RFC: he quite reasonably believed that the editors who would participate in a good article review would be more familiar with editorial standards for good articles than the editors who would respond to an RFC.  Of course, sometimes rules on the scope of process usage should be enforced to the letter: for instance, nominating an article for deletion because of a content dispute is widely considered to be disruptive, and can result in the discussion being speedily closed, since the AFD forum is unsuited to the resolution of content disputes.  Knowing when it improves Wikipedia to rigorously enforce policies and procedures, and when an exception to the rules best accomplishes such improvement, is a difficult art to master.  Nonetheless, it is an art in which an administrator who will be closing process discussions (as it appears that [[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]] intends to) must be proficient.
'''Oppose''' Having considered the oppose arguments, I must agree with them.--
Beat-the-noms '''support'''. Great candidate who was unlucky to fail last time around. &ndash;
'''Support''' per my co-nomination above.
'''Support''' Of course. Is there an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Georgewilliamherbert_%282%29&diff=prev&oldid=109866238 echo] in here? :) Sorry for the premature transclusion, please don't hold it against George, it was my bobble. ++
'''Support''', overwhelmingly, and I hope my support vote isn't a kiss of death.
'''Support''', cannot imagine that he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate -- past problems were, I think, a mere difference of opinion largely incidental to adminship.
- <b>
'''Support''' Great looking contribs., sure to be a great admin.
Ability to understand opposing perspectives serves him well as an editor and speaks well of his usefulness as an administrator. --
'''Support'''. I think enough time has elapsed since the last RfA for the previous issue to be put to rest. Your contributions are still stellar, and two people I respect a lot had enough faith in you to nominate you for adminship personally. My pleasure to support. –&nbsp;
'''Support''' on the strength of your quote :D.
'''Support''' oer nominator.
Sure.
'''Strongly support'''.

'''Support'''. Let's see. Do I trust George William Herbert to use the tools wisely? Of course I do.
'''Support''' George has a demonstrable need for the tools and I feel confident that he can be trusted with them. '''
'''Support'''. Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per two nominators I have a lot of respect for and for a better appreciation by Georgewilliamherbert in regards to the idea of community solidarity against harassment, as evidenced partly in his [[User:Georgewilliamherbert/DefendEachOther|userspace essay]]. I want to take this opportunity to remind George to be careful when doing any unblockings, and make sure that such unblocks won't result in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLOCK#Controversial_blocks wheel war] (see well written summary in Block wars paragraph).--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', absolutely. <b>
'''Support''' good user, good answers, good activity. Give him a mop. -
'''Support''' Enough time has passed since the issues I had last time, concerning his support in the past for disruptive users.  I think I can trust him now with the tools, and have been impressed with what I seen of him in dealing with unblock requests, in the enwiki-l mailing list, and here on the wiki. Please be careful in unblocking anyone, and make sure to discuss it with the blocking admin, etc. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  A trustworthy editor.--
'''Strong Support''' - seems like a good editor, evidently has a good knowledge of policy, impressive editcount.
'''Support''' Looks like a good user.--

'''Strong support''' - thoughtful, experienced editor with good judgment. --

'''Support''', absolutely.
Plenty of experience and judgment, concerns below are trivial.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' from what I have seen of George, he is a great editor whom I would, and do, trust.  I have seen George's polite and accurate respsonses and discussion on unblock-en-l and see his contributions to other admin tasks.  Although he could definitely use the tools greatly for unblocking reasons, I am sure that he can be trusted with the others as well and can find a use for them. '''
'''Support'''. It's a pleasant surprise to see this user up for adminship again.  I nominated him last time and he was rejected for what I thought were pretty frivolous reasons, and I hope that this time, without the kiss of death of my nomination ;), he sails through this process.
'''Support''', George is the type of user we want as an admin.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' I opposed in the last RFA. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Georgewilliamherbert&diff=85995067&oldid=85993264]And I second Mongo's advice regarding unblocking and wheel warring. I, like Aude, had concerns in the past about his support for disruptive users. I hope that this does not return to be a problem in the future, but from what I can see of the user's most recent actions on AN/I I feel compelled to support.--
'''Support'''. See him around a lot, sharp contributor. -
'''Support'''. Why in God's name ''isn't'' he? --
'''Support''' Sounds like a good guy to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' Has the experience, has made a positive contribution over a long period, knows his way around and no reason to suspect he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''; everything is good here.  Likely to be an excellent admin.  Superb contributions to the unblock list, among other things.
I haven't seen copious amounts of George on-wiki to make a fully-fledged decision based totally on that, but his unblock-en-l responses - to which I subscribe, so every response of his ends up in my inbox and subsequently read - gives me great confidence. '''
'''Support''', had previous good interaction with this user, seems to be very level headed, hard working, and knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies. I am confident he will be a good admin --
'''Weak support''' - just a little dubious, BLP is policy, AGF is not, but everything else looks good. And we need more admins.
I opposed last time, for reasons separate from the MONGO affair, and, reading back, am quite unimpressed by the candidate's response to my concerns... but that was November, and I've seen nothing but good from GWH since. '''Support''' per MONGO.
I am grateful to him for establishing the rule that talk page comments should not be deleted.  --
Of course he should be an admin.
I'm
'''Support'''
Per bowl of petunias (provided he promises not to build a [[Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Agrajag|Temple of Hate]]).
'''Support''' Appears ready for the tools and can be trusted. I'm not dissuaded by the oppose comments below.
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' Great volunteer who will certainly help the project even more with some extra buttons [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' looks alright, just be csure to follow policy.--
'''Support''' Since his last RfA, my overall impression of this candidate’s interaction with others has been good. I don’t have any concerns with giving him the advanced tools. May they serve you well.
'''Firm support''' My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGeorgewilliamherbert&diff=85993264&oldid=85983871 support three months hither] was qualified and was offered largely, notwithstanding that RfA is not a vote, to offset those opposes that I thought to be relatively insubstantial and unrelated to the likelihood of GWH's abusing or misusing the tools, but I am happy now to be able to support fully and without other motive; I am eminently confident that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of GWH's becoming an admin should be positive]].  I should say that I concur in George's response to question five (especially, of course, in the sensible, general modifications thereof) and that one ought never, in defense of a given [[Wikipedia:List of policies#Content and Style|content policy]], to contravene a [[Wikipedia:List of policies#Behavioral|behavioral policy]]; [[WP:CIV|CIV]] and [[WP:AGF|AGF]] sit, to be sure, alongside [[WP:ATT|ATT]] (of which [[WP:BLP|BLP]] is largely an extension) in our [[WP:5P|five pillars]].
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' Despite noting the points made in oppose and neutral comments, my impression is very favourable on this candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', including his answer to question 6.  Surely, he would not get involved as an admin in a BLP situation with someone he has 15-year personal ties to, so there are no impartiality concerns in my book.  BLP is not the only policy that applies in cases where it comes up, and it's the right approach to handle BLP issues while being mindful of other issues like [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIVIL]].
'''Support''' Per Mongo. We'll find a balance between BLP and AGF, and people like GWH will be at the forefront from what i've gleaned here.
'''Support'''.  unblock-en-l is ''significantly'' better due to George's contribution.  --
'''Support''' A fine editor, and the oppose arguments are weak.--
'''Support.''' Splendid work on Unblock-en-l and at ArbCom. No, I'm not kissing up, he's done a fine job.
'''Support.''' Per above arguments. -
'''Support''' We need admins with his measured approach to balancing BLP and AGF.
'''Support''' Seems like an eminently sensible and well-balanced editor who knows what's good for the project.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- I first encountered this editor during his first RfA and was impressed with  good sense after digging into his history then. I don't think he's lost it since then. He's taken on more controversial issues here than some other candidates so of course his track record won't be 100% (nobody's is in those cases) but he seems consistently level-headed and civil. --
'''Support'''. Hard working Wikipedian who is doing valuable work on the unblocking list.
'''Support'''.  I have complete faith that George will always try to do what is best for the project.
'''Strong support:''' As an unblock-en-l regular, I have complete faith in George's dedication and professionalism as a administrator. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Has made great improvements since the last RfA. I think Georgewililamherbert is qualified for adminship now. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Strong candidate. Will be helpful in doing admin's chores and building up Wikipedia.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. Changed from oppose. I'm prepared to accept that GWH sees the importance of BLP, and that was my only concern.
'''Support''' per my constructive interactions. Differing opinions are not causes for opposition; however, it should be expected that George should tread carefully around BLP issues, given a few but important concerns raised by some. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' &bull; I do not feel that he has taken the points from previous RFAs to heart and I do not feel that these lessons have yet been learned.  ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' seems to think that we should AGF rather then enforce BLP.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDoc_glasgow&diff=110227611&oldid=110211466] Whilst I'm happy to AGF, BLP is non-negotiable. Not what I want in an admin.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]. Blocking someone is not necessarily a failure to AGF. Even the best meaning user can still violate [[WP:BLP]] with consequences for the subject(s) of the article and Wikipedia. If after warnings they continue to do so, blocks may regrettably be required however sincere those users are. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I tend to agree with the above. On his last nomination, similar concerns showed up, leading me to doubt his judgement with respect to 3RR, cooldown blocks and dealing with socks. His statement about BLP seems to indicate improvement is lacking.
'''Oppose''' per Doc.
'''Oppose''' per his A6. I strongly feel that WP:CIVIL is our most fundamental and crucial rule, since without civility we won't be able to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative fashion, but WP:BLP trumps everything else, period. When a BLP issue arises (typically poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material), unless the issue is clearly bogus (i.e. the sources are clearly high quality and acceptable), the item in question must be 'shot on sight' (i.e. removed immediately), followed by discussion if necessary. This is non-negotiable.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Otherwise an excellent choice, but I share the concerns about BLP.
'''Oppose''' again reluctantly. Good wikipedian, but I've had reservations about judgement in the distant past which have recurred over A6 and Doc above.
'''Oppose''' Per Doc.
'''Neutral''' until questions answered - can't fault the nom's though!
'''Neutral''' I don't want to hold this over George's head forever, but I'm still not comfortable with supporting his nomination due to his comments when MONGO was under attack from the ED folks.  I won't oppose this time, but I cannot support. —
'''Neutral''' - my only interaction with George was in an IFD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_20&diff=prev&oldid=95632457 discussion] over a drawing of the Starship Enterprise that we unquestionably cannot use as a [[:Commons:Commons:derivative works|derivative work]] of a non-free image.  I won't oppose, though, based on reading all of the above, because he obviously does a heckuva lot for Wikipedia. --
'''Still neutral'''. I'm sorry, but I find it really hard to support someone who thinks that solidarity of the community is so important. I really don't like the concept of "solidarity", for various reasons. -
'''Neutral'''. The concerns brought up in his last RfA were prominent enough and serious enough that I'm not comfortable supporting. I've also not had enough interaction with him since to verify to my satisfaction that he's learned enough for it not to be an issue anymore. I do grant it's clear Georgewilliamherbert has made substantial positive contributions. Due to those reasons, I'm not ready to oppose either; I need a chance to look more closely into it. George perhaps you could offer a way to demonstrate you've learned from the experience. -
'''Neutral''' per Taxman (no relation).  Shouldn't the headline stress that this is a second nomination, and shouldn't there be a link to the first one?--
'''Neutral''' was going to support, but with regards to your last request I'm not too sure you've addressed the concerns. '''
'''Neutral''' Some concerns, however he does have good contributions too. --'''
'''Weakish Support''' high edit count, however low wikipedia space edits. I think that you should become more involved in the wikispace particularly "XFD's". However looking over everthing else, I think you will be a fine admin. ~
'''Support''' - Impressive main space contribution count over a nice period of time. Whether it is from anti vandalism or contributions, they cannot be overlooked. Also good work with categories. This editor is an asset to wikipedia and I am convinced that they could put the tools to good use.
'''Weak support''' Good user, been here long enough, high edit count; but I feel that (a) Gilliam doesn't exactly ''know'' what areas she wants to focus in, and (b) that her edits are a little overbalanced - only just over 200 WP-space edits, but over 10,000 to categories. Weighing several factors up I think I will weakly support her nomination at this time. ''
'''Support''': Considerable, strong contributions to the project. Dedication is obvious. Patient and professional. He was blocked by [[User:Mikkalai]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gilliam&action=history] on December 16, 2006 for reasons unknown. I queried Gilliam about this, and he has no idea what it is about, especially since Mikkalai never said anything to him about it (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gilliam&limit=100&action=history Gilliam's talk page history] for evidence of lack of communication to him about it). Addendum: while writing this, Mikkalai posted to Gilliam's talk page acknowledging a mistake had been made. Nothing else to suggest in any respect that this user can not be trusted with the tools. He's an asset to the community, has done hundreds of vandalism reverts and deserves the mop. Answers to questions and editing history demonstrate that privilege to use tools is needed and will be used. It's time. --
'''Support''' The ''only'' valid question in an RfA is: 'can we be confident this user will not abuse the tools'. A longstanding contributor who hasn't caused any problems in the past is highly unlikely to do so. As for areas that this contributor may not be overly familiar with, his/her cautious attitude convinces me that we can expect no trouble.--
'''Support''' per Doc.
'''Support''' Doc couldn't have said it better! [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate, well over a year, way too many contribs for your own good.
'''Support.''' Vandal fighters make good admins.
'''Support''' I think this user would be trusted with the tools, and unlikely to misuse them (not malicious misuse but through inexperience/misunderstanding). <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''. I think being here for more than a year, a lot of anti-vandal fighting, lack of conflicts, and a lot of edits are sufficient ground to think that Gilliam is experienced enough and won't abuse the admin tools. As to the project space edits, there'll be time to add to them later. :)
Over experienced Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' as I believe Gilliam will not abuse the tools, and a review of her edit history indicates a decent knowledge of how the site works. I think any shortcomings will be fixed through experience. I recommend always asking if you aren't sure what to do, though. ···
'''Support''' strong contributor who has good judgment. I don't think she would make speculative admin actions which would cause trouble. '''
'''Support''' per Doc.  Strong contributor with good head.  Won't abuse the extra buttons and can probably make good use of them.  (For those who say vandal fighting doesn't need the tools&mdash;well, you're right, but rollback, blocking, and protected can be darned handy.)
'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins
'''Weak Support''' Your anti-vandalism record makes up for your shortcomings. However, I hope you expand to other areas and diversify your knowledge base in the future. '''
'''Support'''.  I don't care where the user does and does not contribute - they are clearly dedicated, competent and trustworthy.
'''Weak Support''' - only 11 entries at [[WP:AIV]], some, but not much XfD experience, however, I think more anti-vandal admins who are willing to help out with [[WP:AIV]] are needed...
'''Support'''. Not getting involved in XfD and the like is a plus not a minus. We don't actually need all admins to close deletions. I would tend to oppose candidates who feel that they are "contributing" by mostly posturing in project space. This kind of opposition will lead to editors who would not usually feel the need to contribute to project space, however good their understanding of policy is, wasting their time making contribs to that space that are not actually helpful.

'''Weak Support''' Obviously an excellent, diligent, and trustworthy Wikipedian. I weakly support you because you have very, very few (comparing with 30,000 edits) participation in the projectspace. ←
'''Weak Support''' Wikipedia space edits  is a little concerning, but does do a good job in other areas
'''Weak Support''' per [[User:Arjun01|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Arjun'''</font>]]'s support. --
'''Support''', strong candidate, no significant concerns raised.
'''Support''' good contributor, good answers. Participates to AfDs, CfDs, AIV, fighting vandals, wikignoming and article writing. Has no major conflicts. Oppose reasons are unconvincing.
'''Support''' per Doc Glasgow, Proto. For newer editors, wikispace contribs might be an issue, but not really in this case.
'''Weak Support''' not as well balanced as I would like but an excellent editor none the less. -
'''Firm Support''' With that number of edits Gilliam, I can truthfully tell that you would not abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.  This user has acted in a friendly and civil way in all interactions I looked at.  She seems very unlikely to cause any problems.  She's very active in reaching out to new users in a friendly way, which I think is important.  I don't think edit summary usage is important enough to deny someone adminship based on: how is having the tools going to make that any more of a problem?  I also don't see why a user's edits should be balanced across namespaces.  Edit count is not a reliable indicator of experience.  She's made a big contribution and has a level head; this is a very strong candidate.
'''Support''' Seems, like a good candidate, but I'd like to see more detail in your answers. '''
'''Weak Support''' per above comments. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Doc, Proto, and Blnguyen have all put it well.
'''Support''' per Doc.  That many edits, plus caution, equals very very low probability of tool abuse.  Ergo the benefits outweigh the potential costs by a considerable margin. --
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support'''. Looks like a very good editor, and there is NOTHING in the oppose votes to suggest that this editor might misuse administrator priviledges. ''
I'm

Dedicated good-faith editor and no evidence presented to contradict that. --
'''Support''' Hs contributions to this project shows that he is a very dedicated user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' This user clearly understands policy, why not hand them over for his efforts? [[User_Talk:VD64992|<font color="orange">VD649</font>]]
Gilliam appears to have a good understanding of policy and I do not think that he would wreak havoc were he to be given the tools. --
Opposing neutral with tendency to reluctant '''support'''. Per nom.
Seems likely to make constructive use of the tools.  Seems unlikely to make bad use of the tools.  Most of the opposition seems to amount to "not a contentious metapedian" -- don't we have enough of those already?  (It's easier to get incoming talk page traffic with one dodgy edit than with 100 good ones, let's face it.)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Admins shouldn't all be clones, and this editor excels in his own areas.
'''Support''' He spend so much time here! He is dedicated, competent and trustworthy!  -
'''Support''' per editcountitis below. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support''' per Doc.
'''Support'''. —
Aye. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Has shown an understanding of policy. '''
'''Support''' I waited a while on this one because I wasn't certain the appropriate disposition seemed plain to me, but I have come to conclude, per, inter al., BlankVerse and Nihonjoe, that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Gilliam's becoming a sysop should be altogether positive]].
Insufficient projectspace contribution. Answer to Q1 reveals no particular need for admin tools. -
Not enough projectspace participation, and, per BigDT, infamiliarity with <s>technical</s> ''projectspace'' stuff. Adminship is really a <s>technical</s> ''projectspace involved'' position. Vandal fighting alone is not a qualification. -
'''Oppose''' : insufficient participation in XfD and in projectspace/wikispace. Vandal slaying '''is''' very important, but I don't see enough here to convince me the tools are needed. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
Per above, I believe Gilliam is insufficiently experienced with policy and process.
'''Oppose''' per lack of Wikipedia edits, only 11 edits to [[WP:AIV]], 2 edits to [[WP:ANI]], no edit to [[WP:AN]], edit summary usage at 85% for major edits isn't very good, user needs more involvement in XfD. High edit count is impressive, but adminship requires more than that. &ndash;
'''Oppose''': please increase use of edit summaries and apply in future.
'''Oppose''' Very low, and amazingly disproportionate, edit level in Wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with process.
'''Weak Oppose''' While the nominee appears trustworthy, the candidate's history provides no indication that there is a need for the tools or sufficient knowledge of or experience with the various policies that are relevant to exercising admin duties. Will likely support once the nominee demonstrates a need, including edits that demonstrate knowledge of the policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose''' Low wiki-space edit count per above.
'''Oppose''', not satisfactory answers to judge.
'''Regretful oppose''' (changed from neutral, below) Just 66 edits to own talk page  strengthens my suspicions that this editor does not particularly interact with others, as detected through the comments about the category talk page and the interaction on Wikipages. (To clarify, there are thousands of edits to other peoples' user pages. The fact that comparitively, virtually none have posted back to his, tells a story to me.) To my mind, adminship involves much discussion, explanation and interaction and Gilliam's desert-like talk page doesn't inspire confidence in this area. If I have misjudged, I am happy to revert to neutral; but the answer to my question above, leads me to suspect that Gilliam considers his 66 edits to be ''many''. --
'''Oppose''' I'm just not comfortable with WP-space participation, as above. '''
'''Oppose''' Unable to support based on answer to my question 8B above.
'''Neutral''' - if you had to ask why your RFA wasn't being transcluded in the main RFA page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BorgQueen&diff=prev&oldid=104131563], then I am kinda scratching my head wondering if you could use a little more experience with certain processes before being given the bit.  Also, under 250 Wikipedia-space edits in 1.5 years is kinda light. Still, though, you do an unbelievable amount of anti-vandalism work ... it's just absolutely TREMENDOUS ... and thus I can't bring myself to oppose. If this RFA isn't successful, please consider gaining more experience with the various deletion processes.  The purpose of it isn't to participate just to say that you have done it and make a check mark on your resume, but, rather, to demonstrate that you know when to hit the delete button.  --
Your lack of wiki-space edits is a concern for me as well. You have made superb contributions to the encyclopedia, yes, but very little of what you plan on doing requires a mop; for instance, there's nothing to prevent you from commenting at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names]] right now (the only thing you can't do is follow-thru with consensus, but there's never any backlog on that). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''' but regretfully.  Firstly, I'm not sure you actually need any of the tools.  Your contributions thus far have been excellent and getting the mop would only diminish from what you do.  Your answer to Q1 really makes me think it's a case of "why not?" rather than "why?" so perhaps you should just continue to be one of WP's greatest ever non-admin contributors?  As above, the lack of Wiki-space edits (a recurring theme) ought to show lack of policy understanding.  What it really means is that it's difficult for people voting in RFA's to see that you demonstrate understanding of policy at their convenience.  Your 30k+ edits and ~250 wikispace edits is usually a failure criterion for a number of RFA 'voters'.  I think you make a massively positive contribution to WP but my biggest fear is that you'd get sucked into things that diminish your contributions.  Forget the mop, keep doing what you do best.
'''Neutral.''' I'm a little nervous about the candidate.  He has good experience contributing to Wikipedia, but he has not convinced me that he will use the administrative tools effectively.
'''Neutral''' clearly an outstanding contributor but I'm a bit nervous about the very very low Wikipedia-space edit count.
'''Neutral, leaning to oppose''' - mainly based on looking at the two articles you picked as your favourites that you've worked on. Fine as far as they go, but as your edit summaries correctly say, your contibutions are mostly translations from German Wiki. You really need more general editing experience, then try again.
'''Neutral''' since there is a lot that looks good about your candidacy, but ~200 WP space edits don't demonstrate enough familiarity with the key policies that admin tools will allow you carry out. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose - relatively unimpressed with the low WP space edits.
'''Neutral''' Just ran into this person today on [[Dewey Burke|this article]].  They had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Burke&diff=104910942&oldid=104910784 put a speedy tag on it].  I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dewey_Burke&diff=104914542&oldid=104910942 removed the speedy tag and cleaned the article up].  I am concerned that, had they been an admin, they would have deleted the article on sight.  They also failed to say anything to [[User talk:Rett Rollins|the original contributor]] about it (admittedly, I don't ''always'' warn the original contributor when I tag for speedy myself).  I don't think we need admins who would delete potentially useful articles on sight.  On the other hand [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AONUnicorn&diff=104928382&oldid=104848499 this] shows a willingness to learn from mistakes, and makes me think that this won't be a problem if Gilliam is given the tools. ~ ''
'''Neutral leaning support'''.  Seems trustworthy.  Although I agree with the issues on lack of project space edits, my main issue keeping me from supporting is the amazingly low talk page totals.  Admins need to be good communicators, should understand policy pretty well, and well, I just don't see enough here to support an obviously fine Wikipedian. —
I just can't support you, yet I just can't oppose you. Leaning towards support solely on the grounds of adminship not being a big deal, but we'll see. '''Strong Neutral''' :P--
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''', as nominator
'''Support''' — basically per noms. Your work is excellent. Good luck! --'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' He's a good editor, always improving the quality of articles, and offering opinions on GA and FA candidates.
Very much yes. '''
'''Support''' He seems like a solid editor, with a strong record of contribs, who is able to keep a cool head during tense discussions.
Solid editor, extremely helpful with articles.  Even the username means "trust me".  '''Hell yes.''' <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support''' as someone familiar with the situation that Pmanderson is pointing to below I assure you that Gimmetrow is part of the solution and not part of the problem. --
'''Already thought you were an admin Support''' - Wonderful editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''<big>+</big>''' Sure thing.  Tom's had a busy day.
Whoa, GimmeBot? Gotta be among the most useful bots I've come across. :) Great user, happy to give my support. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''', as co nom.
'''Support''', per Tim Vickers and after reading the WP:Footnotes talk page.  Looks like good admin material to me.
'''Strong support'''—If anyone has been working in the background to make WP a better place, it's Gimmetrow. Major contributions, excellent editor. Footnotes: YES. Well done, Gimmetrow.
'''Support''' Very succinct answers to the questions. :P
'''Support''' and about time too. Major contributions to our project.
'''Support''' Ja.
'''Support''', no concerns whatsoever.
'''Support'''
Great editor. The thing with putting Islam on the list of cults was bad, but it happened a long time ago. We all make mistakes. I have made a lot of mistakes on wikipedia, and have learned from them. That is what counts. If you make a mistake, and learn from them, then the mistake is not really a big deal. It is only a big deal when you do not learn a thing from them. Good luck!--
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' solid editor.
'''Support''' - some concerns, but will trust the user to use admin tools for template work at first, and only gradually expand into other areas.
'''Support''' - regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_14&diff=prev&oldid=138394697 this edit], I believe that this user can make informed and just decisions appropriately.
'''Support'''. Yet another editor surprised that Gimmetrow is not an admin already. Concerning the opposes below, I also favour a manual of style that is less prescriptive on minor points, but I find this discussion irrelevant to the adminship question. ''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' this well-qualified editor for adminship.  Great bot, too.
'''Support''' because "Gimme trow" means trust me, and well, I do.  This editor has a HUGE number of edits to his count, from pop music to heraldry.  One case of marginal edit-warring (not, as alleged, even close to a 3RR violation) does not warrant withholding "the mop."<ref>This is another term for adminship. I ''had'' to add a footnote. :-)</ref>
'''Support'''. I have observed Gimmetrow's contributions for a while, and can vouch for his ability to handle the bit.
'''Support''' Gimmetrow is elequent in his discussion of controversial topics (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_Perreault&diff=169490452&oldid=169447580]).--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Weak support''' The "edit warring" pointed out by '''Septentrionalis''' could have been better handled ''with discussion,'' but is not sufficiently troubling to me for an oppose.
'''Support'''. The infrastructure building outweighs my concerns with opposes below. cheers,
Support. The oppose argument seems to me as an incorrect construction of what occurred. I do not see sufficient evidence to not trust this user.
'''Support''' great answers to my questions. If an IP has a history of vandalism and previous blocks, it is perfectly safe to assume that they will continue unless blocked. The answer to number 7 is exactly what I did in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discount_Tire_Company&diff=152840355&oldid=152814469 same situation]. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support'''  per nom --
'''Support''' No issues.
per the opposes.  —
'''Support''' Remember, Adminship isn't that big of a deal. He/She is minimally qualified (in my book, anyway). --'''
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Editor does good work, and opposes aren't convincing enough for me. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, trustworthy, and calming. Will make a great admin. <font color="Purple">
For once so many good RFAs out there in such a long time, long overdue
'''Strong Support''' - The reason for the "support" is because of his edit history.  The reason for the strong support is because I was very happy with the answers he gave. --
'''Strong Support''' He is a solid editor and dedicated to the project.
'''Support'''. I see no cause for concern from this candidate. A cool head definitely has value for an admin.
'''Support'''. Wait a minute, I thought you're admin already!
'''Support'''.  All my interactions with Gimmetrow have been positive.  I don't see cause for concern with the supposed revert warring; the edits/reverts were not very disruptive, and the discussion page was the main venue for the dispute.--
'''Support''' I thought Gimmetrow was already an admin?! It's about damn time! ;-)
'''Support''' I am not persuaded by the Oppose arguments, though  they do bring up a somewhat bumpy series of exchanges. After looking at the diffs I don't think it was an abuse. All is well aside from one hiccup... --
'''Support'''.  I've seen nothing but positive contributions to the project.
'''Support''' - great stuff. This is a great user with high levels of ability. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Weak Support''' - Evidence of edit-waring given below is slightly concerning, but in fairness it's not as bad as most edit-waing I've seen. Also, the answer to question one is a little weak. These aside, however, I feel that this user is a suitable candidate for adminship.
'''Support'''. The concerns brought below don't convince me that he would be a net asset to the project. Someone had to deal with that footnote silliness.
'''Anti-opposition support'''. Ridiculous. Every sensible user would revert an edit like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFootnotes&diff=169475308&oldid=169405359 this one], esp. by renowned (not to say infamous) warrior-editor
'''Support''' Reasons left by opposers are unconvincing.
'''Support''' All I have read and my limited interactions with Gimmetrow make me believe he will do a fine job as an admin
'''Support''' An outstanding candidate, will do a fine job. -
'''Support''' should be a good admin.
'''Support''' More admins needed.
'''Support''' Gimmetrow's (and Gimmebot's) work is invaluable. Opposes notwithstanding, I'm confident he won't abuse the tools. Call it ''trust'' :)
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. —
A fine user.
'''Support'''.  Good editor=good admin.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. I hope Gimmetrow will take onboard the concerns of the opposers but, on balance, I think he will make a good adminstrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' A cool head? Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Footnotes&offset=20071106030000&action=history this display of revert warring], against several other editors, on [[WIkipedia:Footnotes]]. To add to the silliness of it all, he is revert-warring, first on the earth-shaking matter that foornotes must come after punctiation intead of letting each article decide the matter, and then on the even sillier claim that [[Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#What_do_we_agree_on.3F_.28straw_poll_on_ref_tag_placement.29|this poll]] shows a vast difference in numbers between the party that agrees with him and the party that would prefer to treat such matters like color/colour. Really, we have enough busybodies as admins; we don't need another.
'''Oppose''' - only interaction with him was at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults&diff=prev&oldid=60687260 List of cults], where he used some bizarre arguments to justify calling all Muslims, Sunni or Shi'a as cult members. Appreciate this was last year, but no mention of this dispute in his answer to Q3. Also, looking at the links provided regarding footnotes, there are similar problems - edit warring that pushes to 3RR and continuous discussion on talk pages without ever compromising.
'''Oppose''' - based on red flags noted above
'''Oppose''', the archives of [[Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults]] worry me. I find the evidence above showing how he games 3RR worrying as well.
'''Very weak oppose, leaning towards support''' (I feel like an idiot opposing this user) Reading the above comment made it easy to vote this one.
'''Oppose''' - revert warring is unacceptable in an administrator, and I believe that the first oppose demonstrates the validity of the concern.
Per Nihiltres, and some not so wonderful impressions of the candidate.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Footnotes&offset=20071106030000&action=history evidence] of ''recent'' and significant revert warring, merely one day before this RFA discussion began.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The candidate has done a good job answering RfA questions and appears to be a good, helpful member of the community. As far as I can tell the candidate is even-tempered and helpful. Nice work on the Manila Hotel article; this shows that you've gone to the effort to build an article from the ground up. While I wish you had some more experience, I suspect you'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' Great answers to all questions. Should do fine as an admin! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' Intelligent answers and we can't get enough vandal fighters!
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions and a helpful member to the community. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Would be as nom, but I ''have'' been MIA for a bit.  :)
'''Futughitryke Support''' as above --'''
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''', GA was instrumental in getting my support - we all need to be 'pedia builders. cheers,
'''Support'''. I'm familiar with his work from various points around Wikipedia and based on that and on what I see in scanning his contributions feel that he'll make good use of the mop. :) --
'''Strong Support''' per questions and contributions to the good of the project. (Side Note: There are some really solid candidates on the board today, and you're clearly one of them.)
'''Support''' great answers and contributions. You are ready. Good luck.
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support'''.  This intelligent editor consistently makes good contributions to AfD that are based on a sound knowledge of the underlying principles and I'm sure he will be just as good an administrator.
'''Support'''. Impressive answers and looks to be a fine editor. <small>
'''Support'''. The answers really show that he is very familiar with the policies and his contributions clearly show that he has put them into practice correctly. I'm sure he will not abuse the use of the mop :)
'''Support''' Active user, experience show in the area of vandalism with over 60 edits to [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. Strongly doubt that he will abuse the tools and nice answers to questions! <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' A civil and intelligent editor, no desire for the tools except to help out, very strong answers to the Q's and great [[WP:AFD]] work. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' You know what you're doing. Happy Administrating!
'''Support''' Great answers.
'''Support'''. Very fine editor. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' good editor, lots of CSD work and deleted edits to prove it.
'''Support''', an excellent editor and Wikipedian - will make a fine admin.
'''Support''', I'm impressed with GC's overall work. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' per nom! Keep up the great work, Glass Cobra, you will make us all proud! -- <small><font color="0000C8">THE</font> <font color="black">
'''Support''' fine user. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''TIME TO GIVE THE MOP TO GLASS COBRA!!!'''. I've seen him around as a good user several times.
'''Support''' as he's done very useful work on [[Harry Potter]] articles, [[WP:AIV]], etc.  Can be trusted well.
'''Support''' - Good answers. Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
I like this user. Have seen him round before and has dedicated qualities that are key to Wikipedia editors.
'''Support''' - this is easy.
'''Support'''.  We have had a few disagreements on the [[Spells in Harry Potter]] article, but he is still a great editor and will be an even greater editor. ''Best of luck!''  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support''' Super! Meets my standards.
Um, of course...&nbsp;'''

'''Support''', per all of the above.
I'm
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - Per all above! Give 'em the mop.
Well I owe Jmlk17 a favor so... --
'''Support'''. Seems to be a vigilant anti-vandalism worker and cleaner-upper who I believe would make good use of the tools. From what I've seen at [[WP:AFD]] and elsewhere, a helpful and good-humoured contributor. --
'''Support''' Strong answers and contributions. I've also seen GC's work around, and it seems GC will be great with a mop. --
'''Support''' <<no comment>> :)
'''Support''', looks good. --
Weak support; candidate indicates that they may deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but only as their seventh priority –
He is a good user. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Good editor, and even Gurch likes him. Sort of. -
Great user, I've been impressed with GC - '''support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Has great answers; impressed me on more than one occasion; recently saved my userpage from vandalism; [[Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal|why not]]?
'''Support''' - This candidate's answer to Q3 shows good experience as an editor and knows the challenges we have with difference of opinions on the project. Here's my trust.
'''Support''' answers to the questions, taking the bold step of self nominating when it known to draw negative responses. I see nothing in GC edits to be concerned about.
Heh, turns out I know GlassCobra from another website, as well as this one. Definitely have no problem with him being an admin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've had the pleasure of getting to know GC over the past months, and I've looked into his contributions. I'm impressed with his willingness to work with others, his civility, and his ability to communicate. His answers to the questions further illustrate his respect for fellow editors, and his sense of community. I have no concerns whatsoever, and feel that GlassCobra would be a wonderful addition to the current administrative team. <small>
'''Support''' An excellent candidate, highly likely to use the mop to the benefit of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Good candidate. People want this extended, why not shorten it? wiki would be better for it.
'''Support''' Shows a  good understanding of both policy and of the practical dimensions of the job. '''
No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' no reason not too, and I think it was a great analogy.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Weak Oppose''' for comparing a fellow editor who thought a 12-year-old might be too immature to be an admin to a racist (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLaraLove&diff=169074810&oldid=169074591]). <s>This comment is highly offensive and, since it just occurred, I'd suggest this RfA be extended a few days so people can decide if it matters toward this person becoming an admin.</s>--
'''Weak oppose''' per Alabamaboy. I'm sure the candidate didn't mean for his statement to be interpreted harshly, but that analogy was still a poor choice.  When an argument arises over a controversial subject, mentioning other controversial subjects often generates more "heat than light", adding "more fuel to the fire."  (see [[Godwin's law]].)  While I don't really think this slip-up should derail the candidate's RfA, I do wish to caution him to be more temperate in the future.  (Don't worry... this particular skill is one that I also had to learn ''on-wiki'' -- in law school, they adore controversial analogies! The more heat, the better! :)
'''Neutral'''. I am concerned about the comment you made towards LaraLove's RfA.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLaraLove&diff=169074810&oldid=169074591] Another editor has responded with similiar concerns. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhanaUnited&diff=169141303&oldid=168987104]. The original discussion was ageism, yet you compared Lara as a racist. Can you explain your reason behind making that comment?
I've seen you often, and I've never seen you do anything crazy. ··
'''Support''' As Coelacan, I don't see any reason to expect that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of Goodnightmush's being sysopped should be other-than-positive]].  Plus, anyone who abhors that perniciously unencyclopedic locution ''passed away'' must be wise.
'''Support''' Your contributions seem pretty much entirely anti-vandal in nature and I can't see any serious errors, so I think that the tools would benefit your activities on the project.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong with specialists. —'''
'''Support''' Nothing concerning. We can use another vandal-fighter. —
'''Support''' despite Gaillimh's concerns, looking through your edits you do add content abeit not often. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Weak Support,''' Would be slightly happier if this wikipedians Wikipedia space edits were higher, but otherwise looks good. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="#4682B4">Тλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="#00">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' I think his conservative approach to the admin tasks is admirable. I do not foresee any problems.
'''Support''' I see no makor concerns here, it would be nice to see more article work but I think your vandal fighting is great and AIV reports are good. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support'''.  I see no issues or problems with this user or the contributions, anything to make me think they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - being overly focused on anti-vandalism is not a sufficient reason to oppose, IMO, particularly as adminship is no big deal, and we desperately need more admins. Candidate seems competent enough. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' Vandal fighting is an important part of Wikipedia. We should support vandal fighters who qualify for getting adminship.
'''Strong Support''' great vandal-fighter, can surely use the tools for a positive effect on the project. —
'''Support''' Vandal fighting is a big contribution, and while this user is a big vandalism fighter, that is not all they do.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Yes he does fights vandalism and that's good but he has done much other work on here like working with tags and welcoming new users which is great. <!--Note: copyedited. YechielMan -->
'''Support''' and thanks for mentioning me by name in Q5 and giving the barnstar.  It shows respect, a trait I value highly in admins and in everyone.
Good fellow [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support'''. Very good vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' - a good editor as well as a vandal fighter..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
I'm
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''', I've seen him around and looks like a good user. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Tim.bounceback--><font color="purple">
'''My 1800th Edit Support''' - Why should I use my 1800th edit here? Because I believe that Goodnightmush will make a fine admin. <small>(and because NP is boring at 10:10PM)</small>--[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
Hell yes. This user's been here for the long haul, and has shown nothing but great stuff in doing so. '''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' sounds good, good luck to you.
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
'''Support''' per Davewild.
'''Support''' frbzzzzzing!! yap. --
'''Support''' per AldeBaer. My review of the candidate's record revealed nothing concerning. Cheers, '''

'''Support''' Another fine editor that needs a mop!  Nice answers knows there way around an article. <font color="SteelBlue">
Very impressed. –
&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; '''
&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

'''Support''' good candidate. —
'''Support'''.  Clearly to be trusted.  --
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Oh, yes.''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Graham87 this]. <small>Is there a [[Minimalism|minimalist]] feeling to this RFA?</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Without a doubt a good, solid, hard working candidate. Definitely deserves the title.
'''Support''' nice answers to questions, everything looks fine. <b>
Glad to '''support''' -
'''Support''' - Sensible and trustworthy contributor.  I see no reason to oppose. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Happy to support, has been *very* active in maintenance in the projects I monitor for a very long time now.
'''Support''' - This editor makes me feel warm and fuzzy. I have no doubt that they will be a huge assistance in the fight against backlogs. Definitely can put the tools to good use, and deal with potentially problem making newcomers, too. --
'''Support''' - Looks fine. —<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' per it being obvious.
'''Support''' A user every editor, including myself, should strive to emulate. --
'''Support''' - Definitely meets the criteria.
'''Support''' Excellent vandalism fighter with an impressive edit count.
'''Support''' his work on [[Wikipedia:Using JAWS]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Accessibility]] in making Wikipedia accessible for people with visual impairments has been out standing, now the next challenge will be to make the admin tools accessible as well. Graham87 has the patients and understanding of Wikipedia, JAWS and IPA to make it work. Graham87 also displays commons sense to seek out help when problems arise, no doubt he'll find initial problems with using the tools but the end result will a Wikipedia that accessible to more people we can only benefit from this.
'''Support'''.  Friendly, knowledgeable, humble.--
'''Support''' why not?
'''Support'''Per Pedro.
'''Support'''. Trouble free, good natured and hard working contributor. Even though there are 15540 mainspace edits, there's also a good spread of activity in other areas.
'''Support''' per gidonb.  He is an unbelievably prolific editor, has been for a long time, and thus can clearly be trusted with the tools of the trade.
I'm
''' Support''' Per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Graham87 this]<br />Plus im eating a gramham cracker! (kidding)
'''Support:''' A brilliant contributer. Surprised he's not an admin already -
'''Support''' A great editor. Would make a fantastic admin. -
'''Support'''. A fantastic user, and soon-to-be fantastic admin! Amazing work. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''', appears to be an excellent candidate based on editing experience and straightforward answers to questions. --
'''Support''' good good editor. '''
'''Support''' dedicated and productive user.--
&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
'''Support''' capable user, will make great admin.
&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; " &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (grins...) --
'''Support''' Trustworthy and Hardworking. Cheers,
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop and bucket. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - particularly because of the efforts to explain deletions, copyvios and so on rather than simply using templates. An apparently experienced and reliable editor who seems to have good reasons for wanting access to admin tools.
'''Strong support''' - longstanding editor with wide experience across many areas of WP, yet no signs becoming jaded (maitains polite and constructive posts to other editors). Experienced in the backroom tasks. Overdue not only Siva1979's mop and bucket, but also a steam cleaner :-)
'''Support''' Good example to many of how to be a civil and hard working editor
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Perfect candidate.
'''Support''' &ndash; however, I'd ask Graham to use caution if he decides to get more involved in [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s - he seems to be a little inactive in that area (last contribution, late July), and jumping straight into [[WP:DELPRO|closing them]] might cause some problems. Otherwise, an excellent candidate, with commendable [[WP:AIV]] reports and anti-Vandalism efforts. Best of luck :) Cheers,
'''Support''' nice candidate, I see no problems here. Good luck.
'''Support''' nothing wrong here.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No POV bias in edits ,good editor.
'''DA THING''' ...yes...it's DA THING--SUPPORT! Execelent user, and will not abuse the mops. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' after answering my question.--
'''Support''' great answers, great credentials, I see nothing wrong with the candidate. Good luck with that mop! '''
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' -- valuable editor who I suspect will make a valuable administrator. -
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions, all well-backed up. I have faith that the tools will be put to good use. --
'''Support''' has the qualifications and will do well.
'''Suppose''' - the wealth of experience here is wonderful! That this user hasn't been an admin for some time surprises me. Experienced in all the right areas, this is yet another strong candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Weak Support''' has the edit count, but doesn't seem like they will be dedicated.  Nevertheless, I still must support
'''Support''' all I have to say to the above comment is..... wuh? Will make a fine administrator. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' --
'''Super Duper Uper Strong Support''' Somehow I didn't notice I have not voted yet, until now...sorry about that. =) Anyways, Graham is a frankly  amazing editor and I fully trust him with all the admin tools. <font style="font-family:Cooper Black;">
'''Support''' -
[[Image:Braille S.svg|12px]][[Image:Braille U.svg|12px]][[Image:Braille P.svg|12px]][[Image:Braille P.svg|12px]][[Image:Braille O.svg|12px]][[Image:Braille R.svg|12px]][[Image:Braille T.svg|12px]] ~
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' -- I don't see why he shouldn't get the mop!
'''Support'''. Graham has done excellent work for Wikipedia, and would be an excellent admin. --
—'''
Per my nomination.
'''Support''' A solid all-round contributor and editor, we need more capable, competent and non-combative mop-holders :)
'''Support'''. A wonderful long-time editor whose contributions to Military history of Australia and Australiana in general are perhaps not fully recognised.  I just read his edits at [[Talk:State of Origin#Primary Topic|this discussion]] in which Grant65 argues with logic and clarity, calmness and civility. He will make an excellent admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' I strongly support this nomination. Aside from his impressive work on military history articles, over the last year or so I've repeatedly seen Grant participate calmly and sensibly in debates over the content of articles. His comments in debates and edits on disputed issues are always valuable and often bold and he would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' An extremely valuable contributor to the project that I've had the pleasure to work with on numerous articles in [[WP:MILHIST]].  Always displays a calm, reasoned, and thorough approach to whatever he's doing and would be of great value to the project as an administrator.
'''Support''' Have met in a range of situations in different wikipedia subject areas and followed some of his work that coincides with my work - and always impressed by the thoroughness and the follow up that gives quality to his work
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Yep. '''
'''Support''' This user seems reliable.--
'''Support''' How do I make my support super-strong, bolded, underlined, surrounded  with asterisks and neon flashing? Can't sing his praises loudly enough. Unfailingly helpful, hugely knowledgable and an asset to the 'pedia.
'''Support''' -- looks like a good candidate who's well overdue for administrator status. -
'''Support''' with enthusiasm. A solid contributor who's well-qualified. Good job Hesperian for nom'ing.--
'''Support''' Against my usual list of reasons here I need only 1) The response to Q3 and as evidenced by contribution history. Civility, assuming the faith, tolerance, hearing the other side - A1 admin comments. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' based on personal experience of the user, where has has always been very sensible and an asset to the project.
'''Support''' another good candidate --
'''Support''' - I like the answers to his questions and he is very experienced and a worthy candidate for the mop..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' no concerns here. Grant is definitely admin material. —
'''Support'''[[Football]] has been a minefield in the past and he's done more than anyone to keep it on the straight and narrow.
'''Strong Support''' great editor, creates and edits in under served areas of the encyclopedia, civil and able to take criticism. Enjoy the tools mate. I'm sure you'll use them well.
'''S-U-P-P-O-R-T'''! We need admins like this! ~
Sure, been a while since we had any Western Aussies go through RfA :)
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Always great to get new admins as experienced as you - brings a lot of good things. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I have no qualms.
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' good user, no problems - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' - [[Battle of Long Tan]] reminds me of where I picked up this name in my consciousness. '''
'''Support.'''
'''Strong Support'''
I'm
After Mailer Diablo as usual. --
'''Support''' I notice that he is a very consistent editor over the months and years he has been here. It's also true that what [[User:Hesperian|Hesperian]] said about picking up baggage along the way, yet none has yet shown up. That's a real good sign.

'''Support''' - No concerns. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' - No problems here.
'''Support''' - Good editor!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - a consistent user not chosen as a admin for too long. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Support''' - Grant's contributions are a useful combination of content enhancement, housekeeping duties and policy discussion - should make a good admin. Cheers,
'''Support''' per stamp of approval by Hesp. No worries at all. '''
'''Support''' - good answers to question and great track record as an editor. Mop time! -
'''Support'''—No concerns. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' no evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' more admins needed.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' worthy candidate. '''
'''Support''', everything looks good.
'''Support'''per wave of support above, contibutions, etc.
'''Support'''. I have seen him many times in WWII Pacific issues and Grant always helped strongly to enrich Wikipedia in this area. -
'''Support''' Passed WP:50. Now onto WP:100. Trustworthy and long due. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Hell yeah'''. There isn't much to add for me.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>
The nominee has demonstrated qualities desirable in an effective administrator. In particlar, he shows perspicacity and correctness during discussions; his genuine manner is an effective sop, to unsubstantiated claims and facetious responses, for example. - Sam and
'''Support'''- Per nom & above.
'''Weak Support''' You're on the right track, but with less then 1000 main space edits, your rfa isn't going to pass. Better luck next time around. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Why not? —'''
Aldebaer said it.  Plus the work I've seen from this user has been all good. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
I've been very impressed by Greeves. '''
'''Support''' per the opposite of Wikihermit. I understand how frustrating it can be looking every day at your edit count to see how far away 1000 is, but as long as you're on track for it, you're fine. &mdash;
'''You get my Vote'''  your contributions to pages in the <s>[[WP:NAMESPACE]]</s> Wikipedia project space seem very valuable.  '''
'''Support''' I am happy to keep my commitment as expressed on [[WT:RFA]].  Yeesh, the editcountitis in oppose number two is really starting to scare me, and I will ''never'' fault a candidate for self-nominating or even for accepting a nomination from a known miscreant.  Other than that, I see nothing to worry about.
'''Support''' - I've been impressed with Greeves, he'll make a fine admin. N's oppose below I can understand, but polotics rule is one of the most baffling I've seen for some time. Why should prejudice be given to the candidate because of when the nominator joined? Why would that effect his admin capabilities? We're supposed to be a community, we should start acting like one.
'''Support''' '''1)''' Review of contribs reveals nothing worrying '''2)''' Civility seems good '''3)''' I've seen the editor around '''4)''' Sensible discussion at [[WT:RFA]] about adding an RfA link to his signature (I know it had been discussed before, but fair play to check prior to the candidates own RfA IMHO) '''5)''' Per Ryan above. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Oppose, user uses Cursiva font in his signature. Will not make a good admin. <small>groan at edit counters</small> Not crazy, edits show caring attitude towards the project, civil and no indication that they will abuse the bit.
'''Oppose''' as per Riana and [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|Jimbo Wales]] :P..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''- experienced enough to be an admin.
'''Support''' - After looking through your contributions I can see that you are a good contributer who is civil and would make a good admin. Edit count does not concern me - you appear to have enough experience across the name spaces. Also, the discussion at [[WT:RFA]] helps convince me you think before you act.
I'm
'''Support''' qualified. —
'''Support''' After reviewing your contributions, talk pages and katewannabe's count I do not see you as being an imminent threat to the project if handed the mop. --
'''Strong Support''' I came across Greeves when I edited as [[User:Tellyaddict|Tellyaddict]] and found him to be friendly and polite, I dont think the mainspace edit count is too much of a worry, I think its how he'll use the tools what count. '''
'''Support''', I see no reason Greeves can't be trusted, though I don't usually support users with less then 14495 edits. <tt>:P</tt>
'''Support''' per AldeBaer.
'''Support''' Seems fine.
'''Support'''. Damn it. I have RfA watchlisted, but I still miss requests that I could comment on. </rant> Anyhoo, [[WP:MMO]] needs an admin or two on board, and I trust Greeves with the tools. Mainspace edits are a bit low, but I don't mind.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support'''- per [[User:AldeBaer|AldeBaer]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' I will agree that it is not an edit count, so I will support. Just try to do more editing.
'''Support''' I think you are a trustable person, with a decent amount of experience. You have my support. However, I would like to ask Cometstyles and Riana why they put their oppose votes in the support section? Or were they meant to be support, but they wrote oppose instead?
'''Support as nom''' for all reasons in candidate presentation.
'''Support''' - No worries. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Looks like a good user.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. You sound like you'll use the tools provided correctly, and you have a good edit count. --<span style="color:#51EFEF;font-weight:regular;font-size:smaller;font-family: Lucida Handwriting;"> [[User talk:Chetblong|:)]]
'''Support''' I do not see a marginally below average Mainspace editcount as a problem. We are deciding if this user can be trusted with the tools.And on the basis of contributions to date, the answer is clearly yes.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - Good contributor, trustworthy and I think he is ready for the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - The normal requirements seem good, and the editor answered my question in a sensible way. --
'''Support'''.  He's been an exemplary user, kept a cool head, and done nothing to suggest he is not qualified for the tools.  Fair use images having appeared in his user space at some point in the past does not disqualify him from being a sysop, jeez.
'''Support'''- answered my question very well, sorry for all the flopping around =).--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' An edit count has no bearing on how good a possible admin will be.  Furthermore, the time factor is not that important either; you generally need to exercise good judgement.  Greeves does just that. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:Vishwin60|action=edit&section=new}} →]
'''Moderate Support''' I don't believe in edit counts, So I didn't check yours. I believe that a good administrator needs more social experience in Wikipedia. Metapedianists seem like the best choices. I think you've got what it takes, but still, you seem a little inexperienced. Maybe adminship will give you some more experience.
'''Support''' I've seen this guy about so I think he'll do a good job, but I'm also wanting to counter the opposes below which in no way demonstrate why this candidate is unsuited to becoming an administrator.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per good response to my concern. I appreciate thoughtful admins. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Sometimes I think projectspace users are too under-rated (that would include me). Writing an encyclopedia is important, but not everyone enjoys or is good at doing so. Projectspace users are the backbone of this project, and keep the Wiki standing up. I completely diregard edit count as well. Experience and understanding of policy is more important, and I think you have those qualities. '''
'''Support'''. I'm usually in the habit of explaining my thought process in detail but most of the points I was going to make, have already been made. Bottom line: do I trust the candidate with the tools? And, based on what I've seen so far, the answer is yes. --
'''Moderate support''' I'm not certain, the candidate's clarifications notwithstanding, that I can complete appreciate his views with respect to blocking or the extent to which he understands [[WP:BP|BP]], but that may well be a result of my being dense (there is, in either case, not much there to engender concern).  In any event, I was mildly disconcerted by Greeves' statement of his conception of [[WP:IAR|IAR]], but both his full answer to question six and his contribution record make clear that he well and properly conceives of adminship as ministerial in nature and is certainly capable of divining for what action in a given situation a consensus of the community might exist and then effecting that action (his understanding of IAR, in fact, seems properly limited by his understanding of [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]); his deliberative temperament, generally civil demeanor, and apparently sound judgment, then, lead me to conclude with a fair amount of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].

'''Oppose, changed from neutral'''-I would like someone more active as an admin and more out there going at vandalism. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' Hasn't been here that long and doesn't make enough contributions each day.
'''Oppose''', for the same reasons I opposed [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro|Pedro's RfA]]. Barely any mainspace contributions. Creating megs of waffle in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia_talk: space is all very well and good, but we're here to write an encyclopedia and as Greeves hasn't made much use of the tools available to him as an ordinary editor to improve the encyclopedia, I have no reason to expect that he would use the admin tools to some particularly useful purpose. The article he [[École Golden Gate Middle School|has edited most]] is barely more than a stub with a few lists on the end. How can he be expected to enforce policy if he has not actually come into contact with said policy? '''<font color="#330033">
'''Neutral''' looks like nice person, but he han't been on wikipedia for all that long and has a low editcount + the image on user space deal. Good Luck. --'''
'''Neutral'''. His low mainspace edit counts is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' due to low mainspace edit count. I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits –
'''Neutral''' At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:TV-VCR/Vandalism&oldid=135326376] you commented on a MfD: Keep - I think that vandalism subpages should be allowed.   (I !voted to delete that one & I agree it's debatable)--could you explain your reasoning.  At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&oldid=119289859] you commented with respect to Username "Z135256" "Neutral - I'm on the fence here" -- could you expand on that a little? '''
'''Neutral''' though I tend toward opposition on the basis of 'feeling that mainspace edits are less important than project and talk edits' not ''for the number of edits'' but for the ''attitude''.  Really, we are writing an encyclopedia and you can't run it without reading it ... and if you are reading it and don't see a thousand corrections to make in a pretty short time, you probably aren't qualified to run it. In my opinion.  I do like that he has a 'pet project' and has acquainted himself with policy etc.
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' I hate editcountitis too. It sucks. However, the statistics help me gauge an editor's experience and civility. Creation of the WikiProject  is terrific and appreciated and he's a nice fellow, but he just hasn't edited in the mainspace enough to convince me he understands content as well as process. With a few weeks of solid contributions to articles, I'd certainly support. -
'''Beat the nom Support''' - why not. I'm familiar with this editor and see no issues here -
'''Support''', I've seen him around, don't see any causes for concern.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Yes''' - seen around, seems good. -- <strong>
'''Support'''
One of a small handful of users I genuinely believed was "already an administrator". On that basis, I see no reason not to support. '''
'''Support''' 1) Answers to the questions, in particular Q1. 2) Stunning work at [[WP:XFD]] including template and categories 3) Extensive work on copy-vios 4) Civility 5) Helping newbies 6) Personal interaction - For all those at RFA who like a '''"well-rounded"''' editor [[User:Haemo|Haemo]] is a metaphorical [[ Michelin#Bibendum|Michelin Man]]! Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Top notch editor, good answers to questions, communicative. ~
'''Support.''' Impressive. &mdash;<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' Per obvious qualities.
'''Support''' Very able.
Don't see anything to worry about... --
'''Support'''. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
Definitely. –
'''Super strong support''' Haemo has done excellent work on 9/11 pages, as well as working on the talk pages with constant queries and discussion which can be frustrating.  Yet, he remains civil and polite, and works constructively.  His involvement on the page has allowed me and other long-time editors to step back from the page, and do other things (or in my case take a wikibreak) without concern for the 9/11 pages.  I also notice his helpful involvement on the [[Barbaro family]] page, which was a big mess in June-July with problematic editor, [[User:Tiki-two]].  Haemo would definitely be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' fine work on [[WP:SCV]] - a quality which has so far been a solid indicator of people who need the tools and will make good admins. --
''' I Support''' this level-headed, constructive editor. Looking at contributions shows me nothing but reasons to support, one after another.
'''Support''' - The answers to the questions were superb. You have done some good work in both maintenance and article writing on Wikipedia with no civility issues - I am sure you would make a good admin.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around, and I believe he can be trusted.
'''Support'''.  Working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories probably indicates being a glutton for punishment, so he'll fit right in.  OK, maybe I'm being a little facetious, but from all appearances, Haemo seems to do very well at conflict resolution and keeping calm in the face of controversy, and experience dealing with copyvios will definitely help.  --
'''Support''' fine user, comprehensive answers to questions, nice edit count, can be trusted. <b>
'''Support''' Strong edits to 9/11 pages, and with a solid edit count, time for the mop!
'''Support''' per above. Well-rounded. I found nothing alarming in contribs.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I've seen him around, always has good comments at [[WP:AFD]], even if we disagree. Haemo can be trusted with ''the mop''.
'''Strong Support''' - Patient and logical.  --
'''Strong Support'''.  Dedicated, and nominated by two users!  Very impressive edit count.  No danger in trusting this user.  '''
'''Support''' My experiences with the candidate have proved sufficiently to me that he will make a fine sysop.
'''Support''' per AFD interactions
'''Support''' a fine user.
'''Support'''. Sensible, reliable and experienced.
'''Support''', an experienced user with thorough knowledge of policies and consistently sound judgment. --
'''Support''' per Pedro. Using the bandwith of wikipedia, this user definatly needs the mop. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' -- I honestly can't see anything wrong here, and the candidate is unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. A very well-rounded user, lends his hand in AFD's as well. '''
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user regularly in various discussions and even if we are not always in agreement I am always impressed with the quality of the arguments and the level of familiarity with policy.  Easy support.
'''Support''' This editor has impressed with contributions and demeanor. Keep it up! &mdash;
'''Support''' as a formality at this point.
'''Support''' Wow. A great user in every way. -
'''Support''' a fantastic editor who really deserves the mop! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''. We need someone who can keep their cool no matter what. '''''
'''Support''' If his devotion to the page StarCraft II is sign of his ability to handle complicate situtations then he should do just fine with admin tools.
'''Support''' needs the mop.  --
'''Support''' Probably long overdue.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - A solid editor with a strong grasp of the policies and guidelines.  I have no concerns about you abusing the extra buttons.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' Oh my gosh, this is a big "RfA cliche" moment!  Extremely-qualified, gifted candidate.  Thank you for taking up the mop. :)
'''Support''' I would make this a strong support, but you're letting the trolls get at you a bit too much. [[WP:DGAF]] and [[WP:DENY]] might be good reading here. Other than that, I have no problems with you as an admin --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Support''' A fine and subtle editor with a level head.
'''Support''' has done an exceptional job as an editor on Wikipedia with sound and thoughtful judgment▪◦▪
'''Support''' great contributor, do not believe this user will do anything to harm Wiki.
'''Support''' and somewhat appalled at the ''exceptionally'' weak justification given for some serious accusations. --
'''Support'''. Valuable editor who could do some good work with the mop.
'''Support''' per many above.  I am impressed at how well he is handling a very serious, and quite baseless accusation.
'''Strong support''', late to the party as usual, but better late than never.  And well done on your handling of the line of accusations being fired at you.
'''Support''', has dealt with some ludicrous, hyperbolic and unfair accusations with patience and good grace - one of the most vital skills for any administrator. No concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''', very impressed with the handling of the opposition accusations. -
'''Support'''.  An editor who keeps a cool head (Deleted per [[WP:BLP]]) can probably be trusted to use the buttons calmly and sensibly.
'''Support'''. Extremely cool and calm handling of these ridiculous accusations. I normally just browse RfAs rather than !vote, but this user has handled a serious and unwarranted allegation with panache so s/he gets my support.
'''Support''' on the basis of your overall history. Additional '''Kudos''' awarded for handling the more traumatic elements of this RfA as well as you did.
'''Support''' Coolheaded and reasonable, even in the face of ludicrous accusations (see below).  Looks like good admin material.
'''Support''' Thoughtful. I like thoughtful.
'''Support''' - I could have ''sworn'' you were an administrator.
'''Support''' An experienced and calm editor who has outlined good reasons for being an admin.

'''Support''' Good editor. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Haemo seems, on the whole, to be possessed of a sound sense of judgment, a deliberative disposition, a civil demeanor, and an appropriate understanding of adminship (viz., as ministerial), as evidenced in the fine answer to question five, such that I think one can conclude with a good deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].  (Deleted per [[WP:BLP]])
'''Support''' Yes, I periodically scan RfA to see if anybody I think should be an admin has been nominated. I would definitely be comfortable having this individual as an admin. He's calm, rational, and doesn't bite newbies.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest should not be an excellant admin.
'''Support'''. A dedicated, level-headed, experienced user. I see him all over WP, and I have no doubts that he'd make a trustworthy admin. --'''<font color="#FFA52B">K<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' no-brainer. —
'''Support''' - Would obviously make an excellent admin. I see no problems with any of his edits on Wikipedia, and he seems capable of keeping his cool no matter how outrageous those around him are behaving.
'''Support''' I see no problems.  '''
'''Support''' seemingly conscientious editor, and level-headed response to the manufactured problem below confirms it for me. --
'''Support''' per noms. Well-rounded editor, will mop responsibly.
'''Support''' Clearly able to deal with trouble in a direct and calm manner.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Very impressed by answers to questions and depth of experience. <strong>
'''Support''' Experienced editor; no problems that I can see. --
I'm
&#151;&nbsp;
'''Support''' General sanity, no bad stuff happening, and most of all, we need more administrators with a broad experience around Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Plenty of good reasons to support, zero good reasons to oppose. <b>
'''Support''' - Why not?
'''Support'''Good track record and good editor.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust him. '''
'''Support''' I've seen him around, with no problems. '''
'''Support'''- sounds like a good person to have the mop. <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' I have not known Haemo for a long time, but my regular interactions with him (mostly through IRC and [[Google Talk]]) suggest that he's familiar with policy and would be a good admin. As he mentioned in his answer to Question 2, he helped me copy-edit [[I Not Stupid]] and [[Singapore Dreaming]], and both articles attained GA status as a result. Instead of him copy-editing sentences after I submit them, we discussed every word and punctuation mark, refining each sentence until it was ready for submission. I was waiting for [[Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse]] to pass GA before supporting, but I realised that the GA backlog elimination drive has ended, and looking through the article, I see no reason why it should not pass (I'll make my support '''strong''' if it passes). --
'''Support''', great!
'''Support'''. A dedicated and hard-working editor who upholds ''Wikipedia'' values even when the going gets tough.
'''Support'''.  I've come across this editor's good work in the past, and he recently communicated in a highly constructive and civil fashion with me when I questioned his removal of some content in an article I watch.  I came across this RfA randomly and just wanted to lend support.--
'''Support''' Good noms, great work in a variety of areas.
'''Strong Support'''.  Haemo has been a tremendous help over at [[WP:SCV]] and, with two new bots generating copyvio leads, we need all the admin assistance over there we can get.  Will be a great admin. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Excellent and dedicated contributor whose participation as an administrator should greatly help the project.
'''Support''': I've seen him around, and he's a good editor.
'''Support'''. In all the times I've encountered Haemo (mostly at deletion debates), I've always taken away a good impression. — '''
'''Support'''. Like Black Falcon, I am familiar with Haemo primarily from UCfD, and I've been uniformly impressed by his well-reasoned, even-tempered responses in what can occasionally become heated discussions. His answers above reinforced my positive opinions of him.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support'''&mdash;solid editor. &mdash; '''
[[WP:99]] :)
'''Support''' Looks excellent to me, welcome to [[WP:100]] :).
'''Support''' I believe that adminship is not a big deal. People should not make a big deal out of becoming an admin, and people should not oppose Rfa's for little reasons. I see no big reasons to oppose this user, so I am going to support. Good luck!--
'''Support'''. I appreciate SiREX' investigation and  concise reporting of the incident raised below. I call on SB to recant and apologize immediately. As for this user, I see he has weathered a storm with composure -- a needed quality in an admin. His striking of his own comment in a discussion after being canvassed suggests he is desirous of remaining free of any suggestions of wrongdoing or participation in such. --
'''Support'''. I see no reason to deny this application. (Deleted per [[WP:BLP]])
'''Support''' I trust this user, their view on an issue has nothing to do with how they are going to act as an administrator.
'''Support'''.  Has kept a very level head where I've seen his work, which has been in the conspiracy theory articles.  </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">
'''Support'''. Lucks trustworthy and seems to know what he's doing. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Also looks trustworthy. -
[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|Ma]]
'''Support''', good contributor, I hope you become a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have seen Haemo around for a while, and have never once seen an action I'd question on his/her part. We've run into each other at [[WP:RFCN]] and I've found Haemo's comments and suggestions both knowledgeable, and insightful. S/he seems to have a very firm grasp of the infrastructure of Wikipedia, and I would feel no qualms about Haemo having the the added tools. I believe the concerns raised by SqueakBox were sufficiently nullified; Pascal said it quite succinctly. The only issue of any consideration raised is that of Sefringle, and I don't get the feeling that Haemo doesn't ''understand'' notability, but rather that the focus was on a different aspect of notability, in Haemo's eyes. (Blogs about other blogs being reliable sources, vs. blogs themselves being notable.) There are many "popular" blogs out there, but that doesn't mean that each one should have a Wikipedia article. I also think that perhaps the subject matter of that particular AfD may have brought out strong feelings and Haemo's weak delete vote may have been seen differently than with other AfDs. In conclusion, I believe Wikipedia would be improved by having this well-rounded, experienced editor as an administrator. <sup>
'''Support''', don't see any problems.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user who won't abuse the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' All my interactions with Haemo have been positive - he is here to improve the encyclopedia. I like his answers to the questions.

'''Oppose''' based on your comments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination)|this]] afd, I don't think you understand what notability is, and may actually delete articles about notable organizations and people, and claim they are not notable.--
'''Neutral''' base on his response to Van Tuckey's comms,
'''Support''' Sounds good to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per experiance.
'''Support''' I'm just a tad puzzled about the need for the tools in this case except for the speedy deletions. Still, good contribs and wikignoming is after my own heart's desire. Plus an obviously sincere effort to improve the project. I trust.
'''Support''' qualified and experienced user. Not likely to abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' sure, your statement persuaded me enough. You seem to be a decent editor. '''

'''Support''' Looks like a good user.--
I'm
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Good judgment at AFC and that is much the same skills as needed for XfD and CSD. &mdash;
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''' seems fine. --
'''Support''' Looks a good editor; I think he can be trusted to keep calm when using the tools.
'''Support''', seems level headed and would be good with the tools.
'''Support'''. Decent answers, so I can't see any reason not to support.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- Has been around for 14 Months, a very experienced Editor--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' This is the type of admin wikipedia needs.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' I really like your willingess to contribute and your wanting to help out with the backlogs (although the lack of XfD participation/high level fo userspace contributions upsets me a little). '''
'''Support'''. Can't find anything wrong. Would like more XfD participation, but he never says he's doing to just go head on into XfD closing, so we can give him the tools.--
'''Oppose'''. Nearly 8,000 edits but very little work in XfD discussions. Also has nearly twice as many edits to his userspace as he does to project space. His project discussion participation is also alarmingly low for such an active editor, 0.013% of his total edits.
You have hardly any experience in Xfd discussions, and obviously I can't tell whether you have much experience in tagging articles for speedy deletion. You've done lots of good work and I don't really see any problems in your contrib history, and your experience at articles for creation shows that you have quite a bit of knowledge of policy. I'll see what others have to say before deciding whether to support or remain neutral. ---
'''Neutral:''' I thought i would support you but you focus twice as much on your userspace than on projectspace; however, i cannot obviously oppose on you. As of right now, i am stable (neutral). <small>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <tt>&lt;

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - seems like a good user. Can find nothing to oppose with.
'''Support''' No problems here. A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. All I see <s>is good</s> are great things. Good luck :-) —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' civil user, dealt with him several times before, excellent medication skills on video game related articles, which is one of least-underrated subjects there is on wikipedia. Would make a good admin
'''Support'''.  I can trust you with the tools, and look forward to the benefits Wikipedia will recieve from your adminship. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Over 6000 mainspace edits and a regular editor no concerns.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''': No reason not to support this one.  Good luck! -
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''

'''Support''' Keep it rollin'!
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''support''' I appreciate the recognition that his view on some things (in this case , G11)  is a little different from the consensus, and his clear statement of willingness not to use admin powers in that respect. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers,
'''Support''' MEH responsible and democratic.  Does things sensibly, first user i actually ran into here. [[User:Eternal dragon/Sandbox|æt]][[User:Eternal dragon/Userboxes|<font color="#008000"><b>'''ə'''</b></font>]][[User talk:Eternal dragon|rnal]]
'''Support'''. Civil, explains himself clearly in discussion, trustworthy. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Support''' - in my single instance of interaction with this user, he was very civil and responsible in what was a rather embarrasing situation, and earned my respect. Best of luck with the tools. <font face="Verdana">
Seems good to me.
'Bout time, hm? :) ~
'''Support'''.  Meets my standards for edit count, etc.  Knows how to fix an article per statement on [[User:Hbdragon88]]. No concerns.
I've interacted with hbdragon88 a number of times over an extended period, and have found him courteous and efficient. When he's been unsure of how something should go, he's asked first and this kind of treading carefully is useful in both new and established admins. Does plenty of article work, too. Plus, he had the good sense of humour to ask me to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Splash_(disambiguation) move] [[Splash (disambiguation)]] to [[Splash]].
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <small>(ec) </small>After discussing the situation with hbdragon88, I feel confident that he takes a different approach now than he did then.  My concern was never with what happened in the past, but with the doubts it raised over future conduct.  My doubts are gone.  Hbdraon88's contributions to this project make me confident that he will [[WP:ADMIN|wield the mop]] with distinction. --
'''Support''' [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards|having met my arbitary standards]]. Answer to optional Q5 and the diffs there was very good. Talk Page looks civil, I note the dispute highlighted below and that seems resolved. Certainly looks like the candidate will ask before acting if unsure, which is certainly good. Suggest the [[WP:NAS]] assuming this is succesful, and leaning on other admins or experienced editors if needed. But all in all, a pleasure to support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Clearly a good user who can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' haven't run across him/her but seems qualified.
'''Support''' From what I have seen of him, he is very even-tempered and responsible in his actions and words.  He is an ideal candidate for a mop! -''
'''Support'''Looks like a great candidate to me, won't abuse the tools and will be an asset to the admin staff.<br/>
'''Support'''. Good answers, excellent editor. --
'''Support''' I have faith that this user won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I can't see any problems with his history.
'''Support''' experienced and capable, likely to make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Well reasoned level headed editor. <b><font color="green">
I weakly support this nomination. The reason for my "weak support" is because I came across [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Leana Risa]], which was an MfD where you nominated a newish user's user page for deletion when it wasn't even worth deleting. You had previously [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALeana_Risa&diff=159627746&oldid=159502212 prodded the user page and it was declined]. However, my reason for ''supporting'' this nomination is because you are a good user, and should be an admin, but I hope you'll take more care when MfD'ing or prodding newish/new users' user pages.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' have no worries about the tools being abused and this user acts in a civil manner
'''Support''' User has a good track record; I think they would make a find admin.
oppose - due to edit wars, states that he has been in them. this is not a candidate for admin. give the admin position and who knows  what he will do with it. --
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' I can't wait until this user becomes an admin.--
'''Yep'''.  Looks like a good one. Polite, consistent contributor.
'''Support'''; very strong candidate.  Seems to have the right temperament for the job, and already has quite a bit of experience.
'''Support''', --
'''Support''' Great user, I've seen his good work many times.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' extremely strong candidate. I'm particularly impressed by his dedication to getting OR out of articles on classical music.
'''Trogdor Strong Support'''. I am Heimstern's admin coaching (back from Esperanza times) mentor, and I definitely think that Heimstern has demonstrated great progress in our time together (even though we didn't do all that much). Heimstern shows an understanding of policy, clearly knows his CSD, AIV, etc. He's a great contributor to articles, and he knows how to handle himself in sticky situations. I have no doubts that Heimstern will be a great admin. '''
'''Support''' seems like a great user. '''
'''Support''' per record of good contributions in mainspace, vandalfighting, overall participation.
'''Support''' How can you get a bad feeling with this guy? [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' great nom and answers to questions all good.  Decent vandal whacker, I'm fully confident this user will ''make Wikipedia a better place''.
'''Support''' I can't see how you could oppose this editor - a fantastic all-round editor. Great answers to the questions as well.
'''Support''' for the multitude of excellent reasons set out in the nomination as to why this nomination should succeed.
''Herr Läufer, ich '''stütze''' Sie sehr gerne.'' :) &mdash;
'''Support''' A good editor and a great addition to Wikipedia's editors indeed. You have my support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini</font>]]
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' I'd like to see more main space edits to one particular article than 41,[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Heimstern&site=en.wikipedia.org] but everything else seems fine and he appears to be congenial after looking over his recent edits and the history of his talk page.
I'm
'''Support''' In my conversations with Heimstern, one thing I've consistently observed is that he is very careful when making posts about controversial topics.  I believe that he would use good judgment when handling conficts and when employing administrator tools.
'''OMG yes support''' Absolutely first-class editor. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
I've seen only good stuff (and a lot of it) from Heimstern. '''
'''Support''' Looks like another good candidate, with vandal fighting and mainspace edits in order.
'''Support''' Per nom and I see no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools--
'''Support''' I see nothing but good contribs. No probs. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - I thought you already were an admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' I like his work. --
'''Support''' - has helped out well with keeping an eye on the visitations of Jacob Peters, and everything else looks good.
'''Support''' I agreed with his opinion on a few discussions, which I think is a good sign of being ready for adminship.
'''Support''' great user, should be an asset to the team. Durin, I got to say, great nom! -
'''Support''' per nom &mdash;

'''Support''' Vandal fighters are always needed. '''
'''Support''', lots of good editors on RfA right now.
'''Support''' as per above :). ''
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support''' good editor, also A Durin nom, I haven't seen one of those in a while
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' a sound editor with proven good judgement.
'''Support''' I hateses the vandalses. I likes the vandalses fighter. 'umble too.
'''Support''' <s> because he enjoys classical music. </s> While this editor's main focus isn't article writing, I'm pleased to see that he does participate in it, both in writing from scratch, as well as contributing to existing articles and perhaps most relevant for admins, interacting with other users in the article talk space to seek consensus. I'm also glad to see that he has experience in a variety of areas, seems willing and able to combat vandalism, and keeps a cool head. Therefore, I choose to support. --
'''Support''' - not seen Heimstern around, but I trust Durin's judgement, and convincing nomination.
'''YES''' per well-researched nomination. [[User talk:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong Jeffrey]]
'''Support''' -- Like [[User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Mordecai Salleh]], I also appreciate Durin's research and presentation of this candidate -- it's a good example for others. --
'''Support''' excellent nomination for excellent candidate.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Unterstützung''' ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' He's already there. If he spends all his admin time fighting vandalism, that's fine by me.
'''Support''', no problems here.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to be worthy of the tools. '''''
'''Support'''.
No issues.
'''Neutral''' &bull; Decent looking editor, but something just gives me a bad feeling about them.  It wouldn't be very fair to oppose over just a "bad feeling', though, so Neutral it is.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' Heimstern's response to my question bothers me: either he doesn't appear to   know how to set aside personal time for himself when working on Wikipedia matters (which is not a failing unique to him) & can suggest he may suffer premature burnout; ''or'' he has little interest in directly improving the content of Wikipedia. I don't know enough about this user to say more than this, so I'm limiting myself to just offering this observation for further discussion. --
'''Beat the nom support'''  Definitely appears to be a good editor and someone unlikely to abuse the tools '''''
'''I-really-did-beat-you-Majorly support''' - dedicated user, won't abuse tools, very helpful, always on IRC.
'''Support''' as per Majorly's nomination above. --'''
'''Support''' of course. Excellent user/vandalfighter.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''[[Ebola]] support'''
'''Support''', because I trust '''[[User:Majorly|<font color="blue">Majorly</font>]]''''s nomination. And other reasons, such as the fact even though the user failed to pass their RfA at the start of December they still kept on editing. In fact, that month was their biggest in terms of number of edits for them ever! Though the numbers did drop significantly in the couple of months against. But that is no reason whatsoever to vote against them. We are better off having an admin who only does even just one good edit per day than not having them. Besides, they are obviously far more active than that at the moment anyway.
'''Support''' The user is an excelent vandal fighter who needs the extra tools.--
'''Support''' I supported last time, and see no reason not to do so this time around.
'''Support''' again.  Only concern last time was time on the project, and now it's doubled. --
'''Support'''. Last 500 contributions are very heavy on administrative work. Well qualified.
<nowiki>{{subst:RFA Cliche|1}}</nowiki> --
'''Support''' A solid contributor, this editor; no problems here.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. The impression I've got from reading what Heligoland has had to say in various corners of Wikispace is that he's a sensible bloke. I'd happily trust him with a block button and a key to the bit bucket on that basis alone. But there's more. Those who like edit counts should be impressed, those who must have article writing can take a peek at [[Arbroath]], which is not so bad (the article that is, not the town), and those who need a convincing rationale have been given one. Spam is a problem (I like how he says "dealing with spam" rather than the more glamorous and misleading "fighting spam") and this seems to be just the man to help sort it out.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' a very sensible candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good spam/vandal fighter as well as great contributer.
'''Support''' per above. I wish bureaucrats could speedily [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]] RfAs. ''
'''Support''' Hasn't been that long since the last RfA, but it looks like this candidate is surely qualified to be an admin now. '''

'''Cliché support'''. This guy's already an admin, right? Seriously, he may not have been around long enough last time but now he's clearly got more than enough experience. No hesitation. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Every time I've ever seen Heligo in a discussion, he's always managed to bring some light or new information into it. Not only a valuable editor, but a calm, levelheaded one at that. It would be insane not to give him the mop.
'''Support''' per candidate's record, nom, and a great many of the above comments.
'''Support''' Great user; always nice to see in discussion pages and XFd's ~
'''Support''' Good user hopefully soon a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
-
'''Support''' great user, won't abuse the tools and could certainly use them. '''
'''Support''', the epitome of [[WP:COOL]]. Excellent candidate. --'''
'''Support'''.  Nearly invariably, I appreciate whenever Heligo contributes to a discussion.  I see no reason not to hand over the mop.  —
With kind regards <b>
'''Support''' Am convinced he'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' fine contributor and all round great person (also does anti-spam work, which I believe we need more admins to do)
'''Yes please.''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' great user, I can't see anything to suggest they aren't ready to be an admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Amazing user - supported him last time. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - Very good friendly editor with a good knowledge of policy shown throughout Wiki talk pages. <sup>
'''Support''' - knows what he's doing.
He has great experiance and time, second time a charm.  'Nuff said.
'''Hang on, I thought....support''' - great editor.
'''Support''', very much.  Opposed last time, saying come back in a few months. I've seen nothing but good things since then, so happy to support.  Again, random point - I've been to [[Heligoland]].  You can buy cheap fags.
'''Support''' Great user. Was neutral last time per lack of time spent, but that's not a problem anymore. All the best! <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Absolutely. --
'''Support''' was about to last time, but glad to see the candidate is back... and stronger for it.
'''Support''' defintiely qualified. Great article work. -
'''Support''', excellent vandal fighter. Would be a welcome addition to AIV.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor. Will make a good admin.
Wow. Of course. I was planning to nominate him for adminship soon. This one is a responsible user and shows a good understanding of the policies and the guidelines as well. Keep up the good work! &mdash;
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around.  Good editor, level-headed and all that.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I thought he was one already.
'''Support'''. Civil, trustworthy, plenty of experience. --
'''Support''' per nom.  --
'''Support''' Without question.--
'''Support''' Did so last time, thumbs up again. --
'''Strong Support''' You have addressed our concerns from your last RFA. You are still an incredible user. '''
'''Support''' The user knows blocking policy very well in my opinion. He knows the difference between a ''ban'' and a ''block'', something that all admins should know. We admins ''don't'' have the authority to ban a user, only to issue a preventative block. Admins don't have the authority to be banning IPs, we can only block them. We also must keep in mind that not all IPs are permenent. In addition, I like how Heligoland knew what the process was for copyright infringement. Sure its backlogged, perhaps heligoland will be able to assist with that, to me thats a case where we need more admins. I believe that this user can be trusted to wield the mop, and we must always remember, ''adminship is not a big deal''! ——
'''Support'''. STILL an outstanding contributor who will do the tools proud. ;) –&nbsp;
'''Support''' Even taking into consideration the oppose comments, I'm favourably impressed. --
'''Support''' Put my faith in this user. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
Fanatically Support - Very Much A Suitable candidaet --
'''Strong support''' I very much appreciate all his spam-fighting work for this project. --
'''Support''' user has done great work, and is well qualified.--
'''I can't believe I didn't see this rfa earlier - support'''
'''Support''' well rounded contributions, been here a while, and as always we need more administrators. --
'''Support''' [[Image:Flag of Helgoland.svg|25px]]
I'm
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' - he has all the makings of a great admin; he'd be an asset.
'''Support''', really deserves mop as we need more admins.
'''Support''' - happy to give him my first vote. Looks like someone who's already doing a super job, even without the tools. —
'''Support''' - has my full support.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support:''' absolutely. Firstly, his devotion to the main article namespace is very impressive. Even more impressive is his external work in fighting spam, of which I could see why adminship would be useful for him. Overall, an extremely good candidate for adminship. -
'''Support''' great spam fighter and would make a trustworthy admin--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' again.
'''Support''' I believe this candidate will benefit the project well with the advanced tools. His answer to Q1 really caught my attention. May "''[[The Force (Star Wars)|The Force]]''" be with you.
'''Support''', let's just give ihm teh tools.--
'''Support''' -- ''
You're-not-an-admin? '''support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good-Editor..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''A llama's support''' &ndash;
'''Support''' changed from neutral (below) :) --
'''Support''', but where on earth is Heligoland??
'''Oppose''' per behavior in last RFA and too great a reliance on templates. User seems to have some whack-a-mole tendencies that I would like to see corrected before I support. Actually ''engaging'' users with dialogue seems to get best results. Also, there's a disturbing attitude toward copyright violations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pre-eclampsia&diff=prev&oldid=86566715 here], where he asks that the claim be substantiated before the potential violation is removed, and seems to claim ownership over the IP user who eventually turned out to be right. -- ''
'''Oppose, strongly''' per Nae'blis. Suggesting that cases of copyright infringements ''need'' to be handled through an infallibly backlogged queue of wiki-process, especially in the face of a specific take-down request, is absolutely appalling. The user clearly identified the plagiarized sections, the name of the book, and the page numbers. The fact that the text of the book is not available on the internet is even greater evidence that the copyright holder does not condone unauthorized reproductions of the book, as that would impair their ability to sell the book. If I understand correctly, you would prefer that Wikipedia continued using the material for 2-3 weeks, then draw straws to see who should pay [http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Obstetrics-Gynecology-James-Drife/dp/0702017752/sr=11-1/qid=1171401304/ref=sr_11_1/002-5044135-9548016 $58.95 plus s/h] to confirm that the complainant is telling the truth? It would be easier and legally safer to assume good faith, take the person's word for it, and start over with original content. In the end, it might even make for a more enjoyable read. —
'''Strong oppose'''. Purely on the copyright basis. Remove ''then'' bicker has to be the way. Not getting that exposes a serious misunderstanding of the importance of copyright. So it was three months ago. Where's your diff that demonstrates that he now gets it?
'''Neutral''' good user, but all the banging on the RfA-sucks drum after his previous nomination didn't impress me overmuch.
Per above.
'''Neutral'''. We had a disagreement over [[WP:ABUSE]] (see[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Abuse_reports&offset=20070111&action=history here], [[Wikipedia talk:Abuse reports#Official v Unofficial]] and [[User talk:Snoutwood#WP:AbRep]]). During this exchange, Heligoland changed the policy of WP:ABUSE to read that that system was unofficial and couldn't ban users. I reverted the edit, saying that that wasn't the case. He reverted me, saying that I was reverting against consensus and that I should see his comments on the talk page, which confused me as a) he posted his comments on the talk page after the revert, so there wasn't any way that I could have possibly read them, and so b) his opinion hadn't been discussed, so there couldn't be a consensus for his view. While no one's perfect, I found the whole exchange very frustrating, and that combined with his apparent misunderstanding of both consensus and the blocking policy (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heligoland&diff=100078673&oldid=100067158]) cause me to vote neutral in this RfA.
'''Neutral, learning toward support''' per above neutral points. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' but near Oppose per Nae'blis. Questionable knowledge also here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:HMS_Endurance.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=85245817] despite suitable image available since Sept. [http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=hms+endurance&l=5] and clear wiki-process [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:HMS_Endurance.jpg].
'''Support'''. Very reasonable request, very experienced in category space where he intends to use the admin tools most of the time, last 500 contributions don't show any problems, and has a very kickass username.

'''Support''' I'll give a support on the basis that once you get more involved with admin tasks and using the tools then your user Talk editcount will skyrocket past the >500 edits as of this timestamp.
'''Support''' - A promising candidate who does lot of helpful work for Wikipedia such as category sorting and article re-naming. Also seems to be well experienced in Wikipedia policies and admin work. <font color="red">
'''Support''' -As per Grandmasterka. -- ''
'''Support''' convincing nomination. I'll always support one who works on categories and does his work well. Nice user name, by the way. :-) —
'''Support''' I have no doubt you will use the tools wisely and effectively. --

'''Support'''. A generally good editor, friendly, helpful. I think he could use those admin tools very skillfully.
'''Support'''. ANYONE with the experience that wants to help unclog [[WP:CFD]] has my full support. I have been very frustrated with this in the past. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' Candidate is good, even with the little [[WP:CfD]] experience as other users have pointed out.
Looks good to me.
Great editor. Have tag-teamed with him a few times through [[CAT:U]]. No worries at all that he'll abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' the opponents' reasons aren't strong enough to oppose, IMO, and his experience is sufficient for adminship.
Someone who's willing to help with backlogs?! Grab 'em quick before they change their mind ;)
'''Support''' per criteria set out on my user page.
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Second that. —
'''Support''' My first response was 'hell no' a category-geek not a well-rounded wikipedian. But then, he works at an important job where no-one else wants to work, why should we ask him to go and compete with the FA crowd, or be an also-run voter at AfD. Keep up the good work, and if the mop helps, here let's chuck you one.--
'''Support:''' As in "I thought he was one" support. Use the tools well (like you won't). &nbsp;<b>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Steptrip_2|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">''~''</font>]]<font face="Vivaldi" size="3">

'''Support''' Changed from neutral - trust is all that matters.
'''Support''' looks experienced enough.--
'''Support''', candidate is qualified and seems to be unlikely to ab/misuse the tools. He will make an excellent administrator, I'm sure. --
'''Weak support'''. I do advise that he start slowly as he gains experience with admin tools.
'''Support''', seems very unlikely to misuse or abuse admin tools, good contributions. <span style="color:darkred"><b>*Vendetta*</b> <sub>
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', concerns raised below are trivial and do not warrant opposition. Candidate has ample experience.
'''Support'''. Thanks for answering my optional question. I'm still a bit worried that your attitude towards CFD closes is too simplistic, so I want to urge you to move with caution and give full explanations when you close a controversial discussion; but I see no sign that you will abuse the tools, so I support. (Man, I would love a taco--but you shouldn't consume Hemlock, whether it's in a tortilla or a drink! That stuff's poisonous!)
'''Support''', need more common sense at CFD. —
--
'''Support''' - Seems like a fine candidate..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. Can't imagine this user imploding Wikipedia with the admin tools, and anyone willing to take on the thankless task of [[WP:CFD]] is just fine by me. Plus, his username is made of win. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''', anyone that wishes to help at CFD is good to go by me.--
'''Support''' I highly doubt Hemlock Martinis will mess up the 'pedia as an admin, therefore I'm supporting. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' seems like a good admin candidate.  no reason to think that he would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' absolutely.  Adminship is no big deal, and he knows his stuff.
'''Support''' I see nothing that leads me to believe that he would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - There is no question of trustworthiness in the opposition.  Hemlock understands policy, some more than others. --
'''Support''' for fine answers and good edit history. Adminship is no big deal. &#10154;
'''Support''' - Satisfied. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' Unless your explanation to After Midnight really surprises, I don't see having the experience necessary to succeed in helping with CfD closures, the area in which you wish to specialize.  Nice name, though, :) and I admire those open to recall; I'll be happy to support in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - weak answer to Q1, lowish project space, low talk page and user talk page edits.
'''Oppose''' per Addhoc.  I'd like to see a broader range of experience.
'''Oppose''' - Due to lack of experience and weak answers--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per answer to my optional question. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I think that your focus is a little too single issue and your edit count in general and particularly at Wikipedia (148) is not broad enough for my support at this time.--
Again, the answers are not necessarily what we need. What we need is your take on Wikipedia, not categorisation-it does not describe you, a lá VirtualSteve. (note:you seem to contradict yourself when you say that Wikipedia has a NPOV, yet you talk about viewpoints.)
'''Oppose''' Insufficient project space experience, only 158 project edits, and 9 project talk edits. Needs more community participation. Has not been very active for the last 5 months. <small>
'''Oppose''' Not enough project space or project space discussion participation. I'm also troubled by his answer to Q4 which implies that he is inclined to "shoot from the hip" instead of interpreting and moderating policy based consensus. When need admins that are familiar with policy and how to apply it, not admins that make decisions from the gut.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Wikipedia space count is too low, as is edit summary usage for minor edits. Unimpressive answers. Please keep up the good work and try again in a few months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' appears to lack some of the community communication skills necessary for the mop. &nbsp;
'''Regretful oppose''' Hemlock is a great editor, but I see no contributions to any community/administrator noticeboards, and only one report to [[WP:AIV]] (where the directions weren't followed, the anon was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=119895844 reported] after only one warning). This, coupled with only 143 edits across ''all'' talk namespaces leads me to the conclusion that Hemlock has not taken part in enough actual discussion with other members of the community. As an administrator, you will take a lot of crap from other users, and you need to know your way around here in order to effectively explain and defend yourself when the situation arises. You are on your way to becoming an admin, but at the moment I cannot support you. I'm sorry. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Oppose''' Self nomination, implies arrogance and not enough support/ trust from the Wikipedia community.
Per Xoloz and Answer to Q4 - <b>
Like the above, I would prefer some more experience from this candidate.
'''Neutral''' I see both sides on this one. I see that this user has done lots of work with categories, but I think he could use some more Wikipedia namespace edits. I'm split.
'''Neutral''' I've decided that my concerns about this candidate, combined with his lack of WikiProject endorsement, preclude support at this time.
'''Neutral''' Great future prospect but needs just a bit more experience as noted by others above before I can support. --
'''Strong support''' as nominator. I have no concerns whatsoever about his abilities or his attitude, and feel that a be-mopped Henrik will only be of benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Henrik knows policy well and as Neil says, he's a helpful chap - I'm sure he'll be fine with a couple of extra buttons.
Sure. Well-versed in policy and a trustworthy editor. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Very good user. Unlikely to do anything wrong--
'''Support''' Good editor, doubt he will abuse tools. <b><font color="E32636">
Experienced editor, will help with backlogs, which I know the current admins will appreciate. '''Support''' for sure!
Seems a good bloke. Yes, '''support'''. --
'''Support''' I like his answers.  He's clearly found ways to contribute despite not being "an outstanding article writer," and I'm impressed by his wanting to help automate [[WP:DYK|DYK]].
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support,''' if with a tiny hesitation. My impression from encounters with the candidate is that he's very cool, calm and reasonable, but...I do wish it was possible to see how he handles himself under real stress, rather than through the tiny disagreements that he links to in his response to question 3. (Not sure what they're even supposed to be about—Peter Isotalo and Gillis do quarrel about the [[Vasa (ship)]], but I would hardly say that Henrik gets involved.) I do see the point about editing in uncontroversial corners of the encyclopedia, though. I suppose I can hardly expect Henrik to pick a fight just to give me an illustration of how adept he is at calming it... (<subliminal egging-on>Come on, pick a fight! Do it!</subliminal egging-on>) I do have a good feeling about Henrik's use of the tools, and no reason to suspect he harbors secret depths of unreasonableness. That'll have to do.
'''Support''' I appreciate your ideas about AFC and your comment that you need to gain additional experience. With that attitude I think you can be trusted to use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' Looks good, and we'll be needing all the good admins we can get come November and December.
'''Support''' [[Eternal September|Endless November]] is right around the corner.
'''Support''' Always nice to see someone who actually wants to work through the constant sludge of backlog.
'''Support''', well answered questions and good editor. Good luck! —
Fine user.
'''Support''' haven't had the pleasure to run across him/her, but he seems to know his/her stuff.
'''Support''' — great contribs :-) --'''
'''Support''' This user knows Wikipedia policy well and is also a very civil user as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per Neil and Henrik's contribs.. you do know your stuff!
'''Support''' Good user.  I look forward to seeing [[Vasa (ship)]] at FAC in the not-too-distant future. --
'''support''' per JayHenry.
'''Support''' - sufficient edits in all types, reasonable answers to questions, multi-lingual editor, no issues.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Actually seems to want the mop and bucket to do mop and bucket tasks. All signs appear to affirm purity of heart and calmness of demeanor.
'''Support''' From the excellent diff provided by Neil in the nomination and a review of contributions and talk page - a civil helpfull editor who has deomnstrated policy understanding and won't go heavy with the delete button. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', per the great comprehensive nom.
'''Support''' as per above. --
per nom. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
I'm
'''Support''', no valid reason not to.
'''Support''' Per nom and satisfactory answers.
Why not? Good luck!--
'''Support''' our Scandinavian friends! -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--per nom. Rock on.
'''Support''' per Neil. I trust his judgment. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient share of actual conrtibution of wikipedia content. I don't think we need professional police here. `'
Candidate has mentioned the deletion backlogs, but only as part of a general "alphabet soup" of policies (candidate's phrasing) –
As nominator. ++
'''Support''' - Sure. A good contributor. --
'''Support''', long-time trusted meta admin, completely sound. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
Support.  I just recently encountered Herby for the first time at the spam blacklist.  Anyone willing the help out there is more than welcome, and given his checkuser status on several other projects, I think he can easily be trusted with the mop here even if he doesn't fit neatly into the mold we've created for admin candidates.--
'''Support'''.  Trusted users are welcome admins.
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
'''Support.''' I know Herby only from spam discussions, but as we see from the above he has an excellent record. I think it is useful for more of our trusted anti-spam editors to have access to admin tools. It is also logical that we weigh contributions in the other wikis when considering if someone is experienced enough.
'''Strongest possible support.''' -- I've worked closely with Herby in the course of bringing spam from en.wikipedia to meta for blacklisting as well as on whitelisting requests. As a Meta admin, Herby is the backbone of the Meta spam blacklist. Herby is diligent and has a very keen instinct for sorting bad faith requests from good faith requests and I've never seen him bite a good faith editor once. In fact, I've never seen him bite a bad faith spammer, either, nevertheless he's ''always'' pleasantly firm in protecting Wikimedia projects. As for why he's requesting adminship, there's real benefit in having an admin dealing with spam simultaneously and seemlessly on both en.wikipedia and meta. Blacklist and whitelist requests come into our local pages that really should go to Meta (usually due to cross-wiki spam issues) and vice versa. We all really need Herby to get the admin bit here on en.wikipedia. For a sample of his work and temperament, skim [[:meta:Talk:Spam blacklist]]. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''', I've seen Herby's work on meta as an admin and here as an editor and have complete confidence that giving him the tools will benefit the project.  --
I've interacted with Herby on Commons and Meta; I trust him as an administrator implicitly. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' a pleasant, hardworking editor, with experience on many Wikimedia projects. Cares deeply for everywhere he works, and everyone he works with. Is a friendly person any user can turn to for advice or help. There isn't much better than Herbythyme. Good luck! '''
'''Support''', Herby has been a valuable contributor to all the projects he's involved in; and I have faith he understands policies and procedures on the English Wikipedia as well.  I have the utmost confidence and peace of mind that Herby will fulfill his admin role with a high standard of quality, civility and sensitivity.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Herby is a dedicated and hard working contributer, the best of the best. -
'''Support''' per nomination. Giving Herbythyme admin tools will be an asset to the project. --
'''Support''' per above.  (Where are the standard questions?)
'''Strongest Support''' - Absolutely super Commons admin, knows policy well, is hard working and above all, kind to everyone. I trust Herby implicitly here on en.wp.; anything he gets up to with the sysop bit can only be for the benefit of the wiki. Interested in dealing with spam? Bring him on already! -
'''Support''' I can't see the downside of giving the extra tools to a user who's accumulated this much experience and trust from multiple wiki communitites. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' As another member of the select "multi-project checkuser club", I can honestly and enthusiastically recommend him as a man of of dedication, good faith, and hard work. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>
'''Strong Support''' An excellent Wikimedian. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
No brainer here. ~
'''Support''' - the spam blacklist could use another mop and Herbythyme has proven himself worthy on enough other projects.  That earns my trust. <font face="Verdana">
'''Very Strong Support''' This user has proved himself to be a reliable admin on other wikis. Also, though I have never had communication with him here, I have had very positive communication with him on Wikimedia Commons. Good luck!--
'''Strong Support''' One of the most level headed people that I've known on the various Wikimedia projects. Kind and thoughtful also. He will be an excellent addition to the admin team.
'''Support'''. I'm happy with what I've seen of him on other projects.
'''Support''' I don't know this user well, but I've heard him/her as a checkuser on English Wikibooks, Commons, and Meta, but not yet an administrator on English Wikipedia. This user needs the mop here as well as other projects.
'''Support''' - Not your everyday request, but well justified, someone I trust based on what else they're doing and where, and it makes sense.  Mop 'em.
'''Support'''.  Appears dedicated, knowledgeable and even-keeled from my observation of the candidate on Commons.  Is also amazingly good-tempered given the amount of slogging through administrative tasks he does. No trust issues whatsoever.
'''Support''' Incredibly impressive CV.--
'''Strong Support''' I know Herby from ''many'' other projects where we work together and my experiences with him have shown him to be a hardworking and trustful person.  He would be a great addition to the sysop team here. '''
'''I thought he was an admin here because he's an admin at Quote and Commons''' '''
'''Support'''. Herby is a great guy and will be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
Holy canoly, he's not an admin?
'''Strong Support'''. ;)--
'''Support'''. Clearly has enough experience, absolutely no indication whatsoever he would misuse the tools. My only real interaction with Herby was during a thorny vandalism incident in which a shock image was added to a page and wouldn't disappear despite local deletion. After a few minutes of discussion at AN/I, someone suggested it had been uploaded to Commons. I requested action over there and still haven't forgotten how quickly and efficiently a certain admin responded. He'd get my !vote any day :)
Strongly. I still remember [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MER-C/archives/1&diff=prev&oldid=65766097 the early days], and we need more admins to deal with spam (and those vanity/attack/nonsense pages).
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' <small>x</small> 2<sup>10</sup> <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
This isn't my normal admin candidate here, as Herby has effectively demonstrated that he is suitable for the tools, after gaining much trust from other projects.  I believe that he will be useful in the spam detecting and vandalism patrol areas, as I've seen him doing such work on Commons at the very least.  While the focus for most candidates seems to be article writing and contributing to encyclopedic content, Herby has enough to deal with on other projects already, and therefore makes the article writing point moot.  With the basis of that, and possibly more reasons; '''support'''. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
Unique RfA, to be sure, but still an '''Easy Support'''.
'''Support''' Adminthyme ;) <b>
'''Of course''' ---- <strong>
'''Support''' Given Lar's word and the rest of the recommendations, even I'm impressed. and I'm typically very skeptical of the "special circumstances require adminship" argument.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''', strongly. The time is definitely Herbythyme :) Ideal candidate ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' Great user, nothing bad to say at all about him! Does great work on any Wikimedia project, no reason why he '''shouldn't''' be an admin here. '''100% SUPPORT!!''' --<font color="Green">
'''Support''', although a mention of his old account on his user page might be helpful (but I've discussed that with him before) - it's not a big deal.  Definitely trustable.
'''Support''' I have seen him doing a great job over at commons. I know Wikipedia will benefit from giving him the administrative tools. --
--
'''Support''' A very strong candidate who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' - indeed I offered to nominate Herby myself. Very experienced user involved detecting and combating cross-project vandalism. His work in that arena and the general advantage to Commons admins of being able to see deleted en.wiki image descriptions give him a clear use for the tools here. He has my complete confidence. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Unconditional support!
'''Support''', good candidate and trustworthy Meta/Commons admin. --
'''Support'''; an exemplar.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
Per Commons interactions (yes, I know...)&nbsp;
'''Support'''. A hardworking and trustworthy admin on Commons and Meta; giving him the sysop bit here will benefit all three projects greatly. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' - No good reason not do, particularly with this user's record of trust. I hope the line about not deleting the main page anytime soon was a joke, though. :)

--
I'm
'''Strong Support''' as per nominator --
Flexibility and willingness to compromise are good admin features. -
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Very strong support''' Haven't seen this request until now. Sorry, that I'm supporting so late. :( Regards, —
'''Support''' nominator notwithstanding...
A trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' I will stupidly admit to being a pile-on here but, per all above, I can't imagine him being untrustworthy with the buttons.
'''Strong support''' I personally first came across Herbythyme in Wikimedia Commons a few months back, where he offered me friendly, helpful advice. Having illustrated skill, experience, dedication, and all the prized qualities we look for in an administrator, I will very gladly support. --
'''Support''' - just look at all those positions of responsibility elsewhere! Obviously a trusted user! Good luck! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' -- very good sysop on Meta, trusted Wikimedian. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Thogo.  He's a great admin on Meta, and should be the same here.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' He needs the mop here, too. --
'''Support''' Herby is not a typical run-of-the-mill administrator, and he is not a jack-of-all-trades. He is, simply put, one of the best vandalism fighters that wikimedia has ever seen. He cuts through vandalism like a freaking hurricane. People ask what he would do in this or that situation, but I say that those questions are moot, herby will never get involved in that kind of stuff. He will watch your back, protecting the gate so that we can all get on with our daily business: flaming each other and occasionally writing encyclopedia content. --
'''Support''' Although I'm playing add-on, I fully trust that this candidate will not abuse the tools in any way.-
'''Support''' I am usually not remarkably favorably disposed to supporting the RfAs of candidates who express a strong interest in partaking of muscular anti-vandal activities, but Herbythyme is surely not a user for whom any such concern should be relevant, and I am, of course, pleased to offer pile-on support.
'''Yay.'''
'''Support''', This seems right. -
'''Support''' - Apparently, the candidate is not busy enough. No worries, we have plenty of work for everybody! <small>In before the win!</small>
'''Neutral''' like Switzerland
'''Support''' and three time's the charm.
'''Strong support''', good luck Hex, hope you make it this time! :) '''
'''Good luck''' --
--
Good luck! Hope you get it this time:)--
'''Support''' - this really fills me with the urge to say, "[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]".  Your history convinces me that you wouldn't abuse or misuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Strong support''' I was neutral last time purely on editcountitis, which, as I've learned now, was a stupid reason not to support. This is a quality editor.
'''Support''' I always take a look at a users contributions, read the nom and their answers to the questions before I make up my mind. That said, the low number of edits to [[WP:AIV]] does give pause for thought, but I don’t think this user will abuse the tools.--
'''Support'''. (Very) long-term editor with positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I see no reason to suspect he will misuse the tools.
Won't abuse the tools
What W.marsh said.
'''Support'''. --
'''Very strong support''' I've made my thoughts about Hex known on his previous RfAs, so I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say, he is someone I trust completely. He is a great contributor, and it will be a proud day for WP when he is made an admin. I say with all honesty that I can't think of any current non-admins to whom I would want to give the tools more than Hex. --
'''Strong Support.''' For unabashed realism. Has a no-shit attitude that suits admins well.
'''Support''' I could not find any reason to oppose when I went through Hex's contributions. I like the general attitude and sounds very sensible. Hope this rfa reverses the edit-counting trend, at least temporarily. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A couple of good edits daily (admin-related) or not is a net gain to the project.  I see no reason to withhold the tools.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Strong support''', without reservation or hesitation. Long overdue. Intelligent guy, good overall attitude towards the project. This is the kind we want as admin. Low-profile editing is absolutely not a problem with this user, please don't fall for that baseless [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. —&nbsp;'''[&#8239;<!-- -->
Intelligent fellow, good chap. Will do well.
'''support''' - I'd love to see a precedent of someone getting in _without_ an astronomical edit count. (bet anything this RFA is doomed, though) --
'''Support''' A fine editor. No problems here. Glad to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I agree with TwoOars' note on Lradrama's oppose. Basically, this user has been active plenty long enough to understand how to use the admin tools. He may not be the most active user, but semi-active admins don't do any harm to Wikipedia; every little helps. There's absolutely no evidence that this user would abuse the admin tools.
I got to thinking about this. Initially, I knew that 2000 edits was on the low end or admins, and I didn't see much activity in any adminsitrative areas. I had concerns about the amount of experience he's had here. I've read [[User:Ral315/WTHN]] before and I gave it another read. ''...trust that the user will not use the tools for misdeeds.'' That's all that's needed, really. I know that there is a difference between intentionally abusing and unintentionally misusing the tools. I haven't seen any evidence that he will intentionally abuse the tools; no one's brought up any incivility or anything like that. I also haven't seen that he won't unintentionally misuse the tools; he hasn't been active in administrative areas and don't really know which, if any, administrative tasks he'll perform; that fails to demonstrate experience. Still, I don't see that he would dive into administrative tasks before knowing what he's doing and that if he did, I don't see that he wouldn't be receptive to someone who said, ''Hey, that's not what we do; we do it '''that''' way''. After all of this, I feel alright giving him my '''support'''.
'''Support''' just like the last time. ~
'''Support'''. Edit count (especially today's inflated expectations) is a poor way to judge suitability for admin tools.
Inactive, active, or hyperactive, it's still correct use of the tools, damnit. '''
'''Support''' I don't think he'll abuse the buttons. Then again, I'm afraid they'll get dusty. ˉˉ<sup>
Seems to be a solid candidate. '''
'''Support'''. Nothing in this editor's history indicates to me that he will abuse the tools, and I would prefer that Wikipedia avoid editcountitis when it comes to RFA. The clear implication from [[User:Rspeer/Editcount inflation|Rspeer's analysis]] is that RFA will, by January 2008, require the average user to have 10,000 edits under his/her belt for a successful adminship request: a ridiculous amount of editing in order to gain tools which are supposed to be "no big deal". <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - I see that you have good intetions and look for the positive even with a bit of a chip on your shoulder.  Bottom line, there is nothing in your history to me to indicate that I could not trust you with elevated privs.  I hope you make it.  --'''<font color="black">[[user:BlindEagle|Blind]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse the tools.--

'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''. Common sense is much more important than edit counts. I think Hex has plenty enough experience to use the admin tools productively. And I don't agree with any opposes that say he doesn't have a use for the tools. As long as his use of the tools benefits the encyclopedia, how often he uses them does not matter. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''.  Though lacking in edit rate, they are a quality editor.  '''
'''Support''' A good editor over a long period, and can be trusted to be a good admin. How often he edits is up to him.--
'''Support''' Quality over quantity.
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to oppose. --
Has been here since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20030501140329&limit=20&target=Hex April 2003]. That's definately long enough for me.--
'''Support'''. Good job telling the truth in your self-nomination statement, instead of playing Wikipolitics and pretending that you're perfectly fine with the results of your previous RfAs. -
'''Support'''. A long time user that wouldn't abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal, and being active or not shouldn't be a factor. '''''
'''Support''' per Nautica. I'm sure he will make positive contributions when he can.
'''Support''' E.M. having the tools would probably do a small amount in a positive way. And who knows, maybe it'll turn out to be a large amount.
'''Support''' Edit count doesn't account for the time spent ''reading'' the encyclopedia, and a long term trusted user who feels they could use the tools should have them. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins&oldid=1449021 Looking back at how it used to be done] and how different the process has become now is illuminating. <strong>
'''Support''' Trusted user for a number of years. Editcountitis is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' as per Riana and concerns raised last time are cleared now.
'''Support''' - there's no reason not to promote - low chance of tools being abused, high levels of knowledge. Edit count is a complete disinterest to me, it's simple and really easy to make several hundred edits in a day using all manner of tools, not doing so is no reason to Oppose, just as doing so is no reason to Support. Clicking buttons on programs doesn't generate the sort of knowledge that can be picked from from quiet, unassuming, genuine editing for many months or years.
'''Support''' a candidate with the chutzpah to actually point out the obvious to RfA: Editcountitis is bad, many admin questions are traps, and it's okay to call a vote a vote.
'''Support''': My opinion hasn't changed since I supported him in March. --
'''Very Strong Support''' If he isn't going to use them that much (per the oppose arguments) then there is precious little chance he is going to abuse them either. I also like the attitude, and believe that a sense of humour is essential in dealing with the wiki-stress that adminship can bring. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)<small>(uprate support
'''Support'''.  I ''still'' trust this user not to screw up with the tools.  Also, anybody who has been around longer than I have and not burned out is clearly in it for the long haul.  —
'''Support'''. Hex is a wise individual who I have seen contribute to numerous Wiki projects with nothing but positive results. --
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  Seems as pertinent as the last time.
'''Subscribe''' Does well else-wiki, will do well here. --
'''Support'''. I had no idea that he had been around for so long and that he had so much experience. This is obviously a trustworthy and mature candidate who won't abuse the tools, so there's no reason not to support, except for editcountitis. My initial neutral vote was partially based on a misunderstanding (regarding the answer to Q1). <b>
'''Support'''. Good user, good contributions and also good demonstration of spirit and strength by not getting discouraged and keeping trying despite two unsuccessful nominations.
'''Support''', no issues.
'''Strong support''' -- smart, experienced, committed, and won't abuse the tools. And good for him for continuing to stand up regarding the current crazy RfA process. --
'''Support''', probably not a poopyface.
'''Support''', seems nothing wrong with edits. Little on the light side for number of edits but this person seems suitable enough to have an adminship.
'''Oppose''' You have only had about 500 edits since your last Rfa.  This doesn't exactly help the position of improving since a previous Rfa.  Also, per lack of all-around editing.
'''Oppose''' - Are you really active enough to become an admin? The above comment and sifting through your contribs and your edit count makes me wonder if you actually do need the tools? You've been active for a vast amount of time, and over 2,083 edits should really have been achieved by now. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' It's really just not alot of edits.  There are alot of intricacies of the encyclopedia that can only be acquired through experience, and lots of it.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I don't know if wanting to become an admin simply because the edit count required has gone up is a good reason.  Not to mention the fact that you admit to having no reason for the tools.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' In his opening comments, the candidate shows a very poor attitude that is undesirable in a position that requires one to be an exemplar in the community. Being bitter and negative about the RFA process, rather than taking criticism constructively and having the humility to admit that failed attempts may have actually been due to the candidates attributes (rather than the failings of the process) is not desirable. Your edit history is completely irrelevant if you can't demonstrate a positive, constructive attitude to adminship.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Candidate seems to be a nice chap. However, I don't see much encyclopedia-building experience other than stub creation. With some additional editing experience the candidate should be ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' VanTucky articulates my feelings very well.  Even if an editor's previous RfA's were great injustices (and I don't know, as I don't recall commenting in either of them), one would hope the editor could accept the results with grace.  The obvious irritation and touch of disdain for the community he displays are not good traits in an admin, and suggest that having the mop (which brings with its every use the real possibility of complaint) would only make the editor unhappy anyway.
'''Oppose'''. The sentiments expressed by VanTucky and Xolox sum up my feelings too. I don't think this individual has the temperament to be a good admin.
'''Neutral''' - In looking over the questions, I'm not seeing why the user ''wants'' the tools. It seems like they just want them to have them. Plus I'm not thrilled with the "short" way in which he's seemed to respond to commenters here. -
'''Oppose'''. I didn't like the bitter and resentful attitude last time round, and I still don't like it this time. I would like to point out that another candidate who chose not to answer the optional questions but did so with good grace and without showing the same hostility passed with ease (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss]]). The attitude last time (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hex_2&diff=prev&oldid=118297642], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hex_2&diff=prev&oldid=118315147], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hex_2&diff=prev&oldid=118561573], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hex_2&diff=prev&oldid=118997839]) and the [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_5#Unfair_early_closing_of_my_RfA|complaint]] against on [[User:Nichalp|Nichalp]] for doing his job left a sour taste in my mouth. Had Hex accepted that he had not conducted himself appropriately last time, I might have been willing to support. But, in my opinion the nomination speaks for itself - its tone is largely contemptuous. Its not an attitude I'm comfortable seeing in someone who proposes to exercise additional responsibilities. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - I'm afraid I have to agree with WJBscribe. Adminship, or even just being considered as a candidate, is something to embrace with open arms and to forget any negativity encountered along the path to becoming one. It's understandable if previous RfA's have left you a tad annoyed but you should build on the criticism (If there was any. Apologies I haven't read through your previous RfA's) and learn to accept and develop ''from'' it. Not against it. But those are just my interpretation's of the said "bitterness" situation.
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe, largely. I've not seen a whole lot of change from last time around & right now, there's a certain 'shortness' in your replies here. That's not really something that's desirable in an administrator and I'm concerned how that would translate in this candidate's dealings with other editors -
As per WJBscribe; the overt air of being aggrieved doesn't seem to bode well for later. ➔ This is '''
'''Oppose''' per WJB and Alison.
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe. --
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe and others above, and per my own reasons. I actually have very simple criteria for RfAs - proof of solid editing of the encyclopaedia (an FA is preferred but I have voted for editors who upgrade many articles as they perform an equally valid function), proof of ability to get on with others / show good faith / handle disputes civilly and calmly, and in the evidence presented I have seen evidence of the contrary. Adminship gives one the ability to block editors and delete (or undelete) things, and we need to know the applicant will be able to do that responsibly. While I think edit count is an absurd way to measure an editor's worth, one does need an observable and preferably recent history to be able to be judged on whether one would make an acceptable admin who will execute their duties in line with Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, in the nomination, there does not appear to be any reasons cited for running for adminship. Adminship is a service to the community, not a reward or an entitlement, and I would encourage the applicant to consider elaborating on which areas of community need he intends to assist with.
'''Neutral'''.  While this user has been around long enough to gain my trust, he doesn't have enough experience to meet my criteria.  Decent number of mainspace edits (which is what we're here to do), but I don't think I can give the blocking power to someone with 2 or fewer edits to [[WP:AIV]]. I reserve judgement until I have time to look more carefully at his contribs.
'''Neutral'''. I believe perhaps this RfA was a tad too soon, considering the edits in between. Nonetheless a great contributor, and I wouldn't hesitate to support once user has gained more experience in areas such as AIV and other admin roles.
'''Neutral''' - I'm torn on this one. Five years since account creation, closer to two years of actual editing, and most of those months were just a few edits. Focus is not very broad, experience seems limited. The garden analogy above had me leaning toward support, but VanTucky's comments brought me back here. I can't support with the current experience and level of participation, but I can't oppose for someone that I don't think would abuse the tools. '''
'''Neutral''' - would have been a support but for nagging suspicions raised by [http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=11043724&framed=y this]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support'''. <b>
'''Support''', I've worked with Hiberniantears in a difficult situation and was impressed by his thoughtfulness and resilience under stress in dealing with conflicts. Good, trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Well-balanced and thoughtful. '''''
'''Support''', I'm going through this process myself, and after looking at this user's history and contributions, I must say that I'm thoroughly impressed. Edit summary utilization for effective communication; 100% for both major and minor edits - something that is generally viewed as a desired criteria for RfA. There is no glaring disparity in editing, very evenly balanced (as much as it can be) between mainspace edits, talk, and namespace. User has the practical experience suitable to make a good administrator.
Personal interaction with Hib tells me he is fully ready and qualified for the job - '''support'''
Great Editor...definitely my turn to rubber-stamp '''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' - I'm particularly impressed with the well thought out answers to the questions, and the ability to question, find fault, and improve on himself.  Best of luck.  -
'''Support''' - sufficient experience and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - I agree with Addhoc above. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Another editor I am familiar with (in a <u>good</u> way) via AIV and other places. I agree with all of the above ''except'' Hiberniantears "gracious" acceptance - I found it merely functional. Extremely unlikely to abuse the mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Has clearly focused on feedback from last RfA.
'''Support''' Well thought answers and good usage of edit summaries. Would definitely make a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Yes'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks like a very well-qualified candidate.  --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  My opinion was neutral last time, but I've been impressed with how this editor has grown through careful attention to his opposer's criticisms, and drive to improve.  More than enough to earn my support here.
Good chap, will do well.
Great answers to questions, had a brief look over his contribs and nothing raises any massive alarm bells. ~
'''Weak Support''' - Rather low Wikipedia edit-count. If you didn't seem to know what you were talking about, I would have opposed. I do believe therefore that you're trustworthy. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
I opposed the last RfA because of this candidate's answer to Q1 and the follow-up Q4 (about his/her answer to Q1). The first paragraph of the answer to Q1 in ''this'' RfA was most pleasing, as was the rest of that answer and Q3 (which I found to be expressed in a way befitting an administrator and the experience required). An administrator with experience and the desire to work at SSP isa fantastic asset to this encyclopedia. Strong support. '''
<s>'''Support'''</s> per Daniel. Candidate seems to have taken the feedback from the last RfA to heart and worked successfully to overcome remaining doubts. Very encouraging!
'''Support''' - Seems like a nice guy, plenty of experience and I doubt he will abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' Great improvements since last time. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support.''' I liked his responses in some of the issues that are discussed on his Talk page. He seems to have a good grasp of policy, and he is methodical and courteous. In his answers to the Questions I liked that he owned up to previous misjudgments.
'''Support'''—nothing concerning turns up in recent contributions; takes feedback seriously and learns from it. --
'''Support''' As per Riana and looking feel concerns raised in last RFA appear to be cleared.
'''Support''' Looks great and I have no concerns.
Quite Detailed and well thought out answers. May I ask why you don't want to be involved in mediation or arbitrating disputes. '''Support'''--
'''Support''', doesn't seem to present any major concerns this time around. Pretty good candidate with a fairly decent amount of experience. --
'''Support''' '''
I promised I'd stay away from RfA a bit more, but this guy is just too good to not support.&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''.  I am assuming edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Shuppiluliuma&diff=prev&oldid=138054321 this] are firmly in the past; although I thought it was funny, the recipient probably didn't.  Not seen anything recently that would suggest anything other than a fine user who will make a fine admin. Which is fine.
'''Support''', wow, very through answers to the questions! I'm sure you'll do great. :) <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support'''.  I was happy to support previously and see nothing that has happened between then and now to change my opinion.
'''Support'''  Excellent editor, lots of edits, work on all necessary admin-type projects, always nice to other editors, and showing improvement.
'''100% doubleplusSupport''' This should teach me to watch RfA more often, me now having missed at least three nominations… &mdash;
'''weak support''' Not too sure about this user, but i believe in giving someone a chance. Support based on if the user subjects himself to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall
'''Godwin's Law Support'''
'''Support'''. Surprised he didn't pass the first time. --
'''Support''' I was Neutral last time based on concerns regarding your ability to handle a dispute. You have removed that concern with your well-thought out answer in Q3 and you general contributions since then. You have maintained all the traits I like to see - cross 'pedia participation, civility, vandal fighting etc etc. Yep. Bring it on. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Seems to have very good editing background, should be good as an administrator.
I supported last time. An excellent user.
'''Support'''. Good user, good edits.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''' - ah yes. I weighed in as 'neutral' last time around. So much has changed since then. You've been doing excellent work and I'm quite impressed with your response to Neil's comment above. Straight, honest answer. No problems here -
'''Support''' will be a good admin.
I'm
Good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Oh, sure... Nice to have someone else doing the thankless bulk minor edits through a weird mix of semi-random articles trawl.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''{{subst:eh? what? thought you were....oh never mind...}}''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' without reservation. Does the work.
--
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">

'''Strong support.''' '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''', good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' does some great work around here and I'm sure will do more with the mop --'''
'''Beat me to it''' I was going to offer a nomination tomorrow.  How cruel.  I remember when I first ran across the user well over a year ago, during an AfD debate.  Level headed, knowledgeable, and a fantastic username to boot.
'''Support''' - Great user. Nice username, by the way. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Thought he was already an admin. Also, way to break [[WP:BN/R]] :D
'''Support''' - Per nom! Will do good work with the mop.
'''Support'''. I've seen Hb,ws around and know they make a good contribution.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">

'''Support''', figured this had to be coming at some point. I've been impressed every time I've seen this editor around, and an inventive username is an added bonus.
'''Support''' per amusing username, err, per good work against vandals and the like.
You got my '''support'''. --
'''Wish I had nommed''' Support.
'''Support''' I know "thought he already was one" is a cliché, but I really did. Good member of the community.
'''Support''' After checking Track and as per Seraphimblade.
'''Support''' Based on nothing but username. :) <b>
'''Support''' From the interactions I've seen, a nice calm user and contributor.
'''support''' has always seemed a sane and reasonable person to me.
'''Support'''.  This editor knows what he's doing, has quite a bit of experience, and has been contributing for a long time.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. No major concerns here as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', we need more hearty folks taking care of the backlog at [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:CSD|CSD]], and [[WP:AIAV|AIAV]].
Absolutely the best username ever (except mine).&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Support'''. Good work all-round in numerous areas. Responsible adminship predicted here.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Thought he already was, &c....
'''Strong support''' Can't wait until this user becomes an admin.
'''Support''' - overdue.
'''Support''', very much.
'''Support''' Pile on.  I was especially impressed by the answer to #3.
'''Support''' per positive past experiences with this user.
'''Strong support''' Wow.  If I had any idea that the user wasn't already an admin, I'd have nominated him a year ago.  Marvelous, funny, good-natured person with keen judgment.  Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Lots of edits overall and at [[WP:ANI|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]], [[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]], and recently at [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]].  While we do not always agree (see AFD), this editor can be trusted.
'''Support''' absolutely. This is way overdue.
'''Moo'''. Surprised to find this editor wasn't already an admin - works well with others, does good work, and can certainly be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' I too am surprised that s/he's not an admin; always assumed s/he was. Good editor from my interactions.
'''Support''' I'm familiar with this editor; excellent work, awesome username. <b>
'''Support''' (as if another !vote was necessary). I've seen many comments and contributions from this editor, but never a bad one. <font color="006622">

—&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''support''' - based purely on the discussion comment above.  --
I'm
'''Yurp'''.  He's been here long enough to know how things work, and I doubt he's going to break something.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' Strong candidate with a history of good work and solid interaction.  Likely to make a fine admin, especially with the intention of helping clear backlogs out.  PS: I know what "Hit bull, win steak" is a reference to.  Just sayin'.
'''Support''' - not that it's needed.
The answer to my question was satisfactory. I saw that edit, and wanted to clarify it in an answer to a question rather than oppose directly over it, and end up opposing for a misunderstanding. I have no concerns and am happy to support this nomination.
Yep. --
'''Support''' <clichè> I thought you were one, pile-on support </clichè>. <font face="Broadway">
'''Give them the mop''' Just goes to show that you don't need even a GA to become an admin, as long as you make great edits and continue to help improve the encyclopaedia. Being an admin will only help you do that more. '''''
Moo, while we almost never agree with each other, that's no indication that he would abuse the tools.
'''Give them the mop''' like what I've seen from him.
'''Support''' Although it seems clear that this is going to pass, I have to throw my hat in if only to say that this user has the second best username I've come across, second only to [[User:FeloniousMonk|this fella]]. :)
'''Support''' Seems pretty Good
'''Support'''. Having seen his long term efforts on AN/I, I admit to thinking he already was an admin. As such, I'd rather change reality to meet my expectations, than change my expectations. (it's advice i read in Stephen Colbert's new book.)
I seriously thought you were an admin, hence why I didn't nom you myself. The last person who I thought was an admin went 147/0/0, so I'm sure this will do great. '''Strong (edit conflict) support'''.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' that's definitely not because he used to have a huge picture of Hillary Clinton on his userpage. :D. Seriously, great user, good enough to make me actually want to make an edit. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' A fine editor that has made great contributions.
'''Support''' Everything I've seen from this editor inspires confidence. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' A trusted editor whom I often bump into at ANI and other venues.  --
'''Support''', excellent, level-headed editor with great contributions.  Will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''&ndash; I really wanted to oppose just to screw up the 100%... but I can't do that for you =D  '''
'''Support'''.  Has always had intelligent comments in administrative discussions ([[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]]), and the answer to question 4 is great.  I wish every admin candidate had this attitude.  --
I'm familiar with HTWS's username (which is hilarious, by the way), and I was surprised to learn that he wasn't already an admin when I saw this RfA pop up. Editors who strike me as already being administrators generally make good ''real'' admins. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. No bull. Best, --
'''Support''' I find his comments at various noticeboards well thought out, should be fine. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - I don't see why not.
'''Support'''.  I've wondered for a while why he wasn't an admin... I've been impressed with his comments everywhere I've seen them.  And like everyone else said, best username ever.
'''Support'''. Yep.
''''Support'''. --
No-brainer. &mdash;
I'd have to say many people have experience in problem solving, fact finding, working with other editors as peers, as a mentor and also as a learner, and never went anywhere near an article, FA or not.  --
'''Hell ya'''
'''Moo!''' Friendly and cooperative. -
'''Support''' giving HBWS the '''authority''' of adminship. Through prior experience, I trust him with the authority to block users and other admin functions. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support'''. [[WP:ITHOUGHTHEWASALREADYANADMIN]]. -
'''Support''' Good contribs and thoughtful answers. From what I've seen of HBWS, I think the mop will be well used. (That and you can add me to the THOUGHTEDITORWASADMINALREADY category). --
'''Support''' Good answers, solid editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Pile on support :D
'''Hit save, support RFA'''. Yes. --
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with deletion backlogs –
'''Support''' Looks good, thought this guy was an admin already! Give him the mop!
'''More pile-on support''' I thought he had the mop already!
'''Support''' Looking like a clear case of [[WP:100]] here.  High-quality contributor, thoughtful, civil.
There are no real reasons for me not to support. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - I believe that you'll use the tools well.
'''Support''' - a user with great understanding of policy - will be fine.
'''Support'''
He isnt? --
'''Moo'''. Great editor. Damn, I was hoping to be the 100th... >.< '''
'''Support'''.  Absolutely.  -
Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Has edited a wide range, from Wikipedia related talk to mainspace to anti-vandalism. Sorry to ruin your 100 supports! —
'''Support''' bah was supposed to be 101 lol.
'''Support'''
Jump on top of the pile '''Support'''.
'''Support''' no beefs with handing this editor the mop.
'''AbsolutSupport''' from someone who normally just lurks around [[WP:RFA]].  I've seen HBWS plenty of times over at [[WP:AFD]] and have no problem giving him the sysop bit.  Salut!  /
'''Super Strong Support'''. I was just "wowed" by looking at your contributions.
I'm not Mailer Diablo but I approve this message!--
'''Support'''. Great contributor. &mdash;
'''Support'''. No problems here. Good contributor. Good answers to questions. Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  My experience with this editor and my look at his contributions tells me that he'll be a great and hardworking administrator who will shortly have hand-cramps from writing thank-you notes...
'''Support''' - I hate to use the "I thought you were..." cliche, but... um... <b>
Joining the lovefest -- <b>
'''support'''
'''He isn't one already?'''&ndash;
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; I won't say it.  But I will say that this user's modesty blows me away.  In a good way.  ;)  "[A]nd if I'm not, I won't take it personally..."  Heh...  &mdash; <tt>


'''Support''' I see no problems with this solid contributor. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Nice work with the bulk minor edits. Much needed, much appreciated.
'''Support:''' It's a pile on, but so what?  I'm familiar with him from AfD, where he's a cogent and thoughtful commentator.
'''Support''' - totally! -
'''USDA Prime Support'''. A long-time dedicated member of the community, who'll make a great admin. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''.  Obviously a great candidate.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A home-run.--
'''Support''' I'm highly impressed with the answers to all the questions, especially the honesty the candidate shows. I personally feel that to not support because a candidate has not done 50+ edits to a Featured Article Candidate is focusing unnecessarily on one specific area of the project; encyclopedia-building is more than featured articles, for every FA there are thousands of articles that need major improvements just to keep them from being deleted, or from violating NPOV or BLP policies, and those are just as, if not more important, than doing small edits to get an already excellent article up to FA status. This is not to say I don't think FAs are great, I think they are wonderful, but for example, my personal style of editing would be unlikely to ever "bag me" an FA credit. I make extensive use of the preview button, and the edit summary, and I sometimes do in one edit, what other editors do in 10-20 edits, especially when I'm formatting references for standardization and readability. When I do copy-editing, normally I do it in one fell swoop, not one section at a time, as many do. This means that I don't have huge numbers of individual edits to articles, even though I've improved them quite a bit. I think to try to pin a requirement of an FA onto an editor goes against the style of many editors (Wiki-Elves, Gnomes, Fairies). Others simply do other areas, and it doesn't mean they cannot write excellent content, nor does it mean they don't think FAs are important (again, this is simply my own personal opinion). This candidate has a cool head, a good grasp of the project's infrastructure and policies/guidelines, a solid history of content building and writing articles, and works well with other editors. I see absolutely no reason not to add this excellent editor to the current administrative group. <small>
'''Support''' &ndash; I particularly like the answer to the "CSD" tag containing "per [[WP:NOT]]". Hit's answer to that clearly shows he knows his stuff, and this is somebody I think can be trusted to use the tools wisely and within policy.
'''Support''' Great contributor with good understanding of policy. Answers are above reproach. --
'''Neutral''' - I'm sorry to break the streak. I'm uncertain that Adminship is going to be the most appropriate step for you. You have strong edits and your work is commendable, but I do see the importance of building up an article to Featured status as being a must-have for Adminship: it shows a great deal more problem solving skills in breaking the barriers of fact finding, working with other editors as peers, as a mentor and also as a learner (all three roles are important for anybodywanting to improve and allow others to also). I do appreciate your hard work improving stubs to starters and low end B-class, but I'm wary without a single article promoted to even Good article status. That said, I could be wrong with this judgement because of the quality of the work you have done. For this, I can't give you my support, but I'm not going to oppose your RfA. If you're successful or not (and at a glance, it looks like you will be) I'd suggest familiarising yourself with [[WP:GAC]] and assess a handful (say 15-20) articles in there (Lord knows, the help would be appreciated) and then also look at some Featured articles and provide contributions there. I believe you would have good feedback, and following these efforts, I'd suggest picking an article and sticking with it until it's a Featured item (I don't care if it's an article, list, group or whatever. Not a featured picture, because to me, that's just not the same). --
'''Before the starter gun strong support''' --
'''Beat the nom support''' for an excellent spam fighter.<font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Beat-the-nom support'''. Great user and fights spam like me (kudos!). ''
'''Support''' without any reservations.--
'''Support''' Would use the tools appropriately.
'''Support.''' Whack vandal, get support.
'''Support'''. (Quick!) knowledgeable answer to my question has me convinced that this user will surgically remove spam instead of picking up a shotgun.
'''Support''' definitely. Excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' because you're ''good at what you do'' and you should remain good at it with the mop.  Good luck.
'''Support'''.  An administrator's role is to make the encyclopaedia a better place for everyone to contribute.  There are many ways to do this, and I believe Hu12's lack of actual article writing doesn't mean he would make a poor administrator.
'suppose I can trust anyone who is nominated by Durova. I hope he's not the [[Hu Jintao|same chinese guy]]. &mdash;

'''Support'''.  I think you should work on your contribution to articles in addition to anti-vandalism and anti-spam, but I can't oppose since I am confident you'll use the tools responsibly and to good effect.
'''Support''' This seems to be an excelent vandal fighter.--
'''Support''' In economics, [[trade]] is beneficial because it provides for [[division of labor]]. On Wikipedia, we should consider whether "the specialization of cooperative labour in specific tasks" will "increase efficiency of output" as well.
'''Support''' - based on convo. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - this user has a thorough knowledge in the areas of spam, conflict of interest and external links and has been quite helpful to the project in this respect. We particularly need more admins who understand the difference between dealing with vandalism and spam. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Strong support''' - this is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]], not [[Wikipedia:Editor review]].  We are in dire need of more admins right now and if someone is unquestionably a trusted user and has demonstrated a willingness to do some of the grunt work of the project, I, for one, will offer my full support. --
'''Support.''' As a general comment, this case show's why it's good to be nominated.  If Hu12 were going it alone, I would say no.  But with Durova's intelligent and enthusiastic support, I can only agree that Hu12 will do fine.
'''Support''', his work with spam has been meticulous and as accurate as you can get with such a thankless and nebulous task.  His answers address any concerns I have about how he draws the lines and indicates he's certainly thought through the tasks he would most likely to perform with the extra buttons.
'''Support''', Devoted editors make good admins, I am strongly for article writing but 4K+ vandalism reverts is good enough mainspace contribution for me.
Trustworthy and experienced. Opposition concerns are trivial.
'''Support''', Good user, has done great job fighting spam.  Would benefit from admin tools, and won't abuse them. --
'''Support'''. (changed from Oppose) I've been doing some thinking, and I guess I can appreciate that each administrator will have a different mix of strengths and weaknesses. While I still wish you had more experience in writing articles, I'm glad that you are willing to address that inexperience. Your strength is clearly your dedication in fighting spam, and the admin buttons can only help your efforts. --
'''Support''' Well, I will give this candidate the benefit of the doubt. He is a very trustworthy user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per Siva, and because I think we can rely on Durova's good sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with specialising, but variety is the spice of life, and "Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird."
'''Support''', we need more administrators, and it would be great to have this spam specialist among us.
'''Support''' Mostly per other support comments above.
'''Support''' There's nothing wrong with specializing, and this candidate has done impressive work.
'''Weak Support''' but could still have more wikispace edits.
'''Support''', unlikely to misuse tools, likely to use them productively.
'''Weak Support'''. The CSD stuff worried me at first, per Nishkid, but your reply shows that you have at least gained a better understanding of the criteria since this RfA began and you explained the situation in a clear and articulate manner. Please be careful with CSD G1s though. "Nonsense" is a word that gets over-used, just like "cruft". Otherwise, solid contributor, no reason not to trust.
'''Weak support''' per anti-spam efforts. Article contribution could and should be higher, though. —
'''Weak Support''' Wikipedia needs more vandal fighters. '''
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Strong support'''. We need more sleuthster admins. It leaves more time for other editors to do more glorious tasks, such as article writing. :-)
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse the tools, and there's nothing wrong with specialist admins.
'''Strong support''' specialist admins in areas like this are always needed.
'''Support''' I encounter Hu12 almost daily in his dedicated work at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam]]. I have no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. I don't buy the lack of article writing argument - an admin should not have to be all things to all people, but simply trusted to use the tools in the areas he works in. In my opinion, we're not talking about some kind of badge or status here, simply a request for trust to use a couple of extra buttons in the course of work the user is already doing demonstrably well.
'''Support'''  I like the answer to question 2.  The question is not just about article writing as many seem to see it, but about "articles or '''contributions.'''"  I see the spam fighting as an extremely valuable contribution. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''---
'''Support'''. Hu12 and I had a disagreement over a spam issue, and, while we still disagree, I came away from the interaction thinking s/he was a knowledgable and dedicated editor who was willing to communicate.  I think we need admins willing to engage with the growing spam problem, and, based on my experience, I have no concerns that Hu would abuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' sounds like he can help out with the mop. Cheers
'''Strong Support''' To an excellent vandal fighter.
'''Strong support''' - I've had experiance with this user in the WP:WPSPAM project and I've alwase been impressed by his intelegence and gumshooery. ---
'''Weak Support''' Just because a user isn't active everywhere, doesn't mean they are untrustworthy. Hu12 should brush up on policy before preforming any admin actions though.
'''Support''', good user. I find the opposing concerns dismaying, meaning the 5 that came in a period of 11 minutes just before, from 01:22 UTC to 01:33 UTC. --'''
'''Support''' I am disgusted at my friends for doing something that I am not at liberty to discuss.  It seem that you just made a tiny easy mistake and I forgive you for it, just be more careful in the future.  I expect you not to abuse the tools and see that you have a need and use for them. '''
'''Support''' his work as a vandal and spam fighter will be more efficient if he has the tools.
'''Moral Oppose'''. I was going to support based on the spamfighting, edit counts, etc., but then I saw that your answer to Q2 also dealt with your anti-vandalism efforts. I don't see any articles that you actually wrote, neither on your usepage nor in Q2 nor in the edit-counter thingie. I cannot support a user who does not actually write anything. While I think you will cruise through to adminship, I feel compelled to register my oppose. Of course, if you trash your answer to Q2 and replace it with actual "articles  . . . with which you are particularly pleased", I will be happy to change my vote. -
I'm not seeing ''any'' contributions, remember [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|Wikipedia is not a battleground against the vandals and spamdalizers]]. Contributions as a user '''and''' as an administrator are very important, as I explained to another user: "A lot of people doubt it but contributing to articles is very important. Mostly because to be a good sysop you need to still be an editor as well, as for example if you help mediate a dispute between two users its always going to be best to approach it from an editors perspective to understand both of their problems." - I'll reconsider in six months, therefore you'll have plenty of time to find a balance between contributing and vandal-fighting. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' Low activity in project-space suggests candidate is not yet adequately familiar with wiki-process.
'''Oppose'''. Not sure this user has a clear understanding of [[WP:CSD|CSD]] guidelines. Just two weeks ago, I had to revert about two dozen articles incorrectly tagged as CSD G4. I also caught a few mistakes with CSD A7, and some other rules, so I cannot support until I know this user clearly understands CSD policy. '''

'''Oppose''', Not significant contributions to other spaces than mainspaces.
'''Oppose''' good spam fighter but lack of article writing, sorry
'''Oppose''' per lack of editorial contributions. ~
'''Oppose''' candidate lacks editorial contributions.
'''Oppose''' at this time: whould like to see wider range of edits first, including more participation in policy pages and building articles.
'''Weak Oppose'''. You're a good editor, but like what Nishkid says, your version of the speedy policies worry me. If something that is speedy deleted is recreated, that is not an auto-delete, as CSD is not part of the AFD process.--
'''Oppose''' per NishKid64. Speedy is not XFD, and I don't think I'd like an administrator arguing that it is. --
'''Oppose''' Per Nishkid64, and I would like to see more article writing. ~
'''Oppose''' Not enough article writing. That helps to identify spam more thoroughly, when spam is disguised as refs, for instance. '''
'''Oppose'''. Seems to just fight vandals. Needs more experience writing, policy, etc. ---
'''Neutral''' nothing compelling to support, especially with no article contributions. Sorry. - [[User:Anas Salloum|<font color="Black">'''Anas'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Anas Salloum|<font size="-4"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk'''?'''</font></font color>]]</sup> 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)<s>#'''Neutral''' per opposers. '''
'''Neutral''' Impressive anti-spam work and potentially an excellent admin. But I'm concerned that nom seems premature as there hasn't been enough experience with CSD, XFD and DRV? (Perhaps I'm not so concerned about the lack of article writing experience...?).
'''Neutral''' per concerns raised by Nish. Perhaps more experience around XfDs is necessary. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
Might as well get here first - I've been impressed with Hut 8.5 every time we've come into contact, I'm sure he'll be fine with a couple of extra buttons. Good luck!
XfD participation, CSD participation, and vandal-whacking experience. '''Support''' --'''
'''Strong support''' Looks like a great candidate,
Per co-nom. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Hut+'''!
'''Support''' User seems to understand when tools should be used. AIV reports by this user are blocked 97.8% of the time, I know I checked. The 2.2% that were not blocked were well within the range of admin discretion.
'''Support''' per nomination, gd luck Hut 8.5, give those vandals hell!!! --
'''Support''' - nothing in my interactions with this user make me worry that they will abuse the tools.  So, good luck, and I look forward to mopping with you.  -
''' Support''' Over 5800 mainspace edits checked track it is good.See no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' From what I have seen of him, I would be very surprised if he abused the tools. -''
'''Support''' Contribs show candidate invested lots of work into WP, in respectful and helpful attitude towards editors. Conflict solving skills. Apparent understanding of guidelines and tools. No reason not to trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' Has earnt the trust of the community. Good luck!
'''support''' Yep. I support this because it is apparent how experienced and trustworthy this user is. -- <strong>
'''Hurrah!''' --

'''Support''' No major concerns here. Would make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''What the!?! I ran into edit conflict!''' er, I mean '''troppus''' (support spelled backwards) I've seen this user around several times, especially RfAs; looks like this user is ready for the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No doubts, you are ready to be an admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' User can be trusted.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate whose judgment, especially at AFD, is pretty much always spot on.
'''Support''' After familiarizing myself with the RfA process, I can safely say that this user is more than qualified for the job.
'''support''' no worries right now.'''
'''Support''' - Sufficient experience gathered. Good, consistent editor, well done. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
I-thought-he-was-an-admin-already support. <b>
'''Yeah''' Civil and sensible user--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' - Looks like this user has a lot of experience and I doubt he would abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' Trustworthy fellow; fine addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' Good candidate.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Cheskopokuta klees ka tlanko ya oska.''' '''
'''Support''' - 97.8%? - Well of course then.
'''Pour''' <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">Carbon</font>
'''Support''' I thought he already...oh, never mind.
'''Righto then.''' <nowiki></i thought he was already></good contributor></wont abuse the tools></nowiki> <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' Will do great at AfD, which is where I've seen this user. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - solid editor who will make a solid admin.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', very solid candidate. --
'''Support''' Looks great! This person is a solid candidate for the tools. Keep up the good work, Hut!
'''Support''' A model wikipedian. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Contribs look very good. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''', excellent candidate. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' I am very impressed by this editor and the above discussion.  Huge number of edits, close to 100 % edit summaries, rarely overruled at AIV, appears to ''need'' the mop.  What's not to like?
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support'''.  Should do fine.  --
'''Support''', vast improvements were made since Hut 8.0.
'''Support''' should do well.
'''Support.''' Looked at his contributions and they seem good. He is effective in fighting vandals. Many experienced people are in his list of supporters above.
'''Support'''. A strong candidate.
'''Support'''—Everythin's been said. [[User:Jonathan|<font color="red">Jonathan</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jonathan|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> \ <sub>
'''Support'''. Very good post count, user seems to know very well the tools for adminship, looks like a good candidate to me.
'''Support'''. Impressive candidate. <small><font face="arial" color="navy">
'''Support''' 200 edits to AIV shows the user's credentials as a good vandal fighter and that he is ready for the extra tools.--
'''Support''' - super editor and good vandal fighter. Excellent track record -
'''Support''' - Always need more careful vandal fighters.  --
I'm
'''Support''' Have seen Hut around a lot, no worries. -
Great editor.
No concerns whatsoever.
What? Weren't you alredy an admin? <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''', seen him around, no reason not to.
'''First Support''' Because there's no reason to vote otherwise. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - An overall good user, I can't see why I should vote oppose. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Support''' Not had much contact, but I do know that he is a good, solid editor, and would make a good admin. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy user.
'''(edit conflict!) Support''' per Moe.
'''OMG More Edit Conflict Support'''. "I thought this user was already an admin."<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Wanted to nominate but didn't know candidate wasn't an admin, oh well, I ought as well vote for them anyway because they are an excellent user and yes I want to hold and be remembered for a Wikimedia-projects-wide record for the most bold words in a bolded support sentence, anyway, I guess I will support already and here is my support vote... drumroll please... Support.''' [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color="red">sta</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|<font color="green">EB</font>]] ([[user:GangstaEB/PenguinLog#Ice Slides|sliding logs]]~
'''Thought you were an admin support'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support.'''

[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' Helpful, friendly user. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. <s>RfA voting is cool!</s> :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Ikiroid has shown himself to be a very capable editor, his work on IPA alone is evidence of this, and, what is more, he has given absolutely no reason to believe he cannot be trusted with a few more buttons.
'''Support'''.  May not be overly active in AfDs, but he's contributed a lot to [[WP:AN/I]] and [[WP:AIAV]] and others.  Seems to have an interest in becoming an administrator and I think he's up to the task.  --
The perfect candidate acts like an admin before thinking on filling out the application. Ikiroid has done this, and has my trust. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''', I like what I see. The only arguments against seem to me related to edit count, which are valid but not convincing for this editor. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' First class editor -
'''Support''' per [[User:HighwayCello|Highwaycello]].
'''Support''', definitely deserves the mop.
'''Support'''. Even if he falls short of some of our standards, we sometimes have to make exceptions. It's great having editors who are willing to tidy up the project.
'''Support''' as per above. --
'''support''', thought Ikiroid was an admin already. ~
'''Support''' While the candidate has a low number of mainspace edits, everything else about him is perfect. He has also been in enough disputes that it is clear that he keeps his cool and tries to work out reasonable compromises.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - candidate [{{fullurl:User talk:Hildanknight|diff=prev&oldid=64529960}} knows] what he must know, and is not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as per '''''excellent''''' answers to my questions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -→
'''Weak Support''' A good editor but mainspace edits are low. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Basically meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. I would've liked to see more AfD participation, but it doesn't sound like that'll be your main focus and the random diffs I checked looked fine.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support.''' My interactions with Ikiroid have been consistently positive, a bona fide contributor, and I'd reckon the number and nature of edits sufficient to be able to assess as highly unlikely to abuse the extra tools.--
See [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' per CJLL, Royboy, Aguerriero, and Rje, to name four, and inasmuch as none of the reasons for which others have ''oppose''d seems at all persuasive to me.
'''Support.'''  A hard worker who looks out for the newcomers.--
'''Switched from neutral to support'''. After watching this RFA, a few things have shown me that Ikiroid is [[Taco Bell|good to go]], mostly based on the optional questions. First of all, Ikiroid has demonstrated that they are smart, which is good, because smart people should run things, as opposed to...the alternative. Second, Ikiroid has shown that they understand all the different aspects of Wikipedia, which is also important, since we're giving Ikiroid more buttons. Finally, Ikiroid has enough edits and has that whole good attitude thing (a nice touch). Besides, my orginal reason for voting neutral is pretty stupid. On a scale from 1 to stupid it's about a 6.5. I hope people understand my change of heart. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Heart and mind in the right place and functioning suitably.
'''Support''', despite the reservations of users below, I think this user has proved he's grown as a user, and his good attitude ("help me improve myself") impresses me. --<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Absolutely. "More people like this candidate, please." Always a pleasure to talk to, very kind to other users, an excellent editor, more than capable and responsible enough for the tools. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Fine admin candidate with alot to offer.
'''Support''' along the same lines as Clyde Miller.  Candidate appears to understand the value of interaction over process.
I totlay support you.
'''Support''': prefer more edits (or exceptional work), but honest approach and no disasters a plus. More positive than negative.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Has only about 20 AfD edits--most of the Wikipedia namespace edits are [[WP:AIV]] related.  In a few months with more active participation in AfD, CfD, etc, or some other exhibition of policy knowledge, I'll be happy to support.
'''Oppose''' Fails [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] which calls for 1000 mainspace article edits.  We are building an encyclopedia, after all.  And the low article count was not helped by Ikiroid calling most of his work that of "a wikignome or wikifairy".  A great editor otherwise, however. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Oppose''' per Mets501.
'''Oppose''' per Mackense and because of this user's extremely uncivil comments, close to a personal attack, regarding me on the AN/I board.
'''Oppose''' per to low mainspace edit count
'''Oppose''' per above. I am quite lenient on mainspace edits, but they are an excersise in article policy (not just direct behavoir policy). If a high amount of the edits where large, then I'd be fine, as less edits of high quality can give as much or more experience as many smaller edits, but that is not the case either.'''
'''Oppose''', would like to see a higher mainspace edit count.
'''Oppose''' for Stifle.--
'''Oppose''' per much of the above. Especially VivianDarkbloom's experience. Someone with no or terrible public relations skills should NEVER be an admin, especially here in Wikipedia. --
'''Switch from Neutral to Oppose''' per editcount and VD's concerns. - <b>
I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the only reason I recognized Ikiroid's name was that he stuck out in my mind for this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blu_Aardvark&diff=58475789&oldid=58446362], where he seems to be encouraging Blu Aardvark, a well-known banned user during his arbitration case, and thanking him for "giving Wikipedia another chance". This causes me to question your priorities (thank ''him'', ''then''?), but also you judgment, as it is clear to me that by that point the editor in question had exhausted his chances with personal attacks, vandalism, and other petty disruption, and I'm not sure what to think of an admin candidate who would think otherwise. Perhaps it was simply ignorance of the case, in any case, I'd like to hear a response. I am also concerned by the statement: "you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away". This apears to me to be both misinformed (we've always had problems with banned users not giving up: Wik, Zephram Stark, Jason Gastrich, Bonaparte, etc.) and an unsettling comment nonetheless, since we desperately ''want'' banned users to go away; I can't think of a less subtle hint. Users are banned for widescale and persistent disruption, or personal attacks, or edit warring, or in this case, all three. I can't understand why that was worthy of encouragement and admiration.
'''Oppose''' mainspace edits are just too low for me, sorry.
'''Oppose'''; lack of real editing and per Dmcdevit.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I must oppose. Not impressed by answers to questions and other comments on RFA. Seems to be blaming Wikipedia admins for harming users while carrying out Wikipedia blocking and banning policies. Sorry, I can not support a nom with this attitude.
'''Oppose''' as I don't see much need for mop. This editor spends as much time on user talk pages as he does editing articles, which shows good communication. But I can't accept the, "I'd write more but it's already been written," argument. I have edited lots of articles, adding to them, outside my fund of knowledge. What I did was research it then write about it, this also allows me to add references as well.
'''Oppose''' the fact they want to close AfDs (as mentioned in answers) whilst they haven't gained ''that'' much experience with them already is quite worrying. I fear their experience may be on the weak side. Also not a huge amount of edits considering they've been here since November 2005, but I would certainly consider supporting any of the users future RfAs. Would recommend user trying again in a few months when they've gained more experience/edits.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Per Andeh above. --
'''Oppose''' per FloNight above, and low edit count.
'''Neutral''' I am wary because the number of mainspace edits is lower than I want, as the main importance of this website is to create the encyclopedia itself. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a good user, but I won't call 17 AIV edits to be numerous. The mainspace and WP space edits  is little low for me. (This is after factoring in the 86 more significant edits shown in VoS's JS). --
'''Neutral''' Impressive candidate from what I can tell from reading current and archived talk pages; less experience than I'd like to see. (I'm cautious about new admins and like to see more experience than most voters). My vote may change as more users share their experiences.--
'''Neutral'''. I believe that 1000 mainspace edits is a good minimum for potential admins to shoot for before accepting nomination. But I do not find anything else out of place... will support on re-app if all is in order then.
'''Neutral''' on the lack of [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and article edits. Good luck in a few more months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''', lacks of article edits, can't oppose, would really want to support. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I only counted 17 reports to [[WP:AIV]] (not as "numerous" as I was expecting) and his lack of AfD experience is a bit concerning if he wants to start closing them.  I also would've liked him to have a bit more article writing, as that's the primary reason why we're all here. However, I '''really''' like the candidate's attitude (evidenced from his answer to Seviad's Q2) and I think he could potentially be a good administrator.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' The reviews above provide mixed messages...Having not encountered this user, I cannot provide my own evaluation.
'''Neutral''' per Hoopydink. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per Hoopydink, because I haven't encountered Ikiroid myself.
'''Neutral''' Very impressed with the thoughtful answer to my essay question, but have some serious concerns about interaction with BluAardvark per [[User:Dmcdevit]]. ++
'''Neutral'''. I did not find the nominee's answers to the "standard" questions compelling and the "oppose" comments give reason to pause; however, the answer to the optional question was excellent. If only that quality shone through the rest of the answers and reasons for the nomination, I'd lean much more to support. If this RfA succeeds, then fine (as adminship is supposed to be no big deal); if not, I'm likely to support in the future.
'''Neutral''' per Lar --
'''Support'''.  I've often encountered [[User:Ioeth]] while on new page patrol, and have seen him working as a diligent and fair patroller.  I see him making good judgements and warning new users politely.  I know that he's also an active participant in [[WP:AFD|AfD discussions]] and reports vandals frequently and appropriately at [[WP:AIV|AI/V]].  I think he'd find the admin tools useful in those tasks, and I haven't seen anything that would lead me to fear that he would abuse the tools.  [[WP:FRIENDLY|Friendly]] is a heck of a useful bit of script that I've been using regularly, and I think his tech-savvitude would be useful to the admin team as well. -
'''Support''' This user has not been active for a long period of time but what he has done shows he can be trusted with adminship, this trust is by far the most important thing.
'''Weak Support''' Experience is something that is very, very valuable. This user lacks in experience, that is what is making my support of him weak. I am still supporting though per the above supports. Good luck!--
'''Support''' 5,000 edits over a year meets ''
'''Oh, sure''' - as you're aware, I think you can be a bit trigger happy with tagging, but while I disagree with your interpretation sometimes I've no doubt you know what you're doing. I also really like what you're doing with [[WP:FRIENDLY|Friendly]] (horribly misnamed IMO - what exactly is "friendly" about plastering a n00b's first contribution with {{tl|cleanup}} tags?)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Since I live in a cave, I first came across Ioeth a week or so ago. I had a sneak through Ioeth's contribs, especially the deleted ones, and thought to myself "here's someone who would make an administrator". I was going to leave a note with one or other of the serial nominators at RFA, but as usual I'm a day late and a dollar short, and here's Merope has already done the right thing. A fine candidate with more than enough experience I think, and the right attitude if we're going to be delivering up hordes of hapless new editors to the wonderful ''Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for writing...'' experience. Better {{tl|cleanup}} than zapped.
'''Support''' - a good vandal-fighter, with a good edit count, but a bit of a deletionist for my tastes, but no big deal.
'''Support''', need more deletionist admins.
'''Support''', I guess.  ;)  --
'''Support''' Although this user lacks experience, he is a good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' per Siva.
'''Tentative Support''', per answer to my optional question. Short time as a regular editor is cause for a bit of concern, but you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, as well as a decent grasp of what a block is meant to accomplish.
'''Support''' per Siva, would be a great admin.-
'''Support''', a very valuable editor. With the re-enabling of IP page creation we're going to need a lot of admins with interest in new page patrol!

'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Have seen this user around, seems to know CSD policy, good vandal fighter, will not abuse tools.
I'm
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support''' I often encounter ioeth on new page patrol.  Would make a solid admin.
'''Support''' Good Vandal Fighter. (Not to mention Friendly). <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Strong Support''' ALready thought he was an admin, encountered him while working with FRIENDLY, was very welcoming and helped me with my concerns.  Seems like he understands the policies and will do good work with the mop!  Good luck.<br/>
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We need to form a resistance to prevent the fall of the Wiki.
'''Support''' My experience with this scrupulous editor on new page patrol tells me that he will be a credit to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Per <s>my puppetmaster</s> [[User:Accounting4Taste|Accounting4Taste]] - are view of deleted edits shows strong policy knowledge there, and I have no reason to doubt this user will make fine use of the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' the oppose reason is ridiculous.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - will surely make good use of the tools. →
No convincing reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Nice amount of experience, and great work with Friendly! <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' Has a very good track particurly in patroling and has been great during the last 2 months.See no concerns.
'''Support''' By judging the answer of questions (especially question 4) he will be good admin. Good luck--
Nah. Wiki has loads of admins already, including the variety which DO NOT give warnings for nominating Wiki-violating articles for speedy deletion.
'''Neutral''' per question 3 (part 1). Made a mistake, and learned from it, which is a good thing. However, this was less than a month ago, and it might be a good idea to take a little more time to see if there is any more rise on the learning curve. Would absolutely support in a couple of months.
'''Neutral'''. The candidate's answers to RfA questions are solid. However, I'm concerned with the recent disputes, lack of article-writing and relatively short tenure of regular edit activity. Additional experience would help.
'''Neutral''' - relatively little article writing experience and the bulk of this user's edits have been in the past two or three months. I think a little more time is needed yet, although we are definately heading in the right direction. Answers to questions are good though. Just a little more time to get as much experience as possible, and maybe show what he/she can do with articles. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' beat the nom support - great work at AfD, obviously knows policy, will make a great admin. <b>
'''Support''' woohoo.  Yes, good luck.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' - good reputation, broad experience. No problems that I can see. Should make a fine admin -
'''Support''' Per contributions, civility, personal interaction, and (dare I say it) - trusted noms. I see all the hall marks of a great admin here, but particularly your reasoned and considered judgement, with a great knowledge of policy thrown in. Very Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Double-edit-conflict '''Support'''. a hard-working editor who will make a great admin. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' as (late) nominator.
'''Support'''.  User's contributions demonstrate dedication to the project as well as a strong understanding of policy.  No doubt this user will make good use of the mop.  Figured this user was already one!
'''Strong support'''. Great editor, with lots of fine contributions. <b>
'''Support''', since there's always stuff to clean up in [[CAT:CSD]].  I like the answers to the questions, and Iridescent's talk page shows a good ability to reason with people who aren't always reasonable.  --
'''Support''' — I like seeing more active participation in the main manespace from admin candidates (not just fixing typos), but your other contributions are great, so I have no problems with you becoming an admin :-) --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Wow, I thought you were already an admin!
(ec2)'''Support''' A good editor with a good understanding of the project. Will be a great admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. Solid contributions to encyclopedia building.
'''Support''' - And nobody informed me about the nom. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Strong Support''' I really thought that you were an admin already! -
'''Yep''' - thought he was one. -- <strong>
Massively belated support! '''
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' No explanation is required, the evidence speaks for itself on this one. In other words: duh!
'''Strong Support''' This should have been done long ago! I have no doubts you'll make an excellent admin. '''
'''Support'''
'''Suport''' '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Candidate has made solid contributions to articles and should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Have had some good expieriences with this user. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' Major RFA-cliche moment for me; abundantly qualified.
'''Support''' -- I've had nothing but good experiences with this user, and I believe they will use the tools intelligently and fairly.  --
'''Support''' No problems here. It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support:''' I've seen him on XfD, and while I don't always agree with his stances, I've always felt he's a thoughtful, reasonable editor with a long record of excellence.
'''Support:''' Get on it. :)
An editor who I genuinely thought ''was already an admin''. '''Support''',
'''Support''' more than able to be admin.--
'''Support''' Excellent contributor; will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' - good answers and plenty of experience in WP policy. It's not a particular factor in discussion but the Almeric Paget article is both interesting and bizarre, and a credit to your research skills.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Great answers to questions, no doubt will use tools effectively.
'''Support'''. Experienced and trusted user.
'''Support'''. Unqustionably.
'''Support''' I assumed you already were!
'''Support''' Looks good, don't think he'll abuse the tools. —
'''Support''' - I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' I can't remember a bad experience with this editor.
'''Support''' Great editor, what more can I say?
'''Support''' Why not? Good luck:)--
'''Support''' Is this redundant or pointless in supporting him after all this above?  '''
'''Support''' - excellent experience.  Deletionist, but not extremist; straight but not narrow.  Can be safely trusted.
'''Support''' - looks to be another solid administrator, significant contributions to the Wiki-related pages and significant experience.--
'''Support'''. It is inevitable. '''''
'''Support''' no reason to believe the user would abuse the community's trust.
'''Support''' - Hopefully, I got in early enough on the support train so people don't think I'm just following the crowd. The candidate is highly qualified and has great user name. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
I'm
'''Support'''Great Track no concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' Has all the right temperament to be an admin. It also says something about me when I thought (s)he was one and I have a script to tell users' rights! :-P —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Support''' An outstanding user, with more than adequate knowledge in Wiki-cleanup. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good answers, decent participation in discussions.
'''SUpport''', lots of expeoremce jere/
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will use the mop well. --'''
'''Yes''' - Ofcourse. --
Per that water guy...or whatever his name is. --
'''Support''' See that he's experienced with Wikipedia, no evidence that he would misuse the tools. Good luck!
Unnecessary pile-on. —&nbsp;'''[&#8239;<!-- -->
'''<big>[[WP:ADMIN|BIG THANGS POPPIN']]</big>, <small>[[WP:VANDAL|and little thangs stoppin.]]</small>''' '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' and good luck to you :-) --'''
'''Strong Support''' One of the strongest candidates I've seen at RfA. Particularly liked the comment about avoiding deletion re fiction articles - someone aware of their own POV issues is a goodie. Trustworthy? You betcha. --
'''Support''' A great user who Im sure can be trusted with admin tools.
'''Support''' Admittedly, I almost wanted to go neutral since I'm not real sure what the "newspeak" issue is. But however much an "advocate" he may or may not be, I'm not worried he won't be throwing a wrench in the works. So he has my support. -
'''Support''' Very good.
'''Support''' Pfft... Easy choice :-D
'''Support''' with your experience, definitely you will help.
'''Support''' I've seen a lot of excellent work from this user lately, especially at AfD.
'''Support''' should do well.
You seem to be civil, sensible, smart, and, calm, with a great grasp on policy. Would I trust you with the extra buttons? '''Yesirre bob'''. :)
'''Support''', fantastic work at AfD, coupled with a hard working and friendly attitude. No reservations whatsoever to this excellent candidate.
'''Support''', per nom, seen them around and been impressed. --
'''Suppose''' - definately a great candidate - I thought he was already an admin! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' seems very capable and has the right attitude. -
'''Support''' Very trustworthy!
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Can't see any probs.
'''Oppose''' Candidate is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=158294655 advocate] for newspeak. --
'''Support''' another great pick from Majorly! --'''
'''support''' seems okay... noticed him at afd and csd mostly. --
'''Support''' I have dealt with this user in the past, and I don't think there is anything negative about this user that I see. Irishguy is an active contributor to articles and the project namespace, and I think he has a good deal of experience here. '''
'''Strong Support''' I have had good run ins with this user, whether it be RCP or just plain editing. I was thought he was one. ~
'''Support''' per nom.
''Support'' more than qualified.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor. --
'''Support''' since I like his answer to my question.
'''Support''' he warned a racist vandal to stop, just imagine what we could do with adminstrative powers --

'''Support''' Good job with your contribs and good luck if you become an admin. (Heck, have some good luck even if you don't become one.) [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''', just make sure you keep up the good work even when you recieve the admin bit ... ''
That lame RfA cliché rears its' head again...I thought he was one already. '''
I'm
'''Support''' another great pick from Majorly! ;) <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Good Admin choice..Good Job [[User:Majorly|Majorly]]--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong Support''' Already thought you were an admin. '''
'''Tacaíocht''' Seems like a good fellow who has both experience and also the project's best interests in mind. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support'''. All looks to be in order. Good luck!
:) <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' Looks to be trustworthy. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Strong clichéd support''' Tools.  Now.
Good chap. [[Special:Makesysop]] beckons.
'''Strong support, I thought he was one already'''. (But I do expect some sort of moronic "Thank you for voting" thing on my talk page, after you're instated :P)
'''Support''' definitely qualified. -
'''Support''' &mdash; we have a great batch of admin candidates flowing in right now. That is a good thing. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.  Sure, sounds reasonable.
'''Support''' looks like an excellent choice.--
'''Support''' I was considering nominating Irishguy for adminship myself... --
'''Support''' per answers and all above - fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' the admins have been giving Irishguy a rough time here, but it's all in good faith.  Anyway, I have no such concerns.
'''Support''' But please also use edit summaries for minor edits.
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and I have alot of trust in Majorly. Is he an admin yet? If not, i'm gonna nominate!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. My only (minor) hesitation was the edit summary use, I am satisfied by the answer to question 7 however. Looks qualified and trustworthy. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' This is a great user whom I see around the project often. Also regarding edit summeries, you can enable warnings that you didnt add an edit summary by going to my preferences/editing.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Super.
'''Support''' Just... be careful if you block IP addresses. You might block the whole of Qatar :-)
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - ''
'''Support''' per [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]]. —
'''Support''' - I have seen this user a lot in the AfD logs, and his points always add value to the discussion. He references the policies frequently and effectively, and I think he will make a good administrator. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<font color = "777777">◄</font>]]
'''Strong support''', minor problems aside, I can't imagine he'll misuse the tools. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' - See my discussion below in the oppose section. --
'''Support''' per nom and the above. —
'''Support''' With mild concern about talk page edits and summaries. Still, no reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I'd prefer more talk-page edits, but we need admins to focus on different issues, and Irishguy seems reponsible and civil, which is good enough for me. :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Go, go, go'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I've worked with him a bit in getting rid of vanity bios at [[List of magicians]], and I've found him to be a hard worker with good judgment. --
'''Support''' of course, even tempered. --
'''Support'''. He will be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent all round --
'''Support''' because I like the shade of green in this user's signature.  Just kidding.  Support for all the reasons above.  --
'''Support''' can't see why not. '''''
'''Support''' I appreciate his dedication to RC.--
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''<font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Good editor and excellent RC patroller who'll make use of admin tools.
'''Support'''. I thought he was already an admin! -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]

'''Support''' --
'''Support''': Obviously qualified, and no sign that he continues to revert war. Worthy of support.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' &mdash; You just can't browse through the wiki without running into him.
'''Support''': Everybody has so many good things to say about him. He should be a good user. :) ---
'''Support''': Can we give him the tools now?--
'''Support'''-The number of times I see "already reverted by Irishguy" while using [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] is huge. Great editor. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' Will make an excellent admin. --
A bit of a revert warrior in my opinion, and I remembered blocking him for [[WP:3RR]] back in september for a silly revert war, I liked the way he handled the situation afterwards but I'm surpriced that this haven't been mentioned here, thusfore '''Neutral'''
'''Support'''. I'm familiar with this editor and believe the nominee needs the tools and will use them well. Good record and history.
'''Support''' a good user who knows what they are doing. Good luck. --
'''Strong Support''' A very common name around here. I see no reason why not to support.
'''Support.''' I see this user around often, and am surprised he/she is not already an administrator.
'''Support''' - I can say mountains about this user's diplomatic and calm manner. Give him the mop. ''

'''Support'''This user seems to be a good candidate. He has reminded me in the past to leave an edit summary and now I nearly always do. Good luck-<font face="arial">
'''Support'''. Seems like a reasonable and cool-headed editor with a good amount of experience.
'''Support''' per nom. (just wondering, what element are you, Oxygen, sodium...? ;-) ) --'''
'''Support''' No problems with this RfA application!
'''Support''' No concerns here at this time. <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards -
'''Support'''. Nothing seems wrong here, so why not? -
'''Support''' Excellent contributor; absolutely trustworthy.
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Your answers are very well written, and you've got the experience to boot.  You'll be a great admin.'''
'''Support''' per good contributions, answers above, and excellent comments in noticeboard and other discussions. No concerns.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Would like more mainspace edits, but the ones you have are great. Great answers, contributions, no problems here. --
'''Support''' Great candidate. You should be a great help with the tools. ←
'''Support'''. Solid answers and his contributions at AN/ANI recently have shown the sort of attitude an admin should have: he's poured oil on troubled waters, rather than pouring it over the fire. Isotope23 has been doing excellent work every time, and everywhere, our paths have crossed in the past six to eight months. I raised the question of an RfA the other day, so I'm very happy to have the chance to offer my support.
'''Support''' first saw him around AfD where he's quite active. Good editor, takes the time to make his point more precisely when needed. Also convincing answers to questions and already working in "pre-admin" fashion with his work on ANI.
'''Support''': Looks pretty clear.  —
'''Support''' and yell at the nominator for not doing this earlier. '''
'''Yes'''--
'''Strong Support'''. Seen this user around doing good work since I started editing. Contribs check out and very persuasive reasons for the tools. Has shown a consistently strong understanding of policy. Absolutely no reservations in supporting.
'''Support''' - strong experience and understanding of polices. No real reason to oppose.
[[Springfield Isotopes|Go 'Topes!]]
Yup.
'''Support''' - per above.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but good things from this editor. &mdash;
'''Support''' I've checked the diff-generator; there were no problems in your AfD and ANI participations, and you seem to show a good grasp of the policies you want to help enforce. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 12:49, 11 January 2007 (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' solid and dependable candidate.
'''Support''' Great editor and candidate. --
'''Support''' No problems here. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' all good.
'''Support''' my only worry is what is your half life? Wouldn't want you to end up quickly becoming only half an admin....
'''Support''' Excellent contributor been here nearlly a year. They should well know the policies.
'''Nothing-wrong-at all Support''' --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' A little more Mainspace edits wouldn't hurt, but he seems to know enough about policy. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Yep.''' --
I'm
'''Support''' - Well reasoned replies to the questions, I can't see anything that would make me not trust you with the mop. As such, go for it! ——
'''Support'''. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|Llama]] [[User talk:Llama man|man]]<sup>
'''Cliche''' support. Trusted longterm contributor --
'''Very Strong Support'''. Everything I've seen gives me nothing but confidence in Isotope23. ···
'''Support''' Qualified. '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''-Answer to my question good, and good candidate. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support.''' Mature, thoughtful debater and valuable contributor. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
Definitely '''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
A Chlorine is strolling and meets a depressed Hydrogen. Cl: H, why are you so sad? H: I lost my electron! Cl: Are you sure?? H: I'm ''positive!!'' - <b>
'''Give him the mop''' Great answers. --
'''Support'''. Nothing witty to say. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' Good heavens, yes. |
'''Support''' Of course. A great candidate.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Solid candidate. --''
'''Support''' a good user usualy makes a good admin. ---
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' (changed from neutral, I didn't read it as a joke before, I feel rather silly). No problems if that's counted as a joke.
'''Strong Support''' --'''
Easy '''support'''.  One of the good guys. I was going to nominate Isotope myself, but obviously events have overtaken me. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' Looks like a solid candidate. No problems here, so ''Give-em-the-mop''<sup>TM</sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Per JzG, was thinking about nominating but not much time
'''Support''' per [[User:MacGyverMagic|MGM]]...
'''Support'''. Great contributor.
'''Support'''. Great user, definitely qualified. '''
'''S. Support''' - Deserved. -- ''
'''Support''', great user.
'''Support''', positive contributor. -
'''Support''', solid record of positive contributions, while demonstrating an outstanding sensibility in answering question 4, 5, & 6. Isotope is going to make a great admin. --
<sup>23</sup>'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' always reasonable in deletion discussions ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' Reasonable and positive contributor in both article and admin spaces.  Mops ahoy~
'''Support'''. A positive and good candidate. <font style="border: solid 2px #0000FF; background: #66CCFF">[[User:Information Center|<font color="blue"><b>&nbsp;INFORM</b></font>]][[User:Information Center/Awards|<font color="goldenrod"><b>A</b></font>]][[User:Information Center|<font color="blue"><b>TION&nbsp;CENT</b></font>]][[User:Information Center/EA|<span style="color:green;"><b>E</b></span>]]
'''Support''' -
Yessir.  '''Support'''.  —
'''Support''' | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' Good active user who often participates in the different admin boards.
'''Support''' Liked the answers, meets my standards. Handled self well in the Mud Kipz thing. Articulate, sensible, cool under stress. Admittedly cursory review turned up no problems.
'''Support''' Well thought answers and is a very good editor as well. No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' like what I've seen from this user.
'''Support''' Has proven himself to be well-versed with policy and doesn't have any trouble with keeping his cool. -
'''Support'''. Definately. --
'''Support''' per Siva...
'''Support''', don't see why not.
'''Support''' My interactions with Jeske have been nothing but productive, and I believe the tools will go to very good use.
'''Support''' Experienced editor who will not abuse tools.
'''Support''' His continual presence at ANI shows the experience and coolhead needed by an admin.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' per Hirohisat. <span style="color:black;border:2px dashed red;padding:1px;background:transparent;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Obviously ready!
Impressed with this users' recent handling of an SPA on RfPP. '''
'''Support''' per nom, I see nothing amiss looking through contribs.
My interactions with this user, and a survey of his contributions indicate that he will use the tools in a mature and intelligent fashion; he therefore has my support.  --
'''Support''' - no problem with me.  My interactions w/this user have been fine, no reason to believe they will abuse the tools.  -
Great work clerking at RFPP - get out there and do it yourself :P ~
Yeah. Been doing a good job. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - aah a protector...welcome aboard...cheers,
'''Support''' It turns out that [[User:Husond]] found a massive cache of extra [[mop]]s lurking in the basement. And given your contribution history, diversity of editing, collaborative spirit and RFPP graft you may as well have one of them. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Strong support. Everything I've seen from this user looks excellent. Will make a great admin. <b>

'''Support''' Track is good with over 2000 mainspace edits and over 4000 overall .See no concerns.
'''Support''' -- Good quantity and quality of edits, good sense of humor, and active at many important spaces in WP.
'''Support''' No way I can oppose, I herd he lieks mudkipz. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' - I'm sure he will cut down on the fortnightly RFPPs for [[List of Pokémon (241-260)]]. '''
'''Support''', but please stop calling people [[luser]]s.
'''Support''', Good editor, I don't foresee any problems here. <b>
'''Support''' Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Seen this applicant at AIV, and from contribs appears that the buttons are a next logical step.
Decent user.
'''Support''' &ndash; Unlike [[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]], I think you've been doing a goo'''''d''''' job. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]] —<tt>[[</tt>'''
As per AD's spelling :p --
'''Support''' &ndash; the main dispute I've seen Jeske as being involved in, one which I was involved in as well, as instigated by several IP users' failure to understand [[WP:N]],[[WP:V]], and [[WP:RS]] due to a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]].  Jeske demonstrates much knowledge of important Wikipedia policies.  He would definitely be a great, appreciated welcome to the admin group because of his desire to protect the general welfare of Wikipedia.  '''
'''Support''' - was heading to Jéské's talkpage to see if he wanted a nomination and discovered that I'd missed the boat... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
'''Support.''' I liked his calm demeanor during the 'meme' debates in [[Talk:Mudkip]] and its archives. He kept his temper when there could be reason for losing it. He appears to know policy well.
'''Support''' per nom :D No, seriously, I don't like the nom at all. Certainly a valuable editor like Jeske can find someone he worked together with, who would put some nice remarks here? Imho the third person's perspective is always better than self nom. I also am surprised to see the candidate didn't even accept the nom. I know that's redundant in a self nom, but lets pls stick a bit closer to the rules. However, the candidates contribs speak for themselves, and his numerous postings in discussions show diplomatic skills we need in our admins. Whoever said RfA is a problem? We only need more great candidates like Jeske. Very encouraging.
'''Support'''. A user who is calm in a crisis and has participated in important discussions. My only caveat is the vandalism counter on the user page.
'''Strongest possible support''' - Seen you around, and thought you already were an admin. I shall come to you often for RfP when you get the mop!
I'm
'''Support''' you will help with [[WP:RPP]] and other issues. I think, you have the experience to be a admin. Good luck.
Yeah ok. &ndash;
So I herd this user liek wants to become an admin?
'''Support''' - Just about there I think. Very good interaction skills, which is essential to being an admin, so well done! :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - super editor & very civil with all. I know his work from RPP and from his endless patience on the Pokémon series of articles. Good knowledge of policy. All the boxes are ticked :) -
'''Support''' Strong communication skills, and definitely deserving of the mop. No concerns in the slightest. --
'''Support''' looks like a good addition to the mop crew.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
➔ '''
'''Oppose''' per above and other recent incidents showing lack of XFD familiarity... [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Manual IV|nominating for deletion when a merge/redirect was clearly called for]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifa 08 Player Ratings|another rude "nuke" comment]]. Making rude, inflammatory comments at AFD like "nuke it" is just not something admins need to be doing... we need to encourage people to write content, not ridicule them for it when they don't get it perfect. --
'''Support''' - Seems like a good editor who would not abuse the sysop tools, and be helpful to new users looking for a helping hand on the wiki. [[User:Bmg916|<font color="#000000" face="Arial Black">Bmg</font><font color="#009900" face="Arial Black">916</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bmg916|<font COLOR="navy"><strong>Speak</strong></font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' I Support
I'd like to see a willingness to tackle some more backlogs, but other than that, looks good.
'''Support'''. He will not abuse or misuse the tools.. -
'''Support''' - you've improved on the areas that made me opt for neutral last time round, good work  so far and good luck from here on out...
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Support''' - A helpful editor that would not abuse the tools if given them. He knows how to react to heated situations and has gotten involved in some admin areas like AfD. <font color="red">
'''Support:''' Although you might want to participate in [[WP:AIV|AIV]] more often than specified. &nbsp;<b>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Steptrip_2|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">''~''</font>]]<font face="Vivaldi" size="3">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per all other users above. :) [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''<span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' has been involved in a lot more admin-related tasks and policy page contributions since the last RfA, so this in addition to regular editorial duties makes for a shift from neutral to support.
'''Support''' Candidate appears to have the relevant experience in the areas outlined in answer 1 and the statement, and certainly shows a need for the admin tools. He can certainly be trusted, good luck! '''
'''Support''' Good user, seems trustworthy. —
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Well deserved. Good luck! --
'''Support'''. I made myself clear in the last request that that one should have passed, and barring some earth-shattering new revelation, nothing's changed since then.
--
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools <small>(or we will take them away :)</small>.
'''Support''' per all above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Trustworthy, willing to see or decipher the constructive aspects of criticism by others and use it to better himself.  Good policy experience.  --
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' - seems trustworthy, nothing broken. Good candidate.
'''Support'''. What I have seen from this user (e.g at Speedy deletion) indicates a good knowledge of policies and a level head.

I'm
'''Support''' looks like a well-rounded contributor who will be an asset to the project.--
'''Support''' knows what he is on about, so would be a great asset as admin.  '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Candidate seems to have a very level head, has improved significantly
'''Support''' No evidence that admin tools will be abused.--
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. Go for it! <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' → It seems that he'll be a good admin. <i><b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support''' No reason not to trust.
'''Support''' - seems like a good editor and user to me!
Seems trustworthy and willing to help with backlogs.
'''Support''' He's worked with me in the past and has been 100% helpful, curteous, and spot-on in terms of Wikipedia policy, etc. Just about as good of an admin as there will be.
'''Support''' I had an encounter with J Milburn at Afd, and his knowledge of policy was matched only by his character and civility during an argument.  --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''. Good attitude, answers. Obviously worked with suggestions from the previous RfA. Fly the colours.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looked around a bit, even in some of the more obscure namespaces like image talk (oh, heavens!), and didn't find any obvious skeletons in the closet. Appears reasonable and responsive to criticism and requests -- seems to have addressed concerns raised at previous RfA. Seems familiar with deletion processes and unlikely to abuse tools. Clearly dedicated to the project. Oh, and email's enabled, even. Good luck! &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support''' good candidate. -<small>'''<font color=blue>Lakers'''</font></small><sup>'''
'''Support''' has done sterling work on [[Askam and Ireleth]] and kept my contributions on the Wikipedia straight and narrow!
'''Support'''. I'm a big fan of anyone who wants to reduce backlogs. --
'''Support''', CSD backlog can always use some help.--
'''Support''', reduce backlogs? Here's the tools :)--
I guess I have missed the boat, but the candidate does not have a clear view of [[WP:CSD]], one of the key requirements for being a safe pair of hands. He tries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_School_%28Massillon%2C_Ohio%29&diff=121041641&oldid=121039187n here] to have a school speedied, notes the tag no longer exists, so tries using a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_School_%28Massillon%2C_Ohio%29&diff=121041750&oldid=121041641 generic A7] tag, apparently unaware that schools are not and have never been speediable. (Also seeming to me to show a gap in 'general knowledge' regarding that particular situation.) I removed the tag, explaining why in my edit summary, but he insisted that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASplash&diff=121062817&oldid=119902406 I am pretty certain it {A7} does apply]" ''and'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_School_%28Massillon%2C_Ohio%29&diff=121063567&oldid=121062924 replaced] the tag. Not believing my fairly detailed explanation as to why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASplash&diff=121063389&oldid=121062817], he managed to find two ''other'' editors who also didn't know that schools aren't A7 speedies [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASplash&diff=121065358&oldid=121063828], rather than, say, reading the criterion or asking at [[WT:CSD]]. Such a gap, and one without any basis in any actual wording on Wikipedia indicates more time required to me. Yes, an isolated mistake, but declining to be corrected on it and reversing an admins decision on a speedy when they explain that the policy is not applicable to their usage is not the point in time at which the ability to nuke the article on sight should be handed out.
'''Support''' number 1. I'm awake, honest! :) '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy nominators, looks like a trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions to articles; fights vandalism and warns vandals; contributes to XfD discussions.  A good prospect for the admin tools.
'''Support''' per excellent nom. Great user with a good record of article work and vandalism-fighting. Very friendly and level-headed. Excellent candidate. -
'''Support''' - seems like the perfect admin.
'''Support''' good candidate, excellent article work, and active on XfD.
Oops, sorry I'm late ;) <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
-
'''Support''' &mdash; looks like a great user. I'm a little concerned that the activity has been declining over the last two months, but it's not in a range anywhere near enough for me to say you're burned out. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' a good editor, no worries here.
<font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''', easily meets my criteria. ''
'''Support''' per nom and overall good record. Fully qualified.
'''Support''' You got what you need to be a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Beat the next hundred folks support.''' Just making fun of the "beat-the-nom" folks.  The candidate has all the qualifications, and should be a shoo-in.
'''Support''' Well qualified and seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' no complaints here seems to be overqualified. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' - '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. -- ''
'''Support'''. Riana has clearly been working on her barker technique, I was minded to add {{tl|advert}} to this RFA. Enough bad jokes: a really impressive candidate. There have been times I've wondered if there are two James086's as his name pops up that often. He has a wide range of experience, on both sides of the curtain. What's not to like?
'''Support'''. Writes featured articles, fights vandalism, participates in process, some nice RfA answers too. As Angus said, what's not to like? --
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
I'm
'''Support'''. Of course. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' Came across this guy on vandal patrol a good few months ago, was about to give a barnstar, but someone beat me to it. Have seen him around ever since and seems to have really grown. Happy to trust with the tools.
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support''' per nom. <sup>
'''Support''.
'''Support''' Seems to cover it all -- XfD, AIV, CSD, RC patrol, article writing. Definitely qualified. '''
Sure.
'''Support'''--

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I'm impressed with this editor's common sense and clarity of thought as demonstrated in the AfD's where out paths have crossed.
'''Support''' Looks good.--
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as an obviously qualified user.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong support''' - given this user's participation in anti-vandalism, article writing, and more processes than you can poke a stick at, I'd say this is is an ideal candidate.
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate to me.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
Sure, I'll support you for reconfirmation.  Why not just email ArbCom?
'''Support''' - was an admin before, why not now? <strong>
'''Support''', if you're active again, then you should be able to get your admin status back as well without much trouble. Voluntarily going through RfA is quite reassuring as well. --
'''Support'''.  Jaranda changes his mind faster and more often than anyone I've known, but there is no reason not to give him the buttons back. --
'''Support''' - Better than ever.
'''Support''' Jaranda, maybe you should take breaks more often. --
It took him something like six or seven tries, but when Jaranda finally became an administrator he was one of the better and more productive ones around from what I saw. I'm happy to support this for the eighth time. :-)
'''Support'''-Hmm....user goes through RFA again to get their tools back, when all they probably had to do was post 2 lines on the bureaucrat noticeboard. :) Anyway, you were a great admin and I'm sure you'll continue to be. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''', but this time hold onto the tools! No big deal, after all. '''
'''Support'''. Good job actually taking this seriously and not just using it as a "hey look, everyone likes me!" stunt. -
'''Very Weak Support'''. He's a valuable contributor, but his RfA statement is one of the sloppiest I've seen recently. It's riddled with misspellings and other issues. Jaranda, it's hard to take your request seriously when it's fraught with errors.
'''Support''' Was a good admin before and I think that they can be so again.
'''Support''' Given my past interactions, I'll readily support, but I hope that Jaranda would be clearer in explaining his actions, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=142138711 in this case], where the action was allowable per [[WP:SNOW]], but the given explanation made the action of dubious and ambiguous "legality" (for lack of a better word). —'''
'''Support''' There is no reason to not give him back the tools...add a flamethrower just for doing the right thing and seeking community input on the matter.--
Ok, but...
Welcome back. ~
'''Support''', of course and welcome back. =)
Oh most definitely! :)
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Don't need reconfirmation. Got desysopped on personal request, in uncontroversial circumstances. No reason to deny adminship. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Welcome Back...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I appreciate your desire to do it this way even though you didn't have to. It shows you understand that community support is important.
He wanted to relive RfA again. —
'''Support''' no reason not to. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', just don't quit again :)
'''Support''', welcome back.  Next time you get smoe burnout, just walk away or just don't use your tools, don't bother with the de-bit'ing! —
'''Support''' Apparenly the candidate wants the full support of the community before he gets it back, which I don't mind supporting him for. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support...''' —
'''Support''' with absolutely no hesitation.
'''Very strong support''' Jaranda has always done excellent work here.
'''Strong support''' as always. :)  I also don't think this is necessary, as I believe the respect for the candidate is universal.
'''Support.''' RFA is not a vote, but heck, it's decided anyway.  I vote for Jaranda. :)
'''Support''' with even less hesitation than ElinorD :D —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''', of course.  While it's probably not necessary to go through this step (see Moreschi's comment above) I can understand sometimes wanting the reassurance of a reconfirmation.  Cheers,
Reconfirmation says a lot about his character. &ndash;
'''Support''' Anyone that '''chooses''' to go through RFA again is the sort of loony we need!
'''Support''' - Normally, I look for trustworthiness. In this case, consensus in his last RfA established that Jaranda had trustworthiness. Under these odd circumstances, I think it appropriate to look for untrustworthiness. Jaranda is not untrustworthy and the tools should be restored to him. Also, his willingness to go through RfA rather than some other route to get the tools shows a lot of character. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Strong Support''' A great editor, and a great admin. Good to have you back, Jaranda. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
This does seem a bit unnecessary, but Jaranda is to be commended for wanting to "double check" with the community before going ahead and using the buttons.  Good on him for doing so, and he certainly has my trust. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Absolutely yes. My long experience with J has been nothing short of a pleasant experience, and his admin actions have been unquestionably in th best interests of our project.
'''Support''' per above, seems like the time is right
'''Support''' - About time...
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. (edit conflict) Definate support, if you are voluntarily going through RfA again then you obviously aren't going to do anything bad - if you were, you would have just asked a crat, and had it done privately :) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Great contribs, good answers, doesn't look like they'll abuse the tools...no way i can oppose. '''
'''Support''' of course. But I hope that you don't really mean it when you say that you aren't going to be very active in the future. :-) <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Total support''' - excellent strong and hard-working editor. Helps a lot with backlogs (see all those deletes) and also keeps sticking to the mission of writing more and staying in touch with the average guy who writes articles. '''
We love you J. Even thhough you're a bit much sometimes... most of the time. -- <b>
'''Support'''.  BigDT does raise some legitimate concerns, most of which I share.  However, I also feel that that "vote" overlooked what I believe to be the motivating factor behind this RfA, and that is to ensure that the Wikipedia community really does support the re-granting of admin tools to Jaranda.  Admittedly, the "volatility," if you will, of Jaranda's admin career (sysopped, de-sysopped, sysopped again, ad infinitum) is a bit of a concern, but it's not like God kills a kitten for every time an admin is promoted.  All in all, this RfA demonstrates to me that Jaranda is, at heart, a cooperative and agreeable soon-to-be (again) admin. --
'''Support'''. IMO there is nothing wrong with being inactive and still holding the mop. In fact, many admins who have left Wikipedia or are otherwise inactive still hold the mop, as shown [[Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive|here]]. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Get back to the mopping, we need it. :-)
RFA cliche #1?
'''Support''' - All contact was positive, good record as an admin, constructive criticism. All traits that an admin should have. <small>(Although I do agree with BigDT below)</small>
'''Support''' (although, with all the other business pending on RfA/RfB, I would prefer that this pro forma exercise had been dispensed with).

'''Support''' Time for the mop!
'''Support'''. Worth another try.
'''Support''' Has been an excellent admin in the past, and there is no reason to suppose will not be again. But please learn to spell!! --<font color="Red">
'''Support''': Easy call.  If you need to take a break again, just don't bother with the desysop request! —
'''Support''' I know this guy and he'd a good admin (again)
'''Weak Support'''. Although I urge Jaranda to take heed of Everyking's concerns, I don't think they're serious enough to merit an oppose.
'''Support''', why not? '''
You are on of the friendliest and supporting users I have ever seen, how could I not support you.
'''Support''' He should be admin now anyways, nothing overly-controversial. Plus, he had the balls to go through a meaningless RFA when he could just as easily taken the cheap way out and just e-mail ArbCom and get it back. That is what we should actually want from admins who give up their adminship to begin with. —
'''Suppose''' Jaranda gave up the bit without being under a dark cloud (or however ArbCom put it) so should be able to ask for it back. On the other hand, blocking Gurch didn't show great judgement and saying that blocking a respected editor can be used to calm people down makes me a little jumpy. That almost never works and generally ends up in a giant pie fight at ANI. I don't think cool down blocks should ever be attempted, at least not without raising it up the flag pole first.
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''', overall good user. Everyking's concerns below also concern me, too. The erratic behavior, constantly leaving and returning to the project, are worrying. The "role model" comment above is odd. However, this is a good-faith user with a lot of dedication to the encyclopedia, and one controversial AFD closure (the only one linked so far) is not enough to convince me Jaranda would misuse the tools, were he granted them again. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Yes''', no problems here, even if he is a bit erratic, he is unlikely to misuse the tools.
I remember you from a year ago and I am assuming you are still the same trustworthy and dedicated person. However I am really starting to have doubts as back then you were going back and forth on whether you want to be a janitor or not. I think you are treating the mop as a big deal - which it shouldn't be. But still, I have seen only good things from you so I have to give you my '''weak support'''.--
'''Support''' Get to work! *whipping noise*
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- you were a good admin before, no evidence that you wouldn't continue to be so. --
'''Support''' -- Let me say that I am not sure what to think of the opposes below. No one edits here for a salary or under contract. People have lives outside this interesting project. Give him the tools - ''again''.
'''Support''' you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' and welcome back. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' the reasons given in the oppose section don't concern me enough.  Jaranda has been a good admin and won't misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''' again.  I've always liked Jaranda, and he nominated me on my RfA a while back.  The quits and returns should stop though.  It would be better just to lie low and take a break or copyedit for a few days than to request desysopping and leave.  It disrupts the community a bit. --
'''Support'''. Idont Havaname makes some good points above. Great editor though, and no reason for you not to be re-mopped.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Overall looks good. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' You were a good admin, and I believe you will be again.
'''Protest oppose''' - you can (and should) be reinstated on demand. I don't like the pointless display of process. RFA is not a "pat me on the back and tell me I'm doing a good job" - it's an opportunity for the community to state that someone can be trusted with the tools.  Since you can be re-sysopped on demand, there is no need for an RFA, and thus I make the protest oppose.  I would say, as a side note, that beyond correcting misinformation about yourself or removing libel, I don't think that it's a great idea for us to be involved with WA - it gives it legitimacy. --
'''Strongly oppose''': highly erratic; constantly leaves and returns. Also has a record of poor decision-making, has deleted content despite AfDs in favor of keeping.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm genuinely dubious of someone who cannot make up their mind about whether they want to be an admin or not.  I was thinking about staying uninvolved or making a neutral comment until I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=142942114 this edit from today].  If this is genuinely this candidate's view about what deserves a block rather than a caution, or reflects his attitude about how to diffuse a situation when two editors are angry at one another, I don't want him to have the tools.  Sorry.
'''oppose'''. Wikipedia doesn't need more controversial administrators in the mold of MONGO or SlimVirgin. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' per my reasoning in Jaranda2; your temperment is unstable, you mention as role models people I would not support for admin, either, and you resigned in a fit of pique. Sorry, still don't have my confidence. -- ''
No. I have nothing against your abilities as an admin, but I'm getting sick of this game you play where you storm off and come back again and again... How many more times do you plan on having yourself desysopped?  How many more times are you going to quit for good, eh?  And despite your own feelings on the matter, you can just ask any old crat for your bit back, yet you waste the community's time with this exercise.  This is not an RFA, but simply a cry for approval, for validation... you were a good admin, so stop wasting our time, stop playing this game, ask for your tools back, and get back to work. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' per Nae'blis and for "normally a block of a respected editor is used to calm down in my opinion"; this is not a good option, in ''my'' opinion. --
'''Oppose''', too unstable (quit, return, quit, return, quit, return, ad nauseum), too concerned with the opinion of others.  This unnecessary RFA is a case in point.
'''Oppose''' This is tiring Jaranda. You keep quitting over and over again, citing stress or a variety of other issues. It happened several times before you first became an admin (particularly after failed RfAs; December 2005, February 2006, March 2006, May 2006...) and it has happened a couple of times since then (June 2007, early 2007 [January? April?], October 2006, August 2006). You're not the only person in the world who falls on troubled times, but if you can't handle being an admin or stress in general, perhaps it is better if you not have the admin tools. This makes your ''eighth'' RfA, and I'm dismayed that you neglected to put five of your previous RfAs ([[../Aranda56]], [[../Aranda56 2]], [[../Aranda56 3]], [[../Aranda56 4]], [[../Aranda56 5]]) in the box above where it shows previous RfAs. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - For wasting the community's time for a meaningless pat on the back. If you act like an idiot, it doesn't matter if you were "reconfirmed" or not.
''Definite oppose'' I want calm administrators cleaning up after this community.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' per Everyking and Jeff above also not sure about the contacting AOL comment regarding password.
'''Oppose''': Nothing personal - I just want that he should be spared off the stress of administrating wikipedia (as revealed by the some of the comments) which may adversely affect his real life work. --
'''Oppose''' The concerns raised by the opposers above are, in my opinion, far too much for me to be able to support this RfA&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Oppose''' — You contradict yourself too much.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/carlossuarez46&diff=143824649&oldid=143821125]
'''Oppose''' Can no longer support this. Jaranda seems way too desperate to be an admin again, and per Matthew, I cannot see how he treats AfDs, contradicting yourself every sentence is not helpful in an admin candidate. '''
'''Neutral'''.  Jorge, I think you are (were, I guess) a fantastic admin, and I'm glad to see you've regained interest.  But as a RFA-less resysopped admin, I have to say I wish you hadn't run this RFA.  The current system is designed to minimize drama and unnecessary wiki-angst--let's keep it that way if we can.
'''Neutral''' - I'll support if the candidate promises to be more stable in his status on Wikipedia - there's no need to desysop yourself everytime you need to focus on real life; it's called a wikibreak banner. This page has been a waste of time in the long run; asking for your tools back should have been done prior. In any case, you're a great editor/past-admin & once you reply, I'll support or oppose. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' - After reading most of this discussion (phew!) I just want to ask [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] to make sure that this is absolutely what he wants before diving into it for the ''n''th time. History can sometimes be the best indicator of the future, so I ask that you simply try to recall exactly why it was you gave up the reins as it were. You've given up on it out of frustration in the past, is that something you are sure won't happen again in the future? You've given up on it due to time-constraints in the past, are you better able to manage your time today? You've given it up due to real life situations, and you now report that your mother is in a terminal state. I just want to be sure that if the worst happens, you won't have a need to withdraw yet again - for your own benefit as well as the project. You owe it to yourself to be sure too. -
'''Strong support'''. Excellent candidate who will use the tolls well and safely. --
'''Support''', I fully trust Jayvdb.
'''Support''' - Definatly. --
'''Support''' However I take serious issue with you registering an account and then not using it for 18 months. Given what you've acheived since you actually started editing I reckon we've missed out on about 30,000 extra '''civil, knowlegable, helpful and supportive''' contributions to Wikipedia from this candidate. :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Jayvdb would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - No concerns. --
Fantastic answers; best I've seen in a long while. '''
'''Support''' Per EVERYTHING.  I like what I see!
I rarely comment on RfAs lately, it seems, but I have seen this user in action here, and on WikiSource, where I urged him to stand for admin... I think he'll make a fine admin here because he "gets it", "has a deft hand" and is "unlikely to delete the main page".... SO: "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup>" ++
'''Support'''. A good candidate, which I have my trust in
'''Support''' - Jayvdb has all the qualities needed for a good admin. -
'''Support''' Will do a great job.
'''Support''' per excellent answer to my optional question #4.
'''Support''' seems to have high levels of clue ~
'''Support''' Shows geat knowledge of policies and procedures, eager (and able) to help, presented a genuine need for admin tools, gave well-thought-out and non-condescending answers to questions, and shows low levels of powerhungriness.
'''Support''' Is a great canidate
'''Support''' I've seen this editor around a lot with the AFD categorising, was surprised that he was not an admin yet. <b>
'''Support''' - I don't always agree with your positions at AfD, but I absolutely respect that you are willing to put in the effort to improve articles that you support.  Your answers and actions also indicate an appropriate level of caution about unfamiliar areas.  I believe you would be an excellent admin.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
I'm
'''Support''' - will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. A longtime editor who I often see helping out the project. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  He's been very active at [[WP:AfD]], and he always makes excellent comments for the better good of WP (even if we disagree sometimes).  He will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' He is a darn good editor, and he be good as an admin. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' goodness me, you mean he isn't already...?
'''Strong support'''. I've been very impressed by his work at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|WikiProject Deletion sorting]], and in other areas. I'm sure he will make a great admin.
As nom
'''Support''' Thought you were one, man! --
'''support''' I don't think I've ever used the "but I thought...already was" before, but now I have.
'''support'''  Q.4. Skimmed talk page and was impressed.
'''Support'''. Good editor, very good answers to the questions posed.--
'''Support''', obvious support on this one! I look forward to your contributions! <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''', very good contributor. I hope you become a good admin too.
'''Support'''. Good contributor with sufficient experience.
'''Support''' Will make good use of the mop --'''
'''Support''' Good Luck!
'''Support''' A valuable contributor with an even temper.
'''Support'''  - good pedia building, would love to see an FA though...cheers,
'''Support'''. Dedicated and knowledgeable, definitely deserves adminship.
'''Support'''.  Great contributions, nice history, and excellent answers.  Seems to be a very trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. I thought he already was an administrator.  Unflappable contributor to deletion debates.  Will use the tools well. --
Clique #1. <b>
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No concerns. —'''
'''Support''' No concerns, answers questions like an ideal admin, appears to have act together.
'''Support''' Will not abuse tools. --
'''Support''' no concerns.
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with many excellent contributions especially to AfD sorting.
'''Support''' - I'm confident the candidate will use admin tools very appropriately. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, I actually worked with this user years ago and found him to be professional, hard-working, thorough and with good listening skills, and he has proven to be the same here in a very different environment. His understanding of policy shown at AfD debates is solid, and the mop would be safe in his hands.
'''Support'''. Sorry for the cliché, but I thought he was an admin already. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Good answers! '''
'''Support''' Great Track.
'''Support'''.  A highly experienced user who knows what he's doing.  No reason not to trust him with the admin tools.
'''Strong Support'''. I have a confession to make: I wikistalked Jehochman for a while.  Back when I was very active at [[WP:WPSPAM|WikiProject Spam]], someone there suggested we keep an eye on him. The insinuation was that he might be a spammer who was trying to ingratiate himself with Wikipedia editors by temporarily playing by the rules.
'''Support''' - a  good contribution history and I particularly like the answer to question 3. Dealing with spammers is a tedious task, and dealing with potential conflicts of interest is a sensitive one. Matching admin tools with Jehochman's experience and reliability in these areas will be a genuine asset.
'''Strongest possible support'''.  Jehochman is one of the finest up-and-coming Wikipedians at this website, period.  His article space contributions are excellent and he volunteers in areas such as [[WP:COIN]] where sysops are in short supply.  I've watched him and worked with him under some of the toughest field conditions this site can offer: he's unflappable.  Jehochman's talent at site investigations is superb and he brings calm diligence to every endeavor.  He has participated in some of the site's most contentious disputes (such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS]]) and concluded nearly every instance with the respect of all parties.  I would be hard pressed to imagine a better candidate for adminship.  Give this man an industrial-sized mop. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support.''' I know Jehochman through his work at [[WP:COIN]] and he is one of the mainstays of that noticeboard. In general it is not so easy to find admins willing to take an interest in specific COI issues, if blocks or other intervention are needed, due to the complexities. (Durova is among the happy few admins who are frequently seen at COIN). Since Jehochman is familiar with the type of issues people encounter there, if he became an admin, it would be a big help.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Precisely the type of person we want as an admin.  Lots of consistent editing over the past few months.  Always uses an edit summary.  Helps edit articles and does the housekeeping necessary for the project.  My only concern, and it's a minor one, is that the applicant hasn't gotten into a lot of controversial issues to really show their skills in building consensus, but I see indications of current and future success.  I rarely support applicants, but this one gets wholehearted support from me.
'''Stronger than possible support.''' Dealing with those who would subvert Wikipedia to marketing ends is a big problem that's getting bigger. What better way to deal with it than to have someone on our side who knows the ins-and-outs of the business?  The fact that Jonathan has been working with Scientology-related articles, and yet by all appearances has managed to retain his sanity, faculties, and good nature, speaks volumes of his temperament.
I was half-way through writing up a nomination myself, but Sarah covered all bases that I did, so I won't bore people with redundancies. Strong support. '''
'''Support''' I do indeed approve.  It's really nice to see people who want to work in the more tedious aspects of admin work.  Hell yes :).
'''Support.''' Clearly a substantial editor, who can be trusted with the tools.
I do [[joke|have some concerns]] here, mainly regarding the nominator; VirtualSteve turned out to a good administrator, as did Newyorkbrad, and Riana is excellent. Hmm...strong support it is then! :)
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support.''' As per Acalamari.He has over 2300 mainspace edits which are solid and show a mature editor with over 6000 edits overall
'''Way Beyond the Strongest Possible Support.''' Jehochman has so proved he's ready to be an admin. In fact, the previous work he's done as an editor puts to shame the work done by most admins. --
'''Support''' I am confident that this user will make a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' From what I'm seeing, this user is already trusted and has a good amount of edits in all the spaces. Regards, '''
'''Support''' Per [[User:Useight]].
'''Support''' Should do just fine. Responsible editor.
'''Support''' Good luck --'''
'''Support'''. <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
Solid candidate, solid nominator, what else can we ask for?
'''Support'''.  What I've seen of this user looks fine.
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate who I more than trust with the tools. Good work.
'''Support''' - the volume of contributions speaks for itself. Onward with the 'pedia building.cheers,
'''Support'''. A quality candidate here my friends. &mdash;
'''Support''', no real concerns. Knowlege of SEO stuff already proving very useful.
'''Support''' In my experience this user has the qualities needed to do the job - shows good faith and acts on the evidence (even if the evidence changes and forces a rethink). I believe this user will do a good job with the tools.
'''Support''' Support. Worked with Jonathan a few times now, and each instance has been incredibly pleasant and educational. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#C00000">
'''Support'''. The candidate and I don't see eye to eye about everything, but from his actions so far I trust his judgment and integrity. I become daily more convinced that such trust is the only good reason for supporting a request for adminship.
No reason not to.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no significant issues. The concerns raised by the oppose and neutral commenters, which confirm that the candidate has waded into some thick waters and controversial areas in his time on Wikipedia. No one doing this work is going to be perfect, and the overall picture is one of very positive contributions.
'''Cliche support.''' Thought he was admin already.  '''''
''''Support''' - Seen this user contributions and his work in the noticeboards. Give him the bit.
'''Strong Support''' - User looks great to me
'''Support''' He seems like he'll be trustworthy admin and won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Strong support''' per [[User:Satori Son|Satori Son]]<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jehochman&diff=162355565&oldid=162352225]</sup>, [[User: Durova|Durova]]<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJehochman&diff=162359187&oldid=162358151]</sup>, and [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]]<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jehochman&diff=next&oldid=162359187]</sup>-- there's not much that I can add; one of 2007's best candidates. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; I see no inclination this user will abuse the tools.  Everyone should have tools by default, and they should only be removed if they are abused.  Unfortunately, due to the nature of the Wiki, the damage such a policy would cause would be tremendous.  As a result, I opt for the much weaker criterion of "will the user exercise the tools in a reasonable and intelligent manner"?  I think this user will.  --
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.[http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013098.html this] shows that you are quite unbiased.--
'''Support''': Good content contributions, experience in dealing with controversial topics and staying cool, interested in working in important and understaffed areas... sounds good to me. '''
If he's got Matt57 opposing, must be doing something right. Seems like a good chap overall.
I oppose this user because he does not fit my criteria in support. The user must have 200 FAs to his name, 500 GAs, an edit count of 250,000 with exactly 50% in mainspace. The username of this user also doesn't have J.W imprinted on it, so I question his dedication. Also I don't trust the nominator Sarah, who has previously nominated some rouge admins such as Daniel, and puppetmasters such as Riana. Long Live The Cabal!! <!-- Keep this in the "supports" section please. Tis a joke --> --
'''Support.''' I'm surprised I hadn't already supported this.
'''Support''' Oppose arguments are not convincing enough.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good editor. --
Yes, of course. —&nbsp;'''
Member of the better class of users. ~
'''Support''' No outstanding issues left after his response below. Seems like he has a firm grib on policy, no reason to believe that he will be anymore rouge than what is or should be required of an administrator.
'''Support''' More than qualified. Adminship isn't that big a deal. --'''
'''Support'''. No problems with this candidate. Quite qualified.
'''Support''' - I have encountered this user before, and while we disagreed at first and things did not start as well as they could have, I was impressed enough with how things ended that I must support. --
'''Support''' - Remains generally calm & civil under pressure, will do well with the mop --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Impressed that the candidate didn't rush into RFA, but patiently took his time instead, gathering experience and undergoing coaching. Tries to de-escalate conflict and drama with a tone and attitude I would appreciate as an involved antagonist. His SEO knowledge and [[WP:COI]] skills belong aboard the adminship. No history of abuse, and none in sight. Finally, though I never participated in the discussion at [[WP:CN]], I was grateful that Jehochman brought [[user:Ideogram]]'s timewasting puppetry and other behavior to the wider community's attention. ---
'''Support''' Not impressive, but pretty ok.
'''Support''' Definitely needs the tools and will use them well.
'''Support''' (Forget [[User:Ideogram]]!) For the way he recently managed to convince himself that something he had been dead sure of, was not really correct. We need people who can change their mind. --
'''Support''' Strong candidate. Particularly liked your answer to Q3. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think I have misunderstood your comments in those discussions, because the answer to Q5 is pretty impressive and displays a good grasp of how we should deal with newbies. I am confident that Jehochman will use his administrator tools to the benefit of the encyclopaedia with his best judgement. Good luck. <b>
'''Support''' - Per nom and above.
'''Strong support''' - very useful editor at [[WP:AfD]] and [[WP:COIN]].  I would trust him 100 % with the mop.
'''Support''' - great experience in all the relevant and necessary areas. Fine candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Everything looks fine now. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' When I first met Jehochman I had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shutterbug/Archive1&diff=130457496&oldid=130452744 concern] over his over-enthusiastic use of what are supposed to be escalating warnings on [[User:COFS]]' talk page. He then followed that by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=138980175 urging] an editor to take a COI complaint with COFS to the community sanction noticeboard, leading to a no-resolution there and to an long, time-consuming [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS|arbitration]] that basically did the work that the [[WP:COIN]] could have done in the first place (IMO). So why am I supporting him? To be honest, I think I saw Jehochman mature over the course of that arbitration and realize that issues are sometimes (often?) more complex than they at first seem. Jehochman has shown a willingness to understand and address difficult issues that can only help the project. I am concerned a bit about what might be an exclusionary attitude, his use of "we" in instances like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=159682558&oldid=159666517 this] to denote what I presume to be "THE ADMINS", of which I know that he wants to be a part. I think he will learn that admins put their pants on one pixel at a time just like the rest of us and I sincerely hope that he does not harbor any ideas that THE ADMINS are somehow superior to us "regular" editors or that wikipedia is divided into WE, THE ADMINS and "the rest". That would be unfortunate. I am, however, inclined to give him the chance he wants. --
I '''support''' this editor and trust he will make a good admin, although he probably knows that I'm ill at ease over his handling of some Elonka-related disputes. I'm sure he knows that none is infallible. And of course his exposure of Ideogram's antics is very appreciated. --
'''Support''' no reason not to.
The links Durova provided below that showed Jehochman taking an exceptionally pro-active stance on eliminating vandalism proves, in my opinion, that we'd benefit from his having the tools. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' per convincing reasons given by supporters; not convinced by opposers. I believe Jehochman will benefit Wikipedia with the admin tools, especially since he's willing to work in the more confusing areas of administrative activity.
'''Support'''. I have seen only good work on-wiki from Jehochman. What residual doubts I had are addressed by his answers to questions. As a side note, I heartily oppose attempts by some of those opposing to hijack this RfA to air their grievances on totally unrelated matters. Editors standing at RfA are more open than most to such unpleasant tactics - they are rather expect to smile humbly while people throw rocks at them. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' I have confidence that he will do a good job, based on many of the reasons stated above.
'''Support''' See nothing that makes me think this candidate will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' per Matt57 --
'''Oppose''' I object to Jehochman being an admin as it appears he has some conflict of interest issues.  For example:<br/>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shutterbug/Archive2&diff=prev&oldid=147589813 This looks like a solicitation to do search engine optimization for the Church of Scientology][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29&diff=prev&oldid=146834001 At least one of these links was not linkspam as he alleged][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=159682558&oldid=159666517 Hochman did not state to whom he was refering][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJehochman&diff=159709469&oldid=159709238 When I politely asked him who he was refering to, he refused to discuss it]<br/>I don't think he should be given admin powers at this time.--
'''Oppose'''.   Not only does the idea of a SEO guy doing COI "investigations" bug the hell out of me -- if you ask me, it's a meta-COI --, but also [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]'s pronounciations in [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]]'s RFC/U, as well as elsewhere, were more than a little bizarre and rather self-contradictionary.  I'm concerned that [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] may put allegiance in front of policy in matters of his own conflict of interest, and as such, I can not, in good conscience, vote anything else than oppose at this time.  (As a specific example, see the [[User talk:Bishonen]] incident cited by [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]].)  Perhaps after another year ...
'''Neutral.''' My only interaction with this user was him accusing me of being an [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram|Ideogram sock]], without bothering to notify me.
'''Neutral''' Many editors appear to have had good experiences with
'''Neutral''' while I believe you can be trusted with the tools, your reaction to every oppose/neutral is of a concern because sometimes knowing when to say nothing can be as effective.
'''Neutral''' only because I'm not familiar with Jehochman, but I wanted to make it clear that I did not oppose him. If anything, from the comments of the other users here, I have the feeling he will do a very good job. Best of luck. --
'''Neutral, leaning support''' - I'm not quite sure where to go on this one. On the one hand, he's clearly been in a lot of contentious disputes, and as I haven't been following the Matt57 case, I don't know who's in the "right" or "wrong" here. On the other hand, he self-evidently does a lot of good work; his past conflicts become more understandable in light of the fact that he works in controversial areas, such as [[WP:COIN]] and Scientology-related articles, where (in my experience) it's nearly impossible to avoid conflict. Also, I'm impressed by the fact that Sarah (who tends to have exacting RfA criteria) nominated him. So for now I'm neutral, but I'm open to being persuaded to Support by someone who knows more about the background to this case.
'''Neutral'''. He's trying hard to be a good Admin. That is something. I am not voting pro/con just because J had been active in my ArbCom and any support would pull the fanatics on him.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. My gutfeeling tells me not to trust this user. He seems to good to be true, and things which seem too good to be true usually are. But let's hope I am mistaking and he will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' as nom.
From what I see, this is a good editor who is prepared to take the tools and put them to good use. -
'''Support'''.  This user has made great anti-vandalism efforts, and general article editing.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent contributions and answers to questions. Well rounded, too!
Good answers to questions, good contributor. -- <strong>
As above. '''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - good editor, good answers: relatively low number of edits recently isn't too much of a concern to me.
'''Support''' No concerns. Seems trustworthy, mature, and civil enough for adminship. <font color="purple">♠</font>
Looks like another good candidate from Epbr123.
'''Support''' - Jerry impressed me earlier this year with the calm, rational way he handled a heated content dispute with [[User:Theriac|Theriac]].  In light of that experience and his ability to stay calm under fire, I feel that he would be extremely unlikely to abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' based on answers to questions + Kralizec!'s comment. As for 50 to 250 edits/month: I'm happy to take as many or as few as you can give us. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - Thanks for your rather thorough medical history, but "''I've been sick''" would have been just as good. ;) I now have no real concerns and hope you're going well. I did like the rationale Kralizec! gave above and I feel that the way you handled that incident was admin-worthy. I have no problem now supporting. :) Cheers,
'''Support''' Well I am not expecting 5-6 hrs of editing everyday, but quality and consistent edits work out just fine with me. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' For your amazing perspective displayed in question four.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' - No danger signals.  He'll do fine.  '''''
'''Support''' - don't see any problems here, good luck. <b>
'''Support''' He will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per the nom and backlogs.
'''Support''' - No problems seen.--
'''Support''' should be a good admin.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate should have received more support votes.  -
'''Support''' There is much to be said for proactive admins.--
'''Support''' as we need more mature admins and Jerry seems to fit the bill (thank your contrib to Ssbohio's talk page for this). Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)::Thanks, I have copied that discussion below Ssbohio's 'neutral' !vote, below.  <i>
'''Support'''.—
'''Support''' A decent editor, I like the answers you gave.
'''Support''' My concerns are allayed.  No objection to granting him the tools.  --
'''Oppose''' per 5A, which shows a lack of understanding of how and why articles are tagged. Tags for poor quality will often be followed by {{tl|prod}} and {{tl|csd}}, because another editor has decided that the article is not only bad, but should be gotten rid of to clear the ground for a better one. They should not replace the flaw tags; if the article is deleted, it doesn't matter what tags it had; if the article is kept (and even justified prods are often removed), the flaw tags should remain, as if the deletion requests were never made.
'''Neutral''' I have no problem with low edits per month. I don't see the risk to the project of giving tools to a user who makes 50-250 edits a month.  But I was kinda weirded out by the interaction (a long time ago, January) with [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] on [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Jerry]] about notifying all editors who ever made even a trivially small edit to an article when it comes up for an AfD ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham|this Afd]], FWIW).
'''Neutral''' Very good WP work on detailed articles, but I am not convinced understands the admin role adequately--yet. I like to see a few months of policy/XfD experience. hint: we need more people at the "minor" XfDs, not just AfD. '''
I have complete confidence that Jersey Devil will be a fine admin.--
'''Support'''- can't see a reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' improved all round since last time.
'''Support''' I believe the term is ''sang'' as member ;) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rutgers&diff=prev&oldid=103309441]. No qualms from me.

[[User_talk:DVD R W|<font color="black"> dvd</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' - probably would vote neutral because nom was placed at the bottom of the page at first, but I can still trust this user, so therefore support.
'''Strong Support''' again, this is a good admin candidate.  --
'''Voto en favor''' -- ''
'''Support''' I like what I've seen from JD, and have no problems supporting.
'''Support''' A fine and trustworthy editor. I have come across this user's contributions quite regularly, and they are always of a high quality.
'''Support''' Great contribs, tons of edits, a lot of which are Wiki edits, well-written answers...bust out a mop. '''
'''Support''' - Trustworthy, serious editor; brings to the project expertise we need.
'''Support''' I see no problems. ←
'''Support'''. Jersey Devil gives no indication that he'll explode the 'Pedia if we hand over the Big Red Admin Buttons, so let's hand them over. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' as I see nothing which indicates Jersey Devil would abuse the bit. ···
'''Support'''. Well-established user, good range of participation, sensible and mature answers to questions - I see no problem with giving the tools.
'''Support'''. I ran into this user when the Peruvian presidential elections was going on and he kept an wake eye on the [[Ollanta Humala]] article, which was the target fr a lot of attacks at the moment. This user is taking the encyclopadia issue seriously and can be trusted.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per my quality interactions with Jersey Devil. Regarding Jersey's level of activity since November, my best guess is, knowing Jersey's penchant for politics, Jersey trailed off a bit because the U.S. midterm elections ended.  I suspect Jersey's edit total will pick back up again as other elections approach and as Jersey finds new projects to work on.  But it's just an edit count, anyway, which says nothing about the quality of Jersey's contributions. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support'''. Pleasant interaction experience, and selfnom means respect (=extra points) to me.
'''Support''' as on last RfA.  Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' good candidate.--
'''Support''' per Trebor.
'''Support''' per the nomination. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' An excellent admin candidate. I see no major problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support'''
'''Support''' great candidate! ''
'''Support'''. Ntohing super-awesome about this candidate, but no reason to think he'll abuse his powers either.--
'''Support'''. Very good editor. Probably will be an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' Excellent editor. Deserves tools. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Although there have been NPOV arguements levied against you, the evidence they have given wasn't enough to convince me personally that you will be any problem with the tools that adminship will provide you, so I give you my support
'''Support.''' This candidate has some serious weaknesses (see the Oppose section), but I'm a fan of his administrative specialties (AfD, AIN and such) and I think he can be trusted with them.
'''Strong Support''' This is a great candidate and I think he would be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Experienced and wise editor who should have been made an administrator long ago. Certainly one of the most neutral editors one would find on wikipedia despite the extraordinary comments by Sandy below. I think Sandy, who is normally one of my favourite editors, is way out of line here. There are simply ''no'' POV issues surrounding Jersey's work on Latin American subjects and no serious evidence has been or will be provided. Any accusations of pro-Hugo Chavez edits by Jersey below (based on his removal of one un-sourced edit 18 months ago) should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Sandy simply has a point of view on Latin America so forthright it could make a [[Contra]] blush ;) Next we'll be haranguing MONGO for his clear Anti-American bias!--
'''Support''' Serious editor who has shown a willingness to improve since last RfA.
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''. I have often seen this editor doing good work. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - He looks to be a trusworthy admin.<b>
'''Support.'''  I'm not without concerns, but I think on the whole that he will do a good job. —
'''Strong support''' fine with NPOV, does good work in holding unencyclopedic material to account. '''
'''Support''' Fine candidate. --
'''Support''' All around a good candidate. I think he will do fine with the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent user; would use the tools well. --
'''Support''' Nothing but positive interactions with Jersey Devil.  Should be a good admin. --
Ja, there were some issues. But overall I think your body of work allows me to trust your judgment. The anti-Striver "crusade" should have been understaken more circumspectly, but I can't fault you for submitting for deletion many articles entitled "Shia opinion of [person]", many of which qualified as [[WP:POVFORK]]s. I don't see this translating it into abusing administrative tools. I support. -
'''Support'''.  Oppose votes do not seem to be based on substantive issues, or if they are these issues are not presented or explained adequately.  I'll check back to see if more information presents itself. --
'''Support''' a fine editor.--
'''Support''' per answer to Q1. CfD is backlogged majorly ;) --'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' per all above. Experienced user, very high editcount, POV issues not especially significant as far as I can see. Also shouldn't be judged on their early history.
'''Support'''.
I changed my mind after further review. Is competent. I have faced it this user before, and he has been fairly reasonable. &mdash;
'''Support''' Liked the answers and trust him not to use tools inappropriately. --
'''Support''' n' stuff.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', plain and simple.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
Since I have confidence that JD won't abuse the powers, I must '''Support'''. ---
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I supported the previous RfA in view of my belief that one could reasonably conclude that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Jersey's being a sysop should be positive]], and I support here because that belief abides.  I am troubled by two or three of the diffs adduced below&mdash;I'm not, for instance, certain that I construe [[WP:BLP|BLP]] vis-à-vis the Chavez revert in the same fashion as JD; I don't, FWIW, find anything particularly objectionable in the Natalie Holloway edit inasmuch as such edit, even as serves no constructive encyclopedic purpose, has no disruptive tendency&mdash;but I don't think any to evidence some flaw the presence of which should render JD ill-suited for adminship.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, from personal experience working with him. --
My reason is specific to me and don't want it to influence others. I have had a few interaction with this user. My reason for oppose is that when I nominated someone else for adminship and he accepted, instead of me or that person, Jeresy added the RfA and voted oppose for him. I just didn't feel good that somebody other than me or that editor would add it. Jeresy could have waited for one day more to vote oppose. Just not nice, but he did not break any policy. BUT I am not qualified to say much about Jeresy. --
''' Strong Oppose'''.  POV is a problem in many of the articles dealing with Latin American topics; someone who doesn't closely follow Latin American politics might not know of certain politician's views, but anyone who follows Latin American politics as closely as Jersey Devil appears to should know that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_Truth_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=73838439 this content] which he (inaccurately) deleted (without the courtesy of a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag) could have been verified with a one-second Google search (or at least should think to check before deleting).  [[teleSUR]] - to which Jersey Devil contributes significantly - is unbalanced (also pro-[[Hugo Chávez]])  I'm also concerned about the self-nom following a previous failed RfA, and that Jersey Devil's Wiki participation has dropped way off in the last four months.  His answer to optional question 4 above is not convincing; Jersey Devil does not convince me he is an advocate for NPOV, and neutrality is badly needed on many Latin American articles.  I'm also curious about why he hasn't answered the other optional questions.
'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] that participation has been considerably lacking in recent months. I also agree with [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] to some extent in regards to NPOV issues. The issue that pushed me from neutral to oppose was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalee_Holloway&diff=24205922&oldid=24143487 this comment] which is totally unacceptable. Granted it was well over a year ago, but it is still displayed on the talk page and I can't look passed this type of comment. If the candidate had been more active, I may have been pushed back into neutral. '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]]. Following [[WP:BITE]] is important for admins. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' for his summer 2006 rampage on Islam related articles, afd everything he found that was created by me, in total over 40 articles with a very low success rate of deleting, many people voting procedural keep and characterizing his behavior as a "crusade" or "war path". I would never trust him with admin tools. Btw, several of the articles that was deleted due to him was in fact undeleted later on since they simply went undedected given the total caos, one of this undeletions gave me a barnstar. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I do not know much about him personally, may the reason is that he is inactive recently. I am only opposing him because Striver above post rises concerns to me. I will vote support if the user actively contribute and try again later after sometimes. Furthermore, I might also change my stand if he can address Striver concerns. :) ---
'''Oppose''' - There's just lots of little things I don't really find comforting about this user. A bit of history of jumping the gun on some AfD's (some of that was involving Striver, but some of it wasn't -- like Exploding animals). Didn't really like some of his comments in the Seabhcan decision, and I just don't have the whole "yeah, this person would be good" feeling. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong oppose''' per Striver. Could not trust him with delete button.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong oppose''' per AuburnPilot diff-
'''Strong oppose''' Jersey Devil has engaged in a lot of aggressive edit warring and POV-pushing, and I have no confidence that he wouldn't use admin tools (or the threat of using admin tools) to ensure that his POV dominates an article.  --
'''Strong oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per striver and auburnpilot. ''Peace''. --'''
'''Strong oppose''' per Striver and Hyperbole. Assumes bad faith and quick to delete articles based on own POV.
'''Neutral''' per NPOV concerns raised by SandyGeorgia, good candidate but cannot support at this time. --
'''Neutral''' for now, based on some of the edits given above
'''Neutral''', the user has a good knowledge about the project but recent declination in the contributions does not seem favourable to me.
'''Neutral''' - I do think that JerseyDevil is a strong candidate, and the oppose votes don't really sway me, but I am a bit concerned about the decline in recent activity.  I know that life happens sometimes, but weeks and weeks without significant presence might suggest that this nomination is not well-timed.-
'''Beat the Nom-Support''' haha, crz! --
Nom support - <b>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Jersyko handles difficult situations well. He is diligent and always civil. I am sure he will be a great admin. -
'''Support'''-Plan to work on things that get backlogged and other admin things. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' I see no problems with this nomination.
Whoa, Jersy wasn't already an admin?  '''Support'''.  —
'''Support'''-I just read that he's been on for 2 years and made 8,400 contributions. That's when I thought, "Definately. He should me admin."  Good luck. -
'''Support'''. Should make a fine admin if he follows the requirement of at least 16 hours of Wikiediting/Admin chores per day. '''
'''Support'''. I have relied on Jersyko tremendously to review my own edits.  He makes a great editor and asks pointed questions to improve the quality of dental articles, even though he has no experience in the dental field at all. I am certain he would make an excellent admin. -
'''Support''' looks like another stellar candidate.  Odd that he wasn't made an administrator earlier --
'''Support''' More than qualified. '''
'''Support'''.  --

'''Fellow-jurist-support''', of course.
'''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions. Great candidate overall.

'''Support''' very good candidate who seems quite qualified for the position.
'''Support''', no problems I see. Good luck getting accused of being a cabalist approximately 100 times a day because you dared to block an arrogant POV pusher. -
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Looks like a fantastic candidate.  has tons of experience and clearly is capable of using tools.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Everything looks good, have no problem with him. --
'''Support''' We need more AVFs like him. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' per nom. ''
You honor, we find the candidate to be a '''great''' one! '''
'''Support''' - Good contribution, should have no problems.
'''Support''', definitely worthy.
'''Support''' My interactions with Jersyko have all been quite positive.
Not quite an RFA cliche, but I've had good experiences with Jersyko.
'''Support''', good user.
'''Strong Support''' I like his answers and I think he's a really great candidate. ←
'''Support''' Nominated by crz? of course it's a support. But seriously, Jersyko sounds like a good candidate.
'''Strong Support''' My only regret is not having nominated the user first. All I've seen is good work from this user, in particular with regards to keeping the [[Democratic Party (United States)]] article free from vandalism and unencyclopedic language.--
'''Support''' per nom. Good wikipedian.
'''Support,''' ''despite'' the fact that he is a fellow attorney (we are such a self-hating profession).  Seriously though, seems like a great editor with plenty of experience in dispute-resolution and NPOV matters.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''', rather useful chap to have around.
From his user page I have inferred that this is a very experienced user who would contribute much to the Wikipedia as an administrator. He has answered many difficult questions about his activities on and about the Wikipedia itself well. As I believe that the Wikipedia will benefit from him being an administrator, I declare my '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Has plenty of experience. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' This user's knowledge of policy, his dedication to the project and sound judgement make him eminently qualified for adminship. Furthermore, he would be more productive if he had access to admin tools (vandal and spam fighting, etc). It is a pleasure to support him. --<font color="black">
'''Support''' a fellow Tennessean/Built to Spill fan.  Great answers to the questions above all else.
'''Support''' per ... pretty much everything above. Strongly qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' Very well written replies. As adminship is no big deal, and I can't find any reason to not trust you with the tools... so I think you will make a fine admin. ——
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. User has, as Crz noted, plenty of WP:namespace and user talk edits, and seems very reasonable in wanting the tools. His slate is clean as a whistle, too. A valuable admin, methinks. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' He's not an admin already? '''
'''Support''' Good editor!
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. --
'''Support'''&mdash; easy decision. Even nominated by Czr! Do good things well.
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(

'''Support'''An excellent user.--
'''Support'''. Fine user. -
'''S u p p o r t''' -
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Support''' Have interacted with this user and found him reasonable and level-headed. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Should do well with the mop and bucket. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - good head on his shoulders and an even temper. He'll do well. --
'''Support''':  I'm delighted to hear someone who can assess what "IAR" is and what it says.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - good image experience[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Jersyko] and 22 months here --
'''Support'''--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' per good understanding of [[WP:AGF]].--
'''Support'''. Seasoned editor with a good grasp of policy and plenty of experience in the main namespace. You will be a fine admin. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I have yet to see an oppose or neutral vote yet... '''
'''Support''' I have always been impressed by Jersyko's work when I encounter it.  He will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' - Nothing to worry about. -- ''
'''Support''' per nom. --
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate per nom. --<b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong Support''' candidate has exceptional judgment and in my experience he is always patient and level-headed no matter how difficult the circumstances.  And I think the answer to question seven is the best summary of IAR I've ever heard.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks very impressive.--
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''', has been very diplomatic in helping with POV on articles relating to American politics.
'''Support''' Without hesitation. Will be a great Admin '''
'''Strong support''' excellent record, knows way around, contributes to articles a lot, strong judgement. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' My general disinclination to give ''pile-on'' supports notwithstanding, I must so support here, if only in order that this should continue its push toward [[WP:100]].  I concur, FWIW, in the sentiments of Crz and [[User:Vary|Vary]], and I cannot believe that the project should ever be worse for our sysopping an editor schooled in law and possessed of the deliberative and analytical disposition one expects to find in individuals (the occasional vacuous [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Sandy Day]]s aside) thus educated.  Finally, any user who uses as many words to answer question seven as might I surely merits support.
'''Support''' I'm looking around for a reason not to... it is a positive attribute to seem human! Then again, there is the comment regarding having more involvement in RfC. Bingo found the flaw for my support! lol
'''Strongly Oppose''' I thought this editor was very mature and could handle various tasks regarding projects.  However, judging from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jersyko/archive1&diff=next&oldid=14286037 this ignorant edit]. . . probably not. <b><font face="trebuchet ms" color="FF9999">
'''Neutral''' Possibility of confusion with another admin. Of course, if this one is as good as so many voters think, the confusion can only enhance my own tarnished reputation. <br>--
'''Support''' I do not recall having had any contact with you prior to your RfA, but in perusing your contributions and talk pages I have not come across anything glaringly wrong, and from what I see you do seem to enjoy the more ''technical'' aspects of Wikipedia - maintenance and vandalism fighting. I give you my support then. --
'''Support'''. A great editor which has the priorities of an admin. I'm sure he would do an excellent job as an admin. Plus, his [[Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/Jesse_Viviano|edit count]] and edit summary usage (100% for major, 100% for minor) is also quite good. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' per experiance.
&mdash;
'''Support''' Looks like a good user to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy nominators = trustworthy user, and definitely needs the tools. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">

Sounds good.--
'''Support''' Looks like you wont abuse the tools.--
I'm
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per work on AIV.<b>
'''Support''' Good work at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:OP]] but I hope he will refrain from using admin powers in areas where he has little experience. &mdash;
- <b>
'''Support''': I thought he was one already.—
'''Support''' I trust the candidate.
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments above. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. Long overdue. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - I'm supporting just for your answer to Q1. I have moved probably a 100 images to the Commons myself over the past week or two and I get irritated at the backlog of images that have been moved to the Commons.↔
'''Support''' From interaction with him, he looks out for the wikipedia community and wouldn't abuse the tools
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Good answers, boffo noms and support statements. Whack with the magic admin stick and transform to admin, says I. (must be oscar night: "boffo"?)
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' trustworthy, level-headed, and dedicated. Qualified for the job! -
'''Support''' for Jesse Viviano as Administrator.  Right on!  Keep up the good work.  Sounds like you are ready and willing!!! :o)<br /> Good Luck, Jesse Viviano.  <span class="user-sig user-OnaTutors"><i>—
'''Support''' per the great looking work and edit summary usage.
'''Support''' well-done answers complement a good track record.--
'''Support''' - read the nom statement :) --
'''Support''' Looks like he's done good work.  Believe he'd use the tools well.
'''Support''' Sounds good to me. <span style="font-weight:bold;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' although Jesse appears to lack some experience when it comes to article contributions, he could certainly use some extra buttons to help with his vandalism prevention efforts (as demonstrated by the 100+ reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]]).  I haven't come across this user around the wiki yet, so I'll just have to take the nominators' good words for his personability :) [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' Good answers, succinct informative noms, needs tools.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good candidate. --
'''Support''' Looks good.--
'''Support''' [[:WP:AIV]] user; good editor too - no reason not to oppose this one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' See Newyorkbrad. Good luck with the adminship and your studies!
'''Support'''.  Prolific vandal and spam fighter.
'''Support'''. I often see this user making good contributions. -
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''-looks pretty editing.'''
'''Support''' Excellent AIV contributions. --

'''Support''' - seems like a good candidate..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Support'''.
'''Support''', would be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You seem to be a good contributor that we can trust based on your nominations and answers. '''
'''Support''': Valuable contributor and a mature appraoach to issues. --

Based on my research revolving around the user's talk page, this user has a lot of potential but still makes the odd mistake over policy. First I was gonna oppose, then I leaned towards support. Now I just want to advise that when they are given adminship, they take care when weilding their new buttons in case they're mistaken in their understanding of policy. I want to thank them for their hard work to date and wish them good luck for the future! :) --
'''Support''' as nom. Impressive and thorough question answers too - all looks good to me. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' I don't overlap with you at all so have dip-sampled more thoroughly than usual into your contribs, and I can't see a word out of place<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' — excellent participation at AfD and the main namespace. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Support''' Have come across him a lot, always satisfactorily. A very good editor with a thorough grasp of the policies. Will be a great admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong support''' I wanted to nominate... JForget is a brilliant editor with a great deal of experience here and a lot of common sense.  Will be an exceptional addition to the admin crew --
'''Support''' - WJBscribe covered it perfectly. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' yes, looks excellent. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Will be excellent. -
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate to me.
I've seen JForgot around a good deal, and I'm sure he'll do just fine. '''
'''Support''' Candidate is obviously ripe for adminship. Not to call you a fruit or anything...
'''Support''' Can't see any problems here at all.  Good luck, <b>
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' All interactions so far have been positive.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' --
'''Support ON WHEELS!''' Excelllent editor, thought he was an admin already! <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' Excellent candidate for the tools. '''
'''Support''' Another RfA-cliche moment!  Obviously skilled and trustworthy.
'''Support''' civil editor with lots of experience. <b>
'''Support''' No major concerns here. He will make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Major concerns here. I'm majorly concerned he's not an admin yet. Bo-yah!
'''Support''' Shoo in.
'''Support''' No reasons to turn down.--
'''Support''' no obvious problems here + the nom from WjBscribe sealed it! --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Great contributor. -- <small>'''
'''Support''' - the questions raised last time have been strongly addressed in the answers and the extensive contribution to WP. Beware the troll-feeding, though your past experience will probably make this less likely going forward.
'''Support''' &ndash; Excellent vandal-fighter.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' I read through the user's edits and it is impressive.

'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. As with anyone wanting to do speedies - I look at deleted edits to see whether they understand the criteria. S/he does.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - looks good to me, and if WJBscribe trusts 'em.... -
'''Support''' Excellent editor. Good luck!--
'''Support'''. Good editing, the tools will be a good addition.  '''
'''Support'''.  excellent work at [[WP:AFD]] and many good articles. Fantastic number of edits.
'''Support''' as per co nom WjBscribe.
Decent editor.
'''Support''' Qualified. -'''
'''Support''' - Looking forward to welcoming you into adminship. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
I'm
'''Strong Support''' Great Wikipedian! I think he will do a great job as an admin.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support'''  - Excellent editor. <span style="border:1px solid red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I don't mean to pile on, but I have to support. Editor seems to have addressed all issues raised in previous RfA, plenty of experience and a top-notch contributor (over 300 articles!).
'''Support''' I'll pile on.  What the heck.  I've seen quite a bit of his work and have been impressed by it.
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' We can always use more new page ''partollers''. Great editor, as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support'''. In addition to the answers he gave above, I've had opportunity to work with him (probably on AIV). And he left a positive enough impression that I saw his name and said, "I need to weigh in with support here." So I have. —'''
'''Support'''' - No concerns. --
'''Support''' I think your well prepared to be an admin. Good Luck!

'''Support''' After a trip to Ottawa, I became interested in reading more about the city/local attractions/culture. JForget has made some superb edits in this regard.--
'''Support''' - Yes, of course, can be trusted and is well liked.
'''Support''', don't see a reason not to.
'''Oppose ;)''' - More AfD! :P '''
'''Strong Support''' This candidate is extremely familiar with many vital aspects of Wikipedia. JForget has been an excellent editor for well over a year, consistent in style and tone, with a highly impressive record of created articles. In addition to the editor's devotion to creating articles about places, the contributions to politics and weather are superbly helpful. With consistent contributions to both [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:RFPP]], JForget demonstrates a knowledge of policy and procedure with ease, as well as the ability to properly communicate guidelines and policies to other editors. I am impressed by this editor's use of the appropriate warning level, and the use of helpful edit summaries, that specify what warning level was given and for what infraction, i.e.: ''(t2 Olivia Chow)'', as illustrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172.145.134.189&diff=prev&oldid=115206136 here]. This is extremely helpful to other editors and administrators, and shows a respect for the process. Additionally, the editor seems to have experience with, and good judgment regarding [[WP:SSP]], identifying and appropriately tagging several suspected alternate accounts of [[:Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jagjagjagjab|Puppetmaster]] [[User:Jagjagjagjab|Jagjagjagjab]], a particularly prolific abuser of the system, and [[User:My_words_can_laugh|My words can laugh]]. All of these things add up to someone who is not only careful and considerate, but an editor who would be a most valuable member of the community in the role of administrator, and I look forward to JForget's successful promotion. <sup>
'''Support''', excellent contributions, you have the experience to be an admin. Good luck.
'''Support''', Excellent involvement in all areas of the project, great knowledge of policy, demonstrates a need for the tools, and Wikipedia will definitely benefit from his editing in an administrative capacity. '''
'''Support''' - I've seen this guy around and I like what I see - He's level headed, well rounded and would benefit well from the tools. I can't see him abusing them, and surprisingly, as far as I can see, he meets every single one of my [[User:Spawn Man/RfA Standards|RfA Standards]]. One big support from me. You deserve it. :)
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good judgement and amazing contribs. Just what we need in mop-wielders. No doubts here --
'''Support''' JForget is both a talented editor and vandal fighter combined.  I've seen him around numerous times.  I'm sure he'll make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''. Everything looks great.
'''Support''' Looks good.--
'''Support''' - has done superbly since last RfA. What a turnaround! No problems at all here -
'''Yes'''. I've seen ya around the wiki. You've always seemed civil, and, you seem to understand the policies. Do I beleive you can be trusted with the extra buttons? '''Yep'''. Keep up the good work! :)
'''Support''' seen this user around the project a lot and have liked what I've seen.  &mdash;
'''Support'''—no concerns. --
'''Support''' - definately a very fine candidate here - hardly any faults at all. This user is experienced and knows what he is doing and will make a great admin. :-)  <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  An excellent editor. I'd prefer to see a more balanced ratio of editing (this editor has relatively few Wikipedia namespace edits), but I think he has more than enough experience.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Here's my [[Pinniped|seal of approval]]. Needs the mop. '''
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' I noticed even as a newbie how experienced and devoted he was in the dab area. I thought he already was an admin then. &ndash;
Supporting for now, pending Q4 though. '''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Experience, trustworthy, good contributions, you have my support. Good luck.
'''Support''' — Not necessarily perfect, yet just flawless in what you do.  I'm sure you'll make a great admin!--
'''Support''' - no reason not to offer my support. I think enough experience has now been gained. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', could use the tools, seems sensible enough.
I'm
'''Support''' More than 13000 edits and find no reason for concern after checking the track.
'''Support''' His work on name disambiguation is important and excellent. A very thoughtful and conscientious editor, and I am sure that will carry over into adminship.
Appears to be a good user. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Sure, no issues that I can see.  -
'''Support''', I've seen him around and I've been consistently impressed with his willingness to tackle complex issues and his ability to contribute constructively to discussions. --
'''Support''' due to large number of good edits, reverts vandalism, etc.
'''Support''' Good answers to my questions, no reason to oppose. <font face="Broadway">
—&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support'''—JHunterJ has been one of my role models at WikiProject:Disambiguation, and I always look forward to his solid reasoning in discussions at project-related pages. I agree with his comment that he is "opinionated but not bull-headed". He communicates effectively and remains civil. He can be trusted with the tools; I have no doubt. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Anything to help this amazing editor get ''even more'' disambiguation work done!
'''Support''' - A good user who deserves the sysop tools. Regards, <small>''[[User talk:Anecdote|IT'S DA...]]''</small>'''
'''Support''' good user will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Seems willing to do important but often neglected work. Could use the tools well.
'''Support''' - Although his Wikipedia namespace edits are lower than I'd like, I've literally seen this guy everywhere and have no quarrels. He seems to know what he's doing and has made constructive edits to the project. I don't think he'll abuse the tools and I've not seen him incivil. A fine report. :) You have my support (Hey, that rhymes!)... Cheers,
'''Suppose''', why not?
'''Suppose''' Your work is minor but very important. Keep up the good job. --
'''Support''' with no problem.--
'''Support''' Strong editor. I see no reason to oppose. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Great contributor, will become a great admin.
'''Support''' per above comments. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''. Does good work. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' &mdash; Great choice for the mop. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' This editor has done tons of work, contributes a lot to the mainspace, knows policy, meets [[User: Useight/RFA Standards|my standards]].
'''Support''' Amazing editor, would make a great admin.
Sure. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Definately seems good enough. Give him the mop!
'''Looks good to me''' Support, obviously. --'''
'''Support''', weakly. Looks to be ready for the mop, but a review of contribs shows that most of his AfD comments are ''per nom'' or with similarly limited reasoning. I would encourage him to further familiarize himself with the generally good advice of [[WP:AADD]] and be careful in determining consensus.
'''Support''', seems reliable enough, but I'd repeat what [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] said above - "per nom" is not really a useful contribution to AfD in most cases.
'''Support''', JJ has helped me a countless number of times with anything and everything I've asked. He is a very nice wikipedian and seems very smart. He also started at least one wikiproject, one which I am a part of, the Red Sox Wikiproject. I support JJ for adminship. --
'''Support''' - Even though I probably get this user mixed up with Jc37 (I think?), this user's contributions are simply outstanding and hopefully the community will see that. Good luck.
'''Support''' evidence of good 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support''', per answers to Questions 1, 2 and 3. Also through a perusal of past contributions seems to be a good contributor to the project. Nice work on [[WP:BOSOX]]. Actively fostering collaboration with others is also always a strong sign of a good contributor.
'''Support'''.  Won't abuse the tools.  Good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Some dubious CSD tagging, but apart from that seems like a civil and productive editor.
'''Support''' Does a fine job. --'''''
'''Support''' Good editor. I'd like to say that Moonriddengirl gave very valuable advice below that I hope you'll heed before going crazy with the delete button. <strong>
Can't say no... '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - looks like there are a ton of good edits, very involved, unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Seems like the right temperament.
'''Support''', can't see any good reasons why Jj137 could not be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - this is the first self-nom I have commented on in a long while, and it is a good one! Excellent particition in all relevant areas! :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Won't abuse tools, good edits -
Happy to '''support'''.  Great contribs, seems very capable of holding a mop.
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  Has created dozens of stubs, lots of edits and mainspace edits, etc., so meets every possible standard.  No concerns about his misusing the mop.
'''Support''' Per all of the above, and personal experience. &lt;<tt>
'''Support'''. Having considered Jj's [[Special:Contributions/Jj137|contributions]], I am willing to back his nomination. He has a desirable number of edits ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jj137|12000+]]), moderately participates in [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] discussions, performs impressive amounts of [[WP:CVU|counter-vandalism]] edits, and communicates well with other editors. Most of all, he's trustworthy, and it's safe to say he'd do his bit to scrape away at the [[CAT:AB|backlogs]]. Best of luck!
'''Support''' - No obvious Problems.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''support''' --
'''Support''' a good person and all that.
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of [[WP:BOLD|having balls]]
'''Support''' Seen the nom around. Just be careful at AfD, please.
'''Support.''' New admins make mistakes, and, among other things, that's why we have [[WP:DRV]].
'''Support''' per this: <del>'''Oppose'''</del> A "per nom" article deletion vote, when the voter has not verified asserted facts, is a vote, not an argument, it adds nothing but weight, and I'm concerned that a potential admin might not know the difference. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Range voting]] where candidate voted "per nom" as first voter, four minutes after AfD posted, and ended up being the only responding delete voter out of nine (plus the nominator, a possible sock puppet, blocked shortly thereafter, certainly an odd and short history for an AfD nominator [[Special:Contributions/StrengthOfNations]]) Did candidate verify the nominator claims? --
'''Support''' Per the reasons already given by the above; no reason why not to trust with the tools.
'''Support''' Everything I want to see in an admin, doing lots of great work and I'm sure will do much more
'''Support''' I've had several positive dealings with this editor via [[WP:WPBB]], he has always been approachable and willing to work out disputes. He's been an invaluable contributor to baseball articles.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great activity and I believe he would be great as an admin. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. The candidate has a good set of contributions, and I see no evidence of any cause to doubt his ability to properly use the tools, to the benefit of the project. Per other comments, though - do be careful on deletions, at least until you have a handle on discerning and adequately expressing consensus. No harm in second opinions on the really sticky cases.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. Be mindful of the concerns brought up and you'll be good to go. <tt>:)</tt>
'''Weak support'''.  Admins don't have to be perfect.  I hope you will exercise caution and always continue learning.  Your answers to questions 1, 12 and 13 leave me with lingering doubts as to whether you're planning to use the tools with sufficient care;  maybe I'm reading things in there that you didn't mean.  I don't see how [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Spy-novel-stub&diff=prev&oldid=177511551 removing a link from a template] is a minor edit.  Happy Solstice and best of luck to you. --
'''Support''' Looks good.
Good user.
Sorry, but you never put an extremely controversial matter up at DRV.  Anything that has been through OTRS and the like is almost always controversial, and at best any discussion has to be extremely private.  Sorry.
Weak oppose per Q11. Three things worry me: Firstly, you don't mention anything about contacting the person who deleted it and asking them, which is really quite bad. Secondly, you say ''"I could take the article to WP:DRV for consensus. If there is an obvious consensus, I would undelete the article"'', which shows a lack of knowledge about the [[WP:DELPRO|deletion process]] in that people involved in the discussion (especially the nominator) shouldn't be closing it, and ''especially'' not using their administrator tools. Thirdly, ''"and make sure it meets all of the requirements of [[WP:BIO]]"'' may have been a mere typo, but the decision and the question related to the [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons policy]], not the [[WP:BIO|notability of people guideline]]. Furthermore, my position was enhanced by the two people below me in neutral. However, the easily most worrying part of this, for me, is the fact that you wouldn't contact the user who deleted ''any article'' before opening up a discussion on it, and especially so if it relates to sensitive information in a deleted living persons biography. This worry duplicates for all administrator actions (protection, deletion, and even general editing), as it shows that you may not understand the concept of courtesy to your fellow administrator and rush straight to the appropriate noticeboard/review page without first discussing it with the administrator involved. '''
'''Oppose''' Regrettable, but Daniel does bring up quite a good point.
'''Weak oppose''' I've encountered the same issues with mistagged speedy requests that Moonriddengirl mentioned. I'm not sure having more admins who haven't read the requirements for speedy deletion, especially the definition of patent nonsense, is a good idea. (However, if you study up, I think eventually you'd make a good admin).--
'''Neutral''' - You're clearly a fine editor, and I have no reason to believe you would abuse the tools, but reading through your answers to the questions above and looking back through your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&contribs=user&target=Jj137&namespace=4 Wikipedia namespace contributions], I'm having a hard time measuring your knowledge about Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  That being said, I think you are a solid new page patroller and have demonstrated a need for the tools, so I may come back and revisit this vote based on further discussion or your answers to the optional questions. --
'''Neutral'''. I don't want to oppose, because I believe that you do a lot of great work on Wikipedia, but I am a little concerned with some of your recent CSD tags, particularly with what the implication of those could be if you have admin tools. I notice that you've tagged quite a few articles as nonsense, and all of the ones that I've reviewed have been deleted for one reason or another, though not all of them have been strictly [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense|nonsense]] in the Wikipedia definition. For example, on November 19th, you tagged the Turkish language article [[:Yücel Hatay]] for deletion as nonsense, although CSD GC1 specifically excludes "material not in English". After another editor removed the speedy and listed it for translation, it was discovered that the article was a recreation of a foreign language article on another wiki, so the article was deleted after all, but you should know the proper procedure for handling foreign language articles if you're going to be the one evaluating speedies. Leaving "nonsense" aside, on December 2nd, you tagged the previously speedily deleted article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Juniperus_chinensis_from_Six_Dynasties&diff=175361482&oldid=175361412 The Juniperus chinensis from Six Dynasties] under G4 as a recreation of deleted material, though that criterion specifies that it is not for articles that have previously been speedied, but only those that have undergone deletion discussions. On December 3rd, you tagged the article [[:Sarah Hauser]] for "no content". The article was ultimately deleted under A7, but even though the sole content of the article at the time you tagged it was "'''Sarah Hauser'''", it was less than a minute old. The CSD policy addresses such situations specifically in stating "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete". I think tagging an article that age in that state with that criterion is a bit [[WP:BITE|bitey]]. New contributors could easily be discouraged by such a welcome. You have made many, many valid CSD tags, and I think you're an extremely valuable new page patroller, but I would hope to see thorough familiarity with that policy in an admin interested in deletions. I suspect given the overall quality of your work that you will receive the admin tools and you will most likely make excellent use of them, but I'd really like to encourage you to exercise caution with deletions and thoroughly familiarize yourself with the speedy criteria if you plan to contribute there. --
'''Neutral'''. I also believe you're an excellent contributor, especially in regards to new pages and I don't believe you would intentionally misuse the tools.  Unfortunately per your responses (as pointed out by Daniel) and issues such as those Moonriddengirl mentioned, I don't believe you have the necessary knowledge of policy just yet.
'''Support''' as nominator. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' Another great find by Majorly. He has a lot TfD contributions, which really jumped at me, since TfD tends to be a bit ignored among the XfD's. Best of all, he contributes to [[ice hockey]] articles (not taken into my decision, but something I worth noting, being an active member of the aforementioned [[WP:HOCKEY|Wikiproject]]. However, remember to not use images in your sig. Good luck!
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''(Edit conflicted) [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] Support''' as EvilClown said, another great find. TfD contributions, while perhaps not the most important, are an excellent sign that a user is able to reach into the nooks and crannies that admins must so often do. <small>Well, maybe XfD isn't that small, but you get the point... And besides, I haven't known Majorly to be wrong!</small>--[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Support''' after being edit conflicted flippin' twice. Majorly has done it again. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' - as per Majorly's Nom.. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''10,000 edits since Feb of this year.  Seems to have a wide range of interests, which I think is important. '''
'''Support''' - Meets my criteria. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' High quality
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Answers are good.
'''Support''' Hard working editor and great future admin.
'''Strong Support''' I've been waiting for this. Very knowledgable and interaction with other editors is outstanding. Would make an excellent admin. ----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:medium;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Even thought you opposed me I support you becasue I found your advice very helpful. You obviuosly have experience and would make a very good admin.
'''Support''' Friendly and helpful to new users, dealing with vandals appropriately, admin tools in his hands could only be a plus for the community.
'''Support'''. Good user, have seen around TfD before, would make a fine admin. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support'''.  Contribs and answers look good to me, mop should be good in this user's hands.
'''Support''' Friendly, has a need for the tools and edits like a bandit. Cheers!
'''Support''' re above.
Extremely good editor, will be an asset to Wikipedia, especially if given admin tools. --
'''Support''' Excellent answers, but in particular Q3. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Majorly. —'''
This user restores my faith in RfA that dedicated contributors are still the best. Over a year's experience indicates that this user has the project's best interests at heart. Experience aplenty. '''
+1 --
'''Support''' I'm impressed by the Q1 answer, plenty of exprience and dedication to the Project. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' undoubtedly an excellent candidate (good find Majorly!). Should be an asset. —
'''Strong support''' in agreement with Anas Salloum.
'''Support''' a fine user who would be extremely good at closing down deletion debates.
'''Support''' good hard worker, interactions have been positive. '''
'''Support''' per nom and answers
I'm
'''Support''' - I have seen this user doing good work in many areas.--
'''Support''' ain't no mountain high enough... --
'''Support''' lots of valuable edits to project-space and main-space.  I'm glad you learned the value of the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]].  '''~a''' (

'''Support''' Good candidate.
&mdash;
'''Support''' Good user to become an admin.
'''Sure''' I'd prefer that you have a more consistent edit history to show commitment to the project.  10,000 edits in a few months after few edits in a year.  I'm not one for editcountitis, but it does show predilections.  Anywho, I'll support.
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' A great candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jmlk17&diff=135497016&oldid=135151808]. If this user cannot follow simple, core Wikipedia policies, well...
'''Oppose''' Well, indeed. --
'''Support''' - the user has been really active in the last three months but has shown that he is ready for adminship..He has been a great vandal fighter and his contribution to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama|WikiProject Alabama]] has been excellent..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' This user has accumulated a good range of edits, indicating a good general knowledge of wikipedia policies. I have come across her on several occasions over the last 2-3 months, and have been impressed by her skill in the project.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - Granted, the user has only really recently been active, but I think JodyB has shown the readiness for the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Everything seems alright.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Good editor, plenty of experience, no obvious problems.
'''Support'''. Candiate is a good contributor. She appears ready for the tools. Best of luck and Roll Tide.
'''Support'''.  Edits look good, answers look good, and no problems apparent.
'''Support'''- per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''- User seems to have a fair mind and a tireless effort for adding essential information to various articles. I know edit counts are not everything, but to see that this user got his contribution list very high, very fast (and with substance too!), I'd have to say he's ready to be an admin.
'''Support''' Good contribs, I like the responses given to questions, should make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' Good ole "I thought the user was one already" cliche. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. I've interacted with JodyB a fair amount, and I know, without doubt, there is zero chance for admin abuse from this editor. I find people opposing because of the information on his userpage to be strange and a bit ridiculous. Somebody has finally applied for adminship after actually reading relevant policy, and people oppose because it was "planned". What self-nom wasn't planned? I'd be much more concerned with somebody who applies on a whim than somebody who works to ensure they'll be an effective admin. There is nothing power hungry about JodyB's desire to be an admin, and while contributing to the encyclopedia is of course important, that is not the role of an admin. JodyB is unquestionably familiar with policy, and is willing to help in the tasks of administrators. - '''
'''Support''' - seems ok. <strong>
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no better proof that RfA is broken when people oppose on the basis that someone freely volunteers their time to take on admin chores, and makes it clear they wish to do this from early in their editing days. And contrary to popular opinion the '''number one''' thing on wikipedia is '''not''' writing articles. It's about people reading them, and if Jody can help keep the place clean for our readership then it's all to the good. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - has helped in the dispute resolution process, also reported vandals and has sufficient experience of editing articles.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy user and well read on adminship. Even if he makes mistakes using the tools, I do not believe he will misuse the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' It makes no difference to me that you want to be an admin. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' I don't see anything suggesting that the editor would abuse his adminship.
'''Support''': I believe the user's becoming an admin would only benefit Wikipedia, and therefore have no reason not to support.
'''Support''' I'm familiar with JodyB at XFDs and elsewhere, and he/she seems like an ordinary user with a medium level of experience - exactly the kind of user Jimbo was thinking of in his famous "no big deal" declaration.  Most of the oppose votes take the approach that "Yeah, JodyB is all right, but I'm just a little nervous about a few things."  I'm not nervous.  I'm confident that this is a good self-nomination.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. A productive Wikipedian that is always there to help those in need. Highly recommend the tools for this user. Good luck JodyB!
'''Support.''' Although the opposers have given excellent reasons why this candidate should not be elected presient of the United States, I am completely unconvinced that Jody will be a bad admin, especially after looking through contributions. Several reasons have been given opposing this candidate, none of which really provide a creditable reason why we as a community could expect this candidate to abuse the tools. With all due respect to those opposing, among whom are great and wise editors, the reasons for opposing this nomination are among the weakest and most questionable I have ever seen. To those who say "We can't vote for someone who ''wants'' to be an admin," who the hell are we giving the tools to? People who are unenthusiastic, uneager, and unexcited; who won't take up the tools and put them to use for the encyclopedia?
'''Support:''' I can't name a place where I remember meeting Jody, but I know (s)he will make an excellent administrator. <small>—</small>'''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Weak Support''' Editor seems to be trustworthy enough but I am somewhat concerned by the inconsistent editing (4000 in one month and zero for any others)
'''Support''' we need more admins.  I've decided that wanting to be a sysop won't hurt the project.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
[[Image:symbol support vote.svg|15px]] None of the oppose votes actually shows me how promoting this user an admin will harm Wikipedia. There is no incivility from this user, or evidence that the user will abuse the tools. Might make a mistake or two, but who doesn't? Self-nominations also show's user's enthusiast attitute towards RfA and the williness to go through this process by himself is a plus. I'm also confused by how "power grabbing" is a bad thing, admin is never a position of power in the first place, in theory, anyone who applies or accepts an adminship nomination are interested in adminship, and I don't see the reason to oppose for that at all. I also don't see what difference it will make if administrative tasks are being done by people who were actively seeking adminship, in fact, this should be a reason to support because users who tends to seek for adminship are also more likely to be knowledable about administrative tasks than others, and I think they are also more willing to preform these tasks than others as well. As long as the user is willing to strongly contribute in the areas of administration, and not screwing up really badly that it outweights the good things he done, I am willing to '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - The activity issue gives me some pause but otherwise JodyB seems to be a good candidate.  As long as he won't go "rogue", a little mopping here and there would be a benefit to the project.  --
'''Support''' Seems like a good editer. Some of the oppose votes seem to say wanting to be an admin is a bad thing. . .?--
'''Support''' What is wrong with wanting to become an admin? It seems like a worthy goal to me.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' no evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''', I don't have any problems with this user.
'''Support''' I agree with Wizardman.
'''Support'''. Looks all good to me.
'''Support''' After a positive exchange of communications with JodyB, I came to believe that he is an editor whose combination of intellectual curiosity, work ethic, temperament and respect for references presents the proper mix of attributes for Wikipedia adminship.
'''Weak support''' I don't see the opposers' concerns. AIV and AFD contribs are good. Though I saw some things in AFD that gave me pause, I trust that JodyB will learn by doing.--
'''Support''' Seems ok.
'''Support'''. Loads of evidence that Jody is already active in anti-vandal and anti-spam work, AfDs, reporting to AIV, all stuff that shows readiness for the mop and a need for it.
'''Support'''.  I have been holding back and weighing the discussion.  I would prefer to see a little more than three months of activity but on the whole I think JodyB will use the tools appropriately. --
'''Support''' I would also rather see more experience but I can't see any problems that would make me withhold support. '''
'''Support''' I don't have too much personal experience with this user, but they apparently haven't been dragged to AN/I or AN3, they actually seem to read the AfD discussions they've been actively participating in, they obviously know their way around the wiki, and they've been around since May of 2006, to boot. One image they uploaded in April was deleted, but only because it was a copy of a commons image. Mainspace edits are mainly cleaning up vandalism, by the looks, and an AWB spree back in April, but they've certainly put in good work towards cleanup and other fixes (not to mention, I'm a bit light on article work, as well, and people tend not to complain). Clean block log. Active on WikiProject Alabama. Skimming over user talk page, archives, and contribs hasn't revealed any skeletons in the closet, just yet. I don't see a reason I personally shouldn't support. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''' - A solid contributor. Wikipedia would benefit from this editor having a mop.--
'''Strong Support''', Whenever I have seeked advise she is someone I have always asked and has always given me her opinion, I don't always follow it, but I do feel that she has always given me un-biased advise and how to better my articles.
'''Oppose''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=JodyB&namespace=0 Looking at this] made me feel sad and ill. This is an encyclopaedia, the mainspace is ''the'' most important thing at Wikipedia. I'm not interested in supporting people only interested in power status.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew. I too aspired to be an admin. I had less than 200 edits. I would have sucked. [[User:Prodego|Prodego]], an administrator warned me that if I continued, My RfA would not pass because editors would post things about being more concerned about status than Wikipedia. Give it some time. Focus on wikipedia, not status.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew and J-stan. His edits are unconsistant, and most of it are from vandalism reverts. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">
'''Oppose''' In a case of reverse ''editcountis'', I feel that there has been too many edits over too short a period for me to believe that this editor is properly prepared for adminship. While this quantity is excellent for a dedicated editor, and to Wikipedia generally, it doesn't appear to offer the evidence of using judgement regarding nuances of WP policy, rules and guidelines. I would prefer JodyB spends a little more time around the various policy and admin talkpages to get a feel of the role. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)<small>(edit for typo.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but LessHeard vanU's rationale is close to my own. I'd like to see some evidence of sustained (and sustainable) efforts to contribute. Also, after such a short period, I'm afraid there is no chance to estimate your mid- and long-term position on various issues. You appear to be on the right way, but it's too early to support. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
AldeBaer sums up where I sit on this candidacy ''at this stage''. '''
'''Oppose''' Although everyone should take wiki-breaks, I'm afraid this editor's history of contributions is too inconsistent to demonstrate the necessary commitment, per LessHeard.
'''Oppose''' people who seek power should never be given it. --
'''Oppose'''. Promising work, but too little experience and substantive article editing to support fully at this time.
'''Neutral''' You are a good contributor but your contribs have not been consistent. It was in April 2007 when you editted heavily. Admins need to be more involved. Are you sure you won't go inactive for some time in the future? --
'''Neutral''' I dislike the idea you have clearly planned to become an admin (as shown on your userpage). While this is done in good faith, I don't think I can support someone who edits in order to become an admin - we're here to build an encyclopedia, not become admins. But since you have done article work too, I won't oppose you because of this. '''
<s>'''''Support'''''</s> --> '''Neutral''' per comments above.
[[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral'''. Per above [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Neutral'''. We can't go around promoting people who ''want'' to be administrators, can we? After all, it can only be evidence of power hunger, and not an indication they'd actually be good at the job, right? –
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, but your edits and editing are just too inconsistent for me to support.
Editing needs to be more consistent for proper evaluation. -
'''Neutral''' though favorably predisposed to this RfA. I like everything Jody's done here. I see no red flags in his history, I think his answers to the Q's are solid, and I ''like'' his dedication and interest to learning more about the responsbility he's seeking. I don't see anything that concerns me regarding "power-hungriness" etc, though I can understand why this might be a concern for some. I think he will be a great admin. That said... I do feel like a slightly longer track record would be helpful. I know that there were a lot of things about Wikipedia that I didn't grasp until I'd been around a while. If Jody keeps doing what he's been doing and builds up a lengthier track record, I can see enthusiastically supporting him for adminship. At this point, though, in spite of my very favorable impression of him, I have to stay on the fence (though I feel petty doing so) based on the relative brevity of his history to this point. '''
'''Support''' Good editor, solid edit count, and I don't think he will abuse the tools! <b><font color="E32636">
I have shared a lot of time with him at WikiProject Album. He is smart, approaches difficulties with a cold head, listen to people and is always open to suggestions. While I haven't been active lately, I cannot but support his nomination for the extremely good experience I had had with him. --
'''Support''' Long term, courteous, experienced user w/ no indication of incivility in talk pages.
'''Support''' Sure. Absolutely. I'd trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Support''' I can't see a problem with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Support''' - if this editor wanted to abuse their position they've had ample opportunity, I don't see what more they can do to prove trust. If they can change AWB so it doesn't display diffs in that horrible new font it's recently started using, change to strong support...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' I agree with what (aeropagitica) said. I too, see no problem with the candidate using the tools.
Default support in the absence of anything valid to the contrary. —'''
'''Support''' Despite the bot edits, I agree with the above. Experienced, trustworthy editor who would be a good admin.
'''Support''' - been here since 2005, 35k edits and clean block log.
'''Support''' Has proved and continues to prove himself to be a great contributor.
'''Support''' - I am glad to see your application here. I think your work is excellent and will only improve with the additional buttons. Some of my colleagues are unhappy over automated edits. I would remind them that such edits indicate an efficient way to accomplish necessary tasks and duties. I see no controversies over these edits and would applaud the nominee for cleaning things up as he has. Adminship is about trust, which he certainly has, and about maintenance work, which he does. He should be given the keys to the mop closet. --
'''Support''' This user is a good wikipedian, and there is nothing that I see indicates he will be an abusive admin. Good luck.--
'''Support''' - I see nothing to indicate that this user will abuse the tools.  That is, in my mind, the only question when it comes to adminship.  --
'''Support'''; clearly dedicated to maintenance tasks, and shows no evidence of a quick temper or poor judgment.  No arguments here. --
'''Support''', administrator jobs are all maininance tasks. He will obviously use the mop we..
'''Support''' Great editor, and Eddie, that is no reason to oppose. There's nothing wrong with automated edits. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support'''  -- I've read the oppose comments and I think the candidate's vast overall experience and demeanor outweigh concerns about recent edits being largely automated. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' 35,000 edits - he has the experience needed.
'''Support''' Has a lot of experience and will not abuse tools. --
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' no big deal, won't abuse the tools. Lots of experience. <b>
'''Support'''. I understand the opposes, but I don't find them convincing.
'''Support''' this many edits shows vast experience and dedication. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Solid editor with a need for the tools. History doesn't leave one to think there may be an abuse of the tools. Opposes to RfAs as of late are, in my opinion, getting ridiculously nit-picky.
'''Support''' can't see him abusing the tools and has shown he can handle interaction with others effectively.
'''Support.''' Edits don't mean experience, but this editor seems to be in the right place.
'''Support''' answers to the questions are reasonable and balanced and this editor will be unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' After consideration, I'm changing my opinion. His bot work and edits to images have convinced me that he understands how to work more of the Wikipedia framework than just articles. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support''' as, even without the bot edits, has a solid experience at WP with images, etc.  Can be trusted.
'''Support''' A very prolific editor with over 35000 edits ,no concerns.
'''Support''' concerns raised below are just miniscule glitches - nobody's perfect --'''
'''Support''' Trusted user!
'''Weak support''' He's only participated in four AFDs, but has no interest in that area. His CSD work in mainspace is good, but not recent (I had to go back to February to find anything in mainspace). Still, I think he'll be a decent clearer of the CSD backlogs.--
'''Support''' I trust Jogers completely, and that is mainly what I believe is necessary for an admin. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' Even though there are concerns about automated edits, the time spent and dedication speak for themselves.
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''.  "Gets it".  :) --
'''Support'''. While I can see where the oppose voters are coming from, he's obviously dedicated to the project and appears trustworthy.
'''Support''', Jogers knows what to do with the extra buttons.
'''Support''' - this is an experienced user and AWB dev who will not harm the encyclopedia. --
No question.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jogers&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 mainspace contribs] are all automated. I would like to see actual participation in that area. You also say you would focous your work on [[C:CSD]], but I don't see much participation in that area. Finally, the answers are unsatisfactory, IMO. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Eddie, since at least 3500 edits ago in May (as far as I felt like checking) almost none of your mainspace contributions were very signficant.
'''Oppose''' per eddie. The answers here are not detailed enough, and you don't seem to be contributing enough recently to merit the tools and calm doubt that you will not abuse them.
'''Very weak oppose''' A good editor but he/she not edited any [[WP:XFD]] pages, or made a single report to [[WP:AIV]] in there last 5000 edits and there is a relatively low amount of editing in admin related pages for 35,000 edits.
'''Oppose''' Despite all those edits, there is very little experience in the wikispace, home of many admin-related tasks.  Before one is given the mop, one should be familiar with the most common admin areas.
'''Very Weak Oppose''' You seem to be a very good editor, but I have reservations about your experience in admin-related areas.
What The Random Editor said.  Wikignoming isn't gonna demonstrate admin capabilities...sorry.  What Xoloz said above me also applies :) '''

'''Weak oppose''' I am, as, I guess, Black Falcon, a bit disconcerted by the candidate's answers to questions five and seven, which, on the whole, seem to evidence an understanding of [[WP:CSD|CSD]] that I think to be overbroad and, further, a bit inconsistent with the consensus of the community that the criteria for speedy deletion should be interpreted quite strictly, with one's erring always on the side of not speedying.  There is surely nothing to suggest that this user should abuse the tools, and I am convinced that he is generally possessed of sound judgment, a cordial demeanor, and a measured disposition, but I am not certain that he should not avolitionally misuse the tools, e.g., by acting whereof his understanding of policy and practice is not precisely right, such that I cannot, I say with some regret, conclude with sufficient confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Jogers's being sysopped should be positive]].  (Nevertheless, it appears that this request will succeed, and I can't say that I'm very troubled by that; I oppose, I suppose, only to echo the sentiments of Black Falcon, et al., in encouraging Jogers, qua admin, to be a bit circumspect, at least initially, in his applications of [[WP:CSD|CSD]].)
'''Neutral''' - Well first of all you have done some good work, and I'm sure you have some experience. However, I see 360+ edits to the Project Space, and none of them except [[WP:RM]] are really, edits that require a understanding of policy. It would also be nice if you got involved in vandal fighting, and made a few reports to [[WP:AIV]]. You need to get involved in admin related boards before I support. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' - minor edits =/= bad admin/abusive admin. lack of interests in admin related areas =/= bad admin. (
'''Neutral'''.  Weak Projectspace count.  Will support later. '''
'''Neutral''' I was thinking about a weak support and then weak oppose, and then back to weak support, etc...so I am neutral.  Get some more mainspace edits and try again and I will support it. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' only seen good things from this user. '''
'''Strong Support'''. His AIV reports are accurate, contradictory to what I had previously said (see neutral). Sorry about that mistake. Good article editing, AIV, XfD participation. Everything looks good to me. '''
'''Support''' Seems to be a strong editor, could find use for the tools. '''
With over 7000 edits and over 1 and a half years experience, of course I '''support'''.
'''Support''' Looks like a fine user and an especially fine admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' As he said, we've had our run-ins, but as he also said, it ended, largely due to his efforts. I can't think of any non-admin more conscientious about the rules, or in ensuring that they are followed - so I would expect him to do better still as an admin.
'''Support'''My only concern was his block, but I'm convinced he learned from it.
'''Support''' naturally as co-nom.
'''Support''' Great contributor.
Oh-very-much-yes support. '''
'''Support''' - I like the various ways in which this user communicates with other users (test1,2,3, etc., user talk, & welcomes). This is, to me, an important part of effective administration.
'''Support''', (me? the nom) of course, sorry for the late vote.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' all my experiences with him have been excellent, definitely would make a great admin
'''Support''': I appreciate the openness that John has provided us in the questions above. I've worked with this great editor on numerous articles in the past and have seen no ill-deeds. His experience and work with various tasks (AIV, etc.) shows that he has the will and persistence to go the extra mile.
'''Support''' looks good, and the answers are refreshingly honest.--
'''Support''' definitely :). ''
'''Support''' good user with a good record. Should be a fine admin. -
'''Support''' - good answers to questions 3+4 are enough to not worry about the block, otherwise an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - Very Good Vandal Fighter and also posses a good record..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per being a great editor and per ''not a big deal''.
'''Support''' I was thinking of nominating this user myself, he is a regular at [[WP:XFD]] and I would definitely trust him with the mop and bucket.<font color="0066FF">
'''Support''' - Looks to be a good editor and we sure need more good admins. :) ---
'''Yes please''', so he can stop filling up AIV and get on to some real work! <small>:p</small> &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' - my fellow [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedians]] have said all there is to say. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Checks out just fine.
'''Support''' Respectable edits, hangs out in needed areas, seems to have learned from block/revert experience. Not a difficult decision for me. Go.
'''Support''' looks good, should benefit the project.

'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support''', good contributor.
'''Support''' - although I was a bit dubious about the block and edit war, I've never voted anything but Support in any RfA, ever, and I'm not going to start now. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per noms. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support:''' A fine candidate for adminship in my opinion. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Steptrip-->&nbsp;<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2"><b>~</b></font>
It's-about-time '''support'''.
'''Support''' -- Looks like a good candidate for sysop tools. [[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="2"><b>L</b></font>]][[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="3"><b>uis</b></font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' While I'm a little troubled by the 3RR and some recent comments, he seems sincere in his apology and I'm willing to give him a pass on those issues. Otherwise, appears to be a great editor.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color= "blue" face="Harlow Solid Italic"><u>'''''KZ'''''</u></font>]]     [[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<sup><small><font color= "red" face="Century Schoolbook">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] <sup>•</sup>
Thought John was an admin already '''support'''. — '''
'''Support''' I've seen him around admin areas for a while now and have only gotten good impressions (although their have, of course, been the occasional mistakes and slip-ups).  I think John will make a good and helpful addition to the administrative team. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Have seen the excellent work he has done around [[WP:WPHP]] firsthand and believe he will make an more useful and greater addition to Wikipedia as a sysop.
'''Support''' An excellent user with a lot of wonderful contributions. --
'''Support'''. Despite the recent mis-step mentioned below, this editor doesn't seem to make a habit of bad behavior. The answers to the questions above are very good, and the editor seems to be very level-headed. I think this editor can be trusted with the twiddled bit. ···
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A very fine user, would do great work with the tools, especially at [[WP:RPP]] and [[WP:RFD]]
'''Support''', another good user who won't abuse the tools.--
'''Support''', an great user who helps out on many Xfd's.
'''Support''' --
'''Cleared for adminship''' Great vandal fighting work. —<b>[[User:Pilotguy|Pilot]]<font color="orange">
'''Support''' - good editor, issues are not enough to deny adminship. Will not abuse tools, will use them constructively, will help project.
'''Oppose'''.  I hate to be the nay-sayer, but it is only six weeks since this editor has blocked for "3RR & Edit waring", the episode in question can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caractacus_Burke&action=history here].  The edit summaries there seem to me grounds for civility concerns, which pop elsewhere, too, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncle_G&diff=prev&oldid=104868709 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncle_G&diff=next&oldid=104883353 here] (made in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Reaves&diff=prev&oldid=104810133 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncle_G&diff=prev&oldid=104883353 this]).
'''Weak oppose''' - John is a tireless worker and certainly worthy of being in Admin eventually but I'd like to see him mellow a little first. He can be gruff and aggressive on User Talk pages; which is not a quality to encourage in administrators. In a discussion with me about edits to the [[Ollivander]] page, where I posted my views initially for discussion and then made changes (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMr_Ollivander&diff=105727957&oldid=104560162 here]), he reverted my alterations within ''one minute'' and became quite harsh during the ensuing discussion (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACoricus&diff=105756306&oldid=105749852 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACoricus&diff=105821623&oldid=105763320 here] and full conversation [[User talk:Coricus|here]] under "Reply"]]). There were certainly faults on both sides - I accept that. However, conversations such as this with new users might discourage them from adopting [[WP:BOLD]] or even, in extreme cases, coming back and editing. I will be happy to support him in a couple of months if he relaxes a bit.
'''Weak oppose''' [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font><b><font color="green">ets</font></b><font color="grey"><b>ofg</b></font>]] post above worries me. --- '''
'''Weak oppose''' Bucketsofg points out some rather dismissive comments, not so civil comments. Calling somebodies message "completely worthless" and saying "You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important." are not the type of responses I would like a user to get when the talk to an admin. I am glad you have decided that uncivility is unproductive, but that was just in Feb, perhaps at a later time. <small>

'''Neutral'''. The issue Bucketsofg brings up of relatively recent 3RR violations and civility concerns bothers me. It is certainly understandable that this particular issue has been resolved, but I think it may nonetheless show poor judgment in disputes. The issue is neither severe nor recent enough for me to oppose, given that it has been peaceably resolved, but it does raise some questions. —
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Bucketsofg|Bucketsofg]]. I think civility is one of the most important things for an admin to have so that they can handle disputes smoothly. It has been a while since the diffs (people ''can'' change in a month) and John seems to have learnt from the incidents so I'm going neutral. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Neutral''' - Looks like a good vandal fighter but recent 3RR and civility troubles are a little worrying.  Keep your nose clean, come back in a month and I will support. <font face="monospace">
''' Neutral''' as per Dgies. Come back in a month and I will support.
'''Neutral''' per Coricus, '''leaning to support''' per [[:Category:Administrators open to recall]]. Good idea, admins should generally be open to recall. —
'''Oppose''' Has a sense of humour and will get deletion work done.--'''
'''Support''', liked his answers to the questions, particularly number three.
'''Support'''.  Will be a fine admin, good luck.  '''<span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose''' Not enough pre-transclusion votes. '''<<[[joke]]>>'''. Not likely to hastily delete or wheel war. Seems sensible and level headed. Besides,  one needs a sense of humor to get the work done and stay on an even keel. <!-- faux oppose. really a support. please do not remove, move or alter without letting me know. -->
'''Oppose''' - I like his sense of humor.  His contribs show he can handle things.  I think he'll make a great admin.  '''''
'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Like your answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Just to disagree with Kurt Weber; self-nom shows enterprise.--
'''Oppose''' - I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of - damnit, what I meant to say is that I trust the candidate with the tools
This nominee seems reasonable in his thinking and answers. Actually a self-nom truly is ''prima facie'' evidence of being '''bold''' and I support that! -
'''Support''' in consideration of the nom's response to my original opposition/question, see below. Good luck! --
'''Suppose''' I very much like your answers to the questions, especialy seeing the questions regarding IAR and CSD. When looking at your contributions, they seems to be in line with the answers you give. Good warning of users on CSD usage, (Since I can't see deleted contributions, I can't check if you did any where you didn't warn the user, but I see no reason to assume you wouldn't.)
'''Suppose''' His answers to the questions are excellent. Just because he nominated himself does not make him powerhungry. I see it as he wants to get stuff done and doesn't want to wait for someone to nominate him. Gluck!
'''Support''' You know what your talking about, seem to be a sound editor, haven't been in too much trouble. Why not?
'''Support''' Answers to questions demonstrate a clear and concise understanding and a willingness to communicate. Definitely a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Review of edits in talk pages reveals a capacity for great patience and clear thinking.  Also felt his answer to my question was well-considered.
'''Support.''' I view self-noms as evidence of an independence necessary in application of admin skills.
'''Support''' Qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' Seems to have their head on straight; should be a good admin.
'''Support''', I view this self-nom as ''prima facie'' evidence that this is a solid candidate. --
'''Support''' as per answer to Dhlorcheim's question. Shows he has the temperament to be an admin. --'''''<sup>
'''Support''' - Good experience and answers to questions. I appreciate an editor who's able to not get all worked up when something on the wiki doesn't go his way. Nothing to worry about here.
'''Support''', but please take the new-message banner joke off your user page. :-) <font color="Purple">
'''Support''', but please use informative edit summaries, especially in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_messianism&diff=prev&oldid=176830197 mainspace] edits and also appreciated elsewhere.  However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seven_Laws_of_Noah&diff=prev&oldid=136170744 this] edit, among others, demonstrates considerable wisdom in my opinion. --
'''Support''' - Seems like a trustworthy user who knows what he is doing. :-)
'''Support''' - Everyone can always use some serious humor. Good choice for an admin. <strong>
'''Support'''. --'''''
'''Support'''. Sense of humour=good, lack of GA=less good, at least there's ''some'' 'pedia building going on. No deal-breakers anyway. Overall should be a net positive. cheers,
'''Support''' - if nothing else, for your answers alone.
'''Support''' Joke edits confusing but that is no fault of yours. Appears to be a good choice. -
'''Support''' I find no reason to oppose. Self-nomination is OK!
'''Support''' as looks like a good editor, meets all standards, with good answers to questions above.
'''Support''' Has met the stringent test of [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards]] and I also like the answers to the questions. A net gain here. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Yes, of course.
'''Support''' To help negate Kurt. <span>
'''Support''' I don't see any concerns here. <b>
'''Support''' seems like he'll get the job done - I don't have any problem with self-noms.
'''Support'''
Plenty of experience: will made a good administrator.
'''Support''' experienced user, good responses and no concerns. Good luck.
'''Oppose''' this isnt a joke response and neither is using the tools, from your short answers to questions I'd have thought that users who could joke like that with you would have taken the opportunity to offer further productive support. From your answers I'm unconvinced that you understand what your asking for. You want the tools to assist with page protection then say ''Frankly I don't see myself protecting too many pages''. Your contribution recently(last 6 months) are light  100-150(244 peak) edits per month compared to 12 months ago where your contributions were 400-600(690 peak) per month. The most substantial participation in AfD were over twelve months ago. edit summary usage is erratic at best, most telling is where you've nominated for speedy deletion they are all but non-existent[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jon513] or meaningless[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Zachary_Miller&timestamp=20071220001131&diff=prev]   in your answer to q.4 you say I often try get new users to understand why their page has been but i was unable to find any such instance beyond the occasional boiler plate notices.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Support''' as co-nominator. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strong support''' as nominator.
'''Strong support''' I supported last time, I'm strongly supporting now. Jreferee is an excellent user.
'''Support''' per noms, candidate's overall record, and the fact that he should have passed last time.
'''Strong Support''' valuable user, understands what the tools are for. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Support''' I supported on the previous RfA and I think that this user as only gotten better since then.
'''Strong Support''', should've been an admin last time. (Then again I was a nom last time, so maybe that's biased.)--
'''Edit-conflict support''' (that must be a good sign, right?): Valuable contributions at [[WP:BLP/N]], AfD's, and elsewhere, and I think the tools would be useful for what he does. '''
'''Support''' Will make a fantastic admin. '''
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Another edit-conflicted support''' -- cant find a reason to oppose. --
'''(:''' <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Suport''' To start off - I had always thought you ''were'' an admin (suprised to see that you're not - yet). In reviewing your contributions, edits and talkspace I can see I feel '''absolutely''' confident in your being able to handle adminship. --
'''Support'''. My god. He maintains the highly contentious [[WP:BLP/N]] page almost singlehandedly, and it was a real effort to scroll to the bottom of [[User:Jreferee/Awards]]. Three months might not be a long time for some people, but for this user, it was ''thousands of edits'' ago. If he falls back to being mean and nasty, I'll be in the ranks clamoring for him to give back the shiny buttons, but until that unlikely occurrence, give the ref a mop. --
'''Support''' definitely. –

'''Support''' a good candidate with excellent knowledge of [[WP:BLP]] --
'''Support''' Quality user with potential
'''Support''' I've always found him reliable and level-headed.
'''Support'''. Seems ready.
'''Support''' - An excellent user with great adminship potential. --
'''Support''' He is well qualified to be an admin and I doubt he would abuse his tools. There is a lack of major reasons to oppose him.--
'''Support''' just like last time, except by now I've seen him in action, and am in complete agreement with the noms.
'''Support''' as per noms.
'''Support''' trustworthy and qualified. —
'''Support''' I see no reason(s) not to!
'''Support''' Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Don't know the user personally, but have seen them around & see no reasons not to support them in adminship. Cheers,
I have seen this editors work and '''support''' the request for him to get some admin tools.
'''Support''', the only incident that causes concern was months ago, and I believe that Jreferee has done an excellent job of learning from that error. I believe that he will make an excellent admin.
Don't see much wrong concerning this request... Don't see much of a downside in him as an admin --
'''Support'''- no obvious problems with the user. Good experience, friendly. Meets the standards.
'''Support''' - no reason not to that I can find. Strong contributions to the project, strong support from the community.
'''Support''' User is committed to the project and has shown they can be trusted many times.
'''Support'''. Good all-round contributor. I like the candidness in question 3.
'''Support''' - excellent editor..Good admin material ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', was friendly right from the start of his time here, and I believe he will continue to be a paragon of civility in the future.
Oh fuck. You mean, he's not? —
'''Support''' - Per the Runcorn incident in previos RfA. Plus, looks like a good user who would make a fine admin. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Support''' - Good editor (especially that they have edited articles rather than just revert vandalism), has gotten into a few strongly-worded disputes (I do not expect an admin to be an angel, I expect them to stand up in discussions, and even be contentious), and has a lot of edits (which means something or nothing, depending).  Good nominee, should be a valuable admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent user, should make a fine administrator.
'''Support''', good luck!
'''Support''' - I'm not 100% happy with his answer to my question above, but it wouldn't be fair to oppose him just because he doesn't share my stance on AfD. Otherwise, a good candidate.
'''Support'''. A very good editor, mature and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - a fine editor & will make an excellent admin -
'''Support'''. Absolutely. I have every confidence he will make a great admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strong Support''' - You beat me to nomming him Nishkid64 and Ryan Postlethwaite. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Per above. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Why not? I trust him not to misuse the tools. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''. I remember thinking of this user as being slightly overenthusiastic a while ago. By the looks of things, his enthusiasm hasn't diminished, but he's now channelling it into very useful places. Long may it remain so.
'''Support''' You folks read my mind.  I was thinking to nominate Jreferee also.  I've seen his consistent devotion to assisting new users at the [[WP:HD|help desk]], and that reflects the experience and character I expect for an admin.  Good luck.
'''Support'''. A sound candidate for adminship. Would be a great asset as well. '''
'''Support''' Only one reason to oppose that I can see, which was when the account was new, and everyone makes mistakes. I forgive it, expecially as it was ages ago.
'''Support''' enough time has passed since his last RfA.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Definate support, fantastic user, I have seen you around and you will make a great admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''. Excellent and valued member of the project's team whose opinions and perspective I highly value.
No reason to oppose, and as the last RFA was tainted by fraud he arguably should be an admin already. I've noticed him around and it's never been for anything negative... should be okay as an admin. --
'''Strong support''' brilliant contributor at DYK, sensible. '''
'''YAY Support''' Like the answers to my questions. --<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' No reason not too!
'''Support''' The most important thing is, not only did he learn from it.. it hasn't happened again. No doubt on my support.
'''Support''' Mistakes are okay if you learn the lessons, and it seems he has. -
This is an easy decision for me. Jreferee has been doing great work around the project for ages, now. '''
'''Support''' Looks good.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Valuable BLP helper.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' sounds like he will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Definitely. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. --
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. You seem to be highly spoken of in the community. Happy Administrating!
'''Support''' no reason not to. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. Seems to be a thoughtful, dedicated, and decent person who has taken constructive criticism well. I trust him to be on the light side of the Force :)
I'm
'''Support''' He has done well.-
'''Support'''.  Solid editor--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support'''.  Good editor and encourages the work of other editors. --
'''Support'''. A fine editor, conscientious and compassionate. --
'''Support''' excellent editor, answer to my question is satisfactory.
Has shown significant improvement since the past RFA to warrant adminship. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' My only reservation last time was experience. WikiProject Biography needs more admins and I'm happy to support Jreferee. --
'''Support''' A great contributor and certain to make a great admin. --
'''Support''' After carefully reviewing a number of his contributions to the BLP talk page and reading lamunknown's  comment in the discussion above ("...definitely been willing to start discussion where there is question."), I support this nom and think he would do well as an admin.
'''Support'''. I thought Jreferee would make an excellent admin last time, and nothing has changed for me. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]

'''Support''' Not that it's needed but I think he'll do just fine.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Very Strong Support''' You have a lot of experience and you can definatly do good stuff. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- great editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
Still '''oppose''' per his abandonment of good faith and elaborate accusation of another editor being a living person during the Stevenstone incident.  He made an elaborate accusation of fraud and improper conduct against a user with whom he had never interacted, an accusation which relied on poorly interpreted "evidence." The accused user in question has since been unblocked, and Jreferee's accusation called by another editor (not myself, though I wholeheartedly agree) "baseless."  In the same thread, Jreferee also accused another user of being a sockpuppet for no reason. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Stevenstone93 (talk • contribs)]]  Even if a user is "a 14 year old boy who is racist and anti-homosexual" as you describe him, your behavior there was excessive.
'''Neutral''' Per the diff above by AldeBaer. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per my nomination.
'''Support''' per nomination. I trust Newyorkbrad to pick a good candidate. --'''
'''Support''' again.
'''Support''' Here's hoping to a less controversial one than last time. ;)
'''Strong Support''' I have been waiting for this for a long time, since the last nomination. I most certainly trust Brad's judgment. ~
'''(edit conflict) Support''', appeas to be beyond any problems from the last RfA.--
I supported last time and I '''support''' now &mdash;
'''Support''' good active user and nominated by a trusted admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A highly experienced candidate. I am satisfied that [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] concerns have been addressed both because of my inherent trust of the nominator and [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]]'s answer to my question (Q4). We need more admins and I believe he will use the tools well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per previous RfA. --
'''Support''' per nom. &ndash;
'''Support''' - didn't see much wrong last time, don't see much wrong now. Trustworthy candidate, trustworthy nominator.
'''Support''', absolutely, especially per discussion at his 2nd RFA and his comments made at the time. -- ''
'''Ryulong +8 Support'''. I have read the drama at his previous RfA, and think the user conducted himself very well in the face of adversity. -
'''Support''' per nom and answers to questions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''per last RFA — I've been stalking this page on my watchlist! --
'''Support''' as last time.  Excellent editor; has earned trust by remaining dedicated.
'''Support'''. I voted support last time, and I'm back to support again. From what I've seen, Kafziel is a sane user who won't explode the Wiki with a bunch of extra buttons. He conducted himself with poise and restraint at his last RFA, and he even had a sense of humor about it. We could use more admins like him. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions, this editor would be an asset to the admin team.
'''Support''' per nom, history, and answers.  I've more than once wondered why Kafziel didn't do an admin action themselves recently...and I appreciate Gwenneth Paltrow's dark side too.
'''Support''' per answer to question six. I like this fellow. '''
'''Support'''.
'''[[User:Crzrussian|Crzrussian]] memorial support''' consistent with my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FKafziel_2&diff=90395773&oldid=90395555 previous support], for a reconsideration of which there should surely be no basis.
'''Support''' per above, looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support.''' The funny things MatthewFenton pointed out show that Kafziel has a sense of humor - definitely a plus to being an admin.
'''Support''' per nom and answers. :) '''
'''support''' Great experience. This canadate would be nothing but Excellent to Wikipedia. That's what I think.
'''Support''' as per RyanGerbil & I was impressed by your conduct after the last RFA, even though I didn't vote then, I personally believe it should have passed. Quickly looking through your recent talk contributions I don't see any signs of condescension mentioned in your last RFA. Good luck. <sup>
'''Support''' per Brad's nom and Moreschi, PMC.
'''Support''' -- good candidate.
'''Support'''. You have made a great effort to improve on the civility concerns I and many others posed in your last RfA. I can confidently support your RfA, as I believe you have reformed your ways. '''
'''Support'''. Glad to see you back to earn your tools. =) –
'''Support'''. Great contributor, seems like he'll use the tools appropriately.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' I supported [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2|Rfa #2]] and support this one as well. '''
Definitely '''support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''', I trust Kafziel.
'''Support''', you seem to be a fine contributor. Now that I've said that, I strongly disagree with your first Wikipedia philosophy. -
'''Support'''  I think the point about civility in the last RFA has been heard and hopefully taken on board. --
'''Support''' I voted oppose last time for civility concerns. As far as I know, they seem to be resolved, and I have no other reason to oppose this nomination. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' should do well as an admin.--
'''Strong support''' civil but direct interactions with other users, and a great attitude toward adminship in particular and editing in general.
'''Strong support'''. This really should have happened the last time. What I said on the last RfA still applies, and also, per nom.
'''Support''' unless you really screwed up since I supported you last. ~
'''Yes'''--
'''Support''' Seems to be trustworthy.
'''<s>Support</s>''' as a fellow deletionist. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>(<font color="#f00">[[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#f00">Hi!</font>]]</font>/
'''Support''', need more deletionist admins.
'''Support''' user will be greatly helpful with the tools.  --
I'm
'''Support'''.  I've run across his contributions more than once, and am convinced he would make a positive contributrion as an admin.
'''Support''' No evidence that this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' -- a good editor who will be a good admin
'''Support''' Well, it is time to give him the mop finally. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''[[User:Kafziel#Wikipedia_philosophies|Support per nom]]''' (heh, heh). More seriously, support per my last support, but more so. It takes a lot to be able to withstand a very close, contentious, previous nomination, not explode, continue contributing constructively, and come back to face the slings and arrows again. Semper fi. --
'''Support'''... I think Kafziel is ready for the mop and bucket.--
'''Support'''. Outstanding editor.
'''Support''' No reason to not support this good candidate.
'''Support''' - Has changed a bit from last time his RfA came round & would make a good admin now. Good luck for the future... :)
'''Support''' It looks like we need to go and buy a mop…
'''Support''' sensible grasp of the wiki landscape, not scared to show a sense of humor ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''-Seems great. And how could you not trust a nom who had the 3rd most supported RFA ever :) --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' Great contributor, will be a fantastic admin.  Good luck. '''

&mdash;
'''Support''' A good all-round editor; I particularly like the answer to Q.8, which I think shows genuine awareness of previous problems and, by extension, evidence of correction thereof.--
'''Support''': This guy hasn't been an admin yet? --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''.  Levelheaded. --

Ought to have been promoted the last time around. Very solid qualifications.
'''Strong support''' per answer to Q8. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms">
'''Support''' as I did in the previous RfA, which I was disappointed did not go through.
'''Support''' - reasonable improvement since the last two RfAs.
'''Again and again''' -- ''
In my experience, a reasonable user.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Excellent user with need for the tools.
'''Support''' will make a good admin. —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson" face="Eras Demi ITC">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Per above, I believe the user would make a great addition to the custodial staff.
'''Support''' Per all of the above and I have had nothing but good interactions with this edior.  Well deserved promotion.--
'''Support''' &mdash; a solid user, no issues here. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Upstate home boy! Just kidding. The editor in question seems to be a good candidate for the mop and flamethrower; Good Luck! --
'''Support''' Let's try to make it 100/0!--
'''Support''' Outstanding contributor.
'''Support''' Good contributions, seems trustworthy.--
'''Strong Support''' Good attitude, and expressed a concern regarding admin duties which should help prevent him from becoming an embittered, newbie-biting, incivil admin. '''
'''Support''' Insert tired "I thought he was already an admin cliche" cliche here. <font color="green">
'''Support''' will not abuse tools --
[[User_talk:DVD R W|<font color="black"> dvd</font>]]
'''Support''' per nomination. '''
'''Support''' as per nom'
'''<s>Oppose</s>Neutral''' — [[User:Kafziel#Wikipedia_philosophies|I don't particularly like #6 of this, that gives me worries you will over zealously delete images]], [[User:Kafziel#Things_that_make_me_laugh|there is no need to make personal attacks]]. I can't trust you with the delete buttons as you are a deletionist. [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:The_4400_actors.2C_Category:Andromeda_.28TV_series.29_actors.2C_Category:Battlestar_Galactica_.281978.29_actors.2C_Category:Battlestar_Galactica_.282004.29_actors.2C_Category:Heroes_.28TV_series.29_actors.2C_Category:Roswell_actors_and_Category:Torchwood_actors|Also, I personally do not like you telling me what I can and can't do]]. I don't believe yu've improved enough yet to gain my support yet, I would however reconsider in around ~3-4 months. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''':Changed from oppose as above.
I just said something similar at another RFA... do you understand fair use rationales? [[:Image:Trix box 2006.jpg|This image]] was recently uploaded without a fair use rationale. Admins should be careful to not contribute to the backlogs :) ---
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. Always handy to have the tools too if you're kind of 'supervising' a project...any project. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - seems fine. &mdash;
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards|adminship is no big deal. I saw no indication nom would abuse the tools. Specialist admins are a good thing.]] I think the subtext of his question 3 answer says he knows to 1) seek third opinion, 2) seek to establish consensus through discussion, 3) resort to dispute resolution processes instead of edit warring or wheel warring.
'''Support''' Experienced article writer; unlikely to cause trouble.  Additional training in admin areas would be helpful, but is not essential.
'''Support'''.  Will do fine with the tools.  Won't abuse them in the specialized area.  Good luck! <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''.  Nothing wrong with having admins that are knowledgeable and active in narrower subject areas.
'''Burnaby Joe Support''' I have had many contacts with Kaiser for some time now, and they have never been anything less than professional, positive, and enjoyable.  Kaiser is a great editor who doesn't just tinker with an article; he ''improves'' them substantially.  So what if he concentrates on a particular topic?  What he does for the topic goes above and beyond.  Give him the tools, and nothing but good shall happen.
'''Support''' Just because his edits lack a in topical diversity doesn't seem a great reason to oppose.  I don't have any reasons to oppose. --
'''Support''' as above '''<font color="red">
'''Support'''. User does have some need for the tools and will not abuse them. I do not suspect he will use them often, but seeing as he can be trusted, he is a great example of adminship not being a big deal.
'''Support''' Adminship is only supposed to considered Janitorial work (Maybe we should change the name From Admin to janitor, hmmmm...) This used has show no intent to harm wikipedia and gladly edits and improves his subsection of the 'pedia. Even if he doesn't plan on using the tools, It is always nice to have them handy in case crisis strikes or he sees something only n admin can do.
'''Support''' &mdash; Well-rounded article contributor, actually '''gets''' Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I certainly see no problems here. Admin specialists are just fine. I also like his attitude toward the mop. -
'''Support''' - '''''
'''Support''' I applaud your speciality (not a negative) and the way you conduct yourself.
'''Support'''  An indefatigable, calm and reasoned editor.  Speaking as a frequent AfD flyer, I can't imagine using AfD edit totals as a prerequisite for adminhood; carried to its absurd limit, I'm sure that there's some area of Wikipedia that Jimbo himself hasn't much touched.
'''Support''' as a prolific, easy-going, experienced editor, with no reason not to trust.  WikiProject Hockey could use another sysop to mop up the messes on the ice.
'''Support''' I don't know much about ice hockey, but that's my problem not his. Lots of concentrated editing may be a handicap but it certainly doesn't rise to a distrust with the tools.
'''Support''' I definately support this candidate. Is always level headed in debates and brings alot to the table. We could definately use more like him. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools, and per Angus McLellan's reply to opposition #2. &mdash;
'''Support''' The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
Met him through WP:HOCKEY, the nom sums it up nicely. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
No convincing reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
I thought I already had expressed support, see my comment below. Kaiser matias's response to Jeanenawhitney's oppose should be quite enough to allay any concerns here.
'''Support''' Per nom and Jmlk --
'''Support''' Experienced editor; objections noted, but I see no harm in specialists.--
Oppose - Lacks any qualifications other then they edit hockey related articles. MoRsE states “Always handy to have the tools too if you're kind of 'supervising' a project...any project.” That just is not a good enough reason. It just means we give the tools to a person that would probably use them to protect their own work. In their answer to Q1, “My free time tends to limit my time to the project.” Does not seem to understand that what they would be taking on if granted this position. Final summary, lacks qualifications, needs more experience out side of hockey related pages. --
'''Oppose''' less than 20 AfD comments in past 1500 edits---all of which are related to Hockey.  Almost all edits are in one silo---very little diversity of thought/perspective.  To respond to MoRsE above, I have no problem with people having their own silo's where they tend to work.  But when preparing for an RfA, gaining experience elsewhere is crucial.  Show me that you can contribute to other articles.  PArticipate in AfD's.
'''Oppose''': An administrator should be more well-rounded and focused on a broader spectrum of topics that are, in this case, outside of WP Ice Hockey. While I commend your efforts for helping to revert vandalism and perform other cleanup operations there, there is no justifiable reason to have adminship based solely on that if the focus is going to be minute. 95% of the time, an editor can post it at AIV, ANB, etc. and have the case resolved fairly quickly. I would suggest expanding your territorial range to outside of the WP, and hit up WQA, comment on ANI, etc. and come back later -- you have promise!
'''Neutral''' for now.  Without a doubt a valued article contributor, but the candidate's answer to Question 1 leaves me pretty cold.  There is no indication of needing or even wanting the tools. --
'''Neutral''' - as per comments above. He is a valuable contributor but his answer to Q1 does not give any reason for becoming an Administrator. He has given no examples of work he would undertake using the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to have learn a great deal from his mistakes, and despite not being the best outcome with the dispute with other editors, it shows that this user can keep cool under pressure. As long as the issue of edit summerys is addressed (and it appears that it will be) I am happy to show my support, <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' - good number of edits [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Kane5187&site=en.wikipedia.org distributed evenly throughout].
'''Support''' - featured article work and sufficient experience of AfD to close discussions.
'''Support''' A good number of edits. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' very good user--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' -*- '''u:'''
'''[[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|Support]]''' <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Support''' - Just about there. Focus on Wikipedia-space. Don't neglect the edit summary. Then you'll be even better! Good luck ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to be an experienced editor.
'''Support''' meets [[User:Jonathan#My criteria for RfAs|my criteria]]. Good luck! <font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Yes'''
'''Support''' As per track over 8000 mainspace edits.No concerns.
'''Support''' Opposition because of edit summary lapse only encourages incompetant editors who know how to do edit summaries to become administrators. We all learn.
'''Support''' Correct answer to #5. Pretty much knows the process. '''
'''Support''' Demonstrates key attribute required of all good admins - humility.
'''Support''' Although the image notices are troubling, I feel you are sufficienly knowledgable to do a great job!
'''Support'''. The candidate had made good contributions to some articles. No obvious concerns.
'''<s>Conditional</s> Support'''. I had you on my list of people I was thinking of nomming, so you're certainly worthy. One thing though, promise me you'll try not to use inflammatory edit summaries? (I only caught a couple, but there's never a need for them)
'''Support'''.  Looks like a very well-qualified candidate.  --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''&ndash; I like the answer to Question #3.  A good user needs to know to stop.  By this, I mean when you work on something and somebody contests it (such as nominating your article for speedy deletion) a good user needs to learn to understand why it was nominated, assumed the nominator is [[WP:AGF|acting in good faith]] and learns to improve it.  Based on that answer, I feel Kane5187 demonstrated all of that and more.  '''
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to questions! --
'''Support''' good number of edits, if a bit obsessive about Dartmouth, good answers.
'''Support''' User has given no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Great answers and otherwise well-qualified.
'''Support''' - Support.
I'm
I approve as well.
'''Support''' per TiddlyTom, though I'm always uneasy about self-nominees. I slightly mind the absence of edit summaries, but that would be hypocritical.
'''Support''' - It's clear you thought hard about the questions about answering them, and they show you would be a good admin. You've got lots of experience, so I am entirely for giving you the tools. '''''
'''Support''' - should use tools well.
'''Support''' - Qualified. --'''
'''Support'''. Don't see any reason to oppose. As mentioned previously, don't forget your edit summaries.
'''Support''' Great contributor with good understanding of policy. Good answers too. --
'''Support''' per many above fine reasons and meets
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as you appear a first-rate editor, and I hope your FA contributions will not suffer as you take on administrative work.
'''Support''' experienced user, we need your help on CSD.
'''Support''' Per all above. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Co-nom support''' - of course :) -
Absolutely.&nbsp;
'''StrongSupport''' from my experiences in Starwood. '''
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate --
'''Strong Support'''. Our paths have crossed on numerous articles and I've noted that she's a stickler for the facts, polite and well spoken. I think it's only natural that Kathryn would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', there is no reason not to. Great editor, deserves the tools. &mdash;
Got the goods. ~
'''Support''' - of course. An excellent candidate. I looked into nomming her a few weeks ago but I didn't get round to it. I trust her to not do anything silly with the tools.
Seen her around. Don't think she would abuse the tools, and is experienced. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' I do think 460 WP edits is a tiny bit low, but of course that's not nearly enough to offset all the fantastic and positive work that this user does. Good luck!
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' I see you around and I think, you are ready and have my trust. Good luck.
'''Support'''.—
I'm
'''Support''' Experienced, no indications she would abuse the tools, and very grounded in Wiki-Policy.
'''Ar ndóigh''' -
I strongly support this nomination as the nominator. One of these days, I'm going to be the first person to support one of my own candidates, but the RfAs almost always begin when I'm in bed or eating! :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - meets my standards for edit count; has been a useful editor; more sysops are needed where she's promised to work; no [[red flag]]s; expert in areas subject to edit wars and vandalism.
'''Is ea'''. Support per all above ;). --
'''Huge Honking Support'''. Calm, deliberate editor who adds good [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] sources to articles (my personal bugbear). Acts calmly under pressure and I don't recall her ever being uncivil. Writes clearly and to a general audience. Most importantly, she's already doing some admin-type tasks up to the limit of a regular editor's abilities and indicates she will help with housekeeping work. I can't see any downside.
'''Support''' I trust this user. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Experienced editor. Calm, civil, and sensible.
'''Support'''. I thought she was already an admin.--
'''Support'''
'''Starwood support'''
'''Support''' Yet another Irish candidate! hehey!--
'''Support'''. No concerns with this user. And by the way, last time I checked, anon page creation doesn't have consensus to pass. Still, CSD is usually backlogged as is.
'''Support'''. A solid, experienced candidate. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''. Another great user from Alison. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
How to say '''Support''' in Gaelic? :) -
'''Support''' She "gets" it, and she's "got it" :) ~
'''Support''' There is no reason not to. Hopes she gets the nomination.
'''Support''' Long overdue :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per her being a constructive editor that is qualified to be a sysop. No reason to oppose.

'''Support'''. The answers and the nomination are both impressive. I see no reason why this user shouldn't have the tools.
'''Absolutely'''.  Good luck!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Need I say more?? --<font color="Green">
'''Strong, Strong Support''' Great edit summary, great answers.  [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] Certainly knows how to pick who they nominate.  I have seen his past nominations and he always nominates from his heart on one's he thinks are going to great admin.  Again great pick this time. --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''-- <nowiki>{{insert cliche here}}</nowiki> Knowledgeable on [[Neopaganism]] associated articles, but scrupulous about [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] issues.
Good users should get the mop. ---
If it's good enough for Allie and Acalamari, it's good enough for me. --
'''Support''' Excellent experience and answers.  '''<font face="Arial">
This is yet another in a recent flurry of sane, civil, knowledgeable, and even-tempered nominees. I'm beginning to wonder if something is amiss. (Oh yeah, '''support.''')
'''Support''', good work!
'''Support''' very good user, will certainly be a very good administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - most of my experience of her is helpful. I think this is a worthwhile request, and judging by the vote, she has got it already. --
There is no reason not to '''support''' this nom '''<span style="color:#663300; font-family:cursive">Happy Thanksgiving!</span>''' <sub>
'''Support''', per nom - seem like she will use the tools wisely and well.
'''Support''' - decent candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">

'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, no reason to be concerned she would misuse the tools.
➔ '''
- <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - no reason not to.-
'''Support''' She'll do fine! --
'''Support'''. Kathryn is highly competent and will make a fine admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Definite ''yup''. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' - Per the evidence brought up under the oppose.  When other editors jump in to defend you and readily make such good points about you, it clearly shows that you are appreciated by the community and that you are trustworthy. Bon chance!
'''Support''' - No question, all the best. <sup>
'''Support''' - Piling on!  Hey, easy, no shoving!  There's room for all of us.
'''Bíodh sé amhlaidh''' - excellent writer, very even-tempered and knowledgeable. -- ''
'''Tacaíocht''' (Support) - thoughtful, reasonable, and civil person, and it's nice to have admin candidates who are so involved in writing articles as opposed to just reverting vandalism. --
'''Support''' Seems like an exceptionally good candidate, capable and experienced. -
Eile riarthóir na hireann?  Fainne oir ort! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support'''. A good candidate.
'''Support''' - Editor has obvious strengths, and no apparent weaknesses. No reason to oppose.
Although I strongly disagree with this user's opinions of another candidate currently at RfA, I would find it impractical and improper to oppose due to a difference of opinion on another user's candidacy (which is, by all means, personal interpretation and judgement of the candidate and their abilities). I feel this user will make a good administrator. '''
'''Support''' No concerns, and more than ample reason to support. --
'''Support'''.  She is a serious, thoughtful, and committed editor.  No reason to object.
'''Support''' This editor was the very first editor (who did not know me from previously working together) who had the nerve to offer me support after months and months of being blackballed by ADMINS. In my mind, her support for me started the ball rolling that resulted in ARBCOM revealing the 1 1/2 year long established sock puppet ring that had been  making my life miserable. Besides the ring but part of the whole soap opera was a sockpuppet Admin and also our first sockpuppet Mediator).
'''Support''' - Trustworthy. Good candidate. Seems someone willing to take on the tough assignments. Welcome to [[WP:80]]. --
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' per the calamari guy up top there who seems to be doing a great job lately picking fine RFA candidates.
'''Support''' Great answers with impressive contributions.▪◦▪
'''Support''' I intended to write a full explanation for my support opinion, but it seems I took too long going through contributions, and now it is the closing morning. I understand Dorftrottel's concerns, but I think that compared to Kathryn's history of calm, rational discussion, the issue is not one that concerns me enough to not support. I have watched Kathryn deal with a number of rather heated issues, she's not at all timid of issues that have already become heated, or are headed that way, and she's often brought a measure of reason and calmness to the discussions, as mentioned above and below. I think this ability is exceedingly helpful for any administrator, but also the ability to be able to express oneself via this imperfect medium of text-based communication, and Kathryn has demonstrated her ability to do that many times. Dealing with others is an integral part of being an admin, and I truly believe that when it comes to other actions, Kathryn will be careful, cautious, consult with others when in new situations, and would be objective when blocking editors. I believe Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of Kathryn to the current administrative team. <small>
'''Support'''. Seems to have made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia during her time as an editor.
'''Oppose''' Past experience with this editor leaves me doubting her objectivity. --
Keith has been a tireless background worker for my school's article, which is unfortunate enough to be repeatedly vandalised. I have thanked him alot for this, but I am sure he would do a greater job for the rest of Wikipedia by becoming an administrator
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor who can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' A hard working man from the Broad Acres is good enough for me.
'''Support'''.  Good edit count.  Good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Strong support''' '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' I feel quite comfortable concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' Good edit count. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Has the qualifications.
'''Support''' He looks like a good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools
'''Strong support''' A hardworking, patient and courtous editor who would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  Can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''' - as a fellow Yorkshireman, I have several Yorkshire pages on my watchlist. He pops up from time to time and all of his edits have been useful. However, more metaspace contributions would be nice. '''
'''Support''' Very trustworthy editor
'''Support'''. Looking through his contribs, this user seems to be a good vandal fighter that makes good reports to AIV. While I do not think the number of Wikipedia edits is proportionate to his overall edits, so long as he only uses the tools for vandal fighting as stated I see no reason to not support.
'''Support''' I'm not bothered by the low amounts of edits to project space. It seems unlikely to me that if entrusted with the extra buttons he will suddenly become interested in areas which he has never shown much interest before and make a big mess of things. He's been around a long time, I trust him to use his judgment and stick to what he knows. In my opinion every editor who has demonstrated that they are competent and trustworthy ought to be given the tools.
'''Support''', no reason to think he wouldn't be able to cope with the awesome responsibility.
'''Support''' Good response to my question. I think / trust you'll take it slow and ask if unsure, and coupled with an excellent background in encyclopedia building I have no issues here. There will be plenty of support around if you need it upon getting the tools, so use it. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Agree the project space edits are low. But the vandalism reversions are very frequent and usually spot on. I imagine that initially he will use the tools in areas he is familiar with and perhaps naturally move more into project space: at any rate, there is certainly no reason to think he'll suddenly go mad with all the extra buttons! (PS: notifying of [[WP:COI|COI]] as I'm from [[Hessle]]!)
'''Support'''. What Neil said. Keith comes across as a decent bloke, helpful, civil, and communicative. That's what counts.
'''Support'''. Seems like the right stuff. So, he will get admin-experience when he is an admin.
'''Support.''' Admins can do a lot of good that's not in the Wikipedia space.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' good, experienced user --
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools, agreeing that you should take it gradually in using the tools.
'''Support''' Finding deletion debates depressing is very understandable.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Never seen a bad edit, lack of edits in the project space doesn't mean that the skills wont be picked up in time.
'''Support'''. Consistent strong contributor to the encyclopedia. There could of course be more meta-level discussion and interaction with other contributors, but from what I've seen, Keith is consistently courteous and polite, has never shown a serious lapse in policy understanding, and I see nothing to suggest that he would go rogue with the admin tools.
'''Support''' - I don't see any red flags to 'pedia building here. cheers,
'''Support''' - The user has substantial experience and seems to have avoided disputes with other editors.  He's not the least bit disruptive, and doesn't go around stirring up trouble. Please be careful in how you use the tools, and ask for help if you have any questions. -
'''Oppose''' Lack of wikipedia edits or procedural involvement.--
'''Oppose''' 118 edits in the project space shows a lack of experience in admin-related areas.
'''Oppose''', not enought edits in the wikipedia-namespace provides possiblitity that this user does not have much experience in admin-related areas.--'''''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in admin-related areas. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
Per Jmlk17.
'''Oppose''' per Jmlk17.  A minimal level of wiki-space participation is a necessity for any admin candidate.
Oppose per basic lack of familiarity with adminship prior to transcluding. He says 'if elected' in his acceptance, and notes that he read the policies after being nominated. <s>Its true that there is an admin school, but its generally for people who are not admins already and it itself isn't commonly seen as leading to adminship.</s>
'''Neutral''' the number of project space contributions does not provide a basis sufficient from which to draw firm conclusions about the candidate's familiarity with policy (thanks Joe)
'''Neutral''' - as above and I'm a little troubled by the lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace, where most admins do their work.  &mdash;
'''Reluctant Neutral''' I really appreciate the work that this user has done in their area, and I know we've got lots of specialized admins, but WP-space edit count is just too low. I'm sorry.
I'm usually one to criticise candidates for not being involved enough in mainspace because it is such an important part of an administrators' role (issues surrounding content disputes), but I also like to see a little bit more experience in the Wikipedia-space than what this candidate offers. A solid neutral, with positive sentiment :) '''
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Enthusiastic Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' It is good to see candidates with many Wiki-space edits and that is why I support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''K'''ill '''F'''oolish '''P'''redators! '''Support.'''
'''Support''' per Captain Panda. :)
'''Support''' - Seems good--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Props to the wikignomes!--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Go for it.
'''Support''' - Answers are fine, nominators are trusted, I can't find anything in your edit history that I take issue with; good candidate.  --
'''Support''' - I've seen plenty of constructive things from this user; trustworthy.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. While the various talk page edits are not as high as I would like (given that admin work requires a lot of communication), I beleive KFP will use the tools effectively and correctly, and will not abuse them. ···
'''Support''' wish you would have considered this sooner.
'''Support''' good, sustained, constructive contributor.  Good luck!
'''Support''', of course. —
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support''' I only see good things. -
'''Support''' - no reasons to oppose. <font face="Verdana">

'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' I support this candidate to be an administrator based on a review of work done.  I do not personally know the candidate nor do I have a stake in the outcome.
Pile-on '''Support.''' Wield the mop! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Weak Support''' Seems reliable but does not have many edits for the time that he has been here.--
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per good answers and sufficient experience.
'''Support''' - KFP should have gotten the mop a while ago.
'''Support''' - Nothing to keep KFP from the mop. --
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''' reduce the intake.--
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''' Diligent, industrious, smiles all 'round. My favor bestowed freely and earnestly.
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' A good user with relevant experience, in terms of time and work here, who will surely do well as an admin &ndash; but beware, conflicts do happen, so remember to keep cool if you are ever in one ;) Good luck. '''
'''Support''' Very experienced and shows willingness to fix unattended admin backlog.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''', the unanimity so far proves he's ready.--
'''Strong Support''' After reviewing this user, I have decided that his many excellent contributions to wikipeida make it difficult for anyone to oppose him.  I see absolutely no reason not to give KFP the mop, and so far there has been nearly unanimous consensus to support this.
'''Support''', seems like a pretty great gnome-y candidate. --
[[WP:FPC]] cabal '''support'''.
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Always displays a helpful attitude, and is willing to help work with others. —<b>[[User:Pilotguy|Pilot]]<font color="#00FFFF">
'''Support''' sounds good. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''.  <s>Your answers to the questions aren't stellar, but</s> I have no doubt that you have the experience needed to help Wikipedia, and I believe you have the desire to help that is necessary to get the job done well.  I also looked into your work with the user warnings project and am very impressed -- I'm glad somebody has taken initiative to get this going! It's been needed for a long time. --
'''Support''' User refined their answer to Q1. I'm confident Khukri will make a fine admin. '''
'''Support''' per answer to question posed in Neutral vote. User seems to check out.
'''Support''' looks like a well meaning and dedicated user who meats my [[User:Danntm/RFA|candidate guidelines]].  I'm not going to fret about whether the answers to Q1 was subpar, just be sure to read up on the duties of the mop, whichever way this RfA goes.--
'''Support''': Looks solid, with lots of RFA and countervandal activites.
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Changed as per revised answer to Q1.
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''' Looks fine.  OK, so he's a [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|WikiGnome]] who doesn't do "major edits".  I prefer humility and reticence to cocksure self-assuredness and obstinacy.  Wikipedia needs both prolific editors like [[User:Giano|Giano]] and WikiGnomes like [[User:Khukri|Khukri]]. --
--
'''Support''' A great candidate, but I'd like to see some more "major edits" every now and then. ←
'''Support''' per express use for tools.
'''Support''' - on the basis of this user being very familiar with warnings and vandalism, and wanting to see him have the tools to do even more in that field. However, I think many of us do hope that, at least initially, he somewhat confine himself to his areas of greatest expertise. We can always use more people there, anyway.
'''Support''' I would also like to see some more major edits from this user, but I'll support.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. If mathbot's tool is not wrong, Khukri has only 7 major edits in the  article namespace. I think an administrator should have more experience than that.
Changed to '''weak oppose''' upon realising user went on break. &ndash;
This user appears to be unfamiliar with the "minor edit" checkbox, as 99% of his edits in the last two months are minor. This may sound trivial, but if a user doesn't know how this checkbox works I am hesitant to trust him with block/protect/delete buttons. (
'''Oppose''' Relatively low number of wiki-space edits suggests a lack of familiarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' per inexperience in both the project- and the article-spaces, each one of which would have sufficed. - <b>
Yes, yes, YES! Serious case of clique #1 here. '''
'''Support''', per nom. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A graet editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Mike has long impressed me with his thoughtful and policy-based comments in deletion discussions.--
'''Yes, yes, yes.  Yes.  Yes! Yes.''' Wow, H20 took exactly what I was going to type.
'''Support''' great contribution history.
'''Support''' looks good. XFD experience a plus.
'''Support'''. Has a good sense of policy and is an active contributor to deletion processes. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
Without hesitation. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Recent contributions reveal positive contributions in a number of areas, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mystic_Underground&diff=prev&oldid=159538955 article cleanup], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_DoboLocoPapo&diff=prev&oldid=159801034 helping other users], and regular comments at AfD and FAC. <s>My only criticism is that edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lowry-Corry%2C_8th_Earl_Belmore&diff=prev&oldid=159732025 this] should probably be marked as minor edits, but this is nowhere near a reason to withhold support IMO.</s> Clearly a civil user, well-informed about policy, and active in mainspace for a long time.
'''Support''' as a good editor, always civil, around a long time, and thus can be trusted.  Only qualms: needs to find cites for his better efforts, and needs to "get the red out" (use edit summaries).  These are not in any sense serious issues.
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me.
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' Good editor. Looks unlikely to abuse power. '''
'''Support''' Seen him around for awhile, see no issues.
'''Support''' Solid candidate. —&nbsp;'''
I'm
'''Support''' I've seen him before; he knows his right from his left.
'''Support''' I have to come out of my semi-retirement to support such a qualified candidate. My experience in the past was nothing short of glowing.
'''Support''' Checked Track user is very civil and has over 7000 edits in 2 years have no concerns.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' From my brief experience with working with Kicking222 late last year I can see he is a dedicated, honest user. Would do well as an admin.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor with sensible, useful and constructive contributions in all areas.
'''Support''' - Good candidate with experience in all the right areas. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
—
'''Support''' I can remember reading Mike's comments here and there and thinking "he's a sensible guy, he should be an admin". Looking at some edits and what's been said here, I don't see anything to make me think differently now. Should have been mopped a long while back.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' - Detail oriented Wikipedian who sweats for our encyclopedia. Give him a mob so he can increase his efficiencies. There is certainly no lack of work to be done!
'''Support.'''  Good experience with AfDs. He did get excited in some of the debates in [[Wikipedia talk:Schools/Old proposal]] but I didn't notice any incivility. I would have liked to see some references in [[Splashdown (band)]]. He appears to be more active in cleanup than in article writing but that shouldn't cause any concern about making him an admin. I even noticed him writing a Featured Article review, so he knows how good articles are structured.
'''Support'''. Always seemed like he'd make a good candidate in the future, and the time has definitely come.
'''Support''' - Seen him around a lot- definately trustworthy and responsible -
'''Support'''. Seems like a good choice. -
'''Support''' per [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]]'s thoughtful comments. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''. Good candidate and I don't see any issues here.--
'''Support''' good candidate and will put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Everything in place, nothing to oppose. --
'''Support''' good contributions and experience, trustworthy, I think you will be a good admin. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' Borderline because of nomination from Firsfron, whom I know would only endorse the best (but I am surprised that this applicant has nothing to do with Dinosaurs...LOL).  However, I am very concerned that this individual has an inconsistent editing pattern, has not broadly focused on a number of topics, and is more focused on article clean-up rather than building of the project.
'''Support''' - He seems like he has made some good contributions. Looks like a broad range of different video game articles he has edited, and he seems to have edited them well. I think he would be a good admin.
'''Support''' This user would be an asset to this project if he is given the admin tools. I am confident that this user will make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''&ndash; I do think, however, that you should try to find a few particular areas where you think you could use admin tools to the best of their ability.  Admins are looked up upon as role models, and I think that it'd be helpful if you picked a couple areas to contribute, such as [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AN/3RR]], [[WP:AFD]], etc.  '''
'''Support''' per Ksy92003 and above.
'''Support''' Great nom, user has a good understanding of the many facets of Wikipedia.
Per nom, obviously.&nbsp;'''
Per nom. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Resourceful and innovative mediation skills, not stubborn, friendly, and always with good argumentation to support a position.
'''Support''', there's more to being an admin than blocking vandals, thought the user was an admin already.
'''Support'''. Very friendly and civil editor. Certainly will make a good administrator. --
'''Weak support''' - good lately, but rather spotty history in editing; an admin should be more consistent.  Meets my generally minimum edit count standard of 3,000.
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' — user has sufficient experience to convince me that the user will do well, provided that he sticks to participating in areas in which he's knowledgeable, to avoid any unpleasantness. --'''
'''Support''' - A user does not need to be a big AIV or XfD warrior to be a good admin.  A cool head and a kind word can be just as effective, especially when backed up by the ability to protect a page in an edit war or block disruptive users. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' per nom, and very good distribution of edits.
The user hasn't given me any reason ''not'' to trust them.
Sure.  Any admin work done is helpful, a user doesn't need to be an expert/help with everything.  --
'''WEAK support''' I feel a chance is warranted.
'''Support''' I had voted oppose before but I'm changing to support because of his will to improve his knowledge and wikipedia.  As it was not a self nomination I think it's a bit harsh to oppose, when he accepted the nomination and is willing to use admin status to help out.
'''Support''' Right kind of person for admin. Will have no problem learning specifics as needed. --
'''Support''' I see no strong rationale behind forcing the candidate to do 8 weeks of admin-related edits, when the candidate has expressed that these are not areas in which he will be active. I still sleep well at night knowing that my Father is an accomplished homicide detective despite the fact that he is not well-read on current traffic regulations.
'''Support'''. Opposition seems to amount to "no need for tools", as if we were running out of mops. And experience at mediation is a much better indicator of the candidate's qualification to be an admin than making reports to AIV.
'''Support''' Great user. <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' Appears to be sensible from what I saw of his contributions. And excellent points at "Questions from the Candidate to Reviewers". :) - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' See my previous oppose. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  I see nothing here that would indicate any reason to distrust him.
'''Switch Support''' - reviewed my "very weak oppose". Good luck.
'''Support''' this user is headed in the right direction, which is where all us admins were at the RFA point.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' Capable and sensible editor.--
'''Support''' I've run accross him before---don't ask me where because our interest are different---but I've been impressed with what I've seen.
'''Strong Support.''' Basic support in that he's a solid, dependable trustworthy editor who is good for Wikipedia, has shown he cares about the project, attention to detail and accuracy, and an excellent ability to avoid conflict and stay on track with [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]].  Why do I add "Strong" support?   Because I have seen him in action at [[WP:WQA]], where I also volunteered for a while.  I've seen him help resolve many conflicts, including a wide variety of emotionally charged situations with significantly uncivil editors.  It's challenging to make a real difference in bitter disputes without admin tools. KieferSkunk has shown he can do so, fairly, effectively, and based in policy. Ultimately, it's trust that is the most important criteria for the sysop bit. This candidate easily passes that test for me.  --
'''Support'''As per Track.
'''Support''' I sure I can trust him! I have a good feeling about this one! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Weak support''' my comments in the neutral section still stand but this RfA is actually much closer than I'd expected. So I'll support with some reservations and I hope KieferSkunk will take things slow and ask around for advice before using the tools.
I'm
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, user does not have to run the gamut of trivial gnoming to be trusted with the tools. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I've only dealt with him on one issue, but was impressed with his calm, mediating abilities.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Contrib history and expanded question answers seem to demonstrate sound judgment. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Seems a good candidate.--
Support per lack of substantial reasons not to. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Oppose''' Lack of edits to Wikipedia space and involvement in admin related areas.
'''Oppose''' per Keegan and Epbr123.  Answer to Q. 1 is also troubling.  If one is unfamiliar "with the full gamut" of admin jobs, one has not read the requested reading for admins, which is '''strongly''' recommended for all candidates, precisely so that they will know what they're applying for.  That, taken together with lack of experience, really indicates more time is needed here.
'''Oppose''' - lack of involvement in admin related areas, combined with a vague answer to Q1.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Lack of experience as cited by others. The answer to Q1 is extremely vague and sounds a lot like "I don't know really what I'm going to do but I ''could'' do ''something''". Good editor but not someone that needs the tools. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Woo''']][[User:Wooty/ENC|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|['''Woot?''']]]&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - No, [[User:Lradrama/RfA Criteria|my standards]] aren't fully met yet. Try again in a few months with more participation in Wikipedia space. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' without prejudice, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' frustration at AIV leaves me questioning '''KieferSkunk's''' understanding of this process and thus readiness for the tools. The vagueness of the answer to Q1 leaves me not feeling that KieferSkunk has no need for the tools but that there is no demonstrated readiness for the tools. Does have an expressed willingness to learn. Please try again later.
'''Oppose''' Just a bit lacking in overall experience, but that will be corrected by next Rfa I am sure.
'''Neutral''' Per {{user|Dlohcierekim}}'s oppose reasoning, but please do try again later.
'''Support''' - you appear a good candidate. ''
'''Support''' - nice to see a candidate already actively participating [[WP:AIV]] and placing warnings as per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pnhihghgher&action=history history]
'''Support''' per above. Happy New Year.
'''Strong Support'''. - you've done a great job in your counter-vandalism efforts. It'll carry over well as a sysop.
'''Beat-the-nom support''' You <s>deserve</s> need tools. '''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
No problem.
Confused... checks the user rights log... - <b>
'''Support'''. A great user well-suited to being an admin. Good luck! --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' - strong candidate.
'''Strong support''' I gotta say, good catch Nishkid. Nothing to say, great candidate. ←
'''Clear support''' - knows what is needed for adminship.
'''Support''' I can't believe that this came online five minutes after I left for work this morning! Now I get lucky thirteenth support position! No problems with this application, so far as I can see.
'''Support''' -
I always see Kinu in my watchlist, was thinking about nominating him a few montha back Overdue
'''Support''' - Fine. --
'''Nominator Support'''. Sigh...I'm always late on my own nominations. '''
'''Support'''. It's about time.. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' per nom. <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:90%;">[[User:Sd31415|<span style="color:#1560BD"> —'''sd31415'''</span>]]
'''Support''' WP needs more admins, and the answers above sound fine. -
'''Support''' A very good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a very good contributor.--
'''Support''' highly qualified, no hesitation.
'''Support''' Very good user, no doubt admin material
'''Support''' Everything looks good... '''
This is a "he wasn't an admin already?" '''support.''' --
'''Strong Support''' My support of this editor is very strong. He should of been made a sysop a long time ago. --
<s>'''Oppose''', not enough experience with MediaWiki namespace</s>'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. While there are less than 100 talk edits, quality means more than quantity, and pretty much all of those edits are high quality. Everything else is really, really awesome though. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gre]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' A fantastic editor and vandal-fighter.
'''Support'''. I'd like to see more mainspace edits, but the fact that the wikispace is the highest instead means I'm prefectly fine with him as an admin. --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' -Great user and per above. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''. What, you're not one? Looks very good to me.
'''Support''', meets my standards, and my observations of him have been positive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', not an admin yet? Great editor and looking good.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong Support''' - Great Wikipedian that really deserves the tools. --'''
'''Strong Support'''- per all. --
'''Support'''. No problems, good candidate.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, seems to be a strong candidate
'''Support''' Solid and long time participation in AFD - excellent article mopper.  Unreserved support.
'''Support''' Everything looks spectacular, should be a great admin.
support --
'''Support''' as per Nishkid64. ~ <b>IICATSII</b>
I'm
'''Support''' unreservedly.  And much too modest about his talk space edits; active and thoughtful contributor. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Another easy one to support. Keep up good communication with users. This is a key issue in being a good administrator, in my eyes. --
'''Strong Support''' of course.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' I offered to nominate a long time ago!  This user is gold! --
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''', No problems evident, good experience, looks like a good Admin candidate to me!
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''' per record of valuable contributions, good answers, no concerns. In light of the caution expressed in the candidate's answer to optional question 4, I find the opposer's rationale extremely unpersuasive.
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' Good editor!
'''Support'''; glad to see this editor hasn't answered any of the most recent "optional" questions.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Great contributions, good answers to RfA questions. <b>
We need more admins, and lack of any opposers but one at this point suggests, by the [[wisdom of crowds]], that this be a good candidate.  Also, the identity of the one opposer is duly noted.  --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Oppose''': quoting IAR/SNOW when you lacked the tools almost certainly ensures doing so with them, and that's a major problem. --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' He has plenty of experience.  I checked his edits to recent AFDs and an RC patrol revert, and everything looks okay.
'''Support''' this is the first time I haven't reviewed the userscontribs. He seems civil--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
A very dedicated wikipedian especially that can be seen that he is one of the earliest contributors to Virginia Tech Massacre'''Support'''--
A fine editor.
'''Support''' - I have no concerns. --
'''Yes'''
'''Support''' I have found Kizor to be both friendly and reasonable and I think he would make a good administrator.  Best wishes!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' A very civil user who deserves the mop. No major concerns here and I think that he will make a fine admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A solid candidate. —&nbsp;'''
'''Strong Support''' Lots of experiance, committed to the job, honest.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. --
'''Yeah''' I think Kizor could make a good admin. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Per interaction only yesterday, and a review of your contributions, civility and dedication. However please consider turning on the automatic edit summary in your preferences. It's vital (IMHO) for admins to justify and describe actions through this method. No concerns other than that however. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' As per Acalamari and  Good contributions with over 5000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.
'''Support'''. Good editor. ---
'''Support''' I have never supported an applicant with so much red in the edit summary column, and I would urge Kizor to change the preferences to force adding edit summaries. Otherwise, I only see good things and nothing to suggest the abuse of the mop.
'''Support''' General awesomeness.
'''Support''' Contribs look good, dedicated, long-time editor, great admin candidate...
'''Support''' Very positive interactions with Kizor when working on [[Virginia Tech massacre]]. Happy to support.
'''Support''' I think it is time to give Kizor the mop.  :)  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support''' I agree with Cobi. :)
'''Support'''. Looks good. <b>

'''Support''' - not worried about the block, however more edit summaries would be nice. Overall a fine candidate.
I'm
'''Support''', though I'd like to see the response to the remaining unanswered questions.  I don't believe they will change my opinion, though, and look forward to mopping with Kizor.  -
'''Support''';mdash  I thought you were and admin already =P.  Good edit counts and pretty good contributions.  Impressive collection of barnstars!  '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate from what I can see. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Pleased with honest answer, block was a long time ago (May), so I give Kizor my support.
'''Support''' I thought Kizor was already an admin anyway.
'''Weak Support''' Kizor is an extremely prolific, useful editor, even on [[Male pregnancy]], with dozens of scars from vandal-fighting.  I am worried about his block for mass edits, albeit some time ago, and also the lack of edit summaries, but on the whole I trust Kizor to use the mop.
'''Support''' no reason not to; RC patrolling is an area that needs more help and s/he knows what s/he's doing there; I don't think s/he'll be jumping in to close the most contentious AFD's on day one but I think s/he realizes this as well. P.S. there are lots of other special pages other than RC that need admin attention too (can I plug short pages, here?)
'''Support''' A frivolous five-month-old block on Orwellian grounds is no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Kizor has a strong contribution history and has given rather thoughtful answers to the questions asked. I think this more than displaces any concern I'd have from the block. It looks as though s/he'll make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' - yes. Great editor.
'''Neutral'''. Will be interested by response to Q.4 and Q.6 - I would have asked similar things had other people not already done so. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' pending to answering questions four through seven. '''
'''Neutral''' changed vote from oppose to neutral for now  per my statements above. '''
'''Neutral''' per Kizor's answer to my question and per my arguments above. I apologize for being such a flipflopper, but I really thought it was important to clarify the point about the possible consequences of, uh, a 'time-handicapped' admin.
&mdash;
'''Support''' as co-nominator. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' You seem like a great, knowledgable editor who will never abuse the tools, and your answers to the questions were wonderful. On a positive side note, your consistent use of edit summaries is a definite plus for me, as well. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support''' Great user, shall make a great admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''; excellent contributor, good judgement, good sense of perspective:  everything's good here.
'''Support''' You're kidding me right? I so thought you were one! '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' Great edit summary usage, great edit count and with the current backlogs building up around here; we could use more admin candidates like this, good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' nice answers, seems fit for the job. Really neat user page, by the way. —

'''Support'''. Was wondering when we were going to see this one.
'''Support''' on the condition you will not destroy Wikipedia and make a <s>[[Year Without a Summer]]</s>.<small>Wrong freaking volcano</small> (P.S. Everything looks good for this user. I don't see any reason not to support this RfA) <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' as co-nom --
'''Support'''. Excellent user, the "some words on editing" user page section is one of the strongest sources of clarity I've seen in userspace during my time here. Would make a superb admin. Best of luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' No reasonable cause for any objection.  Have fun administrating '''

'''Support''' Two cliche moments at RfA in one day -- times like this are marvelous for Wikipedia! :)
--
'''Support'''- Great editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' per noms. —'''
'''Strong Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' like a wonderbra --
BaseballBaby! I was wondering where you where hiding, dear - it's great to know that's you! :) And '''support''', by the way! ;)
'''Support''' - I like the answers, and I feel the candidate is ready for the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' there's not much more I can say than above
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate.  --
'''Support''' -
'''A nod of the head in the affirmative'''  Very knowledgeable and pleasant, will do fine in passing judgment and taking the bruising afterwards.  Welcome to hell :)
'''Support'''. Great editor and certainly will be a great administrator. --
'''Support''' Um yes.  Great asset to the community.
'''Strong support''' extremely intelligent, civil, prolific editor who will do a fantastic job. '''
'''Support''' - as per [[user:Riana|Riana]] :) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Weak Support''' All looks fine, but the fact that the candidate is <i>honoured</i> to get the key to the broom cupboard worries me. I'm sure you'll be sucesfull in this RfA, so when you're an admin try and rememeber that in the real world there's lots of people that do administration and very few people that are editors. Please don't view this as some kind of promotion. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' Thought you already were an admin.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''', she'll be a great admin, don't find any cause for concern at all.

<s>'''Delete'''</s>'''Support''', great xfd contribution, great candidate.
'''Support''' Fine user, excellent contributions. No worries; no big deal.™ <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''.  I offered to nominate her long ago; glad to see she's taking the plunge.
'''Support''', I have seen nothing but good things from this editor. --<font color="3300FF">
I'm
'''Support'''. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' good editor to support.
'''Support''' based on contributions.
No doubt about it - I approve.
'''Support'''. Ready for the mop. --
'''Support''', of course. —
'''Support''' per excellent contributions to articles, experience in admin-related tasks (reporting vandals and closing AfDs), and overall friendly/polite/positive attitude. Having the tools would only make her more efficient in performing all of these tasks ... Cheers, '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
Pile-on '''support'''. Good user, I have seen her around. --
I was initially a little baffled by this RfA, as I'd never heard of KK. However, I ''have'' seen BaseballBaby around, and there's no doubt that this/that user would be a great asset to the administrator corps. '''
'''Support''' she won't ''erupt'' or ''explode'' when she's stressed, from what I've seen, will probably ''vent'' elsewhere if she is, and I think the sysop community would ''warm'' to her rather well. '''
'''Support''' Most definitely! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Just piling on, but this is the first editor for whom I'm voting that I've actually seen about, and I love her name.  But I like the Tambora1816 too!
'''Support''', despite conom.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - very active editor with an excellent edit history.
'''Support''' I was quite certain that I'd already !voted here, and now I'm inclined to think I expressed my support for KK at some other RfA, although with the one might not even notice.  In any case, although I very rarely pile on, I must here; it is altogether plain that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Katie's being sysopped should be positive]], and even were I not inclined to support in view of past interactions, I almost certainly would exclusively on the basis of the answer to question five, which evidences an understanding of adminship as ministerial and of consensus as paramount that is, well, quite good .
'''Support''' per above:).<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - as nom, and first one comes for free. <sup>
'''Support'''!  Kralizec is awesome - dedicated, experienced, and level-headed.
'''Support''' as co-nom.  Good luck!--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, and very thorough answers to questions.
'''Support'''. (I was going to put an exclamation mark after the support in honor of your username, but saw that TomTheHand beat me to it)  Great answers to questions, good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I've actually been mulling over a own nomination of Kralizec for quite some time.  Kralizec is a article writer, photographer, and wikignome with a wide breadth of experience with the project.  I've worked with him on a few difficult issues involving copyrights and exasperated users, and have been impressed with the way he's handled things. Although he can be tough and bold when he needs to be, I'd be remiss if I described him as anything but a very cautious fellow. That he frequently solicits opinions and advice from others before acting, though, only makes me more confident in trusting him with administrator tools. I am sure that he'll do a great job with TfD, PRODs, complex vandalism, or wherever he chooses to help out.  '''''×'''''
'''Support''' - An excellent Candidate.
'''Support''' Kralizec is experienced, friendly, dedicated, and meticulous in all aspects of his work.  I have complete confidence in his ability to wield the mop without spilling the bucket.
'''Support''' - I have no concerns about the the fitness of the candidate to correctly wield the tools properly. -'''
'''Support''', always happy to see another member of the "Obscure Dune Username" club make the grade!
'''Support'''. Another worthy candidate.
'''Support''' per Dune reference in username, use of exclamation mark in username, and (third most important) being a good and sane editor.
'''Support''' per nom statement. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' completely support. Level headed, wouldn't go crazy with the tools.
'''Support''' - Just excellent. --
I'm
'''Support'''; I see no reason not to. --
'''Support'''. Looks good, no issues, meets every possible standard, great User page, can be trusted.
&mdash;
'''Support!'''. You look like a fine editor.
'''Support''' - yup. Looks just fine -
'''Support''' A great candidate!
'''Support''' Seen user around, and have been pleased with what I have seen.  Strong editor, and will do a great job with the mop.
I must say, I was expecting this to be a drama filled RfA, since I was so sure you were already an admin, and the only reason this would exist is that you had resigned your flag. Weird. Oh well, excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' Yup, looks good! :D
'''Support''' unreservedly.
No reason to oppose. Only reason to support is the Dune reference. ;) - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''', much experience shown in wikipedia-namespace, and theres no reason to oppose.--'''''
'''Support''' Contributions check reveals a very solid candidate with no issues, would use the mop wisely.
Nothing wrong here. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.↔
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Dedicated, good user. --
'''Support''' - no-nonsense contributor.
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' -- especially for the WikiProject Ships work ... despite my fears of a new [[WP:CABAL|'''K'''abalistic '''K'''onspiracy]]. C'mon -- [[User:Kralizec!|'''''Kr'''alizec!'']] co-nominated by [[User:Khukri|'''''Kh'''ukri'']] & [[User:Kubigula|'''''K'''ubigula'']] -- doesn't this bother anyone else? Isn't anyone else paying attention here? (Wikipedia Review anyone?) --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Seen him around occasionally & messmates' comments inspire confidence.
'''Support''' <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' Kralizec is a very helpful and dedicated wikipedian.  A mop in his hand would look as normal as a paintbrush in a painter's. I have complete confidence in him. <i>
'''Support''' as he seems committed to improving the project.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per Khukri's nomination statement. --
Excellent user.
'''Support''' Kralizec! has done great work on Oklahoma-related topics.  From time to time, the [[Oklahoma City bombing]] article attracts people pushing conspiracy theories with [[WP:RS|unreliable sources]] or not sources at all.  Kralizec! has handled these situations well, with civility.  Certainly, Kralizec! would make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' &mdash; sufficient handling of disputes shows ability to handle the situations often thrust upon a [[WP:SYSOP|sysop]]; experience in [[WP:RCP|RCP]] work demonstrates requirement of [[Special:Blockip]]; some more [[WP:XFD|Deletion Debates]] involvement would be great, but otherwise you're a great candidate and, in my book, it's the quality not quantity of your contributions on the encyclopedia that matter and today, you've proved me right; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' sound candidate, no alarm bells. Would prefer to see a higher volume of user talk edits, but you seem to be polite and communicative and I doubt it will pose a problem. Good luck! &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' - Has a reasonable amount of experience and seems to be able to handle disputes well now, I don't think he would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' per no big deal. Sufficient experience of AfDs, warning and reporting vandals to deal with backlogs. Also willingness to help with images is appreciated.
'''Support''' 'aight. --
'''Support''' - Only 4 months experience and a very low edit count(so what!!)..Goodluck...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Edit counts are hardly a good measure of an administrator's abilities, and you have proved exactly that.  --
'''Support''' Although, contra Durin, I favor this form of RfA, I certainly concur in his comment with respect to Krimpet's demeanor; a brief review indicates to me that he is generally cordial and even-tempered, such that a few (rather old) comments should not be taken as demonstrative of his disposition.  He seems well-acquainted with policy and generally to be possessed of the characteristics of moderation and respect for other editors and for consensus that well suit an admin, such that I think one can conclude with much confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Support'''. My review of the candidate's contributions history leads me to conclude that he or she has a good grasp of policy. I agree with YechielMan that the "henpecking" comment was unnecessarily negative, but am inclined to view that as a unique incident (I found nothing of the sort in future diffs, but then again, I didn't look through them all) that has not been repeated since and hopefully will not be repeated in the future. Cheers, '''
'''Support'''. In spite of the short history, he seems ready and able to help.
'''Support''' I was considering not supporting due to lack of experience, but after reviewing the areas of editing, I noticed a high Wikipedia, user talk, and mainspace talk. This made me support.
'''Support''' Ready to help, and seems very nice.
'''Support''' to negate the Oppose votes that state inexperience.  4 months of editing at a high level shows interest and consistency.  He'll not hurt the project.
'''Support'''. The key here is looking at the contributions, rather than edit- or time-counting (although 3 months and 2000 edits is always enough for me) and rather than "henpecking" over one mildly controversial edit in a sea of great contributions. Those backlogs aren't getting any smaller.
'''Support''' We need admins, and you seem reliable enough. Adminship is no big deal, after all. I definitely would've preferred a higher edit count and a longer time around, though. —
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. The candidate obviously understands the place and I have no reason to believe the tools would be abused. Most importantly, Krimpet has a positive reaction to feedback, advice and suggestions, and learns from mistakes. Seems about exactly what we should look for in a candidate, instead of metrics.
'''Support''' Strong edit history, time matters less than commitment.

'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, and the user has demonstrated sufficient commitment to the project already. Answers to the questions are satisfactory. Cheers,
'''Support'''- Good experienced friendly editor.
'''Support'''- A bit green, but an enthusiastic editor. No big deal.
'''Support''' New, but a willing and so-far capable editor.--
'''Support'''.  I don't see a problem with his "newness", 3 months+ on the project is plenty.  90 days probation is pretty standard in the business world to make sure a new employee has got a grip on the job, I don't see why it shouldn't be plenty here as well - and as far as I can see this user has got a grip on the job.
'''Support'''.  Thip (this person) seems to have a stronger grasp of Wikipedia's policies, operations, and jargon than your typical 3-month beginner.  Thip has been well-behaved over the past 3 months, so I have no problem with thip being given the mop.  '''''
'''Support''' - I'd prefer to see slightly more experience, but the user seems competent to use the admin tools. The "incivility" highlighted by other editors does not seem particularly incivil to me; I've seen much worse in the past. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' This user appears to have just over 3 months of experience, which is plenty long enough really.
'''Support''': While generally I would enjoy seeing more time around I however feel that this user can be trusted and has not done anything in the past to show that they cannot be trusted. Should make a good admin if not now then in the future. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good work ethic, and seems to understand the need for better communication. The question is whether he would cause harm with the tools and I see no reason to think such.
'''Support''' I don't think he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Experience here is a function of edits, not time. You're experienced. And we need more admins who get stuck into image issues. --
'''Support'''. I trust this user not to willingly or accidently abuse the tools. —'''
'''Support''' No evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', he's got enough experience.--
'''Support''' Valuable user

'''Oppose''' I think the candidate is on the right track, but I'm not comfortable with his mophood just yet.  A few more months will do wonders here.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but while I accept that this editor has over 2,000 edits with a reasonable number in namespace, I just do not feel that 3 months experience is adequate.--
'''Oppose''' per experience note above. -
'''Oppose''' I think this user needs more experience in Wikipedia, even though he is a great editor. I think with a couple more months of experience, and learning more about Wikipedia, Krimpet will be ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. You need a few months more experience on Wikipedia, although you seem like a great, productive editor. '''
'''Oppose''' Needs much better experience, and is still too young on the site to warrant admin.
'''Oppose''' As above.
'''Oppose''' due to experience concerns, sorry. Keep up the good work, raise the edit summary usage for minor edits and try again in a month or two. --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - there is simply no substitute for experience.  Spend some more time with the project, and come back in a couple of months.  You are certainly on the right track.  --
'''Oppose''' The incivility incidents were too recent to ignore. Regretfully I thus must oppose. Please come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''': 2000+ edits in three months is not even enough for the mop. Come back by the fall and I'll raise it up a notch. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Weak Oppose'''. While I think Krimpet has shown great promise during the last three motnhs, I suggest waiting at least three more motnhs and continuing to contribute as in the past. ···
Way too new and inexperienced with the project. —
I '''vote oppose'''. (RfA '''is''' a vote, despite what some people want to think, and I want that to be clear.) I oppose this candidate because he has insufficient experience in article writing, and because he nominated [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual units of measurement]], when he could have made an attempt to fix it. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication (in both active time and editing) to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. '''
Not comfortable with this user at this time. Next time, probably.
'''Neutral, leaning to support.''' Your contributions and comments here leave a very good impression, but I prefer admins to have the experience that comes with having made at least 3000 edits - even though, per Anthony above, that may be a mere formality in your case.
'''Neutral'''. No fundamental problem here, just a little bit of unseasoning and a couple of bits of early hastiness that will undoubtedly go by the wayside with a bit more experience. Suggest coming back in a couple of months and I'm sure everything will be fine. Best, --
Appears to be a suitable candidate; support withheld pending receipt of a WikiProject endorsement per my policy.
'''Neutral''' Seems a good candidate, can't see any reason to oppose but would perhaps like so see longer editing history that would give more experience of the various aspects of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' - I am impressed by how quickly you have taken off, but I think that you still need a little more time to amass more edits in a myriad of fields. You show a lot of promise and I agree that admin is "no big deal" (and am hoping others feel that way too when I go for an RfA), but I know I speak for a lot of us here that you need to cross that numerical line to cast that affirmative "no big deal" vote. When that day comes, you'll almost certainly get my support. --
I feel that the editor is experienced enough to obtain the sysop bit, however the sockpuppetry in this RFA has me troubled.
'''Support''' - First one is for free. Good luck. <sup>
'''Support''' - Seems like a good editor, with many an edit I might say.
'''Support''' - Seems definitely to be ready. --
'''Support''' Civil and helpfull attitude as evidenced by many comments on your talk page. Active across the 'pedia as evidenced by the tools above. Review of last 1,500 edits shows usefull and informative edit summaries. Vandalism warnings also seem to [[WP:AGF]] and not leap for the jugular each time. Oh - and a great user page with a couple of very funny diffs highlighted!! Guess that does it for me. Best of Luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' This editor is well qualified for adminship.--
'''Support''' Has an excellent range of experience across all aspects of the project, and an edit count high enough to satisfy even the most demanding editor. Come join the club!--<font color="Red">
'''Support''', ready for the challenge :-) --'''
'''Support'''- He is a very good vandal fighter and his contributions until now has been excellent..Will make a fine Janitor..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Demonstrates a need for the tools, and nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Level headed and thoughtful.  Good luck! --
'''Support'''. This user does meet the criteria and is a very hard worker.--
'''Support'''. Ready for the mop.
'''Support'''. My personal interactions with the candidate have always been positive and I am impressed with his insightful and civil contributions to policy discussions, particularly in trying to devise solutions that strike a compromise between conflicting positions. -- '''
I confidently '''Support''' this fine user. —
'''Support'''-Good ( ''short'' for once, but still good :)) answers, good contributions, and good interactions at WP:UW. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' No oppose yet, so I´ll support. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support'''. Sound answers to questions, seems cool headed and willing to learn, good candidate. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Support''' Thought he was one.
'''Support''' - I feel he will use the tools properly. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' no reasonable objections.  '''
'''Support''' per TomasBat. --
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor, plenty of experience, answers demonstrate good understanding of the tools. Plus, adminship is no big deal. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>
'''Support''' good all-rounder, nice bloke, has my trust.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Someone with 10k edits is clearly more dedicated to the project than is healthy. Ergo, I suggest we make use of such enthusiasm. :-) --
'''Strong Support'''-With 10,000+ edits, he is ready!
'''Support''' &ndash; no doubt a great editor, and will succeed in areas across Wikipedia and especially in completing admin tasks. Good luck! –
'''Support''' Yeah...seems like a good idea.  I'd trust them with the tools.
'''Yes''' Well qualified, good mainspace work - nice editor.--
'''Support''' A well qualified candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' for strong edit history, good use for admin tools.
'''Support''' Appears to be a competent editor with strong qualities of patience and dedication. Appreciate the work at the warning project too.
'''Support''' Should make an excellent admin.
I'm
'''Support''' Good user to become an admin.

'''Support''', what else? :) --
'''Support''' —'''
'''Support''' - Well rounded editor ready for the mop. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - Valuable editor.--
'''Support''' as nom.
Excellent user: I have mainly encountered them when they've been dealing with JJonathan socks. It'll save the time of many administrators, myself included, if Kurt Shaped Box could block the the socks himself.
Support. Good answers. &mdash;
Given the amount of vandalism to his userpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kurt_Shaped_Box&action=history], I'd say he's doing a good job of vandal fighting. You've reported a ton of user to AIV, which is really good. Plus, you finally answered the question. Therefore, I '''support''' your candidacy.
'''Support'''. IMO, user has been here long enough and made enough edits, as well as having been involved in admin-related activities enough, to be ready for adminship. Also, great helper as well as question-asker on the reference desk, even if it's usually about seagulls :-) . User has done a lot more work than I have. Thanks. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Support'''. We need more seagull proponents. '''''
'''Support''' - [[Hooah]]. No doubt in my mind that this user is ready for the extra buttons. I also find your username rather witty.
'''Support''' - Per comments from [[User:AstroHurricane001|AstroHurricane001]] and [[User:Sasha Callahan|Sasha Callahan]]
'''Support''' This editor does excellent work, is very active, and is trustworthy. I would like better edit summary usage, but his work outweighs that detail.
'''Support'''.  Per all above, good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
Oh sure. We need more people who focus on the cleanup & housekeeping side of things. See you at [[WP:CFD|CFD]]...<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
What!? This user is ''not'' an admin? I thought he was. In this case, I would '''<s>oppose</s> support''' this RfA.
'''Support''' A valuable contributor to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' An experienced, trustworthy editor. Also, any fan of Nirvana is a friend of mine. ;)
'''Support'''. Nothing concerns me here, good answers. Good luck, Kurt Shaped Box.
'''Goodness Yes''' Uhm, I would have the standard "Thought you were one already", but that gets old. ;)
'''Support''' Like your answer to question 3. Shows that you don't bite the newbies. --
'''Support''' Nice name. <small>Although I'm supporting because I think he can be trusted with the tools.</small> <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - For realz. -
'''Support''' Give 'em the tools!
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' - Seems well-rounded and capable enough to me. I don't see any reason this user shouldn't be given the mop. The oppose votes just don't hold any weight with me IMHO. Cheers,
The fact that you spend so much time at the Reference Desk is encouraging and suggests your willingness to help others. I also appreciated the answer above regarding feeling honored to be an admin. Your edits to project space are considerable and useful. -

'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' No more AIV reports for [[user:JJonathan|JJonathan]] socks now! <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support;''' per the non-existent opposers, I simply don't find their arguments compelling :) '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' A simple yup will suffice. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Support''' Great editor!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. looks good. ▪◦▪
'''Support'''. Recent contribs demonstrate a sound understanding of BLP, always a difficult area which involves the application of tact and good judgment. Plus, I have to say that he has the best damn username I've ever seen.
'''Support'''.  Yep.
'''Support.''' Funny, but I've not encountered this user, although we've both worked on music articles. He has a fine record, meets all possible standards, answered questions very well, and could be a useful vandal-fighter.
'''Support''' - good contribs and satisfactory answer to my question above. -
'''Support''' - looks an excellent editor, good answers. <b>
'''Support''' - even if he does prefer 'parakeet' over 'conure'....cheers,
'''Support''' will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - fine, civil editor. No issues here -
'''Support''', per nom and answer to Question 1.
Not enough substantial talk/user talk interaction for me to support. <font face="Broadway">
'''Strong support''' A fine candidate, will make great use of the tools. --
'''Strong Support'''. An excellent candidate, definitely capable of admin tools. P.S. ''Did you know...that {{admin|Majorly}} blocked {{user|Kuru}} for a period of 31 hours after a case of mistakenvandalismblockuseritis?'' '''
'''Strong Support''' - experience with this editor has been uniformly positive for me; I've seen editor often at the [[WP:AFC]] (a very [[WP:GNOME]]ish job, if I do say so myself), and Kuru is always polite, doesn't bite newbies (as some editors there are unsurprisingly prone to do), and works in civil manner. Would absolutely not abuse the tools, and would be very useful to have them.
'''Support''' per nomination, answers, and a candidate's overall fine contributions.
'''Support''' Good contribution history, keen eye, thoughtful, shows a need for the buttons and has proven trustworthiness.
'''Support''', I was impressed by the conservative attitude toward using the tools expressed in the answer to Q1 and by the answers in general. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' might be a great help with the tools. ←
'''Support''' Fine cantidate. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Strong Support''' An excellent user. I'm particularly pleased with mainspace, Wikipedia, and User talks. I know Kuru will make a fine administrator. --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#C71585">'''Tohru Honda13'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tohru Honda13|Talk]]•
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin!
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' You seem like a fantastic user.  Clearly you're a great editor, and know what you want to help out with as an admin.  I ran into you a number of times, and personally...I just figured you were already an admin.  Great work, keep it up. '''
'''Support''' - would use the tools wisely. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - It's always great when a new face comes along to help at [[WP:AIV]]. (What? No Category Talk edits? :D) Cheers,
'''Support'''; Wikipedia will benefit from Kuru's becoming an admin.  Good candidate.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate for the admin tools.
'''Weak Support''' -- per nom --
'''Support''' a strong well-balanced editor.
<nowiki>{{subst:Cliche}}</nowiki> '''
'''Nominator was asleep when the RFA was accepted support'''
'''Strong support''' I have utter faith in this experienced and mild-mannered editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - plenty of experience.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - good edits (nice maps!), good activity in the War on Vandals (no, not [[Vandal#Sack_of_Rome|this one]], and a good attitude.
'''Support''' per nom. Lots of good contributions. Dedicated to the project and will make good use of mop.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great edits, fabolous users.
'''Support''' Kuru does an excellent job editing accurately and with a neutral voice.
'''Support'''.
<s>'''Provisory neutral'''</s> After sifting through the last 1,000 edits without finding an editorial contribution, I'd like to hear more about Q2. Vandalfighters don't have to be FA writers, but negligible encyclopedia writing is usually a reason to oppose. ~
'''Support''' per above :). ''
<tt class="plainlinks">[[User_talk:DVD R W|'''<font color="black"> dvd</font>''']]
'''Support''', though it would be good to see more substantial contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Cleanup work is fine, and very necessary, but we need more people making significant contributions. I think you'll do a fine job. ···
'''Support''', just like everyone else. No problems at all.--
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong support'''. Your edits are both well-developed and numerous, your anti-vandal work has been tireless, and your Texas river maps have been a high-quality addition to Wikipedia.  From "vandal watching" your pages, I've seen that you also treat others with respect, even when their words and actions would make it easy to do otherwise. You'll be a great addition to the admin team. --
'''Support''' per very good responses to questions (and per numerous points made above).
'''Support''' Obviously qualified. '''
'''Support''' Fabulous users, and knows lots about using tools, and goodwork on vandal-revertings.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''support''' I have always noticed this user making good edits when they show up on my watchlist, no evidence has been presented that Koru'd missuse the tools. --
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Drat, I am late for the party :). But seriously great user that can benefit from the tools.
'''Support''' Candidate looks good to me. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Looks good to me, good luck to you.
'''Support''' See him alot, needs admin tools.--
'''Support''' Good, sound editor. Unlikely to abuse the tools.
I'm
'''Support''' Is a great vandal fighter who could use the tools. --
'''Support''' No problems here. A fine editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' His need for the admin tools seems justifiable enough and he seems like a good editor.--
'''Support''' Good editor that would make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' WPTALK edits are low but I'm not one to complain about edit count except in extreme cases. Go for it.
'''Completely unnecessary support'''.
'''Support''' The man.  The myth.  The Kuru.
'''Strong Support''' - excellent nomination, and 60 editors have turned up nothing sinister.  Seems trustworthy and competent, and best of all, helpful.
'''Support'''. With such a strong history of contributions, this nom should have come sooner. —
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. I thought Kuru was an admin (seriously). --
'''Hell yes''', question 1
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Kuru's unusual name brought him to my attention some time ago, because [[Kuru (disease)|Kuru]] as I know it (being a student of virology as I was then) is a disease associated with canablistic natives in PnG! Since then his contributions have stood out as being of high quality. I think he will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Contributions are good, should have no problems. --
Chimps '''support''' those who fight vandalism.
'''Support''' competent user.--
'''Support''' A fine and conscientious editor.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per above &ndash;
--
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''': Hmm.. Looks good, 11868 in Mainspace. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Good editor who will use the tools effectively.

-
I find Kuru's contributions rather one-sided, although a good gnome is always appreciated.
'''Support''' per my nom - best of luck mate :-)
I supported last time. Good user.
'''Support''' - Definitely has a clue. &mdash;
'''Support''' I've seen this user as a constructive editor several times. This user will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - Best of luck. &nbsp;
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' Will work for the improvement of Wikipedia!<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' as I did last time. He has plenty of experience in the areas which he intends to frequent as an admin, has lots of common sense and remains nice and civil. Will make a fine admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - Kwsn is mature and ready for the mop. I support. Regards,
'''Support'''.  That explains what happened to "Whsitchy"!  Despite the lack of article writing, I think he's ready to take on the vandals.  I'd like a little more info regarding deletions; see question 4 above.
'''Support''' I thought the previous RfA had passed. Anyway I can't see anything really wrong in Kwsn's contributions, so there's no reason to oppose. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Trust nom, user seems to know policy well, and a great vandal fighter! <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' - experienced vandal fighter, mature, thoughtful and willing to help with blocking vandals.
'''Support'''. I trust him with the tools, and believe he knows how to use them. --
'''Support''' I trust this user with the tools and has improved his understanding of the notability criteria. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I have seen Kwsn doing good work in a number of areas and his checkuser clerking is helpful. He makes sensible contributions to deletion discussions and to Arbitration workshops. Seems sane and to understand our policies. His weakness is in a lack of content writing, but I do not think that alone should disqualify him - I think Wikipedia will gain from him being able to perform more administrative tasks. I am reassured by the expanded answer to Q.5. I think Kwsn is aware of what areas he is sufficiently experienced to apply to tools to and which it would be better if he steared away from. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', the issue I had has been cleared, and I find "lack of article writing" to be a rather superficial oppose.
'''Strong Support''' Not everyone can create reams of content, and as ever I give out my total respect to our hard working editors that do. But as the project grows the janitorial element is ever more important to keep this place tidy for the '''most''' important thing on Wikipedia - our readers. Your answer to my question was spot on, really spot on. Best wishes, and I hope the opposers take note of your clear knowledge of policy despite scant content contributions. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - plenty of experience and good answers to questions.
'''Support''' I see nothing that would cause me to oppose.
'''Support''' without reservation. As a checkuser, I know how useful it is when clerks on RFCU have administrator rights. Performing so many checks, I frequently don't have the time to decide whether or not to block the socks/sockmaster as well. Kwsn is an active clerk on RFCU. Being an administrator greatly improves the quality of one's work clerking on RFCU, though it is by no means a requirement. This specific requirement for the tool, coupled with the fact that I trust Kwsn to not abuse the tools means this user should have administrator rights. --
'''Support'''. It bugs me to see the opposition below based on lack of article contributions. Administrators ''do not need to be good editors'', they just need to be able to keep a cool head and be trustable with the tools. Everything I've seen about Kwsn has shown me that that is likely to be the case. However, one thing I would ask you to do is trim some or all of the HTML from your signature, as it's going to cause you unnecessary problems in the future.
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin. Good luck.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  Don't care about mainspace so long as the user seems to understand things pretty well.
'''Support''' As per Deskana. Track is good and user has been regular contributor through account was created only in March.
'''Support''' per above reasons and meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards]], particularly
'''Support''' Yep, no signs this user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good user.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' Accidentally found you while attempting to nominate you ;)

'''Support''' I supported this users last RfA, and I see no reason to change my !vote. While the user may not be the most prolific article writer, the areas in which he contributes in greatly benefit from his presence. <strong>
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Support'''. Behind-the-scenes work contributes to building the encyclopedia too, and this candidate's work in that area is exceptional.
'''Support''' My reason for opposing was a little ridiculous, nothing wrong with the candidate. <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' despite your garish signature. :P --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' While content is important so is other duties in Wikipedia; housekeeping.
Nothing wrong with specialists. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Involvements in various Wiki-related articles.--
'''Support''', of course support. We'll need his help come the ninth. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' - I see no reason in particular to oppose, and kwsn has a track record in my books of being decently friendly while an effective vandalism fighter. Allowing him to block vandals rather than merely revert them would help.
'''Support''' solid question answers --'''
'''Support''' per nom and more specifically per WJBscribe and Deskana.
'''Support''' The opposers bring up nothing concerning, and as far as I can tell, this is an otherwise good candidate. '''
'''Support.''' User is a hard worker and the detractors do not show anything worrisome.
'''Support'''. Candidate is fully qualified for the administrator tasks he proposes to perform. Many of us should do a little bit more mainspace editing, but its lack should not deter us from promoting a candidate with a good record of contributions in other areas.
'''Support''' - User seems adequately responsible and helpful.  No concerns here. --
'''Support''' Quick contrib check, and we need good admins.
'''Support''' I can't see a real reason not to. Plus, we do need more good admins! <font style="background:#990000;color:#FFFFFF;border:2px solid #999999">
'''Support'''. He may not be a fantastic content contributor, but we always need more admins who are willing to take on dull maintenance and housekeeping tasks.
People are complaining that he doesn't "write the 'Pedia" enough. Well, administrator tools do absolutely nothing to "write the 'Pedia" either, but they would help Kwsn in what he does. Why deny the tools to a decent vandal-fighter? We've seen so many RfAs pass now where the candidate says, "I don't really think I'll use the tools", and now people are trying to deny the tools to someone who could actually use them to better the encyclopedia... Seen the user around. Interesting variety of POVs among the supporters. Seems good. Mahalo. --
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support'''.  Won't abuse the tools.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. Good editor who can be trusted with the tools. --

'''Oppose'''. One of the reasons your last RfA failed was due to lack of encyclopedia-building experience. I'm sorry to see that you haven't made much headway. Come on, there must be some articles you'd like to help along! Otherwise, you're doing some great work--keep it up.
'''Oppose''' Shown little to no improvement since last time.
'''Oppose''' I opposed last time due this user not making any mainspace contributions, such as creating articles. I still oppose on that ground, as well as the answer to question #5. '''
'''Oppose''' Without commenting on anything else, I find the answer to Q. 5 woefully vague and incomplete.  I will be happy to reconsider this position if the candidate rethinks and expands his answer.
'''Oppose''' not enough article work. Q2. '''
'''Oppose'''  - the most number of edits made to any one mainspace article is 7 (?!) - [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Kwsn&site=en.wikipedia.org]. The whole point is 'pedia building and only by doing this can one appreciate the effort involved when nominating and deleting. I do agree you've done some useful work bu c'mon ''one'' GA or some DYK or ''something''. cheers,
'''Oppose''' Lack of mainspace contributions is worrisome.--
'''Oppose''' good simple vandalism experience but not a lot of intereaction with mainspace articles or regular contributors.  --
'''Oppose''' There are only two articles where he has made more than 5 edits.  Zero mainpages where he has made more than 7!  His edit count is rather low for a person who is primarily a vandal fighter.  With all the tools available for vandal fighting, 2K is nothing.  This is a sign of somebody who is very one dimensional in his contributions.
'''Oppose''' - I am concerned with the answer to Q2. Vandal fighting is very important to this project, but it is not the only area where an admin needs to have experience. I believe article writing and editing exposure are needed as well for the advanced tools to be granted.
This seems likely to pass, so this is mostly a symbolic '''oppose'''.  Please consider doing some article work.  It will give you a fuller perspective on this project.  Far too often we see administrators who do no article work but build sprawling halls of bureaucracy and write vast tomes of wikilaws; who do not recognize the valuable contributor who quietly toils on some obscure corner of the wiki -- [[An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump|a little known painting]],  [[George_I_of_Greece|a long dead king]], [[Redshift|some complicated physics thing]]; who are quick to delete content because, indeed, such content just appears of its own accord!   Very few sysops do such things in bad faith -- they may not even realize they're doing it! -- but by not ever having worked on articles they simply don't understand. --
'''Oppose''' - quickly scrolling hru last 1000 edits I failed to see '''not a single''' contribution of article text.  May be I was scrolling too fast, but I don't think we need professional police here. `'
'''Oppose''': Solely on the basis that the candidate has made no attempt to prevent the above heckling. If the candidate can't successfully defuse such behaviour on their own RfA, they're not ready to do so anywhere else on the project.
'''Opppose''' - I don't believe the user has the broad experience I like to see in a candidate. Comparing to previous RfA, I don't see adequate progress. Also, I'm not particularly impressed with answers to some of the questions, #5 and #6, in particular. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Oppose''' Good vandal fighting, but consider addressing the concerns of the previous RFA, such as mainspace article writing experience.--
Oppose, per above.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' Has not done much article writing but is otherwise a hard worker and would not abuse the tools. Waiting on questions 5, 6, 7. --
'''Neutral''' - I wasn't going to !vote on this RFA until Kwsn answered the fifth question, the response to that question proves that this user isn't familiar with BLP, though the evidence of contribution to Wikipedia space and the response to question #6 prevent me from opposing. -
'''Neutral''' - this is the first time in ages I've gone to neutral. I hate doing it but I'm afraid I can't do anything else yet (see [[User:Lradrama/RfA Criteria|my standards]]). Your contributions are excellent, and you've achieved a real lot in your time here, but mainspace article work is at a big low. I'd like to see more work there. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' Per reasoning given by {{user|Agüeybaná}} in the oppose section.
'''Neutral''' A mix of votes above. Somewhat ''shaky'' answers and lack of mainspace edits. '''
'''Neutral''' the concerns of the opposers also concern me, but not enough to oppose.
Wondeful Candidate. Sure she will not abuse the tools. Good luck!--
'''Strong Support''' <s>Someone please leave a note at [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]] telling him he can desysop five or ten other admins; they've just become redundant.</s> --
'''Support'''  I have a high opinion of LaraLove, and think she will make a good admin.  I think she's a passionate editor and I've occasionally seen her get a little irritated in conversation; I'd like to encourage her to be calm when dealing with difficult situations.  This has not been a big issue, though, and her dedication to the project and work ethic are both evident and will be huge assets to Wikipedia if and when she becomes an admin.
'''Strong support'''. I also have a high opinion of LaraLove. She is a fabulous GA reviewer, and many of our best articles owe a debt to her for her high quality copyediting and attention to detail when she reviews articles. I have always found her easy to work with, even when we have disagreed. She is an editor who is not afraid to speak her mind, but that's no bad thing, and I completely agree with the nominator that she is "accountable, responsible, and dedicated". She will make a great admin. ''
'''Support''' great GA contributions, pro-active and well deserving of the extra buttons.  Good luck!
'''Strongest possible support''', excellent, well-rounded and judicious contributor. Great! Go to [[WP:200]], plz.
'''Support''' - This RfA is overdue, everyone else has already expressed my feelings. She will make a great admin. Regards,
'''Support''', certainly. Respected editor, valuable contributions, thoughtful answers.

'''Support.'''
'''Support''' All of my experience with this editor has been positive.
'''Support''' A user who is certainly very suitable for adminship and hopefully will be a good one. Any work helping with backlogs is much appreciated.
'''Support''' Hi Lara! I can't say anything that won't sound cliched, so I'll just pile on. Cheers—
'''Strong support''' Absolutely, she's one of the best ones here.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' As one of WP's most productive GA writers I have interacted with her numerous times and have had nothing but positive interactions.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
I've always considered Lara to be a very well-balanced editor. I'm sure she'll do well with the tools. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''.  I've seen her a few places, and always thought that she was a model editor.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support as co-nom''' well duh!--
'''Support''' Appears to be a good editor. Answered questions clearly, and with ease. Looks quite easy to get along with. Good pedian.
'''Support''' - Good answers to my questions, good contributions. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' She suggested to have GA sweeps, and that's a really good suggestion. A GA sweep was long overdue.
'''<s>Oppose</s> Support''' Good user. No reason to oppose this user.
'''Strong Support''' Good luck, Lara! I can't think of anyone more suited to be an admin than you.
'''Strongest Support for a candidate in my !voting related edits''' - I really '''did''' think you already were one. The amount of support so far is evidential of that. You truly are an outstanding candidate.
'''Strong Support''' per pervious comments. She will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' - super editor, always courteous to others. Will make an excellent admin -
'''Support''' with no hesitation. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''strong support''' very high editor would make a great administrator.

--
Being ageist is one thing, but realizing that the vast majority of people under about 14 are probably too immature to see the word bra without giggling, much less be an admin on WP, is another. There are several good admins who are under eighteen. There are one or two excellent admins who are under 14. While these show that there are exceptions to the rule, opposing because of someone's age without evidence that the user is capable of being an admin is not wrong. So the opposes based on that have little bearing in my mind. The above evidences of her qualifications, however, do. '''
'''Support''' - Great user, fully trust her with the tools. -
'''Support''' Sure!
'''Strongest Support''' as the nom. I was seriously late on this one, geez.
'''Support'''. Experienced, dedicated, civil. Accusations of agism are unfounded, I deem. --
'''Support''' Good editor and the 'ageist' rationale of some of the opposers is ludicrous.
'''Support''', have found this user very helpful in the past, will use the tools wisely. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''support''' Good article writer and editor, always civil and nice, no real reasons to oppose. --
'''Support'''. Agism does not suffice as a reason for opposition and besides that I see no reason to not trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I see nothing but good work, and that suffices for me to disregard the age issue. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Great work all around, especially helping out with GAs, and will make a great admin. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' A good article writer who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''', Lara is a solid editor, stable, responsible and not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' positive, diligent, and will do an excellent job, -
'''Support'''. First experience with this user showed that she should be admin. She was friendly and helpful. I then checked out her edits: fantastic work for the community by reviewing articles, which overall improves articles.  Also fantastic work on the Help Desk. If a user is improving the quality of mainspace, helping users, and being friendly, why should they not be an admin? —
'''Support''' Maybe she is not experienced in the administrative tasks, but her work as GA reviewer is awesome this makes me to believe that she won't abuse of tools.
'''Support'''. Very good editor, as she works on bettering the encyclopedia as a whole, and I have faith that she is trustworthy enough to have extra tools, as I feel she would make a great admin and needs tools to continue with this work, and to easily enforce policy/tasks, while still improving the encyclopedia.<small> even though I dislike flowery/colorful sigs, as IMO is arrogant, etc., but I still support. :p</small>~
'''Support''' Experienced editor, good contribution to mainspace through GAs.
'''Oh my god why didn't you tell me former adopter support''' As Lara's former adoptive wikidaddy, I am only to pleased to support.  Sniff ... it's like graduation.  She will be fine, no concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.  Opposition rationale is of poor quality.
She certainly has her moments :-D —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' From what I have seen Lara has been great at reverting vandalism, and has beaten me to the punch more than once. While I am a very big n00b here (this happens to be my first comment/vote/discussion reply on any discussion related thing) I think she would have no problem with the admin tools.
'''Support''' based on her participation with Editor review, among other things.
'''Support'''. The fact that the biggest complaints against her are she likes GAs (maybe we've redefined "good"?), some other people did some stuff (it wasn't her, was it?), and she has reservations about young admins (under-13's used to get permablocked on sight and forced to recreate if they admitted they were under 13) says pretty good things about her. -
'''Support''' Her previous work makes it clear that she'll judge objectively.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Granted, I've only seen your work in the last week or so, but you've already left a mark. I'd for stronger if I'd seen you around more (I really only watch a few pages, so that makes sense) but from what I've seen, I have complete faith that you'd make an excellent admin. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Support''' – I don't really understand why people are bringing [[ageism]] into the argument. Lara said she might support a 12 year old admin, and to be honest, if [[User:Sango123|Sango]] could handle the mop as a teen, then why not a 12 year old? '''<font face="Arial"> [[User:Bushcarrot|<font color="black">Bushcarrot]] <sup>[[User_talk:Bushcarrot|<font color="DarkOrange">Talk]]</sup> <sub>
'''Support''' Good candidate with good judgment. Ageism argument holds little water with me. I used to be the youth leader (I was under 19yrs old) of an international religious youth group (membership generally between 14-18yrs old). Despite exceptions (nothing is absolute), age and experience plays a significant role in maturity. Not saying I wouldn't vote for a 12yr old for admin, only that such a 12yr old would be very exceptional compared to their peers' maturity levels ''in my experience''. (end rant)
'''Strong Support''' per the ludicrous "ageist" opposes. Common sense says that 99.9% of 12-year-old users do not possess the maturity to handle the tools of adminship. Are there exceptions? I'm sure there are. Users like Acalamari (who, I believe, is 15 or 16) is a really good admin. But where do we draw the line? I teach 11-14 year olds. Some of them are very mature and thoughtful. However, I can't think of any that I feel would be ready to adequately handle the tools of adminship. As a very young person, they would need to deal with some VERY adult situations, where tempers are short, and anger runs thick. I would not want even my most mature kids placed in that position. This is not "ageist", it's common sense. Lara should not be opposed for being "ageist", first because she's not, and second because her opinion in the cited case was simply based in common sense.
I have come to support this RfA, and it seems I have some explaining to do as well: for clarification, my initial oppose was not meant in bad-faith: I was not trying to sink this RfA, or trying to make LaraLove look like an ageist. As I said, I thought LaraLove had used age as a reason to back up her oppose in that RfA, and I opposed this RfA on that basis; and yes, perhaps I should have assumed more good faith. However, LaraLove's comments here, plus a private discussion that I had with her, convinced me that age wasn't a factor at all in that oppose. I am not pleased with the mess I've turned this RfA into, and I'm also not happy my comments here have led to another RfA being opposed. I hope the people opposing here on my now-withdrawn rationale will reconsider their opposition, and realize that LaraLove isn't an ageist, and is certainly not prejudiced in any way. LaraLove will not abuse the tools, so there is no reason to oppose anymore.
'''Strong Support'''. The candidate is a great asset to the project and a dedicated encyclopedia-builder.
'''Support''', mirroring K. Scott Bailey's sentiments above.
'''Support''', have interacted with Lara multiple times in the past for the GA process and have always been impressed with her knowledge of policy and her behind-the-scenes work for GAs. I believe she will use the tools well in helping with the image backlogs. --
'''STrong support''' great work at GA. '''
'''Yes''', the editor does a fine job and should make a fine admin.
--
'''Support''', was very responsive to my questions via yahoo messenger.
'''Support''', after a bit of thinking. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' after my prior interaction to help with a harassing editor. --
'''Support''' civil, sensible, and helpful in a disagreement over whether [[Angolan Civil War]] meets GA requirements. Would make a better admin than most.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Reviewing GA candidates is extremely commendable.  Not only has she done that, she's edited several articles to GA level herself.  Obviously a dedicated editor who is doing more than her share to improve the quality of the project.
'''Support'''- She has done good work. The lack of work in XFD gives pause for thought but I have looked through this users history and found nothing that would indicate she would not be trustworthy with tools. I have taken in account the issue of age  and want to say there are some fine admins of all ages here.--
'''Hand her the mop!''' Civil, judicious... insert your own word of praise here. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Tarragon Support''' - Chuck Norris crossed with Wonder-Woman, with no facial hair! Good luck! <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I thought she's an admin already. Anyway, she is a very kind user with a good understanding of policies and a well rounded contributor.--
Top chick. ~
'''Support''' She is an excellent editor, perhaps too "bossy" in voicing her opinion, but I would trust her with the tools, and I think she will be an excellent and hard working admin.
'''Support''' - How can we go wrong with an admin named "Love"? --
'''Strong support''' as one of the best, most honest editors we have, with lots of contributions across many fields.  She's been quite kind at GA review, and useful here at RfA.  While I understand the concerns noted below, overall, she's so good and would be such a useful sysop, she should have the mop.
'''Support''' User appears ready to mop.
'''Support''' - one of the best editors on Wiki I know.
'''Support''' As for the opposes, I'll say it again: the fact that some 30-year olds behave like 12 year olds is not a sound rationale for giving additional responsibilities to 12-year olds. Though the occasional 12-year old behaves like an adult, chances are they behave... like a 12-year old and this is most certainly not what Wikipedia needs. I'm sure it's frustrating for younger editors to hear the ol' "you're just too young" but the outraged opposes below, ironically enough, demonstrate immaturity.
'''Support''' Already acts as one of the de-facto administrators at [[WP:GA]] and has been a powerful guiding hand at making that into a fantastic area of Wikipedia.  I have no doubt that her use of admin tools will help there and at all areas of Wikipedia.  --
'''Strong support'''She is fantastic, she has Adopted me and has demonstrated to be very patient with showing me basics. She will be a great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Sure'''.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support!!''' Wow, I'm late.
'''Support'''. When I first came into contact with LaraLove, I realized she did a lot of good work. Through misunderstandings, I thought she was actually rather abrasive, but by talking to her directly I realized that sometimes she just forgets to respond to messages she reads. That's not a bad thing, it happens to all of us. I think she's rather deserving.
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; To [[WP:100]] we go!  LaraLove knows a good editor is, and she's a great example of one.  She also happens to know what a good article is &ndash; invaluable knowledge.  She'll make an excellent administrator.  &mdash; <tt>
[[WP:100]] support. (Will elaborate on my rationale in the morning.)

'''Yes'''.
'''Support''' I have absolutely no doubts in Lara's ability to be an admin.
'''Support''' &mdash; I trust that this user will use the tools in a responsible and mature fashion.  Many of the opposes are incredibly petty. --
'''Support'''. She has a history of excellent contribution and understands policy.  I'm not convinced by the oppose reasoning.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', no need to say anything more. :)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether it's wrong or right. As long as LaraLove's opinion doesn't affect her judgement within admin duties, I see no reason not to trust her with the tools. --
'''Support'''.  I have not had much contact with Lara but have seen her around quite a bit and have admired her edits.  I am particularly impressed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dihydrogen_Monoxide&diff=160422222&oldid=160412326 this response] stemming from  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Bishonen this discussion] regarding a shameful act of corruption of the GA process of which Lara has worked so hard.  I trust she will make a fair and just admin.
'''Support:''' ''Because'' she has opposed juvenile RFAs on the age count alone.  News flash: societies around the world impose age restrictions.  Why?  ''Because they find minors to be, by and large, immature.''  In my own experience, some of the pre- and just barely post-pubescent editors who hotly proclaim their maturity have been their own worst enemies.  It's a hell of a lot better a reason to think someone won't cut it as an admin than whether he or she's gotten an article to FA status, whether he or she is active on ANI or based upon his or her edit summary percentage.
'''Support''' --
—
'''Support:''' Will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I have seen good things from this user, and the reasons to oppose are not convincing to me.
'''Support'''.  I have personal experience of this editor's good judgment in a complicated situation and am impressed by her work in taking articles to higher states of existence.  I know she'll use the tools judiciously and well.
I'm
Only just stumbled across this RfA. It looks like Lara hardly needs my '''support''', but (as an editor I trust implicitly) she has it all the same.
'''Strong support.''' I stumbled across it too and recognized the user name. I have thought very well of this user's work. The oppose arguments below are really weak. There is no good reason to think this person will abuse the tools. There are reasons galore to believe she will put them to exceptionally good use. Some people are making a mountain out of a mole hill on the ageism thing, and I say this as a younger (well, standard college age) contributor. As for the type work, man, standardizing and cleaning up GA articles is crucial for project goals of attaining real encyclopedic quality. She has really been conscientious and hard working.
'''Support''' A name I recognize; great work; I trust this editor will make good use of the tools. <b>
'''Support''', see no reason not to.
'''Support''', I've come across LaraLove in a variety of GA reviews and always considered very polite and knowledgeable. I have no doubt that she would use the tools to the best of her ability.
'''Strong Support''' - Great contributor, significant work on GA front. Will make a good admin. -
'''Support''' one of my view interactions with this user wound up as a part of my standards page. Gracious, thoughtful helpful and just plain good user. Oh, and FA is one of those things that I like to see in a nom.
'''Support''', excellent editor who will make a fine admin.
'''Strong Support''' I heavily support for admin.  To be honest the edit count was very good. I looked over the edit records and saw some really good overall work for wikipedia.  That was enough for "support".  However I looked through the oppose, and saw the person under fire.  The way they responded was remarkable, and made me consider strong support.  They came under fire from about 3-4 different people for the same thing, but they stuck by there decision and remained CIVIL throughout the whole process (even if someone else wasn't).  To me this is a great quality for an administrator. --
'''Strong Support''' I can't believe I was so late to this RFA! Lara deserves sysop powers beyond all doubt.
'''Support'''. I've had good interactions with the user, and am confident she will not damage WP with the tools.
'''Support''' I regularly lurk on [[WP:GAR]], [[WT:GA]] and other GA-related discussion pages, and I have always found LaraLove to be friendly and her input helpful. Her willingness to improve articles that are brought to GAR shows that she is committed to building the encyclopedia, unlike some admins who are only interested in people politics. During my two discussions with her, which are among my few pleasant experiences on IRC, she gave me several useful pointers regarding an article I am planning to improve to GA status. This is also, to a certain extent, a protest support, as I find that the oppose votes are ridiculous - either prompted by LaraLove's allegedly "ageist" comment or motivated by GA-bashing. Although I am 16, and strongly oppose ageism, I do not find LaraLove's allegedly "ageist" comment particularly troubling.  Opposing a candidate on the grounds that he is 12 is one thing; showing evidence of the candidate's immaturity, and mentioning the candidate's age in passing, is another. Oh, and have a nice day. --
'''Support''' Very active long term editors tend to have mistakes collect, no matter how considerate they are in their overall approach and attitude, in the big picture, LaraLove shows a great deal of intelligence and understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. I do not fear at all that she will abuse her admin privileges.▪◦▪
'''Strong Support''' - Hi Lara.  Nicely done.  Congratulations.  ;) '''''
'''Support''' -  Trust in Neil's judgement as her adopter. -
'''Support''' - hard-working editor; no reason to think she would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' - I see this username all over Wikipedia being of immense help and hard work. My interactions with her have been brilliant and she talks and acts like an admin. I've seen her providing great help on the Help Desk when I've been working on there too. Should be a great admin. I'm sure that she is sensible enough to take note of the concerns raised below and improve herself even more. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Very impressed with answers given
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - Works hard with the GA field. Good lu...You don't need any luck to pass this Rfa :) --
'''Very strong support''' I've worked with her on GA and she is one of the most detail oriented reviewers I've met... which is why some people have a problem with her.  She will catch things that most reviewers will miss... but she is also one who will go out of her way to fix problems that she sees.  I think the agism issue below is bunk.   I agree, 12 years old is generally too young to be an Admin.
'''Support''' - I'll emphatically support Lara for adminship even based on the degrees of opposition and I agree - with her. Her bluntness at times seems to have been misinterpreted as discivility, but I really don't consider her to be that. I think she's blunt to get the point across clearly. I wish I could be so blunt, so I wouldn't waffle on. Lara's consistent hard work over at GA, (irrespective of one's position on GA, it's a necessary evil, and she's there keeping the evil of its instruction creep at bay) and generally well thought out perspectives give her all the more clout to carry the glistened mop. --
'''Support'''. Lara will be a fine admin.
Sorry, I'm obviously biased here, but I'm going to '''oppose'''. [[Ageism]] is a big no-no in my book. Underage people are just as capable of contributing to free knowledge as older people. --'''
'''Oppose''' per Acalamari and Agueybana. As an 11-year-old, I am a little uncomfortable, as with Acalamari. <font face="Maiandra GD"><b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I cannot support a candidate who judges users (whether partly or solely) based on their age. Although LaraLove's editorial contributions look very good, I feel that this candidate's ability to make reasonable administrative decisions will be severely confounded by his/her prejudice against 12-13 year old users. —&nbsp;'''
'''Mild Oppose''' for now -- Ran into her last week over a minor issue for which I could barely make sense of her reply. I think Lara could do with some more hands-on experience and people interaction.
'''Oppose''' with regret. LaraLove does some excellent work with articles and processes involved in reviewing them. However, I've seen a lot of RfA opposes from her recently due to candidates having relatively little content experience. She is of course entitled to her opinion (although I disagree with her views quite strongly), but she has come to this RfA with very little admin experience such as tagging pages for speedy deletion and reports to AIV. Without this experience, I really can't trust her with the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' Per Veesicle. I'm sorry, but GA and FA are truly some of the most broken bits of Wikipedia. I've seen them wreck articles beyond repair and drive away some of our finest editors. Spending large amounts of time round either of them doesn't show the kind of judgement I'd like to see in an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Largely responsible for making Bad Articles the disaster it remains. I '''do not trust''' LaraLove's judgment there; I certainly do not trust her with an admin's tools.
In my singular interaction with this user she seemed to have adopted an "us vs. them" attitude which was damaging to the discussion, to say nothing of the fact that this attitude misrepresented the reality of the situation. Some relevant diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&diff=155018048&oldid=155012460],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&diff=154333218&oldid=154255008], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&diff=153228953&oldid=153135661]. I'm happy to be told why the impression I have of this editor's attitude is incorrect.
The GA process is fundamentally detrimental to the encyclopedia. It's very, very dangerous, and essentially consists of people giving a spurious air of legitimacy to (often appalling and POV) articles when they have '''no''' competence to deliver a meaningful review. I am uncomfortable with the judgment of ''any'' editor that spends so much time around this process. How many GA catastrophes have we had recently? People arranging to pass each other's articles on IRC, stuff that might have been written by the National Ministry of Propaganda being smiled through the system...awful stuff.
'''Strong Oppose''' <out of retirement for this one> Doesn't demonstrate need, Discourteous, High handed, Escalates disputes, Won't listen to critcism, Ownership of project, Reinterprets policy to suit own ends, Feels it's enough to sit in judgement, but not to improve. I suspect, although we are told she wants the mop for image gnomery, the power of the block button will be too hard to resist and we'll have respected editors blocked for disagreements. Diffs and further reasoning to follow, but she's at best, another Kelly Martin in the making. ......--
'''Oppose''' - User is rude, obsessed with [[WP:GA]] to an extent which is not healthy, and is incapable of responding positively to criticism. A comment I made on [[WT:FAC]] suggesting WIkipedia would be better off without the GA process was met with this comment from LaraLove: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive24#Manual_of_Style_and_GAC (←) Regarding the recommendation for Dev to move this discussion to a GA talk page, save it. GA doesn't care to hear the ignorant proposal for destruction from a pretentious FA participant. (Have a fantastic day!)]". If this kind of response is illicited from a conversation in which Laralove played no part beyond this one insulting comment, which she actually came over from WP:GA specifically to make, I have no doubt she will prove equally intolerant of concerns over her use of admin tools. She has also, to judge from the WT:GA archives, a tendency to conspire against people and processes on Wikipedia when she thinks no-one is looking. God forbid she be given access to #wikipedia-en-admins. I would be deeply concerned if this user is given the power to block and protect.
'''Oppose''' I've just spent half an hour going through Lara's comments throughout this RfA and on talk pages, [[WT:RFA]], her talk page et. al. . This user can't bear to take a single slight against her, seems to believe that anything less then full on support is an insult, and frankly has acted like she knows better than everyone else. This oppose is pointless due to the weight of support, but I'm making it none the less. Please don't ask for diff's - I find it self-evident through perusal of comments. Lara will cause more trouble than benefit with admin tools in my opinion and that makes me oppose. I hope she'll prove me wrong when she gets them. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''<s>Strong</s> oppose'''. Reluctantly, because I have no doubt of the candidate's good intentions. But I've found Lara tempermental, shrill, quick to take offence, and quick to accuse. In my case it was being called a troll. The "us v. them" is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geometry_guy&diff=prev&oldid=161338157 spot on]. Shrillness [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=161331496&oldid=161330597 here]. Suggestion of trolling [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaraLove&diff=prev&oldid=161377944 here] and repeated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeometry_guy&diff=161635280&oldid=161626664 here]. No thanks. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose: I see she has been asked about our conversation in Q7 and declined to answer. The relevant link is [[User_talk:LaraLove/Archive_9#A_proposal|here]]. Note that the fourth link above ("Troll-feeder management classes") arrived after the "yes, but" apology.
'''Oppose''' - After following this Rfa, I first removed my support, with the idea of watching and mulling it over before probably adding a neutral. However, after reading all of Lara's replies here, I find her to too often engage in debate, or search for a reply which will neutralize the critical comment she has encountered. I am concerned how she would react when questioned about her actions after being given the tools. Lara (or anyone standing for admin) could better simply listen to constructive feedback here rather than debating or explaining it. She seems too eager to gain the tools, rather than really listening to what some members of the community are trying to tell her. I realize Lara has some strong supporters here, and state clearly now I will <b>not</b> engage in debate or reply to questions about my opposition.
'''Oppose''' A few of the other oppose votes sum it up. Admins who are thin-skinned are a potential liability.
Sorry, it's hard to oppose when you have the support of so many people whom I respect. I have read over your exchanges with Marskell from late September and the problems there have me very concerned about how you communicate when you are angry. First you said to Marskell "excuse me if I'm a little defensive. I do apologize, seriously," then three hours ''later'' you suggested he was trolling, then you apologized for ''that'', and 24 hours later you made the troll-feeding comment. I understand that you were stressed at the time, and it sounds like you made the right call in pulling away from the situation. However, sooner or later, something other than GA is going to piss you off again, and I am not confident that you will be able to respond appropriately. Sincerely,
'''Oppose''' - I echo the comments of those above me. While you have the support of over 100 people, I feel that the few people in opposition have really given good argument as to why you should not be a sysop at this time. Kla’quot especially makes good points, as does Pedro. I should note, however, that I do disagree with, or at least, am not opposing because of, allegations relating to you being ageist, but rather more as a result of your comments and your civility, both here on this RFA and elsewhere. -- <strong>
Lara.  Please.  Chill.  "This user can't bear to take a single slight against her, seems to believe that anything less then full on support is an insult, and frankly has acted like she knows better than everyone else."(Pedro) - My concerns exactly.&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I don't think I've interacted with this user before, but the concerns of the opposers seem stronger than those of the supporters.  Just looking at this RFA, I have to agree with Pedro when he says "This user can't bear to take a single slight against her, seems to believe that anything less then full on support is an insult, and frankly has acted like she knows better than everyone else"  Plus, as a sixteen year old, I'm a little bothered by the ageism issues.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]]
Reluctant '''oppose'''. I've been watching this RFA and trying to decide whether the nominee's occasional personalization of issues is that big a deal. Marskell's discussion with her was problematic. We all do it—personalize issues—but what bothers me more is the sense provided in some of the above diffs that when the nominee feels more "off the record" in talk page comments, etc., the nominee's truer attitudes may be prevailing. I remember seeing what I thought was a sarcastic comment about "math geeks" from LaraLove on somebody's talk page; this being the result of the apparent conflict stemming from how math-related GANs were being reviewed. I read it as a petty, dismissive comment, and while text commentary can be read so many ways, I would like to see the nominee spend a few more months demonstrating more constructive communication in areas of disagreement, and would then feel comfortable supporting. I don't think every admin needs to be equally adept at "handling conflict", but this nominee clearly chooses to work in areas where the skill is necessary. –
Weak '''Oppose''', sorry - all things considered...generally folks are keeping a lid on things in the run up to RfA so as to pass something like this. This makes me worry about what will happen once you're through and an admin. I can see you're dedicated and that's really good to see. I am glad you answered my question above but still don't feel convinced that you see your role in your perception of others rather than blaming others and your overinvolvement alone. I have mulled over this. Making yourself OPen To Recall would be a way of tipping my feelings on this into a net positive and weak support (and getting [[Elvis Presley|Elvis]] to FA standard of course... ;) )cheers,
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid.  Not because of GA, although I do agree that GA is one of the most broken things on Wikipedia, but because LaraLove is too inclined to take things personally, and too defensive and thin skinned.  I know from personal experience that it is hard not to feel persecuted as an admin, and I feel that if LaraLove is given the tools, she will quickly burn out. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''<s>Reluctant oppose</s> Neutral''' (Changed to neutral after reading Lara's apology to Snakese on this page.) The process of adminship is not asking us whether we like a person or think they are an excellent editor, but whether we think they would be good with the tools. Having the tools would have given the candidate the capacity to block
'''Neutral''' - LaraLove is a great editor: very good with the GA articles, offers good help and advice. However, after seeing the claims of ageism, I feel a tad too uncomfortable to fully support her (I am 13). I am ''far'' from opposde though. I just simply cannot support. <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">
Switched from oppose. Looked at her contribs more in depth - has some good article work, but I see very little experience in admin-related areas :/ I don't think she will abuse the tools, but I do think she will be more prone to making mistakes. I'd like to see her be more familiar with how admin related processes work before she starts closing discussions etc.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose, per Dev290, and, most of the above. I've seen as well, in your recent deleted contribs, that you didn't even know which tag to use to delete an image [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Image%3AFreedomFromFear.pdf&timestamp=20070927035142&diff=prev]. However, you seem to have a semi-decent grasp on policy, and, most of the time you seem to be civil enough, so, I'm neutral.
'''Neutral''' my experience with her via GA left me with some concerns about her judgement and temperment.  I understand where most of the oppose and neutral !voters are coming from (except those opposing on the basis of putative "ageism").  I'm not willing to oppose, since I'm not convinced she'll make for a bad admin, but my degree of angst compels me to comment.  In the interest of full disclosure, my concerns stem her comments with respect to the GA delisting of all GA articles within the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Game_theory]], many of which I had contributed to heavily.  These articles were, in fact, not to GA standard, and I believe my concerns are not based on any sort of resentment over the delisting per se. I'm offering my opinion with the view that her being granted admin status seems assured, and I do not think that's a bad thing, but I hope that some small change in her some of her behaviour is seen after this RfA.  Such that she fulfills the readily apparent potential her obvious energy and motivation and good intentions give her.
'''Beat-the-Nom-Support''' - I have seen this user a lot on [[WP:ANI|Admin noticeboards]] , [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFCU]] and his work has been excellent. He has contributed a lot towards in XfD's in general and I believe he can be trusted with the tools ..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' ~5000 edits, great contributor, likes to help out with administrative related tasks, great wikipedian. -
'''Nominator support''', obviously.  --
Watchlisted-before-it-existed-'''Support'''.  Leebo's shown himself to be responsible and knowledgeable of policy. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''', also edit conflicted. Leebo and I have known each other for a while. When we got together back in December of 2006, he couldn't stop talking about Wikipedia - and not just the reading that I have done for a couple of years, but editing and contributing. I was interested, but confused. Leebo tried as best he could to explain things to me, and was patient and helpful throughout. I went back to school in Ohio, so I didn't get to actually talk to him about it again until summer. Then, trying to get going as an editor myself, I asked Leebo if he would adopt me as a user. He has been helping me along ever since the beginning of May. He is knowledgable of both the various tools for editing and the conventions of editing; but he doesn't let it hold him back from being bold. Whenever I have questions, even if they are varied and complicated, he is kind and patient, willing to answer questions for hours. I take great pride in being an adoptee of Leebo's, and I think he would make a wonderful administrator.
Edit-conflicted '''Support'''. Strong candidate, knowledgeable and level-headed. Input to AfDs is very impressive. Will use the tools wisely, no doubt.
edit conflicted too. '''Support''' I have seen this editor around, and find them to be civil and dilligent. The tools above evidence a good variety of editing, and I have no doubt of a need for the buttons to help extend the work being done. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I've see you around, and you would make a fine admin. Well done for the work, and I like the response to Q3 part 3, but I feel it would be good if a few more editors would think about that too!
'''Support''' - Has a need for the tools, and no reason to believe that editor will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' You're not seriously telling me that this user isn't already an admin? Rly? Wow!
'''Support''' - Absolutely - can definitely be trusted with the tools.
'''Easy support''', and I'm on the "What, you're not already an admin?" bandwagon here.  Have seen this user's contributions quite a bit and have found them always to be helpful and demonstrating a firm grasp of policy.
'''Support''' - Won't abuse the tools, and I think we can expect good things. I like the sports analogy, that's sort of what I'm like sometimes.
'''Strong Support''' fine editor who I've seen frequently at [[Talk:New England]].  '''
'''Support''' - awesomely honest and comprehensive answers to questions, a lot of experience, civil conduct. I see no reason to oppose here. <b>
'''Support''' - I've seen Leebo around here and there and he has seemed sensible.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - absolutely.  -
'''Strong support''' - I see Leebo everywhere, I actually offered a nom a while back, but he decided not to go through with it at that point in time. He truly is an excellent user who always stays calm in heated debate - I fully trust his ability to make a fine administrator.
'''Edit-conflict-Support''' trustworthy and level-headed. —
'''Support''' Definitely a good candidate, who I've seen around doing impresssive stuff. Good luck. '''
'''Support'''-I've seen the user around many places, and all his edits seem good. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' I have come across him all over the project. Appears level-headed, with a good grasp of policy. Good admin material.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' No oppose yet, so I´ll support. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support'''. Very pleasing answer to Q1 about new page patrol, would make a great admin. Best of luck, <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
Default '''Support'''. —'''
'''Support''' of course.
'''Strong Support''' Leebo demonstrates a lot of patience and integrity, with a good understanding of policies, and should make a fine admin.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
Yo. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Very good user who has a need for the tools. Good luck!:)--
'''Support''' - He appears to be a solid candidate.
'''Support''' don't see anything bad about him yet :).
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - Very impressive. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''. I first ran across the candidate in the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DynaMed|AfD he mentioned in question #3.1]] - and was impressed by his handling of the sockpuppet-y assault that ensued. If he wants the mop, I'm all for it. --
'''Support''' top-notch editor, and anyone Merope thinks is alright is probably doing well :)
'''Support'''. Great editor who will make a fine admin. Lots of experience in the areas he intends to use the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''. I vote for admins very rarely but this candidate is so strong I felt I had to. (
'''Support''' on the basis on my own experiences with the User.

'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' Behaviour at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DynaMed]] is impressive. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Support''' - <sup>
'''Support''' reliable support of both users and policy.'''
'''Support''' Per Kamryn Matika. Coolness under pressure.
'''Cigar time''' - good luck!
'''Support''' I don't see why not. He has gained trust of users and seems to understand policy well. --
'''Double Support''' This user really should be an admin.
SUPPORT.  He has been very helpful to me in editing a very incomplete biographical entry.
'''Support''' First interacted with Leebo when he beat me to creating the [[:Manchester Road Race]] article, and quite politely contacted me to inform me of the article's creation (I had a red link on my user page as a "to do" which he followed). His subsequent history has done nothing to disabuse me of my good opinion his civility and thoughtfulness. I have no doubts that he will wield the mop to good effect. &mdash;
'''Support''' Let's keep it rolling...give them the tools.
'''Support''' I am confident we won't regret it :) --
'''Support'''. Great answers, trustworthy. '''''
'''Strong Support''' Trustworthy answers. He is well overdue for adminship!
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - excellent technical editor.  I've crossed paths with him on several occasions, in the course of vandalism reversion, and always agreed with his assessments.  His responses above only solidify my view.  --
'''Support''' - I very much liked most of the responses about deletion/speedy deletion topics. -
'''Support''' Good, thoughtful answers to Q5. Shows a steady hand and no knee-jerk tendencies.
'''Support''' I have always been happy with this users contributions. His answers to the questions, especially 5, shows a clear understanding of policy. Has good judgment in situations. Cheers! --
I'm
'''Support''' A good admin this user will be.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate in all respects and I am, like others, impressed with the quality and thoughtfulness of his responses. -- '''
'''Support''' Excellant answers to the questions, should make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent overall user, it is almost disappointing that [[WP:SNOW]] can't be applied to this nomination. '''
'''Support'''. I don't see any issues here.
'''Support'''. Solid contributions, no concerns noted. --
'''Support''' very much so :)&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support'''. This user will make a great addition to the overworked admin "team".
'''Support''' Have seen this user around. No problems.
'''Support''' Let me be the 72nd to support your RfA. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''', I thought I supported a couple days ago, apparently not.--
'''Support'' Actually I did too. I hope I haven't double voted somewhere else. --
'''Support''' per question 1. Doesn't have to show a need (and in any case, he does...) Looks like a good candidate. '''''
'''Default support'''. —'''
'''Support''', I see no cause for concern or indication he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've had good experiences with this user and see no reason why he shouldn't be an admin.
'''Support''' I actually like the answer to question one.  It's honest- the user will use the bit as editing seems fit.  If a backlog should need attention and the user is interested, the opportunity will be there to help out.  In my RfA I stated my intention to help out on [[WP:RM]] and [[WP:MERGE]], but I quickly found that that was not the best use of my skills ''after'' I was sysopped.  Every little hand helps every other little hand, and the user is experienced, knowledgeable and can be trusted.  No problems here.  Well written self-nomination as well.  Best of luck.
Don't canvass or anything, but that's an excellent self-nom and, checking the contributions, I'm seeing nothing evil, but instead plenty of good, high-quality work and fine, very level-headed interaction with others. Adminship is not a big deal, there doesn't appear to be a good reason as to why not, and if this guy wants the tools, he can have them. In all probability, he's not insane.
'''edit-conflict Support''' A Wikignome admin is not a bad thing and you have potential to contribute to many areas of the project too.  Finding problem articles via the 'random article' link is also something that I do, but there are better ways to search out those that require improvement or deletion - new pages/recent changes for a start.
'''Support'''. This editor seems mature and level headed. His contributions are consistent over time and he appears to have the interest of the 'pedia at heart. I am confident that when he does use the tools they will be used appropriately.
I have worked with this user extensively on [[WP:BEATLES]] and he makes me laugh, consistently. Always quick with a friendly quip or a bit of banter, he isn't just about that, though, he knows why we are here and he buckles down and gets shedfuls  of work done. I think he's a damnfool for wanting to be an admin so he can spend more time mopping and less time writing quality articles but I think he'll be a fine one and I '''support'''. Oh, and if we have to, I expect Kingboyk and I can flange up an 'endorsement' from the "The Beatles" project for Less... but don't get me started on the/The project controversy just at the moment, hm? ++
'''Support''' Wikipedia edits are low, but Wikipedia talk edits are high. I will support.
'''Support''' Incidental usage of tools is still usage of tools... as in, no one has to do only administrative tasks. If LessHeard vanU deletes even one article a day, it'll be one less for everyone else. Plus, we wouldn't want to cut into his fantastic article writing :) Sensible bloke, can be trusted with the tools. Don't need anything else. &ndash;
'''Support''' per Riana; she said exactly what I was thinking. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' sound editor. I'm sure he'll find helpful ways to use the tools.
'''Support''' Being an admin is [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|no big deal]].
'''Support''' No concerns with this user at this time. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' per Malevious. -
'''Support''' Good editor, can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' Good editor, enough experience. Very (too?) communicative. :) Liked answer to Q1.  -
'''Support''' per question 1. I don't think that a person needs to demonstrate a specific need for the sysop tools, I trust that they will do an excellent job as a sysop.
'''Support''' I believe the communication skills of this editor will be an asset with regards to administrative tasks.--
'''Support''' when you were nominated for this RFA, God smiled --
'''Support''' based on experience of user,
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Will be a fair admin.  fair as in acting fairly, not fair as in ok :)

'''Support''' I like admins that are primarily contributors, after all ,that's what we're doing here.cheers,

'''Support''' an excellent self-nomination. No issues here.
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' No reason will not make good admin.
'''Support'''.  Seems like a good editor who will make a good admin.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate.--
'''Support''' A good candidate. --
'''Support''', overall an excellent candidate.  I do respect the concerns raised by Musical Linguist below, but I think it is simply a disagreement over approach to policy matters.  --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Seems like a very intelligent and level-headed contributor who is unlikely to abuse the tools. I share Spike Wilbury's sentiments regarding the concerns raised by Musical Linguist.
'''Support''' &mdash;'''
I'm
'''Support'''. I see no reason not to give this user the tools.--
'''Support'''. I like the calm, sensitive, and reasoned responses to the criticisms listed below.
'''Firm support''' inasmuch as the candidate seems possessed of the reasoned judgment, deliberative disposition, and principally civil demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that it seems [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|quite likely that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive]].  I am altogether unconcerned by the issues raised by MusicalLinguist and FNMF, and I think the candidate well to apprehend for what constructions of [[WP:NPA]]/[[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:BLP]] a consensus exists.
'''Support''' per much of the above; I'm not convinced by the opposes.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' - the issues brought up by the oppose voters are valid, but not as important that they should affect the prospect of this capable user becoming an admin. I realize that emotions run strong on this issue, but opposing, in a process like this, a person with some vague connotation to discussing privacy violations is not going to help anyone, let alone Wikipedia. I doubt it has.
The issues brought up below are serious, and that LessHeard's position on this issue is unacceptable. However, I believe that LessHeard is capable of understanding that Wikipedia policy and community opinion mandate an approach different from that which he recommends. (To put it another way, I don't believe that his opinion on this issue would be detectable from his administrative log, which is good enough to award sysop status.)
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q1. Doesn't show a need for the tools. --Malevious
'''Oppose'''. As a victim of very severe real-life stalking, which resulted from a Wikipedian discovering my personal details, and which extended to my family (wrecking my mother's health) and my work colleagues, I consider that solidarity, concern, and sensitivity are among the most essential qualities in administrators, since they have the power to delete or undelete harassment, to block or unblock stalkers, and to protect or unprotect pages which are targetted by stalkers. Having read the comments of this candidate, where he doesn't seem to take the danger and distress of victims very seriously, or to think that their personal security should trump the freedom of contributors who may want to post links to stalking sites (or perhaps the freedom of contributors who may wish to visit these sites without having links removed), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=128522021] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=129069062] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=128524962] I would not be happy trusting this user with extra tools. I am not posting a "strong oppose", as I do not think this candidate thinks it's a good thing to investigate private lives of Wikipedians and to publish the results. But I certainly do not see that he is likely to show any kindness or support for people who are being so badly violated, and an admin with his attitude is worse than a user with his attitude.
'''Oppose''' per Musical Linguist.
'''Oppose''' per Musical Linguist. Personal attacks are unacceptable, and that includes promoting them. Linking to an attack site is promoting the attack and is tantamount to attacking. Yes, anyone can google some keywords and find just about anything that's posted online, so the issue is not how many clicks are needed to reach the attack material or the attack site. For me the issue is simple: by providing a link we are promoting the attack. There is no need to provide any link to such site, as it can be emailed when necessary for investigation to ArbCom etc. It boils down to attitude towards the victim: if you really care about the victim's feelings, you minimize the attacks. Any link on Wikipedia (whether 'hot' or 'cold') to an attack site, is one more attack from the victim's perspective.
'''Oppose''' I have doubts that this user is sufficiently sensitive to certain policy matters, especially WP:BLP. This opinion derives from user's arguments attempting to justify inclusion of unsubstantiated malicious allegations in the [[Richard Gere]] entry.
'''Oppose''' per Musical Linguist.
'''Oppose''' per Musical Linguist. Just so we're clear, the lack of sensitivity and solidarity are my grounds for opposition, not any particular concern that you'd misuse the tools. I also do not like the tone you've taken in your responses here. You do not have to have broken any "rules" to be opposed; you need only have done things that make us feel you are not entirely to be trusted.
Same -- <b>
'''Oppose''' per Musical Linguist.
Musical Linguist's concerns are of the type that I can't overlook. '''
'''Oppose'''. I am concerned by Musical Linguists comments and not persuaded by the response to them. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I'm a bit concerned about the fellow's demeanour when responding to some of the opposition, specifically his tone which leads me to believe he's more concerned with process than doing the right thing [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Musical Linguist's point is quite sound, and I can't support at this time.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Musical Linguist. '''
'''Oppose''' With regret as Musical Linguist says it all. The guy is a good editor and obviously committed to Wikipedia but admin powers require the ability to put aside ones own POV. In some situations there is no balance to be found as only one side is fully aware of the consequences so their views must be paramount.
'''Oppose''' - I'm really sorry, but I'll have to oppose for now. Forgetting about Music's oppose above for now, judging from your user page, you have only written 3 articles (I could be wrong...)? You also have far less than the ideal amount of Wikipedia Namespace edits to your name. These things added with Music's oppose have forced me to oppose as well. I'm sorry, but I'm sure if improve on the things that others have said above, you'll make adminship next time easily (if you fail this one of course!) :) Cheers,
'''Neutral''': While you have the experience and your edit summary usage is also nice I am not quite sure if I am happy with the answer to Q1. Sounds like you just want the tools to have them. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Your experience is very good however I am not convinced by your answer to question 1 that you actually have a need for admin tools and do not intend to use them that often - Good luck to you!
'''Neutral''' I have no doubt we have a very good editor here - and that is precisely what Wikipedia needs. However, given the answer to Q1, I think the editor should just concentrate on editing given there is no real commitment to any specific use of the tools. Do we really need more admins for the sake of having more admins?
As nominator.
'''First Support (not counting nominator's support)''' Good number of mainspace and project space edits.
'''Support''' - as per good candidate.
'''Support''' - Per the nom.  Politeness, in the face of the heated and vandalism prone topics this editor works in, is to be admired.  And Lid has also shown good editing/writing skills, helping to improve the quality of articles.
'''Support''' - Calm, cool, collected, straight to the point. Based on that, I expect his mop handling skills to not display any twirls, dancing, or drama. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question.  Good editing overall.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support''' No issues here:) Cheers!--
'''Support''', I have no doubt that Lid could benefit from the tools, especially in vandal fighting, and would not abuse them.
'''Support''' hop aboard...cheers,
'''Support''' Meets my standards. No evidence would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Understands policy, sensible voice.
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support'''. good candidate.
'''Support''' He is a great editor and his [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] must be commended as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' You've done some great work.
'''Support''' &mdash; I am confident this user will use the tools in a responsible manner.  --
'''Support''' good answers to my questions.
'''Support''' Responses to the questions indicate that this user has a strong knowledge of how Wikipedia works and can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' per Tim's nom as well as Curt's reasoning, and the fact that this is just a really good editor, and adminship is really no big deal.
per q8
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
Of course.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''

'''Support''' - good editor, lots of experience, why not. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions, good record. Sense of humour :) Should be just fine! -
I'm
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- Quality contributions, civil, and highly unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - definately. Brilliant candidate. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I would like to come out of my silence at the RfAs (chiefly to avoid disputes - that's why I don't usually participate) to express my support for Lid. His good handling of incidents have been clearly displayed in many areas. So that's why I want to support Lid for adminship. I can also see that he/she can also actively pursue repetitive tasks (such as adding categories '''without''' the use of AWB) without 'messing up' (like I often do), so I think Lid would not abuse tools such as AWB. I'm starting to think I should comment here more frequently! Well done. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Support''' - looks like a good user.  Good user's usually make good admins. ---
No one beats me. ~
'''Support''', I trust nominator and user from experiences and above. '''
Now I remember who I was going to nom, '''support'''. A very rare barnstar from me and you know he's good.--
'''Weak support''' still not 100% convinced he needs the tools yet, but trust the nom, his editing profile looks well-rounded and this is supposed to be ''no big deal'' after all.
'''Strong support'''.  The fact that he was originally blocked as a lowly vandalism-only account and the fact that he has come a long way really inspires me.  Anyone can change no matter how bad your past.
'''Support''' Seems to have learned from his previous RfA application.
'''Support'''. The kind of incredulous support one makes when they suddenly find out an editor is ''not'' an admin, contrary to what they previously thought. ''
'''Support''' based on an unproblematic record.  By the way, he has 5800 edits (see edit count [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Llama+man&site=en.wikipedia.org here].
'''Support''' -Seen this user around on [[Mario]], too bad that it failed GA... but a good user nonetheless.
'''Support''' as I did last time. --'''
'''Early Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Obvious support''' - trusted user, plenty of experience.  I would have supported last time had I noticed the RFA - once someone has some critical mass of edits and has been here a few months, there's enough out there to look through their contributions to see if they are trusted ... and this user has nearly 6000 edits, so that's far more than enough to see that this is a trusted user who would make a great admin. --
'''Firm Support''' Trusted user, even more trusted admin. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' I think you will be a good admin. By the way nice answer to question about age of potential admins (I am 15 hehehe.) [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''', can't imagine he'll do anything but good with the tools, like the answer to the age question.
'''Support''', passes my test. Good luck.
'''Support'''. After reviewing the recent contributions... Solid policy knowledge, great writing and maintaining of cruft-prone articles (I don't expect admins to be great content writers but it's a definite bonus.) Very well-balanced and would make a great addition to the admin corps. As for the "only about 1,600 mainspace edits" oppose... Man, I've never said this but that is ''extremely'' arbitrary. I had 1390 mainspace edits for my RfA but around 30-40 articles written, and my nominator was and is a vocal advocate of article-writing admins. Quality over quantity!
I'm
'''Support''' per GrandmasterKa.
'''Support''' good candidate, balanced and experienced. -
'''Support''' very good user, vandalfighter...
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Has got my full support: nice answers to questions, good experience plus good edit count, and no indication of incivility.  There's just one thing; you're not a ''actual'' llama, are you? :-) -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''' I opposed the first RfA, but I think my concerns have been addressed, and I can trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Baa! ~ <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' - Watched this user from afar (not in the creepy sense!) & everything seems good... Good luck!
'''Support'''. I don't see any reason why not trust this user. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' You have addressed our concerns from your last RFA. '''
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Thanks for serving. --
'''weak Support''' - Replies to questions are satisfactory, and seems all go. There are a few minor issues with this canidate, but I trust in his ability to learn. To me, 2 months is not too soon, thats enough time for him to have learned more about how things work around here. Handing out mops should not be a very big deal, and things like where their contributions have been should play a very minor role. I don't see anything here that would cause me to fail to trust this candidate. Regards ——
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''.  I'm very impressed how someone who started out as a vandal could mature into someone who is well on his way to becoming an admin.
'''Support''' per my interactions. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I haven't seen you around the way I did before your first RfA, but you seem to have been doing good work.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support''' (struck neutral) This is a good user who won't abuse the tools - I don't really think 2 more months would make a huge difference. (Sudden attack of conscience!) <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Mr Llama. '''
'''Support''' &mdash; looks fine, although I'd like to see more article work. Then again, perhaps you can stretch this to your advantage by dumping a lot of time into admin duties. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' This candidate's first rfa was just two months ago, it is too soon in my opinion.  Needs more article experience, for his answer on Q2 the article he listed as having created does not appear to be sourced.  <s>It appears to me that a large portion of his Wikipedia space edits are to sandboxes.  His over 800 userpage edits seems quite high to me.</s>
'''Strong Oppose:'''  I shudder to think at what would happen to articles with lots of lists if he got a mop and bucket. And I fear that he may use protection the wrong way if another edit war breaks out because he seemed determined to keep his version of the Mario Party articles.
'''Oppose:''' sadly, I must oppose as he wrote "I’m definitely not an article author". In my opinion, we are all here on Wikipedia to write articles (albeit at varying levels). The editors view that he is not an article author concerns me as adminship should not be a big deal, and being a good article editor should come before contributing to meta discussions, cleanup, etc. After all, to clear certain backlogs you don't need admin powers. Please note that this is nothing personal. I just feel we need to get potential admins to get back to basics. Maybe after showing some evidence of serious article editing I will support. -
'''Neutral'''. Seems a bit too soon since the last one. I still have some reservations, but given the strong show of support by other Wikipedians I won't oppose. –&nbsp;
'''Neutral:''' While my experiences with Llama man have not been good, I cannot penalise him just because of what I have seen, as I know he is a very good contributor to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. Helpful editor who's doing some good work. Nice contributions to Toyota F1 and Lancashire United.
'''Support'''  dang it, didn't beat nom. No concerns whatsoever.
'''Support''' I opposed last time to allow for a little more experience, believing you were well on the way at the time... and I like what I have seen since. Good luck!
'''Support''' Nothing to indicate that the candidate is unsuitable. One little nit pick though: Lradrama states on all his userpages "This page is owned by Lradrama". I'm assuming that he doesn't really mean it. Just gives the wrong impression. But meh. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Strong support'''.  This is an easy one.  He has made extensive contributions to en.WP, including but not limited to: lots of edits big and small, new articles, vandal-fighting (with over 20 "scars" to prove it), much constructive talk both on user's pages and at AfD (although he seems to be more of a deletionist than I am), and has made an effort to create fair but flexible standards for RfA. I've encountered Lardrama frequently in the past few months here at WP, and he has proven his trustworthiness.
'''Support''' Per nomination statement. Simple. Should have been sysoped on sight! Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Come across you at the help desk. Always helpful and knowledgable. Good traits for an admin.
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions and fine contributions. Unlikely to delete the main page.
'''Support''' - helpful and friendly editor. Concur that he probably won't delete the main page.
I see Ryan beat me to someone on my potential nom list. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - 'nuff said.
'''Support''' - Certainly, after all, we know that all Ryan Postlethwaite noms are always right. Good candidate. <sup>[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GDonato|1]]</sup>
'''Support''' - Trust nom and doubt user will abuse tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' I think that this user will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' my recent interactions with him have been stellar.
'''Support''' - Nothing wrong here. Great job. &nbsp;
As far as I am concerned, Lradrama's response to my oppose is more than satisfactory. With a good attitude and response like that, Lradrama will make a good administrator, and I am happy to support this nomination.
Is ready. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - Excellent anti-vandal work.
'''Support''' Wikipedia always needs more vandal fighters. --'''
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. An excellent vandal fighter as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' trustworthy user. I see no big problems. Good luck.
'''Support''' The problems mentioned below do not seem serious to me. A careful editor who makes useful comments. '''
'''Support''' Solid user.
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Support''' While I have not had the pleasure of actually "Wiki-meeting" Lradrama, I have seen him around many times, and he's been quicker on the draw than I on the Help Desk quite often, or chiming in to add information that I may have forgotten to add, that a new editor may find helpful. As I do with every RfA I comment on, I've taken a good deal of time going through his contributions, and I'm quite impressed. His most active mainspace area seems to be, as he's said, the Toyota F1 article, and for anyone who may not have dug into it, Lradrama first began editing this article in January of this year, and has contributed over 30% of the article's edits. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyota_F1&oldid=104320475 This] is what the article looked like when he began, and of course, [[Toyota F1|this]] is how it appears today. While I personally prefer [[NASCAR]], I decided not to hold this against him. :o) I'm impressed with the work he's put into it, the article is well sourced, and well written. Moving onto Lradrama's ability to communicate and work with others: Aside from his work at the Help Desk, his ability to explain issues in a heated environment can be seen at [[Talk:Daniel Radcliffe]], where there are rather lengthy threads that he's participated in, bringing a measure of calm rationality to the conversations, interspersed with a bit of humor for good measure. He's also been a regular participant at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One]], which further illustrates his ability to work with others, a trait definitely required by an administrator. I particularly found his answer to Question 3 refreshing, and if no specific incident jumps out at him worth mentioning, it seems that he's able to handle conflict with aplomb. Within administrative areas, Lradrama does some vandalism work, with 38 reports to AIV. I will note that I'd like to see him take a bit more care with warning levels, as I noticed that he used a level 2 warning [[User_talk:194.83.68.90|here]], when the last warning prior to today's notice was on the 10th. I realize, however, it is easy to see "October 2007" headers, and proceed with the warning levels following what was previously given, especially with editors such as this IP who seem to have a pattern of warnings on the talk page. Again I noticed a level 2 warning given for an offense after several days of inactivity to an IP, [[User_talk:152.157.146.78|here]], and again dealing with an IP with a history, but in the case of shared IPs, I'd prefer to see a level 1 given if several days have gone by, as the chances are quite high that it is not the same person doing the editing. I'd encourage Lradrama to take a little more time to review the date of last warning, look through contributions, and be sure that a level 2+ warning is needed, but I also tend to be a bit of a stickler for progression of templates, starting at level 1, so this could simply be a stylistic difference, and Lradrama does use level 1 notices for new offenders, as evidenced [[User_talk:74.239.84.219|here]] and [[User_talk:168.216.138.146|here]], for example. Finally, I will simply say that I very much trust Ryan's judgment, and I know that he does not nominate those he hasn't looked into carefully. I have no doubt that Lradrama will make a fine addition to the administrative team, and take his time with areas he may not be familiar with. <small>The preceding lengthy comment brought to you by ArielVerbosity™.</small> <small>
'''Support''' with some reservations. The Goodshoped35110 comment could have been phrased in a less bitey manner, he should make more use of minor edits, and there are some other causes for concern mentioned already, but I am satisfied with Lradrama overall and the good outweighs the bad for me.
'''Support''' Seen good things from this editor, and is obviously here for the good of the encyclopedia. Unlikely to abuse the buttons.
'''Strongest possible support''' Excellent, trustworthy, civil user with a good knowledge of policy--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' - Has made a lot of wonderful contributions and is a superb vandal fighter.
'''Yays!''' Good luck! <b>
Good work since last time.&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' This user is terrific, I agree with Pedro!
'''Support''' Indeed.
Another easy '''support''' vote. We need good editors who are willing to take hold of the tools and use them well. From all accounts, it appears that Lradrama will do just that.
'''Support''' Checked user contributions and everything seems in order. -
'''Support''' Strong experience, obviously to be trusted.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks great --'''
'''Support''' per nom.  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support''' as first time 'round. Evidence of 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support''' seen him/her in afd's & in speedy land, knows policy and no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I've had positive experiences with Lradrama; should make a solid admin. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Very Weak Support''' - Concerns raised by Acalamari and Dorftrottel are worrying; Lradrama needs to make more of an effort to be civil in commenting on RfAs. However, given the candidate's good contributions, it isn't ''per se'' sufficient reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I've crossed paths with this editor many times and have never been left with a negative impression. Strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''

'''Support''' After reviewing track and concerns in previous RFA are no longer valid  .
'''Support''' - I personally feel that wikipedians should be brutally honest or very "frank" during AFD discussion to flush out any quirks the potential admin may have. With that said, I do not find the civil (AFD) issues a problem here. I see a need for the user to have the mop, keys, and detonator.--
I'm
'''Support''' Good work + concerns raised during last RfA taken on board. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I have heard of you around here, and think you'll make a great admin.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I don't see abuse from the tools forthcoming from Lradrama.
'''Support''' - all looks fine to me. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral, leaning towards support'''. This user is a good user, but this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Goodshoped35110s&diff=prev&oldid=164474300 strong oppose] comment left by Lradrama doesn't seem nice to me. If I were [[User:Goodshoped35110s]], then I would feel bad, especially with the comment ''No-way. I suggest you withdraw, seriously.'' and ''A big no. Go out there'', which would really dishearten me.
'''Neutral''' - For similar reasons as {{user|NHRHS2010}}.  I don't think this is necessarily an oppose reason, and the user might certainly do well with the tools, but I don't wish to support in light of above comments.  My apologies,
Changed from oppose. I take it you are aware of the concerns and will do your best to avoid such situations in the future. Good luck. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' as co-nom <sup>
Why not?
'''Support''' as co-nom.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Looks good to me.
'''Strong support''' Excellent user, civil, dedicated, great work in all areas. Should be an incredible asset. &ndash;
'''Strong support''' - Excellent candidate, would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' worked with him at [[WP:SCV]] and this guy clearly is reliable and will make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''' - Has been working very hard recently and would make an excellent Admin..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Support''' A good hardworker, will be excellent I'm sure. good luck! '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' very dedicated, qualified, and excellent user. Give him a mop! —
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' seems like a excellent pontential admin
'''Support''' Hmm, lucky thirteen!  This is a hard-working editor with lots of potential to be a good admin too.
-- <b>
'''Support'''. Good attitude, dedicated, very helpful at [[WP:RFCU]], a little light on article talk edits (sorry, I hate when people do that), will make good use of the tools. '''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; genuine cliche moment for me.

'''Strong Support''' Lucasbfr definitely deserves the tools. He's done great work all around Wikipedia, and he also demonstrates a need for adminship. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' A hard worker, willing to help.
'''Support''' Great template work. Long overdue.
'''Support''' I've seen Lucasbfr around before... as I recall, I thought he was an admin at the time (and not because he was bossy). I have no qualms about giving him a mop. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks very well qualified.  Let's give them the mop!
'''Support''' because the first line of his userpage makes me smile every time I read it. And, more importantly, because he's an excellent user and I thought he was already an admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support:''' Seen him on RC patrol; could definitely use the mop. '''<span style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="#229922">
'''Support''' Looks good. --
Good noms, good user - '''Support'''
'''Support''', looks like a well-balanced candidate that will help out a lot in needed areas. --<font color="3300FF">
I'm
'''Support'''ing. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' - errr, not one already?
'''Support''' - First ran into this user at [[WP:RFCU]]. I think he's got the experience needed to pull it off.
'''Support''' in agreement with all of the above.
'''Support''' Solid user and solid answers.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good mainspace contribs, good answers.  Would make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''.  No reservations.  I've seen Lucas in several places and invariably found him to be pleasant, sensible and constructive.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support'''. Great editor.
'''Support''' Noteworthy contributor. --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Good person to become an admin.
'''Support''' Does good work on [[Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations]]
'''Support''' would be excellent as an admin.
I've been particularily impressed with this users' work in projectspace, from what I've seen over the past couple of months. '''
'''Support'''. An absolute no-brainer.
'''Support'''--

'''Strong support''' The best answer to my question that I've seen yet.  I'm glad to see a candidate who understands the issue this well and hope you spend some of your sysop time addressing it.  Those of us who work in this area could use the help! <font face="Verdana">
'''Suport''' - Good impression, good contributions that I can see, and the noms and a lot of other supporters are convincing.
'''Support''' unreservedly. Valuable contributor who will make a valuable admin. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - per the above comments. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Support''' per noms and everyone above. '''
'''Support''' nice set of edits, good pre-admin work.--
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Cleared for adminship''' Experienced editor. // <b><font color="#800000">
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Unnecessary $upport''' Read the above.
'''Support''' No big deal. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' &ndash; obvious demonstrated need for the tools ([[WP:AFD|AfD]] participation, [[WP:AIV]] reports, etc...), and an excellent track record for [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] communication between other users. Looks good! Best of luck :) Cheers,
'''Weak Support''' Not absoulutely sure if this user can handle some disputes, but no reason to not give him the mop. ''Adminship is no big deal''. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Very Weak support''' Per Hirohisat.
I was a little concerned about lack of interaction, but the contributions this user has made to talk/user talk space show me that she can interact well enough, even if there aren't many of them. Therefore I shall shrug off the temptation to be sucked in by editcountitis and '''support'''. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' - as per my nom :-)
'''Support'''. I have looked at many of your user talk discussions and find you to be calm and professional. I am happy to support.
'''Support leaning on Neutral''' per Jmlk17 and Giggy. I really like what I see from this editor, but I really would like to see both a larger quantity and larger variety of project space work. But at the same time I feel that the good work this user already does makes it hard for me not to support.
'''Support''', a calm composed editor who can resolve conflicts of controversy.
'''Absolutely'''. The most important qualities for an admin are maturity, cool-headedness, and commitment to the project. Lyrl has demonstrated all three in very impressive fashion. She hasn't shied away from controversial topics and has handled conflict admirably. We've got plenty of admin candidates with the perfect blend of project-space and template talk edits. We don't have enough candidates with a proven track record of handling themselves well in the sort of tough situations that adminship will present. Lyrl is such a candidate, and I'm confident that whatever use she makes of the tools will benefit Wikipedia. '''
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Would make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''''Support!''''' Of course! Seems to be a solid editor, I would certainly trust this user with the mop! --
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' User seems to know her stuff, also seems like a mature and trustworthy person (Plus, she drinks [[tea]]! But I didn't base this just on that... <small>*giggles*</small>). Would handle the responsibility well.
'''Support''' Would be good with the 'mop'. -
'''Support''' per MastCell and David Ruben. I have interacted with this user on a number of occasions and been involved in some of the content disputes mentioned in #3, and felt this user did a remarkable job of handling stressful situations. Lyrl contributes well sourced content to articles, has a proven maturity and knowledge of wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sysop is not a big deal, and I believe Lyrl is more than qualified to responsibly use the tools.-
'''Support''' Lyrl seems to be cool-headed enough to handle any tough administrative decisions. I imagine that her main area of administrative activity will be with images, and she'll probably do fine there. She hasn't done much speedy deletion tagging (only about 25 total deleted edits) and some of her AfD comments are a bit brief ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Instituto_Cultural_Oaxaca&diff=prev&oldid=137364114][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social_Chair&diff=prev&oldid=137346642]), but she also said her activity in these areas would be minimal. I don't seen any reasons to oppose.
'''Support'''.  Clearly to be trusted.  --
'''Support''' No red flags here. Seems like a great candidate, although I agree that I could see more talk edits. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''S'''upport. Thorough and methodical - ideal attributes for the scientific side of Wikipedia. I don't see namespace participation as a make-or-break issue here; effective consensus-seeking on talk pages is definitely more important here.
'''Support''' No reason not to. She has a good amount of article-talk edits, as well as some edits to Category-talk, Template-talk, and even some MediaWiki-talk too.
'''Strong support.'''  With apologies to the nom: ''"...having a solid editor able to <s>wield</s> ''[how about ''"utilize"'' instead, as wielding can be dangerous, ''Ed.'']'' the mop when required can only strengthen Wikipedia."''  <span style="font-family:'Rockwell'; font-size:11pt;">
'''Support'''.  She made strong answers to the questions, has had a good edit history, and displayed candor when answering regarding disputes.  She is trustworthy enough to be an admin.
'''Support''' No reservations. Solid editor. What is the issue here? I think, there is a little too much reading meaning into categories of edits. ''<font color="#000066">'''
Low first-hand WP space experience is a bit of a concern, but I'm confident the candidate can master the challenge. —'''
'''Support'''. Don't see any problems with the editor. --
'''Support'''. Enemies of [[User:Joie de Vivre|Joie de Vivre]] are my friends.
'''Support''' per Bearian.
'''Support'''. No concerns. I am opposed to [[joie de vivre]], but not the user. I'm just curmudgeonly.
'''Support''' per good history of contributions.
'''Support''' - Looks good. —<font face="georgia">
'''Support'''. No major issues for me, should be a great admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Weak Support''' I am loath to support with so few Wikipedia edits, but there are no other issues so I think that I will support.
'''Support''' Normally I'd like to see a little bit more familiarity in the Wikipedia space too.  But I urge the users who have opposed on these grounds to consider: this is not a normal case.  If you review [[User:Lyrl|Lyrl]]'s contributions to WP: they have been uniformly measured and reasonable.  It is clear from her contribution record that she carefully reads policies and that she acts with great caution.  Her incredible two-year record of serenity editing difficult subjects (would you ever have believed an editor with that many edits to a subject like [[emergency contraception]] or [[partial-birth abortion]] could have avoided edit wars?  I flee in terror from those talk pages!) demonstrates to me that we have an exceptionally qualified candidate.  Her calm temperament and patient approach will more than compensate for any newness to policies. --
'''Support''' User has a history of making high-quality, unbiased, evidence-based contributions and is level-headed when working with others. --
'''Support''' Excellent answers to Q5. Obviously knows how to separate the roles of editor and admin, and very civil and considered response.
'''Support''' per no big deal; hard-working, productive, rational editors should have the tools.
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support''' Good enough to be an admin --
'''Strong Support''' - Ideal candidate.
'''Support''' after answering my question.--
'''Support''' - It seems that Lyrl is a very productive editor with nothing but good intentions. I especially like her respect toward the community's consensus, and her willingness to concede the occasional minor error. The narrow scope of her edit history can be seen as a negative as others have pointed out, but I think it also shows her dedication to substantively improving articles she is knowledgeable about. It seems no one has had notable conflicts with her in the past, so I trust that she will exercise administrative tools with adequate reservation where appropriate. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' Edits do not diplay POV good track and good editor.
'''Support''' for being able to do excellent constructive work in a very difficult area, and holding your own politely here as well.  The contributions to substantial editing are significant and show knowledge of policy.'''
—
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Opposers' comments don't raise any serious concerns; candidate has sufficient experience IMO, and "will not use the tools often enough" is an inadequate reason to deny adminship. Nothing to suggest that this user will misuse the admin tools in any way. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>
No reason to oppose. Has a good number of project space edits, along with article work. No concerns here. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We need a dedicated admin to help clear out the backlogs.  They are getting out of hand.
Solid experience, no significant concerns that I can see.
'''Oppose''' A reluctant one at that, but still an oppose.  You are quite lacking in the Wikipedia edit skills, and, while I'm not really giving in to editcountitis, I would prefer you to work on your overall experience first.  Broaden your range of editing, and get more involved outside of mainspace.
'''Weak Oppose''', sorry. Although I acknowledge and commend this user's dedication, I think that more evidence of experience in the project space is needed.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
With all due respect, I've had to change to oppose.  I'm sorry, but the project space participation is just too much of a concern.  Respectfully,
'''Oppose''' Inexperience in project-space, home of many admin-related tasks, is a real concern.
'''Oppose''' Supposedly spends time tagging speedy candidates and prodding articles, but has fewer than 50 deleted contributions.  This activity appears not to be taking place, as I also failed to find (though it might be there) any significant number of edit summaries related to speedy deletion in the last 2,000 mainspace edits (back to summer 2006).  Project space experience is limited but somewhat relevant (and I appreciate the [[WP:HEY]] effort at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiak tobacco]]).  Ultimately, the contributions don't validate the claimed experience in an area the editor expressed an intention of using the tools, and this is too troubling for me to ignore.
'''Oppose''' per GRBerry, user wishes to work with areas that they are not experienced with, CSD and Images.
'''Oppose''' per GRBerry, and I believe that there isn't enough motivation to use admin tools effectively. It also seems that there are an increasing number of RfAs that have users who will not be using the tools often enough, even though they are '''applying''' for sysop rights.
'''No''' -- more Wikipedia project space needed to evidence experience in these areas. If you can do this, I should be able to change my position next time. Regards -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - I think people need to start taking RfA seriously. Some folk here have obviously not looked at Kate's tool or his contribs. There is not enough experience here, especially in Wikipedia space (less than 200). More experience needed all round, but especially Wikipedia space. Not really active in any Wikiproject / activity. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - Per Jmlk17 and Giggy. You wrote in your answers that you have limited time and really want to contribute&mdash;in looking over your contribs, I think you make very constructive edits to the encyclopedia and have improved it. Your area of focus, in my opinion, is very important. However, I would like to see you broaden your focus to other areas of the encyclopedia and gain some additional experience.
'''Support''' as nominator. '''''

'''Support''' Don't see a reason to oppose user. good luck!--
—&nbsp;'''[&#8239;<!-- -->
I was going to check your HoodedMan contribs but preferred checking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HoodedMan&oldid=140309242 your old talk page] and ''thanks'' was the main word used by many contributors seeking help. That's a proof and evidence of a very helpful and easy-going attitude though w/ a ''mad'' skin now ;) → '''Mad support'''. --
'''Support''' I like what I see, and I trust the nom quite a bit.
'''Support'''. Seems to know what he's doing. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' For a bot operator to have a talk page that's not a mess of hate-mail, you must really know what you're doing<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support'''.  Most definitely.  Helpful, friendly, open, honest, able to leap tall backlogs with a single bound.  I asked about his previous experience and am completely satisfied with response.  --
'''Support''' forthright, intelligent answers and a solid experience.
'''Support''' - informed answers to the questions, good edits, nice bot. Have fun with the mop. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  The tools will greatly add to this user's contributions. '''
'''Support''' with plenty of edits, no problems or concerns, good work so far.
'''Support''' Absolutely. As per Rick Block. '''
'''Support''' Why not? --
'''Support''', impressed with Madman's participation in most areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - in similar fashion to [[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]], such a lot has been achieved in a relatively little amount of time. Good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Impressive. The request for the tools to aid your work within the copyright violations area sits very well with me. As the 'pedia grows and becomes ever more popular on the net the community needs to focus strongly on this problem. You contribution history demonstrates how much more help you will be able to bring with a couple of buttons. In addition, previous interaction has allways been positive and, of course, civil. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Support, looks fine. <b>
'''Support''' Looks fine with me. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' will be a good administrator.
'''Support''' OK.  Use the tools wisely!  : )
'''Support''' seen him at the speedy delete world and his judgement is good.
'''Support''' Seems like Madman will be valuable in the ongoing struggle against copyvio and vandalism. :)--
I really did think you were an admin until very recently... '''
'''Support''' as per above. Tireless contributor, and great knowledge of areas where he will mainly be working in.
I've not '''support'''ed yet? I feel ashamed. —
'''Concordo''' —
'''Support''' Great Track has done well in relativly short span of time.
'''Support''' - Yep, yep, yep. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support this madman''' &ndash; Adminship is ''no big deal'', and he is, after all, a madman. Who can dream of a madman misusing the admin tools? [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]] —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Support'''
I'm
<tt><b><font color="#009900">
'''Support''', An admin must work behind the scenes for Wikipedia. I see many Wikipedia space edits.
'''Support'''. Whaaaat, he's not an admin ''yet''? -- <span style="text-decoration: none;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I haven't edited in some time, but I've known Madman for too long not to vote.  If there's anyone I'd trust to use the admin tools wisely, it's him. —
'''Support''' - Madman knows and follows policy, is active, operates a bot responsibly, and has a cool name. Give me a good reason ''not'' to support. :)
'''Support'''.  I'd prefer a bit more article work, but my personal interactions with you have been positive and you certainly have benefited the encyclopedia.  You've done enough to convince me you wouldn't abuse the buttons, so you have my support.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support'''. I see this man around a lot, good contributions, good answers, honestly I also thought this man was already an admin.
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' A great contributor who would undoubtedly benefit from the extra tools. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I'm concerned about your hasty actions towards long time users.  I know you do good work in on suspected copyright violations, but I see you tagging articles created by long-time Wikipedians for speedy deletion.  Such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi_Am_ZX-Spectrum_48%2F64&diff=158814816&oldid=158814618 here], on this article created by [[User:Liftarn]] who is a long-time Wikipedian.  The article was tagged by [[User:CorenSearchBot]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi_Am_ZX-Spectrum_48%2F64&diff=158814093&oldid=158814028], then Liftarn removed the tag, with a comment saying the text came from "his own site".  The next edit was by Madman, placing a speedy tag on the article,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bi_Am_ZX-Spectrum_48/64&diff=next&oldid=158814618] despite Liftarn's comment.  He did that before discussing anything with Liftarn. As an admin, I'm concerned that instead of placing speedy tags, he will simply delete the articles.  Treating long time users with lack of good faith is not the way to retain good users.  I've seen too many leave the project.  I'm simply not assured that Madman will not hastily delete articles in such situations.  --
'''Beat the nom Support''' Long overdue for adminship. Honestly though he was one already a long time ago. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' as nom.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - as per nom :P ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' He's an active vandal fighter (I know that because he keeps reverting edits before me,keep up the good work.) He really deserves it, and I am confident he whould do a great job. '''

'''Support''', looks good. --
'''Support''' good luck. I support per nom.
'''Support'''-Great editor.
'''Support''' From my experiences with this user (at AIV, and such), I have no doubt that we can trust Magnus with the admin tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' - have seen him around in discussions, and assumed he was already an admin. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support'''. I have every confidence that Animum will make an excellent, dependable admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''-Great vandal fighter seen [[million|a lot]] at [[WP:AIV|AIV]].<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - As co-nom. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Weak Support''' I think Animum has made some solid contributions to the project, but can get a little sloppy with AWB (as noted in Jouster's opposition note below). The WWII redirect fixes are largely superfluous, but there are worse contributions that can be made. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' I don't know about long overdue, but I believe this editor will make a good administrator.
'''Strong support''' A great editor, I have often considered nominating Magnus animum for adminship. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' per Húsönd's outstanding coaching.
'''Support''' With a few minor reservations, based on some of the things mentioned by your detractors.  I think listing on the admin at risk of recall is a great idea and should probably be standard for all new admins.  Best to start with some training wheels, eh? <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' there are better reasons to support than to oppose. At least Magnus animum is trustworthy. —
'''Support''' this is a solid editor. I thought that he already was an admin. I see no good reasons to oppose him.--
'''Support''' - Yeah, Husonds done a good job here. The thing that I like about Magnus is his ability to take advice. If someone has a concern, he listens and then acts to overcome the problem - certainly befitting of an administrator.
'''Support''' I thought I already supported him? Oh well, he deserves to be supported 'twice' <b><font color="red">[[User:Dep. Garcia|Dep. Garcia]]</font></b> <small> ( <font color="green">[[User talk:Dep. Garcia|Talk]]</font>  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dep._Garcia&action=edit&section=new +] | <font color="blue">[[User:Dep. Garcia/Help Desk|Help Desk]]</font> | <font color="orange">
'''Support''' Positive interactions with the user, and has listened to and agreed with concerns about fair use when it was explained to them. -<u>
'''Support''' this is essentially a pile on support, as I feel the candidate is admin worthy, because the two current opposes seem to be for personal reasons, and of little substance.  '''
'''Strong support''', I've known Magnus for about half a year now and it's very interesting just how far the two of us have come. We have had our good days and out bad days, but Magnus has learned and improved from his (and others' for that matter) mistakes. Magnus has gone above and beyond the call of a Wikipedian by improving with every click of the "save page" button, and this is the true mark of a dedicated Wikipedian. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Strong support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' Have recently seen this user around recent changes, seems qualified to be an admin --
'''Strong support''' An excellent user from what I have encountered in the past. I can even credit this user with being one of the few users to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAcalamari&diff=131108887&oldid=131096703 question my username]. :) Not that that has anything to do with adminship, of course. :)
'''Support''' - I haven't seen this user around very much, but everything looks good. --
'''Support'''. No problems, and answer to Q4 shows understanding of a couple of the more misunderstood speedy criteria. Should be fine with the tools. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Support''' '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Support.''' Wikipedia will be better if he has the mop.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Husond's support is enough for me.  A great candidate. - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''', no problems here. --'''
'''Support''' good stuff. <sup>
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools, knows his strengths and weaknesses and isn't afraid to admit them.
'''Support'''.  Contribs and answers look good to me, no reason not to trust this user with the tools.

'''Support''' Having read the oppose  comments I come away with the feeling that this candidate is like all the rest -- imperfect. What I do not see is any suggestion that he will abuse the tools or harm the project.
'''Support''' Great user who really deserves the mop. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around the site and all of my encounters have been good. --
'''Support''' I think he'll work better with the admin mop... good luck. '''
Have had some occasions to call this user's maturity into question - I think it was something with Spawn Man a while back... but if Husond trusts him, I trust him.
'''Support''' - Give him a shot.  I do encourage Magnus to take seriously critique that other users (and not just admins!) give him, and commend him for doing exactly that thus far.
'''Strong support''' Experienced member, often reverts vandalism and beats me to it. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' Oppose concerns do not seem to warrant opposition so I will support.
'''Support'''. Well, ''why not''? The 47 users who !voted before me seem to agree with my point of view. '''
'''Support''' &ndash; As [[User:EvilClown93|EvilClown93]] said, long overdue.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;

'''Support'''  - as regards the conflict noted in his response to the Questions: I have discussed the matter extensively with him, both during and since the incident.  I believe that he fully understands what happened here as well as the root cause, and that he has learned from the experience and will act differently in a similar situation.  I would also like to believe that he trusts my council and will consult with me (or his coach) if he needs help as he gains familiarity with the tools. --
'''Support''' Has clearly been well-trained, and if was difficult it has also thereby been more thorough and more effective. Will be a great admin. Oppose votes on a single incident when he was a newby make no sense to me.--<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. The candidate is a dedicated Wikipedian with good knowledge of policy in the areas where he plans to use admin tools. The matters referred to by the oppose commenters relate primarily to isolated instances some time ago and I do not believe that they bear on the candidate's current readiness for adminship. I do, however, urge that if the candidacy is successful, you take on your new responsibilities cautiously and do not hesitate to consult with other admins before taking any potentially controversial actions.

'''Support''' per NYBrad
'''Support''' like a belgian madam <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' A good editor, and contributor to Motto of the Day
'''Support''' I believe any "maturity issues" won't cause them to abuse tools.
'''Medium Support''' He in my view is very caught in fighting vandalism, but I don't see him as much of an editor. I will admit that vandalism is my main concern, so I will support.
'''Support''' -- Per the (2) well-written nominations, above.
'''Support''' for impressive history and conscientiousness, with weak responses from those opposing.

I'm
And I'm not my dear [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]], but I also '''approve''' this candidate ;) Love,
So do I. —'''
I love you. --<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' for beating me to a report on [[WP:AIV]] :P. Excellent vandal-fighting, good answers, good contribs - should be a good admin :D.
'''Support''', I've seen him around [[WP:AIV]] a lot, and he sometimes beats me (an admin) to a revert using non-admin tools. --

'''Weak support''', anser to the questions aren't too great, but you seem good enough to be an admin.--

'''Oppose'''.  Magnus doesn't seem to be interested in actually working on articles.  The vast majority of his edits in the mainspace are just reverting vandalism, and of the rest, hundreds are from using AWB to edit valid redirects, which, [[User_talk:TomTheHand#RE:_Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken|he argued]], are legitimate things to "fix" in spite of all of the Wikipedia guidelines that say otherwise.  64 talk page edits are also far too few.  I think it's important for admins to contribute to articles.
'''Oppose''' per his rudeness to Jouster and hassling opposers. If he can't deal with a few critical comments on his RfA there is no way he will be able to deal with the trolls and vandals that will argue with him when he uses the admin tools. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Weak Oppose''' <s>'''Oppose''' - per civilty on RFA.</s> I changed this oppose, to '''weak oppose.'''  I wish this candidate would have contributed to writing articles as well.  Adminship isn't always about  vandal fighting. '''<font color="#990066" face="georgia">
Too new, little to no involvement with improving articles or content disputes. Vast majority of edits are semi-automated. —
'''No sorry not yet able to support''' per ability to handle conflict in this RfA.--
Opposed.  He fixed a bit of vandalism before I could figure out how to do it, but he doesn't seem to be very nice to new users.
'''Oppose''' per all comments above. –
'''Oppose''' - agreeing with [[User:Yummifruitbat]]'s comments below. That, combined with sharing [[User:Matthew]]'s concerns about the user seeming "abrasive" in this discussion, forces me to oppose at this time. As an aside, [[User talk:Magnus animum/2007/June#Your RFA|these comments]] have me wondering how the user will act when [[User:Husond]] ''isn't'' around... -
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned about the lack of content contribution, the fact that the nominator says he was hard to coach, the AWB redirect edits, and the responses to people here.
'''Neutral''' -- Kudos for fixing the image issue, I'm a bit worried that you come across as abrasive in this discussion. I'll still neutral for awhile and see how you handle things.
'''Neutral'''. I've seen quite a bit of Magnus about the place (AIV and FPC for example) and while I'm sure he's a capable vandal-fighter, he does come across as somewhat immature at times. Looking through his admin coaching page, I can see why Husond says that he was "hard to coach" in his nomination statement. Without wishing to sound harsh, it looks a little as though his understanding of policy and of the right actions to take in various situations has come more from "learning by rote" rather than from any particular degree of innate common sense. We need as many good vandal-fighters as we can get, but I'm not convinced at present that Magnus would display level-headedness and consistent good judgement in more complex administrative situations. I don't really believe he'd ''abuse'' the tools, but I'm not confident that his decision-making would be reliably sound in greyer areas, which could lead to inadvertent misuse. I'll be happy to see him promoted under the probationary terms set out by Húsönd, as I expect most of Magnus's mop-usage will be in clear-cut vandal fighting anyway. --
'''Support''' - A fine candidate, nothing worries me.
'''Support''' ''alles in Ordnung'' for me, good luck.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' I like what I hear and what a see.
'''Support''' - Good answers, good candidate and good nominator..(All Good)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I second Cometstyles' statements. All is good with this user.
'''Support''' Can't see why not... '''''
'''Support''' per no big deal - plenty of warning vandals and gnoming edits.
'''Support'''. Not someone I've come across before, but he looks like he would make good use of the tools.
'''Support.''' Let's go. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Support''' substantially per nom.
'''Support''' as nom. '''
'''Support''' Understands process and appears to be a trusted user. --
'''Support''' Good answers, looks like an all-around solid candidate.
'''Support'''. Seems to have a good understanding of policy, participates in talk page discussions, and seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Support''': I don't see anything wrong with this user. Has the experience and knowledge. Also seems to have the ability to think through decisions before making them, so does not look likely to abuse the tools. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Has Wikipedia's interests at heart: clearly very good at keeping a cool head, open-minded about "unsavoury" topics, and I like his take on rescuing speedied pages if they can be. - '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' I like the nominee's humility and conscientiousness.
'''Support''' No reason to believe candidate will abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' An excellent editor and it is great to have his assistance in the WP:Film and new WP:Filmmakers and Actors. We could always use another administrator who has the tools to help with the projects. I'm sure he'll be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. --
'''Support''' - A good candidate who makes good contributions while been friendly as well. I can find no evidence to suggest future admin tools abuse.
I'm
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' This one's a keeper. --
'''Support''' per Camaron, nom, Yechiel, Zeibura.
'''Support''' per the nominator.
'''Support''' Qualified. He's a solid user and will make a good admin. -- '''
'''Support''' appears to be a good user, I see no valid concerns raised yet. Users understanding of IAR is spot on. &nbsp;
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom.  Seems like a fine candidate, haven't seen any reasonable objections yet.
'''Support''' &mdash; reasonable level of experience, good contributions to the encyclopedia, good answers to the questions, and no reason to believe that the user would not be trustworthy with administrative tools. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 2px; margin-right: .5em;">
'''Support''' I like the user's attitude and contribs.  Good luck to you.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' - yeah, he's ready. --
'''Support''' seems to have a fair understanding of the policies and is qualified enough for the tools. Yeah. —
'''Support''' (moved from neutral)
'''Support'''.  Appears to be level-headed, helpful, and civil, and the answers to the questions show a good philosophy.  --
'''Support'''.  Will make a fine admin.  --
'''Support''' seems fine to me. '''''
'''Support'''.  Seven thousand edits without substantial complaints.  That's impressive.  One might interpret the lack of talk page edits to be the lack of something, but on the other hand, if everything is being done right and nobody has a problem with it, there isn't much need for discussion.  '''''
'''Support''', per above and below.
'''Support''' as a promising candidate.  (The fact that his userpage gets vandalized proves that he is doing something right; the opposition vote cast for mentioning that in a userbox is misguided.)
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per the reply to Q5, the insight by [[User:Bucketsofg|Bucketsofg]], the excellent answer to Q5, the lack of any obvious problems and the presence of plenty of positive contributions, and ... did I mention the fantastic response to Q5? -- '''
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' looks good to me. Nice answers to the questions. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
I know from watching you interact with others fairly recently that you can admit when you've made a mistake, probably the most important attribute that any admin can have. Your answer to my question was sufficient (recommend you rework [[Minal Nygårds]] with new sources and then resubmit it to AFD for another try, by the way). So, yeah. ··
Candidate's user page has a vandalism count userbox; having this userbox shows poor judgment and a lack of understanding of the importance of [[meatball:DissuadeReputation|dissuading reputation]]. That plus the other questionable userboxes (how does revealing the fact that the candidate is a "cub" serve any encyclopedic purpose?) leads me to oppose this candidate for demonstrating poor judgment in deciding what content to put on his user page.
'''Support''' I don't see any major problems.  The answers to Q1 and Q2 show a wide range of interests and experience.
Great work with [[WP:VG]]! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Good editor, knows policy, I wouldn't worry about that AfD, especially when you note that neither protagonist has edited since. <b>
'''Support''' - Decent content edits, and also does the boring behind the scenes crap too. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. No reason why not. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''. You seem familiar. I don't know why, but at least I can make an honest decision on my support.
'''Support''' - Sorry..But I have no reasons to oppose..hehe..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Would make a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Review of contributions shows diversity as well as your primary focus. Some great examples of reviewing minor mistakes, also some great examples of [[WP:AGF]] with possible vandalism. A good temper, a willingness to accept and acknowledge your own (minor) mistakes, and the desire to check what you have done are key admin qualities. I'm not sure that describing some work as ''crap'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naked_Killer&diff=prev&oldid=141657134] is totally useful to a conversation, but that's minor when I see everything else here as good or more than good. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Appears to be an experienced, dedicated and trustworthy user. My only concern regarded the eventuality of maladministered vandal blocks, but I'm reasonably satisfied with the answer to my question.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''I also concur Support'''--
'''Support''' due to wide range of interests and experience.
'''Support''' I like what I see, but do try to improve on edit summaries.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' seems to be a good candidate.
'''Weak Support''' I think you could have been more transparent in the AfD you mentioned above which involves a charge of [[WP:COI]]. Even though your edits were probably clean you should have revealed your involvement with a similar game. In fact, you probably should have allowed someone else to bring the AfD in the first place. But I am not going to hold this against you here inasmuch as it was months ago and you pointed to and linked to the AfD here. However, be careful! Otherwise, I see a positive in the way you kept your cool in the discussion against some strong opposition. Your overall work is good.
'''Support''' You seem familiar with Wikipedia policy. Your contributions to video game articles have been very good. I also liked your responses to the questions.--
'''Support''' without hesitation, level-headed and helpful editor.
'''Support''' Wow! You are very good! <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support''' - Our paths have never crossed before, but everything looks good & I like the answers to the questions, esp. the last :) Good luck! -
'''Support''' - Per...just about everyone.  Noting especially the answers to Questions 1 and 5.  --
'''Support''' Looks fine.--
'''Support''' No concerns. Answers to question 1 shows that he's capable for the mop. Good luck!--[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, and a stable candidate who has what it takes. --
'''Support''' Add RfA cliché here. <b><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Reliable and worthy.
'''Support''' per the answer to the AIV question. Not completely right, but better a button weilder adheres to the letter while learning how to interpret the spirit of the role.
'''Strong support''' committed to the project. Did some thankless work on categorization (during the heyday of the uncategorized taskforce) and Wikipedia would be much less valuable without dedicated, experienced gnomes like Marasmusine. Sound answers to questions are icing on the cake.
Switched to '''Support''' (from neutral).
'''Support''' per all of above. Appears to be exactly what an admin should be.
'''Support''' Committed and Sharp.
I'm
'''Weak support''': Good adminnish reasoning, on policy bases, but seems a mite unclear on the details of an XfD-closing admin's role.  Probably easily rectified— <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support''' I need to take a bath ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' per overall effort
'''Support''' Seems like a fine choice to administrate wiki.
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' as per nom
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I'm going to support this person for administrator. Clearly sufficient experience and reputable history from what I have seen.
'''Support'''. No obvious issues.
'''Support''' I think you deserve the mop. '''<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#6666FF">
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''': To balance out A.Z's frivolous support vote above. --
'''Strong support''', I have seen his edits for a year and a half now and he is a very productive and civil editor.  He does a lot of the grunt work in creating new pages and formatting existing pages.  Numerous times when I have been looking for projects or pages to work on I have gone to his user contributions and talk page to find out places where work needs to be done.  He has also shown good leadership skills in WikiProject Massachusetts and articles pertaining to the United States Congress.  Overall, he is a fantastic editor who should have been nominated to be an admin long ago.  --
'''Support''' Per CapitalR. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support'''. Long-time contributor with a strong record of contributions.
'''Support''' -- I have no concerns that this user will mis-use the tools, which is the most important criterion.  --
'''Strong support''', Does great work.  He has provided excellent guidance, editing and suggestions for the Congressional Delegation from Pennsylvania, among (many) others.
'''Support''' Yeah, no worries here :-)
RfA is about trust. —'''
'''Support''' meets
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''' -- this is truly an unqualified no-brainer.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As a relatively new user myself (less than one year), Markles has been very helpful in my efforts to improve articles under [[WP:USC|Wikipedia:Project Congress]]. His counsel has been welcome and his edits have served to enhance my own.
'''Support''' A good editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', a highly civil user, think he could help out a lot with the protected edit requests and other template matters. <b>
I'm
'''Support''' Markles has contributed much to the US Congressional Wikiproject, and has been particularly helpful to me whenever I have questions.
'''Support''' An experienced editor, including ample experience with templates, who could be very useful in editing and formatting protected templates. No concerns raised during review of recent contribs. I only hope he'll use more of the edit summary in the future. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''', only positive productive interactions with this user, should have become an admin a long time ago.
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Changed to support'''.  See neutral discussion.  '''
'''Support''' - Looks to have a great set of contributions. Good candidate, although I would like to stress the importance of using the edit summary more. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Looks good. '''
'''Support''' This user has a solid base, and I believe they will use the admin powers with due diligence.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Indeed, Daniel said it perfectly. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' I think Markles will be a fine admin.--
'''Support''' See nothing that makes me think user will abuse the tools.
'''One large support to go please''' I've seen this users action in many edit sums, and is always top-notch.  Good experience as well! <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">[[User:DigitalNinja|Digital]]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>
'''Oppose''' I do respect the work you have done with Congressional articles and the related stuff, and I think that you are doing great work there. That said, I'm sorry, but for someone who wants to be an admin vandal-fighter, I don't see 1 edit to [[WP:AIV]] in the last 3 months. The rest of the "admin chores" that you mentioned in Q1 were really chores that any user can do already. Also {{[[Template:CongBio|CongBio]]}} was protected 6 months after your last edit to it, and it really hasn't been touched much since. If you want to go and edit it, go to the "Requests for editing a protected page" section in [[WP:RPP]].
'''Weak Oppose''' Per above. Also gross lack of using the edit summary is concerning. It doesn't seem this editor has much of a use for the tools - adminship is not a reward. --'''
'''Weak Oppose''' Although the candidate is an avid contributer and a fine editor, I suspect that when made an admin, Markles would fairly soon edit [[:Template:USRepSuccessionBox]] to the version he has wanted for nearly a year now.  He has thus far been unable to convince the other users that his version is superior, but just a few weeks ago he wrote, "It's just a matter of time", meaning that he will eventually get his way.  Once the change is made, the Template will be protected, with the justification that it is used in some-12,000 articles. With his admin moniker, he will be able to keep it the way he wants it, without needing to reach consensus. I hope that I am wrong, but I am expressing my reasoning for not wanting him to have the admin tools.  My apprehension is due to my not being sure whether he would consider that activity as "thug-like", since he believes his reasoning to be superior to the opposing viewpoints. I believe that the community has many fine editors who's judgment as admins I would trust more fully.--
'''Oppose''' I think that Markles need more experience in admin related activites before he becomes a sysop. I also believe that he can accomplish his tasks without the use of admin abilities. Finally, I'm slightly worried about not using edit summaries. His "laziness" as he stated, may carry over for his "editor mode" to "admin mode".
'''Support''' Level headed editor, even during difficult content disputes.
'''Support''' I usually am loath to support self-noms, but that is usualy because they are inexperienced. You are not. I thus will support you. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' If this was six months and little AfD experience, I might not support, but the experience and arguments [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Objective_validity_of_astrology|here]] in particular impressed me. Also, two weeks after the RfC, Marskell's relations with Aquirata seemed had become collegial again. I think Marskell is a humble and well-intentioned editor who will make a good sysop.--
'''Support''' Marskell does some good stuff at FAR, and with articles, and is a decent Wikipedian to work with within the community.
'''Strongest Support'''. One of our best. The main thing is we '''need more admins &mdash; especially AfD-closing admins &mdash; who actually edit and review articles'''. These are the people who actually do the work for Wikipedia, which means they have the best perspective possible. If I knew you were interested in the tools, I would've nominated. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Marskell is a highly respected community member, and is intelligent, considered and balanced in all his actions. +
'''Support''', great candidate.
'''Support'''. An experienced, respected, and productive editor. Regarding the comments by aeropagitica, if Marskell is proposing to close AfDs, that seems like a reason to ask for the tools. I'd certainly trust his judgement on speedy deletion of new pages, the great majority of which are completely uncontroversial in my experience.
'''Support''' True cliche moment -- excellent candidate, wonderful addition to the admin corps.
'''Support''' His record speaks for itself. No better candidate IMO.
'''Support''' obviously &mdash;
Definitely, well-qualified.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, understands the policies, trustworthy and reliable, level-headed and civil.
'''Support''' Deals admirably with his share of disputed-discussion-closing already. His work on FAR reveals consistently good judgment even when confronted with criticism or dispute.
'''Support''' qualified for the job. -
'''Support''' Excellent contributions to Wikipedia, coupled with experience and understanding of policy.
'''Support''', good answers to questions and trust his judgement.
'''Support''' I tried to nominate him way back last summer.
'''Support'''. I have seen Marskell do a lot of good work, he clearly understands policy as well as I would expect from an admin candidate. Although his AfD contributions are indeed a little thin, he has proved that his judgement is very sound. I have no doubt about his ability to use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' :P. I cannot oppose this user :)! ''
'''Support''' - Has addressed my AfD concerns.  Contributed a lot back in mid 2006. &mdash;
'''Support''' looks okay.--
'''Support''' per above comments, and we need more admins with article  writing experience and skills.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong support'''; Marskell would be just the kind of admin Wiki needs more of&mdash;an experienced editor and article writer across a broad range of topics, with a demonstrated ability to stay level-headed in difficult situations, and an enduring commitment to Wikipedia, evidenced by his creation of [[WP:1FAPQ]] and his drive to revamp [[WP:FAR]] to allow more time for articles to retain [[WP:WIAFA|featured status]].  All the necessary qualities.
'''Support''' Strong contributor, good writer, excellent understanding and use of policy. Disagreed with him on some points on [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mozilla Firefox/archive1|this FAR]], and that's exactly why I'm supporting :) Sorry, but opposes don't register much with me—there's more to adminship than XfD in my opinion.
'''Support''' Excellent nom.
'''Support'''. Seems very civil and fair.
'''Support''' seems like an excellent canidate.-
'''Oh good lord yes'''
'''support''' per above.
'''Support''' Good candidate, good contributor who understands most of wikipedia policies, and good answers to all questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''1000% support''' started off [[WP:1FAPQ]] and works on FARC dutifully and tactfully. Shows all the signs (to my mind) that they know what being a Wikipedian is all about, and how to be a great admin! -
I'm
'''Support''', well-qualified. --
'''Support''', good record. --
'''Support''' More than qualified. '''
'''Support'''. <cliche>"I thought he already was an admin..."</cliche> Has stayed cool on some contentious articles.
'''Support'''. You want it, you got it. An 'advanced' user who will perform well any admin function he chooses to. –
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support'''. Having interacted with him at FAR, I know he is a competent editor who can be trusted with admin tools. While I haven't always agreed with him, I have always respected his decisions and the way he can back them up with policy.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A qualified user with whom I had positive experience on [[WP:ATT]].
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' experiences in both the jewelry case (FAR) and the trash can (AFD) of Wikipedia.

'''Support''', really deserving contributor for having mop.
'''Strong Support''' - brilliant candidate. '''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' great candidate, perfect for the tools. '''''
'''Support''' If the user uses sysop tools once I will be happy that I voted this way.--
Good candidate.
'''Support''' Very confident the tools will not be misused.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Answers are good, record seems good, oppose comments aren't persuasive to me.
'''Strong and late support'''.  I must confess a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] - I believe Marskell to be awesome.  Yes, I was one of the ones who was pestering Marskell to let me nominate him.
'''Support''' Enough vandal-fighting or AfD experience.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - Go for it. -- ''
'''Support''' Everything looks quite good here. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Can't understand the "no need for the tools" objections. Are we running out? If the opposition was based on the inability to judge Marskell's decision-making ability and/or knowledge of policy, or a fear of him running amok with the delete button, that would be understandable, but take a look at his history and see if those fears are well-founded.
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support,''' with pleasure. An accomplished and thoughtful editor, unfailingly civil and well-reasoned; more than capable of doing a fine job with the tools. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per nom and all of the above. —
'''Support''' this well qualified candidate, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''.  Good attitude, lots of experience, won't abuse the buttons.  How is he not one already?
'''Support'''. Strong candidate, will make good use of tools.
'''Sure'''
'''Support'''. My thoughts echo what Yomangani has said. There are not that many AfD closers, and there would be no harm in adding another person to help out. '''
'''Support''' Solid editor, should be a good admin. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - An excellent editor; I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Support''' - another long overdue nominee. Excellent editor who has show good judgment in all my interactions with him.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Marskell is careful and experienced, a good writer, and very civil in his interactions with people.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Fantastic contributor. No question whatsoever of our ability to trust him with the tools. People don't need to be active in everything or know everything to be admins. We just need to trust them. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Marskell's input at [[WP:FAR]] and [[W:ATT]] has been awesome. He manages to be both civil and persistent, and he always strikes me as a voice of reason. Top man.
'''Support''' Invaluable editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate who would benefit from having admin tools. --
'''Support''' Another one whom I though has been an admin already. Having been some contacts with Marskell on FAR, he has done a good job of keeping FAR runs smoothly. Even in a very contentious debacle, he has shown constant civility and unbiased point of view. Judging from his closing FARs reasoning, I'm sure he will be a very good administrator on other fields, particularly AfD. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Have had very good interactions with this editor in the past and he clearly will use the mop in a useful manner.--
'''Support''' Very interactive and is always very communicative with other contributors. Would make a great admin. He will certainly use the mop to help Wikipedia to his greatest ability. No concerns here! --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' &mdash; fine contributor all-round. --
'''Hmm thought I had already supported...''' Per all above, would only be a benefit as an admin. '''
'''Support''', maybe mine is the latest support vote.
'''Oppose''' Not enough vandal-fighting or AfD experience.--
'''Oppose''' No demonstrated need for the tools.  Of course there are many ways to help Wikipedia, but most of them do not need the tools.--
'''Oppose''' "No need for the tools" is accepted as a good reason for an oppose.  Expressing an interest in AfD is jolly weak - let him come back when he has more AfD experience.--
'''Oppose'''. I do not want the delete button given to someone who not only has poor judgement but doesn't recognise it: "This page is not intended to show a deletionist agenda but rather that my additions to AfD have been made in good faith." But some of those articles were kept! Lack of understanding that, in good faith or otherwise, you misjudged how much content you could destroy doesn't give me confidence that, allowed to speedy delete articles, you won't delete too much. This is not a blanket condemnation of deletionists, just a concern about the editor's judgement.
'''Oppose''' This is not a judgment about your other contributions, which seem to pass muster from the testimonies here. But before you self-nominate for the sole reason to close AfD's you should get back in the swing of things and engage in deletion-related discussions first. Policies and policy interpretation have changed massively over the last six months. There is no immediate need for AfD closers, so I don't see why this self-nom can't wait two months. ~
'''Neutral'''. Given your work at [[WP:FAR]] I honestly thought you already were one, and I don't think for a second that you'd misuse the tools deliberately. However, for someone who wants to use the admin tools mainly to close AfDs, I'd like to see some more participation; a flick through your edits from September last year gives only 10 or so AfDs you've participated in. I don't agree with there being any need to be an admin to "officially" close FARs, as adminship shouldn't really indicate authority. So on balance, I'm staying neutral.
'''Neutral''' I think that you are a very good editor and a valuable contributor to the project.  I've looked through many of  your edits in the user Talk and policy spaces and little-or-no work on vandal fighting/warning or contributions to XfD debates in the last six months or so.  I don't think that you would abuse the admin tools, being the responsible person that you are, but I also don't see an immediate requirement for them at this time.
'''Neutral'''. Same as the above two; content decisions are not admin decisions, and you don't seem to have enough XfD contributions recently to be closing those debates. -
'''Neutral''' Vou don't seem to vandal fight or do WP:AFD but I'm confident that you won't abuse those tools.--
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A good spread of edits across the main spaces; a responsible editor who is active in at least one Wikiproject too.  I don't believe that this editor would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' seems to have what it takes. --
'''Support.''' A great WikiProject steward. -- <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">
'''Hai!''' Excellent work at the SM project (which she founded), 9000+ edits for those who focus on those things, great knowledge of Wikipedia policies and all in all a very good candidate for adminship. No-brainer, give her the tools, she won't misuse them.
'''Support''', ''kokoro kara''.
'''Support'''WP:RM does need more admins--
'''Support'''. Prior experience indicates this user is diligent, helpful, and level-headed. Many contributions to the project, good awareness of policy and ability to work with others. I've yet to see any reason we wouldn't want to give her a few extra buttons. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''' , Masamage has has all was done her best to make Sailor Moon Pages the best and always given me helpfull advise I would have left because of this ID hopping Vandle if she didn't help me keep my cool she would be a great Admin
'''Support''' Being also a [[Sailor Moon]] fan, I've worked with Masamage on many occasions am at surprised at how civil she is in her interactions with others, especially with ones who want to pick a fight with her over the whole Sailor Moon thing.  As an admin, her civilised demeanor would serve the project wonderfully.
'''Support''' - despite our recent "conflicts", I think this user would make an awesome admin! ~
'''Support''' per the answer to my question above.  Other factors also look like this editor would be fine with the tools. <font face="Verdana">
What is Sailor Moon, anyway? I support. -- <b>
'''Support''' seems to be a good user to become and admin.
'''Support''' Someone so involved needs to become an admin; should have happened already!
'''Support''' Good worker, involved, should do great things with the bit. &ndash;
'''Support''' Masamage seems like an ideal candidate for adminship. She does a good job editing and interacts well with the community. —

'''Support''': User has a great amount of experience and edit summary usage is also good, just 1% away from 100% in minor edits. Don't see anything wrong, should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
--
'''Support''' - ----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
I'm
'''Support''' per Luna, Riana, Durova, and for good measure Mailer, on general principles since that was a cool support !vote format.
'''Support''' I like what I see here and am going to support Masamage.

'''Support''' Yeah she deserves it. she works so hard! Also would probly be in trouble a number of times if she hadn't helped out.. YES GIVE IT TO HER!--
'''Support''' - Masamage is an editor truly deserving of admin position. <font face="Papyrus">'''
'''Support''' I don't see any reason not to. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
Nice bunch of edits - even if limited within a field or two at times. Seems ready for adminship. '''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
Default '''support'''. —'''

'''Support''' - I'm jumping in a bit late here, but I only just remembered I forgot to vote on this RfA. Anyhow, support per all above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' as nom.
'''<big>+</big>'''
'''Support''' - I think the editor is experienced and trustworthy enough.
'''Support''' Stayed calm in the face of [[User:68.54.56.198]] and sock [[User:HavenBastion]] in the [[First-person shooter]] link dispute, mentioned above in question #3. '''''
'''Support''' Excellent knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies.
'''
'''Support''' You will be great admin.
'''Weak Support'''.  Despite the low number of Projectspace edits, I think you will be ok.  I would advise you to add to your answer to question 1.  Good luck, <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' A very experienced editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/standards|Support]]'''
'''Support'''Per NF 24 --'''''<sup>
'''Support''' meets [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards|my arbitary standards]] - particularly your helpful attitude evidenced by your talk page, and your sincere desire to help other editors perhaps less technically skilled as yourself. Good stuff. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - quite a good candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good editor. <small><font color="AE1C28">
Absolutely, yes. I&nbsp;
Looks like a good user.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I became aware of Masem recently in a little heated guideline debate where he was as calm and insightful as can be. Like I would expect from an admin. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  This user meets all my standards.  I have no concerns.  We could use another game expert with a mop.
'''Support''' I have personally collaborated with this contributor, on [[BioShock]], and he is a truly great editor. -- <strong>
'''Support''', he's done some great work here.
'''Support'''. No concerns to oppose with!
'''Support'''. Try not to get voted off the island, okay? --
'''Support''' Strong contributions; I see no reason to oppose. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' - No Problems.
'''Support''' - I have frequently encountered Masem in the ongoing debate about notabiity for fictional material, where I have found his manner and approach to be consistent with the qualities that we seek in a top rate admin. Admittedly, my standard for top rate is a little ''rouge.''
'''Not one already?''' '''
--
Q8
'''Support''' — seems a reasonable and thoughtful editor and I have no concern with giving him [[Button (disambiguation)#Other|The button]]. --
'''Support''' Per nominator
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
Per VG interactions. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Oppose''', too good of a candidate. He will make other people feel inferior.
'''Support''' evidence of good 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support'''. Looks like a trustworthy candidate to me.--'''
Sure, looks good. '''<font color="red">
'''Strong support''' - I've worked with Masem in the GA project for some time now. I have had nothing but good interactions with him. Very strong editor. Will make a fine admin. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''

'''Support''' already doing a lot of good things, I think the tools will help him do even more.
'''Support''' - need for the tools, obvious dedication, probably not mental = admin material.
'''Weak support''' - that really strong mainspace count masks low Wikipedia-space activity, but apart that, this user seems good. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Helpful and keeps a cool-head, good interest in building articles.
'''support''' --
'''Support''' per above really. No reason not to.
'''Support''' Go with the flow apparently. :)
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools.  Good luck! --
'''Support''' '''''Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - In a recent discussion Masem wrote, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29&diff=176627307&oldid=176609720 It should be clear that there has never been a consensus/vote on "list of characters"]. I found this very troubling because it was in response to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28fiction%29&diff=176578829&oldid=176477705 section] which cited just such a consensus at [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters]] as the impetus for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28fiction%29&diff=11927820&oldid=11647433 creation] of the [[WP:FICT]] guideline. There is nothing wrong with thinking that notability standards should be a certain way, but Masem goes beyond that into claiming that his opinion is, and indeed always has been, the accepted standard... even when presented with seeming proof to the contrary. Admins, indeed all users, need to be able to ''discuss'' what standards ''should'' be rather than insisting that they already are as the person ''wants'' them to be. --
'''Neutral''' This user appears to be a good canidate for being an admin, however I am reluctant to approve as he has not shown a sufficient amount of experience contributing to Wikipedia-namespace pages.--'''''
'''Support''' - a good candidate, steps his foot into admin waters '''and''' is even an article writer.
'''Support''' - as per my nom
'''Support''' Ryan beat me to the punch! I like the mature way in which you present yourself. I think you will be a fine addition to the corps of admins.
'''Support''', looks good. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Good record, no worries.
'''Support''', has need for the tools and can be trusted to use them. A great user who handles conflicts well. '''''
'''Support''' Very good user to become an admin.
'''Support''' Good work on many medically-related articles keeping minority POVs from dominating the article. '''
'''Support''' all looks good to me.
'''Support''' - Outstanding contributor with well-balanced and thoughtful community interactions. Mop-hood is long overdue. --
'''Support''' as co-nom --
'''Support''' by all means.
'''Support.''' Do good with the mop! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''. Candidate seems to be perfectly prepared for the job. —'''
'''Support'''. I've seen their work from my involvement at WP:CLINMED.  They do good work and will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looks clean. '''
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor becoming an admin.

'''Support''' - Good Enough to be an Admin and very experienced with acute understanding of all wikipedia policies..Would be an Asset as an admin..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' quite impressive. Should make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' Calm, level-headed, and competent.
'''Support'''.  A good editor who will be a good admin
'''Support''' - very calm and level headed.
I'm
'''Support''' Contributions over Wikipedia namespace is low but, I'm sure he'll take care that later. --
'''Support''' - no concerns with this candidate at this time. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Strong candidate and well experienced, I have no concerns on giving him the tools.
'''S'''upport. Single-handedly propelled several articles to FA ([[Acute myeloid leukemia|AML]] and [[cholangiocarcinoma]]. Undaunted by controversial topics. Needs the mop and some anti-burnout pills!
'''Support''': Excellent edit summary usage, plenty of experience, and user seems very civil. User should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Hike! --
Yes, you've mastered BLP.--
'''Support''' Good answers. You have an unsual subject of expertise, keep editing!
'''Support''' Yeah...let's make it happen.  Good editor.  Going to be a great admin.
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''Support''' per nominations, answers, and good overall record. No concerns.
'''Support''' Good editor with nice percentage of mainspace edits out of total. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' calm, even-tempered, knowledgeable. - <span style="font-family: cursive">
'''Support'''. An admirable junk fighter-- we need all we can enlist.
'''Support''' Valuable work on medical articles and plenty of experience in dealing with conflicts.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Has been a more experienced fellow contributor with me on several pages, and has taught me (by example) a great deal about the collaborative process and conflict resolution on Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' I've always had good interactions with mastCell.  he always works hard to find a middle ground in controversial articles. Even under stress wth Cindrey this user kept his cool, really impressive considering what happened.  Clearly this user has the right temperment to be an admin.
'''Support''' Lots of good edits, always reasonable.
'''Support''' I've seen him around and been impressed, and I like the answers to the questions above.
'''Support'''. I haven't directly interacted with the candidate (to my recollection), but his contributions history speaks for itself. The answers to the questions are exceptional and suggest a reasonable, intelligent, and diplomatic person. -- '''
'''Support'''. Excellent handling of contentious and generally adversarial health topics.
'''Support'''. Level-headed and an excellent contributor. --
'''Support'''.  "But isn't he already an admin?"  About time -- he's a model editor and he'll no doubt be equally conscientious as an admin.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. Not enough Table talk: edits. No, in an all seriousness, great candidate. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Has made solid contributions.
'''Support''' Great editor. Will be an asset as an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' per (co)noms.
'''Support'''. I've been on both sides of disputes with MastCell. He/she always earns my respect regardless. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">
'''Support'''. per noms and other supporters above who have worked with MastCell on medical topics. --
'''Support''' MastCell is a knowledgeable editor who has contributed significantly to medically-related topics. He is calm, reasonable, and always maintains his cool — assets for any admin. -
'''Support'''. MastCell is an excellent editor with great admin potential. -- <i><b><font color="004000">
'''Support''' - Great editor - articles and pre-admin work. Cheers!--
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''', sure why not.--
'''Support''', a bit tardy for a conominator.  I've been offline for several days.  Glad to see this is going well, MastCell. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per noms. '''
'''Pile on support''' per answers, impressive noms, Arrested Development fandom. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''' nothing's wrong here. Go for it. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
Well I'll trust Jpgordon's quote. There is some reason for that answer, such as a situation with Cplot, it would apply. ([[User:HowOftenHalve]] for example) But our perspectives on ''obvious'' may differ. I'm afriad what's obvious to you may not be to others, in your answer. What you view as an obvious sock may not be obvious to everyone else.--
I initially !voted oppose, but per his explanations I see his actions were understandable, so change to neutral.
Strongly opposed, per reasons above. The willingness to allow others to try something new is not itself an indication that you will disrupt the encyclopedia.
Oppose candidate for participating in this. If we want community input, the best way to pick candidates is through a vote. If not, do it through a lottery or by committee. The worst way is something like the mess displayed on this page. --
'''Support''' - I trust this editor with the tools.
'''Strong support'''. I've only seen good things from Matt. He seems to know what he's doing - AIV reports are always valid and deletion debate contributions (especially to RfD) are sound. Should make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support'''. I believe you are quite trustworthy with the tools, and I haven't seen any causes for worry about you. Also, not that it really makes a huge difference, but you have quite the impressive edit count.
'''Support''' Have seen him around, and have seen only good things about him. Clearly has a good understanding of policy, and I am sure will use the tools wisely and well.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' as there is no reason not to; user looks like he could certainly benefit from the tools. --
'''Strong support''' I trust [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] completely to nominate an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' I think that the [[CAT:CSD]] backlog is a clear problem, and we need more people like Mattbr to bail.
'''Support''' I see no reason why not to support him.--
'''Support''' I can definitely trust Matt with a few extra buttons. Excellent candidate. —
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' - I'm impressed by the users answers, and feel will do a good job as an admin. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Looks to me that this user will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Agree with Captain panda directly above. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' I'd like to thank the first 13 supports for not writing "Ha ha, beat the nominator".
<s>'''Ha ha, beat the nominator'''</s> 'fraid I didn't. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor becoming an admin.
'''Support''' Trustworthy with experience. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' -- why not really? <strong>
'''Support''' Trust your nominator.
I'm
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - as per [[user:Riana|Riana]] ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' 1)Per contributions (although there is a fair whack of auotmation so I mean by quality not number) 2)Per civility demonstrated through talk page comments and 3)Per excellent response to optional Q5. This seems to indicates the candidate's concerns for the "public face" of Wikipedia, to which I couldn't agree more. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Cliché support''' I thought you were an admin.  Seriously, I though you were [[User:Matt Britt]] and you changed your username or signature.  Anyway, you have behaved with admirable wisdom and maturity and are deserving of sysop access.
'''Support''' Mop 'em up. I don't particularly care for any of the currently-unanswered questions, and I like the answer I see, and I like Matt's contributions. --
—'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' Answer to my question was satisfactory enough.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' I don't see any issues here...why not?
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. We need more active admins. Always great to see good candidates [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Very Weak Support'''. I am troubled by your minimal contribution of content. However, you're a valued member of the community and should prove to be an OK admin. Please, take the time to focus on substantially expanding a few articles by contributing fact-based content. You'll be a better admin for it. Best of luck.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - assisted newbies at the help desk, reported vandals and experience of the deletion process.
'''Support''' no sufficient reason to prove he would abuse tools, satisfactory answer, support.
'''Support''' per answer to Q7 - which infers that they ''have'' previously thought about and thus answered the very many other questions. In fact, that there is an answer to (almost) every question indicates the willingness to communicate that is vital in the role of admin.
'''Support''' - excellent answers to the myriad questions asked, which are supported by the user's contribs.  --
'''Support'''. Good contributor, experienced editor.
'''Strong support''', based upon contributions and answers to questions.
'''Support''' There is no indication that there will be a problem. Let him get to work.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good all-rounder; time for the mop
'''Support''' per good contributions, good answers to questions.
'''Support'''. Excellent user. --
'''Support''' Have seen this editor around. No problems.
'''Support''' No big deal, and we do need admins to clear up admin backlogs! :) --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', I liked Mattbr's responses. Good luck.
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to think he will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''', I also like Mattbr's responses to the 14(!) questions. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(
'''Support''' - Although I didn't like his answer to q6, because I believe that RfA ''is'' a vote, that isn't especially relevant to this request, and we won't go into that debate here.(Just don't run for RfB.) Otherwise, an excellent candidate who has my full support, with good contributions and a clear understanding of the tools.
'''Support'''. No reason not to give them the tools. Adminship is about trust, which this user clearly shows. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Per anwsers to question and per [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]].
'''Strong Support''' 1) Candidate has learnt the lesson bought up in his last RFA re: violating [[WP:CANVASS]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Milk_the_cows&diff=148668773&oldid=148623219 as shown here]. 2) Oustanding contributions 3) Civility 4) Extensive talk page use to build consensus. With the greatest respect to [[User:Spebi|Spebi]] below, I think we've done the debate about whether a user ''needs'' admin tools. General consensus (IMHO) was that the tools cost nothing, they can't "rust" and even if he uses them once a month positively that's good enough reason to have them. At the end of the day, '''I trust''' this excellent editor. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I feel that this user would unlikely abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Mature and considered answers to questions (particularly the supplementaries), civil user who favours consensus building through talk contribs, never been blocked, 14,000 edits (over half in mainspace), nearly 2 years on Wikipedia and clearly his home project is happy to support him. As an admin who spends a fair amount of time doing admin and housekeeping on unrelated wikiprojects with which I am connected (believe me, it is needed), I'm happy to support Matthew.
'''Support'''.  Long-term contributor who seems to be familiar with what this project is and how we do it.  Unlikely to abuse tools, and likely to find them useful.  Give him the buttons, already.
'''Support''' - seems ok to me.
'''Support'''. No reason to believe he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. All around good experience in main- and projectspace. No reason to expect anything but the best from him.
'''Support'''.  Lots of talk space edits, lots of adminish work already, uses edit summaries; no reason not to trust him with the tools.  --
'''Support''' Established user with the clear trust of a number of users with whom he has worked constructively over a long period of time. Diverse areas of contributions. Clearly in a position to use the tools well.
'''Support''' Has my complete support!
'''Support''' User has made excellent contributions in the mainspace and elsewhere.
'''Support''' per above; also [[North Dakota]] needs an admin for its project.
'''Support''' - as per [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support.''' He's totally responsible enough for being a sysop.
'''Support''' per Orderinchaos --
'''Support''' I likes what I sees, and I votes how I sees it.
'''Strong support''', recognises when it is best not to do anything, a very valuable attribute.
This is a weak support, because I haven't seen that much project space work from you, but your answers to 1 and 4 indicate that it's unlikely you'll go around closing XfDs and the like; you'll limit the use of the tools to your project (mostly).  Am I correct?
I'm
'''Support''' trustworthy. —
'''Support.''' I have, extremely long ago, interacted with this editor and believe him to be a suitable candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' per good contributions and thoughtful answers to the questions.
'''Support''' I foresee no problems.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' We need more people like him around here! --
'''Support'''- He has seemed to learn from his last RfA, and he can be trusted with the tools and will serve Wikipedia well. Good luck,
'''Support'''.  I have come across his edits and comments many times, and have always found him to be level-headed and fair-minded.  A good bloke.
'''Oppose''' I view users who are nominated for adminship fail to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]]. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - my interaction with him, though mostly limited to ND-related stuff, has always been good.  I feel he can be trusted with the mop and bucket.  -
'''Support''' &mdash; <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. I don't think many truly ''need'' the tools, but adminship "isn't a big deal", so why not give them to someone who has proven trustworthy? <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support''' fine user.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose, fine user. <b>
'''Support''' No problems. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.

'''Support''' About one year overdue.
'''Support''' He has my support.
'''Support''' It's all been said above.  Good luck! --
I admire your countless amount of contributions to the North Dakota WikiProject and all North Dakota related articles, however, at the moment I have a '''neutral''' stance &ndash; I completely trust you with the tools, but in your answer to Question 1, you do not demonstrate a need for admin buttons. You don't have any edits to any administrative areas in the Wikipedia: namespace (apart from some XFDs here and there). I very much appreciate your mainspace contributions, and I hope that my neutral stance does not take away too much from the amount of effort you put into this encyclopedia. Kind regards,
First support comes free with the nom.  Good luck, [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Strong support''' Great teamworker, great writer, very helpful.'''
'''Strongest possible support''', I trust Mattinbgn and his judgement. From my experiences with him, he appears to be wanting to solve disputes, not wanting to inflame them. '''
Had a nomination written in Notepad from about a month ago for this candidate. Giggy's nomination is plentiful, though, to get the picture that Mattinbgn is a fantastic user who would make an excellent administrator. Strong support without reservation. '''
'''Strong support''' of course, meticulous in every way.--
'''Support''' - a delight to work with, a conscientious editor and an asset to the project who would only use the additional tools wisely.--
Obviously. ~
As tempted as I was to vote "protest oppose" because of the seven who voted before transclusion, I just can't.  A quick look through his contribs shows he'll make a great admin.  I also trust Daniel, Riana, Blnguyen, and H<sub>2</sub>0 too much to oppose for that reason.
'''Support''' per the nom and the other comments, above.  We could definitely use some more Admins with great content contributions such as these.
'''Support''' very well-rounded, thorough and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', almost the perfect candidate in my mind.  Enthusiastically endorsed by me.
'''Support''' Well-rounded candidate - excellent article writing, participation in admin-related tasks, nice answers to questions and good Wikipedian, overall. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' even if he is Australian.
'''Support.''' I'm amazed he wasn't an admin ages ago.
'''Support''' good luck!
'''Support''' - excellent reputation & hard worker. Will make a super admin -
'''Support''' a great Australian candidate --
'''Support''' - an excellent contributor to mainspace (Australian place articles), Wikiprojects (WP:ACAT) and Wikipedia via AfD's and deletion sorting. Should have agreed to be an admin ages ago.
'''Support''' but if you stop contributing to mainspace because you like your new toys too much, I might throw all ''my'' toys out of my pram. Good luck. --
'''Support'''... I have never met or worked with mattinbgn, but his history seems excellent and I have few doubts that he will continue to contribute in the same valuable fashion as before. --
'''Support''' - has been an excellent contributor across many areas over a long period of time (and has somehow managed to photograph half of [[commons:Towns_of_Victoria|Victoria]] in between times). --
'''Support''', impressive contributions. --
'''Support''' - excellent history and contribs.
'''Yeah!''' - &mdash;
'''Support''' If anyone votes oppose for the pre-transclusion votes, they're going to get a severe tongue lashing.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Very strong support''' - One of the Australian project's hardest working editors, especially on the thankless administration tasks and on country towns in three states of Australia as well as infobox rollouts, his editing is of high quality, his contributions to AfD debates are consistent and in line with policy, and I have long believed he would make an excellent admin. I have also never once seen him lose his cool with anybody, and he has worked cooperatively with other users in various venues. Thoroughly deserves the mop, and will use it well.
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin.
'''Support'''
Yes, I think so. G'day -
'''Support'''.  Nice editing, will do fine with the tools.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' as he looks good.  I don't get the Aussie rules though. LOL
Phew! - nearly missed this one due to real-life lack of time. '''Absolutely, 100% support''' this great co-worker and part of the Aussie team.  Very glad to see the nomination and my best wishes. --
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' solid contributor whose judgement I trust.  Go the [[WP:AWNB|cabal]]! &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' - No Problems.
'''Support'''. He is making a great contribution and knows what he is doing. Will be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Seen him around and think he'll make good use of, and be trustworthy with the tools. -
I don't get why everyone puts "'''Support'''" when they've already included themselves under the corresponding section.
'''40th support'''
'''Support'''. Makes a nice change to see a candidate who's made significant contributions to the main space. --
'''AAA Support'''. Another Australian Admin. -
'''Support''' -- a fine candidate, more than qualified for the role. -
'''Support''' - Great contributions to Mainspace as well in several WP sections.--
Dihydrogen Monoxide nominated, so that's a good sign, and if Daniel was hoping to nominate, that's a bonus. I can trust this user.
'''Strong Support''' Matt have does some excellent work on Australian related articles and I can see no reason why he can not be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support''' Great editor! He will do a good job as an admin.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions and in general, a great editor.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' Does anything need saying that hasn't been said already?
'''Support''' lots of bloody good 'pedia building. Strewth. cheers,
'''(+)''' Could not hear a better answer to the questions regarding sensitive material.  Overall, no outstanding problems.
'''Support''', kangaroos, barbies, tinnies, bloody sheilas, Harold Bishop, didgeridoos, Mattinbgn - all good things to come out of Australia.
'''Strong Support''' - terrific candidate! A big well done! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Okay.
'''Support'''.  Another one of those people who you always assumed was an admin all along! --
'''Support''' regular contributor to [[WP:ACOTF|Australian collaborations]] too. Definitely past time. --
'''Support''' What ''they said'' the way ''they said'' it and fact that ''they said'' enough said
Of course.
'''Support''' I like neighbours. In all seriousness, excellent candidate. No problems
'''Strong Support''' - As Per Mets501's Nomination. Helpful, happy down to earth guy, who always helps out when help/advice is requested.
'''Support''' - this is a bit of a no brainer, given that the user is already a [[m:steward|steward]], as well as an admin on meta: and ru:.  His work here, as well as there, is invaluable, and, as a member of en-wiki, I feel honoured that he has accepted Mets' request to become a janitor here.
'''Support''' Good user, won't abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' definitely. MaxSem is a very experienced Wikipedian who would make a great admin. A user with his level of dedication should be granted the tools. —
'''Support''' I've seen this user all over the AWB pages.  Seems a very helpful and dedicated user. --
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this user having the admin tools.
'''Support:''' Of course a steward can handle the job :p '''<span style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="#229922">
'''Support''' per nom and candidate's record. No issues or concerns.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support'''--
'''Strong''' and obvious support.  no concerns.'''
'''Support''' Obviously can be very trusted with the tools since he is already a sysop.
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
One of the Wikimedia Foundation's best volunteers [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support'''. Seems like a good, reasonable and levelheaded editor. --
'''Support''' Unable to find anything against you. --
'''Support'''- strong editor, friendly and levelheaded.
'''Strong support''' I first encountered MaxSem back in January (I think it was then). I have seen this user various times and I am glad to strongly support.
'''Strong Support''' MaxSem is a knowledgeable of policy, and I'm sure his experiences at the Russian Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and as a steward make him qualified for adminship here at the English Wikipedia. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''', surely. --'''
'''Support'''. Every reason to trust this user with the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' of course --
'''Strong support''' He's been a pleasure to work with, here and on Meta. Definitely an asset. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support'''. Stewards are some of the most trusted people in the whole Foundation. I certainly trust MaxSem with the tools, because he's already got cooler ones at Meta.
'''Very Strong Support'''-Ummm....he's a steward. If we can trust him with control of all levels on every single foundation wiki, I think we can make him an admin on one. (By the way, when this passes unanimously, can he promote himself :) ) --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
Most definitely. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
He'll certainly be useful.
No doubt -- <b>
'''Support''' His history speaks well for him.
'''Support''' - yep, sign him up.
'''Support''' per others comments.
'''Support''' Very, very reasonable.  English is very good (who cares if it's not native?), and an additional level-headed, sensible admin is always a good idea.
'''Support''' per Nishkid's comment above. &ndash;
'''Support''' - one of the best admins on Russian wiki
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - a very trusted user in many wikimedia projects, however, we should judge the candidate on this one: A very level headed user who is knowledgeable about policy, I like the answers to questions, he will do well.
I '''support''' this candidate.
Yes --
I think he'd make a fine admin here. ++
'''Support''' - if this editor can do ''more'' by having the tools, then he should have them!
'''Support''' - an obvious one.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should be an asset as an administrator considering he is already experienced. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;

'''Support''' While I may have a small bias as a Soviet (привет!), it's not that hard to see that he'd be a perfect candidate. ~
'''Support''' without question, a very experienced Wikipedian indeed. --
'''Support''' Clearly trustworthy and a valued contributor.
'''Support''' never had any trouble with this user.
--
'''Support'''. Already wears many Wikipedia hats - if he wants this one too, great. --
'''Support''' - as per nom..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' dedicated contributor.--
'''Support'''. Should definitely have an admin hat due to his role on AWB alone. --
'''Strong Support''' -- has already provided the English Wikipedia good spam-fighting support in his role as a Meta admin handling the spam blacklist. Some of his pithy one-line responses to spammers complaining there about blacklisting have been classic "keepers" (I wish I'd kept a few). --
'''Support''' I can't think of anything else to say that hasn't already been said, so I will stick with: excellent contributor. :-)
I'm
'''Support'''

'''Support''' - no question --
'''Support''' Helpful guy. Voted for his stewardship before, so, if he declares himself available for recall, how could I possibly not vote for him here? --
'''Support''', Meets my personal standards. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
A bit of a no-brainer, really, but even so his work on enwiki when segregated from his meta duties still show him to be an excellent candidate. '''
'''Support''' If I could find one reason [[User:Ral315/WTHN|not to support]] then I would point it out. But I can't. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - A no brainer.↔
'''Support''' I like the answer to my question.  There appear to be no worries in other areas. <font face="Verdana">
'''Bueno''' -
I see no problems with him being an administrator. --
'''Support'''. All indications that user will use the tools judiciously.
'''Aye'''. A superb diplomat. &mdash;
He isn't one already? --
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''': Total edits = 4513. Inexperienced? NO he's already a sysop, bureaucrat and steward of Meta :-) Good luck --

'''Strong Support''' Knows the ropes? Yes. Experienced? Yes. Gonna support him? Yes. <b><font color="red">[[User:Dep. Garcia|Dep. Garcia]]</font></b> <small> ( <font color="green">[[User talk:Dep. Garcia|Talk]]</font>  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dep._Garcia&action=edit&section=new +] | <font color="blue">[[User:Dep. Garcia/Help Desk|Help Desk]]</font> | <font color="orange">
'''Support''' without slightest doubt. Intelligent and reasonable person. --
'''Support''' as one of the nominators. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.--
'''Support''' seen you around making good edits.
'''Support'''Has an awesome amount of experience across the whole project, and I do not think that one misunderstanding highlighted in his last RfA should carry through. Will make a great admin.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' You mean you're not a sysop already? --
'''weak Support''' I have had many interactions with this user here and on IRC and all have been good. This user is deserving of the tools. Good luck:)--
'''Support''' Im going to assume good faith here and support despite some problems in Mecu's understanding of image policy.  I'm sorry, but policy on fair use is murky, at best.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' because Matthew opposes, you must be doing something right.
Yes, support - assuming good faith, that oppose against PeaceNT was either misunderstood by me, or simply out-of-character. '''
&ndash;
'''Support''': I trust this user in his admin duties, and am willing to dismiss the one incident below as an anomaly if the candidate more conspicuously [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]].
'''Support''' per BigDT.
'''Support.''' Helpful user whom I have seen around, as per the last RfA.
Knowledgeable user etc. I am ok with process wonkery. Does good work. -- <b>
'''Support''', seen him around editing, good user. I can trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' - [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] has a good point to oppose but I [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND|don't]] see it that way cause I believe you are more than ready..Keep striving for excellence ..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, helpful and friendly.
'''Support''' A great candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support based on contributions'''. A lot of what he does is policy wonkery, but it's very well-done policy wonkery. The upload wizard is a great idea, and his image contributions and work on Commons are admirable. I also see him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHMM13&diff=prev&oldid=134388077#WP:BITE defending newbies] and dealing with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-03-30&diff=prev&oldid=119087296 Articles for Creation] backlog, a thankless job that I tried once and quickly grew tired of. Overall, I am impressed.
'''Support''' per rspeer. No serious deal-breakers. —'''
'''[[I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!|Butter]] Support''' '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Mecu has been doing good steady work to build and maintain the encyclopedia. He could do more on the maintenance side as an Admin -
'''Support''' Editor has demonstrated a need for the tools, and nothing to suggest that the editor will misuse the tools.
'''Support.''' You will be a great help in the image namespace, sorting everything out over there i'm sure.
'''Support''' a good candidate.
<big>'''+'''</big> It will help the user's editing and Wikipedia in a beneficial way.  I care little about how people express themselves in RfA.  Grudges and grandstanding are all aside here.  I think some folks could use a nice walk with some fresh air.  Adminship isn't a cookie.  It's more like fruitcake.
'''Support''' Mecu was the first person I ran into that tagged one of my images. He told what to do and why and we got it fixed. He's knowledgeable but not perfect. Nevertheless, I think we give him the mop.
'''Support''' - as co-nom.
'''Support''' - Looks fine to me. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Strong support''' Prolific worker, need more Commons/WP admins, need more people who get images (I have pointed out [[Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about images on Wikipedia]], which he assisted in writing, to people who ask me questions about images over e-mail... for that page alone, I think he merits support). Regarding the PeaceNT thing... at 72 supports, 1 oppose doesn't make a dent, but it does help the nominee understand where they might be going wrong. RfA is a discussion, not a vote, as far as I remembered... not just an occasion for everyone to talk about how much they adore a person's work, but also a venue for constructive feedback. <small>We are also suffering from a serious shortage of admins who are fans of Death Cab for Cutie.</small>
'''Support''' Concerns of wonkery do not convince me to oppose. There are many good things, so I will support.
'''Support''', I think Riana has succintly expressed my thoughts.  Adminship should not be considered a big deal when the user has shown that they are capable of great things.  --
'''Support''' the only problem with this user appears to be that he cares a lot about our fair use policies.  But I'm struggling to understand how exactly that's any sort of detriment.  The fact that Mecu opposed a handful of popular candidates does not strike me as any sort of valid reason to oppose his RFA -- in fact, it strikes me as completely unrelated to using the admin tools. --
'''Support'''  Why not? Seems like a very good editor to me. <b>
'''Support''', I don't see anything to suggest he's an anti-fair use fanatic in general (if he is, correct me), although he takes a hard line on userspace. He opposed me in my last RfA for having some fair use images in my userspace that had been sitting around unnoticed for two years, which I found rather unreasonable, but I can look past that. The answer to question 4 is very good.
'''Support''' per noms and Riana. '''
'''Support''' per nominators and above. Great user, very friendly. If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]].
'''Support''' Per above. We always need admins willing to do image work.
'''Support'''. In all of my dealings with Mecu, I've found him to be knowledgeable about policy and how to apply it. We certainly need more help at IFD. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''
'''Support'''. [[User:Mecu|Mecu]] knows his stuff. It would have been better to double check all his uploads complied with policy before throwing rocks at others - but I won't oppose for that reason alone. From his recent contribs it appears that the issues that convinced me to oppose the last RfA have been resolved. He is an effective admin on Commons and users with sysop rights on both projects are very useful. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Yo. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' - Plenty of good reasons listed above. --
'''Support''' I would like to see another image admin. --
'''Support''' All the reasons above are good, and I do not agree with '''one''' of the comments an oppose person left. He is ready for adminship.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Two co-nominations by very good users, looks like this user won't abuse the tools, makes very good contributions, and the Commons RfA strongly convinces me that this user will work very well with the images portion of administrative activity. I've never interacted with this user, but I've seen this user several times. What else can I say... '''
'''Oppose''' — Sorry, but: '''not yet'''. I think you're here to help the project, but I do not believe you're admin material [yet]. Your primary/only editing habits at Wikipedia are to tag image, using scripts, some consider that helpful (I'm one of them)... but I consider writing an encyclopaedia to be more important. I must also oppose you for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PeaceNT&diff=133218190&oldid=133185547 this oppose] to the RfA of [[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]], frankly I found that to be pretty lame policy wonkery -- we do take copyright seriously, but we do not chastise users who're [[WP:IAR|bending the rules]] to improve the encyclopaedia. Secondly I'm not sure if you understand our [[WP:NFCC|NFCC]] fully, see [[:Image:Dan McCarney.jpg|this image]] which is replaceable fair use, with a rationale not compliant with the NFCC. A few more with incorrect rationales: [[:Image:Bobby Anderson football.jpg|this]] and [[:Image:Rashaan Salaam.jpg|this]]. You're here in good faith, but you're just not yet ready yet. Sort the issues presented here and I'll likely support your next RfA.
'''Oppose''' we don't need more process wonks. I think your opposes on RfAs (often the only one) regarding an accidental use of a fair use image in userspace is ludicrous. Particularly in PeaceNT's case, she was working on an article, helping to improve the encyclopedia - something I note you don't do much of. Can't you forgive and forget one small mistake? Especially as she has no intention to work with images. Basically Matthew sums it up nicely. '''
'''Oppose''' per the first two opposers.  '''
'''Oppose''' per first two as well. --'''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Weak Oppose''' While I think this user does extremely good work where we need more users, the strict standards that led him to oppose an otherwise well qualified admin candidate (PeaceNT) makes me question his priorities (the betterment of the project or strict process). <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per the previous objections, I'm sure he's a wonderful person I just don't think that'd he'd make good use of the admin tools and considering his past attitude wikipedia would be better off without his adminship.
'''Oppose, sort of''' My only contact with this user is related to his goofy attempt to get [[Thrones (band)]] and other [[Southern Lord]]-related articles deleted.  For all I know he's done tons of great stuff that outweighs that, but that makes me apprehensive about him being an admin. --
'''Neutral''' As I said to another user, I'm not in a "voting" mood today.  As soon as I saw the name Mecu, I thought, Yes!  This is someone I know and trust.  But that oppose to PeaceNT's RFA is just strange.  She's got 67 support votes, she's a shoo-in to be promoted, and you throw in a random comment about one fair use image too many in userspace.  I'm not accusing you of anything terrible, but I just don't understand what you intended to accomplish.  RFA has the dual purpose of facilitating a positive result and providing the user with constructive advice and criticism.  For you, I would endorse the hoped-for result, but I would also offer some criticism, i.e. to [[WP:UCS|use common sense]].  Cheers!
'''Neutral'''. I wasn't impressed by that oppose vote on PeaceNT's RfA; it was clear the fair use images hadn't been put there on purpose or with the intent on staying there for any time longer than she worked on the article. This seems like a disruptive,  bad faith assuming attitude which is compelling me to withhold any stance seeing as I've never interacted with this user and therefore can't make any final judgments. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Neutral'''.  The user's overall contributions look good to me, but the above mentioned opposition to PeaceNT's RfA does leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I also believe that too much strict devotion to process is a dangerous trait for decisionmakers.  That incident is just enough to keep me from supporting.
'''Neutral''' I like what I see, but the issues raised above prevent me from submitting a support vote.  I'm not sure, so I'll stay neutral here.
Per my nomination.
'''Support''' long-time contributor of real content with a mature and sensible demeanour.  Will make a good sysop.  &mdash;
'''Support''' Good editor, with a healthy edit count. I see no major problems!
'''Support''' Plenty of article building. Little wikipoliticing. Plenty of communication. <span style="font-family:Times; color:red; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:white;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">—
'''Support''' There has been ''lots'' of article building from this candidate.  No specific edits jump out at me (unless I'm missing something).  Suggest that you do a little vandal fighting so you know when and when not to block users.  Good luck, <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:Vishwin60|action=edit&section=new}} →]
'''Support''' What vish said =)  &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' We all have different skills, and very few of us have all of them. This user will make good use of his particular skills as an admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''': you have proven that you can be trusted with the tools, and I think that you will make a good admin. It does seem that you haven't had a lot of experience dealing with heated topics, you may want to roll up your sleeves and participate in some afd debates or similar just to get your feet wet. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be an excellent and trusted editor. I agree with [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]]'s comments below. We need more administrators who understand the encyclopedia, not just the policies and processes. --
'''Support'''  I trust Melburnian not to abuse the tools, if he needs more talks pages edits, there 18,000+ [[WP:AUS]] still needing assessment and rating I'm sure there [[WP:PLANTS]] other projects have similar assessment needs.
'''Support''' A trusted and reliable editor who can be relied upon not to abuse the tools.  Will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. <sup>changed from oppose</sup> You are a great contributor, and you will definately help the encyclopedia. M queries on my oppose below have been answered by others, in regards to the oppose below mine. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Simple: I trust this user. It's not something I can say about a lot of candidates. '''
'''Support''' - trustworthy and strong '''editor''' - that's quite unusual in RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - I like an admin who doesn't set out to become one. So the user is not 'chatty,' - I'm over it. There are so many complaints that potential admins lack article building experience. So I say let's rectify that and create a diverse and qualified pool of administrators. (I totally pulled the diversity card)
'''Support'''. Contributions in Wikipedia processes (deletion, etc.) is limited, but is not empty either. From what I can see of various talk-space contributions, the opinions and comments are sensible and polite. The candidate is well-experienced, and can be trusted with admin tools. Exceptionally strong contributions in writing articles is a huge plus as well as it demonstrates insight into the main Wikipedia product, and makes for an excellent role model.
'''Support'''. The candidate is a good contributor.
'''Support''', seems bright and sensible enough.
'''Support''' — This is a good candidate and receives my full support.
'''Support''' reliable person. —
'''Support''' - This is an established editor with a history of solid contributions to the project who can be trusted to use the tools responsibly.
'''Support''' I agree with what Neil and Matthew said.
'''Support''' I am quite pleased with the comment in Q1 which suggests the need to maintain a stable environment. I also associate my self with those opposing G1ggy's comments below. In perusing every oppose vote below (as of this moment) I see nothing other than "maybe's" and "I don't knows." In the absence of objective evidence to the contrary, I support.
'''Support''' Strong contributor of content, see no reason why this user won't be able to handle the tools, no matter where s/he decides to help out.
'''Support''', from my own observations, Melburnian is a pleasant, hardworking editor, and that he comes recommended by Hesperian means a very great deal. Although I find Sarah's statements very persuasive, and suspect they will sway the majority of those considering the candidate, I personally sympathise with the view that we need more encyclopædia-focused administrators and believe Melburnian is worth taking a chance on. I can't foresee any problems resulting from the candidate being enabled with a few extra tabs.--
'''Support''' One of the finer contributors on wikipedia. Wiki needs more "main-space admins" and more admins in general. Seems to do everything right, im sure he wont fall in a big heap and go crazy deleting stuff, so why not trust him with the articles?
'''Support'''. This user is very different from me. That is to say, he actually spends most of his wiki-time improving articles, while I tend to discuss everything over and over again till everyone gets bored. :-) Anyway, I feel this user is a good candidate. Just as I don't see the point in opposing candidates for "not enough article editing", I also don't think it's fair to oppose them for "not enough discussion". Wikipedians are very diverse; some participate in a lot of discussions, some focus on maintenance work, some write and improve articles. All these things are valuable, and all can make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Good 'pedia builder. I have stumbled over plenty of articles where Melburnian's been there first. I resent the idea of a pedia builders and admins being separate. I find most of my admin functions I use are the ones related to 'pedia building ''(uncontroversial moves and protects)'' The ultimate question is whether wikipedia will have a net benefit from this tilt at adminship being successful and the answer is clearly '''yes''' cheers,
'''Support''' a good candidate who will use the tools when necessary in his development of articles within his sphere of focus.  So Melburnian won't be up there clearing great swathes through CSD, AfD or vandals, but every blocked page move, nonsense talk page delete, history merge, bad image clear, or page protect he performs within his area of expertise will be one less thing to do for every other admin.  He won't abuse the tools.  --
'''Support.''' Perfectly good candidate.
'''Support''' See nothing to sugget will abuse the tools.
'''weak support'''. Strong constributor to the encyclopedia, no evidence to suggest he'll abuse the tools. I'm not impressed by the low participation in WP:space, but answers to questions seem to indicate knowledge and ability to learn. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Strong Support''' - User has made many encyclopaedic contributions, I see on reason to think they would abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''- Per above. Would make good admin.
'''Strong Support''' Melburnian on every occasion I've run into him has been helpful, cooperative and civil. He works hard on improving articles, some of which began in a truly awful state, and has contributed very high quality photos to several articles I've written or worked on (hence how I came across him to begin with). I think he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - not all admins spend hours and hours doing admin activity (although admittedly the encyclopedia would be much improved if they did). I would like to think that my successful RFA was justified, despite the fact that I average less than 200 log entries per year (including page moves...).
'''Support''' per nom. Wonderful and dedicated writer, and those talk page edits confirm his sensibility and civility. He will use with the tools responsibly, no doubt at all.
'''Weak support''' The concerns of Sarah are, to be sure, not insignificant, especially for those of us who continue to believe that one's mainspace editing is generally altogether irrelevant to his fitness for adminship, but the candidate here appears, on the whole, to be possessed of the sound judgment, civil demeanor, and deliberative disposition the presence of which are quite propitious in a prospective admin, such that I think it likely that he will not act abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know [Xoloz is quite right to observe that there is no grand record here from which to determine Melburnian's conversance with policy and that it is probably fair to say that he is not as familiar with policies generally as are other candidates whom one encounters]) the tools and that one can conclude with some confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' wether he uses the admin tools once a day or once a year, the overall benefit will be to the project. If he was requesting administrator status to be like me, write the encyclcopedia little, but involve himself heavily with the various noticeboards, [[CAT:CSD]]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFCN]] and [[WP:UAA]] as well as the policy pages [[WP:DEL]], [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:BLP]] like I am I would expect to see large amounts of activity in those areas. However he is not, he is putting himself as a great editor that can help the encyclopedia by applying admin tools in his areas of interest. Those that oppose must ask yourself wether you trust the user with the tools... can you trust him to not maliciously fuck things up, not run roughshod over consensus? I believe we can. No user gets to this level editing without playing nice, warning signs would have appeared a long time ago. So, having established you trust him, can we now establish that should he make a mistake, he will accept any critiscism/suggestions for change graciously? That should he make a mistake it won't be irreversable? That requires a little bit more of a stretch, but I believe since we have already established that he is an editor with a good reputation and an easy demenour that has demonstrated through his dedication to improving the encyclopedia that he is working for the benefit of the encyclopedia not against it, and should therefore should be a good admin who is open to constructive critiscism etc, as all admins should be.
'''Support''' - Looks okay to me.
'''Support''' Demonstrated commitment. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' -- good user.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  We need more admins who care about and work on improving articles, not just people who've reverted vandalism a couple of thousand times and never dealt with anything else.
This user has made 113 edits to the project space.  I had about the same in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/G1ggy|my first RfA]], but I had a total of 600 edits, so you can see the difference there.  I just don't feel comfortable trusting Melburnian with the mop and bucket when he has such limited participation in administrative tasks.  I also have very little idea of how the user would use the tools, but Q4's answer may change this.  Obviously the mainspace work is commendable, but you don't need the tools to do that. [[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:G1ggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' Inexperience is wiki-space leaves the candidate ill-suited to perform many administrative tasks.  Please return to RfA in three months, after having tested the waters there more extensively.
'''Oppose''' with apologies and respect for the candidate and particularly, the nominator. I just can't support someone who has less than 70 user talk edits (and at least half of those are edits to talk pages of friends). I don't like arbitrary RfA standards and I always try to evaluate candidates holistically, but I honestly believe that communication skills in admins is a critical quality and becomes increasingly so as the site's popularity increases. 67 user talk edits is not in the [[Melbourne Cricket Ground|MCG]] of being enough for me. I would defer to article talk but unfortunately there have only been 346 article talk edits since 5 November 2005 and WP talk isn't much help either with only 19 total edits. I looked closely at article talk but the vast majority are template placement and ratings, notices, reverts and other minor edits. This RfA will probably pass anyway, but I'm sorry I personally can't support it. A very large part of admin work involves communication and ~400 total user talk, article talk and WP talk edits since November 2005 doesn't let me get an idea of your ability to communicate with people, particularly problem and  difficult people, rather than just your friends. Sorry Melburnian. And sorry Hesp. '''[[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]]''' 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Also, I see that Melburnian is a great contributor to content. As we are often told, adminship isn't a big deal, but it also isn't a reward, a ranking of important or quality editors or the pinnacle of participation. You currently don't do much vandal fighting, and though you stated in your answer to question four, "AfD is something I'm constantly monitoring and participate in", I could only find around ten edits to XfD since November 2005, and you have stated that your primary interest at Wikipedia is article creation. There's no rule that says that all our valued editors must become admins and in all honesty, I don't think we'd be doing you or the project any favours by making you an admin. I think you should be left in peace to continue creating the valued content you have stated wish to create, without being distracted by the rubbish which so often distracts and absorbs the time of admins. '''
'''Oppose''' Need a little bit more WP edits to get better versed with WP policy.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  This was no fun.  One of the few applicants whom I've seen lately that's not obsessed with the process instead of building an encyclopedia.  Unfortunately, I'm concerned that they have not spent time in the talkspace of articles and in fighting vandalism.  I really like the fact that they are involved editors of a wide range of articles.  I think the applicant needs to learn the rules, help in policing articles (even ones outside of their immediate experience).  Maybe next time, I'll be wildly in support.
'''Oppose''' a combination of the above opposition votes has lead me to vote this way.  While I wouldn't oppose yo simply for the low number of WP edits, but the low number of those combined with lack of user talk edits (most of those you have made were to your friends talk pages) has led me to my position.  '''
'''Oppose''' The low number of WP and UT edits does not adequately demonstrate the level of experience and need for the tools that I am looking for. I applaud the user's contributions and suggest a further nomination after further experience has been gained, which I would support. --
'''Neutral''' I like the article building and such, but am somewhat discouraged by the only 67 user talk edits so far.  I believe and admin should communicate and communicate often with others.  I want to support, but this is just nagging me a bit too much.
'''Neutral''' - I have been forced into this position after considering the comments of both the opposes and supports. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' There is so much dedicated work here that to oppose seems wrong. However I am deeply worried about your lack of user interaction - an admin '''will''' be involved in contentious decisions and an ability to communicate is essential - and this is simply not evidenced by <nowiki>~</nowiki>70 user talk page contributions. I have [[WP:AGF|no reason to doubt]] you can communicate but no reasons to believe that you can either. Sorry, but best wishes in this RFA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. A high post count does not a good editor make, Plus, I've read a lot of this editor's work and it is outstanding. However, an admin needs to have a strong background in dealing with the project's administrative functions. I don't feel that it's bad to have an admin that works entirely in Wikipedia proper, nor do I feel that it's bad to have an admin who works entirely on project space. But a candidate should show a strong understanding of both. I would like to see a few more project space edits.
'''Neutral'''. Solid contributions to encyclopedia building; however, I too am worried that the editor lacks experience in communication and wikipedia project space at this time.
'''Neutral, leaning support''' An excellent editor. Nothing in your contribs suggest you will abuse the tools. However, there is very little that I can tell about your ability to deal with heated conflicts and your ability to judge consensus from your limited WP: and talk edits.
'''Neutral'''. Very solid contributions to encyclopedia building; however, I too am worried that the editor lacks experience in communication - achieving consensus requires communication and only 67 talk page edits?  I will support next nomination if the candidate vastly increases communication with others in the interim.
First to support.  Has 10000 edits, almost 1 year, yep!
Mistakes from 4 months ago?  I can get over them.  I see no reason to worry about previous minor missteps. Full support.
'''Support'''we do need more admins on AIV and good answer to Q3 --
'''Support''' Absolutely. Meno25 is a user I had a lot of interactions with. Meno might have started off with some good faith mistakes but he has evolved into an experienced user and Wikipedian. He has done a good deal of gnomish work and, I believe, almost single handedly set up WikiProject Egypt and assessed its in-scope articles. He has been making some good efforts in vandalism fighting, a job he does very well. Overall, I believe he is a decent user with good experience and no problems, so let's give him a mop. -
'''Support''' Humble and sincere.
'''Support''' High level of contribution and humility, and it's all about trust, right?  Good luck.
'''Support''' I support this candidate to be an administrator based on a review of work done.  I certify that I do not personally know the candidate nor do I have a stake in the outcome.
'''Support'''I appreciate the transparency in reporting the journey to becoming a good editor!--
'''Support''' It is good to see candidates who immediately admit the mistakes they made previously in their history as a Wikipedia editor. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' - agreed with all comments above.
'''Support''' This user shows how one can learn from their mistakes; adminship doesn't require perfection from the start. Also, Teke, that was very well written nomination.
'''Support as the nominator'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. A very good editor, and one who will not abuse the tools as far as I can tell. Twiddle away! ···
'''Support.''' not much to say, except... good luck! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''-Seems good. --
'''Support''' I seem to have a good impression of the candidate from his work about the place.--
'''Support''' Seems like he would make a good admin. Good luck:) --
'''Support''' per Sir James.
'''Support''' per all of the above. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - article writing, consensus building, deletion process, help desk and vandalism fighting all present and correct. Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks well rounded and qualified.--
'''Support''' I know Meno25 from both Arabic, English WPs and Commons, excellent contributer --
'''Support''' - Good all around candidate.  We need more admins from Egypt. --
'''[[Walk like an Egyptian|Support]]  '''
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' Some obvious missteps along the way but seems very able to admit mistakes, correct course and move on in a positive and improved manner. Admirable and capable IMHO. Play "Moppin' Blues" loudly.
'''Support''' From what I can see, a superb editor who has learned the hard way &ndash; often the ''best'' way &ndash; and has come out the other side the better for it! Would be a valuable addition to the admin group.
'''Support''' Despite early mistakes, this user has clearly shown a turnaround and could use the admin tools well. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' I've seen Meno around and i trust him. -- ''
'''Support''' Looks good to me! <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
I'm
'''Support''', why not?--
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' per nom., especially the Wikignome work.

See nothing wrong here... --
<b>
'''Support''' Happy to give my support. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' great projectspace edit count.
'''Support'''.  Lots of edits, honest, graceful.
'''Support'''. See no reason why abuse of tools would occur, higher mainspace edits than average etc. Good luck! —
'''Support''' - Strong editor. '''
'''Support''' Seems like a fine admin candidate. '''
'''Support''' - He has a good balance of mainspace, user talk, and other edits, and he seems right for the job. <small>''[[User talk:Anecdote|IT'S DA...]]''</small>'''
'''Support''' - Per noms, nothing here causes me to worry.
'''Support''' - Good WikiGnome. Nothing big for opposition. '''
'''Support''' - Decent question answers, I trust him with tools, seems like a solid candidate.
Why not? He won't do any harm. '''
I'm
I checked some of his contributions, and everything I've seen has indicated that he will be a good admin. He does good work researching, editing, and maintaining articles, and I find his viewpoints to be reasonable and insightful in policy discussions.
'''Support''' as per Bearian and regular and consistent editor since May 2005.
'''Support''' Good balance between cleaning up and building the project.  Anyone who is so obsessive about references as I am deserves support.
'''Support''' Really enjoyed reading '''nom's''' talk page.
'''Support''' no issues here.
'''Support''' per good answers to my questions and lack of a reason to oppose. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' - the experience this user has gained is brilliant. Great candidate. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Contribution history looks fine, no civility problems but mainly answers to Mr Z Man's questions. Excellent. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support.''' His contributions look good as well as his answers to the questions.
Fine user.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've seen Metropolitan90 around and can remember wondering why he wasn't a sysop. I'm happy to see he's asking the community to fix that. :-) --
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' I looked at some of his work and some of his comments and I really like the style of  Metropolitan90. I trust and hope that he will use the tools with wisdom. Good luck! <b><font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' very active in the CSD world and lots of deleted edits to show it.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Neutral''' I know this comment won't change the outcome but I'd like to have it stated for the record.  I only have one experience interacting with [[User:Metropolitan90]] (in relation to the Nobel Prize articles).  [[User:Metropolitan90]] decided to participate in an [[Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists|RFC]] by only giving a vote.  I asked him to revisit the RFC and include an explanation on [[User talk:Metropolitan90#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists|his talk page]] at 22:38, 22 September 2007, but he has not bothered to reply (7 days later) despite being active on Wikipedia during that time.  This makes me wonder if he will, as an admin, make decisions without explaining himself and refuse to reply when requested.  That hardly seems like appropriate behavior for an admin.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''', as the candidate seems to have experience with many of the functions most frequently in need of administrator intervention. The candidate's speedy deletion tags seem well placed, though I'd encourage additional attention to AfD's if approved as an admin. No concerns otherwise.
'''Support''' - but I am slightly concerned about the high number of automated edits. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  A bit dull even for a WikiGnome, but he meets all my standards.  No reason to distrust.
'''Support.''' Appears to be a solid user. Have you ever met Weird Al though? He's a nice guy.
'''Support''' No reason to distrust this user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions.
'''Support'''. Reports to AIV show a good level of blocking policy knowledge. Seems to have need for the tools, in areas where his lack of WP edits isn't too bad of a deal.
'''Support''' - [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amarkov_3|It's about the quality, not the quantity]].  The nom makes solid edits to the mainspace, and the Wikipedia edits he does have show considerable knowledge of policy.  I'd actually point to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Ironmen]] as probably the best example I found of this, as he properly references and applies [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOT]] and, more importantly, shows the ability and willingness to change one's position as new information appears.  [[:wiktionary:Appendix:Internet_slang#I|IMHO]], these are two extremely desirable characteristics in a potential admin. --
Won't abuse the tools, we need more sports contributers as administators
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
Clearly trustworrthy '''<font color="red">
'''Support''', for good answer to a tough question.
'''Strong Support''' A exemplary Wikipedian, I have had the pleasure of meeting this user in meatspace. His dedication to the Wikipedia Project is unwavering, and it is my honor to endorse this user for the mop. --'''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose other than the lack of WP Edits compared to other edits.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong Support''' Like you, I often spend hours on Wikipedia without making any edits, or just fixing minor typos, because I'm actually reading articles! You have appraised my (admitedly rotten) question well - if you don't get the tools we miss out on you helping out with them. Nothing in the contribution history concerns me, and whilst it's not demonstrable, reading both articles and meta discussions gives one a solid background for adminship. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' - no reason why not. &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''' - conducive to 'pedia building. cheers,
I&nbsp;
'''Support''' good work at CSD & lots of deleted edits to show it.
No reason to oppose.
'''Weak Oppose''' per the unfortunate lack of projectspace work... hence, certainly a lack of work in admin-related areas.
'''Oppose''' per Jmlk7.  A minimal level of wiki-space participation is a necessity for an admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' per above.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
Sorry, but too few contribs to WP space (around 204 + 38 to their talk pages).
'''Neutral'''.  Sasha is right.  The Project space edits are a little low.  I can't support now, but won't oppose either.  Good luck anyway.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''' leaning toward oppose. Not enough projectspace work or user talk interaction for me to be able to support. <font face="Broadway">
'''Extreme nominator support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Strong Support''' Is voting even open yet? Anyways, this is one of the few people I think would make a ''perfect'' admin. ·
'''Strong Support''' - Wow, two of my friends say yes so far, so now I do too! '''
'''Strong support''' he'll do excellently. Good luck! '''
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom. ~
'''Support''' A great user who I see often.--
'''Strong support''' (cliché warning) - good luck!
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Fuck yeah.
'''Strong Support''' - Perfect image of an administrator. Good luck, Michael!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Not much to add to the very thorough nomination. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - Wow.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Strong Support''' On my to-nominate list, as well. <yodaspeak>A great candidate for adminship Michael is.</yodaspeak> '''
I'm
'''Support''' I'm [[User:Captain panda|Captain panda]] and I approve [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer diablo's]] message! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' This user is definitly an admin canidate. No doubts.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support''' Familiar with the policies and definitely eager to help.--
'''Sure''', let Michael have the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - trustworthy nominators, seen this chap around a fair chunk doing the right thing.
'''Support''' Trust the nominators and the candidate. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Wow that's like 10 times more than my edits. I see practically no reason at all to object. [[User:AstroHurricane001/ASTRO|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:AstroHurricane001|<font color="Purple">stroHur</font>]][[WP:WPTC|<font color="Gray">ricane</font>]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs|<font color="green">00</font>]][[Comet McNaught|<font color="Red">1</font>]]<sup>([[User_talk:AstroHurricane001|Talk]]+[[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|Contribs]]+
'''Support''' An excellent candidate. —
'''Support''' I have seen his excellent work on here. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support'''. '''

'''Support'''
'''Support''' I'm not sure what to add.
'''Support'''. I would however urge the candidate to mark his more minor edits as minor. This is not a major concern, though. --
'''Support'''. Has the need for the tools, the experience to use the tools correctly, and the demeanor to use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' Friendly, hard-working and helpful, I think adding the tools to his palette could only be a good thing for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Trustworthy of the tools. Peace, <span style="color:#006400">♣</span>

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' excellent nom! Great and trustworthy candidate. -
'''Support'''. Great contributor.--
'''Support''': Very good contributions and per his answers. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''. ''
'''Support''' per [[User:Dev920|Dev920]]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - Yes. -
'''Support''' - no problems here
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Looks like an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' per responses and overall record. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Michael is an excellent candidate and I am confident he will be a fantastic, fair admin. '''
'''Support''' Hardworking, qualified, helpful - will do a good job.
'''Support'''. —
Ja. - <b>
'''Support''' Very good candidate. I will respect this user's [[South Park|authoritah]]. <font color="green">
'''Support''' <!-- [[Image:Barnstar.png|100px]].... image commented out, maybe leave it on his talk page :) -->he's been helpful to me - and will be an asset to the encyclopedia as an admin. --'''
'''Support''' good candidate.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[User:Zouavman Le Zouave|Zouavman Le Zouave]] <sub>([[User talk:Zouavman Le Zouave|Talk to me!]] •
'''Support'''. I see no valid reason why this user would abuse the mop. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Support''' Sweet.
'''Support''', until [[User:Runcorn|Runcorn]] proves his/her claims. <i><b>
'''Support''' Seen some good solid work from this editor all over. Most impressed with the effort put into peer reviews, GA and FAC. Extra tools will go a long way, I reckon.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''-Great user. See him around plenty. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Strong Support''' You know why. ''Get on it!'' Cheers,
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': I am amazed at his responsiveness - I sent him a wikipedia mail with a message, and his response was immediate. We require responsive administrators. --
'''Support'''. See no problems.
'''Support''' per Runcorn's diffs (yes, I know Runcorn opposed). User showed a good knowledge of policy in these debates, and was in my opinion quite correct.
I've only interacted with him/watched his editing recently, and I am not terribly impressed with the strengths of the opposes. What I saw was administrator material, and the below opposes are nothing compared to his attributes. '''
'''Support''' - Fine contributor all-round. --
'''Support''' - The most efficient WP user I know. He knows all policies/guidelines off by heart. -
'''Support''', based on previous interactions with this user. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' I was neutral before but I've changed my mind, I cant hold it against you just for what could be a technical fault. Good luck! <b><font color="FF0000">

'''Support''' -
'''Oppose''' User has shown some bad judgements on AfD, attempting to get good articles deleted and to get keep votes overturned on DRV.  This gives me no confidence in his ability to close AfDs himself.--
'''Oppose''' I was involved in the discussions linked above and agree with Runcorn.  I will retract if I can be convinced that Michaelas10 has learnt from this and would not repeat what happened then. --
'''Oppose''' I know that my vote will not affect the outcome, but if it makes Michaelas10 think and not repeat his mistakes then I'm not wasting my time.--
'''Oppose'''  From what I have personally seen of this user, he is a deletionist following his own agenda even when an article has recently been through a deletion debate.  (I have no opinion of how he might be useful in relatively minor backwaters of administration.)  He does not seem to have an understanding of how an interactive encyclopedia must build over time and I feel he would be detrimental to the encyclopedia.  --
'''Strong Oppose'''  User:Michaelas10 has shown great personal vindictiveness against me in connection with the 2nd [[Wipipedia]] RFD, and went through a whole long rigamarole nonsense of misusing warning tags on my user talk page, while refusing to give any concrete specific non-speculatively-hypothetical replies to any of my concerns, which has all left a very sour taste in my mouth -- and given me very strong feelings that I don't want him to be given any additional powers which he will probably end up misusing in the end.
&mdash;
'''Very Strong Support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
I'm
''' Why wasn't he nominated ages before? Strong Support!
'''Support.''' It is true that I was quite concerned about Michael and that I opposed his previous RfA. However, during the last four months, I've kept an eye out for him and I feel he has proven himself to be a mature, intelligent, reliable and trustworthy Wikipedian. Michael has assisted me with admin-related jobs such as identifying/confirming open proxies and I feel very strongly that he has the knowledge, skills, maturity and personal commitment to the project to become an outstanding administrator. I have recently considered offering to nominate Michael myself because I do believe that he is ready for adminship and so this may be considered a co-nom from [[Bay 13]]. '''
'''Support'''. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Yes'''.
'''Weak Support''' Great user, and I'd have been more enthusiastic had Mike's first RfA not been smalled. Make it into a wikilink if you want, but the full text should be of the same size.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' the nom said it, thought he was one... '''
'''Strong Support''', great guy.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Sounds like a great, great admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' definitely.

'''Support''' Very qualified candidate -- bit of a "cliche" moment here! :)
'''Keep-on-rambling support''' - good luck!
'''Support'' Does good grunt work around here.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Good candidate. --
'''Support''' - will make an excellent admin. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' - per Sarah. --
'''Strong Support'''. Michael is a knowledgeable and helpful user on Wikipedia (see his clerical work at [[WP:RFCU]] and [[WP:CHU]]). He was on my to-nominate list. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good, well-rounded experience. Will make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Sure thing.
Yup. '''
'''Support''', indeed. --'''
'''Support''' Looks like another great admin-in-the-making. —
'''Support'''. I supported last time, and nothing has changed my mind since then.
'''Support'''. I have come across this editor and feel sure he can be trusted as an admin. --
'''Support'''. '''

'''Support'''' Looks capable, level-headed and practiced.
'''Support''' Experience in various admin-type jobs qualifies Michael for the mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Mature, experienced editor who deserves the mop, in my view.
'''Support''' Sound, experienced candidate.
'''Support''' OITHWAAA™ ~
'''Support'''. <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">
'''Support.''' Well qualified for the mop
'''Support''' Good addition.--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strong Support''' definitely has the experience. Would surely be an asset to the admin team. -
'''Yup.'''' Thought he was, etc. Gave me my first barnstar, I seem to recall. Enjoy your mop. Handle with care! --
'''Strong Support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Shoop da Woop support''': strong candidate, will do great things for the project.
'''Oh! I thought he was admin already!''' ''
'''Looks-like-you-might-pass-this-one! Support''' All the good things happen when I take time off <code>:P</code> &mdash; [[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[User:Deon555/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub><font color="orange">[[User:Deon555/Desk|'''desk''']]</font></sub><sup><font color="brown">
I thought he was..... '''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - I know it's a cliche, but: I thought he was... -
'''Support''' He's not an admin, but he should be. Seen many positive contribs coming from this account. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' -- I have no reason to doubt this editors usage of administrator tools. -
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Strong Support''' This user clearly demonstrates the qualities of an admin.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support'''.  Of course. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good experience. <font face="monospace">
You couldn't escape adminship forever! Mwahaha! --
'''Strong Support''' I once offered to nominate him; I still think he's a good candidate. ·
'''Support''', Very capable.
'''Support'''. Good contributor with experience.
'''Support''' - sounds like someone who is doing great work already, and will only help even more if given the tools. —
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">


'''Support''' a good candidate --
I thought you were one, too.  But now it seems that is going to become official.
'''Support''' per Tyrenius.--
'''Support''', understanding that this would be a strong oppose if the nominee were the one who actually posted the thing over at the noticeboard. It is ''not'' a good  thing to do, but I can hardly fault the nominee for other people's mistakes. -
'''Support''' Dude! You're, like, fabulous. Go go go forth and clean well with a will.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. Based on contributions and actions, seems to be a very solid individual who will be an asset as an admin. ···
'''Support'''. I don't see any reasons for significant concern.
'''Support''' → The user seems experienced enough. <i><b>
'''Support'''-Seems good and experienced. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' Good Candidate, Admin tools are warranted.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' – Especially per his answer to Q3 where he has been active in dealing with spam and vandalism. Looks good.
'''Support''' I am suprised his is not an admin already!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' It's about time --
'''Support''' - trustworthy experienced user.
'''Support''' Yeah, you can have it. Please don't abuse the mop.

'''Support''' One of the nice, helpful users in a place full of idiots (i.e. IRC). --
'''Support'''
Would make great admin --
'''Support''' hells yeah
'''Oppose'''  While it seems that the community has quite a bit of trust in Mr. Billington, I must respectfully oppose his candidacy (quite strongly, at that) based on previous concerns brought up during his last RfA, most notably his predisposition to willingly skew consensus in his and his mates' favours. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
&mdash; Comment, can I ask why in the original, withdrawn RFA, why your start date is listed as December 14, 2005, where above it is March 2006? I'm probably missing something...
Excellent candidate, definitely deserves the tools.
'''Support''' A fine editor with good experience. Lots of recent template work. --<font color="green" face="Berling Antiqua">hello, i'm a
'''Support''' -- seems like a good editor with a solid edit count and a long time of experience, and who also is skilled enought o run a bot. <strong>
'''Big Support'''. A really good candidate. Good use of edit summary and demonstrated using various means (such as bot, WikiProject, images, and maintaining a portal) that he knows how to use the tools when he becomes admin.
'''Support''' A great candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Have seen him around..a very Good candidate..will be an asset to the Admin community..hehe..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. He's made significant contributions to several articles. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Solid contributions. Mike's experience is varied and sufficient, and I am positive he will be a good admin. —
'''Support''' A fine wikipedian.
'''Support''' He is an awesome canditade, and a fine editor!
'''Support''' Excellent contributions. You will make a fine sysop.
'''Support''' I see no problems with this application.
'''Support''' Can't be denied.  This should have happened long ago.  Break out the mop. '''
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''- Excellent participation with WikiProjects and Templates. A little more vandal fighting wouldn't hurt, but the user will make a great admin nonetheless. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Strong support''' excellent candidate with an excellent nominator.
'''Support''' I see no issues here, and I believe I am supporting a great admin-to-be.
Seems fine.--
No reason to not '''Support''' this man.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Yes, trustworthy and well thought of. Will not misuse the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - No concerns. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Support'''. No concerns of roguing. Good Wikiproject and template work, two things that I personally fail at. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
-- <b>
'''Support''' - A fine example.
Pascal nominated you. ~
'''Support''' — A good candidate.
'''Support'''- per nom. '''
'''Support'''. Clearly an experienced and trusted Wikipedian who will be a good administrator. --
'''Support''' Good contributions, good experience, good nomination. Will be a good admin.--<font color="Red">
'''Yes,''' Seems dedicated and trustworthy. Has plenty of experience across the namespaces.
'''Support'''. Good candidate, willing to help out at [[CAT:CSD]] (per answer to Q1).
'''Support''' No big deals. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. This is a support pile-off (you know, the opposite of a oppose pile-on) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Well suited for the tasks described in Q1.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks fine.--

'''Support''' Seems ideal
'''Support''' Having interacted with this editor, I feel comfortable that he would behave well as an administrator.
'''Support''' - All of my interactions with this editor have been quite pleasant; I have zero fear he will abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' - Pretty decent editor.
'''Support''' Good editor
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - I've been impressed with Mike everytime I've come accross him - he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Great contributions and qualifications, no question. <b>
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Solid contributions to the encyclopedia and methodical approach suggests good admin material.
I've had good experiences. --
'''Support'''. No concerns with this user at this time.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Has done a lot of great work as an editor, and all indications are that he'll be a great admin as well. --
'''Support'''. A good contributor who I have no reason to think will not make a good admin. -- '''
'''Support'''; likely to be an excellent admin; I see no problems here.
'''Support''' yes. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' - Per above. Great edits, good experience.
'''neutral''' low non-AWB edit count. Otherwise appears to be good candidate; I think waiting for a few months would have been better. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' From what I have seen, this editor will do great. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great user. '''''
'''Support''' Great contributions. Great Answers. Excellent user.
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support'''. Seems to be a good editor, and there is no indication he would abuse the tools. I think more time needs to be spent discussing issues on talk pages, though.···
'''Support''' Annoyed me in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech MX revolution|some AfD]] and I hope he doesn't become a regular DRV attendee by acting too much on his deletion opinions, but nothing really to suggest he'd be irresponsible. Opposing would be petty here based on facts in evidence so far. --
'''Support''' seems like a good canidate. -
'''Support''' I can't see any problems.  Good luck.
'''Support'''. I have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. He is prolific and productive. However, I would encourage him to engage other users more often.
'''Support'''. He is a good editor and his answers to the questions were very good. -
'''Support''' Good edior, got nomintated, must be good.
'''Support''' Excellent work. -- ''
'''Support''' Ample experience.  Thoughtful responses to questions.  IMHO, seems to fully understand what Wikipedia is all about and where it is going.
'''Support''' per all the words above, I don't need to add more.
'''Support''' well experienced editor.--
'''Support''' - prolific editor and reasonable answers. Not much counter vandalism or consensus building, however no reason to believe he would misuse the buttons.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Yes to Mikeblas. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' I'll give a support on the basis that once you get more involved with admin tasks and using the tools then your user Talk editcount will skyrocket past the >500 edits as of this timestamp.
'''Support''' seems good enough. —
'''Support''' sounds like a good candidate from what I've read.
'''Support''' Why are they not an admin already? --
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and knows policy. W.marsh's support speaks well for Mikeblas and for W.marsh. --
I'm
'''Support'''. Limited interaction with this user aside from [[Mitsubishi 3000GT]] before it was merged. Seems civilized, and haven't seen evidence of gaps in his knowledge about policy (something I can't say for every incumbent admin I've ever come across...) And since his sentiments regarding stress and emotional uninvolvement tie in closely with my own approach, I give 'im the thumbs up. ''--
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' -
I trust him.
'''Support''' More than 10,000 edits!--
'''Support''' HW Junkie. I didn't even know you were on WP but you're calm and cool with a level head.
Well, that wmarsh diff still scares me, but i'll grit my teeth and support you after your answer to my Q. '''weak support'''--
'''Support''' Based on what I have seen from your userpage, and per the answers to the questions, here is my trust.
'''Oppose''' Edit count and most everything is great but at this stage I am concerned by what appears to be a general [[WP:NPA]] in answer to question 1.  I understand the point about his concern over the RTFP approach by some editors (including admins) but does that make them, as he puts it '''jerkwads''' or do they just have a different approach?--
'''Neutral'''. Reading his Talk page, Mike appears civil enough, and I like his efforts to clean up articles. However, in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech MX revolution|AfD]] cited above by [[User:W.marsh]], Mike seemed argumentative. He was the nominator of the AfD, and later in the debate he added 15 more comments. At some point, one should just let the debate evolve. This might be a bad example; in another one I looked at, where he was the nominator, he made 6 additional comments.  Since I haven't worked with him directly, and can only skim his contributions, I don't feel I have enough basis to support him at this time.
'''Support''' yes I'm aware it hasn't been listed on the main page yet... It is amazing what you find lurking other editor's talkpages.  I've not run across MJCdetroit in quite a long time, but the few times I did in the past I found the editor to be constructive.  Nothing makes me thing they will abuse the tools... plus if MJCdetroit can surive Detroit, they can survive a few vandals.--
'''Support''' as co-nom. Yeah, it's not up yet, but I'm impatient.
'''Support''' Great work with templates. Consistency is spot on. I trust this user.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I nominated him [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MJCdetroit|before]] and see no reason not to support him now.  --
'''Support''' I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMJCdetroit&diff=55985766&oldid=55976016 supported] 417 days hither, and nothing in that which has transpired since suggests to me that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be other than quite positive]].  Plus, although [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|adminship is not a trophy or reward]], someone who comes from [[Detroit]] (cf., that [[Milwaukee|majestic Midwestern metropolis whence I hail]]) deserves something nice in what must otherwise be an exceedingly bleak existence. :)
'''Support''' Candidate has demonstrated calm dedication in working steadfastly for over a year since his last RfA.  That alone commands my respect, and Joe's endorsement above seals the question.
'''Support''' Lots of experience, great work with templates. Good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' He has plenty of experience and is well respected already. There is no concernhere that he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' —
I'm
'''Support''' —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''- The candidate answered the questions the way I like them; short and sweet. Good luck! --'''
'''Support''' 3 co-noms must mean something! :) Looks like a good potential administrator.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose
'''Strong support''' excellent nominators and an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' per my con-nom. Just the sort of user that needs the tools as Wikipedia continues to grow.
'''Support'''. No complaints.
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong, you should be a good admin [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I've seen this user around many times. Deserved. --
'''Support''' Minor matter cleared up, very civil, and unlikely to run amok with the buttons.
'''Support''' Get on it.
'''Support''' as I don't see a reason not to. --
'''Support''' I've noticed this editor many times and had wondered myself why he had never been given the mop yet.
'''Support''' -as per [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I reviewed MJC's contributions pretty thoroughly at some point earlier this year, and found only good things. Good luck! ~
'''Support''': I trust this editor with the tools. —
'''Support''', have only had positive dealings with the editor. —
'''Support''' Wikipedia is better for you being here. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Met him many times on Wikipedia. I must appreciate especially his hard work with Infobox and its development. Admin tools will help him make a better job. -
'''Support''' - Impressive contribs. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
<s>'''Moral oppose'''</s> - Please you're wasting our time here :P Just give him the mop already! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Per Giggy!
'''Support''' Answers to questions are very good, no specific edits jump out at me (except for the ones I asked as questions, but were cleared up), and a great user. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No problem with an admin who focuses on templates, which are often underlooked (TfD backlogs for instance). If you have the time and will (I don't anymore) I hope you will standardize and maintain other templates as well. –
'''Support'''.  Appears pretty well experienced (you have to be to work with templates), and per [[Talk:Berlin#Standardization_of_Infobox_and_changes_being_reverted_so_quickly_by_one_editor|this discussion]], he's willing to work with other editors to achieve a consensus, even in a sticky situation.  --
'''Support''' dedicated contributor.--
'''Support'''.  Knows his stuff; is very pleasant to work with; could make a great use of the tools.—
'''Support'''- seems to be a good candidate.
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per nominators.
'''Support'''- Good candidate, NO reason to believe this individual will abuse the tools, good experience, good edit count.
'''Support'''. Everything looks good to me. --
'''Neutral'''. Long-term editor with sterling work on templates. However, non-template mainspace contributions seem rather minor, and few, if any, Wikipedia space contributions unrelated to templates make me wonder if the editor's current breadth of experience is suitable for adminship.
'''Support'''.  While the editor does work on controversial pages from time to time (as he points out, he edits lots of other types of pages), he does not seem to have a controversial or contentious personality which is what we'd actually want to look out for. Looks experienced and willing to help the project. --
'''Support'''. Jimbo Wales has said it: adminship is not a big deal. No bad record, and a demonstrable need to have the extra buttons (main page work), I support.
'''Support?''' I am kinda confused. His edit count is good, but Hiorhsat makes a dead on point. I am thinking he will not abuse tools! <b><font color="E32636">
'''<big>+</big>'''  I trust the user to not meddle in areas where there is inexperience.  I recommend reading [[User:Keegan/On administrators|my little essay]].
'''Support''' With comments. I can see why the tools would help you, and an inspection of your edits earlier revealed nothing problematical. My concern is that you have very little experience in wider areas outside of the Main Page. I trust that should you be granted the buttons you will take it easy, and ask for other admin advice if needed. Reviewing your contributions I think I see an editor that will do this, and therefore support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' nothing suggests he'll actually be abusive.
'''Support''', ITN and other main-page departments need more active admins. monotonehell makes good contributions.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
Why not? <b>
'''Support''',
'''Support''' A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I usually am not crazy about self-nominations, as I don't trust their ambitious nature. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here at all. A potential admin who is interested in something other than blocking, deleting and protecting?! How could I not support? :)
Change to '''Support'''. Yes, he might not have much experience with deletions, but I'm sure plenty of admins wouldn't know the first thing when it came to, say, reformatting the front page. I'm very impressed with the sensible answers given to some (deliberately) awkward questions<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Support. Trustworthy, and has experience in the areas he wishes to contribute to.
'''Support.''' A sensible editor.
'''Weak support''' I'd feel more confident if monotoneshell had experience with a wider variety of processes but I'm with Pedro above. The candidate's judgment and demeanor seem sound enough, there's no reason to think he would abuse the tools and I believe he'd be responsible enough to not get involved too fast in areas he's less familiar with.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good, trustworthy editor. He clearly states why he needs the sysop tools and what he will use them for. Although I'm mildly concerned that he has little experience with deletion policy, he doesn't indicate that he intends to perform controversial deletions, so I'm not too worried. His work on a controversial WikiProject also suggests that this candidate has the courage to edit in difficult areas that many Wikipedians (including myself) wouldn't dare touch.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Candidate have shown sound judgement in dealings with controversial topics. As long as the candidate make sure s/he make sure understand relevant policies in new areas that might be dealing with in the future (such as XFD), which I expect the candidate to, I am happy for the candidate to become an admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seen the good work he's done on main page, hoping to see it expanded with more tools
'''Support''' Like his attitude and work at ITN.
Good general attitude, sufficient experience imo, no reason to assume he would misuse the tools. I trust in the candidate's ability to keep on learning and to consult policy pages whenever he's in doubt. —'''
'''Support''' - Fine.  No problem here.  I support this user's engagement in an extremely controversial wikiproject (while acknowledging it is a small portion of the work the user does) - the phrase "where angels fear to tread" comes to mind.  I think we should support those gutsy ones who go in and succeed in difficult areas.  Anyone can create a storm (in a teacup) in those areas, but to consistently edit well there without causing major rifts takes raw talent and diplomacy.  -
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' -- a consistent editor, who needs tools occasionally.  All signs indicate they will apply them fairly and intelligently.  --
'''Support''' Will not abuse tools and is experienced. More edit summaries would be nice! --
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
Confident that this candidate will remain cool in a crisis. Good judgement evident from previous contributions within Wikipedia-space. '''
Based on a review of contributions, I trust monotonehell to conscientiously edit the mainpage and to refrain from using tools where they are unfamiliar.--
'''Oppose''' for the moment. I hope my concerns will be addressed, however, through answers to my questions.
'''Oppose''' We have no ability to give limited admin powers, and I can therefore not support giving the full powers to an editor who lacks evidence of familiarity with general Wikipedia policy questions. '''
'''Oppose''' The user's consistently vague and evasive answers to direct questions all throughout this RFA give me serious pause for concern. Someone who intends to work on the main page and PAW topics needs to be specific and open when answering. Assuming good faith, I would say that the user's vague answer about what he intends to do as an admin reveals a lack of familiarity with the position and its duties.
Insufficient evidence of familiarity with policies that govern deletion, protection, and blocking, though a fine editor. -- <b>
'''Oppose'''.  The user doesn't have the knowledge to be trusted with the tools (as above).  In a few months filled with AFD, AIV, and other Projectspace edits, I will support '''
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I think you are well on your way, but are not quite there yet in regards to all-around editing.  Also, I would prefer you to work around areas admins frequent.
'''Neutral, Dead Neutral''' - With 4700 edits and editing for almost 2 years, I can't say monotonehell is inexperienced, and would rather like to support. However, I am worried about your knowledge in blocking vandals. I think editing the Main Page is important, but further more that is not the only thing that an admin will do. I cannot, however, oppose on that since I think that is too harsh. --
'''Neutral''', I'm with Hirohisat on this one.  monotonehell, you're a '''very''' consistent editor and you do edit in many areas, but I think you need a tad more experience — say, 2000 more edits. Keep up the great work, and I will definitely support you fully in the future. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Neutral''' My thoughts exactly are mentioned by Hirohisat - keep going strong though, and your edits are much appreciated --'''
'''Support''' - as nominator. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' She has solid edit count - and highly trust this user, and the nom! <b><font color="E32636">
'''EC Support''', great contributor, would make an excellent admin. And by the way Pat, I think "he's" a she. :) &mdash;
'''Strong support''' I overlap a fair bit with MRG so run into her quite often, and have always been impressed. I've never seen a "per nom" from her, and she takes the trouble to do the dirty work of digging out and adding sources on articles that look like they're going to the wall, which IMO is A Good Thing. Although her username may prompt a repeat of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBrownHairedGirl&diff=52209728&oldid=52207638 single silliest comment I've ever seen on an RFA]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Smart editor, writes for consensus, and willing to take the time to 'do the heavy lifting' to make an article consensus-worthy. Good candidate and kudos to Jreferee for nominating her.

'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already.
'''Support''' no concerns after seeing track.
'''Support''' - this is one of those occasions where the edit count doesn't do justice to the editor. Contributions have been consistently thoughtful and detailed, and interaction with other editors is uniformly civil. Involvement on WP pages demonstrates a good understanding of policy and nothing that I can see to suggest tools will be misused.
'''Support''' - seems to have a good record, very deserving user --
'''Support''' per Ossified.
'''Strong support''' I seen Moonriddengirl around a lot. She will make an excellent administrator.
'''STRONG Support''' That was a very impresive first edit. Civil, helpful, nuanced, good critical thinking talk edits.
'''Support'''. I've run into you in several places and thought well of you.  A longer look at your contributions satisfies me that you have the right mix of caution, dedication and good sense.  Thus, I believe giving you the extra buttons would benefit WP.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' - I don't see why this user would kill wikipedia with the mop. --
'''Support''', no concerns about level of experience.  After reviewing her contributions, I would trust with the mop. --
'''Support''' I do not have any concerns about this users time registered. I trust the record built in that time. '''
'''
'''Support''' I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. Glad to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Sure the user has only been around a few months, but she actually went to the effort of reading all the wikipedia policies, and hence edits like a pro. That's dedication, and I see no reason why she wouldn't make a great admin.
'''Support.''' I looked into Moonriddengirl's talk page archives ([[User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 1|1]] and [[User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 2|2]]) and found that she's a very helpful and patient editor when dealing with others. In her Wikipedia namespace contributions, I saw lots of edits to the help desk, village pumps, and XfD's, and a few reports to AIV. Randomly choosing diffs for closer inspection, I saw that her answers to questions were spot on, and points made in deletion discussions were good points. I admit I didn't look through ''all'' of her reports to AIV, but I found no errors in those reports that I did look through. She demonstrates to me that she has a good understanding of policy, and I have absolutely no concerns that Moonriddengirl would misuse or abuse the tools.
I am willing to support even at three month's active editing with diffs like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBen_Schaefer%2C_Dan_Pinzon&diff=152103583&oldid=152103274 these] -- <b>
A pleasure to work with... some people just get how to interact with others in a productive way on Wikipedia, and this candidate seems like one of the. I understand the experience objections, but we've promoted similar candidates with the same short-at-a-glance experience time, but equal promise... and it's not really been one of the situations that's proven to produce bad admins. One that really pops to mind is {{user|Quarl}}... hardly a notorious rouge admin, huh? --
'''Support''' because although my only interaction with her was an argument (surprise, surprise) she was intelligent, calm and polite throughout, exactly the attributes an admin needs.  She has enough experience on wikipedia to have demonstrated the qualities and knowledge which are required of admins.  Unlike the girl in the poem she isn't turbulent and she is kind and that's just the kind of person wikipedia needs.
No major experience concerns here, plenty of edits to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:BLPN]] and the help desk. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=157049347&oldid=157048966 This] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=156817768&oldid=156817508 sort] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&diff=156815691&oldid=156804582 of] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=156604378&oldid=156600965 helpful] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=156496021#Deleted_Page behaviour] is what I look for in an admin. <b>
'''Strong Support'''. Great editor with contributions in a variety of areas.
'''Support''' concerns about inexperience are overblown. Wikipedia is not rocket science.
'''Support''', looks like a good editor, experience seems perfectly adequate to me.
'''Support''' -- I see no issues which imply that this user will exercise the tools in anything but an intelligent and even-handed manner.  Concerns in the opposition section have nothing to do with the use of admin tools, which is the only important metric. As has been said, Wikipedia is not rocket science, and everyone should have tools if they won't abuse them.  --
'''Support''' Good, solid user. The issue of inexperience does not concern me much in this case.
'''Strong Support''' because granting her access to admin tools will undoubtedly improve the encyclopedia. She is hard-working and intelligent. She is also friendly and approachable and excels at explaining policy and conventions to others. She is doing all the right things so let's help her to help the project. (note: I am a newish user) Best regards --
'''Support''' This editor has a knowledge of policy, has plenty of edits, and is friendly. These are good qualities to have if you are going to be an admin. You should at least have an idea of policy and be friendly most of the time. I feel as if this user not only has an idea of what our policies are, but actual knows policy very well, and is very friendly. The only problem I have is that she has not been active here that long. That is not enough of a reason to oppose her though. good luck!--
'''Support''' I though you were an admin! <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Strong support'''.  She is an excellent editor, almost always uses summaries, works on a variety of projects, knows and respects the rules, and remains calm in discussions, especially on controversial matters (see [[Talk:Ted Nugent]]).  All of those point to a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Only problem is very few projectspace edits.  Other than that, go for it! '''
'''Support'''. An experienced Wikipedian. The experience at [[WP:HELPDESK]] is a plus. --'''
I've stumbled upon you're contributions many a atime, I've heard about you, and you're edit history looks good.
'''Support''' - there is enough experience for me in each namespace. --
'''Support''' - I don't see anything wrong. User is, from what I have read in and around Wikipedia, a generally nice and trustworthy person.
'''Support''' Appears to know policy and the workings around Wikipedia; well thought out explanations at the help desk and an abundance of caution (AfD even when others might try speedy) convinced me she's an excellent choice for the tools.
'''Support''' She is nice to other users.
'''Support''' I've been looking through the contributions of Moonriddengirl (see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Moonriddengirl]], where I've placed some random diffs generated by my edit counter); in contrast to the concerns about experience I see in the 'oppose' section, this user seems to have a better grasp of the areas in which she often contributes (such as AfD) than many higher edit-count or longer-since-first-edit users. Likewise, there seems to be a lot more article-editing going on than with many admins (compare her last 1000 edits to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ais523|mine when I ran for adminship]], for instance); I don't take article-editing into account when deciding on RfA opinions, unless it shows misunderstandings of policy, but it appears to be better than many other users' and I don't understand why the candidate is being opposed for it. One major risk with inexperience in an admin candidate is misusing the tools and screwing everything up, but I don't think there's much of a risk of that based on the track record. (Oh, and my usual caution to [[WP:ACC]] regulars who run for adminship: you need to make a non-admin alternate account to go on checking username similarity, as if an admin tries to create a username it succeeds even if a similar username exists. You probably know this already, but I'm just mentioning this to be sure.) --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 18:55, 12 September 2007 (
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable and civil participant in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify|wikification drive]]. Administrative tools would assist her in higher-level article maintenance tasks – e.g., AfD, vandal blocking. –
'''Support''' - when we consider the relatively little experience this user has in terms of months active, I have to admit a real, real lot has been achieved. Well done! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support:''' Exhibits sufficient familiarity, consistency and professionalism to withstand concerns of "lack of experience" ... which seems adequate if not extraordinary. Moreover, no obvious evidence to question trustworthiness.
'''Support'''. Strong contributor. Has done lots of vandal patrol and work on AfD. Skills, knowledge and dedication are evident.
'''Support''' Yeah, she's fine.
'''Support''' - Consistent professionalism and continuous civility. Edits at [[WP:HELPDESK]] are also a noted plus. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' More edits to mainspace talk would be nice, but certainly an experienced and responsible editor.

'''Support'''. I agree: more edits to mainspace (by way of substantive article development) would be good, for the reason that many of the issues you as an admin will be called upon to make decisions about will come out of in-depth, practical knowledge of how policy applies to what people are actually writing in articles; & the best way to get a sense of that is by experience. Same goes for in-depth conversation on article talk pages.  I would have voted neutral on these grounds; what teetered me over to "support" however, was your participation in [[Talk:Tim LaHaye#gay son|this discussion at Tim LaHaye]]. Please do spend more time in mainspace; but if this is an indication of how you'll do there, then you're well on your way. I think you'll make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Has contributed extensively, I believe this user can be a great admin.
'''Support'''. This editor is adequatly prepared to begin work as an administrator. I am particularly impressed by her calmness and her effort to seek consensus even in the face of difficult discussions. --
'''Support''' Good (although brief) interaction - pops up often on my watched pages, but rarely have needed to discuss contributions. Also, impressive responses to optional questions.
'''Support''' I also thought this user was an admin already. I patrol recent changes too and this user beats me all the time. Also checked the contributions and everything seems to be in place.
'''Support''' Most opposes are on "lack of experience". A few thousand edits is not enough when there seems no other reason to oppose? This is as silly as "no need for the tools".
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Great edit record, wide range of editing, and good mainspace edits. She has also helped me along quite a bit. I would be glad if she got adminship. <font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="blue">
'''Strong Support''' Your response to how you would handle disputes is what got my vote! :)
'''Support''' per nom. I have yet to see a contribution of hers that doesn't show that thought went into it. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but the experience is not quite there yet.
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced. (
Great editor, but I prefer to see some more time. I was considering asking you about a nomination maybe next month or so, actually. I can't say with full confidence that you're entirely ready now. Nothing personal - I just feel that candidates who wait understand the inner workings better than the ones who don't. ~
In the face of the frantic support, I feel I have to play the '''party-pooper''' and contribute to evening this out a bit. I do agree that the candidate is very much on the right way, but two and a half months of serious editing is simply too short, even in a clear-cut case of near-future admin material. —'''
'''Oppose''' I've seen some comments in XfDs that suggest inexperience -- nothing glaring, but the sum of my personal experience with this editor tells me that a little more time will do wonders.
'''Oppose''' Experience concerns. They have edited less than 200 edits in the first 3 months. It is very hard for anyone to be familiar w/ all the administrative environment in less than 3 months (July to now). It is just not the right time. --
'''Oppose''' Whoa - lack of experience! I doubt this user will abuse the tools, but again they just cant be familiar with what being a sysop entails. --'''
'''Oppose''' Lack of article writing. And, I am not quite sure that this candidate knows the core policies. Patience is a good thing, and I do admit, every administrator need patience. But, that's not the only quality that he or she needs to have. However, I do agree that the user needs more time. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=155287042 this question about reliable sources concerning a major Canadian Network]. '''<font face="georgia">
<li value=9>'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, particularly in mainspace. --
'''Oppose''' for inexperience, by which I do not mean edit count. This editor  has only been editing since April, and seems to have been caught up in the "BLP will cure everything; let's have some policy creep" enthusiasm. She should wait until she has seen this wave come and go, and (more importantly) have more experience in other areas of Wikipedia space, so she sees how much BLP is exceptional, and understands the case for limiting it.
Sorry, general experience concerns, especially in mainspace (which I feel is required because we are an encyclopedia and every administrator action in some way links back to our content). '''
'''Oppose'''  for now. Regardless of the opinion on actual specific matters, i think the approach of using IAR as a basic first approach to discussions and proceeding from there is asking for chaos. I think it shows inexperience, and hope that the desirability of following some agreed-upon standards will be recognized in the future. I think the actual work to the present is promising, but i do not yet trust with the delete button, or to close debates '''
<li value=13>'''Oppose''': I have had mostly positive dealings with this user, but they seemed inexperienced in all of those interactions.  If you continue to improve, you should get my support next time. --
My brief interaction with the user has confirmed me that the user portrays great dedication towards  the project and knowledge, but I'm wondering your overall time in Wikipedia. Yes, you've been with the project for 6 months, but only relatively active since July 2007 (5,500 in 2 1/2 months?). You also show a lot of knowledge on policies and guidelines, which makes we wonder if you previously edited under a different username, where/are involved in another wikimedia project, or if you simply acquired all that experience in such a short amount of time. [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] has already asked a similar question. I'll withhold my support/oppose until these concerns are addressed. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
Ditto.
'''Neutral'''. Solid contributions so far; however, only around 2 or 3 months of consistent editing suggest that the editor has insufficient experience for the admin role at this time.
'''Neutral'''.  Something doesn't seem right.  Opposing would be too much though.  Could just be the lack of experience, no real concerns.  Keeps my theory about female RFA candidates doing better on average true, though.
'''Neutral''' What she's done, she's generally done well: good RC patrolling and getting to consensus or proposing reasonable things at Afd. But only 3 months of regular editing without a huge number of article edits makes it hard to believe that she has sufficient experiential-based judgment (which may really deviate from all our written policies and guidelines). I don't lack trust in her abusing the tools, so I won't oppose, but I think that a few more months of editing - articles as well as wikispace - would really make her a great candidate.
'''Neutral''' I agree with the previous neutrals. Continue on the same track you're on now and I'll support the next time around.
I concur - not ready yet, but will almost certainly be in a few months' time. '''Neutral'''.
'''Strong support''' - excellent contributor, excellent judgment. '''
'''Strong pre-acceptance support''' - calm, no-BS approach to his work around here. Thoroughly sound judgement. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms">
As nom
'''Strong support''' - --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' Best of both worlds. A very hard-working creator/improver of articles with an excellent knowledge of policy.--

'''No-brainer support.'''  Lots of hard work, even disposition—give him a mop. —
'''Support'''. Good editor, intelligent contributions to project space, no problems that I can see. And the oppose votes based on his cruft-fighting just work in his favour.
'''Delete''' per nom. Improves the encyclopedia both by adding stuff and by helping remove stuff that doesn't belong.
'''Support''' Good contributor - I beleive he has enough sense not to go closing AFD debates where he is the original proposer (in all but the most clear cut cases).  (double-edit conflict)
'''Support'''- I can't see this user misusing the tools. He is level-headed and I often agree with him, even when my opinions are the opposite of his. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' I don't know this user and have never met him, but I believe he can be trusted completely with the tools. Also, great article work. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' no evidence that he would misuse the tools.  Is an excellent user who has made valuble contributions in deletion fora.  I do have some civility concerns per the diff cited below by Zleitzen and my own quick review of contribs where I found several comments more blunt than I think helpful.  While I don't see any personal attacks (which helps keep this a support) I still think it's important to maintain civility at all times and [[WP:DFTT|not feed any trolls]].
'''Support'''.  I can safely say that I believe Moreschi to be awesome.
'''Support.''' No brainer.
'''Support''' Blnguyen nominee &mdash;
'''Support''' ...  but I SHOULD add, only if you answer [[Talk:Grove_Dictionary_of_Music_and_Musicians#Public_Domain_Old_Grove|this]]. Grin. ++
'''Support'''.  Would make a good admin - and I really enjoyed your article on [[The Fairy-Queen]]. Huzzah for Purcell!
'''Editconflict Support''' per Blnguyen -
'''Support''' per nom. Proto and Kusma sum things up neatly.
'''Support''' with yet another '''I thought you already were...'''
'''Support''' God yes, would be a brilliant admin. Utterly capable, competent, writes very well thought out arguments in debates, and the day he gains the bit is not a moment too soon.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Seen nothing but good work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' solid AfD contributor with some quality article-writing experience as well.
'''Support''' excellent to collaborate with on articles, smart, expresses opinions well, just needs to remember to keep any and all biting in check, since the bit tends to help sharpen the teeth.
'''Support''' My first genuine cliche moment in a long-time: are we sure he isn't an admin already?
'''Support''' a bit excitable at times, but a strong & thoughtfull editor
'''Support, <s>so he can actually delete articles instead of just [[WP:AFD|talking about deleting them.]]</s>''' Just kidding about that last part, I was trying to match the humour of "Delete per nom" above. Seriously, I've found Moreschi a knowledgeable, dedicated user who is genuinely willing to collaborate with others. I would however caution him to avoid using the word [[cruft]], as it does tend to rub people the wrong way. --
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful answers to questions asked, looks fine. -
'''Support'''. I see the candidate all over the place doing good work. I was surprised to see this nomination, only because I had no idea this nominee wasn't yet an admin.
'''Support''' solid user, committed to the project. Not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good answers, can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' - Based on my own interactions with him, and my observations of his interactions with others. Would make a very good admin.
'''Support''': This fellow seems to check out. I don't see much potential for tool abuse. '''
'''Support''' a fine content editor.--
'''Support'''. An excellent editor of worthwhile articles, and somebody who can use his head. --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong support'''. I was concerned by some of the "opppose" comments -- an overly quick-triggered admin deleting articles is not good. I looked at some of the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam]] discussion -- especially the section cited below. Without knowing all the merits of the individual articles taken to AfD, it seemed as if others involved with that WikiProject also thought some pruning was desirable. I don't get the sense that Moreschi was acting in bad faith. In fact, he seemed to spend a lot of time trying to work with the Gundam community while still holding to Wikipedia's guidelines (which represent the broader community's thinking on what's encyclopedic.) --
'''Support''' my first thought-he-was-one RfA cliche. But can we give him some pruning shears instead of the proverbial mop?
'''Support''' A fine editor on Wikipedia -- I have no doubt that Moreschi will make a great admin. '''
'''Support''', I trust Moreschi.
'''Support''' per [http://zip.4chan.org/m/res/332029.html]. I really hate campaigning, especially negative, especially offwiki.
'''Support'''. Strong editor, Blnguyen nomination, plenty of experience in admin areas, and I really wish the opposition would provide some diffs of his alleged shortcomings. "Delete per so-and-so" should be used sparingly, but sometimes it's the best way to express one's feelings. I'm not finding evidence that his ''intention'' was to form a "lynch mob" like some editors are contending, or of any of the other fantastical claims down there.
'''Support''', Moreschi would be an admirable addition to the RfA ranks. '''
'''Support'''. A creditable record, and no red flags for me.
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
Definitely. We need more administrators who understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a random list of articles. &mdash;
I'm
'''Support''' per nom.  Your great answers and 1000+ Wiki edits are proof enough that you deserve adminship. '''
'''Support''' per nomination.  Plenty of contributions, check.  Head on straight, check.
'''Strong Support''' - user gave me some helpful advice a couple of weeks ago. Lots of experience, particularly with relevant policy areas (AfDs etc). Can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support''', after reading the "Optional blether from self".  That alleviated many of the qualms I had about supporting; it's lovely to see both the consideration Moreschi puts into deleting most things and the fact that he was aware of this issue enough to address it.  We might not agree on deleting, but I see him being a responsible administrator, and look forward to working with him. --
'''Support''' Resisted a strong urge for a knee-jerk oppose !vote for a deletionist... on closer look, seems to be a well-balanced candidate with a good grasp of process. --
'''Support''' an editor who is interested in applying Wikipedia's policies, rather than his own view of how Wikipedia should be. This is exactly what we want in an admin. if you don't like policies get them changed through consensus rather than punishing those who abide by them.
'''Support''' per nom.—
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' Has made a few mistakes, but nothing that makes me question his ability to serve as an admin.  Have faith that he would use the tools well.
'''Support''' Excellent job all around. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''. Everyone makes a few mistakes, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't see anything wrong. '''''
'''Support'''. I like the new signature, which shows flexibility.  I guess he's been a bit harsh, but I think that we over emphasize wikilove sometimes when strong direct communication an have its place. --
'''Support''' as above
The nominators put it well. --
We need more admins, and getting more schi is a good start.
'''Support'''. Model candidate.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' per all.--
'''Support''' - no, he's not perfect - who is?  He has worked hard here (without pay, like all of us), and is sufficiently self-reflective to learn from his mistakes, all of which seem minor to me.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Oppose'''. Has a past history of shotgunning entire sets of articles in an attempt to get some deleted before anyone can comment or muster opposition.
'''Oppose'''. Heavy-handed tactics with regards to slews of articles with little or no regard for opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia needs cool-headed admins, not partisans with an axe to grind. See support for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh]] and related incidents.
'''Disapproval''' - way way way to heavy handed, I do not trust this user at present, AfD participation is mediocre, at best. Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created. Also has a rude tone and is to dramatic, in short I believe this user will misuse the buttons. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Strong Oppose'''. Wikipedia already has too heavy a deletionist bias as it is. The last thing we need is another ultra-deletionist admin. Oh, and Folantin? "Delete per nom" doesn't constitute good AFD participation. It's a pity that admins tend to treat AFDs like a vote (despite official policy saying they're not votes), instead of ignoring "delete per nom" posts.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not sure I trust this user to respect and judge consensus neutrally in AfD discussions. ''
'''Oppose''' &bull; I really like Moreschi as a person and as an editor, but RFA votes are about what's best for Wikipedia.  Incivility, personal attacks, and systematic bias are NOT healthy things to the project and we shouldn't have admins promoting these.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''.  Although I have nothing against Moreschi as an editor, I do not think he is ready for admin-ship.  My main reason is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elaragirl&diff=prev&oldid=98259823 "FUCK OFF"] edit summary to a vandal ''just one month ago''.  That alone, I believe, is enough to oppose this RFA.  My second reason is the "Deletion!" link right after his username.  Although admins are editors too, it undermines their trustworthiness when they explicitly associate with a particular philosophy (the same would be true of an "Inclusion!" signature).  I think he would be a better candidate in a few months (assuming no incivility and no continued partisan affiliations).
'''Oppose''' changed from support, per MatthewFenton, Redxiv and Yuser31415. --'''
'''Oppose'''  I'm with Yuser31415. I really have trouble trusting this user to objectively close AfDs based on consensus, or even lack thereof. --
'''Oppose''' I've been using and editing on Wikipedia for quite some time now, and, honestly, I don't think I can find someone in the community so entirely not suited to not only not be administrator, but not even be allowed to edit. Not only do I think he should be denied administratorship, I believe he should have all editing rights removed. Regarding the whole Gundam scuffle, I believe that he has insulted Japanese culture and has opened up Wikipedia for possible litigation. I say nip this in the bud now, and kick him out. --
'''Oppose''' Has much going for him, but as some of the comments above suggest, he is not yet ready.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - would probably make a good candidate, but cannot support due to some of the above concerns.
'''Oppose'''. I have serious concerns about his approach and attitude.
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral) On the basis of sharp responses to legitimate opposes above and continued concerns about other responses (see below). Particularly unseemly is bringing up the off wiki-activities one user above, Everyking, who is perfectly within their rights to post an oppose vote here without harassment. The "pot calling kettle black" response to that oppose vote, and the various growing tit-for-tat threads here are not encouraging. --
'''Oppose''' per Zleitzen.--
'''Oppose''' I like the guy, he's one of the more rational deletionists I've encountered but RFA should not be a popularity contest. His responses to issues raised in this RFA are enough to make me vote oppose, but leaning more towards "not yet".
'''Oppose''' Needs to get rid of a few rough edges.--
Although I agree with most of this user's AfD judgements, I am still concerned if it will be dropped as a neutral admin upholdng consensus to the fullest. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''', leaning weak oppose.  I'm not going to oppose someone who seems to be a trusted user - we need more admins - but I have several misgivings that keep me from supporting.  (1) the diff provided by Zleitzen - profanities in edit summaries are unhelpful and civility at all times is important. (2) frequent use of the word "[[cruft]]" - this word is one that should be stricken from our vocabulary on Wikipedia.  Sometimes, a topic is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia because it has little significance outside of the fictional universe in which it exists, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important to someone.  Referring to things that are important to someone as "[[cruft]]" can be offensive.  You are taking what is important to them and calling it "useless junk or excess materials".  Nothing good can come from edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18&diff=prev&oldid=101582215], for example.  (3) The deletionism Wikiproject concerns me greatly.  We don't need political parties on Wikipedia.  --
'''Neutral.''' On his merits, I would support, but the claims in the "oppose" section are hard to ignore.  I worry about how Moreschi will deal with stress as an admin.
Not worthy of my opposition, but I am a bit concerned about alleged deletionism because I've heard about how it's caused many gaps in coverage (even in the "real" topics). <span style="font-size:95%">&mdash;[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose''' - Moreschi is a good person. Deletionists and inclusionists are the yin and yang of Wikipedia; each one balances the other out. However, extreme deletionism bothers me. I'm not going to ramble on about philosophies here, though.
'''Neutral'''. The oppose and neutral commentary are convincing enough that I can't support, but not enough to oppose. '''
'''Support''' He is a very trustworthy editor. His last RfA failed narrowly, but I believe that this time, the mop should be given to him. He is also unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I think this user seems fine. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Why not? Lets give him the mop, give him lots of backlogs to clear! --'''
'''Support'''. No reason not to - I see no terrible problems. A great candidate [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Edits seem good, generally trustworthy. I admire your spirit to keep going for RfA, it shows dedication in the face of failure.
(ec) '''Support''' Trustworthy enough and experienced enough. Would certainly be suited well to [[CAT:CSD|speedy deletions]] and also requested moves.
'''Support''' - good candidate.
'''Support''' Classic application of "adminship is no big deal."  Good experienced editor; no problems at all.
'''Support''' I view multiple self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of someone who knows how Wikipedia works. Oh and all those edits on other wikis, your civility and your contributions. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Although project-space edits at en.wiki remain a little low, candidate has clearly put effort into addressing concerns at prior RfAs.  I don't mind allowing his experience at other wikis to count for a little something. ;)  I'll sure he'll be excellent on the mop.
'''Strong support''' as last time. A highly trusted user on other Wikis. I wasn't persuaded by the opposition last time but he appears to have addressed those concerns in any event. Definitely seems to know what he's doing. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Third time change of mind, as MoRsE appears to have participated in admin-related tasks since his last RfA, as per my recommendations.  The admin tools should be well-handled by this editor.
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. Good luck!
'''Support''' Excellent history of good editing. User appears to be always civil and shows a strong knowledge of process. Fantastic candidate to take up the mop.
'''Support''' While the user shows no known proficiency in [[Esperanto]], my native tongue, the grasp of multiple languages is impressive, along with mainspace edits and a general consistency.
'''Support''' I like what I see...'nuff said.
'''Support'''
'''... ..- .--. .--. --- .-. -''' as WJBscribe and inasmuch as it seems quite clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''. No problems with you.
'''Support''' You are a good contributor to the swedish wikipedia as well as english one. No reason to oppose--
'''What the...?''' good luck!
'''Support''' I don't see any problems. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
'''Support''' I - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with solid contributions to building the encyclopedia. I'm somewhat concerned about the relatively few contributions to wikipedia space, but weighed against adminship on another encyclopedia this doesn't seem sufficient reason to withhold support.
'''Support''' - Impressive. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' I propose totally to discount all of the edits this user has made in wiki Sweden. His edits here, in mainspace and in namespace, amply justify his receipt of the mop and bucket. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' per Pedro :P. MoRsE is clearly doing stirling work, and IMO will continue to maintain the high standard as an admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support'''. Thought you were one already.
'''Support''' - All the best. <sup>
'''Support''', definitely. I like what I see in MoRsE; he's a very balanced editor. —
-- <b>
'''Support''' - as per the Rambling Man..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. 3 Self noms? Sounds like "I'm going to go at it until I get it". User is Persistent, and shows great initiative, all great admin qualities. Plus, I do not see any evidence that this user would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Although I think you're perhaps too "Swedish oriented" in some questions in which I disagree with you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARaseborg_Castle&diff=91566833&oldid=91557686], I respect your great efforts on FAF and [[Finnish Navy|FN]] articles. When you don't get too passionate in the "language strifes" you have my full support. --
'''Strong support''' looks like a good user. As for the three self-nominations? Not a concern.
'''Support''' Great use of edit summaries and an overall expiernced user. And the previous RfAs show that he has learned much from them, so he deserves the mop.
'''Ja naturligtvis''', just like in the last two times. Experienced and trustworthy user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. Seen him many times and got to say that I have seen only a very fine job by this user. -
'''Support''' Good editor, will mop wisely. And I like his [[Template:MoRsE MeDaL|MoRsE MeDaL]]. :-)
'''Support''' - good user. Everything is now in order. '''
'''Självklart'''<!--of course--> Productive and experienced editor.
'''Support''' - Hope you make it this time.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''&mdash;the changes Morse has implemented into his [[Special:Contributions/MoRsE|contribution]]s since the last RfA(s) is noticeable for all the right reasons, and I think he's ready for the buttons ~
Have shown now to be much more familiar with the ropes. I'm
'''Support''' - One more time, i approve Mailer Diablo's message. --
'''Support''' There is no change that can not be undone. Remember that. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator.  ''Power to those who desire it!''  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Oppose''' - Editing is OK, but three self-noms?  Strikes me as a bit of "I'm going to go at it until I get it", and that worries me a bit.  You would think that someone would have noticed his work, but there's less than 100 edits to his talkpage in two years, and no awards.  I also don't see much in the way of work on admin tasks.  For what he does do, adminship isn't necessary.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Strong support''' Z-man is a versatile contributor at AFD and elsewhere.  He would make the ideal admin based on my observations of him.
'''Support''' No reason not to.  Also, on a side note, nice work on [[Mackinac Island]]. --
'''Support''' all good to me. <sup>
'''Support''' - the user is well experienced  and is an ideal candidate .. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
-- <b>
'''Support''' I have seen this user around XfD multiple times. He is a fine user.
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''', go slaughter some vandals...but not in a [[WP:INSULT]] kind of way... --
'''Support''' He is literally everywhere.
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good answers, excellent article work, level-headed. Sure. —
'''Support''' Although another 2 or 3 months would be great, I like this user's work. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support'''-I constantly see him at AIV and xFD, and he does great work. Normally, I would never support somebody this new. Mr. Z-man is the exception. --
'''Support'''. Good user. He is new, but he is very experienced. --
'''Support'''
Does meaningful cleanup work? Writes FAs? Acts politely even under criticism? Textbook signs that someone will be fine as an admin. --
'''Support,''' No real concerns with this editor. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' Another user that can tell which end is up.
'''Support''' non-controversial and helpful editor
Nothing wrong that I can see... Good contributor, will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' As per nom and all of above. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' Although you said you've only been editing regularly for a few months, I don't think that time has to do with experience. It's what you've done in that time, which is become a great editor. Cheers! You will make great use of the tools. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support'''.  No indication of problems, helpful, cooperative, good contributions; should be even better with the official mop and bucket.  --'''
'''Support''' - I would definitely trust Mr.Z-man with the mop. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]<sup>([[User talk:Nihiltres|t]].[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|c]].
'''Support''' I think he will be trustworthy.
'''Support'''. You will do well. '''''
Particularly per answers to question 4. —
'''Support''' Good contributions.
'''Support'''. I am unconvinced of the merits of the "soft deletion" proposal but won't let a minor disagreement in opinions get in the way of supporting someone who I'm confident would be a great admin. -- '''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; will make a fine addition to the admincorps.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, even if I disagree with answer to question 4.
'''Support'''. Good answers, good edits. I think you'll do fine. --
'''Support'''. I've seen you around and valued your contributions.  I would have probably taken a somewhat different approach (always easier to say with hindsight) to the emotionally charged Phi Kappa Psi dispute , but I'm satisfied that you learned from the experience and impressed that you didn't lose your cool.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' I don't really see any reason to opposed.  Time editing in earnest is slightly less than I normally like to see, but the answers are good (though I'm not a big fan of "soft delete").--
'''Support'''  Solid editor, will do well as an admin. <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''. The nominee seems to have a good grasp of his strengths and limitations. I have no reason not to trust this user with the mop & bucket.
'''Support''' by the dawn's early light. --
A very good candidate. '''
'''Support''': his contributions are almost an example of admin conduct already. Unlikely to abuse sysop tools.
'''The Bureaucrats are wasting so much time discussing Gracenotes' RfA I can still support:''' I thought he was one! <span style="font-size:95%;font-family:sans-serif"><font color="#229922">
'''Oppose.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhi_Kappa_Psi&diff=127838054&oldid=127806066 Exhibited grotesque notion of ''notability'', arguing that a class of rapes were not notable because they were common.] —
'''Oppose.''' He has demonstrated a disregard for the truth.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' - He single handely worked Puerto Rico's portal to FP quality, we just worked with 'this and that' but Marcos provided a huge chunk of the work, this and his job getting some articles to Good Article and FA as well as having great interaction with him in the past leave me with no reason in my mind to oppose such a great candidate. -
'''Support''' good work at Rfd and can always use more multilingual admins. Buena suerte.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''. Even tho I haven't been lucky enough to directly interact with him, I've seen his dedication and efforts for a long time, and I've been seriously impressed by them. Plus, anyone with a recommendation from Tony has immediately a plus in my eyes! ;)
'''Support'''. I always trust Tony the Marine's judgement.
AfD - Good.  RfD - Good.  AIV - It'll get there :) MfD - Good. Articles (not that an admin needs them) - Good. An all round big {{tick}} '''
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', very good contributions, experience and trustworthy. I do not see reasons to not support. Good luck.
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support'''.  The candidate has a solid track record of creating and improving articles and appears to work well with others.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' - just about ready to become an admin I think. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' → Sounds good. <i><b>
I'm
'''Support''' - solid candidate.
'''Support''' - '''
'''Support''' I don't think I've ever noticed you before (unsurprising, since what I know about Puerto Rico could be written on the back of a stamp) but all the contribs I've dip-sampled look good. Is the sea in Puerto Rico really [[:Image:Willemstad harbor.jpg|this colour]]?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
As well as being a good user, the candidate has decent nominators. No problems here.
'''Support'''As per Caribbean H.Q. and  while the edits show Puerto Rico bias they are really outstanding and shows a good editor. Track with over 6000 edits is very good.
'''Support''' - ''Creo que es un usuario bueno. Su participación en el Wikiproyecto de Puerto Rico demuestra que el candidato sabe como colaborar con otros usuarios.'' <small>Sorry about the poor Spanish, I'm a little out of practice.</small> Extensive (and sensible) contribs to AfD and RfD discussions, as well as a variety of article contributions.
I can't believe I'm #24 :-) '''Support''', per the co-nominators' excellent descriptions of this user and his work :-) --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
Thoroughly impressed with Mtm. ~&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;">
'''Support''' No problems. -
'''Support''' - everything looks fine... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Need I give a reason? —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Support'''. More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' - Per [[User:Animum|Animum]] ;) . Cheers! <small>''[[User talk:Anecdote|IT'S DA...]]''</small>'''
'''Support''' - per noms.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. While I've not encountered this user before, I am impressed by the sheer number of edits, and his creation of good articles.
'''Support''' Very strong, good edits. No reason for objection. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' - Took me a little while to review this editor, as I am previously unfamiliar with your work. Everything looks good to me, and I think you'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Well duh. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''', per the usual. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' I've not interacted with this editor but a review of your last 1,500 contributions showed sheer commitment to the encyclopedia, policy knowledge and civility. Talk page looks fine, edit summary usage all okay, basically ticks the boxes and then some. ''[[User:Husond|Husond]] - another mop over here please!'' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per above.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - yup! Everything looks just fine -
'''Support''' -  Looks fine.--
'''Support''' - Why should I oppose? --
'''Support''' - While I haven't encountered this editor before, after a review of 2000 or so of their contributions, I feel that they are a solid candidate with good edits and is more than qualified to be an admin.  --
'''Pile-on support'''. I will support anyone with a minimum level of experience unless shown significant detractors.
'''Support''' - good experience and will be fine with a few extra buttons.
'''Support''' - although I kind of have reservations about the images, since they can be transferred to [[Wikimedia Commons]]. <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' - Strong editor, will do good with the tools. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Per all of the above.
'''Support''' per above comments. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Better than many of the current admins.
'''Support''' per above and obvious strengths.
'''Support'''- Everything looks good to me.
'''Nominator support'''. ~
'''Strong support'''. Very helpful, hardworking and high quality user.
'''Yes''' a really nice user. Per West Brom 4ever. --
'''Support'''-clearing backlogs is good. Experienced user. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Weak Support'''. I'd like to see more XfD participation, but i don't see any other problems.--
'''Weak Support''' Dedicated, friendly and helpful editor. I'd prefer to see (a lot) more participation in countervandalism and XfD, but willingness to clear the perpetual backlogs on [[CAT:SPEEDY]] seems fair enough. Furthermore, I don't think that she'd abuse the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''  Appears to be a great user, however the answers to leave something to be desired. '''
'''Weak Support''' per Husond and Ganfon. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' -- per nom and answer to first question.  Willing to help out with images while having a ton of experience[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Mysid&namespace=6] is very welcome --
'''Support''' I have not met this editor, but contributions are well balanced and knowledge of policy appears good. Answewrs are short, but to the point.--
'''Support''' - helpful, intelligent, will use the tools wisely. I think there's a zero chance of abuse and a 100% chance that Mysid will be a helpful, knowlegeable admin. — <font face="papyrus">
'''Support''' I don't think that the admin tools will be abused.
'''Support''' We can trust you. :-P
'''Support'''ing trustable candidate. '''''—[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. A great candidate, who will definitely be great as admin. '''
'''Weak Support''' Great editor, but is not really a vandal fighter. I think that article writers really don't need the tools as much, but just because someone is a article writer is not a good reason to oppose. Cheers. --
'''Support''' good editor; good to hear she's willing to tackle image issues.
'''Support'''. I am satisfied that the nominee could use the tools and use them well, good contribution history.
'''Support'''! ''
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Support'''. Good editor and an active member of the IRC community. --
'''Weak support''' - Marginal due to relatively weak answers to questions. But otherwise experienced enough.
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''' No problems here. User is not likely to abuse the tools, but her answers just do not satisfy me. ←
I'm
'''Support''' looks alright, although make sure you are familiar with policy.--
'''Support'''.  I think the answers above ought to give a little more detail, but everything else looks unobjectionable.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' - good, devoted users make good admins
'''Support'''. It's interesting that the candidate is being opposed for superficial answers, when the questions themsevles are utterly superficial and timewasting. I have no concerns.
No reason to think she will abuse admin tools. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Per the nom, this user would make an excellent sysop.
'''Support''' - serious user, good contributions.
'''Support''' Qualified. '''
'''
'''Support'''. I think she'll grow into the extra bit and use it wisely. I can see nothing that makes me think otherwise. ···
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. No problems here, and as an international project we can use multilingual admins very well.
'''Support''' There are no major concerns here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', very unlikely to abuse the tools, and a nice person to boot. :)
'''Weak support'''. I would have been happier with fuller answers to questions, but don't think she'll misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. Question 5 is problematic; wheel warring is more than just edit warring which happens to include admin powers. It's much more of a problem than edit warring. -
'''Weak Oppose''' - Mysid has great contributions, but the superficial nature of the answers to questions above make me rather nervous. As a "normal" user who relies on admins to take actions, such as blocking users for vandalism and deleting articles, the answers to quesitons 1 and 5 are a little underwelming. I would greatly appreciate seeing a more through consideration of these questions by Mysid. --
You do not appear well-versed in process, other than answering refdesk questions. I think you need more experience.

'''Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' I don't like the answers to the questions but they aren't bad enough to warrant an oppose from me.
Support per nom
'''Support''' for his edit summary usage and for his mainspace edit count. --
'''Support''' - Adminship isn't a big deal, and I know that he's clearly knowledgable in basic areas such as [[WP:CFSD|CFSD]], [[WP:AFD|AFD]] (despite the # of project-space edits), [[WP:AGF|AGF]], etc. Will make for a fine admin.
'''Support''' He seems like a reliable user and is active at wikipedia so why not?--
'''Support'''. Actively contributing more than 4.500 mainspace edits over more than a year without a block is sufficient for me ''not'' to assume he'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimbo_Wales BJ]/[[Main_Page|DM]]. Over 600 edits to template space demonstrates involvement behind the scenes. I wouldn't ask for more, but he also seems to be a level-headed and helpful guy. looking through his contribs didn't spawn any disqualifying diffs. Putting candidates through the hoops for not perfectly conforming to one's own idea of flawless contrib apportionment should be given [[:wikt:ignore|due weight]]. —'''
'''Support''', for lack of sufficient reason to oppose. No indication that the tools will be abused. --'''
'''Support''' per all above. Adminship is no big deal. The opposers have raised concerns that the vague description of CSD ("clearly unencyclopedic" material) but that doesn't concern me, since the CSD criteria for articles are geared towards excluding content that ''is'' clearly unencyclopedic (e.g. nonsense, attack pages, topics with no assertion of notability, blank pages). <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' per the candidate's good record of mainspace contributions and dedication to the project. If this nomination does not succeed, the nominee should buttress his article work with increased participation in Wikipedia space, including on admin-like tasks, to ensure the success of a future nomination.
'''Support'''. Although he may have a low Wikipedia space count, I an very satisfied with the answers, which show a clear understanding of policy. '''
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''Support:''' Candidate gives calm, reasonable answers and has a clean history.  That aside, ''my'' weirdness threshold is passed by some of the Oppose voters.  Are we seriously basing votes not even on the merits of the nominee but whether the ''nominator'' is eloquent enough for our liking?  Gosh, I can see it now, potential candidates turning down nominations.  "No offense, buddy, I'm flattered, but I want a nominator who can give a good stump speech on my behalf, and you don't measure up."
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - don't really understand the concern about wanting to delete unencyclopedic material - seemed to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. Ok, his user talk and project space are fairly low, however there are plenty of main space edits.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad and my familiarity with MZMcBride's quality work with WP:SCOTUS. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support'''.  Seems levelheaded and unlikely to cause trouble.  Can easily learn on the job.
'''Support''' I can support him and trust him with the tools. I'm sure there's a learning curve to being an admin and I think he will climb it just fine.
'''Support''' See no evidence will not make a good admin.
'''Support''' - we need more admins who are well-versed in image policy; not only is that one of the current hotspots in controversy, but various image-related tasks tend to get backlogged more than many others. (
'''Uber Strong Support''' - I think he'll do a fantastic job.
I see no worries that this user can't learn responsibly on the job about functions they are not already well-versed in. Good answers to some of the optional questions, especially the thoughtful replies on Fair Use. -- ''
'''Support''' (struck neutral) due to great answers to optional questions, demonstrates ability to communicate well. &ndash;
'''Support''' based on editing history and answers to questions. --
'''Support''': Activity in project seems consistent, plenty of experience, and edit summary usage is excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Seems like a fine editor and questions were all reasonably answered and showed good sense--
Although you're not perfect, adminship's not a big deal. We need more administrators, and while you haven't done too much stuff yet, I really don't mind us giving you the mop. (So I '''support'''. [[Image:smiley.png|20px]])
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', partially per AldeBaer. I've been consistently impressed with MZM's template coding knowledge, helpfullness, and civility in my many interactions with him. Plus another lawyer admin would be great in dealing with FU-images if it ever catches his interest (hint, hint).--
'''Support'''. per answer to question 9. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Weak support''' Am a bit concerned with lack of XfD experience. If MZMB does become an admin, I hope he will be responsible enough to limit his use of the admin tools to areas where he has sufficient experience.
'''Support''' Candidate has a great deal of experience in the Template: namespace and has expressed interest in helping with protected edit requests. I have seen him around there and have no reservations, based on what I've seen, in supporting. We need all the people we can get with the temperament and skills to edit templates.
'''Support''' my old rule of thumb... if the opposes would apparently not have been made if the edit counter had screwed up and put a 0 on the end of some of his counts, then there's no reason not to support. People would like him to have more user talk and wikipedia namespace edits, but apparently have no problems with the edits he has made there... so it's just an editcount thing. Anyone can make "per nom" comments in 500 AFDs to pad their count... so I don't see the count as very meaningful, especially if people can produce no actual examples of a lack of knowledge on process or communication. Anyway, 2 years and his biggest conflict was over image placement? Seems like he knows how to edit effectively and not annoy people. Should make a good admin. --
'''Support''' The answer to Q11 releives concerns about lack of User talk edits for me. Good mainspace contribs too.
'''Support''', I do see a good record of interaction with other users. I was a bit concerned to see reinsertion of a large number of fair-use images in [[:List of Weeds episodes]] after they were cleaned up, but that was months ago and I don't see any indication that it's been repeated, nor any other more recent cause for concern.
'''Strong Support''' Clearly a good editor. Knows all the processes. Perfect for admin.
'''Support''' - The candidate has a good knowledge of process and policy, and I see nothing that makes me think he would abuse the tools. Experience on the Wikipedia main-space does not concern me in this case.
'''Support'''. Gives a convincing impression of sanity. I have no problem with candidates who are not policy/process wonks, and trust the user will simply read the relevant policy or procedure before carrying out an unfamiliar administrative action. -
'''Support'''. Solid mainspace contributor. As many have noted, not the most 'rounded' candidate by some metrics, but then again we are ''writing an encyclopedia'', eh? --
No problems of significance have been raised; the user has ample experience and is interested in administrative work, I see no reason not to give the tools.
No reason to oppose. --
'''S''' Changed from neutral... --
'''Support''' - Has demonstrated that he's more than capable of communicating civilly and clearly with other users. No qualms. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins
'''Support''' per quality not quantity
'''Support'''.  Edits to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|Village pump]] indicate plenty of understanding of the way things work around here.  Smart enough to pick up whatever else he needs as he goes.
'''Support''' Why not. User shows a general understanding of the rules; not worried about the editor going crazy, and if they do, revert it. Adminship is no big deal.
'''Oppose''' Less than 250 edits each in the user Talk and policy spaces show that the candidate needs to spend more time performing admin-related tasks to benefit from being granted the admin tools.  The answer to question one requires more precision - which areas is the candidate interested in - copyvios, images, CSD, etc?  Evidence of participation in the given area(s) in the candidate's contribtutions?  The nomination also requires more explanation regarding the eligibility of the candidate for the admin tools.
Per (him) -- <b>
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions.  You don't speedy delete things because they're unencyclopedic. --<font color="3300FF">
80-odd user talk and 320-odd talk edits is unacceptable for me, as an RfA candidate needs to demonstrate their ability to interact positively before I support them for getting the one tool which results in more acrimony than any other. '''
'''Oppose''' The severe lack of participation in areas where admin actions are undertaken needs to be remedied before I can support this candidate.
'''Oppose''' per Xiner, who put the matter very succinctly.  Candidate obvious exhibits a good temperament: with added experience, I'll be happy to support in the future.
'''Oppose''' per Daniel Bryant and Xiner. The only things more important for an admin than dedication and technical wiki proficiency is the ability to interact with the wikpedia community. The distribution of his editing leads me to believe that he belives otherwise. Aside from that a valuable editor that I hope to see at RfA again after some more work in needed areas.
'''Oppose''' per Xiner, but I hope the candidate will return after some more experience.
'''Neutral'''  Moved from oppose per concerns of other vote.
'''Support''', just reviewed Nat's contributions.  He seems keen to help out here, and seems to have a reasonable head on his shoulders. --
'''Support''' A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Multilingual, lots of experience, conta Jmlk17 who I'm not surprised at all to see opposing "per experience". * '''
'''Strong Support''' Appears to be a great, reasonable guy.  I am sure will act very responsbiy. Would make a great admin no doubt.
'''Strong Support''' per my second nomination above.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support with caveats:'''
I'm
'''Support.''' Clearly experienced.'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
Clearly a decent editor.
'''Support''' because his name's Nat. Oh, no, not really. Because he's done well here and isn't likely to abuse the tools.
Per Shalom. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks just fine to me.
'''Support''' — satisfying contribs. Looks like the opposers have come down with an acute case of 'conutitis. They should ''really'' consult their doctors before their condition gets worse :-) --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Support''' - fine editor and oppose reasons aren't convincing.
'''Support''' —<tt>[[</tt>'''
<s>Neutral, leaning toward Oppose Get involved with more mainspace edits and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]].</s> After considering this greatly, I am now '''supporting''' this RfA. :) '''
'''Support''' As per Addhoc and his work in the last 5 months has been Satisfying.
'''Strong Support'''. Looking through his recent contribs, this is one of those editors whose day-to-day work keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. Fighting vandalism, fixing templates, correcting typos and making minor edits - without it, Wikipedia would be a mess. While I sympathise with the view that admins should have substantial mainspace contribs, I don't think we should reject someone who's willing to help with the many backlogged cleanup tasks, and who has a genuine need for the tools (in vandal-fighting). His answers to the questions suggest a sufficient knowledge of policy, and all in all, he's a satisfactory candidate. If he doesn't pass this time, he should pass easily 3 months from now.
'''Support'''.  3,000-plus edits, check, mainspace work, check (UofT), vandal-fighting, check, no concerns, check.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I don't see anything wrong with you. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''support''' Very cool headed editor who is more than willing to comprimise. Has some very good edits and is very active. Give him the mop
'''Support''' I don't see anything wrong with the editor and he seems to be reasonably experienced.
'''Support''' - No real reasoning, as to why I shouldn't. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - no issues here. I'm actually impressed with Q5, as this editor is not afraid to either learn from his mistakes, nor admit to them. That's important. Admins are not infaillibe -
Ridiculous opposition = Good candidate. '''
'''Support''' - productive, trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Although I don't work with this user very much, this user deserves my support because of his/her constructive edits.
'''Weak Support''' - Just, '''just''' about ready. No reason not to be trusted. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I think he'll be fine. And as for the answer to Q5, that was in July and we all make mistakes.
'''Support''' - A good editor!--
'''Support''' Despite the image issues and the slightly low edit count, the user has undeniably demonstrated both the ability to acknowledge and learn from mistakes, as well as a good working comprehension of sysop duties.
'''Support''' Absent evidence to the contrary, he seems calm and level-headed, with a good understanding of protocol. --
'''Strong Support''' I have dealt with Nat in the past and he clearly understands wiki policies and is able to intercede in any conflict situation and resolve the issues by correctly interpreting wiki policies. His neutral and even handed approach has helped many editors who are involved in conflict related articles especially [[Sri Lankan civil war]] related. I hope he gets the admin tools to be able to enhance his capability to contribute to this project.
'''Support''' Comes down to trust, and this user has demonstrated they can be trusted.
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' - "Support" because temperamentally, I think Nat will make a good admin. <s>"Weak" because of the external links issue raised by [[User:Sarvagnya|Sarvagnya]].<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nat&diff=160662496&oldid=160660591]</sup> Beyond plain old spam, we have roughly a million unencyclopedic links to forums, blogs, etc. added in good faith but with poor judgement -- so please take a refresher look at [[WP:EL]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOT]] when you get the chance.</s> Thanks for volunteering to serve and good luck with this RfA. --<font face="Futura">
No compelling reason to oppose, looks good. Nearly 4k edits, with 52 to AIV and 27 to RPP, is more than enough experience. <b>
'''Support''' This user seems to be perfect for the role of admin....  he knows the rules but is able to convey them in a civil manner.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Solid contributor with good understanding. Nothing majorly of concern, or nothing that would justifiably prevent him from receiving the mop, IMHO. --
'''Oppose''' Just not ''quite'' enough experience yet.  This is not to say you don't have any, but I would prefer if you had more experience in admin-related areas.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Just 1200 for the Mainspace, only 394 for the Wikipedia and 61 for the Wikipedia talk. Seems you have to get involve more into some projects. --

'''Weak Oppose''' While I commend Nat for getting involved in a tricky issue, I'm just not impressed with his response to Q.5. Uw-legal is a strong charge and should only be used on the accounts that are actually at fault. While his actions may have seemed appropriate to him at the time, I would like to see a bit more circumspection after the fact.
'''Oppose''' as per user Ronnotel. Sorry, friend.
'''Oppose'''. I've worked with Nat, I think he's a really nice and great guy, but as the first opposer pointed out, he doesn't have enough experience. I think he needs some more mainspace edits, and some more time.
'''Oppose''' For all the usual reasons.  I was hard pressed to find one single edit that actually built an article.  Very short-time on the project.
'''Oppose'''. I previously raised some concerns about your addition of fair-use images of living people, which was merely a minor violation of image guidelines. I have changed my vote due to concerns raised by [[User:Rrburke]], over self-made images of copyrighted logos you have uploaded and tagged as free (specifically [[:Image:Nbpc.png]] and [[:Image:Ontario Libertarian Party small logo.png]]), which is too large of an infraction of image rules to overlook. I believe that you need to advance your knowledge of image guidelines before you are made a moderator.
'''Oppose''', for now.  Nat is obviously a fine editor and will no doubt at some later date make a fine admin.  But his answers to my questions seemed perfunctory: they were generally of the “yes I ''do'' think others should have confidence I’d act appropriately” variety and didn’t explain, by pointing to any concrete steps he had taken to rectify the deficiencies that led to his mistakes in the first place, ''why'' others ought now to have that confidence.  He also conceded he didn’t go and look at the relevant policy when a problem had been pointed out to him, something you might expect even a casual editor to do, but that a prospective admin really should have done immediately, by reflex.  I agree with Morgan695 that uploading bad fair-use images and failing to add fair-use rationales are relatively minor infractions.  But while the infractions in themselves are minor, what’s not minor is that an admin candidate is committing such infractions a couple of weeks before his RfA because he’s never encountered the relevant policy before!  That suggests the editor is just not experienced enough – yet -- to assume the added responsibilities of adminship.  Presuming to release as self-created free content trademarked logos is a more serious problem, and really ought to give one pause.  Of course, it’s directly related to the same problem of experience, and the solution to the problem is more experience – before adminship.  Several participants in this discussion have expressed their confidence that Nat “won’t abuse the tools.”  It’s a sentiment I share, but it’s a pretty low bar: of course he won’t ''a''buse the tools: he’s a responsible and serious editor, not a vandal.  It’s not the unlikely prospect that he would “''a''buse the tools” that concerns me, but the more plausible possibility that he might “''mis''use the tools” inadvertently through inexperience and unfamiliarity with a relevant policy.  I’d be happy to support Nat’s RfA at a later date, just not yet. --
'''Oppose''' Per Ronnotel.
'''Neutral leaning weak support''' The issuing of a {{tl|uw-legal}} was not appropriate when sockpuppetry was not confirmed. The candidate has apologised but I am not sure that I can support while I think that something like this could happen again, then again, I have no particular evidence to expect that it may.
Too little experience I fear. Try again in about a month, and I will support.
'''Neutral'''. Broke through my edit minimum requirements during the course of the nomination, but concerns raised by Lahiru and Orangemarin in the oppose section are too major to justify a support.
'''Neutral'''. The minor nature of the great majority of the editor's recent edits provide me with little evidence of encyclopedia building to weigh against the mistakes regarding policy that have been brought up here. I fear that the candidate's RfA might be a little premature in terms of understanding of policy; however, his interactions appear civil and I have no worries that he will abuse the tools.
I have concerns with what <s>Morgan695 (images) and</s> Rrburke (experience) said above, which means I can't support this nomination at this time. Look forward to another nomination down the track if this one is unsuccessful, though. '''
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' hey I thought you were one... I should study the admin list more often... :) '''
'''Support''' <font face="monospace">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' everything I've seen has been good.
'''Yes, yes:''' Seems to already do quite a bit of admin-related stuff and does it well.
'''Support'''- looks okay to me :) <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Seems likes a person who would use admin tools well
'''Support''' Looks like a fine, fine admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]

'''Strong support''' Yes please, should be a splendiferous admin. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Looks good! -
'''Strong Support''' - A very good Editor plus also a good vandal fighter..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' A fine editor, indeed. <font color="Green">
'''Support'''. Excellent RP patroller who has answered the questions well.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no problems here. -
'''Support''' Encountered a lot lately, and always leaves a good impression.
'''Support''' Experience of vandal stopping alone is good enough for me.
'''Support''', all seems fine.
'''Support''' because of their good edits and vandalism fighting though the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=113593823 lack of experience]. We all know that experience comes quickly w/ time. -- ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified and able.
'''Support''' qualified candidate.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No worries here, very worthy editor.
'''Support''' Everything checks out, trustworthy. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Nice user, I've seen her around; well, I edited her user page for her too.
'''Support''' Seems nice, she would probably use admin tools in the right fashion  '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I've seen good things from this editor :-) --
'''Support''' Solid vandal fighter.  She does not have many content contributions but what she has contributed to content has been good.  --'''
'''Support'''  I've never had any interaction with the user other than edit conflicts in rollbacks, and I've watched her for months.  Mop worthy for certain.
'''Support''', dedicated users make good admins
'''Support''' I think some vandals are about to be [[:Image:Flail01.png|whacked]]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
support :) --
'''Support''' Looks good. --
'''Support'''. Have seen Natalie doing good work and have had positive interactions with her. Her contribs show her to have the necessary experience (particularly in relation to the vandal whacking stick...). Trustworthy candidate who will use the tools well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Obviously working hard to make Wikipedia a better place. Will use vandal-thwacking stick for the good of the community.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Erin seems to have done a lot of great work as an editor, and will continue to do so as an admin.--'''
'''Support'''. She helped me understand what's going on here, hehe!
'''Support''' yes, helpful and skilled editor. Was thinking about nominating her
'''Support'''. Strong anti-vandal candidate and experienced editor, no concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the tools, Natalie.
'''Support''' Will do fine with the tools.--
'''Strong Support''' From what I see, even though she's greenish in other places, if she was granted the mop, she'd double her capacity as a WikiPolicewoman(my new term for a user who concentrates on Recent Changes, New Page, and of similar kind). Great user, she will do great with the mop.
I'm
'''Bandwagon support''' per nom and all of the above. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per wiki gnoming and patrols.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''! <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' Not much more to add - a great all-round editor. --
'''Support'''.  Even a brief scan of her contributions reveals that she is a valuable vandalfighter and civil even in the face of provocation ... an admirable feat given how hectic and stressful RC patrol can be.  --
'''Support''' seems to be a good, balanced across the board canidate... -
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. Will definitely make a great admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''; Why not? Someone who already reads [[WP:AN]] would make a good admin, and she seems to have a very good perspective on the function of administrators.
'''Support''' Looks good.  --
'''Support''', good accross the board.
'''Support''' Per AIV contributions and in general I think that this user would be a good administrator. --
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions and solid contributions to the project.  No reason to think she would not handle the extra tools well.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' - Already using available tools to perform admin type tasks with civility.  She can be trusted with the extra tools. --
'''Support''' Great use who deserves tools. Shows knowledge of all processes on WP. Definite sysop material.
'''Support''' like everyone else.--
'''Support''' - although this candidate has no need of my vote; there's no opposition at all so far. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I see no problems. '''''
'''Support''' per Mschel '''
'''Support'''. I support this user, because she has demonstrated that she doesn't lack the needs for these tools. Again, I '''Support''' her.
'''Support''' Great work on [[WP:AIV|AIV]] (but enough said above)
'''Support''' This user welcomes out new admin overlord. ~
'''Support''' per nom. — '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Final support''' under the gun. --
'''Neutral''' due to general lack of experience in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. While she's off to a good start, I think a little more experience is necessary before I support. I would support if the current level of activity is maintained for another 2-3 months, especially if more focus is given to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, which is where many admin duties are found. ···
'''Support''' I'll beat the nom and the other nom on this one. Good editor, should be a good admin.
Yep. --
'''Strong support''' Excellent contributions, great work on the unblock mailing list, sufficiently reputable nominators :) I ask that this RfA not degrade into a discussion about the merits of CSN, though. I personally think Navou's involvement with CSN is a good thing - admins who discuss are much preferable to admins who don't. ~
'''Beat the noms edit conflict support''', I was considering offering to nominate Navou myself when I saw it was already being done. I've seen him around quite a bit and have always been highly impressed.
'''Strong Support''' I thought this user already was. Seems more than qualified, could do great things with the tools, and I see no reason to be uneasy about them having the mop --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
Yep. Seems quite good. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Looks to be an ideal candidate for the mop --'''
'''Support''' I trust the user, as well as the nom.
Support. '''
'''Support''' - 三度目の正直 (The success (or the truth) on the third time). Absolutely no concerns. --
Good fella.

'''Support''' - Seems  like a great user, and could do with the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' I'm a bit concerned over the relatively low number of mainspace edits, but not enough to withhold support. Appears to be a fine user who would improve WP if entrusted with the admin tools.
'''Strong support''', most definitely.  And if this doesn't make [[WP:100]], I shall be flummoxed.
—'''
'''Support''' No problems here!!!!
'''Support.''' I normally don't bother with uncontroversial nominations, but Navou is an excellent user who deserves a resounding endorsement from this community. The admin corps will only be improved.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. Experienced in all the right areas. I don't think the tools would be abused. Good luck! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Now qualified to be admin concerns raised earlier cleared.
'''Support''' as nom.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - From my experience a great editor.  I also trust husonds judgement so I beleive this editor would make a great addition as an admin.
'''Support''', because as far as I can tell, Navou seems to make decisions based on consensus and is fair in that regard.  Best of luck! :)  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Per nom. We've had a lot of good candidates this week havem't we? <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' Was just looking over his contributions for the last month. Very very impressed. He's clearly already playing an Admin role. Strong support.
'''Support'''.  Calm responses at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]], having sysop powers will speed up things considerably.  Can't see anything to oppose about.  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
A good editor who would make a fine admin. — '''
'''Support''', contributions look good and show an understanding of policy and procedure.  Insightful comments left on other RfA's shows this candidate knows what the mop is about.
'''Support''' - Yes, yes, yes. Happy to see he has been recognized. Some nice mainspace contribs with close to 70 reports to [[WP:AIV]]. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Seems to be one of the editors who are trying to spread the burden of dispute resolution around.  My only comment would be to spend more effort on article talk pages so that users and items don't end up in as much dispute resolution process.  --
'''Support''' - no problems with this editor. Hard worker, always polite, knows policy well -
'''Support''' of course. Would be an asset as an admin.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate with a good range of contributions.
'''Support'''. Seriously thought he was one already.
'''Support''' per nomination. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Good vandal fighter, and understands policy.
'''Surprised support''' I already bloody thought you had the mop. A solid candidate.
'''Support'''.  Candidate has excellent contributions, and has shown strong, steady improvement since the last RFA.  A good admin candidate indeed.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' My one encounter left a positive impact, all of the above supports that impression, so there. --
'''Strong Support''' I got bored after reviewing the first 2,000 evidences of civility, knowledge, helpfullness, vandal fighting and article work. I guess you put all the edit warring, incvivility, trolling, poor closure of AFD's etc etc in the contributions before then so I wouldn't find them. :) Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' definitely. Good luck! :) '''
'''Support''' - good answer ;)
'''Support''' as much improved.
'''Sure'''... make us proud. By the way, kudos for starting the article on [[lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia]]. '''
'''Support''' How is it possible you haven't been snapped up earlier?
'''Support''' ''Unblock-en-l'' wiki support, although we will need your wiki name, IP address, nominating admin, and reason for nomination before you can get the sysop flag set. [[Image:Emblem-extra-cool.svg|25px]] --
'''support''' is clearly a trusted editor - why not. '''
'''Support''' no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - alot of respected work and two good nominations. <sup>
'''Support.''' I've seen his work, and respect his judgment.
'''Support'''. Candidate is a good encyclopedia builder and very helpful.
'''Support'''. Third time's the charm for Navou. --
'''Support'''. I respect Navou's contribs and his judgment. Third time is the charm after all.  '''''
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
Why not? <b>
'''Support''' - Navou is one of the best editors I've seen on wikipedia, he's an expert mediator, and his contributions to WP:CSN and WP:ANI are always well reasoned and well balanced.  I really can't see any reason he wont be an excellent sysop--
'''Support''' Navou is an excellent nominee who has made substantial contributions in mainspace since his previous RFAs and earned serious points with the community enforceable mediation project. I hope it turns out well, but I have no doubt Navou will turn out well as a sysop.--
'''Support''' Okay with me. -
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' - Good editor, Good contribs. Great improvments since last RFA.
'''Support''' per nom. I do not see problems here, you have good contribution at [[WP:CSN]] and [[WP:ANI]]. Good luck
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest Navou will abuse the tools.
'''Yes, yes, yes''' --
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' a bit more inclusionist than average, but this editor understands the ropes at XFD and I think he'll do well with the tools.
'''Support''' - a fine user, who I was sure was already an admin. I've seen him pop up all over, and does great work on the unblock mailing list. Will be fine as an admin.
'''Support''' per Alison and Newyorkbrad.
'''Support'''. Navou has come a long way since his first RfA and I think he's now ready to be an admin. No issues that I can see. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''  Another cop that wants to be admin.  Not very useful or necessary to the project.
'''Oppose''' The editor needs a bit more experience in creating and editing articles.--
'''Oppose''', unfortunately overenthusiastic. Can't be sure how eagerly he will use the bits. He quotes RFPP as a page on which he wishes to work, but in my opinion, based, admittedly, on a single interaction, he will not make anything easier.  My remarks on this incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANavou&diff=155120258&oldid=155052703 are] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANavou&diff=155154707&oldid=155144683 here]. It may be temporary over-activity brought on by being the subject of an RfA, but that's too much of a risk as far as I am concerned. (First time I have ever opposed an RfA, if anyone's counting.)
'''Reluctant oppose''' Navou commented on his informal mediation at the article of [[Shawn Hornbeck]]. It frankly left me rather unimpressed. He showed very little understanding of [[WP:BLP]] and I feel like his presence often exacerbated a rather unpleasant situation. I also have to agree that he appears overly enthusiastic in regards to becoming an admin, rather than in building an encyclopedia.
In a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures|recent AfD]] you closed as a non-administrator, you failed to mention you were not at the time an admin, which you are expected to do when closing as a non admin. Normally, I wouldn't have been really bothered by this, but it was a lengthy and complex discussion, and would require some serious thought as to the closure. In this case, identifying that you are not an admin would have been important. I also strongly disagree with your close, but I dont base opinions on that. You're a good editor on the whole, but that AfD doesn't sit well with me. Thus, the '''neutral'''. In the interest of disclosure, I did suggest deletion in the AfD.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good admin, but looking through some of his archives I've found some things I don't really like. But I can't really oppose. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' as nominator.
I'm still considering co-nomming.  I wanted to nom you months ago! '''
'''Support''' over 32K edit count and see no reason to oppose.
Seems to be a prolific contributor with lots of experience, especially in mainspace. Was surprised to see that he is not an admin yet. <b>
'''Support''', of course! :) '''
'''Support''' Plenty of experience and dedication to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin.  Certainly trust you with the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''+''' From my experiences with Nehrams, I implicitly trust him and know he will use the tools well. :-) '''
'''Support''' Cleaning out the imges is a good thing.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' will do good with the tools. Not just the same "I wanna block as many vandals as possible and delete articles"
'''Support''' Top quality contributor.
'''Support''' good luck! --'''
'''Support''' - If I've ever met you, I don't recall it, but you seem to understand images, you're involved with good and featured articles, ''and'' heavily involved with WikiProject films? Yes, I think you could use the tools : ) -
'''Support''' Seems to be a fine candidate for the admin tools. Can't see any reason not to support. :) '''
'''Support''' A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Incredibly experienced editor who knows what he's doing and will do excellent things with the mop.
'''Support''' I've never seen you before, but all your recent contributions seem sensible & you seem to know policy inside-out<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' - no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools.  -
You're such a good contributor, I could hardly do anything but '''support'''! -
'''Support'''.  Should have been an admin awhile ago.  '''
'''Support''' Significant contributions to the Good articles section and 100% edit summary and excellent overall contributions.--
'''Support''' - Great editor. '''
'''Support''' - Of course, no doubts here! :-)
'''Support''' good experience and contributions, I think you will be a admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' - nothing but good work on WP Films.
'''Support'''. Hard-working, long-term editor with many positive contributions.
I support you :)
A good user.
'''Support''' Good contibs, good history. Needs the tools.--
'''Support'''Contributions are very good and level of editing very high no concerns.
'''Support''' good editor. props department - a mop and bucket, please!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Assumed he was one. -- <strong>
'''Support''' A tireless contributor at [[WP:GAC]] reviews.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - we have here one of the more ''elite'' RfAs. You will definately make a very fine admin indeed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strongly Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor, good manner with other contributors, no reason to assume he will abuse the tools. --
'''STrong support''' '''
'''Support''' - A strong editor with heaps of experience.  --
'''Support''' - That many edits and a clean block log sure does indicate someone we can trust with the tools.  Your work with oversized non-free images will certainly be appreciated. --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as being an active GA project member. He is patient enough to teach people about GA process (including me).
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - good luck!
Beat-the-other-noms-support! :P&nbsp;&mdash;
Support per noms. Great user, I see good work at the Help Desk and AIV, too. No concern.
Absolutely ready. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - been waiting for transclusion. ;P
'''Support''' happy, polite and hard working - all the traits of an excellent admin candidate. Good luck! '''
'''Support''', yes, will be a fine admin.
'''Strong Support''' Oh, most definitely.
'''Support''' Good contributor. --
'''Strong Support''' Good luck Neranei!
'''Strong Support''' She is a all around good user. Though when I am voting for admins I do not believe they need to be all around good admins, it is always a good thing to see all around good people become admins. I support because there is nothing that leads me to believe she will abuse the tools, and my support had been strengthened by the fact she is a all around good editor. Good luck!--
Kinda broke semi-retirement to have a say at this one. More than ready. ~
'''Strong support''' per SJP. I want to see Neranei have the mop. Now stop causing edit conflicts. Haha.
'''Support''', good user, good person! <small> Even though she's just a kid, and likes U2</small> ;p ~
'''Support''', is trying to write stuff as well, so doublegood. cheers,
'''Support''' - fantastic <s>guy</s>gal, very knowledgeable - will be fine.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support'''. I have seen Neranei in action dealing with administrative tasks and been impressed; I have no doubts she will be a very good admin.
Aw, I wanted to be first but you transcluded it when I was asleep. '''Support''' of course.
A bit pissed off '''Strong Support'''. Dammit all, '''I''' wanted to be the first non-nom support! Effin' job... :) Seriously, this editor is about everything that makes WP great. Her skills are unquestionable, and her demeanor friendly. We need MANY more admins like Neranei!
'''Support''' No major concerns here. It is time to give her the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as nom. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
<s>'''Oppose''' - too many co-noms, and I can't take much more of H<sub>2</sub>0's sense of humour.</s> Just kidding. Obvious '''Support''', per long history of content-building edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U2&diff=prev&oldid=169289615 this]. This candidate is one of the best I've seen.
'''Support''' - user is dedicated to Wikipedia and the occasional vandal it may attract.
I strongly support this nomination, of course, being the nominator. :) I would have been here much earlier, except that I was most likely asleep during that time.
'''Support''' - Appears prepared and knowledgeable.
'''Support''' have seen you around a lot; why not support?--
Acalamari nomination = instant support.
'''Support''', per the great three noms, above.
'''Support'''. The candidate appears qualified.
'''Support''' — [[A Celebration]] is in order, for it is a [[Beautiful Day]]; Nera is ready for adminship! </lame [[U2]] joke> ;-) --'''
'''Support''' - seems definitely a good candidate for Admin. very well qualified. I agree with all the other supporters. '''
'''Support''' - what's not to like?
'''Strong support'''. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' -- marked improvement, lots of edits and significant ones, great nominators, and good answers to questions.
'''Strong support''' Excellent user! <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''', good user. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support'''. A very dedicated, knowledgeable, and friendly editor, a shining example of what our admins should strive for. --'''<font color="#C31562">
I think this is a fairly obvious decision.
'''Support''' Looks like you're got what it takes and therefore I have no choice but to support.
'''Suppprt''' - unmitigatedly.  Neranei is an excellent editor who will no doubt be a very successful administrator.
'''Support''': Thought she was one, blah blah. —
'''Support''' - just found this RfA now and am delighted to see it here. About time, too :) Neranei is a super editor, has time for everyone, is kind and never BITEy and has a great knowledge of policy. She's be an excellent admin -
'''Support''' - no question. All the best. <sup>
I'm
'''Support''' - After I reviewed her answers and contributions (well, not every single contrib as there is a lot of them :D), I found that Neranei is a super fantastic editor and a wonderful vandal fighter who seems to be always friendly and civil to both new and experienced editors.  This user is beyond ready to be handed the mop and bucket.
'''Oppose''' for transcluding while I was asleep. Can't you commonwealth users give ''me'' a chance to support quickly? :) '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' She's very well suited for the mop: friendly, knowledgeable, helpful. ~
'''Strong Support''' A solid editor who exercises great judgement. Can definitely be trusted with the mop. Will be a strong asset to the project. --
'''Support per above.'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I have seen this editor in action and see nothing to create concern. :) --
'''Support''' - good taste in music ;) --
'''Support''' will do fine as an admin.
'''Support''' Bravo! Is an experienced and active contributer to Wikipedia. <font face="Forte">
'''Support''' I asked to nom her, but she said that she already had three. And I'm support number 50-something. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' &ndash; Obviously the sock of a tenured sysop. <tt>:-)</tt> —
'''$upport''' Go for it mate! <b>
'''Support''' I know she will do well, especially on how she handled [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=168190579 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=168194968&oldid=168194958 this]. -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support''' very good contributions, you are ready. Good luck.
'''Support''', definitely.  --
'''Support''', yep.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' to make it closer to 100.
'''Strong Support''' I have had the great honor of knowing Neranei for a while now, and she is just a wonderful editor, and a kind, supportive person with an excellent sense of humor. Acalamari is an administrator I also know quite well, and I know that he would not nominate someone without a thorough look into their editing history, and full confidence in their abilities. Neranei has offered on numerous occasions to assist me on any projects I may need a hand with, and she's always done so with an enthusiasm that is infectious. I've never once seen her respond to issues with anything but a calm manner, and a kind word. Her answers to the questions posed here are excellent, especially her response to question 5. As to the note below about her age, I will point out we have a number of very young (under 16) administrators, who are absolutely excellent in their roles. I don't think age is an issue with Neranei, there are a great number of very mature young editors, and I think it could safely be said there are some older editors who may not always act in a mature manner. Neranei is one of the most mature people I've ever run into, and I think a recent issue she was involved with, regarding a user claiming to be an administrator here, illustrates this absolutely perfectly: She noticed the editor had redirected [[Tube Steak]] from the current redirect to [[Hot dog]], to [[Penis]], and she did what anyone would have done, reverted and left a level one notice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tubesteak&oldid=170184107]. As illustrated in the conversation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neranei&oldid=170208230#Tubesteak here], the editor claimed to be an administrator, said that the redirect was valid, and told her to leave it alone. She asked the editor on his talk page to let her know who his administrative account was, and if he did not wish to do so on the talk page, to please email her so that it could be cleared up. The editor was not very receptive, and responded rather abruptly, to which Neranei continued to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tubesteak&oldid=170184107 discuss] the issue in an extremely calm, pleasant manner. When the editor continued to insist he didn't need to disclose his identity to her unless she was an administrator, calling her a "civilian", and claiming that his [[WP:RS|reliable source]] was Urbandictionary.com. When he indicated he had no more interest in discussing the issue with her, she rightly took the issue to AN/I to ask for other opinions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=170209722#Possible_sysop_impersonator], and left the editor a very nice note to let him know that's what she did. It was determined that the editor was impersonating an administrator, as illustrated by their userpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tubesteak&oldid=170116225], onto which they copied [[User:Alex_Bakharev]]'s userboxes. The editor was blocked, and the issue resolved quickly. Neranei's actions are above reproach, following guidelines and policy, while remaining extremely civil and kind throughout the entire exchange, illustrating a firm grasp of policy and procedure, as well as the maturity that is needed for administrators in conflict situations. Such an editor is truly valuable, and I firmly believe that she will make an excellent addition to the current administrative team. </small> <small>
'''Support''' An extremely good candidate, easy choice here.
'''Support''' per ArielGold, this is an excellent, thoughtful, hardworking candidate that I think will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' looks great. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Strongest Support Possible'''-- You go girl! Neranei is an all around great person whose excellent attitude and glowing kindness have more than once been the highlight of my day. '''''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' per the three noms.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' Neranei's response to that (IMHO ridiculous) oppose shows a great attitude for an admin. '''
'''Support''', I've seen you all around here; I'm sure you would make a good admin. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Néi''' - good track recod, good answers, good interactions with this user.  Every reason to support.
'''Support'''. I opposed Neranei's first RfA because at the time I felt that she lacked experience. Since that time, Neranei has worked hard in a number of areas, and gained the experience that I believe admins should have. I'm confident that she will be a great admin. --
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent candidate, -
Per Ariel et.al, and similar to Rigadoun, if asked, I would spontaneously have thought you already had the bit. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Per Majorly.--
'''Strong support''' this candidate has shown herself to be wiser and more grounded than other editors two or even three times her age. Her availability and commitment to the project also seem more than up to par. She is a definite asset to Wikipedia. ''Allez les Bleus!''--
'''Support''' - has always seemed very calm and reasonable when I've come across her. Has plenty of relevant experience. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - will make an excellent administrator. -&nbsp;<span style="font-family:courier new; background-color:black">
'''Support''' - Why the heck not? Always thought Neranei's actions where civil. --
'''Support''' - my only concern is... I thought you were a dude? Guess not. Just messing with you. I'm sure you'll make a superb admin. I think you need to familiarise yourself a little more with code and such, but that's hardly an area of concern, as you're resourceful enough that you know who to contact when the $hit hits the fan. --
'''Support''' - She will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - I ahve seen this user around, and have been given, directly or indirectly, great advice. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' you've achieved a real lot in your time here. Well done, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. I've had a (small) amount of contact with this user on Wikipedia, and have found her to be courteous, rational, polite, and pleasant to work with. Having reviewed some of her contributions, her conduct in general seems equally impressive. I'm confident that she'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' A ''great'' contributor. I think that the words of the other supporters of this RfA, especially [[User:ArielGold|ArielGold]], have put my support into words better than I could :) '''(
'''Support'''
'''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''mild oppose'''This editor recently added the WPMILHIST tag to [[.50 Action Express]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.50_Action_Express&diff=170229612&oldid=168976664]. IMO this was an incorrect tag because: 1) There is no record of any military usage of this firearms cartridge and 2) this tag has been added/removed twice already. No big deal, I've added my share of incorrect tags. ;-) However, I was surprised by the response,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthurrh&diff=170233126&oldid=170226535] which seems to show an incorrect reading of the guideline as I see it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arthurrh&diff=next&oldid=170233126] Again, not a big deal for an editor, we all make mistakes and the more bold you are or the more you contribute, the more frequently you're likely to make a small misstep. However I'd be somewhat concerned about an admin who couldn't get the basics of a project guideline.
I normally think neutral "votes" are very silly.  But, I cannot bring myself to support someone so young- it seems very unlikely to me that someone of that age could have reasonable adult judgement.  However, I can't think of ''actual instances'' of poor judgment I've seen from her, so I don't have much in the way of reasonable grounds to oppose either.
'''Strong Support in lieu of co-nomination'''. I love this user. He will be the kind of thoughtful, mature, friendly, helpful sysop we need. I enjoy reading his opinions all over this project, and absolutely trust his judgment. Ms. Ewart covered the subject perfectly. I couldn't support more strongly. - <b>

'''Support'''. Not fair voting before it opens, you cheaters. -
That was a surprise, I thought you were one a long time ago!
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''', absolutely.  I've never experienced so many edit conflicts because of people rushing to support an RfA.  It bodes well. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support'''
About time &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' need I say any more?
'''Strong Support'''. No problems, excellent answers to questions.
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Super-strong Support''' - unbelievable level of involvement. --
'''Yes'''
About time
'''Automated Support'''.  [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] is on vacation, but he thinks Brad is a great guy who deserves the mop.  Of course, Brad is also an idiot who [[User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2#Adminship.3F|didn't realize]] he was already a better candidate than most three months ago.  Not only that, but he has the nerve to run only after his would be nominator goes on vacation.  Those evident errors in judgment aside, Brad has already been a calm, rational and articulate contributor to important discussions at ANI and many other places, and if he is going to act that much like a sensible admin, it is about time we make him one.
'''Support''' I thought you already were an admin. --
It's-about-time '''support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' My encounter with him, in which he presented impeccable evidence (as mentioned by Sarah [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=96171053]) and helped me with his feeback was entirely positive. &mdash;
'''Support''' Best candidate in a long time.--
'''Support''' absolutely --
'''Strong Support''' (as nominator). '''
'''Foregone conclusion support''' per nominator, Brad is the best-qualified admin candidate I have seen at RfA since I arrived :) '''
'''Strong support''', he deserves it. --
Sure.
'''Strong support'''. I first noticed Newyorkbrad in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable|Konstable arbcom case]], and I was most impressed with his comments there. If I have any criticism of him, it's that he failed to give me the opportunity to vote for him in last month's Arbcom election.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
"$RFA_CLICHE_1" --
'''Support''', long-expected nomination.
'''Support''' If he's not promoted after this RFA, that would be a crime. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Had this on my watchlist. :) --
'''Support''' - RFA cliché number 1.
Positively. Per everyone above.
'''Support''' as per all above
'''Support''' Of course. One of our best.

'''Strong, strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,strong,storon Support''' as someone who got refused earlier as a nominator. '''
'''Support''' -- thought he was one already! <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' on a long anticipated nomination.
'''Support''' – has very good judgment. '''''×'''''
'''Strong support''' of course.... --
'''Support'''. Definitely yes.
'''Support''' - excellent editor, will make excellent admin.
'''Support''' not already?
'''Support''', wasn't he one?
'''Support''', unconditional. Never seen this guy make a bad move.
'''Support''', not before time, has shown himself to be a true asset to Wikipedia. <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards -
I'm
'''Absodamnlutely.''' --
About bloody time. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', an outstanding candidate. --
'''Support'''. '''''—[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Suport''', most definitely.--
Absolutely, '''very strong support''', this user is perfect adminship candidate. &mdash;
'''Suport'''Great editor.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''', well goodness yes, he is a far more than capable candidate! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Clearly.  —
'''Strong Support.''' Great candidate.--
'''Strong support''' how is it possible you are not an admin already? I'd just assumed you were. Its hard to imagine a better candidate.
'''Support''' without doubt.
Aye. &ndash;
'''What do you mean you're not already an admin?''' --
'''Strong support'''. I smell a new top candidate for [[WP:100#Requests for adminship:]]. :) --
'''Support''' Terrific candidate.
'''Strong Support''' Hell yes! --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Happy to support this application - an excellent editor!

'''Strong Support''' Already helps out with everything admin-ly, could definately help further and is a great and trusted editor.
'''Strong Support'''. Is already an admin in all but the tools. Should have had an RfA months ago.
'''Strong Support.''' I have been waiting for this, and I am sure many others have been as well.
I have always thought of Newyorkbrad as an admin :). Seriously the answers to the questions are excellent and as an admin he will do us proud!
'''Support''' Fantastic answers, great contribs, loads of experience...it's hard to believe he didn't already have a mop. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A voice of reason and moderation in many heated debates and conflicts, especially on AN/I and RFAR. You'll make a fine admin. [[WP:PERF]] aside, please don't give everybody who supports you a thankyou note - you might crash a server or something.
Pile-on '''support'''. A welcome source of insights and clear thinking, as so many people have mentioned above.
'''So much support''' that I had this page on my watchlist '''before''' it was created. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
As much as I hate to pile-on, I'm gunna go ahead and '''support''' this as well.
'''Support''' I know i've seen him around. Dejavu should count for something.
'''Support''' A great choice! --
'''<s>Oppose for not going through RfA earlier</s> Strong pile-on support''' per everyone else. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support'''. Let's just say that, for obvious reasons, this isn't really one of my hardest choices ever on Wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''' Definitely one of the best candidates we've seen in a while. Great catch Sarah! Impressive answers. ←
'''Support'''. Per the many reasons above.
'''Support'''.  A voice of reason with plenty of relevant experience--
'''Support'''. I thought Newyorkbrad was an admin already! When I get to that stage, I know they should be "promoted". ''
'''Support''' Good user whom I trust with adminship.--
'''Support'''.  Good user; I've seen him do fine work in arbitration cases, and I trust his judgment. --
'''Strong Support''' Already thought he was an admin. He definately deserves it. '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Great editor who's likely to be an even better admin. '''''
'''Support''' All right NYB! Get on it! [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.ms]]
'''Support''' An admin needs to be a person you can disagree with and still be productive, NYB qualifies in that regard. Experience is enough, would be a benefit.
'''Support'''. Aww...I wanted to co-nom. =( '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Huzzah.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|Llama]] [[User talk:Llama man|man]]<sup>
'''Support''', of course. A great editor --
'''Support''' I could not believe it when I saw NYBrad's name at the top of RfA at last.
'''Support''' Based on nom alone I support, though it is not the only reason why. To be honest I've very little interaction with Newyorkbrad, if any at all, mostly just from reading discussions around the Wiki. NYB always seems to comment with common sense, and with that applied to the extra tools, I think he'll make a fantastic admin.
'''Support''' - I've encountered this candidate many times over the past few months, and found his contributions to discussions to be excellent. He would use the tools well in my opinion, and can be trusted with them. He also showed admirable restraint under pressure to accept earlier offers of nominations.

'''Support''' Excellent candidate; glad to add to the landslide in this case, as the candidate deserves overwhelming support! :)
'''Support'''.  I've seen him all over Wikipedia doing good work.  Thought he already was one?
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Holy Shit. I just have to say, that's A LOT of support so quickly!!!
'''Support'''. Duh. -
'''Support'''. A voice of moderation and reason. Responsible handling of the tools more than likely. Happy to support.
'''Pile it on''' Another 100 Wikipedians support vote... --
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''', absolutely. <b>
'''Support''' a truly excellent candidate. What took so long?--
'''A strong 1''' - Absolutely deserved. -- ''
''semper fi'' —
Awwww, I wanted to be the #100...
'''Support''' Good contributions, proud to support this great candidate.
'''Support''' of course.  This is one of the easiest calls I've made in recent times. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' - because of what I could understand in their response to question one, was really high quality. But in all seriousness, what this person has done is incredible. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Daniel()Folsom</font> [[User talk:Danielfolsom|<sup>T</sup>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom|<sub>C</sub>]]|
'''Support'''.  Go rogue and I track you down, though. d;-) --
'''Support''' absolutely excellent contributor.--
'''Strong Support''' per nom, crz, etc.
'''Support''' as he will (undoubtedly) use his legal expertise and experience in executing his responsibilities as admin. −
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Strongest ever support''' - quite possibly the best mediator on Wikipedia and a phenomenal editor as well. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' It ''will'' change you. --
'''Weak support'''. I'm never crazy abotu more user talk edits then mainspace, but I'd also be crazy to oppose.--
'''Support'''. Appears rational and fair. -
'''Strong Support'''. To quote someone else from another Request for Adminship (dunno which one), why the heck isn't he an admin already? Also, can we invoke the [[WP:SNOW]] clause here? Look at the vote majority for my reasoning.
'''Support'''. hmm. opposite of [[WP:SNOW]] here? I mean, nearly 40kb support, let's end this before we get [[WP:200]] or something. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support'''. In my time here I've seen this user pop up all over the project. Newyorkbrad is a very involved editor who consistently exercises good judgment and sound reasoning. My pleasure to support. –
'''Support'''. I've liked what I've seen so far.
'''Support''' Wow. Amazing. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
Perfunctory '''support''', because although I'm impressed by this editor, he's got quite a lot of support already.
'''Support''' per all above. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I thought I thaw a puddy-cat... I think I'm drunk.
'''Support'''
Better mainspace record than I had (or have).
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' -- as has been said elsewhere, provides a much needed "voice of reason", and is level headed. -
'''Support''' -- I don't usually vote in RFA's when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  However, I'm making an exception in this case because I want to add my support because I have seen NewYorkBrad's level-headed "voice of reason" in action in the Carnildo RFA and Giano II RFARB.  He'll be a great admin and should be a bureaucrat too.  --
'''Support''' - Not that much needs to be said that hasn't, but NewYorkBrad's balanced edits are welcome, and I really think NewYorkBrad has a good handle on what to do with admin powers. --
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Absolutely'''. Seen nothing but levelheadedness and reason out of this user. —
'''Unnecessary Support'''. Will make a good editor.
'''Strong Support'''. Oh, yes, yes. Oh, yes, yes.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. A valuable and dedicated Wikipedian both online and IRL.
'''Support'''. While I normally resist "pile on", this seems a worthy exception.
'''Support''' missed getting in on this early... I don't always agree with him but he will add immense value. ++
'''Support'''.  Wikipedia, unlike the rest of the world, needs more lawyers.
'''Strong support''' - Just adding a little snow to the snowball.:)
'''Support''' A highly familiar name around Wikipedia. A very good candidate, AFAIK the first one I've ever voted for (I thought he was an admin already). --
'''Support'''  --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''; another one I trust; adding to the pile-on.  Nice work so far and please keep it up as an admin.
'''Support''', as someone who offered to nominate Brad months ago. I've been consistently impressed with his level of discourse, and to learn that he's a lawyer does not surprise me in the slightest. Would definitely be an asset to the project with more tools at his disposal. To paraphrase what he told me back in November, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=90849845&oldid=90849500 No one racks up a 1XX-X !vote count who doesn't thoroughly deserve it]. -- ''
'''Support''' as he'll no doubt use the tools <s>to further the goals of the Brad-prefix cabal</s> for awesome. --
'''Support.''' Top quality editor who will be a top quality admin. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' Great editor, I have continued to be impressed by Brad in his work here, and I'm sure he'll make a fantastic admin. Best of luck :)
Redundant '''Hell yeah''' support. --
'''Support''', he has been the "voice of reason" in several policy discussions that I have been involved in.  I thought he was an admin already!
'''Support'''I honestly thought this had been done already.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Support''' It's a pleasure to support you! You'll make a fine admin!
'''Support''' obviously.
'''Support''' Yes Sir!
'''Support''' - not likely to misuse tools.
'''Bradsupport''' 2 ~
'''Support''' for great justice.
'''Support''' All your mops belong to us.
'''Support''' I've come across him a few times, and he seems reasonable and level headed.
Dedicated and level-headed. --
'''Strong support''', a very worthwhile candidate.
'''Strong support''' -
'''Support''' Impressive contributions. We could always use more lawyers with mops :)
'''Support''' of course. A voice of reason on [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]] for the last few months.
'''Support'''.  The only time I have ever questioned Brad's judgment was when he refused to run for ArbComm.  ;-)  He's so effective as a non-admin that I have a slight concern that he should spend more time doing what he is already doing and not too much time mopping, but I am absolutely sure he will mop well.
'''Support''' Have seen a number of positive contributions from this user, and no negative ones. <font color="green">
'''Support''' -- obviously a trusted user.
'''Support''' - with Newyorkbrad's well-rounded experience and thoughtfulness, he will make an outstanding admin and presently deserves a good run at [[WP:200]]. --
'''Support''', very good editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Useful and thoughtful contributions at [[WP:DRV|deletion review]].
'''Support''' level headed user, would make a great admin.--
'''Support''', less mainstream contributions than my standards but what the heck, he is a good guy. Lets see another 200s
'''Support'''. Kind of pointless piling on, but can't let this go by without registering a !vote. The tools were made for this guy.
'''Support''' In under 200 with the "Thought he was one."
'''Support'''. Brad brings polite well reasoned opinions to all debates he participates in. Occasionally a bit too bogged down in policy/process, though in the best possible way - if _all_ admins were like Brad, WP might be overly legalistic, but to get _more_ admins like Brad is a good thing.
'''Support''' per excellent work at AFD and DRV.  Every reason to believe Brad would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''Will be a great admin. '''
I generally don't voice an opinion on an Rfa unless my !vote will be of some effect; however I am breaking that practice now: of course I strongly support Newyorkbrad for adminship, or I would not be supporting - but the reason I'm adding my name to this Rfa is quite frankly the shallow reason that it looks like a possible candidate for breaking 200 supports, and I cannot think of anyone better deserving of having that little feather in his cap.

'''Strong Support'''. I agree with the comments made in the nomination. Newyorkbrad is an excellent editor and will be an asset as an administrator. ···
'''Support''' Pile-on time! I like what I've seen of his work. -- '''<font color="navy">
'''Strong support''' I waited this whole freakin' time to offer [[WP:200]] support just to get edged out by [[User:Donald Albury|Dalbury]]??  It's probably time to [[WP:BAN|ban]] him in order that we might strike out his vote...
'''Strong support''' I'm shocked that he wasn't already an admin.  I've always found him an excellent editor with a cool head and strong dispute resolution skills.  The only problem I foresee is that he's gonna have a tough time thanking all these support voters!  I support this RfA without hesitation.  Enjoy the mop. --
'''Wait-wait-I-can't-believe-I'm-so-late-to-this-RfA-support.''' Extraordinarily helpful, knowledgeable, and coolheaded.  —

Thought he already was one.
I thought he was, too.—
'''Support''' for being an intelligent, mature lawyer-man who is actually paid (in the real world) to deal with people; he should do fine here.
'''Support'''.  One of those you just assumed was already an admin. --
'''Wanted to be a co-nom/Why didn't anyone tell me Support'''. I asked him way back in October [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=prev&oldid=84850024] - but I guess that was lost in the crowd. Ah, I guess that's how you find out who your real friends are! :-) Where he really belongs is the arbcom, frankly, but this is an important step there.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''[Insert expletive here] yeah! support''' --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''''[[Pro forma]]'' support'''.  This editor obviously doesn't need an additional support !vote, but I would be utterly remiss if I didn't weigh in here.  Well done!
'''Support''' I think we could use more help with mopping, I'll give my support.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Pile-on support'''.  A worthy addition to the cadre of admins.
'''Wikibreak support'''.  —
'''Support''' always a level head, open to debate and a thoughtful force. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - closing day support because I like a big number next to my name ;).
'''Support.''' Ridiculous pileon, I know, but I really like what I have seen of this user's work. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' because ''Aranda'' made me do it. ---
Wholly unnecessary, I know, but I cannot believe I hadn't seen this before. I cannot just stand by without supporting an excellent, calm, reasonable user with an admirable, almost enviable, knowledge of policy. '''Strong support'''.
'''Oppose''' - Despite this user being a voice of reason in many backroom debates, having more wikipedia namespace edits than mainspace edits seems lopsided to me.
'''Oppose''' A contributor since July 2006, doesn't seem like enough time for me to evaluate someone getting the tools.  People change with seasons and I think more time is needed.
I have no hesitation in supporting this nomination. I don't know much about Nick, apart from his editing on Wikipedia, but he is one of the most reasonable, mature and professional editors I have encountered. He would make an ideal admin.
Wot Grant said - we could do with more like Nick. Cheers,
Support as nom.
'''Strong Support''' as nomination.
'''Weak support''', not much experience in process and policy areas, but otherwise solid. --
'''Support''' seems to knwo his stuff from what I've seen on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history]] recently.
As per Cordesat. I am slightly concerned about the Wikipedia namespace contributions, and user talk edits, which currently stand at 270, since November 2005. Lack of interaction is an issue, but considering your other contributions, I have to support.
'''Support''' Experienced, cool headed; just what we need!
'''Support''' Great work everywhere you've been thus far. -
'''Support''' I would like to have seen some a lot more Wikipedia: namespace contributions, but that's certinally #not a reason ''not'' to give him the tools. I think he will use them well, and will learn more about Wikipedia: namespace processes on the job. Otherwise  looks like a very solid editor.
Nick is an excellent Australian editor and I think he will do just fine as an administrator. I do agree that participation in policy and admin areas is very lacking with only four edits to ANi (and they seem to have been over a year ago) and no reports to AIV etc. However, I've seen enough of Nick around the Australian articles to feel quite comfortable giving him the mop but I do hope he eases into admin work as he suggested in question 1.
'''Support''' We need more admins who understand the writing of articles, rather than just sit on 'twinkle' all day.
'''Support'''. I agree with Nick mallory above. No concerns.
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  '''<span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Weak support'''. Plenty of editing experience that's for sure which is the main reason for the support vote, although the WP pages contributions is quite low (around 400 out of over 10000). --
'''Support''' Would be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Per Nick mallory. --
'''Support''', I can't see any possible reason to oppose, as user seems stable and sensible enough.  Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Good experience so far. Just give some more edits to admin and policy areas as stated above.  -
'''Support''' I've seen this user around a lot, and I'm impressed by what I've seen.
'''Support''' - No obvious problems.
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''' I too would have liked to see greater experience in admin related areas. However, I believe nom has shown sufficient understanding to use the tools in requested areas. I would suggest that nom gain greater understanding of [[WP:BLP]] as I feel from answers that he may have missed a point or two. I believe the nom will err on the side of caution or ask when doubt exists and is thus unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, near perfect edit summary usage; both very good. Like Dlohcierekim said, I would also have liked to see more experience in sysop areas, but I don't think that is enough to get in the way. Best of luck. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. I have seen him for a while around [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history]] and have seen he is a good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as it appears he is well experienced and will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - No reason to believe the tools will be abused if granted to this user. -'''
'''Strong Support''' great user with real hands on experience. '''
'''
'''''
'''Support''' &mdash; As I once screamed after a [[Madison Scouts]] performance in 2003, "THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' 'BOUT!"
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' experienced user, the only problem I see is the Wikipedia namespace contributions. Good luck.
'''Strong support'''. After reading [[Axis naval activity in Australian waters]] and [[Australian Defence Force]], a slight lack of process contributions doesn't worry me a bit.  <strong>
'''Support''' as per Nick Mallory etc. cheers,
'''Support''' with pleasure. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' My only real test is "Can this user be trusted not to abuse the tools?" and Nick clearly passes. --
'''Support''' Never had any contact with but seems like a worthy candidate.
'''Support''' —
<small>'''Support''' just in case there are further concerns raised of [[Wikipedia talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements|cabal]] being used I'll keep my support for Nick quiet
'''Support''' Appears to have a cool head and a good handle on policy and process, from what I've seen. --
'''Support''' - I particularly like his answer to question 6. The only problem I see is a lack of WP space contributions, but I think that s/he has good enough judgment not to misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Everything I've seen of this user's editing in my various spheres of interest has led me to conclude the user would use the mop well and be of considerable use and service to the project as an admin as he has been an editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. I know from personal experience working with him in [[WP:MILHIST]] that he is definitely an asset to the project and should be even more so as an admin.
'''Support.''' Should have been an admin ages ago.
I ''was'' going to support, only the answer to the first question makes me wonder if you realise what you are letting yourself in for.
I've seen you, I've seen your work, your answers are satisfactory, and I would trust you with the tools. --
'''Yes!!!!!!''' '''
Weird, I ''swear'' I've seen you up for RFA before. Clich� moment. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''', good user.
'''Weak support''' - can be trusted with admin tools, edits are great, but I would like to make a few comments. Your 'serious' activity started quite recently, but this should be OK as it appears you have the experience. I'd like to see a bit more on posting warnings on talk pages for vandals (I didn't see too many on the user contributions page, if you did do so, then sorry). <s>I also didn't see anything to [[WP:AIV]]</s>. But overall, I can trust this candidate, which is mainly what this is all about.
'''Support''' - a trusted user --
'''Support'''. Edits are good, answers are good, no problems with this one. --
'''Support''' - Have seen this user before and have a good impression &mdash;
'''Support''', I think he will use the tools responsibly.--
'''Support''' - We've interacted, and I have only positive recollections of that.  Definitely seems like the kind of guy who would be more productive with an admin mop.
'''Support''' looks good.--

'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this application.
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions, seems qualified.  Complete trust with the tools.'''
'''Support''' - impressive candidate.
'''Strong Support''' - looks good, and experience with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Night_Gyr&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6 images] --
'''Strong support''' - okay, this user should be an admin (and I thought he already was!). ''
Answers indicate Night Gyr has a similar approach to adminship as I do, which obviously I approve of. Roving from task to task over time is a good way to avoid burnout and actually enjoy admin work, and a clear understanding of IAR is very good. Seems reasonable in my observations of him around Wikipedia, should make a good admin. --
'''Support''' solid, balanced contributions, good answers. What's not to like?
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|H�s]]</font>
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. <small>I think I've seen you up for RFA before too...</small> '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' no reason not to. &#8592;

'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Nothing seems wrong. -
'''Support'''. Good answers, good user, good candidate. =) '''
'''Support''' well rounded candidate with a good history of contributions.  Answers indicate a good understanding of Wikipedia policy.
'''Support''' Very good answers; I think I'll take notes... ;-) | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font color="Tan">
'''Support''' Answers indicate a well rounded genuine candidate who understands fully the areas of adminship he wishes to take on. Depth and experience have been shown with pertinent links to relevant examples, and I fully support this nomination despite having yet to encounter this user in the course of my own editing
'''Support''' Answered the questions well. I think {{user|Andrew Levine}} over-reacted.
'''Support''' Excellent answers, also per James^. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' ''Insert standard thought you were....... cliché here''
'''Weak support''' Have seen you around and mostly been impressed, but I was shocked by your answer to Q1. IMHO it's one of the weakest answers I've seen. Swayed to support by remembering that "adminship is no big deal" and ultimately, I trust you with the tools, even if you've not really convinced me you need them. --
'''Weak support''' per Dweller. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Weak support''' per Dweller.  I would be leaning (or !voting even) neutral, were it not for the "I thought was admin alreadyitis" infecting me right now...  Suggest candidate revises answer to Q1.  <strong>
'''Support''' answers demonstrate knowledge of policy and levelheadedness. --
'''Support''': Looks pretty clear to me.  Oppose reasons below are biased (self-admittedly so), unpersuasive, and speak more to a lack of [[WP:PROD]] familiarity than civility problems.  —
'''Support''' by the above + consistently brings thoughtful reasonable rationales on AfD showing good understanding of policy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sweater_design&diff=99411680&oldid=99386308 random recent example]).
'''Support''' Nothing causes me any concern about this nominee.
I see no big problems with this user.
'''Support''', good user, and particularly for dealing with a worthless and deliberately leading question with no right answer other than the one the questioner wanted to see (which is the wrong answer) with good grace and good sense.
'''Support'''. I withdraw my previous oppose as I am persuaded by the candidate's explanation on [[user:delldot|delldot]]'s TalkPage. Per Proto, I now support for his valiant effort to deal with a question intended from the outset to catch him out. Simply having one's domain name as a user name is not the same thing as having a ''Username that promote a company or website'', especially where the company is not well know. In any event the policy says using company names as usernames is ''discouraged'' not prohibited. Without evidence of the sig being used in a spamming manner, I think [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] is correct to assume good faith on the user's part. I am convinced he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Gyr knows what he is doing, excellent user.
'''Support'''. While Gyr is lacking in knowledge in some areas (Who can ban, for instance), Gyr shows a willingness to learn ad accept criticism. I think he'll do a good job. ···
'''Support''': No major problems with this user. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Strong support'''. I've seen this user in several places and am impressed with his work. Opposition is quite weak. —
'''Support''' - I gotta admit, I think the diplomatic answer to betacommand's loaded question is excellent and I'm a bit mystified by the currently stated opposition.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', prodding [[Space warfare in fiction]] was not the greatest call, but no real concerns.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &mdash; I have seen Night Gyr around often, particularly over in [[WP:FPC]]. I think everything that needs to be said about Night already has, so I'll just leave my full support and be on my way.
'''Support''', seems level headed and with trustworthy judgment.
'''Oppose''', Based on this: ''"We're here to take every piece of knowledge and put it in one place for everyone to find."'' Even with the caveats that unverifiable information, "directory entries," and "in-universe tidbits" do not count as knowledge, this is a dangerous attitude that will ultimately harm the project if allowed to proliferate. Simply accumulating facts, without exercising discretion regarding what is pertinent to an article and isn't, is not the way to build an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' First off, I must admit that I am a tad bit biased with this vote. Night Gyr nearly scuttled an article (found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_warfare_in_fiction&diff=96804022&oldid=95507046 here]) that I dumped several hours into (yes, I am familiar with [[WP:OWN]]... but as a [[human]], I am far from perfect). Night Gyr '''did not''' respond to my message (found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Night_Gyr#Take_off_the_prod.3F here]) asking about what I should do about the prod. My oppose here is not with the nominating of the article but rather with the fact that he failed to respond to my message to him asking for advice. '''How can Night Gyr be trusted with Administrative tools i'''f he won't even answer simple questions posed to him by Wikipedians who are lost and confused and looking up to the Administrators for guidance? Night Gyr, I am sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' - I've seen this user mass tag articles ("in-universe") (without even reading them - less then a minute between each) - I could not trust this user until I know they do not have a lack of judgement. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Very Strong Oppose'''  I must oppose because of the answer to the response to the second part of my question #9 shows that Night Gyr is not familiar with Wikipedia policy per [[WP:USERNAME]] and [[WP:SPAM]] having your company as your username is spam that is the sneakiest kind of spam. having a user spread the name of their company every time they sign a comment is not good. Spam is becoming a very real problem on wikipedia both in blatant and subversive methods. Having a user not understand wikipedia policy and not thinking spam is a issue here as long as the user doesn't say "buy our product" is unacceptable. [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Neutral''' per Sharkface, but leaning towards support. Sharkface's comments made me think Gyr might be too busy, although I might be wrong.
'''Neutral''' due to concerns brought up by sharkface.  I looked at your talk page, Night Gyr, and found evidence of other times that it doesn't look like you answered people's questions.  [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] [[User talk:Night Gyr#Pretty Baby|asked you to respond to a question]], and I found no evidence that you had either on [[Talk:Pretty Baby]] or on [[User talk:Extraordinary Machine]].  [[User:Gungho|Gungho]] asked you another question at [[User talk:Night Gyr#== Boresight ==]], and again I saw no response on your talk page or theirs.   To be fair, you do sometimes answer people's questions, e.g. [[User talk:Hrimfaxi#Boss (video games)|here]] and [[User talk:LexIcon#removal of cola brands|here]], and [[User talk:Dineshkannambadi/Archive2#flowery language|here]], and it looks like you've been answering more lately.  But I feel like it should be more consistent. Even if you think the person's a common vandal or the answer to the question is obvious, it's important to gently answer their question by pointing them to the relevant policies; that way they won't continue making the same mistakes.  You could also head off the questions by providing an explanation any time you remove someone's content or tag it as needing work, to avoid hurt feelings and continued confusion.  Plus it helps avoid [[WP:BITE|biting]] new users (or whomever). I also suggest leaving warning templates when you remove spam or vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics/Navigation_templates&diff=prev&oldid=97581251 you didn't here] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can%27t_See_Me&diff=prev&oldid=97502381 here]).  I also thought that this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryaniverse&diff=prev&oldid=98737151 edit summary] was a little less than friendly.  I'm not opposing because I looked at a large number of your edits and the ones I didn't bring up here were fine.  If I'm wrong about any of this, I definitely want to know; please correct me here or on my talk page.

'''Neutral''' Good contributor, but the answers to the questions (especially regarding what wikipedia is and what knowledge is) weren't discerning or substantive enough for me to vote for support.
'''Netural''' per Bwithh.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. I was involved in sorting out the lengthy Corey Clark discussion mentioned above, especially regarding Paula Abdul. Nightscream consistently and repeatedly cited policies, tried to explain things and asked for reliable sources (nay, ''any'' sources) for information and received much abuse in return. The amount of effort I've seen put just into Clark's and some ''Real World'' participant articles by this editor is amazing. I trust this user with the mop. --
'''Support''' - as Bearian points out, you were blocked on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nightscream 22 April], but later unblocked in 62 minutes as part of the revert of edits later realised as vandalism. I am particularly impressed with this user's solidarity and sensibility in sticky situations, as he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.52.30.94&diff=next&oldid=120044451 here]. It is all too often we see users here who go barging about on user talk pages. So well done. Although it would have been better to use some form of [[WP:USETEMP|user talk template]], I'm sure the edit that was made was just as good. So, overall, excellent candidate who deserves the sysop powers. No doubt about that.
'''Support''' - Nightscream's answer to Question 3 clinches it for me.
'''Yes'''
'''Support''', Sounds like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Sounds ok.--
No reasons not to support. Good luck!--
I find no reason to oppose this candidate, so therefore I '''support''' '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Support''' No reason not to. A good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''' I've reviewed the contributions and see a sensible editor who will only be an asset bemopped. <strong>
No reason not to.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Best wishes!
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
[[WP:20]]!! or some such. I've honestly not taken the time to review your contribs, but others whose judgement (and word that they have done so) I trust have no worries, so... —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
I'm
'''Support''' - I was going to pick up on the lack of Wikipedia-space edits, but seen as the admin-related work he intends to take part in doesn't always revolve around Wikiprojects then I will give my support, as I can see some stellar contributions, especially in the mainspace. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I like his ability to calmly talk to anonymous IPs and his wonderful copyediting. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Support''' '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' this strangely uncommented on RfA. Good user, plenty of diversity, old block explained etc etc - [[WP:BACKLOG|the work awaits]] !! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', ditto Pedro about lack of commenting on this one.
'''Supporto''' Penso che questo ragazzo sarebbe un'amministratore eccellente. Quando parlavamo a New York, mi sembrava intelligente e dedicato.--
'''Support''' - everything looks to be in order. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as nominator. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  A quick review of his last couple talk archives showed that he seems to have a grasp on discussing conflicts civilly (there were a few 'hey, why did you tag my article for deletion?' inquiries that he seemed to handle well.)  I don't have any recollection of seeing this user flip out and kill people like a ninja (who are mammals, btw) so sure, why not?  Looks like a good match. -
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMessedrocker_2&diff=74660837&oldid=74655785 The user is very experienced and is sane. Therefore, the user can be trusted to not make insane decisions].
'''Support'''I forsee no problems from this user using the tools.

'''Support''' Trust him to remain calm under pressure.
'''Support'''.  I see lots of patient interaction with other editors, which goes miles in my book. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - nothing in the quick review of contribs that worries me.
'''Support''' - Looks good.
'''Support''' always [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], shows a clear understanding of policies, and overall a great user. '''
'''Support''' Good candidate with a good nominator.
'''Support''' - Good Candidate, good nominator and even great answers..Good luck...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Supadupa support''' great candidate.
'''Strong support''' - a very good user, seen them around and will do well with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' definitely qualified for adminship. Answers to questions are excellent and user is civil and level-headed. —
'''Support''' A great candidate for the mop, your policy knowledge seems excellent and your work with speedy deletions is to excellent, you'd make a great admin, best of luck to you. Regards &mdash;
'''Support''', Good attitude as far as I've seen. --
'''Support''', per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
'''Support''': User has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Alright. Seems like a nice guy ^_^ '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support:''' Nihiltres always wins arguments, unfortunately (for me, that is :-) ). '''<span style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="#229922">
'''Support''' Seems like he will make a great admin.
'''Support''', and I see nothing wrong with the dialogue cited below - seems to be a fairly standard response to me. &ndash;
'''Support''' A nice admin this user will make I think.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - A good editor who seems to have an excellent grasp of policies, how to apply them, and how to work well with others.
'''Support''' - A civil and conscientious user who will I feel use the mop well, given past performance.
'''Support'''. No reasons not to. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">

Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''$upport'''
'''Support''' per Walton. '''
'''Neutral''' for the time being. Could you explain [[User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-7#Please?|this dialogue]]? You've been generally civil overall, but the tone of your comments here gave me some pause. The child's claim seemed plausible. I'm not objecting to <s>your</s> deleting the article, and I appreciate your giving a personal rather than a template reply. That said, I do believe it's important to make some allowances in tone when dealing with a child, particularly one who isn't being a vandal and who seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. It wouldn't have hurt to express just a bit of sympathy for the predicament. This isn't enough to keep you from being an admin, but I would ask you to keep this in mind and do better if this kind of situation should ever come up again. Thanks, --
'''Support, as nominator.''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support, as nominator.''' --
'''Support''', highly unlikely to abuse admin tools. --
'''Support''' — definitely needs the mop. Don't forget to continue your excellent work with the Wrestling articles! --'''

'''Support''' per him being a very constructive editor.
'''Support''' Nothing terribly wrong from what I saw. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', per tag-team nomination.
'''Support''' My criteria for adminship is quite simple. If a user is for the most part civil, has at least 4 months active, and is not likely to abuse the tools, then I will support. Since this candidate 100% fits my criteria, then I will support. Good luck!--
'''Support''' A good user. Although I would like to see more experience in vandal-fighting. Not enough to oppose, though. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' - I'm not sure I've actually worked with this editor, but I have worked extensively with the PW project in regards to GA. Wonderfully pleasant group of editors. In looking over her contribs, she fits that description. Very strong editor who I don't believe will abuse the tools. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''. Looks like a great editor, and the tools will only further help her in her dedicated work. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''.  Browsing through your 500 last edits, I noticed a lot of good work rating articles importance.  Also, thanks for answering my question. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - Endless work at [[WP:PW]] is incredible, highly unlikely to abuse the tools.
I am sure that anyone nominated by Jeffrey O. Gustafson will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' - her being an admin will benefit the project. cheers,
'''Strong Support''' - excellent edits; can readily be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' Very unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Has experience in the right areas. --
'''Support''' - I've not crossed paths with this editor before but everything looks to be in order. Super nom and appears knowledgeable and civil to all. She should be just fine! -
'''Support''', gladly. Superb user.
'''Support'''. One of the few likeable members of the [[WP:PW]] riff-raff.--
'''Strong support''' based on her experience, the need for more mops at [[WP:PW]], and excellent answers to questions.
'''Support''' great editor. Answers to questions are great.  --
'''Support''', she knows her way through Wikipedia. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' She seems like a dedicated user and would probably be a good admin. --
'''Support''' Everything looks fine to me.--
'''Strong Support''' She's been here a long time. Not to mention her edit summary is above excellent, I also don't see any block log's. After studying the answers, I see a reason for strong support.  --
'''Strong support''' - dedicated, consistent editor who is experienced in all the right areas. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' A great user who is unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Strong support''' As per Lradrama and Scorpion0422.
'''Support'''.  -
'''Support''' - A very dedicated expirienced user whom I feel will not abuse the tools. <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Dedicated user in an area that usually requires admin attention ... Absolutely!-
'''Support''' Appears to be trustworthy based on contributions and comments here. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Undisputed Heavyweight Support'''. The Candidate seems to have mastered some of the more subtle nuances of quality editing. I like her response to question 4 particularly, as that's a distinction many of us don't always make. I appreciate her contributions to Pro Wrestling articles, and - while I hope to see that continue, especially with the mop in hand - I also believe that her mad skillz could benefit the project in other areas as well. Good luck,
'''Strong support''' &ndash; nominators won me over, contributions confirmed, and by the 6th question I was <s>reaching for my sockpuppet to support</s> more than confident of this user's ability. Cheers,

'''Support''', Agree with the nominator's comments, '''
'''Support''' - great editor, definitely deserves the tools. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Absolutely no reservations about how well this user will handle their Wikipedia mop. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Beat-the-original-nominator support''' as co-nom. That'll be the last cliche from me... :P --'''
'''Support'''-Beat the nom''s'' (well before the edit conflict w/ Cordesat)! --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Beat-1-nom-support''' Coredesat is too fast :(
'''Beat-the-Lar-Support''' I knew someone would get their nom in on 0:00 UTC :) Happy New Year. <strong>
Of course... (hehe 00:00? buncha geeks!) - <b>
'''Lar's-beaten-again-support''' Yes, we need more image admins.<small>and champagne</small>.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support, and I beat LAR!''' Yay, I beat Lar here! Oh, and I support due to the obvious meeting of standards. '''
'''Support''' its all been said already,
'''0:00 Support'''. Anyone who decides to accept their nomination at exactly 0:00 of January 1, 2007, truly deserves to be an administrator. Plus, he's someone who I definitely trust will make a good admin. =) '''
'''Support.''' Great user.
'''Edit-conflict Support''' My first edit and first support of 2007!  I see no problems with this application for administrator.
'''Strong Support''' This is one of those RfAs where you either have to write a long comment on how good a candidate is, or a short one saying he's a ''really'' good one. This is the latter. Happy New Year. ←
'''Yes''', most certainly. '''
'''Yes.''' Per Nishkid64. '''
'''Strong support''' - a brilliant candidate for adminship. Happy New Year!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' looks good, and happy new year from UTC-5.--
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''', without reservation, great user.
'''Support''' passes my criteria
Support and, '''Happy New Year'''.  :)
'''Support''' without any qualms whatsoever. -
'''Support'''. I'd love to know what that pagemove vandalism thing was, it sounds funny. -
'''100% support'''. Responsible editor whose contributions are extremely valuable to Wikipedia and Commons. - [[User:SpLoT|<b><font color="orange">SpL</font></b>]][[User:SpLoT/Sandbox|o]][[User talk:SpLoT|<b><font color="purple">T</font></b>]] | <i><font color="red">[[2007|'07]]</font></i> <sub>(*[[Special:Contributions/SpLoT|C]]*+[[User:SpLoT/Userboxen|u]]+
'''Support''' no reason to oppose or be neutral.
'''Support'''. Everything looks good.
'''Support''' Good Knowledge of the project. Definitely deserves tools. Happy New Year!
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' --'''<font color="#002bb8">
''''Support''' - good devoted editor, good commons admin
'''Support'''. Great contributor, so why not?
'''Support''' per nom. <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size=9pt;">[[User:Sd31415|<span style="color:#1560BD"> —'''sd31415'''</span>]]
'''Support'''. His splendid contributions speak for themselves, and dual adminship on Wikipedia and Commons will probably help with many image-related tasks.
'''Support''' <insert cliche here> --
Definitely.
'''Support''' His history is simply fantastic.  Total trust.
'''Support'''I support him.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''', his experience with images and the Commons will clearly allow him to assist with many backlogs that require administrator help.  The combinations of all the experience makes him to be a very promising administrator. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' - Good image experience. - '''
I am not ''Mailer Diablo'' and I approve this message. -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - he's only been around a few months, but certainly contributed to his area of expertise; in addition, lots of user talk edits, which is highly suggestive of a communicative user; finally, he didn't nominate himself, which earns extra kudos for me. Good luck mate, you've won me over. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Strong Support''' No problems with this user.--
'''Support''' Great editor, who could contribute to the project even more with administrative tools.
'''Support'''. Great nom, great answers to questions, and I'm sure will make a great admin as well. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Strong Support''' now that that has been clarified, I think that this user is going to be a ''great'' admin. &mdash;
Um, why do people not tell me when they are going to accept so I can get in an early support instead of a johnny-come-lately? I should withdraw my co-nom and oppose, honestly... :) ... More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup> '''support''', per the eloquent (and handsome!) conominators. ++
'''Strong Support''' - per above --
'''Support''' per everyone above.  Going to be a great administrator.  —
'''Support''' --
Thought he already was one. --
'''Support''' Wikipedia will benefit even more with you as an user. Good luck.
'''Support''' - extremely well qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Strong support''' - about time :)
'''Support''' Looks very good.  Happy New Year!
'''Support''' per the above.  Looks like he will be a fine admin. ---
'''Support''' per responses to standard inquiries. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oh crap I was supposed to nominate him support'''. Nilfanion is an excellent user - in spite of him registering an account and jumping right into the [[Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 26|mother of all debates]] within [[WP:WPTC]], he has shown to be quite a responsible, coolheaded user. He has excellent knowledge of image policy, due to his level of interaction at Commons and here. He also is responsible for several featured articles, most prominently the slightly-infamous [[Hurricane Irene (2005)|Hurricane Irene]], and was instrumental in getting [[Hurricane Katrina]] featured. While we not always agree on everything, I cannot think of a single reason why he should not get sysop privileges.
'''Support''' obviously has the experience, seems to me to be a good guy.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Support''' everything's great here. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' users with a history of good judgment who contribute significantly in mainspace.
'''Support''', and I would like to apologize to Nilfanion for stealing his idea to create [http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Tropical_Storm_Map_png this tropical storm map]  ;-).
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - great user!
'''Erm... Wait... You mean... He's not?'''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
Sounds good to me.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - shoo-in.
'''Support'''.  Extremely well qualified. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. He seems qualified, and he is already a very successful editor.--
'''Support''' WP needs more admins, and this is clearly a solid candidate.  Oh, insert storm joke here, and imagine it's a really funny one. -
Any friend of lar's....--
'''Support''' - per Doc, really :o) <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', I have no problems with anything. Great balanced edits. --
'''Support'''—
'''Last minute pile-on Support'''. Per above. <font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''He's not already?''' --
'''Support'''.  Oh yeah.
'''Support''' a great candidate --
'''Abso-fuckin'-lutely'''. --
'''Strong Support''' --'''
Admin, was, already, you know the rest. --
Yet another '''support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' its a shame that [[WP:SNOW]] can't be used in a situation like this.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' because I think that this user will be a good admin, as this user has the experience (from the Commons), is trustworthy, will have a genuine need for the tools, and will further the interests of Wikipedia by being an Administrator.
Category 5 '''Support''' ~
'''Support'''
support --
'''Support''' - looks fantastic, would be a great admin.
'''Support''' adding the deciding support :)
'''Support'''. Appears to be an excellent candidate. Just a shame I missed out on casting the [[WP:100|100th]] support vote...
'''Support''' - Seems to be a very good admin candidate, from what I saw 0% chance of abuse of admin tools. Well reasoned replies to all questions. Please give this guy the mop already! ——
'''Support''' - Already trusted on the Commons, experienced, etc., etc... ~&nbsp;
'''
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''', Looks fine to me.
'''Support''' Good candidate, solid answers to questions.
'''Support''', looks fine.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' looks great, per Mr Lar. Good-luck, Nilfanion. '''
'''Support''' me gusta. --
'''Support''' Great editor. Resounding Support. Get on it! [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.ms]]
'''Support''' per nom(s). --
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' he answered my questions eh, looks like he will be a good admin :) --
Last minute [[Rock You Like a Hurricane|hurricane rocking]] '''Support'''.
'''Neutral''': I believe an admin should be more patient and have better judgement. No links are needed, I believe Nilf knows what I'm talking about, but I won't oppose, because that would be a detriment to the project. Just voicing a view that he can still improve. &ndash;
'''Support''' - as nominator.
'''Support'''. Good candidate. Anyway adminship is no big deal, as per my comments in all previous RfAs. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' <s>I'd do a co-nom but it's already up, oh well. Great editor on all fronts, needed as an admin.</s> as co-nom--
'''Support.''' Boomer Sooners! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
You not an admin? '''Support'''. Good answers. --
'''Support''' - have seen this editor around frequently and his commentary on talk pages is usually insightful. Good answers to questions and good commitment to the community. Am confident will become a fine admin. <sup>
'''Support''' - Ready, willing, and able. --
'''Support''' - Good answers, good edits. Uses edit summaries, etc. Excellent contributor -
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per very, very fine answers until someone gives me a compelling reason as to why not.
'''Support''' Not an admin yet?!
'''Support''' no problems here. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' A good candidate for the mop and bucket, good luck! <b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I see nothing but good here. All systems go.
'''Support'''. Fantastic answers to the questions, in my opinion.--
'''Support'''.  I've seen a lot of good things from Nmajdan, and nothing to make me nervous about misusing the tools.--
'''Support''' - Images... We need more work on images!  I applaud another Fair Use Patroller!--
'''Support''' - Nothing but good experience with this user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I haven't had much direct interaction with Nmajdan, but what I've seen has impressed me. I think Nmajdan will be an excellent admin. ···
'''Support'''. Good answers, good experience. -
'''Support''' per strong answers to all questions. —
'''Support'''. No reason to believe the user would abuse the tools. Plus, the image backlogs need the attention.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q1 (backlogged areas), has relevant experience. No problems here, good luck! '''
'''Support''', excellent answers to questions, image help is urgently needed.
'''Support''' Good edior, got nomintated, must be good.
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support''', we need more admins for image maintenance, and he seems well-qualified.
'''Support''' good and experienced editor.--
'''Support''' ↔ you continue your good work on Wikipedia.  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support''' NMajdan and I have collaborated on a number of articles relating to both [[WP:CFB]] and [[WP:OU]].  I have always found him to be a great editor who is as concerned about doing it right (i.e. according to the rules) as doing it well. He'll make a great admin. <font style="color:#1e90ff;font-weight:bold">
'''Support''', know him from College Football project. Keep up the good work, and use your powers to help the Project! If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]].
'''Support''' A great user. No reason to oppose. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' Keep on truckin' --
'''Support''' — <font face="Verdana"><small>
'''Support''' -- we can always use more people to work in [[CAT:REFU|the coal mine]].
'''Support''' - I'm glad to see you changed your mind and took down the "This user is not an administrator and does not wish to be one" UBX - you will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''. Anyone who is willing to help out with the image backlogs at [[CAT:CSD]] and has the relevant experience is a strong RfA contender in my book... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per WJBscribe et al.
I'm
'''Support''' - A tireless and polite editor and most excellent Wikipedian!
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions. Looks great to me.

'''Support''' per previous experience with Nmajdan.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' - '''BOOMER'''! <small>(listens carefully...)</small> -
'''Support'''--
<font color=#CC5500>'''Burnt orange oppose''' Hook 'em!</font> Oh wait, '''support'''. Contribs don't raise any red flags, and we need more admins in the image areas--even if they are Sooners.
'''Support''' -<small>'''<font color=blue>Lakers'''</font></small><sup>'''
Perhaps a little bit of a narrow field in his mainspace edits - but not enough to oppose.  Rest of the near admin edits are good - so I '''support'''--
'''Support''' - will make a good admin. cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as nominator. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter.
'''Strong support'''. Disney Channel articles are like blank walls in gang territory, they get vandalized very thoroughly. I think another admin working in these situations is needed. I've seen NrDg in action, and he's pretty good with warding off these vandals. '''''
'''Support'''; excellent edit history and level-headed talk page.  That's not trivial when you consider this user's involvement in [[Hannah Montana]] pages and the average age of contributors to those articles.  It takes extra care and patience in your writing to have a fair and productive conversation with younger editors. --
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. :)
'''Support'''
'''Conditional Support''' I will only support if this user is true to his/her promise concerning question number four. All joking aside, this user is a great vandal fighter, actively participates, and overall is just a great benefit to the community. What's not to love?
'''Support'''.  Will make a fine admin. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' "''I will be careful''" per your answer to my Q6. Yep, that's the ticket. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I see no reason to not support. I've been beat quite a few times to a revert by this editor. -'''
'''Support''' looks like a good, trustworthy user. '''
'''Support''', cannot see any reason not to support this nom.
'''Support''' I see experience and enthusiasm tempered by restraint and a sense of caution and a willingness to learn. When can i pick up my toaster? <<joke>>
'''Blah'''. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' Very much so!
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. A fine editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Great choice! Knows so much about wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. His answers above give me the impresion that NrDg is teachable - a valuable asset in any editor, but especially in admins. Level-headedness is a big plus as well. I see little reason to believe that the tools will be misused here.
'''Support''' - No concerns here. --
'''Support''' - I looked over his talk page and was very pleased with the way he responded to other folks, even when the others offered criticism or were outright hostile. Seems friendly and willing to learn. Good work!
'''Support''' - Seems like a good candidate too --
'''[[Hubert J. Farnsworth|Good news everybody!]]''' - I support this nomination. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Yep! -
'''Support''' - Great user who could use the tools.
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support''' A great editor.
'''Suppport'''. Good vandal fighter, but I hope that you can work on some articles more. Maybe take a look at AFD?
'''Support''', as per the nomination. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' per nom, seems to know what he's doing.
'''Support''' - An Excellent Contributor and Prospective Admin.
'''Support''' - Per nom, great editor. --
'''Support'''. Good editor. <font color="Purple">
'''Strong Support''' I have come across NrDg edits many times within the last couple of months. He is a great vandlism fighter and would make a great adminstrator. He has my vote.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions; not to contract editcountitis, but I'm liking how many talk page edits he has alongside a solid number of mainspace edits. Being able to communicate with other users effectively is a valuable skill.
'''Support''' I never confuse warranted defense with unwarranted anger- very deserving.
'''Strong support'''. I trust that NrDg will act accordingly :) '''
'''Support''' - should be just fine :) -
'''Support''' - very impressed with nurturing attitude towards young/new  users who need guidance rather than a slap on the hand and letting articles develop organically.
'''Support'''- I don't really take part in any Rfa, but anyway, your a fantastic user who deserves to be an admin.  Your work on the 'pedia really shows you off.
'''Support'''.  I have no reason to oppose or be concerned.
'''Support''' good vandalism fighter as far as I see.
'''Support''' Excellent work against vandals. Always need more people who are vigilant with that. -
'''Support''' Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' 10,000 edits is great. He will do a good job as an admin.
I'm
'''Strong Support''' Vandal fighters, especially effective ones, have been shown to be amongst the most effective admins on Wikipedia. Hopefully this user lives up to that legacy. --'''
An excellent candidate.
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' I can't really see any reason not to. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Per Impressive answers to questions. --
'''Support'''ed, happily. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Support''' you are ready.
'''Support''': I see no major reason outside of a few nitpicks, why this editor cannot step up to the plate of an administrator.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I was leaning towards '''neutral''' (your amassing 10,000 edits in such a short period of time makes me concerned about your true intentions, but you are clearly a well-rounded content contributor) until I saw this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.115.214.159&oldid=175268232].<p>Now, I have no comment on whether or not the bit the anon added is actually true or not.  But that edit indicates to me that you do not understand [[WP:V]].  Citing a source for a statement is most emphatically ''not'' required unless it is a direct quotation.  While other editors are free to ''remove'' other unsourced material, the individual adding it is not required to cite a source himself.  As long as no one challenges it, it's fine.</p><p>If it is challenged, then of course if the individual adding it must be able to cite a source if he wants it to stay.  But from your comments (yes, I know you used a template--so what?  The template is wrong.  You should have confirmed that what it says is actually correct before you used it.) you seemed to imply that he had to include a source right from the get-go, which is simply incorrect.</p><p>In truth, from his subsequent edits I would not be surprised if the anon was a bad-faith editor.  But you had no way of knowing that at the time of the edit to which I am referring.
Neutral - Seems on or after October 6, 2007 something happened, this person changed. This is the closest I have gotten to giving support to someone. I still do not feel completely good about giving a “support”. I would like to see this person go through training and get a little more experience. Then I could support him/her. --
Nom -- <b>
'''Weak Support''' The 3RR warning is the only concern I have. Good editor count. But there is something tell me to go netural. For now, Support. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Strong Support''' The 3RR was back in May. A review of the current talk page shows only positives. He meets my standards by a long shot. Could not find a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Good contributions, and having Y as a Sherpa says a good deal considering his (too) high of standards.  --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> '''
'''Support''' ''because'' of the Oppose !vote. We need more admins willing to stand up to our nationalist factions.
Wow, I wouldn't want this editor to go through RfA #58... —'''
'''Support''' as an excellent editor, with many new articles and templates, lots of mainspace edits especially. Being bold is OK. Can be trusted.
'''Support''' per above. (
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom statement. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support'''. the user has the perfect balance of boldness, pragmatism, and civility needed for the mop.
Support, no big deal. Nothing wrong with this editor. <b>
I'm
'''Support''' i trust N° 57 and i approve Mailer Diablo's approval! --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support'''.  A good editor, the extra tools will be a good addition. '''
'''Support''' Good editor, and I was very impressed with his calmness explaining points to other editors during the Irish nationalist edit-war that he found himself unwittingly caught up in on the FIFA08 article, as he mentions above. <b>
'''Support''' because none of those opposes raise objections that actually have anything to do with being an administrator. -- '''
'''Support''' - per my brief review of this editor's contributions. I have to say I agree with all the supposedly objectionable edits with the possible exception of the holiday renaming, for which I would have to count ghits to form an opinion.  Why would  [[:Category:Religious Israeli settlements]] even exist if it wasn't for settlements?  And the canvassing here is really putrid. &larr;
'''Support''' good editor who has so far been valuable to wikipedia. I don't think we shoudl let our personal POVs get in the way of this adminship.
'''Support''', I've only had positive encounters with this editor up to now. —
'''Support''' what Siva1979 said.
'''Support''', I've seen only good things from this editor. The counterparts of his edit history seems a bit overestimated and just not enough. --
'''Support'''.  Dedicated editor who deserves the position.  Am I wrong, or is there an appearance below in the oppose section of an orchestrated campaign by a certain Wikiproject to torpedo this RfA?  If so, I think there may be grounds for an RfAR if this RfA closes as unsuccessful.
'''Support''' Truthfully, I don't know the criteria required for adminship, but has been nice and helpful to me.--
'''Support''' Canvassing for support is one thing, but for opposes is another, and is harmful. I see no reason why 57 shouldn't be an admin. No one is perfect, and if this request fails because of canvassing I strongly suggest running again. Good luck '''
'''Strong Support'''. To be perfectly honest, I had never met this user until today when I happened across his RfA. From reviewing the edits brought forth, I see a very competent editor who is [[WP:BOLD|bold]] in making changes--this is A Good Thing. I see also something very disconcerting, the canvassing issues among those who oppose this candidate. As Majorly said, canvassing for opposition is disruptive and harmful. [[WP:ISRAEL|The WikiProject]] needs to stop trying to set the agenda simply because they disagree with Number 57's edits to "[[WP:OWN|their]]" articles. Finally, I pray the closing bureaucrat takes into consideration the obvious COI's going on in the vast majority of the opposes below. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>
'''Support''' I don't find much legitimate opposition.  I've reviewed his talk page and archive, and several discussions in Wikipedia talk, Template talk, and Talk.  He does good work in the political election series, and tries hard and reasonably to improve NPOV in one of the topical areas most subject to POV battling.  He is doing good work, and giving him the admin tools would be of benefit to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Seems a very level-headed and intelligent editor.  Resistance to organized editorial POV-pushing inevitably risks encountering organized ideological bloc-voting, as we see taking shape in the "oppose" section below, but an independent streak in a non-ideological editor is a good thing.--
'''Support'''. Never came across Number 57 before but based on the comments here, the opposing comments, and a look through his history, I see no reason why he should not be an administrator.
'''Support''' can't see any reason why not. Candidate has plenty of experience, including admin-related tasks, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up since May. The oppose reasons are unimpressive, especially those which were canvassed. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' A very good editor, valuable work on Israel and politics related articles. Had several positive encounters with #57, would make a good admin.

'''Support'''. I just spent some time going through the candidate's talk page & edit history, on top of reading through all the comments in this RfA & following up on the links provided. My only possible concern about the candidate himself is in possible [[WP:BOLD|overboldness]] in making changes, as those DLand's oppose discuss, before a more complete discussion. But on the other hand, I support the actual changes made -- for example, I agree that Israeli settlements in the West Bank should not be categorized as being "in Israel", & I'm glad to see that there is movement to change the category's name to reflect a less inaccurate representation of the settlements' relationship to Israel.  I'm favorably impressed by Number 57's ability to be calm & civil even when defending himself against accusations -- see for example [[Talk:Battle of Jenin/Archive 4#A suggestion|this discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin]], & by all the work he's done on election templates -- a lot of repetitive thankless type of work too, which is a good indicator of how well he might wield a mop.  I'm ''not'' impressed by the apparent canvassing against this candidacy by opponents, & I hope that if this RfA fails, Number 57 will consider trying again. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I think that he would make a good admin. The concerns raised by opposers do not worry me greatly. -- <strong>
Rarely have I felt a need to support a candidate to offset silly opposition reasons. Normally, I'd just stay neutral here, but people attempting to get "better representation" from a specific Wikiproject is bad. -
'''Support''' - I agree with Amarkov. Also, the blatant opposition canvassing in this RfA was bad. As for qualifications, we need more admins willing to tackle the difficult areas. Obviously, anyone editing in contentious areas are likely to make edits with which others disagree. It is not clear from the opposition how Number 57 would abuse the tools and I do not think he will. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support''' - well suited for the tools. And I say, the canvassing campaign that occured below to undercut this Rfa is nothing short of ''appalling''. For shame, for shame. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' There is nothing raised below that makes me think this user will not make a good admin.
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with giving this user administrative tools.
'''Support''' after deep consideration see nothing wrong now every user or editor has POV see no disruption and see no concerns.
'''Support''' I am unconvinced by the concerns of those opposed. --
'''Support''' agree with nom.  Looks good to me --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Candidate is sufficiently experienced and has a good record.
'''Support''' This candidate is [[WP:BOLD]] and has opinions. When edits where the cause of dispute, he made amends and discussed his edits, seeking a consensus and compromise. These lead me to believe that [[User:Number 57]] will not abuse administrative privileges, but rather use them to the advantage of wikipedia as a whole.
'''Support''' I see that he has a huge amout of expeirence, he is bold, which is strongly supported in WP. Good job.
'''Support''' - plenty of experience, and I think positive changes, despite what the WP:ISRAEL cadre seems to say. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' Certainly, there is no reason to oppose here. [[WP:BOLD]] is very good.
'''Support''' should do fine as an admin.
'''Support''' to cancel out one of the wikiproject carvassing oppose votes. While I never dealt with this user and I would have avoided that RFA, it's a shame that wikiprojects play a role in them. Also no indication he will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''  I support the candidate's willingness to take the risks in problem areas rather than avoid getting involved (as seems to be so often the case with admins, I am sorry to say). I see nothing arbitrary in his edits but rather a willingness to engage and explain. --
(e.c) '''Support''' Willing to fix mistakes, which is good in an admin <b><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', seems good.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  We need more admins willing to edit controversial articles (because I certainly don't).
'''Support''' I share in the concerns expressed by DGG (sensible as ever) in his oppose and frankly don't think DLand's opposition to be quite as frivolous or ill-conceived as some seem to suggest it to be, but I'm convinced from a broader review of Number's contributions that he is possessed of a measured temperament, a civil demeanor, and a sense of good judgment (all of which he demonstrates with overwhelming frequency), and, with the provision that, in view of the frequency with which [[WP:BB|BB]] has been referenced here, Number, inasmuch as adminship is purely ministerial and as an admin acts solely to discern for what action a consensus of the community exists and then to effect such action, might want to take special care not to boldly with the tools, as surely it seems he will, because I find that I am able to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]], I support (this is not an RfA about which I was particularly passionate and it is one that I, on an NFL- and NCAAF-induced wiki-slowdown, might have refrained from commenting on, my inclination to support notwithstanding, but I am with Jaranda on the issue of this discussion's having perhaps served less-than-perfectly to bear out the views of the community at large [from which to apprehend whether there exists a consensus for promotion]; I continue to believe, though, that supports such as Jaranda's and mine are, as against an invocation of a bureaucrat's "discretion", the proper solution for RfAs in which other editors think canvassing to have been a problem, and I would submit there are enough uninvolved users who follow RfA that if the community thinks a discussion to have been unduly influenced by canvassing or inaccurately to reflect the sense of other editors errors may be rectified straightaway).
'''Support'''  User's contributions and answer to questions are quite good. Seems like a bold editor, but not uncivil at all, which is quite good.
'''Support''' - despite being involved in some conflicts, user appears to have dealt with these sufficiently well and in a civil manner.  I believe that this user can be trusted with adminship.
'''Support''' - per DGG, user did the right think and we must promote and cherish his boldness to do the right think, and as dgg pointed out, he should stop being so defensive about it.--
'''Support''' per [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]]. You obviously have some enemies already, be prepared to make more as an admin (especially if you deal with controversial topics). <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''', after reading both sides I feel the supporters views are far more sound.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.'''  User has the ability to approach complex and difficult issues in a balanced manner.  Opposing arguments are not compelling.

'''Oppose''' per DLand.  Number 57 is a fantastic editor, but I'm concerned that he might not practice blind justice.  If Number 57 re-applies in a year or so and becomes less argumentative, then maybe I'd vote for him then.  --
'''Oppose''' A candidate who says they wish to significantly work in AFD and related project space areas, but who has [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Number+57&site=en.wikipedia.org more edits] to his own RFA than any AFD needs a great deal more experience before I trust them with the tools.
'''Oppose''' as I believe Number 57 to be a generally good editor, but my experience on the categorisation issue mention above leaves me unsettled. That is, there was no majority, and certainly not a consensus in favour of either of the two moves he carried out beforehand, and yet he edit-warred to maintain them despite the subsequent objections of several editors (myself included). The changes themselves violated [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization]], and so what was most worrisome to me was that after accepting that the first proposal was rejected, he carried out a second proposal that ''violated the same policy'' in a different manner. I have to disagree as well with the assertion that I dropped my opposition to the second proposal, as [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_6#Category:Religious_cities.2C_towns_and_villages_in_Israel|the CfD]] in question is merely a hope that a venue outside of what had become an unproductive conversation might more clearly show that the problem with his proposal lay, not in politics, but in Wikipedia policy on categorisation. While he has supported me there, it is unclear to me whether it stems from any new appreciation of the policy, and whether it will impact his future actions, which is ultimately the crux of the issue for me. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per Tewfik. The POV issues in Israel-related articles are a serious concern for an aspiring admin. In addition, the aggressive behavior of his supporters on this RFA is unlikely to help.
'''Oppose''' edit warring is evidence of pushing a POV, and some of the edits noticed above and supporters' justifications for them - not disavowed by the nominee - cause me to question whether the editor has the maturity and good sense not to use the tools to advance that POV.
'''Oppose''' per above. Very legit concerns.--
'''Oppose''' per Beit Or and several other comments above. --
'''Oppose''' - a weak Wikipedia-space count and some rather rash decisions which have left others flustered have unfortunately left dark stains on this user's reputation. Once they're permanently ironed out, and you've learned from advice given here, you should make a great admin. Not yet though I feel. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' The issues raised above are concerns enough for me.
'''Oppose''' having watched the discussion of FIFA08, evidence of pushing a POV in my opinion.--
'''Oppose''' PoV pushing on FIFA 08 article did not give a constructive solution just stayed with his PoV.
'''Oppose''' Based on the somewhat over-defensive attitude here in replying to questions, I do not have confidence about the ability to deal with the inevitable criticism an admin will receive. This is not a comment about the particular views expressed in any CfD or other discussion. '''
'''Oppose''' per points raised above, very concerning for a sysop. --'''
'''Weak Oppose''' Even though this editor is quite outstanding, there are niggling issues mentioned above which make me weakly oppose for the time being.
'''Oppose''' - per Lradrama.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:DLand|DLand]]'s issues with [[WP:POV]] pushing. --
'''Oppose'''. Revert wars on election templates in support of a consensus he has agreed with himself. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;
'''Oppose'''. Premature nomination. Candidate has made some fantastic contributions, but this does not mean that one should get automatic admin rights, especially so soon. N57 has simply ruffled too many feathers over the past year, being 'bold' based on OR (the holiday names) and POV (settlement issues). Candidate also does not show a pervasive knowledge of WP guidelines to warrant getting admin. Needs more time. --
'''Oppose''' The user's way with dealing with people with whom he disagrees is less than would be expected from an administrator. With election templates he reverted a user's contributions twice without explaining what was wrong, in his eyes, with the edits. It wasn't until I became involved that he explained to me specifically what, in his eyes, was wrong. I also saw a lack of eagerness to become an admin when someone asked permission to nominate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AY&diff=155375234&oldid=155340071]. If he tries hard to rectify the way in which he deals with disputes in the future, I would happily vote in favour.
'''Oppose''' per concerns above.
'''Oppose''' Per edit warring --
'''Oppose''' At its heart, an RfA is a process by which the community decides whether or not to extend a [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|significant measure of trust in the judgement of a user]]. The issues raised here lead me to feel that at this point, that trust should not be extended. --
'''Oppose''' Per DLand. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy and civil user with a good knowledge of policy. --
'''Support''', though I have my apprehensions relating to the shallowness of the editor's contributions. After almost 30,000 contributions, there seems to me to be only a small amount of major contributions and most seem to be small problem fixes rather than large mainspace contributions. I still support as we should be catering to all types and your contributions are consistent and quality, but I still have my reservations about the breadth of input you've given. --
'''Strong Support''' Uhm, the usual "I thought you were one already" deal.
'''Support''' An excellent user who is an asset to this project. The added tools given to him will only benefit this project further. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - All looks good to me, give 'em the mop!
Unlikely to go nuts :)
'''Support''', yep.
'''Support''' Looks all in order. 24,000 edits is very impressive.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Strong Support''' - Although it would be wrong of me to base my support on edit count, 24,000 is impressive. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' I am always impressed by those into geography (personal bias), but will likely be a good addition to the mop brigade.
Wow. '''Strong support''' for this most qualified canddidate I've seen in the months trolling RfA. Over 28,000 edits, 24,000 in mainspace, significant new articles, creation of templates, vandal-fighting scars, you name it.
'''Support''' - less than 25,000 article edits, but otherwise ok.
'''Oppose''' Seems like a very qualified candidate, but does not have enough mainspace edits. Please consider reapplying in a couple of months when you've gotten some encyclopedia-building experience. Sorry!
There is nothing that leads me to believe this user will be abusive, and there have been no major concerns brought up. For that reason I will support. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Great nom.
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder, Ohio and otherwise. cheers,
'''Support''' - looks really well qualified to me.
'''Support''' Satisfied with answers to questions and I see no evidence tools will be misused.--
'''Support'''. OK. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great track with over 28000 edits.See no concerns
'''Oppose''' for not doing this ages ago :P . This is long overdue- and not only do you have a large edit count- huge edit count- but it's spread across the namespaces, which is great. You're a strong editor- good luck. '''
'''Support''' - seems fine to me.  I wish you luck and look forward to working with you.  -
'''support''' Lots of mainspace edits and article work, a good editor. --
'''Support''' per East's clever use of irony.
'''Support''' impressive record & no concerns.
'''Support''' Seems to be doing a good job. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I'm not a big fan of edit count, but I really have to go with everyone's opinion. Why didn't Wizardman nominate you earlier?!
'''Support'''  Very hard-working editor;  my interactions with him have been entirely positive.
'''Support''' An important qualification for an editor is the willingness to do thankless tasks well, which description suits Nyttend to a tee. I watch a lot of obscure place pages and more often than not he will revert vandalism or cruft before I even know it is there. Give him a mop already,
'''Support''', seems sensible and trustworthy.

I'm
'''Support''', too many good reasons too support.
'''Support''' Oppose reasons are inadequate.--
'''Support'''. On review of Nyttend's contrib history, all looks good. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. I would prefer someone who is somehat more flexible, broadminded, tolerant, and respectful of the opinions of others (particularly my own!  :). On the other hand, if administrator duties would free him up from articles in which I have been interested, that would come as a profound relief!
'''Support''' - looks like I got here before the nominator. :-) <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Looks like a good user to me.
'''Support''' After reviewing recent edits, I see no problem with this user having the admin tools.
'''Support''' just browsed through your contributions. User is a dedicated vandal fighter who can be of great help with the tools. —
'''Support''' Looks good, can use the tools and appears to know what we're here for,
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Support''' as nom. Damn these time zones :) <b>
'''Support''' this is a good user who has given decent answers.
'''Support''' - Be warned, the Wikipedia space edit count (less then 600) could get you hurt, considering your 5000+ total edits. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Can't say I know Ocatecir but reviewing his contribs and answers above, I believe he'll be a responsible admin.
'''Support''' I like polite editors :) cheers,
'''Support''' - Wikipedia edits doesn't matter because  his mainspace is over 3000 and that  works for me....----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support''' -- <b>
I'm
'''Support''' Seems everything is in order...
'''Support''' Got a lot going for you.
'''Support''' Looks like a good, responsible user. <u><font color="black">

'''Support''' per below. &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' While I disagree personally that direct communication should always be second to templates when dealing with vandals, I see no reason why this user would not be a great admin. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' per below.
'''Support''', very dedicated editor, and has experience in many areas of the project. '''''
'''Support''' without a shade of doubt. Good editor, will help improve the project :)
'''Support.''' It seems that any questions regarding Ocatecir's understanding of user tools are being answered satisfactorily. Ocatecir will use the admin tools for the greater good! --
support fine user knows a lot about wikipedia active lets give him a shot
'''Support.''' Good user, no problems. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' - no problems I can see. Looks fine -
'''Support''' per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' per contributions history and responses to the questions. The issue of welcoming [[User:FROGPOO]] seems to me to be a unique incident and an accidental oversight. -- '''
'''Support''' but please consider shortening your signature! &ndash;
'''Support''' right mind right heart.
'''Support''' No reason will not make a good admin.
'''Support''' --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Meets my criteria. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' '''
'''Late support'''. '''
'''Support''' 600 WPspace edits are fine with the amount of quality mainspace edits. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' inasmuch as the candidate seems possessed of the sound judgment, deliberative temperament (which temperament is evidenced in his answer to question four, which, as [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] observes, perhaps imperfect factually but quite fine in principle), and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I think one can conclude with a great deal of certainty that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Ocatecir's being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Support''' - '''''
'''Support''', seems pretty much ok. —'''
'''Neutral''' You say you would like to help out at [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]], well you recently welcomed [[User:FROGPOO]], this username is clearly a violation of the [[WP:USERNAME|username policy]] so this leads me to slightly doubt your judgement when deciding whether a block would be appropriate. Apart from that I see you as a capable editor and could make good use of the tools. Good luck though! &mdash;
'''Neutral''' because the user created [[:Image:Cky.gif]] which I believe to be a derivative work of the copyrighted logo of the band. This is a fairly complex case and I believe Ocatecir's efforts to be in the right place but I can not support because of this but I don't think this is enough (due to the complexity of the issue) to oppose, even if the image is declared a derivative and deleted.
'''Support''' As nominator
&mdash;
I've noticed this use too, and think they would make a fine admin.  -
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Weak Support''' Contribs look good, and we could always use more multilingual admins.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Seen this user around.
'''Support'''.  Gotta have admins to watch the ASD.  Good luck!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' Excellent contributions. Deserves the mop.
'''Strong Support''' - A top member of my old [[WP:ACC|cabal]]..will make an excellent admin...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' He's been behaving like a responsible admin for a while already.
'''Support''' Good work at WP:ACC --
'''Support''' Sounds good.
'''Support'''. I'm impressed --
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmlk17&diff=176735989&oldid=176733466] Ya learn something new each day... seems on top of their stuff.
'''Support''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=Od+Mishehu This editor marks] [[WP:NPPLOG|patrolled pages]] <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''' lots of deleted edits showing understanding of CSD.
Normally wouldn't bother jumping on a bandwagon, but since this is a strangely inactive RFA, thought I'd add my 2¢.  I first ran across Od Mishehu only recently at [[WP:ACC]], but researching his other contributions, I'll echo Shalom above; already an admin in all but name and buttons. --
Per Barneca I '''support''' this oddly inactive RfA as well. Alas I can only offer my 2 [[pence]]. But at the current exchange rate that's worth 4¢ !!! ''':)''' Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Flying under the radar, but thankfully has been noticed. --'''''
'''Support''', we could use more admins at the areas mentioned from Question 1.
'''Support''', user does a great job already, and I think they might do even better with the tools.
My observations of this user have been postive.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to spoil the party, but I cannot accept that that someone who would speedily delete articles such as [[Bertilo Wennergren]] and [[Mark Stanhope]] can be trusted with admin tools.
Two problems: (1) Still leaves out edit summaries sometimes. (2) Not much work in creating or expanding articles.  But overall, meets basic standards, so I will not oppose.
A bit concerned about a few of the article tagged for speedy deletion in your last 250 contributions but certainly not enough to oppose for with many correct speedies. Advise a little more caution sometimes in using speedy deletion especially once you get the tools.
'''Support''' Seems fine. Good luck! --
'''Support'''. On review of the Wikipedia: namespace contributions, I find no objectionable edits, and many useful and level-headed contributions to XfD and other community processes. All looks good here.
'''Support''' great football contributions, and a good distribution of edits across WP.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Great user. Good football contribs.--
I'm
Late '''support''' as nominator. –&nbsp;
'''Support'''

'''Support''' A good choice indeed for adminship. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' A good and level-headed hard-working editor. He will make a good admin.--

'''Support''' for all the above reasons.
'''Support''' Civil, helpful, productive. An asset to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football]] and in the other places he pops-up.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Everything looks fine to me. '''
Been waiting for this one, so much so I watchlisted it a while back awaiting its' creation :) Strong support, most certainly. '''
'''Support''', looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' The interest in handling speedy deletions from new page patrol is something I share.
'''Support''' Clichéd, I know, but I thought you already were one :)
'''Support''' Oh, definitely. Great editor and Wikipedian, would certainly make a great admin. -
'''Support''', looks good, and ironically I deleted a page earlier called [[Ol Del Paso]].
'''Strong support'''. ''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' looks good.--

Has learned the Wikipedia Way from the ground up. Excellent researcher. I think he'll prove his worth as an admin.
'''Support''' Good work, good answers, all around smiles from me.
'''Support'''. Seems to be an excellent contributor and I see nothing which leads me to believe the mop will be abused. ···
'''Support'''. Well qualified and demonstrated trustworthiness brings my support. --
'''Support'''-Seems good. Good answer to Q1. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' although I don't see "City supporter" on his list of mistakes... ~
'''Support'''
'''Support''' One mop comin' up. Please don't abuse it.
'''Support''' - I have a slight reservation about how much this user really needs admin tools or will use them, but really there's no reason to turn down someone who is trustworthy and won't abuse the tools, even if their use of them is likely to be infrequent. It all helps.
'''Support''' per nom, very nice candidate. Good luck with your adminship, Simon. '''
I would like to see more indication of experience with conflict resolution from this user before I support. <small>
'''Beat the nom support.'''  I have dealt with this editor and find him to be open-minded and serious about the project.  Even though we disagreed strongly the first time we crossed paths, he kept cool and we worked through our differences, and we both came away happy.  I believe him to be trustworthy and have no qualms supporting him for mop duty. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I've observed Oldwindybear in action, particularly on [[:Bonnie and Clyde]], where he has shown a level head. --
'''Support''' &mdash; I've bumped into the Bear here and there on Wikipedia, and I've always been impressed with his quality of submissions and his cool head.  He'd be a great (almost model, if I dare say so) administrator!  -
'''Strong Support''' Anyone capable of taking on the five-star rank of Assistant Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject is more than qualified to be an admin on wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''' I agree 100% with what TomStar81 said!
'''Support''' I've never actually seen Oldwindybear, but from what I can see of his contributions, I'm sure this user would make a good administrator. I am concerned with his lack of recent contributions to process-related areas. There are a series of edit to [[Battle of Tours]] from the end of May where he removes a single vandal edit in two edits, which I see as him not using an automated revert tool, and a look at his javascript confirms this. If you're going to be reverting and warning, your job will be a lot easier if you use something like [[WP:TWINKLE]] or other javascript tools. Further review shows few warnings or reversions. I'm not convinced that you need the tools, and I hope you choose to do something useful with them. --
'''Bear support'''. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. 100%. Great editor, the nom said it all :-) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' - I cant see a reason why not to. -- <strong>
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Superb - extremely experienced and civil. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - this editor has proven to be a valued contributor and has earned trust. I would like to comment, however, that if your focus is vandal-fighting, most good anti-vandalism efforts can be done without the use of the admin tools. --
'''Jimbo Support''' - A very experienced contributor who I know will not abuse the tool :)...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Outstanding applicant who has done a wide range of activities on the project.  Not just a police officer.  However, slight concern for the low level of editing over the past few months.
'''Support''' You seem like a very experienced editor who will become a great admin.
'''Support''' No concerns here.
'''Support''' — a wonderful, valued, and respected contributor.
'''Support''' I see a great editor here. There is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' OWB is trustworthy and would not misuse the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great editor. I know him from WPMILHIST and he is perfect for the job.
'''Support''' After a review of his contribs, I trust this user basically implicitly.  --
'''Support''', excellent user.
'''Strong Support''' based upon 1) Contributions as evidenced by history 2) Fantastic civility based on my own personal interaction 3) The answers to the questions which are detailed yet pertinent. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' The Bear should be made an admin because of his help to new editors, his work towards always obtaining consensus, and his insistance on civility.  I think it sends a message that hard quiet workers who concentrate on writing articles and helping others can get admin status!
'''Support'''  - I don't usually look at the uncontroversial ones but the name appealed so I look a look.  It come under the heading of "why would anyone not be happy with this guy as an admin" to me.  Pleasant in manner (rare) and a good contributor who can see what is going on around them.  Works well for me and good luck --
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support'''.  A diligent and conscientious editor who is fully devoted to the project; I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. We can disagree on content issues sometimes, but Oldwindybear is certainly a respected and productive editor.
'''Support''' A good editor. Will be a good admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Seems to be a model editor :) --
'''Support'''. I feel this editor is civil and dedicated, based on a review of his contributions. '''
'''Support''' User is great.
'''Support'''. The candidate is dedicated contributor and has the makings of a competent admin.
'''Support''' Looks like a great editor and see nothing to suggest will not make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Solid contributions and reasonable rationale for why editor wants the tools.
'''Support''' I'm sure the maturity will go a long way!
I'm

'''Support'''. Better late than never. ;) Even though I've never dealt with the candidate personally, I'm familiar and impressed with some of his work (mostly through [[WP:MILHIST]]) and I don't see any reason not to support his RFA. --
'''Support''' No big reasons not to support this user. Good luck:)--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Very fair minded and articulate.  Has done a good job with the Bonnie and Clyde article, just hope he's good with admin tools. I was actually very happy to stumble upon this nomination. --
First time in a long while where I could write '''Support''' based on personal interaction. A pleasant preson to work with, & someone I'll affirm -- based on my 4.5+ years of experience here -- knows how Wikipedia not only works, but should work. (Unlike a few I could mention.) --
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''. Good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' Good record, impeccable recommendations.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=prev&oldid=84107296#Stop_Deleting.2FChanging_the_Sherman_Article_Against_Consensus_and_without_Discussion this little exchange] seals the deal for me.
'''Support''' I'm not that convinced that you'll use the tools very much, but you've had good interactions with users. '''
'''Support''' I'm confident he'll make a great Admin -
'''Support''' - '''<font face="georgia">
'''Strong support'''. Strong contributor of content; in fact, he's still making substantive additions to articles while his RfA is running. Based on his interactions with others on his talk page and elsewhere, I trust him to not hit people over the head with the handle of the mop. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support''', no problem here. Good luck.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He deserves it.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Sorry to add-on to the support pile-on (<small>[[Wikipedia:humor|humor]]</small>) but after sampling your contribution history, you talk page and your katewannabe results I feel confident you are familiar with Wikipedia to work efficiently as an admin. --
'''Support''' Your answers to the questions (especially #4) are outstanding. I don't think question #4 could have been answered any better by anyone. Your avg edits per page (11.96) shows that you spend a lot of time on articles. I haven't really seen you before on Wikipedia, but I still can trust you and I give you my support.++
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Level-headed, mature editor. <b>
'''Support'''. Great editor with wonderful contributions.  Adds a diversity of experience to Wikipedia. --
Why not? --
'''Neutral''' - I was going to vote support, but saw that the user had a low Wikipedia namespace count, far less than the 1K I set for my standard & doesn't have as many total edits as I'd like him to have. I know numbers don't add up to the actual work in them, but they give a rough representation & I'm sticking to my standards. I don't think that the user would misuse the tools & if not for the low counts, I'd support. Overall, I don't see that much to turn me to oppose & I don't have enough personal experiences with the candidate - I doubt this nom will fail anyway though... Cheers,
'''Support''' as a nominator.
'''Support''' I see his great efforts fighting vandalism all the time. I am sure he will not abuse or misuse the tools. --
There is no concerns here at this point. I have had little, but good communication with him. Good luck Mike!--
'''Support''' no concerns with this editor. Though vandalism patrol is of high importance, and the candidate does it well, I look forward to seeing Orangemike branch out into other areas that might need admin attention. Good luck,
I've spend some time looking though Orangemike's contributions and I don't really see any problems with his editing or behavior.  Good luck with the Admin mop. ---
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--Mike has done an very good job with WikiProject Wisconsin. If he does become an administrator, I hope he will still be in WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you Mike for all you do. Thank you-
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' based on my overall experiences of this user. We need more mature adults as admins and he fits the bill. Thanks,
'''Support''' while my experiences with Mike have admittedly been brief, he seems to be mature and more than able to handle the job. Good luck! <font color="Green">
'''Cool with me.'''  —
'''Support''' How can I not support with such a cool beard?
'''Support''' From all my interactions with him he seems like a good editor and should be a good admin. Given his slow pace that he began editing with, I don't think he will rush headlong into admin tasks without knowing what he is doing. I'd also like to see an admin who still wants to be a productive editor and not just a full time admin. -
Yes Mike. You are now ready. Weild the mighty mop with prestige, honour (though adminship isn't honourable), and [[The Grateful Dead]] <nowiki>:</nowiki>D
'''Support'''.  I've intereacted with Orangemike several times and found him fair-minded, direct, and knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy.
'''Support''' good vandal fighter as far as I can see.
'''Support'''. Experienced contributor who will make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''. I have encountered the nominee at various points throughout the project and have always gotten the impression that he is knowledgeable, friendly and committed. For these reasons, I support. The fact that my favorite color is ''also'' orange is completely immaterial. :) --
'''Strong Support''' My involvement with OrangeMike at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin]] has been extremely positive. His decision-making processes are always on target. He has a level head: knowing when to revert vandalism without discussion, what to say in his comment in his edit summary on rare cases of reverting a topic with some controversy, and when to discuss on the talk page first before reverting. His discussions demonstrate he understands policy properly. I completely trust that he will not abuse the tools. He will make a fine admin - I wish that I had thought of nominating him!
'''Support''',
'''Support''' While orange is ''not'' my favorite color, I'll make an exception here.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I've interacted with him only one time but had the impression of someone who takes the whole project seriously. Therefore, I think he will be a good admin. --
'''Yeah''' Haven't looked at anything but the nom. Saw a funny question on the hel desk about why he has a userpage, that's enough--
'''Support'''.  Good experience with this user on several articles.  Will make a great admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I've known Mike and have seen his work almost since the beginning of my time editing here and have always found him to be a constructive, well-reasoned and gregarious editor who is not afraid to own his mistakes on the rare occasion that he makes them.  He strives for a level of civility that I admire and I think he would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. This user seems to be worthy of trust with the tools.. The answers leave a little to be desired but no reason to oppose.
'''Support.''' Good experience, good answers. Constructive editor. Oppose arguments are weaker than my new kitten.
Some editors want reassurance that you're familiar with the policies you'll be executing, so please just be sure to go slowly and review blocking/deletion policy, etc., before you actually make those moves. I'm confident that you will, and so I'm going ahead and supporting now. Also, Humpty Dumpty. Jeez, that had me laughing for about ten minutes straight. Good luck, ··
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  No real reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  All of my interactions with Mike have been positive.  He's a quality editor, and making him an admin would be a good thing.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Switch from oppose. Reacted well to my criticism below, and gave good answers to my questions.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Looks like a solid contributor. --'''<font color="#C31562">

'''Support''' - great work on RCP.  Excellent answer to the old 'IAR' question, and per his use of the word 'florid' below.
'''Support''' per solid answers to questions. --
'''Support''' - honest answers to questions. Seems to have a good sense of humour.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - lack of policy acumen for a new admin isn't a concern if the person is trustworthy and intelligent.  I believe Orange Mike will research the relevant policies and guidelines as the need arises as he goes, before applying admin tools in any given situation.  '''''
'''Strong support''' b/c we can never have too many science fiction fans serving as admins. He's also got a great track record at WP.--
I'm
I was going to support this RfA earlier. A fine user who will make good user of the tools.
'''Support'''; user has a great track record and appears plenty trustworthy with admin tools.
'''Support''' - nothing from what I can see. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Seems a very capable editor --
'''Support''', good editor, worked with him on AIV report.
'''Its no Big Deal''' *'''<span style="color:#663300; font-family:cursive">Happy Thanksgiving!</span>''' <sub>
'''Support''' Has been around since 2004 and has over 6000 mainspace edits.See no concerns.
'''Support'''. Orangemike has done an very good job on the project. Give him the mop--
'''Oppose'''-'nuff said.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Question 3.
'''Oppose''' per question 3.
'''Neutral'''. I usually never comment in the "neutral" section, but in this case I will. Something about the answers given, does not make me comfortable to support, or oppose at this point.
'''Neutral'''  Appears to be a good editor.  I was annoyed, however, when he labeled one of my edits as vandalism, leading me to believe that he may be a little too quick to revert without looking at the situation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins&diff=prev&oldid=163130668].  When I asked him about it, he seemed genuinely remorseful, but didn't really seem to understand why it wasn't vandalism.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_2#Vandalism.3F]  It's just one incident, but as it comprises the entirety of my experience with this editor, I cannot support. I'd be interested to know, however, if this editor has changed his position on what constitutes vandalism.  -
'''Neutral''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orangemike&diff=prev&oldid=153160374 this] edit. I appreciate that Orangemike has made some great edits, but the lack of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] when [[User:DGG|another editor]] had already said some of the content was "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:83.131.23.167 reasonably good]", shows (IMO) a lack of keeping [[WP:COOL|level-headed]].

'''Strong Support''' - excellent skills shown - across projects - a dexterity very useful found in most good admins

'''Strong Support''' wonderful contributor who will wisely use the mop
'''Strong support''' - Super contributor. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' Orderinchaos78 has helped me a lot in my development as a Wikipedian, in particular with referencing and Wikiquette, and is very patient with newbies and participates in the [[WP:ADOPT|Adopt A User]] program. This knowledge has equipped me to research what will become several articles on the [[Wheatbelt (Western Australia)|Wheatbelt]] region.
'''Very strong support''' I can't believe I haven't thought of this before. Whenever I made an error, OIC usually appeared with constructive criticism/advice. [[User:Auroranorth|Aurora]][[User talk:Auroranorth|north]] (
'''Support''' Great looking contributions to various areas of Wikipedia.  Seems to be calm and willing to backdown when necessary.  I think the candidate will make a great and responsible admin.
'''Strong Support''' Before I continue, I will disclose that I have personally known Orderinchaos78 for a number of years. Having said that, he has been shown to bring the same amount of dedication he applies in real life to his involvement on WP. He is an exceptional candidate who brings both expertise and a level head to the table. He is a wealth of knowledge, and his help with various issues including article construction, templating, and research has personally worked with me to achieving [[Heathridge, Western Australia|the first]] of what I hope will be many articles at B class and above. I certainly hope the rest of the WP community takes the time to give his RFA due consideration.
'''Extremely Strong Support''' - Quality editor, helped me alot, would make a quiality admin
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- have worked along this editor and found them to be a mature level-headed operator. A worthy candidate for adminship and one I'd have nominated myself sooner or later. --
'''Support'''. Orderinchaos is a very thoughtful editor who perhaps should have been nominated at an earlier stage. The answers, and particularly his general comments, reveal an attitude most becoming of a candidate for adminship.

'''Support'''. I was very impressed with his role in  the [[Template:Infobox Australian Place|Infobox Australian Place]] template project where he gathered together a huge database of information and then applied it across many hundreds of articles. But the icing on the cake was the significant expansion of a number of those articles on the way through then coming back time and again to manage vandalism and patiently negotiate editorial disputes. A most conscientious contributor and always a pleasure to deal with.--
'''Support'''. Sure, good attitude, considers consensus in controversial cases and helpful.
'''Strong Support''' definitely! -
'''Support''' Seems to be doing a good job..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - very impressive contributor. Will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' - The project really could do with more editors like Orderinchaos78 and will definitely benefit from his adminship.
'''Support''' - I see ample contributions to Wikipedia pages ''and'' mainspace articles, so I feel you will indeed have use for the tools. --
'''Support''' The candidate appears to understand deletion well, which covers most of the reason why they're requesting adminship; granting this user the tools will help to clear out AfD backlogs when they develop, improve redundancy in TfD closing, and increase the number of people who can contribute to DRvs without having request temporary undeletions. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 13:48, 6 March 2007 (
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I first came across this user when nominating an article of his to DYK. He'd make a fine job as an admin. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. Acceptance of [[WP:CON|Consensus]] seems to have contributed to Orderinchaos78's composed, sensible interactions with others.  With Orderinchaos78's all-around, good participation, it seems very likely that he will use his mop to Wikipedia's advantage. --
'''Support''' — '''
'''Support''' He's been here for almost a full year (if not already) and has an administrator's watchlist!  He seems to hang out in admin areas and would put good use to the admin bit. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' as per User:Melburnian, good constructive interactions with reform of the infobox template for Australian places --
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' - an excellent admin candidate. --
'''Support''' per all of the above. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' per nom and answers. '''
'''Support''' per everyone above, and there are so many good candidates at the moment ... ''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great attitude and approach to consensus and decision-making, and I have in the past appreciated his fine work on templates and projects. --
'''Support''' Need I say anything? <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Support as nominator'''.  Crikey, I forgot - thanks Blnguyen! &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Support''' May you continue to create "order in chaos" in the future as an admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Excellent answers, particularly the balanced opinions expressed in the "general comments" section above. Seems wise and prudent. Prepare the bucket, please.
No choice but '''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' He has the most important qualities required of an Admin. Not usually given to voting, but I could not withhold my support in this case. - [[User talk:Fred.e|Fr]]
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' looks good to me, personally I don't think that inexperience is an issue with this one. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
Yes! '''Support'''. He has made some great contributions within Perth related articles, and he'll probably do a good job using the admin tools, looking at his answers.
support --
'''Support'''Good contributer, will make a great Admin. Cheers,
'''Support''', this user's work with templates alone means that he deserves to be recognised, the rest of his good work is merely icing on the cake.
I'm
'''Support'''! <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' seems to be doing good work.
'''Support'''.  Clichéd, but still true ... I thought you already were an admin. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' per above. —
'''Support''' - for the record. -
'''Support''', the work done in replacing manual infoboxes in the Melbourne articles as part of the [[WP:IAP]] project was monumental, and all with fine attention to detail. Will make a fine admin. <small><font color="#3399FF">[[User talk:Scharks|◄]]</font></small><font color="#0033CC">
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I've seen some of his work before, and I must say, he is a fine member.
'''Support''', this guy looks llike he can provide order in chaos (...okay, that was lame. He'll make a great admin though)--
'''Neutral'''. Could use more experience in area where admins frequent as there are very few edits in Wikipedia space and Wikipedia talk space. The other activities lead me to believe that Orderinchaos78 would be a good admin with more experience. ···
'''Neutral leaning towards Support'''-per Nihonjoe. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Super mega strong support''' as nominator. —
'''Support''' as co-nominator of course.
'''Support''' One of the best vandal fighters we've got. :)
'''WOW''' Definitely support.  I like that you will work at [[WP:UAA]] cause that gets backlogged a lot.  Good luck!<br/>
'''Absolutely'''<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' civil, super vandal fighter and has very sound knowledge of the policies and guidelines. I can't see any reason to oppose this nomination.
'''You really weren't an admin?''' You should definitely become one! A very good vandal fighter. ''Bon Courage!''
'''Viel Glück!''' This user has done a lot of good vandal fighting in my experience and clearly ''needs'' the ability to block vandals in my opinion.
'''Support'''- as the original nominator a few months back, but he declined the nom.
'''Support''' If ever someone could use the tools...
'''Support''' One of the most prolific vandalfighters we currently have. I thought he/she was already an admin!-
--
I've been waiting for your RfA to show up. '''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' He's one of our best vandal fighters -- and I wouldn't be surprised if he starts beating out DerHexer once he has the tools to do so. He's civil, and intelligent too. ''And'' he adds content to articles? There's little else you need to be an excellent admin.

'''Support''' That's what en.wp strongly needs, vandals' enemies. ;) --
'''Support''' Yo. --
'''Strong Support''', he's needed. --
'''Support'''. Very competent vandal fighter. Contribs suggest he knows what he's doing elsewhere also. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' AS per DerHexer and the user is a incrediable vandal fighter  and has a very good track with over 17000.
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter would make a great admin.
Yes, people. I checked the user rights log. He really ''isn't'' an admin already, to my surprise as much as yours. Here's to you, Oxy.
Indeed, somebody you felt was ''obviously'' an admin almost certainly deserve '''support'''.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Strong Support''' - An excellent vandal fighter.
'''Strong Support''' - great vandal fighter, and he didn't mind that I stole his (and DerHexer's) modified Twinkle tools.
'''Support'''. One of the users I have noticed most around Wikipedia. His activity at AIV suggest a good knowledge of the vandalism policies. Good luck. --
Accurate reports to AIV. I have no worries when it comes to Oxymoron83's use of the block tool.
'''Support'''
'''Hey, someone beat me to nominating this user. 5X support!'''
'''Support''' No concerns here. A great vandal fighter, most probably the greatest Wikipedia has ever come across! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Oh very much so.
'''Support'''. Normally, I'd expect more article creation/expansion work from a candidate, but Oxymoron83 has been an excellent [[WP:AIV]] reporter and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' great vandal fighting, I fully trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Phenomenal vandal fighting.
'''Support''' — The horror of vandals.
'''Support''' I happened to catch this one pre transclusion (:)) and looked around a bit.  Happy with the nominators, happy with the work of the user - should be a good admin --
Seen him around; his reports to AIV are precise and will definitely help with some of the more strenuous of administrator tasks. --
'''Support''', will be fine.
'''Oppose''' - makes me feel somewhat redundant. <small>Just kidding, at least the spammers will keep me busy.</small> No concerns here.
'''Support''' - certainly one of our more prolific vandal whackers. Watch out CSCWEM! ;) -- <strong>
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter. Is quick and accurate. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' --
<s>'''Minded to support''' Just waiting on the results of my questions. Please feel free to nudge me on my talk page if I don't respond after you have answered them. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</s> Changing to '''support''' - good answers to my questions.
'''Of course'''
No reason not to:) Good luck!--
'''Support''' - even though it's another user that has succumbed to automated edits. :(
'''Support''': Knowledge of Self's description of Oxymoron83's AIV contribs is correct and shows why the latter should get the mop.
'''Strong Support''' keep on comming accross this user while doing anti vandlism work, knolegable, and has a good amout of experence! <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Crap I had this one on my watchlist and didn't see it sooner support''' --
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' No reason not to. -
'''Hell yeah!''' brill user!--
'''Support''' as a good (not great) editor, but certainly an excellent vandal-fighter, who will be needed in the days to come.
'''Support'''. Looks to me like he will make a great admin. I'm sure he'll put the block too to good use.
'''Support''' Experienced and knowledgeable vandal fighter. <b>
'''Support''' A very worthy candidate... &mdash;
'''Support''', easiest decision since [[God]] was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God|nominated for deletion]]. —
'''Support'''.  Oh yes, no question about it...although I will truly miss one of the most prolific and trustworthy AIV reporters I've ever had the pleasure of working with.  Will make an excellent admin!
'''Support''' Effective, hardworking, and valuable an excellent candidate. -
'''Support''' - what this user has achieved in his/her time here is simply mindblowing! A regular vandal fighter myself, I have encountered this user many times and his work is simply excellent. I think he's one of the people I've awarded a barnstar for their efforts. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' An excellent candidate with extensive vandal-fighting experience.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' absolutely unreservedly.  Truly an outstanding candidate who will continue to be a valuable asset to the project as an admin. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' User's activities inspire me to fight vandals, great user.
'''Oppose''' He has beaten me out three times to vandalism; this is unacceptable.—
'''Dammit''' there goes one more vandal-fighter whose reports I don't need to check at AIV :/ ~
'''Support''' Experienced user who'll make very good use of the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' absolutely. —
'''Support.''' Reviewing this person's edit history, I'm amazed Oxymoron83 isn't an admin already.
'''Support'''--
I thought for a few minutes before commenting here. I'm very impressed with the edit count and general edits, and I strongly believe you will be an assett to AIV, but there is a lack of article work and building the encyclopedia, so call this as '''weak support'''.
'''Support'''- no brainer support -
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Thanks for answering my question!  Good luck!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter, great contributer.
'''100% Support!''': One of the best vandal fighters i have ever met, very civil, many reports to [[WP:AIV]], extremely civil. Give em' the mop!
I'm
'''Support''' excellent vandal-whacker and reporter. About time. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support!''' excellent record thus far, definitely seems trustworthy.
'''Wow support''' Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - This user already sneaks too many reverts from under my nose - I don't want to lose any more! ;) On a more serious note, This is one of a few users who I would trust with Developer/CheckUser/Steward Tools, let alone those of an admin! Keep up the good work - :-)
'''Support''': I've seen you around.  Definite support from me. -
'''Strong support''' Absolutely! I've had the pleasure of edit-conflicting with Oxymoron so many times I've lost count, while on Recent Changes patrol, and he is always professional and courteous. I highly respect the nominator and co-nominator, and have absolutely no doubts at all that Oxymoron will be a most excellent addition to the current administrative team. <small>
'''Support ON WHEELS!!!''' Great user. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RfA_Candidate%27s_Song Vandal-Stalking Predator] Support'''.  While I understand the desire to see more article creation, I feel the candidate is clear on where their strengths lie, understands policy, and will not abuse the tools. Am particularly impressed with the high quality of [[WP:AIV]] reports. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' I confess, I've gotten so used to blocking the users Oxymoron reports at AIV, that sometimes I just skip the usual precautions before blocking (checking time of last vandalism/warning, and block log). I beg for mercy. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Omg I see a nice list of reverting vandalism! Way to go! '''
'''Pile on Support!'''
'''Support''' Great anti-vandalism efforts, has many anti-vandalism barnstars--
'''Support''' While Iwould be concerned about a candidate with no article experience, IMHO this candidate has enough, given his other qualifications.--
'''Support''' - not that it matters. A fantastic user who will make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' I have given this issue extensive consideration and thought and come to the conclusion that I cannot support this nomination, and must raise potential concerns. While the nominee has reached staggering heights of edits in a short period of time (over 36,000 edits were recorded since starting in May 2007!), and has done wonders in fighting vandalism, this has been mostly through the use of automated tools by which as many as ten edits per minute (or more) are registered. This means that many of these edits involve no more than seconds of thought, or as much as 10-15 seconds if paired reverts and warnings are included. I haven't found any examples of articles created by the nominee, nor were any offered in response to my Q9 above. The mainspace editing offered by the nominee as examples of his work also raise questions: [[U7 (Berlin U-Bahn)]] involves three edits that covered translation of text from the German Wikipedia (I'm not sue if there are any GFDL issues there) and the other article cited [[U4 (Berlin U-Bahn)]] involves a single edit. Being an administrator involves more than the automated process of reverting edits that the nominee has been doing almost exclusively. It requires careful consideration of issues relating to consensus and some measure of understaning of the process by which articles are created. I have seen nothing in this editor's edit history that demonstrated this knowledge, and 99.9% of what is being done by the nominee could be done just as effectively without administrative powers. I applaud these efforts and wish there were more people devoting time to stamping out vandalism. But while I don't have any evidence whatsoever that this is a prospective problem admin, I see no evidence of the skills needed to merit the mop. I reluctantly oppose the nomination.
'''oppose''' Insufficient content creation. I don't believe a person who presfer to fight vandals to writing content can be a good judge in fighting "good guys" who may be occasionally mistaken or got excited. `'
Yes, yes, a thousand times. I couldn't support the last RfA because I was on a rare break, but this guy should've been an admin a long time ago. Exemplary user. &ndash;
'''Strong support''' - I nominated him last time! Thoughtful user, will certainly help with the backlogs and not abuse admin tools.
'''Strong Support''' - Have seen this editor doing a great Job on Wikipedia and I believe he should have been an admin a long time ago..Anyways..Good Luck :)..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' He's a natural one now.
'''Support''' Although I find this editor sometimes aggressive, I don't think that it's over the top or likely to be a problem (there are plenty of good admins more aggressive than Pascal). He appears to have made an effort since his last RFA, and is ready for the mop.
'''Support''' and good luck!
Of course. Incredible user.
support seems like a good conadate for admin. looking over his edits seems he have vasly improve sence then no reason to oppse
'''Support'''. A hardworking and dedicated user. Has made a great improvement in understanding policies and guidelines since his previous RfA; he's ready for the tools.
'''Support''' - great things come from Pascal.
'''Support'''. Can't think why I didn't support last time, but giving this user the tools is a Good Thing. &mdash;
Ought to have passed on the first go.
'''Support''' Of course. Great contributions.
'''Strong Support'''. I already asked Pascal if I could nominate him, and I'm still mystified as to why he prefers a self-nom to a third-party nom. Still, he should have been an admin a long, long time ago. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Purple">
'''Of course.''' I don't need to read the whole nomination essay.  I know a good editor when I see one.  Good luck. :)
'''[[Supermassive black hole|Supermassive]] Support''' based on what I've seen from this guy. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. I've been very impressed by this user for some time and I am ''sure'' he will make an excellent admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Sensible, level-headed, knows what to do.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Yep--
'''Support''' Prime candidate for demotion if that is what they wish. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Absolute support'''. I haven't yet had to use this cliché, but I thought you already were an admin. Best of luck. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' I have seen Pascal around and think he represents himself well. I have read through the previous RfA and note the issues raised there, however I believe that the intervening months have probably done much to correct his thinking on a few issues. I know of no reason to oppose this editor. Give him the tools.

'''Support'''.  One of our best gnomes.  --
Hell yes. Even has a dot in his name :) '''
Bandwagon.
'''Support''' Pascal should've been admin a long time ago. Excellent user, experienced, civil and level-headed. I've seen him gnoming around countless times. —
'''Support'''. Great user, will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - has already demonstrated a willingness to put time and hard work into improving the infrastructure around here, the tools will be of further benefit to him. '''
'''Support'''.  Absolutely.  I have seen this editor's excellent contributions wherever I go, including difficult areas like [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]].  No doubt he will make a fine administrator. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Strong support''' per everyone else. Great user, should've passed last time around.--
'''Strong Support''' I urged him to apply again a few weeks ago, and am delighted that he has. A most valuable project member, with excellent skills and knowledge of policy.--
'''Support''' A fine candidate for the mop, I'm sure I have saw you at [[WP:AFD|AfD]] when I edited as [[User:Tellyaddict|Tellyaddict]]. Good luck! &mdash;
'''Support''' I supported back in January and my opinion hasn't changed in the interim - a strong candidate for adminship.
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''', should already be an admin. —'''
'''Support''' Should have been made one last time imo. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Strong support''' an excellent self-nomination. From what I've seen of Pascal.Tesson, he is civil, assumes good faith all the time, and when it comes down to other users' RfA's he always gives a good opinion.
'''Support''' So that he can, for a change, remove articles from [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] instead of just listing them there and creating backlogs for admins.
'''<Insert-cliche-here> Support''' A great editor who has made many improvements since his previous RfA. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
''Support''' - Solid user who does a lot of good work.
'''Support''' review of Pascal's contributions is impressive. --
'''Support''' - reliable and balanced contributor. Great knowledge of policy. No problems here :) -
'''Support''', good contributor. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Old cliché support''', honestly never knew you weren't one already. But that being the case, let's fix that!
'''Support''' Solid contributions and good improvements since last RfA. &mdash;
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; great addition to the admincorps.
'''Support''' Great asset to Wikipedia. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' Excellent editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Strong support''' He deserved it before--hate that it was denied as a result of a sock.  Better late than never ...
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' It is all been said already--

'''Support''': Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Seems like a great asset to the project, should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' Had I known about your intentions to go up for adminship again, I would have surely nominated you. PT is an excellent editor, and has made many amendments to the problems discussed in his previous RfA. I think he's qualified and ready for the tools now. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. A hard worker who can benefit by having more tools. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]]
'''Support''' - Outstanding candidate...
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''; everything's good here.  Exceptional candidate.
'''Support''' &ndash; He isn't one?  Well, he certainly should be.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support'''.  I enjoy reading what this user has to say; no concerns that he will abuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Per Kubigula and also because my interactions with him have always been positive. -- '''
'''Support'''. I have no doubt that you will use the tabs well. '''''
'''Support''', certainly.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor, should do well with admin tools.
'''Support'''. Tho I haven't been gifted the pleasure of interacting with Pascal yet, his editing skills and thoughtful comments even in the most heated situations have impressed me. Utterly qualified for the tools.
'''Strong Support'''.--
'''Strong Support''' -- I thought Pascal already was an admin. great spam-fighter. Diplomatic yet firm. --
'''Strong support''' Ideal candidate, wikipedia has really been missing out by not having him as a sysop. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
Piley on without a doubt '''Support''' <sup>
'''Strong Support'''.  Not sure I can add anything, but doesn't this qualify as "no brainer."?
'''Support''' - My interaction with the user was pleasant, and he was ''caught in the act'' of tirelessly gnoming. -
'''Support''' Why wouldn't I? · <font face="Times New Roman">
Another overdue
'''Support'''. I couldn't resist.
'''Support''' My experiences with Pascal have been positive.  Looking forward to working with him as an administrator.
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''' Has made a tremendous contribution and will be a great admin.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' A remarkable contribution to the less glamorous  but necessary task of making everthing work, especially in categorizing. <font face="monospace" color="blue">
'''Support''' vast improvements since last run - was it really that long ago?  An interesting aside: I was informed of that first nomination by a [[User:Molag Bal|Molag Bal]] sock ;)
'''Support'''-Like last time. --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong support'''. Not on the devil's number (87) anymore. '''
'''Support''' I think Pascal will make a fantastic addition to the admin team and I have no hesitation in supporting him. '''
'''Support''' Would be a good admin. --
'''Support''' Appears to be a high-quality candidate.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''&mdash;
'''Support''' Somehow, I forgot to support. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''', why not? '''
'''Support'''. I don't see any issues with this candidate.
'''Support''' No doubt will do a good job. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per previous support. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support''' per other supporters.
'''Support''' Solid contributor.  --
'''Support''' good contributor, solid records.
'''Support''' has been a good contributor and demonstrates a common sense a approach to editing and collaborating; should have been approved last time around. Good at dealing with spam. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Strong Support''' - I think falsedef is forgetting that [[WP:IAR]] is an official policy of Wikipedia ;) I support users who blend common sense with a respect for policy. --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Aye'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support'''I like your edits, everybody likes your edits. Good contributions. Besides I'd look dumb if I Opposed  (1**-1-0), but really, good job and I hope you do well. '''
'''Support''' Eh, why not pile on? I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pascal.Tesson supported firmly] last time, and I imagine the project would have benefited from Pascal's being an admin the past four months; at least we'll not have to wait any longer.
'''Support''' - congratualtions.  I look forward to seeing you around the wiki.  '''''
'''Support''' - name triggered my recognition response when I looked down the list of those currently at RfA. I've seen the candidate around the place, and I would trust them with admin tools.
No reason to oppose, and all issues have been addressed since last Rfa. --
'''Support''' -
Nothing more to say. Just support.
'''Support''' '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
'''Support''' in such an obviously contentious RfA, I have to say that he is a very strong candidate who can definitely be trusted.  Experienced and willing to learn from his missteps.
'''Support''' good candidate.--
'''Support''' just as I did in the last RfA. Good candidate, hardworking editor, and should make a good admin.
'''Strong Support''' great editor.
'''Support,''' but may want to bring up edits in Portal talk namespace. :-) [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Strong and serious support''' Per all of the above.
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support,''' I have seen nothing but fine work from this editor and am sure he will do the same as an admin.--
'''Support'''.--'''
'''Support''' I don't see the need to give my reasons! --
just kidding - it's '''support''' actually.
'''Support''' as very insightful at AfD.'''
'''Support''' Despite my aversion to cannabilism and polygamy, I support this RfA.  :) --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' Fine editor who is calm and meticulously fair in difficult situations (please accept this nom!).
'''Support'''. A cool head and his ability to pour oil on troubled waters suggest he'll make a fine admin, as do the quality of his contributions.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Looks like a reserved candidate who will demonstrate courtesy and professionalism.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' I can't find anything at all to criticize. You'll make a great admin :) --Malevious
'''Support''' Candidate seems to conduct himself in a cool, reserved manner. Will use the tools responsibly and constructively. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Support''', fully. -- <b>
'''Support''' particularly for the considerate handling of the above mentioned dispute.--
'''Support'''. Great article work! Would use the [[WP:MOP|mop]]! '''
'''Support''' Keeps it mellow and he edits!
'''Support''' Good editor, very civil in interactions. A fine candidate.  --
'''Support''', most definitely.  This editor just came to my attention a couple days ago, with [[User_talk:Til_Eulenspiegel#Comment|this]] superbly cool-headed and sensitive attempt to defuse a difficult situation.  I think we need people with this kind of diplomatic talent as admins.
'''Support''' He's one of the most effective people in dealing with POV-pushers that I've seen around.'''
'''Support''' - It looks good.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' per nom and inasmuch as it seems quite plain that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Support''' per nom and above, not much else to say. --'''
'''Support'''. Shows a highly cool-headed, civil demeanor, highly important qualities in an admin. Has done some great, dedicated contributions in FAs and GAs, and in spearheading an active WikiProject. A great candidate for the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' He seems a very sensible and hard working guy and, with reference to one of the questions he's been asked above, this atheist doesn't see how having a cross in one's signature is breaking any rule about saying one religion is superior to another.  He's just expressing what his is.
'''Support''' Should easily adapt as a great admin; best of luck!
I'm
'''Support''' and the very best of luck to you.
'''Support'''. No problems, and adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|as per Jimbo Wales]]...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' No red flags, [[User:Lankybugger/ASBS|no reason to withhold support]]. Cheers,
Your thoughtful answers show courtesy and knowledge of policy. ··
'''Sure''' (sorry I couldn't review you btw, a bit busy atm) '''''
'''Support''' I've seen him around and he looks sound.--
'''Support''' - already had a lot of dealings with this editor and he's great! No problems here -
'''Support''' - friendly and hard working editor.
'''Support'''. I am impressed both by the candidate's contributions record and his answers to the questions. -- '''
almost missed this, support of course.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support'''. Pastordavid is a thoughtful, industrious editor. Axios!
'''Strong Support''' Impressive article work, level-headed and wise, friendly. Excellent candidate. —
'''Support''' Would be a pleasure to have this user as an admin.

'''Default support'''. —
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''I don't generally participate in RfC unless I've had some opportunity to experience the editor elsewhere.  Your assistance here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Do_you_really_endorse_this_policy.3F] impressed me, so I'll pile on support
'''Support'''- Good experience in different areas, level headed and friendly- would make a great admin
'''Support''' Outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' Answers to the questions looked good. No problems here.
'''Support''' He's a knowledgeable contributor in a very difficult topic area. I'm most impressed by his adherence to the [[principle of charity]], and his neutrality in judging controversial issues. He has been extremely helpful in our conflict, and I'm 110% convinced he will be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' - I've seen him around, and the greatest asset he is to Wikipedia is the fact that he actually ''knows stuff'', a rarity in the community.
'''Support''' - Nice guy, very knowledgeable about policy - he will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''': I've seen this user around a few times. I don't think he's abuse the tools. Excellent edit summary usage and plenty of experience. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Pile-on-Support''' - seen him work, like his stuff.  Give him a mop, someone, would ya?
He would probably be the best Christian admin since {{admin|Musical Linguist}}.
'''Support''' I love to see admins involved in WikiProjects. Go ahead. --
'''Support''' Excellent answers, good edit summary usage and great contributions. --
'''Support'''.  Seems a very capable editor with the right attitude. &mdash;
'''Support'''. :)--
'''support''' what I've seen of this editor makes me think he will be a good admin
'''Support''' I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' Seen this user regularly in my watchlist, don't recall ever feeling I needed to take action after checking their contribution.  Has sound judgement and maturity.  Let's face it, for pastors religion is far more a part of their identity than the typical religious adherant (as it is both their religion and their primary job, whereas for most people it is just the former).  Adding a cross to his signature added nothing to his Christain identification, and either people are going to be able to work with him or not.  I see the opposition on this basis as reflecting more poorly on the opposers than on the nominee.
'''Support''' per nom. I like the crucifix and I think you should keep it. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' While I don't think the cross should be in his sig, David has removed it and he's handled the opposition to it well. I think he's definitely fit to be an admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Usually the calming voice of reason in some highly contentious subjects. ''
'''Support''' per support comments.
'''Strong Support''' - Man, I gotta pay more attention to these. I don't think I've yet met a fairer and more reasonable editor in wikipedia. He has repeatedly handled rather delicate issues fairly and reasonably, and I honestly don't think I've yet met anyone who really doesn't speak very highly of his conduct and his ability as an editor.
'''Strong Support'''.  I find it astonishing and deeply disturbing that the opposition and neutral positions held by some editors seem to center on PastorDavid's apparent use of a cross (or dagger) in his signature as a free expression of religion (or as a clever symbol for the talk gadget).  I understand that not all English-speaking nations have clauses in their Constitutions which provide for "[[Freedom of religion|free expression of religion]]", so this concept may well seem alien to some, and I certainly understand that as well.  Nevertheless, discriminating against PastorDavid or anyone based on their religion and their expression of it is an absolute outrage in "this Wiki-society".  Diversity strongly suggests that we need administrators like PastorDave openly expressing his religion, and not be discriminated against, or worse - left to cower in the corner hiding, fearful of attack by anti-religionists or whatever.  I can envision PastorDavid as being a great and valuable help in mediating and assisting other religious (or not) Wikipedians with properly editing the vast numbers of religious-related articles.  By wearing his religion on his sleeve, as it were, religious Wikipedians who are having difficulties with such editing can find comfort in discovering and communicating with such a administrative-helper.  I might even have a tendancy to lean to "neutral" myself if PastorDavid actually backed down and cowered permanently in the corner in the face of religious oppression and persecution from the opponents.  Stick to your principles, PastorDavid!  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm an atheist and it doesn't bother me. Active contributor to making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. cheers,
'''Support'''. He's a pastor, so if he screws up he goes to [[Hell]]. Therefore he'll be fine.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' you gotta love the self-righteous bastard! --
Using religious symbolism in signatures is utterly unnecessary and rather off-putting to anyone not in the indicated group.  It's unacceptable to think we'd have an admin going around signing everything with a crucifix.  I can just imagine how well that would go over in certain circumstances.  Even if he removes the crucifix now it won't really change my mind &mdash; he's already demonstrated poor judgment to me by ever thinking it was a good idea idea in the first place.  --
'''Oppose''' due to a lack of judgment in placing a cross in his signature. As a "public face of Wikipedia" (whatever that means, the username combined with the symbol are troublesome and could cause problems in future interactions. While I do not expect this to sink the nomination, I feel strongly enough to register my disapproval in this manner. Removing it now will not make me change my mind, unfortunately, as Pastordavid also appears to have very arbitrary requirements for supporting RFA, such that a month's edits can apparently change an oppose to support. This denotes a lack of flexibility that I shudder to see in those we grant the extra tools to. -- ''
Pending answer to Q4, since I see this as a slight issue. ~
'''Support''' and Go Pats!  He (she?) knows what he's doing.
I have encountered Pats1 in many places around Wikipedia. They will make a good administrator.
'''Go Pats'''. Very nice contribs to football articles. I would like to say that you should use edit summaries more often, but you appear to have activated the empty summary notice. Happy administrating!
'''Support''' - OK, looks good to me.  Welcome to the madness. -
'''Support''' as nom. Will be a great specialty and general purpose mop holder.
'''Boo!''' Nobody likes the Patriots.
'''Support''' Very active recently with more than 9000 mainspace edits.Find no concerns in edits.
'''Support''' Actually, I like the Patriots.  And I like Pats1  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
'''Strong Support'''.  I've seen this guy around a lot (between him, [[User: Alakazam|Alakazam]], and myself, we do a lot of work on NFL-related articles.  And it can definitely be a hassle keeping POV out, not to mention making sure everything is updated.  Anyway, I hate the Patriots and pray every day they don't go undefeated (easiest division), but I like this guy.  He's a great editor (hasn't used edit summaries all that great in the past, but he does now).  Not a ton of Wikipedia namespace edits, but he understands policy and I think he'll make a great administrator.
Of course Jaranda/
'''Support''' as long as Pats1 is willing to admit that Oakland got [[Tuck Rule Game|wicked screwed]]. :)
-- <b>
'''Support''' A very good editor who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He/she's a Patriots fan, and that makes me unhappy. However, he/she's a great contributor, and that makes me happy. And that's better than giving me gas. <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''
'''Support'''.  What are these "Patriots"?
'''Support''' Yep, no problems.
'''Support'''.  Agree with [[User:Faithlessthewonderboy|<span style="color:blue">'''faithless'''</span>]] [[User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy|<small><span style="color:black">(<sup>'''speak'''</sup>)</span></small>]], though I think the officials should have [[WP:IAR|ignored said rule]].  :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Nominee's contribs look really good. This RfA also gets major points for the funniest optional question I've ever read. Well done.
'''Support''' Appears to be a quality editor and has has learnt from his possible mistakes. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' Good editor - even though the Pats beat the Cowboys. :-(
'''Support''' even though there's all that red -- Sox and edit summaries! Seriosuly, massive edit count and civility counts.
'''Support''' User's answer to my question shows that he would know how to deal with conflicts in regards to incivility and bad behavior.  No reason to believe that he would abuse admin powers.  '''
'''Support''' Answers to questions are good. They have need for the tools.--
'''Support''' - You're article work is absolutely great. Just remember to focus on Wikipedia-space too, especially as as an admin, and please don't neglect the edit summary! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''

'''Weak support'''. I'd like to see more edit summary usage, and some more experience in projectspace, but we sorely lack [[American football|Real football]] admins, and my concerns are rather petty, so i support.
'''16-0''' that is all [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with this user. Give him the green light.  '''
'''Support''' As per it is what it is.
'''Support'''  Very helpful; would be a great admin. --
'''Support''' - support
I'm
'''Support''' - Great job, I'm surprised you weren't a sysop by now.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' Aside from our strong similar tastes in sports teams, I trust this user.
'''Support''' No one here has ever hated Pats1 as much as I used to back when I knew him on an internet forum. However, he is a fair, intelligent and reasonable editor and a great contributor. Definitely support.►'''
'''Support''' The oppose reasons don't look convincing to me. '''Jehochman's''' link does not convince me that '''Pats''' will abuse the tools, and regreatably admins sometimes need to express opnions frankly and frimly. If anything, the link shows Pats can do this. Though an '''oppose''' does not need to be supported with diffs, it is hard to give weight to one that does not.
'''Support''' A great contributor to the project and would be a wonderful admin. I have no reason to believe that he will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose'''<s>(now neutral)</s>  Let me supply constructive criticism.  Pats1 very recently made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=165648340#Sorry_again... these] inflammatory comments. An administrator should not behave this way. -
'''Oppose''' Through my interaction, although limited, I've picked up that Pats1 is overly confrontational, something I don't want to see in a prosective admin candidate. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' - I thought long an hard about this before casting my vote.  I vaciliated between Oppose and Neutral for quite some time.  In the end, it doesn't look like my vote will make a difference anyway.  In any case, I think Pats1 is a very valuable contributor to wikipedia, and certainly a hard worker.  I've had many agreements & disagreements with him, but I do respect him as an editor.  I do have some reservations about past instances i've seen involving edit warring, comments fights, and what I perceive to be [[WP:OWN]] issues.  Don't get me wrong, I think Pats1 will make an excellent administrator some day, I just wish he would have a little more time as an editor to work on these things first.
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s>  I abhor single-issue !voting at RFA, so this is some self-hate.  The reply above, "just because they're 'pillars' doesn't mean they should be followed more than all other policies and guidelines", is a deal breaker.  Policy and guidelines derive from the 5P, or in some cases are codified good practice that does not conflict with the 5P.  Foundational policy thus trumps all other policy.  Administrators will on rare occasions come across situations in which policies appear to conflict, do not appear to apply, or lead to clearly unencyclopedic results.  They will thus required to retrench and make judgment calls based on the 5P.  I do not trust the judgment, on administrative matters, of a user who does not understand the role of foundational policy.  (On a side note, if this ignorance is not limited to this user, Kim Bruning's questions needs to be part of the 'standard optional' questions.) -
Kim's questions may have been a bit irrelevant to some users, but Pats1's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYoungamerican&diff=166630590&oldid=165640657 response] was absolutely uncalled for, and remarkably calculating.  ''"What about just not responding at all? It seems like they're just two special interests users that have larger goals and won't play a factor in deciding the RfA."''  Wikipedia is not a game of chess, and RFA shouldn't be either.  Pats1 seems to be operating under the assumption that his/her "move" should be based on how it'll affect his/her popularity, and that's an extremely dangerous assumption to make.
'''Neutral''' based upon [[User_talk:Durova#Sorry_again...|this conversation]], which was an outgrowth of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson]].  This thread dealt with an editor who's post-arbitration and who (although he has problems of his own) had also been trolled by a sneaky vandal and a returning sockpuppet of a banned editor for most of his time as a Wikipedian.  It's touch-and-go to see whether this person will adapt to site standards and succeed as an editor.  One of the most important things we can do right now is to set the right example regarding [[WP:NOT#Not a battleground]] so that maybe he'll come around.  I have some concerns about giving the mop to someone who steps in with remarks that don't move the situation forward and could be read as flippant.  If Pats1 had remained calm and opened a content [[WP:RFC]] instead I'd be a lot more confident about seeing him with the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' per Durova. Your comments in the above-cited conversation weren't helpful. I'd like to think you've put the episode behind you, but I still have concerns. Ad hominem tactics just days before you submit an RfA - what were you thinking?
'''Neutral''' per Durova. I'm also disturbed by this comment but not enough to oppose as long as no other examples of this behavior are shown.--
'''Support'''. Although banning and blocking are different, I think everybody should keep in mind that many editors are not native English speakers, and the difference can then become more foggy. This does not mean they will use the tools abusively. Pax tecum. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Support''' It seemed to be obvious that it was a verbal slip and I think his balance of work makes him well-qualified.'''
'''Support'''. Majorly, is it not hypocritical to brush off canvassing  as negligible and then oppose based on what can be seen as a typographical error? --
'''Support''' We're all learning every day, and if someone believes they know everything, then I would say they are more dangerous than someone who knows less but keeps an open mind. --
'''Support''' As stated above, I'm sure its a mistake, or an error as stated by Errabee. --<sup>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</sup><sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk to me]]</sub>  <small>
'''Support''' oh no! he said he'd ban a user instead of block a user.  That was an easy mistake to make, especially for someone who hasn't been able to block anyone yet.  So I support him, though we were on opposite sides of an AfD (what, I'm not petty) '''
'''Support''' I was fairly certain it was a slip of the tongue, or finger, but I needed him to say so.--
'''Support''' (Changed from oppose) Per answer to question 6. He knows the difference between a block and a ban, he just slipped up. Everyone slips up once in a while. --
'''Support.''' The ban/block minor slipup does not worry me in the least. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' The ban/block slip-up was a very simple mistake.  I disagree with folks voting neutralor oppose solely on grounds that such an error means you will not be a good admin.  So much else suggests that you will be a fine an admin.  I just can't see making a big deal over this.<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - Per the answers to the questions. Since it was just a slip up, no reason to opppose. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Good user.--
'''Support''' With the ban/block thing cleared up, we're ready to go!
'''Support'''  Am thinking of leaving wikipedia because of aggressive editors but Pax:Vobiscum is very encouraging and also a good editor.
'''Support''' the block/ban confusion (although relatively minor) having been cleared up, this editor is a good candidate, and should do well.
'''Support''' The issue appears to be cleared up; otherwise, a good editor.
'''Support''' Glad to see your slip isn't going to cost you. You seem to already be helpful to others based on your talk page. I'm sure you'll continue to be a fine resource.
'''Support''' <clichè> I thought you already were an admin! </clichè> <font color="maroon">

'''Support''' Appears to be a good user to be admining.
'''Support''' Why not? THe only reason why people are opposing is because the he confused blocking and banning. Big deal, as long as it keeps vandals away, it works with me. Also his answers to the questions seems good. -
'''Support''' Great answer to Q10.
'''Support''' - No Problem..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Supoort'''Nice responses to all questions, good editor should be given a nice mop as a reward <font color="SteelBlue">
'''Support''' No one would use SPA socks to support their own RfA - that's just silly. This is clearly a third party trying to disrupt the process. I see no reason not to trust Pax with the tools. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support.''' The answers are quite good. If you're doing this for the purpose of gaining admin rights to destroy Wikipedia, you're putting up a good cover :) .
'''Weak support''' - Answers to questions are reasonable. Mild concerns re. knowledge of policy but No Big Deal. [[WP:SPA]] accounts do not bother me in the slightest, post-checkuser -
'''Support''' - as someone who uses the heck out of AWB myself.  Some of us really ENJOY doing gnomish things, and still believe they're significant contributions to the encyclopedia.  Wish the candidate the best.
'''Support''' No problems here. Glad to voice my supprt. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' the reasoning of WJBscribe.
'''Support'''. Oppose votes don't convince me, in fact all the crossed out ones show me something.--
'''Support'''.  The adminship is no big deal, and it is not fair to oppose a candidate on the grounds that their profile seems similar to a recent (surely unique) case.  If you've got a diff, produce it.  Otherwise, bite your tongue and assume good faith.
'''Support'''. Low talk page edits is irrelevant to adminship.
As it stands, this is the kind of vacuous RfA we should be afraid of. We have basically no information about Pax:Vobiscum except that he "edits old articles" like presumably every WP editor does, "writes new articles" that have remained essentially stubs to this day, uses AWB to get a high edit count, votes on things, and can give satisfying answers to policy questions. We know nothing about his motivations, what he will do in the stressful situations that admins encounter, or even whether he is a "trojan candidate" like {{user|Runcorn}}. (This is not an accusation, this is being cautious.) I ''oppose'' pending an enlightening answer to Q11.
'''Oppose''' for now. The single-purpose accounts voting for this user have put me on edge and the answers to the questions don't seem to indicate that you understand policy and the tools well enough to be trusted with them. I'd like to see some better contributions and contributions that exhibit clear understanding of ''why'' he'd be using the tools. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/
'''Oppose''': Sorry; I think you've done a lot of good work with reversions, sorting, and the like, and ordinarily I think anyone whose RfA is trolled by sockpuppets must be doing something right. However... given recent events with sockpuppet admins with editing histories very similar to yours, I'm going to oppose based on a lack of content contributions. I hate to do that, because I don't want to imply your contributions lack value. But you don't need the tools for the kind of wikignoming work you're doing, and the contrib pattern makes me nervous given recent events. I think you're a good user, making good contributions, and I could see supporting with a little more evidence of involvement in the content aspects of the encyclopedia, but I have to oppose for now. '''
'''Oppose'''. May happily support a future RfA, but I, too, would like more evidence of who you are and where you are going. Only article writing and ''some'' involvement in Wikipedia debates (more than your current '''7''' edits in WT space) could conclusively show that. —'''
'''Oppose''' at this time; not yet confident in this user's understanding and implementation of the more arcane bits of Wikipedia policy, and while gnomishness is absolutely useful, it rarely requires the bit. Maybe another time. -- ''
'''Oppose''' per low Talk page edits. An admin must be more than a vandal fighter - s/he must be experienced in interacting with others.
'''Oppose'''. Nearly 4,000 mainspace edits and only '''58''' edits to article talk. That's way too low. We need admins who've done something other than revert vandalism.
'''Oppose''', answers to the questions don't convince me that the experience is there, I don't sense confidence
Generally not confident with communication, which is so important for admins. '''
'''Oppose''' No not enough mainspace article creation edits. --
I am worried about the mainspace contributions, as most of the contribs seem to be AWB edits, and you have a minimal amount of article expansion edits. Apart from that, your request is fine. --
Your explanation seems OK, but I'm worried you might make similar errors in your role as an admin, leading to confusion. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
Extreme co-nominator '''support'''. She'll do good things, I'm perfectly sure :) &ndash;
'''Support''' - A look back through her contribs shows a high level of contribution towards making this a better encyclopedia.
Riana nominee.
Wow, a great user. Definitely support, and good luck my friend :) '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Strong Support'''<small>5 edit conflicts!</small> I've spoke with PeaceNT on Wikipedia before and she has always shown a trust for the tools and extreme politeness and civility, she could use to the tools really well! Good luck! Regards &mdash;
'''Support''' - She has shown that she can be trusted with the tools and her contributions has been excellent..Good Luck..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Very Civil.<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Support''' Firstly, I always thought you were a bloke, secondally, I aways thought you were an admin! Best of luck.
'''Support''', I'm so absent-minded that I forget to add my vote? '''
'''Support'''. We need more editors such as her to be nominated.
'''Strong support''' Excellent nominators nominating an excellent candidate. By the messages above, PeaceNT is obviously belongs in [[Wikipedia:List of editors who aren't sysops, but who we think are sysops, and who might as well be sysops because of everything they do|this non-existant list]].
'''Strong Support''' always had positive interactions with this editor. Should've been one a long time ago. —
'''Support''' Great work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - great editor & worker. Will make a super admin -
'''Support''' - Proceed, as per comments above and as per my noting that this user is admin-worthy...
'''Support''' per Moreschi. I have the utmost confidence in anyone nominated by Riana. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Per nomination and excellent contributions. --
'''Are you kidding?''' I thought she already was an admin.  Seriously.  She left me a friendly note a month ago advising me not to overstep my boundaries in closing AFD discussions, so I could see she knew the ropes.
'''Support''' – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' per all of the above.  Very surprized she isn't already one.
'''Support''' per nom. PeaceNT is a great user who definitely deserves the tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''', per nom. --
'''Support''' per Appleworm. --
'''Support''' Has shown vast improvement as a (fairly) new Wikipedian; makes me a bit jealous how fast she has caught on!  That, coupled with the reputation of your nominator, makes this a very strong support.  Good luck!
'''Support''' - Seems fine, and we need more admins. -
Excellent user. --
'''Support''' Easy decision --
'''Support''' per noms, no doubt at all.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience, seems very dedicated. Edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per everyone else.'''''
'''Support'''. '''''
Yep. '''
I'm
'''Support''' as your work appears first rate. Seem dedicated to improving things here.
'''Support'''. Looks like a strong candidate. Nice choice Majorly and co-nominators. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
'''Support''' per all above, will be a great admin.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps.
'''Support''' Strong candidate and it seems one who would use the mop well.
'''Support''' Nice show.--<font color="#0000FF">
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Strong Support''' But no more co-noms, please.


'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' - I have seen her around and have seen great interaction with others. Great candidate indeed.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per nom and co-noms <b><font color="red">[[User:Dep. Garcia|Dep. Garcia]]</font></b> <small> ( <font color="green">[[User talk:Dep. Garcia|Talk]]</font>  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dep._Garcia&action=edit&section=new +] | <font color="blue">[[User:Dep. Garcia/Help Desk|Help Desk]]</font> | <font color="orange">
'''Support''' Definatly a good admin.
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose, and I trust Majorly.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support''' Get on it.
'''S''' The name states it all...Don't see any issues erupting from PeaceNT becoming an admin... --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''', good luck!
'''Support''' for a Peaceful adminship.
'''Support''' per all of the above. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
'''Support'''- good credentials for adminship- well done!
'''Support''' - great candidate. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''', great experience! Very peaceful, and quite an editor. '''''
'''Support'''. Seen her around on RC patrol, great user. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' No problem at all with this user. · <font face="Times New Roman">

'''Support''' ... good name and an even better editor. I have no reason to think that the effect of sysopping PeaceNT will be anything but positive. -- '''
'''Support''' No reason will not make a good admin.
'''Support''' The noms say it all. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support'''. Good editor, will certainly be a very good administrator. --
'''Support''' per nominators. '''
'''Support''', delightful person and talented editor. Will make an excellent addition to the admin ranks.
--
'''Support''', why not? <small>Extranet is now </small>
I understand MECU's concerns in opposing, but adminship is no big deal.  I doubt <s>he</s> she will do image work before reading the fair use documentation.  [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for use of fair use images in userspace. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PeaceNT/Sandbox&diff=133217700&oldid=132476569]. This was recent (3 days ago) and blatant. An admin should know, understand and follow this simple rule of our [[WP:FUC|fair use criteria]].
'''Strong support''' as co-nom.
Naturally. If Pedro is to admin, then Wikipedia is to better Wikipedia. Makes no sense... By the way - got enough co-noms Pedro? ;) -- <strong>
'''Strong support''' as co-nom. --
Pedro has learned a lot since his previous RfA, and he is definitely ready to take on all administrator duties.
Dang, that's a ''lot'' of co-nominations! (say she with an envious tone because she'd like to be one) :)
Glad to see you dumped Husond in his co-nom :) --
'''Strong Support''' (edit conflict) I have been waiting for this...
Hopefully I beat some noms support. '''
'''Support''' Ordinarily I'd oppose due to a lack of experience with articles - I've always believed sysops shouldn't have the power to delete other editors' contributions until they realise for themselves how hard it is sticking to policy all the time - but I think every decision you've made demonstrates you're trustworthy & do have a clear understanding of policy<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - super job.  Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' - of course! I see this guy's name all over the place! Including giving the most excellent advice on people's RfAs. Everything looks fine. He knows what he's doing. A very fine candidate. Honestly, a few weeks ago, I actually did think Pedro was an admin. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Dang Skippy!
'''Support''' Why not?  --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' great noms, great user who goes above and beyond the call of duty to AGF, be civil, and help others. Mainspace, so what... an admin who knows policy and diplomacy is a great asset to the community. Plus, with [[Napoleon Dynamite]], how can I not !vote for Pedro?! :) ~
'''Support'''  - civil and helpful editor with sufficient experience.
'''Support''' - good answers, especially to question 1. The WP experience shows an excellent understanding of policy. The mainspace count could do with work but there is nothing to suggest this is someone who can't spot good or bad content or will get an itchy trigger finger with the deletion buttons.
'''Si, claro!''' -
'''Support''' Looks a goodie. --
'''Strong Support''' As co-nom. Darn, a lot of people beat me! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' - As co-nom. Ooooh, Husond going to be mad when he sees you left him in the dust. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' as I did last time. But I am mildly nauseated by the number of co-noms, the supporters that support him only because he makes comments at rfa (although I do agree he that he does do his work when he comments), and the general bonhomie, desk-thumping and back-patting orgy that we seem to be having here. This is not some popularity contest. There is already a trend at RfA to blindly ''vote'' when there is a good set of nominators, with the reasoning "If such good nominators found him suitable for the job, he must be." We don't need any more of that silliness. Anyway, none of this is Pedro's fault; it's the others should have more sense. I'd be surprised if more than half of the supporters of this RfA actually go through Pedro's contributions instead of just "running into him often at RfA" or  seeing "his name pop up all over the place" or better yet "I trust the nominators". - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - I agree that all the co-noms are overkill, but I won't hold that against Pedro, who I have observed making consistently well thought out and helpful contributions to Wikipedia.  I believe he'd be a fine admin.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''', as I thought you were an admin. By the way, Dihydrogen Monoxide, first [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor|The Random Editor]], and now Pedro! Your noms are awesome.
'''Support''' excellent editor, lots of experience. <b>
'''Support''' as before.  I don't know Pedro but I see his good work all over the place.  The one time I discussed something with him I was impressed with his attitude and civility.  Much as I prefer a candidate with lots of articles under his belt, it's not a deal breaker in this case; he can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support per nom''' Review of talk pages shows editor to  be thoughtful, patient and insightful. Although main space edits could be higher, I believe the editor understands policy well enough to use the tools and has the temperament and common sense to avoid getting into difficulties. We cannot all be great writers. Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia. However, for the encyclopedia to be credible and useful, we must sometimes glean non constructive articles. He will help us do that.
'''Support'''. OK, maybe more mainspace work would be nice, but I see zero chance of misusing the tools so I'm supporting. There's plenty of room for admins who can support the great article writers.
'''Support''' Kind and civil fellow, well-rounded experience -- the exact disposition needed in an admin.
<s>'''Oppose''' Keeps dropping crumbs on the keyboard while editing Wikipedia.</s> <-- That's what's gonna happen the next time you dump me along with my insanely boring and unsexy nomination. This time I'll '''support''' merely for the sake of your excellent qualifications for becoming an outstanding admin. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - My interactions have always been positive, and I do not believe this user will misuse the tools.  That said, Pedro knows well my feelings about multiple co-noms: frankly, it drives me nuts.  I will not, however, allow the actions of other editors to influence my support !vote on this RfA.  I will, again (as I have before) go on record against a ton of co-noms.  I think one or two is about the max number I'd like to see.  But I digress... as regards this RfA, of course I support Pedro - I trust him totally and think he'll do a damned fine job with the mop.  I don't know why we'd punish anyone like that, but if he wants it, heaven help him, and give it to him.  -
'''Weak Support'''. The candidate's encyclopedia building contributions aren't particularly strong, but he has made an honest effort to create and (modestly) improve some articles.  This effort, coupled with the candidate's other contributions to WP, is enough to merit admin status.
'''Strong Support''' Pedro has always been kind and helpful at the Help Desk and his contributions attest to his keen understanding of policy. This comment on his last RfA definitely confirms that he is not out simply to get the tools, but has an honest interest in helping Wikipedia: "I have stated repeatedly this RfA should pass or fail on my contribution history alone, and whether it shows I am trustworthy with the tools, and whether I will get good use of them. I would encourage all editors in Support to consider if they have made those comments solely on popularity and if so switch to oppose or neutral. To pass RFA through popularity alone undermines this process, and will not further wikipedia." Bravo! '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Support''' I can't think of a reason to oppose. Seems civil and has enough experience. --
'''Support''' I figured I'd comment on the user, not the noms :P User always seems civil, does good CSD work, and, seems to work well with others. ''I see no reason not to trust this user''
'''Strong support''' fine user.
'''Support''' - Pedro is exactly the kind of admin we want. Civil, communicative, thoughtful, with experience in a variety of areas. I supported him last time, and I believe he's proved time and time again that he is admin material.
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this. I've seen him help those less skilled at editing than himself and he's always polite--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' Experienced, level-headed; answers to questions show he understands policy and being an admin, at the same time he's not power-hungry. Also I have no problems with the myriad co-nominators.
'''Support''' in spite of the patently silly number of co-noms. Pedro is a good editor who will be an asset as an administrator. I must say I agree with much of what TwoOars said above though. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Mainspace edits vs RfA participation is a little unbalanced, in my opinion, but the vandal fighting and AfD participation show a need for the tools. Personally, I think the "requirements" for successful RfAs is getting ridiculous and I see no reason to oppose an editor that would most likely use the tools constructively.
'''Support''' he has been active in CSD - and his deleted edits show significant contribution there - I see no reason not to give him the mop. Buena suerte.
'''Support''' mainspace contributions are a bit thin but he should do fine as an admin,
'''Support''', thought he passed the last RfA.
'''Support'''. Qualified candidate, no issues or concerns for me.
Silliness over co-noms apart, six is ridiculous...I'm not wildly enthusiastic, but don't see compelling reasons as to why not.
'''Weak Support''' - I went back and forth on this for a while in my mind.  This RFA with all of its co-noms is a bit jarring, and I don't feel confident in his mainspace contributions.  However, I think Pedro will improve Wikipedia overall, rather than damaging it.--
'''Support''' -- This user will apply the tools thoughtfully, and intelligently.  In a perfect world, ''everyone'' should have tools and they should only be taken away because of misuse.  Unfortunately, we can't do that because of the damage that is possible, so we have to settle for this instead.  Opposing because there were too many co-nominations is silly, and requiring some arbitrary level of mainspace writing for adminship seems contrary to the spirit of adminship -- namely, that it's ''no big deal'' and everyone should have tools.  Opposes for reasons totally unrelated to actual use of the tools seem contrary to this ideal.  --
'''Support''' Having personally poked at this guy, I've seen how he can remain civil and rational. More importantly his signature is kewl, dood.
'''Support''' Pedro will definately make a good admin.
'''Strong Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Per nom. Pedro has been an invaluable to Wikipedia itself, and sincerely deserves the mop by now.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Ach, why not? Seems to be ready and trustable. —'''
'''Support''' No serious concerns... <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and committed to the project. (!Vote for Pedro.) -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''!Vote for Pedro''' - trustworthy, user-friendly, and hard-working editor, as demonstrated by his excellent contributions. I strongly believe in the importance of quality mainspace editing for admin candidates, which this user admittedly lacks, but Pedro's other work neutralizes all of my concerns. --<sub>Boricuaeddie is now</sub> '''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="#1E90FF">Ag</font>]]
'''Support''' as a steady editor, no problems.  I see co-noms as a strength.
'''Support''' - While during my RFA Pedro initially voted against me for handing out barnstars to a number of people (many of whom were frequenters of RFA's) which he had interpreted as canvasing support or possibly bribing editors for support, which he admitted wasn't assuming good faith as I hand out barnstars copiously to anyone who deserves them and I had been frequenting RFA's at the time a lot so I saw a lot of deserving editors. He eventually changed his opposition to neutral though, however a lot of people decided to oppose me thereafter basing their oppositions on his comments. I eventually withdrew my RFA due to the fact that I didn't want to become an administrator with anywhere below 80% support. Afterwards Pedro was very apologetic and I can't hold one incident against him while his vandal fighting and other activities are very different from that single incident. I'm therefore going to support his RFA because I don't believe that he will abuse the admin tools, though I do believe that he should work on assuming good faith in the future. I also have reservations about his almost 100% support of RFA's even with people who obviously aren't ready to have the admin tools. I also agree with other editors that Pedro must improve his Mainspace edits, This is an encyclopedia and vandal fighting is only a small fraction of the work that needs to be done. Most of Pedro's edits seem to be either vandalism fighting or RFA's. While vandalism fighting is important, Many of Pedro's RFA edits seem to be "moral supports" for people who clearly aren't ready for adminship, which in my opinion isn't very productive. I suppose that supporting people who don't have a snowballs chance in hell just for the sake of making them feel better knowing that they won't become administrator might sound like a nice thing to do, I do not believe that it is a good way to use ones time on Wikipedia. I believe that supports should only be provided if the supporter believes that 1. the individual in question is prepared to use the administrator tools and 2. the individual in question is unlikely to abuse such tools. I am offering my support for this candidate based on the aforementioned criteria. I believe that this user does indeed have enough experience to become administrator and I have no reason to believe that this user will abuse the administrator tools. Though this user does need to work on some aspects of his time spent on Wikipedia as well as attitudes towards other aspects, I see no reason why this can't be done as an administrator as the work which needs to be done isn't vast enough (in my opinion) to hinder his administrator abilities. While spending most of ones time on Vandalism fighting or RFA's isn't my ideal use of time on Wikipedia, though no doubt both are fairly important, I don't see how either could hinder his ability to work as an administrator.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''', I actually had thought he was an admin already, but I've seen him edit in a number of places and they have always greatly benefitted Wikipedia. Wikipedia would greatly benefit with more users like him around. On a side note, I was about to make a "Vote for Pedro" reference before reading the discussion near the top. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' since Pedro offers us his protection... but no more bloody co-noms please! 6 is absolutely farcical. ~
'''support''' Good editor. Six co-noms is a bit excessive though. --
'''Support''', I should have watchlisted this page. But I don't like so many co-noms.
'''Support''' - you winz the longest-nom-list award! Wow :) Still, great editor with a good knowledge of policy. Should be just fine! -
'''Support''' (grudgingly). I have no reservations about Pedro's ability to a competent admin. That said I think the number of con-noms is ridiculous - it makes this process look like a popularity contest which we should be at pains to make sure it does not become. I have never read so many additional noms to learn so little more about a candidate. Guys - just support the candidate - feel free to use words like "strong" or such like if you wish to convey more than your usual level of support for an RfA candidate - but most of those "co-noms" could easily have been made down here and not up there. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' ... he wasn't one already? (VOTE FOR PEDRO!) <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - Good answer, Pedro.  I'm especially glad you reminded us that this is not a cricket match.  I trust you to do a good job as an admin.  Per WJBscribe, I'd like to serve a nice [[WP:TROUT|Filet-o-Fish]] sandwich to your co-noms, but that's not your fault ;) --
'''Strong support''' - Courteous, well-versed in policy and calm. Will make an excellent admin.
But of course.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' The candidate has obviously demonstrated a marked improvement on the issues brought up at the failed RFA.
'''Support'''. A highly dedicated user, will use the mop well. --'''
'''Strong Support''' How are you not already an admin?  This user is clearly an excellent contributor who is very familiar with Wikipedia policy.  I think he will make a great admin.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I routinely see thoughtful comments in front of Pedro's signature, and good counter-vandalism folks need bits.--
'''Support''' It frightens me to see so many co-noms, but hey, editor is fantatic. --'''
'''Support'''.  Perfectly fine number of mainspace edits (see discussion in "neutral") thought there were 300. . .Sorry! '''
'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support:''' Simple status change from ''de-facto'' admin to ''de-jure'' admin.
'''Support''' - I have seen him around. Will make a great admin. -- <small>'''
'''Support'''. When I've run across Pedro, I've always been impressed with this editor's thoughtfulness and thoroughness. --
'''Support''' per Chaser, essentially. – '''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''VOTE FOR-''' :) About time, I've been waiting for this. Good luck, you'll make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' I have encountered this user and I attest that he is of high standing. He deserves the tools.
'''Support''' Not only has Pedro waited until he met his own standards before allowing himself to be nominated, but he has been nothing but courteous and helpful to me and others. If anyone has ever been worthy of adminshipnessosity, it is Pedro.
'''Support'''. I see Pedro as a very thoughtful and dedicated user who will make a great admin. I really don't see the problem with having a lot of co-nominations, can he help the fact that so many users strongly think he would make a good admin? Before you know it we will be seeing "Oppose, per to many supports" --''
'''Support'''.  This user did something today that I think falls within the spirit of adminship; he improved an article and left two people better able to help Wikipedia (and no unhappy ones).  I was one of them, and as a result of his thoughtful efforts, I have a deeper understanding of Wikipedia policy; the other editor, a newbie, will, I trust, remain to contribute.  When this user says "Better to remove content that is clearly not right for Wikipedia yet retain the editor," he means it, and he makes it happen.
'''Support''' Pedro is an amazing Wikipedian who I thought was definentely already an admin -
'''Support''' Concerns raised in previous RFA cleared.Great track.
'''Support'''.
'''Cliché I-thought-he-was-one support''' —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Support''' - Late to the game on my part, but I have plenty of experience with Pedro to trust him.
'''Support'''. Sociable editor, conscientious, lots of energy. --
'''Support'''. Why not?! <!-- VOTE FOR PEDRO! -->
'''Support'''.  This editor does excellent work.
I'm
'''Oppose''' – I'm sorry but your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&contribs=user&target=Pedro&namespace=0 mainspace editing] doesn't meet my standards. Please try to remember that we are here to create an encyclopaedia, so the mainspace is ''the'' most important part of Wikipedia – I'll probably reconsider in three months after I've seen some article development.
I looked through his deleted edits and article edits for his speedy deletion tagging, and it all seems fine (even by my standards). He has tagged like 3 articles in the past 3 months that didn't end up getting deleted, and it looks like in each case he changed his mind either due to choosing to redirect the article or someone improving it. So no signs he'd misuse deletion abilities as an admin. But not much article writing, and 6 co-noms? That just makes it hard to support... it really is the hallmark of someone who spends too much time with the RFA crowd. I opposed last time but I see no basis for doing so this time. Maybe I'll finally support if there's a round 3... --
'''Neutral''' After much thought, I think that opposing is unjustified for my reasoning. I'll abstain; but I cannot support due to the reasons I said already. Good luck though. '''
'''Support''' as nominator. <b>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.''' Your mainspace contributions are disappointing, but there is no reason to believe the tools would be abused.
'''Support.''' I would like to see a greater range of more traditional edits, but do not believe the nom will abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal.
'''Support'''. The candidate's demonstrated commitment to the project over a period of years coupled with his experience as an arbitration clerk convince me that there is no risk the tools would be misused. I trust that the candidate would begin by performing administrator actions primarily in his current areas of expertise even as he continues to grow as an editor and expand his range of activities.
'''Support''' It's been said before, adminship is no big deal. Penwhale looks extremely unlikely to abuse the tools, and even if use of them is not constant, it doesn't adversely affect anyone. Good luck! --'''
'''Support''' - I'm not concerned that this admin will abuse the tools. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
I disagree with Ryan below - I think 30+ edits to RPP and AIV, none of which resulted in a murder-suicide pact, is enough.  He has my support, and anyone who can do arbitration clerk work must have a good adminship attitude :) '''
'''Support'''. Penwhale has consistently showed hard work and dedication to our project, and I have no doubts that we can trust him with the tools. --'''<font color="#C31562">
Strong support. Not just because we're both clerks, but because it is so incredibly obvious that Penwhale wouldn't misuse the tools. See also my comment in the discussion section.
Judging by Picaroon's, Newyorkbrad's, and Krimpet's comments, this is a decent editor. My observations of this user are positive too.
'''Support''' - I don't think he will go mental and block me.
'''Support''' per NYB and Picaroon - no need for tools/inexperience is nonsense. '''
'''Support''' I trust this user to use the tools properly.
As Picaroon pointed out above, being an arbitration clerk '''is''' a need for administrative tools. Simple checklist. No concerns about incivility, no bad decision-making, appears level-headed, seems to be a good guy, has clue (blatantly stolen off Riana), seems to be familiar with policy, and is dedicated into improving the encyclopedia. As he has all of the above, support. And for the editors who wish to see more mainspace contributions, please keep in mind that the basic reason for this is to know an editor is familiar with content based policies. As an arbitration clerk, I gather that Penwhale will be familiar with this, as he had experience with content-related disputes.  --
'''Support''' From what I can see, there is definitely a need for the tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; I'm surprised he's not one.  He should be.  Being selected by the Arbitration Committee as a clerk shows their trust of him, and I personally trust him; he is a valuable contributor, if not in article space.  He has a need for the tools.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' - Requiring XfD participation for every admin hopeful seems unnecessary to me. Strong editor, long-term editing implies experience. Nothing alarming noted in contribs. No reason for me to oppose. '''
'''Weak Support''' Ryan has a point that he does not have much experience in admin areas, but I do not believe this user will abuse his tools. The one thing I look for in an admin is reliability; can he be trusted with the tools. Since this user can be trusted, I am supporting his Rfa. I would have a stronger support for him if he was more active in admin areas though. Good luck!--
'''Support''' I don't feel strongly that he shouldn't become an admin.--
'''Support''' per NYB.  But more mainspace if you get a chance; you do write well, and it would be great to see you contribute to articlespace.  As W.marsh said below, you need experience with articles in order to be able to judge content effectively --
'''Support''' Although there are valid concerns raised by other editors, I believe this user can use the tools in the areas they are most familiar. With AIV and vandal fighting, more participation in future would be good.
'''Support''' Obviously trustworthy, thus should have the mop.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor. Has clue. Sticks around despite witnessing the madness at RfArb everyday. Not big deal. ~
'''Support''' I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Noting the comments in the discussion section above, an ArbCom clerk is not just analogous to a [[court clerk]], but also to a [[bailiff]]; that is, they implement bans and other remedies imposed by the ArbCom. Admin tools would seem to be necessary, or at least very useful, in that field of activity; as such, I suggest that he be given the tools, regardless of his mainspace editing.
'''Weak support''' There is just enough in other areas to outweigh the lack of mainspace editing, in my opinion.

I trust Penwhale with the tools. '''
'''Support''' The candidate operates in a steady and sensible way.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  I mean, I understand mainspace contributions are important, but cripes, this is ridiculous.  I trust Penwhale with the tools, and given his limited mainspace contributions, I trust he won't be using them too often in mainspace.  Seems simple enough to me.
'''Support''' - His activities at [[WP:AIV]] seem to show he knows what he'sa doing there - the last 6 users he reported were all blocked the same day. In addition, his activities as an arbitration clerk, per {{ul|User:Picaroon}}, seem to indicate that making him an admin is highly important.
'''Support''' - while virtually no actual editing could be considered a problem, this is a special case. I don't think Penwhale would misues the tools, and there's a genuine need for them.
''Probably'' trustworthy.
'''Support''' Of all the people who I've seen nominated here that I thought was an admin, Penwhale is the biggest shock of them all.  Go you! <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' He's been here forever, has the requisite experience, and admin tools for an ArbCom clerk are useful.
'''Support''' as a long-time editor.  No problems.
'''Support''' I look forward to being blocked by Penwhale in the future.
'''Support''' - I see no indication this user will misuser the tools.  --
'''Support''' seen them around before and looks unlikely to abuse the tools.
With all due respect to the opposers, I believe that Penwhale's experience and usefulness at AE will justify the tools. I fully trust Penwhale to have enough experience with disputes to be able to handle anything content-based that comes his way. '''
'''Support'''. No big deal.
'''Support'''. I have no doubt Penwhale would make an excellent admin. Good luck. --
'''Support'''. Penwhale is a very experienced and helpful wikipedian, would surely be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' As per Newyorkbrad and see no concerns in track.
'''Support''' - he should be just fine. I see no substantive issues here that would sway me. His non-mainspace track record is overweighed by his stellar work at ArbCom and other areas. I've seen him filing prot. requests at [[WP:RPP]], also -
'''Support''' - He will be a good admin, I have convidence in him
'''Support''' - I thought he was already.  Time in grade is a very weak reason to oppose an otherwise perfectly fine candidate.  --
'''Strong Support''' Already working at the level of an admin in many ways. Asked for and given one of the most difficult jobs on the project, ArbCom Clerk. Excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Interacts well with users. A fantastic team player. All new admins learn on the job. He clearly is smart enough to be an admin and is cautious enough to ask for help if needed. Not giving him the tools while he makes some arbitrary number of edits to articles makes no sense at all because he can make good use of the sysop tools now.
'''Weak support''' The opposers have some legitimate concerns, but there's no risk of abuse and the limited prior experience in DRV, etc. suggest low risk of unintentional misuse.--
'''Support''', after reviewing Penwhale's contributions and concluding that, although contribution to article space is desirable, it is not an absolute must when a candidate has shown deep knowledge of policy as he has. Trustworthiness doesn't appear to be an issue here - now ''that'' is an absolute must to me.
'''Support''' No reason not to give him the bit. -
'''Support''' per above. I'm not convinced by the opposers' arguments. --
'''support''' I'd like to see more mainspace work, but I trust PW to use the tools wisely. --
'''Support'''. Do I trust Penwhale with the buttons? Absolutely.
'''Support'''. The ''job'' of an admin is to administer wikipedia which basically is the enforcement of policies. By spending a decent amount of time as an ArbCom clerk in my view has taught the candidate all about our policies and guidelines and how it is interpreted by ArbCom. So I feel this demonstrates that the candidate is more than qualified for the job despite having a less than ideal article namespace edits. ちい！ --<small>
'''Support''' based on my experience of this user,
'''Support''' No concerns. Having been a member of Wikipedia for a long time, I believe enough experience has been gained (despite periods of not much editing) The tools would help him as a clerk, so why not? <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a good, hard-working contributor with no reasons to be concerned.
'''Support''' Likes manga.
'''Weak support'''. I share the concerns of many of the opposers - ideally admins should have experience of article writting and content disputes. That being said, I believe Penwhale has shown himself to be trustworthy and responsible. I think he'll confine himself to acting as an admin in areas where he is experienced and avoid doing so in those where he is not. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''': Mainspace editing isn't the be all and end all of being an administrator, it's really just a fad RfA is going through, a few months ago, Penwhale would have breezed through with only a couple of Opposing comments. Anybody with half a clue can delete shit and protect stuff, resolving editing disputes is more difficult, but there's no real suggestion people with huge mainspace edit counts are any better at resolving editing disputes than any other administrator.
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Has an excellent 16-minute adminship record; seriously, I don't see why to not trust an Arbcom clerk. Arbcom is very time consuming, IMO, and Penwhale has done mainspace work in the past. I trust Penwhale to admin. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support.''' Experienced candidate who there's every reason to think will make a fine admin.
'''Support''', I usually don't !vote on RfAs of users I don't know, but I find much of the reasoning in the oppose section so ridiculous that I need to express my opinion. There is '''not a single reason''' to suspect he would abuse the tools listed ''anywhere'' on this page, and there is none I can find in his contribution record.
I'm sorry Penwhale, I really can't support you at this time. You do such a great job as an arbitration clerk, but that's all that you do. You have very little experience in area's that require admin tools. I've tried to tell you a number of times before that you need to broaden your editing if you wanted to go for adminship. I'd suggest you may even stop your job as a clerk for a while and branch out. Get involved in AfD's, comment at AN/I and do a bit of vandal fighting and you'll pick up things a lot easier. Hopefully, if you take this advice, you'll be ready in a few months.
Equally sorry here, man. If this passes, I'm sure you'll make an admin, but I just don't think you're ready for the tools at this moment. I believe that mainspace editing is important in the administration of this site, and your participation in that namespace is almost non-existent. Please participate more at [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s and [[WP:RA]], and, if this RfA fails, you'll have my full support. Please do keep up the clerking, tough, as it is excellent. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Agüeybaná, little mainspace contribution in past 3 months.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Penwhale&namespace=0&year=&month=-1]... admins concern me most with how they work with articles. Says he wants to work with AFD and DRV, but someone who edits articles so infrequently doesn't have my trust in dealing with them as an admin... sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience.

'''Oppose''' and I really am sorry about this one; you have only 10 mainspace contributions since June (and your mainspace history shows a lack of understanding of what constitutes a minor edit), I can't see any significant article-writing/editing experience and you don't give any examples in Q2. I believe that unless an editor's experienced for themselves just how hard it is to write & research valid articles without violating policy, they're not in a position to empathise with users having content challenged/deleted<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescent mainly. I feel strongly that admins need to have a decent background in editing articles. Some of the most discouraging conflicts I've seen happen between editors that are steady content creators and admins that don't spend much time outside that role. I'd like us to stay as close to the editor/admin model as possible and try to avoid developing separate "classes" of user here. Iridescent puts it really well so I won't repeat it.
'''Oppose''' Per Irdescent as well. The fact that you haven't contributed recently could pose a problem. Your inactivity for roughly a month is a red flag when you decide to come back and apply for adminship. Sorry, but please come back and try again once you improve your mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, generally I don't like to oppose based on mainspace edits - my own RfA was vulnerable to that - however, in this case I think the contributions are sufficiently low as to fail to clearly show that the user is in touch w/the community's norms.  I appreciate and honor the work that Penwhale has done w/ArbCom, but think it would be best to spend some time doing 'pedia editing for a while.  There is no question in my mind that I would support this user in the future.  -
'''Weak Oppose'''.  The number of mainspace edits and their frequency is dissapointing.  <s>You don't have enough AIV edits either</s>, but it isn't like you would abuse the tools.  I just can't support with the lack of mainspace experience.  '''
'''Oppose''' I think that had Penwhale wanted to use the tools for arbcon clerking functions s/he would have mentioned that in question 1. Evidently, s/he wants to use them in Afds and DRVs and in vandalism and page protection duties where there is a lack of experience that could normally be mitigated by extensive article editing, but alas there is much less there too than would give comfort.
'''Oppose''' per last 50 mainspace contributions going back to June. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FNumber_57&diff=158611790&oldid=158602194 This] doesn't enhance my opinion either. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' based on lack of article work, sorry.  I'm willing to deal with somewhat of an imbalance toward project space editing, but not that much. --
'''Oppose'''. You need more experience editing articles. ---
'''Oppose''' simply not enough mainspace, not many edits and the edits that are there are skinny. '''
'''Oppose''' per above.  This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy and we have nearly total disinterest in article building.  Experience in main space is needed so concerns in the process are understood and that tools are applied correctly.   --
'''Oppose''' per User:Y. --
'''Oppose''' per Ryan P and Y. --
'''Oppose''' with deep regrets per question 2. Seems a fine person but admins should have some interest in article writing in order to be able to make a sound  judgment on many issues that involve the use of admin buttons. --
'''Dead Neutral''' - Ryan has a point there. I don't really want to emphasise editcountisis (which some people might think of me as a hypocrite), but I'm not really too sure about this user's knowledge about admin tools. However, I'm definately sure this user won't abuse the tools, so I stay dead neutral. --
'''Neutral''' - Ugh, I ''so'' want to support. It sounds like he could use the tools for clerking. And while I don't doubt his intelligence, or ability to learn, being an admin means making decisions of discernment. WIthout the experience of such discussions (such as XfD discussions, or even just general talk page discussions), I don't know... On the other hand, as a clerk, I would presume he's had to read over mountains of such text. Hence, I'm split and stuck in neutral. -
'''Neutral''' - good arbcom clerk, but I can't support now due to the lack of mainspace edits. '''
'''Neutral''', fine judgment and interaction with others, but we shouldn't have admins without article-writing experience IMO.
'''Neutral''' - Wikipedia-space participation is simply excellent, although the mainspace participation is dwarfed in comparison. You need more article experience for me. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Beat the NOM ~
'''Support'''. Beat-the-nom #2! Woohoo! &ndash;
'''Strongest possible support''' as nom. You cheaters!!! :-) --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''': Excellent countervandal and contributor.
'''Strong Support''': Admin vandal fighter.
'''Support''' I have been consistently impressed with PPG's civility, knowledge and application of policy and vandal fighting. She is overdue for the tools which she will use well to improve Wikipedia.
'''Support''' this is indeed going to be HIGH. --'''
'''Support''' I wonna beat the nom <tt>:P</tt>
(2x edit conflict)'''Strong Support''' A great catch. This user has demonstrated clear understanding of policy and is an excellent contributor to all aspects of Wikipedia. [[WP:1 BILLION]]? '''
'''Support''' I've seen her around on more than one occasion, and thought she was already an admin one of those times. I have the utmost confidence in her. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Strong Support''' I always thought she was an administrator. After her recent edits and vandalism-fighting on the Anna Nicole Smith article, I am definitely in support of Persian Poet Gal.
'''Support''' looks good, rename to [[User:Iranian Poet Girl]] to update.
'''Strong Support''' Guess I'm not the first to think she was already an admin--
'''Strong SUpport''' - Husond knows how to pick em!  Seriousley an amazing editor and an asset to Wikipedia.  Run into her everywhere and she does a great job and exibits excellent judgement.  She would make an amazing asset to the wikipedia team of admins (And, until recently, I thought she already was one!).
'''Very F'ing Strong Support'''. I think that sums it up :)--
'''Support''' The only editors who'll have any concerns about PPG getting the mop are the vandals, spammers and those who just want to disrupt wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''' per personal experiences with this user. '''
'''Support''' Seen her around and she does a great job.
'''Support''' Excellent nomination, strong candidate.
'''Support''' Definitely, 'cause she is good vandalfighter, spamfighter, and also excellent contributor which means deserving to be an admin.
'''Support''' Not only a vandalfighter, but a strong editor too. Good show!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' keep up the good work.-
'''Support''' This candidate is level headed and looks to resolve issues rather than escalate them.
'''Support''': Certainly. —
'''Support''' Been waiting to cast my support vote for a long time. --
'''Strong support'''. '''''
'''Strong Support''' I thought [[User:Persian Poet Gal|Persian Poet Gal]] was already an [[Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator]] for the many times she has reverted and fought [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] to [[Wikipedia]], and with the tools, she will now be able to help in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Blocking]] the users and [[IP address|IPs]] who vandalized Wikipedia. I remember reading so many revisions of [[User:Persian Poet Gal|Persian Poet Gal]] where the edit summaries said "JS:Reverted [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] by X to last version by Y", for an example. --
'''Support''' - fully qualified candidate. Contrary to the cliche, I knew she was not an administrator because I keep seeing her reports at AIV. Soon she'll be resolving instead of making those reports: welcome to the ranks.
'''Support''', I've seen her work on numerous occasions.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support'''. Another of my favorite gals up for adminship. You'll do the mop proud. =) –&nbsp;
'''Support''' By complete coincidence I e-mailed PPG to offer to nominate her, even as, unbeknownst to me, this RfA was being created. --
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Support.''' I almost want to cry, seeing how the candidate is so uncompromising with vandals and so kind to everyone else.  There is no such thing as a perfect RFA candidate, but she's pretty close.
'''Support''' although I could have sworn...
'''Support''', yup.--
'''Strong support''', wow, just wow. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' will be an awesome admin, and is also a really awesome person too! :)
'''Very Strong Support''', she is a great canidate for adminship!  --
'''Support'''! <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Come on!  Do we really have to go through this whole RfA?  Just make her an admin already :-) <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Strong Support''' Amazing record on your hands. I salute you! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini ha sempre tarche</font>]]
'''Strong support''' <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Was waiting for this. Fantastic editor. --
'''Strong Support''' I've also been waiting for this RfA.  She will greatly benefit the project.
'''Support''' indeed.--
'''Strong Support''', solid and ''fast'' recent changes patroller, level headed and well spoken.  An easy support.
'''Strong, Strong Support''' My admiration for PPG's vandal fighting is only exceeded by her achievements.
'''Support''' "But I thought that she was one already..."
'''Support''', hell yes. I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APersian_Poet_Gal&diff=89538603&oldid=89493207 very confident] that Persian Poet Girl will do a fine job.
'''Full Support''' without doubt. I've seen Persian Poet Gal all over Wikipedia and my direct interactions with her have always left me impressed. One of the best candidates in a while. '''
'''Support'''- anyone else for a zero tolerance policy on opposing her? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''zOMG support!''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta|Two]] of my favourite editors on RfA at the same time! Vandals don't stand a chance... ;) '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - good devoted editors make good admins
'''Support''' I encountered her edits months ago and thought she was an admin. I see no problems. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', good candidate, nice answers to questions.
'''Support''' Strange, I'm seeing more and more RfA candidates who I thought ''were'' admins...
'''Support'''. Long overdue.
'''Support''' you go ''gal''! -

'''Support'''. Trustworthy. '''<span style="background:#000">
Yes, sure.
'''Support''' quite strongly.
Edit count seems a bit low.  Only been here since October 2005.  40 of her first 50 edits were to her own talk page.  Conceeded, she now does seem to have worked out where the preview button is, but  do you really think she's ready?  I'm sorry, but I have to vote '''[[wiktionary:Support|Approbation]]''', '''[[wiktionary:Support|Pro]]''', '''[[wiktionary:Support|Stödjer]]'''.
'''Support''' per excellence in VP department.
'''Strong support''' I've seen PPG everywhere and her contributions are flawless.
'''Support'''. Good interactions with this editor.
Strong, strong support. I have always been impressed by her work. Keep it up! &mdash;
'''Support''', indeed.
'''Support''', very strongly.
'''Support'''. Well qualified; excellent, diverse contributions over the last four months. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''. More like this candidate, please.<sup>TM</sup>
'''Support''' A devoted and trustworthy contributor who has displayed a need for the tools. <font color="#00688B"><b>
'''Support''' hard-working, civil editor. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
I'm
'''Strong Support'''. Has been doing a overall marvelous job as an editor. And has plenty of awards to prove it.
'''Strong support''' Have run across this editor several times, and to use the old cliche, thought she was one already! If not, time to fix that!
'''Support''' I've been impressed with Persian Poet Gal since my comments on her editor review.  ~ ''
-
'''Very Strong Support''' A very good Editor, hardworking and dedicated and it has been long overdue..Good Luck....
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support''' I think she's an excellent all-around candidate: a superb vandalism-fighter who (gasp!) does things besides RC patrol. I didn't see much actual deletion discussion, but I've agreed with all of her brief comments in AfD's so far. Still, I'm comfortable with her closing AFDs.--
'''Support'''. Will be a fine admin. --
'''Support''' through a lot of edit conflicts (enough that I gave up trying yesterday). &mdash;
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Do I need to say more at this point?
'''Once again, someone who should've been admin already'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Strongest possible support''' -  One of the most civil and calm users on this project.
'''Support''' Everything looks good.--
'''Support'''. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' I certainly think so. Seen her around thought she might make a good admin.--
'''Support''', --
'''Support'''. Dedicated efforts against vandalism, friendly attitude, experience in writing articles, an all-around good candidate. --
'''Support''' – good work ..
[edit conflict] '''Support''': I agree with Kyoko. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' This will reduce that backlog on [[WP:AIV]], because she won't be filling it with reports, but instead removing them. Keep up the good work.
[edit conflict]'''Support'''.  Would prefer to see a few more months of consistent activity, but as she turned down previous nominations because she felt she was not ready I am at least comfortable that due thought has been given.  Hopefully she won't burn out in a few months and do a disappearing act.  Looks like you will make [[WP:100]] very soon! --
[[WP:100]]
'''Support'''.  --
'''Hell yes'''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' -- >100 people have typed support, so I thought I'd add a little variety to this page. ... ;-)  But seriously, an excellent editor and would be a great admin.  Has my full ''support''!  --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' [[User:Bushcarrot|Bushcarrot]] (<small>[[User_talk:Bushcarrot|Talk]]·
'''Support'''; our next Phaedriel. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I never had the pleasure of encountering Persian Poet Gal, but since there's only unconditional praises for her (I presume?), I guess she's a very nice person to meet.  The only thing that worries me is that of her nearly 13,000 edits (WOW!), 4315 were mainspace.  That's still a whole mess of mainspace edits, but I'm kind of confused why she made 6292 edits to user talk pages and 1058 edits to user pages.  However, she did make 918 edits to Wikipedia pages (mostly to [[WP:AIV]]), indicating that she's an integral part of the Wikipedia community.  All her edits (except for 28) were made within five months, so I kind of concerned if she'll burn out (please don't)...but I'm sure Persian Poet Gal will do a fine job as an admin.  Full support for a very well qualified candidate!  =D
'''Support''' on the basis of [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#User:Persian_Poet_Gal|this page]]. And just generally everything else I've seen on this RfA.
'''Support''' Excellent vandal-fighter and very commited to the project. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' I like what I've seen of this editor. --
'''Support'''.
Persian Poet Gal / Wants to become an admin? / Support is given. ~
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', excellent candidate from what I've seen. --'''
'''Support''', top-shelf candidate, can't resist pile-on support.
'''Very emphatic support'''.  I used to vote regularly in this forum, but have hardly done so at all for the last couple of years - due to the absence of names I recognize. This time, I'm delighted to see a name that I not only recognize, but think a lot of.  This user's promotion is long overdue.
'''Support''', have come across her edits here and there, a good person, and the community will definitely benefit from her becoming admin. --
'''Support''' Seems like a terrific candidate for the job. Definite support.
'''Support'''. Right person for the right job. Iconic symbol of struggle for clean Wikipedia. -
'''Support'''.--
Hey wow, I didnt know you are so popular! Pile on '''Support''' anyway &mdash;
'''Support''' You're doing a great job as an editor :) keep up the good work! --Malevious
'''Support''' I can't see this user abusing the tools, a great candidate! '''''
'''Support''' More than qualified! '''
'''Yes, Yes, Yes'''.
'''Hop on the bandwagon support''' Never run into her on an article, but I remember only thoughtful, civil comments in XfD. --
Ridiculous, pile-on''' Support!'''
'''Support''' per above. Great user. ''
'''Support''' - I haven't had that much contact with this user but when I have she acted very civil and has reverted lots of vandalism on pages I watch.
Oh, are you kidding me? '''Support'''!
'''Very Strong Support''' She's not already an admin??
'''Strong Support''' Firmly support this user based upon obvious knowledge of process and policy of Wikipedia. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' and add the obligatory "aren't you an admin already?" &mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per nom and per [[Bandwagon effect|WP:MOBRULE]]. I also did some inquiry into cat owners and found all my prior assumptions roundly revoked by [[Organisms_that_are_dangerous_to_humans#Mammals_2|recent scientific insights]]. (Imagine a big big smiley if you need to.) —
'''Non-cliché, I ''really did'' think she was an administrator support'''. I dislike voting ''per nom'', but what else really is there to say?
'''Support''' - Run into her too many times to count fighting vandals not to add my vote. -
'''Support''' Have run into her editing and vandal fighting many times across many articles, no possible reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Pile-on thought-she-was-already-an-admin support. A calming editorial influence is always appreciated. --
'''Support'''.  Absolutely.  Dedicated vandal-fighter and impressively reasonable and cool no matter what the provocation.
'''Support''' -Very dedicated when it comes to fighting vandals.  If Persian Poet Gal gets admin powers, it will give vandals one more reason to run and hide.--
'''Support''' looks good.--
[[User_talk:DVD R W|<font color="black"> dvd</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've seen you on Vandalism patrol, and admin tools will benefit you hugely. Cheers,

'''Support''' -- happy to lend my support. -
'''Strong support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Strong support''' - OK, I will voice the cliche, "I thought she already was..." ;-) <font face="Georgia">
'''Support'''. I don't think I can say anything good about her that hasn't been said already.
'''Vandalized RfA = Unnecessary pile-on support.'''
'''Support''' Candidate is a vandal fighter = Yes! Looks great.
'''Support'''.  Hate to pile-on, but... —
'''Support'''. I have noticed PPG as a good vandal-fighter.
'''Support''': An amazing user, worthy in every respect. Deserving of Adminship.
'''Support''', the above says it all :P.
'''Support''' Seen nothing but good from this user. Well-deserved! –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've seen you everywhere! Besides, not everyone has their RfA attacked by sockpuppeting vandals. :-) · [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I'm sure my !vote will make a huge difference.
'''Piling On Support''' belatedly adding myself to the pile
'''Strong Support''' Simply super.--
'''Aw hells yeah!'''  An amazing editor.  --
'''[[WP:165]]''' support.
'''Snowball support''' Mostly for the vandalfighting :) No, seriously, excellent contributions, and will certainly make a good admin.
'''Very very very Strong Support'''  Need I say more? =)
'''Support''' - And I'm pissed she wasn't made one earlier! :D --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support'''.  Was going to nominate this person myself, actually.  Where have I been? (out sick)
Hops on the bandwagon. Let's try for [[WP:200]], eh? '''Support!''' (Persian Poet Gal looks like she won't explode the Wikipedia with the admin tools, so let's suit her up with a bucket and a mop already, eh?) <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Full support''' An editor fit to be an admin, excellent contributions.
'''Support''' Persian Poet Gal is a great user that should have been a admin sooner.
'''Support''' Nothing ''but'' good can come from this! (
'''Support''' Spectacular contributions! Keep up the great work.
'''Support''' - Good answers, I believe you'll be a good admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - count me in; great candidate.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' - has been unfailingly polite in dealing with people who don't necessarily deserve it. Added my support so that maybe we can get her to [[WP:200]]. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support''' Probably last - I hope not least!--
'''Support'''. Does very good vandal-fighting work, and I've seen nothing in her other contributions to cause concern.
'''Heck yes!''' Philippe is a fantastic editor and will make a great admin.  --
'''Support''' Seen Philippe many times while new page patrolling. His comments have always suggested to me that he understand the policy areas he intends to assist with.
'''Beat the noms support''' I see nothing to worry about in this users' edit history and the Ryan and Brad co-nom merely confirms my opinion that Philippe will become a good user of the admin tools.
'''support''' as nom - best of luck.
'''Support''' per my co-nomination.
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Philippe has done excellent work on Wikipedia, and could definitely use the admin tools. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Strong support''' excellent user with excellent nominators.
(edit conflict) '''Support''' - I have seen him around the wiki, and I'm impressed by his work. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Absolutely. Excellent candidate, answers are great. Good find, Ryan. —
'''Support''' good user, no problems - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. I have nothing but good things to say about this editor. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Looks like yet another great candidate!
'''Mammoth Support''' - An excellent editor and has been very proficient in all areas.. I support the nominators for making this great decision..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Appears the tools with be in great hands.
'''Support''' Your edit summary usage is very high, I see no vandalism on your record, and by your edit history, you it looks like you will be a great admin! You have my trust. Good luck!
'''Support'''. You have a very high edit summary usage. As a fellow "gnome", I think Q4 is a bit out of line. Just because of your use of Twinkle doesn't mean you won't make a fine admin.
'''Strong Support''' [[The Jerk|As long as you've got a voucher!]]  Seriously, fantastic handling of question 4 and the other reasons mentioned previously.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' As if this editor's contributions were not already enough, I am extremely impressed by this user's very measured and level-headed responses to questions under pressure.
'''Support''' Maintenance work is fast becoming more and certainly at least as important as creating articles. The No.1 thing on Wikipedia is not creating articles - It's people reading them. This candidate offers to bring extra clarity to the works of others and I applaud him. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per Jimbo. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Why not? --'''
'''Support''' Yet another guy whom I thought was an admin already.  Mop wisely.
'''Support''', good luck!
'''Support''' I want proper attention paid to article writing, because we are, after all, an encyclopedia!  But I don't want non-article writers shut out.  Article writing is my primary contribution, along with reviewing and attempting to encourage consensus on contenious articles - and I don't want a standard that you should not take the article writers away from writing to give them the mop. I believe we should judge each nomination on it's merits.  I don't want to see a wikipedia where non-article writers administer the project over the article writers, and equally, i don't want to minimize the contributions of hard workers like Phillippe, whose talents are more gnomish.   On the basis of his attitude, unceasing civility, and hard work, I honestly believe he has earned our trust.
I'm
Seems to be a good editor. I '''support'''. -- <strong>
'''Support'''; good candidate, completely trustworthy and level-headed.
'''Support''' I see nothing to get worked up against :).
'''Support''' good contributor, perhaps will be a good admin. Good luck
'''Strong Support''' - He looks like a great editor, and time to give him the mop!
'''Support'''. Fantastic editor, plenty of experience, no reason not to. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Good editor - can't see why not.
'''Support''' Philippe is possessed of a civil and cordial demeanor, sound judgment, a deliberative disposition, and a proper conception of adminship as purely ministerial, such that (and inasmuch as I continue to believe one's capacity to contribute, and history of contributing, in mainspace to be almost entirely irrelevant to a determination of his fitness for adminship) I think that one can conclude with much confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
Trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' Sound editor. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Just because a lot of his edits are made with AWB it does not mean he is unqualified these are still very important edits that improve the encyclopedia, and I trust him.
'''Support''' - exceptional editor <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - Great editor, and Wikipedia will benefit from giving him the admin tools.  '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' good candidate, good references. --
'''Support''' SOLID.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' Absolutely wonderful editor. ~
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Great editor. I thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''' He will do a great job. -
'''Support!''' I don't have to think it twice.. heck, I don't even need to think about it at all :)
'''Support'''.  I think he'll use the tools well. --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, I've seen him couple of times before. Also note his answers to the questions. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Support''' clear --
'''Weak support'''. Concerned with his…um…lemme think…signature. Yeah, signature. He uses a non-standard signature, which I very strongly disapprove of. I think such signatures are annoying. However, due to his involvement in…um…important things and such, I can't make myself oppose at this point. Maybe later.
'''Support''' Absolutement!  Philippe est un tres bon homme.
'''Strong support''' Certainly. Excellent Wikip/median --
'''Support''' look like a trustworthy user.
'''Support''' After reading his answers and his metered responses to criticism. How can I say no?(this is rhetorical)--
'''Support''' - but please change the "|" in your signature to a "&amp;#124;", or else it will break block templates ;)
'''Support''' - Trustworthy. Welcome to WP:60. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' - an excellent user. <b>
'''<font face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' Article writing is the most important thing here. Using [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070629225613&limit=20&target=Philippe automate] tools doesn't show me you can interact with other users well. The only recent edits on user talk pages don't appear to be too "encyclopedic" related [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe&diff=prev&oldid=141525604][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FisherQueen&diff=prev&oldid=141509880]. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. While I appreciate this editor's commitment to copy editing and vandalism reversion, I'm worried by the lack of substantive article writing, and I don't see much evidence of consensus building discussion with other users, at least not on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' beat the nom :p, but seriously great user, I trust him/her ~
'''Strong Support''' Excellent editor, will use tools wisely.
'''Support''' Good knowledge of WP policy. Will not abuse tools. RfAs have become too conservative recently, so I wish you luck in this one.  [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' - I like the answers to all of the questions. My contribution analyzer crashed twice looking at your contribs page :D.
'''Support''' No, I'm afraid that I don't recall you without specifically referring to your Talk archives :-).  I can't see any problems with your contributions. Regards,
'''Strong support''' - Excellent contributor. '''
'''Strong Support''' A civil and knowledgeable user, I have no doubts that this user will become a great administrator. Oh sweet, I'm mentioned in the response to Q1. I'M FAMOUS! '''
'''Support''' don't see why not. Seems to have a reasonable amount of experience and I don't see any civility or POV problems. The fact that he says that he wants to help out on [[WP:CFD]] is also a plus since as he said it has a huge backlog. I also think the fact that he contributes to [[Africa]]n-related articles is a plus as those types of articles tend to be ignored.--
'''Support''' Great user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' qualified candidate.--
'''Party Time!''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>(<font color="#f00"> [[User talk:Jorcoga|Hi!]]</font>/
'''Support''', courteous user who will benefit the project. '''
'''Support''' per excellent answers and contribs &ndash;
'''Support''' per PeaceNT.
'''Support''', excellent answers. Can trust this user with admin tools.
'''Strong support''': nice contributions and nice answers. You remain a well balance between a good editor and a potential admin. Ther's no reasons to oppose.
'''Strong support''', will be a fine addition to the ranks.
I'm
'''Support'''ing excellent candidate. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Sounds like a reasonable and experienced candidate.
'''Support'''
I'm not [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] but I do '''approve''' this message! :) Great candidate. ←
I'm
'''Support'''.  Some great content contributions and I've noticed his useful edits on [[WP:AFR]]-related project pages.  I occasionally get called in for admin tasks on Nigeria-related pages ([[Nigeria]] seems to get way more vandalism and spam than other African country pages) and it will be great to have a resident Nigeria admin who actually has some content knowledge. Also, nicely thought out answers. -
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Consistantly active, seems like a good user, has done some good work, and the answers are pretty good as well.  No reason to oppose.'''
'''Support''' per all above. ''
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' Candidate looks good. No problems here so ''Give-em-the-mop.''<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''Support''' Wow! Someone wanting to slog through old CfDs? Gets my support instantly for that. I'm sick of the backlog that I would clear if I had the energy, so promoting this user would only be a good thing ;) Best of luck to you. --'''
'''Strong support.''' The candidate's answers show great intelligence and familiarity with the Wikipedia system, and a friendly, consensus-building attitude.  The desired tasks of adminship in the first answer are somewhat off the beaten path, which is an additional reason to endorse him.
'''Support''' sounds very good
'''Support''' like the answers to the questions.--
'''Support''' I see no problems, should be a good admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Extreme Support''' A fantastic candidate for admin. Two thumbs up! --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' I really wish someone would answer my question 5 more expressively rather than saying, "The five pillars are ''really'' important." I understand that answering this completely could be lengthy, but understanding of the five pillars is mentioned on the adimistrators reading list as something a candidate should already know along with the [[m:Foundation issues]]. I'd like to see at least one candidate demonstrate knowlege of specifically what the five pillars are. Nonetheless, I support this candidate. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; background: #F0F8FF; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' Seems like this user will be an excellent candidate, strong answers to all questions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- per all above.--
'''Support''', a highly competent wikipedian.
'''Strong support''' He deserves to be an admin, and good answers on the questions for candidates.
'''Support''' Friendly, smart, industrious... let's give him the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Looks like one of the good guys. ''
'''Support''' No problems here. A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
I've seen him around, have no problems with him, he'll do well. '''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Good answers (and the answer to Malber's [[WP:5P]] question seems fine to me, and better than most), a clear rationale per Q1, and a solid track record. What's not to like?
I've only really noticed you since this RfA began, but all the contributions of yours that I've noted seemed well-informed and sensible.
'''Support''' Sound policy knowledge and attitude.
'''Support''' I've seen this editor doing good work. -
'''Support''' per nom and question answers.
'''Support''' Well answered questions, and is trustable. · [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' Pile on support!
'''Support''' absolutely; a user with contribs on the rise, enough experience in all spaces, and so on. A bit on the inexperienced side, but a good candidate. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' A better understanding of the project.
'''Strong Support''' --"Support" because he'll make a good admin and "strong" in appreciation for his [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria|WikiProject Nigeria]] work; Nigeria's twice as big as any EU member and under-represented, article-wise. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''  Trustworthy, policy knowledgeable, experience, level headed.  Good to me.
'''Support''', first because I believe adminship is no big deal, and there should be a clear argument against a specific candidate before opposing, and this user has no red flags, from my perusal of contribs; second, Wikignomes hold the project together, and as more of a writer/major rewriter (dragon), I feel the project needs all the gnomish admins it can get; and third, I trust Ryan's noms, as he's proven a good judge of admin-worthy editors.
'''Pig Support''' I likes what I sees.
'''Support''' A great user who knows Wikipedia policy well. Highly unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Pig.&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Strong Pig Support'''.
'''Oink''' Based on previous interaction and a review of talk page and contrib. history. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Knows policy. -- <strong>
'''Bacon''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' Dammit, "Oink" ''and'' "Bacon" were taken already. :P Good luck!
'''Support''', no reason not to. Would encourage more use of talk pages.
'''Strong support''' - although I am more of an inclusionist.  Excellent number of edits, breadth of edits, and user pages. Reviewing this user's pages, the said arbitration page, and his comments have given me a lot to think about.  Pigman is admin material.
lalalala.
'''Strong Piggy Support''' - Pigman is dedicated to the project and ready for the mop. He is even-tempered, works well with others, and considers the ramifications of an action before proceeding. He has shown boldness, courage and persistence in standing up to trolls, as seen in his bringing the Starwood case to Arbcom, which resulted in getting those trolls and socks indef blocks and bans. He will be an asset to the admin team. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' will be a good addition to the CSD helpers.
'''Support''' Buckle up&mdash;the [[hell|atmosphere here]] will be [[WP:VPR#Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia|changing for the worse soon]].
Nothing wrong with this user. This is one of the better nominations that I have seen:) Good luck!--
'''Support''' - did a good job coping with the many heads of {{User|Ekajati}}. '''
'''Support''' Very thought answers.
'''Support''' per good answers. --
Candidate has indicated that they will assist with deletion processes –
[[Image:Battersea Powerstation - Across Thames - London - 020504.jpg|200px|right|thumb]]'''Support'''. His answers indicate he'll make a great administrator, and that he won't break loose from the power plant and wreak havoc over the countryside. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''', trust nom, good answers and user seems to think through his actions rather than reacting. No concerns. <strong>
'''Support'''. Dedicated and trustworthy.
I was going to support this nomination anyway, but I was convinced to strongly support for the following reasons: 1. He assumes good faith, as demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gurch_2&diff=prev&oldid=168625918 here], and I remember his AGF from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Acalamari&diff=prev&oldid=117927284 eight months ago], so I'm pleased to see that Pigman continues to assume good faith. 2. He has recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acalamari&diff=prev&oldid=168644877 expressed interest] in helping with reducing the [[:Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]] backlog. For these reasons, I will strongly support this nomination, and am glad to.
'''Support''' A sensible editor who will be a fine admin.  Also, thanks to Krimpet for the Pink Floyd reference.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' but of course! Good luck, and rofl at the Pink Floyd reference Krimpet! '''
'''Unqualified support'''.  -
'''Support'''.  Contributions look good; answers are solid.  I think you'll be an asset as an admin.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Good candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' I looked at the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood|Starwood arbitration]] and [[Talk:Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism/Archive_1|a controversy]] he was involved in on [[Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism]], and have no complaints about the way he handled  himself in those issues. He seems to be careful to avoid any promotional editing that might be due to a personal COI. His AfD votes appear sensible. Besides, it would be good to have some self-deprecating humor on the administrative noticeboards to take the edge off, and I think he has the skills for it.
'''Support''' I ''mediated'' the Starwood case for a while before it went to arbitration. There were a lot of barbs being flung about in that case, but Pigman managed himself very well and maturely. His reaction to an ArbCom decision he found "less than optimal" shows grace, character, and judgment. -
'''Support'''.  I have personal experience of this editor's good judgment and in-depth research in AfD processes; that, coupled with intelligent answers above, makes me think he will be an excellent administrator.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Good communication skills, strong editor. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
It's my pleasure to support Pigman's candidacy.
'''zOMG Support''' - PigMan is a super editor, great all round player, civil and courteous to a fault. Delighted to add my support here. He'll make an excellent admin -
'''support'''  Really good editor.
I'm
'''Support''' Looks like an outstanding candidate!  Good luck! <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' meets my
'''support'''. Showed excellent judgement in telling me I fouled up[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celtic_Reconstructionist_Paganism&diff=prev&oldid=169696642] :o)
'''support''' I was also involved in the Starwood case and Paul did well to retain composure in one of the ugliest things I've seen on Wikipedia. Anyone who can do that will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' No more to say, is there?--
'''Support''' While I've not had the pleasure to interact with this editor before, I have a great deal of respect for Ryan, and his choice of candidates. As I do with most RfA candidates, I did take a look through the contributions, and the questions here. I'm impressed with the candidate's answers, especially with the answers to questions 3 and 6. With the impending page creation by IPs being re-enabled, this editor's experience in that area will undoubtedly be valuable. I really have no doubts that this candidate would make a fine addition to the current administrative team, and will serve Wikipedia well. <small>
'''Support''' A trustworthy candidate and the answer to question four reinforces that. His willingness to help out at CSD will be of good benefit to this project.
'''Support'''.  Beat the nom!  Good luck.  <span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span> <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - Candidate looks good, but the quote "I don't think WP:3RR applies to removing death threats" cinched it. --
'''Support''' Looks good. --'''
'''Support''' <span>
'''Support''' Has always seemed careful and diligent in everything I have seen.  --
'''
Looks great! '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' A helpful editor!
'''Support''' Good track record of contributions to the project, solid edit count (almost 5000 edits, just under 2000 of which are in the Wikipedia name-space), helpful and courteous. Hand him the mop!
Strongly. '''
'''Support''' - Per all Above.

'''Support''' Knowledgeable about the various aspects of Wikipedia as demonstrated with his work at the help desk. --
Looks like he knows his stuff, and no evidence he'll abuse the tools.  '''Support'''! (although I'm tempted to renumber all votes using prime numbers only)
'''Support''', will be fine.  Good luck!
'''Support.'''  Per the nom, and the answer to Question 1.
'''Strong Support.''' As PrimeHunter should know, I was the first to put up the support vote, even before he answered the questions. Obviously I am going to support him, especially for all the work at the [[Wikipedia:Help Desk]]! <font color="green">'''Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!'''</font> '''
'''Support''', based on my experiences with the candidate at various mathematics articles. --
'''Support''' by nominator.
'''Support''' - a useful, active editor. I've seen this user's name all over the place. Good candidate. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Seems a very good editor.
'''Support''' Good contributor, helpful and knowledgable.
'''Support''', with pleasure. :) I am long familiar with the editor's work and am confident that he will make great use of the tools. --
'''Support'''
--
'''Strong Support''' Helpful and experienced, Good luck!
'''Co-help desk participant support''' - The work PrimeHunter does there is simply brilliant.
'''Support''' - I like how seriously he takes [[WP:COI]] when using his expertise to improve the encyclopedia.  And he does a great job keeping his cool. -
'''Support''' -- I've seen many intelligent, sympathetic and useful contributions at the help desk from this editor and, as others have noted here, he keeps his cool in difficult situations.
'''Support''', no concerns.  Not run into him before, but seems to care about WP.
'''Support''' Keeps cool under "pressure" seems to care about the WP community etc. Best of luck to you! [[User:F9T|<font color="Red" face="Trebuchet MS">F]]<font color="lightsteelblue">[[User talk:F9T|<font color="blue" face="Trebuchet MS">9]]
'''Support''' - PrimeHunter always beats me to answering questions at the help desk. Very good answers to the questions, near perfect edit summary usage, great user overall. Good luck! &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''. PrimeHunter assists users greatly with his profound knowledge. He would surely wield the mop as eloquently. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Oppose''' Too good a candidate. Too many supports already. Too popular. Too civil. Only a few people need the mop. Adminship shouldn't be given out to everyone just because they are active, and have a solid contribution history. Also not enough contributions to mediawiki interface. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
—
Support. Good contributions to the WP pages (which is crucial) and Wiki overall even though the mainspace contribs are a bit low.--

'''Support''' Looks like an ideal admin candidate.
'''
'''Support''', strongly.
'''Support''' a helpful contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Demonstrates a positive and mature attitude to improving Wikipedia.
'''support''' of course --
'''Support''' Even though mainspace and article work is a little low for me, his work at the help desk shows he has all the right attributes.
'''Support''' /
'''Support''' example of an excellent editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''''Cheers,
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
—''
'''Support'''. Looks like the mop will be in good, friendly hands. (And this entry is a prime number -- yeah!)--
'''Support''' with apologies for making the count go to 54, a [[composite number]]. No issues I can see (<bad joke> although I may very well be blind </bad joke>). [[Rfa cliche 1|I seriously thought he was an admin.]]
'''Strong Support''' Seen this user around; very constructive. -
'''Support''' Good all around knowledge and excellent at handling Help Desk work; will be an excellent mop user.
'''Support''' As per track.
'''Support''' No concerns with this user.
'''Strong Support''' Great activity over the past year, not to mention the fact that I love people who help new comers. Good luck! [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Big net positive. cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', trying to push this to 67 exactly.
'''Support''' He deserves to be an admin.
'''Square-free Support''' Very civil editor that has an excellent grip of policies shown from his numerous contributions at the help desk and elsewhere. ▪◦▪
Of course.
'''Support''' [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He would be good as an admin
'''Support''' One of the good guys.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' - From what I have seen of this editor on this project, they would make a great use of the tools.
'''Strong support''' Have seen this editor at work in many different areas. Reports at AIV are always spot on (almost to the point where you don't have to check whether they have been warned appropriately, because you know they have). Comments at AfD show a great awareness of current policy, and are always well documented. ''And'' this editor can write articles and participate in various projectspaces. This is almost a co-nom, heh? – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Looks fine. Good luck with the RfA.
'''Support''' - When did you get desysopped?! I honestly thought you were an admin already!! Anyway, a very firm editor, will use the tools extremely well.
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor to me.
'''Support''' Prolog has been around long enough to understand policy and to demonstrate his understanding of policy. He has done just that.  An ability to program in logic will aid him in making wise decisions as an admin. He is a trusted user who understands policy. --
'''Support'''- has certainly been around long enough to know the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and a well-rounded editor. Good show.
Prolog looks like a good candidate to me, no worries here. Good luck! '''''
No doubt he'll use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' I echo the others' comments of support and agree with them.
'''Support'''. Looks like he would make a very good admin. -
'''Support''' a prolific and positive contributor to the project.
'Support' :- 'Excellent candidate', 'No problems'. 'Excellent candidate' :- 'Civil', 'Policy understanding'. 'Policy understanding' :- 'Spread of contributions', 'Wise judgment on XfDs'. ?- 'Support'. Yes
'''Support'''.  Hmm, if you're active in four Wikiprojects, does that mean you have a Wikiproject endorsement forthcoming? <small> Now why would I be saying that? :)</small>.  Anyway, no problem.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' He looks like an excellent candidate. —
'''Strong Support'''. I've seen him around, and he's a very strong contributor, has a level head, and would make an excellent admin. ···
'''Support''' Although 17,000 edits seems a bit low... <small>:)</small> Prolog is an excellent contributor and can be trusted with the sysop tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' superb candidate.--
'''Support''', in return for Prolog's prolific support of Wikipedia.  '''''
'''Support''' Just wanted to point out that while Prolog's prodigious edit count is appreciated, other admin candidates shouldn't feel a need to have anything like this many edits before being considered. Most of these edits are automated. While these are helpful in demonstrating knowledge and dedication, the smaller core of edits that show personal thought, judgment, and communication skills are what's most essential. --
'''Tuki''' totta kai.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
I support the candidate's request. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Support.''' Very impressive record all around.
Another one I thought was an admin already. Awesome.
'''Support''' - this is an easy decision. -

'''Support''' the quality of Prolog's work is that of an admin. Will do well with the tools. —
Signs point to yes.
Looks to be a model user, with a truly amazing amount of edits amassed in a short period of time. Cheers,
'''Support''' per more than adequate experience.
I have nothing to suggest he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. This user has been here long enough that I do not require WikiProject endorsement to tell me how he will handle the tools. Although the 7 image talk edits is worrying. <small>;)</small> &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' per nom. I've seen this user around a fair bit on RC Patrol and he obviously wouldn't be one to abuse the tools. - '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' per nom.  Seems a fine candidate for the tools.  --
'''Support'''- Has a good record in Wikipedia and would make an excellent admin
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I honestly can't think of anything to write that hasn't already been written above. -- '''
'''Support''': Has experience, seems civil, and deserving of the tools. I see nothing bad. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per answers, comments above, candidate's overall record. I note the absence of any opposition to date. The rationale for the neutral commenter's "withholding of support" remains completely unpersuasive to me. I strongly deprecate the practice of thrusting individual RfA candidates into the middle of larger debates about RfA reform and related issues, which inevitably will just make the RfA process even less appealing than some candidates find it now.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I've seen Prolog around- appears he has done good work and has the necessary experience. No issues that I can see. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' His answers to the questions and some discussion on our talk pages convinced me. -
I'm
'''Yes'''.
'''Sure'''.  Seen him around and I kinda thought that he was one.  Don't see any reason to hold back. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', the endorsement swung it. --
'''Happy to have as admin''' with or without a path running down the middle to give the two-tier effect.--
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''.
-- <b>
No obvious problems; withholding support pending an endorsement from a WikiProject.
Frist!
'''Support''' Darn, just beat me.  But yeah, liked your answers and your edit count speaks for itself. '''
'''Thrid!'''
'''Edit-conflict Support''' definitely qualified. Few users are active in CFDs, we'll need a dedicated user like him. I only hoped you had at least some article ''writing''. -
'''Strong support'''. Was planning to nominate him myself, does invaluable category work.
'''Support'''.  No problem.
'''Support''' - experienced and trusted user. --
'''Support''' well established and good user.--
'''Support''' Seems good for the job.
'''Weak support''' doesn't really state a real need for the tools, but otherwise everything is good, so support. '''
'''Support''' I nominated this canadate for having over 20,000 edits, and I think the canadate would also help with deleting pages.--
'''Support''' Noticed his good work already a long time ago.
'''Add to Category:Supported adminstration candidates''' --
'''Prove it!''' ''
'''Support''' - Isnt he an admin?<b>
'''Support'''. Looks good. ---
'''Support'''.  Excellent work on [[WP:CFD]] where we can always use help, especially with the speedies! —
'''Support''' Good user. '''
'''Support'''. For me, ProveIt's work on [[WP:CfD]] and his approach are reason enough. With admin privileges, he'll also be able to delete categories after CfDs, etc &ndash; if anyone's earned the right to do so, I'd say it's ProveIt! &nbsp;Best wishes,
'''Support'''. Seems to be everywhere at once. A discussion leader. I'm surprised that ProveIt is not already an admin!
'''Support''' genuine RfA cliché #1.  Weak nomination but strong answers and excellent contributions.  I always thought his name was Provelt though untill I edited this page.
'''Support''' a true [[WP:CFD]] warrior.
'''Support'''. Cue the cliches here as well, and I thought it was provelt also! --
'''Support''' - same as Eluchil and Kingboyk on both counts &mdash;
I'm
'''Categorical support!'''
'''Support''' I think he's proven himself. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I'd like to see more main namespace contributions, but I acknowledge that we need all types of wikipedians as admins.  What ProveIt does, he does well. -'''
'''Support'''. Biggest cliche in the book, I know, but I really did think Proveit was one already. He certainly should be.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Sounds like a good guy to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. Thought he was one...
'''Support''' per above.
'''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support'''. Great contributor with good organization skills. Excellent CFD work.
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support'''. Really thoughtful organizer.
'''Support'''. Isn't likely to abuse admin powers; has done a lot of CfD work --'''
'''Support'''. Good user. --'''
'''Support'''. Everyone has their own corner of wikipedia in which they dwell.  Great contirbutor who deserves the promotion.--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' I've seen him do some decent work and keep encountering him.
'''Support''' I used to also live on the CFD pages and always found this user to be thorough and thoughtful. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' thoughtful & very busy editor -
'''Support''' and a recommendation to keep [[User:Provelt]] as a doppelganger account :) <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' not amazing answers, but I'm sure he'll do fine.
'''Weak support'''.  You have a good trac krecord, but you name could be mistaken for "ProveLt" though your name is "Prove it".
'''Support'''. My only concern was low edit summary use but I am totally satisfied with the answer to my related question (Q.11). I now have no hesitation is supporting. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. CfD needs more attention, and ProveIt has the experience to provide that. Please don't forget the good advice on edit summaries when you leave here. They're especially useful when opening or closing XfDs and other behind-the-curtains stuff.
'''Support'''. Looks Good..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' – a hard working, responsible, and trustworthy editor.  And yeah, until recently I though your name had an ''L'' in it too.  Please continue to work on longer and more frequent edit summaries; they really do help.  Also, consider uploading all of your great free photos to Commons. '''''×'''''
'''Support''' - Great user, would like to see more edit summary usage.  -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]. —
'''Support''' I have been impressed with his understanding of norms and practices in regard to [[WP:CfD]]. ~
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support.''' I've seen no issues with ProveIt's organisational work on categories, and I trust the user not to misuse the tools.--
'''Support.'''  -- answer to question 11 addresses my only concern, so I'm happy. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' Long over due. --
'''Support'''. Everything looks good to me. We need more people at [[WP:CFD]]. '''
'''Support''' His yeoman work on CfD is reason enough, the more administrators we have to clear the backlog the better! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -
'''Oppose''' He is far too free in trying to get categories deleted, which suggests a deficiency in understanding of Wikipedia norms and practices.  I am all in favour of deleting unnecessary categories, but he often oversteps the mark.--
'''Oppose''' As noted above, he is a CfD warrior.  This seems to be a point ''against'' him.--
'''Weak oppose'''.  Poor use of edit summaries (only 49% for major edits).  I've no problem with deletionism over categories, though &mdash; they've been multiplying like rabbits on viagra. --
'''Oppose''' Agree with Mel Etitis per edit summaries, but not over categories; while some need deleting, I feel that ProveIt shows poor judgement in which categories he targets.--
'''Neutral''' While this editor shows that they have great category editing skills, they don't have many actual article edits from what I am seeing so far, most of which are just adding categories.  I am also concerned about CfD, but not enough to oppose or support at this time. '''''
Waiting for an answer to question 4 :-)
'''Neutral''' a solid candidate, except for two things; slightly excessive deletionism and poor edit summary usage. They are not minor enough for a support, but not even close to being major enough for an oppose. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' Leaning toward oppose per oppose and neutral issues above and little encyclopedia writing and no vandal-fighting.--
'''ROFL''' at your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deskana|opening]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana|sentence]]. --
Support, of course. I've seen you around and you consistently seem to know what you're doing. This, combined with your adminship on Simple, assures me that you won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I thought he was one, which is why I didn't offer to nominate :( Good luck! '''
Support. —
'''Clear and Present Support'''
Aren't you an admin already '''Support''' --
'''Cheerful support.''' I love your attitude, what with the Australian school vandalism...if you've been here long enough to joke about Australian kids, you've been here long enough to start blocking them. :)
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Nice guy. :) [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't see any major reasons to oppose this user.
'''Support''' looks like a good and qualified candidate.--

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around, no direct contact.  About where I was when I ran for adminship at six months on a ten month old account, 3500~4000 edits, nice spread and shows a use for the buttons.  No big deal.
'''Support'''. -- <b>
'''Support'''. It will be a pleasure to have you as an admin.
'''Support'''. Couldnt find good and solid reasons to oppose this editors RFA. All the best. Cheers, --
'''Support''' nothing holding you back, good luck!
'''Support'''. Fine. --
'''Support''' Definitely. -
'''Support'''. Very experienced. -
'''Support''' certainly seems to have the experience necessary to pull it off. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' has a need for the buttons, and seems to have the experience and judgment to use them well.
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' He is a admin on wikipedia simple english and has done a great job. He is not abusive with his tools there and I do not think he will be here either:) I am shocked that he is not a admin already. Good luck:)
Genuine case of RfA cliché number 1.
'''Support''' - per good answers and considerable number of edits to [[WP:AIV]].
'''Support'''. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Shows a clear need for the tools, and is willing to help. I see no indication the tools would be abused. ···
'''Support'''. Good user, good answers. Seems very level-headed when I see him around.
'''Support''' I have seen this user around and can trust him with the tools. '''
'''Support''', has certainly had his patience tested and kept a level head.  Absolutely no problems with his ability to use the tools.
And he is an admin in simple wikipedia, so he's certainly qualified.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Anybody reported for 3RR by Cplot for reverting him must be doing something right.  :-) —
'''Yes'''. Has been very helpful with [[WP:CHECK]] as well as vandal fighting. <b><font color="#00A86B" face="georgia">
I see no red flags, I see a use for the tools. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Support'''.  What Coelacan said. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(

'''Oppose''' Too good to support. ;) <!-- If you are editing this to move it to the "Oppose" section, please understand it's a joke. :) --> &mdash;
I'm
'''Support''' Push to close. :) ''<-I apologize to PullToOpen here because my humour doesn't seem to be translating. I believe Pull is an excellent candidate.''
'''Support'''. No tricks, just a plain 'support'.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' is given based on my intuition and the above comments.
- <b>
'''Support''' - Good answer to questions and I trust Cbrown1023's judgment about PullToOpen. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' a trustworthy user. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support,''' because he will use it well. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''', good editor who will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.
Pull To '''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. Opening up a can of administrative goodness, and hopefully not a can of worms. This was supposed to be a joke, as in April Fool's Day, except that the support is quite serious. --
I'm going to take the plunge and '''Support''' this user. He seems like he'll use it well. '''
'''Support'''
I reviewed your contributions history since Dec. 27 (2500 edits) and found nothing wrong (except for your obvious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harper_Lee&diff=98472124&oldid=98471969 orgyphobia]).  Additionally, your responses to the questions are rather good.  Hmm ... now I'm ''really'' suspicious.  ;)  Cheers,
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Yeoman service, deft touch with other editors (my delicate senses are attuned to patience), unsullied as far as I can see. A fine candidate.
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' I have no doubt that PullToOpen will use the tools well. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Cleared for Adminship''' —<b>[[User:Pilotguy|Pilot]]<font color="#00FFFF">
'''Support''' Endorsed... good canidate, based on the answers and history. -
'''Support''', it's a pity no one nom you. '''
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I've seen his posts, like his style, and trust his judgment. --

'''Neutral'''. I would suggest that the applicant be asked to reapply after his or her 12th month of membership.  I am concerned that the editor has insufficient experience with conflict and may be inexperienced in conflict resolution.  I say this because the longer I am here, the more I learn about the politics and workings of wikipedia.  I also must say that I used to have a account name from 2006, but after a few months of inactivity, I have forgotten the password.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' this candidate is all things good, run into him a few times in Wikiproject Football and have no worries about him receiving the extra buttons.
'''Support''' no problems here. ←
'''Support''' per nom and looking through contribs- a solid mainspace editor and no visible issues. No doubt can be trusted with the tools. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' per history and answers above. ···
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per above. ''
I'm
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Would make good use of the tools - good luck :) --
'''Support''' With the amount of edits you've got...there's jsut no way to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' -  Seems fine--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - good experience, no real reason not to.
'''Support''' Seems a goodie. --
'''Support''' Good answers, good contributions &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom &ndash;
'''Support''', thought he was one.

'''Support''', seems good to me.
'''Support'''. Good edits, answers, has an FA, etc.--
'''Support''': Nice contributions, Keep it up. --
'''Support''', I have no problem with giving this user the tools.
'''Support''' with enthusiasm. A fantastic Wikipedian.
'''Support''' an excellent, helpful Wikipedian who's done great work with the football WikiProject.
'''Support''' fully. A very helpful Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Thorough, civil, helpful. I don't remember ever giving a support vote on an RfA before, so perhaps this shows how highly I respect this editor's contributions. -
'''Support'''. Only had positive experiences with this particular [[Arsenal F.C.|Gooner]], though he does need to buy a vowel. -
I've worked with Qwghlm since mid 2005 when he signed up for the football WikiProject that I had just started, and I do not have a single negative thing to say about him. Very committed, level-headed editor, with a lot of mainspace experience (very important to me). I could continue to praise him but I won't, because I believe, and hope, he already knows how much I appreciate his work. '''Support'''. &ndash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' You mean you aren't an admin? '''
No concerns.
'''Support''' Has demonstrated a solid committment to the project --
'''Support''' a committed and qualified user.--
'''Support''' Can't find a single reason to object. A model Wikipedian.
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support''' - the candidate has identified areas that really need additional admins to help on, and is clearly capable of doing this work.  Plus his response below to an edit identified as problematical was exemplary - acknowledge a mistake, provide details for better understanding of the situation, put the matter in the larger context of many other edits.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18px;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', although you [[User_talk:Qwghlm/archive3#Only_one_question...|still]] haven't answered (that I can find) the most important question. Inner or Outer? --
'''Support''' Has contributed much to soocer-related articles. A very good editor as well. It is time for him to be a admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' this random batch of letters that I will forget. <font face="Verdana"><b>
'''Support''' per nomination.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support'''. I think this user has made many contributions as well adding quality to the encyclopedia. I think it will only make Wikipedia better if this user becomes an administrator! I also think this user would make good judgement in using the tools, take responsibility for mistakes maken, as we '''all''' make them. I agree with the canadate that she/he uses good faith, and that is '''very important'''! I don't see why this canadate wouldn't be a great [[Wikipedia:Administrators|sysop]]!--[[User:Wikipedier|Wikipedier]] 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[[User:Wikipedier|Wikipedier]]--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' The candidate helped produce two featured articles, and his answers demonstrate that he "gets it."
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' was actually gonna nominate him myself.
'''Support''' Good user, would make good use of the mop. | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' We need admins who do lots of editing.--
'''Support''' As per nom.
'''Oppose''' &bull;  I am not entirely convinced you need the tools, and the area you express a desire in using the tools in is outside of your expertise.  I have somewhat of a fear that you wish the tools more for the fact of having them, over the desire to actually use them.  No person "has a right" or "deserves" to be an administrator- it is not a status symbol nor some milestone to be achieved.  We are all equal on Wikipedia, even bureaucrats and arbitrators, administrators simply take on different duties, and I do not feel that you are really offering to take on duties that you are suited to.  Try again in a few months when you have more experience with images.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' (moved from ''Oppose'') You express interest in working on image backlogs, but your experience in image namespace is extremeley limited (18 image, 1 image talk, about 10 image uploads, no [[WP:IFD]] involvement, about 20 posts at [[WP:CV]] over a year). I also noticed the latest entry in your upload log, [[:Image:James.jpg]], you reverted the image from a self-authored image with a free licence to an obvious book cover, but didn't change the licence tag to {{tl|Book cover}}. The image was later deleted for incorrect tagging. That doesn't instill much confidence in me that you have enough experience in Wikipedia's Byzantine image policies. ~
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]] In previous interactions, Ragesoss has been quite insightful, and I see nothing that would worry me.
'''Support'''  I don't mind the latest grub about questions not being answered.  I spent the last half hour looking over the contributions, and they match the self-nom reasons, so I support. It's about the candidate, not the format.
'''Support''' I nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' I trust this user with the tools, and see no problem with the questions, they've been answered to my satisfaction in the self-nom statement.
'''Support'''. I was reconsidering even before Frise's thoughtful remark to me. Quoting myself below, I've known Sage for many months, and I've always been most impressed by his hard work, his proven expertise, his will to help and his politeness and courtesy. I can attest for each and every of the many qualities that he has repeatedly shown, and not merely from observing his work on wiki, but also from reading his thoughts at his blogs. In whole truth, my desire to see the usual procedural steps followed is, in this particular case, clearly outweighed by my knowledge of the candidate, and my absolute belief in his trustworthiness.
'''Support''', the questions are optional, after all, and Ragesoss's edit history speaks for itself.  Good luck.
'''Support'''. I trust this user and I am sure she will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions (answered in the nom)&mdash;<font color='red'>
Per Ral315 - why the hell not? If he feels he doesn't want to answer the questions, he doesn't have to. His mature nomination shows someone who I trust not to abuse the tools, and pretty much contains everything I would want from the answers to the questions. Until someone shows he a convincing reason as to why not, other than - "He won't jump through every hoop of RFA" - support.
'''Support''' I've seen Sage about doing good things, and I trust him with the mop.--
'''Support''' absolutely, from your nomination I can understand that you are a dedicated and level-headed Wikipedian, and, most importantly, trustworthy and wise enough for the tools. —
'''Support'''. That's the spirit. Contribs look good to me.
I'm
Of course -- <b>
'''You bet.''' This, in my opinion, is the ideal candidate, and I trust Sage with the tools completely. --
'''support''' due to great nomination, above supports, and contributions. --

I like the answers to the questions, so I support this candidate. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Support''' Experience is more than adequate, relations other editors good, the important bits of the questions are answered in the nom. Everyone with any sense just copies answers posted by succeeding candidates anyway!--
'''Support''' - per no big deal. Don't fully understand about requiring extra buttons to move images to the commons, but otherwise a reasonable enough self-nom.
'''Support''' - Many and consistent contribs over a long period of time.  Quality. In lieu of Q2 & Q3, I looked at user page and talk page.  Looks like a fine admin to me.
'''Support'''  I really thought you were already an admin.  Had I known you weren't, I would gladly nominate.  Your contributions have been excellent in [[history of science]] topics and anything else you do.  I'm impressed with your work on the [[Johannes Kepler]] article, which was recently nominated at [[WP:FAC]] by someone else who wasn't involved in editing the article. I realize they didn't notify you, and the nomination took you by surprise.  Nonetheless, you did a superb job handling the situation and addressing FAC objections, ultimately with the article passing FAC. --
"dismayed with the current atmosphere of RfA" '''Support'''. The many neutrals should think about whether it's more important to know the quality of a candidate by doing the research into contributions, or reflecting on past interactions with the candidate, and reflecting on the judgement of others, or whether it's more important that the candidate match certain rigid mathematical criteria, answer certain questions directly and in a prescribed format, rather than answer them by their actions and contributions and opening remarks, <s>and genuflect in the correct direction</s>. Everyone is entitled to use whatever criteria they choose to, of course, but I'm entitled to think that some criteria are not as good as others. ++
'''Weak Support''' The candidate ''should'' answer the questions, just to be polite to his fellow users; but, he is excellent otherwise.  I support his adminship even if he chooses to be a bit odd about the questions; but, that choice does weaken my support.
'''Weak Support'''. Basically Xoloz's opinoin on this one is the same as mine.--
'''Support'''. I know the user's record well enough to support this RfA regardless of how he answers the questions (unless he plans on using his adminship powers to establish a totalitarian regime or to take candy from babies).
Ragesoss is always calm and thoughtful, obviously trustworthy. I also support the choice to avoid the cookie-cutter questions, to remind people that there has always been a significant segment of the community that dislikes their use. For those who persist in thinking such things are required as a show of "courtesy", I would ask how making someone jump through hoops is courteous to the candidate. --
'''Support''' On your userpage: "I'm married to an astrophysicist-turned-medical student, and we have three cats together."  You realize that sounds a little funny...!  I just have the overall impression that you intend only good things for Wikipedia and you won't cause any trouble.
'''Support'''. Per Michael Snow. Discussions with ragesoss lead me to think he's sane, reasonable, and thoughtful.
'''Strong support''' This user clearly thinks long and hard about what will be best for Wikipedia, and I believe his actions show that he is also willing to act in a way that he believes is best for Wikipedia. He's courteous, smart, hard working, and I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't have the mop.
'''Support''' I am partial to those that do things a little differently.  In my short time following RfAs it is apparent that the cookie cutter questions usually receive cookie cutter, uninteresting answers.  An honest, and open ended statement and remarkable contribution history is much more telling that a series of questions.
'''Weak Support''' (moved from neutral) - I would prefer for q3 to be answered, but given this candidate's long record of competent contributions, I don't think that's a good enough reason to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Sensible contributor. Answers to the optional questions will be appreciated, though.
'''Support'''. Good contributor, sensible attitude to this RfA.
'''Support'''. Glad you finally gave in to pressure. Would have liked to co-nom, but with me being away and all, no hard feelings! Just be prepared that some people will assume you're evil just because you have a badge. :)
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user with a [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Prosobranchia|FP]] has the right to get the tools.
'''Support''' Great attitude. :) —
'''Support''' I trust Sage and have seen really good work from this user.  Inevitably active editors need to protect and delete certain pages to improve the encyclopedia. As described above, Sage definitely needs the tools to improve wikipedia. I have no problem with this user not answering the questions, I read the self nom bit at the beginning and it say all I need to know.  It is refreshing to see measured self confidence.
'''Support''' - Trusted user who understands policy. --
'''Oh yes, Support''' - no issues with this user. He can be trusted.
'''Support''', no concerns. It has been argued that failure to answer the questions makes it impossible to fully evaluate the candidate, but every edit the candidate has made is available for review. It would seem to me that this is enough for any reasonable person to conduct a satisfactory investigation, and it is not clear what the answers to the three ''optional'' questions would add to that.
'''Support''', I see no issues, and that includes the questions. I see no indication he'll abuse or misuse the tools, and that's really all I care.
'''Support''' (changed from neutral after checking up on his contrib history). '''Weak''' per not giving answer to Q3. —'''
'''Support''' Seen user around, looked at talk space contributions, I trust this user.
'''Weak support''' A good user. However, I have a concern that the debate caused by the refusal to answer questions borders on [[WP:POINT]]. As nothing else seems wrong, I support.
'''Support''' I did my research. I looked through his contributions. He says what he wants to do. Even if there are problems I have missed, I'm [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] and supporting this candidate. Let's hope the opposers can come up with a reason why he cannot be trusted. I am ''very'' glad that only five people have opposed because of not answering optional questions. '''''

'''Support''': While I would've liked to see what the user had to say for the questions investigation of the user showed no problems. Should be a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Policy is not a suicide pact. Actually, I can't see any rule that actually says all RfA candidates ''must'' answer the standard form questions. This candidate has the relevant experience and the trust of those who have interacted with him. That satisfies me. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.  No big deal.
'''Support''' hasnt done anything to make me question judgement... even avoiding the '''''OPTIONAL''''' questions appears in this case to be a valid judgement call; even though some people feel otherwise. Got my nod. &nbsp;
Candidate's contributions look good. I agree that RfA should be less intense for the candidates; I don't think not answering the optional questions has much to do with that but won't hold it against you.
'''Support''' good article work + common sense.
'''Support''' - Contributions seem fine to me..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Excellent work. Brings much needed qualification into ranks of admins.
'''Support''' - there is no good reason not to -
'''Changed to support''' In all fairness, there is no decent reason to oppose this user. The questions are indeed optional. However, I am still of the opinion that the outcome of an RfA can be decided over a candidates' answers to the questions, though I admit, this is an exception.
'''Support''' - singularly unimpressed by each and every justification presented for opposition. --
'''Support''' -- although admittedly I know Sage almost entirely thru his blog. (He exceeds the minimum qualifications, so why oppose?) I would suggest that he answer questions 2 & 3; it never hurts to reveal more about oneself, & Wikipedia is growing ever more impersonal. --
'''Support''' I find this user to be reasonable and willing to discuss issues rather than pull pistols.  Although I think that RfA should not be taken lightly, the prosecution/persecution of Danny brings to light the potential for abuse.  I don't absolutely agree with ignoring the questions, but I respect the statement being made.  Consider my support for the nominee, with an abstention on supporting the political statement. --
'''Support'''. There is nothing wrong with a candidate trying to make some process experiments (e.g. w.r.t. the optional questions) in his own application for adminship. I don't perceive that it violates any consensus if he does so. IMHO it would not have hurt him to answer the optional questions, but I think his record is strong enough without them.
'''Strong Support'''.  Ragesoss has been a superlative editor, improving several articles in her field of expertise up to Featured Article standard.  She has created innovative ways to get university students involved in editing Wikipedia.  In the course of a lengthy conflict with another disruptive editor on articles which we both were editing, she has always shown a cool head and offered wise advice at working through disputes. --
'''Weak Support'''. While I think the optional questions were mostly answered in the nom statement, I think it would be good for the candidate to provide more information by answering them (per several others above). ···
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support'''. I've come across Ragesoss a few times in the past, and never been less than pleased to have done so. --
'''Support''' - switched from neutral. I admire this candidate taking the difficult road of choosing an unorthodox RfA and, having seen various comments on talk pages, I agree with his rationale that RfA should ''not'' be a trial of fire. However, regarding Q3, I'm satisfied now for two reasons; the answer he provided on VirtualSteve's talk page and the dialog leading up to that is pretty clear-cut ... ''and'', as I suspected, as this tricky RfA progresses, he has maintained his cool while being steadfast yet rational in his answers. And that speaks volumes -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no reason not to, and yes, "optional" means optional.
'''Support''' Right on target. --

'''Support''' - If "optional questions" means "questions you have to answer in order to have a successful RfA", then "optional" needs to be changed to "mandatory".  I prefer to think that "optional" means "candidates can answer these in order to help his/her chances, if he/she wants to".  In this case, seeing absolutely no reasons given by anyone to oppose the candidate, other than this "optional" question issue, and a lot of positive comments, I'm supporting the RfA.   -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support.''' I've been watching this for a few days, and the reasoning the candidate has provided for not answering the standard questions is sufficient to convince me that they have the proper judgement and reasoning necessary to adeqautely perform admin duties.
'''Support.''' —''
'''Support.''' Candidate shows a healthy, refreshing, and sorely needed "Let's-cut-through-the-crap" attitude.
Absolutely, and Ragesoss' conduct on this RfA is even more evidence of his good judgment. He'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' looks like a good user.--
Looking good.
'''Support''' the user for adminship, but not the refusal to answer questions.  I have no doubt Ragesoss will be a fine admin.  That said, I disagree with refusing to answer questions because one believes RfA should be "less intense".  Slightly pointy, even if defensible.  On that point, remember that [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Expectations and role of administrators|administrators really should be held to a higher standard of conduct]], and sometimes answers help to demonstrate whether a candidate meets the standard.  There are rare exceptions; users that have clearly demonstrated trustworthiness and good judgment and that have edited prolifically enough that I happen to have interacted with them or noticed their editing.  That is the case with this RfA, and I'm happy to support on that basis. · '''<font color="#709070">
You have given us very little information with which to make an informed decision here, but I did look at your user page and saw this little tidbit: ''"Articles on obscure but verifiable topics make Wikipedia better"''. There's something I can agree with. '''Weak, tentative support'''. —
'''Support'''. "[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]]?" swayed me. The candidate gives me no reason to believe they are not receptive to feedback or would do "very bad things" with the tools. Give 'em the bit.
'''Strong support'''. Seems like a knowledgeable user; no reason not to grant adminship. And thank you for not spamming this page with a useless Q&A session! --
'''Support''' based purely on what I've seen of the candidate at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006|ArbCom elections]] in December 2006 (asking an important question of the candidates about NPOV vs SPOV) and work done at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science]]. On that basis alone, I think this candidate can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' No substantive reason to oppose. Do not believe will abuse the tools, Not answering optional questions is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' as per previous above...cheers,
'''Support''' A little too much grandstanding but will be a good admin regardless.  Main reservation is candidate's possible lack of experience in conflict-ridden editing areas but that shows more sense than those who ''only'' hang out in conflict-ridden areas.
'''Support'''.  The rebellious gesture against this dubious process (RfA) is understandable (and long overdue).  But still, I think you should answer the questions posed by other editors.  '''''
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy and competent.--
'''Support''' given the absence of a compelling reason why not to. If he wants the bit, let him have it... &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Seems competent for the task. And I agree completely that RfA is broken. We're talking about unpaid janitorial work, not standing for godhood. Wikipedia should either take Jimbo's instruction that "adminship is no big deal" seriously or simply rename RfA to "Assume Bad Faith".
You know it's gonna be alright. Answering questions is something nice, but shouldn't be opposed becuase not doing it. -- <small>
'''Support''' - trusted user.
'''Support''' The questions are optional; I don't think there is a risk of abuse, rather this user has understood that they are optional and proceeded not to answer them. While I'm sure Ragesoss knew it wouldn't do him any favours, he persisted with something that ''is'' acceptable. I can't see a problem. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - intelligent and calm whenever I've seen. And '''Bold''' in all the right ways. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy user.
Nothing wrong other then refusal to reply to ''optional'' questions. If this were enough to sink an RFA, then we ought to re-name them to '''mandetory''' questions. :) Really I can't see how this user has any real problems, and since adminship is no big deal you have my support. ——
'''Support'''. It's been a long time since I've seen so many comments in opposition to a candidate being so mis-aligned with the goal of building an encyclopedia. Luckily most people relied on core issues. This candidate has years of edit history to look at wether he is trustworthy enough. Not only that, but he explained why he was not going to answer the questions. Kudos to Ragesoss for not giving in to such hoop jumpery. -
'''Sincere Support''' (changed from oppose) Although answering the questions would have provided a standard form of information, this candidate is trustworthy and has been doing a good job. Additionally, I am satisfied with the candidate's self-nom statement.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Supprt''' for being bold and thinking outside of the box.
'''Support'''. I felt the same as Xoloz, but then I asked myself why do we call these questions optional if they're not?
<s>Until questions answered</s>. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirahadasha&diff=prev&oldid=124287955 candidate's refusal to answer questions], especially Q3
'''Regretful oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirahadasha&diff=prev&oldid=124287955 the diff provided by Naconkantari]. It's one thing to choose not to answer optional questions. It's quite different though to not do so when being asked nicely by a bunch of people and with the goal of proving a point. ''"Whether I pass or fail should be determined based on people who are familiar enough with my editing to make to make an informed decision"''. I'm sorry but no. RfA is not about whether you can find enough friends on Wikipedia to vouch for you. People are genuinely interested in participating even though they might not know you so well and it's only natural for you to help them with that process.
'''Oppose''' While policy and process can at times be ignored in the most obvious of instances where doing so achieves the same outcome as would otherwise happen this is not one of them. This is a request made to make [[WP:POINT|a point]] and if this user wants to just shrug off the important aspects of an RFA how will he perform when he has to be the arbiter of policy and process as an administrator? Jumping through hoops sucks but going that extra mile to prove yourself when asking the community for its support and trust is not unreasonable or overly arduous.
'''Strong oppose''' per using one's personal RfA as a platform for reforming RfA. How is this relevant to adminship? Well, for one thing, admins should generally follow established processes. Also, given the lack of answers to the questions, my ability to evaluate the candidate is somewhat restricted. I will ''never'' support a user whom I haven't or can't fully evaluate, and in this case, the restriction is caused by the candidate himself. The "strong" part of my oppose comes from this: the candidate has been indirectly asked to answer the questions (see the comments above), yet still has not done so. If the issue was the "indirect" manner of the requests, then I'll do it directly: please consider the questions as if I (or some other editor) has posted them and answer them. I don't exactly have a problem with candidates who don't answer the optional questions. I ''do'' have a problem with candidates who don't answer questions from editors. That is hardly the attitude I'd like to see in an admin. --
'''Strong oppose''' of anyone who will not answer the questions.  It conveys an attitude of being above the rules and that's a bad thing for an admin to have.  --[[User:BigDT|<font color="orange">BigDT</font>]] (
'''Oppose''' per Black Falcon and VS.
'''Oppose''' Not answering template questions is one thing, not answering questions specifically posed to him is another.  Editor is displaying an attitude that makes me think they are likely to abuse the tools in the future.
'''Oppose'''. This editor may well be a fine candidate, and I understand the questions are optional. But the current process expects the candidate to answer questions to enable other users to understand the candidate's background and intentions, especially for a self-nom. Evaluators are busy people and need to be guided to a candidate's strong as well as weak points. One can only read a few of an editor's thousands of edits, and those few are likely not to contain either the biggest strengths or the biggest warning signs. Candidates and nominators should understand and work with us on this. The current process, for better or for worse, makes us dependent on the questions. Suggest proposing reform in the appropriate place and/or attempting to convince the relevant bureaucrats to support a different method for a particular RfA; [[User:Durin]] has been particularly open to reform proposals lately. I'd be happy to reconsider this nomination if the questions are answered or if an alternative approach is bureaucrat-sponsered. --
'''Strong oppose''' I cannot support someone who refuses to answer the standard questions, it makes it seem like you are skipping the hard part, therefore leading me to believe you may jump to decisions and conclusions without actually knowing what your doing and this could have bad effects say for deleting articles, I also dont even think you need the tools, you keep saying in your RfA: ''I may'' or other things which suggest you dont need the tools, one does not need them to help other wikipedians, unless it comes to blocking etc.<b>
'''Oppose'''.  Choosing not to answer the optional questions may be a little disconcerting, and I was ready to let the candidate's actions speak for themselves in this regard and support the nomination.  The failure to answer questions posed by other editors, however, rubs me the wrong way - I find it impossible to support someone who fails to answer people's honest questions as to why they should support them.
'''Oppose'''.  Although optional questions are optional, I do not feel comfortable supporting a candidate who is unwilling to do so.  Admins are often called upon to explain their administrative actions.  An unwillingness now suggests an attitude that I'm not comfortable with.
'''Oppose''' due to failure to answer questions. I'm all for RfA being less intense, but not answering the questions indicates to me an attitude that is not respectful towards the community, and we have far too many admins with that problem already. I'd be happy to withdraw my vote if the questions were answered, or at least a good portion of them.
'''Oppose''' Based on the candidate not answering the questions, especially user added questions.  Admins need to be responsive. —
I've known Sage for some time, mainly from reading his blog.  He seems sensible and would probably make a decent admin.  I am, however, withholding support per my endorsement policy.  I especially applaud his refusal to answer the (quite stupid) standard questions.
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but I would prefer the optional questions become mandatory perhaps.
'''Neutral''' See no obvious reason to oppose, but a self-nom really ought to answer the questions, particularly Q3, IMO.
'''Neutral''' -- Answering the questions would help give the community a feeling on what type of an administrator you would be. '''<font color="#CD5700" face="georgia">
'''Neutral'''- I think he should have answered the optional questions
'''Neutral''' Actually (shock, horror) contirbutes to articles instead of hanging around AfD like most of nominations, but why won't the answer the questions...
'''Neutral''' Would support if he didn't use this RFA for soapboxing. ~
'''Neutral''' The "questions" issue. I'm not clear that the candidate has really explained why they need the demotion to administrator status. <span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
No doubt this user will do good. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - Edits are well-distributed amongst various spaces; looks like an excellent user who will be an excellent admin. Besides, they have (at the time of the edit count) 1337 unique pages. How can I not support after that? --
'''Support''' -

'''Support''' - user demonstrates good faith when asked questions about their behaviour. Their clarification of events has helped me decide to support this request. Apart from that, the quality of their edits is of a high standard and a welcome sight for me, here at RFA. (To see their reply to me question see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rudget&oldid=170987412 here] or alternatively, the [[User_talk:Rudget|current version]] to see the full conversation).
'''No reason to oppose'''
'''Support''' Will clear backlogs of articles waiting to be deleted.
'''Support''' Thanks for answering my question.  Will make a fine admin.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Great all-around user. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support''' knows policy and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. Calm and cool-headed editor, well-versed in Wikipedia policies. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', with reservations. Although Random definitely satisfies the requirements for "trust" and all that, he doesn't really appear to be highly active in the [[WP:DEL|Deletion]] side of Wikipedia. I'm not really seeing much [[WP:XFD|XfD]] activity at all, although the helpful and well-thought contributions to [[WP:AN/I]]. No reason at all to oppose or even go neutral, but I do think Random could do a lot more in the sysop. areas that he currently does.
'''Support''' Per Anthony above, that you don't have a huge amount of experience in some areas. However to state ''"I do think Random could do a lot more in the sysop. areas that he currently does"'' is funny - he can't do '''anything''' in sysop areas until he gets the tools! ''':)''' However I think I see Anthony's point, which is that the candidate is a little lacking in "non-admin admin areas" as it were. I'd advise you to take it easy on, say [[C:CSD]] and seek experienced help if needed. With that in mind, I see a civil editor with well thought out questions and the requisite experience and policy knowledge demonstrated through other contributions, and am happy to offer my support. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good, consistent.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' seen him around, would feel bad if I didn't support--
&nbsp;
Will be useful. --
'''Support''', goodness knows how this has only got 22 (now 23) supports.  A fine editor.
I'm
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' - He's been here awhile, he has a good edit summary. --
'''Support''' - another fine candidate of recent times... :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">

'''support''' A good nominee.
'''Support''' looks good. ~
'''Support'''. Is acceptable to me.
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose has been around long enough.
'''Support.''' I've run into this editor several times, and remember what he did to help out at the [[Dave Winer]] article. I have no concerns about him being an administrator.
'''Weak Support'''. I don't see much in his countributions to do with XfD to say it's the first thing he mentions in what he intends to take part in, but he makes up for it on [[WP:ANI]], which obviously requires good discussion skill and shows he knows how incidents are resolved; weak support.
'''Support''' I've been impressed with Random, I think he'll be fine.
'''strong oppose''' of last <s>7000</s> 4000 edits overwhelming majority is all talks and monobooks and close to none actual content creation. I don't think that a person who does not actively contributes content may be a good judge of people who do. `'
'''Support''' - You're really not an admin yet?  thought you were, as well.  Raymond has been an outstanding editor, remaining civil while editing articles on the contentious topic of global warming, and is well-suited to be an admin. --
'''Support'''. Also suprised you're not an admin. Reviewing your contributions confirms my belief that you should be. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Pretty damn obvious, really. '''
Oh yeah, good choice. Civil, sensible, well-spoken, intelligent, great editor, should do good things. ~
Raul nominating...that's something you don't see everyday! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Per the above. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' A very impressive editor. Definately gets my support.
'''Support''' That many edits to global warming and no stress? Impressive contributions.
'''Support''' An excellent editor, and a voice of reason even in contentious topics.
'''Strong support''' per his record and answers above. He is another real editor who works effectively on controversial articles.
'''Support''' I support a full time editor who does some admin work --
'''Support''' mop is well-deserved for this user.  Keep it up, <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Strong support''', per good answers to questions and my experience interacting with Raymond. We need more admins with experience editing controversial topics and keeping cool. The lot of an expert editing a controversial topic is not an easy one, but Raymond has fulfilled it admirably and will do good work with the tools. Absolutely no concerns. '''
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Apparently, long overdue'''. If people say they thought you were an admin already, that shows that you are an exemplary editor, worthy of the mop.
'''Support'''. Candidate appears to be a dedicated contributor and should make a good admin.
'''Support''' I think the tools will go to good use here.
'''Support'''.  Who will be next week's [[global warming]] veteran?
'''Support''' Can't see why you're not an admin already.
-- <b>
'''Support''' A very useful editor to have around --
'''Support'''. Very patient, very knowledgable, and, to quote someone from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz|another RfA]]: "far more sensible than me". --
'''Strong Support''' Quite a shock to learn not already an admin: one of the most sensible people in the whole of Wikipedia/ --
'''Support''' this outstanding user. --
'''Support''' Solid editor, calm demeanour, should be good with the tools.
'''Support''' Experienced in all the right areas. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Of course''' —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Strong Support''' conspicuously admin material. —
'''Support''' I like your general attitude to wikipedia, and found your answer the optional question to be very well put.
'''Support''' see no reason to not support.--
'''Support'''—solid contributions, good answers to questions. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- More than fit for the promotion. Good luck to you.<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; background-color:#FFFFFF;">
'''Support''' - Balanced, and capable of working in emotionally dicey subject areas.
'''Strong Support'''.  Agree with the above sentiment.  We have a few simliar interests, so I've seen his edits for a while.  Wikipedia would do well to have more like him.
'''Support''' - good user, who could use the tools.
'''Support''', I see no reason why not.
'''Support''', good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Strong support''' Echoing R. Baley above, Wikipedia would do more than well to have him.  Our most urgent and desperate need is for a thousand of his kind. --
'''Support'''; absolutely yes.  More Raymonds and less lunatics.  Good answer to No. 3 by the way; we need more here with that sense of perspective.
'''Support'''. Commitment to building a neutral PoV encyclopedia.
'''Support''' on perspectives and "adminship=no big deal". –
'''Support''' although I'm not a [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptivist]], I liked the answers to questions 2 and 3. I have interacted with Raymond arritt on policy pages. Not only is he a prolific article writer judging by his contributions, he is also a consensus-builder, an editing approach that gets sadly ignored too often on Wiki. We need more admins like him. —
'''Support'''. Fair-minded. -
'''Support''' finally someone who is interested in dealing with the 3RR backlog.
'''Strong Support''' - How can someone oppose a crat Nom..and anyways you want to get rid of that evil 3RR Backlog problem for good..Go Ahead..Make my Day ;)--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' &mdash;I'll put the support stamp on this one! and per User:Outriggr &mdash;

'''Strong Support''' Piling on.
'''Support'''.  I particularly liked the response to the optional question.  One factor worth bearing in mind when weighing sources is the state of science journalism.  It takes a relatively rare combination of skills to understand complex scientific concepts and to convey those ideas accurately to the general public.  Even when a reporter has those skills his or her editor may lack them, and factual errors may creep into the manuscript before press time.  This is a frequent problem in the subfield.  The solution of using specialty journals as sources to express the ''science'' and general readership publications to convey the ''public perception of science'' is right on target. <font face="Verdana">
'''support''' per Durova, nom, Captain Panda, Riana and others.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q4; this two-tiered approach should inform our policy. --
'''Support'''. I'm also happy with the answer and grateful for the detailed response. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''', gladly; a breath of fresh air, IMO. ...
'''Support''' another decent nominator/decent candidate case here. :)
'''Support''', a good editor with a solid record.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' Will make an excellent administrator.--
'''Support'''  Definitely.

'''Strong Support''' He also is an excellent copyeditor (a veteran of Beatles editing) and that skill is not always found but very welcome in admins. <strong>
'''Strong Support''' Knowledgable and cool-headed. We need more like Raymond.
'''Support'''. Nominated by raul - definately a great candidate! Apart from that, everything looks good. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''.  Seen him around occasionally and he seems trustworthy enough.  The user page alone merits enthusiastic support for the sanity cabal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I have no reservations about this editor.
'''Support''' especially for Q4. &mdash;
Cliched '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - He is good.
'''Support''' - Looks solid enough for the tools.
'''Support''' excellent editor, will mop responsibly.
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
'''Support''' Raymond is my idea of a responsible contributor. Give him the buttons.
'''Support''' Per everybody else.
'''Support''' Per answer to Q4. He will make a good admin. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
I'm
'''Support''' Demonstrates adminly thinking, calm/civil demeanor, balance, caution and is not over-eager to seize the mindblowing raw power of the mopbucket. ;-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support''', intelligent and helpful editor who has been patient and principled with some of our most difficult material.
Very obvious that this user is made of win. Full support.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.Edits are all non contraversial.
'''Support''' I highly doubt he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seen you about, had thought you were one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Good answers, experience, and IfD could use all the help it can get. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' level-headed and experienced. Definitely qualified. -
'''Strong Support''' Rebelguys2 was one of my first wiki-friends, over a year ago. He is fair, level-headed, and a fine prose writer. He has already been working with image issues. He volunteered to help me get my first article to FA status. I know he'll make a fine admin.

'''Support''' - The last thing we need is another [[Texas Longhorns|Longhorn]] admin but I guess I'll let this one slide.↔
'''Support''' - a great find by Johntex.
'''Support''' Seems like a great person to trust with the tools. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. ''
'''Support''' -Loads of Wikiexperience and also Pretty good answers to all of the questions..Yay..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I see no problems with this application - a good spread of edits in the main spaces and responsible editing too.
'''Support''' Great user.--
Sorry for the trite cliché, but I could have sworn you already had the flag.  '''Support'''.  —
'''Support''' Hey, why would I not support, eh? [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' as I see nothing that would dissuade me, and plenty which leads me to believe he'd be a great admin. Twiddle that bit! ···
Overdue
I see some good image work here. Keep it up!
'''Support''': Seems pretty fine. --
I'm
'''Support''' Yep, no prob here.--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' this Texan cowboy! :) &mdash;

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Generally well qualified and interest in image work is a plus. --
'''Support'''. Solid. (I will bypass both Longhorn and Aggie jokes for the moment.)
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Shoop da Woop support''': strong candidate, will do great things for the project.
'''Support''' Everything looks good here. <font color="green">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support'''.  Duh.  &mdash;
'''Support''' → It seems to be a good user who can be trusted with the tools. <i><b>
'''Support'''. Definitely need more admins willing to do image cleanup work given the backlog at [[CAT:CSD]] (unknown copyright status = 17 days, no fair use rationale = 17 days, RFU = 14 days...) Looks trustworthy and experienced. Enjoy the backlogs mate... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. Rebelguys2 has chosen to specialize in image cleanup, a rather touchy area. As such, the behaviour should be above reproach, and I am sorry to find that it is not, and I do not trust this user with the tools. [[Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_March_12#Image:Cindy.jpg|This discussion]] is one example of this user's behaviour. First, this image was nominated because Rebelguys2 looked through my logs during a dispute about an unrelated issue. This is not comparable to checking the logs of someone recently discovered to have uploaded 3 or 4 CV images, and this sort of targetting is, in my opinion, unbecoming an admin. It blurs the distinction between behaviour and neutral policy enforcement, and that is a bad thing in the long run. I would oppose for this reason alone, but in addition the original nomination showed poor research, suggesting a lack of future diligence as an admin. When this error was pointed out, the response was not to apologize for the error or suggest solutions, but rather to create yet more arguments for deletion. In fact, during the remaining discussion, the user not once used his image expertise to help or make any suggestions about how to resolve the problem. We don't need admins who prefer confrontational approaches to collaborative ones.
'''Support''' From what I've seen of him personally, he'll make a wonderful admin which can only benefit Wikipedia. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' why not? You seems to have the experience to be a admin. Good luck.
'''Support''' Solid contributor and vandal fighter. '''
'''Support'''. Your contribs show a nice combination of automated vandal fighting and article building.
'''<S>Placeholder</s> support''' - I particularly like your answer to Q2 - however I wait with interest your response to Q4 (should you choose to respond, of course) --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Updated: All looks good to me. --
'''Support'''.  Sufficient number of edits, and good ones at that.  Only minor concern is the political activism, per Just James, but I can live with that.  Don't mess up!
'''Support'''. Just happened to see him around regularly; has made some nice contributions. Can't see anything wrong with supporting.
'''Weak support''' I looked through of few of the editors contributions and they were good enough.
'''Support''', of course. Lots of anti-vandalism work, and comments in discussions like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Geelong|this]] look good and indicate a knowledge of policy. <b>
'''Support''' - have seen a fair bit of Recurring Dreams' editing performance on Australia-related pages, and have every reason to think he will make an excellent and thoughtful admin.
'''Support''' My contact and experience with the editor have always been good, and I have faith in their use of the tools.
'''Support''' - Per his answers, and the fact that nothing has been sufficiently found for me to oppose. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Excellent answers to my questions, see no reason to oppose. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' - as per comments by others, I have had only good experience with this editor.  I  see no reason to believe he would not manage his admin duties neutrally when it came to Australian politics or any other controversial topic --
'''Support''' Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --'''
'''Support''' per answers to my questions. '''
'''Support''' Solid contribs, consistently fights vandalism, only has best interests of Wikipedia in mind.
'''Support''' After some solid thought I believe Recurring dreams is right up to par with the admins. He'll make a fine addition to the admin squad. Good luck!
'''Support''' A respected editor and no reason to expect abuse of the tools. --
'''Support''' Highly respected user who will suit the job quite well.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' Spot on answer to my question 5 (IMHO). Ticks all the other boxes in terms of knowledge, calmness etc. which removes any concerns about political intersts overspilling. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I freaking offered to nominate you...*slaps* '''
'''Support''' A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - yes, everything seems in order. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
I'm
Should make a great addition to the Aussie admin ranks. And for what it's worth, I wanted to nominate you. :) ~
'''Support''' I think you'll do just fine.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions. He also made very sensible comments in the debate over the hotly-contested [[John Howard]] article. I notice there has been a Neutral voter who mentioned the chance of political bias, but he did not provide any data we could consider.
'''Support''' outstanding. —
'''Suppport''' seems to have the experience, skill, and demeanor required, and a good idea about [[Special:Unwatchedpages]].
'''Support''' this user knows what he's doing, has been very helpfull in the past.
'''Weak Support''' As a fellow vandalism fighter, I would welcome another Wikipedia defender to the ranks of administrators. But after examining some of your edits to articles concerning Australian politics, I am concerned that you may be politically biased, which could affect your ability to be a neutral administrator.--
'''Support''', but suggest treading very carefully using admin tools on Australian political articles, especially at first. I don't touch UK political articles for much the same reason (I am incredibly biased on the topic).
'''Support''' Every Editor has a POV whether it is in politics,chemistry,Geography so no issue with that and as per his reply to Neil and Just James that he is not going to use admin powers in content dispute and user has a good track.
'''Strong support''' A civil and helpful collaborator who has demonstrated his worth over an extended period of time, and works to put in the hard yards so I have every confidence the mop will be safe in his hands. In my view, NPOV does not require not having a point of view, it relates to exercising discretion and judgement neutrally - we all have opinions, we're all human, and we're all subject to review of our actions by other admins.
'''Support''' Thank you, RD, for answering my questions with clear explanations. I admit that with regards to the [[Karl Stefanovic]] issue, I'd have had no way of knowing that was an ongoing issue, so I will discount that, and accept that you know the history of that article much better than I. I see no valid reason to oppose you, and I truly do think that you'll be a great addition to the administrative team, but I would echo the cautions given above, to tread with caution with articles relating to Australian politics, perhaps even handing issues to another editor so to avoid any possible claim that you're biased. While I personally feel you'd most likely ''not'' be biased, I'm sure you're aware of the sensitivity of the issue. I will take your assurances that you would not be premature in blocking an editor who had not done egregious damage, or one who hasn't received proper warnings, and I would imagine that once you have the ability to block someone, you will most likely be quite cautious. I think this project would benefit from having you expand your participation into the areas of administration, and I look forward to congratulating you in a couple of days. <sup>
'''Support''' Have ran into edits by RD many times and everytime I have they have been significantly positive for the project.
'''Support''' Seen him/her around the place. A great editor--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support'''.  Good editor, won't abuse the tools.  Good work with AFD.  '''
'''Support'''. I have observed consistently positive contributions from this editor over time
'''Support'''. Good editor, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' Great contributor and avid vandal fighter; no concerns here. --
'''Support''' Good work in vandal fighting and AfD, seems to know policy quite well so I think will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Has done the same things then I do before my 2nd nomination, so will be another good admin.--
'''Support''' Strong editor. See no reason to oppose. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''.
'''50'''. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''. My own observations of this editor have all been positive and I feel Recurring dreams will make an excellent addition to the Aussie Cabal. :-)
Per general support for adminbots. Is this a move towards sanity?
As the programmer, I support my code. —— '''
'''Support''' as bot operator who has reviewed and tested the code - it works as expected, there are no security issues or potentially bad situations that could cause the bot to perform unexpected operations. --
'''Strong support''' This will be very useful to have, and of course I trust the owner and coder :) '''
'''Strong support''' (note: [[WP:BAG|Bot approvals group]] member)) - code is public, its hard to screw up, no judgment involved whatsoever on the bots part. It's a no brainer support --
'''Support''' - (many edit conflicts) The concept is good and I trust that the code is sound. I was initially concerned on understanding that this was to be an admin bot, and no less a deletion bot, but since it will only delete under such strict circumstances, I cannot imagine it being a problem.
'''Support''' ➪
'''Support''' — if it won't make decisions, why not? --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Obvious support'''. A job that a bot can easily perform and a bot with thoroughly reviewed code. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Job is uncontroversial and tedious, perfect application for a bot. I have read, and understood the source code, and it will function as described. (
'''Support''' - code makes sense, and is a good opportunity for us to take the step of allowing admin bots, especially for menial chores such as this (where the human admin is effectively taking on the role of robot when deleting the redirects). Important point is that bot only deletes pages with one edit, so most applications will be to pseudonyms created by the author of a bio article since deleted under CSD G7.  Effectively, most applications of this bot will simply extend the human speedy deletion procedure.
'''Definite support'''! We definitely need a bot like this. I'm pretty sure that anything coded by Eagle101 would handle just fine. :) <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' As someone who's done this tedious task, it will be a relief for a bot to take over! I'm happy that with the restrictions specified, there is little chance of any problems. I trust the author and code reviewers judgements that it's bug free. →
'''Strong support''', and I also recuse myself from closing this RFA. '''
'''Support''' - This looks to me like a bot task, and the bot will be operated by an admin.
'''Support''' as BAG member. Simple bot task, a matter of giving a +sysop flag to a +sysop user already. An incredibly simple task, no major requirements. Code is available which is a big plus. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
I am in general support of this bot getting an admin bit, but I have to wonder if there are more pressing tasks that deserve admin bots.  The reasoning behind the nom is that the task is fairly tedious and it is a "trivial task [that] could be done just as well automatically."  That describes  many admin tasks... (CSD backlogs, anyone?) This task does not seem so pressing, but if it can allow a kind-of back door allowance for more admin bots with solid code and trusted operators, why not? --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
Hmm, let's see. No answers to questions, no indication that it will communicate well with users, not enough prior experience in the area where it plans to use its admin powers, and an edit count of 0 is a bit low. Yes, I'm joking.<br>I've just reviewed the code. I can only see one way it would go wrong, and it's in an extremely improbable situation: an announcement is added to the Wikipedia interface, containing a bulleted list, and one bullet point begins with a link to a page that's only been edited once. The bot would then delete that announcement page, thinking it was a dead redirect. I can't see this happening in reality, and it wouldn't be a huge problem even if it did, since it would only affect one page and would be easily fixed. Human admins are much more likely to make much bigger mistakes.<br>In short, I trust this bot to do what it's meant to do, and I '''support'''.
'''Support''', meets all of my criteria in [[User:Gracenotes/Admin bot]]. Two not-so-essential requests, though: 1. Could the bot recognize the {{tl|bots}} templates for exceptions? 2. Could the bot please include the target page in the edit summary? The former will allow for (as stated) exceptions, in case one is needed, and the latter can allow for human review, and help in situations where retargeting is more appropriate than deletion. Granted, these changes will make make the code less pithy, but in my opinion they're worth it.
'''Support''' - the operator is an admin and the coder is an admin.  The bot has already been approved by WP:BRFA.  I've read the code and it seems fine assuming the format for our history pages don't radically change.  '''~a''' (
Do I trust WJBscribe? Absolutely. Do I trust Eagle 101? Absolutely. By extension, can I '''support''' this bot? Absolutely.
'''Support''' This is a beneficial and no-risk task, perfectly suited for a bot. —''
'''Support''' --while it may set precedent, its advantages overweigh its disadvantages.
'''Support.''' Would this be the first admin bot to pass an RfA? Anyways, I trust the owners and the users who have reviewed the code.
'''Support''' based on assurance by WjBscribe and Eagle101 that the task scope will never be expanded.  Upon further rumination, rather than oppose or remain neutral on this particular RfA, it makes much more sense for me to say that I will strongly oppose any '''future''' bot RfA where the operator does not '''explicitly''' make this same assurance.  I’ll be strking out my neutral below in a second. --
'''Very Weak Support''' - I've always hated the idea of having a bot become an admin, but ressurence counts. I'll give it a go for now. --
I strongly support this nomination. It doesn't bother me that this nominee isn't a person. All bots I know about are extremely useful and needed.
'''Support''' this thoughtful and reasonable request.--
'''Support''' Shouldn't even need to go through this process. <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''.  The code looks correct, and this looks like a useful task for a bot. --
'''Support''' even though the bot has unacceptably low template and portal talk counts.  :-)  -
'''OH NOES!  ADMIN BOTS WILL BLOCK US ALL!!!!!''' Err ... I mean ... '''strong support'''. Seriously, I've always thought opposition to adminbots was silly.  I trust a bot more than I do a human.  Humans can go rogue.  Humans can push a POV.  Bots just do what you tell them to. --
'''Support''' there is nothing wrong, very useful bot.
'''Support''' - trust the bot operator and the coder.  Have overcome fear that bots will block us all. If the bot needs admin powers to accomplish this one tedious task, it seems reasonable to allow that.  Operator and coder have allowed that it be immediately blocked if they/it make(s) a mistake, so I see no reason to disallow this experiment in cleanup. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' I just tried going through broken redirects myself, and even with Twinkle deletion to speed it up, its still a boring, menial task. The faster we can clear such uncontroversial backlogs the better. <font face="Broadway">
'''Strongest possible support'''. Administrators shouldn't be stuck doing work an automated process can manage with a 0% error rate. We choose administrators here because they write content, or are good at dealing with people, or know their way around the more complicated sections of this website. To drag people away from doing much more meaningful work here is ludicrous. I've had a hell of a lot of experience with Eagle's coding with the old IRC Spotbot stuff and I've never, at any time, had any suspicions he doesn't know exactly what he's doing. I've also rustled up some half baked utilities for Wikipedia myself, so I believe I'm qualified to repeat "a program can only do what it's designed to do" idiom.
'''Support''' given the strong promises made to never expand the bot's approved task.  --
'''Support''' No reason not to, plus, the bot saves me the annoyance! :)
I trust WJBscribe and Eagle 101 for the code so the bot should be fine. A bit irregular to trust a bot, but the source code has been reviewed by AmiDaniel so everything seems good. --
'''Support'''. I have no problem supporting this endeavor provided my concern (noted above) about maintaining an unbroken chain of admin rights in the management of the code base is met.
'''Support''' I can definately see why this bot should have adminship.
'''Support.''' I have no problem with a tightly-restricted adminbot. I'm a little concerned about unanticipated corner cases, so I hope there will be a log created that everyone can check, before too many redirects are processed. Regarding Question 4, from [[User_talk:F_Mita|F Mita]], I argue that the Talk pages of dead redirects should be kept for human inspection. (There shouldn't be very many of them).  I also support the two features requested by [[User:Gracenotes|Gracenotes]], above.
'''Support''' with the hope that over time we may see more tasks given to bots with the sysop bit turned on. ++
'''support''' As long as bots with admin tools are coded properly, they should not do anything like delete the main page as they are not self aware... yet --
'''support''' as per B.
Don't tell Aphaia. &ndash;
Strong support. '''
'''Support''' <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' Okay.
'''Support''' Bot will do a menial yet necessary task.  Most concerns are addressed, and I'm highly confident in [[User:WJBscribe|Will]]'s and other reviewer's judgment about the bot. However, a bot is only as good as it's curator, so I suggest constant supervision by both Eagle and other admins. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support'''. Seems an appropriate task, with little downside should any unanticipated cases arise.
'''Support''', as there's no way that (as it stands) this bot will prove any harm with having a delete button.—
'''Support''' Pile-on support from this admin <b>
'''Support''' - My questions are well answered. My suspicions are proven false, since this bot does not have an admin flag. '''
It's the distant future, the year 2000.  The humans are dead. --
'''Support''' When a task needs to be done, and that task requires a certain access level, it should be granted. This bot, like all bots, can and will be shut down if it ever begins rampaging; nothing to fear. -
'''Support''' - reasonably limited scope (to prevent false positives being fucked up by the bot), operator is not a dimwit, apparently there will be a publically usable shutoff function, and hey, if it goes berserk there's always undelete+block, no?
Ok.  My concerns have been addressed, and I trust the operator.  I'll go along with this.
'''Support''' We definitely need a bot like this. No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Per the commitment that the bot never adds any other tasks. --
'''Support''' - I doubt the bot will go rogue, and if it does, it can be fixed, right? ;) Also, I think the user is trusted enough to maintain this bot. Regards, '''
'''Support'''. Is this the first Adminbot?
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  I'm glad to see it'll have an emergency shutoff.
Code looks fine to me.
'''Support''' While this is the first I know of such things, I too have visions of rouge FrankenBots. However, all seems well. —
'''Support''' Nothing controversial, so I'm fine with it. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' - adequate assurances from the nomination and the management of two very well trusted editors earns my full support. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' The point that some opposers seem to miss is that these redirects are currently being deleted by hand by admins which, of course, have a brain but choose not to use it too much when doing these repetitive, beyond-boring deletions. Are they being lazy? No, they're being efficient. If anything, this bot may help in ''decreasing'' the mistakes made when deleting broken redirects. It would be trivial for the bot to be modified so that it tags broken redirects that have a history so that they can be considered with more care by admins.
'''Support''' with complete trust and a slap in the face with a big wet trout to opposers :) --'''
'''<big>+</big>'''  This is a surprise, I really didn't think I could ever support a bot with a flag.  However, this is an absolutely non-controversial, menial task and I do on a personal level trust the coding knowledge of WJBScribe, AmiDaniel, and Eagle 101.  So this is a rare trust support from myself.
'''support'''. I don't program, so I haven't reviewed the code. But I trust WJBscribe and Eagle_101, as well as the others who have reviewed the code. This type of task is exactly what an AdminBot would be useful for. --
'''Support''' Will and Eagle have my full trust and support and I have no qualms about their proposal.
'''Support'''. This is a perfectly sensible task for a bot to do, the source code is completely open, and the developers and nominator are all trusted members of the community. --'''<font color="#C31562">
Absolutely. ~
Support; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RedirectCleanupBot&diff=162412812&oldid=162412421 the operator knows what he's doing]. --
'''Support''' - no issues at all here. And sources too? Wow! -
Support, sounds like a good task for a bot.
'''Support''' Good task for a bot and two trustworthy admins in charge.
'''Weak support.''' I know absolutely nothing about programming or how bots work. However, as I understand it, the bot can be blocked if it does anything wrong, and its admin rights will then be revoked by a steward. I think we may as well give this a chance for now. As pointed out above, humans are more likely to go insane than bots are, and are much harder to stop. Besides, this may be a good precedent for the future; one day I would like to see a bureaucrat-bot closing RfAs, counting the votes and promoting accordingly, thus eliminating the need for a small élite group who have ''far'' too much power for their own good.
'''Support''' per the code being publically available (from henceforth, this will be my criteria for any and all adminbot RFAs).
'''Support'''. This bot can accomplish a great deal and I see very little that could go wrong. If the bot malfunctions it can be quickly blocked. As others have pointed out, this ''isn't'' going to be an AI admin, just a bot with an extra flag to help it get its work done.
'''Strongest Possible Support'''. I've said before that there are many CSD that could be automated, and this is one of them. CSD R1 is one of the simplest to determine in terms of delete/keep. If the redirect is red, nuke it. Human administrators delete many many daily. Why shouldn't such a mundane task be put to a bot, who (when programmed, and I fully trust Eagle's abilities) can do it faster and without taking the time. To those who wish WJBscribe to be more bot-experienced, I must say that I do trust his judgement, and all bot operators were new at some point. Plus, let's assume it went crazy and deleted stuff it shouldn't...wouldn't it be easy enough to block the bot and restore the pages? Finally, as WJBscribe pointed out, admins cannot delete when they are blocked, so we have well over 1000 administrators who can stop it if it goes awry, not having to wait for bot operator intervention. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>
Of course. What could go wrong with deleting redirects to nonexistent pages? Unlike with vandalism reversions or image taggings, the potential for errors here is extremely small. What a redirect to a nonexistent page is is an objective thing. Automation is good, when it's handed responsibly. It takes away the workload from our "real" admins, and gives them more time to do the more complicated deletions. <b>
'''Support''' - As many others have said, this will give our admins more time to do less repetitive tasks, thereby helping the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' we already tolerate several adminbots making deletions (some of them, tens of thousands) and of content a lot more controversial than redirects. So... here's an uncontroversial cleanup task, it would be silly to not have a bot doing it. Opposers should take a few admins to ArbCom if they feel so strongly about adminbots. --
'''Support''' - the bot's operator and programmer have my fullest confidence and trust, therefore I have no reason not to support their effort to implement this bot with the sysop bit.
Function, check. Transparency, check. Source code, check. Operator, check. Checklist complete, cleared for mop. -
'''Support''' I have no objection to adminbots with trustworthy operators running on boring tasks like this. --'''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' as long as this bot is operated by WjBscribe.--
Per betacommand. —
'''Support''' useful, and seems like it will have lots of eyes on it to prevent/troubleshoot problems.
'''Support'''. I have inspected the code. It's very simple and thus easy to test.  This provides confidence that the bot will work as planned. -
'''Support''' simple ˉˉ<sup>
One of the reasons I don't generally like the idea of an admin bot is the number of judgement calls that the average administrator must make. This bot will be involving itself in none of those areas. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' I am all for careful, thoughtful automation of tedious or repetitive tasks.
'''Technical and moral support'''; I have reviewed the code, and it is sufficiently straightforward that any putative damaged caused by an unseen bug would be minor, trivially detected and simple to undo.  Morally, I have no opposition to an admin bot '''iff''' it has ''exactly'' one well-defined task, strict criterion to do the task, and the operator has the bit himself (to avoid privilege escalation).  This is currently the case.   &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I'm convinced the bot will not delete valid redirects. In essense this is a mere technical measure that allows a bot to do the grunt work. However, I'll support only under the premise that the bot only be granted the sysop bit ''after'' being approved via [[WP:RFBA]] and is confined to those tasks being approved for. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' A clear outline is given, I believe this bot can save admins time to tackle other backlogs.

'''Support''' I have a Scooba (an iRobot brand robot mop) at home - it mops almost as well I do, but with less work - Let a computer do the mopping here too. Adminship is no big deal - give the bot the mop. Note: I do not like all bots - I hate the Sinebot.
—&nbsp;'''
'''Support'''. I believe this bot could help the backlog problem. I frankly find the opposes about blocking and edit history and comparisons to I, Robot very odd. '''''
Provided that any change to the source code is noted somewhere ''before'' it is implemented. And that ''any'' new task, no matter how trivial it is, requires community approval. -
'''Support''', as I trust the coders to be responsive to problems. I am also absolutely thrilled at the idea of a not human performing this horribly boring task.
'''Support''' Per "need for the tools". ;)
'''Support'''.  With the guarantee that the bot's scope will not be expanded, I see little danger.--
'''Support'''. Sounds like a good idea to me, and has good enough source that it shouldn't do any harm in the process.  --
Adminship is both a technical and political position &ndash; if the computer program only participates in the technical aspect, and doesn't make decisions (political aspect of adminship), then there is no reason to grant it the capability to do its task. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' See no problems.
Oppose, not enough [[WP:AFD]] not a single meaningful article editing experience, sorry bot. '''Support''' of course ;) --
'''Support'''- A bot is needed to help with the repetitive admin tasks.
'''Support'''- I see no problems with the bot. I almost would rather have bots doing administrative tasks than humans. --'''
'''Support'''. I don't see any problems. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Support''' Of course. This job is a pain, and completely simple. As to the people saying he doesn't have experience, he knows what the bot should be doing right? He knows how to stop the bot right? Well, there you go. - '''
'''Support''' Looks this will do a valuable task. I somehow doubt that the bot will go [[WP:ROUGE| rouge]] and kill us all. --
Support. ''If'' it goes rogue, call me to pitch in in the cleanup. Until then... :) -- <b>
'''I trust bots more than humans support''' —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' A bot can definitely handle a non-contentious administrative task such as this:  Good judgment is not a prerequisite when your programmer has it. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]] —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Strong support''' The bot has a stronger password than the majority of the human admins here. The bot has an unambiguous task, and is the responsibility of two well respected admins. There are the normal failsafes in effect for bots, plus some which are frankly unneeded, but add to the apparent security of the system. Other WMF wikis (commons, for instance) have adminbots with no problems.It's about time we automate some of the more menial tasks here. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''.  Doesn't look bad to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I trust the bot operators, and the task is simple and straight forward. This is a technical issue, and we trust Wikipedia's own built-in software all the time, the fact that it's technically a bot doesn't make a big difference to me. Until we can make these things a part of MediaWiki, we'll need to use these kinds of setups. --
'''Support, but with the condition''' that Eagle must add [[Three Laws of Robotics|these]] into the bot's positronic brain prior to activation.  (Just kidding.  '''Seriously, support.'''  Both the coder and the operator can be trusted, and it seems they've even given the bot a specific name to limit any future easy "evolution." Besides, it'll be nice to prove that the sky won't fall...)  '''
'''Support''' - The bot is a tool, the task well defined, and I trust the operator & programmer. --
'''Support''' The task is something that needs to be done, and the code looks harmless.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I used to slog through the broken redirects many months ago until I realized it was a total waste of time (especially because I was not, and still am not, an admin).  It's refreshing that someone finally realized a bot could do this task.  There is nothing controversial about it, and I hope it works well.
'''Support''': Although per Freakofnurture, I agree that creating a new account for this shouldn't be necessary.  Since WJB would likely catch more heat for running the bot as himself, I guess this is the best alternative.  —
'''Support'''; sensible.  It's going to be deleting redirects, not launching ICBMs.  No big deal.
'''Support''' - Makes sense. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - Just a question to all the opposes:  We already trust a [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Main_Page monster of a program] with ''database access'', and due to its size, has a ''greater'' chance to mess up than does this bot.  Why not trust this bot with sysop powers?  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Strongest possible support'''.  The scaremongering regarding adminbots is misplaced.  I have far more concerns about the judgment of some of our human administrators than I do about a 40-line piece of code that absolutely, positively, cannot do anything more than it's been programmed to do.  There are some people who I would not want to run bots with administrative powers due to prior examples of poor judgment, but this does not apply to either WJB or Eagle, who have shown nothing but good judgment from day one.  Get cracking, RCB.  —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- fairly uncontrovertial housekeeping. If an editor wants to keep a broken redirect, they can always recreate a placeholder page and then change the content back to the redirect. So any controvertial actions (I expect that there will only be a few) can undone with minimal hassle.  — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' having these admin logs stand on their own is fine for me, and this bot admin request is signifigantly differant then past request I've opposed for numerous reasons (e.g. tor bot (a blocking bot), protection bot (a page protection bot) )  As this account has vowed to only perform this task, removal of admin priv's wouldn't require a drawn-out arbcom case, as this is at it's cor a bot.  The bot approvals group can yank bot approvals and indefblock if this started misbehaving, and any other admin is encourgaed to block "malfunctioning" bots that are causing any disruption at any time.  As for the "you have two accounts" arguments, bot's who's operators are blocked/banned/put on probation are subject to the same restrictions, as they are simply extensions of their operators. —
'''Support'''.  The task is straightforward.  As for trust, the bot owner is an admin, a position one gets after being demonstrably worthy of trust, so the next step after casting doubt on his rationale for wanting to sysop the bot is to demand an emergency desyopping of the dangerous bot owner.  Since nobody seems to be doing that, I have to assume that this rationale is straw grasping.  I am not qualified to check the code, but people who do seem to be qualified have stated that it does what it says on the label.  -
'''Support''' per Cobi. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' Seems like a fair task for an adminbot to handle.
'''Support''' I would like to see a robot be an admin someday, but I hope that it will not block me :) .
'''Support''' Totally uncontroversial task. Should the bot misbehave it can be blocked just like any other bot. Basic housekeeping, there is no need to make a fuss about this.
➔ '''
'''Support''' - after reading the proposal, the RfA and the answers provided to my questions above.
'''Support''' Normally with an RfA, there's always the risk that an editor is not what they appear and that despite all research there's still an unknown problem with them. With an adminbot, it's possible to read the source code and ''know'' what the bot can and can't do, so there's less risk than with a normal adminship request. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 13:32, 8 October 2007 (
'''Support'''  This is an admin task ideally suited for automation. --
'''Support''', per the thread below.
'''Support''', no convincing reasons not to.
'''Support'''. It's long past time that adminbots take over tasks which don't require judgment. From reviewing the source and the operators answers to questions, I'm confident that we're not being led up the garden path.
'''Support''' - Normally takes me a bit to go through contribs, but didn't have to in this case, support as long as the bot only functions in doing what it is approved to do.
'''Support''' - I've seen and read ''I, Robot.'' I am not afraid.
'''Support'''. Maintenance tasks are non-controversial, and of adequate benefit for me to accept this admin-bot despite my general skepticism against automated admins.
'''Support''' - no reason not to. It's very useful. And it doesn't have a mind of it's own so it's definately trustworthy isn't it? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. I am satisfied that nothing untoward will happen and that the use of administrative tools by a bot is appropriate in this instance.
'''Support''', I trust WjBScribe. Task is non-controversial and ''farking'' tedious and if all else fails, we de-sysop the bot and we've learned a good lesson. Why waste the valuable time of a human admin for something as simple as clicking the delete button a hundred times? A bot can check for non-existent history and delete much faster than a human, and it saves our time. I'm for it. &spades;
'''Strong Support''' I'm all in favor of automating as much of the mechanical tasks as possible.
'''Support''', a trivial task, I have full confidence in admin running the bot.
'''Support''' no reason to oppose. -
'''Support'''. The task this bot will perform does not require judgment, thus a bot will do it well. --
'''Support''', this concept is carefully thought through, well-executed, and a task ideally suited to a bot (repetitive, often necessary, and requiring of no human judgment whatsoever). The code looks good, and I trust both the technical skill and good judgment of the bot's creators, so no reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Repetitive, boring tasks should be carried out by bots whenever possible; given that it has apparently been demonstrated that this bot will not misbehave, I see no reason why it shouldn't be given the ability to delete pages. And if it ''does'' misbehave, we can just block it and clean up after it - it's not different from a rogue admin, except that it'd not act out of malice, which actually is an advantage a bot has over a person). --
'''Support''' per above.  All my serious concerns have been answered.  Tally ho!
'''Support''' - very satisfied with the As to the Qs. Not worried about a [[robot uprising]] although if they did I'm sure there would be some improvements.
'''Support''' per my comments on the talk page.  —
'''Support''' Having read all the questions and answers see no reason why this should not be implemented.
'''Support''' &ndash; I have reviewed the bot's source code, I trust that it will operate properly as written, and I trust its operators.  It's harmless and useful per [[Wikipedia:Bot policy]]. That's all that needs to be taken into account.  That being said, I find that this is the wrong venue for this discussion.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' - seems like a good idea.  Is there anyway to restrict the admin/sys set up to only one admin function at at time?  then we could easily ensure against ''mission creep''.  --
'''Support''' It seems odd to me that we even need to discuss this here. --
'''Support''' The bot seems like it will serve a useful purpose, and the function seems very well thought through and narrowly defined.  The odds of it screwing up or "going berserk" seem pretty slim.
'''Support''' The bot appears to be useful, has the emergency button on its user page, and has a public source code.
'''Strongest possible oppose'''.  Bots should not have admin bits.
'''Strong oppose''' A bot is not a human. Has anyone here ever seen [[I, Robot]]? Basically, that film sums up my point. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Strong Oppose.'''  Not nearly enough editing experience [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RedirectCleanupBot], especially in project space.
'''Oppose''' - I'm really really sorry to do this, but I really don't think this is a good idea. I'm more than happy with us having admin bots - properly sourced bots could take away quite a few tedious admin tasks. However, for me to support a user running an admin bot, I would have to see a lot of previous experience running bots. I trust Eagle (and everyone else who understands the code) that it would work and do a good job, however they still have the potential to go wrong. WJB, I fully trust your judgement, but in area's that you have expertise (which is just about everywhere else). I just don't feel comfortable giving the most powerful bot to someone with very little bot experience.
'''Very strong oppose''' This program has a Pre-alpha AI, cannot help in [[CAT:UNBLOCK]], and it cannot block stupid vandals.
'''Oppose''' I'm just not crazy about deletions by bot. An admin should at least spend the time it takes to read the redirect to decide if maybe there's some other action to take...maybe the redirect should be retargeted, or maybe there should be an article there...or maybe in some cases the target does need an article after all (depending on why the target was deleted if that's why the redirect is broken)...whatever, a final pair of eyes is needed. I'm also worried about a general increase in acceptance of bot deletions for the same reasons, don't want to see this become a precedent for other requests of this kind. I don't want this to go through just because of a general enthusiasm for technology. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep the broken redirect backlog clear I don't see why we need this. And just a quick comment, I certainly trust the developer(s) and operators....it's not an issue of the bot going sideways or anything.
'''Oppose'''  WJBcribe is already an administrator and granting a person access to 2 accounts with administrator access is prohibited according to Wikipedia rules.  The operator of the bot could run the bot without sysop tools and simply monitor its findings.  He does not need 2 sysop privileges, which is against Wikipedia policy. [[User:AS 001|AS 001]] 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)<small>Note: User registered today and has very few edits. '''
'''Oppose'''. I fail to see why this is considered necessary and it seems silly to give adminship to a computer program. Adminship is a position of trust in our community, intended to intelligently and appropriately carry out important tasks.
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal WJB, but Ryan Postlethwaite sums up my concerns perfectly. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">Carbon</font>
'''Oppose''' along the same lines as RxS and AmiDaniel. I don't take issue in particular with giving a bot administrator tools. This, though, is frankly unnecessary. Many red redirects could be profitably retargeted by us living beings (and those without a history could be the result of someone making a typo when actually trying to create a profitable redirect). It's fine if any particular editor doesn't want to take the time to do examine the redirects - including the admins involved here, who I respect - but it's not necessary to perform the task in a slipshod way. If a normal bot tags the whole list for speedy deletion, someone will examine the redirects. If it just generates a list and throws it up somewhere accessible, I'm even willing to do a large percentage of it myself. Isn't that a better solution?

'''Oppose (but willing to reconsider)''' - I started editing when I saw a dead link and created an article which others eventually started to edit.  If the bot was in place, it would have cleaned up way too fast and caused at least one editor not to begin to contribute to WP and his knowledge forever lost from WP.  Also admin powers are never (for practical purposes) taken away so this bot could evolve and we would have no recourse.  WJBScribe hasn't explained why the bot cannot just use his sysop powers.  He'll shut off the bot when he wants to edit or delete an article (he could request a user name change to WJB/RedirectClnUpBot)
'''Very Strong Opose''' - Although I like the idea of this bot in essence, I have serious issues with a bot recieving administrator rights. Bots are not human opperators, they're lines of programing and taking the human element out of this leaves a huge potential for error and  abuse.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think that bots should have the authority to delete pages, even in a limited way as described in this nomination. -
'''Oppose''' - Per Ryan Postlethwaite, I'm sorry but it just doesn't feel right granting admin rights to bot managed by a user with little experience running bots, if it was to malfunction we could end up with some real chaos and that's not something I'm willing to risk just to get rid of a few monotone tasks. -
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' - I'm not an expert with bots and my little experience (aka run-ins) with bots have been rather . . . odd. I do have faith in the nominators, but I only hope this little Bot doesn't decide [[HAL 9000|to go rogue]]... -
I'm paranoid too...so I can't support, basically as per Warthog Demon.  Not that it'll mattter. &nbsp;&mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. I have absolutely no problem with the purpose of this bot and no wish to block its sysopping, but generally am opposed to bot admins. I have opposed other bot RFAs which have seemed more controversial, but this seems non-problematic. I decline to support based not on mistrust of the operators, opposition to the bot, or any other qualms about this particular RFA, but out of general paranoia about and mistrust of bot admins.--
'''Neutral''' - while I trust the operators and coders of this bot, I am still wary of automation.  As the comments in the coding section indicate, even the best programmers may overlook something.  While it's not big enough for me to oppose over, I'll consider this a trial run of the concept.  --
'''Neutral''', since I'm not sure the bot will function properly, I want to see the bot in [[CAT:RECALL]].
'''Neutral''' (leaning to support) While I have 200% confidence in this bot not screwing up anything and with the absolute trust in the operator and coder, I stand by the fact that one edit can totally rip off a new contributor's editing career here.  All newbies are different in their own aspect, and we might get one who likes to fix ''broken'' or ''double'' redirects.  This is the sole concern that I have about this bot's sysopping, otherwise I would've supported. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Neutral''' I don't like the precedent of allowing admin bots.  This task, deleting single edit redirects to non-existant targets, is sufficiently narrowly drawn that it does seem amenable to bot activity.  And I trust the individual running the bot to stay within the requested task.  But I stand in opposition to allowing the bot any further tasks or any expansion of this task without another full RfA.  This is a caution to the Bot Approvals Group - as they must be the ones to enforce the restriction once an admin flag is granted.
'''Support''' per nom, a good user who could use the tools.
'''Obvious support''' - good luck! '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''[[User:Majorly|Majorly]] Support''' - a good user who will use the tools well. Plus, Majorly nom'ed him, so he must be good. <small>(If this sounds bad, [[WP:AGF|AGF]] please)</small> :-) --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Support''' will only use the tools for good.
'''Support''' Uh...obviously.  Well-rounded user, and will do a great admin job around here.
'''Support''', go get 'em. --
'''Support''' - He is very experienced and will use the tools well ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin candidate.
'''Support''' - The AWB request page could use another maintainer.  Requesters are forced to wait due that page's lack of attention far too often.  Suggestion: a notice (to requesters) at the top of that page to contact you to let you know they are waiting, may help to speed things up.  '''''
'''Support''', Seems like user will use the tools properly. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
No signs that he will abuse the extra tools, and good contributions to the article namespace. --
Coming out of hibernation just to '''support''' this. A positive user if I ever saw one &mdash;
I'm
'''support''', user has a great history and would make a terrific admin <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Excellent, experienced candidate who I'm sure will mop wisely. -
'''Support''' no concerns here, good candidate. —
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Support''' The kind of user who I would trust with the mop and bucket. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Certainly!''' He will be a great asset with the mop!
'''Strong Support''' The man is an editing machine who has also contributed greatly to many areas of Wikipedia life. So despite concerns about the low number of mainspace edits (just joking, since Reedy Boy has like a billion mainspace edits :-), this Alabamaboy is happy to support Reedy Boy!--
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' excellent user.
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience and will be an asset as an administrator. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strong support''' agree with the above.
--''[[User:Wikipedier|Wikipedier]]'' is now
'''Support''' so bad your head will spin! Definitely would make an amazing admin. ~[[User:EdBoy002|Ed]]
'''Support''' I have encountered this user at [[WP:AWB|AWB]] and found him to be very helpful and a fine asset to the community. I thing his worked will flourish with the additional tools.
'''Support''' Strong support. Sam pretty much lives Wikipedia. He really wants it to be the best tool it can be. His personal knowledge and dedication will be a valuable asset for the project.
'''Support'''-Been here much longer than is needed to be a good admin. Tools will be good for AWB related things, and other admin jobs. --
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Seems like an honest, dependable editor. Just what we need as an admin. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support''' per the sentiment expressed above by [[User:hmwith|hmwith]]. The candidate seems to me to be calm, polite, enthusiastic about contributing to the project, and has a good understanding of and plenty of experience with policy and processes. No concerns on my part. Cheers, '''
'''Support''' Good person to get the tools.
'''Support''' Certainly nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' A good honest, polite Wikipedian with a ton of experience under their belt. I think you'll do a fine job. --
'''Support''' Hooray for anti-vandals! Great user, great cause.
'''Support'''. Strong support because I know Sam is kind, keen and dedicated (we work together on my plugin and AWB, and chat on MSN). Support neutered just a little bit because despite what some of the above assert, Sam has had very little involvement in RFA, xFD, and other project space pages except for AWB, and last time we discussed it he didn't really know his way round the policy pages. The bottom line is I know  he won't abuse the tools, and the rest can be learnt quickly - just make sure you read everything on the admin list Sam before getting started, and ask for advice or help if you're not sure about anything. Good luck. --
'''Support'''  I think its all been said.  If you can get AWB to run on a Mac, I'll vote for you twice (shhhh...)  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' '''<font color="#1E90FF" face="georgia">
'''Support''' Phenomenal user. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''': always helpful and kind. —
'''Support''' Appears to be a great candidate. --Cheers,
'''Support'''!!!! Anything that I could say has already been said, so I'll just leave it as a very strong support.
'''Support''' raise your hands to the sky and say ''AMEN''! --

'''Support''' as nom, no one beat me to it this time. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' worked with him in [[WP:HOCKEY]] for quite some time, and have seen him to be an excellent contributor. He undergoes some of the most thankless tasks within the project, and gives results that improve the content of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. No reason to distrust this user.
'''Support''' per nom - I have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, and I like his answers to the questions.  -
'''Support''' Great work in [[WP:HOCKEY]]. Could do well with the tools.
'''Support'''  Good answers, and good edit count.  Won't abuse his powers.  '''
'''Support''' Patient, Level headed, Hockey smart, Understanding -- sounds like Administrator material to me.
'''Support''' Awesome choice.
'''Support''' A fine nomination -
'''Support''' Having worked with him before, I can also say that he'd be a great fit for an admin role.
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose, editor seems experienced and trustworthy, and I actually enjoyed his answers to Q1 and Q3. Kinda surprised he doesn't already have a mop --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Support''' I very strongly support this nom. Possibly one of the best editors I have ever had the pleasure to work with on the site. Very level headed and always looking for the least hostile solutions to situations. --
'''Support''' Actually though he already was an admin. I have much respect for this user, always calm. --
'''Support''' this candidate will make a good (if not better) admin.  '''
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I was in a minor disagreement with Resolute at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MLB seasons]] but he negotiated calmly and things ended well (the discussion kind of faded away but that's not his fault).  Otherwise, I could find nothing but good history here.  —
'''Strong support'''A great candidate! '''Cheers,''' '''''
'''Supoort''' per everyone above, especially [[User:Kaiser matias|Kaiser matias]] and [[User:Djsasso|Djsasso]].  Resolute is one of the best we have to offer.
'''Support''' - Give him the mop! --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Good choice.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' What everyone above said!
'''Support'''.  This is a no brainer.  Resolute is one of the calmest, most rational members of the hockey project.  An example discussion where I feel he really displayed this occurred on [[Talk:Rory Fitzpatrick]] when people were trying to use Wikipedia to promote the Vote For Rory campaign. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be endorsed by a WikiProject, which tells me that this user can discuss and contribute well. Would make a great admin. '''
'''Support''' per above but in particular [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cervical_dislocation&diff=prev&oldid=144335870 here] where you tagged an article for speedy and through discourse then removed the tags, showing evidence of double checking, civilty and helpfullness to a newbie and the capacity to revisit actions (all prime admin traits) and also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005-06_Vancouver_Canucks_season&diff=prev&oldid=137548801 here] where you removed an image where fair use was not appropriate, but explained it gently in the edit summary, again chowing civility and attention but also knowledge of policy. In short - enjoy the tools and Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Trustworthy... --
'''Support''' looks fine. <b>
'''Support''' per the nom.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse asmin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' always provides great a/cfd reasonings.
'''Support''' per nom et al.
'''Support''' A vote for this editor is like a vote for freedom. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' A steady, hardworking editor who somehow never -- no matter how acrimonious the debate -- loses his temper or fails to be civil.  Wikipedia needs every admin like him we can get.
'''Support'''. Appears to be solid enough.
'''Support''' admin-material. —
I'm
'''Suppport''' seen him at Afds and is always civil and provides explanations.
'''Slapshot Support''' Excellent answers given to the questions above, looks to be a remarkable candidate▪◦▪
'''Support'''. A fantastic editor and soon-to-be-admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''.
Good use of edit summaries.  I like some of the points that Pedro brought up as well. '''
'''Support''' Good Track.
'''Support''' The high project space edit is very nice.
'''Support''' - seems to be good. -- <strong>
'''Support''' &mdash; impressive; good answers above. <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to have sufficient experience for adminship. High mainspace and projectspace edits. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support'''&mdash;good user. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', Absolute. :)
'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''- I haven't seen one real reason that this member should not become an admin but I have seen many reason why he should become one. You have my utter support!
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with strong contributions to encyclopedia building and maintenance.
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' → The first support comes free with the nomination ;-) <i><b>
'''Support''' seems like a decent editor we can trust with the mop. Although you may want to work on talking with other editors. I looked at your last 200talk and user talk pages and they were pretty much just vandalism reverts and warnings. As well as having low wikipedia talk edits. Otherwise, you seem like a pretty good editor :) --Malevious

'''Support''' I agree with Malvious on communication. Nonetheless, this user is a no nonsense wikipedian who deserves the mop, or should I say the sledgehammer considering his large quantity of vandalism fighting. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' Low amount of discussion-style edits on talk pages can be a problem, but judging from this user's activities, I have no problem giving this user my support. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' Good vandalfighter, just needs to up the contributions to the policy space.
Finally, a candidate has shown real dedication to the project (time and edits). Strongest support I've given in a while. '''
'''Support''' - No doubt that I trust the user, and that the user would make for a fine admin.
'''Support'''. The answers may be a little short, but the contribs say it all. '''
'''Support'''. His work at the Wikimedia Commons is good, and it seems like he can be trusted.
'''Support'''. Good experiance, no aparent problems. -
'''Yes please''' - great candidate.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''', no second thoughts. —'''
'''Support''' Experienced and responsible editor.
'''Support''', quite a respectable number of edits collected in a short period of time for what appears to be a very dedicated person. --'''
'''Support''', a trustworthy and effective antivandal. (With a fitting nick, as "Rettetast" means "[[Backspace]]", or more literally "Correction key", in Norwegian) -
'''Support''' Just the kind of admin we need around here.
'''Support'''- --
Uhh... wasn't he one already? :o &ndash;
'''Support''', competent antivandal.
'''Support''' looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
I'm
'''Support''' per all above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - per
'''Support''' - A qualified candidate. --
'''Support''', great contributor.
'''Support''' I've only seen good contribs from you. Can't imagine any problems here.
'''Support''' [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/Rettetast|Passes my standards]].
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools; experienced enough. —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience, also edit summary usage is good as well. Should be an asset as an administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Great --
'''Support''' Good candidate with a good nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Wikipedia space count is acceptable due to high level of experience.
'''support''' very good history and experience with wikipedia to have administration tools
'''Support''', looks good.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' 100% O.K.! --
'''Support''' Very good!! --
'''Support''' try as I might, I can't find any reason not to support enthusiastically!--
'''Neutral for now''' You are clearly a great editor, but you have done very little work in WP space.'''
Per DGG, and the <pov> comment is niggling me a bit.  I know it's a joke...sorry, I just can't support. ~
'''Support''' good contributions, good range
'''Support''' as nominator. '''''
'''Support''' Knows what he's doing. Good contributions, perfect edit summary usage, all around good editor. Best of luck. (Actually, I'm a little concerned with the lack of template space edits, but I don't think that should get in the way.) &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''.  Looks fine to me.  Good luck.  <span style="color:red">'''Happy Holidays!!'''</span> <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' score is for username.
'''Support''' good answer to my question.  It will be nice to have a Lord Jeff as an admin.  '''
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' Looks good. :)
I first encountered RB in the [[Call of Duty 2]] dispute noted in the nom - and I was really impressed with the way he handled himself, demonstrating excellent knowledge of policy, and teaching a new and relatively uninformed user the ins and outs of OR. I trust him absolutely as an admin. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Of course'''--'''

'''Support''' as meeting all [[User:Bearian/Standards|my standards]] -- 3,000 edits, at least 3 months' service, no problems, participated actively in article work, user doesn't totally neglect the edit summary (recently at least), and intelligent and proper answers above.  Breaks in service as an editor is no big deal, but as a sysop, ought to [[WP:AN|notify the others]].
'''Support''' meets [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards]]. The gaps were concerning, so I took the time to review some AfD discussions and so forth, added questions. Good answers to my questions. Thoughtful, articulate, careful user unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Obviously a careful and thoughtful user, no problems.
'''Support''' will make a great addition to the helpful sysops '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Hey, I remember you!'''  <s>CheNuevara</s> Revolving Bugbear, great answers to the questions as well as your shown knowledge through contributions.  Particularly the answers to Dlohcierekim were spot on.  Good stuff, mop away and welcome to [[commons:Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png|hell]].
One of ''those'' supports. Great work done. Good luck,
'''Support''' - I've looked over his contribs, and RB knows what he is doing.  He'll do fine with the mop.  '''''
'''Support'''. This would have been an Oppose had he stuck with his old username, and I'm still slightly worried about supporting someone who actually thought that "CheNuevara" was an acceptable username. However, looking through his contributions, there is no reason to oppose; he's worked in a variety of areas and appears to have good judgment and a good understanding of policy. I could have gone Neutral, but I don't have an objectively adequate reason to withhold support.
I do not agree with everything this user said in their answers but the answers are very thoughtfully and politely given. I can work with this user, I believe. Our encounters in the past have been few but very positive. As for the username matter, we already (supposedly) HAVE a revolutionary Che fan here in El_C and we seem to have survived it well enough. I would like to see a ''revolving bugbear'' though, just to see what one looks like. '''Support''' ++
Of course. Calm and productive editor, no issues here. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', candidate seems to be level-headed and I see no reason that they'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' After looking over the answers to the questions and the contribs, I think you are an excellent editor.  Gook luck!  <font color="#7BA05B">
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy enough.
'''Support''' Very good contributor.
'''Support''' Really good answer to no. 7 in particular. And, as also for the other questions, not reluctant to say something more than just paraphrase the exact official statement of policy.  '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  No reason to think they will abuse the tools and liked the answers to the questions.
'''Support'''. Seen the user around, good contributions.
Excellent user.
'''Support''' No problems here. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I just added another DYK credit. The answer to 4b was well put. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Great answers to 7-9, which show an understanding of the principles behind the policies here.
'''Support'''. Love his answer to number 7. Definately want him as an admin. -
'''Support''' - I have no problems.
'''Neutral''' Been on Wikipedia since 2005, but only has <s>has large gaps in edit history</s> 3000 edits. I'd say yes with some more edits. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Neutral''' sorry - using [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Revolving_Bugbear&site=en.wikipedia.org this] - 26 edits to [[Chiodos]] is the most number of edits you've made to one article? 2 DYKs is promising but I don't see much evidence of article writing. I'd oppose if it weren't for these but would support with a GA or two. Article writing helps to understand tensions in AfD debates and the less we have two camps of 'writers' and 'admins' the better. cheers,
'''Strong support''' as nominator (of course!) '''
'''Strong support'''. Excellent user.
'''Support''', candidate seems a fine user - no reason to expect they'll abuse the powers. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Strong Support''' A very trust-worthy user. Good luck Riana! · [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' Excellent user. Have caught her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARiana_dzasta%2FArchive_8&diff=92902702&oldid=92857744 stealing my reverts]. ;) <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''', great user. Wasn't she one in the first place?
'''Support''' Good candidate. --
'''Support''' An excellent candidate. While she opposed my RfA, she did so in such a polite, friendly and constructive way that I felt actively encouraged by her comments. Has  broad spread od wiki experience. Needs the tools.--
I'm
'''Full support.'''  I know Riana has been sweating pulling the trigger on this, but I see a [[WP:100]] coming on this one. —
'''Strong Support''' A great contributor to the project. Here’s hoping you break WP:300 with this one.
'''Yes, please!''' &ndash;
'''Support''' a kind and level-headed editor who has demonstrated that she is ready to mediate or assist other users in trouble --
<s>'''Oppose''' sockpuppet or impersonator of [[User:Iana-ray Zasta-day|Iana-ray Zasta-day]]. Low category talk and template talk edits.</s>'''Strong support''' I find no fault with this user whatsoever. [[WP:300]] please. --'''
'''Support''' a good, all-round contributor, would be a fine admin.
'''Strong support''' per all above. No reasons to oppose. (Edit conflict - people are queuing up to support this RfA!)
'''Support'''. Good allround editor, thoughtful, will make a good admin.
'''Yo.''' &mdash;
'''Strongest possible support''' anything I learned on Wikipedia, I learned from this user. ~
'''Support''' no question about it. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support'''. Ahh, well, it's about time. '''<span style="background:#000">
One '''Strong support''' and an '''about time, sister!''' '''
'''Strong Support''' -- I've known her since I first came here (even before AndonicO and ST47). She was very kind, and I think she deserves it. '''[[User:RyGuy|<font color="Red" face="Comic Sans MS">Ry</font>]][[User Talk: RyGuy|<font color="Blue" face="Comic Sans MS">Guy</font>''']]  [[User:RyGuy/ Signature Book|<font color="Darkred" face="Comic Sans MS"><small>Sign Here!</small></font>]]
'''Strong support'''(''edit conflicted)'' - One of those editors you think is already an administrator. This editor would be an amazing addition to wikipedia as an administartor.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Unlimited supply of Strong Support!''' It was about time!! Good luck! <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', excellent candidate.--
'''Support''' - am sure will make an excellent admin. <sup>
'''Support''' Excellent, very friendly candidate.
'''Support''' riana has been worthy for this role for quite some time, and it's nice to see a nomination which does her justice.--
'''Support''' although it looks like this is going to be unanimous approval anyway!.
'''Support'''. A first class editor who should make a first class admin.
'''Support''' I see no problems with this application - looks like a good editor.
'''[[Amoeba]]-brainer support'''. Really, that easy.
'''Edit Conflict-Strong Support''' I've had some interactions with Riana before, and I found her to be helpful and kind. She is also, in my opinion, the kind of user you can trust. -
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Strong support''' awesome contributor.
'''Support'''. While I would like to have seen a little more article writing prior to this candidacy, I think Riana is experienced enough to know how disputes can come out of the collaborative process, and how to avoid or resolve them in a civil manner. I don't believe I've ''ever'' seen her lose her temper. Friendly, knowledgeable in many areas, always willing to help others... yes, support. --
'''Support'''. I was going to nominate her before Christmas for the position. She's a good user, and I love how she did the chemistry portal. '''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate for adminship.--
'''Support.''' Being around so much, I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I honestly actually thought she already was an admin.
'''Support''' I was under the impression that this [[WP:CIVIL|civil]], humorous yet helpful [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedian]] was already a [[WP:SYSOP|sysop]]? My mistake. Well, the all-round attitude and admin-related contributions (including excellent RCP edits) do demonstrate a clear need for the [[WP:ADMIN|mop and bucket]]. Low participation in the other types of Deletion Debates ([[WP:TFD|TfD]], [[WP:MFD|MfD]] or [[WP:CFD|CfD]]) does raise a few questions, but all in all Riana shows a requirement for the block buttons, and therefore for Sysop status - thus, I support her request for the extra tools. ''Regards'',
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strongest possible support''' - user is a ''good person'' and has a variety of talents rather than being a one-trick pony. The single incident with the anon is hardly indicative of her usual attitude, and everybody has days they don't think before they post. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' per noms, great candidate. ''
'''Support''' Great user, great contribs, won't mess up.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Support''' per noms.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support'''. Happy two-months-after-Festivus (for the second time)! Great user, no doubt will use the sysop tools well. &ndash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Great User. -
'''Strong support''' - per above.
'''Support'''. Strong editor, and I think the People Powered thing is a great example of learning from mistakes. I see no complaints ''since'' then, and so I'm happy to support. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. You go girl. You'll make an excellent admin. =) –&nbsp;
'''Yep'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' A fantastic contributor to the project, in all respects. I have no reservations that Riana will be a good admin. '''
'''[[WP:ADEL]] Support''' Need more Croweaters. '''
'''Support''' - a person who will utilize the tools very well.<b>
'''Obscenely strong support'''. Riana is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, and would be a very valuable asset if she were given the tools.
'''Support''' across the board. I would trust her as an admin. --
'''Weak Support''' per Freaktalk. Compassion should be rewarded, not punished. Still have a funny feeling though. If she removes her comment after the first oppose, i'd probably put the support from "weak" to "normal".
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' per noms, answers, and overall record. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Very Strong''' (and very late) '''Support''' per everyone's comments; nominators/nominations; and experiences with the user. &mdash;
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Affable, competent, experienced, and I've had good interactions with Riana.
'''Support:''' per nom. <b><font color="saffron">
'''Support:'''
'''Support:''' per nom. Seems strong to me.
'''Support'''. All looks very much in order.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' per nom.--

'''Exceedingly strongly support'''- dang, I was about to nominate you. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daniel.Bryant 2|This seems to be happening to me at the moment]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' per RC and NP need for tools.
'''Support''' Can't think of many better suited -- I'm sure Riana will make a terrific admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Has always been very helpful and courteous.--
'''Strong Support''' An excellent editor and person, Riana is almost too good. She'll make a wonderful admin.
'''Support''' per nom, co-nom and the eighty or so people before me—can't think of anything else to say now, really.
Strong candidate, opposition raises no significant concerns.
'''Strong support'''. The only thing that can be said against her is that she really spends too much time on wikipedia. --
'''Support''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' -- per above. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', He really deserves mop. Would be a real asset to the project.
'''Support''': Great Wikipedian. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a very level headed user as well as a valued contributer.  She would use the tools just fine.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- a great contributor and a kind and polite person.  --
'''Support''' per common sense <code>:)</code>
Make sure you get the blue-handled mop; the red one isn't as good :) '''
'''Support''' - Definitely. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' Anyone with a good track record willing to help at AIV is right up my alley. --
'''Support''', I worked with this user a few times in AFD a while back, and all in all I think she's a great candidate given her record and the answers to the questions. --'''
'''Support''' - I've seen Riana's work in many places across the project. Solid, dependable, deserves the nod. --'''
'''Support'''. Solid user. She deserve that. -
'''Support'''.--
Pile on '''Strong Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - --<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Obviously a good editor. '''
'''Yes'''.
'''Support instantaneously''': this user should be an admin a long time ago.
'''Strong Support'''. Top notch user with great answers; we could use more admins who [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on a routine basis.

'''Support'''.
That opose if quite convincing, but you'd still make a good admin, '''support'''.--
'''Support''' excellent user.--
[[User_talk:DVD R W|<font color="black"> dvd</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''I tell you what, if this RFA failed it would be a dzasta. Eh? Eh? Ah, whatever. Civil, dedicated, committed, friendly. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Look mom, it's a bandwagon!! --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. She sounds like a good admin material.
'''Strong oppose'''. Less than 4000 mainspace and 1000 Wikipedia space edits.
'''Support''' Well shit, I was surprised to see this RfA; I could have sworn she was already an admin, given my peripheral interactions with her. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' I didn't put my name on yet? Well I had better! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' - no real reason not to.
'''Ding Dong''' Special Delivery!  A new Mop from FedEx!!  '''Support''' ;) --[[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I thought she was already an admin. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - If she's as good an admin as she is civil, she'll make a good admin. Soz for the earlier support... :)
'''Support''' excellent candidate --
'''Support''' Can't find a fault at all!--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', the sock story is part of the past.--
'''Ah hells yeah'''.  I mean, '''support'''.  --
'''Support''' I trust that the candidate has learned from her mistake and will not misuse the tools.
'''OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE I MISSED THIS support'''. Sorry, Riana, just noticed '_' '''<font color="#FE474B">♥</font> [[User:Fredil|<span style="color:#9932CC">Fr</span>]][[User Talk:Fredil|<span style="color:#6A5ACD">ed</span>]]
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong support''' I am positive Riana is going to make a wonderful admin. Helpful, knowledgeable about policiy and editing processes, patient, and a dedicated contributor, I do not think she will abuse the tools and absolutely deserves them. — <font face="papyrus">
'''Support''' Knowledgeable and helpful editor, I have no doubt she will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Particularly like frank acknowledgment of error in response to first oppose. Just what's needed in an admin. <font color="green">
'''Support''' You can read my explanation of my role in the affair of PeoplePowered from the diff of her talk page, linked above. Personally, I think Riana's initial reaction, if embarrassing ''post hoc'', was not unreasonable: she'd been mentoring someone who, without close examination and knowledge of l'affaire Karmafist, appeared to be a constructive, eager new editor with maybe an excessive interest in adminship, when all of a sudden, a block fell on him. You can see the other half of our exchange [[User talk:Choess/Archive2#User:People Powered|here]]. When I'd conveyed some explanation of the backstory and why people were out hunting sleeper socks of Karmafist, she was polite and receptive, and then PeoplePowered flew off the handle and pretty much put an end to things. My impressions of her since have been favorable, and I don't think the message mentioned below represents an act of ineradicably bad judgement.
'''Support''' This page is 46KB long. That shows the support and praise she has received. --
'''Oppose'''. The comment at
'''Oppose''' The comment about assisting a blocked user is not the issue. The issue is the overall comment, which seems to indicate a willingnes to subvert policy on behalf of others.
'''Beat the nom Support''' -- a good number of edits, seems to know policy and be a fair user. --
'''Support''', why not? A good number of edits and seems keen for the mop and bucket. Good luck Richardshusr.
'''Support''', Seems to know what to do. Should be a big help with AfD. Good luck to you. -
Yes, a hundred times over. '''
'''Support'''. Very good, confident answers to questions (although you'll have to beat me with the AfD closures, pun intended :)) '''
'''Support''' - there's always need for more admins with closing AfDs. I'm sure Richardshusr will do fine&mdash;<font color='red'>
Given my brief interactions with this user, I thought he already was an admin. That's good enough for me!
'''Strong support'''. Richard performed great in the minefields of [[Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII]] and related, highly controversial, articles. Very level-headed. I've always thought he would make a good admin. --
'''Support''', agree with Lysy. Great user who keeps his cool in contentious disputes.
'''Strong support''' (ha I hope this is the right place for it). "Fighting with the truth as the goal, is the highest benefit to all." Richard needs to be less passive aggressive but is most definitely high quality editor/administrator material.
'''Strong support'''<sup>infinity</sup> When I considered leaving Wikipedia in June 2006, Richard left an inspiring message on my talk page, which convinced me to stay. Over the next few months, he proceeded to unofficially mentor me, displaying a knowledge of policy, unwavering ability to assume good faith, extraordinary patience, civility and friendliness. --
'''Support''' - A very good and reliable user ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' absolutely. —
Don't waste our time '''support'''. Richard is one of the most helpful users I've come across on Wikipedia and will make a great addition to the admin team. &ndash;
'''Support''' Richard is hard working and evenhanded. He is skillful at handling controversial situations. He will make a wonderful admin.

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' definitely. '''
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' I thought your adminship... assessment thing was a little odd, but nevermind... you definitely seem qualified. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified per overall record.
'''Hell yeah'''.  I recall an RFA or an editor review from a few months ago, and clearly Richard has improved since then, to the point where I would trust him with almost anything on the wiki.
'''Support''' I thought Richardshusr was already an administrator. :)
-- <b>
'''Support''' I trust this user will do a good job with the extra tools. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. He might have been overthinking the whole adminship a bit, but that doesn't make him less ready for it, which I think he has been for quite some time. I agree with Terriersfan that he's not perfect but I don't think perfection is required or even attainable for an admin candidate. Richard is open and responsive to cirticism, and that's quite a big deal to me. --
'''Support''' He knows what he is doing, and I can trust him with the tools!
A model of collaborative skill, coolheadedness on controversial articles, and concern for the project's well being, which itself would benefit from his mop.  I acknowledge the merits of his criticisms, but fail to see how they imply his tool use would end up being a detriment.
'''Support''' particularly per AFD contribs and A5. Admitting you didn't know something is difficult, especially during RFA. But learning from mistakes benefits individuals and the project more in the long-term.--
'''Support''' gladly.  I worked with the candidate on [[Crime in Mexico]] and was impressed at the time by his demeanor and grasp of policy. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Very good contributer and has lots of good work on articles specified on his talk page.
'''Support''' The two oppose voters, whose comments are oddly similar, object only to a single article created by this user; its format and content, while not ideal, do not bear in any way on his ability to function as an admin. A good range of edits, skills and knowledge. He will do well as an admin.--<font color="Red">
24 hours ago this was empty.  30+ supports in that time can't be wrong! [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' based on a look at this user's good contributions, and his evident support from the community.
'''Support''' - Good responses and strong edit history. --
'''Support''' This is a solid user who has been editing wikipedia for a while now. I doubt that he will abuse the tools, and we are in need of admins, so why not? Good luck:)--
'''Support''' A user that I trust with the tools.
'''Support''', surely. --
'''Support''' After reviewing your answers and contributions I feel confident you can handle the tools wisely. I also appreciate that you favor content over writing style. --
Appears sensible and trustworthy. You got my '''support''' ...''comment''. —'''
'''Support'''. Pedro's diff does concern me a little, but this users actions with regards to this RfA (notifying critics and deleting !votes cast before the start) show a very good stance on consensus. I fully trust this user with closing XfDs, but might suggest that in future, adding a maintenance tag is preferable to deleting something if you can't be bothered to fix it :) Good luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', mainly per the brilliant response to the oppose below.  --
'''Support''' From Neutral, but I do agree with [[User:Zeibura|Zeibura]] - a maintenance tag would have being the way forward in the instance cited. Nevertheless, I see very little that is not quality, and your civility and transparency swing it for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''strong support.''' I've had the pleasure of working with Richard on a few topics and wikiprojects (particularly [[WP:AZTEC]]), and have on every single occasion been impressed by his helpful, cooperative, honest & open contribs. My first encounter with Richard was actually to disagree with some article reorganisation that he and another had embarked upon, but thanks in no small measure to Richard's manner in dealing with potential conflict situations there was no 'dust-up' and there was in the end no issue. As well as the good sense, knowledgeability and civility apparent in all his contribs, Richard has plainly taken the time to understand matters of guideline & policy, and I have no doubts at all that he will put the admin tools to effective and beneficial use.--
'''Support''' Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''- no obvious faults, user has a good understanding of wikipedia and its policies, acceptable nomination reason.
I'm
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
This Candidate '''gets my vote''' as I see no reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' - Richardshusr is ready for the mop. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - good grasp of policy (especially recent opinions at [[WT:RFA]]), and has good ability to work with other editors.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Makes alot of contributions everyday and i don't think he would abuse the tools.

'''Support''' per nom (hmmm... wait, I am the nom). Don't know why I didn't add this earlier.-
'''Support''' per late nom support (that's pretty funny Andrew thanks for adding a smile) and the fact that this is a good editor - ready also for admin.--

'''Support''' - Good answers, good user. Good admin. --
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Have come across him and was impressed.
'''Support''' Mop wisely... -
'''Support''' - will do well.
'''Support'''
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Great grasp of policy and I totally agree with their take on IAR [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Very good when I have seen him in action, including interacting with difficult users.
'''Oppose''' - admins need to have a good handle on policy and a good understanding of article development as a basic prerequisite for the role. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fire_safety_education&oldid=136545705|Fire Fire safety education] should never have been created in this form; failing [[WP:MOS]] and several policies and its launch was an indication of a failure to understand our policies. Even a stub should be worked up in the sandbox and sourced, catalogued and stubbed before creation.
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support'''.  I've interacted with Rifleman quite a bit on chemistry-related articles.  I find him to be a responsible, mature, conscientious, and trustworthy editor and I'm confident that he will be a great admin too.  --
'''Support''' Does not look likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. --
'''Support'''. I've noticed him on some chemistry related articles I've worked on. His edits look solid, and he seems like he can be trusted.
'''Support'''.  Has been a wonderful, courteous contributor for a considerable time.
'''Support'''—hey, I offered to nominate him a while back! Civil, responsible, excellent article work and plenty of WikiProject experience. No concerns on my part.
'''Support'''. No concerns.
'''Support'''. Great editor, and I am sure he will make good use of the tools (hey, guess what, with this bit you can see the history of deleted pages!).  --
'''Support'''. Didn't even realise that he wasn't an admin, but hey, it can be hard to keep up with all the products of [[WP:CHEM]]! Excellent, level-headed contributor who has been a great asset to the WikiChemists.
I'm SJP and I approve this message.--


'''Support''' - looking through around 1000 contributions or so, I find nothing to oppose with.
'''Support'''.  It is God's will.
'''Support''' Solid editor who'll obviously be a good admin.
'''Support''', per {{user|Edgar181}}'s remarks about character and responsibility.  We could use more Admins here that are knowledgeable about Science and Chemistry.
Ideal candidate :) ~
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' seems fine.
If the only question you answered had be #7, you would have had my '''Strong Support'''. The fact that you have a wide variety of experience, and tons of edits in the mainspace is just a bonus.
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support''' No concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' &ndash; always a pleasure to work with him. &mdash; Cheers,
'''Support''' - more than sufficient experience and no concerns.
'''Support''', looks solid, and I like the answer to #7. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Carlos and Curt's observations.
'''Support''' well round user.
'''Support''' No big issues here.
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''', very good answers to the questions, nice edit history, appears to be an excellent candidate that will make a good admin.
I'm
'''Support''' I encountered Rifle about a year ago over on the military brat page I believe... and was impressed then.  Still am.
'''Support'''. I'm particularly impressed with the candidate's detail work on chemistry articles. Attention to detail serves an administrator well. Question 7 only sealed the deal - and a great answer that was.
'''Support''', why not?
Of course.
'''Support.''' Seems to have talent as an article-writer and a willingness to negotiate to obtain consensus. Good answers to the questions.
'''Strong Support''' - I was watching this RFA for awhile.  When I noticed the oppose I waited longer.  I am totally convinced he will make a good administrator.  Not only because of his edit history, but the way he handled the section under oppose. --
'''Weak support''' - this user's contributions are generally good, although despite saying Anti-vandalism is his speciality, [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] has hardly been touched by this user. But I still believe we have a good admin in the making here. The answers to the questions show good knowledge and understanding. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. Will use the tools well.--
'''Support''' As per track has over 9000 mainspace edits.See no concerns as per track .
'''Support''' for nothing else than to counteract the ridiculous oppose.
'''Support'''. We need admins who can handle rifles! More seriously, I've watched his contributions to chemistry articles and discussions for a long time, and he is a productive and sensible editor. --
'''Support''' -- from my limited interactions with Rifleman, I can attest that he is a solid editor who is concerned with quality of content.
'''Support''' —
'''Oppose'''. He destroyed article [[3,3'-Diaminobenzidine]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3%2C3%27-Diaminobenzidine&diff=162038816&oldid=161926501] It was one of the best information source about this theme on internet. He did not tried to improve it. He deleted that it is brown, reactive, hazardous, ... He even deleted Safety information! He deleted everything. --
'''Strong support''' ''Excellent'' user. Should have been one long ago. -- <strong>
A JayHenry nom = Of course.&nbsp;&mdash;
A Xoloz nom = Of course. :)
'''Support''' - no concerns whatsoever.
'''Support'''
I have no concerns with this user. Good luck:)--
'''Support''' Give him the mop!
'''Yea, give him the mop!'''
'''Support''' per Xoloz nom, also was impressed with the graceful manner of withdrawing his previous request.
'''Strong support''' from co-nominator.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. A very [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support.''' Nominators make an excellent case; there doesn't seem to be any question about any aspect of this user's work.
'''Strongest Support''' - as co-nom. :)
per Anonymous Dissident. —
'''Support''', per Anonymous Dissident, as well as the great three noms, above.
'''Support.''' Per Xoloz nom, and I too was impressed by the grace of the withdrawal of his first RfA. His interest in helping with DYK is a good reason for conferring admin tools.
'''Support''' - great nomination.  After rereading his previous nomination, I'm even more impressed.
'''Strong support''' Long live DYK. '''
'''Strong support''' all around.--
Good stuff.
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Solid Support''' Anon Diss, gonna give you props here for your contributions as your fellow supporters have. Keep keepin on.
'''Of course'''. <strong>
I'm
'''Support''' per many above.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Has a firm grasp in all areas.
'''Support''' will do fine as an admin.
'''Support''' per "no big deal", and the fact that this is a really solid editor.
'''Support''' Excellent editor who can be trusted.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' An obvious, excellent choice for an admin.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
This is so weird. I have that extension that highlights all admin user and talk page links in cyan, yet I was sure Rigadoun already had the bit. Really excellent choice, however. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' - everything seems to be in order. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - looks good to me --
'''Support''' As per JayHenry further concerns of earlier RFA cleared.
'''Support''' Quality contributor.
'''Support''', with reservations. Rigadoun has some strong contributions in the "Administrator" areas of the encyclopedia, namely [[WP:CVU|counter-Vandalism]] and [[WP:AIV]]. However, I'm convinced he could widen his scope of activities, for example at [[WP:UAA]] and related boards. He's also got a surprisingly low edit level in the [[WP:XFD|XfD]] area, the last contribution there being to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destrucionado]], 15 October 2007 - that's almost a month ago. Having said that, he does make helpful contributions, e.g. at [[WP:AN/I]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=163882246]) and I see no instances of [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] or other nasties. Rigadoun is definitely trustworthy, and I'm happy to support him, assuming he'll use his +sysop tools in a broader way that is currently indicated.
'''Support'''; yes, of course.  Excellent choice for adminship.  And as he correctly points out in his answer to Q1, when you are an admin you do not have to spend most of your time doing admin things; content contribution is still a high priority here.
'''Support''' - yes, excellent candidate with a wealth of experience and great editing on his/her side. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Seems like a good user.
'''Support'''
Oh geez, how did I almost forget to '''strongly support''' as co-nom?! --
'''Strong support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' - you seem to well-involved with your subject, you [[WP:AGF|AGF]] (as far as I can see!) and you're willing to discuss ideas on a subject at ANI. Perfect.&mdash;
'''Support''' [[User:Dlohcierekim/standards|specialist looking to use tools in limited scope with little likelihood of abuse.]] Does not request tools for XFD. Seems to be knowledgeable and able to use tools within stated niche.
'''Support''' -- great contributor, involved in maintenance tasks which have given him experience in seeing a variety of articles with different sorts of problems and assets, and is able to see what's good, what's needed, what needs improving, and how to improve things. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>
Don't see much wrong here... --
'''Support''', in the hope that Rkitko will get more involved in Administrator-related areas when he actually has the tools for himself. At the moment, he seems to do little [[WP:CVU|counter-vandalism]] work, [[WP:XFD|XfD]] participation, et cetera, and it would be great if he could chip in once-in-a-while if mopped. However, he's plenty trustworthy, and there's no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' the plant gnome.  No reason to think tools will be abused.
'''Support'''.  Good work with gnoming.  We need more admin gnomes to clear the backlogs! <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''', looks like a good hardworking editor. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - Is a good hard-working editor and I see no problems with him being given the tools.
'''Support'''. BLP concerns are warranted, but I think his explanation is fair, after all how many living people are referred to in plant articles? I see good judgment and a low level of likelihood to abuse. He needs to tools to improve the encyclopedia. As such, I think he is a great canidate for the tools.
'''Support''' A good contributor to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. No loose screws here. And it's nice to have an admin who cares about [[WP:MOS|editing practice]] and negotiates solutions when problems crop up (no pun intended).
Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Obviously the type of level headed person needed in the role.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good contributor who is particularly interested in one area (a plus in my book), I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  I have observed consistently positive contributions from this user over a long period of time. --
'''Support''' - yes.
'''Support'''. This editor has worked in a very specialized area. Having an admin who knows his way around the botany articles could prove helpful. I see nothing to suggest a reason to be concerned so I give a green thumb up to this candidate. -
'''Support''' - '''''
'''Support''' We could always use more Admins that are prolific editor/contributors, and versed in a science background.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', even if the tools are used only occasionally or only in limited areas, I have little doubt that they will be used well.
'''Support''' Given his answers, i see no reason why not to.
'''Strong support''' We can always use grounded, serious editors as admins here!
'''Support''', meets and exceeds every standard I've seen, prolific editor, etc.  No reason not to trust with the mop.  Great answers.
'''Support''' seems like a good addition to the mop crew.
'''Support''' Good editor. I also liked his answers.
I'm
'''Support''' - we could use another admin among the biology articles --
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''' looks good to me. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''. Can't really say much, but we need more admins in biology stream.
Seems fine.
'''Support''' Per nom. --
'''Support''' - looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' -- will make a good admin even if he sometimes gets mixed up on policies vs. guidelines. (Quick quiz question: we now have 40+ pages in [[:Category:Wikipedia official policy]] and 200+ in [[:Category:Wikipedia guidelines]] and its subcategories -- please name them all) --<font face="Futura">
Insists my stubs are starts, but he will be a great admin.  <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">
'''Support''' A great contributor and a fair handler of disputes in my experience
Support - Would like this person to step out of their place in wikipedia other then carnivorous plants. I wonder what you get if you cross Pinguicula grandiflora with Dionaea muscipula? --
'''Neutral''' Per my comments above.  I liked his response, but I can't support him at this time.
[[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]], 6 March 2007 (UTC): I would say '''Strongly Support'''. Rklawton has been a pleasure to have around the wiki. His photographic contributions invaluable. Hey is an excellent dispute settler and manages a cool head when even the seemingly coolest Wikiholics lose their minds, I am, of course, talking about myself. Lawton's sufficient knowledge of WP policy has also contributed to his ability to settle disputes with otherwise annoying spammers and the like in a civil fashion. In addition he uses that knowledge not just to speak in others stead but to show other users what they need to know to explain policy in a rational manner.
[[User:Kscottbailey|K. Scott Bailey]] 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Count me also as a '''Strongly Support'''. In my brief dealings with him, have found Rklawton to be a fine editor--very clear-headed and rational--and I feel he would make a superb admin.
'''Support''' - Yup a really Good Choice..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Absolutely.↔
Sure.
'''Support'''. Rklawton had shown a real dedication to the project, there is no question about his trustworthiness.
'''Keep on Ramblin' support'''
Geez, I thought I was going to get to nominate you.
'''Support''' looks like an excellent candidate. Particularly liked the answer to Q3, though never heard of "eating crow"! --
'''Weak Support'''. Xoloz makes a good point, you're argumentative. But that's a good thing <b>in moderation</b>. I looked over the your talkpage and think that for the amount of work you do you have had an acceptably low amount of controversy. Mind the deletion and copyright policies, and you should be fine. - <b>
'''Very Strong Support'''. An experienced photographer with excellent knowledge :-)--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Dedicated to the project, unlikely to abuse admin tools. I read through the CfD links Zleitzen mentioned; I believe civility was maintained throughout. --
'''Support'''. Impressive contributions, cool demeanor.
'''Support'''--
'''Weak Support''' - Looks OK, but Xoloz's comments worry me a bit. While I hate process wonkery, you need to be clear about CSD reasons as its such a rapid process and can leave new users confused and frustrated. Linking to the right CSD policy is very helpful.'''
'''Support''', Xoloz's issue, as he noted, seems to be quite some time ago. Mr. Lawton seems to have much more experience at this point with minimal conflicts.  I must be missing something in Zleitzen's oppose - that looked like fairly civil discourse.  A ton of vandal mopping and a regular at AIV, along with significant encyclopedia building to balance it.
'''Support''' per Kuru.--
'''Strong support''' -- "Support" because he's been a steady, civil contributor to Wikipedia and "strong" because of the kindness and encouragement I've seen him give in the to newcomers discouraged by their articles' speedy deletions. --
'''Support''': A good user and very active in XfDs and AIV. --
'''Support''': Upon review of your talk pages and contributions, I feel you would have adequate use for the administrative tools. --
'''Support''' -
'''Very strong support''', I have had some conversations with this user and he impressed me by his profound knowledge, experience and kindness. He deserves to use the sysop.
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Strong support''' Rklawton does great work at [[WP:AFD]], a very reasoned user who has done tremendous work on the wiki (I actually offered a nomination for adminship a few weeks ago). Regarding civility, he has been aware of this issue for some time and has made a very active step to stop this which can only be commended
'''Strong support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I have seen his work and approve accordingly. --
'''Weak Support''' Good user, but some big concerns raised. However, the concerns do not warrant opposition. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' - I'm not holding previous disagreements noted below or 800+ skydives against him. --
'''Support''' Confident he'll use the tools wisely. Seems to have learned from previous situations mentioned by opposers. Be a swabber and handy with a mop.
'''Support''' Per answers to questions on speedy deletions.
'''Support''' - Per response to items raised by [[User:Xoloz]] and [[User:Zleitzen]]. Occasional disagreements between editors are inevitable for someone who's so active.  Key is that the user consistently handles himself in a low-drama, professional way and is willing to listen and learn. Impressive contributions; promotion will benefit WP. -
'''Support'''.  Reasonable answers to concerns which kept me neutral. --
'''Support'''
support --
'''Support''' [[User:ronbo76]] - Rklawton's edits are trusted ones in my journeys across Wikipedia; does great work for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois]]; and, been kind to me on [[WikiCommons]].
'''Support''' Rklawton will make an effective admin. I have interacted with him a number of times and have generally been impressed with his work. The one area he should be careful of is knowing when a disagreement isn't worth continuing. Sometimes its better to make your case and walk away rather than continue a discussion when it becomes obvious you are not going to change the other party's mind. If you can curb the tendency to always want the last word, you'll be a better admin. Good luck,

'''Support''' - I've disagreed with him before myself, but he strikes me as someone with good judgement who wouldn't abuse his admin tools in disputes.
'''Support''' per [[User:Meersan|Meersan]] now.
'''Support''' per the above; a good well-rounded person, it appears. -
'''support''' because of many beautiful images uploaded and hard work to clear away vandalisms he will be a good administrator
'''Support'''. Incident raised by Xoloz was nearly 9 months ago. I think its fair to say Rklawton has learned from the experience (see general comments). Recent contribs show no problems. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' With his solid contributions and good answers, I feel comfortable handing Rklawton the big, shiny buttons... --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', let's just give him the tools.--
Hmm, I'm an hour and a half late, but as the crats haven't closed this yet, I'll just sneak in another '''support''' :) &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Oppose''' Back in June, editor misunderstood deletion criteria, and engaged in a brusque discussion with me over why "hoaxes" are not speedy deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rklawton&diff=prev&oldid=59130938].  I certainly hope he has gotten a firmer grasp of deletion policy since then; but that isn't the reason for my oppose here.  Mr. Lawton demeanor is more my concern, especially his attempt at rules-lawyering.  I realize this was some time ago; and so, I'm open to persuasion.  Generally, however, editors who become so irritated over simple deletion questions do not make good admins.


'''Oppose''', based on the incidents above and my own experiences with this user. —
'''Oppose''' - Other people have concerns of this editors personal demeanor and I share them.--[[User:I%27ll_bring_the_food|I'll bring the food]] ([[User talk:I%27ll_bring_the_food|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/I%27ll_bring_the_food|Contribs]] -
'''Oppose''' per the above, specifically the concerns addressed by Xoloz.  Perhaps later.
'''Neutral'''. Seems to have very little activity in Wikipedia talk space, which is where a large amount of admin work is done. While the User talk count is quite high (about 1/4 of total edits), I also have some concerns about issues raised by Xoloz. Therefore, I can not offer support, but I don't find anything worth opposing. ···
'''Won't go so far as to oppose neutral''' per concerns raised by Xoloz and Zleitzen. —
'''Support''' as co-nom.--
'''Support''' as second nom --
'''Strong support ''' - The proof is in the pudding, not on the packaging. I've seen many people make all sorts of promises when a quick look at their contrib log indicates that they will not do whatever they promised. Rlevse's edit log speaks for itself. '''
'''Strong support'''; he's really not one yet?
'''Strong support'''. I have been working with this editor for over a year. He will make a great admin. I suggest it is more a question of WP needing this editor to have the tools, than this editor needing the tools. He will use them wisely for the benefit of Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. Your question answers don't really indicate a huge need for the tools, nor indeed, does your nom. However as you have shown yourself to be trustworthy is see no earthly reason why you shouldn't have them, even if they are only used occasionally it will be to the benefit of the project.
'''Support.''' Strong double nomination.
'''Support''' definitely. His work and dedication is outstanding. Forget the answers, they aren't everything (I'd have to agree with Blnguyen on his point). He's trustworthy, level-headed, and is a great candidate for adminship. -
'''Support'''.  Great contributions as an editor, and no reason to think he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support.''' [[2005|Way back when]] when I was active at [[WP:FAC]], I always saw Rlevse reviewing articles insanely carefully. His carefulness and patience will make him an excellent sysop.
'''Support''', good editor, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support'''. Great editor.--
'''Support'''. --'''
'''Yes'''
I don't care if he needs the tools or not.  He is clearly trustworthy, and if it helps the user, it helps Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nom and above comments.
'''Support'''. Great contributor.↔
'''Support''' As per above comments.--
'''Support''' We should give the tools to responsible users who will will use the tools at least once.--
'''Support''' an active user on FAC and a good editor.  Rlevse knows policy well enough. Very impressive article writer, Wikipedia needs more of those that can do as well as he does. '''''
'''Support''' A simply excellent editor.  Nice work with the ScoutingWikiProject, that is something to be proud of.  Congratulations on all that you have accomplished here.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Rlewse has shown himself to be a commited and effective editor. I have absolutely no reason not to trust him with the tools; it is clear that he knows our policies and conventions.
'''Support'''. I don't equate simple answers to poor ones. Justified desire to be granted admin tools, good editor and he seems to understand the role of an admin. Good luck.
I'm
'''Support'''; proven record more important than idle answers. He knows his stuff and his edits prove it. For RFA, homework is much more important than the final exam.
'''Support'''. I worked with him on promoting [[Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)]] to [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status and he was prompt in his replies and his writing is good. Having looked at his edit history he seems an all-around good editor.
'''Support''' This one is a no brainer.  Excellent user who deserves the promotion. We'd be lucky to have an admin this dedicated.--
'''Support''' agree with Looper5920, he should have been one a long time ago.
'''Support''' looks well qualified.--
'''Full Support''', zealous editor with good global view on topics. And he says twice that he'll endeavour to stay calm and neutral, so that'll keep him on his toes ([[Tongue-in-cheek|TIC]]). <span style="color:#B03060;"><i>
'''Support''' changed form neutral.  Upon more review and other's comments, I think Rlevse would make a good admin.  Plus, we need more admins.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. I've only seen good things from this editor.
'''Support''' &mdash; yet another article writing candidate; I'm liking this trend. &mdash; '''
I '''support''' you, too.
'''Support''' --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' (how in the blue blazes did I miss this??) would have been my pleasure to nominate him. Rlevse is an awesome contributor with a strong character and kind heart.
'''Support''' The nominee is ready and well suited for the tools.
Definitely '''support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' good all rounder (not that that's what I look for, but it's always a plus :)). <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support'''. Of course. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The question is why isn't he an admin already. :)

'''Support'''.  Trustworthy, from what I've seen.  I couldn't agree with Proto more. -
'''Support'''.  Amazing contributor to Wikipedia is so many ways &mdash; from creating articles, to improving articles, to bringing articles to GA and FA status, to collaborating with other editors, and so much more.  Admin tools will give him one more way to contribute. &mdash;
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' definitely good enough for me to support. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - per nom. Anyone who can be even-handed and NPOV when editing BSA articles will have no trouble doing so elsewhere on less controversial topics! —
'''Support''' - per nom. I think [[User:Bduke|Bduke]] and [[User:Darthgriz98|Darthgriz98]]'s responses to [[User:Albatross2147|Albatross2147]]'s concerns below about American-centrism reflect well on the candidate's neutrality and conscientiousness. (I especially liked the one about editing in British English: edit on Wikipedia long enough and you may end up writing in some sort of Brit-Yanklish regardless of nationality. Color/colour -- I can't keep them straight anymore). --
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Opposes don't really concern me, and everything else looks good. '''
'''Oppose''' per poor question answers --
'''Very Strong Oppose''' - far too pedantic. Very limited world view ie, US-centric.. Inflexible. No sense of humour. A deletionist who would not be afraid to impose his views all over Wp.
Amazing edit count and impressive article writing. However, your answers were unimmpressive. Great editor, but can you show me your need for the tools? Also, you may want to improve your minor edit count. (45% for minor edits.) [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Token neutral'''. I can't support someone who intends on closing AfDs and CfDs despite participating in so few, but you've by far demonstrated policy knowledge. Just please don't start closing controversial XfDs right after you pass. Oh, and what is sourcing experience doing in your answer to Q1? -
'''Neutral''' leaning toward '''support'''; pending better answers to his questions. ''
'''Neutral''' I can see no real need for the tools so, like John Reaves, I shall remain neutral until something moves me.
'''Neutral'''. I agree with the above regarding XfD participation; user doesn't seem to show much participation in adminship areas, including those mentioned in Q1. Vandalism-fighting is quite rare indeed. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Neutral''' for now because of the following incoherent, puzzling and uncivil text on your user page: ''"Wiki+ editors who are knowledgeable and helpful, research tool; Wiki- too many articles on video games, game characters, etc on Wikipedia, vandals and "wikiNazis"--the deletionists/category name zealots, cabalists, etc."'' People who go on about [[WP:CABAL|cabals]] and [[Godwin's Law|nazis]] on Wikipedia are not usually the ones who apply for, or obtain, adminship. Could you please explain this?
'''Support''' as nom. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Will be a good Sysop if nominated.
'''Support''' - I keep forgetting that you are not an admin already.  Let's see what we can do about that. --
'''Support'''  Good track edits do not show any POV basis.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', fine user. <b>
WJB nomination = instasupport ~
'''Support''' This user appears to have improved on their pointed-out faults since the last RfA in April.
'''Support''' Favorable impression of RockMFR, and I consider the DRV concerns in the first RfA overblown - his comments were no more hot-blooded than many others in that discussion, including some who are admins. --
'''Support''' as before, and urge those considering this RFA to see the basis for the concerns in the previous RFA, which are weak at best. --
I believe the concerns that led me to oppose [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RockMFR|last time]] (hint: search that page for Kncyu) are not valid anymore, so I'm going to trust WJBScribe's judgement in twice nominating this user. —'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isotope23&diff=prev&oldid=104349736 It's all about the personal touch now, isn't it?]
'''Support''' Per obvious qualities, and good answer to my question.
'''Support''' Great editor, strong contributer.
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''
'''Support''' will make a good admin. —
'''Support''', could use the tools, don't think he's a mental, so yeah, sure.
'''Support'''. Vandalism, like pornography, is sometimes hard to define but I know it when I see it. I think RockMFR can tell the vandals from the non-vandals well enough. I'm sure that he (like everyone else who was around for it) learned from the Esperanza debacle.
'''Support''' his answers to the additional questions seem reasonable to me.
Seems okay, and I supported last time. The opposes are nonsensical lawyering so far... he's written a FA but he forgot to mention it in Q2, so oppose for not writing content? Come on... --
'''Support''' A good candidate for adminship! '''
'''Support''' Good editor.
I'm
'''Support'''. No huge issues with this user - I agree the answer to Q1 was evasivish, but often users do not know what admin tasks they would participate in until they are promoted, and discover what they can do. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Good editor, no problems here, will not abuse the tools being entrusted. --
'''Support''' per Matt. -
'''Support'''. Unlikely to delete the [[Main Page]]; even if he does attend Ohio State.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support.''' I think he's safe to entrust with the tools.
'''Support''' reasonable answers to questions, not all too concerned with question 1. Fine candidate. --
'''Yes please'''
'''Support''' - Answer to q5 shows a fairly good understanding of IAR; as the candidate says, the rules and processes should only be ignored in cases where the community is likely to agree. I think this candidate will be a safe pair of hands for the admin tools. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>
As a GameFAQs user with a level of "???", I '''support''' this candidate. <s>(I don't want to be the lone GameFAQs admin anymore :P)</s> Okay, apparently there are other GF admins. Doesnt lessen my support though.
'''Support''' - I see no problems here.
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support''' - a great user who I am sure will do well with the buttons.
'''<s>Support</s> Strong support''' looks like a good user.
'''Support''' as I did last time.  RockMFR is an experienced user, and should not be held back by an isolated incident long ago.
'''Support'''--
I was offended by your comment at my RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DrKiernan&diff=138635494&oldid=138632393], which admittedly you later removed. Please think carefully before making contributions as an admin, sometimes you can come over too strong.
'''Support''' after answering my question.--
'''Support'''. Well experienced and sensible. Some more experience with writing articles would be desirable, but the fact that he works a lot in that namespace with minor but helpful edits is quite OK. On the blocking vandals after too few warnings issue, I agree with RockMFR and respectfully disagree with those who require four warnings. The four-tier warning system is how we guide clueless newbie editors, that is those who make unconstructive test edits (such as inserting inappropriate "Wow!"-s) to an article, so that they understand the impact of what they're doing. It makes sense there to be tolerant and lenient. Requiring four warnings in order to block blatant ''vandals'', those who make edits which are so unquestionably bad faith that no reasonable person would do something like that as a test, need firmer treatment, and running through a whole series of warnings allows them to continue for longer, adding more strain on the RC patrol, and increasing the likelihood of vandalism slipping through unnoticed. I think the candidate has enough sense to distinguish between a clueless newbie and a vandal.
'''Support''' Answer to question four contains this phrase: "Sometimes more harm can be done by citing these pages ([[WP:CIVIL]] et al. -K) during conflicts rather than just following them." Spot on, and a good way to phrase one of the largest problems in current Wikipedia discussions.
'''Weak Support''' - I have seen him around and I like his work, but the opposes do have some points. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' I do not feel that the points raised by the oppose !voters contain enough substance to over-ride the obvious positive points which this editor demonstrates.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - per Anthony.bradbury. They do have certain points, but this user is too precious to not be an admin. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
I like this user's contributions. —
'''Support''' I think that the fact that this user will be doing more of the work that keeps Wikipedia going ("gnome work") there really aren't enough admins doing that sort of thing.
'''Support''' —<font face="georgia">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' you put your toes in a while ago at various XFD's, we'd like to see you (and everyone else who reads this) back there, mop in hand this time. :-)

'''Support''' - 7,000+ edits to the mainspace will be vital when new users are asking for help, while being backed up by a substantial amount of Wikipedia space edits - a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. I think RockMFR will make a good and responsible admin. <font color="Purple">
I rememeber this user back when I tidied up [[GameFAQS]] a couple of years back, if memory serves the user was using an anon account back then.  Have been impressed with the way the user has gone from anon to user, and the way the user has adapted behaviour over the years.  I don't have any serious issues with this user, no more serious than with some people who are already admins.  I trust those admin's with the bit, I trust this user the same. Sorry I missed the first nom, glad I caught the second.
'''Support'''.  A minor concern, which I share with DGG, is that the user may be trigger-happy against negligently vandalizing newbies, but I am hopeful for growth. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Edited/fixed error due to edit conflict.
'''Support''' The editor's well articulated responses to many questions throughout this RfA, and a scan of various contributions with a mind to the prior RfA's leads me to trust you with the tools at this time.
'''Weak support''' A bit happy on the block button, but not a disqualifier for an otherwise good candidate.--
'''Support''', this isn't a trial and the only reason not to make someone an admin is that it is a legitimate possibility that they may abuse the tools, which this user clearly won't. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I think this user will do just fine as a administrator.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but not only did you completely ignore the first question, but you danced around the second one, without giving a solid reasoning. If you really feel that a single edit, that was possibly just a test, is enough to warrant v4im, or be blocked for making a couple of test edits, that's really, really scary to see in an admin. Although I get the feeling that isn't what you meant to say, it's the impression you give, which does back to my main concern about you being able to communicate with other editors. Whether it's because you didn't read my entire post, because you didn't feel like answering the entire thing, or because you just forgot to include it, that is exactly the types of communication issues that can cause an editor that just made a few mistakes to leave the project. Heck, look at
'''Oppose''' per evasive answers to questions 2 and 3. Additionally, no mention of the involvement of content writing. Sorry, --
Despite the candidate claiming that this won't the be the case, I just feel the he may be a bit too trigger happy with the block button.  Probably won't count for much; this RfA should pass - but I had to voice my concern.
Oppose. The candidate dodged Q2 and Q3, and L has convinced me that RockMFR will not make Wikipedia a welcoming place for newbies.
'''Oppose''' per concerns brought up by others, but mostly because of the simplistic and/or evasive answers to questions. For example, your answer to Giggy's question did not jive with the strong understanding of the role and definition of the policies mentioned that is required of an admin. I just don't think this user is mature enough for the sysop tools.
'''Oppose''' Because I think you will over-block. The practice at AIV is to require a full series of 4 warnings--admins there frequently decline to block if it is only the 2nd warning. And the page header there reads: "the vandal ... has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." You seem to say you think a single warning is enough even in ordinary cases. What do you understand as the present policy? I asked this yesterday under neutral, but you didn't respond. '''
Answers to Q2. '''
'''Oppose''', essentially for reasons already mentioned. RockMFR seems like a good editor as far as I can tell, but I'm concerned about statements like "user talk pages are mostly unhelpful in conflicts" and his various comments on punishment. In a nutshell, I think the candidate leans somewhat on the aggressive side. His behavior is always acceptable, but I fear it may be somewhat unwelcoming to [[WP:BITE|newcomers]] and to a lesser extend other editors as well. I also share L and DGG's concerns about less-than-comprehensive communication. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Oppose''' on grounds of every comment above this one. Seems a bit too laid-back for the mop  --
'''Oppose'''  - per answer to question number two, lack of encyclopaedic contributions.--
The concerns that L brings up are worrying, but not enough to constitute an oppose from me. Great candidate, though, don't let this little bump along the road to adminship bring you down ;) –
'''Neutral''' I like the answers to the optional questions however I've found myself half agreeing with [[User:Irpen|Irpen]]. I don't really see how the answer to Q2 was evasive however, I don't think the candidate has sufficiently answered Q3. However, my concern isn't enough for me to believe the admin tools would be abused. He did come across as harsh when talking about dealing with vandals in general; however, he has stated that he may have come across harsher than he means to be and I think he may have accidentally given us that impression. So despite my concern with the insufficient answer to Q3, I see no reason to vote oppose, thus I vote neutral. -
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to support (kudos on saying that "IAR" is never a sufficient justification). However, I don't understand your answer to question 4. If something is destructive, which you admit incivility is, you can't just say "oh well" and ignore it except in really extreme cases. I really don't understand this lax (and in other cases, downright condoning) attitude towards incivility that everyone seems to have all of the sudden. -
'''Neutral''' - Can't decide.
'''Neutral''' - from oppose. His contribs and edit history are great but some of the questions don't quite do it for me. I don't believe he'll be all ''that'' trigger-happy, though -
'''Tentative support'''. Candidate shows a reasonable (though not outstanding) amount of experience in WP-space. Looking through edit history, I found nothing major to complain about. May possibly change my stance if another editor discovers something objectionable that I overlooked. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' mature editor that should do fine as an admin but please turn on the forced edit summary option in your preferences.

'''Support''' While I would like to see you gain a stronger technical grasp of Wikipedia, I think you bring a specific focus, and objectivity that will help you function quite well in the role of sysop. You have certainly been here long enough, and have made more than enough edits to demonstrate you actually know what you are doing, and can be trusted.
—&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support''' Glad to give my support. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral Support''', <s>despite not reaching the "magic number" of 3,000 edits</s>.  He appears to be a longstanding and trustworthy, if sporadic, editor.  Needs to be more consistent with the edit summaries, but has contributed to <s>many</s> a good article<s>s</s> and one featured article. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Support''' He needs to use edit summaries, needs experience, and needs technical experience in order to become a better contributor. No reason to oppose.
Sorry about the question, I referred to the overwhelming trend [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Ronnotel&namespace=4 here]. '''
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''. The finance pages on Wikipedia are weak, and would benefit from having a dedicated admin who can coordinate efforts among [[WP:FINANCE]] contributors and combat linkspam.
'''Support''' per all the points raised above, which imo outweigh any opposing arugments. I might add, I did not arrive lightly at this decision, and I did evaluate your contributions which I found to be quite good.
'''Support'''. I looked through his recent contribs and found a great combination of major and minor article edits, vandal-fighting, and XfD participation. Basically, primarily an article-building editor, who nonetheless has enough experience in admin tasks to understand the tools.
'''Support''' Candidate has been editing since 2005 and has made substantial article contributions, and has some familiarity with deletion process.  120 Wikipedia-space edits is not a lot, but it's enough to show me that he knows the basic principles.
'''Support.''' Finance is a tough area to write about, and given the amount of spam we have in business-related areas, a set of admin eyes knowledgable in the area could be a valuable asset to the project. Also, Wikipedia namespace does not equal policy knowledge, nor does it equal experience.
He's made good contributions, he's experienced, and I trust him. That's all it takes to get my '''support'''.
'''Strong support''' a fine hardworking editor; per Orangey's comments below, basically. * '''
I am unconvinced by editcountitis opposition.
Also unconvinced by the edit-counting oppositions which do not demonstrate any reasonable doubt as to this user's ability to use the tools.  --
'''Weak Support'''. The candidate has made substantial contributions despite low edit count.
'''Support''' Reasonable variety of experience, good on talkpages... Unlikely to run amok with mop.
'''Support'''. Editcounters should all have their heads examined.  Sometimes I imagine a Wikipedia without any edit count scripts.  Users could still count the edits by hand, of course, but they'd have to actually look at [[Special:Contributions]] (I'll link it in case some of you forgot where it was), instead of some sad computer-generated summary.  "Barely contributed to the project" my ass.  I'd be pretty hacked about nonsense like that as well.  If over two thousand good-faith edits is not a big enough sample for you to determine if you '''trust''' someone not to burn the encyclopedia down with admin buttons, then, to paraphrase Jimbo, maybe you should stay away from RFA and just find a new hobby.  &#10154;
'''Support''' I like [[Orange juice|oj]]. --'''
'''Support''' Minimally qualified. --'''
'''Support''' Basic, no concern with this editor kind of support.
'''Strong Support''' Very good edits, unlikely to abuse privelages. '''
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate.--
'''Support''' looks like a good editor and the [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|editcountitis]]-suffering opposers should evaluate the quality of his contributions and his knowledge about policy rather than an arbitrary number of edits. <b>
'''Support'''. Default position should always be to support unless there is a decent reason to oppose. Two and a half years is long enough to form a judgement- in this case, I see nothing at all that suggests to me that Ronnotel will misuse the tools. ''Admin is no big deal etc etc etc....''
'''Support'''. Checked his contributions and they look quite good and spread. Answers to the questions are also satisfactory. Edit summary usage could be higher but now that he is forcing it, this should not be a problem any more. --
'''Support''' Quality over quantity. Large, complex edits requiring research are take more time than drive by punctuation corrections and bot-like edits, or even more significant but less complicated edits not requiring research. '''Nom''' should not be penalized for taking the time to do research. I do not find the oppose arguments compelling.
'''Support''' I think there is plenty of good reasons to support.
'''Support''' - contribs show someone sensible and unlikely to misuse the tools. Reasonable policy experience. My only concern (edit summaries) is addressed by the answer to Q.4. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support'''. Frankly, some of the oppose votes show the folly of using raw edit counts. User has quite substantive mainspace contributions.
'''Support'''. Genuine knowledge of financial topics and very impressed with the statement in the discussion section.  If he can figure out stochastic volatility I'm quite sure he has the intellect to comprehend the intricacies of [[WP:CSD]] or [[WP:BP]]. --
'''Support''' Substantial, high-quality record of contributions.
'''Support'''. I'm not particularly concerned by the number of portal talk edits Ronnotel does or doesn't have. There is nothing that I can find, or that any opposer has raised, which concerns me in the least. He seems to be a sensible, experienced, and communicative editor who will be considered in his use of the extra buttons.
'''Support'''. I spent quite a bit of time combing through this editor's contributions today, since I have not (that I know of) crossed paths with him before. (My initial contributions here are below, under '''neutral'''.) There seems to be a very good history of contributions to Wikipedia in general. Although contributions to some of project space are a bit light--and it would be nice to see more interaction with vandals, since vandal fighting is what he wants the tools for--his behavior overall reflects due consideration, diligence and obvious desire to improve Wikipedia. I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. I remain slightly concerned about the willingness to promote a blog as a source in a [[WP:BLP]] [[Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names|here]], but I note that the candidate didn't run willy nilly [[WP:IAR|ignoring all rules]], and he offered sound reasons, even if I personally disagree with them. :) He proposed and, lacking much vocalized consensus, didn't press forward. That reinforces my belief that he will not abuse the tools. I am also still a ''little'' concerned about the conflict-averse behavior [[User_talk:Ronnotel#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDoomsday_Called_Off|demonstrated here]], but primarily because I suspect that if the editor uses the mop for dealing with vandals, he's going to be finding it pretty hard to "avoid controversy and seek consensus". That said, it once again encourages me in my belief that he won't abuse the tools. His responses to my questions were reasonable and seemed in line with his typical approach to conversation. He seems generally prudent, and I see no reason for concern. Good luck, and if you don't make it this time, I think you might find it valuable to try out more [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol]]. It'll probably give you all the opportunity you need to demonstrate your ability to deal with conflict. :) --
'''Support''' Upon rethinking things, I think that Ronnotel is more than cabable of adminship, he may not have a large edit summary but what really counts is that when he edits, a radical change is made to a page his demenor also seems perfect for adminship.
'''Support''' Edit history warrants support. My statements below still apply but I do not see a glaring reason to oppose. (personal note:using ElC method/not effective). --
'''Support''' Even as there remain for me a few (rather trivial, I suppose) unallayed concerns, I am convinced that Ronnotel is possessed of sound judgment, measured disposition, and cordial and civil demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I can conclude with a good deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].  (I am further motivated to support by the support of Pascal; although I do not base my RfA conclusions solely on the nominations or expressed views of other editors, I would say that Pascal is amongst our most sensible users and that his conception of adminship is generally consistent with mine, and so his strident support should speak well of a candidate.)
'''Oppose''' - roughly scattered edit count, with very few Wikipedia-space contributions. Not up to standard as of yet. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose'''- Barely over 100 wiki-space edits.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' I'm going to sound like a broken record, but here I go again.  Just someone who wants to be an admin, but has barely contributed to the project.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Strongest Possible Oppose'''. I think this editor could do with a bit more experience and maturity before attempting to make the move to admin. A total of less than 2600 edits? Less than 1500 edits in mainspace? Seriously active for less than a year, although the account has been around since early 2005? I would suggest humbly that this editor is still a bit wet behind the ears. Addendum: I have now changed my vote from "Oppose" to "Strongest Possible Oppose" based on argumentation and badgering of these editors giving their input here on their talk pages. --
'''Oppose''' with no prejudice for future attempts. From the often vague answers here, and the extremely low amount of talk and project space edits, I do not think the candidate has enough experience. Would be a great candidate with some coaching and increased contributing.
'''Oppose''' sorry, but low amount of talk space edits doesn't show sufficient interaction with vandals - especially for an editor with the stated goal of diverting them from vandalism to productive editing.
'''Oppose''' for now. I didn't find the candidates answers terribly illuminating, but that aside, what I really want to see is some solid wikispace contribs, and a few blazing rows handled with tact, dignity and aplomb.
'''Oppose''' 2628 edits in 2 and one-half years?  Just not enough experience.  And, not that I'm the greatest at edit summaries, 69% on major edits is too low. (And please, no rebuttals, I don't check back on these things either.)
'''Oppose''' - I see two AIV edits in the last 2000 edits, I see blocks within 6 months for major reasons, and I don't see edit summaries. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Neutral''' Nothing wrong as such, and your article works is great. But [[User_talk:Ronnotel#Please_email|this conversation]] on your talk page would indicate you were not sure how to even e-mail another user. That's not so much a fault as perhaps revealing a weak(ish) grip of the "technical" aspects of Wikipedia - which is pretty important for an admin. Also you could really do with using edit summaries more - almost all of them are automatic, even when creating new pages. That's minor but admins must leave "quick to see" information summarising their actions. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''', I don't know this guy so I can't decide.
'''Neutral'''
'''Support''' as nominator. I am confident that Royalbroil will make an excellent administrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Strong support, good clueful editor. '''
'''Strong Support''': Already a <u>great</u> editor, why not move up to sysop? -
'''Strong Support''' Good luck. --
My experience has been that Royalbroil can disagree amicably and is not wedded to ego. I expect good things. ··
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No problems here. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' - a dedicated editor, and I had similar thoughts suggesting Royalbroil for RfA myself, so it's great the ball is already rolling.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' A great editor, Royalbroil has done a great job with WikiProject Wisconsin. I hope Royalbroil will be part of WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you-
'''Strongest Support''' - [[User:Rudget/policies|because]].
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per Q3 more than anything else. A combination of being bold about something that you felt important, combined with the ability and choice or revisting your contribution is excellent. We always need more admins who will take action, yet will also pause to review and consider those actions. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Looks really impressive. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''', looks fine to me.
'''Support''' Solid, all-round record & no concerns.
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to questions, reliable nominator, and upon reviewing [[Special:Contributions/Royalbroil|RB's contributions]] and the nomination statement, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  Thanks for answering my question.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Contributions are impressive and I have zero concerns that leave a reason to oppose.-
'''Strong support''' for contributing a lot to Commons and being a good Wikipedia user.
Of course
'''Support''' Contributes to articles, and has experience,
'''Support'''  - Good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' User seems to have very good judgement and could be trusted with the tools. Also, I heard he sleeps down in the soil.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per many above.
'''Support''' <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="3">'''
'''Support''' - It has been quite some time since we worked together (due to change in my editing patterns), but I remember you as being a positive influence on the project. --
'''Support''' per nom. Seems like a balanced user, open to feedback and working by consensus. Good answers to questions, no reason not to sysop. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' - I ran into Royalbroil while on newpage patrol when he removed a CSD tag I had applied to [[St. Luke's Hospital (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)]].  Although I tagged it as a copyright violation and moved on, he stuck around and worked with the author to fix the problems.  When I came back on review to remove the tag from the improved page,  I found he had actually beaten me to the punch.  This combination of policy knowlege and unwavering dedication to helping new editors will undoubtedly make him a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a good contributor. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' I have not worked directly with Royalbroil, but I have found his commentary at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing|WP:AOWR]] to be insightful and his work excellent. --'''
'''Support''' - Good candidate.
'''Support''' editor with impressive record, also style points for amusing username. --
'''Support''' "Royalbroil is a very experienced Wikipedian who is familiar with all the areas admins tend to deal with" sounds about right. --
No problems... --
After reading WJBscribe's nomination, and Royalbroil's answers, I am convinced this user will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=Royalbroil This user marks] [[WP:NPPLOG|patrolled pages]]. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''', seen him around, looks good.
I'm
'''Support''' - I have run across this editor doing a variety of constructive tasks in various places. Plus he is an experienced content provider. Plus he communicates clearly and isn't flippant. (Glad he toned down his signature though.)
'''Support'''Has been around since June 2005 and has over 11000 mainspace edits.
'''Support'''--More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' An absolutley great editor. <span style="border: 1px solid green">
'''Support''' - the "promised" ten percent of his time here will mean '''a lot''' of good to this project.
'''Support''' - has made pretty good contributions.--
'''Support''' --
The first '''support''' comes free with the nomination ;-) Good luck, <i><b>
'''Support''', a fine user.
'''Absolutley'''
If the first support comes free with the nomination, this '''support''' comes with a free subscription to the [[WP:SIGNPOST|Signpost]].
'''Support''' Excellent editor, good answers to questions and willing to work on PUI. <font face="Broadway">
...And this support comes with half the support of two supports.
'''Support'''. Strong longtime contributor.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''[[Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth|Good news everyone!]]''' - I support this nomination. &mdash;
'''Support''' A fine editor and a reasonable voice and always willing to help. I really don't think that I would be making the contributions that I make without his friendship, support and encouragement.
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' Per [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards]]. Another image-working admin? Yes please. Excellent work, excellent nomination. An absolute pleasure to offer support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  Great content contributions to the project.
'''Support'''. Go for it writer! --
'''Support''' Oh yes indeedy, an excellent editor.
Looks good. --
I trust this user with the tools. -
'''Support'''. Strong, knowledgeable, and even-keeled editor. Perhaps best, a record of ''no drama'' with other admins and editors.
'''Support''' Can find no reason to say no to this user and lack of drama is always a good thing. --
'''Support''' Give him the adminship.--
'''Support'''.  Wow, a great editor.  <strong class="plainlinks">
Sieht alles ok aus. I&nbsp;
You have done some good work. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' A great contributor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', of course! <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
No way I can oppose this one. :)
'''Support''' - reluctantly as I fear that administration's gain may be main space's loss.
'''Support''' don't know him but looks good.
'''Support''' I met Ruhrfisch through his work in Pennsylvania local history, and he has always been an outstanding editor. His articles are a joy to behold, and he's always impressed me with his amiable, reasonable and conciliatory temperament. I don't think Ben need worry — if I know him, I think the admin bit will enhance his editing rather than replace it.
'''Support''' per Snowolf's concise, compelling nomination. --<font face="Futura">
'''Absolutely !! '''
Certainly.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. We need more people with such skills. -
'''Support'''. Ruhrfisch has been a pleasure to work with and the quality and detail of his contributions are a great asset to Wikipedia.  I am confident that he will have similar success as an admin.
I agree with SandyGeorgia.
'''Support''' &mdash; Good lord yes.  To those of you who bitch and moan whenever I oppose a self-nom, '''this''' is what I'm looking for.
'''Strong support''' '''
—
'''Support''' Yes, surely &mdash;
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' as an excellent, prolific, even obsessive, editor who can be trusted.  I'm not sure he needs the mop, but why not?
'''Support''' great editor who uses good judgement.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Support''' - I almost opposed, on the grounds that when you become an admin, you won't spend as much time uploading.  [[image:SFriendly.gif|19px]] '''''
'''Support''' I seen the little green fish in many ponds, and trust it will make good use of a mop in its mouth.<font color="green">&gt;&lt;&gt;</font>−−€
'''Support'''  - good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Oppose''' that this should distract this fine user from his excellent article writing, support sysop bit being toggled. <strong>
'''Support''' per snowwolf.  User will certainly use the tools wisely.  <i>
'''Support.''' His article work listed at [[User:Ruhrfisch/Milestones]] is impressive, and in my experience he is patient and diplomatic.
'''Support''' though I have logged on since September ;)
'''Support''' - our paths have never crossed before, but this editor looks super. Excellent track record, awesome contributor, polite and kind to all. Yup! Mop time :) -
'''Strong Support''' - Absolutely no reasons not to give the user the tools.
Clearly. ''
'''Support''' will use the tools well.
'''Support''' Competent and trustworthy. An easy decision.
'''Support''' My one interaction with the nominee was a positive one. In addition, looking at his record leads me to believe that he would make an excellent admin. —
'''Support''' -- he's done a heck of a job with mainspace editing and in creating excellent articles, and I'm sure he'll do just as good of a job as an admin.  --
Support. Great candidate. &ndash;
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Strongest support I have yet given an admin candidate'''. I deeply appreciate his encomia to me in the answers he gave to his questions. A talented editor who is way way overdue for the mop.
'''Support.'''  I've run across his contributions from time to time, and nothing in them or in this RfA suggests to me that he would be anything but an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Evidently there's nothing to be said against Ruhrfisch, and I can certainly find nothing.--
'''First support''' comes free with the nomination! Good luck mate. '''
'''Strong Support'''. I actually thought you were an admin. Seems like I confused you with Ryangerbil10 hehe. Anyway, I've seen great work from this user, and I was actually considering nominating this user once Majorly told me about Ryan. Great work at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:U]], [[WP:RFC/NAME]] and article editing. '''
'''Support''' I have had good interactions with Ryan and I trust his judgement as an editor. He will make a fine admin. <font color="Green">
'''Support''' - excellent! Somebody who contributes, vandalfights *and* is even British (we need more UK based sysops).
'''Support''' I've had a lot of interaction with Ryan on WP and he has been an excellent and fair editor. Can't fault the guy! -
'''Support''': Certainly.  —
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''-Great user. See him around RFCN all the time. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' Excellent work all round (which is where I see him most!)
'''Strong support''' Looks like I finally get to use the "I thought he already was" cliché. Per Bubba hotep, I've seen him all around and he'd make an excellent admin.
Looks great to my eyes. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. An excellent user whom I continuously encounter with through recent changes patrol. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''! Great! &ndash;
'''Support''' A good user overall. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=106988297], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=107690063] show that this user won't abuse the blocking privilege.--
'''Support''' - agree with nom - he's ready.
'''Support''' —<small>
'''Support''' looks like a good user.--
'''Support''' A good contributor who is actively engaged in policy. --
'''Support''' A very dedicated editor and an asset to the Administration..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I think he will be a fine admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I trust Majorly's judgement.
My interactions with Ryan convince me he's ready. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' ... but I thought you already were? ''
'''Support''' must turn thought into reality.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' great and experienced candidate. -
'''Support''' per amusing photo and general common sense.
'''Pure cliché support''' good luck!
'''Strong support''' as co-nom. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' - another one for the Brit Cabal.
Seen him around; generally impressed. Keep up the good work. &mdash;
I find him to be well-reasoned, even where I disagree with him. Excellent, trustworthy candidate. --
'''Strong Support''' - I have worked with this editor on several occasions.  This editor works well in difficult sitautions, such as working at [[WP:RFCN]].  I think this editor would make excellent use of the tools.
'''Support''' Seen him around, seems to be one of the good guys. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
Definitely. &ndash;
'''Support''' - a gentleman, and a scholar! -
'''Support''' Not a slack fellow. Busy, trusted by many, helps new editors. I just hope he won't question the appropriateness of my name on [[WP:RFCN]].
'''Go for it'''.  You look like you'll be successful with adminship.
'''Support''' I've come across his good work a number of times; I trust him with the mop. <font face="Georgia">
'''Support''' big time.  One of the nicest users I've come across here.
'''Moppable''' -
'''Support'''.

Yup.  Seen him around, seems like a sound chap, no big deal. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''', obviously. If this hadn't happened I would have nominated him myself. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Good job.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''',
'''Support''' excellent wikipedian. Keep going this way. '''Happy editing''' <i><b>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' This user is a friendly user. He is a decent editor who I think would make a good administrator; and when other users have been upset or troubled for whatever reason, he has helped them.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- He seems like an active editor who has been around and is familiar with what it's like to be a sysop.  The copyright issue is a problem, but his explanation seems adequate. [[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="2"><b>L</b></font>]][[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="3"><b>uis</b></font>]]
'''Support'''. I have found him to be a thoughtful and considerate contributor when I have seen him at [[WP:RFCN]].
'''Support''' He will make a good admin, enough said. --'''
'''Support'''. I'm willing to overlook the citation thing, since he's owned up to his mistake and is working to fix it, and in any event it seems relatively tangential to the sort of things he'd actually be doing as an administrator. His actual policy- and process-related edits seem pretty good. -
'''Support'''.  I've seen Ryan a great deal at [[WP:RFCN]].  He always keeps cool and considers different points of view.  He would make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Incredible editor, I have seen an amazing amount of excellent contributions from him in such little time on the project. With the tools he could be even better.
'''Support''' I never interacted directly with the user, but I had a chance to bump into some of his contributions and was always pleasantly surprised to see a vandal fighter being able to contribute so efficently to the project, I couldn't support more -
'''Weak Support''' Based on your administrator-related work, I would have given you a strong support, but these allegations of plagarism upset me, you need to work on that (which I am sure you will after the response to it in this RfA).  Otherwise, you are a prime candidate (hence my support). '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I've been very happy seeing Ryan's civility and constructiveness in many Wikipedia discussions.  I'm fine with him as an administrator.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. This editor seems like an excellent candidate, has good experience, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. ···
I '''support''' this nomination for Ryan's wonderful vandal fighting and his ability to keep it cool. Also I can't wait to get those album notability guidelines updated. −
'''Support'''. I believe Ryan will make a good admin. I have on occasion interacted him at [[WP:RFCN]] when I have visited this page. We rarely agree, but if there was always concensus as to how to resolve username probs the page would not be needed. I think his opinions there reflect a wider tendency to generally AGF when others would not but I'm not convinced by those opposing that this is necessarily a bad thing. As to the copyright issues, I take Ryan at his word that it will not reoccur. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per nom. Good-faithed user, will make a fair admin. —
'''Support'''. Sure, he spends a lot of his time at RFCN, but still a great user.--
'''Support'''.  Strong endorsement given his constructive attitude, devotion to administrative tasks, and the professional manner in which he acknowledged and corrected past mistakes.
'''Support'''. Though with all the other votes, it looks like he doesn't need mine. Ryan is an excellent editor who makes Wikipedia a much better place through his tireless efforts to combat vandalism. he would make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Enough said above. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' Phew! Almost too late! I wouldn't want to miss out on supporting you! ·
'''Support''' Clear aim. Dedicated vandal fighter. -
support --
'''Support''' Well, it's not critical at this point, but that doesn't reduce my support :) <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Support''' I've seen this user around and I just cant remember! Good edit count and valuable contributions, could use the extra tools greatly!
'''Support''' If Ryan's understood the plagarism rules and resolved not to repeat his error, I'm happy to support his bid for admin.
'''Support''' (Changed from oppose). I've just been considering the statement Ryan recently put on his userpage and I believe he is most sincere in his comments. I believe he now understands that taking a piece of text and only changing a few words around is plagiarism and I think he understands that it unacceptable both on Wikipedia and academically. I think overall Ryan has been a very good editor and that he will make an excellent administrator. I just hope that if Ryan remembers other articles where he has done similar things with the source material, that he will immediately rewrite or delete as appropriate. More than what Ryan did, I'm disappointed by the blasé attitude some have shown towards plagiarism and copyright because this is a serious issue. But I don't hold it against Ryan and I feel comfortable in supporting his RfA. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Unfortunately, I feel this candidate needs more time and experience.  As shown by the [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite#Questionable_copying|evidence presented on the talk page]], many of Ryan's mainspace contributions are essentially plagarism.  I am going to [[WP:AGF|assume]] that this is unintentional due to lack of understanding of our content policies, but it is more than enough reason for me to oppose.  While it is okay for admins to focus their time in specific areas of interest, I do expect them to have at least a modest understanding of all the primary areas of wiki activity.  Ryan has focused on username issues, welcoming new users, reverting vandalism, and various minor formatting issues to the near total exclusion of everything else. In particular, I can find only a very tiny number of articles where he has made substantive contributions, and most of those appear to lift substantially from outside sources without identifying direct quotes.</p><p>To his credit, Ryan is identifying the sources he copies as references/external links, but he fails to make clear that much of his content is verbatim quoting.  In my opinion, Ryan does not yet have a sufficient grasp of the requirements of article writing or of our content policies in order to be ready for adminship.
Ryan is fascinated with [[WP:RFCN]], however, it is a process time-sink which should be merged to [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RENAME]]. Ryan worries on behalf of blatant vandals when they not [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive185#User:IMTHEWORLDSGREATEST.E2.80.8E blocked without final warning|been read their Miranda rights]]. The amount of attention he has given to throw-away accounts suggests that he would, despite numerical appearances, be unproductive or even counterproductive as an administrator. That wouldn't be a big deal in itself, with so many other administrators who can actually get things done in the meantime, as long as you are not causing deliberate harm to the project, which brings me to the most important issue being discussed: COPYRIGHT. It would be better for you to edit/create no articles at all than to plagiarize. I really don't care whether it's malice, apathy, or ignorance — any of these traits should disqualify an aspiring admin. '''Strongly oppose'''. —
'''Oppose''' a difficult decision in someways, individual issue on their own I would quite possibly have just remained overall netural on, combined tips the balance to an oppose. I'm concerned with the [[WP:RFCN]] issue, maybe not quite as strongly as CharlotteWebb, but the last few ocassions I have visited it seems to be becoming a bureaucractic process, apparently more interested in rules for the sake of rules than actually the bigger picture of the encyclopedia. This of course isn't directly down to any single editor, but the involvment there seems to be directly a part of that and I'm not sure it's a shining example of the way things should work on wikipedia (i.e. it maybe poor experience rather than valuable experience). The copyright issue is a big one, saying I'd leave an outstanding copyright issue until after RFA so people could see it, seems to be a million miles away from the behaviour I'd expect of a potential admin, if you know it's a copyvio deal with it as soon as practical. Similarly the other statements made above regarding this, such as copyright infringement "opening it up to libelous action.", certainly don't give me any better impression that there is sufficient knowledge in such areas. (What has [[Libel]] generally got to do with [[Copyright]] ?) As I've said on other RFAs I'm not necessarily concerned about things people don't know (since they'll tend to avoid or ask when faced with it), I am concerned when they claim to know (an be acting on that knowledge) but that knowledge seems quite lacking. --
'''Oppose''' per above.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''

'''Oppose''' per copyright concerns raised by Dragons flight. The activity would have been enough to get him blocked if had been caught in the act. I can't support Ryan at this time and I encourage him, despite the majority support to withdraw the nomination until the '''literally''' illegal activity has been resolved. ---
'''Oppose''' This is obviously going to pass, but the plagiarism is very troubling. Too troubling for me to want this to pass. We're all part of a massive project here, but Copyright issues can do so much damage. It's hard to hold Wikipedia liable for any infringements we make. Therefore, we have to do extra to check ourselves.  Anyways, congratulations on the adminship and please do not abuse this position.
'''Oppose'''. See my original comments in the neutral section.
His actions are in good faith, but I've seen comments of his which lead me to question his judgement on multiple occasions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=108957556], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=106988297], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=107690063] are by no means all of them.
I feel that Ryanpostlethwaite was much too quick to open [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand|this RfC]], given that the issue seemed clearly to me to be vagueness in the username policy rather than the actions of any given admin.  If he becomes an admin, I would urge Ryan, in future, to recognize the difficulties of making admin decisions and the likelihood of any RfC on an admin attracting a fair amount of trolling, and consider it to be a last resort.  I've sorted through his recent contributions, however, and in general Ryan is clearly an excellent editor.
A fine user, but I feel this editor needs a month or two longer to absorb all that is Wikipedia. --
'''Nom Support''' I of course support the RfA
'''Go go gadget support!''' --
'''Support''' per Michael Billington's reasoning as co-nominator >_>
'''First non-nom support!''' Definitely, the noms have stated my case. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent vandal-fighter, and he makes considerable effort to clean up articles that need it. A true asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support''' has my trust. An excellent contributor who will make an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support''' an outstanding candidate with experiance with clear vision and need for admin tools in the fight against vandalism. --
'''Support''' - per nom. Valued contributor, excellent person, will use the tools wisely and efficently. — <font face="papyrus">
'''Strong Support''' - you can be the first to have my new signature on an RfA. <font face="Arial Black">--Kind Regards -
Support, although the user has too many edits :-)
'''SUPPORT!" This guy is gooooood. --
<s>'''Oppose''' not enough edits</s> Changing to '''Support''' ;) --
'''Support'''- I will overlook your very low edit count. '''
'''Support''' Rarely has a mop been earned through so much janitorial work. Anyone who can make 40,000 edits without getting banned is doing something right. -
'''SUPPORT!''' Ryu for president! w00t w00t!.
'''Support''' per Will.
'''Loooong overdue''' Experienced, trustworthy, dedicated. What more do we need? Mop please! --
'''SUPPORT''' Based On Refferal of Soms, High Barnstar And Edit Count!
'''Support''' based on my personal experience with him, which has been quite positive. He already acts functionally as an admin in many ways, and I trust his judgment will remain as precise once he is formally granted the tools as it is now. --
'''Support'''. I wish you to show that concerns raised in the previous RFAs do not apply to you.
I was initially hesitant about giving my input into this RfA, however I recognise the importance of giving people second-chances when they make mistakes, and giving +sysop to users where Wikipedia will benefit from said action. Hence, I '''strongly support''' this RfA and encourage other !voters to not look at the issues brought up at Ryu's last RfA, but rather the improvements Ryu has made in his character and editing. It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities; Ryulong may be slightly snappish on the odd occasion, but has shown over the last two months or so that he has the tempermant also to ensure that any bitey incidents are avoided to the best of his ability. That is enough for me, and I hope it will be for others. [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND|Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges]], and I appeal to all those who may be considering opposing Ryulong for actions prior to his last RfA withhold their opposal, and rather evaulate the substantial changes he has made in his personality, conversing style and general editing practices. He who cannot forgive breaks the bridge over which he himself must pass. Think of the benefits to Wikipedia, in conjunction with Ryulong's improvement, and not any percieved opposal based on occasional misdeeds an age (in Wikitime) ago. We all make mistakes - even the best of us, and I could reference one highly-regarded user whom basically everyone on Wikipedia respects (and no, not Jimbo) - but a blanket statement will suffice, and this blanket statement includes this nomination. Good luck Ryulong. '''
This could have been stronger, but meh. &mdash;
'''Lame not enough edits joke''' &mdash; '''
'''Support''' - Great experience working with the editor, and although a bit over-zealous sometimes, theres nothing holding me back from support. —
'''Support''': I've seen him around in a lot of domains, and he comes across as a very determined, hardworking but fair editor, who could make great use of the admin tools (especially vandal fighting).
This should've came earlier, but there was an edit conflict. '''''Very Large Shivan Support''''' aka. '''''Ultra-Extreme Support'''''; oh yes, he's been very helpful indeed. When [[Torchic]] was the Featured Article of the Day, he was almost always the first to respond to vandalism...like how [[User:AntiVandalBot|AntiVandalBot]] would've responded if it wasn't a scripted bot. He's very helpful, civil and follows Wikipedia rules. As I write this comment, I'm checking [[Special:Contributions/Ryulong|his Contributions]]; it is very unnerving to see how many reverts and edits he can make within the space of a minute. Keep this up, good sir! ''Surely'' you deserve the mop! You've certainly got the [[Wikipedia:Wikipediholism|Wikipediholism]] for it. --
'''Support''' fine editor who is always up for helping other people
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nominators. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - one of those genuine "thought they were already" ones --
'''Support''' -- ''

'''Support''' Has tons of experience, has proven himself to be dedicated, and seems to know what he wants to do with the tools he will soon be givin.  Great work. '''
'''Support'''. I opposed the last RfA based on his sometimes-inaccurate reports to AIV. I still don't feel totally comfortable with some reports (UsernameBlocked, for example), but I am letting his other activities overshadow this issue. '''
Yes, yes, yes a million times over. Ryulong is an enormous asset to the project. I wish I had the discipline to do half the amount of work he does. --
'''Weak Support''' - looking through contributions, I see multiple instances of javascript reversions of things other than simple vandalism.  Even if it takes a bit longer, it's a good idea to use edit summaries for anything other than simple vandalism.  Engaging someone who is potentially acting in good faith is usually a good idea.  Still, though, Ryulong is an amazing editor who contributes to administrative tasks and has an obvious use for the tools.  Thus, I support. --
'''Weak Support''' - heart's in the right place, but watch the newbie biting. ++
But please be careful &mdash; we don't need any overzealous blocks, especially when it comes to new usernames.  --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' looks good.
Mainly because then he can do his own blocks and stop bugging me--
'''Strong Support''' Ryulong incredibly active fighting vandals on and off wiki. I see no good reason to again deny him this promotion.
'''Support''' as a quiet observer of good work and two co-nom's can't be all bad. So we've all made mistakes, no-one's perfect. Could always consider being open to recall if it would appease some other opinions?
'''Support''' - This was an easy support, he will use the tools, I trust him not to abuse them on purpose. A few mistakes out of 40,000 edits, so what? We are are all human. :P Ryulong has at least 2 times as many edits as I do, I think he has demonstrated his good faith, and lack of malice towards wikipedia. Also, lets not forget these famous words... "'''Adminship is not a big deal'''". ——
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per noms. ''
[[User_talk:DVD R W|'''<font color="black"> dvd</font>''']]
'''Support''' - per noms, AIV will take a load off.
'''Strong support''' An outstanding, experienced user with very good knowledge of WP's policies.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Weak support''' - this user does have some small issues with talk page removal (which I've mentioned to him), and some occasional bite issues. But for gosh sake, no admin candidate will be absolutely perfect, and I'm sure he's learned from the past, and will certainly not try to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support'''- Excellent edit count with slight problems but "nobody's perfect"! <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Weakish Support''' I was very neutral, very on-the-fence, very undecided in the last RfA, but there seems to be some real attempts at correcting the errors brought up at that point. I would have liked to see even more improvement, but I can trust this user with the admin tools at this point. '''''
'''Support''' He'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' - he's ready now. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Reluctant Support''' Although he is far from the perfect Wikipedian (he has a sort of Jack Bauer style of dealing with vandalism, which, although effective, is really in violation of [[WP:BITE]]),  Ryulong has done an incredible job with fighting vandalism. His job would be easier if he had admin tools. '''
'''Support'''. Besids a rediculous number of edits, he's an asset to vandalfighting. Loses his cool on occasion, but also helps out  when needed. I'm willing to look over the once in a while problems because his pluses are far greater.--
'''Support''' I don't think you can really question Ryulong's good faith and dedication to the project, which are the most important things for me in making a decision at RfA. Certainly some valid concerns have been raised, but beyond lack of rolling out the red carpet for vandals with 4 warnings (which is not an entitlement, contrary to popular belief), I don't see that much to worry about. He's made 40,000+ edits and I'm sure any non-robot would have made a few mistakes, rubbed a few people the wrong way in that time. I see nothing that really makes me think he'd hurt the project as an admin. --
'''Support''' per above comments. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Strong Support''' He's well fit for the tools.--
'''Support''' He'll make a great admin. --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#C71585">'''Tohru Honda13'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tohru Honda13|Talk]]•
'''Support'''.
'''Turnip'''
'''Support'''. Long overdue. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Strong support'''. Having an impersonator on several wikipedias (cf. Bobabobabo) means he's cool enough to troll. [[User:Ryulong/Impostor list]] ~
'''Support''' WP needs more admins, and he'll be fine. -
'''Support''' Diligent and capable.
'''Support'''. I understand (and to an extent share) opposers' concerns. I hope Ryulong will draw his own conclusions (and learn from them). Still, I think he's ripe, and his dedication is definitely an asset to the project.
'''Support''' Been looking at this for a couple of days now. There is no doubt Ryulong is an excellent vandal fighter. In every instance that I noticed, Ryulong posted AIV IP's and editors who definitely needed to be blocked. I prefer to see more mainspace contributions, but I'm not going to fault you for that or for a few minor situations (out of 40,000!) in which you may have not been 100% correct. It's a law of averages, the more one does, the more chance they have of making a rare mistake, and no one should ever expect that an admin will be perfect (though we strive for that of course).--
'''Support''' Excellent vandal-fighter, trustworthy, good enough to have the occasional biting (which has improved) overlooked. With 40,000 edits, some amount of mistakes were inevitable.
'''Strong support''': with the understanding that a mop isn't just a stick with a fuzzy end. Ryulong knows what it's like to be an editor in need of an admin action, and I believe that he won't forget his non-sysop roots for those that need help. In my opinion, Ryulong shows that he can think like an admin, even though he does commit sporadic mistakes (which will hopefully abate), so one last thing: may [[WP:NAM|angry vandal mastadons]] not let him lose appreciation of how latently important new users are.
'''Support''': So he'll stop bugging the rest of us.
'''Support''' Nothing major against that a normal admin doesn't go through in dealing with other people. Ryulong would make a fine additional admin. --
'''Support''' sure, Ryulong would be an asset in weeding out vandalism.  I think he's earned our trust, and I trust he won't be too block heavy to start --
'''Support''' as per his work on helping counter the [[WP:LTA/MG|MascotGuy]] vandal.  Although MascotGuy indeed makes good faith edits, it's impossible to communicate with him which makes him a problem.  Very few admins only see [[WP:AGF]] and refuse to clean up after him or block his sockpuppets, and Ryulong will make a welcome addition.  Also, it is quite obvious from this and previous nominations that he communicates with other admins.
'''Support''' per good work done, thought with request for a little more caution to be implemented on some occasions.
'''Strong support''' [[User:Ryulong|Ryulong]] reverted my User Page once, and gave some help with an awkward User as well. I was surpised to find out that Ryulong wasn't an Administrator. I have seen many of Ryulong's edits and I believe she/he should be one.
'''Support''' I'm a big fan. |
'''Support''' - I've always found this user reasonable when questioned and willing to discuss his actions.
Opposes are based almost exclusively on old mistakes and behavioural patterns since changed. Even despite those past mistakes, he's a sterling user and his contributions to Wikipedia are without equal. He will not only be a capable adminstrator, he will be an excellent one. --[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
<s>'''Oppose with regret''' per Sarah. I really like Ryulong and believe he means well, but there are too many [[WP:BITE]] concerns in this case. I would be happy to reconsider after a few months showing a more temperate hand in dealing with alleged vandals who may just be untrained newbies. '''Change to neutral'''. I believe Ryulong is showing a good temperament in his responses here, but I still have some reservations about offering support to this RfA.</s> '''Support'''. After reading Cyde's comments on the talk page, I've decided to change to Support. I believe that Ryulong can be trusted to not abuse the extra bit. Everyone makes mistakes, and Ryulong has shown significant improvement lately. I believe that he will continue to improve and have fewer and fewer issues with the concerns I expressed before. ···
'''Support'''. Normally I don't do edit counts, but I reserve the right to ignore my own rule if it's to improve wikipedia. Let's say Ryulong is a saint, and only makes 1 mistake per 1000 edits. If people were to point out 40 major, awful mistakes here, I would still be able to support while honestly saying "this dude is a saint". Well... guess what? I don't see 40 mistakes ;-) Also answered my questions about [[m:Foundations issues]] and [[WP:TRI|Policy trifecta]] well. This user is probably not the greatest mediator yet, but he has some good nominatiors. If (s)he hangs out with them and listens to them in that area, Ryulong will do fine. --

'''Strong support'''. Screw diffs. Everyone has their good and bad days, and Rylong definately has a lot of good days, and good judgement. Stuff like the below is why [[User:Jon Harald Søby#15 reasons WP:RFA sucks|RFA sucks]] and needs to be changed. IMO.
'''Support''' - I think his net effect is positive. Just take care of the newbie biting &mdash;
'''Weak Support''' The overall contribution of this user has been positive. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Wow. I've seen Ryulong all over Wikipedia, either contributing to AfDs, helping with incidents, helping new users, or contributing to articles (40,000+ edits in 11 months says it all) - <span style="background:Black">[[User:TRSJ|<font color="White">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''•The RSJ•'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>]] <small>[[User talk:TRSJ|<font color="white">Talk</font>]] |
I'm
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Whole heartedly for his tireless improvements to articles and reverting of vandalism. --
'''Support''', period. .  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' – A vigorous opponent of vandalism and experienced contributor.  Give him the mop.  Give him several: he will wear them out, and not through misuse! —
'''Support''' - I want to say I believe in Ryulong's abilities as an editor and that he'd be a boon to Wikipedia, but the reality is I hate him and want to burden him with extra responsibility.  Muhahahaha! :)
'''Support''' - can't believe this, I thought he'd been here for years.
'''Support''' I encountered the candidate during a dispute.  While his statements are not always covered with sugar, he pushes for a fair and expeditious solution.  His decisiveness will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support''' - I always thought you were an admin already?! Would make a good admin.-
'''Strong support''', would clearly be a useful admin. --
'''Support'''.   It's cliche, but I thought he already was one.  Does a lot of great work for the community.
'''Support''', I think.  I had to think long and hard about this - Ryulong, you are going to need to accept some of the criticisms here about forming snap judgements and then not being open to change (ha! sez me!) but in the end I am persuaded that the risk is low and outweighed by the benefit of adding an energetic and committed individual to the admin posse. I invoke the No Big Deal clause. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Strong Turnip''' per George William Herbert.
This is an important !vote and one that I've agonized about for days. On the one hand, this candidate is clearly dedicated to Wikipedia in general and dealing with vandalism in particular. Given the sheer volume of his vandal-fighting efforts and his intention to concentrate on that area, lack of experience in some other areas, while not optimal, is insufficient to dissuade me from supporting. The more troubling concern is about the risk of BITE problems and blocks with insufficient warning; there is evidence that since his last RfA, the candidate has improved in this area, but not to the level where virtually any of the voters/commenters would want him to be. So one looks for evidence as to whether the candidate now sees what the problem is, and one finds a mixed record. On the one hand, I found the answer he gave to the optional question I added above very satisfactory. On the other hand, yesterday on ANI, there was a report of a new editor who had disambiguated the names of some TV show episodes; Ryulong had reported the editor, first to AIV and then to ANI, for blocking because the move was in violation of consensus as found by an ArbCom case decided that day; but the editor in question was new, was not a party to the ArbCom case, had not been warned, and as it turned out had never heard of the consensus discussion or the case; when advised of them, he apologized and said he would study up on policy; had Ryulong been an administrator, I am afraid he would have blocked this editor without warning, which would have been a terribly unjust block that could have cost us either a drama or an editor. So an oppose here would be quite easy to justify and the concerns raised below are serious ones. And yet, after all, Ryulong's vandal-fighting record is a distinguished one, and although it's perhaps not of any long-term significance, I did appreciate his taking the time to give evidence in the Konstable arbitration case, helping to save the committee from issuing a decision that would have contained a palpably false finding of fact. I am going to go out on a limb here and hope that Ryulong, reading these words, if he becomes an administrator, can and will promise and remember to please, please pause before blocking; remember to assume good faith until the assumption is no longer viable; to consult with others when that is appropriate; and above all, to remember that most editors are here to contribute to the encyclopedia and that the world should not rightly be looked at through vandal-colored glasses. I wish I could !vote for the candidate with fewer reservations, and I hope I don't come to regret this, but ... '''support'''.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' -<font color="red">
'''Support''' as like his last RfA <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
Despite some concerns below, Wikipedia will benefit from Ryulong having mop.
'''Support''' I thought about it more and think he should be admin.
'''Support'''- I thought he already was an admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I've spoken to Ryulong about some of the concerns below (particularly reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] with insufficent warnings) and I believe he has dramatically improved in this regard. One thing that I'd like to point out, is that (from personal experience especially) when one ''has the actual ability'' to block, one does think about it a lot more. I know prior to my becoming an administrator, I would report vandals to AIV with '''a lot''' less thought than I would block them, as you assume the blocking admin will look at their edits closely before blocking (and they/we do). As such, I believe Ryulong will be far more restrained in his blocking than he is in his reporting. Regardless, Ryulong do you plan to be [[:Category:Administrators open to recall|open to recall]]? Confirming this may help eliminate some of the opposers' concerns :) Good luck! '''
'''Support''' I feel that Ryulong has addressed and improved on the issues raised since his last nomination. I wish that opposers citing the Tennis expert debacle would read Newyorkbrad's statement regarding that. I think that Ryulong would make a good admin, although I can't help but wonder if he's [[:uncyclopedia: HowTo: Hide a Dead Hooker|hidden a few dead hookers]] in that massive pile of edits. :)—
'''OMGWTFBBQSUPPORT''' holy crap man, with 40,000 edits you should be going for RfB, and hey sure, we all abuse our anti-vandal tools now and then. Can I have some of your edits?
'''Support''' - no problems here.
Switch to '''weak support''' per the recall promise. That gives us a measure of assurance that we will be able to effectively combat any excesses. -
'''Support''' A good editor who could use the tools. | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' Some of the "oppose" voters make valid points, but Ryulong is definitely more of an asset to this project than a liability. [[WP:AGF]]. Forgive the expression, but I don't think "trigger happiness" will be a problem in practice. His "admin for recall" pledge is also a sign of good faith.
''''Support''' - granted, the opposers bring up many points, but many *not all* are slightly specualtive, and there's no way we can say that he will abuse the blocking tool for sure.  As he's willing to join "admins open to recall", then it's easy to reign him in *[[iif]]* he goes crazy. :) <strong>
Per recall promice if he abuses the tools, he can be recalled and no more adminship for him, I also promiced to admin tutor him to avoid mistakes if his RFA passes
'''Support''' - has a particularly good attitude to tracking and destroying sockpuppets of Boaboaoboaoboaboaoboabo or whatever his name is. That alone got my !vote -
'''Support''' per, inter al., NYBrad and Valentinian, with the provision that I hope that, should this RfA succeed (which, I readily recognize, appears unlikely), Ryulong should be exceedingly circumspect, at least for some non-trivial initial period, in his use of the tools in the several areas about his work in which some have expressed concerns; I expect that the tutelage of [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] should serve him well in the latter regard.
'''Support''' - I feel Ryulong is ready and capable of handling adminship. -
'''Oppose with regret''' A fine editor, but often not emollient enough to be a successful admin.--
'''Weakish Oppose''' I just have concerns over judgement. For example, removing [[User:Tennis expert]] unblock request ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATennis_expert&diff=92415270&oldid=92415140 diff]) after Tennis expert was erroneously labelled a sock-puppet. Denying unblock requests is a task that should be reserved to admins. There is no evidence of Ryulong discussing this matter on-wiki before he removed Tennis expert's request. Ryulong also tried to delete articles that Tennis expert had worked on ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tennis_performance_timeline_comparison_%28women%29&diff=92367063&oldid=92297999 diff]) because he was a "banned user".
'''<s>Weak</s> oppose''', changed from weak support, per Catchpole. I agree that Ryulong did not make good judgements regarding Tennis expert, and that was concerning - and not even making an effort to listen to those who argued that Tennis expert couldn't possibly be C14u? Hmm... gives me second thoughts. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Chacor and Anomo.--
I see little familiarity with process and little edits in process space other than with an automation script. Gnoming is good but there's more to adminning than that.
'''Oppose''', especially per the diff mentioned by [[User:Chacor|Chacor]].
'''Oppose'''. The issues raised by myself and others at his last RfA, only a couple of months ago, still concern me and I don't feel that enough time has passed for us to be sure that they've been adequately resolved. I'm rather surprised by this RfA as it seems quite fast. And the nominators' statements don't alleviate any of my concerns. To say that Ryulong "withdrew himself (from the last RfA) to fix issues which had come up so that he could assure the community he would be a better sysop" is a rather curious spin to put on an RfA that was withdrawn at 27/30/8.  The second nominator states, "to give you an idea of how much Wikipedia could benefit from Ryulong having the sysop flag, he has over 3,000 edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Ryulong with a sysop flag. (He has managed to create a backlog on that page several times)." Unfortunately, one of the concerns raised by several administrators at the previous RfA was that Ryulong creates AIV backlogs unnecesarily by listing accounts that should not be listed.I should say that the nominator's statements really don't have anything to do with my oppose, but they certainly don't alleviate my concerns.  '''[[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah]]''' 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I just want to add that on a personal level, I genuinely and sincerely like Ryulong. Opposing RfAs of people you like is difficult and the suggestion above about opposers holding grudges because they're concerned about long term issues is invalid and inappropriate. '''
'''Oppose''', with regret.  I think his heart is in the right place and his intentions are good, but my experience with the vandals whom he has reported at [[WP:AIV]] leaves me dubious.  There are some recent patrollers whom you learn to trust: you know that their vandals are well-warned before the report, and that there had been vandalism after a final-warning.  I hated doing Ryulong's reports because steps were skipped so often and test4 or bv given so quickly and easily.  I don't want to have to go back now to find diffs to substantiate (sorry), but I have big [[WP:BITE]] concerns here.
'''Oppose''' Per Sarah. From my experience I have seen Ryulong post too many odd users to the [[WP:AIV]].
'''Oppose''' - see little or no improvement since last RfA. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' Regarding the concerns that he is too trigger happy with reporting to AIV, and would presumably be the same with the block button. I didn't need to look too far to find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.149.97.45&diff=100527612&oldid=100527344 this warning] (after which the vandal stopped, having made two edits) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=100527675 this AIV posting] - with both the warning and the posting being made at 10:26pm.
'''Oppose''' Some biting issues still IMO.  Use of JS rollback-like summaries for things that are clearly not vandalism, which often leads to unnecessary discussion.  For instnace, a revert on AIV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=98320037] spawned [[User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_8#Question|this discussion]], which could have easily been prevented had the unnecessary text just been removed along with an edit summary.  I also notice tendencies to be harsher on good-faith anonymous user edits; i.e. this anon's edit was reverted with rollback [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_Rangers:_Lightspeed_Rescue&diff=96326064&oldid=96315299], while a similar edit that I did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_Rangers:_Mystic_Force&diff=99487364&oldid=99485236] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_Rangers:_Mystic_Force&diff=99524610&oldid=99517034] had an edit summary (the anon did add rank names, but this should have been explained as with the preference to use redirects over real titles).  Ah, and who can forget the revert of my good-faith of a cleanup template that I couldn't spell correctly? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Oliver&diff=85992275&oldid=85991492]
'''Oppose''', per answer to 4. Placing {{[[Template:db-banned]]|db-banned]]}} on [[Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)]] is a huge guilt-by-assocation misapplication of the intent of CSD G5.  There is no need to go through banned user's contribs and start placing db-banned on all of the pages started by that user without consideration of the ''content'' of the page.  It's easy to see that a lot of good work has gone into that page with no mal intent.  I'm concerned what these philosophies mean for Ryulong as an admin candidate. --
'''Strong Oppose''' I am not the most frequent servicer of AIV, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=93094713 this shows a request for a block without even a token warning]. I am sure there are many other things. Combined with the candidate's very high enthusiasm to turn down or remove unblock requests when not an admin, I am not at all comfortable with Ryulong having a block button - especially if he gets into a confrontation with an established user and blocks them unilaterally on a grey area. '''
'''Weak oppose''', per the concerns expressed by Bucketsofg and BInguyen.  I have great admiration for Ryulong's hard work and service, but I have concerns about his judgement.  Ryulong has an admirable work ethic, but he still lets his enthusiasm for vandal-fighting get out of hand too often.  Again, an excellent editor, but needs to learn more restraint before being given the mop. —
'''Oppose''' I often see him on IRC often poking admins to block this user or that user, which led me to believe he was a bit trigger happy (why wouldn't AIV suffice?). The above evidence unfortunately confirms my suspicions. I'm not comfortable giving him the block button.
'''Oppose'''. You may need the tools, but I just can't support you after [[User:Tennis expert]]'s incident. I mean, you told him to ask for a review by editing a page when he was blocked! You needed better judgemnt (by going to AN/I). Regardless, one's contributions should not be deleted if they are banned solely becuase of that, they still helped the project. --
'''Oppose''', per Sarah above, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 2]]. Too happy with the whack-a-mole button for my taste.
'''Oppose''' over concerns with reporting too quickly to WP:AIV and WP:BITE.  A couple of recent reports illustrate: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=101465608] reported as "troll account" with no warnings and nothing I see or the removing administrator as trolling [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=101477553&oldid=101477346]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=101500837&oldid=101500799] reported for introducing copyvio to article without proper warnings: warned with blank2 and then reported to AIV.  While true that copyvio is bad and Ryulong removed the report, it concerns me a great deal that Ryulong has a block first-type of view.  I think that Ryulong is a good asset to Wikipedia, but would be very concerned if given the block button. --
Regretfully '''Oppose'''. I really laud Ryulong's anti-vandalism efforts, however the diffs provided above give me the impression that he might be a bit over-enthusiastic with the block button and this may lead to, as Blnguyen's says above, "...things getting a bit tense, and usually causing more drama". --
'''''Reluctant'' Oppose''' (switched from support) per diff provided by Chacor and other concerns raised above. I can probably forgive that, but certainly not when it happened four days ago.
'''Oppose'''. I opposed last time and haven't seen anything change in his attitude since, particularly in reporting people to [[WP:AIV]] that don't need blocking, something where I've been observing Ryulong's activity over a long period of time. "Imagine how much faster stopping those users would be if we a Ryulong with a sysop flag" - that's exactly my fear. I also still see use of speed-reverting tools in content disputes, which even automatically label the reverted, non-vandalistic edit as "vandalism" indelibly in the edit summary (rollback at least uses the neutral "Reverted edits by").  Needs to be more concerned with judgement and less with speed to be trusted with the admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' (switched from neutral) per diffs/issues raised by Chacor and Gogo Dodo, and per my previous deep-seated uneasiness about biting, which I now see wasn't just me.
'''Oppose''' per Sam Blanning.--
'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart.  There remain some valid concerns regarding candidate's judgment.
'''Weak Oppose''' This is one of those noms where you really have to sit back and think. While adminship really is not a big deal (really, it isn't), care still needs to be taken to ensure that any candidate is suited for the extra buttons. This nominee is a very valuable contributor; however, adminship isn't about rewarding good editors. There have simply been too many red (or reddish) flags raised for me to feel comfortable on this one. I also think that if one has failed a second RfA, more than two and a half months is necessary to demonstrate that the concerns raised have been dealt with and that a real change has taken place. Many commentators are concerned that the nominee may not exercise that patience before using the buttons, and rushing to another RfA doesn't dispel those concerns.
'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart and others.  Recent diffs show continued biting and a block-first reflex. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' per history of "cut twice, measure once" above, hoped that after 2nd RfA he'd become more of a "measure twice, cut once" type of person, but I see no evidence of that.
'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart and Xoloz.--
'''Oppose''' As Agent 86 expressed, this is a sit back and think situation; really what RfA is for.  While I've interacted with Ryulong quite a bit and defended the user in a couple different situations where he was under attack for upholding policy, I can't support the buttons.  Adminship is no big deal, it's just two buttons on the top and Specials: being active.  But there is an extra level of responsibility and accountability that go with it that require the utmost courtesy and civility in dealing with problems that come up and an administrator cannot afford impoliteness and brusqueness.  Sure, we all have tempers and say things we shouldn't, but as a historical thinker I cannot ignore patterns.  I intentionally abstained from the previous 2 RfAs, but I cannot this time.  This is the toughest post I've ever made, my only other oppose was [[User:Joshbuddy|Joshbuddy]].
'''Oppose''', with regret. I have to oppose this on the same grounds that I'd oppose my own RFA. Has the best interest of the projects at heart and an amazing vandal fighter but I see too much of my own behaviour patterns in there - too whack-happy in regards to interaction with others, lacking the courtesy and patience required to perform the full range of admin duties.  --
'''Strong oppose''' for the reasons already discussed here about Ryulong's involvement in the incident concerning my account and the article I authored.
'''Oppose''' too agressive, has too many edits per day. -
'''Oppose'''. Newbie biting is a cardinal sin for admins in my view. I'm also bothered by some of his edit summaries, such as calling another editor an idiot [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_Guard_Successor_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=96246936]  or "who the hell wrote this" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_Rancher_%28anime%29&diff=prev&oldid=96077348]. Aggressive and confrontational is the wrong approach for admins --
'''No.''' I've had only good interactions with Ryulong and hope he'll keep up his incredible vandal-whacking effort, but civility problems such as the ones noted by JJay above just kill an RfA as far as I'm concerned.
'''Oppose''' per several comments above, especially JJay.--
'''Oppose''' we need prolific contributers like this editor, but I think the admins need to keep cooler than this editor sometimes does.
'''Oppose'''. My first interaction with Ryulong was on IRC, by which I was not impressed. While I understand that IRC is by no means a good indicator of a user's capabilty, it is his attitude that I was suprised by. He seems to take blocking vandals as a joke, and over the last few months I have seen many different cases of this inappropiate behavior and I think civility will be compromised with this attitude. From my understanding of this user, and from the many convincing statements above, the answer is no. --
'''Oppose''' changed from #33 support as premature AIV reorting is still an issue.

'''Oppose''' due to demonstrated premature [[Wikipedia:Adminitis|Adminitis]] and cheering on other sysops after whimsical blocks.  A little more AGF is most welcome in an admin.
'''Oppose''' Engaged me and another editor in a very odd revert war the other day out of the blue by repeatedly blanking a page I had been working on ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Judaism&diff=100607707&oldid=100607632] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Judaism&diff=100611951&oldid=100611758] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Judaism&diff=100621089&oldid=100621000]). As that has been my only experience with this editor, I must oppose adminship. --
'''Oppose''' No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. <s>Yes</s>.
Changed to '''oppose''' per Chacor and others.
'''Oppose''' It's pretty hard to trust an overzealous vandal-fighter with blocking when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ryulong_3&diff=101420031&oldid=101418826 he admits] in his RFA that he's misusing JS-rollback and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_Channel_Series_%28in_Episodes%29&diff=101972757&oldid=101972034 does it again] three days later in a way that actually violates the [[WP:PROD|prod policy]]. I hope it was because Ryulong was unaware of that provision of the policy, rather than that he knowlingly violated it, but neither's good. It's a shame Ryulong is so agressive, as I think we could use his help if he were willing to be more conservative in using sysop powers, but history suggests otherwise.--
'''Oppose'''. I've been sat on the fence for a while on this one and I think [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] sums up the dilemma extremely clearly. Unfortunately on considering the same evidence, I reach the opposite conclusion. Ryulong has contributed tirelessly to Wikipedia and must be commended for that but I see too much evidence that suggests the oppose votes here and in previous RfAs have not been taken onboard. I feel blocking powers will be used too readily as a result of bad faith assumptions. The likely cost in extra unblock reviews and loss of newbies through [[WP:BITE|biting]] is simply too high.
'''Oppose''' &bull; I've been giving this RFA a lot of thought since I heard that it was occurring, and I've come to the conclusions that while I do not doubt Ryulong's tenacity or good intentions, I feel that his knee-jerk reactions, incidents of biting newbies, and sometimes flagrant assumptions of bad faith are something that, on net, probably would lead to more harm to the project than good.  I'm sorry Ryu.  It's hard to oppose people you respect greatly.  However, I just don't think you can be trusted with the block button.  Protection and delete?  Sure - but 2/3 is not acceptable in an admin.  After a couple months I'd look forward to supporting you, if you can put serious thought into addressing these issues, but right now is too recent after your previous RFA.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' most especially newbie biting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_Rancher_%28anime%29&diff=prev&oldid=96077348],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_Guard_Successor_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=96246936]  or for that matter addressing any editor in that fashion. Just don't see the temperment to be an administrator present yet.--
'''Oppose''' I find the arguments of the antis more convincing than those of the supports.--
'''Oppose''' There are significant concerns here. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' - I was leaning towards neutral, but I feel I must oppose this RfA as I do not think Ryulong is ready for adminship yet. I have seen Ryulong adding users to AIV without warning them. I feel that he does react badly to situations which could prove to be bad in case he misuses his tools. -
'''Continued oppose''' per my reasoning in the first RFA, thiough not necessarily as strong as then. 30 seconds/edit over 16 hours is bot-throttling speed, not administrative discretion and deliberation. I wish that evidence of being hasty and incivility had not continued, as I think the ''user'' would benefit from the tools. Unfortunately I am not convinced that the project would benefit from him having them at this time. -- ''
'''Oppose'''. Too aggressive in suggesting, and therefore likely in dealing out blocks for minor offenses, sometimes without warning or with insufficient warning. Fighting vandalism is one thing, but there's no need for the scorched earth strategy that Ryulong seems to advocate. —
'''Oppose'''.  I have to agree with those who worry about over-aggression in suggesting blocks. --
'''Oppose''' Very aggresive on edit summary on some article as DakotaKahn said on above.
'''Neutral''' based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midna&action=history this edit war] just a day ago.  It seems that some of the issues of civility and biting haven't been addressed.
'''Neutral''' per Chacor... too recent an event. --
'''Netural''' per Majorly.
'''Neutral'''. Per [[User:Sharkface217|Sharkface217's]] pithy reasoning. I want to support - because this guy is dedicated - but concerns over shotgun approach to anti-vandalism keeps me neutral for now. I'm a little concerned over the premature use of high-level test templates that i've seen brought to AIV, and wonder if the tools would be be used in a similar manner? I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
'''Neutral''' but ''''support''' at a pinch. I'm not fond of people who are rough on newbies but on the other hand, I think warning people who act like dicks time and again is counterproductive and I deprecate the whole warning system, where a process has become an obstacle, not a help, it seems. Give them a day to think about it; if they want to contribute, they'll be itching to after that break! Yes, this requires a bit more judgement from admins, and I don't have a problem with warnings as such (just being too Byzantine about our requirements when someone is obviously here to cause strife). And I tend to favour adminning users who have contributed a fair bit even if they've occasionally gone wrong, rather than dredging up some incident that they might not be particularly proud of and using it to hang them.
'''Neutral''' changed from support. The diffs provided and the oppose comments above by Sarah and Chacor made me regretfully change my vote. Not too comfortable knowing you might abuse the tools, but still not to the extent of opposing your RfA. Sorry. ←
'''Neutral''' - I really want to support this user... Hard working, dedicated and is a valuable asset in wikipedia's effort to combat vandalism.  But I gotta say, it would be nice to see a little more respect paid to vandals and trolls. I know that sounds like hippy nonsense, but I think it's important for our public image to treat even the worst that come to this site with respect. (respect is not the same as lenience). ---
'''Support''' Good experienced editor, I see no reason to suppose he would abuse the tools. Good luck!
'''Support''' - well-balanced candidate. Experienced in several different areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. My interactions with the candidate have been uniformly positive. He clearly has the best interests of the project at heart and would use the tools well. —
'''Support''' - as Carcharoth. Quite a good candidate.
'''With pleasure'''. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''', no reasons to oppose. --
'''Yep'''--'''
'''Support''' - a very positive presence, a calming influence in inflammatory situations.
'''Support''' - reasonable and level headed.
'''Support''' - Good, solid, reasonable editor.
'''Support'''. The last (and only) time I interacted with him was back in March/April, when we were both members of the [[WP:AMA|AMA]] and involved in a very complex and difficult case. I was impressed with his tact and good judgment (far more than I personally possess) and I have no hesitation in supporting him for adminship.
'''Support''' What John said... perfect for the job —
'''Support''' ... a no-brainer. --'''''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. :) Good luck!
'''Support'''  [[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]]'s comment sums it up for me, also.  &mdash;
'''Support''' I don't see why not.
'''Support'''.  I've run across him at [[WP:AFD]] at some point, and found him almost as pedantic as myself. Meets every possible standard for RfA.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Interactions (few) with SA have showed level-headed and sensible approach, leaning toward finding compromise -- something sorely needed on WP. <g> Also appreciate the interest in notifying people of CFDs and trying to increase participation as that ultimately minimizes (over time) disputes.
'''Support'''. Definite yes.
'''Support'''.  Per the nom and the answers to the Questions.
'''Support'''. The Candidate's answers to the questions are good, the contributions are good, and I see no concerns that would bar this user from the tools. Best wishes,
'''Support''' Near perfect edit summary usage, good answers to questions, overall obviously a user that knows what he's doing. Best of luck. &nbsp; '''
'''Support'''.  Welcome to the dark side. =D haha.  '''<span style="color:red">Happy Holidays!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - A level-headed and dedicated contributor. Good Luck.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <math>nom \in\mathbb{R}\!</math> --
'''Support'''- Rational, reasoned editor.  And wiki could do with an admin who's a painkiller.:)
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' '''
'''Anti-Inflammatory Support''' - good experiences with this editor, and we can always use less headaches on WP. <small>As an aside, and unfortunately, I wouldn't call the Starwood situation over. I think people just got worn out dealing with it, so the spammer went back to his old ways.  There is renewed edit-warring and probable sockpuppetry going on in that group of articles again, and we may need ArbCom intervention again. In many ways the spam situation in that walled garden is worse than before the Arb. *sigh* (Of course, this has nothing to do with Salix Alba, whose work in that area was welcome and helpful. But since you brought it up...;-))</small> - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support'''. Richard would be a welcome admin. --
'''Support'''. Capable, sane, evenhanded, and level-headed. Also, he asked me to help with a math article, I failed horribly, and he didn't call me a stupid git. Thanks.
'''Support''' Fine editor
'''Support''' emphatically per EncycloPetey (no, just kidding). Seriously, a spectacular edit history, excellent edits, keeps his cool in all kinds of debates. Great admin material. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] ([[User talk:GlobeGores|talk]]) 02:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC) <small> As an aside, my !vote here may not count due to the fact that I have a paltry 300 edits or so, mostly speedy tagging and the like, and thus may not be qualified to do so under these conditions. Feel free to move it to the discussion section if necessary. Thanks,
'''Support''', no good reason to oppose.
'''Support''' solid longtime user. --
'''Starwood Support''' as per [[User:Pigman]] and [[User:Kathryn NicDhàna]].  This group of editors know how to use and enforce policy and have a thick skin.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''' I can't find a reason to oppose. Seems to be a fine editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. After a limited check of this editor's history, I support this user becoming an admin. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Support''', exactly the kind of admin we need. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''', yes please.
'''Support''' without reservation. Consistently helpful and level headed. When

'''Support''' per all the above and Wikipedia needs more admins who favour the [[sinister]].
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. <cliche>I thought they were an admin!</cliche>
'''Support'''. We need more admins who concentrate on getting articles improved rather than deleted.
'''support''' don't see why not --
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. I know his work through [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]]. He seems good-natured and fair, and should be valuable as an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has demonstrated that he can be trusted not to abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
—''
'''Support'''. The candidate is well qualified and should prove a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As per Newyorkbrad.
'''Support'''. Thank you for deleting vandalism from mathematics pages, and for providing clear, informative edit summaries, among other things.  --
'''Support''' Good to go. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per above.
Decent and trustworthy.
'''Support''' <small>~&nbsp;</small>
'''Support''' Good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Well qualified. Some of the best wikipedia editors have expressed great confidence in the abilities of this editor. [[User:Havelock the Dane|<font color="red">Hαvεlok</font>]] [[User talk:Havelock the Dane|<font color="red">беседа</font>]]
'''Support''' - definitely admin material--
'''Support'''; most definitely.
Go with the '''Support''' --
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''' [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Snowball fight! &lt;<tt>
Definite '''support'''. Good luck! --'''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support''' see no reason to oppose, other than for the sake of just opposing.
'''Support''' good hard-working editor who would not abuse the tools, they're no big deal after all.  Good luck!
'''Support''' I thought you were one! Amazing. '''''
Looks good to go.--
'''Strong Support''' - A very good Editor with vast amounts of experience..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' &mdash; in my book, the length of time you've been here doesn't come anywhere close to being as important as the ''quality'' of your edits, and the ''notability'' of your contributions; in that area, your box is a big tick and a whole-hearted support. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Now, this is definately an editor who has the need to user the tools and the ability to use them.
'''Support'''  The anonymous IP was me, sorry, I'd forgotten I wasn't signed in.
'''Support''' per sufficient experience - 7000 main space edits is usually considered enough.
'''Support''' A good user with enough experience and deserving and needing of the tools.
'''Support''' User acts in good faith, responds well to criticism, and has lots of experiance.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor and we could always use more admins interested in helping with categorisation.
'''Support''' - a very competent and highly active editor who, in addition to his excellent encyclopaedic contributions, has played a constructive role in several discussions involving sharp disagreements.
'''Support''' per answers, comments, and overall record. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' Good editor who understands process.  Can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support''' This user seems like he will be a great admin. I can't see any reasons not to trust him with the abilities of an administrator.
'''Support'''. I agre with Newyorkbrad in that the oppose reasons are not persuasive. However, I would recommend that you be very careful in that area should you receive the twiddled bit. As far as usernames go, I think it's better to err on the side of caution and [[WP:AGF]] than to shoot wildly. ···
'''Support''' - Gets my vote, good luck! --[[User_talk:Spebi|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size: 10pt;font-weight:bold;color:#39F;">spe]]</span>
'''Support''' - from my interaction with this user at [[WP:RFCN]], they will made a fine administrator (to be honest, I was considering nomming you!)
'''Support''': Don't see any reason why this user should not be an administrator. Has the experience. Does not look like he will abuse the tools. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent editor. --
'''Support''' I'll cite the "I thought he already was one" cliche.  Based on the answers, I trust Sam's good judgment, and I know he won't act too hastily in a confrontational situation that may arise.
'''Support''' Answers and edit history generally indicate level-headedness and quality contributions. Oppose vote has identified a few cases where candidate may have deviated somewhat from policy, but these don't appear to be major and I believe candidate can be trusted to learn from this feedback. --
Has done good work, [[User:Ral315/WTHN|why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate and I ''love'' your IAR answer.  --'''
'''Support''' - Would make a good administrator, has enough experience and is able to handle disputes well. I also think the answering of the questions was impressive.
'''Support''' Familiar with the candidates excellent work on MP's, clearly very trustworthy and another hand at DYK/CSD/RFCU can only be a good thing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' walks the walk ''and'' talks it too. --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' we could use more admins involved at the perpetually backlogged CfD. From his participation there, should be a responsible admin.
'''Support'''. I'm surprised I hadn't already ... -- '''
'''Support'''.  Appears to be a strong candidate with a wide range of experience.
'''Support'''. Incredibly patient with Vintagekits. -
'''Support'''. No good reason I can see not to. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 2px; margin-right: .5em;">
'''Support''' seeks like a strong candidate.--
'''Support''' has the experience and everything else it takes to wield the mop. --
'''Support''' per lack of reason to Oppose!
'''Support''' trust-worthy and more than qualified. —
'''Support'''.  Good contributions as an editor, should make a good admin as well. I trust his judgment.
'''Support''' Good candidate, good answer to question 4(most get that one wrong). I have faith this person will benefit the community with the tools. <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' per the reasons of [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]], [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]], and [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]. Even though I was going to support anyway, their support is more than convincing enough for me to strongly support this user.
'''Strong support''' I really liked how he handled himself with regards to [[User:Patricknoddy|'''Patricknoddy''']]. --
'''Support'''.  Pretty good track record and conduct.  Seems to have a feel for the project, and adapts quickly.  I think we can expect the same from this user with the admin tools.  '''''
'''Support''' Good enough to get the job done, that's what it takes. -
'''Support'''. From what I've seen of Sam's work in the past, he seems like he would use the tools responsibly. -
'''Support'''. My interactions with Sam have been positive and he has plenty of relevant experience. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Believe he will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Sam listed stuff to be deleted at [[WP:CFD/W]], and I wondered why he didn't delete the damn things himself. Then I realised this RFA was still running, and he couldn't, yet. Well, he should have his own mop and bucket, and the sooner the better. He's an experienced, level-headed editor who would do good work. I agree with the concerns about the username stuff in general, but it doesn't detract from my overall confidence in Sam's judgement. Nobody's perfect.
'''Support''' Will make a nice addition.--
'''Support'''.
'''Very strong support'''. I have encountered Sam's work many times in relation to articles on [[:Category:British MPs|British MPs]] and related issues, and his edits are of a remarkably high quality, with a lot of well-sourced research. His contributions to CFDs and other discussions are thoughtful and even-handed (he changes his mind if appropriate), and I have never seen him be anything other than very courteous in his dealings with other editors: he seems to have a knack of avoiding conflicts without avoiding conflictual areas. I note some concerns about his actions in relation to [[WP:U]] (which is not an area I follow), but he seems ready to learn from his mistakes. Per Angusmclellan, nobody's perfect; but Sam's responses to the concerns illustrate his willingness to learn. I have no doubt he'll make a great admin. --
'''Support''' - A solid candidate, I hope Sam will take to heart what the opposers have outlined. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''
I trust you not to abuse the tools or twist an interpretation of consensus to your own ends. As to your answer to my question, I hope we'd agree that what seem like good arguments do not always triumph; there is also the matter of whether or not the arguments are convincing to the community. In this case, the numbers are close enough that both your and Majorly's closings are within reasonable discretion, so that works. ··
With respects to the candidate, I am not at all confident in Mr. Blacketer's handle on, or approach to [[WP:U]], an area which he admittedly spends considerable time in (see his nomination statement at the top of the page).  If asked to apply this policy to a discussion or similar venue, I feel as though there is an enormous potential for him to misapply it to the detriment of the community [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
I'm going to have to '''oppose'''. You didn't actually answer the question I asked twice and I cannot support you for the reasons I outlined below.
'''Weak oppose''' per my interactions with him at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names|WP:MFD/WP:RFC/UN]]. He refers to "build[ing] up a corps of regular commentators" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=120438618&oldid=120437607] as a good thing. More walled garden exclaves of wiki-process are the last thing we need. —
'''Oppose'''. I am not comfortable with the candidate receiving the bit. Sam indicates below that he would block without a warning related to a dispute in which he was involved. To me, this demonstrates a clear failure to understand some of the fundamentals for admins. While I do not expect candidates to know the ins and outs before they get a chance at hands-on, I ''do'' expect that they should an understanding of the basic responsibilities and relevent guidelines. I simply cannot provide support at this time.
Per [[WP:U]]/[[WP:RFC/N]] concerns outlined by Gaillimh
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but I think a little more experience would be beneficial before becoming an admin.
I see no obvious problems with this candidate; withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement per my policy.
'''Nuetral'''.  Sam, you seem to be a great addition to the project, and a very prolific editor.  I would simply give it a little longer - maybe one more month.  Another issue for me -- although much less important than the time spent editing -- is that I would like to see more article talk page edits, evidence that you are spending time discussion the improvement of articles.  --
'''Support''' - question comes down to; can they be trusted with the admin bit? They're ''already'' trusted with it, both on commons and on fiwiki (I verified both), and have been for some time. As far as I'm concerned, it's procedural and No Big Deal -
'''Support''' As per Alison. This user can be trusted with the tools. '''
No big deal.
'''Support''', very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental, don't see any problems here.  I don't envisage Samulili would even want to get involved in areas such as blocking or ANI disputes, so his lack of experience in such areas is irrelevant.
'''Support''', very good reason for the tools, trusted elsewhere and not gone mental. Thanks for Q4 answer. Good luck and Godspeed.
'''Support''' Sounds sensible enough; a quick glance through the contributions didn't show anything really significant enough for me to oppose. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per Neil, editor is trusted on the commons and has a valid requirement.
'''Support''' I know this user from Commons, and I'm confident that he would use his tools to the benefit of this project. In my experience Samulili is a polite, careful and professional editor, who would not misuse sysop-tools.
'''Support''' - a reasonable amount of experience on en, but this user has been trusted as an administrator on the Finnish Wikipedia and on Commons.  The user's proposed work would be beneficial to both en and to Commons.
'''Support''' - Demonstrates a request for very specific tools to carry out a worthy function few others will help with.
'''Suomi sisu'''. No reason not too.
'''Support.''' Already trusted with tools.
'''Support''' - It's about trust. He's gained the trust elsewhere. There's no reason to assume he'd go rogue here. He lacks experience, yes, but he's got one administrative task in mind, which he is experienced in. The work he'll do with images will decrease the work load on existing admins. Lack of experience won't play a role in his adminship as long as he's not working in areas he doesn't know. '''
Hmn. Candidate has been editing since February 2006 without any incidents, and that puts him/her in my good book. I'm an oftentimes enthusiastic supporter, and I'll stick to my default support in this case. <s>But even if we're strictly going to apply the only relevant criterion of trustability, I can understand people opposing you on the grounds of too low editing experience.</s> Strike that BS. You're doing valuable work and I absolutely trust you're not going to abuse the tools in any way. —&nbsp;'''
No convincing reason to oppose. If he rarely uses the tools, that's fine.
'''Support'''; he has already shown he knows the tools, and there is no reason to mistrust him.  The fact that the tools will be used for exactly one purpose, or infrequently, does not mean he has no use for them.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Yeah, sure, no problem! Editor is trusted and respected. Doesn't need 436498 edits to make him a good editor. Take care.
'''Support''', editor seems trustworthy enough.  May not be the most active here on enwiki but the question not if I think they would be a big asset but whether they've earned trust - and I'll say sure.
'''Support''' Although not much experience on the en-wiki, has a good reason, and is trusted elsewhere.
'''Support''' Doesn't have a great amount of experience in en:WP and doesn't need it: he's proved his stuff at fi:WP and at Commons. Being an administrator here may help him do some good work here and will certainly be of great help to him in his laudable work at Commons. --
'''Support''' Being an administrator on other Wikipedias is good enough for me.
'''Kannatan.''' A trusted editor wants to check deleted images here so that they can be retained on Commons, benefiting en.wiki and all other WMF wikis? I don't see where this would be such a bad idea. No, Samulili may not have enough experience here to deal with all of the complex administrative issues, but I trust that xe will not be involved in any of those issues and will use the permission only to do the image work outlined above.
'''Support''' per [[User:Alison]].  We need more people willing to do unglamorous work.
'''Support'''. He's already a trusted administrator on two other Wikimedia projects, and is experienced in and willing to work on our perennially backlogged image categories -- his help is definitely welcome. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support.''' His rationale makes sense. My limited research on other Wikipedias shows that 1. He's very productive over at Commons, about 500 edits per month, 2. He's an established contributor on the Finnish Wikipedia, though edits less often there. He hasn't been blocked in either place. He has what appear to be the Finnish equivalent of barnstars on [http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Käyttäjä:Samulili his user page]. If he were a holy terror at Commons I assume that would show up on [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samulili his Commons user talk], which seems rather peaceful. Someone who knows Finnish and can read his [http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keskustelu_käyttäjästä:Samulili Finnish User talk] might enlighten us further.
'''Support''' per Alison and per Bobet (comment below in response to an oppose). Seems like he might make very ''good'' use of the tools. :) --
'''Support''' per Alison.
Absolutely.  A commons admin who wants to work with images being moved to commons...how the hell with that hurt the project? '''
If the user has already been trusted in commons and fiwiki, I see no reason not to trust them here. Has the need for the tools and the trust. --
'''Support''' from oppose. I have re-evaluated. See below. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - per LaraLove, who I think put it very well.
'''Support''' You really need the tools and are honest about why.  Never made trouble, so I trust you will not start now.
'''Support''' Question answers make perfect sense to me. Dedication to other wikis is enough to pass the trust test.
'''Support''' We desperately need more admins who understand image policy. The lack of experience isn't really an issue since they're not planning to work in mainspace, and seems to be someone who won't try to get involve in anything they're not sure of.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Aye.'''
'''Support''' - Being a admin on two other projects, at least shows to a degree he can be trusted and is respected. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Alison et al. above.  Also seems to be one of the most competent and levelheaded admins on the Finnish Wikipedia.  —
'''Support'''　The regular "edit count, lack of experience etc." sort of objections are invalid for this particular RfA. The user is already an admin on Commons and Finnish wiki which proves he can be trusted with the tools. He intends to use these for only a specific task so there is no potential for abuse. --
'''Support''' I have hesitated due to the fact you have little contributions in the English Wiki so far, but however since you are already an admin in the Finnish Wiki, I would think you will be able to operate the tools fine just as in the other one.--
'''Support''', we need more crosswiki admins. I'm pretty sure he knows that things are different here and on fiwiki and won't jump into things he doesn't know about.
'''Support'''. The tools will make Samulili more productive. With regard to the disputed edit summary, I would suggest that Samulili should try to ensure that he doesn't use offensive language when it isn't necessary.
'''Support''' Clearly can be trusted with adminship and will do a good job with image work.
'''Support''' --  I don't think a lot of en.wikipedia experience is critical for this sort of image work -- it's mostly about mechanics and copyright, not the cultural differences between Wikipedia communities. I am sometimes wary of giving admin support to someone with specialized goals since there's nothing to stop them from immediately working in all sorts of other sensitive areas such as WP:ANI or AfD; however, in this case I'm confident Samulili won't stray into other areas without good reason and preparation. Thanks for taking on this task (... and watch out for the bollocks-word). --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' An excellent example of why editcountitis is a very poor parameter on which to work. This user clearly needs the tools if he is to do what he wants to do in enwiki, and equally clearly will not abuse them. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''.  Been here a while, made a bunch of contributions, doesn't seem to have gotten into any trouble.  Why not? --
'''Support''' No evidence that he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' can be trusted with the tools; more multilingual admins is a +, too.
'''Support''', has all the experience needed for what he's planning to do here and the rationale given is extremely persuasive. Opposition is unconvincing.
'''Strong Support''' per my comments in the discussion section above.--
'''Support''' This is a fascinating case, and I can see it both ways.  I have supported at least one request for a cross-project administrator ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eukesh]]), and I feel that if an editor is familiar with the technical quirks of adminship and is trusted by a foreign language community, and knows when to ask questions instead of acting outside policy, they will be successful at en.wiki.  This candidate has made it clear that he's primarily interested in language-neutral image issues.  I see no problem with that.  Good luck to him.
'''Support''' per Laralove and others above.--
Adminship is about having a clue, not about having a high edit count. Adminship is about having a deft touch, not about having deftly touched pages in many name spaces. Adminship is about not blowing up the wiki, not about blowing up your own reputation politically. Wikipedia is "not like the other wikis", to be sure. But that's not necessarily a good thing. Commons is "not like the other wikis" either, and Samulili has been a great admin there. We need some new thinking from some old experienced folk. Adminship should be no big deal. Samulili earned my trust some time ago. '''Support'''. ++
'''Support'''- Need for tools, why not? It is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:adminship#No_big_deal no big deal] right.
'''Support''', I poked thu your contribs, and, I don't see anything that would cause concern. As a note, however, I'd like to see you use edit summaries more in the future. That's hardly significant enough for me not to support, however :) Good luck!
'''Support''' - Clearly explained why the admin bit is needed, and already being an admin on commons and fi means that it is ''highly unlikely'' that this user would abuse the tools on en. <strong>
'''Support''' - He has clearly explained why having the mop would be helpful, and I don't see anything to suggest he'd abuse the other functions.&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. In my mind the absolute perfect example of why relying on edit count is a total irrelevance. Has experience here and on other wikis and clearly states which areas he intends to contribute in, as well as his intention to avoid areas he is not so familiar with. Absolutely. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strong support''' responsible editor who definitely could make good use of the tools. I urge opposers to reconsider: in the end we want to know if Samulili's adminship would benefit the en.wiki and I don't think there can be much doubt on that issue. This is really a case where a strict focus on editcount is threatening to result in a silly mistake.
'''Support''' known & trusted on Commons.  This user will not break anything and has valid reasons for the request. --
'''Support''' As per [[User:Alison|Alison]].
'''Support'''. This is one of those cases where editcountitis is directly at odds with good sense.
'''Support'''. If it's no big deal, and there's a consensus he's very unlikely to misuse the tools, I don't see why one should oppose based on limited experience, when he doesn't plan to be active in those areas. Ensuring valid information for the images on commons is important.
'''Support''' Per Allison. Not a major concern over the use of bollocks or slight incivility.--
'''Strong support''' per Alison.
'''Support''' Trusted and experienced user, nothing suggest any future abuse.
'''Support'''.  As someone who spends a bit of time on Commons and has actually used his en wiki adminship to double-check pre-transfer-and-deletion sourcing, the candidate's rationale is thoroughly reasonable.  Seems reasonably sane, besides the contrary evidence of seeking a third adminship, and unlikely to delete the Main Page. -
'''Support'''. Appears to be trusted in the larger scheme of things, thus conducive to 'pedia building ''(yes we are little fish in bigger ponds...)'' cheers,
'''Support''' Having confirmed on his commons talk page that he is the same user, I am willing to support this whole heartedly.  I anticipate that his primary use of the tools will leave no traces in the logs, because reviewing deleted revisions doesn't leave a trace.  He does have a need for the tools, isn't likely to use them in areas where his lack of en.Wikipedia experience matters, and has said that he'll be open to recall if experienced users here feel he has gone astray.
'''Support''' 24,000 edits and 3 years of service at Fin wiki definitely counts for an awful lot in my book.  Wants tools here for a reasonable and useful purpose. --
'''Support''' On the basis of the aspiration for commons work alone - and any perceived problems do not prevent a sense of being able to work through the issues --
Is Samulili a trusted user on other wikimedia projects? Yes. Will Samulili delete the [[:Main Page]]? No. Block Jimbo? No. Be an abusive admin? No. Work other areas requiring more experience? No for now, of course with more experience equals different work. Will Samulili do a useful chore with the sysop bit? Yes. Therefore there little reason to oppose. Editcount's highly decieving here, and I do have to mention I have to firmly disagree with the opposers as well. '''Strong support'''. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' per [[User:Alison|Alison]] and [[User:LaraLove|LaraLove]].  Seems to be a very trustworthy editor.
'''Weak support''' I think it clear that Samulili intends to partake regularly of only of a part of the sysop toolbox, and I trust his representation that he will act qua sysop only whereof he is sure he knows and, in part in view of his contributions elsewhere, have confidence in his judgment and, in particular, his ability to appreciate well that he is unfamiliar with, and ought not to act (at least at present) in, certain areas&mdash;he will not, that is, misuse the tools avolitionally by acting in areas with the policy and practice relevant to which he is unfamiliar (especially, I imagine, because many of those opposing and supporting here have counseled that he act, at least initially, quite circumspectly)&mdash;and so I feel relatively comfortable concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project]] (and, I suppose, on commons, although that's essentially entirely irrelevant here) of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive.
'''Support'''. I am unconvinced that policy on other projects is so alien that experience there should not count here. Samulili is an Arb on a Wikimedia project and a good admin on Commons. I can see it being an advantage to a Commons admin to be able to see deleted content on en.wiki as so much is uploaded from here to there that must be verified post deletion. His having adminship here will be benefit the wider project and may have occasional benefits locally. So although he's unlikely to log many admin actions, adminship isn't a big deal - right? I can't imagine he'd misuse the tools. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Allthough you've been here a while <s>sub 500</s> sub 1100 edits(between the two user names) <s>doesn't cut it</s> barely cuts it - I have little positive to judge you on. Also your answers to the questions are very weak, an I.P. translcuded this which I find....odd, you didn't even leave edit summaries when creating the RfA and assuming the I.P. is you no edit summary on transclusion, but mostly the moment I looked at your contributions I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_people&diff=prev&oldid=154846536 this] Putting "bollocks" in an edit summary is a big no-way for an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per the above concern. I feel that you lack experience in this project. I suggest you try again after a few months and you will definitely have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  This editor has been around a long time, but is not active enough for my taste.  Only 132 edits in the last 6 months (between the two accounts).  While is is definitely true that we could use some more admins who want to deal with images, making someone who is only semi-active an admin doesn't sit right with me.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.--
'''Weak oppose''' A good editor but not a particularly active one.
'''Oppose''' Around 1000 edits--not enough.  Not very well thought out answers to questions.  More interested in deleting images than actually building the project.
'''Oppose''' per Useight. With such a small level of activity as of late, the candidate doesn't have the experience required for me to trust them with the tools. Adminship on other sites is a moot point, as is all off-wiki activity.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough experience yet.
'''Oppose''' - I'd never feel comfortable supporting an RfA like this. 19 edits to Wikipedia - if this passes I going to have to seriously gather my thoughts, for obvious reasons. :-S <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''', low level of edits to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. I understand that you want to only work with images, but giving you adminship includes all the functions, not just image restoration (etc.) I would encourage you to work on them as much as you can as a regular user and get some all-round experience before coming back here in a few months.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience in English wiki.
'''Oppose''', sry. I appreciate Samulili's language skills and his friendly and respectful way in treating other users. I also understand what he wants admin rights for. However, I checked his diffs, and I don't see that much of image work there. I saw a handful of talk contributions, too, but, going back to the start of 2007, only a single one was really about discussing a problem. Sry, but as I already stated at candidate Aktron, imho mediation skills are very important for an admin. And I don't think his image work will succeed without the occasional need to argue the changes. I'm quite certain Samulili has those skills, but so far, he hasn't shown them here. I will probably support this candidate at a later point, when we have seen more of his work, but not yet.
'''Oppose''' due to answers to questions one and two. Sorry. <font face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. The candidate just has too little experience on this wiki to evaluate their contributions. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience and contributions - both overall and in admin-type areas on this Wiki.
'''Oppose''' Usually I'm not fussed if a user is inexperienced but has a quality contribution list (as is the case here) but I'm sorry, 678 total edits isn't enough to properly evaluate you yet. However it would be great to see you back here in a month or so, and if you keep up the good work, I would be happy to support. But in the meantime focus on spreading your name around on more page's history. --'''
'''Oppose''' The user only cares about work relating to images, I was hoping for some more plans other than that. Does not have much xfd stuff either. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per lack of Wiki experience.
I reckon I could trust this user, although I do hold reservations given English Wikipedia is so vastly different to other Wikipedias (one only has to look at some of the more notable ANI debates - IRC, civility blocks, deletion process, Arbitration Committee, etc.) that your inexperience may cause some issues. A generic sitting-on-the-fence comment here. '''
I'd prefer that you spend a month or so getting to know en.wiki a bit better, as it does vary from other wikis, being particularly larger than other wikis. ~&nbsp;'''''
<s>'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience, and not using appopriate edit summaries, although work on images can be helpful.  Will you try in another few months, and get the red out of your edit summaries, so we can evaluate you better? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)</s>  '''Neutral''' changed from Oppose.  After prodding by another user, I found the [[:fi:Wikipedia:Ylläpitäjät|List of Finnish sysops]] ''on my own'', and he's there, so my concerns are minimized somewhat.  This is a change of "vote".
'''Neutral:''' Obviously he is trusted on the fi Wiki, and people get promoted here with fewer credentials.  That being the case, especially when nom says repeatedly that his activity here would be extremely limited in scope and sporadic, and given the comments of some others above, I just don't see a compelling case to give him the mop here beyond "Eh, he won't do any harm."  That could be said about tens of thousands of editors here, and I'm perplexed that many of the Support voters making that argument would be -- ''and have been'' -- all over other candidates like white on rice for lack of experience or provable command of policy far less evident than in this case.
This is a quite difficult decision for me to make, but I've decided. When I was browsing through Sanchom's edit statistics, I found a lot of good things, and one thing that I'm a bit displeased about. Sanchom uses a signature template, [[WP:SIG#Transclusion_of_templates|prohibited by the signature content guideline]], which I encourage to put up for deletion. However, I would still trust Sanchom with policy as I have observed a lot of village pump (policy section) commentary. I am extremely impressed with Sanchom's participation and discussion of [[WP:N]]. Not only does he discuss this content guideline, he also has made at least 8 changes to the guideline itself. Therefore, I'd trust Sanchom with closing [[WP:AFD|AFD debates]], as his contributions show a profound participation in that area of Wikipedia, and the policy/guideline that it entails. Sanchom also wishes to protect pages, and I am all for it, because [[WP:RFPP]] has tendencies to be close to backlogs at times. Sanchom has filed around 8 reports there, and since most protection is request due to anon vandalism, and therefore there would not be as much activity, compared to [[WP:AIV]]. I'm satisfied that Sanchom knows the protection policy, and would be able to enforce it correctly at [[WP:RFPP]]. Sanchom has done some vandal-whacking, judging by his contributions, and he has filed over 40 reports at [[WP:AIV]]. I'd support any admin who'd just want vandal-whack, as the rollback, block, and protect tools come in very handy. Sanchom also wants to help out with CSD deletion, also a big plus. The category is a almost a constant backlog, so admins are extremely needed there. On top of all, Sanchom has helped [[Royal Canadian Air Cadets]] reach Good Article status, and [[San Salvador (Guipúzcoan squadron)]] DYK status. To conclude, I feel these numerous positives heavily outweigh the fact that Sanchom uses a signature template (or has one). I'd encourage him to dispose of the template, however. Therefore, I '''support''' Sanchom becoming an administrator. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I reviewed your contributions, talk page history, and katewannabe results and feel confident you can handle the mop wisely. May the Schwartz be with you. --
'''Strong Support''' - The user is very experienced <s>but has a very low edit count but</s> I will support [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|as per Jimbo Wales]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - After looking at your contributions and other things I am happy to support your adminship. Plenty of good contributions to articles and evidence of a friendly nature convince me you will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' ''No big deal'', won't abuse tools, experienced in policy... Nothing that I can see to oppose this.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Self nominations shows the user's confidence and eagerness to become an admin, so I will support.
'''Support''' -- you answered my optional question to my satisfaction, so I now know what you will use the tools for and I am happy with that. --
'''Strong support'''. I had only one concern which was lack of participation in XfDs (only 6 in the last month), but the answer to question 4, particularly the section on XfD consensus, was just clarity in a cup. I have full trust in this user for closing such discussions. Best of luck, - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' After expanding on question one. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
I'm
'''Support'''.  Answers to the questions are satisfying and a review of the contributions looks good to me.  Looks like it's time to bestow the mop!
'''Support''' nothing wrong here.
'''Support''' looks promising. —
'''Support''' Editcountitis continues to be a problem, even among the ''support'' !votes. Yes, ok, we need to see that an editor has adequate knowledge and experience of admin-related topics, but this is shown more by the nature of the contributions rather than the number. This user is OK.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' Sancho has been on Wikipedia long enough to determine that he is trustworthy. As a former [[Royal Canadian Air Cadets]], he most likely knows how to hold himself to high standards of conduct. His knows how to hold himself to high standards of conduct as an editor, and is ready for the mop. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' I do not think this user is likely to abuse the tools.--
(ec)[[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' - *nods in approval* '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' I think he will use these tools wisely.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' Your comments were thoughtful and helpful in resolving the disputes at [[WP:N]].  Your other contributions look good as well, and your answers to the questions are solid.  I'm satisfied you would be an asset as an admin.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. great candidate, answered everything properly, you'll be a fantastic admin :-) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I was a bit worried about the answer to question 1, but that was fully explained... I think this user will not abuse the tools and demostrates a good understanding of policy.
'''Support'''- I'm very satisfied with his answers to the questions, especially his answers to question #4. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Yes indeed, this editor looks ready. By the way, I think that I need to go make a new cabal, the Long Speech Cabal. Good one Evilclown. :) --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' per analysis of contribs, and good answers to questions -- he even got the trick part.  --
'''Support''' - Gave a great response to both my question, and the other questions he was asked. The user doesn't seem like he would abuse the tools. Why not? :)
'''Support''', pending an answer to my optional question. —'''
'''Support''' I likes whats I sees!
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per all above, and per contributions. User will likely make a good admin.
'''<sup>Sup</sup>port''' &ndash; impressed with your answers to the questions –
'''Strong Support''' He seems to know what he is doing. I am a strong supporter!
'''Support''' No evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' seems knowledgeable and trustworthy.--
'''Support''' not jumping through the RFA hoops is a ''good'' thing in my book... shows probability the candidate actually just wants to help out, not to level up in the Wikipedia prestige RPG. Candidate can write articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Salvador_%28Guip%C3%BAzcoan_squadron%29&oldid=132265053]. Seems to otherwise know what he's doing even more than the average qualified candidate. --
'''Support'''--
After a quick flick through your contribs, I think you'll be fine with the tools. I've read and noted the opposes, and they aren't worrysome enough for me to do anything other than '''support'''.
'''Support'''.  I think this editor can be trusted with the extra buttons. --
'''Support''' great editor and satisfactory answer. He is unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry - I have tried hard to get past the lack of detail in your actual nomination (even thought the answer to Q 4 helps a lot) and your relatively small amount of experience - and I understand the general decree that ''Admin is no big deal'' but trust and understanding is still important and your answers do not do that for me.  I will watch the continuation of the RfA for the next couple of days and if I see a reason to change my response I will.
'''Oppose''' I was looking through your contributions, especially those in the user talk namespace - a very important and frequently-visited namespace if you're an admin - and found little but vandalism warnings, which was a bit disappointing. I'm not willing to support with such little user-to-user interaction. I know this won't make a dent, but I feel it needs to be said. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-nomming as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-tripping.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Sancho, but I have to fall on the oppose side of the fence. I think anyone who knows me and my own RfA nominations knows that I'm big on communication skills and I consider it a very important skill for administrators. Someone whose nomination statement consists entirely of "Me :-) A self-nomination" and who's user talk comments, as Riana noted above, consist almost entirely of template messages doesn't grab me as being a great interpersonal communicator. Also like Riana, I don't want to see this RfA oppose and if my comment was going to tip the scale, I'd change to neutral, but I feel strongly about this issue and I would encourage you to work on one-on-one non-template communication with other editors. All the best with your adminship, '''
'''Neutral'''- the user is a good friendly editor and they certainly won't abuse the tools, but, I have to stand neutral because there isn't a very long nor detailed description of why he has nominated himself for RFA. I will change to support if he improves it.
'''Support''' - I can't remember exactly what the cases were when I met this user, but my impression of him has always been good. Confident he will make a good admin. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' You clearly know what you are doing. Your contributions are sound, and you have maintained a high volume of constructive work over a long period of time.
'''Support''' - no question in my mind that this user will use the mop for the forces of truth and light.  -
'''Support''' - This user is civil, and will be a excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. You sound familiar, and I can't think of any reason to oppose. You are very constructive, and you will make a fine admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Has made invaluable contributions to Wikipedia. No question he will make a Great admin!--
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor around, and I tihnk he would become an excellent administrative asset. -- <strong>
'''Support''' - well what else....... <sup>
'''Strong support''' for this phenomenal editor.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Editor understands policy and the first of the [[WP:5P|five pillars]].
'''Support''' Hell yes, all the admins should be like you. If this doesn't reach [[WP:200]], it's only because some people have real lives (there must be ''some'') and are still on vacation<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Quite a familiar username... All looks well. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I'm sure you'll do well as an admin. -
'''Support''' He edits in some of the same areas I do, and does good work wherever I've seen it. I believe he can be trusted as an admin.

'''Support''', definitely. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Per all.
'''Support''' until someone points out a good reason why not --'''
'''Support'''. All doesn't just look well (see Husond), all is well. '''''
'''Support''' Looks great to me! --
'''Support''' If you can keep [[Club Penguin]] good enough, and free of fluff enough for Wikipedia, you've earned my vote. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' looks good. <b>
'''Support''' - No visible reason to oppose. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - can't see why not? --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
He looks like he knows what to do with sysop abilities and he seems pretty friendly and easygoing. (Is this the right place to put this?)
Yes, I '''support'''. Experienced editor who would not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''', excellent editor + asset to the project. <b>
I'm
'''Support''' Good Editor with nearly 10000 edits,civil no concerns here.
'''Support''' Satori Son has been a valuable contributor for some time. The admin tools will be in good hands and enhance the project. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''' Good contributor; would make a fine admin. -- <small>'''
'''Support''' very good contribution, I hope you become a good admin too.
'''Support''' Strong candidate here. ~
'''Support''' - a very fine candidate indeed! The Kate's Tool result is very impressive. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Has great experience, lots of edits, and without out a doubt he knows what he is doing. I'm very happy with his answers to the questions, which makes me 100% confident that this user will make a great administrator. --
'''Strong Support''' - Even tempered and diligent. Has done a lot to help slow the flood of spam we get. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support'''- Y not? --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support''' You didn't have to wait this long. Best, --
<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per Bobsmith.
'''Support''' as he appears to know his stuff, especially with good evidence such as [[User:Satori_Son/Verify#Examples]].  Wow, give the guy the mop ASAP!
'''Support''' In all the time I have spent lurking around the RfA page, I have ''never'' seen such comprehensive, thorough, and knowledgeable answers to the questions posed here. You are a remarkable editor and my only regret is that you didn't have the ability to contribute in an administrative capacity sooner. Your contributions as a sysop will likely be some of the most valued here at Wikipedia, and I have no doubt you will go above and beyond the expectations of an administrator. I cannot wait to see you with the tools. Best wishes for success, '''
'''Support''' has good experience and will be good with the tools.
'''Support''' Per all.  Lookin' great.
'''Support''': Easy one.  Thought he already was one, etc., etc.  —
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''I'd support''' all Satori family members! Good contributor and i see no reason to be "neutral". --
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate for the admin bit.
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin. In any case, no qualms whatsoever, will make a great admin. <b>
'''Full Support''' sorry for being difficult with my question, I was looking at how you answered not necessarily what you said. as admins often get into hard places.
'''Support'''. Reliable AIV reporter. Everything else looks fine too. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' - The only reason I didn't think Satori Son was already an admin is because I've blocked some of the vandals he reports to AIV. I can't think of any invalid reports from him and I trust his judgement with the delete function. This RfA should have happened a long time ago. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - fine candidate indeed. Great answers to the questions. Lovely to see someone else interested in [[WP:DRV/CR]], too. Will make a fine admin -
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. Can use the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No oppose yet (the candidate must be good), so I support. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' no issues.
'''Support''' Pleasant editor.
'''Support'''. [[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] was one of the first editors I interacted with on Wikipedia. He was extremely helpful and welcoming. Indeed his interactions with other users appear to me always to be friendly and courteous. His work on LGBT related articles involves him in a lot of BLP work and in ensuring that controversial information is well sourced. He has done great work in ensuring that articles in [[:Category:LGBT people]] for example do contain reliable sourcing that confirms the subject belongs in that category. Satyr also contributes intelligently to AfD debates and follows the development of discussions, returning to comment further when appropriate. I belive he would make a good administrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - I know many wonderful editors here, but SatyrTN above all would make an excellent admin. He is helpful, reliable, and incredibly gifted at communicating. His contributions here have improved Wikipedia tremendously. I can support him without any reservations, and know he can be trusted to use the tools correctly. Thanks for taking this on, SatyrTN!
'''Support''' as nom, dang, I only got third, I must be loosing my touch... &lt;<tt>
'''Support'''. While I've never had any direct interaction with SatyrTN, I see his name very often. Each time, I had the impression that he was already an administrator based on how he conducted himself. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' Yeah, looks good to me. Good luck!
'''Support'''. SatyrTN was the first person to [[User_talk:Allstarecho/Archive 1#Hi!|welcome me to WP and to WProject LGBT Studies]]. He's been a guiding hand for me and has always been there to answer any questions I've had. While we have disagreed on a few things (mostly AfD opinions), he's always been gracious and has made me see the "other side" in different discussions. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Won't abuse the tools.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' I am not going to make the cliché addition about thinking this user was already an admin, but s/he certainly should be. A good editor, wide experience, long-term membership, no problem. --<font color="Red">
I would appreciate a slightly shorter signature for both the nom (<code><nowiki><span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light"><tt>&lt;[[User:Dreamafter|<font color="crimson">DREAMAFTER</font>]]&gt;<sup>&lt;[[User talk:Dreamafter|<font color="purple">TALK</font>]]&gt;</sup></tt></span></nowiki></code>) and the candidate (<code><nowiki>-- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">[[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])</span></span></nowiki></code>).<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Coincidence|''Coincidence?'']]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> — But that's of course a very minor issue and everything else seems ok. I&nbsp;
'''Support'''. '''Oh yeah!''' :D Great user, _very_ involved with the project, he should have become an admin long ago. Brilliant work with the lists of LGBT people (huge knowledge of BLP issues and about hunting for valid sources), resulting in several featured lists. And he's a very nice, amiable fellow (we could use less wikidrama in our admins, methinks). And the tools would help him with all the maintenance he does around the wiki. No brainer folks, he'll make a very fine admin. ;)
'''Support.''' Considering the stuff most admins do with their rollback buttons...
'''''OH MY FUCKING GOD YES YES YES''''' Satyr is undoubtedly one of the most dedicated hard-working editors on Wikipedia. He has put his IT skills to work here, producing bots, scripts and programs right left and centre for the service of other Wikipedians, especially me, which I love him for (:D). He is unfailingly courteous, helpful and industrious - the gargantuan [[List of LGB people]] has been mostly compiled by him working every day for a year, and we have still only reached R. Satyr has always thoroughly read policies before quoting them or acting within their remits, and with his lengthy term on Wikipedia has a great deal of experience and insight to bring to the role of admin. This nom has ''not'' come soon enough.
'''Support tempered by a caution.''' While I agree, nom should be careful about the edit dispute vs vandalism call, does not state 3RR or AIV as choice areas. Appears ready for the tools in areas for which requested. Just be careful, please.
'''Support''' - I haven't seen anything to give me great caution. Experienced editor should do fine with the tools. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - Satyr works extremely hard here at Wikipedia, is familiar with the policies and guidelines, works well with others in forming consensus and fixing problems that may crop up.  I think he would be a fair arbiter as an admin.
'''Support''' excellent work here and seems familiar with Wikipedia.  One incident of calling something vandalism that may not have been, seems to have learned from that mistake -- not that big of a deal.
'''Surprised support'''  Cliche #1, I thought the user was one since I first arrived here.  Never bothered to check the rights log because I just assumed...
'''Support''' I've always found SatyrTN to be an extremely helpful editor, and I have no doubt he'll use the admin tools wisely. I see no chance for abuse here, and completely trust SatyrTN's judgment to effectively enforce our policies. -
'''Weak Support''' - per comments by [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]].
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good to see an admin candidate who doesn't want to machine gun every article he sees. The rumpus detailed below seems an isolated mistake which he has learned from.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Just be sure to stick to your revised definition of vandalism. :P Other than that, seems like an excellent editor.
'''Support'''. Has always been willing to offer insight and support and shown a true interest in improving Wikipedia.
'''Support''', has done an immense amount of work for the project. I'm unswayed by the objections - if anyone can do 24,000 edits without snapping at someone I'd like to see it! --
'''Support'''. I have a positive impression from previous contacts. The "vandalism" comment was unfortunate, but SatyrTN has apologized for it, and I take that as a satisfactory resolution. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(
'''Support''', definitely!
'''Support'''. Notwithstanding the error discussed by the opposers, I think this user will do just fine with the tools. He has proved helpful to various projects with his bot and he seems to know his way around. -
'''Support''' - '''''
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support''', I think adminship has a lot to do with trust and I know very few wikipedians who are as reliable as SatyrTN and i think we can put a lot of trust in him. As for the confusion about the vandalism comment in the questions above, I think that everyone makes mistakes and it is the wikipedians who accept these mistakes that make good admins. He has spent a lot of time working for the improvement of wikipedia and I think adminship powers will give him the ability to help the project even more. <font style="color: #00bb00; font-weight: 700">
'''Support''' - with the caveat that I'd be happier if I didn't feel this (basically very sound) editor had canvassed me to comment on this RfA. Still, he's basically quite sound and worthy of the tools; just needs to watch some things like that. --
'''Support'''... file under "thought you already had a mop".--
'''Support'''. One instance of mis-applying the term 'vandalism' (in an out-of-the-way place, and apologised for...) is not sufficient to outweigh the good points.
'''Support''' In my personal experience with SatyrTN, he is one of the 2 or 3 people on WP that has provided me with the most assistance.  His bot has enabled me to successfully revive [[WP:CHICAGO]].  I appreciate his efforts and refinements of the bot based on feedback.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/
'''Support'''. Definitely.↔
'''Support''' - I trust him.  -
'''Support''' Honesty and sincerity when making a mistake are paramount.
'''Support''' Looks good. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  A fine user.  &#10154;
'''Support'''. Lots of experience, no red flags. The bot demonstrates that SatyrTN is trustworthy and dedicated.
'''Support''' - super editor, hard working and honest. While I acknowledge the concerns below, I don't think they warrant opposing, on balance. Should be a fine admin -
Whoa, almost missed your RFA! No question, '''Support'''

'''Weak support'''
'''Tennesseean cabal support'''. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''' - I've seen this editor around for some time, and have never had any cause to question his character or integrity. I have no doubts that he would be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' pondering neutral. Though only after throughly looking through the contribs. You don't need to be an admin to promote FLs. At the moment, we need reviewers and not closers. They are going for a month because some have only received 2 comments in twenty days. I would have hoped that you would have been able to see that if that is one of your stated aims.
'''Strong support''' as a hardworking, honest, experienced, kind editor.  Very useful work at [[WP:AFD]].  No reason at all for anyone to distrust with the mop.
'''Support''' as SatyrTN seems interested in improving and developing the encyclopedia.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' more inclusionist that average, but knows policy and won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Trusted user who won't abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' - I'm confident the tools will be safe with this user. -'''
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a sensible, trustworthy and experienced editor.  I cannot see anything of substance in the few opposes below.  And anyone whose been around here since July 2003 (I arrived in October) and hasn't collected some bad baggage along the way must be doing something very right.  &mdash;
'''Support''' - He is a very experienced editor. He has made lots of edits. Why should I oppose?
'''Support''' professional and curteous editor.-
I'm
'''Support''', dedicated, well rounded and level headed. -
'''Support'''; obvious one:  he'll be an excellent admin, and has done tons of great work here.  Regarding things we all wish we hadn't said (I defy you to find any 4-year-editor who has never done this at least once) please remember that this is a nomination for adminship, not sainthood.
'''Support''' Will use the tools well. --'''
'''Support'''  I have nothing but respect and admiration for SatyrTN, both as a potential future admin, and as a very well established editor with impressive accomplishments who has helped many (including me). I have worked with him in many articles and AfDs.  I think he will make a great admin, and he has my full trust.  This is despite the [[WP:AGF]] concern on the part of the opposition !voters, because I believe that one very minor, non-confrontational, and learned from mistake is not evidence of a general failure to AGF.  And I second Antandrus's comment above. —
'''Support''' and good luck =)
This seems like a person who should have been made an admin a long time ago. While I don't believe I have interacted with SatyrTN before, I have observed their activities, and have found them to a be an experienced user.
'''Support''' We've had a few arguments in the past, but he's recently started voting regularily in FLCs, so that's sealed the deal. However, FLCs have been taking a month because of the recent lack of voters (not because of a lack of closers), and one really doesn't need to be an admin to vote or close FLCs. --
'''Support''' Per Dev920 & Wjbscribe --
'''Support''' Pleasant, willing to listen, and willing to explain himself in my dealings with him.  This is one admin who won't have a problem remembering that the admin is there to serve the community, not vice-versa.  I invite SatyrTN to turn his finely-honed abilities to the ongoing saga of the [[Justin Berry]] article, my current primary source of WikiStress.  --
Belated '''support''' -- I've been on the fence about this one because of all the stuff about vandalism, bad faith, etc. Then I finally did what I should have done earlier: I went back and looked at the diff and at the context. SatyrTN was trying to calm down a friend by saying, yeah, I thought you were just reverting vandalism. Maybe this wasn't exactly the correct thing to do (so who's perfect?), but the mistake (if any) was in being too nice a guy. As character flaws go, that's not a bad one to have and it's the antithesis of "assume bad faith". --<font face="Futura">
Four years and still not an admin with this skill? Well, we'd better hop to it, then! <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Support''' - concerns brought up by me at Netural, seems overridden by excellent article contributions and four years of dedication. &mdash;
'''Support''', looks good.
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' per answer to question #5 (asked by me). This is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of "vandalism".
'''Oppose''' content disputes are not vandalism.  To say otherwise is to ABF.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)  Temporarily holding back final opinion.  Will re-review.[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]] 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)  Per discussion and further review, this still makes me uncomfortable.
Oppose per the candidate's response to Chaz Beckett, stamped 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC). Such an application of "vandalism" by an administrator in that situation would a) be incorrect b) cause massive drama c) shut out an idea from discussion which is not vandalism. All three are not beneficial for the encyclopedias' development, and I can't support this nomination at this time. This interpretation applies through both blocking and protecting, and hence is serious enough for me to oppose in good conscience. '''
'''oppose''' per above. I hate it when people falsely accuse ppl of vandalism. Srry.
'''Neutral'''. The key to question 5 is [[WP:AGF]]. If the removal of properly sourced information is done with the intent of improving the article (i.e. there's a better source out there, the information, though reliable, is out of date, or some other issue), then it's not vandalism. Even if misguided, a good faith attempt to improve the article can never be vandalism. That caveat is missing from the candidate's response, and that bothers me a bit. I'm going to review the (extensive!) list of the candidate's work to date, and shift to support if warranted. No objections at this time, beyond the above - I just want to think about this one.
'''Neutral'''. There's a lot of FUD flying around in this RFA. The "what is vandalism?" issue was unfortunate and recent, so it's probably nothing in the long term; however, the response to the question wasn't 100% on target either, which might cause concern. On the other hand, the chit-chat about AGF is petty. Nobody should be compelled to do anything. This is a volunteer project, and that applies equally to admins. If you offered someone to write a bot for them, and they don't follow up, that seems a fair enough reason to back out of the promise. I'd rather have an admin give up on something unpromising than live a frustrated wiki-life.
'''Neutral''' I like what I see for the most part, but the opposing sides' comments leave me unable to support at this time.
'''Support''' I've looked through some of your contributions and talk page history and can't really see anything indicated that you wouldn't make a good admin. In fact, I'm finding a lot of recent praise on your talk page. Whatever the result of this RfA, keep up the great work!
'''Support'''. Looks good. Well spread edits.
'''Support.'''  Savidan and I have disagreed recently on a series of AfDs, but I have come out of it respecting his level head and respect for Wiki policies, and I am pretty sure that he'll use the admin tools responsibly.  I would encourage Savidan, a self-admitted deletionist, to be willing to hear second opinions and reconsider articles he may speedy delete (as all admins should be willing to do), but so long as he keeps that in mind, he'll be a solid admin. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support.''' Seems to be a solid candidate + support from someone who disagreed with him is good to see
'''Habemus Administratoram'''. - <b>
'''Support''' - No reason to oppose. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Yup'''. I've seen good work here.
'''Strong Support''' I thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', with no reservations. --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate for adminship.
'''Support'''. Lots of good edits, no reason not to promote to admin. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I'm
I see no problems with mopifying this user, but after looking over the contribs I would appreciate it if Savidan diversified beyond just doing AFD work.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<span style="color:DarkRed">''sign here''</span>]] [[User:Sd31415|<span style="color:DarkRed">• <small>HAPPY HOLIDAYS!</small> —  '''s d 3 1 4 1 5'''</span>]]
'''Support''' I trust all of the voters. -- ''
'''Support''' definatly, one of the best candidates I have seen in a while. &mdash;
'''Support''' Candidate definitely meets admin criteria. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Support'''. Candidate meets all my RfA criteria. '''
'''Support''' Great work so far, I offer my support without any reservations.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' [[Dizzee Rascal|Fixes up, looks sharp!]] --
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASavidan&diff=96486445&oldid=95041943 this] is <s>usually frowned upon</s> sometimes controversial, but it is outweighed by all of your good qualifications as enumerated above.
'''Support''' - highly qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''', a great editor.--
'''Support''' Absolutely no problems at all.--
'''Support''' - due to wealth of experience in the image namespace [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Savidan&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] --
'''Strong support''', what isn't there to like about this user? //
'''Support''' an all-around great candidate. RHaworth [[User_talk:RHaworth#why_speedy_tag_articles.3F|uses the interesting approach]] of a self-imposed moratorium on speedy deleting most articles that haven't been tagged by someone else, thereby giving each article at least two sets of eyes before getting deleted. This may be worthwhile if you ever start patrolling new pages or handling CSD. I think advertising the RFA on your userpage is perfectly appropriate for the same reasons Savidan stated. Thanks for that follow-up.--
'''Support''' Has good qualifications to become an administrator.
'''Support''' This is a great candidate for adminship. His answers are great and is very confident. Nice. ←
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''- You'll be a fine admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' nice answers to the questions, sounds pretty good to me.
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''', indeed I am quite surprised that Savidan was not already an administrator... !  Based on my indirect encounters with him (be it in the course of vandal-fighting, discussion, or other issues) I see no reason that the Wikimop won't be in good hands with him. --<font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''', a fantastic editor who would benefit greatly from adminship.
Seems great, featured articles are a plus, not at all bothered by not issuing a warning to a vandal once.. people take that stuff far too seriously. --
'''Support''', excellent answers to the questions, well-rounded edits, and a reasonable guy. Yes, indeed. --
'''Support'''. I know him from the FARC of [[Pope Pius XII]]. My conclusion is that his is a fine editor, and can be a fine sysop.--
'''Support''', everything looks fine. Just don't ''always'' seek out a controversy to jump into. -
'''Support''', seems highly unlikely to abuse the tools or other editors.
'''Support''' Can't find any notable faults, looks great.
'''Support''' Great work, will no doubt use tools wisely. --<i><font face="Verdana">[[User:Bezking|B]][[User:Bezking/Esperanza|</font><font face="Verdana" color="#008000">e</font><font face="Verdana" color="#0000FF">]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Great Job.
'''Support''' - Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Per above. <font color="green">
'''Support''' I have observed Savidan's editing and participation on a controversial [[WP:BLP|BLP]] article and I am confident in his abilities. IMO he will make a good, fair and considerate admin.
'''Strong Support''' You participate in AFD, very civil lots of Wikipedia and naimspace edits. You filled in your edit summaries and you participate in GA/FA candidates (extra points in my book). You observe the policy carefully and excellent answers to your question. You don't seem to revert vandalism, but at least you warn the vandal, but all the other contributions cover that flaw. I support.--
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' A Wikipedian who is more than qualified for the mop. '''
'''Support'''. Overqualified? <cliche here>. --
support --
'''Support'''

'''Support''' - As long as Savidan keeps on issuing vandalism warnings when reverting vandalism, then I have no concerns supporting this editor. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' - This user, Savidan, deserves the administration title. He shows courage and leadership throughout what he does at Wikipedia. --'''
'''Support'''. Haven't seen any issues.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', respected, helpful, solid editor.
'''Support''' passes my criteria
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' without prejudice, a very strong candidate who I trust with the admin tools.
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I am excited to support this candidate per the multitude of reasons above.
'''Support'''. Sure, the 1 oppose makes a very good point, and your edits seem a bit concentrated, but there's no way you shouldn't be an admin. --

'''Support'''
'''Support''' to jump on the bandwagon.
'''Support''' per all of the above. '''

'''Support''' an experienced user.
'''Support''' qualified candidate, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support''' A good candidate, will make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate for the mop.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>'''Oppose''' your state this ''"I like to spend a lot of time reverting vandalism and I'd like to be able to do that more efficiently with rollback and be able to block repeat vandals without having to go through the somewhat inefficient WP:AIV"'' while its an admirable statement [[WP:AIV]] is only effective when the full range of warnings are issued to vandals,  a recent revert of vandalism by [[User talk:129.198.241.62]] a user previously blocked for vandalism, to the article [[Burr-Hamilton duel]] you didnt issue a warning.
Probably completely irrelevant but '''mild oppose''' solely on the basis of response to Q#5. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' as nominator --
'''Support''' Positions of trust on other wiki's do not automatically confer the same to en. '''However''' I think it should count for ''something''. Okay, your hardly going to be the most active admin here  judging by your contribution history (and a review of deleted edits seems to indicate basically nowt at [[C:CSD]]) ''but'' there seems to be a genuine need for the tools. User talk page and contributions seem all fine, no civility issues or anything so I guess it's a basic AGF thing - and that goes back to your positions on the sister projects. You could do with using edit summaries a bit more though, so I'd sugest you turn on the force request in your preferences. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
I was strongly considering a co-nom (if I got permission)... but it's went live so I'll confine myself to a support. I have worked with this user on multiple wikis and he really "gets it". Not a run of the mill candidate but the projects as a whole will greatly benefit from his having an adminship here. Very unlikely to "blow up the wiki" either. He really has a smooth touch and is very strongly consensus driven, so has a "deft touch". '''strong support''' with an offer to blather on more about specifics if they're really needed... I urge everyone else to do likewise. (er, support, not blather) ++
'''Support''' Highly trusted user, the project will benefit from him getting the tools.
'''Support''' per GlassCobra. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - I too was considering a co-nom, but it went live. :) And this trusted user, who has gained the best of names is worthy of the tools.
'''Support''' Probably should have been done a while ago...
'''Support''': I was just waiting on an answer to #4, and the answer you gave was great. -
'''support'''. There really does need to be a higher level of awareness on this project of the interaction with the sister projects, and how content that may be inappropriate for wikipedia may find a very welcoming home on Wikibooks or Wikiversity. By the same token, it's important to know what kinds of materials should not be "dumped" onto the sister projects if they don't belong. Johnny may not be the archetypical WP admin candidate, but his status as admin (and b'crat, and checkuser) on other projects proves that he is trustworthy, and his important role on many of the sister projects demonstrate his need for the ability to synchronize efforts between various projects in a way that normally only an admin can do. --
'''Support'''. Support. Admin on other Wikimedia projects.
'''Support''' , but of course :) Good luck! '''
'''Support''' Trusted user on '''<FONT color="red">three</font>''' Wikimedia projects, surely a fourth wouldn't make it even better?? Like {{user4|Herbythyme}}'s request for adminship, I'll support. --<font color="Green">
'''Support''' already an admin in two other projects.
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' have crossed paths here, on Commons and at the Versity Bloom Clock, not seen any edits of concern.
Strong support. '''
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. :) — <small>
'''Support'''. I can see no problems, Wikipedia will only benefit with you having the tools. —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but good edits from this user -'''
'''Support'''. My only concern with the candidate is that this would be his fourth project on which he holds a position of trust. He'll be busy. Can an administrator be ''too'' trusted? In this case - absolutely not. No objections to this candidate.
'''Support''' A very trusted user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Would have supported anyway but even more so thanks to the answer to my question--
'''Support''' a very strong editor who will help out with much.
'''Support'''. I don't anticipate problems from this candidate.
&ndash;
'''Support''' Seems like he will make a great admin
'''Strong Support''' - Support because he has a great edit history, and seem's to know his way around. Strong because he was admin before on a few occassions and knows his way around well. --
Why isn't this user an admin yet?  He's able to help a lot, you know.
'''Support'''. No problems here - highly trustworthy and competent Wikimedian. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. An excellent Wikimedian and fellow [[WP:PLANTS]] contributor. Great contributions and very trustworthy.
'''Support''' No cons here. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. No concerns here either. He'll make good use of the tools across the projects. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''. Clearly worthy.
I'm
'''Clichè I-thought-he-was-one support''' —
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Good luck!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''.  Good interactions with this user on the mailing lists; complete trust with the tools.  Give this man a mop!  —
'''I-already-thought-you-were-an-admin Support''' Seriously, I could have sworn voting for you in the past. I'm glad that you're finally an admin. --'''
A great guy on Commons.

'''Support'''. A productive and trusted Wikimedian. Will be more productive with the admin tools here at Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Has a great track and concerns of previous RFA in 2006 are all been remidied.
'''Support''' We need more people who know about coordination with the sister projects.'''
'''Support'''.  Looks good.
Experienced and trustworthy.
'''Support''' Good credentials.--
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Never heard of him before, but how could I not support him
'''Support''' trustworthy user.
'''Support''' as nominator.
The more [[Meta:Inclusionism|inclusionist]] admins, the better.  '''Support.'''
'''Support''', looks like user has changed nicely, and sufficiently, since the last RFA. --
'''Support''' - Deserves it . :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Naturally, a good user... see no reason not to flag him.
'''Support''' a good choice...nice find.
'''Support'''. I trust he won't inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —'''
'''Support''' OK. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
I'm
'''Support''' I have full faith that he will make a good admin. Good luck!:)--
'''Support''' Has made many improvements since his last [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schuminweb|RfA]] in September 2006. I think he's demonstrated his knowledge of policy, and he shows a need for the tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' per answers, comments, and candidate's overall record. Fully qualified, no concerns.
'''Support'''. Would be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. I have worked with Ben for the past 1-2 years on the [[Washington Metro]] article, and related articles, with him taking leadership and doing much of the work.  Wikipedia would benefit from having him as an admin. (and congrats on the move, new job or whatever brought you to the area) --
'''Support'''. I'm mildly concerned by the image atop the user page.  But admitting biases up front is probably better than pretending they don't exist, and definitely not a reason for me to oppose somebody with so many good contributions. --
'''Support''' - I feel the user will use the tools properly. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support'''- I attempted to nominate him previously, but he declined. I wouldn't hesitate to give him the tools in a second.
'''Support''' - prolific and experienced contributor, despite his highly insane political views. :-) Anyway, will be a good admin. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' It's been ample time since the blocks and there is no question this is a productive editor.
'''Support''' looks fine.--
'''Support''' in agreement with the above.
'''Support''' I supported Schumin last time, and there's no reason not to here. Oh, and I'm a deletionist. (Actually, I'm not a deletionist, because titles are idiotic, but I feel that far more articles at AfD should be deleted than kept.) --
'''Support''' It's the reasons given that matter--effectiveness at AfD is the ability to convince others. '''
'''Support''' a long-term, solid contributor. I'd like to observe something that makes me want to particularly support him, even though it's connected to a vote-canvassing issue that got him in trouble for his last RfA: I am impressed that Schuminweb has the detachment and integrity to create a well-referenced, fair article on a site ([[SpinnWebe]]) that once attacked him personally, to go to undue lengths to ''defend'' that article, and to exchange amicable comments with its author on the talk page. He clearly has a thick skin and a sense of humor, qualities that are very important in an admin.

'''Support''' no concerns here. —
'''Support''' - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools.
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' seems a capable user will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' A capable and active editor who, I'm sure, will make a capable and active administrator.
'''Support''' per PGWG. I think a candidate's possession of an inclusionist or deletionist philosophy should only matter if one thinks that the candidate will be affected by that philosophy to the extent that it will interfere with his or her ability to gauge consensus. I do not think that is the case here. -- '''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' I see no problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' ricka racka fire cracka <font color="#000066">'''
'''
'''Support''' No reason to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems. Doesn't seem ''dangerously'' inclusionist. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Support''' Liked his answers to the questions, inclusionism isn't ''that'' bad <font color="red">Metallic</font><font color="orange">95</font>
'''Support'''.  Would prefer to see a little less self promotion, but he has a strong contribution history. --
'''Support''' - good contributor. '''
'''Support''' A good one to have the tools.
'''Support''' I had some doubts on his last RfA, but clear support now.
'''Oppose''' not sure I'd want to give an inclusionist the power to settle AfD's.  '''
'''Oppose''' per Black Harry. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose'''. For me it's not any one thing, which leads to this oppose. The hosting of his picture on his userpage. The userboxes. The extensive explanation of who he is. The curt responses on his talk page. None of these would, in itself lead to my opposing. Even the description of himself as inclusionist (which I find counterproductive) would not be enough. Taken together though, I'm opposing because I'd be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia. I feel that, in total, his philosophy is significantly enough different from that of the wikipedia to be notable. I think that this is a prime example of an editor who is extremely valuable, but who shouldn't be an admin.
'''Oppose''' has severe issues with WP:OWN when it comes to Metro articles. I attempted to include a photo in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smithsonian_%28Washington_Metro%29&action=history an article about two years ago]... Ben removed it... several other editors readded it... Ben removed it... Sorry but I simply cannot support this user. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per user name, [[:Image:Ben Schumin holding Dick Cheney head.jpg|image]] on user page. [[WP:U]] prohibits user names that implicitly promote a website (here, http://www.schuminweb.com) by containing its name. Also, I oppose all candidates who advertise their association with any strongly contentious political, religious or other ideological position on their user page. Admitting to one's biases is good, but in case of [[WP:NOT#SOAPBOX|soapboxing]], users of the opposite viewpoint might perceive (usually wrongly, but still) to be unfairly treated by the admin in question. That image is quite over the top with regard to soapboxing <small>(and incidentally, why the badly photoshopped [[toupée]]?)</small> I also mostly agree with AKAF above.
'''Oppose''' --'''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Support''', beat the nom, good user. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' - After finding no problems with civility I've realized that my paranoia is just that: paranoia, and that I had no idea what I was talking about. '''Support''' <small>even though that means I'd have beaten [[User:Zeibura]] to the punch grumble grumble :)</small> -

'''Support''' Hard working, calm, and encyclopedia-minded editor who wastes no one's time. Whenever Schutz's name pops up on my watchlist, I'd only check it to learn about another improvement to the encyclopedia. Schutz is asking for the tools, Schutz should receive the tools. ---
'''Support''' Edits are without POV bias .Good Editor and impartial
'''Support''' As nominator, delayed by other things. :) -
'''Support''' Great editor, and admin-to-be if this works out. -
'''Support''' No concerns. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' as an excellent, ''consistent'', level-headed editor.
'''Support'''. A great user with plenty of experience. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' seems good. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Good editor, time for the mop.
'''Support''' You know what?  Yes.  Yes, I like what I see, and I think we will be able to trust the editor.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Love Zorgl. -- <b>
'''Support.''' A great asset to our project; I've enjoyed working with Schutz whenever we came across each other.
Proven dedication, judgement seems to be fine. '''
'''Support''' Editor's responses to my question makes me feel comfortable enough that if policy changes while they aren't watching, they have no problems temporarily surrendering their mop until they return. Couple of concerns about their answer, but nothing major enough to cause me to want to oppose. --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Support''' an experience editor that shows good judgment ▪◦▪
I'm
'''Support''' looks good. <b>
'''Support''', yup yup yup yup.
'''Support:''' able to keep civil and has experience of everything to do with wikipedia -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I'm not going to lose any sleep giving this user the tools. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Great answers.
Looking forward to seeing this user helping out in all areas :) –
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
Looks good, good answers too. <font face="georgia">
'''Support''' there is nothing wrong with this user.
'''Support''' Will put the mop to excellent use --
'''Support''' will be a great admin and someone who cares about geography to boot.
'''Support''' Seems cool to me.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' No evidence tools will be misused.--
'''Support'''. Experienced, level-headed contributor.
'''Support''' - lots of experience in Wikipedia space (1,000 + contribs) and also in the mainspace (articles) which I believe is vital when newbies are asking admins for assistance. Great candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. I've heard of him! :P. Generally friendly g(uy/al) :). Regards, &mdash;
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''. All discussion that I've seen so far from this user has been well-reasoned and civil, and he seems to have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policies and process. —
'''Support''', just to stay cool. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Why not?  '''
'''Support''' I've seen good things from Schutz.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.

'''Support''' I have good experiences of this user whose (clearly proven in his contribs) scientific background is a bonus, as is his informed, objective view of [[Cannabis (drug)]], one of our more controversial topics, all of which will make him a very welcome admin,
'''Nominator support.''' Obviously.  :)  --
'''Support''' Mature editor, experienced, dedicated, welcoming to new editors, and an already great list of article contribs.
'''Support'''. I have looked through some of his contribs. Have not found anything of concern. -
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user.
'''Support''' No problems whatsoever..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' competent and cooperative.
'''Support''' I like you.
'''Support''' Seems to have everything in order.  Good work, organized, and a good editor.
'''Support''' per more than adequate vandal whacking plus article writing.
'''Support'''. In your very competent edit history, I noted with particular appreciation the light humor in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiki5000&diff=prev&oldid=119380181 this diff], which suggests a lighthearted touch, and the concern for users in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=118067388#Admin_civility this one]. Good luck.  --
'''Support'''' look alright.--
'''Support''' On viewing the contributions you can clearly see a competent editor, a good user to have as an administrator.
'''Support''' happily.  Productive user without any black marks to make me think twice.  Helpful as well.
'''Support''' Sufficient experience with demonstrated understanding of process.  Trustworthy. Also, you gotta love the name Scientizzle. --
'''Suppport''' - '''
'''Support''' I see no problems here. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' Scientizzle politely informed me of a mistake and cleared the cunfusion, and after going through his contribs a little I find no problem
'''Support''' A thinking person who seems to be well involved and aware of the issues. --
'''Support''' Definitely someone who can be trusted with the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' We need more scientists here.
'''Support'''. Totally thought he was already an admin.
'''Support'''. fine candidate for an admin who's doing a great job building an encyclopedia. cheers,
'''Support'''.  Handles himself well (doesn't get hot under the collar) and is familiar with the project.  And he knows English fairly well.  :)  He's got my vote.
'''Support'''. Very good editor. --
'''Support''' due to excellent contributions and lack of a WikiProject endorsement. Appears to be trustworthy, and adminship is no big deal. Twiddle away. ···
'''Oppose''', not enough edits in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Scientizzle&namespace=8 MediaWiki namespace]. Oh, wait a minute...
'''Support''' - around for a year, not insane? Yer in -
'''Support''' no concerns here whatsoever. Excellent candidate. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as a good candidate who I think will use the tools judiciously... and per {{user|Nihonjoe}}.  Don't even get me started on why I think Wikiproject endorsements are an utterly daft idea.--
'''Supportizzle.''' He's closing AFD's already. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Support''' Goodness me, yes!
'''Support''' Definately a good user to receive tools.
'''Support'''. It doesn't happen to be ebonics in your name, hmm? '''''
'''Support'''; all looks good, and also per David Gerard, LOL.  Besides, you've been the target of repeated recent trolling so you must be doing something right.
'''Support'''; strong candidate in my experience.
'''Support''' as a great candidate for adminship. —
'''Support''': Seems to have plenty of experience and seems well deserving of the administrative tools. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Everything seems alright.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' no problems here. —'''
'''Support''' - no issues here, far as I can see. Good reputation over on AIV, too. Yep! -
Merope nominated you? Highly doubt there are any problems, then. Next please :) &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''. Sorry, I don't have a witty remark. -
'''Support''' per nom and above
'''Support''' All looks good and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Endorsements&diff=prev&oldid=125910387 this] made be laugh.
This candidate's CHIMP-T coefficient is 5.09296, just barely enough for me to support. The CHIMP-T coefficient, calculated as the square of the sum of the number of preserved edits to the Category talk, Help talk, Image talk, MediaWiki talk, and Portal talk namespaces, divided by [[π]], is the most advanced method to calculate RfA candidates' level of spiritual oneness with the spirit of the Great Wiki. A candidate with a CHIMP-T coefficient of less than 5 are liable to delete the main page and/or block Jimbo. As Scientizzle scores just above that, I endorse the statement that Scientizzle ''Is Not Likely To Go On A Spree''<sup>TM</sup>. -- '''
'''Support'''Good answers to questions.'''''
'''Support''' with a particularly clear and reasonable response to the question on IAR.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Yep''' good candidate. Very thorough, would be an asset.
'''Support'''. Good, experienced contributor. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''', absolutely. <b>
'''support''' in common to my [[w:de:User:ABF/Bewertungskriterien|evaluation criterions]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' without hesitation. --
'''Support'''
Only 1 MediaWiki talk edit? I dunno... haha jk of course I '''support'''.--
'''Support''' should make an excellant admin.
&ndash;
<font face="Verdana"><small>↔
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Good steady editor - worthwhile candidate.  I agree with [[User:Stephen|Real Stephen]] and others above. --
--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
No obvious problems; withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement, per my policy.
I'm not even gonna wait for the question answers, I'm that confident in him, '''support''' as nom.--
'''Support''' - will making him and admin help make this project better?  Yes.  Job done.  Good luck.
I'm searching, but can't find any problems. Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' Any user with no red flags and more edits last month than nearly double what I've amassed in a whole year surely deserves access to the tools. Cheers,
'''Support''' pretty impressive resúme  (did I get the funny squiggly thing right over the "u"?)
'''Support'''. Per nom. -
'''Support''' Very dedicated and amply experienced.
'''Support''' I've encountered this user while I was working with portals (got him confused with [[user:Jahiegel]]). He's done fabulous work on Wikipedia, and he looks like he could use the admin tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' Seriously, why did it take this long?  Good luck!
'''Support''' Seems to have a strong regard for diversifying content. <b><i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue">
'''Support''' I see no problems with this candidate.
'''Support''', you bet. --'''
'''Weak Support.''' I think this user has done excellent work, as far as I can tell, but has no descriptive userboxes. Good luck! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' Best Choice Possible!!! [[Image:Face-smile-big.svg|20px]] --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; fine addition to the admincorps.
'''Support''' I've worked with him at [[WP:NUMIS]]. He's always willing to take on the jobs that no one else is dealing with (like Assessment). His answers to the questions above match my impression of him (calm, reasonable, friendly, helpful).
What took so long? -- <b>
'''Support''' competent editor who'd put admin tools to use.
Yah. '''
'''Support''' definitely a good candidate. —
'''Support'''. Teh portal expert.
I'm
'''Support''' - Superb Editor..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. -- <b>
'''Support''' per all of the above. No problems anywhere. —
'''Support.''' Remarkable record. Besides, I like his answer to falsedef's question.
'''Support''' Solid contributor.
'''Ooh, couldn't resist'''. I'll trust Searchme, who has shown a lot of talent in editing the encyclopedia.
'''Support''', great work at [[Geography of Texas]] and and dozens of others.  Need more 'jack of all trades' types.
'''Support''' - Good reviews in [[WP:FPOC]]. Good work! (

'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No oppose yet, so I´ll support. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' with pleasure. Joe is a positive and constructive contributor, who is more than qualified for the mop.--
'''Support''' I love to see admins involved in WikiProjects. Go ahead. --
'''Support'' Excellent candidate with 4418 in Mainspace and 22203 in total. --
'''Support''' I'm not Mailer, but I approve this message!
'''Support''': User has a lot of experience. Edit summary usage on major edits is lower than 100% but I notice that the user is using edit summaries now quite frequently so no problems. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - solid candidate.  Enjoy it.
'''Support''' Another good candidate from Wizardman from I see here.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good candidate.
People always make fun of RfA editcountitis by referencing candidates' "portal talk" edits. Well, Searchme, has nearly 300 such edits ... so '''support'''. Oh, yeah, there's also the factors of experience, lack of any obvious problems, and good contributions to project. But mostly ... it's the portal talk edits. <code>;)</code> -- '''
'''Support''' good candidate. Nobody else can find any problems either. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">

'''Support''' um... yeah! --
Yes.
Seattle Skier appears to be an excellent volunteer to have on the project and I'm sure he'll be an even greater asset with some extra buttons.  I especially like how he handled himself on the talk page of [[Sigurdur Thorarinsson]].  While I've not yet had the opportunity to meet the fellow, his discourses there lead me to believe that he's not only easily approachable, but also an excellent person to work with on improving the encyclopedia.  Good luck! [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' A very nicely written self-nomination and good answers to the questions (especially Q3, as Gaillimh mentioned). The user's been here for five months, but has demonstrated everything needed in a potential admin, so I see no problems giving the tools to Seattle Skier. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Has come far in just a few months...let's see how they do!
'''Support'''. Contributions look great; appropriate and constructive interactions. Give'em the mop, eh? --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I'd prefer more user Talk edits but I'm sure that they will rack up quickly once you start vandal patrols, etc.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' absolutely. Should make Wikipedia a better place with the tools. —
'''Support''' Good, well-rounded user. Lowish user talk edits, but your well-written self nom shows that communicating with fellow users shouldn't be a problem. Good luck! &ndash;
I'm
'''Support''' Your growth as a Wikipedian appears to be straining your shirt. I'm sure we can tack on a few extra buttons to make things better. Cheers,
'''Support''' - not enough experience..[[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|so what !!]]..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Would be nice to see a little more experience but your edits are nicely varied, I see no problems and I think you would use the tools well.
'''Support'''. I have not found any major problems. --
'''Support''' per Riana. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', looks fine. --'''
'''Support''' The project work is a fine marker of collaborative spirit. He will work well for the community.
'''Support''' per excellent statement and questions.
'''Support''' per good answers. —
'''Support''' No oppose yet, so I´ll support. <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support''' dedicated... keep it up.. wiki-skiing...--'''
'''Support''' A great canidate, went above and beyond to answer my questions and I like all his answers. Good luck.
'''Support''' Terrific candidate who will mop wisely.
'''Never say 3 or 4 months is not enough for someone to become an admin!''' - Good luck. --
Weak Support. Few meaningful projectspace contributions (after subtracting all the WikiProject Volcanoes activity), but consistent with Q1. -- <b>
'''Support''': While only 3 or 4 months is usually a little short for me, I believe this user seems dedicated. Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Great self-nomination and answers.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' changed from 'Neutral'.  --
'''Support''' because I could not live with myself otherwise --


'''Neutral'''. I feel like there's a bit of a [[WP:OWN]] issue in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edinborgarstefan&diff=prev&oldid=116907050 this] entire thread, but overall a good editor. -- <b>
One of the most promising editors I've seen in a long time.  Excellent contributions and very thoughtful.  In a perfect world, adminship would be no big deal.  However, administrators are often called upon to make difficult decisions that require a nuanced view of policy and common practice that can only be gained by observation over time in Wikipedia space and not just by editing here. Admins that don't understand policy and practice can find themselves in trouble.  I cannot bring myself to oppose such an outstanding candidate, but would prefer a few more months of seasoning before we threw him to the wolves.
As nominator.
--
Although I'm new to the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|Mediation Cabal]], I know Sebastian to be a great editor, and unofficial mediatior. Good luck,
Amazing user who has been here for ages. Good luck!--
'''Strong support''' I have worked with SebastianHelm on the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project and can attest he is a SUPERB mediator, calm, rational and fair. He has my utmosst support. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' per mediation cabal work.
'''Support'''. Looks like he will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' offered to nominate him myself a few days ago. He's been here for ages and clearly a responsible user. And just in case any "no need for tools" opposition comes from his answer to Q1: although Sebastian may not be particularly interested in becoming a slave to the admin backlogs, giving him access to admin tools is still a plus for everyone.
'''Support''' I think that this user would make a really good admin.
'''Support''' Met him a few times. Good mediator. --
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' SebasitanHelm was the one who helped to stop many edit wars over Sri Lanka related articles. Always cool and collective. Will be a GREAT admin
'''Support''' Viel Glück!
'''Strong Support''' Would have gladly nominated him myself. But the Wizard beat me to it:) the admin tools will be an asset to this candidate given his decision to get involved in conflict situations as a mediator
'''Support''' as, for one, Pascal.
'''Support''', good luck, you will be fine.
'''Support''', impressed by the candidate's understanding of conflict situations, serious mediation skills, and what he helped accomplish at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation]]. I would like to see more of that among administrators. Whether he "needs" the tools or not, the tools just might need him. ---
'''Strong support''' - i'll take this opportunity to say that i really appreciate the 1RR userbox plus the 'happy to help' at his userpage since he really strives to help at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project. --
'''Support''' A good editor as well as a great mediator. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' As per Siva1979 - A good editor as well as a great mediator.
'''Support''' - without a doubt, all the best. <sup>
'''Support''' Reconciliation WikiProject looks like a great idea and Sebastian being an admin will further strengthen it.
'''Support''' A kind user.
'''Strong Support''' per answer to my question above.
'''Support''', seems to be a fine, level-headed editor with a lot of experience and excellent mediation skills.  Good admin material!
'''Support''', appears to be a solid candidate based on mediation skill and answers to questions. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' because of excellent edit count and quality, and great answers.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have been impressed with SebastianHelm ever since he helped untangle the mess at the [[Cascadia]] disambiguation page and the accompanying mess at [[Pacific Northwest]]. I'm sorry our paths haven't crossed much since then, but I do ask him for a third opinion from time to time. Having admin tools in his mediation toolbox can only be a good thing.
'''Support''' seems great.
'''Support''' Very much so.
'''Support''' Great answers.
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support'''. Although my personal interaction with the candidate is limited, he seems to be an excellent mediator (my impression is based on his own posts and others' evaluations of him made outside this RfA). The admin tools should prove useful in his mediation efforts (with tasks such as page protection, blocking, viewing deleted histories, and so on). – '''
'''Very strong support''' Loads of experience in disput resolution. We need someone like him--
'''Support'''. I'm glad I decided to check out RfA today. SebastianHelm is a great asset to Wikipedia and his dispute resolution activities are particularly notable. He's intelligent, adaptable and willing to admit errors. This is exactly the sort of fellow who should have the sysop bit.
Thought he was an admin
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good user and editor. Should be an asset. -- <strong>
I'm
'''Support''' I know Sebastian since December 2006 when he displayed his outstanding mediation skills on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]]. Then both of us started the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation([[WP:SLR]]) on 29 January 2007 which is a dedicated project to revolve the content disputes in Sri Lankan Civil War sector. I have good faith in this editor for his neutrality and his mediation skills so I hereby recommend this user for the mop and bucket and I know that Sebastian will do his mopping, very carefully. Thanks and good luck! --[[User:Lahiru_k|<font color="blue">'''♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪'''</font>]] <font color="blue"><sup>[[User talk:Lahiru_k|walkie-talkie]] |
'''Support''' He's doing a sterling job as a mediator, and admin tools will definitely help him be more effective.  In my view, he'll be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --
A good user.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Mature and respected contributor.
'''Support''' - this user has been around for a long time and appears to have been very useful. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong Support''' As someone who has been watching and occasionally trying to help out with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation]], I feel I can strongly endorse his becoming an administrator.  This WP is a groundbreaking and focused attempt to find a “third way” to resolve disagreements over a related body of contentious articles rather than watch the same edit wars replay themselves on one page after another.  (In fact, it might not be a bad idea to have a new type of admin ... a mediator-admin.)
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' per 50 being better than 49 ;). <!-- Just a joke! I support per the above --> --
'''Support''' dedicated user, unlikely to abuse the tools! <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' as nominator. '''''
'''Support''' I know this editor from all the pharma/med work they've done & I've seen them in action. "Interesting edit history", ramping up in a big way this year. I certainly trust them with the mop. -
'''Support''' - Thip ("this person") is as intelligent as thip is thoughtful.  (I noticed thip's opinion about gender-based pronouns being arcane, and thought I'd try my hand at creating some genderless ones).  :)  Thip has wide experience.  Thip is trusted by the community.  Thip is fine by me.  And I trust thep ("the person") who nominated thip, and you should trust thap ("that person") too.  (At least it's not arcane).  :)  '''''
'''Support''' - {{tick}} Yes. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Support''' - No Problems and has been around a long time (about to go into WikiRetirement)..:)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - no problems here... good luck! '''''
Checked through his contribs, saw nothing obnoxious or broken, just a lot of good work. Trustworthy nominator, trustworthy candidate. [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]]?
'''Support'''. Had dealings with Selket. Was impressed during these dealings with Selket. Am further impressed by Selket here. All good, to my way of thinking.
'''Support'''.  Selket is an asset to the project, and will continue to be so with the tools.--
'''Support''' - probably not insane -
'''Support:''' Per Moreschi as there is a lot of article writing in his contribs. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;[[User:Magnus animum|<font color="#33ff33">Mag</font><font color="#33ff66">nus</font>]] [[User talk:Magnus animum|<font color="#33ff99">an</font><font color="#33ffcc">im</font><font color="#33ffff">um</font>]]</span></span>''' <sub>(
'''Support''' per suffucient experience and willingness to deal with image backlogs is appreciated.
'''Support''' looks good. —
'''Support'''.  I reverted a change made by this editor because it looked liked vandalism.  Rather than getting worked up at all, the user took the time to apologise for not including an accurate edit summary and calmly explain why his edit was appropriate and supported by policy.  He was right, of course, but his actions showed that he understands being right is not enough.  I have no doubt this editor would be a good administrator.  --
'''Support''' good hard worker, trustworthy. Love the bot. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' He's been around forever and he claims to enjoy maintenance tasks.  If there were any reason to mistrust him, we would know about it by now.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Long and productive history, used to maintenance tasks as mentioned by YechielMan (and good at them, too!), and—this may be unorthodox—I feel that experience running a bot shows responsibility and commitment to the project. On a personal note, he has also done some very important work on pharm pages (an interest of mine), and I will forever be indebted to Selket for [[Template_talk:Drugbox#SVG|this]] tip :)
I'm
I don't see why not. --
'''Support''', primarily to cancel out the vote given by Kelly Martin, which was (with respect) utterly irrelevant to adminship and to Wikipedia policy. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''' Seems like a good user.
'''Support''' Looks fine.--
'''Support''' Looks good to me and SelketBot has just saved me some work.
'''Support''' Trusted user who will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Looks trustworthy.--
'''Support''' Good work at Third Opinion, WikiGnoming, the bot... --

'''Support''' as I can find nothing which would indicate this editor can not be trusted or would abuse the tools. I do suggest, however, that having a vandalism counter on your user page is generally a bad idea. It tends to attract vandals, and we certainly don't need more of those here. ···
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers. The reason for opposition given below can't be serious.
'''Support''' Good work, thoughtful answers. Interesting choice of nominators (and username genders). Best, --
'''Support'''. I'm not entirely sure Selket was correct in the posts linked to the answer on question 4, but the rest of the questions have been answered to my satisfaction. -
'''Support'''. The name rings a bell even though I can't really quite put my finger on it right now. Anyway, Selket looks like a good editor and I don't see any reason whatsoever not to support him. --
'''Support'''. A fine editor from what I can tell. I particularly like the answer to Q5 as it shows maturity and the willingness to engage in introspection. A look at contributions to XfDs reveals a good understanding of policies and guidelines. I must disagree with [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] and [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe]] on the question of the vandalism counter. Vandals will vandalise irrespective of the presence of counters. However, I think vandalism in the userspace is preferable to vandalism in the article mainspace as the userspace is of secondary importance and as userpage vandalism is more likely to be caught. -- '''
'''Support''': Plenty of experience and user seems very civil. Answers to questions also very good. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Do I think this user will abuse the tools? No.
'''Support''' per answers, comments, overall record.
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
I support this candidate; I agree with the sentiments of the nominator, and the answer to my question was probably the best so far. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Kelly Martin]]. (Actually, because I think Selket has enough experience and lacks copyright paranoia.) <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''support''' in common to my [[w:de:User:ABF/Bewertungskriterien|evaluation criterions]]
'''Support''' good candidate; I don't see anything that would give me reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' I've interacted with Selket regarding bot work. Seems likely to benefit the project from the tools.
'''Support''' per Argyriou.  And question answers, looks good.
'''Support''', I see no reason to think this user will go insane. (And the road nominations don't look like a mistake to me at all, though all the ILIKEIT/ALLXARENOTABLE votes in the debate certainly do.)
'''Support''' a good candidate --
--
'''Support'''. Candidate has no problems IMO.--
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I particularly like the straightforward and sensible answer to the BLP question. '''
'''Support'''.
The presence of a vandalism counter on the candidate's user page indicates that the candidate does not know the importance of [[meatball:DissuadeReputation|dissuading reputation]].  May reconsider if candidate resolves this problem and convinces me of his understanding of fundamental principles of governance in a wiki environment.
'''Neutral''' - Whilst I am trying to understand your frequent and lengthy disappearences? (I ask from the perspective of being available as an admin - any comments?)--
Pre-emptive nominator '''support'''.
'''Support''' - Nice answers and your edits are spread about nicely. --<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Strong support''' Last RfA should have passed. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' I opposed last time but this user has improved '''''greatly''''' since then. Good luck. ~
'''Support''' Goodness, this user looks like a great choice for an admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seraphimblade has been an excellent editor these last few months, I have no trust concerns whatsoever. The answers given to the questions are also very good.
'''Support.''' I have seen this user around many places doing many things.--
You actually have 7931 edits, but it's more then enough for my '''support'''.
'''Support'''
Yes. &ndash;
'''Support''', absolutely! --'''
'''Support''', user is everywhere, great candidate.
'''Support''', highly qualified candidate, no concerns.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Of course. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' without reservations. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' -- Impressive experience in admin areas and policy discussions.  Seems trustworthy for the tools. [[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="2"><b>L</b></font>]][[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="3"><b>uis</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Your a good canidate. --
'''Support''' bargained well and done. I haven't worked too closely with this one, but if memory serves it has been pleasant on the occassions I've run across him. Has been around the block, appears well balanced, and I haven't yet found any terrifying skeletons in the closet. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, solid candidate. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' The editor has provided fair and neutral opinions when requested.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good candidate, can't find any problems.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' fine candidate. -
'''Support''' - A very well balanced Editor...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' from me; I've see this editor around enough to justify my vote. -
'''Support'''.
'''Absolutely!''' '''
'''Support''' - I honestly thought he was an admin already. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''', why not?
'''Support''' Have seen good work and thoughtful opinions.
'''Support''' - easy one, this.
'''Support''' Because of the little things as well as the big ones.
'''Support''' - conduct and [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] in the [[WP:MEDCOM|MedCom]] case, [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2|WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus (2)]], which I mediated with Seraphimblade as a party, was exemplary. During my mediation, Seraphimblade was an example to the others, and made a commendable and genuine effort to resolve the dispute, which most certainly paid its dividends. Even from the start of his WikiCareer, Seraphimblade displayed a calm head, and an unusually complete knowledge of policy. This positive experience with [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], combined with the necessary experience, most certainly goes towards eliminating any reasonable doubt over this editor abusing the [[WP:ADMIN|mop]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per constructive involvement in notability guidelines and solid article editing.
'''Support'''. Generally exhibits careful thought in his posts as well as consideration of the person to whom he responds. Seems to have gained good experience and knowledge by participating in many areas of Wikipedia.  He should be given the mop to further help him with maintenance. --
'''Support'''  Every time I've seen him around (which is often) he has been improving the encyclopedia in some way - and in a civil, helpful manner to boot.  Should be a good admin. --
'''Support''' - from the sunny shores of wikibreak. <sup>
'''Support:''' Good committment to the project and plenty of good deeds. Seraphim would be even better with a mop.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' although I don't always see eye to eye with Seraphimblade on notability, I have found him to be a courteous and intelligent participant in discussions.--
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support''' Great recent change patroller, great contributor, shall do well with the extra tools -
'''Support''' He seems to be a fine contributor who we can trust with (and to use) the admin tools. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I believe he will handle the tools very well based on his recent changes patrolling and good involvement in Wikipedia space.
'''Support''' Experienced, level-headed, a broad range of contributions... believe the tools would be put to good use.
'''Support''': Although the user was blocked, yet I  think that he will use the administrative tools wisely. Good Luck! --
'''Support''' as I can't find anything to lead me to believe this editor would abuse the tools, and I can find a lot showing the tools would be effectively and correctly used. Twiddle his bit. ···
'''Strong support'''. Excellent editor who will make a fine admin. I have seen this user doing extremely good work around the encyclopedia, most recently his assistance with [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#OTRS related assistance needed|reviewing numerous articles about behaviour modification institutions to remove extreme POV]] following an OTRS complaint. Tools definitely needed and I have no doubt they will be used well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per nom and everything, but especially per answer to Luna Santin's optional question. —
'''Support''' I have seen him in action, He will be a good admin. -
'''Support''' - Adminship is overdue in this case. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<font color = "777777"><span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span></font>]]
'''60''' -- ''
'''Support'''. ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', pases criteria now.--
'''Support''' I have seen him around and I have never seen anything which would give me pause. <font color="Green">
Badlydrawnjeff's oppose is baseless. —
'''Support''' I think he does good work, and faintly surprised he was't already an admin. -- '''<font color="navy">
'''Support'''.  Engages in rational discussion, seems to have Wikipedia's best interests in mind... even if I've only been on the opposite side of discussion and disagree over precisely what those best interests are.--
'''Support''' per nom and per Anthony_cfc. That MedCom was one of the very few succesful mediation attempts I've ever seen on Wikipedia and Seraphim's unrelenting calm and rationality seem to have gone a long way into that working.
'''Support''' like last time.
'''Support''' You're definitely getting my support. I have seen many good contributions from this user. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Though it's not like you need it! --
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
support --
'''Support''' - seen him around [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:AN/I]] quite a bit. I feel he's trustworthy -
'''Support''' - another candidate I have seen around doing good work.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' - per nom.  --
I'm
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support'''! <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' thoughtful, civil, and posessing a good understanding of policy.
'''Support'''.  A level-headed and responsible editor and discussant.  I feel confident that he would properly use his admin tools to the benefit of the project. --
'''Issue the Mop'''
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support:''' Looks good to me, however you could work that lost 1% of edit summary usage :D <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Steptrip--> &nbsp;[[User:Steptrip/Signatures Go here|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2"><b>'''~'''</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Your edits look good, and they are well-rounded.. I think you'll make a great admin :) <small>
I should have spotted this nom earlier.
'''Support'''. Give 'em a mop. --
'''Support''' - my previous interactions with Seraphimblade leave me feeling comfortable and trusting. -
'''Oppose'''.  Not currently comfortable with this user having the bit at all, currently.  In a long-ranging dispute at the notability guidelines (WP:MUSIC, WP:N in particular), often misrepresented my positions on the matter, adding to a very contentious situation in the process, and I did not find his/her comments helpful in diffusing the situation as it were.  Some more positive experience in conflict resolution would be necessary for my support in the future. --
'''Strong oppose''' Seraphimblade made an edit at the request of an anonymous editor.  He made the edit apparently without wondering why the editor did not make it himself.  I informed him privately that he was acting as the meatpuppet of a banned user.  His reply revealed a serious ignorance of Wikipedia policies, and he added that "if someone approaches me with a concern, and it appears legitimate, I couldn't care less who they are."  This is completely unacceptable in a candidate for admin.--
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff.--
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff.--
I have a bad feeling here; I seem to remember you doing something bad, but I can't remember what it was. It would be really unfair to oppose for something unsubstantiated, so I'm going to be here. -
'''Strong Support''', as nominator
'''Support''' - I like your answers--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Good nom and good answers. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' Active wikipedian, good responses/answers, good contributions.
'''Support''' We need people like him.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent contributor and admin candidate. —
'''Support''' I have had excellent interactions with SGGH and trust that he/she will be a good administrator.--
moved from neutral,
'''Support.''' The nomination and answers show sufficient experience.
'''Support.''' Impressive range of contributions and answers and past history that suggests a reliable future admin.
'''Support.''' the kind of admin we need
'''Strong Support''' - Good idea's will make a great admin, experience has been acquired by that conflict with Patchbook, so it wasn't all bad, still running the Law enforcement project excellently. Overall: Let him own wikipedia, lol <b><font color="red">[[User:Dep. Garcia|Dep. Garcia]]</font></b> <small> ( <font color="green">[[User talk:Dep. Garcia|Talk]]</font> | <font color="blue">[[User:Dep. Garcia/Help Desk|Help Desk]]</font> | <font color="orange">
'''Support''' - Should do great work with the tools. —
'''Support''' another great candidate. Sure. -
'''Support''' Good answer and good contributions.
I'm
'''Support''': Will use admin tools wisely. --
'''Support''' Great answers, good contribs, no reason not to. '''
'''Support''': Excellent candidate. Has shown the ability to solve conflict and get things moving in WP:LE.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/User:Jeff503|User:Jeff503]] (
'''Support''': Great candidate, I look forward to seeing him help WP:LE and WP:MILHIST.
'''Of course'''. ''
'''Support'''.  Full confidence that SGGH will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Looks good, no reason not to. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' An all around excellent candidate with oroper answers and proper admin quality.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support'''--
'''Change to Support''' -Thanks so much for responding to my concerns as you have!
'''Strong Support''' I may be just a newcomer, but I believe [[User:SGGH|SGGH]] more than deserves Adminship, not <s>''just''</s> bescause SGGH adopted me, but because of the qualities that SGGH has perfect for sysops. All the answers, contributions, etc. definitely are a great (near/future) admin's skills.<font color="maroon">The</font> <font color="blue">

'''Strong support''' A hard working contributor. -- ''
'''Support''' - looks like an excellent editor who should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I've worked with Tony and if he says SGGH is admin material, SGGH is admin material. --
'''Support''' as I can find no valid resons for opposing. I see no evidence this editor would abuse the bit. ···
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''.  I did a thorough [[Wikipedia:Editor review/SGGH 2|editor review of this user]] not too long ago and was very pleased with what I saw. I found absolutely nothing that would prevent me from supporting.  Afterwards, s/he was eager to follow up and improve based on my suggestions.  Great candidate!
'''Support'''-Seems fine. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a very good editor, I've particulary appreciated his work with [[Mozambican War of Independence]].--
'''Support''' - will make a good addition. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> unless the candidate sets an e-mail address.  There are many cases where an e-mail can be useful to an admin.  A common one occurs in the case of issuing a block.  Since the blocked party will not be able to leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page, they may attempt to address the situation through e-mail.  This is impossible if the admin has not set an e-mail.
'''Neutral'''. I've no good reason to oppose this nomination, but I note that this user doesn't have email activated on his account. I don't care about this for a user but it gives me a bad feeling for someone who should be able to handle the problematic areas of user interaction.
'''Support''' as nominator. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Strong oppose'''. Was incivil to me on IRC about !voting before all the questions are answered, I'm really sorry I have to do this, but Alex would have made a good admin. ~
'''Support'''per nom.  --
'''Strong Support''' Even if Shadow has a low XfD count does that matter? I think I have had maybe 100 XfD edits since becoming an admin. Admin work is far more than XfD's. And I fully support this user [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Support''' Regardless of "low AFD participation", I think he has demonstrated knowledge of policy in other areas, such as building and operating [[User:Shadowbot]], [[User:Shadowbot2]], [[User:Shadow1/ShadowTool]] ect ect. I don't think every admin has to have the same experience before getting the mop. We are all not the same. Frankly this is one hell of a good wikignome laboring in the dark, and certainly can use the tools to do what he does. He is a tool maker, and wikignome. As far as trust goes, I find him trustworthy. Lets all remember that the mop ''is not a big deal''. Cheers! ——
'''Support''' - valued contributor, obvious need for the tools, lack of substantive reason to oppose.  We need more admins and anti-spam work more than makes up for a lack of XfD participation. --
'''Support''' per the simple question, would this user as an admin make WP a better place?  Yes.  Okay, so XFD's are lacking but should that really be the only criterion for voting these days?  Good luck Shadow1...
'''Support'''- This user's answers to the questions above show that the user would make a good admin.--
'''Support.''' Before I became a sysop (only this past July) I doubt I had more than 15 XfD contribs.
'''Support''' Different editors, and different sysops, have different intersts and different skills. And very few people can spend all day supervising every aspect of the project. This user spends less time than some in AfD. And a lot more time in other places. Needs the tools, and will not misuse them.--
'''Supportish''' - low XfD participation and I'm not seeing any quality articles, but we need more sysops and I'm not seeing anything particularly broken. Should this RFA pass it's probably a good idea that the user should wield the tools with care for a while.
'''Support''' - Low XfD participation is a bad reason to refuse adminship, and the quote mentioned by [[User:Misza13]] (specifically, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shadow1&diff=prev&oldid=104220168 this]) has to be taken with a grain of salt.
'''Support'''. I want XfD for policy discussion, not just for the sake of being XfD, and he's got plenty of policy discussion. -
'''Support''' - Shadow1 is a great editor and a valuable asset to the wiki. As an anti-spam user, he clearly needs the tools for blocking and deletion, he is almost always on IRC and therefore available should he be needed, and he runs several bots, including a bot which automatically reverts spam.
'''Support''' Both Shadowbot and [[User:Shadow1/Perlwikipedia|Perlwikipedia]] are very valuable contributions, I guess Shadow1's work would benefit from using the tools. You have a reasonably low experience with the mainspace, so please stay away from attempts to police experienced users, rather use your tools against spammers and to support development.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' - Mass AfD participation is ''not'' needed here (for case and point, see my own RfA and the concerns and counter points raised, [[User:Curps]] had a good explanation) nor is making 50 trillion edits a day, lots of our sysops don't make 50 trillion edits a day and still do a fine job. There is a clear need to utilize the tools in spam fighting.  Now, an automated CSD mass delete would be fine, but most pages are a 5s glance over before hitting the delete button, I just don't see it to be a concern in any way shape or form. --
'''Support''', nothing problematic in history, concerns raised by opposition are trivial or irrelevant.
'''Support''' I understand the oppose and neutral comments that you could be more active and have more XfD participation, but your answers show competence and familiarity with the aspects of Wikipedia for which you desire the tools, and I trust you and the other supporters.
'''Support.''' I don't have to explain this one.  Shadow1's contributions, especially the bot, help keep Wikipedia clean so that the rest of us can do our work here.
'''Support''' per Argyriou.
'''Support''' his knowledge and experience more than earn my support. he's done some pretty amazing things. he'd be an asset to adminship.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' This user knows what he's doing, no question. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |

'''Support''' trust-worthy. -
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' Outstanding spamfighter.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I have no problems with this nominee's participation rate, particularly in that most of it has been in the last six months. The nominee demonstrates trustworthiness and potential to be a good admin. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) '''Weak Support''' I would have liked to have seen a bit more in the nominee's contribution history to demonstrate the necessary foundational experience and a bit more of well-roundedness, but what is particularly important is trustworthiness. I'm struck by Pascal.Tesson's "neutral" comment in which he comments on the nominee's trustworthiness. I think that if we trust this nominee, it very much ameliorates whatever minor weaknesses the candidate might have.
'''Support'''. I trust this user and believe he will use admin tools responsibly and reasonably. ''
'''Strong Support''' Programming a bot to deal with problematic edits, then dealing with angry comments the bot's reversions and warnings generate has probably given Shadow as keen an appreciation of much of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as if he were commenting at AfDs daily -- just a different set of policies and guidelines. Shadowbot's processing about 200 edits/day with a very, very low error, but still non-zero, error rate. Some of the more vocal complaints come from spammers who deserved warnings and reversions. --
'''Support''' Have shadowbot online more, please. It does good work.
'''Support'''
I'm
'''Support''' per nom--
'''Support''' You seem to have a good handle on things.  Your edit count is pretty good and so's your determination. '''
'''Support''' looks like he knows what he is doing.--
'''Weak support'''. I trust him to make a good use of the tools, although I am not very satisfied of his encyclopedic contributions. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Strong Support''' &bull; The question in RFA is simple and single: do I trust this user?  With Shadow, my answer is an unequivocal ''HELL YES''! ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom.—
Benefit of the doubt.
'''Strong support''': no reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' this great editor. It's sill to demand that every admin be an AfD denizen.
'''Support''', I've seen enough out of Shadow to instill confidence in adding my support. '''
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' Excellent user, would benefit from admin tools, won't abuse them. --
'''Support:''' I for one am someone who recognises that each editor has different interests around Wikipedia, and therefore should not be knocked for lack of participation in certain areas. I also feel this user would make very good use of admin tools, as part of their continued effort to improve Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! --
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - Absolutely
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good contributor. The fact that his opposition seems to be made almost entirely out of editcountitis solidifies my support. If the worst anyone can say about a user is that he doesn't spend half his waking hours on Wikipedia, that's a pretty good sign.
Ditto Rspeer
'''Support''' ~

'''Support''' Good work with [[ShadowBot]]. You will make a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''- I'm not convinced. I donm't believe article writing is an important part of being an admin. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' good admin candidate...--
'''Support'''. I can only see good coming out of this. If he has low XfD participation, I doubt he'll suddenly jump into it tomorrow and start deleting pages against consensus.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, well-versed in his specialities.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why The Hell Not?]]

'''Support''' per Ral315.
'''Support''' Great admin candidate, and should be given a mop swiftly.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Infrequent and low amount of AfD participation. The user has participated in about 8 discussions in the past three months. I would feel more confident about this user if I could see a bit more AfD participation in the future. '''
'''Oppose''' I prefer new admins to be more active here. Sorry. --'''
Sorry, but '''oppose'''. While Shadow1 might be a competent technician/bot operator and well rounded in Wikipedia policies etc, my personal interactions with him do not make me comfortable with him holding a mop. As he himself admits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shadow1&diff=prev&oldid=104220168 quote removed here]), he's always [[WP:MASTODON|angry]] at something and I can only guess he'd have an equally [[WP:BITE|angry]] approach to "lowly" non-sysop contributors as an admin as well as be careless with the banhammer (''Fire in the hole!'') and [delete] button (for example, by keeping [[WP:CSD|CSD]] "as clear as possible" by simply mass deleting everything).
'''Oppose'''. Copyright paranoia, and wants to be too quick with speedy deletions. '''
'''Oppose''' Low level of participation in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' while I don't agree with the other delete votes because of lack of AFD participation, there is an obvious lack of article writing, the 3 articles he created are just stubs.
'''Oppose''' Low interaction in wikispace. If fixed, looks a goody for a future run, so if you're unsuccessful this time, Shadow1, please drop me a line when you are next nominated. In my flick through contributions, I've yet to see "angry"ness manifest as incivility. --
'''Weak Oppose''' As per above (fairly low activity)
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda.
'''Oppose''' I feel as though potential administrators should be moderately well-rounded in a variety of areas on Wikipedia.  As such, the candidate's lack of adding content to the mainspace is a fairly major concern for me and is not consistent with what I look for in a candidate [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' This user has no more than 8 mainspace edits to any article, and only 49 total edits to talk pages.[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Shadow1&site=en.wikipedia.org]
'''Oppose''' 49 talk page edits is about 1/4 of what I expect as minimum level of interaction. 1500 mainspace edits would be at the low end even if it weren't all mechanical reversions. ~
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think 1BOT is any better a rationale for supporting a candidate than 1FA is for opposing them, and that seems to be what the case for mopping Shadow1 comes down to.
'''Very weak oppose''' I am not, to be sure, in any way disinclined to support here in view of the candidate's being (relatively) inactive in mainspace and article talk or his being innately "angry", and I think Shadow, on the whole, to comport quite well with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|conception of a solid admin]]; there is, at the very least, much to recommend him.  I am a good bit concerned, though, by Shadow's avowed intention to work to clear [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|CSD]] backlogs, his explanation of which leads me to fear that, his otherwise sound judgment notwithstanding, he might be too hasty to delete pages tagged for [[WP:SPEEDY|speedy]] (for all of which at least a cursory review is in order); in view, then, of my abiding belief that we generally need to be more circumspect in tagging, reviewing, and deleting [[WP:CSD|CSD]]s, I cannot, I regret to say, support.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and Jahiegel -
'''Neutral''' I won't go as far as opposing because I fundamentally trust Shadow1 and I think he has shown sound judgment and ability to interact well with other users. But I think he also has insufficient experience not only at XfD but in the Wikipedia namespace in general. It's good for new admins to have some familiarity with the basic processes going on there and I'm not sure shadow1 has that. I'd be more than happy to support in a couple of months, once that is settled.
'''Almost Oppose Neutral''' per opposers. '''
'''Neutral''' due to lack of experience. Edits have been consistently rising a little at a time over the last few months, which is great. However, the user has not planted a solid foundation in talkpage experience and a few other minor areas. This would probably be a support by late March if the positive trend continues. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral, leaning towards support'''. Seems like a good user, but I don't really care for his edits. Lack of XfD participation hurts, and his edits don't make up for that miss.--
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support per some of the concerns raised here.
'''Support''' as nominator <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' Great user. Good history of article contributions. Nice activity in project-space. Admins specialized in images are needed. -
'''Support''' I concur with Anas Salloum. I have checked out the contribs and they rock. Also ShadowHalo does a lot of random talk page improvements.
I'm
'''Support''' per question 1. I like a candidate who wants to help in overlooked but much needed areas. And everything else seems fine. Good luck! --'''
I '''support.'''--
'''Support'''- having previously looked through his work as one of his reviewers at [[WP:ER]], I can firmly say that he is trustworthy and a hard-working editor.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate. '''
'''Support''' good editor. &#8594;
'''Support''' per Majorly, and also impressed to see an editor contribute substantially to articles he's not interested in, and getting them to GA or FA.  Great work.
'''Support''' I see no problems here.
'''Support'''. This editor has made some invaluable contributions to pop culture articles, and he has consistently displayed sound judgement and a firm grasp of the key policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' An impressive editor. '''
'''Support'''  Like the old song goes "(s)he's everything I want, (s)he's everything (the project) needs"....or something like that. Seriously, I can't think of a more qualified candidate.
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' for the well rounded candidate. '''''
'''Support'''  --

I'm not [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] but I '''approve''' this message! <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support'''. Good work on articles, deals with not-fun cleanup jobs, overall very good candidate.

'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Good candidate.--
'''Support''' I have no reservations about ShadowHalo being an admin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. We need more admins getting involved with images.
'''Support''' I appreciate the candidate's comments, article-writing and especially his/her [[Hollaback Girl]] NPOV exercise. --
'''Support''' bit new, but does good work.--
'''Support'''.  Seems unobjectionable and has good contirbutions as an editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Titoxd and all above. Great candidate from what I've seen. --'''
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''', please do keep up the awesome work on clearing image backlogs - the admin tools should help even more.  We need more admins who know the fair use policies.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like a solid candidate to me.
'''Support''' per above and Thanks for improving the [[Juanes]] article. --'''((
'''Support''' Well thought out questions, seems good to me, after all the mop is ''not a big deal''. ——
'''Support''', looks fine.
'''Another good one who hasn't had that mop yet'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''', you should be good with mops, rags, and [[Lysol]]. --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', deserves mop.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom and honest answers given by the candidate. Seems very sensible. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', Does deserve tools. '''
'''Support''', impressive answers to first 3 questions, especially the 3rd one.  Also good response to 8th question. —
'''Support''' You deserve a salute from me. I salute you! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' I like the user's answers to the questions, and I know of this user's good work on Wikipedia. I see no issues or concerns that are particularly worrysome. '''
'''Support''' good candidate. Trustworthy and level-headed. Good article work. No problems here. -
'''Support'''. Good editor - if he wants the mop, I see no reason to object. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' After reviewing your talk pages and contributions, I see you are an active vandal fighter, take part in a healthy amount administrator noticeboards discussions - I am confident you could blossom as an administrator. --
'''Support''' Thanks for your answer to my question.  I disagree with you when you said, "I doubt ... I could ... change the lack of consensus."  When an AfD comes down to 5 deletes and 3 keeps, the closing admin, in practice, has considerable discretion, and consequently an ability to shift the standard over time.  But you have a very solid track record, and I believe you when you say you won't. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Impressive answers to questions and seems a dependable user. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Way to vandal-fight, you deserve it. Please don't abuse your new position.
'''Support''' Another good candidate and there is always room for help at AIV. '''
'''Support'''. Very good editor, obviously will not misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' for one of my favorite editors. Go for it! (^^)
support :) --
'''Support''' - It Experience which matters..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - An great example of effective distribution of edits. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Absolutely.''' Everytime I've encountered Shimeru, I've found him to be intelligent, trustworthy, and thoughtful. He's an excellent contributor who has a need for the tools and will use them well. --
'''Support''' excellent user with excellent record.--
'''Support''' This a great user who I see often and I was even considering nominating the user for adminship.--
'''Support''': Can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support'''. Great user; nothing that concerns me.--'''
'''Support''' per Kicking222. Will do great work —
'''Support''' A great, great user. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''All looks good.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, can't find any problems here.

'''Support'''. Good editor, no concerns.
'''Absolutely'''. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support.''' I don't know the user, but he looks like a good candidate.--
I'm
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user, seems he/she will newver mis-use the tools, excellent and accurate answers to questions, would benefit the tools greatly! Good luck -
'''Support'''.  Good editor, long active in AFD, countervandalism and other work.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Substantial edits, balanced answers about use of the tools. Brain says "Yes."
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - And '''shimeru''' is the verb '''to close''', correct? I hope this RfA is '''closed''' in favor of Support quickly, if only for us new page patrollers' sanity :) <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']]
'''Support''' without reservations. ''
'''Support''' appears to be a solid canidate. -
'''Support''' based on answers to questions - user seems to be mature and considered based on this and a random review of contributions, and very unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support'''Good luck! --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''; this editor clearly has already been a huge help to Wikipedia and will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' looks good.  --
'''Support''' Good contributions in XFDs. --
Mature and capable. &mdash;
'''Support''' per all above. <font face="Verdana">

yay number 50. You'll be a good admin, '''support'''.--
'''Support''' (not that you need it), every time I've seen Shimeru around I've been impressed. No concerns at all.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
''' Support''' I see no prob. with this user.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (2)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
Cliched "isn't-he-one-already?" '''support'''.
'''Mop.'''
'''Support'''. I've reviewed his posts and found him to be civil and insightful, too.  He will be a good admin. --

'''Support''' You seem like a good user that we can trust to (not ab)use the tools. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and definitely ready. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
An admin who will delete lots of copyvios? Sounds good to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Active in all spaces on Wikipedia; XfD and policy-related contributions; user Talk edits high and have clarity and concision; mainspace edits also of high quality and all have edit summaries too.  No serious objections or problems here.
'''Support''' - looks fine to me. Good edits and clear edit summaries where required most. -
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' Shirahadasha has been helpful to me on wiki in the past.  I'm surprised it's a "he" rather than a "she", and now I'm trying to figure out it '''I''' know anyone whose first name is Joshua and last name begins with Z...Shirahadasha has had a few disagreements with [[User:IZAK]], but doesn't look the worse for it on closer examination.  A particularly instructive example of his thought process on AFDs is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber]].  I want to oppose just because I don't like his views on Jewish feminism, but I know that's not allowed, and overall he's a strong asset for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Experienced and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', trusted and good user.
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools, good candidate. —
'''Support''' I acknowledge [[User:Amarkov|Amarkov's]] concern but the summary in question seemed like a general FYI to not just the anon but anyone else who happens to see it.
'''Support''' per sufficient experience.
'''Support''' per last time. Very experienced, trustworthy, and less interested in red tape than the average RfA candidate. Well done.
'''Support''' excellent, trustworthy candidate. --
'''Support''' per nom <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
Improved from last time. Good luck. -- <b>
'''Support''' - A very excellent Editor with vast amounts of experience and he can be trusted with the tools...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - will make a fine admin.
'''Strong Support''' - I have encountered this user a couple of times, as we are both AMA members and have met at AfD as well. This user is civil, helpful and knowledgeable. So although I currently support every RfA (as adminship is no big deal), I would support this user even if my standards were higher. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''': Little has changed since the last RfA. :-)
'''Support''': User seems very civil and has good contributions. Could be a fine asset as an admin. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - A great candidate who has good experience, good contributions and who seems to be fair and civil.
'''Support''' - Trusted user who understands policy. --
'''Support'''.  Good user all the way.
''''Support''' Excellent editor, excellent nominator.
'''Support''' per all the other supports.
'''Support''' - Good editor, will make good use of tools.
'''Support''' A good user, editor, (and hopefully soon administator).

'''Support''' I see no reason to suspect abuse or misuse of administrator tools, and thus I see no reason to refrain from offering my full support.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''--
With pleasure.
I'm
I '''support''' this applicant's request for adminship.  He has a good range of edits across a variety of Wiki parts - both pre-admin style duties and mainspace.--
'''support'''. Why not? --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Very good editor. Good luck and enjoy!
'''Support''' Gets my vote --<i>
'''Support''' (again) - she deserves the mop. ←
'''Support''' again.
'''Support'''. Clearly ready for responsible use of the extra buttons. Support somewhat '''weak'''ened by relatively narrow scope of articles (users like this one are needed in all areas, that's why). —'''
'''Support''' I actually wanted to oppose, but if Y, Jayjg, Humus, Gidonb and just about everyone else approves, I'll fall in line. Support! Some more explanation, as requested by others. I think that Shira does still have a problem with NPOV. On Orthodox Judaism-related topics, she writes as if several things which are only commonplace in the most modern and left-wing circles of Modern Orthodox Judaism are in fact very normal and accepted practice in the entire Orthodox world, when this is not the case. However, I myself am also guilty of this - but from the opposite point of view. This makes me doubt on whether or not to support her RfA. I have decided to support anyway, since other Orthodox Jewish editors (including admins) who know her better support it. --
'''Support.'''  Definitely ready, and will handle the tools well.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''S'''upport. Good community skills, feast of knowledge & collaboration. Knows the project well enough to use the tools.
'''support''' good editor. Have seen some potentially touchy interactions in the past, and the candidate handled them all well. --
'''Support''' per aeropagitica. -- <b>
'''Support'''. I am satisfied that concerns raised during last RfA have been addressed. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - After scanning through the contribs, I am sure Shirahadasha will be an asset to the administration.
'''Support''', improved since last RfA, no problem supporting.--
'''Support'''. I do not see any problems. -
'''Oppose''' Little has changed since the last RfA.--
'''Oppose''' I really like this editor, but she's not ready yet.  I'd be honoured to nominate her when she is ready.--
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to support, but edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Role_of_women_in_Judaism&diff=prev&oldid=121282365 this] leave a lot to be desired. And you didn't warn the person on their talk page, which you should have. -
'''Neutral'''. Almost no indication of experience with images, categories or templates. Says he'll work on other things as admin and seems nice enough so I'm not going to oppose over it.
'''Neutral'''.  Looks to be a suitable candidate, but I would prefer to see an endorsement from a WikiProject before supporting.
Have often come across his name while browsing articles on butterflies and similar topics. He may not use the tools a great deal but is just the sort of specialist editor who could use the tools to work unobtrusively in his area without bothering others. Passes the "can be trusted with tools" criteria hands down.
'''Support''' A fine editor making a significant contribution.  Will not abuse the tools or be a problem admin.  The comments about "wasting" adminship made above seem off the mark...I just don't see adminship that way.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' You are a great editor, I will not deny that. I have a few concerns, but I am sure that you should be able to smooth those over should you your request be approved. –
'''Support''', good contributor, who would unlikely abuse admin tools. You have my vote. --'''
'''Support''' Thi is a very experienced editor who has no evidence of abuse in his background. Surely we can trust him with the tools even if he doesn't plan on using the tools constantly.
'''Support''' I have worked with Shyamal in the context of the Indian butterfly endeavour and found him to be a reliable, dependable and quiet worker who has taken much trouble to find valuable facts and images, and in some cases, create diagrams of great usefulness for articles. I feel that if he is made an administrator he will be a responsible and valuable contributor through these kind of activities also. I disagree with the arguments put forth in '''oppose''' for denying adminship based on an opinion or point of view about policy or vandalism. I feel this acceptance or rejection should be based on track record and performance.
'''Weak Support''' I am going to support him because I have faith he will be a reliable user but I can not offer him strong support because of his fairly low edit count. Good luck!:)--
'''Support''' - No need for tools is a crap reason to oppose. Adminship is "no big deal" and only giving it to rabid vandalfighters is the wrong mentality. No one 'needs' the tools until they get them anyway. This is a good science writer, he has been around for a long time and has always been trustworthy. There isn't a better reason to give him adminship in the world.
'''Support''' I am a little concerned though with your answer to Q4. I think it would do you good to read up [[WP:PROTECT]] again. And your statement "I am not aware of all the tools available" does not inspire confidence; since you say you had already read up [[WP:ADMIN]], I am assuming that you do know ''something'' about adminship. But really, you need to work more on your answers. In spite of all this I support because I believe trustworthiness is more important than policy knowledge and your contributions show that you have done consistently good work for ~10 months now and I have not seen any other issues like incivility and I am confident that you will not misuse admin privileges. I hope you will read up all the proper policies and be very sure before you fire up the [[WP:ADMIN#Administrator tools|rockets]]. :) Good luck. -
'''Support''' This user may not intend to be as active a vandal fighter as some admins; but there is more to adminship than vandal fighting. Obviously will not abuse the tools, so as it's no big deal, should have them.--
'''Support''' - Plenty of experience. Lack of "need for the tools" is not a good enough reason to oppose, given that [[CAT:CSD|we need more admins]], and any help is appreciated. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support'''. <b><font color="blue">A need for the tools and will do something with them.</b></font><small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Experienced, reasonable, willing to help. Is there anything I'm missing here? ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' per Anetode.  This is getting a little insane.  User's trustworthy + user wants the tools = give user the tools.  12,000+ edits and STILL people are grumbling about too few?  I need a drink.
'''Support''' - Looks good except I wish he had more WP space edits. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' I was originally neutral on this, but I have changed my mind. As Carom mentioned, I am a little worried by your apparent lack of knowledge about the Wikipedia administrative processes. In Q1, you stated you weren't totally knowledgeable of all administrative processes, so I suggest you read [[WP:ADMIN]], which should tell you what admins can and cannot do. Also, in Q4, you said you would avoid full protection. I don't think you understand when to use full protection (it's used primarily for edit wars, or temporary cleanup of vandalism). Since you said you wanted to do article protection, it may best that you read [[WP:PROTECT|protection policy]] and familiarize yourself with semi-protection and full-protection. I hope that after reading Wikipedia policies, you will be able to understand protection, blocking, deleting, etc. Do that, and then you'll be fine as an admin. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' I've seen him around the biology-related articles from time to time and he always seems to be doing something constructive and useful to them. Humility in answering the questions shouldn't be working against him; just try to find ''any'' admin who's familiar with every administrative tool and process. Possession of common sense dramatically outweighs familiarity with the dots and tittles of policy documents. The opposition currently appears to be incoherent.
'''Support''' Need admins to help in specialist areas. Can be trusted with the tools. Will use them as needed. Regards, <font color="navy">
'''Support''' in defiance of obsession over dots and tittles. This is a solid user. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''', a good editor i've had the pleasure of working with for a while.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Experienced and trusted user who is willing to help with the janitorial tasks. XfD is not the only area where admins are supposed to help; the user is quite active in other areas, and is willing to help with tasks like article moves, merges, protection and vandal blocking. Fine with me.
'''Suppoer''' A very good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like you are a good editor, and have a need for the tools, so you have my vote.
'''Support''' I have reviewed the "oppose" opinions and, while they have some merit, I don't see any of them as being weighty enough to withhold adminship.  The user can learn and has demonstrated enough knowledge of Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy to make a good admin.  He can learn the rest as he goes.  --
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  I find "has no need for the tools" to be one of the most pathetic reasons for opposing imaginable - until there's a limit on the number of administrators allowed, there's no reason to withhold adminship from someone even though they won't be the most active admin on the project.
'''Support'''. Great editor and trusted member of the community. Will use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''.  All my interaction with Shyamal has been positive. --
'''Support''' A good user, from what I can see here.
'''Support''', why the hell not, let's "go semi-willy-nilly and make a person who has been around for awhile a sysop". Having no interest in deletion doesn't demonstrate no need for the tools, and he's not going to abuse them from what I can see. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Support''' I have worked with this user on a number of articles, and he is very good and responsible. There is no harm (and probably a lot of good) in giving her the tools, as he is trustworthy and has, on many accounts, dealt with vandalism. I am an admin who doesn't use the tools much, but I don't think that is a good enough reason for me not to have them. If I need them, they are available to me, and the same should happen for Shyamal. Opposing him shows that we don't trust him with the tools, even though he has shown great dedication to the project and is obviously intelligent enough not to abbuse the power (whether accidentally or on purpose). --

'''Weak Support''', I think he answerd my question very well. -
'''Support''', definitely. we have plenty of admins and candidates who enjoy vandal fighting already.
'''Support'''.  I got into a minor tussle over definitional issues with this user at [[Banyan]] and [[Strangler Fig]], which began as a disagreement over categorization schemes on Commons, and it was among the most constructive disagreements I've had on the wiki.  I'm pretty sure that he won by improving the articles more than I did, but he had better sources, so I won't hold it against him. ;) Also, I don't doubt his ability to read the instructions if he comes across some unfamiliar moppery.  -
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal, if you want the tools and can be trusted with the tools, then you should be given the tools.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' I feel that user can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. Whenever I see opposes questioning the "need for the tools" in a good candidate and proven great contributor, I can't help but to *sigh*. RfA must judge, above anything else, the ''trustworthiness'' of the candidate. Quoting a discussion we once had at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship|RfA talk]], handing the mop is like giving a friend the keys to your house because you trust him; he may never even use them, but you are ''positive'' he won't break into your home without a good reason. And if the need arises, you ''trust'' he'll make good use of them. In my eyes, Shyamal has proved to be trustworthy. That's it - I don't need more.
No blocks in 2 years and 12000 edits? Probably knows what he's doing then. I can't believe people are still opposing with 'no need for the tools' when [[CAT:CSD]] is usually backlogged to high heavens. ''We need people.''
No ''good'' reason not to. '''<font color="#330033">
Changed to '''support''', Kamryn Matika and others are right. —'''
&mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Good editor..hardworking ..deserves the tool .. :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I have known Shyamal on a personal level and my words to descibe him are diligent, humble, honest, knowledeable and responsible. --
'''Support''' --
'''Weak Support''' I like his answers, but I am concerned about his lack of edit summaries. I would be willing to give strong support if he checks 'warn me when entering a blank edit summary' in his preferences, or if he can remember to give edit summaries without warning. --
'''Support''' I like him.I am very concerned about too his lack of edit summeries. I think he will make a good admin!
'''Support''' - Would be a great [[gnome]] as an admin.<b>
'''Strong Support''' - only just picked up this RfA, but this is a good guy who will be a reliable and civil admin, unlikely to abuse his responsibilities. I would have nominated him myself, but I'd assumed that because he was a long-standing contributor and not an admin that he wasn't interested
'''Support''' Good experienced candidate, could use admin tools well, as outlined in question 1. Good luck! '''
'''Support'''.  In my opinion, "no need for the tools" is not a convincing argument.  Give trustworthy people the tools.  If they don't use them, nothing is lost.  If they use them for the good of the project, wikipedia is the better for it.
'''Weak support''' I was, as [[User:Jc37|Jc37]], a bit disquieted by Shyamal's response to question one with respect to ''expert editors'', but my concerns are overriden by my firm belief that the candidate properly understands adminship as ministerial and intends to act only consistent with the consensus of the community, irrespective of his preferred policy positions.  Because Shyamal appears on the whole to be possessed of the sound judgment, deliberative temperament, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious, and because I see nothing to suggest that he should abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know) the tools, I feel largely comfortable concluding with some confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Shyamal's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
I'm
I currently don't see a need for the tools.  Your article work is fine, but your last message in an XfD was 5 days ago, whilst your second last participation in XfD was on May 11.  117 Wikipedia space edits, mainly WikiProjects, just isn't enough experience.  - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Oppose''' Do not see need for tools. Also I would like to say that the main reason that vandal fighters and people who help out on AFD is because these are the people who need the tools. Vandal fighters are not the most important people on the encyclopedia everyone knows that. The most important people are article creators and maintainers. But Vandal fighting and deleting articles are both very important tasks as well and your apparent disdain for them alarms me. To be honest I was probably going to answer neutral until I saw your response to G1ggy's vote. --
'''Oppose''' regretfully, however editor does not demonstrate any need for the tools, and answer to Q4 makes me wonder if any of the editor's decisions as an admin would be based on his or her personal like or dislike for a policy rather then the actual policy or community consensus thereof. Also, answer to Q1 makes me wonder if editor has visited [[WP:ADMIN]] to see what the tools are, or gain more information about being an administrator.
'''Oppose''' your answer to question one makes me wonder if you know enough about being an admin to become one.  And question four is a little concerning to me too.  Hopefully you will take some time to read up on being an admin, and come back then.  '''
'''Oppose''' per BH. "Becoming aware" of the tools doesn't take that much time, just a thorough reading of the provided documents. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' Lack of a coherent reason for needing the tools, coupled with a general feeling that this user does not have a good understanding of the policies relevant to the use of the tools. Also a little concerned by the impression that this user thinks that restricting editing privileges is the best way to stop vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shyamal&diff=136996076&oldid=136995910]. I would hesitate to give the blocking and protection tools to a user with that apparent philosophy.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Jguk/admin_criterion|Jguk Test]].
'''Oppose''' - Started out with Neutral, but answers to Q1 really concern me. In particular, I am concerned with this sentence: "I am also concerned about expert editors and would want to offer to protect their pages and work from vandalism." - There are several inherent problems with that sentence that just make me wish to oppose. -
'''Neutral''' A good editor, but not really seeing a need for tools.  Watching over pages that "that are not on anybody's watchlist" isn't really an admin thing in my opinion.  I suggest working on the answers.
'''Neutral''' seeing as I'm editing this box anyway; as all you edits are in a specialist field I'm not competent to judge, I don't feel qualified to comment on their (and hence, your) validity. I'm concerned at your "I am not aware of all the tools available" in Q1 - if you don't know what the tools are, how do you know you need them?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral''' I'm a little concerned about the answer to the first question, which doesn't seem to demonstrate proper knowledge of what, exactly, an administrator ''does''. Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the tools a little more and expand your answer?
'''Neutral''' I believe this user has made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. However, I'm a little concerned about his rather low count in the project namespace. Also, due to the answer to question 1, I am worried I doesn't really know what admins will be doing.
'''Support''' The nominee is the most significant editor in curbing the actions of serial vandal [[User:JB196|JB196]]. Fair minded and with a thorough knowledge of policy. I have had completely opposing views to the nominee before and have have found his comments altogether polite and logical.
'''Strong support''' as nominator.  One of the most knowledgeable nonadmins here.  Give him the mop!--
'''Weak support''' -A very good editor but he has very low mainspace edits which could be a hindrance but overall he is most-trustworthy and should get those tools that people talk about..hehe.. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Not only is SirFozzie one of our most tenacious defenders against ban-evading sockpuppetry, he is also in my experience unfailingly polite, level-headed and helpful when dealing with other users. He's a thoroughly clueful editor with an extremely strong case for needing the mop; in my book that makes him a model candidate. --
Gosh, this is a most pleasant surprise! '''Support''', yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum!
'''Support''' - seems to be all fine. Answers to questions are satisfactory, and the user seems to have a good grasp of policy. Couldn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=SirFozzie&namespace=3 detect] a single uncivil comment. Although he has not made a lot of contributions, SirFozzie is a respected editor, and I see no reason to assume he'd abuse the bit. <b>
'''Support''' - I was sure I checked your logs the other day and found you were an admin, oh well, certainy a great candidate, pops up with great comments in all the right areas.
'''Support''' Edit count isn't too big of a deal. --<i>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</i> <small><sup>([[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk]] •
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin. Good luck!:)--
'''Support based on contributions'''. I found some good edits while digging through his contribution history. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sports_club&diff=prev&oldid=134894902 Here] he does a great job of dealing with an article dispute on [[Talk:Sports club]] -- an anonymous POV-pusher started by angrily accusing SirFozzie of vandalism, and SirFozzie just cheerfully talked through WP policy until the same anon was thanking him for helping. He also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axl_Rotten&diff=prev&oldid=95850625 upholds BLP] but is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=127707383 suitably cautious] about how to apply it. His edit history also showed me how tirelessly he cleans up after the sockpuppeteer JB196.
'''Support''' Good experience with the policy end of things, and I've seen nothing but civility from him. Mop wisely!
'''Support''' This is probably the first time I have actually supported someone who doesn't have that many mainspace contributions (I had to use editcountitis to put it in perspective). Usually my reasoning for opposing a candidate with low mainspace contributions comes from the fact that mainspace editing helps you prepare in dealing with potential future conflicts. From what I see, SirFozzie has been involved in many disputes, and handled himself in a professional manner. He's also shown a need for the tools, and in the way he has been handling JB196, I think he could definitely use the admin tools. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
His work dealing with JB196 has been impressive, and I can forsee a definite benefit to the project if SF gets the tools. '''
'''Spport'''.
'''Support''' Civil editor, has a good grasp on policies, and has made sufficient edits across Wikipedia. Will be a perfect admin. Happy editing and good luck!
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter & proven track record -
'''Support'''All my interactions with SirFozzie have been positive.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC) <s>I struck my support. All my interactions with SirFozzie ''have'' been positive, but BLP is non-negotiable.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)</s> There's no problem here; I should have asked questions first. Strong support.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Solid editor who's shown he can deal with challenging situations. Can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' anyone offering to fight you know who... Good worker, interactions have been positive.
'''Support''' Yeah...I like the user.  Seems to be a good idea.
'''Support''', looks good. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems like this user would make a fine admin.  <s>Only thing giving me pause is the BLP issue raised below.</s>   <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''', no problems here. --'''
No real reason to oppose.
'''Support''' seems like a contributive, decent editor and would make a really good admin <b><FONT FACE="Rockwell Extra Bold" COLOR="#FF0002">
'''Support''' The edits are very low. However, this user has proven their value in an area that is especially troubling. I see no reason to oppose and many reasons to support.
'''Support'''. Anyone patient enough to fight JB196's continuous sockpupeteering and vandalism and still remain standing has the material needed for adminship. Good contributor as well.
'''Support''' It is a pleasure to voice my support to this user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Always diplomatic, and the tools will be handy for dealing with JB196 and the like. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Along with ONIH and myself, SirFozzie has spent many months now dealing with JB196 all while keeping a level head. &ndash;&ndash; '''
'''Support''' Sure. —
'''Support''' great editor:).<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' Candidate has been instrumental in fighting vandalism.  '''
'''Weak support''' He is a fine editor, but has too little edits.
'''Support''' - We need more admins, and anyone willing to help with backlogs is welcome. User seems to have enough understanding of the tools per answer to q1. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support'''.  I was the administrator who helped SirFozzie et. al. resolve the [[User:JB196|JB196]] sockpuppetry case.  Actually I recently recommended to SirFozzie that he wait and get more overall experience (especially in main space) before asking for the tools.  He certainly does have a talent for complex investigations, which is an area that needs more active mops. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - This user is ready for the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''', looks good. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Tim.bounceback--><font color="purple">
'''Support''' I have seen this user around many times and I am pleased to support.
'''Support''' good sock-hunter choice for admin. --
'''Support''' I have confidence in this user with the times I have come across his work. Knows the ropes and will help well with the backlog. Cheers! --
'''Weak Support''' His contribs tells us that he is dedicated to helping out Wikipedia (especially with the getting rid of socks). Only thing that might not be good is the low edit count. --
I'm
'''Support''' Editor knows the policies, knows the tools, no reason to suggest that the tools will be misused.
'''Strong Support''' - Have worked with this editor on several different things and am impressed as how well they handle difficult situations (sock puppets) and other areas of this project.  This editor would be an asset to the administrator team here on WP.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''', definitely a good user.
'''Support''' I agree with the supporters and their reasons.
'''Support'''Not a huge number of mainspace edits, but very reliable over many months.  I support.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''-He knows what he is doing, and I have no complaints. I can't wait till he becomes an admin!
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support'''- Great editor.
'''Support''' per Davewild. --
'''Support''' The candidate is an editor whom I have generally held in high regard and whose sound judgment, deliberative disposition, and civil demeanor I think to suit him well for adminship, and so I was predisposed to support here but was a bit troubled by SirFozzie's answer to question four which, his contributions to the quasi-contrary notwithstanding, I understood as advocating a construction of BLP inconsistent with that for which a consensus exists.  I am convinced now, though, that SirFozzie's understanding of BLP is quite right (to-wit, and pace Dmcdevit, et al., of BLP as a nuanced policy that need not be pursued at the expense of the community discussion that serves always to apply and interpret policy), and I am quite confident that he properly conceives of adminship as a ministerial pursuit in which one acts only to determine for what course of action a consensus of the community lies and then to effect such consensus (not, for instance, to susbstitute his views about what BLP ought to say for those of the community writ large), such that I feel quite comfortable concluding that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of SF's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' knows what he's doing, will be an excellent admin.
'''Oppose''', for his part in perpetuating [[WP:CSN|Votes for Banning]], and holding all of the misguided notions that go along with such a position. That includes promoting the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator) are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=125927523] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=125031641] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=122507746], an insistence on "formalizing" bans, even for users already indefinitely blocked, for them to be official, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&oldid=136138210#Anacapa here], personal attacks like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=130607145&oldid=130606421] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=127971711&oldid=127971319], and out-and-out process-wonking, saying, several times, things like: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben&diff=prev&oldid=123463023 "Unfortunately, there are folks who follow what Jimbo says (that any unsourced material must go from an article) despite what the policy itself says."]
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit, concerns regarding his interpretation of [[WP:BLP]] (see [[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 7]]) and shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality during disputes with other users.  There is also a peripheral concern regarding votestacking from other members of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling]] in this nomination and other debates, which although I do not hold personally against the nominee still find to be highly problematic.  Sorry, but I must oppose at this time.
Oppose, largely along the lines of what Dmcdevit, and also somewhat in agreement with Burntsauce. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben&diff=prev&oldid=123463023 This comment] in particular leads me to question SirFozzie's judgement, because it shows a disturbing overadherence to process, and VFB contributions further reinforce my worry that he puts process over product. Several comments in the aforementioned BLP archive suggest the candidate thinks consensus is all that matters when it comes to biographies of living persons, while our policy on that very subject makes it clear this is ''not so''. I am therefore uncomfortable with this user being an admin.
'''Oppose''' I still dont think this user understands WP:BLP. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit, Burntsauce and Picaroon. —'''
'''Oppose''' per desenting voters.  He has insulted lots of users, doesn't understand policy, and all in all, is a total jerk.
'''Oppose''' What Dmcdevit said. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Oppose''', reluctantly but firmly, per Dmcdevit's reasoning over VFB and apparent process-wonkery (for a non-existent process at that).  A few more months and come back.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(

I have concern about the BLP handling/understanding. I sincerely hope SirFozzie examines BLP and the issues involved carefully, with an eye to common sense and "do no harm", along with a good dose of applying V tenaciously to BLP articles, rather than the process-centered approach I have seen in some of the edits.
Wow!
Obviously, per my nom.&nbsp;
Doesn't meet my criteria - only has <s>40,000</s> 75 000 edits, my minimum is 80k. Sorry man. -- <strong>
Has <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=contribcounter&titles=User:SkierRMH 74865]</s> [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=SkierRMH 80049] Edits at the moment. --
'''Support''' I echo Brusegadi. Wow
'''Support''' No concerns here. Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''' Meets my criteria. This user is experienced, civil, and is not likely to abuse the tools. Good luck!--
I'm
I don't know - he may need to spend some more time on WP to learn the rules... Oh, what the heck.  '''Support'''.  :P  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Mild concerns over speedy deletion knowledge removed by a good answer to my question. '''Don't burn out''' would be my only piece of unasked for advice. Best of wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per his contributions. Not just a large number of them, but good ones such as saving images which will be deleted. A bit concerned about the loading time of his edit count though ^_^. --
Wow. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Wow? —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''I suppose''' :)
'''Oppose per dissident (EVula, you started a trend.)''' also, not enough portal talk edits.
'''Support''' huge number of edits, looks like a good Wikignome, and great answers.
'''Support'''.  SkierRMH is an active member of the film project.  In July, I disagreed with two of his assessments, (an inconsequential matter) and I was impressed with the editor's maturity, civility, willingness to listen, and steps taken to resolve the problem.  This user has the requisite skills for adminship, however I would ask that the user implement some form of {{tl|archivebox}} on their talk page to make past discussions open and transparent. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' I'm impressed!
'''Support''' More hardworking editors! -
'''Support''', has met my standards :) (Yes, it was a joke. I've been working on an article all day, so did not come back and check here). '''
Crap, I completely forgot to nominate you myself. I feel ashamed now, because you're definitely deserving of the tools. '''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, and not overly concered about his bot programming skills. Overall, trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' - other than the low mainspace experience, this user looks fine, with a big lot achieved in a relatively short time on Wikipedia! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' Absolutely! Dedicated and trustworthy contributor.
'''Yep.''' -
'''Support''' --
'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Per answer to Question 1, and the nom.
'''Support''', I've dealt with SkierRMH several times and always found him to be pleasant and clear in communication. These are some of the most important qualities an admin can have.
No convincing reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I think there's enough edits here... great job. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Poor communicator, sloppy bot writer, does not clean up after his bot. (See [[User talk:SkiersBot]]) &mdash;
'''strong oppose''' actual content creation percentage is close to zero. Of these created, half are articlers about saints most probably cut and pasted from [[Catholic Encyclopedia]], others as album stubs, with content mostly copied  with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddle_Pals&oldid=92438668 litle concern of giving credits]. `'
Too many edits –
'''Beat the nom strong support''' - I tend to block Slakr's reports to [[WP:AIV]] on sight.  I see no reason not to allow him to now skip that step and block the sods himself.  Good luck.
'''Support''' Nominator made all the most pertinent arguments. Great vandal fighter, created possibly the most prevalent bot on the project (aside perhaps from Cluebot) and is a great overall contributor. Participates all over the encyclopedia, though I would like to see a greater percentage of his edits go to mainspace. Should make a top-drawer admin. :) (Damn, almost first)
'''Support''' - Strong user, steady contributions, probably won't go nuts with the extra buttons, more than ready for adminship. --
'''Support''' - would make a superb sysop. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''', quite strongly. I completely trust Slakr's judgement. '''
'''Oppose Created Sodding Sine Bot'''. Mind you, you do participate all over the place, you're not afraid to edit some contentious articles, and I see no issues with your identifying vandalism or poor content. I did note a couple of discussions on your talk page regarding warnings, and although they were legitimate "complaints" you handled them well. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', I've seen your helpful edits around, we could use an active sysop like you. {^_^}
'''Strong support''', will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' - :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' User runs a ''mostly'' useful bot, and appears to be qualified in other areas too. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' as nominator! --
'''Support''' No problems here. A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - sure. You've demonstrated from both your edits and answers that you actually ''need'' the extra tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' - slakr is one of the users I've "seen around the place". Sure, we can trust him. :)
'''Support'''. Excellent vandal fighter. I always see "IRC user Slakr" of vandalism information.
'''Support''' Sure sure! Looks good. :)
'''Strong support'''.  Inventor of <nowiki>{{Censor}}</nowiki> ''and'' Sinebot.  Excellent answers to the questions.  Vandal-fighter.  Wow.
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent User and a Perfect Prospective Admin.

'''Support'''.  Good work with Sinebot.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Support''' &ndash; Despite being absent-minded as every person should be. <tt>:-P</tt> —[[User talk:Animum|'''<font color="#555">An</font><font color="#444">im</font><font color="#333">um</font>''']]
'''Support'''. [[User:Sjones23|Greg]] [[User talk:Sjones23|Jones]]
'''Support''' &mdash; You were such a good user that at one point I thought '''you''' were one! -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support''' No issues here, I have seen this user contribute to ANI before.
'''Support''' - Seen his vandal-fighting. Shouldn't have any problems with the mop and bucket. <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">
'''Support'''. AIV is still getting backlogged, believe it or not. I hope you're ready with your mop, there best be ''"no '''slak'''ing!''"
Excellent vandal fighter. :)
'''Support''' big time! Great vandal fighting, cool under pressure, good article work, very familiar with policies.  Generally a wonderful person.  I know this because I've been looking through his contribs and stuff in the past few days, was going to offer to nom him myself.  Snoose you lose, I guess :)
'''Support''' Excellent user, knows policy well--
'''Support'''. I absolutely '''''loathe''''' the spawn of HagermanBot he's responsible for unleashing on this project. But he's still a dedicated and experienced user, and very mopworthy. :) --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''. Good contributor. --
'''Strong support''' Once you get that admin rollback bit slakr, you won't complain so much that I beat you to the revert. ;)
'''Support''' sounds good; (Sinebot is mostly an excellent bot).
'''Support'''.  Despite his username, this user is not.
'''Support''' Have seen this user around, good contributor, seems trustworthy and they have a need for tools.--
'''Support''' User knows his way around the Wiki. -- '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter and good answer to questions albeit detailed. --
OMG I hatez teh sinebotz...but I luvz this user. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' - Strong editor. [[User:LaraLove|<font color="000000">''Lara''</font>]]
'''Support''' Diligent, hard-working vandal-fighter; deserves the mop.
'''Support''' Strong editor, with a fairly good range of edits. No reason not to.
'''Support''' will be a good admin.
'''Support''' -should be just fine -
'''Support''' - Contributions seem good, as well as the nom.
Support. Investigation reveals he's a great candidate. &ndash;
'''Support''' I have had the pleasure of occasional interaction with Slakr, and he has always been exceedingly polite, kind, and helpful to me. I assisted in some testing of SineBot (a bot that I really appreciate) and Slakr was quite helpful in identifying and explaining the problems I saw. (As well as fixing them!) With regards to vandalism fighting, I've bumped into him more than a few times during the course of my RC patrolling, (shall we dance?) and I've never once seen him loose his cool, or act with anything other than professionalism. With nearly 500 edits to AIV, it is obvious that Slakr  has a firm grasp of policy and procedure, and I have no doubt that the administrators reviewing AIV have confidence in Slakr's reports there. Obviously, his experience here would be a valuable addition to the project. I think his essay NWEBH is a great example of his sense of humor, which I truly believe is an important part of a voluntary project like this. Humor helps diffuse conflict, and can prevent unnecessary escalation of debate, and foster collaboration. I also realize that there are those who believe that extensive article writing and creating, is a pre-requisite for administrators, but I would tend to agree with Slakr, we are all different, with different interests, talents, and expertise. It is precisely this great variety in the community that makes it so successful, there are those who are excellent at writing content, and there are those who specialize in the more behind-the-scenes work, with regards to formatting, or adding citations, or organizing articles for readability, etc. This is a good thing, and Slakr should be respected for his dedication and excellent work, even if some of it is not obvious to many readers. I truly believe that Wikipedia would benefit from the addition of Slakr to the current administrative team, and I have no doubts that when confronted with areas unfamiliar to him, he will seek out those more experienced, or defer to another administrator, rather than taking actions he's not comfortable with. <small>
Didn't realise I hadn't added my name to the support party yet. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Experienced and trusted user.
'''Support''' Reverted 9503 edits by Slakr to last to last revision by Slakr (Administrator). ▪◦▪
Great user.
<i><b>
'''Support'''. Looking through this candidate's contributions, I can see that this editor will certainly not misuse them and if he continues with vandalfighting can miss the middleman ([[WP:AIV]]).
'''Support''' First support come free with the nomination ;-) <i><b>

'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support.''' No reason to oppose. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''- see no indication that the user would abuse the tools. <span style="color:#ff9900;">
'''Support''' I see no problem with the candidate.
'''Support''' A good user with excellent use of edit summaries and no red flags. Adminship is not big deal, after all. Cheers,
'''Support''' It will be good to have an admin with such extensive main space experience. '''
'''Support''' No problems so I will support.
'''Support''' Yes, I shall endorse!
'''Support''' In agreement with Captain Panda. No problems here.
'''Support''' especially as more interested in creating and modifying than deleting cheers,
'''Support''' Slumgum would be an ideal admin, because, personally, I think that not enough administrators help with vandalism, as he indicated he would.
'''Support''' enough experience and willingness to clean up backlogs.
'''Support''' after reviewing your recent contributions, although I would like an expansion to your answer to question one.
'''Support''' Great editor, no issues here.
'''Support''' - more than adequate experience.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support''' Seems a legitimate case for demotion to admin, would use the tools, and looking through the edits same courteous and civil. Good luck. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I see no potential problems in giving him the tools. I would, however, like to see more project work showing collaboration skills, but I think he'll do fine.
'''Nothing wrong''' with specialists. —'''
'''Support''' answer to Q1 is not very compelling, but adminship is no big deal, and you seem like a fine user. —
I'm
'''Support''' Ummmm... contributions to the Wikipedia namespace is low but, I'm sure he'll take care that. Good luck. --
'''Support''' per norm..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. I do not like the answer to question #1 as it apears you will not be doing a lot of admin tasks, but adminship is no big deal and can not find any problems with your edits, so I will support. -
'''Support'''.  I'm sure you'll use the mop wisely!  --
'''Support''' - I'm confident you'll apply the admin tools with care.  '''''
'''Support'''. Experience, good edit record, template knowledge, seem civil, you'll do fine. --
'''Support''', per above. Good editor. --'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''' - Q1 is slightly weak, but adminship is no big deal. I don't see why you need to demonstrate a ''need'' for the tools; surely there's no harm in just giving them to any experienced editor? It doesn't cost anything. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. I can see no evidence the tools would be abused, and Slumgum has indicated a willingness and desire to help out with various backlogs. Adminship is no big deal, and (as far as I can see) there are no valid reasons to oppose this nomination. ···
'''Support''' Answer to Q1 is weak (rightly picked up by Bobet's further question) but your track record shows trustworthiness and I'm happy to support. --
'''Support''' Based on your superb football work - I trust you to only do useful things<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''': Plenty of experience, consistency of edits, and edit summary usage. While stated above, the answer to Q1 is weak this user seems to be trustworthy enough to be able to have the tools as every other aspect checks out. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' If you don't, someone else will. --
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''Support''' See no reason will not make a good admin.
No concerns of substance have been raised; the answer to question #1 is basically irrelevant to whether someone is qualified for adminship.
'''Support''' Small namespace edits, [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/Slumgum|but I'm sure he will increase it]] if he becomes an admin.
'''Support''' - Review of contributions shows balance and hard work.
I '''support''' not in spite of but because of his forthrightness in question 1. (well, and per his contribs, etc.) Better for him to be honest than to lie and say "oh, yeah, I really have a deep abiding interest in, uhh... Stubs for Deletion! Yeah, that's it!" ... right?
'''Support''' No evidence he'd actually misuse the tools. RFA shouldn't be a test of how good you are at RFA... despite people's occasionally textbook answers to Q1, no one really knows what they're going to do as an admin before they actually are one. I sure didn't. Proven good faith editors will make good admins. --
'''Support''' No-one ''needs'' the tools, but Wikipedia needs people to have them. If they aren't being misused then a user-rights change will have no detrimental effect. I don't think they will be misused with this user. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Weak support'''. Weak answer to question one garners a weak support. Makes sense :P--
'''Oppose''' So sorry but to me Question one is "very" weak. Not very inspiring :S, best of luck. ~
'''Oppose''' Per Q1, I don't think that this user quite knows what sysop status would give him/her. As a normal editor, you can perform all of the tasks mentioned in Q1.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your answer to question one is extremely weak, I cant support a candidate with such a weak answer, except for that you're a good user.
'''Oppose'''. I would support you if you just elaborate on Q1. '''
Insufficient projectspace participation to determine user's understanding of relevant policy. In the age of popups and [undo], sysop flag manifestly unnecessary to roll back vandalism. Factoring in the uninspiring answers, this is a '''Strong Oppose''' -- <b>
I can't support someone who at best would do nothing with the tools. There's no indication that he understands policy or any admin type processes due to the lack of relevant Wikipedis-space edits: outside of the reference desk, he only has a handful of xfd edits, and the ones I looked at were mindless ditto votes that didn't help the discussion (example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simon_Rusk&diff=prev&oldid=55795274]). Since he indicates in question 1 that he'd be helping with random backlogs, with no evidence that he'd understand the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|relevant]] [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|policies]] or common sense behind them, I have to oppose. -
'''Oppose'''-per Bobet. Q1 give only a general response, and it's good to have experience in areas that you'd be working in. Also, if you want to be able to rollback, just use [[WP:TW|TW]]. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''Oppose''' per User:Y, as well as the answer to Question 1.  Given the lack of experience, and lack of elaboration, it is entirely unclear to me whether candidate grasps what adminship entails.  I can't support giving the mop to someone until I'm sure he'll know when (and when not) to use it.
'''Oppose''' per my reading of the candidate's answers to the questions above.  You are a good editor, and good for the project, but I don't understand how adminship helps either you or Wikipedia.  "No big deal" also has the converse of not everybody needs it.  --
'''Oppose'''. There is a '''lot''' more to being an administrator than simply having a rollback button.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. --
'''Weak oppose''' per Arjun and Y.  A welcome contributor, but I just don't have enough evidence to convince me that this user understands policy well enough to be given the tools or has a need for them.  Better answers would be a great start. '''· <font color="#70A070">
Sorry, but upon further consideration of level of experience, '''oppose'''.  Come back after you get some more project space experience and you'll be a great candidate. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose'''. Per Arjun, Y, and Xoloz.
Having a few extra buttons is no big deal, but I'm rather underwhelmed by the responses to the questions, which demonstrate that he might not actually know how to use the buttons, which is a bit of a concern [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Y. Hook him up with popups for a while and allow for time to learn more on policy.

'''Oppose''' per weak Q1 answer.  Reviewing project space contributions is a bit disheartening: virtually no participation anywhere beyond the reference desk.  Last AfD contribution was in October, and comments in XfDs have shown thought but not familiarity with Wikipedia standards.  Sorry, I really think this user needs to learn policies and processes better, and can use Twinkle or popups in the meantime to fight vandalism.  I hope you apply again, though, you have a lot of the qualities I would want to see.
Not a large amount of XfD work (or, if there is, I can't find it), so I don't think I can support.  However, there is nothing very wrong with this candidate.  If proof of extensive XfD work is shown to me, I will change to support. ~
'''Neutral''' per question one.  You can use the rollback button on Twinkle.  However, I may change my vote soon. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
His bot site is very helpful and he is a very helpful user.
'''Support''' This user has shown much experience in dealing with vandalism and new users.--'''''
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy user, will make very good use of the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Although I would like better answers, '''support''' <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
I don't need answers, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss|example is enough]].  I don't need article writing, that has absolutely no relation to the use of the tools.  As for lack of conflicts, perhaps we should begin to think that that is a '''good''' thing in a candidate.  I have somewhere near 10,000 edits, 4,000 admin actions and over two years experience with only one complaint in my belt.  I trust the user.
'''Strong Support''' - (edit conflict) Although I agree with JetLover that more fleshed-out answers would be appreciated, based on his actions on Wikipedia there is no doubt in my mind that Snowolf both needs and can be trusted with the tools.  While I understand that article writing may be a desired trait in an admin who intends to take part in conflict resolution and other areas where they might benefit from experience in collaboration and compromise, this user is primarily focused on vandal fighting and deletion discussions, both of which are vital to the project and both of which he performs very well, as evidenced by his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Snowolf&namespace=3 user talk warnings] and comments in XfD discussions.  His answer about "finding admins" may be made clearer by a visit to [[User:Snowolf/Admin_scout]], and I believe his high number of AIV reports (111) and participation in [[WP:UCFD]] are both desirable traits in a candidate who wants to take on the admin tasks that he has noted above.  I might also point out his position as a moderator for [[WP:VPRF]] speaks to his dedication not only to vandal fighting but to the project as a whole. --'''
What the hell.  I swear you were already an admin, and one of the best admins around.  Why do you do this to me!?
'''Support''', thought he was one. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' Although sorta weak answers to the questions, what I've seen of your editing is more than enough.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' (changed from Neutral) Good answers to questions. Excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' - has a comprehensive understanding of policy, but could do with longer answers. I'm sure this candidate will do well. &mdash;
'''Strong Super-Duper Support''' - Why he isn't one is something which really bothers me since he is a very capable person and far tooo experienced than most admins and really deserves those 3 new tabs ;) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Suport!''' Er, you're not an admin already?! <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="2">'''
'''Weak Support''' - switching from neutral. Answers to the questions are fine, though I'd like to see more content creation. Should be okay, though -
'''Strong support''' - He has always helped me in every field with always excellent informations, things that only an expert user could know (I think that an admin of three project, as I am, wouldn't make so simple questions.. ;-)) and he has always made a lot of work for en.wiki and Wikipedia's related project. I haven't doubt, he will make a really good job as sysop. --
'''Support''' I guess so, though I think more effort with the initial questions would have helped ;). As someone who looks for potential admins I hope you can pass on this useful advice.
'''Support''' - An overall good User. The lack of Article Creation/Contribution should not come into play. Some people are better at some things than others. A lack of Conflicts shows the user can deal with others without getting into heated arguments.
'''Support''' Although the first answers to the questions were not good, there is plenty of good work to make me think this user will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Thank you. <span>
'''Weak Support'''.  Poor answers to questions, but nevertheless there's not much evidence you will abuse the tools.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Nom support''' - shockingly late.
-
I agree entirely with Keegan, especially on the part where he mentions conflicts. Anyway, all because Snowolf says he has not had many conflicts doesn't mean to stay he does not know how to handle them: he might even be good at ''preventing'' them from occuring in the first place.
'''Support''' per addressing concerns of all opponents. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. He will not abuse the tools, an he will certainly make an excellent administrator. --
'''[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]--
'''Support''' A fine addition to the list.
Aye. <span style="font-family: Verdana">

-- <strong>
'''Support''' - I don't think article writing is required to be an admin. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Having met [[User:Pedro/RFA Standards|my aribatary standards]]. In particular the block thing. Perfectly and civily handled, and it has clearly given you strength through being on the "other side of the boot", as it were. I've also had previous personal positive interaction wiht the candidate. I am pleased you fleshed out your questions though. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - admin != editing - they are two unique functions that are not directly related.  As for policy - common sense sums it up 99.999% of the time. --
'''Yeah''' extremely helpful user--
'''Support''' Looks like the candidate has improved the answers to the questions. Got my support. :)
'''Support''' The mop isn't that big of a deal, and this user appears to contribute positively enough to Wikipedia that he should be able to handle the admin tools with ease. --'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Seen him around lately. Nothing made me worried.
'''Support''' - But please read up on (or re-read now with administrative tools usage in mind) such pages as deletion policy, particularly speedy, templates, and categories; and protection policy. (Per my note under neutral, below). My experience with you has been overall positive, and I have faith that it will continue to be so : ) -
'''Support''' -- and please never forget the circumstances of your mistaken block (question 8 above) -- it's an object lesson for admins in [[WP:AGF|"assume good faith"]]. The blocking admin made a mistake, but the block certainly looks "appropriate" on "first glance"; it only reveals itself as very wrong when you take that extra minute or two to dig around trying to understand the Snowolf the editor. I'm not saying every chronic schoolhouse vandal reported to [[WP:AIV]] requires a background investigation, but if it's an established editor, ''please'' take that extra minute or two to try to understand the editor and the context for their actions. I'm sure the blocking admin felt really bad after this incident. --<font face="Futura">
'''Conditional support''': Don't burn out again via 10k edits in a month.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools. Should be a <s>valueless!</s> good admin
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse tools, good knowledge of WP and policy.
'''Support''' - from what I have observed of this editor, I think they would make a great admin.
'''Support.'''
Highly trustworthy; no issues here.
'''Support''' - a really friendly user who would be great with a few extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' The questions are the first impression people have of you here.  Your failure to answer them is either a slight to the people who are looking at you for the first time or a sign of laziness.  Either way, it doesn't bode well in my estimation.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 2 shows a lack of ability to judge a user's quality.
'''Oppose''', per answers to questions, but willing to change to Support if you answer the questions in a way which shows your full potential in detail.
Per what Master of Puppets said above. --
'''Neutral''' The lack of content in his answers is a major concern here. Although this user is a great contributor, I can't oppose or support this nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I would like to see more detailed answers to the questions if possible. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "''A: I honestly don't know how to reply to this question, but maybe the way in which I helped this project most has been by trying to find new admins.''" What do you mean by "finding new admins" ? Have you been nominating them for RFA, etc? Thanks. --
'''Neutral'''. I was going to support because I've seen you around with a good editing record, but the answers to the questions bother me. '''''
'''Neutral''' to follow up with Bibliomaniac15.  Very poor answers, especially to Q2.  This reflects on failure to think.  Lots of edits, but does not seem interested in building WP.  Meets my fairly lax standards, so I will not oppose. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''. Can't really oppose, but response to Q10 bothers me. Snowolf tagged [[:Image talk:Handtiegelpresse von 1811.jpg]] with [[WP:CSD#G8]] (db-talk), a criterion which excludes talk pages of [[:Image:Handtiegelpresse von 1811.jpg|images on commons]]. This isn't a big deal, but it's the most recent CSD nomination, and it doesn't inspire confidence in someone deleting content on their own initiative.
'''Support''' - good contributor. '''
'''Support''' Soumyasch appears to be a friendly, well-rounded Wikipedian who is well suited for some extra buttons [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Full support''' a positive contributor. I don't find his wikivacation period a concern, given the nature of adminship - as more than 1,000 admins are available at a given time, individual admins can contribute at their individual speed and time availability. Its clear that Soumyasch is committed as a Wikipedian and willing to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Per [[User:Rama's Arrow|Rama's Arrow]] -
'''Support''': He is a good contributor to wiki, and helped me a lot and still doing the same in getting acustomed with wiki,,, his articles are very helpful. So full support! --
'''Support''' See my supplementary nomination above.
'''Support''' - His work and expertise on computer related articles is commendable.<b>
'''Support''' - Only problem with this user is the long period of semi-inactivity prior to this month, but that's not a good enough reason to oppose, IMHO. Remember that adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Tentative Support''' The answers in this RfA look very civil so far, and are rather impressive. Can't say that about every RfA.
'''Support''', seems pretty much ok to me and he won't abuse the tools. —
'''Support'''  per rational articulated on my user page.
With just under 6000 edits as of this support, yes.
'''Strong support''' In my opinion he is an excellent candidate for admin and has all of the required skills.
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support:''' You seem like you would do all of the admin chores that I would anticipate doing, but I do suggest getting involved with ANI. &nbsp;<b>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Steptrip_2|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">''~''</font>]]<font face="Vivaldi" size="3">
'''Support''' The Wiki-break until just a month ago is a bit of a concern, but I think we can  still give adminship to this guy as he has been very active upon his return. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support.'''  Soum is a very good contributor in Windows articles. '''
For Mother DA-IICT! &mdash;
'''Support''':per Rama's Arrow.<b><font color="saffron">
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor who could use the tools. Good luck. --
'''Support''' Saw nothing wrong in the contribs, I disagree with the opposers. I see him around alot.
This user is a great editor and has always shown great judgement, patience, and civility. I wholeheartedly '''support''' his nomination. <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support'''.  User is a terrific contributor and diminishe activity in a single area should not be the deciding factor.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' I do not see any disqualifications. My support is steadfast.
'''Support''' Good contribution to Wikipedia. Could be a good administrator. --
'''Support''', as the editor shows good understanding of administrative tasks and, especially, knows what his position in relation to them is. I'm sure the candidate will put sysop rights to good use. I'd just like to mention that — as I see it, mind you — to some degree you have failed to show the intention of being bold in your answer to mine and Ikiroid's questions. Don't let this hive mentality that somehow crept into RfA that admins are machines deceive you. When you have to make a tough call, don't act like you are expected to, act as you feel yis best for the parties involved. --
'''Support''' His well-worded description of adminship duties quells any doubts I might've had. In fact, I urge the voters opposing based on process naïveté to reevaluate their votes. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' per [[User:Ikiroid]]. -
'''Support''' - Seems like a good candidate. Opposes dont worry me.--

'''Support'''. Good, well-rounded editor. If he's been around contributing well, chances are he knows policy pretty well. As long as he uses common sense, he should be fine.--'''
'''Support'''. Useful contributor. Can make a responsible admin.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. Have thorough understanding of the project. Would act as a good and thoughtful admin. I agree with [[User:Ikiroid]] that voters opposing based on process naïveté should reevaluate their votes. Regards.--
'''Support''' I see no evidence this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good contributions. I think he'll do ok &mdash;
'''Support'''↔
'''Support''' -- I'm not sure I see any problem with taking a several months break. 1700 edits since that break all seem OK + the 5300 before. --
'''Support'''. Did a good job in controlling POV on many articles. Will make a good admin.
'''Strong Support''': <small>I hope you will succeed throughout this nomination</small> — <font face="Verdana"><small>
'''Support'''. Well qualified to be an admin, well thought-out, assumes good faith, great contributions. All-together great Wikipedian, deserves the role of admin.
'''Support''' Good contributor, will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' -- I've worked extensively with Soumyasch over the last year and believe that he has the needed skills both technically and socially to be trusted with the admin tools.  We share hundreds of watched pages, so I see him at work pretty much daily.  He's one of those editors whose name you see on the watchlist, and you know everything's in good shape.  He has for a long time demonstrated a solid, thoughtful understanding of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]], and is a good participant in discussions.  His answers given above about edit warring, 3RR and talk participation are consistent with his on-the-ground behaviour.  <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User talk:Warrens|-/-]]
'''Strong support''' -
'''Support''' - Trusted user who understands policy and, to the extent that Soumyasch does not understand any remaining policy, I trust Soumyasch to continue educating himself about policy before, during, and after using those admin tools based on policy. --
'''Support'''. -- <b>
'''Support''' Thoughtful, considerate, and experienced Wikipedian.  Would make a trustworthy admin. //
'''Support''' - Seems like a good, well-rounded editor who could stand to do some good around here with the tools.
'''Support''' fears about lack of community participation have been somewhat assuaged by extensive ( :) ) answer to Q5. Has been here a year and hasn't been blocked. Enough indication that he understands policy sufficiently; I'm sure we'll be fine. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Weak support''' The suggestion that the candidate might not, in view of his having been inactive for a bit, be well-acquainted with policy, such that he might avolitionally misuse the tools, is not entirely without merit, but I think it rather clear that Soumyasch is possessed of fine judgment and a deliberative temperament, such that I trust him to know whereof he does not know and to tread quite carefully generally and especially relative to areas with the policy relevant to which he reasonably suspects he may not be altogether familiar.
'''Support''', I can overlook the projectspace issue. (300 wikispace edits is fine imo)--
I've purposely taken the time to consider before '''supporting''' this nomination at the last minute.  I see no reason for mistrust of the tools and talk page interaction makes up for project space interaction to myself.
Insufficient projectspace experience to formulate an opinion on the user's policy knowledge; recent period of activity after long layoff not long enough for comfort. Please try again. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per NYC JD.
'''Weak oppose''', sorry. Looks good, but Wikipedia space participation is currently insufficient to evaluate preparedness. Also, little time since the period of inactivity. I'll be happy to support in a month or two.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Looks like a great contributor but NYC JD summed up my issues pretty well, sorry.
'''Oppose''' per all above; article writing is nice, but it's not a must, nor is it sufficient by itself. And you admit yourself that most of your AfD edits were a while ago, which means that you may not be familiar with processes ''now''. -
'''Oppose''' per NYC JD, who said it very well indeed. Soumyasch, please try again later.
'''Weak oppose''' as I don't see enough experience in areas frequented by admins. This makes it difficult to determine how you would handle such things. I guess this is just a long way of saying I agree with NYC JD and Húsönd. ···
'''Oppose''' NYC JD. Try again later, please.--
'''Oppose''' per NYC JD.
'''Oppose''' Only 348 Wikipedia namespace edits. This shows a real lack of community participation on the policy level. <small>
'''Neutral''' - I have one big concern here which is that it looks to me more like you were inactive or nearly so for closer to 8 months and that you then banged out nearly 1500 edits in the last 4 weeks and now you are doing a self-nom.  I would have preferred that you were either back longer, or were nom'ed by someone else, or both.  I will probably change this !vote later, but I am starting here and will see what else develops. --
'''Neutral''', similar concerns to After Midnight.  Two or three more months of sustained activity would be preferable.

'''Neutral''' - good editor, just lack of community edits.  Would suggest trying again in a few months presuming you are still active by then. --
&mdash;
'''Support'''. <s>Although I am a tad worried about your low edit count, I do trust you have a family to raise and a job.</s> (see below response) You have been blocked for 3RR a while, but I won't that against you either; that was 8 months ago. All I see is steady, good contributions from you, and your questions are more than good enough that I can trust you with the admin tools. '''
'''Support''' seems like you would do fine.
'''Support''' -- quite the well-rounded editor: fair edit count, displays fair understanding of policy, and seems to be fairly civil. --
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. --'''
'''Support'''. No reason not to. —'''
'''Support''' - as per nom ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' The block for 3RR is old news and even if he only helps a little that is fine. He seems reliable also so why not?--
'''Support''' - I question Sr13's assertion that the editcount is low - he has over 4000, which is plenty (it's about what I had when I passed RfA). No problems, and I trust the judgment of many of the supporters above.
'''Support''' no major concerns here. Should do a good job as admin. —
'''Support''' I have no major complaints here. I believe he knows wiki-admin policy, and that he should have the tools!
'''Support''' The only concern I have is the 3RR and that was a long time ago.
'''Support''' seems good to me.
'''Support'''. Good user, no problems, - '''
'''Support''' User has plenty of experience. 3RR block was nearly 8 months ago, and I think we can forgive that incident, since the user appears to have been conflict-free since then. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' while the block may be alarming to some, it seems you handled it with dignity and class, and it was eight months ago, so bother me it does not.  '''
'''Support''' This editor shows a good range of experience over the project. Nearly 5,000 articles is clearly ample. I do not view 3RR blocks in anything like as serious a light as I view intentional vandalisms, and it was 8+ months ago and the candidate has treated it as a learning experience. Good. good candidate.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' You're trying to work with other editors and articles rather than simply AfDing.  Whether you get admin or not, keep that up.
'''Support'''. Good editor, experienced enough, good work on the YouTube project. No concerns. I don't have a problem with "low" edit volume, as I've seen enough to be confident this user won't abuse the tools, and will use them to Wikipedia's benefit when he does have the time. After all, we're all volunteers. The 3RR thing is ancient history, and being trolled by [[User:Cindery|Cindery]] is almost a badge of honor (or so I like to think). Support without reservations. '''
'''Support''' Uhm, yes.  No firm reservations are foreseeable.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest editor may misuse tools.
'''Support''' - Looks fine. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Would make good use of the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I first encountered Spartaz at [[Bob Woolmer]]. Good editor, and I think would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Nothing to complain about (except for the 3RR block, which I forgive).
'''Support''' No evidence will abuse tools, seems to learnt from 3RR block which was over 8 months ago.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Block was nearly 8 months ago. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
I'm
'''Support''' Looking through your contributions, I find you to be thoughtful and articulate - even in cases where I might disagree with you.  I'd say you'd be an asset as an admin.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Happy to support''' will be an asset to the community.--
'''Support'''.  Long-term experienced users are an asset to the project as sysops.
'''Support''' per nom. --<font face="Futura">
'''Moderate support''', good. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (

'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' for now. Seems like a nice person so far, but would benefit from more experience, particularly of the conflicts which can arise in wikipedia. I would favourably consider another nomination in the future. --
'''Neutral'''. General lack of experience, and furthermore [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Spartaz&page= has never uploaded anything], so can't possibly have a good understanding of ... something –
Support as nominator. '''
Almost beat-the-nom '''support'''!
'''Support''' (edit conflict) Great answers to the questions, undoubtedly can be trusted with the tools, an asset to the Wikipedia community. --
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' - spebi has done some great work - I've seen him in action many times - he's knowledgeable of policy, is a good all-rounder, is trustworthy, "plays well with others" and never [[WP:BITE|BITEy]]. He should make a fine admin -
'''Support''' - an excellent editor with an impressive record of civility. The comprehensive answer to question one is backed up by an edit history demonstrating solid experience in WP space.
Enthusiastic support - just a lovely bloke, and has a good knowledge of policy to boot. Should be great! ~
Excellent contributor. See no problems here. --
'''Support''' 'pedia builder extraordinaire. c'monboard cheers,
'''Support.''' Looks like a fairly well rounded contributor who has good use for the tools and can be trusted.
'''Support''' I first encountered Spebi when he peer reviewed an article I put up. He's a great article builder and  the answers to question one and two shows he'll be a great asset to this project.
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate, despite exposing my war on everything.--
'''Support''' per answers to questions. --
'''Support''', definitely..!  An excellent, curteous editor who has learned the ropes and plays well with others.  Will make a fine addition to the Admin corps.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to the questions, good all round experience, shrewd and trusted nominator, talk page looks all good, can't see any civility issues, and personal interaction has always been very positive indeed. Did I miss anything out ? Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong, strong support''' You really can't get much more qualified than Spebi. Awesome candidate. This is long overdue. -- <strong>
'''Support''' This user answers questions and gives good advice. Will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' -- have worked alongside this editor have only praise to offer. Editor is IMHO admin material. -
'''Very Strong Support''' Great editor, who is a major asset to wikipedia. Also, has shown himself to be very reliable. Good luck!--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''S-Support''' - I was impressed with this user's comments, [[Wikipedia:Portal peer review/North West England/archive1|here]]. I have followed through with some of the suggestions, and it looks better already. Thanks Spebi.
Recently gave me profound feedback<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADorftrottel&diff=170057915&oldid=163429553]</sup>, but why not :D —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He also occasionally promotes FLs although he sometimes forgets to read what times comments were posted. Either way, he seems like a dedicated user. --
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Yeah. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Wondered why he wasn't one yet. :)
Seriously wonderful Aussie :-) --'''
Aah well, it seems nobody gets my joke but me (if that!).  I may as well explain it - and support at the same time (yes, that was a support comment).  Basically, I’ve been trying to get Sebi to request adminship since shortly after a first encountered him.  Out first encounter, interestingly enough (in my eyes, at least) was around the beginning of July 2007, when Sebi randomly came to my talk page and suggested I get a rename - something I ended up doing shortly after (G1ggy --> Giggy).  I have no idea how Sebi stumbled across me there, but I have my strong suspicions he had been stalking me for weeks previously, as is his gnomish way.  Anyways, we got on very well from the start.  <s>This was back in the days when, as others have tactfully put it, I was overly social to the point of forming cliques.  Sebi is my clique (as well as my pimp, bro, home-dawg, and (according to his [[Windows Live Messenger|MSN]]) my #1 shorty).</s>  Um…yeah, so anyway, whilst I was innocently working on [[WP:FING|Powderfinger related stuff]] (long before Sebi was! :O), Sebi puts a faked block notice on my talk page, “blocking” me for telling to many good jokes.  Which begged the question - if good jokes is the newest reason for which we can block, does Sebi have the technical ability to do so?  The answer, was no - to which I quickly responded with an “OMG LET ME NOM YOU NOW!!!!111” Alas, this was also met with a no (do you think I came on too strong?).  So I waited, and bid my time (*Mr Burns laugh*).  I would say I reviewed his contribs repeatedly, but that would be a downright lie - instead I spammed his talk page repeatedly (and his MSN, once I convinced him it was safe to add me, and now his Google Talk, after I convinced him that all the cool editors used it (…even Riana, although that kinda does the opposite in terms of proving my point :P).  Fast forward (we were still in July there) to more recent times - I’ve been repeatedly trying to convince Sebi to RfA, but with no success.  A few other users have also gotten in on the act (I can even recall DarkFalls suggesting that WillyOnWheels should nom), but alas Sebi refused.  Until now.  And he didn’t give in because of my awesome <s>convincing skills</s> begging, he gave in because <b><i>Daniel</i></b> offered to nom.  *storms off*… … … …*returns in a huff* In my time around here, I’ve worked with a lot of users, many of whom I consider friends.  In terms of those “friends”, Sebi is absolutely at the top of the list.  I sincerely hope the Wikipedia community trusts him, and appreciates him, as much as I have in the last five or so months.  Sebi, thank you.  Daniel, *shakes fist*<sup>As payback/compensation/whatever you wanna call it, you have to run for ArbCom now.  So nah!</sup>  I’m [[user:Dihydrogen Monoxide|Dihydrogen Monoxide]], and I support this message! -&nbsp;
'''Weak support''' Seen this user around. Constructive contributor. And disregard what [[User:CO]] said while opposing; I don't even agree that Spebi assumes bad faith frequently.
'''Support''' - I briefly interacted with Spebi at FLC when we each had a discography up. Very helpful. In looking over his contribs, I find nothing to give me pause. Nor does CO's vague, unsubstantiated oppose or the concerns of the IP concern me. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Strong support''' I have seen this user on the RC a lot, no problems. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. The answer to number one convinces me by itself. The rest sounds great too. I am more than willing to support this user.
'''Support'''
Oh, yes. The day has finally dawned, and the mop lie within the basque of the rising sun. Seriously, let's go to [[WP:100]], if not higher.
'''Oppose''' Spebi wears his Thursday underwear on Saturdays. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
No objections here. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support'''.  This user [[WP:BOLD|wears his Thursday underwear on Saturdays]].  Not to mention his plethora of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, he communicates plenty with other editors, and has been very active for the last 9 months.  No reason to believe that he would misuse the mop.
'''Support''', seems fine.
'''Support''' per nom.  The candidate will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' No major concerns here and good answers to the questions as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Worthy candidate.
'''Support'''. A good candidate with well considered responses.
'''Support''', a solid candidate. --'''<font color="#C31562">
Great user.
I'm
'''Support''' Your answer to my now routine question about unblocking was as good as any I have seen...thank you.--
'''Support''' - very good editor, trustworthy, good luck!
'''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Definite Support''' - Not happy about the fact I didn't get to the nomination first.  He has a very good edit summary and I have always seen the utmost civility from them. --
'''Support''' - all the correct qualifications ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
Yes. &mdash;
'''Support''' &mdash; Thank God I didn't miss the chance to vote. —
'''Support''' &mdash; nothing wrong with this guy. I can't oppose just because he's an atheist (nor would I). All the best comrade. --
'''Support''' Seems a fine editor should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Good range of experience - knows what he's doing. I think we're going to have to let him [[WP:IAR|IAR]] as far as the underwear controversy is concerned. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Agreed with everything said. '''
'''Support''', though I wonder if the candidate also rehearsed the obligatory talk page spam thanking us for our support. Honestly, a solid and well-trusted admin such as the candidate should do well with the mop. Good Luck,
'''Oppose''' user assumes bad faith frequently. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Unsure''' This seems to be a very heated Rfa, and at this time, i am uncomfortable deciding one way or another. I will return later with a decision.
'''True Neutral'''.  I am unfamiliar with this user and, while I do not see anything specific that would lead me to distrust this user, I have the feeling that he wants the mop more than he needs it.  I will not oppose for that alone.  Best of luck!
'''neutral''' I feel uncomfortable with supporting this user. He has dome good article work work but still have that gut feeling. sry.
'''Support''' as nom, best of luck!
(ec)I like what I see. But a rap fan?! Not everybody's perfect, I concede that. :p. '''<s>Beat-the-nom</s> support'''. '''<font face="Arial">
An excellent user; Spellcast is great article-writer, MoS-editor, gives accurate reports to RFPP, and has provided many free images, including some really good ones for the articles related to the [[Pussycat Dolls]] and [[Danity Kane]]. He'll make a good administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seen this user around as a legit editor.
'''Support''' - excellent work on music articles. -
Past experiences tell me this guy is an [[Talk:Through_the_Wire#Another_GA_review|excellent]] editor.&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Support''' For a few reasons. Firstly, Ryan thinks he is good, so chances are, he is good:) Secondly, he is active in admin areas. Thirdly, he has shown no signs he/she will abuse the tools or misuse them. <strike>Lastly, he likes 50 Cent:)</strike> Good luck!--
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' as nom.--
[[User talk:Spellcast/Archive01#Welcome.2C_Spellcast.21|Awww.]] ~
'''Support''' as we could use another expert in Hip hop with the mop.  Looks good - great edit count, and an astounding number of AIV reports.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' - good range of edits especially in hip hop but also shows good grasp of policy. --'''
'''Support''' Great track and as per Acalamari.
'''Support''' Definitely! Great user.
'''Support''' - Per the nom, and the work on [[WP:AIV]].
'''Support''' good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''': he's a great editor and will be a great admin.--<b><font color="#002BB8">
'''Strong suppport'''.
'''Support''' Another potential admin who wants to clear backlogs?  Yeah boy!
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support'''. A fine candidate.
'''Support'''. Experience in admin areas. Meets my
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support''' Per nom. Cheers!
'''Support''' I don't know Spellcast. But I do know Postguy. I can't remember if Postguy and I got along but I can remember us having some debates.
'''Support''' I offered to nominate a few months before, of course
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' seems like a good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' - Questionable contributions to the mainspace aside ;), very strong editor. Will be an asset. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' No concerns here. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' per "no big deal", and no redflags.
Um, so [[User:Spellcast|Spellcast]] is not an admin? I actually thought he is. '''Support''' of course!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support'''. I don't remember where I encountered this editor, but I good a good impression from it. No apparent problems, good answers, so why not?
I'm
'''Support''' as SC's a very clever editors whose ability to discuss is near unrivaled on Wikipedia. Hand this man a mop and work him ragged till he's a nub of a person! --
'''Support''' - experienced in all the correct areas. Good luck! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''', user seems to have the needed background for this. <font color="green">[[User:VivioFateFan|VivioFa]]</font><font color="red">[[User:VivioFateFan|teFan]]</font> <sup>([[ User_talk:VivioFateFan|Talk]],
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support'''. It's about time.
I should oppose, because he likes rap, but what the heck. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' a wonderful candidate. Has a wide range of experience through both wikipedia space and mainspace.
'''Support''' I offered a while back, but he said he wasn't ready. He definitely is now, and I have good faith he'll do a good job. Good luck! '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Co-nom support'''. I have every confidence that Q will make a great admin. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Good user from what I can tell.
'''Support''' A model Wikipedian, would make a great admin. Good luck to you. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Great user. I agree entirely with the opinions in the noms. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - every confidence.
'''Support''' - Excellent work. A prime candidate for demotion if that's what Q wants. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - A very good editor and would make a good admin..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Without having any prior knowledge of this candidate, I am confident that anyone nominated by both Acalamari and Riana would make an excellent admin. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Purple">
Longevity to be admired, shows true dedication. In addition, seems like a near-enough-to-model candidate. '''
I'm
'''Support''', and insert witty wordplay here based on his username. '''
'''Support''', no obstacles. —'''
I would have gladly been a co-nom.
'''Strong Support''' Should be of great help at AIV as an administrator. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' With Acalamari and Riana [[pwn|pwning]] most of my concerns with any admin candidate before I even got to the questions, which were exellently answered and displayed the maturity expected from a candidate, my only concerns were investigating the user's recent activity. Folks, he's apparently already turned down a nomination, over his own concerns that [[User talk:SpuriousQ/Archive 3#Admin???|he thought he wasn't ready]]. Users with [[User talk:Majorly/Archives/Mar 2007#Admin???|this kind of humility]] are generally the best candidates for the job. Cheers,
'''Support''' I see nothing but positive things from this candidate. —
'''Support'''. Looks good, I thought he was one. --
'''Support''' with a cliché thrown in for good measure.
Riana nominee.
'''Strong Support'''<s>Good User</s> Great User.<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Strong support''' as the nominator. Once again, I am late to give my support to a candidate that I've nominated/co-nominated. :)
'''Support''' - another one of those "''WTF - thought you ''were'' an admin already??''" cases -
'''Support''' Good counter-vandalism skills. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''': Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''', level headed and excellent at vandal mopping.  Clear need for the extra toolkit.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Yes, this is exactly what we need!
'''Support''' Seems fine. -
'''support''' --
'''Support''', no problem.
'''Support''', sure. --
'''RFA Clique #1''' You're not an admin =O [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1ggy'''</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:G1ggy | <font color="blue">Talk</font>]] -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' You come highly recommended and your work speaks for itself.
'''Support''' may need to review core policies for a refresher, but overall competent with no problems.
'''Support''' Wow, I thought this user was already an administrator. It seems like I am constantly racing SpuriousQ over at RC patrol, with SpuriousQ usually winning. Would make a fine sysop. Do you ever sleep? <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' I see no reason to not give this user admin tools.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support'''. Good user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Have seen this user around, no problems.

'''Support''' per other supporters.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Support''' Per Riana.
'''S''' Everything I was about to say... is already said. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Nothing left to say :-) —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''', Spurious deifnately has the capacity and need for sysop tools. Nothing left to say! '''''
'''Non-spurious support''' per candidate's good overall record. No concerns.
'''Support''' per all above, great user. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' Should make an excellant admin.

I think my evaluation can be best summed up by a quote from the nomination ... "this is a great, well-rounded, dedicated, and communicative user". Cheers, '''
'''Support''' --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - No concerns. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' per Riana and Acalamari. '''
'''Support''' I like the answer, good luck! --'''<font color="green">
'''Support''' --  Judicious temperament. Lots of experience which is well-rounded. --
'''Support''' looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I was kind of thinking the Wikipedia space edits were too low. But, considering the other work you've done over the last few months I'm fairly certain you'd do fine with the tools. '''
Sure. '''
'''Wholeheartedly support''' This user embraces the spirit of WP in my opinion.  We all make "whoops" once in a while.  Locking someone to a minimum period of time or number of edit counts does not necessarily demonstrate skill which has obviously been demonstrated.  I think this user would be a great addition to the admin ranks.  --'''<font color="black">[[user:BlindEagle|Blind]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support''' While my normal thershold for a comment in support of an editor is 14 years and 3 months of experience in the project, an annual income in excess of $56,378, and an Image talkspace edit count well north of 90,000, I believe this editor has displayed enough maturity, and skilled edits over an admittedly short period of time to gain my trust.
'''Support''' I do not believe that this user would abuse the added tools given to him. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak support''' an excelent editor but he does not have as much project space edits as I would like to see.
Good user.
'''Support'''  per Water. See him around. Also, I can't help express my incredulity at expecting a user to be here a year before submitting a an RfA.
'''Support.''' Honestly, I find the extra scrutiny this user is enduring (yes, enduring) to be unusual, unnecessary, and ridiculous. There is no evidence the candidate will abouse the tools; therefore there are no reasons to oppose.
<b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support''' — your mainspace contribs are not particularly satisfying, you seem like a good guy who won't go crazy with the tools.  The opposing comments here are just plain bizarre. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Support''' although the project space edit count is niggling, there's no reason whatsoever to believe tools will be misused --'''
'''Support''' as I see no reason to assume abuse. --
'''Support'''. Experienced enough. It shouldn't be necessary to spend your entire life glued to a keyboard in order to become an admin.
'''Support''' Per Walton One. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - however weak or strong - per Pursey and Icewedge.  Not quite at the [[magic]]al number of 3,000 edits, but six months is enough time to test the user's trustworthiness.  Perfectly sensible editor. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. SQL did a good job at [[Hunting license]].
'''Support''' This user seems just fine for adminship. I do not see the need to deny tools based on the reasons of the opposers.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful candidate, no issues, will do fine as an admin, even though he is slightly inexperienced. Editcountitis is no reason to oppose for me; most people who became admins 2 years ago had less than 2.5k edits, and I haven't seen them go mad with the [[banhammer]]. <b>
'''Support''' An earnest candidate, slight inexperience in this case is not a problem for me. No oppose evidence has been provided, only vague generalizations.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Very modest, constructive and supportive. I don't see how he'll misuse the extra tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good edits, seems friendly and helpful. See no reason why this user would abuse being an admin, and wish you the best. —
'''Support''' - if you do good work, don't get stressed and get loads of slightly drivelly opposition to your adminship, you get my vote! :->
'''Support''' good editor will use the tools properly and after spending the last part of this evening deleting all the broken redirects you tagged for speedy deletion, next week I hope you'll delete them yourself. :-)
'''Support''' a fine editor who will make a fine admin.
'''Support''', does not appear to be stupid.
'''Support''' Good sense of the social dynamics and how they grow at Wikipedia.
'''Support''', switching from neutral. Excellent answers and great attitude.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' answers, CSD tagging, edits to AIV. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Support''' SQL seems like an excellent editor with a desire to use the tools and the experience necessary to know what he's doing in almost all cases and know what to do when the rare anomalous case comes up. I don't see much in the opposition that doesn't boil down to editcountis.--
'''Support''' Don;t believe will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Me neither, and the one year thing is ludicrous. * '''
'''Support''' I don't think he will abuse the tools; seems at least adequately experienced. -- <strong>
'''Support''' NetUtility([[User:SQL|SQL]] + mop) > NetUtility([[User:SQL|SQL]])
Ach, what the heck. I trust this user will not misuse the tools. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Support''' I see no reason to believe the user will misuse the tools. Level headed, mainstream view of the goals of the project, etc.
'''Support'''.  With the deleted ACC edits, you show that you have the experience to handle the tools.  '''
'''Support'''.  He's been around a while, he's got at least a thousand edits, he's never been blocked, and a brief look at his contributions show no major problems.  I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Weak support'''. I'd love to see more experience. However, seeing as that's basically the only argument given by the opposers and I see no red flags, I'll give in here.
'''Support'''. Looks OK - a little more experience might have helped with a few lingering doubts but you seem to know what you're doing. Take it slow when dealing with anything unfamiliar and don't hesitate to ask for help :-). <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' [[User:Spawn Man|Spawn Man]]'s concerns, expressed more thoroughly and persuasively than those of some other opposers, are not, to my mind, without merit, but I do find there to be the record of contributions here to be a sufficient one from which to draw the conclusion that SQL is sufficiently acquainted with policy and sufficiently possessed of sound, measured judgment as to be altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof [[Known unknowns|he does not know that he does not know]]) the tools, such that I feel comfortable concluding with a good deal of confidence that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support.''' There's nothing to suggest that SQL would, in bad faith, abuse the administrative features, and there's nothing to suggest that xe, while acting in good faith, would misuse the tools through ignorance, or that xe would misuse the tools in an occasional lapse of judgment ''and'' be unwilling to revisit the situation, reverse xyr action if necessary, and accept appropriate criticism for, and learn from, that occasional lapse. </longsentence>
'''Oppose''' - per question 2. More experience required. '''
'''Oppose''' Ignored basic [[WP:AFD]] assumption and deleted a draft article I was working on in my user page --
'''Oppose''' - I'd like to see more experience all round yet. Especially Wikipedia-space. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - User requesting adminship should be active for a minimum of one year so other wikipedians can make a thorough evaluation of the user before granting such privileges. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' Just not quite there on the experience...yet.  Keep up the good work, and try again a little bit later on in the future.
'''Oppose''' Too little experience.  Not enough real contributions to the project. Another janitor for the project.  And really weak answers to the questions (don't expect a novel, but I do expect some indication of intelligence, commitment, wisdom, and other character traits, whether positive or negative).
'''Very Weak oppose'''.  Looks pretty good, but over half of this editor's edits were in the last three weeks.  I'd like a longer time before supporting.
'''Oppose''' Not enough contributions in talk space to evaluate how this editor interacts with others. I feel that communication is vital to the role of admin, and this ''"lack"'' also does not provide evidence that the candidate fully understands policy - as abiding by it, and explaining it to others are different animals.
'''Oppose''' Not much time here and my interactions with him show that he hasn't yet learned how to deal with problem users, my read is that he gives input without regard for [[newbie biting]] or what he's actually giving input on (for example, he inadvertently got involved with a very nasty edit war, without even realizing it I think).  Also came away feeling he had only a superficial understanding of WP policy.  Certainly adds to the "inexperienced" comments above.
'''Oppose''' per question 2. Admins should have sufficient interest and practice in article writing in order to be able to make a sound judgment on many issues that involve the use of admin buttons. --
'''Oppose''' - WOW! How come so many editors are supporting when this user clearly hasn't been active long enough or racked up wnough experience?! 8 months, one of which he was inactive and the others with low edit counts? Under 200 Wikipedia namespace edits?! We really are letting our standards slide significantly. However, although I don't think the editor is a bad guy or would abuse the tools, he really needs more experience. I thought I knew everything on here, then I started contributing to AfD and noticeboards recently and I found I knew very little. I'm only now getting a grasp on things and I've been here over 2 years. This user needs waaay more experience and I'll oppose until he does so. Please don't reply over and over to this comment, everythin's already been said above and you're not going to change my mind, so there's no need. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - per Spawn Man and others. Experience is limited. This is the first month of strong participation. Wait a few months, gain some additional experience, then try for adminship at that time. '''
'''Regretful Neutral''' with shades of support. I just really can't fully support. You've only really been here three months with a sudden massive flood of work recently. Nothing wrong here, but I'm just not convinced that it's enough ''time'' as opposed to ''experience''. I strongly disagree with [[User:I already forgot|I already forgot]] that you need to be here a year, but I wish you'd perhaps waited one more month or so to show consistency. Also although your work is great I'd have liked to see more [[WP:XFD]] bits and generally more project contribs. In my opinion, a certainty in the future but I would like to see more than a one month explosion before fully supporting. I'm sorry if that sounds mean. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral, leaning towards support''' What this editor has done up to now is great, but I myself am in agreeance with Pedro, in that it's not experience, but time, as once you have been here for a period of time, you get to know things more deeply, and realise there actually is a lot to Wikipedia than first meets the eye.
'''Neutral''' - The opposes have some good reasoning, however I won't oppose. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral <s>leaning heavily toward support</s>''': While I can't find anything to make me want to oppose, some more talk space (other than user talk template warnings) would be nice. <font face="Broadway">
Switching to '''neutral'''. Same concerns are before, but candidate's response was fairly convincing. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Neutral''' Lack of experience, but very strong edits recently. I would support in the future, but for now - I am undecided. '''
'''Neutral''' - user does lack experience interacting with other users, but I no longer have any concerns about what this would mean. If a user can take the pressure of an RfA, then they can take almost anything :P. I don't feel that I can support due to this lack of experience, but I no longer consider it anything worth opposing over. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Steel blue">The</font>]]
--
'''Support''' - although I would like more experience, I can see no problems with this editor, good luck...
'''Support''' - strong candidate, good contributions across both mainspace and projectspace. <font face="Verdana">
Four is a magic number. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Support''' looks alright. Good luck! '''''
'''Support'''. Can not find any problems. -
'''Support''' With a spike in editing this month, does raise slight concerns about overall experience, but looking though contributions shows nothing but courtesy and reflection and I'm confident will not rush into using the tools. All the best. <sup>
'''Strong support''' based on the answers and on the endorsements at Editor Review.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; excellent work at [[WP:ER]], as well as useful contributions around the encyclopedia; not only can ''misuse'' be ruled out for this editor, ''frequent usage'' can be concluded as highly likely as a result of Sr's already-existent contrib's to sysop areas ... i.e., he already helps out with maintenance tasks, and the Mop would only allow him to both continue and extend this excellent work ~
I'm
'''Support''' You seem like you would make a reliable admin. Shlom:)--

After reviewing the candidates contributions, I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''', as per above, looks good. [[Image:MASH UP.PNG|20px]] <font color="red">
'''Support''' Seems good. --
'''Strong support'''. Good experience and I've really liked what I've seen of his contributions. Would use the mop well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - more than adequate experience.
'''Support'''. Very good editor. Will certainly be a very good administrator. --
'''Support''' - I'm convinced he's ready due to these posts: [[User talk:Sr13#Closing AfDs]] and [[User talk:Sr13#Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Ries]].  If a person is competent in closing AfDs, I think they should just close them.  The rule requiring that the discussions be unanimous keeps (for non-admins to be able to close them) doesn't really make sense to me.  The fact that Sr13 ignores dumb rules shows independent judgement, and I like that.
'''Support''' seems trustworthy and reliable. No concerns here. —
'''Support''' A sound candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' Looks appropriate in usertalk interface as well as other areas. --
'''Support''': seems to know his stuff well enough, and to be level-headed.
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good contributions, nothing adverse to see.--
'''Support''' well-rounded editor.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - you can use the tools, I believe you can be trusted with the tools, and (most importantly) you've taken criticism and learned from it. I can't say I'm a fan of self-noms, but I believe you're a good candidate and won't hold it against you. <span style="color:#ff9900">
'''Support''': While a couple more months of experience would be better I see nothing wrong with this editor. Seems to be trustworthy enough and should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Good Editor..:).--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' No evidence that the candidate would abuse the tools. Cheers,
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''. Nominee seems to be willing to listen to advice and correction from other editors, an admirable quality for an admin.  '''
'''Support''' no gripes here. '''''
[[User:Nihonjoe|WikiProject Nihonjoe]] '''strongly endorses''' Sr13 in his bid for adminship. I see nothing in his history that indicates the tools would be abused. On the contrary, I see plenty of evidence indicating Sr13 would be an asset as an admin. ···
'''Support'''. Well within [[User:Vassyana/admin|my standards]]. Additionally, the candidate has demonstrated a clear ability to respond positively to criticism and a strong will to learn.
Seems to understand the importance of BLP.--
'''Support''', definately in the position to put the tools to good use. I have no doubt that Sr13 will become quite an active and helpful backlog clearer as well as XfD closer. Great work so far, Sr13! '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' crossed the rubicon and came back to tell about it --
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''Support''' Perfect admin!! --
'''Oppose''' Editor creates non-notable articles such as [[Hawaiian Electric Industries]] and then goes ahead and votes to delete [[List of the honours and awards of Aaron Sorkin|ancillary articles]] to FAs such as [[Aaron Sorkin]].  He is not rational, and does not have a good head on his shoulders.-
The candidate appears suitable, but I don't have enough evidence of competency at collaborative editing to support.  An endorsement from a suitable WikiProject would likely alter my opinion.
'''Support''' per Pedro below.  If the civility issues have been resolved, then that's good enough for me. This is an RFA, not editor review and we're not debating whether ST47 should be editor of the week. The question is whether we trust him with the tools, not whether he is a prolific writer. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.
I thought you didn't want to be an admin! I say give him the mop, as in my opinion it's long overdue! :) --
'''Support''' I've seen examples of this user's good judgment – so I don't believe there is a concern there. I also don't see any more civility problems and think that they will handle conflicts reasonably. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but that does not mean people can't help in other ways. Best of luck.
'''Mammoth Support''' - as per [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] and [[User:GDonato|GDonato]]. I haven't seen a single civility issue regarding ST47 for a very long time and his widespread contributions to wikipedia projects especially his [[Wikipedia:Bots|bots]] and [[WP:RFCU|Requests for checkuser]] is very enticing. Since its nearly 5 months after his last RfA..I believe its about time he was given the mop...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Good editor, and I think after 6 RFA's, it's time to give him the mop!
'''Support'''.  As far as I can discern the issues in the last RfA have been addressed and the user continues to make valuable contributions and seems to understand policy well.
'''Semi-automated Support''' Seriously, this guy is one of the [[WP:BAG|monarchs of bots]]. Being on the help channel every day, I can see examples of his good judgment. Best of Luck! <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' Civil, bot-guru, helpful.  Actively around on spam-fighting IRC channel.  I am sure he will make good use of the mop.  --
'''Support''' - I've been impressed with ST47 whenever I've seen him. I've reviewed his contribs and I believe he will be fine as an administrator. I've also reviewed the opposes, and there's nothing in them that concern me at this present time, I believe they focus more on previous concerns which I feel have be answered.
'''Support''' This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest that the user will misuse admin tools.  To me, answer to Q3 suggests that he'll take criticism under consideration, and isn't afraid of changing his mind if he does something wrong.
'''Support'''. Candidate has a satisfactory overall record; prior issues have been addressed.
'''Support'''. Appears to have improved tremendously from the last RFA, and, with the civility concern seemingly remedied, this user should make a good administrator.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' as nom
'''Support.''' The candidate demonstrates need for the tools. I have encountered this canididate (and supported them in previous RfAs) before and find them more than suitable for adminship. To address opposers, I offer this argument. I work in an amusement park. I drive roller coasters. I don't deal well with people, so being a roller coaster driver is a good choice as I sit isolated in my booth for long stretches of time. Other employees do deal well with people, and they work in merchandise and games, where their dispositions are beneficial. Both merchandise and roller coaster driving are essential to the park's operation, but to force either of us to switch positions would be a mistake.
'''Support'''. Civility concerns raised in the past RFAs seem to have improved. Can be trusted with tools I think.
"''Good evening, ladies, gentlemen, and aliens of all ages!''" - that did it for me. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' looks like a good user to me.
'''Support''' Article writers don't need tools, policemen however do. <sup>
'''Support''' Good answer to #3. --
'''Support'''. As co-nom, and as they are a great editor :) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Strong support'''. Some users are simply not good writers, and if they tried, would seriously reduce the quality of Wikipedia. ST47 is a great user who will use the tools wisely. Thus, ST47 should be given the mop and bucket. --
'''Support''' Great answers. I dig the personality. Give him toolz.
Yes please. --
'''Support'''&mdash;he's not here for the ride. In my interactions with him, I received the impression that he is not secretive, overbearing, or arrogant about his bot work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he has shown that 1. he can use the tools well and 2. he can be trusted.
Change to '''support''' based on clarification of Q3.
'''Support''' (and wow, up to number 5! is this a record of some type?)
'''Support''' A valuable contributor (if not article writer) who has use for the tools, but would not, I believe, abuse them.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' Great editor, would make a great admin.
'''Support''' - ultimately, thoug not a 'pedia builder ''per se'' I think WP has more to gain than to lose by you being an admin; if there are future civility problems we all know where they can be discussed. cheers,
'''Support''' I believe this editor has put in enough time and work, and shows that they still have the heart through it all to continue.  Plus, their editing skills aren't ''that'' shabby :).
'''Strong Support''' Really deserves the tools. Thanks for mentioning my few bots in there that you kindly wrote - much appreciated. You are long past needing the mop, and I believe this is the time for you :) &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' I've changed my mind. On reviewing his clarification on Q3 and looking over his edit history. I think that the benefits of such a strong editor with a mop in his hand makes up for any lack of mainspace experience he might have.
'''Support''' - in the several months since your last RfA, it is clear that the issues that were raised there have been dealt with. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Oh what the heck.''' —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' needs the tools. —
'''Strong Support''' Good user, fair, and sorry for the confusion on my part.  He deserves the mop, give it to him!
'''Meh'''. I opposed him last time for lack of mainspace editing... still I see none of that. However, he blatantly could do with being an admin, instead of bugging others to do stuff for him. He's shown he's trustworthy. Maybe 5th time lucky? '''
'''Support''' or he'll continue cluttering [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]] ;). --
'''Weak support'''  User is worthy, but bots will take over the world.  Membership of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD implies ST is not needlessly beaurocratic. In short, why not? who cares? --
'''Support''' - I can't see any problems. Clearly experienced and aware of policy, and the civility concerns are in the past and insufficient to merit an oppose.
'''Strong Support''' He could clearly use the tools. Oh, and the five attempts, I admire his tenacity.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. This user's administrative work is enough to convince me he should be given the tools, even if he doesn't write articles. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Clearly needs the tools and, from all the evidence I've seen, would put them to good use. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''. Seems experienced and able to get what needs to be done, done. --<font color="#617599" face="Courier New">
'''Support''' Great guy, both on and off wiki, plus the good old cliche. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' I am still laughing at his replies to my own nominator, Stillstudying.  A hard worker with a sense of humor!
'''Much Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' Your dedication, civility, experence and clear need for tools far out whiehs any points raised by the oppostion . I wish you the best of Luck. Cheers,
'''Support''' per BigDT. <font color="blue" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman" color="deepskyblue">
'''Support''' I feel giving ST47 the admin tools has the potential to allow a lot of positive things to happen, which to me outweighs the lack of article work.
It might have been better to [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition|ignore]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ST47&diff=prev&oldid=130424033 this] instead of replying... but apart from that, nothing wrong. --
'''Support''' I am suprised ST47 has not been granted the tools sooner.
Impressive behind-the-scenes work, will probably have good uses for the tools to improve Wikipedia. I hope ST47 has taken the lessons from his last RfA to heart and do not expect problems.
Trust him not to do anything too crazy. ~
'''Support''' per '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (this is a rite of passage thing?) Also, that someone retains the desire to help further after four previous requests is sufficient reason.
'''I missed it for this long? Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - An ''extremly'' able editor.

'''Support''': This is long overdue.  ST47 has been helping out around here for a long time and has shown true dedication to the project. --
'''Support''' See nothing now to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - dedicated & capable individual who will make good use of the tools --
'''Support''' - know editor from RFCU clerking duties; isn't quite what I like in the perfect RFA candidate but there are many types that work out in the end; several RFA attempts and subsequent improvement demonstrates motivation; we're not related despite similar user names.
'''Support''' know from [[WP:BAG]], is dedicated, and makes good choices.  I also trust that ST47 will have the wisdom to avoid areas of admin duties they are not familiar with (e.g. closing contentious AFD's or borderline username reports). —
'''Support''' - You're not an admin already?  Why not?!?  As for his snide remarks being an issue; myself, I'm ''never'' snide or sarcastic on WP....  (in other words, is't a non-issue trying to become an issue!)  -
'''Support'''. Demonstrates a clear need for the tools through his tireless work. While his namespace edits are low, it's not like he's been simply voting in AfDs, doing RC patrol and nothing else, which is the reason most people oppose based on low mainspace experience; he's actually played a large part in keeping this encyclopedia ticking, and the tools will only help him further. '''<font color="#FFA52B">Ƙ</font><font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' particularly for his work at checkuser. --
'''Support'''. I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user of late. He does a lot of valuable work - especially vandal fighting and on [[WP:BAG]]. In my opinion he is trustworthy. It seems to me the problematic behaviour from previous times has been addressed and I see no recent evidence from those opposing to suggest otherwise. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' 5th time's a charm. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Interactions and observations have convinced me enough to support. —'''
'''Support''', no reason not to! --
'''Support''' I have reviewed your history (an extremely colorful one), your contributions, talk pages - and especially your prevous RFA's. I feel you have grown on Wikipedia responsible enough to be trusted with the tools. Some people point out that you lack contributions to mainspace editing; but I feel comfortable seeing as you have devoted yourself to the "Wikipedia" side of the project (all the nitty gritty policies, AIV, Admin noticeboard, checkuser, etc.). --
'''Support''' He seems to have improved on everything from his previous RFA, and his bot work seems outstanding.
'''Support''' Very friendly and personable. I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' A good user. --'''
'''Support'''. Ye-heah <small>(Metallica style.)</small>

'''Support''' - I think the editor is ready. --
While I acknowledge that your last RFA was in February, your actions during it are a big turn-off here for me, especially your uncivil snide replies. I therefore beg to differ from Swatjester when he says you're "civil". Furthermore, I am one of those who wishes to see admins write articles. In your last RFA you flat out said "don't write, can't write, won't write". Looking at your contribs I assume you still stick to this. Well, [[WP:ENC]]. I hope you can prove me wrong on both points and that I can switch to support. But for now it has to be oppose.
'''Oppose''', the candidate adequately proved in not only the last RfA but also the one preceding that there are issues regarding the candidate's judgment.  Even if civility concerns have been addressed, and I'm willing to assume that they have been, I remain concerned with the candidate's judgment.  Lack of article writing is a much more minor, but also relevant, concern. '''· <font color="#70A070">
Issues from prior failed RfAs have not been resolved. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' After the candidate's unfortunate outbursts in the prior RfA, he would need to address '''all''' concerns before returning here.  I'm uncertain regarding the civil question, but it is clear the candidate hasn't remedying article-writing concerns.  I'm not normally a stickler on that point; but, in a case where bad judgment was visibly demonstrated at the last RfA, I expect evidence of true reform.
'''Strong Oppose''' (edit conflict)- Per answer to No.3 "Not really" I find that hard to believe if you have been around since August 2006 and have 10,000 edits. Also lack of encyclopaedic contributions, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and foremost.--
'''Oppose'''. Apparent lack of commitment to building the encyclopedia makes me question the editor's suitability for the admin role at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Another policeman.  Again, just my opinion, but a good admin needs to be a good editor (well, maybe just an editor).  And civility concerns don't go away after a few weeks, but who knows.  One of the opposes went through the contributions (as I did), and I didn't see anything troubling over the past few weeks, but what I did notice is a lot of bot reverts and the such.  It's kind of hard to see personality with that kind of editing style.  Finally, the answer to question 3 bothers me a lot.  Admins are more than just button pushers--they should head off problems, build consensus, identify issues...lots of things.  It sounds like this applicant just wants the power, and doesn't want to participate.  Not interested.
'''Oppose'''. While ST47's vandal-fighting has been very, very good, admins have authority over all sorts of things, and I see almost no work contributing content to the encyclopedia. I cannot place my trust in someone who does not have the experience of building the encyclopedia, rather than just maintaining it, given the irrevocable nature of adminship. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ST47_4]].  Also, so many previous attempts make me wonder why he's so eager for the admin buttons.  Civility issues raised at the last RFA concern me.  Wikipedia is not some chat room; we have expected standards of behavior for editors.  This will probably end up just being a protest !vote, but I think people who frequent the chat rooms should consider not participating in the RFAs of their chat room buddies.  The conflict of interest should be apparent.
'''weak Oppose''' I think he doesn't fit my 'basically beyond reproach', and 'contributes to the actual encyclopedia enough' standard.  Not a bad editor, though, so whatever, I'm only a little below 'neutral' on this one.
'''Neutral'''. Have worked with this user on [[WP:CHECK|check user]] as a fellow clerk.  However, lack of encyclopedia contributions as well as issues raised on the last RFAs as well as the opposers's arguments have placed me into neutral. <font color="purple">'''
'''Neutral''' - I'm primarily impressed, but the opposes do have several points. For now my !vote is neutral. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
A lot of stuff to like about this RfA, and some (namely what Orangemarlin said) which is a bit concerning. Neutral seems about right. '''
'''Neutral''' - After reading the previous RfA, I have trouble believing that ST47 has "grown out of" the civility issues in 5 months. I realize that the issue has abated since February, but in my experience, people can't change their attitudes that quickly. The replies on the previous RfA started out rather benign, but escalated to borderline personal attacks. I could overlook one or two incivility issues, but in his own RfA? I find it to be very troubling. That being said, ST47's behind-the-scenes activities and bots are appreciated. Keep up the good work. —
'''Support''' as nominator.  --
'''Support''' Seen them around and interacted briefly regarding the bot, very civil. Also familiarity with the tools is always helpful. - '''
'''Support''' I share the nominator's confidence.
'''Support''' Attitude and experience are all there with the bot-work an additional plus.  I imagine that the projectspace and user Talk edits will increase dramatically after the admin tools allow you to patrol the new pages/recent changes pages, etc.
'''Support''' per good answers and sufficient overall experience.
'''Support''' - A sensible user who I feel would not abuse admin abilities and who has answered the questions well. Also, seems to have plenty of experience, especially with bots and images. <font color="red">
'''Support''' An excellent candidate, could use the tools when, definitely be trusted. Good luck - <b>
'''Support''' seems trustworthy and experienced. Why not? —

'''Support''' You have made contribs in many different areas, you're experienced, and civil.  I like that you admit experiences where you learned something important--shows maturity. Nice clear answers to questions. Edit count not a problem for me.
'''Support''' A good candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' - no reasons to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Good contribs, active, no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' I hate editcountis. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Looks like good reasons for Adminship to me
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I don't see anything to be concerned about - it appears that the editor handles sticky situations well.  Obviously needs the tools to just clear the offending images instead of just nominating them. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Clearing backlogs is something we can always use an extra keyboard for. --
I'm
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''', one of those rare, but nice, cases where someone demonstrates knowledge of policy without a bunch of projectspace contributions. -
'''Support''' Looks good - oppose comments weak.--
'''Support''' Appears good, useful contribs
'''HELL YES'''. I noticed Staecker's bot as well, and I thought the same things that PS2 did. We NEED admins for image help. Those opposes are rather weak... If he wants to help with images, I don't see a real need for XfD or policy-discussion experience. If he ever gets involved in closing AfDs, for example, he'll be able to get the needed experience on his own before jumping into it.
'''Support''' per nom and other supporters.--
'''Support'''. -- <b>
'''Support'''. Staecker appears experienced enough and has been here for a while. A bit of caution with the new tools should compensate for the lack of edits in project space I think.
--
'''Support''', seems capable for the role.
'''Support''' - Looks good...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I don't see why not. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Admin shouldn't be a big deal and lack of good reason to oppose is plenty good reason to support.
'''Support'''. In my opinion, he has enough experience. -
'''Support''' The guy handles himself well with others, a very important trait.
'''Support''' - Trust him to run a bot, and trust him with the tools.  The two are not necessarily related, but strong performance on one is an indicator for the other, I believe.
'''Support''' Per rationale set out on my user page.
'''Support''' We have image backlogs, and Staecker said he would help. I don't see anything in the user logs, edits or anything that would tell me that Staecker can't be trusted. If Staecker chooses to work in some space where Staecker does not have the experiance, I ''trust'' that Staecker will trend with caution. All admins are not the same, and ''adminship is not supposed to be a big deal''. ——
'''Support''' per the other supports.
'''Support''' good candidate. I'm sure you'll take on board the comments below. --
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and understands policy. --
'''Support''' not a big mainspace contributor, but knows his way around a mop.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' - looks just fine -
'''Support'''. I don't find the relatively "low" (in quotation marks as everyone has their own standard) number of project edits an issue as it seems you'll be focusing primarily on images, with which you clearly have experience. I commend your honesty in answering #3 (and also on how you handled yourself in the respective controversies) and the bit about "ignoring IAR" was the cherry on top. Cheers,
'''Support''', no problems here.--
'''Support''' Whilst there are surely areas with which the candidate is not as familiar as might be the (non-existent) ideal candidate, I think his contribution history here to provide a sufficient basis on which to conclude that he is possessed of good judgment and a cordial and measured temperament, such that one can safely conclude that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know) and thus the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Weak Oppose''' I really like your demeanor, and we certainly need help with image backlogs.  Still, I feel a bit more project-space experience is needed to give you the feel for handling the mop.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. While I don't have issue with his edit count as a whole he has few project space contributions and only 12 in the discussion sections, all in WikiProjects. I like more involvment in the "inner workings" before giving out a backstage pass. With some time in the project space, esp with policy discussion I would see no reason not to support in the future.
'''Weak oppose''' per above reasons. From my personal experience I can say that without many project-space edits it is very hard for an editor to comprehend the convoluted policies and rules.
'''Oppose''' at this stage for similar/same reasons as Wooyi, Xoloz (with added comment by NeoFreak).--
'''Oppose''' An admin really does need a lot of experience in the Wikipedia: namespace, its talk pages. <small>
'''Neutral.''' Your contributions and statements give a very good impression, but your total edit count of 2660 is a bit low, really. I'd be happy to support you some time later.
'''Neutral leaning support''' Like Sandstein says. Looks pretty good, yet a wee bit more experience would be nice.
'''Neutral'''.  Looks like a good candidate; would support with a WikiProject endorsement.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. Long and steady history of useful contributions, no deal-breakers as far as I can see. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per "let's make a user who's been around a while a sysop". I'm sure it'd make his life easier and I see no issues. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' We need more like him. <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' - strong editor with positive contributions - although I appreciate Anonymous's concerns below, I trust this user and feel that he will make an effective admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - always been impressed with his commitment to improving controversial articles. The high talk page count is mostly explained by his 705 edits to the Global warming talk page. Also, not sure why edits in low hundreds each month are unacceptable.
'''Strong Support''' Good editor.
'''support''' long overdue, far more sensible than me :-)
'''Weak Support''' good work at ANI and 3RR. Wish you could become a bit more active as an admin--
'''Support'''  1) Per CK 2) Per contribs 3)Per civility  4)Per knowledge of WP show by contribs. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' a knowledgeable editor with a consistent record of high-quality edits. --
'''Strong support''' A sane and knowledgeable editor who backs up his material with quality references.  Be aware that this editor has been involved in controversial articles.  As such, he may be opposed on specious grounds by those with an axe to grind even though his participation has been valuable and constructive.
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with strong commitment to encyclopedia building. The fact he's still sane after editing [[global warming]] suggests a calm temperament well suited to the admin role.
'''Support'''. A great editor, and I don't see much merit in the opposes/neutrals. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''. I trust you. You might want to be more active, though. Also, anyone notice that two oppose !votes are marked as 1?
'''Support''' - A editor who I would trust with the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good editor, sure he'll take the right pointers from the opposing comments. <b>
'''Support'''. He's a good editor.  I've seen his work over at GW and trust his judgement.
'''Strong support''': Bottom line: we need more admins who have experience on controversial or heated topics and have a track record of keeping a cool head and dealing appropriately with conflict. We've got plenty of admins with the perfect blend of template, project, RC, and image space edits; we don't have enough who have experience in the trenches, and it shows. '''
'''Support''' per MastCell above. I'm impressed as I look this editor's history. I like especially how he managest to handle himself in article discussions that have become overheated and he still remains completely civil.
'''Support'''. Very good and consistent editor who keeps his cool.
'''Support''' WP will gain more than lose by having him as an admin.cheers,
'''Support'''. Looks like a good editor. I like the answers--to the standard questions and throughout the discussion in general.
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Support'''. Level-headed editor.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Reading the nomination I thought for a moment I had been nominated without my approval. But seriously, I have good experience working together with this editor, in particular around the [[Germany]] page where he did not hesitate to speak out against racial profiling.
'''Support''' - Concerns raised by opposers are trivial. We don't need to determine his "need" for admin tools - just whether he can be trusted to use them, which he clearly can. Admins don't have to use the admin tools every single day in order to make valuable contributions.

'''Support''' I've seen him around [[Global warming]].  He's OK.  1000 unique articles is a pretty silly criterion.  Better that someone work hard on a few articles (100? 200?) and learn to deal with controversy which Stephan surely has.  Does he "need" the tools?  Maybe not.  Will he misuse them?  Probably not.  And that's what we should care about. --
'''Support''' no issues here.
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' per nom. His experience with controversial articles will serve him well.
'''Support'''. I would like to see a candidate who expects to use the tools but I still think his work in the controversial corners of Wikipedia will serve him well as Vsmith says. Apart from his declared expectation of inactivity I see nothing that worries me enough to oppose.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''  IMO he does not currently take [[WP:BLP]] seriously enough.  Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_F._Ball&diff=134528265&oldid=134527409] he adds [[Sourcewatch]] (a wiki) repeatedly to a BLP, in violation of: ''"Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link"''. There is not any wiggle room in that statement for sourcewatch to squeeze in.  <s>Additionally, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Landsea&diff=144755635&oldid=144753466] he adds in another line from a blog onto a BLP, the line itself consists of [[WP:OR]] (this part is not in the citation: who originally published Landsea's letter) I believe this in combination with the source being a blog does not follow WP:BLP.</s> On this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=144124513&oldid=144117225] he provides a source indicated that the scientist does not wish to engage in the debate on global warming, yet he fails to remove him entirely from the list, as is appropriate under WP:BLP: ''"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced."''  Despite the scientists arguments otherwise, he still remains on the list, as "opposing opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"  (It should be said however, that the scientist in question was on the list for ~2 years before anyone even noted that he changed his mind)  It is my opinion that an admin should have the highest regard for the rules and guidelines, I don't quite see that here.  --
'''Oppose''' While I may take some heat for it, I don't really like your overall experience.  Yes, you have a lot of editing done, but less than 1,000 unique pages doesn't show me a real wide knowledge of the project.  I would prefer a much more rounded set of contributions.
'''Oppose'''.  A review of your edit history shows a long-time editor with very low commitment to the breadth of the Project, but a focus on one topic area.  Considering your limited involvement in Wikipedia, I don't see a need for the tools.
'''Oppose'''. Contrary to AldeBaer, we '''are''' trying to determine his "need" for admin tools. Admin tools allow the user a great deal of power over other users, and as part of establishing that the community trusts the user with those tools, we want to know why the user wants those powers. Admin tools aren't just a "mop", they're a license to hit other users with the mop handle. I don't see that this user does much which would be significantly better-done had he the tools. <s>I also have concerns about his civility.</s> <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
Couple of issues: 1. 2k of your 5k edits are talkspace. 2. No template edits. 3. Few project space edits and 4. you are very inactive. - im '''neutral''' on this. -- <strong>
'''Neutral'''- I don't like to oppose per edit count, but I have several concerns that do not permit me to support, so I'll go with neutral per these reasons: 1)I think we need active admins. If you're not going to actively use them, then I do not trust you with them. 2.)You say you want to close XfD's, but your last edit to an AfD was in May. 3.)I like to see a lot of involvement in admin-related areas (Wikipedia namespace). You have ~400 to said namespace. That's not enough for me. If you solve these problems, then I will gladly support. --
Looks fine.
A perfectly boring and very qualified vandal fighter, BLP activist, etc. I don't see anything of concern in your last 500 contibutions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warumpi_Band&diff=126036197&oldid=75081302 This] is interesting; an experienced editor unwittingly inserted modified copyvio material from another article in there. How did you guess it was a copyvio?
Appears qualified from the look of his contributions, and is bold enough to self-nominate.
'''Support''' everything looks very fine here. Why not? —
'''Support''' - A perfect candidate..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' -
I'm
'''Support''' A good person to be an administrator.
'''Support''' A dedicated editor who clearly understands policies and whom I trust to apply them well. Did a good job with the DaveSmit33/TopGear issue which I was also involved with. Good luck,
'''Support''' He needs the tools and knows how to use them.

Remember him from the Slf67 days, recall being impressed. No reason to suspect he would abuse the tools. &ndash;
'''Support''' - I've seen this person around, and I don't see any conduct issues.
'''Support'''. I've checked his edits in several namespaces and they all look good. I vote support without hesitation. We need more admins active in containing vandalism.
'''Troppus''' per Riana, looks great. Good luck! '''''
'''Support'''.  I am especially pleased to see the commitment to article building. --

'''Support'''. Looks good! -
'''Support''' okay for me.--
'''Support''' per all above. It's good to see a self-nomination that seems to be succeeding (often they face an uphill struggle). <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Sounds good to me. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support''' It looks good to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I see no evidence that would lead me to believe Stephen would abuse the tools, and his contributions lead me to believe he would accomplish a lot of good with them. I believe he is trustworthy, and therefore I have no qualms supporting his RfA. ···
'''Support'''. Candidate dones good work from what I've seen of them. Appears to have good experience in the relevant areas. No problem. By the way, re:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warumpi_Band&diff=prev&oldid=126036197], G12 speedy requests are only really appropriate when there are no copyright free versions of the page to revert to. Reverting would have been a better approach. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' No good reason not to. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and seems to have done plenty of work. Seems civil and should make a good administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - seems experienced and trustworthy.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Ãll that there has to be said
'''Support''' - I am confident this candidate would make a good admin. Seems well experienced, civil, and not short of contributions.
'''Support''' per an excellent contributions record and great answer to the questions. Essentially, there is ''No Reason Not To''<sup>TM</sup> promote. Best of luck, '''
Sound on BLP. --
'''Support''' great contributor.
'''Support''''''''
'''Support'''. I accept your answer to my optional question, you've been an excellent contributor overall. --
--
Yep. '''
'''Support'''.  I first met Stephen through the Top Gear/Davesmith33 incident.  He was level-headed throughout the entire situation.  I was actually thinking about nominating him one of these days. --
'''Support''': --

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --A solid editor.
'''Support'''. Solid editor, every encounter I've had with him has been positive.
VirtualSteve '''supports''' Real Steve in his candidacy.  Adminship is deserved.--
'''Support''' - a very dedicated user, from his contribs it looks like he's around everywhere! Certainly needs, and wouldn't abuse the admin bit.
'''Support''' Will be an asset.--
'''Support:''' Doesn't seem like a Robdurbar part II. <span style="font-size:97%;">'''<font color="#229922">''~''</font>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><font color="#229922">[[User:Magnus animum|Magnus animum]]</font></span>'''&nbsp;∵&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Magnus animum|∫]] [[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|φ]]
'''Support''' will be ok. cheers,
Presence of the requests for adminship scoreboard on the candidate's user page suggests that the candidate is an "RFA junkie".
Seems to me that the candidate lacks common sense , see his comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia#Category:Australian_terrorists]--
'''Support''' again. '''
'''Support'''. I trust this user, and we need more admins.
'''Support''' Lots of edits, great experience, and a cautious and humble attitude.  Need I say more? ~~ <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''' need more admins, I've worked with him too, he's a good guy.
'''Support''' lead him down Sysop Drive and check him into Rm#1,000-something at the ANI Hotel.
'''Support.'''
'''Strong support''' Excellent editor; definitely worthy of the tools. --
'''Support''' - :-) --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with you, man. You're just the kind of guy [[Wikipedia]] needs. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini ha sempre tarche</font>]]
'''Support''' As nominator.
'''Support''' per all above even though FSU seems to beat [[Virginia Tech Hokies football|us]] every time we play --
'''Support''' yup.--
'''Support''' per nom and answers.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' of course.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', as I did last year. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' as nine-plus months ago.
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - per the double wide shopping cart.
'''Support''' absolutely.  Excellent editor with an outstanding track record.  Few are more deserving.--
'''Support''' Looks like the problems identified in the last RfA have been resolved now.
'''Support''', of course.  It's ridiculous he didn't get it the first time. --
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' without hestitation again.  Trust the user has retained their excellent sense of humour.
'''Support''' - I opposed last time due to inexperience and some civility issues - but several more months of good editing without trouble works for me.--
'''Support''' absolutely. Great answers. Trustworthy user with good activity. -

'''Support''', easy call. An asset tot he project.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' again.
'''Support'''- lots of good RfA candidates at the moment. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' as a strong contributor with good answers.
'''Support''', sensible and responsible editor.
'''Support''' need more admins, and the candidate seems fine. --'''
Responsible user. &mdash;

Swat, you were supposed to tell me when you ran again. This lack of campaigning is admirable, but I could have missed this!
'''Support''' without a doubt.
'''Support'''. A good candidate, indeed. '''
Long history of involvement with this user, probably longer than anyone else in this RFA.  --
'''Support''' -he certainly appears knowledgeable and appears to have made improvements since last RfA.
I'm
'''Support''', big time.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' i think he'd be great from the nom and the history.
'''Support''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good experiences, good record.
'''Support'''. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' This is a good user and we need more admins so speedy deletion candidates are deleted or kept faster.--
'''Support''', --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per strong contributions, good overall record, and pretty much everything above.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - good answers.
'''Horrendously cliched pile-on support''', looks good. --'''
'''That's hottest support.''' Haven't seen a more qualified user in recent memory. I have no qualms whatsoever with allowing him the admin tools.
'''Strong support''' Seen him around, often find myself nodding appreciatively at his comments. He'll make a good one :) <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' looks good to me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''. · '''<font color="#709070">

'''Support''' Won't abuse tools. '''
'''Support''' per above. Why am I supporting ''everyone'' on RfA today? ''
'''Support''' - have seen this user around a bunch of times and no complaints.
'''Support''': lots of good editors on RfA right now. =3
'''Support''' -everything looks good.--
'''Support''' Seen him around a lot.  Good wrok.  --

'''Support'''. Wait, you're not one?
'''Support''' I don't like your sig, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this RfA.
[[User_talk:DVD R W|<font color="black"> dvd</font>]]
'''Suppport'''. You're not one already? Obviously qualified, and unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support'''. Great attitude ever since she arrived, and communicates very clearly. A pleasure to support. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">
'''Support'''.  I opposed last time due to his posting of IRC chat logs, but that was 10 months ago, and there's been no problems since.
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''' Known "personally" to be of good character and judgement, and has put in much effort in keeping various pages credible. --
'''Support''' looking through the contribution history, this user seems to have grown since his last RfA and I believe he would not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' I think this editor would make a good admin. -
'''Support'''.  No problems here.  —
Absolutely. <b>
'''Weak Support''' - lack of recent activity, but everything else looks alright.
'''Strong Support''' I've known Swatjester since my early days of Wikipedia, and have faith in the buttons. As for the user's activity levels, he is engaged in off-line obligations a good proportion of time.  This does not mean that the bit would not aid in contributing to the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no question he will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' as I did last time, oh so long ago.
'''Support''' I think I would have supported before. --
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
I'm disappointed. Looks like he's gonna fall just short of [[WP:100]], oh well. '''support'''--
'''Support'''. I'm happy with what I've seen so far.
'''Support''' Hope he gets to [[WP:100]].
'''Support''' - solid, experienced editor who can be trusted with admin tools.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful contributions to AfD, overall good editor.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate's been ''so'' inactive in the last few months
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' Hey guess what, I can find no reason to oppose this candidate.  But I did think it was funny that a user who's contributions have been to "adult-related subjects" would reference the [[Road to Damascus]].  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Support''' —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' - experienced in all the right areas. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I chose a random adult star, [[Sunny Lane]], and perused the history. Lo and behold, the candidate has made several good edits! Very dedicated user. (I also noticed I had an edit there as well, so I'm not sure what that means.) The quality and consistency of edits month after month make me trust this user with the tools.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion]].  Sounds fun! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Strong Support''' absolutely. I've seen Tabercil work, and opposite to the cliché, I have always known he wasn't an administrator, but I've always wondered why was that so. I consider him to be a great candidate and a man trustworthy and reliable enough for this responsibility. All the best! —
'''Strong support''' pretty much what [[User:Anas Salloum|Anas Salloum]] said; I've seen this user's work as well. I knew Tabercil wasn't an administrator, but even so, he still does excellent work all the time.
'''Support''' - high quality article contributions.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, good answers, and humble, too. -
'''Strong Support''' I've seen Tabercil's edits and comments throughout my time at Wikipedia, and found him to always keep his cool in a controversial editing area, a valuable contributor, knowledgeable of Wiki policies and procedures, and generous with advice. He'll be the best kind of administrator.
'''Support'''. Everything seems great, no reason not to become an admin :) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Has lots of experience. It is time to give him the mop! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per AFD interactions
'''Support''', <s>good example about porn stars</s> I mean excellent user.
'''Support'''. I went through a lot of his edits last night and I really like his grasp of policy. I think he is going to be an excellent administrator, he's got my wholehearted support.
'''Supportt''' Excellent edits on some very good(read sexy) articles--
'''Support''' Always a pleasure to see someone dedicated to lesser-known areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' seems to be a good candidate. --
'''Support''' I wholeheartedly support fellow counter-vandals. I believe this user has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and has learned a lot in the process. I can certainly relate to his previous editing disputes.--
'''Support'''. I knew I remembered your name from somewhere - you helped find citations for various lists of people that were causing [[WP:BLP]] issues back in Nov and Dec. Good work then, loads of good work since then. Clear understanding of policies evident - should make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' seen this user around, will be a great admin. -
'''Support''' - good editor, excellent relevant experience & maintains his cool. No problems here -
'''Support''' Per nom.--
'''Support''' See absolutely nothing wrong. Great editor.
'''Support'''.  You may not feel you know all an admin should know, but you clearly have a good grasp on some of the trickier issues in WP.  I have no reservations that the extra buttons would be in good hands.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support'''. Per excellent nom, contributions and answers.
'''Support''' Cant Stop the Mop.
I'm
'''Support''' I've been watching this RFA for a few days now but never quite found the time to review the candidate - until now, that is. And, not that it matters, on the issue of Q5 and Q6, I'm very much with Ryan and I think it's missing the point. This isn't a pop quiz - it's a non-scientific way to gauge community trust and consensus. I don't think that making candidates jump through an arbitrary number of hoops is really helping in that regard and I think it certainly doesn't make the RFA process more accurate or, if you prefer, less broken. If you ask me, it's way too arbitrary to accurately judge someone's ability to make sound administrative decisions anyway. You're obviously entitled to ask any questions you see fit, SMcCandlish - I just don't think it's all that helpful. No offense.
'''Support''': Willingness to actually research the matter at hand (see the copyright question, especially, and even mine, about [[WP:SD]]) instead of assume, guess, assert or blindly react is a strong sign that the janitorial tools will be in good hands. Tabercil may not know every darned thing yet, but is clearly capable and willing to figure it out, ''stat''. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support''' singing the alphabet to the gauntlet theme ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' From what I've seen, he knows what he's doing. Full support!
'''Support''' per nom. Brilliant candidate.
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator.
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and is unlikely to abuse the tools. - <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I'm going to support. Clearly echoing the sentiments of the nominator of this case as well as the supporters above.
'''Support''''. See no reason to think he will abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' Good anti-vandal. Deserves admin buttons. '''<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#6666FF">
'''Support''' good contributor, the Luke Ford permission has led to hundreds of free license images and prevented at least as many replaceable fair use pieces from being uploaded ˉˉ<sup>
'''Oppose''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29&diff=prev&oldid=147875861 Per this]. I am just utterly baffled as to why people find it so hard to use the word "discussion", last time I checked we didn't "vote".
Yah. '''
'''Beat the nom''' - support.
'''Support''' A very hardworking and civil user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as co-nominator. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I haven't seen anything which concerns me.  Go to admin, go directly to admin, no don't forget mop, do not collect £200.  Good luck!
'''Support''' - good luck. &nbsp;
<s>per nom</s> :) as conom. ++
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No concerns regarding this candidate. I am particularly impressed by the honest and detailed responses to questions here and during coaching. Good Luck!
'''Support''' Looks qualified.
'''Support''' I believe you're ready now.
'''Support''' I've ploughed through the admin coaching bit and am impressed. I'm also impressed by your answers to the questions above, and you candidness. Your nominators make powerful and persuasive arguments (and I trust their judgement) that are backed up by your contribution history. Some deleted edits too, for those who like to count the things, and article building. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' and apologies for not noticing this before. The fact that you're one of the few people who's avoided snapping in the sustained [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#Naming_of_lines|ridiculous]] [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#Featured.2FGood_content|edit]] [[Talk:Bakerloo_line#Requested_Move|wars]] currently raging on and around [[WP:LT]] gives me confidence you won't snap at people. (Although I do think you're totally wrong in thinking we should follow brand-name use of lower case in article titles...) Your almost single-handed gradual nursing back to life of the semi-moribund [[Portal:London Transport]] is also A Good Sign.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' for a number of the reasons above - looks ok to me --
'''Support''' I think... <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="3">'''
'''Support'''. Thanks for answering my question!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
Of course.
I'm
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Oppose''' I do not see how he can possibly be considered qualified with such extremely minimal involvement in policy discussions,either at XfD or elsewhere. He admits above that he will only be able to gradually phase into adminship because he recognizes his   lack of experience. I commend his self-knowedge, and I hope to be able to support in the future.'''
'''Neutral'''. I don't see enough breadth of experience yet, but good luck anyhow.
'''Neutral'''. Ditto - However this editor has provided a constructive comment to an edit I have made and coached me to provide feedback on an appropriate talk page. --
-Co-nominator.
'''Support''' as co-nom.
Thank you God for making someone nominate an editor who I don't have to oppose or vote neutral on. Through Jesus Christ, Amen.--
Another very '''easy support''' per the co-nominators, and the fact that this guy seems to stay as cool as a cucumber, which is sometimes hard to do on this project.
A fine user. Will made good use of the tools.
'''Capable and articulate user. Seems unlikely to abuse the tools.'''
Great attitude.  Trustworthy.  For what more can one ask?  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' -Of course. Good edit history, civil, polite and I believe trustworthy with tools.--
'''Support''' I agonized for hours before making this, likely the most important decision in my long life
'''Support''', we need more good newpage patrol admins.
'''Support''' I've heard of this user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Absolutely''' This user appears to be a cool-headed vandal fighter that has a high level of experience. Bravo.
'''Strong support''' I tried to nom him last year but he refused. '''
'''Support''' Nice edit history, no apparent block history.  Based on some of his talk page, and other contributions he MORE than knows what he is doing. He has my vote.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by

'''support''' - One who values the consumption of tea enough to form his identity on wikipedia based upon it, can't be bad.:)
'''Support''' No concerns here. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Coffee Support''' No problem with Tea though...
'''Support''' I love tea <3
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' I've encountered TeaDrinker in a couple of places and I am sure he would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - per what other people have said.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Btw, '''yep'''. I don't believe you're a Matthew-sock... —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Long overdue. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''What took this so long?''' TD is one of the calmest and most level-headed people on the whole project. His ability to stay cool and civil in provocative situations is truly amazing.
'''Support'''. A thoroughly wonderful editor who I've been involved with in the past! Like a cup of tea, he serves only to calm nerves, and then serves as a caffeine boost to get on with editing. Good work that man.
Not a big fan of tea, but this guy I can '''support'''. Good luck!
I'm
'''Support''', even though he's really a sockpuppet of Jimbo –
'''Support''' looks fine --
'''Support''' File under "thought he was already an admin" (probably because he's been around so long). Level-headedness is a great quality for an admin. <b>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Has my trust.
'''Support even though Im a coffee guy''' :P Looks good to me, will do well cleaning up.<br/>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin already!  I could've sworn I'd already voted for you... Weird.  I need to lay off the sauce.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' - very good set of contributions and good understanding and knowledge displayed. Great user. And I must agree with you, tea is one of my more preferred beverages. ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' due to huge number of edits, especially mainspace, on topics requiring expert attention.  It would be very useful to have an expert biologist like this at AfD, for vandalism, etc.
'''Support'''. Solid editor. No issues. --
'''Support''' Excellent editor, with whom I have on occasion interacted in a wholly friendly fashion. Very good experience of and knowledge of wikipedia. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' good editor will make a good admin.
'''Support''', a civil user with an admirable record. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Trustworthy (and with a great username :)
'''Support''' User has great Patience, does not bite newbies, and stands as a role model for Wikipedians he encounters as I see it. -
'''Support''' As per track see no concerns.
'''Support''' Great job so far, definitely worthy of a higher workload of tedious tasks.
'''Support''' - everything seems to be in order. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Who could object?--
'''Support'''.  Seems to make an excellent contributions, no concerns I'm aware of, a user name after mine own heart (is it too soon to blanket oppose other caffeinated-beverage-oriented user names), and I'll even forgive the redundancy of "co-nomination" as a bona fide timing issue, rather than a "pile-on".
'''Support'''.  TerriersFan is a source machine.  We both frequent [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools]], and I've seen him turn half-baked little school stubs into well-attributed, policy-compliant articles through the use of research and citations.  Also, although we often find ourselves on opposite sides of the inclusionary/deletionary fence, I've always known him to be civil and patient with those of differing viewpoints.  I'll let other people analyze his edit counts; based on my personal experience, his quality contributions entitle him to the extra buttons. --
'''Support''' although I would like to see detailed response on question 1 to show user's full appreciation of the subject matter. On a off-topic note, I think putting vote count at the bottom of the page is enough. It will force users to at least glance through the answers by the candidate. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support''' As Butseriouslyfolks.--
'''Support''' Answers show a willingness to help out anywhere, which is key.  Mainspace contributions are above reproach.  I see no reason why not.  And "Fan" in the user name shows character.--
'''Support''', obviously. As a side point I'd like to add that I'm not happy with the tally being moved from the top, but I realise that's a result of ongoing discussion, and isn't the candidate's fault. <font face="Verdana">

'''Support''' - Everybody should be an Admin no matter how many edits they have made just as long as they have never vandalise Wikipedia...Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Weak support'''.  Excellent contributor, though answer to question 1 is pretty weak and leaves some questions as to why this user really needs admin tools. However there's no reason to oppose the nomination or suspect that he'll abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' - This user is proficient in what they do, some small problem areas, but they are doing a wonderful job, and surely they must be half decent if they got put here?
'''Support''' This candidate looks like someone who should have adminship.
'''Support''' Simply as a matter of credentials, this candidate more than meets my expectations.  I'm worried about the copyright issues, and about the sparse answer to Q1 (which my as-yet-unanswered follow-up question was intended to elucidate).  Deep down though, when I ask "Is candidate likely to abuse the tools?" I answer no.  So I'll support unless further adverse arguements are made.
'''Support''' This user has made some excellent contributions and I greatly support his nomination. I have been a contributor of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools]] for some time now and his contributions to the project are outstanding, he is both articulate and civil in the discussions and often includes new deletion proposals. I think overall the user will bring a level of civility and depth to the admin community and especially at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]].
'''Support''' Great contributions. --
'''Weak support''' I find the concerns of opposers very much valid although not quite enough so to oppose myself.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user would abuse the admin tools.
'''support''' Why not? doesnt seem to have any major flaws. So I support. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Support''' There are few Wikipedians who have been as thorough and determined to add sources and improve articles. Growth in participation over the past few months seems to bode well for a role as an admin.
'''Support''' Good editor, with concise and good edit skills.  Great pictures, and good job on the mainspace.
'''Support''' Opponents raise some good points: not all decisions have been perfect, not everyone shares candidate's inclusionist approach, particularly for schools. However, on the whole, candidate has a good record of spot improvements bringing articles closer to snuff showing thorough work with good attention to detail, consideration for policy, civility, and helpfulness to the project. There is every reason to believe that candidate will prove an asset with the ever-growing backlog of administrative work. --
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''', anyone that wants to tackle image backlogs gets an autosupport from me.--
'''Support''' - I am surprised and somewhat disappointed with some of the opposition. It seems unfair to pillory a good editor for a single mistake. As far as I can see he is a civil editor capable of painstakingly accurate edits and attention to detail is needed in an admin. I would rather have an admin who is mature enough to admit a mistake, and has learnt from it, rather than someone who claims never to have made one!
'''Support''': I do not see anything wrong with this user. Seems to be a great contributer to the project and plenty of experience. Should be a good asset as an administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - per BlueValour: ''As far as I can see he is a civil editor capable of painstakingly accurate edits and attention to detail is needed in an admin.''
'''Support'''.  His recent contributions seem to show that he does understand policy. I think he should get the extra buttons. --
'''Support'''. All of his problem images are in the past, and he has acknowledged there are prblems with many of those images and their use here. He has also indicated that he won't be using admin tools to participate in image-related discussions, though I hope that's only until he better understands the section. I don't think he'll abuse the tools, and I think he'll be an asset as an admin. ···
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He and I have been known to have differing opinions about school articles, but I consistently find his edits appropriate and helpful to the articles, and his opinions reasonable and not dogmatic. He supports school articles by improving them, which is much more effective than mere argument. '''
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy and likely to overcome any mistakes.
'''Support''' Nothing in the opposition leads me to believe he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' without prejudice. --
'''Support''' As Davewild--
'''Support'''.  Answers to questions resolved my concerns about image policy.
'''Support''' as a result of the [[User:Rooot|Rooot]] exchange - I want admins to step in to stop edit warring and he shows that he is prepared to.
'''Weak support''' While I am concerned about the copyright policy issues, there is a proper place for fair use (and logos/crests such as [[:Image:Stthomasmorelogo.gif|this one]] are a perfect example. Responses on AfD issues seem reasonable. The answers to questions 4 and 10 encourage me.
'''Support''' The candidate's answers with respect to [[WP:PII|PII]] and [[WP:IAR|IAR]] evidence the judicious temperament, deliberative demeanor, and respect for the community and the consensus thereof that are quite auspicious in a prospective admin.  As [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]], I have (essentially) no unallayed image-related concerns, especially because I think it plain that, qua admin, TerriersFan will act only whereof he can be sure he knows; his contributions seem to make clear that his judgment is, on the whole, quite fine, and I trust that he will not partake of tasks with the policies relevant to which he is not well acquainted and that he is well able to appreciate where any policy weaknesses might lie, such that I am quite confident that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of TF's being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Support'''.  A very strong editor.  The candidate needs to bone up a little on images and copyright policy.  This small deficiency isn't enough to dissuade me from supporting, as I get the impression he will refine his approach in this area as well as overall.  I hope I do as well if and when I start working on images.  '''''
'''Support''' User would benefit the project from having the use of admin tools.
Serious concerns have been raised about this candidate's understanding of image copyright issues. We are a free encyclopedia and this is basic to Wikipedia, anyone who hasn't got that 100% isn't suitable. Address these concerns and I'll reconsider next time.--
Oppose per concerns about copyright policies.  The candidate's image contributions are a mix of nonfree content used in circumstances that do not seem to me to be consistent with our nonfree content use rules, and free content that by rights should have been uploaded to the Commons.  For example, while [[:Image:Stthomasmorelogo.gif|school crests]] may seem like a positive addition to the article on a school, they are not necessary, and adding them is not, in my opinion, necessary to the article.  I have grave concerns about promoting someone whose attitudes toward nonfree content seem so loose, especially when this candidate has declared an intention to focus in this area if promoted.
'''Oppose''' per both above. If you intend on working in the most backlogged categories, you ''must'' know image policy, since that's where all the backlogs are. Will you abuse the tools? No. But will you ''misuse'' them? That is quite likely, until you get more experience with the things you'll work on. -
'''Oppose.'''  He is indeed a source machine, as [[User:Butseriouslyfolks|Butseriouslyfolks]] correctly cites, but all too often the blizzard of sources he provides for school stubs are blatant trivial mentions and seem far more oriented towards towards fighting the Keep-All-Schools corner on AfDs than otherwise.  I'd be less concerned if there was evidence of significant work to improve school articles that ''weren't'' under threat of AfD, or evidence that he supported deletion of school articles which ''didn't'' satisfy the requirements of [[WP:V]], but as it stands there's reason for concern over nominee's willingness to apply Wikipedia policies in an neutral fashion, ''sans'' preconceptions.
Per image issues.
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov. Image problems must be resolved before candidate can be trusted not to misuse the mop.
I'm not convinced he knows the image copyright policy, but I'd be happy to support if he promises to stay away from it or sticks in the work to educate himself. -
'''Neutral''' the picture of Derrick Lonsdale is taken from a website [http://www.prevmedgroup.com/lonsdale.php] and is clearly a replaceable fair use image, so should not be used on the article per our image policies; on his userpage TerriersFan's claims to have created the [[Derrick Lonsdale]] article, which isn't true. I am also concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oberon_Middle_School&diff=prev&oldid=123125353 this] edit which was reverted by a vandal-bot - the candidate also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TerriersFan&diff=prev&oldid=123126471 removed the bot warning] claiming in the edit summary it was "nonsense". I went through many of your last month's contributions and there's a lot of good work there, but I am yet to be convinced I trust you with the tools. I am open to persuasion otherwise, though.
'''Neutral''' - considering his answer to Q1, I'm disappointed that [[:Image:Derrick_Lonsdale.jpg]] is a replaceable fair use image for a living person. Even if TerriersFan had included this image for a good reason, there isn't a fair use rationale to explain.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose, per Doc, Kelly and Gwernol. --
'''Neutral''' while I don't require you have every little bit of copyright policy, you need more experience in image use.--
'''Neutral''' as described above at my switched opposition opinion.
'''Neutral''' Trusted user, but its not clear that he understands policy as well as he should. I do not understand the 'oppose because he incorrectly uploaded an image seven months ago' positions. --
As nom.
'''Support''' If you didn't babysit the hip-hop articles, my experience here would be much more difficult. My hat is off to you for your endless patience and hard work. <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''  Nice amount of experience, good work on Hip-Hop articles. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">

I've seen this working on the hip-hop articles: a great article-writer/improver, and in question 1, he plans to continue that work, as well as clear backlogs, which is excellent.
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' No reason not too! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' - I've had some great interactions with this user and I can honestly say that he would make an absolutely wonderful admin. When I went through the [[G-Unit]] article cleaning out "gangster slang", my communications with him through the process showed that he is a dedicated and hardworking individual keen on supporting the Wikipedia Project as a whole. I whole heartedly support this candidate with fiery enthusiasm!
Definitely. I've seen this guy around a lot on the rap articles, which as everyone knows are constant targets of vandalism. It's tough work cleaning up that junk, and we definitely could use more help.
'''Support''' - It would be nice to see it happening :D --
'''Support''' great editor, deserves it--
'''Support''' - Great Editor, he always keeps the hip hop articles in good shape and he has helped me out since I joined, so in my opinion he is seems like a good editor who has proved he can be an admin. - Keep It Real -
'''support''' Dedicated editor, would not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - He's calm and cool. He does a great job with keeping the hip hop articles in shape. I don't see how he'll abuse the tools. <span style="font-family:copperplate gothic light">
'''Support''' - Per nom, and I also liked the usage of quotations from other users in the nom.
'''Support''' A very good user who is calm and cool. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Yep. I've seen you around, and, from what I've seen, you appear to be calm, rational, and civil. <font style="background:#990000;color:#FFFFFF;border:2px solid #999999">
'''Support'''. Boss is '''BOLD'''.
'''Support''' Great work in admin areas of Wikipedia, has a solid understanding.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great work in admin areas of Wikipedia, also would not abuse the tools.
'''Strong support'' for anyone who can work in that area of the encyclopedia without violating BLP, NFCC, NPOV, and other bits of alphabet soup... I might have preferred a month or so more of solid work in admin areas, but what the hell. :) ~
'''Support''' - Per nom.--
'''Support''' we do need more admins working on these sorts of articles. No serious objections presented below... although I don't like flashy sigs personally, that's not really a good reason to oppose adminship. --
'''Support''' I have no problem with the UN or sig, despite (IMO) ridiculous objection below. I can see this nominee does good work in his area of expertise and generally seems clued up enough on policy to be worthy of the mop & bucket. Also, he is humble enough to admit areas for expansion of experience and I haven't seen anything which would make me think he'd abuse the position. We all make mistakes from time to time. --'''
'''Certainly''' - I recently review you for your editor review and you looked to be doing an excellent job. You're a level headed guy and always keep your cool. More than anything though, you're extremely friendly and your a good guy to have around here.

'''Support''', per my questions, and above. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' Some of my reasons come from above comments. Also, seems to have good knowledge of the necessities. '''
'''Support''' per the many reasons above. --
'''Support''' though I hate the whole "gangsta" thing --'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Doing excellent work in an area I often have difficulty finding good sources. Courteous, cooperative, seems very capable.
'''Support''', great article writer.
'''Support'''. A fine editor, should be good as an admin. <small>
'''Support''' - plenty of edits in a very short time, consistent use of edit summaries, and civil at AfD.  We could use another admin at AfD who is familiar with hop-hop music, which is often subject to [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] nominations and votes.
'''Support''' Obviously a valuable contributor who is to be trusted.
'''Support''' won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Smart, level-headed, and knows his way around Wikipedia. A no-brainer. --
'''support''' cool name, looks like a GOOD editor.
'''Support''' If you plan to work on AfDs and speedies, it'd be good to see more experience there. Also, I've looked at the last 500 contribs and I recommend using the preview button more frequently. It'll increase the overall quality of the edits. I often see very minor things take up a lot of edits.
'''Support''' It's all good! -
'''Support'''. I don't recall interacting with him personally, but I've noticed his contributions in the past, and been favorably impressed by them. -
I'm
I '''approve''' this.
Consider tuning down the sig a little bit (bit hypocritical given my past sigs)... but apart from that, everything's fine. Seem to have good knowledge of policy; will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. Does a lot of work on GA pages, and is very friendly and amenable. --
I see no reasons why not to support:) Good luck!--
'''Support''' As per Track.See no concerns.
'''Support''' See nothing that makes me think will not make a good admin.
Switching to '''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, and this is not a problem user.
'''Support''' I am relieved I was not too late to give my support for an editor who is more than deserving of the mop.
'''Support''' Does good work in an underapreciated area of Wikipedia.--
'''Oppose''' <s>for now</s>, per IFD contribution and current answer to Q4.  --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)  Continued inattention to detail could cause inappropriate image deletions. --
Inappropriate signature and username, only been here 4 months. I believe a few more months experience may be needed.--[[User:Professional Deletionist|Professional Deletionist]] 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC) - Stricken out as user has been indefinitely blocked.
'''Neutral''' I would support, if there the user has more experience outside elements related to the [[G-Unit]] probably needs more experience for WP:RFPP and more vandalism fighting.--
'''Neutral''': per [[User:Kscottbailey]].--<b><font color="#002BB8">
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs, but appears to believe that there are administrative tasks which are more tedious than deletion backlogs, on which point he is sadly mistaken –
'''Support'''. I don't think this user will use the tools abusively. Much experience time-wise.
'''Support''' - been here a while and whenever I've seen him(?) around, I see he knows policy and as J-stan above me notes, I find it very unlikely that he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I've seen you around; civil--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
I, too've seen you around. You seem civil, and, I can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' no reason not to. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' based on time and experience, although I have minor concerns re: the number of edits (less than 3,000) and variety of edits to show knowledge of the breadth of WP. Apears to have learned lessons from last RfA.
'''Support''' Good work on the Avatar the Last Airbender. We need more people helping out on SD pages. --
'''Support''' Forget about what [[User:Rackabello]] said while opposing. It is normal for users to go on long breaks.
'''Courtesy Support''' Sorry for my last statement.
'''Support''' <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
Seems like a good user to me.
'''Support''' This is a good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Good editor, despite his somewhat eccentric areas of interest ([[Pokémon]] and [[Avatar: The Last Airbender]]). Understands the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Diamond_and_Pearl&diff=prev&oldid=159688572 sourcing] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sokka%27s_Master&diff=prev&oldid=161328695 policies] and is active in counter-vandalism. Also participates in AfDs like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Runaway (Avatar: The Last Airbender)|this one]] within his areas of interest, and clearly understands the basic tenets of deletion policy. All in all, seems like a good enough candidate, and I don't really care about wikibreaks (I've been semi-inactive myself the last few days due to [[freshers' week]] and resultant tiredness).
'''Support''' - Good 'pedia building. I like Protectors...cheers,
'''Support''', seems sane.
'''Support''' I've noticed him all around the mainspace, and I am very happy with what I've seen. '''
While TPE isn't as active an editor as I would prefer to see, there's definitely no issues about whether or not he can be trusted with the tools. Ultimately, I consider that to be more important than a massive edit count, or spending days on end editing the project. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
I've seen Placebo around long enough to trust him. Good luck! · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''' I appreciate your efforts in Wikipedia Signpost.
'''Support''' Even though this editor is not as prolific as some other recent admins, what they have done is good and has been sustained.
'''Support''' Nothing indicates a likelihood of running amok with the buttons, plus I am a [[Siouxsie and the Banshees]] fan (not that it made a difference...)
'''Support''' More than qualified. Adminship isn't a big deal. --'''
I'm
'''Support''', although I really would like to see higher user talk interface overall. --
'''Support''' we've had successful RFAs with the edit count in the 2500-3000 range recently and they've done well once becoming sysops. I am confident The Placebo Effect will too.
'''Support''' you seems to have the experience to be admin. Good luck.
As long as we don't just ''think'' he's working. ~
'''Support''' As per EVula
'''Support''' - This user is just about ready I think. Strong Wikipedia-space and article edits make up for a weak overall edit count. No reason not to be trusted. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. Has answered questions to satisfaction and appears to have the right experience and attitude.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good work in speedy area from time to time, seems to know the ropes.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' This user appears to have a grasp in the areas of policy for where he wants to help out. Lower edit counts than most, but I don't suspect it to be a problem.
'''Support''' Positive attitude, good answers to the questions, good work identifying CSD stuff. No issues here for me. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Needs more editing time in  a broad range of topics.  As I've written before, janitors are fine, but admins should be leaders.  No leadership here as i read from contributions and answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough experience yet.
'''Oppose''' - Was going to support, but noticed the user has far too little edits, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. Seems like a good editor, but I think he needs more time. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' - I don't think that this user would abuse the tools, but a few more edits might be useful. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' as nom and as member, cricket WikiProject --
'''Support''' - but of course! :) -
'''Strong support''' Overqualifed. :) &ndash;
'''Support''' I nom'd TRM myself a while back, however he had the wisdom to decline, feeling he wasn't ready. He's an excellent user in every way.  <span style="color:#ff9900">
'''Strong support''' (admin vandal fighter).
'''Troppus gnorts'''. A fabulous candidate, my pleasure to support (again). Best of luck! '''''
'''Support.''' It's time.  Good luck.
'''Support''': Looks to be overqualified. Good luck! '''
Duh. No-brainer. Knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' excellent candidate.--
'''Support''' Pleasure to work with, will undoubtedly make a good admin.
'''Support''' Excellent contribution to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football|WikiProject Football]] <u><font color="black">
'''Support''' from my limited interaction with him, great candidate.
'''Support'''. Concerns of the previous nomination in regards to lack of encyclopedic contributions were overwhelmingly addressed. I hold full confidence in this candidate.
'''Support''' Great job addressing previous concerns; excellent candidate.
'''Support''':WoW!!! --
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; need I leave a justification? <tt>;)</tt> good luck ~
We have [[Wikipedia:List of administrators]]. Can we create [[Wikipedia:List of editors who aren't sysops, but who we think are sysops, and who might as well be sysops because of everything they do]]? I think it would help avoid a lot of confusion. -- '''
'''Strong Support'''&ndash;Been doing great work at [[WP:CRIC]]. Well-deserved! Well done!--
'''Support'''. Clear need for tools with no chance of abuse. - '''
'''Strong Support'''. I was sure you were one. Way overdue RFA. -
'''Strong support''' a very valuable editor who will do even more great work if given the tools.
'''Support''' of course...  Outstanding Wikipedian.
Unnecessary pile-on support.
'''Very strong support''' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support'''. This user is long overdue. Sounds clean. '''
'''Support''' I feel much more comfortable supporting this time than I did before.
'''Support''' after a couple of edit conflicts trying to edit this RfA. User looks very good to me.
<s>'''Oppose''' - not enough category talk edits!</s> Just kidding. Support, obviously. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strongest possible support''' - an extremely competant editor, I completely trust the candidates judgement. He should be an administrator already. Experience is key to being an administrator and The Rambling Man has certainly got that.
'''Strong support''' in agreement with Black Falcon. We need that category. :)
'''Support''' - as co-nom. '''''
'''Support'''.  All my experience with this user has been positive.--
'''Support'''. Maybe even ''over''qualified for the job... --
'''Strong Support''' - (ec)Ahh.. I thought you were already an Admin..Give him the tools so that he can start building Wiki(and repairing it in most cases)..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Full support'''- Brilliant editor, always thought he actually was an admin. I believe he deserves the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good...
'''Support''' No duh... --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Strong Support.''' - Get to it.  --
'''Support.''' If you want the demotion take it! <span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Top man - deserves this.
'''Support''' - Seems fine, plus per some of the folks who opposed the last RfA. -
'''Support''' - no problems, and I like his response to my question.  --
'''Support'''. Solid experience, good attitude, clear answers. All round good bloke.
'''Support''' - good contributor who is very helpful to other users and knows that the site is here for the benefit of the readers, which is what an admin should be like.  --<b>
'''Support''' Looks great all-around; good luck!
'''Support''' A very good contributor and an excellent member of the cricket project.--'''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I feel confident in this user to mop wisely... &mdash;
'''Support''' Definately a good admin here.
'''Strong support''' - Strong support. '''
'''Allman Brothers Support'''. I hope your name is in reference to the song...but if it isn't...well don't let that happen. Anyway, TRM is a fantastic editor on Wikipedia, and I think he's demonstrated a thorough knowledge of policy and he will do a fine job as an administrator. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' Excellent work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Supports''' --
Very, very much so. '''
'''Strong Support''' due to a very excellent contribution record. I trust The Rambling Man with the tools, and sincerely doubt he'd ever abuse them. The changes made since the last RfA contributed heavily to my decision, as well. I think The Rambling Man will be an asset as an admin here. ···
'''Support''' per all of the above. Excellent contributor. It's overdue. --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' His record shows him to be an excellent editor and I'm sure he'd do a tremendous job.
On review of the candidate's participation with the Football and Cricket WikiProjects, and his recent article talk edits, I'm satisfied that this editor has sufficient collaborative experience to meet with my expectations for an administrator.  I am therefore pleased to support his candidacy.
'''Support''' - yep, the FAs are a big plus :) cheers,
'''Support''' -- <b>

'''Strong support''' Breaking the terms of my wiki-break to come along and show my support for this excellent candidate. Gone from strength to strength since the last one. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely, should be an asset to the admin team. —
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' - An excellent, hard-working user.
'''Support''' For extreme insanity, and per last time. (Still can't believe you're not already an admin!) ;-) · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Excellent work all round, as far as I can see.
strong '''Support''' I somehow doubt another voice in support is needed, given that you've even managed to win over Kelly Martin & have a current count of 71-0-0, but you're one of the best around <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' has the attitude, very helpful, everything an admin needs. '''
'''Boring'''. —'''
'''Yeap'''<span style="font-size:95%">--
'''support''' in common to my [[w:de:User:ABF/Bewertungskriterien|evaluation criterions]]
'''"I thought you already were one" Support'''.  This is destined for [[WP:100|the list]]!
'''Support''' Only positive experiences of this user.
'''Support''' Experienced, responsive to suggestions and constructive criticism.
'''Support'''. Definitely.--
'''Support''' as per currently unanimous consensus. No reason I can see not to do so. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">
'''Support''' per everyone and everything.
'''Support''': User seems very experienced and plenty of edits. Looks very willing to help the project. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - A fine user since day one. --
'''Support''' -Like last time. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' In my few dealings with this editor he's been very calm, reasonable, and diligent. I support him fully.
'''Strong Support''' You deserve it!
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate, well experienced and has made some excellent contributions on making articles reach FA status and helping in WikiProjects.
'''Support'''- brilliant editor, and a noob is saying this.
I'm
'''Support''' Implement the reverse snowball clause, somebody, please!
Kelly supported you? Auto-'''support''' then.--

'''S''' - Nothing wrong, all positives for me. --
Yes. &mdash;
'''Support''' He would benefit wikipedia a lot if he became an administrator.
'''Need another three for the ton''' approval for the candidate.--
'''Support''', noting resiliency and teamwork.
Sound on BLP --
'''Support''' but I do fear that his editing will be affected.
-- <b>
'''Support'''. He's not afraid to refer to the help pages, which is always a good thing. Appears level-headed. My only fear is that his FA production will suffer.
'''Qapla<nowiki>'</nowiki>'''
'''Support''' as before. --
'''Support'''.  I voted for you last time, and I haven't changed my mind.
'''Support'''.--
--
'''Support''' as per all the above. --
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''Support'''- looks good. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
He isn't one already? '''Support'''.
'''Support'''; surprised he wasn't one already. As an aside, thanks for de-vandalizing my user pages.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - A very good candidate indeed.

Not wishing to pile-on anything more than a couple of dittos to above and my '''tick of support'''.--
'''Support''' without a doubt, one of the best vandal fighters on the site. Great work. ~
'''Support''' of course! <i><b>
'''Support''' Good Answers. I'm sure he will [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] and [[WP:BOLD|be bold, but not reckless]]. <sup>
'''Support''' Should have been made admin along time ago.--
'''Support''' my oppose last time was on the basis of a paucity in article space contribution.  Since then, The Rambling Man's has made droves of impressive article space contributions, including to the FA's as listed in the nom.  Well done!  Hope you enjoy adminship! --
Unquestionably.
'''Support''' - i supported him for the first RfA, and reading over his re-nom, it looks like he tripled his efforts. i'm quite taken aback by his experience and his motivation.
'''Support:''' I thought he was one. <span style="font-size:97%;">'''<font color="#229922">''~''</font>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><font color="#229922">[[User:Magnus animum|Magnus animum]]</font></span>'''&nbsp;∵&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Magnus animum|∫]] [[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|φ]]
'''Support''' - I have no problem with "pile-on-support-votes", clearly.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Strong support''' I ''really'' did think this user was alredy an administrator. He is always civil and has displayed excellent judgement. He does not have the super-high edit count of some admins but I really don't see any reason to oppose him--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
Might as well throw my '''support''' in early, since he should accept momentarily.
'''Support''' I don't usually agree with TRE, but I've never seen a post of theirs that I couldn't understand a sound reasoning behind<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' as co-nom.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I have run across him/her a few times, and have found nothing wrong. A good, all-round editor with participation right across the project. --<font color="Red">
(Edit conflict)'''Finally!''' I've been waiting for this for a while. I thought you already had an RfA though. Whatever. TRE has been a pleasure to work with closely in creating the [[WP:CVU-TF|CVU taskforce]]. No reason at all to believe he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good candidate, although I don't know you, other than coming across your comments in random discussions. --
'''Support''' I don't normally participate in RFAs but this is a user I have come across many times across Wikipedia, particularly in counter vandalism and I am confident that TRE would use admin tools sensibly.
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Absolutely''' Excellent candidate for the admin tools. '''
'''Wait a sec...''' - I honestly thought he was an admin! Random is very sensible and I'm sure he will do a fine job! Good luck!
I thought you were already an admin as well. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Doubly [[Help:Edit conflict|conflicted]] support''' &ndash; I know Random and he is the embodiment of the temperament and judgment needed to be an administrator. Good luck! —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Strongest support ever possible''' - the man has got ''excellent'' communication skills, and always helps out new users. He is also active in admin-realted areas. Good luck :-) --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
'''Support''' This user deserves adminship. If I could, I would love to co. nom., but anyway, I wish you luck!! I also beat a few of the noms. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' Been waiting for this Rfa...of course!
'''Strong support''' A very civil and friendly user who would ''never'' abuse the tools and would certainly make a great admin. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - always impressed by 'pedia builders. cheers,
'''Support''' - good contributions, civil editor and always helpful to others. Knows policy well. Yup! -
'''Support''' No reason not too.
'''Support''' - I'm going to support. Good editor, a lot of experience.
'''Strongest support ever''' - Hell, School is evil. I'm '''supporting''' so late because of that; and as nom. --
'''Damn!''' That's another editor I forgot to nominate! '''''
'''Support''' To put in short, TRE is a great Wikipedian. -
'''Weak Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Weak Support''' - low project namespace edits concern me a little - but until someone points out a substantiated reason why not I'll go with support. --'''
'''Supoort''' An excellent contributor, vandal fighter and civil editor. I see no reason to oppose. Random deserves an admin position.
'''Support''' Seen him around, consistent, civil, helpful, lots of editing goodness; I think he'll make a fine admin.
This user absolutely deserves the mop <small>(I swear I thought he already had it... I don't know much, do I?)</small> and H2O's nomination absolutely is sexier (sorry, Husond). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' I thought you were an admin, I even thought I remembered your RFA! Faulty memory aside, a great, reliable editor with trustworthy noms. ~
'''Strong support''' Very consistent, great editor.
'''Strong support''' per the co-noms. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''. Another great candidate; no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I am confidant that giving this user the tools will be of benefit to Wikipedia. --''
'''Support'''. He wasn't one already? <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, consistently calm and thoughtful.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' per all of the above. Thanks for serving. --<font face="Futura">
'''Holy Cow!''' Like most users I show support for, I thought he was already an admin >.< -
'''Support''', he is a great editor who has no reason not to receive the mop.
'''support''' the fair use etc guildlines have changed quite recently so it's understandable if someone was temporarily confused or not sharing the views of some others.  I like his signature font, and he seems to already do a lot of admin-like work at AfD and other such pages. (sorry I put this in wrong place earlier)
'''Support''' with no concerns, can be trusted.
'''Support''' though I really don't think it's much of a surprise at this point. I've never seen The Random Editor do anything that was bad, either considered by myself personally, or the community. And, obviously, most other people agree with that statement. And the username itself respects the true meaning of the project, that anyone can edit. I'm sure that this will be successful, and I hope to see TRE cleaning up the encyclopedia (sorry, but I couldn't make another mop pun) --
'''Strong,Strong Support''' Would have loved to co-nom, but missed the gun. <font face="Impact">
'''support'''. From what I've seen, TRE has a use for the tools, and I trust that TRE won't abuse them.
'''Strong Support''' This user is always incredibly civil towards everyone and is willing to help out whenever he can. I've always seen very well-reasoned edits from TRE, and honestly cannot believe that he hasn't been made an admin already. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Strong Support''' Great user, I see no reason to oppose him, and we need more admins.--
'''Support''' Good editor, no problems with giving him the tools. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - No problems, I trust this user.  As an aside, I find multiple noms (above much more than two) annoying and unnecessary, but that's certainly not something I hold against the user.  All of my interactions with The Random Editor have been positive, and I am happy to support.  -
'''Support''' seen him around plenty of times, always thoughtful and polite. <b>
'''Support''' Based on comments I've seen on Wikipedia pages and on contribs. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - has all the experience in the right areas and is due for a mop by now.  Despite his mention of a [[WP:BITE|bite]] conflict, he seems as [[WP:COOL|cool]] as a cucumber to me, so I have no worries.
'''Support''' - Good candidate, well-rounded editor, no history of controvertial actions. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' Seen this editor around many times, would be a great admin IMO. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
''' Love.''' If I were 10 years younger and a woman.....
'''Support'''.  Excellent level-headed editor with great contributions, will make a fine admin.
Husond nominated. ~
'''Support''' Nothing I've seen shows me any reason this user would abuse admin powers.
No problems here whatsoever. —'''
'''Support'''—Contributions look good; no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Great contributor, no concerns here. -- <small>'''
'''Support''' Belated, but strong. No need to add to the nominators comments. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Not only a fantastic contributor, but a bright, beautiful person who has much to teach us when it comes to treat others with kindness and respect. With more people like Random around, I know our project can only become better and better.
'''Strong support''' He wasn't already an admin??? I thought he was! <b><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Surprised Support''' You mean he isn't ''already'' an admin? The travesty!
'''Support''' listens to advice and works to improve himself. That's the sort of administrator we want.
'''Support''' -- this user will apply the tools fairly, and intelligently.  That's all I really ask for.  --
'''Support''' User will not abuse tools. --
'''Support''' - the Random editor will become a '''certified admin!''' --
'''Support''' the editor has been around a long time, showing reasonable character and judgement.  I see no reason not to support, the evidence suggests that the editor can be trusted with the tools, eh?
'''Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong <small/>(Ooh...)<small/> support'''- well, comments all made.<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Support. If Phaedriel thinks that well of you, you're either a master of mind-control or you'll make a great admin. Or both! &ndash;
'''STRONG Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''' will be good with the tools.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
<s>'''Baleet'''</s> '''Support''', though I don't like random things. Chickens are cool. Oh, and great candidate and all that. &mdash;
'''Support''' - TRE is trustworthy. Also a good person. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' I have seen Random around a lot, and he greatly deserves the mop.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">
I'm
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support'''. I see no problems.  '''
'''Support''' Impressive track excellent editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
Per sock. --
'''Support''' - I see The Random Editor around now and then, though I don't remember any specific direct interactions. It seems clear to me from these times that The Random Editor would use the mop conscientiously.
'''Support''', good experience and contributor. I hope you become a good admin too. Good luck.
'''Random support'''. A good contributor who should make a find admin. Also, I find the candidate's choice of username to be exceptional: The Random Editor. In the context of Wikipedia, we are all editors, after all, scattered randomly across the globe, separated by distance, lifestyle, and beliefs. Yet, when we converge in this one place, we work in (relative) peace and harmony toward a common goal. Human nature is such that ... oops, philosophical theses belong at [[WP:RFAR]] not [[WP:RFA]]. My mistake! '''
'''Easy'''. You'll do great, I see you everywhere- you're always doing an exceptional job. Cheers- '''
'''Ready''' - he is ready for the tools. He should use them well. -- <strong>
'''Support''' a good user who will use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' I am confident that this user will act with the best intentions in mind. He has earned the mop.
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--

'''Oppose''' -- I am impressed by what [[User:The Random Editor|The Random Editor]] has done.  However, because of his sometimes questionable decisions on identifying vandalism/assuming good faith, I think it would be better for him to continue as a normal user.
You may find this surprising considering I nommed, but I've changed to neutral. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pedro_2&curid=13168166&diff=157262625&oldid=157262399 This] irks me too much. '''
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose, per DM right above. I'll switch back if you can satisfactorily explain why you said that.· <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' I've been watching this RFA wondering if I should take part or not. I think the diff in H<sub>2</sub>O's oppose sort of sums it up - RFA is not a game to try and win the most points on. Good luck if you pass, which you almost certainly will, but I can't support this. '''
'''Strong Support''' excellent candidate. I would fully trust this user with the tools. -- <strong>
'''Support''' I'm supporting this user based on ''prima facie'' evidence that this is the latest in a line of excellent self noms! support also based on previous interaction, contrib. history and that fact that I see the user all over the place helping out. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
<negative> Most mainspace edits is to [[homework]]? You got to be kiddin' I was going to support... and edits to John Howard??? Nope, I'm opposing you... :)<!-- It's a joke, peoples... --> You ought to be banned for your dreadfully good contributions...</negative> --
'''Support''' - You had me at ''prima facie''... In looking through your contributions, I see pretty much what you describe above. Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Off the wall question: Homework, what drew you to that article in particular?--
'''Support''' &ndash; No problems here either.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence that the user has a clue. Well...not always but it's true in this case. His edit history shows he has well rounded experience and I don't see any reason not to trust him with the tools, what more is there?
'''Support''' I am impressed with the answers to the questions.  I was puzzled by DarkFalls bizzare comments in apparent opposition (unless these are a joke), but I looked at the edits to Homework, which were only 35 and couldn't find a problem at John Howard. It seems that this editor is willing to take on mundane articles and make them much better.  Good luck! --
'''Support''' Genuine cliche moment for me; excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Good solid editor with a handle on policy. <b>
'''Support''' I view this self-nomination as ''prima facie'' evidence that this user wants to ''accept'' new tasks.
'''Support'''. I've seen you around, and I thought you were an admin.
'''Support''' No problems; an experienced user in AFD and elsewhere.
'''Support''' All over everywhere - and love the hand on your userpage. Very original <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - Significant article contribs, experience in Wikipedia space and interaction with other users. I think he's gathered enough experience now. Looks good. Should be a good admin. I don't mind the picture on your userpage. ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Seen you around also, contribution history looks good. Mop gently. -
'''Support''' - The very beginning sentence in his nom did it for me. Also impressive contribs. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Definitely. Solid work. —
[[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Eh, why not?  I have no issues here, and seems to be a good idea.
'''Support''' Already seen them about, has all the good qualities I look for in an admin.
'''Support''' Good editor, who I would trust with the mop. -
'''Support''' I definitely like your style!  And the willingness to go above and beyond such as for the audio [[Guinea pig]] collection bodes very well!<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' Appreciate this user's input at AFDs and elsewhere.
'''Support''' Nice usage of edit summaries, and I sure this user won't abuse the mop. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support'''; seemingly committed editor.-
'''Support'''; Good editor, plenty of vandal work and could use the tools. Appreciate his boldness in the self-nom.
I'm
'''Supporting''' this candidate. Looks ready to be an admin.
'''Support''' - the_undertow, you are a well-rounded, level-headed editor. I think you'll be a great admin. Here's for a shiny new mop.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Seems like an experienced user, will certainly make good use of the tools in the tasks mentioned in Q1. And, this user actually fulfills the [[:Image:Guinea Pig Chirping.ogg|Guinea pig audio]] requirements for admin candidates! <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Per AFD interactions
'''Support'''. Heaps of plusses, and nothing particularly bad. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' - seems like a good candidate. Opposes are not supported by any apparent evidence.
'''Support''' - as per [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]]..Power hungry people don't run for RfA. they run for bureaucratship..hehe..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Above endorsements enough for me. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Liked especially his answer to Q.3: if you get the tools, I'll definitely be coming to your door regarding Spanish-speaking vandals. ;-)
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' undertow's contributions, which I have mostly encountered through AFD, have been have been completely civil and honest.
'''Rhubarb support''' Thoughtful contributions at AfD, good communication with other editors, no evident problems elsewhere.
'''Support.''' Glad to see a fellow Gnome and an impressive editor up for an Rfa. We need more like you.
'''Support''' - I trust him.  -
'''Support''' - He's how I think an admin should be.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' experienced user.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Trustworthy. Welcome to WP:50. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support'''. What's to hate? I thought this guy was an admin already. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Support''' for the obvious reasons. --
'''Support''' No reason not to! You seem calm, stable, and civil enough :) <font style="background:#990000;color:#FFFFFF;border:2px solid #999999">
'''Support''' A true WikiGnome - her experience is far more extensive than her edit count would suggest, if you have a look at her contributions rather than just number-count.  Excellent candidate, and the fact that she is open to recall makes her all that more attractive.
'''Support'''. Thespian knows her way around. She carries out many admin functions now, bringing them to an admin for the final step. Well deserving of the mop and pail.
'''Support''' Thespian has been steadily contributing quality edits for 6 months now.  The quality and stability is more valuable than the quantity to me.  User page and statements show clear knowledge of the wiki.  Particularly good answer on how to deal with conflict.  (You should do a GA or FA some time, I think from your contribs that you'd be quite good at it and enjoy it.) --
'''Support''' nothing worrisome as far as I can see. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' I have reviewed many of Thespian's contributions with a special view toward interactions with other users. I find these interactions calm, correct and very productive. I am confident this is a solid nom and should be approved.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, lowish edit count offset by high quality contributions.
'''Support''' This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I see nothing that concerns me. I think Thespian will make a very fine, and useful admin. Good luck!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', should make a fine admin.   --
'''Support''' As per JayHenry the quality in her edits is high and she has spent more time editing than an average user.
'''Support''' seriously, editcountitis is not a reason to oppsoe. I'm sure opposers haven't actually taken the slightest glance into the integrity of Thespian's contributions beyond the count --'''
'''Support'''. Wikignomes rule! Seriously, seems well suited and able.

'''Support''' - Reasonable contributor. Aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also a good communicator. --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Should make a fine admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', Wikignomes do rule, and I saw some good article creation in there as well.
'''Support''' She's got a good attitude, a good history of edits, a good history of edit summaries, and so a good risk for handling the mop.  She will make a fine admin, probably better than me.
—&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Per [[User:FayssalF]] and the [[WP:ANI]] thread where you clearly demonstrated your knowledge of policy whilst working politely and colaboratively. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.  I trust this user.--
I think Thespian will do well as an administrator.
'''support''' --
I'm
'''Support''' a good Wikipedian.
'''Support''' I'm really impressed by this user's contribs. As many have noted, we always need more vandal fighters, but we can't forget that we also need some really talented 'pedia builders. :) Good luck!
'''STrong support''' '''
'''Support''', and not just because of the [[Canadian content|Cancon]] ;) --
'''Support''' Get ready for [[Plagues of Egypt#Storm (fiery hail) (9:13 - 9:35) בָּרָד|November]]!
Strong user, will be a good admin. --
'''Support''' per all of the above. She'll do great work as an administrator, no doubt at all.
'''Support''' Great AN/I contribs!
'''Support''', low editcount causes no problem for me, you will be a great admin. Good luck!
No major concerns brought up yet.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''', always need more gnome admins.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' - but of course. No concerns whatsoever here -
'''Support''' because adminship is no big deal.
'''Support'''
'''Shock! Awe! Support!''' I almost never support a Wikipedian with so few Wikipedia namespace edits, but I've seen you around & I like what I've seen. You're very mature and I definitely don't think you'll abuse the tools. You took the confrontation with the user I Already Forgot (I like to call it "Fistigate"), and that shows a lot of professionality and maturity. I think you'll make a great admin. Plus you have a nice name... ;) Cheers,
'''Support'''. Not only did she give good answers to the questions, but her edit history also shows that she behaves as she described above. To those who have an issue with a low edit count, I say that quality outweighs quantity in this situation. —'''
'''Support''' - The answer to question 1 left me with a question of my own. The subsequent answer more than eases my worry. I am with Spawn Man in that I don't often support with so few edits to Wikipedia namespace, however, what edits are there impress me. I think this user will be an asset. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -- Difficult to imagine that she will do something hazardly. --
'''Support''' Good answers. Good contributions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=168910802 Cool in a crisis]. Yup. --
'''Support''' "Grace under pressure" isn't just an album by Rush. <font color="006622">
'''Support''' – seems to know what she's doing. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience...yet.
'''Oppose''' While the editor seems to be a good copyeditor, I disagree with her attitudes to issues of verifiablity and to how other people deal with them. I understand the reasons she needs "power tools". It is high time wikipedia introduce an intermediate position of "power editor" who can do some technical stuff that does not involve judgement of other editors. `'
Answers one and two are poor, has only been consistently editing for 4 months.--
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''', not ready. Needs more NPOV experience and knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''. The user looks legitimate with his edits and has a good edit count. I believe the user should have enough experience to use the sysop tools. &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' User Track is good with over 5000 mainspace edits and over 8000 overall.See no concerns as per track.
'''Support''' Good experience and mainspace contribs. -- <strong>
'''Weak support'''. A lot of experience, considering he only started late last year. Diplomatic and sometimes helping users, for instance with mergers. What I haven't found in his contribs is problem solving in controversial articles, and this is experience that is important for admins. Kudos for the candidate for the honesty he showed when presenting his weak point, but that his a bit authoritiarian apporach at the Al Leong article drove [[User:Bblackmoor]] away is a sad fact. Hence my not overwhelming enthusiasm.
'''Support''', I'm sure you'd do great in your areas of experience. Like Gray said, you may want to ease into the more controversial issues, as you don't have a ''great'' amount of collaborative editing. Has a lot of experience in the [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]], and considering the size of that these days, Tikiwont could be very beneficial. I also see he has a handful of edits at [[WP:ANI|ANI]], which would be another good place for him. I'm not blaming Tikiwont for "making" that user leave Wikipedia, but hopefully he can learn from his mistakes. Thank you very much for sharing that bit of information to us; admittance of mistakes and honesty are very important parts of adminship.<span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' Has lots of experience. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' for everything above.
'''Support''' very good user--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Okay.
'''Support''' - Nice amount of experience, and honesty show. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support'''.  Nothing that worries me.  It is unfortunate that Bblackmoor found it necessary to leave, but I'm guessing that someone who thought of wikipedia as not an encyclopedia, but a "glorified blog" that any moron can edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl_Leong&diff=43348461&oldid=42704935], had deeper issues than Tikiwont.  Especially considering he had already left the project over what appears to be a cleanup tag on the same article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl_Leong&diff=35885852&oldid=35573788].  --
'''Support''', looks good to me.  Congrats on a full year of editing.
'''Support''' well-prepared. Happy to support.
'''Strong support''' per all the administrators that supported this RfA.
'''Support.''' I have no concerns based on a look at his contributions. I liked his frankness in answering the questions. He seems to do mostly gnomish editing. I didn't see him adding much new writing to articles, except that he did good work on [[Towers of Bologna]].  He did perform some non-admin AfD closures that appear correct, and he seems to know policy.
'''Support.''' No problems with this editor.
'''Support''' Good quantity, quality, and variety of edits.  Honesty.
'''Support'''.  I really respect the honesty here.  That's an excellent trait for an administrator.  --
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' Great post count, user seems to have very good understanding of how WP works and functions.
'''Support''' "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom." <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' per edjohnston and gray62--
'''Strong Support''' Per model answer to my Q4. Spot on. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seen this editor around, don't always agree, but is always civil and knows the policies. No reason not to support.
Seems fine.
'''Strong support''' - great editor with wide-range of experience, honest too.
'''Support''' - Definately. This user is experienced in all the right areas. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like could be a good admin.
'''Support'''&ndash; user seems to do a good job in regards to communicating and resolving conflicts.  Great experience, better than a bunch of our other administrators I've seen at ANI at times.  '''
'''Strongly oppose'''. This person's mistake has '''already''' driven off one contributor, and that without even having the tools or authority of an administrator.  I have absolutely '''no confidence''' that this candidate will not abuse the tools and the authority in destructive ways again. Even if his actions unintentional, that's not acceptable. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Strong support''' as nominator. I may be [[mya (unit)|millions of years old]], but I'm not letting anybody beat me to it ;)
'''Strong support''' per noms, after I read their statements properly. Please forgive me for being lazy :P. ''
'''Support''' for the very impressive list of encyclopedic accomplishments. Expert admins are a good thing to have around.
'''Support''', has done good work and would make good use of the anti-vandalism tools.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' Excellent and committed editor, Tim is an FA machine and involved in several projects, should have the tools.
'''Support''' per noms. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' seen him about the place doing good stuff... good luck! '''
'''Support''' but please don't stop churning out the FAs!
'''Support''' I think that this user has demonstrated a need and can be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Strong support''' as co-nominator.  A sterling editor and a golden Wikipedian.
'''Strong support''' Excellent candidate. Does a huge amount of good work. Trustworthy, level-headed, and polite. I have read the bacteria article when it was nominated a while ago. Great article work indeed. -
-
'''Support''' Tim does some good work on medicine related articles.
'''Support''' per Marskell's RfA; in other words, we need more excellent article writers as admins. &mdash; '''
'''How-come-nobody-told-me Strong support''' Tim's FA work is truly invaluable, he is a great writer, responds well to criticism when it arises, follows through on others' suggestions to his work, and actually ''pays attention'' when vandalfighting (unlike [[User:Fvasconcellos|a certain user]] responsible for the aforementioned reversion to [[enzyme]]). He definitely deserves the extra buttons.
'''Strong support''' This editor clearly demonstrates his outstanding commitment to excellence, and would be an excellent choice as admin.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.  Always glad to see a good article-writing from a would-be admin.
'''Support''' per Q4, the answer to which told me more about you than that long boring nomination.
'''Support''' Trusted contributor. Will surely be an useful admin.
'''Support''' Keep up the great work on scientific articles.
'''Support''' It's good to have an editor who can help create Featured Articles who is also a subject matter expert in a biological area. Giving that person the ability to protect articles and block vandals doesn't seem like a risky decision.
'''Support''' A user who shows knowledge of policy, actively contributes to the encyclopedia, participates in Wikipedia processes, and is civil to boot? Yes, support. --
'''Support'''' looks excellent in both article writing and policy.--
'''Support''' per everything above. Highly qualified candidate.
'''Support''' very knowledgeable and effective contributor.
'''Support''' <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/

'''Support''' You are just the kind of admin [[Wikipedia]] needs. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' he is admin material; a great editor and would be a fabulous janitor.
'''Strong support'''. A through and prolific editor (particularly in [[WP:MCB]]) - and I must admit I keep forgetting he isn't an admin already. --
'''Support'''. Solid editor, should use the tools fairly with vandals.
'''Support''', I trust him with the tools.
'''Support'''.  A quality candidate.
'''Support''' A strong candidate.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' voice of reason, great collaborator and productive editor.  Will be more productive with access to these tools and it will surely be good to have more admins who are transparently objective.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' good admin material. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''', excellent candidate <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''', Tim is a good person who has a skilful approach to editing and a deft approach to edit conflicts; I have witnessed this numerous times and strongly support his nomination; he is the type of fair-minded, diplomatic and knowledgeable editor wikipedia needs more of.
I'm
'''Support''' Old cliche, but...he isn't one?
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' - I leave for a weekend, and I miss noms like this. Give him the mop.
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Tim will make a great addition to the admin team. '''
'''Support''', as per Willow's comments.
'''Support''' Tim has done great work on Wikipedia thus far, and I have no doubts that he will continue to keep up the great work as an administrator, both with the admin tasks and article editing. '''
The fact that Tim can articulate the problems with for/against and "criticism of..." sections is already enough to persuade me. I know it doesn't pertain directly to being an administrator, but having a vision for improving the encyclopedia's quality, and the ability to calmly and perceptively critique the status quo, convinces me that he can be trusted as one. --

'''Support'''--
'''Support'''' Candidate is more than qualified. <font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' I was particularly impressed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacteria&diff=prev&oldid=109401233 this recent diff] -- a good example of how not to [[WP:BITE]]. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' We need more admins like Tim IMHO. ·
'''Support''' We need more article writing admins.  '''''
'''Support''' an established editor who has a vast experience in many areas of Wikipedia.  I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' Oh, yes. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' A really fantastic editor.--
'''Support''' Amazing editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' This user has done impressive work and would benefit from having admin tools. --
'''Support''' - Would benefit from having the tools, as has been said numerous times above. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support'''. Great editor.
Popping out of semi-retirement to '''support'''. Wikipedia needs more admins who are committed to expanding the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' From my experiences this user has done a great job helping to improve wikipedia. His contributions to articles related to Biology and Chemistry have been nearly flawless. Not only that but he has helped me a great deal to improve the [[Anabolic steroid]] article and bring it's status up to Good Article.
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I don't know if I'm allowed to vote. But this fellow has written some of the best basic science articles that I have read.
'''Support''', let's just give him the tools already.--
'''S'''upport meltdown. Some editors need admin tools to be good editorss. Administrative skills are developed over time.
Oh, wow. Almost missed this one. &ndash;
'''Support''', the 80th sVote. Excellent editor.
I'm rather unsatisfied by the answers to the questions.  He doesn't seem to have an understanding of the value of administrative process, and doesn't seem to show an understanding of other administrative processes other than blocking.  I don't think he'd ''abuse'' the tools, but I do see the potential for ''misuse'' of the tools, and while that doesn't entail a disruptive intent, it is nonetheless damaging to the project.  ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
<s>'''Oppose</s>Neutral''' I really don't like your answer to Q1. Being an admin generally means reviewing and carrying out other users' requests, not getting warlord status so you can have tighter control over articles you watch. While I agree you are a good editor and you can help fight vandals, I would not like to see you blocking hordes of people on your favorite articles (getting in the habit of that could lead to abuse). One could assume you would like to help out in the full range of adminny things but your answer to Q1 does not satisfy my doubts.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''': plenty of edits, anti-vandalism work, no evidence of incivility or arbitrariness - what's not to like?
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' like his answers to the questions.  I feel like he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - when I've seen your edits I've always liked the civilness this user demonstrates. I've also been particularly impressed with their HD replies to, sometimes, the strangest of questions we get there. &mdash;
'''Yes!''' He looks like a great candidate. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - why not? :) --<!--START SIG-->
'''Support''' Have seen his work around the place before, contributions check reveals a solid editor and his tone/manner are exactly how we'd expect someone with the mop to conduct themselves.
'''Support''': I've seen this editor around and been impressed with his maturity and attempts to defuse conflict. I don't see any concerns and I think he'll be an excellent admin. '''
'''Support''' Excellent mediator who will make good use of the mop.
'''
'''Support'''.  Have good luck. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' as strong editor and vandal-fighter, meeting all my standards.  While I am ''not'' a "furry", despite my username, I do not hold that against him.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''[[User:Dlohcierekim/standards|I'm Dlohcierekim, and I approve this message.]]'''
'''Support''' Great temperament for an admin.
'''Support''' Largely per answer to optional Q5. We need admins to be disinterested, or when they are interested to be impartial. Plenty of the usual bits (XFD, Article Writing etc.), nice civil talk page, no concerns here at all. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Trustworthy for the mop
'''20th support''' No concerns here, can be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Support''', per answer to Question 1, and the nom.  Great work at [[Battle of the Plains of Abraham]], it's always a good thing to have more Admins who are familiar with what it takes to be a good solid content contributor.
'''Support''', I am satisfied with the answer to Question 5.
'''Support''', I've seen this editors doing often anti-vandal contributions (i.e [[Quebec]] article) and Afd discussions, so certainly warrants the mop and bucket.--
'''Support'''—no concerns; looks like an excellent editor; stays civil. --<font face="Comic sans MS">
'''Support''' - No reason not to. -'''
Seems fine.
'''Support''' I've seen this fox all over the place, he really seems to know what he's doing and would make a great admin.
'''Support''' Wow I can't believe you aren't an admin
'''Support''' More than qualified. --'''
'''Support''' I'm sure you'll do just fine.
'''Support''' Seems a fantastic editor and I like his responses to the questions.
'''Support''' evidence of good 'pedia building. cheers,
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support''' Great editor!
'''Support''', yep.  No worries here.
'''Support''' - yes, a good set of contibs! Semms like a great Wikipedian. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Looks like a good choice. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Good temperament for an admin, I believe. :) --
'''Support'''. Good, experienced contributor.

'''support''' of course --
'''Support''' No problems with Tony, a fine candidate.
'''Support''' Most excellent!
'''Support''' nom beating or otherwise. I'll be honest - I can't stand Big Brother and think it's about the worst load of tosh on telly. '''''However''''' Your Q1 answer is superb - referencing areas that are commonly not cited in Q1 of RFA and backed up by history. Your contribs and dedication are outstanding, your civility and helpfullness is evidenced across your edits. Just remember - when this RfA passes [[Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)|we're watching you]]! ''':)''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I see nothing in the contribs to dissuade me, and your count shows a diversity of spaces editted. A fine candidate.
'''Support''' Good answer to Q1. Shows you will need the tools & will use them wisely --
'''Strong support''' as Tra's nominator. I would have been here earlier, except that I was having lunch.
'''Support'''. Request an account is not exactly an area of interest for admin hopefuls. You seem to be a very honest editor, and I trust Acalamari's judgement.
'''Support''' an excellent and varied set of contributions that shows a fine knowledge of wikipedia and its processes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support'''. I just don't know about Acalamari, I don't trust you damn kids. (always up to something!) BUT... I can't find anything about this user that makes me anything but enthusiastic. I think he's an excellent choice all the way around.
'''I detest Big Brother but am still supporting because you're probably a good editor despite having bad taste in TV.''' [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
We could definitely use Tra as an administrator. --
Most definitely.
'''Support''', based on contributions, attitude, and also as thanks for the useful tools. Good luck! --'''
'''Support''' - I ran through his contributions about a hour ago, and I feel he is ready for the tools. Nice mainspace partcipation as well. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Similar''' to  an [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]] and should be promoted shortly. Ha, just playing. Good luck with the mop,
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' You seem to be qualified for the mop and seem to be willing to help new editors.
'''Support''' I'm going to support per nom and per above. Clearly good editor.
'''Support''' no major concerns. —
'''Support'''. per pedro, and nom. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
-- <b>
'''Support''' level-headed user.
'''Support''' Looks ok apart from the Big Brother Deal. --'''
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' clearly a solid candidate.--
'''Support''' I love Big Brother. Of course, I also love As The World Turns. This user edits templates - how cool!
'''Support''' I'm pretty sure that this user won't abuse the mop. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
Tora for an admin = Yes! I always thought you were an admin and I wish you good luck.
'''8-hour delayed Support''' - looks good, no palpable concerns. (I fell asleep before it submitted, then there was a database lock :p )
'''Support''' User has specified an e-mail and their adminship is not yet taken so they will be sysopped.
'''Titanium Cabal Support''' -<small> Oh mann..I wanted to beat the Nom support </small> For your dedication to [[WP:ACC|Acc Creation]] and for being a very good helper to all the 'newbies'.hehe..This nomination should have happened months ago..[[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] is becoming very lousy it seems.. hehe.. Now I can vandalize happily with you around..Good Luck ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Tra has put in a lot of time and hard work at [[WP:ACC]]
'''Support''' I don't see why not!
'''Support''' Has a good range of edits over various aspects of the project. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' '''I love Big Brother. People who don't like Big Brother have a bad taste in TV.''' You're a great editor, too. -
'''Support''', excellent user. '''
'''Support'''.  Everything I've come to look for in an admin candidate: good contributions, good answers to questions, and obvious support from the community.
'''Support'''- per all of the above. --'''
'''Support'''. Experienced user.
'''Support''' I've known Tra pretty much since the start of my wiki-career (yes, I started by editing Big Brother articles). He's always polite and helpful, always willing to assist others with their work. He's here for the right reasons (and yes, I LOVE Big Bro) - that is, we're here to write an encyclopedia. He's done great work in the account creation area, and is a trustworthy and experienced Wikipedian. I've offered to nominate him many times before, so this is ''well'' overdue. Good luck, Tra. '''
'''Support'''; many of the adminship areas Tra wants to work in are almost understaffed at the moment (especially with [[WP:ACC]], having more admins working there would reduce the delay before new users get their accounts and therefore help avoid [[WP:BITE|biting]] them), and from my experience with this user and a review of their contributions I have confidence in the candidate's competance with technical work. (Note to Tra: you may have to create a non-administrator alternate account for [[WP:ACC]] work, as you can't get the 'Similar to' message when testing a new account name when logged into an admin account (instead the account will just be created); I suspect you know this already but this is just a reminder to make sure that similar-active accounts won't be created by mistake.) --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 16:02, 20 July 2007 (
'''Support''' Trustworthy and has need for the tools. Welcome to WP:40, Tra. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
I'm
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools (but can't believe you like Big Brother)
'''Support''' Every event in the history of the universe has led up to this exact moment. The avalanche of support is clear evidence that the almighty creators have willed this to be... or maybe you're just a good wikipedia editor... Either way, cheers! ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''', looks good, although [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I do not care]] for [[Reality shows]] of any kind.
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''' Good, trustworthy user.
'''Strong Support''', based on edit count and experiance.

'''Support''' <s>pending further investigation.</s>  [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] has put it very nicely.  Sock allegations aside, I support you because you seem like a good user and you pass my [[User:Dar-Ape/GS#RfA standards|criteria]].  Allegations included, I find the evidence and counter-evidence presented at this time to be unconvincing of a link between you and [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]], but I will continue to watch the matter develop and may reconsider.  Until then, I wish you the best.
'''Support'''. Socks have been disproved, we're on cruise control now :P. ''
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support''' Trebor has been consistently reasonable, constructive, and articulate in peer reviews and FAC, and invests time in helping the author resolve problems. I'm surprised at the sockpuppet thing, as Trebor could write circles around any of ForestH2's incarnations.
'''The dust has settled support''' - good editor.
'''[[Herpes]] support'''
'''Support''' dedicated and excellent user, qualified for the tools. -

I have never known Trebor to be anything other than an exemplary Wikipedian and receiving the tools would only make him a greater asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good user. --'''
'''Support''' per how he handled the incident with Ral315's accusation.
'''Support''', per Brad et al.
'''Support''' A fine editor, I was considering nominating this user. '''

'''Support''' Certainly capable.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I guess if you aren't a sockpuppet, then I will support you. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' good user, and with sockpuppet allegations retracted I see no reason not to support. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - as above, enduring the unpleasantness last night proves he can handle anything. ;) --
'''Hell yes.''' ~
'''Support''' Glad you were able to get through what could have been an unpleasant situation. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' seems fine to me. You handeled that sockpuppet situation well. '''''
'''Stong Support''' an excellent Wikipedian, very helpful editor and useful contributor who handles himself well in the face of conflict!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Reasonable answers to the questions.
I'm
'''Support''' you took the sockpuppet allegations well, and you seem like a well-rounded contributor who will only be of benefit with admin tools. Good luck! '''
'''Support'''.  All evidence suggests that he is level-headed and will not abuse the tools.  My encounters with him suggest that he cares about process and will not be a corner-cutter.
'''Support''' Excellent work in reviewing, no reason to suspect he's going to go mad with the tools.
'''Support''' good work, and hand the stress of sock allegations well.--
'''Support''' A fine editor to Wikipedia, I once asked a question on the help desk and this user provided detailed and helpful answers, although I could not fix this problem, his effort and quick reply proved to me that he cares not just about editing but generally to Wikipedia and its community, Good luck!!
'''Support'''. I've encountered Trebor at FAC. Very impressive contributions there, showing advanced knowledge of editing principles and producing genuine improvements in the articles he reviews.
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Strong support''' per his dedication in reviewing featured articles.
'''Support''' Excellent, very fair-minded candidate.
'''Support''' Level headed user with excellent contributions.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. Impressive contributions to FAC and PR.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Seems good all round.
'''Sockpuppet Support''' Answer to question #5 is good.
'''No big deals''' -- ''
'''Support''', looks good to me. --
'''Support'''-Seems okay. Have seen the user before.--[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' Seems like a level-headed editor. --
'''Support''' Have always found Trebor to be a reasoned and intelligent editor. A safe pair of hands.
'''Support'''- Excellent. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support'''
'''Support''' anybody who monopolises my watchlist this frequently... :) &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' we need more users like this guy --
'''Weak support'''. I find the comments by Hipocrite, Peter Dodge, and Chaz Beckett to overstate the case somewhat, but they do have some validity, and I've observed similarly un-bold behaviour elsewhere. However, I believe TR has the best interests of the project at heart, and that those interests would be served by giving him sysop rights.
'''Support''' A bolder admin might do more good stuff, but Trevors actions will be good.  Which is better, 10 good administrative actions a day or zero?  For me the answer is obvious.  Though I do think Trevor should be more willing to delete things after Prod has run - they should be overturned immediately upon request by anyone, so the cost of holding AFDs is greater than the benefit of bumping them there if the only flaw is failure to notify the articles main editors.
'''Support''' Anyone with a namee like that deserves to be an admin :-)  Seriously, looks good. --
'''Support''' per nom. —
'''Support''' per nom and after reviewing the oppose comments below. (If anything, I think a focus on process is especially important for new admins and I appreciate Trebor's cautious nature.) --
'''Oppose''' I do not trust this user to apply [[WP:IAR]] correctly.
'''Oppose''' &bull; I have serious concerns that this user does not have an accurate handle on what [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus making entails and how to determine consensus]], which is a large and exceedingly important part of adminship.  They also seem to need to understand the importance of [[WP:SNOW|snow]] and [[WP:IAR|Ignore all Rules]] to the project.  To put it in a decidedly blunt manner: The last thing the project needs is a process wank.  Let alone an administrator that is a process wank. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I find Hipocrite's and Peter M Dodge's points to be well-founded.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with the above comments. Trebor seems to put too much weight on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt&diff=110393673&oldid=110393236 process] and not quite enough on product.
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; as explained in my nomination statement.
'''Support''' - I have seen you often in RC Patrol and have great admiration for what you bring to the project. Best of luck!
Reason why I didn't nom = I seriously thought he was an admin. '''Support'''.
Nominator pretended to go to sleep but secretly lurked to see this go online '''support''' ~
'''Strong Support''' -- a trusted vandal fighter makes a great Wikipedian. Someone who vastly improves articles makes a great Wikipedian. Both traits in one person? An amazing Wikipedian. You're the kind of editor I want to become.
'''Support''' - '''Woah!'''.
'''How could I not Strong Support''' with <s>four</s><s>three</s><s>four</s>three <s>(Jmlk17, Riana, AGK, and Anthony, who is not listed, whoever it is that struck-through my "four")</s> noms from users I respect tremendously. Hey maybe you should shoot for [[WP:100]] in nominations :)
'''Support''' - Finally a primarily vandal-fighting RfA for someone who has a clue about the job.
'''Support''' per all the above, the nominating statements, answers to questions, etc. etc.  '''
'''Extremely Strong Support''' - I admire this user as much as Jimbo; however Trusilver is humble and definatly won't abuse the tools. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' - absolutely! No issues with this editor whatsoever. One of the least BITEy editors on here & should make a super admin -
'''Support''' I immediately bumped into Trusilver after I came back from my long wikibreak when I saw a report of his at [[WP:AIV]].  I looked over his contributions and saw he was an astoundingly good vandal fighter as well as a very level headed user.  Since then I have really come to like Trusilver and I do not believe there is anything to indicate that this user would abuse the tools.  Suit him up.
'''Nom Support''' Obvious...'nuff said.
Sufficiently reputable nominators.
'''Very strong support''' I've wanted to nominate him. :( He really needs the mop 'cause he's a real vandal whacker. ;) Regards, —
'''Support''' <s>with mild reservations</s>.  I was thinking of nominating Trusilver, having seen his hyperactive response to vandalism at RC patrol, which has earned my general trust <s>after a period of time that is normally insufficient to demonstrate competence.  I don't like to give adminship to RC patrol specialists - and that's what Trusilver is - but he's such an outstanding specialist, I think it will only help the project, especially at [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] <sup>[[User talk:Shalom|Hello]]</sup> 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)</s> That's what happens when I don't bother to read the nomination statements.  Oops!
'''Support''', what Shalom said. An outstanding RC patrol specialist. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong Support''' I had offered to co-nom, but obviously missed thr bus. A very good editor who will handle the tools well. --<font color="Red">
—'''
'''Support''' per below comments in neutral section.
'''Support''' this user will be fine with the mop. -
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Strong support''' You've beaten me to vandalism quite a bit in the past! '''Cheers,''' '''''
'''Trusupport''' I've witnessed this user's excellent work for a long time. Time for him to keep it up with the help of the admin tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per noms and personal interaction/review of this user. -
'''Support''' trust the nominators here, candidate looks fine --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Support''', holy crap! You go from 1 edit per month, to 3332, to a mind-blowing 6341! What is your left hand a laptop hot-wired to your brain or something? Anyways, very impressive, we need more machines like this as administrators. Keep up the good work! <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' Trusilver is a great editor/vandal fighter and he will make a great admin.
'''Yes!''', per all of the above :-) --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support''' After seeing the list of nominators, I knew that supporting that was a very good idea.
'''Support''' Why the hell not? ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Yes''' - seems good to me. League of Copyeditors is very good. -- <strong>
–
'''Support''' A strong contributor to the project who will help even more as an admin '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support'''. I have seen his name on many AIV reports since I got the tools and been very impressed with his diligence.
'''<span style="color:#555;">([[Icelandic language|is]])</span>''' Styðja , Latína öxl vera gunnfáni á beiðni fyrir adminship. I trust Riana's judgement in nominating candidates. I see no reason in this candidate for this trend not to continue. '''
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter - Nobody is perfect
'''Strong Support''', good recent change watcher and usually professional.  I have no doubts he needs and will use the tools well.
'''[[Image:Sign language S.svg|30px]][[Image:Sign language U.svg|20px]][[Image:Sign language P.svg|50px]][[Image:Sign language P.svg|50px]][[Image:Sign language O.svg|30px]][[Image:Sign language R.svg|20px]][[Image:Sign language T.svg|30px]]'''. The kind of vandal fighter we need more of -- one who acts reasonably with good judgment and does more than just mash buttons on Twinkle, while also making some dedicated contributions to articles. His judgment and dedication are exactly what we look for in an admin. --'''<font color="#FFA52B">K<font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''. Is candide mos addo ultum veneratio ut suus domus! Is mos trucido plures vandals in glorificus certamen! --
'''Support''' This editor is experienced and can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' Over 470 edits to [[WP:AIV]]! Wow! We need more active and ''accurate'' vandal fighters and hence admins. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
This sucks. I was watching Riana's talk page like a hawk, and still didn't realize that Trusilver was up for adminship. Talking about stupidity... Well back to the point, Trusilver will be a great admin. Trustworthy, trustworthy and trustworthy. Basically, he's trustworthy... And if you [[WP:SOCK|strike this support because Riana nommed]], I'll be after your blood :) --
'''Support''' - I've had good experiences with this user.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Would be a fine admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support!''' per noms and above.
'''Support''' - I like this user's work. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - No issues with this editor. Great vandal fighter, very level-headed. --
You are nominted from people whose opinions I trust.  I see no reason not to trust you. '''
Wow, I haven't supported yet... looks excellent. '''
'''Support''' - An experienced and calm editor who outlines good reasons for seeking admin tools. The arguments against are noted but seem a bit semantic to me.
'''Support''' Track is good and a vandal fighter.
'''Support''' looks good. <b>
'''Support''' per strong noms, great experience especially in vandal fighting, and I've seen the editor around and been impressed. Without even trying, pulling out user talk diffs like [[User talk:76.103.233.244|this]] and [[User talk:217.69.178.16|this]] helped convince me that Trusilver puts careful thought into his vandal fighting and user interactions and will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - ''Always'' beats me to reverting vandalism. --<b>
'''Support''' - absolutely: excellent answers and contributions; good balance of RCP and content contributions. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
I have come to '''Support''' this RFA and chew bubblegum... and I'm all out of bubblegum. '''
'''Support''' per above.  ''Huge'' number of edits, vandal-fighting experience, no problems.  WP makes strange bedfellows.
'''Support''', no question.  -
'''Support'''. I've never voiced my opinion in one of these before, but felt moved to do so this time. I've encountered Trusilver's work many times while on vandalism patrol, and I have always been struck by the editor's prudence and diligence. Based on my own observations and an overview of Trusilver's contributions, I believe Trusilver would be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' no reason to oppose Trusilver.
'''Support''' Seen him around; hard working with good judgment.
'''Support''' Nice answers to all, and does appear trustworthy enough. Trusilver might want to be careful in his judgment with Twinkle, but if he was being reckless about it there'd have been bigger problems. There haven't been any bigger problems, so I'm comfortable with my vote. :) -
'''Support''' After watching this for a couple days, my initial impression remains the same. I don't discount the issues that TwoOars brings up, but I don't feel they are of such heinous nature that would make Trusilver a poor administrator. The fact is, everyone makes mistakes, or types without thinking sometimes, and probably everyone at one time or another, has hit the "revert as vandalism" button for something that ''technically'' wasn't vandalism, but needed to be reverted anyway. For the purposes of restoring the page, the ''result'' is the same. The warning on the user's page, however, can (and should) be appropriate to the action, (i.e. "test edits", "blanking", "inappropriate humor", rather than a blanket "vandalism" label.) and I'm sure after reading the comments, Trusilver will be more conscious of this in the future. As for a temper, while I agree that he may have lost his at times, but I'm also equally sure that the role of administrator would not be one that he'd take lightly, and his future actions would reflect that. Trusilver is fair, darn quick, and devoted to keeping Wikipedia running smoothly. His AIV and UAA reports are helpful, as I'm sure administrators who monitor [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]] will confirm. While I haven't had the pleasure of much conversation with Trusilver, we have bumped into each other, and I respect his reversions. When I'm doing RC patrol, and see he is active, I feel secure that things others don't catch, he likely will. As to concerns that he may be vandal-centric, well, might I hypothesize that this isn't a bad thing? His devotion to that area would be helpful to AIV, UAA, RFCN, and could extend to AfD, CSD, and other areas as well, clearing backlogs and helping clean things up. I'm sure with more experience in other areas, as in "Hi Ho Silver" fashion, he'd be more than willing to assist once he's up to speed. With regards to the other issue voiced, his low "article talk" participation, while I would agree it could show the nominee's communication style, I don't think that it is necessarily the ''only'' way to see that. And I've seen plenty of administrators who do not have high "article talk" contributions. In conclusion, I think that like everyone, Trusilver has probably typed without thinking things through in the past, but I believe that his dedication to the project, his experience in RC patrol, and his contributions as editor, would be a strong asset as administrator. (And Trusilver, my deepest apologies if you're a girl, for I've used the masculine throughout.) <sup>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.''' Very impressive. <font face="georgia">
'''Support'''; (change from oppose below).  Trusilver appears to take what I felt was his only serious failing seriously, and will apply himself in the future.  That is all I asked, and that is what I received.  :-)  Good janitor''ing''.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' - coming off partial wiki-break to chime in.  - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' This user is a good vandal fighter. He/she also gave me a barnstar and told me how TWINKLE works.
'''Support'''&mdash;obviously. &mdash; '''

'''Support''' Do not believe will abuse the tools
'''Strong Support''' He is a great vandal fighter and there are no "big" reasons to oppose him. Good luck!--
'''Support''' a great user and a really nice chap. Will no doubt work well as an admin and has my full endorsement.
'''Support''', not already an admin? ;-)
'''Support'''. Seen him around doing good work, strong contrib history, and a decent sense of humour too it would appear :-) ... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', good vandal fighter.
I'm a bit concerned with the edit history really.  Did some editing in november, but only really became active two months ago.  We normally ask users to be here a little bit longer than that, regardless of the quality of their work.  That said, we definitely need more good vandal fighters and many good editors above say Trusilver can be trusted so early.  So good luck! --
'''Support''' - The above comment isn't a huge deal for me, nor is adminship. Go ahead with the mop.
'''Support''' - But do please be careful with the appropriate warning levels per ArielGold and my discussion with you on your Talk page. I suggest you ease into using the buttons, but in the end, I think you will okay. --
'''Support''' - Everything looks a-okay to me.
'''Support'''- Wiki would benefit from this editor having the buttons. No question!
'''Support'''. Experienced editor who'll make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' the overall history of contributions made by Trusilver has been quite good, I'm not outright discounting the criticism made by Twooars such as the mislabel of vandalism in the [[Who's Your Caddy?]] article(q-7b) but with his willingness to show self reflection and reexamination of past mistakes in response to Coren comment gives me confidence that he will respond in a appropriate way with warnings/edit summaries ▪◦▪
'''Support''' - I would trust this user with the admin tools, and feel they would use them responsibly.  I'm not discounting the criticism, but I don't feel that there is anything here that would make them a unfit to be an admin, or would abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Per noms.
'''Support''' - A good vandalism combatant and a trustworthy candidate!
'''Support''' A very helpful and competent user; I frequently run into him when I'm patrolling Newpages. I can't think of anyone better to get the tools. Go Trusilver!
<s>Strong</s> '''oppose''' Sorry. Should have waited for your answers to my questions but I find too many issues and I do not think I'll change my mind whatever your answers are. More evidence of inappropriate reversions/labelling as vandalism, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leech&diff=prev&oldid=148991683 this] and <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Hampshire&diff=prev&oldid=148975260 this]</s> and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trusilver/archive1#Today.27s_bit_of_insanity this unnecessary goading] convinced me of this. But I am going to leave the questions so that you can answer them and others can take the diffs and your answers into consideration. Good luck though. -
'''Oppose'''. While [[User:61.45.36.159]] has some anger-management problems, [[User:Trusilver]]'s biting the newbies and not apologizing for it -- and his inability to grasp WP principles regarding spam (Hint: it's not allowed, period/full-stop) -- demonstrates some anger-management problems of his own, not to mention poor judgment disguised by zealousness. Maybe later, but when he figures out how things work around here, maybe. --
Everyone is missing the point of the oppose. It's not that he's telling a vandal that they are a vandal, it's that he's unnecessarily baiting them. I don't think that it's enough of a problem to merit a full oppose, but it ''is'' a problem. -
I came here ready to support. However, TwoOars's diffs cause concern. I know this user is a very good vandalfighter and writer, and as such is an excellent RfA candiate. However, being overzealous in classifying things as vandalism that are not is not a good thing. This also gives way to questions about haste in other areas, which as an admin would be very bad. I greatly respect Trusilver, and everything else is good, but I cannot support, but is too good a candidate to oppose. Therefore '''neutral'''. <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">
I believe this adminship request can and will succeed, but please be careful to avoid baiting other editors. Escalating conflicts is troublesome in any situation, but particularly worrisome behavior from an admin. Neutral leaning support.
'''Neutral''' per comments above, particularly TwoOars's concerns and per my own comments raised in his Opposition vote. I was debating whether to vote Support or Neutral, but it seems this RfA is overwealmingly in support, and I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting, regardless with how trivial the "vandalism" reverts are. I do believe the editor in question will make a fine administrator, though they need to be careful with regards to how they address reverting users' inputs, particularly when incorrectly identifying it as vandalism. The point made about it being "convenient" to identify vandalism as such is not a valid reason at all to allow it. As mentioned by TwoOars again, incorrectly identifying a user's edit/input as vandalism when it obviously isn't can cause further conflict than is necessary, and simply escalate the problem to a much worse state than it was prior. I do hope such comments by other editors also are taken on board by Trusilver.
'''Neutral''' - I guess what I wanted to see in my questions was a discussion of dispute communication ideas.  The user has about a 0.05 article talk page to article page edit ratio.  While he does a lot of vandalism reversion it's not surprizing that there is a lower ratio here, but it seems awfully low.  For myself it is currently 1.79 of talk to article.  I don't think the evidence of 'abusive admin' is appearant, but the evidence that would be a large benefit (greater then current large benefit) to the project doens't seem to be also.  --
'''Support'''. Contributions, wikispace experience, etc. look good.  Good luck! --
'''Support''', as I see no reason not to.  Keep up the grood work,
'''Support'''-contribs good and pretty well spread out. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' good, well-balanced range of edits. Answers good. I am sure will use the tools wisely and well.--
'''No-cliche-here Support'''. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great editor. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong Support''' Contribs. are comendable.  Loads of experiance and great answers to the questions.  Best of luck.'''
'''Support''' Impressed by TSO1D's conscientious and thoughtful work on [[Germany]]. Should be an equally conscientious admin.
'''Support''' good editor. —
'''Support'''. Contributions well spread out. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Support'''. A great user who is willing to admit where he's been wrong, and has learned from the incident. I think this valued editor will be even more valued as an administrator. ''
'''Support''', will be a great admin. I invite people to check out TSO1D's exemplary interaction with other users and his relentless work during the month-long [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Germany|FAC for Germany]]. See also the contrast between the current [[Germany]] with the version prior to his involvement [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&oldid=90922954].
'''Support''' - the mainspace contributions are lower than my requirements, but I guess well-rounded participation in such flamebaits as [[Kosovo]] or [[Transnistria]] make up for the difference. Good luck
'''Support'''. Mediation is one of the most important tasks for an admin, and this Wikipedian seems fit. '''''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''', only good experiences with this user.
'''Support'''. Active in AfD and RC patrolling + quality editor. Will make a good administrator -
'''Support''' per Pascal.Tesson and strong answer to #5. --
'''Support''' - good answers to questions, trustable.
'''Strong support''' - outstanding answer to Q1 and shows strong streak of humility, which is a useful virtue in an admin. Particularly keen to promote users who have an interest in conflict resolution. Get mopping. --
'''Support''' Name keeps poping up in positive context. Wikispace contributions are very good.
'''Support''' sounds like a great candidate to me.
'''Support'''--
I would prefer it if this user would diversify beyond doing AFD work, but nevertheless xe appears to be a good candidate.
'''Support''' An amazing attitude throughout the tiresome FAC process.
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''' great editor --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' Have seen around at [[:WP:AfD|AfD]] a lot, but I was most impressed with the way the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Germany|FAC]] for Germany was handled (and obviously the result). This here must seem a doddle compared to the heat and pressure at ''that'' forum. :)
'''Weak Support'''. Most of your edits are in the same locations, and it makes you look unwilling to branch out though. Great answers to the questions pushed me to support though.--
'''Support''' Great editor. Great candidate. Answers are good. Trustworthy. ←
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  [[Transnistria]] is a good article about a contentious topic.  If he can handle that kind of stress, he should be good at other administrative duties, too.
I'm
'''Support''' because I have no reason not to. ---
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' as non-nominator. '''
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''' Don't remember seeing the nominee around afd, but seems to have an excellent reputation after being heavily involved in editing controversial articles, so thats good
'''Support''' Good editor. --
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per user contributions, answers, comments above.

'''Support''' as per bibliomaniac15. -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': one of the coolest heads and most valuable mediators from that corner of the wikiworld with which I am familiar.
'''5upp0r7''' ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above, and nom.
'''Support''' per Bubba Hotep/Bwithh and solid answers to questions.
'''Support'''. On my [[User:William_Mauco|user page]] I have a statement[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&diff=53778450&oldid=53750130] from another [[Transnistria]]-active editor who says this about myself and TSO1D: ''"[off_topic]You two currently represent a model group of wikipedians, bringing NPOV to what was previously an almost hopeless article with reasonable dialogue, while approaching the issue from opposite sides - something I thought as impossible without bickering and pointless revert wars - you know that? :) [/off_topic] Illythr 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC) "'' We are on opposite sides, but I respect TSO1D's ability to put Wikipedia first and his personal opinions second (or third, or where it is that he puts them, since they don't often interfere with his work). -
'''Oppose'''. All Wikipedia namespace edits are mostly on AFDs, and there is a big gap in editing periods as stated in the self-nomination. Not sure if the editor has a good grasp of policy. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if user can provide diffs of useful contributions/engagements in community matters. Another concern is the too narrow set of articles in which the user edits.
'''Oppose'''. I know the activity of this editor and in my opinion the quality of his edits is low, with the exception of spelling corrections, where indeed he is doing a good job. Not enough for an admin.--
'''Troppus''' Looks like a good user. Particularly like answer to Q1 (backlogged areas). Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' I think this user will do a good job.
'''Support''' - Looks good to me, good luck with your RfA.
'''Support''' -Will make a pretty fine Admin..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - interactions with this user through [[WP:USRD]] have always been positive. TMF is a good, hard-working user who always displays a thorough knowledge of policy and will make an excellent admin. —
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me, seems to have firm grasp on policy, excellent contributor.
'''Strong support.''' Excellent user, good work, good policy knowledge, etc. --'''
'''Support''' No problems here.
'''Support''' positive interactions with the candidate... helped me out by answering two questions I had about road articles. Would ask questions to again. A+++ --
'''Support''' Oh yeah.  The edit count shows a year of experience and broad activity.  Working in a WikiProject and general content contributions are also assets.  As the saying goes, no big deal.
'''Support.'''  I agree with Vishwin that a more specific answer than "fix the backlogs" would be great.  But this editor is probably the most level-headed editor at the U.S. Roads WikiProject – rarely if ever fails to [[WP:COOL|keep cool]].  Any editor at USRD has experience at XFD, and he gives some of the better-reasoned arguments I've seen.  And even if not, XFD is probably the smallest of all the admin responsibilities. This user deserves the mop if he wants it, and I was pleased to see him accept the nomination. --
'''Support''' Sounds okay and has a cool username.
'''Support'''. Good luck. --
'''Strong Support'''. TwinsMetsFan has a long history of good contributions, and I can find nothing that would indicate the tools would be abused. Twiddle that bit. ···
'''Support''': I see no issues with the user. Has the experience and seems civil. As stated above amd below a better answer than "fill the admin backlogs" would be nicer however the questions are optional and the contributions speak for themselves. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''': Fantastic editor.  Is always insightful and willing to help and offer his opinions and solutions in a calm, cool manner.  '''--
'''Support''' Many good things and no bad things.
'''Strong Support'''. I see him all over the place. Great work, will be a superb admin. -
Good fellow who I'm sure will only further help the project with some extra buttons (on a personal note, I also like the fact that he doesn't like the Yankees, hehe) [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' per responses and candidate's overall record.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A highly dedicated editor, who will undoubtedly put the tools to good use.
'''Support''' no concerns here. Good user and candidate. —
I'm
'''Support''' - a very conservative user, would not abuse the tools.

'''Support''' - Succinct and to the point, I see nothing to suggest handing this user the flag would be bad for Wikipedia... [[Wikipedia:Yyy?|so why not]] :-)? Good luck.
'''Support''' - will make a fine admin.  --
'''Support''' seems alright.--
'''Support''' per more than adequate experience and no meaningful concerns. Nothing wrong with short answers.
'''Support''' - keep on truckin'!  '''''
'''Support''', his contributions to [[WP:USRD|USRD]] are incredible. I trust his as an admin as well. -- '''
'''Support''' per interactions in [[WP:SRNC]]. At least this RfA doesn't seem to have turned into a Highways Dispute Round 2: Losers' Revenge debacle like mine, to some extent, did. —<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' per above. I seem to have run out of witty comments ... sorry. -- '''
'''Support''' Good all-around editor.
'''Support''' Excellent editor and has been very level-headed in all our interactions. While he lacks experience in actual vandal fighting and participation in AFDs etc., his answers to the questions above indicate sufficient knowledge of basic policy to be able to do the job of an admin. I would suggest you also try wading into contentious AFDs/RMs and/or mediation to gain a better feel for dispute resolution. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems reasonably clued up and there's no indication he'd abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Fair and good editor.--

'''Support''' Great roads editor, and lots of experience [[WP:SRNC]] <font color="red">Metallic</font><font color="orange">95</font>
'''Support''' let's go!  Good luck...
'''Support''' per nom, or answer to Q6. <sup>

'''Support'''.  Seems like this editor will use the tools wisely. --
--
I '''support''' this excellent contributor, having seen him around for quite a while on various pages. I always assumed he already was one: I know he'll do fine.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''-- Definitely a good editor.
'''Support''', checks out for me.--
'''Support''' very good editor.'''''
'''Support''' We need admins who know how to write articles.--
'''Support''' TwinsMetsFan has been an asset to Wikipedia as an editor and I am confident that he will continue to be an asset as an admin. ~
Large number of divisive and irrelevant userboxes on the candidate's userpage compel opposition.

'''Oppose''' Sorry, just not convinced.  ~
'''Oppose''' Sorry I am not at all into the "Kelly Martin" thing but I am perturbed in this case that one of the two people that are listed as part of your project group (in your nomination) does not even support your candidature - considering that you should do more pre-admin time. I have run across a couple of your edits and have no personal complaints but something doesn't sit right when 50% of your fellows do not support you at this time.--
'''Neutral''' Looks good, but think about doing more administrative work, and please be more specific than "fill the admin backlogs".  I haven't seen you doing much vandal work overall, and this troubles me (even though it isn't required, but strongly recommended).  Also the fact that you don't seem to participate in XFDs much, and this troubles me as well.  <s>To other users: please look at his contribs ''carefully'' before voicing.</s> '''
<s>I'm sorry, but your nominator advertising your RfA on his userpage makes it hard to support. I hate to change my opinion because of something someone else did... -
'''Neutral''' You need a little more time on Wiki, but you seem to have what it takes.  just give it some more time.
'''Support''' as nom. '''''
'''Support''' No problems. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''', candidate failed last time due to perceived lack of experience. Reviewing Useight's contributions, I do not believe this is  currently the case. Cheers,
'''Might as well''', as we are pretty desperate. -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support'''. Good answer to my question, and I see specific improvement made since his last RFA. Also, I like the six character quick bio on his userpage.
'''Weak Support''' I like the Admin Coaching and the answer to my question.  I'd personally like to see a little more experience, but your guidance in your last RFA was to wait 3 months.  You've done what you were asked to do, so you get the nod to support.
'''Support''' - seems to have progressed nicely since other RFA's. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Yeah, sure, I think the user will make a great admin. Can be trusted, can keep a level head and is a competent editor.
'''Support''' First two RfAs showed much more support than opposition, even if no consensus was reached. The sole issue with Useeight seems to be the CSD stuff, and it looks like he's learned from his past mistakes.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Per rationale at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight_2]] when I supported, and I have only seen your efforts increase. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He has a very good edit summary. On top of that he had very good answers, he has my support. --
'''Support''', supported him last time, will do so again.
'''Support''' - I supported the last 2 RfAs so certainly support this one. Has shown familiarity with the various deletion processes through XfD participation and speedy taggings. Vandal fighting experience leads me to think he'd know when its appropriate to issue a block. His interactions with other users appears positive and what criticism there were last time seem to have been addressed. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Good improvement since last time, will be fine now.

'''Support'''.  You've gained in experience since your last request, and I think it's time to give you the mop.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' No indications of anything negative in the candidate's interactions with others, and (as noted above) experience in vandal fighting is good experience for an admin to have. No reservations. Best,
'''Support'''. Looks good. I see no concern with the multiple RfAs (particularly given the 3rd is not a self-nom). 3 months is not a hard and fast rule, and user seems to have improved CSD work in the meantime.
'''Support''' Just about enough experience.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Seems ready now. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' has grown. As has been said above, the multi attempts may just indicate enthusiasm. All the good reasons have already been stated.
'''Support''', cannot see any reason not to support this.
'''Strong support'''. Honestly, I don't give a crap about that "wait 3 months" so-called rule, Useight is as ready as he will ever be for adminship. '''
Yes, of course. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' Sounds fine.
'''Strong Support''': I've seen this user around and is a great editor.  Will make an excellent admin. -
Again.
Support - I have seen this user around. -- <strong>
Answers to questions deal with issues from last time. '''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. --
Have seen improvement from last time. --
'''Support''' I see no problems.
'''support''' A good editor, can be trusted with the tools. The opposes belows are based on extraneous concerns. --
'''Support''', looks good. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' Seen this user around many times, but I don't understand why he still doesn't have the mop.
'''Support''' looks good. --
'''Support''' I can trust him as an admin, good clean record.
'''Support''' As per TenPoundHammer.
'''Support''' User has consistently shown good judgment in my dealings with him. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Seems very trustworthy and responsible. <font color="Purple">
No concerns, should be fine.
'''Support'''. Good experiences with this editor. You'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' Solid contributions, and his eagerness to become an admin is hardly rare, or bad.
'''Support''' A great attitude to match good skills required of an admin.
'''Support''' Doesn't raise any red flags. Bit eager to become an admin, if anything, but I'll [[WP:AGF|take it as willingness]] to help around. ;-)
'''Support'''.
I supported the last two RfAs of Useight, as I believed they were a good user. I still believe they are a good user, and am supporting again.
'''Support''' as having made ''significant'' improvements over the past RFA's, great answers.
'''Support''' lots of good work at CSD.
'''Absolutely'''. (Edit conflict)
'''Support''' looks like he would be a good help at CSD and has benefited from the coaching. --
'''Support''' Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' He is a very good editor. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.
I'm
'''Support''' --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' Qualified, to say the least. --'''
'''Support''' Per Kurt Webe, user seems very eager to help out! :)
'''Support.''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' Seems ready, and enthusiasm is surely a virtue.--
'''Support'''Reviewing every speedy deletion page is painstaking. That's admirable. --
In response to Kurt Weber, all I can say is '''Go Patriots''' (oh, I support Useight as well)
'''Support''' Experience is no longer an issue it seems. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Ready for adminship.--
'''Strong Support''' - Seems to be a very helpful member of Wikipedia and he'll be able to contribute even more as an Admin.
I would be pleased to '''support''' this candidate. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Three RFAs in just over four months, two of which were self-noms?  This user just seems a little bit too eager to be an administrator.  That worries me.
'''Support'''. As nom —— '''
'''Support'''. Glad I saw this. A very civil and helpful user.
'''Extreme support''', with a specific invite to bless our ranks over at [[WP:MC]] with a nomination some time...I, for one, would love you to join us over there :) But this is about adminship, and I believe that Vassyana has shown everything I could want in an admin candidate. The ability to interact, be analytical, experience in disputes, and longevity. '''
'''Strong Support''' - A very good editor and deserving :)...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Change to support from neutral. Any editor that can respond (see strucken out neutral below) in such a civil and efficent fashion will use the tools well. Best Wishes and good luck.<small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Candidate seems competent, and we need more admins (as the atrocious backlogs at [[CAT:CSD]] attest). <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup><font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Very civil, confident, and level-headed. I see no reason why he wouldn't do well with the tools. —
'''Support''' demonstrates the right qualities badly needed around Wikipedia.
'''Strong support'''. First time I ever used the ''strong'' in an RfA, and this time I had a good reason. I have interacted with this editor over the last couple of months and found his concern for the project to be most appealing, lending a hand in content disputes in a manner that actually helps, while working to make our encyclopedia better by creating great content. It is not always that I come across a well-rounded Wikipedian, and it will be an honor to have him as a fellow admin.
'''Support''' - echoing the comments above. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', Though his edit count may not be the highest, I feel he will properly use the tools. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' Seems like a good, solid candidate with no major issues. Cheers,
'''Support''' - good work for MEDCAB shows that he will do well in resolving some of the disputes that admins get into.
'''Support''' Hmm...I thought this user was already an administrator. Anyway, all seems fine here.
'''Support''' I agree with [[User:Pedro|Pedro]]: Though the edit count is rather low, the incredible civility and efficiency shows that the candidate has the capability neeeded in that area. As such, I support. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Support''' for good communication skills, dedication, and (as per Jossi) devotion to the improvement of the encyclopedia.
'''Support''': While I would like to see this user have a bit more experience, the edits this user has made are of a good quality. I do not think this user would abuse the tools. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' A good choice. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' Vassyana handled a contentious mediation case I was involved with and did so expertly: [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Looking for Alaska]].  If he's always as calm and patient as he was in that mediation he'll make a great admin.  In my opinion his relatively low edit count primarily reflects the exceptional level of thought that goes into his edits. --
'''Support''' per nom. Everything looks ok. —'''
'''Support''' Candidate's edits show maturity and I am very pleased with the level-headed answers the standard Qs and to my question. I am sure he will make a great addition to the admin team. --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. Tireless contributor, and trustworthy user. Also as nomintator. --<span class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' I like the way the candidate has answered the questions. Possibly a bit soon but displays so much level headedness that its hard to see them loosing their cool..
'''Strong Support''' - excellent mediator.
'''Strong Support''' - admin material all the way. Has done some important work in their time here. --
'''Support'''. Why not? I have seen this user more than once around here, and would make a good asset as an admin. '''
'''Support''' Appears to be a very civil editor with good intentions.
'''Support''' As usual, I place a great deal of confidence in users who have experience with dispute resolution.  The article writing is also a plus.
'''Support''' I must admit, I wrestled with this for a bit, but the user's quality of editing is exceedingly good for their lesser experience in the project.  Good luck!
'''Support''' Pssh, editcounters. Full support for this editor and their high quality contributions to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Since I don't have any arbitrary criteria and the user will make a great admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I give very high marks to anyone who displays the kind of coolness and kindness seen here. Add to the fact that participation in MEDCAB demonstrates the ability to tackle tough issues and prickly editors with coolness. Civility is an absolute necessity for an administrator. He'll learn the knobs and buttons but already has what it takes to succeed.
'''Support'''Seems like a good nom. I support! '''
'''Support''' I'm
'''Support''' I'm not [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] but I still '''approve''' this message! '''
'''Support'''There are no concerns on my part and the candidate's behaviour during this RfA has been simply exceptional. -- '''
'''Strong Support''' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' The experience of this editor might be a bit low, but he has demonstrated excellent civility, good faith  and dispute resolution among other things, so there isn't much to worry about. Great candidate for adminship... --
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin.
'''Support''' Sure, I would love to have the user make 1,000 mainspace edits before this RfA.  However, I respectively view that as a sort of editcountitis.  The spread of edits and the quality of contributions surely make up for the low numbers in places.  The user shows knowledge and practice, as well as time well spent.  I believe that the user has adequate use for the tools and is trustworthy of the mop and keys.  I still only have around 8,000 edits total in a year and a half.  But I have several thousand deletions as well as all the other button uses in my logs that don't show up as edits, or are rollbacks.  It's about the use of the time, and Vassyana uses it well.
'''Support''', impressed by work on [[WT:NPOV]] and elsewhere.  The AN-BLP discussion does show a disturbing concern for process over action, but we all have our imperfections; I see nothing to suggest that the candidate would act inappropriately or against WM interests.  --
'''Support''' Whats a edit count to do with it? <font style="color:red">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I was very impressed with Vassyana's points in a recent discussion on the WP:NPOV Talk page. He's obviously thought deeply and clearly about how Wikipedia can be improved.
'''Support''' <s>and I'm frankly disappointed at the trivialness of the opposes below.</s> More recent Opposes provide very valid comments regarding BLP and though unilateral action is often needed to resolve BLP issues, especially amongst those of us with OTRS access but admitting such on an RFA is going to lead to failure, there's just no way you can say "I'll take unilateral action to remove BLP concerns ignoring policy" on an RfA, even though that is often necessary.
'''Support'''. I've no doubt this reasonable an editor will handle admin tasks well. --
'''Support.''' Per [[WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV]]. I think that sometimes (oftentimes?) admins are completely overzealous in enforcing this policy, to the point where I think "wow, I'm glad I don't write biographies." I think the candidate's opinions ''even if they really do violate policy'' (which I am definitely not saying) are the types of well-reasoned, generally calmer opinions that would make me comfortable in tursting this candidate to be an admin.
'''Support'''. This candidate is already doing tasks requiring more responsibility. --
'''Support''' definitely
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Very strong support''' Excellent support as mediator of Fellowship of Friends page. Patiently tried to guide editors to see what he was talking about, and when the arguments continued, he spent what was probably hours creating a sandbox page as an example. Since his involvement, the editors with two very opposite views are treating each other politely most of the time for the first time.  He gently leads us to see what needs to be done with no hint of his own POV.  We had a previous mediator who did not have the skill needed to mediate an article of this type, nor the consistency to stick with us.  Vassyana stays in the background until he's needed (he must check in often to know just when to jump in) and responds quickly to a request for help.  He shows discretion and respect at all times.  There is nothing I would change.  I hope these are some of the traits you are looking for from a mediator.--
'''Support''' I've seen Vassyana work under very difficult circumstances and agree with Moon Rising's comments. Vassyana is perceptive, neutral and polite.
'''Support''' - Competent and trustworthy.  An excellent combination.  '''''
'''Support''' Vassyana lent support to me when I was being unfairly blocked. He brought up important ideals of Wikipedia in support and seemed to take these to heart, therefore I support this nomination for adminship.
'''Support''', clearly gets it in regard to major policy issues. --
'''Support''' Good user. Reasons for opposition are ridiculous. ---
'''Support''', as I see no reason to validate the claims that the candidate does not understand [[WP:BLP]]. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers, including Q6 and the follow up discussion in the oppose section. I understand and I do not dismiss the opposers' concerns, but I think Vassyana has been most reasonable in reply. I see a constructive and deliberative editor, who may be right or wrong but either way is [[WP:DBF|open to discussion]]. No worries. ··
'''Support''' While my experience of Vassyana is limited to one article (Prem Rawat) he has been a source of great support for the project progressing to GA status. It can not have been easy, as feelings run high. I am too new to WP to grasp all the procedural implications, but Vassyana clearly understands the human dimension, and that, in the long run, is surely what it is all about. I am as sure as I can be that he will prove a great admin.
'''Support''' .
'''Support''' I am impressed by how well he has answered during this discussion--I think this shows that relatively low edit counts do not indicate a problem. .'''
'''Support''' appears to have a good grasp of what BLP is about, unlike those who are opposing. All round good candidate. Eloquent, thoughtful.
'''Strong Support'''. Vassyana's mediation on the [[Fellowship_of_Friends|Fellowship of Friends]] page was impeccable. The combination of common sense, familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and knowledge of human nature will make Vassyana a wonderful Admin.
'''Support''' No problems here. --
'''Support''' Reasons pretty well summarized above, and we need more admins like Vass.
'''Strong Support'''. - Most dissentions below concern V's lack of mainspace edits relative to some admins and concern over what is perceived as a less than sufficiently zealous application of [[WP:BLP]]. Having seen several instances of unreflected, unbalanced, even peremptory decisions by administrators with much more impressive stats, I am disinclined to believe quantity implies quality. Vassyana's edits seem consistently to be well-founded, well-considered, grounded in WP policies, restrained, balanced and leavened with common sense approaches to conflict resolution.
'''Support''' Stance on BLP is not the same as mine, but isn't, well, completely misguided. Good hard worker in all areas, should do fine with a few extra knobs and twiddly bits. '''
'''Support''' The conception of BLP imputed to the candidate by those opposing is, I think it is fair to say, pace Doc, et al., that for which a consensus of the community exists, and so even as Vassyana avers that his understanding of BLP is not dissimilar from that favored by some, I am greatly heartened by his expressions relative to BLP because they evidence the deliberative and measured demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious.  Even without reference to the BLP issue, I think it clear that the candidate is possessed of good judgment and a cordial demeanor is acquainted relatively well with, such that I think that one can conclude with a good deal of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Vassyana's being sysopped should be positive]].
'''Strong Support'''. Vassyana is a mediator on the [[Fellowship_of_Friends|Fellowship of Friends]] page, and he showed being smart, efficient and neutral.  His edits are clear and well written.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; opposition thoroughly unconvincing.
'''Strong Support''' This is someone who truly understands the value of saying ''nice doggy'' instead of grabbing the nearest convenient stick.  These skills at mediation and inclusion among all Wikipedians are what will help make this project great.  Low mainspace edits are more than offset by tireless [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] and my desire to head off an outbreak of [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|Editcountitis]].  Overall, I think how a Wikipedian feels about this or that particular hot-button issue is all-but-irrelevant to their [[WP:RFA|request for adminship]].  I am glad, however, that [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] seems to understand the issues surrounding recent changes to BLP.  When a subjective test (harm) is added to [[WP:BLP|policy on biographies]], it becomes less clear-cut and uncontestable, so community input becomes more necessary.  In my view, the changed BLP is a much less easily administered policy because of the added ambiguity. I look forward to having an [[WP:COOL|unflappable]] and [[WP:PPP|product]]-driven administrator like [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] available to deal with present or future controversies. --
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' I was inclined to support until I noticed the very low mainspace edits. Encyclopaedia-building is central to any administrator in my mind, whatever "specialty" they may decide upon. I appreciate the user's work in MedCab and believe that it is often an excellent qualification for an effective administrator, and I hope to see Vassyana back in a few months. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[WP:ANI#More WP:BLP drama involving DRV]]. Nothing personal, but protecting innocent people from harm by Wikipedia comes first. Per above, the relative dearth of mainspace edits is also a problem.
'''Oppose'''. Removed <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> statement without supplying sources and without apology or admission of mistake. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Techniques_of_Knowledge&diff=115364640&oldid=115362710] Also made a understandable but very misguided complaint about me without apologizing after explanations. The two arbcom members who commented rejected his complaint. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=131771681&oldid=131757879] [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_Baba]]
'''Strong oppose''' seems to think BLP is simply a matter of preventing libel [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=133569785].--
'''Oppose''' per Doc - that's extremely worrying and not at all the level of comprehension an admin needs. It's a fairly simple matter but an important one -
'''Oppose''', sorry.  Nice person, but Q6 is the clincher.  BLP is ''so'' not about libel.  Defamation applies to all articles, BLP is about the real and immense effect WP can have on ''real people's lives''.  We are bigger than big, we are probably not going away, and this is the single biggest issue facing Wikipedia right now.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose''' per Alabamaboy.
'''Oppose''' as Doc.
'''Oppose''' per Doc and David.
'''Oppose''' per concerns related to BLP. --
'''Oppose''' for gross conceptual errors regarding BLP
'''Oppose''' per edit count and because of the [[WP:BLP]] errors.  [[WP:BLP]] is '''Wikipedia's main liability''' IMHO.  If administrators don't fully comprehend [[WP:BLP]] as well as policies relating to libel, then the project will be in '''serious''' trouble AND reliability will suffer as a result of this fallacy. '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
'''Neutral'''.  This might be a temporary stance.  I'm concerned that Vassyana just started editing three or four months ago.  That, in itself, is not a reason to oppose, but if you have a chance, could you address this point?
'''Neutral''' - While I do think Vassyana has good potential, and for the most part is a polite and respectful editor, I do have to also agree with those that brought up the few number of mainspace edits issues, as well as the valid points brought up above by {{user|Doc glasgow}}, and {{user|David Gerard}}, in their "Oppose" comments.
'''Neutral''' The concerns I expressed in the oppose section are still valid. But the continual debate over my opinion was both irritating and distracting from this RfA.--
'''Support''' as nominator.
Also '''support''' as nom.--
'''Support'''. Great contributor.
'''Support''' should be ok. --'''
'''Support''' good user, looks to be all systems go :). ~
'''Support''' I see no problems with this application.
'''Support''' A great contributor on Wikipedia. I have frequently seen this user make accurate and helpful reports to AIV, so I have no doubts that this user is capable of handling the admin tools. '''
'''Support''' This user is a great vandal fighter.--
'''Support'''.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - excellent contributor. '''
'''Support''' per above, won't abuse the tools and can be trusted. '''
'''Support.''' I'm particularly impressed with your handling of the Engelbart case.
'''Support''' - I hate to use the cliche, but I really did think he was one. --
'''Support''' per nom, Blnguyen, Nish, Nat11, etc.
'''Support'''. For sure.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy.

'''Support'''.  Nothing but good to say of this candidate. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' per all above!
'''Support''', same as Guy. Seems to have good judgement. '''''×'''''
I'm
'''Support'''- per nom
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' seems great!
'''Support''', --
'''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good job with your edits and contribs. I support you! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.  --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''', looks good. --'''
'''Support''' good record of contributions, nice activity, seems trustworthy. -

'''Support''' Qualified. '''
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' Good to go.--
100%
'''Support''' per all. ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' His work on User categories is invaluable.
'''Support''' qualified user.--
'''Support''', per nom, and per the answers to the questions.
'''Support''' -- shows good judgement and tact, the most critical traits for an admin. --
'''Support<math>*10^n</math>; n>=1000''' -- I know this one. Admirable and enthusiastic contributor. Sorry for not knowing your RfA earlier.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', can't find a reason not to.
'''Support''' - why not?
'''Support''' - One of Wikipedia's finest.
'''Support''' for sure.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. [[WP:UCFD]] needs you.
'''Support''' A pleasure to be first to support a level headed candidate. --
'''Beat the nom support''', keep fighting the good anti-spam fight.  But don't forget to participate in XfD's and other such backlogs.  Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' as nom. '''
'''Support''', good answer, in my opinion. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' - Good vandal-whacker so it makes sense to give him a mop.  Has surprisingly thin encyclopedic contributions from the looks of it, though. &mdash;
'''Support''' - seems like he will make a great admin.
'''Strong Support''' a great user, will make a great admin. ~
'''Support''' looks good to me. <span style="font-weight:bold;">
'''Support''' we definitely need spam fighters, and this candidate is more than qualified for the job. -
'''Support''' Seen nothing but good work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support:''' Excellent candidate, although he/she doesn't provide much other info about their administrative actions other than spam fighting. <font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E"><b>~</b></font>
'''Support''' Spam seems to be a full-time job nowadays. You need the tools for it, and good luck! Please try the other side of Wikipedia (creation, editing) more often though, if only to avoid [[:Wikipedia: Adminitis|adminitis]] and stress! It works.
'''Strong support''' -- Veinor's [[User:Veinor/Link count/February 25, 2007|daily link report]] of all links added that day has been invaluable in spotting and fighting spam. Veinor is also a great spam-fighter in addition to his work as a toolmaker. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' bit weak in terms of article contributions, but he's surely demonstrated a need for extra buttons with his extensive experience at [[WP:AIV]] and spam-prevention.  Veinor also seems to be good-natured, approachable, and easy to work with, so I'm sure his having extra buttons will only benefit Wikipedia, as well as his own volunteer experience [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' - good spamfighter, will make an excellent admin! --'''
'''Support'''. Afford this user the mop, the bucket, and the [[WP:BLOCK|flamethrower]].
'''Support'''. We need more people working on spam.  I particularly like that this user is not just removing the stuff, but working to improve the processes by which we remove it--we need more of that.
'''Support''' Per above. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - he has some great nom points, and he looks more than qualified for me. give him a mop!
'''Support''' seems to be a good candidate. --
'''Thumbs up''' - good chap.
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' - jolly good egg, and I like the cut of his jib. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support''' per nom. <span style="background:crimson">[[User:Kamope|<font color="gold">'''&gt;Kamope&lt;'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Kamope|<font color="yellow">Talk</font>]] '''·'''
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' per excellent work on spam.  Having the tools will certainly help this user and the project.
'''Support''', good spam-fighter.
'''Strong Support''' I've had much experiance with Veinor @ the [[WP:WPSPAM]] project and I've always been impressed. Spam fighting in all forms is an extremely valuable contribution, and the mop will definately be helpfull. No doubt it will be used wisely--
'''Support''' The project would benefit from this user gettin' some extra buttons.
'''Support''' Sssspamfighter isss goood. Will use buttons for the benefit of all, methinks. My favour I bestow. My english is sorrowfully weird tonight, here.
'''Support''' Surprised he isn't admin already.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Easy decision, really.
'''Support''' per above. Good luck! --
'''Support'''. While I don't consider "dozens" of XfDs to be alot considering his total edit count and his very weak answer to Q1 he looks good everywhere else and I trust the nominator's ability to find good canidates.
'''Support''' Has done Quite a lot of Edits in the last few months and  User
'''Support''' unreservedly.  Will be a solid admin. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per all the above. -
'''Support''' Very active user, excellent record in spam fighting.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' A hard working, excellent user. He is a genuine model for all wikipedia users.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' excellent counter spam channel, will defiantly use the tools to whack a few vandals, letting others contribute to the encyclopedia in peace ;). As usual, ''adminship is no big deal'' ——
'''Support''' per nom; good editor.
'''Support''' per nom; very active spam-fighter.  --
'''Support''' per nom (who I trust implicitly). '''
'''Support''' Seems level-headed and trustworthy. Good luck! <font color="Green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I don't like spam either. This user should do well blocking spammers. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''': Keep up the great work with your anti-vandalism fighting. Does deserve the tools. '''
'''Support''' per nom. <font size="1">RB
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''
An admin who can really help with spam? yay. Of course I'll (edit conflict)'''support''' then.--
'''Oppose'''- not been active long enough

'''Strong support'''. A trustworthy, dedicated user with experience in many diverse areas of the 'pedia. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' - large number of edits shows commitment as a vandal fighter. I think she can be trusted with the tools. Also has a good temperament for approaching conflict, which will serve the community well. -
'''Support''' Although I usually prefer more participation in the WP space, after checking your past few thousand contributions I can see why you need the tools. Furthermore, you clearly have experience in the areas where you pretend to use the tools. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Exceptionally strong candidate. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //

'''Strong support''' - no problems whatsoever. Excellent candidate -
'''Support''' cheers,
'''Support''' Excellent comments about the dangers of the 'siege mentality'.
OK, seriously, this one surprised me. ~
'''Support''', not seen much of the user but Dmcdevit's got good judgement.
I'd be pleased to have you on board. -
--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong support''' based on many months of working with Versageek on spam issues. Always civil, always shrewd. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''', solid work on external links and very level headed.
Wholly qualified, clearly. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - without question or hesitation --

'''Support''' obviously, excellent candidate. <b>
'''Support''', good to work with, persistent spam fighter, I am sure a good addition to the list of wikipedia moppers!  --
'''Support''' per Riana.
'''Support''' great user. -
'''Support''' - with their "spam fighting" edits as like [[User:A. B.|A. B.]] - they could make a formiddable team at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|the Spam WikiProject]]. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I thought you were already an admin. --
'''Support''' per a number of the above comments --
'''Pile on Support''' Good luck! --<small><span style="border:3px solid #FF3334;padding:2px;">
'''Disappointed you didn't ask me for a co-nom''' Support. If I recall correctly, I offered to nominate you a few months ago. :) <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
Might as well. I mean, my '''Support''' virginity was broken last week, on the 7th.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, nothing wrong in my eyes.<sup>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', per the nom and answer to Question 1.
'''Support''' - Per nom and previous comments.

Yes,
As Riana. '''
'''Support''' Very dedicated user; would benefit mightily from the mop.
'''Support''' - will do a great job.
Yes. Wikipeda is is indeed more than us vs. them.
'''Strong support''' - A valuable and trusted contributor I've known for well over a year at Wiktionary, and who helps with Transwiki issues from WP to WT. That kind of work uses a mop. --
'''Support''' - that was easy.
Pile-on '''support'''!
'''Support''' Have seen work elsewhere - thought they already were an admin! Happy to support.
'''Support''' seems to have a clue. (And more to the point, more than a hint of good balance and background.)
'''Support''' should be a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Yes, number 46!  Not my favorite number, but a good one.  Good luck!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - looks great.
'''Support''' - has clue. Regards,
'''Support''' - Overall great editor. I'm a little concerned about the low amount of Wikipedia namespace edits, but what counts is quality over quantity and Versageek certainly has quality in all her edits. Admin material 100%. :) Cheers,
Since when does Dmcdevit make mistakes? :) --
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''.
Excellent candidate: no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', yes. --
'''Support''' Good luck. <font color="Green">
'''Support''', without question.
'''Strong support'''. Absolutly trustworthy of the tools..--
'''Support''' good decision making skills, will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Significant experience, various contribution on WP pages --
'''Support''' - adminship on a sister project is an automatic support for me. '''
'''Yes.'''
'''Support''' Per Will and Husond. --'''''<sup>
'''Support.'''  --
'''<big>+</big>'''  I thought you were one, since I've seen you off-wiki.  Good enough for Connel is good enough for me.
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''' She deserves to be an admin.
Never going to give us up. Never going to let us down. Never going to run around and desert us. --
'''Support''' with no worries. --
'''Support''' Of course!
'''Support''' A great deal of experience.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --'''
'''Support''' Overqualified candidate. —
'''Support''' as per DMCDevit and Newyorkbrad.
'''Support'''; definitely.  Good answers, good experience.
'''Support'''.  She has done wonderful things for Wiktionary and wikiHow.  If 'pedia doesn't want her, we'll gladly keep her to ourselves, though. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', and how.  :-)
'''Weak support''' - not much participation in Wikipedia space, but apart from that, a very trustworthy and honest Wikipedian. They are qualities valued in admin. Being a Wiktionary admin shows she's competant enough to be a Wikipedia admin. So I'll offer my support, but more Wikipedia participation would be better. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">

—
'''Pile on support''' -
'''Support''' Based on the above comments, and edit history. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' '''''Cheers,
Not admin already? Genuinely surprised. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup>
'''Support''' - A well qualified candidate that I feel will not abuse the tools.  --
'''Lots of Support''' Your work is superb, and you are a hard working Wikipedian. Best of luck to you.
'''Support''' level-headed and will be a great assett to the admin community.
'''Nominator support'''. '''
Sarah nominated.
Sarah nominated :) Plus my experiences with this user have been more than positive, and he's truly an excellent user. Has my complete trust. Speedy enmop. Oppose section is highly unnecessary, please get rid of it :)
'''Strong Support''' - The nomination by Sarah is excellent and VirtualSteve has enough experience and contribution to become an admin..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' 1) Answer to questions (except for <i>knew and well referenced</i> <b>new</b> methinks?) 2) Contribs. all over the show. 3) Civility demonstrated in nomination. 4) Hands Up attitude. Think that covers it. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Good editor. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Met VS when he helped get an article I was involved with to GA status - very sensible, civil, and helpful.  Good answers to questions.  Mop-trustable without a doubt.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.--
'''Strong support''' Sarah's candidates always have a habit of turning out to be excellent administrators. :)
'''Support''' - You gave good answers to the questions and have plenty of contributions and evidence of a good and friendly nature. I am sure you will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''': Solid content contributions, good answers to the questions, experienced and collaborative, active in administrative areas. Support without concerns. '''
zOMG! Sarah nominated. —
Friendly guy, good nomination, support. —'''
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, and no problems seem to have revealed themselves.
'''Support''' I did not have to look too far in your contributions to feel confident that you are capable and trustworthy enough to become an admin. --
'''support''' - I've been waiting for this to come up for some time. VS has got a very firm understanding of policy, I completely trust his ability to make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''- Great User and great answers to the questions.<font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">
'''Strong Support''' With 10,000+ edits, I believe he has the edit experience to have the mop. His answers are good, and he will be a wonderful addition to the Wikipedian admins. Good luck!
'''Support''', would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' absolutely. Steve, I am sure, would make an awesome admin. —
'''Support'''.  A prolific editor who can be trusted with the extra buttons. --
'''Support''' I have worked closely with Steve on many [[Riverina]] articles and projects.  <s>As</s>I was a new Wikipedian when I first worked with him and I found him to be a constant source of inspiration, ideas and support.  While he is an effective monitor of vandalism, he assumes good faith with new editors and is always ready to provide them with assistance on Wikipedia policy and article style and clearly explains to them why a particular edit may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.  His work at [[WP:GAC]] in particular demonstrates both his knowledge of Wikipedia requirements for articles and his personal qualities of helpfulness and civility. I am confident he would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' The above people took the words right out of my mouth.
'''Support''' - Yes indeed. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' I feel that VirtualSteve will make a good admin.
'''Support''' I feel that VirtualSteve will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but very good things, and Steve has helped me out on a good few occasions.  His contributions in the Australia space especially are very much appreciated. --
'''Support''' An excellent candidate with a good range of admin-related contribution experience. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''' - I've had nothing but good experiences working around this user, and I feel that he would make an excellent admin.  --
'''Support''' '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' A good editor and a very nice guy. If he wants to be an admin, I can't see any reason why not.
'''Support per Epbr123 and the amazing diffs in nom. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Steve and I have had some more norming and storming experiences than most (as referred to by him above) and I have no qualms in asserting he has moved through those and he has my unqualified endorsement. In fact it would be to my great relief that he be prepared to accept additional responsibilities within the project given I myself have had to significantly scale back on my contributions and that our interests signficantly overlapped.  Aan example, at least one [[Dog on the Tuckerbox|dog]] requires support against [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors|persistent assertions he represents otherwise undocumented attempts to massacre people with poisoned flour]] - not sure how many admins it takes to change a lightbulb but [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gundagai_editors#Log_of_blocks_and_bans|it takes a lot to keep a dog and associated places clean]]. Importantly to me Steve is a significant contributer of quality edits to the encyclopaedia, I think it is very important that those who have admin tools are fully aligned to the intent of the project by being active contributers of material that fully meets Wikipedia policies, Steve is one such editor.  When trying to build the content one inevitably comes across vandals, the tools are really useful in not allowing that knowledge to disappear in a slough of vandalism. --
'''Support''' - an excellent user who seems to be everywhere.  I had honestly thought he was an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - calm, cool and collected, has added to my enjoyment of the wikipedia experience
'''Ŭber-Support''' - Absolutely, for sure, yes, indeed-Great editor. --
'''Strong Support''' Excellent user with great work at DYK, writing and also fixing all those errors in those Australian cricket biographies that I wrote. '''
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Support''' per excellent contribution history, obvious support from the community.
This Candidate '''gets my vote''' as I see no reason to oppose.  '''
'''Support''' -- was eventually going to nominate this fantastic and committed editor myself. -
'''Support''' This user seems reliable so why not vote for him?--
'''Support''' -
Hell yes! [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
Why not? Clean record, good article contribs.... --
'''Support''' invaluable contributor. We need more administrators about Australian articles, and Steve is perfect for the task.--
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Will be an asset to [[WP:DYK]].<b>
I'm

Approved for this position. —
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support''' - Battle tested and came out the better for it. I definitely think that it will be to Wikipedia's betterment if VS is made admin. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' Good editor, he deserves these tools.
'''Strong Support'''. Great user, fantastic contributions, he'll use the tools well. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''.  A very convincing nom, and a look at the supporting diffs back it up.  Good luck.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
Good candidate, no reason to think he would misuse the tools. He handles conflict well, even when the person he's in conflict with is being a dick. (He knows what I'm talking about, and everybody else need not worry that I'm personally attacking anyone, unless critiquing your own actions is a personal attack :-))
'''Strong, Strong Support''' If you only elect one admin this year, make it him.
'''Strong Support''' - Have seen this user many times around the traps, puts in a lot of work doing project tasks that noone wants to think about but have to be done, and is a great editor to boot. I believe this user would be great with the mop.
'''support''' - as a silent observer from WPChi and other projects, steve has shown commitment to undertaking tedious tasks, to proactive and positive communication, and to appropriately citing and using policy.  i have strong trust he will use the tools appropriately, communicate well with others, and strengthen the project.
'''Support'''. I've seen VirtualSteve around a lot and its all been good. Seems to have plenty of relevant experience and I trust the nom. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Your contributions as per described in your nomination is outstanding. Soon you will enjoy your new advanced buttons being created as we speak...
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks like he'll make a fine admin. --
'''
'''Support''' because I trust this user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' My interaction with VSteve has been through work done at [[WP:WPChi]] and mostly with [[WP:CHICOTW]].  I can say that in my short tenure (3 months) as Director of the Chicago WikiProject he has very often been the eagerest of all the beavers, which is what we really want for a mop holder.  For example, in several articles that we have attempted to promote to [[WP:GA]], Steve has been the most helpful in addressing GAon hold status concerns (E.g., [[Chicago Theatre]] and [[Burnham Park (Chicago)]]).  At times when I have needed things done I could count on steve to get them done efficiently. Steve has had a very positive attitude in all of my interactions with him.  I can see many otherers have already noticed these qualities in Steve so I needn't ramble on. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Support''' Sarah nominated :-).  On the other hand, a very good editor who can help with backlogs and is unlikely to go crazy.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Considering wherever I have encountered him there is always good sense and practical action - which to me suggests good traits for an admin - and his work capacity on the Tasmania project has helped pull it up by its bootstraps - good candidate worthy of the majority approval that he has
'''support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Answers to questions were very good. User will not misuse tools being entrusted. --
'''Support'''. Very confident answers to questions, would make a great admin. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Definitely support''' This is a good user, heaps of quality edits, Good Art's, Did you knows, and a member of heaps of wiki groups.  Always polite even when opposed by an editor with shameful and uncivil comments (who clearly is running her own agenda).
I considered nominating Steve myself a while ago, but at least two other users, including Sarah, had thought of it first! I'm aware of Steve's work in the mainspace through his involvement with several Australia-related WikiProjects, where he is a very energetic contributor. Steve has also been working to become more involved elsewhere in the project lately to bolster these contributions. I concur with Sarah's assessment above, and think that Steve would make a good admin. --
'''Support'''—Contributions look good; nothing of concern turns up. --
Switched to oppose. Despite the tally being at '''73/0/1''', the candidate still felt the need to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gurch&diff=140738695&oldid=140724024 pester the one neutral voter and beg for support]. Had the candidate made such a post at the start of their nomination, opposes for canvassing would have come flooding in. In the interests of fairness, this candidate should be subjected to just as much unwarranted harshess and borderline personal attacks as any other. Thus opposition is necessary. As is insistence that most of the candidate's contributions are [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|worthless]] and/or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=139273984&oldid=139273728 could be done by a monkey] –
Nobody beats the nominator :)
Not fair, Radiant cheated to get first. -
'''Support'''. Another excellent nomination. Definitely could use the tools and will use them well.
'''Support''' for two reasons: (1) I trust the candidate, and (2) I trust the nominator. You'll be a great admin. ''
'''Support'''. You're not giving yourself enough credit, you're more than qualified. --
'''Support'''. Interacted with the user couple times in [[WP:KOREA|WikiProject Korea]]. Fairly well. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
<pun>'''VIVA!'''</pun> '''
'''Support''' Not already an admin? WHAT? [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', good editor.
<tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Obviously qualified. '''
support --
Yes. '''
'''Support'''.  Per nom etc but also because anyone who can admit to "absent-mindedness" will have my support! --
'''Support''' -  very good editor, good contributions to featured articles
- <b>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Helvetica; color:#0095B6;font-size:95%;">SD31415</span>]] ·
'''Support''' No reason not to. ←
'''Support''' - I like the modesty displayed here.
'''Strong Support'''- You have been with Wikipedia for a long time, and you have had a lot of edits, you will be very experienced and you will know how everything works. We need adims like this one.--
I'm
'''Support'''. Of course. '''
'''Support''' per nom and other supporters.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Without any reservations; you are very able and experienced editor, and I'm sure you'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' Looks like a good applicant to me.
'''Support''' looks fully qualified to me.--
'''Support''' Looks good to me.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' I like the combination of strong history and proposed focus. Not too worried about the below AfD issue as compared to overall work. --
'''Support''' -
'''No-cliche-here Support!''' --
'''Support''' per Radiant. --
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''' per the crowd.
'''Support''' Looks like a solid candidate.
'''Support''' Looks great all around, no notable faults.
<big>'''{{lang|ko|찬성}}''' ☺</big>
'''Support''' No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' - mostly doing well.
'''Support''' Excellent and thoughtfull answers to my questions. I can trust the word of the nominator. I feel I can trust this editor with the blocking and deletion tools. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Pretty well ideal, by the look of it. --
'''Support''' per good statement and responses, record of contributions. Well-qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''', seems like a good candidate on the basis of what I've seen, and the discussion here.

'''Support'''. About time. Works hard very long in this project. Seen him many times before,  and all OK. -
'''Support''' Will not abuse tools, as far as I can tell. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Would make a great admin. —
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', great editor. <b>
'''Support''' Seems to be a solid, level-headed candidate.
'''Support''' answers are complete and well thought out; solid record of diverse mainspace contributions.
'''Support''' -- Good user. I rarely vote in RFAs these days, and if I do, it means that the candidate is really deserving.
'''Support''' -- I read the "oppose" comment about the MfD as well as his response and I was impressed by his attitude. Careful reading of policies and guidelines is a good thing for an admin, since they directly reflect community consensus. --
'''Support''' Deserving candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Meets all reasonable criteria.--
'''Pile on support''' - Seen him do some great work on the deletion sorting project. Dont know why he left though &mdash;
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' --
'''Absolute Support''' He never loses his cool, I've never seen him engage in fiery debates, I've never seen him make POV actions, and he's an extremely vital leader among editors who are interested in Korea-related topics. He began the Korea Portal, and did a lot to make WikiProject Korea function. And until this time, he never nominated himself as a admin. This shows his interest not in power but in Wikipedia itself. He'll make a great admin! (
'''Strong support''' - clam, does a lot of wrok, writes articles, etc, '''
'''Support''': Looks pretty clear.  —
'''Strong support''' It is with great infrequence that I offer ''pile-on'' supports, but I must here.  My interactions with Visviva have been few, but I have always found him to be possessed of a measured, civil demeanor and an affection for rational discourse; his conduct here&mdash;most especially his answers to questions four, five, seven, and eight&mdash;serves only to make such qualities eminently plain.
'''Oppose''', based on [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:E. Brown/Hurricane Gordon rant]]. I'd expect an admin to know better. &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' - As nominator, per reasons stated above. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support''' - Good experience and good answers to questions!
'''Support''' seems very well suited to the mop.
'''Support''', [[Roflcopter|wafflecopters]], and good responses too <font face="monospace">
'''Support'''This user seems to know how Wikipedia works well and has enough experience already. --
'''Support''' a good balanced editor.
'''Strong Support''' one of my first interactions in Wikipedia were with Wafulz. He is definitely admin material. -
'''Support''' Good edits coupled w/ a good understanding of NPOV. -- ''
'''Support'''. A solid contributor, with whom I've only had positive and constructive interaction. Plus a nicely realistic answer to question 1 (I just find the image of "being greeted by PENIS" inherently amusing at this time of night).
'''Support''' looks alright. Good luck! '''
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Experienced, well-balanced candidate.
I see no problems here.
'''Support all Cubo-Belarusso-Canadians''' - <b>
'''Support''' I don't see a problem here.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''Seems like the kind of experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nominator. ''
'''Support''' - Is there any Doubts??I dont think so..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - good answers to the questions.  Looks like a good user and a worthy candidate.
'''Support''' Great user, great admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]

'''Go Pens''' ~
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Civil editor.
Kinda embarrassing considering I hang around RfA a fair bit, but I coulda sworn that... &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', we could do with some help, and this editor obviously can.
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, excellent answers, excellent civility. My spidey sense is tingling.
'''Support''' Can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. ''Exactly'' what I look for in an administrator candidate. --
'''Support''' → I think he'll be a good admin. <i><b>
'''Support'''. Good, experienced contributor.
'''Support''' Looks like a good user, very good article contributor, submissions to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and good vandal reversion and warnings - could do with the tools
'''Support''' Excellent contributions in the AIV. --
'''Support''' Would like to see more mainspace non-vandal contributing, but there's enough there that along with his track record and a look at recent posts I'll say he can be trusted/benifit from the tools.
'''Support'''-Seems good. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' per Ryanpostlethwaite.
'''Support''' A good admin candidate to support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom and things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.93.21.40&diff=prev&oldid=67101838 this]. Edit countitis per [[WP:WBE]] box on user page is a major concern, but still. —
'''Support''' Just a friendly note: the only CSD categories that are "urgent" are G1 (nonsense, but some of it is offensive), G3 (vandalism), G9 (office actions), G10 (attack pages), and T1 (inflammatory templates) - correct me if I missed some.  The others are not so urgent; if it waits 24 hours, it will still get deleted eventually.  "Speedy deletion" only means that it doesn't have to go through any formal process.  But that's a minor boo-boo, and no reason to oppose a solid candidacy.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good, well-rounded person to have the tools. -
'''Support''' -

'''Support'''. Seems to be a very solid editor and needs the mop. Twiddle that bit! ···
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per excellent work on portals, very helpful, active vandal fighter, competent mediator and solid article writing.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' solid, experienced user.--
'''Support''' Clear dedication to the project. Good contributions. --
'''Support''' Looks good. -
'''Support''' Glad to see that you nominated yourself, Waggers. Fine AIV work, good candidate. --
I'm
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' - looks like a fine content contributor and a level-headed one. And we need more admins, etc. So thumbs up. Will doubtless acquire more familiarity with process if needed.
'''Support''' - Good user from what I can tell--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' seems like a good and trustworth user... '''
'''Support''' I feel that this user can be trusted with the tools. A possible slight obsession with edit counts does not affect his potential as an admin.--
'''Support'''I have looked at your talk page archives and have noticed that you treat others in a very civil manner. You also seem to be a responssible person and have a need for the tools. Good luck!:) --
'''Support''' per others, fine answers to my questions. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe this user will abuse the tools. Good luck! &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Support'''.  I was going to oppose, based on the acceptance statement&mdash;just for amusement's sake...but decided not to...  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks good. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', no signs he'll abuse the tools.--
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
'''Strong support''' - Active article writer, self-nom with lots of edits who sees adminship as just a tool for helping out with chores and general upkeep?  This is my perfect candidate.
'''Support'''. I think Twas Now's concern is legitimate, but Waggers's answer is adequate. Just don't act on any policy you aren't sure you understand, and you won't break anything. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I don't see a lot of Wikipedia-space edits, which is a general indicator of ones knowledge of (or concern for) policy.  (You do have 71 edits to [[WP:AIV]], but most of these are from July 2006 or earlier.)  The Wikipedia-space is where the vast majority of discussions important to administrators occurs (policy, disputes, bans, assistance, etc.), and active participation with policy-related issues would significantly help you in making decisions as an admin.  You might see how other admins behave and thus learn the proper boundaries, or you may simply keep up with the latest developments in policy (for example, [[WP:A]] as an amalgamation of [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:RS]]).  However, I am '''not opposing''' your RfA on this basis because I do not consider it serious enough to be detrimental to your use of the admin tools, and I see you are a diligent editor.  I think you would be a good admin, but consider this a caution. −
'''Support''' I have seen this editor many times in AfD discussions and have always been impressed with their reasoning. Also, Walton seems to have taken the criticisms from the previous AfD to heart to make himself a better editor and a better admin candidate.
'''Support''' as a co-nominator.
'''Support''' Adminships no big deal(!) (Oh yeah, does great work in XfD's too!)
'''Support''' - While I haven't always agreed with his AfD positions, they've always been well-reasoned and civil. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' - per above, --
'''Support''' Excellent editor; more than experienced enough for the tools.
'''Support''' He has plenty of experience, and I've seen him around.
'''Support''' as (late) nominator.
'''Support''' a civil and knowledgeable user from what I've encountered.
'''Support''' Incivility concerns appear to not be sufficient to oppose (IMO).
'''Support'''. This started out as an oppose... but then I realised I really couldn't oppose for this. Basically, my only interaction with this user was centered around [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Da.Tomato.Dude assorted usersubpages]]. Walton was civil to me, but I totally disagreed with everything he said, and I still do. The fact that you were so willing to support [[User:Da.Tomato.Dude]] in the keeping of her pages, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Da.Tomato.Dude&diff=118570199&oldid=118570034 implying that I didn't value her contributions] greatly offended me. I'd also like to note that I still think you're totally wrong and you seriously need to rethink your standing with regards to matters like this, since as [[Special:Contributions/Da.Tomato.Dude|you can see]], of the 21 edits Da.Tomato.Dude has made this month, 20 have been to user/usertalk and unrelated to the encyclopedia, and one a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_complex&diff=prev&oldid=120999169 minor edit] to an article. I found conversing with you frustrating since everything you said was total rubbish, and I believe I've been proved right. ''However'', despite all this, I support your request, and just hope you never find yourself closing any MfDs like that, as I'm confident that's the only time I'd regret supporting you. And to anyone who questions why I mentioned all this, it is important because I do wish other users to see what happened here, since some concerns have been brought up. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor. Civility issues appear to be trivial and easily outweighed by his positive contributions.
'''Support''' per all above and my interaction with him, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I have seen him around AfD and RC quite a few times and I'm of the belief that he would make a good admin. Most of what I was going to express has already been said but I would like to respectfully point out that I fail to see the problem with regard to Walton monarchist89's userboxes. Some people might take offense but there's hardly any topic that's free of controversy. More importantly, I don't believe that it's desirable (let alone feasible) to demand that admins hold no opinions or restrict themselves to non-controversial issues. Administrators, just like editors, are first and foremost people. We can't ask editors to check their opinions at the door when they become admins. In my humble opinion, all we can ask of an admin is to not let his or her beliefs dictate his decisions and I have seen no evidence whatsoever to indicate that this could be a problem in this case. --
'''Support'''. I have always been impressed with him. I thought he was an admin. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong Support''' wonderful editor.
'''Weak Support''' This editor has made some uncivil comments and some foolish choices in the past.  However, after careful examination of his contributions, I feel that his beneficial contributions far outweigh this.  I think that what someone did in the past should not be as heavily weighted as what they are doing now, and this editor appears to have proven that he will not repeat any of his uncivil behavior. So, despite previous incidents, I am leaning to support.
'''Support''' Meets my [[User:Mr.Z-man/RFA|criteria]]. <font color="maroon">
'''Support'''. Contrib history speaks volumes about dedication for the project. I experienced Walton as open-minded and cooperative, and whenever I crossed this user's way, he's been perfectly civil and level-headed. Regarding minor concerns addressed by others: saintliness is not an adminship prerequisite, is it? —'''[[user:AldeBaer|Alde]][[user talk:AldeBaer|Baer]]''' <s>
'''Hard-to-swallow support''' After seeing your highly disturbing userboxes I confess that I immediately started perusing all your edits in the past 30 days, just looking for a good excuse to oppose. I was frustrated to discover an experienced user carrying on a particularly fine job. And what's worse, you are clearly a very friendly and communicative user (your civility record effectively diminishes the diffs provided by Picaroon, which seem more like a bad choice of words rather than raw incivility). So I guess I just have to be fair now and cast a bitter support, since you're definitely apt to become an administrator.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Zero Sum Support''' Just here to cancel out the "boo-hoo I don't like his user boxes" crowd.
'''Support''' - Well I thought you were already an Admin..Good Editor..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', based on my recent interactions with this user I had already been thinking about writing this myself. Got beat to it, I guess. Userboxes aren't a tremendously big issue for me, nor are past errors. We've all screwed up at one time or another.

Support; examining this user's recent contributions and a random sampling of others showed experience and quality work.
'''Support''' This chap seems to be a valued contributer and very competent and that should be the only issue.  I find it very strange that some people find this editor's userboxes 'highly disturbing'.  Thinking Elizabeth II should be Queen of England and opposing Marxism isn't exactly membership of Al Queda is it?  If these are 'polarising' opinions then any political user boxers should stop anyone becoming an Admin, and that's clearly not the situation.  Wikipedia thrives on diversity and the fact that someone doesn't share another person's political beliefs is no reason to think they can't do a good admin job.  Strange how sometimes the people most stridently in favour of freedom and diversity in theory are most opposed to it in practise.  Support for British Monarchism is, in Britain, about the least contentious position you could possibly hold on anything.
'''Support''' Good when I've seen him around. And, not that I share all his views or like userboxes, he should bring them back.
'''Support'''. Great user whom I have full trust in performing admin tasks. I'm not particularly convinced by the strength of the opposes.
'''Support''', civilly addressed my concerns. --
'''Weak Support''' generally I think Walton is doing a very good job and will make a fine admin. My support is weakened though, because of his recent, almost indiscriminate support of RfA candidates. Several of the candidates he supported have been either borderline or (in my opinion, of course) have demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy. For all that we say adminship is "not a big deal", an admin who doesn't understand and follow our core policies can do serious harm to the project. This gave me reason to seriously consider if I trust Walton's judgment. On balance though, I believe Walton's clearly demonstrated personal understanding of policy mean he'll do a good job with the tools.
'''Support''', per Deskana, Husond and Gwernol. Good contributions and good communication skills outweigh some awful userboxes, past and present. I am diametrically opposed to this user politically and I doubt that I will ever agree with him on any single issue. However, I trust him not to allow POV to affect how he uses the tools. A good few mistakes there, but also evidence enough for me that the candidate has learned from them, or else they are harmless like the grammatically incorrect userbox. I hope I won't regret this, but here goes. --
'''Support''' I feel that I would be able to trust this user with the tools of adminship. He has been a great user from what I can see, and I believe that he would be a great administrator, and he would be able to help Wikipedia in great ways.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' I've seen him around and have no concerns about his performance. I, for one, think the desire to be an admin a good thing. We allow people to self-nom so why not let people state it as a goal on their own pages. I [[User:JodyB|do]]! We should encourage people to work toward the trust and support of the community that is evidenced by adminship. What do you want to do, force someone to be an admin who ''doesn't'' want it? There's not a problem in my thinking with the userboxes. At least we know of his potential biases and can better watch for any problems. His choice to self-revelate is his choice and shouldn't count against him. I vote yes!
'''Support''' - seems willing to work with the community and compromise.  Also, I'm supporting for pretty much the opposite of the reasons that Kelly Martin cites below.  --
'''Support.''' per Elkman and Kelly.
Mmmm... controversial boxes... yum! I didn't know the queen aroused such ardent feeling in the breasts of her loyal subjects. Anyhow, I support. -- <b>
'''Support''' Good applicant - nice rounded experience in pre-admin duties both in wiki and mainspace edits.  I think he is a trustworthy potential.--
'''Support'''. Seems like he'd do a good job. Oppose voters are not convincing though I've got to give Kelly points for "One of your userboxes contains a grammatical error. This shows poor judgment" That brightened up my day a little :)
'''Support''' Per his answers to the questions, and his contributions and interaction with the community lately, I think he will be a good admin. Here is my trust.
'''Support''' more zero sum support here. --'''
'''Support''' - as per the others above, I do dislike those (now vanished) userboxes, but I've never had any problem with him as an editor. Yes, I dislike his views, but I'm sure he'd think the same of me - I've never seen any evidence of it affecting his work. To be honest, I thought he was an admin already.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Support''' - Changed from oppose due to completion of tasks. Nice enough user, willing to change & I don't think he'd abuse the tools. Thanks,
'''Support.''' [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''. Goood and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' This support claim is specifically a response to those who voted oppose.  I read every single point of them and looked at every diff brought as evidence.  People are opposing for ludicrous and pedantic reasons that do not show this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Have seen this user around on various XFDs and am generally impressed by the opinions brought up there.  The concerns brought up about his userboxes are of little concern to me, user has not given indication that his personal beliefs/opinions will cloud his judgement with the mop.
'''Support''' I'm not a big fan of WM's "give adminship to anyone who wants it" stance (and that's putting it mildly) but that does not outweigh the trust I have for him based on seeing him around at XfD's. I also like the sound respect for the community expressed in the answer to Q5.
No concerns; neither the opposition below nor his edit history provide any evidence that he would do damage as an administrator.
'''Support''' Per strong Afd participation and no problems elsewhere.  As for some of the oppose votes, his comment at the Walter Humala Mfd is not only civil, but exactly correct.  There is a difference between honesty and incivility.  And userboxes, unless they are obviously and intentionally divisive, are among the worst reasons to oppose I have ever come across.  --
'''Support''', sound and article writing user. Civil and respectful too. Will not block on the whim, will explain if asked, will retract and apologize in case of a mistake. This is a set of features that many admins, unfortunately, lack, but not this one. --

Is he perfect? No. Am I? No. Is anyone? No. The opposers have some good points that I urge Walton monarchist89 to take heed of, but basically I trust him not to abuse the tools, having seen nothing to make me think that he would - and having seen plenty of good stuff as well.
'''Support'''. Great user, I've a good experience with him. --
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why The Hell Not?]]  I don't give a damn about your userboxes, etc.  You seem like a good editor, and that's good enough for me.
'''Support''' see no legitimate reason to oppose. Would make a good admin.--
'''Support''' - Introspective and has done enough homework to show me he's taking it seriously. cheers,
'''Support''' - Trusted user who understands process. --
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin, no evidence will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good contributor who always contributes his views in RFAs and appears to have a hard edit count to match. I support, good luck Walton. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Support''' Seems to meet candidacy criteria, good editor, issues raised by opponents don't seem sufficiently substantial to prevent adminship in light of overall record. --
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' I'm impressed by the tact Walton has shown in a recient AMA case. He has some very good and useful skills. --
'''Support'''. No problems.
'''Support'''. I find the answer to the questions about CSD more than satisfactory. If something doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, don't speedy it. Period! "Obvious junk" is not a completely objective and indisputable categorisation. {{tl|prod}} it, instead. Leaving an non-speedyable article an extra 5 days won't make any difference. Any issues with the userpage seem to have been corrected (although I can't see what Giulani has to do with "zero tolerance on vandalism"). Lastly, although [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cremepuff222&diff=prev&oldid=113911100 this] is not an accurate representation of what constitutes a personal attack, the comment itself is not a personal attack and I won't oppose on that basis. --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Walter_Humala&diff=prev&oldid=110386511 Incivility] (this isn't the only occurrence - his name stood out here because of something he said once, I believe at CFD - but I'm not in the mood to dig for it) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cremepuff222&diff=prev&oldid=113911100 complete misunderstanding] of what personal attacks are.
'''Oppose''' I remember this user asking a question that indicated serious inexperience, recently. I do not remember what it was in regard to.
'''Oppose.''' I've not evaluated your other strengths and weaknesses, but your user page, user name and signature all serve to promote a particular, divisive political point of view, i.e., (British) monarchism. I'm on record for opposing any admin candidate who uses his identity and user space to promote any sort of divisive ideology whatsoever. We are an encyclopedia, [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND|not an ideological battleground]].
'''Strong oppose''' per Picaroon. Adminship's not a big deal, but being civil in discussion certainly is. Plus, his MfD comments of late actually force me to move to a strong oppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:ANNAfoxlover/Autographs&diff=prev&oldid=121185037|Here] he basically launches a personal attack on the nominator of the MfD, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GRIMHAMM3R&diff=prev&oldid=120750071|here] he doesn't seem to understand the concept of userspaces, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Anarcho-capitalism&diff=prev&oldid=121749409|here] he basically shows he never read [[WP:SOAPBOX]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_9&diff=prev&oldid=121445839|here], he bases he vote solely on an essay rather than policy. I cannot support this RfA. There might even be more that I have yet to uncover, but this candidate really worries me.--
Candidate indicates on user page that he wishes to be an admin; that's a strike against.  Grammatical errors on user page; another strike against.  Candidate has a "this page has been vandalized # times" userbox, indicating poor judgment (such userboxes attract vandals; having one indicates that one doesn't understand that drawing attention to vandalism encourages it, not a good trait in an administrator).  After all that, the candidate's user page tells me nothing about the candidate, other than that he is fond of userboxes, and there is certainly nothing there to tell me anything about the candidate's encyclopedic editing.  Sorry.  Candidate has not convinced me that he understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and demonstrates poor judgment; I cannot in good faith do anything other than oppose.
'''Oppose''' per his comment 'I would not speedy-delete anything that did not meet the CSD criteria, even if it was obvious junk'. Huh? Process following is more important than removing obvious junk? If the candidate has too little confidence in his own common sense to exercise it even in 'obvious' situations, then I see no reason to trust his judgement. --
'''Oppose'''.  I've seen the user get involved in debates here and there and I honestly don't think the user has, as yet, the necessary experience and understanding of what Wikipedia is to become an admin.  I think for me there are also question marks over how the user interacts with other users.
'''Oppose''' - I disagree with the 'benefit of the doubt' idea for CSD.
'''Oppose''' Civility issues, and general lack of understanding of the purpose of userspace and [[WP:NOT]]. <small>
'''Oppose''' If being an admin is "no big deal", then why would the user want to even become one?
Per civility concerns and HighInBC.
'''Oppose'''. 2000 mainspace edits a minimum. The encyclopedia is what this is all about.
'''Neutral''' No doubt a good editor, but those diffs provided by Picaroon are worrisome. As an administrator, you should expect to face things that may outrage you. However, erupting on an editor's reason for deletion and accusing him of making a bad faith nomination, and then going on to say he should be reprimanded is a violation of [[WP:CIVIL|civility guidelines]]. You could just as easily communicate your point by keeping your tone civil and providing your arguments in a persuasive manner. Also, the second link provided by Picaroon doesn't really look like a personal attack. Dgies felt that the focus of the user's contributions on Wikipedia seemed violation of Wikipedia policy, and he may be incorrect, but the manner in which he communicated his thoughts is by no means offensive. '''
'''Neutral''' as per the diffs provided by Picaroon above.  The civility issue is important for an admin, considering the number and variety of editors with whom one is required to interact.  A cool head and civil tounge are as important as a knowledge of the policies and guidelines combined with the ability to apply them as required.
'''Neutral''' - My impression of this editor is that he is a quality editor - civil, and well-informed about policy.  However, I would like to see more direct contribution to article improvement - i.e., more mainspace edits.  --
'''Neutral''' - adminship is no big deal. :) Really though, you are generally a very reasonable contributor, but I cannot support due to the recent shallow RfA votes, the inclusionist tendency to reprimand others at MfD (they're not uncivil but I think they come out the wrong way, though of course this is just an opinion), and Q5: re-listing a debate full of single purpose accounts is just likely to attract further single purpose accounts. You should consider the arguments themselves. Also it seems you wouldn't discount !votes that contradict policy ([[WP:IAR|IAR]]?). –
'''Neutral''' Opposed by Doc for saying that process is important and by jeff for saying that A7 can be interpreted broadly.  Sounds almost middle of the road to me, but the combination of these opposes isn't quite enough to get me to support someone I don't know very well.  Of the two oppose reasons, I think Jeff's is better; process is important and admins that respect it are far less likely to become problem admins.
'''Neutral''' per Pomte's concerns and Picaroon's diffs. I also feel that this is a bit too soon since the last RfA, and had advised Walton previously (at least twice) to wait for at least another month until some issues had been sorted out. This request will probably pass, but I advice Walton to take note of the comments made here. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Neutral'''. —
'''Neutral''' - still not feeling the support, but upon further review, not feeling a need to oppose at this point for what was likely a misunderstanding on my part. --
I don't know of anything Walton One has done recently worthy of desysopping. In a reconfirmation RfA, that's enough to get my support. Oh, and I beat the nom, but that's kind of not the point. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 10:59, 10 December 2007 (
Kinda a no brainer :)
though he's obviously going to have to explain why he resigned in the first place and why he wants to come back now.
'''Support''' - Thank you. --
I see no reason not to trust Walton with the mop once again, and I think this RFA is an excellent idea, if only to dispel the perennial ''myth'' that (despite evidence to the contrary) any Request for Re-Adminship will be automatically shot down by the community.
'''Support''' Welcome back.  Please don't make this a termly occurrence, though!
'''Support''' and endorse Radiant's comment.
People who say this is wasting their time don't actually need to come here, I'm sure they know that? :) No d'uh support, great bloke who was trusted and can be trusted with the twiddly bits, reconfirmation is kinda lame but what the hell. It takes me less time to say something nice about him than it does to bitch about this process. ~
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Welcome back.
'''Bah Humbug'''
'''Support''' Former admin in good standing... of course. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support Re-Confirming''' - Every admin should do this to see if the community still has trust in them and I mean '''ALL'''..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Be fair to Walton, guys. He doesn't want the attention or love from another RFA - Walton really does believe all this democratic business. Personally, I disagree with Walton on quite a lot of stuff - but he's not an abusive admin or a troll, or anything foolish - he will not do harm. Was a person we need, still is. Just now and then the joys of unrestricted oligarchy must be fettered - and for that we need Walton. A gentleman of honour, though he must not take it all entirely seriously. There is nobility in laughter too...so welcome back. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup>
'''Strongest support''' Administrator of the highest caliber -- dispassionate, measured, and kind.  Also, I second the sentiments of Radiant! and Haukur: reconfirmations are a noble idea; even if they would be difficult to implement universally for practical reasons, those honorable enough to stand deserve only respect.
'''Yay Democracy'''. It would be simpler to just bother a 'crat about getting the tools back, and I doubt any bureaucrat would deny the request. The Candidate stated that he would request the tools through RfA, and here we are, as promised. Integrity ++. I have no concerns about the user's use or future retention of the tools - though, honestly, I'd humbly ask that he take a wikibreak when busy instead of putting us through bi-annual RfA's. Best,
'''RFA unnecessary''', but I understand why you did it. --
'''Stands by his word support''' I understand that this is totally unnecessary but he stated he would when he resigned it and he is doing it. His tenure as an admin was outstanding. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">
'''Strong Support''': Support for being a good admin, Strong for going through this process despite people hating it. If you have a problem with it go through the policy/process route, not adding POINTy votes.
'''Support''' - Walton was, in my experience, - and will be again, if promoted - a good administrator. I'm glad that he's applying again, and though I agree that it would be simpler to ask a bureaucrat for the privileges back, I respect his choice to go through a reconfirmation that the community trusts him with administrator tools. I should, fairly, note that I might have a conflict of interest here - Walton nominated me for adminship back in May (which succeeded).
Good to have you back!
'''Support''' no reason not to, but please don't make this a habit.
'''Support''' as a good candidate, even though reconfirmation RfAs are unnecessary.

'''Strong support'''.  Walton is a near ideal administrator.  Little of my time was "wasted" by this "pointless exercise."  It took me all of a minute to read his answers, consider his track record, and type my response.  Where is this so called bureaucratic waste of time?  I see someone with deep respect for the community honoring a promise.  That's ''a very good thing''. --
'''Support'''<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' I strongly disagree with an RFA so soon after resigning but if we were too strict in choosing admins, we would have about 20, not 1,400.  This person seems to be the best choice among the many that have RFA's now.
'''Strong support''' Of course.
per nom.
I strongly support this nomination. Walton One was always a great administrator, and will be again. With his views on Wikipedia, he is willing to stand up to them but at the same time, won't hold a grudge or think negatively against people who disagree with him. I think this new RfA is a good idea: calling it a "you're great!" session is an assumption of bad faith, and I believe I know Walton One enough by now to know that he is speaking the truth when saying that this is not a "pat on the back". Walton One made a promise and kept it: it is extremely worrying to see someone get opposed for being trustworthy.
'''Strong support''' - You definitely deserve the tools back, I consider you an excellent contributer who is friendly, helpful, and as demonstrated recently - clearly trust worthy and not the sort of person who would ever abuse the tools. I have absolutely nothing against re-conformation RFAs and I do find your views on community consensus admirable; especially in the way you handle criticism of them. Good luck and welcome back!
'''Support''', an experienced admin that shows no tendency toward abusing the tools. —
'''Support''' Though this RfA seems a little silly, I know that Walton will use the tools well. That is enough for me.
Pointless support
'''Support''' per Acalamari.
'''Support''': RFA should not be necessary in this case; but since it's here...  —
'''Support'''. The fact that this RfA is not necessary is not a reason to withhold it.
'''Here,''' you dropped your mop.  [[Image:Smiley.svg|19px]] &nbsp; '''''
'''Strong support.''' The candidate's answer to my question is more than satisfactory, but is in fact excellent.
'''Support''' - although an RFA may be "pointless" for this user, I appreciate the process.
'''Support''' - Good user and agree with Jauerback. <sup>
Nothing done wrong before the voluntary desysopping.  Should get the tools back.
'''Support''' without any reservations. -
'''Support''' -- if adminship is no big deal, then voluntary de-admining and subsequent RfAs should also be no big deal. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''', no reason why not to... --'''
'''Support'''; I see nothing wrong with asking via a reconfirmation process.
'''Support'''.  Give him back the mop!
'''
'''Support''' - definitely. &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Welcome back. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' and phooey on the editors who suggested you go through this process again.  Next time, feel free to go inactive for a while without giving up the bit.
'''Support''' - good strong reasoning skills. abides by the spirit of policy rather than just the letter. can definitely be trusted with the tools. -
'''Weak support''' the concerns regarding your civility raised by [[User:Dmcdevit]] appear to be valid, but ultimately you could have requested your sysop bit back, and in that light, I feel this RfA is unnecessary.
'''Weak support''' Dmcdevit raises some troubling concerns; however, I'm confident in this user's ability to bounce back from his mistakes.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Well-why-not-I-don't-really-expect-him-to-misuse-the-tools- support.''' Are fucking kidding me? Yes, Walton's got an attitude, which is more than can be said about many admins. So, unless he's really a [[User:Matthew]] sockpuppet, I ''tentativaly'' endorse this candidacy. Oh wait, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly|wrong guy]]. I&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Although I do agree with most of the no-need-to-desysop-if-you-don't-have-time-to-use-the-buttons comments above (and below, for that matter). --
'''Support''' - I've never seen anything that I thought resembled misuse of the tools from Walton.  He's given me good advice when I've gone to him for it, and has always been very reasonable and kind in every interaction I've had with him.  I don't think that this RfA is a waste of the community's time - if someone doesn't want to participate, can't they just ignore it?  What's wrong with a person erring on the side of openness and discussion?  And I doubt that you'd do something like this if you wanted a pat on the back; if he'd seen any other RfAs from similar situations, he'd know it can be an ugly experience.  Anyway, we should really focus on what the result will be of giving someone the tools, not on what their supposed motivations for going through an RfA may be.  I'm quite confident that the result will be good for the project.
—
'''Support.'''. You have been a good admin, so continue. However, do not resign again when you are busy. Admins do not have to their admin noses to the grindstone all the time. A low activity gap is quite acceptable. --
'''Support.''' I'd also have welcomed a simple call-the-crats solution as some people would have preferred, but as it now turns out there are actually also some real, substantial opposes, I'll make this an explicit support. Has been a good admin, even if in the Melsaran affair his judgment may have been questionable. Good admins are those that will occasionally stand up for unpopular positions too (even at the risk of their position then getting rejected).
'''Support.''' Nobody should be expected to be perfect, and I respect that Walton has stood by his promise to undergo another RfA. --
'''Support'''. Has spoken his mind when needed, but I have always viewed his input as sensible. Walton is someone I fully trust to respect community consensus.
'''Support''' - I'll support reconfirmation, but can all ex-admins please stop wasting community time and just ask a 'crat to resysop you? I think we're all a bit wary of them. Cheers,
'''Support''' - I feel that this process is certainly more courteous than asking a 'crat all things considered. I also believe that a successful RfA in this case will be a net positive for the 'pedia. Not too thrilled about the proximity of this to the desysopping but not a deal-breaker for me cheers,
'''Support''' Standing for reconfirmation should not be an automatic oppose reason. As can be seen, there are potential other concerns, that Walton wants to check he still has the trust of the community. He has mine. --
'''Support''' - Editor has given justifiable reasons for resignation, and for seeking readminship through this means. Personally, I don't think his behavior necessarily merited de-sysop'ing in the first place, but applaud him on having displayed the character to seek adminship again through this means. At the very least, discussion of this fairly non-controversial "resysop'ing" might help define what are and are not just causes for someone to have to go through the process again.
'''Support'''. No big deal.
'''Support''' See no evidence Walton has abused the tools and see nothing that makes me believe he will.
'''Support''' - User will not abuse tools, nor will he hurt wikipedia.
'''Definitly'''--'''
Strong support. In my times around Wikipedia, I have also looked up to and respected Walton as one of the most helpful, civil, and hardworking users/admins on this site. He always has had, and always will have, my complete support. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Weak support''' - While accept Dmcdevit's very valid commentary below, I don't see it as a deal-breaker here, more of a momentary lapse of judgement perhaps. Your previous work as an admin stands to you and you certainly meet all ''my'' requirements. -
'''Strong Support'''.  Was a good admin and will be again.
I never agree with with you, but your admin logs speak for themselves - There's no concern that I've ever been aware of. I would urge you however to respect other peoples opinion as I often see you coming off as argumentative when it really isn't required. good luck Walton,
Didn't bugger things up when he had the buttons already. This definitely doesn't mean that I feel all warm and duzzy about the needless wikidrama of a reconfirmation RfA. Let's not be making a habit of this.
'''Support'''. In my opinion, your strong record as admin outweighs the intemperate comments during Melsaran affair.  Cheers.-- <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
With respect to DMCDevit, I think Walton was just running his mouth and there's no real harm done if he doesn't actually use the buttons.
'''Support''' - I see no problems with the user and believe he made the right decision in keeping his promise to go through an RFA.
'''support''' a net benefit. Trustworthy. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Sure.''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' - as per talk page "civilness". Although I don't usually like or accept requests to change my (!)vote, I am utilising this information with the impeccable records Walton had as an admin. Good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' per answer to my question and to the one posed by Nearly Headless Nick. We all make mistakes, it's how we respond to them that counts. I also give you credit, rather than flak for choosing this route (when you could have chosen not to) when you must have known that some of your more controversial episodes would come back to bite you. Good on you. --
You know Walton, you're either going to be an admin or you're not. I support your re-nom but I do think this is waste of electrons -
'''Support''' per Dmcdevit (yes, I think his reason for oposing is that flawed) and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Blocking of sock puppets|these]] three [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Review and discussion of blocks|about]] to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision#Confirmation bias in block reviews|pass]] ArbComm findings, we need administrators who will vigorously review doubtful blocks.  The blocking admin had explicitly refused to say who they thought Melsaran was a sock of or to provide any evidence of disruptive editing.  That made it an obviously doubtful block, and one that it was appropriate to review.  The community has since made it clear in other cases that it has very low tolerance for blocking and blowing smoke and obfuscation in the community's direction.  We need more admins who won't put up with that sort of behavior, not admins that will support it.
'''Support''': Not really thrilled with the behaviour concerning the Melsaran block, but not convinced against supporting by it. Please do better at this in the future.
'''Support'''
It is really quite disturbing to see someone opposed because he ''doesn't'' blindly accept what Arbcom says, even if they have some sooper sekrit evidence. As we've seen recently, even people trusted by the community can be wrong. -
'''Support''' willing to question arbcom's decision where he had reason to doubt and information wasnt able to be seen, shows a person with integrity, a better choice of words would have helped. Yet this alone isnt my reasoning for I cannot ignore that he has voluntarily entered into this RfA reconfirmation  shows even further that he stands by his principals. In the end RfA is about trust theres no doubt that Walton can be trusted.
'''Strong Support''' Walton, when you first mentioned this on talk, [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_111#Return_of_administrative_tools|I said that I'd go neutral]]. Well, you said that you'd run another RfA if any editor requested it, and your defence has been since then that you are a man of your word and hence this RfA. So it looks like I'm not a man of my word. However on balance I strongly believe that you regaining the tools will be a massive positive for Wikipedia (per my question above). It means that I have to look a bit stupid and indecisive, but I must go back on my word for the good of the project. (This RfA is close now, and every support counts, so I'm not blowing myself up here - honest!). I still dislike reconfirmation RfA's, but the benefit to the project of you getting the bit back is far far bigger than my personal likes or dislikes. I see no value in grinding a personal axe when that will be detrimental to the wider picture. That goes against the spirit of being a [[Wikipedian]]. As ever, Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I swear I thought you already were one!
'''Support'''; everybody deserves a second chance and I assume good faith that resysopping this candidate will do more good than harm to the project. --
'''Support''' Let he who has not stood up for his friends cast the first stone.  --
'''Support''', simply to counteract all the "this is pointless" opposes. Walton One should not be penalized simply because Wikipedia lacks a formal reconfirmation process. --
'''Support''' has the good track record, excellent experience and good faith toward the project.
'''Support''' After looking through your logs, all seems pretty good to me.
'''Strong Support''' - Welcome to [[WP:100]]. RfA votes should be based on the candidate and their qualification for adminship. Can they be trusted with the tools? Not your opinion on reconfirmation RfAs. If it's such a burden to vote in reconf. RfAs, then move along. It's disruptive to the community, in my opinion, to oppose a candidate because you disagree with their chosen method to get back their tools. It's also assuming bad faith to think they're looking for some pat on the back. Walton obviously has what it takes to be an administrator. He's also a man of his word. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' This user with mob is better for Wikipedia than this user without.
'''Support''': seems more balanced than many other admins.
'''Support''' First, I'll echo LaraLove's comments on the reconfirmation process. A willingness to lay oneself open to the often harrowing process of RFA to reconfirm a past consensus is to be admired in an admin. As for the evidence here, I see a single patently bad incident (Dmcdevit's diffs). That's certainly not enough to outweigh a long history of positive contributions. Especially considering it was all talk, and no actual harm was done.
'''Support''' - despite having some concerns, integrity is still valuable.
'''Support''' - From what I've seen of this user they do a very good job!  Good luck. --
'''Support''' - Disagreements about 'the best way' to handle uncertainty about continued community support for an admin should never be reasons to oppose a candidate. Whether Wikipedia could adopt some better procedure for this is a topic for discussion on the talk page and elsewhere, not for determining whether the user should be an admin. As to the complaints about ''opinions'' Walton expressed in the Melsaran incident... get over yourselves. Walton didn't engage in personal attacks. He didn't take any improper admin actions. He expressed opinions that some people apparently don't like. If we start suppressing difference of opinion we might as well pack it in. --
'''Support''' Gave up the mop voluntarily and not under the cloud ''controversial circumstances''. Has the courage to go through the gauntlet of RFA again. This is the sort of behavior we need to see more of in admins.--
I'm
'''Strong Support''' His [[Wikipedia:Editors matter]] keeps me in the right mindset (although I still slip up quite often).--'''
'''Support''', was a good admin before.
'''Support''' - per all above that there is not controversial circumstances involved in the giving-up of the tools previously. -'''
'''Support'''.
''' Strong Support''' As per track  and gave up the mop voluntarily like a true democrat and come back to the electorate.
'''Support''' reconfirmation of mandate. Under the circumstances there was a reasonable doubt of the community's confidence; but the opposes do not persuade me. I wish some admins who have never lost the bit would stand for reconfirmation; but then again, they might find they have lost the community's trust.
'''Support''' Per above
'''Support''' for value placed on community decision-making, and for demonstrated accountability and integrity.
'''Support''' (moved from neutral below)  That answer is good enough for me regarding drama; and Walton has shown he uses the tools right in the past.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''
I think Walton was a good admin. I think the drama related to the reconfirmation are silly; I wish he'd just asked for the tools back, but I can at least respect the wish to keep his word (though I think it placed a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the complaint). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' Net benefit.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The opposing side doesn't really give a lot of punches to the argument.
'''Support''' I do not think the argument carried on below over a single specific action is appropriate, and I don;t think this relates to the general suitability, which seems clear. Considering that some of the neutrals are merely because they thing the whole reconfirmation unnecessary and the adminship can be resumed without it by the B'cats, I think the consensus here is pretty apparent. '''
'''Support''' - I see nothing wrong with this user. :-) A nice set of contribs. Well done. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong Support''' -- '''(1)''' Rigorously examining admins who are up for recall or otherwise voluntarily submit themselves to re-AfDing has a perverse consequence: it punishes the very admins who demonstratively exercise restraint, respect the community, and leave themselves open to honest review while the admins who are not so collegial continue to hold their adminships in the absence of any formal remedy other than the rarely-invoked ArbCom. Walton is voluntarily submitting to what is an entirely optional RfA, despite the knowledge that it will provide a forum for whatever antagonists he's acquired over the years to voice their displeasure. As far as I'm concerned, our standard now should not be ''"would he make a good admin"'' but ''"would he be so bad an admin that, were he not voluntarily subjecting himself to a RfA, the community would find it necessary to desysop him?"'' To evaluate otherwise is to punish the honestly self-critical admins while rewarding those who keep themselves beyond the community's input. '''(2)''' As for Walton's passion on specific controversies that have occurred in the past, I believe the fact that Walton clearly felt so strongly on these issues yet did ''not'' abuse the tools to advance them is merely further evidence that he is well-suited for adminship. We should ask our admins to be impossibly perfect NPOV automatons that personally hold no opinions at all; rather, we should ask that they use their tools judiciously irregardless of their personal feelings. An admin who openly acknowledges and discloses their POV and consciously avoids abusing their tools is far preferable to one who, confidently self-satisfied of their own lack of bias, fails to recognize when their biases affect their judgment. -
'''Oppose'''.  Walton only voluntarily gave up the sysop flag a month ago.  This is a pointless exercise in self-gratification, and a waste of everyone's time. Frankly, if an admin is so insecure he needs regular hugs and love via a pointless rubber-stamping reconfirmation every few months, I'm not sure they should get the tools back.
"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." - Oscar Wilde.  We need less process creep around here.  The very fact that you agreed to file this RfA indicates that you do not recognize this problem. --
'''Oppose''', agree with Neil. RFA isn't happy smiley Hallmark card time. It's supposed to be "srs bsns," for lack of a better phrase. Going through this when it wasn't necessary...no, I'm not down with that.
I have no problem with wanting to get community feedback - in fact, I encourage it, as it helps both the candidate, as he'll undoubtedly get some good feedback on what he's doing right and what he needs to work on, and it also helps the community re-evaluate whether or not we need this person clicking a few extra buttons.  However, there is absolutely no reason to voluntarily desysop oneself - if one doesn't want to use the buttons, just stop clicking them (look at my own logs, for example).  We've seen too much of this desysop / resysop nonsense, and I'll not support anyone who perpetuates this unnecessary drama.  Apologies for the tone, but seriously mate, if you didn't want to use the buttons, you should've just not clicked on them, instead of causing all this silliness.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
I see you may be popular, and I don't doubt you have fine intentions and I appreciate your work. However, since you have put yourself up for community reaffirmation, I absolutely think regaining adminship not a good idea. Walton One was manifestly unhelpful in his commentary throughout the banning of Melsaran, who was banned for ''using sockpuppets to stalk other editors'', or, in Walton's words [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=165227692 "standing up to the Wikipedia establishment."] Statements like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=165218538 threatening to undo an ArbCom ban], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=165225398 unfounded claims of his innocence despite the statements from ArbCom and CheckUsers]  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=165227692 "I am argumentative in discussion, and proud of it. Are you going to block me?"], and glorifying and tolerating stalker behavior (he is still today listed as "sadly departed" on your user page) are not acceptable from an administrator.
Per Dmcdevit.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit.  An administrator should be supporting the banning of abusive sockpuppeteers, not leaving Wikipedia in a huff over it. <b>
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit. The fact that he enjoys arguing on Wikipedia (when it's not necessary) is a bit troublesome. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
Far too confrontational and hard-headed; seems ready to blow at any moment.
'''Oppose'''. Per Dmcdevit. I remember the statements that DMcdevit linked to and thinking they were unhelpful and increased the drama level. However, I didn't remember that they were made by Walton until now. I don't think Walton and the project would be best served by returning admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit as well as my own observations in the Melsarian affair and other controversies.
'''Oppose''' per Dom; perhaps we need to come up with a concept of a veto for such cases?
Urgh. Sorry, can't support.
'''Oppose''' a bit too political recently. '''
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit and Neil. --
'''Oppose''' - Per Neil.
'''Oppose''' per Neil.
'''Oppose''' Normally this shouldn't be a big deal, and he really should have just asked for the bit back. But he decided to go this route, and it's not a huge deal either way. But we're here now and I think we have more argumentative admins than is healthy as it is. His self admitted argumentative nature just amplifies drama and polarization...it's already gotten him into trouble. It also sets a bad example for newer editors that see being argumentative is an acceptable way to communicate.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit.  I welcome and accept Walton's apology for his conduct over the Melsaran arbcom case, but it was a very serious lapse of judgement, and I'd prefer to see more water under the bridge before re-adminning Walton.  If he can keep his cool for a few months and be less argumentative and confrontational, I'd look favourably on a fresh RFA in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' I tend to agree with Dmcdevit and Blnguyen - just not comfortable at this time with his being admin after all the advocacy everywhere I look. No hard feelings though - I would reconsider at a future RfA if the situation at that time is different.
'''Oppose''' per Neil and Dmcdevit. -
''' Oppose''' per Dmcdevit.  And to GRBerry, several Arbitrators weighed in and said the block of Melsaran was based on confidential evidence.  Walton did not independently review and investigate a potentially bad block made by another admin, he stirred the pot and acted as though he was in a better position to know whether the block of Melsaran was bad than the Arbitrators who endorsed it.  Independence is good but not to the point of disruption and useless drama.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit, far too confrontational. An admin should do his best even when in disagreement to avoid wikidrama and advance his arguments calmly and avoid throwing gasoline on a fire.--
Having read the questions, answers, and comments of !voters, I feel Walton One is of a certain personality type not suited to adminship.  I fear he'll make decisions based on emotion rather than reason.  This is an increasing problem in the "community" here and we need to discourage it, not encourage it.
'''Oppose''' per Neil.
'''Oppose''' — per Dmcdevit. --
'''Oppose''' per Neil and Dom.
'''Oppose'''per Dmcdevit. However, I have no problem with him asking for another RFA.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Reluctantly, per Neil and DMC and also because ultimately Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not about struggling to overthrow a power base. It used to be said that if you don't agree with the structure of Wikipedia, you have the right to fork.  I don't hear that so much anymore, but it's still valid.  I can't really trust an admin who is so openly agitating towards political ends. There's no rush to regain your bit.
I've been sitting on the fence for most of the week, but Walton's recent responses here tip me this side. Oppose per Blnguyen and Hiding. &ndash;
'''Weak oppose''' - unfortunately a bit too brash at times. --'''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit, Neil, and others above. I've been sitting on the fence all week with Steel and I actually came here now after finally deciding to support but reading through the comments here and the snarky comment on James's talk page, I just can't support. It looks like you'll get through anyway, Walton, but please do keep in mind the concerns raised during this RfA.
'''Oppose''' Per the issues and arguments raised above; I think this is too early from a sudden resignation.
'''Oppose''' Iconoclasm, as opposed to questioning authority when there is a specific basis for questioning, is not helpful.
'''Oppose'''. Manifestly not competent to be an admin (per multiple comments above). Should not have been made one in the first place.
'''Oppose''' per DMC-devit, as well as what's saying you're not going to just desysop yourself again in the near future? There's nothing wrong with resigning from adminship, but desysoping yourself just to go back through RfA a month later makes me question your motives. I'm not convinced, give it a few more months and I may reconsider.
'''Neutral''' Why did you resign? What's to say you won't resign again? What changed to make you want the bit again? If you're not very active, why do you want to be an admin?
Oh for Heaven's sake, don't waste our time with another RfA. Ask a 'crat, and get the tools back. You were a good admin before, and I've got no reason to believe that you'd stop being one.
What Sean William said.
I would like to urge all sysops in the strongest possible terms not to make promises to stand for reconfirmation or to do so, unless ''significant'' objections to their adminship exist.  The fact is that we have never had a reconfirmation process, we have collectively made it clear on many occasions that we don't want one, and it is detrimental to the project to have these meaningless exhibitions all the time.  It bothers me even that the word "reconfirmation" is used in this RfA, as if that were a concept the community recognized.  If returning admins want, they can always have an informal request for opinions like the one Walton did earlier, and which should have been sufficient.
'''Speedy close''' and call a crat. No need for this reconfirmation. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Close and resysop'''. You've already been shown to be a capable administrator. Why not just head to [[WP:BN]] and request a resysopping? '''''
Instead of spending time here, it would be more productive for us to be reviewing other RfAs or improving articles.
Because of the concerns expressed by Dmcdevit. I would otherwise have opposed, but I think that you were a fine admin beforehand, so neutral. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' Seems like a great former-admin, but dmcdevit does bring up legitimate concerns. However, this just seems like an attempt to get on [[WP:100]]. Yes, I'm aware that he said he'd run through RFA again. I guess I'm more opposed to the process than the candidate, which is why I'm neutral on this one.
'''Neutral, leaning to oppose''' Sorry, but it's been barely a month since you resigned. I just can't believe that you will not resign again, and I neutral also because of Dmcdevit's diffs, which makes me think you have a few civility problems. I believe that all admins should help the project and be civil, but those diffs don't prove that to me. I'm truly sorry, but I just don't really think so. <small><font face="Trebuchet MS">—
Protest neutral against reconfirmation RfA's. Regardless, I'd probably be neutral anyways per Dmcdevit and then Walton's 18:27, 12 December 2007 response which deals with the most serious part of the concern but still leaves a little bit of a sour aftertaste which stops me from supporting. '''
'''Neutral''' per concerns raised by Dmcdevit. <font face="Broadway">
'''Neutral, leaning strongly towards support''' C'mon, Walton. Talk to a 'crat. This RFA, if it fails, will just show future Wikipedians what promises not to make and will deprive the tools from somebody who has used them well in the past and should continue to do so. I'm only Neutral because I believe this RFA is a waste of time and is contributing to the unneeded bureaucracy here on Wikipedia. --'''
'''Neutral''' Just get a 'crat to do it. Any admin who has used their tools can come up with at least one person who doesn't want them to be given the tools back. RfA's for this purpose are really a waste of everyone's time.
'''Neutral''' - not to go all generalising here, but I think reconfirmation RfAs are, in principle, a great idea, but in practice a waste of time and create drama. So going neutral on principle as a protest comment.
'''Neutral''' - per my comments under "Oppose" above. -
'''Neutral/support''' per Sharkface.  --
'''Neutral''' since I think wiki-drama is a bad thing and that as editors have noted above, this RfA is not necessary. That said, I cannot in good conscious oppose someone who is trying to be more accountable.
'''Neutral''' You were overall a great admin, but you handle the Melsaran incident poorly in regards of the ArbCom block. Also, there is no need to go through this again, as [[WP:ER|editor review]] is around the corner. If you ever get dysysoped again voluntarily, ask a bereaucrat for your tools back. Due to the ups and downs, I must remain neutral. <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  I've never heard of you but that's probably a good thing considering the circles I travel.  I went through a lot of your contributions and I see solid contributions across the project and civil interactions with other editors.  I don't see a ''ton'' of Wiki-policy experience but I'm not concerned.  You present no reason to believe you'd abuse the tools.  Just promise to read [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]] carefully before taking admin actions. --
No problems with this nom but please note that, when only one IP address is vandalizing an article, you should always block. If a shared IP address has been vandalizing frequently, escalate the warnings and then block. Protection should be left until multiple IP addresses have vandalized the article recently. --
I have seen this editor around & he is always courteous to others & generally helpful.  I suspect that, as his statements above suggest, his policy knowledge is not yet all it might be, but that does not worry me in his case because his personality is very laid-back & unaggressive & I don't see him getting involved in areas that are very contentious. Plus I think he knows what he doesn't know, & will avoid many areas until he is equipped.  As author of peer-reviewed papers, he is well capable of understanding policy when he wants to expand his areas.
'''Support'''. You don't look like you'd abuse the tool and you look like someone who would genuinely help the wiki community.
'''Support''' I am not bothered by any of the concerns of the opposers. I don't even have any questions to ask.
'''Support'''.  I don't like the slightly low edit count on the Projectspace, but your answers (which I'm guessing you newly revised based on the opposition) show that you understand that adminship is no big deal, and are going to use adminship as a tool, and not a trophy or status. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' nothing wrong from what I saw. "''I don't have any sado-masochistic tendencies''" - good for you :) There are two good ways to deal with conflicts and stressful situations: 1) Recognize a stressful situation as such and stay away from it 2) Recognize a stressful situation as such and diving into the matter with the intention of solving it. While no.2 is the ideal way, I myself prefer no.1 because what we do here is completely voluntary and we don't ''have'' to do anything. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor with the right idea of what adminship is about. No reason to expect he would knowingly or accidentally abuse the tools and no reason to question his judgement beyond what any admin is expected to have.
'''Support''', can't see any reason that this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I reviewed the candidate at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Wassupwestcoast]] and I didn't see any red flags.  I think he's mainly an article writer type, but I don't see the harm in letting him do admin stuff.
'''Support''' - Apart from the oppose reason which I had given prior to the clarification of his answers, I don't see why I should oppose this request. All the best, &mdash;
'''Support''' - I'm comfortable that he understands COI and AGF, from his answers above about not assuming socks in IP's, and not acting when involved. We have too many admins who do not follow these golden rules, and these are perhaps the most important policies for an admin to keep in mind. -
'''Support''' Per Nom--<span class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Has been excellent and diplomatic in finding ways for the [[Edmund the Martyr]] article to move forward. -
Strong support. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to my somewhat misleading question - has an excellent knowledge of policies and guidelines and won't be tripped up with simple questions. I believe he will use the admin tools appropriately. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Weak Support'''. On the one hand, I can sympathise with some of Spawn Man's concerns below; in particular, with regards to Q1, although I understand what the candidate is trying to say, it would be better for him to list specific admin areas in which he would work, just so we can be certain that he understands the role of an administrator and would be capable of working effectively in the areas in which he plans to be active. However, I don't think this is a sufficient reason to oppose. Looking through recent contribs, he is an experienced vandal-fighter and is also active in article-writing, and is able to work collaboratively with other users. This request is unlikely to pass, but I urge him to run again in 3-4 months.
'''Support;''' question answers are usually irrelevant, and I see no problem with the answers. They are better than most I have seen so far. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' Better understand some sticking points that had me on the fence. Not likely to abuse the tools. Seems articulate and thoughtful enough to not block Mr Wales or delete FA's speedily.  Adminship is no big deal.
'''Suppport'''.  Disregarding his username, I trust this editor not to abuse the tools. He has made excellent contributions to Anglicanism WP and many other areas.
'''Support''' - Trust is all that matters.  He'll be careful with the tools, and he's a quick learner.  That's a good combination. He'll make an excellent admin. '''''
'''Strong Support'''. This user has made outstanding contributions to a range of articles from Anglicanism  to Harry and the Potters. I have recently worked alongside this user in reaching FA status to the Harry and the Potters, which once was up for deletion. If an administrator, I believe he will not abuse the tools and with use them for good, in many ways than one.
'''Enthusiastic Support''' I've seen him around quite a bit, and know that he is a quality contributor to the project. I like the answers he gave to the questions, personally. Furthermore, one of the knocks against him seems to be his vague responses when asked what he would do with the tools - maybe I'm alone here, but I like a prospective admin who isn't eager to dive right in and involve him or herself in blocking, protecting, deleting, etc. I'd be much more worried if he seemed over-anxious to get the tools. I can't see westcoast abusing the buttons.
Changed to '''suppport'''. Has given a reasonable example of one way of using the buttons (see talk page here) and responded calmly and constructively to 'oppose' comments.
'''Support'''. I'm fine with trusting him with the goods.
'''Support''' (from Neutral) Enough to like on balance, and per review of this RfA's talk page, to convince me there will be a net gain here. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - No reason to distrust editor with the tools, and editor has answered questions and to my knowledge demonstrated qualities which lead me to think that the likelihood of misusing the tools is basically nil. Editor becoming an admin seems to be very likely to be a pronounced net gain for the project.
After a review of their user talk page, a random sample of their article and article talk page contribs, and the oppose votes below, I don't find anything serious enough to consider an oppose.  Seems wise enough to not start acting rashly in unfamiliar areas.  Not really concerned that it took a while to flesh out the answers to the questions, and I liked the section on the talk page too. In general, meets my [[User:Barneca/RfA Criteria|personal criteria]] --
'''Support''': I think his answers above perfectly reasonable, his responsiveness not melting into badgering, his experience seems to surpass any point that would concern me and I see no reason not to let him figure out what he can be helpful with as he goes along. My '''only concern''' is his response to Kurt Weber, below... don't bang your head against a wall, it ain't moving and it'll cause a mess.
'''Strongest Support Possible''': This user has made many outstanding contributions to a range of articles and projects. I have worked alongside this user in the Anglicanism project and he is one of the finest editors on Wikipedia. He has corrected me when I was wrong and supported me when I was correct. If he is made an administrator, I believe he will not abuse the tools and will use them for the good of everyone. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' I have reviewed the candidate and the comments of the opposes and I must say: I see nothing of any concern at all.  Wassupwestcoast has done good article work, is communicative and intelligent, and his comment that he's happy when his edits stick seems more like modesty than anything bothersome.  It's evident from his talk page that he's not getting reverted all the time.  I also agree with much of what TwoOars has said in the discussion section.  He's getting opposed for the IP/FA thing, but it's a situation he handled quite correctly.  I hope more people give this whole RfA a second glance.  We seem to be missing out on a pretty good candidate. --
'''Support''' Mature, thoughtful editor when I've run across him, which we do pretty often.
'''Support'''. Gets it. ''
'''Support''' per the mostly trivial reasons given to oppose.  "Namespace balance" opposes don't hold a lot of weight with me.  --
Looks like a good user. No convincing reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' I see zero evidence in the oppose section to make me doubt my gut on this one. Wassupwestcoast is an incontrovertibly good candidate for adminship. Best of luck!
'''<big>+</big>'''
'''Support''', will make a fine admin. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] <sup>
'''Support''' - I see no problems and the fact that the answers are vague means he can't be criticized if he doesn't something he said he would.
'''Support''' I can understand some of the opposes earlier concerns but with rather impressive expansive clarifications by the candidate's answers above, this editor shows a very thoughtful attitude to what being an administrator is all about. I also believe you could benefit contributing in project spaces but I believe you can do this at you own leisure as an admin, as I do not see anything that indicative of someone who would abuse the tools or editors. ▪◦▪
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Had some concerns over the answers to the questions above but can't see anything to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I am sometimes concerned by a lack of project space edits, but this editor seems intelligent and neutral. I doubt he would take on any (hobby) duties he is unprepared to fulfill.
'''Oppose''' - Uninspiring answer to Q1. In Q2, "''...I'm happy when I make edits that 'stick'...''", gives me concern. Why is he happy when his edits stick? Do they not normally stick and/or are deleted? I really don't like his attitude in Q3; the last thing we need is an admin who doesn't sort out issues and who gives others stress knowingly (Whilst bragging about it). And finally for Q4, he clearly has no clue about the policies in regard to this question at all. Questions aside - although the candidate has great contributions, he has far fewer contributions to the wikipedia namespace than I'd like, especially if he's going to be an admin. And anyone who reads RfAs knows answering all the support votes is not good. I just have reservations in giving him the tools. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' The concerns raised by Spawn Man seems to be valid as far as I am concerned. The lack of content in answering Q1 is also a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I also have the same reservations that Spawn Man has. Sorry, buddy.
My only concern here are the sparce edits in project space. I do see many to the GA pages and to some Wikiproject pages which I really like, but AIV is scant and the policy pages are pretty much non-existent. I'm not worried that you would deliberately abuse the tools but could create issues because of your unfamiliarity with the processes that go on here. I would suggest taking a few months, probably three, and immerse yourself in the admin related areas so we can see a more complete understanding of your work. Thanks for your attitude and your boldness in self-nominating. -
'''Oppose''' per question 3. We don't want admins to have type of attitude where if there are problems, one would just run away. Plus, it appears to me that you might not be able to articulate your reasoning sufficiently based on how you handled the anon and the FA article example you provided in the same answer.
'''Oppose''' Genuinely sorry to do so, but answers to questions, specifically number 3 and 1, seem uninspired and vaguely uninterested. I'd advise you to contribute some more and learn the Wikipolicies.
'''Oppose.''' Per general attitude as apparent in his answers; see above.
'''Oppose''' - Agree with Icestorm815. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Im sorry, i really like your attitude, you have a clean block log, and you dont appear to have any serious issues. But my concerns are primarily, that you havent really gotten to understand the policies that make wikipedia. My suggestion to you is that you read up on all of the policies, re-apply in 6 months time, improve your answers to the questions and you should be sweet. Good luck.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns with the way he responded above, the three attempts to answer question 1 and I agree the first oppose. You wouldn't abuse the tools, but I just cannot support while having these concerns.
'''Oppose'''. My experience with this user is that he may revert or remove others' work without the courtesy of a discussion. He seems to feel he knows best. See [[Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America/Archive 3#Denomination Info Box|here]] ("I agree that it is better to improve rather than delete. But sometimes forcing round pegs into square holes is too much of a bother.")
Weakly per JodyB who puts it well. '''
'''Oppose''' reluctantly.  I am sure that the nominee comes with good intentions and will do his best, but he doesn't seem ready quite yet.  I am confident that WUWC can learn enough about policy and protocol in a few months to qualify better on that account.  I am more concerned about his ability to express himself clearly the first time around; I'd suggest that he find some other experienced editor who can help him with that.
'''Oppose''' The combination of low project-space participation (home of so much admin-related work), and aggressive responses on this RfA leave me a little unsettled regarding temperament and competence.
'''Neutral'''. I can not support a canidate that is so unable to muster an explanation as to their specific need for the tools. At the same time, I am not swayed by the opposes and do not feel this user will abuse the tools.
Excellent detail worker at WP, but not experienced enough in the relevant areas. Maybe in a few months. '''
A no brainer.
But of course. There is no sensible reason to oppose -
RfA is a referendum on wikipedians' [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in the judgement]] of the candidate. I would trust this user to excercise good judgement. --
Absolutely.
I strongly support William for admin - good judgement, excellent contributions.
'''Support'''. Contrib history leads me to believe William Pietri would an incredible asset as an admin. I see no potential for abuse here. ···
Whilst I'm not overly familiar with this user, I believe he will make a fine admin, and he has my full '''support''' ~
Good editor with good judgment. He should be a good admin. -
'''Support''' Looks like a good addition.--
If only seen good things, seems well qualified.
'''Support''' Maybe just a tad more editing would be helpful; your answers to the questions convince me that you need the tools. '''
'''Support''' excellent user; I am impressed. —
The level and consistency of activity is a bit low for my standards, but, the quality of his edits, and his proven track record as a trusted user largely negates this. Support. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''S''' Nothing bad that I could see... --
I love reading his posts on the mailing list, and I see no major faults here. Has been around long enough and done enough (inc. the mailing list) to show sufficient dedication to the project, and I can't see experience being an issue. '''
'''Support'''- good user - I can see him doing great work down at CAT:CSD.
I have seen him in action on the unblock-en-l mailing list and I agree with the praise heaped on him by other commenters. ++
'''Support'''. This is a test of judgment and this candidate has very good judgment indeed.
'''Support''' per high quality edits and thoughtful approach.
'''Support''' - careful and responsible.
'''Support''' Genuinely shocking cliche moment.
'''Support''' - Why Not?..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - am I late with the "you mean he's not one already?" comment? Seen him working all over the place here, and don't see any issues.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user to me.
'''Support''', always been impressed by this user's thoughtful comments and contributions.
'''Support''', yep.  Trust him w/the mop.
'''Support'''.  I can address part of Kelly Martin's discussion from firsthand experience: the [[Juan Cole]] dispute is a tough nut to crack.  After touching bases with those editors periodically for half a year I've been mediating a [[WP:CEM|community enforceable mediation]] case with them and may need to hand the thing over to ArbCom.  To the best of my knowledge, William Pietri did a fine job there and the lack of a positive outcome should not sway RFA voters against his dispute resolution skills. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Well spoken and reasonable.--
'''Support''' Agree with all the support comments.
'''Support''' While I was initially worried about the lack of consistent activity, I realized that it didn't really matter. Admins shouldn't be [[The Incredibles|Supers]] and so long as an the candidate has a good record of contributions and conduct, there's no reason not to give them the tools. Even one edit by a new admin is less work for current admins. Cheers,
'''Support''' my experiences on the mailing list with this user are quite satisfactory.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support''' I remember this guy from 2005 in some ancient AFD where he calmly explained things to angry parties, to my amazement as I'd long since lost patience. Has a great, responsible attitude and is exactly the kind of contributer/admin/whatever that makes Wikipedia better. Not everyone edits 3-4 hours a day, day in and day out... nor should they be expected to. --
'''Support''' I am particularly impressed by his clear statement about the appropriate (limited) use of blocking. I have a considerable amount   to learn from him. '''
I'm
'''Support''' per nom and overall record.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' This is a interesting RfA for me since the name really doesn't ring a bell at all, for a change. Hence, I had a lot of reading and catching up to do. I don't look at a candidate's edit count as a determining factor but I do take it into consideration as an indicator of experience. As I've said before, a low mainspace edit count isn't a deal breaker for me if there are good reasons to support a RfA, which I feel is the case here. Cliff notes version: I haven't reviewed all contributions but I haven't seen anything that worries me either and I do like what I've read so far. The same goes for the answers to the standard Q's and the followup. I also don't see any indication that William would abuse the tools. All in all, I think he'd make a good admin and that's what counts, in my humble opinion. --
'''Support'''  Your edit count isn't very high, but I'm not one with editcountitis - I think you'll make a fine admin.  --
'''Support'''. His contributions are good, and I have not seen any real problems raised by the opposition -
'''Support''', of course.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Wessely&oldid=28685369#Some_suggestions_for_the_passionate This] shows spectacular good sense and judgement, exactly what we need in an admin.  It's one of the best talk page posts I remember seeing in a long time.  Regarding low edit counts--Wikipedia does not ''have'' to be a full time job.  This candidate has impressive experience, and even if he takes long breaks, will be a fine addition to the admin list.
'''Support''' per [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per Antandrus. Impressively empathic, level-headed and accurate, very good language. —'''
Guy nominee. Will not block Jimbo, nor delete the main page. Why not? He can take half the year off if he wishes, I'm sure what contributions he does make will be admirable.
'''''
'''Support''' -My interactions with him have been positive.--

'''Support'''.  Excellent responses to the questions and the additional discussion.  Best of luck.  '''
'''Support'''. Excellent editor and I trust him with the admin tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', an obvious case in which edit-counting is irrelevant.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Check this out, the dude is on! --
'''Support''' Excellent editor, can be trusted. &ndash;
'''Support''' meets my criteria. —
'''S'''upport. Anyone who sparks [[WP:TIGERS]] understands Wikipedia well enough for a bucket full of mops. And compulsory membership of the Mediation Cabal.

'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' based on various encounters with the candidate where he showed himself to be a judicious editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - An honest and hardworking neutral editor.
Deserves a strong showing -- William seems to be a particularly well qualified candidate.
'''Support''' - I trust him (and not only with admin tools).
'''Support''' Trustworthy and thoughtful.
'''Support'''. My first though on this guy was "wow how does he have so much support with a paltry mainspace count?" But after looking though his contributions, quite strenuously, hence how late this is, I think he's well-spoken enough to handle the tools.--
'''Support''' per nom and inasmuch as it seems exceedingly likely that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his being sysopped should be positive]].  I am heartened, further, by WP's (we surely can't oppose an editor with those initials) statements with respect to BLP and IAR, which reflect generally a tendency toward deliberation over celerity and toward an understanding of adminship as ministerial (and of admins as acting only to carry out those actions for which a consensus exists, consistent with those policies to which the community has given its imprimatur).
'''Oppose''' I would prefer more experience, and mainspace edits seem low for an admin to have.
'''Oppose''' Low edit count, almost no activity in the month of April (9 edits total). I find it strange that this user has so much support with these credentials. --
'''Oppose'''. 627 mainspace edits for an admin candidate is downright pitiful.
'''Neutral''' You are doing great but I personally prefer you get a little more experience in mainspace area and extra activity with atleast 1000 in Wikipedia namespace. --
'''Neutral''' I was going to oppose due to rather low activity (particularly in the mainspace), but the answers are quite satisfactory and denote experience. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Wimping out on BLP.--
'''Neutral''': While I am leaning towards support as I see nothing wrong with this user, the lack of activity and consistency of edits makes me have to go neutral. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. Good answers to the questions, but his level of activity is, and always has been both low and sparse. Not sure we could count on him to remain aware of any significant changes that might occur. —
'''Support''' as nominator.--
'''Support''', as I don't see anything within the user's contributions which might indicate a problem. Answers to the questions more than satisfactory. Cheers,
'''Support''' Nice answers, plenty of experience, it would be nicer to see a higher edit sumamry usage but I'll not be picky. Regards &mdash;
'''Support''' per the nominator. I'd trust this user with the tools. --
'''Support''' I like what I see here. Good answers, excellent article work, and a pretty civil and level-headed user. We need admins and this here is a good candidate. All the best,
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Good edit count, good usage of edit summaries. All contributions seem to be productive, and this editor seems trustworthy. My one concern however is that you are interested in closing AfD discussions, but after checking your contributions, I noticed that you are not currently active in participating in discussions. --[[User:Nenyedi|'''Nenyedi''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Nenyedi|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Nenyedi|Deeds]]<sub>
'''Support''' - A very good Editor and experienced too and the answers to the questions..mind blowing :P...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - shows a good record of being able to get along with other editors, especially in some controversial areas, and has good answers to questions too.  --
'''Support''' - whilst i disagree very strongly with WilyD that consensus was ever reached in the Muhammad dispute, i find the nominator's comments quite accurate. from what i have seen, the user is thoughtful, sensible, considerate, and appears to be well-suited for the tools.
'''Support''' - I tried to find something that I didn't like, and I couldn't.  Given the fact that the nominee <s>never went ballistic</s> stayed calm and neutral in some fairly controversial articles, definitely a good candidate.
'''Support''': User has plenty of experience and seems to have quality edits and shows civility. Edit summary usage however is quite low, may I suggest changing it to forced in your preferences if you hadn't already? <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' per good answers to questions and candidate's strong overall record. Please consider configuring the "prompt for edit summary" preference to bring your summary rate even higher. I have considered the opposer's rationale and find it completely unpersuasive.
'''Support''' I know that this is a cliche but already thought you were a admin --
'''Support''' this guy seems to know his stuff, I am impressed by his knowledge and handling of conflict, I'd like to have this guy as an admin--
'''Support''' - I was on the fence, however, I like the user's honesty about the stress leave. It is much harder to walk away from a stressful situation than it is to stay and engage in fruitless debate. I applaud that honesty, and feel that shows transparency.
'''Support''' A good person to have the tools.
'''Support''' Good editor with no reason to oppose <font style="color:red">

'''Support''' - meets all usual criteria for adminship, and the opposers' reasons (with respect) seem somewhat pedantic. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' Good mainspace contribs, seems he will be a mature administrator.
'''Support''' - I think WilyD is fit to be an admin, and then some.  '''''
'''Support''' No offense to Giggy, but I liked his answer to Q3.  He was being threatened, and instead of going into personal attacks, he dropped the issue.  Of course, he could have gone through the RfC and related processes (which may end up getting him in trouble with the admin in question, but I'm rambling here), but what he did was way better than going through a violation of policy.  I'd personally would like to have an admin walk away from a stressful issue than flying off the handle and blocking the other party (if those were the only two choices).  Plus, even admins need a break now and then.  God knows we definitely have enough (but there's always room for more). --
'''Support:''' Works for me. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
I'm
'''Support'''. I recently had a conversation where I intially disagreed with something he had stated, but he provided excellent reasoning and I ended up agreeing with his position. Should make a good admin.
'''Support''', seen edits and conversations on talk pages, and seems to be very receptive and fair. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' This editor has been swimming in some pretty rough waters. His work is among some of the most controversial articles we have. Emotions run high and yet he has been controlled and productive. I believe he will do just fine. I have seen not the first reason to reject.
'''Support'''  Makes informed choices and asks for information.  Doesn't go off half cocked.

'''Support''' Seems to know which end is up.
'''Support''' A very experienced user. Good luck. --
'''Support'''. My impression of WilyD is of one who speaks his mind, but he does so politely without any antagonism. Well experienced, and knowledgable in policy. Good fit for the admin ranks.
'''Support'''. I think you will make a fine admin. I am particularly impressed with your response to question 3 and how you've handled yourself at [[Talk:Muhammad]] and its archives. I just hope you'll not let janitorial tasks get in the way of your most noble endeavour ... sourcing. ;) Cheers, '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. I think you'll do fine. You seem to be pretty level-headed and, despite the oppose vote below, I think the fact that you took time off when you got your feathers ruffled shows immense maturity on your part. --
I actually find this user's approach to stressful situations to be one of the best I have seen, and find the opposition below strange. A look at [[WP:DR]] even suggests this candidate's approach (step away for a while). Support for being a good, level-headed, experienced and decidated user. '''
<b> Support </b> per all of the positive comments above.
'''Oppose''' Changing from "Neutral to weak support" to oppose per [[User_talk:Pedro#My_RFA|this]]. Anyone who honestly sees admin tools as a promotion is not fit to be an admin and does not understand that <i>it's no big deal.</i>. Sorry. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Q3 answer.  An admin can't just take 5 days off because of a stressful incident. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per WilyD's actions at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Up a White Kid Day]] and subsequent DRV and second AfD/  WilyD does not believe that an article needs reliable sources in order to stay on Wikipedia, but is willing to put up with arm waving and unsubstantiated claims.
'''Oppose''' I feel that taking five days off because of a stressful incident shows WilyD lacks dedication.  I understand that knowing when you need a break could be a good thing, but if his main goal is to help eliminate backlog, this would be hard to accomplish if he needs time off to handle stress. '''
'''Neutral''' I wonder a little about the (first) AfD for Beat Up a White Kid Day [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beat_Up_a_White_Kid_Day]] --after showing very effectively why it was notable, you asked the nom. to withdraw the nomination & then started arguing back and forth about it, which seems like overkill--and even perhaps looking for an unnecessary fight. '''
'''Support''', (Cremepuff does a little jig because he beat the nom. :) )Wimt is a prime example of what a well-rounded editor should be. He has over 20,000 edits (half of which are to the mainspace) and edits to most of the other namespaces. Wimt is an extraordinary vandal-whacker with over 300 reports to [[WP:AIV]]. Wimt has improved many articles (such as [[AACS encryption key controversy]]), which proves that he collaboratively improves the project. I have known Wimt for a while now, and I have no doubt that he'll effectively improve the project. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Strong Support''' - I have known this user for over 5 months and I highly regard him as the best vandal fighter and he is also one of those editors who maintains [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] at all times. He will be an asset as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators|admin]]  and I hope he will be one cause we really do need a few more good admins fighting vandals.. :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Spifflicatingly superb editor. Very good chap.
'''Big cigar support'''.
'''Very strong support''' an excellent and very civil user, and has always remained that way whenever I have encountered him.
'''Support''' Has shown a need for tools, no reason to believe user will misuse tools.
'''Strong support''', as per Cometstyles. I see nothing indicating that he will misuse the tools. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Tim.bounceback--><font color="purple">
'''Strong <s>oppose</s>support''' a great editor, and great guy, who can definitely be trusted to do some dull sysop chores. '''
'''Support'''. An excellent editor. --
'''Strong Support''' as nominator. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' See no problems here.  Happy mopping.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' However I would like clarification - you do know this doesn't pay any money, right? It's just with the level of activity I can't see how you can hold down a job as well.... :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - as co-nom.
'''Support''' per above. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' per noms.  Outstanding editor.
'''Support''' good editor and meets my very low standard for admin (is this person a vandal or a troll? no - then he can become an admin). --
'''Strong Support'''-Great editor, who's work I've seen, a lot. Could really use the tools. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Support''' Often seen him in [[WP:AIV]], and he always delivers accurate reports. If Nishkid and Ryan trust you, then I might as well trust you myself. Good luck! —
'''Strong support:''' I'll keep this shorter than Cremepuff222's !vote rationale: Wimt is a great editor who does nothing but stopping the spread of the virus known as "Vandalism". He could use the tools better than half of the sysops out there. '''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' This guy is a freak! (not in a bad way) 7000 edits in a month?! Support of course.
'''Support''' I don't know how you find the time, but please come join us. The Vandals are at the gates! Seriously, grewat editor, excellent experience, potentially a marvellous admin.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' as a strong editor with solid experience. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Only one edit in the template talk namespace. And only 20,000 edits? Sorry, but I think admins should have edit counts with six digits; anything less and you could just be gaming the system. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''Has shown a good need for the tools, and is dedicated to improving Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Great! I see no reason to even think about going weak support, let alone neutral or oppose!
'''Support''' Spotless record and purposeful --
'''Support''' per his answer to question four. --
'''Strong support''' <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><b>
'''Strong edit conflict support'''. I've seen this user around RC patrolling before and he's always seemed completely sensible, and good at explaining things; the diff presented in question 2 about the deleted band article was spot on. Best of luck, <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Strong support''', one of the more shocking "not an admin? RLY?" candidates in quite some time. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support''' - I hate to say this, but per nom. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''. That "oppose" section below seems awfully unnecessary for this case ... -- '''
'''Support''' I don't have anything specific to add, it has already been said.  Per nom, and all above.--
A non-idiot. &ndash;
Fast postage, item just as described, good communication, no hassles. Would buy from again. However wished to nominate myself so must leave neutral feedback at this time
'''Support'''. Absolutely. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''<font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font>'''<font color="silver">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong support''', one of the fine contributors that keep this place shipshape. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' - I can see nothing but good things from this user.
'''Support''' yup.
'''Support''' I see no reasons to oppose. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Support''' absolutely &ndash; great vandal-fighter; adminship is no big deal.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' No problems. Many good things.
'''Support''' Very good editor who has a need for the tools. Good luck Wimt!:)--
'''Support''' A fantastic editor! Get the mop!
'''Support''' - fully deserves the tools. <span style="font-family: Verdana"><span style="background:Silver;color:Black">'''
No problems here... --
'''Support''' 20,000 edits? No wonder it seems like I see the user's name everywhere! Ummm, per nom and others.
Good user. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' blatantly stole my sig! I've been confused for this... vandal... millions of times! I demand he be banned immediately! (j/k :P) '''
'''Support''' per all the comments above.<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' for personal editcountitis reasons (just kidding), since this is an easy choice.  I'm suprised he isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've been watching this page since the 4th, waiting for it to go live and the day it does: what happens to my internet connection? A fine contributor who can certainly be trusted.
''wikipedia-eh-help'' cabal '''Support''' --
'''Support''' - What I'm not going to oppose if I co-nominated him! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''<big>+</big>'''  The user can clean up on his own.  Flourish the mop, welcome to hell.
'''Strong support'''. Has demonstrated that he knows what he's doing and is not (as far as I can judge) insane. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
<s>'''Oppose''' Three co noms</s> '''Support'''.
I Black Harry, hereby '''support''' this fine candidate as there is no reason for him not to be sysopped.  '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I encounter him at AfD quite often and he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_Insight&diff=prev&oldid=135955574 always] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Captain_Luna_Harper&diff=prev&oldid=135953578 provides] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misanthropology&diff=prev&oldid=135696458 a] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sasa_Macura&diff=prev&oldid=133141218 thorough] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matrixism_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=128202001 rationale]. He's beaten me to vandal reverts countless times, and reverted vandalism on my own user page before me quite a few times.
'''Support'''
'''Strong and Serious Support''' Same with [[User:Leebo]]'s support. Wimt is very good at reverting vandalism and he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NHRHS2010&diff=next&oldid=124228549 reverted vandalism on my user page] as well a few times and he is a nice person. Can't wait until you become an admin, Wimt.

'''Support''' per nom. Everything looks fine. —'''
'''Support''' Got my vote...good editor.
'''Support''' Plenty of good reasons given above - I agree.--
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Strong Support''' He has a clean record, and is educated on Wiki Policy. I believe he will do fine!
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''', of course. —
'''Support''' Strange, I thought I already voted. &mdash;
I'm
Should have been an admin already.
'''Support''', demonstrates the proficiency for adminship status. —
'''Support'''. A little late, but still felt I should. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Oppose''' Moral support. I would support later after this person has more experience.  This person's mainspace edit count is low (not counting anti-vandal bot reverts).  Article creation is next to none as well as making an article really good (has only one article about encryption that he edited 20 times).  The vast majority of the edits are in the last 3 months.  He edits and doesn't discuss, which is bad.  He edits 50 times per 1 article talk page edit.  End of statement about this editor.  //////// General comment: Please note socks like rms125a@hotmail.com may someday devote 3 months of time to easy vandal reverts.  Building articles takes much more intellect and is harder to do.  Socks usually aren't smart enough to edit over the long term.  Once rms125a@hotmail.com becomes an admin, wikipedia becomes crap.  Wimt, try again in a few months.  Wikipedia isn't going away.
<s>Could not normally pass the criteria regarding high-quality article contributions according to RfA guide, however it would definitely not become civil to oppose this nomination. Therefore, I am neutral for now. –
'''Support''' basically I trust this users judgement, I have seen him around. I see no reason why not.
'''Strong Support''' Great experience, great answers, has use for the tools.  I can't believe he isn't already an admin.! '''
'''Support'''- Seems like he'll be a good admin--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''- I have good faith in this editor.--'''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A fine Wikipedian who will use the mop quite well. --
'''Strong support''' - good work, especially at FLC, has displayed good judgment. '''
'''Strong Support''' I already thought you were an Admin. '''
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per above :). ''
'''Support''' - Very good, I like the replies to the questions above. As the mop is ''no big deal'', lets give this fine user the mop already! ——
'''Support''' like Eagle 101 says.
'''Support'''- Sterling work, good judgement.
'''Support''' - good answers, although 'speedy deletion' does not necessarily mean it should be deleted within a few minutes, but rather the admin deleting 'on sight' once it is noticed (apart from checking stuff like page histories). However, I agree that we need more admins to delete stuff there.
'''Support''' - a trustworthy editor, no doubt about it.
'''Support'''- shows judgement.
'''Support''' Seen this user around, I saw no problems in contribs history. I can easily overlook the CfD when he withdrew it upon further information.
'''Support''' a hard-working user, answers are good, and not likely to abuse the tools. ←
'''Support'''.  Clearly a dedicated editor.  No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Tepid Support''' no big deal -
'''Support''': Excellent answers to all of the questions, and there's absolutly no reason not to hand out a mop at this time. <font face="Arial">--Kind Regards -
Cautious '''support''' - CfD on disaster movies is a non-issue for me, anyone can make a mistake, and Wizardman fixed the mistake, so I don't think we should harp on about that; on the other hand, "it's better than it was" at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall men]] is a somewhat worrying !vote at AfD.  Wizardman is a bit new, obviously still learning the ropes in some areas, but sterling work at [[WP:BLP]] cannot be denied and in the end I invoke the "no big deal" clause.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - someone I've seen around, adminship not a huge deal. Feels as though I can trust this fellow's judgment.
'''Support''' Dedicated user who has shown good judgement. No reason not to trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' per above...
'''Strong Support''' I have had personal dealings with this editor and he is very helpful, courteous, and knowledgable.
'''Weak Support''' I have some concerns about this nominee's apparent impatience, in that he seems to make snap decisions in an XfD (or even an RfA) that he later reverses, usually because some other editor had done his or her "homework" before !voting, something this nominee could or should have done first. That has me concerned that this nominee could rush to judgment with the new tools a little too quickly. While everyone's entitled to change their mind (especially as these processes are a ''discussion'', not a vote), I find it a little too frequently. That all said, I have noticed the nominee improving in this regard, so it is not enough of a concern that I would oppose. I would also have preferred to see this user gain a bit more experience; pumping up the edit count in the last two months, after rather sporadic contributions, doesn't quite seem to indicate that much learning was done regarding policy and guidelines. Again, it's not enough for me to oppose, because the nominee has become active at XfDs and rarely fails to give an explanation for his !vote. This isn't supposed to be a big deal, the nominee could use the tools, and despite the foregoing I think the candidate will not misuse them.
'''Weak Support''' per the *fd concerns. However, I see him everywhere and he always has good ideas. I trust him.
'''Support''' as Wizardman has shown a lot of enthusiasm and a willingness to learn from mistakes. He has also been very active in a large number of areas important to using the admin bit, so I think he'll do a good job. ···
'''Support''',  Questions 1 and 6, and no complaints from me.
'''Support''' - trustworthy, won't abuse.
I'm very impressed with the attitude this user has, as exemplified by the comments below in response. Below is reflective of Wizardman's general contribs, from my quick browsing, and I see no other reason ''not'' to give him the tools. A perfect candidate, really - one who is able to rationally respond to adversity, and show appropriate courtesy. '''
'''Support'''. he is a dedicated contributor.--
'''Support''' A hard-working Wikipedian, who deserves the mop. | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''', but please consider what JzG and Agent86 said: we're not working to a deadline.
'''Strong support''' per above.
'''Support''' As with above I believe this user will be a great sysop.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' per nomination. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''', looks like a good Wikipedian.
'''Support''', per rational and sensible answers, reasonable temperament in evidence, policy OK, nothing to indicate potential misuse.--
'''Support''', have seen nothing to indicate user couldn't be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' from me too, surprise, surprise.
'''Support''' <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5">

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Despite what the oppose votes have to say, I am still confident that this user would become a fine addition to the admin staff. Helping out with CSD deletions at first could probably stifle any doubts that I had about his speedy deletion policy. '''
'''Support''' per nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason to suppose user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support'''- <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' I trust Wizardman's judgement. <b>–
I'm
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' per nomination.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strongly Oppose''' — [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_21#Category:Disaster_movies]] - I have to question your lack of judgement here, the previous CfD closed like 24hrs ago! <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
Needs more experience, that isn't to say that he wouldn't do good if he's handed over the tools at the moment. However, wannabe Interiot shows high level of activity only in the last three months &ndash; [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Wizardman&site=en.wikipedia.org], also many of the recent edits &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&target=Wizardman], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070113184457&limit=1000&target=Wizardman], which puffed up his edit-count are wpbio assessments, where he has made edits like this &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Salem&diff=prev&oldid=101569615]. Adding stub class as a kind of assessment. Looks like mindless bot work to me. Also good amount of participation in the process works wonders with voters. Will support in 3 months. Regards, &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Four hours is not enough notice for speedy deletions. '''
'''Oppose''' - I recall reading some recent Xfd opinions by this user that were a bit... odd. The one I specifically remember was an Rfd discussion in which he wanted to delete a redirect because the target "wasn't going to stay around for a while" (if a target is deleted, it should be db-redirnone'd, but not beforehand). If I recall correctly, the decision was overturned at DR and comments were made regardly the complete lack of policy-based reasoning in the opinions of everyone at the Rfd discussion. I'm not sure this user has a strong grasp of deletion policy. ---
Per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeley Dorsey]]. Admins should enforce policy correctly or make an informed decision to ignore it for a good reason... that's fine. But I'm not comfortable with a candidate who would enforce an incorrect reading of policy and ignore evidence that their reading is incorrect. On second thought, opposing over one incident is a bit of a jerky thing to do.--
'''Netural''' per W. Marsh.
'''Neutral''' per W. marsh --
'''Support''' -- unhesitatingly. WjB has been consistently hard-working, thoughtful, and responsible, and has my complete trust. -- [[User:Ben|<span title="Formerly ''Benedict the Moor''">'''''Ben'''''</span>]]&ensp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Ben|'''TALK''']]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ben|'''HIST''']]</sub></small> 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) <font size=-2>''(<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WJBscribe&diff=116362302&oldid=116299384 Earlier listed], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WJBscribe&diff=next&oldid=116362302 reverted]<span>, and now listed again: I wished only to say that my support for the nomination was not dependent on the nominee's acceptance or answers to questions -- I have simply seen so much of WjB's contributing style in ''issue-deciding'' areas (as distinct from article edits), and found it so consistently responsible ('''''even''''' in contentious discussions, '''''even''''' when we disagreed) that I no longer have any reasonable doubt as to how WjB will handle admin tools. --
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent candidate, have seem them all over the place. Would make an excellent addition as an administrator.
'''Support''' - I cannot imagine a single person on all of Wikipedia who would make a better administrator. WJBscribe has (mostly) a cool head, a sharp mind, and always discussions with his input come out much better for it. His contributions to [[WP:LGBT]] has been immense (though that automation of the Portal hasn't happened yet ;) ). WJB is friendly, helpful and polite. I genuinely believe that WJBscribe will prove to be one of our finest admins.
'''Support''' per Chrislk02 and Dev920.
'''Support''' <font face="monospace">
'''Cliche Support''' - you mean he's not one already? --
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate. -
'''Unquestionable support''' - I've seen your work over on [[WP:CHU/U]] over the last while and your edits relating to [[WP:LGBT]] are extensive and legendary. I've seen you just about everywhere. (was holding off having anything to do with RFA until certain things were complete, but simply couldn't let this slip by). Another one of those "what? You're not an admin??" moments -
'''Strong support''' Great user, around everywhere and always very reasoned, will do great work
'''Strong Support''' Finally!  WJBscribe is one of the most perfect candidates, he is a great user that will make a great addition to the administrative team. '''
'''Support''' Easily.
'''Support!''' Great editor! :-) He'll make a really fine admin, I'm convinced of it.
'''Erm... yeah!''' I keep seeing WJBscribe literally ''everywhere'' and I think to myself ''"Wtf, not an admin???"'' It '''shocked''' me to realise he wasn't one, and even then I still kept forgetting. I offered to nominate him a few weeks ago, but Redvers beat me to it. WJBscribe is an asset here, knows exactly what he's doing and will make a fantastic admin. Good luck, not that you really need it... =) '''
'''Support''' Will make a fantastic admin. No reason to oppose this user at all. --'''
'''Support''' per nom. I offered to nominate this user as well.
'''Support'''.  Ordinarily I'd say too soon, but from what I've seen of WJB I have no problems. I'm certain he'll be one of the best.  &mdash;
'''Support''' Can't say it better than it's already been said. —
'''Support''' Excellent editor. <sup>
'''Support''' I've seen this user everywhere, no doubt he'll make an excellent admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. It's about time, too. I've been suggesting he do this for a while now.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support''' Without a doubt.--
'''Support'''. Will be happy to see WJBscribe as an admin. I've seen him be a calming influence in some heated situations, as well as offering excellent advice.  Does good work, is ready for the tools, and giving him the tools will help the 'pedia. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Very Strong Support''' Can't really make a supporting statement, I left my box of superlatives at home today. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
Wow... really? Not a sysop? Hm... - <b>
'''Strong Support''' per many of the reasons listed above. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">
'''Most definitely'''
'''Support'''as per all the reasons stated above.'''
'''Strong Support''' per nomination. An admirable and competent user who will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support.''' Seems to understand policy from the interactions I've seen.  Good nom. —
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. yes yes yes. ---
'''Strong support''' - it's hard to add to what's already been said - a fantastic editor. --
'''Strong Support'''. '''Very''' active contributor on WikiprojectLGBT, one of the main contributors to that, excellent writer and negotiator, absolutely
'''Support''' Now this user is indeed a good admin candidate! [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen him a few times, and I admire his contributions.
'''What??''' I never expected to say this, but- "you are not already an admin"? Well, it's about time, then. —
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''', all over the place, will use the buttons wisely.
'''Support''' WJBscribe is a good editor and I am sure will continue as a good administrator.
'''Strong support''', I've always been very impressed with WJBscribe and am sure he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Will make an excellent admin. Beat me in vandal reverts and AIV's before i even clicked a button.... --[[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color= "blue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">'''''KZ'''''</font>]]     [[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<sup><small><font color= "red" face="Century Schoolbook">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] <sup>•</sup>
Yep. Seen a lot of good stuff. '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' as nominator. Obviously :o) '''<font color="red">
'''I-need-not-even-look-at-this-guy's-edits-to-tell-he's-admin-material-super-support''' - Jumping jehoahoa! This guy deserves the smelly cleaning device we have come to know as the mop. May it reek especially so when you bash vandals with it. 100% support & we hardly (if at all) know each other. Great work man... :)
'''Support''' this is the first time I've ever seen [[user:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] but he definitely looks like admin material to me, it would be a mistake not to make him an admin --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' No reason not to jump on the bandwagon. --
'''Support''' I've been consistently impressed with WJBscribe's civility and other fine qualities, even from our [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chaser|first meeting]]. Happy to support.--
'''No-brainer Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support'''. Adminship for you should have been automatic. -- ''
'''Strong support''' - This guy is everywhere and is superbly qualified. 100+% support. --
No question.  —
'''Strong Support''' I was thinking of nominating this user myself, particularly active in XFD's and generally an excellent user.<b><font color="0066FF">
'''Support''' Yep.

'''Support''' Fantastic.--<font face="monospace">
'''Support''', vehemently.
'''Yes please'''. ''
'''Support'''<span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''' as an excellent addition to the added responsibility which comes with the twiddled bit. I find WJBscribe to be an excellent contributor and see no indication the bit would be abused. Twiddle away. ···
'''Support''' per above.
Hmm I thought he was an admin '''Support'''
'''Support''' WJBscribe has done great work on Wikipedia, both with articles and items in the Wikipedia namespace. I feel comfortable giving the admin tools to a trustworthy candidate. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. No red flags so far.
'''Support''' → Why should I not? <i><b>
'''Support''', skills used with patience.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate &ndash; there are a few of those around at the moment.
'''Strong Support''', excellent and intelligent editor. He will use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''', (insert cliche here per NYC JD). · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Support''' looks excellent.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Great, level-headed contributor.
'''Support'''. WJB is an excellent RfA candidate and I am sure he will make a fantastic admin. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' My only concern is that this will detract from real-world drinking time. Cheers.
'''Support'''.  Mais oui, bien sur.

'''Support'''. Oh yes. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' has excellent editing as well as janitorial experience.  Definitely has my support.
'''Support''' per Persian Poet Gal.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Should make a fine admin. Good luck. <font color="Green">
'''Support''' Definitely. Seen this user around and theres nothing but positive contributions. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around and done business a couple of times.  I can not see where giving the tools to this editor will hurt the project.  I have faith that WJB will use the tools in accord with policy coupled with common sense.  I do not foresee, based on the contributions and editor conduct where the tools will be abused.  WJB, do what you can to improve the project.  I have full faith, and confidence that you will do so.  Now go write an encyclopedia. :P
'''Support'''-Great editor. Active at admin places already. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''. Let's see if we can pull this to [[WP:100]]. '''''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' A good candidate/prospect. -
'''Support'''. Seen and appreciated at WP:RFCN
'''Support''' - Thought WJB already was an admin!<span style="border:2px solid #FFEE00;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Isolated incidents are no big deal, we all goof up our communications every once in a while. In any case, ''adminship is no big deal''. :) ——
'''Support'''.
Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' for obvious reasons --
'''Support''' - Yeah--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Storng support''' <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' <b><font color="#00A86B" face="georgia">
'''Support''' Great user. -
'''Support''' And I'm ''not'' just being a bandwagon. :-) ·
I'm
'''Support'''! Congratulations on hitting [[WP:100]]. I'm all for a bot and flamethrower for you, good sir. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' without hesitation. <small>
'''Support'''. Darn, I wanted to be #100. :) &mdash;
'''Support''' High time. —
It's not terribly meaningful by this point, but I give WJBscribe my compliments and support. Such as I have encountered of his work has been of the highest quality and diligence. I have no doubt he will make an excellent administrator. &mdash;
'''Support.''' I only drop by RfA every so often, and here I see none other than WJBscribe is up? Where do I sign? My edit isn't exactly required, at this point, but I will look forward to working with you as an administrator. Everything I've seen indicates you'll use the tools responsibly. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">

'''Support''' An editor of exceptionally fine skill and laudatory demeanor. Never say "fie" of him. Salute!
I haven't any doubts about WjBscribe's integrity. I have wondered where all his energy and patience comes from, but adminship should take care of that. ;-) <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Support''' -- helpful in WP:CHU
'''Support''' Wikipedia will be significantly enhanced by giving WjBscribe the tools. Good luck,
I was gonna go neutral due to your relatively short time here and your nom using "bloody excellent" as a descriptor. But come on, I'd be a fool not to '''support''' you.--
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around on [[WP:CHU]], and I must say he's one of the more helpful users on the wiki. --
'''Strong support''', per [[WP:CHU/U]].
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. See discussion below.
'''Support''' Very helpful contributor.
'''Overwhelmingly Strong Support''' VERY helpful in Anesthesia discussons. I appreciate his willingness to dedicate his time towards a rather dry topic. He is always available! Overwhelmingly strong support.
'''Unnecessary Support'''Deserves to be an admin. Now.
'''Support''' Probably one of the fairest and most patient people i know.
He will make a good admin:) --
'''Support''' Good editor, will make good admin.--
'''Support''' I am new, but after looking through this user's contributions, I can see that WJBscribe will be a great help to people looking for... help!
'''Support''' Seen you around a lot, nothing but impressed!
'''Oppose''' for now.  Hasn't been around long enough yet.  My opposition will ultimately end up having no effect, but I don't think 4 months is long enough to establish that a new editor can maintain the persona they present in that time.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
Hell yes! The only RfA running though... :P
'''Support'''.  Quick look through the contributions history didn't turn up anything disconcerting.  I've yet to run in to this editor before but they seem to be genuinely concerned with helping out.  Looks good enough to me.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this editor using the admin tools.  Active in the main spaces, is polite and communicates well.
'''Support''' I was wondering why this user wasn't an admin. He is very helpful and civil. Good contributions, nothing to be concerned about. <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, great editor. Good luck!
Mainspace edits a little low but this editor is trustworthy and will not abuse the tools being entrusted so I '''support'''. --
'''Support''' I'm surprised that this is the only RFA at the time. Heck yea!
No major reasons to oppose.--
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, with good communication. Good luck! '''
'''Weak support''' - It was going to be a neutral, as though seems like a good, trustworthy candidate, answer to question one was, in my opinion, very, very weak. Questions 4-8 certainly redemed him, though - he knows what he's doing ;)
'''Support''' On balance. Per [[User:TheIslander]] you certainly redeemed yourself with the answers to the optional questions. Your contribution history looks good, and no civility issues here. Fundamentally I see no reason not to trust this candidate with interpretations of policy or use of the admin buttons. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I don't have any problems with WODUP using the admin tools. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''', good user. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, and good answers to questions.  <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' I think the answers to Daniel's question demonstrates that he has grasped all the nuisances of being an admin. Therefore I '''support''' --'''
See no deal-breakers, but a lot of experience and good faith. —'''
'''Support.''' Nothing to suggest a problem here. --
'''Support.''' - Answers to Daniel's questions are the clincher for me. Good, solid edit reputation. Very little BITEiness. Works for me :) -
'''Support'''. Decent record and good answers to Daniel's questions (4-8). It should be noted that the answer to question #7 is problematic, but I doubt WODUP would be alone in amongst present admins in making the error. WODUP- if you wish to revise that answer, I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Candidate seems to know what they're doing, or where to look it up. I highly doubt they will misuse the mop --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' - The concern raised by the sole opposer really doesn't worry me at all (those account creations were clearly explained). As to the answer to q7, I have been an admin for 4 months, and I had no idea that there were special rules about undeleting mediation pages. Unless the candidate plans to work in mediation, there's no reason why s/he should know that.
'''WODUP GETS MY FULL SUPPORT''' - --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', knows what he's doing, and the discussion linked in question #3 quite impressed me. I actually thought you already were an admin. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Support''' without any reservations. Your self nom, while very bare bones, really sums up why we give adminship in the first place. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' Track appears good.
'''Support''' No problems here, oh by the way, thanks for telling me about the ACC, I'll start participating! '''Cheers,''' '''''
Quality answers. Extremely strong support. '''
'''Support''' as per Daniel, very good answers to the questions (apart from Q1, which seems a bit ... "weak").  No reason to suggest this editor would abuse the tools. <b>
'''Support''', per Cometstyles :D '''
'''Support, per Majorly.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per interaction on my talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=133682757&oldid=132317257] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles&diff=133964431&oldid=133871754].  As you can see, he came off as friendly and helpful, so I wish him the best of luck in this RfA.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support'''. Weak answers to questions 1 and 2 were more than made up for by answers to the very difficult questions from Daniel (I couldn't have answered all of those). Also, the link to the dispute re: deletion of the space food article showed admirable patience, civility, and clarity of thought. Finally, I'm going to support for the same reason Chacor opposes -- I really appreciate an editor who so boldly takes action to prevent disruption. --
'''Support''' Daniel's questions were handled very well.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Although the editor seems a little weak on encyclopedia building, those edits I reviewed were overwhelmingly useful, and the thoughtful answers to optional questions suggest s/he has a strong understanding of policy.
'''Support''' good contributions to content and process.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Will not abuse the tools, and I liked his civil response to Chacor's oppose. Good luck!
'''Support''' - good job with Daniel's tough questions, too.  -
'''Support''' - Unlikely to abuse the tools, should be a good administrator.
'''Support''' - Excellent response, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' per above. Seen WODUP around doing wonderful work.
'''Weak support''' Just a brief browse through this user's contributions confirms that WODUP will make good use of the buttons - although by seeming lack of effort in nomination process this is a bit putting-off --
'''Weak Support''' - despite the thoroughly unremarkable answers to the questions, and the fact that the article he mentions as his greatest contribution is equally unremarkable, the Wikipedia edit-count, and the areas that those edits have been concentrated makes me believe that the user will handle the tools very well. But it's only a weak support and is far from the best RfA I have seen. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''zOMG THE DAY HAS COME Support''' &ndash; I've been waiting for this page to be created for far too long! Give him the mop! (P.S. I'm a bit surprised Kmweber hasn't showed up with the "''prima facie''" junk yet). &ndash;'''''
'''Support''' - I thought I already supported. Dag nabbit. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
GL. –
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Ding dong.  Special delivery from FedEx, it's a new mop! [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''—nothing of concern turns up in contributions. --
'''Support''' - Good Wikipedian, good answers, good potential for being admin!
Thought he was one already. <b>
'''Support''' - per Hdt83. Give him the mop! <strong>[[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="Times new roman" size="3">Hirohisat's</font>]]<font color="green" size="3">.</font>
'''Support''', politeness and good communication skills are key to me, so yes.
'''Support''', seen this user buzzing around the help desks and suchlike, and always comes across as pleasant and knowlegeable.  Definitely capable.
I'm
'''Support''' - Trustworthy. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - no doubt. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' - adequate answer to my raised question. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support'''! &mdash;''
WODUP's always been patient, and, polite, from what I've seen... '''Strong Support'''! --
'''Support'''.
<S>'''Oppose'''</s>, could you please explain your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=WODUP&page= user creation log]? Specifically, "# 01:36, July 9, 2007 WODUP (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Badlydrawnjeff (Talk | contribs)" and "# 11:12, April 19, 2007 WODUP (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Steptrip (Talk | contribs)"?
'''Neutral''' pending response to <s>Chacor's oppose and</s> Daniel's questions, and due to somewhat weak self-nom and answers to questions. --
'''Support'''  I was invovled in the discussions at Royal Navy, and Woody handled the situation well.  I think you mean "veracity" of sources however...
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support''' This user is a good article writter, has plenty of experience here, and there is nothing that leads me to believe he/she will abuse the admin tools. Good luck!--
'''Support''' - Give 'em the mop!
'''Support''' Only seen good things from Woody.
'''Support''' I know him due to his involvement in the [[WP:WPF|WikiProject Football]], and I can ensure he is definitely a great user. Good luck! --
'''Support''' Looks good
'''Strong support''' - great contributor at [[WP:MILHIST]]. '''
'''Support''' He's clearly been a good contributer in the past and there's no reason to think this should change once given admin abilities.
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor. I strongly doubt that he will abuse the use of the mop and bucket.
Good contributor. '''
'''Support''' A great contributor who is an asset to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Very solid contribs. I see no problems.
'''Strong support''', good editor.
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlog. Somebody needs to –
'''Belated nom support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good 'pedia builder. cheers,
'''Support''' well rounded contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good contribution to Victoria Cross featured topic.
'''Support''' Woody has helped me a lot over the time he's been here! A great person to work on an article with, it shows with all the Villa articles ;)
'''Support''' Very impressive conflict resolving, and voices on the Help Desk are always appreciated. Good luck!
'''Oppose''', didn't capitalize "i"s in the answers. Article contributors should know that when used as a personal pronoun, "i" is capitalized. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">[[User talk:Cremepuff222|<font color="#000000">*Cremepuff</font>]]
'''Support''' satisfied with answers to questions and no evidence tools will be misused.--
'''Support''' - I'd have to agree. I especially like your mature and experienced answers to questions provided.
'''Support''' per "adminship is no big deal", and there are no red flags at all here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Great editor. &nbsp;
'''Support''' great answers, and overdue. You'll do well :D '''
'''Support''' - seems fine to me.  -
Excellent user.
Absolutely. --
'''Give 'em the mop''' No reason not to support. '''''
'''Support''' Seen what you do already... obviously.
'''Support''' - yes, a great editor, good luck!
'''Support''' - Good answers, strong contributions. Will make a fine admin. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Very strong answers, great experience, what's not to love?
'''Support''' when a candidate wants to work on CSD, I look carefully at deleted edits to see if the candidate has a good grasp on speedy deletion. This editor has the goods.
'''Support''' good, good.--
'''Support'''. Among the many other good things, shows proper understanding of speedy deletion criteria ... a virtue which is in short supply sometimes. Would be a good admin. -
'''Support''' - This user has just helped me just a moment ago in a issue, and seems like he wouldn't treat admin tools badly.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support.''' Dedicated editor who actually works to improve the quality of articles to featured level.  An example for us all.
'''Support''' - good experience and positive answers to questions. <span style="font-family:Georgia"><font style="background:#0000FF;">
'''Support''' I see this user occasionally at [[WP:FLC]] and he seems like a hard working user who would do good. --
'''Support''', a thoroughly excellent editor.
'''Support''' - qualified candidate.
'''Strong support''' I've seen this user doing great work especially at WP:MILHIST. --
'''Support''' with lots of experience as an editor, no concerns.

I'm
'''Support''' Aye Capt'n! -
'''Support''' Good answers!  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian. Always helpful, and often a voice of reason at [[WP:FOOTY]]. I'd be proud to have this guy as my admin. -
'''Support''' — I view candidacies with unanimous support as ''prima facie'' evidence of a good candidate. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' – Experienced affable editor, no concerns. --
'''Support''' As per Wodup and track is good and user has been a very active contributor of late.
'''Support''' as per nomination
'''Support''' - Good Answers..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - I have worked with him a long time and I have always appreciated his level headed approach in working in difficult situations. Were I an admin, I would have recommended him myself. --
'''Support''' - adminship is no big deal.  If a user wants to do nothing but patrol backlogs all day, that's great.  But if someone is mainly an article writer and would do little other than the occasional blocking of a vandal or deletion of a nonsense page, that's fine too.  The question is do we trust him not to abuse the tools, not whether he can recite the image use policy backwards in Spanish while balancing a copy of the GFDL on his nose. --
'''Support'''. Per [[User:BigDT|BigDT]]. -
'''Support''' Tough call here.  The candidate's experience is not superlative, but given his positive, candid attitude, it's enough.
'''Support''' Nothing amazing, but I think this user can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - While they don't seem to have a great need for the tools, they seem very level-headed and unlikely to abuse them as well.  <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' - Sensible, enough experience, shows no signs of going nuts with the tools, that's good enough here.
'''Support''' meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|criteria]], and he seems experienced enough.--
'''Support''' Changing !vote, see below for rationale. Good luck, Bill.
'''Support''' - A good contributer who gave sensible and honest answers to the questions, also seems to be able to communicate with other users well.
'''Support.''' Looks good.
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  I like the answers to the questions - honesty and thoughtfulness go a long way, as does being a quality editor.
'''Weak Support''' While I have concerns about the editors total amount of project space work, the edits in Wikispace and the answers to the questions above demonstrate a good attitude, a decent understanding of policy and an ability to listen to others.
'''Support''' I see nothing that leads me to believe he would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''', looks sensible enough, and nothing leads me to believe that he'd use (and perhaps accidentally misuse) the tools in areas he's unexperienced with.
Nothing in this user's contrib history makes me assume he would abuse the tools inadvertently, let alone on purpose. —'''[[user:AldeBaer|Alde]][[user talk:AldeBaer|Baer]]''' <s>
'''Support'''. Absolutely no sign this user will abuse the extra tools granted to admins. Great editors make great admins. - '''
'''Support''', appears level-headed and unlikely to abuse tools, opposition raises no significant issues.
'''Support'''. Excellent answers; head is well-mounted on shoulders. I trust in this candidate's good sense and judgment.
'''Support'''. Good contributor, excellent temperament. Not every admin needs to be an XfD wonk, and this user can certainly help us with our backlogs, even if simply doesn't need to contribute to them.


His first paragraph explaining the application of "Ignore all rules" is the best I've seen. --
'''Support''' I'm glad to see this finally happening. -
'''Support'''  Trustworthy, seems like an asset to WP.
'''Support''' Well thought-out answers show he will make sound decisions even in areas he's not currently familiar with. –
'''Support''' Adminship should be available to good experienced editors regardless of how frequent we think they will use the tools. Those steeped in Wikipedia bureaucracy aren't the only ones capable of making intelligent wise decisions. Those that have shown maturity in handling conflicts and edit with proper neutrality should be trusted with the extra responsibility --<font color="#06C">
I'm
'''Support'''.  Long-standing and level-headed contributor, risks of enmopping seem very small.  BTW, I think the number of supporting editors from [[WP:LDS]] rises to the level of a de facto endorsement...
'''Support''', Strong contributor, always uses good judgement.  Extensive experience with AfD, etc. should not be a must.  Bill will not misuse the tools. -

'''Support'''. Very old and respectable editor. My support to him. --
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to questions. —'''
'''Support'''.  Have noted the editor on many articles and worked with him on several.  I've always found him to be responsible and courteous in his interaction with others.  He has been particularly attentive in dealing with vandals and new editors.
Been about a bit and not caused any problems, unlikely to start causing them if armed with a mop.--
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A noble aim. (
'''Support'''. Although we have hardly seen eye-to-eye on [[First Vision]], I believe [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] is fair-minded and certainly has the requisite maturity to be an administrator.--
'''Support''', looks good.--
'''Support''', experienced and well-rounded. --
'''Support''', showing honesty is a good sign. Shows knowledge of some policy. Edits are evenly spread. Reasonable answers.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient project-space experience; like Amarkov, I surprised to see so few edits there from someone who has been around for a while.  Record is too sparse adequately to judge preparedness for the mop.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Flow of contributions too scarce and unsteady. Wikipedia space count is too low. Some vandalfight, but no current need for the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Limited project-space experience, which an admin really does need. Also, and while this may seem a trivial pint it reflects an understanding of how wikipedia operates, you beglected to accept your RfA nomination. An admin does need to know how RfA works.--
'''Oppose''' - would suggest you try again in 6-8 weeks after participating more fully in the deletion process.
'''Oppose''' - insufficient Wikispace involvement and a weak answer to Q1, which is important. I liked the second paragraph of your answer, but I like it as an answer to a question that wasn't asked. I'm not keen on opposes based on "no need of the tools", but you've hardly asserted a solid case, particularly as AIV has fewer backlog problems these days. I'll happily support you in a future RfA if you participate in XfD and other Wikispace issues and come back with a clearer sense of what you ''will'' do, not just what you ''won't''. Sorry if that seems harsh. --
'''Oppose''' I must say though that I approved of your follow-up to the point being made by [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] (although I do not agree with the concept of acceptance by a project before adminship as it seems to push this slight weird but working wiki democracy towards a form of party politics), and I approved of your reasoning that if you don't get the mop you will just go back to doing what you are doing now.  Total edits in both mainspace and wikispace are too low for me to consider you are ready just now.--
This user believes that removing warnings from your talk page is vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism&diff=122916874&oldid=121924606]). That implies that Wrp's understanding of policy is significantly lacking.
''"The fair use description certainly fit her, so I uploaded the image."'' No, it didn't fit then, and it doesn't fit now. '''Oppose''' due to his misunderstanding of a policy with real-world implications. —
'''Weak oppose''' too little project-space experience. Nevertheless, a sound candidate.
This is giving me a bad feeling. Two people, both active for more than three years, yet neither seems to have a really keen grasp of Wikipedia. And I had to stop the nominator from messing up this guy's chances by canvassing. I am going to have to study this quite a bit. -
'''Neutral''' - I see no serious problems with this candidate, although I wish his user page linked to the Wikipedia articles for e.g. Unisys, instead of external sites.  I would likely support if only he were endorsed by a WikiProject.
'''Neutral''' minor point, I know, but did you accept the nomination?  Also, too few edits in Wikispace to show an overall understanding of WP.  However, that notwithstanding, your contributions are all positive so with more experience I would support.
'''Neutral''' Reviewing your contributions, I see that you are excellent at warning vandals and issuing the appropriate tag levels on their Talk pages; more worrying is the paucity of contributions to the policy space in your time here.  Most of the edits I see are to AIV and ArbCom nominations.  You need to demonstrate a knowledge of the policies and guidelines in at least the XfD areas for a start.  Finally, the answer to question one doesn't give me a true impression of what you would do as an admin - just block people who are reported on AIV?
'''Support''' fine candidate. Good article work and CfD can use someone dedicated like Xdamr. -
'''Support''' has been here consistently for 7 months, clearly knows the way to go about doing things, and contributes a ton.  You've got my vote!
'''Support''' <i><b>
'''Support''' good contributions, good luck from me.
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support'''. Seems to be a very solid contributor. Shows a need for the tools, and a knowledge of how to use them properly. ···
'''Support'''. I don't suppose the answer to question one was supposed to make me laugh, as well as cheer, but it did. Anyway, from what I've seen at CFD you seem like a sensible bloke. The fact that you have a how-to-close-CFDs checklist on your user page makes me happy. Solid mainspace contributions are always a plus, and even if your wikispace edits are limited in scope, you clearly understand CFD. I admit to having a bias, perhaps even to having prejudged the matter, when it comes to would-be-admins who want to work on CFD. Still, I can't see any substantive reason to oppose, and a damn good reason to support. One thing: forget that NPWatcher gizmo. We have loads of editors who like nothing better than endlessly patrolling recent changes and new pages. Please don't steal their fun.
'''Support''' obviously. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' If you can help at CFD, by all means do it.
'''Support''' Sounds like someone who ought be be an administrator to me....
'''Support''' - It is appropriate to elevate users to admin to address specific needs, such as CFD. Xdamr has been with Wikipedia for over a year and has gained good experience. I believe that he will use the administrator tools wisely. --
'''Support''' per above.
I have '''no''' doubt that he will use his tools well. Good Luck:)
'''Support''' - a great editor, that can definitely trusted with the tools.--
'''Support''' X-power.
'''Support''' per Jreferee.<b>
'''Support'''. Looks like a fine candidate.
'''Xupport''' ~
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' this editor is a '''fantastic''' editor
'''Support''' I agree with Gutworth. A fantasitc editor. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' sounds good to me! <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Solid contributor, solid canidate. -

'''Support'''. --
I believe this to be a reasonable user.
'''Support''' Looks good. I'm stoked about the Smuts article too ;)
'''Support''' - I've seen you about CFD before & everything else checks out -
'''Support''' looks alright to me.--
'''Support''' definitely qualifies.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Just the kind of admin we need
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I see Xdamr in CFD often, and based on sensible input there, I'm ready for this user to start closing CFDs. Thanks, Wizardman, for making this nom. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Support''' Looks like a great user who we can trust and can use to get rid of the backlogs. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. —
I'm
<s>'''Oppose''' Answer to question 5 is clearly incorrect</s> '''Support'''
'''Support''' no issues or questions here.
'''Support''' I support this candidate to be an administrator based on a review of work done.  I certify that I do not personally know the candidate nor do I have a stake in the outcome.
'''Support''' for three reasons, listed in order of increasing importance.  (1) We need someone to help at CFD, which is currently backlogged back to March 16.  (2) From your contributions history, I get a positive impression of you as a reasonable discussant and valuable editor.  (3) Your responses to the 5 questions come across as completely honest and down-to-earth, yet also well-formed and considered.  Cheers,
If he's willing to check the page history and check for reliable sources on google, yes.  Deletion/recreation  [[Wikipedia:Wheel war|wheel war]]s often lead to blocks.
--
'''Support'''
Sure.
'''Support''' per looking through your contributions! (''Plus looking pretty good with a mop ;)'')
A little low on mainspace contributions, but then [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stifle|so was I]].
Hmm...why not? :) &mdash;
'''Strong support''' Excellent, thoughtful fellow -- great addition to the mop-closet.
'''He offered me a hotdog Support''' I like the answers
Very good user, will certainly make a very good admin.
'''Support''' It is plain that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''. Seems you would be a good admin. --
'''Support''' - I can't see how the community won't benefit from giving him the tools.
'''Support'''.  I read the opposition's DRV, and though it showed a lot of bias against deletion of articles, I think I can trust you to not abuse the tools, and act with a NPOV when dealing with further DRV's.  Good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''', a good candidate. I was initially neutral, but I've switched because the opposers are citing events from August, nearly four months ago. Candidate says he's learned his lesson and avoided that area, so no reason to oppose now. '''<font color="red">
'''Sure''', why not? "Oppose" diffs are from months ago, user has demonstrated that they've learned since then. No indication that xDanielx will explode the site if he gets tools. &spades;
'''Support''' because I like the response to the first oppose vote and regret that none of the opposers changed their vote in reply. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' while we never agree with each other, he is calm, civil, and was thinking about nominating him.
'''Support'''. xDanielx has made valuable contributions that would be even more valuable with the tools.
'''Support'''. Sensible fellow.
'''Support''' - not entirely sure I'd trust him to close contentious deletion discussions immediately, as his judgement has been a bit wonky in the past, but on the whole, no major concerns.
'''Support''' An excellent user. No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - even though it's against my personnal [[WP:IAR|rules]] to support a user with less than 6 months of experiance.
'''Support'''. This nomination initially gave me mild reservations. However, I have encountered this user many times at AfD and DRV, and, although I often disagree with his opinions, he does remain civil and is definitely familiar with Wikipedia policy. His answer to question 6 does demonstrate honest introspection, which is a good safeguard against going too far out of bounds with the tools. <span style="whitespace:nowrap;">—&nbsp;
'''Weak Support'''.  Total pain, but a civil one, we often disagree here at WP:RFA and also at [[WP:AFD]].  We certainly could use his experience.  I'd be glad to keep on eye on this one, and to mentor as a newbie sysop.  Decent, detailed answers to questions above.  No glaring issues or concerns.
'''Support''' Haven't seen any problems with his comments on various talk and Wikipedia: pages.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' for now. I've looked carefully at the info on XfD and DRV issues presented by the first two oppose commenters. If I see more examples, I may reconsider. For now, however, I note that this user got out-of-the-shoot strong support from Xoloz, the very admin who closely analyzed and then closed the very contentious Chinese Apartheid DRV cited below. (Xoloz did not mince words about the inappropriate rhetoric in that DRV either). Second, I believe the XfD issues arose while Daniel was still very new here. Whatever he did then, I'll bet I did something dumber. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' per A. B.'s argument. XFD/DRV is a bit concerning, but it was a while ago. This user's made quite a lot of positive contributions, and they won't blow up the 'pedia.
'''Support'''.  Seems ready for the bit.
'''Support''' - Carlos brings up a valid question concerning XfD, but it was a few months back and most everything else looks fine. I'd suggest reviewing deletion procedure and the admin reading list before getting involved in that area - a refresher wouldn't hurt.
'''Support''' Strong contributor. More important than making mistakes is learning from them which this user has done early in his Wikicareer, and having seen some of his work in various places I've got no concerns about this candidate's future use of the mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Seems like a good, trustworthy user to me.
You look sexy with a mop.
'''Support''', trustworthy. I'm sure Daniel is prepared to learn as he goes. '''
'''Support'''. The opposes don't worry me. While XfD is not a vote, it's also true that XfD closures should not completely ignore the weight of numbers, and should not simply be closed according to the closing admin's personal opinion on whether the article should be deleted. Furthermore, the default in closing an XfD is ''always'' to Keep; if a large minority of users make sound, rational, policy-based objections to deletion, then the result should be Keep or No consensus, not Delete. So from what I've seen, I trust Daniel's judgment where AfD and DRV are concerned.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy, civil, smart, etc :)
I'm not worried, I think you'll be okay.
Change to '''support''' based on satisfactory responses to concerns. --
User seems to be trustworthy; has given considerable thought to the questions and has appropriately clarified the concerns below regarding consensus and vote counting. I see no reason to oppose. -
I share some of the concerns raised below, but all in all I reckon xDanielx is well qualified and has the right stuff to handle the <sarcasm>exciting and rewarding</sarcasm> janitorial tasks on Wikipedia.
'''support''' I think he will follow consensus--just as with me, with similarly broad views on inclusion--he will not take admin action where his views are not in accord with consensus. I expect he will do as I, argue as an ordinary editor in cases like that. My request for  adminship was based in large part on my desire to more effectively participate in Deletion Review, and it was almost unanimous, & I don't think I've abused it.  In context, many of the oppose votes here are people who simply disagree with his positions, and that should not be a consideration.  I've !voted for many people of a deletionist tendency here, and by and large they've played fair too. '''
'''Support''' I think xDanielx will have no problems as an administrator.
'''Support''' - not only to prove I haven't got Editcountidis, but he seems like the right material, and ready now.
'''Support''' I couldn't say it any better than DGG just above. --
'''Support'''.  I am confident that xDanielx will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Believe will not abuse the tools, not persuaded by opposes.
'''Support''', and the oppose votes are not convincing.
'''Support''' He is a good editor. And, oppose votes are not that convincing. I hope he will do a great job as an admin.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools and has shown that he can learn from mistakes made early on; I don't believe that mistakes made in the first month of editing should be held against an editor forever.
'''Support''': Seen him around, does good work.
'''Support''' I've spent time going through this, and watched it unveil over the last few days. My end impression is that, although I respect the opposers, the net benefit to this candidate having the tools will be positive, and not cause additional workload to other admins but instead remove some. So, yes. Yes please. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Seen him enough at DRV that the name is familiar.  I've reviewed all of his DRV contributions for October and November, and I do not see anything concerning in them.  I closed the first DRV that Carlossuarez46 refers to below; that one really came down to the wire and almost resulted in an overturn (which was xDanielx's position, albeit poorly argued for, as so many DRV nominations are).  The Chinese allegations DRV was pretty clearly nobody on Wikipedia's finest day; that a then new editor made poor comments is unsurprising.  (I disregard his former account's total three edits in November 2006 and January 2007.)  I can tell his voice at DRV will continue to be different to mine - often opining in discussions I don't care a fig about is a major example - but it won't be disruptive, and I'm not worried about giving him the tools.
'''Support'''. Wow, great user, pleased to support. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Oppose''' this editor views XFDs as votes and makes DRV nominations with reference to the result not matching the vote outcome, and requiring certain percentages of deletion votes required to delete at XFD.  For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_11&oldid=150504809].[[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Let me expand a bit, because (1) every oppose comment gets a third-degree of prove this or that, and (2) I was the deleting editor in the above-cited DRV. I have seen this editor at numerous DRV's and some of the other troublesome statements I can find involve those in [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid]] (I didn't participate in that one) where certain comments appear to be personal attacks against the deleting admin. There are other times, in DRV that I recall use of percentages, etc. indicating an unfamiliarity with WP's deletion criteria or process.
'''Oppose''' Absolutely agree with Carlossuarrez. There is plenty of room for different interpretation of deletion criteria and I'm generally in favour of giving everyone who is a regular at DRV the tools to read deleted articles but this user is constantly off the scale with regard to their opposition to deleting anything. I seriously fear that granting them the tools would be a recipe of constant reviews of poor xFD closes and unnecessary drama. Just in case anyone thinks that I'm being mean, I would like to point out that I supported BDJ for adminship even though I never agreed with his view of deletion debates.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; While this user has demonstrated an excellent understanding of what should and should not be deleted, I cannot overlook the fact that this is a self-nom.  As always, I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly agree with Carlossuarrez and Spartaz above.  While I know that people are certainly capable of reforming themselves, I hope that if this user is promoted, then they will take these votes as reminders to tread very lightly in such situations.
I'm a bit troubled by Carlossuarez46's arguments.
'''Weak oppose''' per MaxSem.
'''Oppose'''.  I do not feel that xDanielx has good enough judgement. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
The AFD diff that Carlossuarez46 brought up spoke for itself.  Based on that and other contributions to processes, I'm a bit concerned about judgement.
'''Reluctant oppose'''; xDanielx is a valued contributor, but a solid understanding what what consensus ''really means'' on Wikipedia is critical to use the tools properly.  I have no doubt that this editor would not turn rogue, but I also have sufficient worry about his misunderstanding of the XfD process that I cannot support.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per attitude towards voting rather than solid arguments shown by the DRV comments. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but Carlos does bring up a good point...
'''Support''' as nominator. '''''
'''Support''' as co-nominator. --
'''Support''' Xiner is great, he is frequently found everywhere and I was surprised he wasn't one already! (so cliched, I know)  He is also a great contributor. :) '''
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''': Xiner's a great Wikipedian. It's about time they got the tools. '''
'''Support'''. Seems to have a good record, good answers to questions, and plenty of positive feedback. Besides which, I take issue with that extreme editcountitis oppose. In actuality, only about half of his edits are to various talk pages. :-)
'''Support''': Looks like lots of work at the Helpdesk and XfD and when I look at the last 500 User talk edit, I see lots of welcoming and messages about edit summaries, etc. --
You're almost up to 10000, fully '''support'''.
'''Strong support''' - We could use his help at [[WP:UCFD]] where him having the tools will come in handy.
'''Support''': I'm shocked Xiner isn't already an administrator, and was the impression that s/he was. Judging by my interaction with Xiner, I'm sure a s/he'll be a fine administrator and continue as a fine community leader. --
'''Support''' well-qualified.--
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good to me. '''
'''Support''' as I believe this editor will use the tools wisely. ···
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Been here long enough and over 9000 Edits--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', I knew this person from [[WP:UCFD]] and I absolutely trust him.
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' Helpful, positive, responsible editor. --
'''Support''' per nom and all of the above. We all started out as beginners, this user started out as a [[WP:BOLD|bold]] beginner. I see no reason to oppose any user based on some minor issues from quite a while ago. —
'''Strong Support''' From the few weeks I have known this user he has always being extra polite and replies quickly to comments, I too regularly see him at [[WP:UCFD]] and I was going to nominate him within the coming months as he has shown a need for the tools and greatly deserves them, I would always trust him with the extra tools, I know for sure he would never mis-use them. I wish you the best of luck!! <font color="0066FF">
'''22''' -- ''
'''Support''' an excellent user, who can certainly be trusted. '''
'''Weak Support'''. Not sure what you mean by "Like any good teacher" though. '''
'''Support'''. I would not compare sysops to teachers.  I would compare us to ninjas.  Or maybe pirates.  Either are awesome.
'''Definitely Support'''. However, I am leaning slightly toward neutral. I reviewed this user in his first editor review, and the only problem I could find at that time was his philosophy on Wikipedia was dedicated solely to achieve success in his RfA. This has changed tremendously, and this user has evolved from a good contributor to a great, helpful Wikipedian. The emphasis on RfA in user's userpage is a bit uncomfortable for me, but it's rather irrevelant when the user's ability overwhelmes everything else. Good luck! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Strong support'''. High-quality user doing fine job at Wikipedia and also always willing to help at #wikipedia-en irc channel.
'''Strong support''' with absolutely no reservations. ''
'''Support'''. Dedicated, civil, unlikely to abuse tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- Have seen him around. Great user, civil, helpful. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''', Xiner seems to be everywhere he goes, he gets around. Also a great helper! <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Cremepuff222--><span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 12pt;">[[User:Cremepuff222|<font color="#008000">Cremepuff222</font>]] ([[User talk:Cremepuff222|<font color="#2F4F4F">talk</font>]],
'''Support''' I think we have another excellent candidate here. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great candidate, unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks good and I'm not sure the oppose concerns are sufficient to oppose. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' Helpful, great user. This is what admin should have. --
'''Strong Support'''. The candidate is so kind and helpful, and very active at the HelpDesk.
'''Support'' Strong and experienced user.
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse tools, good user. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' everything I have seen of Xiner's work has been good, the comments in the oppose section are IMHO too minor to stop Xiner being sysopped - though (as Xiner as already noted) they can be taken as learning points.  Good job. Cheers
'''Strong support''' → fine wikipedia, which has significantly contributed to XfDs. <i><b>
'''Support''' Good candidate, friendly fellow. Not to be overlooked is his wonderful taste in the alphabet!
support --
'''Support''' - very helpful at various [[WP:AN]] channels.  Doesn't bite newcomers - on the contrary, smothers them.  :P  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support''' I trust Xiner. Another one of those "I thought they were already an admin" types. --
'''Very Strong Support:''' Xiner is an exemplary wikipedian, who is '''very knowledgeable about this project,''' and I fail to see why people below are opposed to an intelligent editor becoming a sysop. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Steptrip-->&nbsp;[[User:Steptrip/Signatures Go here|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2"><b>'''~'''</b></font>]]
'''Strong support''' per nom. '''
'''Xupport''' ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' (but remember, [[User:Jon Harald Søby|RFA sucks]].)
'''Support''' - As I said below, ''oppose for now''. Don't see any real reason to oppose this user now & I don't think he'll abuse the tools. ;)
'''Support''' - Seen him do lots of good work at the help desk &mdash;
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', obviously. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support'''. Can we give him the tools yet?--
'''Support'''  I'd be mad to oppose, with so many good reasons to support as described above.
'''Support''' per Corvus coronoides.
'''Support'''. Having looked at this user's contributions and his edit count, I believe that he  fully deserves this position and all the tools that come with it.
'''Support''' - Was very helpful when I requested help via helpmes; guided my initial growth to the independent Wikipedian I am today. Will do well as Admin.
Better late than never '''Support''' <font face="monospace">
I generally resent wikipedians who spend 85% of their edits in talk pages. Our primary goal is creation of encyclopedia, not socializing, nor [[wikipedia:wikilawyering|WikiLawyering]]. First three months them was a good contributor, and then turned into a politician. `'
I was also editing [[Baiji]] last December, and Xiner's edits alarmed me on several occasions. 1) There was a discussion on whether to move the page. The desired destination already had a page with history there, so I put in a request at [[WP:RM]]. Xiner concurred, but he just did not get the mechanics of moving pages. Here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baiji#Name_change] I have to explain to him why we can't just move it as ordinary editors. (He does say above that he understands it now, which is great.) Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=94556653] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=94716600] he copies discussion ''from'' the article talk page ''to'' the Requested Moves page. 2) In [[Talk:Baiji#Great_Leap_Forward|this discussion]], I feel he failed to distinguish scientific from political statements. He then goes on to soapbox. 3) He has probably annoyed several editors with  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Xiner&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=3 mass distribution of canned notices] to "please use edit summaries." I got one even though I nearly always use edit summaries; I think he might have wanted me to add something to the default section header  when adding comments to Talk pages. Having said all this, Xiner is a very hardworking editor and I feel he is an asset to the project. I don't think any of my objections are a huge deal individually, but put together they leave me with the feeling that this is someone I'd rather work with as a co-editor than as an admin.
You say you will be careful not be aggressive at [[WP:RFPP]], which suggests you will be aggresive elsewhere. We don't need more aggressive admins.
'''Oppose''' per Mikka and others above. Xiner seems as focused on harassing people about edit summaries as actually contributing, if not more so. —
'''Oppose''' - First couple of oppose comments left me cold. I can't fully justify the adminship of someone who spends all their time arguing out changes in talk pages. I dislike that behaviour.--[[User:I%27ll_bring_the_food|I'll bring the food]] ([[User talk:I%27ll_bring_the_food|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/I%27ll_bring_the_food|Contribs]] -
My first impression of the user was not positive. ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of KTVX translators]], where sen nominated a page for deletion without notifying the original contributor, who is still active on the project. Debate then ensued on AfD, which would have been better suited for a talk page.) This isn't a good reason to oppose, however, and I have an open mind either way.
I sought out Xiner and asked him to "adopt" me because I was impressed with the answers he provided to me and others on the Help Desk.  He has been a great mentor ever since.  Given our "adoptor"/"adoptee" relationship, I am not formally registering a vote of support; I do not want there to be the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, I do think Xiner will make a good admin.--
I think this candidate looks quite good. -- <strong>
'''Strong support'''(edit conflict) This editor shows that he is very dedicated to improving Wikipedia especially since he is tackling one of the most backlogged areas on Wikipedia (WP:AFC). My interactions with this editor have shown that he is knowledgeable about policies and should do well as an admin. --
I think quite good understates it. This user is very well rounded in both main- and project space. Yet one more very high quality self-nom.
'''<big>+</big>''' Good spread of edits, interest in backlogs, steady six month history, civil talk page. Three edit conflicts to boot, I was #1 :)
'''Support''' I see nothing to suggest that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be other than quite positive]].
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. A very good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Contribution review back to March backs up the candidates claims and intended areas of interest should they be granted the buttons. Stunning and dedicated work at AFC. Civility and thoughtful review of their own contributions demonstrated by a specific reversion of comments on an RFA. Understanding of policy looks great. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=132841335 This] completes it for me - a level headed and reasoned comment in something the candidate feels strongly about would indicate no misuse of the tools will be forthcoming. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Four words: Me see nothing wrong :) Just don't do anything silly, and the request will be a breeze... --
'''Support'''.  Seen them around, looks to me like they'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' I trust that you won't abuse the tools.  But did you need to bold your answers to the questions?  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Strong Support''' - The user is very trustworthy and as per DarkFalls " Me see nothing wrong".. good Luck...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong Support'''- Excellent editor + kind user = great candidate. As DarkFalls said, "Me see nothing wrong". --'''
'''Support''' Excellent editor; friendly fellow-"X" :)
'''Strong support''' excellent user.
A great example of a user with a specialized contribution history who is an excellent candidate for adminship.  The extensive work at [[WP:AFC]] shows a great dedication to the nuts and bolts of building an encyclopedia. --
'''Support, changed from Mild Support.'''. You seem like a good editor, but there's something that doesn't seem right. It's probably just the chinese food I had for lunch. '''''Addendum''''': see below comment for link to comment that I find to be exceptionally well-put.
'''Support''' Consistency right from the get-go. (Did I really say 'get-go?') [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AD%27Argent&diff=142772394&oldid=142710737 This] makes me happy.
'''Support''' [[WP:HOLIC|Backlog junkie]], eh? Excellent! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' - Lots of experience in Wikipedia space, interaction with other Wikipedians, and at least two significant article 'works'. Wide variety of tasks performed, including AfC (predominantly), removing vandalism and repairing dis. links. Looks good. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I recall seeing this user doing a good job. Seems prepared for the admin tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Absolutely. I know how tedious it is to work through some of those AFC logs, particularly the ones with few good suggestions. You're doing a great job. Mop wisely. -
'''Support''' - No worries here. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Yeah, we need more backlog junkies. —
'''Support'''. Definate support, this user understands what it's about. These are the people who we need to be admins. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
My name is [[User:Giggy|Giggy]], and I am a Xnuala junkie. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' I honestly have no qualms about giving Xnuala the mop, and the backlog needs some help as usual.
'''Extremely strong support''' Xnuala is experienced with interaction with other users as mentioned earlier, and also done other work making use of wikipedia's features.--[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. While this editor perhaps has less of a breadth of experience than I'd generally prefer in an admin, the commitment to the AFC project shows dedication to encyclopedia building, interactions with new users and experience in determining notability, and also bodes well for dealing with admin backlogs.
I'm
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' Started a campaign to get [[WP:AFC]] cleaned up pretty much single handedly. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' - Per above. Good editor. Good contributions and history.
'''Support''' I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of being dedicated to Wikipedia, furthermore I have looked up what ''[[prima facie]]'' means and I don't think it really applies in this context. ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' That diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=132841335] cited by Pedro & mentioned by Xnula in reply to my question, certainly shows a willingness to assume responsibility even when it becomes difficult'''
'''Support''' '''<font face="georgia">

'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' - minimal article writing. Only article is adding about 1k to [[Bridlewood (Kanata)]]. Apart from that, the article edits are 80% machine edits or vandal reverts and the rest and typo fixes (possibly mechanised).'''
'''Support''': Excellent at opposing vandalism: makes regular reports to AIV, which I always find to be accurate and timely. Can really use the tools.
'''Support''' One of the best candidates I've seen.
'''Yes, of course'''.  His judgement is sound, and he could use a tool upgrade.  Some people specialize in vandalism patrol and that's fine with me.
'''Support''' - Blocking all the vandals he reports to AIV gets tiring after a while. I like admins to contribute content too, but that isn't enough to oppose in this instance.
'''Support'''. Everyone who regularly performs RC patrol knows his hard work combined with a healthy dose of thoughtfulness when it comes to approach vandals and experimenting users alike. We have here a great candidate that would make excellent use of the tools for the benefit of us all, and therefore, I happily endorse him.
'''Support''' Numerous reversions have very few challenges in archived talk, leading me to believe that use of script to revert pages was responsible. Although this is a self-nom, there were several editors who offered to put him up. I think he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' He's a very dedicated Wikipedian and an unwaveringly committed vandal-fighter, so giving him those extra buttons is only going to help Wikipedia. That's the point in adminship, isn't it? I support. —
'''Support''' per the fact that there is no sign that there is anything lacking in this candidate's vandal fighting ability, would trust them to use the tools effectively and would think that they would certainly be active too.
'''Support'''. Dedicated vandal-fighter, shows a clear need for the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I'm a little concerned that most of your involvement with wikipedia namespace is to do admin work. For example, you've closed and relisted AfDs, but I don't see you <s>''voting''</s>''participating'' in them. -
'''Support''' - Good Choice..!.----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per the answer to Q5. Any user who's level-headed enough to understand that admin tools should never be used unless there's a clear lack of [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] is certainly capable of handling the tools with the deft touch they can sometimes require. Cheers,
'''Support''' Nobody's perfect.  Yamamoto does more than enough anti-vandalism work to justify receiving the admin tools.
'''Support'''. A great vandalism fighter. --
I was thinking of nomming you myself. Clearly slow on the draw though. '''Support'''.--
'''Support''': While I would like to see a more variety of work, I feel this user could benefit from the administrator tools. Has experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should make a fine administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support''', obvious strong need for the extra buttons - very good at what he does and highly unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Will help to keep the backlog down in regards to vandalism and vandal-fighting.
'''Support'''.  Excellent vandal fighter - one of the best in my opinion - he has continually beaten me to reverting vandalism!  I am confident he will use the tools wisely.  --'''<font color="green">
'''Support''' not sure if I've ever commented on an RfA before; but this editor deserves promotion, I have been beaten to the punch on reverting obvious vandalism countless times by this editor.
'''Support''', Yamamoto knows what he is doing, and can be trusted.
'''Weak Support''', Good answer to my optional question, but I'm concern by your narrow editing and conflict resolution.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support'''. I've seen Yamamoto Ichiro's name popping up all over the place recently. From what I've seen, he will use the admin tools without fear of abuse.  - '''
'''Support''', Very active Vandalism reverter, who I have seen on the job. Would make great admin. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' We have all seen his good work on rc patrol. Giving him the admin tools will help the project.
'''Support''' I've seen Yamamoto catching vandalism on several articles I watch, and I don't see any evidence that he has a "get dem vandals" attitude.  From what I've seen he's actually fairly measured and conservative with the warning system.  The help at [[WP:AIV]] from a vandalism specialist is more than welcome in my opinion.--
'''Support''' I've seen no reason to oppose him. I'm glad he's going after the vandals. I am sure he'll err somewhere down the road but who hasn't. He's dedicated to the task and I support him for that.
'''Support'''. Capable of considering arguments and changing his mind, as at the bottom of [[User talk:69.117.20.128|this talk page]]. An important attribute for an admin. --
'''Strong Support'''. Great vandal fighter; I was planning to nominate him myself. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support'''. My first RfA vote and very well deserved. I run across Yamamoto while on RC patrol often and admire his thoroughness (checking a users previous edits carefully) politeness when dealing with vandals and most of all his caution and careful judgment when it comes to reverts. I have yet to see him make a bad call when reverting. I'm sure he will be a courteous hardworking and useful administrator.
'''Support''' - Hard working and conscientious, this editor is an asset to the project, and will doubtless wield the mop-and-bucket well and wisely.
'''Support''' I find it strange to oppose a candidate for ''not'' having an editing conflict.
'''Weak Support''' There are some great concerns with this candidate, but I think that they are not cause to oppose. I am not totally sure that I am right with this statement, so I may change my vote in the future.
'''Support'''. I don't find the concerns of the first few opposers especially significant. As to the last two, perhaps the edit was inappropriate, but opposing on the basis of a single minor error seems unreasonable.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">

'''Support''' - I've run into this user a multitude of times when I've been patrolling for vandalism and I've found him to always revert the same vandalism as I and post the same warning level on the offending user's talk page as I would have. Additionally, his response to the answers above show a levelheadedness that could be entrusted with the extra tools. As for the concerns with his 1000 edits in 2 days, or his over-zealousness in reverting vandalism, I disagree with them. Wikipedia is about the articles but, not all users are prolific editors with access to vast amounts of knowledge, we need as many as we can that can clean up articles and get rid of vandals. Also, many, many users rack up these numbers of edits in very short periods of time (AWB anyone?), so this is not a concern in my opinion. I fully support this candidate. --'''
'''Support'''  -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', fighting vandalism and answering questions well is good. According to Q2 needs/should to do some writing to balance the scale. Still an asset to Wikipedia. Hope for the best.
'''Support''' A great asset to Wikipedia.  The concerns raised in the oppose and neutral sections do not bother me. —<span style="color: red;">

'''Weak support''' 291 AIV reports from this user? (Wow – I'm not worthy.) I concur with others that the high edits-per-day ratio is easy to get with scripts, and it's not horrible in and of itself. So, need for admin tools for vandalism, countered by low edits-per-page ratio... okay. Mop wisely, and please consider Bibliomaniac15's suggestion to jump in and write. There's really nothing like coming across an article that needs improvement on RC patrol, then spending the next two hours fixing it up.
'''Strong Support''', it's no big deal. I personally think it is justified to call out vandals when they blatantly vandalize a page. Normally I would argue that in the case of the warning Deskana pointed out that subst:uw-vandalism2 is most appropriate. However, Mr. Yamamoto alleges a single user was repeatedly vandalizing the page, in which case the warning would have been justified. Mr. Yamamoto is furthermore the very epitome of humility and civic-mindedness; he need not be perfect to do the community service, especially not at the start of his tenure. Again, be reminded that the lack of admins is critical, and our candidate fills a needed capacity. --
'''Support''' says he wants to fight and warn vandals - mop and the tools will help him do that very well.
'''Support'''. It seems a valuable contributor.--
'''Support'''. Will make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''. I was one who wanted to nominate this user, and I trust that he will use the tools responsibly, and exercise caution in areas with which he is not familiar (as his record in xFDs shows). (
'''Support''' This user having the admin tools will only help wikipedia. With them he could fight vandalism at least 50% better. Anyone who reverted vandalism 2,000 times in two days is someone who should be considered for this position.
'''Support''' A pure asset to wikipedia considering his contributions, plain and simple.
'''Support''', I wished him good luck on his RfA, and then realized I forgot to vote! [[User:Tim.bounceback|Tim.bounceback]]<sup>(<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tim.bounceback|review me!]]</font> | [[User_talk:Tim.bounceback|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tim.bounceback|contribs]] |
'''Support''' it's amazing that someone's extensive anti-vandalism efforts gets spun as a negative characteristic. Vandalism is still a bad thing, right? Someone has to revert vandalism... maybe some people are too good for it but I'm glad people like this candidate do it. --
'''Support''' - Vandal fighting is not a bad thing...
'''Support'''  I have read the opposing and neutral views and can recognize some valid concerns.  However, Yamamoto Ichiro has clearly demonstrated a commitment to the improvement of WP.  His handling of the questions raised here on his RFA demonstrate a level-headedness as well.  I trust him when he says he will seek out other admins in time of conflict to come to the best possible way to handle a problem.  While I see that he has room for improvement in terms of mediating edit conflicts, he will be a tremendous asset as an admin nonetheless.  I have often seen him cleaning up the same page and warning the same users as myself.  The more admins available to block obvious vandals after appropriate warnings, the better.  Its frustrating as a vandal fighter to have to wait around for an admin.  I would also like it if he would work on making more contributions to articles, even if it is as a translator from articles written in his native WP.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' I see him help with vandalism all the time (especially because he gets in the way of my reverts ;)) and I believe he would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter.  What's more, he can be trusted with the tools.  That is the only question that really matters. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Great vandal-fighter
'''Support''' A spot-check of his edits shows him to be an accurate vandal-fighter, with no sign of newbie-biting that I can see. There is ample evidence right in this RfA of good handling of conflict; an admin who can handle conflict but doesn't seek it out will do fine. (BTW I don't like the warning icon you use with the Japanese text. We communicate in English here.)
'''Support''' Skillful use of the vandalism warning templates, and accuracy while vandal fighting makes a good nomination. He seems ethical enough and appears to know his wikipedia policy. '''
'''Support''' Per above, good job with anti-vandal patrols. --
Sorry, but I have to oppose here. I really do not like it when people spend nearly all of their time reverting vandalism, especially with scripts like TWINKLE. I feel that leads to a mentality of "quick quick get dem vandals", which is not a good thing for someone who can ''block'' said vandals to have. And 1000 edits in 2 days, nearly all vandal fighting, is just... not good. If you use a hammer constantly to the exclusion of anything else, everything starts to look like a nail. -
Per Pedro in neutral, although I find this so concerning that I must oppose. A failure to demonstrate ability in remaining cool in a heated discussion, and be able to deal with conflict well, will generally garner an oppose from me. Getting the extra tools is the one action, more than any other, that creates contention and drama on Wikipedia, and I don't believe you have enough experience dealing with disputes to be an effective administrator. Sorry, '''
I am strongly opposed to this candidate retaining extra buttons, particularly the block function.  I do not feel as though Mr. Ichiro possesses the  well-roundedness nor a clear scope of the primary purpose of editing Wikipedia is to retain any extra responsibility.  While having some buttons are no big deal, Wikipedia already has too many admins that live to revert vandalism and block people without any extra thought, which I feel this candidate might do, given his recent spree of vandalism reverting in which he could not have given due time to each revert and potential "vandaliser."  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Pedro and Daniel. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid I must oppose this RfA. In my previous interaction with this user, I found him a bit too quick on the trigger, so to speak. One user, [[User:Anywherebuthere23]] made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=128475191 this] edit to [[George W. Bush]]. As I understand it, this is false (being English and not particularly interested in American politics). I reverted that edit and went to place a {{[[Template:test|test]]}} on the user's page, to find that Yamamoto had placed a blatant vandalism template on the users page. That was unwarranted, as the user's other two edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Peters&diff=prev&oldid=128474866] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Exnoctem&diff=prev&oldid=125028320]) although totally useless, weren't vandalism. I have concerns that if this user should develop from placing bv templates on user's pages to blocking them straight away for fairly inoccuous edits, we could have a bit of a problem here. When I raised the issue Yamamoto was civil and understanding, and I am glad he edits Wikipedia. I would just not like him to have the power to block users ''yet''. --
'''Oppose''' per Daniel and Deskana. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per Deskana.
'''Oppose'''.  Despite having seen some great vandalwhacking from this user, I am bothered by several answers to questions.Per my [[User:G1ggy/RfA|RfA Policy]], I will always look against a user who says "nothing, vandalism..." to question 2.  Secondly, question 3's answer gives the impression that as an admin, you will still avoid conflicts, even though from what I understand a lot of admin work is centered around conflicts, and resolution of conflicts.  Would you be comfortable there?  Question 6 bothers me because people taking it to "someone more experienced" annoys me, considering that (if you're a sysop) we have promoted you on the assumption that you know what you're doing, not that you need support form above.  It is for these 3 reasons that I can't support you.  Better luck next time, and please take on board all the advice given by other editors here. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Per what was written above, especially the comments from Amarkov.  I don't buy into his "lack of English skills" as being a legitimate reason for editing articles, mainly because from reading this RfA, his skills appear to be fairly good.  Given his Japanese language skills, I could see him editing hundreds of articles, improving many of them.  In addition, I know that Admins get into intense discussions with editors, and if he is deprecating his language skills, then how can he provide leadership and mentoring to new users?  I've known a lot of editors, myself included, who became better editors as a result of good mentoring.
'''Oppose'''.  Just vandalwhacking.
'''Oppose''' In addition to some of the concerns above, I am troubled by your response to Question Six. Once you become an admin, you yourself will be expected to take the responsibility for making possibly difficult decisions about users, rather than asking others. Are you aware of how this problem is handled now, and the methods used for dealing with such users? If you had to make the decision yourself, what would you say, and what would you do?'''
I don't mind the user's affinity for scripts or vandal-whacking, but I worry about accidental good-faith newbie-whacking.
'''Regretful oppose''' per above (especially G1ggy!'s comment), as well as my own reasoning (below) because I have no doubts that the candidate is a good contributor whose vandal fighting efforts I appreciate. I am, however, concerned that he may be a bit too <s>trigger happy</s> eager.<br /> I have only dealt with the candidate once and, while I found him very pleasant to communicate with, I think I should briefly mention the issue: on May 22nd, the candidate closed the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_destinations|American Airlines destinations AfD]] (a group nomination of a little over 200 articles). There had been a very similar AfD previously, which resulted in the articles being kept. Just like that AfD, this one was far from straightforward and several editors expressed strong opinions, some of which amounted to [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. (Full disclosure: I replied to two comments in that AfD but did not partake in it myself.) The [[WP:DPR#NAC|guidelines]] state about non-admin closures: "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Now, granted, we usually don't let AfDs sit for more than five days and this one was a bit overdue but I feel closing this AfD should have been left to an admin (especially given the "history" with xFD closures that candidate mentioned). Okay, so far, not a reason to oppose in itself. The candidate was then faced with removing the templates from 200+ articles and asked for assistance on IRC (not a bad call) which I offered. The (minor) problem is that all of this happened after the AfD was closed. I feel that before performing the non-admin close (which is the exception to the rule), one should think the entire process through and, if necessary, ask for help before acting.<br />I feel this it's particularly important for an administrator to first thoroughly  investigate a matter before acting because there's simply a greater potential for fallout (which may affect a great number of users). All of these are pretty minor points which I wouldn't consider grounds to oppose but if viewed in their entirety, I cannot in good faith support the candidate at this time. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Per Deskana.--
'''Neutral''' <i>"I virtually have no experience with conflicts on Wikipedia. In a case if there is one, I usually tend to avoid them"</i>. I admire your vandalism efforts but as an admin you are very likely to get into contention. It takes great honesty to admit your lack of experience, and I'm hardly encouraging you to wade into a hot topic for the sake of it, but I am worried about the intimation that you will avoid difficult or heated discussions alltogether. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' per Pedro and Daniel. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' per Pedro. Also very few of your edits are for article creation and expansion.Also, I would like to know why you created 3 user accounts which serves no purpose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Yamamoto_Ichiro]  --
'''Neutral'''. Sorry, sitting on the fence. I find the fairly narrow scope of editing concerning, but not quite enough to oppose.
'''Neutral''' per Pedro and Amarkov. —'''
'''Neutral'''. You're a very excellent vandal fighter, but you've got to have some faith in yourself. I've seen people who have half your spelling and even less grammar and been more enthusiastic to write articles. Just give it a try. '''''
'''Neutral''' per Bibliomaniac15. --
'''Neutral''' Good answers to my concerns. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Beat the nom support'''. Have seen this candidate around a lot and have no doubts that he is knowleable of policy and sufficiently trustworthy for the mop.
Beat the nom? No, please don't beat me! ... Ah, okay, I'm supposed to list my support here too, am I? Okay, so: '''support''' as per my nomination, obviously.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - very good responses, especially Q3. Has good experience in the project.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but good work from this user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong support''' Smart, civil, with a firm grasp of both policy and community standards.  An ''ideal'' admin candidate in my opinion.
'''Support''' Charming answers, especially the skeletons in cupboard section. This user fills me with confidence that when he makes mistakes, he'll clear 'em up with humility and not repeat them. --
'''Support''' for many, many reasons.  A shoo-in. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' Admire the openness of the candidate. Seems, above all, approachable.
'''Support''' Looks good with constructive edits in all of the main areas.
'''Support'''.  Seems reasonable, don't see why not.
'''Support''' - Comes across as a reasonable person &mdash;
'''Support''' good contribution and good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' definitely trustworthy. I like the answers. ←
'''Support'''. Has my trust. -
'''Support''' as a very constructive editor, and seems very trustworthy. ···
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate for the mop...
'''Support'''. Good answers, the right attitude, and a solid track record. No worries at all.
'''Support''' Solid contributor. --
'''Support''' per above :). ''
I'm
Sure.
'''Support''' per above --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support'''.

Heh, I loved the honesty in your answers --
Yandman's not an admin? '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Well balanced edits, nice answers...best of luck. '''
'''Support''' Mature and trustworthy attitude; willing to admit it when he makes mistakes.
'''Support''' - Solid set of contributions to contentious articles and AFDs, great de-spammer, and of course the recent de-assification of [[Day trading]]
'''Support''' - Fine user--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  A solid contributor.

'''Support''' - decent user, adminship not a huge deal, will not abuse or misuse the tools. Slightly unreasonable opposes:)
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''': Yeah, Good contributor.--

'''Support''' based on who's doing the opposition, I cant help but support. &nbsp;
'''Support''' per above. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' looks like a good user.--
'''Weak support''' Good editor, cool head. Would have liked to see a bit more experience but he should do fine and is unlikely to abuse the tools imho.
'''Support''' fairly weak based on the userbox mistake and Sir Nick's concern, but I like what I've seen myself.
'''Support''' Actually thought he was an admin. Has comported himself whenever we've crossed paths. |
'''Support''': He may be a bit unexperienced in some fields (and I ask him to hold back on that ones until there's enough experience) but more than 300 deleted edits and over 1100 edits on user talk pages (in the first 5.5 months on wikipedia) are a clear sign he'll be a good admin when it comes to cleaning up vandalism. --
'''Weak Support''' because of your answers to question three, especially the userbox problem you had. However, this wasn't yesterday, so I won't oppose. | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' This guy is a big fan of neutrality. -- ''
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' per watching him in action. We have been through hell and back together, and I know that he will be a good admin. He is a great editor, vandal fighter, and stays cool when things get hot. He keeps everything he does grounded in policy, and never [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|Wikilawyers]] policies; meaning that he never goes against the spirit of a policy when there isn't a good reason to. I was also involved in the Cerebral Warrior dispute, and though he did make some mistakes with it, which is understandable because we were defining where to draw the line between what is suppression of freedom of speech and what is necessary censorship, which is a very fine line to walk, but he obviously recognizes those mistakes and has learned from them. He is a great, mature Wikipedian, he could really use the tools, and he will use them well. -- '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Blue">The</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support'''. I have an overwhelming feeling of not caring, which inclines me to support, and seeing the "quality" of the opposition inclines me to support him quite strongly. I like admins that interpret policy fairly narrowly. It's the ones who "interpret" it exactly as they please that are the problem round here.
'''Support'''.  Those who have opposed thus far have failed to provide any substantial reason for doing so, and I would not be surprised if they were discounted as a result.
'''Support''' - good interactions with user.
'''Strong Support'''.  Level-headed and conscientious.  Always has a good grasp of the spirt of a policy, and in all my interactions with him has seemed to make the wisest possible decision.  Hell yes.  --
'''Support'''. Nice, civil contributor with a good knowledge of policy.--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. My first hand experience with Yandman leads me to believe there is little to no chance for abuse. Definitely a candidate who will be beneficial to the project if given the tools of adminship. '''
'''Support'''.  The candidate has shown experience in dealing with admin-type problems.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' as unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that one can conclude with a high degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his be(com)ing an admin should be positive]].
'''Nick of time support''' --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Disagree with too many of his opinions that I feel are narrow interpretations of policy. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
Elaragirl stole the words from my mouth; I have been a witness to some comments that might look like "policy-wonking". However, I like this user very much. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - On the grounds of one of the answers to question 3. After wanting "''to blank completely''" someone's userboxes, on their userpage, simply because he didn't like them, he "''pushed a solution wherein he could keep the userboxes '''as long as''' he put the "not an article" disclaimer up''" ........ Too patronising. No no no. -
'''Weak Oppose''' per Nearly Headless Nick, Gardener of Geda, and Elaragirl. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per Nick [[User:Geo.plrd|<font color= "blue">G</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' per the userbox issue <s>and Alkavar's comment</s>.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to Question 3. I have a good feeling about this candidate, generally, and I admire a willingness to admit one's errors.  However, some of those issues of contention/mistakes were quite recent.  I think the candidate would benefit greatly from another two months learning prior to mophood.
'''Oppose'''. Still possibly a bit inexperienced. Maybe later. ---
Not a bad user, but I'm concerned about length of time he's been on the project and the lack of a user page. I've come accross him before (though I don't recall where) and all I recall is that my opinon was that he seemed good but inexpereinced. I'm sure if and when he becomes an admin he'll be a good one. I wouldn't promote him yet, but I wouldn't stand against it either. --
'''Support'''. Calm, dependable, competent, trustworthy. And it's good to see a candidate with real academic qualification and an unfaltering commitment to article quality. As the old Greek saying goes: ''Arthro pou dhen éxi Yánni, prokopí poté dhen káni.'' ("an article without a Yannis will never get featured.")
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Unbelievably Strong support''', was actually going to nom him myself.--
'''SUPPORT''', and ''yes'', this nom is definitely an exception to [[WP:TALK#Good practice|don't shout]]!
'''Support'''-Good user and very nice answers. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''.  I have always found him to be diligent and considerate, and have no doubt that he'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support''', exemplary contributions.
'''Support''', valuable contributor and surprised that he is not an administrator already.
'''Support''' Has the experience and skills to use the tools.  Great answers, great user, great admin. candidate. '''
'''No-cliches-Here Support''' --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support''' per Hectorian. Noticed him around on several occasions and he has left a good impression each time.
'''Absolutely'''. Yannis approaches all his work with an unsurpassed dedication to doing the job thoroughly and correctly, which is exactly the sort of approach we need from administrators. --
'''Support''', a user that can definetely be trusted with the admin tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' per above. :)
'''Support''' I see no problems; contributions spread across each of the main spaces.
'''Support''' Appears to need the tools, trustworthy, and to know his stuff.
'''Strong support''' If we could clone him, Wiki would be a better place.
'''Support'''. '''''—[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Sounds solid, with good article writing background.
'''STRONGLY Support''' Probably the second most helpful editor I've ever met on here!--
'''Support'''. A good user, definitely is capable of handling the admin tools. '''
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support'''- Good user--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' excellent contributions and an excellent attitude toward adminship. Also, what Sandy said.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' looks quite good.
'''Support''' - I'm happy to see more admins who are editors. Good spread of contributions and some helpful tips on his userpage doesnt hurt.
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' An amazing editor!
'''Support''' looks good --
'''Support''' It's a pleasure to support an editor with such a solid background in researching and writing articles. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Support''' per nom −
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''--smart guy, committed Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' - every experience with this editor has been positive, and nice answers to question -seems to understand Wikipedia policy well.
'''Support''' - a good, well-balanced editor.
'''Support''' - Great editor with a high level of activity in recent months. No real reason not to.
'''Support''' - Why not?
'''Support''', good editor.
'''STRONGEST SUPPRT POSSIBLE'''! Great Wikipedian and always willing to help and will do well as an admin!
'''Strong Support''' This user is outstanding. Great FA participation, great answers, and a huge effort in peer reviewing articles. He is also a very helpful user and a civil discusser. Definitely worth having the tools. ←
I'm
I'm
'''Support''' It will be nice to have a great content writer as an admin.
'''Support''' as fellow cabalist.
'''Support''' absolutely.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. He is a calm editor. If he has the patience, he has my vote.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He has been a pleasure to work with! I'm sure you make a fine admin!
'''Support'''. per kind editor.--
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''': strong content contributor, good plans for the tools, no concerns.
'''Strong support''' - good candidate likely to make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
<span style="font-family:Symbol;">'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''.  So far it's unanimous.  A very strong candidate.
'''Support'''. Per ALL reasons above. A very good candidate. <font style="border: solid 2px #0000FF; background: #66CCFF">[[User:Information Center|<font color="blue"><b>&nbsp;INFORM</b></font>]][[User:Information Center/Awards|<font color="goldenrod"><b>A</b></font>]][[User:Information Center|<font color="blue"><b>TION&nbsp;CENT</b></font>]][[User:Information Center/EA|<span style="color:green;"><b>E</b></span>]]
'''Support''' sounds good, nothing out of order.
'''Support'''.  I've enjoyed his contributions, and I believe we need admins who are strong contributors.  --
'''Support''', outstanding answers, no hesitation in supporting the candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. With pleasure. -

'''Strong Support'''. If I had only one vote to cast for any of the present candidates, it would go to this one without hesistation as per all the above reasons.--
'''Support''', per nom. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per several of the above.
[[User_talk:DVD R W|'''<font color="black"> dvd</font>''']]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I already thought you were an admin. '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support'''; a rare case of true neutral contributor.
'''Support''' per all. Terrific candidate for adminship.--<big>'''
'''Strong Support'''. Seems eminently qualified for the extra bit. ···
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' An extremely helpful and good natured editor.
'''Unwavering support''': A highly intelligent contributor. Calm, considerate, knowledgeable, and a Greek: has all the attributes of a great administrator. I only hope your article-writing doesn't suffer.
'''Support''' Looks more than qualified. I think he will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - Very good editor, whose contributions have greatly improved Wikipedia. Not only has s/he written several remarkable articles, but s/he also actively participates in reviewing other articles for both GA and FA, and offers excellent constructive criticism. Unfailingly calm and polite, even in stressful situations where others lose their cool. Yannismarou is someone I would trust with admin tools.
'''Support''' - Finally :-) --
'''Support''' A good contributor, what wikipedia needs.
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' -- I do not vote often, but I have never quite felt as confident with an editor as i do here.
'''Support''' Seems like a very trustworthy dependable user. --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' looks good to me, I wish you all the best.
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' per nomination statement. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Perfect. --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#C71585">'''Tohru Honda13'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tohru Honda13|Talk]]•
'''Support''' per all. He is an asset to WP. I too, sincerely hope, that your article-writing does not suffer. --
'''Strong Support''' ''who wants to be the user that puts this over the [[WP:100]]? :)''
'''Support''', per nom. A very active peer reviewer. A user whose first commitment is to creating quality content, which is the ideal qualification for an administrator. --
'''Support''' - I don't see why not. --
'''Support''' Good user that could use the tools to help the project greatly.
'''Support''' One of our best. +
'''Strong Support''' - great contributor, excellent quality contributions and plenty of them. '''
'''Support''' See nothing wrong here at all. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. You're serious, he wasn't an admin already?
'''Strong Support'''. He has proved himself to be a valuable contributor, and would make a great admin. —
'''Support'''.
'''Sure'''.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nomination. Excellent editor. —
I '''support''' this brilliant editor. //
'''Oppose''' - He has no doubt made valuable contributions. But I was utterly dissapointed by his support in the afd for a Kurdish genocide article. Although he retracted his vote (in the face of oppositon by third party admins) and suggested the current title of the article, it in my opinion showed a tendency to vote in line with Greek editors regardless of encyclopedic merit and subsequently I would question his objectivity as an admin. --
'''Unconditional support'''. I've seen Yonatan doing great work both here and on Commons where he is already an administrator. We have a shortage and very real need for people with dual-adminship here and on Commons. One of our biggest deletion backlogs has been categories of images which are also on commons. Yonatan is calm, well reasoned and intelligent with exactly the experience we're looking for in an admin. Would be a real asset with the mop. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Per nom. ++
'''Support''' - trusted at Wikimedia Commons - clearly knows a huge amount regarding copyright. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support''', seems knowledgeable and experienced.  Lots of positive interactions even when deleting people's images, which can be very contentious. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' - I've interacted with this user several times on IRC, trying to look up image licenses on deleted images. Shows a need for the tools.
'''Support''' No problems noted. And I like the calm response to the former oppose comment. Should do an excellent job with the extra tools.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' obviously knowledgeable in the inner-workings of Wikipedia; by giving the tools, this user could truly flourish!
-- <b>
'''Support''' Seems alright. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Full Support''' - I was hitting my head against the wall for forgetting where I'd met this user, then it hit me... while I haven't had much experience with this editor, he looks like he can use the tools, and on the strength of our common friends I have no regrets supporting.
'''Support'''. Does good work here, on Commons, and on OTRS, particularly in copyright policy.
'''Support''', yes! --'''
'''Support''' we need more people who understand policies/guidelines '''both here and on Commons''', and overall a very good user with experience on both wikis.  Although I've only seen/met him on Commons, his experience there somehow reflects how he does here, and I'm very happy to say that you've done a great job both here and Commons.  Keep it up! '''
'''Support''' I've seen this user around. All is fine.
'''Support''' A good candidate on the record for this project alone, and people who are able to handle crosswiki matters are an especially valuable asset. --
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' Seems images will profit greatly from his expertise.
'''Support'''.  Mainly based off my one interaction with him on Commons, where he was efficient in his moppage, and random sightings of him there doing constructive and sane things.  -
'''Support''' - enuf said!!..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' through my interactions with Yonatan, I found him to be civil and helpful, and am confident he will only make Wikipedia a better place with the acquisition of the tools. Plus, admins experienced with images are ''always'' needed. All the best,
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Another great candidate for the mop  - I'm impressed. Regards &mdash;
I'm
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.

'''Support'''. Good user.
'''Support''': Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is good. Should be nice having a dual administrator and having an experienced image administrator is also very good. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - This user seems sensible in my limited interactions with him. --
'''Support''' - any monumental changes to the project will be met with conflict. Yonatan's reaction and composure during those conflicts give me the impression he is knowledgable about policy without being pushy, and knows what to do against opposing perspectives. Furthermore, his ''HUGE'' number of contributions on Talk pages lets me know that Yonatan is one to talk something out before editing.
'''Support''' without doubt, competent and conscientious --
'''Support''', need dual WP/Commons admins, it's a good idea. &ndash;
'''Support''' just for inter-Wiki, let alone his contributions here--
'''Support'''. Trusted editor.
'''Support''' Certainly.
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - cross-wiki admin...cool...cheers,
'''Support''' Seen him around a number of times over the past year, all of them positive.
'''Support''' We need more sysops.
'''Support''' Definitely an excellent candidate; is a wonderful admin on other projects, always helpful and works hard. He'll be a great asset here as an administrator. — <font face="papyrus">
Yonatan is an excellent Wikimedia volunteer who has demonstrated his trustworthiness and communication skills on several projects, most notably Commons and OTRS. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Migh as well pile on my '''Support'''. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">

Not a single reason to oppose, load of reasons to support.
Default '''support'''. —'''
'''Strong support''' - was on my [[User:Blnguyen/RfA|hit list]]. '''
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''$upport''' Good worker, fast thinker. Mop him boys!
'''Support''' per Mr Lar's excellent nomination. '''
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support''' I'll echo that--
'''Support''' - opposes six months ago were all for editcountitis - looks like a great candidate who would have made a great admin then and will make a great admin now. --
'''Weak support''' - can't find anything to complain about, but can't see too much requirement for the tools.  However, since it's ''no big deal'', I won't stand in the way, and wish [[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] all the best.
'''Support''' Plenty of vandal rollbacks and associated warnings, with persistent offenders reported to [[:WP:AIV]] too. I can't see any signs of uncivil behaviour or massive policy breaches, so I don't believe that the admin tools will be abused by this editor.
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' Seriously, I've seen Zzuuzz all over Wikipedia and he does good work [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' per the reason I had when I supported your first RfA. No, but seriously, Zzuuzz has improved on the problems from the last RfA, and I feel he has demonstrated to us that he is fully capable of using the admin tools. '''
'''Support''' -- I appreciate his work helping to keep some of the insurance articles spam-free despite daily spam raids. Thanks for serving. --
'''Support''' I was happy to support last time and sorry to see the candidate withdraw. Good luck this time!
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Wizardman's been hunting good admin candidates :). ''
'''Support'''   --
'''Support''' I've seen this user many times, seems like he'd make a good admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FZzuuzz&diff=75444320&oldid=75435302 five months hither].
<font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' per Nom. --
'''Support''' devoted contributors make good admins. 12K+ edits in the mainspace is quite an impressive number. Even if the every single contribution was not big then the sheer number of them shows strong devotion to the project
'''Support''' user does good work, seems like a great candidate. -
I'm

'''Support''' Sheesh, he's more than qualified.  No offense to trialsanderrors, but his reason to oppose was a bit petty in my opinion; question two is not even that important. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''' - from Essjay's edit counter, I see that despite a brief answer to Q2 he has made significant contributions to a number of articles, so he isn't 'just' a vandal fighter. Also, he has edited [[WP:AIV]] over a 100 times, which is usually a good sign, especially considering his answer to Q1. Overall, if someone hasn't been involved in editing (instead of reverting) the encyclopedia that would be a valid reason for me to oppose. However, I won't oppose purely on the grounds his answer to Q2 is slightly shorter than optimum.
Contributions history presents no concerns, issues raised by opposition are completely trivial.
'''Support.''' Thanks for keeping your answers short and focused.
'''Support''', always keeps a level head and patiently deals with the blowback from his mopping efforts; has only improved since his last RFA.
'''Zzupport'''. I kill me.
'''Support''' Good candidate.  Won't abuse admin tools. --
'''Support''' looks like a good editor.--
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Originally opposed, but candidate certainly improved his answers to the questions, and I'm satisfied by the answers.
'''Support''' Replies to optional questions seem up to par. Sure he could have done a better job at the start with the questions, but the questions are not everything, there is a human being behind that account. Its that human being that I trust, his contributions seem to yield no problems. Therefore take that mop and do good things with it. ——
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''', understands Wikipedia's policies. I do not seek any problem having mop.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per nom and answers &mdash;
'''Support''' No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' &bull; I, for one, do have a problem with Myspace links.  It's called [[WP:V|verifiability]].  If a potential admin doesn't even have a grasp of such a fundamental Wikipedia policy, then I cannot and will not support them.  ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' hoping for a more complete answer to question 2. I'm not convinced that someone who really has done substantive content writing would give such a 'I'm happy with everything!' hand-waving answer.
'''Support'''. A good user who seems trustworthy enough. I would recommend trying again in a few months, and to listen to the advice in the opposes. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' per TheFearow ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' as per TheFearow.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:53180&diff=next&oldid=147336830 per this], and not understanding what fair use images are as well as [[WP:N|notability]]. '''<font face="georgia">
You just don't have enough experience for me to really judge how you would handle the tools. A good example is that you haven't really been involved in contentious move discussions, but want to protect pages against moves, in what cases, I can't tell. Non-protection is the default option.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. -
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, and per Miranda.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000-3,000 edits, and have a solid track record of several months as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made less than 700 edits, and have only been a consistent, regular contributor for the past 4 months. You also need more experience with editing in the Wikipedia space (which builds experience and familiarlity with the type of processes and policies that admins are expected to deal with), which you've currently edited in less than 10 times. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience. I'm not trying to promote editcountis, but 690 is a bit too low. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
Identical answers as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/luvcraft|Luvcraft]] on xyr rfa. Extremely suspicious. I'm filing a [[WP:SSP]] report.
'''Oppose''' I have to echo the concerns of Zaxem, Hirohisat, and especially Miranda's notation of your talk page. I'm also concerned along with J-Stan that your question responses are extremely similar to those used on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/luvcraft|Luvcraft]]'s recent RfA. In addition to those concerns, you have repeatedly failed to follow image guidelines, and while I understand your explanation as to your low count, and I also don't necessarily think edit count is an infallible  indicator of quality, as Hirohisat mentioned, the fact is that a certain number of edits go along with gaining experience, and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Another issue of concern is your consistent lack of edit summary, and I'd strongly suggest that you go into your edit preferences, and set it so Wikipedia reminds you if you've forgotten one. Providing an explanation of your edits is important for all editors, but perhaps even more important for someone who aspires to be an administrator. Looking at your edit breakdown, I see no activity on [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFCN]], or discussions in areas such as AfD, project space, etc. While certainly not a requirement, participation in these areas not only help familiarize you with the underlying policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but also demonstrate your interaction with others, and your ability to work with a team. I would suggest that you delve deeper into the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, participate in some projects, get some more mainspace activity, and remember to use your edit summary. In conclusion, I don't feel that currently, you have sufficient knowledge in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to effectively use administrative tools, but with some work and time, that can change, and you could try again. <sup>
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per Chaser's comments; a general lack of experience and familiarity with policy application. The terse and vague answers here are unacceptable.
'''Oppose''' mainspace contributions are good but the project space count is extreemly low.
'''Oppose and suggest pull''' Per Miranda. '''Cheers,''' '''''
'''Not Happening''' is this some sort of joke?  Your first was snowballed minutes ago '''
No, unquestionably, unreservedly no. &nbsp;
Unfortunately, if you run for RfA this frequently, other users are likely to oppose as a reflex. You have just over 700 edits when I counted; this means that you've run for 4 RfAs in about 700 edits, which is a pretty short editcount interval between them, and I (and other people) will see no reason why anything would change enough over such a short time interval to affect your chances of being accepted as an administrator (especially as your previous RfA wasn't even borderline). I'd advise you to wait significantly longer before your next RfA attempt, or people are likely to continue with such reflex opposes in future RfAs without examining the situation. (But with only 700 or so edits, it seems unlikely that the community would consider you to have enough experience to not make mistakes in using the administrator tools.)
'''Support'''. No big issues, however I woud like to see 100% edit summary. If this doesnt succeed, try again in 3/4 months. Sadly, too many people have editcountitis. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I agree with what Matt/TheFearow said. This RfA is unlikely to succed unfortunately, but if you read up more on administrators, get a better understanding of policy, and get a couple of thousand more edits to avoid editcount opposition, your next RfA should be successful.
'''Support''' She has a good track and has edited using an ip address which should be considered.
'''Moral Support''' Good editor, should be right in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience in admin-related tasks as well as main space contributions.  Try again towards the end of the year when you can demonstrate a wider grasp of contributing towards the project. <s>Care to provide the static IP address so we can see the contributions that you made whilst anonymous?</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=69.220.124.118 Oh, I see].
You're doing well, but I don't think you have enough experience in some of the areas you want to handle (such as blocks and deletions). To wit, you've participated in two AFDs and made two AIV reports (and one of those reports no one would have blocked for). I suggest getting some experience in those areas, such as counter-vandalism and deletion discussion, that you've expressed an interest in and then re-apply in a few months.--
'''Oppose''' - I don't see a need for the tools based on the contributions of your current user ID at this point in time. I would suggest gaining more experience in admin related tasks, and trying again later this year.
'''Oppose''', sorry. A lot more experience is needed in all areas. Answer to Q1, although extensive, clearly denotes unpreparedness.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' the lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after a few months and you will have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' To say it really simple, you lack experience. You have 750 edits, and been here for 4 months. Out of that, only 34 of them are in the project mainspace. Also, your answer to Q1 didn't actually let us understand why you need the tools. I suggest you withdraw, and try again in a couple of months. Good luck next time! --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience.
'''Oppose''' A bit more experience necessary. -
'''weak oppose''' - sorry, but I feel the need to oppose here. Only around since march, and less than my uhhh....'flagpost' 1k edits. I know that seems editcounting, but I dont feel comfortable supporting someone when so little can be told from then because they have few edits. Keep going though - try sometime down the track. -- <strong>
Experience issues. Suggest withdrawing. '''
'''Oppose''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Order_of_the_Phoenix_(organisation) Per this], very naughty.
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience.
'''Moral Neutral'''. Sorry, but you're too inexperienced. Try again in a few months.
Avoiding pile on.  Please continue with your great mainspace work, and come back soon, with more experience. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Moral Neutral'''. You cite anti-vandalism as one of your needs for the tools, yet you have only submitted two reports to [[WP:AIV]]. Spend more time getting involved with administrative tasks and try again in a couple months, I think it will go better then.
'''Moral Neutral'''. I would love to vote for you, but much as I hate editcountitis, we honestly have not seen enough to judge what you would be like in the role. Spend your time building your "CV", work with WikiProjects, make positive edits and contributions, and look for some subjects within your field of knowledge you can write about intelligently, research and write carefully in line with [[WP:5|Wikipedia policies]] and above all show good faith to everyone you deal with, and you'll be a shoo-in at a later stage. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' &ndash; leaning oppose: I just don't see somebody who will use the tools in you. You mention you got involved in [[WP:AFD|AfD]] when you first joined - I'd encourage you to restart your contributions there - and, perhaps, in the other [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s (e.g., [[WP:TFD|Templates for Deletion]], [[WP:MFD|Miscellany]], etc...) and even try your hand at [[WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators_closing_discussions|closing]] them, once you've built up the necessary experience. Also, some participation at [[WP:ANI]]/[[WP:AN]] would demonstrate to the community that you can think and advise like an Administrator. For the moment, however, I can't support your nomination, and if weren't for the large amount of (pile-on) opposes already, I'd be putting my comment there ~
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you edit count is just way too low for me to support this RfA.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience to demonstrate a good handle on policy nor to demonstrate trustwortiness.  Please don't let this RFA discourage you from contributing.  Build up a few thousand edits, especially in admin-like areas, such as [[WP:XFD]] and [[WP:AIV]], then you will have my support.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA.
'''Oppose''' More experience required. Also, I am curious as to why the candidate did not answer the questions if he is interested in adminship. '''
'''Oppose''' 247 total edits is not enough to judge whether you have a solid grasp of Wikipedia policies & guidelines. Please withdraw and try again in the future. &mdash;
'''No'''
'''No''''. 5 edits to wikipedia space? That doesn't prove that this user knows the policies. --
No. Vague nom statement about removing "propaganda" on the one hand and promoting free speech on the other. One does not need admin tools to remove [[WP:POV|point of view]] problems. Ironically, '''nom's''' user page seems to be selling a way to gauge consensus. This suggests '''nom''' lacks an understanding of how consensus works on Wikipedia. [[WP:BATTLE|Wikipedia is not a battleground]], and it disturbs me to see a user engaged in "struggles" requesting the '''block''' and '''delete''' buttons. The way to resolve conflict is through discussion and consensus building. The user has been here a while, yet has not made more than 500 edits. This is not sufficient to gain the needed experience in Wikipedia's policies. I would suggest that '''nom''' withdraw. This looks like a [[WP:SNOWBALL]].
'''Oppose''' per all above and recommend withdrawal. Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=160840412&oldid=160840321 This] report at [[WP:AN/3RR]] demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of WP policies. You weren't able to create a properly formatted report, even when asked to repeat, and then you launched into a '''2000''' word [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=160944418 diatribe] when your request is denied. Sorry to be so frank, Abd, but you've got a long way to go.

'''Apologies''', but clear [[WP:SNOW]] per malformed RFA and seven total edits under this user name. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Strong oppose''' way too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' Please read the welcome note I've placed on your talk page. Most people consider 2000 edits and 3 months tenure as the bottom floor for gaining adminship; I highly recommend withdrawal. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Moral neutral''' There's a need for at least ''some'' edits, even when the user appears honest, because actions do speak louder than words. Abela, please spend some time reading [[WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]], participating in activities like [[WP:NPP|new pages patrol]] and [[WP:XFD|deletion discussions]]. In enough time, I'm sure I could support you. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Support''' - I have seen this editor around.  Remains civil from what I have seen and has good answers i think, especially to number 1.
'''Support''' - Interacted with Acalamari prior, very civil, very trustable.
'''Support''' - a nice self nomination, no major problems here. '''
'''Support''' - A very good editor and communicator. Very good usage of edit summaries. -- ''
'''Support''' I've had numerous interactions with Acalamari and believe him to be a very mature and sound editor.  I do not believe he will misuse the tools if he is granted them and will do quite a fine job.
'''Support''' Acalamari is a very polite young chap, sets his foot into admin territory, and from personal experience with him, he would be very conservative with the tools - certainly no misuse
'''Support''' good user who is not likely to abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' The candidate has disclosed his past mistakes, and has learned from them.
'''Support''' - very civil user with sufficient experience.
'''Strong support''' per his own nom :). ''
'''Yep'''. Great self-nom and answers, great record... Looks good to me.
'''Support''', looks like a thoughtful and conscientious editor. <s>[[User:Timshithead]]</s> --
'''Support''' I agree with most of what was said above, but also, it is nice to see someone willing to admit to wanting to be cautious with the tools early on. --'''
'''Support''' - I do like how Acalamari strives to be civil with others. With his experience and his need for the tools, he will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' - Super admin candidate. Really nice editor. Acalamari is civil and endeavours to be as fair as possible. Never fails to reach out to help newbies. He's an all-round nice guy! -
'''Support''', superior editor with very precise answers to questions. Has a good understanding of what it takes to become an administrator, won't abuse tools. Keep it up, Acalamari! <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 12pt">
'''Support'''. Acalamari appears to keep a level head, understand admin duties and responsibilities, and does good work in general. I see nothing which leads me to believe there would be any abuse of the additional abilities. Twiddle the bit. ···
'''Conditional Support'''-Great user, but please don't skip steps in the RFCN process and do things like block users that didn't even know about the concern of RFCN. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''. I hope my children are as articulate at sixteen as you are!--
'''Support''' from the land of giant squid.
'''Support''' Sounds good to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. <Cliché censored>. '''''
'''Support''' Based on answers and above. -
'''Support''' Seems capable and trustworthy enough.--
'''Support''' I've seen this user in action and he will be a good admin.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' meets my criteria. --
'''Support''' - I've seen this user doing lots of helpful stuff, and I think he'll do even greater work as an admin. —
'''Support'''. I respect the candidate's dedication to the project and his overall record, and I believe he is well qualified for adminship. Having said that, the concerns raised by some of the oppose and neutral candidates are legitimate, and I hope that if this RfA is successful, the candidate will not be afraid to pause and consult when difficult decisions arise.

'''Support'''. I do share some of the concerns raised by [[User:Sarah|Sarah]] below. However, [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] has shown a consistent ability to seek advice and recognise his errors. Given that no example has been given (and I am aware of none) of an occasion where he has given way when he should have stuck by his first opinion, I do not reach the same conclusion. I also believe he has developed a thicker skin of late. Someone able to identify and learn from their mistakes should make a good admin, but I encourage you to take care to 'look before you leap' to avoid making those mistakes in the first place. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. I accept some of the points below: the warning removal stuff in particular was not so great. However, I don't see enough overall to withhold support given the positives. Newyorkbrad's comments are persuasive, and his advice is good.
'''Support'''. Unconvinced by the opposition. -
'''Support'''. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Although [[User:Acalamari/Warning Removals]] might have been flawed in some ways, Acalamari appears able to learn from from such experiences. I'm admit to also being swayed by some of the support arguments I've seen above, particularly per Newyorkbrad and WjBscribe. Cautiously optimistic am I.
'''Support''' per all above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  This user may make mistakes from time to time but honestly puts more effort into learning from these mistakes than anyone else I can think of.  At this point in time, it looks likely that this RfA will fail and I urge Acalamari to realise that this is perhaps an indication simply to keep at it, get a few more months of experience, and to try again in the future; a failed RfA is not a condemnation of you personally.  --
'''Support'''. I'm not entirely convinced, as I`m usually very sceptical about young admins (Acalamari is only 16). But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''' per my personal experience with Acalamari in handling a particularly contentious sockpuppetry issue earlier this year in a reasoned and civil manner. — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;">
'''Support''' - didnt get this far without being somewhat decent.
'''Strong support''' - Acalamari is obviously a committed user, obviously experienced enough, and obviously open and responsive to criticism.  Moreover, in reviewing the positions of those who oppose adminship, I can't help but note that the concerns expressed are condescending, trivial, and/or petty. //
'''oppose''' After some flip-flopping, I have to oppose this. I was gratified to see him graciously bowing out of the proposal at [[User:Acalamari/Warning Removals]], which was not a good idea. But its successor proposal, [[User:Acalamari/IWN]], for an ''inappropriate warnings noticeboard'', is instruction-creepy, process-heavy, and ponderous, leading me to question the likelihood that he will prioritize common sense over bureaucracy.

'''Oppose''' - per Sarah: despite the candidate saying they now follow DENY, the idea of a noticeboard for people to complain about being told they're vandals ''really'' violates DENY. Moreover, the whole blog/off-wiki criticism thing is not a good sign: admins get so much bile directed at them you simply have to be able to laugh it off; just stick the proverbial finger up. Hey, even I get plenty of off-wiki bile for various reasons, and I'm not an admin and have only been around for just under a year. Admins just have to take the water+back-of-duck approach, and I'm rather worried that won't happen here.
I've been back and forth on where I'd come down on this RfA, and am still very conflicted.  However, one thing I'm sure about is that I personally don't think you're ready yet.  I've been watching with interest for a while now; I think you're a good editor who continues to improve on a daily basis and who cares a lot about the project.  I can't shake the feeling that you've set yourself on a path to adminship, where it's been your ultimate goal.  Some people don't mind that, but in this case it rubs me the wrong way.  You've been very active in administrative discussions, which is good, and you've started to take on some functions that are generally regarded to be functions that administrators should be performing, such as declining unblock requests.  Some people have a problem with that; I don't really, but I do think it's smarter to let an admin catch shit for it than you :).  I do think it indicates that you've been working towards a nomination, and I assumed it was coming soon after you nominated Allie (whom I thank you profusely for nominating).  And again, some don't have a problem with that, and my slight problem with it in this instance is more of a gut instinct than anything else.  You've proposed some policy that I think was misguided and perhaps a little [[m:Instruction creep|instruction creep]]-ish.  That comes from a lack of experience, I think — you're still pretty new and you're not as cynical and crabby as some of us who sometimes become exasperated with overly cumbersome process.  I had thought to myself that maybe you took comments a little hard sometimes, and that concern is deepened with Sarah's oppose.  Having the mop may seem fun, but trust me, it really isn't.  You have to deal with ''a lot'' of bullshit that comes along with it; I'm not convinced that you're quite ready to let all the garbage slide off your back yet.  Sometimes I've felt that you do things a little too quickly without really thinking about whether, in the long run, it's ultimately helping the project.  Most of these are just general observations, and I won't cite diffs because I don't think they're necessary.  I think that this RfA is going to pass, and I'm not trying to stand in your way; I guess you should take this as you would an old codger giving you the advice that you never asked for.  Just be careful.  There are very few things that can't be resolved through calm discussion with other people, so take that avenue when at all possible.  Don't let the crap that comes along with being an administrator bother you, but also continue learning from your mistakes, as you have been so far.  We all make lots of 'em, so you'll have plenty of practice.  Make sure you fully understand something (everything related to an incident, the policies involved, etc.) before taking any administrative action.  With all that said, plow ahead and keep helping the project.  It's appreciated.  —
'''Oppose''' I have generally good impressions of this user, but also a sense (as in the opposes above) there is still a learning process going on, and there needs to be a bit more time before it would be fitting to grant adminship. Acalamari has been doing substantial editing for the last 3 months or so, and I think another 2, or preferably 3, months of experience is still needed.
'''Oppose''' Well-intentioned user, but Sarah's argument in favor of more experience is compelling.  Acalamari's response to Sarah shows wisdom ''in words'', but a record of comparable actions in the next few months is needed before I'd feel comfortable entrusting candidate with the mop.
'''Oppose''' per Sarah and Xoloz.--
'''Oppose''' per most of the above. Long story short I don't think the user is thick skinned or mature enough to be an admin (yet). Seems to be an honest editor though, maybe in some time.
'''Oppose''' per Sarah and NeoFreak. —
'''(Not very strong) oppose''' per Tyrenius. I think this (undoubtedly good and valuable) user may still be on a learning curve and we'd be better to wait for a few months before promoting.
'''Weak oppose'''. Looks like a great editor, but having reviewed the arguments for and against I'd say not quite ready for adminship. Sorry. --
'''Weak oppose''' per concerns raised by Sarah. I've chosen to oppose, primarily due to what I feel is unduly hasty responses to user names, and concerns about how he will handle criticism. I'm also concerned about his admitted willingness to decline autoblocks as per Q1 and Q4 and as shown in diffs like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYcanneh&diff=113392533&oldid=113383213 this one], even though as a non-admin, he lacks the ability to actually choose whether or not to unblock someone. Perhaps it's just me, but it comes across as presuming an authority that he doesn't really have. Please correct me if I'm wrong about my understanding of what's allowed with autoblocks. I say "weak oppose" because I think that he is a thoughtful editor and he is willing to listen to advice after making a mistake, but I also think it would be better if he didn't make various mistakes in the first place. I'm sorry. --
'''Oppose''' - Seems to have good intent and has experience with policy, but needs more experience handling conflict effectively.  Also somewhat concerned by emphasis on bureaucratic activities that don't focus on serious problems. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' I think Sarah stated that pretty well.  I have to say that the RFCN for Theangryblackwoman was handled poorly overall.  Work on handling conflict (and even agreement) better, and I could probably support in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - to be a good admin, you have to take that approach that someone above succinctly stated as water/duck's back. -
'''Oppose''' - per many comments above. Acalamari obviously is a very respected and civil editor who has made and continues to make many valuable contributions. Clearly he has the best of intentions. However, even the responses to his RfA come across as being a little defensive, thin skinned, and needing of others approval. There is no doubt in my mind that someday he would – at some point – make a fine addition to the admin staff, but I believe a bit more seasoning and maturity are called for first.
'''Oppose''' for new per [[User:Guinnog]]. --
'''Oppose''' - More experience needed and, in my opinion, thicker skin needs be developed.  Additionally, MUCH less focus on WP bureaucratic non-issues would be helpful.  I could certainly see changing my vote at a future RfA if these issues were addressed.
'''Oppose''', although I wish I could support. Acalamari has been nothing but friendly to me, and has reverted vandalism to my userpage numerous times when I have been offline, but I have to agree with everyone who has pointed out that you need somewhat thicker skin. Being an admin, especially if your intention is to focus on vandalism and new page patrol, can mean being attacked by people on a near daily basis, and you have to be able to completely ignore it. For one, it only encourages them, but more importantly, if you take that kind of crap personally you will have left the project by the end of the month. And that would be a tragedy, I think.
Per the above.
'''Oppose'''  As a medcab mediator for two of their conflicts, I find the editor needs to improve their conflict resolution skills.
'''Oppose''' -- Not experienced enough in Wikipedia policy or norms; nor has the patience or maturity to handle the responsibilities and trust of adminship. Acalamari is eager to learn, but quick to jump the gun in situations that do not warrant excessive action. As an example, between January 29 and 30th, Acalamari went on mistaken campaign to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=20070206174018&limit=500&target=Acalamari&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=1 expunge dozens of article talk page comments] by an anon editor -- nearly all of which were perfectly legitimate-- deleting comments by registered users in the process.--<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Oppose''' this time around.  Happy to review subsequent activity if renominated in a few months, preferably by another editor.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''  - per Sarah

'''Oppose''' per Sarah and the rest. Not now, but in future.
'''Oppose''' I feel we <s>shouldn't give</s> should be very careful about giving admin rights to anyone under 18.
'''Oppose''', time. --
'''Neutral''', as Acalamari is a good user for the most part, but I am hesitant about letting him "police" user names if he continues to do so in the wrong manner.  I explained to you just two weeks ago on your talk page that the first thing with a borderline-acceptable username is '''not''' to bring it to [[WP:RFCN]], it is to ask the user nicely to change their name first.   You even said you understood this; clearly, based on your answer to Q1, you did not.  I am very hesitant about enabling someone who "polices" usernames in a wholly wrong manner to block users based on their usernames.
I have great respect for this user, I am sure this user would not willingly mis-use his tools. However, with only 652 Wikipedia namespace edits(267 of which were on [[WP:RFCN]]) I just get the feeling it is too soon. In each of the last three months, this user has done more edits than the three months before combined[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Acalamari&site=en.wikipedia.org]. It will not be long before I will be ready to support you at that rate. My only advice is to think hard before making a decision about if it is defensible if later disputed, an admin needs to make the correct decision and then stand by it when people complain(which will happen no matter how correct you are). Your admirable quality of recognizing your mistakes when pointed out to you and fixing them  needs to be contrasted by an ability to know when you are correct and people are complaining anyways. <small>
'''Neutral leaning to support''' per <s>Proto</s> Neil and HighInBC. —
'''Neutral''' per pretty much everything above. -
'''Neutral''' per evidence linked to in Sarah's comment. I've only been able to block people for about a month, and I've already had about 8 people e-mail me to tell me how much they'd love to *insert act of violence* me (and I think all of my blocks have been justifiable so far). You just gotta laugh it off. You're a really nice guy, but I'm not sure how well you'll handle the off-wiki stuff. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Neutral''' per Riana.
'''Neutral''' It is a too close call for me to go to either side. I apply much stronger measurements to self-nominations than to others, and combined with the minor issues that were mentioned (usernames and unblockrequest) and the fact that you only have been an truely active for about 4 months I cannot give you my support. But in reversal, none of the points truely make you unfit to being an good administrator. So neutrality is the only option. [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Neutral''' I thought I was going to support, but after reading the points brought up by the opposers, I have to remain neutral.  I hope that if Acalamari succeeds, he tries to better his editing with the points brought up in the oppose comments and if he doesn't, I hope he takes them to hear and renominates himself later. '''
'''Neutral''' per Riana for now, I may be convinced otherwise though.
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. I don't know the candidate well enough to oppose. But Sarah's concerns are hard to ignore and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anthony.bradbury_2&diff=117635288&oldid=117627956 this comment] on Anthony Bradbury's RfA leads me to believe that Acalamari is not too inclined to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], something an admin should really strive to do in order to avoid overly confrontational relations with other users.
I am leaning oppose. She failes a few personal policies. She has not been active here for 5 consecutive full months and it really has not been long enough since Acalamari's confilicts. I'd vote for you if you went six months without any major conflicts. Sorry. --
'''Weak Neutral''' Come back soon, and keep up the good work. Just a little longer it seems.
'''You're getting there''', but for now it's too soon. Keep it up and I'll see you around come summertime. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Neutral'''. A thin-skinned admin's not as bad as a volatile one. You seem good, but I'm too reluctant to support.--
'''Moral Support''' Too soon my friend. Two days of vandal fighting does not an admin make. Your answers to the questions are both honest but not full enough for me to understand enough about your need for admin buttons at this time. You may also find that turning on the auto prompt for edit summaries will help (it's in your preferences) as I feel admins need, more than others, to justify / describe actions through the summary. However your contributions look fine and your vandal reversion is deeply valued to this project. Remember also that '''blocking''' is preventative not punative. I hope to see more of your contributions and a future RFA, but sadly I suspect this will not be succesful at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' it should be noted [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] was 11 when he became an administrator, and 13 when he became a bureaucrat. Please, no unhelpful age-related opposition. I urge the candidate to work on the issues raised by the opposition that have concerns ''related to adminship and the encylopedia''. As long as ACBest learns from this RfA and improves greatly when his next nomination comes around in a few months time, he'll be a fine candidate, regardless of age.
'''Oppose''' - not sure if this editor has enough experience to determine which admin tasks really need to be accomplished or what adminship really entails.  [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ACBot]] requests a vague request for a bot account without specifying what it does or why it needs to be done.  Also, the autograph book page just encourages people to use long, flowery, colorful signatures without adding content.  --
'''Oppose''' - While you have over 2,000 edits to wikipedia, only 519 of them are on the mainspace. You say your main priority will be vandal fighting yet you have only 12 AIV reports. You seem also to use summaries only about half of the time. You need more experience and then we'll see.
'''Oppose''' - Too inexperienced. The goal of becoming an admin should be for the betterment of the encyclopedia, not just to hold the title.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience in my opinion. I would also like to see more detailed answers if there happens to be a next time you apply to be an admin. Best of luck in the future!
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience, as stated above.  More familiarity with the main spaces and admin-related processes would be an advantage in a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' Per T Rex. Also your sign is too long and burns the eyes. Kindly consider changing your sign.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. I don't think this user is capable of being an admin, yet. Leave edit summaries more often, and provide more detailed answers. -
'''Oppose''' AC, unfortunatly at this time I have to oppose your Rfa. You seemed to have been on wiki for a reasonable time, but many of your edits (as many as 1/3) goes to the Usernamespace. Also, try consider using edit summary more which will make life a bit easier for others who want to check what changed. Being in the same age group, I would like to morally support you, but at this time I have to oppose. Good luck next time! --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
Suggest wthdrawal and change of signature. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  While I have no reason to explicitly think this may be the case with you, it is not a risk I am willing to take.  Also, quite frankly, I agree that it is just not possible for a 12-year-old to possess the maturity level needed for the job.  It's not a personal reflection on you, it's just a fact of life.
'''Neutral''' needs to use more edit summaries, more mainspace edits. I do applaud you for your work with images as it is something that many users even experienced ones look over.
'''Neutral'''. I don't really know what to make of you right now. You seem a bit too inexperienced, so I won't support. Also, you know there's a setting that reminds you to add a summary, right? Go under the "Editing" tab in your preferences, and it should be the last box at the bottom.
'''Neutral''' Really needs a little more experience
'''Neutral''' Your age is not a problem.  You just need more experience and better habits (for example, leaving edit summaries more consistently).  Let us see you again in three or four months.
'''Neutral''' I think you are still just too inexperienced still. I know of a great many vandalism fighters who send 12 or more users to AIV in a day. I suggest you continue doing what you've been doing, spend some more time observing and trying out different administrative-related tasks. Every little bit that you learn is going to make your next RfA go that much more smoothly. Don't take all of the information you are getting too hard, I think if you listen to and apply what everyone is telling you, your next attempt will be far more successful.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you have too little experience. Come back in a few months, after getting both more experience and experience that isn't vandal fighting. -
'''Oppose''' poor answers to questions (1 sentance is not enough) and not enough experience. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I hate editcountis, and really want us to lower the numbers, but this is toooo low, suggest withdrawal at this time.--
'''Oppose''' per above
'''Oppose'''. Please follow the suggestions by Heligoland and you'll do fine. '''''
'''Oppose''' not even 500 edits.
A couple of months experience and a good few hundred edits, so your off to a brilliant start. You'll need to edit in some different areas and perhaps increase your edit rate (try [[WP:TWINKLE]]) and write a little of whatever you know about and if you come back here in a few months, I'm sure you would likely pass. If your unsure as to why I or the others have opposed, please read [[Wikipedia:Successful_adminship_candidacies]] which shows what level of contributions and experience admins need to have these days. <font face="Arial">-- '''
A productive and very well-meaning editor. Just wait about three months and ~2500-3000 edits and you should tear apart your next RfA. Most of your edits are in the last week-and-a-half and there's no evidence you have sufficient experience with Wikipedia policy, especially apart from vandal-fighting. You might try [[WP:AFD]] once in a while. ;-)
'''Oppose''' Sorry my friend. 500 or 5000 edits aside, 1) Your block was three weeks ago, far to recent for me to overlook. 2) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henning_von_Treschow&diff=prev&oldid=163512283 this] clearly shows you really don't have a grip of policy 3) Your answers are, well, boiler plate and weak to be honest and 4) Next time run your RfA answers via a spell checker or something before transcluding.... "neusence with me...." "''Weather'' I have 450 edits..." etc. Sorry, I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help out since you block. Don't be put off from helping. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Rather than through my regular check of the RFA page, I arrived here following the trail from [[User talk:Afil]]: you just tagged [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dumicu%C5%9F_River&diff=prev&oldid=163423612 Dumicuş River] for CSD for the reason "article too small, to little information", which doesn't fit anywhere into [[WP:CSD]] criteria, while the article—although really short—clearly does say what is its subject, lists two references, and most rivers are notable by default. You proceeded by warning the user for vandalism, not exactly in line with [[WP:AGF]]. Just today, you tagged the {{la|Denis Casavant}} article ''twice'' for CSD A7, despite the fact that a previously reviewer clearly stated that there's an '''assertion''' of notability; the second db-bio tag didn't even have an edit summary. Sorry, I think that just those two fresh cases show too poor a judgement and unfamiliarity with basic policies such as CSD.
'''oppose''' per pedro and duja.
'''Oppose''' - I think that removing someone's else's AIV report prematurely as you did  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=163516614&oldid=163516462 here] less that an hour ago showed a considerable lapse in judgment. If I wasn't so trusting, I might even find it slightly suspicious. --
'''Oppose''' - recently blocked for vandalism - by his own admission is permanently logged in allowing for "other people" to vandalize from his IP - not to mention the apparent lack of grasp of policy - I think this can only be regarded as a frivolous self-nomination.
Per above, suggest withdrawal. -
Inexperience, sorry. '''
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Strong Support''' - Per my explanation above and great interaction with this user. -
I would definitely trust this user with the mop.

'''Strong support''' I've noticed Eddie many, many times here and he's done a great job of spreading his contributions across the namespaces, and truly doing a great job at participating in nearly every part of this project. He's a great help at [[WP:AFC|articles for creation]], has has even started some work on the [[WP:POST|Signpost]] (see [[User:Agüeybaná/Signpost article|here]]). And, of course, Eddie's outstanding participation in the mainspace must be noted, doing everything from minor edits, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DJA_FM&diff=prev&oldid=162357616 referencing articles] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puerto_Rico&diff=prev&oldid=162339080 reverting vandalism], to serious article editing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_50_Cent_awards_and_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=162141771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosuke_Kimura&diff=prev&oldid=161049796]. This, along with his always [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] interactions with other users and the fact that Wikipedia would be greatly helped with Eddie in this capacity, leaves me no choice other than to support. Good luck, Eddie! '''(
'''Support''' Great guy. :)
'''Support''' - I believe Eddie would make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - <small>''from my nom''</small> - Eddie is an active editor, registering a an impressive 1,700 edits in the Wiki-space alone, participating in deletion debates and diligent reporting at WP:UAA. He has demonstrated a great commitment to the project above and beyond most users. He collaborates, using talk pages to incite users to get active, as evidenced by the WikiProject Puerto Rico newsletter he created and maintains. I'm believe this user will do great with the tools. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support.''' Candidate's explanation of previous sentiments is satisfactory.
'''Hell yeah!''' Knows the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Madonick&diff=prev&oldid=162930323 deletion policy], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaveRapp101&diff=prev&oldid=162929139 remembers to notify people when their article is tagged for speedy], as well as wikifying and formatting articles, making substantial contributions, and being a good vandal-fighter. He is exactly the kind of editor we need as an administrator.
'''Support''' I would certainly trust Agüeybaná as an admin.
I supported the last time. All my interactions with Agüeybaná have been positive; listens to and takes advice as well.
'''Support''' has common sense--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' Have seen good work by this editor around the traps, and believe them to be sensible and intelligent. I think he would do well with the mop
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around RfA's quite a lot, so I don't have to worry about him not participating in things such as these. His contribs look worthy of an admin, too. Cheers, '''
'''Support.''' Seen Eddie around WP and on IRC, been consistently impressed. '''<font color="#ff1493">&ndash;
'''Support''' He seems like a good guy for the job. A good knowledge of WikiPolicy (I think I just made that up), and would be a good addition to the admin family. —Signed by [[User:Kornfan71|<font color="red">KoЯn</font><font color="black">fan71</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:Kornfan71|<font color="red">My Talk</font>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' - Eddie has been a great help to me in revamping [[List of U2 awards]] and definitely has the knowledge and experience necessary for adminship.
'''Support''', I can see that Eddie will be a good admin.--'''''
'''Support''' This user has a good knowledge on policy. I believe that he will make a fine admin as wel. He has also demonstrated a great deal of commitment to this project as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Obviously to be trusted with the tools.
Per nom.&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - Agüeybaná is an experienced editor who, in my opinion, would make a fine administrator! I find him not only to be very knowledgeable about policy, but he demonstrates a willingness to help out other less experienced editors in the improvement of newly created articles.
'''Support''' He works to different standards than me, but I don't think he's wrong. Most of the opposes seem to boil down to "sometimes can be an asshole", but if we desysopped people for that there'd be about two admins left.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' per strong contributions, dedication to the project, and willingness to help out with backlogs in areas where help would be useful. Many of the oppose concerns are legitimate, however, and I hope the candidate will take stock of them, whether or not this RfA is successful.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad ''et al.'' Of course much of the criticism is correct.  He's somewhat immature (still in school), a complete pain, and ''un (some nasty Spanish word I learned in the schoolyards of the South Bronx).''  But he works well with the others, on the whole, and has made some significant contributions to build WP. Even if this RfA does not succeed, I look forward to mentoring him to do better in the future.
'''Support''' - what you've achieved here so far is brilliant. Keep up the good work, and try to keep a cool head, although it must be admitted by all that sometimes it gets hard not to. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' lots of experience and won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''' I believe that he will be a dedicated editor who shan't abuse tools.
'''Support''' per nom. --
For what it's worth, I trust Agüeybaná to make a good administrator, even at this point. I encourage him to take the advice from the opposing parties and come back in a few months where he will stand a good chance of getting through.
I '''support'''. I think the community has enough checks and balances to outweigh anyone's fears.<span style="color:#01796F">--
I'm not impressed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAg%C3%BCeyban%C3%A1&diff=162677147&oldid=162676751 this]. This is too [[WP:BITE|BITEy]] and [[WP:BATTLE|confrontational]] in a prospective admin candidate. I've unfortunately never found Eddie as an exceptionally mature user, but things like ''BTW, who are you, and how did you find this?'' are just plain rude. '''<font face="Arial">
I have concerns about this user's judgement and temperament. Some examples are the defiant unwillingness to compromise [[User talk:Kappa#Unprotection of Tamao Satō|as displayed here]] and [[User talk:Kappa#Your User Page|here]], where Ag, in response to a personal attack by Kappa, makes the ''exact same implication'' in return. Two wrongs don't make a right, and if two editors lose control, it doesn't matter who started it. Also, the "You do not accept that you are wrong, continue to attack me, keep reverting my edits when the article is unprotected, and you get blocked" attitude strikes me as leading to the abuse of admin tools in conflicts.
'''Oppose''' I share the above concerns - I find Eddie quite bitey and needlessly aggressive. He seems to me to have a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Not very good if you're on the wrong end of a bad block. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per your post immediately above ( 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) ).  It seems that you have not changed. --
Unless you have a suitable response for the disgusting [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] and [[WP:BITE|biteyness]] shown here,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.38.160.124&diff=prev&oldid=159513548], '''oppose'''. --
Oppose per the attitude which has been exposed above by six of my peers, which is undesirable in an administrator. Like Picaroon, a general perception of this user forces my hand. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.38.160.124&diff=prev&oldid=159513548 This] affirms my beliefs. '''
'''Oppose''' as per Picaroon and DarkFalls. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Reluctant but firm oppose'''. I'm normally not one to oppose, but I have significant concerns here. Don't get me wrong here, I think have made many excellent contributions. However, as was exhibited at your last RfA, you seem to have a tendency to become confrontational at the slightest disagreement or criticism. Now, your answer to After Midnight was good and I was tempted to go neutral as a result, despite the fact that only two months have passed in the meantime. The links provided by Picaroon though, and your snappy response to Aillema, really make it seem to me that nothing has changed in that respect. As such, I worry about what would happen as and when you end up in conflicts as an admin, as inevitably will happen at some point. So sorry, but I must oppose. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Oppose''' The attitude shown in some of the examples above shouldn't have a place here, editor ''or'' admin. Firm oppose.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I'm sorry, but saying the statement "''another admin can unblock if (s)he feels the block was a bad one''" doesn't ring well with me.  As Daniel pointed out, blocks are not only technical functions but can leave a very real behavioral imprint on a user.  Just saying "anyone else can unblock if it's bad" shows a myriad of presumptuousness on your part, and could lead a newbie to leave the site; a newbie that very well may be the next [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]].  Don't take this oppose personally, because you learn from your mistakes and criticisms, not your achievements and apexes. —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Oppose''' I'm really torn over this. I think for the most part you are on top of your game and you really seem to do a good job at what you do, but I'm highly concerned about your interactions at [[User talk:207.38.160.124]] and your response to [[User:Aillema]] above. The latter seems to suggest you don't understand how seriously a block may affect other users. I am concerned about what seems a similar unawareness of the impact of your actions at [[User talk:207.38.160.124]] with [[User:Jemmy Button]]. I understand your interpretation of that editor's behavior&mdash;at least I think I do, as in providing a third opinion I spent quite a lot of time thinking about it&mdash;but his statement to you that "You're violating policies (particularly AGF and 3R) and harming the encyclopedia" seemed heartfelt, and your response "Sue me. (You can't, BTW)" was in my opinion clearly out of line. If you had been able to rise above your emotions in the moment and address him there respectfully and fully, you might have been able to nip that conflict in the bud. I know it's really hard to remain civil when you feel like you're being baited by a vandal, but I personally feel like it's an important quality in an administrator to be able to respond neutrally or to have the forbearance to refuse to get in an argument. I think you are absolutely right that disengagement is the proper response, but in that case you disengaged a little too late, I think. Truly, I see that you do great work for the project. I think you will be a ''fabulous'' administrator in time. I have a lot of respect for your contributions. I just feel this is an issue you need to master before taking up the tools. And whether you get the tools this time or not, I really hope you will keep this in mind when you interact with other editors. Your words and your actions can have major impact, and it's a whole lot easier to stop and think carefully ''before'' unleashing them than it is to clean up after. :/ --
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User:Wimt]], [[User:Animum]], and [[User:East718]].
Being a solid stick is a quality that I never wish to see in an administrator, and that said, there is a possibility of abusing admin tools.  Other comments share the same concern as I do, so I am going to have to '''oppose'''. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose''' I stand by the comments I made on the first RfA and the attitude displayed in his response to criticism on this RfA only strenghtens my feeling.
'''Oppose''', quite strongly, per Maxim, Daniel and Wimt. Interactions with Kappa are far below the standards of civility and etiquette I would expect to see in any user. Please try disengaging from conflicts instead of ascending them. Quality writing but you need to work on your communication skills, sorry. ~
'''Oppose''' per above. Civility is something that all admins need to have. Your responses to peoples' opposes in RfAs is a testament to that. Please keep up your contributions on Wikipedia, but I ask you to be careful in how you interact with other users. It might not be intended, but your attitude can give off the wrong idea to your fellow Wikipedians. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' per issues raised above...
'''Oppose''' for the same reason as the last time, too young.  No need to hash out those details again.  Personal reasons that Eddie can do nothing to change, just one of two criteria I have.
'''Oppose''' - per Picaroon, and Darkfalls, sorry.
'''Oppose''' per many comments above.  Civility and a good, helpful attitude is something I require of admin candidates.
'''Oppose''' per many comments above. I think that you can be a very good contributor, but I feel that you currently make too many comments that only inflame tempers rather than <s>diffusing</s> defusing them. I'm also troubled by your attitude regarding blocks... while you rightly point out that unjustified blocks can be reversed by another admin, the block still has an effect on the editor. Others have mentioned that a wrongly given block might drive away a good editor. What hasn't been said is that even unjustified blocks remain on the record of a user (just see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Robdurbar who] one rogue (not rouge!) admin blocked, as an example). A person who was wrongly blocked will have to explain that block if he or she seeks adminship/bureaucrat/whatever. It's far better to avoid making the mistake in the first place. I'm not trying to tear you down, Eddie, and I hope you understand why I've chosen to oppose your RfA at the present time. What I think you should do is try to read the various comments presented here, read ''your own'' interactions with other users, and try to imagine how your words would be taken by someone else. In other words, try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I don't think you are ''permanently'' unsuited for adminship, I just feel that you should improve your civility and communication skills, and rethink your attitude on blocking. Work on those, and perhaps I might be convinced to support you in the future. --
'''Oppose''' I just can't bring myself to support given the comments that have been pointed out above, while you are a good contributor, that does not mean you will act with a level head as an admin, and your actions above do not demonstrate this. Thus, while I value the work in article creation, incivility issues mean I will oppose for the time being.
'''Weak Oppose''' sorry, the comments highlighted above cancel out some promising editing. I don't see any Good or Featured Article involvement, and only 1 DYK - a more concerted effort at 'pedia building  may see a support from me in the future. cheers,
'''Strong Oppose''' per the various confrontational responses cited above ("so sue me", "your final comment is irrelevant", etc.) These display an arrogance and attitude that is entirely unsuitable for the mop.
'''Oppose''' - I don't trust Agueybana's judgement with regards blocking and suchlike at this time.  However, the error was being rude, bitey and incivil ''before'' getting the mop (wrong order, dude).   I admire the honesty, at least.
'''Oppose''' per Darkfalls. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' as per Picaroon above. Sorry buddy.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Eddie, you are a good editor, but there have been quite a few times in which you have been rude or arrogant to others and left a sour taste in my mouth. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' Don't want to pile on, so I'll keep it short -- my default position on an RfA is, among other things, to support absent a showing that the tools may be abused.  I really wanted to support you because you've been a fine editor, but you seem to be just a little too quick to anger in the face of opposition (which you would inevitably face as an admin).  I was perfectly willing to write off the exchange above in the discussion section, since it seemed like you were just being baited, but a similarly hot response happened more than once, just on this page.  As such, I don't see a choice but to oppose.
'''Oppose''' as per Picaroon.  --
'''Oppose''': I don't think this is a good idea at this juncture, largely for the reasons raised by Daniel, Picaroon, DarkFalls, and Riana. Editors are usually at ''peak'' civility before and during an RfA; it only gets worse after they're sysopped and no longer under the magnifying glass. I think there's a level of hot-headedness and immaturity, and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude, that augurs poorly for what he'd do with the bit. The way a user handles conflict is a useful gauge of what they'll do with the tools when things jump off. We need admins who will stay calm and refuse to be baited. Based on what I've seen so far (particularly the exchanges cited by Picaroon above), I don't think Agueybana's in this category. Regarding Kelly Martin's most recent RfA, Agueybana wrote that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kelly_Martin_2&diff=prev&oldid=161354891 "I would never support such an uncivil user."] Amen - me neither. '''
'''Oppose''': Agueybana needs to demonstrate a longer history of cool thinking and polite interactions during conflicts before I can support his RfA. One of the rare situations where an intelligent editor in good faith can't reasonably be relied upon not to lose his temper and abuse admin tools. Something he can remedy with consistent effort and attention.
'''Oppose''' per Daniel and Picaroon. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.38.160.124&diff=prev&oldid=159513548| diff] provided by Daniel seems a bit much. I do realize everyone is human and makes mistakes, so I'd be open to supporting in the future if civility improves. --
'''Oppose''' Very concerned about the unexplained change of the username, and the fact that I'm unable to check older contributions. Candidate seems to be a fast decider, but sadly with some problems in judgment. Comments by other users about rude and arrogant behaviour is alarming. The candidates answers here don't really give confidence this has changed. And coming back to RfA after only two months is a bit to fast, imho.
'''Oppose''', regretfully.  And frankly, I came here intending to support.  The answer to question 9, however, saddened me, as did the confrontational attitude in some diffs and comments at the top of this very RFA.  I'm sorry, but I have to now say no.  I don't oppose often, and this one saddens me.  -
'''Oppose''' Sorry but to be an admin you'll need to cool down a little bit. --
'''Oppose'''.  I'm concerned with your answer to question 9.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I am also concerned with your efforts to deal reasonably with people at all times. Your response to 9 seems to acknowledge fact that such outbursts may happen in the future, without any attempts to rectify this problem. If you feel this is a personality issue, it should be dealt with outside of Wikipedia before seeking administrator rights.
'''Oppose''' I hate to do this, but I feel that you are a bit too bitey and aggressive. You need to show that you can effectively handle disputes before becoming an administrator. —&nbsp;'''
'''Oppose''' reasons stated by above opposers are too worrisome. -
'''Oppose''' that diff is too frightening and is far from helping a user, which is one of an admin's jobs. Sorry! <span style="color:black;border:2px dashed red;padding:1px;background:transparent;">
'''Oppose''' Had to change my mind here. Looking at other comments made me look '''closer''' at question 9 and in my opinion, if you cant keep your head, you can't be a reasonable admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per above. '''
'''Neutral''' Leaning support also, viewing some behavior of the candidate on this RfA may prompt me to change. Cheers,
'''On the fence''' '''
'''Neutral''' I was expecting to support this RFA but the number of opposes as well as the reasons for them worry me. The curt responses Eddie has made to other editors in a "I'm right you're wrong" attitude makes me unable to support at this time. Sorry :( --
'''Neutral'''. Same reason as Hdt83. I would like to really support you, but your recent comments to User:Kappa (although he might be personal-attacky) did not show that you are civil. I really don't want to oppose though, so I'll stay neutral. --
'''Neutral''' - I'm sorry to say that the uncivility changed my opinion. --
'''The hardest neutral''' I've always had a pleasant interaction with Eddie and I wish that the missteps reported by the opposers had never happened. Still, due to them, I must stand bitter-neutral for now. I hope that Eddie doesn't feel any discouraged and keep working and improving in order to attain a successful RfA in a few months. He would certainly deserve another chance and I'm sure that the admin tools would then be in great hands. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Dead Neutral''' I'm afraid. Basically per [[User:Husond|Husond]] who has eloquently summed up my feelings. I'm sorry Eddie, I truly am. This RfA will not pass. Having interacted with you so much I know that you will keep that positivity and humour that we all like about you. Just take note of the valid comments by opposers, and I look forward to your future RfA when these concerns '''will''' have been addressed and you can then get the buttons to further help you in your undoubted commitment to this work. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' your signature <nowiki>[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]][[User:Agüeybaná/Puerto Rico|<font color="#1E90FF">ü</font>]][[WP:LOVE|<font color="Green">eybaná</font>]]</nowiki> 2 of the nine letters in your signature goes to your UP the rest just goes to other stuff, your signature is a link for for others when someone trying to find you ending up on meaningless pages is only going to enrage others further when they are already experiencing issues with policy.
'''Oppose'''. From the way you answered Question #1, and the type of activities you participate in on Wikipedia, it seems adminship is not really needed. You did not address any admin chores (like [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], etc.) and this gives me the impression that you can keep doing whatever you're doing without the need of admin tools. Also, I see a bit of inexperience, particularly with the 575 edits you have, which is a few thousand short than what most admin candidates have. You've done good work so far, especially with [[The Holocaust]], but I think you should also diversify your interests and get involved in AIV, RC Patrol, and other things. I also suggest you go for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] later on to know what you can improve on, and what you have been doing well. I think if you get involved more in the processes that admins preside over, then you would get a better idea of what adminship is, and what you can use it for. '''
'''Oppose''' you are about 2,500 edits short of what I see as a a minimum; also, of your present 577 edits, very few are in wikipedia and only one in Wikitalk. We need to see a much greater involvement in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. And failing to sign the above comment does not help.--
'''Well-meaning oppose''' per Nishkid and Anthony.bradbury. Nothing personal, get more experience and try again in a while. —
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and a good user. Enough reason to support. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Moral support, please withdraw'''. You should try editing for several months before submitting a request for admin tools.-
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced and too new. Almost all of the contributions (less than 50) are related to requesting adminship. Also, most of the information in the RFA is false. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''', no mainspace edits, and none of the tasks listed in your answer to question 1 are admin tasks, anyone can create and edit articles, and I suggest you start doing so before applying for this position. Suggest withdrawal. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I'm looking at your count, and I see a total of 20 edits. That is all, starting in June of this year. If you have recently changed usernames, I'd suggest that you provide a link to your past user name, as that information may be applicable. As it is now, it seems you have no mainspace edits, no participation in any areas, despite you saying you're a member of many projects. It seems to me that you are not familiar with Wikipedia at all. Again, my apologies if this is simply a new username of someone established, but nowhere do I see any indication that this is the case. I'd suggest you withdraw the request voluntarily, do a thorough review of policies, guidelines, and administration areas, get several months of mainspace editing in, and then reconsider. Reading through other RfAs that may not have passed can also be extremely helpful, so that would be another suggestion. I'm sorry, I just could not see a user with 20 edits having admin tools. Good luck to you! <sup>
'''Oppose''' &ndash; (double edit conflict) sorry, but you've not got enough experience. Get in some solid work for the next five or six months at Administrator-related areas, such as [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s ([[WP:AFD|AfD]], [[WP:MFD|MfD]], etc...), contribute reports at [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:UAA|UAA]], and keep up your WikiProject work, and you'll be in a much better position for me to think about supporting. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''- and suggest withdrawal. There is no way we can evaluate you at this moments, as you don't even have 50 edits. You should get involved in [[WP:XFD|deletion discussions]], fight vandalism, make reports to [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]], create and fix articles and wait a few months before requesting adminship. Happy editing! --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''

'''Oppose''' Lying on user page, lying on question 2. Not a good start, best to create a new account on a clean slate.
'''Ninja first co nom support'''See above co-nom for my reasoning.
'''Support''' as co-nom, happily and without reservations! :)
&ndash;
'''Note''': This is a standard '''don't make this RFA an extension of the Fair Use Wars''' support. /me coughs. We could use some more clueful administrators.
'''Support''' I believe that this candidate will make a good admin.  --
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around a lot and even thought he was an admin a few times. No opinion on the 'fair use in article lists' thing. &mdash;
This user enforces the fair use policy, and I like that. Seriously though... anyone that active on the unblock mailing list needs the tools. Like what I see. Good luck :)
'''Support''' per answers to the questions. Cheers,

'''Note''' this is a standard I think this ser will make a good admin '''support''', sincerely '''
'''Support''' per all my questions.<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''-Seems to be ready for the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - I see no objections. I feel that the candidate's mass AfD referred to above was justified, as the notability of the articles was shaky. --
'''Support''' - If she supports, I support.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, trustable user. Good luck  <s>Changed to neutral, see below</s> Changed my mind again (last time thats happening) I would trust AKMask with admin tools, and the 3RR I changed to neutral about was 9 months ago, and the admin did it improperly. Good luck!
'''Cautious support'''. Some of your deletionist tendencies worry me, but otherwise you seem alright. Good answers to the questions. —
'''Support''', because it's clear that he'd be beneficial to the project. ~[[User:EdBoy002|Ed]]
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal.--
'''Support'''. Reasonable person, have seen him around in admin-related areas, always had a good impression of him. Willingness to tackle fair-use issues is a plus.
'''Support''' User has showed attempts at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=131881152 diplomatic efforts] and trying to keep people at a  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justanother&diff=prev&oldid=127576838 cool tone]. Keeping an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CrnaGora&diff=prev&oldid=62903404 eye out] for other users. This demonstrates that the user will not become outraged with emotion and ban people just because he doesn't like them. I liked all the responses to the answer above. More importantly, being an admin isn't a big deal. I don't feel this user would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' This user has the best interests of the project in mind, should certainly be promoted.
'''Support''' - per all reasons stated above... :)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. Good user, but I don't like his userpage –
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - if Matthew doesn't like the guy then he'll make a bloody good admin. Lollipops indeed.
'''Yes.''' '''<font color="#1E90FF" face="georgia">
'''Support'''. If a user as fabulous as [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] trusts him with the tools, I can't do anything but support. Regards, &mdash;
'''Support''' As state above. Good editor. --<i>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</i> <small><sup>([[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk]] •
'''Support''' - good answers & fine track-record. Previous block was long enough ago & things have clearly moved on since -
'''Support''' I agree with Majorly.
'''Support''' Admin tools for an editor user doing grinding policy work as useful as this can only be beneficial. <b>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' absolutely, even though I had to deal with the consequences of that mass AfD (assisted by [[User:Wimt]] for the last stretch).  ;)  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' - I have had nothing but good interactions with the candidate. --
Bit foolish thinking he was already an admin... We need more administrators strict on the fair use policy. --
'''Support'''. Nothing but helpful and supportive in IRC. Knows policy well. — <font color="dodgerblue">
Well qualified and helpful.  I'm convinced this users has what it takes to be an admin. --
I'm
Support per Moreschi. <small>No offence, Samir</small> '''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - Nothing to suggest he will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I have total confidence in anyone nominated by Phaedriel. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support'''. --'''
'''Support'''. His admirable work has forged a name for him on and off the wiki. That is deserving of approval. -
'''Support'''. I trust this user with admin tools. --
'''Weak support based on contributions'''. In addition to the edits highlighted by the nominator, I sampled some of his contributions myself. Here he's doing an admirable job of cleaning up an utterly banal article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/FURG&diff=prev&oldid=136542547], here he's doing his best to defuse a conflict [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/FURG&diff=prev&oldid=136542547], here he's salvaging a neglected Wikipedia-space essay from its former crufty, vandalized state [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Popepiusix.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=131713009], and this one just made me laugh [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Popepiusix.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=131713009]. But I found a couple things I didn't quite agree with. Here he leaves the edit summary "try to sound somewhat intelligent" in response to the dialect word "nowadays" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iditarod_Trail_Sled_Dog_Race&diff=prev&oldid=98273141], which I feel was unnecessary, and this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iditarod_Trail_Sled_Dog_Race&diff=prev&oldid=98273141] led me to a dispute of his that doesn't exactly put him in the best light. Reverting with "See talk, I pretty much blew up your argument" is no way to find consensus. I'm also concerned that it's hard to examine his contributions, because many of his edits contain nothing more than an automatic edit summary (and I'm not counting repetitive fair use edits). But in the end, I think the positive aspects of his contributions win out, ''in particular'' because all the opposes seem to be based on a social gaffe he made on IRC, which is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per Matthew. (Yes, I know Matthew opposed, however, the diffs shown indicate a good understanding of the fair-use policy and its requirements.) The other incidents brought up are long ago, unclear, and in at least one case (IRC) not even on-wiki or available for detailed review.
'''Support''' The IRC issue is a bit concerning but it's not recent and the idea of using off-wiki behavior to oppose or support is tricky and probably should be avoided in most cases unless terribly extreme.
'''Support''' answers show a clear grasp of policy and there's nothing to indicate to me that he would abuse the tools.  This appears to be an excellent editor.  I can't state how deeply concerned I am about any oppose vote that is based entirely off something that happened on IRC.  Wikipedia's strength is its openness.  Normally with an RFA everyone has access to the same information about a user.  Who really knows what happened on IRC?  To me this is about as relevant as if the user were banned from KMart for some conflict with the night manager. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Always pays his bills on time. --
'''Support''' AKMask has been very forthright with his answers.  In particular, I am baffled by why people are bothering him for getting banned temporarily for IRC.  I have never used IRC and I never will.  I don't really consider it an essential part of Wikipedia (though it does come in handy from time to time).
'''Support''' I think he will make a good admin so why not vote to support him?--
'''Support''' Based on interaction with the user and impression from seeing the user around, and sysop is not a big deal. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(
'''Support''' despite some civility issues mentioned below in the oppose section, i believe you would still make a good admin and your contribs appear good <b><FONT FACE="Rockwell Extra Bold" COLOR="#FF0002">
'''Support''' politics don't concern me so much. I am sobered (maybe) one of the comments in the oppose section, but am otherwise amused by the creativity employed in assuming the worst possible faith.
'''Support''' A great editor. No problems here as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Your edits are seductive, I mean in the literary sense, because what else could I mean, right? <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''', he'll make a fine admin. --
'''Support''', adminship is not a big deal. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Tim.bounceback--><font color="purple">
'''Support:''' A good solid editor. '''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' I am sure this user will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' - I have weighed the opposes, and reviewed the user's contributions, and feel that it comes out with an overall positive.  In addition, I trust the nominators' judgment.
'''Support''', seems to be a trustworthy user.--
'''Support''' - understands fair-use policies, and the reasoning behind them, better than many admins; this is long overdue. I also trust AKMask to take the opposers' (minor, in my view) concerns about civility seriously. (
'''Support''', the opposers' concerns do not convince me. --
'''Support''', will make a fine admin. —
'''Support''', reasonable and responsible person. --<small>
'''Strong Support'''- His answers were good. He knew what he was talking about. I do agree his demeanor is totally incorrect, but overall he will make a good admin!
'''Weak support''' per convincing noms over the weighty but not lethal objections below. What's with the last minute avalanche, eh? Just asking... -- '''
'''Oppose''' — I do not believe granting this user the sysop flag would be beneficial to the project. The user has totally the incorrect demeanor, which leads me to the conclusion that they would not only make stupid mistakes, but harmful ones. It's my opinion, which I know is shared, that this user does not understand our fair use/non-free content policy,<sup><span class="plain links">[[:Image:Aelp.png|<nowiki>[1]</nowiki>]]</span></sup> or for that matter the recent foundation resolution,<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=127638199]</sup> this is not counting the fact they're under the impression fair use is banned within LOEs. Nor does this user understand our blocking policy, having made veiled threats previously.<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=127638328]</sup> Another problem I foresee with this user is that their edit summary usage is low, and when they do use them they give misleading edit summaries,<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NOFX&diff=prev&oldid=136006667]</sup> then there's the point they're an edit warrior.<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Are_You_Afraid_of_the_Dark%3F_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=135922926][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_of_Horror&diff=135923253&oldid=135920599]</sup> Oh, one more thing: is there any need to make repetitive edits to remove images? Can you not do it all in one go? I do believe he is here in good faith and can, if he decides to, be an asset to this project to create a comprehensive encyclopaedia.<br>'''Summary''': AKMask has clearly fallen in with the wrong crowd -- and thus fallen on to the wrong path, I do believe that eventually he can become a good Wikipedian... and someday a good administrator. At present, however, granting him the "mop" would be akin to making Cyde a bureaucrat. Also remember that if you're going to enforce "policy" that you must be 100% compliant yourself, otherwise it's just hypocrisy. [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Oppose re-instated per the opposes that are occurring below, a bit too uncivil
'''Oppose''' civility concerns.  My brief interactions with him have all been negative  --
'''Strong Oppose''' Civility concerns are just the beginning here. This user has shown poor judgment, displayed poor respect for other users, and has even harassed other users, especially on IRC. Be sure to see [http://www.countervandalism.org/index.php?title=IRC_banned_users&oldid=2684 this diff], which shows him as being banned from our antivandalism channels since March of 2006 (this was released earlier this year per consensus of the VCN staff). My interactions with this user, especially concerning channels that are necessary and beneficial to the project's operations, have been nothing but negative. Someone who cannot show respect towards others, attempts to slander a beneficial organization to the project, and resorts to harassing other users, regardless of their ideas, beliefs, or operations, should not and can not be trusted as an administrator on this project. -<b><font color="#800000">
When we were implementing the change for UAA, we gained consensus at AN, consensus at RFCN and consensus at AIV, we went back to AN to alert everyone that the change had finished, and low and behold, AKMask jumps in and rejects it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=128302846]. He then precedes to revert all the changes that were made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=128303571][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Header&diff=prev&oldid=128304013] completely going against the conensus that we already had. That meant we had to continue pathetic discussion for more days when we already had the support to go ahead with the proposal. I also don't like the idea of being banned from a wikipedia IRC channel, regardless of the fact it's off wiki, your still dealing with the same editors that you are doing on-wiki so should repect them, harrassment is certainly not a good attribution for an administrator. That coupled with incivility in the Kelly Martin RfC means I now have to '''oppose''' (sorry, I can't link to diffs as the RfC's been deleted).
'''Oppose''' per ignoring consensus and being banned on IRC. —'''
I've found AKMask to fail his own "admin qualifications" as put forth by his answer to Mr. Chaffin's optional question.  He is not thoughtful, nor does he possess good communication skills.  To wit, [[User_talk:AKMask/Archive_3#Your_recent_edits|this conversation]] leads me to believe that he does not possess the good natured ability to admit when he's erred.  Everyone makes mistakes (myself very much included, hehe), but to act so snarky as to twist around what a sockpuppet is and isn't for the purposes of argumentation is rather silly.  I wasn't going to comment, as I thought this might have been an isolated incident, but given the concerns raised by the opposition, it appears as if this fellow does not have the necessary social graces and/or communication skills to effectively work with others [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose'''. The incident Ryan flags up above concerned me but not enough to oppose and the IRC ban seemed a long time ago. But I don't like the answer to Q.7, which appears to me less than full. It appears that it was [[User:Pschemp|Pschemp]] who had to kick you from #wikipedia-en due to your behaviour and not [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_bureaucratship%2FEssjay&diff=46308787&oldid=46308115], something that Pschemp confirms [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pschemp&diff=prev&oldid=136757432]. Essjay then made the entry [http://www.countervandalism.org/index.php?title=IRC_banned_users&oldid=2684 here]. No doubt other ops would have spoken up had the kick been unfair and I have difficulty seeing a justification for the harassment of multiple users. The CVU ban makes sense as a result of that. But instead of owning up to this mistake (which was distant and I'm sure the community would have overlooked it) you decide instead to blame Essjay of somehow misleading you into applying, when he is no longer around to defend himself. That I find highly problematic. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' The previously raised issues trouble me, especially the borderline incivility. When I went through this AKMask 's contributions, I saw a lot of good work. However, I also saw evidence of disregard for WP guidelines and policies. For example, I am troubled by  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMadman_bum_and_angel&diff=122090637&oldid=122079480 this comment], where AKMask  states that warning anonymous IPs on vandalism "is a pointless edit that does little but bump an editcount." Does this mean AKMask would be blocking anonymous IPs without warning if AKMask became an admin? I'm also troubled by AKMask's opinion that giving warnings in this situation is merely a way to run up an editor's edit count. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe that endless warnings need to be given to anonymous IPs and if someone wants to wait to warn an anonymous IP only after that IP makes more than one vandalism edit, that's ok (I've done that myself). But to state that such warnings are pointless and merely to run up an edit count is wrong. Another concern is raised [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Lost_episodes&curid=3841047&diff=129964731&oldid=129923416 here,] where AKMask reverted an edit by an established editor ([[User:Minderbinder]]) and called that editor a "blatent vandal." When AKMask was asked about this, he responded at [[User_talk:Minderbinder#Revert]] by repeating that this was vandalism and telling Minderbinder to not "make pointless comments on my talkpage." I am not defending the edit Minderbinder made, but it appears to have been in good faith and instead of being incivil AKMask should simply have explained why the edit wasn't appropriate. --
'''Oppose''' Diffs provided by rspeer ("See talk, I pretty much blew up your argument" and "try to sound somewhat intelligent") may not strictly be incivility but they are the kind of comments that will certainly aggravate situations. The incidents mentioned by Alabamaboy (about labelling Minderbinder as a blatant vandal and the subsequent defense at ANI) and gallimh (about sockpuppets) also make me think twice. Lastly, I agree with WJBscribe about the IRC incident. All (arguably) weak reasons to oppose individually, but together, good enough to oppose. Sorry. -
'''Weak Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry. I agree with AKMask's position on fair use, and the IRC thing is no big deal (though [[User:Pschemp|Pschemp]] raises an issue about how forthrightly it has been presented here). But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Lost_episodes&curid=3841047&diff=129964731&oldid=129923416 this] troubled me at the time, and it troubles me now. We already have a problem with the word "vandalism" being thrown around inappropriately. The "vandal" in question, [[User:Minderbinder]], had a long history of constructive, good-faith contributions. While he was both wrong and stubborn about the particular issue in question, [[Wp:vandal#What_vandalism_is_not|stubborness is not vandalism]]. Content/policy disputes are not vandalism. On the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Repeated_false_accusations_of_vandalism ensuing AN/I thread], other editors seconded that "vandalism" was an inappropriate charge. I guess we can't stop the user on the street from using the V-word inappropriately, but I'd expect more from an admin. So who cares? Why are incorrect charges of vandalism a problem? Because a) they show a lack of familiarity with a vital policy, b) labeling something "vandalism" puts the vandal beyond the pale and frees the opposing editor to disregard 3RR, potentially block the "vandal", etc and so should never be misused as a lever in a content/policy dispute, and c) it harms the good-faith contributor who's mistakenly labeled a vandal (I haven't seen Minderbinder around recently). I think this user's made a lot of good contributions, but I can't support someone for adminship if they misapply the vandalism policy and refuse to admit their mistake when [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Repeated_false_accusations_of_vandalism called on it]. '''
'''Oppose'''. I won't address the block for violating 3RR and being banned from IRC as I consider those "old news". However, a few recent edits worry me. None of them individually would make me oppose, but taken together they prevent me from supporting. They are: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iditarod_Trail_Sled_Dog_Race&diff=prev&oldid=98273141 this] overly hostile edit summary telling someone to "try to sound somewhat intelligent"; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Lost_episodes&curid=3841047&diff=129964731&oldid=129923416 this] edit summary involving an inappropriate label of "blatant vandal"; and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Repeated false accusations of vandalism|this]] subsequent discussion where AKMask shows no sign of accepting that the use of the label was inappropriate. The dismissive comment of "I'm just giving the process wonks a reason why I reverted his edits when they demanded one." in particular did not sit well with me. I don't know whether these are indicative of a particular pattern of behaviour or not, but since the incident with Minderbinder was only last month, I am opposing for now. -- '''
Per Gaillimh, Albamaboy, Black Falcon. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Some of the concerns raised above indicate to me a lack of maturity.
'''Oppose'''(changed from neutral, below) Joe's comment in the neutral section below persuaded me to change. There are still civility concerns. Also your user page is a bit much for my taste. Wikipedia is not a webhost for pictures of yourself.
'''Oppose''' I would love to support - someone who understands FU and is willing to do the work is highly valued, and needed. However, due to the diffs and rationale provided by MastCell, above, I cannot possibly support. Calling a productive and valued editor a bv is unacceptable for anyone seeking the block button. And this was no ancient incivlity, but a recent event.
'''Oppose''' for civility concerns.  The IRC ban sounds like a murky mess where AKMask may have not been too out of line, so I will disregard.  I ''do'' think that off-wiki behavior is pertinent to RFA, but that is a discussion for another place and time.  My biggest concern from a civility standpoint is the Mindbender "blatant vandalism" issue.  Fair use rules are difficult to understand.  As AKMask claims that is one of the key areas he wants to work, its worrisome to see name calling over fair use issues.  This is a rather weak oppoe, but several little things kind of add up, and I do respect the hard work the user has contributed.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' Admins need to keep a cool head be civil. The incident shown above is too recent to ignore.
'''Oppose''' Overall, as other have said there's no one issue that's a show stopper. But there's been so many different issues brought up here that I think he should wait a little bit. I'm not crazy about the combative and aggressive tone when commenting, truth is, we have enough admins that comment in that way. We should be a little more careful about what we consider acceptable means of communication among admins (and editors in general). "process wonks" is not a meaningful/civil way to talk to each other.
'''Oppose'''.  Absolutely not.  Simply does not get it, supports wide charters for abuse (Q5).  We need less administrators like this, not more. --
'''Oppose''' on the grounds that he does not appear to actually edit the substance of articles.  Skimming his contributions I see a lot of marking articles without refs, a lot of image removal, and a lot of AFDs but very little (at least proportionally) to the substance of an article like adding actual content/prose, adding references, finding free images, or even contributing images.  I firmly believe that admins must be contributing editors to the substance of articles and as time goes on I see a lot more admins who don't and I don't think the project needs another one who doesn't.
'''Oppose''' because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Repeated_false_accusations_of_vandalism|a discussion on ANI] in which he had falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" in an effort to attack the person making them and to justify harsher actions than he had any right to make. When called on it he refused to admit he was wrong to label the actions vandalism and became quite unreasonable. To be an admin someone should understand basic policies, such as what vandalism is and is not, and work to support them instead of trying to wikilawyer his way into doing whatever he wants regardless of what the policies say. Giving him admin access would just make things worse, in my opinion. This was a relatively recent incident, so perhaps if he reads up on policies and follows them he might make a good admin at some future point.
'''Regretful oppose'''.  Overall I think this user's contributions are great, and just based on what I've seen from him ''personally'' I'd likely have chosen to support.  However after going over the diffs provided by some of the above users regarding fairly recent civility issues I have no choice but to oppose.  Civility is a prerequisite for collaboration, and Wikipedia is at the core based on collaboration.  I simply cannot support admin candidates who have demonstrated recent civility issues.
Sorry, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Repeated_false_accusations_of_vandalism this] bothers me too much, and there are other problematic diffs given above also. Please try again in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns for comfort.
'''Neutral''' While evidence for support is good, evidence for oppose cancels it out.  Sadly I can't support, but I also will not oppose.
'''Neutral''' I do like most of what I see, but the issues raised above just sorta flatten my support out.
'''Neutral''' he has good contribs but as have been mentiond there are civility concerns. I would also like to see a bit more vandalims reversion. -
'''Neutral''', both sides make good points. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Neutral''', balanced between both sides. Seems like a good editor, but the civility concerns raised above are legitimate, and a bit too recent for me to support just yet. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Neutral''' I cannot recall ever having had occasion to object strongly to anything that AK might have done, and I have generally found him to be a rather affable individual (but does one ever meet a libertarian who isn't exceedingly bright and pleasant?); I find, indeed, much to commend him for adminship.  I am non-neglibly concerned, though, about his replies to questions 5 and 5a, from which I apprehend an inclination to [[WP:IAR|IAR]] a bit too freely qua admin (one's IARing qua editor, and one's acting generally in whatever fashion he might think to be beneficial to the encyclopedia [even where consistent with ''Foundation directives''], is quite fine, but when one acts as an admin, he acts only ministerially [and, for what it's worth, as well, as, I guess, in any other situation, acts outside of policy only where it is quite plain that there is an overwhelming consensus for such summary action (not, that is, only where one thinks there ''should'' be such a consensus)], to determine for what courses of action exists the support of the community and then to act to carry out those courses of action), which quality is the most pernicious, unfortunately, one can find in an admin.  Even, then, as his AK's conduct has given no grand hint of his being likely to rely untowardly on IAR (although his submission that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive]] ought to have been closed as ''delete'' strikes me as perhaps consistent with what I might perceive as overreach), I must, with regret, say that I can't conclude with sufficiently great confidence that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect of the project of AK's being sysopped should be positive]].
While his edit history is impressive & his nominator is a highly respected admin, his opposers have so many good points that I must withhold from taking either side.
'''Neutral.''' I asked AKMask a few months ago to lose the image in his signature. He refused; he'd been using the image since before they were forbidden. He's since gotten rid of it, but a wise Wikipedian once said something like ''if you make a reasonable request and the other person complies, great; if they don't, you've learned something useful about their character''. I hold no hard feelings and don't want to oppose because of this little issue, but it does prevent me from supporting this candidate.
'''Support''' already a trusted user on other wikis, no reason not to trust him here.
Ye, he's quite good.
Well intentioned and has admin rights on another wiki - i.e. he knows what he's doing.
'''Support'''per above. With all due respect, '''Pedro''', I don't think it is germaine to base an oppose on a mistake form nine months ago.
'''Support''' -  I don't understand Pedro' oppose comment and since he/she has not posted any response to clear them up, I don't see any reason to oppose. Also Aktron is already a trusted member on another wik and I see no reason to think he would misuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' for now, because I don't see any arguments not to. --
No evidence to suggest that Aktron will be abusive with the tools.
'''Support''' Ano, Dêkuji
'''Support''' Seems to be genuinely useful editor and cross-fluency in Czech/English would definitely be an asset to the project. No reason to think he would misuse tools.
'''Of course''' <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good vandal-fighter, demonstrating a clear need for the tools. His English seems OK to me; admittedly it might hold him back if he was trying to mediate content disputes, but I'm sure he's competent enough to deal with vandals, most of whom aren't terribly literate anyway. :-) Anyway, his participation in projectspace discussions like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Metros_of_the_former_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=158722030 this] demonstrates that he can speak good enough English to understand the English Wikipedia's internal processes and to interact with other editors. All in all, I see no compelling reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' per huge volume of edits to the Czech-wiki, and enough to get by at English-wiki; sysop in that other wiki, so he probably won't abuse the tools here.  Opposition raises some concerns, but those are not worrisome enough in this case.
'''Support''', nothing too concerning.  And as far as I can tell, his command of English is better than many of our (allegedly) native-speaking admins.  At least he knows where the shift key is.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure I'll be shouted down for this, but the candidate isn't fluent enough in English for me to support their promotion. Being an admin means being able to explain things, politely and clearly, to people from all walks of life. While this candidate might be a really great contributor, the grammar was so confused in several of his statements here and in other talk spaces as to give me serious pause. I feel so xenophobic saying this, but I just can't support until you can demonstrate a stronger proficiency in the language of this wiki.
'''Oppose'''. Firstly, I think VanTucky's concerns are legitimate. Also, Aktron's userpage says "Here I'm, because I can't be unregistered to edit articles". It's simply not true that unregistered users can't edit articles, and I can't support an admin candidate who makes such a basic mistake. He also admits on his userpage that "Here, on en.wiki I will contribute very seldom". His contribution rate on this wiki is pretty low, and I don't have confidence that Aktron really understands the culture of this wiki. I therefore feel I must oppose.
'''Weak Oppose''' I know it's bad, but I just don't think this user has enough edits to really show that he deserves admin privelages. I'll review it more later, but for now - my opinion stands as this. '''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience in English wiki.  Additionally, I believe that VanTucky's concerns are well-founded.  An admin needs to clearly explain any administrative decisions.  Therefore, an admin on the English wiki needs to have the ability to speak English well.
'''Oppose'''. Aktron is not sufficiently active. Nor does he have the required understanding of Wikipedia policies.
I'm sorry, but on the English Wikipedia, I believe that candidates should be able to speak with an above average standard of English, and I'm afraid you haven't shown that.  Q1 also bothers me. &nbsp;&mdash; '''
'''Oppose'''. Several reasons: Aktron isn't active enough at this Wikipedia, and this would make it difficult for him to follow up on his administrative actions. And, sry, but his english language skills are imho not sufficient for serious discussions, making it harder for users to argue against his actions, etc. Also, he didn't make a compelling case why he needs admin tools to do the simple (however, necessary!) anti-vandalism stuff he does. As a czech admin, he should be able to answer this. I checked his diffs (hit-and-run jobs, no discussions), and I don't see why he needs admin rights for this, or how this proves admin skills. And I don't think that admin rights really make the job easier, shouldn't it be the opposite sometimes? Also, he wrote: "I've been also an admin" in Cz. Well, is he, still? Any complains there? We don't know. His admin job at the other Wiki is used as an arguement that he should have the same rights here. But nobody seems to have checked his statements (there has to be someone with sufficient language skills). In absence of compelling answers to those open questions, and because of concerns about taking this decision too lightheartedly, I vote 'No'.
'''Oppose'''. While it is great that this user is active in the Czech Wikipedia, I don't think that he has been active enough on the English Wikipedia to justify adminship at this time.
'''Oppose'''. He just locked an article which was vandalized by some of IP addresses with summary "edit war" which is in this case nonsense. So because he is unable to guard rc and act carefully on his "home" project I don't believe he'd be able here.
'''Strongly oppose'''. One of the worst of the Czech sysops. More than year a ago he intentionally breached privacy of my friend on cs:, he refused to repair it even when I multiply asked him to do so. —
'''Neutral''', and a regretful one. While [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] makes a commanding argument, there have been other admins with an English level of en-3. Then again, this is a self-assessment, not anything scientific. Maybe if you're a bit more fluent in English, I'll support. Regards, '''
'''Neutral''' (Changed from support) I didn't read through the answers so clearly. I trust you and I have completely 100% faith that you won't abuse the tools but the communication with users may prove difficult. I think you could be a valuable contributor but your grasp of English, unfortunately, lets you down. Sorry friend.
'''Neutral''' for now. Good guy and I want to say "support" but en.wikipedia experience and English fluency are concerns. (Note, I'm hardly one to talk -- I'm cs-0 and fr-1). In the meantime, I appreciate his contributions as an editor on the en.wikipedia and I hope he'll keep it up. --<font face="Futura">
'''Neutral''', sharing concerns others have raised. I agree that being able to explain administrative action can be important, especially when dealing with new users. Still, a strong candidate in several respects with heaps of experience. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Support''' Unconvinced by opposition. Just because of low Wiki-talk edits, doesn't mean he doesn't know policy. That's for Wiki-space edits. As for vandal fighting, quick reversion of vandalism, good user warnings, and all around-experience, even with the little things (saw a ''help talk'' edit), he knows what to do with the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' Agree with above user. He knows what he's doing, guys, just review his recent edits. User ''will not'' abuse the tools. That's the only question that needs to be asked. [[User_Talk:VD64992|<font color="orange">VD649</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. I'll always support a user who won't abuse the tools. --
'''Weak Support''' I am loath to oppose solely on Wikipedia and Wiki-talk edits, but I'm unconvinced of your readiness for adminship. For now, I will support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Great vandal fighter and editor. I mean how could I not support this guy, he gave me my first award.
'''Support''' Ridiculous.  People who don't have at least 1000 edits aren't experienced enough and this person has over 3000, and HE isn't experienced enough?  Editcountitis is something that really needs to be dealt with.
'''Support''' Alex has a long history as a vandal fighter.  -- '''
'''Support''' - though I too see a lot of ''per above''s in his AfD edits, this guy's trustworthy. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', quite friendly, no reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' from me. I would prefer more evidence of experience in policy, but this editor has demonstrated sufficient maturity and restraint that I believe he will err of the side of caution if he finds himself in a situation he is unfamiliar with. That is all I would ask, and expect, of a nom. Good luck!
'''Support''' - A little green in AIV but looks like enough AfD experience to be productive. <font face="monospace">
'''Support'''. I have no reason to believe he will abuse the tools. Alex's recent contributions show that he is more than capable of handling adminship tasks.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' would like a little more article work, but I haven't seen any ''real'' problems with this user. If he's unsure what he's doing, he can ask. No big deal. '''
'''Support''' Although [[WP:AIV]] edits are a little low for someone who plans to be a regular there, I still think his past record shows that he won't abuse the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - User seems to understand the policies around the areas where he intends to contribute. I trust this user with the mop.↔
'''Nominator Support''' per nom.--
Many opposes seeem based on edit count or variations of it.  Let's examine an editor's behavior to judge how they'll use the tools; edit count is not a reliable measure. I see no problems with this user, so '''support'''.
'''Support''' civil nominator and I trust this user with the mop...--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (2)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support'''. Courteous and reasonable. -- <b>
'''Support''' - Lots of Experience and can be trusted with the mop..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Despite the low participation rate over time by the nominee, I am satisfied the candidate has the knowledge and trustworthiness necessary to serve in the role. None of the concerns below sway me otherwise.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Useful user and helped me greatly. Deserves the tools.
'''Support''' A kind user who needs the tools.
Lack of wiki-space activity suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
He won't ''ab''use the tools, but will he ''mis''use them? I don't see enough evidence that he has experience with policies to be comfortable with giving him admin tools. Sorry. -
From the look of userspace, user seems to be obsessed with his edit-count; there is lack of wiki-space activities as well. Most of the edits are automated, using [[WP:VPRF]]. I am not sure if you are experienced enough to handle the tools. Keep up the good work with fighting vandalism though. Upping wiki-space activities would look very good. Best, &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I agree with Nearly Headless Nick. But also, [[User:Alex43223/Bio]] makes me believe (via the image) that he believes Adminship is a trophy. I think trying again in a few months would certainly be welcome (should this not pass). --
'''Oppose''' - I could be wrong but I'm not seeing any quality articles, something I do think matters for admins: how can they mediate content-based disputes if they don't know what the right version of the article should look like? Also per the headless ghost up there, and somewhat limited XfD participation - both quantity and quality - does not inspire confidence that this user really gets the policies that apply to deletion.
Per Xoloz and general underexperience. Soon. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry I have to say oppose to, although your vandal fighting is good the actual article edits and lack of non-vandalfihting edits are lacking, you only have seven edits to Wikipedia talk, I'd give it a few months and improve a little on the overall work and the you will probably succeed. The advertising you RfA on your userpage is not recommended and it seems you XFD debate comments are not very often. Good luck for the future.Best Regards -
'''Oppose''' - basically a good editor, however the first article you mention isn't properly sourced. Also, you don't have that many [[WP:AIV]] edits to compensate for your lack of article writing. Finally, your article and project talk counts are low, so I guess you don't have much experience in consensus building or mediation. Would support if you re-applied in 2-3 months time.
'''Oppose''' per concerns above. ''
'''Oppose''' Another candidate who claims that vandal fighting is a key reason for needing the tools, but has had hardly any involvement in AIV reports. We don't want people with the block tools who haven't got a lot of experience of the blocking process.
'''Oppose''' I have similar concerns as those above. I particularly value editors with a good record of interaction with other users. Come back when you have built up your experience a little. --
'''Oppose''' lacks experience in substantive matters.
I agree with Xoloz'z objections. Also, edit summaries seem to imply that this user believes *fDs are decided by vote count, rather than argument. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_15&diff=prev&oldid=115256200]  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_horror_TV_series&diff=prev&oldid=115247497]
'''Oppose''' - I think Amarko said it well.  I make no implication that the tools would be abused, but they could easily be misused through lack of experience.  The tools are just too hard to take away once granted.  Nothing aginst this user as an editor at all.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in Wiki talk space. I see no evidence the tools would be abused, but I do see an apparent lack of policy discussion and understanding (as per Xoloz and Radiant). This is not good for an admin. ···
An intricate knowledge of policy and current practice (I cite NPA blocks as one example) are things administrators need to have in their repertoire. I'm not confident you do, sorry.  '''
'''Oppose'''. —
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov. But try again with a bit more experience, I'm sure you'll get it then.
I'm only seeing 6 talk edits in the wikipedia namespace which doesn't demonstrate a lot of interaction on policy pages, so its hard to judge how well the candidate understands policy. AFD is an area he wishes to contribute but the limited interaction there tends to show a touch of "me too" and I'd generally like to see a more discussion. <s>As recently as February had some issues with correctly tagging an image they uploaded [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Zestsoap.JPG&action=history]].</s>   I'm also concerned that, going back to June, I can only find a handful of minor edits to one of the articles that the candidate is pleased with (JoJo). Finally, answer 3 is a worry. If a user is adding false information or spam and refuses to desist than that can be treated as vandalism if they have been properly warned. 3RR shouldn't be an issue in such a case and I'm a little concerned that the candidate doesn't appear to know this.  However, I'm also seeing lots of good wikignoming and plenty of civility. Not really prepared to support right now but I'm not feeling opposed.
'''Neutral''' - leaning towards support. However, your edit count is low, and most wikipedia space contributions are rfa's. I think Centrx said it well a while back - it's like practicing a sport - sometimes you just need to get more experience.
'''Neutral''' you look like a good user, but I suggest you get more experience in the Wikipedia: space.--
'''Neutral''' A bit more experience using talk would be great. Admins often have to engage in lengthy discussions, and it'd helpful to be sure you're comfortable in that role. <font color="green">
'''Neutral''' leaning Support. I feel this candidate would be suitable, but am not seeing enough evidence to prove that. The way the consensus is leaning, I'd go away from this, work hard on the issues that have been raised here, and come back again in a few months.  Broadly speaking - demonstrate a solid knowledge of policy and be involved in community debates, assist in administration of WikiProjects and get a feature article happening and you'll blitz it next time. Just suggestions...
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. Candidate does not exhibit sufficient experience in wiki-space, in addition to the concerns raised above.
'''Oppose'''. See my comments in discussion above. Suggest you gain more experience  in article editing, particularly in interpreting and applying core policies as part of your editing, as well as greater participation in a variety of project space areas. Don't worry if people feel you're not quite ready yet; you're welcome to come back with a little more experience under your belt and taking the feedback you get here. Lots of people (myself included) didn't succeed at the first RfA. After getting some more experience, suggest you get an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] first and get some feedback before proceeding to your next RfA. Good luck! --
'''Oppose''' Ali's most-edited article is [[AIM Ad Hack]], which he edited 25 times, and it's not a bad article.  But one thing really bothers me.  In February, [[User:N Shar]] prodded the article, which contained only the first paragraph of what's now there.  Ali removed the tag and continued to edit ''without giving an explanation'' in the edit summary or elsewhere.  Even now, N Shar's claim of lack of notability has not been adequately addressed.  Granted that this happened two months ago, but until I see an indication of experience with deletion process, I don't want Ali to make decisions about whether to delete articles.
'''Support''' I have seen this user demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedian Policy in countless places. In fact, I was about to ask Amarkov if he had considered being nominated soon. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support''' as co-nominator.  See above.
'''Support'''. From my observances of him, clearly admin material.
'''Support''', I've had this one watchlisted as one to vote support for. Been waiting a while. --
'''Support''' per good overall record, knowledge of policy and participation in policy and incident discussions, answers above.
'''Strong Support''', ergh, the 'someone else' is me! This is one fantastic user, and we need more admins with an acute understanding of policy. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Seen Amarkov's name pop up on my "good editor" radar numerous times. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. Active editor with good knowledge of policy.
Amarkov's-not-an-admin?-Really? '''Support'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' edit summaries on the mark, decent amount of mainspace, looks trustworthy, could use the tools. Check and go.
'''support''' I run into this candidate every once in a while and they always seem to be reasonable. Seems dedicated, don't see any reason to oppose... we need more admins who'll do CSD, if nothing else. --
'''Support''' - I had this page watchlisted even before it existed because Amarkov has consistently shown good judgment at [[WP:TFD]] and [[WP:REQT]]. &mdash;
'''Support'''. [[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] is knowledgable about policy and I trust him not to abuse the tools. Adminship is suppose to be no big deal. OK, he doesn't write much in the mainspace, and has been honest and upfront about that. If he becomes an admin he will do good work on the various backlogs, allowing others who enjoy working in the mainspace to have more time to do so. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and his contributions in projectspace- in XfDs, policy discussions etc. are valuable. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' good user. ''
'''Weak Support''' While I share some of the concerns of Blnguyen, overall things seem good. As long as the user doesn't get involved in any sock-related issues for a while he should be fine.
'''Support''' as nom. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-weight:bold; background: #F0F8FF;">&mdash;[[User:Malber|Malber]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]] <small>•</small>
'''Support''' inasmuch as there is a total lack of reason to oppose.  I carefully reviewed all of the oppose comments offered thus far.  I looked back at the child Wikipedians debates.  I obviously disagree with Amarkov there, but I found nothing wrong with his behavior.  Simply having a different opinon isn't bad behavior - several well-respected contributors favored keeping the category.  The purpose of RFA is to determine whether or not Amarkov can be trusted with three buttons.  ''I disagree with him'', ''he doesn't edit enough articles'', and ''he prodded something that should have been an IAR speedy'' don't convince me not to trust him. --
'''Support (moo!)'''.  I have seen Amarkov frequently on AfD.  He understands policy well, and his comments reflect an excellent understanding of policy and a cautious attitude to admin duties.
'''Support''' - seems to be a very good user, always [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]]. Article writing isn't a big deal-<font color="red">
'''Strong support'''- I, for one, don't believe you need article writing skills to be an admin. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
This is my rare exception-to-lack-of-article-editing '''support''' vote, for A is usually a voice of reason at DRV that puts editors three times his age to shame. ~
'''Support''' per experiance and with advice to address concerns.
'''Support''' Very sincere and mature, very cool when the editing gets hot, which is the most important factor for a good admin. Also, to the people who say you have to edit articles, you don't. Amarkov has the free will to edit whichever articles he likes and if he doesn't know much about something, itcould be just as polite to leave it alone and move on to something else rather than trying to edit it better, not knowing a thing about it.
'''Support''' Despite the lack of mainspace, this candidate makes very intelligent contributions to deletion discussions and would benefit from having the mop. I'm a bit disappointed that he'd rather comment than close, but I sometiimes feel that urge myself and think it's understandable.--
'''Support''' For heavens' sake, policy experience is a plus!  An admin-candidate who knows his or her way around Wikispace is virtually guaranteed not to abuse the tools (given that he or she displays the right temperament, of course.)  A relative lack of mainspace edits may mean the candidate is inexperienced in an area or two, but he or she is very likely to be circumspect before charging into unknown territory, and also very likely to be a quick learner, with thorough knowledge of all wiki-workings.  The admincorps needs Wiki-gnomes more than it needs brilliant writers; gnomes are the ones who have greatest need of the mop, and have the time to use it.
'''Support''', I'm seeing a lot of names below that don't seem to show up at RFAs often, which makes me wonder who Amarkov irritated and why. However I still believe he would make a good admin, relatively few mainspace edits notwithstanding. Those he does have are not POV or against policy, as near as I can tell, so this seems like people being overly picky. -- ''
'''Support''' This guy's good. Convinced by the guys above me, and how he answered his questions.--
'''Support''' Meets my liberal criteria for RfA's, see user page. Sometimes I find Amarkov abrasive, which I take as awkward attempts at wit. This does not rise to the level of a conduct problem.  I would advise him  to <i>affect deliberate restraint</i> in his dealings as an admin, until in the fullness of time ,it may come natural.
'''Weak support''' When I saw the name, I was ready to support; then I saw the tally and wondered how an editor I've found measured and reasonable had attracted so many opposes. I assumed that he did mainspace work in areas different from mine. After finding out about his low article writing, my support wavered, but I've decided that I can make an exception in his case. His discussions have displayed a respect for the value of contributors' hard work and a cautious, measured attitude that allays my normal concerns about editors that don't have article-writing to ground them. --
'''Support''' Always civil, cordial, smart and level-headed. I have every reason to believe he will be fair and use good judgement.  A credit to Wikipedia.  --
'''Support''' He is one of the best people around. I am on wikibreak but very happy to check the RFAs because I do not wanted to lose the '''honor''' to supporting him. :). However, I maintain that there system has problems and select lame people as admins. No offence intended!
'''Support''' excellent contributor to policy and bureaucratic issues, which he would have to deal with if he was an admin.--
Your behavior at [[Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/November 2006#Category:Child Wikipedians|this CFD]], the DR which you initiated, and the surrounding brouhaha gave me a really bad impression of your judgement. It isn't your original support for keeping the category, but instead the activism with which you supported its existence and recreation, that makes me unable to support you; instead, it leads me to oppose you. I want admins to be able to realize when [[Wikipedia:Use your best judgment |common sense]] supersedes process and policy, and this was one of those [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|occasions]]. I'm obviously going to stick out like sore thumb in an RfA which will garner a huge wave of supports, but I feel that you're not suited to be an admin at this time.
'''Strong oppose''' - far too bureaucratic and is easily done in by sockpuppeteers. Firstly you said somewhere on another RfA that you would be fine with an admin having < 200 mainspace edits, but not an admin with < 200 WP edits, showing that you value paperwork more than encyclopedia building as the ultimate goal. Then you have almost 4 times as many WP edits as articles, and with your 800 mainspace edits, you already have almost 100 ANI edits. Far too political. The other thing is your defense of [[User:A Ramachandran]] even after Dmcdevit CU-ed them to be sockpuppets, who had group voted with [[User:Ekajati]] and her farm on a few AfDs saying that their editing interests weren't identical - any  sockmaster who isn't totally primitive in their methods will split their sockpuppet accounts to do sepearte work, and only converge when necessary in limited usage so that it is not obvious. I guess that if you would spend more time editing actual articles you would see these tactics more. That's one benefit of editing articles, you learn more about crafty users, which you appear to believe is of <s>secondary</s> no importance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BozMo&diff=prev&oldid=102329877  I can't see how mainspace edits are at all relevant to adminship]. '''
'''Oppose''' we're here to write an encyclopedia; you don't appear to do that. I'd at least like one decent article, you don't even appear to have that. I'm not the type to oppose for "needs more writing less fighting" but seriously, what's the purpose of being here if you don't write anything? --'''
'''Oppose''' sorry but question 2 leaves me highly uninspired. I would at least like to see ''some'' article writing. ~
'''Strong Oppose'''. You spend almost all of your time here doing policy discussion. This is not why we're even here at Wikipedia. I requested a while back that you edit the encyclopedia, but you said you would continue to edit the Wikipedia mainspace because that's what you wanted to do. Your last 50 mainspace edits go back January 13, exactly a month ago. In that same time, you have made over 1,000 total edits on Wikipedia. Your answer to Q2 attests to the lack of work you have put into the encyclopedia. I'm not trying to be a stickler about editcountitis, but for goodness sakes, look at your edit spread. Like Blnguyen said, you're far too bureaucratic. I just can't support your RfA at this time. Another example of my concerns can be seen [[Penguin_pokemon|here]]. Amarkov prodded this article saying that it was a "Duplicate of [[Pochama]], except formatted weirdly." This clearly should have been speedy deleted. Why would you want to keep a perfectly no-good article for 5 days? This could have been deleted based on the fact it was a copy of another article, or CSD G2 as this page was the user's first edit on Wikipedia, and he may not have known article creation guidelines. '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough article edits, too bureacratic as per Nishkid64 and Blnguyen (The previous IP comment was me)
'''Oppose''', cannot see the need for Amarkov to have admin tools. He doesn't do much editing, doesn't fight vandals, won't be closing AfDs as he'll be voting in them. I'm concerned that Amarkov's knowledge is all theory and no practice.
Changed to '''oppose''', per Blnguyen and Nishkid. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' <s>seems to be here mostly to play wikipolitics.</s> spends too much time playing wikipolitics. While I find him generally friendly and likable, the total lack of article writing is probably a cause of the bureaucratic process-compulsiveness and extended defense of pointless positions. Take some time off from arguing about stuff and try writing some stuff instead, and watch your perspective broaden.
'''Oppose''' (Changed from Support) I voted without thinking and with some thinking, I changed my mind. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but, per other opposers. '''
'''Oppose''', I'm convinced by the oppose arguments here. Take Opabinia regalis' advice - move away from the political aspects of the community and contribute to articles, and feel free to try again at some point. --'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, huge lack of experience in countervandalism for someone who would like to help at [[WP:RFPP]] and even [[WP:AIV]]. Also low mainspace count, and I can recall finding this user rather unreasonable during discussions sometimes.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. The Wikipedia-space stuff is good, but there are various areas you are lacking experience in (especially the mainspace). ---
'''Oppose''', disproportionately high focus on deletion review. —
'''Very Strong Oppose''' per Blnguyen doesn't do no article writing or even cleanup, all he does is work with wikipedia policies all the time
'''Oppose''' I just feel that with 837 mainspace edits, and 3184 WP edits, this editor simply doesn't have the experience with actually writing an encyclopaedia to be a useful or trustworthy admin.
'''Oppose''' per Arjun, regarding answer to question 2.  Suppositions over what edit count balances mean are one thing, but when you can't even answer what valued contributions you've made (besides a somewhat sarcastic retort), we've got our answer.  Also, your nomination acceptance seems possibly a little arrogant, and the nominator apparently doesn't know you very well (again, per answer #2) --
'''Strong oppose''' Advocates [[:Category:Child Wikipedians]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Child_Wikipedians],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_30#Category:Child_Wikipedians],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=106843457], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amarkov/Archive_8&diff=107222944&oldid=107222908] is unmoved by personal attacks,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=102370970] takes an incautious approach to BLP,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tawker/BLPD&diff=prev&oldid=104471755] supports keeping attack page of a banned user[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:T-man%2C_the_Wise_Scarecrow/Vandalism_%26_Harassment&diff=prev&oldid=98813312]... The common theme is a relentless indifference to the potential effects of Wikipedia content on editors and private citizens of any age, justified by an unreflective and legalistic proceduralism. Did I mention almost no mainspace edits except  to [[Pokémon]] and [[RuneScape]]-related articles?
'''Oppose''' huge number of WP space edits but to the detriment of adding to and enhancing the mainspace.  I need evidence of encyclopaedia building.
'''Oppose'''. Based, particularly, on his reasons for opposing other editor's RFA candidacies, I feel Amarkov has a particular problem with assuming good faith. I also note that based on the criteria Amarkov applies to his RFA votes, he would have to oppose his own candidacy (due to his "low percentage of mainspace edits"). I also found the way he passionately defended [[:Category:Child Wikipedians]] as a great idea (see Proabivouac's diffs, above) very troubling.
'''Oppose'''. User is deeply condescending and I don't want to have to put up with that in an admin.
'''Weak Oppose''', like a lot of those who voted support I am a little surprised to see he isn't already an admin. Simply because of how often I see him around on wikipedia (DRV, AfD, etc...). But now that I read this... I can understand why he isn't yet an admin. I felt [[User:Mallanox|Mallanox]] expressed my feelings regarding this very well. And broad abilities require that they have been shown over a broad range.
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. I see you everywhere I go in AfDs, RfAs, and policy discussions, but besides having no significant article contributions, I'd have to agree with Dev920 (above) on her point. Sorry. -
'''Oppose''' Does not inspire confidence, for reasons amply noted above.--
'''Oppose'''. Contributions to article writing are not to be underestimated. They give a really good feel of what Wikipedia is about, and the problems the people "on the floor" need to contend with. Without any more with the encyclopedia itself, by this I mean: article writing, there needs to be a huge balancing factor with outstanding and stellar contributions to the other fields and the votes above point to some ill-thought out contributions there as well, even though I think the net effect is positive. I am not sure you have the essence of Wikipedia in your blood yet. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  I wouldn't go so far as those who advocate [[WP:1FA]], but an admin should have ''some'' reasonable encyclopedia-writing history.  Hang out and contribute to some articles, then reapply when you've got more experience as an encyclopedist.
'''Oppose'''. I seem to oppose a lot of admin candidates based on this, but I really do feel that article writing experience is important for an admin to have. The opposers above have pretty much spelled out whatever I could say, but let me just add this: some experience in writing articles, or at least making substantial contributions to existing articles, will broaden your experience, and perhaps make you a better admin than you would otherwise be. --
'''Oppose'''. Help the rest of us with writing an encyclopedia and then we'll talk.
'''Oppose for now''' - knows policy, fimiliar with process, but since newbies generally loop up to admins for advice on article writing, they should primarily be doing that. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree w/ Nishkid34, as you should be more well rounded.
'''Oppose'''.  In addition to [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]'s concerns above, I have found your manner to be unnecessarily discourteous at times, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Saint-Paddy_2&diff=100578766&oldid=100577259 example].  Administrators should be models of good manners, and being polite in neutral territory like WP:RFA is the first step-- how would you respond to much more stressful confrontations that admins must sometimes deal with?
'''Oppose''' - Sorry but I have to oppose this time round. I was going to support, but then I read the opposing arguements & checked out your edit count & thought better of it. My number 1 pet peeve is admins who get adminship despite lack of mainspace edits. I personally don't care if article writers don't need the tools given from adminship, I think an admin should be well rounded. Your lacking response for question 2 is far too obvious & despite what seems a good knowledge of the Wikipedia policies etc, you lack totally any article writing edits. I would definitely support you in a few months after you rack up some experience in the article writing area. Sorry, but as I said, oppose...
'''Strong Oppose''' Per the points of [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] and [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]]. You spend far too much time caught up in the burecracy of Wikipedia instead of editing the mainspace. Remember, [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost]]. Amarkov, I have seen few editors elevate Wiki-burecracy to the artform that you have. I will be able to endorse your adminship in the future if and only if your article edits are at least three times as large as your mainspace ones and you have taken up tasks in which Administrator tools would be directly useful to you. On a lighter note, if you ever plan to go into politics.... '''
'''Oppose''' Not satisfied at all with the answer to question 2.
'''Oppose''' Apparently took the "Child Wikipedians" category deletion to heart and handled it horribly. I saw wikilawyering, [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]], responses to anyone who supported its deletion, etc... It basically shows a lack of self-constraint when one can not stop themselves from acting in such a way. And since it just happened in late December it can not be overlooked.--
'''Oppose''' On the available evidence, I am not convinced that his use of the tools would improve the project.--
'''Oppose''' How can a user be trusted to know when to and when not to protect pages during content disputes if he has not participated in article writing enough to understand the various factors involved? In addition, I am of the opinion that the user should spend at least some time directly contributing to the encyclopedia, even if they only make minor edits, as that is why we are here. Regardless, purely involving oneself in the bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia does not sufficiently provide the breadth of experience necessary for me to fully trust them with the admin powers.--
'''Neutral''' Remaining neutral in this issue, as the user usually AGF, but seems a bit too controlling. Once turned around, would have no problem supporting. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Moral Support''' Amarkov is a valued and experienced Wikipedian and for that I present my moral support, but I also think that some fundamental concerns from the previous RfAs have not been given proper consideration. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
--
'''Strong support''' Because it does not appear that this will have any chance of success, I will not undertake to restate at length the reasons for which I have in the past supported Amarkov for adminship; I will say simply that my support continues, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standards]], to be quite strong.  I cannot say that I am surprised at the depth and breadth of the reasoning of those opposing, but I must confess that I think the community to be altogether wrong about this one and that the candidate, whose being a sysop would, it is relatively undisputed, have a positive net effect on the project, and who has contributed quite constructively to the project, deserves much better.
Cannot help but have an impression that wikipedia is his playground rather than workplace. `'
'''Strong Oppose''' - A career bureaucrat, and the nom statement is bordering on a joke. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' If you make mainspace editing a regular habit, then I might have ''considered'' supporting you. However, as it stands, you still lack any real contributions to the encyclopedia in recent memory. You have failed to heed the advice of other editors in your previous RfAs, who said you needed to reduce your Wikipedia discussion and start editing the encyclopedia for a change. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
Sorry but No, didn't listen at all to what happened in prior RFAs that he failed, still over wikipolitics only, and some very questionable actions from this user in the past month or two, with the [[WP:POINT]] RFA statement makes me border at '''never'''.
'''Oppose'''. ''Very'' little recent activity in mainspace. I'm not as active in mainspace as I'd prefer, but Amarkov's last 50 mainspace edits are over a period of ''six months''.
'''Oppose''' <edit conflict>  "Rants" (nom's term| from time to time on his user page, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amarkov&direction=next&oldid=159082158 this one,] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amarkov&direction=next&oldid=159699994 this one,] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amarkov&direction=next&oldid=160380494 this one] that seem to display a poor understanding of consensus or a disregard for it. His answers to the questions show he wants to work on [[WP:CSD]], but I saw no edits notifying users of articles tagged for deletion. That suggests either inexperience with tagging them or not communicating by notifying creators. Such makes me doubt readiness to participate in that area with the delete button. I appreciate [[Wikipedia:The Truth]]. I would have liked to have seen something more substantial in the way of editing/building of articles. His answer to question 3 expresses a lack of understanding of how to deal with wikistress and conflict. While it may be that his Userpage edits are merely venting, <prior difs> I would like to see a more conforming way of dealing with conflict. He seems to express the feeling that because the standard approaches do not work for his conflicts, the problem is with Wikipedia rather than his attitude or behavior.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I think Amarkov is too aggressive and combative to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' on June 30, your second RFA failed, mainly because of lack of edits to the mainspace.  You've made 32 edits to the mainspace since then.
Wikipedia is an [[Encyclopedia]]. --
'''Oppose''' Your best contribution is a joke essay? <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''': Per your answer to question 2, and the concerns raised above.  -
'''Oppose'''. Reading through the link I found in unanswered Q4, I found a few posts at an off-Wiki <small>mumble</small> site indicating that this nomination is mainly here to prove a point about Wikipedia's adminship. (Not a [[WP:POINT]], since that implies disruption that isn't happening -- just a regular point.) Adminship is no big deal, but it's not something to be taken in jest either. (And actually, I wonder if these oppose votes will be discussed at that off-Wiki site.  They probably will be, under the heading, "Look at those evil Wikipedians running their political games!")  --
'''Oppose'''(ec) You have twice as many edits on [[WP:ANI]] as you do on any article, yet the rants linked above and the general attitude displayed by your answers don't show that your time there has resulted in any deeper understanding of policy.  I can't entrust the tools to someone who may never learn how to correctly use them. --'''
'''Oppose'''. Lack of mainspace contributions.
'''Beat the self-nom support :)''' Anonymous has my complete trust in using the sysop functions well. '''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support'''. You have my complete support in this, you can be trusted, and would make a great admin, especially as you recognise people make mistakes, and know your limits!
'''Support''' you seem to be a good editor whose contributions here outweigh his relative newness.  Not wuite sure this RfA will pass though, but I'd support this candidate in the future too.  '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-nominating as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.

'''Oppose.''' I really hate to oppose good editors (trust me, I know how it feels [smile]).  However, given that Anonymous Dissident's stated intention is to use the mop on Newpage patrol, it's hard to understand the rationale behind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosenberg_Brothers_Department_Store&oldid=137287642 this G11 tagging].  Based on the comment on your user talk that led me there, and the previous oppose, it seems not to be the only mistake you have made.  My advice is to use [[WP:PROD]] if you think an article is speediable but you're not sure, and to keep up the good work.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I've seen this editor around and have a lot of respect.  However, I'm really nervous about giving somebody the tools to delete articles, who seems like they are maybe a little too trigger happy.  Arguing that "well it can always be undeleted," is not so convincing, as many of the articles contributed as stubs showing up are contributed by newbie users that would have no idea how to protest deletion.  Forutnately, this user knew how to contact you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonymous_Dissident&diff=137288146&oldid=137277794].  I'm really sorry to oppose and will strongly support in the future if I see that you have developed a little more of a cautious approach.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
Awfully quick with the speedy tags, scary to think what will happen with no one responsible for checking the tags. We don't need more admins that need their deletion logs constantly monitored. --
'''Oppose''' Per Badlydrawnjeff, he really sums it up for me. --
'''Weak oppose''' - sorry, I appreciate your contributions but feel that you may not be ready for the tools just yet, given the recent controversial speedy-tags. I'll be glad to support a future RfA. <b>
'''Oppose'''; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freyne&oldid=137286702 this] is not [[WP:PN|patent nonsense]], and the diffs provided above add to my concerns that you don't quite understand the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] just yet. I know how you feel also, as when I started newpage patrolling I did get carried away a lot in similar ways. Keep at it though, I'll happily support some other time when you're more experienced in these areas. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
I am a bit in a quandry. Sofar the user has shown great capability of improving himself from initial mistakes and seems to make good contribution to the project. But there seems to be some small niggles still in fully understanding policy, which together with the age of the account (5+ month) make me postpone support to a future RfA, which I can see to have a greater chance of success.
'''Neutral''' You are a great editor but people who have opposed you have made some good points. If you improve, I will vote to support you in the future though. Sorry:(--
'''Neutral. definitely learning towards support''' - I think that you need a little more time to make more mistakes until you can be confident that you won't make mistakes. When that time comes, I am more than certain that other editors will have that confidence. Best of luck,
'''Oppose''' - Fewer than five hundred edits since mid-December and no Wikispace edits.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, you don't have sufficient [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Anthony5429&namespace=4 project space] contributions. For example, you haven't edited the admin notice boards, any of the dispute resolution pages, or posted at [[WP:AIV]]. Also you appear confused regarding the subtle distinction between [[WP:BAN|bans]] and [[WP:BLOCK|blocks]]. Excellent work on the {{tl|reflist}} though. If this doesn't work out, suggest you try again in 2-3 months.
'''Oppose''' sorry but you haven't demonstrated sufficient understanding of the policies and procedures around here, and you could use [[WP:VPRF]] if you wanted really easy rollback, you don't need to be an admin for that.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but almost no wikispace edits does not give us a view on your understanding or application of policy.--
'''Oppose''' - the candidate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAnthony5429&diff=117048986&oldid=101823130 overwrote] his original (unsuccessful) RfA to make this new request. I'm grateful to whoever split the page history and saved me the headache. -
'''Neutral, leaning toward support.''' I can't put my finger on it, but somehow I'm just not sure if you understand policy well enough to apply it without making major mistakes.  Since I'm the first commenter, I'll wait to see what others think.
'''Neutral'''. Addhoc sums it up nicely. —
'''Support''' — I believe I can trust you, I've seen honesty, civility and kindness, you've made a few mistakes that haven't always made me happy per se, none the less you try your best and I feel you won't abuse the community's trust. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' - Humble, teachable editors who recognize where they're inexperienced make good admins. I don't see anything here that worries me about Anthony's ability to handle a mop. <b>
'''Support''' Honest, kind, hardworking. You're all the things I look for in an admin. I think your answers and statement are great. I'm extra pleased you explain your high user edit count, and I noticed you created a sockpuppet especially to do this - an excellent idea. Very best of luck to you. --'''
'''Support''' I too notice the lack of contributions to XfD discussions in your last 500 Wikipedia-area edits, but I don't believe that the admin tools would be misused by this editor.  Some more participation in discussions would be welcome; perhaps a small reduction in some of your other tasks would be in order so that the application of the tools can be accommodated.
'''Support''' This is a vergy good user and I see him/her around frequently.--
'''Support''' Great user, I would offer to nominate him in the near future.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''':  Someone with experience at AMA, Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee is ''exactly'' the kind of admin that will do well at [[WP:AN/I]], which always needs admins who are willing and able to dive into a mess and sort things out.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''': Although I've never stated it before, I find Anthony's work at the Medication Committee to be "above and beyond the call of duty", so to speak, and it would be great to have more admins such as him. His excellent work in consensus building is an inspiration. '''
More XfD experience would be good certainly, but you're more than capable as an admin, '''support'''.--
'''Support''' -- very conscientious and courteous. Cares for the project.  And cares for the people in the project. Will make a fine admin. '''''
'''Support''' seen you about and you seem to be a good contributor and trustworthy. '''
'''Support''' - regarding the bipolar stuff, it's cool man, I know what you're going through.  Despite his flaws, I think the candidate has experience and will use the tools judiciously.
'''Support''' I think he'll do well.
I am sorry to be the first one here but I personally don't think you are involved enough in the deletion process. Don't take it personal, but in the past month I only see a couple of XFD's maybe less than that. I wish you best of luck. ~
'''Strong oppose''' I cannot support this user. As an administrator, a user becomes the face of Wikipedia, his or her actions are put under a spotlight. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_cfc&diff=next&oldid=104386386 This edit], made only 1 week ago, sharply contrasts the user's (ab)use of blink where he says "Click here to leave a civil message." A few days ago, he stated that he is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_cfc&diff=next&oldid=103482110 "inactive at this project"], and he comes back 2 weeks later with an RfA. While it isn't major, the use of AWB [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cars_%28film%29&diff=97830601&oldid=97770610 here] is strictly opposed on the project's page. Also, Using Vandalproof for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=QWERTY&diff=prev&oldid=99861147 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fender_Precision_Bass&diff=prev&oldid=99870036 this] confuse me. Infact, having 2 respected users revoke access to VP and AWB, 26 minutes from one another, less than a month ago would be one of the most disconcerting things I have seen on an RfA candidate. You went inactive about a week ago, are you sure that you have time? You've shown civility issues and unfamiliarity with policy, your merits aside, how can I trust you as an administrator? Please, work on these, give it 3-4 months, avoid conflicts, be careful, and you'll make an excellent administrator.
'''Oppose'''; user used blink tags. But seriously, ST47 raises some good points.
'''Oppose'''. From what I've seen of him around, this user strikes me as lacking experience and having (for want of a better phrase) a somewhat "kiddie" attitude. On a lesser note, there seems to be some copycat thing going on with Essjay-related stuff. His talk page has a header almost identical to that on Essjay's talk, and until recently you could have easily mistaken his userpage for Essjay's. There's also things like [[User:Anthony cfc/personaltoolbox.js|this]] and [[User:Essjay/personaltoolbox.js|this]], [[User:Anthony cfc/Neutrality|this]] and [[User:Essjay/Neutrality|this]], and <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthony_cfc/monobook.css&oldid=101198739 this]</span> and [[User:Essjay/monobook.css|this]] . Just giving three examples there, the list goes on, frankly, from bragging about being an ABCO (Essjay's "position" as it were) on another wiki (incidentally, his own wiki), to him appearing on Essjay's talk with some regularity asking inane questions or commenting on things that have nothing to do with him. --
'''Oppose:''' While I assume this user has good intentions for requesting adminship, I have some serious concerns about their manner and conduct. Firstly, this user was banned from both [[WP:VP|VandalProof]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_cfc&diff=99889337&oldid=99870744] and [[WP:AWB|AWB]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_cfc&diff=99893759&oldid=99891393] in the same day, and then removed the notices from his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_cfc&diff=100018574&oldid=99896755] without archiving them along with his other talk page messages. I personally take a dim view of such messages being removed, especially with seemingly deliberate non-archiving. It also appears this user has an issue with [[WP:PA|personal attacks]], shown here via messages displayed on his userpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthony_cfc/Header&diff=prev&oldid=100027380] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthony_cfc/Header&diff=next&oldid=100027380], and on talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_M_Dodge%2FArchives%2Farchivefeb012006&diff=103289654&oldid=103261015]. There are certain ways an editor can deal with disputes, I don't think any of the above, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony_cfc&diff=prev&oldid=104389301] or [[User:Anthony_cfc/Archive/Trolls|troll archives(?)]] are them. There could be more edits of concern than I have managed to retrieve. The edits I've selected are just several from the start of this year.<br>I also don't feel that this user would make good use of sysop tools. While he claims to want to assist with admin backlogs, I can see no evidence of assistance with other other backlogs. When looking at edits since the start of this year, this user appears to have spent more time locked in discussions and disputes on user talk pages, and editing Wikipedia namespace articles/talk pages than editing articles. I don't see evidence of how admin tools will assist this user with their current contributions.<br>''I apologise for the length of this entry, and if I have repeated some diffs linked from previous messages.'' --
'''Oppose''' per apparent 'hounding' of oppose !voters, especially when while accepting the self nomination, Anthony specifically requested that nobody hound the people commenting. (see oppose #2 and #4) In addition, I feel that the issues raised above are worth some merit. I don't think the XfD matters all that much, but the problems raised by ST47, Arjun01, and Sagaciousuk are serious issues. Please fix the above issues and come back in 3 to 4 months. Regards ——

'''Weak Oppose''' - honestly, I thought he was one.  But from looking at some of the diffs above and looking at the revert war on Peter M Dodge's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_M_Dodge%2FArchives%2Farchivefeb012006&diff=104666926&oldid=104647938], I just can't support.  I'm sorry.  You're a great user and I don't really agree with some of the opposes.  I don't fault you for volunteering to serve in other areas, nor for contributing in ways other than AFD discussions.  But civility and trust that you won't misuse the tools are important for admins.  Based on the recent examples of incivility, I think more time to earn the community's trust would be a good idea, but this is a very weak oppose as you are obviously a very dedicated user and one whom I hope will someday be an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree with Ral315, this appears to be [[Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking]]. —
'''Oppose'''' - per discussion above. ~
'''Oppose''' per Ral315.. and I also don't savvy the editor representing himself as a member of MedCom in his nominating statement without mentioning that he was subsequently denied membership. He does great work; I just think it needs to be on the user end for now. --
'''Oppose'''. Without wanting to denigrate your work as an editor in any way, the number of conduct issues raised above are alarming. Also, and I mean absolutely no disrespect by that, the idea of an administrator ''of whom we know'' that they are suffering from psychiatric disorders does not sit well with me. Admins can do substantial damage to the project if they want to, and I just don't feel we should take the risk in this case.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a trustworthy editor, but there are too many things in the oppose section that disturb me. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Moral support'''. You haven't been here long enough, but what you've done so far has been very good and you certinaly mean well in this RfA. Apply again in 3-4 months continuing to do edits like this and you should pass no problem. Try participating in the areas you wish to help where you can as well.--
'''Support to prove a point'''.  It's insane that you are interested in clearing the backlog, yet people oppose you because you haven't been here long enough.  These backlogs continue to pile up, yet we become stingyer and stingyer at RfA.  So you have my support.
'''Weak support'''. Just under three months of editing was plenty when I first saw this page, and I see no reason why it should be any higher now. We need more admins. And actually, the "weak" part is because of that recall thing, which I dislike for reasons I won't go into here, unless requested. I can only support because you intend on doing it through an RfC. -
'''Conditional Support'''. Thus far you have participated in only 2 AfDs. I can easily support since you didn't link to the speedy deletion backlog, and your other contributions thus far are impressive, but I would like you to participate in more AfDs and do some newpage patrolling without the delete function before trying to clear out that backlog. -- '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Blue">The</font>]]
'''Support''' - An extremely polite and courteous editor, even while enduring personal attacks and/or brusque behaviour from others at times.  And leads as an example that others including myself look up to.
'''Support''' we do need more admins
'''Support'''. I am normally very nervous about supporting anyone who has less the 1500 edits, but he is such a great user that I can support him without reservations. -
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
'''Support''' It is completely civil to avoid mentioning names. You may want the diffs, but you can request it while AGF.
'''support''' --
'''Strong Support'''. Great Wikipedian!!! Fast editor!!! Would recommend!!! AAAAAA+++++
'''Support''' per rartional set out on my user page.
'''Support''' - although I can understand some of the opposers' lines of reasoning, I've never voted anything but Support on anyone's RfA, and I'm not going to start now. Anyway, editcount is not a reliable measure of experience, nor is adminship a big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. You provided insufficient demonstration of why the community should place such trust in you after only two and a half months editing. --
'''Oppose''' per Deskana. You have a willingness to help, but you need to be here a little longer first. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Not nearly enough experience yet.  --
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Willingness to work on the backlogs is irrelevant if you don't have the level and type of experience to show that you are able to work the backlogs or be trusted with the other tools.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
Lack of experience, lack of contribs, serious lack of main space and Wikipedia-space edits, and you've only participated in two AfDs. I don't believe people can support candidates with just 1000 edits and nearly one-third of them are to user talk pages (or you must be exceptional - Am I missing something?). Willingness to work on backlogs ''cannot'' outweight inexpericence. '''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. way too few edits (less than 500) and experience.
'''Oppose''' - per lack of experience. Seriously advise candidate withdraws good faith self-nom and tries again in a while. --
'''Oppose''' - discourteous and wikilaywerish in my interactions. This A1 / AE business in question five -- "avoiding tattling" is absolute nonsense: avoiding giving real diffs and links to a situation that makes him look bad, is more like it. &mdash;
Per Bunchofgrapes, '''Yeah!''' Outing myself as the mystery admin A1, I can only endorse the request for diffs and links so that people have a chance to see for themselves. This editor  needs not just more experience but a genuine learning process before being entrusted with extra powers.
'''Oppose'''. Main reason is not enough experience. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with anyone who edits a lot around controversial subjects, especially if I'm unable to get a good grasp of their intentions/POV (a bit too measured, one might say). Also you don't seem to use edit summaries at all. Last but not least, you don't seem to have a need for the tools. Yeah, we have a backlog. It's good that you recognize that, but that does not immediately translate into a need for the tools. ---
'''Oppose''' per RockMFR and S. Miyano.
'''Oppose'''. Changed my vote from Tentatively Support because I am more concerned about the lack of experience than I thought I would be. Sorry. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' per general lack of experience. I see a lot of promise, however, and I would likely support if you continue on your current path for several more months in order to gain more experience. ···
'''Oppose''' per edit summaries.  "Edit summary usage for Anynobody: 16% for major edits".  Sorry, but that's too low.  At least, given everything else, it's enough to tip my vote from neutral to oppose.  Regards,
'''Oppose''' I am quite certain that with three or four months more experience you will make an excellent candidate. As of now, only 1,086 edits and low edit summary percentage do not demonstrate adequate knowledge or skills. Have you considered changing your preferences to enforce edit summary entry? It would help.--
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience and edits, low edit summary usage. If you keep on continuing like this, you will have more experienced and I may support you.
'''Oppose''', inexperience.
'''Oppose''', inexperience, low contribs in mainspace and wikispace, low edit summary usage.
'''Weak Oppose''' per [[User:Deskana|Deskana]] and [[User:mrholybrain|mrholybrain]]. While I believe that time spent editing is not proportional to experience gained, it would be better if you used edit summary more often, and spent some more time here.
'''Strong Oppose''', inexperienced user. please apply RfA again in about 3-4 months. right now, this is not the appropriate time to apply. — <font style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px">'''
'''Strong oppose''':  The user has been involved in arguments and battles already, and has shown a proclivity to thinking his own ordure without odor, as it were.  Some folks play with anthills and show majestic temperaments, and some just come out covered in ants.  The RFC failed for lack of certification, and yet he misrepresents that situation wilfully.  People ''do'' make mistakes, but this misrepresentation is too obviously a picking of sides and an attempt at creating good admins and bad admins, people he likes (when they agree with him) and people he doesn't (who point out an error).  We have enough of that in admin ranks already.  I cannot be neutral.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] and [[User:Geogre|Geogre]]. --
'''Oppose''' per Bish and Geogre and others above. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anynobody#Perhaps_not_the_best_way_to_ask_for_personal_information this] seems to me like deliberate baiting, not something I want to see in an admin candidate. '''
'''Oppose''' per comments by various people above, and also just that admin is something other peope see in you... the fact that it was a self-nomination and presents deceptive information is a sure sign that this person is wholly unsuited for the position.
'''Oppose''' Too much controversy at this time.--
'''Oppose'''.  At the [[Regular Commissions Board]] they have an outcome, "fail encourage" - you failed this time but are encouraged to come back when you are a more ready. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Neutral'''.  I cannot oppose a sincerely well-intentioned user who wants to help in any way he can.  I also cannot support a sincerely well-intentioned user who probably needs a little more experience in administrative areas.
'''Neutral-leaning-to-support''' - as per YechielMan, a well-intentioned user.  I'm just a shade nervous about giving the admin tools to someone with this limited amount of experience.  I'm all for people stating they'll attack the backlogs, but everyone says that so why do we still have backlogs?!  A bit more experience and I'll definitely support in the future.
'''Neutral''' lack of experience in process, etc. I would probably support in the future. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Neutral''' Has not been active here long enough. Sorry,
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, but I think you need more experience.--
'''Neutral''' more experience is needed. But I see good things. Try in the future, I might support. -
'''Neutral''' per YechielMan.
'''Neutral''' your on the right track, I just feel you need a bit more time and experience before you get the tools, continue your current participation level and reapply in a few months
'''Support''' Reviewing the edit history of AquaStreak, I feel this user has been really striving to contribute more to the community.
'''Oppose''' and recommend self-withdrawal, sorry. Your enthusiasm is most welcome, but you need more experience in all areas. See [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - Recommend you withdrawal. Only 77 edits and absolutely no experience, and for the tasks listed, doesn't need the admin tools.
Vote of no confidence. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steel359&diff=prev&oldid=108932724 Care to explain?]
'''Support''' by all evidence I've found and by the answers provided, this user seems solid and dependable. Answers to the questions are sufficient enough for me. Cheers,
'''Support''' per the candidate's excellent work at WP:AFD and WP:DRV.
'''Support''' I have encountered this user around several times. A good user from what I've seen.
'''Support''' for the same reason as Acalamari.
'''Support''' I see no reason, no evidence to suggest he would be a problem.
'''Weak Support''' - Although admin [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] makes a good point, I really can't see the user ever putting personal concerns of articles over community concensus.
'''Support,''' Looks good to me. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' I thought you already were, to be honest. As someone I've run into repeatedly on XfDs, I don't see any problem. Yes, mainspace edits are a little low but I can't see anything bad in there<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''', in the issue Majorly brings up, I see no evidence of impropriety or intent to [[WP:CANVASS|canvass]], just a notification to everyone who might be interested in discussing the matter, including those who may not have a favorable opinion. The prohibition against canvassing doesn't mean you can never try to start a discussion, it just means you can't only invite one side to it, and I see nothing to indicate that this principle was violated. As to deletionism, everyone's somewhere along the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum, I don't see any issue in coming out and saying where one personally is. I see no other issues or cause for concern.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around a lot as well, and he always demonstrates good judgment and his solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, and a dedication that is valued in administrative chores. I don't see how his admission of being "somewhat of a deletionist" is a concern; he described his philosophy on his userpage in a tasteful fashion, not in a tone of promoting factionalism. Also his nonpartisan invitation to editors on both sides in the previous debate to express their opinion on a merge was a helpful courtesy, not malicious canvassing. I trust Arkyan with the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. I remember that we've disagreed in a couple of XfDs, but I've always been impressed with the quality of your comments. Moreover, I've noticed that you're willing to improve articles at XfD and to modify your recommendation in light of new information and/or improvements. I see no problem with your being a self-proclaimed deletionist as I trust that you will not ignore policy or consensus to impose your personal views. Also, I see nothing wrong with your notification of the participants of the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowercase i prefix|"Lowercase i prefix" AfD]] as you notified ''all'' of the participants in the discussion. Finally, though you may have less edits than the average admin candidate, I think the quality of your contributions demonstrates that you have a solid grasp on policy. -- '''
'''Support,''' in spite of deletionism. You won't override concensus. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' I like the large amount of Wikipedia edits.
'''Support''', feeling pretty confident this user will make a great administrator. --
'''Support''' the reasonable answer to Q4, dispelling deletionism concerns. –
'''Support''', per Pomte above. I've seen this editor around AfD discussions quite a bit and he's never said anything that sets my sirens off. Good luck. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ''per nom'' (in case that isn't enough to count as legitimate support: there's nothing wrong with specialists, and while I'm more of an [[:meta:Incrementalism|incrementalist]], I have no problem with inclusionist ''or'' deletionist tendencies). —'''
'''Support'''.  Nothing wrong with being of a deletionist bent (I am), as long as you can establish consensus correctly and be sensible with the tools.  I see no evidence why Arkyan would not be able to do this, and no proof that he'd turn into a foaming at the mouth batshit deletion crazy lunatic as soon as he had the sysop box ticked.
'''Support:''' Arkyan is an outstanding editor who has been a sensible and even-tempered force on AfD debates.  To oppose him on the sole grounds that he's an alleged "deletionist" is specious in the extreme.
'''Support''' stoke the fire and ready the biscuits --
'''Support''' I am not concerned by your stance on being an active deletionist - with a few million articles here on Wikipedia it is hard to keep track of what is a valid encyclopedia article and what is not. I feel you can be entrusted with the tools and not abuse them. --

'''Support''' we need admins, and this one seems willing to settle AfD's to reduce backlog.  Deletionist or not he's good by my book. '''
'''Support''' (changed from neutral). I am happy with the answer to Q5, especially the recognition that [[WP:BITE]] should be applied to very premature RfAs not just so as to not be unpleasant but also to actively offer encouragement to the new editor. I have seen good contributions from Arkyan at AfD and have not detected any particular bias in his arguments. It is my opinion that he will make a good administrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' I don't see any problems with this user being an admin. --<sup>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</sup><sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|(Speak)]]</sub>  <small>
'''Oppose''' per the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070529063153&limit=11&contribs=user&target=Arkyan&namespace=3 spamming] of other users to advanced your POV in an AfD/DRV debate. I'm also not sure you understand our deletion criterion properly, also the deletionist attitude does worry me.
'''Oppose''' You specify you want to close AfDs - however, you appear to be a deletionist, and I quote from your userpage: <blockquote>Probably the only time you'll see a keep from me is if either I feel strongly on the subject or the article is otherwise headed for a delete. I guess this makes me something of a deletionist.</blockquote>I'd prefer a more neutral, less POV administrator, especially one who closes AfDs. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Oppose''' - Per edit count and lack of experience with policy. '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
Edit count, particularly in article space, is a relatively low 866 (despite being padded by serial edits, which, while helpful and (generally) reflective of various portions of the [[WP:MOS|MoS]], don't really demonstrate much familiarity with content policies, which are far more important). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&contribs=user&target=Arkyan&namespace=0]  Self-proclaimed deletionism is the tie-breaker for me. '''Oppose'''. —
'''Oppose''' I'm not comfortable with an editor holding deletion as a value having the admin tools, and Q4 just reinforces that feeling. Along the same lines, I'm not sure this was a great speedy call:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buze%C5%9Fti&diff=prev&oldid=131878020] I didn't really go through the contribs with a fine toothed comb or anything but the deletionist philosphy is pretty clear from them as well as showing in the answers here. I wonder sometimes why deletion seems so attractive to new-ish editors, is it because it's easier than content creation? I've always wondered about that...anyway this is not a reflection/comment on Arkyan in any way, he certainly seems like a hard worker.
I'm with Charlotte on this one. '''
'''Oppose''' The combination of a proud deletionist (demonstrated by the user page and userbox) and admin tools is always a dangerous one. But, throwing a distinct lack of mainspace edits into the mix only gives me greater concern. Someone who has spent so little time working on articles is far less likely to have the awareness or sensitivity to strike an appropriate balance in dealing with the XfD process, and the answer to Q4 isn't making me feel any warmer or fuzzier.
'''Oppose''' Concerned that this user's strongly deletionist viewpoint indicates a general approach which at odds with the objectiveness required of an admin.
'''Oppose''' - several concerns as expressed by those above. --
'''Oppose''' - You've clearly stated that you are both a deletionist and want to work around AfD. Admins need to be neutral. I can't support this nomination knowing that you, yourself, admit to not being neutral. --
'''Oppose''' - Charlotte's comment's re: limited mainspace edits raise concern, as does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buze%C5%9Fti&diff=prev&oldid=131878020 this csd nom] another editor listed.  A red-linked disambig page of towns is an opportunity for ''several'' new articles, rather than one less.  If Arkyan can demonstrate some contributions to mainspace, I would easily convert to a support.  You may well pass this time through, and although I suspect that you will do a fine job, I am not ready to get behind you with a support.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose'''.  Issues with neutrality. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' Majorly's point is important, but a lot of people who start on Wikipedia set up their User Page with all of their opinions, then they slowly grow into the culture of the project.  Learning and becoming a part of the culture is a good quality.  But, it's out there in the public, and it appears that your edits don't confirm what you've wrote, so I'm not concerned about that issue.  I would like to see more mainspace edits in some articles that show your personality.  By the way, it appears that 100% of the time, you add an edit summary.  Now that's impressive!  Anyways, I think I'm going to stay neutral, though I think that the Arkyan probably will, in the long run, be an above average admin.  The spamming was just a bit strange to me, so I'm just not absolutely convinced (but who ever is).
'''Neutral''' Per issues mentioned, but I'm not going to just rely on that.  The lack of consistent editing until a couple months ago just keeps me on this side of support.
'''Neutral''' Looks like a good person, but the edit count and Majorly's comment make me say neutral for now.
'''oppose and suggest withdrawl''' Sorry, you've got nowhere near enough edits or consistency to show you're ready to be an admin. This RFA isn't going to pass, I suggest you withdraw and contribute more than a few hundred edits before you try to run for adminship. You need edits to at least a few admin related areas, and you need more edits, most RFAs have over 2000, most people would probably recommend 3000-4000 with a good spread through mainspace, talk, user talk, and Wikipedia project pages. You just aren't ready yet. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
You're not very active and haven't done much to demonstrate a need for the sysop tools (by themselves, these aren't strikes against). In A1 you mention vandalism, among other things, but haven't done any counter-vandalism work. I suggest you go to [[WP:RCP]] or [[WP:CVU]] to learn about and practice counter-vandalism. As of now you don't really have the experience or record for me to support your request, although there's also nothing too bad, either (some light vandalism in the first twenty edits--meh). Ideally, administrators should archive their user talk pages into subpages instead of removing comments.--
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl''' - Er, your conflict at Windows 2000 is fairly recent, and you seem to be always "cleaning up" warnings. This isn't a good idea. Also, 31 edits to the project space doesn't prove that you are knowledgeble in admin work. Try again in a few more months. --
'''Oppose''' User has not made nearly enough edits to wikipedia, not proven to be active enough. And talk page shows that user has engaged in a very recent edit war, I would recommend trying again later once user has made more edits and gained experience.
'''Oppose''' less than 300 edits after 12 months of inactivity. Mabey in a few more months.
'''Oppose''' You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Avant+Guard&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 have not made a talk post for over a year] and only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Avant+Guard&namespace=5&year=&month=-1 three Wikipedia talk posts in the last year]. Most admin work (especially the anti-vandal work you say you want to get involved in) boils down to engaging in discussion with people who don't always want to be reasonable, and I've no way of judging whether or not I trust you with this.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''. Given the troubled history, I'd like to see a little more evidence of corrective action before I can support. Also, the WP community is in no position to evaluate mental health and its possible impact on you as an admin - all we can go by is your history here. I'm not sure why you would choose to volunteer that information.
'''Oppose''' I appreciate your honesty with regard to your mental health issues but the actions they resulted in concern me, and hence the possibility of repetition in the future, and with administrator tools. I echo Ronnotel in being at a loss as to why you would give this information on such a public website but sincerely wish you the best. Your candid disclosure is very much a credit to yourself.  <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. Your nomination statement disturbs me. Were you using those multiple accounts as sockpuppets? Otherwise, I think you should have a few more months of clean editing before you are ready for the tools.
'''Neutral''' I think that more edits just to get you up to speed again before being granted the tools would be a good idea. Or taking it very slow after being granted the mop. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Oppose, suggest withdrawl''' You aren't nearly experienced enough, you haven't shown evidence of being able to apply policy (for instance, Admin's Noticeboard discussions, Wikipedia or Wikipedia-talk space discussions, etc.), and you haven't shown a need for the tools (that's one of the things the questions are for, which you haven't answered). See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/Averross|this RfA's talk page]] for my evidence. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 16:39, 10 January 2007 (
'''<u>Id.</u>''' - <b>
'''Oppose''' sorry, but with fewer than 250 edits (and nearly half of those are to your user page) there just isn't enough evidence available to me to support you. In addition I am worried by your answer to Q1 "Combatting vandalism and improving articles as I see fit" - first you can combat vandalism and improve articles without the admin tools. More importantly the admin tools should be used in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, not as you see fit. The role of an admin is to enforce policy, not do whatever they like with the tools. Sorry,
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal'''. You mean well, but you need WAY more experience. --
'''Oppose''' More experience in all aspects of Wikipedia required.  Come back in a year.
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal''' per others. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Technical Oppose''' nothing against the candidate but have a couple of comments, your sense of humour could cause the occasional moment of friction, and there's a few users who will intensely dislike your enthusiasm to be an administrator, but assuming all goes well, I'll be quite happy to support in a couple of months time. <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards -
'''Star Wars Oppose'''. As stated by many others, you simply don't have enough experience on Wikipedia. '''
'''Automatic Oppose''' - Needs much more than 152 edits to have a chance of passing.
'''Oppose''' You should definitly wait and try this again after you gather a lot more edits.  Right now, you just don't have the experiance, sorry.'''
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29&diff=prev&oldid=93805395 admins shouldn't be calling other people "dumbasses"]. '''
'''Oppose'''- Not enough experience--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. Your keenness is certainly appreciated, but you are not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 Wikipedia edits, and a track record of several months as a consistent, positive contributor (usually with an average contribution rate of over 100 edits per month). This allows the community to develop the trust in them to agree to give them the adminship tools. Right now, just keep contributing as a regular editor becuase you don't need to be an admin to help build the encyclopedia. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again sometime in the future after significantly stepping-up your contributions.
'''Strong Oppose''' Did you even take a look at [[WP:GRFA]]? ←
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but come back when you have 2000-3000 edits. '''''
'''Strong Oppose''' You lack experience in many areas. Come back when you have at least 1,500 edits and the right proportion of mainspace and Wikipedia edits.--
'''Neutral''' Just to avoid a pile-on. You have right now 152 total edits. When you have 3,000, spread over Mainspace and Namespace, try again.--
'''Neutral''' and urge withdrawal per pretty much everybody.
'''Neutral''' Avoiding pile-on. I'm going to give you some advice that I gave to another user during his RfA: You need more edits! It's not that there's a specific edit number that you have to have, but it's the experience of dealing with people, vandals, and policy. You must demonstrate a serious attitude in order to have the extra tools. You might be a serious person, but your answers were answered poorly and without much thought. The RfA is a serious deal. Adminship is not something that Wikipedia throws away to everyone. Spend 5-6 more months on the English Wikipedia, make a lot of useful edits (just don't get editcountis), read over the admin reading, get some admin coaching, take some virtual classroom classes, and we'll see from there. If you do that, and try again for RfA, then we'll probably see the votes change. Hope this helps, <b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
Naturally. ''
'''Strong support''', great template wizard and nice guy.
'''Support''', thought he already was one. Oppose reasons in the last RfA aren't valid and wouldn't apply now anyway. --
'''Support''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Strong support''' for this great candidate. Template king and a very nice chap. &#12484;
'''Support'''. Excellent nominee, but I would expect better answers, especially to question 3. '''<span style="background:#000">
Certainly.
'''Weak support'''. Great user. Weak answers, but good enough edits that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt --
'''Support''' per range of contributions.
'''Support''' per specialized purpose and stated need (those wishing to oppose should read the previous nomination). However I do wish you'd expand on any concrete examples in Q3 a bit more. -- ''
'''Support''', although I'd prefer longer answers to the questions. ''
'''Support'''. What shall I say more? --
'''Support''' Per Wizardman and per #7. Transparency brings credibility, which in turn helps the project. No reason I know of to oppose.
'''Support''' You simply look great.  I have total trust giving you admin. tools.'''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Weak support''' No problems, except for the very weak answers. You should really expand these answers. &#8592;
'''Support''', the answers could be a little more elaborated but the work so far is fine. --'''
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' Your work speaks for itself, why worry about questions? --
'''Strong Support'''- excellent rvv and template work, need I say more? [[User talk:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Cheers to</span>]] [[2007|<span style="color:#FFD700;">2007</span>]]! [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' per nom and User:Tone. --
'''Weak support'''. Better question answers would be nice, but I'm really hard pressed to oppose simply because of questions. -
'''Support.''' Encountered the user before, positive interaction.
'''Support'''. Interactions have been positive. Good answers to the questions, though they could have been briefer. His comment at the ProtectionBot RfA was a cause for concern, but not enough to oppose.
'''Support''' As I said at the first nomination, I think he'll do good work on the mechanical backside of Wikipedia with the tools.  -- <font color="#668353">
'''Support''' Why do I have to keep doing this? Enough already. Give him the tools.
'''Support''' Although your answers are weak, I have seen your work here for Wikipedia and you certainly deserve the tools. '''
'''Support''' because then he can clear [[WP:AIV|AIV]] rather than backlogging it –
'''Support''' per other. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support'''. I'm satisfied the nominee could use the tools and will not abuse them.
'''Support''' This user looks honest, and I have seen his work on many occations.
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support'''. This is an editor who I think will use the admin privileges responsibly and who will be conscientious about admin tasks. ''
'''Support'''. Would have been ''strong'' support, but some of the answers to the questions are a little weaker than I'd have hoped.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Questions are a tad too..short, but overall, I think you're a trustworthy user, great with templates, and will use your admin duties responsibly, and respectfully. Before this RFA, I seriously thought you were an admin. (looking at some of the other votes, it seems as if I'm not the only one). --<font face="Verdana">
Definitely, <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' thought he was already adminned.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - Good user, been around a long time, stays polite even in trying circumstances. Long overdue. To the opposers, he's not eloquent (in English)... but that wouldn't stop him from being an excellent admin. --
'''Support''', per CBD and my own interactions with him. They've mostly been from afar, but they have confirmed my belief that he will a) use the tools well (and, by the way, actually needs them), b) not abuse them, and c) is a fine Wikipedian who builds the best Goddamn templates this side of anywhere.
I'm
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Good hard worker, friendly, no reason for me to oppose.
'''Support''' a good user. ---
'''Support''', his long history of excellent work easily outweighs his slight struggles at jumping through question hoops.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' Would be a good admin but miss certain things required for adminship.--
'''Support''' Respected editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I'm confident that this candidate will not misuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Good user, unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Oppose votes, as usual, verge on the ridiculous. Most existing admins wouldn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the policies, and would only be able to answer the interrogation here by looking up the pages in question. There is no practical difference between blocking and banning a lot of the time, particularly since many blocks are dished out punitively, regardless what the policy says about them. I see no problem with opposing adminning a bot, particularly one based on closed-source code, and wanting the tools to fight vandalism. No one who opposed it suggested that the purpose of the bot was a bad thing. What counts is that AzaToth seems to be an okay user and given that it's "no big deal", not a promotion to the nobility, there's no problem with his being adminned.
The user is a veteran, they've demonstrated their knowledge of wikipedia. I don't care about how long the answers are, they're answered, with as little fuss and personal perspective as possible, which is fine with me. I am surprised to see that many oppose votes have not been changed since Aza answered the requested answers. I accept Aza's faulty TFD nom as a learning lesson, anyone who has done XFD work knows that mistakes are made. On a brighter note, Aza is both a bot programmer and an extremely active vandal fighter. Based on this, I trust that the candidate will be an active admin who will not let dust grow on the admin buttons. '''I Support.''' '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Weak Support''' you could have avoided all of these questions by creating something like "test account," but this whole issue should not be attached more importance than it is worth, as should concerns over your short answers.  You have experience and will use the tools to better the project by blocking vandals.
'''Weak support''' per Amarkov and Dar-Ape.  Having supported rather strongly ten months hither, I was surprised to find myself to be, as others, beset by several (not entirely allayed) concerns, but I remain, I think, convinced that the candidate's judgment and conversance with policy are such that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and thus that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of his becoming an admin]] should be positive.  I would hope that, should this RfA succeed, AzaToth would be especially circumspect when acting qua sysop in the areas about his&mdash;for lack of a better word&mdash;qualifications for which some have been troubled (e.g., evaluating [[WP:CSD|candidates for speedy deletion]], as against, say, visiting [[WP:AIV|AIV]] or partaking of template/scripts work).
'''Support'''
Great user, but answers are woefully insufficient. I will consider supporting if/when AzaToth expands his answers. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per answer to Question 6. I assumed good faith in my original support, but together with the generally poor answers to the other questions I am changing to oppose. --
'''Oppose'''. Really weak and vague answers to all questions, especially Q6. I would have expected a bit more elaboration on blocking there. '''
'''Oppose''' You seemed to have skipped over question #2 which is a really important question. Question 2 is your opportunity to show that you have contributed to areas an admin is expected to know about. Your answer to question 7 does not address the ongoing main page vandalism, I would like to hear your alternate solution to this very serious problem. Your answer to question 3 does not tell me how you deal with confrontation, which as an admin you will have to do often. Your answer to question 1 is very limited, blocking users and CSD, do you have experience with [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:AIV]]?
'''Oppose''' Based on his excellent template work, I would've been tempted to support if the answer to question 1 had been 'edit protected templates and .js files', despite his serious lack of engagement with article writing. But I can't support someone who wants to block vandals but is confused about blocking and banning. My one interaction with this user did not leave me with a positive impression of his communications skills, which would be a minor matter if he were committed to specializing in templates, but is relevant if he's planning to make heavy use of the block button.
'''Oppose''' I would expect an admin candidate to have stronger answers to the questions. Also what is up with [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon|This TFD]]?
'''Oppose''' per crz and others, question answers leave me unsatisfied.
'''Strong oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon]], which took place just 5 days ago and exhibited a clear lack of basic understanding of deletion policy.
'''Oppose''' - per Proto. That was basically a [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] nomination, which is probably ''worse'' than ILIKEIT and just plain unacceptable in admins. Policy does count for something. There also seemed to be questions about the ways in which IRC was related to that nomination.
'''Oppose''', I have no reason to think the user will ''ab''use the tools, but I do not have the confidence that they will not be ''mis''used, even if done so in good faith. Very weak answers to questions, and I have concerns about deletion policy knowledge, both from the recent examples listed above, and older ones (e.g. nominating [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meatball|meatball for deletion]] because it needed some cleanup) Regards,
'''Oppose''' per crz, Opabinia regalis, and Moreschi. Especially the ''why was the template nominated'' aspect of the TfD. We've had quite enough IRC-related wikidrama.
'''Oppose'''. Weak answer to question 2 especially, and the wdefcon TfD. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|Llama]] [[User talk:Llama man|man]]<sup>
'''Oppose''' per many of the points brought up above. I think a little more experience may be good before twiddling the bit here. ···
'''Oppose'''; I appreciate your answers to my questions, but I just can't support now.  I'm a little worried about your eagerness outweighing thoughtfulness when it comes to vital things such as the interface pages and scripts, and your answers to the standard questions don't tell me enough to be comfortable supporting at this point. I hate to be cliché but you seem to be doing a good job and I hope you keep up the hard work. --
'''Oppose''' various worries already well-stated by those above, but particularly for weak answers which are such an important aspect of RfA. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' not overwhelmed by answers provided and CFD of Wiki-defcon.
'''Oppose''' per incorrect and almost incomprehensible answer to question 6. -
'''Oppose'''. I'm not particularly impressed by his answers; and I confess that I find an incongruity between taking a principled stand against ProtectionBot ''but'' wanting the tools to fight vandalism. I don't think he would necessarily abuse the tools, but his answers leave me doubtful. Doc's comment that "I'm just not sure he 'gets it'" rings true for me.
'''Oppose''' per Nihonjoe.
'''Oppose''' per Mackensen - I'm sure that more experience won't do any harm. <strong>
'''Oppose''': could benefit from more experience first, and a little more knowledge of some of the policies.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral). Candidate seems very well meaning, but I'm just not sure he 'gets it'. [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon|This TFD]] worries me. Not that he nominated it (I voted delete) but the reasoning and unclear thinking. A bit more experience and maybe I'll be confident enough to support. But I think best not now.--
'''Weak Oppose''' Answers to questions not sufficient. '''
'''Oppose''' Concerns about gaps in policy knowledge
Neutral, leaning oppose, per weak answers to questions. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose, the weak answers, and misconstruction of the banning policy demonstration in A6 gives be reason for pause.--
'''Neutral''', leaning Support. I definitely think you should elaborate on questions, and after your time and edits here, I would think you'd understand the block-vs-ban policy. Other than that good overall user, who, in my opinion, needs to jump up on mainspace edits. Maybe if you elaborate on questions, I'll reconsider my position. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Neutral''' - Great vandal fighting, but I expect a better standard of questions for a RfA candidate.
'''Neutral''', I've seen you around and haven't seen anything ''bad'', but those are really some skimpy answers and don't reflect well on an ''understanding'' of policy. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/
'''Neutral''' - suggest you have another go at Q6...
'''Neutral''' I also urge the candidate to give more detailed answers, especially 2, 3, 5 and to review 6. But I do trust the user, which would push me towards supporting.
'''Neutral''' until my 1a question is answered
'''Neutral''': Leaning towards support, however, the answers are not very detailed, as mentioned by [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] and [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]]. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose. The questions are disappointing, just not policy aware enough for me. I will probably support next time around (assuming policies are applied better).
I honestly can't support this candidate, because some of his answers are far from satisfactory, but neither can I unequivocally oppose; I am '''neutral'''.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but while you've been around for a good stretch of time and have made some very positive contributions, I don't think you're ready to become an admin yet. Your first attempt to create this RfA was malformed. Your recent vandal warning at [[User talk:190.6.195.58]], while well intentioned, wasn't signed - which is very important if you are leaving message for other users - wasn't well worded and wasn't particularly helpful - ''which'' page are you referring to? Much better to use the standard [[WP:UW|user warning templates]]. You almost never use edit summaries - good communications are important for all editors and particularly admins. The warnings on your talk page indicate that you haven't yet fully understood fair use image policy, and you have run into some quite recent trouble with edits to Baseball articles. Each of these issues isn't terrible by itself, but together they tell me you aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and processes. Your answers to the standard questions above are also show you don't properly understand what an admin does. I'd suggest you participate in more Wikipedia discussions - for example at [[WP:AF]] then try an [[WP:ER|editor review]] instead of an RfA to get more feedback. I hope this is useful,
'''Oppose''', per above; I had already begun typing my response. Unfortunately answers to the questions are weak. Experience in here in itself isn't reason enough for an upgrade. Edit summary usage isn't good enough for me. Only ''twelve'' edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and even worse are the ''two'' to the user talk space. --
'''Oppose''' Very poor answers to the standard questions - no real idea about why Azuran wants to be an admin and no evidence provided to demonstrate their capability in the role too.  This in addition to the two user Talk edits in total from May 22nd and the dozen edits to the policy space, 90% of which are to this RfA only serves to demonstrate that Azuran has a long way to go to show that he/she can participate effectively in admin-related tasks.  Withdraw  this RfA and come back again when you have some evidence of vandal reversion, user Talk edits to demonstrate warnings; reporting of vandals to [[:WP:AIV]]; participation in XfD discussions; applying tags to articles for improvement or deletion, etc.  There are many more tasks in which you can participate to show your aptitude.
'''Oppose''': I'm afraid I have to. Your stated goal is to use the buttons to fight vandalism, but I don't see many [[WP:AIV]] reports in your contribs, and you have <10 talk page and user talk edits. Warning potential vandals on their talk pages is a vital part of dealing with vandalism. I think you're a good editor and contributor, and your heart is in the right place, but I'd suggest a little more exposure and activity in the administrative areas you've expressed interest in, and maybe an [[WP:ER|editor review]] to get feedback, before applying again for the buttons. I'm sure you'll get there if it's what you want, but I don't think you're there yet. '''
Good editor, but not admin material, per above comments about warnings and WP space edits. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q1 worries me that you have no idea what an administrator does, or even the inner-workings of Wikipedia. Vandalism is the only thing you mention, yet you don't seem to know about [[WP:WARN|user-warning templates]]. Also, you don't mention anything specifically that you'd do with the tools. And, when you say you feel powerless, you really shouldn't, if you know Wikipedia. If you were a first-time visitor, then I'd understand that, but you really shouldn't feel powerless if you know about [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:REVERT|reverting]], and [[Special:Recentchanges]], and [[Special:Contributions]]. If you have those, there is no reason that you can't be able to stop a vandal. Oppose, I can't trust you with the tools right now.
'''Oppose''' His answers to the questions worry me. I would not like to see him running around with admin tools. --<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Neutral''' per the lack of involvement with the community. Outside of your RfA, your non-content edits to Wikipedia consist of less than thirty edits across Wikipedia space, User Talk space, and article Talk space. There's no way to judge how well you understand policy and how well you interact with others without some sort of context. Read up on [[WP:VAND]], be sure to report vandals to [[WP:AIV]] after giving them plenty of warning using the warning templates, and I'll be happy to support you in your next RfA. Cheers,
'''Support''' - a fine user. I have every confidence he will make a fine admin, I trust him and trust he would not abuse admin tools.
I do not always agree with Jeff, but I am convinced that he can be trusted with the admin tools.
'''Support''' For what he intends to do - yes, definitely, but be sure to keep your promise though :) '''''
'''Support''' ''! !'' ---
'''Support''' Per Majorly. Why not. I wonder what Elara would say. I don't agree with your interpretation of [[CAT:AOR]], but oh well. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''.  I often find myself disagreeing with his interpretations and opinions on AfD and DRV discussions but I've found them to be well articulated and generally based on policy - even when I interpret the policy in another way.  Excellent contributor.  No reason to suspect he'd misue the tools.
'''Support'''- based on my own limited experience with him, other's reccomendations above, and a look through his contributions. Love the user name, as an added bonus.
'''Weakish carefulish support''' I have full confidence that Jeff would never try to harm the project. I also am very much inclined to believe that he'll abide by his word. Some might think that as a deletionist-leaning editor, I should perhaps be not so thrilled at the thought of giving admin tools to the self-proclaimed vile dark lord of inclusionism (hope I'm getting this right). However, I trust Jeff despite our differences and I do find him to be responsible if sometimes too insistent. This tendency to be too argumentative is really what prevents me from giving him a fuller support.
'''Strong Support''' Jeff sometimes strongly disagrees with me (I think he called my DRV close "moronic" or something last week at DRV talk -- in good humor, of course), but I have absolutely no doubt of his dedication to the project, his skill, and his sense of honor.  He's been here long enough to know when his own interpretation of policy is outside of mainstream -- his self-limiting use of the tools will work because he's smart enough to make it work.  Frankly, he deserved adminship last time.  Even within his self-limits, Jeff's incredible energy will help us clear backlogs immediately.  He is an important asset to Wikipedia, and adminship will allow him to contribute usefully in ways where help is sorely needed.
'''Support'''. I know that some have had problems, but I've never had a real problem. He says he won't use some of the tools, but we can trust him with the other ones.--
'''Support'''. Will do more good than harm.
'''Strong support''' - I rather often vehemently disagree with Jeff on deletion issues, but in all respects he's an honorable editor who makes excellent contributions, and there's no reason to suspect he would ever abuse or misuse the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' Basically, if [[User:Robdurbar]] thought it was worth his trouble to block you, you're a ''de facto'' admin already.  You had some good company up there. :)
'''Support'''.  I don't think there's any question that Jeff is dedicated to the project and has Wikipedia's best interests in mind.  He's quite capable of respecting the difference between a) disagreeing with policy or consensus (and occasionally acting against it), and b) acting against policy or consensus using the admin tools.--
Hmmm...tricky, but I'm going to have to vote '''Support'''. Although I strongly disagree with some of Jeff's policy positions, I trust him to abide by those policies which have been agreed by the community. I also agree with his stance on avoiding IAR, and respecting the wishes of the community as a whole. I would prefer if Jeff agreed to avoid using the admin tools in relation to policy pages, as he has strong opinions there, but there's no real reason to deny him "the mop". Overall I trust him. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' surprisingly enough.  Despite strong policy differences and doubts about the utility of limited adminship, I trust Jeff not to abuse the tools and to be a great help in dealing with the backlogs he mentions.  Also I must disagree with on of the opposers below.  Jeff is argumentative, sometimes to the point of pig-headedness, but, in my experience, he is rarely rude and almost never intentionally so.
'''Support''' per nomination and statement. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Admittedly strong views, but that's no reason to deny him the tools if he can be trusted and will make good use of them. I thoroughly believe he can.
'''Support'''. I don't like overdose of inclusionism, but Jeff is an experienced user who will be helpful, and can be trusted.
'''Gah''' I vehmently disagree with Jeff's approach to deletion issues and he does get too personally involved in discussions but then I look at his contributions and his committment to the project and I ask myself, "Do I trust Jeff to do no evil and to be honest about his mistakes". Generally I do although it must be hard for him being right all the time ;-). Based on the limited intentions indicated, I can't see any real risk and Jeff certainly will never intentionally harm the project.
'''Support''' I have confidence in Jeff's ability to address the issues he mentions within the bounds of policy, and he's clearly an extremely experienced editor.
'''Support'''  per long history of article writing and helping the bewildered.
Unlikely to delete the main page. &mdash;
'''Support''', surprisingly. As easy as it would be for me to get in a huff and say "oppose zomg i don't like you", I'm not going to. You've caused me a lot of frustration at [[WT:IAR]] with circular arguments and whatnot, and you have a fundamental total misunderstanding about the way that Wikipedia works (or at least the way it's supposed to work). You'll likely tie yourself down unnecessarily by refusal to accept [[WP:IAR]] as a policy to be followed, and to be honest. I think the idea of one person asking you to resign is silly, since someone that's opposed you in this RfA could technically ask you to resign should it pass, and I find the idea of limited adminship a bit silly. So basically, I'm not amazingly fond of you. However, despite all that, I don't think you'll misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - Trusted user who understands policy. --
'''Support''' Eh, not having IAR in one's wikiverse seems a bit weird to me, (Surely there's got to be some rules concerning what you're planning to do as an admin?) but i've seen several instances where speedy delete backlogs leave some nasty stuff in existance for far too long, and besides, what's the worst that could happen?
Will not misuse the tools or go rouge: his nomination essentially covers what I would like Jeff to limit himself to as an admin for me to trust him completely. Jeff's commitment to the project and the quality of his edits here demands great respect even from a chap of deletionist leanings like me. He's been around here long enough to probably cite policy chapter and verse. If Jeff wants to limit his own adminship, why not? He's not proposing it for the everyone else. So, he can be annoying. So can most people. Not the end of the world. I'm not seeing a convincing reason as to why not, so I'm going with not-a-big-deal.
'''Support''' - although I am ''anything but'' an inclusionist, and definitely disagree with BDJ on all manner of subjects; I truly believe he always acts with the best interests of the project at heart... and as such support his nom :) '''
'''Support''' interested in clearing backlogs. --
'''Badlydrawnsupport''' since no one's used that term on this RfA yet. I don't think Jeff'll go nuts with the tools. I think that he should use any and all of the tools that he needs, not just those outlined at the beginning of this RfA, but let's be happy that he'll do that much. On the chance that he misuses the tools, it will only take one editor in good standing to can him. The great possibility of another good admin outweighs the slim possibility that if granted sysop rights, he will harm the encyclopedia. Thank you, and good day.
'''Support''' Inclusionist that will leave main page in peace.
'''Support'''. I often find myself on the opposite side of an argument from Jeff, but I am always struck by his intelligence and communication skills. Jeff certainly has a problem with being stubborn, but he would be joining into good company with the hundreds of admins (including myself, admittedly) who also suffer from that particular disposition. Like many of the opposers, I don't buy into the idea of limited adminship, either, but I find that Jeff is strong-willed rather than reckless. I think that he has the scruples to not abuse the position.
I have no fear that Jeff will ''actually'' abuse the tools. I think his limited adminship idea is a nice gesture that will tie his hands too far, but whatever. More concerning is the "one user in good standing can force me to resign". So one of the 16 users below can force this RFA to be overturned? I urge you to reconsider that stance, but nevertheless you have my '''support''', just like last time. -- ''
In all my interacts with him he's seemed honest and trustworthy. --
'''Support''' per nom.  If he sticks to what he says, his administrative work will be less controversial than anything else he has done. -
'''Support''' - I think this user is well experienced and I think he made a good and honest statement overall. I also do not have any significant concern he will abuse the admin abilities.
'''Support''' Although admin tools can't really be handed out on a piecemeal basis, so the "limited use" promise is simply on the honor system, I think the candidate knows that it's unlikely, at least for a time, that an Afd closures on his part would ever be regarded as impartial.  That said, I don't think Rfa's need to be about the ''positions'' a nom holds -- this editor clearly cares passionately about the encyclopedia and is, essentially, a trusted user. I like his honest self-assessment.  And since it's unclear how this one will go, I'd suggest he take the criticisms offered very seriously if he succeeds.
'''Support''' As a lot of people know, Jeff and I do disagree a lot. However, I've found in these disagreements that he is generally able to provide a rationale for his thoughts and actions, and "I disagree with his philosophy" is not a good oppose reason. I believe that he will voluntarily stick to the areas he's said he would (and even if not so, I wouldn't really be concerned), and that he will follow the rules even if he personally disagrees with them.
'''Support'''. I'm really astonished to see statements that Jeff is confrontational or "fundamentally untrustworthy". In my interactions with him (much of it at [[WT:N]]), we've disagreed more than once, but I don't ever recall him being confrontational, aggressive, or uncivil. In fact, a recent incident comes to mind where he was repeatedly provoked (almost baited), yet his reaction was exceptional. I'm also surprised at the opposition to the idea of "limited adminship". What's the difference between an admin who only does a certain task but ''doesn't'' state it in advance and one that does? --
'''Support''': Competent editor, who shows great perception and sound judgement.
I really can't see this going wrong.  This is a trusted user that wants to help with the backlogs, we should by all means let him.
'''Support''' adminship ain't a big deal. -
Jeff is a good fellow and great volunteer who, I think, would be a great help with some extra buttons to tackle some of the backlogs. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Slam-dunk support''' Jeff knows the areas where the community as a whole doesn't want him using his tools.  I'm surprised only that he is willing to run at all, knowing how many people disagree with him for reasons other than whether or not he would be trustworthy with the tools.  He is no more likely to misuse or abuse his tools than many of those already admins that are opposing him, some of whom are not in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black]].  Has been a Wikipedia editor for over two years, and has a lot more experience in both creating content and policy than many admins.  I say that he should also have one additional usage: viewing the history of deleted articles, as this changes nothing in the database.  Deletion review could also use a wikignome that is willing to restore article histories during review, all current admins that are regulars have essentially declined to volunteer, a few of us citing [[User:Mangojuice/Slave]].  Regulars at deletion review know that there is material he legitimately believes doesn't belong here (though not as much as I believe doesn't belong here), and that he is much more likely to disagree with speedy deletion than XfD deletion, because he does believe in consensus.  He also believes that the community is critical to building the encyclopedia, which is one of the reasons he things WP:IAR is too dangerous to use in almost all cases.
'''Support''':  This is no doubt the most surprising support, but I believe that Jeff is going to stay within the lines, honor the community, and take care.  He will discuss rather than steamroll.  I opposed, previously, on suspicion.  I support, this time, with confidence.  (Of course I don't know about the "limited" thing.  I am voting to support for admin, not for limited admin.)
'''Support'''. I'd write that I'm not as much of an inclusionist as Jeff, but no one is as much of an inclusionist as Jeff. :-) He is very experienced, clearly believes in the fundamental principles of the Wikipedia, and when he is on the minority of an argument ... which is often, but not always ... is careful to follow process. He will not use the tools against policy or consensus. --
'''Support'''.  I disagree with Jeff strongly on many issues relating to Wikipolitics, and I think he's misguidedly devoted to the idea that Wikipedia's success and future lie in process-wonkery.  Nevertheless, ''because'' of Jeff's respect for rules and consensus, I have complete trust that he won't wheel-war or abuse his admin buttons in any way.  Jeff's dedication to this project is deeply admirable, and I think he's likely to do a lot of good, and very little bad, with a mop and bucket.  Maybe once he gets the buttons, he'll learn what IAR means. -
'''Support''' Absolutely. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - I have no doubt that Jeff would never do anything to harm the project, and maybe limited access is good for now.
'''Support'''. I trust this user. That is really the only point. As for limited admin roles, he can use the tools for the roles he wants to. Not all admins need to do everything and of course most do not. --
'''Support''', especially for 1) demonstrating a thorough understanding of [[WP:IAR]] in widely opposing admins who use [[WP:IAR]] to override consensus to get their own way and 2) implementing the very impulse of [[WP:IAR]] by initiating this self-nomination with its unorthodox architecture, challenge to current thinking, and compassion for the views of all participating here.  --
Jeff's prolific work at DRV shows he understands process better than most RfA candidates. If he had have offered himself up as a "normal", "full" candidate I would have probably weakly supported; given his voluntary restrictions and the AOR thing (which I'd suggest to Jeff he tighten the criteria for, or else it'll be troll central - but his choice), count this as a strong support for the good of Wikipedia and its' backlogs. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason here that he will ''abuse'' his tools. A few mistakes in the past, but see no reason to incriminate him for it. Will definitely help with Wikipedia's backlogs. --
'''Support''': I would've supported this user even if they had requested full adminship, I see no problems with the user. But as this user has requested limited adminship I feel that he needs to uphold his promise even though I would've supported full adminship. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' for full adminship. If he uses less, that's his choice. I've seen him countless times for a long time, though not interacted directly. Sometimes he's been a nagging pain, but the man works hard and I think he'll do a lot of necessary good work. A bit maverick, but within limits, and is maturing with age. A tad of power is more likely to add stability than the reverse.
'''Support''' based on my experience of this editor,
'''Careful, benefit of the doubt support''' I think user has a good heart and maybe made a few mistakes. I think they can do this maturely.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per GRBerry. Jeff has high standards for admin conduct, we know what they are, and I believe he will hold himself to them.
'''Support''' Per rationale set out on my user page.
'''Oppose''', his inclusionist views are vile indeed </Elara homage> '''
'''Support'''.  I think Jeff understands and will respect policy.  I also don't see a problem saying that he will only use some of the tools - many admins, on a de facto basis, limit themselves by simply participating in certain activities after they get the buttons.  --
'''Support'''. Although, like many other users on both sides of this discussion, I oppose Jeff's inclusionist tendencies, there's no reason to believe that he would abuse the administrative tools to advance his own views. If he has enough experience to use the tools and can be trusted not to abuse them, he should pass. Some of the Oppose reasons, I find flat-out bizarre. I can understand opposing a user if he says he won't follow our policies, but opposing someone because he says he ''will'' follow them? <TT>
I've seen him around and I don't think he will be as horrifically bad as others seem to think. I trust this guy and our backlogs are ridiculous.
'''Support''' highly experienced and knowledgeable user.
I have opposed badlydrawnjeff on virtually every issue I've ever encountered him on.  That having been said, I think that Jeff would use the proper channels, as he has before, for protesting decisions made by other admins, rather than wheel-warring (which is to me the only reason for opposition, other than trust).  I also believe that the Arbitration Committee would be more than willing to remove Jeff's adminship should he screw up; ArbCom's shown its willingness to desysop.  "Limited" adminship, "full" adminship; I support them both.  [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' Personally, I've never had a problem with Jeff, and I wish him luck. Admittedly, I never thought I'd see the day he applied for adminship, but he seems to be applying for the right reasons, so why not? – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' per nomination statement
'''Surprising support.''' Jeff is a pain in the arse (sorry, if that's a personal attack - remove it). His opinionated misunderstandings of policy and incessant process-lawyering sometimes border on trolling. I've blocked him for it in the past. However, I do trust him. Will he keep to the limmitations he's indicated? Yes, I believe he will. If he does, then the tools will not be abused. Good grief, if Jeff thinks an article needs killed - it most certainly does! --
'''Support'''. Quality of opposition inclines me to support. If you're hated by luminaries like Cyde and the like, you're probably doing something right.
'''Suport''' - as per
'''Support''' as strongly as possible.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' In my admittedly short time here, I've never found such a consistently ethical and committed person who is so dedicated to exploring how to behave forthrightly and in concurrence with the policies. In my book, even if not all of your admins are this way, you need some who are, to be part of this organic system of consensus, supermajorities and checks and balances. --
'''Strong Support.''' For full adminship. Stronger than Everyking's support above. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Dino support'''. Inclusionism bad, but little user thoughtful and reflective. Wikipedia need more thought.
'''Support''' - thoughtful and dedicated Wikipedian, zero danger of going batshit with the tools (which is of course the only question that matters) -
'''Support''' This is probably a massive surprise, but I do trust Jeff with the tools. We need more people whom are concerned about creditability and keeping Wikipedia honest.
'''Support''' no reason to suspect he'll abuse the tools.  Is there anything more to say?
'''Support''' per Xoloz and GRBerry ~
'''Support''': After reading the oppose votes, I think that they're too speculative. Because adminship is no big deal, limited adminship would be less of a deal. So, I support. '''
'''Support'''. Dares to disagree openly with Jimbo.
'''Support''' I think Jeff's offering to limit his power was perhaps unnecessary, for there are no signs that he would actually abuse.it. He has taken strong rhetorical positions at times, but has done no harm, and does not interfere with consensus. There is a great difference between questioning consensus, and defying it; between ensuring that differing opinions have a  chance to be heard, and opposing for the sake of it or to make a point. I think he'll be OK.'''
I'm
'''Weak support'''.  I tend to support a lot of people.  Because of all your controversies, if I was a reeeeally careful RFA voter who opposed a lot of people, then I might oppose.  But admins are not a "super-exclusive club", but a group of people improving Wikipedia through deletion, blocking, and protection.  And you are a good editor, so I support.
'''Oppose''' Self limiting your use of tools and putting yourself in the recall cat do not carry much water with me, I think both ideas limit the usefulness of an admin. Your answers to the questions were very limited an have not convinced me that you are ready to be an admin. You seem to be saying that being open to recall is a "simple fix" for lack of community trust, I don't think it even comes close. Ryan below me also raises some very disturbing issues, the ability to edit protected pages is of the larger concern to me considering the recent edit war that was halted by protection. <small>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry Jeff, but I really can't support a candidate who wants the tools for protections when you were involved in an edit war at [[WP:MUSIC]] last week regarding the {{tl|pnc}} template. You first began [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=120889559&oldid=120873222 on the 7th of April], and continued for 2 days; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=120890775&oldid=120890107] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=120893133&oldid=120891531] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=121123857&oldid=120893262] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=121302711&oldid=121216890]. I then protected the page, the minute the protection wore off, you immediately started edit warring again, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=121997287&oldid=121994215], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28music%29&diff=121997825&oldid=121997287 leading me to having to immediately re-protect the page]. I'm sorry, but I can't trust someone who has edit warred so serverely on official guidlines in the recent past to have access to admin tools, with the ability to protect pages how he wants them, or edit whilst protected. Looking at your block log, it shows that this seams to have been a problem over a larger period of time.
'''Oppose'''- the limited adminship idea is interesting, but unenforceable.  Given his apparent "more articles are always better" belief, I can't trust that he'd use undeletion only when appropriate.  His contributions to policy discussion border on disruptive at times, and his take on what policy means gives me no confidence he would use good judgment.  I hadn't been aware of the edit warring but this concerns me as well.
Rude, Rude, Rude. Haughty. Confrontational. And mind you, I like the guy. But I will rue the day he is made a sysop. -- <b>
'''Oppose'''.  Limited adminship has been proposed in various forms many times, and it is has generally been agreed that it's a non-starter, and particularly so in this case since it's proposed as voluntarily limited: there's simply no way to anticipate the situations that arise as an admin, so it's effectively impossible for Jeff to do what he promises above.  Given that, we have to consider this a request for full adminship, and I cannot support that after Jeff's demonstration of his lack of understanding of the administrator role at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning]].
'''Oppose'''. I'm not keen on the limited adminship, or on a self-described "notorious inclusionist" being involved as an admin in deletion issues. Jeff also seems to get very aggressive very quickly when people disagree with him.
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> (does not change the count, see below) I think badlydrawnjeff does great work and fills an important role in the community, and I believe him that he won't attempt to use the tools in a roguish fashion. Even in the absence of roguish intent, though, I believe that the widespread knowledge of his passionate (and outside-the-meanstream) stances on policy would cast a consistent shadow over the decisions he would make with the tools. Thus, regrettably, I don't see promoting jeff as a likely net gain for the project.
I oppose this candidate for many reasons, but the one I wish to mention specifically here is that in his comments above he suggests that he believes that closing deletion discussions is an admin-only task.  It is not, and I will not support the promotion of any candidate who believes or suggests that it is.
'''Strongest Oppose Possible''' Fundamentally untrustworthy. As an ex-adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, his access to deleted revisions is a fundamental danger. As a consumate edit warrior with goals of including weakly-primary-sourced damaging personal information about non-notable living people/wikipedia editors, totally irrelevent and unused slang terms and a few good articles, his goals are not in line with what this project was designed to be. Unstable - has announced his departure numerous times.
'''Oppose''' Too confrontational; does not show comprehensive understanding of key policies. Edit warrior. I do not trust this user to use the tools wisely.
'''Oppose''' Too confrontational, and too much process wonking. Latest example? I nominated [[Saddle Butte (Wyoming)]] for speedy delete. This nonexistant place near Jackson, Wyoming can't be found on any map, google the place and all one gets is a subdivision, and a street. It is actually located on East Gros Ventre Butte, which in itself isn't notable. Jeff comes along nominates it for Afd and claims that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddle_Butte_%28Wyoming%29&diff=next&oldid=122759792 "''places aren't speedyable''"] ...really? Since when? I've written about 50 stubs and short articles about places in the region and am a member of [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Wyoming]]...if the place did exist and could be referenced, I would have done something about improving it. Jeff then claims that the article has "context"...I attempted to show that the criteria for speedy deletion is valid if it has "'''Little''' or no context"...it is a one sentence article, no refs, because none correctly identify the location. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddle Butte (Wyoming)|Full thread]]. Geez...these kinds of minor incidents, stacked up on one another ad nauseum is borderline [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]].--
Conservative '''oppose'''. Inclusionism good, being honest about ED good, but a number of points of controversy are still being raised. Agree with Slim that adminship is a yes/no question. Possibly Dekimasu has it best when he/she says that an important role can be played without being an admin. There is a possibility that rogues will turn lawful good when imbued with trust, so I could be wrong.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I don't like Jeff's attempt to shape Wikipedia to match his own interests, and I really don't like his answer to the IAR question. IAR is, even if you don't like it, one of the founding philosophies of Wikipedia. Finally, I have been entirely unconvinced of Jeff's ability to remain civil in the heat of a controversial discussion, as often many of his comments turn to personal, condescending attacks.
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns about the limited adminship concept, and the issues raised by others here.
Absolutely not.  Jeff cares more about following rules than doing what is right, and making him an administrator would lead to inevitable wheel wars whenever someone doesn't follow Jeff's particular ''interpretation'' of the rules.  As a user he is rather harmless, even with all of the spouting off about "admin abuse" and "violations of policy" &mdash; but he would not be harmless as an administrator.  --
'''Oppose'''  I can't trust someone who revert wars so often and shows little respect for consenus.  I'm also troubled by the opposition to IAR and insistence on process for its own sake.  The "limited adminship" thing doesn't help.  --
'''Oppose''' per all above (especially Cyde) and my interactions with this user. While we do agree from time to time, Jeff is too confrontational and always thinks he is right whenever someone questions his motives on his user talk page. I absolutely would not trust him with the tools, even in the capacity of limited adminship (which I have no opinion about), unless this were to change. --
'''Very Strong Oppose''' Per Cyde and others. This user has displayed a rudeness and blatant disrespect to myself, and other admins, especially when it comes to deleting pages, and at one point labeled me a "deletionist." The last thing we need is an admin who believes that there is no such thing as crap on Wikipedia. We especially do not need an admin who fails to understand how hard, annoying, and painful our work is. —<b>[[User:Pilotguy|Pilot]]<font color="#00FFFF">
'''Oppose''' per Cyde and because of Encyclopedia Dramatica associations.  I don't think that admins should be associated with such sites, even if the association is in the past.  If this keeps up, we'll be having Somey from Wikipedia Review nominated as an admin.
'''Reluctant oppose'''.  Although I am quite convinced that Badlydrawnjeff is a well-meaning user, his adamant view that every piece of crap that ever came into Wikipedia should be kept is worrisome.  And I am afraid that his strict view on this subject could lead to wheel wars over deletion/undeletion.
'''Oppose''' Though I have never encountered you in Wikipedia, the oppose reasons convince me not to support you due to the concerns of incivility, extremism, questionable interpretation of policy, and limited adminship theories.
'''Oppose''', bordering on strong oppose.  Too soon since the Blanning RfC incident.
'''Strong oppose.''' So wedded to policy, could never make a good admin, ever, ever, ever!
'''Strong oppose''' Do I respect Jeff? Yes. Do I trust him with the tools? Absolutely not. Though I've never had a major argument with him, he's perhaps the single most contentious user I've seen in my year and a half on WP. He is at best highly opinionated (which is certainly not a crime) and at worst completely incivil. --
'''Oppose'''.  Per his numerous contributions and otherwise, it's clear that Badlydrawnjeff is dedicated to the project, but I don't trust his judgment, and don't trust him to avoid wheel warring related to undeletion (based on his interactions at [[WT:N]], [[WT:IAR]], etc).   I'd love to see him have access to deleted revisions, since I think he's definitely trustworthy enough to not disclose sensitive information, and access to deleted revisions would increase admin accountability by assisting him in reviewing possible questionable deletions.  --
'''Oppose''' - I supported last time and wish I could again, but based on some of the extreme inclusionism stuff (the Peppers debate comes to mind), I fear I cannot.  I think I probably agree with your views more than I disagree with them ... and I hate A7 ''as it is currently implemented'' as much as you do - it's used by too many as a license to delete any stub and half of the stuff tagged with it is completely unrelated to the criterion.  But, as others have said, being too confrontational is a big problem.  With regrets and all due respect, I oppose - and this is not an endorsement of some of the above oppose !votes, some of which I strongly disagree with. --[[User:BigDT|<font color="orange">BigDT</font>]] (
'''Strong Oppose''' per extensive block log [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Badlydrawnjeff] , incivility, edit warring, contentious comments on afds, questionable interpretation of policies, etc... I do not trust the user with the tools.--
'''Oppose'''.  I am deeply concerned about slavish adherence to written policy, which however well-intended is likely to be disruptive.  Recent edit warring (sufficient to prompt page protection&mdash;twice) is also troubling, even if it didn't draw a block.  Regularly throwing around accusations of admin "abuse" &ndash; which appeared under Jeff's chosen section heading of [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Completely moronic|"Completely moronic"]] just a few days ago &ndash; suggests a certain lack of...er...diplomacy in approaching disputes.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with a lot of the above reasons. I think that his proposal for limited adminship is an inadequate remedy and likely to result in a lot of wasted time and effort when inevitably someone recalls him or he wants to upgrade.
'''Oppose''' The answers to the question don't show that he needs sysop tools and a look at his block log reveals a pattern of disruption and incivility and as SlimVirgin said above he seems to quickly get quite aggressive when people disagree with him, not good qualities in an administrator.--
Although I respect Jeff as an editor, I cannot support him becoming an administrator. I must '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' Jeff is a rule bender and rule user, not a man ready to be trusted to fairly apply the rules.  Look at the recent reversions at the notability sub-pages to see the disruptive behavior and fine-line abuse of 3RR.  His trolling of the oppose comments here is evidence of his contentious nature.  --
'''Oppose''' "IAR doesn't exist in my wiki-verse." ... and hopefully no more people who would say that will become admins in mine. Jeff's dogmatic promotion of adherence to the letter of policy over making correct actions isn't good for the project. I believe this problem is exacerbated by his use of interpretations of policy which are rather strained. As far as the backlogs go, I'd rather not grant limited adminships for backlogs: we could address most of our backlog issues with a few approved of adminbots. Humans should do things which require thought and consideration, bots should do mindless things which only require following rules and making http requests.--

'''No''' per above.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''', despite his commitment to the project, due to concerns about dogmatism and misunderstanding of policy (as per Gmaxwell, and others).
'''Oppose'''. Interaction with other people is not up to a good standard. --
'''Oppose''' and I would like to just copy and paste what [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222]] said above.  To a tee, including time frame.  Jeff provides the poke in the side as to what is important we all need on a regular basis, but most always his views on deletion discussion are contrary to the end consensus.  With such a history, I cannot trust him to delete only.  Many admins are open to making text available on DRV if asked.
'''Oppose''' per [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] associations, block log etc.-<font face = "stop" color = "purple">K</font>
'''Oppose''' I really don't agree with stance regarding the Brian Peppers article as highlighted above. And hence I cannot be certain of Jeff's judgement on key issues.--
'''Oppose''' I simply cannot trust this user with the tools. I suspect giving them to him would lead to wheel-wars.&nbsp;<small>'''
Per Friday, Cyde, Gmaxwell, Tony and Redvers, who have summed up what I think better than I could have. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' I don't trust this editor to use the admin tools either wisely or without trying to push his agenda. His extreme inclusionist approach damages Wikipedia's credibility and we would not be well served by giving him greater ability to influence important issues.
Definitively no, his constant pushing of his wiki point of view is disruptive. He lacks understanding of core wiki philosophies. -- <small>
'''Oppose'''. Per many concerns above. Primarily, I cannot support an admin candidate who is actively opposed to IAR. Disliking misapplication is one thing, not supporting the policy another.
'''Oppose''' per Gretab and others.--
'''Oppose''', sorry but you don't inspire trust.
User would undelete libellous biographies, and is obstinate and unreasonable. —
'''Oppose''' concerns about stated goals of using the article deletion tools when he has such strong opinions about inclusion.  i would prefer that he stay away from AfD and it's related processes.  --
'''Oppose''' lack of recognintion for IAR is a great concern, as policy is never infallible, and does need to ignored from time to time.  Like others, I would not be confident of your understanding of [[WP:BLP]] in the (un)deletion of articles, and would fear tat you would just make more work for others, and more emials to [[m:OTRS|OTRS]].   You are, at the moment, a watchdog on the admins - let's keep it that way. <strong>
'''No'''. If BDJ were put in charge, Wikipedia would soon degenerate into a venue full of non-notable & non-verifiable crap. In addition, by vigorously opposing [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:SNOW]], he appears to view Wikipedia as a bureaucracy, which [[WP:BURO|it is not]]. Finally, his temperament toward those who disagree him is less than acceptable - look no further than his responses toward some of his opposers.
'''Oppose''' The slavish devotion to process at the potential detriment to common sense concerns me that this user would not be able to adapt to new situations as they come up, comments at [[WT:IAR]] lead me to believe he does not fully understand policy, and numrous [[MeatBall:GoodBye]] messages on his user page indicate a lack of maturity. -<u>
'''Oppose''' per Cyde, Friday, Ryan and many above. Limited adminship and recall is meaningless. Not naming names but I have seen others promise to be open to recall to get borderline neutral/opposers only to quietly remove their names from the cat a couple of months later. And others go back months after their RFA to strike their [[pork barrelling]] promises. I'm more interested in what you have done already rather than what you promise you will and won't do and I'm not impressed by edit warring, and confrontational, aggressive behaviour. '''
'''Oppose''' As things currently stand, there's simply no such thing as a limited adminship. An admin gets all the tools and, whether or not he or she uses them, has to be able to demostrate trustworthyness for all of them and that all of them won't be abused. This user may well deserve that complete trust, but I can only evaluate that in a nom for position that actually exists, not some position that doesn't, and where all sides -- including the candidate -- clearly understand that everything is on the table and that the candidate needs to demonstrate trustworthyness for everything. --
'''Oppose''' per above. I'm sorry, Jeff.
'''Oppose''' per Cyde et al and general inability to use common sense.
'''Regretful Oppose''' - By his contributions, BadlydrawnJeff does seem to want to improve Wikipedia; I'm just not sure that his views on policy, neutrality and civility match expectations of how admin tools should/will be used. As recent comments such as those [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=123013117 towards SlimVirgin], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuel_Blanning&diff=prev&oldid=123079775 towards Samuel_Blanning], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_Murray&diff=prev&oldid=121579157 towards Kevin_Murray] seem to indicate, BDJ can let his personal feelings supercede following Wikipedia norms. One doesn't have to make friends on Wikipedia in order to edit; but having the community's respect is necessary to be given the trust of adminship -- picking fights with those who may disagree with one's opinion doesn't result in that requisite respect. --<font size="-2"><strong>
Interesting one, this. I'll be sure to come back later...
'''Neutral''' Aside from the asinine idea of limited adminship I think that jeff isn't the appropriate personality type for adminship. For the same reason that I'll never be an admin he shouldn't either: he is zealous and extremist in his views and his vision for wikipedia is radically far from the general consensus. I simply do not believe that he will be able to put the letter of policy ahead of his own personal conviction. At the same time jeff is a fantastic contributor, creating great articles, active in policy discussion and creation and with a indepth knoweldge of the inner workings of wikipedia and even more importantly its community. I very much respect his character even though I'm often in total disagreement with him. So while I can't support his adminship I can't oppose his nomination wither, its simply a ideological difference and I don't think that (short of malicious intent) that is a legit reason to oppose giving these tools to a honest and commited editor.
'''Neutral''' for now. Jeff said: "''IAR doesn't exist in my wiki-verse. I see no instances where I'd need to worry about it in my limited usage.''" concerns me greatly. Process and policy are important, but neither trumps the project itself and the work product. Sometimes doing the right thing does in fact require ignoring a rule, or all of them, and understanding why that is (and having some facility for recognising when it does and when it does not) is vital to being a good admin, in my view. So, I am concerned that Jeff's views are not in line with the views that have made the project successful. Another, much more minor, point is that while I am a huge fan of [[CAT:AOR|the recall category]], and of having admins voluntarily join it, and of the notion of a recall process, and of the admins that have went through it already, I do not like to see pledges to join used as a way to gain support. ++
I don't really approve of this sort of "Limited" adminship, nor of [[CAT:AOR|the recall category]], unless/until we have some form of [[WP:RFDA]] as an acepted process applicable to all admins. (And that doesn't look likely anytime soon, if ever.) So i am tratign thsi as a request for full admiinship, period. I like Jeff's obvious dedication to the project, I am concerned about his tendancy to confrontation. Admins are the visible face of the project in many ways. I plan o check back on this, and to look at the answer to Q7, if any.
On the one hand, I certainly trust him not to intentionally abuse the tools, and I think he can be a pleasant fellow when he's not in a disagreement. On the other hand, he seems quite distant from policy at times, and gets confrontational when people point this out.
'''Neutral''' - Jeff is consummate about Wikipedia from my interactions with him, I've not looked through all of his many edit conquests, but my feeling is these revolve around concern for the project rather than a particular point of view you get with the lunatic fanatics using Wikipedia to wage political battles. I don't have a problem with limited adminship, I'd rather have another pair of hands for some stuff than no extra help at all, and I'm strongly in favour of the ability to separate out admin permissions in order to allow a whole raft of adminbots, so there's nothing wrong with that either. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Neutral''' I just can't support this nomination right now.  The whole idea of a "limited" administrator doesn't sit well with me for some reason.  I like the editor and the edits and pages he has worked on, but I can't support them as an administrator right now.  Perhaps in the future, yes.
'''Neutral''' for now, may change most likely to oppose. I appreciate some of the concerns jeff sometimes comes out with, but other seem to take it to far or appear to be more of convenience in pushing his broader view. For example his recent complaint that a certain DRV he disagreed with wasn't purely about process when his own views on DRV are frequently not about process but about his view of if the subject deserves an article. As above the interpretation of policy sometimes seems bizzare and a lack of acceptance when the general community seems to disagree with him. The claims of "abusive" etc. when discussing the actions of others seems to be overdone and generally not that constructive. Much of the above, process for process sake etc. That said I do believe he has the interest of the project at the core, just rather than the current "abusive regime" he wants his own "abusive regime" to apply. --
Some concerns about Jeff following the "red tape" of the rules list rather than just looking at the situation on hand and doing what the exact situation calls for. Rules exist for a reason, but Wikipedia is not absolute law, a fair bit of discretion is necessary.  It's nowhere near enough to put me in oppose, just a bit below a full on support. --
'''Neutral'''. While I don't think Jeff would abuse the tools, some of the concerns brought up in the Oppose section can't be ignored. I should note that he past association with ED is not one of them, as I don't think past associations should be held against someone (we're not in the [[Joseph McCarthy|McCarthy]] era anymore), especially when he's clearly indicated he has nothing to do with them anymore. ···
'''Neutral'''.  Many times I've seen Jeff's comments and my face lit up with a smile.  I really appreciate his contributions, but I am concerned about the block log and recent contentiousness.  Avoid edit warring for a year to prove that you've mastered your emotions, Jeff.
'''Neutral''' Jeff really seems to care. He just has different ideas. I also think that if a person spends their time on Wikipedia Review (as opposed to say doing something else) then they also care about Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Dramatica relation is a bad mark for him and so is the whole BadlySketchedBob account on Wikitruth.info (even though he claims it isn't him). I would still support, except that this is a self-nom and you did "limited adminship" -- that shows you aren't confident about yourself. If you feel you could be a full admin and use your powers responsibly, then say full admin. You should have been open to recall instead.
'''Strong support'''; in fact, I'd happily have nominated Barneca myself. He's evidenced the right temperment for the mop, and has the interest and talent to help out at a chronically understaffed but important area ([[WP:SSP]]). He's experienced in some admin-related areas, and he's circumspect and judicious enough to learn on the job (as we all do) in areas he hasn't worked in before. He's demonstrated trustworthiness and I have no concerns about mop abuse, but volunteering to be open to recall is a nice gesture as well. '''
'''Strong support'''. Excellent answers to questions, especially the self-imposed question #4. Lots of edits to AIV and ANI, will make a good admin. <b>
'''Support''' Editor seems to be trustworthy, open and honest. Happy to support, friend.
'''Support''' After looking (briefly) at some of this editor's recent contributions, I believe Barneca a good candidate for sysopping. Good luck! --
'''Strong Support''' '''''What an incredible set of answers.''''' You acknowledge your weak points, you have being totally candid in areas where you could work on. I have no problems that you are weak in [[WP:XFD]], your reporting at [[WP:AIV]] is excellent but above all I believe the '''clarity and honesty''' shown by your answers will translate into thoughtfullness and calmness with the admin buttons. This is a model of someone respecting the RFA process and hence Wikipedia. Very Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per honest answers to questions and ability to stay cool when involved in stressful situations.  Barneca may not be the most prolific article editor, but I think he would make a fine admin.  --
'''Support''' I have seen this editor display exemplary thoughtfulness, and the excellent answers to the questions bolster my impression of him.  Certainly trustworthy.
'''Support''' as he has the "minimum number of edits"; has done good work fixing vandalism, esp. [[Wyoming]], so could use the mop, and I am certain, will use it well.  No concerns.  Good answers to the optional quesionts. :-)
'''Support''' Although I've read through many RFA's in the past, I've yet to feel motivated to comment in any of them. However, I've never seen such a brilliant, open and honest application before either. Rather then attempting to gloss over any weaknesses, you are highlighting them and openly promising to improve upon them, and watch your step until you do. One can't ask for much more. An example for many, if not all to follow. Kudos. Glancing over your edits confirms ones gut instinct. Good luck.
'''Support'''. 'Nuff said. Best, --
'''Support, changed from Neutral'''. Candidate shows a good listening ability, along with the work they've done fighting vandalism.
—&nbsp;'''[&#8239;<!-- -->
'''Support''' -- I see no evidence that this user would execute the tools in anything but a professional and intelligent way.  --
'''Support''' I do not see anything that would lead me to believe he would be a bad admin. Good luck:)--
'''Support''' -- I'm going to support. The oppositions aren't convincing and my experience with the user is good.
'''Support''' &ndash; I wish my answers were as good.  ;)  Seriously, though, you exhibit a great deal of maturity and honesty.  Just please make sure you do so all the time, per civility concerns below.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support'''. Lacking in Wikispace edits, but other than that: pretty good! '''
'''Strong Support''' per Madman.
'''Support''' A great editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' This is one of those RFAs that make my head spin.  The uncivil comments that are being pointed out at this time by WJBScribe and the comments by Agüeybaná do not seem uncivil to me at all, and I know that I've seen worse, as have most of you here.  The amount of opposes right now are strange to me.  I urge anyone voting ''per'' anyone else to check the evidence they provide and see if it meets their definition of incivility--do not count on the reputation of a username to make your mind up for you.  Now with that out of the way, on to barneca:  I first found out about barneca during the Old Windy Bear sock hunt, in which he showed his thoroughness, cool head, and ability to handle a controversial aspect.  He did well and more admins like him is a good thing.
Looks like an excellent candidate for the mop. I see nothing to concern me.
'''Support''' Supurb answers, as above, you receive my full support.
'''Very Weak Support'''. I'm still uneasy about the situation between him and Eddie/Agueybaná, but I can see he's done his best to explain himself, and is apologetic for the way he acted. Given his long history of good contributions, I'm going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''' - An impressive edit record. I've been investing my time recently in vandalism and etc., and since it's relatively new to me, he helped me and explained to me some important parts of it. A very friendly and admin-worthy editor!
'''Support''' None of the concerns are unforgivable. Generally a very good contributor.
'''Support''' Very good editor, good contributions and the answers to questions including mine are very good. Everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is not not to make them, but to make sure that they won't repeat and I am convinced that he will be able to do that.
'''Support''' I have seen Barneca making sensible arguments and I believe he's a mature person and is trustworthy. Will make a good admin the next time, if not this time.  - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good luck with the tongue biting. '''
'''Support''' Believe will make a good admin.
'''Support''' While I appreciate the concerns regarding the Agüeybaná incident, I feel the applicant has learned from it and will go on to make a good admin.
Bugger it, supporting now.  I'm rejecting the Agüeybaná incident as something that will happen again and, I believe the candidate won't damage the project with adminship. '''
'''Support''' I honestly believed that I gave my support here a few days ago, but upon checking back, noticed I had not! Whoops! Barneca will make a fine sysop. I think the opposes concerning the e-mail situation are rediculous. I remember Boricuaeddie's RfA, and recall watching the e-mail fiasco unfold and thinking that it was completely in line with the temper-related reasons Boricuaeddie's RfA failed in the first place. Barneca then found himself in the unenviable position of being defamed about a string of e-mails by an editor who was claiming that fully disclosing the e-mails would itself be defamation. That was a no-win situation. Disengagement should have been the course of action pursued by Barneca, and he has aknowledged this point ad nauseum. In fact, he was making this point during the dispute. Holding this against him now simply makes no sense.
'''Oppose''' - I see some are supporting per the user's "''ability to stay cool when involved in stressful situations''". I strongly disagree. My only experience with this editor was horrible. During my RfA, <s>he opposed me because of my personal views</s>, but that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is what the editor did afterwards: He threatened to publish here on Wikipedia the contents of an e-mail conversation, which is prohibited by [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence|ArbCom ruling]], replied nastily to my e-mails (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279#Off-wiki harassment]]), and was very uncivil. This, combined with his completely unsatisfactory mainspace contributions, which ''I'' believe plays an important role in the administration of this site, and his almost inexistent participation in some parts of the Wikipedia namespace, make me take this position. However, I truly wish you the best, and, if this RfA is successful, I trust you will be a fairly good admin. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Your contribs look good in terms of policy knowledge - but I'm concerned by some rather aggressive responses to other users, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Boricuaeddie&diff=148732655&oldid=148731110 this edit], which seems an unnecessarily personal comment. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarneca&diff=148735275&oldid=148734790 this] isn't the sort of response to a talkpage discussion I would expect to see of an admin. Often a great deal of patience and detachment are needed - in both cases you don't seem to demonstrate much of either. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Per WJBscibe and Agüeybaná. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' also per WJBscribe.
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe. Absolute serenity would certainly be an unachievable goal for admin candidates, but the diffs provided demonstrate an absolutely nasty, uncivil attitude when the proverbial shit hits the fan that I cannot support in a candidate. The way to deal with those who are uncivil is to be ''more'' civil, not less.
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe. -
'''STRONGLY OPPOSE: ''' I have read the case with Agueybana, and this is ridiculous. The ethics employed by Barneca are outlandish, and quite frankly, offending. The fact that a E-threat was made to silence a wiki editor in my opinion is a bannable offense, and the notion of Barneca becoming admin is insane. I STRONGLY recommend voters to read through this case, you will see how skewed, unethical, and offending Mr. Barneca is. Also I agree with statements of Wikidudeman, Wjscribe, and the IP user above. While I might sound offending, I am not attacking Barneca's character. I am attacking his decisions made during his span on Wikipedia. Please understand this, and understand it is not meant to be personal no matter how it might sound. Thanks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''involvement with [[User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying|this]] shows poor judgement, while an veiled appology was offered[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOldwindybear&diff=145430781&oldid=145427761 diff] where you said ''I think it best if we have no further contact, including on my talk page. It distresses me, and will do neither of us any good.'' you continued to edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear%26Stillstudying&limit=500&action=historydiff] claims about OWB being a sockpuppet. To me that makes your fine statements here unbelievable.
'''Oppose''' - I feel more experience is needed in Wikipedia space - less than 300 is a little low - and the rather harsh comments made about others make me feel you need a little more time on Wikipedia yet. How about an admin coach? That should polish you up somewhat. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' as per WJBscribe and Gnangarra. '''
'''Switch to oppose per Sara'''
'''Oppose'''. Admins are nothing if they can't remain civil.
Per WjBScribe -- <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but resolving to make only 500-750 edits per month is not a good thing for admins. Admins must be able to devote a lot of time to Wikipedia.
Email situation was too recent and worring, sorry. A good candidate who I hope will reapply in the future if this is unsuccessful, but at the moment I cannot support. '''
'''Support''' as nominator, of course!
'''Support''' per nominator's convincing argument and obvious need for some of the tools by candidate. It's not all about the blocking, there are some rather technical things that admins need to do around here as well.
'''Support''' I really hope that no-one gets an attack of editcountitis here. Although the count is lower than some, it is in this application virtually irrelevant. Ben clearly has a need for the tools in his specific area of expertise, and the project equally clearly needs him to have them. {{unsigned|Anthony.bradbury}}'''Comment''' Sorry.--
'''Support''' A solid technical reason for using the admin tools to improve the project.  This editor is also responsible and can break out in to the main spaces for admin tasks and backlogs too.
'''Support''' - aeropagitica says it very well. There's a need, and edits outside the template namespace are good. --
'''Support''' - per nominator's excellent nomination. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Absolute Support'''. Never have I seen a candidate I was more willing to support. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Strong Support''' definitely! Should be an asset to the admin team. -
'''Support''' - Would Ben be willing to make himself open to recall? -
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' In three months has given excellent contribution to [[WP:UTM]] and is the man in the know for templates regarding [[WP:RFC]]. Have no doubt this editor will be an asset to the community. <sup>
'''Support''' I prefer to vote not on time on Wikipedia but instead on how much the editor is question has done. I believe that Ben has done enough to prove that he can be a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' per excellent nomination, excellent impression of the user, and support to those who do the work behind the scenes. --
'''Support'''. Excellent nomination and great answers to the questions. I have absolutely no problem with supporting someone who's only been here a short time if they demonstrate as much skill and need as [[User:Ben]] does. —
'''Support'''. An odder case than most RfAs I've participated in but I think he can use the tools very, very well. Good impression overall and I trust he will use the buttons to improve the project. Pass the whipped cream, please.
'''Support'''. Very happy to support because there is a clear need for the tools and I can see no reason not to trust this user's judgement. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
Can't quite believe I'm '''Support'''ing per Majorly. I've very jittery about the low article space edits and lack of experience, in that I think anyone who represents the project as an admin should have a decent all round grasp of what we do. That said, if ever there is a good argument for dividing the tools up this is it. So, in no small part due to the eloquent case put forward by Neil in his nom, I'm going to [[WP:AGF]] that this editor will voluntarily restrict his useage to his specialist area (at least for now) and implore him to dabble just a little bit more in the other aspects of Wikipedia. Good luck, this RfA is going to be interesting!
'''Support''' - Per the nom and pretty much everyone above, I couldn't say much better. —
'''Support''' - Normally I wouldn't support someone with so few mainspace edits, but Ben has a clear need to edit protected templates, and I trust him not to misuse the rest of the tools. In my interactions with him he's been nothing but good-natured, with a great sense of humor. There's been at least one instance where he got some pretty sharp criticism after a change to one of the templates used on WP:RCU, and he responded with good grace and no trace of defensiveness or hostility--so I feel sure he'll be level-headed and calm in times of stress.
'''support''' -- mainspace is quite low, but i seem to forget that there is a backend to this machine. working on templates is essentially building the building blocks, and that's a great contribution.
'''Support'''. You're on the right path. I don't care about the low mainspace edits: we're here to build an encyclopedia, that's right. But not everybody that works at Britannica writes articles. <i><b>
'''Support'''. Ben clearly has a need for the tools, and I see no reason not to give them to him. I fail to see how Wikipedia benefits by forcing him to edit articles when it is not his forte, talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face.
'''Support''' No reason to think Ben will misuse the tools. We need to stop having editcountits.--
'''Support'''. I'd prefer to see more edits, too, but what's the worst that could happen? Every admin action is reversible. I see no evidence of irresponsibility, and if he messes up badly enough, we can always <s>burn him at the stake</s> take away his mop.
'''Support''' He is pleasent to work with and willing to listen to reason.  He is also willing to teach an old dog a new trick when necessary.  --
'''Support''' per criteria set out on my userpage plus invaluable special skills.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor on the technical side, demonstrated need for the tools.  I don't see any reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse them.  I believe he'd do valuable work with the templates and documentation, and most likely grow into other admin roles.  Time/experience is, admittedly, more an issue; however, by looking at the work he's already done, I think it's safe to say he's experienced enough to be an admin -- at least in the areas where he intends to focus.  And I believe him when he says he'd avoid the admin areas where he doesn't.  He's certainly been willing enough to deal with admins during his template work, so if someone should bring such an issue to him, I'd expect he would consult with another admin, rather than do something potentially rash or ill-founded.
I've just done a whole lot of template work for him on [[WP:HRT|protected templates]], and I am confident giving Ben the tools will be a ''100%'' gain for Wikipedia. That, and he's articulate and trustworthy. Strong support. '''
'''Support'''.  Give him the tools he needs. --
'''Support''' Good answers, nice template work, and an '''excellent''' sense of humor. He might not have that much Mainspace experience, but hey, neither did I when I was nominated, or for that matter, a great deal of other admins.
'''Support'''. If the answer to Q1 was the usual platitudes, I wouldn't support, but it's not and there's a sound rationale here for asking for the tools. Short of whitelist system for editing protected templates, &c, or more granular rights, neither of which are likely to happen as I understand it, it's all or nothing. It'll have to be all then.
'''Support''' He has not been editing long, but he seems to have a the high level of maturity that's required for adminship.
'''Support''' based on his responses to the nom questions & to opposition/neutral concerns. I think he'll do a great job in his niche.
'''Support''' From what I've seen, Ben is a very good contributor.
'''Support'''  This is a potential administrator's administrator.  Already doing the desired work, advocated by administrators that appreciate the specialization and contribution. --
'''Kinda selfish support''' As Nick says somewhere below, we need this RfA to pass to cut down on backlogs, and make our work easier. Normally I wouldn't support someone with less mainspace edits than some people make in an hour, but this is a somewhat unusual case. Oh, and he's a good, hard worker, who's unlikely to misuse the buttons, and might in fact do us all a world of good if he does get them. Hoping this gets through, &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Stong Support''' I really can't think of a time where me and Ben have agreed on anything, however, the compelling arguments that he makes during discussion have many a time blown me away. Ben does amazing reasearch into problems before acting on anything, he makes sure that he fully understands the policies/guidlines before commenting or changing things. I ask myself, would Ben abuse the tools? Of course not. Does Ben need the tools? Yes, to edit protected templates, and protect them where necessary without running to an admin. Is more time on wikipedia going to change the way Ben acts? No its not, he will continue his excellent template work, and as an admin, it would give him the power to even further compliment his current work
'''Support'''. I find I'm in full agreement with those who are voting oppose because of the lack of mainspace edits, ''but'', having read Neil's remarks, and some of the comments from the Support voters, I feel that if every there's a time when we should make an exception, this is it. I don't expect this RfA to succeed, but my vote is nevertheless sincere. If it ''does'' succeed, I would urge Ben to adhere to his stated intent not to block, but also not to try to make any kind of controversial edits to policy pages until he has a lot more experience with what it's like to edit articles. From reading the admin noticeboards, I see that some admins don't understand that 3RR doesn't have to mean the ''same'' revert each time; and I notice that there's a lot of disagreement about civility blocks, especially on established users, so it would be sad to see an inexperienced user being adminned and immediately stirring up some hornets' nests. If I were less confident of Ben's character, through having seen his calm and courteous behaviour, I'd be much less inclined to support. As it is, ''give him the tools''!
'''Support'''. I doubt that Ben spent months and many hours craftily making templates to build up his cred so he can get sysop-ed and wipe the Main Page with an evil laugh and a sinister grin.  He has a clear need for the tools and seems unlikely to abuse them.  &#10154;
'''Support''' [[WP:IAR]]. If your RFA criteria stand in the way of improving the project, ignore them. ~
'''Strong support'' per trialsanderrors.
'''Support''' trustworthy enough.--
'''Support''' - I don't see an exigent need for adminship (and the edit-protected backlog was mostly because {{user|Qxz}} decided to request to tag every protected template and request for it to be labeled as such), but nonetheless trust this user to correctly implement policy and not screw up the technical aspects. So long as it doesn't go to his head (which he has indicated it won't, which I hope is true), I shall say "good luck, and may any latent sysopery you receive make Wikipedia better!"
'''Support''', as I am impressed by the quality of the editor's work and focus.  I don't think broad-purpose admins are necessary.  I would hope, however, that when other editors start asking you to perform admin tasks in areas you are not familiar with that you seek the proper guideance or refer the matter to a more experienced admin. --
'''Weak support''' - Its weak because of the lack of mainspace contributions but his other contributions seem too useful to be completely overlooked. We ''are'' writing an encyclopedia here, but there are many backstage functions that greatly assist in the creation of this encyclopedia of which this editor has, in a short amount of time, shown significant knowledge of — especially in the areas in which he has stated he will be focusing on as an admin.↔
'''Support'''.  The candidate seems to have a special talent and interest in template-tinkering, but lacks the ability to edit protected templates.   I'm convinced that the project would be better served by giving this guy that ability.  The fact that his contributions in other ways is small doesn't change that.
'''Support''' per all of the above and below. Nobody brought up any substantial reason to oppose. He's a specialist, so what? —
'''Support''', work like this can make life easier for ''thousands'' of editors. So let's make doing it easier for him!
'''support'''.  looking thru ben’s talk page (in which he is consistently gracious, including handling false accusations of being a sockpuppet), a random sample of his edits, and the new, improved templates (i’ve noticed improvements lately, just didn’t know he was behind many of them), i have to say that i have absolutely no reservations about giving ben admin tools.  considering that the “rules” for number of edits and length of stay are unwritten, is it really so hard to [[WP:IAR|bend]] them when an obviously special case comes along?  --
'''support''' In this case, given his clear specialisation and quality of work (and the fact that he would be able to do more work with the tools), in my mind there isn't a big worry over short time/low counts; there's no reason to suspect he'd be a problem.
Moral '''support''' - it's a pity this seems set to fail at this point, but I'll register anyway. Very convincing nomination; we need people like this guy, and it would be good for the project if he had the buttons even if he doesn't match the profile of your run-of-the-mill admin. The admin corps too has room for specialists.
'''Support'''. His unconventional namespace count is, as Jimbo himself would put it, "no big deal". In addition to his oft-lauded work on templates, he is now busy cleaning up [[Wikipedia:List of banned users]], which needs constant babysitting from experienced users. His beneficial edits to the page show strong knowledge and experience with Wikipedia policies and practices. <font color="green">
'''Support''' Upon further review and considering others' arguments. Should be fine. -
'''Oppose''' - Ben looks like he may be a valuable asset, but in 3 months of editting, it is just simply too early to tell.  He needs to have time to run into some tough situaitons so that we can see how he will respond.  Also, I don't mind ''some'' disproportionality in what namespace Ben edits, but a near complete lack of edits to the article space is troubling to me.  It seems if nothing else that his Template work would be enhanced by having more experience with how the average editor edits.  So long as adminship is one indivisible chunk (I.e. we can't give him part of the responsibility without all of the responsibility) then I need to be convinced he is ready for all of the responsibility.  I can' be sure of that with this little time and this few edits to the main article space.  I appreciate the work Ben is doing and I wish him the best, however this nomination turns out.
'''Oppose''' - 3 months experience is simply not enough.
'''Oppose'''. Less than 3 months here and less than 100 Mainspace edits. Needs wider experience.
'''Oppose''' To be precise, 2 months and 2 days, so very much less than 3 months. Although he has talents outside of article writing, the current article writng does not even constitute basic exhibition of the fundamentals required. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Ben&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0]. Of the 78 edits, about 40 are tweaking the sorting of the categories, and the latest 40 are creating shortcuts to WP pages and are not actually article edits at all. No actual tweaks the actual content to show understanding of NPOV/RS/V etc... Also the shortcuts were the 40 most recent edits, so he has not edited a single article for one month now. '''
'''Oppose''' He's a great editor, and I came here ready to support. However I have serious trouble supporting when there are only 78 mainspace edits.
'''Oppose'''-Great editor, but 2 months is way to little. Most people don't even make it after 6, especially with only 2,000 edits. Little time here makes me wonder if he's experienced enough on guidelines. Would reconsider in 4 months (6 months experience). --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen too new, lack of article writing, or any main namespace for that matter. Namespace edits is needed to understand wikipedia policies
'''Oppose''' You will '''certainly''' make it when you come back in a few months as long as you keep on keeping on. --
Lacks mainspace experience.
'''Oppose'''. Um... 78 mainspace edits? I'm honestly amazed that someone ''doesn't'' meet my standards for mainspace editing. I put very little importance on it compared to pretty much everyone else, but 78 is simply not enough. I never thought I'd actually be disagreeing with anybody but the candidate in opposing for lack of mainspace edits... -
'''Oppose''' - Only 2 months is not enough experience plus as mentioned by
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' too soon, per above, and Johntex. --
A very new contributor with almost no experience working on the encyclopedia would need exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. I'm not terribly sympathetic to the issue of tinkering with protected templates. As it is, the volume of tinkering encourages proliferation of more templates without a clearly demonstrated need, and the giant mass of templates now in use is a serious obstacle to bringing in nontechnical contributors. --
'''Oppose'''. No, needs longer time as a wikipedian.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience is a simple problem to remedy: just stick around for a while longer, doing a bit wider variety of tasks.
'''Oppose''' Extremely low mainspace edit count. I am impressed with the large amount of work Ben has done to the templates, but he needs more work in the mainspace. Anyone who is nominated for adminship should not have a very low ratio of mainspace edits to other edits: roughly 5% of Ben's overall edit are to the mainspace (though this figure will be out of date soon).
'''Weak oppose'''. I can overlook the inexperiene in good faith, but I just can't overlook the mainspace edits being practically nonexistent. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. The nom says that he is a template person primarily and that's his forte, which is good, but for some reason I still feel slightly uncomfortable giving him access to ''all'' the tools.--
'''Oppose''' but I hope he'll be back with some more time.  I do think tinkering with protected templates is something I'd be happy empowering Ben to do, but his answer to #3 makes me nervous: specifically, if he hasn't yet been involved in a contentious situation, this is an experience he should have before becoming an admin rather than afterwards.  Incidentally, anyone who needs an admin with good template experience, drop me a line.  I don't do that much template work but I know how and I like it.
'''Oppose''' Article and article talk edits plus general lack of experience. My personal observations of Ben have all been positive and if he continues on the same track I would be happy to support him when he has more experience, but I just can't support someone who has only been contributing for a couple of months and has made so few edits to the mainspace. '''
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience (see the short period), lack of mainspace edits.--
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience. I believe you need more participation in article writing and article discussions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such experiences are needed.
'''Oppose''' per concerns brought up above. ''
Not enough experience. —
'''Very Reluctant Oppose''' I hate to oppose an editor who's doing work that I could never do, but we do hand out all the tools at once, including block button, and I'd need to see more community interaction at least (and some article edits would be great, too). Ben, I really hope you run again after a bit if you don't make it this time. You seem like an asset to the project. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''', per above. Just 78 edits mainspace out of 2000+ total (still at the time I vote here) is something unbelievable for an admin. Try to increase your mainspace and next time I'll support. '''
I don't mind so much the template work or the lack of mainspace edits (although I do admit that it does affect my vote somewhat), but 2 months is below what I would consider a minimum.  All the tools come together, and there's too little interaction to tell whether you're equipped to handle the other tools.  See you in a couple months, where I'll probably support.
'''Oppose''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose'''. An admin should either be a prolific article editor or at least have been one in the past. If he lacks that experience, I don't think he is suitable for the job. I also just don't think it is healthy, from a community perspective, to have admins who aren't article editors.
'''Oppose'''. —
'''Oppose''' Not enough article experience.
'''Neutral''' - I'm a bit reluctant to support.  Has only been here 2 months and has not been involved in areas that are contentious.  While I can clearly see a need for the tools, a little more seniority would convince me he's able to keep a cool head in conflict. <font face="monospace">
'''Neutral'''. While I agree that the tools would be useful, I think a few more months experience, per comments made by Dgies, is necessary to gain, well, ''experience'' in editing. I agree that 2-3 months total is just too little to make an informed decision at this time. I would reconsider in another 3 months. ···
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) what the... 78 mainspace??? Well I'm really surprised at that you know... anyway, can't really oppose because you intend to work in a backlogged area that you have experience with, but 78? Sheesh that's pretty low tbh - remember we're writing an encyclopedia as well :P Good luck anyway, I still hope you pass. '''
'''Neutral''' at present. I would very much like to support- Neil's nomination is very convicing and I have had positive interactions with Ben. I have no problem with the amount of time he has been here. But his 78 mainspace contribs and 39 talk contribs are far too few. They reveal minimal involvement in generating encyclopedic content (and indeed in reverting vandalism). Ben has no real experience of editorial disputes on Wikipedia. It is almost impossible from his projectspace contribs to judge his knowledge of policy as regards deletion policy outside of templates. Given that Ben has little or no experience of most areas that administrators deal with, I don't think the good he would do with templates alone is enough to warrant adminship yet. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' - I have no problem with the lack of edits in the mainspace and he has been doing some great work, but three months is just not long enough.
'''Neutral''' per Johntex's oppose arguments.  I think Ben will make a very good admin, and will support him in a later nomination.
'''Neutral''' - like others, I agree that right now not quite enough experience, and can lean on others to get template changes thru, but a thanks to you for template help and maybe in the near enough future... &mdash; <span style="text-decoration: none;">
'''Neutral.''' Much potential, but too little experience in mainspace edits and time. Stick with it for a few more months and I'll happily support.
'''Neutral'''. I'd really like to support, and I agree that you could do well with the tools. I'm not as concerned about the mainspace edits, but I'd prefer it if you had a bit more experience. Go for another RFA in 3 or so months and I'll support. Cheers- '''[[User:CattleGirl|<font color="blue">Cat</font><font color="darkblue">tleG</font><font color="black">irl</font>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk: CattleGirl| talk]] |
'''Neutral'''. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia should first and foremost be an encyclopedia; I firmly believe that administrators should have made a decent range of article edits.  Additionally, the fact that this nomination was made after such a (relatively) short time on the project leads me to think that there would be no harm in waiting a while longer.  However, I sincerely hope to see this editor nominated again, after a little more (and more diverse) time with us here.--
'''Neutral''' - You sound like a great user who will be a real asset to Wikipedia! I applaud your work on templates and I agree with your need for the tools. I sincerely hope that you will return when you have a few more months and when you have had the time to make a few hundred edits to articles. Article editing does not require as much technical skill as template editing, to be sure; but it will be interesting, helpful, and will expose you to the wikipedia experience that most contributors have. —
'''Neutral'''. The complete lack of article writing and editing is really a concern, because administrators are managers of the encyclopedia. There is not much experience on deletion process either (except TFD). On principle, I have reservations about supporting someone to adminship which provides them with admin tools in all parts of Wikipedia, including the main article namespace, before they have any experience with writing the encyclopedia. With that said, I cannot really see anything where Ben has done something ''wrong''. And I can see a lot of good work here as well, the candidate is kind, civil, and handles himself well. I don't think that he would go rouge if promoted, even though the comparative short list of experience may induce some mistakes. His work with templates has also been tremendously beneficial. Lack of work with the encyclopedia itself is worrisome, but can to some degree be compensated by truly ''outstanding'' work elsewhere. Working with articles is not as tough as it might seem, and I think that ''some'' experience with that will be tremendously beneficial to the candidates understanding of 99% of Wikipedia's facets.
'''Support''' as nom. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - per [[User:Matthew|Matthew]]. Seriously, working CSD issues, bot or not, is a dirty job. [[Kudu|Kudos]] to Betacommand for doing it & putting up with a lot of abuse as a result. As someone who has previously been sysopped, the fundamental question is not whether I like the guy or not, but do I trust him with the sysop bit? And the answer is "yes". QED -
'''<s>Support Strong</s> Strongest support''' I don't believe he'll misuse or abuse the tools again.
'''Support''' A user such as Betacommand should not have to suffer another RfA because of the shocking stupidity of Arbcom. Their findings which flew in the face of the communities wishes at the time of Arbitration are nothing short of a disgrace.
'''Support''' - his ArbCom case is in the past and I believe that Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes. His image tagging work is excellent and I am positive he will use the tools wisely this time. In my opinion, his communication skills have improved significantly since his case and would work with the community should any concerns appear.
'''Support''': Betacommand does work that makes it easier for us to be both free and an encyclopedia. His bot work is merely hated because the English Wikipedia has too much of a fixation on its non-free media and its massive misuse in articles. His arbitration case and subsequent appeal to the arbitration committee should have no meaning here, where we discuss how we feel Betacommand will help us out with a few extra buttons. We know he's learned from past mistakes, and won't be repeating history if he gets his block and delete buttons back.—
'''Support''': I think he has learned his lesson about running bots with a sysop flag :) -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Strong Support''' - Lesson learned.  He does huge amounts of necessary, thankless work, and the tools will prove a great advantage.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''': Betacommand does a lot of unappreciated work in regards to CSD and I believe the ArbCom decision was rather unfair to him. I fully trust him with the tools, appreciate his contributions and believe that the tools themselves won't be misused under his guidance. Good luck.--
Betacommand cops a ridiculous amount of flak for no good reasons from the cruft-adoring, fair-use-loving fanboy brigade for trying to keep Wikipedia clean of junk that fundamentally contradicts our basic mission. Under such circumstances of intense pressure, I can forgive the odd slip.
'''Strongest support'''. He knows how to use the tools, he has the experience, he knows fair use policy, and now everyone's watching him. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Strong support''' Betacommand was a great admin in the past...I miss him as an admin.
'''Titanium Support''' - What can i say, he deserves it. He is very under-appreciated, (come-on give him credit for his hard work). [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] proves my point..He has  had his bad days but his contribution and his [[User:BetacommandBot|alter-ego]]'s contribution has been Admirable..Best of Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' absent any oppose based on post Arbcom decision behavior. I saw none in the dif's provided. It's only been 4 months since the Arbcom case, so I feel I'm going out on a limb here. 6 would have been better. No disrespect to '''ArbCom,''' but my hope is that the good this nom does will outweigh the harm he caused.
'''Support''' yes. Betacommand has learned from his past mistakes and I've seen him work towards a productive solution at difficult times [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_6#Template:Wider_attention_list_and_Template:Wider_attention]. Give him another chance. <b>
'''Support''' without question.  He's made mistakes... who hasn't?  They were not malicious.  Every time I see Betacommand act, it is with the project's best interests in mind.  We need users and admins like Betacommand. --
I trust him.  --
'''Support''' Beta is a great user. If the ArbCom had trouble reaching a consensus, I see no reason by any stretch of the imagination to oppose based on ArbCom precedent. —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Support'''.  Arbcom has never said that BC should never again be an admin.  They have said he should request adminship from the community if he wants it back.  So, if we think he's learned from the problems of the past (I think he has) and he'll continue to work as hard for the project as he always has (I think he will) then let's give it to him.
'''Support''' unreservedly. I can think of few people who have done more to uphold the core mission of our encyclopedia.
'''Support''' I definitely believe that Wikipedia will benefit from having Betacommand resysnopped. He has done very much good work for the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - The Arbcom did NOT say they he could never be an Admin again. They simply Desyopped him. The Arbcom clearly said that he could reapply whenever he wanted. He is a great editor who made a few mistakes a few months ago and has learned from them. There is no reason he shouldn't be an admin based on something that he has learned from. I trust him.
'''Support'''. Betacommand isn't perfect, and has made mistakes in the past. However, he's done a lot of good for the project as an admin, and I think it would be an unfortunate mistake for the community to reject his dedication and expertise. I trust that he has learned from his past mistakes. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' Despite comments linked by the opposers like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=131566767&oldid=131548199/ this one], showing Betacommands incivility, BC would be really helpful to the project if given back the tools. Its a shame that BC was desysopped, since now it will be really hard to regain the administrative rights, but I believe that BC has learned to be more careful and would value more the new tools and use them with care in case of RfA success, knowing that they can be taken away in case of misuse. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - I have worked a great deal with you over the last year or so, especially in the last several months.  You always work with the best interests of the project in mind and you never go for personal glory.  You do the thankless tasks that many others wish not to do, but which must be done.  I've been waiting for this to happen and I hope it is successful.  Regardless of how it turns out, you will always have my support. --
'''Strong Support'''. Betacommand's an iffy case of course, users either think he's great or he's terrible. In my case, I think he's great, and should be given the tools back. He's THE guy I go to regarding image questions, script questions, etc. I know there's issues, but the risks are far overshadowed by the benefits I believe.
'''Strong support:''' It is unfortunate that some people are more focused on the how friendly someone is in their discussions, rather than on the integrity of the project. Betacommand has shown a strong commitment to the latter and deserves to be readmined.

'''Support.''' No he's not perfect. He has been uncivil on occasion in the past, though not without provocation. I am also sure he has learned from the events surrounding his desysopping and will be all the better for it. Betacommand does a lot of crucial and excellent work here: work that few others are willing to partake in and brings him a lot of often unfair and unfounded criticism. With all his efforts in this department, I believe that the net effect of Betacommand becoming an admin again will be beneficial to the project. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' BC has been really helpful towards others. I just wish there was some way that the arbcom committee could put BC on admin patrol, where he could be monitored instead of his admin powers being taken away all together. Do you think there can be some sort of appeal to arbcom or [[WP:COM|agreement by the community]] to put him on an administrative patrol trial? I know that this is currently occurring with another administrator at this point in time. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' To stop him badgering the rest of us to do his work ~
Aye. In case of accident, we'll behead you again as needed, I am sure. -- <b>
'''Very very very strong support'''. I would trust BC with the buttons, without question. DESPITE the way we've been treating him, he STILL runs that bot, which does a lot to help WP, with FU image problems, which, not only is a thankless job, it's a job that seems to get you attacked, every hour or so. I'd like to see how civil some of us would be, if confronted with the same.
'''Just barely support''' On the whole, I think resysoping Betacommand would have a positive impact but I do share the concerns about his lack of civility, often unduly aggressive approach to conflict, as well as the issues raised in the ArbCom case. It seems likely that this RfA will fail which accurately reflects the community's lack of trust in Betacommand. Still, as I argued in Elonka's last RfA, I think it would be wiser of us all to be more forgiving, at least to a certain extent. Undoubtedly, Betacommand would be kept on a very short leash were he resysoped and although he says he would not be formally open to recall, the reality is that any sort of abuse on his part would quickly (and deservedly so) turn into much fuss on ANI, RfC and ArbCom. Call me naive, but I believe that this partly guarantees that he won't be a problematic admin.
'''Support''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  That the arbcom declined to re-sysop him is irrelevant to this discussion.  Too many people are viewing this inaction as a ''de facto'' prohibition on Beta's being made an administrator when it is clearly not the case.  The fundamental question we should be asking ourselves at this RfA is not "Does Arbcom think this user should be an admin?" but rather "Do I trust this user to be an admin?"  By blindly opposing just because arbcom did is tantamount to surrendering the voice of the community in deference to the voice of one committee.  That is most certainly ''not'' how consensus works, is not how RfA is supposed to work, and is fundamentally in opposition to the core spirit of the project :/  Had Arbcom issued a ruling saying "This user cannot be sysopped" that might be one thing, but all they did was decline to do so themselves.  The rest of us editors have a voice, too.  As far as the question at hand, my answer is yes, I can trust this user.
'''Support''' I echo Pascal and Danny. Civility is an issue, but one which Betacommand seems to be addressing. More to the point, Betacommand would be subject to far more scrutiny than a normal admin, given past history. I think his knowledge, skill, and overall contributions outweigh the concerns listed below, most of which actually seem to stem from his communicative style in some way.
'''Extreme supper strong support'''.  Wikipedia needs ''more'' admins who want to do the dirty work that Betacommand does.  He shouldn't have lost his bit to begin with.  He pisses people off because of the important work he does.
'''Strong support''' Betacommand is a workhorse of an editor and clearly gets things dones. Adminship isn't a big deal, it is just giving trusted users a few extra tools. Betacommand is the sort of editor who will use the tools. Most RfAs claim that they will help with CSD and other backlogs, but how many actually do? I am 100% positive that this user WILL be more productive than most admins in the mundane tasks that only users with sysop tools can perform. RfA shouldn't be a popularity contest. Betacommand doesn't have to be our best friend. And Betacommand isn't scared to tackle the tougher areas, such as the non-free image backlogs (a place clearly where you aren't going to make friends). I believe Betacommand has learned from the Arbcom case and I believe will not make the same mistakes twice. -
'''Support''' - ArbCom made a very bad move in desysopping him. Arbitration remedies, as much as blocks, are to be preventative. Desysopping Betacommand implied that he was a danger to the project with a mop. Such a finding is, quite frankly, stupid, based on the findings of fact of that case. Running adminbots to perform absolutely mundane tasks is not one of the seven deadly wikisins. In desysopping Betacommand, ArbCom ignored the fact that Betacommand has done a huge amount of work for this project, and cares very much for its success. Since his desysopping, Betacommand took the incredibly annoying and thankless job of fair use patrolling, and put up with '''kilobytes''' of various bitching and moaning from people who got their favorite <insert TV show name> screenshot deleted. It takes a lot of patience to deal with fair use fanatics, which assures me that Betacommand will use the tools justly and appropriately, and will NOT cause damage to the project. Because becoming an administrator is no big deal, right?
'''Very Strongly Support''' Very trusworthy editor, worthy of adminship --
'''Support'''.  Also, as an aside to some of the opposers, I want to point out that just because Arbcom refused to preform a ''fiat'' sysoping of Betacommand, they have not declared that Betacommand is unqualified or unfit to be a sysop at the present time.  I feel strongly that it is outside of Arbcom's purview to declare Betacommand a sysop at this point so soon after a defrocking without an RFA, and would have been miffed by such an action given the circumstances; however, those of you  who claim that the arbiters believe that Betacommand is an unfit sysop are probably reading too much into the recent vote.  &#10154;
'''Support''' Betacommand actions could be described as controversial but i personally consider them to be for the benefit of Wikipedia in general. --
'''''Really, Really, Really'' Strong support''' A brill user. Will make a ''great'' admin--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">

'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Betacommand is a wonderful editor, an unequaled image policy expert, and, to top it all off, an all-around coding genius. I see no reason to oppose such a fine Wikipedian, and a fine individual. Yes, you can bring up his Arbitration case, but it is clear that he has learned from his mistakes, and I am sure that that will never happen again. It truly pains me to see such a fine, responsible editor opposed for an issue that will most certainly never reappear. It's hard to see editors here say "If the ArbCom doesn't want him to be an administrator, then neither do I". Your decision to support or oppose an RfA should be based on your own opinions, not solely the opinions of others. If we are truly honest with ourselves, we'd understand that people change for the better. Terribly, though, many of the opposers of this candidate have failed to see how much progress Betacommand has made since that RfAr. He might not have made a good administrator then, but now, he would be one of the greatest in all of Wikipedia. It is truly a shame to see a person who could truly help here be turned down by the people he would've ended up helping. With high hopes and heavy heart, '''
'''Support''' per Pascal Tesson and Alison.
'''Support''' All my interactions with Beta have been nothing but good.
'''Strong Support''' I think Beta's behavior greatly improved the past few months. Given the amount of biting he received by newcomers and regulars, I'm impressed he is still willing to help us improve the encyclopedia. I hope this RfA won't fail because people didn't want to take into account / bother to check how Betacommand's behavior changed.--
'''Moral support''' - I think ß is a great editor, who kicks us all in the seat of the pants to get us to do things right. It might smart, but it's for a good reason. That being said, I admit some worries given the opposition. Good luck Betacommand.
'''Support''' per Alison and Riana.
'''Support''' per Alison. He does work that is normally hated by other wikipedians; therefore making our tasks easier! --
'''Support'''--''[[User:Wikipedier|Wikipedier]]'' is now

'''Support''' Beta has done a lot of controversial work, and has taken a lot of beating from that.  I understand the responses he has given to that.  For the rest, it is time served, it is time to give Beta the bit back.  --
'''Strong Support''' for many of the reasons given by others above.. --
'''Strongest Possible Support''', the community needs more administrators who are willing to do what's right, even if it's not popular. Betacommand is one of those. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>
'''Support''' He shouldn't be opposed for running the bot.  Copyright matters.  I agree that βcommand could still stand to be more communicative.  But I also think he's learned from the mistakes of the past and has made a good faith effort to communicate more.  I hope that in the future, he's given another chance, as it's pretty unlikely he'll get the bit back this time around. --
Nobody's perfect, but he's doing a good job overall and the encyclopedia would benefit from giving him the mop back.

Support. I don't believe he would abuse admin tools. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Does a lot of necessary work around here.  Who will pick up the slack? --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - works hard at a tough job that needs to be done; I trust him to use the tools to benefit the project.
'''Support''' because he does what is right, even though it is hard and  unappreciated work, and rewarded with little but abuse.
'''Support''' He does do a lot dirty work and gets no credit.--
'''Support''' This is an RFA for Betacommand, not Betacommandbot. BC puts up with a lot of crap because of the work the bot does and the occasional glitches. I don't have an issue with BC's civility; terseness is not the same as incivility. This may be too late, but I believe BC should get his admin rights back.

'''Support''' - I believe in second chances. I believe in forgiveness.  I believe the indefinite desysopping was excessive.  But please keep your bot away from the tools. --
'''Support''' - Thanks for addressing my recent concerns with  BetacommandBot so quickly. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose''' Unreliable and cannot be trusted.
'''Oppose''' — I've had experiences with this user and nonr have been pleasant. I don't think he was/would be a good administrator. My experiences with
The only relevant question is, how will he use the admin tools?  RFA is tricky because we ''almost always'' have to guess.  Here, we need to do no guessing, we only need look at how he used them before they were taken away.  From the very beginning of his admin career, his admin actions were frequently highly questionable.  Mistakes are certainly allowed, but this goes beyond a simple mistake.  (I edited my comment comment here; the original follows: I think [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand]] is informative here.  Betacommand has a history of poor judgment and poor communication regarding his activities.  We don't have to guess how he would use the admin tools, we already know.)
'''Oppose''' - sorry, man. I respect you, and I appreciate everything you do here, but if the Arbitration Committee doesn't want you to be an admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=155663040&oldid=155641075], then neither do I. You are constantly uncivil and blocked. It'd be madness to give you admin rights if you constantly make mistakes with your bot. Also, you don't have much mainspace participation. Again, sorry. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Matthew, regarding the communitive skills, and I think you make enough errors ''without'' admin tools to make things worse. Your recent RfAr is showing/has shown that the arbitrators do not want you to be resysopped. I agree with them. '''
'''Oppose for the moment''' [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand]] raised many, many issues and trust is of high importance for me when it comes to adminship. Would like to see a longer post-desysop history of evidence of trust. Highly respected but I can't support yet. Sorry,
I am sorry but I am going to have to '''oppose'''.  While Bcommand has made some good contributions that shape Wikipedia, such as our NFCC, I do not trust this user, mostly because of his controversial bot.  I also oppose because of how he deals with other users that may get him to respond without [[WP:COOL|his cool]] (Q #3).  The RFAR on this user's behalf is also very scary when someone comments in this RFA.  The block log is also shamefully scary. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''oppose''' nominator states: "BC is always willing to help out other users and explains procedures and guidelines" I have not found this to be the case, not even close. The only time I've been driven to (try) quitting wikipedia has been due to frustrations over this issue.
'''Oppose'''. Far too controversial. Just yesterday his bot "ran amuck" again. The user hasn't changed. ---
'''Oppose''' Too controversial. Per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=131566767&oldid=131548199/ Rude Comment], and also his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:BetacommandBot block log for his bot]. I am not just opposing about his bot, I am opposing because of the rude comment. It shows lack of self-control. And this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Betacommand block log of Betacommand]. This came to me upon further review. The arbcom just 2 days ago had a vote to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=155663040&oldid=155641075/ give back admin powers to Betacommand]. It failed. That also says the arbcom does not have faith in you yet.  Sorry. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Oppose''' I seem to remember quite a few cases where his civility was lacking in dealing with people complaining about his bot. Wether they were in the right or the wrong, running a bot like this is likely to attract a lot of comments and some of what I have seen has been terse at best. Add that to the committee's opinion that they can't trust him with the tools and you have my oppose.
'''Nope'''. Began to go off the rails immediately after his first RfA, didn't stop until forced to do so. Given evidence of abuse and misuse of his admin tools, and the exceptionally poor communication that went with it, there is every reason not to re-sysop. I can't see why we need to, given the regular production from this page of admins ''without'' a track-record of bad stuff. Furthermore, he went through that POINT-making (in the actual, experimental disruption meaning of the page) phase of username tantrums by dumping hundreds of them on [[WP:AIV]] in temper. Much demonstration is made above of continuing issues of incivilty. Also, the question of the operation of Betacommandbot and the endless trials and tribulations it causes are material here: the complaints about them are in general handled at the highest level of indignation. Finally, the arbitration committee has just last week or so refused to re-sysop him, which advice is good; and this after de-sysopping him in almost record time in the first place.
'''Oppose''' bot is not {{t1|nobots}} compliant. Though this is optional, making and running such a bot on a large scale does not show the kind of intentions I want to see with an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - While this editor does a lot of very valuable work, the civility issues concern me. --
'''Oppose''' per above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&contribs=user&target=Betacommand&namespace=0]... last 1,000 edits reveal apparently nothing but removals of images, links and other content. I think adding to articles rather than just removing from them is important to being able to make good decisions as an admin. --
'''Oppose''', per the civility issues above, and my own observation/experience.
'''Oppose''' As has been stated above, most admins are promoted without really knowing how they will act once they have the bit. In this case we do know and it was a sorry story of blantantly ignoring established procedure and arrogantly ignoring other users. This only stopped because of the ArbCom's involvement. I have no doubt that Betacommand would not be so blatant in future, but they have shown their true colours and I cannot imagine ever trusting this individual with adminship again.
'''Oppose''', while I appreciate that Betacommand makes many valuable contributions, there were serious issues that led to desysopping and it is far too soon to tell if Betacommand has learned from those mistakes.  It has only been four months.  Even if we wipe the slate clean, a four month track-record is not enough for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. He's done good work at times in the past, but I'm not ready to trust him in a position of authority again, at least not yet. Sorry. -
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Earlier this year he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerry_Adams&diff=127961342&oldid=127959958 removed] an entire section from [[Gerry Adams]], claiming that that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betacommand&diff=prev&oldid=127968296 those sources are not reliable and are anti-adams POV/slander sites] and they were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGerry_Adams&diff=128098708&oldid=128097462 very POV sources]. This was completely false, as I debunked those claim [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGerry_Adams&diff=128154690&oldid=128098708 here]. He also removed a paragraph that that was sourced by four different books, clearly meeting the "proper sourcing and Multiple reliable sources" he requested, and refused to answer any questions about why that paragraph was removed as [[User talk:Betacommand/20070501#Gerry Adams removal|this]] shows. Totally appalling judgement, and a blatant refusal to admit to or discuss his mistake. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' As the arbcom says, history of poor judgement, history of inappropriate blocks, bad communication, inappropriate conduct concerning due process of wikipedia which is highly needed when running mass edit bots and you want to make him admin. Doesn't need admin to help with image backlogs.--
'''Oppose''' Poor judgment, poorly thought out blocks, brittle, defensive and uncivil demeanor...bad enough for an editor  but not at all appropriate for an admin. Danny's comments above are off the mark, being civil and defending the integrity of the project are both important and are both core values. Both qualities are necessary in an admin/editor..."defending the Wiki" without behavioral guidelines would leave us barking at each other while wondering why fewer and fewer new editors are coming on board or stay long enough to be productive. Defending the integrity of the project is done on many fronts.
'''Oppose'''. The things which got the candidate desysopped was not a single bad incident as in the case of Carnildo, but a pattern which lasted over a long time. There was demonstrated a serious lack of communication, explanation, and consideration, and the rather abbreviated response to question 3 (conflicts) does nothing to alleviate that concern.
'''Oppose'''. Betacommand's conduct since his defrocking has been every bit as disgraceful as before. I urge him to move away from IRC (which brought him into disrepute) and to channel his activities in a more positive way than fighting harmless userspace pages of departed wikipedians. This suggests a serious lack of judgment. --
'''Oppose''' - The user has not provided us with enough evidence of change on his part. Many of his recent edits are mainly routine deletions and such and not interactions with people, so we have not really seen how the user will act under stress.  If he did not have a history this would be fine.  However, it is known that he loses it sometimes.  So, I am afraid that the editor will pull a 'Bus Uncle' (featured article baby!) on someone.  This coupled with civility issues and other concerns raised above make it not possible for me to support the editor any time soon.  I think your RfA may be more successful if you do some work that requires interaction for a while.  This will make more of the community get to know you and, more importantly, you will get the opportunity to erase any sign of concern off the minds of those opposing today.  Thanks,
'''Oppose''' per most of the people above. Poor communication skills, poor behaviour, poor attitude. I haven't seen enough change in recent months to believe that this time will be any different from the last. No thanks. '''
'''Oppose''' Betacommand is dedicated to a difficult job which does not require the administrator bit. Maybe because of this, Betacommand tends to be a poor communicator and tends to require mediation, rather than facilitating it himself. Also the timing of this request, just after a request at arbcom for resysopping was rejected is a little worrying. I think that Betacommand is a good editor who should not be an admin at this time.
Strangly, I agree with Krator.  Sorry mate, but that pushed me over the line in to oppose territory.
'''Oppose''' I cannot possibly support this RfA when there's civility issues raised as per previous comments. The ArbCom case was quite troubling - Betacommand excerised incredibly poor judgement previously, and I do not believe four months is an adequate time period to be nominating for Adminship again considering the details in the case. '''
'''Oppose''' per Splash.  It's not his bot that bothers me, but his uncommunicative demeanor.  His past record shows he cannot be trusted to deal with the mop in a open, friendly, constructive manner.
'''Oppose''' Missing the sense of community and the civility gene that make for a successful admin. Unnecessarily rough-edged implementation of a bot affecting an enormous number of users. No thanks.
'''Oppose''' Forum shopping.  ArbCom turned down your request to get it back that way, and the fact you're trying here shows to me you're not ready. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' - Adminship is not a big deal, so why be so eager to get it back, and to hold on to it so fiercely per answer to Q4? I believe candidate should be willing to give some concessions to the community; since it's not the case, perhaps restoring his admin privs is not such a good idea at the time.
'''Oppose.'''  Ok first of all, I think people are bringing up the past a little too much here - yes, there's plenty of cause for concern there, but I feel it's against the spirit of the ArbCom ruling to not be even ''open'' to the idea of a resysopping.  However, Betacommandbot has been a consistent problem (as recently as yesterday: see [[WT:CSD]], and is still a problem now.  If Betacommand wants to win my trust back, I think the best way will be for him to show that he will change his approach to his bot.  In particular, it's obvious that Betacommand changes the bot's code regularly, in order to change its functionality; he does this without approval, warning, or testing, and it frequently causes malfunctions.  I advise Betacommand to reread [[WP:B]] and to understand that his bot, unlike most of the others, is unpredictable, frequently harmful, and undocumented.  If Betacommand can address these issues and make his bot something that people have real input on, that he communicates about the bot well and is appropriately cautious with it, then I would be willing to say that he has changed his approach and can be similarly trusted to handle admin tools well again.  In a sense, Betacommand is in a unique position to be able to regain the community's trust, since being a bot operator is ''very much'' like being an admin; they both have power for good and for evil, and they are trusted to restrain themselves and be communicative.  But he's not the kind of bot operator i'd want to see as an admin, at least not right now.
'''Oppose'''. I can understand that Betacommand must be frustrated at the regular complaints he receives about his bot (most of which are baseless and simply consist of dissatisfaction with, ignorance of, or apathy toward the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free content policy]]), but I have concerns regarding his communication. For instance: point 10 of the notice on his talk page; a similar sentiment could be expressed without use of the terms "whine and complain". '''
'''Oppose'''. While the work with images is important, I must oppose as per the Arb Com @ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=155663040&oldid=155641075]  --
'''No.''' I have no way to know that I could trust this user again with the tools, per their unnecessary, irrational blocks of other users. --
'''Oppose'''  The user does not respond appropriately to queries about admin actions, and has used the tools inappropriately in the past.  Good editor for sure, but it is my feeling we gave it the ol' college try the first time around and things didn't work out.  Not all are meant to be custodians- someone has to do the work that needs cleaned up after.
'''Oppose''', will go ''Sideways'' with mop, again. -
'''Oppose''', as the response from some of the members of AbCom on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_restore_adminship|recent request]] to AbCom to restore sysop goes, maybe somewhere down the road, but I don't think issues that have arisen in the past have settled down enough yet.
'''Oppose''' The notion that we should disregard the pre-ArbComm behaviour is ludicrous, and reason to disregard the opinions of those who support with that logic.  We should give extra weight to his behaviour ''as an admin'', all of which is from before the ArbComm.  In November 2006 he was blocked for using a deletion bot as an administrator.  Unblocked then as " don't think he is going to do that again", in February he was again blocked for using a bot on the main account.  He never responded on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand|his RfC]].  He is running untested, poorly considered bot tasks, which he knows would be highly controversial even if the coding was bug free.  And it is regularly buggy as he keeps changing what the bot is actually doing.  The evidence since he lost admin tools is that he will repeat the sort of behavior that led to losing them.  So, as a preventative measure, he should not get them back.
'''Oppose''' per all the above. I could add more details, but it's just be rubbing extra salt.
'''Oppose''' per Johntex. ~
'''Oppose''' per Sarah, too soon after desyropping
'''Oppose''' One of the complaints brought by the community in Betacommand's ArbCom case was that he was simply "brushing off" legitimate complaints about his action, and not admitting or understanding that he was at fault. His answer to question 3 shows that he has still not learnt anything from this, as he considers all his conflicts to be due to other users who make "personal attacks and WP:CIVIL breaches". Also, admins need to be open to communication from other users, and having a template with a huge stop sign on your talk page that basically says "f*** off" does not really help that.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above, especially the continuing problems with civility, and the continuing problems with his bot. In response to those who have argued that his bot has nothing to do with him becoming an admin, on the contrary, his bot is a tool, just like the admin tools we are considering giving to him, and how he operates one tool can reveal a lot about how he will likely operate others. Also, because I believe that hyperfocusing on strict enforcement of rules (such as the [[WP:NFCC|non-free content criteria]]), is contrary to [[WP:BURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]. Ironically, I might not have even noticed this RfA if not for the bot's most recent bug of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=156003798&oldid=155985024#Image:Darkprincecover.jpg incorrectly tagging fair-use images which had valid fair-use rationales].
'''Oppose'''. The ArbCom found multiple instances of poorly-thought-out behavior, such as blocking a lot of harmless usernames, and unprotecting lots of people's userpages, many of which were protected in defense against editors posting personal information (such as mine.) The only answer he was able to come up with for doing his was that he was clearing some backlog. Just recently there was a thread on ANI because he was proposing deletion of lots of users' harmless subpages. I wouldn't want to give the admin tools back when I know he has used them for very counter-productive purposes such as this, when there is reasonable evidence he would do so again. There are more pressing issues than clearing some random 'backlog' at the very bottom of the list of possible tasks on Wikipedia, and doing so with an absence of common sense.
'''Strong oppose''' per all of above, especially Boricuæddie's comments. --'''
'''Oppose''' Respectfully I must oppose per civility issues and per MangoJuice's reasoning above, which expresses my concerns much better than I could have.
'''Strong Oppose:'''  Sorry, but that bot is a menace and has been for a long time.  It, and its creator, demonstrate Wikipedia at its very worst: as indiscriminately pounding bureaucrateze without much care for communication, common sense, consensus or real world law.  I am unmoved by the numerous Support voters who state that he's been doing a thankless job.  Above all, the most important virtue in an admin is ''good judgment''.  That Betacommand has not only failed to demonstrate, he'd much rather let a computer program exercise judgment in his stead.  His detractors aren't upset because he's doing a thankless job, rather because he's been abrupt, abrasive and uncommunicative doing it, and I see nothing in Wikipedia policy giving editors a free ride just because they (voluntarily) choose to work for the black gang.  I can't possibly imagine why putting ''more'' authority in his hands would be a good idea.  What's next, the XfDClosingBot?
'''Very Strong Oppose:''' Absolutely not. Betacommand has demonstrated very poor judgement in the past and I see no evidence of any change. This user cannot be trusted with administrator rights. He is the antithesis of what a Wikipedia Administrator should be.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. On the one hand, I have very little respect for the ArbCom as an institution; their recent judgments have been a catalogue of errors, and the assessment of them as a "kangaroo court" is precisely correct. Also, I respect many of the editors who have commented in the Support section, and I agree that Betacommand does essential work as an image-use patroller, one of the most difficult and demanding fields of work on Wikipedia. However, I am still concerned with some of the behaviour that came to light in the arbitration case. Unfortunately, because there is no mechanism for community recall of admins, many admins have a tendency to become less communicative once they pass RfA, and to act as they see fit rather than following the will of the community. Because of this situation, I have to give more weight to Betacommand's behaviour while he was an admin, some of which was quite worrying, than to the good work he's done since. Don't get me wrong; I commend him for his hard work in removing copyvio images, and I hope he will continue to contribute. But I can't support him as an admin.
'''Oppose''' I don't trust him with the buttons (or even with the bot). ˉˉ<sup>
'''Oppose''' After the recent bot incident, I promptly reached his bot user page to prevent the boyt from tagging more fair use templated images, but when I got there, many other complaints were already there. From what I saw, the queries were completely ignored, and I got no replies from him at all. Even without that said, the ArbCom made it clear who he is not sysop material, and that taking sysop away was the best. I stand by that fact, and believe that if he gets resysopped, it would be blatantly overruling ArbCom, and giving power back to a somewhat apathetic user. <strong><small><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:Gray">-- Tommy Boy
'''Oppose''' Little recent participation on article talk pages or in user talk, consequently insufficient evidence for me to decide if past incivility issues have been resolved.
'''Oppose'''. There seems to be this tendency to use clear communication as a little strawman to avoid actual user conduct issues. Now, Betacommand did sometimes have problems with clear communication, which was not good, and I'm glad that he recognizes that and intends to change it. But the problem was only partly communication; most of the problem that got him desysopped was that he did things that he shouldn't have. I have yet to see even an admission of any wrongdoing for this, much less an apology. And there really needs to be one. -
'''Oppose''', regretfully.  At the time of Betacommand's de-sysop, I encouraged him to reapply in the future, and still do.  However, I think that the best way for me to make a judgment in a case like this is to essentially "wipe clean the slate" at the time of the desysop and look at actions from that date forward, ''as a first step in the process''.  The second step is to consider the actions that led to desysop and evaluate whether I believe those actions would be repeated.  In this case, with ''n'' as the date of the desysop, ''n + ~4 months'' does not give me sufficient data upon which to judge whether someone should be sysop'd.  It would taken an extraordinary case for me to recommend a sysop after only four months of activity, which is essentially what we're being asked to do here.  Based upon that, this request fails the first part of my equation.  I still encourage Betacommand to consider re-applying later.  There is no doubt in my mind that at some point, I will gladly support such a request.  I just think it's too soon.  -
'''Oppose''' per Philippe. Long history of aggressive use of administrative tools. Controvertial actions need to be taken at times, but I think Betacommand has exercised far too little reservation in highly controvertial procedures and been unresponsive to repeated complaints. I haven't noticed very objectionable actions in the months that have passed, but desysopping wasn't his first serious warning, and while I'm confident that Betacommand wouldn't go on similar rampages, I'm still concerned about his unsatisfactory communication and reluctance to listen to complaints. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to oppose this user, but I must, given that there are a large number of support 'votes'. The candidate has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=131566767&oldid=131548199 uncivil] as recently as May. The problems identified at Request for Arbitration are enormous but not insurmountable. The candidate needs to earn more trust. -
'''Oppose''' per Matthew.
'''Oppose''' Does great work for the project, but the diffs provided by Mathew and others do not show the type of temperament needed by those trusted with the tools. Keep up the good work, though. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Oppose''' 1. His bot cannot be trusted (e.g. it wrongly deleted two of my fair use images while I was on wikibreak), which I believe says a lot about his bot's owner.  2. His grammar and spelling are particularly poor.
'''Oppose''' per communication and civility issues. I could never support any candidate with an answer as poor as this to Q3. --
'''Oppose''' too much stuff brought up is true. Sorry but I just cant support. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per One Night in Hackney (oppose #20). I was going to stay neutral till I saw your behavior there - removing an acceptably referenced section, twice, in the name of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], protecting the article, and then failing to provide an adequate explanation for your actions. That said, I'm puzzled by the people who are opposing you just for the work you and your bot do with images, as the issue seems to bear no relation to how you would use admin tools if you were resysopped.
'''Oppose''' per Splash, Mangojuice and Grandmasterka (among others). Would be willing to support at some future point following more article writing contributions and demonstration of more responsive interactions with other editors.
'''Oppose''' Per pretty much everything above. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Poor communication with the community at large when issues have arisen.
'''Strong Oppose''' Bot tagged my image even though it had a correct fair use rationale, and when I queried this on his/her talk page, my message was deleted and I received no reply???
'''Strong opposition.'''  This user frequently engages in irresponsible, dishonest behavior.  He typically disregards feedback and stubbornly refuses to cooperate with others.  —
'''Oppose''' per Matthew. Too many pervious blocking related issues and arbcom case scares me a bit.
'''Oppose''' as per "The Parsnip!".
'''Oppose''' communication issues seem to be a common theme throughout the opposes. Recently he asked an adminship candidate to give a reason to oppose his own RfA, though he eventually supported stating ''sorry for being difficult with my question, I was looking at how you answered not necessarily what you said. as admins often get into hard places.'' I'm sure there will be editors who approve of pressuring potential admin candidate to see their mettle and examine their suitability. To  me however, it seemed machiavellian to ask a question which can only put the editor in a badlight no matter whether he answers it or not. Whether this was intentional or a communication issue I am not sure. I supported his initial RfA as he has and still does some fantastic work, but in conjunction with the above examples and my recent experience I will unfortunately oppose. <sup>
'''Oppose'''. Adminship should be about quality, not quantity, and my experience with this user and his/her bot brings to mind the word "steamroller". My ideal admin does not put disclaimers at the top of their talk page that direct complaints and discourage discussion with big red "warning" symbols. –
'''Oppose'''. User and his/her bot have built a reputation for acting without due consideration, engendering many bad feelings and a lack of trust in the community.
'''Oppose''', per Matthew.
'''Never''', per David levy. Incivility is bad enough; dishonesty is unforgivable. This user has demonstrated tendencies I never want to see associated with the sysop tools. -- ''
'''Oppose'''. Betacommand has been given more than enough chances - I do not believe he is, or ever will be, capable of using the admin buttons responsibly.  He is far too sensitive to criticism, he has been shown to be dishonest (per the arbcom case), he is a policy wonk, the image deletion spree was a disaster (he should never be given a delete button), he doesn't understand BLP (see above), he lacks any kind of assumption of good faith and is [[WP:BITE|bitey]] (look at the multitude of very dubious username blocks he used to issue without any kind of discussion with the new users), he throws tantrums (see the response mentioned above when he was asked to stop autoblocking usernames because his bot - running on his admin account without permission, of course - was so badly written it was making false positives - his response was to spam [[WP:RFCN]] with names) and he is rude, discourteous, and uncivil (per countless diffs above). So, that is a no.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Sorry, per all of the above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=131566767&oldid=131548199 this]. → [[User:Jackrm|<b><font color="Red">j</font><font color="black">acĸrм </font></b>]]<small>( [[User_talk:Jackrm|<font color="Black"> talk</font>]] |
'''Oppose''', major behavioral concerns.
'''Oppose''', while his bot has done good things for Wikipedia, I can't ignore [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=131566767&oldid=131548199 this edit]. The fact that he felt the need to tell someone to "shut the fuck up" is a little over the top, and personally I would be intimited if he were an admin. With that said however, I really do admire his work on Wikipedia and think he is a great editor. --
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see a longer period of good behavior. The whole point of adminship is that you can look away for months, and trust that the admin has been working away quietly without generating any drama.
Piling on '''oppose'''. Betacommand does not have the judgement nor the temperament necessary to be an administrator. Given the difficulty of removing an admin, for someone who has managed to do enough damage to suffer that fate to come back and ask for admin powers again is flat-out insulting to the Wikipedia community. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose'''
'''Solidly oppose''' this nom as the candidate does not have nearly enough ''contributions'' to the article namespace, plenty of deletions and removals, but the bot he runs seems to cause more problems than it's worth:  If I have not ever heard of you, but have seen your bot 'getting in trouble' frequently/chronically enough that I feel I know your bot 'in a bad way' that seems to me to be a bad sign.  Also I generally feel that admins should be generally beyond reproach insofar as their behavior goes, but BC seems to be reproached pretty often.  We may need more admins, but we don't need any that are just here for the extra buttons.  Betacommand should try his hand at starting a new article, and should ''add'' content to existing articles, and maybe develop a pet project (although if the bot was more presentable, I'd consider that a 'project').  Solid editors with thousands of stable additions to the article namespace, courteous behaviour, general helpfulness, and an ability to work with any collaborators on any subject... that's the kind of editors I want as admins. Sorry, but get some experience with writing stable prose that meets consensus, POV, and all other policies... and I mean a LOT of that, and I would vote for you, with a minor attitude adjustment to bring you up to the 'beyond reproach' level.
'''Oppose''' - sorry but civil discussion ranks #1 in my list of admin criteria.
'''Oppose''' - uncivility and also due to the way too numerous replies by supporters to oppose votes.  a RFA should not have every oppose vote argued by a few friends of the nominated
'''Oppose''' Sorry Beta, but I don't believe you have the level of community support required for administrators. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Neutral'''. Although skilled and respected, I am wary about resysopping Betacommand because of said reasons from the opposing side. However, it's almost impossible to escape unscathed when working in the hell of images and fair use, and I respect that. '''''
'''Neutral'''-You're a great editor, your bot is probably one of the best, if not the best out there. You have to put up with a lot of the people illiterate on image policy, even with the big stop  sign on your page. I'm just worried about the civilty. You're block log shows a lot. And a lot of times admins are the face of Wikipedia (ie. a newbie comes to your talk page, you delete a page and someone disagrees). We need someone who will keep cool. If you can go a few more months without being blocked/not losing your cool a lot, I will support right away. I trust you as a sysop, and trusted you as one, but I don't know how you'll communicate with the users that come flocking to your talk page complaining. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Neutral''' - I will not bring up the arb-com case because it has been brought up so much already. You certainly have done some good work, but your communication style stinks. Your rude comments that I have seen in several situations apalls me and needs to be changed. I'm sorry to say that I don't feel giving you the tools back would be a wise move. Sorry, but neutral. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' Betacommand does a lot of good work, but I read the ArbCom case at the time, and if I recall correctly, he was given at least two or three warnings to stop deleting images with the bot before he was desysopped.  Those circumstances make it difficult for me to support giving the delete button back to Betacommand, even though he has the credentials.
'''Neutral''' you do very fine work here, but your manner of discourse is lacking at times. --
'''Neutral''' - it's still the poor communication skills that are my main concern.  I don't have any doubts about his good intentions.
'''Neutral'''.  Perhaps "ambivalent" would be a better word: Betacommand and his bot do a difficult, unpleasant (for BC and for the users who don't adhere to the non-free content policy) but necessary job.  I see a lot of respected editors in support above, and also quite a few in opposition. For me, what it boils down to is that Betacommand has lost the trust of the community, and not yet regained it fully.  In addition, I am not certain that, if his past were selectively erased, and this were viewed as a first RfA, it would pass: civility issues and lack of mainspace content additions are often enough to kill off an RfA.  I would not wish to stop him from tagging, flagging and otherwise cataloguing copyright-infringing images, but that does not require the sysop bit.  Thus, my my mealy-mouthed abstention. —
'''Neutral''' Personally I've always had great interaction with Betacommand, he always promptly helped me when I requested assistance. Always friendly. I suspect he's a great guy and I would like to support, but unfortunately I cannot turn a blind eye to the concerns raised by the opposers. So I'm neutral this time. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Honestly, I would love to support.  Betacommand has a strong commitment to the project and is a hard worker;his bot is doing much needed dirty work, though having the bot be stable would be nice ;) .  Unfortunately, his last round at trying to admin tools went completely sideways -- I think that more time is needed to show those problems are behind him and that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely and with good communication.
'''Neutral'''  Me too. I'm really torn.
'''Neutral''' I haven't had anything besides good interaction with Betacommand but comments made in the oppose section concern me.
'''Neutral''' - Jeez, I've gone to vote six or seven times and each time felt I couldn't support or oppose. Betacommand works hard, but has known civility and communication issues, and it hasn't been demonstrated these are resolved.  Can we trust Betacommand with admin tools?  I have no goddamn idea.  Would making Betacommand an admin be good for Wikipedia?  I have no goddamn idea.  Doesn't seem that he has the trust of the community though.  I'm not sure whether he (she?) has mine.
'''Neutral leaning to Support''' The issues that have been brought up above concern me, but this user has my trust. Truth be told, I don't know what to do... :-)
I don't do '''neutral''' as a rule, but another '''oppose''', which I'm leaning toward, would just be piling on at this stage. I would hope at some future time I could '''support''', but I just can't at this time, per many concerns detailed by others above.
'''Neutral''' -- I've have had some positive recent interactions with this editor where he demonstrated to myself that he can communicate effectively. He took my concerns into consideration and made appropriate changes to his bots functions at my request however past concerns such as the invalid mass blocking of new user accounts for minor username breaches leads me believe his judgement may not be 100% in line with what we come to expect in an administrator. I'd be happy to support some time down the track should the controversies subside. His hard work in messy areas of the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed. -
'''Neutral''' &ndash; leaning oppose ... what can I say? Every time I've came across Betacommand, it's been a bad experience. You could put it down to sheer bad luck, but I think the 87 opposes to this request speaks more than I ever could. There are glimmers of hope, in his work at Requests for Approvals over at [[WP:BAG|BAG]], but there really is a ''long'' way to go, and in all reality the sysop tools are something I wouldn't feel safe watching you with. Sorry, the civility concerns, as well as the RfArb really do speak for themselves, and the only think that is stopping me voting against this request is Beta's strong oppose to my RfB would make such an action on by behalf look like a tit-for-tat vote. Otherwise, definite no. <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;">[[User:AGK|<font color="green">'''Anthøny'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' less than 250 contributions. You're off to a good start, but you probably haven't gained enough experience yet. Come back when you have maybe a few thousand edits, and have been around at least 3 months. Please don't be discouraged - keep up the good work, and a future RfA may be successful! &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Obvious Oppose'''. Seems to be involved in committing far more vandalism than fighting it. The user's talk page is filled with vandalism warnings and was recently blocked.
'''Strong Oppose.''' Although I believe the above poster's comments aren't assuming good faith, I do believe that 81 total edits and a block for vandalism occuring less than a week ago is plenty of grounds for opposition.  I hope this doesn't discourage you, but I would suggest withdrawl.  I think this is an obvious [[WP:SNOW]] situation and, though I don't always agree with the policy, I would suggest you follow it now.  I really hope you keep up the constructive work you've done and come back in a few months when you haven't been recently blocked and have some more edits!
'''Oppose''' doesn't have the experience, the edit count, and the article work. Plus, blocked a week ago. I suggest immediate withdrawal. -
'''Oppose'''. Needs experience.
'''Oppose''' → Lack of experience <i><b>
[[WP:SNOW]]. To the candidate: Please, read [[WP:GRFA]]. You are not ready for adminship. Try again in a few months. &ndash;
'''Support''' No good reason to oppose other than editcountitis. Adminship is a mop and bucket, not a high honor. -
I don't see any reason to "strong oppose" this candidate.
'''Moral Support''' - I think you need some more experience in the different areas of Wikipedia and I would be glad to help and show you around. Give [[WP:ADMIN]] a glance over for starters. You deserve the support, friend. :-)
'''Support''', to avoid a nasty pile - on. Please do come back sometime though, thanks, '''<font color="red">
People who are bold get my '''support'''. <font face="comic sans ms">
I think you would make a good admin, although this will probably fail solely because we can't see clear and absolute evidence of that... however, you have the right attitude. Don't be discouraged, and try again in a few months when you have had the chance to prove yourself to the community. To avoid spurious oppose votes based on activity, perhaps applying when you are less busy is a good way to go.
'''Moral Support'''-Apply again in a few months. Show some understanding of policy and you've got this next time 'round. Don't be discouraged. You've earned the community's respect with your edits. You'll earn the community's trust with time. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Strong oppose'''. Unimpressive answers to questions, fair use images on userspace [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABilly&diff=165453827&oldid=163921687] - see [[WP:NFCC]], and this was only a little over 1 month ago.
<s>'''Strong Oppose''' Forgive the slight editcountitis, but I don't think you've got enough edits to show that you've garnered enough experience around here. Also, the ''vast'' majority of your activity was over the summer; you've barely had over 50 edits in a month since then. [[User:GlassCobra|Glass]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|Cobra]]''' 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</s> '''Oppose''' I've been thinking about this quite a lot. I want to apologize for the Strong Oppose off the bat; that was definitely unnecessary, given the good faith of the editor. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Useight that any time that can be given to the project is good; however, my concerns with overall lack of experience remain. The answers to the questions are also rather short and unsatisfactory. Further, with only 122 edits to project space, I don't think you have quite enough activity in admin-related areas.
Sorry, but I prefer to see RfA candidates with a lot more activity than you show. I understand that you're busy with school, but a single burst of activity several months ago does not establish (in my mind) that you either have a need for the tools or that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies. I do applaud your priorities, however; school ''is'' more important than Wikipeda. If you still wish to become an administrator, I suggest you try finding a new balance between the two that incorporates a higher level of activity without causing your grades to suffer. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' - As per all of above. Insufficient answers to questions. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' You're on the right track, but you need to be more active and to have more experience. I can see why your answers would be short, as you haven't had much to talk about yet.
'''Oppose'''. I cannot support RfAs in which the user requesting adminship admits to not being active, also, user does not have enough experience.
'''Oppose''' Not quite there yet.
'''Oppose''' Not active enough, don't see him as needing the tools. --
'''Oppose''' Per inactivity, FU images in userspace, and all above. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' fewer than 80 edits between July and November.  For what its worth, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Billy227|this]] may be of interest.
'''Oppose''' Per Sasha Callahan.
I associate myself with EVula's remarks above. Wikipedia can be a swiftly changing place and the ability to stay abreast of changes is important. While I appreciate your eagerness I'd rather you wait until your real-life slows a bit and you can be more experienced with the ways things work here. The alternative is for your grades to suffer or for you to find yourself in a major conflict unnecessarily.  -
'''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' not active enough, must be active and experienced in order for me to support you.
'''Oppose''' Not active enough. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Just not active enough, and lacking in overall experience.
'''Oppose''' General uneasiness over prior account history, {{user|Imbilly}}, appears when that account was blocked for vandalism you then continued the vandalism with the IP {{user|69.159.230.60}}(reference the IP as it is used above.)
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Lacks experience. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Sorrowful Oppose''' I am sorry that I first voted for support. For some reason, I did not catch that you were in school. I feel that any admin planning on doing work with Wikipedia should have a good amount of time to be able to patrol and do their "thing". You should focus on school right now and come back to re-run for adminship when you have more time on your hands. Sorry!
'''Oppose''' All of the above. -
'''Oppose''' Not there yet, try again later with more experience. And many of the other reasons already listed above. --
'''Oppose'''- sorry, I think your heart's in the right place but you will need to show a stronger editing track record & better understanding of policy. --'''
'''Oppose''' due to inactivity, unimpressive answers and your unconscious biases opening this nom: "I am a very responsible, trustworthy user who would make a great administrator."
'''Oppose''' School.--
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' I view editing as ''prima facie'' evidence of insanity.
'''Neutral''' His work is good, I can't deny him that. I would definitely like to see more activity, but I can't oppose an editor just because they don't have a lot of time to dedicate to the project, even if he only has 10 minutes a week to spend on Wikipedia, that's 10 minutes of benefits.
'''Neutral'''.  Come back with 500 Projectspace edits and I'll support fully. <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''' Some more editing experience is required. Keep up the good work!
'''Neutral'''. I am with Useight on this one. I feel I can trust this user, but the questions are weak and as has been repeated, more activity would be welcome. However, if given the tools, I think Billy would use them for furthering the project.
'''Neutral'''; it's just too early, Billy.  Come back with a few more months behind the belt and a track record still this solid and you'll get pile-on supports instead.  :-) &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' with strong moral support. Billy seems to be a fine Wikipedian, and I see no red flags. I don't like repeated selfnoms, but I wouldn't oppose because of that. However, his relative inactivity and poor answers to questions stops me from supporting at this time. While it's true that adminship is no big deal, it does carry some responsibilities that I'm not convinced Billy is fully aware of. Become more active, bone up on exactly what being an admin entails and diversify your contributions and I'd be glad to support. I'd recommend waiting for someone else to nominate you next time; that way you'll be sure that you have gained the trust and experience that we look for and you won't have to worry about being viewed as over-eager to get the tools. Good luck! :)
Neutral, with moral support. Per sockpuppetry concens raised above.
'''Neutral'''. I'm avoiding to pile on the opposes.
'''Neutral'''  I would support you, Billy, but as he said above he has very little time to contribute to Wikipedia as school is very busy for him at the moment, I can see you have done some very good things in the past, and some other, less noteworthy things.  I hope you come back to request adminship when school is less hectic for you.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral'''. You have limited time to edit, and that's all good - I have two kids, I know the feeling. I highly encourage you not to waste what little editing time you have on tedious admin duties. Your contributions are good, and we value them - keep'em coming.
'''Moral support'''.  Don't be disheartened by this bashing. You're definitely on the right path and everybody will support you later when you gain more experience.
Uh, can you sumbit the answers to the Q's first befoe putting this here? Okay, now that that' done, I still have to '''oppose''', you don't seem ready for adminship.--
'''Oppose''' - you've made it look as though Runningcupcake has nominated you when in fact it's a self-nomination.  This candidate used to be known as [[User:Wikipedian27]] - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username&diff=prev&oldid=110707427 here]. The candidate has one edit to CfD - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_6&diff=prev&oldid=68195928], and his only edits to AfD have been 2 vandal-reversions, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_22&diff=prev&oldid=89440191#Rap_sheet this], which he added to a daily log but did not nominate. To paraphrase [[User:Xoloz]], Lack of participation in AfD suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-deletion-policy. -
'''Weak Oppose''': No edit summaries when listing this RfA (apart from the odd WP automatic summary) and general muddled-up-ness with the RFA suggests someone unfamiliar with policy and process. Sorry. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' This user makes it seem like when they get adminship, their editing will become much better; adminship doesn't make your contributions to Wikipedia better. Also, I feel that edit summaries are '''very''' important for adminship.
'''Oppose''' for multiple reasons, not least of which is the intense focus on vandalism reverting and new page patrol, to the exclusion of other useful activities on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per many concerns cited above. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per the above.
'''Strong Oppose''' as the candidate does not seem to have the experience necessary to even fill out the basic form of this RfA in an easy-to-read format. I think several months or more are required to gain more experience before I reconsider my opinion. I suggest withdrawing your RfA per [[WP:SNOWBALL]]. •••
'''Oppose''' per the above.
Per the many concerns by other users. You should probably withdraw, and consider reapplying in 4-6 months after continued contributions. Good luck. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
Per Riana. <b><font color="#00A86B" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' BlackBear has been around since May 23, 2006. I think that you have some good qualities but may need some more experience with the different areas of Wikipedia.  [[Wikipedia:Editor review|Editor Review]] is a way that any user can have his/her contribution to Wikipedia evaluated by peers. You may wish to withdraw your RfA and consider posting a request at [[Wikipedia:Editor review|Editor Review]]. --
'''Oppose''' - Suggest withdrawal.↔
'''Oppose'''. Hi Blake, you seem like a great editor but I'm afraid you don't really have enough experience for adminship yet. Keep editing as you have been for a few more months and maybe start contributing in deletion debates and such. At the moment its a bit early for the blocking and deleting tools. You might want to read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. Next time round I suggest you take a little more time answering the questions as well- fuller answers are rather expected. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience and insufficient answers to questions. Suggest speedy withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' - far too little time on Wikipedia.  Far too few edits.  Far too brief in the answer to the candidate questions.  Far too uniformed about this process.  I suggest the nomiantion be withdrawn by the nominee.  If you don't know exactly how to do that you can just indicate here that you wish to withdraw and one of us will take care of it.  Good luck in your other endeavors.
'''Oppose'''. Suggest withdrawal. '''''
'''Oppose''' suggest withdrawl per above reasons. Shouldn't take this too bad however.--
'''Oppose''' - Too little experience--<font face="comic sans ms">
I've worked with the candidate on several pages of mutual interest.  He's a prolific contributor and a valued collaborator.  He's also been quite helpful to me, a relative Wikinewbie, in showing me how to take action against repeated vandalism of a particular page by someone with a pretty obsessive ax to grind.  He'd be a good admin. Thanks for your consideration.
A great user, who I have see round Wikipedia regularly. —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
Yes.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. Unlikely to misuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Although the user could do with longer answers, which would convey a greater understanding of policy, they have everything else needed for a candidate, and importantly, [[User:Rudget/policies|meet my criteria]]. Good luck.
'''Support''' I feel I can trust the '''nom''' with blocking vandals and CSD. I'm sure the user will go slow and seek advice on weak areas. Probably won't run amok and block ok usernames at [[WP:UAA]]. Will need to be careful with transwiki closures at AfD, but that wasn't an area of interest expressed in Question 1.
'''Support''' Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, and I've found out firsthand just how little I actually know compared to how much I thought I knew. Blueboy, you've displayed commitment to the project for three years now, and I think you can be trusted with a couple extra buttons to make things run smoother around here. A note, though: please do take the concerns raised in both of your RfAs very seriously, and ask other administrators for help with tough judgment calls. I can't stress enough how important collaboration is around here. Good luck!
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' <small> changed from neutral</small> I think you are ready for the mop, but as others have said, go slow in weak areas, but you should be fine with the new tools - and remember, just because you've got the extra buttons doesn't mean you have to use them. :-)
Don't know what the fairness issue is all about, seems like a fair user to me. Seriously though, there is worse, and it doesn't mean I can't trust the candidate to keep learning. |
'''Support''' - great job. Keep on making the Internet not suck. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Its just the mop.  My advice would be that you begin working in areas most familiar to you.  Given that editors have expressed concern over copy right stuff, stay out of there for a while and start slow.
'''Support''', seems more or less OK to me.
'''Support''' - I trust the candidate to keep learning just as I had to do--
This is Wiki'''pedia''' not Wiki'''news'''. It's OK not to know all about wikinews. Hell, I don't know what license they use myself. Does that make me a bad admin? As far as NFCC/fair use goes, at least a couple of what I see as well-respected and downright good admins here, don't seem to understand our image policies so well (see, some image-tagging bot or another's block log). I don't think that makes them bad admins. In short, I see no reason why you can't be trusted with the extra bits, even given several people whom I respect opining otherwise below.
I agree with SQL.
I think so... <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="3">'''
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose or abstain among the below noted oppose !votes. Discretion to correct mistakes is granted to everyone, and a lack of technical copyright knowledge doesn't make someone untrustworthy.
'''Support''' I wouldn't expect an admin to know everything straight away, especially on arcane topics like transwiki'ing; however, I believe Blueboy is prepared to walk before he runs; there are plenty of backlogs to be addressed, and cutting teeth on mundane tasks is useful and character-building. --'''
'''Support''' - All admins don't know all policies. That's why we help each other. And that's why we have easy access links to all of them. Mistakes are easily fixable in a place with revert options and talk pages for apologies. So I support per many of the opposers who state he "won't abuse the tools". I agree. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Weak support''' (changed from '''oppose''', see below). I don't oppose admin candidates lightly, as I see a lot of pile-on opposes (as with the ridiculous fair-use confusion in this RfA). I asked BB96 for some specific evidence that he now only applies the epithet "vandalism" to actual vandalism, not to good faith edits. I'm not sure I worded it in a way that was clear, so I checked his recent contribs for myself. Although I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kokomo%2C_Indiana&diff=prev&oldid=162859673 some] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WCCB&diff=prev&oldid=163658828 edits] in early October that were questionable, I also saw that in more recent edits, BB96 does indeed make a clear distinction in edit summaries between apparent good faith edits and vandalism (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WHKY-TV&diff=prev&oldid=165720318] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mario_Diaz-Balart&diff=prev&oldid=165824719] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tess_Daly&diff=prev&oldid=166142293] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WHKY-TV&diff=prev&oldid=169368924] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adrian_M._Smith&diff=prev&oldid=169711507] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visiongain&diff=prev&oldid=173122335]). Other than the issues I brought up, which seem not to be a concern anymore, I see no reason to oppose this candidate. In fact, I support his adminship rather than going "neutral". --
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs admins.  Jimbo says it should not be such a big deal.  The questions asked at the top were rather nerdy -- you should not need to know everything to be able to do admin chores where you have ability.  I think the opposers are being a bit too strict. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
I feel doubtful of your knowledge of NFCC per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rollosmokes&diff=prev&oldid=163911651 this]. "Oh, and galleries ARE allowed, as I understand it--just as long as the images in them all have valid fair-use claims.". Fair use images should be used '''only''' when no replaceable free image could be found. Galleries of fair use images are never allowed on Wikipedia. To put it simply, a fair use claim isn't enough. Minimal usage, and only when it's absolutely necessary.  --
With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_2&diff=prev&oldid=172231071 this edit], he seems to contradict himself by saying ''a Wikipedia article can't be copied word-for-word into a Wikinews article'' and ''If the ''subject'' of an AfD doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, but meets Wikinews standards, it can be transwikied.'' When answering my question 10 above, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_2&diff=next&oldid=172232351 removes] the contradiction from his answer, and then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_2&diff=next&oldid=172233311 further strengthens his answer] to question 8 which further destroys the context in which I asked my question. Getting a wrong answer to one of Daniel's questions isn't ''so'' bad, but because he doesn't follow our talk page guideline (specifically [[WP:TALK#Own comments]]), I must oppose. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' An admin (and all users really) should know fair use policy.  '''<span style="color:#663300; font-family:cursive">Happy Thanksgiving!</span>''' <sub>
Oppose per WODUP and, to a slightly lesser but still concerning extent, DarkFalls. '''
'''Oppose''': Per the above comments on the Fair Use policy.  Since there were clear misunderstandings of the policy on your part, here's a suggestion: Read the [[WP:FU|Non-free content]] (and the pages in the "[[WP:FU#See_also|See also]]" section) and demonstrate your knowledge of it before your next RfA (maybe join [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use]]). -
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more experience in the areas of Wikipedia policy. I think after you become more familiar with the policies, you should do fine.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I'm sorry but, I dont see much change from the last RfA. Lack of experience and understanding of policy seems to be the issue here. Try again in a few months, and I'll be happy to support you. &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Feeble Oppose'''.  You wouldn't abuse the tools, but you need more experience with policy.  Come back later.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose'''. Indeed, you won't abuse the admin tools, but per the above, I can't support.
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Blueboy96_2&diff=172240641&oldid=172240496 No]'''.
'''Oppose'''. A basic understanding of copyright law is absolutely required. We offer training for those who want it, so no reason to come to an RFA empty-handed.
'''oppose leaning towards neutral''' - Do i think that this user will abuse tools, no. There is nothing to prove that they will, but there are too many concerns raised above about policy knowledge for me to feel alright making this user a syop. Do not be discouraged, and if this does not turn out the way you want, wait a while, gain more experience and try again.
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons and perhaps would like to see more effort to improve rather than delete articles.  In any event, I do wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per WODUP and DarkFalls.
'''Oppose''' More knowledge of policy needs to be demonstrated. --
'''Strong oppose''' An incident where this editor started an action against me proved to me that he would use any 'power' he might attain for personal reasons. He stated that the use of red-colored typeface ("<I>I removed the red text you've added in, <U>since excessive use of red text can cause reactions in some readers</U> for which you or the WMF may be held responsible</I>".) is dangerous! I am not sure how much medical experience an unemployed journalist has, but this accusation was the epitome of personal harassment to me. <font face="raphael" color="green">
'''Oppose''' per above concerns.
I see that you've done a lot of work in the Wikipedia space since the lack of it sunk the last nomination (that hasn't been sinking things so much lately). <s>It probably means you can show more evidence of policy knowledge now, too. Don't have time to go through contributions now to actually support.</s> Good luck!
The answer to question eight is wrong. Articles from here cannot be copied to Wikinews due to license incompatibilities, as outlined at [[wikinews:Wikinews:Copyright|Wikinews:Copyright]]. This is not a vote, just an observation.
'''Change to neutral'''.  I still have concerns, but That userbox is now gone.  Listening is a good sign for a sysop.
'''Neutral''' From oppose.  I just cannot support at this time.
No, this RfA not completed properly or formatted correctly, general inexperience. Less than 50 edits. Sorry, <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
Seems pointless to even say it, but '''oppose''', with under 30 edits and a weeks editing, this user obviously cannot be an admin, and after fixing this incorrectly filed request for them as best as i could, i have recommended they withdraw it--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience.  Only 21 edits at the time of this writing.  You'll want to get a couple thousand edits to gain experience and demonstrate your knowledge and ability.  As of now, there's no way the community can judge your abilities.  My recommendation is to withdraw this RFA, read up on [[WP:LOP|this list of policies]] to get a good handle on how everything runs, do some work in admin-like areas (such as CSD or AFD), and try again after a few months and a few thousand edits.  You'll also want to avoid making edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danman666&diff=prev&oldid=174174876 this], take a look at [[WP:NPA|No Personal Attacks]]. I'm a big fan of [[Cars (film)|Cars]] as well, but I have to oppose.  If you ever have any questions about anything at all, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Oppose'''  As much as it pains me to do this, as it will be my first oppose, I have to do it. Sorry...
'''Moral Support''' - Well 533 Edits ain't bad  but really low for most Editors but looking at the fact that you have 1 year experience, I think I will Support you..Good Luck (you'll need it ) : ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Moral Support''' - '''<font face="georgia">
'''Support''' I have no reason to oppose this user. All I can advise is that bobsmith319 listen to the opposition's suggestions, and try again in a few months time.
'''Oppose''' - You have been on wikipedia for about a year, but barely any project space edits except for this Rfa. Also, I believe there was a RFC regarding you 2 months ago. This may show lack of experience with the policies. You have also cited for your civilness, but just violated 3RR a few days ago, which might not abide with your description of your self.  Try again in a few month, being active with [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:XFD]], or otherwise admin coaching. Good Luck next time! --
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits as of yet. Candidate voting for self demonstrates a lack of knowledge of wiki practice. Both of these can be corrected by time, so I'd suggest withdrawing and trying again in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' - You don't seem to be very active; you were here for over a year now yet you only have 530 edits. And your answers don't really show knowledge of what admins do.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' with apologies. You'll need to get some in-depth knowledge on the infrastructure of Wikipedia, before applying again. First, I'd strongly suggest that you go into your preferences, and under the "Edit" tab, check the box to prompt you when there is an empty [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. This is very important, to assist others in knowing what changes you made. Second, you will need to really get into a variety of areas, including (but not limited to) [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFCN]], [[WP:AFD]], etc., and participate in some of the other areas, such as talk pages, user's talk pages (to illustrate how you interact with others), and perhaps some projects as well. I wish you luck, but honestly you are not, at this point, ready to be an administrator. I would suggest that you get an experienced editor and enter the [[WP:ADOPT|adoption]] program with them. (Time does not necessarily equal experience.) Good luck in the future, <sup>
'''Oppose''' Just give it some more time and try in a few months.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You are a good editor, but I think you need more experience. Try again soon, and I will be honored to support you. I do, however, suggest withdrawl, before [[WP:SNOW]]. Good Luck!!
'''Oppose'''. The candidate lacks experience. Sorry, but you're not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' Per experience.
'''Oppose''', per lack of experience. Try to participate more on [[WP:XFD]] to gain experience about [[WP:PG]]. Keep with your good contributions.
'''Oppose'''.  Excellent editor, however, more experience is needed in different areas of Wikipedia.  I'd especially recommend [[WP:XFD]] as a good way to learn policy.  I'd also like to see more activity per month.  I respectly suggest withdrawing this RfA.
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after three months. In the meantime, do not be discouraged over this failure. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak oppose''' adminship may not be a big deal but the way the community has swung I suggest that the user gains a bit more experience before reapplying. Anyway being a sysop isn't required for anything out of the ordinary, and just brings with it a boring backlog and jobs to do. --'''
'''Oppose''' - Less than 600 total edits in a year is frightfully low. The edit summary needs to be used much more. Out of a very few Wikipedia-space contribs, your RfA is the greatest at just 14 counts. Definately not ready at all this time. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' Insufficient Wikipedia-space edits.  Participate in things such as XFD and try again in a few months.
'''Support'''.  Casually browsing your contributions reveals nothing concerning - just a long history of mopping up Wikipedia the best you can without admin tools.  Candidate seems patient with newcomers and civil to peers. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' - Maybe a little more edits could have been made besides counter-vandalism, but knowing that the user will use his/her tools to cleanup more vandalism makes me feel comfortable. Support.
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. No problems with this candidate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''. Can not see any reason not to. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. This user is very responsible and knows what he is doing. I see no reason not to let him admin rights.
'''Support''' No big deal.
'''Support''' Looks like another good candidate.
'''Support''' in agreement with [[User:Walton monarchist89|Walton monarchist89]].
'''Support''' Same concern as Malevious. Otherwise no problems --
'''Support''' I think he looks good. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support'''. Would like to see a little more consistent summary use but thats no real reason to oppose. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
'''Support''' Minor problems but no real reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' in absence of any reason not to; seems fine.
'''Support''' seems like he would be a great administrator
'''Support''': Seems to have plenty of experience, however, I would like to see a better edit summary usage. May I suggest making them forced in your preferences if you have already not? <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''': I have personally commented on featured picture condidates and have seen this user comment on quite a few candidates. Looking at his contributions, I come to the conclusion that he has a wide range of interests in furthering Wikipedia, which is exactly what we're looking for in an admin. Ciao, --
'''Support''' Looks Great. --<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support'''-&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support''' - Very experienced and well deserving..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose. Let's let him work.
'''Support''' as a strong candidate for adminship. User shows understanding of policy and a need for the tools. As to opposing for canvassing, I don't see this having any relation to the ability to block, protect, and delete. In other words, this in no way makes me believe this user will abuse the tools. Support. - '''
'''Support''' as a good candidate for adminship. Should be of great help to Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' Changed to support per Majorly's argument.
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason not to.  The canvassing thing simply isn't that big of a deal to me, though I wish the candidate had paid enough attention to RFA in the past to see how negatively it's looked upon.  Canvassing is not, in and of itself, big enough to change my !vote though.
'''Oppose'''. Booksworm has notes on his userpage and talkpage canvassing people to "vote" for him in this RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABooksworm%2Fheadermain&diff=131983043&oldid=131727363] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABooksworm%2Ffootermain&diff=131982935&oldid=131731977]. He has also solicited the "votes" of specific users [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_lupin&diff=prev&oldid=131823740] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcayne&diff=prev&oldid=131826078] and has a green link to this page in his signature encouraging people to "Vote! Vote!". <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Switching my !vote to oppose. Having low edit summary usage (Even though you're working on it) low talk page edits and not much work outside of vandalfighting. As well as the recent [[WP:CANVAS]] violations. --Malevious
'''Oppose''' per [[User:WJBscribe]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
'''Oppose''' This is otherwise a a great nomination, but the [[WP:CANVAS]] violation is not acceptable.
'''Oppose''' Per the [[WP:CANVAS|canvas]] issues, I still see you have not removed the ''vote! vote!'' link from your userpage which also seems to dsplay a lack of understanding and ability to listen to others requests. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', switched from neutral; unhappy with the lack of attention to the issue. --
In March, you threatened to report Viriditas to ARBCOM for talking to Arcayne on your talk page,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas&diff=next&oldid=113995412] and then again for removing your comments from Viriditas's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viriditas&diff=next&oldid=114022916] I'm not sure that you understand the steps of dispute resolution here. Or if you do, I'm concerned by this overreaction. Either way, I feel I must oppose. ··
'''oppose''' I dont want to do this but I dont think this user is  quite ready for adminship. (I think they are a great vandalism fighter) I am dealing with Fair Use images and as such Booksworm has seen some of my notice's. But the issue is they dont know the difference between Fair use and Free use. which is a big issue [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
Sorry but I have to '''oppose''' due to a minimal understanding of fair use policy, and objections shown by Coelacan. I would forgive the canvassing issues, as it's not very important in regards to admin tools, but the fair use situation leaves a bad taste. --
'''Oppose''' per diffs provided by Coelacan which IMHO show some maturity issues and naiveté to a degree that this candidate should work on before I can approve. —'''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:WJBscribe]]'s vote above and [[WP:CANVAS]]. <small>Extranet is now </small> <b><font color="#000066">
'''Oppose'''. I don't so much mind the act of canvassing as the fact that you should have ''known'' that people wouldn't like it. The diffs provided by Coelacan are also rather troubling. -
The canvassing showed a distinct lack of judgement, and I don't trust you with the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' Per the canvassing issue.  I realize some people disagree with that as the only reason to vote an oppose, but I think actions should enable a support vote, as well as edits.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. Adminship is no big deal, ''but'' canvassing indicates an obvious lack of prudence. —
'''Oppose''', canvassing issue and the diffs shown by several users. Not too ready for adminship at the moment. Other than that, not much of a problem.`
'''Oppose''' Canvassing is bad, no matter what Majorly says. Also, the Wikipedia-space edits are too few for my liking.
'''Weak oppose''' - I find the relatively low edit summary usage troubling.  The canvassing probably wasn't a good idea either, but that is secondary to me.--
From oppose- '''Neutral''' per [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]], I would encourage the candidate to try again later without the canvassing, possible they were unaware that this is a problem (based on type engaged in) [[User:GDonato|GDonato]] ([[User talk:GDonato|talk]]) 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC) ''Has partially resolved the issue and it appears little damage was done. Would have had my support if this hadn't happened though- please reapply later''
'''Neutral''' The canvassing seems like a mistake and somewhat neutral, as it's just asking fo a blanket vote, not a support vote. Badtaste, but I don't think it warrants an oppose.
I know that I have opposed in a previous RFA b/c of this issue. However, for example in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jersyko&oldid=98489812 previous case], some successful administrators have indeed canvassed for votes.  However, IMHO, I don't think that the CANVASSING point should be the only reason to oppose this candidate. '''Neutral''' for now. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Neutral'''.  I apologize for calling you a meat-puppet, but Arcayne was the only editor who had insisted on that addition to the article, ''against the consensus of the active editors'', and you arrived out of nowhere and reverted to his version, as if he had asked you to tag-team for him.  And, just so you understand, Arcayne did not ban me from his talk page, I asked him not to use my talk page for discussing the article on February 8, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChildren_of_Men&diff=106518875&oldid=106469984] he refused, and I banned him from my talk page on Februrary 9, 2007, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArcayne&diff=106760610&oldid=106754925] and several times after because he didn't understand that the discussion was taking place on the article, not the user talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas%2FArchive_16&diff=107762031&oldid=107761621][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArcayne&diff=106769070&oldid=106768878]    In fact, Arcayne ''asked'' me to use his talk page after I asked him not to use mine [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChildren_of_Men&diff=106745510&oldid=106743860] so your recollection of events is in error.  You weren't even involved in this conflict until ''a month later'' on March 10.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArcayne&diff=114022323&oldid=113994775] &mdash;
'''Neutral''' per my comments above about canvassing. I suggest withdrawing and restarting the RfA fairly soon though.
'''Neutral''' Canvassing and a few other issues. I'd encourage a another one in a while.
'''Support''' I find this user trustworthy. An examination of contributions indicates that they are polite and not-stupid. I believe the user will not doing anything rash  and will consult more experienced users if they are not sure. I do not find the other concerns significant enough to oppose. -
'''Weak Support''' I think you are almost there, and will be soon.  I would like to see your talk and overall editing skills improve however.
'''Support''' - too new? He's been around since October 2002 and started editing regularly in 2004. Only 250 edits each to Talk: and Wikipedia:? Who says that's "only"? Who cares? Does anybody have any reason to believe that this user will abuse the full set of buttons, cause if not, the rest is just plain silliness. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support''' doesn't look like a nut job. -
'''Strong support''' This user seems fine to me: he has been around since 2002 was five years ago. Granted, the user hasn't edited every single month since then, but as of February 2006 Booyabazooka has been reasonably active. In the last few months he hasn't been active as much, but I'm sure that will pick up soon enough. He's done a reasonable amount of edits to categories, templates, and images, and a large amount of editing to the mainspace. My only concern is with the Wikipedia-space edits: it's not the number that I'm concerned amount, it's the recent edits done to them: not many edits have been done to the Wikipedia-space recently, and it would be a good thing to see more activity in that area. Apart from that, I have no issues with this candidate, and if this nomination doesn't succeed, I am sure Booyabazooka will address everything here and will pass next time.
'''Support'''. Meet's my criteria, no huge problems. A great user. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Weak Support''' Low user talk and Wikipedia edits, but user has been at Wikipedia for a long time which suggests plenty of experiences anyways.
'''Support'''.  Could use the tools, not mental.  Some of the reasons to oppose border on the ridiculous (thinking "we need more trustworthy admins" is a bad reason to go through RFA, for example).  Or for describing the editor as "too new" when he's been editing since October 2002.
Too few talk page edits, too new, too untrustworthy because s/he believes to be trustworthy. Those and other valid reasons mean I cannot support - '''not'''. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''. Looks like he does a lot of cleanup and maintainence etc. Could use the extra buttons even if he has erratic use. -
'''Extra-Strong Support''' per great answer to Q4. ''Common sense is not an alternative to be used instead of following policy'' - this is exactly right, and is something that a lot of veteran admins could do with learning.
'''Support''' Answers show level-headedness and there is no reason to not trust this user to perform uncontroversial tasks until s/he feels comfortable with more controversial ones. –
'''Support''' no obvious problems; really like the answer to #4.  No reason not to trust this user. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Support'''. Opposes based on not maintaining a ludicrous editing rate, or being "too new" after five years, are extremely silly.
'''Support''' Even though I'd prefer if the edit summary usage was a bit higher, he still looks like good admin material.
'''Support''' per response to my initial oppose.
'''Support''' because this user has a life outside of wiki and therefore won't be as stressed.
'''Support''' &mdash; could have more talk or project space experience, but certainly been around long enough and has the right answers (especially Q4).  Everything I saw shows civility and reasonableness.  &mdash;
'''Support''' See no evidence will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Solid user ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' Excellent user, happy with his responses to the questions, so I give my support.
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see [[User:A.Z./Imagine]]. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Booyabazooka's merits: I just think no merits are required)
'''Weak Support''' - seems to be a good candidate but I support weakly because the number of edits are too low. --
'''Support''' - per Acalamri.
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry mate...but your project space count is quite low (I'm not opposing just per that though), which points to...er...not-so-much admin experience.  Especially when the largest number of project space edits is to [[WP:VPT]] - good work, but not admin work really.  I'm also a bit concerned about the activity levels...in the last 6 months you've made an average of 100 edits a month, which is really quite low.  Your mainspace work is wonderful and should be applauded, but I just don't think you're ready for adminship.  Sorry. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' While your contributions may have helped improve the project, you simply don't have enough edits in the project space.    You're on the right path, but I don't think you're ready at the moment.  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after a few months and you may have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' too new
'''Oppose''' Because you start out with "I'm nominating myself, in short, because we can always use more trustworthy admins." which makes me instantly think that you're not trustworthy, and you're a self-gloater. Also says that nobody else thinks you're good enough to be admin if you must nominate yourself. (sorry if this came out harsh, it's not meant to be an attack, please don't take it the wrong way).
'''Weak oppose'''- I'm opposing because of the answer to the optional question of when to use common sense and not follow policy. Per [[WP:IAR]], One of the main and most important rules of Wikipedia is that if the policy prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. If you don't understand that then I question whether or not you would doggedly follow the rules even when they seem not to apply in some circumstances opposed to using common sense.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
General experience issues, I don't have a sufficient level of confidence to trust this user with the extra tools. '''
'''Oppose''' Inexperience in wiki-space indicates candidate is not yet prepared to handle many daily admin tasks.
'''Oppose''' Per Giggy. Number 1 of oppose.
'''Oppose''' A good person, but not enough experience to make judgments in using the extra tools. Please try again in three months, however. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Neutral''' A good editor in the article space but I too am concerned that ~250 edits each to the user Talk and Policy spaces during your Wiki-career aren't enough to demonstrate your competence in the role of an admin.  Try doing some admin-related tasks and contributing to XfD dicussions, quoting policies and guidelines where appropriate in each case.  This will serve to demonstrate your grasp on the essentials of adminship and show just how at-ease you are when conversing with editors from grade school all the way to post-Doc and all points inbetween.
'''Neutral'''. Your answers and contribs are not outstanding, but cleanup work is the kind of work admins need to be doing. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Neutral'''. I think that you are definitely on the right track. However, I would like to see you spend some time in project space doing some administrative tasks for a while before going after your mop.
'''Neutral''' - almost there - just a bit more work in project space needed. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - While this user has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, I was unable to see much admin-like activity in his last 1000 edits.  Combined with an average of only 100 edits per month for the last 6 months, makes me think that the tools aren't really needed.  With some more time to dedicate and some more in XfD, AIV, etc, I would support.
'''Neutral''' - Not enough experience, though on the right track.  Show us what you can do with the tools (or lack thereof) you have now.
'''Neutral''' You are on the path, grasshopper, but you are not ready for the enlightenment mop yet. Change your user preferences to remind you to use edit summaries, make some substantial edits to articles (not just adding images and templates, but writing the encyclopedia), work well with other souls in AfD discussions, and help vandals change their ways (or help them along the trail to [[WP:AIV]]). Do these things, and the mop can be yours in two or three months. -
'''Neutral''' You could be a good admin in a few months, but I think you should try to get more involved in Wikipedia, and not just mainspace edits. Also, you should change your preferences to remember to use edit summaries.
'''Neutral''' -- You seem to have a good number of contributions, have been around for a while, but the comments of the opposers cannot be simply ignored. -- <strong>
'''Neutral, lean support''' -- The user looks like a good contributer, but looking at Interiot's edit counter showed me red straight away. Please show edit summaries for all edits, to help others on things like [[special:recentchanges]]. --
'''Neutral''' pending answer to at least one of my questions. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''  I'd like to see an answer to one of the prior opiner's questions too, to see how this candidate thinks.  (Given the weekend and lack of other contributions, I'm not majorly troubled by the lack of a response to date.)  And that, in the end, is why I am unable to support - I can't get a sense of how they think.  I looked through their deleted contributions, and found two [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane orton|AFD]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webalect|nominations]] (one speedy delete A7, one unanimous delete) and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Sarvi PROD] (speedy deleted under db-nonsense, which I think was incorrect by the deleting admin, and should have been a prod).  Seeing this, I don't think that they would be too aggressive with the delete button, giving me enough comfort to be neutral despite a lack of evidence on which to trust the user.
'''Support''' only been here for a little while really, but I think user would make a good admin. -- <strong>
'''Support''' I've seen him around. He will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' I have only run across him a few times outside of RfA. But the times I have seen him he has struck me as rational, civil and having the rare ability to make sense even when everyone around him is not.
'''Strong Support''' - excellent editor, I've seen him around frequently.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor.
'''Support''' Finally!
'''Strong Support''' - Well he is a fine user, he is very active on [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:AFC|AFC]] and even though he bothers [[user:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] a lot, he is stiill a very good editor..top notch..he had problems recently but I don't think that is significant enough to oppose him on and well everyone has their ups and downs.. I hope he stays that energetic in times to come..Good Luck.--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong Support''' I have known Boricaeddie for a long time. I have seen his work. He is a great editor, who is always civil with other Wikipedians. I strongly believe he deserves the mop. As in the words of Runewiki777, "FINALLY"!
'''Support''' - a fine editor with broad experience and good knowledge of policy. Will make a great admin -
'''Support'''. I thought you were an admin already. Anyway, good editor, no reason to believe he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' &ndash; an excellent contributor, with a top-notch track record and great participation in [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s (always a good sign). I've every confidence that Boricuaeddie can both be trusted with the sysop tools, and has demonstrated that he'll use them. Best of luck! ~
'''Support''' He is very well fit for the job and he seems to be able to use the mop well.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Eddie knows what this project is all about and knows how to facilitate it. Will make a good sysop therefore. <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I like what I've seen from this editor, and I've seen his edits around.  The concerns brought up by the opposition are enough to at least consider, and I think the candidate could use a little improvement in that field, but it's not enough to worry me.
'''Support''' despite some points of concern raised in the oppose section.  The answer to Q1 and my familiarity with the candidate at XFD show sufficient maturity to handle admin work.
'''Support''' with some comments. Eddie, I wish you had waited another month or so, in order to provide further depth to your contributions and thus head of oppose comments. Please also remember that expanded reasoning tends to sit better with other editors, as opposed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lito_y_Polaco&diff=prev&oldid=147031575 this]. '''However''' substantial reporting to [[WP:UFA]], excellent vandal reversion and [[WP:CSD]] work. I personally think you are just a bit to keen to get the buttons (remember - this doesn't pay, and adminship is not a trophy) but that takes away nothing from the fact that '''I believe you would use them wisely'''. At the end of the day, [[WP:AGF|the issue is trust]], and nothing from personal interaction or the contributions leads me to not trust Eddie with the tools. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - I have watched Boricuaeddie really develop as a user. I'm quite impressed with what I have seen him contrib so far. In fact I was planning to nom him tomorrow, but I guess he went ahead and nommed himself. Anyway, best of luck Eddie. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''. No reason not to, they meet all my criteria. A great user and candidate. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' My personal experience with this user revealed a very trustworthy, civil, friendly, versatile and hard working user. Has just enough experience to be given access to the tools. Can do no harm with them as he promptly acknowledges, fixes and learns from any mistake.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Oppose because you didn't let me nominate you :P <!-- STRONG SUPPORT --> [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' all my interactions with this user have  been positive.
'''Support''' - First impression tells me that he's a supportive fellow wikipedian. Going to be (or already is) an "older brother" in wiki-world.
'''Strong Support'''. Firstly, Eddie deserves the tools. He has a passion to build and keep the encyclopedia here for all. With great determination and skill, he will make the sysop position look easy. Full stop. Secondly, he has a great and friendly heart that he will express to any user he comes across. If you don't support Eddie, I don't know who else you would. In a few words, a great editor that needs the sysop position. Good luck Eddie. &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support'''.  I believe someone else pointed out that walking away from Wikipedia shows an essential ability to step back, exercise restraint, and collect your thoughts.  While his departing message initially said his absence would be indefinite, I think there has been a time or two (or twelve) when we've all threw our hands up in the air in frustration, and I think that would be the case in especially trying circumstances (having to insist you're not a sock puppet is, I imagine, never fun).  That being said, he does a lot of work here, and he's trustworthy '''and''' able to deal with stress in a way that won't harm others or the project.  So, good luck.  <span style="font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support''' I am confident that this user would not abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. An enthusiastic editor with much to offer the project, but when a dispute about a fair use image in user space just a few weeks ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boricuaeddie&diff=prev&oldid=143966492], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boricuaeddie&diff=prev&oldid=143310786 led him to pack it in and go home]. This demonstrates <s>some unfamiliarity with policy and</s> a tendency towards histrionics that is not becoming in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' You are a very skilled and dedicated editor. However, the departure and return in such a short period for an editor who has been registered for what is also a short period of time (though with a tremendous edit count) does not suggest a temperment that will suit you in the type of situation you will face as an admin. I myself had a similar problem regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Shuppiluliuma&diff=prev&oldid=138054321 temperment] in my own RFA, and would suggest learning from it (which it appears you have), and establishing a longer record demonstrating that you have matured (maybe a couple of months). I will support you in the future if you demonstrate you can keep at it.
'''Reluctant Oppose'''  Great editor, civil, friendly.  However, it is my feeling that the user is too young to be an administrator here.  While there is a certain amount of anonymity, administrators are much higher profile and sometimes subject to harassment outside of the Wikipedia environment.  This is not something that I want a user who is still under guardianship to be accountable for.  I'm not opposed to minors being sysops- we had a b'crat who was 14.  It is just my opinion that the user is not old enough to have the "maturity" that an admin should have.  Absolutely nothing personal or anything that is within the user's control.  I just don't feel comfortable with the age.
Boricuaeddie has done some valuable work in the few short months he's been here.  But building an encyclopedia hasn't been a large part of that work.  An example of this is that of his less than 1,000 edits to the main space, many of them are tagging, stub sorting and vandalism reverts.  I have come to believe, though it is a generally unpopular belief at RfA, that a demonstrated interest in [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]] building is essential for an effective administrator.  I am not unyielding in this belief -- someone who has made hundreds of reports to AIV over many months, or someone who has done truly exceptional "metapedian" work, for example.  But I don't see that with this very new user.  Respectfully, I oppose, until a later date when the user has had more experience. --
'''Oppose''' - Does not understand [[WP:BLP]], per his statement above that "every piece of information added about a living person must be neutral".  That is far too far from what BLP requires for this person to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' - BLP does not state that information must be "neutral", only that information must be presented in a neutral manner. Leaving and returning are also not encouraging.
'''Oppose''' I hate to do it, since my interactions with Eddie have been great and he is a great editor, but more experience is needed for me to support.  Get the experience under your belt, and try again this fall.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  While I have no specific reason to think this is the case with you (and I hope it's not), it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>.  I can not support someone who quit 3 weeks ago and who has either not experienced a true dispute or not been able to navigate successfully through one on his own accord, or is just unable express his ability to do so. --
'''Oppose'''. Honestly I don't see where your major contributions to the encyclopedia have been. You want to be involed in WP:AIV yet have barely reported any vandals. The only area that I see you participate actively in is Usernames for admin attention, but it doesn't really take a firm grasp of policy to know that User:wjkud or User:J!mbo wales are inappropriate.
'''Oppose''' - per first oppose. Immediate negative reactions are unfortunately not helpful.
'''<s>Not at this time</s> Strong Oppose'''.  In his short tenure here, Boricuaeddie has made more contributions to the encyclopedia than I have, but I still can’t support yet, mostly per After Midnight.  After [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye leaving and returning] two weeks ago, I feel it is too soon to apply for adminship.  <s>I’d like to see a few more months of stability, so I can be more confident this won’t happen again.</s>  I do not believe this user has the emotional stability to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Nothing overly problematic: Eddie is an asset to the project but small concerns do add up. His opposition in Brian New Zealand's RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Brian_New_Zealand_2&diff=prev&oldid=148268961] shows a misunderstanding of what admins should be and a lack of judgment. I am also wary of very young admins because I do think that dealing with problematic users requires a maturity that very few 14 year olds have. Many will point out that we have some good teenage admins but I would humbly suggest that this is because we have a very high proportion of teenage editors. We also do have a few adult admins who behave like 14 year olds but I don't quite see why this is an argument for promoting more 14 year olds! Actually, the announced departure a couple of weeks ago is an ominous sign in that respect. All in all, I'm not convinced that Eddie would be able to communicate effectively and with the necessary finesse when he will face opposition of his admin actions and this concern is amplified by Eddie's self-confessed so-so English.
'''Oppose''' per Tim Vickers and Atrain's comment at 18:00, among others. Though I have seen your work around, and generally it looks okay, there just isn't enough evidence of the proper experience in admin work and dispute resolution. Not having much to go on, your muddled and terse responses here, in a forum where you are expected to show the utmost civility, gives me pause. And the time-span issues brought up don't exactly inspire me either. I say give yourself some time, and you'll probably make a fine candidate.
Lack of time served, unnecessary and rather rude responses to opposers' concerns. Does not have the necessary experience or temperament. ~
'''Oppose''' per barneca.  Initially, I was skeptical of the maturity concerns here; I'm willing to overlook someone's leaving (because I'd rather have someone leave than snap and become unfriendly.)  However, the candidate has seen fit to reply at this RfA to a large number of these opposes, sometimes with quite provocative, unnecessary comments. Conduct here does give me pause, and I now feel the candidate is not yet ready to handle the pressure of the mop.
'''Neutral''' - per question four. Indef. blocks can be temporary. I have seen users who have been blocked indef. have their blocks lifted by an administrator who is willing to give that user another chance. A ban is placed by the community, Jimbo, or the arbitration committee. For bans placed by the arbitration committee, they have to be appealed via [[WP:ARBCOM|arbcom]] or [[User:Jimbo|Jimbo Wales]]. '''<font face="georgia">
Since he [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stephan_Schulz#Discussion|recently withheld support based on edit count]], it's only fair to critically evaluate his own edit count here and now: Only 21 wikitalk edits is not enough to demonstrate any mentionable participation in debates there; and a ratio of less than a thousand mainspace edits versus 4.500 in total is rather uninspiring, too. —'''
His catty retorts to oppose and neutral responses don't fill me with much confidence. Then I looked at his user page and saw he was in eighth grade. I try not to be ageist, but the comments do make sense given his age. I know I could be like that when I was younger. Thus, I won't oppose, because it's really...not his fault. People grow as they get older, and I know he will. However, I did want to register the complaint against catty remarks like "well, if you don't like good faith, then FINE" and "that's YOUR opinion." I don't blame him, though, because I really do think it's just because he's not matured yet.
'''Strong Support''' Fairminded and levelheaded in tough situations. --
'''Strong Support''' I first met BostonMA when he showed up out of the blue to politely but firmly warn a user to stop their borderline [[WP:STALK|wiki-stalking]] behaviour: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A999&diff=89165738&oldid=89156003]. Since then, I have seen BostonMA be unfailingly polite, clear, and neutral in numerous situations, including some rather heated and ugly ones.  He has educated new users, and rectified and apologized for any mistakes others have pointed out to him.  From his exemplary behaviour and knowledge of WP process, I actually assumed he was already an admin until I checked his User page.  Strong support for this RfA. <font face="Georgia">
'''Strong Support''' - All my interactions with him have been positive.--
'''Support''' This editor can hold an opposing point of view and remain civil and neutral, excellent qualities for an admin.
'''Approved'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' No problems here. --
'''Strong support'''. Long overdue.
'''Support''' as co-nominator.  Brilliant candidate for adminship --
'''Strong support''' - I've been encountering this editor all around w/ high quality edits and comments. Good luck. -- ''
I'm <tt>
'''Support''': I know many will oppose because when you want to stand for what you think is right then you annoy some people. Wikipedia process of making admin is FAULTY and it makes those people admin who avoid disputes and try to keep everyone happy. Those people are NOT good and it is too bad for wikipedia. I wish more people like [[User:BostonMA]], [[User:Netscott]], [[User:Zora]] to be an admin because they will be coolest admin around because they stand for what is right. However, current process will not get them good support which is too bad for wikipedia. (BTW when I say ''"stand for what is right"'' then it does not mean that they do not listen to others or stubborn. Obviously discussing and compromising is one of the '''best qualities''' of [[User:BostonMA]] and I do not support someone who I do not know good enough)  ---
'''Weak Support''' There seem to be more than enough reasons above to support even after those that are cancelled out in the reasons to oppose.
'''Strong Support''' Boston MA has shown that he is a balanced editor and rarely gets caught up in ad hominem arguments, even when being outright attacked. I feel that his dispute with Dab was primarily a misunderstanding which was blown out of proportion, and when interacting with people from different cultures who speak different primary languages this is bound to happen on occasion. I highly endorse his adminship because BostonMA will jump in and get his feet wet as opposed to "just letting problems solve themselves."-
'''I've been ill and thus am possibly the most late nominator to support a nominee in the history of the 'pedia'''. Nevertheless, Boston has my full and unqualified '''very strong support''' despite my tardiness and I recommend, again, the addition of a couple of buttons to this editor. <small>He says, making up for an earlier silence not related to Wikipedia, which will now kick back in...</small> [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
--
'''Strong Support''' - A familiar figure on [[WP:PINQ]] and a very conscientious contributor.<b>
'''Support''' - I extend my full support. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A great contributor, will make a great, strong admin.
'''Support''' I have been looking at Boston's contribs throughout the day, and reading the oppose rationales, and I honestly don't see a problem. I like the user's work, I like the user's contributions to many different areas of WP, I like the user's answers to the questions, and I don't think any abuse of admin powers will take place. --
'''Support''' Despite the concerns brought by those opposing, this user seems to have what it takes to become an admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom, answers, and strong record of contributions, and relying on the candidate's assurance that he will bear in mind the comments made about his approach to deletion, especially of content submitted by new editors.
'''Support''', with the hope that BostonMA takes the advice to explain what's happening to newbies to avoid biting them. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' We could use more common-sense (Hindu?) editors.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support''' - the only meaningful question is whether or not we trust the candidate with the tools.  None of the opposes have given me a reason not to.  Administrators don't have to be experts in every area of Wikipedia and they don't have to have an interest in every area or Wikipedia administration - they just have to be trustworthy.
'''Support''' The only problem I saw here was his case of newbie biting. However, now that it has been brought up, I don't see Boston ever doing it again. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', per nom.  Reasonable editors like Boston are the only thing that keeps Wikipedia from being taken over by crazies. Also, nice vandal ownage.  [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' While some of Nick's comments worry me I think that your work is just to great to oppose. You will make a fine admin. &mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Need I say more?? This guy will make a good admin! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support''', trustworthy and very civil. handles charged disputes extremely well. the issues raised below are of slight concern, but i believe his approach and attitude facilitates quick rectification of any errors on his part.
'''Support''' Civil, greet new users and rv vandalism (A lot!). Very trustworthy and paticipate in Article for deletion on your last 500 edits. Lots of Wikipedia and mainspace edits. Only problem is you used edit summaried 50% of the time when doing edits. Other than that I support.--
'''Support''' I've watched BostonMA while following the events leading up to the latest arbitration case, and have been impressed by his patience, calmness, and civility.  He'd make a good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Ultra-Strong Support''' If the seemingly racist German guy can keep his status as an Admin after all he has done and BostonMA can't become an admin simply because he keeps a record of what the German guy did, then injustice will have indeed taken place. BostonMA is a user who, although he might be somewhat questionable when it comes to [[WP:BITE]], is very qualified to become a sysop. '''
'''Support''' Seems to be an overall good editor.--
'''Strong, Strong Support''' Could hardly find a more qualified user.  From the way some of the oppose votes are going below me, you'd think you'd have to have three years experience with an absolutely perfect record to become an admin here! -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I have seen a few of his comments which were all respectful, reasonable and civil. --
'''Support''', trustworthy.
'''Support'''. A trustworthy, dedicated user. The lack of newbie notification on speedy deletions doesn't concern me much, especially if these pages were created in bad-faith. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Weak support'''. My first encounters with BostonMA weren't in the best settings ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby]]), but I can see no real issues. I trust that this user knows what is expected of him, as an admin, regarding newbies and new pages, and I can't really say no, because he was nominated by Redvers, who (as far as I know) was my final Esperanza "admin coachee"... so, yeah, weak support. &ndash;
I find the objections raised unconvincing.
'''Support''' Seems  like a good contributor, and Redvers presents a very convincing nom. Problems in the objections section can be overcome with a bit of coaching (the fact they have been raised here should quickly rectfy them.) Plus, some "newbies" are not newbies at all -- many encountered on newpages patrol are bored schoolkids playing with their mates on a terminal at the other side of the IT room.
'''support''' --
'''Support'''- per Good Editor who needs admin tools.--
'''Support''' - I am a bit troubled by what seems to me to be nit-picking ("concerns") by some editors in this RfA.  Wikipedia needs more admins. BostonMA has demonstrated his commitment to Wikipedia and would be even more valuable as an admin.
'''Support.''' These are some of the strangest oppose votes I have ever seen. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' This user has plenty of rep, he really needs to be an admin.
'''Very Strong Support''' - A great Wikipedian that contributes very well and is a very talented user. BostonMA does deserve the administrator title. --'''
Decided on '''Support''' Good user, deserves tools.
'''Support'''.
Yes
'''Strong Support''' a very good, respectable editor. Sure he's got a few flaws, but he's committed to Wikipedia's mission.
'''Support''' I <s>sued</s> supported <s>Ben Affleck</s> BostonMA...aw, do I even need a reason? But seriously, folks, a great user and deserves the tools. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gre]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Support''' This is the most perfect candidate for an administrator I have seen in a long time. He is patient and hard-working. His user page is fantastic, designed to resolve disputes quickly and effectively. He also seems very modest, which is good for a Wikipedian.
'''Support''' I have had a very good impresion of this user--
'''Support''': I think he has now earned sufficient experience to do well as an administrator. --
'''Support''': I see no reason that he will abuse the tools, nor abuse the communities trust.
<s>'''Support, with regrets''': He certainly seems capable, and my head spinned when reading him nom (we don't need ''all'' those links, methinks). However, having experienced the culling blade of people who delete articles that have merit and could be improved, his answer to #6 worries me greatly. Articles that could use clean-up should be given a chance to be cleaned up.  #''After a more thorough look at this candidate, I withdraw my support and side with 'oppose'.''</s> Scratch that, it was all a misunderstanding. see below. '''Support it is''' <font color="#ff9900">
'''Full Support''', per nomination.
'''Support'''- I'm not convinced he wouldn't make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I have noticed him around but had no direct dealings. However having read this page through, and looked at the diffs linked to my the nominator, I am convinced. --
'''Support'''. A knowledgeable, sensible and well-rounded editor. Most deserving.
'''Strong support''' - I would have been one of the first to support had I not been busy with RL. BostonMA is a great wikipedian would make a great admin. -
'''Support'''. It's true that the answers to the questions are a bit weak, but I'm confident that he won't misuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great user that has shown he will not misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. A disproportionate amount of opposition has come from this user's lack of notifying creators of articles tagged as CSD. This is a good editor. --
'''Support''' without hesitation.  Anyone who wants to knock the guy for not notifying creators needs to spend a couple of hours at [[Special:Newpages]].  The term "firehose of crap" has been used.  The first Oppose refers to an article which tells us that the Peru top 100 is the top 100 in Peru.  In pretty much so many words.  Failing to notify the creator that this peerless wisdom may not be pivotal to the building of a great encyclopaedia is not, in my view, a cardinal sin. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' I believe this candidate will not misuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' I found Boston to be neutral and very constuctive on contentious article, in which sometimes it becomes difficult to be neutral.
'''Support''' - Impressed by answers to questions, even the pointless (IMO) one about education levels :).  Just a note with regards to anyone concerned about Boston's double tagging of one or two pages - one of the earlier versions of [[WP:NPW|NPWatcher]] didn't show recognition that it was working, and it is likely that the double tagging took place using one of these versions (I invite someone to check the changelog and version restrictions on the program if I'm wrong). <strong>
'''Weak Support'''. Great edits, great answers, Nearly Headless Nick does make a great point with his oppose, but I've seen far worse conduct before, and I'm finding NO evidence of biting at all, so that shouldn't even be an issue. --
'''Support'''. After reviewing this user's edits, I don't anticipate any admin abuse. That's all that really matters. '''''
'''Borderline Support''': BostonMA, at my instigation, has kindly explained the ArbCom situation and provided diffs which not only satisfy my concerns but which show attention to detail and proof the work Boston has been carrying out has prepared him for adminship, in fact, I'm now a little concerned that the situation has I believe needlessly ended up with ArbCom. I'm sorry for having chopped and changed votes a couple of times now but this is certainly one of the most unusual and difficult to call RfAs that I've come across. I still think this RfA should have waited until the ArbCom case was over as it's obviously affected support, but I'm now sufficently confident in Boston's ability to use the tools correctly not to have to Oppose. I also found myself thinking I would support a future RfA just a few weeks down the line, so I think opposing at this stage is perhaps over bureaucratic. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
Support.
'''Support.''' A good editor overall. Things are blown out of proportion here. --
'''Support''' nice guy. --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support''' - Nobody is perfect, but I feel this user has shown a willingness and thoughtfulness when it comes to responding to criticism.  Sometimes how we respond under pressure is more important than the complete perfection of our histories. -
'''Support''' Sorry for jinxing you - most of the times I have supported a candidate they have failed the RfA.  I think Presidential elections in most countries are more leniant than Wikipedia Admin elections nowadays to the point where only Admins that have avoided all sorts of conflicts can hope to be elected.  Oh well.  Good luck to you.  --
Regretfully, '''oppose'''. This user is civil, sincere and dedicated; however that is ''not a qualification for adminship''. From what I have seen he comes out rather confrontational and from his last five hundred contributions &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=BostonMA], I have seen that many of his edits have been automated; which is not wrong in itself, however I see cases of [[WP:BITE|newbie biting]], This page &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Per%C3%BA_Top_100&action=history] was marked with {{tl|db-empty}} (twice?) within two minutes of its creation, and user failed to notify the creator of the article. Similar case here &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucy_Parker_%28transsexual%29&action=history]. In another case he failed to notify the creator again &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brainwaves_%28compilation%29&action=history], and tagged the page without trying to ascertain the notability of the person (by the means of a refined google search perhaps?). Also [[WP:BIO]] candidates are '''not''' speedy candidates. One more case of quick-{{tl|db}} tagging &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brad_Cloepfil&action=history] (including failure to notify creator again). I believe many of the pages he tagged might have been deleted, however not-notifying the creator of the page, specially when it is a newbie user is unacceptable. I was also surprised by the existence of this page &ndash; [[User talk:BostonMA/RegardingDBachmann]] &ndash; which is not an attack page per se, however this page was created on 22<sup>nd</sup> October 2006. Given that the concerned user was admonished by the Arbitration Committee for a particular comment he made, there was no further need to keep the discussion alive. I feel that this user holds few grudges and does not want to give them up especially when the situation has been dealt with. It simply serves no purpose other than fuelling the fire. Given the above facts which I have produced, I feel that this user will not be able to exercise admin discretion on deletion appropriately. Not admin material (at least not now). &mdash;
'''Hesitant oppose''' - Definitely a cool headed and dedicated user, but a few of the things Sir Nick pointed out concern me. (particularly with the speedy tagging) Could do with a good read up on the deletion policy, but not ready for the sysop buttons ''just yet'' in my humble opinion.
'''Back to Oppose''' per earlier rationale plus Beit Or below. Ouch! - <b>
'''Strong oppose''' per questions 4 and 6.  I can't trust this user with the deletion tools. --
'''Oppose'''. The answer to question 6 is a bit troubling; speedy deletion is supposed to be a process for something that is certain not to pass an AfD, so if an article just needs cleanup, it wasn't a speedy candidate. However, that doesn't really make an oppose. The bigger problem is that you seem to have no qualifications outside of vandal fighting and NP patrolling (meaning you don't have enough XfD). ''Vandal fighting can not be your sole qualification''. I'm not trusting you with powers only to fight vandals, I'm also trusting you with powers to block users for other reasons, to close deletion discussions, and to protect pages from edit wars. Thus, I have to trust you with those tools, and I don't see a reason why I should. I've lost count of how many times I've said that in recent RFAs. -
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:BITE]] concerns - if something isn't comnplete junk, then you really should notify the creator, as they could easily become a productive editor of better articles - and also lack of quality articles.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 1 shows lack of enthusiasm for becoming an admin. Why give the mop to someone who doesn't think they need it? I also question the veracity of the answers to questions 7 and 8. If someone has written a master's thesis, they would be able to demonstrate evaluation of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Weak oppose''' - Seems like a ''great'' contributor, the problems detailed in the first two oppose votes concern me a lot.
With regret, not comfortable with the concerns raised by various editors as above. -
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff. The candidate's understanding of [[WP:IAR]] and speedy deletion criteria is woefully inadequate. Furthermore, I cannot but point out his extremely [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_Avraham#Questions_from_User:BostonMA|hostile questioning of Avi]] regarding some content issues during the ArbCom elections. Questions to ArbCom candidates is not a proper place to bring up your content dispute.
'''Oppose''' without prejudice -- Certainly seems like a good editor; however, I'm concerned that this admin candidate is currently an [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood|involved party in an ArbCom case]], yet is the only one who has not given a statement in the week since it was opened. His requests for sweeping checkuser against 8 to 10 accounts (placed on both the ArbCom's [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop#Motion_for_CheckUser|Workshop page]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:BostonMA|Evidence page]]), without presenting solid justification, also strikes me as excessive. I'd suggest trying again after the ArbCom case is concluded.--<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns for comfort raised in the Oppose and Neutral columns.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. Seems to have been involved in a number of disputes with established editors to the point where he admits that he can no longer assume good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BostonMA&diff=prev&oldid=87743719]. Also while the lack of article editing is bad, the habitual addition of unsourced material to articles is far worse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daku_Man_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=80819390], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Aspdin&diff=prev&oldid=82890122], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sainte-Anne-du-Nord_River&diff=prev&oldid=91812701]. Needs more familiarity with core policies and broader experience before promotion. --
'''Oppose''' I wasn't going above neutral per fairly undistinguished record in main and WP space (other than checkuser) and fuzzy understanding of policies, but JJay's finds put me in the oppose column. No problems I see that prevent a future nomination. ~
'''Oppose''' per Beit Or above and others.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:JJay|JJay]] et. al. The user seemed unable to deal in good faith, regardless of attempts as seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BostonMA&diff=prev&oldid=87743719]. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:JJay|JJay]]. I cannot see how the edit BostonMA refered to in that edit would proclude assuming good faith in future. The addition of unsourced material is also a concern and I share the reservations to answers to question expressed by [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]].
'''Oppose''' per Singopo. --
'''Oppose''' per the above, needs a better familiarity with core policies.
'''Oppose'''. I stayed away from this RfA until I could make a formidable decision here, but the evidence provided in the opposes is quite destructive. I have no option but to oppose your RfA, Boston. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' as per Nearly Headless Nick. Also I can't say the answers to questions 4&6 rocked my world --
'''Oppose''' per many of the above. Inadequate grasp of policies and other concerns raised here are troubling.
'''Oppose''' in the strongest way possible. User seems to think speedy deletion is the solution to all of lifes problems... rather than cleaning up perfectly verifiable information. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but I can't support after seeing [[User:JJay|JJay]]'s comments and your answer to question 6, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per Beit Or's above comments. --
'''Oppose''' per JJay ''et al''.
'''Oppose''' per JJay. --
'''Oppose''' firstly for weak mainspace contributions (less than 2K edits mostly done by semi-automatic tools, also the answers to q2). Secondly, one of the main requirenets of an admin is to forgive all editorial and personal conflicts with productive users, believe in the good faith and judge editors by his or her strengths not weaknesses. The page on DrBachman and the conflict with Avi shows that it is not the case yet.
'''Oppose''', specifically over the DBachmann affair and other concerns highlighted by Nearly Headless Nick. The user is too combative for adminship in my opinion. Preemptively, I kindly request Bakaman not to add any threaded comments below my !vote. Please conduct discussion on the talkpage.
'''Oppose''' per JJay.--
<inserting>'''INCREDIBLY Strong'''</inserting> '''Oppose''' per JJay and Alkivar.  Nothing in the arguments I've seen in favor of adminship comes close to swaying me... From his contribs, BostonMA seems to be a productive editor, something which adminship is not going to improve, nor is denial of adminship likely to hinder.  The only tool that might help is "rollback", and some of the above troubling diffs indicate that in this case, it would be like giving matches to a closet pyromaniac.  I can only hope that if this RfA ultimately fails, that that failure will not negatively impact BostonMA's editing, and that if it ultimately succeeds, that he will consider seriously the sometimes harsh criticism leveled against him here in the process.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per JJay and Nearly Headless Nick.
'''Oppose'''. —
'''Oppose''' per JJay and others. Maybe try again in a few months, see if behavior changes.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns raised by various people above point to a need for more experience, particularly in ''reliably'' handling difficult situations in accordance with policy. --
'''Oppose''' per the confused, oft-revised answer to Question 6, as well as other concerns.  More experience will help allay objections to this mostly-wonderful candidate.
'''Oppose''' per lack of significant mainspace work. One of the main goals of adminship (if not ''the'' main one) is to provide a comfortable environment to Wikipedia writers. That requires being in touch, that requires significant involvement in content writing. --
'''Weak oppose''' Xoloz has it, I think, quite right.  I must admit that, the fact of RfA's not being a vote notwithstanding, I considered supporting in view of my disagreeing rather strongly with some of the opposes propounded (à la, if less harshly, [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSam_Vimes2&diff=58847688&oldid=58846911 here]), but I'm not at all sure that I can conclude with any reasonable degree of certainty that the net effect on the project of our sysopping Boston should be positive, such that, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|guidelines]], I must oppose; I join, though, in the comments of [[User:TShilo12|Tshilo]] supra and [[User:Grutness|Grutness]] infra and imagine that, should this RfA succeed, Boston will be especially circumspect in certain of his actions.
'''Neutral''' I will go towards neutral on this one due to the tagging without issuing a warning about why the action was required on the new editor's Talk page.  I don't think that this is a reason for an outright oppose from me because a) I have done the same thing myself in the past and been pulled up on it too, and b) Redvers correctly points out that BostonMA is capable of learning from their mistakes.  If this was in the distant past then I would have no concerns but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Per%C3%BA_Top_100&action=history it only happened on December 25].
'''Neutral''' Leaning to support, but the candidate's comments on [[WP:IAR]] gave me pause: ''New users may be intimidated. We don't want to discourage new users from doing things that seem right. WP:IAR gives new users a degree of leeway to make mistakes without being bitten.'' That's a new one on me - surely, BostonMA means [[WP:BITE]], not that new users are given a free pass? Isn't it more important to encourage new users to learn the rules and norms? Or what does he mean here? (and isn't [[WP:SNOW]] an essay about using policy [[WP:IAR]] in a particular way, and not just a standalone essay?)
'''Neutral''' (changed from oppose above).  I believe that during an ArbComm case is not the right time to have an RfA.  However, reading some of the mediation pages and the ArbComm pages to date much more fully, I don't see any serious allegations about BostonMA's behavior.  Given the ease (and scarce evidence) with which others have been accused of poor behavior, I'm willing to believe for now that he was not a primary disputant.
'''Neutral''' I was leaning toward at least a weak support, partly as a counterweight to this meme going around that quick speedy-tagging of obviously deficient articles is newbie-biting. However, recent events have finally convinced me that, in the absence of ''extraordinary'' contributions in another realm, admins should have significant experience in article writing.
'''Neutral'''- I am a bit concerned about the tendency to speedy tag too quickly (and yes, I've been guilty of this in the past, too). A little more XfD could be good, too, although it's not the main reason I'm hesitant to support.
'''Neutral'''-per GRBerry. --
'''Neutral''' per the concerns raised in the Oppose section so far.
'''Neutral''' - obviously a useful editor but equally obviously some valid concerns raised by those opposing this nomination --
'''Neutral'''. Great editor, but very recent speedy-tagging of articles that could have been tagged with maintenance templates raises concerns. I hope I'll be supporting in the next RfA.
'''Neutral''' - Close to support as a good contributor, but I do not approve of speedying articles too fast after their creation (unless they are obviously going to be a CSD, e.g. the title is obviously nonsense), as time is needed for editors to expand a new page.
'''Neutral''', close to support. Would love to support - BostonMA is a very fine and very friendly editor, but I too have a few concerns about some of the issues raised such as the speedying.
'''Support''' - I'm fed up with editcountitis. Any user in good standing who wants admin tools should get them. Period. Why should less than 1000 edits disqualify this user for adminship? <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Ridiculous.  I ask all of you to read the ''Nomination Standards'' section of this page.  "The only major consideration for whether a user should become an administrator is evidence of how the user will use administrator tools."  Granting a user with less than 1000 edits does not somehow dilute the quality of administrators.  Jimbo Wales himself has stated that Adminship is not a big deal.  The number of edits a person has does not correlate to his experience.  Please reconsider your opposition if it is solely based on edit count.
'''Support''' - editcountitis is killing RfA. -
Lack of experience, and sporadic history of editing. You're doing a good job, please come back in sometime. Best wishes. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' less than 1000 edits in the main spaces, sporadic contributions - why the long series of gaps in your Wiki-career? General lack of admin-related tasks on your cv, too. Best to withdraw this application and return when more admin-related experience has been gathered.
'''Oppose''', under 1000 edits, a huge wikibreak splitting them in half. Try ocntributing more to wikispace.--
'''Oppose''' - Not even a 1000 edits which by standards is too low to apply for Adminship and as user
'''Oppose''' - I see neither the need for the tools, nor the experience to use them. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''': "jimbo wales (whoever he is)" - probably the most alarming comment coming from a candidate I've ever read on an RfA. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose'''. This isn't an issue of editcountitis. '''''
'''Oppose''' While the total edit count is disturbingly low, I accept that this is not necessarily a bar to adminship. But I would suggest that only 29 edits in wikipedia and 3 in wikitalk is. We have to be assured that you are aware of, and can implement, policy, which these edit figures do not indicate to me. As to the "Jimbo Wales" comment, while a newish editor may not know the name, the very fact that the name was brought up might well have suggested that, before making a profession of ignorance, you should actively find out who he is. And while not knowing who he is is perhaps ok, not troubling to find out is alarming.--
'''Oppose''' - less than 1000 edits is not enough to know how to use tools. Come back in a few months after you have at least 3000 edits.
'''Oppose''' Too little experience.
'''Oppose''' Extremely bad grammar and use of capital letters. Plus, I've got more edits than you and I don't think I'm anywhere near ready to try for adminship. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Neutral''' not as active as I'd like to see, not enough experience to go closing XFDs (only 23 edits in wiki-space) and finding it hard to see a real need for the tools.  However, general contribution is good, keep doing it and become more familiar with XFDs and try RFA again in a while.
'''Neutral'''Experience issues.
'''Neutral'''.  I've seen Bouncingmolar do some good work with the dentistry project on dentistry-related articles.  Bouncingmolar is a quality Wikipedian who makes good contributions.  I'm not convinced, however, the Bouncingmolar has the requisite policy knowledge to be effective as an administrator.  I recommend withdrawal, increased participation in policy-intensive areas like [[WP:AFD|AFD]], and a second try again in several months. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Neutral''' fails my [[User:Danntm/RFA|criteria]].--
'''Moral Support'''. For the vandal fighting and contributions that have been made. However your answers to the questions don't seem, to me, to illustrate an understanding of adminship - reverting nationalistic POV for example is well within your current "powers". I think that your RfA may well [[WP:SNOW|not get very far]], but kudos for the self nom and efforts so far. Please don't be discouraged. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Pedro's reasoning.
'''Moral support''' per Pedro. --
'''Oppose''' - True, you've been editing for some time. However, your total edit count is 387 and your mainspace edit count is just 234. We need to see a more substantial edit history than that to tell if you're ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Per wanting to edit the Main Page, which shows little understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. Discussions actually take days about expanding a border from "7" to "9". '''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' I do not feel you would be a threat to Wikipedia, but your limited scope of edits fails to demonstrate, to me at least, your understanding of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' Need more experience at wikpiedia and I'll be glad to support at that point!
'''Oppose''' Most of the time, when I oppose people, it's because of edit count. You have less than 400 edits, and I'm sorry, but maybe next time.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. I know its bad to judge people by their amount of edits, but 390 are ridiculously small and with a peak of just 59 edits. Sorry. No can do.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate says he wants to use the tools to keep POV out, which is exactly what he wouldn't be allowed to do.
'''Oppose, but with Moral Support'''. Thanks for offering to be an admin, but with that few edits, I don't feel you have the experience to be an admin. Come back, possibly with about 1K edits (the more the merrier), and you will have a much better chance of getting through this RfA. You could also try helping with the [[User:Dragons flight/Category tracker|backlogs]] we have at the moment, and commenting on other RfAs, putting your opinion in on [[Talk:Main Page]], and participating in XfDs. That will give you a lot of experience, but remember to read about them, and make sure you know how they work first.
'''Oppose, But with Moral Support''' - Stwalkerster put it very well. The lack of editing, as well as the lack of experience that that shows, is not helping. Your heart is in the right place, so keep up with editing: Work with backlogs, comment on RfAs, and XFD XFD XFD!! Gain experience in the Wikipedia namespace in admin-type activities, come back a few K's of edits from now, and you'll be good to go. --
'''Oppose, but with Moral Support''' Opposer per Stwalkerster. <font face="Papyrus">
'''Neutral'''. Need moar edits –
'''Neutral'''.  Your contributions to the project thus far are good and commendable, but as stated above the answers to the questions don't demonstrate a firm grasp on policy just yet.  I'd never oppose anyone for having too few edits, either, but must admit that with only 14 Wikipedia space edits, I can't really use that to judge your grasp of policies either.  I'd suggest getting involved in some policy-intensive areas, such as XfD or policy discussions on the Village Pump, to demonstrate your knowledge of policy and procedure and come try again in a bit.
'''Neutral''' I dont want this to be a pile on situation but I think you need more experience and some more edits, most commenters on RfA's look for at least 2000 and a good usage of [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]], you could certainly be an admin in future months with improvements. Good luck! '''
'''Neutral''' - Edit count is a bit of a issue, but not really my main concern. It is the lack of experience that worries me. Get acquainted with wikipedia policy more, and try again when you have 2000 edits. Then I might support. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Neutral''' -- I dont want to go either way: you cant have my support, and I dont want to pile on more opposes, but I do want to vote. So thats why I'm here. Sorry, I just cant support a candidate with this amount of experience. --
--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry your account is waaay too new. The things you want to do in response to Q1 you can do right now. Also becoming an admin won't change what contributions are acceptable to Wikipedia. I suggest discussing your concerns with the editor/administrator that removed your changes. Also please use the article talk pages to discuss issues with article content. You can not use administrator rights to win an edit war. --
'''Strong oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. You have less than 50 edits, many inappropriately marked as minor (including controversial edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=157850950 this]), almost all of which appear to be reverted, and you say you want admin powers specifically to help you in edit-wars.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''. Typical admin candidates have at least 6 months of experience and a couple thousand edits. Many have considerably more of both. Without more time and at least 1000 edits, there is absolutely no way you could be promoted to admin. Sorry, but you just don't have the experience needed for the community to have learnt to trust you. But stick around and you may someday.
If you are going to use your admin tools to win edit wars, then I'd suggest withdrawal right away and learn how to edit constructively.  Even more, it doesn't look like you have knowledge of core policies and guidelines, and your account is too new.  There is absolutely no way you could possibly be promoted at this point.  '''Strong oppose'''. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose''' for a couple of reasons. Although I'm opposed to over-reliance on edit counts, there just isn't much of a history here of editing, which means not much experience with the ins and outs of editing. And, of course, the motivation for adminship (revenge?) leaves me uncomfortable.--
'''Oppose''' per above. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' sorry, but you haven't got anything like enough experience. The comment in "General comments" above suggests a poor motive for seeking adminship as well. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose''', pretty much what everyone's already said.
'''Moral Support''' - your answers are fine and your a good but inexperienced editor. I've no doubt that in a few months you'll have built up a lot more experience on WP and will be ready for another go -
Not enough experience yet, and ''adminship is not a reward''. Try back in a few months with more experience and a nomination statement which doesn't include "rewarding" you.
'''Oppose'''. Adminship is not a reward. --
'''Moral Support''' - you are obviously a dedicated Wikipedian, but most administrators have more experience - I hope you will continue to edit and apply again in the future.  Also, please try to use edit summaries more frequently. Edit summaries help other editors when they are going through article or contribution histories. --
'''Intermutual oppose'''. Inexperience.
'''Oppose''' Agreed that you should focus on improving edit summary usage, and that more experience would be helpful.  (You don't have many more edits than I do, and I certainly don't think I'm sufficiently prepared for adminship yet, for reference).
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.  652 edits in total and an admitted lack of participation in the policy areas of Wikipedia with a further admission that exams are taking up your time demonstrate that you are a long way from requiring the admin tools to perform your chosen tasks.  Up your participation in all major spaces and try again in twelve months' time.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. I'm also perturbed by the ''13%'' usage of edit summaries for major edits. Finally, as has been said many times already, I believe, admin is not a reward. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' unfortunately the one article you mention that you are proud of has no sources so is [[WP:V|unverifiable]]: verifiability is one of our three core content policies. You mention in your answer to Q1 you say: "even though I do take more participation in Afd, as I a more familiar with that particular policy" but you've only participated in ''one'' [[WP:AFD|AfD]] debate. So, I'm afraid I have to oppose this. I'd suggest spending the next few months contributing further to articles and AfDs, building up your knowledge of [[WP:5P|policy]] and then seek an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
'''Oppose''' Thank you for your desire to serve but I think a bit more time is required. I'm not too far ahead of you in the counts and I know I wouldn't be ready. Rack up some more edits and we'll see you again soon.
'''Oppose''' - Lack of Experience, lack of Wikipedia Edits and your Edit summary usage is too low..Maybe next time....Be an all-rounder editor..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Beat the nom support''' [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Hell yeah''' --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' Beat me to reverting a vandal and then showed me how he did it. That in itself deserves a vote.
'''Strong support'''. Was meaning to nominate myself. An excellent editor, who I'm sure will use the extra buttons fairly and competently. --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' I see Budgiekiller everywhere! I know this is overused, but I really thought he was already a sysop. He should work on his wiki-space edits after he has the mop (IMHO). | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font color="Tan">
'''Support''' - In looking through the user's Wikipedia space contributions, I see plenty of XFD, including articles, templates, and categories.  Logically, it doesn't make sense to say "lack of policy experience" based on ''percentage'' of Wiki-space edits, unless you think the mainspace vandalism reversions somehow cause him to forget what he learned from XFD. --
'''Support'''. Impressed with his work at [[2006 Ipswich murder investigation]]. Would like to see a bit more policy contribution, but the nom is certainly not lacking in experience. What is more important - an admin who demonstrates he understands policy, or evidence he has created it?
'''Support''' Without doubt. A thoroughly valuable contributor.
'''Support''' A strong, consistent, and effective contributor. This one was easy for me. --
'''Support''' - Looking over the last 1000 edits (that's the last two weeks of contributions), I see a great deal of vandal fighting and user notifications.  So this is someone who is interested in doing administrative stuff, and has an excellent reputation as an editor.  No, not a perfect candidate, but one extremely likely to be a very productive and problem-free admin.
'''Support''' Polite, helpful, useful.... and any other words with the ''ful'' suffix. I was waivering on the "oppose" for the Ipswich Town affliction, however. <small>joking</small> ;)
'''Support''' Absolutamente! (Note: I have no idea if that's a word in any language.) --
'''Support''' ←
'''Support''' This was almost a neutral, as you should have more Wikispace edits. However, nobody is perfect. '''
'''Support'''
'''Very strong support''' This user is amazing!!!! The admin tools will be of great help to him. --
'''Support''' Great user that would do good with the tools.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around all the time on RC patrol, with admin tools, he'll be even better. A little low on the article-editing side, but otherwise a valuable asset to the project.
'''Support''' - I ask myself this question: "Can the admin candidate be trusted with the tools?" In this case I think yes. Though I don't agree with everything that Budgiekiller has said in reply to my question, I am willing to lend my support. Go and use the automatic rollback, and the blocking features of that shiny mop. Editing articles does not require an administrator, but knowing when and where to block does. Vandal patrol will always need new admins, as over time some of us [[Burnout (psychology)|burn out]] after a while. Remember... '''Adminship is not a big deal'''. ——
<s>'''Support'''</s>. changed to '''Strong Support''' We really, really need more admin vandal fighters. I can't say that more emphatically. RC Patrol is missing hundreds, probably thousands of quite egregious instances of vandalism every single day. Quite frankly, it's only a matter of time before one of these instances of vandalism comes back and bites us big time.  I understand that Budgiekiller might not have quite the level of policy experience that some of us are looking for, but he's a great editor doing an extremely difficult yet important job.
'''Support''' due to the many pleasant interactions I've had with this avian executioner. I totally agree with what Alphachimp said, and plus, editcountitis sucks. --
'''Support''' while I may prefer more wikispace experience, user still looks good and trustworthy to me.--
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighter and seems up for the job.
'''Weak support''', just barely avoiding neutral. I really don't like constant VP/AWB/whatever edits, but you don't have quite enough for me to not support. -
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, has a need for and understanding of the tools he will be using, good mature interaction with vandals and other editors alike. Does opposing this candidate improve the encyclopaedia? NO. Does giving this editor an extra button or two? YES. Doh! --
'''Support''' -Will help w/ backlogs as stated in questions, and if someone gets a co-nom, most of the time, they're an amazing user. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''', Good experience and seasoned judgement.  No problems.
'''Support''' Can't find anything that would cause me to oppose.
'''Support''' - Is intelligent, level-headed, and cares about the project and the people in it.  Will make an excellent admin.  --
'''Support''' Yes... ending at least some of the "poop sprees" would be nice.  On a more serious note, I agree with alphachimp, and though your number of WP space edits could be higher, this does not denote unfamiliarity with process.  You will do well with the mop.
'''Support''' per the ape. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' per noms and above. You are a great candidate and definitely reach my standards. ''
'''Support''' as unconvinced. '''
'''Support''' - belatedly. Wasn't sure that the nom was allowed to support and was terrified of "malforming" the RfA. --
'''Support'''  a [[Norwich City F.C.|canary]] nominating a [[Ipswich Town F.C.|tractor boy]]? Must be a bloody good editor! Also very good answers to questions, paritcularly the [[WP:IAR]] one. --
'''Support''' Sounds confident with policy and I see no problems.
'''Support'''.  Seems like a reasonable and fair-minded editor who would make good use of the tools.  Keeping the [[WP:AIV|vandal backlog]] down is a good task for a valiant vandal-fighter.
'''Weak Support''' per Chimp, high risk of bolting. - <b>
'''Support''' In part I support simply based on the number of edits without serious problems.  In particular, I commend his restubbing.  I have just this month created my first stub and realize how much of this type of contribution is needed.  Of course, these thoughts don't justify a need for the new superpowers.  I do, however, feel he also will be able to perform vandal hunting more efficiently which is a task in need of adminship powers.
'''Support''' Not a user I'm familiar with, but looking through past edits and in paticular the questions earn a support from me.  I'm particularly impressed with answers to #4 and #5.  A good admin must not be afraid to stop spam and must have a strong understanding of IAR, SNOW and related situations.
'''Support''' - this user is a fantastic vandal fighter, and per nom is an excellent choice for adminship.
'''Weak Support'''. I've been giving this one some long thought, and have come to the conclusion that this candidate could use the tools and will not abuse them. The oppose comments do provide plenty of food for thought, but in the end they have not disuaded me from supporting this nominee.
'''Support''', opposition raises no significant concerns.
'''Support''' - we should be selecting anyone who is considered trustworthy and experienced, not requiring that they have an interest in all areas of Wikipedia. If the user spends too much time fighting vandals, we should thank them, not oppose them. --
'''Support'''. Appears unlikely to abuse the tools, and I'm satisfied with the XfD experience he has already.
'''Support''', qualified candidate. The Oppose rationales, while not unreasonable, do not outweigh the candidate's strong contributions in other areas.
'''Support''', great vandal fighter, meets my requirements, agree with Newyorkbrad on the Wikispace issue.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' per a lot of the above. I think he'd use the tools effectively in vandal fighting, and be wise enough to seek advice if he's not sure about something.
'''Support''' Good editor!
'''Support''' as per above. Will not abuse the tools given to him.
'''Support''' Responsible and experienced. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.ms]]
'''Support''' -- Excellent participation in the virtual classroom shows willingness to learn up on admin skills. [[User:Anthony_cfc|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">Anthony</span>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Support''' Clearly a hardworking, trustworthy editor who will use the mop to the project and community's advantage.
'''Support''' per most of the above.
'''Support''' Good wikipedian. ''
'''Support'''.  We should be aware that we're likely to underestimate the amount of article contribution, since a major edit shows up equally in the contribs as a minor one, of which there are likely to be a lot more for anyone.  I'd object to using number of project space edits as a reason to believe someone's unfamiliar with policy -- maybe someone who has a lot is just piling on !votes in XFD's or making a lot of irrelevant comments.  It's hard to know from that whether someone's read and understands policy; maybe they're just shy or cautious about posting.  And I don't really see replying to every oppose as too big of a deal.  His responses were very friendly.
'''Support''' good editors as admins.
'''Support''' - The rationales for some oppose votes have me questioning ... a lot of things. But this user is precisely what is needed for administration. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Obligatory I wanted to support you but couldn't but you fixed what was wrong support'''. That and the lack of wikispace edits shouldn't have kept me from supporting you seeing as how great your other edits are. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - Seems fine, and some of the oppose rationales below seem awfully harsh and don't appear to make an argument that this user cannot be trusted with the mop. -
Changed to '''support''' as user has requested a name change, & a review of his contribs and answers here shows a user who could use the tools and won't likely abuse them. I also would like to note that this user appears to respond very well to criticism, which shows a level head. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo]]<font color="green">
'''Ah, what the hell, just give this guy the tools. Not stupid, knows what he's doing.''' I doubt he'll mess up. We can't all write articles, and policy is not so important, you can get along with common sense, [[WP:CIVIL]] and corollaries and IAR. I'm sure this guy knows his stuff anyway.
'''Support''', I see no reason to think he'll abuse or misuse the tools, so there's no reason not to promote. We need more admins. --
'''Support''', because we need more people like him handling the tasks that need to be done to keep Wikipedia clean.
'''Support''' --
'''Weak support''' Having vacillated on this for a good while, I've come to conclude that Budgie will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., in view of his being non-conversant with policy; though the latter is surely a not insignificant objection, I think the fact of Budgie's being exceedingly cordial and demonstrating a willingness to act deliberatively, to refrain from acting whereof he does not know, and readily to receive feedback render him unlikely inadvertently to err) the tools, such that I think it reasonably clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive]].
304 Wiki-space edits from 14,870 (not taking into account current replication lag)? Lack of policy experience. '''Definite No.''' &ndash;
'''Oppose''' vandalism reverting alone doesn't qualify for the admin tools. And I see very little involvement in AFD's which is obviously not good...especially when you notice that in Q1 that you anticipate closing AFD's. I personally would be a little nervous to let you do so and not be experienced in the process. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' reluctantly. Too much concentration on Vandal fighting. Vandal fighting has become easier and, especially with anti-Vandal bots and AWB being available to any editors who wishes, VF requires little (although some) admin involvement. I would like to see candidates more established as ''content writers'' because this is the main goal of Wikipedia, content writing warrants being in touch with the needs of the "fickle and ill-informed populace" (the regular editors, you know) and ensures administrator can properly handle the most difficult admin task, that is ensuring the comfortable environment to contribute for editors who want to do just that. Please do not take it personally but rather demonstrate both content writing and positive involvement in dispute resolutions if you run again. --
'''Oppose''' nothing personal, didn't see enough article editing, which I view as important in settling content disputes in articles.  Please let me know if I'm wrong (I looked at question 2 and scanned through the last 2000 edits or so) and I'll be happy to reconsider --
'''Oppose''' WP/talk:WP just aren't sufficient. Unfortunately Betacommand's reply to Chacor just exacerbates my belief that candidates ''need'' a reasonable amount of WP experience. '''
'''Oppose''' I think you need more experience with process and policy.
'''Oppose''', considers WP:SNOW a "reasonable approach" in some situations.  --
'''Oppose''', somewhat reluctantly. Certainly a good vandal fighter, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. (Note: I did look at the user's contributions before the last 5000.) &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Mark, lack of encyclopedia writing does it for me, wikipedia as well
'''Oppose''':  I am afraid that I cannot support at this time.  We have information to present still and coverage to consolidate and duplication to eliminate.  That's where most of the action is, and therefore it is where we should be most knowledgeable as administrators.
'''Oppose''' this time around, per Irpen and Radiant.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Anyone who responds to the majority of his/her oppose votes will not have my support. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Lack of Wikispace edits, as well as confusion over proper RfA conduct, suggests candidate really needs more experience before taking up the mop.
'''Opppose''', lacks experience.
'''Oppose''' great number of edits done with AWB, somewhat concerned how this user anticipates closing AFDs, since this user views WP:SNOW as a good resource to expedite the AFD process in a few situations. However if this user does get the admin tools, I would wish him good luck.
Per Radiant. &mdash;
'''Strong oppose'''. Per above
'''Strongly oppose''' for his answer to question #7. Warning templates have no place with established users.
'''Oppose''': Per Xoloz.  If he gives an uneasy feeling ''here'', then it's too early.  —
'''Oppose''' per Mackensen. We expect admins to have more sense than this.
'''Oppose''' - And I thought I had a lot of edits! 16K altogether & 5K edits over the Christmas period alone! Wow! You've been here longer than me I think, & you've got way more mainspace edits than me. You seem civil enough, so I bet you're wondering why this isn't a support vote. Well, experience. As per above objects, you have far too few edits in the Wikipedia namespace for my liking & obviously many other's likings. With 5K edits in one month, I see no reason why your WP edits shouldn't be higher, especially after 2 years here. Also, despite how I love my comments being responded to, your replies seem too defensive for my liking. You don't seem to be "soaking" in any of the comments made here, instead you seem to be only defending them. People need to learn & improve from their mistakes, & that's what makes an admin. Also, despite its fun sounding attitude, your username would sound quite weird to new members. Heck, even an experienced user like me thought you went around killing small noisy birds until the explaination above. Anyway, other than that, I'd have no problem supporting you. But alas, it is not to be. Try to improve & who knows, maybe next time the outcome will be different...
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and others: not quite ready yet, but would like to support in future.
'''Oppose''' per Mackensen.  Also the candidate doesn't seem to be in perfect control of his tone, assuming that he means to give civil and unconfontational answers to opposes. This is an important skill for an admin, especially in dealing with newbies. Please practise, and I may well support next time. I would appreciate it if I'm allowed to express my opinion here without geting a threaded argument from either Budgiekiller or his belligerent supporters. Please take it to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Budgiekiller talkpage].
His responses to Mackensen's question on Mackensen's talk page are deeply troubling to me.  He seems to think that warning templates are hardcoded into Wikipedia process, not realizing that it is probably best to never use them at all.  Wikipedia doesn't have strict rules, and certainly not with these templates.  I worry about the depth of knowledge of Wikipedia policy.  --
'''Oppose'''. From some of his answers and especially his discussion on Mackensen's talk page, I'm not confident that he really grasps how Wikipedia works. A little more experience would probably be very worthwhile.
'''Oppose''' I have been sitting on the fence since the beginning. Appreciate your work with the vandal fighting but there are just too many niggling things. Nothing major but in the sum of them I think to wait gain a bit more experience  and re-apply in a few month.
'''Neutral''' The lack of wikispace edits is a major concern for me. However, I do not feel that this warrants an oppose opinion as you are a very good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I would like to see more contributions to the policy areas; I don't see any major problems with other contributions.
'''Neutral''' per chacor and arjun. --
'''Neutral<s>, leaning towards oppose</s>'''. Firstly, per Chacor, and Amarkov's traditional ''vandal fighting is really a tiny part of admin responsibilities'' (and variants thereon). Secondly, as regards the speedy deletions, I'm a bit concerned that I can't find nn-warning, testpage, or firstarticle type messages being left on user talk pages. Finally, I feel that playing [[Whac-A-Mole]] with ip vandals isn't necessarily good practice for the sort of non-vandalism disputes that admins have to deal with. This a candidate who should have been asked the ''blocking established contributors'' and ''punitive block'' questions.
'''Neutral'''. For the amount of time and work he's put into the project, he sure shows a lack of participation in the Wikipedia namespace. Besides the sporadic AfD voting, I mostly see some AIV reports (which is good) and vandalism revertions. '''
'''Neutral''', still considering, the lack of WP namespace edits holds back my support. I think there's nothing much to consider about besides this namespace edits issue.
Would want to see more participation in process. Perhaps a featured article, working out on copyright problems, or some deletion discussions. Future looks bright ahead. -
'''Neutral''' - Switched from Support. According to [[User:Insanephantom/RfA criteria|my amended criteria]], I would like to see at least 400 wikispace edits.
'''Neutral'''. I've changed my opinion from "oppose", largely because I think that the business of replying to almost every oppose vote was the result of understandable ignorance of RfA etiquette (perhaps we should have advice for nominees at the top of the page?).  The issue of involvement in Wikispace is the main problem now, but it's not enough for me to oppose. --
'''Neutral''' with "moral support". No need to pile on but I appreciate your work with the vandal fighting though.
'''Neutral''' A tough one - many good qualities, but on balance I can't support at present.--
'''Moral support''' &bull; You have potential, but it is too early for adminship, I feel.  Try again in a couple of months and you may get better reception.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''(moral) Support''' - an off-track decision somehow - it's nice to see such a courageous editor in this bureaucratic "world" of Wikipedia. His statement "what have I got to lose" alone deserves my encouragement. --
'''Support'''-see nothing wrong with this user and has enough experience.--
'''Oppose''' per lack of Wikispace edits, plus you haven't been around long enough yet. Try again in 3 months and you may be worthy, nothing in you history shows anything serious.--
'''Strong Oppose''' you appear to be uninterested in this RFA, your answers are not very inspiring and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=prev&oldid=97194596 this] cannot be overlooked, I would not want an admin to act in that manner. Especially in a deletion discussion. ~
'''Oppose''' - per lack of encyclopaedia building (imperative for an admin). <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't show enough interest, answers are bare-bones, and ultimately not enough experience. '''''
'''Not yet''': You're doing well with opposing vandals, but you need to get other types of experience too, especially work with XfD. Work on that, get some more edits, and you may have a great chance in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. That personal attack was from less than a month ago, and it is not the level of civility I'd expect from an admin. Also lack of encyclopedia building, weak answers to questions, and low participation in XfDs and Wikipedia talk. Come back in a few months with improvements to these, and you'll likely have a successful RfA. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' : 'es 'avin' a larf.
'''Oppose''' per Arjun and lack of mainspace and wikispace contributions. Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace edits. I suggest trying again in a few months after gaining more experience. ···
'''Oppose''' Although I have had interactions with Bushcarrot and he seems to be a nice guy, the fact that he told the nominator of Esperenza's deletion to "go fuck themselves" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=prev&oldid=97194596 here]) leads me to oppose. Sorry dude. '''
'''Strongest oppose'''. In addition to experience concerns, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=prev&oldid=97194596 what were you ''thinking'']? -
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Bushcarrot/bookbio]]. Try again in a year. ~
'''Oppose'''. There's no way I could support within a month of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=prev&oldid=97194453 this]. Our admins can't be telling users to "go fuck themselves". I understand that you apologized above, but comments like that (and those referenced on the bookbio page) don't contribute much good to Wikipedia. I'd suggest participating (civilly) in some discussions before applying again.
'''Oppose''' per everyone (including the neutral and supports, which let's face it, are "oppose, but too polite to say"s).  I note that after the self-nomination, the self-nominee took a quarter of an hour to decide to accept.  Frankly, should have thought about it a bit longer before doing so.
'''Oppose''' I agree with the comments above about work in policy related areas such as [[wp:afd]], [[wp:mfd]], [[wp:tfd]]. However I do think that it took a lot of honesty to admit you made a personal attack and that your honesty is very respectable. Come back in a few months with a few thousand more edits and then see what happens!! Good work on RC patrol aswell. <font face="">
'''Oppose''' I suggest withdrawal. ←
'''Strong oppose''' due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=prev&oldid=97194596 this]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Withdrawl needed.
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, edits, [[WP:CIVIL]] concerns.
'''Oppose''' - Statement & answers are too thin for me to approve. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' - I have seen this editor around.  We all have that urge to get a little hot under the collar, especially about something we care about.  I respect this users zeal and passion.  I think in the future, this user would make a good administrator(as long as there are no more uncivil edits).
'''Support'''. Several of these opposes are seriously lame. I mean, you don't have to pile on opposition, ask if this RfA ''is a joke'' (I strongly oppose taking away self-noms by the way) and tell him he has an "attitude problem" when he chooses to respond to this lameness, or says "what have I got to lose". Are you serious? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. RfA isn't easy for a lot of people, especially not when it's 0/12.
I don't see any indication that this user is experienced enough and familiar enough with policies, guidlines, et cetera to be a competent admin.  In addition, all the replies here seem to a combative undertone that is very unbecoming.
I '''Oppose''' for several reasons. Firstly, I don't like your attitude. "What do I have to lose?" is not what I want from a admin. Secondly, although I believe you are sincere in your regrets for the [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza#Discussion_Subsection_6|Esperanza incident]], I don't know if I can trust you to not relapse. Thirdly, with only 141 edits, I think you could use some more Project namespace edits.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, it takes a while to recover from the kind of blunder that was cited at the previous RFA (and here in Q3).  The shaky understanding of policy convinces me that now is not the time.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough edits to Wikispace and weak answers. And also due to the short discssion about banning and blocking below--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''.  "Banning" vs. "blocking" is an important distinction.  &#10154;
'''Oppose''' answers reflect general inexperience. More edits are needed in the project-space. —
'''Oppose''' - What is this? A surge of really bad self RfA nom's has arisen (see RfA above...) & I'm begininng to wodner if it's a kind of joke? Anyway, based on the answers alone I should oppose & I will. To few Wikipedia namespace edits, too few Mainspace edits, not enough experience overall etc etc. I'm sorry, but although you don't have a lot to lose, you do have a lot to learn. Come back later, Thanks,
'''Oppose''' Your combative and fierce attitude is not admin like quality. Second, a ban is a whole lot different than a block. Please see [[WP:BAN]] and [[WP:BLOCK]].<small>Please do not take this offensively, take this as constructive criticism.</small>--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Oppose''', weak answers and lack of edits generally.
'''Oppose''' Very bad answers to questions, I dont think you know the difference between a Ban and and Block. <b>
'''Oppose''' -the highest is only '''4''' Edits on you mainspace  which is not good enough. MYaybe if you apply sfter 6 months, you might have a chance..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Another candidate whose userpage convinces me to oppose; this time it's the obnoxious fake orange bar of doom at the top.
'''Neurtal''' Pending answer to new quetion. —
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose. This may just be a slip in wording, which is why I'm not opposing for it, but saying in your answer to Q1 that you're going to help with ''banning'' users makes no sense. And if I assume you meant "blocking", you just listed everything an admin can do for an answer, which is totally unhelpful. -
'''Neutral''' the concerns of the previous RFA still hold true but I can't oppose a candidate who is not prepared to give up easily.  More experience please.
'''Oppose''' Poor answers to questions, doesn't show any knowledge of policies or guidelines. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. Your answer to the questions suggests that you don't need the admin tools are, or you don't know ''what'' the admin tools are. Edit summary is crucial, and your edit summary percentage isn't very high. You don't have the sufficient experience that most users look for in an admin candidate. I suggest you stay for a few months until you've gained knowledge of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, as well as the different areas of Wikipedia before reapplying. '''
'''Caged-In sort of oppose''' -- I just cant support you mate, and I cant even say neutral. You do not appear to even properly understand the admin tools, and you have only 200 edits. There is nothing i can do but oppose. --

(edit conflict x2)'''Strong Oppose''' - very few edits, which indicate a deeper problem with his editing.  Most of the tasks the user lists are ones which do not require admin tools - the sole one which does not, deletion, does not appear to be one which this user is familiar with, showing very few edits to the [[WP:AFD|deletion]] class of articles.  User also shows problems with basic editing markup [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Hatter&diff=prev&oldid=108656522] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camp_Morasha&diff=prev&oldid=107714539], the purpose of certain tags [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camp_Morasha&diff=next&oldid=107215631], proper conduct when editing a user's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elves_United&diff=prev&oldid=137737685]. Responses to questions are also underwhelming in the extreme, the user does not use edit summaries, nor is it even clear he really understand what an admin does.  The lack of care put into this Request, indicated in spelling errors, fills me with grave apprehension. All in all, a summary of the user's contributions does not demonstrate a clear understanding of policies or guidelines, or what an admin does, and though they are well-intentioned, I think adminship should be seriously premature at this point in time.  --
You've been here for quite some time, but you only have about 200 edits... there's not enough there for me to assess whether you would use the tools well or not. I would recommend getting an [[WP:ER|editor review]], possibly signing yourself up for [[WP:COACH|admin coaching]], participating in writing/fixing articles, [[WP:RCP|reverting vandalism]], taking part in [[WP:XFD|policy discussions]], and maybe coming back after you have a few thousand edits - it will make it easier for people to make their decisions. All the best! :)
'''Weak Support'''. Not overly impressed with answer to Q1, as most of the tasks listed there are things a non-admin can do. However, given this candidate's extensive experience and high editcount, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Remember, adminship is no big deal.
'''Support'''. You do not seem to have much need for the tools, however you are definately wanting to help, and therefore you are suitable for adminship. "Need" has no importance in RfA. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I have no concerns or reasons to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I don't beleive this user will abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Impressed with edit history and vandal fighting. Clearly focused on our goal. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">
Very low project space edit count means we have minimal actions to judge your ability as an admin with.  I am also concerned by the Q1 answer, where you don't mention anything that can't be done by normal users. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
To be honest; I dont think your answers have improved much since you last RfA, as well as per [[User:Giggy|Giggy]]. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' the answers to the questions don't show a clear understanding of Wikipedia's processes.  '''
'''Oppose''' - unfortunately, I feel that the answers don't show a clear enough understanding of policy to cover the (comparatively) low projectspace count. This user is an outstanding editor, but doesn't strike me as appropriate for adminship. Keep up the good work, and get a little more involved in the administrative side of things, and I may support next time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Oppose''' Soory, by answer of questions, I don't think your ready.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q1 is mostly concerned with activities that have nothing to do with adminship. Edit summary usage is also really low.
'''Oppose''' Your last RFA pointed out your lack of communication with other users as demonstrated by the number of user talk page edits; that has not improved very much, plus you don't seem to understand the need to [[WP:SUB|substitute]] the [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Substitution|user talk templates]] when you do use them - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.127.101.76&diff=prev&oldid=128067565 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.10.238.198&diff=prev&oldid=136967495 here]. Your low use of edit summaries was also noted, and you have not improved there either, so you should set your user preferences to remind you to use edit summaries. I understand you want to help the project, but you must demonstrate your awareness of policy and procedure before you're given a mop, and you have not done that to my satisfaction. Please take our comments into your editing approach and style. -
'''Oppose''' sorry. A clear lack of experience in project namespace, and your answers to the questions don't demonstrate knowledge of what adminship is ("creating articles on artists and songs"). <b>
'''Oppose''' as per all the above concerns. --
'''Neutral''' I am on the fence right now. I would like to hear more in-depth answers to Q1-3. How well spoken someone is in their RfA is an indicator of how well spoken they will be in pressure situations as a sysop.
'''Neutral''' I am not sufficiently convinced by the answer to question one that the admin tools are best given to this editor.  Article clean-ups and vandal reverting can be done by non-admins and blocking assistance can be given by reporting vandals to [[:WP:AIV]].
'''Neutral''' per above comments. Weak answers to questions is a concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I would say support except for Q1. The answer is incredibly weak and shows no real understanding of what admins do. I'm sorry, but for now Neutral. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Neutral''' I can't get past the opposing side's points; I like the editor, but I dislike the knowledge, or rather lack thereof, of duties and such.
'''Neutral'''.  I'd like to support because this editor is a very valuable and dedicated contributor, but there are a couple concerns.  The edit summary usage is really, really low for an editor with that much experience, which makes things more difficult for someone trying to follow your logic.  User talk edits is also quite small, only 162 that aren't to his page, but that isn't what prevents my support.  The answers to his questions don't explicitely, or even implicitely, show his need of the admin tools.  His head and heart are certainly in the right place, but I think he should be involved in more "adminly" things and have a more clear idea on what he wants to do with the admin tools.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - I have seen you around Wikipedia a few times, especially in RFA, and I am convinced you would make a good admin. You have done a good job with WikiProject Biography work and dealing with inappropriate pages. I also think your comments are always constructive and polite.
'''Support'''. I've seen you voting prolifically in RFA, and I like your criteria. I'm sort of concerned, however, that pretty much all your mainspace edits deal with tagging. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support'''. Great editor, have had positive experiences.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' He's been here long enough.
'''Support'''- I agree with [[User:Bibliomaniac15|Bibliomaniac]]. Good luck! [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' -  I have seen the user on RfA's and has been a wikipedian for a long time and I believe its about time he got the tools and I trust the user will use it wisely..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Why not? The tools would make his usual tasks, tagging bad articles, easier and faster to do. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - Captain Panda is friendly, supportive in RFAs, shows civility, and exhibits a fair range of contributions (that, yes, might be good for some expansion into some spaces you havent really got your hands into). I support. <strong>
'''Support'''  No reason to oppose.  He's great for his time here. '''
'''Support''' Per Q5 -
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Reply to my optional question goes against the spirit of RFA, but was refreshingly honest. I still have concerns that you view your contributions at RFA as your ''best'' work, but nothing in oppose indicates a reason not to trust this user with the tools, and previous personal interaction has been civil and friendly with a commitment to helping out this work. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''' - excellent editor. As I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with promoting users who are primarily focused on maintenance work; maintenance is at least as important as writing new articles, and without it Wikipedia would fall apart.
'''Support''' All my interactions have been good, and I trust them.
'''Support''' I trust him too!
'''Support''' I have no problems with this user.
'''Support'''. Very good editor and looks honest. --
'''Support''' A good editor; doesn't seem to be any reason to expect that this user will abuse, misuse or lack understanding of the tools.
'''Support''', contribs seem to express a sufficient familiarity with policy and procedure.
'''Support''', I've seen you around and I'd be happy to Support. Cheers,
'''Support''', candidate is showing a healthy skepticism and lack of idealism about the project. --
'''Support''', No reason not to support; a good editor.
Been waiting for this one.  Great editor. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' You are a great editor
'''Support''' Seems good; love the 'telling it like it is' response to question 4 :). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support'''. There is the Wikipedia we would want and the Wikipedia we have. This isn't a value judgment, though, it is a challenge to improvement. I think this one gets it. --
'''Support''' - I've seen Captain panda around, and the answers to the questions and a generalized review of his contributions seem to confirm the idea that he would make a good admin. Here's my push for your mop. :)
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' — You don't seem to contribute to the encyclopaedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Captain+panda&namespace=0]
'''Oppose'''  Very nice guy, but I don't think his range of experience extends far enough outside of Wikispace (a relative rarity for me.)  Hard-working wiki-gnome -- just needs to expand his work to something more content-intensive.
This user does not seem to fully realise our goals, which is to build an encyclopedia.  When someone's proudest contributions are "voting" in RfA's and discussing RfA, there is a problem.  Not that these aren't worthy ventures (this sort of request is not a vote, by the way, but a discussion), but to focus primarily on these things are not what I am looking for in a potential administrator.  In addition, while this fellow appears to be a dedicated volunteer (and apologies if it seems as if I'm shortchanging his contributions, which is not my aim at all) I would like to see some actual encyclopedic contributions  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' sorry, lack of article writing, and per gaillimh, poor answer for question 2
'''Oppose''' I haven't seen any reasons to trust this user with the admin tools. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' According to Q1, Captain panda wishes to help with [[CAT:CSD]]. Judging from this user's contributions, I see that this user tags articles for [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]] when assertions of notability have been made. The user also is a bit hasty on his speedy tagging. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wendy_Costa&diff=139582901&oldid=139582777 here], Captain panda tags an article for CSD A7 when an assertion of notability has been made. That article can be deleted later by PROD or AfD, but not by speedy deletion since it doesn't qualify. I see the same issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohene&diff=139999990&oldid=139999800 here]. An assertion of notability has been made in the article. Also, the two previous diffs show that user is a bit too "trigger-happy" since he tags articles within 1-2 minutes of creation (some more can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nottingham_University_Boat_Club&diff=139100036&oldid=139099878] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nottingham_University_Boat_Club&diff=139100036&oldid=139099878]). People frequently create a rough outline of an article, and continue to work on it while it is in the mainspace. It's good that you re-checked your tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kebert_Xela_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=139574130 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unsurpassed_Masters&diff=128416727&oldid=128416656 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitzhanger_Manor_House&diff=124485906&oldid=124485103 here], but I still think you should be more careful and not so hasty in tagging. Also, I think you shouldn't spend so much time in RfAs. That time can easily be managed into article work. By the way, keep up the good work with the assessment drive. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose'''. I don't think that Captain panda has good enough judgement to be an admin. One particular case that comes to mind comes from this very talk page: I satirized project-space edit counting by describing an obviously bad system of "points", where you get points for voting and general meta-wankery, and you get no points for contributing to the encyclopedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=121272553] Captain panda then took my satire as a serious proposal: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=121298671 "Actually, I wouldn't mind using rspeer's point system"]. So either he was making a knee-jerk response without reading, or he actually thinks that Wikipedia should be easily gamed, both of which show poor judgement.<br>In regards to questions: I appreciate that he answered Q4 honestly, and didn't resort to the popular doublespeak of "we're not voting, we're voting with an exclamation point in front of it"; but I find his answer to Q2 terrible. He considers his best contributions to include the votes he casts on RfA? That's... quite self-centered. The Q5 answer is naive -- banning is not just an "extreme block".
'''Oppose''' per gaillimh, Nishkid64 & others, sorry --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't think this user concentrates enough on content building.
'''Oppose'''  per answer to Q2 and comments by Rspeer.
'''Oppose''' We are building an encyclopedia; while I fully accept that keeping it vandal-free is of prime importance, I also feel that admins should be able to make sensible mainpage contributions which they can be proud of. To feel, as this user does, that the edits they are most proud of are tagging and RfA voting does not inspire me. I am also concerned that the timing between article creation and {{tl|speedy}} tagging, as highlighted above by several editors, gives an impression that you may be trigger-happy, which is not good in an admin.--<font color="Red">
'''Strongly oppose''', not a content editor. I'll give you a point for the answer to question four, but you need to do article work. That's what this is all about.
'''Oppose''' Per answers to questions. I am not convinced that Captain panda is ready to back up his use of the admin tools with written clarification in those circumstances where such clarification is needed. He is a good editor and certainly should return in three months to RfA. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose'''. I don't feel that the editor has enough experience in encyclopedia building and dealing with editorial conflicts to make a good admin at the present time.
'''Oppose'''  I am concerned that the applicant does not have a lot of experience in editing articles.  From that editing experience, one gets to a better grasp on the needs and challenges of the administrator.  So I get the feeling that the applicant really wants to be a "police officer" rather than a community member.  Also, the answers to the questions don't indicate a lot of interest (maybe enthusiasm?) and didn't indicate that they knew what to do with the job.  I think there are enough admins who police the project.  Personally, I want to see more admins who help build the project.
'''oppose''' not enough substantiev encyclopedia building, too many bot/awb edits. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
I am concerned about this users' experience in relation to the ''encyclopedia'', and also the candidates' communication skills. '''
'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced by this candidacy - communication skills seem to be lacking, and the users contributions are not particularly compelling.
'''Oppose'''. Well-meaning, energetic editor, but questionable reading comprehension and communication skills.
'''Oppose'''. I would like to see more edits that demonstrate a clear understanding of policy, as opposed to tagging the talk pages of biography articles (which seems to be the bulk of your recent edits). Not to say that you haven't done good work, it's just not a good indicator of how you'd be as an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. 90% of CP's edits seem to be voting in RfAs (almost always supporting), or tagging talkpages/stubs using AWB, neither of which give any basis for judging CP's competence. I'm frankly dismayed by how many "support"s have been given above; it's about the strongest evidence I've seen for RfA reform. This is '''not''' a popularity contest, nor a 'reward' for simple gnome-work. --
'''Oppose'''.  Best work is tagging biographical articles and contributions to RfA's?  Sorry but it's a no for me. &mdash;
Sad '''oppose'''. I think many of your ideas and approaches to consensus are quite correct, but for a person who spends a lot of time tagging articles and evaluating them, I think some experience in actually writing some encyclopedic content is important for perspective. This perspective is important when it comes to evaluating whether to send something to AFD or PROD, or whether to speedy delete something. It is important when giving advice to newcomers, who ask you why you deleted something they created. There are cases of good admins who have a fairly limited amount of experience in article writing, BigDT comes to mind, but those cases are exceptional. I don't think that being a prolific contributor who makes featured articles is necessary, but some experience in learning how to source things, look for sources, evaluate the material, and write something comprehensible will be useful to you, as well as being fun and educational. With all that said, I think your heart is in the right place, you have a good attitude, and I think you have done some good stuff. Good luck for the future.
I think that in order to pass an RfA, you need to do more than comment on other people's RfAs, tag a few articles, and whack a few vandal contributions... there needs to be some indication that you've thought about what being an admin means and that you are in tune with the goals of the project. I have to agree with other opposes that it would do you some good to try your hand at some serious article writing or editing or cleanup or something. [[m:Namespace shift|Namespace shift]] is inevitable, but it's a bit off to start where many people end up shifting TO. Spend some time doing the things folks are urging you to do, hang out at RfA a bit less, and try again when you've experienced more that the wiki has to offer. ++
'''Neutral''' I'm not much of a opposing guy, but your best edit is the Rfa...? <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Neutral''' Good user, should be able to attain a successful RfA in the near future, as the main concerns raised by opposers are crucial but easy to be overcome. Just get more involved in the encyclopedia build-up and admin-oriented tasks such as vandalfight, and you'll be ready for the mop in a couple of months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Strongly. Great contributor. -- <strong>
'''Really strong support''' I thought I was meant to be nominating...ah well--
Having gone back to July 2007, I find nothing to oppose with. However, I am slightly concerned about the lack of non-automated edits. But that's just me. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' unless some horror emerges. The most important uses for the tools are blocking vandals and deleting article that don't meet inclusion criteria. One does not need the tools to take care of BLP issues. Blocking is a last resort. Usually, education and firmness are sufficient in dealing with BLP problems. The same is true for NPOV. I much prefer an admin who has experience dealing with vandalism and CSD. That's where one really needs the delete and block buttons. User can be trusted in areas in which the tools are desired.
'''Support'''. The responsibilities of adminship relate to maintenance and (to an extent) enforcement, not article-writing. He may not be an active article-writer, but he clearly understands the deletion policy (as demonstrated by innumerable correct speedy tags and AfD comments), and is an active vandal-fighter (which demonstrates a clear need for the tools). There is no need for him to get involved in BLP as an administrator; I had very little involvement in that area during my 7 months as a sysop, for instance. He is more than ready to be given the tools.
'''Support''' Usually I try to add value to RfA through a detailed rationale. However in this case I'm happy to say per Walton, who sums it up nicely. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Pedro/Walton.
'''Support''' &ndash; Definitely ready. —
'''Support'''. Ideally, I would like to see more effort in article writing but this editor is quite active in the areas that he will most often be involved with as an administrator. He has participated in discussions across the breadth of Wikipedia and has shown an interest in and knowledge of our policies. He has a clean record and should receive our support.
'''Support''' - I supported in the last RFA, I will do so again. You have done some good WikiProject work and have shown high amount of knowledge and experience in key admin areas of CSD and vandal fighting. I like to see candidates writing articles and even have some experience with [[WP:BLP]]; but I do not agree it is essential for adminship, you can use the tools to the benefit of Wikipedia without needing to be fully experienced in every area.
'''Support''' Experienced, friendly and trustworthy user, seems to be ready for the tools now. Furthermore, we need more admins [[Zerg|under the will of the Overmind]]. :-) <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support.''' I have said this before and I will say it again. I have been both an article writer (I've written about 80 of them, 3 DYKs, including one last week, and I have nearly 7,000 mainspace contribs) and an admin (17 months now!) and I must say that I have found: Adminship has absolutely zero to do with article writing!
'''Support''' article writing != good admin. '''<span style="color:#663300; font-family:cursive">*Happy Thanksgiving!</span>''' <sub>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' — <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - good, useful editor. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Fine user. Good luck!--
'''Support''' Sysops who specialise are fine - no concerns now.
Article writing isn't important for administrative tasks. It's knowledge of policies that are closely related to article writing that is important. From the evidence here, I don't see any evidence of ignorance of those policies. --
'''Support''' Got the experience.
Very strong support.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' I trust he will not abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Sure do! Great editor, which I trust very much. <b>
'''Support''' A great editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing had changed since last time I supported.  Hopefully I won't have to support you again ;).
'''Support''' - I see Captain Panda has branched out a considerable amount since his previous RfA and I'm now confident he understands policy enough to be an effective administrator.
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to the questions, and looking at the above discussion (including the Nominator's statement) and C.P.'s contributions, I see no reason to oppose.
'''Weak Support''' - while I acknowledge [[User: Agüeybaná|Agüeybaná's]] significant point below, I don't see it as a huge impediment, given this editor's track record in other areas. I'm confident that they will wield the mop appropriately & everything else appears to be in order. I do hope you take the point about communication and listening to others on-board, though -
'''Nominator Support''' Silly me, I forgot to support. · <font face="Times New Roman">
Experienced, shows he can use common sense. '''
'''Support''' Helpful editor. I'm sure will stick to core areas with which he is familiar before wading into areas such [[WP:BLP]] or [[WP:NPOV]], and the answers to the questions 6 & 11 re-enforce my opinion that he will seek aid and clarification before getting into areas with which he is unfamiliar. <sup>
'''Support'''. The candidate is a helpful editor who knows his way around. While I'd prefer to see some more article-writing experience, Captain Panda has made substantial contributions to [[Zerg]] with over 160 edits, expanding content and adding references. I trust the candidate with the tools.
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support''' You're still a great editor even though you failed your first RfA (in which I nominated you).
'''Support''' Easy support: civil, knowledgeable and trustworthy.
'''Support''' While I would ideally like to see a bit more article experience, the fact is that's not necessarily needed for the type of tasks the candidate excels at. I believe the buttons will help this user be more effective in his work for the project, and have no reason to believe he would misuse the mop. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Support''' per above - an admin's job is to be a janitor, not an exemplary article writer. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Wholeheartedly support''' - I've seen his work, and the mop would be a great gift ;) '''<font color="#FE474B">♥</font>
'''Weak support'''. Technically passes all my standards, but I can understand ''some'' of the Neutral Users' comments.  This is an admitted Wikignome, which I find is ''not'' a problem.  I'll leave it at that.
'''Strong support''' I knew he would become an admin one day, despite his edit count, he is very busy on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - understand concerns raised, however think on balance he is unlikely to misuse the mop.
'''Support''', admin tasks don't require great article-writing skills.
'''Support'''. Great editor, no reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''. I think the concerns of those opposing are well founded and perhaps Captain panda would benefit from further experience, especially of interacting with other users. But one of the things that has impressed me about this user is his willingness to ask for help and input from others. If I thought he were likely to go it alone I would ahve concerns but giving his readiness to ask questions and learn, I think the project will benefit from giving him the mop. Just take it slow... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I accept the concerns raised in the opposition, especially those by Agueybana and Everyking, but I think that Captain panda will try to work on those issues. He's improved greatly since his last RfA, and he'll be an even better Wikipedia once this one is over, regardless of how it ends.
'''Support'''. An active user who will help clean things up.
'''Support''' Having supported in this user's first RfA, I see more improvement and I support per the same reasons as  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCaptain_panda&diff=142555331&oldid=142552892 here]. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support'''. Seems like the good stuff.
'''Strong oppose''' — I see nothing in your contribs that can show me that you know and are ready to enforce core policies like [[WP:BLP]] or [[WP:NPOV]]. This is mostly because of your clear lack of contributions to the encyclopedia. All I see in the last ~500 edits to the mainspace is some stub tagging and vandalism reversions.  While many others may see this comment as trash, I (strongly) believe that administrators must be clear on what our goal is here, and this user has not satisfactorily  demonstrated it to me. I believe this issue was also raised at your previous RfA. Your lack of interest in making your work here better by listening to the constructive criticism you received last time also worries me, because it shows that just maybe you're not prepared to listen to others. This point only gets stronger by the fact that your contributions to the Talk and User talk namespaces show no actual interaction with users, other than your hundreds of "warn of vandalism" messages. I can't really trust you with the tools if you don't communicate, pal. Good luck! --'''
'''Oppose'''. I oppose for many of the same reasons as Agueybana and many of the neutrals. Captain Panda is a well-meaning editor who devotes a great deal of time to the project, but I question his reading comprehension and communications skills.
'''Oppose'''. The most detrimental actions against users come from admins with less that 6,000 article edits, demonstrating no meaningul article writing experience. Technocrats may be useful, but the harm they do is immense in those situations where they unknowing make a wrong move than has devastating effects on the user and on Wikipedia as a whole as many good users withdraw. Ideally 10,000 mainspace edits would be requires but I realize very few actual contributors remain around along enough to reach this point, so that requirement is totally unrealistic.
'''Oppose''', insufficient content work. Article assessment has ''very'' little value compared to actual article writing, and if your finest accomplishment on Wikipedia is participating in some assessment drive, then you haven't given me any reason to vote for you. That's like saying you're a millionaire in Monopoly money. You'd be richer if you had one dollar in real money.
'''Oppose''' switched from Neutral - to repeat what I said below: I'm of course familiar with the Captain's !votes here - usually "per nom" types, but the edit analysis, with only one article with over 10 edits, does not impress. I also take a rather jaundiced view of the biography summer assessment, not that I remember seeing any of the Captain's comments.  I share some of the concerns of others above.  Clearly a valuable contributor, but need for tools and policy knowledge are not yet really demonstrated.
'''Oppose''' per Everyking, just too little in the way of acuall encyclopedia building
You've indicated an interest in working specifically in deletion policy.  However, your answer to Question 10 is fundamentally wrong, and this is a serious issue -- articles cannot be transwikied to Wikinews, because the licenses are incompatible.
'''Oppose''' per lack of sufficient interesting to content writing. I elaborated elsewhere multiple times on why this matters. --
'''Oppose''' per Ral315.  Clear misunderstanding of the finer points of policy is demonstrated at the answer to Question 10.  From my familiarity with the editor, I also am concerned about his communication skills.
'''Oppose''', per answer to Question 4. Assessing 200 to 300 biographies per day, if you worked ten hours per day, means 20 to 30 per hour, or perhaps 2 to 3 minutes per article over a sustained period of time.  Can you assess an article for NPOV, NOR and citations in a few minutes?  Combined with your lack of article writing, this is just not the quality time put into Wiki articles that I'd like to see in the kind of experience an admin should have.  You have almost no mainspace edits, and no articles that you have contributed significantly to building, and limited talk interaction with other editors.  I feel you need more time working in areas of Wiki where you are likely to encounter the kinds of issues you will need to understand before you are given the tools.
'''Oppose''' per Everyking. Not enough work on content. The sppedy assessment drive is also a major cause for concern. --
'''Oppose''' under the same reasoing as Sandy really. Admins need to interact with users who build the encyclopedia and encounter the problems and pitfalls that this involves. Judging the merits of pages at XFD is not something that you can do quickly, (apart from the obvious CSD ones). Some recent interactions with deletion trigger happy admins who do little or no basic background checks into an articl have left me disheartened and wary. Whilst I cannot oppose you because of my recent interactions with other users, I can oppose you because you have little actual content building experience and the interaction with other users that this entails. Your edits to Zerg, for the most part, could have been added in a few edits with the use of the show preview button. I would like to echo Sandy's closing comments, I think you are great at what you do, just that you need to spend some time working in the areas of this wiki where you will encounter the problems that article contributers have to face.
'''Oppose''' per Sandy and Xolox and Woodym555. Inexperience in general, especially its restricted/non-diverse nature. Not a wide-enough perspective with which to make the complex decisions the admin tools typically require. --
'''Oppose'''. An editor who has done little content work should not be aiming to work on speedy deletes.
'''Oppose'''.  I would like to see more effort to improve articles rather than to delete them.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose.'''  In my experience, those who contribute good content make better admins that those who are preoccupied with removing it.  —
'''Oppose'''. While he's a useful wikipedian, based on the above, I'm not sure he's ready to be an admin. Sorry.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Got seriously annoyed when this editor massively underrated quality, expert-written articles, solely based on pure ignorance of the subject matter. A slap in the face to people who actually do write things - if you can't rate, don't! [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup>
'''Oppose''', With no disrespect to the candidate; I must concur with Sandy and Le Grand Roi.
'''Oppose'''. Too little content work.
'''Oppose'''. Good worker, but needs broader experience and interaction with other editors.
'''Oppose''' clearly a good user who will gain from this experience.
'''Neutral''' for now.  I have share some of the concerns that Agüeybaná presents in the oppose section.  Looking through your deleted contributions, I see that your speedy nominations are correct.  However, as an admin, not only do you have to be correct, you have to be willing to explain ''why'' you're correct once the creators of the articles come hunting you down.  Right now I don't see enough evidence that you can feasibly explain it since you lack a lot of interaction with other users on here.
'''Neutral'''. This is a bit weird, since I normally don't hesitate to issue my support when I don't see sufficient reasons not to. But... I can't help a certain "doesn't-quite-get-it" feeling with this user. Since (momentarily, at least) I cannot place this on any particular actions, I cannot in good conscience oppose, but I just wouldn't feel comfortable supporting here. |dorf|trottel| |[[Special:Contributions/Dorftrottel|mess]]|
'''Neutral''' per Metros. This user is a good user, so I won't oppose. However, I can't support either due to Metros' concerns.
'''Neutral''' I was going to oppose based on a lack of article writing, even after the comments at the last RfA urging you to do so, however I noticed that you'd made 164 edits to [[Zerg]], which is at least some attempt at 'pedia building, though you haven't noted it above (?) You need to write more to appreciate the effort involved in deleting. Encouraging a separation of writers and admins is divisive and could lead to more disruption in the future. cheers,
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''' I'm not feeling entirely comfortable with the answer to Q1 that the user will spend most of his time in "Wikipedia's deletion areas". --
'''Neutral''', leaning support. You aren't going to break the encyclopedia, and you're probably not going to go on a power trip, either. My request is that you go a little more slowly in general. If you had taken those five extra minutes before hitting enter the first time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=121321706 here] (an issue brought up on your last RfA), you might have caught what was going on and never made the comment at all. With that in mind, how long should a single article be reviewed before assessing? You say you were doing over 200 a day.
'''Neutral''' Your a good user, I just feel that you need to improve on your ability to communicate with others and to become more familiar with policy so you can explain why you may have made the actions you did. Also the 5000 edits gives me an ever so slight feeling that you might rush your decisions as an admin. Remember, quality, not quantity. Work on those issues, and I'll be glad to support you!
'''Neutral''' I agree with those in the Support section that have said that a lot of article work isn't exactly essential for adminship, but the concerns brought up about policy understanding are pretty detrimental. Not enough to oppose, though, so I'll stay neutral.
'''Neutral''' with some concerns. Most edits seem to be vandalism warnings to throwaway accounts or IPs, or reverts/Twinkles. While I have nothing against admins with low levels of mainspace contributions, I share Metros's concerns for communication and clarity.
'''Support''' For a lot of reasons. 1) Just shy of 2k edits over a long, long time. ''Let's kill this edit counting thing''. 2) Substantial contributions - quality not quantity. 3) Sure, you haven't done a lot of the traditional admin work e.g. [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:XFD]] etc. but just a look at your edit summaries and content additions shows you have a strong knowledge of policy, particularly sourcing and citing. ''Let's kill this "no need for the tools" thing while we're here''. 4) No issues of civility or bad faith. 5) Honest approach by self nominating and describing your contributions here so far make me feel you can be trusted. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Happy to give my support. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' per Pedro, who brings up excellent things we should put into practice more often.
'''Strong Support'''. Perfect example of an editor who has enough experience, even though their edit count isn't through the roof. Being around for over two years is definitely enough to know how wikipedia works.
'''Support'''. Pedro is quite right; "no need for the tools" isn't an adequate reason to deny adminship. Anyone who is trustworthy, and has demonstrated a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and process, should be given the admin tools if they want them. There's no upper limit on the number of admins we can promote, so less active admins don't harm the project.
'''Support''' per Pedro.
'''SUPPORT''' Has FA. Sometimes, one must look past mere numbers to quality and ability. I believe the nom has the sense(?) to use the tools.
I support too! Clearly a 'good faith' editor.
'''Very weak support''' with exactly the same rationale as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanner-Christopher|Tanner Christopher]] yesterday. I don't agree with "doesn't need the tools" as an argument as long as you might find them useful. I'm not worried you'll deliberately abuse tools, and while Faithless raises a valid concern below that you won't understand policy well enough to enforce it, the very fact that you only seem to work in a small area makes me willing to give you benefit of the doubt that you won't try to get involved in things until you understand them<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' doesn't need tools... no one ''needs'' tools, but he might find them useful. I don't care if he makes 3 deletes or 3333 deletes, so long as it's ''something''. * '''
'''Weak support''' Low wikipedia space edits, but your edits are quality edits. <b><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Weak Support''' per CO. A little more project space edit would help. --
Per your Q1 answer.  The admin revert function is great - I wish I had it.  You know, it's one of the 4 major admin tools (alongside block, protect, delete) - we should dish it out more often.  Also, new users look up to and respect admins - and this guy will really help them out.  Support. '''
'''Support''' He is a meticulous, attentive and thoughtful writer and editor, and an excellent collaborator (I was a contributor to his feature article on [[Delrina]].) What he needs to learn to become increasingly effective in this role, I know he will learn quickly and apply fervently.
'''Support''' I think admin tools here will be used pretty infrequently, but that's okay. If the Capt. uses admin rollback, and blocks an occasional vandal, that can't hurt. And I don't see the potential for serious misuse.
'''Support''' - good signs of 'pedia building. Admin tools are always useful there ''(don't forget protecting, moving etc.)''. Hate to see split between builders and admins.cheers,
Appears to be a quality editor rather than a quantity editor. "Doesn't need the tools" and editcountitis are unconvincing reasons to oppose.
'''Support'''. Having worked with Captmondo on numerous occasions, I know him to be a calm, reasonable, and remarkably levelheaded editor who has been invaluable. More senior editors on the whole who have proven responsability such as he has need to be given certain administrative tools, particularly revert and protect, and he would be an excellent person to give them to.
'''Support''' This user has been here a while, and has made more than enough edits to expose any untrustworthy patterns. The answers to the questions are thoughtful, and demonstrate a command of WikiWays... Best of luck!
'''Support''' - I really liked the answers to the optional questions.  --
'''Support''' - good history of vandal fighting. --
'''Support''' - After reading some of the answers to the newer questions I could no longer oppose.  Although the editor may not have much experience in the wikispace; he seems to have done a good job at reading and comprehending our guidelines.  I believe the tools will not be abused.
'''Mild Support''' Mild only because I'm changing from Neutral and my initial hesitations concerning captmondo have not been assuaged, but rather I have changed the way I view those misgivings. I was neutral before for two reasons; first, because I thought that this user's relative lack of experience led to him being a little too unfamiliar with some policies to be granted adminship. The more I thought about this, however, the more unreasonable it seemed: no one, from the lowliest IP editor to Jimbo himself, is 100% familiar with all of WP's guidelines, policies, folkways, precedents, etc. If I can't support captmondo because of this, I wouldn't be able to support anyone. Second, while this editor has been around for quite a while, he has very little experience relative to his time here. I firmly believe that an admin needs to be much more active in the project than mondo has been to date. I am going to assume on blind faith that this RfA is a sign that he has decided to become more active in building the encyclopedia, and will be around more often to take care of sysop chores. The bottom line is that this is a good, solid editor who can be trusted with the tools and will use them to help WP rather than hinder it. While he does need more experience and to show a greater level of dedication, I'm willing to assume that he will.
'''Support''' will put the tools to good use and another person interested in ancient history is a good addition to the admin rolls.
'''Support'''.  Experience is a bit lacking but seems capable enough to learn.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions.
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Strong support''' Good answers, I was particularly impressed by number four.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Sorry, but I can't support with only 116 wikispace edits.  I wouldn't be opposed to you becoming an admin, but I think that more experience with wikipedia policy would help you greatly.  '''
'''Oppose''' — I agree with Pedro: quality > quantity. But, honestly, the quality of your edits is not so impressive. Your recent participation in the mainspace is ''just'' OK. Your participation in the Wikipedia namespace is truly disappointing. The last (only?) time you participated in an AfD was in June. Also, after reviewing your participation in the talk namespaces (talk, user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc.), you don't seem to be very involved in discussions with other users. I really can't trust you with admin rights right now. Sorry. Also, I disagree with Walton. "No need for the tools" is a perfectly good reason to oppose; why request access to certain rights if you're not going to use them; that's called '''power hunger''', not that I'm accusing the candidate of this; your edits are appreciated. They're just not enough to convince me that you'll use the admin rights wisely. I totally agree with a policy used at the [[Wikimedia Commons]], as well as several other Wikis, that inactive admins should have their rights removed. We give users admin rights so that they can use them to help the project, not have them hanging around and displaying it to all of your friends like a trophy. Again, sorry. Finally, I would like to state that I have not checked this candidate's edit stats; I rarely do. Edit count alone should not be used to evaluate the quality or importance of an editor to this project. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per lack over overall experience.
'''Oppose''' - Per your answer to question one. Reverting vandalism and helping new users, doesn't require the tools. Sorry but no. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Oppose''' Nothing in the answer to #1 indicates a need for the tools. Vandalism monitoring/reversion to a select category of articles can be accomplished with a watchlist and tools like Twinkle or Popups. No contributions to XfD, AIV, RPP or any of the places where we need sysops the most.
'''Oppose''' - due to low mainspace edits. And, per Random. '''
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't seem to understand what adminship is. He thinks it's about reverting vandalism and helping new users.
'''Very very weak oppose''' - should have more edits
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, not enough edits. -
'''Weak Oppose''' Not enough projectspace edits. -
'''Weak oppose''' as not quite having enough edits (total under 2,000) and especially WP edits.  I'd support in a little while.  Please use the edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' - I don't mean or want to be harsh, but considering the large amount of time you've been active on Wikipedia, not so much has been achieved in that time. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - Not active enough to have really dug deep into what is required of an administrator. --
'''(Very Very Very Very)x10<sup>-12</sup> Weak Oppose''' I don't think you really need the tools, but contribs are apreciated. I would be very well inclined to support back here in a month or two --'''
'''Neutral''' - Long term editor, but the answer to question one doesn't require the tools. Experience is limited. I can't oppose at this time because I don't think there would be an abuse of the tools here, but I can't support for the lack of experience. Broaden your focus a bit. You say you want your main focus to be fighting vandalism, but you have less than 2 edits to AIV. Project space edits are also low. '''
I understand (and respect, and for the most part agree with) your attitude towards edit count not being a direct indicator of the quality of your edits. However, you really don't seem to be particularly active, with just 81 edits last month alone. Ideally, an administrator would be around a bit more, and I'd like to see more activity from you, especially since you're saying that you'll use your admin privileges to better police high-traffic Egypt articles (despite the fact that, for the most part, you can do that now without the tools). I don't think you'll make a bad admin, which is why I'm not going to oppose, but I do want to give you some food for thought. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral, leaning toward support'''.  I think the work he's done so far is very good, he's not active enough for my taste.  Wouldn't be as available as I think an admin should be.  It's just a personal opinion that admins should be logging a couple hundred edits per month.  If that's editcountitis, then so be it, but I'm not opposing, as the work he's done has been excellent.
'''Neutral''' I too was tossing up between a support and a oppose, but there are too many conflicting arugments for both so I choose neutral. Another minor point I see is that the editor does have solid contributions, but edits in the various talk namespaces is a tad low, yes I realise there are a lot on some Egypt articles, but I personally would like to see more discussion with other editors, not just in article talk but in user talk as well. Further participation in vandal fighting would be good too, if the editor wishes to use tools for blocking et al. Is that a fair point I have raised?
'''Neutral''', I don't know this guy so I can't decide.
'''Neutral''' a good editor, but with the low level of project space edits I can not support him at this time.
'''Neutral''' I have never seen a edit count like this; consistently (just) less than 100 edits per month over a couple of years... plus, barely any discussion on talkpage considering the timescale... yet, good quality of contributions means I shall not oppose. Needs to up contribution rate, and wikispace edits, to enable evaluation of admin potential (should this request fail).
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but with only 160 edits, this has no chance of success.  I suggest you withdraw and read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] before coming back with more experience. &mdash;
'''Oppose/Suggest Withdrawal''', almost no edits and you show NO need for the tools.--
'''Oppose''' If you had been around Wikipedia longer, you'd realise that an account as new as yours never passes RfA, as people will oppose on the age and edit count alone. Your answers to the questions also don't show much knowledge about what administratorship on Wikipedia is about. Do you know which tools administrators have access to but ordinary users don't, and when to use them, for instance? For the time being, you should simply request for assistance from an administrator whenever you need to do something that only an administrator can do (I do this frequently; but your contributions don't show any requests for administrator assistance that I can see). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 17:09, 15 February 2007 (
Wouldn't let you go without '''moral support'''. It's really just too early to tell. I see that you have e.g. reported to AIV, and you have committed yourself to writing articles, both of which are absolutely positive things. So, keep it up, and nothing speaks against another RfA in two or three months time. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Most Reluctant Oppose''' - I have to just say that you need more experience. It is recently that you got involved in the major parts of wikipedia, and I don't think you've got enough knowledge (or at least shown) of the policies. Come back in a couple of months with more activity in [[WP:XFD]] writing articles, and I'll give you my support. Good luck next time! --
'''Weak Oppose''' - I have to agree with Hirohisat at this point in time - you don't have the experience yet. Participate more in the cleanup and production of the encyclopedia and request again in a few months time. You'll breeze through the RfA then. Have a nice day! &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
'''Weak Oppose''' I enjoy your enthusiasm, and am glad that you are having fun while editing. However I agree with Hirohisat that you do need a bit more experience in Wikipedia policies and would support you down the track.
Oppose due to inexperience. '''
'''Oppose''' You only started editing extensively in September of this year. Moreover, you only have about 1,600 edits to show for. Although I admire your enthusiasm, you lack experience. Continue doing some good work in this project and I will be happy to give my support in a few months time. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', sry. This candidate started contributing in a serious scale just one month ago. Sry, but this is insufficient for making a judgment. Looking at the contribs, I see lots of corrections of this editors own contributions, showing that he is still very much in the learning phase. The number of edits may be impressive at first sight, but the bunk are copy/paste warnings on user pages, welcome messages, and those corrections I already mentioned. On the positive side, I see here a candidate with lots of potential, who might become a valuable admin next year. But right now this is a snowball nom. Oh, and one other point, grammar and spelling correction is important (especially regarding contribs of users like me :D), but that's certainly NOT what makes WP great, ok?
'''Neutral, suggest withdrawal''' - More experience required. Get involved with vandalism reverting, WikiProjects, improving articles, and try again in several months. '''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but looking at your edits, you only contribute sparsely. You make a few edits a month, then leave for a while. And I would also like more experience in admin-related areas. Sorry, but take this as advice. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I agree with JetLover. You contribute good info to articles but you don't have many edits as of recent and it's pretty sparse between your edits. If you bump up your edit count in the coming months, I would happy to support you in your attempt to become an admin. '''<font color="navy">Zac</font>'''''<font color="blue">Bowling</font>'' <sup>(
'''Advice''' Another candidate who should pull his nomination.  You have less than 50 edits over the past 6 months.  Over the past year, you have less than 350 edits.  You simply do not have enough experience to warrant the tools.  Especially recent edits.  Please pull your nom---this could result in a pile on if you don't.  I would also like to point out that the person who asked CastAStone to become an admin has less than 100 edits himself.  I checked his edits to see if he was being disruptive in asking multiple people to become admins, but CastAStone was the only one.
'''Neutral leaning toward oppose''' per Ballonman. Thanks for your enthusiasm. <s>Continue with a mix of RCPatrol (assuming you are reporting to [[WP:AIV]]), [[WP:AFD]], and article building. </s> Recommend getting an editor review 3,000 edits/3months from now. Heed that advice before considering another RfA. Good luck and happy editing.
'''Neutral leaning toward oppose''' per Ballonman.
'''Neutral'''.  Your edit history and level of activity don't suggest that you've put enough work in to be a qualified candidate, but there are many here who will help a sincere individual improve in the areas that need work. If you really have thought about being an admin, there are coaching opportunities available. Come back and we'll see how you're doing. Until then, best,
'''Oppose'''. Sorry to say, but your recent activity troubles me. According to the count log, most of the months you have been here have under 100 edits. Your heart is in the right place, but you don't have the experience to gain trust from me. Try participating in [[WP:XfD]] discussions or participate in WikiProjects and apply in a few months. '''
'''Oppose''' per your answer to question 1, I don't see any real need for the tools. You can do all those things without any of the extra buttons. Additionally, I think you need some more experience and a higher activity to gain the support of the community. —
'''Oppose'''. Your enthusiasm is commendable and you show potential.  However, you've made just 237 mainspace edits and 603 total edits. Moreover, your editing experience is limited to very few pages. Please continue contributing. Broaden and deepen your experience. Then come back with a new RfA.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Your enthusiasm is welcome, but your answers denote clear misknowledge of adminship. Much more experience is needed. I recommend self-withdrawal. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but none of your answers appear to show any great need for, or understanding of, the admin tools.  Most of the tasks you've listed are not admin-specific, and can be carried out by any user with an account.  I'm also a little concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citing_Links&diff=prev&oldid=130579627 this template] you created -- I actually voted to delete it a day or so ago, because it's [[WP:BITE|pretty bitey]].  Since your edits do not show any serious interaction with vandals or new users, I am left with some serious doubts about how you would interact with them. --
'''oppose''' as per all comments described above. —
'''Sorry, but no''' - at this time, I don't feel comfortable supporting you. For one, your answer to the first question indicates only a vague understanding of adminship. Secondly, you have only 600 edits (not to editcount), and thirdly you have less and than 100 edits to the project space and you have more edits to your userspace than to even the mainspace. -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''.  After reviewing this editor's contributions, I didn't find anything that stuck out as terrible mistakes or evidence of possible mop abuse, however, I don't believe this editor has enough experience yet.  The last 100 or so edits were all reverts using [[WP:MWT]].  Not to lean too heavily on editcountitis, it will be extraordinarily difficult to pass an RFA with only 646 edits.  Personally, I'd like to see a lot more edits in the mainspace, because, after all, we are here to build an encyclopedia.
I don't believe you are ready to become an administrator right now. Regards,
'''No''' at the moment. This user has potential, but doesn't have any background regarding admin areas in the project space. --
'''Oppose''' Your counter-vandalism efforts are appreciated but I can't really see a great need for you to have admin tools. I'd suggest withdrawing your RfA and trying again after building up some more experience in a wider range of areas here :) Keep up the good work.
'''Strong oppose''' per above comments and that fake new messages thing - it's a bit irresponsible--<span style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold; font-size: 10pt">
'''Oppose''' per above.
If your best contribution is a silly revert and the biggest conflict you've ever been in is an [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflict]], then you're not ready for adminship. Also, your user page design is clearly based on [[User:Wikihermit|Wikihermit]]'s and [[User:Jimmy Wales|Jimbo]]'s, and, by not attributing it to them, you are violating the GFDL. Admins are supposed to have knowledge of copyright laws. Please withdraw this RfA and start actually contributing to the mainspace (check out [[WP:RA]]) and participating at [[WP:XFD|XFD]]s and other admin-related areas and try again in the future. For now, '''oppose'''. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Strong Oppose''' Low edit count, lack of experience, and I dont think it's time for you yet! Suggest withdrawl before [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Normally in such a situation, I would go with a moral support, but the fake new messages bar spoils that for me. Please consider getting rid of, it's really annoying. —'''
'''Neutral''' The editor is a good vandal fighter but participation in admin related Wikipedia space pages is allmost non-existent.
'''Neutral''' Please don't be discouraged.  Nothing wrong with you.  It's just that Wikipedia adminship has a bunch of requirements, that's all.  One thing, though: I think it's less confusing if your signature and your username are both the same.  --
Pre-emptive nominator '''support'''.
Chacor's judgement has, in my experience, always been sound. Let the past be past. &ndash;
'''Support'''. I remember Chacor's last admin stint well, and he was indeed exceptional for the most part. He made an error, and I honestly believe that he has learned from it. The community would seriously benefit from Chacor being given the admin tools once again. Chacor's error of judgement in creating a sockpuppet account was pretty serious, but I cannot really say that the edits he made in the highlighted incident compare with other high profile errors made by admins. I think we must be prepared to forgive people - something we as a community haven't always been that good at doing.
'''Support'' Per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Despite our disagreements, his dedication to Wikipedia is excellent, and while he could be a little more "polite" to other users at times, he's a good editor who knows his stuff, and I'm sure he'll make a good admin. '''
Absolutely solid user, who calls a spade a spade instead of skirting issues. No brainer '''support'''. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' the re-mopping. Absolutely.
'''Support''' - A great Editor and would make an even better Admin...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''.  People make mistakes.  Live and learn. --
'''Support''' - Mistakes are in the past now, I have plenty of confidence you will do a peachy job.
'''Strong Support''' He's remained dedicated despite the "controversy," and the manner of his desysopping was bizarre, anyway -- the kind of act that would discourage many great editors.  His perseverence is a mark of good character, and he's a thoroughly reasonable person with fine judgment.
I have a general philosophy of "do not resysop the involuntarily desysopped". I do not usually see the point: we have heaps of admins, heaps more on the way and we can live without one who has caused significant damage in the past. I also do not agree with the characterisations here as 'mistakes' - to me, that requires an accidental element, whereas here we had premeditated collusion followed by public denial (followed, incidentally, by an apology which maintained that the actions had to be taken). The particular nature of the abuse here should not be underestimated. Further, I would note that I have genuine incivility concerns, such as in the diff below. The trouble with this is that hot-headedness ''without'' buttons tends to lead to crisis ''with'' the buttons. All of this said, it has been almost a year since the events in question and civility concerns aside, I don't recall Chacor going off the edge in that time. I imagine he's a reasonably firm understanding of policy, though this is not, in fact, demonstrated by either the nominator nor the candidate statements here. The fact that NSLE/Chacor has stuck around is significant - many users have spiralled away into despair in such situations, or have tried and failed to return to community-minded working. It is this coupled with the clean(ish) sheet for the past year that persuades me to '''very cautiously support'''.
'''Support''' with the strength of Xoloz and the caution of Splash. A good editor, and glad he stuck around.
'''Support'''. Splash expressed thoughts very similar to mine. I'm also very hesitant to resysop those who had adminship removed from them, but considering all the factors in this case, I'm willing to give him another chance.
'''Support''' A good Wikipedian who is dedicated to the spread of free, accurate knowledge. '''

'''Support'''.  This is a difficult one, but I think we're better off with NSLE as an admin, and it's time to put aside his only serious error (is that term more apt than 'mistake,' Splash?).  The biggest thing to come out of the recent crisis is that the systems we have in place to protect our anonymity (those of us who choose to) are imperfect, and thus, people have to improvise.  Like Essjay, NSLE improvised badly, though not nearly as badly in my opinion.  We should all learn from his experience, not shun him for it.
'''Support'''. I don't mind him having another go at it. We need more admins.
'''Support'''. Good user, and it's been long enough since those incidents.
'''Support''', ditto. --
'''Support''' forgiveness is key to wikipedia, and Chacor has obviously learnt from past mistakes, he will once again make a good admin
'''Strong support''' A very experienced, helpful and patient user. -- ''
'''Weak support''' - likely to the site's benefit. '''
'''Support'''.  Trustworthy enough to be an admin (i.e., won't intentionally work against WP), which is no big deal.--
'''Support''' I'm willing to go out on a limb. After a while, the past is the past. The candidate has served his time, and has taken the time to regain the trust that he had lost. Full marks to the nominee for sticking with the project and contributing constructively despite everything else. That demonstrates a sense of character that cannot be ignored.
'''Support''' like Agent 86, I'm willing to go out on a limb, I think Chacor realises that a repeat performance would result in not only desysopping but probably something worse, and he's really experienced and was really rather good when it comes to admin actions as shown by the lack of opposes from aggrieved editors who blocked out of process or where he has deleted their work out of process, suggesting his blocks and deletions were mainly all 'good'. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Weak support''' This is my first time opinioning in an rfa. Prior to reading this, I had no idea that he did not just give up the old account, but he was desysopped. You know, wiki is full of surprizes. Anyway, there's a reason for my vote. Chacor is the only user I recall that has actually reverted my edits, notified me about my behaviour, or corrected my statements. So about the desysopping, that was a year ago, and he says that he did what he had to, but I don't think it was right if it was encouraged by a blocked user. Anyway, I have seen that Chacor has several times lost his cool, which resulted in many other users losing their cool. I hope this doesn't happen again too much, especially with the mops. Chacor constantly reinforces the rules, occasionally a little too much. Anyway, this user hasmade a lot more edits than I have, so is more experienced. So,I conclude my vote with a weak support. [[User:AstroHurricane001/ASTRO|<font color="blue">A</font>]][[User:AstroHurricane001|<font color="Purple">stroHur</font>]][[WP:WPTC|<font color="Gray">ricane</font>]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs|<font color="green">00</font>]][[Comet McNaught|<font color="Red">1</font>]]<sup>([[User_talk:AstroHurricane001|Talk]]+ [[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|Contribs]]+
Cautious '''Support''' per Splash.  In particular, I think Chacor has represented himself well as an (involuntarily) desysopped admin, and that, to me, is a good indication. --
'''Support''' Has my support.  Adminship is no big deal; apology accepted. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''' I have always enjoyed a positive relationship, even when he (justifiably, with hindsight) !voted against my own RfA. I do not think that a single stupid error of judgement should be allowed to get in the way of sysopping a useful and committed editor.--
'''Support''' Give him a fresh start. -
'''Support''' Here's to second chances.  I often did disagree with the user's actions prior to the desysopping in AfD and other functions, but in retrospect now having the bit I'm my personal opinion has changed, and I'm for it.
'''Support'''  He's young, he made some poor judgments under duress, he has apologized, I have accepted his apology.  It looks like this RfA will not succeed at this time, but I hope that he will try again in another 6 months to a year of exemplary behavior.  This is a good person, who will grow with the project, and we need people like him in the years to come.  Commenting here as an ordinary editor, of course. :) --
If the person who runs this site can trust this guy, so can we. Moreover, Jimbo is in Tokyo, and if he can take time out to participate in an RfA, we must respect his inclinations. <span style="color:black;background:#BACDDE;border-style: double">⋆
'''Support''' anyone else in his situation would have left or turned on wikipedia. I see a benefit to the community of having Chacor back as admin and a strenth of character as well as a love for wikipedia in his continued contribution
'''Support'''. Whilst he has doubtlessly made some poor decisions in the past, his recent track record shows a desire to make up for this and I do not believe that he would misuse the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Weak Support''' Yes, he made mistakes. Yes, he lied. However, he did make up for it. If we held this over editor's heads forever, they'd just leave. Because of a shady past, he will never have my full support, but he will get some from me.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''. I think you're definetly worth it. But sometimes you do lose your cool a little, so watch out for that. But other than that, awesome editor and stuff. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|icelandic]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|hur]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">ric</font>]]
'''Support''' - I've got on OK with this editor, and his edits to hurricane-related articles are excellent. He's a good editor, and, we all make mistakes. Let's forgive him, and let him become an admin. --'''
support --
'''Tentative support'''. The oppose opinions are persuasive and the behaviour that lead to desysoping was serious- and was a missuse of ''admin'' tools as the unprotect was done solely to allow a sock to edit. Lying about it persistently was worse but was I suspect an action that resulted from panic not malice or general dishonesty. A full apology was made some months ago and I believe Chacor is truly sorry. It appears that aside from matters related to this incident he was a good admin. His style may be abrassive, but I do not find it incivil. On balance, I feel that he should have another chance. As Jimbo said above, this RfA is highly unlikely to pass. I hope however that it paves the way for a future one to be successful. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - It has almost been a year since Chacor/NSLE was desysopped. I'm sure that Chacor learned his lesson.
'''Support'''. Forgive and forget.--'''
'''Support'''.  Deserves a second chance. --
'''Support''' No problems with a second chance over a blemish on an otherwise good set of contributions across the project.
'''Support'' I, too, feel he deserves a second chance. For example, Carnildo is a great asset and sysop, too, after he got a second chance, and I don't see why Chacor can't be given one also.
'''Support''', per the Ordinary Editor Jimbo Wales (who he?).
'''Oppose'''-Uncivil to me and other editors. He also chose not to answer my question about his civility on his talk because he didn't feel like it. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose'''. I note that Chacor only started admitting he had been behind the sockpuppeting abuse of his administrator privileges a few months ago, and up to then had sworn blind he was entirely innocent.  Per Sarah's evidence before, NSLE/Chacor saw nothing wrong with using his sockpuppet (at the time, Chacor was NSLE's sockpuppet account) to vote in RFAs that NSLE had already voted in.  Frankly, I do not trust Chacor with the tools; his history of abusing the protect button to further his own article edits with another sockpuppet, BRSG, is there for all to see.  If he wasn't still being so "abrasive" (read: rude) to other editors, I would be more inclined to forgive and forget, but in conjunction with the previous abuse of tools, this leads me to oppose.
'''Weak oppose''' per Teckwiz and Neil. —
'''Oppose'''.  Chacor's recent behavior indicates to me that he is not trustworthy.  I should give background here.  He opposed in my RFA after this comment, which I have no problem with.  But after it became an argument with other users, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Delldot&diff=prev&oldid=108970472 removed] his and everyone elses comments, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Delldot&diff=108980543&oldid=108977019 twice].  He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delldot&diff=108970507&oldid=108969875 removed] his message about it from my talk page and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chacor&diff=108970484&oldid=108970295 from his own]. To me, this is not transparent behavior and borders on dishonesty.  I wouldn't trust this user with the delete button.  In addition, I've found his interactions with other users to be consistently somewhat hostile, and would not trust him with the block button.
'''Oppose'''. I note with gratitude NSLE/Chacor's admission regarding the whole desysopping incident. If this was a petition by the community to say we forgive him, I'd sign it. However this is a request for adminship not a statement of forgiveness. Chacor's conduct in content disputes within his area is not that becoming of an administrator in my opinion. He has demonstrated a marked tendency to in appropriately [[wP:ABF|ABF]] and [[WP:BITE|BITE]] new editors (or anons) when they have a different view to him in a dispute; and he prefers not to engage in discussion. One such incident occured on [[Hurricane Fabian]]. An anon made a good faith edit that Chacor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Fabian&diff=109594929&oldid=109594712 reverted]. When the anon attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, it culminated in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHurricane_Fabian&diff=111985098&oldid=111926897 accusation]. This is '''why''' I think Chacor should not be an administrator; he overreacts and says things that he shouldn't, and I would not trust him to make similar errors of judgement ''with the admin tools''. He retracted this comment after he realised it went too far (partially after discussion on IRC). However, admins should always think before they act and not the other way around. I also strongly agree with Delldot's last sentence above, I do not trust Chacor to not block certain editors in content disputes.--
'''Oppose'''. I can't support someone who blatently lied in their previous AfD. In the nomination statement above, Chacor says "I hope nine months is enough...", but it hasn't been nine months since he came clean. It's been four months since the email to Jimbo and Arbcom, and as far as I am aware, this is the first public admittance that the previous statements were a lie. I'll reconsider in 2008.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Oppose''' I remember this user as abrasive, which was enough to make me do some digging.  Has used the NSLE account as recently as January 2007; although that may be an aberration, it is problematic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NSLE NSLE contribs].  During the Brandt wheel-war mess  last month, he opened up [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (12th nomination)]] while the deletion review was still running, which didn't help, and if he had the administrative tools would likely have been more of a participant. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDaniel_Brandt_%2812th_nomination%29&diff=110358500&oldid=110355603 AFD creation] (all intermediate diffs are by Chacor).
'''Oppose''' - As per above. This user have been involved in various disputes (I have seen some of the ones noted above) in a negative way. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Decline''' per Nilfanion. Its particularly sad the way Chacor has handled the past sockpuppetry incident - I was strongly hoping that this clean period would make this RfA a success. But apparently a half-apology, half-clarification has been issued by him, thus effectively reviving what should be a dead issue. I strongly suggest to Chacor to make a lucid and succinct explanation and wait for 6 months more - bitter medicine, but I hope his commitment to WP is strong enough.
'''Oppose.''' I think this user's approaches to things are too wedded to policy. I'm not going to hunt for diffs, but I think that this user's officious and sometimes confrontational style are fundamentally at odds with admin status. I believe that the group dynamic in our community will be disrupted if Chacor were to gain access to sysop tools without showing a change in character over a long period of time. I think this user is great as an editor, and to change this (i. e., if Chacor were to leave altogether, or gain sysop rights), Wikipedia would suffer. Keep up your current good work.
Per previous issues I'm not sure I can ever trust him to be an administrator, but certainly not now.  His apologies ring hollow; for months upon months he stressed his ignorance against all evidence.  When he finally admitted that he was guilty, he did not, in my opinion, fully accept his role in the incident.  This user lost adminship for doing perhaps the most shameful and disgusting thing I've ever seen an administrator do in my life &mdash; editing by proxy for a banned user.  NSLE violated the protection policy, the sockpuppeting policy, and the banning policy in one shot.  I understand the circumstances behind this, but to make proxy edits for a banned user with a sockpuppet account is unforgivable.
Even if I was able to trust you again (which I'm not) after your sockpuppetry, aid for a banned editor, and misuse of admin tools, your edits made on this account have come across as incivil and unhelpful on multiple occasions.
'''Oppose''' not sure if there ever was an apology or admission of being wrong for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NSLE/Wikibreak&diff=prev&oldid=58372147], but it seems at odds with adminship to me.
'''Oppose''' per Canadian, per Techie, and per [[WP:CIVIL]]. <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' per a thorough perusal of the facts at hand, producing concerns similar to those raised above.
'''Oppose''' You can't be serious. Clearcut case of abuse and misconduct. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. This is someone who over the course of the last year has seriously abused the admin powers he had, was de-sysoped for that, maintained a blatant lie that he was innocent of what he was accused of and used that lie to try and get adminship back, and only within the last few months finally admitted that he'd been keeping up the lie so long. How can the community possibly trust this user with adminship powers any time in the near future? In my opinion, a MUCH longer period of time needs to pass before a return to adminship can be given any serious consideration for this user (and by that I mean AT LEAST another year).
I'm sorry but I have to '''oppose'''. I really did want to support, but the explanations for protection/proxying and using sockpuppets to get multiple !votes in RfAs just doesn't stand up for me. That you confessed to the ArbCom in November is very nice, but I think the apology was actually owed to the community that was repeatedly and blatantly lied to. I can't help but feel the confession in November was really just a strategy for this RfA, which comes nearly exactly three months later. During your last RfA, your apologised to Lar and some people felt that it was only motivated by the RfA. I would feel better about this if you weren't also apologising in the same breath that you're admitting to some blatant deceit and once again asking the community to trust your word. As someone said during the previous RfA, the time to mend fences with the community is well before an RfA, not at the start of one. '''
'''<s>Very reluctant</s> oppose'''. Chacor is clearly committed to the project (many people would just leave the encyclopedia in a huff, leaving others to clean up their mess), and NSLE was a great administrator. But for six months, he apparently lied about what happened, and only "came clean" later. I feel uneasy about giving the tools to someone who lied to the community for so long. I feel especially uneasy because I believed him when he said it wasn't his sockpuppet, because he protested it so strongly. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Oppose''' for all the great work the candidate has done as Chacor, I'm afraid the deception in the first RFA and the lack of an  full explanation of why he did what he did gives me too much pause.--
'''Oppose''' This is the first time I have opposed an RfA, and I take it seriously.  I think all manner of editing violations, even the major ones (e.g., [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppeting]] or [[WP:POINT]]) are forgivable.  Of course I understand that administrators make mistakes.  However, I think when people use administrator tools to assist or conceal their editing violations, they have demonstrated that they should not be trusted with those tools in the future.  --'''
'''Oppose''', too abrasive for my tastes. All the other oppose votes really show something to me as well.--
'''Oppose'''. (See Q6 above) Although I believe he is "reformed", ArbCom explicitly restricted his ability to apply for RfA. Without an explicit approval, I believe this RfA is invalid. -
Reluctantly '''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda 2]]. As you can see NSLE/Chacor voted by both of his accounts. While the Daniel Brandt episode might be a lapse of judgement caused by external pressure, I cannot see any explanation for the second one and two episodes are a pattern. I am sorry as [[User:NSLE]] used to be a very strong and helpful admin but too risky
'''Oppose''' per Neil, Michael Snow, Ral & Alex above, have not been swayed from my position on the Sept RfA.
'''Oppose''' So confusing that I have to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' In December I had a conflict with this editor.  We later reconciled when he offered to assist me with a template, but his actions during the dispute cause me to take great pause in considering support for his RfA.
'''Opppose''' gaining forgiveness and regaining the same level of trust are two separate things. Given the issue pointed out regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda 2]] whre both accounts vote (one support one oppose) within a short time period. 04:09 UTC Chacor opines, 05:16 UTC NSLE oppines in the opposite, given the opposite views it seems unlikely this was a genuine mistake also couple with Chacor being challenged about finding RFA and his defense of that including something at 05:22 UTC i.e. 6 minutes after NSLE had posted to the RFA page. Coupled with the long term denial of the Brandt issue this paints a picture of someone quite happy to mislead the community. --
'''Oppose''' I'm glad to see responsible editing, but adminship for a user with such problems in the not so distant past would simply look bad for Wikipedia and for adminship as a trusted position. --
'''Oppose'''.  It seems like the editor never took responsibility for his actions, and only paid them lip service when it became clear that adminship was not forthcoming without coming clean.  The fact that he tried to evade answering question #5 indicates that he is still on the same page. --
'''Absolutely not''' at this time. Months of denial and lying about his behavior, a maintained sense that he did not abuse admin "tools" when what he did was impossible for a normal user (even with sockpuppets), and more disturbing diffs in this RFA. <s>Maybe in another year.</s> Not ever again, per Alex Bakharev's evidence in the Jaranda RFA. -- ''
'''Oppose'''. Has broken too many rules to be trusted with the tools again.
'''Oppose''', per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda 2]].--
'''Oppose'''.  Mostly per the incident that got NSLE desysopped in the first place, but some concerns about behavior since.  Not willing to just overlook outright deception...especially not in the current climate. —
'''Oppose''' General discomfort with approach, and the timing of this resubmission couldn't really be much worse given the ongoing debate about identity, given the history.
'''Oppose''' - Serious civility issues, coming clean 1 minute before accepting this nomination and expecting immediate community forgiveness after months and months of lying shows bad judgement... and, the repeated and persistant self serving (and false) claims that checkusers are inaccurate did us all no favors. Sorry, no way and I can support at this time nor anytime soon '''
'''Absolutely not'''. —
'''Oppose''' I do not trust this user with the tools.--
'''Strong Oppose''' user can not be trusted with administrator privileges.--
'''Oppose''' Incivility issues in the past as well as the desysopping worry me. —<b>[[User:Pilotguy|Pilot]]<font color="orange">
'''Oppose''' Major concerns raised of sockpuppetry, incivility, lying, misuse of admin powers, and involuntary removal of adminship. Sorry for my unforgiveness, but I can't support you. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''', "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Expectations and role of administrators|[Administrators] should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire]]." · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Oppose'''.Prior to this RfA, Chacor's last comment on this subject was ''"I don't see a need to "admit" anything I didn't do, WP:NOT Guantánamo Bay. – Chacor 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)",'' in chastisement of another editor's suggestion that coming clean will earn greater respect from the community than falsely maintaining innocence. It appears, after the last strategy failed, Chacor is now taking this route. Am I in violation of [[WP:AGF]] to wonder why we should believe this story rather than the last one? Such deceit is very difficult to overlook in under six months, and I don't see a huge amount in the interventing time that suggests he has earned our trust. A significant period of time (perhaps an year) of honest behaviour, during which Chacor's story stays the same, might earn support from me in future. But at the moment its very difficult to see how we can ask the community to respect the authority of an admin that has a recent track record of such spectacular deceit.
'''Oppose for now'''. I'm willing to forgive people after time. But that time starts when they admit they did something wrong and say they are sorry for it. You can't do something bad, deny it for 3 months, and then later say "Oh, well I've stopped denying it, so you can trust me now". It also doesn't help that you seem to think sockpuppetry to vote twice in an RfA is somehow understandable. -
'''Oppose'''.  Accountability needs to mean something if adminship is to be anything other than a ticket into an insular cabal which acts with impunity.  If you screw up significantly enough to get deopped, you need to be out for good.  This should be a blatantly obvious rule by now.  --

'''Neutral''' - placeholder !vote, pending further look at contributions. Think enough water has gone under the bridge since desysopping and believe user to be an excellent contributor, but have some concerns I wish to check before supporting. --
Thinking about it more, I am going neutral. He would use some of the admin tools well, though others I'm not so sure of, based on his past with some users.
'''Neutral'''. I would love to support, as edit-wise, Chacor is an excellent candidate, and I would forgive him for the problems in the past (that he apologized for). However, he still has problems with [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:CIV]], and [[WP:BITE]], and these problems need to be addressed before I can support a RfA. Keep in mind, I supported the previous RfA, but I was unaware of the full extent of the issues at that time. This is a neutral and not an oppose because I have the idea that these problems are a result of all the past issues, and I think Chacor could be a good admin if these problems are solved. --'''
'''Neutral''' per Sarah and Coredesat. ···
'''Neutral''' - I believe he has learned from the "incident", but some of the other concerns brought up by opposers have me unsure if I can give my support at this time.
'''Neutral''' not comfortable supporting with all the issues raised in the oppose and neutral votes above. -
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to wait a little longer. '''''
'''Neutral''' - I'd really like to support this, but I just can't find enough trust yet. Sorry. I won't oppose, but I suggest you try again in a few more months. Once this is a bit further behind you, if you continue to be a good and thoughtful editor, I'll support.
'''Neutral''' and willing to step down/recalled from adminship if the community decides, the reason why chacor voted twice in my rfa was my fault and I apologize for this, Chacor contacted me in IRC right after he opposed my rfa via his NSLE nic, he was that I'm in rfa again, and I was thinking about the chacor account being strange as a new editor finding RFA so quick, I guessed NSLE was chacor so he said don't tell anyone and that he will use his NSLE account to support and cancel out the vote, I should have declined, but i wasn't really paying attention to the rfa anyways (had major arm surgery a few days back and was under the effect of painkillers and typing with one hand) so I ignored it, i wasn't following the rfa much thinking it was going to be another failure, it was nothing to do with blackmail and that kind of crap, it was Chacor decision. Sorry about this and I'll be willing to step-down from adminship and try again in several months if asked.
Experienced user, and this user seems to deserve a second chance for the desysopping incident which happened months ago, but '''neutral''' per Coredesat because of [[WP:CIV]] issues. Will reconsider in another few months if this is worked on.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Well, I'd love to be able to support. However, you don't even have 100 edits. I suggest you read up on policy and RfA standards and try again once you have made some edits. -_
'''Oppose and reccomend withdrawl'''. Come back in about 8 months and when your edit count is about 3,300, with most of those edits in the Main, Wikipedia, and Template or Image namespaces. You should try helping out at [[WP:SUSPSOCK]], [[WP:XFD]], [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism|fighting vandalism]], and [[WP:FA]].
'''Oppose''' sorry but I have to agree with the above comments. Your "dedication to vandal fighting" is commendable but stretches to 7 vandalism reverts. There isn't anywhere near the amount of evidence in your contribution history for anyone to fairly conclude that you're ready to become an admin yet. Remember the standard on Wikipedia is [[WP:V|evidence not truth]]. We need to see a long enough record here that we can see that you are ready for all the complex things that an admin must deal with. I suggest withdrawing this AfD, continuing your excellent contributions to Wikipedia. Whne you've been here 3-4 months and have at least 2500 edits under your belt, ask for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] to see how close you are to being ready for another AfD. Good luck,
'''Neutral''' You have not been here nearly long enough for users to judge you, and your edit count is low. Please consider withdrawing this nomination and trying again in three months' time, or about 3000 edits. --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Moral Support''' Going the right way. I am sure you'll be an admin some months down the line. But right now, it's too early, because there is not much that others can judge from your contributions.  You can do [[WP:CSD|CSD]] tagging. Also, you would get to know policy better if you participate in [[WP:AfD|deletion discussions]]. Other than that, continue what you are doing. :) -
'''Support''' He seems like a nice enough guy.
'''Moral Support'''  Chet, I am so glad that you are running for adminship.  You sound like your heart is in the right place and you really want to do good things here.  Keep up the good work and I think that you will have an easy time getting admin tools down the road.  (At the risk of being accused of "edit-countitis", however, I do think it would be best if you gain a little more experience around here).  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support moderatley'''.  I am a vandal fighter, and it appears this user is as well.  He makes planty of contributions a day, mainly welcoming and reverting.  I would support him strongly if he made other contributions other than that, but he gets my vote. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' - This user simply has not got enough experience with Wikipedia and has not made any notable contributions. An Administrator needs to be knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia and experienced in a variety of tasks. Users look to them for advice and help, and I'm afraid I don't have faith in Chetblong's ability to provide these.
'''Oppose''' - Because your edit count is fairly low, perhaps a better route for you to go in order to get feedback is to request an editor review, [[WP:ER]], or ask to be adopted [[WP:AAU]].
'''Oppose''', low edit count, not enough experience. Participate in some admin-related duties like xFDs and fixing image copyright problems will help a lot. From here, you can understand more about policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose''' - Editor doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. Also, only one XfD contribution and three AIV contributions, I don't see any [[WP:PROD]] or [[WP:SPEEDY]] nominations in the editor's contributions, so I can't see that the editor understands deletion policies.
'''Oppose'''- not enough experience
'''Oppose based on contributions''', or lack of them. I looked for substantial contributions to review, and couldn't find any. He's hardly done anything but welcome newbies, mess with his user page, and revert a few vandals. He clearly is doing his part to help Wikipedia so far, but he needs to branch out and gain more experience, particularly with article writing.
'''Oppose''' based on the candidate's opening statement.  If the candidate wants to seek feedback of how he is doing on the project, then he should apply for an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]]. '''<font color="#1E90FF" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. As Real96 mentioned, going through an [[WP:ER|editor review]] would have been the best way to get a thorough evaluation of your contributions on Wikipedia. As for your request for adminship, I don't think you're quite ready yet. If you intend on requesting administrator tools, you should have more contributions in the Wikipedia namespace, particularly at AIV, XfD, etc. Reporting vandals, participating in deletion discussion, prodding articles, or tagging articles for speedy deletion not only tells the community whether or not you're ready for adminship, but it also tells you if you are ready for the tools. As for now, I commend you for your great work on Wikipedia thus far, and I hope you can keep doing what you've done so far, and also expand yourself to other aspects of Wikipedia (such as AIV and XfD, as mentioned earlier). <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' far too early.  Gain some more experience, try some wikiprojects, and try again later.
'''Oppose''' I think this candidate should really read over the answers to the questions at the top and compare it to the thoughtful ones given by many other candidates.  Everything else, experience, edit counts, articles, etc. then confirms my impression that this was done too early.
'''Oppose''' This user needs much more experience; as mentioned earlier, [[WP:ER|editor review]] would be a good idea. —
'''Moral support''' You may think you're ready, but you're not. You don't know how much you don't know. You should seek an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] instead of RfA for an appraisal of your contributions.
'''Avoiding pile on''' I recommend a read of [[User:Keegan/On administrators|this essay I wrote]] to learn more about what we look for in a sysop and why you should broaden your horizons.
'''Moral support''' as there is no participation yet at XfD or policy pages. I suggest that you make use of WP:Editor review before  you next apply for Admininship--it's a less formal way of getting similar feedback.'''
'''Neutral''' to avoid piling on. I appreciate your offer and find much to commend you for but the edit experience just isn't there ''yet.'' But it will be in time. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' While he may not have made a large NUMBER of mainspace edits, he certainly makes very high quality mainspace contribution. --'''
'''Oppose''' I feel the same issues still apply from your last RfA, you still need more experience in the mainspace.
'''Oppose''' — I simply can't see any [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Chris+G&namespace=0 mainspace] contributions.
'''Oppose''' - Whilst I certainly don't think 'age-ism' is a good idea, I just can't believe that a twelve year old has the real-life experience to know how best deal with conflict etc. Also, sorry, but your answers are remarkably short and blunt.
It's a bit too soon since your last Rfa, and many of the concerns have not been addressed. I don't believe that a user with more edits towards userspace than mainspace has the editing capacities and experience to being an administrator. Continue editing and put more emphasis on article expansion and you'll succeed. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' Far too soon after last RfA.  I suggest withdrawing and waiting 3 months or so.  Not enough mainspace edits for a start. On the right track and I'm sure will get there in due course.
'''Oppose''' - Aside from minor reversions and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musa_Nastuyev&diff=prev&oldid=138743099 inappropriate] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Creighton%2C_2nd_Earl_Erne&diff=prev&oldid=138947411 CSD] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Algerino&diff=prev&oldid=138946462 tagging] (all marked as minor edits), you seem to have ''no mainspace edits at all''. I know some editors disagree but I don't think it's possible to apply policy correctly without experience; being an admin isn't just zapping articles you don't like with your magic button, it's explaining to irate writers why you've deleted the article they spent three days working on, and with no article creation experience I don't see how you'll be able to reply to them<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Not sure this was entirely wise Chris. It has only been a month and a bit since your last RFA. I think you should have waited longer; I'm not sure that there has been enough time passed to properly show you have addressed the concerns of the previous RFA. -- <strong>
'''Neutral for now.''' You seem to have had a problem with your password [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_G&diff=prev&oldid=148514733 here]. Password security is essential, especially for administrators. Do you consider your password secure and have you tested its strength? --
Ouch. This is gonna hurt, but why rush a nomination so soon after your last one? It just makes you look power-wanting and seem that you treat [[WP:ADMINNOT|adminship as a trophy]]. For that, I must '''oppose'''. &ndash;
Oppose per Charcor. You said yourself your impatient. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Weak Oppose''' I voted support last time (I was Seadog) but I haven't seen a whole lot of improvement since then, sorry :/. I just feel that you need more experiance, come back in ''4'' months. ~
'''Oppose''' per your self-impaling response to Chacor. In case you didn't know, one of the most important thresholds for attaining adminship is the ''necessity'' of admin tools, not the ''desire'' for admin tools. No significant need for admin tools has thus far been expressed. I appreciate your candor towards your own aptitude (or lack of, from what I can gather from your comments), but humor isn't really going to persuade me much, though I am in no means advocating anyone to be an abject bore. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I don't think the last one was just because of incivility. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose''', too early since last attempt.
'''Oppose''' per Psyicq210.
'''Oppose''' per review of his contributions and the concerns raised above. I think more time is necessary in order to show an ability to be civil for an extended period of time. No ''need'' for the tools is exhibited, and I have concerns that the tools would not be used wisely based on the previously-expressed concerns. I suggest waiting several months. ···
'''Neutral-leaning-support.''' I really like the way the candidate thinks ([[User:Chris is me/WikiSocial userbox solution|WikiSocial userbox solution]], [[m:AFD is evil|"AFD is evil"]], [[WP:ATBD|Ability to be described]]). We need more wikipedians (especially Admins) who think think like he does. He has opinions on things and can clearly express them. He also has a fairly proportionate amount of edits, but the numbers aren't too high. Come back after a few more months of solid work and maybe if it shows that you've edited enough, I'll vote support! <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' as nom. -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', seems to be a safe pair of hands.
'''Support''': Great editor.  No reason not to support.   -
'''Support''' A good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Exellent editor who will help with administrative tasks. However, edit summary usage can be increased.
'''Support'''. The candidate seems trustworthy and helpful and has authored some quality articles.
The two current opposes seem too ridiculous for me not to '''support'''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vito.Delucchi&diff=prev&oldid=164161735 This] is unnecessarily [[WP:BITE|bitey]], and "because they are policies, there are no way around it" shows a lack of discretion when enforcing policy. The warning of 3RR was also bad judgement as you are an involved party in the edit war, also violating 3RR on [[Golden State Warriors]]. From my point of view, the editor is just trying to help but with misguided intentions, so an explanation might be more helpful than to warn the editor repeatedly. I also find nominating [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be a dick (3rd nomination)|this page]] for deletion to be bad judgement, and, as Kim Bruning pointed out, a wrong process. There's also some incivility and bad faith shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholga&diff=prev&oldid=150447293 here], which I am uncomfortable with. --
'''Oppose''' Questions are very weak, very focused in a few pet areas with little apparent exposure elsewhere, and about 25% of his edits are left without edit summaries.  Somebody who is so into vandal fighting should know that edit summaries are very helpful.  Failure to have one means that people are undoubtably checking his edits to see if they are vandalism or not.
'''Oppose''' per DarkFalls, the candidates' replies to DarkFalls, and [[m:Talk:Don't be a dick#Proposal to rename article]]. My impressions of this candidate prior to this debate leaves me of the opinion that I don't trust this users' judgement and ability to act ''and'' interact with the appropriate decorum, subtlety and rational application of the facts at a sufficient level for me to support this nomination. Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' - mainly per Daniel, and the answers to questions aren't sufficient enough for me to show that the user has a good understanding of Wiki policies. &mdash;
Oppose – I agree with Daniel and the “Don’t be a dick” renaming proposal. An administrator needs to be objective, even if it offends her/him personally.  Because of this persons prior actions with said controversy, I can not honestly say that I could support this person. The answer to Q1 “I think I can do more if I am an admin”, lends me to believe this person would not be able to make good decisions or would question their own actions. Also DarkFalls makes excellent points about this person asserting their personal views (again as can be seen in the renaming proposal). Oppose lacks maturity. --
'''Oppose'''.  Poor usage of edit summary.  A little harsh and may become a fast blocker upon becoming an admin.  Also needs a little more experience in the projectspace than 480 edits. Sorry, an good luck despite my opinion, <strong class="plainlinks">
Sorry, no. There is an abundance of good and obvious reasons. I find Daniel's comment the most convincing (and very politely worded!), I would have summarised roughly the same as a "feeling of doesn't-get-it" and immaturity. To that respect, the proposed renaming of WP:DICK to "something nicer" is actually the most worrying to me. Wikipedia is not censored, and ''a dick is a dick is a spade'', period. I&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' I don't see enough experience in admin related areas. Plus, you need to user your edit summaries more. Consider going into your preferences, click on editing, and check the last box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary".
'''Oppose''' My (observational, not direct) experiences with and perceptions of the candidate track roughly with those of Daniel (as well summarized by Dorftrottel), but I refrained from opposing straightaway because, having come to this RfA when it was being supported overwhelmingly, including by a few editors whose RfA guidelines seem generally to be rather similar to [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|mine]], I imagined that I ought to give more than a cursory look, lest I should miss something particularly redeeming; after further review, though, I don't find anything to suggest that my initial assessment was all that wrong.
'''Strong oppose'''. I was worried about the answer regarding AIV. The user did not seem to understand the warning process. Looking through the contributions to AIV, I find that the user does not. Three of his last four reports to AIV did not result in blocks, troublesome considering he only have five recent reports. In the case of all three delisting his reports the reasoning of only one edit and old warnings were given. The diffs can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=169507104] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=165053640][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=next&oldid=172196762]. As such, I can not trust the user with the tools, other concerns raised above aside.
'''Oppose''' per Jake (SorryGuy). Needs to improve the warning process.
'''Oppose''' as per DarkFalls and SorryGuy. Some improvement is needed, methinks.
'''Oppose'''. Edit summaries and lack of understanding of their utility.
'''Oppose''' - Good editor overall but lack understanding of admin tools per Q5 answer. Would support in the future if candidate shows more understanding. --
'''Oppose'''. I think several things here add up to a larger problem of inexperience in some important areas. I would suggest you consider withdrawing and coming back in about three months or so having worked on the areas noted. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not ready yet.
He seems experienced enough in admin related areas, but I think he needs to get more used to leaving edit summaries.
'''Moved to neutral. Nom has received sufficient feedback that surely will heed the advice.''' I look forward to supporting in the future, but nom needs to slow down a little and be more open minded. "That's the way it is" just comes across as too harsh. We need to try to educate those who don't know as much as we do. " Maintaining the collegial atmosphere requires patience. I also would have liked clearer, less disjointed answers to the questions, but I believe the nom is heading in the right direction. Is developing experience in the admin tool areas and is building articles. Just needs a little seasoning in the interpersonal interactions. Also, if the nom has not already done so, clicking his user preferences to require filling out the edit summary before saving will be helpful.
'''Neutral''' I see some great things in some areas, but I cannot support after reading through the opposing comments.  Best of luck!
'''Neutral''' I don't think the fact that he's sometimes a bit sharp with other editors is necessarily important since it doesn't seem over the top.  However, I'm staying neutral due to the weak answers given to the questions. --
'''Neutral''' - Some of the questions lack detail. Only 50% of the last 150 Major and 150 Minor Edits have Summaries. Otherwise, a good Editor.
Sorry, only 3 mainspace edits, 58 in total. Also, he just joined the project in Feburary!
'''Oppose''' - I certainly appreciate the effort to help Wikipedia by nominating yourself to be an admin. It shows you're interested in long-term commitment to the site. Unfortunately, adminship is a position of trust, and I don't feel that your current contributions offer enough of an opportunity for me to judge your trustworthiness. If you would like to try to do some admin-like activities to display your awareness of Wikipedia policy, try participating in [[WP:XFD|deletion discussions]] and [[WP:AIV|reporting repeat vandals to administrators]]. In the future, try to avoid [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=107374010 comments like this], as they can be seen as [[WP:CIV|uncivil]]. I hope to see your progress as a Wikipedian in the future.
'''Oppose'''- you can fight vandalism without being an admin
'''Oppose''' - editor has made a great start to Wikipedia, however simply not enough contributions - just over 100 total contribs between two accounts does not give enough confidence that editor will not misuse tools. ''Keep doing what you are doing, Chuckfromchan, and in a few months you shouldn't have any trouble getting the mop.''
'''Oppose''' While edit count is not the only criterion, participation in all of the various parts of wikipedia shows us the degree with which you understand wiki policy. Your two accounts together do not at present contain enough contribution to demonstrate this. But keep it up, and you will get there. I suggest withdrawing this application now, and re-submitting after three months or so.--
'''Oppose based on contributions'''. Found these in his contribution history (and they represent a large proportion of his contributions): "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=107374010 it's not vandalism you jerk]", and replacing a page with "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=107374010 I hate margaret porter]". These are newbie mistakes, to be sure; many people start out this way before turning into valuable contributors. Chuckfromchan can do the same, but I don't want to perpetuate the falsehood that he should just keep doing what he's doing now, make a ton more edits, and reapply. Rather, he should gain the experience with WP necessary to ''not'' do what he's doing now.
'''Oppose''' And suggest [[WP:ER|editor review]] and withdrawal. Sub 250 edits, with about 20% to your user space gives me nothing to work on. Weak answers to the questions. I admire your enthusiasm, and thank you for your work so far, but I'm afraid this stands no chance and I'd prefer you withdraw than recieve a brutal RfA experience. Also, could you endeavour to use edit summaires more - you can force them via the "my prefernces" tool. My very best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I also have to agree with Pedro here. Would be best if you withdrew. Sorry buddy.
(edit conflict)'''Oppose'''. I'd like to echo Pedro, that I admire your intentions, but I also have to suggest withdrawing this RFA. You've done good work so far, but it's a rare happenstance than an editor receive the admin tools with fewer than 2000 edits. It is difficult for the community to discern your knowledge of policies with so few edits. It is also difficult to gain the community's trust without a substantial amount of work/time. An [[WP:ER|editor review]] or an [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coach]] might be a better idea first. You'll also want to use edit summaries more, it lets other editors see what you are doing more easily. I'd also recommend taking a look over [[WP:LOP|this list of policies]] to make sure you have a good handle on how everything works. If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Oppose'''.  Please withdraw and come back later.
'''Oppose'''. You're just not experienced enough, though you're on the right lines! Please see the other reqeusts for adminship, they are all experienced. You can take those as examples, in experience needed and the way to answer your questions.
'''Oppose''' Recommend withdrawal, then some coaching.
'''Oppose (which makes me feel like an idiot)''' Needs more experience and better answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' per above.
In looking over Clamster5's edits, I see nothing to suggest she'd abuse the tools. Another admin on RC patrol is always good. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' you seem like a good editor. I recommend that in future you try to fill in an edit summary for just about every edit you make from now on - other than that, nothing seems to be too wrong. Good luck! ;) –
'''Support''', looks like the tools will help this editor and I don't see any outstanding issues. --
'''Support''' as nominator, I support.
'''Support,''' will not abuse the tools. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support,''' No serious concerns except for the lack of "Wikipedia" space edits. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''', I don't see much problems here. More edit summaries please, good editor generally.
'''Support''', at first I was slightly worried about your edit summary usage, but I can see that you can learn from certain complications (i. e. the revert war), so that shouldn't be a problem from now on, especially considering the auto edit summary tool you've begun using. Secondly, I'm happy that you'll stand up to vandals and troublemakers, (as shown in my optional question) regardless of relations. This to me implies that you will carry out your duties as an admin without being swayed from adhering to Wikipedia policy for personal reasons. Therefore, I support your RfA. Good luck with your mop and bucket!
'''Support''', Your temper in the 3RR and the AfD are concerning. However there has been 6+ months of space between that event and now so I am willing to support you. Project work is important. The fact that you asked for nomination means nothing at all to me.
'''Support''' User has increased edit summary usage from the concerns about edit summaries so I will support.
'''Support''' - the AfD incident sounds worrying at first, but a reasonable amount of time has passed and I think this user is unlikely to abuse tools, unless someone can find more recent evidence of misconduct.
'''Support'''  Even though I have a few misgivings: mostly related to the AfD debacle (minor to some that I have seen) and your limited experience outside of your specific area of interest.  I will support.  It sounds to me that you have learned a lesson about handling a heated argument.  I trust that you will be better at asking for a third party mediator or just taking some time to sit back and gain perspective if things get dicey in the future.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about your relatively narrow range of experience. In mainspace, almost all of your edits are proofreading, many of which should have been marked as minor--and even so, almost all are within one project.  In user space, a great many of your edits are informing potential participants about that project. There's minimal participation in XfD, and none at all on WP talk about policy. There is some good vandal fighting, and I very much like your answer to Q.5.  I hope to support your future RfA when you have a broader record here. '''
'''Oppose''' Too soon after the AFD incident. Admins but be able to keep a cool head in much more challenging situations than that, and losing their cool can make situations much worse - so I have to err on the side of caution.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I also do not feel the AfD incident was "too long" ago.  While it may have devolved into petty fighting like you stated above, you were clearly the instigator and you should have backed down when you were challenged.  Being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] does not always mean being right.  My apologies -- otherwise you seem like an excellent candidate, and I will fully support the consensus of the contributors here, whether it be positive or negative.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Especially given prior episode of ill-temper, more project-space experience is needed to demonstrate candidate can handle the mop.
Per Xoloz -- <b>
Admins losing their heads when they get angry or frustrated creates big problems. I don't trust this user with the tools, given how stressful adminship is. '''
'''Oppose''' generally due to the 3RR and AFD issue and narrow focus.  Suggest you branch out, diversify your experience, and try again later. --
'''Neutral''' but leaning toward support.  The dispute referred to in Q3, while disturbing, is too long ago, and Clamster5 seems to have learned from it.  I have no reason to believe she will misinterpret speedy deletion criteria.  I am a little annoyed by the mistakes in spelling and grammar.  Certainly I would support a second application if I'm still around in a couple of months.
'''Neutral''' I'm going to remain neutral because of your edit summary usage, normally if it was satisfactory I'd AGF and support but yours is less than 25%, I cant support that, you have been asked before to leave one and have not which makes it seem as if you are unwlling to comprimise, also why did you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrmoocow&diff=prev&oldid=133734782 ask] another editor to nominated you for adminship, I understand you may have been nervous but we dont bite, self nominations are accepted. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
Neutral - Candidate has limited experience throughout the 'pedia. There has been some edit warring, and a little less calm than I like to see. If no further incidents occur, and candidate broadens her experience (and use edit summaries, please!) I will certainly reconsider the candidate in the future, with no prejudice.
'''<s>Oppose</s>'''. The "AFD incident" is from six months ago, and there was some poor behavior on both sides. However, reading it doesn't hurt my eyes nearly as much as the day-glow green font (which is barely visible against an azure blue background), so really I am not too concerned about the "AFD incident", but more about what DGG has said above. But, do remember not to nominate articles for deletion if you actually feel they should be merged. —
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> I noticed the fact that you asked someone else to nominate you. I nominated myself. It's nothing to be afraid of doing! =) My reasoning is that I'd fear that, possibly, you'd be afraid to take responsibility, which could affect you work as an admin. However, this is no policy, but simply my opinion. If you can prove that you're responsible, you could certainly have my support in the future, as you seem to be a great editor, and this was obviously done in good faith.<font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Neutral'''. Though I think you'd be ok for the job, I still don't feel like the AfD incident was all that long ago. I realize you're remorseful for it, but it still gives me an uneasy feeling. I'd probably support in a few months, but, right now, I just can't. --
'''Support''' - why not? --
'''Support''' I don't see a problem here.
'''Support''' Looks good to me!
'''Support''' I'd prefer more wiki-space edits, but all the other pro's more than make up for it.
'''Support''' will definitely make a good admin. -
'''Oh yes''' I've seen this editor around many times and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&diff=prev&oldid=113876010 this edit] proves that he's a very fair and balanced editor. -- ''
I'm
Sure.
'''Support'''. Been around long enough to know policy. See no reason not to support.↔

'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''' <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' Qualified and capable, no reason to withhold the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A good potential admin.--
'''Strong support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' -well same as the
'''Support''' A few concerns, but still definately a good candidate. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. Clawson shows a level head and a decent understanding of policies. He's been around long enough (and been mostly active during that time) to understand how things work. I think he'll do fine with the mop and bucket. ···
'''Support''' - enough main space edits in article writing and counter-vandalism to offset lowish project space contributions.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Can be trusted with the tools for which Clawson has an obvious need. --
'''Support''', despite lack of wiki-space edits.  There is both a reason for trust and a need for administrative tools, and I see no reason to believe that the candidate would jump head first into a policy dispute and start blasting without first doing the appropriate policy checks. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Most definitely.
'''Super strong Shoop da Woop support''': strong candidate, will do great things for the project.(Note, increasing amount of support in the face of opposition canvassing.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' devoted editors make good admins
'''Support''' strong candidate. ···
'''Suppoer''' good candidate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''': Adminship ain't nothin' special.
'''Support''' per everything above
'''Support''', after a full review of the links posted by KNcyu38. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clawson&diff=prev&oldid=116518933 Civil and humble], [[User talk:83.115.73.212| diligent and correct in application of policy]], hard-working; I have no problem in giving Clawson the tools. The concerted degree of campaigning against this candidate would have revealed any hectoring or paranoid tendencies, and I see no evidence of this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrld&diff=108517906&oldid=102527992 This] edit was possibly a mistake, and certainly a misuse of the term vandalism, but I think the candidate has learned from it. --
'''Support''' the good and experience does seem to overwhelm the tenuous negative... and being around three years, who doesn't have the odd sour apple? -
'''Oppose''' Low level of activity in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''<s>Tentative</s> oppose''', changed from neutral. My concern from below still stands, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen&diff=next&oldid=114031998 this] pushed me over the edge. However, I'm still willing to hear Clawson's explanation for misunderstanding another user so grossly and with apparent intention, going so far as to call his tone "anti-Semitic". —
I'm worried about his severe lack of experience with process, and the [[WP:ABF]] shown by kncyu isn't helping things.
'''Oppose''' - I hate to do this, but I'm changing my 'vote' to oppose, based on the diffs identified above. I no longer trust Clawson with the tools. I believe that he will be heavy-handed, will attempt to own certain articles, and will push other editors out of the project. Thanks to the above users for identifying the diffs. -
'''Oppose''' due to the diffs provided by [[user:Kncyu38|KNcyu38]]. The candidate seems over aggressive in his approach to other users and edit summaries should not be used to disparage. I simply don't think he has the right temperament for adminship. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Oppose per concerns raised by Kncyu38. I have found Chris Lawson to disregard others in favor of his own opinion, no matter how many people disagree.  He makes it sound like just one person disagrees on the above subject, but I also disagree and I am not the one who mentions the internet forum there., and another user also disagreed with him too.   He is quick to tell others there sources are weak, but never his own which is as weak as it could get.  Instead of proving the Red Baron was jewish definitvely, he says I must prove he was not????  I disagree with this logic.  See the discussion page on Red Baron article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen in regards to his desire to make the Red Baron jewish in a crusade for his own personal agenda, he employs a weak, old source there which provides no evidence for his statement of jewish ancestry, not to mention the quote given doesn't even state what he takes to be fact, i.e. its doesn't even say he was jewish (it could mean he was slavic) yet alone name a jewish relative. in fact, the 50 year old  book isn't even about the red baron.  Many relatives are mentioned in the article, none are jewish.  I just don't think he is right for an administrative position.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned by some of this editor's user interaction, per diffs above and a perusal of his talk page and last 1,000 edits. --
'''Opppose''' I came across this by accident, and the repeated assertions by clawson on the BvR talk page, basically saying that its a good ref because i say it is, and refusal to come to terms with opposing arguments, made it clear to me that it wasnt just a personal dispute between the two. He's not tactful eough yet. Checking other edits, there seem to be a number of edit summaries saying things like "electric green" (#00FF00) is in no way related to "lime green" other than being green" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green&diff=prev&oldid=115636190]. His statements are generally correct, but the wording as a sarcastic put-down is evident. For more, just glance down user contribs. '''
'''Oppose''' per above, citing [[WP:CIVIL]] while at the very same time failing to follow it shows a failure in understanding, or a mindset that the policy applies only to others. Neither is a comforting thought.
'''Oppose''' after a detailed reading of his talkpage. This user seems to have continuing issues with agression/incivility. I was also concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrld&diff=108517906&oldid=102527992 this edit]. As an admin candidate, Clawson should know that blanking your own page is NOT vandalism. To tell a new user that is not only misleading, but shows a poor grasp of policy.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and Jeffpw. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Oppose''' (somewhat weak/unsure).  Candidate seems unnecessarily sarcastic in many edit summaries, per edit history and other diffs cited above.  This incivility is especially worrying when the candidate has often cited [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] to others. (In addition, could you please uncheck "mark edits as minor by default" -- which I assume you have checked -- if you are not going to change it manually on edits that aren't [[Help:Minor edit|minor]]?) --
'''Opppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' because I saw [[User_talk:Clawson#Your_continuing_high-handedness|these comments]] on Clawson's talk page shortly after this RfA began.  I hesitated to vote earlier since this is my first time voting in RfA, but my serious concerns about this candidate's civility and evenhandedness remain ever since reading that.--
'''Oppose'''.  I'm concerned about the difs brought up by Seattle Skier and Kncyu38 that show possible civility problems.  I was also concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_venter&diff=75192777&oldid=75118984 this edit]: It shows that the candidate may be heavy-handed with blocks and may use them punitively and in cases in which he is personally involved (though, to be sure, it doesn't definitively demonstrate that).  In response to the candidate's question about how to demonstrate trustworthiness with blocking and so on, showing sound reasoning in line with policy when making suggestions would go a long way.  I don't think that edit did that.
'''Neutral''' Although I feel that the other party in the MvR dispute was/is being way too emotional and disruptive in his postings, he does have a point (I in fact agree with him. I will post why below) and an administrator should be more cool headed and less heavy handed. Even if an editor is ranting if the point he is pushing has any validity at all I feel an Admin should focus on that rather than the post itself. However I also don't see any other reason not to grant his request and one case of not having patience does not  equate to being unworthy for a position of trust.
If this nom doesn't succeed, don't be disheartened. Trust and clue is all you need for an administrator. This user has my trust, and is clueful to the policies of Wikipedia. --
A helpful user, and a fantastic bot. Lots of good work. <font color="red">
'''Weak Support''' - Good vandal-fighter and clearly a trustworthy user, although I'd like to see more participation in mainspace content creation and in XfDs. Nonetheless, the candidate will not abuse the tools.
I trust you man, I trust you. That's what it comes down to, after all. I don't think you're gonna go psycho, and block everyone, I don't think you're gonna delete everything. In fact, I think you'll be an asset to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Why not honestly?
'''Support''' per SQL and Jmlk17. Heck, if this guy was here to harm Wikipedia he wouldn't spend hours writing bots that help out would he? Plus, as opposed to Jeffery below, I liked the introduction to this RfA. If we can't have a bit of fun here whilst creating a serious work lets just pack it all up and go home. I don't want to give up my valuable time for a worthwhile project if I can't have a bit of light hearted humour occasionaly. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Support, tending slightly to the weak side of the spectrum (only a little) per Walton. But a clear support nonetheless. '''
'''Support''' good bot-op, wouldn't abuse the tools. Trust him. -- <strong>
'''Very Weak Support''' on experience concerns, but your dedication and help to wikipedia is much appreciated. Good luck - although I doubt this rfa will succeed --'''
'''Tentative support''' from what I've seen, a level-headed and sensible user. Half an hour of going through contribs didn't turn up anything but I might change my opinion if any skeletons are found later on. :) Oh, and like Pedro, I too like the self nom statement. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A good editor; his bot is one of the best. No reason to oppose. -- <font color="purple">'''
'''Support per  nom'''. LOL. ''Yes I know Cluebot is a bot.''  I've warned and reverted some of the same vandals. No bot is perfect, and Cluebot helps clean out the ocean of vandalism. Anyone with the this sort of sense of humor is not likely to go nutter and destroy Wikipedia with the buttons. I imagine the comparably low edit count will sink this, so hope to see you back in about 3,000 edits.
'''Oppose''' has a sense of humour, and concentrates too much on mundane project maintenance tasks. Probably unsuited for clearing backlogs and dealing with wackos. ~
'''Oppose''' per Riana. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' <small>or at least I think so since I can't work out which section this is now</small> The fact that this user operates ClueBot clearly shows that Cobi will not harm the project and understands important content policies.
'''Support''': the nomination is a cheeky breath of fresh air, and Cobi is helpful and responsive, and can explain things in a way even atechno-turkey like me canunderstand.  The bots work well, and I can't see how one needs to perform a powerful lot of personal edits one's self in order to qualify as a competent admin.  Seems to me that all the relevant buttons are pressed here.
Appears to have good knowledge of policy, and is experienced with technical matters. Has a sense of humor as well, which, as I stated in Alison's RfA those many months ago, is a quality more admins need to have.
'''Oppose''' -Sense of Humour...HA !. He is an editor who is hell-bent on destroying vandalism and that is not what we expect of an admin, his bot has made many people cry..which is mean ( :P ).. he will make a terrible admin..but seeing that he was nominated by a bot :O scares me..his bots are trying to take over wikipedia..fleeee.. :S ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' This editor knows what they are doing, and I couldn't find anything in the contribs to suggest a lack of judgment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports/ScottDavis&diff=prev&oldid=157460798] edits such as this also lead me to believe you are accountable, and respond to the needs of your fellow Wikipedians.
'''Support''' -- I don't see any evidence that this user will abuse the tools.  --
'''Support''' Blocking open proxies sounds good to me, that doesn't require experience in articlespace at all, and having a popular anti-vandal bot in use sounds like this user must already be very experienced with Wikipedia despite the short time span.
'''Weak support'''.  The user's mainspace contributions seem a bit on the thin side, but all in all this user appears to know what is going on and seems trustworthy - there's a lot of havoc a bot operator can unleash on the 'pedia even without the admin bit.  I believe sysopping this user would be a net benefit to the project.  The self-nom via bot thing was funny, for the record :)
<b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support'''Per Pedro, I believe this user will definately be able to contribute more to Wikipedia through his getting of the tools. Plus, I've encounted his bot/s countless times.
'''Support'''. I understand the concerns about article writing, but I believe despite the lack of it, he is dedicated to building this encyclopedia. His way of building the encyclopedia is protecting it from the bad guys, so that the users who our good at article writing can write and not be distracted by vandals and trolls. I feel that this is perfectly legitimate. --''
'''Weak support''' That is about trust, you have my trust. Just do not try to experiment in the areas which you have not experience. Good luck.
'''Strong support'''. Cobi's a really friendly guy with a sense of humour. That's of utmost importance in an admin to avoid burnout. I don't have a concern about the edit count because I know he's dedicated to helping the wiki, and his bots have over 50 thousand edits total. Cobi is also a great boon to [[WP:OP]]. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' <small>(or is it oppose?)</small> Per Riana. —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Support''' Oppose votes just don't convince me. By the way, loved the 'bot nomination.' Very funny. '''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose this user. And I wonder how ClueBot nominated Cobi.
'''Support''' Seems like a trustworthy user.
'''Support''' While it would be nice if Cobi had more mainspace edits, his contributions suggest a strong understanding of the [[WP:policy| rules]] that make wikipedia work.  I think he'd be a productive editor in many areas outside of mainspace (and maybe there too), and will be a valuable admin.  --
'''Support''' This user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. Happy to give my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' The main reason for opposition appears to be that this user does not have enough "experience" or has not made enough edits.  Cobi has had a huge amount of experience both as a general administrator (he is a chief administrator of the successful [[ClueNet]] network) and with Wikipedia in particular.  He has obviously researched the policies of Wikipedia in great detail and is very knowledgeable of its workings.  Cobi's writing of ClueBot is an example of this knowledge, but he has also even delved deeply into the MediaWiki code itself to make modifications for personal wikis and has experience as a wiki admin in the same regard.  It is obvious that he would not harm Wikipedia in any way - his dedication is apparent.  His ability to write a complex piece of software to automatically analyze pages demonstrates his general ability as well as desire to help.  Opposition on the sole grounds of "not enough edits!" is illogical, because the purpose of an administrator is not to spend time improving the content of pages - it is to handle much larger issues regarding the overall health of the encyclopedia, its users, and its specific pages, a task for which Cobi is certainly more than adequate.  I believe he is and will continue to be a great asset to Wikipedia.  This user has my full support.
'''Support''' A sense of humor and slight disregard for How Things Are Supposed To Happen make for an ideal administrator, someone who understands what ignore all rules is all about and when it's appropriate to ignore them, yet won't make a mess of things by ignoring them when it's not appropriate.  I have high hopes for this user.
'''Support''' Yes, the "oppose lack of experience" arguments are valid, but from their history I trust this editor not to do things they're not confident in<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' I believe this user will make good use of the tools, and that he has sufficiently earned the trust of the community.
'''Support''', it saddens me that some of the oppose reasons brought up below are for "lack of experience". You can't be serious! I can't possibly imagine how difficult it must be to construct a good, working bot like the one he has! Cobi definitely possesses the knowledge to edit protected templates, which would be of great benefit to the community. And if I'm proven wrong and Cobi does abuse the tools (something I seriously doubt), he'll be listed for recall. So what is there to lose? <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support'''.  Seems to have a use for the tools; doesn't seem likely to abuse them. --
'''Support''' Per above. Unlikely to abuse of tools. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - seems like a good user, has mentioned where they plan to work admin-wise, appears to understand policy. The bot is a factor for which the community trusts Cobi, and I'm inclined to think that his work there shows that he is helping the project through automated technical means if not much directly.
'''Support''' as per Riana.He has shown commitment an has contributed to Wikipedia by cluebot which fights vandalism.
Hell yes. &nbsp;&mdash; '''
'''Support''' per DI.
'''Support''' - could obviously use the tools, clearly isn't a mental.
'''Support'''. I believe the candidate is qualified for adminship based on his overall record, including but not limited to the Cluebots' work. I hope that this current nomination will succeed, I anticipate that the candidate will continue working on Wikipedia and gaining additional experience, resulting in overwhelming support next time.
'''Support'''. Plenty well qualified in the areas he intends to work, [[WP:WPOP]] notably being one that always requires more attention from admins who know what they are doing there. Will make an extremely useful admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools. He's been clearly showing that he only wants to help Wikipedia. Oh, and I enjoyed the commentary by the "nominator". =) '''
'''Support''' hhe will be a good admin doing stuff like SD--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' With ClueBot, has made a substantial contribution to fighting vandalism. Civil and a sense of humor. Has earned my trust, and I do not think Cobi will abuse the tools. I trust your judgment, but especially since you didn't give quite the answer I had hoped for to my question, I make a small request that you be extra careful in admin-related areas where you have less experience. Although, I do trust your judgment in terms of misuse, and opening yourself up to recall should address concerns of the opposers. At the very least, I think you will make an excellent vandal-fighting admin with OP and AIV. ~
'''Support''' We need all the help we can get toward all the reports and warnings filed by that damn Gluebopped thingy...
'''Support''' Why not.
'''Support'''. Sounds like a great vandal fighter. Let 'im block vandals too. Props on ClueBot, by the way; it catches a lot that previously slipped through. I delight seeing it on my watchlist (as I often do for the many pages I tend relating to politics and Mormonism).
'''Support''', as editor seems committed to fighting vandalism and improving the encyclopedia.  Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', I trust you, sounds like a good idea to make you an admin.  --
I am confident that he will only use his tools in areas he's experienced in, and that the net effect of giving him admin rights should be a positive one. We need more people to help out with maintenance, and this candidate seems to be perfectly suited for that. Why wait while he makes more mainspace edits while he doesn't intend to work in that area? <b>
'''Support''' per iridescent and Cremepuff -- Cobi works tirelessly in fighting vandalism, has written an incredible bot to fight vandalism, and wants the tools to further fight vandalism.  Good reason for having the tools + background that shows virtually zero likelihood to abuse them + substantial postive contributions to Wikipedia = support from me.
'''Support''' I think we can be sure that this user can be trusted as an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I was considering going neutral for a while due to Cobi's inexperience, but after thinking it over a bit, I definitely trust him to use the tools to the best interests of the project; why wait when he can and will help us now? --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' I think we can trust him.
'''Support'''  I thought about this for several days.  This is a big place and nobody is familiar with everything.  Over time try to gain experience in different areas.  Since you won't abuse the tools, there's no reason not to have access to them when needed for your valuable work. -
'''Support''' Great nomination.  ClueBot is a real time saver, and Cobi has demonstrated sufficient technical knowledge to handle blocking by himself.
'''Support''' I think the opposers should read Cobi's answers to the questions above, if they haven't done so, and reconsider their vote. Adminship is said to be not a big thing, and it seems to me that everyone here agrees that he will certainly not abuse tools. Why wait, and waste time? He certainly needs the admin tools, and will make good use of them. This editor seems to have already achieved the experiency and usefulness level, even if he did not do so many edits. If he can notice and take care of key things of wikipedia, then he is more than experienced enough. He might not be an all around admin but doing a few things almost perfectly is not worse than doing many things rather mediocrely. ClueBot is not his only contribution, he will probably address other key issues in the future, so beware the other admins for becoming less useful (their edits don't count anyway, as they were mostly some Cluebot type edits, right?)  His niceness and thoughtfulness are his great assets that will be most useful during vandal fighting, it is certainly much better for ignoring and waiting for the vandal to just go away. He even put that turn off button on the bot's userpage, that is an important minor thing, another sign of his thoughtfulness. He should feel free and be bold in doing mainspace edits, we are a community here, and we can improve other edits. By the way, thhis article is getting too large, we should split it.
'''Support.''' I looked at some of Cobi's contributions and read the above discussion, and have no concerns. I can live with the low edit count because of the potential value of his work in the area of vandalism and backlogs. He has credibility in my eyes because of the work he has already done with ClueBot. I don't expect him to be able to close the [[Daniel Brandt]] AfD, as noted above, but it doesn't sound like he is planning to do that kind of thing.
'''Support.'''  Was tempting to vote  neutral, but fence sitting wouldn't help anyway. I'm confident theat you will not abuse the tools, and you have shown enough good edits for me to put my support behind you. Good luck!
'''Support''' His bots have helped relieve some of the massive amount of work for the project.  Four bots, all approved, clearly shows he knows what he's doing and would be a great help with the tools. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''.  No big deal.  &#10154;
'''Support''' I trust Cobi's (perhaps implicit) representation that he intends to partake, qua admin, largely/exclusively of those tasks his familiarity with and aptitude for which are uncontroverted, and he appears to be possessed of a sound sense of judgment and a measured demeanor, such that I think him well to understand whereof he is not entirely sure and thus to be altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting in areas of the policies and practice relevant to which he is unaware) the tools; I feel quite comfortable concluding, then, that it is exceedingly likely that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support'''. Most of the opposes are "experience" related but this user is the coder of Cluebot, which has made over 40K edits. This also shows that he understands the fields in which he wishes to contribute so well that he was able to build one of the most praised automated tools for these tasks.   --
'''Support''' I'll support this as well. and yes I know its after the deadline, its not closed yet so eh. Cluebot does good work, and while the nom is silly I really don't care. Cobi is as far as I can tell a decent user. —— '''
'''Support''' - yes it's past the deadline.  No, it hasn't been clsoed yet, so I'm supporting per the sense of humour shown in the nom, and my total trust in the user to complete adminny tasks as required.
'''Support''' &mdash; meaning to support prior to this, but I believe that Cobi has the technical and social capabilities to be a beneficial to Wikipedia as an admin.
'''Support''' per Martinp32 and Gracenotes above. Sense of humor is a plus. Article-writing is a worthy quality, but certainly not essential for most administrative tasks. Trustworthiness and grasp of policy seem to be much more important qualities. Cobi seems to have both.
'''Support''' I can't understand why this is on a knife-edge.--
Oppose, if its a joke nomination.  If it isn't, oppose because its written like one.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' - The bot is good, but I really don't think you have enough experience, mainspace wise. I.E. creating articles. Also, IMHO, I think you are too new. '''
'''Oppose''' Trustworthy user, but not enough experience. <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Oppose''' 200 Main space edits is too low to demonstrate appropriate knowledge of how the encyclopedia is built. But please try again after you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' — your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Cobi&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 mainspace contribs] do not demonstrate that you have the ability to work collaboratively, or that you are clear on what our goal is here, since they are basically all automated vandalism reversions. To those opposing above me, '''stop counting edits'''. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. The candidate working here for a whopping four months isn't really enough to build a positive vote on. Also, his interaction with other users mostly seems to be limited to appologizing for his bot's mistakes <s>(this begs some questions about thew usefulness of his bot, too, imho)</s>. Not much real edit work, as far as I can see in the diffs, and thus no experience in solving real conflicts. And the candidate didn't make a compelling case why he needs admin powers for the anti-vandalism stuff. He seemed to get along just fine without it. So, what shall we base a positive vote on? Wishful thinking? Sry, this might be a promising candidate next year, but this is much too early yet.
'''Oppose''' per Miranda.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Cobi. I have no doubt that you are a good user, but with so few edits to the article talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk spaces, I can't accurately judge your ability to interact with the community and deal with arguments, indecision, etc. --
'''Oppose''' - you have been so very useful to Wikipedia with what you've done so far, and the bot you created is magnificent - it even drove the previously unstoppable [[User:MartinBot|MartinBot]] into extinction! But, as a Wikipedian under ''Cobi'', there needs to be much more experience in all areas. But, don't get me wrong, what you've done ''so far'' is great. :-)  <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
First I want to say that ClueBot does really, really great work.  But is it's work ''so'' incredible that I feel comfortable supporting a candidate who's been active for two months, has made several edits to ''only three'' articles, and has minimal interaction with the community?  I'm sorry, Cobi, but I don't think there's any bot that could allay those concerns.  I would definitely support in the future if you continue on your track and interact more with the community.  It wouldn't ''hurt'' in my opinion to maybe put some serious work into an article or two, in order to understand the encyclopedia-building aspect of the project. --
'''Oppose''' you only have 12 mainspace edits that aren't reverting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' - Per Miranda. Sorry buddy.
'''Oppose''' - I would support you becoming a [[WP:BAG]] member, but frankly, you have absolutely zero record of editing, no talk edits, minimal interaction, nothing that I see.  Almost all of your edits are either editing your userspace, bot requests or reverting [[User:AlptaBot]].  In my mind, this is not even a situation of coming back in a few months.  Despite the fact that you may be a good bot editor, you are far away from demonstrating the skill necessary to become an admin.   --
'''Oppose'''. With little evidence of encyclopedia building or of non-trivial interactions with other users, I can't evaluate this editor's suitability for adminship at this time.
'''Oppose''' Your bot is good, but I really don't think that you have enough articlewriting experience. -
'''Oppose''' - I think a user who has been here for less than 6 months is too new to become an admon.
'''Oppose''' should get more experience in the mainspace.
'''Oppose''' way too little mainspace exposure.
'''Oppose''', bots are immune from having to understand principles that underpin Wikipedia, such as [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]]; we accept them because they do more good than bad.  Without a broad range of experiences on Wikipedia, I cant gauge whether the administration tools are in the right hands.
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience, especially in article writing, to allow me to judge suitability for adminship.
'''Oppose''' too little experience.
'''Oppose''' probably won't misuse tools, but not enough mainspace editing to be sure.
'''Oppose''', doesn't write content.
'''Oppose'''. I'm perfectly willing to consider that a candidate with narrow experience of admin related areas could be given the tools on the basis that they would only exercise them in areas they feel confident. But it seems that Cobi lacks experience in ''all'' areas related to use of admin tools. He has not particpated in deletion discussions and hasn't tagged article for speedy deletion. There is no great involvement in article writting or editorial disputes to give other signs of good familiarity with content/deletion policies. I just don't feel able to judge Cobi's ability to apply Wikipedia policy were he an administrator. I think he's on the right course and a couple of months would allow him enough participation to judge whether or not he'd make a good admin, but this RfA seems premature. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' While his efforts in reverting vandalism are much appreciated, I suggest that he takes some time to diversify his experience in other admin related areas of Wikipedia, as the users above have said. You're almost there, good luck.--
'''Not Yet''' Come back when you can refer to your own contributions as evidence that you will do well with the bot.  Bot actions are necessarily without judgement, administrative actions require judgment.  Until we can see your judgment in admin related activities, we can't trust what you will do with the tools.
'''Oppose''' (after closing time) I really think admins need more experience with content...that's the reason we're here. That's not to say he wouldn't be a good  admin down the line, in fact he probably would be. But right now there's no way to judge and he certainly hasn't been active enough to gain the needed experience.
'''Oppose''' He seems to be big-headed (why did he ask someone else to make a request?). Only ~2000 edits? Not enough, up to 5000 edits earn a ''support''. --
'''Oppose''' - Far too little experience. you don not write articles.--
'''Oppose'''. You have done a lot of great work and please keep it up. But way too little participation in what we are really here for, particularly writing articles. Too little experience outside narrow areas doesn't give enough information on which to judge your abilities enough to support. I and many others feel that until you have experience writing articles you cannot make proper decisions about things that affect content creation which is the only thing we do here that is important. -
'''Reluctant oppose'''. As great as your bot is, have our standards went this low? I don't really see any non-bot experience present, I'd prefer to see some of that in either main or wikispace before I can support.
'''weakly oppose''' —
'''Oppose''' Cobi has done some xcellent work with ClueBot, but I must regrettably oppose this RfA at the current time. Personally, I feel that an RfA candidate should have experience in mainspace contributions/discussions. Whether you agree with me or not, admins will definitely have to involve themselves in dispute resolution or mediation. If a candidate has a history of discussion over articles and participating in collective editing with others, then he/she has some background and experience that can help them handle future matters properly (like mediating an edit war). You don't necessarily need this experience to handle all of these type of issues, but you will need some background for some matters. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Netural''' Cobi's a good user, but still a bit new, I suggest you diversify a bit more. -<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' You have my trust, but you don't have enough experience in other aspects of the encyclopedia. '''
'''Neutral''' ClueBot certainly is a most valuable addition for Wikipedia, but I feel that you've concentrated on that area specifically, and have not really had a chance yet to dig into some of the most fundamental areas that you'd need to be familiar with to be an effective administrator. (And if you are familiar with those areas, I apologize, but going from your edits, there is little or no history of AIV, UAA, AFD, XfD, participation, etc.) I'm sure this will come with time, but at this point, with less than 300 mainspace edits, I just don't feel that you're fully aware of the entire scope of the project and the depth of the areas an administrator would be dealing with. All that being said, I would like to thank you for your creation of ClueBot, as I've been beaten by the bot too many times to count, he's quick on that trigger! Good job! And in the future, if you diversify as suggested, I'm sure you'll be ready for another RfA. Cheers, <sup>
'''Neutral'''. Good user, but his bot violates point 1 of the bot policy – the bot must be "harmless"; it may well do more harm than good, but since it has reverted many legitimate edits and continues to do so, it can hardly be called "harmless". I can't support someone who so willingly violates official policy :) – –
'''Neutral''' I don't know. I know he's made several bots, but at around 1,100 edits and only a few months at wikipedia.... try again in six months and  I might support. (And I saw nothing wrong with the nomination). —
'''Neutral''' Great work on WP and you have some good experience... but a little ''more'' experience, in areas such as [[WP:AIV]], will benefit your next RfA.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' I usually ask myself would I trust this user with the ability to block, delete, protect, as well as can they handle the usual "Why did you block me, you suck", "Why did you delete my article, you penis, etc, etc, that admins that are vandal fighters have to deal with. If I answer yes I usually support. However, this is an encyclopedia built by volunteers, and I would like to see some significant article building. Now since we are nearly all volunteers, I have no problem with people who spend the majority of their time reverting and fighting vandals, trolls, and other disruptive users. With that being said, the only thing keeping this from a full support is the lack of article writing. If Cobi can show some examples of creating/expanding an article then I will fully support.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' - I second the above. All you'd need to do to satisfy me is at least a ''little bit'' of article writing - a GA?, some DYK? cheers,
'''Neutral'''.  Without more substantive edits or talk, I can not evaluate this user. Sorry.  Good work on reverting vandalism, ''e.g.,'' [[RuPaul]].
'''Neutral'''; (changed from oppose above) after reconsideration, I feel that my hesitation due to your inexperience with admin processes may not be worth a full oppose.  I'd still prefer it if you were a little drier behind the ears, but I'm also not worried you'll go on a rampage.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - The candidate is obviously knowledgeable in technical aspects of running a wiki, but his contributions offer no evidence relating to his abilities in dealing with editorial conflicts. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' as nominator.
Just as I did last time. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Same as last time!
'''Weak support''' I went neutral on the last RfA due to a lack of article writing. I haven't seen anything that shows that Cobi has written or expanded an article, however, I trust him with the tools, and don't believe abuse would be forthcoming. Plus ClueBot is awesome, even though I complain about it beating me too much. :)
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, unlikely to misuse the mop.
'''Support''' very unlikely to abuse the tools after all this time spent on Wikipedia and an obvious sound understanding of policy inparticualr in the field of vandalism given his creation of a bot. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCobi&diff=163508531&oldid=163495143 last time].
Cobi will be incredibly helpful as an administrator.
'''Oppose''', too many vandal reverts. '''
'''Support''' - I opposed last time but I have seen an improvement. It's a good thing that you're rejecting the "norm" on RfA's by '''not''' getting 10,000+ edits before allowing yourself to be nominated. You have a great bot and I have seen from great work from you. Also, I trust the nominator :-)
'''Support''' again.  Last time was a crock.
'''Support''' - The user needs the tools and will use them very effectively in an area of the project not many people are familiar with.  Plus ClueBot is awesome. --
'''Human Nom support'''- For being nominated by a Human this time .. :P ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - anyone that's created ClueBot obviously knows how to fight vandalism and be sensible with the tools.
'''Support''' - I would trust him with the tools. --
'''Support''' Per last time - ''Heck, if this guy was here to harm Wikipedia he wouldn't spend hours writing bots that help out would he?''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Will make good use of the tools. --
For sure. '''<font color="red">
'''<s>Unequivocal</s>Weak support'''; all he missed was a bit of experience, which he now has.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Keeping in mind how well Cluebot runs, I think he can say he knows what he's doing on the vandal front. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', candidate looks like he will be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' as I did last time.
'''Support''' - seen them around, and every time it's been good. &mdash;
'''Support''' - continued from last time.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', little more to add than what's been said already. &lt;
<i><b>
'''Support''' (change from Neutral at last RfA).  This user seems trustworthy and works hard to revert vandalism, both by himself and with Cluebot.  He's ready now for the mop.
'''Support''' Good user who has done much for Wikipedia, especially bot-related contributions. Ready for mop, although the bot summary was not too clever. :(
'''Support!''' <small>—<font face="Trebuchet MS">'''
'''Support'''. ---
'''Certainly''' --'''
Without a Doubt... you're the guy that made Cluebot... that bot is very useful and amazing :) '''
'''Support''' - definitely. (And ClueBot is truly amazing, by the way.) &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
'''Strong support''' great ClueBot operator. Hopefully this RfA is successful.
'''Oppose''' removed any motivation I might have had to get MartinBot back up and running in any reasonable time span.
'''Support''' For hard work fighting vandalism and a clear dedication to project work. Good luck! <b>
'''Support''' per useful bot work, and patient approach to controversies, as judged from Cobi's bot approval discussions. A bot that works, and is not too offensive, and is modified in response to feedback, is an asset to the encyclopedia. Due to the nature of his specialty, access to admin tools would be good to have. Any misbehavior will surely be observed and complained about by hundreds of watchful editors.
'''Strong support''' <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support'''. The botspam thing honestly doesn't bother me since Cobi talked with a couple different admins about it. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Having the balls to advertise with ClueBot is a masterstroke. That's the sort of innovative thinking we really should be looking for in an administrator. The fact he's eminently qualified doesn't hurt things either. I also don't think, even if advertising this RfA is such a great sin, it's worth Cobi having to wait another 3 months for an RfA that would pass then.
'''Support''', good job on ClueBot. Putting a link to this RFA in ClueBot's (who is on virtually everyone's watchlist) edit summaries was probably not very smart, but not reason enough for me to oppose your RFA. --
'''Strong Support'''.  Great guy, would never abuse anything, and would definitely be a dedicated helper.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
[[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' for familiarity with technical processes, policies, and common sense in general. As an admin, however, do realize: [[WP:Wh|Wikipedians are humans]], and a technical solution doesn't exist for every problem.
'''Support''' as last time. Cobi lose his time fixing and improving his bots, that is why he does not have much edits. Thanks for yours incredible bots. Good luck.
'''Support''' Let's finally give Cobi what he deserves - a mop right up the bracket!
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.&nbsp;
'''Support''' Article writing does not necessarily indicate how useful one can be as an admin.
'''Support''' Cobi came, ClueBot came, other ClueBot's came, what's next? I think it is time for Cobi to get sysop. &mdash;
There is no evidence whatsoever that Cobi will abuse the tools. The issue with the bot is not an indication of abuse.
'''Support''' I supported last time and I see no reason to change.
'''Support''', normally I would Oppose per your rather narrow edit count, but I consider you to be a special case because of your extensive technical knowledge.  Therefore, enthusiastic support! =)
'''Support''' reservations from my opppose on previous RfA have been addressed. Happy to support.
'''Support''', as I have no reservations about the candidate's potential use of the tools. But, please, do take time to consider the effects of your actions with the tools, and - if possible - don't mop when tired, as you might end up canvassing accidentally. ^_^ Best wishes,
'''Support''' The canvassing bit is not a big deal for me. This user has made good, solid contribs, and certainly won't break the 'pedia. Hell, even if he did, he could probably fix it. I see nothing but good coming from this.
'''Support''' ClueBot is useful and Cobi appears to be also. Canvassing issue appears to be a non-issue.
'''Support''' Quality editor.
'''Support'''.  Will be fine, despite the edit count.  Good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
I wasn't impressed with the linking to your RfA in ClueBot's edit summaries, but that's no reason to oppose you. I supported you last time and you have my support this time too. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' - I'm not impressed with the ClueBot linking, but that's a minor lapse that can and should be overlooked. Regards,
'''Support''' Great editor. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' ''changed from neutral'' - I have concerns about the low mainspace edit count, but as I stated in my neutral comments, I do not believe Cobi will abuse the tools. Apparently there have been admins with even less, and the dedication to building and maintaining ClueBot shows dedication in a way that is (after considerable thought) about the same as having a FA or multiple GAs. -'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' excellent editor.
'''Strong support'''.  Seriously -- this guy hasn't been promoted yet?  He's only created the most effective tool preventing vandalism on wikipedia, which shows his devotion to the project and how unlikely he is to abuse the tools.  Unless we don't care about keeping WP clean from vandalism anymore, I can't fathom him not being given the mop.
As per before... --
'''Support''' Having supported in this user's previous RfA, I support per the same reason stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cobi&diff=prev&oldid=162346896 here]. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' Considering his answer to Q1, lack of articles isn't a big issue. He obviously has a lot of experience thinking about vandalism, to design and improve such a well-regarded bot. The canvassing disturbs me, but if he actually asked two admins about it, I'd say it's unfair to hold him responsible.
'''Weak Support''' - [[WP:CANVASS]] is the only thing stopping me from going for a strong support. Admins should know about things like that. However, this is a small blip in a good user whom I feel would be suited to the mop - keeping in mind that Cobi is only human, even if ClueBot isn't :P :-)
'''Weak Support'''. The canvassing issue stops me from going for strong support also. He was told by admins that it would be ok to do what he did, although I don't think he should have got the all clear to do so. Because he was told it would be ok to do so, I will be changing to weak support. He says it was 4AM, and I know only too well what it's like editing at 4AM. As for why I'm supporting, I think it seems quite obvious; a good Wikipedian who will not abuse the tools!
01:48:02 (last) (hist) '''Lava''' matched '''rocks''' . . Cobi (talk | uw-test | uw-vand | contribs | block) . . (Reverted 1 edit by 66.167.45.248 (talk) to last revision by Trieste) . . show details . . [rollback]
'''Support''' as per Gracenotes and Stwalkerster. I'm sure Cobi has the common sense and knowledge of the project to make a good admin, and that he won't abuse the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strongest Support Possible''' Amazing coder who is unlikely to abuse tools. *'''Note''' Most admin actions (AIV UAA CSD) have nothing to do with mainspace edits.  <span style="color:#bfbfff">'''
'''Support''' as before - I'm a tad put off by the misguided canvassing too, but I really think he has the best interests in the project in mind here, and he's a dedicated user who knows what he's doing. --'''<font color="#ff9900">
'''Support.'''  --
'''Support''' - Canvassing - bad. Few mainspace contributions - bad. But I'm supporting ''anyway''.
''' Strong Support''' As per nom and user cares deeply about Wikipedia previous  and also has  created Cluebot one of the best and useful bot in wikipedia and the internet.RFA was on the wire cannot cannot understand why this has got so many opposes.Except for a lower edit count do not see any other concerns in his track to justify so many opposes for a person who has only contributed positively.
'''Weak Support''' Though I trust you with the tools overall here are some major concerns I would like to point out. First, lack of XfD debates and a minimal amount of mainspace edits. But due to your high experience with vandal fighting, I will support somewhat. <font color="red">
'''Firm support'''. The ClueBot advertising wasn't the best call but not bad enough to convince me that Cobi wouldn't make a good admin. Now I wonder how frank you were about Q5... :)
'''Support''' Looks like a good user.
'''Support''' - I like the bot, I think the advertising bit was a mistake.  Since we know admins ''will'' make mistakes, I think it's useful to see how well they handle them - and Cobi passes with flying colors.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A bit on the inexperienced side, but would seem to make a decent and useful admin.
'''Support''' Dedicated to cleaning up vandalism, will know will do well. &mdash;[[User talk:Blow of Light|B]][[Special:Contributions/Blow of Light|o]]<font color="red">[[User:Blow of Light|L]]</font> <font color="black">
'''Support''' Outside the adverts, definitely one to be trusted with the keys. --
The fact that I have to actually compete with ClueBot (along with other bots) while in RC patrol proves that this user is an excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support''', really editcountitis is best treated rather than plastered over rfas. The standards for adminship remain the same: "do we trust them to not screw up and use the admin tools for constructive purposes?" The answer with Cobi is: "yes". '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]'''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="black">me</font>]]'''[[User talk:Pumpmeup|<font color="blue">up</font>]]'''<sup>
'''Support''' - if you were planning to somehow abuse Wikipedia it seems you would already have had the means to do so. I trust you to use the tools responsibly. (
'''Support''' per the actions of ClueBot and the fact that Cobi will not misuse the tools
'''Weakest support there ever was''' I told Cobi that if he would get his mainspace contribs to 500 and his total to 2000, that I'd switch to support. He did so. Since they were all vandal reverts, I'm not wholly impressed, but I'm fulfilling my end of the bargain by switching to the support section. My oppose comments are struck below.
'''Support with idea''' Cobi has some oppose due to lack of mainspace editing.  I've asked that Cobi help me with an article.
'''Support'''.  Seems to have a use for the tools. --
'''Support''' You seem deserving for the admin title.
I am sorry but I don't think there's much difference from before. Your full edit count report (not the one presently on the talk page) shows a disproportionate number of edits to your own userspace and to that of your bot. I do not think you need to be a "prolific" mainspace editor and I do support the concept of admin specialists, but I think you need far more balance in your work. Closing AfD's, user conflicts on pages are all part of what you will be called on to do. I have the utmost respect for your bot work and frankly am envious of your talents, but I think we just need a little more in overall experience. Sorry. -
Your bot is very helpful, but I'm one of those editors who does "not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC."  Worse that it's appearing in your bot's edit summary and turning up on my watchlist.  Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. Also, I took a look at your editing contributions, as summarized by [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Cobi&site=en.wikipedia.org wannabe kate].  Preferably, I would like to see more mainspace contributions, which I think is important for understanding how and why policies come into play. That, in turn, is important for admin tasks like closing AFDs. Though, what you do with checking open proxies is a positive. I don't know if this RFA will succeed, but should it not this time, do try again in a couple months.  I may be in position to support you at that time.  --
(switch to ultra-weak support) <s>'''Oppose'''. Sure he runs a bot and everything, which is amazingly great, but he himself does not yet have enough experience to sastify me. Sub-2000 edits and only 185 to the Wikipedia namespace demonstrates a lack of experience, especially in admin-like places. Plus, not enough work in the mainspace, it's the real reason Wikipedia exists. One-third of your edits are to userspace. I'm sorry if you think that's editcountitis, but I think it's evidence of not enough work in the required places. The violation of [[WP:CANVASS]] with Cluebot advertising your RFA (I was not led here by that, personally) is also evidence of lacking sufficient knowledge of policy. You've done a great job with Cluebot, but you and Cluebot are separate entities.
'''Oppose''' - I think it is improper to add a link to here from an [[WP:EDITSUMMARY|edit summary]]. Edit summaries describe the edit, and the edit had nothing to do with this RFA.
'''Oppose''' Per all above. I feel that running a bot does not prove experience, and your edit count does not prove you have ha enough experience to be an admin. I also '''strongly''' dislike that you used an automated system to advertise (spam) your current RfA. I did not care for the answer to question 19.
<s>Spamming with your bot. Yeah, ''great'' plan. Seriously, WTF were you thinking? –
'''Oppose''' Per Gurch and Useight&#39;s Public Sock.
'''Strong oppose''' 300 mainspace edits, 25 mainspace talk page edits, plus using a bot to advertise your RFA? Any one of the above is fishy. Together they paint a picture of something the community would most likely regret.
'''Strong oppose''' not enough mainspace experience. '''
'''Oppose''' candidate has demonstrated a lack of judgment. You half joked off-wiki about linking your RFA in your bot's edit summary.  Did you expect a serious answer, or one which echoed the context which you asked it in?
Gurch's summary of Cobi's edits is something I noticed.  While I don't regularly judge a candidate by the distribution of his or her edits, I do expect an administrator to have some mainspace experience, and my impression of Cobi's experience is that it is lacking.   I don't think that I can judge what type of actions Cobi would make as an admin, and so do not support.  --
'''Strong oppose'''. ''Some'' experience working with articles is an absolute must. Nearly all of the 33 people opposing Cobi's previous RfA cited his extreme lack of mainspace contributions, and I'm not at all encouraged by his decision to accept this second nomination without attempting to address those peoples' concerns.  As for the canvassing, I will assume that it was an innocent lapse in judgement and not an attempt to overrun this rfa with participation by his bot's admirers. Whatever his intent, I hope this process has not been affected. '''''×'''''
'''No'''. Meat-puppeting, bot-spamming, nearly as many edits to this RfA as articles in the mainspace. Adminship is no big deal, but it's also not a reward for doing something nice. The mis-guided canvassing is what ultimately leads me to oppose - great coder, but clearly lacking in practical knowledge of the 'pedia's [[mores]]. --
'''Oppose''' Per Gurch, I have to say I feel we have nothing to go on here contribution wise, the coding is great, but that's just a bot, plus the poor judgement associated with the bot's edit summary going into this RFA.
'''Oppose''' per Gurch et al, I prefer to see more rounded experience (even if only slightly), and using edit summaries to link here  was not well thought through. <sup>
'''Oppose''' per Gurch and Aude --
'''Weak Oppose''' per answers to the latest optional questions, lack of contributions and spam. Although I love cluebot, I believe that this user can do a bit more to become great. Perhaps some time in the future.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I cannot find examples of this user interacting with other users in somewhat contentious situations, which I expect all administrators to handle in a helpful and polite manner. While I have no reason to doubt that the user will act appropriately, I see no examples of this either. Willing to change my oppose if shown appropriate evidence. -
'''Weak oppose''' - very useful bot, however still lacks experience.
Weakly per Useight at 18:19, 11 December 2007, Gurch at 02:09, 12 December 2007 and Useight one and a third hours later, all above. The lack of both mainspace editing and Wikipedia-space editing is alarming, and isn't sufficiently remedied by the fact you run a bot. Sorry, '''
'''Oppose''' Just as before, almost '''no''' experience. ''Twenty-six'' talk edits, ''eighteen'' WP talk edits, and unless I'm missing something, ''zero'' XfD edits. How can I possibly know that Cobi can interact with the community when I barely have evidence that he even has before? This isn't some super-strong oppose because I don't think there's anything about Cobi that would stop me from believing he's an excellent Wikipedian, but this does not necessarily translate into being an admin. --
I supported last time, but gosh - 20 mainspace? RfA ''should'' be a learning experience, whether successful or unsuccessful, and I'm just not seeing that here. I feel bad because he's a great guy, but I just don't know how he'll handle it. ~
'''Oppose''' per above.  I appreciate your anti-vandalism bot, but you don't have enough experience dealing with Wikipedians, and your violation of WP:CANVAS and answers to questions related to it makes me feel that you don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
In the bot spam incident, the candidate acted only in {{genderneutral|eir}} own interest, without any regard for what's good for Wikipedia, and without [[RTFM]] (which would be [[WP:GRFA]], in this case). While I acknowledge that that may have been a single mistake in a weak moment, I find Cobi's first reply "No one forces you to read ClueBot's edit summaries" still inappropriate. Candidate should know that edit summaries are there to be read. I also have a problem with bot coders who don't acknowledge that they're responsible not just for fixing the bot, but also for fixing a bot's past actions. Now, this may not be possible in this case, but if the candidate had just acknowledged that and used {{genderneutral|eir}} inventiveness to make up for the mistake, that would have swayed my vote. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  There seems to be some support for CobiBot for administrator, but Cobi (not his bot) is the running for administrator.  Since an administrator makes decisions about editors, I find it disturbing that the number of mainspace edits since the last RFA is small (someone said 7).  It's as if the community said, "try some mainspace editing for experience".  I find it worrisome that Cobi may not have any outside interests and is unable (or unwilling?) to generate a few edits in his/her area of interest or just won't listen to the community's guidance.  I'd say to ask Cobi to come back in 2-3 months after editing or, if he/she passes, he/she should edit some before starting to use sysop powers.
'''Strong oppose''', sorry, too soon, and the mainspace contributions have not increased.  Wikipedia is at the stage now where admins must know how to write for the encyclopedia, interacting with other users and anons in the process, in order to understand how to manage it appropriately.  The canvassing is also poor form.
'''Strong oppose''' An almost total lack of experience in mainspace, combined with spamming problems when promoting this RfA, indicate that the candidate is not yet well-versed in community standards and practices.  As Mailer Diablo often says, I'm afraid editor will "go sideways with the mop".
'''Reluctant oppose'' the bot work is '''greatly''' appreciated, but the concerns that caused the last RfA to fail haven't been addressed. Look forward to supporting after more contributions and better judgment about canvassing next time ;).
'''Oppose'''. The [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] ''really'' should not have been done, because the edit summaries would appear on recent changes and any affected articles on people's watchlists, and this should have been obvious. More importantly, your limited amount of mainspace activity apart from simple vandalism reverts doesn't convince me that you have the knowledge and experience yet to deal with more complex issues. More activity with articles and their talk pages would also lead to more interaction with other Wikipedians, something which I think is very important for an admin to be able to do. You should also get more experience with [[WP:SCV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] before you get the mop, especially as you say that you plan on working in those areas as an admin. <s>If this RfA doesn't succeed, and even if it does</s> ''Regardless of how this RfA turns out'', I think you would be a better administrator if you do address the concerns that everyone has raised here. --
'''Oppose''' <s>Pending answers to optional questions 15-17. Cobi has not made any comment regarding his stance/approach to anything that actually deals with the editorial side of an encyclopedia.</s> Reverting vandalism is all well and good, but that task can be handled with a bot and [[WP:AIV]]. Being an admin means that contributors will approach you with requests for intervention in editorial disputes and deletions, anyone promoted to administrator status should be able to handle such requests by themselves. Dealing with content is an ''essential'' part of an administrator's responsibilities, relevant experience is a prerequisite for even applying. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Oppose''', per concerns concerning mainspace and here: Optional question 19, from Iamunknown -
'''Oppose''' - Sorry... I do not see enough experience in other places besides vandalism. I have a hard time finding any places where you helped mediate any situation that would allow us to judge your approach to any heated issues. The canvassing issue, well enough has been said on that. The bots are amazing and very much appreciated. <b>
'''Reluctant strong oppose''' (an oxymoron?) . "Reluctant" because Cobi seems a well-meaning, good guy and I think we all appreciate what he's done around here. "Oppose" because he's just not ready as pointed out by multiple, thoughtful opposing comments above. And "strong" because of the whole CANVASS thing, a total non-starter and an abort-the-RfA action. Cobi, I look forward to supporting a follow-on RfA in 3 or more months if you work on the stuff others have identified as weaknesses. (Suggestion: try a few afternoons hitting the [[Special:Random|"Random article"]] link, tagging and fixing articles as they turn up). --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose'''. Admins should be sufficiently engaged in content writing to not be detached from reality in wikimatters. Thanks for your programming contributions and good luck with more of that. I hope the fact that you are not an admin won't discourage you from doing this good work which does not require adminship anyway. --
Sorry, I cannot support this candidate per above. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
Sorry, '''oppose'''. I am not confident, yet, that I know how Cobi would use the tools.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about the lack of judgment shown by the canvassing in edit summaries&mdash;as well as the repeated 'people told me it was okay' excuses. Additionally, while your anti vandalism efforts are admirable, your wikipedia space edit count does not leave me confident that you are adequately experienced in policy areas.
'''Weak oppose'''. I want to support this canidate, but at this time I am not confident in policy knowledge or readiness for the role of adminship. While I have no fear that Cobi would not abuse the tools, I am less sure he knows how to use them. I tried to get to this with my questions, and the answers were fine, but I am still not totally convinced. Frankly, with so little mainspace contributions, it is simply too hard to know. You do seem to be doing great work here, and I commend you for it, but also encourage write some articles and gain some policy knowledge. Cheers. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. ClueBot is good, and it shows the candidate has a great deal of technical understanding, and I have no reason to question his good faith. However handling adminship tasks needs more. The work in mainspace with actually building articles is almost empty, so too with interacting with other users. Admins need to deal with other people, and should need experience there. They will need to deal with complaints over article content, whether it's at AFD, in angry e-mails, on talk pages, at CSD, and so on. If experience is seriously lacking in these areas, there almost certainly will be misjudgments when admin tools are given, and some of those can be quite serious. It is not that the candidate has done anything ''wrong'', what he has done is valuable, but he has not gained a sufficient level of experience in wide areas. ''Yet''. With some experience in these areas, I can see myself supporting some time in the future.
'''Oppose'''  The bot does a great job in keeping this place cleaned up.  But, the nominee just doesn't do much else.  Mainspace editing teaches a lot to a potential admin.  If the editor is just going to continue cleaning up vandalism, then the admin tools are unnecessary.  If the editor wants to do more, then please show us more.
Your lack of mainspace contributions combined with canvassing in edit summaries makes me think that you're not ready.
'''Oppose''' lack of mainspace edits is a problem, not only for lack of experience in understanding writing but it was pointed out that it would have made me (and some others maybe) support this time round. Not taking up suggestions worries me WRT ability to listen. Canvassing gave further cause for concern re judgement. cheers,
'''Oppose'''; sorry, but I have a few problems here. Most have been mentioned above, particularly the substantial portion of bot-activity vs. other. Thanks very much for keeping the place free of vandals, but I think that more experience is necessary along the lines of what Sjakkalle mentioned for an admin. Also, I am very much against seeing canvassing on these, for three reasons: one, because of the reasons laid out in [[WP:CANVASS]]. Two, because it is going against consensus in said guideline that would seem to discourage it. Three, it reflects very poorly on judgement. A nom for adminship is a chance to present your best face, but you had to go and do something that many people are always unhappy with, admin's 'approval' notwithstanding. While you are not prohibited from doing so, I see it as a definite negative factor.
'''Oppose''' - [[User:ClueBot|ClueBot]] is brilliant. I love it. It IS the most effective vandal fighter out there (apart from me of course ;-) ). No, I'm joking it is brilliant! But [[User:Cobi]] becoming an admin cannot just step from his wonderful creation. They are two separate accounts. And this account isn't ready for adminship just yet. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Regretably, Oppose''' - I suggest you do a few [[WP:DYK|DYKs]] before next try.  It's not so hard and I would be happy to help you.  Your bot is my favorite.  Thank you very much for that. -
'''Oppose''' - As much as I would like to give a support !vote, the low number of mainspace edits, lack of xfD experience, and [[WP:CANVASS]] issue give me too much pause.  However if you were to take the next three or four months to get involved in xfD and make a substantive number of mainspace edits, I would be delighted to !vote support in your next RfA.  --
No evidence that this user has a practical understanding of our core content policies.
I really, ''really'' dislike ClueBot mentioning your RfA in its edit summaries.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weaving&diff=prev&oldid=177230061][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladesh&diff=prev&oldid=177230117][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincoln-Douglas_debates_of_1858&diff=prev&oldid=177230797] I don't hate it enough to actually oppose the RfA, but I certainly don't feel comfortable supporting, either. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Ugh. Similar sentiment to the above, in that I thought the RfA linking in the edit summaries was in rather bad taste. But taste is relative (clearly, since both you and at least one admin thought it would be neat) so it seems that this is not sufficient reason on its own for opposing the nomination. --
'''Neutral''' (leaning towards support) - I want to support but the issue with the lack of WP namespace and the Canvassing issue sway me too much. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' I was going to support but the ClueBot Canvassing issue has made me question your judgment --
'''Neutral'''. Ugh... I was just about to support until I saw the spamming in ClueBot's edit summaries... Sorry.
'''Neutral'''. Same as above. I actually supported Cobi's last RfA, but I think the edit summary spamming shows spectacularly poor judgment.
'''Neutral''', I can't really oppose based on the edit summary spamming, but it's certainly enough to move my vote from support to neutral. While, the choice could be nothing more than misplaced excitement, it shows a level of immaturity that makes me nervous when combined with the admin tools. '''
'''Neutral''' This makes me really sad. :( —
'''Neutral''' Leaning to oppose. ClueBots are great, but they are just a series of codes.--
'''Sitting on Neutral'''
'''Neutral''' - too many negatives to support, but am unwilling to oppose.
'''Support'''--
'''Moral Support''' A good editor with great potential. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Your work on [[James McCune Smith]] consisted of adding a couple of headers; if this is really your best mainspace edit, I don't feel you've enough article-writing experience to support. As I've said elsewhere, if you haven't experienced for yourself just how hard it can be creating valid content, I don't think a sysop can empathise with editors who are having their material deleted/reverted. If you can provide some more substantial mainspace diffs, I'll be willing to reconsider<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' - per iridescent. Start doing more than just adding infoboxes to articles, and I'll be happy to support. --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per a lack of experience and the terse answers here.
'''Oppose'''.  Just get some more experience with major editing.  '''
'''Oppose''' All you need is more experience, and try again later on.
'''Oppose''' More experience needed with article writing. -
'''Strong oppose''' for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Cocoaguy&page= unilateral moves], like to [[Hurricane Jeanne]], a retired hurricane which should not have a year disambiguator. You need to learn to discuss things and not do them unilaterally.
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. I'd gladly support later if you learn to discuss before performing controversial actions, as well as get more experience in various areas related to policy (as well as article space). --
'''Neutral''' while he has some good edits and good edit count, I can see iridescent's point.  I'm a maybe.
'''Moral support''' Why not let him become an admin? After all, adminship is [[Wikipedia:Administrators#No big deal|no big deal]]. He may not have a load of experience but at least he's sensible. I'd suggest withdrawel though--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, the candidate needs more experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Codelyoko193 is a very good ordinary editor, but he's not quite ready to become an admin.  Please see my comments at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Codelyoko193]].
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I think you need some more experience before becoming an admin. For example, try helping out at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], or [[WP:XFD]].
'''Oppose''' - Nope. Sorry bud. For reasons stated above.
Sorry, Codelyoko193. You have not done any admin work. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' While it is great that you want to be an admin, you should read [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship|this]] and participate more with admin duties.
'''Oppose''' - while you have been around for an adequate amount of times, you have not really participated in the areas that are necessary to be familiar with as an Admin.  I politely suggest you withdraw.  Check out the Wikipedia links Icestorm provided you above and come back 4 months from now.
'''Oppose''' As per Persian Poet Gal  Sorry for the reasons stated above.I would suggest that you later after a few months.
'''Oppose'''.  An excellent editor, but more experience is needed in admin-like areas.  I'd recommend [[WP:AFD]], it's one of my favorites.  Also, try to use the edit summary more ofen, it helps other editors understand what you were doing.
'''<small>Oppose</small>'''. Unfortunatly, I feel that you might want some more experience in project space and mainspace. Come back in about 4 more months, and I'll give you my support. Thanks for trying to serve the community though! --
'''Oppose''' per above. More experience, wikiprojects, etc. <small>And the community has spoken.</small> '''
'''Support'''- As nominator.
'''Support''' per no big deal.
'''Support''' Experienced and friendly civil user, particularly active in RfA's - good luck! <b>
Per [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_84#Minimum_Edits]], that was too recent. Still inexperienced imo. &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=121728257&oldid=121728209 this comment] made '''yesterday''', the ensuing argument, and his refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong. The whole thing raised doubts about civility and assuming good faith.
'''Oppose''' per ''"so Pliz try to improve your mistakes instead of trying to improve others mistakes"'' - you're running for a position of trust on Wikipedia and you talk like that? No thanks. &nbsp;<small>'''
'''Oppose''' due to maturity and judgement concerns as elucidated by Kaf and Chacor. And to respond to Kntrabssi's comment above, administrators (being the tools of policy enforcement on Wikipedia) have a responsibility to communicate in clear, comprehensible vernacular. Imagine if an administrator left a warning to a US House of Representatives IP address with Cometstyles' English.
'''Oppose''' - Seems to not understand  [[WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND]]. See !votes at [[Talk:Chiefs_%28Super_rugby_franchise%29|here]], [[Talk:Hurricanes_%28Super_rugby_franchise%29#Requested_move|here]], (especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricanes_%28Super_rugby_franchise%29&diff=102645742&oldid=102639081]), and [[Talk:Crusaders_%28rugby%29#Requested_move|here]]. These !votes show a complete lack of common sense and partisanship in dealing with national issues (he argues that the American football teams of the same name are less important than the rugby teams; let alone the common sense idea that [[Chiefs]] should probably redirect to [[Chief]], not a sports franchise). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusaders_%28rugby%29&diff=105771127&oldid=105770415 This] comment is also troubling, though it is two months old. I would not want this type of partisan making critical decisions about article names and deletion debates in the future.
'''Oppose''' the diffs provided above, and Cometstyles' responses on this RfA clearly demonstrate that he doesn't yet have the maturity to handle the role of administrator.
'''Oppose''' for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Retiono_Virginian&diff=121937030&oldid=121935395 surprising misrepresentation of Wikipedia editors in general and participants in this RfA in particular].  It seems that you have a long way to go in order to reach an objective viewpoint towards contributing to this project.
'''Neutral.''' I think some of the opposers fail to account for the fact that the candidate's first language is probably not English.  There are several grammatical mistakes (such as I'am instead of I am, or fictious instead of fictitious) that are simply the result of inexperience with the language.  Perhaps the incidents where he made harsh comments such as "do your job" were also unintentional given a lack of experiences, where "please block him now" would have been sufficient.  That being said, the concerns are too strong for me to support at this time.
'''Neutral''' I didn't see anything that made me want to outright oppose when looking back through the candidate's contributions, but the handling of the dispute related to this RfA serves to shed some light on Cometstyles' demeanor when handling admin issues that will be far more frustrating. I don't necessarily trust him to handle conflicts with other editors the way admins are expected to. This is not to say that the work he does is unsatisfactory, but rather that he has not displayed the admin conduct that I look for. Also, the spelling mistakes don't bother me, but the use of Internet abbreviations like "pliz" is not how I wish for admins to interact with other editors.
As nom. '''
'''Strongest possible support''' Deinitely a user who I trust, I trusted him at his first RfA and I do even more now, a great editor and always extremely polite. Lets give this guy the tools. <small>''The Sunshine Man'' is now</small> <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Strong support''' This user has helped me a great deal. He's always positive and infinitely helpful. There is no doubt in my mind that he would make an ideal administrator. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Strong support''' Exactly as stated above, great guy. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Another Strong Support''' - I've seen only great and good things from this user. Good luck. --
'''Support''' Seen him around; I see no reason not to. —
'''Support''' Cometstyles is a great vandal fighter and would make a great administrator. Good Luck.
'''Strong support''' I agree with FayssalF. My interactions with Cometstyles have been positive as well.
'''Yay!''' Amazing user. --<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' One of the easiest decisions I've ever had to make on WP.
'''Support'''- per [[User:TREYWiki|Trey]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Good user who is very friendly.--
'''Support''', looking good to me.  Can't find evidence to suggest he'd abuse the tools, good contributions, and the like.  Seems to have improved since the last RfA, too.
'''Strong Support''' per answer to my question and lack of reasons to oppose.  '''
'''Strong support'''. He is a great editor. I am confident that giving him the tools will benefit Wikipedia. --
'''Strong support'''. Great editor who I have known well for a long time now. I am absolutely sure he will make a great and trustworthy administrator.  And yes, Cometstyles does have a sense of humour, and that's a good thing in my books. He is more than ready to be given the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' No concerns.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support:''' Everything checks out here except the wasting of ":P" on IRC. :-) <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' per Animum, the only problem is [[meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles#Types of vandals|that this user may]] [[meta:Talk:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles#Test|cause freenode to run out of :p's]] :-)
'''Support''' I feel this user would never abuse of the tools; plus, seems trustworthy and civil. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Very Strong Support.''' Solid editor, good natured, always puts a smile on my face, what more could you ask for?
'''Uber plus plus''', good luck!
'''Very strong support''' - I was planning to nominate this user myself, but I guess someone beat me to it... '''<font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' I have found CometStyles to be a fine user and one who will never abuse the tools. He works hard against vandals which is and excellent characteristic of an admin, although not the only one. I sense no problem here and wish him the very best.
wikipedia-en-help cabal '''Support''' - a helpful user.  Would definitely not abuse the tools and is smart enough to seek help himself if he needs it. --
'''Support''', I think this user can be trusted with the tools now. He seems to have come a long way since the last RfA, and his administrative work with account requests is already very good. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Strong Support'''. This is the worst case yet of "He ISNT an admin?!?!". Fantastic user! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Lift him up and hand him the mop'''- Having reviewed this user a while back at Editor Review, I think he'd make a great admin.
'''Support''' I have known Cometstyles for quite a while. We have worked together on many Rugby union related things and I now believe he has the experience to make a great admin. -
'''Support''' I'm for it--he seems to have improved since the last request from what it looks like and will do a great job helping Wikipedia. Maturity was noted, I see, though I feel he'll be able to maintain it if he tries, as he's already shown he's well capable of.
'''Support''' I've seen Cometstyles around and he has always presented himself well to others. He has learned from his RfA#1 and used it to better himself to the point where he has long been trustworthy. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' I've seen Cometstyles around for several months, since before his first RFA, and had good interaction with him.  He has shown himself to be a valuable part of the community, and I trust him to use Admin tools responsibly.
'''Strong Support''' Obvious...great editor, and will do great work as an admin.
'''Srong Support''' Based mainly on personal interaction and that Majorly nominiated. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the added tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - good candidate, plenty of experience. Concerns raised in Oppose and Neutral sections don't especially worry me.
'''Support''' - All the best. <sup>
'''Support''' -- seen him around, seems to be a good user. <strong>
'''Support''' - I have seen you a lot around Wikipedia and I have always thought of you as a good contributer. I am glad you have learnt the lessons of your previous RFA, the maturity issues raised do not concern me.
'''Edit-Conflict Support''' - Helpful user, see no problem whatsoever being an admin. -
'''Support''', no problems with this user.

'''Support'''. Delightful person, and passes my requirements with ease. Best of luck! :)
'''Support''' - I have no concerns with this user, he is very dedicated and it would be great to have him on board.
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already.  Mop wisely.

'''Strong support''' I've looked at some of his edits, and he is a fine editor!!
'''Support'''. [[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not]]? Well within [[User:Vassyana/admin|my standards]].
'''Support'''. I've seen Comestyles around the wiki for some time, now, and I haven't seen anything that suggests to me personally that he can't be trusted with the tools. To be honest, I'm actually a bit reminded of Ryulong's promotion, which was ''quite'' controversial, at the time, but has proven to work out for the best, I think -- where we have generally productive, generally trustworthy users who demonstrate knowledge, ability, and dedication, is there a reason we shouldn't make them into admins? &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">

'''Support''' The reasons raised by the opposers seem to be honest mistakes, one of which was almost five months ago.  Am confident he will not abuse the tools.
[[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1ggy'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:G1ggy|t]]|
'''Support''' I am very confident in this user. I have often seen him around, and hope that he continues to involve himself and ask for support if needed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' Always a pleasure to work with.
'''Why not?''' Yeah. What I said.
'''Support''', no indication he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - great and friendly user who would make a great admin. --
'''Strong spport'''
'''Strong support''' - Cometstyles could use the administrator tools to help deal with vandalism.  He seems very helpful and I'm sure he'll make a great admin!  --
'''Strong Support''' (edit conflict) I knew this was coming sometime... One of the not-so-many users that I really trust! :) --
'''Support''' I think that the pile-on opposes relsting to immaturity are poorly thought out.This user is a University student (unless he has qualified since posting his Userpage)  who I am quite certaib will not abuse the tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. Although based on this user's overall record, including satisfactory answers to the questions. Some of the concerns raised by the opposers have some merit, but on the whole I believe this candidate would use admin tools within his areas of expertise and for the benefit of the project. If this RfA is successful, as I hope it will be, then I trust that the candidate will start off slowly in performing administrator tasks and never be hesitant to consult before acting in doubtful cases. If the RfA is not successful, I very much hope the candidate will continue editing and return to RfA in due course.
'''Support''' per [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] - nothing much to add to that really... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cometstyles]].  This was only a few months ago, people.  Immaturity isn't going to magically vanish in a couple of months.
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=142690148&oldid=142683913 this] would be one of the judgement issues I have trouble with, and apparently they still happen. -
'''Oppose''' In my personal experience with this editor he has showed a lack of responsibility for his actions and his answer to why his previous RfA failed does not convince me that he changed greatly since then.  My experience was regarding an anon who blanked their child's user page with an edit summary (I recall) stating they were removing it because of the personally identifiable information revealed on the page by their young child. (I am not an admin so I can't quote a deleted edit summary)  Cometstyles reverted this blanking as vandalism.  When I approached about being the revert he replied [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BirgitteSB&diff=prev&oldid=109595100 So what does that got to do with me???] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BirgitteSB&diff=next&oldid=109595100 I used popups..Thats what Popups do they revert stuff ]. When I disagreed and stated that he is responsible for any edits made under his account, he did not respond except to remove the note from his talk page with the summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACometstyles&diff=109820626&oldid=109628019 rm nonsense].  If I had not been worried about that young editor and been watching his page closely Cometstyles mistaken revert may not have caught by anyone.  Everyone has days when they are sloppy and the mistake is understandable, claiming Popups is responsible for the revert and that is has nothing to do with him is not.  I have serious concerns about the suitability of this editor for adminship; and have seen nothing in his edits since February or since his first RfA to convince me they are misplaced.  His answer that his previous RfA failed due to poor spelling and use of slang as well his losing his behaivor ''during'' the RfA does not convince me he understands all the previous concerns raised about him.--<i><font color="#9966FF">
Per maturity concerns, spectacularly unimpressed with the reaction to previous RFA.
'''oppose''' per questions raised above, do not trust to not be abusive of tools and/or users. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' per Friday.
'''Oppose'''. I too query if this editor's maturity is sufficient for admin responsibility at this time.
Oppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=142690148&oldid=142683913 If you think] that {{User|Something arbitrary}} should be blocked for having an inappropriate username then I don't trust you with admin tools. A username block for that would be an embarassment to Wikipedia.
Absolutely not, per Birgitte and Friday's maturity concerns. Sometimes things can be fixed in three months, this does not appear to be one of those times.  -- ''
I share the concerns of the above. I am not terribly confident of your ability to make good decisions as an administrator, and hence I cannot support you. '''
'''Oppose''', I see no reason to support. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per Amarkov.  That decision of the candidate, from two days ago, and his defense of it, clearly demonstrate that he does not possess suitable judgment at this time.
With respects to the nominator whose judgment I ''almost'' always trust, I am also strongly opposed to Cometstyle's request.  The username issue as first shown by Amarkov illustrates that he is certainly not ready to employ the block function, and this, coupled with other examples brought up during this discussion lead me to believe that he needs to work on both his maturity and the basic social graces that everyone should be utilising [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Strong oppose''' yeah everybody messes up.  Any vandal-fighter has reversed some good faith edits.  But why would you ever remove a good faith concern on your talk page as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACometstyles&diff=109820626&oldid=109628019 nonsense]?  There's the diff.  Okay, and everybody screws up and acts like a royal jerk some time.  But now 5 months later you still can't admit you did anything wrong, you've blatantly misrepresented the incident above, and what's worse you're still reacting rudely to BirgitteSB.  Apologize to Birgitte now and maybe I'll consider supporting you in 3 or 4 months. --
'''Strong oppose''', per [[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]], frankly this doesn't sit well with me.
'''Oppose''' changed from Neutral. Q3 was not expanded upon, and Cometstyles' discussion with BirgitteSB above did not relieve my concerns.
'''Oppose''' changed from neutral due to Birgitte's rationale. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''; sorry, just can't support this one at present time.  It was the "rm nonsense" diff that did it (quoted above).  When you're an admin, it's going to be ten times as stressful as it is now, as trolls and vandals come after you deliberately trying to provoke you, and you ''have'' to be unflappable, and both capable of seeing ''and'' admitting when you're wrong.  Staying cool under fire isn't always so easy.  Please try again some time down the road; best wishes.
'''Oy vey!'''. This user is too immature for this position of responsibility. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' Although I am not at all sure that this user is possessed of the deliberative disposition, good judgment (toward which concerns, one may see, e.g., the diff adduced by Amarkov and, as Xoloz well notes, the unfulfilling reply of Comet thereto), and demeanor the presence of which might lead me to conclude with some confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]], such that I'd oppose even absent other concerns, I am moved to oppose firmly because I fear that Comet's command of the English language, generally impressive though it is, is not sufficient to permit him properly to communicate fully with those intractable users whom he should surely, qua admin, encounter; whilst editors acting calmly, reservedly, and in good faith are likely to take care well to understand him before replying, those who are (rightly or not) abrupt and angry are unlikely to be so careful, and so I cannot imagine that we can be sure that the candidate's communication problems might not, his best intentions to the contrary notwithstanding, impair his functioning as an admin and thus prove (unintentionally) unnecessarily disruptive.  I mean not to be overly exacting here, and I hope that I do not overstate that which may seem to most a truly insignificant issue (to be sure, I also readily recognize that my own rather idiosyncratic writing style does not always lend itself to clear communication; witness, for instance, my lengthy RfA comments); I truly encountered in reviewing Comet's contributions several comments by the locutions of which I was initially befuddled (although I must observe that most of those were rather old and that, in the absence of my more substantive concerns, the language issues would likely not of themselves lead me to oppose).
'''Oppose''' per gaillimh, xoloz et al. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Oppose''' per username and childuser judgement issues. Still, I see improvement and would support in future notwithstanding further judgement issues. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">
'''Oppose''' per submitting "[[User:Something arbitrary|Something arbitrary]]" as a bad user name just a few days ago.  At this time I would not trust the user's judgement with the block button.
'''Strong Oppose''' - pre BirgitteSB. Also I thought his answer to question no.3 was very weak. --
'''Oppose''' per lack of encyclopaedic contributions.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Cometstyles&namespace=0]
I find myself agreeing with Xoloz. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' for issues of civility, communication skills and maturity. The user name report was a bad mistake, such as we can all make at times, but the lack of willingness to discuss mistakes with a view to improving gives me no confidence that this user is ready for the tools yet. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per Birgitte and gaillimh. --
Sorry, per many opposes above. Please try again after a few months of editing that addresses the concerns raised on this page. '''
'''No - oppose''' Editor seems fine but maturity appears to be lacking.
'''Not at this time''' - I see no improvement from your last RFA as per Amarkov and Brigitte above. Regarding the username: it's not difficult to look up [[wikt:arbitrary|arbitrary]] in a dictionary - you'd have realised it has nothing to do with the ArbCom. Your weakness in English probably failed you here, but it is a major concern given that this is the English wikipedia, so if you can't fully understand/express things it will be a problem as an admin.
'''Oppose''' a little more time would not be a bad thing. --
'''Neutral''': on one hand, your edit history shows improvement since the last RFA. On the other, you do seem a bit recalcitrant about the earlier problems, so I'm not 100% ready to support adminship. --
'''An oppose to the nom, but a support to his humour''': His contribution page showed that he was really too green to take adminship; his wikilink-less answers above might indicate his being unable to handle technical stuff well and therefore I can't trust him with the additional tools. However I must morally support his humour. This is the first person I've seen who made fun with the word "sysop" and changed it to "syrup". This humour is something I ought to respect. --
In Soviet Russia, I '''oppose''' you!
'''Oppose''', poor nomination, and the usual story, not enough experience - a total of 93 edits since August 2005?  Simply not enough.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience here. Also, he/she has not well understood what are administrator's roles and duties. <i>Happy Editing by <b>
'''Oppose''' Fewer than 100 edits plus blatant POV-pushing? No chance. --
'''Moral support''' for swimming in the shark pool. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Coren_2&diff=prev&oldid=147441665] But <s>you should trust that seasoned editors can handle a lion pit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pascal.Tesson&diff=next&oldid=139804309] and</s> some more mainspace edits would't harm. --
'''Support''' - good editor, seems experienced enough IMO. The diffs provided by Pedro don't particularly worry me; Coren was right to apologise for accidentally templating an established user, but I understand why he tagged the article in its original form for A7. And the second diff - admonishing a newbie not to sign articles - looks like a valid comment, and doesn't seem particularly uncivil to me. Further, I don't agree with the premise that extensive article-writing is needed for adminship; not everyone has the expertise or inclination to contribute masses of new content, and maintenance work is just as valuable for the encyclopedia. (We've had this discussion enough times at [[WT:RFA]], so I won't go into it further).
'''Support'''.  The diffs provided in opposition below don't bother me either, there's nothing in there to indicate Coren is untrustworthy or doesn't know policy.  I can also find nothing to suggest he hasn't improved since the prior nomination.  Contributions, particularly to the mainspace, may be thin by some standards but is sufficient for determining the candidate's capabilities in my book.
'''Support''' - I don't understand the oppositions. The differences provided aren't that big of a deal IMO and this user has a good number of edits as well as experience.
'''Support''' The editor seems both nice and responsible, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be given the extra tools.
'''Weak actual / strong moral support''', changed from neutral as I just couldn't let Pedro's insufficient rationale go un-cancelled-out. Although I do somewhat agree with Chrislk02 and Husond, I do not see any serious deal-breakers. —'''
'''Support''' not seeing a significant reason for the opposition.
'''Support''' Per no big deal. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support'''. What's the point of mainspace contributions in a RfA? Admins are just the technical side of things, mainspace is nothing to do with it! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''', yes.
I simply refuse to let RfAs fail because of lack of mainspace work.  OK, I can't literally refuse, but the best I can do is support them. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''': Despite not being the most active editor in the world, demonstrates clear understanding of deletion policy (see my two questions), and otherwise seems to know what's expected and how to go about it, judging from the other answers and replies. I'm not concerned much by the allegations of hastiness - that is a trait that other admins will rein in quickly enough if it arises, and the response to the [[WP:IAR]] question suggests that this editor well-respects [[WP:PROCESS]]. PS: Not all editors are by nature [[M:Exopedianism|exopedians]], and WP needs plenty of [[M:Metapedianism|metapedians]] for what Coren called "quality control", something more and more important as more and more spammers, COI-pushing self-aggrandizers, vandals, NFT-violating kids, etc., show up every single day the more popular WP gets. PPS: Recent edit counts of 333 to 1170 per month are evidentiary of a good (though not obsessive ;-) activity level, being around and at least occasionally participating since ''<s>1993</s> 2003'' demonstrates long-term viability, and the stats "number of unique pages 2027 / total 3016" are a ratio demonstrative of policing and cleanup work, which are needed just as much as article creation. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support''' SMcCandlish said it very well.
'''Support''' I feel that this user can be trusted with the additional tools. A good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I feel the editor is good looking at the track through no interaction.
'''Support.''' This user shows an understanding of administrative procedures, notwithstanding the comments below.
'''Support''' Coren seems ready to become an administrator.
'''Support''' Definitely, seems like a fine candidate
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator.
'''Support''' as we could use a few more [[Wikipedia:WikiOgre|WikiOgres]] like Coren as admins.

I feel you are getting closer to being ready, however feel you need a little bit more mainspace experience and main talk space. (I.E., collaborative work on an article).  While you have been a registered editor for quite a while, the majority of your edits have been in the past few months with a majority being in the user talk space.  You have contributed to the wp and wpt space but i think a little more experience in those areas could not hurt as well.  Overall, I would give it another month or 2 and i feel you would be ready.  Feel free to seek me out for an editor review when the time comes and you feel ready.  If I feel you are ready I may be willing to nominate you.
'''Oppose''', again, sorry. You've been improving, that is for certain. But I'm not convinced that you're ready to become an administrator mostly because you still have a rather low participation in the mainspace. Misplacing this RfA on this page also didn't look good. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months please.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Really sorry. You are doing some great work, reports to [[WP:AIV]], discussion work and vandal reverting. However you are just too hasty at times. Husond didn't mention it but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Husond&diff=prev&oldid=143119395 here] where you tagged an article of his for speedy and then when you found out he was a seasoned and experienced  editor backed down. Whether the account is a year or a day old makes no difference - you should have checked further before tagging. Again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PTDI&diff=prev&oldid=142601128 here] you tagged an article that although short was clearly referenced and asserted notability so I can't see why Speedy Deletion applied. Finally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hubby37&diff=prev&oldid=141313308 this] is a touch too [[WP:BITE|bitey]] and particularly when you note the comment directly above it, applied at the same time. Like I say, a '''lot of your work is excellent''', so don't be discouraged at all, but I just personally can't support giving you some extra buttons at the moment, particularly the delete one. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Double edit-conflict Oppose''' Too little activity with this account; the obvious errors are pointed out above, so work on eliminating those and participating more in the main space as well as vandal fighting.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose'''. As Chris points out, you may have been ''around'' a long time, but you've only been ''active'' for a few months. I'd personally like to see some sustained activity, and perhaps a little expansion of your activities in the directions mentioned by Chris. Don't be discouraged, though, as you certainly have the makings of a good administrator.
Per Husond, Chris and Pedro, general experience concerns. '''
'''Oppose''', per (aeropagitica).
'''Oppose''' per Pedro.  Evidence of questionable speedy tagging suggests that more time ''actively editing'' is needed.
'''Oppose''' per much of above. I would also like to see sustained activity, additional mainspace edits, and additional experience outside of AfD and RfA.
'''Oppose''' - Mainly due to lack of experience and encyclopaedic contributions. --
'''Oppose''' - Mainly because of varied edits over the months. Administrators have to be consistent with their powers. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' - You seem to be getting to know wiki policy more, but your edit count is still low. Come back in a few months, and I will support.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience...yet.
'''Oppose''' Concerns raised particularly by Pedro make me reluctant to trust with the delete button at this time.  With more active editing experience am sure this concern can be addressed.

'''Oppose''' — Misunderstands deletion policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Coren&namespace=0&year=&month=-1]
'''Oppose''' Makes comments on medical issues that are outright wrong (eg. saying that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) "exists in order to define "normal functioning" from a behavioral perspective"). Idiotic comment. Also has an aggressive manner. <span style="font-family: sans">
'''Neutral''' I think this is an excellent editor and I don't think that mainspace edits are what make an administrator. Still, a lot of issues brought up by the opposers suggest to me a little bit too much inexperience still.
'''Neutral (with encouragement)''' I came across Coren only last week, and noted his contribs page for potential RfA consideration, if further review did not reveal gaps or shortcomings. I still feel this is at some time likely to be the case, but the experience issue isn't quite there for me either. This RfA also suggests that communal feeling is not yet sufficiently strong, and RfA is to a large extent, a consensus by the community on its "comfort level". At this point the communal voice is only around 50 - 55% on a not-insignificant ~ 50 responses. Evidently the track record is not yet ''quite'' reassuring enough. That said, on the plus side, most "oppose" views are about things that time and experience will surely cure. <br /><br />As a constructive suggestion, I'd ideally like to see maybe 3 or so more months involvement (April is quite recent to have begun serious editing), including broadening of experience at different aspects of the admin's role, in project space, RFC, 3O, DR, or other areas where policy based editing must be evidenced, and ideally, some articles which have more than "just a few edits on each", showing involved editorial work on specific articles or projects. These matter in my view for RfA, since users will expect administrators to make good editorial suggestions and clearly applied policy-based judgements related to many varied circumstances; a sense of limits and boundaries, and skill, all develop with breadth of experience.
'''Moral Support''' You need more experiene, and your answers to the questions (particularly Q1 and "banning" IP's) show this. '''However''' kudos on the self nomination which shows a desire to help out, and respect for your work so far. This RFA will not pass per [[WP:SNOW]] '''but do not be discouraged'''. Your contributions to date all look positive - keep it up! My talk page is always open for help or advice, as is the talk page (I am sure) of many of the other respected contributors to your first RFA. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - first mainspace edit less than two months ago; less than 250 mainspace edits. Only two projectspace edits other than this RfA were to the sandbox. Very concerned about answer to Q1. At the rate you're going, come back in a year and I'll probably vote for you. &larr;
'''Oppose''' - Heart is in the right space, just not enough experience around the project yet. Also, would you mind letting us know what your other user name was which you mention on your user page?
'''Oppose''' - Usually you should have at least 1500 mainspace edits for self nomination and try to get involved more in talk. Go vote on AFD and RFA and be more active. -
'''No''' - a bit early on, but I encourage you to keep working with what you are doing. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, far too inexperienced, 235 total edits, virtually none in project space. Answers to questions indicate a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia (e.g. confusing [[WP:BAN|banning]] with [[WP:BLOCK|blocking]]). Retry in a few months' time :-) <b>
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''', sorry, and suggest self-withdrawal before imminent [[WP:SNOW]] closure. A lot more experience is needed in all areas. Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Give it a few months, and keep up the good work, but I cannot support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Due to above. The user needs to have more experience, and is considerably new to the project. Also, might want to be considered to be [[WP:ADOPT|adopted]] by an experienced user and join a [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject]]. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Neutral''', suggest withdrawal as this is unlikely to pass. You've been active for under 2 months, and have no Wikipedia space edits apart from to this RfA and two to the sandbox. More participation in places such as [[WP:XFD]] and (especially if you wish to do vandal work) [[WP:AIV]] would be valuable. You should also understand the difference between [[WP:BAN|bans]] and [[WP:BLOCK|blocks]]. Keep up the good work though. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' Low edit summary, not active enough (recently came back after inactivity for a year). <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
Just not enough experience on administrator related tasks. As the only outcome that can come out of this is a snowball closure, I strongly suggest you withdraw at this time. --
'''Oppose with a lot of Moral Support thrown in''' - You have simply not had enough experience. I would suggest spending some time in administrator-frequented areas such as [[WP:CVU|vandalism patrol]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]], and [[WP:AN/I|the incidents noticeboard]]. This will give you some experience on deciding when to block a user, when to revert edits, and when it is appropriate to delete. If you'd like some help, please feel free to [[User talk:Neranei|talk to me]], I'd be happy to help you. Good luck, and don't let a [[WP:SNOW|snowball]] closure discourage you. Sincerely,
I am disappointed to see very few participation in admin-critical areas, such as [[WP:AIV]], the various [[WP:VP|village pumps]], [[WP:XFD|deletion debates]], and some more that others might mention.  Even more, there are very little edits to the Wikipedia namespace, which implies that this user is not experienced enough with how Wikipedia works and collaborates.  There is also little to no [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] usage, and that is another thing that participants in RFAs look for in candidates.  I am going to have to '''oppose''' at this time, but work hard, gain experience, and you should be able to reapply in the future. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose:''' Very low edit count, not sure if user understands all wikipedia policy's. Low use of edit summary's. Suggest user works on wikipedia a little bit longer and trys again later.
'''Oppose'''.  Lots more experience needed in a variety of areas.  Please don't let this [[WP:SNOW]] closure discourage you from editing Wikipedia.  I suggest places like [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:AFD]].  If you ever have any question, I'm available [[User talk:Useight|here]].
'''Oppose''' Obviously a joke nomination, only a few hundred edits--
'''Oppose'''. This is too early. It may be better to withdraw.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Silk. This nomination is too early. And, the answers to the questions are relatively short. My suggestion would be to you is to get involved with [[Wikipedia:Wikiprojects|WikiProjects]], [[WP:AFD]]s, write articles, etc. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''', sorry, and strongly recommend self-withdrawal before imminent [[WP:SNOW]] closure. Your enthusiasm is welcome, but far more experience is needed in all areas. Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' there's about a dozen things wrong with this. Way too new, your first edit is asking about adminship, the RfA is very poorly thought out. I recommend you stick around quite awhile longer before you consider running for adminship --
'''Oppose''' 57 edits, new account, and poor answers to questions are the 3 reasons I oppose. Sorry. <span style="background:navy">'''
You really don't have enough of a track record for me to make a serious evaluation of you. Editors with less than 50 edits never pass. I suggest you withdraw.--
'''Oppose''' - No thank you! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenth_Doctor&diff=101006349&oldid=101004179] <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' per Matthew. On a side note, you may wish to note some grammar and spelling mistakes in your RFA, which could lead to someone opposing you. Not why, I am though.
'''Strong Oppose''': CyclePat - concerns over knowledge of policy, specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=96378860] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=96322106] which relate to [[WP:C|copyright]] and [[WP:EL|external link]] policy. Sorry. <font face="Arial Black">--Kind Regards -
'''Opppose'''. My only encounter with this editor is documented at [[Talk:École secondaire catholique Garneau]] (also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jkelly&diff=prev&oldid=49630382], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=49628055], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=49642310] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=49644814]), and was memorably unpleasant. I'm disturbed to learn that they are now invovled in mediating user disputes. That said, I'm puzzled by Matthew Fenton, and Carpet9, above opposing over a reasonable edit.
'''Oppose'''. Every time someone's made reference to this user, it has not been positive, and the above diffs don't engender confidence. Also doesn't seem to understand policy or what being an admin is about - to correct unsourced articles does not require administrative tools.
'''Oppose''' per above, and I note the frequency of spelling mistakes in the nomination. Nothing serious, but it could show that you did not spend enough time over your statement. ''
I have to oppose due to his recent "test" forging an admin's signature on his talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CyclePat&oldid=100382379#Hypothesis_Test_WP:AN.2FI_theory_ATST] I think it shows incredibly poor judgement. '''
'''Oppose''' per above. Plus you've been pretty inactive as of late.--
'''Oppose''' per Sarah's diff - quite a lack of judgement and foresight on the part of a prospective admin.
'''Oppose''' - WAY too controversial for me to approve. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Per Sarahs diffs, also worth noting that Q1 isn't very inspiring. Yes there are many articles that need citations but you don't have to be an admin to sort those articles out.
I am sorry, but you are way too new for adminship right now, with no edits in project namespace apart from this RFA. I suggest that you withdraw, and reapply in a few months' time when you feel ready. Please don't feel disappointed! <b>
'''Oppose''' You're too un-experienced to be an administrator, try making more edits in a variety of spaces. Try again in a few months. -
'''Oppose''' lack of simple formatting knowledge, not signing comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCzac&diff=155220223&oldid=155218587 diff] in response to my moral support shows a complete lack of understanding of [[WP:WQ|wikiquette]]
'''Moral Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czarbender&diff=148455264&oldid=147903877 my unasked for advice] kudos on the self nom and the good intentions as per your opening statements. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Sadly, this RfA is not going to pass, but you have good intentions, and that is what matters. I would recommend an [[WP:ER|editor review]], and to use an edit summary more often. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Moral support''' You have the right intentions but with 114 edits there is no way this will pass. My suggestion is to get some great editing going in an area you know a lot about, or help out in some of the [[WP:BACKLOG|backlog]] areas. Good luck for next time.
'''Oppose''', I don't believe you need the tools at this point in time. No vandal reverts or reports to AIV, and you want to be an "anti-vandal admin"? You would like to block users and delete articles, but you have limited contributions to discussion pages. I am worried about possible misuse (not abuse) of tools. Also, quote answer 3, "However, it a response takes more than 5 days, then I might redo my deleted addition anyway, if I feel it's necessary." This doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence.
'''Oppose'''. Chacor's points and Pedro's diff.
'''Weak oppose''' - per answer to Q1 - shows lack of understanding. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. I suggest you try again after a few months and you may have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per ansewer to question #1. Shows lack of knowledge in what an admin should do.
'''Oppose''' You have too little experience to become an admin. Do not let this discourage you! Try again when you have more experience and you will surely have more support.
'''Oppose''' Answers to the questions were insufficient for me, especially to question one. You can fight vandals without needing the admin tools. Adminship is not power. Keep on editing, do what you can where you can, demonstrate a requirement for the tools and the responsibility to use them and I will happily change my vote in a future RfA. Best of luck -
'''Neutral'''. It's just too early. I suggest installing [[WP:TW|twinkle]] and [[WP:AVT|Anti-vandal tool]]. They're a good way to become accustomed to tools, and it's a quick way to boost your count. Just make sure you keep up your writing!
'''Neutral'''. Too early by months. If you intend to work in anti-vandalism, I suggest you spend some time doing recent change patrolling or new page patrolling to gain some experience.
'''Moral support''' - I have no doubt you will become an admin someday.  Until then, there are many '''[[Wikipedia:Tools|tools]]''' available which you may find very useful.  I look forward to seeing what you can do on the '''[[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism-fighting front]]'''.  '''''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, friend, but I don't believe you have enough experience. Perhaps you could read [[WP:ADMIN]] to get an idea of what admins do? Why not gain more experience by reporting persistant vandals to [[WP:AIV]]? I'd be happy to put you on the right path, friend. All in all, it's just experience :-) - Your mind is in the right place though :-)
'''Oppose''', strongly recommend withdrawal or early closure due to inexperience. --
'''Oppose''' lack of experience.  Half your edits are to your own user page--it makes you seem focused on yourself, not helping other people edit the encyclopedia.  You should turn on the preference to always give an edit summary--you make a lot of edits without an edit summary, which makes you look inexperienced.  You need to get both experience working on deletion policy--[[WP:AFD]] isn't a bad place to start--and much more editing of articles.
'''Oppose''' - per above. General lack of experience.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Darkspots|Darkspots]].
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but we're talking about improving an encyclopedia here. I know that this is non-article space here, but you should really look at your spelling and grammar when you're responding here. It's highly easy to scrutinise and if I don't believe you have good written language skills, I don't believe you should be administrating the editing of an encyclopedia. Sorry. Stick around a while, learn a LOT more about the ropes and what you can do to swing on the right ones, and you'll be fine, but give yourself at least 3 months. --
'''Regretful Oppose''' - You seem like a person who is very interested in Wikipedia, but I am going to have to oppose you based on your edit count and your pronlonged periods of not editing.
'''Apologetic Oppose'''. Per all above. Besides, we'd hate to lose such an outstanding mainspace contributor to the boring admin tasks! Happy editing :-) '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' I feel this user deserves a chance.
'''Very, very, very, very weak, no SERIOUSLY really really weak, support'''
'''Oppose''' with regrets and suggest you withdraw before this is closed per [[WP:SNOW]]. You really need more experience. Get involved in some projects, try some more article-writing and get adopted. when you're ready, try an editor review first Keep up the good work!
'''Oppose'''. More experience is needed.  It takes time to gain the community's trust, closer to six months than three.  Plus it's a rare event that an editor be sysopped with fewer than 2000 edits.  Your work so far is good, but we'll have to see more of it.  You're doing some work in all the right places.  I recommend following the advice Majoreditor says above, and would like to add taking a look over [[WP:LOP|this list of policies]] to make sure you get a good handle on everything.
'''Neutral''' Non-Byte the Newbie Neutral.  I concur, you should withdraw your nomination.  3 months and less than 150 edits is nowhere nearly enough edits to warrant adminship.
'''Neutral''' Ditto what Balloonman said, it seems your heart is in the right place but try and get some experience under your belt.  The more edits you make, the better chance you have of running into different situations where you can learn more about Wikipedia policies and what to do in certain situations.  Good luck!<br/>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I'm happy with his answers.
'''Moral Support''' - this request will probably not pass, but I urge the candidate to try again in the future. Answer to Q1 seems fine - this candidate clearly understands the admin tools - but the opposers raise valid points about lack of experience in projectspace. Try again in 2-3 months after more participation in discussions and/or more vandal-fighting.
'''Support''' as long as the candidate listens to the concerns the opposition and neutrals have mentioned, the next RfA should pass.
'''Support''' this person writes informative edit summaries (when written) and is actively contributing to 'pedia building. I can't see any examples of conflict or disruption over the last 1000 edits or so and feel the 'pedia will gain more than lose by having him as an admin. cheers,
'''Support''' I like his answers to my questions and I think he has a good understanding of what admins, however I'm afraid this rfa will fail due to pile on opposes, but with luck you might get some pile on support! --'''
'''Support'''&mdash;the user shows a good understanding of policy, and I particularly like the points about [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] ("...''users should be guided through Dispute Resolution''..."). All in all, I believe Daniel is ready for the Mop + Bucket ~
'''Oppose''' for someone who claims to want to fight vandalism, you have filed few or no reports at [[WP:AIV]]  '''
'''Oppose''' very few projectspace edits and contributions show litte knowledge of policy, and this is not sufficiently supported by the answers; comments and responses to oppose and neutral comments below shows a reluctance to warn users - schools get blocked as well! Excellent edits; not so sure about adminship. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Oppose''' - I have the strong feeling that you do not have a solid grasp on what Admins do. I have a hard time supporting a candidate who is asking for the mop to deal with vandalism issues, yet has very little experience reverting vandalism. I honestly suggest that you set aside the idea of adminship for a couple months and take the time to become better familiar with admin procedures and processes. I think you should also spend a little time each day as a recent changes patroller- which is the easiest way to jump into vandalism reverting. I will be much more open to supporting you after you have a much stronger projectspace background.
I'm sorry, but I must oppose per Ck lostword and Trusilver.  I also believe you don't have a grasp of what admins do, and have little experience in that area. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' Little evidence of significant involvement in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. This is the only guide we have with which to judge your competence in admin-related tasks. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - Per Trusilver. I just really don't see the need for the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Oppose''' I don't see why you need the tools. You say you will fight vandalism but you have made few or no edits to AIV I'm not sure if you even know what AIV is.
'''Oppose'''. You do not seem to get that although the tools arent that bad, not having the knowledge to use them can cause damage - even if it is not immediately obvious that anything has been done wrong. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Oppose''' I see that you have relatively few edits in user talk page, which means that you don't communicate with users often. And your edit summary usage makes me worried.
'''Oppose''' Communication is the key to being an effective admin - you have to be able to transmit a clear and concise message to editors of all levels, from ten year-olds to post-Docs.  Your statement, answers to questions and use of the the User Talk space doesn't reveal your abilities in this area, so I suggest that you garner more experience in interaction before attempting another RfA in the future.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I must agree with the above. You need to show some more interest in the varying districts of Wikipedia, such as a WikiProject or [[WP:AIV|AIV]].
'''Weak oppose''' sorry. I feel that you are just a little too inexperienced, and I recommend you become some more familiar with processes like AfD and vandalism patrolling. Don't hesitate to reapply when you feel ready! You may also want to try a [[WP:ER|Editor Review]]. <b>
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' - ''so once an admin I would look at what other admin duties need to be done. I’ve read the admin guides, I know what can be done...'' This makes little or no sense at all. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose. On the one hand you do really good editing work, but I can't see much evidence of vandal fighting, which you claim to want to take part in. You have no edits to [[WP:AIV]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Daniel.Cardenas&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 very little user talk space interaction], so if you are reverting vandalism you don't appear to be warning or reporting users. I'd suggest returning once you're more accomplished in the fields you want to take part in. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral leaning towards oppoose''' I have to agree with Zeibura 100%.
'''Neutral''' - I have to admit Daniel is a little experienced in editing, but the opposers have some points. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - per Zeibura. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' To avoid piling on.  I just don't honestly see why you want/need the tools.
'''Neutral''' also avoiding the pile-on. You should get an understanding of what the tools do and when and why they are used, especially regarding vandalism and static/dynamic IPs. The vandalism templates are as much for us to track when, and for which edit, a vandal was notified as they are for actually warning the user. All of us learn as we go, but you've got to know the basics of mopping before you get the key to the janitor's closet. It doesn't seem that you need access to the heavy disinfectants yet. -
'''Neutral''' Would have been support, however few reports to AIV when claiming to want to fight vandalism is not encouraging.
'''Strong support''' as nominator. Daniel is not going to abuse the tools and will be an asset to the project with them.
'''Full Support''' - I know this guy in real life, so if by some weird chance he abused the tools, I could hunt him down and break his legs :P Confident he'll make a great admin. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Support''' per nom, answers, overall record. Qualified candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nomination.  Also nice to have [[User:David Fuchs]] making sure his legs are intact or broken, as the case may be.  :)  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  An experienced editor.  I'd prefer a higher percentage of mainspace edits, but he's done some good work, both in the encyclopedia and in the admin-like areas.  He's also quite active, so he'd likely be available if needed.
'''Support''' This is a very experienced user and I am confident that he will not abuse the tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' This guy looks like he knows what he is talking about and by looking at his history, he looks like he is self confident and will be willing to stand his ground in arguments ( like : [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_5#Template:Obnoxious|this]]).
'''Support'''.  [[User:Danielfolsom|Danielfolsom]] is clearly an experienced editor and one who has a grasp of what [[WP:CIVIL]] is all about.  He'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' - enough experience gathered to be a great admin. But please learn from the mistakes that're pointed out below. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support'''. Willingness to being open to recall is crucial. Being able to take a stance against experienced editors and not fearing criticizing them shows good backbone. Good luck! --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Very cautious support''' - I'm concerned by a couple of things (like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danielfolsom&diff=prev&oldid=149675608]) for instance, but I can't get past the feeling that Daniel, like many of us, is a good user who's made some bad judgment calls.  I strongly encourage Daniel, should this RFA pass, to take a deep breath when he sees criticism and look for the spirit behind it.  No one here wants you personally to fail or wants to see bad things happen; we all want the project to succeed with you as a part of it.  I'm afraid that you take criticism very personally and sometimes lose sight of the basic kindness and decency of most people on here, who really are some of the most gentle people I've ever met.  Criticism is nothing more than someone bringing to your attention something that bothers them, and it takes a lot of courage to go to someone and say "here's an area where I think you can improve".  Please take that in the spirit in which it is meant - including with this missive.  I also encourage you to cultivate mentors - beyond the ones you already have - because a breadth of opinion is always helpful (there's ''nothing'' wrong with the mentors you have, and I respect each of them; I just think "more is better").  Then, listen to your mentors.  That said, I '''support''' your request for adminship and wish you the very best of luck.  -
I'm going to go ahead and give my '''support''', as I've seen you having good interactions with others, notably the particularly annoying user [[User:EverybodyHatesChris|EverybodyHatesChris]]. Being able to handle an editor like that with a fair bit of coolness is good for an admin. That said, some of the opposers, particularly Bishonen, do bring up valid points that you should heed, regardless of the result of this RFA.
'''Weak Support'''. Good editor overall, and some of the opposers' criticisms aren't very fair and/or have been explained away. However, I see one or two valid concerns (particularly those raised by iridescent and Pedro) which push me to a Weak Support. This RfA may well end without consensus, but I urge Daniel to try again in a few months and take the opposers' points under advisement.
'''Support''' - looks okay to me.
'''Strong Support''' I had dealings with the applicant some months ago and was very impressed by the sheer commitment and good faith they showed in some very heated exchanges, which included taking time away to allow tempers to cool. This is a rare case where I know something of the editor, and everything I know makes me believe they would be an asset to Wikipedia in having the tools.
Per Walton, basically. The opposers raise legitimate concerns, but many of them are trivial and not really related to adminship. I believe Daniel is editing with the best interests of the project in mind, and that the net effect of granting him the sysop tools would be a positive one. I'm not sure that this RFA is going to pass, if it doesn't, please take the advice of the opposers to heart, and if you retry in a few months I'm sure you'll pass! <b>
'''Support''' - I like your style and the answer to question 8.
'''Looks like Siva1979 is supporting everyone's RfA while opposing my RfA! Making me jealous...''' er, I mean '''Support''' per Siva1979.
Good contributor, good record. Worth handing the tools to.

'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned about the candidates' notion of "assuring that policies are followed on talk pages"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Russia&diff=149478453&oldid=149474024] by means of interjecting alphabet soup (e. g. [[WP:CIVIL]]) into content discussions. It seems rather crude, or even counter-productive. I don't feel happy about the idea of an admin admonishing editors in this manner, with the authority of the block button behind him. On an occasion I noticed, back in August, Daniel gave the experienced editor [[User:Irpen|Irpen]] a "reminder" of WP:CIV, probably our best-known policy, ''and'' one I can't for the life of me see that Irpen had violated. Please make your own judgment of the dialogue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Russia&oldid=149610952#Off-topic_deflection here], at [[Talk:History of Russia]]. As a way of keeping the peace on a contentious talkpage, which has seen a lot of ''real'' incivility, Daniel's intervention seemed to me clumsy at best, and predictably it had no good results. I queried its wisdom at the [[WP:ER|Editor Review]] which Daniel had running at the time, but I received prickly and self-righteous answers from him.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_review/Danielfolsom] I'm sorry, but none of this suggests to me that the candidate is ready for adminship. However. If I can see some evidence that his intervention technique, or general interaction with others, has become more mellow and productive since August, I'm prepared to reconsider my opposition.
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen. The whole farcical [[History of Russia]] "improvement" drive was made worse by Daniel's involvement. For instance, I added two citations from reliable sources (standard English-language histories of Russia) to a statement Daniel was questioning for no good reason - and he still wouldn't accept them. He didn't appear to know what he was talking about but this didn't stop him intervening and making the situation worse. Wouldn't trust him in a position of power. --
'''Oppose''' – Ran into you before, my past interaction with you was enough to set of my alarm bells that I should oppose (for example: [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_5#Template:Obnoxious|this]]). It wouldn't surprise me if you would delete articles because they're "obnoxious". Your mainspace edits are also very worrying (or I should say: lack of).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Danielfolsom&namespace=0&year=&month=-1] The most shocking thing though is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tour_de_France&diff=prev&oldid=155327613 this], since when has "common knowledge" (or I dare say your knowledge) been a reliable source?
'''Oppose'''. I remember Daniel primarily as a guy who was "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev_Expedition_(1018)#Extended_hold talking privately]" with Piotrus about promoting his page to good articles. Given a number of concerns associated with the opaqueness of the GA nomination process, I find private communications between the nominator and the reviewer morally reprehensible. That's just me, though. --
'''Oppose''' Your recent mainspace history is extremely unimpressive — especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_London_Harbor_Light&diff=161408346&oldid=138888032 this move], where 10 seconds on Google would have shown you that you were moving it away from the correct name as given on [http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/light/newlonhb.htm their own website]. You say you specifically want the tools for deletion, but have participated in a grand total of ''one'' XfD in the past month. You say "I have a good eye for what can be improved and what should be deleted", but a skim through your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&limit=500&target=Danielfolsom&namespace=0 deleted mainspace edits] shows a huge number of edits to articles that went on to be deleted, '''one''' successful CSD tag in July, and no other (successful) CSD tagging since March other than a couple of dead redirects. As per Matthew, while it's in the past I'm deeply unimpressed by the arrogant & bitey [[:Template:Obnoxious]], and [[User:Danielfolsom#.7B.7BObnoxious.7D.7D|this comment on your user page]] seems to indicate that you still support the sentiments it expressed & feel you were hard-done-by when it was deleted (for those who can't read deleted edits, the text of {{tl|obnoxious}} was ''"An editor is concerned that this section may have too many insignificant facts in it, creating an obnoxious look. Please consider shortening this section to an appropriate size, with only noteworthy information"'') and, like Matthew, I get the strong feeling you'll delete content because you think it looks ugly.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid. The obnoxious template was a pretty bad idea. I'm concerned by the [[History of Russia]] discussion too. But I really wish you hadn't answered my question with "I'm in a rush", and then echoed that in a response in neutral. Whilst I appreciate your courtesy in trying to reply promptly, ''rushing'' is '''not''' a good admin trait. Better to have waited and replied with all the facts than to rush a response at your own RfA. It worries me that you would therefore carry that attitude to [[C:CSD]] where rushing is right off the agenda. I'm sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. Interaction with Irpen was counterproductive and indicates a lack of experience. Not what we'd want to see in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per
'''Oppose'''. Believe it or not, but after few interactions with the Danielfolsom‎ I've got the impression that I've got to wathlist the then red link ''<nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom]]</nowiki>'' as it seemed to me that the user is an "admin material" and this is where he was heading. Answers to questions are non-persuasive to say the least. Evasive answer to Q3 is alarming. Q1 and Q2: I see too much interest in policing and too little interest in content writing. That's not an inclinations I like in admins. While some of non-writing admins are actually good ones, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do (bossy attitude). The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Q2: three diffs provided in an answer to the Q2 do not show much, if any, content actually written by an editor. He merely improved and standardized article's referencing. Useful, no doubt, but not very significant. His userpage lists [[User:Danielfolsom#WP:Spotlight|very few articles]] and mentions [[History of Russia]] among his contributions. I was around at the time and also saw no significant edits to the article from the user other than purely formatting ones. Actually, his conduct at [[talk:History of Russia]] during [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Russia&offset=200708080223&limit=67&action=history this editing period] was not very encouraging., to say the least and shows exactly what often happens when the users who don't write get themselves involved as judges in the content disputes. When this was raised at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Danielfolsom]] by Bishonen, the candidate's response was totally unacceptable. In response to a critical review, Danielfolsom removed the comments with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danielfolsom&diff=next&oldid=149656421 summary] that implied the reviewer's bad faith saying: "evidently the editor is less interested in actually resolving a misunderstanding than being able to show off with snide remarks". This is unacceptable for an admin. Additionally, I am alarmed by the user's preference to conduct behind the scenes communications when there is a conflict going on. In addition to Ghirla's example, I remember at least one more and there is no way to know how many more was there. --
'''Oppose''' based on the unsatisfying answers to the questions as well as some of the responses to previous opposes.  User's contributions are great and there's a lot of good things to be said about this candidate, but there are also some issues to be resolved.  Some of the diffs given above and some of the responses seem a little bite-y.  A valuable contributor who doesn't seem quite up to par for what I'd expect of a sysop, so I can't support now.  Perhaps with some improvement I'd say otherwise next time.
'''Oppose''':  The distinction between "privilege" and "honor" indicates something borne out in the editor's actions.  He appears to view being an admin as a badge rather than a set of duties, and his answers to the questions show that he wants to ''fix'' things.  We are not broken, and  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danielfolsom&diff=next&oldid=149656421 this] sets my teeth on edge.  A person overtly interested in mandatory "civility" on talk pages using an edit summary that is a frank ''insult'' to a user generally viewed as conciliatory?  Oh no.  In addition to the puzzling behavior on the Russian talk, the private communications, and the concerns raised by Bishonen, this kind of rudeness and inability to comprehend, much less incorporate, the other peoples' perspectives is anathema.
'''Oppose''': There are many good things about this editor, but there are a few things that concern me. First and foremost is Daniels answer to one of the questions where s/he was asked how he/she would /does handle conflicts between other users, Daniel stated that at times he backs out and lets other users work it out. If Daniel is to become an admin his role will not be step out of a conflict, but to take hold of it and work it out in a civil manner. Second, i see very few (7 I believe) reports to AIV which makes me wonder if this user has the proper level of knowledge to justifiably block users who abuse Wikipedia. I am also disappointed in the excuse that Daniel makes, stating that he does not have the time and was rushed, that is not a good excuse for making a mistake, and if your are to be an admin you must have the time to make appropriate edits. I believe that this editor needs a few more months, gain more experience performing admin tasks, and then re-nom.
'''Oppose''', per Bishonen, Iridescent and Irpen. Not enough experience as an editor, and thus, not surprisingly, clearly not a conflict solver (yet).
'''Oppose''' sadly.  Normally, 3,000 edits is plenty to see if we can trust one with the mop.  So Danielfolsom passes the edit count test.  I've not run into this editor, yet the more I see, the less I can trust.  This user seems not to have learned from Editor review, or from mistakes in the past, as noted above.  I ''love'' to cite policy at XfD, but it's sort of a pain to do so on talk pages.  Please apply in a few more months, when I have more to see.
'''Oppose'''. Enough edits but we need people who can administrate that knows Wikipedia like the back of their hand. Yes, we all make mistakes but if he is still learning, I think we should keep it on hold for another few months when he has passed the learning stage. Thats my only problem. Otherwise I would support, but another few months maybe.
'''Oppose''' I like Daniel on a personal level but I have observed fairly recent incidents which make me worry what he would get up to if he actually had admin tools behind him, particularly the 'block' button. One fairly recent incident which I observed was when an editor complained on ANI about behaviour on one of the anthropology articles (I think it might have been one of the African anthropology articles where people were disputing textual content and the use of images, but I can't find it right now). I went over there to have a look but Daniel was already there. I appreciate his enthusiasm and I believe wholeheartedly that he has the project at heart, I'm just very concerned about what would happen if he had the tools and could actually follow through on some of his comments that imply or suggest imminent blocks and so forth. On the anthropology page, he really aggravated the situation, said a good faith editor was engaging in "trolling," while he was giving out warnings to others for similar comments (I felt that some warnings implied he had the ability to block, though I don't believe he was deliberately trying to misrepresent himself as an admin) and declaring a so-called "consensus" when there really was quite clearly not one. And then not long after someone questioned his credibility, he vanished without bothering to respond, leaving the page in a state. I got the impression that he would like to sweep into disputes, reprimand people, doll out some blocks and then disappear, his job done (but in reality, with the page in even more of a state and the editors even more worked up and stressed out). I hoped, perhaps, that this was just an off day but I see from the comments and diffs posted above by Bish and others that it wasn't. I do like Daniel, though, and I would like to see him work on the issues raised in this RfA, maybe slow down a bit, and come back again when he is sure that these issues are no more.
'''Oppose''': I find Ghirla's comments to be very concerning indeed. Also per Bishonen and several of the other points above.  In adition the candidate does not seem to have a particularly strong mainspace history record.
'''Weak Neutral''' I hate to do this, and may change my mind later, but while I realise that Daniel is a great editor with a sustained edit count and that is great; however I would have liked to see a more rounded experience; i.e. more reporting at AIV (currently kate doesn't show any >13 edits to it) and in general more tagging at CSD (I can't seem to find any at all in your contribs) as if you say you plan on participating there but there is not much evidence of actual participation to get a feel of what is suitable or not, you may receive some grief for deleting articles that are borderline as you would be an admin. Also I see there is not much RC patrol going on; and while is is not a prerequisite for adminship, dealing with the conflicts arising from there, would be of use as as admin you would have the blocking capability. Other than that, your article contribution is solid.
'''Neutral''' I believe I could have supported, but the issues raised on the opposing side just does not allow me to.  Best of luck.
'''Neutral''' The opposing sides issues also are slightly convincing. He has a good amount of edits though, so i will stay neutral.
'''Neutral''' I've interacted with the candidate at [[Veganism]], where he contributed positively by dealing fairly with a disruptive editor (who shall remain nameless).  However, he and another editor engaged in this [[Talk:Veganism/Archive10#Health|long and ultimately pointless discussion]] about the propriety of criticism sections, the content and tone of which leads me to be unable to support his RFA.
'''Neutral'''. I'm generally happy but I have some small issues. Civility is one, although most of the issues quoted above are tiny things, and the answers to questions are a bit poor. Also have some issues with the confrontational attitude towards opposers.
'''Neutral''' I have a strong idea where this nomination is headed, so my !vote really doesn't matter. Two observations I have are: (1) some relatively petty things - IMHO - have been brought up: whether or not the Tour de France is the best-known bike race (or not) is one example; (2) some more important issues have been brought up that led me to be neutral here - I don't think nominees need to be picture perfectly pleasant Doris Day types, but this editor has more than a couple of cited examples of falling below standards of civility I would like to see; (3) a final observation, some editors have equated a willingness to defend a minority position with the willingness to use admin tools to thwart the majority position - editors should be very careful making that leap of illogic.
'''Neutral'''. I think "the regulars" should be templated more often and should have the humility to read the policies they're violating. I don't think citing policies is a bad thing, and this user seems to make good faith efforts to improve articles. That said, some of the other concerns by the opposition resonate with me. User perhaps needs to be a bit more diplomatic.
'''Neutral'''. Want to support and will support you, Danielfolsom, if your intervention style keeps evolving the way it seems to have of very recently. Wishing to ''mediate'' in conflict situations is certainly commendable, but it gets tricky when you rush in with the attitude of an ''arbitrator'' or ''judge''. I agree with Luke: a bit more diplomatic would strenghten my support, and so might a bit less bossy. Some of the examples given above, specifically surrounding the discussions on [[Talk:Veganism]], [[Talk:History of Russia]], and [[Talk:Negroid]], are a bit too rigid and recent for me to support your candidacy yet. My reservations aren't strong enough to oppose either. Hence neutral. Good luck. ---
'''Moral Support''' You seem like a nice guy and a great addition to the project (as displayed by your eagerness to take on a bigger role).  However, you might want to withdraw this RFA from consideration, as you might become discouraged by the large number of oppose votes that could come.  I suggest checking out some of the recent successful RFA's to see what the community is looking for in an administrator. '''''Cheers!'''''
'''Mid-wikibreak oppose''', too new, malformed RFA.
'''Oppose'''. Way too soon.'''
'''Oppose''' you have only been editing since June 4, and have fewer than 200 edits with very little user of edit summaries. Your RfA was also malformed (placed at the end of the RfA list). I'm sorry but you need a lot more experience both in time spent and the number of edits you have before anyone can fairly judge your suitability to be an admin here. Good luck next time,
'''Oppose''' - has been a member for too little time. I hope to be able to vote "Support" next time =) '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="#A8A8A7">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Oppose''' you've only been editing for 8 days mate, I suggest you read up about being admin and look at successful RFAs.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per above.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Oppose''' per my [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|different standards on different days]]. Most notably: (f) < 1000 edits (and eight days of editing) and (o) malformed RfA. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per comments above.--<b>[[User:SomeStranger|<font color="orange">SomeStrang</font>]]<i>[[User:SomeStranger/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]</i>
'''Oppose''' - Daniel, the standards now are pretty high. I agree that you probably would make a good administrator, but this RfA simply can't succeed. -
'''Sad Oppose'''. Just not enough experience yet. Keep it up, and you'll make a great admin someday!<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' - has at least 1 mainspace edit. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry, but you have very little experience to show you wouldn't abuse the tools.  Despite your good intentions, I cannot trust you with adminship.  I suggest you withdraw this nomination and get in about 6 months of editing before requesting adminship again.  Sorry.  <strong class="plainlinks">
No, I think not. The fact that you are suggesting you should be an admin after so little work and association suggests a great lack of knowledge of our project. Please copnsider withdrawing and coming back in six months or so. -
'''Oppose'''. The candidate currently has little experience. I have nothing against him but adminship requires a reasonable level of experience as a user so that people can have reasonable assurances that you will be able to make sensible judgements.
'''Strong support'''. Dantheman has been around quite a while and is a very able mediator for MedCom. I trust him completely. Although his contributions may not be as consistent as is often looked for in candidates, I feel that Dan has many positive qualities to make up for this. He's shown he understands Wikipedia policies and is a decent recent change patroller. Can only do good things with the mop. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - looks good to me.  Mediation is never a simple thing, and experience has taught me it requires a cool head and patience.  Excellent admin qualities.  Contribs look good too.  No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''- if he is trusted enough to be able to mediate, then I can certainly trust him with the mop. Excellent vandal-fighting, good participation at AfD = no reason to oppose (except Mattew's) :-) --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support''' Matthew makes a good point, but I doubt he will abuse the tools.
Strong support. '''
'''Support''' I don't have any previous experience with this user, but I have to say he seems like a  good editor. Matthew has a good point, however I think that a wikipedian able to be on the mediation committee is a responsible one. And will not misuse the tools. -
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - Eddie hit it on the head; I highly doubt that he will abuse the tools, he is a great mediator, he's done his part fighting vandals and has contributed thoughtfully at AfD.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - if he's good enough for [[User:WJBscribe]], he's good enough for me.  -
'''Support''' Good Track and impartial.
'''Support''' ggod answer to my question. No reason to oppose--
'''Support'''.  Matthew opposing is usually a good sign the RFA should be supported, as Matthew's trolling of RFAs is becoming more and more facetious (literally and figuratively).  Participation on MedCom suggests he understands all he needs to understand.
'''Support''' - why not? Good enough answers, MedCom experience is awesome. I'm so not swayed, either, by the opposes here -
'''Support''', candidate looks good and MedCom experience is a plus. First oppose is absolutely ludicrous. --
'''Support''' Some of the oppose comments are verging on personal attacks. I do wonder how long you'll stay with the project, but can see only limited risks in granting you sysop rights.
'''Support''' Oh yes. Q5 is the deal clincher here. You show evidence of checking and understanding and that deleting a newbie's first effort without warning or coaching is a violation of [[WP:BITE]] in spirit - something I also feel strongly about. We need more admins with the capacity to check and double check, and who understand the community side of things and I see all of that here. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support'''. Opposers raise no valid concerns.
'''Support''' &ndash; <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;">[[User:AGK|<font color="green">'''Anthøny'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like someone who will take a good, measured approach to using the mop.
'''Support''' I can't find anything in Dan's contribs that makes me think he can't be trusted with the tools, but the lack of editing in the four months prior to August does trouble me somewhat. But support from people like WJB, Daniel and Alison, whose opinions I value has pushed me over the borderline to a support. If your RfA passes, and you have large gaps in editing again, please make sure that you are up-to-date on any policy/guideline changes before using the tools again because a lot can change in a couple of months. '''
'''Support'''. The lack of edits don't make me question the fact that he's responsible enough for the mop, and he's got good reason to have it.
'''Support''' seems like a good user.
'''Support''' - Nice to see a candidate who is active at MedCom can certainly go aways in dealing with disputes admins face. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Level-headed and helpful.--
'''Support'''. A good mediator who doesn't let Wikipedia dominate his life is, to me, a quality admin. I am distressed by the voters who oppose him ''for taking Wikibreaks'', and by their microscopic passive-aggresive edit-counting ("If you really loved Wikipedia, you'd make 50 edits every month").
'''Support''' Good mediators make excellent admins. I'm confident in your ability. ~
'''Support''' a member of MedCom is a trusted editor; however, I too am wondering why you self-nom'd (nomed? nomd?) so quickly after your last RFA (in terms of actual time editing, not the calendar). Unfortunately, we seem to have lost two prolific admins just this week, so we need trusted users to work with any time they can spare. I trust you. -
'''Support''': An editor on the MedCom trusted by WJBscribe and Daniel is not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Has the potential, has the backing, but now must be able to produce as well.  Good luck!
'''Support''' There are no real problems with this user. There is no reasonable reason not to grant adminship.
'''Support''' He takes part in mentoring and mediation. Why not give him mop?
'''Support'''. None of the oppose arguments sway me to oppose.
A bit late, but '''exceedingly strong support'''. I trust Dan to make the right judgement when dealing with administrator duties.
'''Support''' - this guy seems a good candidate. His ability to mediate also seems to be good, and I trust his judgement. I hope this passes. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Though <s>some opposers<s> Black Falcon raises valid concerns, I do not consider them significant enough to warrant an oppose. But I hope the candidate takes the concerns into consideration. A good user overall and can be trusted with sysop rights. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' inactivity/editcountitis is not a reason to oppose for me. I trust this user with the mop, and each of us has a different level of activity, nothing wrong with that. Having more admins can't hurt. <b>
Support (changed from neutral). I'm confident he can catch up to recent developments. Mainspace editing experience is a bit of a concern, but not a valid reason to oppose an otherwise trustable user. —'''
He's the man.
'''Support''' He will contribute when he can. I sense the requisite knowledge of policy to use the block and delete buttons responsibly. I believe he can be trusted with the tools despite the gaps.
'''Oppose''' — "I have demonstrated that I will not misuse the admin tools.", no... you've demonstrated you know how to click revert (but you haven't shown you know how to contribute... :-\).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Dantheman531&namespace=0&year=&month=-1]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you say you want to help with backlogs but you don't have very many edits per month. More frightening though, you've barely edited at all in the past four months, only to spring up again and then go for another RFA surprisingly quick. And comparing the months you edit in to your RFAs, you seem to be working extra hard to pass RFA, and then ignoring WP until you think you're ready to run again, this makes me think you either don't think you can contribute very well without a mop, or that you're someone's sock. I'm sorry, but even without these concerns you've got less than 800 edits this year, that's only ''100 edits a month'', not to mention long periods of inactivity, which makes me think you ''don't really care'' about cleaning out backlogs --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose''' per Matthew and Lucid. <s>Also per q2, in the diff you showed you formatted the citations as embedded links instead of using inline citations which shows to me that you may be unfamiliar with <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> footnotes.</s>
'''Oppose'''. I'm not so much worried by the gaps in editing (as long as the editor has a strong password), but the lack of evidence of encyclopedia building and of discussion on article talk pages suggests the editor has yet to achieve sufficient experience for the admin role.
'''Oppose''' - I am concerned by the low edit count regarding the amount of months you've spent here - especially the fact you've made a frightfully low number of contributions in the months running up to this. Has the significant rise in edit count been for the sake of this? Extremely inconsistent editor, with low mainspace and wikipedia space contributions. Not ready yet. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - Lack of talk space and that 3 month gap looks weird. Also after reading the answers it looks like the candidate is only going to fight vandalism. That can be done without being an admin. More interaction with other editors would change my vote to a support. -
'''Oppose''' per Espresso Addict. I'd advise the candidate to get more experience building out articles past stub/start class.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of recent activity (only 4 edits made between 29 March and 9 August).
'''Oppose''' per Singopo.
'''Weak oppose'''. Inactivity itself is not an issue for me, but the accompanying lack of familiarity with developments during that time may be. I bring this up because of two recent AfD nominations by the candidate: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Almontaser]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kern's]]. Although sources were found and added in each case, that's not why I'm opposing; rather, the wording of both nominations suggests a lack of research on the subject prior to starting the AfDs. Normally, I wouldn't oppose for just two AfD noms, but there's also the fact that these two nominations constitute 50% of the candidate's AfD noms since he resumed editing earlier this month. — '''
'''Oppose''' per pretty much all comments above --'''
'''Oppose''' Though you've obviously improved, you haven't contributed in the recent past consistently enough for me to be comfortable endorsing you. It's not a threshold of edit coutn you must pass, but you must have enough edits made for me to judge your contributions satisfactorily, and you don't imo. Also per Lucid's comments.
'''Weak oppose''' - recent support voters don't appear to be making any sense - there's nothing wrong with taking wikibreaks - however reasonble concerns have been raised in regard to low amount of contributions since his last RfA.
'''Oppose''' - As per VanTucky - I am sorry, my friend. I do not believe you are experienced enough in terms of editing articles. (But other than that, everything is fine)
'''Weak Oppose''', sorry. Too many concerns.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Even if he is a mediator, his editing between RfA 2 and 3 conveys some power hunger. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''' per Maxim. We don't need sysops running around acting like they have a badge. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Sorry but a long wiki-break very soon after the last unsuccessful nomination, followed quickly by a large number of minor edits and then a self-nom when the nominee re-appeared does raise concerns about temperament in the face of stress and obsession with becoming an admin at the expense of contributing. Also, for somebody who aims to focus primarily on vandal fighting, has very few edits to AIV and therefore too little exposure to the escalation process.
'''Neutral leaning on support''' - Lucid's got a point there. I don't think you'll abuse the mop, but I would like to see a little more active editing. I do support the fact that you've been a great med. --
'''Neutral''' My basic problem here is not that you don't have a hundred edits a day and it's not that you've had periods of inactivity -- I myself had to absent for nearly two months and slow down the pace of my editing. My problem is that you had an RFA in March, you had almost no edits at all between March and August 14 -- literally a handful -- and then in the last two weeks there's a spurt of edits and then another RfA. And not only that, but this isn't even the first time. Something similar happened between the November and the March RfAs. Why not take the community's advice and edit steadily for a couple of months? You don't have to edit all the time, just enough to show interest and to show a (mostly) consistent presence. --
'''Neutral''' For a dedicated vandal fighter, the low number of reports to AIV makes me wonder if you're really qualified to block users, but I'm not going to oppose solely because of that
'''Neutral''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070829030836&limit=500&target=Dantheman531], you made few edits after you last Rfa before becoming active within the last month. A more consistent editing pattern would be better. --
'''Support''' - Your contributions indicate that you can be trusted and you have just over 4000 Edits and your contribution to Wikiproject is good and even though you aren't very experienced (5 months), I think you would be able to use the tool wisely..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I don't see anything that leads me to believe this user will abuse the admin tools. No, not even his spelling errors.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''- friendly experienced editor.
'''Strong Support''' Great user and good editor very friendly. Deserves adminship and will most definitally use it for good.
'''Weak Support''' - Good record, although I'd like to see more experience in projectspace. Nonetheless, adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' My interactions with the user through the [[TF:DMC|Devil May Cry taskforce]] leave me trusting him. While admittedly a little short on experience, I've got no doubts that he would use the tools correctly. Adminship is not a big deal, after all. Cheers,
'''Support''' You seem like a good, reliable person so why not support you? Shalom.--
--
'''Support''' I suggest all those with editcountitis/timecountitis get yourselves cured quickly. 241 is ''not'' mere. I was promoted with similar experience to this user. I see most opposers have given no thought past numbers, or any rationale why it matters at all. '''''
'''Support''', I must say I am quite puzzled at some of the comments below, and glad to see Durin is taking a role in defending against those puzzling comments. A mere 241 Wiki-space edits? that's double of what I had over a year ago when I was elected an admin, the standards are becoming way too high and this is really supposed to be no big deal. Keep up the good work DDF, even if for some strange reason consensus cannot be reached here. [[Image:MASH UP.PNG|20px]] <font color="red">
'''Support'''. The candidate [[User:Vassyana/admin|measures up]]. Metrics are meaningless. Either the candidate "gets it" or they don't. Metrics aren't going to tell anyone that. Only bothering to review the editor's contributions will reveal that.
'''Support'''.  User has demonstrated his trustworthiness.  I'm really baffled by people who can say things like "I think your'e a great editor and your edit history shows experience and prudence - you just need X more edits/months/whatevers".  I'd trust this user with the mop, his answers demonstrate he'd use it wisely.  I say give it to him.
'''Support''' per Arkyan and Durin.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support''' Intelligent answers and real understanding... I think you'd make a great admin

'''Support''', this was a hard choice for me, mostly because of the time you've been on Wikipedia. I don't think you'll abuse the tools, and I'm pretty sure that you'd put them to good use. If this RfA fails, don't give up hope! Be sure to try again in a few months. '''''
'''Oppose, for now''' - Dark Dragon Flame, I'm sure you will make a good admin relatively soon (and I really like your answer to question #4 above), but the anon reservation above, along with your low participation in the Wikipedia namespace (a mere 241 edits), makes me want to see more administrative activity from you before I support.  My advice is for you to become more involved in the Wikipedia community itself, such as at its desks and request pages, helping on backlogs, participating in policy discussions, etc.  I'm sure you will do fine on these, and I look forward to supporting you for adminship in the future, say 3 to 6 months and about a thousand Wikipedia namespace edits from now.  '''''
'''Oppose''' I echo The Transhumanist's comments and want to point out that hopefully soon, you will run again with more experience and succeed then.
'''Oppose''' I just don't think this user is quite ready to become an admin quite yet.  I have reservations against an edit war, and even though explained, just rubs me the wrong way.
'''Weak oppose''' I am concerned about this editor's upload history; there are a large number of deleted images most of which appear to  have been uploaded as "fair use" and subsequently deleted, and that concerns me.  Also, the spelling errors in the candidate's comments suggest a careless attitude that is not becoming in an administrator.  And I'm not exactly thrilled about the candidate's user page.  There is no glaring problem, just a lot of little annoyances that leave me uncomfortable with any option other than opposition.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, and not enough participation in the administrative side of things.
'''Oppose''' - a little too early.
'''Oppose''' - I have to oppose because there is no clear consensus emerging. These sorts of diffs - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sesame_Beginnings_to_Go:_In_My_Stroller&diff=prev&oldid=110995478], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Juan_Barea&diff=prev&oldid=122943930] - make me think that the candidate's not there yet. -
'''Weak Oppose''' - You're a good editor, but it's a bit too early in my opinion.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' candidates image and [[WP:SIG|signature]] (it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents) policy knowledge seems to be in an inadequate level at this time.
Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' You say in your self-nom  that you decided to apply today after another user suggested it. To me, and I may be wrong, it seems almost like an after thought. I would feel more comfortable knowing you had given more consideration to the task before applying. Maybe sit back and keeping working for a bit longer and then come back. I'm sure you'll breeze through then.
Inadequate understanding of WP:BLP. --
'''Oppose'''.  The bulk of this editor's project space contributions have been to WikiProject pages, which indicates a good familiarity with community but not with the policies here.  The candidate wants to help with AIV, but only has 26 edits to that page.  In four random reports that I looked more closely at, one was reported after only two warnings.  I'm not sure he is fully aware of blocking policy, and I'm not comfortable sending him out to start blocking vandals right now.  He also wants to help out with speedy deletions, but I see very little participation in XfD.  Again, I don't feel comfortable sending him out there to start deleting articles with so little experience in such matters. --
'''oppose'''. Too early to judge. Trends of behavior in conflicts unclear.
'''Neutral''': I think you are very close. A couple months and you will surely have a successful RfA. While you have a lot of contributions I think you need more time here. However I like the answers to your questions. Try in a couple months after trying to fix what's suggested above. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' you're definitely doing great, but I personally prefer you get a little more experience (time-wise) on Wikipedia.--
'''Neutral'''. I agree with Orphen that you are close, but I think you need to work on interactions more. Participating in an edit war is not a good thing. ···
'''Neutral''' I don't see quite enough experience with admin-like activity but candidate appears to be trustworthy. Like Transhumanist, I would recommend getting a little bit more involved in project space but the suggested 3-6 months of extra activity with 1000 Wiki-space edits seems like a definite overkill.
'''Neutral''' You are doing well but as [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] said come back here withing 6 months, we'll support you. Good luck. --
'''Neutral''' I do think you're well on your way to being ready for adminship, but I'm afraid you aren't quite there yet. I was looking for a more detailed answer to my questions, particularly the ability to quote the relevant policies: [[WP:BLOCK]] (which says you should be diligent in warning users who vandalize) and [[WP:CSD]]:A7. In particular the HillstoneLows example has enough of an ''assertion'' of notability (see [[WP:MUSIC]]'s notability criteria relating to national tours) that it should be Prod'ed not speedy deleted (IMHO of course, its a deliberately borderline case). Its also worth noting that grammatical errors and fixable [[WP:POV]] are never reasons to delete an article. I really feel you're on the verge of having the policy knowledge that successful admins have, but you're not quite there yet. Another couple of months and some more improvement and I expect you'll sail through. Good luck,
'''Neutral''' I perfer more time on Wikipedia (6+ month) before applying for adminship.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support''' per criteria set out on my talkpage.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more vandalfighters to help with the extra tools.--
'''Oppose''' not overwhelmed by the answers and also you state you'll be closing out AFD's but I don't see any experience in that area.  Also, patrolling pages for vandalism doesn't require the tools.
'''Oppose''' - I think you need more experience.  I don't see many reports to AIV, and if you are tagging pages as speedy, it doesn't look like you are notifying the creators.  You seem active with helping new users which is good, but not really in anything that needs admin tools. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry but you have not met the requirements, for me. You're not ready for these powers yet, so I have to oppose you in this position. Continue to do as you already are, and I think that you may be ready in, about, 1.6 thousand edits. --
'''Oppose''' Weak answers to questions and lack of experience is another thing, good edit summary usage though but I'd suggest increasing your mainspace edits a little and gaining about another 3-4 months experience.<b><font color="0066FF">
'''Oppose''' Should be closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but neither your answers nor your involvement to date in [[WP:NAME]] generate enough confidence as to your ability to safely handle the tools at this time.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' - well your contributions are really good but your answers above aint that pleasing i.e you neeed a bit more time on Wikipedia to get aquainted with the rules..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' Need better nom and answers. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' To be blunt, you need more experience in almost all parts of Wikipedia. Your answers also could use a little work (we're very picky). However, later, I think you could become a worthy nomination.
'''Moral neutral'''. Not a snowball's chance in hell this is going to succeed, so why pile up oppose? —
'''Neutral''' needs more experience and participation in project-space. -
'''Neutral''' - regretfully, I shall have to refrain from supporting this request for the [[WP:ADMIN|extra buttons]]. However, rather than oppose, I'd like to offer my humble advice to the editor: (1) get in some [[WP:XFD|deletion debate]] participation; (2) quit editing your user space (with particular emphasis your [[Special:Mypage/monobook.js|monobook.js]]) and get back onto the article editing that is visible at the start of your <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Darkest_Hour last five hundred contrib's]</span>; (3) have a look at [[WP:RCP]], and try to get in a few vandalism reverts a day. There is some great tools available, such as [[WP:VPRF|VandalProof]] or [[WP:LAVT|Lupin's Tool]]. Stick in there, and don't give up quite yet! / <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Moral neutral''': You have so few reports to [[WP:AIV]]. <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">
--
'''Oppose''' sorry, but all your edits are clean-ups using [[WP:AWB|AWB]].  Plus, the answers you gave to the questions leave alot to be desired.  I suggest you promptly withdraw, turn of AWB for a month or so, work on article building and some XFDs, then come back next year.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]]
I'm sorry, but the questions do not explain <s>what adminship is or</s> what you plan to do as an admin.  I also echo Sasha's comment here. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose''' This user's answers to questions are not good enough; they are way too short. To be an administrator, answers must be long (like at least six sentences each) and good enough for admin candidates. Try again in a few months with better answers and I'll support.
denomstrated that he has no need for the tools currently by his answers to the question. Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''. Gives no real reason why tools are needed. Also seems to avoid letting users know this is a self-nom. --
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
Sympathetic oppose. Get more experience in various areas, and ideally wait for someone else to offer to nominate you in a few months. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Oppose''' Don't take this too hard, it's not a reflection on your edits, this was just a bad RfA.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience in admin-related areas.  Too much reliance on [[WP:AWB|AWB]].  Answers don't reflect a need for the tools.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA, do some work in the Wikipedia namespace, and try a second time in a few months.  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
It appears I haven't added my name to the tally yet.  To be clear, I nominated, and support, David.
'''Support.''' Let's go out on a limb. His contributions seem solid, and his arbitration reports show dedication to the encyclopedia's community aspect. His answers are short, but sweet. I find Ral315 to be one of our more "conservative" administrators, and if he feels this candidate is suitable for adminship, and after looking through the contributions, I am inclined to agree.
'''Weak Support'''. I am satisfied that this candidate could use the tools and won't abuse them. I would have liked to have seen more in-depth reasoning for some of his XfD comments, but adminship is supposed to be no big deal and nothing I see persuades me to oppose.
'''Support'''.  Friendly, helpful and respectful to new users, seems to know his stuff per dispute resolution participation, good answers to questions, I thought every dif and discussion of his that I looked at was fine.  Good user, there's no doubt in my mind that he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' He's been around a long time, he has a good grasp of policy, and while he has edited limited mainspace articles, those he has edited are good and valuable additions to Wikipedia. Look at the [[Roman Litigation]] article. Also, he has experience with dispute resolution and admin tools can be helpful in that aspect of things. ~ ''
'''Support''' I do like his edits, and I think he could do well with a mop and bucket. [[User:FireSpike|'''FireSpik''']]
'''Support''' per ONUnicorn.
'''Strong Support''' David is calm, thoughtful, humble, dedicated to the project, and always open to discussion.  Whatever rough edges there may be in policy understanding, he has the ideal temperament to learn on the job (a compliment I don't normally give.)  He's truly an exceptional Wikipedian.
'''Support''', after examining the conflict Guettarda describes, I remain confident he can use admin tools appropriately.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm not all that familiar with David but I think not wasting his time in XfD is something to be commended, not punished for. It's perfectly possible to be a functioning admin without even ''caring'' about deletion. I'd like to see an end to opposing candidates on the basis of their not being all that familiar with our particular focus. Yeah, I know. Fat chance. But it would be nice.
'''Support''' per delldot.
I endorse what Delldot and Xoloz said. David certainly looks decent to me. There's nothing to suggest he's likely to misuse the tools, and his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=David.Mestel&namespace=4 Wikipedia space contribs] are fine; although they don't show that much xfd particpation, they show enough to make me think he understands what he's doing. However, I do second the preview button thing - the amount of edits you've used to create Signpost reports and format this rfa are quite high. See also my reply to your reply to Radiant.
'''Support'''--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Suport'''-- Generally pretty sensible around the place. --
'''Support''' I have no reason to oppose. -- ''
'''Support''' A sensible and level-headed editor who will be an asset as an admin.--
'''Support''' Would make a good administrator
'''Support'''. David is dedicated towards bettering the encyclopaedia, and is bright enough to know what he's doing.  All that is required.
'''Support''' I am very familiar with David's work and was seriously considering nominating him myself.--
'''Support''' - I agree with Proto's reasoning.
'''Support''': Nothing really unpleasent has come to light - no chance of abusing the tools here and there's little real evidence the candidate will misuse the tools either. Now, the candidate has been exposed to policy, I know the candidate has been around policy and I'm happier supporting this candidate than many with thousands of Wikipedia namespace edits but which don't always show knowledge of policy. <font face="Arial Black">--Kind Regards -
'''Strong Support''' Great guy that deserves the tools with pride. --'''
'''Oppose''' - I have gotten the impression that David isn't really familiar enough with policy, especially with regards to [[WP:NOR]].
I see little participation in process other than writing for the Signpost. Also, in that writing, it seems you should try to use the preview button a bit more often [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-11-20/Arbitration_report&action=history ]. In short, I think you could use some more experience.
'''Oppose''' good job on the ArbCom report for the Signpost. But articles written should be in the mainspace, I hope to see more activity in that and you need more participation in admin-related processes.
'''Oppose''' until more mainspace activity - I agree that too many admins do not participate in building the encyclopedia.--
Per Terence Ong and Dmz5. Sorry. -
'''Oppose'''. Assisting in the Signpost is good, but I'd prefer more work with policy on AfD comments and such. I have to agree with Terence Ong and Dmz5 on the lack of mainspace participation rather than just plain vandalism-reverting. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' - significant contributions in only 3 areas (main, User, and Wikipedia -- which were by far mostly Signpost), most edits in User Talk (40%!), too liberal use of Save Page button per Radiant (20+ edits to many single Signpost issues), only 200 non-minor edits in Main space, and most of all, while the articles written today look good, they should not have been used as addendums to your answers to questions. <s>Single Purpose Articles?</s> --
'''Oppose''' per a mix and match of the above regarding lack of variety and experience. Sorry, chief.
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace experience. Also, his question about and lack of use of the Preview button shows he needs more time. His apparent creation of 2 articles just for the RfA is questionable. May be a good admin in the future, though.
'''Oppose''' per Crum375.
I'd like to support you, because Xoloz is right; we could really use admins like you. But you don't participate enough in XfD and stuff for me to see that you understand policy. Signpost writing is all fine and well, but it's not something relevant to adminship. I must regretfully '''oppose'''. -
'''Oppose''' Pretty much everyone in the Oppose and Neutral categories already covered it. You are a good Wikipedian, just currently not qualified for Adminship. If you come back in 6 months with solid credentials, I will gladly support you. '''
'''Oppose''' a journalist doesn't need the admin tools --
'''Oppose''' for the reasons outlined by several others above. I think more experience is needed in areas applicable to use of the admin bit (XfD, policy discussions, etc.) ···
'''Oppose''' Regrettably. I'm sorry, but this user has much too little mainspace edits. I would expect about 3000. You should also participate more in XFD, to understand more about policy and stuff like that. All other areas are superb. Good luck. --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#C71585">'''Tohru Honda13'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tohru Honda13|Talk]]•
'''Neutral'''. You seem like a good user who's very active in the wikispace part of it, but you need to improve the content aspect of your game, as you have relatively few mainspace edits.--
'''Neutral''' Not as many mainspace edits as user Talk edits - a little more assistance in building the encyclopedia would change this to a positive opinion.
'''Neutral''' - Good user but needs more experience in encyclopedia building. I would recommend withdrawing this nomination and re-requesting at some latter date. ---
'''Neutral''' Swayed by issues brought up by those opposing.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' You're a good editor, but I really don't see a need for admin tools. Above, you state your primary duties will be patrolling [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:ANI]], and [[WP:AFD]]. However, I don't see any real participation in any of those areas - non-admins can still comment on [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:ANI]], and I'd recommend closing several unanimous-keep AfDs before stating those as your focus. ''
'''Neutral'''-The pros and cons seem pretty equal. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Neutral''' per the comments by ''[[User:Yuser31415|Yuser31415]]''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Neutral''' hmm...I feel that this user is well on their way to becoming an admin but ''more'' experience is necessary in this case, also I would suggest that you start giving more reasons on XFDs than just "per nom".
'''Neutral''' You have a lot of contributions, and a lot of Wikipedia edits which are good.  Your answer to the first question was good, but after that you kind of dwindle away.  I wouldn't mind to see you with a mop, but at the same time I don't know if I can completely trust you with the tools.'''
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. Needs slightly more edits in the mainspace.
'''Neutral''' Hmmmmmm... you're a good editor but you are missing some things that admins need to do such as mainspace and true interaction with other users (not a vandal warning). Good luck on that.--
'''Neutral''' suggest a bit more experience, a few more mainspace edits, but not far off.
'''Neutral''' I suggest you experience more of the encyclopedia.--
'''Neutral''' per Yuser. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Neutral''' as above.
'''Neutral''' Ganfon and Yuser articulated my feelings fairly accurately. I would consider David.Mestal a very promising candidate in the not-too-distant future, after a little more experience and a little more vision. --
'''Neutral''' I could go either way on this one. More mainspace work and you'd be there. I'm sure we'll see you with the mop someday soon.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Well you have been here for about 4 Months and you have about 1390 Edits which is Impressive but not Enough...Sorry..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' You're definitely on the right track, however a few problems: your edit summary usage is poor, your edit count is kind of low, you need better answers to the questions (mainly Q1). You'll need more time around and experience to earn the trust of the Wikipedians. Hope that helps! :-) -
'''Oppose''' besides the limited experience in Wikipedia, you seem to have no requirement for the tools whatsoever, you can already do everything you mention in Q1 without being an admin.
'''Oppose'''. I am not convinced that Davnel03 actually knows what adminship entails.
'''Oppose''' - Low edit count, low use of edit summaries, and your answer to Question 1 doesn't make me feel like like you know what an administrator does--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' Per question #1 -
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q1 does not give any indication of need for the admin tools, and suggests a defective understanding of the rôle of an admin. Also, your low edit count (1390 is not, I'm afraid, a "huge amount") does not show in-depth familiarity with the project.--
'''Oppose''' - quesion #1 and edit count.
'''Oppose''', Question 1 shows zero need for any tools at all. And if Q3 is regarding pro wrestling article, TJ's done a great job of keeping kayfabe out of those articles, so his reverts were most likely justified if I were to examine them more closely.--
'''Oppose''' your answers to the questions don't show any need for adminship or that you have a good grasp on what it entails. I am not even considering edit count in this. You need to gain more experience especially in AFD as your talk page shows an improper understanding of closure.  You need to improve your use of edit summaries. Give yourself  time to gain more experience and a better understanding of process. I suggest you withdrawn the nom and try again in three months--
'''Oppose''' It seems you do not require the tools for your edits, unfortunately you have very low usage for edit summaries - only 13% for major edits and less than half for minor edits, you are a good user but I think that making only making 1420 edits over a 5 month period and only approximately half of these being in the mainspace is too low, you are no the right track but to improve you could do some work at [[WP:XFD|XFD]] debates. Good luck for the future! (also you forgot to accept and sign your self nomination) Regards -
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. Please considering withdrawing and trying again when you have accumulated more experience on the project.--
'''Weak support''' - Been here for almost a year, several thousand edits (a little lower than I like to see) however good WT and WP space contributions in my opinion (I like to see actual wiki project involvement so that is a big plus).  Big downside, low edit summary usage.
'''Weak Support''' - Although the past behavioural concerns are serious, I think the opposers may be being a little harsh. The candidate's recent contributions reveal a strong record of editing, and I believe that the candidate deserves a second chance; I disagree with Kicking222's statement that the candidate cannot be trusted with the admin tools "at any time in the future". I also respect the fact that the candidate has been honest and owned up to his past actions. That said, however, I do think the past problems were too recent, and it was unwise to run for adminship at this time. But if the candidate edits productively and avoids any trouble for the next few months, I see no reason why an RfA in 3-4 months' time should not succeed.
'''INCREDIBLY strong oppose''' You were blocked for three months, and you were not unblocked until '''six weeks ago'''. The reason you were blocked, which you barely gloss over in your answers to the first three questions, is that you made ludicrous personal and legal threats and abused sockpuppets barely four months ago. In fact, I'm quite surprised you were even given a second chance, especially considering that you had multiple warranted charges levied against you, and that it took you a full 2.5 months to apologize. I'm glad to see you've changed, and from looking at your contribs, I can see that you're now a strong editor. I hope you continue down this path. With that said, there is no conceivable way I can trust you with the admin tools at this point, or at any point in the future. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per incivil behavior and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=122799268 the legal threat] that got him blocked in the first place.  He also seems to have had problems getting unblocked (see the discussion at [[User talk:Davnel03/Archive 1#Blocked_indefinitely]]) since he was using sockpuppets.  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IvoShandor]] failed on less than this.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' Someone that has only been unblocked for a little over a month has no business running for adminship. Your poorly written nom isn't very promising either, lack of punctuation or poor use of it leads to the type of unclear communication that can cause trouble --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Strong Oppose''' - A documented history of the user's past is available here - [[User:Skully Collins/Davnel03]]. It includes petty vandalism, personal attacks (including insulting people with serious illnesses), legal threats, blatant copyright violations and serial sockpuppeteering.
This RfA is coming too close on the heels of a block for ''extremely'' bad edits. I felt strongly enough that this RfA won't pass that I [[WP:SNOW|snowballed]] it[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDavnel03_2&diff=151840611&oldid=151840431], only to restore it at the user's request. I really, ''really'' feel that the user is unsuitable for becoming an administrator without substantial evidence that they have changed their ways (I'm not saying Davnel should ''never'' be an admin, I'm just saying that now is far, far too soon). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //

'''Oppose''': per [[User:Readro|Readro]].
'''Oppose''' This RfA shows poor planning in the light of recent events and also demonstrates that the author prevaricates when it comes to full answers to the standard questions.  Neither of these qualities makes for a good admin, so I recommend withdrawal of this RfA at this time and that the candidate continue to work hard at improving their standing within the community with a combination of admin-related and mainspace tasks before applying again at some future date.
'''Strong Oppose''' I would not trust a user who is extremely uncivil [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=122799268] as an administrator. Suggest Withdrawal. [[User:Nenyedi|<span style="color:green">'''Nen'''</span>]]
No way. Per everyone above, particularly User:Skully Collins/Davnel03. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Per all the previous comments. I agree with Riana, considering your mistakes in the past you are going to need to work extremely hard to show that you can be trusted. I suggest you immerse yourself in a few admin-related tasks and try this again in 4-6 months at a minimum.
'''Oppose''' Per above. Will take a long time of good behavior to live that down.
'''Oppose''' as a formality, per the evidence on Skully Collins' userpage.
'''Oppose''' per the other oppose !votes above. I'm sorry, but I personally feel that you can not be trusted with the sysop tools at this time.
'''Strong Oppose''' - The problem here is, civility. You where blocked 3 months ago, for legal threat and personal attack. We can't have those people as admins. Wait a few more months until that damage heals. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong oppose''' per above. '''<font color="red">^</font>
'''Support''' I feel you deserve a chance, don't make me regret this!!
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Too soon''' Davnel has made enormous strides since I lifted his indefinite block and he deserves to be proud of his achievments. However, being an admin is requires an expression of overwhelming community trust and I fear that he has some way to go before I has earned back the trust that he forfeited with his earlier behaviour. I also feel that there is an occasional tendency to over-react to situations (the response to Kurt's traditional vote) is a case in point and I'd prefer to see my admins being calmer in the face of opinions and statements they disagree with. I'm sure that a little more time will help heal the wounds and Davnel will learn to be calmer. Please don't take this oppose the wrong way. I personally consider Davnel's unblock to be the singularly best admin decision I have taken and he has turned out to have been a terrific user since then. Its just that this is probably too soon.
'''Oppose''': It's only been a few months since your former account was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Davnel03 blocked] for lobbing legal threats and incivil behaviour. I don't think a four month span between that and the next filing is long enough, and I would like to see more contributions than adding <nowiki>{{resolved}}</nowiki> to [[WP:ANI]]. Perhaps try out at [[WP:WQA]] and etc.
'''Oppose''' as per weak Q1 answers and no demonstrable need for the tools.  Likewise, comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Formula_One&diff=167894668&oldid=167840287 this] leave me wondering if the candidate has the temperament necessary to be a good admin.  Also as a side note, helping out at [[WP:AN/I]] involves a lot more than pasting-in a "resolved" or "unresolved" template ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177053915&oldid=177053605], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177053526&oldid=177053504], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177018499&oldid=177017951], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177017812&oldid=177017786], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177017638&oldid=177017255], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177012766&oldid=177012698], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=177012581&oldid=177012317]).  --
'''Oppose'''.  I don't think that anyone who can say something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYamla&diff=122800866&oldid=122798697 this] to someone will ever be suited to adminship.
'''Oppose''': Per above.  Left batshit crazy note to Yamla, got indefblocked, socked, returned, and has been blocked again ---- all within the last eight months.  Sorry but our cup runneth over with rogue admins lately.  —
'''Oppose''': It'll take more than a few months of penance to make up for some pretty grievous violations of civility codes. Sorry. Try again in a year or so. -
'''Oppose''' based upon his comment to the thread on ANI about Kurt Weber's oppose. His view of what harassment is makes him unsuited for adminship. -
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.
'''Strong Oppose''' 5 edits, all related to this nom.
'''Oppose and speedy close''' - (ec) This user's only edits are to this RFA.
'''Oppose and speedy close'''<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
Remove per [[WP:SNOW]], less than 100 edits. Sorry, try when you have more experience.
As I described to you on the Help desk page, I don't think your current experience at Wikipedia is broad enough for me to trust that you fully understand Wikipedia policy. You seem enthusiastic, so I recommend that you review pages like [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] to get a better idea of what admins can do here. Your questions are on the brief side and don't demonstrate that you are entirely familiar with admin activities. Again, this is not to disparage your work, but to encourage you to gain admin experience if its what you seek.
Little to no usage of edit summaries, only 60~ edits according to his edit count (nearly half of which in Wikipedia space, though none of which appear useful), and doesn't seem to have a very good handle on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm sorry, but it's just too early for you to request such a thing. //
Your enthusiasm and desire to help is appreciated, but it does not appear you have the experience or familiarity with policy at this point to assume administrative duties.  There are many ways in which non-admin users can help defend the 'pedia against vandalism and I highly encourage you to make the best of the tools that are available to you - if in the future you find yourself in need of more tools, perhaps give this a try again :)
'''Oppose''', per Arkyan. Sorry, try again after a few more months and more edits.
'''Oppose''' due to answers of the questions. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Less than 150 edits, per answers here the candidate is obviously unprepared to use the sysop tools wisely.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Yes! Yes! Yes! Edit-conflict-with-nominator support'''. Unreservedly, certainly trustworthy. She is the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Just to elaborate - fantastic FAs, calm, level-headed, good XfD participation, and the extraordinary quality of the Esperanza MfD nomination should tell you all you need to know; this candidate can really think as well. Concerns were expressed about when the MfD actually took place - just after Christmas - and it is perhaps a sign of Dev's absolute suitability for adminship that she had actually planned to wait until the New Year: the eventual timing was my fault. If ever an RfA candidate approached maximal excellence in every possible sense of the word, this is it.
'''Support''' - Dev920 is an enthusiastic, active contributer who has a very clear understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. She is active in most important areas of the project, and has changed Wikipedia for the better. Her actions regarding Esperanza were bold, and she kept her cool during the entire process. She has also completely revitalized the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|WikiProject LGBT studies]], and her attention to the project is the principal reason for the exponential increase in members over the last few months. I have complete confidence that she would make an excellent admin. My only concern (with all admins, not just Dev) is that she not stop article creating and editing, due to being burdened with admin tasks. I notice often that admins seem to spend most of their time on bureaucratic functions, and forget the reason they joined Wikipedia in the first place.

'''Support''' but don't forget to keep making excellent contributions to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|WikiProject LGBT studies]] while you wield the mop...!
'''Support''' Great editor. I'd trust her with the mop.
'''Support''' per nom. Contributions look good.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''': Adminship isn't a big deal, and there's an urgent need for more admins, third lowest ratio of admins to editors on any wikipedia, apparently. <font face="Arial Black">--Kind Regards -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.''' AFter reading this candidate's statement in the Esperanza MfD, I have no doubts about their good judgment.
'''Support''', never seen anything other than good stuff from Dev. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]]</small> 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) <small>(reinserted this support vote--it was removed during another user's oppose vote)</small>
'''Strong support''' - kind, thoughtful and willing to stand up against problem users.
'''Support''' per Proto - whenever I see her, she's doing something useful and intelligent. Trustworthy and capable of making very well-reasoned arguments.
'''Support''' no problems here.
'''Support''' I have seen user maintain admirable [[WP:COOL|COOL]] when less mature and/or responsible editors would have failed to.
'''Support'''.
No concerns.
'''Weak Support'''. Most of the diffs pointed out below don't concern me too much, and those that might be of some concern aren't enough to dissuade me from supporting the candidate. I trust the nominee will take those comments to heart when handed the tools and will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I'm happy with the answers to the questions and I,on balance (and thinking quite deeply about my frankly too high standards for what an admin should be), think that Dev920 will make an excellent admin. Just make sure you keep up your excellent editing work. --
'''Support''' Your contribs. are great as are your answers to the questions.I see no reason to oppose. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''; I have disagreed with a few things you have done in the past, especially the {{User|Whedonette}} harassing incident, but that was a little while ago now and I see no reason to oppose. ''
'''Support''' No-brainer. |
'''Support''' Excellent cantidate, deserves tools. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''. Unconvincing opposes, clearly a trustworthy user. --
'''Support''' - I believe the user will use the tools appropriately and has done an excellent job of intraspection regarding her past mistakes anddisagreements with other users. We need more admins with the tools for deletion who will use the tools safely and I belive Dev920 will do a fine job. --
'''Support''' -Even though I am also running for administrator, I think Dev920 will make one of the best admins ever.
'''Support''' It's all good. [[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#C71585">'''Tohru Honda13'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tohru Honda13|Talk]]•
'''Support''':I have experiences that sometimes she looses good faith very quickly and assume many things which are not at all true (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslam&diff=90255798&oldid=90255728]). There are few other things that bother me about her for examples she gets angry sometimes. However, we have to look good qualities and see if good qualities are more dominated than bad qualities. It is because we all are not perfect. I think overall she act '''very neutral''' and tried to work for good reasons in wikipedia. I really appreciate her effort to nominate and work '''very sincerely and in neutral way''' for GA status of Islam article. For me being neutral matter a lot. Hence I must support her. Go sister go... ---
'''Support''' the cabal told me to.
'''Support'''. I note the valid concerns raised by some of the opposers. But I'm sure if you trawl hard enough through any contributor's editor history you can find an example of one or two occasions where they have expressed themselves unwisely. I am not persuaded that these difs below represent any general pattern of invicility on Dev's part. I have interacted a lot with this user on Wikipedia and find her experienced, knowledgeable and dedicated. In short, she has my trust and I believe she would use the tools well.

'''Support''': An editor who wades into controversial subjects can occasionally get uncivil, and certainly will get discouraged at least once or twice. We need more admins who have experienced the worst of Wikipedia, and who have remained civil and constructive through the vast majority of that experience.The only "perfect" admin candidates ("perfect" in the sense of not being seen by ''anyone'' as being on the "wrong" side of a debate) are probably those who have been fortunate enough to avoid edit wars entirely.But what may be good personal fortune doesn't prepare an editor to help step in, as an admin, to sort out gnarly fights with plenty of incivility and valid accusations, often from ''both'' sides, not to mention trolls and sock puppets and vandals.-- ''
'''Support'''. Obviously a very good editor. --
'''Weak Support'''. The Muslims comment is certainly a cause for concern, but I don't think it's enough to stand in the way of her adminship. She's obviously a very good editor. I think she'd make a good admin.
'''Support'''. I'm concerned about the comments on Talk:Islam and the Esperanza MfD, but one of the things we often forget is that RFA is a measure of ''how well the user would wield the tools'', not a civility check. She'd use the tools well, but the comments concern me. '''''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' Empathetic, level-headed and honest, Dev920 takes the time to understand all sides before making the right call.
'''Strong Support''' An experienced and bold editor.It stands to reason that those who edit controversial subject articles will be engaged in heated debates.Although every remark was not perfect, I support the editor's dedication to the project.I further believe that experience with conflict makes a good admin.
'''Support''' per [[User:Alan.ca|Alan.ca]]. I trust her with the mop. Very good and experienced editor.
'''Support'''. I trust she'll use the mop well.
'''Support''', especially for the resonse to the question about the Esperanza MfD. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Support'''. RfA is about whther or not we can ''trust'' an editor with the tools, trusting that she won't abuse them to further any alleged agenda. I believe Dev920 can be trusted with them. I do believe that more effort may be needed on the civility side, especially when making general statements about a large group, but I believeshe has shown here that she is aware of this issue and is willing to take coorrective measures. This shows that she is willing to learn from her mistakes, and I believe that is an excellent quality for an admin to have. ···
'''Support''' I had only positive experiences with this editor.
'''Support''' I think Dev would make a good administrator.-
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think Dev920 was voicing frustration about bad editing in general, and the page that happened to be frustrating her at the time was Islam. She's an excellent editor with a lot of common sense who'd make a great admin, and a couple of comments taken out of context shouldn't be held against her. The editing of contentious articles on Wikipedia is a very different ballgame from the run-of-the-mill stuff, and yet time and again we see the editors of those articles held to exactly the same standard as those who focus on flowers and butterflies. I'm on record as strongly opposing anti-Muslim sentiment on Wikipedia, but I don't see it in Dev, and I think we should give her a chance.
'''Support''' though comments found are a bit disturbing...
'''Support''' per the answers above, which convey a mature and responsible understanding of editing on WP, and not a 'confrontational' one. This editor looks to be an excellent candidate for wielding the mop. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. It looks like a good candidate is being unfairly targeted for preferring neutrality over bias, and trying to achieve that in contentious and highly protected articles.
'''Support''' - per Nihonjoe, Jayjg. User comes down a little harsh on people, but I have no reason to believe she will abuse her tools. We all get in NPOV disputes sometimes, and we all can say things a bit hrashly, especially if we stand in a neutral dispute and see both sides as intransigent. While not wholly excusable, I can't really condemn an editor off a few outbursts, when it by no means appears that she will do any blocking of people she's involved in an editor war with. I just don't undrstand the opposes here.
'''Support''' Amazing. Wikipedia should be so fortunate to have Dev920 as an admin. --
'''Support''' I have met Dev920 on Wikipedia earlier, and have found her to be a thoughtful, kind person, plus a good contributor and a valuable member of the community. Definitely support her nomination and all the best! --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': great editor who will make a fine admin, I'm sure.
'''Support''' - This editor knows how to deal with [[WP:TE|tendentious editors]].<b>
'''Support''', though with some reservations.We all make mistakes and say the wrong thing at times.Her answers convince me that she recognizes when she has erred and has learned from her mistakes.I am comfortable that she would not abuse the tools.--
'''Support'''. I don't know if supporting will make any difference in the long run here, but I do think it'd be a shame if this RfA were not to pass so I'll try anyways. I have never interacted with Dev920 personally, but having read her comments here and at Esperanza's MfD, I am ''very'' impressed with her comportment. She has an excellent grasp on the English language and is capable of writing in a very nuanced manner which I think is essential for good communication. She makes her arguments convincingly and I would suspect she contributes well-written prose to the encyclopedia we purport to be writing. If she is guilty of anything in my opinion, it is of being frank. She is not afraid to state her opinion, and while this may not be as sugarcoated as some might like, it does not mean she will stoop to making ad hominem arguments (personal attacks) or the like (well, maybe she has before, but "being perfect" is not a requirement for adminship). Perhaps Dev920 is overly honest at times, but she doesn't appear to me to be mean-spirited. I don't see any substantial "issues" with "incivility"/"civility". Dev920 did not say, "Muslim editors. . ."; she said, "the Muslim editors. . .". There is a very large difference there. She is not condemning all Muslim editors, see [[article (grammar)]]. She is referring to a specific group, ''the'' Muslim editors who are doing these things. Specifically, she is condemning a group of people concretely defined to her. It is not anti-Muslim to refer to a group of people who are edit warring, insulting Jews, and getting banned. Furthermore, it is not uncivil to be upset about people who edit war, insult Jews, and get banned. In conclusion, I don't see any trends of bigoted or uncivil behavior. I see a laudable editor who has FAs, XfD participation, edit counts, whatever arbitrary measures we have for RfA candidacy, but who has ruffled a few feathers. I don't see someone who will insult and trample newbies, ban users she's in a dispute with, protect pages she wants protected, ignore policy, or otherwise ruin the wiki. We all make mistakes sometimes, even admins. --
'''Support''' despite civility issues. Not just your average vandal-hunter.
'''Support''' I respect this editor's composure (and bravery) in the face of multiple personal attacks, particularly during the recent Esperanza debates; she is clearly dedicated to improving Wikipedia for the greater good. The "civility" issue are much ado about nothing; no one who edits on Wikipedia very long can remain [[Little Miss Sunshine]] all the time. (In fact, I'd be rather scared of someone who didn't lose their cool ''sometimes''). --<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Oppose''' I can not condone the random insulting of people over one article.I regretfully oppose. I have checked out this users contributions to other peoples talk pages. Apparantly this user believes that some articles are exclusive clubs only to be edited by certain types of people. I feel that this attitude goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.To see those comments go to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nkras
'''Oppose''' per all above. Also, your philosophy is worrying; it seems to imply that if you're right, you don't have to care about negative criticism. The problem, of course, being that maybe you aren't right. -
Model of civility, ''eh''? Member of the Kindness campaign, as listed on her userpage &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dev920&oldid=101890132]. That's ironic, because I don't find you to be a least bit civil. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' This user is one of the reasons why I have lost all hope in Wikipedia and its community, and have been editing only sporadically recently. Dev920 has shown a willingness to engage in people politics and disrupt the community. Based on the diffs provided by others, particularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza&diff=98039669&oldid=98036771 this comment] in a conversation I was involved in, she seems to have a pattern of incivility. Ironically, she has a Kindness Campaign userbox on her userpage. If this RFA passes, the Internet will suck (and Hildanknight will blow a gasket). --
'''Oppose''' anti-muslim statements. -
'''Oppose'''. This a tough oppose, because I tend to agree with most of Dev's actions, but not the manner or tone in which she carries them out. From reviewing the last month or so of contributions, it seems that she adds fuel to fires on a fair number of occasions, likely unintentionally. Unfortunately, I can not support at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I can't overlook the substantial civility issues pointed out above. Otherwise, you appear to be a splendid contributor, so I guess we'll see you again around here, after some time.
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a good editor, but to be an admin you should be less confrontational when dealing with contentious issues, even if the other party is being a jerk.
'''Oppose''' I'm not as critical of the comments in evidence as some of the opposers; but they do contain unfortunate overgeneralizations (no Islamic article will ever reach GA standard?), and a level of vocalized frustration that I see more often in POV warriors than in admin candidates.The candidate should try RfA again after keeping her cool for six months.
'''Oppose'''. Multiple civility issues (as seen above). I can't overlook people who leave such offensive and uncivil comments on talk pages. '''
'''oppose'''. ''"even just by reading talk:Islam and my talk archives it is obvious that most, if not all the Muslim Guild editors are wildly anti-semitic"''? Yeah, thanks... --
'''Oppose''' per Nishkid. You seem like a great editor, and your answers were amazing, but civility is something that you don't always obey. I remember you made an uncivil comment on the Esperanza talk page, and I actually thought you were an Esperanza member. I was surprised that Esperanza wasn't brought up in any of the questions. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, the candidate seems to have some outstanding qualities, but <s>the evidence of over-the-top hot-headed comments is worrying. Occasional losing-one's-temper is ok, but the kind of comments shown above are a bit excessive
'''Strong Oppose''' This person ruined the chances of wikipedia become a community. Also she has been incivil a few times to people and I can not support a person like that. Sorry. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Incivility of the highest form. Prejudice against relgious groups '''shall not be tolerated here on Wikipedia'''. '''
'''Oppose''' Unsatisfactory civility issues is a major concern here. However, her contributions to this project is commendable as well. But an admin must show civility at all times. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per striver, sharkface, and nearly headless nick. ''Peace''. --'''
'''Oppose''' ditto. If admins aren't civil, nothing else redeems them.
'''Oppose'''. Aside from the civility issues brought above, he has always struck me as a user unwilling to compromise. In spite of what was said above, RFA is a civility check, as I for certainly do not want an admin to snap at a newbie. The Islam-related article issues make me pause as well.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I firmly believe that admins must be civil and must be able to [[WP:COOL|keep their cool]] during contentious discussions/disputes. While day to day protections and speedy deletions would be fine, if there were a dispute I feel that Dev might not handle it well. If the civility wasn't an issue I would have supported though.
'''Oppose''' How do you say in Latin "If you're right, then ram it down the throats of those who are wrong?" cuz that could also be characterized as Dev920's motto.She was right about getting rid of Esperanza but it could have been done in a kinder, gentler way especially the aftermath with the essay and the discussion page.She wasn't the only one but she was one of the gang and, based on comments and diffs above, such self-righteous self-assuredness is a pattern not an exception.The bit about "Muslim editors" is also deeply disturbing and, IMO, requires an apology and promise to desist from such comments in the future.--
'''Weak oppose''' per other users raising concerns on incivility. --
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid.The comment that he couldn't see why the Conservative project was wrong indicates a pretty deep flaw in Dev920's understanding of neutrality policy.This has nothing to do with raising red flags for Americans (I am English) and everything to do with not seeing why a project with the stated aim of helping a political party to win votes is not right.Sorry, Dev, that is beyond "a bit dumb" and well into irredeemably wrong.Other issues, too, with subtle and not-so-subtle bias (fine to admit it, it's how you state it that can be problematic) so overall I don't see Dev920 as a suitable candidate at this time. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose''' JzG and Deskana explain perfectly.
'''Strong Oppose''' As much as her outbursts may have been justified, that is no excuse for being uncivil. There is never an excuse for being uncivil, as an editor and especially not as an administrator. —
'''Oppose''' Now oppose when incivility taken into consideration.
'''Oppose'''. She had me with question #2 and then lost me with question #4.
'''Oppose''' per the conservative project episode. Though if you start it off wikipedia, I'll join. -
'''Oppose'''. I cannot imagine anyone who could be more uncivil, especially regarding her comments about Muslim editors. I have reservations about granting anyone who would generalise whole groups of editors into such a negative category the mop. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Per quotes Aminz produced.
'''Oppose''' Not quite ready yet; I shall be happy to support her next RfA.--
'''Oppose with regret''' I like this candidate but have reservations about her incivility; happy to support her when she has addressed this.--
'''Oppose''' &bull; I have misgivings about the civility issues, as Wikipedia has enough wikidrama these days as it is.Consider trying to treat editors in a more civil and wikiloving manner, and come back in two months.If it works out, I'd even nominate you, as everything else seems ok.Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''[[User:Geo.plrd|<font color= "blue">G</font>]]
'''Oppose''' too much brought up that I disagree with. &nbsp;
'''Oppose.'''Sorry, but no.Not the right temperment. —
'''Oppose''' per issues of civility cited above. One recent issue of incivility would be sufficient; two is overwhelming.
'''Neutral''' for now. I have some concerns and need to take a closer look before I could support.
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning weak oppose</s> - lots of good work done by editor (especially with the very well-constructed MFD nomination of Esperanza) ... but there are a few things that keep me from supporting.(1) The conservative project thing - it wouldn't bother me at all if you said, "I realize now that politically biased wikiprojects are wrong" or words to that effect - everyone makes mistakes, but you seem to be defending it in your comments above. (2) !voting on a contentious AFD with no reason given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santorum_%28sexual_slang%29&diff=prev&oldid=95904897] (3) [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] are fundamental policies, so I would certainly consider being unsourced a reason to delete if nobody is willing/able to source it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bookscout&diff=prev&oldid=96285066] (4) In your two recent edits to [[Jake Gyllenhaal]], you were probably correct, but your edit summaries seem to show a misapplication of [[WP:IAR]] and of [[WP:V]].(5) Referring to another editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people%2FA-E&diff=95728470&oldid=95664492] as a weirdo - it was [[User:62.136.153.73]]'s only edit so I'm not sure how that makes him/her a weirdo.Edits like these are obviously, 100%, the exception rather than the rule for someone whom I consider to be a valued editor.Consider this, if anything, just some suggestions on areas to improve. --
'''Neutral'''. I have to admit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Itsmejudith&diff=prev&oldid=94576820 this edit] seems to have me a little concerned. I went wading through her contribution log and wasn't able to find anything else that would incline me to opposition. --
'''Neutral''': Great edits and great answers, but the opposition convinced me to avoid supporting you.--
'''Neutral''' You are an amazing editor and you are a person who does much needed things to help Wikipedia. (i.e. suggest deletion of [[Esperanza]], fix [[talk pages]].) In addition, I believe you are interested in helping to develop [[Wikipedia]]. However, you are just too ideological. Your fighting with the Islamic Guild is questionable in its justification. The name calling and fiery tirades also are not good qualities in an administrator who may need to act as a [[mediator]] and solve disputes so commonly. I initially supported you, but the opposing arguments were strong and had merit. Even if you don't get the [[administration]] position, continue editing! You are an important person in [[Wikipedia]]. Overall, I can't decide. May the correct side win. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini ha sempre tarche</font>]]
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose due to incivility.
'''Neutral''' - Rethinking my vote.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Neutral''' Substantial numbers of the oppose votes are rediculous. I will not be in the same category as them.
'''Neutral''' --
'''Neutral''' Tough one. I can't vote oppose, as, while I disagree with Dev on most things (an article for ''every'' school in the world?!), I also admire her as an editor a great deal. She is an excellent writer, as her three FAs will show and has a lot of conviction in what she does. However, I also feel that the conviction that she shows is part of the reason that I can not support. Blanket statements like ''"even just by reading talk:Islam and my talk archives it is obvious that most, if not all the Muslim Guild editors are wildly anti-semitic"'' and ''"Esperanza had built itself up to the point that members considered themselvess better than normal Wikipedians"'' have me worried. The latter is insulting, and untrue. I never felt this way, and many other of the 700+ members list probably didn't either, and the former is a borderline personal attack. I also feel that Wikiproject:Conservatives, with one of the aims being ''"to help Tories win elections"'' was a bad idea, is a bad idea, and always will be a bad idea on wikipedia, and Dev's disagreement with that is slightly worrying. As I say Dev, I think you're a great editor, and of a value to wikipedia. If this RfA does not succeed, I urge you to run again in about four months, at which time I will probably support.
'''Neutral''' Changed from support. Incivility is a little worrying. ←
'''Neutral''' I like this user and has done some excellent work, especially with the esperanza mfd but I have to agree with JzG,in a couple of months you'll be ready
'''Neutral'''.This was an interesting vote to think about.Although it seems that a couple of unfortunate diffs are being tossed around as reasons for opposing, the general impression of her attitude that I have gotten follows similar paths.Dev is certainly a very confident editor, which is great.Conceptually, "If you're doing the right thing, don't worry about negative criticism." is a fine motto, but one can take it too far, and be blindsided to all the criticism and not see that perhaps things are not perfectly right.No, I am not alluding to putting up the Esperanza MfD, because I agree that things were no longer like what Esperanza was supposed to be.However, throughout the entire affair, it seemed that Dev was always considering herself to be more right, and that no matter the concerns of other users, it did not matter.This was very frustrating to see; it is so important to be able to act well with users on Wikipedia.There's nothing wrong with believing that you are correct, but it is very important to be respectful of other people who do not agree with you, no matter how often they disagree with you.There is no excuse for being condescending to those who disagree with you, and I feel that Dev's attitude throughout the MfD made it a much nastier affair than it needed to be. --
'''Neutral''' on this one. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]

'''Neutral''' Both sides make good argumnents. If this were an *fd, i'd say it'd be a "no consensus", so I wanted to put the value of my opinion as close as I could to that sentiment.
'''Neutral'''. I'm torn here. I would really like to see an effort to completely cut out the incivil comments and generalisations, while acknowledging they are rare. I so believe they are not indicative of your beliefs, but to some extent that doesn't really matter. Its the perception that does the damage, as you are finding out to your misfortune here. Am also concerned over the Conservative Wikiproject proposal, involving WP in any goal other than disseminating knowledge troubles me. That said, Dev is clearly an excellent, dedicated editor and, on balance, she is a real credit to the community. If she can demonstrate her kindness campaign goals can be adhered to all of the time, she will have my !vote in any future RfA.
'''Neutral''' leaning toward support. The much-cited instances of incivility appear to be isolated occurrences, and Dev has an excellent track record otherwise. But continued defense of this ill-fated 'userproject' leaves me with lingering concerns. It's more than just 'a bit dumb'; it was more like 'an obviously bad idea'.
'''Neutral''' A very fine and hard working contributor but i am voting here because of the issues discussed above. -- ''
'''Support''' -Naturally, as nom. Will make a fine admin.
'''Strong support''' - yayyy!! Dev will be a great addition to the admin team -
'''Titan Support''' - At last someone worthy enough...We cant expect a better admin than Dev920..Good Luck Mate..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''. I believe that Dev has learned from past mistakes and that the issues that resulted in opposition at her previous RfA are behind her. Dev's involvement in Wikiproject LGBT Studies has been invaluable and I have always had extremely positive interactions with her. She is experienced in the areas that admins need to be - I'm convinced she will delete only what needs to be deleted and block only those that policy requires be blocked. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support''': Had a few reservations after some interaction regarding the MfD for [[WP:BAP]] but they aren't enough to warrant opposing especially considering all of my past interactions with Dev, which is the reason for the strong support. Surely would make a great admin and would know how to use the tools appropriately. To be honest, for awhile I was a bit concerned that what happened with BAP might have caused Dev to leave the project, glad it did not. : )
'''Support''' - excellent candidate.
'''Support''' &ndash; I, too, believe Dev920 has learned from her past mistakes and that she is now a worthy candidate.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' Have seen much positive work from this user around the traps, and believe that she deserves the mop and will use it sparingly yet well.
'''Strong support''' Long time contributor who has more than proven herself as worthy of adminship, if that is what she wants.  --
'''Support''' If Raystorm trusts her, I trust her.  I've seen her contributions and I agree with those above: she'll do veeery well. An applause for this candidate!! Kisses --
'''Strong Support''' - I note that she and I have much in common politically. :-) Anyway, a great candidate.
'''Strong Support''' - Dev has been here a long time, and knows policy inside and out. Her contributions have made the english Wikipedia a much better place. If anybody should be made an admin here, and will take the responsibility seriously, it's Dev. I can't recommend her strongly enough.
'''Support'''. You have more than made up for the incivility - all of us can get annoyed at times, it's nothing major. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Any issues are in the past now, as shown by your more recent behavior, I see no reason not to Support you. Cheers,
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator. For chaos concerns, see [[User:A.Z./Imagine]]. If they're abusive, they can have their tools taken out. (this is a standard message that I'm using to support RfAs and it's not a judgement of Dev's merits: I just think no merits are required)
'''Strong support''' - makes judgments on facts and not ILIKEIT. '''
'''Support''' per Blnguyen. Dev920 can be blunt, but relentless civility is hardly the only factor under consideration; we also need administrators who will make tough calls and, more often than not, make them right. Gutsy, smart, insightful: that's Dev920.
'''Titan Support''' (per Cometstyles) - Definitely Admin material - a pleasure to work with and a ''very'' hard worker. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">
'''Support''' - Dev has already indicated which field will be graced by the presence. You have already done a lot for wikipedia, and because you're willing to do the thankless deletion job, it makes sense to promote.<b>
'''Support''', will be able to make unpopular good calls.
'''Support''' Based on my own past experiences with her, I'd trust Dev with admin tools. --
'''Strong Support''' Sure she's rather agressive, but we promoted admins who were worse. I worked with Dev before and she's one of the more brilliant editors here, brilliant in article writing, and very active in talk pages. The main reason why she won't be promoted is that she was unfortunally involved with the esperanza chaos in which she handled very well in the begining, but went downhill. We need more admins who is willing to deal with tough decisions, and I strongly trust her more than any other user. Thanks
'''Support''' she seems like a good user to me. As for the civility concerns, I believe that Dev920 will work on that issue, regardless of the outcome of this RfA.
'''Support''' She has a good track.
'''Support''' I am delighted to support such a brilliant editor.
'''Support''' - Dev920 has shown marked improvement. This was a difficult decision, but I trust that the candidate would now handle themselves better in disputes and keep such disputes separate from their admin tasks. Sometimes blunt-speaking admins are needed.
'''Support''' I've seen Dev around Wikipedia, and from what I've seen, Dev tends to make excellent edits, and is a fine contributer. I think she'd has shown she would do a wonderful job as an admin.-<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Dev is a fantastic contributor and I respect her work deeply. That she remained as civil as she did in response to Ed's repeated baiting during the EA debacle is admirable. However Dev does not appear to have the trust of the community at large, and I find that saddening. In any case I fear that Dev's wonderful work as an article writer would suffer given the mundane pressures of adminship. ~
'''Support''', every interaction I've had with Dev has been productive, and I've always found her to be civil and not a mental (which is my chief criteria).
'''Strong support''' as an editor with lots of edits across lots of genres and many interests, she had made a serious effort, paraphasing Jimbo Wales, "not to make The Internet suck."
'''Support''' - No big deal.
'''Support''' - Adopt-a-User -
'''Strong Support''' She's got wit, humour, friendliness, experience, maturity, assets (well that's a bit broad but anyway), and I'm certain she won't abuse anything. &mdash;

'''Support''' Just like last time, the civility concerns are insignificant. Dev920 does good work, and would be a fine admin.
Per Akhilleus; more content-focussed admins are badly needed. Superb editor unfortunately attracting opposes for being willing to make tough calls.
'''Whole-hearted Support'''.  Dev has shown herself to be a very hard worker and has earned my respect for her many talented accomplishments in coordinating the LGBT Portal, and improving Wikipedia as a whole.  I've never found her to be anything less than cooperative and supportive.  I also believe she has learned, as we all must do along the way, sometimes by painful experience, that firmness and civility go hand in hand.  I think Dev really has the interests of the whole Wikipedia community at heart, and would be a ''tremendous'' asset to the whole organization as an administrator.--
'''Support.''' You can't edit the sorts of articles Dev does and ''not'' wind up getting into a dispute every once in a while. From what I've seen, most of the animosity has been mutual and this user has shown a willingness to either calm down or step back when the going gets tough. Other than all that, there's no reason to oppose. She's an experienced, knowledgeable, helpful user. --
'''Support''', I respect honesty. <span style="padding:2px;font-size:80%;font-family:verdana;background:#E6E8FA;">
'''Support''' I can see that Dev is someone who really believes what they fight for, not a sleaze trying to push their own agenda. She would be an excellent addition to the mop up team.
'''Oppose''' for same reasons as before. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry Dev, I've got to oppose. I actually quite like you but I really question your maturity and ability to handle conflict. During [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Mediation]], where I mediated your dispute with [[User:Ed|Ed]], your constant arguing with one one another was quite disruptive (check the mediation page to see what I mean). Dev remove every single comment Ed made to her talk page, which only inflamed the situation[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920/Archive8&diff=next&oldid=134614204][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920/Archive8&diff=next&oldid=129381257][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920/Archive8&diff=next&oldid=129169378]. Then when Ed comes over to your talk page to say he's leaving wikipedia due to the dispute and the fact that he has cancer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920/Archive8&diff=prev&oldid=135824889], she removed that as well, which I strongly believe was a really nasty thing to do, and showed a complete lack of empathy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920/Archive8&diff=next&oldid=135824889]. Now don't get me wrong, I think Ed could have handled the whole esparanza dispute better, but I question your judgement by refusing to discuss anything with him and removing any attempt at discussion that Ed made, it makes me think that in a similar situation, you would just hit that block button to stop discussion with you.
'''Oppose''' — This is a joke, right? Absolutely not, forgive me, but I think you'd bring Ragnarok. You have serious ownership issues[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Ellen_episodes&diff=140285857&oldid=140282150][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andrew_Van_De_Kamp&diff=117737064&oldid=117735653][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andrew_Van_De_Kamp&diff=117748780&oldid=117748218] You've demonstrated to me that you have an ego problem and frankly I only think you're interested in yourself (see for example [[Talk:Andrew_Van_De_Kamp#Congratulations.21|this]]). Edit: Ryan also brings up some good points.
'''Oppose''' Issues with civility brought up in the previous RfA have clearly not been addressed, as is evident in this edit just six days ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=146526426]. In this edit as well as the ones above, she is consistently disrespectful, condescending and bearing an attitude that is the polar opposite of what an admin should have.
Not admin material. —
'''Oppose''' per Ryan.  The civility concerns are worrying, and appear to be ongoing. Admins must be able to maintain a calm demeanor.
'''Oppose''' I was originally thinking about support but am now opposing due to how the user interacts with people she disagrees with.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan. --
'''Oppose''' per Ryan.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan --
'''Oppose''' Interaction [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Moth.27s_legs_stuck_together| here] is pretty unacceptable for an admin candidate. Example: "unhelpful and stupid", "you were not listening in your arrogance"? Still needs some work on [[WP:CIVIL]].
'''Oppose'''. The diffs cited by Trusilver and Matthew are worrying.
'''Oppose''' Per civility and ownership issues.  An admin isn't infallible, but they need a stronger head on their shoulders than what I see here.
'''Oppose''' The civility and ownership issues raised above are enough to give me pause in supporting this editors' application for adminship.  Admins have to exemplify the policies and guidelines that govern their choices and actions; this editor does not do so.
Sorry mate, but a look through your last 50 edits (I clicked the contribs link) shows multiple edit summaries that could be taken badly, and beg the question; how bad could the edit be?  Rather then cite all of them (some of them weren't actually that bad), I'm going to opposer per two diffs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=146526426] - A user who doesn't really "get" the concept of constructive criticism (that's how I see it) isn't someone I can trust as an admin.  Admins need to be able to learn from their mistakes.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_Police_Association&diff=prev&oldid=147759531] - Biting.  I don't care that he isn't really a "new" user, or that he has notes on his talk page (about COI, NOT about OR, mind you), the edit summary there is still unacceptable in my eyes.  Therefore, because of civility, I must oppose. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' [[WP:OWN]] says it all. --
'''Oppose''' per Ryan and others. User seems to have serious [[WP:OWN]] issues and lacks the maturity to approach heated disputes with a calm, neutral attitude required of someone with block/ban powers.
'''Oppose''' Civility issues are a major concern here. Meanwhile, do not be discouraged over this and try again for nomination in a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - incivility has been a problem in the past with this user, and I don't believe that she can handle the kind of concerted trolling and attacks that get thrown at admins.  I also feel that admins need to be held to a higher standard than normal users when it comes to dealing with users in a civil and moderate fashion, and I don't see this happening with this user.  Please don't be discouraged by this -- it may not be a reflection on you, but rather your history.  Just keep working hard and prove my fears unfounded.  --
'''Oppose''' per above points on civility and similar concerns, both past and recent.  <span style="color:darkred"><b>*Vendetta*</b> <sub>
'''Oppose''' per points on civility.  I was neutral until I saw the candidate's response to [[User:Captain panda|Captain Panda's]] response below.
'''Oppose''' per Ryan.
'''Oppose'''... Not the worst incivility or intransigence I've ever seen in an RfA candidate, but the fact that there are things like some of the diffs above in the last couple of weeks doesn't inspire confidence. If I'm a new user, let alone a regular, coming to your talk page with a reasonable complaint over an admin action, I would hope I would be able to have a constructive discussion. I'm not sure that would be the case at the moment.
'''Oppose''' I don't believe in political correctness.  Biting commentary doesn't bother me, and I think we are all a bit thin-skinned about civility and personal attacks.  But calling an edit "stupid" goes somewhat over the line, but only marginally so.  But violating [[WP:OWN]] just is not acceptable.  However, I think backing down a bit on these issues will allow you to succeed in an RfA someday.
'''Oppose''' Civility concern raised above and from edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blida_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=144219104] make me unwilling to trust with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Incivility in responses leads me to believe that this user is not worthy of the community's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trust in excercising good and prudent judgement]]. --
'''Oppose''' per Trusilver.  Calling people stupid on the reference desk isn't how an admin should edit.  --
'''Oppose''' Reservations about user's suitability for being given admin tools.  We've all seen personality flaws balloon into major problems when admin powers have been granted in the past to certain other individuals. -
'''Oppose''', per what seems to be a lack of maturity. I can't believe some saying "civility concerns are insignificant".  Unless we want to scare the rest of the world off, and leave editing of this encyclopedia to a selected in-crowd, then civility is of the utmost importance for an active editor, especially an admin. --
'''Oppose''' - I agree, perhaps [[WP:CIVILITY]], maturity and possible ownership worries (As per above) are all a bit... well... worrying. Sorry, friend.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry to say the [[WP:CIVILITY]]  issue is my major concern.  As an administrator, people will look to you as a leader and a mediator.  In these roles, I believe you need a little more experience. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' as per Davewild. --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Neutral''' I think that Dev920 has learned from her mistakes, but I am uncertain whether she will be civil as an admin.
I tend to agree with Nick at this stage. '''
Neutral. --
Neutral - Dev, I like your work on the GLBT wikiproject, but I'm sorry, there are enough legitimate concerns here to bother me.  -
'''Neutral''' &ndash; both the arguments for and against your Adminship are equally balanced, so I'm not really sure what to think: you've written an [[WP:FA|FA]], but you've been accused of [[WP:OWN]] violations; you've been a top contributor to a very successful WikiProject, but you've been [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. I'm not saying I firmly believe that every oppose argument is correct, and I don't wish to degrade your work in any way, but the trust factor just isn't there for me. ~
'''Neutral'''.  Mixed feelings on this one, I can't oppose or support at this time.
'''Neutral''' User is undoubtedly dedicated to Wikipedia but civility concerns are too recent for me to support. --
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Pile on Support!''' as nominator.  Good luck! [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' My pleasure.
'''Support''' Saw him tonight on MFD, and his argument was rational and policy-based (though I may disagree with it).  Has plenty of experience and no problems I know of.  Just a curiosity: are you still a member of AMA if AMA is dead?  I chuckle when I see users who still have Esperanza userboxes from two years ago.  Anyway, time for me to go to sleep.
'''Whoa'''. You sure you haven't been here before? &ndash;
'''Support''' per trustworthy nominators, overall contributions, and my clichéd (but honest) surprise you are not (yet) an admin.
'''Support'''.  If he doesn't make admin, I'll climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. That's allowed, right?  Right[[WP:NCR|?]]
'''Support''' as co-nom. '''
'''Pile on Support''' You have earnt it Dfrg.  Go for it.  Pile it on boyz!  '''[[User:culverin|<font color="darkblue">Culv</font>]][[User:culverin/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <i>I learn't that co-operation and compromise are the strongest policies</i> says it all for me. Good luck. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - A Good user and more than capable ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Tarragon Support''' Never fails to make me laugh, which is good. Knows his way around, which is even better. '''
I'm
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Well, Majorly's concerns seem to put me off but apart from that all I can see is godo contributions. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; Without a ''doubt''; I was sure he already was one.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' sometime in the past, I thought he was one as well.
'''Support.''' But a more helpful link may be [[WP:AIV]] (it's shorter!) [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''. A great user! The opposition does not convince me. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' I have known Dfrg on your average Wikipedian terms for some time and I see no reason he should not be granted the tools. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Support''' (edit conflict) Not really impressed with oppose reasons, at least not enough to overturn my previous respect for the user. I love the irony that one of the opposes was a "pile-on," even though one of the reasons for opposing him in the first place was a "pile-on" vote. Rather funny.--
'''Support''' as this candidate is sure to [[defragmentation|increase the life-span of Wikipedia by minimizing head movement and simplifying data access operations]]. His humour does not seem to indicate a propensity for abuse of the tools.--
'''Support''' I've had a lot of contact with Dfrg. He's experienced, friendly, trustworthy and extremely communicative. He may say things that might sound a little bit unorthodox to some users, but it's just his peculiar sense of humor. :-) <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Support user. I'm not really concerned by the opposes, except for the Rfa comment. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' - Dfrg is one of the most inspirational users I know on wikipedia. He is the one who introduced me to it and has since then helped me improve my language skills on wikipedia, the way I go about editing and the way I think about this great encyclopedia. He has helped me meet such users as [[User:E@L|Editor At Large]], [[User:Daniel|Daniel Bryant]] and [[User:Culverin|Culverin]]. Wikipedia means a lot to Dfrg and I think he needs this opportunity to show you his full potential. He is a great Editor, Person (great personality, very funny!!!) and is a very respected person in the AMA. Nothing but support, Good Luck Dfrg.msc!! [[Drizzt Do'Urden|<font style="border: solid 2px #000000"><font style="background-color: #660000"><font color="000000">D</font></font><font style="background-color: #990000"><font color="000000">r</font></font><font style="background-color: #CC0000"><font color="000000">i</font></font><font style="background-color: #FF0000"><font color="000000">z</font></font><font style="background-color: #FF3366"><font color="000000">z</font></font><font style="background-color: #FF0033"><font color="000000">t</font></font></font>]]<font style="border: solid 2px #000000"><font style="background-color: #FF3333">
'''Support''' - positives outweigh the issues outilned below.cheers,
'''Support''' From what I have seen you have been a positive and overall really good editor.
'''Support''' Hey bud. It's been a real long time since I talked to you. ;) &mdash;
'''Support''' there are better reasons to support than there are to oppose. —
'''Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Among the reasons are his willingness to admit errors (Angry Mob) and move on. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Strong Support''' - Dfrg is the one of the best people on Wikipedia. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Support''' just like walnuts --
'''Support.''' I have seen this user around and found nothing questionalbe in his contributions. Although I respect ais523's detective work, I think what a user does shortly after they arrive at Wikipedia is not always so relevant. When I ran for RfA, I mentioned that I had written many articles, which was true. What I didn't say was that right after I started, I had no idea what "encyclopedic tone" meant and that I had to rewrite many of the article I began or expanded. I'm not really ready to oppose on past behavior unless something tells me it is likely to resurface, and I don't see enough evidence to convince me of that.
'''Support''', but no matter which way this RfA turns out, you won't [[WP:REICHSTAG|don a Spiderman costume and climb the Reichstag]]... right?
'''Support''' with all due respect to the opposers, I think the net effect of his promotion would be positive based on recent behaviour.
'''Weak Support''' The problems listed happened quite a few months ago, so I will support. I am still concerned, however.
'''Weak support''', much per Captain Panda and Pascal.Tesson. —'''
'''Support'''&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support.''' This user clearly deserves the position of admin due to his reliability, dedication and will to help newly starting editors. This user truely imbodies what Wikipedia is about and it would be a crim for him not to be accepted into a admin position. --
'''Support''' per Majorly. Yes, this reason is a joke ... kinda like opposing someone because they don't !vote the same way you do on an RFA. --
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hmwith&diff=prev&oldid=134031880 Opposing] per someone who feels it necessary to mention an edit count as a bad thing (only 332 edits), who then contradicts themselves calling the nomination "fine" makes me question this user's judgement. I also found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPeaceNT&diff=132397622&oldid=132397420 this] rather unneeded and aggressive. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070529075156&limit=12&contribs=user&target=Dfrg.msc&namespace=4 this] selection of TfD comments "Pile on" are inappropriate in my opinion. XfDs aren't a joke, nor is deleting. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Pile-on Oppose''' per Majorly's empirical reasoning.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' as the points made by [[User:ais523|ais523]] are valid. Although those edits were a long long time ago and the user makes very valuable contributions now, I can not really trust him because these diffs were brought forward by [[User:ais523|ais523]] and not the candidate himself. If Dfrg.msc had come clean (I don't see any mention of this past behaviour except the very vague "''Aside from trouble when I was new''" in his answer to Q3), it would have been an entirely different matter. And the fact that he was ''suspected'' to be a sockpuppet is a matter of serious concern, in light of the recent developments (regarding an admin and his sockpuppet army). Some sort of statement or clarification from Dfrg.msc is in order. -
'''Oppose''' per ais523.  Candidate did not address past behavior, which rose above the level of typical newbie-confusion.  Mophood can wait until these questions are addressed.
'''Oppose'''. When I first saw this nomination, I thought "No way is this user running for adminship", but then I couldn't really remember why I'd think something like that. Having read what ais523 wrote, I remember. I was involved in the blocking of [[User:F 22]], and the name [[User:Dfrg.msc]] stuck in my head from that incident. In addition to the concerns brought forward by ais523, I do not feel I can trust you as an administrator, as I remember having a ''lot'' of problems with these other users (or at least, not trust you yet). As such, I cannot support this RfA. --
I had the same initial feeling as Deskana (see the neutral section, below), for the exact same reasons as ais523 and Deskana. Futher, '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hiram_College&diff=prev&oldid=135201371 this]''' (only yesterday) is confusing - how was that 'vandalism', which is the only reason to use an automated reverter (with an autosummary)? '''
'''Oppose''' Concerned by the issues Majorly and ais523 raised. Also by the automated reversion, and the confrontational attitude of the user who says '''''"why did you not rectify the problem upon finding it?"''''' when answering a concern about '''their''' actions (even though they apologised for the mistake).
I'm a bit concerned about Dfrg.msc's interaction with other users, particularly with regards to "piling on" and his discourse with Daniel during this RfA.  As someone who I can envision reverting a lot of vandalism and blocking other users, one needs to possess a certain degree of affability, especially when dealing with new volunteers  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Based on the commentary above, does not instill the trust and confidence I would hope for in an administrator.
'''Oppose''', both because of ais523's comments and because of Dfrg.msc's own reactions above.
Thought this name rung a bell as I was glancing down the list just now, and then I remembered why: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobth&diff=88335490&oldid=88304514].  Amusing though that was at the time, I don't think it was intended to be so, and either way it indicates a worrisome lack of maturity. --
'''Oppose''' -- I'm not confident to promote this editor. Happy to reconsider in the future but for now I must oppose, mostly due to the concerns raised above and from my own observations. -
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q8.  You would be asked many questions if you were to become an admin.  I don't want an admin who will tell the user that they should have looked it up. --
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and Ais.  '''
'''Oppose''' per my own observations, and those of others highlighted above, I feel this candidate is just too inconsistent at present. I may feel inclined to support further down the track.--
'''Oppose''' per Majorly.
Majorly's and Robth's diffs, combined with the combative attitude of dfrg.msc on this RFA (I don't mind pressing for a fuller answer when desirable, but you've questioned more than half of the oppose voters) leads me to oppose.
There are just too many diffs that I see mentioned by Daniel, Majorly, and others that to me show that you are not ready for any extra buttons. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGijake&diff=125374249&oldid=125374180 This] is barely a month-and-a-half ago and shows you need to mature some more.—
'''Oppose''', doesn't seem to be ready yet. Also per answer to Q8 (the answer is not at [[NRV]]; where should we look up your terminology?)
I have seen enough of this candidate's overly hostile & defensive attitude toward naysayers to say that I do not approve of him.
'''Oppose''' sorry.  Per Majorly, ais523, and the continual trolling of the opposers at this forum.
'''Oppose''' In general I do prefer not to "oppose" unless I feel strongly.  Here it seems to me enough valid points have been raised and by people who's views I consider worth looking at for me to do so - sorry --
'''Oppose''' per the diffs raised by others and the general attitude the candidate has displayed during this RfA. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' because of hasty edits/reversions such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwernol&diff=125679102&oldid=125610601 this] which seem to occur a little too often. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg]] says himself as recently as late April that he needs to learn to revert more carefully. I think a bit more time needs to pass to see whether the learning has taken root. (NB: I'm not accusing [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg]] of anything I haven't done myself! I'm lousy at holding off my trigger finger!)
'''Oppose''' - I recall my interactions with this user a year or so ago - to remind myself have a look at this version of his talk page in July last year [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dfrg.msc&oldid=61781302].  Just mucking around perhaps but not usefully contributing and in fact creating quite a lot of work, spamming people's pages, uploading images that didn't comply, being obstructive ...  I don't yet trust this user.  I understand people grow up but maybe a year was a little short.  I prefer my fellow admins to be reasonably mature--
'''Neutral''' (leaning oppose) per Majorly's concerns. Although I'm unconcerned with the XfD comments, I'm a little more worried by the RfA comments provided as diffs by Majorly above. Although "so is my dog" isn't inherently uncivil wording, I think that RfA (since it involves judging a human being) needs to be taken more seriously than other processes on Wikipedia, and comments of that sort should be avoided. Further, I think this candidate's recent RfA votes have showed poor judgments. That isn't enough on its own to merit an oppose, but draws a Neutral from me. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
Questionable past behavior.  --
'''Neutral''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGijake&diff=125374249&oldid=125374180 this]. I'm also not too impressed with the amount of messages on your talk page from bots about image tagging, non-free images, etc. Your [[User:Drfg.msc/test_site|test site]] concerns me a little bit, not something I would expect from an administrator. Other than that you are great editor. Just not this time, I'm afraid. –
Sorry mate, but Daniel and Majorly gives some worrying concerns with their comments. I'll be glad to support in a few month's time though, after the concerns are reached. --
'''Neutral''' On the one hand, my interactions with them have been generally positive, but on the other I see some things that suggest they may be tempermentally unsuited and would accidentally escalate a situation through a careless comment.  Long-ago vandalism and silliness doesn't bother me as they clearly seem to have reformed, but in very recent comments I see a flippancy that could cause problems in the future. <font face="monospace">
Changed from support to '''neutral''', per the issues raised by the opposers. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' from support. A few nagging diffs and some recent developments make me less sure.
Changed from support to '''neutral''', per the issues raised by the opposers and the uncivil comment.<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support'''. You are well qualified, and your involvement with the wikipedia space (which really makes the other spaces run smoothly) is exemplary.
'''Support''' User knows policy and understands that quality of articles is a priority here. Won't abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support'''&mdash;Diez is definitely somebody I'd be happy to have working alongside me as an Administrator: he has an excellent knowledge of [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policy]] and [[Wikipedia:List of guidelines|guidelines]], has contributed to some great projects, tried his hand at [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s, and is courageous enough to admit that he's not an article writer at heart. Best of luck, mate, and I hope to be seeing you with the mop in a week's time! Cheers,
'''Strong Support''' From what I can see you are qualified for adminship. I certainly hope the vote is in your favour!
'''Support''' -- I for one would prefer more mainspace edits, but because of this user's strong efforts elsewhere in the project, I would have to support. There's more to this encyclopedia than building its content, we have to make sure it's done properly too. This user has made great strides in seeing that this happens, and it is for that reason I would have to support.<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; background-color:#FFFFFF;">
'''Support''' A experienced Project space editor, I think he will make a excellent admin. Good Luck!--[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator.
'''Support''' This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''': To balance out Matt57's frivolous oppose vote below.
'''Support'''. No reason not to - this user looks great! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I feel self nomination is okay as normally asking others to nominate involves backdoor canvassing.Feel no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - good editor, not sure about the concept that every speedy delete tag should automatically equate to a user talk warning - if someone is creating a large quantity of nonsense pages, they could just be given a final warning.
'''Support''', to balance out Kurt's stupid vote below. And because I think Diez2 is a) not a mental and b) could use the tools, so will be fine.
'''Support''' there is nothing wrong with this user; I agree with what [[User:Neil|Neil]] said.
'''Support''' Not warning writers of speedy tagged articles does not seem like a reason that I would oppose for.
'''Support''', good maintenance work, would use tools well.
'''Support'''- from oppose, per the reasons there. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Support''' I have no further comment, neither constructive nor witty. Sorry. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor, no reason to oppose, has done good work and would use the mop well (anyone willing to take on notability backlog in a sensible, non-blanket kind of way earns my respect).
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per all above. Opposers' reasons do not bring up any valid concerns.
'''Support''' per Kurt Weber. It's a risk I'm willing to take. —'''
'''Support''' I forgot that I had done an [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Diez2 (2nd review)|editor review for the candidate]] in March.  I offered a few points of criticism, but that was 3 1/2 months ago, and I trust he has acquired substantial additional experience.
'''Support'''.  Clearly to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''Support''' - Looks like he could use the delete button to remove junk.  I find the oppose reasons not at all compelling.  I believe he'd be a net gain to the project, having the tools.
'''Support'''.  Appears to be dedicated, willing, and able to help keep the proect running smoothly as an admin.
'''Support''' as a credible, experienced user with a good use for the tools. I '''strongly encourage''' a username change and openness to recall.--
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''', he knows the policies well and seems to know about the mop.
'''Support''' as I feel Diez will accomplish positive outcomes with admin tools
'''We were all new once, too.''' New people make mistakes. You've done it, I've done it, and, Diez2 did it, too. And, this user was honest and upfront about it, to boot. Not to mention, most of the cited issues were months to nearly a year ago. I just don't see a reason why I wouldn't trust this user with the mop... I hope, some day, it's not held against me, that I forgot something... Particularly, when there's a bot out there that does it anyhow... (I know, I CSD a lot too, I've seen the bot...) --
'''Oppose''' '' I have a 1200+ deleted edits count due to all the new pages I tagged with a db template'' fine - yet a review of your last two thousand contribs shows '''no warnings to any users''' that their article had been tagged for speedy deletion. This sugests either you have not made these 1000+ CSD tags but I [[WP:AGF|assume the faith]] you just simply don't bother warning - which is strong enough for me to oppose as it shows a total lack of courtesy, something essential in an admin. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.  While I have no reason to explicitly think this may be the case with you, it is not a risk I am willing to take.
Per Pedro.  We have warnings for a reason, I want to see a candidate use them. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' Per Boricuaeddie.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience.
'''Strong Oppose'''- I first encountered this editor when he prodded the article of legendary romance author [[Anne Stuart]] for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Stuart&diff=prev&oldid=88483178][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Stuart&diff=prev&oldid=88483178].  It was a one sentence article then, but had he done the slightest amount of research he would've found this is one of the most popular romance novelists in history.  Luckily this was caught as this likely would've made the press.  Someone who would exhibit such reckless behavior should not be an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' per a general lack of experience that has manifested in several instances of a disconcerting supersession of due process (see pedro). This user needs a wider range of experience before I trust their judgement with admin powers.
'''Oppose''' per Pedro.  Candidate displays an unfortunate lack of thoroughness, inappropriate in an admin.
Sufficient doubt, per VanTucky, that I can't support this nomination at this time. '''
'''Weak Oppose'''. The answer to Q6, as expanded, is troubling. The '''rule''' for AfD is to weigh the arguments; nose-counting is the lazy approach. Considering the present arguments over deletion and IAR, and the candidate's interest in deletion, he really should understand our policies better.
'''Oppose''' I think opening [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber|this]] on [[User:Kmweber|Kmweber]] demonstrates some poor judgement. I personally do not agree with Kurt's voting patterns, and have tried to engage him on his talk page... but I do not think opening an RfC on him will bring about a situation where this user will feel a need to become more constructive in his participation. I also think that you could have held off on engaging him until after the close of this RfA.
'''Oppose''' - no interaction with mainspace or writing articles. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Per Van and Hiberniantears above, would like to see more due process and diligence, and on the RFC issue, sure we don't all agree with Kurt, but everyone is entitled to their opinion(albeit misguided).
'''Oppose''' User's account is too young, sort of weird to see someone responding to no votes in-thread. -
'''Reluctant Oppose'''; per the answer to Q6.  AfD is not a vote, thus ignoring a count of !votes would not be an application of IAR.  If the candidate believes that AfD discussions are supposed to be closed based on a count of !votes, then the candidate clearly is not prepared to be closing them.
'''Oppose''' Clear consensus shouldn't be broken merely by common sense and good faith (Q5), and this user misunderstands the AfD process if he cites IAR to determine consensus. The RfC is a complete waste of time. –
'''Oppose''' - Due to lack of encyclopaedic contributions and overall experience.--
Weak Oppose per Pedro -- <b>
'''Neutral''' Changed position from oppose after expanded explanation of Q4. I still am not certain of this editor's judgement, but I can no longer justify an "oppose" position.
'''Neutral''' Changed from support per Dureo. --

'''Neutral'''. Moved from support per questionable judgment shown in opening the RfC on Kmweber during own RfA.
'''Neutral''' Changed from support to neutral because of the candidates response to Kurt Weber's oppose.--
'''Neutral'''. I am withholding support due to the response to Q6 (and partly to the Q5, per Pomte). When closing AfDs, the only role of the 'tally' is to serve as a caution to the closer (e.g. before closing as "delete" a discussion where the 'tally' is 10 to 1 in favour of keeping, the closer should consider whether his/her understanding of policy or evaluation of the consensus may be incorrect). However, the fact that the candidate mentioned [[Wikipedia:Notability]] in Q5 means I can't oppose. — '''
Why not? --
'''support''' Good editor. Deserves the tools. --
'''Über support''' - Yes, yes, yes! He is an amazing editor, and, I might add, very thorough with GAs. Good luck DHMO! Love,
'''Edit conflicted Support''', he has gone through much, and learned a lot in the process. A fabulous person, a hard working editor and an excellent candidate.
'''Why the heck not?''' --
'''Support''' Good user, will be a good administrator. Although I would've liked more time since the last one. &mdash;
'''Support''' He's been around for quite a while and seen a lot, and while I'm with [[User:I|I]] in that the gap between RfAs is a bit short, that shouldn't keep me from supporting a candidate who is fully qualified for the position. --
'''Support''' Looks like a great participant for a sysop. &mdash; [[User:E|<span style="color:#003366;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup><sub>
'''Support''' I'm familar with this user and his work, so I see no problem in giving this user adminship.
'''Support''' writes articles. Cleans up vandalism. Nice guy. Will make a great admin. -
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin. I could have sworn you were one before or something; maybe it's a side effect of that editcountitis medicine I've been taking. '''''
'''Edit Conflict Support!''' i trust him with the tools. --<span style="border:1px solid Red;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', I've worked with H<sub>2</sub>0 quite a bit recently, and I can see that he's changed since his previous failed RfAs, and has learned from his faults. I totally trust him with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' I have seen nothing but good from this user.  He is dependable, a hard worker, and a trusted editor.  The differences shown on my talk page with him are nothing but two friends just horsing around, and I trust him to not abuse the tools whatsoever.
'''Strong Support'''. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that people are opposing over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmlk17&diff=147934595&oldid=147932594 this comment] which was clearly a joke, and the user at whom it was directed has Supported above. As to AfDs and AIV reports, everyone makes mistakes or misjudges a situation; I've done so plenty of times in the past, and it doesn't make me a bad admin (I hope). I am also shocked to see that he's being opposed over his name change, which he explained was for personal reasons. And I'm even more shocked to see that he's being opposed about some of his past opinions on RfA, and for the creation of an essay which some people just didn't like (but which ''did'' raise some valid points) - it looks like we're getting to the point now where everyone is forced to comply with the True Path of Consensus Thinking, and those who commit [[heresy]] must recant before being accepted in the community. Dihydrogen Monoxide is a fantastic editor. I see him around all the time, he's always civil, cheerful and knowledgeable about policy, and I really hope this RfA succeeds.
'''Strong support'''. Finally. Everyone makes mistakes, Giggy has learned from them, and I see no reason to oppose for (silly) incidents that happened prior to his last RFA. This candidate is civil, experienced, thoughtful, and generally suitable for the mop. <b>
'''ULTRA STRONG SUPPORT''' ''definitly'' will make a great admin--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' I am confident that this user would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I may not agree with his stance over the importance of article editing, but I've seen this user firsthand in various XfD discussions, and his knowledge in Wiki-maintenance tilts me towards support. His last RfA was over 1 1/2 months and 2,500 edits ago, which I think is enough time ''for me''. But the concerns listed below are important, so Dihydrogen, take care during your admin work to prove these concerns wrong. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Mtmelendez|Mtmelendez]] <sup><small>([[User talk:Mtmelendez|Talk]]|
'''Support''' Yes, he has had issues, but he is also a fantastic contributor.
'''Support''' I don't think I've collaborated with a more pivotable editor in all of Wikipedia. I understand he's rather young and very teachable. Most importantly, our mistakes here on Wikipedia are all revertible, so no error is too great, so to speak. I think he'd add a great deal more than the void he'd leave. --
'''Strong Support''' I supported this user on his previous 2 RfAs and all I can see is more improvement. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Most definitely''' <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Support''' I've seen this user quite a lot over Wikipedia, and after looking over his contributions, I think we'd have a good sysop on our hands if he gets the position. Regards - <small>''[[User talk:Anecdote|IT'S DA...]]''</small>'''
I supported the first RfA, I co-nominated and strongly supported the second, and I'm going to strongly support the third. I do agree that Dihydrogen Monoxide could lower his RfA standards a bit, as they are unnecessarily high, but that's my only issue with the candidate. I was annoyed at how the last RfA sank the way it did, and it seems this one will do the same. With all his errors, Dihydrogen Monoxide has explained about and responded to the mistakes of the last two RfAs, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. Hesperian's concerns are old problems.
'''Strong Support''' I think the comments in the oppose section are quite overblown. You'll make a great Administrator. '''
'''Support''' The current contributions of this editor have been fine and they've demonstrated a capacity to learn from mistakes i.e. take constructive criticism. Also, many of the most vocal oppose arguments seem to be having trouble assuming good faith, and make the veiled accusation that Di is power hungry. That is unacceptable.
'''Support''' - Looks great to me! I think you've learned a lot. -
'''Support''' - Significant involvement in Wiki-related articles - should be able to handle well the tools.--
'''Support''' Much improved since the last time, new name, fresh, better start. Especially, much better question answers.
'''Support'''. Some of the opposers raise legitimate issues, but I believe most of them have been addressed since the prior nomination, and I believe the candidate is ready to be trusted with the tools at this time.
'''Support'''. I think this user learns from his mistakes and now has sufficient experience to become an admin. --
'''support''' - I think DH will make a good administrator. While the opposers raise some fair concerns, I think he wil do a good job all the same. -- <strong>
'''Support''' Similar reason as Anonymous Dissident. He's a good editor. Instead of finding evidence to fault an editor, why don't we AGF and look at what he contributes? His name change is not to evade the old impression of Giggy, but to avoid cyberstalking by someone he knows in real life. I can't tell anyone more because this is his privacy and I respect his decisions if he prefers not to explain the details to everyone.
'''Support''' The oppose concerns do not raise any alarms as to the user's ability to use the tools and follow procedure. Essays and chatlogs are sooooooo ten minutes ago.
'''Support''' This editor has been through a lot and has clearly learned a great deal from those experiences.  An excellent editor that I believe will make a great admin.
'''Support.''' He has made mistakes and errors of judgement in the past, many of which have been raised by the opposers below. However, it is my opinion that he has learned a lot from these and is all the better for it. As such, I believe that he will be an asset as an admin and do not believe he will misuse the tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support.''' Despite H20's comments, the issue isn't whether an editor needs admin tools - its whether the editor can be trusted with them. I see no convincing reason to believe that you can't be trusted with admin tools.
'''Support''' per LaraLove, Dreadstar, Wimt, and Melsaran.  He's a good editor, made several mistakes, and has come grovelling back to us practically on hands and knees.  A bit of forgiveness, a dash of wikilove, and an [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] goes a long way.  I was going to stay out of this one, but the oppose comments are piling on.  The editor is a college student on his way back (I presume to be his sophomore year).  This is a "learning moment".
'''Support''' He is an editor with a solid contribution history of encyclopedia building, who can be trusted with the tools. I think several things have gotten blown out of proportion and misinterpreted, including his deleted essay about templating and comments about adminship requirements. Also the username changes were all in the open, and there was sound (though unfortunate) rationale for his unplanned and immediate temporary departure. It's fair to say he really wants to be an admin (and it's good to want to help), labeling him as power-hungry or wanting it "too badly" is passing judgment on his character above and beyond his edits. While some opposers point out mistakes that H2O has made, I'm willing to chalk it up to good ol' human error instead of a fundamental lack of judgment rendering admin unsuitability. I trust him to be accountable, receptive, and responsive to any concerns about his administrative actions, especially since he's clarified at my request that he's opening himself up to recall. ~
'''Support''' Your answers to the questions were mostly good (although I somewhat agree with those who have concerns about your priorities - yes we're an encyclopedia and in the long haul improving articles is paramount but the backlog isn't going to go away on its own, so those with the gear to clear it should be doing so).  That said, I am a bit dismayed by some of the opposers who seem to expect you to be the ideal admin.  You're a human being like all of us.  It's not reasonable to expect anyone, especially someone who has yet to be an admin, to be the '''perfect''' one.  Is it reasonable to expect you to be a '''good''' admin?  Of course.  Based not only on your answers here but what I've seen of your work, am I confident that you will be a '''good''' admin?  '''Without a doubt'''.  And hey, it's not like admins do it for the groupies ;-) --
'''$upport''' Al, (I can call you that right?) I would support you if you changed you name to "G1ggy on Wheels". In fact, if your user name was G1ggy on Wheels, I'd nominate you. But, I digress the time matter doesn't matter and '''I know''' you are up to it. Shock around tha Clock!
'''Support''', changed from neutral.  The more I thought about it the more I figured I was making the wrong call here.  Sure, I am a little unsettled by some of the odd/contradictory answers given and the sudden namechange stuff going on, but really when I sit down and think about the question that is important here - do I trust this user - the answer is sure.  They've demonstrated a willingness to help with the 'pedia and aside from a few minor issues haven't really done anything damning.  So yeah, changing my stance here.  Good luck!
'''Support'''. Incidentally, the essay is still around, and it still isn't a reason to oppose. [[User:DESiegel/Template the regulars]].
'''Strong Support''' Good contributor that can be trusted with the tools.  Let's not confuse admins required to take thier work serious and admins required to be robots that only know wikipedia policies.
'''Support''' - a good guy, certainly has a firm understanding of the project. Sometimes he tells it how it is, which is probably a good thing.
'''Weak Support''' - your editing credentials are very good, although the opening sentence of your RfA does you no justice. I'm supporting you on the basis of what you've proved you CAN do. Just take note of the points below and work on improvements. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Late to the party support''' My interactions with this candidate have been exclusively positive.
'''Support''' - good article-writing, seems trustworthy, nice behind-the scenes experience. Plus he doesn't take himself too seriously, which is a good thing on the increasingly legalistic Wikipedia ("Oh my goodness! He created an ''essay''! And then ''deleted'' it!"). And he's Australian - most of them, barring the likes of serial killer Martin Bryant or Republican Kevin Rudd, are good people, so that's another positive sign.
'''Support'''.  There's that Jimbo's quote about adminship's not being a big deal, and accordingly, I express my position much less often than I read the RfA threads (I think I last actually commented in August).  However, having familiarised myself with the discussion -- and especially the "interesting" controversy -- I feel a vote is called for.  My vote is supportive.
'''Support'''. Open to recall convinced me that this is a reasonable user.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''[[Glenn Quagmire|Giggity]]'''At this point, I don't think this RfA will pass. I just wanted to let you know I'm still backing you.
'''Support''' A reasonable candidate. -
'''Support''' I know it is late and this RfA is probably not passing but I wanted to establish my position anyway. I support him because he is a good contributor with edits balanced among spaces, as well as having a good undersatnding of his field of interest AfDs. In fact, I think it was quite bold to close [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_of_the_Phoenix_%28organisation%29]] discussion as a non-admin, and he closed it correctly as was confirmed later at [[WP:DRV#Order_of_the_Phoenix_.28organisation.29_.28closed.29]], which also shows a good understanding of the core principle of consensus. Best, --

H<sub>2</sub>O/Giggy is a great editor, but requesting an RfA just a coupla weeks after returning under a new username? That speaks of poor judgement to me. I also personally was confused by all the drama associated with the leaving - if you were going to return under a new username, why not just tell people? Little things like those, as well as concerning actions brought up in previous RfAs, smack of an unpredictable nature and an unwillingness to think matters through sufficiently before undertaking them, and kinda take the edge off the enthusiastic support I would have hoped to give here. ~
'''Strong Oppose.''' Unusually high requirements for support votes in other RfAs tell me that this user has no understanding of adminship.
<p>'''Strong oppose.''' G1ggy was clearly unsuited to be an admin in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/G1ggy|his first RfA]] (four months and two name changes ago) -- what has he done differently since then except pump up his edit count with near-automated vandal-fighting edits?</p><p>Reviewing the previous RfAs, I am quite appalled by DHMO having one standard for himself and another for the rest of Wikipedia. Apparently, he is allowed to apply for adminship with only 700 edits, but now he defends editcount inflation, suggesting that it is not even worth reviewing contributions if there are fewer than, say, 3000 of them. On this point, I'm not just opposing him for disagreeing with me about edit counting, I'm opposing him for being hypocritical about it.</p><p>His answers to questions provide more reasons to oppose. His Q3 answer is unsettling: if he's never had a conflict bigger than failing an RfA, then either he seriously overdramatized that RfA, or he's never taken on anything difficult. His Q6 answer is sugar-coated, I'd say, given the disdain for article-writing he shows directly afterward in Q7, and it ends with the grandiose suggestion that he can single-handedly clear backlogs.</p><p>I've mostly seen him on RfA, where his dismissal of actual, well-researched article editing and his susceptibility to editcountitis make me doubt his judgement, but Hesperian's comments above help to confirm that his judgement is as shaky throughout Wikipedia. In his response, DHMO is defensive about his past mistakes but not particularly apologetic. I don't see much appeal in the idea of DHMO being an admin.
Flat '''no''', and probably make that a "'''never'''". Quite apart from everyone else's points, I seem to remember deleting some stuff from his userspace that basically amounted to harassment of other Wikipedians. In general, I'm lef unimpressed.
'''Ick''' – I was going to support when I read question six, I then read question seven... I became slightly confused. I then read the oppose reasons and I have concluded that this user does not have my full trust.
'''Oppose''' - to some extent because of what I see as too much "socializing" to the extent of forming cliques, but mostly  per some of what Hesperian said, and much of what Riana, RyanGerbil and Rspeer said. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I still have concerns from the last RFA and concur with those expressed above by Riana and others. --
'''<s>Weak</s>Strong Oppose''' <s>Yes, you're a great editor. But</s> I sense that becoming an admin '''is''' a big deal for you and I have to wonder whether the maturity is there to handle it. Also, I'd be more comfortable if you hadn't deleted [[WP:Template the regulars]], but left it in place with an explanation of how your thoughts had changed about the issue. It tends to fit the pattern of evasion mentioned above by Riana.
'''Strong oppose''' I really like Giggy/H2O/whatever, but he is, in my mind, totally unsuitable for this, I've found. I told him the other day in his editor review '''not''' to request for a while (along with other editors) - did he listen to this? Nope. Not only that, he has ''self nominated'', so he purposely ignored our reviews. This request will ''probably'' fail - if you had just waited a little while longer, perhaps you'd have done better. And I don't like the idea you seem really, really desperated to be an admin. You're a great editor, but not yet admin quality. Sorry. * '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per your answer to Q7, posting private chatlogs (I know you apologised but it just so scandalous I still cannot believe it) and Ronnotel's summation immediately above.  &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' per Moondyne. Thinking people who write articles shouldn't be admins is a killer. This is an encyclopedia. Any admin who wisely uses tools is a plus to wikipedia.
'''Strong Oppose''' You stress your article-building activities on Wikipedia, but in previous RfAs, you have opposed users because they spend much of their time doing article work. In the same respect, couldn't that be said about you, also? The wording on Melburnian's RfA confused me a little, so please clarify any mistakes in my opposition. Also, the diff pointed out by TRE is a bit troubling. Like you have said before, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Failing an RfA should not make you lose faith of the project. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
I'm probably going to commit suicide after this, but '''oppose'''. I really wish you would have waited a little more time before requesting adminship to work on solving the concerns raised in your previous request. The comments above and speedy deletion requets like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HTMLDOC&diff=159537825&oldid=159537052 this one] convince me that you're not ready for admin rights. "''people who write articles shouldn't be admins''"; What the <script>document.write('f','u','c','k');</script> is that? We're an encyclopedia; the point of admins is to help maintain it. How are they supposed to do that if they have no mainspace experience? Truly sorry, man. /goes to jump off a building.--'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
I have to agree that this attitude about editing articles and being an admin is over the top.
'''Oppose'''. Obsession about getting adminship is bad enough in its own right. His past RfA's, the latest a very recent, showed too many problems with the editor and no indication that the editor has improved in such short time. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Per pretty much everything above.  He seems obsessed with achieving adminship and he seems to be a hypocrite. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Oppose reluctantly but decidedly. Sorry, like several others I assume, I came here unprejudiced and ready to support. But reading through the oppose section reveals rather serious concerns, and rspeer and others made good points why not to support this candidacy. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
The advice at your editor review, to wait longer between adminship requests, probably should have been taken under more careful consideration.  I share many of the concerns above, and to add to the list, I'm unhappy with the behavior [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Random Editor|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pedro_2|here]].  I understand these are your friends; do you understand the concerns about this behavior?  I wouldn't have opposed for cliquishness alone, but on top of everything else it's just another red flag. --
'''Oppose.''' I don't care how many administrative acts an admin performs;  I do care about the quality  of those acts.  Someone who thinks an admin does not need to be an editor and, conversely, an editor does not need to be an admin, IMO should not be an admin and perhaps shouldn't be an editor here either. --
'''Oppose''' As Walton points out, one's views on a wikipolitical issue should generally not be held against a candidate. In this case, however, I'm afraid it also says a lot about the kind of admin H2O would be. The disconnect between editors and administrators is a problem I can't trust H2O to help with. In particular, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMelburnian&diff=143653184&oldid=143648437 this diff] is hard for me to forget. I also share some of the concerns above, in particular about the perceived over-eagerness to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' - I really don't like the user's rationale in regard to question #9 - You don't get to decide what's notable or not, the community decides. You violated the core of what AfD is. Sure the arguments about the article being written poorly should've been given less weight seeing as we delete articles based on notability, but the consensus was too split in the mentioned AfD and it was a bad move closing it yourself. Generally, I think when an AfD is that close, an admin should make the final ruling. It would have saved you a lot of opposes, and if you were an experienced editor, in my eye you would've been able to see that coming - I would have steered well clear. This coupled with the fact that your previous RfA was only a short time ago, it makes me think you're not an editor who thinks things through - You obviously knew that nominating yourself so close to your last RfA would bring opposes (Based on the comment Hesperian pointed out), yet you still decided to go ahead anyway. This does not give me confidence in your judgement. Your edits are sound and I think one day, far down the track, you'll make a fine admin. However, while you might benifit if you're granted the tools now, I don't think ''Wikipedia'' will benifit, so that'll have to be an oppose from me. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Per the doubts expressed by users above. Too many question marks here for me to give the thumbs-up. --
'''Oppose'''. It's a shame since i like the user and almost nominated him last go around. What a difference a month makes I guess. I was going to support, but I looked at what's happened with him and all the circumstances, and there's no way I can support. He leaves August 28th after being fed up with here apparently, yet wants adminship less than a month later? I'm reluctant to give it to him as a result. But this in itself isn't a reason to oppose, so I decided to read the questions. And wow, what I saw surprised me. Questions 6 and 7 conflict themselves. you say that you primarily contribute articles and would rather do that instead of admin work, yet you say that primarily article writers shouldn't be admins? Very confusing. All this would probably knock me down to a neutral though. But after reading what you did with that one AfD, that kinda takes the cake. If an admin were to make that close with that decision it would've been awfully iffy in itself. For a user to close it is basically going against the policy - we trust admins to close them over editors for a reason. That and I disagree with the rationale of your decision, it seems like you let your beliefs get in the way. If the article is <script>document.write('c','r','a','p');</script>, why not eete it and let it get a fresh start? Terrible decision there. You did something similar in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Guerrero]] as well. Although in that one I would've kept it myself, it's better if editors do not close ones that could be argued either of 2 or 3 ways. But really, if you want to work on articles still, taht's fine, go to that. But do I trust you with the tools based on what I've seen. Alas, I do not.
'''Oppose''' Of the 58 users that this person reported to WP:AIV, 17 of then were removed without blocking. This shows a lack of understanding of when a block should be applied. (
'''Oppose''' I really like you, H2O, but I just don't think that you will make the best admin right now. Suddenly leaving Wikipedia apparantly because of a failed RfA and then without warning, returning to Wikipedia (which I am glad you did) and then almost immediately making a request for adminship just worries me and strikes me that you are a little moody. That is definitely not what I like to see in an admin. In addition, it has been quite soon since your last RfA and I don't think that you have answered to what the oppposers suggested. Sorry, but I really have to oppose here.
This user seems to have an unhealthy lust for adminship.  Plus, I don't like the drama surrounding him in regards to leaving and name changing (we have enough dramatic admins coming and going as it is).  Also, "Of these, my proudest work is Starlight (song), as it was the GA which contained the least collaboration" is bothersome because Wikipedia happens to be a wiki, which happens to be based on collaboration. --
'''Oppose''' - as per [[User:Hesperian|Hesperian]] & [[User:John Reaves|John Reaves]]
'''Oppose''' per concerns and points raised by 1==2 and rspeer.
'''Oppose''', mainly per Riana and the username change/timing issue she describes, but it's also topped off by a little thing I saw today: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irpen&diff=160128626&oldid=159999618 this haughty reproach]. You expect...wow. Does being "the GA reviewer" make you the king or something? That majestic tone is not something I want to hear from an admin. I'm also  rather concerned by judgment issues arising from your rating that article as a GA—not that that is, as such, a weighty part of my oppose reason.
<s>Your answer to questions six and eight contradict each other: you say you'll only help at backlogs when you have writer's block, yet say that you'd make a good admin because you'd lower backlogs.</s><sup>Struck out because this was answered satisfactorily in question #12</sup> Also, question seven wasn't satisfactorily answered, IMHO. Bishonen's link above worries me as well... · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''<s>Weak</s> Strong oppose''' - I'm sorry. I don't feel comfortable right now, given some of the evidence above -
'''Oppose''' - I think it is vital that admins understand the encyclopaedia side of the wikipedia.  To me one of those things is understanding the purpose of redlinks in the right place. DHMO recently went through and removed redlinks from the List of Austrlaian Rivers [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rivers_of_Australia&diff=158679637&oldid=158667266].  The edit was easily reverted but what worries me is the judgment call that led to the edit in the first instance: it indicates to me that s/he is not ready just yet. --
'''Oppose'''. Bishonen's diff is very troubling. When someone recreates an article you deleted, are you going to tell them off in the same way? -
'''<s>Oppose</s> See below'''. per '''Amarkov''', '''Golden Wattle''', the inappropriate '''non-admin''' closing and other issues.
'''Oppose''' as per Bish, and Riana, sorry.
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User_talk:Irpen#GAR_is_that-a-way.21]]. If the editor accept a gentleman's agreement: I will make a GA review for your POV article - you would make a review for mine,  then what to expect from when he will be an admin?  I block your opponent - you block mine? I close your AfD - you close mine? Admins should act on merits not on connections
'''Strong Oppose'''. I have seen multiple recent comments where the candidate is fanning the flames rather than attempting to calm a situation. This is not the type of behavior I wish to see in a candidate.
'''Oppose''' per Alex Bakharev, Bish and Riana. And my own personal observations make me concerned about maturity.
'''Oppose''' per ChazBeckett's reasoning.
'''Oppose''' - name changes, RfA density is too high for my liking, a grand total of two edits to AIV. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''<s>Neutral</s>Oppose''': I was going to sit this one out, but I've just seen this user's comment in response to Amarkov over on R's RfA and it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence they'll not make a bad situation on Wikipedia worse with an inopportune comment. The allegations of a deal over the GA make me uncomfortable especially as I was asked by a user to investigate GA status being removed by Irpen. I had a quick look over the article and on the surface, it looks decent enough, but upon closer inspection, it's really not very good. Using the word "pundit" and all it entails in the introduction just isn't cricket, I'm afraid.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. I came here to support, but the issues pointed out by Riana are are ''really'' not what I'd like to see in admin (excluding the real-life issue). Oppose especially per answer to question 12...that was pretty out of line. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Wilful disruption of the GA process is not acceptable, even if some practice it regularly. --
'''Strong oppose''' Because of GA approval for a [[Denial of Soviet occupation|deleted and re-created POV fork]] (see the deletion discussion here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soviet_occupation_denialism])--
'''Oppose''', as per the post that Bishonen bought up and the fact that sarcasm doesn't become an admin. -
'''Strong oppose''' per Bishonen and many others. --
'''Oppose''', what can I say, like LaraLove, I was struck with shock as I see  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence presented by Bishonen|Bishonen's empirical evidence]]. Before that I still held slight hope that this was only a misunderstanding and you would soon address people's concerns by answering Q15. However, in view of your perceptible reluctance to answer along with more and more proof of corrupted GA process coming into light, I regretfully have to change my vote. Sorry!
'''Reluctant oppose''' - I find myself rather conflicted here, as I quite like the candidate and think they mean well, and I openly encourage younger people with the ability to do so to apply, as I think it counters a certain age bias which is sometimes observed on Wiki. However, my criteria for RfA are very simple - one has to have a history of good faith communication and an ability to deal with conflict appropriately, and one has to have a firm basis in and understanding of policy (maybe not the finer points of it but certainly a broadly general idea of what it is about that reflects in their practice). Most other things can be learned easily, but I'm seeing a history of little eruptions, misunderstandings and other randomness which point to troubles ahead should the candidate be approved (which would, admittedly, require something of a miracle at this stage). Every RfA (three so far) has had some complicated issue (often more than one) that has needed explanation. This is not such a bad thing in and of itself, but probably is a good sign that it would have been better to wait until issues are resolved and ancient history. I'm also concerned by this user's inability to handle questioning or criticism of his actions (I'm looking here at answers to some of the questions) - I'm aware of a couple of admins who are like this and their actions are constantly under review at AN/I. Add to that some plainly ''bizarre'' comments regarding article-only admins, and I have no choice but to vote oppose (I was initially going to abstain as I did last time). I also second Sharkface and Riana's comments.
'''Oppose''', due to Bishonen's discovery about the GA article review.
'''Oppose''' - This is unfortunate, but with all things considered, I cannot in good faith support. Various issues were raised early on that I felt were irrelevant knowing Giggy, however, recent events have changed my mind. I've read the IRC logs in their entirety and, while I disagree with Bishonen's summary which seemed a little worse than what I read, I still find issue with the where and how of it all. I also am displeased with the passing of both articles which fail to meet the criteria. I take further issue with the fact that he has been online (according to some on IRC) since the currently unanswered questions were posed, but not editing WP other than to add a vacation tag to his user page. '''
DHMO has a rather abrasive way of dealing with situations, as shown above, that I feel would make him unable to be an effective administrator.  I can deal with incivility, but DHMO handles things much worse.  It also seems that DHMO is focusing on adminship, which can show a need for power.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denial_of_Soviet_occupation&diff=159922383&oldid=159688360 This] worries me as I see no reason to doubt Bishonen's description of the events that led up to it.
'''Strong Oppose'''. IRC is a problem already, because people can make deals without others knowing. And here we have someone caught red-handed, and very enthusiastic to boot to become an admin - coming here, self-nominated, after disappearing and a few days after having an editor review. He actually behaves like he is an admin already, and not a very good one. Bossy, unfriendly, haughty, ... --
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, H20, but the above links concern me about maturity issues with you. No offense. I'd like to see you as an admin some day, but not now. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' per evidence given by Bishonen.
This has been a very difficult RfA for me to watch. I now H<sub>2</sub>O reasonably well as an editor, but the Diwurgen mess makes me not trust you with the mop yet. Sorry. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Neutral''' &ndash; While I think H<sub>2</sub>0 has what it takes to be an admin, the comments by the opposers and some of your old subpages leave me too dubious to support. —<tt>[[</tt>'''
'''Neutral''' - DM has done some great things so I won't oppose, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3AGiggy%2FHeader&timestamp=20070731035115 this] concerns me. It essentially was a break message after his failed RFA stating he would return if he still had faith in the project. Sorry, but that makes me think you might be prone to do something drastic or maybe just leave, if things didn't go your way. Sorry. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' I cannot in good faith oppose or support H20. Dihydrogen, you seem to take the office of adminship a bit too seriously. The mop isn't that big of a deal. Personally, I think that you might make a good Admin, but such comments (like your answer to Q7) greatly confuse and bewilder me. In my opinion, it is always better to be a Wikipedian who is not an admin but greatly contributes to the encyclopedia than a mop who spends all his time doing his administrative duties. What first drew me to Wikipedia was the knowledge to be found here and the fact that anyone could contribute to the articles. After a while here, I too got caught up in the administrative duties, spending all my time scouring [[WP:RFA|RFA]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:FPC|FPC]], [[WP:SPEEDY|SPEEDY]], etc. Eventually, I took a step back and realized that what is truly enjoyable (for me, anyway) was the process of contributing to the articles rather than dealing with the administrative tasks. Administrators, I believe, should be Wikipedians who enjoy contributing knowledge to the encyclopedia and improving the quality of articles rather than ones who enjoy doing administrative duties. You, it seems, do not wish to contribute to the articles but rather to the administrative stuff that seems to be running rampant now on Wikipedia. And, while that's somewhat good also (in it's own way), you don't need a mop to do that. --'''
I'm going to have to agree about the fact that you've done really great things, however the oppose comments are making me be on the fence here.  There's TTR that's making catching some eyebrows, and then there's the urge for admin tools as to not write articles.  I'm really concerned about all this, so I can't do much but be '''neutral'''. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Neutral leaning to oppose that in turn leans to moral support''', sorry. I have DM in good regard, but I can't support his RfA at this time. I share some of the concerns expressed by the opposers, particularly Riana. DM should perhaps try to rebuild a solid, stable participation in this project before attempting a new RfA. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Regretfull Neutral''' I can't in faith oppose, but I certainly cannot support. This editor is a stunning and hard worker, who I respect a great deal, and who nominated me for RfA twice. But, although I understand about school holidays etc., the timing of this RfA is poor - i.e. far too soon. If anything though DHMO should be strongly applauded for one thing. If anyone thought RfA was a clique of "mates" all trying to get each other adminship then this one has done the damage to that concept. I'm trully sorry mate, but I hope you understand. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' leaning to support.  I've reviewed Giggy at least once, and I understand how he works on Wikipedia and what he's trying to do.  It's unfortunate that some extraneous issues, such as the quirky username change, are obscuring the substantive content of his contributions.  From personal experience, I oppose on principle the "not now, not ever" approach - a few months will do much to allay the concerns here, and I will almost certainly support the next request if I'm still watching RFA a few months from now.
'''Neutral''' - '''''So''''' glad there was a good reason for that diff. I have concerns over you; too great to support, but happy to move from outright oppose. Good luck whatever. --

'''Neutral''' I watched the last RfA for H2O, and was disappointed with the turn it took. I was saddened to see that something the editor did in good faith, was twisted into something it was never intended to be, (TTR issue) and while it may have been a bad idea, I truly don't believe H20 created that essay with any malice or bad intent. I do believe he learned a lot from that RfA, and I also do not consider the name change to be any issue. As I'm not intimately involved with GA procedure, I'm going to refrain from addressing that, but the evidence I've seen leads me to believe that H20 possibly could have gone about this in a better way, rather than using IRC, but we all live and learn, and I have absolutely no doubt that he will learn from this experience. I'm not convinced that he "conspired" with anyone to pass GAs, I believe it was a combination of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and poor choice of forum (IRC chat) that would make it appear this is what happened. From what I know of H20, if there's one thing he'll do, is learn, and move on, and improve. All that being said, I initially absolutely planned to support this RfA, but after looking over the oppose comments, I have to admit there are things that I'm not comfortable with, and thus, I'll remain neutral, and give big amounts of moral support. However, I do want to voice my opinion that (as we all have), yes, H20 has made mistakes, but I'm 100% confident that he learned from them in the past, and will continue to learn from them in the future, and I believe that administrator or not, he is a wonderful and valuable contributor to this project, and deserves respect for all he's done, and for his continued efforts to improve Wikipedia. (And I fixed the comment format from #10, so that numbering would continue.) <sup>
Changing to '''Neutral''' leaning to oppose (and I'm really sorry about this one), but the issues Bishonen raises really are serious. There is no way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denial_of_Soviet_occupation&oldid=159771066 this] weasel-worded poorly-sourced piece of POV-pushing should legitimately have passed as a GA (even in an improved state, it doesn't even look likely to pass [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation|its AfD]], let alone a GAC), so - much as I dislike the way everyone seems to be lining up to sling mud at you - I have to assume that either something iffy was going on, or you had a bad lapse of judgement. Since it does seem to be a one-off thing, I'm not going to oppose you on the basis of it, but if you pass now everyone you come into conflict with as an admin will have a legitimate reason to assume bad faith.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
Neutral - until question response. '''
'''Neutral''' - I am changing, albeit a bit reluctantly and after much thought, to neutral as well.  I am concerned about the GA incident.  Not inasmuch as I think that DHMO did anything intentionally dishonest based on what I have read, but more because it speaks to a quality of judgment that I wonder about.  It seems to represent a desire to put one's "Wikipedia career" goals ahead of the project itself.  It does not seem as though we will see a response from him on the topic before the close of this RfA.  I am also concerned about the focus that DMHO has on this RfA.  [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] seems to be a two way street to me.  Not a big deal, but the focus here is extreme.  That being said, I don't envy his roasting here in any way and think it takes some real chutzpah to bear up under it as he has.  I want to re-assert that we ''do'' have a valuable editor here who has made many fine contributions to the project.  I am merely concerned about priorities and how they might impact DMHO's use of the tools.  My recommendation would be taking a step back, considering much of what's been said here and continuing the good work.
'''Neutral''' I closed last night a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 22|DRV]] of an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola E770|AFD]] that this user had closed.  The general agreement of the DRV participants is that this user got the close wrong, but there wasn't general agreement about what to do instead (even split between overturn and delete, overturn and no consensus, and relist - but absolutely no endorsement of the close).  This experience is quite limited, but the unanimous non-endorsement of the AFD close indicates that the user isn't ready for that aspect of being an admin.
Neutral (from oppose) per Riana's initial oppose, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dihydrogen_Monoxide&diff=next&oldid=160196387 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irpen&diff=160128626&oldid=159999618 this]. This user does some good stuff, but like last time, recent events have made me uncomfortable. '''
'''Neutral''' Good user, but I don't have the heart to support or oppose. '''
'''Moral Support''' ''I'm just trying to improve the quality of the Wikipedia''. An excellent sentiment. Copy editing (which seems to be your strength based on edits) is vital to the clarity of this work for our readers. I'm sorry to tell you that this RFA is very likely to fail, but please don't think that your work is not valued. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' you've made enough edits for me.  I'm not concerned that you deal mainly with copy-editing and not (by some peoples standards) enough in the project space.  While this is likely to fail, I suggest you try another RFA in September.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Moral Support''' per Pedro. Copyediting is valuable, and this candidate is definitely admin material in principle - just not experienced enough yet with some key admin areas. Try again in 2-3 months after gaining more relevant experience, and you could also try [[WP:ADMINCOACH]].
'''Apologetic Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but the fact that you were not even able to properly construct (for want of a better word) your RFA page shows me that you need more experience and are not ready for the tools. Also the fact that 2310 of your 2350 edits are in the mainspace; you have no edits at all in the template space, only 14 in the user talk space and less than 10 in the wikipedia space, most of which will have been on this RFA. <strong>
DOSGuy, you seem like a very helpful editor, but I just don't see the experience necessary to give you tools for article deletion. You've never participated in a deletion discussion, and you don't mention any experience with prodding or tagging things for speedy deletion. I'm inclined to believe from your nomination statement that you haven't done either. I suggest that you try some [[WP:NPP|new page patrol]] and participation at [[WP:AFD|deletion discussions]] and then re-apply in a few months. You've been with the project long enough to earn some trust, but I don't see enough experience with article deletion. The same goes for talk page communication to some extent, though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADOSGuy&diff=123466239&oldid=123295028 this] was excellent handling of a complaint. Anyway, good luck. To the rest of the community, let's not BITE this well-meaning editor, please.--
'''Oppose'''. You may one day make a fine admin. However, you need more experience per comments above. Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' - 3 Wikipedia-space edits, and all of them are to this RfA. I really can't trust you at the moment. Also, you say you revert vandalism, which is true, but you have no edits at all to [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. You need more edits in the Wikipedia-namespace. This is because Wikipedia is a community, and most of admin-tasks originate in the Wikipedia-namespace, the Wikipedia community.
'''Oppose''' - Per directly abouve, will support if you can bring this edit count up, but I think that may take a while.
We most definitely need more editors like you, DOSGuy, that are so obviously dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. However, an administrator has to be well versed in in various policies and guidelines, and there's very little to show that you have that grasp. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination and broadening your scope a bit to include participation in [[WP:XfD|XfD discussions]]. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you've added a lot to Wikipedia, but you only have  5 wikipedia edits, and very little interaction with other editors.  Work on those areas and you shouldn't have  any trouble getting promoted in a few months. '''
'''Oppose''' Not nearly enough experience overall.
'''Oppose''' when we comment on an editor's suitability for the admin tools, all that we have to go on is the edits we can see in admin-related articlesin [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. You have very, very few, so it is not possible to assess your potential admin skills. Spend some time in these pages, and try again in say three months time.--<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' You need more experience in pages that are to do with wikipedia administration, such as the Wikipedia: namespace, XfD's, AIV, etc. If you get more administration-related experience, then i would happily support you, as would many others. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
I appreciate the fact that you are offering to help out with backlogs, but you don't need admin tools to revert vandalism or correct spelling errors.

'''Neutral''' per all above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' with '''Moral Support'''.  Good editor with valuable contributions and a good set of ethics it appears, although narrow experience leaves me unable to accurately judge the user's grasp on policy.
'''Moral support'''. You're a good editor, but you're just a little too new for adminship, with no edits in project namespace besides this RFA. Try to gain some more experience before applying again. Read [[Wikipedia:Welcome]], contribute to some articles, get familiar with our policies, patrol the recent changes, participate in some deletion debates. Good luck! <b>
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal; while editcounting is A Bad Thing, you have less than 100 edits, none of which are substantial, and you don't give any indication in your answers to the questions as to why you want sysop powers<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' Your answers don't give an indication that you understand which tasks are administrator tasks or why you want to perform them. Recent change patrolling can be done by non-admins.
'''Oppose''' I hate to be an editcounter but I am sorry 100 edits is just too low.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Your edits so far aren't bad, but you just aren't experienced enough. As a rough guide, most of the people who come here have at least 2000 edits. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' Do not think that your contributions are not valued, but this RfA will not pass. Continue your good work and enjoy exploring all that Wikipedia has to offer. You will find in your own time when you need to access the buttons o further your work, but the time is not now. I would sugest a withdrawal at this time. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Suggest withdrawal and obtain more experience. I don't see any contribs deleted or otherwise to any part of the deletion process. Out of your four edits to Wikipedia three are to your RFA and less than thirty-five edits to the mainspace. You are not ready to have admin tools. Get more experience and try again in several months.--
I am not familiar with you, and your edits do not show me firmly in either direction your suitability for the tools.  --
'''Beat the nom support''' Can't see any big reason not to, and the handling of the handicapped symbol really stuck out.  But ten bucks someone nails him for low project space edits. <font face="comic sans ms">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Low project space edits is OK, however I assume once you become an admin that will go up, as almost all admin tasks involve pages in project spave (RFPP, AIV, UAA, OP, COIN, ANI, etc) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' The answers demonstrate sufficient experience with the Wikipedia community and the operating system.
'''Support'''. ''Why not?'' Contributions look alright with a good edit count and experience. Good luck.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Sufficient experience; although I agree that some experience in projectspace/processes is important, I don't think that a low number necessarily reflects inexperience. Raw editcount is not a good determiner of suitability for adminship; someone who makes 1000 projectspace edits by writing humorous essays or playing around with trivial projects is less suitable for adminship than one with 100 good edits to XfDs and AIV, for instance.
'''Support''' - largely agree with the neutral voters, however his/her role in the wheelchair logo debacle, where s/he resolved the conflict by creating a free use logo, tips the balance to support.
'''Support.''' Contribs are solid and numerous enough to form an opinion. The Wikipedia namespace has little, if anything, to do with adminship in my opinion. I've been an admin for nearly a year and I don't have any WP pages watchlisted (it's a personal rule of mine) I read WP:AN and AN/I, but almost never participate. I have a barnstar for my work in closing debates I ''never'' participated in before I became an admin. Becoming an admin changes one's editing patterns so much it's pointless to use namespace balance to evaluate how a candidate will perform when/if given the tools.
'''Support''' I do not see any big reasons to oppose you.--
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Because when I asked him for help,he helped me and has a knowledge about wikipedia. --
'''Support''' There doesn't appear to be anything to be concerned about here. Looks like a good candidate. '''
'''Support''' Experienced user, no evidence of poor behaviour.  That the user's behaviour is usually so uncontraversial it doesn't need to be discussed at length is not a down side.
'''Support''' I have faith enough in you to offer my Support.
'''Weak Support''' Low project space edits, but there is still good reason to support.
'''Support''' Although wiki edits are a little low, still see many reasons to support. '''
'''Support''' See no evidence to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' Minimal experience in project-space gives no record on which to judge candidate's capabilities in this area vital to adminship.
'''Oppose''' per above.  More experience in project-space is needed.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Oppose''' Based upon the lack of the project space edits.  I just believe you need much more in-depth experience within the project before there is even a need for tools.
'''Weak oppose'''. I'm not bothered by the number of project space edits, but there's a dearth of interaction with other users through talk page edits. They've certainly improved in content over time (from [[Talk:List of longest live Dave Matthews Band songs]] to recent comments at [[User talk:Sarah sofia]]), but there's not enough of a record here to allow me to understand how this user responds to conflict.
Per Xoloz. -- <b>
'''Oppose'''.  This appears to be a productive, well-meaning user.  That said, Xoloz's concern regarding project space edits combined with Dekimasu's regarding lack of talk page interaction compels me to oppose for now.  I encourage Dream out loud to continue to improve in these two areas and try again in a few months.  In any event, please keep doing good work here. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Oppose'''. Per Jersyko.
'''Oppose'''. Great potential and do try again if this is unsuccessful. But in over 6000 edits there seem to be very few warning tags on user talk pages indicating that there is much anti-vandal, CSD or AfD or ProD activity here. Suggest upping the activity in these areas before trying again.
Per Jersyko. '''
While Dream out loud's contributions have surely helped the project, I would like to see a bit more admin-related experience simply to show that he can use the buttons judiciously and effectively [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Low project space edits. (''hands over the $10'') Seriously, though, a little more participation both there and also in talk space is really needed. Article talk, user talk, project talk, whatever, I'm not bothered, just a bit more communication with other users before I can trust this candidate with adminship – WikiProjects are all very well, but administrators should be able to deal with conflict –
Bugger! I wanted the $10! Actually the WP space isn't what bothers me as much as the talk page count. While I admire his help in the wheelchair debacle, I still don't feel comfortable with a full support. On the other hand, no real issues seem present for an oppose.
'''Neutral'''. Per above comments, the candidate needs to have a better developed track record of communicating with other editors.
'''Neutral''' There is '''so''' much to admire here, but some heavy automation of edits, and the lack of interaction push me to neutral. Admins inevitably will be interacting with other users during times of conflict and stress and at present nothing in the contributions provides any evidence of an ability to deal well with people. Of course, nothing indicates an ability to ''not'' deal well hence neutral. I guess that's probably not [[WP:AGF|assuming the faith]] that all will be okay, but I like to be able to back up a support with evidence. Sorry, but I wish you well in your RFA and editing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''- per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Neutral leaning support''' essentially using the same reasoning as Pedro. I have no problem trusting he won't abuse the tools but I'm concerned that he may not have the experience to deal with the not always pleasant interaction with users who disagree with his admin actions. In that sense, the lack of project-space edits don't bother me that much because looking at his contributions I feel he understands policy well enough and looks responsible. But the lack of interaction with other users is too big a question mark.
'''Netural''' I concur with Pedro.
'''Support''' for the purpose of responding to the candidate's good-faith concerns above. I write not to provide "moral support" in a patronizing way, but to tell this contributor that his contributions to Wikipedia are valued and that we hope he will continue. From my vantage point, edit counts per se are not what is critical, but administrators need to be familiar with the various Wikipedia processes they will be overseeing, and from that point of view, the opposers' desire to see "more Wikipedia space" edits is understandable. As I say, I hope to see you around the project and look forward to hopefully supporting more definitively in another RfA in due course.
'''Moral Support''' You have good inentions, but I feel that you don't have a need for the tools and the other items mentioned below.  I suggest you withdraw this and get more active in the Wikipedia: namespace and administrative tasks ([[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:AIV]]...). '''
'''Support''' Has addressed "low" edit count and has shown how ultra high edit count standard can be culturally biased.  No basis in WP policy to require vandal warnings, may often be wiser not to.
'''Support''' A good contributor, who can surely be trusted; he has a slightlydifferent perspective from those of us in the developed world, but isn't a little diversity a good thing?--
'''Support''' You're a good contributor, and there is no chance of misuse of tools. Although this rfa isn't going to succeed, I think you have what it takes to be a good admin. More projectspace participation will alleviate the opposers' concerns  - in particular, xfd participation is something you might focus on.
'''Oppose''' based on use of popups to revert my reversion of your at-the-time-nonexistant RFA. Furthermore, you only have, at this time, including edits to this RFA, ''16'' Wikipedia-space edits, which is not enough for me to believe you have enough knowledge of policy to handle the tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''- 16 Wikipedia space edits? Get more and I'll support, but not now. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>(<font color="#f00">[[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#f00">Hi!</font>]]</font>/
'''Oppose''' - low activity, almost no Wikipedia space edits, no need for the tools yet.  Sorry, try again in six months with a bunch more WP edits.
'''Oppose''', low number of Wikipedia space edits, lacks of experience, don't see the need for the tools yet. Try again later.
'''Oppose''', virtually no non-mainspace edits.--
'''Oppose''' Less than fifty user Talk and policy space edits eachs shows that you have little experience in admin-related tasks such as vandal fighting and associated warnings or a demonstrable knowledge of policies and guidelines as applied to XfD discussions or deletion reviews.  I suggest immediate withdrawal of this RfA and that you submit another application in six months' time when you have worked on these and other admin-related tasks in addition to contributing to the main article space.
'''Oppose''' for now. I need more WP-space edits (at least 500), and a stronger need for administrator tools. Cheers. ''
'''Oppose''' - the statment about warnings: ''I Haven't issued vandal warnings becasue I do not have the teeth to follow them up'' - shows a significant misunderstanding.  Issuing warnings is part of a ''process'', beginning with (if appropriate) a minor warning and escalating to a "final notice", then a block by an admin.  (For vandal-only accounts, the block can happen immediately.)  For an editor to issue a warning requires no "teeth" nor any followup.  If an editor reverts vandalism but fails to post a warning, there can be a delay in either the problem editor deciding to change his/her ways, or a delay in the editor eventually being blocked.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Oppose''' reluctantly. Drmaik does a good job but with the sparcity of contribution I can't see him being an admin would help Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' I agree with the above comment.  You do seem to be doing a good job, however, you simply do not have enough Wiki. edits to show that you deserve adminship.  You're answers could use some attention as well.  Try again in a few months and I think you'll have better success. '''
'''Oppose''': Simply not enough edits, try again once you have more contribs. ---
'''Oppose''' This will be a little long, but please bear with me. Drmaik, there are many reasons why Oppose voters in this RfA would like to see more edits from you before they can offer you their support. A longer and more varied record of contributions would give all of us a better idea of your ability to remain civil under pressure, as well as your understanding of Wikipedia policy. It would also give you added experience in seeing how conflicts arise and how they can be effectively resolved. You have said that the fact that you haven't been blocked is proof enough of your understanding of Wikipedia policy. That knowledge is only a portion of what you will need to know to become an effective admin. As an administrator, you have to know Wikipedia policy well enough to be able to enforce it, and not all of those situations are simply a matter of choosing whether or not to block someone. Administrators must be knowledgeable about, for example, copyright policy and criteria for deleting images and articles, two instances where a simple vandal block is not the answer. Your current record, as well as your stated reasons for not warning vandals, fail to demonstrate sufficient familiarity with Wikipedia policy for me to support you at this time. I would encourage you to continue your article work for now. I also urge you to become more involved in policy and process matters if you are still interested in becoming an administrator in the future. I think you should also increase your use of both article talk and user talk pages as needed, because it is essential for admins to be able to interact with a variety of people. Please don't take these oppose votes as a judgement of you as a ''person''. They are simply a measure of your suitability to become an administrator ''at this time''. I hope your feelings haven't been hurt, and maybe the advice that you've received from everybody will help you become an administrator in the future. I wish you well. --
'''Oppose''' - 1175 edits, of which 18 are WP space and 35 user talk. If you want to block vandals, I will clearly expect more than that.
'''Neutral''' I think you mean well, but I suggest you withdraw and get a few more months of experience, especially in the Wikipedia: space.--
'''Neutral''': I suggest withdrawal at this time. I think that you need more time and experience before becoming an administrator. Cheers, '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' rather than oppose, to avoid a pile-on. I see no problem at all with your good faith, and while your total edit-count is very low, I understand your point about internet connection in a developing country. But you have very, very few edits in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], and while you may well have a deep understanding of policy, we cannot know this unless you demonstrate it.--
'''Neutral''' I'm not an admin, and I warn users even when their work has already reverted by someone else. If you don't see the point of that, please keep working on Wikipedia. You'll understand soon. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' no need for tools. Needs more experience and activity in the projectspace.  --
'''Neutral''' I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and get a few more months of experience. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Friendly neutral'''. Nothing personal, just give us some more edits to evaluate your capabilities and I may happily support you in a future RfA. Regards,
'''Friendly neutral''' pretty consistent messages here. I expect you are most valuable working on articles for the moment.
[[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|20px]] '''Moral Support Neutral''' per Nybrad. Keep up the good work, you'll get there.
'''Neutral''' per above
--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you need some more experience. More editing experience and involved ment in more projects will be a good start.
'''Oppose''' Not an editcountitis person myself, but <500 edits is very unlikely give anyone the understanding necessary to be a good admin. I am also perplexed why you created two RFAs for yourself, but resolution of that even to my satisfaction won't change my mind; may change others'.
Answers, A1 in particular, demonstrate inexperience. '''
'''Oppose''' The [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Drumlineramos&site=en.wikipedia.org low number of edits] here is a major concern. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a couple of months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''', user has given me no reason to oppose. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>
Unfortunately, you don't have nearly enough experience for me to be sure that you wouldn't make mistakes in using admin tools, nor to gain a sense of what sort of admin you would be. With only 8 edits, there isn't much material available to review. However, you have made several mistakes - for instance, there are technical errors in filing this RfA - and it's probably not a good idea to run until you are a lot more confident with technical, policy and process aspects of Wikipedia. Try reading  [[WP:GRFA]]; then try to get a lot more experience (a few thousand edits and several months), and you'll have more of an idea of what being an admin involves, how to do admin tasks, and why submitting this RfA this early was a bad idea. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 16:50, 1 October 2007 (
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. Your answers indicate that you do not know what adminship is. The whole point of wikipedia is to make "logical changes to articles that i feel would be benificial for the rest of the community here at Wikipedia."
'''Oppose''' Frankly I have to oppose this, please contribute more and read up on relevant Wikipedia policies before applying, that way you can become a good editor.
'''Moral Support''' Please don't vandalize, and try hard not to make mistakes, like your poor-form nomination of cylonhunter. I hope to support your adminship in six months and 2000 edits.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, a lot more experience is needed in all areas. Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. I strongly recommend self-withdrawal.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Answers not satisfactory, less than 2 months and only a couple of hundred edits, sorry. As per Husond suggest you withdraw. <sup>
'''Strong oppose'''.  Editor has less than 200 edits in all; has been editing less than two months; hasn't taken questions above in any serious way, given the brevity of answers; and '''was blocked for vandalism on March 5th, for 24 hours'''.  I suggest that someone invoke [[WP:SNOW]], perhaps after a couple more "oppose" votes, to close this down; it's just wasting people's time to read and respond to this.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
History of vandalism says it all. Especially when it's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chacor&diff=112842959&oldid=112110870 involved] my page. Oh, and this: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/cylonhunter]] (which should soon be a redlink - created, edited, "accepted" and questions "answered" all by DvDknight) &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Answers to the questions are totally irrelevant! -- ''
'''Oppose''' - Statement and answers do not show enough confidence and substance.
'''Oppose''' Your answers — they're incongruous. Plus, you'll need way more time and experience. I suggest withdrawal or the oppose votes will rack up. -
'''Oppose''', and urge withdrawal. The main RfA page says that candidates should have gained the community's trust and show knowledge of policy, and at this time, your current record doesn't show evidence of either. Having been blocked in the recent past virtually guarantees that your RfA will fail. I urge you to gain experience on Wikipedia, make a large number of good edits (many people will prefer edit counts in the thousands), and avoid vandalising in the future. Your answers to the questions above suggest that you aren't aware of what admins are expected to know or do, so please also read and familiarise yourself with [[WP:GRFA|the guide to requests for adminship]], [[WP:ARL|the administrator's reading list]], and [[WP:AHTG|the admin's how-to guide]] if you want to become an admin in the future. Sorry. --
'''Support''' as nominator--
'''Support''' No significant controversy, seems to have learned from his short block, and hard worker.  I'd trust him with a mop and bucket.
'''Support''' - Time with an account? Not that impressive I've got to say (the IP relieves some of those concerns, but not all), however, I've been checking through your contribs (even before this went live) and I can see you have a firm understanding of policy and have thorough contributions through all namespaces, can you be trusted? Of course.
'''Support''' - I'm willing to give a pass on a 3RR block at [[Seung-Hui Cho]].  In the aftermath of the [[Virginia Tech massacre]], there was a lot of emotion involved.  There was later unanimous agreement [[Talk:Seung-Hui Cho/Archive_3#Naming_order_POLL_.28again.21.29|here]] that Dynaflow's name was correct.  Unless there is something more, I am willing to overlook this single transgression.  This particular crisis affected a lot of us, and I would bet that if someone looked closely at the history, they could find a lot of 3RR violations in there.  The main [[Virginia Tech massacre|massacre]] article was getting edited 15-20 times/minute at points even while s-protected - it was all rather chaotic.  Does that excuse a 3RR violation?  No, but knowing the circumstances, I consider it understandable. --
'''Default support''' per Ryan Postlethwaite. —'''
'''Support''' - I believe this user won't abuse the tools, and I can easily overlook a 3RR block on a current event article - [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] got a block editing [[Super Bowl XL]], when his versions turned out to be correct. Same thing, different users and articles. I can also overlook the time given his editing from an IP address. '''
'''Support''' Deserves a chance; being an admin should be no big thing.--
'''Oppose'''. I'm very unhappy with your answer to question 3. Looking at the relevant difs I think you either misrepresent what the block was about or have not understood it. You were revert warring, plain and simple. The issue wasn't vandalism to an article but a dispute over naming conventions. You reverted a number of editors to put forward your prefered view. I don't see how you can characterise what you reverted as vandalism. The unblock was not conditional on your not dealing with vandalism to the article, it was conditional on your not going back to reverting the name of the perpetrator to your prefered version. It was also made based on your agreeing that what you did was wrong and not to do it again (not because [[user:Coelacan|Coelacan]]'s block was incorrect in the first place). The issue raises for me two problems. Either (1) you will makes mistakes as an admin as to what you characterise as vandalism or (2) you will make mistakes as to what a 3RR block is for - neither is acceptable. Frankly, I would oppose any candidate with such a recent valid 3RR block. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.19.91.99&diff=prev&oldid=122353440 this] are unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive. The ensuing talk regarding the same on their own talk page does not show the "utmost professionalism" that they claim they have. And the "squash the dumb bastard" statement on their talk page, albeit about a vandal, is inappropriate IMO.  And I am not satisfied with the answers to the questions regarding the 3RR block. -
'''Oppose''' Dynaflow is generally an even-headed guy, but seems to react badly to vandalism. The examples cited by Twooars are not isolated. My deepest apologies, but I'll have to oppose at this time - I sense a rather trigger-happy admin. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' I don't have any particular issue with this user's relatively short amount of time spent here at Wikipedia, since my RfA itself passed even though I had only less than three months of experience. However, some of the issues brought up by other editors are a bit troublesome. As Coelacan pointed out, you submitted an AIV report that no admin would ever consider a blockable offense. Your response to Q3, especially the 3RR incident, looks problematic. The Seung-Hui Cho incident was an edit war, and saying it was a "dumb misunderstanding" seems to be underestimating the whole situation. I don't think anything involving AIV reports against users can be a "dumb misunderstanding". Anyway, it only happened a few weeks ago, and given that you've been here for such a short period of time, you should expect to be involved in many more equally troublesome situations in the future. As for the rest of your response to Q3, you need to choose your words better and not make them appear so negative. Also, I just want you to know that administrators will face more "accusations" and will be treated harshly by other editors who are upset over deletions/blocks/protections, etc. As Twooars pointed out, there's no point in provoking another editor with language that the other person may take negatively. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' - per the point made by TwoOars. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' due to recent block and example provided by TwoOars. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Per Riana.--
'''Oppose''' - also per Riana. --
I don't feel this user has enough experience to deal with the higher-level trolling recieved by administrators, when I analyse the diffs provided above. Per Riana. '''
'''Oppose'''. I'm going to have to oppose per [[User:Riana|Riana]]. '''
I have to take issue with your characterization of the 3RR between you and User:Che829 as a "dumb misunderstanding". It was a revert war, and you thought Che829's edits constituted vandalism because the user was uncommunicative. But it certainly was not obvious vandalism, and I'm afraid you might be too quick to jump on [[ESL]] editors who shy from communication due to their poor English skills. Failure to use talk pages is not a blockable offense, yet you filed a report for essentially that.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=123737365]  ··
'''Neutral'''. I'm having real problems making a decision here, as I don't know the candidate. I was all set to support (as per usual), but the opposers have brought up some worrying diffs, and due to the fact that Riana (who is usually one of the few voices of sanity at RfA) shares their concerns, I cannot support at this time. Although I'm all for a tough line against vandalism, the 3RR block shows a propensity for controversial editing which mildly concerns me. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' The oppose concerns are too great for me to support, but not great enough for me to oppose.
'''Neutral''' — Evidently a dedicated contributor despite the relatively short time since registering (also an eloquent writer); however, the responses to the 3RR, the AIV report, and other examples noted above all raise concern. --
Sorry, the 3RR block combined with a lack of experience means I have to go '''neutral''' in this RfA.
'''Neutral''', changed from oppose. I recognize that you are well-intentioned here, but I think a little mellowing would go a long way.
Poor answers, no need for tools, self-nom is (pardon me) rubbish. No actual edits. '''Strong oppose''' of the highest magnitude. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' and strongly suggest withdrawal or speedy closure. Misplaced RFA, ten edits and 0% edit summary usage...--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, 9 edits is not enough to warrant adminship. Come back when you have closer to 2000 or so. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. It's really nice you want to help Wikipedia, but you have a lot to learn. Your RfA made me chuckle though. --
'''Strong Oppose''' You are a good faith editor and I know you want to help Wikipedia but you don't need adminship to do so! Adminship is not an honor, it is more like a janitor's job. See [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|this]] for more details. If you want to revert vandalism, click [[Special:Recentchanges|here]] and report vandals [[WP:AIV|here]]. You have a lot to learn but you're getting there!--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Strong Support'''- The nom said it all. :-) [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
I have seen E around, and I am confident that he won't stuff up.
'''Support''' I've seen E around QUITE a bit, he's a very enthusiastic and capable editor, runs a few bots, and has my trust. --
'''Support''' Arithmetical issue having been resolved, I am happy to support. A good editor. --<font color="Red">
(Edit conflicted) '''Support''' - often around with his distinctive single-character name. Seems experienced, and IMO no need for penalising for [[WP:AGF|incorrectly writing]] vote instead of discussion - users contributions to (for example) RFA show that s/he knows the difference, whilst I can't see a single use of the word (or !word?) in his past few contribs. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support:''' Per ST47. <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor!
'''Support'''. His answers to the questions are confident, and he has the overall experience. '''
'''Support'''. I trust that the candidate would use the tools well within his areas of interest, and would know when to act unilaterally and when to consult.
'''S''' It's single-letter user admin week! (See R, below.)  If you do even half of what you say in Q1 - and that's quite a workload - it's worthwhile to let you into the cabal.  I've seen nothing wrong from E before.
An '''''E'''''xcellent candidate.  Sorry, just had to do it.  *dodges tomatoes* [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. I have seen you around, you will be a fantastic admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Strong Support''' - most of the oppose votes centre around the candidate's supposed self-promotion in claiming "thousands" of edits to articles, but that looks to me like a simple slip. Candidate clearly has plenty of experience with essential maintenance tasks, and would be willing to work on backlogs.
'''Support'''I agree with Walton, as usual, and believe this editor should be given admin tools.  I think the candidate is willing to work, and has plenty of experience with essential maintenance tasks.
'''Support'''- I have seen '''E''' around and I believe he can handle the job as an admin quite well..He was one of the few user that helped me a lot at [[WP:ACC]] and he has enough experience and edit counts from my POV to qualify as a good candidate..Good Luck...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Trustworhty contributor, dedicated to the project.
'''Support''' E's made some nice bots, and the tools would help him out during bot testing if nothing else. I think the objections to his "bragging" are a bit alarmist. Well, if the RfA fails, at least you know how to answer the questions next time.
'''Strong support''' I have seen him around he has some great bots, and I think he'll become an excellent admin!
'''Support''' No concerns that would prevent me from supporting.
'''Strong support''' It looks to me like he'd be an excellent admin and willing to help.  Regardless of how many edits he does or doesn't have, it's the quality of edits and the overall support to the community that matter to me.  ''E'' has done a good job where I think it counts.

'''Support''' Per no big deal. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
I'm sorry, but I thought E was an admin! '''Support'' :) --
I'm afraid this nomination probably won't pass, but please try again when you have addressed some of the concerns below. For what it is worth, I support this bid. '''
'''Support''' Like [[User:Andrevan|Andrevan]] above I think your nom is in danger. The math error has proven significant. However, I am familiar with this editor and he has done much good work. I do not see him as a danger with the tools.
'''Support''' I don't see why not. The answer to question 4 cleared an issue; I have no reason to oppose this user.
'''OMG-He-Made-A-Mistake-Support''' I don't think there's an admin out there, that is perfect, nor would I expect E to be. That's just plain unreasonable, and, as adminship is supposed to be ''No big deal'', I see no reason not to support. (If you succeed at this, please don't block me by mistake!) Good luck with the Pile-ons, E. --
'''Support''', no evidence he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I trust this user. End of. <small>By the way, my comment above might need an irony flag attached, but the shops had sold out of them.</small> --
'''Support'''- I'm going to go ahead and support. I don't really believe the oppositions are that severe to prevent this individual from becoming an admin.
'''Support''' I went through your history (contributions, talk pages, count, etc.) and I could not find anything that raised any alarms that would have me believe you would be a threat as an administrator.  --
'''Support''' - it takes all kinds of editors to make this work. The comments regarding a tendency to desire policing rather than contributing directly are well founded; however, I don't see any actions that make me think you abuse this worthwhile activity. The number of vandals demands some very active, consistent vigilence. Good luck. --
The nominator overstates E's mainspace contributions as does the candidate himself in his answer to the second question.  In looking at the fellow's history, I see very few significant mainspace contributions.  The snarky overstating aside (which is a bit of a concern in and of itself), I don't feel as though E has enough experience in the mainspace to effectively and judiciously click the extra buttons [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' — Simply being interested in power won't gain my support. Switched to strongly opposing you: we discuss and come to consensus, we don't vote (or "!vote", simply prefixing an exclamation mark doesn't change the word's meaning). Is it so hard to say "discussion"? (I'm guessing so...)
'''Oppose''' I normally don't like edit counting but here I make an exception. In your answer to Q2 you mention "Throughout my time at Wikipedia, I have made numerous thousand contributions to various articles of all types from biography to geography." That is clearly not true, you've only made 640. Whilst this might be an error, good admins will always check their facts before rushing into something. It could be disasterous sometimes. I also feel those 640 edits aren't really contributing much to actually adding much content, which is of course why we are here. This combined with Q4, where you did not check your facts on another occasion, and made a rather odd assumption about how long users had to be around before they could apply to become admins, and other times I've seen you referring to "voting" - I'd rather not have a "voter" having the ability to close XfD discussions, which must never be closed as a vote. Sorry, but not now. '''
'''Oppose''' per unrealistic expectations made on past RfAs where he suggests candidates should return over a year later for another RfA. This suggests widespread unfamiliarity with process.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly, other Nick. &#10154;
'''Oppose''' per Majorly.  Candidate says he has edited thousands of articles, yet he has only 640 mainspace contributions.  I'll AGF that this isn't intentional deception, but it is woefully inaccurate.  If candidate can't be bothered to check his own edit history prior to his RfA, this is not time for the mop.
'''Oppose''' [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] put it nicely. &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose'''. E's contributions would be sufficient for me to support, but adminship is also about ''trust'', and my trust in E has been eroded by various issues in this nomination. E, I accept your apologies, but apologies shouldn't earn you a mop. I think you could easily become an admin someday, probably when you meet the adminship criteria you used until recently.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and Xoloz. -
'''Oppose''' per all the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per some of the above but also per very uninspiring answers to questions. In particular the answer to Q1 is strikingly similar to that of {{User|R}} given below and which I also criticized. Actually there are striking similarities between these two users (besides the 1-letter username) and I oppose mostly on the same grounds: lack of significant experience with content writing, over-eagerness to get the admin status (I can't see how anybody can say he has "learned from both previously failed RfA" since none of these contained any significant debate), perceived lack of maturity, questionable judgment. Both users run a bot, have good technical skills and are useful contributors (both at CHU) but I have a hard time trusting that either would be able to efficiently face people questioning their actions.
'''Oppose''' Once again, we have another editor applying for admin who is more interested in the "policing" aspects rather than building the project.  The applicant vastly overstated his/her mainspace contributions--less than 20% are in this area, and most of those appear to be reverts and the such.  The best admins, IMHO, are ones that contribute in many areas of the project, but spend a lot of time building articles.
'''Oppose''' Why are you here?  Looking at the past 500 contributions I don't even see what you are doing.  Some vandalism and sock puppet reports, but very little to do with what Wikipedia is - writing.  More editors, less cops.  You seem to want a wiki-career out of of being a wiki-policeman without doing (and therefore not understanding) anything involved with those being policed.
'''Oppose''' per Rspeer and Majorly, lack of article writing and trust in general in my opinion.
'''Oppose''', inadequate article editing. I also have to say Pascal's points about the similarities to another editor also at RfA right now are rather unsettling.
'''Oppose''' Although a <b>huge</b> ammount to admire here I'm afraid [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] hit the nail on the head. Please do not be discouraged, and keep up the positive work your are doing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - I am not someone who likes to oppose and have read this thro a time or two.  However - to me - enough valid concerns have been raised by some people who's opinion I respect for me to do so - sorry --
'''Oppose''', very little encyclopedic contribution.
'''Oppose''' per Neil.
'''Oppose'''... sorry, but I just don't trust you enough. It's partly the issues in this discussion, but there were problems before too. I'm sorry that I can't provide specific diffs, but I don't really remember why I have the problem. I just remember that I do. -
'''Oppose''' per Majorly. --
'''Oppose''' per Majorly. User doesn't fulfill [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=E&site=en.wikipedia.org] his/her own standards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TheFearow&diff=prev&oldid=141773686]. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''oppose'''. Insufficient contributions to building the encyclopedia, not enough track record to justify trust that he won't abuse admin powers when there's no way to remove him. I particularly dislike E's apparent need to reply, oppositionally, to every single oppose. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' I know I've encountered you before on Wikipedia, but I don't remember where. I'm sorry I cannot support you because of your reply to oppose #13. You say that you're going to be an admin who spends a lot of time writing articles, but I have a feeling you said that just to please everyone. That's not right, because I have a feeling you won't contribute to writing articles. Not saying that it's a bad thing that you don't write much, but you're trying to come off as someone who does in order to be an admin. Just stick to your guns and say who you are. You just seem overly anxious to become in admin, with your statements, and even looking at your userpages with your to-do list and "Administrator Reading List". Just with experience on Wikipedia, admins who are over-anxious to be admins, generally are anxious to abuse their powers and act like they're better than non-admins. Not saying you will, I don't know you, but that's been my observation and a caution sign to support an admin candidate. I still appreciate the edits, keep up the good work.++
'''Oppose''' I didn't make it my first time either.  Address the issues raised here and wait for someone to nominate you again. Best of luck, <b>
'''Neutral''' I am somewhat torn here, as I think the editor has a good heart about the project as a whole, and will be a great admin...someday.  But experience is the deciding factor, and there is just not enough of it here yet.
'''Neutral''' I am in the same state of mind as Majorly, just perhaps not as fervent ; therefore I am neutral. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''': while I see no evidence that this editor cannot be trusted, I am concerned by the edit shown in Q4. This was made just one week ago, about an editor with similar experience. So I am a bit concerned that "what applies to you doesn't apply to me" may come into play in the future. --
'''Neutral''' What concerns me is the low level of talkpage contributions in spaces other than user talkpages. Knowing and acting upon policy, rules and guidelines is one thing; explaining them to others, resolving misunderstandings regarding same, acting as a conduit between an editor and the principles of WP, are very important aspects of adminship. I don't see any evidence of it, and am therefore not supporting. As I see no evidence of that E is likely to abuse the tools, or is untrustworthy, either then my position has to be nuetral.
'''Neutral''' E look like a nice editor to me but some of the oppose have made good points. Good Luck E. --'''
'''Neutral''' - Per Chris G. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
Per many of the oppose votes. I do not think his low content edits to articles is a big problem. We are here to build an encyclopedia but people who help upkeep it are important. Sorry:(--
Helpful user, but the number mainspace contributions on the encyclopedia as the valid concerns raised above from the opposers keep me from supporting this user. Yet, I do not believe that these concerns warrant an oppose from me. So, I will stay '''neutral'''. <font color="purple">'''
'''Neutral''', essentially as Miranda.. Too many legitimate concerns to support, which will no doubt be addressed over the next few months if E wishes to try again. <b>
'''Neutral leaning oppose''', username is too short –
'''Neutral''' - though helpful, I agree some of the acrimony stirred up may be symptomatic of systemic problems. Agree that a few months passing would greatly assist a future RfA. cheers,
'''Oppose''' 18 edits, malformed RfA, zero AIV edits. Please withdraw. —
'''Oppose''' suggest to EastGermanAllStar an immediate withdrawal of nomination and a period of gaining experience across WP.
'''Oppose''' per above, and a comment: even if he had a good edit count, his recent edit to [[Free Republic]] was extremely uncalled for.--
'''Oppose'''; saying that you're a single-purpose user who's here solely to compensate for "right-wing bias" implies that you've got a "left-wing bias" yourself.  Usually, editors who claim they're here to "balance" debate on some contentious topic are actually POV warriors themselves.  Anyway, admin powers aren't needed to engage in editing of political topics.
'''Oppose''' on lack of experience, lack of commitment to Wikipedia values and POV problems.--
'''Oppose''' - Agree with Guinnog.
'''Oppose''' - Also recommend closing per [[WP:SNOW]].  Lack of experience as well as questionable behavior ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEastGermanAllStar&diff=133047355&oldid=133047082] , also see [[User talk:EastGermanAllStar]]). --
'''Oppose''' and speedy close.  Joke self-nomination.
'''Oppose'''.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=133045947 This joke edit] to [[Jimmy Wales]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=133220670 this poorly cited edit] stating that the Soviet Union had been reunited, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guinnog&diff=prev&oldid=133223872 this accusation] at [[User talk:Guinnog]] are all the reasons I need against providing this user with admin tools.  (Or further editing, for that matter.)  --
'''Strongly oppose''' Clearly doesn't get it. Offensive and close-mined. Speedy close.
'''Moral Support'''. Kudos on the self nomination and your evident enjoyment in reading and participating in this work. Please could you perhaps consider using the edit summary a bit more though. I'm afraid this RFA will fail, as you simply have very little user interaction and your answers to the questions are weak and un-defined. Please do not consider this to be a rejection of the valuable assistance  you have given so far, and my best wishes in your continued editing. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' with reservations per Pedro above, but I recognise the benefits of a more diverse editorship and agree that it would likely improve the admin side too. Plus, I like the fact that your first edits shown were to articles and not your userpage. I would also ''suggest'' that you may wish to consider and flesh out your responses to Q.1 & Q.3 above.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, it's about trust. You show that you are dedicated and you can be trusted, that's my only requirement. If this RfA fails (most people have higher requirements than me), I would recommend trying again in 1-2 months. If yo uhave any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
Definite lack of experience. I usually don't judge by edit count, but 819 shows a lack of experience. I strongly suggest a withdrawal of this rfa, and I will support after a few more months of solid editing, and maintenance of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]. Don't view this rfa as discouragement, but as advice and room for improvement. --
Once again, I am in complete agreement with Darkfalls. But please dont be discouraged, and keep up your fine work. --<strong>
I agree with DarkFalls, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:I_LOVE_LONG_POINTLESS%2C_DISTURBING_%28..death..%29_NAMES_IN_CKAPS%21&diff=prev&oldid=140350109 This edit] can be an acceptable mistake, but it can also mean a lack of experience. A few more months, and I'm pretty sure you'll get sysop status. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Not quite there yet.  More general experience and more familiarity with sysop chores would help.  Also, we do try to [[WP:CSB|counter systemic bias]], but that doesn't place a quota on having admins from different parts of the world.
'''Oppose''' Serious inexperience concerns for now.  Keeping on working for three months, return to RfA, and things will go very well.
'''Oppose''' You do not at present demonstrate nearly enough experience in [[WP:NAMESPACE]] to indicate your prospective level of competence in admin-reelated articles.--<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' based upon lack of participation in the project and user talk spaces.  Admins need to be able to communicate easily with editors from all walks of life and all levels of education.  They also need to demonstrate a grasp of [[:WP:POLICY|policies and  guidelines]] and to demonstrate their application.  I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and treat it as a learning experience.  Over the next few months, try participating in XfD discussions, citing policies where appropriate; also, try patrolling the new pages/ recent changes pages in order to spot and revert vandalism, warn vandals and categorise and othewise improve articles added to the project.  This experience on your record will serve to demonstrate your aptitude for the work of an admin and should substantially change the result of a second RfA.
'''Oppose''' While being from Malaysian is a plus, I'm not sure that your maturity level reaches that needed to deal with the problems admins face. Also, your user page statement that the Soviet Union was an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts does not appear to be true.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Edmundkh&diff=next&oldid=140149704 Dif.] I understand what you are trying to do in your personal [[User:Edmundkh#Do_you_know.3F|Do you know]] section, but it is not coming across that way. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose'''. I admire your enthusiasm. However, you need more experience.
'''Oppose''' per (aeropagitica) and Majoreditor - it's great that you're enthusiastic, but I'm afraid you simply don't have enough experience yet. I'd start thinking about withdrawing. '''<font color="green">

'''Oppose'' I'm sorry, but I'd like to see more edits (especially wiki edits) before I give you a support. '''
'''Oppose'''- I generally don't oppose due simply to edit counts but you only have just over 800 edits and as far as I can tell have neither created a page and most of your edits to the [[Mutual intelligibility]] page have not made it a very good page, with it's total lack of sources etc. I think a few more months before I support would make sense.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after three months and you will have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. You've just barely answered the questions, and your answers don't tell us anything about why you should be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I would like for you to have more experience before you become an admin. Please try renominating after you get much more experience in editing and then I will support it.
You've been here less than two months, have only a couple hundred edits and have shown no experience with process. I suggest you withdraw, read up on [[WP:GRFA]] and come back later when you're more versed in how Wikipedia works.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, inexperience, and the answer to Q1 shows a lack of what admins are meant to do. Suggest withdrawal. Sorry, '''
'''Automatic Oppose''' - too new, only 391 edits at time of posting (I expect at least 1500). Fails quite a number of [[User:Insanephantom/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. But feel free to come back later when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''', lack of edits per my standards, lacks of experience, needs more time to improve. Answer to questions are rather weak and I suggest withdrawal. Also, this user has not written a description on why is he self-nominating himself for RFA.
'''Oppose''' While edit-count is not everything, a very low count such as yours does indicate lack of experience in Wikipedia; an admin needs to be thoroughly familiar with all aspects of Wiki policy and to demonstrate this familiarity through their contributions. I seriously suggest that you withdraw before you get a hurtful string of oppose !votes, and re-apply in a few months.--
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdwinCasadoBaez&diff=99959952&oldid=99959637 this reaction]
'''Neutral''' As per my post at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foundby]], I'm only not !voting Oppose in the hope it will help you listen. This will not be pleasant and it will damage your chances in any future RfA. Please withdraw until you have ''at least'' six months experience here. --
'''Neutral''' sorry, but this nomination will soon be pulled by a b'crat.  Try getting at least 1,000 edits, than you can try again.  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ac1983fan|My own request]] was withdrawn when it became clear that I was not going to become an admin with <1,000 edits.  sorry.--
'''Oppose''', obviously. Clearly a disruptive sockpuppet; check out the page history of [[Gabe Frese]], the nonsensical personal attack page he created less than an hour ago.
'''Oppose''' and suggest [[WP:SNOW|snowballing]] this request, I'm not a editcountitis fiend, but a total of 13 edits, six of which are due to this... nope.
'''Oppose''' no way can I support this, per above and he can't get his header formed right, which I corrected. VERY poor answers too.
'''Hah.''' Close RfA and block user for disruption, which apart from {{la|Gabe Frese}} includes wasting our time here.
'''Oppose''' I don't think you're ready, even if you claim to be a Harvard grad it has nothing to do with RfA, no offense. '''''
'''Strong Oppose''' I don't think a new user like this should even try to become an admin.  And also as per above.
'''Beat The Nom Support''' - was thinking of nominating her myself.
Incredibly active, hard working, talented, and one of those editors who bear our project in their hearts with passion. I'm nothing short of awed by her amazing contributions and the high quality of her work. I fully echo the sentiments expressed by WjB above, and it's with pleasure that I '''support''' this request.
'''Support''', of course, per my nomination above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Elonka would make a great administrator. She helps other editors willingly and has made a significant contribution to many articles on Wikipedia. She gets things done, but does not act in an authoritative manner. I've found her to be fair, friendly, supportive and definitely someone I could turn to for advice on policy and editing in general.
'''10-plus year Dragonrealms player support''' Elonka would be an asset as an admin.
'''Strong Support''', for extensive experience managing online communities as evidenced by this comment:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElonka&diff=145955788&oldid=145894658], and for maintaining composure [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADurova&diff=142555587&oldid=142551640] when I essentially suggested that she might have a COI (when she didn't).
'''Support''' Seems like a perfect admin candidate.
'''Strong Support''' Not only is she experienced with many facets of Wikipedia policy and operations, but she handles sticky situations on a regular basis without becoming involved in conflict.  Her skills and dedication make her a great candidate for the mop.
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Certainly''' —'''
'''Support''' - There were some problems of self promotion raised during the last RFA, but as long as that's far behind and there are no conflict of interest issues raised in the future I'm going to support.
Anyone questioning her commitment to and well meaning toward the project after reviewing her prodigious contributions, especially over the last year, need only be reminded that she has allowed herself to be subject to recall.  Besides, the mop is "No big deal". And concerning the COI incidents, I think [[Oscar Wilde]] said it best: "Every saint has a past, every sinner '''[[WP:ADMIN|has a future]]'''."
'''Support'''. I strongly endorse this nomination. Elonka is ready for adminship. In a recent encounter with her, I found her helpful, and I agreed with her assessment of the situation. Plus she has a cool name... my's real name's boring. --
'''Support''' Like what she plans to do with the tools and the sum of her contributions.  I've reviewed the reasons editors have not supported her becoming an admin in the past and they seem like they're over and done with.
'''Support''' There is no doubt in my mind that the candidate is a respected and valued contributer but I have to admit this was not an easy decision for me. On the one hand, I personally consider WJBScribe to be one of our finest adminstrators and a person whose judgement I trust but, on the other hand, the fact remains that there were some serious issues raised in the previous RFA. I obviously agree that this should not be held against the candidate for all eternity but I also feel that it warrants careful review and consideration. Having said that, I also believe that one should not forget that ~9 months is long time (well, at least in terms of wikitime). I did skim over the last few thousand of the candidate's contributions (ignoring this month's), and while there's a chance that I might have missed something, I did not find reason for concern. I did pay particular attention to the points made by the opposing voters in the last RFA and didn't find anything of note (which is obviously a good thing). Hence, I see no reason not to support the candidate.
'''Support''' - I've been very impressed with Elonka, she will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good active friendly admin, will do a good job.
'''Support''' - I read over the previous RfA & yes, all of that is well in the past now. Everything checks out, editor is kind, courteous, helpful and never [[WP:BITE|BITEy]]. Definitely mop and bucket time -
'''Strong support''' a nomination from [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] and [[User:Durova|Durova]]? A fine candidate here. :)
'''Support'''. Opposed last time, but record of contributions looks very good since the RfA. Was actually contemplating a nomination myself.
'''Support.''' I believe that Elonka has a good attitude, and she knows policy. She and I have both edited [[Juice Plus]], an article where she helped out by creating a neutral and properly-sourced draft of a contested article that had serious [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Juice_Plus|COI issues]]. Later, she set up a user-conduct RfC for an editor who some people thought was attempting to [[WP:OWN]] the article. So far, this is my only exposure to conduct RfCs and I think she handled it well. The article seems to be overcoming its problems, and the cited editor is still participating.
'''Support''' encore. --
'''Support''' - as per Ryan Postlethwaite..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''- per Phaedriel. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -- good editor, good answers to questions, q.v. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) - P.S. I was ''not'' solicited for my vote!
'''Support''' per [[User:Bearian|Bearian]], I am also liking everything that I see.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, + Question 5 response: I don't think you'll have anything to worry about.  --
'''Support'''. I've been familiar with this user and her work for quite some time, and while she did have problems early on, most of that was due to her high ambition crashing her into a steep learning curve. I don't think that's the case anymore.
'''Support''' Without my customary level of reasoning. It's all been said by the noms and the valued contributions above. For once, I have nothing more to add. Very best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Even more deserving than last time, which I scarcely thought was possible. &mdash;
'''Support''' concerns on the first RfA were completely blown out of proportion.
'''Strong Support''' All my interactions with Elonka were excellent and positive. Elonka is always ready to offer help, which is a quality I like to see in admins. I was recently ''seriously'' considering nominating her myself (if I weren't too bonked to do so). An asset definitely. —
'''Support''' These difs indicate (as a small sample) an improved effort from what concerns were raised in the prior RFP: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juice_Plus&diff=prev&oldid=133028030],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red&diff=prev&oldid=133066096],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juice_Plus&diff=prev&oldid=133194892].Best of luck!
'''Support'''. A great editor, with plenty of knowledge and experience.  [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''. Supported before, happy to support again. Nothing has happened in the intervening time to change my mind.
'''Support'''. Every editor is going to get into conflicts and misinterpret policies from time to time; no one's perfect. When you have an editor as prolific as Elonka, the raw number of mistakes is inevitably going to rise. That she's been involved in conflict from time to time is also the inevitable result of all the work she's done. The only time she's actually seemed to get into trouble was with the [[WP:COI|COI]] incident, but this is all now far in the past, beyond even the timescale of ArbCom blocks. Forgiveness is a necessary part of working with others on Wikipedia, and especially for a mostly-innocent mistake such as this, we owe it to her. As for her behavior with regards to this matter since then, I've noticed that she's been incredibly careful. I can't fault her for stopping editing on all potential-COI articles, even if it leaves up her own OR claims. Stepping out really seems like the best option. Also, I'd like to point to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monomyth&diff=140147612&oldid=136638720 this comment]. Even though you'd have to bend over backwards to make a case that she had a COI in that issue, she made it clear upfront that the possibility was there. I don't think it can be any clearer that she's learned from her mistakes. --
'''Support'''. Your dedication to the project is phenomenal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A genuine asset to the project and worthy of promotion.
'''Support''' - dedicated, and I think that, even if she was denounced as "disruptive" by several editors, it does not mean that she has not learned. '''
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor.  Handled a troublesome situation on [[Gnostic Gospels]] very well.  I think this is a no brainer and the votes reflect that.
'''Support''' Valued and experienced editor. I endorse the nominators' thorough scrutiny.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''I wish I had my own article :P''' [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support'''She has avoided editing her own article since at least October of last year, and that would be my only concern. Other than that, she is a great editor.
'''Support'''. Elonka will unquestionably benefit the project if given the extra tools and I have no doubt she will use them wisely. -
'''Support'''. Elonka is an excellent example of a user who bumped her head into a couple of things in her early days but because she was given a chance and carried on she developed into an extremely valuable and thoughtful editor. I have no hesitation in recommending her for adminship. She has experience across the board and will use the admin buttons with wisdom and restraint.
'''Support'''. She's put up with a lot, and keeps coming back, improving every time. Side note: when I read the oppose reason that she was ''too soft'', I nearly spit out my drink, that was the last objection I expected. Polite, yes, she's gotten better at that, but Elonka's never been ''soft''. [[Maggie Thatcher]] has nothing on this lady. --
How-could-I-not-support-this-even-if-I'm-meant-to-be-on-Wikibreak '''support'''. ~
The response to the <s>psalm</s> RfA is ''hell yes''... '''
'''Support''': I could definitely use some help at [[WP:SSP]]. I'm also favorably disposed toward admin candidates who contribute a lot of high-quality content. While some of the concerns raised below are significant, I think that being open to recall will provide a meaningful layer of accountability and assuages any concerns I have there. '''
'''Support''': Elonka has shown herself to be a prolific wikipedian. I support her for many reasons, and most have been stated above. One that hasn't is her neutrality on the issue of images of Muhammad and her willingness to create concensus with users based on wiki policy.
'''Support''' It is time to give her the mop. A very active editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing in the opposition makes me doubt for a second not supporting you.
'''Support''' For some reason a few weeks back, I was looking at Elonka's prior RfA and remember thinking that it was unfortunate that it wasn't successful, and that's why I support so quickly.  A great editor as far as I can see.
'''Support''' Have personal experience working with this editor.--
'''Support''' I'm fairly convinced she has her brain turned on. This isn't true of everyone.
'''Support''' (ec x2) The naming conventions RFAR was long enough ago for the behavior of the parties to be forgiven. No big deal.
'''Support''', you should have passed previous RfA.
'''Support''' - The Cone of Silence cabal says yes. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A good editor through have no interaction.
'''Support''' - In my time on Wikipedia, I have seen Elonka's name numerous times and have always been impressed with her intellect, cogency of argument, productivity, unpretentiousness and use of elegantly measured language, even under the most trying circumstances. I feel certain that she would be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - my opinion hasn't changed.
'''Support''' Exceptionally qualified candidate -- this should have happened long ago.
'''Support''' - Thought she was one. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and unlikely to abuse the tools. The oppose and neutral positions seem to generally agree with this assessment, but with different !votes. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' -Not swayed by the opposes. They might have been relevant for her ''previous'' RfA, but I fail to see how her earlier actions are still relevant ''now''. Contributions now seem exemplary, and I see nothing to suggest this user would abuse the tools. And I've gone quite far back checking it out.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' I hear babies crying ''<font color="#000066">'''
Based on my previous experience with the user. --
'''Support'''--
Excellent user, not convinced by some of the oppose votes that was concerns from an RFA from one year ago that she managed to fix in my opinion.
'''Support''' - Elonka is a fine writer, and logical and articulate on the talk page. In my experience she has been open to reason, taking a thoughtful and mature approach to editing that I expect she will continue as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' I had voted neutral on her last RFA. But that she has stuck with Wikipedia and made some excellent contributions has swung the vote to her.--
'''Support''' - Excellent editor, more then desearves adminship
'''Support'''. From what I've seen of '''Elonka''''s editing skills, she is one of the best Wikipedian editors we have here at Wikipedia. Not only does she do fabulous work on editing articles, but she keeps a calm attitude when addressing editors who are a little less than polite in expressing their feelings, and she even goes out of her way to assist newbie Wikipedian editors who would be more so lost on Wikipedia otherwise. She was also great with me in my first few days and weeks here at Wikipedia. But her assistance in making me a better Wikipedian editor is not the main reason that support her as an administrator here. I've watched Elonka edit Wikipedia on several occasions and am impressed at the hard work, devotion and seemingly inherent care that she exudes while editing articles here. I must say that out of all the great Wikipedian editors on Wikipedia who would be great as administrators, Elonka is definitely in the top ten.
'''Support''' Maybe a bit too eager to reach compromise in my mind, but overall a grand editor, always remarkably civil.--
'''Support''' a great candidate --
'''Support'''. i was surprised to discover that she wasn't already an admin. i would also reiterate the sentiments expressed by Raystorm.
'''Support''' wonderful writer, good answers. Highly-qualified for adminship, no doubt at all.
'''Support''' Everyone should be an administrator.
'''Support''' Elonka is a high-quality editor, and my interactions with her have generally been positive.
'''Support'''. Just realised that despite having nominated Elonka I haven't supported her yet. I am unmoved by the opposition here - some strong allegation have been made and [[User:Danny|Danny]]'s comment would in any other setting I think fall foul of our rules against [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. Nevertheless no diffs have been provided to demonstrate recent conduct issues - those that have appeared are a minimum of 9 months old. My confidence in Elonka expressed above is unharmed, but my faith in the community is a little shaken by the apparent unwillingess on the part of some to forgive and move forwards. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Very helpful, kind, and reasonable. I watched her try to mediate an intractable dispute recently, and I was impressed by the respect she showed for the arguments, and her calmness and rationality. I think she'll make an excellent admin. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' Appears to be suitable for adminship overall.--
'''Support''' I was just reading RfA's out of boredom today, and this one caught my eye, so I did some research into her edits over the past several hours. To be honest, as near as I can tell, she's human, has made a few mistakes in the past, but has learned from them. Might she make a few mistakes in the future? Sure, she's not a bot. Nonetheless, I'd feel safe with her in posession of admin tools (and I couldn't even say that about ''myself'' right now).
'''Strong Support''' While I do not agree with her on everything, I would like to think I have gotten to know her over the past few months and I think she will do a fine job with the tools.
'''Support''' I have seen Elonka present Wikipedia to people; she is an involved, invested participant in this experiment.  Let's let her take her participation to another level! -
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support:''' Unlike (I strongly suspect) most of the Oppose voters, I've personal experience of Elonka's measure in an administrative, customer service position.  We did not always agree, but she always expressed her position clearly and promptly addressed concerns brought to her attention.  Perhaps I'm just peculiar in that her telling me "I disagree with you" doesn't by that reason alone provoke me to to believe that this capable, veteran administrator is somehow unfit to be an admin on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' An established editor and a great Wikipedian.  I had a small conflict with her awhile back, but she kept a cool head and I found her to be a pleasant editor.  I think that her cool head will help her as an administrator.
'''Yep'''.  Long history of commitment to Wikipedia.  Sensible and flexible, coolheaded.
'''Support'''. Much improved from her last RfA, which I had opposed. --
'''That's so hot.''' Yes, I'm bringing back "That's hot" for my support, because Elonka is a fabulous lady, both in her work here and as a friend to me.
'''Support'''. I've wrestled with this one for a few days now. The opposing arguments are very compelling, but after delving into the user's past history extensively, I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support'''. I've never before participated in an RfA, although I do paroose this page from time to time. I was suprised to learn that this editor was not already an Administrator. After carefully delving through the evidence presented below, she has my vote and confidence.
'''Support'''.  I was firmly neutral in the last RFA and later [[User talk:BanyanTree/Archive9#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka|enumerated my reasons]] upon request.  This user is a far better candidate now that in the last RFA.  The tone of her writing suggests to me that much of this is from calculation about policy parameters, rather than indoctrination into wikiculture, but the two largely express themselves identically in action.  I certainly won't say that someone who obviously actively thinks about their editing is not qualified to be a sysop.  Rebecca's concerns give me pause, but speedy deletion is currently a sore point due to the ongoing backlash against the widespread aggressive stance on speedies.  I personally am awaiting further policy/norm clarification on the scope of the October 2006 "shoot on sight" directive and I have no reason to think that Elonka won't also fit herself under whatever clarification may emerge. -
'''Support''' - seems to be a good candidate. --

'''Support'''. I've recently interacted with Elonka in a FAC, where I found her good-natured contributions to be exemplary, and she was going an excellent job in helping less experienced editors through the process. Her article and FA work is also impressive to me.
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support''', no problems. The oppose reasons thus far are either unconvincing to me or happened too long ago. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. I share the views expressed below that she has a past history of clear self-promotion, but it is a past history. We reject people for adminship for a lot of foolish reasons... Even if Elonka were the worse self-promoter on the face of the earth that alone wouldn't be a reason to deny her the admin tools. I would have remained neutral and not participated in this RFA were it not for the fact there is clear evidence of canvassing against her. --
'''Support''' I'm coming momentarily out of a <i>long</i> Wikibreak to support this hardworking, able contributor once again. It's also again distressing to see the character assassination, long-held grudges, and clear canvassing, perpetrated by people (can you say cabal?) like Danny, Rebecca, Ned Scott, Wknight94, who haven't liked Elonka's outspokenness and fairmindedness. See my user page for a lengthier discussion of why I no longer contribute here--this RFA, a never-ending diatribe against a solid contributor, is yet another example of how politics and pettiness have taken over Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''  Elonka is an extremely active and talented contributor of the highest caliber.  She is helpful and reasonable, and displays a high level of calmness and rationality.  I think she will make an excellent admin! &ndash;
'''Support''' - I see nothing overly negative that overshadows the good she has done for this project.  I think she would make a great adminsitrator.
'''Support'''. I agree with Pascal, Tim!, and Chris Kreider, among others: Elonka will be a benefit to the project with the extra buttons. Nothing raised in opposition worries me.
'''Support if open to recall'''. I could not add anything to this, but I will: I had edited alongside Elonka; we have both agreed on certain issues and disagreed on others, which led us to mediation. We have settled our issues, and in the aftermath I can see nothing that would make me believe she would abuse the mop or, powers forbid, the bucket. But if she will, this is where the recall comes in. PS. Elonka, if this nom fail, feel free to canva... inform me about the next one when you take a go at it. Good luck, --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I am not convinced by the opposing arguments.  Elonka has established herself as a worthwhile and trusted member of the community, and the ability to delete and protect pages is entirely transparent to the numerous other sysops on the project.  I am certain that allowing her access to the sysop tools will only further improve her value to the Wikipedia project.
'''Support''' -- there's barely a single reason in the oppose section that isn't based off ancient history.  While her behavior long ago (in wikitime, of course) is troubling, it appears that she's done all she can to remedy it.  If Elonka had disappeared nine months ago and come back as a new user she'd be flying through this RfA -- because for the last nine months she's been an exemplary user.  But instead she took the honest way out and is being pilloried for it.  Is that we want?  Do we want editors who have made mistakes to hide, to never be able to salvage their reputations, to be forced into a situation where a conflict of interest is hidden by the new identity they've been forced to assume?  I don't want that. --
'''Support''' good editor, nuff said. &nbsp;
Character assassination and ancient history aside, I am thoroughly convinced that Elonka being given the sysop tools will be a net gain for the project, especially with her being open to recall if she conducts herself poorly above and beyond the normal learning curve of those who have newly gained the tools. I am unconvinced by the opposition, especially since RFA has shown itself to be vulnerable to gaming in the not-so-distant past. At least with Elonka, she will tell you when she disagrees. '''Support'''. -- ''
'''Support.''' per Cary Bass, and more unusually, Alkivar.
'''Support''', Elonka is a good editor. Does she have a spotless record? Nope. Do any of us? I challenge you to find anyone with any nontrivial number of edits who does. I think she will on balance use the tools responsibly and for the good of the project, so I've got to say to hand them over.
'''Support'''.  Elonka has shown to be a kind and helpful member of the community with a respectable contribution history.  I trust she will make an excellent admin as well.
'''Support.''' a good editor not withstanding, I do not fear that she will at all abuse her administrator privileges, she shows wisdom and intelligent. for those who may fear abuse there are remedies if this should occur, the important thing about all editors and potential administrators is that they grow and learn from their mistakes which I'm convince that she has ▪◦▪
'''Support'''. There's no doubt she has the necessary experience, and very likely, the temperament, especially since she seems to learn well from her mistakes. The opposes seem to be, for the most part, wholly unreasonable. Opposing because she has an article here and declaring "I'm more notable"? C'moooooooon. An arbitration case with no sanctions against her? Sorry. "Too polite and soft?" No freaking way, not based on what I've read from her. I'm afraid the opposition seems to be grasping at straws or transgressions in the relatively distant past, and the project deserves better than that.
'''Support'''. Appears to be a very respected editor and I do not believe she will misuse the tools. →
'''Strong Support'''. While I may not be familiar to many here, I have been a registered member for 2 years, and a contributor for longer (previous ISP/IP). For nearly two years, my contributions were few, and far between, simply for the reason that I was busy in RL, but rest assured, I was reading, and learning. I have read many, many RfAs, and yes, I'm still learning; it has taken me several days to go through the viewpoints offered here. My apologies in advance for my verbosity. I met Elonka recently, simply because she'd found some of the messages I post to user's pages, and she dropped by to say they were cute, and appreciated. I responded, and we struck up a dialog, about our shared interests. She went on to assist me in an issue I had been drawn into while on Vandal patrol, with a very satisfactory outcome, showing both a willingness to see both sides of an issue, and the ability to remain neutral and offer a compromising alternative. I've read the concerns the opposition has voiced, and here is what my opinion is. First: She has freely offered to be open to recall. She is further supported by not one, but two nominating, established and respected administrators. That tells me she knows fully what the outcome of any questionable actions on her part would be. Second: At the heart of Wikipedia, I believe, is one of the values of Jimbo Wales: Quality not Quantity. There can be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, that Elonka's quality of contributions is in line with that value. It is one thing to make 30,000 minor edits. It is fully another thing to have the ability to take multiple articles (some in their infancy) and bring them to Featured Status. Third: We '''all''' are encouraged to assume good faith, to give second chances, and to forgive others of past mistakes. It seems to me, that many on the "oppose" side, are still holding grudges, some for actions that are many months, if not years old. I would encourage everyone to consider the great depth of knowledge that Elonka could bring to this wonderful community, and be encouraged knowing there are more than enough people here to "watch over" her (so to speak,), to be sure none of the past issues arise in the future. To err is human, and obviously, with 30,000+ edits, Elonka's passion is undeniable, of course some issues will become important to her. Mistakes are made by everyone at some point. Let us forget the issues of long ago, and welcome Elonka's vast knowledge with open arms, knowing that if any future issues come up, they will be dealt with appropriately. (And, to answer any doubts, nobody asked me to vote.) <sup>
'''Support'''. Elonka is a perfect fit for Wikipedia and will integrate very well with the culture and environment. --
'''Support''' - I was neutral, but have decided to support. Elonka has shown a willingness to bend and does do ALOT for this project. Not afraid to change my mind. Good luck! --
'''Strong Support''' - Having read through many of the diffs--pro and con, I have come the conclusion that Elonka is a very strong contributor who does understand the rules.  I believe that difficulties which took place in her early WikiCareer have been learning points for her.  I see a strong desire in her to be a fair and effective Administrator and I believe that she will use the admin buttons to our greater good.  After seeing that she is willing, like Durova, to be subject to recall, I feel that Elonka is doing everything that she can to show that she will be a worthwhile administrator. I look forward to congratulating her on her success!
'''Weak Support''' I am loath to support an editor that has so many respected editors opposing with good reasons, but I think that there is still cause to support.
'''The Strongest Support''' - Having previously nominated Elonka last year, there is still no doubt in my mind that Elonka would make the most fantastic and fair administrator.  She is utterly kind and professional in her Wikipedia activities as, I am certain, she is in other areas of her life.  Without a doubt, make this lady an administrator!
'''Support'''.  I am unswayed by the opposers, and her contributions and expertise are impressive.   &#10154;
'''Support''' I think the opposers have some valid points and some that have been quite overblown. I expect the net effect of Elonka becoming a sysop will be positive.--
'''Support''' Et in Arcadia ego.
'''Support''' Not really following this too deeply I admit, but looking over all of the Opposes, frankly, all I see is "her past" this and "her past" that. How about you leave her past out of it, and you vote on who you think she is now? And looking at the support arguments compared to the oppose arguments? I'd say who she is now is perfect for a wikipedia admin. That's my 2 cents.
'''Support''' per [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]].
'''Support'''. per all above.  --
I wasn't going to leave a comment on this RfA, so I could close it, but it looks like it's going to be contentious enough that I don't really want to close it. Therefore, I'm going to support, as I think this user probably can do more good than bad. '''
'''Support''' personally, but I also support the overall decision of the community, if this fails or passes. I think in this user's case an unsuccessful RFA will only spur improvement, and she will become more prepared for another RFA.  Elonka will make a good administrator when ready. --
Per Phaedriel and Ned and Danny's oppose votes. Generally, these high profile RfAs have so many opposes because these users have been around a lot, not because they are bad users. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Opposes seem to be based on personal grudges and/or things that happened in ancient wiki history. Whatever trouble was in the past appears to be firmly in the past. Elonka is obviously quite dedicated to the encyclopedia. No problem with answers to questions. (And Danny's grudge vote really put a bad taste in my mouth. I would like to say that that didn't affect my opinion, but it probably did.) --
'''Support'''. This one is a little more difficult for me than some.  I do believe that it is likely that Elonka will use the buttons to delete articles that I personally don't believe meet CSD criteria, not because she will misapply or misunderstand policies and guidelines but because in those gray areas where administrators must exercise discretion, her personal leaning will be to delete.  However, I also feel that she will not buck consensus or intentionally disregard guidelines to impose her own views.  She is obviously dedicated and talented, so looking at the big picture, I think Wikipedia will be better off if Elonka has the tools. --
'''Support'''. I don't see any reason to think she'd abuse the tools. And her response to the incredibly loaded question, 12, was impressive and restrained.
'''Support'''. I don't think she'll abuse the tools. Durova's co-nom (and admin coaching?) is impressive, and she's open to recall in any case. Give her a chance.
'''Support''' - looks like a capable candidate, per [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]], [[User:Durova|Durova]] and [[User:Andrevan|Andre]]
'''Support''' - I trust Elonka. My first Wikipedia experience with her was when she noticed that I had made some minor edits to my own wikipedia article, nothing major, at the time I just didn't know any better, she noticed it, explained to me that that was not something that was done here, explained the rules, it made sense, and I followed the rules from then on, but she didn't just stop there, she took the extra time to teach me how to do things in Wikipedia and how the culture works here. She helped me (and continues to help me) work on some original content which (real life issues permitting) I should be finished with this week. I know I trust her with admin powers and I'm glad she was nominated --
'''Support''' this capable candidate.  This is not a popularity contest, nor is it the forum for ancient personal grudges.  Have some decency and move on, people.  Move on.
'''Support''' The Arbcom case happened in December of 2006. Many new admins sysoped registered after that. And she still ''can't'' be trusted?! I believe Elonka can be fully trusted with the tools 8 months later. However, I would agree with the opposed a few months ago. Now, I feel it's time to move on. --
'''Support'''  Elonka has been nothing but helpful to me, helping me learn how to use wikipedia both philosophically and technically, even if I still have to put those lessons to full and effective use.  Reading the evidence above as well leads me to believe she would be a good admin.  ''Full Disclosure'': I know Elonka personally, through our shared interest in boardgames and because we live near-ish each other.  I knew of her previous RfA, and had talked with her about it, and although I learnt of this RfA from her, it came up in conversation and not because she contacted me with the express intent of canvassing. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' great editor.
'''Support'''.  Sincere, dedicated, helpful editor and community member.  Disappointing RfA.  <span style="font-family:'Rockwell'; font-size:11pt;">
'''Support'''.  This editor surely has her share of controversy but many great assets to the project do.  I'm convinced that Elonka holds the goals of Wikipedia firmly in mind with her actions (not her personal goals as some allege) and that she can be trusted with the mop. --
'''Support'''.  No doubt she had a rocky start but she seems to have matured into a valuable editor.  I have read all the concerns below and non really concern me enough to oppose.
'''Strong Oppose''' Too good to support. ;) Especially with all the comments here and what I've seen of her. Per all. :) &mdash;
'''Support''' on balance, having spent most of the RfA attempting to weigh up cogent arguments on both sides.
'''Weak Support''' Elonka is a good editor and valuable contributor and I think she'll make a good admin.  My support is qualified as weak only because of some recent mis-steps regarding the issue of Mohammed depictions which I believe unnecessarily stirred the pot against consensus. Elonka did backtrak on the issue later to support consensus.  I support her adminship and only offer a caution in the future on messy issues like Mohammed depictions.
'''Support''' -- I've been away from rfa for a while, but I'm having trouble seeing any real reason not to support --
'''Support'''. Elonka has shown great capacity to grow and improve as an editor since the first RfA and the issues raised there. If this RfA does not succeed, I hope in the future the community will come to realize that we have a good candidate here.
'''Support'''Like Matt57 and several others here, I participated in the recent depictions dust up, and found Elonka's involvement well-intended but ultimately unhelpful, and her mode of discussion detached and unresponsive. However, contra some of the comments in the opposes (presumably accompanied by experiences) I did not get the impression that she would have abused the tools. I can only urge her to take the time to appreciate the underlying principles involved in future disputes, and not reflexively grasp at the first (seemingly) easiest way out. Danny's comment below I take very seriously. There is undeniably the appearance of self-promotion, and it is appropriate that possible conflicts of interest remain under scrutiny for as long as she edits here. At the same time, she has a name and a reputation which accompanies her presence: that she wants her participation to reflect well upon her is as close as we can come to a guarantee against the worst abuses. Wikipedia needs more vested citizen-editors; the same holds true for administrators. If a vanity userpage and lingering (inevitably) COI concerns is the price we pay for their participation, we come out ahead, in my estimate. The problems of unaccountability, of anonymity, of immaturity, of life-inexperience and of plain incompetence are far worse; and we are all aware that we  have these now. Elonka is brilliant, Elonka is accomplished, Elonka is accountable, Elonka is a serious person, and I have no reason to believe that she will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've been mulling over this one for a while now, and I feel that this editor will make a fine administrator.  Admin tools are not a power, but are exactly what the description says: a tool for improving Wikipedia.  Even though Elonka has had some issues in the past, haven't we all? Her recent edits show that she has improved since her last RFA. I feel she is responsible enough to be given a chance at adminship.

'''Support''' Elonka has proven herself repeatedly, Adminship for her is a must.
'''Support'''. I have had some concerns about this user, but think she has improved and will be a good trusted administrator. --
'''Support'''. Seems to me like a knock-down drag-out fight over wiki-philosophy. I myself side with the candidate.
'''Support'''. You have way more edits than me, and I think this rfa will be one of the most supported with well over 100. Thanks. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001/A|A]][[User:AstroHurricane001|H]][[User:AstroHurricane001/D|1]]</font><sup>([[User:AstroHurricane001/T|T]][[Special:Contributions/AstroHurricane001|C]]
'''Strong oppose'''. Elonka is a highly manipulative editor and is a poor judge of consensus. While most people, including myself long long ago, will actually have a very pleasant interaction with her, if you ever find yourself disagreeing with her, you will see a whole other side to Elonka. In one such dispute I had with her, it was taken all the way to arbitration  ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions]]). While the case focused mostly at the issue of naming conventions and page moves, the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence|evidence]] page well documents this other side of Elonka. Elonka engages in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka_has_been_engaging_in_disruptive_and_stalling_behaviour|disruptive and stalling behavior]], makes [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Rebuttal_of_Elonka.27s_allegations_of_incivility|false allegations of incivility]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka_is_masterful_at_WikiLawyering|Elonka is masterful at WikiLawyering]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka_is_a_tendentious_editor|Elonka is a tendentious editor]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka has a history of being disruptive|Elonka has a history of being disruptive]]. It goes [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka misunderstands harassment guideline (rebuttal)|on]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Wknight94|on]], any of which is a reason to not give Elonka an admin bit. Further from this, I've had other small disputes with Elonka after the arbcom case that show this is clearly not an isolated issue. --
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't seems to a have sufficient understanding of policy including [[WP:NOT]]. Most recently the candidate among other things [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKaaba&diff=144835267&oldid=144833790 suggested] that some specific historical images should be digitally altered, so that we do not offend the feelings and ideas of our ultra conservative religious readers and editors. She doesn't seems to have sufficient respect for the mediation process in general [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKaaba&diff=145018032&oldid=145016095 either] or the opinion expressed my a huge majority there regarding religious censorship. --
'''Oppose''': Although this user is polite and soft, she's too soft and gets swayed easily. I've interacted with her on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kaaba issue] of images of Muhammad. In this issue, she has supported censorship of religious images by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba&diff=146575955&oldid=146574632 saying] we should replace a certain image or put a show/hide option. She supports compromise if it means breaking Wikipedia policies so I'm definitely against her. She has little or no regard for policies in at least one area so I assume she can do the same for other areas too. This is a good user but not strong enough. I doubt she'll be able to resolve disputes and make good decisions. At the least, you need an administrator who has the highest regard for Wikipedia policies and she doesn't have that. During my communication with her on this issue of Muhammad images, she tried to make me happy by saying that she did'nt support censorship and all, but the bottom line was that she ''was'' supporting censorship (replace them, put a show/hide option). She may be a nice person but she's going to be nothing but trouble, trust me. I saw her "bend" her opinions all because some other people wanted the images to go. She'll face this kind of thing more when she's an admin so it'll make matters worse e.g. she might delete or keep an article to make a small group of people happy even if their viewpoint is irrational - stuff like that. You need someone with a strong sense of appropriate independent judgement and she doesnt fit this requirement, I assure you. I'm sorry Elonka, you supported censorship and for that, I'll strongly oppose you. If you do become an admin, I hope you'll respect Wikipedia policies more, thats all I can say. --
'''Oppose.''' Elonka cannot be trusted with the deletion buttons. She has a long history of tagging articles for speedy deletion, which, when put to a discussion, have tended to survive AfD, often with a keep vote. She badly needs the oversight of at least having someone review her nominations before they get deleted, as they are so often dubious. I can see a strong possibility that, if granted the tools, we may be at RFAR in a few months needing them taken away for abuse.
'''Strong Oppose''' There are certainly more than 4 articles speedily tagged by Elonka that have survived. One sticks in my mind as I had initially created the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_State]. I remember quite a few more too, without trawling through the posts.  I would like to say that Elonka is a fantastic editor and exceptional contributor to Wikipedia, however her history of disruption (a good example being the naming conventions) vanity articles and large number of links to her own website makes me wary of entrusting Elonka with more tools. '''''
'''Oppose:''' Shameless self-promoter, who has figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' In my observation this user opposes the existence of certain classes of articles to the level of [[WP:POINT]] violation, and after having read the Naming conventions ArbCom at the time it was occurring, I was quite alarmed at the user's lack of willingness to engage with others or to abide by consensus. At AfD abiding by consensus is *vital*, so in my view they should not have the tools.
'''Oppose'''. There should be good reasons a contributor with 30,000 edits isn't already an admin. I know Elonka longer than the nominators themselves, and I feel that she is not the person who can be trusted with admin buttons. What is more important, I haven't seen any real change in demeanour since Elonka's last candidacy. Rebecca's and Danny's votes above only increase my unease. --
'''Oppose''' Per Rebecca, and especially Danny.
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Oppose''' per Danny and Rebecca.
'''Oppose''' per Orderinchaos.--
'''Oppose''': While Elonka's a very prolific and intelligent ''editor'', some of the behaviors raised by the prior oppose !voters with more direct experience with this candidate gave me immediate "go neutral" pause about how she'd be as an ''admin''.  The more I've looked, waiting around for answers to my questions, the less I've liked what I'm seeing. (whatever the ArbCom decided, evidentiary links to one's edit history don't lie). Even aside from chronic (note I do not say constant) disruptiveness, wikilawyering, failure to understand how consensus works, compromise at the expense of [[WP:CENSOR]], editwarring, inappropriate attempts at speedy deletion, and such, there's just something deeper that's not quite right here, something overly self-interested.  I don't ever recall anyone else with an alleged vanity article up for AfD who defended it by engaging in indignant assertions of their own awesomeness ''in the third person'' like Bob Dole.  That may have been months ago (I made mistakes back then, too, and have changed), I don't see sufficient evidence of Elonka internally absorbing the Wikinature any better, ''just getting more skilled at playing the game''. A case in point would be the avoidance of uncomfortable questions on this RfA (and she has been plenty active today; I checked Special:Contributions), while letting her rather aggressive supporters rant against those daring to ask non-fluffy questions. If this were my RfA they'd've already been asked by me to refrain from any further comment, I would have apologized to those ranted at, and answered their questions; but Elonka seems to feel that her win-margin is secure enough or something that she doesn't have to do anything but sit back and wait.  With several more days to go that might not actually be the case.  Anyway, once the whiff of wikipoliticking in the air, that's it for me. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Strong Oppose''' Per Ned Scott, Karl, Rebecca, Danny, OIC, and SMcCandlish. I don't vote at RfA often, but when I heard that this  user was again being nominated I felt the need to voice my concern. All the issues involving this user have already been outlined above in the oppose votes, and I would concur with the oppose consensus that giving this user the keys to the en.wikipedia kingdom would be akin to Dracula working at the blood bank. A dangerous user who does not act within consensus and could become a significant problem when allowed to work without oversight.
I agree with Ghirla. -- <b>
I still feel uncomfortable with Elonka becoming an admin, and thus I must still '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca and Orderinchaos above. I too have seen this user's deletions in the past, and although I have seen from this RFA that her actions have improved dramatically and I would be willing to reconsider this in the future, I cannot support her promotion to admin at this time. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca, Danny & Orderinchaos. I rarely vote against someone on a RfA, but this is an extreme case. This user has massive issues with [[WP:POINT]] as mentioned by OIC above. Maybe in 2 years.
'''Oppose''', I do not trust Elonka to use the deletion button sensibly. Also, I am quite surprised the [[Elonka|article on her]] is still on Wikipedia.  It is, basically, a CV we are hosting for her.  The notability claims are awful (compiled one book ranked #119,439 on Amazon ([http://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Secret-Codes-Cryptograms/dp/0786717262]), works for a computer games company, has her own website with a CV on it.  I'm more notable than that.); Danny's claims of Elonka's manipulating Wikipedia for bare-faced publicity seem to have some weight.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Bec and OIC above. I've known about this RfA for a few weeks and so I have given it a lot of thought and I'm still very concerned about Elonka's attitude to DreamGuy. I'm not a DG fan, defender or supporter so this isn't about DG, it's purely about this RfA. During the last RfA it was obvious to me that Elonka and DG are like gas to each other's fire and that the best thing would be for both to have nothing to do with each other. Yet instead of leaving DG alone, Elonka has apparently continued, at least, at times, to pursue him. He, and others, have continued to accuse her of stalking and harassing him. She denies this but IMO the very fact that he feels harassed is reason enough for her to just stay away from him and if any actions need to be taken against DG, it would be best if she let a third party (probably preferably an admin, from what I can see) step in. Yet Elonka apparently considered it appropriate for her to create Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DreamGuy. The cat was speedy deleted by
'''Oppose''' per OiC & Ned Scott above.
'''Oppose''', too much to consider to sit on the fence any more. Yes, great contributor, but having looked into why others have moved from neutral to oppose, I share the uneasy feeling about trusting Elonka with the tools right now. Hopefully not never, just not yet. <b>
'''Oppose''' out of touch with concensus and process on deletion criteria.  Can't trust Elonka to show necessary restraint with the tools.
'''Oppose''' per Danny.  I am very wary of giving admin tools to editors who aren't circumspect – even to the point of being vigilantly so – about [[WP:COI]].--
'''Strong Oppose''' per Rebecca.  Can't trust her when it comes to deletion cases, and would likely click delete in controversial cases without second thought or against consensus. --
'''Oppose''' per Sarah. I have the greatest respect for many of the supporters above but I cannot support this editor. I think the very recent events mentioned by Sarah are not acceptable for an editor and especially not for an admin.
'''Oppose'''.  Too many concerns expressed by respected editors, particularly consensus concerns.  If we are to err here, we should err on the side of caution. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' After reviewing your previous RFA and the oppositions, I do not feel comfortable with giving you administrative functionality. This is not to say however, I think you are a poor editor or do not have wonderful contributions to Wikipedia - but I am deeply concerned by the comments raised in your Oppose/Neutral sections. --
'''Oppose''' per Matt, Karl, and Ned Scott. The evidence presented here is quite disturbing. It is clear to me that we cannot take a chance on trusting this editor with more power.
'''Oppose''' per Wknight94 and Sarah (changed from neutral). A great and prolific editor and a fascinating and talented person to have on the team, but continuing concerns about her temperament. As I think I said the last time round, edit for a few months without getting into any dramas, clean up the COI question marks around the page on you, and there is no reason we couldn't promote. As of now, regretful oppose. --
'''Oppose''' a critical quality of an admin is to recognize when his or her personal views are not consensus. I cannot trust that the nominee would make the judicious calls of keeping articles or letting others decide (at afd rather than a speedy) in close situations, when her personal choice would be to delete them.
'''Strong Oppose''', based upon many valid concerns brought up by editors above (particularly [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] and [[User:Wknight94]]).  Extensive reading of the candidate's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka first RfA] and the concerns raised there have given me the very distinct impression that not much has changed.  I honestly can not trust that the candidate would not misuse the tools, and believe that the candidate would be better suited to being a prolific editor rather than a controversial administrator.  <span style="color:darkred"><b>*Vendetta*</b> <sub>
'''Strong Oppose''' - I haven't edited wikipedia for several months, and this RfA only came to my attention when another wikipedian emailed me with “''Make sure to vote on Elonka's RfA as you've interacted with this user before''”. While i was editing Wikipedia, i had one major encounter with Elonka that lasted several months, and resulted in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions|Naming Conventions ArbCom Case]]. The many weeks i spent dealing with her during the course of this dispute leads me to strongly oppose this nomination for the simple reason that i '''cannot trust her''' to use admin tools sensibly, and to not take unfair advantage of her position as an administrator during disputes should she be granted this position. I'll give one example of why i say i cannot trust her with admin tools – when a page is renamed (i.e. Moved), the old name automatically becomes a redirect page. However, anyone (i.e. Non-admins) can reverse the move as long as this automatically created redirect page is never edited again. In the page move wars during this dispute, Elonka made useless edits (e.g. Inserting a white space) to redirect pages that were created by article moves, just to make sure that no one else could reverse her page moves. This means the page moves she made would be 'stuck' unless and admin came in and deleted the redirect. This is a clear example of gaming the system to further herself in a page move war (which is a bad thing to start with) where she and all others involved where non-admins. Now, if she had been an administrator, what reason would I have to believe she would not also have used her admin powers to further herself? (For the record, the evidence for this incident is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka_and_MatthewFenton_intentionally_blocked_return_moves|here]], however, most of the redirects in question where deleted at some point by admins. So the links on that page are to deleted version and will only work for admins). know this is old (the ArbCom case happened in December last year), but reading the reasons behind the 30 or so other oppose votes here, i've found no evidence that her behaviour has improved at all in the last seven months. Yes, she has made many valuble contributions to articles, but at the end, i think what shows the most about an editor is how they handle disputes, especially ones where they are on the 'wrong side'. Everyone can handle things well when they are being supported by other people, but when they are on the 'losing side' of a dispute, how they react says a lot. Elonka, in that one dispute i witnessed, showed she was ''willing to do everything and anything'' to prove that she was 'right', to the point of trying to game the wikipedia system, throwing around false accusations, and being downright misleading. Things like this are hard to prove, but i think [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka&diff=92602144&oldid=92601793|this]] nails it fairly well. Being an administrator is proof that you are a trusted and respected member of the community - especially for those new to wikipedia who may not yet understand what an “administrator” on wikipedia means. Being an administrator makes you a role-model, and (in some sense) a representative of the wikipedia community, it means a newbie who isn't familiar with wikipedia himself will take you more seriously and trust what you say about wikipedia. There are systems in place to ensure administrators don't abuse their tools, but as i just pointed out, tools aren't the only thing adminship gives to you. We need to trust our administrators to respect consensus and policies, even when they don't ''personally agree''. And this is where Elonka fails. --
'''Oppose''' per Ned Scott.
'''Oppose''' per many of the above, particularly Wknight94.  I have no doubt that Elonka is a good contributor to Wikipedia, but I do not believe she will handle the tools appropriately.  --
'''Oppose'''. Elonka is a valuable contributor to our project, but per all the issues raised above, I'm not confident that she would use the tools in a careful and reasonable manner. '''<font color="#FFA52B">K</font><font color="#C31562">
'''Oppose''' - Elonka has improved a lot since last RFA, and deserves to be commended for that. Unfortunately, she didn’t pick it up to an extent that I start to feel comfortable with her having delete and block buttons yet. Ground for that feel is the ongoing - in my view - stubborn unwillingness to trust other people to deal with the actions of DreamGuy,<span class="plainlinks"><sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=130376320]</sup></span> and it seems ‘s still nurturing that vendetta till personal end goals are reached.<span class="plainlinks"><sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ASuspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_DreamGuy&diff=124900955&oldid=61656826][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:216.165.158.7&action=history][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=140944454][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=130356794]</sup></span> Is she going to avoid  acting on a rancor when the extra buttons give that extra little bit of persuasive power? I fear an occasional snap into vengeful-authoritative-mode. If adminship wasn’t such a holy long lasting sticky editor privilege, I would take the chance and support. --
'''oppose''' for Wikipedia decision making process is about consensus, with AFD is sufficiently transparent that non admins can understand the reasonings and the consequences. In less structured enviroments like [[WP:CSD]] the transparency is more opaque we need to be able to trust the actions of admins to reach appropriate conclusions, without oversight. After reading the above comments I can accept that an editor had a COI and reformed. That the editor was party to an arbcom case where Elonka disputed what was consensus, the enforcability of a guideline and also complained of inappropriate harassment and alck lack of good faith. I can recognise this was in December some 7 months ago now and people can and do learn so again I can accept that the editor had reformed from this event. I can even see advising editors that you had mentioned them in an arbcom as more a courtessy than canvassing, though the coutessy as detailed above is to editors she mentioned a insupport of her arguments. Yet come May 2007 Elonka was the one not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], was the one harassing DG<small> diff provided by [[user:Sarah]]</small>. Ultimately its this continous repetition of not following policy that at the moment sways my opinion. I also respect and trust the judgement of [[User:WJBscribe]] as such I recognise that this editor has the ability reform and has taken step towards that end, its just that I dont see enough time since these incidents and other documented incidents to consider other options.
'''Oppose''' An admin should know better than arguing for the removal of images as Elonka did on [[Talk:Kaaba]]. The community cannot entrust the tools to an editor for whom someone's sentiments trump policy.
'''Oppose''' It took me a while to make up my mind, but this is where I come out.  I think Wikipedia would be better off if she was not made an admin.  She also has evidenced some of the behaviour patterns of the current admins that I most believe should be desysopped, and I don't want to create another admin that I think should be desysopped.  Unusually for me, I am more concerned about the block/unblock buttons (especially the former) than the deletion buttons.
'''Oppose''' per SMcCandlish, GRBerry and Beit. I am sorry, I can't support this user at this time.--
'''Strong Oppose'''. I was actually tempted by some of the Support votes, and have been considering my vote for nearly two days. However, reading Elonka's answers to the questions, her responses to Rebecca on oppose #4 above, the vociferous responses of her supporters to a range of other comments - including allegations of canvassing when Support #105 and #109 all but admit to the same - and the comments of SMcCandlish, Rebecca, Sarah, Orderinchaos, Gnangarra and Wknight94, as well as some recent AfDs in which she has been involved convince me to vote oppose (I did try to read the ArbCom but got thoroughly lost in the detail and gave up - although I believe that the contention that no decision was passed against her has been answered by Orderinchaos's comment-in-reply a few up). The diffs by Hiberniantears (Support #36) genuinely scare me - while I like to assume that everyone can change and become a productive editor, it would seem instead that she has focussed on building an image to pass this RfA. The diff at Karrinyup Shopping Centre on 17 July 2007, just two weeks ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karrinyup_Shopping_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=145242197], Rouse Hill Town Centre 26 June 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rouse_Hill_Town_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=140633660] suggests to me a person too emotionally unstable and likely to action old grudges and throw [[WP:CIVIL|incivil allegations]] rather than assume good faith. The WP:CENSOR issues raised worry me - we are here to build a collection of human knowledge with a wide collection of editors from every cultural background and walk of life, and censorship automatically raises the question, whose truth or whose values apply? Her belief that shopping centres are inherently non-notable (above) while schools are inherently notable [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elanora_State_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=136960261], and her irrational pursuit of and bad faith towards the Australian editors, does not correspond with someone who will neutrally apply consensus in a dispute involving either of those classes of article or that group of editors (a very large one at that). Her ambitions to amble into a CheckUser role per her answer to Q1 considering the groundswell of community dissatisfaction expressed right here beggars belief. To summarise, I feel very uncomfortable with the prospect of this user getting adminship, and I hope that the closing bureaucrat takes the sheer number of high-quality contributors who have voted "oppose" into account.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, I am really concerned about some of the wiki-turbulence which I feel has a chance of escalating if this RfA is successful. I do not feel that unsupervised speedy deleting is conducive to 'pedia building either. I admit I haven't read a great many diffs but alot of editors I have great respect for are highly concerned. cheers,
'''Oppose''' I primarily remember  Elonka from the Naming Conventions debate, and reading some of the things above I doubt wether her attitude has improved much since then. If I were involved in a debate where an admin would have to step in, I simply would not want that to be her. Her tendency to simply not consider that she might be wrong is a problem that I cannot overlook. --
'''Oppose''' - based on her use of Wikipedia for self-promotion and her advocacy on behalf of [[Bruce Woodcock]] (who I know from elsewhere on the Internet and who is a destructive troll), I am unable to honestly say I would trust this user with admin tools.
'''Oppose''' too many concern, including those raised by Rebecca, Danny, SMcCandlish, Sarah, and GRBerry.
'''Weak oppose'''. Good editor whom I would really, really like to support but there are some things here that worry me, namely the overzealous deletionism noted by Rebecca. Everything else I would be willing to overlook. —
'''Oppose''' not in particular about deletions--I make allowances knowing I think differently about some. But because of what I see as the extreme defensiveness.  There is opposition for many reasons, and the response is to try to battle every statement down, point by point. This is not an orientation towards producing compromise  and conciliation, but a course that would inevitably arose further opposition. As an example, I didn't comment at first, because I wanted to see the response to the first few dissents that were raised. I've seen them,  and I concur with GRBerry that I do not have confidence with the power to block and unblock. '''
'''Oppose''' I ran into Elonka on two AfDs in February and am not convinced she is capable of putting policy objectively above her own point of view on notability in particular and her opinions of certain people. She doesn't seem to realise that policy and consensus come above EVERYTHING else on this place and IAR only goes so far. Also if she gets promoted then this AfD has established that a significant portion of the community are likely to also not trust her judgments.
'''Oppose''' - I don't trust editors who think it's okay to write articles about themselves and their relatives and then put links to their website [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.elonka.com&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0 across many Wikipedia pages].
'''Oppose''' I just do not feel comfortable with granting her admin rights; the only (kind of) contact I had with her was about the naming and renaming of the article [[Voßstrasse]], admittedly some time ago, but I kind of kept returning to watch Elonkas contributions from time to time when her name popped up on my watchlist, and, as I said above, it just doesn't feel right. Sorry.
I have serious doubts about her judgment, and I have even stronger doubts about her methods of dealing with people that disagree with her.
'''Strong oppose''' As per [[User:Neil|Neil]] and [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]].--
'''Oppose''', mostly per Yaksha. I was only peripherally involved in the Naming Conventions ArbCom, but I followed it very closely from the beginning. The whole process was extremely complicated, but I hope that won’t stop people from diving in and taking a look. I recommend the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions#Statement by Yaksha|statement by Yaksha]] as a good place to start, with most of the main issues summed up. Yaksha's statement is cited in the committee's [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions#Findings of fact|Findings of fact]] to show that consensus had been reached in this issue. Although she seems to have learned from her COI problems, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that she’s learned from her experiences with that ArbCom. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. While I agree with alot of concerns raised above I didn't really see the need to weigh in at first. Then I started to comb though the canidates history and contrary to alot of other editors I found myself in the position of opposing this canidate not for wiki-ideology but out of simple, personal distaste and distrust. That might come off as unfair as I've never meet the woman but I can't lie, she just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I apologise if this stance offends but I just don't want to see her with the admin tools, she strikes me as manipulative and ego driven right down to her user page.
'''Oppose''' per all above.  Many solid reasons have been discussed on both sides, but I'm just not sure I feel comfortable with this user becoming an admin at this time, ''especially'' because of how much controversy this RFA has stirred up. It's hard to see how the effect on the project would be a net positive, with so many people up in arms about it, and that's enough to push me from neutral to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. I considered my response to this RfA for quite a while. I respect Elonka as an editor and I know she does lots of good work. On the other hand, I still do not have confidence in her ability to put policy above her personal opinions when making administrative decisions and to act with the neutrality necessary to intervene in disputes.
'''Oppose'''. Can something so divisive end well? I think it would be quite a bit better accepted given a little more time, and don't see any need to rush.
'''Oppose'''. Elonka is a (net) good editor, who is valuable for the project. I think, however, that Elonka's best contribution to the project at this time can be made by continuing as an editor. In this way Elonka will be free to continue editing in the manner to which she has become accustomed.
'''Oppose''' per multiple above concerns.
'''Gentle and polite oppose'''. Elonka is clearly a great asset to Wiki, and there is much about her work here, and her particular skills that I can see would be very useful with the extra tools and responsibilities of adminship - especially in terms of unravelling sockpuppets. However, the many concerns that have been raised and evidence put forward give pause for thought. I wouldn't expect any individual to be free of fault, and I accept that Admins will make mistakes - we can hope for perfection, but we live in a real world - so I wouldn't hold moments of human fraility against anyone. However, the past stubborness she has displayed shows a believe in her judgements which is not born out by the evidence of those judgements being overturned. She appears to believe she is right even when it is pointed out to her she is wrong, and evidence has been presented which shows she continues to hold judgements which are then overturned as not consensual. There is that whiff of doubt about her which suggests that it may be better to play safe.
'''Deeply Regretful Oppose''' Elonka is an excellent editor; but I cannot support Elonka's arguments on the Kaaba matter. She has been supported, apparently for this, by some of our most disruptive editors; this answers that support. If Elonka's arguments on the matter misrepresent her opinion, I should be glad to hear it; but I believe that we have a moral duty to relay consensus in the most effective manner. There are those who dislike this, as there were those who dislike the ''Encyclopedie'', but that is their choice, not ours.
'''Oppose''' per TheDJ, Ned Scott, Matt57, GRBerry, Rebecca, Danny, Radiant, Yaksha, et al.
'''Oppose''' per Lectonar and others. Consistently supported trolls on [[Voßstraße]], even after they had lost interest.
'''Oppose''' per ....a lot of Australian editors. Hunger for checkuser is also a bad thing as a long term aim to be honest. '''
'''Oppose'''. I have a great respect for Elonka. She has made several contributions for Wikipedia. However, consensus is very important. I am a new Wikipedian. I make mistakes. If someone says anything wrong about me because of my mistake, I should try to correct that mistake. I shouldn't try to attack that person. If she becames an administrator, she may block people because of personal reasons. You should respect the views of those who disagree with you.
'''Strong oppose''' per Karl Meier and Matt57. '''
'''Oppose''' With some trepidation, I must voice must my opposition. The substantial number of concerns and links above, and relating to this page, only reaffirm my view that the valued editor would make make a poor admin. The lack of trust in the community has been disruptive enough, will that improve if the canditate is succesful? I almost never enter into RfAs, I feel I must this time. Do I declare that I'm Australian to have a say here? Comments by others should be retracted if not, perhaps that is a formal request to go on the talk page. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca, Danny, SMcCandlish, and Sarah, to name a few.
'''Oppose''' - per many above in oppose, many valid issues have been raised, which cause concern in regards to use of admin tools.--
'''Oppose'''.  Had supported, then decided not to, now I've swung the other way.  The appeal to emotion here is overwhelming, but I find it completely uncompelling.  If you're here to try to promote your ''friends'', myspace is down the hall.  If you're here to promote candidates based on suitability for the position, welcome to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' - adminship is not a big deal, right? and the vehemency with which both camps are trying to present their point of view suggests the contrary; this is not a presidential election. Perhaps it's not yet time for this RfA to pass. Someone cleverly pointed out that trust is the issue here; Time and dilligence will gain the candidate more trust and a better chance at adminship.
'''Neutral''' In an alternative time stream, I would have written something along the lines of "'''support''', I thought this person already was an Admin", but the last time I stepped into a discussion about Adminship so that much enthusiasm, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Oldwindybear|I ended up screwing the pooch]]. I'll just limit myself this time to asking everyone to carefully examinine the evidence & participate accordingly. --
'''Neutral''' Just too much information and arguments from both sides to be able to truly decide.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards '''rather not'''. Elonka is a fine contributor. However, in case of admins, personal virtues are equally important as a nice cv of great articles. And when it comes dealing with other contributors I find Elonka's behaviour highly unstable. At times she's an open-minded, friendly and great person to cooperate with. However, I've also seen the other face of Elonka, the one that was extremely unpleasant and forced her to create conflicts and wage one-man crusades against the community just for the sake of it (like in the case of the Polish wikipedians' notice board). In short, giving her a broom and a bucket could be a nice idea, but this would mean that she'd also get the punitive powers, which I'd rather avoid. ''<font color="#901">//</font>''
'''Neutral''' Too many reasons listed by those that oppose. '''Rather not''' per Halibutt above. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Switching to neutral based on the repsonses to my oppose above addressing the concern I raised.  Still have serious doubts but will stay neutral based on good response to my over reaction to the issue raised above which was what swung me to oppose.
--
'''Oppose''' - I'm sure you won't be surprised by this one in light of my repeated run-ins with your multiple accounts. Your (undeclared) alter ego [[User:Remi0o|Remi0o]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Remi0o|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Remi0o|contribs]]) probably has the highest [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&target=Remi0o deleted-contribution] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Remi0o valid-contribution] ratio of any non-vandal account I've ever seen, your current account has a total of 175 mainspace edits, and both accounts have a very long and inglorious history of creating spurious one-member categories which have created a ridiculous amount of unnecessary admin work for everyone who has to clean up after you.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience.  Only 380 edits on Wikipedia isn't enough for me, regardless of your edits on Wikiversity.  It's been a long time since an editor with fewer than 2000 edits passed an RFA.  And edit summary usage isn't the best, and that's important so other editors can easily see what you've done and/or your motive.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience here is a major concern. You have less than 500 edits. I would like to advise you to withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Regardless of your edits on Wikiversity, we don't hand out mops to just anyone. I also recommend that you withdraw and come back once you have at least 2000 edits. —
'''Oppose.''' Insufficient experience. Unaddressed concerns raised by multiple commentors already. Formatting problems in nomination statement raise questions about editing ability. Lack of variety in experience. Answers are vague.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Very little experience. Per above, there are way to many concerns to show support. recommend withdrawal at this point.
Per irisdescent. The creation of single-page categories are not helpful, and are exhaustive to clean up. As of this time, I cannot trust you with the tools. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. I suggest nom withdraw this request.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on: as someone who's spent some time cleaning up your single-member category creations, I cannot support.
'''Support''' Everything seems alright.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Seems to be a solid contributor with a good understanding of policy. I have no doubts about Errabee's trustworthiness, and I see nothing indicating he would abuse the tools. ···
'''Support''' Experienced, trustworthy editor without any problems that I'm aware of.
'''Support''' for opposing copyright paranoia. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Support''' good questions, has the experience, no concerns. Sure. —

'''Troppus''' A great user. Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' - fine user, [[Wikipedia:Yyy?|so why not?]]
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason not to support..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' it´s okay for me (after a quick check)
Support, probably not insane -
'''Support''' - Yep - looks fine. Tons of great encyclopedic work. It's interesting to see an interwiki candidate here, too :) Good luck~ -
'''Support''' - (This started out as a Neutral, but I decided to change to support.) Good candidate, and I have no problem with his attitude. The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is his liberal attitude to IAR (as highlighted by NeoFreak below) but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Full support''', I know him for his Russia-related contributions and I trust him.
'''Support''' a well qualified candidate.--
'''Support''' - "Moderation in all things, including moderation." I don't know whose quote that is, but it seems to fit.  Errabee goes by feel, and his feel seems to be on-the-mark.  Having a feel for the project is good, but refining one's understanding of guidelines, policy, and Wikipedia's underlying principles over time is also important. I believe Errabee will refine his Wiki-acumen as time goes on.  Having the admin tools will certainly give him a definite reason to do so! Besides's his Zen sense, he's intelligent, literate, and cares for the project, and that's what's most important. ''''''
'''Support'''. "Seeking the tools to make your own life easier" is fine if "making your own life easier" is defined as doing things like reverting vandalism. --
'''Support''': As long as you use the tools not just to help yourself I am fine with it. You have the experience but will you said you needed to make your life easier and hopefully by making your life easier will you help the project. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' I trust you with the tools.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Support''' Experienced.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - A well established contributer with good experience, I think he would make a good admin.
'''Support''' - Go ahead! (''Ga Maar Door!'', I think?)
'''Support''' I already know Errabee to a highly effective and useful member of WikiProject Biography; that he was formerly an admin on another project and therefore knows how to use the tools is a pleasant surprise to me. Easy support. --
'''Support'''; good question answers, and per experience on nl: -- maybe resigning as admin wasn't necessary, but the situation was very bad there from what was said.
'''Strong Support'''; extremly hardworking wikiproject member, a gold standard of neutrality and civility, very thoughtful and helpful.
I'm
'''Support''' The use of the bit to make one's own editing easier also, brick by brick, lessens the burden on others.  It's teamwork, and the user knows how to use the tools from another Wikimedia project and that with experienced reading/editing the use of the bit is both helpful and beneficial to the project.
'''Weak Support''': Not enough mainspace edits,[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Errabee&site=en.wikipedia.org] but I'm sure that he will take care that later. --
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, adequate experience including other wikis. --
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose him. Shalom.--
'''Support'''. Experienced both here and on nlwiki, very well-intentioned, good answers to questions 3 and 5, and the current opposition is unconvincing and possibly a little confused.
'''Support''' He says two things particularly  that I appreciate. One is the importance of [[WP:AGF]] and the need to expend the benefit of the doubt in dealing with people. That goes along way toward diffusing difficult situations. Secondly, his comment that he would seek the assistance of other admins before strking out on his own in [[WP:IAR]] situations. No threat here and potential for good work.
--
'''Support'''. Strong experience on other 'pedias, in addition to this one, makes this candidate pretty much trustworthy. I'm not terribly impressed by the strength of the opposes.
'''Support'''.  Experienced and calm - sounds good to me.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
Ik zie niet in wat er zo problematisch is aan vrijwillig je adminschap opgeven; als zodanig voorzie ik geen problemen met deze gebruiker.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions and seams like a very civil user.
'''Support'''. The candidates meets and exceeds [[User:Vassyana/admin|what I expect]].
'''Absolutely'''.—
'''Support'''. This candidate seems responsible, dependable and perfectly suited to adminship. Plenty of experience and an even-temper.
'''Support'''. Although no one is perfect, we need non-Eastern European administrators on En-WP who are familiar with the subject of Eastern Europe, and have a good command of the English language. Errabee fit the bill.
'''Support'''. Great editor.
'''Unreserved support''' to the candidate for level-headedness, neutrality, commitment and utmost decency. The hell would freeze before the Errabee would abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Per [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] if that helps. I also have an account with Dutch wiki, and I know he did not really jump ship there. (the best Dutch translation for "davay" is "vooruit met de geit" by the way) Actually, I feel Errabee's attitude towards Commons is really pessimistic rather than negative - there is no way he will abuse the tools to keep copyright infringements in the project. --
'''Support''': I have seen  Errabee few  time when he has been commenting on improving pages, particularly biographies.   He seems dedicated to improving standards - he also seems to like info boxes which is daft but apart from that he seems responsible enough, so he may as well be an admin.
'''Strong Support''': Very good input to Russia-related topics, a priceless adition to the admin community. --
'''Support'''. Qualified editor and sufficiently level-headed to be admin. `'
'''Support''' has he actually ''done'' anything against policy? People have a right to an opinion so long as they follow the rules. --
Successfully resisted the urge to oppose over image attitude. Ultimately, I am not getting a notion that user would use his sysop tools to BLOCK, DELETE, or PROTECT the Commons or [[Pablo Picasso]]. As such, even though I disagree with his stance yada yada, I don't think the user should fail RfA as a result. Since otherwise he is qualified-to-splendid, I am happy to support. -- <b>
'''Support'''. I have a great deal of respect for Errabee's work on Wikipedia. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - I know how important it is to have administrators who focus on different projects too, so I support the user. --
'''Support''' - dedicated editor deserves this.
Seeing the IRC-generated opposition by the likes of Kelly Martin, Cyde and Piotrus is the primary incentive to support this brilliant candidate. I know that most IRC regulars hold the view that only IRC-approved folk who contributes nothing to the article space deserves the mop. Well, I'm not one of those guys who hang out on IRC all day long, therefore I feel obliged to '''support''' this hard-working and well-intentioned nominee. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''', we need more admins that actually write something, rather than IRC fairies... <_< --
'''Support''', especially in the copyright issue. IMHO, it is the problem of these who want to become rich by selling wikipedia content to weed out properly tagged non-commercial licenses. It is a 14 minute job to write a perl or java code that does so. For the rest who are truly for '''free''' information the "fair use" is not a problem.
'''Support''', conscientious trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', while I don't completely agree with the copyright issue, I greatly trust this editor.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', per Khoikhoi.
'''Support'''. Fair enough.
'''Support''' Great Editor.
'''Support'''.  I'm willing to give this editor the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''' The question should be whether Errabee will be trustworthy with the tools, not whether he has an opinion about images that might differ slightly from the party line. If we want admins with pre-programmed opinions, we should have approved some of those bots that came through.
'''Support'''. Based on lookign through everything I persaonally trust this user with adminship.--
'''Support'''. Back to support, probably should just vote neutral ;-) <s>Changed to oppose upon closer examination. Would probably support next time, when the "copyright/commons" and "Polish nationalism" statements are properly explained. Good editor nevertheless.</s> En-wiki badly needs more reasonable Russophilic admins. I hope Errabee will help to bring some more peace and common sense to the Eastern European corner of English wikipedia. This said, I also hope that as an admin, he will try to set an example, and will avoid making statements like the one about "Polish nationalist movement on wikipedia" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=75598834&oldid=75584997] in the future. I'm still concerned about the use of non-free licensed content, and the commons comments, though. --
'''Support''' per understanding of policy and princicples.
'''Support''' Per edit history and answers to questions above.  --
'''Oppose''' Seems that the user is seeking tools only to make his own life easier instead of a desire to help the community. I'm also uncomfortable with his liberal usage of IAR and the fact that he has already jumped ship from one adminship instead of sticking out the issues and working to make the Dutch wikipedia better. We all get frustrated with wiki-problems but simply walking away from them doesn't show me commitment to the project.
'''Oppose''' because of statements concerning copyright law.  Copyright law exists and this is going to be a major problem if these issues are not properly addressed.  Admins. who do not properly understand the ramifications of copyright law are going to create more problems than they solve.  Yes, it is unfortunate that we can't include paintings by Picasso, but that's reality.
I am uncomfortable with this user's viewpoint on copyright &mdash; while Picasso's paintings can obviously be used under fair use, Commons is not a failure and this is the ''free'' encyclopedia. <span style="font-size:95%">&mdash;[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''
I was just about to voice the same concerns as MessedRocker, and it seems he beat me to it, hehe.  In all seriousness though, his views towards images as evidenced in Q3 is perhaps one of the biggest red flags I've ever seen.  It is not in Wikipedia's (or the Wikimedia Foundation's) best interests to give Errabee any extra buttons in which he can implement his shockingly misguided view towards image licensing and the legal issues that come with it.  I strongly suggest you all to rethink your estimation of this candidate and also for the closing bureaucrat to take note of this.  I apologise for the bluntness, but that answer is completely irreconcilable with the Wikimedia Foundations aims and goals  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Commons has over a million images. It is a vibrant project. I don't see it as a failure at all. But that's a matter of opinion which the candidate is entitled to, I suppose, and I admit my bias since I'm an admin there, and that's not reason enough to oppose by itself. However, the candidate's stated views on copyright concern me. The WMF has a very clearcut policy on copyright and the use of copyrighted images, and the fact that they are all over the internet does not mean that we can use them. I fear that this candidate will not be willing to implement policy in this matter  (or in other words, the candidate does not "get it") so it is with regret that I '''oppose''', at least until I am convinced otherwise. See also the comments below by Durin, Tony and Nick, which I strongly agree with. ++
Reluctant '''oppose''' per Lar above and Durin below. If the candidate could rethink their attitude towards core policies of the Foundation before they apply again, that would be very helpful. —
Must oppose based on your understanding of Wikipedia's and the Foundation's mission. Collecting "free content" is the core mission. (I read your comment on this RFA talk page before opposing.)
Concur in opposing, in part because of attitude towards copyright. "(T)hese pictures can be found all over the internet, there can't be any real damage for the actual copyright holder" strikes me as an incredibly naive attitude.
Concur in opposition over copyright issues raised by others above.
I don't think he understands the point of making Wikipedia a freely redistributable free encyclopedia. His statement about Commons is astounding, not only for the content of the statement itself, but that he brought it up on his own volition in an RFA on en-wiki, where it is only tangentially related, at best. --
'''Oppose''' - I am also troubled by the view on fair use which seems to run counter to Wikipedia's mission. (
'''Oppose'''. I am afraid my previous encounters with that user failed to convince me that we can trust his/her judgement when it would come to wielding powers like blocking or deletion.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
Doesn't seem to get the concept of free, and too weak on BLP.--
'''Oppose'''. User attitudes and statements towards Commonz and views on copyright worries me a lot. Oppose per users above. -
'''Strong oppose''' ''"I also feel that the Commons project is a big failure, and that instead of vehemently sticking to free pictures, they should instead focus on how the projects can use pictures that are not free, but could be used as fair use."''  ... 1.5 million free pictures that can be used for any purpose is a failure?  Obviously this guy doesn't completely share our mission. Projects have local upload for a reason. Non-free images need to be as close to their use as possible because while it's acceptable to use some Picasso on the article about him it would be utterly unacceptable to use his work on [[Paintbrush]].  --
'''Oppose''' per Gmaxwell, Lar, Gretab, Piotrus, etc. above. One of the main strengths of Wikipedia is the focus on free content, allowing use by anyone for any reason and anywhere; Errabee's stance on copyright and free content seems to counteract this goal. When copyright and fair use issues are so important when it comes to adminship regarding keeping or deleting unfree content, I am not sure someone with views that go against the main goal of the entire project will always make the right decisions.  — <font face="papyrus">
'''Oppose''' - the Wikimedia Foundation is fundamentally about promoting free content. Fair use is not good enough anymore.
'''Oppose'''. IMHO Errabee is too trigger-happy. That's not a problem in case of a normal user, but in case of an admin it might become a huge one. ''<font color="#901">//</font>''
'''Oppose''' per Gretab, etc.  Describing Commons as a failure because it doesn't republish copyright-infringing material has to be either bad confusion about copyright law or a demonstration of an agenda to use Wikimedia servers to fight the law by breaking it.  We don't want either of these things in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Gmaxwell, Lar, EaL and others. Wikipedia being free is fundamental.
'''Oppose''' per Gmaxwell and Lar. Candidate's ideas are fundementally incompatible with creating a "''free'' encyclopedia". There is a real need to cut down on the amount of frivolous fair use images on Wikipedia. I am not reassured by the candidate's responses here or on the talkpage. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. If someone does not agree with the purpose of Commons to host free images only, that's not enough for me to oppose, though it's certainly something that would cause me to withhold support. But his lying on [[Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Photos_by_Errabee|Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee]], trying to pretend that he did not take the photos when he was upset about Commons' policies (which he admits in the Discussion section) makes me oppose. Arguing, being upset, sure, but not lying about it. ("Let he who is without fault cast the first stone," he says, but I've never subscribed to that philosophy, considering that it would completely stifle criticism everywhere: hardly a healthy result. Judge, and expect to be judged, without stooping to throwing rocks at each other.)
'''Oppose''' per copyright concerns.  Also, in my experience Errabee has been a divisive force in some sensitive matters, including the whole "nationalism" issue.
'''Oppose''', with regret, per Gmaxwell, Lar, Jkelly, WJBscribe, and others. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I'm also quite troubled by [[Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee|Commons:Deletion requests/Photos by Errabee]].
Not comfortable with your strong opinions on copyrighted images, per everyone above. '''
'''Oppose''' per concerns above, especially the issue mentioned by Mindspillage.
I must oppose this request because of the concerns about this user's stance on copyright issues as expressed by many people above. Images and media are becoming an increasingly important part of admin work and people with this sort of stance shouldn't be in a position to be doing that work. --
'''Oppose''' per discussion and answer to question 3. '''
'''Oppose''' not necessarily because he takes a stance on image copyright that is not mainstream (if he has no intention of working with the administrative tools on images, that's a null fear), but because he ''lied''. Sorry, trust is absolutely vital on an anonymous project such as this, and lying to make a point is something that will turn me off every time. -- ''
'''Oppose''' Weak on BLP.
'''Oppose'''. Polish nationalism movement = dangerous bias in admin.
'''Neutral''' As per comments above, user did "jump ship" on previous admin.  I don't speak Dutch, and my only other language is pretty bad German, so I don't dabble in the other Wikis, so I don't know how they're run, thus I submit a ''neutral'' vote instead of an oppose, to give the benefit of the doubt.
'''Neutral''' per answer to question one. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">

<s>Per the copyright concerns, which is a shame because Errabee strikes me as a very sane user and I'd support otherwise. &ndash; [[User:Steel359|Steel]] 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)</s> Moved to neutral because I don't want to oppose this guy. &ndash;
'''Support''' per my comment above.
'''Support''' It doesn't matter to me what you want to work on. I don't think you'll abuse the admin tools, so here's a support.
'''Support.''' Work on so may language editions is impressive, shows trust of the (several) communities. If he can be a good sysop on multiple wikis, I have no doubts that he will be able to be a good sysop here.
'''Weak Support''' Because you have adminship in other wikis, I will support. However, I see little need for the tools so this support is only weak.
'''Support.''' It's about trust people. Eukesh is an excellent contributor that will do no harm. The differences from one wikipedia to another are not so enormous that they can't be figured out easily. And he clearly has experience on multiple projects, so he likely knows the differences better than those opposing. I find the opposition particularly unconvincing and unfortunate. -
'''Support.''' Eukesh has been active on Marathi wikipedia (my ''home'' wiki-project) along with many others. Eukesh has a wider view of wikipedia concept than your garden variety contributor. From my vantage point, Eukesh has a moderate view on most conflict-prone topics and seeks to find a middle-ground while maintaining the veracity of content. Eukesh has my support.
'''Strong support''' I describe Eukesh as a skilled organizer and a diplomatic user.
'''Support''' - shown trustworthy, will not misuse tools. Adminship not a trophy, but the only reason to not give adminship to candidate is to protect en.wiki. However, I very much doubt user will misuse tools, whether accidentally or purposefully. Concerns about [[WP:N]] are not enough to withdraw support; many users disagree on this type of matter; it's hardly clearcut. What's more, I'm not sure that this would make that big a deal on his (her?) use of the tools.
'''Support''' a good contributor, and the candidate meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|guideline]].--
'''Support''' - I admire your dedication, and I support your efforts on the hospital articles you mentioned.  Keep up the good work. Of course I'm assuming you will adapt rapidly to feedback in the position, and would apply measures such as semi-protection for only so long as they were needed. '''
'''Strong support''' Eukesh is a skilled organizer and a diplomatic user. I am also an admin in Nepali wikipedia and I have found him worth. He deserves both the diplomatic skills along with the wiki web technologies, that is why he has been leading most wikipedia including [http://ne.wikipedia.org Nepali] and [http://new.wikipedia.org Newari] wikipedia and
'''Support''' looks good - activity over a large number of projects shows a strong commitment.
No evident reason to oppose this candidate obtains.  Normally I would withhold support pending an endorsement, but in this situation that seems unnecessary as the candidate has already demonstrated competency with adminship on other projects.  Therefore, I have no reason not to support this candidate's request, and do recommend that he be promoted.
'''Support.''' While the candidate has amply demonstrated his competency and commitment in other Wikipedias, some opposers raise strong objections, related to his lack of experience on EnWiki. From my point of view, however, EnWiki is marred by a substantial and pervasive cultural bias, its admins appearing often as a self-perpetuating body of culturally homogeneous old boys, sharing cultural stereotypes as well as habitudes. I am not doubting anyone's good faith here. On the contrary, I have often been impressed by admins' willingness and capacity to listen to dissenting,"foreign" voices. Still, a community cannot embody a culture different from its own. This candidate has some of the cross-cultural skills that are badly needed if EnWiki is to overcome its bias. It is clear that cultural diversity creates problems, shrinking the group's common ground and making communication problematic at times. Still, diversity is essential to provide a dynamically balanced picture of issues that are often multi-cultural in nature. Bar some minor technical and attudinal weaknesses that he should be able to overcome quickly, Eukesh can give a very useful contribution here.
'''Support''' - I dont see any definite reason to Oppose..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - When he is trusted in so many other Wikipedias, I do not find any reason that he should not be entrusted with adminship in English wikipedia where more stringent checks and balances exist for administrators which preclude the possibility of any serious abuse of his authority as an administrator. I also agree with [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] and [[User:Rama's Arrow|Rama]]. Moreover, English wikipedia certainly requires administrators exposed to [[South Asia|South Asian]] realities as I have sometimes encountered highly unusual information in certain pages related to South Asian topics though I do not exactly remember the pages. A sure support. --
'''Support''' - terrible, querulous, irrelevant opposes. The likelihood of him going mad with the tools approaches zero. The insulting xenophobia is inappropriate as well, and I strongly suggest the 'crats strike all such opposes -
Changed from neutral. '''Support''' per Bhadani's excellent supporting comment. &ndash;
Large body of experience, no significant concerns raised below. The differences between en. and other wikis are not extraordinarily significant; the primary rules and goals are identical.
'''Support''' Experienced as sysop in other wikipedias, won't abuse tools here. As mentioned above, the primary rules and goals are similar in all wikipedias.--
'''Support''' Experienced user, judging from YechielMan's analysis above. Also he demonstrated a very mature, but no nonsense, attitude when interacting with {{user|Divinemadman}} on the talk page at [[Talk:Bhutanese_refugee]] as well as on the users own talk page. Very impressive stuff that is clearly demonstrates that Eukesh would be an excellent admin here in the en wiki.
'''Support''':  Has been a highly active user and coordinator among many South Asian Language Wikipedias.  He has lead an effort to breakdown barriers in contributing to Wikipedia by various language users.  Adminship at English Wikipedia will help to continue his good work.  --
'''Support''': I have no problem with you trying to keep part of wikipedia stable - vandalism is pretty frustrating, but sometimes IPs make an edit which I am not sure what to make of (and sometimes valid). Welcome aboard (hopefully) cheers,
'''Support''' - Eukesh is a long-term Wikipedia user who has made '''many efforts''' with interwiki co-ordination. He also worked with bots with me and introduced me into the Hindi Wikipedia. --<b>
'''Support''' - Eukesh is one of the most active editor in all of South Asian wikis. He is a skilled organizer and a trusted one. I am impressed by his commitment in improving Wikipedia articles in so many languages. He is trusted, skilled, committed, and knows a lot about the sysop chores. -
'''Support''' per experience and technical knowledge. —'''
--
'''Support'''. He's been around the block.
'''Support'''. If people can use the tools, we should give them when they have demonstrated they're not likely to abuse them. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Support'''. I have spot-checked Eukesh's 1000 edits on English Wikipedia and found nothing troublesome, and several I'd compliment, such as inviting users to the Assamese Wikipedia. In addition, I trust the user not to blow up the 'pedia based on a '''clean block log''' on every site he has access to. I have no worries that Eukesh will not be deliberate and careful as he learns to use the additional tools on en.wikipedia. -- ''
'''Support''' Eukesh is a very polite, modest, and cool-headed person; this is, IMHO, the first quality that an admin should have. Moreover, he is quite active member on Wikipedia[s]. He is a prolific (=P) editor. (Don't be misguided by his edit count; his edits are mostly very substantial and probably require hours to write.) So I am in support for his request for adminship. I am sure he can contribute much more to wikipedia and put a smile on the face of lurkers like me who come here mostly to '''find''' information. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' Eukesh is a fine wikipedian and have helped wikipedia through countless efforts. I am also very impressed by his number of contributions he made to wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nom. <b><font color="orange">
'''Weak Oppose'''-I am concerned about the answer to question 1. You appear to only want to maintain the articles related to Nepal and South Asia. Unfortunately my reason for opposing is that unlike the Wikipedias that you may contribute to as a sysop, the English Wikipedia is a lot larger and currently we have 1182 sysops here. Now I am not saying that we have too many sysops and we should oppose all future RFA candidates because of our current number. However, it is extremely easy to get assistance for the tasks you wish to help out with (looking at question 1 [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] would be good places) here. If you planned on at least handling requests for sysop assistance (blocking vandals and protecting pages) on those pages, I would support. Frankly, I don't think you need the abilities of a sysop.
'''Weak Oppose''' as well.  Seems to be trusted in other Wiki communities and has contributed heavily there, but I'm unable to get an objective view as to the quality of the contributions.  Even assuming they are all spot-on, which I am willing to do, I am uncomfortable with the answer to question 1 as well.  Generally I believe that if someone is trustworthy and willing to help there is little reason not to hand over the mop and bucket but this user has not displayed any interest in assisting with janitorial duties.  The answers seem to indicate the user wishes to have sysop privileges so as to selectively protect articles he is contributing to.  I'm sure this is done in all the best intentions but if the desire is to maintain a few select articles the correct way to handle it would be to make the requests where appropriate - AIV, RFPP, and so on as mentioned above.  Again, if there was a willingness to actually contribute to janitorial sysop chores, I'd say support, but that seems lacking.
'''Oppose'''. While the wide range of contributions to multiple wikis is impressive, Eukesh's contributions show a lack of knowledge regarding proper licensing and uploading of images ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Garud.JPG] for example), how to use redirects instead of moving articles around, and so on. Creation of templates such as {{tl|Hospitals of Nepal}} ''in addition to'' the all the articles listed on [[List of hospitals in Nepal]] lead me to question his understanding of [[WP:N]]--these hospitals can't all be notable enough for an article, and the mass of stubs shows this. These kinds of things are important to understand as an admin as they are frequently dealt with. I recommend spending another 2-3 months gaining a better understanding of the policies and guidelines here, and then trying again. I would support then as long as a better understanding is shown at that time. ···
'''Oppose'''. Contributions on other language 'pedias are fine, and they certainly demonstrate technical knowledge. The problem is, en is significantly different from most others, so I'm not comfortable with someone having sysop tools based on experience elsewhere. -
'''Oppose''' due to the issues presented above regarding lack of substantive knowledge in the English Wikipedia. In addition, before this nomination, he submitted it using a subheader to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndonicO]] (see my [[User_talk:Eukesh#RfA|original message]]). This indicates even a further lack of knowledge of our basic processes. Please spend a few months learning the ropes and participate more in the community, I'm sure you'd succeed.
'''Oppose''' Adminship is about trust ''and'' competence.  While work on other wikis demonstrates the former, the en.wiki is sufficiently different such that it does not necessarily demonstrate the latter. Editor's experience in project-space here is very low.  Malformed RfA is another negative indicator that candidate has basic knowledge still to learn.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 4. --
'''Oppose''' - can't trust to be fair. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' – I stumbled across this discussion while looking at a bunch of [[List of hospitals in Nepal|Nepalese hospital stubs]] created recently by Eukesh that probably don’t meet [[WP:N]].  (I was trying to decide whether to tag them for notability or for deletion.) It looks like Eukesh only wants administrator access to protect articles in which he has special interest.  [[Template:Newar]], for example, was not vandalized.  The IP mentioned seems to have made good-faith contributions, so if Eukesh wants to block them from editing, it demonstrates a lack of understanding about how things are done on the English Wikipedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANewar&diff=110296752&oldid=85634132 IP edits] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANewar&diff=113305214&oldid=112272589 more]).  This is a stated a desire to misuse protection.  I don’t know about offensive terms in other languages, but Wikipedia is not censored ([[WP:NOT#CENSOR]]), and Eukesh sounds like he wants to start censoring (e.g. [[Madhesay]], see his many attempts to censor, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesay&diff=prev&oldid=125652956 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesay&diff=prev&oldid=125882657 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Madhesay&diff=prev&oldid=125632061 and here]).  There is plenty of work that Eukesh can do for Nepal and South Asia that doesn’t require admin access.
'''Oppose''' Seems to only want admin tools to use for their own articles and ones related to their other admin work on other wikis.
'''Oppose'''.  Three sentences, written by the candidate in response to the question of what admin work the candidate intended to do, worry me a great deal:  ''Also, there are many articles [about Nepal and South Asia] which have faulty information. I can help in their correction. Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention.''  This bothers me for two reasons:  first, and lesser, correcting faulty info and maintaining NPOV don't require admin tools; second, on the English Wikipedia, there is a strong tradition that admins who edit specific articles should ''not'' generally use their admin powers as a way of changing the article to language that they prefer.  So even ''mentioning'' "admin powers" and "faulty information" and "NPOV" in the same paragraph seems to me to imply either lack of knowledge of that tradition, or disagreement with it.  That tradition is very important:  we want editors who feel free to express their opinions (say, on article talk pages) because they aren't worried that they will be warned or blocked by an involved editor who disagrees with them and is using his/her admin powers in support of his/her edits.   -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
Per Q4, and the apparent lack of knowledge regarding a) the protection policy and b) the different functions administrators can apply when blocking a user. '''
'''Oppose''' per Daniel.Bryant. Once the candidate has gained a little more experience of when the admin tools should be used on en.wiki, I would gladly support. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." That's a no-no for any admin in my book.
'''Oppose''' as per the answers to Q1 and Q4, and as per the reasoning above of [User:Funpika|Funpika]], [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe]], [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]], [[User:Jaksmata|Jaksmata]], [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] , and [[User:Shanes|Shanes]].
Please accept my '''oppose''' as I too am concerned in very similar ways with your answers to Q1 and Q4 (in so far your need to gain the tools is not established - and indeed you would be able to overcome the problems of vandalism to those articles within your spectrum of interest by asking a current admin to assist).  I also agree with many of the concerns expressed by my fellow editors above.--

'''Oppose'''. I'm not so much concerned about the e-mail address issue, but rather your answer to question one. Your answer tells me that you don't need the tools at this time (i.e. the improvements you plan to make can be done without the tools). '''
'''Regretful Oppose''' Your responses above make me nervous that you've not developed your antennae enough about how things work at the English language Wikipedia, which seems (from your answers) considerably different from the others where you no doubt do excellent work. --
'''Neutral for now''' Difficult to evaluate the candidate based on his ''en.'' contributions and I don't speak Gujrati, Oriya, Panjabi, Dzonkha or Bod Skad/Tibetan! But I have to agree with Funpika that there might not be any rush to give him sysop rights given the type of things he wants to work on<s> and so I'm leaning towards opposing.</s> [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC) I'm now leaning support as the supporters have made a number of convincing arguments. However, I still feel that the answer to my optional question shows that Eukesh does not understand the protection and semi-protection policy on this wiki. If he does get promoted, I ask him to take the time to learn more about the policies and guidelines of the English wiki before using his tools actively.
'''Neutral''': While his contributions to the other Wikipedia are quite large I do not feel there is enough experience in this project. I trust the user however I feel that more experience is needed for this user in this project to be fully deserving of the tools. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. It would be good if you could use [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] more often, it helps others understand what you changed.
'''Neutral''', leaning oppose. Your sysop work on other Wikipedias, your willingness to help here, and your flexibility, are commendable... However, I know from firsthand experience how different the English Wikipedia can be from the other Wikipedias, and I feel it would do you good to spend a little more time here. The answer to question one leaves a little to be desired in terms of understanding our protection policy and the role of an admin on enwiki. Answer question four, that will give other editors a better view of you.
'''Neutral''' per Grandmasterka and Tesson. —
'''Neutral''' for now.  Syosp access in other wikis is good.  Yet, [[Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_a_trophy|adminship is not a trophy]].  Also, policies differ from wiki to wiki. However, I need to see the edit count of this user to make a decision. Neutral for now. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''', needs more time spent on enwiki. It does not mean you are an admin on other Wikipedias so you will become an admin here. You are doing quite a good job, and keep that up. Every Wiki has different policies, so yeah.
'''Neutral''' per everything above.  Give it some time - another month or so, so that we have more english wikipedia edits to judge by.  -_
'''Neutral'''. Although this user's sysop access in other wikis indicates knowledge of the wiki system, I don't think that the answer to q1 indicates an actual need for the tools. I don't consider inexperience to be an issue, when the candidate's experience on other-language Wikipedias is taken into account, but an RfA candidate needs to give us some idea of what they want to do with the admin tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral Leaning Support'''. I really really want to support, and I definitely see the trust in this candidate, but I just think that our policies/proceedures take a bit more work to get used to than the other wikis. Get another solid month of work here under your belt, and I will be happy to say ''strong support.'' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Neutral'''. The last sentence in the response to Q1 is "Maintaining NPOV is another aspect in these articles which needs attention." The only way that admin tools can be useful in maintaining NPOV is through blocking POV pushers or protecting pages. The rest are things editors without the tools can do. I think that, in general, admins should be cautious in employing the tools in disputes in which they are involved (e.g., protecting, blocking), exclusive of obvious vandalism like replacing the text of an article with "SDKF S(*&#J". As the candidate seems to acquire the tools specifically for this purpose, I am wary of supporting. As the candidate's contributions to multiple wikis are commendable, I will not oppose on this reason alone. I remain neutral, reserving the right to change my opinion (either way) if new developments arise. -- '''
'''Neutral''' You would obviously be an asset to the English Wikipedia given your extensive involvement in multiple WikiProjects. Opponents have raised concerns that the English Wikipedia may be somewhat more tolerant of user differences and disagreements than some other projects, and as a result are concerned that you might be more inclined to block or otherwise punish a user for conduct which, under the rules of the English Wikipedia, is permissable. Suggest you wait a little bit and, in your next RfA, directly address these concerns and assure us that you understand the cultural differences involved and you'll be a little bit less quick to use enforcement powers here than might be appropriate somewhere else. Best, --
'''Support''' — naturally as nominator. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' - jump on the bandwagon.
'''Support'''. Everyking does have his issues which have gotten him into trouble in the past. But he is nevertheless an excellent contributor who has been of great benefit to RC patrol and has worked well and hard with a broad spectrum of articles. Especially the fight against vandalism will gain a big boost with Everyking's presence.
I can remember times when Everyking was a major pain in the arse because he jumped into situations without doing his homework. They were a long time ago, but he made enemies with long memories. He's behaved himself, to my knowledge, for a long time now. His desysopping was a disgrace - he made a mistake, but not that serious a one. I'm impressed that he has continued to work tirelessly despite his treatment by the community. He's always been a most effective vandal-fighter and should get the rollback and block buttons back. '''Support'''.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
First off, the grounds for desysopping was horse doots.  Second, although EK has certainly stepped out of line in the past, he's done a good job keeping his use of sysop tools separate from that (an example from which we all would do well to learn).  Several opposers below have cited the arbcom rulings on him; I think its worth noting that in all that the committee found no actual misuse of the tools and had to bend over backwards to come up with something when the decision to desysop was reached.  Let's ditch this notion of adminship being some sort of tribal elder position and hand the tools back to a guy who's already shown that he can use them effectively and responsibly. --
'''Support''' per Robth and Gadfium.  Save the desysoping, which did not go through proper process and for which I accept the explanation above, the last Arbitration incident was over half a year ago.--
'''Support'''. Never abused the tools when he had them. Very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. Does an immense amount of good work.
'''Support''' - per questionable desysopping and unconvincing opposing arguments.
<s>Should not have been desysopped in the first place. Unconditional support.</s> AGF again. &mdash;


'''Support:''' per nom. 90K edits... phenomenal...<b><font color="saffron">
'''Support''' He was desysopped for considering revealing a deleted edit and then deciding against it. There are admins right now who aren't desysoped and who secretly reveal deleted edits. I can cite examples as evidence if you wish.
'''Support''' per freakofnurture. Everyking was a respected admin before the whole incident. One little mishap and he's lost a reputation that he built on Wikipedia. '''
I found the desysoping of Everyking really unjust and not helping this project at all. Everyking is in my opinion better suited for adminship than 90% of the people cruising through RfA these days, and that he has just kept on working despite being treated like an outcast for so long is admirable beyond anything I've seen here, and it speaks volumes for his dedication to this project. '''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' A superb admin who should be given a second chance for the good of the project.--
'''Support''' per the Bishzilla RFA. I know that was a joke and i'm not sure if he understood, but we desperately need people like him to keep us honest when it comes to following policy. It's like he's the conscience of Wikipedia who wouldn't shut up in the past. I trust him to tone down his message of equity and consistency while continuing to bring it.
'''Support.''' Never should have been desysopped.
'''Support''' Because I believe in redemption, and because it is better to have in the tent pissing out, than out pissing in.--
'''Support''' EK and I had our differences in the past... and that where they're going to stay. I see no abuse of admin powers in EK's past... I do see a bit of cruft, but who hasnt written any cruft? &nbsp;
'''Support''' Everyone deserves a second chance. &mdash;'''
'''Support''' He has my support. '''
'''Support''' - 90k is quite amazing.<b>
'''Support''' based on Everykings completely sympathetic account of his desyoping and the absence of any substantive challenge to that account from those who oppose.

'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Wikipedia cannot afford to loose dedicated people. Admin is not synonym for flawless saint. And the desysopping was  againt spirit of WP.
'''Support''', though I understand the significant difficulty with him being under a ban from the admin noticeboards.  I don't believe this nomination will succeed and so I hope Everyking is renominated after the ban is lifted and he's had a chance to show good contributions on the noticeboard.  --
I'm
'''Support'''. I do not believe Everyking was going to abuse the admin tools back in September, and I do not believe he will abuse them now, either.
'''Support'''. Obvious support here - never abused admin tools (indeed they were used well), removal for political reasons only. Contributing to wikipedia review is not a crime.
'''Support''' per, inter al., Dave, Shanes, freakofnature, and, perhaps most importantly, Brownlee, who well presents what is, at least to my mind, the sole question on the disposition of which this RfA ought to rest, viz., [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|whether the net effect on the project of Everyking's being resysopped should be positive]].  Although I would find the answering of the latter question in the negative to be exceedingly difficult, I surely understand that others do; I am troubled, though, that some appear to have opposed principally on procedural grounds and irrespective of EK's work qua admin (or of happenings since his desysopping that might militate against his being re-adminned).
'''Weak Support'''.  I see in life when you fall down one rung on the ladder or ranks it's hard to climb back up.  I see the success of this nom is unlikely.  But if he keeps trying he can earn the trust of the naysayers below later down the road.  He was one of the lucky ones to experiance something few editor can only dream of having.
Everyking has suffered badly as a result of positive feedback (which ''does'' include his temperment) leading to a "log a mile wide."  But I've never even seen a suggestion that he's abused the tools, and the "emergancy" dead-ming-ing was, there's no nice way to say this, utter bollocks.  Everyone who came within ten feet of that should hang their heads in shame.  The times I've crossed articles with this user he's always been reasonable and willing to engage in debate.  To be frank, I also never saw myself any disruption at ANI, but I'll have to review the ArbCom cases on that.  I don't understand why we're willing to hand over the tools to anyone who's trotted out 800 javascript roll-backs and 150 "delete per wp:n" but are loathe to re-op a hard working dedicated contributor who got /*colourful phrase removed*/ . <font color="black">
'''Weak support'''. Every<s>king</s>body deserves a second change, the desysopping seems to have been questionable, and I've only seen him do good things. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''. (Changed from Neutral) I think it was really inappropriate for this user to be de-sysopped. I think it's pretty clear upon review of the evidence that Everyking didn't know there was personal information when he offered to furnish deleted copies of the article. The fact that he was de-sysopped without even divulging the information is ridiculous; I'm not sure I'd agree with a de-sysopping even if he had. And contrary to the comments of at least one oppose !voter, there is nothing wrong with giving out copies of deleted articles, and in fact many admins do this on request. Everyking was wrongfully de-sysopped and I support his reappointment. –&nbsp;
'''Support''' per Taxman, Shanes, Freakfnurture and Aaron Brennerman.--
'''Support''' Good enough to be given a second chance.
'''Support'''. I do not believe that this user should have been desysopped at all. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' per everyone elses's comments.  Everyking speaks up for the little guy and if he can keep a temperate head he does fine.
'''Support.''' ''How'' many edits? Plus, the ArbCom thing does not seem like that big of a deal. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' - Appears that the ArbCom decision was a bit of an overreaction but it certainly got the message across.  Everyking seems to have taken the message on board and it seems clear that he would steer clear of any such controversy in the future.  --
'''Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' He was an excellent admin for over two years, when he simply made a mistake.  And though that mistake was serious, I've looked at the news article covering his desysopping, and it reassures me that most of it was a misunderstanding, plus a simple misjudgment.  He'd be a great sysop again. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''', we should have the cability to forgive a [[mistake|misteak]]. Also another way to view this is to consider the number of errors per edit? When you consider he has some 90,000 edits surely his ratio from this point of view is rather good?
'''Support''', as per commetns by P.B. Pilhet --
'''Support''' per [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]]. I don't think one bad choice should result in [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] losing adminship. Overall, I think the user would benifit the project more than harming it by having the tools.--
'''Support'''.  No one is perfect all the time.  I don't think he will misuse the tools (at least not any more than your average-run-of-the-mill admin).  --
'''Moral support'''.--
'''Mop-worthy'''. Everyking is one of our greatest vandal fighters. Wikipedia would be better off with him as an admin. Janitors don't have to be saints.  -
'''Support'''.per norm i.e 90k+ edits--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per Brownlee.
'''Support''': The free encyclopeida [;-)] requires him: he is  more valuable than vandals and such elements who frequent the place. Is not he better than them? --
'''Support''': The reasons for the desysopping were completely insufficient for my tastes, and there is no record of his ever having misused his admin powers while he had them. "Just because he's never done it before doesn't mean he won't later" doesn't fly for me in the context of someone who was an admin for that long without having misused them once despite the frequent conflicts he was in.--
'''Support''' Should not have been desysopped.  From what I've seen of this user lately, they demonstrate excellent WP knowledge and good judgement.  --
'''Oppose'''. —
'''Strong oppose''', user seems to believe there is a "deletionist agenda" here, and uses this in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Great_Stink_%28Gilmore_Girls%29&diff=prev&oldid=106257197  AFD] and DRV arguments, and even in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MER-C_2&diff=prev&oldid=106244690 RFAs]. He is also confrontational from time to time, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaranda&diff=prev&oldid=106259433 here]. As far as I can tell, he is also still banned from ANI, which would make admin work somewhat difficult.  He's also still on probation - that needs to expire before I can even consider adminship for this user. --'''
'''Oppose''', user will not be an effective administrator while he is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3#Remedies|banned]] from editing [[WP:ANI]], and from commenting on other admins' actions, until November this year. I will certainly reconsider when the bans expire. --
'''Oppose.''' One ArbCom and I could give someone a second chance, but three? No, I do not think someone who goes infront of ArbCom a lot and gets sanctioned a lot should have the mop.
'''Oppose''' Self-proclaimed "strong inclusionist", has been banned by arbcom from everything between [[Ashlee Simpson]], commenting on other admin's actions and AN/I, all but the former still in force until November (subject of three arbitration committee hearings). Has directly contravened such sanctions. Combined with offering deleted material to non-administrators. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' per three Arbcom cases.
'''Oppose'''. Based on his recent ArbCom appeal, hasn't learned a blessed thing. Doesn't need the buttons, either. --
'''Oppose''' Can see no need for admin tools. Stance on inclusion or deletion is irrelevant given stated preference not to close AfD's, but a record of interactions with ArbCom fails to convince me that he is suited for this position. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Oppose''' per Calton, Zscout370, Elaragirl and Chacor. '''
'''Oppose'''. <s>Not enough edits.</s> While I am awed by the number of edits he has made, his extensive block log, three Arbcom cases, and the diffs given by Cordesat and Chacor don't persuade me to support or remain neutral in this vote. Sorry. BTW, shouldn't the page be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 3? --
I trust neither his judgment nor his temper.
'''Absolutely not'''.
'''Oppose''' I have seen constructive posts from him recently at DRV and such but editors under an ArbCom ban from ANI just can't be effective administrators.  Come back in 9 months, sorry.
'''Oppose''' I completely agree with Eluchil404. Until the ban from ANI passes, I just don't see this working. --
'''Oppose''' per Eluchil. Categorically, I just cannot support an administrator who is currently banned from ''any'' part of the project, sorry.
'''Oppose''' I don't see any reason to trust this editor. --
'''Oppose'''.  Too many cases of poor judgement, confrontation for the sake of it, etc.  And I agree &mdash; an admin banned from the admin noticeboard? Shome mishtake shurely? --
'''Oppose'''. How can a second chance be granted when he doesn't admit he did anything wrong in the first place?
'''Oppose''' The manner in which he was desysopped was a bit strange, but his record of ArbCom hearings, his edit-warring with respect to particular articles, and the restrictions presently in place regulating his editing all indicate that re-adminning him would not benefit the project.
Revert, Block, Ignore. -
'''Oppose''', sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Anyone under sanction from Arbcom gets an oppose. Which you are. -
'''Oppose'''. Everyking has been unwise many times in the past, and his periodic "I am innocent" drama at the ArbCom page just servers to show that he hasn't learned anything from his mistakes. Well-meaning user but not fit for more responsibility.
'''Oppose''' Currently under ArbCom sanctions, so this is not the time to be readminned.--
'''Oppose''' Can't see how any banned user can be an admin, who is supposed to be an example to the community and a representative of WP. If I am missing something, please let me know.
'''Absolutely not'''. I don't believe this user should ever have admin tools again. He is under sanctions from ArbCom, including a ban from [[WP:AN]]. Admins, as previously stated, should at the very absolute least set an example of ''average'' Wiki-conduct. Being banned from [[WP:AN]], in addition to his earlier troubles with ArbCom, are examples of conduct below the minimum threshold for a user in good standing, let alone an administrator of this Wiki. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Strong Oppose''' User is under sanctions from ArbCom, including a ban from WP:AN, sorry, but that to me is a definite no.
'''Oppose'''. Still under ArbCom sanction, including broad ban from [[WP:AN]]... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''', he's not even in good standing at this time... that and the 3 arbcom sanctions hurt him as well. Even if we gave him the tool she can't do too much anyway with his AN ban.--
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Everyking has in the past, and probably would in the future, use admin powers to harm Wikipedia and its contributors. He might hold the WP record for most times being blocked ''while'' holding admin status. I am opposing this user with more fervor than I've ever opposed anyone else, and I would ''never'', in a million years, support Everyking. I also love (read: can't fathom) the possibility of an admin who can't edit the admin noticeboard. Allow me to close by saying that I am in no way against Everyking using and contributing to Wikipedia, but I will always be opposed to giving him the abilities to protect pages and block users. --
'''Oppose''' per number of bans/blocks/ArbComs. No way do we need an admin with any of those. ''
'''Oppose'''.  Someone banned and blocks so often and so recently should not be trusted with the tools.
'''Oppose''' - per extensive block log, bans, and ArbComs. Moreoever, the kind of attitude displayed in the comment on MER-C's RFA is, in my opinion, not the right mentality. This is not a battleground for a whopping great war between so-called "deletionists" and "inclusionists". And continued Wikipedia Review participation, with posts that contain some less-than-plesant material, is a no-no for me.
'''Oppose'''. Until such time he admits responsibility for earning himself the sanctions he received from the EK3 case, I cannot approve of his promotion. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per Yuser31415.
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Block log a mile long; ego a mile wide. The few interactions I've had with him under various accounts (I'm a drifter) were bitter and unhelpful. Anything that doesn't praise Ashlee Simpson to the fullest extent possible is instantly removed, and he acts as though everyone around him is an idiot. There is no reason to give him sysop privileges again. --
'''Oppose''' - For two fundamental reasons. First, the user is still on probation and banned from noticeboards, which makes the idea of adminship nonsensical. There are plenty of admins who rarely post to AN(/X) — I'm one of them — but being able to do so when necessary should be a requirement. Second, too controversial. I'm not suggesting that editors who attract their share of criticism shouldn't be given the tools, but when you've got this many bad feelings going around, it's likely that it'll just be worse when he has the tools — people are going to be watching him like a hawk for the slightest mistake, whether real or imagined, and that's not good for the wiki. Give him some additional time to build up a more positive rep, as it were. I'm not trying to sidestep the legit questions concerning past behavior, contributions, and so on, but there's some underlying issues here that invalidate this RfA from the start. <b>
'''Oppose''' - I give any user chance to blow his top, hell, I don't even care if they scream fuck you at me, but this guy's got a trail a mile long. Certainly a good editor, but needs to leave the attitude at the door.
'''Oppose''' Per above. This user was once administrator before Semptember in last year. However, He was once blocked by per Arbitration Committee. Extensive blocks, and commented other administrator's actions. Currently under ArbCom I guess. I don't think he will be great admin.
'''Oppose''' Too much nastiness, too many ArbCom cases, too big a block log, and most of all the horrible incident that got him desysopped.  I won't go into the specifics of it here (read the ArbCom case for the full story) but it's an egregious abuse of admin priveleges to the point that I honestly can't see him being an admin again, ever.  To top it all off, he still seems to more or less act like he was a total innocent and didn't know what he was doing (see Question 5, above) which is both absurd and frankly insulting.
'''Oppose''' Excellent editor.  But the admin tools seemed to cause trouble for him.  No need to give the tools back just yet. .  --
'''Oppose''' and suggest speedy close via [[WP:SNOW]] or withdrawal.--
'''Oppose'''.  Although Everyking's commitment to the project is unquestioned and he's a fine editor, the problems are too serious and too recent.  People do change - I could consider supporting in a year if everything goes smoothly in the interim.  This is too soon.  Some gracious ''mea culpa'' would help. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Oppose''' Per ArbCom/Block log, and affiliation with Wikipedia Review. I simply don't trust Everyking to use the tools wisely.
'''Oppose''', --
'''Not in the near future''' should you be regranted your sysop bit. Try waiting before your allowed to actually allowed to post on [[WP:AN]] again, and then maybe you have a fighting chance. —
'''Serious Oppose''': For one of WP's heaviest contributors ever, it's all too shameful. I feel terribly, terribly sorry for you...[[q:Finding Nemo|honestly I am]]. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Oppose''' Your answer to my question was inconclusive and gave no evidence as to your "superlative" performance. I can only oppose you. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Was the desysopping extreme? Yes. Would I support in the future? Possibly. Can I justify supporting a user who is currently banned from [[WP:AN]]? Absolutely not. Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the arbitrator's findings on the three arbcom cases filed against the candidate.
'''Oppose''' per arbcom history. —
'''Oppose''' per arbcom history. Too conflictive... --
'''Never''' Consistently disruptive. I don't care how many thousands of edits he has.
'''Oppose''' per unfortunate track record with the tools.--
'''Oppose'''. While he may not have abused the tools in the past, the fact his temper got him blocked and into arbcom multiple times is worrying, especially when he still claims to be innocent. I cannot support this user while he's still the subject of sanctions either. -
'''Oppose''' -- too conflictual. -
'''Under No Circumstances''' <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
I am not lenient when it comes to re-mopping.  --
'''Strong oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' with gusto.  Accepting the nomination is further evidence of poor judgment.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose-o-rama'''.  Per above.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above...all of it.-
'''Oppose''' - currently under Arbcom sanctions, and in general more controversial than I prefer admins to be. --
'''Oppose''' for the Arbcom problems.--
'''Oppose''' per Tijuana Brass et al - maybe this course will be more appropriate when enough time has elapsed for us to see a change in behaviour, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose'''. I see no sign that Everyking has ever really accepted responsibility for any of the actions that had to be taken against him, or for his loss of adminship; therefore future abuse of some sort or another is inevitable.
'''Oppose'''. Concur with Jayjg's comments.
'''Oppose'''. Inability to take a hint bad; participation in Wikipedia Review an absolute no-no for me; per Jayjg -- criticisms of those he criticised might have been merited in some cases but you were complicit in your own downfall and don't seem able to recognise that; accepting nomination at this time is also a negative; furthermore, I'm not in favour of remopping if there was merit to demopping in the first place -- because it is so hard to demop.
'''Oppose.''' I'm sorry, I'm just not ready to forgive the past.
'''Strong Oppose.''' I just wanted to add something to the sanitized account provided by this nomineee concerning his desysoping. First I should point out that the notorious troll at the center of that thing ([[User:WordBomb]]), was later self-identified as a corporate executive trying to push his company's POV, and to that end used extralegal methods. Even though he didn't know that, he should have known from WordBomb's posts that he was already a notorious vandal and stalker. Everyking showed exceptionally poor judgment from beginning to end in dealing with that person off-wiki. He later compounded his errors when he responded as follows to a Wiki Review post from that troll: "That isn't your fault, so don't worry about it. But it speaks to your integrity that you would apologize for it; I doubt I will ever see an apology from the people who actually are to blame. And I still edit and I'm not banned, so I don't have any need for another account, but thanks anyway."[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3617&hl=] "The people who are to blame." In other words, Everyking was not to blame. Other people were. He showed no remorse and no understanding of the gravity of what he did. That is an appalling comment and it demonstrates the poor judgment Everyking has shown. He should not again be given another opportunity to violate the trust of the community.--
'''Oppose''' Switching to oppose. The judgement concerns and other issues brought up are simply too serious. Furthermore, having looked at Everyking's logs, he didn't even use the tools that often. It would be one thing if he had used them a lot, but given how few times he used them, and the risk of similar lapses in judgement or more serious problems occuring again, I must oppose.
'''Oppose'''. SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland have convinced me, and JoshuaZ has a good point too.
'''Oppose''' I previously abstained from !voting in this as I didnt know enough about the desysopping incident. I've now read enough to know that I don't approve, sorry '''
Appreciate his article work (thanks for expanding and helping with [[2006 Madagascan coup d'état attempt]]) but am concerned about recent behaviour (most recently at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7#China as an emerging superpower]]). Also, you'd think that he'd realise his nominator failed to sign, and at least inform him about it ;) &ndash;
'''Neutral''' huge number of contributions, but with blocks and the arbcoms and no real need for the tools (rollback vandals with one click with [[WP:VPRF]] for example).
'''Neutral'''. Everyking has certainly improved markedly over the last year or so, I've found him fine to work around in recent times, and there are - as has been pointed out - an enormous number of edits (hell, he's edited more than I have!). But there have been major, major problems in the past. They're long enough ago not to vote against him, but certainly not minor enough to make me confortable to support.
'''Neutral''', while Everyking has a lot of quality edits here, I'm concerned about some of his interactions with other admins and the fact that he is banned from [[WP:AN/I]], which makes it kind of hard to gauge if he learned anything from his past experiences there.--
'''Neutral''' per Isotope23. -
'''Neutral''' frankly, as Gadfium says, Everyking has had a tendency to be a pain in the arse. But aside from that and a few (okay, several) other instances of poor behaviour, he has never actually abused the admin tools, however much his Wikipedia Review comment was dramatised. Nevertheless, I feel similarly to Grutness above: I don't have any cause to explicitly oppose him, but his history is certainly turbulent enough to rule out supporting him.--
'''Neutral''' - I, for one, accept Everyking's explanation of the events that led to his desysopping.  Maybe I'm naive.  Maybe I [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] too much.  Whatever it is, the explanation makes sense to me.  It wasn't a very smart thing to say ... but I don't believe that he ever would have posted confidential information or violated privacy or anything like that - he was just trying to be helpful, but went about it in a way he admits was wrong.  I wouldn't mind trusting him with the tools again.  Still, though, having an admin that is banned from ANI doesn't make too terribly much sense.  Once that ban is lifted, I wouldn't mind supporting. --
'''Neutral.''' For his accomplishments ''per se'', Everyking's record is enviable.  I'm more than a little worried about his long incident record, and more importantly, I don't want to approve an admin who will be loathed by all the other admins.
'''Neutral''' as above.  And just wanted to point out in reponse to "''In the time since my adminship was removed, I have been particularly vexed by not having a rollback button, which makes reverting vandalism much easier''" that rollback buttons are available to non-admins too ([[Wikipedia:RC_patrol#Rollback_scripts]])
'''Neutral''' sorry, it is impossible to be an effective administrator while prohibited from editing AN/I or commenting on others' admin actions, reagrdless of whether those prohibitions were merited in the first place. Also, my neutral comment on the previous RfA still stands; the 'emergency' desysopping was extreme, but hanging out with trolls is poor judgment enough. Not opposing in recognition of his voluminous encyclopedia contributions.
<s>'''Oppose''' I don't recall any real objections to Everyking's admin activity in the past but I am troubled by the content of his appeals to the Arbcom and his constant failure to accept any responsibility for the actions that led him there. It always seems to be someonelse's fault or the Arbcom have always got it wrong!  We have far too many admins who are "always right" and, although the risk of Everyking abusing the tools is lessened because of his caution, I'm not prepared to support another candidate who is inacapable of accepting that they may have screwed up at some point or other. I'd be willing to support a future rfa if this issue was addressed. --[[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)</s> Moved to '''Neutral''' per discussion on my talk page. --
'''Neutral''' Well, despite the obvious flaws of this editor, he does not deserve an oppose nor a support opinion for the present. There are some serious issues against him, but the level of dedication he has for this project MUST NOT be ignored. The only advise I can give him is NOT to be discouraged by this nomination and continue to contribute significantly to this project. In 6 to 12 months time, if he has a 'perfect' editing record, he should be given the mop again. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I'll echo the sentiments by Siva. EK is a very dedicated user, (I certainly would have quit after all the ArbCom restrictions and the desysopping), however there are occasionally issues. I don't agree with the fact that he was desysopped, (as far as abuse of tools go, what he did seems to be one of the lowest offenses, but given history, eh) however the numerous editorial conflicts he's been through don't inspire enough faith in me to vote. I would suggest coming back after the AN/I ban expires. Without any serious conflicts, I would vote in support.--
'''Neutral'''. On the one hand, I don't feel Everyking's behaviour is anywhere near as problematic as it used to be, and it's pretty clear from his contributions that he'll make good use of the admin tools (although I do wonder why he doesn't have something like popups installed for reverting vandalism). On the other hand, I've never gotten the impression from him that he expresses regret for what occurred last summer that led to his most recent block, or that he acknowledges his behaviour at the time was out of line. And feeling strongly about deletionism/inclusionism isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there's no need to write things like "disturbingly deletionist" and "Deletionist extremism" (see the links provided by Coredesat above), or compare deletionists to film villains. Also &mdash; and this is more of a secondary concern &mdash; his edit summary usage isn't high, and a summary like "rv" doesn't really explain whether it's vandalism that's being reverted or something else. I'm just not comfortable enough with Everyking to support this.
'''Neutral'''. Knowing Everyking's behavior inside out by either working side by side with him or following his many disputes, I feel rather well-versed on the material to make a vote. I don't feel comfortable supporting, but at this juncture I don't feel very much at home opposing, so I think with a bit more time, he can get a support for me (honestly I never thought I'd see the day that'd happen, but you know, miracles occur).
I'm really not comfortable with giving him admin privileges again. It's just... we've got too much garbage, and extreme inclusionism will lead to people submitting articles on their dogs (I'm not exaggerating, I deleted one this afternoon). It just makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to oppose, but... meh. '''Neutral.'''
'''Neutral, leaning support'''. Pending outcome to my question. Evidence for desysoping seems sketchy and everyone deserves a second chance. Usually.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. After thinking about this for a few days, I can't bring myself to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support either. Ordinarily, I would instantaneously oppose someone who is restricted from editing the admin noticeboards; however, Freakofnurture raises some valid points about one not being able to desysop someone for being annoying. His actual usage of the tools is untainted. That said... ''holy cow''. It's way too soon since that awful incident. While I believe that people have the inherent power to redeem themselves, it's still too fresh in everyone's mind. I doubt that Everyking would do something remotely similar to that, and am fairly confident that he "learned his lesson"; still, a bit more time wouldn't hurt. Also, a tip from my admittedly-distant viewpoint obtained from watching [[WP:JIMBO]]: it'd be nice if you didn't take perosnally, or tried to ask for redemption, so frequently. Sometimes, you have to roll with the punches, and pick your battles.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support, seems to deserve another chance but cannot support due to ArbCom cases. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' changed from Oppose above concerning fair use images used in userspace. --
''''Neutral''' I think it is too early to consider this. If no new incidents occur in the coming year, I'd be inclined to support at that time. But any consideration before another year is up is too soon.--
'''Neutral''' I spent some time reading about the matters that led to the desysopping. I think EK's learned from from his mistakes, and a resysopping wouldn't do any harm - given time. This is far too soon. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Neutral''', as per a positive conversation above.  May yet be persuaded to support.
'''Neutral''' I would have supported EK, had it not been for the current ban from WP:AN; I think we should reconsider the matter once that ban has ended. I'd like to add a couple of points in his favor, at the risk that they might be seen as back-handed compliments. I think it's fair to say that EK is known for being stubborn and contentious -- but these qualities apply only to EK the Wikipedian. As Haukur notes above, EK the Admin always acted ethically, and never AFAIK gave in to the temptation to abuse his Admin powers to get his way. I believe that says a lot about his fitness for the Admin bit. Further, he could have seen his well-documented loss of Admin rights last September as payback for his contentious behavior (well, in his place, that what I would have done);  EK did not do this, unlike other de-syssoped users who suffered a melt down & had to be blocked or banned. --
You have a grand total of 0 edits to any sort of deletion discussion. Thus, I have no reason whatsoever to trust your judgement in [[CAT:CSD]] (which is ''not'' just super-de-duper vandal fighting). The only admin-related task you've ever done is vandal fighting, which is simply not enough. Did some page tell you that vandal fighting ''was'' enough for adminship? Because if so, I want to fix it. -
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but with only 300 odd edits you are nowhere near experienced enough. Carry on editing, and get experience in a wide range of areas, then try reapplying in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per answers and above. '''
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but keep working. '''''
'''Oppose''' You are off to a good start but you do not have enough experience for the community to put their trust in. Please keep on editing to gain more experience and here is a guide to what RFA contributors look for in a candiate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship] .--
'''Oppose''' for now. You are off to a really good start, but we all need to know you have the experience to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You might wish to have a look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yuser31415|my RfA]] to get a good idea of what the standards are. Cheers! ''
No need for tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Neutral'''. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]'s advice is good. I strongly suggest you take it. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' If you haven't been in a conflict, you're not ready to stand for sysop. Not matter how calm you are, someone will get mad at you, or you at them. When it happens, don't take it personally, and don't get personal. And don't be discouraged by the result of this RFA. Oh, and participate in [[WP:XFD|XFD's]]. It will help you understand policy.
'''Neutral''' While your contributions are much appreciated, an ability to handle conflict is extremly important as an admin.  I find that it takes a little time to develop the skill.  In the future you may make an excellent candidate.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on.  Withdraw this RfA and work on admin-related tasks such as tagging inappropriate articles when you are on new page patrol; reverting vandalism and warning the vandals when you patrol the recent changes to Wikipedia or demonstrate you knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you contribute to XfD discussions for starters.
'''Nominator Support'''. See my nomination for the reason why this guy definitely deserves adminship. '''
'''Support''' per nom. I first encountered Fan-1967 when on recent changes patrol. He kindly corrected a mistake I made. Since then I have observed his talk page (for entertainment and educational purposes) and he consistently responds to vandals and childish behavior with a cool head and utmost patience. He is also a workhorse and his efforts to keep Wikipedia on track is top notch.
'''Support''' vandals beware. ~
'''Support'''. I regularly see Fan whacking spammers with the [[WP:COI]] stick (amongst others) when I'm clearing out [[CAT:CSD]]. Excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' all of my interactions with this user have been very positive. They keep a very level head when dealing with frustrating vandals, and always takes the time to do things right. Would clearly wield the mop well.
'''Support''' ''Thought he was one''... is not something you will hear from me. I knew full-well the candidate wasn't one, but often wondered ''Why not?''. Wikipedia will definitely be a better place with this guy having the extra buttons. Only thing is, I think their talk page will be a lot less busy (read:''boring'', if you like!) than it is now as admins probably get less hassle for ''deleting'' an article than he does merely by ''nominating'' it!
'''Support'''.  Great editor, will be great with additional [[WP:ADMIN|accoutrements]].  —
'''Strong Support''' I did think he was one. Silly me. But with his all-round contributions and obvious skill in [[WP:NAMESPACE]] he certainly should be.--
'''Support''' I see this user a lot at AfD, among other places. I'm sure he could use the tools. As for trust, I very seriously considered the difs and examples provided by the (at present) three opposers. I certainly understand their position, and don't object to their opinions, but the examples aren't as worrisome to me as they are to those who provided them. I trust the nominee will bear these concerns in mind should he receive the buttons.
'''Support''' I'm not 100% sure, but I thought we were electing admins, not saints.  This editor has proved to be 99.9% excellent, and, after all, we're all human and we make mistakes.  Fan-1967 will make WP better with the tools.  Good luck!
'''Support''' seen a lot of good work and commitment, and the opposes aren't sufficient to sway me against what I think will be a dedicated admin.
'''Super absorbant support'''.  Extremely valuable to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per the nomination by Nishkid. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''', no problems raised by opposition.
'''Support''' - prolific rc patroller.  I frequently see articles he has tagged for a speedy when working in [[CAT:CSD]].  Some of the diffs below are silly ... others aren't and I strongly suggest working on some of that ... but there isn't anything I see down there that would make me oppose someone with an obvious need for the buttons. --
'''Support''' From my eperience with him on NP patrolling, he seams to be a very competant editor, and very respecful in his tags. He would do great work on CSD with admin tools
'''Support'''. Adminship is not a reward for perfect conduct. Fan-1967 has demonstrated a need for the admin tools. Although some of the diffs below raise questions of civility, I do not see them as evidence that he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Seen him around doing a lot of jobs that could benefit from having the mop. Hopefully the oppose votes are a learning experience in the long run, but at this point looks like a good candidate to me.
'''Support'''. We need more counter vandalism admins, and that was a good answer to Eagle 101's spam question.
'''Support'''. Fan-1967 has always struck me as a responsible contributor, and I was surprised to see all the "oppose"s. A look at at some of those diffs provided shows a certain level of testiness, but not any blatantly bad behaviour, and I find opposition on grounds of that unconvincing. In particular, the [[Hector Aldo Fagetti Gallego]] speedy tagging was on a sub-stub article, and deleting it would only have meant that I needed a recreation of a version where the real assertions of notability and citations were provided. I would hardly call putting a bv-template on a user who does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G4_%28TV_channel%29&diff=prev&oldid=103430365 this], and then proceeds to make high-speed blankings on large parts of the article nonstop "newbie biting". Keep in mind that ''anyone'' who volunteers the effort and spends time reverting vandalism and removing spam will experience frustrations and might at times resort to occasional terseness. There does not seem to be any systematic bad behaviour here people! THis is a prime vandal fighter and we would do good to equip him with the tools necessary to do the job.
'''Support''' per needs deletion tools.--
'''Support''' [[CAT:CSD|this]] is the reason.
'''Support''' Great work with fighting vandalism / newpage-crud.  From what I've seen, the work he's done for Wikipedia far outweighs the (minor) issues addressed in oppose votes. '''
'''Support'''. This user has both quantity and quality that I think Wikipedia needs to become better. --
'''Support'''. I keep coming across him during new page patrolling. I have always agreed with his proposals (usually for deletion!). --
'''Support'''.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Oppose'''. I don't know what you were thinking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDaniel_Brandt_%2811th_nomination%29&diff=96981115&oldid=96980829 here]. An outsider? An absolutely unacceptable precedent? This is a wiki that ''anyone can edit''. I would have thought a respectable user like you would have realised that by now. --
'''Strong Oppose''' You know, this is really funny and tragic when you get down to it. I noticed some decent work that Fan-1967 did and wanted to nominate him myself. However seeing the comments at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#Assburger_syndrome this DRV], actually made me upset by his argumentative attitude and immaturity in defending a senseless redirect. He lost a tremendous amount of respect from me for the way he went about on it. Sorry, but this is something that is near the point beyond forgiveness, and I can't trust him with sysop tools if I can't understand the serious funked up logic and false determination he is using as displayed in that DRV. Thanks, but no thanks. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDaniel_Brandt_%2811th_nomination%29&diff=96981115&oldid=96980829 Wikipedia is a Wikipedians only club now?], right. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sigelhobit&diff=prev&oldid=103446654 We don't need more trigger happy uncivil administrators], sorry. Nor ones that do not use edit summaries, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DantheMan19&diff=prev&oldid=103431381 that capitalise everything], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hector_Aldo_Fagetti_Gallego&diff=prev&oldid=103320386 this] was only today, please do more research next time, I also see '''no''' encyclopaedia building (this is the thing we are building at Wikipedia :)!), article creation/work is imperative to being a good administrator - in short you fail my criteria, big time, sorry. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
Reluctant '''Oppose'''.  I fully expect to be in a strong minority here, but that's not a surprise.  Review of his AfD contributions shows an inconsistent understanding of our "notability" guidelines, in my opinion.  Furthermore, [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A_one_week_long_trial_run|this discussion]] seems to indicate that he prefers a broad interpretation of CSD A7 which causes many errors, including a rather [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=103036949&oldid=103035642 terse and unnecessary dismissal] regarding my personal feelings on the matter that does not sit well with me at all.  Finally, the last 1000 mainspace edits, for the exception of maybe a dozen, are all either vandalfighting, AfDing, PRODding, or CSding.  While those are important functions, where's the encyclopedia building?  Trusting someone with the tools to remove information completely from the view of us lesser beings when they haven't really spent much time working on it doesn't sit well.  Even 10% of the mainspace edits being constructive wouldn't bother me, but we're talking a tenth of a percent.  I've had no ''major'' issues with this user that I can think of, but I don't yet feel comfortable with promotion. --
'''Oppose''' Fan-1967 is constantly under attack from a torrent of vandals and uncooperative editors, but that is only going to be augmented as an administrator. Occasional missteps, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYuguwho&diff=103032299&oldid=103031902 this] just recently, make me uncomfortable recommending adminship. I think Fan is a valuable editor, and he has helped me in the past, but I don't necessarily see  all the qualities of an admin. <font color="0099CC"><b>
'''Oppose''' per the DRV cited by Yanksox, largely. In our limited direct interaction, Fan-1967 has been argumentative and shown an attitude that, while not uncivil, doesn't strike me as appropriate for an administrator. And, while this is secondary, I question his judgment in supporting the restoration of an attack-page redirect. I'd like to see a more congenial approach when he interacts with other experienced editors (admins or non-admins). |
'''Reluctant oppose''': I don't agree with a lot of the reasons people are giving for opposing this candidate; unfortunately, I am quite concerned about the biting others above have listed, specifically these diffs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sigelhobit&diff=prev&oldid=103446654] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYuguwho&diff=103032299&oldid=103031902]. I don't see the temperament needed for an admin. Work on it a bit and come back and I'll likely be ready to support.
''''Oppose''' : Based on the "trigger-happy" character of the candidate. Untrustworthy. Bad admin material all-round.
'''Oppose''' based on the speedy deletion tagging from ''today'' cited by Matthew Fenton.  Whatever else may be said about the candidate, he clearly needs more experience before being given the mop.
'''Oppose''' per above. Heimstern seems closest to my sentiment.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per the diffs above. Admins need to be civil at all times, especially with all the extra abuse they receive.
'''Oppose''' per the evidence provided by [[User:MatthewFenton|Matthew Fenton]], [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] and [[User:Kchase02|Kchase]]. Incivility and judgment concerns are simply too great, sorry. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, the diffs above show worrying incivility at times.
'''Oppose''' per everyone. He bites ''way'' too much. Violations of [[WP:CIVIL]] can't be overlooked.--
'''Oppose''' per above comments. ''
'''Oppose''' &bull; I feel that this user does not have a full grasp, or respect, for Wikipedia guidelines.  Their contributions reveal instances of [[WP:BITE|biting newbies]] and [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]].  Furthermore, their inconsistent application of the [[WP:N|notability]] guideline seems to me to be evidence of a temperament of "rules only apply when I want them to."  The rules do not simply apply when we want them to, and we should only [[WP:IAR|ignore]] them when we truly believe we are improving the encyclopedia.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid the evidence presented by [[User:Yanksox]] and [[User:MatthewFenton]] indicates that the user needs to work on improvind his civility.--
'''Oppose''' The strong detrimental evidence being presented by the above Wikipedians is a cause for major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Fan-1967 does jump in first and find out what's going on later.  His attitude could easily put off newbies.--
'''Oppose''' (recent) incidents of incivility are worrying. (Even without, trite non-answer to Q2 would have made me reluctant to support) --
'''Oppose''' per comments left by opposers above. This user is acting in good faith and attempting to improve Wikipedia, but I fear the user may act inappropriately (unintentionally) with the tools, so I cannot support. Please learn from this RfA and reapply at a later date. --
'''Oppose''' I am sure that Deskana is right and Fan-1967 always acts in good faith, but he is not yet ready to be trusted with the tools.  I am sure that he will learn.--
Epitomizes the NPP newbie-biter -
Regretful '''Oppose''' Looks like this user has some pretty good contributrions, but an uncivil user is not a plus, and an uncivil admin is the worst. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Strong oppose''' I don't like to be critical of someone who has done so much work and I certainly don't want to put the candidate off the project, but I do want to say that he needs to learn more patience and restraint in the face of frustration, as well as the ability to express himself more politely. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYuguwho&diff=103032299&oldid=103031902 sarcasm] is completely unacceptable and the large bold type earlier on the page is not the best way to communicate. Help rather than dismissal would be the desirable response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sigelhobit&diff=prev&oldid=103446654 here], and it also shows a misunderstanding of the process, as test tags do not have to start with test1 if there is obvious intent to vandalise. I think it's necessary for the candidate to see the strength of community response over such issues, because, if he shows in the future that he has, he will make a good admin. I do accept his explanation over the speedy tag and the redirect.
'''Oppose''', bad attitude, troubling incidents.
'''Oppose''' This user has clearly contributed a lot to the encyclopaedia, regretfully however, based on the examples given by many above, I must say that I cannot trust him/her enough to support them receiving adminship.
'''Oppose''', per civility concerns. Really good editor but incidents mentioned by Matthew Fenton and Yanksox has made me doubt this editor is ready for the tools.
'''Oppose''', shows lack of understanding in policy. -
'''Oppose''' Per Tyrenius and Mailer diablo.--
'''Oppose''' per recent DRV behaviour, and per Jeff.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose - seems to be experienced, but seeing the DRV on the redirect, I'm not comfortable supporting for now.
'''Neutral'''. Several of the diffs above concern me, but not enough to oppose. I think a little more time is in order for Fan to practice not [[WP:BITE|biting]] and studying up on the various policies and guidelines covering the areas mentioned above. I think Fan is great contributor, and I would have no problem supporting in 2-3 months if improvement in these areas is shown. ···
'''Neutral''' a good user, but I see very little article editing, and I get the impression he needs more experience before becoming a big deleter. I wasn't going to comment one way or another (I guess I'm still not, really) except that I'm surprised by such vigorous opposition for what appear to be relatively innocuous comments. "Outsider" is an unfortunate but not inaccurate choice of words, and there's nothing noticeably untoward in the DRV discussion cited above.
[[WP:OWN]] concerns, not enough to put me into oppose, but still concerning --
'''Neutral''' Obviously a good candidate, but the diffs are concerning. ←
'''Neutral''' leaning support. I was a little non-plussed with Fan when I handled a report to AIV about an editor going down a redlist of NBA players and creating stubs that said "(name) is an NBA player". Editors were tagging them as {{tl|empty}} and sysops were deleting them, which I thought was a judgment call at best, but Fan labelled as vandalism. When I temporarily blocked the [[User talk:Bat ears|original account]], the editor created [[User talk:Bat ears jr|Bat ears jr]] to edit the talk page, and Fan came at him with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bat_ears_jr&oldid=97078168 "I don't believe you. Vandals are vandals."], which escalated rather than de-escalated the situation. To his credit, when I essentially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fan-1967/Archive6&diff=prev&oldid=97079289 asked Fan to butt out], he did it. I eventually got the editor to stop creating the pages, which would have been the prohibitive (as opposed to punitive) purpose of the block anyway. Looking at ''some'' of the opposers' diffs, I see some similar things, but I think it's probably a normal number of minor mistakes for someone with such a long history. I'll hopefully come to a firm decision before closure.--
'''Neutral'''. Shows a clear misunderstanding (or wilful disregard) of the speedy deletion criteria. This diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deadmalls.com&diff=100557502&oldid=100556054 here] illustrates it pretty well. Tagged a sourced article that asserted importance. Also didn't think to put a notice tag on my talk page. I have seen this user do the same thing other times, but simply offer this as an example because it was on my watchlist. To his credit however, he acknowledged the error and removed the tag himself and was quite civil about it. I won't oppose because of the large volume of work and the clear dedication to the project (and because I have some personal bias in the matter). Would be happy to support in 3 months with a clean record of speedy deletion tagging and civility.
'''Netural'''
'''Neutral''' switched from "regretful oppose" above: upon further review I think I'm too harsh to consider one bad mistake as completely outweighing the rest of the contributions. It's difficult for non-admins to evaluate how well a user is using speedy deletion tags since the pages on which the tags were used correctly have of course been deleted. Still, the concerns prevent me to fully support.
'''Neutral'''-Per nom and Yanksox.  --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Neutral''' Has lots of edits and seems very dedicated, and it pains me to not support, however the opposition has some great points.  I'm torn. '''
--
'''Support'''. Hey, this guy gives good advice! -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/GI|op]]
'''Support'''. While he is not really active in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AFD]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellaneous for deletion|MFD]] parts, he is a regular contributor in fighting vandalism. An admin is, as everyone calls them, a janitor; they do the clean-ups. An extra helping hand at the vandalism department won't hurt. Besides, he has plenty of time to learn. --
'''No''' A majority of your edits are to the user space, and you have only just over 100 edits to the Wikipedia space, and only around 300 to the mainspace. I don't feel you are yet ready to become an administrator. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' You're off to a good start with the anti-vandalism work, but I only counted <s>3</s> 8 reports to [[WP:AIV]], as well as only <s>one</s> a few contributions to the XfD process. I'd suggest getting hip-deep in those arenas to get a better feel for the blocking and deletion processes and try back in a few months' time.
'''oppose''' You have done some good anti-vandal work and I commend you for that but most of your edits are to user space related areas. A review of your contribs show a lot of user related edits with some anti-vandal work in between but not enough. While you seem to be knowledgeable about policy per your answers to the above questions, one must demonstrate they are in fact knowledgeable through edits related to Wikipedia and mainspace which you currently do not have enough of. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but some of your answers to my questions were not satisfactory, and are partially not what the answers should have been. First, your answer to question 4 +5 shows me that you do not understand why blocks are issued. Blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive. Second, [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] and discussion are key when dealing with extreme POVists.
'''Oppose'''.  As mentioned above, only two comments in AFD and only 121 edits to the Wikipedia namespace show a definitely lack of experience in admin-related areas.  This editor does do a lot of communicating with other editors, which is great, but Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, so I'd like to see more mainspace experience.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''', as blocks are not punitive, and this editor does not appear to understand block policy well at all. This is incredibly important, as the ability to block other users is one of the most genuinely powerful tools an admin wields.
'''Oppose''', though you show promise. If you take the time you spend fixing your userpage and use it on article writing and vandalism patrol, you'd get elected 3-4 months down the road. (As an image patroller, I do like your answer to Q6 as well)
'''Strong oppose''' per Q4. Block are preventative, not punitive. I do not trust this user with access to [[:Special:Blockip]]. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose'''; per answers to questions and lack of experience relevant to becoming an administrator.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience here is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
As an admin, you will be given the ability to block others. For you to do that well, you need to understand the blocking policy that we have here. If you do not, then you are apt to make accidental mistakes as an admin. That is not a good thing. By saying that a block is a punnishment, you are showing us that you do not have a good enough understanding of the blocking policy here. The blocking policy is clear that blocks are '''not meant as a punnishment''', but instead are meant as a means of preventing someone from making disruptive actions. I'm sorry that I have to oppose your Rfa. Try again in 6 months, and improve your knowledge of policy, then I will support you.--
'''Oppose'''. Looking at your contributions, I'm afraid I cannot support. Nice guy, but to say you intend to focus on AIV, and only have 8 edits there, I cannot support. —
'''Suggest withdrawal''' - most admins have thousands of contributions before being considered.  You have under 100. --
'''Oppose''' - less than 50 edits, probably should withdraw.↔
'''Speedy delete.''' Oops, wait, this isn't AFD. :) I'll only point out that the candidate's sole edits to [[Richmond, Indiana]] consist of changing a link, and then reverting himself when he realized he messed up.
'''Oppose''' Please take a look at the other noms on this page to see what is usually expected of administrators in terms of experience.  You need a good deal more experience editing articles, doing admin-related tasks, and doing things on the project in general.  I would suggest withdrawing, and perhaps having an [[WP:ER|editor review]] sometime if you'd like to have general feedback on how you're doing.
Sorry. Per Q1 is new page patrol all? Per giggy
You've made 16 edits this month, and the last time you edited before that was in February.  Trust me, things have changed '''a lot''' since then, so I really can't trust that you'll be able to use the tools correctly; deal with conflicts, use policy correctly, etc.  Sorry, but I must oppose per this lack of activity. I suggest withdrawl.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I have to agree with Giggy. Over the last 6+ months there has been a complete lack and void of activity. Although I believe that the edit count is not the determining factor in a RfA, it often shows the commitment of an editor to this encyclopaedia and frankly, your recent activity, or lack of it, may be one of the major factors in determining the result of this RfA. I believe that you should step aside from this RfA and work on and review your committment to this encyclopaedia.
--
The answers to the questions, at this point, are not sufficient.  Q1 does not effectively outline what you plan to do as an administrator, not many contributions to the encyclopaedia, and edit summary usage is minimal.  '''Strong oppose.'''
'''Oppose''': Sorry, I don't think you have come close to sufficiently demonstrating your knowledge / understanding of the policies and guidelines here.  Your answer to Q3 suggest to me that you have been blocked, perhaps another username?  What is that username?  Also, your answers to the questions do not help.  -
'''Oppose''', normally I do not like to dwell on edit count and prefer to look at less tangible qualities when I vote.  In this case though, the users [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Finale+Wiki+Geek&site=en.wikipedia.org contributions] speak for themselves.  Sorry, please try again when you've got more mainspace and and Wiki-space edits.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience shown [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Finale+Wiki+Geek&site=en.wikipedia.org here] (and the glaringly long red bar for no edit summaries), answer to Q1, and failure to disclose previous username.
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Not yet.  It's going to take some more time to gain the community's trust and demonstrate sufficient understanding of policies and procedures.  Your answer to question one was also unsatisfactory, should have been a little more in depth.  Not great edit summary usage and a vast majority of your edits are to your userspace.  Sorry to sound so harsh, but RFA's can be brutal.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA, spending a few months to get more experience, and then trying again.  However, if you ever have any questions, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Oppose''' Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Per not that much experience relevant to admin duties.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, bad answer to questions and bad grammar. Maybe another time.
'''Oppose''' and sugest withdrawal. Sorry to pile on but "I am great person" ? Er, no thanks. I'm sure you are a great person but a bit of humility goes a lot further to representing yourself. Sorry, and best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' To avoid the pile-on.  May I suggest a look at [[WP:ADMINCOACH]]?
That, and also [[WP:ARL]]. I&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. Have a look at the above links and give some thought to what sort of an admin you would be. Blocking and Banning may be necessary, but there are boatloads of other tasks which require an admin's involvement. Also, look through some successful recent RfA's and see what those candidates did - that might give you some input on how to frame your next RfA. Don't get discouraged.
'''Weak support''' Tagging your old RFA for a speedy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Firefoxman&diff=prev&oldid=106940670] worries me a little.  If this RFA is successful, please read [[WP:CSD]] to see what things can be deleted before using the delete button.  But you are obviously a trusted user and your work reverting vandalism does a great service to Wikipedia.  So I support. --
'''Support''' I see this user around frequently and he looks like a good admin.--
'''Oppose''' — I'm sorry but I'm not actually seeing any contributions to the well.. you know.. encyclopaedia? I always find it hard to trust a potential user for sysop if they identify as a "deletionist" or "inclusionist". Your answers are also extremely short and vague and you don't use edit summaries ''everywhere''! Short answer: could I trust you with the buttons? no. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' Sorry, just not enough experience. Maybe in a few months. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose'''. Tagging your old RfA for a speedy does not demonstrate the familiarity with policies and practices that is expected of an admin.
'''Oppose''' as many RFA's go, I think you should get more experience of policy, more presence at XFD, because if you're a deletionist and only have a couple of hundred edits in the WP space, it's going to be hard to judge what you're going to do.  As per Alex43223, more experience required for me.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but your lack of experience with anything other than vandal-fighting, and your highly-deletionist outlook, makes me wary of giving you the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, man, but you got nothing that convinces me that you have enough knowledge to be an admin. :( [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Please be patient on applying, adminshi[p is not a big deal Give yourself 6 months of quality edits and you'll pass no problem.--
'''Oppose''' - your edit history shows many pages which you had marked for speedy deletion but which were not deleted (otherwise the history would not be there).  For me, this is either a sign of unfamiliarity with [[WP:CSD]] or an over-eagerness/readiness to delete.  I may support after a few months if there is a change in editing patterns, but for now, sorry,
'''Oppose''' I worry a little about editors who do not actually contribute by adding material to actual articles. As you have added no more than 7 edits to any article I am very worried.
'''Oppose''' per Quadzilla - we are, primarily about writing an encyclopedia... <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose''' per all above. You've been here a while, but it looks like more work is needed. Start getting familiar with policies and guidelines and gain more experience editing (edit count is normally not an issue for me, but for a user who has been here since December 2004, it's really low), and try again in a few months and you should be in better shape. --'''
'''Oppose''' Only '''2145''' edits in total, with only '''1,047''' mainspace edits, not to be nasty but this is not enough, I would reccomend at least a further 4,000 edits and more work in policy areas (such as [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:TFD]] etc). Aswell as this you do not seem to be active enough with your highest edit count per month being '''639''', I would reccomend at least hitting 1,000 to 1,500 a month. Don't be discouraged.
'''Suggest withdrawl''' per opposers. '''
'''Neutral''' Nothing too compelling to support, yet. Having some quality main-space contributions and a little more experience will probably encourage me to support you in a future RfA. Good luck. :) -
'''Moral support''' → Keep going this way, the time for your adminship will come! <i><b>
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal, and the answer to Q1 demonstrates a good enough understanding of the tools. The oppose votes, though civil, are predominantly based on editcount, which I don't consider a significant factor. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Low activity, but Is Wikipedia going to lose anything if he becomes an admin? Nope. It's not like he's being given the [[Big red button]]. And if he blocks one vandal in a year, it is enough help, IMO. Especially impressed with the work in clearing backlogs. Low talk page interaction  is a cause for some concern though. Better luck next time. -
'''Oppose''' - wow you do great work, the only problem is you haven't got enough edits to show the community can trust you, you've certainly been here long enough, so I would suggest you keep on plugging away at it, I'd be more than happy to support if you had around 2000 edits. Keep it up anyway :-)
'''Oppose''' - for low edit counts and apart from that you have been doing a pretty swell job..keep it up..re-apply in 3 to 4 months and I will definitely support you...----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' - I would think a little more time would help you too. Perhaps more interaction with others. I notice that your contributions show little interaction on talk pages. I also note that you seem to make unilateral changes, albeit minor ones, to user pages other than your own. Now, they don't own the pages but you might think twice about doing that without a least a message to them -- just a courtesy thing. I imagine you will develop quite soon into someone that will be very valuable as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Adminship might not be a big deal and I'd almost be willing to support based on that, but a couple items bug me enough to oppose... Mainly the lack of talk page usage and the general lack of experience. I'd happily support in a few months time. Suggest a 'crat close this thing before it gets dogpiled by Opposes. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' As other people have said beforehand, experience is key when demonstrating a need for the admin tools.  You are a fine editor and well on the way to gaining such experience but less than five hundred edits in nearly a year of contributing means that your activity levels need to be stepped up a notch-or-two.  Try working on admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols; vandal reverting (using tools such as vandalproof if you want to) and warning on their Talk pages; reporting to AIV.  Working in the main article space is also a good thing to do - plenty of references need to be checked, sourced and cited properly, as well as peer reviews; good article candidates, etc.  Come back with some more experience over the summer and this opinion will probably slide over to the support column.
'''Oppose:''' Like others, I see no problem with nominee's edits, but 1.5 edits a day is, in Wikipedia terms, very low usage for aspiring admins.  I wouldn't consider myself a fanatic, but just on policing vandalism of the items on my watchlist I rack up five times that much activity.  More activity isn't so much helpful to a future RfA as the minimum standard.
'''Oppose''' You need to do much more editing around here before the tools can be given.  Get some more experience, maybe join some projects, and try again in a few months!
'''Oppose''' Per reasons stated abouve. Would be happy to support in around 6 months, provided edit count increases substantially.<b><i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue">
'''Oppose''' I do not believe you are ready to be an admin after three days of heavy edits (don't get me wrong, you do good work). Looking your edit counter and contributions, I see little communication with other users. I'd like to see steady edits and not just sporadic 'every once in awhile' edits before I support your adminship. I wish to see many "Wikipedia:" edits to show you know your way around Wikipedia and are understanding of every admin-related page. Having more discussion page edits will show you are capable of dealing with other editors and being able to deal with them in a calm, effective manner.++
'''Oppose''' [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/FirefoxRocks|Sorry, but not enough edits]].
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. As has already been said: You're doing well, just give it a little more time. —

'''Neutral''' Not sure I can trust or support you at this time, but come back when you have a good number of edits. Looking through your contributions, a lot of your edits seem to be stub-sorting.
I am [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] and I '''support''' this candidate! --
I trust the nominator. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' I trust the nom on this one, and I trust the users judgement, despite a rather low wikispace edits.
'''support''' per answers and looking at contribs to Wikispace, shows a decent ammount of knowledge of what Wikipedia is about. What would 400 more edits to sift through really prove? Looking past editcountitis here... --
'''Support''': Low Wikipedia space edits aren't a major concern for me and I trust Majorly's judgement in nominating FisherQueen. <font face="Arial">--Kind Regards -
'''Support''' Good user. Would be a good admin in terms of vandal fighting and certainly would not do any damage.
'''Support'''. Lack of experience is only an issue in cases where the lingering possibility of abuse exists. I just don't see that here. A responsible and increasingly knowledgeable editor who gave very good answers to the questions deserves the mop in this editor's opinion. —
'''Strong support.''' See discussion above.  --
'''Strong support''' per the above, especially the point made by [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]].
'''Support'''. Qualified and a safe choice.
'''Support''' but recommend withdrawal - you look like a good candidate, but because of lack of WP-space edits, you dont stand a [[WP:SNOW|snowball's chance in hell]]. Work on AfD or MfD and try in a few months.
'''Moral Support''' - but need more experience with mainspace edits (ie writing articles, copyediting, and so forth) outside of the usual vandal-fighting or template tagging.  Suggest withdrawal and re-apply in a 4-5 months with a lot more experience. --
98 Wikipedia and 83 mainspace talk edits just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose'''. I believe that more experience is needed. Only 98 Wikipedia edits and 2 Wikipedia talk edits are below what I like to see. Seems to be proactive with gaining experience, as demonstrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=100684106 learning to create a diff], and I think a several more months of learning would be really helpful.
'''Oppose''' as above. I am not happy with levels of contribution to Wikipedia and Wikitalk. You may well go there, but only edits prove that you have been there. Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''. Not onyl do you lack wikispace edits (about 100 only?), but most of your edits are in the usertalkspace, which to me doesn't show that you could be a good admin. You seem like a good user and I'd probably support you in the future though.--
'''Oppose for now''', as more I believe experience is required (as mentioned several times above). Come back in a couple months or so with more experience in the area you're likely to go when working as an admin, and I'll likely support you. ···
'''Oppose'''- Really needs to work on Wikipedia edits--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' lack of article writing
'''Oppose''' unless you can demonstrate your participation in admin-related duties (ie., lots of WP-space edits). ''
'''Oppose''' Per Yuser31415.
'''Oppose'''. Vandal fighting, while nice, is insufficient for adminship. You have to show that you are familiar with policies. Also, near complete lack of talk or projectspace edits shows that you don't discuss things very much, which is kinda important for admins. We don't need more admins willing to jump the gun on things that should instead have discussion. -
'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart.
'''Oppose''' Low experience.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but per Amarkov, I don't think you're ready yet.
'''Oppose''' inadequate experience and participation in the projectspace. ←
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wikispace experience sorry. At the pace you're moving though if you worked more on Wikispace edits I could see you becoming an admin in the near future.
'''Oppose''' per lack of policy and process experience. Work on that and I'll gladly support in the future. --'''
'''Neutral''' A good vandal hunter and accomplished speedy-tagger, but just not enough visibility of experience in WP policy.
'''Neutral''' You have too many edits for me to oppose, however, the percentage of Wikipedia edits is quite small, so I can't really support.  If you dedicate a lot of time getting Wikipedia edits, I'd see no reason to oppose. '''
'''Neutral''' Not enough experience. '''
'''Neutral''' - 100 WP space edits. Needs more to show evidence of understanding policy.
'''Neutral''' - I don't have any concerns about your ability, just about your length of time here.  And I ''love'' your user name.  I ''will'' support a future nomination.
'''Neutral'''.
'''Weak Support'''; seems to be a good user but I'm concerned with lack of edits. My first RfA, with 1100 edits, failed miserably at 10/36/7 iirc. ~
'''Moral support'''. First off, congratulations for staying with us, despite what must have been the worst piled-on RfA I have ever seen. Second, although I don't use it, the Adopt-A-User programme is one of the best new ideas I have seen recently on here. Anyway, it's a moral support because I have a feeling there will be opposers for lack of Wikipedia space edits, article writing, and your answers are regretfully short. --'''
'''Support''' because the user is doing alot of vandal work and I think the user has enough experience.--
'''Support''' - per Natl1 <b><font face="century gothic">
'''Support''' a determined user, who meets [[User:Danntm/RFA|my guidelines]] and I believe in redemption.--
'''Support''', Flameviper is unconventional and that's no criticism. I have no trouble accepting a former vandal as an admin, especially when they have worked so hard on adopt-a-user.
'''Support'''. I've looked at the so-called negative examples, including the [[Talk:Titin|Titin]] talk page, and I find nothing uncivil — outspoken, yes, but not aggressive.  Also I noticed in the Titin discussion that the candidate can accept it gracefully and quit when the consensus goes against him, despite the fact that he invested a lot of time and skilled effort (coding the Java box).  This is a quality that bodes well for his fairness as an admin.  I do not hold his vandal beginnings against the candidate -- he has become so deeply involved in legit work (Adopt-a-User, etc.) since then, and it is extremely unlikely that he should throw all this away and revert to primitivism.  Evolution never works in reverse.  He is an active, involved, and skilled editor who makes useful contributions now and is likely to make useful admin contributions.
'''Strong Support''' - I think it would be great to have a reformed vandal as an admin. It shows that users always have potential, and you should always assume good faith. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Daniel()Folsom</font> [[User talk:Danielfolsom|<sup>T</sup>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom|<sub>C</sub>]]|
'''Oppose''' — admits to being a vandal, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nothing_to_Lose_%28Heroes%29&diff=prev&oldid=99853885 I don't find "merge that mofo" to be a helpful AfD comment either]. Also this is your second RfA, so why move your first.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Flameviper_X-1&diff=prev&oldid=104740591] Also the lack of (have you made any :-\?) contributions to the encyclopaedia worries me, it is imperative if you wish to be a sysop that you contribute! <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Extreme Oppose''' Kudos to this user for reforming, but I simply do not think it is appropriate to have a former vandal as an admin, even if they are 'reformed', seeing the potential damage he could do if we were to be tempted and relapse into vandalism. Sorry if this sounds uncivil, but you don't want a former vandal being an admin at wikipedia, just like you wouldn't want a former alcholic working at a shop where they hand out free beer.  --
'''Oppose'''. Please improve your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titin&action=history edit summaries] and try to interact in a more mature and ciivl manner with people who disagree with you.
'''Oppose''' per the other users above. In addition, I found it curious that you moved your previous RfA to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper X-1]] then chose to put your second one where the first one was. This shows that you're either trying to hide the previous RfA (which I don't think is likely) or you're unfamiliar with the RfA process. In addition, although I think article writing isn't necessarily important for administrators, your answer to the three standard RfA questions is weak. --
Oppose, [[WP:ADMINNOT|adminship is not a trophy]]. Also, I'm concerned you're hiding your past - why haven't you listed your past RFAs and past usernames? &ndash;
''''Oppose''' per all above, and also you said it yourself. You ''don't handle stress well'', being an administrator you will be facing different degrees of stress. So if you can't handle it now...I don't know what you will do when facing admin stress. ~
'''Strong oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=104223685 this] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=104225952 set] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=104226584 of] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=104227701 requests] to ANI just two days ago.
'''Oppose''' per Metros, Arjun and Deskana. I strongly opposed this user on his previous RfA and I'm glad he has stuck with Wikipedia and is trying to reform, but his previous incarnations, particularly as [[User:Son of a Peach]] were highly disruptive and abusive and I need to see much more mature behavior to get that bad taste out of my mouth.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but there are serious civility issues you need to learn to control such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titin&diff=prev&oldid=102982776 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titin&diff=prev&oldid=103164370 this], and I can't imagine what kind of misunderstanding of policy could lead to this incident of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.flameviper.tk&limit=500&offset=0  linkspamming] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=99764267&oldid=99648460 personal gain], not to mention the disruptiveness of it.
'''Strong Oppose''' Low edit count, lack of experience, no need for the tools, edit summaries, civility concerns per CiaranG, and serious maturity concerns as per Metros232 and as per inability to take plain recommendations given on last RfA thus denoting low capability to follow advice and improve. Sorry, but no.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Am currently explaining to this user why things need to have independent reliable sources to have an article and what that means, which I would expect people to know before they even think about having the power to close AfDs and enact speedy deletions, let alone applying for it. Also, still frequently leaves unhelpful edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titin&diff=prev&oldid=102103008] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Bessemer&diff=prev&oldid=104831259] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sleepwalking&diff=prev&oldid=100980566] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_advertising_clich%C3%A9s&diff=prev&oldid=85514021] and has a signature twice as long as some of his answers to the questions. --
'''Oppose''' Two key factors are always need and trust. Despite the answer to Q1, the introduction to the nomination makes it clear that the tools aren't needed. As for trust, if a person truly wants to redeem themselves they should be encouraged to do so. However, if someone has made serious mistakes in the past it takes a lot more than what we have seen here. Not only must the trust be earned, any doubts about past behaviour must be dispelled. If this nominee is truly intent on changing his ways and contributing, then I would suggest taking six months, at minimum, to make meaningful contributions that demonstrate trustworthiness and knowledge of the various policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose''' per Deskana. ''
'''Oppose''' per all-too-recent incivility. --
'''Oppose''' -- If indeed reformed, then we need to wait a while to ascertain it's true. Dialog on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Titin this page] is relatively recent, and does not strike me as material coming from a potential admin.
Sorry, but the reasons stated above by Deskana and Arjun lead me to '''oppose'''. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
This is really unnecessary, but you do not seem to have gotten the point from your ''three'' previous RfAs. You are doing bad things. Cease doing bad things. '''Strong oppose'''. -
'''Strong oppose''' per above and your answers. '''
'''Strong Oppose'''. Check the page moves, especially the earliest.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=Flameviper&page=&limit=100&offset=0 Move log.] AGF or not, I'm not comfortable giving the editor the tools. --
'''Oppose''' - please don't use profanity in edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''' per above arguments, particularly with regards to spamming and hostile edit summaries. I suggest a withdrawal.--
'''Oppose''' not to pile on, but there is an ongoing failure to internalize community norms, e.g., recent posts to the talk pages of oppose voters such as  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CiaranG&diff=prev&oldid=104877829 here]. I'm glad a consensus was reached on the [[titin]] issue, but that doesn't excuse the ''months'' of tendentious editing, inappropriate accusations of vandalism, and general defense of the indefensible on [[talk:titin]]. Sorry, your rude edit summaries and immature behavior don't add up to someone who should be anywhere near admin tools.
'''Oppose''' - responses to the questions weren't as thorough as I think they really should be, and the low edit count plus concerns raised by Ginko100, Metros ''et al''. I do think it would be rather nice to have a reformed vandal raised to sysop, however :)-<font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. I agree with most of the comments above and the answers really don't grab me. Also, I feel that the candidate's strange business of moving his RfAs around to bizarre locations most concerning and a reflection of a failure to understand RfA process and general Wiki standards for page naming. Shifting an RfA to pagename/X-1 makes absolutely no sense to me. '''[[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah]]''' 07:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I've also added another RfA to the list that Flameviper seemed to have forgotten about. '''
'''Oppose'''. Basically, your act of moving the previous RfA indicates your poor understanding of RfA process, your inexperience, and therefore I see no reason to trust you with the tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose that mofo'''.  Not ready yet.  But 'merge that mofo' is a great AFD comment, which I giggled at when I saw it.
'''Strong oppose'''.  I disagree that a former vandal can't be trusted to have reformed (though his U.S./colony misanalogy above doesn't indicate strong logical abilities), but there are too many additional problems.  Aside from edit-summary use and moving the previous RfA, his Talk page gives too much evidence of hasty edits and bad judgement.  Perhaps in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' per civility issues. -
'''Holy Shit Oppose''' Just saw a recent response on someone's talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&curid=8925044&diff=105103934&oldid=105101126]; such a hostile attitude to have towards someone (on someone else's talk page, no less, when they weren't even involved in any way, shape, or form) and severe [[WP:BITE|newbie biting]] is over the line. I'll be damned before I'll ever support an admin candidate that displays such a flagrant disregard for the rules of civility. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Strong oppose''' for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&curid=8925044&diff=105103934&oldid=105101126 this elegant bit of self-expression]... Withdrawal is probably the best option here. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per everyone else, at least you're not vandalizing anymore though :P--
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&diff=next&oldid=105101126]. Holy crap. --
'''Oppose''' for very obvious reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&diff=next&oldid=105101126 This] is not appropriate.
'''No.'''
'''Shoot-the-nom-down oppose''' Adminship is, at least ideally, a balanced mixture of civility, experience, and confidence. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&diff=prev&oldid=105103934 Flippant arrogance], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Flameviper glaring inexperience], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Flameviper&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=3 blatant insecurity] are not marks of an editor, let alone an admin candidate. Regarding your comment about stress, if you can't deal with stress, then clearly you are not fit for adminship, as an admin will constantly be subjected to stressful situations no matter how one runs away from it. And I don't want a contemptuous and/or snide feedback comment on my talk page. Vandals can be reformed, but it doesn't mean to blindly hand out admin tools to seemingly apt candidates which obviously are not at the current time. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Neutral''' - gutsy to come back for more, Adopt-a-User is great, your contributions to Wikipedia edits however, are borderline and I would like to see some more experience in this area, especially as you desire the tools to close XFDs and speedies.
'''Neutral''' - the wise man above me stated it very well. I think a former vandal will make a terrific admin, but you're not there yet. No idea how old you are physically, but a little more maturity in your contributions will bring you greater respect in RfAs, per Gwernol and especially the diffs provided by Metros 232. Come back in six months... and drop me a line when you do. I'd love to see you complete your reformation. --
'''Neutral''' - Arjun above said it: as an admin you ''will'' be subject to stress and unpleasant situations; even if you try to stay away from them, trust me, they will find you instead. It's an admin's job to handle these gracefully and while keeping his cool. If from the get-go you feel like you will not be able to cope with this, perhaps you should reconsider your desire to hold an admin position.
'''Neutral'''. I'm glad you turned to the "light side," but I have concerns about whether you could keep your heat if you were an admin. '''''
'''Neutral''' Sorry, there's no way to avoid stress on Wikipedia if you want to play a role in its development. Please try again when you know you can deal with it.
I'm sorry, It's just too soon. I would prefer you spent more time learning about the ins&outs. ---
'''Neutral''' glad to see you're on the right track. Some time and experience are needed before I can support.  --
--
'''Oppose''' 100 edits is far too little experience.
More experience required. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''': Not enough edits to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policy.  Sorry, but you are just to new. -
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience yet.  We can't yet adequately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures.  Answers to questions also show that there is more to be learned, for example, pages are "protected/semi-protected" instead of "blocked/semi-blocked".  I recommend looking over [[WP:LOP|the policies]] to get a better handle on everything, spend some more time gaining experience and trying another RFA in a few months and a few thousand edits, and withdrawing this RFA.  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Oppose''' I'm glad you realized the error of your vandalism ways, but it'll take quite a lot more work before you're ready for this burden.
'''Oppose''' - more experience required.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, former vandal.
'''Oppose'''.  Less then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=35&contribs=user&target=Flaminglawyer&namespace=0 35] mainspace contribs, and less than 100 total, simply not enough to rate you with.  You may want to look in to other ways you can contribute such as by joining a project team. —
'''Moral support''' You seem like a good editor, but I'm afraid this request is probably too early to have any chance of passing. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a couple of months. --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate your dedication to the project, but I feel that you have too little experience on Wikipedia. You joined on November 4, 2006, and you edited heavily in November, but sorta died off in December. You have been a good vandal-fighter and article-builder, and I commend you for your work in this namespaces, but if you want to be an admin, you need to have more edits in the Wikipedia-namespace (at least a few hundred), and also more edits in general (2000+ is a good number). I suggest you withdraw the RfA after receiving some more RfA votes, and then consider re-applying once you have more experience with the project. '''
(edit conflict)'''Oppose'''-You've only been here for two months. You're too knew. It also doesn't seem like you need the tools that much. One of your reasons is to create articles. You don't need to be a sysop to do that. Lastly, you only have 600 something edits. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose''' You only have 600 edits, and you appearently don't know what what the sysops tools are. You lack Wikipedia space-edits, but a good vandal-fighter. Recommend [[WP:ER|editor review]].--
'''Weak Oppose'''. I'm not one to count edits, but your lack of Wikipedia namespace edits show a lack of working with process/procedure. Good faith nom, of course, but just needs more time and familiarity with the system. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you just need more experience.
'''Oppose''' per above and Q1 did not leave me inspired. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too early. Work on the advice you receive in this RfA, and come back after becoming more familiar with the policies here and with some more edits. ←
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,
Nothing in your contribs leads me to believe that you would misuse the tools so I '''support'''. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I'm confident that this user has proven themselves trustworthy and capable. Good luck!
'''Support''' I don't beleive this user will abuse the mop. --
'''Support''' I believe that this user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Mainspace is low, but I '''HIGHLY''' doubt he will abuse the mop!!
'''Support''', edit counts might be on the low side but there are enough to get a feel for this editor.  Nothing in there leads me to oppose, as the contributions I do see are positive and show a willingness to help.
'''Oppose'''- I am unsatisfied with this user's mainspace and talk space contributions. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' Editor doesn't have very much experience in Wikipedia space, but more concerning they don't seem to have any experience writing and collaborating on articles, with only six edits their most frequent talk page, and their talk page count looks like it would be extremely low if it weren't for things like tagging wikiprojects. A quick look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Flubeca&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 talk page contribs] shows no signs of collaboration in the past ''month'' at least, and their User talk log shows no signs of collaboration either, just a couple social comments and a lot of vandal taggings. Also seems to have poor understanding of deletion criteria, given their defense of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mehran_Ghassemi&diff=prev&oldid=153605417 (a rather low number of) GHITs] as criteria for keeping an article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Os_Cangaceiros&diff=prev&oldid=152594184 and also using GHITs] as a reason for deletion. Also using [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roflsnooker&diff=prev&oldid=153601687 an internet meme affecting the name of a topic] as grounds for it being a hoax is incredibly shaky-- as there are plenty of notable subjects that go against that (Such as [[LOLCODE]]), and only using notability as a ''backup'' is somewhat concerning. The combination of a lack of '''any''' apparent collaboration, combined with a poor understanding of deletion criteria, and a user contrib log that looks more like a human monitored bot than a Wikipedian is concerning. How can a user that has never collaborated help in a conflict, or someone with poor understanding of what is deletable be trusted with CSD? --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience.
'''Oppose'''. You may remember me as the one who welcomed you last December when you first came. I'm impressed by how much you've developed, but I would really like to see some sort of collaboration and general experience. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Oppose''' worried about question 2. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' per question 2, a general "doesn't get it".  <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  The answer to Q. 2 shows a lack of experience, failure to recognize what the encyclopedia is about -- vandal-fighting is very important to the encyclopedia, but fighting vandalism shouldn't be one's whole focus while here.
'''Neutral, towards support''' per Boricuaeddie. Although I have no evidence that this user will abuse the mop, I'm kind of worried how this user will help out with conflicts. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Strong oppose''' for vandalism and [[WP:BLP]] issues such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Seacrest&diff=prev&oldid=177538357 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_Dalton&diff=prev&oldid=180576710 this incivility], and two examples of vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fur_seal&diff=prev&oldid=180730472 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elephant&diff=prev&oldid=180732152 here]) within two hours of his RFA starting.  This user is closer to an indefinite block than adminiship.
'''Oppose''' Alright, first of all, I'm going to ask you to please withdraw. Perhaps you do not understand what Wikipedia is looking for in a good admin - see [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. Wikipedia looks for people that are well established here and that have been making constructive contributions for a good amount of time. Your answers to the questions are also not very informative or specific. I suggest you continue editing and read up on Wikipedia policies so that you can edit constructively and not attack other editors. In maybe a year, if you shape up and start making constructive edits and establish yourself here as a good editor, you can request adminship again. <font color="darkred" size="3" face="kristen itc">
'''Oppose''': Please withdraw. I am in strong belief that you do not take RFAs seriously, given that your answers were nothing short of comical. For one, if a user has vandalized, you give them the appropriate range of warnings per individual case (i.e. four warning templates followed by a block, or on a per-case basis), not a "two-block" deal. Second, your incivility and vandalism is disheartening for someone who wants to be an administrator, and who would have a great chance of abusing that power if so granted based upon prior edits. Please begin taking Wikipedia more seriously.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Metros|Metros]]
'''Oppose''' Definitely '''not''' for ''very'' obvious lack of understanding of RFA and wiki process. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience and no need for tools. Suggest withdrawal. --
'''Oppose''' lack of experience, Response to #1 shows lack of understanding of role of admin.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience and demonstrated Wiki knowledge, which would be required for Admin tools to be granted. '''
'''Oppose''' for your lack of understanding about what makes a FA and your attitude in [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Folding@home|this RFA]].  And everything above  --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=99332097 this] and the surrounding conflict.
'''Automatic Oppose'''. Did you copy from another page, the answer to no.1? The other two questions are also lacking. Also, after reading the Featured article candidate page that you contributed in, it is clear that you need more experience in that, and 585 edits is not enough (I expect at least 1500), but feel free to come back when you've got more experience.
'''Oppose''' clearly a potentially dedicated user. Perhpas you'd prefer to start out by helping [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|with the many non-administrative maintenance tasks]] to gain more experience first. --
'''Oppose''' To say that his answers are lacking would be quite the understatement.
'''Oppose'''for ''strong'' misunderstanding of process (especially RfA); you need to do your homework and read up on the history before making a request liek this. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose and suggest witdrawal'''. You haven't been here long enough and don't have enough edits. Plus your answers aren't good. Keep workign on it and maybe in 6 months you'll be ready for this. --
'''Oppose''' consider withdrawing.. ←
'''Oppose''' Normally, I wouldn't even bother piling on to an RfA that's this lopsided, but since the user says he "refuse[s] to concede defeat", I guess I'll add my two cents.  Wikipedia is a consensus-based project.  An obstinate refusal to consider opposing points of view is not productive, and certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind in this particular forum.  I'm sure you can make good contributions here; hang out for a while as a regular editor and see how the process works.  Maybe re-apply for adminship after a while.  But for now, seriously, please withdraw.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience and a malformed RfA application.  You need a lot more experience in every aspect of Wikipedia - articles, user Talk pages, policy and process to name but a few.  Work hard and come back in a year.
'''Oppose''', what a ridiculous answer to #1. --
'''Neutral''' if only in the hope that you might listen to someone who doesn't oppose. Please withdraw and spend some time familiarising yourself with the way Wikipedia works. No-one wants an RfA with masses of criticism and opposes. Most of us are lovely people. Please don't make us vote oppose en masse. If you stand again in six months, please drop a line on my talk page and let me know. --
I find it incredibly funny that people are willing to support people who don't know how to use the tools but intend to use them, but not people who do know how to use the tools but don't intend to use them. If we get some occasional help with his tools, that's better than no help at all... -
'''Support.''' per Amarkov. Completely unconvincing opposes.
'''Support'''. Needs the tools, and will not abuse them.
'''Support'''. Even an admin who rarely uses the tools still helps out when he/she does use them. I see no evidence at all that there will be abuse from this editor. '''
'''Support''' Obviously will not abuse the tools, so why not?
'''Support'''. I do understand the opposers' reasoning: why hand out tools with which technical and sociological damage can be caused to someone who doesn't reason particularly strongly for having them? However, he does reason quite strongly in his nomination statement. Froth is clearly running into protected things and other barriers during the course of his usual work, and could simply sweep those things to one side if he had the button to do it with. I suspect they are in areas, specifically [[WP:RD]] where there is relatively little visibility for his requests, although they do eventually get seen to. He says he reads policy and ArbCom stuff a lot, and whilst that's not concretely provable, I do believe him (see predictable bluelink, but the candidate makes a good couple of references and gets the terminology right). The editor is clearly committed to the project, has stuck around and appears to know his stuff. He doesn't do much mainspace work, and an oppose on that basis can sometimes be reasonable: someone out of touch with that risks losing their way. But Froth ''does'' interact with the wider Wikipedia via the various work he does at [[WP:RD]], and it's not like his mainspace edits are zero or anything. I also do not think there is a great deal of value in the asking of Q1 any longer: all it ever produces is a list of blah blah that survives, prehaps, a month into adminship after which point all us current admins tend to spend most of our efforts in what ever nook or cranny we feel most comfortable in. Thus, his well-targetted request for adminship seems ok to me. In sum, a committed editor, a knowledgeable editor, a helpful editor, an editor with a clear and precise rational for admin tools.
support --
'''Support''' - ''I thought You were an Admin''..Good Editor..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Seems a good user, being here since 2005 shows he/she is interested in Wikipedia and cares about what goes on here. <s>and would benefit the tools greatly!</s> Good luck -
'''Support'''  Good editor, and tenaciously productive when he's made up his mind. I don't understand the "no-need-for-tools" argument, when froth explained why he thinks they might help him improve the project. These ''tools'' aren't a [[limited good]], only to be handed out to those who vow and commit to spending most of their time dealing with the most pressing backlagging chores. There are plenty of excellent admins here who hardly ever use the mop and bucket, but are skilled in using the [[pin chuck]] or the [[micropipette]], and require access to ''tools'' for this reason. This user sometimes speaks his mind and doesn't always mince words, but I can't picture him abusing the buttons. ---

'''Support''' Looks like the users who oppose based on Q1 have never tried to fix a protected template before. No reason not to trust froth, proposed use is narrow but well-defined, adminship isn't all about closing AfD's and whacking vandals. ~
'''Support''' - per amarkov, sluzzelin, trials. Any opposers haven't done [[WP:DEAD]] either - tons of copyvios, nn material. Besides, if user decides to start using the tools, we've already decided he's capable. Let's not stand around and oppose just becuase the user didn't answer the question in exactly X and Y proper way, even if the user is a good editor. This is just too much process-wonkery.
'''Support'''.  Adminship is no big deal, right?  If we're confident that someone's not going to abuse them, why not give them the tools?  S/He's definitely not going to help with the backlogs if we ''don't'' grant the tools.  If they help with his/her work, and the work helps the encyclopedia, obviously it's going to be an overall benefit; s/he won't have to ask an admin to do something, it'll get done quicker, and the other admin can be off doing something else.  And if there's an emergency or request, they can help out.  Besides, s/he mentioned doing some vandal fighting, which the tools are definitely useful for.  Anyway, is there a minimum amount that someone should use the tools before it's worthwhile for them to have them?  Lastly, I appreciate the user's frankness and honesty in their responses.
'''Support''' Great user who has demonstrated need for the tools, is trustworthy and wouldn't abuse them, and if he gets bored, he can jump into the backlogs :) We do need admins who want to do the sort of thing he's talking about. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' per Amarkov, Riana Dzasta, and others. Seriously, guys.
'''Support''' — You appear trustable, you show a requirement for the extra buttons, adminship is "no big deal", so if you want it, then let's let you have it.
'''Weak Support''', despite the poor answer to Q1, I can't find a reason why this user can't be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''.  Admins are needed to help with a wide variety of tasks.  Some may choose to concentrate on some tasks and some on others.  Just because somebody indicates there are some areas they don't anticipate helping in isn't a reason to oppose, if there are other areas where they clearly could make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' per Splash. Suspect you'll get sucked into using the tools more if you have them!
'''Support''' for answer to Q1. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I support him because he will not abuse tools. I do not understand that if he will get tools and will not use them 100% then what harm that will cause? Hence I find no reason to oppose. --- '''
'''Support''' No reason to believe he/she would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Despite the oppose concerns (including the answer to Q1), I see plenty of reasons to give this user the tools. Not all actions taken by admins are in the highly visible areas. Nuts and bolts work is important too. Wikignoming isn't glamorous and bragging rights to bringing articles up to FA status is unlikely, yet these small improvements benefit the project immensely. Not every admin needs to or should perform exactly the same functions. (/rant)
'''Support'''. Froth is a good, hard-working user who won't misuse the buttons. I haven't seen an oppose column so unrelated to adminship in a long time.
'''Support''' no reason not to have them. Even if he doesn't start wielding a flame thrower in the general direction of the admin backlogs, at least he won't contribute to them. Appears that he would benefit from having the tools and seems quite unlikely to abuse them. This might be a good test of how 'crats determine consensus...
'''Support''' Completely silly to say "don't provide admin buttons because he won't be clicking them all the time." If it enhances his current contributions to Wikipedia at all, and the risk of abuse is somewhere in the basement, give it to him. Admin is not a status, not super special... all those things in the Wikipedia namespace that are mentioned. Some Admins will spend most of their time adminning, some will spend most of it writing, but both provide a great benefit by not being restrained if they've proven themselves. --
'''Support''' don't admins decide which tasks they want to help on? If he wants to focus on editing/helping on protected content, is this a bad thing...? -
'''Support''' I think not dedicating oneself to clearing backlogs is fine. I see no reason that this user would either misuse or abuse the tools, so why should they be denied access. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' Dedicated, very active, seems to help out all over the place.  Bust out the mop. '''
'''Support''', Froth is a very dedicated Wikipedian and will not abuse sysop tools. <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 12pt">[[User:Cremepuff222|<font color="008000">--Cremepuff222</font>]] ([[User talk:Cremepuff222|<font color="2F4F4F">talk</font>]],
'''Support''' - good editor and I appreciate the honesty of his answers, he seems like he hasn't gone out of his way to just say what he thinks the people want to hear -
'''Support'''; I believe that there is no reason not to grant administrator tools to editors who show themselves to be trustworthy, helpful users over a long period of time; i.e., if there is no reason ''not'' to make someone an admin, why not do so? The more good, trustworthy administrators we have, the better. Froth definitely qualifies.
'''Support''', seems trustworthy enough. Adminship is not a job where you have to commit yourself to clean the backlogs.
'''Support''' - the question is whether or not the user is trustworthy.  If half of Wikipedia opposes anyone who "doesn't need the tools" (whatever that means, nobody ''needs'' the tools) and the other half opposes anyone who does need the tools because they don't write enough articles, then we're in bad shape. Is he going to abuse the tools? Nobody has given me any reason to believe that would be the case and thus I support. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' We should give the tools to anyone who wont abuse them. Froth most likely will not.--
'''Support''' I really don't understnad the [[m:metapedianism|metapedian]] philosophy and this is the root of much of his problems on ref desk. He sides for a more chatty and casual environment. I and others who have commented below (Hipocrite, Rocketpocket and Friday) do not agree and have tried to get the ref desk to be more ''professional'' and avoid best quesses or at least to cite references that might back up such claims. In general, i have seen Froth be respectful and communicative in this debate and that is all I can ask.  With respect to coming across protected templates and wishing to protect templates, this is a valid reason to need the tools. I think he could be much more productive if he had that ability.  Due to his proven ability to communicate I have no reason to mistrust his use of the blocking part of the kit.
'''Support''' per all above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Per reply to PMC in the neutral section.
'''Support'''Froth seems to have knowledge, though Q1 is highly unimpressive. [[User_Talk:VD64992|<font color="orange">VD649</font>]]
'''Support after due consideration'''. David D.'s reasoning above convinced me to change to support from neutral. Like him, Friday, Hipocrite ''et al'', I have a real concern with the use of the RD as a forum for opinion and/or conjecture. Nevertheless, and even though I don't agree with making a distinction myself, as long as an editor is clear that articlespace should not be treated in the same manner then the risk of misuse of the tools is small. I also think Froth would certainly use the tools to ''our'' advantage, within the limited scope he envisages, and thus have little concern about his response to Q1. My only remaining concern is that some of the metapedian discussion at RD, at which he contributes, is in clear violation of [[WP:NPA]]. I would hope, whether this passes or not, Froth would consider whether participating in such discussion serves the project well.
'''Support'''Q1 response fine by me. He has stuff to do & if he doesn't use the more standard tools & powers, he can't abuse them.
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse tools, and he's laid out the reasons he needs them in the nomination statement. I guess I don't understand opposing someone who may not help out with backlogs but who would like to use them while ''editing the encyclopedia''.
'''Support''' per no indication of potential for abuse and a small but real need for the tools.--
'''Support'''. I appreciate his honesty in his answer to Q1, and I feel that trust is the ultimate decision-maker in adminship. The whole "debate" around the answer as to how he intends to fulfil the role is less relevant. A school needs janitors, as well as teachers and principals, and all the roles are necessary. -- <b>
'''Strong support''' An excellent editor and contributor to Wikipedia with unique interests and strong abilities. -
'''Strong support''' In my opinion, being an admin is mostly about [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|Wikignoming]], not about attracting attention.
'''Support'''. Definitely a good admin candidate, helpful and all that. Excellent contributor at the Refdesk, where I got to know him as a Wikipedian. I thought he already was an admin, to be fair. --
'''Support''' My encounters with him have been professional and helpful, which, along with experience, are my main criteria for an administrator.  He is also honest, which, due to his answer on Q1, seems to be hurting his chances...
'''Support'''. I agree with Katalaveno. Plus, we should give him a chance.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I don't mind Q1 response. Seems a fully qualified candidate for the mop.
'''Support'''. While he would be different than most admins in the work he's doing, the work he's doing is still very valuable and does require the use of admin tools (protected moves, deletion, etc.) fairly regularly, especially now that many templates and related pages are protected. He has also indicated that he's willing to help out on occasion with standard admin chores, so I see no reason to oppose. I do not think he would abuse the twiddled bit should he receive it. ···
'''Support'''.  Seems trustworthy. --
'''Support''' Many hands make light work. Even doing a few admin things now and then will help.
'''Oppose''' - Answer to Q1 seems far from impressive.
'''Oppose''' I really hate to oppose, but when you stated you do not anticipate helping with ''any'' sysop chores I really do not see why you should then be granted the sysop status. While I am glad you help out vigorously in many "Wikignome" activities, bestowing sysop capabilities to someone who is only going to use them for their needs is not something I am comfortable with. Perhaps my view of administrators is a little askew, but someone applying for administrative status ''should'' be prepared to help out with sysop chores beyond the scope of what they normally prefer to focus on. --
'''Oppose''' I am opposing for a number of reasons. As stated above, you haven't shown that you'd make use of the tools in a way that would justify you having them. You do not need administrator tools for ''formatting and template work''. You've also stated on your user page that ''if I can ever get my mainspace count up I may try to RfA''. It seems that you find your edit count to be a a mark of your value to the Wikipedia community and I find this a little concerning. Your edit summary usage recently is too low for my liking (32% for major edits and 62% for minor edits (more usage for minor than major?!?)). Overall, I believe you do not understand the role of an administrator and this would be extremely worrying if you were promoted. '''''<font color="darkblue">
'''Oppose''' per Q1; no apparent need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' While I am sure that you would not abuse the tools, if you have a declared intention of not undertaking any sysop activities, then there seems no reason why you should have them. I do not really think that making your life easier is a valid qualification for sysop status.--
'''Oppose''' per Ozgod and Harryboyles.
'''Oppose''', obviously. Per the user's own addmission he has no actual need for the tools in order to continue to do the work he is doing now. His apathy towards helping other administators with the urgent backlog of their work and non-participation in many important elements of wikipedia process is a huge red flag for me.
'''Oppose'''. When I go more or less [[random|randomly]] looking for an administrator, a task I prefer to spread around, I don't want to stumble across one with this attitude. ''I don't anticipate helping with any sysop chores''.
''' Oppose''' per Ozgod and Harryboyles. --
'''Oppose'''. User may have his first edit in 2005, but he had around 250 edits for ''all'' of his first year here. More than half his edits come from the last 60 days. A few more months needed, IMO. -
'''Oppose'''. Give someone the tools when they probably wouldn't use them. Just one question. Why ? <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' No need for the tools. -
'''Oppose''' per Anthony.bradbury.
'''Oppose''' concerns cited cause my vote. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' don't need tools. --
'''Oppose''' Answer to Question 1 is really silly - besides demonstrating no desire to help, it calls into question candidate's communication skills.
'''Oppose''' Per answer to Question 1. User doesn't need the tools and we don't need an admin who won't be doing many sysop chores. --
'''Oppose''' answer to Q1 shows that the user doesn't need the tools.--
'''Oppose''' As mentioned by many - the answer to Q1 is the killer question. They need to read up a bit on some roles of Admin before given a change at adminship
'''Oppose''' The job requires a commitment.
'''Oppose''' : The editor seems to be doing fine '''as''' an editor; it seems he doesn't really require the tools as such, until he can think up a few really good reasons.
'''Opppose''' - While I guess that editing protected templates is a potential reason to need admin status, the answer to Q1 is part of the overall attitude of this user that I think gives me (and apparently quite a few others) pause. It's possible that this user is more than qualified and just sucks at filling out a rfa candidacy...in which case I hope to support at a later date.
'''Weak oppose''' per above. ''
'''Oppose''' actively disruptive to the Reference Desks.
'''Weak Oppose''' As stated numerous times above, shows no need for the tools, therefor admin is not required either.
'''Definite Oppose''' with the response to Q1 as the stumbling block. --S[[WP:EL|l]]g[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Oppose''', but the objections on the grounds that he won't use the tools much are silly. Someone making good use of the tools for 10 minutes a year is better than us not having those 10 minutes of contributions.  However I oppose because I'm not comfortable with this editor's acceptance of policy or his understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia.  I suspect what Hipocrite is referring to above about the ref desk is the same behavior I'm uncomfortable with- this editor seems to think Wikipedia is for general forum-like chatting.  He does not seem to care about verifiability and presents unsourced assertions as though they're appropriate content for Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Q1. --
'''Oppose''' per Friday and Sandstein.
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose''' per Question 1.  --
'''Oppose''' Question 1 tells me that you don't need tools.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (2)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Oppose'''.  Opposing per Question 1 is pretty stupid, but some of the ref desk stuff concerns me, particularly the edit saying "If you're okay with pirating, then use MS Office" - administrators should not even indirectly encourage illegal activity.
'''Oppose''' - Froth seems to me to be a good user who does not need the admin tools at this time.  I hope Froth will continue to be a valualbe editor.
'''Oppose''' Per Q1.
'''Neutral''', not ''against'' you having the tools, but Q1 doesn't push my support button either... <b>
'''Neutral''' as Deiz, admins ought to be active within the community in my opinion.
'''Neutral''' nothing worth opposing for, you're a good user, but the fact that you aren't willing to help in sysop chores means you're not going to need those tools, which are given to help the community. -
'''Neutral''' I don't see a reason to oppose your nomination, but I also don't feel comfortable supporting someone who essentially doesn't want to do anything an admin is expected to do. Trustworthiness is certainly a factor, and you're not untrustworthy, but a need for the tools is another, and I'm not convinced that you need them. On a side note, edit summary usage is not "pedantry". 32% for major edits and 62% for minor edits is extremely low. It doesn't have to be 100%, but good edit summaries are essential for collaboration. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Neutral'''. I don't violently oppose, and I certainly don't think you'll implode Wikipedia if you get the Big Red Buttons, but I do think that an admin should at least vaguely care about admin chores - at least be willing to wander by [[CAT:CSD]] once in a blue moon and hit delete. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Neutral'''. An experienced editor and there are some similarities to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Art LaPella]], but the rationale offered by Froth is much less convincing than Art's. We don't give admin buttons for your convenience, as Anthony Bradbury notes, but for the benefit of the community. How would we benefit here?
'''Neutral''', currently, but I will come back and assess again before close. Main concerns are poor use of edit summary, and general need for tools low. Cheers
'''Neutral''', Froth has done some excellent work on the Reference Desk templates and layout, and admin tools would probably make that work much easier. However, based on his contributions to the ref desk debates, and some of his contributions on the desks themselves, i think that Froth either does not understand some of the core Wikipedia policies, or chooses at times to simply ignore them. His opinion that policies such as [[WP:V]],[[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NOT]] do not really apply to reference desk is not much of a problem&mdash;there are many others who share that opinion&mdash;but is there any evidence he understands how these policies should apply to article space? Reluctantly neutral as this editor is  doing good work and has a good reason for requesting admin tools.&mdash;
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but when you yourself ''state'' that you have no need for, and no intentions of using, the sysop tools, then I have no choice but to remain neutral. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Neutral'''. '''''
'''Neutral''' You shot yourself in the foot with Q1. You're a good editor, but why do you need the tools if you don't need them. Neutral, per above.
'''Neutral'''-Any help we can get is great, but Q1 just makes me think that you being an admin won't help that us that much. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Neutral''' I trust Froth, and have found him to be intelligent. However, I believe he still needs some refinement in policy and etiquette. I want to make certain that he gains this knowledge before he enters into any admin fields. I would ask that he ''study'' policy, to become more familiar with it. Once he does that, I am certain that he will not harm the project, will not abuse the tools, and that sysophood will, in however small a way, help him, and the project. Read up Froth, and come back soon.*
'''Neutral''' Looking at this user's edits, I've seen that he sometimes lacks in the proper policy and etiquette that I think Wikipedia administrators need. I agree with Prodego in most of what he thinks about this canidate, and also I question his "need" for the tools.  It seems that froth would not really benefit from having these additional tools.  Just my opinion.  (Are non-admins allowed to vote?)
'''Neutral''' ... —
'''Neutral''' per underwhelming answer to Q1.--
'''Neutral'''. You say you want the tools yet won't really use them? Can't support then. But you seem like a good user,so I can't oppose.--
'''Neutral''' Q1 is somewhat of a dealbreaker.
'''Neutral''' He would probably do no harm with the tools. Haven't seen a Q1 answer like that before though —
'''Support'''  - The user is very experienced and has been around a long time and I believe can be trusted with the tools but his wikipedia edits is a bit too low and he needs to take part in a lot more of [[WP:AIV]] and XfD's as well but apart from that everything else is fine..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - looks like a competent user, can be trusted with the mop. Answer to q1 demonstrates a good understanding of admin tools. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' I'm impressed. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' Good editor, quite civil and their input on XfDs shows a firm grasp of policies.
'''Support''' - I feel this user is capable of handling the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' I think the tools will be in good hands. Seems like a level-headed editor to me with a good grasp of Wikipedia policies.--
'''Support''' From what I see, this user will make a great admin.
'''Support''', no good reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - no reason to suggest editor will misuse the tools.
'''Weak''' per Y, '''support''' per my trust that this user wouldn't inadvertently, let alone purposefully misuse the tools. —'''
'''Support''' Although your counts are kind of borderline for me personally, I see no other reason to oppose. I look forward to your good work.

'''Support''' Answers to questions satisfy my curiosity regarding policy knowledge, seems level-headed enough to handle the responsibility.
'''Support''' Like ths guy's contributions, good plans for the future, honest, wants to clean up the wiki, you got my vote. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Weak support''' - shows a good edit history thusfar (sufficient experience in project namespace, particularly XfD), but I'm concerned about the lack of civility expressed [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fyre2387#civ|here]]. <b>
'''Oppose''', answers to questions don't quite do it for me. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose''' I know this will sound like I'm trying to get back at your nominator but frankly, accepting a nomination from someone who had just left this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pascal.Tesson&diff=prev&oldid=136357501 nice addition] to my user page is not showing great judgment.
Insufficient projecspace participation to gauge familiarity with the relevant policies. Nor do the less than stellar answers inspire confidence. If you do not pass, please try again after you gain some more experience in administrative areas. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' switched from support, per Pascal, and from your answers you seem to not fully grasp policy here at Wikipedia. '''
'''Oppose''' Just too little overall experience for me to support.  Get some work done in various areas around the project, and try again a few months from now.
<span id="civ" />'''Oppose based on contributions'''. Fyre2387 is clearly doing some diligent cleanup work, but he lets it get to him too much and doesn't seem to maintain civility while doing it. I found these edit summaries: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_of_the_Fire_Nation&diff=prev&oldid=119523373 "Think, will you?"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender&diff=119556131&oldid=119555870 "Idiot."], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Water_Tribe&diff=prev&oldid=119521540 "What the crap?"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=133000523 "ffs"], and the list goes on. Civility is very important in an admin, so I think Fyre2387 just needs more practice at keeping a cool head.
'''Oppose''' per Pascal and Rspeers. Civility is of paramount importance for an administrator. A few months diffs of level-headness and you will be ready for the extra tools. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
The above is far too worrying for me to give the tools. We don't need condescending admins. '''
'''Oppose''' I cannot tolerate incivility. Learn to vent elsewhere, not in edit summaries or anywhere else here.
'''Oppose''' Apparently I was wrong when I assumed that the civility issue was addressed after your editor review. The examples given above are too many and too recent to ignore. Sorry. -
'''Oppose''' For administrators (IMO) civility is just as important as experience, if not more so. Incivility cannot be tolerated. --
'''Oppose''' The large number of uncivil edit summaries suggest that at present this user lacks the temperament needed for an admin to be able to relate satisfactorily with his co-editors.--
He has done a lot of great work but the repeat civility issues bother me.--
I have absolutely no reason to oppose giving the tools to this candidate. I believe we should give the tools fairly liberally. Although things would work better if there were a process called Requests for De-adminship to remove the tools from people who use them to do vandalism and the like, and this process doesn't exist yet, I still think it's less harmful to Wikipedia to give the tools without requiring outstanding moral standards and edit quality and high edit count. Just not being a vandal is enough.
Meh! Let's see where this goes! '''Support''' :) Also, A.Z. Makes a good point about not being a vandal... --
All of his Wikipedia-space contributions are to this page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=gagueci&namespace=4&year=&month=-1]). Also, you can help get articles to FA status ''without'' the mop. Get some experience at [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AIV]], and [[WP:UAA]] and I'll be happy to support. But, for now, '''Oppose'''. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' - I see no indication that this user has the experience necessary of an editor. Gagueci, most of the editors who become administrators have been around for at least five or six months, are known around the community, and have a subtle understanding of our various policies, guidelines, and norms. It doesn't seem that you have those yet. If you try again in a number of months, having become acquainted with Wikipedia, then you will have a good chance to become an administrator.
Please withdraw this.  No project space participation, tools aren't needed for FA (q1 answer).  No way of knowing what this user will do as an admin.
'''Oppose''', I appriciate that this makes RfA not empty, but still, the lack of any projectspace edits means that I don't know how you would handle XfDs an the like.
'''No''' ...project space edits, and little comprehension of tools from what I can see. Please withdraw and try at a later date. -- <strong>
'''Oppose and Withdraw''' - Please withdraw this. You only have 200 edits, and none are to the project space. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''', Severe lack of meta-type participation prevents a review of how you would function as an administrator. —
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl or snowball close''' Obviously won't pass, and RFA is not a place to give people advice. [[WP:ER|Editor Review]] and [[WP:ADMINCOACH|Admin coaching]] are that way --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
Suggest withdrawal. Most certainly not ready yet, and to nominate yourself at such an early stage in your editing time suggests both inexperience and doubtful decision-making/Clue. '''
'''Neutral''': It looks to me like you just started editing again about two weeks ago after a fairly long hiatus. That makes it a bit hard for us to see anything that would show us you're ready for adminship. I also don't see too much maintenance work on the encyclopedia: maybe some vandal fighting and work on deletion processes ([[WP:AFD]] work, for example) could be good?
'''Avoiding pile on''' - you have only [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=gagueci&site=en.wikipedia.org 48 edits in the last year].  Admins are generally more active. What you've done is good work and there's nothing wrong with it ... it's just that admin tools aren't generally given out to someone until there is a sufficient body of evidence to get to know you. --
Seems like a good user, good article writer, but can't comment on his metaspace non-DYK contributions due to Tool1 being down. Nevertheless, '''support''' '''
'''Support''': I agree. Definitely seems like a good user who would use the tools effectively. <font color="darkred">
Absolutely. I've encountered this editor in various places, and I've always been impressed.
'''Support'''. Seems like a sensible, level-headed editor. --
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Gatoclass is a prolific 'pedia builder, a thoroughly competent, kind, intelligent, reasonable editor, etc.  The opposes are somewhat unhelpful Orwellian semantics, as many admins obviously ''do'' use the tools as discipline, and Gatoclass has expressed an explicit desire ''not to do that''.  I strongly urge the opposes to reconsider. --
Strong support per JayHenry's analysis both of the candidate and of the justification of the opposes below. '''
'''Support''' Should make an effective admin. -
I don't understand the big deal over discipline. Punishment is only a part of discipline - not the whole. Truth is, we need more self-discipline. I think this editor has proved his ability to handle the tools and should be given the opportunity -
'''Support''' based on his extensive contributions as listed here and on his userpage.  I think the opposers misunderstood his intent: he said he was not interested in using blocks to discipline users.  As a practical matter, I don't think he'll block anybody who's not supposed to get blocked.
'''Support;''' I think what he meant in A1 was he ''wouldn't'' discipline other editors, and only would in the form of a block. Blocks are preventative, but they are basically punishment, whatever anyone says. '''<font color="red">
'''Support.''' I find this user's answers to be satisfactory.
'''Support''' - I am reassured after reading the clarified answer to Q1 and have no doubts at all. It is clearly the user's intention to not use the block button, but he does acknowledge that he would be in possession of the tool. That's good enough for me. -'''
'''Weak support''' Not a lot of recent deletion related work, but otherwise a good candidate. <font face="Broadway">
'''change to support.''' Clarification answer 5 to uncertainty answer 1. (dlohcierekim at work using alternate account).
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''.  User says they may use their tools to discipline other users, when in reality, [[WP:BLOCK|blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users]].  I did ask the user to clarify however, and am prepared to change my opinion if it is properly explained.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Oppose''' as per Malinaccier. I would change my opinion if the answer was clarified, but I wouldn't support anybody without a clear understanding of [[WP:BLOCK]]. <font face="lucida calligraphy">[[User talk:Auroranorth|Auroranorth]]</font> (
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry, but I've worked with you on a number of issues at WP:SHIPS, and I feel that you don't compromise or seek consensus well.  The impression I get from you is "I hold my views for these logical reasons, and therefore there is no other reasonable view."  I also share Malinaccier's misgivings about your answers.
'''Oppose''' <s>after being neutral, but offering to change if answer to Q1 is explained, I switched to oppose when nothing changed on Q1.</s>
'''Strong Support''': I've had the pleasure of observing the work of this individual, and he has always shown great diligence in the tasks he takes care of. He'd be a great administrator. '''
'''Support'''.  Seen him on [[WP:AFD|AFD]], and liked what I've seen there.  Wouldn't it be nice for someone who adds so many {prods} to have the chance to clean it all up as well?  I trust him with the tools, and as we all know ''Adminship is not a big deal''.  --
'''Strong support''' as nominator.  Gay Cdn does a ton of great work now with some of the backlogs.  Take a look at that administrative backlogs - we need more administrators with experience in this area.  He would be a valuable asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --
'''Support.''' Writing articles has nothing to do with adminship - dealing consistently with hundreds of problem images does. It sounds like this user will be a great asset to the admin ranks.
With regards to the comments in the oppose section, the scope of his editing is not what we should be judging; it is his capability to carry out the things listed in q1 that we should be judging. And he looks capable, so '''support'''.
'''Weak Support''' Good user, but needs to step it up in article contributions. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' In my dealing with this user thru IFD, I fully trust them with the mop. --
'''Support'''. I'm not so fussed about article-writing given that he shows a need for the tools. I would be more hesitant if there was some evidence of true deletionism, but tagging lots of speedy deletions is not inherently deletionist. —
'''Support''' Good work. [[WP:IFD]] and [[WP:AFD]] surely need more admins.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support.'''  I can edit count with the best of them, but I also recognize where some users provide needed contributions in narrow areas that would benefit from the admin bit.  The focus on dealing with the large backlog in images is certainly one of those areas.  His discretion between tagging items with [[WP:PROD|PROD]] or speedy tags shows an understanding of the relevant policies.  Frankly, although I haven't interacted with this editor before, this is '''''exactly''''' the type of admin we need more of.  Not every admin needs to participate in all areas.  Give him a mop. —
'''Support''' article writing is not a part of admin work, dealing with the stuff you do is. Good luck
'''Support''' per Husond. <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support'''. This user concentrates on the tasks he does best, and I see no evidence that he is not qualified to be trusted with tools. -
'''Support''', will make an excellent admin. —

'''Support''', seen his IFD stuff from time to time, and it always seems sensible.  And I usually trust Angr's judgement.
'''Support''' I like your answers.  I also like your edit count.  You seem determined and willing to go the extra mile (even though you forgot to sign your acceptance). I also trust BigDT's judgment.  Best of luck. '''
'''Support'''.''irony mode on:''....if you pledge to help to bring down the image backlogs ''irony mode off'';
Willing and able to put his nose to the grindstone, concerns raised below are trivial or counterfactual.
'''Support''', nothing but positive experiences with this caring user. I also trust his judgment more than I trust that of many of the other people who tag IFDs.
'''Support''' - someone with over 13000 edits, strong experience of policy, active participation in AfDs, prods etc? How can anyone ''not'' vote Support on this RfA? All of the criticisms given by opposers, so far, are downright trivial and petty.
'''Support''' - most admins don't help out with the image backlogs, so there is a strong need for people in this area. 100,000 images are not going to tag and delete themselves and bots can only do so much.
'''Support''' - We don't need admins to write impressive articles, take nice photos, or participate in AfD; regular users can do that. We need admins to do the tedious stuff that he's willing to do. There's nothing wrong with a specialist.
'''Support''': I'm willing to support the nominee. I had certainly noticed the candidate in the first few months since the account was created, it doesn't surprise me to now see this nomination. I agree that the low number of mainspace edits may be of some concern, but on considering all the circumstances, I think the nominee's overall contribution demonstrates that the candidate is trustworthy and will use the tools properly.
'''Support''' per nom and ''there's nothing wrong with a specialist.'' Nothing left to add to that.—
'''Support'''. I have no problem with a specialist becoming an admin, as long as they promise to use their powers mainly in their "home" area. I see no reason to question that here. People should to contribute how they best see fit.
'''Support''' I would prefer more article writing but as far as I can tell the user is trustworthy, won't abuse the tools and won't use them outside his narrow domain. Within his domain the user has  a large amount of experience and so far has been using tags fine.
'''Support'''.  Article writing is a plus but not a litmus test.  Gay Cdn seems trustworthy and wants to work on a backlogged area. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Support''', focused editor would make focused admin, I have much trust in nominator and see no real reason to oppose Gay Cdn, after all, this is no big deal, right?
-- I don't see how a lack of article writing should have anything to do with whether someone is made an administrator or not. Sysop abilities have ''nothing'' to do with article writing. In fact, this user would probably make more use of sysop tools than someone who spends more of their time writing articles. Neither does edit count have anything to do with whether someone should be given sysop. RfAs are meant to be about whether someone can be ''trusted'' with the tools, and this user obviously can. I do not believe that this user being given the tools would detract anything from Wikipedia, and so I obviously '''support'''. <small>Anyone else find the tradition of bolding opinions rather strange? Oh well.</small> --
'''Support''' -- based on BigDT's comments below[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gay_Cdn&diff=106299837&oldid=106289321] about his extensive experience working with Gay Cdn on IfD. --
'''Support''', we could need an image specialist as an admin. Can't see any evidence that tools will be abused.
Gnomes tend to make good admins. We should not ''a priori'' assume he's going to abuse anything since there's no evidence of that at all.
'''Support''' based on his experience in the deletion process.
e'''Support'''- an excellent editor, good username also
'''Support'''. I do not understand the oppose votes - this is about adminship and not an competition to select a new renaissance genius. Without GayCdn IfD would be moribund. If that's not enough I can't imagine what kind of miracle is expected from a would-be admin.
'''Support''' per Doug Bell and Christopher Parham, albeit without much enthusiasm for the reasons noted by Blnguyen (and Jeff); there's nothing wrong with specialisation and, per Q1, the candidate proposes to stick largely to their speciality. Still, all IFD and no article writing makes even the Gayest Cdn a dull editor. Try adding a bit of variety.
'''Weak Support''' - I'm not going to oppose because the % in mainspace edits is low, but focus on the actual number itself. It could still be better, but I don't take that as an indicator that I won't be able to trust him/her with admin tools.
'''Strong support''' [[User:Gay Cdn|Gay Cdn]] work at [[WP:IFD]] is greatly appreciated. He has tagged many orphan, unencyclopedic and incorrectly tagged images for deletion. I believe his work is fair and even-handed and his discussions on the deletions are intelligent and civil. We can sure use more help on keeping up with all the non-sourced, non-copyright tagged, orphan and/or encyclopedic images that come in every day and I believe Gay Cdn would be an asset in that area. -
'''Strong support''' I've seen this user at [[WP:IFD]] regularly and I'd defiitely trust him with the mop, the user always seems to be polite and [[WP:CIVIL|Civil]].
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why The Hell Not?]]
'''Support''' as per [[user:.V.]]
'''Support'''. Trustworthy contributor. He will no doubt do good work on the various backlogs, allowing others who want to develop mainspace conent to have more time to do so. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and his contributions seem to have been valuable. Adminship is no big deal. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' sorry, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Gay_Cdn&namespace=0] speaks volumes to me- the only interest taken in articles is to delete them, or put tags on them and Wikipedia is already flooded in tags.  I've deleted hundreds of articles myself, but constructing articles is important.
'''Oppose'''. 2300 edits in "main" space, if one includes images; only 600ish edits of actual articles. Only uploaded 2 images that I can easily see. Not enough expereince dealing with what most editors have to deal with all the time, including working on controversial articles and attempting to obtain quality images which meet Wikipedia's rather difficult and overly-narrowly interpreted requirements. GayCdn does seem to reasonable about his IfD nominations, and willing to discuss reasonably, which puts him ahead of many WP deletionists. Spend some time editing articles and finding images for them, and I'll support later. '''
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar, good np patroler, lack of article writing, the answer for number 2 is very poor.
Oppose. --
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of article writing, and lack of RC patrol, which is even more important than NP patrol (any new articles are logged on RC, in case you are wondering). That besides, I don't (pardon me) appreciate your answer to q2. You don't seem very apologetic about your lack of article writing; if you were, I might have considered a support. ''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but 6% mainspace edits (and 600 odd not particularly big ones) combined with Q2 is not satisfactory. '''
'''Massive disapproval!''' — I've seen your rude attitude first hand. I've also seen you wade through peoples upload logs applying tags (in some cases that are not even appropriate). You show little knowledge of our actual fair use policies, You also (not long ago) tagged an image to which I did not upload, however, you saw fit to notify me. I also believe your name to be inappropriate still . Also your lack of contributions worries me, remember "adminship is no big deal" at present I can't see a reason as to why you'd need the tools, you do fine at present without them. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q2, especially the only article you mention isn't very well sourced. Also, only 55 talk page edits appears to indicate a lack of consensus building and dispute resolution.
'''Oppose''' per many of the comments already stated, but unarguably lack of talk page edits (essential for an admin) and arguably all-too-apparent preference for deletion over ''building'' an encyclopedia ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Gay_Cdn&namespace=0]). --
'''Oppose'''.  It's become increasingly clear to me that the worst administrators are the ones that do not actually write articles.  Thus, I can't support you at this time. --
'''Oppose''' I don't have a big hang-up about candidates who focus on administrative tasks instead of article writing, because admins have to focus on administrative tasks, but if your proudest accomplishment is deleting articles, you should get a more diverse experience.--
'''Oppose'''.  Firstly, I see nothing wrong with Gay Cdn's username--it may mean "gay" as in homosexual or as in happy, but I don't see it being inappropriate in either case.  Secondly, if anything, I think the justified deletion (including speedy) of images is a plus.  However, and thirdly, having <700 mainspace article edits also makes me reluctant to support (although the number of edits in only 7 months is impressive).  I think admins should know through extensive firsthand experience the process of working on and creating articles, verifying sources, building consensus, etc.  Finally, the explicit partisan identification on the userpage bothers me.  It can be hard(er) to trust an admin if he or she specifically identifies as a deletionist or inclusionist.  If you remove that explicit identification and work more to contribute content to articles, I will likely support you in a future RFA.  Sorry, no hard feelings I hope.
'''Oppose''' per insane proportion of User Talk edits (compared to Main) --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Yuser31415|Yuser31415]], and others.  I know writing articles is not a requirement to be an admin, but it is at the heart of what we do here, and understanding that process first-hand matters. Try your hand at composition, and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose, no hard feelings''' -[[User:Yuser31415|Yuser31415]] hit what I was thinking on the nail. Adminship does not hang on article writing alone, its about the tools and wether he/she needs/can be trusted with them; however Wikipedia is ''Wikipedia'', and I have a much higher regard for someone who actively makes it better on the front side. Visitors to the wiki looking for information will not notice the blocks, warnings, and cogs in the background; they will notice the ''content.''
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar and Jaranda.
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCeasar's brief by to-the-point summary.  Writing and heavily contributing articles demonstrates talent and intense interest in presenting information.  Right now, this editor has mostly demonstrated the opposite.  Contributions is one thing, but spending most of their time maintenence tagging images and articles, prodding and nominating for AfD aren't really showing administrator skills.--
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar.
'''Oppose''' lack of user talk edits at only 55 (discounting the image warnings which are greatly in the majority) shows a lack of interaction with the comminity, a skill that admins need and the answer to question 2 is not satisfactory. Improve on communication, article creation, mainspace edits, some RC patrol and try again in a few months.--
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace edits.

'''Oppose'''. < 700 mainspace+article talk out of ''8000+ edits''? I don't normally oppose for numerical reasons, but I'd sentimentally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHephaestos&diff=87890401&oldid=86651971#To_any_further_stupid-ass_image_deletion_bots prefer admins with article and dispute experience] to those who basically just delete things.
'''Weak Oppose''', improve your article-writing game and try RfA again at a later date. I mean, except for one 20-edit article, you really haven't worked on anything...--
'''Oppose''' The lack of talk page edits is a major concern here. Do not be discouraged because of this and improve the scope of your edits. Then try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Opppse''' per [[CanadianCaesar]] and [[Yusar31415]] You are not admin material [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Please pick an article that interests you and help construct it. Whether you agree with it or not, merely finding articles or images to delete is not going to get you adminship.
'''Oppose''' Your are not admin material --
'''Opppose''' The only article this user wrote, [[Foundation for Equal Families]], shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He filed a [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive 2#Foundation for Equal Families|request for feedback]] on the article, but does not appear to have addressed the concerns raised there. --
'''Oppose''' Does not demonstrate proper concern about assuring full and complete process for editors whose work is subject to deletion.
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]].
'''Weak Oppose'''. While it is quite possible you could do well as an admin in your area of interest (deleting images), the rather low amount of experience in writing of articles is going to make me oppose unfortunately. Admin tools have a broad range of application, so I'd like to see that an admin has had a broader range of experience than the average user rather than less.
'''Oppose''' per Caesar and Fenton.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Due to lack of content development experience.  I believe a candidate should have extensive article writing experience to understand the challenges of the task when making admin decisions to use the tools.
'''Oppose''' per Quadzilla.
'''Neutral''' The user would be be quite useful in dealing with image backlogs and such, but I still feel a bit worried about the low mainspace-edit count. An admin doesn't just deal with deletions and such; they also deal with dispute resolution and try to help other users with problems. The lack of mainspace edits seems to show that this user is not entirely experienced with article editing, and may not be able to help other users in times of need, as said in the previous sentence. '''
'''Neutral''' I have seen him around before and think he is a good editor, but his mainspace contributions are very low (and no other compelling reason to support). '''
'''Neutral'''. I think he could assist with the image backlog, but I can't support due to the very low mainspace experience. I've looked through his mainspace contributions for the last 5 months or so and I could only find a handful that weren't minor or deletion related.
'''Neutral''' basically per Nishkid. You look like a dedicated user though. I would gladly support in a future RfA if you have some articles in your pocket by then. Good luck. -
'''Neutral''' A bit worried from some of the above comments, and i've found that disproportionate edit tallies can be indicative of somewhat overbearing behavior, and I haven't been dissuaded of that here, but i'm not sure enough to oppose yet either.
'''Neutral''', not this time. I would glad to see your next RfA with more mainspace edits.
I'm sorry, but you've only truly been active since October; before then, you had 98 edits in 21 months. You need to be active more consistently. I'd recommend withdrawing this RfA, as it is unlikely to pass. (I'd do it myself, but I as a rule don't close completely un-commented on RfAs, and I thought some advice would be better than just closing it). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose'''. User has less than 500 edits, gave less than stellar answers to the questions, and generally has not explained very well why he would even NEED the tools of adminship. If not withdrawn, I recommend closing this RfA per [[WP:SNOW]].
There is nothing that leads me to believe he will abuse the tools, but his grammar is...bad, and the answers to the questions are weak. In question one he does not show any need for the tools. Sorry.--
Looks like good work from a reliable editor
'''Oppose''' No matter how you can argue, 114 edits is way, way too low for me. Edit summary usage is a dismaying 2%. Carelessness such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gizwidget&diff=prev&oldid=105510810 this] doesn't bode well for me either. Please withdraw before you get [[WP:SNOW|snowed under]]. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose'''. Even if we [[WP:AGF|assume that your brother really did get on]], I can not in good conscience even ''think'' of giving admin tools to someone who does not protect their password well enough to prevent irresponsible little brothers from getting on. Irresponsible little brothers with a delete button can cause a decent amount of damage before a steward can desysop, and that's assuming that they aren't trying to cause disruption. -
'''Oppose''' per above, and because of the truly baffling answer to Q1... You've taken part in ''many'' deletion debates? Your contributions show no contributions whatsoever to deletion debates.
'''Neutral''', and suggest that the nomination be withdrawn and refiled after more experience (and less displays of carelessness).
'''Moral Support''' - You should consider self-withdrawing and coming back in 6 to 12 monthes if at that time you feel you need admin tools. --
'''Strong oppose''' - Um, I knew something was wrong with this one. ''Good intention'', but 304 edit count with 11% edit summary usage for major edits and lack of minor edits will not work. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Weak "moral support in denial" oppose and suggest withdrawal'''. You mean well, but you onyl have 300 edits and no AfD or XfD experience. I like that you're doing RPP already though, but just keep working on what you're dog and try again down the road when more experienced. You do have very good answers though and you genuinely seem to want to be an admin.--
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightstallion&diff=prev&oldid=100526596], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANightstallion&diff=101274665&oldid=101233473].  Anyone is free to edit any article in good faith, regardless of whether they hail from the country/region/city that the article is about. --
'''Automatic Oppose''' per lack of edits. Please withdraw.
'''Strong oppose''' per the difs supplied by [[User:BigDT|BigDT]]. This editor's purpose in seeking the tools is clearly to edit an article validly blocked by a present sysop. The violations of [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:OWN]] speak for themselves.
'''Strong Oppose''' again per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nightstallion&diff=prev&oldid=100526596], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANightstallion&diff=101274665&oldid=101233473]. Severe problems with [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:OWN]] and too little experience otherwise. Suggest withdrawal. '''
'''Oppose'''. Due to general lack of experience. And due to the comments noted by BigDT, which demonstrate an unacceptable lack of civility towards other editors, and an attempt to claim personal ownership over certain articles which goes strongly against the spirit and community guidelines of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' No comment. ←
'''Oppose''', per the diffs provided by BigDT. Also, this candidate lacks of experience, civility problems, trying to claim ownership of articles and not time yet. This is not following the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia, suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' per the above, especially for violations of [[WP:OWN]].  You need to hang out some more and better understand the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia.  After that, there's no reason not to re-apply.
'''Oppose for Now''' You're off to a great start and already seem to have a firm grip on editing.  As far as I'm concerned you're destined for adminship...just not yet.  Rack up some more experience and come back in a few months. '''
'''Too Early''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco_mayoral_election%2C_2007&diff=100526114&oldid=100418722 this edit summary], please learn our policies, such as [[WP:OWN]] and naming conventions.
Please withdraw. Neutral to avoid pileon. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - in an effort to encourage you to read my comments on your talk page and take friendly advice. --
'''Neutral''': I suggest withdrawal. Good intentions, but come back after you have more experience and edits. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''No''', for a variety of reasons. Firstly, you have been here less than three months. Second, you have accumulated only around 1000 edits, and while I don't like to count edits, I'd like to see some more contributions to properly judge you by. Thirdly, you are currently requesting adminship, rather than bureaucratship, as you mistakenly indicated in your nomination statement. Lastly, your answer to question one does not particularly inspire me, as you can do three of four of those things without the admin bit. I'm sorry, but you appear to be doing a good job, and I hope that you will not be discouraged and will reapply in a few months time should this fail. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''', per -- <strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkRed">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]], just generalized lack of experience. Your intentions are certainly positive though - Stick it out on Wikipedia for 6 more months or so, and then come right back here.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.  Like Anonymous Dissident, I find the answer to the first question to be underwhelming.  I suggest withdrawing your nomination and trying again in a few months. Also, I suggest fixing your signature.  Your signature is spelled similarly to your username but I think the slight deviation from your username may be slightly confusing for some users.
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. Your lack of experience is also a major concern here as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sry, '''Oppose'''. Goodshoped, I appreciate your enthusiansm, but you have to admit that you still have to learn a lot about rules, guidelines, and the inner working of WP. I see you have less than 50 contribs to talk pages, and those weren't exactly about solving hotly controversial issues. Your answers to the questions show that your understanding about admin tasks still has to develop further (hint: you donm't need to be an admin to welcomenew users). Obviously, you need more experience. Don't feel disencouraged, you're on the right track, and we would like to see your RfA again next year. Ok?
'''Strong Oppose''' - No-way. I suggest you withdraw, seriously. There is very, very little experience gathered here and you've only been active for less than 3 months. A big no. Go out there and get some real experience, get an admin coach, withdraw this and try again in a few months. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose, a healthy user who can fight vandals from using WP for bad purposes.
'''Support'''. I do believe there is improvement necessary, but you're human - so you will make mistakes (like we all do). I'm going to support this, as you do help out a lot and, I don't think you deserve a pile on oppose, even though this is not going to succeed. Keep up the good work, —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
I don't think you are ready. Your last RFA was a month ago. Also, I am not particularly pleased with number 2. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but waiting only a month suggests a rather inappropriate want for the tools, especially since the user was told point blank by several users to wait several months before running again. I also agree with Useight below; this user has really had barely more than a month of good, positive work here. The answer to Q#1 is particularly unsatisfactory, the statement "I would delete any spam pages '''on the spot''', whether nominated or not. (I think?)" suggests that the user is unfamiliar with CSD policy. To be honest, this user's entire approach to WP really suggests a high amount of immaturity, particularly all the needless junk on the talk page and the ridiculous number of subpages. I wasn't impressed with [[User talk:GlassCobra/Archive 4#Reply to Annoying Blue Message|my interaction]] with this user over a rather annoying blue message bar that they had on their user page. This user may have good intentions, but I simply cannot support in good faith at this time.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  A vast majority of your edits have been in the past 5 weeks, I'd like to see a longer time to gain experience.  I also want to see more work in the Mainspace, it's the whole reason why we're here.  However, you do a lot of communicating with other editors, which is great.  And your work in the Wikipedia namespace is good, too.  Overall, a couple more months and some more work in the mainspace, and you have my full support.
'''Oppose''': Per the comments of [[User:GlassCobra]].  Wait a while, more than a month or two.  Keep working on the vandal patrol, but why not do some other stuff too?  -
Sorry Goodshoped, but I don't think you're quite ready ret. However, return in a few months with a better understanding of adminship and what it entails, and we'll see what happens.
'''Oppose''' Editor not ready for the tools.  Unimpressive answers to questions, only a month since last RFA, and per GlassCobra.
Strong oppose, a combination of less-than-convincing answers to the questions, a heavy focus on editountis, a failure to demonstrate through editing or nomination process that this user can make educated decisions for themselves (I reference the use of automated and semi-automated tools) and with it a lack of encyclopedic contribution, and an overall impression that this user has a deficiency in maturity at this stage which would make them a poor administrator. '''
'''Oppose'''  You can't nominate yourself a mere month after a clearly failed RfA. Merely by doing so you show you're not ready.
'''Oppose''' per all above, sorry -'''
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but there are simply far too many concerns for me to be able to trust you'd use the tools with wisdom. Aside from the answers to the questions, a number of things came up when I reviewed your recent edits. I realize at this point, it may seem to be me piling another "oppose" opinion, but I hope that you can benefit from learning from things that are pointed out to you, and I hope you will take this comment as a list of things to work on. While how you arrange your talk page is your choice, you have over 16 banners there, and that seems not only unnecessary, but highly visually disruptive to anyone wanting to leave you a message, as they are quite unlikely to read through them all, and it suggests a level of immaturity I'd rather not see in an administrator, particularly the banner that reads: "''If you are here to get anal over a mistake I made that I admitted to, well, I'll just say that Admiral Kirk knows very well how I would feel''". I do not believe that you have sufficient understanding of the guidelines, and policies. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Goodshoped35110s&oldid=172861600#Vandalism_reporting_to_WP:AIV This recent comment] about your reports to AIV, further indicates that you don't have the knowledge of how the system works that would indicate you would make a good administrator at this point. I also think you jumped in to fighting vandalism without a good grasp of the basics, and a bureaucrat has [[User_talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive_3#Lay_off_it|expressed concern]] over your methods, as well, only a month ago. Another thing that concerns me is the [[User:Goodshoped35110s/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Streets of San Francisco|creation]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gp75motorsports/WikiProject_AccInsure&action=history of] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit&oldid=172844348#Help.21 projects], along with your friend [[User:Gp75motorsports]], that either are redundant, or possibly unnecessary. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Independent_Sockpuppet_Investigations&action=history This category] seems a bit unnecessary, as well, and while many editors may have a subpage to place SSP notes, I'm not sure that they all need to be categorized, because [[WP:SSP]] exists for a reason, to document the issue officially. This category, to me at least, seems a bit presumptuous, and I am concerned this could lead to problems in the future. [[User_talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive_7#Speedy_deletion_of_Category:RickK_Fans|Previous]] categories created that have been deleted, [[User_talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive_6#Re._I_think_you_may_want...|this]] comment, where you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.237.171.210&diff=next&oldid=167103123 warned] an editor for blanking their own talk page, further shows you do not understand policy. It is perfectly acceptable for any editor to remove comments from their talk page, and it is an indication that the notice has been read. The only time warnings should remain is in the case of Shared IPs, because the header is important, and the warnings serve as a record of the shared IP activity. Honestly, there are just far too many recent issues for me to even list them all, but your improper use of the {{t1|helpme}} template [[User_talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive_6#helpme|recently]] (to ask someone to translate an edit made to your userpage), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.250.215.30&diff=167737079&oldid=167736810 this] kind of thing, [[User_talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive_8#WP:CIVIL|this]] concern by another editor about your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Spencer_Hawk&diff=168868155&oldid=168840381 civility] on November 3, [[User_talk:Goodshoped35110s/Archive_10#Personal_attack.3F|this]] conversation, and finally, [[User:FisherQueen/Archive14#Um.2C_you_know_what...|this]]. All these add up, and are only scratching the surface of my going through your edits. I do hope you will see this as constructive criticism, but you simply are not ready to be an administrator at this point. I think you should concentrate more on actually editing articles, improving content, less about organizing "meetings", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arichnad&diff=prev&oldid=172838035 "briefings"], and clubs and projects, and learn some of the basics, which come by writing, and editing articles. I'm sure if you do that for a while, and take it easy on the vandalism fighting so you're not biting newcomers so often, once you get a firm grasp of policy and guidelines, you'll do much better. Best of luck to you, <small>
'''No''' - for a variety of reasons. Firstly, you have not been around for 2 years, but rather 3 months (at least on this account). Secondly, I feel your answer to the first question shows lack of understanding of the role of sysop. Thirdly, Wikipedia adminship is [[WP:ANOT#TROPHY|not a trophy]]; this comment made by you above in your acceptance statement evidences your belief of the contrary: "I, Gp75Motorsports, hereby nominate myself to join the elite of online editors, Wikipedia Administrators." I am afraid you are just too new here, and inexperienced. With less than 200 edits, you have made only 36 mainspace contributions, but almost twice as many Wikipedia space edits. Please do not be discouraged, and come back in a few months when you are more experienced in all areas of Wikipedia. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - "I will delete anything that may in any way deface an article or cause any discomfort to fellow Wikipedians" is pretty much the ''opposite'' of what an admin should be. As is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSPCMDCON.SYS&diff=159361846&oldid=159284330 "I've added those details. I'll probavbly need someone to verify them and see if they're true"]. Sorry.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''.  Answers to questions don't show understanding of admin role.  Not nearly enough experience in the form of editing (only 176 total edits at the time of this writing).  I recommend you withdraw this RFA, wait a few more months to gain valuable experience, and make sure to always use edit summaries (it allows other editors to better gauge what you are doing).  Don't be discouraged by this RFA, your contributions are valued and if you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to contact me any time on my [[User talk:Useight|talk page]].
'''Strong support''' strong opinions, nice answer to Q4, and should be useful esp on tricky policy issues,
Already, wasn't, you know the rest. --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor who will make a great admin. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Definitely''' a nice guy, should be good. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
Gracenotes is an excellent contributor, a funny and genial collaborator and a great guy who will make a great admin. :-) --
'''Strong support''' as nom - best of luck squire!
'''Support'''&mdash;at the risk of sounding cliché, I was under the genuine impression this user was an [[WP:SYSOP|sysop]] already; nevertheless, Gracenote's contributions speak for themselves, and I have every confidence in him and I hope the community thinks likewise ... oh, and I suppose the icing on the cake is such a trustworthy nominator <tt>;-)</tt> good luck ~
'''Support''' - Gracenotes is an excellent contributor and would make a really good Admin..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Support''' had interactions with him before and he seemed like admin quality for sure. Let's give him a mop. —
'''Support''' I reviewed his contributions over the past month and am impressed with the range and civility of the edits. Would be an asset. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Support''' This user is in my Top 3 non-admins who should be... hopefully not for much longer.
'''Support''' per nom and what I witnessed from this user. Seems pretty much alright. —'''
'''Support''', won't abuse tools. Has TONS of experience on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia could benefit from him editing protected templates (like Ryan said). '''''
'''Support''' I seem to recall I had a bad interaction at one point in time, but I can't find anything wrong with him as an admin. Actually thought he already was one.
'''Support''' I don't foresee any significant problems with this editor using the admin tools.
<s>Oppose, confused the hell out of me while trying to get me to edit a protected template for him</s> Support, of course.
'''Absolute Support''' for him! Great editor. Definitely deserves it. ~[[User:EdBoy002|Ed]]
'''Yow!''' (aka '''support'''). Done deal for me, good job, good luck.
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support''' Gracenotes isn't already an administrator?! :O
'''Support'''-Great user, great edits (and now he can make all those protected templates better without having to ask someone to do it for him). --
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' - good candidate with an excellent track record. Go for it! -
'''Support'''-Seems like a great user.
'''Support:''' I've seen this user on #vandalism-en-wp. He could use the tools. '''<span style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="#229922">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.  With respect to gaillimh, I'll point out that April Fool's Day has confused more than its share of fine admins over the years.  Unfortunately, this place just enters the Twilight Zone for those 24 hours. :)
'''Support''' Impressive record.
'''Support''' Now that I see you're the "good one" (see comments below)...just kidding. &mdash;'''
'''Strong support''' I should have watchlisted the page.  Gracenotes has been reasonable in discussions and accurate in AIV reports. <font face="monospace">
'''Support'''This user's broad experience and work with templates is impressive. His willingness to assist others seems well documented.
'''Support'''.  My experience with Gracenotes has been the exact opposite from Gaillimh's.  I've seen Gracenotes display good skills, good reasoning and a good sense of humor.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Amazing grace!''' The [[Wikipedia|earth]] shall soon dissolve like [[WP:SNOW|snow]], the [[WP:PAG|sun]] forbear to [[WP:IAR|shine]], but [[User:Jimbo Wales|God]] who call'd me [[WP:ADMIN|here]] below, will be forever mine. --
'''RfA clique #1''' [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' This user is patient with others and would be fair towards others. '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
'''Support''', This user meets my criteria. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' for my favourite janitor, hoping that he will be one of the additions that the admin team desperatly seems to need. Be as little an admin as you can :D --
'''Strong Support''', A great editor who will use the new tools wisely. --
'''Support''' I like what I see.
'''Support''' - very active editor who consistently finds useful areas in which to involve themselves.
'''Support''' I know this user, he has strong technical expertise and good experience.
'''Support''' An excellent candidate for the mop. <font color="maroon">
Changing From '''Support''' to '''strong support''' in light of this debate. I'm echoing [[User:Oleg Alexandrov]]'s comments below on the BADSITES issue, which definitely do raise concern about the issue of online censorship, which is all this "policy" would become if it went too far. Aside from that, there's nothing at all wrong with being careful about what you do, remove, delete or what have you. These issues also seem irrelevant to what Gracenotes plans to do as an admin, and therefore can't overshadow his good editing (and also good handling of this RfA) in my vote. Best of luck. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' Excellent editor and will be great admin.
'''Strong support''' An excellent user from what I've seen of Gracenotes. He is always civil and respectful. This user will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' My experience has been positive, although ST47 and Gurch may have a point.
'''Support''' &ndash; Has demonstrated an excellent breadth of knowledge of Wikipedia policy.  Always willing to participate in discussions.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''', surely. --
'''Support'''. Wait, you aren't an admin? '''''
'''Strong support''' A user's disagreement with other users on a particular issue (even if it is policy) isn't grounds for opposing his request for adminship. An admin can be a good admin even if he doesn't enforce all policy, but only some of it (and it seems like Gracenotes will enforce any policy anyway).
'''Strong, strong support'''. I ran into Gracenotes several months ago at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]], where he was courteous, informative, and ... well, helpful. Thus, my personal experience leads me to view him as both "easily approachable" and skillful in communication. Not long after that, Gracenotes was kind enough to correct a template I had tried to create (the important word here is "tried" ... at the time, my knowledge of templates was limited to "If I poke around here, I can cause changes elsewhere"). So, in now considering this RfA, I am struck by three things: (1) Gracenotes has an excellent contributions record; (2) I am more than satisfied with the responses to the questions; and (3) you're ''not'' an admin?!? Cheers, '''
'''Support''' - I think he will be a productive and helpful admin ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''. Good candidate. Disagreed with him last time we crossed paths on AFD, but still I found his approach there to be thoughtful, as well as a willingness to acknowledge the concerns of those who disagreed with him, and that is a very positive attribute which bodes well for responsible adminship.
'''Support'''. A4 is a valid viewpoint, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaillimh&diff=119424293&oldid=119424118 this] is not trolling. –
'''$upport'''. I've seen you around, and you deserve the chance. Good luck,
Sounds reasonable. But perhaps your userpage could make clearer that you're really not Grace Note?
Should make a good admin. --
'''Strong support''' will not become a fine asset, already is. <sup>
I have faith he would not abuse administrative abilities nor make rash decisions, so why not? He looks like a well rounded guy that knows his stuff.
I know him from [[WP:UTM]], and I think his adminship will be very useful for template administration.
Jumping up and down on chairs support, if this is what he wants. &ndash;
'''Pile-on Support''' From what I've seen, the user's net effect on Wikipedia would be overwhelmingly positive as a result of having the tools. Anybody else thinks this'll make the Wikipedian 100? Cheers,
'''Support''' Wow, This guy has clocked in alot of edits in the past two days alone. I believe he would make a great admininstrator.
'''Support''' Nice answers to questions, plenty of experience and I think you'd make great usage of the tools. Good luck! Regards &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' per his promise to help out at [[CAT:CSD]]. Believe me, that's one area where we need all the help we can get. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Weak support''' I'm not thrilled with your policy on attack sites, but I think you'll make a fantastic admin. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' -- good record. Should make a good admin. --
'''Support''' on the blance of arguments.  Also, a quick check of contribs shows a clear ned for admin tools.  Will do lots of good and , IMO, no real harm, with the bit.
'''Support'''. Can't see any downside here. &mdash;
'''Support''' - GN is a fantastic editor. He doesn't 'support attack sites', but supports using your head about links and not just going 'oooooh, think of the children' and hitting the delete button. He'll be a great admin, I have no doubts.
'''Support''' Can't say that I agree with extracting an unbreakable blood oath from every prospective admin about any issue, if nothing else because admins should be flexible and who knows when doing something might be a good idea in the future? I'm not even sure what site's we're talking about beyond Brandt's, and that's easilly findable with Google I'm sure, this seems like a symbolic effort that would restrict people's free speech but not really accomplish much. At any rate, the candidate is a good faith editor, no one disputes that, and we need admins who'll get their hands dirty with CSD and other actual work. It just doesn't seem like there's a very compelling reason not to promote here. --
'''Support''' Gracenotes is certainly a well known and respected editor, and I must admit that I was quite surprised to see this RfA, as I had always assumed he was an admin. The opposition here would be wise to compare the their opinions to the most unfortunate of opinions found during the Cold War. --
'''Support''' because of the willingness to express an opinion of attack sites. Ever for those who disagree with it, I don't see how being an admin would cause problems this way. I think it shows a welcome distinction between pages attacking unfairly particular individuals in a damaging way, and those discussing--however unfairly--WP. Divergence  from the WP orthodoxy is sometimes a good thing. '''
'''Support'''.  Differing opinions on one issue that many people feel strongly about aside, answers are well thought out, contributions are impeccable.
'''Support''', I thought he was already an admin! [[User:Tim.bounceback|Tim.bounceback]]<sup>(<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tim.bounceback|review me!]]</font> | [[User_talk:Tim.bounceback|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tim.bounceback|contribs]] |
'''Support''' he is a hard worker whose contributions are of excellent quality; he is allowed to have his own opinions, as is any admin, provided they do not interfere with administrative actions. I don't think that Gracenotes will have a problem with making bad decisions based on his views and I certainly do not think there is any chance of abuse of tools on his part. — <font face="papyrus">
'''Support'''. Far as I'm concerned, Q4 is a plus. --
'''Support''' I'd also like to ask people opposing on the basis of Q4 to reconsider their opposition. I happen to disagree (to a certain extent) with Gracenotes on this subject but why should that prevent him from being a competent sysop? It's not like he's advocating his right to link to these sites in disregard for the consensual policy. I'm afraid a lot of people are opposing giving Gracenotes as a way to make a stand against his position on this particular question. I'm not sure what this will achieve other than forbid Wikipedia from having an extra competent admin.
'''Strong support''' I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools. He also appears to be very patient when dealing with other users.
'''Support''' I'm confident this person would use the tools well, and I applaud their clarity and openness in their personal opinions on an area which I'm sure many people have differing opinions on. What's important is that consensus is followed in any key debates, and that's something that every admin signs onto regardless of their personal opinions. Robchurch's comment at the bottom is also worth a read.
'''Strong Support'''.  Seems qualified, and the attempts on the part of an extremely vocal minority to impose a litmus test regarding the "attack sites" policy (which seems to be the Wikipedian equivalent of the War on Drugs... a [[moral panic]] that's pursued in opposition to all semblances of common sense, and all opponents are heavily vilified) only make me more inclined to support him as an advocate of rationality on this issue.  The suppression of a link to [[Daniel Brandt]]'s site in a Signpost article about him is just one of many examples of silliness perpetrated in the name of this idiotic policy.
'''Support''' - I trust this user. —
'''Strong Support''' - Good answers to questions, especially Q4. One's personal opinions on off-wiki attack sites doesn't affect a user's ability to be an admin, nor should it affect community trust, unless they're the user actually running the site. Gracenotes is long overdue for the admin bit, and I admonish SlimVirgin for attempting to deny that over trivial and unrelated grounds. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support''' Answers to question four/4a indicate that the candidate considers context, intent, and effect to be relevant and intends to use judgement.  Those are qualities I want in an admin.
'''Strong Support''' The only moral distinction to be made in the "attack sites" debate is that making references to such in NPA or any policy page suggests their existence to random individuals just visiting or blocked per those pages. Otherwise, whatever users want to do when they come across a link to an off-site attack is up to them per the circumstances, and I highly doubt Gracenotes would get in an edit war with anyone who decided to remove an off-site link. Gracenote's answers suggest pragmatic awareness of and concern with personal security issues, and that is enough for me.—
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Answer(s) to Q4 seem very sensible to me; no other serious concerns appear to have been raised.  --
'''Support''' common sense over unbending rules, yes!
'''Support''' I am happy with his(?) response to the BADSITES bit.
'''Support''' Smart user, has a sense of humour, and says what he thinks instead of what he knows people want to hear.
'''Support''' I note he is quite candid as to where his interests and intended work are directed, and where the extra buttons will most likely prove useful. As for his views regarding "''attack sites''" I can only direct interested readers to the 'Crats [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/LessHeard vanU|comments]] regarding my own very recent RfA.
'''Support''' per above.
There's way too much me-too-ism going on in the Oppose section. People are opposing because Gracenotes wants to take a nuanced, not-one-size-fits-all approach to a problem. I'd say "unbelievable", except it's all too believable. I '''support''' Gracenotes' request for the sysop bit. -- ''
'''Support.''' If nothing else, to balance out this unfair exercise. I'm not going to see another RfA go down because of a SNOWball on one of SV's opinions.
'''Support''' Appreciate the nuanced and careful responses to questions, and appreciate the extent of this user's contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Why do I even need a reason? &mdash;
'''support''' seems like a trustworthy editor, my few prior encounters have been positive. I particularly like the nuanced resposne to Q4.
'''Support''' Appears trustworthy to me, and objections below don't seem to have a lot to do with use of admin tools. -
'''Support'''. I wasn't crazy about the initial answer to Q4 but am satisfied with the clarification provided by the candidate. Also, on a more general note, what's with all the co-nominations? This isn't a High School yearbook and I fail to see the point. Expressing one's support is all fine and good but let's not overdo it, please. --
WP:100 '''support''', per nominations, good communication skills and honesty. --
'''Support''' I have interacted quite a bit with Gracenotes and always found to be helpful, polite and friendly. One of those "I thought they were already an admin.
'''Support'''.  While I'm not a huge fan of the attack-site stance, there's way too much weight being put into it plus me-tooism below by folks like Grace_note.  It's a big issue, but it's not enough to blast an RfA for.  If we all agreed on everything, the world would be a boring place.  It's more important to have reasonable folks who are trustworthy in the position (even if they have different opinions on stuff) than people who will say what others want to hear. -
'''Support'''. Conditionally. You are welcome to hold a minority view, as long as you agree to honor the consensus if people disagree with you.  If you feel unable to do that, say so now.
'''Support'''. Assume good faith. —
'''Support''' based on past editing history, and thoughtful answers to RFA questions.
'''Support''' based on sensible answers to questions and no apparent other issues. With all respect for Wikipedians whose privacy has been violated by pages on so-called attach sites, Gracenotes position to take a nuanced view on what should and should not be linked to is I feel a positive approach. The Arbcom resolution of the ED issue was probably a fine first step to a specific problem, but the realization that there are instances of sites on which a) behaviour by some users which goes against our basic tenets is tolerated, but b) where there is also potentially worthwhile criticism/discussion to explore in improving WP is a valuable one. There have been discussions on WP where it is exactly an analysis of what is being said on part of such a site is particularly valuable (the hoopla over removing a link in a Signpost article comes to mind), and the kneejerk (though understandable) reaction of certain editors to stifle that discussion has been counterproductive for improving Wikipedia, and the omission of the actual link has likely had negligible impact in terms of amount of traffic to the actual pages which deliberately violate editors' privacy. This last sentence of mine is supposition and may be incorrect, but I am disturbed that the fact that a respected and thoughtful user appears to share it (but promises to abide by consensus, whatever that happens to be) would disqualify them from adminship.
'''Support'''. Gracenotes' view on attack sites doesn't seem to be as utterly criminal as some have made it out to be. Even ''if'' Gracenotes "supports" links to attack sites, which is a conclusion I don't know how anyone could make from his answer to Question 4, would it matter? Consensus seems to go in the other direction, and he is entitled to a different opinion. Does that mean he'll act against everyone else as an administrator? I don't really see that happening, and the rest of his abilities are just too good to pass up. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' Gracenotes is an experienced and trusted user, and has expressed interest in a wide range of admin chores.  I will not oppose for something so trivial as a subset of the external linking guidelines, even if I disagree.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Everybody has a right to his or hers own POV. I am convinced that Gracenotes will be able to separate his POV from his use of the tools. Being an admin isn't an obligation to be active on all the issues admins can help with; it is perfectly OK for admins not to interfere in some matters, and leave it to other admins. I am convinced Gracenotes will not abuse the tools, and that's what counts. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I was going to oppose, but that was because I didn't realise there was a [[User:Grace Note]] and a [[User:Gracenotes]].  After looking over Gracenotes' contributions, he (she?) seems sensible enough.  The attack sites thing seems like a whole lot of hoo-ha entirely unrelated to whether Gracenotes having the sysop tools would benefit or disbenefit Wikipedia.  I don't want 1300 admins who all think the same and act the same, and to oppose based on a single ideological difference (which is all this is) seems disingenuous.
Although I disagree with Gracenotes on the Attack site issue, I highly doubt he will enforce his point of view to an obscure level, or [[WP:POINT|disrupt Wikipedia to make his point]]. Upon view of his previous contributions, the good outways the bad, and I am inclined to '''support''' him. --
'''Support'''. I disagree with Gracenotes on the attack site issue, but I agree with DGG, Chairboy, and Neil, that this is simply not a big enough deal to withhold support from a qualified candidate over.
I'm
Good user. ---
'''Support'''.  One of those folks I thought was an admin already.  Clearly "gets it." --
'''Support''' Gracenotes is exactly the kind of guy we need. Come on, im agreeing with Jeff, that's consensus.-<u>
'''Support''' Clearly a reasonable editor.  I am profoundly uncomfortable with the railroading below.  The statement that Gracenotes "supports linking to attack sites" is really, I believe, a misrepresentation of this editor's views. --
'''Support''', excellent user. '''
'''Support''' See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Support, for having what it takes to be an admin. Strong, for realizing that a notable link doesn't suddenly become non-notable, just because the subject isn't friendly to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Intelligent, independent but not grandstanding, process-oriented and circumspect.  Likely to treat adminship as a responsibility rather than a personal distinction or club membership.  Very impressive performance throughout this RfA process.--
'''Support''' The oppose comments do not sway my initial impression, that this user will use the tools to improve the encylopedia.  There is no evidence that he supports attack sites, merely that he does not subscribe to an exclusive opinion regardless of situational variables.--
'''Support'''. While I am concerned by the issues raised in oppposition and I do not agree with Gracenotes about attack sites, my experience of his contributions and interactions with him have been overwhelmingly positive. I believe he would make a good adminstrator. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' as argued by the honorable [[User:Martinp]] above.  As a community, we must begin to deal with the [http://www.bartleby.com/61/56/I0205600.html intransigent] [http://www.bartleby.com/61/70/I0037000.html illogic] of the '''Opposed''' votes below that 1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes&diff=132870406&oldid=132870077 create an absurd standard] and then 2) vote against a good candidate by that absurd standard.  This is a community problem and can be dealt with only by individual editors taking personal responsibility for judging the issue at hand, which is this RfA in this case, rather than merely following the arbitrary off-topic meanderings of the [[bellwether]].  --
'''Strong Support''' I admit I am shocked that there were any significant number of people who wished to oppose this user's becoming an administrator. I find '''absolutely no reason not to support''', not to mention the numerous strengths of skill, dedication, and hard work that make him a '''fine administrator'''.
'''Support'''  Per rationale set out on my userpage.
Many issues have been raised with this nomination. After much thought and consideration, I think that giving Gracenotes the mop will, on the whole, improve the encyclopedia. Since that's what we're [[WP:ENC|all here to do]], I '''support''' this nom. --
'''Support'''  A user that can be trusted.
'''Strongly support''', good editor, and everything suggests he would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Assests swamp any possible criticisms.--

'''Support'''
'''Support!'''
I've run across Gracenotes several times, and each time I felt that he was already an administrator. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' I don't find any of the oppose reasons convincing
'''Support''' and i think to those who think WP:BADSITES is a good idea... well - think about this: All it takes for something to be called an attack site is for someone to claim it is, and then anyone saying it's not is beaten into submission. --
'''Support''' - I thought Gracenotes ''was'' an admin already. I'm certain that he will make an excellent one. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]<sup>([[User talk:Nihiltres|t]].[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|c]].
'''Support''' - I believe Gracenotes will be more closely scrutinized on the attack site issue, and will be ever more careful that links conform to Wikipedia policy.  '''''
'''Support''' - A tireless "mop-and-bucket" guy, it would appear.
'''Support''' - would benefit project with access to admin tools.
'''Support'''. Whatever his position on attack sites, it doesn't change that he'll make a great admin. How can all these people oppose based on someone's stance on an issue that won't affect use of admin powers at all? Opposing based on someone's stance on some minor policy is just an absolute disregard for things that actually matter on RfA. --
'''Support'''. Seems level-headed and nice in the discussion on this page.
'''Strong Support''' Gracenotes seems to me as a great user! Even though very few times I have encountered him, I still get that strong good expresion of his experience on Wikipedia and his future as an admin. Concerning all those oppose votes per the answer on question 4, I really believe that isn´t a good reason for opposing a candidate, especially if the policy in question (whether the candidate agrees with it or not) is not officially a policy. By the way, Gracenotes has got tons of edits and I´m glad he has considered being a template admin. Best of luck, <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]
'''Support'''. Already doing a lot of mop-and-bucket work, and I see no reason to believe that he would be dangerous with the tools. Honestly, I already thought he was an admin.
'''Support'''.  Will not abuse tools.  There's no reason to think he would abuse the tools, ergo adminship. &#10154;
'''Support''' —''
'''Support'''; Gracenotes has long demonstrated a good attitude towards and solid understanding of Wikipedia, and can be trusted with some additional maintenance tools. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User talk:Warrens|-/-]]
'''Support''' - Arguments and discussions such as this are why people keep leaving WP. And let's leave aside all the pretty language, the real discussion is "Is Gracenotes going to do exactly what he's told?" If someone posts a link to a site that has violent threats or ''clearly'' objectionable material, I'm confident Gracenotes will get rid of it. If, on the other hand, it links to some criticism of Wikipedia or a particular person's poorly thought out actions, it shouldn't be struck. The problem here, for me, is that I've been stalked, and very nearly killed, and it was a lot worse than my address, or someone's sick fantasies. There are legal and technical avenues for handling this sort of problem, and the RfA of a good editor is not a proper forum for it. He will use the tools better, and have better judgement and a more pleasant demeanor, than 80% of the people currently admins now. This entire mess reflects poorly on WP as a whole. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' Courteous, knowledgeable and conscientious - what more could you ask?--
'''Support''', thought user already was an admin. :-) Shows independent thought. I am not surprised by additional tool usage. Enwp bot policy is broken and in need of overhaul. [[WP:IAR|ignoring that particular ruleset]] under those circumstances is not a problem, and many people are doing so. --
'''Support''' ... meh, being wrong about attack sites has nothing to do with knowing how to hit a delete button. --
'''Support'''  ... Great contributor and would make a great admin.  --
'''Support'''. per above.
'''Strong support.''' Per answer to Q4. And just about everything else this user has ever done. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''; actions speak louder than words, and in this case, both are superb! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support'''. I believe this to be a case of severe misunderstanding or exaggeration of a problem on behalf of the opposition. Their interpretations of what Gracenotes has stated are damning indeed, yet I fail to find such an implication in his actual answers. This user has my full confidence.
'''Support'''. I have full confidence that this user will use the admin tools responsibly, and for the good of Wikipedia.  Being in favor of applying case-by-case common sense reasoning to alleged attack sites ''before'' acting on links to them should ''not'' be conflated with unwillingness to remove those links, let alone support for linking to them.
'''Support'''Gracenotes has had his personal integrity questioned, and among other things, his "common sense".  Many parts of this RfA have been hijacked, including most of the talk page, and I have contributed to this, as have others on "both sides" (a term I dislike, we are on the same side of the good of Wikipedia). That said, I was concerned about the "bot like" edits, but I see no harm that this caused the project, so I cannot oppose on that basis.  The "attack site" business has caused a lot of noise, and the fact that Gracenotes has let this RfA run its course tells me that this user is devoted to becoming an admin.  Assuming good faith, I am lead to believe he wants to become an admin to help the project.  I cannot with good conscious oppose a person for wanting to help Wikipedia.  I think he has learned more about personalities and Wikipedia from this RfA than he would as six months being an admin.  I've learned a bit from watching.
'''Support''' I am confident that Gracenotes will be an excellent admin. Not everyone is perfect of course, but his work here is impressive and I know he will do good use with the tools. --
'''Support''' for having the temerity not to wholeheartedly support the braindamaged "BADSITES" proposal, particularly given the idiot example of its use perpetrated yesterday by Will Beback -
'''Support''', seems to be a solid contributor, and I like his thoughtful answers to the many questions above. --
Reading the answers, this user strikes me as one with a clue - something we desperately need. May not be perfect, but who the hell is? I disagree with the currently vehement enforcement of BADSITES, as if there is no valid reason ever to link to an attack site (in particular because I believe this ban should be limited to a page-by-page as opposed to site-by-site basis, but mainly because this sort of inflexibility is completely ridiculous), but even if I didn't, I would support this request for adminship. This user can think, and shows the familiarity with Wikipedia that admins should have. Both are uncommon qualities.
'''Support''' per DavidGerard and Johnleemk. RfAs shouldn't be used for making political points, although no doubt our good friends at WR are having a good laugh.
'''Support''' per much of the above.
'''Support''' - Nothing thus far suggests that he won't follow consensus, just that he isn't automatically supporting an existing policy.  Supporting a policy and enforcing the policy are two separate things.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user. His stand regarding the attack sites sounds quite sensible to me and I don't think he's equivocating. <s>So I will suppport if there is nothing else other than this attack sites thing.</s> -
'''Support.''' Linking to websites attacking Wikipedians or posting personal information is a bad idea, obviously. However, I can't approve of the current wording at [[WP:NPA#Linking to attack sites]] stating that "website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages '''under any circumstances''' ... links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are '''exempt from 3RR'''" (the emphasis is mine). That smacks too much of totalitarism and censorship. I am more in agreement with Gracenotes's answer to Q4. Also, I don't think that disagreeing with Gracenotes on Q4 is sufficient ground for opposition. As mentioned earlier, it is fine for Gracenotes to hold such opinions as long as he abides by consensus in specific situations where disagreements on appropriateness of certain such links arise.
'''Support.''' Seems like a reasonable editor who can be entrusted with the admin tools. --
Though it is easy to see why people disagree with the candidate's views on these issues, I have a difficult time believing that he is likely to unilaterally implement his position once given admin tools. Given that, I don't see any problems in awarding them.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. To my knowledge, not supporting something that isn't policy anyway is not a valid reason for opposition. BADSITES is a classic example of a good idea made crappy by the desire for bright line distinctions. Noticing that some matter of subtlety is required in Wikipedia policy should be a requirement for adminship, not a mark against.
'''Support''' Editor has made a tremendous contribution.  Views on a controversial policy is not reason to deny adminship.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' - Jabberwocky. It's as relevant reason to support as BADSITES is a reason to Oppose.
'''Support''' - The BADSITES proposal does not appear to have consensus and I do not believe it is fair or just to oppose adminship for someone who does not agree wholly with it.  I note that Gracenotes has not said he wholly disagrees with it; he simply believes that there should be room for sensible judgment about it.  This is an opinion held by a fair number of existing admins.
'''Support''' - This is going to take a bit of a digression to explain.  First, by "attack sites", I mean those which stalk Wikipedians, rather than those which are merely critical of them. I used to work for the Free Software Foundation, and I remain a strong supporter of FSF in general and on most issues.  But some of FSF's policies were totally pointless: one was the refusal to link to sites that promoted proprietary software.  Proprietary software was not going to go away if FSF stopped linking to it, any more than attack sites are going to go away if WP stops linking to them.  At FSF, at least this denied the linked-to site googlejuice.  But Wikipedia puts nofollow on all links, so that reason doesn't hold.  I would oppose linking to attack sites that aren't on Google, since it would allow finding them, but that seems rather unlikely.  I'm a reasonable editor, and I think my view is reasonable.  Certainly, I don't see a reason to deny someone adminship.  Since it's approximately [[User:Gracenotes]]'s view, I don't see it as a reason to oppose their editorship.  I know I'm probably torpedoing my own RfA (when I finally get around to requesting it), and my chances of a future job at FSF, should RMS see this,  but that is no reason not to vote as I think right.  All of my impressions of [[User:Gracenotes]] have been positive, and nothing has yet convinced me otherwise, so I support the RfA.
'''Support''' albeit with some hesitation that I wish were not necessary. I object most strongly to the practice of "outing" the real-life identifies of Wikipedians who need or prefer to edit anonymously. It is unfortunate that the candidate has made comments that could be read, by those who have been victimized by this practice, as anything other than joining in that objection. Sensitivity to the concerns of fellow Wikipedians, and especially for the types of issues that in the past have driven contributors to leave the project, is important in any editor and especially in a would-be administrator. If I believed there was any significant possibility that the candidate would do anything as an administrator that is inconsistent with our policies in this important area, I would find that disqualifying for an admin candidate. However, upon carefully reviewing all of the candidate's comments, I am convinced that he is now sensitized to this issue and has no intention of taking administrator actions that would raise this concern. Apart from that important issue, I find that the candidate has a strong record in "behind the scenes" work necessary to the maintenance of the encyclopedia and a commitment to helping with some of our most persistent backlogs. Despite the hesitation I feel whenever I disagree with many of the esteemed Wikipedians who are opposing, on balance I find myself tilting narrowly into the support column. Whether or not this RfA succeeds, I urge that Gracenotes continue to be mindful of the concerns expressed here. I also urge that other editors who have sullied the conversation with strident and excessive rhetoric refrain from doing so the next time a contentious RfA comes along.
'''Support''' as I believe this user can be trusted as an admin. --
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to not screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support''' This is one of my "why isn't this user an admin already?" incidents. -
'''Support''' Nice, reasonable and open-minded person, will be excellent admin.
'''Support'''.  Appears qualified overall.  I can't quite figure out if he's fuzzy in his thinking about attack sites, is using overly wordy descriptions for a clear position, shifted his position, or if the amount of confusion by other users has confused me.  Regardless, it is a passive attitude (e.g. you don't have to be an admin ''not'' to remove an attack site) on a single issue outside his stated areas of interest in the realm of moppery.  I'm also not prone to moral panic about users making semi-automated edits.  I am especially unimpressed by arguments that "There is such a backlog that his judgment must be impaired during extended periods of digging through it" as this appears to be an argument that the backlog should not be tackled. If he does some automated stupidity with the mop, the ArbCom will desysop him, which is deterrent enough.  (Also and in a "totally not directed at any specific user or in a PA manner"-kind of way, the annoyance caused by users who want to co-nominate, apparently because they like to feel special but have nothing to add, hurts the candidate.) -
Support - Like everyone else, I spent a good deal of time thinking about this one.  In the end, it came down to whether I expect this user to misuse the tools, and I do not.
'''Firm support''' I was initially inclined to support this request weakly, having had a few minor concerns, but those concerns have been assuaged during the pendency of this RfA, and, indeed, Gracenotes' conduct across this RfA and related discussions has convinced me that he is possessed of sound judgment and an exceedingly deliberative demeanor (and properly, in any case, understands adminship as almost exclusively [[wikt:ministerial|ministerial]]), such that I feel altogether confident in submitting that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Gracenotes' being sysopped should be positive]].  Relative to attack sites, I continue to believe that the deleterious effect on the project of such sites, and, for that matter, of our linking to them, is de minimis and that our consuming time parsing GN's position relative thereto has been altogether more pernicious than the underlying linking to attack sites; my personal views relative to attack sites, though, are surely not relevant, and neither are GN's.  His ability to appreciate for what understanding of policy (including of [[WP:NPA|NPA]] and its progeny) a consensus of the community exists and then to act consistent with that consensus is most relevant, and I see nothing to suggest that he would ever substitute his own views for those of the community or that he would be unable successfully to ascertain where consensus might lie. (Should current !vote totals persist, though, I believe quite strongly, for reasons I've outlined at [[WP:BN|BN]], that this request should be closed as unsuccessful).
'''Support''', hesitancy and caution in action are qualities we need ''more'' of in the admin pool.  [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/
'''Support''' excellent user who possesses sound judgment and admirable civility. Long story short, I believe the likelihood that GN would deliberately allow a link to an attack page (in the stalker sense) to remain on Wikipedia to be very low—no more than an average Wikipedian in good standing—, and the likelihood that GN would use admin tools to do so would be even lower.  No concerns. -
'''Support''', looks like an okay user, and this doesn't seem to be a good forum to argue about BADSITES.
'''Support''', has many tasks that will benefit from being an administrator, has been civil and calm through this very long RfA, has rational points behind his arguments, even when they are disagreed with. --
'''Last minute Support''' Seems to be a great User and has tons of experience on Wikipedia and I don't think he will abuse the tools.<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Support'''. Can't believe he's getting headwind for advocating a nuanced approach.
'''Support'''I thought he was already an admin. He will do very good. '''
Qualifies for adminship.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' since he has just over 4 hours and is almost at 200. --
'''Support''' per bandwagon effect -
'''Support'''. Frankly, even if Gracenotes ''did'' support links to attack sites, do you really think he's ever going to add an external link to a page again after this kind of treatment? –
'''Support''' He seems to be a good candidate for the job.
'''Support''' - people are entitled to their own opinions - I have no doubt that GN would follow whatever policy were to be introduced, regardless of his feelings on the matter.
'''Support''' [[WP:200|WP:201]]
From my experience with Gracenotes, I've found the fellow to be the very thing he apparently eschews; a "process wonk", in his own language.  In addition, he is not at all easily approachable and I forsee some community difficulty in working and communicating with him, which is a problem, as potential candidates need strong communication skills and a certain degree of social graces (pardon the pun). [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. '''Strong oppose'''. I have to oppose based on Gracenote's answer to my question about attack sites. I feel that websites that out and defame Wikipedians should never be linked to; I certainly can't think of a single encyclopedic reason they would ever have to be.
'''Oppose''' While I have had only minimal interaction with this editor and have never been even remotely involved in a dispute with him, I have to agree with Slimvirgin's analysis. I just can't imagine why Grace would think linking to such a site would be okay. In my opinion, there could simply not be any encyclopedic value added by including links to such websites.-
'''Oppose''' I cannot see us accepting any admins who support links to attack sites. To me that attitude indicates no sensitivity to the plight of the attack victims, and is tantamount to attack in itself. There is no reason to ever link to such a site - if need be, the information can be emailed discretely to ArbComm or anyone else, on a need-to-know basis.
'''Oppose''' I'm one of those that can find no reason to ever link to a website that supports efforts to collaboratively work to expose the real life identities of our contributors. While I do believe that Gracenotes is trying to be practical in his response to the related questions regarding this matter, Admins should be prepared to protect our editors, not permit links to websites that potentially put them in harms way.--
'''Oppose'''. I find the idea of supporting links to attack sites very disturbing and even potentially dangerous to some editors.
'''Oppose'''.  At first I thought that this applicant deserves a support.  I was ready to go ahead, mainly because I had to scroll down to see the oppose.  After reading some of them, I have to agree.  These attack websites are appalling, and there should be no support for them.
'''Oppose''' - An administrator should be one that not only cares about the project but cares about its main asset: its editors, being these newbies or long-standing contributors. Same as we welcome newbies, admins should be mindful to protect those that volunteer large amount of their free time to this project.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly, as he is hardworking, knowledgable, and otherwise quite qualified, but his opinion on attack sites is highly troubling; unfortunately it's hard to trust him with the tools in light of this, particularly the ability to view deleted information.
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong Oppose''', <s>also reluctantly,</s> because of answer to attack sites question. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> per answer to Question 4, and per Gaillimh. [[User:Musical Linguist|Musical L]][[User talk:Musical Linguist|inguist]] 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' but emphasizing (as on the talk page) that it is ''not'' because Gracenotes does not support [[WP:BADSITES]], and I really urge bureaucrats not to be misled into thinking that the oppose votes are because of a failure to give 100% support to an overzealous attempt to make a new policy. I very much question the judgment and sensitivity of one who knows WR (as he posts there) and can state that it's a "mixed bag". Administrators with a habit of siding with trolls have given trouble before. I am not comfortable with trusting him to see deleted page versions. I share [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes&diff=133687811&oldid=133687524 SlimVirgin's concern] that he repeated the opinion of an anon IP and an attack site when she has already told him that she has sent two takedown notices to a site that attacks her (again, we've had trouble with such administrators in the past). I'm uncomfortable with his trolling of Gaillimh over the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales]] joke, which indicates lack of the necessary maturity for an admin. Finally, while I wouldn't oppose an otherwise excellent candidate over his signature, I think a signature that takes up three lines in the edit box is unbecoming, and poor example from an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 4.
'''Oppose''' per question 4 sorry, I also blocked Gurch for 24 hours for disrupting this RFA.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to question 4 in particular to this comment " Granted, not all additions of links to attack sites happen in good faith", and as Hipocrite points out you state you are not the type  that protects editors by removing links to attack sites. No link to attack sites could be termed good faith. (Musical Linguist sums that up quite well) and unwillingness to protect  by removing attack site links is a distressing thought so much so that I fear what could happen with the tools.--
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4. --
'''Oppose''' per the answer given for Q4 and per Briangott's and Dakota's input here. No way.
'''Strong oppose''' per Slim and others. Protecting other editors should be top of your list, not something you're not concerned with.
I don't like your stance on links to attack sites, and feel that this casts significant shadow over whether you have the outlook and judgement needed for an administrator. '''
Daniel and Musical Linguist make good arguments on this point.
'''Oppose''', I'm not comfortable with the whole attack sites/Q4 thing.
'''Oppose''' answer to Q4 concerns me. --
'''Oppose'''.  The inclusion of external attack sites on Wikipedians is indefensible. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' with apologies to Gracenotes, Gurch and the noms.  Q4 --
'''Strong oppose''' - the rationale about linking to attack sites makes absolutely no sense, which makes me wonder about Gracenote's judgment. The last thing we need is an admin who either doesn't have good reasons or can't explain them. --
'''Oppose''' RfA's and RfB's are a community referendum on the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgement]] of a user, and whether or not the community should entrust that user with the tools based on their opinion of his or her judgement. I am afraid this user's response to the issue of attack sites is important enough for me to have enough of a question regarding judgement, that at this point, I am uncomfortable with the idea of adminship. This is in no way shape or form meant as an attack on the user, but my own opinion. --
Per Slim and Dakota -- <b>
'''Oppose'''  due to views on attack sites. --
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4 - the anonymity of editors (or for those who so wish) is paramount. There's no justification for being wobbly about this. --
'''Oppose'''... While I readily concede that GN has come a long way from when I first saw hir going on 2 years ago, the recent apparent change of heart (possibly brought on by the fact that at least one attrocious antisemite, ([[User:Dabljuh]], I believe it was) latched onto GN as an assumed ally...something that, to GN's credit, s/he quickly disavowed, but I think the fact that that association seemed natural to the attempting "latcher" speaks volumes about my misgivings re:  GN), especially given the positions GN so frequently took ''prior'' to that change of heart, still leaves me wondering about GN's ability and interest to consider disputes dispassionately and act in a genuinely neutral fashion.  It may just be that GN gravitates toward conflict-riven topics, I don't know for certain...what I do know is that, like I said, GN has come a long way, but adminship is not a reward for coming a long way, it's a mantle of responsibility, one which I don't see that GN is in particular ''need'' of, much less particularly qualified for, at least at this juncture.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
Per Avi.
'''Oppose'''. Per Slim, Dakota, Avi. Gracenotes' responses during this RFA show a disturbing lack of empathy and judgement, both of which are extremely important for administrators. Note, contrary to the [[straw man]] statements of supporters, this is not about support for the failed BADSITES policy, which was itself a straw man proposal.
'''Oppose''' I know that some won't like this, but the attack site position is a no-go for me. While I'm confident that it would have no effect on GraceNotes' stated goal of template editing, the mop is not limited to any one corner of the encyclopaedia, and so a specific reservation will have to translate to a broad opposition. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per concerns about the attack sites. ←
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4.
'''Oppose''' like so many others have said, the answer to question 4 is troubling. Do we really need a policy so that we can remove links to attack sites?
'''Oppose''' per Avi.
Switching to '''oppose''' from neutral per thinking about this more. While there might be cases where attack sites and sites that out Wikipedians are in fact "mixed bags" and I earlier was in the neutral camp since I thought there could be legitimate disagreement about this, I must question the judgement of someone who thinks there is any significant amount of redeeming material on Wikipedia Review.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin, Hipocrite. Concerned about attitude towards attack sites and Wikipedia Review. --
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. Defense of attack sites is enough to make me vote oppose. The surreptitious use of an unauthorized bot, followed by dishonesty about that, cinches it. &ndash;
'''Oppose''':  The divisiveness of this campaign shows not that there are bad friends and bad enemies fighting it out, as I would ignore that, but rather than the candidate appears to believe strongly enough in ''acting'' without full consensus on this issue that we are going to probably have disruption, accusation, and worry occuring as a result of any promotion.  Therefore, I cannot support and must oppose.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin, Geogre, and others.  I find his answer to question 4 to be disturbingly accomodating to exactly the wrong people.  Perhaps he just phrased his answer poorly, but that sets off enough alarm bells for me that I'm uncomfortable giving him my support.
'''Oppose''' per Nandesuka. I'm sorry but that issue is a deal breaker. IMHO for the good of the project, we need more admins who will be tougher on trolls, both off and on site. I just see waaay too much equivocation about the issue from Gracenotes.
'''Oppose''' per Slim et al. --
'''Oppose''' per Slim.
'''Oppose''' While I love Kundera, I dislike equivocation. His replies are entirely unsatisfactory. The badsites issue gets fuzzy at the margins, but is clear at root—they don't belong. This RfA is a good example of a truism: better you disagree with a candidate than are uncertain over a candidate.
'''Oppose''' the only time I have had dealings with Gracenotes, he was very rude and overbearing towards a third user.--
'''Oppose''' per Orangemarlin, Crum, others.  GN' first comment with regard to attack sites was " I suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia" - carefully phrased, but worrying, as virtually any attack site can claim to be intended to push Wikipedia to improve.  Sometimes people are disingenuous about intent, other times, the effects speak for themselves.  I agree with many concerns voiced more articulately, above.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. --
'''Oppose''' per Dakota, SlimVirgin and others. --
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin above.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns over the candidate's stance on attack sites.
The quote cited by Slrubenstein above, demonstrates either communication skills, or worse, an approach, which is not up to par.
'''Oppose''' Per above--
'''Oppose''' per comments above and GN's reactions to them. We need calm, deliberative admins, not reactionary.
'''Oppose''', I find the concerns to be serious. Per SlimVirgin, Dakota, Tewfik. --
'''Oppose''' per the answers about attack sites. The situation is bad as it is now we do not need an admin supporting inclusions of links there
'''Oppose''' per attack site stuff. '''
'''Oppose''' as per SlimVirgin
'''Oppose''' to the extent that his answers on attack sites are clear, further oppose since he remains unclear.
'''Oppose''' It does not seem he can be depended on to defeat harmful actions directed toward other users by postings on external sites.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and question 4.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Oppose''' per a variety of editors and my own misgivings.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin, questions.--
'''Oppose''' as his stance on attack sites is not helpful to the community an admin is supposed to uphold. Also considering his article talk page record (as per Slim Virgin above).
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per serious concerns raised above.
'''Oppose.  ''' My opinion is the candidate demonstrates well above average intelligence and verbal ability, but alarmingly below average maturity, empathy and sensitivity.  I therefore have   serious reservations regarding his judgment.  There seems to be a lack of depth in appreciating that behind the cold electronic display are real live warm bodies that can be deeply injured.  I expect a candidate to be on their best behavior at their RfA.  That’s why I was so taken by the callousness of this reply.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes&diff=prev&oldid=133664808  ].  It is an unfortunate fact that many people still don’t fully appreciate that we should behave and regard people no differently in cyberspace than we do in “real life.”  My opinion is based entirely upon the candidate’s discussions contained in this RfA and are not meant to suggest anything about his behavior in 3-dimensional space.  I wish him all the best. -
'''Oppose.''' As another victim of misogynist cyberstalking relating to my presence on Wikipedia, I have grave concerns about his answers to Q4.
'''Oppose.''' Same reasons as Musical Linguist's.
'''Oppose.'''I guess I'll leap off the fence here.
[[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|20px]] '''zOMG drama!''' &mdash;
User's work is great but the oppose votes worry me. -<b><font color="#800000">
I appreciate the time [[user:Gracenotes]] spent answering my questions. I've never opposed a request for admin and will not do so today. I am '''neutral'''. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]]
'''Neutral''' Not appropriate to hold candidate to standard of care with words that I could not myself uphold. I suggest you sever all ties with attack sites, and maintain especial care with deleted revisions.
I am a new user but i have edited under many ip addresses and i have looked at the contributions of GreaterWikiholic and i believe that the encouragement to new users is important because they will probably become good editors.  I also believe that his opposition to vandalism is important to make wikipedia a better place for editors
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but with only 300 mainspace edits you need to have done something exceptional with them, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=GreaterWikiholic&namespace=0 I don't see it]. That "I want to be an admin" userbox puts me off as well, (adminship is a dull & tedious job, not a prize), and the [[User:GreaterWikiholic/How to make your edit count explode and help Wikipedia|advice on how to inflate your edit count]] on your user page makes me think you misunderstand the point of editing. (Edit counts are virtually meaningless; creating a 10,000 word article counts the same as an automated typo-correction.)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' From the answer to Q1, I see no reason for this user to be granted administrative tools. The user is eager to help others, but he/she makes no mention of closing AfDs, blocking vandals, protecting pages, helping backlogs, etc. The user has no experience with AIV, and since the user indicates an interest in RC patrol, it would only be appropriate for the user to have some prior AIV experience before being given the tools. The point made by Iridescenti is quite valid, as well. In any case, I think you're making progress as an editor, and I suggest you go for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] now and then consider adminship at a later date (once you have met the qualifications). <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' and strongly suggest withdraw per low experience, if not for the strange coincidence that both the nominator and only supporter have accounts created in the last few hours.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - low experience, less then 2 full months of editing is nowhere near enough.  Edit summary use is also low, and I see very little (If any) work in XfD's, and reports to AIV.  All project space edits are in the fun department areas, which is OK for an editor, but not something for a sysop. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' and suggest that this RFA be [[WP:SNOW|SNOW'd]]. Wikilove and Wikifun are nice, but you really need to have more experience before you can receive the mop. '''''
'''Support'''.  User has a year of experience and has hundreds of mainspace edits. There's no reason to think he'll abuse or misuse the tools, so he should get the mop. --
'''Oppose''' Weak answers. Not enough experience and low edit count. You need much more participation in the project-space (XfDs, AIV, etc.). —
'''Oppose''' Too few mainspace edits and infrequent use of edit summaries (only 50%).
'''Oppose''' Too few edits. '''<font color="teal" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Too few edits, not enough experience, very weak answers. Strongly suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits. You have currently made just over 400. You also need more experience with editing in the Wikipedia space (which builds experience and familiarlity with the type of processes and policies that admin are expected to deal with), which you've currently edited in less than 20 times. The general expectation is that editors become more involved in the Wikipedia community ''before'' they become admins, not ''after''. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience.
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience in all pertinent areas to qualify for use of the admin tools at this time.  You need to increase your participation on the English Wikipedia significantly and for a sustained period of time in order to demonstrate your application to your chosen tasks.  Things in which to become involved include - adding to articles, either factual information and/or sources and references for extant facts; policy areas - XfD discussions, where you can demonstrate knowledge and interpretation of policies and guidelines; new page/recent change patrols, where you can show that you understand [[:WP:CSD]]/PROD/XfD tags and/or categorising, stubbing or formatting articles to conform to established styles for their subjects; welcoming new users and warning vandals that you come across when on patrol.  These are just a few of the many things to which you can successfully contribute to Wikipedia.  I would withdraw this application now and start participating in these and other methods before reconsidering a further RfA application in six-to-twelve months' time.
'''Oppose''' Part of your answer to question 2 is now listed for deletion. It raises concerns over your knowledge and understanding of policies. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' - Only About 30 Edits and You are applying for Adminship is not a good Idea.Wait till you have atleast over 2000 Edits to apply..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong oppose''' totally inexperienced in terms of time and the edits of today suggest we might be dealing with someone who's been around before.  It's pretty weird to stumble upon AIV, RFCN, Twinkle, and many other things all within your first few hours of being here.
'''Strong oppose''' As stated you have a minimal amount of contributions to Wikipedia, based on that I am left to assume you have very little experience with Wikipedia policies and protocol. --
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Groupempty&oldid=113071763 Initial version of this RfA] makes it pretty clear it was only intended as vandalism.
'''Oppose''' You have too few edits and your answers to the questions do not lead me to believe that you are ready for or fully understand what is involved with sysop tools. '''''
'''Oppose''' Is it just me, or are similar RfAs increasing lately? Another [[WP:SNOW]] case. -
'''Support''' - Does good work, is circumspect enough when required. I think he would err on the side of safety when he is unsure, which is OK. '''
'''Support''' per Blnguyen. This will probably fail, but if you get more active, get more experience in Wikipedia space and warn vandals, you'll be better set up for next time.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' converging all factors that a good admin required.
'''Support''': given Grubber's current high activity level, his presence as sysop should be a good asset for Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' per Blnguyen. - Don't let yourself be disheartened with this apparently failing. keep up the good work and try again.
'''Support''' I've read the comments opposing the nomination and share some concern that the candidate has narrow experience here at WP.  However, this is a dedicated wikipedian who puts out a tremendous effort in a much neglected area, because he/she cares about the project.  After reading the user and discussion pages I'm impressed with the candidate's attititude, integrity, stability, and the ability to make informed choices.  In a job interview I look for those attributes -- the broader experience will come with time.  I think that we can assume good faith that Grubber will not abuse the authority and that trust invested by us will be rewarded.  Good Luck! --
'''Support''' the candidate does good work and is dedicated to the project.--
'''Support''' Conscientious and trustworthy.--
'''Support'''. Dedicated Wikipedians make good admins. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - I don't think the editcount is too low; 2400 edits is plenty to establish that this user is trustworthy and has a knowledge of policy. Although more experience of XfDs etc. would be good, I would still favour giving admin tools to this user.
'''Support'''- per proven knowladge of policy.--
'''Support''' - He seems dedicated to the project, and I found the answers to the questions quite impressive :)-<font color="red">
'''Strong support''' per all opposers, actually.  A casual, non-bureaucratic admin is exactly the sort of admins that do the most benefit IMO.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' More than sufficient activity.  No conduct problems.  Well intended.  Should do just fine.
'''Support''' As above.
Belated near-closing '''support''' per candidate's comments under "discussion," and glad to see you've taken the comments and process the right way.
'''Oppose'''. Your sole qualification for adminship, based on what you said, is vandal fighting. I don't think that's sufficient evidence that you'll do well, but you say you want it for ''better edit summaries''? There are at ''least'' two tools that will give you the same edit summary (Vandalproof and popups). And as much as I'd love an admin to reduce the backlog at [[CAT:CSD]], I see no evidence that you've ever done much with speedy deletion, so I have no idea if you'll do any good or not. -
'''Oppose''' In a few months, after more active participation, I might reconsider. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Minor Oppose''' <s>Too few mainspace edits</s>; too little experience. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, edit count is too low, especially on Wikipedia space. Also, reverting vandals without placing warnings, and a current level of activity that is rather low too. --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - You don't seem very active and you should work on Wikipedia edits--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, low Wikipedia namespace edits. Talkspace edits are 14% of the total edits, which is also slightly low for admin candidates. Inconsistency is also an issue. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but a lack of experience with tasks other than vandal-fighting provides little evidence of your qualification or need for adminship.
'''Oppose''' you don't really need the tools yet, using VPRF or pop-ups is a good start for improving your vandal hunting, and I think more time spent in XFDs wouldn't be a bad thing.
'''Weak Oppose''' for now - too few WP space and user talk (which for a vandal fighter, should have a lot of) edits.
'''Oppose''' per low WP edits &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but 110 wiki-space edits (especially for a vandal fighter) is not enough. Also, 2400 edits is the bare minimum you usually have to have to be an admin. I have almost 3000, but I know that I would never make it in an RfA just yet. Try again in a few months when you have more edits, especially wiki-space edits.
'''Oppose''', lacks of edits in Wikipedia namespace, don't seem to need the tools. Do xFDs and participate at places where discussion is active.
'''Oppose''', just not enough XfD participation.--
'''Oppose''' per lack of contributions to the Wikipedia: namespace. Please increase your involvement in such areas and reapply in a few months. ''
'''Oppose''' per Wizardman.
'''Oppose.''' The candidate's work as an editor is admirable, but he lacks experience in consensus-building, and has no understading at all of the Wikipedia deletion process.  I concur with those who say that vandalfighting alone is not sufficient reason to grant adminship to this candidate.
'''Oppose''' due to too few edits in wikipspace but also conistancy in editing, you should be doing 300(ish) edits per month but you generally do less than 100. Try increasing the number edits you do by about 10 a day then try again
'''Oppose''' The low wikipedia namespace edits is a concern here. Try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Opppose''' Needs mor experiance. Sorry!
'''Oppose'''. No demonstrated need for admin tools. (Lack of) experience is less important than that. '''
'''Oppose''', needs more experience before.
'''Neutral'''Sorry, but you do not have proper qualifications.
'''Neutral''' I feel you have the level-headedness to be an admin, but do not have a clear understanding of the tools, adminship is about getting tools to do things, not about recognition for your contributions. --
'''Neutral''', per above. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Low edit count and low activity in the projectspace stop me from supporting. ←
'''Neutral''' Too tough a call.  Personally I dont think your edit count is low.  I'd like to see more Wiki edits.  Your answers are just mediocre.  I think you're almost there, but not quite yet. '''
'''Neutral''' this time, but likely to support with more experience.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]]. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' for now. Work on your Wiki editing a little and I may support another RfA. Regards,
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support. As per Imjustmatthew, I feel you have the level-headedness to be an admin, and I'm not too concerned with your edit count, but I'd definitely like to see warnings left after every vandalism revert and some of the other points made by the oppose voters have some merit, such as low Wikipedia space edits.  I'd likely support you with a bit more experience and if you start warning after vandalism.
'''Support''' this deeply experienced former administrator, so we can get him back before the [[Deluge (mythology)|onslaught of rubbish]] at [[C:CSD]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A very experienced former admin. No reason to oppose. We need more admins! --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
-- <strong>
Gurch is someone who has been in the past very devoted to wikipedia. As an admin he would not abuse his tools. Those to things I look for in an admin. I believe them to be the 2 most important things for an admin to have.--
'''Support''' - you don't quite reach my minimum standard of 200,000 edits, you're not that active (I like more than 1,000 edits every day), and you don't meet 1FA. However, as you self nominated on the first of the month, and your name starts with G, that cancels those things out. Good luck! '''
'''Support''' - lowish edit count, but support anyway.
'''Support'''.  No reason not to.
'''Support''' - Is there a reason you can't just get a 'crat to restore your flag?
'''Strong support'''. Few have shown the kind of dedication to the project that Gurch has, and he obviously has plenty of experience with the tools. And we certainly will need more people experienced with making deletions in a few days' time. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' - Yes. -
'''Support''' - Candor, experience, serious.
Has a proven ability to nuke vanity/spam/attack/nonsense pages.
'''Support''' to implement the result he would have got by requesting directly on [[WP:BN]].
Don't think you'll go nuts, in fact, you'll probably be a huge help.
'''Support''' obviously. Besides being very experienced, I have seen him being very helpful to new and anonymous editors. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
All his experience aside, '''[[Gadfly (social)|Gurch can also be something of a major pain in the ass]]'''. Which is precisely why I would much appreciate his comeback to the admin corps. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' I think he'll be fine second time around. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Weak Support.''' If Gurch returns to the admin corps, he will dominate the field. Other sysops will have little or nothing to do. We'll go homeless, unloved, and unfed, begging passersby for food on the streets so we have the energy to log in "one last time." </sarcasm> At the risk of my own job security, here goes!
Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Vandals gotta run. Vandals gotta run. Vandals gotta run. Vandals gotta run. I am on Wikipedia almost everyday reverting vandalism. Would you like a block with that? Would you like a block with that? Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. Ding...Gurch is here. AIV is full. Delete, delete, delete, delete. Wait for the block. Here comes the block. Oh no, there's the block. Ding...Gurch is here. DING GURCH IS HERE!
'''Well, duh!''' - no further comment necessary :) -
Gurch without all the tools makes Wikipedia better. Gurch with the tools will make Wikipedia doubleplusbetter. --
'''Support'''.  Doy.  &#10154;
'''Oppose''' (support actually) User edits at wrong time of day <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Definitely a gimme.
'''Oppose''' User is obviously power-hungry. This conflicts with my own power hunger, so I must oppose. <!-- yes, I'm kidding about Gurch's power-hunger... not mine, though --> [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Oooh so tempted <nowiki>"Oppose, user edits at the wrong time of day --~~~~"</nowiki>.  Boring but just plain old '''support''' --
'''Strong support''' Plenty of solid work in areas in which the admin tools would be highly beneficial.  Certainly no concerns regarding amount of experience.
Shameless troll. ~
'''Support''', Per Riana. But seriously, I trust him with the tools. --
'''Support''' - some concerns, but nothing to warrant opposing. Did good work with the tools in the past. Will do good work with them in the future.
Fnord. --
Have you also noticed that he picked up the rare occasion when we have 22 active nominations, in order to sneak through this sleazy attempt at adminship? No Va!
Thought he was one and such [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Strong support'''. I continue to hold Gurch in high regard - his contributions have been overwhelmingly beneficial to the project and in my opinion make up for the odd error in judgment. I think Wikipedia would definitely benefit from his having access to sysop tools again. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
The most common name I've seen when encountering the deleted user/user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users was Gurch, as he was the one who deleted those pages. It'll be nice to have him helping to clear [[:Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]] again, as well as CSD.
I changed my mind from opposing, user could actually improve the wiki by clearing almost every backlog. Onwards to progress!
'''Support''' for many of the reasons given above. We'll be needing admins like this. --
'''Support'''. Yes, the candidate's track record is a bit ''too'' interesting and may raise one's eyebrow. However, Gurch has been a valuable member of the community. He's a workhorse. He knows his way around. He's willing to tackle problems, be they vandals or grandstanding, arm-waving troublemakers. Gurch has proven his worth and I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' We need now, and even more so later, his dedication.
'''Support''' We can really use this kind of help :)
'''Support''' I cringe at the thought of allowing anons to create pages.  I'm glad Gurch is stepping up to the plate to help us clean up. <b>
'''Support''' with some reservation. Gurch has shown poor judgment in the past that does indeed concern me; however, his work against vandals is some of the best out there and would be helped greatly with the buttons. That's why I'm going to support and at least give him a shot at using the tools well.
'''Support''' Gurch's experience will help greatly at [[C:CSD]] if the expected torrent of new articles materializes.
'''Support''' Gurch is good. &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Support''' I have some concerns about Gurch's emotional stability and how likely he is to fly off the handle again (As with the blanking of many pages, including the main page talk, noted below). But, the trade off is worth it and if he goes nuts again it'll be spectacular enough that no long-term damage will be done. He doesn't get involved in dispute resolution or areas of complex judgement, so the potential for really damaging admin abuse is limited.
'''Weak support''' based on past blocks, but we'll need every deck on hand very soon.
'''Strong Titanium/Diamond/fnord Support''' - As far as I know, Gurch being a former admin has shown that he can and will be able to handle everything that is dished out to him and yes he has an unbalanced record, but he has shown in the past couple of months that he is up for a challenge and his contributions to the wikipedia is really impressive both by him and his alter-ego Qxz (not to mention the anon-edits :P )..I trust him with the tools and i believe he is exactly what we should look for in a future admin prospect..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Yeah, I suppose he is civil enough --
Pointy bastard... Just don't send a nuclear bomb to the database to prove you can, and I'll be happy... ;) --
'''Support''' I am concerned about the edit warring, but I think there is still cause to support.
'''Support''' Has common sense. &mdash;
'''Support''' —
[[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|15px]] '''{{{2|WTF?}}}''' This '''LIAR''' said he would never be admin again. W/e - we need such addicts - who else would do all the work? *huggles*
'''Hell yes''' <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Support''' I first met [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] as '''Qxz''' early this year, so I'm not as well-acquainted with him as some; but I've had only good experiences with him, and I trust him with the tools.   Gurch, if you ever want to Talk/vent, [[User talk:WillowW|my home]] is always open. :)
The opposing votes have raised important concerns. Administrators in peticular should not edit war. However, per MER-C, I think that the canadate would make a great vandal fighter, and we need all the vandal fighting admins we can get.--
'''support''' User has a lot of experience and is ''clearly'' dedicated to Wikipedia. This is shown by the fact that even with all the pressure against him (blocks, etc.), he still chugs along. --
'''Support''' and I hope I won't have cause to regret this opinion. Blocks and such aside, seems like an asset in many ways. We'll just see.
'''Support''' A super tireless contributor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' His nom satisfies me.
'''Support''' Yeah I see no major concerns.
'''Oppose''', user edits at the wrong time of day&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Support''' long-standing & experienced editor.
'''Support''' There are some uncomfortable realities to consider, but I believe the main point of Gurch's request, i.e. that administrative responsibilities are increasing, and he is more than prepared to deal with these responsibilities.
'''Support'''. I do not fear that Gurch will abuse the tools. -
'''Support'''.  He's had his moments, but I've never doubted Gurch's heart is in the right place.  He won't abuse the tools and the project will be better off if he has the extra buttons.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
I'm sorry to be the one who has to do this. I know you were a former administrator, but all you ever do is revert vandalism, I seem to recall a couple of months back that you made almost 1,000 edits in a period of one day, this clearly shows an unhealthy addiction to Wikipedia. I'm extremely impressed with your edits, but most of them are just vandal reverts, there is no contributing to the encyclopedia. You also strike me as being very argumentative, for example when I was on IRC before I was unbanned, I noticed a user talk page which was receiving some talk page abuse, I requested on IRC that an admin take a look, and provided a link to the user talk page, (obviously I could not request it myself), you then replied by saying the page doesn't exist, and you had looked on the wrong page (despite the fact I provided a clear link), then when checking it out, you then said it would editing on behalf of a banned user, however since the page was receiving several bad edits in the space of a minute by the blocked user, this would be standard Wikipedia practise. I'm sorry to do this, but I can't support.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but I can only vote based on my experience with an editor, and in this case I experienced someone who acted wildly inappropriate at the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes|Gracenotes RFA]]. For anyone who was not involved in that vote, Gurch made constant angry accusations against anyone who did not vote in the same direction as him and really just went completely out of control. From what I have heard it seems he continued with the  belligerent attitude for some time to come. I suppose it was possible that Gurch has never acted so rude or obstinate before or since and that he was simply too full of yellow bile (anyone get that one?:)), but I have to say that I simply cannot ignore such an episode.-
'''Oppose''' blocked 13 days ago for apparently a good reason... we already have enough current admins getting themselves blocked over edit warring... do we really need ''more''? --
'''Oppose''' This candidate's contributions show vast amounts of repetitive automated or semi-automated robotic edits, often many hours at a time. I feel this gives a skewed view of the true contributions of the human editor behind the account, unassisted by an automated script or a bot. In my opinion, massive robotic or bot-assisted edits should not be done from a human account. In addition, as [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] notes above, my experience with this editor during that RfA was very poor, as s/he was pushing very hard every single nay vote. I also noticed this editor pushing hard to allow open proxy editing, something I believe will damage this project.
Edit-warring on [[User:Luna Santin]] over a rather [[WP:POINT|pointy]] issue.
'''Oppose''' per Moshe and Crum375. --
'''Oppose''' per Moshe, W.Marsh, Crum375, ''and per Gurch'' 's responses to "questions for the applicant", esp. #4 where he says he doesn't ''want'' to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Crum and response to question four. --
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh. We can't have admins edit-warring.
'''Oppose''' per question 4 and the Gracenotes situation, in which I had no other choice but to block you. Can't trust you with the tools for now at least.
'''Weak oppose''' ''I have already experienced the status I am requesting, and assert that it is nothing special, that I do not particularly want it, and that I honestly do not care about the outcome.'' Uh what? That entire statement confuses the hell out of me, if you don't care and you don't particularly want it.... I can't support if that's the way you feel about it. The edit war over Luna's page was also troubling.
Unfortunately, I cannot condone the departing behavior of Qxz, even if that account was really meant to be abandoned.
Moshe has raised valid concerns.
Unnerving block log, edit-warring on a user page is just silly.--
Everybody's articulated my reasons for opposing far better than I ever could.
Strong oppose per {{history|User:Luna Santin|this}}. '''
This user's block log, the vandalism spree, the Luna Santin issue, and Gracenotes' RFA make this user unsuitable to be an administrator.
We don't need any more admins who are armed and ready for [[WP:EDITWAR|combat]]. --'''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but your recent block log is a serious concern to me. --
'''Oppose''' The vandalism spree shows an extremely worrying lack of maturity. Because of that, this candidate appears to be completely unsuitable for adminship.
I sometimes disagree with many of the things that happen at Wikipedia, but the way to deal with such situations is not disruption, it's not edit warring over people's user pages.  I hate to think what would happen if Gurch went on one of his rampages armed with block buttons and deletion tools.  And such disagreements are bound to happen -- it's impossible to have a community this big where everyone agrees on everything all the time.  It's tough, because Gurch is such a good, smart contributor, but seems unable to avoid bouts of disruption. --
'''Oppose''' per - ''I was fed up and no longer wanted the status. I still don't,....'' no matter what the reason one should not feel obliged to be an admin, and if you don't want it, don't do it. If you were fed up before doing a job you did not want to do previously, then I can only see history repeating itself. <sup>
'''Oppose'''. Based on issues listed above, I cannot trust Gurch to not abuse the tools. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' - per Khurki's and the ''I was fed up and no longer wanted the status. I still don't,....'' line.  That threw me off, too.  Add that to the edit warring, and I'm not too comfortable.
'''Oppose''' per W. marsh and the recent block log.  My personal experiences with the candidate also  have been negative, as he tends toward aggression, impoliteness, and curt behavior.
'''Strong oppose''' Impressive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Gurch block log], And not to mention s/he went on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070522213709&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Gurch vandalism spree] (see edits on May 20th). I have seen bad behavior from this user (as seen in the block log), and I cannot support. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' per above comments.  We need less drama on Wikipedia, not more.
'''Oppose''' per Crum and response to question four.
'''Neutral''' I do agree that we need vandal fighters, but the recent block still bothers me. I'll stay neutral pending an answer to the block question. --
You're still a relative newbie; you've made several mistakes this very month, and that's fine, but you're not going to be granted admin status for a while.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.33.148.243&diff=174140918&oldid=174139823] which happended the other day, although I appreciate you removed it after I asked you to. And regarding Q3 - errr... no. You should try and talk it out ''before'' templating users if possible, not the other way round. You might find [[WP:ADOPT|adoption]] by an experienced user is a good idea. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' - You've only been here two months.  In that time, you've made just over 200 edits, half of those to your user page (which contains many typos).  You have only 30 edits in the Main namespace, and need more experience before becoming an admin. --
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal''' - You're just getting started as a Wikipedia editor.  Your obvious enthusiasm is heartening, but you should be focusing on finding ways to get involved with the project at this point, not adminship.  --'''
'''Oppose'''. I can't fault you for seeking the position so soon, but the reality is that the community generally prefers admins to have a significantly higher level of experience over a longer period of time. This lets you not only learn about the project and how it works, but also permits you to demonstrate that knowledge. Have a look at some recent successful requests, and see what you can do to improve before your next request. Good luck,
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal''' Enthusiasm appreciated, but you need a lot more experience. Also, honest and sincere discussion is usually preferred to the laying on of templates. See
'''Neutral''' suggest withdrawal. --
I don't think you need the admin tools, removing vandalism can be done by anyone. You only have 97 edits --
'''Massive Oppose''' You state you have over 2000 edits yet you do not. You have under 100. I cannot support a liar as an admin and frankly suggest you withdraw and don't waste hard working contributors time with this. To be honest I can't even [[WP:AGF]] here , and I'm sorry for that, but there we go. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' 2K edits? Been here for 3 years? Is that a joke? No experience, jejune. —
I agree with AxG. You don't really have much experience with even reporting vandals. Besides where are these 2K dits you claim to have? Also, the fact that you stated that a user was banned by an admin shows how little you actually know about policy and how Wikipedia works. I suggest you try to get more experience before trying to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you have under 100 edits, you don't need admin tools to remove vandalism (you could use [[WP:TW]]), and you don't need to be an admin to create pages. Also, you lied by saying you have been here 3 years. Try again in 5 or 6 months. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' And....why should you be an admin? You've been here for three and a half hours. Admins are...well...experienced? You've made ONE mainspace edit. I'm sorry, but are you nowhere near remotely close to ready. You can't even list your own RfA correctly, and you clearly don't understand what an admin does. Being a teacher is not grounds for becoming an admin. '''''
'''Oppose''' I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] here and presume you don't know what an admin does. You've given no indication of why you want to be an admin, you haven't bothered to read the instructions on how to request adminship, and you have precisely one mainspace contribution. Withdraw this now; I guarantee it won't pass.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Strong Oppose''' Not nearly enough experience yet.  Only created account 3 hours ago.
Sorry, but no. FYI, most editors on this site don't suddenly show up and nominate themselves for adminship just a few hours after joining, not having a clue what adminship really entails.
Oppose. Not enough experience. '''
'''Oppose''' Close this RfA early and gain experience of editing and contributing to the various project spaces over the course of six months or so before returning with a strong business case for your adminiship proposal.  You have less than fifty edits and do not demonstrate a knowledge of policy or process that is required of admins around the project.
'''Support''' Fully qualified.--
'''Support'''Seems like a good editor, but I doubt this RfA will succeed. I think you need some more experiance on Wikipedia before running for Adminship. The way how you talk to vandals is worrying, although this is not a policy, see [[WP:INSULT]]. I suggest you apply again in a few months. --
'''Strong Support''' He wants to fight vandalism, well lets provide him with the appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct vandals.--
'''Support''' Per Harrison, but with the same caveats voiced by Yamamato Ichiro.  As a vandal fighter, I too would like to see less backlog on AIV.<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Moral support''' - I look forward to seeing you back here once you've corrected the objects of the concerns presented below.  You'll do fine.  '''''
'''Weak Support''', I'm a little concerned by the comments below, but as many of us know, the pressure of vandal fighting gets to you after awhile. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
If I may speak directly to the candidate, while I appreciate your vandalism reversion efforts, I am leery of supporting your request, as I believe administrators should be well-rounded and play a role in adding content to the encyclopedia (admittedly, this is more for ideological than technical reasons).  Admins who live to revert vandalism are not what we need at the moment.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Strong oppose per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purpleson0&diff=prev&oldid=132605138 this comment], which further emphasises the point that you lack understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia, how it works, and what administrators are meant to act like. Only four days ago, you a) don't use proper English when conversing with another user; b) threaten to "report them"; c) use "moderator" erroneously; and d) use "deleting pages" erroneously. That, and per Gaillimh, we need administrators who go beyond simple click-revert functions; you have failed to demonstrate that you have good analytical skills (which administrators need, when making a decision) in your time on Wikipedia. "My best contributions to Wikipedia overall are my vandalism reverts" is also worrying, as I believe administrators need to know how to handle disputes that arise around mainspace articles. '''
After seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purpleson0&diff=prev&oldid=132605138 this], I oppose.
'''Oppose''' per the above diff. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Oppose''' The diffs provided are a worry, it shows a lack of understanding of how to handle difficult situations and being unable to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] in your comments. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', unfortunately. Administrators (and admin candidates) ought to know how to handle themselves better than how you did in such a stressful situation. Honestly, I doubt if you can remain civil and not [[WP:BITE|bite]] others when you see yourself in any tough situation, which you definitely will as an admin. Sorry. —
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid, per the above diff. <font color="purple">
'''Oppose''', sorry, but the diff provided above is just too recent and what Daniel calls SMS-speak doesn't demonstrate a full grasp of what adminship is about, either. —'''
'''Oppose''' per Daniel's diff... Even if they are a Vandal-only account, [[WP:CIVIL]] still applies. I can't imagine wanting an Admin who might block people using phrases like "Why don't you get a life?" Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - User does not have a grasp of the scope of WP, nor does the user seem to know to use templates as opposed to, shall we say, "personalized messages" when warning vandals.  If this pattern of action is in the user's best area, I am worried about how the rest of the areas are.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, per the diff.
'''Oppose''' - I started reading this thinking "why not do the vandal bit and learn some more as you go".  However reading what is here and the diffs & comments above I cannot support this RfA --
<s>'''Oppose''' - You wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purpleson0&diff=prev&oldid=132605138 this] just 4 days ago, blasting one of the most respected admins around here. You clearly don't understand the need for civility and you don't understand why pages get deleted. And just what "moderator" did you report her to? A mop may be a mop, but it can do a lot of damage, too. Sorry, but this is not the action of someone I want to see wielding one. Work around here a lot more, ''write'' a lot more, study how admins do their job, ''read, read, read'' the policies and guidelines and become intimately familiar with them to the point you respect them, then come back. '''
'''Oppose''' per the above, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purpleson0&diff=prev&oldid=132605138 this] edit. --
[[WP:CIVIL|Civility]] and [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] are extremely important policies for an editor, especially an admin. Sorry but I have to oppose per the above diff. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Per Daniel's given address, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purpleson0&diff=prev&oldid=132605138 here]. It sounds like you have no clue what's going on inside of Wikipedia. If you can't call administrators by the right name, why should we give you the tools of one?
'''Neutral''' - You seem like a good editor, fair amount of experience, good mainspace edit level and Wikipedia-space, but what concerns me is your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Hdt83 block log]. Can you please explain what was going on here? –
'''Neutral''' I was going to vote support but the comment just disturbed me a little to much --
'''Neutral''' - The diff provided by the oppose voters concerned me; although the use of SMS speak, the slightly flippant attitude and the erroneous use of "moderator" are not individually serious concerns, together they are enough to prevent me from supporting. However, one diff isn't enough to make me oppose. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
After looking at some of the comments that Hdt83 has made, I have to change my RfA response. Vandal fighters are crucial to the project, and I ''still'' don't believe in opposing RfAs on a strict basis of "not enough mainspace edits", but the incivility ''is'' an issue. I suggest withdrawing, working on your cool, and re-applying in a few months. I'd be happy to work with you outside this RfA, Hdt83, if you want. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''' Seems like a relatively good editor, but while it isn't exactly excusable for a regular editor to lose their cool, it is quite unacceptable for an admin to.  As stated above, work on the cooling down for a bit, then try again.  Good luck!
'''Very strong and serious support''' A good faith editor who is very nice to people.
'''Moral support''' based on my [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Hdt83|editor review of the candidate]].
'''Support''' I'm not worried about him going crazy, and you can't opposed solely based on the last RfA being less then a month ago. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
'''Support''' - The oppose reasons don't look that "big"..and [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|as per Jimbo Wales]]..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support''' Maybe a little keen, but so what. I think the main concern regarding civility from last time has been fixed, and otherwise seems a productive editor. '''
'''Support''' -- even though it is only a short time between his last RFA, I feel he may well have changed his ways and considered the opposes in the last RFA. (changed from neutral) --
'''Support''' per Ryan Postlethwaite. The opposes seem to centre on the short time elapsed since the last RfA, which is indeed a problem but isn't serious on its own to oppose, IMO. And I totally disagree with Daniel's statement that "for a vandal-fighter, 10,000 edits isn't enough." 10,000 edits is twice what I had when I passed RfA, and although I do have some article contribs, my focus has always been on maintenance work. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>
'''Support''' I find it odd that the candidate would attempt another RfA so soon after the last one, but that won't stop me from supporting. As for Hdt83 not having enough edits...I can think of some administrators that don't even 5000.
'''Support''' This candidate's work on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AFC]] shows a willingness to tackle even the most daunting of backlogs.  Other concerns seem to have been addressed and will no doubt continue to be addressed in the future.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' - I think it would have been better of you waited a little longer before re-running - but the previous issues seem to have been resolved and I am ready to move on if you are. You have been a good contributer overall and could help in a lot of tasks as an admin. Good luck!
'''Support''', the previous issues were not horrible, and you seems to have grown beyond them.  I would trust you with the mop.
'''Support''' per significant improvement since last RfA and good work at AFC and HD.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest that the editor will misuse tools.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Per PGWG, and there is nothing wrong with canvassing at all.
'''Support''' My interactions with this user have been positive. I have looked over both the support votes and the oppose votes and I do not feel as if there are any big reasons to oppose him.--
'''Support''' No reason why he shouldn't be an admin.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Good user, I have dealt with him previously and he will become a good admin. It doesn't matter how long, since last RFA, you can learn a lot in a short time. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I'm confident he whould do a good job. '''-
'''Support''' Dont see any red flags
Changed from oppose, then neutral. Nothing suggests he would misuse the tools and that's all that matters. —'''
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Hdt83. He/she will make a fine administrator. [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose''' canvassing, but as I see it is not promoting any one side, it's fine. [[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|15px]] '''WTF''' is up with all the opposes about "canvassing" (per se) that isn't even biased toward one side?! '''[[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' I know this is a losing cause but let's think about it. Only one example of incivility - just one - that I see documented. Plus, only one example of alleged canvassing. I know it's soon after his first RfA but it went down over the one remark. Now, I respect the consensus of the community and its collective wisdom but I think we may be just a bit over the top here.
'''Support''' - I don't consider a low edit count an issue (quality not quantity) and I am tired of users concerned only with edit counts. Answers to questions were strong and the user has a high use of the edit summary. --
'''Oppose''' This user's last RfA was less than a month ago. That is far too soon.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately I must agree with the other users, it is far too short a time in between RfAs. I have looked over the user, and I do believe that he/she will make a good admin ''in time''. He should do another RfA, but perhaps wait a couple of months, to prove without a doubt that the concerns from the previous RfA have been relieved. --
'''Oppose''' Too little time since last RfA, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NHRHS2010&curid=11530926&diff=139116721&oldid=139111783 canvassing for support] never looks good. Sorry, maybe in a few months' time? You're a good vandal fighter and would be a boon over at AIV, but I'm not sure the issues since the last RfA have been completely resolved.
(ec)Canvassing is bad.  Don't do it.  On another note, I really see very little improvement since your last RfA.  You're a good vandal fighter, but you just need to give it some more time. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Oppose''' - previous RfA was much too recent. It's hard to show that any concerns raised in the previous RfA have been addressed and any issues resolved after just a few weeks of them being raised&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Oppose'''. Previous RfA was just last month and the account focuses on reverting vandalism.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Too little time between RfAs as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NHRHS2010&diff=prev&oldid=139116721 canvassing], which is ALWAYS bad. --
'''Oppose''' Too soon since the last RfA. Try again after three months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Hdt83's edits to date haven't demonstrated, for my liking, the ability to apply discretion sufficiently. In addition, I don't believe his last RfA was long enough ago. <small><span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHdt83_2&diff=139356187&oldid=139355574 (note)]</span></small> '''
'''Oppose'''. Give it some time. Explore. You seem to be a productive user, and you will pass RfA in time. '''
'''Oppose''' You have less than 10000 edits, and I agree above give it time!
'''Moderately strong Oppose''' I have concerns about your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NHRHS2010&diff=prev&oldid=139116721 canvassing].  And as others have stated, your first RfA was closed as unsuccessful 25 days ago.  '''
'''Weak Oppose''' While I do not feel giving you the mop would be an error, I do feel it is too soon for another RFA. Three months is a comfortable (it gives you a quarter of a year to re-establish yourself and prove you have taken into account any issues or concerns brought up in your previous RFA). --

'''Oppose''' - I do not associate <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NHRHS2010&diff=prev&oldid=139116721 canvassing]</span> as per the other contributors. Not only however that your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83|first RfA]] was created in May 26 but you do not have the potential to gain adminship consensus. —
Sorry, but I must '''oppose''' per Daniel Bryant in your first RfA. Civility is very important for administrators, and I can't allow that all civility concerns have been addressed sufficiently in just three weeks' time.
'''Oppose'''. Perhaps you should try again in 5 months. [[User:Hanoi Girl|Hanoi Girl]] → <small><sup>
I dont think you have taken the time to address the concerns in your previous RfA as it was only a short time ago. '''
'''Reluctant Oppose''' I've dealt with Hdt83 on a few occasions, and believe he's a good editor.  I was actually ready to support--but after finding out he was [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]], I can't support this nomination in good consience.
'''Oppose''', too soon from previous RFA. Try again in a few months time.
'''Oppose''' I will probably end up supporting in the future at a different Rfa, but this is not the right time...far too early from your last Rfa for me to support; time will help alleviate the concerns.  Best of luck!
'''Oppose'''. One of this editor's supporters in the first RfA suggested leaving it for 'a few months' before trying again. I think this was good advice and would repeat it: less than 4 weeks is not enough time to demonstrate a substantive change.
'''Oppose''' Like 9/11 jokes and Steve Irwin jokes.  Too soon.
'''Neutral'''. You've been doing some good work recently, and I liked the way you handled your last RfA, but it's still a little too soon for me to support. I'd suggest maybe writing some articles or something and coming back in a couple months. - '''
'''Neutral'''- To little time has passed since your last RfA. Keep on working on the problems pointed out on your last RfA and wait a couple of months more before trying again.
I'm sorry, I just can't quite get behind this RfA. Barely any time has passed since your last RfA, and while I have no doubt that someone can immediately turn their attentions to their own limitations, only time can tell if their attempts will actually bear fruit; without this time having elapsed, the complaints in your first RfA still stand (in my opinion). The canvassing bit that tennisman pointed out is also mildly disturbing; unless you've worked with that editor in a training capacity (for example, [[User:Husond|Husond]] provided me solid advice in my editor review, and so I dropped him a note when my RfA took flight), I don't think it was proper. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''' in this case as I do still believe and agree with some of the opposing voters about how close it is since your last failed RfA, but I do believe you're a great editor here on Wikipedia with a passion to do some extra stuff here and there to build a productive encyclopedia - keep that up and if this RfA doesn't go anywhere, try again in another year or two when you've learnt a bit more and gained more edits. I wish you good luck Hdt83 :)
'''Neutral''' First time I've ever voted neutral. I have a lot of respect for this editor, and will certainly be willing to support in a couple of months. However I will be willing to help this editor in the short term, in any way they feel necessary to gain greater experience and to resolve any issues raised here. <sup>
'''Neutral leaning quite a lot towards support''' - This RfA is a bit close to the previous one and you canvassed a bit (just 1 user, but still), but you seem tp have fixed some of your previos mistakes and you have gathered nearly 10000 edits (your mainspace edits are about the same number as my entire edits in total, for instance). Also, I´m a bit concerned about the civility issues of your previous RfA; since this one is close to the previos one, I´m not very sure if those issues are to never happen again, but that isn´t that much of a problem, since I haven´t seen any editor oppose per civility issueas in this RfA, meaning that you must have improved. Try again after sometime and I´ll certainly support.  <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Support'''. You know what we are about, and what we are for. You will therefore make a great admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
But of course.  A great user who's really put in the hard yards.
'''Support''' I don't remember if I supported last time, but I recall doing an editor review that did not raise any serious problems for me.  The advice to wait a little longer before the next application should be taken to heart.
'''Support''' I really admire the determination and courage of this user to run for adminship one month after a failed nomination. It shows that this candidate is willing to improve the scope of this project. I also believe that this candidate would not abuse the admin tools given to him as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good user. Answers to questions are good, and Q5 is fine by me.

'''Support'''- really good user that I trust. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Support'''- because now it's even. Just watch the edit summary usage. :)
'''Support''' solid work so far, but get rid of the red edit summaries.
'''Moral support'''- '''Anthony.bradbury''' said it best. —'''
'''Support'''. "Too keen" is an inadequate reason to oppose - it's possible to be keen to become an admin in order to help the project.
'''Support''' No big deal.
'''Support''' I'm going to support because (1) Hdt83 is ready for the tools, and (2) Adminship is ''no big deal''. <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' There is not much point waiting for waiting's sake. I do not find any evidence of incivility at a cursory examination of Hdt83's contribs since the first RfA and considering that the only concern in the first RfA was a single instance and not a pattern of incivility, I am going to support, although I do not see what the hurry is in becoming an admin. I agree with Anthony.Bradbury on that point. -
'''Support''' the short space between RfA's doesn't bother me at all, however, it does bother other users. I strongly suggest Hdt83 wait for about three months or so before trying again to avoid opposition over short-times between RfAs.
He seems quite qualified for the job. I sense no ill intention and good will to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - Almost every oppose seems to be about the amount of time since the last RfA, which seemed to be the same case for that one. It's been over 2 months since the first RfA where it seemed the only real concern was one somewhat incivil, inappropriate diff. Considering the 11,500+ edits over various areas of the encyclopedia and the fact that it appears that he has learned from his mistake, I must support.
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason for keeping this editor in the penalty box for several more months. The original RfA revealed no major problems apart from one incivility mistake, which the editor seem to have learned from. <strong>
'''Support'''.  LaraLove said it for me. --
'''Support''' - this experienced editor is qualified for the tools at this time. The oppose comments are focused almost entirely on the timing of the RfA rather than the candidate's current qualifications, and therefore are unpersuasive.
The concerns of the opposers are that he reapplied too quickly, but that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I am not going to oppose an RfA when I don't see any evidence that the user will abuse the tools. You seem to be a fine user. <b>
'''Support''' No evidence of any misunderstanding of policy, plenty of edits with good experience in all areas.  No reason to oppose.  Time between RfA's is a petty factor. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
(Moral?) '''Support''' I have no problem with what I've seen from the user. Looking at the oppose votes, very few seem to be based on the opinion that Hdt83 would not make a good administrator. This RFA does seem destined to fail based on the time since the last RFA, so clearly the community is going to require you to wait at least several months before another attempt. Have patience, and maybe a [[cup of tea]], and things will take care of themselves.
'''Oppose''' Your last RfA ended about a month ago, and the one before that only a month before the last one. I think you are over eager to get the tools.
I feel as if this is the third time I've seen this RfA in the last two months.  Last time, one of the main concerns was that Hdt should wait longer before applying again.  The response to this was to wait 5 weeks instead of 4.  It's longer, yes, but clearly not what people were asking for at the previous RfA.  I'll definitely be returning to this RfA to see the response to question 5 above.  If the candidate has a good reason that he ignored those concerns (and ignoring concerns is something I strongly dislike in admins), I'd be willing to reconsider my opposition. --
I admire your determination but you seem to power hungry. Plus it has been not long since ur last rfa.
'''Oppose''' Yeah, sorry, I'd give it at least two or three months between RFAs, especially if two in a row fail. Either that or don't nominate yourself. You just give me the impression of someone who thinks that the admin tools are something they can't contribute to Wikipedia without, be that because of their actual use or because of the position of power, I find that a bit worrisome. --
'''Oppose''' I am sorry to oppose again, but I do not feel you have given enough time to show you have learned from the concerns made during your previous RFA's. --
'''Oppose''' Needs to heed the advice from the last RfA about leaving the intervals between applications to frow larger and using that time to improve with admin-related tasks and editor interaction.
'''Oppose''' I find the answer to my question worrisome and I simply don't see the maturity level I look for in prospective admins.
'''Oppose''' Too many RfAs in too little time. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per the people that have said it has been a to short of time since your last RFA.
'''Opppose''' User is far too new to be considered for elevation to level of administrator. -
'''Oppose''' I agree with the people who said that the gaps between your RFA's are too short, try to wait at least 2 months before another one. -
Being an administrator is all about having the trust of the community. I seriously recommend waiting for someone else to nominate you. ~
'''Oppose''' slightly as per Lemonflash. --<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Oppose''' per Pascal Tesson.  Depending on the circumstances, "over-eagerness" for the mop can be a sign of immaturity, of a failure to respond to criticism, and/or an inability to grasp one's own need for improvement.  Given the odd answer to Question 5, I'd say this candidate displays all these weaknesses.  There is much learning the candidates needs to do before I'd trust him/her with the mop.
'''Oppose'''. I am concerned about the diff shown in the first Rfa [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purpleson0&diff=prev&oldid=132605138], coupled with the impatience shown in trying again twice more in such a short space of time against advice. The community has said no twice recently and is saying no again. I think that someone who has the balanced, mature and patient personalty required for coolly making awkward decisions would take this information on board and now take a very long break before even thinking of applying again. And perhaps wait to be nominated by someone. Applying again within the next three months might again cause people to oppose purely on those grounds. Display the patience and good judgement that is required of an admin and people might just be keener to give support.
'''Oppose''' per T.Rex and others. I don't see how the issues brought up by the last RFA have been resolved sufficiently, the brief time in-between this RFA and the last give me pause, and some of your catty responses to comments here all make me doubt you possess the experience and maturity to be given the tools.
'''Oppose''' I am very concerned about article talk page usage. It seems like you don't communicate a lot with the community.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Riana, and I don't think enough time has passed between RFAs.
You're waiting about a month between RfAs, despite the fact that numerous people have mentioned that you need to give it more time. You really need to be more receptive to feedback, especially when you volunteer yourself for it (as happens in an RfA). Stop self-nominating every month, and concentrate on improving the project for a couple of months '''before''' coming back here. At this point, you're just pissing away any good will that you're building up. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - *sigh* Ok... Kurt's right this time. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
'''Neutral''' Nearly a support, but I agree that the concerns brought up in your previous Rfa have not had quite enough time to have been resolved.  Next time.
'''Neutral''' I think it's just a little too soon after your last RfA. If you were to give it three months and focus on the issues that you were lacking in the last one, I think you would make it without any hassle. Don't be in such a hurry.
'''Neutral''' Most of your speedy deletion tags are accurate and result in appropriate speedy deletion. I don't think I found any tags you placed on articles that shouldn't have been deleted, from the last few months. There were a few that had the wrong tag though (of these nonsense tags [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Green_House_Gas_Accounting&timestamp=20070803071910 this should have been A3] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=A_tool&timestamp=20070622013246 this should have been A1 or G10] ''note: only administators can view these diffs''). It's very important that administrators delete for reasons that clearly meet the applicable speedy deletion criteria. It is important in a process sense, as well as for clearly notifying the user of what the problem with the article was. This concern along with the repeated nominations is leading me to be neutral. If you continue to appropriately tag articles for speedy deletion, I will be supportive in the future.
'''Neutral''' You have a good, well-balanced contribution record; you have been here for about six months; and you seem to know what you're doing. But if you keep on applying every month you are just ''not'' going to get the support. If you succeed now, well good. But if you do not, leave it three months, apply then and you will cruise through. Editors need to feel that you have taken the time to learn since your last application. You may feel that you have - but it's what they think that weighs with the closing bureaucrat --<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' Per Anthony.bradbury. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Per Anthony.bradbury. Otherwise qualified, but going up again within a month is poor judgment. Come back in a few months, and I'll support you. --
'''Neutral''' - over-eager. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' - Time is too short since your last Rfa. A very good editor, but try again about a month or two. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Per Anon Dissident.
'''Neutral''', at the moment. The concerns raised by other users are a slight worry, however, I do feel that in about, let's say, November, December-ish, I'd recommend going for it around then. Don't let this neutral stance and other opposes get you down because of you applying to soon; focus on continuing your excellent work, and finding new ways to help out, that might eventually wipe out the amount of opposes on your next RFA. Kind regards, –
'''Neutral''', and most of what I could say it perfectly summarized by Anthony.bradbury. Give it some time. People need to see that you've grown as an editor in the time since your last RfA. But, as Spebi noted, don't be discouraged by these RfA's. Good luck on this one, but, if it fails, wait a good three months and I'm sure someone will nominate you. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Neutral''' Anthony says exactly my thoughts above. You're a very valued editor, but there's no need to be so keen to be an admin. Believe me, if you are good enough, someone ''will'' nominate you eventually. I suggest you withdraw this, as it won't pass, and wait around for a long while, or until someone offers to nominate you after a few months. And don't self nominate again as this will just annoy people. Kind regards, '''
'''Strong support''' ASince his last RfA, he's certainly gained a broader knowledge in the general workings of the project, and there is nothing that leads me to think he will misuse the tools. <sup>
'''Weak Support''' I doubt you'll misuse the tools although concerns raised below are troubling --'''
'''Strongest support possible''' Great user who is always nice. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''',  we need all the admins we can get, and Hdt looks like he would be willing to get stuck into backlogs - this is good.
'''Strong Support''', from personal experience. Has helped me out greatly in my wiki-adventures. I feel like I am a better editor thanks to his advise and feel Wikipedia is a better place with his contributions. --
'''Support''' I and two other editors gave Hdt83 high marks for helping at the help desk and patrolling recent changes in an editor review back in June (linked in "Discussion" above).  It's clear to me that the last four-five months have yielded continuing growth, so I think the candidate is ready for adminship.
'''Support''' WP needs admins people, and self-noms should NOT affect whether a person supports or opposes the nominee. Neither should the fact that he doesn't get into conflicts. This is clearly a careful editor, who would not misuse the tools, and would do his best to help out where he could. If we turn down every self-nom, or every nominee who hasn't been in enough conflicts for our liking, we'll reject a lot of potentially good admins.
'''Support''' I see no red flags to oppose.
Hdt83 appears to have addressed the concerns raised in his first RfA, where he was opposed for incivility. Now what is he being opposed for? Not enough article writing (despite doing some to demonstrate he ''can'' write), amount of RfAs, roughly over a third of his edits are to the mainspace, the possibility that he "wants to be an admin" (why else would he run?), and the fact this is a self-nomination. None of these issues display that he would be abusive; and in fact, has any evidence to show that he would abuse the tools been provided? No: therefore, I support.
'''Support''' unless someone can bring up some ''real'' reasons to oppose. I see no evidence that the user would abuse or misuse sysop rights. The "too soon since last RfA" reason had been brought up in the 2nd rfa. Enough time has elapsed since then. And enough improvement. Also agree with above stated reasoning. And the edit count argument mentioned below is beyond all reasonableness. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I am glad you desire to be an admin - something would be wrong if you didn't but still went through all of this. In readind the opposers, I see little real reason to oppose.
I was going to write a spiel about how I've seen Hdt83 around and haven't noticed any problems and the reasons for opposition below do not concern me, but Acalamari counters the opposes well, '''support''' per Acalamari. '''''<small>
'''Support''' I have both opposed and gone neutral in previous RFAs, but I think the time has come to give them the mop.
'''Support.''' "I am opposing this qualified candidate because they ran in the last election." "I am opposing this candidate becuase only 43.7% of his otherwise sufficiently numerous campaign appearances were in states/provinces that I like." If you voted this way in real life people would stare blankly and wordlessly at best.
'''Support''' Article writing is not indicative of the potential quality of admin work. Also, ''460 edits to AIV''?
'''Support'''. My interactions with you have been positive, and I find the supports more convincing than the opposes.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. We need more anti-vandal admins, and Hdt83 is perfect (<sup>don't take that literally</sup>)! --
'''Support''' no reason to assume s/he'll abuse the tools.
From the answers to the questions and the participation in [[WP:AFC|AFC]], there is no evidence that this user will have any judgment issues, as there is sufficient understanding of how Wikipedia works.  Being involved in Adopt-A-User shows how an experienced user can effectively deal with a newer contributor.  I trust that this user will not mis/abuse the tools, so I '''support''' this nomination. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Support''', no reason not to, oppose reasons are frivolous at best.
'''Support'''. The candidate appears to be fully qualified for adminship at this time. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' reasons and find them unpersuasive.
'''Support''' - S/He has improved since his last RfA. I also feel that s/he will not abuse the tools, and has spent enough time in article-space. I can't oppose based on that alone. Best regards,
'''Support'''<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support''' A very nice user who is also a great editor. I also feel that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''' If the user fights vandalism, then yes.
'''Very Strong support''' User that fights vandalism. This user is very polite, nice, and respectful to others even if another user is very impolite to this user. Also welcomes new editors to Wikipedia and helps new users. When an user asks him how to certain things in Wikipedia he almost always responds. This is also a very careful editor and nearly impossible to misuse adminstrator tools.
In dubio pro reo. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' -- continued improvement since last time in August, including use of edit summaries. Give him the mop already.
'''Support''' I wish you had waited for someone to nominate you, but I'm satisfied your contributions are mop-worthy. -
(edit conflict)'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter who is long overdue for the tools.--
'''Support''', I am a little concerned about how soon this RFA is after his last one, but I am still of the opinion that he will not abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''; user seems ready for adminship. The short time between this and recent RfAs does not convince me against supporting.
Not for the first time :)&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Support''', no reason to oppose and with respect to the opposers, the reasoning there seems mostly specious.
'''Support''' Adminship isn't a big deal.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
'''Strong Support''' – A solid contributor, lots of encyclopaedic edits and strong answers to questions. It seems unfair what is happening here and I see a troubling pattern, no one in oppose has provided a diff that would raise a red flag. Yet many are jumping on the oppose band wagon, merely because it is a self-nom or the answers are not viewed as long enough or the last RfA was too recent. But do not back up these claims with any diffs or valid objections, to state why Hdt83 is currently unqualified for adminship.--
'''Support''' I really think this editor has leant from his last RfA.
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs –
I find all of your nominations in such a short period of time to be very annoying, but there is nothing  that I see that makes me believe you will be abusive. If you do not get adminship, please wait '''at least'''' 6 month before trying again. Then you should be able to get it.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I haven't seen any substantial or persuasive reasons from the "oppose" camp. Actually, I think they are mostly astonishingly weak arguments. Too many RfAs? I would hope people could look a little deeper than that. Answers above are relatively solid although a few could be stronger. I don't think I've ever seen an RfA with as many as 12 questions. Looks to me like Hdt83 has progressed quite a bit and is trustworthy. (shakes head sadly and mutters inaudible imprecations under breath.)
'''Support''' After careful consideration, I've changed my mind. Three months is enough time to wait, especially while racking up 3,000 more edits while waiting. I disagree with the editcountitis that's happening in the Oppose section, which is why I was neutral, but overall the arguments against are pretty weak. This user has waited long enough to get the mop, let's give it to him.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad.  The oppose votes are not unlike your lower intestine:  stinky, and full of danger. --
'''Support''' per GlassCobra and Pigman. <strong>
'''Support''' I see no indication that this user would abuse admin commands.
'''Support''' Not sure if im allowed 2, but has been bery helpful in adopting me, and dont thhink theyd misuse the rights. '''<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' After having looked through his contributions, I find that he is the type of user who is perfect for being an admin '''and''' shows frequent need for the mop bucket.  <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 |
'''Weak oppose.''' The lack of comprehensive answers to the questions (most are not longer than three or four sentences). In other words (and I may be wrong) this appears to be a throw-off-another-RfA-and-see-if-it-passes case. —
Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose this. Since very late May 2007 up until now, you have had four RfA's...which shows clear intentions to only become an administrator on Wikipedia. I must also point out the answer to Q3 is not very good, one can only learn how to do deal with conflicts by being in them themselves, you'll learn how to resolve it and how to act, if you were involved in one. My advice is keep editing solidly for 4/5 months including article writing, keep your head up :)
As above, really.  Coming back every time you've clocked up a couple of hundred more edits does not cut it for me.  A solid six months of industrious Wikignoming without an RfA, with a nomination by someone else, that would be fine, but repeated self-nominations raise re flags for me.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient level of actual writing of the text. I dont think we need professional police here. `'
Knee-jerk reaction: I don't like that I'm seeing Hdt83 self-nom ''yet again'' only three months after his last self-nom, which was a month-and-a-half after his last self-nom, which was a month after his very first self-nom. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with self-noms (no ''de facto'' balderdash), but ideally, he would have been able to wait for someone ''else'' to nominate (which is something that has been mentioned numerous times prior). His answer to Question #4 states "[a]nother thing I have learned is that you must be able to take constructive criticism", but I'm not actually seeing that he's listening to the people who are advising that he ''not'' self-nominate. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Not yet per EVula. This nom is too soon since the last request, making me doubt the user's patience, as well as question his motives for the self-nomination. --
Oppose per Guy and EVula, Hdt83's actions in nominating himself so soon after all of his previous RfA's came to the conclusion that he should wait longer and also for someone ''else'' to nominate shows poor judgement and restraint. '''
'''Oppose''' per the above.  Frequency of self-nominations, together with sparse answers, suggests a candidate who may be eager for adminship for the wrong reasons.  Patience, judgment, temperament all called into question.
'''Oppose''' per JzG, EVula, Hdt83' and Xoloz. Seems to see adminship as a goal in itself, alarming. Insufficient interest to content writing is another big problem here. While some of non-writing admins are actually good ones, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do (bossy attitude). The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. --
'''Oppose''' Per above. 4 requests for adminship should surely show the user in question that they should wait until they are nominated. However, this user is good at fighting vandalism etc. and should be seen from that perspective aswell. But for now, I am going to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Im really sorry Hdt83, but your self nomination so soon after a previous failed RfA concerns me that you would also rush at things with the buttons. I'm not enjoying this oppose, and I bet you're not enyjoying the sledge hammer that every oppose brings, but I have to be honest in my feelings after review of the discussion here. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong oppose'''&ndash; This is the fourth RfA in the past five months.  I think you should wait much more than a month before making another self-noimnation.  You seem a bit too eager to use the extra tools.  '''
'''Oppose''' I don't care about the mainspace editing. That is just fine with me. What is concerning is the self nomination after so many RfAs where opposers have suggested that the candidate get someone else to nominate. I am agreeing with Xoloz, Daniel, EVula, and Pedro here that waiting for someone to nominate you would be a good idea.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' per answers to my questions and above concerns. The idea behind asking these questions was to find out whether the candidate had an opinion on any of these issues. Apparently that is not the case. This lack of opinion would account of a neutral stance instead of supporting, but above concerns push me into the oppose side.
'''Oppose''' 4 self noms in last 6 months seems excessive.  Seems like after 3 defeated self nominations, they should probably wait for an admin nomination.  Agree with others that this user seems in a "rush" to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Daniel, Xoloz and Guy. I agree strongly with those in the oppose and neutrals sections who are advising you to hold  off coming back to RFA until someone you respect is willing to nominate you.
Bit unsure here, as I do commend your willingness and desire to take on a bit of extra responsibility to help the project.  I also like that you nominated yourself; shows good initiative, and being an administrator is not that big a deal that we need people nominating others.  That said, I am a bit put off by your claim that you created those articles you mention in Question 2.  It seems that you were neither the creator, much less a primary contributor to [[Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park]] (nice references, but no actual content addition).  <s>Also, I don't think you've ever actually edited [[Crater lake]]</s>.  Your claims seem to be a bit off from what I see in the revision history, so I'm a bit leery here [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
As above. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Per Pedro and EVula above.
Per EVula and Daniel. ~
'''Oppose'''. I tried really hard to find something else, but EVula gave you the knockout-punch like the [[Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy]]. You seem to be giving yourself too much pressure to be an admin. Admin is not a big deal, really! The more effort you put to become admin, you'll find that the harder you will successful becoming one. When it comes, it comes.
'''Oppose''' per above. '''
I'm not keen on you coming back again and again to RFA - wait till someone nominates you. (I'm sure I said that in your last RFA too). No reason to oppose though, but no reason to support either, so '''neutral'''. '''
I totally protest the ridiculous amount of editcountitis here. "''Oppose 'cause he doesn't have 1,000,000 edits and doesn't spend 12 hours of his day in front of his computer screen.''" [[Image:Symbol wtf vote.svg|15px]] I think you're a great user; you've got vandal-fighting experience, AfD experience and, most importantly, mainspace experience. However, I don't like impatient people; give it some time if this fails, and if it doesn't, and you get the tools, remember that life is too short to be going at 100 mph all of the time and wanting everything to happen '''now'''. Life's a road; enjoy the view ;-) --'''
'''Neutral''', largely per Majorly. Editcountitis is silly, but at the same time waiting for a nom this time would have been better. I'm a little uncomfortable supporting at this time -
'''Neutral''' Per all above. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Neutral''', per a few of the opposes.  Give it a bit more time.
'''Speedy close per [[WP:SNOW]]'''. Clearly not a serious application - user has 23 edits.
For once I can't even give moral support. The flippant answers to the questions suggest that this may be a joke. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup><font color="Purple">
Too inexperienced, I'm afraid.
I recommend user reads [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
oppose - Not enough experience. --
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', as this user has shown their willingness to jump in and help out at some of the most overwhelming backlogs, as well as a demonstration of skill in the technical side of things and willingness to help others.  The edit count will only increase from here!--
'''Support''' - Seems to be a willing, capable editor who won't misuse the sysop tools&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support''' why not?
'''Support''', this user looks like he is a honest, well motivated and reliable user who will do all he can to contribute to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia would benefit from having an admin like him.  <b><FONT FACE="Rockwell Extra Bold" COLOR="#FF0002">
'''Support''' Warnings for speedy deletion indicates edit count would be higher if the warning templates were preserved in the contribution hisotry. Also plenty of reports to [[WP:AIV]]. I would have liked a bit more diversity, and less time at motto of the day, but no reason to withold a demonstrable need for the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Firm Support''' 57 AIV reports and 182 Helpdesk edits, amongst responses to <nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki> requests and managing to clear out a day's worth of backlog on Articles for Creation? Cheers,
'''Support'''. Clear and observable dedication to counteracting vandalism and bad edits is evident in the candidate's edit history. What he have here appears to be a hardworking individual with all the right goals and characteristics. --
'''Support'''.  User's edit history is sufficiently long enough to determine that they have a good head on their shoulders and have had a positive impact on Wikipedia.  I see no issues with handing them the mop.
'''Support'''. More than enough experience. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Support''' - Seems competent, Q1 shows clear understanding of the tools. In response to the opposers, I don't really see why masses of mainspace edits are needed - this user has demonstrated that they understand the admin tools, and has a varied range of experience. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' From their edits, I see a helpful, very civil and knowledgeable editor. No reason to oppose. -
'''Support''' He has five months of pretty consistent editing and I see no problems. He seems quite communicative and knowledgeable.
'''Support''', per oppositon. 5 months editing is great; 650 main space edits is ample. Good luck. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools, and has shown that the extra buttons will be useful.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience.  I'm sorry, you are on your way,  but just 650 mainspace edits is a bit too low for me.
'''Oppose''' - I think this user is still too new here to become an admin (approx. 5 months of editing - his second edit was on Jan. 5)
'''Oppose''' Certainly a well-intentioned candidate, who will probably make a great admin someday soon -- still, a little low on general experience at this point.  It's much better for everyone, including the candidate, if all rough edges are smoothed before getting the mop.  Two or three months of solid editing will make this a "no-brainer." :)
'''Oppose''' too few mainspace edits.  And your answer to question 3, while not a reason in and of itself to oppose, is a little of concerning for me (the part where you thought an editor was too mean to a vandal.  From your answer it seemed like you assumed good faith for the vandal, but not the editor).  '''
Very little experience. Most of the user's few edits are semi-automated vandal reverts. —
Experience, sorry - you have failed to demonstrate an ability to display discretion, especially in disputes. I need to be confident you can cope before supporting. '''
'''Oppose''' - I would like to see more experience.
'''Neutral''' This user's doing a good work, but perhaps there's not enough experience yet to attest his preparedness for adminship. Also, there's no much need for the tools as this user's usual tasks don't seem to require admin intervention.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Seems good, I'm just a little concerned about the lack of experience. In a couple months I'd gladly give strong support; until then, I'll remain neutral. --
'''Neutral''' - Only because your highest mainspace edit is just 6 but your overall total edits is quite good and maybe if you improve you mainspace edits which is below 1000, next time around I will support you :) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry but I'm going to remain neutral for several reasons, of your 2000+ contribs, I think that a good half of them are to [[WP:AFC]], your mainspace edit is low but not bad at 605 and I cannot see much variety of edits, I only see anti-vandalism and no other Wikipedia edits (of course this is not too bad!), overall I think your doing great but maybe you could improve on the above factors, however everything else (e.g experience, edit summary) is fine. Good luck! <font size="1"><font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="00DD00">
'''Neutral''' First of all, you are a great editor. You have done a great job with fighting vandalism so far, keep it up:) You also seem like a all around good editor. The reason why I can not support you is because you do not have enoungh edits here. 2K is not to much for a vandal fighter. I look for a vandal fighter to have 5K or more edits before I vote to support them. I am not going to oppose you because you are a good vandal fighter, and a good editor. Have a nice week and God bless:)--
'''Neutral''' per above; too few mainspace edits. --
'''Neutral''' - I feel perhaps you need a bit more experience. Looks good besides that. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per lack of experience, doesn't give me much to judge your contributions with. However, you're definitely on the right track - I would support in a few months' time. Don't lose heart if this RfA doesn't work out. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' per above, please try later in like 2-3 months-<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Neutral''' and expect to hgave good reason to support in a few months.'''
'''Strong support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' he is a exellent editor and can be trusted with the mop. -
'''Strong Support''' great editor as shown in his contribs. Very experienced and deserves the tools. --
'''Support''' An excellent editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
A little more mainspace activity would be nice, but I '''support''' anyway, for his great work at the Help Desk and AFC. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support''' - Exellent contributions to the projectspace. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' as nothing I have seen makes me believe this user would misuse the tools.  -
'''Strong support''' For reasons above. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' A good editor and impartial unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Weak Support''' The comments by [[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] who I respect a great deal left me leaning to oppose. However a review of your last 2000 contributions shows an enormous amount of civility, a genuine desire to help the community and new contributors and you certainly seem able to cite policy. Wether you fully understand the policies is my concern, so I'd advise you to be careful if granted the buttons - however on balance I see no reason not to trust this editor to do the right things. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' No need to ask my usual newcomer question - A brilliant user who assumes good faith--
'''Support''' No evidence that this user would abuse the buttons --
'''Support''' Per nom. <font face="Impact">
'''Weak support''' per [[User:Pedro|Pedro]].  The recent issues brought up at AfD are concerning but on the whole this user's contributions appear to be good and solid.  I'm not quite willing to overlook so much good effort and work over a couple poor statements in AfD, and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''' - Seems like a reasonable candidate. I think we can forgive one error of judgment on an AfD - the AfD process is designed to get broad community input, so errors like that can be corrected.
'''Support''' no evidence to suggest that this user will be abusive.
'''Support''' - a keen and dedicated user who has great experience in the Wikipedia space and in Wikipedia generally. Mainspace is quite low, no 'ace' contribs, but that isn't too big an issue, and isn't relevant to what he intends to do so pretend I never said that. ;-)  This is a good candidate. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' As this users first (and still) adoptee, I can say he's been really good at teaching a newcomer the tricks. --<font face="Andale Mono,Courier">[[User:Audacitor|<font class="please" color="#0077FF">A</font>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#1A66E6">u</font></span>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#3355CC">d</font>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#4D44B3">a</font>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#663399">c</font>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#4D44B3">i</font>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#3355CC">t</font>]][[User:Audacitor|<font color="#1A66E6">o</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor. Certainly assumes good faith and shows civility; unlikely to abuse admin tools. Lot's of projectspace edits. Would be good at clearing backlogs with the tools.  <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - Very helpful whenever I have come across this user :) <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support'''. The question I ask myself when I see an RFA is: ''Is this user likely to misuse the tools?'' With Hersfold, I am confident that he will try to discuss any controversial admin action, and that he will not abuse the tools. The concerns raised by the oppose voters ("sloppy research at AFD") do not convince me at all, because everyone makes mistakes, and Hersfold's overall pattern of contributions looks good. <b>
'''Support'''. I have found Hersfold extremely helpful and nice. And yes, I am also concerned with the very relevant issues raised by  [[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]], (goodness, never heard of Russell..arrrrgh!) However, I trust Hersfold when he said that he would "work on that";  he needs to. But bottom line is: this is a guy with exellent knowledge on technical issues (AFAIK), very, very helpful, willing to learn, and, IMO, highly unlikely to misuse the tools. Regards,
'''Oppose''' You are a good editor but I think you need more time.  You have low main space contributions.  But it's looking at two of your most recent AFD contributions that leaves me believing you're not ready.  You recently argued to keep [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magno (2nd nomination)|the guy in that one Mike Jones rap video]], and voted to delete [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian|this]].  You described ''[[Bertrand Russell]]'' as "apparently notable."  When challenged about this, instead of checking whether or not he's one of the most important thinkers in the history of human civilization (which he is), you said "Just because I may not know who this person is, does not mean I don't understand Wikipedia policy."  Actually, when you fail to look at any context, [[WP:OSTRICH|it does]].  I don't like to oppose off a few diffs, but in this one discussion alone you failed to understand at the very least [[WP:SOAP]] (not even close), [[WP:NOTE]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:DP]].  I'm sorry, but I don't trust you evaluating the deletion of articles until you've had more experience. --
'''Weak Oppose''' per lack of Mainspace editing, as well as per JayHenry.
'''Oppose''' I don't think Hersfold would purposely abuse the tools but the Bertrand Russell incident is an ominous sign. Not knowing about Russell is no crime of course. However participating in the AfD about a book without taking the time to follow the link to the author is sloppy and as JayHenry noted, the ensuing stubborness isn't reassuring. I also found a lot of reliance on Google searches to determine notability [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Universal_Pantheist_Society&diff=153982201&oldid=153982062] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_Inquiry_%28magazine%29&diff=prev&oldid=153981416]. In some cases, Google may be a pretty good indicator but it's still a superficial one. I will probably support in the future but as of now, I have to oppose.

'''Oppose''' - I don't oppose very often these days, but I think some more experience is needed, per the reasons provided by Black Falcon and JayHenry; the Bertrand Russell comment Jay cites in particular makes me think another few months of familiarisation would be beneficial.
Not knowing who Russell was isn't great but not bothering to look him up before commenting at the AfD shows a lack of care which would be very worrying for someone with admin powers. "References could probably be found (I don't really have the time to check myself at the moment), and it could be arguably notable as the author is apparently notable himself. However, it is a borderline WP:SOAP, and could perhaps provide a bit more background and a bit less quoted material."  Reading it again I'm speechless actually.
'''Weak Oppose''' Lack of mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' at this time per the comments by Neal, Nick mallory, Black Falcon, Pascal.Tesson, and JayHenry. I would be happy to support after another two months, more experience, etc.  Best of luck!
AfD sloppiness. Ouch! Sorry, but not right now.
'''Oppose''' I came to support, but unfortunately...
'''Oppose''' per Black Falcon and Nick mallory.  To be frank, I have no confidence in the editor's ability to assess [[WP:N]] relative to WP's policies.  The idea of the editor speedy deleting or closing AfDs at this time is disconcerting.  To compensate for certain deficiencies in the editor's general knowledge, a habit of extraordinary thoroughness must be demonstrated, and that is not presently so.
'''Oppose'''. Sloppy research at AfD is one of my bugbears, and such a basic lack of research doesn't bode well for participation in the more complex admin activities.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, per above. The lack of mainspace edits and the AFD issue bothers me. =( -
'''Oppose''' As well as the Bertrand Russell incident, it's less than two days since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFree_Inquiry_%28magazine%29&diff=153981416&oldid=153981358 this]. Anyone can make one mistake, but that's twice in the last week you've not carried out the most basic checking whilst dealing with what a moment's look at the articles would have told you would be particularly contentious AfDs<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' I am concerned with the AFD issues brought up by others. It would be best if this was fixed before the next RfA.
'''Oppose''' Per the fact that there are issues above that need to be addressed. --'''
'''Oppose'''. An administrator has to check basic facts before acting, and the multiple incidents[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]], [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]], and others provided suggests that this may be something of a learning opportunity. If you had a broad record a few really bad days could be overlooked, but your record is somewhat thin and this causes really bad days to stand out more. Participate in fewer AfD discussions per month and spend more time and do more homework before commenting in the ones you do participate in, and try again in a couple of months --
Per JayHenry mainly, but I look forward to another nomination down the track. Cheers, '''
'''Oppose''', per candidate's own comments at AfD.  I don't like to oppose at RfAs, but this one is very troublesome.  The !vote cast in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I_ Am Not_ a Christian|Why I Am Not a Christian AfD]] is certainly worrying, but not nearly as disturbing as the candidate's misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policy, in particular the !vote to "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad|merge and delete]]", which naturally is never an option (an admin needs to know this).  I would strongly suggest that the candidate spend some time reviewing our policies (GFDL in particular), guidelines, and the application thereof before considering another RfA.
Per JayHenry and no need to pile on. —'''
Others' issues are a concern, and not something I would support. –
I was going to support until I came to the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian|Bertrand Russell incident]]. While it can be forgiven that you didn't know who he was (though he was the most important thinker of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, philosophy isn't everyone's cup o' tea), I think it shows an overzealousness on your part (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!). While I am sure you were acting in good faith, the fact that you apparently couldn't be bothered to follow a couple of wikilinks is very worrying to me. It seems to me that if a troll nominated this for speedy deletion and you came across it, you might have deleted one of the most important writings of the last 100 years. And considering the recentness, I just can't support at this time. Since you've just started college, I'd recommend waiting a couple months, slow down a bit and maybe take a philosophy class. ;) I believe I would support in the future but not now.
'''Neutral''' leaning to support. Though I usually err on the side of caution and would oppose in a case like this,  Hersfold's contributions that I have seen have been wonderful. I think a bit more experience couldn't hurt, especially in mixing it up in content disputes to develop conflict resolution skills, but I generally think <s>s</s>he would use the tools wisely. I just need a more solid assurance of <s>her</s> understanding of policy, especially in regards to deleting articles.
'''Neutral''' - I believed that I was going to be able to !vote support, no problem. However, the mutiple opposes have a point, so instead of going "oppose", I will have to for the time say neutral. Sorry mate. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral'''<small>(sorry...MOTD mate)</small> Sorry, I tried to support before I saw the controversial Russell incident. He is a good editor, light enough and a good editor to lean on, but,like what I'll do, wait until you get the 4 months.
'''Neutral''' per Bertrand Russell incident. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. For someone whose main contributions are in meta-stuff like AfD, I'd expect to see wiser decisions on AfD. But I will not join this pile-on when apparently half of it is for a pointless, counterproductive, and editcountitis-based reason ("not enough edits per [my preferred unit of time] in [my preferred namespace]").
I trust that Hex's problems with incivility since the last RFA have abated, and my interactions with him have been positive. &ndash;
No big deal. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
I believe he has shown significant improvement since his last RFA, and see no reason to keep him out of the broom closet.
'''Support'''. I see no reason (after reviewing many of this users talk, article, and user talk edits) to deny this user the tools that he says he needs to do good work. C'mon people, at least with this user the umpteen-trillion edits aren't so numerous that you can't check them, rather than applying blanket editcountitis. I would like to see answers to the questions anyway, but will support pending further information. -- ''
'''Support''' - If someone has been here this long and no one has any evidence that point to vandalism or incivility, I see no reason to believe that he can not be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support'''.  I have to support this, not only because I think he will not abuse the admin tools, but he IS right about the RfA process, which has become extremely flawed, and is basically a popularity/edit counting contest.  I would really, REALLY like to see him fill out the answers to the questions, because even though the process sucks, we have to go through it in order to become an admin.
'''Support'''. Seems to be qualified for the job, and there's no indication that he would abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' - more of a symbolic gesture, really. Hex's contributions look fine and the no-bullshit attitude is a refreshing change, but it's obvious that this RfA has no chance to succeed. If this candidate continues to contribute to Wikipedia, with or without admin tools, then we all win. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''' for being radical enough to ''not'' answer the questions.
Per John Reaves. Refusing to answer the questions, ''twice'', shows that you are either extrordinarily stupid or actually have quite a lot of Clue™ indeed. The fact that you can program in Perl suggests it's the latter.
'''Support'''-The refusal to answer questions shows you know about RFA and all its flaws. The "too little edits" really doesn't apply to you, because you've been here for 5 years, a lot long than most people. I really liked your answer to Kntrabssi's oppose vote. I also like about how you're going to gradually learn. --
'''Support''' just to counter the dumb votes below... no one's required to answer the questions. --
Support. The questions are fatuous anyway. &mdash;
Support. —
'''Support'''. Great strides since his prior RfA, and impressive contributions. Plus, I like his chutzpah.
'''Support''' a platform of common sense, and as a counterweight to the literal-minded bureaucraticness of thinking that filling out a form is a) a requirement, or b) useful enough to function as one.  I think you should do this every few months or so, and when you pass, we'll know RfA's not broken.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  A very strong case where this should be followed.
'''Support''' didnt get this far without being somewhat decent
'''Strong support''' Refreshing to see someone stand on their record as a Wikipedian rather than submitting to the anonymous authority of the crowd.  Way too much importance is placed on the "decision process" for admins for what is the virtual equivalent of a driver's license.  Absent some serious concerns, such as abusive editing practices, experience should be the prime determining factor in granting admin powers. //
'''Strong Support''' Adminship is about ''acting''. After all, if he answers the questions, are his skills going to suddenly improve?--
(edit- changed to) '''Very strong''' Support- I think I was neutral on Hex's last RfA, and maybe the fact that he has no chance of passing at this point is a factor (or maybe not), but I can't help but support. He's perhaps my favorite kind of Wikipedian: courteous, intelligent, and willing to help build a strong encyclopedia, including altering it if necessary- and at the same time, he's not at all afraid to speak his mind and let his opinions be known. Some people might be put off by his attitude (and that's certainly their right- I won't argue with any of the oppose !voters), I admire it. From what little I know about Hex, the one word I would use to describe him is "brave", and we need brave admins. --
'''Support''' I know Hex and therefore know about some of the other projects he's involved in online.  They all show a strong commitment to the concept of user-built consensus-edited content for the public good.  I believe he would ease into use of any increased powers here appropriately gently.  Further, I would support this RFA even if I didn't know the candidate and had just wandered across it blindly, because it's right - the process is unnecessary, it does not add value to Wikipedia.  Wouldn't it be nice to have another person on the admin team who was willing to challenge pointless processes?  Yes it would. --
Solid candidate. Pleased to support a second time, and/or as many times as it takes.
'''Support''' I'm in a similar position to [[User:Dennymeta|Dennymeta]] above - I know Hex, and know his contributions to other projects. I don't think he'd abuse tools; he has a long track record, with no evidence of abuse of any kind of power. Heck, while employed at the same company as I, he had access to servers full of confidential information that provided a service to a lot of powerful clients, and either he didn't abuse the power, or he's so damned good he detected and bypassed the passive security measures ;-) --
'''Weak Support''', but please chill out with the chip on the shoulder.
'''Strongest Moral and Practical Support Possible''' I think this RFA of a very well established and dedicated user is becoming a joke. Some of the opposes here, to me are very questionable. Hex has been here more than some bureaucrats, stewards and developers. Having 50000 edits in five months is not as important as being here for years and being very familliar with the site. Oh no, Hex ''didn't'' answer the three generic questions! Oppose, oppose and more oppose. I wish sometimes that Ignore All Rules policy was noticed. EM feels that the project needs to be modified, and he strongly dislikes RFA process. He has great ideas for the site, and as a sysop. He stated exactly why he wants the mop without answering the questions. He also said this in his comments: "Wikipedia is a hobby for me, not an unpaid career. Even so, I take it seriously, and I believe that I am a good editor." I agree. Some people are instant minimum time experience sysops because they sit in front of a screen 17 hours of day, with a twelve-pack of beer and truckload of junkfood. A good editor isn't always like that. I support EM with practical reasons, because he has been here for so long and has a differnt perspective on the project. My moral support is that I feel, through reading the opposes and neutrals, that those reasons are partly because you're not an admin clone. It is very good for having someone with the same goal, but different perspective. I don't feel if he was given the mop, he'd blow up the site.
'''Support'''. Done good work, don't see a good reason not to. --
'''Support''' Despite being a bit cute with process above he is a pretty sensible guy. --
'''Support'''. Appears to be a good editor who has been around a long time without causing trouble. I take that as an indication that admin powers are going to be used responsibly and to the benefit of the project. Most of the folks opposing the RfA demonstrate that the candidate's complaints about the RfA process are not without merit. I wouldn't necessarily want this kind of application to become the new standard, but measuring a candidate's ability or willingness to play to the audience is overrated.
'''Support''' &mdash; no reason not to.  He has sufficient experience and adminship is no big deal.
'''Support'''; the reasons people are giving for opposing are rather silly.
'''Strong Support''': I have to admire someone who will have had a fair idea running his RfA in this manner, knowing full well it's going to affect his chances of promotion this time and in the future. It's so easy to copy and paste answers to the standard questions from any wildly successful RfA, there's nothing in the rules to prevent this. I really hope that if Hex isn't promoted, then it helps shove RfA reform forward once again. Now, I also know that Hex is trustworthy and knows a fair bit about policy from   various discussions I've seen, so I'm supporting someone I like and know is suitable for the position. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Support'''.  From interactions on wikiEN-l, has demonstrated to me a firm grasp on policy.  Has been around forever and knows his way around; most users with similar experience and longevity passed RfA in 2003 with supports you could count on one hand.  Is being penalized for not making Wikipedia an obsession, and for not fitting into RfA pigeonholes.  Shame.  —
'''Support''' - unconventional candidacy, but no real problems with this user. Editcount doesn't matter - please remember that adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  Experienced editor, sane, thoughtful, intelligent.  All such should be offered the admin tools if they wish them.
'''Support'''. A lot of oppose votes look to me like statements that [[Dune (novel)|the forms must be obeyed]] rather than objections to the user as a potential admin candidate. After reviewing the candidate's edit history, I am duly impressed. --
'''Warm warm support'''. The finest admin candidate I have seen here in a long long time. Dares to modify his nomination statement, a test I have seen very few people pass. Speaks in a human voice. Is quite willing to stand up for themselves and even speak with people in public in the real world. Finally is able to stand up to great (and possibly unreasonable) opposition with great calmness and a sense of humor. Wow. --
'''Support'''. Experienced editor, and absolutely correct about AFD. --

'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. I would like to see your answers to questions, standard and optional. May reconsider if you answer 'em.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience. Refusing to answer the questions may be refreshing, but, with relatively few edits here, if you refuse to answer the questions, how can we see any evidence that you want, need, or can be trusted with the tools? --
'''Oppose''' I have no clear idea how you would use the tools, you don't appear to have much interaction with other editors and have few wiki-space edits so sorry, but not this time.
'''Oppose'''&mdash; you need to answer the questions to show that you have read and understood the Administrator's reading list. Refusing to answer them may imply that you are too lazy to tackle them. And despite your claim that you have explained your position on Administration, I still don't have an idea what you are about. I suggest that you follow the formal process; you won't get the promotion by being short handed. Also, you need more experience.
'''Oppose''' If the user cannot be bothered to fulfill the process of requesting adminship or learning about his desired responsibilities as an admin then I can't be bothered to support him.
'''Oppose''' Same as last time. You're refreshing, but if you're not going to answer the questions we need to know about you from your editing. That means Wikipedia: edits and lots of them. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Could be an sysop in the distant future but no answers to standard questions, let alone if their were optional ones asked, not ready for the tools.<b>
'''Oppose'''.  While I agree that RFA has its problems, answering the three standard questions is not a hoop-jumping competition.  It's a perfectly reasonable way for you to communicate why you should be an admin.  Is this a serious RFA, or just a protest against the way RFAs work?
'''Oppose''' -- Although a long-term editor, Hex shows too little experience with Wikipedia policy and norms. Further, he does not demonstrate requisite openness by refusing to answer questions which may give insight into whether the community should trust an individual not to abuse admin tools. Finally, I have concerns about snap-judgment editing which becomes more problematic when given admin authority-- as shown recently in his merge of content into [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&diff=prev&oldid=116033321 Human rights in the United Arab Emirate], which included a summary of "''Remove untrue nonsense about Jews not being allowed to enter the country...''" A quick search readily shows that although it may be that Jews aren't directly barred from entry-- since there is no "religion" section on most passports-- UAE denies entry of anyone bearing an Israeli passport or having a stamp from visiting there: [http://www.dubai.com/s/dubaicity/index11.html][http://dwc.hct.ac.ae/expatinfo/visaguide.htm] [http://uk.holidaysguide.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-1230631-united_arab_emirates_getting_there_getting_around-i] [http://www.easyexpat.com/dubai_en/departure_passport-visa.htm] Even the UK ''Guardian'' noted last year, [http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1751257,00.html "Israelis left out of West Ham's training trip to the Gulf"]. --<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Oppose''' due to the failure to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and the choice to descend into [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] even in your answers in this RfA. Since you choose to label us a "gabbling clique of process junkies" why should we take your request seriously? Its an offensive personalization of your position that gives me no confidence that you can bring a measured and reasonable tone to the use of the admin tools.
'''Oppose.''' It's really a shame, because you probably do have enough experience to be an admin.  However, presentation counts for a lot here (as in a real-world interview).  Harking back to previous antagonism from those who said you don't need the tools, and choosing not to answer the standard questions, is a real turnoff for me.  If you submit a more standard RFA request, I might consider supporting it.
'''Not until questions are answered'''. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Oppose''' RfA is deeply flawed, with trivial reasons enough for an Oppose vote. Perhaps you'll see mine in the same way, but how are we to know that you won't be silent when questioned on your sysop actions? Together with the very low edit count despite the length of service, I'll have to oppose. Brave act though.
'''Oppose'''. Your reasons for not answering the community's questions of you are noted and respected. However, it does smack of an assumption that everyone here as met you or heard of you. I have not and would like to. The question-and-answer session is a good springboard to this - knowing what ''you'' think is important, what ''you'' are proud of, what ''you'' wish you'd done differently. If you can't do that little thing for the community, or me, then I dread coming to you to question an action of yours. In fact, I'd be '''scared''' of questioning you. That being the case, I'd like to keep you away from the tools at this time. '''<font color="red">
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong oppose'''. Redvers' raises a good point that the standard questions force the candidate to engage in a bit of self-examination. I would like like to know those points as well before supporting you, as well as what situations have caused you stress and how well you believed you handled them. Your self-nomination seems to come down to the point that you would find the admin tools convenient for your own use. ''I'' would find the admin tools handy, but I don't feel the actual need to have them. Like it or not, admin tools aren't given out solely for editors' convenience. Kudos for your boldness, though. --
'''Oppose'''. I don't trust this user. Doesn't answer questions, doesn't really seem committed to the project (based on their quality and quantity of edits), and I have a gut feeling they would not use the tools well at all. ---
'''Oppose'''. Can't even answer the questions? Get real. stop wasting our time.
'''Oppose''' - a refreshing approach, but spoiled completly by a lack of commitment to the defined or accepted process. If a proposed Admin can't be respectful of the rules, and fails to understand the human factors - how can he be an Admin? Rgds, -
'''Oppose''' per above stated reasons.--
'''Oppose''' Nihonjoe's Additional Question 4a sums up the grounds for my oppose.  Everyone knows the process for becoming an admin.  I cannot reconcile the stated desire to become an admin going hand-in-hand with not fully accepting the process.
'''Strong Oppose''' pending answers to questions.--
'''Oppose'''. I could care less about the answers to the question, but the diffs of incivility, and the general demeanor in this RfA is a bit troubling. I think you have the experience, but you just need more work on the civility issues. '''
'''Oppose''' Just about everyone knows that there are deep problems with the RfA process. However, until we come up with a better solution, you should just try to work with it. Your attitude shows a lack of respect for the community's processes (however problematic they might be) and that's exactly the kind of attitude we desperately need to avoid in admins.
'''Oppose''' Whew, this is a tough vote. I don't think I have had such trouble making my decision since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2]]. Here we have a candidate that blantantly ignores policy (per questions and civility) and not a particularly high edit count for an admin candidate. (Yes, I know its editcountitis.) On the other hand, he has years of experience and is definately bold and appears to have little fear of response to his boldness. After viewing the basis of each argument, I have decided that I have got to oppose. The lack of regard for policy is not good at all in an admin candidate. Sorry, but I am going to oppose. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Flagrant disregard for established standards. --
'''Oppose''' per comments to Gwernol. This user is obviously uncivil, and has even admitted it. Seems proud of this deficiency.
'''Oppose''' Far, far too combative both in his handling of this RfA. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Almost strongest oppose'''. If you actually had a good reason ''why'' you won't answer the questions, it would be fine, but your rationale boils down to "RfA is broken therefore I don't have to if I don't feel like it". Apart from the ''complete absurdity'' of that logic, complaining, IN YOUR RFA, about how RfA is broken is quite enough to get me to oppose for general stupidness. And please explain how I'm supposed to trust that you will follow ''other'' processes? For reference, strongest oppose is someone I think will vandalize with the admin tools whenever they don't have a good day. -
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, no need for the tools. The declining of the questions leaves me with very little information. <small>
'''Oppose''' Declining to complete the standard questions not only demonstrates a contempt for the process of wikipedia but removes the opportunity to judge what you have learned since the previous RFA. How can I trust you with the tools if you can't even be bothered to tell me how you now intend to use them? I suppose you could say that you haven't changed anything from last time but that implies that you haven't learned anything from failing last time, or even worse, that you don't believe you have anything to learn. No thanks. --
'''Oppose'''. This oppose vote is a no-brainer for me. This candidate seems to believe that it's perfectly fine for him only to follow Wikipedia policies and practices which he believes (based purely on his personal opinion) are "non-insane"; and that he should be perfectly entitled to completely ignore established policies and practices which (again based purely on his personal opinion) he thinks are "insane". I for one do not feel I can trust someone with that kind of attitide with admin tools.
'''Oppose''', yes, the boilerplate questions are stupid, don't answer them. However, not answering questions asked by actual people (in the 'questions to candidate' section) doesn't work. If you did become an admin, would you just ignore people when you didn't feel like answering their questions? That attitude's just completely wrong. -
'''Oppose''' I would like to see an editor answer the questions before nominating themselves for administrative responsibility. This is because you need to show that you have taken into account policy and consensus - something you may have to do a lot of when an administrator. Sorry for being too negative; this is something that is easily sorted and I look forward to a third request for adminship in the future. If you have any problems with the RfA system, discuss them on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship]]. --
'''Oppose'''; sorry to insist on the questions, but that really bothers me. Those questions essentially ask "please tell us why we should trust you"; not answering is sort of saying "trust me, I will not screw up", without giving any further evidence in support. This is exactly the worse answer one does not want to have here.
'''Oppose''' per Tizio and Casmith_789.
'''Oppose'''. As above. RfA is not a soap box.
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't need tools. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. I have no comment on Hex as an editor.  I readily admit that I have not looked at his user page or his contributions history.  I have only looked at this RFA and the simple fact of refusing to answer the questions is enough for me to strongly oppose.  I'm not expressing any opinion on the questions themselves; just on the candidate's actions.  An admin should follow policies and guidelines even when he disagrees with them.  Trusting in the judgment of those editors who support his candidacy, I do not believe he would be a rogue admin who would override consensus and policy at every turn.  However, I am also presented with no evidence (no precedent) that he would not.  Choosing not to answer the standard but optional questions at the start may be acceptable.  Ignoring the questions after people repeatedly requested that you answer them is not.  If the candidate disagree with the way RFA is conducted, he should propose a change on the talk page.  My opposition does not extend to a future possible RFA ''if'' the candidate acts differently. --
'''Oppose''' per the glaring inability to evaluate the candidate and the candidate's refusal to be evaluated for fitness for adminship. Yes, you don't have to answer questions, but you also should not have the "trust me, now support me" mentality. Frankly, process may be boring, but how am I supposed to know if you're not going to upend any Wikipedia process just because you feel that it is arcane and bureaucratic? For example, how am I supposed to know if you will speedy delete a clearly notable article citing reliable sources on the basis of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]? (yes, I know I'm exaggerating) [[WP:IAR]] is a necessary fire escape, but should not be used as a wall-breaking entrance to the adminship theater. —<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Strong Oppose'''. Wow. The self-nom comes off as a little hostile in tone and the brusqueness by which this user has opposed the RfA process is worrisome, but the real deal-breaker is turning one's own RfA into a soapbox. I'm sorry, but just because you're a good editor doesn't mean you'll make a good administrator. --
'''Oppose''' RfA's are where the community opines on the [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|trustworthiness and judgement]] of the user. At this point, I do not feel comfortable with this user's judgement and how it would be applied with the mop-and-flamethrower. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' I like how you want to change policy, but you shouldn't like this, with such a noncivil self-nom. Not answering the questions is one thing if you have thousands of edits and been known by the community. It is another when you have a low edit count.
'''Oppose''' - Improve more, regarding your behavior in some ways.
'''Oppose''', sorry.  Two things are being conflated: a request for adminship, and a straw poll on fixing the RfA process.  Please bring tem separately.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Oppose''' Normally, this is the type of nomination I'd support. But: "gabbling clique of process junkies" and "willy-waving"? I would think this is the one place you could be civil. RFA may or may not be broken/perfect but a !vote on your nomintation can be done without implying a more general comment on RFA as a whole. The slightly condescending "light entertainment" post to the mailing list doesn't help, <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</small> said it best just above, RFA and this RFA in general are different things. You're making it sound like anyone who opposes you is part of the problem that may exist with RFA. None of this hangs together at all...I'd rather you outline your problems with RFA on the talk page instead of claiming RFA is broke because your nomination failed/is failing.
'''Oppose''' I see no need for the tools.
'''Neutral''', leaning toward oppose. He's been inactive for a long period, and has a low edit count (for an admin candidate) and low participation in the project space. Also, I don't see why you wouldn't answer the questions. Have you been in any conflicts? What are your article contributions? We have no clue. -
Leaning towards opposing him. The only reason I have not voted against him is because I do not believe in voting against someone unless I think they will be abusive. Sorry:(
'''Neutral'''. I will probably change this to a support if you can answer the standard questions. -
'''Neutral''' - I don't really know you at all and we've not bumped into each other yet. Answering the standard questions would give me a good idea as to what you are like and what your opinions are on issues. Without those, I have little to go on. Per [[User:Mschel]], I'd prolly revise this if you could at least have a go at the questions -
'''Neutral''' per above. <b><font color="#00A86B" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' until you put in good faith answers to the questions.--
'''Neutral''' I do not want to oppose this user. I suggest that you do a lot more edits; especially in the mainspace and Wikipedia-space. 1700 edits in not enough at all; and even 3000-4000 edits can be considered ''barely'' enough.
'''Neutral''' I respect your stance on the RfA procedure, but it requires people to be familiar with you in order to vote intelligently in the RfA.  Since your rate of edits is not that high, it's inevitable that there are not that many people who both know you well and participate in RfAs.  When you're asking strangers to trust you, you have to give us something to go on. <font face="monospace">
'''Neutral''' I think even semi-flippant answers to the standard questions would be better than none. I try to get an understanding of candidate's personalities by reading those answers and then examining contributions prior to RfA (thereby hopefully removing any influence made because of the RfA itself). -- <b>
'''Neutral''' due to removal of my questions. I don't think grandstanding in your RfA is the proper forum for seeking change in a particular process. ···
'''Neutral''' (there's no need for further opposition). There is certainly the possibility of improving RFA, and I have admitted to being a process hound (I dispute "process junkie", because I can quit any time I want to). But I think that there's plenty of room for moving toward these changes by consensus, rather than just deciding that the process won't apply to you. If you are determined instead to be an iconoclast, that might be possible, but it would probably involve being more civil to the regulars here. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Neutral''' we do need more admins, but we have plenty of inactive ones too. I'm honestly not opposed to the idea, but since I have questions about possible inactivity I can't outright give support either.
<s>'''Protest Support contra Black Harry'''</s> '''Support''' Enough of this ridiculous editcountitis. He's commented in a few AfD's, but what I appreciate is that he has 24 reports/comments to [[WP:AIV]]. The articles that have the most edits among his mainspace contrbtions are B-Class and GA-class. Not bad for 2000 edits. Secondly, I'm in support of giving vandal-whackers the tools. To me, quality of edits is also important. Unwillingly repeating myself, he's got 24 reports/comments to AIV. If he wold have the tools, that'd be 24 less vandals, and being a vandal-whacker myself, the project will not be hurt by Hiberniantears, nor do I believe he/she will abuse the tools. Is it such a ''big'' deal? --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - After flicking through Hiberniantears contribs, I feel he demonstrates a good understanding of policy with his edits. His contributions to AIV show a need for the tools - In short, he will be fine as an admin.
'''Support''' This users edit count is pretty low, but that does not matter. He has been around wikipedia for a while (but not very active the whole time), and has shown that he is trustworthy. Good luck!:)--
'''Support.''' This ''editor's'' edit count is only 15% lower than mine when I ran for adminship almost one year ago, and my nom was pretty uncontroversial (83%). A user who can edit articles for this length of time shows me that he/she can be trusted with the admin tools, especially when the nominating statement claims they don't intend to use the tools extensively. As long as we're making outlandish statements (which is what opposing adminship requests is - by opposing, one states that the candidate is so woefully inexperienced or otherwise unsuitable that admin tools will be actively abused in such a manner that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive_4#Minor_point_on_closing_AfDs a helpful talk page note] won't be able to correct), assume that Hiberniantears, because his edit count is 15% lower than mine when I was promoted, will make precisely 15% more mistakes. I would characterize ~50 of my tool usages (out of about 2,250) as a mistake in even the slightest sense. 15% more than 50 is... in the neighborhood of 65. So we might have to leave a few talk page messages saying "Hey, dummy, it's done this way..." over the next few months. Is that really a reason to oppose? Does this candidate really seem like the type to abuse the deletion process, ban prominent contributors, reveal personal information, wheel war incessantly, or do something which would get them emergency desysopped? If the answer to those questions is no, and I don't see any way to argue that it isn't, it makes no sense to oppose for edit count.
'''Support''' an overview of the user contributions shows that they contribute ''widely'' -- something which is indispensable.  It also shows that their anti-vandal activities demonstrate a need for tools, and that they have the responsibility to use them effectively.  --
'''Strong support''' per RyanGerbil. Editcount is not a good reason to oppose.
'''Support''', not put off enough by the oppose reasons, although the edit summary given in Addhoc's diff is a bit over the top, I don't believe this user will go insane with the tools. Editcountitis is no issue for me here as his edits are pretty substantial. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', 'cause edits don't mean a thing when they can handle the tools and use them in the correct manner. ~
'''Support'''. Wikipedia space edits are a little thin but what I can see looks good.  Answers look good too.  I'll support.
'''Support''' the above.
'''Support''' Despite my giving the candidate a hard-time in Q4, I think he is well-prepared and has a clear need (counter-vandalism) to block and trust him to use the other tools carefully. I don't think being a sysop will help resolve or mediate disputes in the way Hiberniantears imagines, but also don't see a reason that should disqualify him.--
'''Support''' You are good as to give you a chance--
'''Moral support''' Few of the opposers have some good points (minus the random -titus), but I feel the guy can be trusted. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Weak Support''' Low edit count, but cause still exists for supporting.
'''Support'''. I think it is ridicules to say the tools will not help with Vandal Fighting. And I try to judge a users contributions more on quality then quantity. --
'''Support''' No major concerns here, looks good. '''
'''Support''' No significant reasons to oppose. The edit summary shows a bit of immaturity but it was only once. A good candidate overall. Good luck. -
'''Support'''.  The opposes have some valid issues. I am not passing judgment on everything the candidate has done, just on how he will use the tools and I think it is unlikely that Hiberniantears will misuse them. --
'''Support''' Per above. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Plenty of experience, lots of friendly and diplomatic interaction with the community. I especially like this response [[User_talk:Hiberniantears#Re:_vandal_warning]]. I see no reason to believe that Hiberniantears would abuse the privileges or cause any problems during a dispute. Definitely the kind of person I like to see stepping up and offering to take on new responsibilities.
'''Support'''. Looks fine to me. But you should configure your account to accept people sending you mail through wikipedia, just listing an address on your user page is sometimes not preferable.
'''Oppose''' I think your dedication to this project is strong, but unfortunately 1800 edits isn't enough.  If you keep up your recent pace for a few more months, you should be able to pass your next RFA.  I hope to see you as a candidate again in 3 to 6 months.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Oppose''', sorry. Editcountitis aside, adminship means extra responsibilities for this user. So is a responsibility to carefully judge one's preparedness, and that requires more evidence of experience in multiple areas of admin intervention. Personally, I am not convinced that this user is prepared, if among others I am to have in mind such low participation in project space. Adminship is no big deal, but that doesn't mean that it can be treated with levity. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - I suggest that if you are interested in conflict resolution you try participating in the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]] for a while. Admin powers are really not that useful in mediating disputes, interpersonal skills are worth more in that task then a few extra buttons.
Part one of this candidates' answer to Q4 shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You don't have to be an administrator to be neutral, and you don't have to be neutral when you're an administrator. Otherwise, mediation would be given by administrators only, and that's all they'd do. This was in addition to the fact that I believe this user does not have enough experience to be obtaining the mop and bucket. '''
'''Oppose''' - sorry, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Shuppiluliuma&diff=prev&oldid=138054321 edit summary] implies you aren't quite ready to be given the mop, also your answer to Q1 isn't entirely convincing. Finally, if this attempt doesn't succeed, I would suggest you gain some experience of the deletion process, before reapplying.
'''Oppose''' Vandal fighting is always a great help, but one does not need admin tools for that.  I honestly don't see any need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' I base this on a collective review of this RfA. The edit count is fine as far as I am concerned, however the answers in Q4 suggest to me a lack of understanding of the role of an admin. True enough, adminiship is a position of trust, but frequently, 3O's and informal mediation is the best way to go. Also, the relatively low talk page numbers (as compared to mainspace edits) suggests he could be more interactive. I think a 2nd RfA in a few months will sail through.
'''Oppose''' Addhoc's diff and the answer to Q4 clearly show that the candidate needs more experience, and more opportunities to perfect a calm demeanor.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' - Per the diff provided by Addhoc, I can't help but feel this user will escalate a dispute rather than help resolve it.--
[[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral'''. You would make a good admin, and edit count doesn't matter at all (well within reason, somone with 2 edits wont pass), however you haven't specifically stated anything you are planning on doing that requires admin abilities. Vandalism reverting, mediating, and trying to help users are great things, and I try to do them as well, however you need to demonstrate the need for the sysop bit. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Neutral'''. Candidate is a bit light on experience but has the makings of a fine admin.
'''Neutral''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after three months and you will get my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Per Daniel in oppose. My main concern is that wading into a mediation with ''"It's okay I'm an admin"'' is more likely to inflame rather than resolve issues. Contrary to what you may believe I'm afraid adminship does not confer automatic respect - sadly often the reverse in some editors eyes. However 1) Vandal Fighting 2) Reasonable amount of experience 3) Civility cause me to stay neutral rather than oppose. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. I think the candidate is on the right track, and will benefit from a bit more experience.
'''Neutral''' - good editor, civil and kind. However, you need more experience of WP policy, I feel. A few more months editing + maybe get involved in AfD evaluations and some policy discussions and you'll be ready for the mop. Definitely on the right track -

Barely any edits, the majority of which are on his/her own user page. Needs much more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose''' and suggested withdraw. Basically you don't have enough edits sorry, and you are rather new and inactive. Also question 1 shows that you are unfamiliar with what admins do.
'''Oppose''' as [[User:Veesicle|Veesicle]] said, [[User:Hiddenhearts|Hiddenhearts]] has very few edits and most are to his/her userpage and [[Lakelands Park Middle School]].  Editor has been around for less than 3 months.  The fact that this nomination comes from an account created today with no edits other than those related to this RfA doesn't fill me with much confidence either and the answers to the questions doesn't really demonstrate a strong grasp on policy or what being sysop'd is all about.  I'd suggest that [[User:Hiddenhearts|Hiddenhearts]] withdraw his/her acceptance of this nomination and spend a few months getting more familiar with Wikipedia before trying to become an admin.--
'''Strong Oppose''' - The user's answers to the questions just don't seem very thought out. And user hardly has any edits: 10 Wikipedia edits, and 0 Wikipedia talk edits, and most are to the user's own userpage.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you just don't have the experience yet.  I'd try again when you have closer to 1000 edits.  Work hard, and I probably won't see a problem supporting. '''
'''Weak Support'''. Experienced editor with regards to time, but doesn't show knowledge of adminship (please read [[WP:ADMIN]]). Answer to Q3 shows understanding of policy (namely [[WP:OR]]). I suggest sticking around for a few months and then trying again. In the mean time, I'd be happy to [[WP:ADOPT|adopt]] you to help you out.
'''Oppose'''. 74 total edits (if am I reading the counts correctly)? Far too few to be considered for adminship at this time. Also, edit summaries seem more like the exception rather than the rule. Try again after a few more months and a lot more experience. Also, please turn on forced edit summary option on your preferences, will enforce good editing habits.
'''Oppose'''.  Not nearly enough experience to be considered for adminship.  No edits in Wikipedia namespace except in [[WP:RFA]].  Doesn't use edit summaries.  Answers to questions show that more experience is necessary to understand what administrators do.  I recommend waiting a few more months, a couple thousand edits, editing in [[WP:XFD]] (my favorite of which is [[WP:AFD]]), reading over [[WP:LOP|policies]], and always using edit summaries.  I also recommend withrawing this RFA.  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but far, far too little activity to be ready for adminship. --
'''Oppose for now''' based on activity. If this RfA doesn't pass, I hope you'll consider reapplying in some time. Best, — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
If you want to be an admin, you need to be willing to explain your actions, better so in advance.  Consider using edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' with the possibility of support in a future RfA. Sorry, but I cannot support a candidate that has a total of 74 edits and an edit summary usage of 6% for major edits and 0% for minor edits (Based on the last 63 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace.) I recommend that you withdraw this RfA and become more active in the Wikipedia community. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Per all the above.
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits or experience yet. Please come back when you are ready. Also you should try to use edit summaries more. {{User:Stormtracker94/sig}}
'''Oppose''' With only 74 edits this request has absolutely no chance of succeeding. I earnestly suggest that you withdraw it now, before some other adm,in closes it per [[WP:SNOW]. Over the last year no-one has been made admin with less than 1000 edits, and nearly all have had more than 2000. A high percentage had 3000+. And you must leave edit summaries, which you seem to not often be doing. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, not nearly enough edits, and according to your contributions, you haven't even been editing for a year. With a few more months of experience and some more editing (and edit summaries), I think you could possibly become an admin. -
'''Oppose''' You have only 32 in yours last months, you need to be more active and participate more on Wikipedia space such as [[WP:XFD]]. Thus you have not the experience to be a admin, but keep with your job, perhaps in next 4 or 5 months you may request a RfA again. Good luck.
Please [[WP:SNOWBALL]] this.
'''Oppose''' sorry but a malformed RFA coupled with only just over 100 edits total over a year-and-a-half means I can't support your application.  I would suggest withdrawing this application and gaingin a load more experience across all facets of Wikipedia before re-applying.
'''Oppose and motion to close'''-per Rambling Man. Obvious to be unsuccessful. Keep working and become more active. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose''' per above. Please withdraw. -
'''Oppose''' Most editors like to see about three thousand edits, including a good paricipation in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. We need to see that you have a thorough understanding of Wiki policy, which is at present not demonstrable. Please come back, if you wish, after about six months and about 3,000 edits.--
'''Support''' as nominator.
--
'''Weak Support''' - The user does seem well-rounded in areas that Wikipedia is key, and seems to be well-acquainted with policy. However, not assuming good faith like HSR did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Regan123&diff=prev&oldid=139958515 here], makes this a weak support. Of course this was in June 2007, so don't give me all that nonsense about it being a long time ago, because it was made 14 months after the creation of the account and after 5000 edits were made, meaning HSR ''should'' have been familiar with behavioural guidelines, i.e [[WP:AGF|AGF]].
'''Support''' This editor has a good number of edits, has a lot of mainspace edits, has improved a few articles and has done some fairly good work here on Wikipedia. So far the oppositions evidence doesn't bother me that much, not enough to oppose or even remain neutral for that matter. Unless some stronger evidence is provided opposing this editor then I'm going to have to support based on what I can see of the good work this editor has done.
Looks okay.
'''Support''' per [[User:EliminatorJR|EliminatorJR]] - and no that is not a typo. The four essays s/he linked to fail to convince me the candidate will truly go apeshit with the tools were they to be given him seven days from now. On the contrary - in [[WP:EXTENT]] where he appears to exhibit bias against anon editing, he goes on to say that "I don't always feel the way I do about Wikipedia as I did… when writing this essay." Yes all admins should unequivocally endorse the [[m:foundation issues|foundation issues]], but "unequivocally endorse" does not mean "to have never ever questioned". Also I note that the WP:EXTENT essay was written seven months ago so the candidate's stance regarding anon editing might have changed since then. The essays he writes do not necessarily represent his views for all situtations and all times, rather what he was thinking at a particular point of time, akin to a blog entry. [[User:Resurgent insurgent|Resurgent insurgent]] (as
'''Support'''. Oh, I disagree with this editor all the time at AfD, but I still trust him with the mop.  According to my evolving standards, he has enough edits (especially mainspace), and the diffs by the opposition below only prove that he knows the rules and what is opinion.
'''Strong oppose''' Rather rude and uncivil, qualities I don't want to see in an administrator. '''<font face="Arial">
You clearly don't understand the speedy deletion criteria, as demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scottandrewhutchins/Userboxes/user_Body_Modification_No&diff=prev&oldid=170232683 here], without even discussing it with the author first to attempt to reach a resolution. Several AfD edits in quick periods of time, nominating suitable articles for AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wank Week|here]]. I think its important for admins to be approacahble and discuss things before nominating things for deletion, or if you're an admin - actually deleted them.
'''Oppose'''. Anyone with as deep a misunderstanding of deletion policy (per QST's diffs) is not ready to be trusted with the powerful block button and rollback function.
'''Oppose''', per the misunderstanding of an admin role [[Wikipedia:As standards improve, it's harsher on newcomers|here]], this [[User:HisSpaceResearch/Wikipedia is communism|silliness]], the third paragraph in [[User:HisSpaceResearch/YOU SUCK!|this]], and the opinion that unregistered users shouldn't be allowed to edit in
'''Oppose''' Eliminator's diff is problematic. I construe it to mean that you are seeking adminship as a way to push back. I hope I am wrong.
'''Oppose'''. I see too many problems with the above, and to say you intend to take part mainly in AFD, I'm unsure about some of the articles you nominate. Also doesn't seem to be able to reply in a way to change the opposing users' minds, which, if you ''should'' be an admin, you should be able to do, or trying to do, which it doesn't look like you are doing. --
Frankly, this user strikes me as being quite hostile and defensive all the time (yeah, I know what you're thinking: "''Look who's talking''" :-)). That's a bad quality. '''Strong oppose'''. --'''
Doesn't believe unregistered people should be allowed to edit. Sorry, but admins who disagree with our most core of core principles are not a good thing.
I would not be comfortable having this user as an administrator, and therefore I must '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''.  I believe this user has any valuable contributions, but the many concerns voiced about above (most notably the incivility) are troubling, so I must Oppose. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per the very worrying examples cited above, in particular the diff. linked by Qst. Also dislike the blanket attitude of disallowing unregistered users to edit. Would not be happy with this user becoming an admin.
'''No''' per Maxim. Try again in few months and I'll support you.
'''Oppose''' per Eliminator.  Sorry - the attitudes expressed in your essays are pretty troubling for an admin candidate.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
Can't trust this user with the protection (ie. semi-protection) tools due to his flagrant disagreement with our non-negotiable core policies. '''
'''Oppose''' Per issues raised above.
'''Oppose''', sadly. [[User:HisSpaceResearch/Wikipedia is communism]] worries me. comparing Wikipedia to political systems is asking for trouble, especially seeing the US views on communism. Essays they may be, but some of them suggest a lack of knowledge, and an abundance of opinion.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but civility is a must to make a good admin. A good admin is someone you can trust and talk to easily.
'''No''' Pretty much per Maxim. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - I'm not at all happy with the unregistered users thing. Someone with the power to make life difficult for anonymous editors shouldn't be nearly so vocal in their opposition to anon editing.
'''Neutral'''; HisSpaceResearch is a prolific editor, and his contributions to the mainspace are valuable, but he has very little experience with the janitorial duties and almost no visible implication in policy or dispute resolution; this makes it impossible to see how well he would use (and not misuse) the tools.<p>I would be willing to support after a few months of involvement beyond AfD and RFPP; perhaps involving himself in [[WP:3O]], or helping with the thankless backlocks in [[WP:SCV]] or [[WP:COIN]] for instance.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' per above, he hasnt done anything that would turn me against becoming and admin, but like Coren said, he doesnt seem to have a lot of experience in cleaning up duties, another turn off for me is that is seems he has trouble with filling in the edit summary box, which is a must for an admin.  Looks like a great editor and with more work in admin duties I would be ready to support.  Good luck!<br/>
'''Neutral''' A great editor but the oppose comments raised by the above users is a cause for concern. Anyway, I do not feel that it is enough to oppose this user outright so I will stay neutral. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' and I'm seriously not trying to be funny, however [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Holmes.sherlock&oldid=15108659| this edit] doesn't help much... -
'''Oppose''' RfA is not a joke, nor is a light-hearted commitment, even though it isn't a big deal. I seriously recommend that you withdraw your RfA, and continue to edit Wikipedia constructively. Until you are nominated, or feel very confident about another RfA, please don't apply.
'''Oppose''' agree with the above. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Very strong oppose''', due to user's recent conduct at [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007_June 23#Image:NRT6 2001.jpg]], and the userpage fiasco, and the edit warring with Deskana to keep a fair use image on his userpage.
I rarely oppose RfAs, but this one - please, Hornetman, I really think you need a better handle on policy before even thinking about an RfA. At least another 6 months.
'''Strongest oppose possible'''.  Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_23&diff=prev&oldid=140601048#Image:NRT6_2001.jpg this discussion], Hornetman is more interested in going to court to force Wikipedia to conform to his demands, than he is in finding consensus.  He should have been blocked for the legal threats, not promoted to admin.  Although he originally signed up quite a while back, he also does not have enough time here for strong experience as to what Wikipedia is all about.  And [[Philippians 4:13]] is still a stub, this is the edit he's most proud of?
'''Strongest possible oppose''' - I rarely oppose RfAs either, but your behaviour to-date has been problematic, to say the least. Your conversation on Commons yesterday showed an severe lack of knowledge of policy, esp. around copyrights. Furthermore, your treatment of [[User:BaRiMzI]] only two hours ago almost had you blocked for revert-warring and incivility. It's on your talk page right now. So far, you've behaved like a total hothead, screaming and ''demanding'' that you are right and "by God's will", you'll get what you want. This is ''not'' what being an admin is about -
'''Very strong oppose''' - I have taken a look at your talk page, and see that you have several miscounts on fair use pictures. There seemed to be a fuss going on, and sorry to say this but you don't seem to have a civil mind when dealing with these things. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Absolutely not'''. "Mature teenager"? Recent actions speak otherwise. My user talk page still has some of the evidence against that in plain view. Whining about how an image should be deleted with no rational rationale whatsoever, and could only be calmed down by an appeal to his religion. I was almost about to block this user indefinitely in exasperation if I didn't step away and go to sleep during the image incident. Temperament and ability to be an admin are blatantly absent at the current time. And if these damning statements sound very forceful, Hornetman, imagine what I was contending with during your fit. —'''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]].  While you have your personal opinions about ''the picture'', we need to make decisions based on Wikipedia policy and on reasoned discussion, not on personal feelings and vague threats of getting on the news.  Personally, I don't think ''the picture'' really does much for the article about the bike ride, especially since there are other pictures that illustrate the article.  (And how do those guys ride naked without getting saddle sores?)  --
Per the recent IFD discussion.--
Uh... nothing personal, but under 500 edits, a block for a 3RR violation, absolutely bare-bones answers to the questions... sorry, but no, I don't think you're qualified to be an admin at this time. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
...you mean well, but uh, yeah, better to withdraw this. Please.--
'''Oppose''' - shows clear lack of understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' per above. You should probably withdraw and try again later. --'''
'''Oppose''' I am always wary of potential admins that nominate themselves. And putting your record into consideration, I am glad I am wary. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. '''''
'''Oppose''' You should take the others advice and withdraw. You haven't got enough experience for the job and a recent block which seems you might not understand policy just yet. --
'''Suggest withrdawl''', this nom is not going to pass, unfortunately.  I, like John Lake, suggest you withdraw this nomination and work on the points assessed by the other users. '''
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HyperSonicBoom&diff=prev&oldid=107263433] --
'''Oppose''', borrowing [[User:Consumed Crustacean|Consumed Crustacean]]'s reasoning. - <span style="font-size: 1.1em;">
'''Strong oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HyperSonicBoom&diff=prev&oldid=107359052#Blocked Holy shit dude]. You can't have copyrighted images in userboxes, and insulting admins the way you did for doing their job is completely unacceptable. And now you want to become one yourself just a few days later, just after coming off a block? No way José.
'''Neutral''' I know you mean well, but this isn't really the right time for this. The block for 3RR is bound to put people on their guard immediately. I would recommend at least 6 months with a clean record before running again. Participate in article writing, XfDs, vandalism patrol, new pages patrol, and try to keep cool at all times and try to resolve conflicts amicably without getting into the 3RR trap. I recommend you withdraw at this time, and work on putting your earlier mess-ups behind you. Good luck!  <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I cannot support someone who has a mainspace edit count of 101 and a Wikipedia namespace edit count of just 32. That shows me that you lack experience in both editing and in sysop-related discussions and that it seems you have not learn much from your previous RfA.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HyperSonicBoom&diff=prev&oldid=107263433] <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Oppose''' - 6 months of mostly low editing. Need to gain some additional experience. As far as the above posted diff, that was quite a while ago. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Strong Oppose''' - I'm sorry to oppose but I don't believe you're ready. You haven't edited that many articles, the one article that you have edited most is [[Vmigo]] and you've only edited that 10 times. You have no experience with [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|AIV]], [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]], Deletion debates, Policy discussions, or anything much else for that matter. Records show that you've only made 3 edits to any Wikipedia talk page and the vast majority of your edits have been made to your own userpage. You also tend to rarely use edit summaries and seemed to have disappeared after your previously failed request for adminship, which shows that you don't take rejection very well. I see no evidence of article creation ability, Collaboration ability, No evidence of Featured articles you helped created, or even Good Articles. I see little to no evidence of vandalism fighting either. While I generally don't believe that actual edit count can determine admin ability, your edit count is less than 700 and most of them have been on your user or talk page and hardly any have been used to improve articles or fight vandalism or anything else. I would suggest all of the above be worked on for improvments. Good luck, perhaps next time.
'''Oppose''' Per East and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HyperSonicBoom&diff=next&oldid=163493314] hoax markups aren't helpful or funny really, especially on an admin account.
'''Oppose''': Looking at this editor's userpage, I'm instantly struck by a fake (or prank) "You have new messages" toolbar, this is not something any administrator should have on their userpages when there is a strong change of editors being left confused by such a prank. I then followed through the link to your talk page and looking back through the history, I see evidence of behaviour that is completely inconsistent with that expected of an administrator, and I see no real history of this behaviour being firmly put behind the editor in question. I'm also noticing a refusal to accept that this editor was in the wrong at the time of their block and I'm disappointed that have decided to attack the administrator in question above rather than show the maturity to accept they were in the wrong, have learned from their mistakes and can now be trusted. A refusal to comply with core policies such as our 3RR policy and our non free image policy are hugely serious problems and they need to be fully rectified, the first step is accepting wrongdoing, and if you can't do something as simple as that, there's no reason you should be trusted not to edit and wheel war if promoted. I'm seeing a lack of editing in the key namespaces, I can't find any image work at all and am unable to determine if this user knows anything about image policy at all, basically. In light of the maturity concerns and lack of evidence you would be able to use the tools correctly, I'm regretfully unable to Support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but there is barely anything to point toward you being ready for the sysop tools or pressures. Indeed, your mistake over the tally and the date and your response to Q.3 clearly indicates that you still have much to do to address these issues. The only positive is your clear enthusiasm for the role - all you have to do is improve everything else.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not comfortable with your attitude, either here or in dealings with others elsewhere, especially with regards to your block.  --
(edit conflict) '''Oppose'''.  It is true you do revert vandalism, and you do get style points for having Sonic in your name, but you don't have enough overall experience yet.  Very rarely does an user become an admin with fewer than 2000 edits.  It's not editcountitis, but enough time is required to give evidence of experience.  Edit summary usage is also not great, these summaries are very helpful to understand what an editor was doing.  Your comment above, "you must be blind" is also not very encouraging, since it sounds kind of [[WP:BITE|bitey]].  The mistake with the tally is not a big deal, since the RFA process doesn't really explain what it's for, anyway.  I recommend taking some more time to gain experience, especially in admin-like areas, one of my favorites is [[WP:AFD]], in order to gain a good handle on policies and procedures.  If you ever have any questions, I'm always available on my [[User talk:Useight|talk page]].
'''Strongest Oppose''': I doubt I can ever trust you after my original experience with you, unfortunately. Though you're at least starting to contribute positively to wikipedia, there's that.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HyperSonicBoom_2&diff=164129085&oldid=164128834 Oppose]. I was initially going to stay out of this since I don't like piling on, but the above comment was grossly unacceptable. Apparently, you have learned nothing from your last RFA. Disappointing. <b>
'''Neutral''', I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help out but you may want to wait until you've put in some more experience and become more active with the project.  I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination (it will not pass), getting actively involved and trying again in a few months.  It might be a good idea to find a wikiproject you'd enjoy and make some more contributions that way, and by all means, keep doing what you can to help revert vandalism in the meantime!
'''Support.''' I have seen this candidate around frequently, way back when I used to participate in [[WP:FAC]]. I believe that this candidate is more than qualified and that the precision work he or she is used to in Featured Article work - which the candidate has extensive experience in - ensures that the candidate can be trusted to stay within the areas they state they will specialize in.
'''Weak Support''' I see no reason why this user's adminship would be a negative thing for the project. I am not incredibly impressed with his work but just because an editor is not ''super duper extra perfect'' is no reason to deny him the mop.
'''Strong support''' - see my comments as add-on nom above. - '''''
'''Support''' - Ibaranoff24 has a specific need for the tools - doing occasional administrative tasks as he encounters them whilst editing.  I acknowledge, as many of those who oppose have acknowledged, that he is lacking in experience with some areas of encyclopaedia administration, but I think that he will be able to learn as he goes, I do not think that he will abuse the tools, and I do not think that he will go rouge.  I thus support Ibaranoff24's request for adminship.  --
'''Support''' Iamunknown sums it up for me, we have lots of admins who know all about twinkle but how many have worked properly to produce featured articles?  We need admins with a range of skills, we can't expect everyone to know everything. I'm sure he'd work on what he knows and learn more as he needs to.  He's already proven himself a good Wikipedian, chastising him for not using edit summaries enough or not citing a source for everything he writes is all very well but many people make it as admins who barely write articles or add anything which needs a source at all.  That said Transhumanist is right and he should pledge to use edit summaries in the future.
'''Support''' - 5 Featured Article noms speaks loads - this is a great 'pedia builder and apart from some shortish answers above I see nothing to suggest his being an admin will be a net negative. cheers,
'''Strong Support''' - Initially, I was leaning towards oppose due to some of the lack of detail in the candidate's answers above, and concerns below, but at the same time, I see a lot of potential to be a fantastic administratior. True, not all good editors make good sysops, but 15,000 edits over 2 years and the fact that he has 5 featured article nominations makes me believe that he will truly work to improve our encyclopedia from a content standpoint, which is just as important (if not moreso) than maintainence, vandal fighting, and whatnot (and I'm sure with time he might gain some understanding in these areas.)
'''Support.''' I don't place too much stock in evaluating RfAs based on edit summary usage or brevity in answers to questions. You are clearly an experienced and knowledgeable editor. The only question we really need to ask at RfA is whether giving you the tools is going to help or hurt the project, and I think the answer here is obvious.
'''Support.''' Can be trusted with the tools. I'm sure he will start giving more edit summaries from now on.
'''Support''' Excellent article work. Trustworthy. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Support''' I support Ibaranoff24. I think he will not abuse the tools. Here, we have some smart admins who abuse their power. For example, I have seen admins blocking established users in the name of the 3RR. Even a established user who is about 1-2 month old, may not know about 3RR. In fact, I realized that the 3RR also applies in AfD just about a month ago. We need admins who don't abuse their power. I believe that Ibaranoff24 will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Has made some excellent edits during his time.  <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' per RyanGerbil and Nick mallory.
Good article building, keeping cool throughout this RfA, and answering a ridiculous amount of questions makes me support.
'''Support''', excellent answers to a stupid number of questions. '''
'''Support''' Short concise answers to many stupid questions, which is probably more then I would have done. <span>
Change to '''Weak Support''', on "I can't see anything wrong" grounds, in light of the multiple question answers. I don't think TTH is unreasonable in asking so many questions in this case, given that so little information was given by the candidate initially.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Changed to Support'''. Originally, was neutral because of short answers to original questions, but after taking all the time to answer all of those, I must say that this editor has thought everything through. (Thanks for notifying me TTH) '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' because he answered all the questions with a level head. I think it was inappropriate for TTH to pose so many questions (Even given the limited earlier responses - a talk page post should've sufficed, and TTH did that as well) but I'm pleased to see that TTH is contacting neutral voters and asking them to re-evaluate.
'''support''' Certainly an original approach to answering the questions, but he was right every time. a longer essays wouldnt have said it any better. TTH was right to ask the questions, of course, and I would have said support without it. if this should fail, just try again a little later. We need admins like you.  '''
'''Support''' Ibaranoff24 appears to be well-intentioned and to be familiar with how things work; he is unlikely to act inappropriately.
'''Support''', clear and concise answers to the questions, great article writer. His weak edit summary usage is a minor issue only. --
'''Support''' Per [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] and [[User:DGG|DGG]].  I see absolutely no evidence in his contributions that he'd be in any way problematic.  Actually a little bit disappointed in the opposes (and not just Kurt and Malleus).  Yeah, look at his answers to the questions, but look at his contributions to the project too.  Maybe even ask yourself if ''you've'' made as valuable of contributions as he has. --
'''Support''' due to his handling of the utterly ridiculous amount of questions.
'''Oppose''' per the answers to questions not doing anything for me and per Soxred's neutral.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I don't think your ready for adminship. First, you need to provide a little bit more detailed answers to demonstrate that you have an interest in becoming an admin. Second, I didn't see much contributions to things such as [[WP:AIV]] in your edit summary. I feel that those things are necessary to become an admin, and not so much the article writing (that's merely my opinion though). Lastly, a small detail, but an important one nonetheless, I feel that your edit summary usage is way too low. All users should explain the reasons why they made the actions they did in their summaries. Consider going into your preferences and checking the box that sets a reminder for edit summaries. No hard feelings, I just feel that you're almost ready, but not quite there.
'''Oppose''' per Icestorm815. Answers to questions don't prove a sufficient knowledge of policies.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the answers to your questions don't really make clear how you would use the tools. Maybe more experience in AfD would be good as well and possibly more edit summary usage. Otherwise, you're almost there. Cheers, --<font color="#7BA05B">
'''Oppose''' Poor edit summary usage and one-line answers to questions. Sorry. &nbsp; '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Sampling the nom's contributions to the mainspace, I do not find enough sourcing of the information put forward - much of the editing appears to be based on personal knowledge of the subjects.  If I missed consistent sourcing by the nom, please provide us with a handful, or two handfuls, of articles showing the opposite, so I can re-consider.  Thank you.  --
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You're lacking in communication skills, and I believe communication is a vital part of Wikipedia. Also, your edit summary usage is less than ideal. Please consider addressing these and other concerns. Thanks!
'''Oppose'''.  Answer to my question about edit summaries demonstrates that this editor is not ready yet.  Ibaranoff, please read the comments made by another editor after your answer to my question below.
'''Oppose''', as per Kurt. --
'''Oppose''' per all above (''except'' Kurt), communication and lack of participation in process and policy fora appear to be major issues. Answers to questions are extremely weak, to boot. --
'''Oppose''' - Your article work is great, but the lack of strong answers to the questions are worrying. Also, the lack edit summary usage with the reason: "Because I often don't need them" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FIbaranoff24&diff=179943512&oldid=179936008] - is a concern. You should know (Transhumanist explained this below that comment) that they're for other contributors use aswell. I'm sorry but I cannot support at this time.
'''Oppose''', for several reasons. I'm bothered about both the lack of edit summaries and the lack of understanding that they are to help ''other'' editors. The all-too-brief answers to the above questions led me to this editor's talk page, where I'm not seeing good communication. (The minute you pick up the mop, there '''will''' be a need to communicate, especially to people who don't understand or who disagree with whatever action taken, no matter how uncontroversial). And the block for edit warring is also a (minor) concern. Granted, it was over six months ago, which is what makes it minor to me, but it amplifies my concerns about communication. Perhaps after a few months work on communication? --
'''Oppose''' Per icestorm, and his answer to question 4.
'''Oppose''' per Fabrictramp. Pretty much says it all there. -
'''Oppose''' not suitable, per above.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Too many concerns have been expressed above for me to support this request. I suggest working on the points expressed by the contributors to this discussion, and trying again after you have some more experience under your belt.
'''Oppose''' per everything. <small>Changed to oppose.</small>
'''Oppose''' The answers you gave aren't good enough, also per icestorm. <strong>
Weak answers, especially Q16.
'''Oppose''': Changed from neutral. The answers you provided were very weak and vague at best, and some of your attitudes concern me. With answers to the edit summary issue being, "...I see it as a bit of a chore..." and generalizations to administrator issues, I don't see a pressing need for the RFA to pass at the moment. Not without some serious improvements.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, you haven't convinced me that you are ready to be an admin yet. I thought the answers to Q12 and Q16 were not very convincing.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q16.  <font face="Comic Sans">
'''Oppose''' I have good faith in you, but the brief answers to the questions do not convince me.
'''Neutral.''' Even though you have quite good edits, 25% edit summary usage and not as specific as could be on answering questions bumps my decision to Neutral.
'''Neutral''' Pretty weak answers to questions, and edit summary usage.
'''Neutral''', not the most convincing answers to the questions, and as above, weak edit summary usage.  Admins need to be able to communicate well, and I'm not sure you can do that.  I second the suggestion of finding a coach, because otherwise you seem a pretty solid editor.
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but poor edit summaries and answers to questions 2 and 3 are a concern. I can't decide whether to support or oppose. But I will support if you improve your edit summaries.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on the oppose. I would suggest nomination withdrawal per SNOW.
I suspect this editor ''could'' do just fine as an administrator. However he likely needs a little polishing to pass muster here. Could I suggest you take a month or two, delve deeply into the Administrator functions; begin to use edit summaries always and monitor AfD to learn the usual conventions here. I'd be happy to support then. We do appreciate your good edits so far and your desire to help more. -
'''Neutral''' Pretty much poer JodyB: well on the way there, good editor; start taking more part in the policy-based parts of Wikipedia, polish up those answers to the "optional" questions, more usage of edit summaries, and next time... <b>
'''Neutral''' I see some good edits, but for me to support, I prefer to see an edit summary usage of 100% on major edits. I would also be more convinced if there were more edits to administrative areas. I see a good job on requested moves, and the moves in general. You don't however, convince me that you have enough knowledge of policy and guidelines just yet. If you dazzle me with the answers to the optional questions, I may still switch to support, though I don't think it would be bad for you to postpone the request for the tools for a while, untill you are a little deeper entreched in the Wikipedia community.
'''Neutral''' User appears to be afraid of any major communication, as shown in usage of edit summaries and just in the question responses (or lack thereof). The quality of edits is not particularly negative, but the lack of communication pushes this into a neutral vote.
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose''' Good user, but a low use of edit summaries and short answers to not inspire confidence. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
'''Neutral''' - The edits summaries, to be short. Otherwise, a very good user.<sup>
'''Neutral leaning towards Oppose''' - seems like a [[WP:GF|good faith]] editor, but the concerns raised trouble me.
'''Neutral'''.  Sorry, concerns raised by others lead me to ask you to come back in two months' time.
'''Neutral''' Answer to Q3 and especially Q4 concern me.
'''Support''' for having beaten Anorexia! --
'''Moral support''' for beeing so brave and for having beaten Anorexia as well. -- ''
'''Oppose''' 39 edits, weak answers, faulty RfA, 2 months experience only, etc. Way too early to be trusted with the tools. Suggest immediate withdrawal or [[WP:SNOW]] is what will happen here.  -
'''Oppose''' To become an admin, you should really have at least 2,000 edits, and also experience across a wide range of wikipedia activities, which you haven't got. You may also wish to change your username, as it mentions an illness which is against policy
'''Oppose''' - Seems to have recent serious policy violations: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IBeatAnorexia&oldid=110013187] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IBeatAnorexia&oldid=117215310]. Suggest the candidate withdraws this nomination until they have more experience handling conflict.<font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' Suggest immediate withdrawal, 39 edits over approximately a 45 day period, this is way too inactive for sysops, I;d suggest getting another 5 months, experience, getting your edit count up to at least 3000 and doing some work at [[WP:XFD]] and you'll peas but for the minute I'd withdraw per [[WP:SNOW]]. Also you do not [[WP:OWN|own]] articles as you seem to think in the answer to question number two.<b><font color="0066FF">
'''Oppose''' due to complete lack of experience on the wiki in general. ···
'''Moral Support''' I think you need to withdraw this request for adminship to gain some more experience before trying agiain. You should read [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] and more specifically, learn exactly what an administrator does. In the meantime, keep up the good work reverting vandalism.--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
No evidence to suggest that this user will abuse the tools.
'''Moral Support''' What I've seen of you has been excellent. But this is far too early. You'll probably make a great admin someday -- but not yet.
'''Oppose''' - replies to questions are worrying. And, specifically, you can fight vandalism without being an admin. I think you need to maybe expand your horizons, gain more experience (Read [[WP:ADMIN]] to find out what else admins do) and then come back and try again.
'''Oppose, Moral Support''' I'm sorry, but you don't have quite enough experience yet. Keep it up, though!
'''Oppose''' Lack of vandalism fighting, and overall lack of experirence. I also don't find it funny the comment on your page that says for Russian women to contact you. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you have very little experience, so I can't gauge your suitability. Please get some more experience and try again in a few months. <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but you need a bit more experience on Wikipedia before becoming and admin.
'''Oppose''' Does not seem experienced enough. Compare yourself to the other users running for admin and you will see what I mean. Possible future admin, though, just not now. —
Imdanumber1, despite the arrogant user name (just messing before you NPA me), seems to have a reasonable amount of edits reasonably spread between the namespaces. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - No big deal, won't abuse the tools, no major problems as far as I've looked at, etc., etc.
'''Support''' - has been a stable editor and has proven that he can handle the admin duties.. --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I'm impressed by the Q1 answer, I think you should particpate more in admin related tasks (like RC patrolling etc) <u>if</u>(and only ''if'') this RfA fails. &mdash;
'''Support''' You've been doing a great job with NYC transportation articles and from one Brooklynite to another, you have my vote. Good Luck ;)
'''Support''' - A trustworthy editor with initiative is offering his services as a sysadmin.  I think we should take him up on his offer and make him one.  He learned Wikipedia "on the job", and I'd expect he would do just as well with the admin tools in the same regard.  '''''
'''Support:''' Even though his count is a little low, I think he will make a good admin. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support''' I started off hesitant, but have thought about it and want to change to support.  I do hope that you will remember that admin block functions need to be used only when necessary.  If you find yourself fired up at this editor you have battled with, probably best to talk to another admin or the community about it.   I think that you will make an excellent admin.  Good luck! <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
Default '''support'''. I'm baffled that some still oppose based on a perceived lack of need for the tools. There's basically nothing that makes me question this user's ability and willingness to use the tools well, and that's all that matters. Period. —'''
'''Support'''.  I trust this user not to screw up with the tools.  —
'''Support''' Per [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|No big deal]]. I don't see any problems. --
'''Oppose''' I don't understand why this editor needs the admin tools. He seems to be doing a fine job without them and he should have deleted the acceptance line. I think he should continue to work on transporation works and not have to worry about all the extra admin duties that may cause him stress, evident by the 3RV violation.--
'''Oppose''' per Harrison; I don't see a need for the tools either; seems to be constructive otherwise. --
'''Oppose''' Wiki-space contributions are minimal; per DGG, if one wishes to close XfDs, one should have some experience with them first.
'''Oppose'''; this user has a flawed understanding of vandalism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=131800879][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANE2&diff=131782514&oldid=131487556] and makes personal attacks and other bad edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=131777745][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1_%28New_York_City_Subway_service%29&diff=prev&oldid=131743728] In the interest of full disclosure, I'm the one being referred to in his answer to question 3. --
'''Oppose''' -  concerns about 3RR block, ongoing personal dispute and insufficient experience in the deletion process.
'''Oppose''' - over block issues and points raised by other users.  And you're only 15 years old, I cannot trust admin tools for someone who is barely in high school.
'''Oppose''' The age thing is irrelevant to me and we don't need to get into that here. However this user does have a fairly recent 3RR and since the conflict is still brewing, I would think it prudent to oppose for now. I appreciate his willingness to improve but a little more space might be better.
'''Oppose''' Any mention of being blocked, vandalism, or 3RR throws me off. Sorry. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''oppose''' The above.
'''Oppose''' The answer to 4 seems to contradict the answer to 3.  It's hard to me to be convinced that someone who's argumentative in a RfA is going to be cool under other, more contentious, conditions.  Also per hmwith.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good editor, but not really sure. I really don't see the need for tools per William Henry Harrison but overall I am undecided. '''
'''Neutral''' You mention reviewing CSD and XfD, but your user count shows almost no activity in this. '''
'''Neutral''' I have been quite unsure of this user, but what swung me was just reading through various notes others left about him here, and the issue of the 3RR block.  I'm not going to say "'''''NO!!!''''' due to it, since we ALL make mistakes, but the user seems to have somewhat of a civility issue at times, and that keeps me away from a support vote.
'''Neutral''', leaning to oppose. Imo the three most important qualities for an an admin are civility, civility and civility. Hot temper is a big no. Even mildly hot temper is a no. Unlike others who may live and work productively in the same building, a janitor must have impeccable manners. From what I see, I am not sure that's the case here.
'''Neutral'''. I am humbled to hear that you consider me as a mentor. But the personal dispute is what keeps me from giving a full support. As I have more familiarity than others involved in this RfA with the two users in the dispute, I could offer an eyewitness testimony to what has been going on, but I won't do that here. Also, I do not have a preference for or against the views of either side. All I will say is both users have strong personalities, preferences, convictions, and visions, all of which are apparently in conflict with each other. I think the 3RR block is technically justified, but I would not hold it against you as much as others would. Otherwise, I think you have a good intuition of what is and what is not acceptable on WP, and you won't abuse the tools.
--
Sorry, you're just too inexperienced for me to support at this time. I'd consider withdrawing. Also, you might want to change your name, my brain ran out of breath reading it.
Your intended admin work can be done without an admin account. What all else do you intend to do as an admin? --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(
You seem to be a little short on experience.  Can you go into a little more detail on your questions?  --
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' great editor.-
'''Support''' excellent editor will make great admin.  I really thought he already was one. --
'''Support''', Doug's very unfair oppose irked me, so I looked into his contributions and see only good stuff for the last few times I clicked backwards in time.  Agree that the RFArb should have been mentioned, although given that the great majority of it was findings against Gnetwerker, and how rude he'd been to IronDuke, this doesn't strike me as a blatant attempt to sweep anything under the rug.
'''Strongest possible support'''. Need more admins like this.
'''Support''' I'm willing to forgive the RFAr issue raised in the oppose section.  Overall, this user has done very well.
'''Support''' Always well-researched. --
'''Support''' IronDuke has been a trusted member of the community for quite a while and I think it's great that he wants to help out a bit more with some of the administrative stuff [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' - okay, should have disclosed the Arbcom case, though he clearly was the offended party. The edit he was reprimanded for was exceedingly mild, and I've seen active admins commit much worse crimes in any given hour. But his candidacy is based on a solid record of editing and a remarkably even record in conflicts. Honestly, anyone who cares about the topics he/she writes about is going to end up in some conflict or another - the issue is whether he/she is convinced by reason rather than POV in the end. --
'''Support''' - per Leifern. ←
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Level-headed, sensible. Issues from the time he first joined Wikipedia have long been worked out.
'''Support''', it takes significantly less than 15 months to learn how to edit properly.  His time on Wikipedia has grown 10-fold since then for goodness' sake.
'''Support''' Well deserving
'''Support''' Would make a excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. I originally forgot to mention the ArbCom I was involved in on my RfA, I don't think it's a huge issue. Also, the edit Doug cites is from more than a year ago. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' per SlimVirgin
'''Support''' per Jayjg.
'''Support''' To me, RfA is neither witchhunt nor whitewashing; neither partisanship nor popularity contest, but a referendum on whether the user in question's [[User:Avraham/RfA-B|judgement can be trusted]]. If I trust a user's judgement, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%5Edemon_2&diff=prev&oldid=116540759 will support] even with whom I have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2F%5Edemon_2&diff=116543009&oldid=116540896 disagreements in the past], and remain moot even on those editors with whom I have had nothing but genial interaction. In IronDuke's case, my feeling is that this user has developed to the point where his judgement will be applied accurately and in accordance with wikipedia's policies. It is the rare editor who has not made stupid edits in the past; it is the poor one who does not learn from them, and ID seems to have. --
'''Support''' per Leifern. Doug's opposition doesn't convince me. I edited like that as a rookie, before I checked [[WP:RS]] and its ilk. My editing so far had only minor intersections with IronDuke's, however, I liked what I saw. --
'''Support''' per Slim & Jayjg. -

'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_College&diff=prev&oldid=34965015 this edit].  Absolutely don't need an admin that inserts patently false information into an article as an attack (see ''[[Talk:Reed College/drug use dispute]]'').  Also, I would have expected some disclosure of the related [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IronDuke and Gnetwerker]] arbitration case above.  The failure to disclose this also reflects poorly. —
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but the nondisclosure of the RFAr leaves me uneasy about the candidate. --
'''Oppose''' - per "low quality tendentious editing" a finding of your ArbCom case.
'''Oppose''' per Doug Bell and Mus Musculus. ''
'''Oppose''' - it's always the case with a job that you should declare past convictions even though they're really unlikely to affect your prospects but disclosure shows something undesirable in a candidate, and the same applies here. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' per information listed by Doug Bell. I don't think this kind of behavior is indicative of a level-headed editor and someone entrusted with additional tools and responsibilities. I suggest working on these issues and becoming a model Wikipedian for the next several months. I would reconsider at that time based on my comments. ···
'''Oppose''' per many reasons above, and the candidate has very little experience in many areas of the project. ---
'''Oppose.''' Being the subject of [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IronDuke_and_Gnetwerker#Gnetwerker_cautioned_regarding_discourtesy|ArbCom remedies]], and not disclosing it, disqualifies.
'''Oppose''' per above per Nihonjoe.
'''Oppose''' per above, also not a very prolific editor.
'''Oppose''' per RockMFR--
'''Oppose''' per concerns about the arbitration case.
'''Oppose''' - I have looked through this user's contributions, and I've noticed plenty of spelling mistakes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IronDuke&diff=prev&oldid=88439307] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=prev&oldid=85403791] I also see him remove sourced info for no reason. He also has a tendency to get very political about Judaism/Israel. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=prev&oldid=86644841] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=87561400] He removes things from his user talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IronDuke&diff=next&oldid=88102254]. He has a tendency to make large numbers of edits in a row to certain articles, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bourbon&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Seligman&action=history] and yet even after dozens of edits they still seem awkward and un-wikified. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Seligman&diff=prev&oldid=92316390]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_Eyre_%281973_TV_serial%29&diff=prev&oldid=85359419 This] seems injudicious: I worry if he were to get the power to speedy delete. By the way, has anyone noticed that there is another user with the name [[User talk:Ironduke|Ironduke]] (lowercase)? -
'''Oppose''' &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns for me to support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' Per Mus Musculus. Old mistakes can be forgiven, but nondisclosure is troubling.
'''Oppose'''.  Too many concerns.
'''Oppose''' per Mus Musculus.
'''Neutral''' per Mus Musculus. <s>Other than that I can't make out an immediate reason not to support, pending a good explanation (and maybe apology) from IronDuke.</s> "Forgetting" RfAr is actually a serious thing, I still hope for an explanation, but most probably not going to support. —
'''Neutral''' I trust the candidate has learned from and left behind 15 month old mistakes, but he doesn't seem to be extremely prolific. And forgetting an arbcom case is rather concerning. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Neutral''' A very civil wikipedian as i enjoyed discussing w/ him a few matters before. However, i am very concerned by the points mentioned by the oppose voters. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support'''  this may be more of a moral support, but I think your on the right path.  As giggy noted, you need to file more reports at [[WP:AIV]] if you want to nominate yourself on the grounds of becoming a "vandal-fighter".  And please, try to follow Hiroshat's advice and be more active on Wikipedia.  '''
'''Support''' Enough experience.
'''Support'''. I would like to see some more project-space edits, however i'm sure they will go way up as you become an administrator. Apart from that, I have no other concerns. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Moral Support''' 1) Kudos on the self nom. 2) Valued conmtributions so far. '''However''' per [[User:Giggy|Giggy]] I too have nothing really with which to judge your potential ability as an admin. Keep up the good work, and don't be discouraged. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' - Good article-writer. Edits to project-space may be sparse, but are sufficient to show that this candidate understands policy on vandal-fighting and blocking (it really isn't all that hard to understand). Answers to the questions are fine, and I can't see anything substantially wrong with this candidate.
'''Support''' on the account that too few good writers end up as admins.  I strongly support this editor's nomination on the grounds that it adds diversity to the administration team.--
'''Support''', no indication he'd abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''support''' 1000 edits is more than enough to judge admin capability (that was the level when i joined wikipedia, and I'm sticking to it). A very diligent vandal fighter who will clearly make good use of the tools.
'''support'''- I'm supporting this person. Sufficient edits, good experience. Should do fine.
'''Support''' good self-nomination.
'''Support''' - although there is little (numerical) evidence of knowledge of policy and experience, and I am slightly concerned about the lack of user talk/project namespace contributions, the answers to the questions imply that the user has sufficient knowledge of policy. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Moral support''' - No sense in spiking the ball. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''' - Seems to be a person that wants the admin tools to combat vandalism more effectivly - a worthwhile goal. He deserves the mop.
'''Support''' Looks good to me, nothing really concerning about this editor.
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I very rarely vote on RFAs anymore because I feel like people have to jump through a million hoops to receive the tools. With that said, your work is very good and I find it a rather absurd reason for opposition just because you don't do the work ''as often as people would like.'' One, we're all volunteers here, we aren't getting any paychecks from anyone. Two, if Ishikawa here just happens to have a *wait for it* ''real life'' that is a bit more pressing than Wikipedia, I simply fail to see why he isn't allowed the tools to work on vandalism at his convenience.
'''Looks good to me''', I don't honestly think the user would abuse the tools. Also, I see nothing wrong with self-noms... --
15 edits to the project space?  Sorry, I just have nothing to judge your ability on.  You say you wish to vandalfight and help out at AIV, but you've only made 5 reports.  Give it more time, and more work, and you should get through at some stage in the future. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Ishikawa, but how can I possibly judge how well a user will be able to handle the tools, interact with other editors, grasp policy, and make difficult decisions when they have made so few WP-space, WP-talk-space, and user-talk edits? You look like a great editor otherwise, and I certainly encourage you to continue to keep editing, but I simply don't think you're ready yet. I'm not one for editcountitis, but at this point, I simply don't have enough to go on. --
'''Oppose''' There are three reasons why I'm opposing. 1) The edit count is '''way''' too low. You have been here a year, and averge 100 edits a month. 2) is bascially per G1ggy, and 3), I don't like how you've done too little vandal fighting. If you can proove you have been staunch, I may change to weak support.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' Just an overall lack of all-around editing.  Improve and try back in the future.
'''Strong Oppose'''Lack of good editing.  Do some good editing, and come back in the future!
'''Oppose'''. You don't seem ready.
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal or anything, but I can't support someone who isn't informed on the fair use criteria on Wikipedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ishikawa+Minoru&namespace=6&year=&month=-1]++
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience overall. A brief scan makes me think that with twice the experience, I'd be willing to support (though there are some minor issues), but there just isn't enough of a track record for me to trust candidate with the tools. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' - User lacks experience and encyclopaedic contributions. Also per answer to No.3, is very weak and suggests no particular action --
'''Oppose''' You have only 1197 total edits, which is not a lot. More to the point, you have very, very few edits in admin-related topics, and edits here are the only means available with which to judge your potential skill with the tools. 33 wikipedia edits, and 1 wikitalk edit, are disappointingly low figures. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Good intentions, but not enough breadth of experience. <b>
'''Oppose''' The opposes of Politics rule and Giggy give my reasons for opposing. More experience is needed.
'''Neutral''' - Minoru, you've been here at wikipedia for about a year, but your average edit per month is well below 100 edits. I'm not saying that you always need to be on wikipedia, but try to be more on because admins do have to do a lot of work along with their usual editing. <font color="blue" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman" color="deepskyblue">
'''Neutral''' - It is true that I like to see a user more active but that is not the real reason I'm !voting neutral. You have a lot of actual contributions to wikipedia in the mainspace. Not just vandal reverts, but real article writing edits. However, the fact that you don't have many edits in the project spaces shows potential lack of real understanding of policy. I'm not a editcountis freak, but I would like to see a higher participation in the project. Sorry friend, but for now neutral. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Neutral''' - An edit count does not make a good editor, and I feel that you have a really solid background in working in mainspace. However, you have almost no background at all working in projectspace. In fact, the majority of the project space edits you have are from this RfA. I suggest you put this RfA on the back burner for a few months. Find a job you really like doing an administrative task, like possible reviewing [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]] or perhaps participating in other people's [[WP:RFA|requests for adminship]] so you can get a better background for what occurs here.
'''Neutral''' with moral support - seems a good intentioned editor on the right track but there is just not enough by which to judge this user's understanding of policies.  Would likely support if there were more participation in the projectspace to demonstrate familiarity with policy.
'''Neutral''' - Minoru, you're on the right track, and with more edits, and time, I will support you for admin.  You simply need some experience.
'''Neutral''' - I've got a good feeling about this user but I think more experience is necessary. --'''
'''Neutral''' I feel that this candidate needs more experience. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I dont want to become involved in what might become pile-on oppose, so I'll be neutral. I think you need more experience in the project space, among others, and I think more experience is generally needed. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' Normally I wouldn't oppose you but the edit summary you mentioned could be concerning especially since there is  so little else to balance it against. I'm not sure of the date however so I will not oppose based on that. Plus you were upfront about it which certainly goes in your favor. May I suggest that you take the advice given seriously and come back in a few months after more work? Of course igore Kurt's silly remark which is ''prima facie'' evidence of shallow thought.
'''Neutral'''.  Minoru is an excellent vandal fighter.  But there's more to Wikipedia than just vandal fighting.  Community interactions and article writing, editing, need to be part of a well-rounded admin's repertoire.  Minoru, get some more Talk page, Wikipedia: page and namespace page edits under your belt, and I will strongly support you.
Per Politics Rule.--
'''Support'''
I'm sorry, but I don't think that you're ready for this yet. [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are user who generally do a lot of important work in Wikipedia. I hope you understand that you cannot make it this time. Try again after you know more about Wikipedia. --
You would also do well to fix your grammar, such as leaving spaces after punctuation, and come across as more professional. I think you may have been nominated out of friendship rather than contributions to Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' has not shown dedication to the project. I'm also concerned with the lack of experience. (account created on October 27, 2007) Suggest closure.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' You only have about 106 edits, which is far too low. The lack of experience here is a concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience, only being an editor for a couple weeks and a hundred total edits.  Answers to questions do not show a need for the tools, either.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA, it's going to [[WP:SNOW]] and trying again in a few months.  If you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to contact me on my [[User talk:Useight|talk page]].
Clearly not ready.--
'''Oppose''' and move for speedy close, user lacks most necessary qualifications for a sysop and has failed two previous RfAs in the past four weeks.
'''Oppose''' - May mean well, but with virtually no experience, not using edit summaries, and not getting the RFA template right, i think this user should try again at a later time. Snow close. ~ <span style="white-space:nowrap; color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">| <small>
'''Oppose''' as 10 years old should not be an admin regardless of person. --
'''Oppose'''. A month and a half, along with only 300 edits isn't nearly enough experience for the community to be able to accurately assess your knowledge of policies and procedures nor determine your trustworthiness. It's not a knock against you or your contributions, we'll just need to see more of it. I recommend making sure you have a handle on policies as outlined [[WP:LOP|here]], doing some working in admin-like areas ([[WP:AFD]], report some vandals to [[WP:AIV]]), and doing some more mainspace work. I also recommend withdrawing this RFA before it is closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Ageist or not, I do not consider that a person of 10 years old can have the maturity required of an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' Candidates age doesn't have that much affect on me here. Just not enough experience yet to assess you readiness for sysop functions. Your answers to the questions don't convince me you are ready. You are doing well but become more active in the mainspace, [[WP:AFD]], tagging CSD, [[WP:AIV]].--
'''Oppose''' This clearly isn't going to pass and since when is 'ageism' a cardinal sin? It's not for other users to tell people the grounds on which they can support or oppose, any more than there's rules for deciding the grounds for how you 'should' vote in an election. Sometimes saying 'too young' is a nicer way of opposing than listing a whole bunch of faults, mistakes and shortcomings.  The reason why this user changed user names, as given on his user page, doesn't inspire confidence for example.
'''Strong oppose''' - you've made under two dozen mainspace edits and you're already on your third RfA? This verges on [[WP:POINT|disruptiveness]]. Try back in six months with a couple thousand good edits, and I'll reconsider.
No, based on age and based on this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Girlycutie.jpg upload] and its use in a userbox on your page. -
I'm very sorry, but I don't think you're ready for such authority yet, so I must sadly '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' you have a non-free image on your userpage, and a userbox that reads "NEVER GET THIS USER ANGRY!".  Your userpage only shows you have neither the understanding of policy nor the temperament to be sysopped.
Fair use issues. --
'''Strong Oppose''' As recently as October, under her previous username {{userlinks|Coolgirly88}}, she reverted the redirection of a page per AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islaam_Maged&diff=prev&oldid=162646497], then removed the AfD tag and continued editing the page. Then continued trying to undo the redirect - the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islaam_Maged&action=history article history] does not bode well for an admin candidate just 2 months later. Also disappointed there was no disclosure of the former username on either the RFA nor her current userpage (except a "hidden" link that does not alert you to the fact that you are being directed to a different user talk page, but that probably is just an oversite). This leads to the question, What other accounts, if any, do you have that you have not disclosed? I was also disappointed to see your old talk page deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User_talk:Coolgirly88] which seems to be against [[Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F|talk page deletion policy]]. Why was that deleted? Also disappointed to see so many RfA so close together (Nov 10 and Nov 24 and now Dec 22); shows severe impatience. And the answer to #2 shows she has not made any significant contributions to the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia (i.e., wrote anything of worth), which tends to be helpful on an encyclopedia. Way too soon to entrust with tools.--'''
'''0ppose''' per lack of experience, however, I believe that with a couple of more months of hard work, you will a much worhtier candidate for the mop.
'''Neutral''' Your enthusiasm is awesome, but I just don't feel I can support without a better understanding of how you edit. Sorry!
'''Neutral''' Not enough experience yet, but if his enthusiasm rocks. --'''
'''neutral''' Enthusiasm is very inspiring but I am not sure about the amount of experience you have at editing on Wikipedia. It is not worth an oppose, but not worth a support either.
'''Neutral''' to reduce the pile-on. Admin actions can have longlasting effects on Wikipedia users and content. This is why they need extensive experience of Wikipedia policies and mainspace editing - to make sure they've "seen it all" or at least "seen most of it". Even with your former account as [[User:Coolgirly88]] you need a great deal more experience in both Wikipedia policies (especially vandal reversion, AfD's and similar, an contributions to policy pages) and editing articles. There's no set number of edits and no set time before you become eligible but your edit history needs to be long enough for others to get a good idea of your ability. Right now that's not there.
'''Moral Support''' - clearly a good editor, but q1 doesn't demonstrate an understanding of adminship. I would advise withdrawing this RfA and coming back in a couple of months after gaining more experience, particularly in projectspace. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''', echoing Walton here; you're certainly on the right track, and once you've been here for some time and gained the respect of more editors this RFA will likely succeed. --
'''Oppose''' - Started being a noticalbe editor end Feb. this year - I think he needs more time and edits to become an admin.
'''Oppose''' - It is the next step, but you are not ready for it yet. I don't see enough experience with mainspace article editing and your Wikipedia: namespace count shows that you are not involved enough with the community at a level that is expected of an administrator. I too, recommending withdrawal. Plus, there are already alot of vandal-fighters out there, I'd be prepared to support those interested in clearing backlogs, etc. –
'''Oppose with Moral Support'''. Get the edit summries up, read the policies and keep on enjoying your valued editing. Your time will come, when you find that you need the tools to progress, but at the moment I can't see you do. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - Recommending withdraw. Question 1 does not show the need of tools and that candidate seems lacking sufficient experience with article editing. --
'''Suggest withdrawal''' This is unlikely to get any serious support. Its too soon, the user failed to use an edit summary when adding the RFC, edit count is pretty low with 10% of overall edits being in user space and the answers to the questions really suck. Most of these don't both me - except the sucky answers - but its pretty clear that this fails to tick enough boxes to be taken seriously.
'''Support''' as co-nom.--

'''Support''' - has done excellent work at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places]].  The incident described in Q3 appears to be a one-time incident and an aberration.  All other user talk edits have been polite and helpful.  --
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support''' as one of his nominators. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Weak Support''' User seems to be ok for adminship although I wonder about the diff Gaff provided.
'''Strong Support''' People on here do tend to hold people to too high of a standard, when they should go by the saying "don't throw rocks in a glass house". One incident in 12222 edits. Lets see, if I do my math right that would make 0.0001% that he made a mistake. I can guarantee that most people that oppose for this reason have had incidents in their past also. Mistakes happen, and you move on. Now if you listed off 10 incidents of the exact same nature, then I might reconsider.--
'''Support''' I've thought about the comments that I made in the neutral section.  I think there is way more good in this editor's record and that this editor will do well as an admin (provided no more wiki-ing while drinking...)<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''', excellent contributor to Illinois related articles, NRHP articles and excellent GA reviewer. I believe that a lesson has been learned by the response to Q3 above. I fully trust that IvoShandor will not use the admin tools for [[Ivo Shandor#Character|"''bizarre rituals'', intended to bring about the end of the world"]].  --
'''Strong support''' and a disapproving look to the opposers for digging up one incident upon which to base an oppose.  Welcome to the American Political System, where if a person messes up one time, it makes the inelligible to hold a position for anything.  It's unseemly that such an accomplished and dedicated editor has '''one moment''' used against them, as if their over 12,000 edits count for naught.  This simply is becoming a problem on Wikipedia.  It keeps good editors shut out, and imparts a self-righteousness unto the already-ordained.  Glass houses, indeed.  This sort of attitude is becoming a problem on Wikipedia.  Give the guy a break.  --
'''Somewhere between weak support and support''' - per the above. The support is weakened by the first oppose, but I still support because I dont think that a single mistake he made back in February should ruin his chance at the mop in June. If he has learnt his lesson about civility, then there is no reason he shouldnt be given the mop.
'''Support''' There does not seem to be a pattern of incivility or irresponsible behavior, and the editor seems to have learned from their mistake. I trust that we shall have no further instances of editing while intoxicated?
'''Support''', the only reason people are opposing is one diff that would've gotten lost if the candidate didn't point it out himself. So he's a little less than perfect, but also pretty honest. Every other contrib I looked at seemed good to me. -
'''Support'''. The diffs raised are very concerning. But given that it seems to have been an isolated incident, the candidate has taken appropriate steps to apologize and make amends, and the candidate was open about it and has given an explanation, I will support.
'''Support'''.  One mistake (am I very wrong to find it funny?) should be assuaged by the clear contrition and promise not to edit Wikipedia in an unfit manner again.
I will '''support''' even though the comments are an embarrassment. I do note that he has apologized here for the remarks and it is true that there is no pattern of such conduct. Intoxication is also no excuse but I think enough time has passed and the contributions prove, that this user can be trusted.
'''Support''' I first met Ivo when s/he provided a very helpful peer review on a [[List of Pennsylvania state parks|list]] I was working on. We have had some interactions since, all very positive. I know the backlog at [[WP:PR]] and appreciate all Ivo's work there and elsewhere. While I do not excuse the JazzButcher incident, I think it should be seen in the perspecvtive of its isolated nature, IvoShandor's apology and candor in pointing it out above, and relative to IvoShandor's many positive contributions before and since. FOr me the many positives outweigh one negative.
'''Support'''.  (Changed from neutral.)  Although I was initially concerned by the diff cited by many of the opposers, it is important to me that it was the candidate who brought it up and has "repented".  Looking through the other contributions and talk (I've left these below in the neutral section), I see many positive contributions, a great attitude, and a firm grasp of policy combined with judicious application.  I think the project will be best served by making him an admin.
'''Support''' candidate repented for what seems to be his only mistake. '''
'''Support''' I've encountered Ivo many times over the course of the months i've been doing stuff in the GA process, and the diffs being used in the oppose votes below couldn't be more out of character than if someone had actually hacked his account in an effort to have fun spewing random vulgarities at people. Alcohol can make anyone in the world do stupid things, that's probably why drunkeness is a sin anyway, but more to the point, as far as i've seen, the below diffs probably couldn't be more out of character for Ivo even if Ivo had been trying to be out of character while not being drunk.
'''Weak support.''' The personal attack diff is very, very disturbing. However, I do not think this user will make the same mistake again. But a word of warning: If you hold your status as an admin over someone in a similar fashion, I will support your immediate desysopping. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' - The attack was discouraging, but his response calmed a lot of my fears. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' - What we have here is a good editor who's gone through the process of becoming such via making certain, shall we say, blunders along the way. As someone with similar and worse actions in my editing history, I can understand where he's coming from, and commend his enthusiasm for standing up to what he is, was, and has been. Let he who is yadda yadda yadda, something about stone... --
'''Support''' Exceptionally brilliant editor. There was one error in the past and s/he has already acknowledged it. This shouldn't be a problem at all.
'''Weak support''' Civility is essential for me, but the candidate has a great edit history and deserves credit for pointing it out up front. I'm pretty confident he won't act this way again. Just keep the wine coolers in the fridge from now on, okay?
'''Strong Support''' While the quoted comments mentioned in the opposes were a bit bad and the profanities were excessive, it was several months ago and he later apologized, and I think if he just toned it down to unvulgar complaints and a sole vulgarity of "I WILL FUCKING ROK YOUR SHIT" with the intentional misspelling, that would be better and it would seem less nasty and more silly.  I also must point out that SlimVirgin who started the opposes also did a thread elsewhere (related to the Runcorn socks) saying that some people will keep all their incivilities on just one account and then make a new account that only does vandal fighting and avoids conflicts so when it gets nominated for adminship it has a clean record and SlimVirgin says that sort of thing is bad and it's better to see how people handle disputes then having them hiding them. IvoShandor got in a dispute and then later apologized. I don't think that's too bad. Also, IvoShandor, I think, is a pretty light-hearted and funny guy. He made this very humorous comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACow_tipping&diff=135519557&oldid=135517950 here] that I loved so much I put it on my userpage.
'''Support''' based on a strong history of civility despite the clearly problematic lapse. --
'''Strong Support''' The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|National Register of Historic Places WikiProject]] wouldn't have gotten nearly as far without his tireless efforts. He does lots of work on Illinois articles in general. I've seen him be nothing but civil, friendly, and amazingly helpful. The only reason I have for wishing him not to become an admin is purely selfish. He'll have less time to work on the NRHP Wikiproject. Yep, don't wanna share, but I have to look to the greater good, and he'd do wonders as an admin, imho. :) -
'''Support''' You are quite fit for a mop.
'''Support''' - I must admit, the below diffs are a bit worrying (despite the fact that I had a little chuckle reading them). But his judgement was obviously impaired if he was intoxicated, so why not let that slide? I feel that, looking at his contributions and otherwise perfect civility record, they outweigh the negativities of that lapse. Support from me&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support''' If the one instance of severe incivility had ever been repeated I would oppose. But there is no pattern of ill-temper, rather a one-off and uncharacteristic blemish to an otherwise energetic and productive record.
'''Support''' - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools - aforementioned incident does not affect ability to use tools, and behavior since that incident shows a high level of maturity that there isn't a huge concern of the incident being repeated.
'''Support''' IvoShandor appears to have apologized for his mistake, and regrets his error. I believe he will not make that error again, as he knows it is harmful both to the project and the users, as well as to the person it was directed at. That incident was from almost four months ago, and IvoShandor seems to have changed for the better since then.
<s>Sorry, I don't think "I was drunk" is really a good enough excuse. I don't think there ''is'' a good enough excuse. I wouldn't hold it against you forever, but for now I think I have to oppose.</s> (switching to support) Actually, on second thoughts, I'll go ahead and support you anyway. In my short time as an editor here I've been tempted to lash at people myself (though I haven't) and well, everyone makes mistakes. The fact that he brought it up himself and admits that there are no excuses for it makes me respect him.  '''<font color="#330033">
'''Support''' A fine user that would make a great admin. All this judging over a single incident (with nothing to suggest it's more than an one time incident) is IMHO pretty lame. --
Stong '''Support'''. Three months, six months or a year is not enough to make an incident such as the one described here blow over. However, five minutes of typing is not enough to make three months, six months or (nearly) a year of strong, valuable editing and contribution disappear. IvoShandor remains an exceptional editor, despite those one or two dodgy diffs.
'''Support''' Clearly that single grossly uncivil and offensive edit was absolutely unacceptable. But it is the only unacceptable edit that I see in 12,000+. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.--
'''Support''' I am confident that he would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''A Full "yeah read me" Support''' While Ivo is definitely asking for some friendly ribbing, I don't want his RFA to be sunk by this one incident (1 edit out of 12,000 a 8.333333e-5%). However, in the future please don't drink and edit again. But if you do I WILL F***ING ROK YOUR SHIT. Best of luck on your RFA, I hope others will take the long term view and see the benefit of you being an administrator. --
Changed to '''support''' after examining more of the candidate's contrib history. I trust you have learned your lesson and apart from that ''one'' multiple incidents, you seem to be a good user. Maybe we can arrange an off-wiki drunken shouting tournament one day, to release wiki-stress, how about it? —'''
'''Support''' Seems to have made amends for past incivility, understands what the tools are for. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt;  padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">&mdash;
'''Support'''. A long, positive record vastly outweighs one incident of incivility. I am concerned about admins who genuinely do not respect the importance of being civil to others, and that is something I can only judge by an extended history of behavior&mdash;certainly not by one drunken night.
'''Support''' ROK on <font color="#000066">'''
'''Support'''. One bad night in nine months and two bad edits out of 12000 shouldn't preclude you from becoming an admin. I will also note that you made no attempt to hide your mistakes or the reaction to them (you chose to preserve them in your [[User talk:IvoShandor/archive3|talk page archive]]). Your honesty makes me want to trust you. -- '''
'''support''' I believe this guy has done well. One bad night should not keep him from becoming an admin.
'''Support''' This editor is a great contributor - and he will know better than to log on when he is intoxicated after he becomes an admin.  One mistake - even one as silly as the example given - does not create an absolute oppose for me in this RfD. --
'''Support''', while the civility issue raised below is upsetting, I believe all in all you'd be a decent admin (and I liked your answer to my question). <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support''' Don't editors that come here to RfA with squeaky clean records make you nervous?  Maybe just a little?  Well, they do me.  This editor has came to this RfA and admitted his mistake, hoping you'd understand it, and instead he's told he should have kept that to himself.  I don't want to send that message.  His honesty is commendable and his contributions look great.
'''Support''' His contributions are numerous, and of high quality.  His honesty is refreshing.    One mistake is nothing; if we removed admins on the same basis we appear to refuse admitting them, then we'd be admin-less in a year.  --
'''Support''' not only because he has a record of being a good editor, and an excellent writer, which is exactly what we need around here, but he was very honest in his full disclosure. I would prefer to have an admin who admits mistakes rather than hides them. If he had hidden the mistake and someone had told me about it, then this would be a strong oppose. But, the conclusion to all that rambling is that he has contributed significantly, made one isolated mistake, and learned from that, so I think he'll do an excellent job as admin. Also, I agree with Haemo on the admin-less point. Peace,
'''Strong moral and actual support'''. My first instinct was to oppose based on The Diff. But it's not so much what you ''do''; it's what you ''do next''. IvoShandor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JazzButcher&diff=next&oldid=111513035 admitted his mistake and apologized]. That goes a long way. Admins make mistakes, and they get annoyed. Do we want an admin who is willing to admit and attempt to correct his mistakes, or one who circles the wagons and responds defensively? Few, if any, admin actions are irreversible; the problem isn't bad admin decisions made [[intoxication|in the heat of the moment]], but unwillingness to admit a mistake. Anyone with 12,000 edits is going to have some whoppers, but I'm impressed both with the full disclosure in Q3 and the apology he made at the time. I can't, in good conscience, oppose someone for one mistake in 12,000 edits, which they immediately recognized and attempted to correct. This is an example of how we're potentially excluding people who would make good admins (based on a Supreme-Court-confirmation-style approach to one diff out of context), and why keeping a low profile and making only non-controversial vandalism reverts is an effective way of [[User:Runcorn|gaming the RfA system]]. I don't want that to be the case. '''
'''Strong support'''. He's a good editor, and anyone with enough integrity to show one of their own mistakes when asking for a "promotion" says a lot.
'''Support''' on the basis that responding to criticism and being critical ''is not the same thing as being incivil''.  Admitting one's own mistake is the sign of a good user.  Too many people hide being the Good Faith and Civility shrouds in order to avoid criticism themselves, so to admit a fault shows maturity, and that is what is needed in an admin - even if one time he got a little hot under the collar - after all, we're all human, aren't we? <div>—
'''Support''' I am very impressed in my dealings with IvoShandor. My most frequent interactions with him have been at [[WP:WPChi|WikiProject Chicago]]'s section for [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages|Newly Created Pages]] where I as the Project Director review new pages for minor tweakings and at [[WP:GAC]] where he as a [[User:IvoShandor/submissions/GA reviews|reviewer]] has been active in many of [[User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews|my GAC nominations]]. He consistently produces high quality new pages at the intersection of our project and his [[WP:NRHP]] interest. We at WPChi are quite fortunate to be the beneficiary of his geographic placement because he does great work on local [[National Register of Historic Places]] listings. At GAC he provides detailed feedback that helps people interested enough in improving the project to nominate articles for GAC to continue improving the project after the conclusion of a nommination. His feedback is among the best of the reviewers I have dealt with at GAC. You can see that I know of what I speak on this matter because I represent 2 of the 3 formerly failed GACs that have become GAs from his review pool. In general, I trust his opinion and would trust his judgment with more extensive powers. One thing I would like to see from him is more detail on his affiliation with [[WP:LOCE]] (possibly a separate page documenting specific involvement). [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Weak support'''.  Weak, because of the diffs; support, because I believe there won't be a repetition.  I should add I've seen IvoShandor around GA and he's a productive and valuable editor there.
'''Support.''' Obviously The Incident is troubling. My gut feeling is that he's learned his lesson and won't do it again. And everything else about him is positive.
'''Support''' per the three nominators, their descriptive paragraphs of IvoShandor's contributions to the project says it all.
'''Support''' Having interacted well with this user in the past, I believe he will do well with the tools. He has been an asset to the GA process, and I think that he has learned how to handle himself better and wants to continue to improve Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' I've met several admins who are a lot less civil than IvoShandor.
'''support''' - ivo has shown consistent commitment to improving multiple areas of wikipedia as outlined above.  my observations of ivo's activities at WPChi, NRHP, and GAR have been nothing but positive.  ivo's high level of responsiveness and assistance is impressive.
'''Support''' - I add my support. There is not much else I can say that has not already been said in support of Ivo. I feel the user can be trusted with the tools (and who here honestly has not had one or two slip-ups while editing Wikipedia)?--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but the diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JazzButcher&diff=prev&oldid=111012640] pointed out below by Gaff is a bit worrying.
'''Oppose''' Until we have an explanation to those diffs. --
'''Oppose''' "Cursing like a sailor" at a fellow Wikipedia shows anger problems, immaturity.  An expletive here and there is one thing (and is still not good), but those diffs are disgusting.
'''Oppose''' per diff presented below and that by Jazz above. That is seriously concerning. --
'''Oppose''' per above diffs - unacceptable for an editor, let alone an admin.
'''Oppose''' civility is extremely important for administrators.
I don't worry much about civility, but "you got the guts to change some shit on wikipedia but ill fuck your ass up", et al. are clearly not acceptable.  Drunkenness is not an excuse, nor is "it happened 3.5 months ago".
[[WP:CIVIL|Civility]] and [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] are important policies for an admin.  --
'''Oppose''' That diff presented and discussed here is enough reason.
'''Oppose''' - That dif mentioned was 3 months ago. I would wait 2 or 3 more months before considering him for adminship. A single edit shouldn't remain an indef "block" from becoming an admin, but this was too recently, in my opinion.
'''Strong oppose''' I think the diffs above show your inability to keep [[WP:COOL|cool]] and [[WP:CIVIL|remain civil]], as well as to not make [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], it was completely out of order to use bad language to the user, I wont be able to support in any other future RfA's of yours for at least 6 months. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Fuk, man!''' Shit! I am opposing, and if anyone don't like it, they can come down to Jersey and CONFRONT. -- <b>
I am not confident in your ability to converse effectively, which is so important for those with the admin bits. '''
I've never opposed anyone on civility grounds. But there are limits. No, sorry. I'd say 6months of good behaviour and maybe the slate can wipe, but not now.--
No. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''  Every editor has moment(s) of forgetting civility for whatever reasons.  The diffs provided by SlimVirgin are so far over the top and too recent to forget.  Then add in other actions that either border on or cross over to personal attacks and uncivil behavior, it's just not acceptable.
'''Oppose''' Making personal attacks is not a quality that I expect to see in ''any'' administrator.  If those diffs were ~1-2 years old, then that'd be a different story.  Please try again later. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:Vishwin60|action=edit&section=new}} →]
'''Oppose''' Incivility among administrators is intolerable. --
'''Oppose'''. While incivility by administrators is a Bad Thing, I tend to think it's rather less of a big deal than most people do. If I'd had one beer too many, I might tell some particularly noxious vandal to go fuck himself. (Certainly it's a lot shorter and easier to type than many alternative utterances that are unquestionably acceptable.) I hope I wouldn't, but I might -- and it's language used by even such an, um, respected and beloved public figure as Dick Cheney. But that's one thing. By contrast IvoShandor goes into a ''diatribe.'' He seems ''disturbed.'' Maybe it's a fluke; I hope so, for his sake. If nothing like it were to occur till next year, and if his sober persona were to keep on doing a good job, I'd vote ''for'' him then. --
'''Oppose''' I hope you really have learned from the unfortunate incident in February, but it is still too soon to ignore what I consider very problematic lapses.  I will happily reconsider at a later time.  Best wishes.

'''Oppose''' - I'm concerned with civility. Show us you can stay calm and polite while editing and then come back in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. We've all lost our cool sometimes but those are pretty harsh diffs - it's also too recent to show it wouldn't happen again.
May go ''Sideways'' with mop. -
'''Oppose''' per the civility issues, which won't come as a huge surprise to those who keep an eye on [[WP:GA/R]]. No heckling please.
'''Strong Oppose''' You can't be admin and do that. --'''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Strong Oppose''' per civilty issues. '''<font color="#990066" face="georgia">
'''Moderate Oppose''' I do not regard the judgmental clique of [[WP:GA]] as helpful to Wikipedia; it is particularly bad training for adminship, which should be the opposite. I suspect this is what Johnbod means above. Without that, I would regard one civility issue as unimportant. User is also supported by some editors whose judgment I do not trust; so I cannot trust him either.  (Moderated in deference to Mike Christie's judgment).
'''Strong oppose''' per user's apparent failure to understand that reasonable people can be offended by things that he obviously does not understand [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=137516060], among several others.  The entire username saga is extremely sad, but IvoShandor did not help with his repeated assertion that there's nothing wrong with someone claiming to be a pimp.
'''Oppose'''. Dignity is germane to an AfD discussion. And there are ''two'' instances deserving of such a discussion for the editor being considered, per [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]]. The standards should be higher for admins. --

'''Neutral'''.  I really ''hate'' to let so much hang on couple of poorly made edits, but civility and cooperation are in my opinion ''paramount'' to a collaborative effort like Wikipedia.  Since there seem to be no further outbursts of this kind it does appear that the candidate has likely "learned their lesson" and I am unwilling to oppose on that diff alone, but the severe incivility of said diff makes me want to wait a little longer and be 100% certain the candidate can retain a level head.  Otherwise your contributions look good, keep up the good work and in a couple more months I would happily support.
'''Neutral''' You are a great editor but you have had '''way''' to many civility issues. If you go a year without civility issues I would be happy to support you. Sorry.--
'''Neutral''' The civility issue pointed to above is just too severe too overlook at this time.  With a few more months without further problems would enable me to support then.
'''Neutral:''' The editor's accomplishments are manifest, and I'm no knee-jerk civility hawk, but that was an outrageously egregious incident, and I think the co-noms let him down by suggesting that three and a half months is anywhere near soon enough to live it down.  Beyond that, two things.  First off, I'm troubled by the presumption that adminhood should be some sort of prize for being a diligent and accomplished editor; if that was the case, let's just bag the entire RfA process, award points per 1000 edits or every GA/FA, and just give you admin tools when you hit 100 pts.  Secondly, the vehemence of the editors telling Oppose voters that they have no right to judge Ivo for that incident is getting just a bit thick.  People Oppose in RfAs on far flimsier grounds than drunken bursts of obscenities.
'''Support'''. Most of the opposition doesn't make any sense to me &mdash; how does Q1 not show a need for admin tools? But whatever. I see evidence of helpful contributions to AfDs, and no evidence of anything wrong, except that diff cited by BigDT. Don't get too trigger-happy!

'''Support'''. I agree with the above - I see lots of admins who don't spend a lot of time performing [[Wikipedia:Wheel war|admin-related activities]] ;-).
'''Strong support'''. It seems that he will help Wikipedia in areas where it is currently being neglected.
'''Support'''. He has done few amazing things. However, he appears to be good at doing administrative work. He also appear to be willing to do the administrative work. No reason to oppose him besides his lack of amazing things. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini ha sempre tarche</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I haven't looked at all of the users contributions, but I have gone back as far as July 6th, 2006 and do not see any edits to the key pages such as [[WP:AN]], [[WP:ANI]], or [[WP:AIV]].
'''Oppose''' per above; candidate does not show sufficient need for admin tools. ''
'''Oppose''' - no requirement for the [[WP:ADMIN|janitorial trolley]] at present; although his [[WP:GNOME|gnoming]] and minor contributions have been good, this is not admin material. Participation in [[WP:XFD|XfD]] debates (such as [[WP:AFD|AfD]], [[WP:TFD|TfD]] or [[WP:MFD|MfD]]) and in [[WP:RCP|anti-vandalism]] is needed to demonstrate even a basic requirement for [[WP:ADMIN|sysop]] access. An excellent [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedian]], but one who doesn't need the mop to continue his credible contributions. ''[[Dixi]]'' -
'''Oppose''' per Yuser, though I believe Chacor's reasoning to be flawed. His choice though.--
'''Oppose''' I have no probs with the nominator, and I will not oppose on that reason at all. But more wikipedia space edits would be nice and I don't see any obvious need for admin tools at this time. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Chacor and Anthony_cfc. ···
'''Oppose''' per this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_Florida_Gators_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=101683954] which really has me scratching my head.  I think that you could probably use some more experience with the various administrative processes, but you are obviously a very dedicated editor and if you do reapply after some more experience a few months down the line (I hope you will) I will support next time. --
'''Oppose''' Per BigDT, and Yuser31415.
'''Oppose'''. Quite a close call. One speedy tagging mistake isn't the end of the world, you've got lots of edits, and they're good. However, the fact that you have accumulated less than 130 talk page edits in nearly a year of editing and your answer to question 3 lead me to believe there is a large area of Wikipedia you are unfamiliar with. The endless disputes (over content, over alleged personal attacks, over historical events, over religion, over sources, over the existence of IRC ''e.t.c. ad nauseam'') that go on all over this site are something an admin has to be used to, because he's not going to get very far without getting his hands dirty as it were. Consensus and debate are the key to this project. <s>Moreover, from what I gather, you haven't yet written a single article, and I'd heartily recommend you do (there must be ''something'' you can write a stub about). You'll find that after that, you'll be more careful to warn people when you nominate their articles for speedy deletion, and maybe you'll be more understanding of the irate responses you'll get from good-faith contributors who've just seen a good hour of work go up in smoke because of a three letter code a bunch of geeks have been citing.</s>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Yandman]]. Maybe sometime in the future when you have more varied editing experience.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' You've been a great contributor to Wikipedia, but your answers and Wiki Edits show that you haven't been concentrating on admin.-related articles.  Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you'd be the monst helpful admin. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' per Ganfon. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose''' a good encyclopedia writer, but does not need the mop. The editor is the researcher. An admin is just the janitor. --
'''Weak oppose'''. I assumed that you didn't think to check your nominator, but you state that you did, and accepted anyway. -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Does not show sufficient need for admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' A good editor and no real problem with the quality of your edits.  I would like to see participation in vandal fighting and related admin activities before sliding over to 'support'.
'''Neutral''' per (aeropagitica) - need more experience. --
'''Neutral''' So far, off to a good start, but I think more experience is required, more XFD's to prove policy knowledge.  More experience at vandal-whacking and dealing with the consequences would be good too, particularly as the candidate expresses a desire to work in the area with the mop.
'''Neutral''', but not taking into account who the nominator is. Needs more evidence that you are already doing admin-related work.
'''Neutral''' needs more experience and XfD participation. ←
'''Neutral''' you can use policy-oriented experience before getting the mop, but so for you are doing well as a Wikipedian.--
'''Neutral''', while I think this user is a good editor, he needs to have more participation in admin-related tasks like xFDs, participating in admin discussions as well as vandal fighting. Keep up your good work and try to do admin-related tasks.
'''Neutral'''. I see no need for this person to have admin tools. I do not think he would make a bad admin though. Get more active in vandal fighting, and Xfd's, the try again in a Rfa and I would support you. --
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Strong Support''' - Jakew has enough experiance to understand Wikipedia, and appears to have a reasonable need for better tools, he fights vandalism, and writes articles on topics that feature extensive vandalism and are commonly subject to attack. Most importantly, Jakew has shown through his interaction with vandals and personal attacks that hew is ready to become and administrator and maintain a level head despite all the abuse he may take from vandals. I believe that Jakew will make a great admin and call into question the editcountitis that seems to be affecting many voters in this RfA. --
'''Support''' looks good to me.  Seems levelheaded with a strong edit history --
'''Support'''. Jake's a very good and responsible editor, who edits within the content policies and displays a lot of common sense. He has a nice balance of edits between articles (2,457) and article talk (1,561), which shows an appropriate level of interaction. He'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' per SlimVirgin. --
'''Support''' On the basis that he seems to be extremely civil and level-headed.  WP needs people such as Jakew as admins.
'''Support''' per SV.
'''Support''' per SV. Also, thoughtful and well balanced comments in RfCs give confidence. If this nom doesn't work out, then suggest you try again soon, possibly after gaining some more XfD experience.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above.-
'''Support'''
'''Support''' While the numbers may fall slightly below some editors' 'support' thresholds, the level-headed and mature approach of this user makes his having the mop an asset for the 'pedia. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' per Matthew and Tewfik.
Unwavering '''Support'''.  Jakew is one of the Project's greatest assets.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong support''' a very credible candidate--
'''Support''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Support''' Nothing in this user's history leads me to believe this user will abuse the tools. <font color="green">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''.  He's been here long enough to not make a mess on the rug.  Penis-obsessed opposition is troubling; I'm not sure how his opinion on a medical issue will make him a bad (or good) admin.
'''Strong Support''' per above. Seems to be a very good candidate.
'''Support''' changed from oppose - answered my concerns. --
'''S'''upport. Thoroughly understands wiki process, will be a brilliant mediator in difficult, ideology-driven debates.
'''Strong Support'''. This one will make a superb editor. Plenty of edits. Plenty of BIG edits. Plenty of anti-vandalism. Sounds like a fine candidate to me. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini ha sempre tarche</font>]]
'''Support'''. Extremely knowledgeable editor who has a thorough grasp of content (and other) policies.
'''Support'''.  I have edited (and lurked) at [[Circumcision]] for about a year now, and while I personally disagree with Jake quite frequently, he has proven to be very even-tempered and calm in debates.  Few Wikipedians have impressed me as thoroughly with such dogged persistence in civility, despite some truly offensive insults and attacks he has endured.  I don't know how competent he would be outside of circumcision-related articles, never having encountered him there, but I would trust him to be fair.
'''Oppose''' - not active enough, sorry! <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose'''. I see no evidence that the nominee has "knowledge and application of wikipedia policy and guideline". There are only 246 edits in wikipedia space and 114 in wikipedia space talk in two years. The most recent contribution to XfD process was October 26; before that, July 6. Nearly all the candidate's article writing has pretty much been limited to two very narrow areas, which provides little indication of famility with wikipedia outside of that focus. While the nominee certainly appears trustworthy and a good contributor, I simply see no need for the tools or the requisite knowledge required for their use. I will most likely support once this candidate demonstrates a broader participation in the project.
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry about that, but it doesn't appear you actually ''need'' the tools! ''
'''Oppose''' - PAIN is gone, one would expect RFA candidates to have twigged. Minimal projectspace editing, I do not find myself confident that this user knows policy sufficiently well.
'''Oppose'''. Activity's low, but I'm more concerned about the low wikispace edits and the 9.79 avg. edit count. That's way too high and it shows to me you're not really willing to branch out.--
'''Oppose''' per Yuser31415. If you don't need the admin tools, don't request adminship. Edits as above are also limited in key places.
'''Oppose'''. You have little experience in admin related tasks, so there's no reason to believe that you will actually perform them well. Like above, I also am not sure how far to trust someone who claims they will be active in an area that they are so inactive in, they don't realize it is gone. -
'''Oppose''' per Agent86 and Moreschi. I would be open to supporting once a clear understanding of policies is shown through active participation in maintenance tasks and discussions as mentioned by Yuser31415. ···
'''Oppose''' I have found Jakew misrepresenting (with colored language and out of context quotes) circumcision research study results.  I have found Jakew to be the primary cabel of the circumcision topic; so I consider him responsible for it's current B Class status.  The current topic outline is mostly his work, putting great emphasis on "benefits" and almost none on "risks" (which the medical community finds to be roughly equal).  An administrator should help editors contribute, but Jakew works to wear down other editors.  He has misrepresented reverts.  Note that the editor nominating Jakew (Avi) worked closely him on the Circumcision topic.  Here's some discussion [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#.22Sexual.22_is_a_D_grade_section]] and a convenient link to the circumcision topic current coverage of sexual effect:[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Sexual]]  I find it frankly scary that he might get power in '''[[WP:PAIN]] and [[WP:RFPP]]''' ... which he says "would benefit from an additional pair of eyes."
'''Oppose''': Not enough XfD to convince me the user is ready for the tools. Furthermore, the user seems to frequently revert good-faith (if often misguided) edits without giving a reason. I consider this an improper way to handle content disputes and would not be quick to trust this user with the rollback.
'''Oppose''' There's just not enough participation and experience in general but particularly in WP. I would like to see you active in admin areas so I can get an impression of how you may handle yourself with the tools. There are many admin-type jobs you can do without actually being an administrator. Please try to get more experience and come back in a few months if you're still interested. '''
'''Oppose''' as per Sarah.
'''Oppose''' Anyone who is familiar with the circumcision debate on the Internet recognizes Jake Waskett as a pro-circumcision activist.  He is one of the Internet's most active promoters and defenders of non-therapeutic circumcision of children as an acceptable cultural practice.  In my opinion it would be irresponsible for the Wikipedia community to grant administrator power to someone who is so dedicated to pushing one point of view of a controversial topic.  --
Oppose per [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] and [[User:Yuser31415|Yuser31415]].
'''Oppose''' Lack of wikispace activity suggests unfamiliarity with process.
'''Oppose''' Has potential, but needs to diversify.--
'''Oppose''' Anyone who is familiar with the circumcision debate on the Internet recognizes Jake Waskett as a pro-circumcision activist.  He is one of the most active promoters of non-therapeutic circumcision of children as an acceptable cultural practice.  In my opinion it would be '''highly''' irresponsible for the Wikipedia community to grant administrator power to someone who is so dedicated to pushing one point of view of a controversial topic.  His personal bias is consistent and quite apparent. --
'''Oppose''' per all the above strong reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above reasons, esp. WP:PAIN incident. Good editor, though!
'''Oppose''' I am 100% in agreement with Jakew on circumcision, but that does not mean that he is ready to be an admin yet.  He will be one day.--
'''Oppose''' per above statements concerning trolling, advocacy, and misrepresentation regarding circumcision, as well as my finding his non-article edits to be lacking. --
'''Neutral''' I was ready to put this under Support...but your Wikipedia edits simply don't compare to your mainspace edits.  I think you deserve the mop, but after you become a little more active in Wikipedia pages. '''
'''Neutral'''. Changing from oppose. I would prefer to see more participation in admin-related areas, but I don't think this user would misuse the tools.
'''Neutral''' Very little participation in admin-related tasks such as XfD discussions and vandal warning/reporting.  You need to be active in these areas at a minimum and for several months in order to demonstrate a need for requiring the tools.  I suggest withdrawal at this time.
'''Neutral''' Of your just over 5000 edits, 2607 are directly related to circumcision. You did concede that in your answers, which is why this is a neutral and not an oppose !vote, but it does mean that your contributions in policy-related areas are less than they might otherwise have been, and are at best marginal in terms of demonstration of knowledge of the workings of the project.--
'''Neutral''' as per Anthony.bradbury and Sarah, I think a broader spectrum of edits and good solid background at XFD would result in a successful RFA next time round.
'''Neutral''' needs some activity and participation in the projectspace. ←
'''Neutral''' You look like a good user, but it probably would be a good idea to get more experience in policy related areas. --
'''Neutral''' You seem a level headed user who edits one of the most controversial areas of the site and does so well. However, I would like to see better use of edit descriptions as I have seen a lot of use of 'rv' but nothing more. These, from having a quick look, make up around 5 - 10% of your edits which isn't a huge amount but it makes me think that a lot of the reverting on those articles could have been prevented with a more verbose message. I would support adminship if this improved. Also, hang round at [[WP:AN/I]] and some of the XfD pages as this will help too.-
'''Neutral''' He would make a good admin but has a small amount of edits for the time he has been here. --
'''Support''' - I see nothing wrong with his answers.
'''Moral support, suggest withdrawl''' '''<font face="Arial"> [[User:Bushcarrot|<font color="black">Bushcarrot]] <sup>[[User_talk:Bushcarrot|<font color="DarkOrange">Talk]]</sup> <sub>
'''Strong oppose''' The answers to all the questions and the nom are...not good--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Oppose'''.  The answers to the questions are not generally very satisfactory, and the answer regarding the difference between bans/blocks does not seem to communicate a very thorough understanding of blocking policy.  Combined with a fact that every edit I checked in a random sampling was minor copyediting, I am not satisfied this user is suited to the task of an administrator - particularly when his stated "preferred duties" are to block users.  This user is certainly a valuable asset to the 'pedia but doesn't seem to demonstrate readiness for more responsibility.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate doesn't have the level of experience I'd like to see and has very low activity outside mainspace.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slakr&diff=prev&oldid=164890684 this] (a wannabe admin should know what policy ''is'', not what they want it to be, especially for something as common as this) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nancy_Grace&diff=prev&oldid=78387921 this] use of personal opinion as fact (and in the edit summary, too). Also, as EVula says, while editcounting is A Bad Thing, you have fewer edits (mostly minor edits) in three years than I have ''this month'', and I'm not especially active.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
More experience required. '''
'''Oppose''' per above. Contributions are not exactly solid, answers are sub-par, experience level is low. Work on these things and answer might be different in the future.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience and policy knowledge (especially his answer regarding the difference between bans and indefblocks). --
'''No''' Lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Answers to questions are unsatifactory, does not show sufficient knowledge of policy.  Has been editor for a long time, but is not really active.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA for now, getting more edits in the Wikipedia namespace (such as [[WP:AFD]]), and applying again in a few months.  I also recommend looking over the [[WP:LOP|list of policies]].
'''Oppose''', withdraw suggested, inexpierenced editor who can use much more familarity with policy and procedure, I suggest joining [[WP:ADOPT]] for training.
'''Oppose''', and very sorry, since you have been around so long, but you have not done enough for me to determine your level of trust.
Eh, sorry, but I have trouble agreeing with your self-reference as "active" when you've made less than 100 edits in each of the past three months (and, of the 43 months you've been editing, you only broke 100 edits in a single month four times; usually I'm not a fan of raw edit counting, but if you're going to say you're active, you need to ''actually be active''). I think your answers to the questions are rather weak as well, and don't do anything to show that you've got a firm grasp of policy. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' Less than one month experience, nondescript answers, unfamiliarity with Wikipedia due to short time with account, and very few edits.
'''Oppose''' Your edit history suggests you have very little experience with Wikipedia policy.  I suggest you withdraw this nomination, read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] and come back once you have more experience. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' Maybe I am missing them, but when I look through the edits I'm not seeing any AIV or AfD edits. Without a good knowledge of basic admin tasks, I cannot support. While you may want to block users that have done something wrong...I'm not sure if you know what the policies are to safely judge right and wrong. <font color="Green">
'''Oppose'''- many problems, starting with "'''Blocking users who did something wrong'''"...<small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' As per above, and your answers really need work if you want to pass next time. <sup>
'''Oppose''' per above, also, not enough edits/experience yet overall. Maybe later! -
'''Speedy close''' Sorry, with an edit count like that this candidate has no chance of getting adminship at present. --
'''Oppose'''. Your willingness to help Wikipedia is greatly appeciated, but you do not have sufficient experience to help out as an administrator at this time. Please reapply when you have more experience. --
'''Oppose'''You only have made 332 edits over a less than one month period, this is too inactive for an adminstrator, you have forgot to sign your acceptance of the nomination, you show no real need for the tools and the answers to the standard questions are very weak, you have never used an edit summary this is not good for admin candidates please see [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not]] as I doubt you understand this, give it another six months and much more activity and show a need for the tools and make the answers to the standard questions much stronger and you'll pass but for the minute it has to be oppose.Best Regards -
'''Oppose''' The fourth [[WP:SNOW]] case this week. -
'''Support''' I have run into this user in the past, and he has always been civil and kind. For this reason, I can trust that he will not [[WP:BITE|bite]] the newbies. Also, his vandal-fighting work is commendable, and he will be an asset to the folks at AIV.
'''Oppose'''- I am unsatisfied with his mainspace work, which is mostly vandalism reversions, although the requests for protection are excellent. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Laughing_Man&action=history This] talk page edit warring is also not of my linking. I also doubt his ability to correctly delete articles, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grass_Lake_Community_Schools&diff=151744088&oldid=151743122 this]; that's what {{tl|stub}} is for. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Firm oppose'''I'm sorry JetLover, but I'm completely unimpressed by your nomination statement; it doesn't give me confidence that you'll be a good admin. You start with "Well to describe him... that's me!", a rather poor joke (and this is a ''serious'' forum''), and end with a rather rude statement that Nixon is a crook. Also, you've got virtually no mainspace contributions, only reverts. In project-space, you only file reports at UAA, AIV, and RFPP. Your answers in the RfA are rather short, and the answer to question 2 is poor. I suggest you concentrate much more on article writing, instead of reverts. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose'''. UAA concerns - I'm not sure why he believes having the name of a real place in a username to be a blatant violation of policy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=148387384]) and also CSD concerns - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_Club_%28Harvard%29&diff=153043849&oldid=153043751 this] A7 tagging was inappropriate as the club's member list and references provided are clear assertions of notability, and also I seem to recall it was this user who created {{tl|db-pov}} (pushing for a new speedy criterion to deal with "POV violations") without first proposing a new speedy criterion on [[WT:CSD]] (which he did after the template was deleted, and the proposal was swiftly rejected). I don't quite trust this user with the block or, moreso, the delete buttons just yet. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''VERY Weak Oppose''' Your edit count is ok, but I just feel like you need some more experience. Try again soon, and I'd be happy to support!
'''Weak oppose''' Doesn't seem to have any article-writing experience (I'm sure you've all read my "why I think they're necessary" ramble by now). The user page is a total mess, which while not a reason to oppose in & of itself makes me reluctant to give this user power to edit the look & feel. Also (again not a reason to oppose in & of itself) has [[template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday|my least favourite userbox]]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
General inexperience and (to be brutally-honest) maturity issues, from past experiences with user that left a sour taste in my mouth (as an observer to correspondance between this user and others, not me personally). Further, the distinct lack of any encyclopedic additions doesn't inspire confidence. Strongly suggest withdrawal. '''
'''Comment''' This is probably going to move into one of the other categories, but I want to get some thoughts down. I know they'd be more useful to everyone else if I backed them up with diffs etc, but I haven't the time to do so atm. JetLover's heart is definitely in the right place, from what I've seen, but there also seems to be a certain lack of understanding what it means to be an admin (ie, a janitor, an editor with a few more tools) that makes me a little uncomfortable. The big header saying "vote!" on the candidate's userpage linking here also doesn't inspire confidence. It's not enough for me to oppose though, and I could swing the other way depending on what other evidence I see.
'''Neutral''' Looks like he might be a decent admin, but the short and joking responses make me think he's not going to take this seriously. I know it's "no big deal" to be an admin, but that's not to say that it's not a serious business selecting them. I'd like a little more detail about what this user has done and what he plans to do as well. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
Moral support, but suggest withdrawal. (or is that politically incorrect nowadays?) I&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. 52 edits does not indicate experience.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' your here for the right reasons, but you need more experience editing. Sorry for the  harshness of my first comment, I missed you edit to the page, but flowerpotman showed me it.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I'm afraid the lack of experience of editing will probably mean that this particular request for adminship will fail. As for your concerns about particular articles, they could be addressed through other means, such as [[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]] if necessary. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Oppose''' You need more experience, although you make constructive edits.  Continue to edit!
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience.
'''Oppose''' - too little experience. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Not enough experience'''. Doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience --
'''Oppose''' I don't believe that you understand what an administrator does. Yes, you reverted vandalism to one article. No, you don't need the admin tools to protect that one article from vandalism by one user. While it's good that you're reverting vandalism in the first place, you don't have nearly enough experience to become an admin. May I suggest you read the [[WP:GRFA|guide to requests for adminship]] so you know what is expected of you next time? '''''
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, no knowledge of what adminship is about.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose'''. Would suggest that admins should '''not''' use admin powers on articles in which they have a strong editing interest, but instead choose topics on which they can be disinterested third parties.
'''Oppose''' per above.
per above and to avoid further pile on. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the project. I would suggest that the nom withdraw at this time. Speaking only for myself, I tend to support noms who have greater that 2500 edits and who have demonstrated a knowledge of how to use the tools safely. I would recommend planning on trying again in  another 2500 edits and at least another 3 months time with the project. I would also suggest seeking an editor review at that time to iron out any rough spots. Good luck and happy editing.
Come back after getting more experience, and I'll be happy to support then.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' I am able to trust this user with the extra tools.--
'''Support''', per experiance.  Has over 10,000 edits.
'''Support''' I trust this user with the extra tools; I recognize him from WikiProject Ottawa {he is a regular contributor). I looked over the contributions, and I feel he and the community merits him having the extra tools.
'''Support''' Looks like a great contributor. Unless someone finds something that suggests future abuse by this editor, I see no reason to oppose. The user's vandal-fighting is tempered by an understanding of article-writing. The user's large number of reverts throw normal ratios out of proportion, but this shows precisely why it makes no sense to formally weigh candidates based on more-or-less arbitrary norms of editing. Wikipedia space is low, but user seems to have some experience in page protection, and that's good enough reason for the tools&mdash;dovetails more nicely with vandal fighting than sometimes supposed.
'''Very Very Strong Support''' Seems to be a fantastic editor. To the people who say he does not need the tools what about vandal fighting tools? And as for Vandal fighting not being everything that is true it is not the most important thing that is article writing/ rewriting/ adding to articles, but anti-vandalism is also a crucial task. Will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' good edit history sustained over a period of time with good percentage of summaries for major edits.  I would trust this editor to be an admin.  In my experience how you use the tools will evolve once you get them.--
'''Support''' Very Experienced..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per AfD criteria set forth on my user page.
'''Oppose''' You look like a good contributer to the encyclopedia, but I don't know why you want to be an admin.  You don't need the tools to revert vandalism, and your contributions to project space are quite low. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - doesn't show need for the tools and needs more experience with the admin areas.
'''Oppose''', I am not convinced you need the tools, especially per that answer to q1. Reverting vandalism doesn't need adminship. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I can not trust people who only do vandal fighting with admin tools. (Article writing is perfectly fine, but I don't find it relevant to adminship). Vandal fighting is too much "gotta revert vandals fast", which is not good for an admin. You also don't have the policy discussion I want, and it ''really'' does not help that you started really participating in AfD right after listing this. That looks far too much like "Oh, well, I should do AfD so that people will support me!" -
'''Oppose''' Nice edit count, but poor nom, short answers, 36% edit summaries for minor edits. You are a good user, but I have not been shown that you will be a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Your mainspace edits are way, way higher than your Wikipedia edits. Work on that and I'll support next time--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''', good user, but lacks of experience in admin work. Answers are weak and vandal fighting is not everything, there's xFDs and other stuff as well.
'''Oppose''' Candidate hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools.  Answer to Q3 did not satisfy me, I need to know how you deal with stress.  Candidate has nearly 8000 mainspace edits, but only 170 Wikipedia project space edits, the difference is substantial.
'''Oppose''' for use of fair use image in a userbox within their userspace. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JForget/User_Gatineau&oldid=98327858]. Although the user had initially created it in Template space and it was moved by another use to his userspace, the user of fair use images in template or user space are not allowed by the [[WP:FUP|fair use policy]], and an admin should know at least this one clear rule of the policy. --
'''Forget about it''': Low project involvement, mixed summary use and poor answers above. Sorry; try again during the summer. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Oppose''' per the concerns brought up above. ''
'''Oppose''' Inexperience in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' [[:Image:Stephanielapointe.jpg]], which this user uploaded 18:49, 11 February 2007 is a fair-use "image of a living person that merely shows what they look like," which is an express violation of [[WP:FU]].
'''Oppose''' - the user's [[Special:Contributions/JForget|contributions]] demonstrate that he/she has no requirement for the [[WP:ADMIN|mop and bucket]] at this time. In addition, the answers to the standard questions don't even come close to informative, in particular Q3. In another note (not related to the oppose) I don't actually think the RfA has been accepted yet, or at least signed.
'''Neutral''' I am torn between supporting or opposing you. I will add some questions for you and then, I might make up my mind.
'''Neutral'''-Your edits seem good but you show no big need for the tools. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Neutral''' I viewed your talk page and edit history, section by section, and while you do seem helpful in fighting vandalism and reverting it, I would not venture to say it is your ''focus'' here on wikipedia - I would rather abstain from supporting or opposing since I am swinging either way. While you do seem like you could have use for the tools are they really going to be tools that you are going to use? --
'''Neutral'''. Good article-writing and edits, but I really want you to elaborate more as to why you want the tools. Your questions are woefully inadequate. '''''
'''Neutral''' clearly a good contributor to the mainspace but limited participation in WP-space and no real clear need for the tools.
'''Neutral''' A good editor but all that you want to achieve can be done without the admin tools.  If you work in the policy space some more over the next few months then I'll reconsider a future application.
'''Neutral''' no real need for the tools; edit summary usage needs some work. -
'''Neutral''' I do not doubt your ability as an editor, but I am not convinced you would greatly benefit from the extra tools. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Neutral''' you have a great track record, but the short answers give me doubts about your need and dedication for the tool.--
'''Neutral''': You seem to be a well-rounded editor with a substantial number of great edits, however, one does not need adminship to revert vandalism (per point 1). I would like to see more of an extended description for all three answers as what you provided are too brief to be adequate. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' only 156 edits, not near enough for en.wiki.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' You have only 156 edits total. This is far too few edits to judge your suitability for administrator status. You might find [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] illuminating. I suggest you withdraw your nomination as you have no chance whatever of being successful.--
'''Oppose''' you don't use edit summaries enough. No edits to anything in the Project space outside of the sandbox and not relating to this RFA. The answers to the questions are too short, and your answer to question one bothers me since blocks are preventative and not punitive. I suggest you read some pages like [[WP:ADMIN]], [[WP:BLOCK]], [[WP:PROTECT]], and [[WP:NFCC]]. Then start getting involved [[WP:XFD|Deletion debates]] and reporting vandals to [[WP:AIV]].
'''Oppose''' On two grounds. Insufficient experience with only 85 mainspace edits, and just as importantly the use of the word "punishing" in the answer to Q1. It's not an administrator's job to punish anyone. --
I Vote for jhfireboy because he has helped me loads --
'''Support''' - no problems with this editor, and adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' You are the kind of AGF editor that is in short supply. I say, hand you the mop. --
'''Oppose''' sorry to do this, but there are a number of small issues here that together make me think you are not yet ready. I notice in looking through your contributions a number of errors, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&diff=prev&oldid=108723465 this one]; I am sure that edit was made in good faith, but you sometimes make these sorts of mistakes. I see you have only ever participated in one [[WP:RFA|RfA]] debate and no XfD debates, so its hard to get a good feel for your knowledge of policy and how you react in debates. You've made only a handful of edits since the end of February, which isn't that big of a deal in itself, but it seems odd to take a long-ish Wikibreak and come straight into an RfA. Your use of edit summaries is very low. Despite your claims of being an RC patroller, I don't see any evidence of you ever warning a vandal or reporting vandalism to [[WP:AIV]], or even revert any vandalism. Overall lots of small things, but together they mean to me, that you're not ready. I suggest you participate in some AfD debates (they're a great way to learn policy), get more involved in RC patrolling, then try for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] in a couple of months to get some further feedback. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' I think you are on the right path. Your talk page demonstrates that you have reached out to others to learn and that is critical. I think your enthusiasm is remarkable and that you will be a fine admin at some point. However, I think there are some things that you need to do. One, continue to build your edit counts. There is no firm number but people like experience. 2. Make sure you leave edit summaries every time. That makes it easier for people to see what you have done. In your preferences, you can make it a requirement. 3. Be sure and brush up on the image rules. Please don't be disappointed. Keep growing and you'll be an admin in no time!
'''Weak Oppose''' - You're definitely on the right path, and my oppose has nothing to do with your passion and aptitude for vandalism-prevention and reversion. However, I think you're just not ready for the tools. Keep trying, and try to broaden your horizons, and come back in a few months, and I will probably support. I usually don't make mention of this, but you only have 500-something edits. Just keep editing, and you'll get adminship soon enough.
'''Oppose''' on the basis that you have not yet participated in the areas where you hope to help out. As a position of trust, an administrator must display an understanding of policy through actions. My advice would to make some vandalism reports to [[WP:AIV]], and comment in some deletion discussions. Admins actually close and interpret discussions, not just comment in them, so I'd like to see that you are familiar with them before you start closing them.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I cant support a candidate with less than 1000 edits and unfortunately you only have approximately 500, I would also suggest using an edit summary more often - yours is less than one quarter, I think you are on the right track and by requesting an admin coach is definitely a step in the right direction, however I'd also suggest particpating in [[WP:XFD]] and getting involved with reporting editors at [[WP:AIV]] as you say you wish to help there but I cant see any experience there, give it a few months of contribs and make improvements and you'll probably pass! Kindest regards -
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol. I do not think Jhfireboy has the necessary experience, though I think if Gwernol's advice is followed that experience will be gained within a few months. I would likely support at that time. ···
'''Oppose''' Just over five hundred edits in your first year of contributing to the project, with less than fifty contributions each to the policy and user Talk spaces, suggest that you need to gather more experience of interacting with other editors and exercising a knowledge of the [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] with opinions expressed at XfD discussions, amongst many other available areas.  You need to become involved with admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols; warning vandals and reporting them to [[:WP:AIV]] and [[:WP:AN/I]] etc where appropriate; you can also assist other editors on the Help and Reference desks; welcome new users and source, reference and provide citations for factual assertions in the articles themselves.  Joining Wikiprojects, if you have not already done so, will assist in your contributions and interaction with editors.  Lastly, you need to sustain your contributions consistently over several months in order to demonstrate commitment to the project. Try again in another twelve months with this experience behind you and you would be a valuable addidition to the admin ranks.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry But I can't support an editor with less than a 1000 edits simply because the tools are a bit complicated and for a person who doesn't have much edits might not be able to use it well and wisely but I believe you have the experience needed and if you apply in another 3 months..I will definitely support you..Sorry..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' I agree with most of the arguments above: your edits aren't thorough and extensive enough to warrant a sysop.  1000 edits is quite low, and shows less experience than necessary for adminship.  Try more editing and perhaps joining a Wikiproject, get the experience up, and try back sometime in the future.
'''Oppose, for now.'''  You need more experience writing articles and participating in Wikipedia's departments. Please read (and copy-edit) Wikipedia's help pages, policies, guidelines, and manual of style.  Dipping in and correcting grammar and typos helps prove you read them.  ;)  And get an [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coach]].  I hope you find these tips useful.  '''''
'''Oppose''' per most of Gwernol's opposition. (Although there are certainly many edits to support the claim of vandalism reversion, the lack of edit summary makes many of them unnoticeable.) -- <b>
'''Oppose''': Lack of experience, also edit summary usage is low which would be nice to have. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Gwernol]]. At the moment you do not demonstrate enough experience in admin-related areas to indicate that you would be efficient or effective in the use of the tools.--
'''Oppose''' At this time, you don't have enough experience in the admin areas you promise to help with (XfD, AIV...etc.). A few months of solid editing in these areas will help. '''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of activity. Almost surprised this is stil up, actually.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good candidate, no reason to oppose from his records.
'''Support''', no reason to think he'll misuse or abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' with mild reservations.  Most speedy deletions are not urgent, with the notable exceptions of CSD G1, G3, G10 and T1.  They can wait a day or two without harming anyone.  Generally you want to focus your CSD work on the longest backlogs - generally G11, G12, A7, and some of the image categories.  If this RFA passes, I'd encourage you to process a few dozen CSDs before you close AFDs, but I'm willing to give you the chance.
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - Unlikely to abuse them, as stated it's "no big deal".
'''Support''' meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|criteria]]<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' - I was very impressed with the dedication that JoeBengo gave to a college article, bringing it from kind of a mess to a GA level. Fact: he has never attended that college but made him self an expert on it. He worked pleasantly with all responsible editors. He was efficient in laying out what needed to be done. He displayed considerable common sense about the choices that needed to be made. I don't know about "projects" but he has had thousands of individual edits. He appears to have a lot of enthusiasm and energy which can be useful to Wikipedia.
So far, nobody has come up with a reason not to trust this user. —
'''Support''' against editcountitis and deletionitis. If the biggest objections to him are over the raw quantity of edits he's made in various areas, he's okay by me.
'''Support''', looks okay.  [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|Buick]]'''[[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|C]]'''[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|en]]'''[[user talk:BuickCenturyDriver|t]]'''
'''Support.'''

'''Support''' Very good contributor with great experience and dedication to improve Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia will benefit from him a lot. Full support!
--
'''Support'''. Joe seems a person with quite good sense, responsible and interested in the project. His collaboration in matters such as [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Basque|the Basque Wikiproject]] (and related articles) are clearly among the main ones. I really think he'll make a good admin if selected. --
'''Support''' - Lack of Experience doesnt actually matter but you have low Wikipedia edit count but anywayz a person should be judged on ability and honesty and not on experience and Wikicount..Go for it..Good luck...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support.''' All systems clear! [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
No. sorry. Very few CFDs and not much project space. Basically, needs more time sorry. [[User: WikiMan53|WikiMan53]] [[User talk: WikiMan53|(talk)]]
Again, sorry. Very little XfD involvement considering your response to Q1. Suggest try again in 3 months.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Joebengo's been doing a good job (I often see his edits to [[Portal:Basque]] and Basque-related articles), but his Wikipedia space count is just too low at the moment. Much more evidence is needed to verify if this user is experienced enough to become an administrator. Also, most edits consist in tagging talk pages, so there's no real need for the admin tools at this time. More vandalfight and participation in [[WP:XFD]] are badly needed. Please try again in a few months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Addhoc and Husond. You need more Wikipedia edits for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience in project-space, the heart of project maintenance.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience. Not enough participation in XfD, not enough user talk experience (besides vandal warnings). Relatively recent mistakes like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Figureofauthority&diff=prev&oldid=102510869 this] and a little bit of canvassing for his RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Joebengo&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=3] convince me that Joebengo, however well-intended, is not ready.
'''Oppose''' Good contribs, but get that Wiki. edit count at least up to triple digits. '''
As above - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in Wikipedia:. ---
'''Oppose'''. Although you do a great work around here, lack of Wikipedia-namespace edits suggests minimal knowledge in admin-related tasks. I'm also not particularly comfortable supporting a candidate who "wishes to be an admin". Spend a while in learning the ropes and come back in a few months or so.
'''Oppose''' - Low Wikispace edit count--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, just not enough experience. You need a secure knowledge of admin-related tasks in order to proceed. Come back in a few months. '''
'''Oppose'''.  It does appear that you are a quality editor, but I'm not convinced that you need admin tools for what you do.  You primarily stated that you want to help out with deletion-related admin tasks and I don't think you have enough experience in those areas yet.  Spend a couple months participating in XfD's and I'd be glad to support. --
'''Oppose''' Not yet - needs more admin-wiki related experience. Dig into these tasks and come back in 6-12 months and you'll most likely breeze through. --
'''Oppose''', just on the basis of the candidate's user page, which contains multiple inappropriate userboxes, has spelling and/or grammar errors, has annoying "message box" orange boxes at top (including one advertising this RfA), and is included in several inappropriate categories.
'''Strong Oppose'''  Excessive number of trivial main ns edits recently, any more AWB activity and I'd suggest a bot account :). "This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive" is especially troubling, but edits like  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Annapolis1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=97083654 this] go beyond simply troubling... Edits like that indicate to me that Joebengo is a risk to the project and its mission. After consideration, I think we need to see some evidence of understanding and commitment to our goals and missions.--
'''Oppose'''. Until he clarifies what he means by "copyright paranoia" I don't feel comfortable supporting. —
'''Oppose''' Lack of documented experience.  Troubled by copyright paranoia comment.
'''Oppose''' -- user uploaded [[:Image:Brannon.jpg]] four days ago; an unfree image of a living person sourced to a blog without copyright holder information and a "rationale" that just repeats boilerplate.  Coupled with the userbox mentioned by a number of people above, this user either doesn't understand our copyright and licensing policies, or expresses their disagreement with them by pretending that they don't exist.
Per presence of divisive and inflammatory userboxes on his userpage.  Administrators are supposed to have better discretion than this, and having an administrator who is actively supporting independence of one region, supporting one political party above another, and has a bizarre grudge against a civil liberties organization, makes the project looks bad, especially if they got involved in related editing disputes.  --
'''Oppose''' for use of a fair use image in their userspace which I [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joebengo/Contributions&oldid=122308867 just removed]. Admins should clearly know this aspect of the fair use policy/criteria and enforce it.
'''Neutral''' good user, however doesn't meet the general criteria for adminship; you have low participation in the project-space, you say in your answer to Q1 that you would like to help in CfD when you have very few edits in there, and there is a lack of user communication, which is quite crucial for an admin. I would definitely support if you have worked on these areas and renominated yourself. —
'''Neutral''' Too little project edits. I'll be happy to support once you contribute more to that. --
'''Neutral''' - Sorry, insufficient project space experience, recommend withdraw as it is unlikely to pass. --
'''Neutral''' Echo the projectspace comments above.  I would like to see greater participation in the admin-related side of Wikipedia before this vote slides to a support.  You're a good editor, more experience is the key.
'''Neutral''' Well, I think you could definitely be an Admin in the future but I think you need a bit more experience, you have an OK edit summary usage and if you intend to help closing etc at [[WP:CFD]] it would be nice to see a bit of work there, give it another 2-3 months of quality and varied contributions and you'll probably pass - Good luck! <b>
'''Neutral''' - I don't think he would misuse the admin abilities and is a sensible user. However, I think a little more experience is needed in some areas. If you get more experience and re-nominate, then I would happily support you. Good luck! <font color="red">
'''Neutral''' - you've made a good start, the area I would like to see more contribution is user talk - interactions with other editors is key to good adminship (obviously along with policy understanding and all that jazz).  I think more experience and re-apply when you're happy with what you've achieved.
'''Neutral''' - From what I can peek at your contributions, they are not that bad at all. However, I would like to see you maybe participate in some of the inner-workings of the project, since there is a lot of things you will probably be asked to do as administrator. Give it a few months.
'''Neutral''' - It bothers me to see that you only anticipate deletion tools, instead of the full nine yards. I suggest you answer my question above, and after that this will turn into a support. I do commend you, however, in that you don't care how many edits you made, but what you want to do with the tools, and helping Wikipedia in the process.
'''Moral Support''' - I feel that you have your head in the right place and are mature enough to be an administrator. Although there are concerns brought up below that would put many people off. Perhaps diversify your actions as a contributor and gain more experience in areas other than vandal fighting. Reading [[WP:ADMIN]] might be a good start to see what admins do. Maybe request a review of your current work or even apply for an admin coach? Perhaps a few more months work in different areas away from Canada related topics might give you more experience :-) Good luck!
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry Johnny, but to me personally, it appears that you are doing this for your own personal gain. I couldn't think of how else to word that, but it is not to be interperted as power hungry. I just view it as using admin tools on articles '''you''' want.
'''Oppose''' - I have some concerns about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.105.217.41&diff=155466244&oldid=155462131 this incident] (in which he changed a vandalism warning template left by another editor rather than adding his own) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:198.103.184.76&diff=165039431&oldid=165037639 this one] (in which he inserted a vandalism warning template with somebody else's signature.  Together, they seem to indicate that he's still feeling his way around vandal fighting (or was as of two months ago).  I'd rather see a couple more months of error-free vandal fighting before giving him new tools, but I'd likely support at that time.
'''Oppose''' - Per above.
'''Oppose''' - I don't know about this. You have posted very short answers to the questions, and the answers are a little concerning. You say (on question 1) that you are not doing this for personal gain, but it sure sounds like it, when you say you will protect Toronto Maple Leafs and Toronto. It seems that you will only pay attention to Toronto related articles, which is not what being an administrator is about.
'''Oppose''' per Sarcasticidealist, and answers to questions; they don't convey a comprehensive understanding of policy, something every would-be-admin should have.
'''Oppose''' per all the points above.
'''Oppose''' Per answer to questions 4, 7 and 8 at least. Q4 in particular - the candidate provided the wrong definition of banning.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' - Sorry, I feel that I cannot support at this time. Follow the advice Rudget has given you and I'm sure you'll become a good admin in future. But I am pleased by the ''prima facie'' evidence of being bold by self-nominating. Good luck and keep editing.
'''Support''' as nom. <font face="Courier New">
'''Support''' per my appreciation for Jonathan's dedication to Wikipedia and bearing in mind my comments on his editor review yesterday. The community may judge that this RfA is premature, but let's avoid a pile-on scenario here.
'''Support''' -I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger...so be it..a dedicated wikipedian should be power hungry or else those not interested will leave in a couple of days or fore go their sysop bit ..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Sadly, this RfA won't pass. I suggest you listen to the ''constructive'' comments in the oppose section, and try again in a few months. Best wishes.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; To clear up the murky waters of confusion, in my opinion, behavior on IRC is far different than any op action, as the latter is reversible and may be accidental; behavior is not.  After seeing the way you've behaved on IRC, I can't support you with the nagging notion in the back of my mind that it may spill over onto wikipedia. Also,<!-- this was re-added after Ryan commented --> the [[WP:AN|AN]] thread about Trey didn't speak highly of you either, as Ryan said. —
<small>(ec)</small> I hate to be the one who has to do this, but I just don't trust you with the admin tools. You show a lack of understanding for [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deltion]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Temple_News&diff=prev&oldid=167989158], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_West_Museum_of_Road_Transport&diff=prev&oldid=169201682], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara_Vallow&diff=prev&oldid=167938237] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brice_Dickson&diff=prev&oldid=165686440]. Deciding to retire, then changing your mind less than 24hrs later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jonathan&diff=prev&oldid=167556496]. I am failing to see much maturity and stability (stability including your repeat Wikibreaks, and decision to retire), for example immaturity [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dihydrogen_Monoxide/Clutter&diff=prev&oldid=164571604], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Table_cell_templates&diff=prev&oldid=164287439]. "If you care enough to see when I'm coming back" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jonathan/monobook.js&diff=prev&oldid=158375322] - seemingly looking for attention and peole to beg you to stay. And this seemingly telling random users that you're going to be renamed. I don't think you're familiar enough with Wikipedia policies (especially the deletion policy) in order to become an admin. I hate to bring this in to matters, as I don't support ageism, but I find the concept of an eleven year old administrator being able to handle uncivil and rude vandals hard to believe, and to have the stability not to be offended when trolls start swearing and making personal attacks.
'''Oppose''' - sorry but you brought up to AN/I [[User:Trey|Trey]]'s conduct on IRC for wider attention[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=169746172]. This alleged misconduct didn't even happen in a wikipedia channel - I really wouldn't like to see what you'd do if you had the block button in that situation. Then there's originally opposing [[User:Cremepuff222|Cremepuff222]]'s RfA because he banned you from his own IRC channel because you were being disruptive[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cremepuff222&diff=prev&oldid=169766834]! This isn't an IRC oppose, this is because I think you lack judgment on wikipedia by bringing non wikipedia IRC related conduct into serious discussion venues. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jonathan&diff=prev&oldid=170809129 Supporting your own RfA] doesn't do you any favors either, sorry
'''Strong Oppose''' Users recent ANI thread about IRC shows that this user does not understand wikipeida policy. Experience in administrative areas could be better also. Please try again in a few months when you have more experience.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' per Ryan and Trey.  Basically I would recommend more experience in admin areas, and it would help to make more edits in the mainspace, as only about 1/3 of your edits are actually there.  Also try and get more work in vandal-fighting as this will help you understand Wiki policies.  Try and get more experience under your belt, the longer you are here, and the more edits you make, the better chance you have of running into different experiences and help you to become a better editor and ultimately an admin.  Good luck!<br/>
'''Oppose''' <s>Supporting your own self-nomination appears to me that you have a power-hungry desire to become an admin. I would suggest that you reconsider your action.</s> Also, I would suggest that you have more experience in admin related areas in order to be familiar with adminship as a whole.
'''Oppose''' per Qst. Sorry, just not ready. Also, you can't support yourself.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I'm not sure if your mature enough just yet. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' Although he has some good traits to him (especially being able to code easily), the immaturity on Wiki and IRC is really not accepted among administrators. The user is acting like I used to, immature. You should read the oppositions then build off them. Admin coaching or an editor review also works well.<sup>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I do not think you've been seriously editing long or seriously enough. Maybe in a few more months.
Per Qst and Animum's rationales. I'm not thrilled at the prospect where you have access to [[Special:Blockip]]. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose'''supporting your own nom is all I need to know.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''To avoid pile on''' I#ll stay neutral. This will probably fail--
'''Moral Support''' - clearly a dedicated user, but not enough experience to pass RfA at this time. (I must say that I don't like the opposers' dismissal of the candidate as a "middle schooler", however; a user's age is of no importance on Wikipedia, and should never be brought up in RfA discussions IMO.) I would advise Jonjonbt to withdraw his candidacy now, get some more experience and come back in a few months; I would be happy to offer help and advice on achieving adminship in the future. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Oppose''' - placed {{tl|banned}} and {{tl|protected}} tags on [[User:Vovovarun]] despite the user neither being banned nor protected.  Not sure how this user plans to fight vandalism; seems more interested in protecting his side of a content dispute.  Also not sure about notability criteria or proper use of images (see his talk page). --
'''Wicked-Strong Oppose''' you've made a very unimpressive total of 87 edits since you joined.  I have a feeling your a middle schooler from West Plains, MO who likes Dairy Queen, as thats all the articles you've really contributed to. '''
'''Oppose''' based on a variety of reasons, including the image problems and really low number of edits. Cheers,
'''Strong Oppose:''' Not a bloody chance.  Middle schooler with 87 edits total, been an editor for all of three months, and almost all the edits are to a [[Nicktropolis|single article]] for which he's solicited admin help on his user page.  His putting the {{tl|banned}} tag on another user's page might be explained in that there was a content dispute with that user on the [[Nicktropolis]] article.  I've seen few admin candidates less qualified.
'''Oppose''' based on self-nom statement that the weakness of wikipedia is the fact that anyone can edit.
'''Oppose''' per Elkman, and request the closing of this RFA per [[WP:SNOW]]. --
'''No-Choice Oppose and Suggest Withdrawal''' - I hate to oppose, but for someone with this little experience, it is necessary. Edits must be wide-ranging and, though I hate the editcountitis debate, a higher number of edits is needed. Also, the candidate has not answered any of the questions, which only goes to show further their lack of experience. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Oppose''' and strongly urge a withdrawal of this request.  Candidate has very little history on which to judge their contributions or level of understanding of policy, and the fact that none of the questions have been answered means it is impossible to support this candidate.
'''Oppose'''  Way too inexperienced.  Agree with Pheonix2 on closing RfA.  Its starting to  [[WP:SNOW|snow]]. <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral''' voting neutral to avoid a [[WP:SNOW|snow]] pile-on.  If you are serious about this, buckle down and edit edit edit.
Support. Nicely edited a lot of esoterica and is dedicated.
Support.  Thought he already was one. :)
Great contributions, and, in my experience, a very personable person. Also, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Jor's having the bizarre 'Inserted by a true Eldar' comment at the top of their talk page never ceases to amuse me.
Support.
Speaking from my experience with Jor, he is an excellent editor and a reasonable person.  I've not been involved in the apparently controversial Polish/German issue, but I am confident based on what I've seen that he would do well.
Support. Excellent contributer. Go Jor! --
Support.  I've dealt with Jor/darkelf on several subjects and found him (?) to be reasonable, levelheaded, and conscientious.  I for one have been around this particular block enough not to fall for the tired old "he's a nazi/he's a zionist/he's a commie/he's a homo/he's lefthanded" line. In such namecalling the seeds of tyranny lie. --
He has allot of contributions and responded promptly to an inquiry.
Has done 5 times in 5 months what I have done in 6. :-) Clearly a dedicated contributor. -


Well, everything ''I've'' seen from him is just fine. While I see some users I respect voting against him, the sock-puppetry and such going on below suggests that if I'm to judge him by his enemies, he's probably a good apple.

I looked into this, and could only find good edits. I think his detractors make a poor case, but if they can improve it perhaps I'd change my vote. As is the reverts I see him having made don't involve revert wars, but rather correcting poor edits.
Support.
Support

Support, a bit tentatively.  I don't know much about Jor, but we had a conflict some months ago and it was resolved amicably due to what I felt was good faith on his part, which is more than I can say for many ''current'' admins.  Many of the reasons for oppose below (such as Ruhrjung's and Moncrief's) are not compelling.  In the German/Polish battle he did seem to me aggressive at times, but I can understand the frustration of dealing with, e.g., Wik, etc., and what I've seen indicates he is more reasonable than to abuse admin status to win edit wars.  And if he does, I'm sure he'll get the full treatment (a la [[User:168...|168...]]) from the vocal critics below. --
Strongly oppose. Rude German-reactionary POV pusher who asked me "Does this appease your Polish nationalism?" when I tried to call Szczecin by its current name. And later regarding &#346;winouj&#347;cie: "I merely shifted them because known vandal User:Wik insists on adding 'former'" and "Screw this, I've better things to do than try and fix Wik's vandalism." See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swinoujscie&dummy=1&diff=2392366&oldid=2392307 here] how Jor changes the correct names &#346;winouj&#347;cie and Szczecin, referring to the ''present Polish cities'', to the old German names Swinemünde and Stettin! --
Cautiosly oppose. A person who takes as his own task to "remove from count" votes against himself[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=2966676&oldid=2966674] does not seem to have sufficient trust in other wikipedians &mdash; seems too eager to protect his own prestige and too eager to become administrator.--

[[User:John Kenney|john]] 02:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) lots of German-Central European POV pushing. And I'll note that while I myself have been involved in disputes over Central European article naming issues, I've spent a lot more time fighting against the sock puppet types who've been hurling abuse at Jor than I have against Jor (or Nico).  But I'd vote against any of them being made admins.

I remember Jor being involved in edit wars, having problems with NPOV, calling opponents "problem users" and "vandals" and so on. He should show that he can do better before being granted adminship. --
Oppose. Edit wars, rude bahaviour. Far away from NPOV.

Oppose - we don't need combatants in Polish-German wars as admins.
Oppose. [[User:Wik]] is right on.
Oppose.  I have to admit that some of my trepidation is due to the fact that he is taking such an active role in the voting process for him here.  Yikes. (Someone will no doubt point out that there's no rule against doing so.  Fine, it's just a personal preference then that those being voted on should back off from constant edits and justifications on the tally).
Oppose. However, if more time passes and Jor seems to be getting along with the other kids on the block and staying out of POV trouble, then I think he'd make a great sysop. --
Oppose. POV-Pusher.
Better safe than sorry&mdash;we shouldn't hand out guns to combatants on either side of any major POV conflict.
Controversial. Concerns regarding his views on POV.
[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 05:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC).  I didn't even realize that this Gdansk/Danzig German/Polish thing existed.  In retrospect, this whole thing needs to calm down before I'll support adminship for ''any'' participant.  Can't you just let the other side push their German/Polish POV for a week while this whole thing cools down? Some of us have an encyclopedia to write.
You don't really give a lot of reason as to why you should become an admin. The first answer you gave can be done by anybody, admin or not; you didn't give us a description of yourself; you never accepted the RfA, which is something that must always be done even if you nominate yourself; you have very little mainspace edits, and even fewer Wikipedia ones; and the list goes on. I'm sorry, but even though you've been here since October '06, I just don't think you're ready. //
'''Oppose''' You're clearly not qualified for adminship yet. Judging from your answer to Q1, I recommend you read [[WP:ADMIN]] to familiarize yourself with what admins can and cannot do. Also, from the edits you have made so far, I don't really see any reason for you needing the tools at the moment (there were two RFPP reports, but both were denied). I think you need to keep up your contributions on Wikipedia, and expand yourself to helping with admin-related tasks by reporting vandals at [[WP:AIV]] (read [[WP:VANDALISM]] and [[WP:BLOCK]]), participating in deletion discussion at [[WP:AFD]] (read [[WP:DELETE]]), make valid page protection requests (see [[WP:PROTECT]]) and also help out by tagging articles for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] or [[WP:PROD|prodding]] them. You also should familiarize yourself with [[WP:IMAGE]], [[WP:COPYRIGHT]]. There are some image tagging issues that are posted on your talk page, and you should read image policies to understand what the problem is. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''. He's made some excellent contributions to wikipedia, particularly in the context of the Olympics. -
'''Support''' Good edit distribution, though a little light on overall count.
'''Support''': Good edit count and pretty good attendancy in Wikipedia. I'm 80% sure you'll become adminstrator. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support''' per nom. Good editor! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''':  Strong contributor who is quite unlikely to abuse admin privileges.  Though relatively inexperienced, conferring admin status in this case should not be such a big deal and a delay doesn't seem necessary.
'''Support''' per Richardcavell and Ombudsman.
'''Support''' Superb contributions to Olympics. He might as well be the '''Olympicbot'''. --'''<font color="#E32636">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' - You'd make a great admin.  And I'll vote for you again the next time around (provided I see the nom).  --
'''Moral Support''' - you should probably look at the standards and what your fellow RfA candidates have been doing, anyway, keep it up, you'll get it in a few months.
'''Oppose''' too soon.  Prefer admins to have experience in all areas of the project.--
'''Oppose''' per above; you look like a great editor, but I would give it some more time.
'''Oppose''' "Better safe than sorry" vote only here.  Editor's wiki-career is going well, but this is a little too soon for me -- more article-space experience is a good idea.
'''Oppose''' sorry, a little too soon for my liking. Do stick around and keep contributing, and I would be pleased to support in a few months.--
'''Oppose''', too soon and per comments and actions during the mfd at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Olympic conventions]] has too little experience, and needs more time to get to grips with policy and guidelines, epecially [[WP:CIV]] and [[WP:AGF]]. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AOlympic_conventions&diff=43467329&oldid=43463713] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AOlympic_conventions&diff=43459691&oldid=43458541],and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AOlympic_conventions&diff=43500640&oldid=43496522].
'''Oppose''' Still a little new for my standards.
'''Oppose'''. It looks like really only two months of regular participation. I'm sorry, but that's not long enough.
'''Oppose'''. I've been here 3 months as well and there are still Wikipedia policies that I meet that I am unfamiliar with. Give it time. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''', too early. Try again in a few more months. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
I concur; it's too soon. Leave me a message in three months, and I'll vote for you then (unless you've gone insane in the meantime); for now, however, '''oppose reluctantly'''.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Please do try again in 3 months.  --
I hate to do this... but '''Reluctant Oppose'''. Your contributions have been flat-out astounding, but with the length of time you have here, there no way we can judge dedication or maturity level. Leave me a talk page note in 3 months and you'll have my vote as long as you don't threaten to leave in a huff or trigger any other pet peeves of mine. -'''
'''Oppose''', too early. Not enough contributions. Confusing signature.
'''Weak oppose''' try 1 or 2 months later
'''Oppose''' on inexperience.

'''Oppose''': please keep building the encyclopedia and consider trying again in a few months.
'''Oppose.''' While he has made a great number of edits to the Olympics content, including templates, he lacks a basic understanding of many of the Wikipedia philosophies, including consensus. I would also agree with Hiding about his comments during the MfD process.
'''Neutral''' Under 1000 article namespace edits just isn't enough for me.
'''Neutral''' at this time. It looks like you're heading in the right direction. From Interiot, I see that the majority of your contributions have come in February and March, so while you technically have three months, your first month or so was not very active. Personally I like to see at least three months of activity, so to me you're ''almost'' at that threshold. I'm not as concerned about your ''quantity'' of Mainspace edits because it looks like the majority of your edits are in the Mainspace, so I feel like that's simply a matter of time if you keep going. I also feel that your editing seems to be centered around the Olympics, as almost all of your top edited articles are Olympics related. I'd like to see a ''bit'' more variety and breadth, it's good to wander off to different areas of the project now and again. I'm also concerned because I don't feel you have many contributions to AfD. Since you express an interest in closing deletion debates, I'd like to see a fair amount of contribution to AfD discussion. I think in general, you show great signs, and are moving in the right direction, but I feel you could use a little more time before Adminship. I would reccomend re-applying in two months if you don't gain consensus from this nomination. Best regards,
'''Neutral''' But like Evilphoenix mentioned, you are definetly close in my book.  I liked your project page and your Connecticut Academic Performance Test article.  Keep it up and you'll have my vote next time.  --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Looks good, but I think another month or two is in order.
'''Neutral'''.  On the fence neutral, would like to verify consistancy of edits by seeing more of the same, for a bit longer. —
'''Neutral'''. Good user, but too soon, and the oppose votes have a point.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''. Needs a little more experience. As an aside, could people please stop using fake "You have new messages" boxes on their user or user talk pages? They're very annoying.
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''', better with more experience.--
'''Neutral''', I agree with the lack of mainspace edits. You are heading in the same direction as me (hopefully).
'''Neutral'''. Good balance of contributions to various namespaces, but too new. Keep doing what you're doing, and everything should be ok. — <small>Mar. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:30] <
'''Strong Support''' as nom. '''
'''Support '''per nom.
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate with an excellent record of contributions.
'''Support'''. Everything I've seen from this editor has been positive.
'''Strong support''' - great editor, appears in admin areas and very friendly, what more could you want?! (Oh yeah, knows policy too!)
'''Support''' I've been watching this user from his earliest edits and have been pleased with everything I see. I cannot see why he'd not make a good admin. '''
'''Support''' Looks like a good user. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''. A respectful and patient editor in my interactions with them. --
'''Support'''.  A great editor who will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Outstanding contribs!  This is a great candidate.
'''Support''' Definitely! [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Nishkid64 is sniffing out admin candidates and nominating them at a phenomenal rate. Great work. --
'''Support''' Great contributions, clearly more than qualified.
'''Support''' - Good answers and good edits--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' good answers, good record, and even though I haven't run into you before, I trust the nominator :) &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Support''' Has always shown a willingness to do the little things right. Can certainly be trusted.
'''Support'''. I can find nothing which leads me to believe Jreferee would do anything but good with the mop. Very qualified. •••
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Touchdown!  I don't know what kind of referee you are; maybe you'll call "interference" on the vandals...
'''Support''' per Nishkid's nom. Excellent Wikipedian, would make a fine candidate. -

'''Oh yeah''' -- ''
'''Support''' noting the AGF concerns in the Oppose section, but looks like a one-off incident. Support otherwise. -
'''Support'''. ''
'''Support''' looks okay.--
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad.
'''Support''' Great work on the Biography Assessment Drive. <span class="sigInvitatious">
'''Support''' Brilliant Idea with the Assessment Drive
'''Very Strong Supprt''' Has all the qualities of an admin. What can I say more?--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[User:PrestonH/Sandbox|(Sandbox)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
Oppose votes below are slight eye-openers, but I still '''support''' as co-nom. Yes, it toook me this long.--
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''. Good editor. I trust him.
'''Support''' Solid, evenhanded contributor. --
'''Support''' (see my comment under "neutral") →
'''Support'''. My heart and brain align. Research bears me here, songs of praise on my lips. (sorry. i'm in an poetic mindset at the moment. alternately: "A fine editor, will not abuse the tools."}
'''Support''', because I am sure that this editor has learned his/her lesson.
'''Support''' I'll forgive him for his mistakes made a year ago with CJ, and I think that the situation regarding the individual was a bizarre situation in which he had more of a reason to believe that another editor was harming someone else instead of acting in good faith. While some of the techniques I saw there were not commendable, I don't see any of it here, and I have reason to believe tat Jreferee has realigned himself. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' Seems like a valuable editor who has learned from past mistakes. --
He is a fine editor:) Good luck! --
'''Support'''. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' This editor has shown excellent judgement on many occasions.
'''Support''' Haven't seen you around much, but what I see is good. Keep it up! ·
'''Support''', trustworthy editor.
'''Strong support''', I was surprised when I realized that Jreferee was not an administrator and even more surprised when I realized how new to the project he or she was. Talking with Jreferee on his or her talk page, I felt I was talking to someone who very civil and thoughtful. Even when we disagreed on two separate occasions, Jreferee was not seem emotional but instead seemed calm. I understand and acknowledge that other contributors have legitimate reasons to suggest Jreferee should not be an administrator. I maintain support for Jreferee, however, because I believe he or she really wants to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and really will be able to if he or she has the extra tools. I have already seen a lot of administrative-related (note, not administrator-related) action on Jreferee's part; heck, I didn't even know contributors who were not administrators could do some of the things I saw Jreferee doing! Some contributors suggest that Jreferee should wait a while, become more acquainted with the project, improve contributions and then re-apply for adminship; there is wisdom in these suggestions. It is unfortunate, however, that Jreferee may merely be delayed from helping Wikipedia where I believe he or she is willing and fully qualified to do so. Based on my experience with Jreferee, his or her potential to help Wikipedia and his or her indication that he or she will join administrator's open to recall, I strongly support and endorse Nishkid64's suggestion that Jreferee become a sysopèd administrator. --
I do not think that Jreferee will abuse the tools, and the discussion below at my previous ''neutral'' has convinced me that there's nothing else standing in the way of my '''support'''. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—
'''Strong Support'''. I have found him to be helpful. He is a good editor with ideas.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' Based on the user's commentary in the discussion about the user.  To summarize, Jreferee makes an elaborate accusation of fraud and improper conduct against a user with whom he had never interacted, an accusation which relied on poorly interpreted "evidence."  The accused user in question has since been unblocked, and Jreferee's accusation called by another editor (not myself, though I wholeheartedly agree) "baseless."  Oh, and in the same thread, Jreferee accuses myself and the user of being "one person with two identities."  If you are going to accuse one user of defamation -- oh yeah, who has not yet been proven to actually exist -- and another of sockpuppetry (and by extension defamation), then I think you should maybe have some reliable evidence.  Not a person I want having the power to block me or anyone, or really do anything a normal user can't do.  --
'''Oppose''' Despite the candidate's assurance in his answer to Q3, the above comment suggests to me that the candidate still does not fully grasp the concept of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], something which (in my view) he has failed to do on other occasions, as in [[User talk:Jreferee/Archive 2#Solicitation and other things|an exchange]] I had with him over his part in [[User_talk:Rebecca/Archive21#Concerns|a dispute]] late last year. I don't feel the candidate is yet ready for adminship.--
'''Oppose'''.  The user has made some poorly researched accusations against a fellow editor which used needlessly sensational language.  I don't have faith in the ability of this user to correctly interpret evidence and I think his communication skills are poor. —
'''Oppose'''. I don't see how it can possibly productive to refer to the user as such, irrespective of the facts. We're in a public forum here, and one that is designed to exist indefinitely into the future. A far more productive approach could have been taken in dealing with  young teenager who is clearly acting with the worldview of a young teenager. Based on the support you have garnered, I do not expect that this vote will scuttle your path to adminship. However, I do expect that it will bring you to think about what we can do to cultivate contributors who may be with us for many years to come. Cheers!
'''Oppose'''. The examples of conduct presented by cj, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJreferee&diff=90132297&oldid=89982928 this] awkward reply leave me very sceptical. —
The above casts significant doubt on this nomination.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant and others.
Per BD - <b>
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Kncyu38. You have to be above that sort of thing if you're going to be an admin. Mind you, I think that [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] (one of your sparring partners) should learn the same lesson. -
Changed to '''strong oppose''' after more review, in addition to Kncyu's diff. Yes, other people were bad too, but that doesn't excuse what you did. -
'''Oppose''' After reading the answer to question 3 and then comparing it to the difs of the oppose votes, I think you need to put some more time between them and this process while putting into practise what you expressed in your answers.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question three leaves doubts as to your experience with dispute resolution. Q3 is your opertinuty to show how well you handled disputes in the past. I am also a little concerned about issues meantioned above. <small>
'''Oppose''' Some serious and justifiable concerns have been raised.--
Still defending bad judgement in the user incident, even on this RFA. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.--
'''Oppose''' - too many examples of dubious judgment. Does that make him a bad editor? No, but I think he's one of those editors who needs a bit more time and experience before we'd be wise to give him extra buttons. I'd like to see the exercise repeated in another couple of months and see whether he has been able to edit actively and with good judgment.
'''Oppose''' for now - come back later please.--
'''Oppose''' per several of the points above - potentially a good candidate, but too flawed at present.--
'''Oppose''' He may or may not be a spectacular editor, but admin isn't a reward for being a good editor.--
'''Oppose''' at this time.  Another few months' activity and I'll reconsider.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' for now, with a recommendation that the applicant come forward again in a few months' time.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose''' per Metamagician3000 and CJCurrie--
The above developments concerning the oppose votes have placed me to neutral. <b><font color="black" face="georgia">
'''Neutral.'''  I looked through all of the comments and the oppose reasoning and yet can't really reach a conclusion.  The best I can determine is that the user would probably make a good admin, but may need a little more time to demonstrate that.  However, since the opposition seems to all center around a single extended dispute that occurred early in the nominee's wikilife, I don't see enough here to either support or oppose at this time.  I would normally just not leave any comment, but since I spent the better part of an hour looking through everything, I wanted to at least record my indecision. :-) —
'''Neutral'''. Good user but I'm not sufficiently convinced he's ready for adminship. --
'''Neutral''' Jreferee is a great user but I don't think the community is ready for him as an admin yet. '''
<s>'''Oppose'''.  In November 2006, Jreferee apparently misinterpreted the CA.gov Web site's left-side navigation bar (as it existed at that time) as actually corresponding to the structure of the government of the state of California and created a big mess in [[Government of California]] as well as eight nonsense articles describing eight agencies that simply do not exist.  It is all right for novice editors to be a little uncivil (I have had problems with the civility policy myself as was noted in the arbitration over [[User:Ericsaindon2]]), but Jreferee's insertion of several thousand bytes into the encyclopedia about eight nonexistent agencies (whose nonexistence could have been easily verified with a Google search) is so egregious as to amount to gross incompetence, if not outright vandalism.  Unfortunately, all of the editors who track the Government of California article, myself included, were too busy with work or with fighting vandals on other articles to notice this issue until now (I caught it half an hour ago).  At this time, in my opinion, Jreferee has not shown that he/she has adequate experience with or understanding of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] to properly carry out the duties of an administrator. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 09:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)</s> '''Neutral'''.  Jreferee has responded to my concerns in a courteous and professional manner so I am changing my vote and I no longer oppose his request.  However, I cannot support it either because Jreferee is still a little too new.  Most good admins in my experience have had at least six straight months of high-quality edits before they were nominated.  --
I'm reluctantly changing my vote from Support. I am sure you would do excellent work as an administrator. However, I am concerned that you might make careless blocks or admonishments, which could do damage to people who are less thick-skinned than you. Tractorkingsfan's summary of the incident is probably correct, so you should have apologized to both him and the individual by now. In your defense, it wasn't you who placed the indef block, your initial misreading of the situation was understandable, this kind of situation does not arise frequently, and most importantly, you obviously weren't bringing this up to gain advantage in a content dispute. However, it is troubling that you haven't acknowledged your mistakes regarding the incident.
'''Reluctant neutral''' (switched from support). I think Jreferee is an excellent editor and will make an excellent (not just a good) admin some day. There are, however, a class of editors with strong personalities and excellent research skills that need more time than many others to develop as admins. I number myself in this group; I think I finally "get it" but sometimes I still have to keep chanting "AGF" as a mantra when I see what looks at first to be open-and-shut boneheaded behavior. I sense you may be also be in this category and I suggest you come back in 3 months if this RfA does not succeed. If it does succeed, I encourage you tread lightly at first. In any event, good luck. --
'''Support''' checked his records and contributions, he has done a lot in different areas, and the mistake in Q3 is long time ago. So I support.
'''Weak Support''' You look like a good user to me, but I have one concern. In Q1 you talk about wanting to edit protected pages. Though this is a noble goal, the purpose of a protection is to prevent edits. This suggests to me that you want the tools to get around protections. Though I suppose I am not following [[WP:AGF]], that being your main reason for adminship really makes me wonder...

'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support''' The answer to question one is controversial, but this candidate has the ability to recognise the errors he has made in the past, and I doubt that he would abuse the admin tools if given them. (In response to other criticism) I also see no problem with users having a different signature name to their user name, a lot of users do it. <font color="red">
'''Support.''' I don't mind  if he will only be a "fair-weather admin". [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''', I don't think that this user having the tools will be of a detriment to the project.
'''Oppose''' - Due to your answer to question 1--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per ''Mainly, I just look forward to being able to edit protected pages without having to request permission''. Why do I oppose this?  Because, what if a user and you engage in an [[edit war]] over a tidbit. Pages are protected for a reason (i.e. [[WP:3RR]], [[WP:BLP]], and the list goes on). If a controversy arises between admin and user, the ''best thing to do is to discuss all options on the talk page.'' If that doesn't go, follow [[WP:RFC]], then [[WP:MEDCABAL]], then (if all discussions are at stalemate), go to [[WP:RFArb]].  <b><font color="#00A86B" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - user has poor understanding or appreciation of what adminship is for.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' just not sure the editor is ready for the tools, and having to revise Q1 after accepting nom shows lack of preparation and understanding.
'''Oppose''' bad answer to Q1, although I appreciate the honesty --
'''Oppose''' You want to be an admin because you want to edit protected articles? Rethink your strategy, and looks towards doing sdomething more productive than editing articles, there are many things admins need to do, so be sure to look over the rules again, and the guides as well.
'''Oppose''' per Abaddon314159, and I don't agree with those supporters who say adminship is no big deal. The matter should be taken seriously.
'''Oppose''' per the revised answer to Question 1. The eagerness to edit protected pages is a little off-putting and the user has not shown that they require the tools or would even them in a neutral manner. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' I find the answer to Question 1 very troubling.  If a long-time registered user such as myself cannot edit a fully protected page, then it stands to reason that an admin should not take it upon him-or-herself to edit a fully protected page, other things being equal.  There are rare and obvious exceptions to this general rule, but this user seems to have a very poor understanding of the limitations that an admin should impose upon him-or-herself. //
'''Oppose''', I don't think that you need the tools and your answers aren't very thorough. Please try again later when you find the need to use your tools and when you have a bit more experience. <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 12pt">
'''Oppose''', due to the unsettling answer to the first question. Protections are in place for a reason. --
'''Oppose''', answer in Q1 worries me a little. I feel that you don't really need the tools and the answers are weak. Try again in future when you have more experience with administrative processes.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question #1.  This is not a good enough reason to warrant adminship.
'''Oppose''' I am afraid that answer to Q.1 blows it for me too. Admins are chosen in order to maintain the integrity of the project, not for their own convenience. It is not intended that fully protected pages should be edited except in the most unusual circumstance, and usually by consensus.--
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q.1 scares me a bit. Having not been in any major disputes, we cannot see how'd you handle them. Oppose for now, try again in a few months after you get a bit more experience.
'''Oppose''' Does not seem to understand admin tools, per Q1. <small>
'''Neutral''' leaning towards Oppose. The answer to Q1 is very weak, not demonstrating the need for sysop tools.
Answer to Q1 doesn't exactly inspire any confidence in the candidate. '''Neutral''' for now, leaning oppose. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' Answer to Q1 is not very good, you also say about helping revert vandalism which can be done without sysop tools,  I was thinking about supporting but because of the Q1 answer it puts me off slightly. Good luck! <b>
'''Neutral''' While I do not think you would ever abuse the admin tools, I am not convinced you will really need them either. --
'''Neutral''' why doesn't the [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sig]] include the username?
'''Neutral''' The idea of a fair-weather admin doesn't really appeal to me.  Are you really only prepared to assist with admin backlogs when you have nothing better to do?
'''Neutral'''. I'm a little nervous about your answer to question 1. Sorry. --
'''Neutral''' you probably should better familiarize yourself with the role of administrator.--
'''Neutral''' I tend to oppose as per your answer to Q1. I've been an admin for more than a year and i only edited protected articles twice; to be exact. I am voting neutral because of your dedication to wikipedia. -- ''
'''Oppose'''. You don't need to be an admin to cleanup articles. --
'''Oppose''' While I don't believe in editcountitis, 442 total edits confirms the lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works currently demonstrated at DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_January_24&diff=102928079&oldid=102927152 diff].
'''Oppose''', suggest withdawal, yadayadayada. Not enough overall experience but you look like you're on the right track. Try again in 3-4 months, and start participating in XfD.--
'''Oppose''' Demonstrated lack of understanding of Wikipedia goals and guidelines in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo]]. Valuable editor and potentially good candidate in time, but for now, the the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Afd debate shows inability/unwillingness to compromise and see opposing view.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think you need the tools, or understand fully what being an administrator is; "it is a level of authority and responsibility" is looking at it the wrong way.
Moral support. You are clearly not ready yet, and it may be a good idea to withdraw for now. However, keep editing and ideally let someone nominate you in a few months. Good luck. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Oppose''' Nothing that I can see to base trust off of with this user, only edits are to Internet Explorer related articles(handful), and Marconi(twice), Recommend withdrawing and coming back with some more mainspace editing under your belt. -
'''Oppose''' - When a user only has about a dozen real edits (not edits to his own user page or to [[WP:SANDBOX]]), the forst of which was 2 months ago, he isn't yet ready for adminship.
'''No''' - but there is potential here. -- <strong>
Inexperience, suggest withdrawing at this stage. '''
'''Oppose''' weak answers and inexperience. Try to participate on [[WP:XFD]], use the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] every time, install [[Mozilla Firefox]] with [[WP:TW]] to do a better RC patrolling. More than half of edits to your user page and not to other areas is also a problem that you should resolve. Good luck.
'''Oppose''' No, per above.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience.
'''Oppose''' Has not even answered question 2. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and do not feel discouraged because of this. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' No, no, no.  Frankly, I'd need to see an awful lot more to even consider.
'''Oppose''', and recommend closure per [[WP:SNOW]], by someone with the power to do so. Barely over 100 edits--the majority of them to userspace--does not qualify one for adminship.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral''' Recommend withdrawing due to lack of experience, You can still work on reverting vandalism contributing to the encyclopedia in the mean time, see: [[WP:WEL]] & [[WP:VAN]] on what steps to take. ▪◦▪
You need more time here. If you improve I will definatly support you in the future:) Happy editing!--
'''Strong support''' Thought you were one already, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite|Majorly does great noms!]] :-)
'''Support''' I see no reason to not. Good luck with the kidneys.
'''Strong support'''  Excellent vandal fighter and doesn't let trolls get to him. <font face="monospace">
'''Fourth support'''. Dammit I'm late! ;) '''
'''Support''' Why haven't you been nominated before?
I would've bet money on you already being one.
'''Support''' - yah, totally. Seen you lots of times on [[WP:AIV]] -
'''Support''' Impressive user. When Majorly nominates someone, you know they are good. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' This user will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Good user who will make a good admin. '''
'''Support'''. Ditto with Captain Panda. '''''
'''Support''' I've seen JuJube at AFD, and his credentials as given here are superlative.  I wish him the best of health.
Well, you've been here more 1 and 1/2 years, over 10000 mainspace edits.  Good luck.
'''Support'''. This RFA is way over due! -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good. ---
'''Support'''. Definitely can use the tools.
'''Support'''. A great editor, and won't abuse the tools. ···
'''Support'''. -- <b>
'''Support''', has always come across as a good bloke on the very many occasions I've seen him around.
'''Support''' would make good admin.--
'''Support''' good candidate. -
'''Support''', seen JuJube around, plenty of activity, not noticed any problems, No Big Deal. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''27''' -- ''

'''Suport''' Seems reliable and is active enough.
'''Support''' more than enough experience.--
'''Support''' -
I'm
No red flags, trustworthy nominator. So yes, I '''approve''' the message of Mailer Diablo!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Demonstrates a clear use for the tools with good [[WP:AIV]] contributions. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Strong Support:''' Very civil, one of the few editors who sounds like they'll actually use the tools, but enough with my rambling, Support! &nbsp;<b>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Steptrip_2|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">''~''</font>]]<font face="Vivaldi" size="3">
'''Strong support'''. This user just (a few minutes ago) helped me track down a serial hoaxster and their sockpuppet, both of which I blocked indefinitely. Great work. Also, one of the best when it comes to reverting stupidity, and correcting misguided n00bs.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per everyone else.
'''Weak Support''' per several of the above, the edit summaries turn it to "weak".
'''Support''' - dedicated, polite, and reverts stupidity ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' Though I agree with Xiner that the edit summary in question is not exactly the best or most productive choice, I see this as a minor point in an overall great record.
'''Support'''. --May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. You have had some issues with incivility in the past, but we are all human, and I do think you want to improve. I took Xiner's comments to heart and that's why I support with the hope that you do improve, but Jreferee seems like he just has an axe to grind with the 50+ examples.
'''Support''' while I personally prefer the blunt approach when someone is dealing with me, you might want to work on curbing it when dealing with the community as a whole. It may cause more trouble than it solves. [[User:Anynobody|Anynobody]]
'''Support,''' because I just don't mind blunt edit summaries that much. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'' Whilst civility is nice and all that, stupidity is still stupidity.--
'''Strong Oppose''' per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hilary_Duff&curid=9287211&diff=118915971&oldid=118915549 edit summary] ''and the diffs by Jreferee''.
'''Oppose''' An admin should know what is uncivil and not have to wait until somebody objects. <small>
'''Oppose''' - Edit summaries are particularly susceptible to [[Wikipedia:Civility]] issues because they do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation leading to small facetious comments being misinterpreted. On one hand you are a diligent vandal fighter but on the other these edit summaries seem to work against that goal. '''March 30 2007''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hilary_Duff&diff=prev&oldid=118915971|revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography_of_Somalia&diff=prev&oldid=118915034 revert stupidity] • . '''March 29 2007''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=118912496 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisconsin&diff=prev&oldid=118909875 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masashi_Kishimoto&diff=prev&oldid=118889407 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_%28Street_Fighter%29&diff=prev&oldid=118658913 huh?] • . '''March 28 2007''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LAN_gaming_center&diff=prev&oldid=118452685 vain vanity in vain] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Internet_phenomena&diff=prev&oldid=118440283 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Fresh_Prince_of_Bel-Air_characters&diff=prev&oldid=118417298 rm inane first line cruft] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Fresh_Prince_of_Bel-Air_characters&diff=prev&oldid=118417100 lovely spam wonderful spam] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=prev&oldid=118411805 what the feng shui?!] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_Yu-Gi-Oh%21_cards&diff=prev&oldid=118399929 what?] • . '''March 27 2007''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.190.83.48&diff=prev&oldid=118389158 um yea.] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEB&diff=prev&oldid=118380908 vain vanity in vain] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=118377833 aren't you clever] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlander&diff=prev&oldid=118365378 revert stupidity by someone who needs a new hobby] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhalsim&diff=prev&oldid=118364713 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tubesmerit&diff=prev&oldid=118216297 ugh.] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanford_Band&diff=prev&oldid=118215106 i could have OCD who knows. revert edit by banned user] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiredshown&diff=prev&oldid=118215034 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tiredshown&diff=prev&oldid=118214584 boo hoo] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Zatch_Bell%21_minor_characters&diff=prev&oldid=118214365 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JuJube&diff=prev&oldid=118213504 whee. go read the definition of "banned".] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlander&diff=prev&oldid=118213208 banned users can't edit do something else with your life] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070327082545&limit=100&target=JuJube revert banned users can't edit. do something else with your life] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Armytaste&diff=prev&oldid=118213145 You're the vandal] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoursenter&diff=prev&oldid=118165446 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Mamodo&diff=prev&oldid=118162882 nope] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy_Berry&diff=prev&oldid=118144429 stop whining] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joy_Berry&diff=prev&oldid=118144361 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanchom%C3%A9_and_Parco_Folgore&diff=prev&oldid=118143951 so?] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070327082545&limit=100&target=JuJube so?] • . '''March 26 2007''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Mamodo&diff=prev&oldid=117931601 spaces between parentheses is ugly.] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Fighter_III&diff=prev&oldid=117873145 revert stupidity] • . '''March 25 2007''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snookumsthacat&diff=prev&oldid=117867213 stop creating junk articles] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryo_Bakura&diff=prev&oldid=117832367 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minako_Aino&diff=prev&oldid=117725665 huh?] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salt_Lake_City%2C_Utah&diff=prev&oldid=117712143 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Sudoku&diff=prev&oldid=117707995 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yu-Gi-Oh%21_GX_minor_characters&diff=prev&oldid=117677135 yea...so?] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Reserve_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=117636642 no you're not.] • . '''March 24 2007''': [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montreal_Canadiens&diff=prev&oldid=117601122 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_21&diff=prev&oldid=117597724 no one cares] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Crocodile_Cook&diff=prev&oldid=117507023 revert might have something to it but needs to be written in something like English] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070324231038&limit=100&target=JuJube jumping the gun are we?] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Salvador&diff=prev&oldid=117411491 revert stupidity] • . '''March 23 2007:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_game&diff=prev&oldid=117322934 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newt_Gingrich&diff=prev&oldid=117179988 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaara&diff=prev&oldid=117176964 garra is so reverted] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaara&diff=prev&oldid=117176103 revert stupidity] • [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=117174398 dumb.] What concerns me is that you have been potentially inciting other to continued vandalism and/or confrontation just before and during your RfA. These edit summaries appear a way of taking stress out on those most likely to continue vandalizing or otherwise making bad posts on Wikipedia. What also concerns me is that in this RfA you dismiss your 00:06 30 March 2007 post as "an old habit. I did it one time"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJuJube&diff=118920806&oldid=118919486] when it was made only 25 minutes before you dismissed it as something that you no longer do. On '''March 21 2007''' you counter Helpthisisnotright's posted view on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by blanking it with an antagonistic [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=116685001 boo hoo!] On that same day you counter another person's view post on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board by blanking it with a dismissive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=116680186 did you have something important to say? didn't think so.] There were more civil ways to handle such situations. There is a lot of support for the RfA, but I do not believe that JuJube is ready. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per Jreferee.↔
'''Oppose'''.  I have seen your contributions on various pages before and had drawn the impression that you are a good editor.  My review of your contributions history only strengthens my impression.  I had come to this RFA expecting to support you, but the fact that "stupidity" (and one instance of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orochimaru_%28Naruto%29&diff=prev&oldid=113671380 "idiocy"]) seems to be the second most common word in your edit summaries (after "revert") makes me ambivalent.  My decision to oppose is based on two particular edit summaries (see below), in combination with the tendency to overuse "stupidity" (I checked some of the diffs: in most cases it was blatant vandalism, but in some cases it could have been an unintentional mistake and/or test).  The two edit summaries in question are one where you call editors who change a 4-letter acronym [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twelve_%28Street_Fighter%29&diff=prev&oldid=114948349 "idiots"] and another where you write [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_21&diff=prev&oldid=117597724 "no one cares"] about a living person.  I could overlook the "stupidity" thing as it's done without any malice, but the two diffs I've provided are more serious and unnecessarily uncivil.  I hope you don't take my "oppose" personally; it's just that I would be more comfortable supporting your candidacy after, say, a month or two of more appropriate edit summaries.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' - edit summaries are attrocious.  The candidates statement that if this RfA fails that it will cause a change in tone is an extremely distrurbing statement.  They should not need a failed RfA to remind them they need to be civil.  If JuJube feels it is needed perhaps it will happen.
'''Oppose''' - per [[WP:CIVIL]] concerns. --''
'''Oppose''' - per Jreferee and Black Falcon.
'''Strong oppose''' per Jreferee.
'''Oppose'''. When I first saw the edit summary based opposes I had assumed a minor problem from the past. Not a regular use of edit summaries to disparage other editors which has continued up to the date of this RfA. Such an attitude is unbecoming of an admin who, to quote ArbCom "are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks." Given that these edit summaries must have stood out on the most cursory of inspections of JuJube's contribs, I am very surprised that Majorly chose to nominate him. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''  I've known JuJube/Danny Lilithborne for a year or so now and I've personally been fine with interaction, so this a regretful oppose but is based on much of what BlueFalcon linked to above.  My personal interactions with the user cause me to issue a rare oppose.  IMO, the user pays too much attention to the more public face of Wikipedia, but as a result is often brash and unyielding.  Ordinarily that's not so much of an issue, but I recognized JuJube to be Danny Lilithborne after the rename based on the editing pattern alone in RC patrol and that bothers the hell out of me.  I have been and will continue to be more than willing to help the user, but I cannot support someone that I think will cause disruption in a manner that is not inadvertant.
'''Oppose'''. I do not agree with the user's overall conduct and manner of behaving, I do not think it is that of an admin. Otherwise, a fair user that should keep contributing to the project. --
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe.--
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. --
Change from support. I hate to do this, but the diffs provided by Jreferee are disqualifying, in my opinion. Sorry. —
'''Neutral''' A little concerned that JuJube did not warn the author of [[Haldibug]], probably a minor oversight due to working on other possible hoaxes.--
'''Neutral''' Is experience "mainly on Yu-Gi-Oh/Animé pages" enough to be a well-rounded admin?--
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) &mdash; civil edit summaries are huge to me, because civil, succinct edit summaries are key to professional behavior. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. Personaly, I'v had very good experiences with this user, and to me he's been a good user. Something kept be from nomming him myself though, which Jreferee sums up better than I could. Taking the WP:CIVIL concerns out he'd be a good admin, hence my not-oppose. But I can't support anyone with those kind of diffs.--
'''Neutral''' changed from support. The edit summaries are concerning, but I've seen many good contributions from JuJube. [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] took the words right out of my mouth. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Neutral''' I am concerned with the issues that have been raised during this RfA. I still believe that JuJube brings a great deal to the project and will make a good admin, but I don't think now is the time. The edit summary civility problems are too recent, and I'm not happy to see this is an issue that had been brought to JuJube's attention in the past without a change in behavior. If I see 2-3 months of appropriate edit summary use I'm going to be back strongly supporting this candidate.
'''Neutral''' Civility concerns are too recent and too troubling. In about 3 months, I would definitely strongly support JuJube (who is, in all other ways, an excellent candidate). &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Oppose''' - User is not experienced enough. Come back at a later time, man. I'd also like to ask for [[WP:SNOW]] closing.<sup>
'''Strong oppose'''. Although the user did not sign the nomination statement, I will assume this is open for comment since it is on the main space. The user does not need RFA tools to revert vandalism; anyone can revert vandalism! --♬♩
'''Support'''. A solid contributor who won't misuse the sysop bit.
'''Strong Support'''. In the time I've known you, you've been nothing but helpful and friendly. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I must oppose. The vast majority of your edits were made last month, and most of them consisted of welcoming users/tagging talk pages with templates. That really does not convince me that you are currently experienced enough to be entrusted with the tools. By the way, could you please provide a link to your disagreement with Jimbo Wales? --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong Oppose''' per the views of the candidate revealed in the debate with [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]. At best it is a complete misunderstanding of [[WP:LIVING]], at worst an attempt to disregard the policy entirely. The addition of tags to controversial comments about living people can never be a substitute for reliable references. If these cannot be found, controversial comments have no place on such pages. The problem is not merely a legal one but a moral one- reputations can be fragile things and the info contained on Wikipedia is widely and rapidly disseminated. An editor who does not accept such an essential policy to the creation of an encyclopedia is in my view an unsuitable candidate for adminship.
'''Strong oppose''' for a number of reasons. Conversation with Jimbo reveals total lack of understanding of [[WP:LIVING]], and lack of appreciation for the motivation behind the policy. This user has apparently been talking to a lot of other newish users about his readiness for adminship (see his talk page), and all the conversations are bloated with editcountitis. See especially [[User_talk:Bibliomaniac15#Wikipedia:Editor_review.2FJust_H|this thread]] where he sets specific edit-count goals for an individual day. No substantive article contributions, and the bulk of his edits are in user talk space, pasting welcome templates - which he seems to have latched onto as a high-yield, low-effort way of boosting his edit count. Sorry, there's a lot more experience and acculturation needed here.
The conversation with Jimbo is really troublesome. And the fact that you claim to participate in RC patrol, but specify that you never revert nor warn vandals, tips me over to a <s>'''strong oppose'''</s> '''Stronger oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony.bradbury&diff=prev&oldid=98034597 This] most certainly does not help. -
'''Oppose'''. Over half your edits are user talk... if it's mostly welcoming, then that's certainly nice, but you're not convincing me of adminship at all. --
'''Oppose'''. Before today, I was only able to find one instance of warning vandals in the past, which is important so that other users know what's happened in the past on those accounts/IPs. See your talk page for a couple of suggestions in that vein. Also, your participation in AFDs in the past hasn't had any citation of policy or guidelines ([[WP:V]], [[WP:NOT]], etc), which are important as they give strong justifications to your decisions. I'm with you in spirit, Just H, I just think a little more time and exposure to policy would be good. --
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict twice) I'm sorry, I seem well meaning, but I would suggest withdraw.  You need use a good bit more experience and more consistent editing over several months.  Your conversation with Jimbo indications a lack of policy experience, particularly [[WP:BLP]], thus indicating you need much more time and experience to understand the norms of Wikipedian community.--
'''Oppose''' per reasons stated above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''' for now, reluctantly.  You're definitely on the fast track. :)  Most of your edits have been very recently, and a good portion are from welcoming users (not a knock, just saying that I don't really consider those as something indicative of admin potential).  Looks like lots of activity on AfD and moderate activity on VP, which is great.  Not a lot of activity in the Wikipedia talk namespace yet.  I ran across you recently with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=97388411 this post] on AN/I and I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:CIVIL (at least in that instance; just one time, nothing big).  Also in the minor conflict over [[Marc Lemire]], I wasn't entirely sure what your position was, but I don't think it was in line with [[WP:BLP]]; calling someone reactionary because they removed unsourced negative information from an article on a living person isn't a good position to take in my view (no matter WHO the editor is, the fact that it was Jimbo was irrelevant; in fact, I think every admin needs to have at least one fight with JW, it builds character :)).  Basically, I think this is a ''touch'' too soon.  Keep contributing like you are now, keep studying and applying and discussing policy and I think you'll be a shoe-in in no time.  —
'''Support''' Your contributions are useful and considered.--
'''Oppose''' You have been around for over a year, but you have a relatively low number of contributions (517 in total) including 9 to the Wikipedia namespace. I recommend that you acquire more experience in administrative areas, like reporting repeat vandals to [[WP:AIV]], participating in [[WP:XFD]] discussions, and tagging pages for deletion on [[WP:NPP|new pages patrol]]. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Edit-conflict Oppose''' With only 9 edits in the project space and about 500 edits in total, I am not compelled to support. Questions are not convincing and you don't have the needed experience to use the mop. Try in 6 months with a higher edit count and more participation in the project space (XfDs, AIV, RfA, FAC, etc.). -
'''Oppose''' Candidate sohws no need for the tools, only approximately 500 edits and no participation of [[WP:XFD]] debates, Come back in a few months (I suggest five) with much more edits in varied areas of Wikipedia and you'll probably pass.<b><font color="0066FF">
'''Oppose''' No understanding of how to use the tools for deletion, blocking, etc.
'''Oppose''' Extremely low edit count. I suggest waiting until you have at least 2500 edits; and of those 2500 edits, countributions to different sections of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. I admire your enthuisiasm, but you need a little more experience. ''
'''Oppose'''. While I believe you may be a good admin in the future, I do not think you have the necessary experience in general to have a good understanding of how everything works here. I suggest waiting several months and getting a lot more experience under your belt before trying again. Please don't let this be discouraging, but rather let it light a fire under you to buckle down and get the experience necessary for the added responsibilities. ···
'''Oppose'''. You mean well, but you would need to be more active to become an administrator. It's not a big deal, but it is quite a bit of work.--
'''Oppose and Motion to Close'''-Sorry but your not active enough and only have 500 edits. Also, to whoever wrote the HTML comment below, it doesn't need to be a crat who closes it. Any one can close it if [[WP:SNOW|it doesn't have a chance]]. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Neutral'''. Weak answers that don't give the impression you know what admin tools are for, and you're a little short on experience. Leebo has good advice above if you want to go down the adminship path.
'''Neutral''' I'm not very impressed by your nomination statement or answers.  You have been here a while, but not very active.  Your answers don't convey a sense that you know what to use administrative privileges for.  Keep up the good editing thought.  --'''
'''Support''' (weakish) — Edit summary usage isn't very good... I don't believe this person would abuse the tools, though. Article edits looks OK.
'''Support''' - [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|as per Jimbo Wales]] and also I don't think anything is wrong with his answers :)...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I was honestly thinking of nominating you yesterday... good experience, answers to questions fine, here to write an encylopedia - definitely good stuff. '''
'''Support'''- I think he has enough experience for me to trust him with the tools. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen Karrmann around a few times; seems fine.
'''Support''', the opposes so far don't worry me <s>at all</s>. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''', as it appears he'd make a good admin. ~
'''Support'''. With all due respect, many of the opposes are groundless. Anyone who's ever seen [[CAT:CSD]] on a bad day is not going to nitpick about edit summary usage. And I can't see anything wrong with placing an indef-block notice on a page for a user who was indef-blocked - indeed, Karrmann should be thanked for doing something that the blocking admin should have remembered to do themselves.
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse the tools, at least so far, which is all what matters, really. —
'''Support'''  -good 'pedia builder and someone who shows some pragmatism.cheers,
'''Support''' I am confident that he will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seeing that it may be difficult that your RfA passes this time, if that's meant to happen, please don't be discouraged; I know for a fact that you're a hard working and dedicated editor, and the experience you'll gain from this will surely serve you well. Remember: your excellent work is much appreciated, and next time, you'll make it for sure. Love,
'''Support''' Your text convinces me to support you.--
'''Support''' per Cometstyles and Phaedriel. &mdash;
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Great candidate, one of those people you think is an admin. We need more admins that are willing to take the extra minute to help the newbies. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:DeLarge|DeLarge]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABull-Doser&diff=114293041&oldid=114069156 diff] was almost four months ago. Just because you are learning about that post for the first time now does not mean that it represents who Karrmann is today. If you look at Karrmann's contributions since early March 2007, it's obvious that he recognized his problem on his own and addressed it. He has handled himself well in this RfA, which is a tough thing to do given how personal it is. I do not think it reasonable to make Karrmann wait until the end of September 2007 for adminship because of something he did in March 2007. Karrmann can be trusted with the mop and is ready now to be an admin. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' </s>I'm really sorry as I rarely oppose. However 1) Answer to Q1 is inceridbly weak and undefined. 2) ''Admin powers'' per your response is about the worst possible way of viewing adminship - no big deal and all that. 3) Nothing in Q2 or Q3 indicates that you have any understanding of admin tools.  4) Your edit summary use is very poor. Really sorry, but please continue your great work in editing this project, and my best wishes.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Seeing that you tried to indef block a user (for what reason I don't know) I am now '''Strongly Opposed''' to your candidacy. '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
I don't feel as though Karrmann is well-suited for admin buttons at this time.  I believe he lacks the necessary judicious nature and levelheadedness to effectively deal with ''keeping Wikipedia's integrity safe from vandals and other nonsense'', to quote the candidate himself (see his answer to the first question for more context).  He often jumps the gun a bit when reverting and warning other users.  For example, [[User_talk:Gaillimh/Archive_3#actually|this conversation]] illustrates my point.  This is actually my only direct encounter with the candidate; I'm not sure if this is entirely relevant, but it might be worth noting.  You'll see in this conversation that he maintains that he reverts a user manually, although his edit summary clearly shows that he is using an automated tool called "TW" (Twinkle).  He admits being "protective" of a user, and this apparently clouded the fellow's judgment.  However, he did not remove the inappropriate warnings he left for the user following our discussion, which leads me to believe that he doesn't care that much about rectifying his errors or antagonising newcomers to the project.  In addition, [[User_talk:Cyde/Archive017#User_talk:_Phaedriel|this discussion]] further shows his propensity for misinterpretation and biting others.  It seems that he and his conversation partner were able to amicably resolve things, which is quite nice, however, his first two posts are highly inappropriate and a bit ridiculous.  While he appears to be a nice enough fellow and a good article writer (specifically in the field of autos), he lacks the fundamental social graces and common sense one would want someone using the block function to have.  Referring to administrators as having powers is also concerning, as first mentioned by Pedro; this sort of rhetoric can create a divisive nature among the community and is a mindset that  completely goes against what Wikipedia is and is supposed to be. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Karrmann is a good editor, but I'm not sure he's ready yet to be an admin. He is prone to overreacting to certain situations, has a tendancy to over-value his own contributions (example: the [[Ford Taurus]] article is not necessarily the example which all other auto articles are prepared against), and has a temper. I'd like to see him mature a bit before he becomes an admin, but I definitely would like to see faster action against vandals and sock puppets.
'''Oppose''' somewhat reluctantly, as this is certainly a good user and an asset to the project.  I wouldn't oppose on any one of the following concerns alone, but the poor edit summary usage, the rampant typos, the concerns identified above, concerns about civility and an apparent misunderstanding of who has checkuser rights (sysops do not) seem to suggest to me that in sum perhaps this user just needs more experience/maturity.  There's really no excuse with edit summaries, as it's an option in your preferences and I tend to think it's a little bit inconsiderate to other editors not to explain your edits.  By itself I'd be willing to overlook, but combined with everything else I'm opposing for now. --
'''Weak oppose''' After some recent encounters, I am unsure that this user will react appropriately to the more intricate varieties of trolling that admins can be subjected to.
'''Strong oppose'''; nowhere ''near'' level-headed enough. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABull-Doser&diff=114293041&oldid=114069156 This tirade of abuse] ''("You did it again, on Honda Civic. DID A SINGLE FUCKING WORD I SAY PENETRATE THAT THICK FUCKING SKULL? JUST STOP EDING ARTICLES PICTURES AS YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW A GOOD ONE FROM A BAD ONE! Karrmann 12:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC))'' on [[User:Bull-Doser]]'s talk page may now have been three months ago, but Karrmann already had a year or more of heavy editing under his belt, and indicated that he's learned nothing about how to control himself after the conflicts of 2006 to which he's already referred. He subsequently apologised, but only after I left a note on his own talk page warning him that I was ready to go straight to RfC if he didn't. I've seen plenty more instances of hot-headedness, and a casual unfamiliarity with the general rules/policies/guidelines which are supposed to govern our contributions, but the above edit was the easiest one to dig out a diff for. ''--
'''Oppose''' per DeLarge. Civility is of the utmost importance in administrators, and behavior like that, even if just 1 or 2 times a few months ago, is unacceptable. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''<font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font>'''<font color="silver">
'''Oppose''' changed from Support - I was unconvinced by the previous Oppose comments, and was satisfied by the contributions I reviewed, but [[User:DeLarge|DeLarge]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABull-Doser&diff=114293041&oldid=114069156 diff] is not something I cannot brush off. Such a response is not acceptable, no matter how frustrated you may feel.
'''Oppose''' Per the diff shown by DeLarge; as said above, civility is very important, especially for admins, who usually deal with vandals and users assuming bad faith but must keep civil even if these others aren´t civil at all. Sorry. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Per Defarge diff and other oppose concerns. I cannot be certain that Karrmann will be civil at the times when it is important.
'''Oppose''' also per DeLarge's diff. Being able to express your feelings without flying off the handle is important to me.
'''Oppose''' per DeLarge.  There are serious concerns with temperament here; candidate needs a three or more calm months of steady editing before I could support.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' - may go ''sideways'' with mop. -
'''Oppose''' Knowingly that you're breaking 3RR yet you still go for it made me worried. And how he answers Q5 tells me he's still not familiar with WIkipedia.
'''Oppose''' per the diff pointed out by [[User:DeLarge|DeLarge]].  Presumably, the candidate was sober while making those edits, although at least he didn't say, "I WILL ROK YOUR SHIT!"  --
'''Oppose''' as per above. '''
'''Oppose, changed from neutral.''' I found another [[User talk:Bull-Doser/Archive 1#STOP THE POOR PICS|raunchy statment]] this user has made. I gotta say I don't think you have the right stuff, unfortianatley. Maybe I'd vote for you if you ran again some time but right now, I cant. <font color="Green">'''''Cheers, [[User: JetLover|Je]][[User talk: JetLover|tL]]
'''Weak oppose''' I'm of the opinion that anyone who has demonstrated experience and maturity is a good candidate for admin, but I've seen a number of times when you lost your cool, which is unfortunate. I believe in second chances, but I don't like to see this kind of language on Wikipedia, especially more than once. My ideal candidate has had someone provoke him, and responded diplomatically. I think diplomacy is important in online communities.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but it looks to me like the candidate has a temper that spills over into his interactions with other editors. Having a temper is fine - I have one myself - but in my view an admin needs to be able to step back, and come up with a more constructive way of dealing with other editors, even if this means waiting a while before editing.
I remain '''Neutral''' <s>Pending answer to Q'''3a''' Q'''3b'''- [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]] 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)</s> Though Karrmann's answers to my questions are satisfactory, incivility is a major concern for me and not justifiable under any circumstance. This combined with Gaillimh's comments prevent me from supporting. I think Karrmann could do with a bit more seasoning. -
'''Neutral''', for the same reasons as TwoOars. I respect that the candidate has been honest and critical of his incivilities, but they're too recent for me to support now, and I choose to remain neutral as I haven't had any personal interactions with this user and must therefore restrict myself from making too many judgments. That said, some diffs provided in the questions have led me to believe he may not have the right temperament for an admin. A bit more time, with a lot more cool-headedness employed when approaching conflict, will help show that Karrmann can handle heat without reverting to insults, or jumping the gun like with the Cyde issue pointed out by Gaillimh. I hope he continues making excellent contributions to articles, however, and that if this RfA doesn't pass he won't be discouraged. Just for clarification, the issues brought up by Pedro and Black Harry don't concern me in the slightest. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' I am wary of support in this case, since I am not too certain of your knowledge of the project as a whole, but I am not going to oppose since I believe you are growing into a wonderful editor, and will be able to be a good admin...someday.
'''Neutral''' I'm not too sure per the oppose votes and everything stated above. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' - I had intended to vote oppose, actually, for several reasons but Pedro's comments and diffs actually paint this editor in a good light. Frankly, I totally approve of non-admins posting block messages on blocked users' pages as these people need to know what happened and what recourse they have and (and this really bugs me), '''too many admins are blocking editors without informing them of the event!''' Unless they're very blatant socks or something, that kind of thing is very wrong to me. So kudos to Karmann for picking up the slack there -
'''Neutral''' - It appears to me that the user has the wrong concept of adminship. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
[[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral'''. Karrmann, it's not that I don't see a problem with you becoming an administrator, its just that some of the opposer's point's have drawn me to a unknown and neutral decision and I just don't know whether you know what exactly administrator's can and can't do. I may even withdraw this vote for support later on in the RfA if I believe you have developed a better approach. Good luck with the RfA.
'''Neutral'''. Good candidate, but oh my... he used the word "powers" to refer to admin... er... well, powers. Obviously that's no good. Though ... well, what exactly ''should'' we call them, then? "Administrator rights" is no good, since it's not a "right", "administrator privileges" is no good, since it's not a "privilege", "administrator status" is no good, since it's not a "status"... See where this obsessing over words gets us? Now we can't even describe a technical feature properly for fear of violating this bizarre form of political correctness that is being foisted upon us –
'''Neutral''' I don't have a  problem with trusted and experienced non-admins helping out with admin related tasks that don't actually require the tools, such as placing block notices when an admin has forgotten to do so, answering block related questions which have obvious answers etc. It's not like the tools come with a special secret admin handbook and decoder that only admins have access to and are therefore the only ones qualified to answer questions and such. We all have access to the policy and guideline pages. However, the civility and temper issues prevent me from supporting. '''
<s>              I support Kermanshahi,
<s>              I support Kermanshahi, he shure is a good user,
<s>              I think Kermanshahi is very capable of being a administrator,
'''Oppose''' - Only 236 edits.  Make some more edits, get some experience and come back in several months.
'''Oppose''' Bad answers to questions, low edit count, but those three supports in rapid-fire succession way before the RfA came here is odd. Plus, well...nah, I won't pile on. You got a fair use image on your userpage though, that's a violation.--
'''Edit conflict Oppose''' Weak answers to questions with regard to expressing why the administrative tools are needed, and a lack of experience related to administrative duties. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Oppose''' Low edit count and weak answers to questions. -
Socks, game over. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per your comments under support. <sup>
'''Strongest oppose''' anyone who declares that people are trying to cheat them out of adminship by striking sockpuppet votes. If you want adminship ever, you're really going to have to start over now. -
'''Oppose''' 3 weeks editing? -- ''
'''Support''' This RFA is obviously going to fail, at least this user would ''want'' to help out with the admin backlogs. ~
'''Oppose''' - malformed nomination.  If you want a new RFA, you should make a new page, not recycle the old one. --
'''Strong Oppose''' It is only one month since you submitted this exact same RfA. Recycling the page, as you have done, is not correct procedure. Furthermore, even had your application been in correct form, you have only just over 1000 edits, with minimal involvement in [[WP:NAME]], and this is wholly insufficient. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this application, unless an admin closes it early, and consider re-applying, with a fresh application, when you have another 6 months experience and another 3000 edits, distributed across all parts of the project.--

'''Oppose''' lack of broad experience across WP.
'''Oppose''' Poorly-formed RfA; no substantial answers to questions - diffs as evidence; no real requirement for adminship for this user at this time.  I suggest more experience in the article space and policy spaces before reapplying in six months or so.
'''Oppose''' poor nomination. Another [[WP:SNOW]] case. -
'''Oppose''' A total of approximately 300 mainspace edits and 63% edit summary use for major edits and 83% for minor edits, one third of these edits being to [[King George V School]], it would be good if your edits were a little more varied and spread out, it also seems you do not need the tools, I'd suggest getting your edits up to at least 2,000 or possibly higher before re-nominating yourself, the standard questions in which you answered are very weak, remember [[WP:SNOW]] and try to remember [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|what adminship is not]]. Regards -
'''Oppose''' per above comments. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Neutral''', although I should oppose but I will avoid a pile-on here. Needs more experience, and not satisfied with the answers to the questions.
'''Oppose''' Too new, 2 malformed requests, as well as the issue at the SE Wikipedia. <span>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I don't feel you have enough experience in order the grasp the concepts that admins need to be proficient. I would recommend that you also go into your preferences and click on editing, and check the box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Admins (or all editors for the matter) are highly recommended to include edit summaries so one may easily see why they made their action(s).
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you are not ready. Your answer to question 1 suggests you do not understand adminship. Please read [[WP:ADMIN]] to better understand what admins do. Also, it usually requires thousands of edits to understand policy well enough for the community to trust one with adminship. This means lots of article building edits and many RfA participants prefer experience at XfD, reporting vandalism at [[WP:AIV]], and experience tagging aricles for [[WP:CSD]]. Commuincation is very important, so please set your prefrences to require  completing  an edit summary before your edits save. Thanks, and happy editing. (Dlohcierekim at work)
'''Oppose''' You don't really seem to have a need for the tools (question 1). --
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Way too new and too little experience. --
'''Oppose''' Per all above. --'''
'''Oppose''' per above. Get experience and I will support you after March 2008.
'''Moral Support''' - get involved with [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:TFD]], and [[WP:XFD]] discussions. Join a [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject|Wikiproject]], and try again in three to six months. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' sorry, per very poor answers to questions
'''Oppose''' Does not appear to be taking this seriously.
'''Oppose'''- per [[User:Hiberniantears|Hiberniantears]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above comments.
'''Oppose''' weak, unconvincing nom and answers. Suggest withdrawal. —
Until I see some more compelling answers, I can't get behind this RfA. You are admittedly bad at "this kind of stuff", but that's not a particularly good excuse; nobody is forcing you to submit this RfA, or to do so within a set amount of time; you could give your answers months worth of time to think about your responses, and nobody would be the wiser. Even a demonstration of ''why'' you need the tools would be sufficient. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|18px]] '''Oppose''' the way the questions were answered makes it look as if you don't give half a damn about this...
'''Neutral''' To avoid pile-on...but still opposing due to overall lack of good answers and overall sense of adminship responsibilities.
'''Neutral''' also to avoid the bloodshed but this RfA will not pass.  Strongly suggest to the candidate they withdraw and consider reapplying ''after'' they have had time to familiarize themselves with the role of an administrator and our policies, and see if they are even still interested in adminship at that point.
'''Support''' because this won't succeed. Get active with community, continue to edit, and perhaps have a look at some of the policies. Getting your feet wet with some Wikipedia stuff (like [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]]) wouldn't hurt either. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - 79 Edits is too low to apply and the account was created just yesterday..Maybe if you applied in another 6 months or so..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
You're far too new for me to gauge any sort of opinion on whether you understand policy, what sort of temperament you have, etc., and you would probably be far too likely to make mistakes in using admin tools through inexperience. Come back some time in the future, after you have made a lot more edits (Cometstyles' suggestion of 6 months may be a good one), and I'll be able to get a better idea of whether you'd make a good admin then. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 17:20, 23 May 2007 (
'''Oppose''', sorry but you aren't ready yet. As Ais523 points out, we don't have enough evidence to show that you understand and can calmly apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Its fairly obvious from your answers to the questions that you don't yet know what an administrator does here. I suggest you withdraw your RfA for now, continue to contribute to the encyclopedia and then try an [[WP:ER|editor review]] in a few months. Thanks, though, for volunteering to help, we apreciate your contribution to Wikipedia whether as an editor or as an admin.
'''Oppose''' At first your RfA read "Knobbie2010", and I thought this was some kind of joke. Sorry, but I really don't think you have the required experience. You'll need a longer time around and much higher activity. For now, please withdraw this RfA. —
'''Oppose''' You should read about [[WP:ADMIN|what admininstrators do]] before deciding if you would like to become one. Once you can decide, you should take action in areas where you can make a difference, like [[WP:XFD|participating in deletion discussions]] and [[WP:AIV|reporting persistant vandals]]. One a side note, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKnobbie10&diff=132969876&oldid=132969421 canvassing] for people to support your nomination for adminship is discouraged.
'''Oppose''' No usage of [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]], account only created yesterday and 79 edits - this is way too low for an admin candidate. I think if you get some [[WP:XFD|XFD]] work and get involved in places like [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and get some quality contribs, you'll pass in the future but for the minute I suggest withdrawing this RfA per [[WP:SNOW]], try being [[WP:ADOPT|adopted]]. Kindest Regards &mdash;
'''Support''' - why not? <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Hmm.... Less than 700 total edits. Very little recent activity. 84 edits so far this month, but only 13 edits between June and February. Continue editing with a bit more frequency over the next few months and try again.↔
'''Oppose''' - Very general answer to question 1 is not impressive considering they have so little experience in policy areas. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' - No prolonged period of contributions to WP.  More experience, and I would have no problem switching to support.
'''Oppose''' sorry but, for me, simply not active nor experienced enough.
'''Oppose'''-Too little edits, and you haven't been active for many months. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose'''. Few edits with only sudden renewal of activity.--
'''Oppose''' Good user but edit count is a little low. Come back when you have over 3000 edits. -
Sorry but having 40% of your edits towards your userspace makes me wonder about the experience you have on the mainspace, or the encyclopedia in general. --
'''Weak Oppose''' (ec)You still seem a little inexperienced - e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.57.44.48&diff=prev&oldid=136940689 this] from June. While I imagine you've learned not to do that since then, I'd still like to see a little more in the way of main article edits. Will likely be happy to support in the future.
No real contribution to the mainspace, and insignificant amounts of non-template discussion on user talk pages. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Grim_Reaper123&diff=prev&oldid=159875572 This] is also not a great advertisment for the candidates' judgement. I do not believe this user has the experience necessary to be a good administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Ronnotel and Daniel.
'''Oppose'''. Please don't take this as a '''No'''. Vandalism reverts are important, but if you want to be an administrator, you also might want to take a look at [[WP:XFD]] as well. <small>Also, is your status section really nessary? I made a different account to manage that part though.</small> Come back in a couple of months, and you'll have my support. --
'''Oppose''' I think, you need more months to gain experience. As Hirohisat said, try to participate more at [[WP:XFD]], that is a good place to learn the things. Good luck
'''Oppose''' I'm seeing some good stuff from this user, like the 16 edits to AIV, but at this moment I do believe you are unsuitable for the mop as per reasons outlined above.
'''Oppose''' The fact that over one third of your edits are to your own pages means that we have only some 1,200 edits on which to judge your skill and understanding. Of these, very few are edits to Wikipedia or to Wikitalk. I feel that we need a greater demontration of fimiliarity with admin-related pages before granting the tools. I do note the 18 edits in AIV, but feel a greater contribution is appropriate. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Your lack of experience is a concern here. Please address the issues raised by other users and apply again after a few months. You have not made any real contributions to the mainspace as well. Lastly try to participate in more [[WP:XFD]]. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' As per Phgao .Sorry but please try again after a few months.Greater experience is needed.Good Luck.
'''Oppose''' - Erm, right, there are a number of issues here. This is never going to pass RfA because you need much more experience in all areas. You need to actively participate in Wikipedia space and Wiki-projects. You need some great article contributions too. It appears that you're article edit count is made up mainly of vandal reverts. You're vandal fighting is excellent, just branch out more. I don't think high userspace counts are too bad, it shows you take pride in your work (in a way), but the areas I've gone through need to also have high edit counts. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - I'm going to oppose, per above. Not enough experience in my opinion. Please re-apply in a few more months after you have sufficient experience with various policies, writing articles, etc.
'''Neutral''', to avoid a cluster.  The editor does not have enough experienece for me to judge character.  He's not quite making it based on edit count, and not much in the way of Mainspace edits, as noted by others. Quite frankly, he does not have much in the way of work on AIV, XfD, etc.  Please apply again in a few months, get some battle scars, and welcome some new users, so I can form a better opinion.
'''Strong Support''' - He has been really active in the last few months and he has been very active   in wikipedia related articles such as [[WP:AFC]], [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RPP]] even though his overall mainspace edits is low..I believe he will handle the tools well ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Definate support, active user, and I strongly disagree with oppose #1 [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
Hmmm, after fully checking your contribution, it seems I've got you mixed up with someone else on the CharlotteWebb RFArb workshop page. I actually like what I see from you overall - you appear in a hell of a lot of places and you look like you're doing a good job. Do I trust you not to abuse the tools? Yes - '''support'''
'''Support''' per no big deal. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor, willing to help out whereever is needed.  I believe this user will gain experience rapidly, and therefore can be an asset in dealing with admin tasks that are otherwise neglected.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' There is sufficient reason to support this candidate.
'''Weak Support''' Edit count is a bit low (especially in mainspace) but that shouldn't prevent a user from becoming an admin. --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - good answer to Q1, enough experience, clearly understands the tools. Not being a prolific article-writer doesn't especially worry me, as maintenance tasks are more relevant to adminship, and this candidate has plenty of experience in that respect.
'''Weak Support''' I was leaning on neutral on this one, as I believe any admin should have contributed to this ''encyclopedia'', because that's what Wikipedia is about, eh? But since you seem to know your way around, have enough experience and have a clean record, I'll support. Good luck! —
'''Support'''. I've seen him around a lot recently and he has plenty of experience in admin areas and a strong desire to clear backlogs! Looks good to me. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' the above.
'''Support''' Very impressive for a relatively new user, bust out a mop. '''
'''Support'''. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns.
'''Support'''. Amazing how a whole bunch of people have editcountitis at the moment. This person is a civil, experienced (in my opinion) user, and could do wonders with Admin tools.
'''Support''' - Always clear-minded when I speak to him.
'''Support''' - I have had good interactions with this user.
'''Support''' Good editor!
'''Support''' a very valued contributor, everything looks fine. A lot of projectspace edits. <b>
'''Oppose'''. Candidate hasn't written much. Admins should have at least minimal experience writing, researching and referencing articles. Whether your RfA passes or fails, please make some substantial constributions to a few articles. Keep up the good work.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience.  I think you are on the right track however.
Per Majoreditor. Experience in mainspace is crucial as administrators often get sucked into dealing with disputes around it. Look forward to a nomination in a couple more months if this one doesn't pass, though. '''
'''Oppose''' - please see rationale below. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' — We discuss and come to consensus, we don't vote (or "!vote", simply prefixing an exclamation mark doesn't change the word's meaning). Is it so hard to say "discussion"? Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kwsn&namespace=0 mainspace] contributions are quite appalling and you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Anisfeld&action=history do] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sara_Blakely&action=history not] appear to understand the CSD.
'''Oppose'''.  This user states an intention to handle CSD candidates and close XfD's.  We all make mistakes and if it were the only thing, I could forgive the problems in the links stated by [[User:Matthew|Matthew]].  However I've seen this user perform non-admin closures on a number of AfD's that I felt were done hastily or with poor discretion, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_%28film&diff=138163503&oldid=138158049] , or being "bold" and applying speedy keep "[[WP:SNOW|snowball]]" closures [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodney_Anoa%27i&diff=141272881&oldid=141271481] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Ruff&diff=140623385&oldid=140579925] and while it's not explicitly stated, it's fairly well understood that SNOW is a touchy guideline and generally should be avoided in its use by non-admin closures.  I'm also uncomfortable with edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mandsford&diff=prev&oldid=141651122] - while ultimately proving acceptable by the user, altering someone's userpage like that without approval because one finds a redlinked name "annoying" is just not good in my book.  This user seems to act too rashly to trust with the sysop bit.  I'm not concerned with the "low" mainspace editcount - 800ish doesn't seem "low" to me - but many of the signs I see point to someone who is anxious for adminship.  Sorry, but this user seems too eager, could use some polishing as far as some policies are concerned, and needs to learn to act with more discretion.  I'm not comfortable giving more buttons to someone who seems likely too quick to click them.
'''Oppose''' - the [[Jimmy Launders]] article is unsourced.
'''Oppose''' Has not had much experience actually writing articles. Strikes me as sometimes being a bit quick to nominate AfD
'''Oppose''' General lack of experience, especially with encyclopedia building.
'''Oppose'''. The article on [[Jimmy Launders]] which is cited as a 'best contribution' was a three sentence stub. 95% of the text and all the references have been provided by another user. I absolutely agree it was an article that needed writing (I do a lot of work on WWII subs as well at the moment) but unfortunately you really need to have done more article writing before I could be certain of voting '''support'''.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient contributions to building the encyclopedia (too few mainspace edits). <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' for now.  Seems to have not enough experience editing and seems to need more polish and maturity in an administrative like thing he did that I saw.  I don't want to drag out accusations, but it wasn't a fatal error.  Maybe in a few months.
'''Oppose''', I see no reason to support. --
'''Oppose''' Too quick off the mark to put in a mop request.
Really just active for a bit over 2 months. Also, I'm a bit weary of candidates who've never created a substantial new article or added substantial prose and referencing to an existing one. While anti-vandal work is important, we don't promote admins just to block vandals... I think proper use of admin responsibility ultimately does require a robust understanding of how articles are written. I have noticed the candidate closing some AFDs and doing a good job, should this RFA not pass I think it might just be a matter of needing a bit more time. --
'''Neutral''' pending answer to question. --'''
'''Neutral''' - I agree, editing experience is important for an admin.
'''Neutral''' Too new.  And not a lot of editing experience.  But certainly nothing to truly oppose.
'''Neutral:''' I haven't seen anything I dislike ... so far.  Unfortunately, while my kneejerk prejudices are far fewer on RfA than some, experience is one, and as long as there are hundreds of amply qualified veterans waiting for the accolade, I can't see my way clear to supporting someone here just a few months.
'''Cliche #1 Support''' - I thought you already were an admin? --
'''Support'''. Screwing [[User:Titoxd/RfA standards]] for a while, Kyra ''always'' asks about things that she is unsure about. That is probably the *most* critical factor that makes a candidate suitable for adminship: "Do I decide to ram through something, or do I check first and observe how to do it right?" All my interactions with her have been excellent. No reason to oppose.
'''Super duper [[Phage]] support!'''.
'''Support.''' Opposing for self-noms is harmful. So it's unconventional. That doesn't mean it's bad.
'''Support'''. Your self-nom sounded a lot like a user nomination. '''''
'''Support''' changed from neutral per discussion.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', except for the nom, everything is OK.
'''Support''' Appears to have a good grasp of the project and is ready for greater responsibility. No problem with the nom, it's apparent from the sig that it's a self-nom and does not diminish or take away from her qualifications.
'''Support'''.  Longtime and prolific vandal fighter.
'''Support''' While I understand the opposers concern about a lack of direct article content, Kyra's edits indicate a good understanding of policy, a substantial commitment to the project, and the patience and reserve to use the admin tools appropriately.
'''Weak support''' Good vandal revert/warn behavior, but pretty rare that you actually report them to [[WP:AIV]]. &mdash;
'''Support''' We always need a vandal fighting admin --
'''Support''' looks alright, good policy experience.--
'''Support''' Solid contributor.  Trust she'd use the tools well.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Despite the psychologically and stylistically odd first person perspective of the self-nom statement, seems to have good grasp of policy. Favourably impressed am I.
'''Support'''. Three Reasons: Vandal Fighter, Strong Contributor, and really original name ''';^)'''!
'''Support''' Definitely support. I am happy especially about her vandalism reverting edits. This is important. --
'''Support'''..Been here a long time and over 4000 Edits..why not..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', because I believe you really have come a long way. Of course, I could be mistaken c.c —
'''Support''' Good candidate, the nom statement is fine by me.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why The Hell Not?]]  Ral315 also finds the objections with her third-person self-nom absurd; he found it humorous, and he thinks given that she signed the nom as herself, that it was an obvious joke.
'''Support''' have seen many positive contributions from this user. I would like to see more Wikitalk edits, but then as  [[User:Shimeru|Shimeru]] suggested below, she may just prefer to communicate through Usertalk. Either way, ahe's not getting an oppose from me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''', opposition raises 0 meaningful concerns, edit history looks solid.
'''Support'''- Would make a good admin, with all her vandalism reverts. Personally, I don't see much wrong about her nom statement. Is there a law against making a nom comment sound third person? I highly doubt it. It wasn't meant to deceive anyone, more like a harmless joke. And before someone points out that admins can't make "jokes", see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Archives/54#zach111493 this]. --[[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color= "blue" face="Harlow Solid Italic"><u>'''''K.Z'''''</u></font>]]     [[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<sup><small><font color= "red" face="Century Schoolbook">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] <sup>'''''•'''''</sup>
'''Support''' Will put sysop tools to good use, methinks.--
'''Support'''. I've no problems with the nom, and the candidate looks good. Slight concerns over inexperience in certain areas, but she sounds level-headed enough not to jump into anything controversial.
'''Support'''. The faux-third-person nom wasn't the best move, but there was no attempt at deception since she properly signed the self-nom. I've seen her around and am convinced she'll be an active and effective admin. Let's put her to work!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Trebor. Concerns about a lack of well-roundedness (my spelling checker thinks this really is a word) are fair enough, but the experience KyraVixen has seems to be quite enough to start mopping with.
'''Suppport'''.  I recently did a detailed [[Wikipedia:Editor review/KyraVixen|editor review of this user]], so I'm quite familiar with her work.  I was largely very impressed by her friendliness and helpfulness with new users and by her other good work on the project, especially with her willingness to take a lot of time to help show new users around.  I did have one concern, which I asked her about and which she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delldot&diff=112553802&oldid=112485988 addressed] quite well on my talk page.  I'm convinced this user will make a fine admin.  I also think that when contributing to RfA discussions, we should take time to look thoroughly at the contributor's work, looking beyond just the nomination itself or edit count.  If she was trying to be deceptive in this nom, it's likely that she would have showed that behavior elsewhere, too.  I found no evidence of that.
'''Support''', although not very active but possesses a good bot.
'''Support''', obviously. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination - she signed it clearly, so there was no attempt at deception. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' It's patent absurdity to oppose on the grounds of insufficient image space edits or the writing of a slick self-nom. We need admins to help maintain the encyclopedia, not upload images and not write articles. Please.
'''Weak support''' (edit conflicted one too). It's hard to overlook the lack of general experience, but adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, which is really what saves you from a neutral vote in my case.--
'''Weak support''' (changed from neutral).  My concerns noted in my neutral vote below still hold, but I'm changing to support simply to counter some of the ridiculous oppose reasons.  The nominee's calm demeanor and reasoned responses on this RfA are enough to convince me that any issues with inexperience will soon be overcome without breaking anything.  Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the nominating statement.  Many people in such instances use third-person when describing themselves and nothing negative should be read into that. —
'''Weak support''' My thinking here evolved not dissimilarly from that of Doug Bell, and, per, inter al., JoshuaZ and Delldot, I think it rather clear that the candidate is possessed of good judgment and a cordial demeanor and is relatively conversant with policy, such that I think it reasonable to conclude that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of KV's becoming a sysop should be positive]].  I should note that, as [[User:Dekimasu|Dekimasu]], I was a bit troubled by the several grammatical errors present in the self-nom; the presence of such errors, though, should militate against a candidacy only where it evidences an infirmity likely to impair a candidate's ability to communicate and collaborate with other users on .en or to understand and apply policy, and neither case presents itself here.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Lack of significant article contributions in the way of adding content is a bit disconcerting, as I'd like to see the candidate exhibit a bit more well-roundedness (if that's even a word).  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per Gaillimh.  Also, I would like to know about your personal policy against copyright images.  According to your log, you have uploaded fewer than <s>five</s> ten images.  Currently, there is a backlog of images which need to be deleted by admins.  An admin needs to know which copyright certain images fall into before deletion.  Also, what about [[WP:BIO]]? What about [[WP:AFD]]?  <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Wow, what a glowing self-nom. While according to her she is totally great in every way anyone who self-noms with only 5 (yes f-i-v-e) project talkspace edits and such a sketchy contribution history (in usage not quality) is a no-go in my book. Very little process work or discussion and with only 45 user talk edits she is also lacking in interaction with other editors, another required admin quality. Also, lambast me all you want but anyone that thinks they are a fox I wouldn't give the keys to a kennel so much as wikipedia.

'''Oppose''' Inexperience in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
Little participation in Talk or Wikipedia; most recent edits are mechanical. Levelheadedness and trustworthiness is gauged by looking at interactions with other users, but there is none of that to see here. —
Sorry, '''oppose'''. Has only really been active for ''two months'', and has only ''five'' project talkspace edits. The self-recommendation is not a reason for my oppose, but it does bother me, as do the grammar errors within it.
'''Oppose''' per Gaillimh and Xoloz - <b>
'''Oppose''' for Wikipedia edits and especially talk page inexperience. Seems like a wonderful contributor, but not quite ready. --
'''Oppose'''.  I acknowledge the value of the editor's contributions; however, I see Wikipedia as a largely collaborative effort where an in-depth knowledge of the discursive practices of the community is necessary to succeed as an administrator.  The candidate has spent a lot of time in "tasks" but not so much time in writing and collaborating.  I think that creates a deficit in the category of understanding the community. --
'''Oppose'''. Experience too narrow for now
'''Oppose'''. Very little Talk: interaction, and really has only edited for a brief period, not long enough to feel confident she has a good feel for policy and the community.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I have no quarrel with the third person nom statement.  I believe this user is committed to fighting vandalism.    However, two things give me pause here.  First, the answer to Q2; the general lack of article writing already noted by others.  Alone, that wouldn't be enough for me to oppose, however.  Second, the user really only began editing about six months ago.  During that six month period, the user edited a moderate amount for four months, and has had a burst of editing activity over the last two.  The lack of article writing combined with the relatively short period of intense editing tells me that the user might lack the true commitment to the encyclopedia that administrators need to have.  I'm not saying the user does not have this commitment, there's just not sufficient available evidence of such imo.  I suggest trying again in a few months if this doesn't pass; I would support at that time if at least moderate editing continues and barring any unforeseen problems.  Oh, and please, try creating an article, you might like it! · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Weak Oppose''' Not enough article experience.  I'll be happy to support in the near future if KyraVixen contributes more to article writing.
'''Oppose''', needs to write more articles, should do more article writing since WP is an encyclopedia. Should socialise more on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. I applaud your anti-vandalism efforts, but you've never written a single article? Not even so much as a ''stub''? This is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see a bit more experience please.  Would likely support next time if the above concerns are addressed. --
'''Neutral''' I want to vote support, but the nomination worries me. It is a self-nomination that reads like a nomination made by an ardent supporter. It uses the third person and gives great praise to KyraVixen. Since that was in a self-nom, I consider it to be advertising and for now will avoid voting support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Neutral''' The self-nomination is written like another user has nominated you, this worries me a little of your intentions, the posting to article talk pages is a little low but that '''could''' be overlooked and yes you mentioned in your nomination that your wikipedia talk edits are lacking, well I agree - there is only 5? I think maybe you should work on that and your article talk pages, and maybe slightly inrease your overall edit count, even though it quite good! Good luck.'''<font color="0066FF">
'''Neutral'''. I have to agree with the above points. I don't like the third-person self-nom. It worries me. Will you misrepresent yourself in other ways, too? Coupled with the four-month hibernation, I have to vote neutral. Come back in a few months and I'll be happy to support. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Neutral'''.  I read over the oppose voters' concerns and didn't see anything major.  However, I would prefer to support candidates who have done more article-writing (it doesn't have to be featured articles, as some say) and who have participated more on Talk pages.  I think Kyra's a good candidate, but I would like to see a wider variety of participation. --
Have you ever created an article? --&ndash;
'''Support''' An excellent editor who has contributed much to WPMILHIST and deserves the tools.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Given that the user has been trusted to be an MILHIST coordinator, could need the tools. --
'''Support''' This is a fine editor and we need more admins who actually edit. It is easy to learn admin chores and I have no doubt he will be a fine admin.
'''Strong support''' -- ''
'''Support''' as nom.--
'''Support''' Awesome editing! [[User:General Eisenhower|General Eisenhower]] • ([[User talk:General Eisenhower|at war or at peace]]) (at war
'''Strong Support''' Seems as though he will make a fantastic Admin--
'''Support''' - Kyriakos definitely would make a great admin.
'''Support with reservations''' - Very good participation on various projects, seems very active, and generally knowledgeable.  My only concern is lack of AIV and RfD participation.  But, due to his general activity, I believe him when he says he will be more active in these areas in the future. [[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="2"><b>L</b></font>]][[User:Luis1972|<font color="Darkorange" face="Papyrus" size="3"><b>uis</b></font>]]
'''Support'''.  No reason I wouldn't trust him witrh the tools.
'''Support''' - Please do visit [[WP:CRIC]] some time! '''
'''Support'''.  An enthusiastic, hard working editor who will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. You don't need to ''need'' the tools, just be trusted not to mess up using them.
'''Support''', excellent editor, however, more regular visit at XfD, [[WP:ANI]], [[WP:AIV]],.. will enrich your experience as an admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Strong Edit History and great Contributor. Keep up the good Work!
'''Support''' Will use the tools wisely, methinks.--
'''Support''' - I like your answers and your edits seem well spread out--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''. What Proto said. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' per criteria set forth on my user page.
'''Support''', "no need for the tools" expresses a concern that the editor would use Wikipedia's mops incorrectly. However, I have no such worry with this careful and prolific editor. Even if he only shuts down an vandal once in a blue moon, he will do good with the tools. There is simply no reason to deny them here.
'''Support''' I feel less than logical on this support. I will dare criticism by saying I have a good feeling about this nom. A hunch, a gut instinct. I fail at applying strict standards in this case.
'''Support'''. Trusted user.
'''Support''' My initial reasons for neutral are not enough. I will support now. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Dedicated, hardworking contributor. --
'''Support'''.  The contributions of this user shows that he is an excellent asset for the Wikipedia community.  --
'''Support''' I doubt he will abuse the tools, writing two FAs is hard work and the person much be knowledgeable in policy to write them. We also need more specialist admins as they know about the subject they are writing and they can revert some edits, like false info for example that a normal user doing RC patrol won't quickly notice.
'''Support''' - don't see a problem with this one.
'''Support''' Well balanced editor, overall experience acceptable, very good article-writing capabilities, his increased duties as coordinator in WPMILHIST will definitely require the tools, I trust he will not abuse the tools in any way.
'''Support''', principally because all of the oppose votes annoyed me. To the oppose voters - so what are you looking for? Face glued to the screen all day, commenting on random AfDs and RfDs just to push up the editcount? Is that really a healthy direction to send Wikipedia in? <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' This is my first vote. It should be positive. Besides, he is a good editor, can be a good admin. too.
'''Support'''. Great editor, having created two FAs. Intensive project involvement, as he is now an assistant-coordinator in the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history]] project. Also the creator of a great portal of the [[Portal:Military of Greece|Military of Greece Portal]]. Calm, patient (much more than me!), and ready to assist whenever necessary. What else can I say?! Just one thing: he is definitely going to be a great administrator.--
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but constructive edits from this user.--
'''Strong support''' This is a excellent editor. --
'''Support''' Quality user.
'''Support''' There are more important qualities than experience.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per the-editor-formerly-known-as-Proto and Grace Note. XfD isn't the domain of rocket scientists, nor is handling [[WP:AIV]] requests. The oppose reasons run from the minor, into unreasonable, if predictable, and beyond into outright hypocrisy. One oppose voter, for example, was mopped almost exactly a year ago with around 2500 edits, and such AfD gems under their belt as "Insufficient notability", and "Non notable, 1 google hit, low alexa traffic rank".
'''Support.''' Until someone can answer this question satisfactorily: '''Why would giving this user the admin tools damage Wikipedia?''' I see no reason to oppose. If this user has made nearly 5,000 edits without any blocks, surely he knows enough not to unprotect the main page, delete AfD, block Jimbo, etc. I find all of the oppose reasons listed unconvincing.
Very Weak support. Concern of Dgies is serious but overall the candidate look good. I would definitely prefer more evidence that the candidate had experience in the areas the candidate intended to work on.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' An asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per many comments above and history. I believe this editor can be trusted with the tools. ···
'''Support''' valuable editor. --
'''Oppose''' You say you want to help with RfD, but I see zero edits on RfDs.  You say you want to fight vandals, but I see only 4 edits to [[WP:AIV]].  I don't see a need for the tools, nor experience in policies needed to apply them. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Dgies, with no current participation in RfD and limited contributions to AIV I would suggest there's no clear need for the tools.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think the nominee has enough experience with process to be confident that they won't make too many mistakes. You could try participating in these areas even without being an admin; if you want to close XfDs, for instance, try making well-reasoned !votes in them so that we can get an idea of how you'd interact with the process. Try discussing improvements to processes on their talk pages so you get a better idea of how they operate. Most of all, show what you'd do with the admin tools by asking admins to perform actions for you. If you plan to protect things, make suggestions about what should be protected at [[WP:RFPP]]; if you plan to block users, make requests at [[WP:AIV]]; and if you plan to delete things, nominate pages at the [[WP:XFD|XfD]] pages, add [[WP:PROD|prod]] tags, and/or place things in [[CAT:CSD]]. You should also consider using edit summaries more, as they make it easier for people to figure out what you've done in watchlists, article histories, and contribs pages (the last is only really relevant during RfA, normally, but the other two will also be useful). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 11:50, 28 February 2007 (
'''Oppose''' due to concerns raised by [[User:ais523|ais523]], especially those about the [[WP:AIV]] reports. Needs more experience of admin-related process. Very low edit summary use also a problem. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per above. ''
'''Oppose''' per ais523. --
'''Oppose'''. I see alot of people saying that he "deserves" the tools or ''could'' be a good admin or "is a great article writer". None of these are criteria for adminship: it is not a trophy, he's hasn't ''proven'' he would be a good admin (or has even displayed a understanding of sysop responsibilities) and writing articles has nothing to do with being a good admin (though it helps). This user doesn't have near enough process participation and his answer to Q1 was weak and formulaic at best.
'''Oppose''' per ais523, and evidence of inexperience in wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' Based on minimal edits to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD]],  inexperience in process, low activity in Wikipedia main space and your statement that you are not very experienced in the first two makes me feel that you are not quite ready for adminship.  You are a good editor, but answers to the questions don't show a need for the tools. The areas that you participate in do not require them. Not providing a rationale for your AFD contributions, low edit summary usage and the is disturbing.  Will support in three months if your edit history shows that you are ready.--&ndash;
'''Serious Oppose''': Low project involvement and lack of summary use. Give it another 4-6 months and [[WP:BOLD|a lot of boldness]], and then you'll have that mop. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Oppose'''. Little to no experience in Wikipedia:. ---
'''Oppose''' per above. I'm concerned that you say "I admit that even though I am not very experienced in those areas I would like to help out in those areas"; you need experience ''before'' helping out.
'''Oppose''' -Come back with the above recommended experience and you should do well. --
'''Oppose''' per Dakota.
'''Oppose''' → mathobot's results → Low use of edit summary and only 21 minor edits. If you claim to do vandal fighting... '''Anyway, happy editing''' <i><b>
'''Oppose'''Not ready yet, & doesn't need the tools
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, need more experience. —'''
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by Dgies and ais523.  Please work on improving these areas and then apply again. --
'''Neutral''' Good editor and Wikipedian, but no real need for the tools is exhibited by your project-space contributions. -
'''Neutral''' Impressive editor, but you need more project-space experience.--
'''Neutral''' Great editing, but the points brought by Captain panda, ais523, and dgies are not very reassuring. '''''
'''Neutral'''. An extremely solid contributor to articles and WikiProjects. Lacking experience in admin and policy areas though. This candidate could definitely use some more time to get involved in policy and process, although it wouldn't be the end of the world if this RfA passed. He seems like an intelligent and dedicated contributor. –&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' per above. Probably would support in 2 months if you report a few more vandals to [[WP:AIV]]. Also, to be honest, not sure about your formatting - lack of wikilinks and overuse of bold text. Similarly, consider using more edit summaries. That said you are a very good editor. Agree that it wouldn't really be a disaster if you were given the buttons.
'''Neutral'''. I am convinced by both the support arguments and the oppose arguments, therefore must be neutral. Reapply in a few months and I will probably support. Good luck. --
'''Neutral''' per supporters and opposers. '''
'''Neutral''' - I see a compleate and utter lack of edit summaries.  I don't care about a 100%... but when 5% for non-automatic edits summaries over the last 100 edits?  And dont' everyone get all bent out of shape... I don't think 100% is a requirement for regular edits, but it does need to be near 100% for admin actions.  In addition I see very little activity in any of the administrative side of wikipedia.  Also, something thats mildy bothersom is the underuse of minor edits. None of that is enough to make me want to oppose the nomination, but it's enough to prevent me from supporting. ---
'''Support''' as nom <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' So ''you're'' the fellow with that funky sig.  Yes, I trust you, and I'm impressed by your answers.
'''Support''' nothing concerns me here, good luck.
'''Support''' in my experience this editor has been very even tempered, from what I've seen [[User:KazakhPol|KazakhPol]] appears to have taken [[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color="darkblue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">'''KZ'''</font>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<font color="green">'''Talk'''</font>]]• [[Special:Contributions/Kzrulzuall|Contribs]]</sup></small> good faith attempt at constructive feedback personally.

'''Support''' - Leaving all controversies aside, he might just be on of a few good editors on Wikipedia...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
I don't see a problem with any of the diffs provided, and I certainly can't imagine opposing someone over semantic nonsense like the difference between "comment" and "vote" (particularly when that issue is not clear cut at all). None of the edits pointed out by the opposition are out of line.
'''Support''' per lack of reason to oppose.  The oppose reasons are quite weak.
'''Support.''' per calm and measured reaction to ridiculous oppose reasons.
'''Support''' as they meet [[User:Mr.Z-man/RFA|my criteria]] (may change pending the result of the checkuser case). <font color="maroon">
'''Support''' - Good editor, strong editcount. I understand there may be civility problems per the posts in the oppose section, but this user deserves the benefit of the doubt. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' The reasons to support are better than the reasons to oppose.
'''OMG hope I don't get edit conflicted support''' I trust this user to use the tools properly. We have over 1000 administrators on the project, we have the ability to oversight each other's tool usage. Plus, I believe some of the supports are frivolous, such as KazakhPol's vendetta, so even if I wasn't heavily leaning to support, I'm even more convinced now, to counteract the spurious opposes. (Note: that should not be construed to disparage anyone elses opposition, which may be completely valid.)
'''Support''' The evidence to support this RfA seems to significantly outweigh any evidence to oppose.  The oppositions' apparent portrayal of Kzrulzuall as "childish" amd "lacking maturity" seems to be poorly supported, if not completely baseless.  A few of the examples provided seem to be borderline perfectly acceptable.  After looking this one over , I see no reason not to give my full support.
'''Support''' Per Ninja - the support reasons clearly outweigh the oppose. This user is a very solid vandal-fighter, I've seen their work pop up all over my watchlist, and their comments on debates I've been involved in have been mature and reasoned. I believe this person would make a good administrator and have seen no evidence whatsoever that they would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Well experienced, a good vandal fighter and also on the side note has an excellent edit summary usage. Looking at the claims of incivility, I don't think they are major and I am going to give the benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''' The question must always be "Would making this candidate an admin improve the project?"  The answer is yes.--
'''Support:''' Nothing to lead me to oppose (in a more positive tone: This user will use the tools well :-) &nbsp;'''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff33">''~''</font><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">&nbsp;[[User:Magnus animum|<font color="#66ff66">Mag</font><font color="#00ff99">nus</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Magnus animum|<font color="#66ffcc">ani</font><font color="#66ffff">mum</font>]]</span></span>'''&nbsp;<sub>(
'''Support:''' A very helpful editor. Work on [[WP:AIV]]  has been great. I also feel that [[User:KazakhPol|KazakhPol]] and [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] are not acting in good faith and trying to ruin an editors good name for a personal vendetta.  Why is a comment about  [[User:Kzrulzuall|user page]] of '''any importance what so ever!?'''
'''Oppose''' User seriously lacks the temper to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - I have little or no faith in this users ability to be a sysop. I get the feelin he'd abuse the tools for his own desires (such as unilateral blocks).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=121910292] I believe Kzrulzuall has been "playing the game", to put it candidly (or as Sir Nick said: "Passing an RfA is not difficult. Or is it? If you have been a good boy for six months, kept your head down, and have not made a lot of noise. It'll be a cinch. You'll pass and no no one will notice"). No, I certainly feel there's something wrong with this user, having interacted prior. The main space contributions are despicable (We're building a gorram encyclopaedia here.. *not* playing wikipolitics four.point.oh, nor whocansuckupthemost ten.0), the last contribution I can find is dated 6 April[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winston_Churchill&diff=prev&oldid=120693938]. The [[User:Kzrulzuall|user page]] is something to be desired as well. To close: I don't believe this user would make a good sysop, I don't trust him/her nor can I trust them not to unilaterally abuse sysop buttons. [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 09:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Edit: Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=122449629#RFA_Disruption.3F per this], I find the "calling for backup" thing disruptive, and also arguing with opposers.. I can not support a disruptive user at RfA. [[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 09:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Edit #2: User [[:Image:Morning, Noon And Night.jpg|also has]] [[:Image:Doomsday Conspiracy.jpg|zero knowledge]] of fair use policy. I also believe the nominator is a sockpuppet of [[User:Sp3001]] who is a sockpuppet of Kzrulzuall.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Kzrulzuall&page=].
This candidate displays a large number of shortcomings, none of which by itself would convince me to oppose, but all of them put together...   Antagonistic comments on the administrator noticeboard, a userpage that is hard to read, no evidence of any real commitment to the goals of the project, copyright problems (see Matthew's oppose), all put together leave me with too much of a bad taste to do anything other than oppose.
'''Oppose''' - Needs to learn how to [[Wikipedia:Don't escalate|resolve disputes without escalating them]]. <font face="monospace">
I'm concerned about the motives for this request, as well as the maturity to handle the stresses involved. --
Well, besides the above reasons for opposing, the nominator doesn't appear to even know how to sign a comment.  This presents serious trust/judgment issues.
'''Oppose''' per Kelly Martin.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew, and also Kelly Martin.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew, Kelly Martin and Dgies. I also agree that "[[Konzentrationslager|KZ]]" as signature is ''a tiny little bit weird''. —'''[[user:AldeBaer|Alde]][[user talk:AldeBaer|Baer]]''' <s>
'''Oppose''' per question 6. Contacting someone's employer is way out of line.
'''Oppose''' per most of the questions.  SSP cannot simply be "enforced" at will without checkuser (or a very well-set pattern of behavior).  User seems to be interested in deleting articles and blocking people more than anything else, and shows no knowledge of dispute resolution policies.  His article he is "so proud of" has glaring grammatical errors, and he has nowhere near enough substantial edits, so I'm concerned about his ability to contribute properly; we don't need more people to block and warn other users; we need contributors who can take on admin duties as needed in addition to their other work.
'''Oppose''' I don't feel the candidate is yet ready, and like Michael, I'm slightly concerned about the circumstance of this request.--
'''Oppose''' per others, Wikipedia is not a game, it's an encyclopedia. And change that user page, please! :P '''''
To be brutally honest - everything about this applicant is fine for Adminship - except by the examples given above his demeanour - by that I mean, at this stage, he types a little to quickly rather that to stop and consider the lay of the ground. I'm sorry but I '''oppose''' at this time.--
'''Oppose''' I feel the candidate needs to work on his judgment.--
'''Oppose'''.  The user's dedication to vandal fighting is commendable but seems to lack some necessary skills in terms of dealing with other contributors in stressful situations.  It's hard to support someone who can be so confrontational or potentially heavy-handed with the tools.  Suggest learning some better cooperative skills before seeking adminship.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, the diffs supplied leave me with concerns about escalation and disruptive effects of future conflicts with admin powers. I am dismayed about canvassing to delete pages. cheers,
'''Oppose''' The user seems to have a combative personality and concerns raised by other editors who've opposed concern me as well. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' For the reasons given by other editors here, I don't think that this editor has the right personality for adminship.
'''Neutral''' inclining towards oppose - I have many of the same problems with this user that I have with TeckWiz below. Yes, he has 6000 edits, but only 2000 of them were in mainspace; of those 2000, over 160 are repeated minor edits to [[Master of the Game]] <s>(despite which, you've still not added the "spoiler" warning before the plot summary...)</s>, and virtually all the remainder are reversions, tagging and minor edits; for the same reasons gone into at tedious length on TeckWiz's RfA, I have a problem giving someone with virtually no writing/editing experience sysop powers as I think it tends towards a "colonial master" mentality - when all is said and done, the ''only'' important part of Wikipedia is its content and this user doesn't appear to contribute to it. And while I realise user pages are a virtually rules-free zone, I think [[User:Kzrulzuall/Insults|keeping this up]] shows a certain lack of maturity.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Neutral''' - great contributor & good vandal fighter. Regularly appears on AIV for the right reasons. However, I saw a few recent instances of poor judgement and inappropriate use of certain templates which left me concerned. -
'''Neutral''' - I '''strongly suggest every participant of this RfA look [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Kzrulzuall#Neutral|here for some things Kzrulzuall has said or done]] before making a decision.''' Kzrulzuall has consistently made hasty errors and puerile judgements.
'''Neutral'''. Per the diffs given. -
'''Neutral''' Seems to have everything together, but I am discouraged by the lack of support by my fellow Wikipedians, including some held in high(er) regard on Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' Agree with most of the opposers, but would add the positive caveat that Kzrulzuall looks honestly committed to working hard on the project.  I'd view this RfA as a template for things to work on Kzrulzuall, and if the major issues are addressed, I'd have no hesitation supporting you at your next Rfa --
'''Support''' User is too new to be sullied by wikipolitics and drama. Give the tools, adminship is ''no big deal!'' <span style="font-family:Times; letter-spacing:-1.2px;font-weight:normal; background:white;white-space:nowrap;cursor:help;">&#8212;
User has three edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Ambrose_College&diff=prev&oldid=117341492 one of which] shows a clear misunderstanding of [[WP:NOT#UNENC]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Ambrose_College&diff=prev&oldid=117341630 one of which] was a change to his signature (which was posted in the article).
[[WP:SNOW]] ..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Lake54 has 9 total edits, 5 of which are related to the RfA. Become an editor first, my friend, before you seek a higher level of reponsibility.
'''Oppose''' I urge you to withdraw before the number of oppose votes becomes discouraging. You need to show a lot more experience before making this application.--
'''Oppose''' Thank you Lake for the offer. I'm sure your forums are fine work but Wikipedia is on the top 10 sites on the internet and parts can be rather complex. Spend a few months getting to know us and finding your way around. But for now, I would suggest you withdraw and focus on editing for a while. Let me know if I can help.
'''Oppose''' While this user seems to have good faith, nine total edits, with 5 being on his RfA, I wouldn't support giving them the tools. Put some efforts in, and come back when you have more experience. --[[User:Nenyedi|'''Nenyedi''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Nenyedi|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Nenyedi|Deeds]]<sub>
'''Neutral''' - Normally editcount is not a sufficient reason to deny adminship, but 9 total edits is insufficient. Sorry. Come back in a few months when you have made at least 2000 edits, and consider going through [[WP:ADOPT]] and [[WP:ADMINCOACH]] to get helpful advice on how to achieve adminship. <font face="Verdana">
'''Moral Support'''. I would recommend re-running in several months. Most people need at least 2K edits before passing. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Moral Support''' Your a good editor, get a few more edits, and a bit more experience and try running again in a few months.
I'm going to have to oppose. I generally don't judge by edit counts due to the fact that one can create numerous articles and make very substantial edits and maintain a low edit count, however it doesn't appear to be the case with this user. I would recommend this user wait a few more months and then renominate themselves.
Only 103 edits made in the last 6 1/2 months, which includes a long lay-off. Answers don't demonstrate why they would need the tools at this point.
'''Oppose''' Your edit count is only at 100, and that is far too low to be an admin. I do not think I can trust you with the tools.
'''Opppose''' Set your preferences to force edit summaries for a start.  Continue to contribute to the project in the main space and try some admin-related tasks too, like new page/recent change patrols; vandal warnings; rolling back/reverting vandalism; reporting vandals to [[:WP:AIV]] or other appropriate place for administrative oversight; contributing to XfD discussions by demonstrating your knowledge of [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] in order to justify your points.  Do this to gain experience and try another RfA around December, if you really want to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' Not wnough experience. I've seen people that have been told that 14,000 edits were not enough. -
'''Oppose'''. You are too inexperienced at this point. I suggest that all admin-hopefuls at least install something like [[WP:TW|twinkle]], to gain some experience with admin functions and duties.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, only 30 edits in mainspace, and over a third in user space. -
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience, only 297 edits of which only 31 are to the mainspace.  I recommend this RfA be withdrawn before it reaches [[WP:SNOW]] status, if it hasn't already.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits, and have a solid track record of several months as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made less than 300 edits, and prior to June had made only 3 edits this year. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience.
'''Weak Support''', adminship's no big deal. Your answers to the questions were good enough.--
'''Weak Support''' Great contributions to AfD, shows you know policy well. My only concern is the edit count, 1,600 edits in a year isn't great for an admin candidate, it works out at about 4-5 a day, however, I think you can be trusted
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support''' - A good candidate, perhaps a little short in experience and activity, but seems to have contributed a large amount to Wikipedia and is involved into admin tasks.
'''Weak Support''' - as per
'''Strong Support'''- Worked with him on some of the Devil May Cry articles, not only did he raised Devil May Cry 2 by himself but he worked in a diligent manner with me and some other users of Devil May Cry Task Force to raise Devil May Cry to featured article contender in less than a week. -
'''Moral support''' because it's not going to pass.  I'm willing to endorse this nom on the "no big deal" rationale, but if the candidate really wants adminship, he needs to double the edit count first.  That's just the way things work.
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. -
'''Support'''. Yeah your edit count isn't very high, but looking at the current support levels now, it's pretty clear once you get more edits more support will pour in. I think it's great you're part of projects, keep it up.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. I see no evidence that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' Per Frise and [[WP:AGF]].
'''Support'''. All good editors are like administrators :) --
'''Support'''.  You once changed your vote on an AfD after somebody presented new evidence.  That shows a lot of good faith.
'''Support'''. Good editor. There's 50%! ---
'''Oppose''' Whilst you have been here for quite a while which is good, from the looks of things i would say you do not quite have enough experience. Also, your edit summaries for minor edits are quite low and so it would help if you increased this. Instead maybe try an editor review. Don't worry.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry to do this. You say you only ''recently'' became interested in sysop-related duties. Your edit count is weak (I feel at least 2500 edits are needed). Sysops need to be able to explain their edits. I understand you have great experience with AfD, but I suggest much more Speedy Deletion, [[WP:RFA|RFA]], and [[WP:HD|HD]]. Also you've been active in January, then completely dropped off in February, then regain interest by March. I don't feel 8 reports to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] is enough. Try to boost yourself in those areas, and people might be nominating you in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits; poor usage of edit summaries; limited experience/interest in general articles -- principally video games -- does not meet with [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for|expectations]]. Sorry. --<font size="-2"><strong>
'''Oppose''' Low level of activity until January '07 -- you haven't active for very long, despite your "first-edit" day.  Project-space experience also less varied than I like to see.
'''Oppose''' I do not have any fixed guidelines on numbers of edits required for admin status, but your figure is worryingly low. It is not the figure as such, it is its demonstration of your involvement with and understanding of wiki policy. Sorry.--
'''Weak oppose''' Relatively low number of edits in the mainspace, and the majority of these are in articles of a very narrow scope. I'd suggest taking some more time and try to expand the breadth of your participation here. On a more positive note, thusfar you've exercised very good judgment and procedural knowledge in the AfDs in which you've participated. Definitely keep that up and in time, I think you'll make a great admin.
'''Oppose''' on the basis of a self nomination, this implies arrogance. Also, not enough experience, I like to see one year of regular quality edits and project involvement
'''Oppose''' "''having recently become especially active within the Wikipedia community''"
'''I'm opposing''' because your edit count and pre-admin duties do not seem to indicate you are ready at this time.  However I do not agree with the comments of [[User:Rackabello|Rackabello]] - you are entitled to self-nominate - please come back in 6 - 12 months when you are more ready.--
'''Oppose''', based solely on low levels of experience. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' for lack of Wikipedia experience.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, try again in six months.
'''Weak Oppose''', Only recent interest in sysop duties. And although I don't think edit counts are very symbolic of whether or not a person would make a good admin, they're not necessarily in your favor either.
'''Oppose''' Activity.
'''Neutral''' Poromising, bu tnot yet ready.  Happy to nominate you myself in due course.--
'''Neutral''' While I have concerns about the WikiDefCon template on the user page, and the questionable gaming interest userboxes, neither of these is damning and I would not oppose on those alone.  I might support if endorsed by a WikiProject and if the questionable user page content were removed.
'''Neutral''' good user but your edit summary usage is poor, in addition to your edit count (including your project-space contribs) which is quite low for an admin candidate. —
'''Neutral''' Your heart's in the right place but you lack admin-related experience.  Try new page/recent change patrolling and editing the articles that turn up, either with categories and stub tags or CSD tags and associated user Talk vandal warnings/user education.  The edit summary item can be solved by forcing them in your user preferences.  Show evidence of this line of work in addition to your usual interests and I may slide over to support on your next application in several months' time.
'''Neutral''' I have no problem with anything you've done so far other than I'd like to wait and see you do more of it before I support your promotion to admin.
'''Neutral''' It is great to see enthusiasm for adminship, but you need some more edits. (Get more experience and in a few months, I will support you.)
'''Neutral''' I like your enthusiasm, but your limited number or edits and userpage show that you need more experience with the norms of the community.--
'''Neutral''' I am very supportive of several statements made by the candidate, especially one regarding willingness to change their mind when new information is presented; this shows a reasonable approach and a firm grip on social interactions that I believe is a big part of being an admin.  The limited number of edits is my only concern - in a few months, I'd gladly support, but am remaining neutral at this time.  <span style="color:darkred"><b>*Vendetta*</b> <sub>
'''Neutral'''. I looks likely that this RfA will not be successful but I hope you will reapply given that most of the concerns raised by the opposers are just lack of experience. If you do, I'd like you to think about your username. Admins are often seen as the public face of the encyclopedia and your username will be logged for every block and deletion you make. People may take badly that their article is deleted by "Lankybugger" or that they are blocked from editing by someone for such a name. So, although I don't think your username is against policy, I'd strongly encourage you to come up with something a little more serious... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' Very likely to support with more experience.
'''Moral Support''' -
I don't have any reason to oppose this user and ''certainly'' no reason to strongly oppose. Less than 800 edits doesn't concern me at all. As long as the candidate listens to the reasons listed in the oppose section, they should pass the next nomination.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, less than 800 edits, most of which to user page and user talk page. Low level of participation, poor edit summary usage, and no significant edits to project space. And answers show no knowledge of what an admin does. '''
'''Oppose''' - The candidate's answers, particularly to Q3, makes me uncomfortable. On another note, isn't the title of this RfA incorrect? -
'''weak oppose''' per Q3. GToood editor though--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Oppose''' Due to the answer to Q3. Also per LaraLove, not sure the user is familiar with what it is an Admin on Wikipedia does. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' - Lack of experience, answers to questions are terrible and seams to lack knowledge about wikipedia policies. I recommend closing this per [[WP:SNOW]].--
'''Oppose''' Most of her edits aren't mainspace (user, user talk, warning vandals, etc.). While it is nice to see former vandals turn, ''ahem'', to the good side, his contributions (or lack of them) and the answers to the optional questions above prevent me from voicing my support. <small>''[[User talk:Anecdote|IT'S DA...]]''</small>'''
'''Oppose''' due to the lack of depth answers to the questions. '''
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, very few mainspace edits. '''
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' doesn't seem ready yet but could be in the future.
'''Mild Oppose''' Questions aren't answered in any considerable depth, with question three providing  some issues.  While it is nice to see that vandals can be changed to useful contributors, I have ''mild'' suspicions regarding the user's intentions.  With more time to re-establish trust, I'd have no problem with this user's adminship.
'''Oppose''' Blocked 3 times, one time for making an attack article which I count as "lashing out." Almost 1000 edits ''total'' here. Without the recent blocks I might have been neutral leaning toward support saying that the candidate is a little too inexperienced spreading him/herself a little too widely. Unfortunately the block log was the kicker and I'm not comfortable voting support or neutral. In the future, possibly, but not now. -
I'm sorry, but I simply can't support, considering you have only 15 edits to the project space. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Limetolime&site=en.wikipedia.org] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Limetolime&namespace=4&year=&month=-1] With this limited experience, there is no way to know what (if any) experience you have with policy etc. I suggest you withdraw this RfA - it just won't pass.  If you have any questions, or would like me to take a look over you before you run again, please leave a note on my talk page.  Good luck,
'''Oppose'''. The block log worries me, though I won't jump to any conclusions. However, none of the tasks you listed in your response to question 1 are admin tasks, so I'm not confident you properly understand the position. If this RfA does not pass, I advise you to go out and start doing all of those things you listed, particularly the mediating new users away from vandalism part, which if you have vandalised in the past as your block log suggests will be the most effective method of redeeming yourself. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' User might have potential, but a lack of specifics in answers to several questions here, the blocks, and the general lack of experience lead me to believe he is not a solid candidate for the tools.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Answers in question 1 aren't stuff that only admins can do. -
'''Oppose''' Per question one and per O-1. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Blocked so very recently due to vandalism.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry. Not very good answers to questions. Doesn't state really what they would do as an admin. Block log says you've been blocked multiple times. Only 1,089 edits. I'm sorry. I suggest you withdraw. <span style="background:navy">'''
'''Neutral''' please withdraw, you are simply not ready for this role yet. Kind regards, '''
'''Neutral''' - as per Majorly.. its safer to withdraw now seeing that your contributions and Block log is not that enticing but feel free to try again in maybe a couple of months (6 or more) since it looks very dim for you now.. :( ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral''' It would be best to withdraw, I will be happy to support in the future.
'''Neutral''' per Dinosaur-puppy.  Please use edit summaries more frequently, as they are ''very'' helpful to other editors.
'''Support''' - A decent candidate. Yes I often say I like a Wikipedia-space participation count around 400, but 370+ is almost there! Excellent article work, and an altogether good RfA. Best wishes, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - great user, complies with all my [[User:Rudget/policies#Edit Count|criteria]].
'''Support''' I'm just a little nervous that although you have plenty of article and Wikiproject edits you really have very little experience in [[C:CSD]], [[WP:AFD]], RC Patrol etc. etc. However it takes all sorts here, and looking at your user page you certainly seem to be civil, and an excellent article writer. So whilst your experience in admin areas is limited you certainly have the [[WP:ENC]] bit - thus I'm happy to support this request. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' The lack of experience in [[C:CSD]] and [[WP:AFD]] is a minor concern here because you are a great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak <s>oppose</s> support''' per above
'''Support''' A decent amount of experience, appears to be very civil and it's good to hear you are willing to learn in the areas you are unsure about before you jump in and start deleting. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' - Looks good. &nbsp;
'''Support''' A few concerns, but overall, I think this user is mop-material! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' Clearly has the capacity to make a good Admin...
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
Seen this user around: should be fine.
'''Support''' as a very likely positive asset as an admin.
'''Support''' Nothing serious enough to oppose. I believe that Lincalinca will be more careful with image tagging from now on, like he stated below. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' I've incorrectly tagged images I've uploaded ''after'' I became an admin. It's easy to do. No reason to oppose.
'''Support.''' Wide edit range, making this user a probable knowledgeable Wikipedian. Also, per all above. —
'''Support''' I checked the editor review (linked in the "Discussion" section).  That was more than two month ago; by now, I'm pretty confident Lincalinca has the experience he needs.
'''Support''', I trust Linca with the buttons. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support'''
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed with you Linc. You said you didn't want adminship - and now you self nom!  And you tell me about it when I'm on wikibreak!!  If you didn't kick so much ass, I'd be opposing, mate.&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Hmmm, in general I don't think this user will '''abuse''' the tools, but a tad more experience in Admin areas would be nice.
'''Support''' Good user--
'''Support''' The only issue was to do with images, and the user seems to have learned his lesson in that arena. Certainly to be trusted.
Why not. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support'''.  Dedicated editor who needs to follow the image-use rules but appears to be willing to do so.
'''Support''' Seems trustworthy and competent. A little more experience in admin stuff would be good but nothing that worries me.
'''Support''' good involvement at FA shows dedication and was civil there I recall. Can brush up on Free/Fair-Use image issues. cheers,
'''Support''' a good editor, definitely one of the good guys.  Agree with Casliber and others, a need to brush up on fair use is evident, but none of us are perfect.
'''Support''' All contributions are valid, I'll say. So go ahead Lincalinca :)--
'''Oppose''' - I'm concerned that you do not know very well of the image policy for free images, as a few of the images you uploaded have an invalid copyright: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Crowded_House_07.jpg] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3ACrowded+House+live+earth.jpg] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3ABernard+Fanning+ARIA+Awards+2006.jpg]. This could be a problem.
'''Weak Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APowderfinger&diff=162198103&oldid=162196474 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APowderfinger&diff=162367183&oldid=162363772 this]; as recently as 4 and 5 October this user was prepared to argue in favour of having nonfree images on the [[Powderfinger]] article, and that it was ok to use nonfree images as long as they were "tastefully used". Everybody makes mistakes of course, but such a recent statement which so fundamentally contradicts [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]], one of our guidelines, from someone who states that images are a main focus of their work here, taken with a (seeming) lack of evidence of participation in admin-like work ([[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFA]], etc) makes me unable to support at this time. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. Look at [[:Image:Matt Bronleewe.png]] or [[:Image:David LaBruyere.jpg]], which are nonfree images used to show what living people look like. Or, even worse, at [[:Image:Normie Rowe.jpg]] or [[:Image:Liam Finn.jpg]], which don't even have the right licenses, as the Flickr pages explicitly state that the images can't be used commercially. And these are all uploads from the past two or three months! These examples lead me to believe that the user both really, really pushes it when it comes to inappropriate instances of fair use and that he or she can't tell which images are free and which images aren't. As a side note: Given that I've found these egregious errors with very little searching, someone should really go through his or her upload log, as there's likely to be more problems. --
'''Weak oppose'''. Not very high on the Wikipedia-namespace contributions which tends to indicate a probable lack of policy knowledge, and also the above concerns about image licensing make me reluctant to go any other way.
Oppose, per above.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' Per John and RG.
'''Oppose''' per above.
Fair use concerns. '''
Fair use concerns me as well.
<sup>(Not to be counted if it comes down to this vote)</sup> '''Weak Oppose''' per above though I trust you've learned from your mistakes --'''
'''Oppose'''&ndash; A little more work on fair use rationales on images and you would be good to go.  But for now, I'm gonna have to oppose.  '''
'''Oppose''' based on concerns in answer to question number 5 and the incident in question; regardless of whether one concurs in a policy or whether one believes that a policy does/doesn't exist - in confronting an afd one thinks is unsupported the norm is to chime in at the afd discussion rather than remove the tags and expect it will go away. I cannot predict whether the tools will be misused but the event and what has/hasn't been learned from it gives no comfort.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
An important aspect of adminship is to understand, or at the very least, acknowledge NFCC. Uploading fair use images of living people makes me doubt such knowledge. '''All''' admins, whether they wish to work with images or not, will need to understand the basic essence of fair use, and what constitutes copyright infringement. --
'''Oppose''' I appreciate the honesty with which this user approaches the questions in this RfA. They are not defensive but very open. However your response to #5 is troubling as are the comments about improper image uploads. I would encourage you to take that six months or maybe even a little less and come back later with a stronger vita. Thanks for applying and please do not be discouraged.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]]. We can always be wrong about some guideline or its latest version, but the rather recent incident mentioned in question 5 and the  answer here somehow convey that you think that our policies and guidelines precede any actual consensus building. This points at the need at indeed spending more time in the areas such as AfD where you would want to work an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' due to fair use rationale. Just because pics are on flickr, doesn't mean that they are necessarily free pictures to used on wikipedia. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' - Neutral due to lack of some policy experience, though in light of {{user|Siva1979}}'s comments I do not wish to oppose.
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) Perhaps I was too quick to lend my support, but all of the faith I had in this editor was dashed with in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hit_bull%2C_win_steak&diff=168454503&oldid=168452358 one fell swoop]. It just rubs me the wrong way when an editor is opposed (or neutral-ed) at RfA for one little nit-picky reason. I hated when I saw it here, but I hated it even more at Hit bull, win steak's RfA. You would withhold support over the fact that an editor doesn't have a Featured Article under their belt, but have no problem nominating yourself, when it's been shown that you have trouble understanding image policy? This doesn't sit right with me; I'd say that an understanding of policy is more important in a potential admin than something as trivial as not yet having an FA. In the interest of full disclosure, I did support Hit bull, win steak, but don't know the editor personally and have never interacted with him. But it seems that you're holding other potential admins to a much higher standard than you hold yourself. Simply put, I no longer trust this editor's judgment and initial concerns over his understanding of the image policy have been intensified. Regarding these concerns, he noted above that "I intend to familiarise myself to a greater degree with these policies if I am to be something of an example to others." Perhaps he will do this and in a few months my misgivings will be assuaged. I certainly hope so, for the reasons I initially mentioned when I supported. LincaLinca has the makings of an admin, but I believe that he is not yet ready.
'''Neutral''' - because I so don't get the answer to question 5, from [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] (ie why not say it was a blunder to remove the notice, but instead  start talking about the notability policy in question?) but it seems to be a bit harsh to oppose because of this.
''Support'' I like your general attitude, and support you despite a low edit count.
'''Support''' I'm going to support you here because I like both your attitude and your answers. Yes, the edit counts and frequency are concerning but I think that will come along on its own. In my thinking, good attitude trumps edit counts.
'''Strong Support''' per JodyB. The edit rate may be a little low, but the candidate clearly knows what s/he's talking about, as demonstrated by good answers to the questions. Editcount alone is not a sufficient reason to oppose; a good knowledge of policy compensates for a low editcount, IMO. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support'''. Great answer to questions. Active in policy discussions. I don't see a problem with 700 mainspace edits. Happy to support.
'''Support'''  I added comments below, in the neutral section, but have decided to support you because I think that you will be a good admin anyway.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' Answered my question, and others, honestly; which in my view is more important than availability (since every bit of admin work, however slight, helps the rest). Seems sensible and unlikely to abuse the tools.
Public service announcement: it's called "editcountitis" because it's '''a bad thing'''. Here we have a user with two years of good contributions, and several people who haven't even looked at the content of his contributions are opposing either because he has a life outside of Wikipedia or he doesn't make enough bot-like edits to meet some inflated standards by which 1800 edits is considered "low". If you can't even look for meaningful things to base your vote on, why are you voting? His contributions and experience satisfy me, so I '''support'''.
'''Support''' - bloody stupid opposes, the whole lot of them. Don't bother complaining either, I'll not be returning to this page until the end of this RfA.
'''Support''' Nice answers to the questions. User has clear concept on the policies. Would make a good admin.--
'''Support''' I've always had good experiences interacting with this editor. Were you around when 1000 was enough edits to satisfy the edit count voters? Loom91 was ; )
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  Editcountitis is harmful.
'''Support''' The concerns about edit count below are utterly absurd.  When did we start worrying about edit counts for users who had more than ~1000 edits, unless their distribution was completely lopsided? This sort of editcountis-creep is extremely harmful, especially given how badly we need more good admins. --
'''Moral support'''.  Editcountitis is not something I condone - although I must admit your contributions to the project space are a little sparse you've still demonstrated a knowledge of policy and guidelines.  User seem willing to help out where we need it and has given me no reason to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your mainspace edit count is low, 700 is not very good but its not too bad, I think if you get your edit sumamry usage up to at least 95% and increase you overall edit count, you'll pass in later months no problem. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Weak oppose.''' I like the answers to the questions, but the edit count and frequency of edits don't impress me.  The most edits in a month for the past year was 53, which I have already reached today alone.  The rate of edit summaries has risen to 100 percent, which I like, and I like his personality.  Maybe apply again in a couple months and get your edit count up, the general level for adminship is 5000. Good luck, <span style="font-family:ariel, serif;background:white;color:blue;border-style:double;letter-spacing:1px"><b><font color="FF0000">
'''Oppose''' Reluctantly. I'm sorry, but my general criteria regarding users edit counts is about 4,000. Mainspace edits are sor of spaced out through your time here on Wikipedia. I'm not saying they were bad edits ''at all'', just there are too few of them to really measure an editor by. I like your answers to the questions though, you have a pretty solid knowledge of what to do, but you need to get your hands "dirty" a little more often. —
'''Oppose''': I see potential in the future if you continue to edit at Wikipedia. You answered the questions truthfully and quite well, I may add, but unfortunately, a low edit count is what is holding you back. Please reapply in the future! Cheers,
'''Oppose'''.  Only a couple of contributions to AfD over the last six months, and a poor understanding of antivandal warnings.  I don't feel that there is enough recent evidence that the candidate is in tune with policy & practise.

'''Oppose''' I prefer to see more contributions per month before I support.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but not active enough for me. <i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
This candidate doesn't inspire enough confidence for me to be sure that giving them the tools would be a good option, due to inexperience. '''
'''Oppose''' Vague answer to Q1, says will 'actively deter vandals' but doesn't say how. There are plenty of tools open to non-admins to fight vandalism, which he doesn't seem to have been using up to now.
'''Weak Oppose''' Lack of contributions is a major concern here. Try again after two or three months and you will have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Few XfD contributions in past year, not a lot of anti-vandal work in past 500 contributions (with few warnings issued), editor hasn't demonstrated ability to work with the existing anti-vandal tools.
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't seem to have enough experience, the vandalism warning incidents were convincing me to put an oppose on here, too. Lack of contributions, and lack of participation at XfDs makes me oppose. I can't trust you with the tools à la moment.
per rudeness [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kolkata&diff=prev&oldid=60644113], template-warning vandal IPs shared by multiple users [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:218.186.9.6&diff=prev&oldid=81377119] (what's the point?)  and the fact that most of his edits have been minor unsubstantial ones. Before I get ragged on by the people pestering the opposers above, I ''did'' go through his contribs and found nothing that inspired any kind of trust. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Leaning towards Oppose''' - low edit count, low experience (generally less then 100 edits/month isn't good), but the answers to most TfD and CfD debates that I've seen are good.  Still, experience is always a huge factor. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Neutral towards weak support''' <i>I view the post of administrator as it was originally intended, a janitor with the key to the broom cupboard.</i> is an excellent answer to Q1 and I have the upmost repect for that attitude. However very infrequent editing with the exception of 1 month, a relatively low use of edit summaries (although recently better) and although here for a good length of time just simply not that active push me to be neutral. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knife_of_Dreams&diff=prev&oldid=134754241] seems to indicate a lack of knowledge of [[WP:SPOILER|new policies]]. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - I won't oppose because I like your answers, but the low edit summary usuage, and the semi-active editing worries me a tad. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Edit count is a little low; while this does not of itself indicate a lack of knowledge or interest or experience, it does mean that these thing are not obvious to the community. Also, answering every comment on this page is usually thought not to be a good idea, unless a question is asked or an incorrect assumption voiced.--
'''Neutral''' not supporting, due to low editing, and not opposing due to good answers to questions.
'''Neutral''' Your answers to the questions are exemplary.  You have added great information to the main-space and your edits there show quality.  Your project-space edits, however, leave much to be desired.  Your arguments on the XfD are few and some contain a clear misunderstanding of policy.  '''~a''' (
'''Neutral for now''' While I am not concerned with your overall edit count I do take notice to your edit count for the past few months. Arguably they could equate to one to two edits per day of the calendar month. While I am not saying that administrators have to be '''uber''' contributors or make sweeping changes with every edit I am curious as to what you spend most of your time on Wikipedia doing. I believe even a passive reader can be fully aware of policy and procedures on Wikipedia without having made a single edit - for RFA purposes it is almost prerequisite to see some of the knowledge employed, even if minimally. That said, in viewing your contributions, you have been active in Wikipedia discussions, but the gap in Wikipedia discussions between August and February concerns me, though barely. I will keep an eye on your RFA and possibly pose a question. --
'''Neutral''' I too like your answers to the various questions, but I think you're a bit inexperienced – you don't yet know what you don't know. Keep doing what you're doing, and in two or three months I will most likely support a second RfA.
'''Neutral''' While this editor has been around for a while, the relatively low number of edits make it difficult for me to get a read on their grasp of policies, etc. Clearly has improved over time, and would seem to be a good candidate in the future.
'''Oppose''' Because Mathbots edit summary tool is not working I've skimmed your contribs and your edit summary usage is very low, you only have 33 edits to user talk, which means you have little experience of communicating with other users which is important for an admin, as well as the fact you have 1000'ish edits over a one year period seems a little to inactive for an admin. Sorry but make some improvements and you could be an admin in the future.<b><font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per Tellyaddict.  Consider raising your level of activity, and editing a little more frequently.  '''
'''Oppose''' While adminship is no big deal and I understand that real life issues can interfere, I cannot support a candidate with less than 200 edits in the last six months, especially when ''none'' of those edits have been in Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk. I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination as well to avoid a pile on of opposes. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' as above.  Well intentioned, no doubt - work on edit summaries and getting a tad more experience with the project, and then make another run at it.
'''Oppose''' Very few edits in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. We need to see that youy have experience in admin-related activities, which as of now you do not appear to be able to demonstrate.--
'''Oppose''' You don't need the mop to revert vandalism, and per above.
'''Oppose''' Less than 500 edits. Suggest you withdraw or, failing that, somebody close per [[WP:SNOW]]. --

'''Oppose''' per above comments. You need more experience for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Not sure why user wants the tools, but they obviously don't have the experience to use them.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' for a relative lack of recent participation in the project - less than 100 edits per month since December - and a paucity of communication with other editors in on their user Talk pages and in the policy space too.  Work on admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols; warning editors who contribute CSD material about their edits; report vandals to AIV, 3RR, etc if discovered; demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines with contributions to XfD discussions.  Try again in six to twelve months' time with that experience and you should have a much more improved RfA.
'''Support''' - Well I believes the user has enough experience since he has been her for over 5 months and his edit count is excellent to even though his wikipedia project space contributions is too low , I believe he can make and excellent admin with a bit of coaching from more experienced admins. I don't believe he will abuse the tool in any way since his track record shows he is very determined. Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' this user has gained my trust via the answers to the questions.  '''
'''Support''' OK, the comment about promising to support may have been a bit silly but overall I think this person being an admin will contribute to the 'pedia growing.cheers,
'''Support''' per Casliber. Answers to the questions are fine. Note that some of the Oppose votes below are based on misapprehension of the facts (Lradrama ''is'' an active article-writer, and has never been blocked). If this request doesn't pass this time round, I urge the candidate to try again in a few months.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''  After due consideration and your answer to Q6. I see writing skills. I see vandalism reversion. I see interaction. I also see honesty and that you are prepared to admit a ''perceived'' mistake. RFA is about trust and I see no reason not to trust this candidate. I take note of the opposes and where they are valid I urge you to consider them, but nothing in them weakens my support. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Has good enough experience, the effect of making this user a sysop should be positive. The New England incident is likely to be a minor lapse of judgement. Hooray, a human!
'''Support''', changed from neutral. Come to think of it, I see no compelling reason not to support. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support'''. Changed from neutral to support. I'm impressed with the user's answers to questions 4,5 and 6. I feel that the whole thing with [[User:New England|New England]] is just a judgemental misstep, I don't think that it will cause an issue as far as misuse of tools.
'''Support''', I see no evidence that the user would abuse the tools. Furthermore, whom a user would / would not support in RfA should have no bearing on that user's RfA, in my opinion. --
'''Support'''. Trust is there, that's all that matters. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' per TheFearow; I see no reason to distrust this user. He may not be very experienced yet, but I think he'll do fine as an admin. <b>
'''Support''' - Why not?&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, comments left on talk page are largely over exaggerated in this vote.
'''Strong Support''' - Great editor. Will do good work
'''Support''' Concerns raised do not make me think user will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to have the correct priorities for an admin, and none of the concerns below put up a red-flag for me
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Oppose''' You have a healthy amount of edits, yet I am always concerned when I see nominees whose top contribution is their own userpage. Out of your four thousand plus edits, fewer than five hundred of those are to Wikipedia space. <strike>I am a little concerned with your having been blocked, although it appears it may have been an misunderstanding</strike>. I see a lot of RV'ing, but little contribution to any article or Wikipedia space. While I think your vandal fighting is great, I do not feel you have a grasp on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' Candidate has very little experience in project-space, a key area for admin-related tasks.
'''Strong oppose''' I do not think he has been her long enough in order to gain my trust. Sorry. I have changed to Strong Oppose because of the evidence of Lradrama promising New England support in his RFA. This evidence is putting me to Strong Oppose.
'''Oppose''' Lradrama appears to be functioning well as a recent changes patroller and article contributor. On that level, I trust that Lrdrama has a fairly good grasp of policy. Unfortunately, the comment left for [[User:New England]] and subsequent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:New_England&diff=prev&oldid=145040877 promise of support] lead me to question Lradrama's interpretation of adminship and judgment. It could be interpreted as a poorly thought-out attempt to be polite, but it doesn't make me comfortable supporting. I may change my opinion pending the answer to optional question 5.
'''Oppose'''. Few contributions to Wikipedia space outside AIV, and in particular no AfD edits, suggest that this editor has yet to acquire sufficient experience for adminship.
'''Oppose''' You have a reasonable number of edits in mainspace, and in user-talk, but disapointingly few in [[WP:NAMESPACE]] - which is to say Wikipedia, wiki-talk, AfD, etc. We can only assess your suitability for the admin role on the basis of your participation in admin-related tasks. I see very little. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose'''I think you are not ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' - User has under 2000 mainspace edits, and over half his total edits are to talk pages, not articles.  There's very little in the project spaces, and not much in the way of XfD material in contribs, either, which tends to be a large part of admin work.  Editcount doesn't count, but editing ''areas'' do.
'''Oppose''' - This time through... you're on the right track, I just want to see more experience. Keep up the good work, and civility!
'''Oppose''' - limited contributions to wikipedia namespace to demonstrate understanding of policy, particularly with regard to XFD,  which would be important in your role as an administrator. When this area have been addressed in a few more months, I will be happy to support. Keep up the good work :). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Oppose''' not enough experience yet. Keep working and contribute to the deletion discussions, and you'll get there in a few months. -
'''Oppose''' - I regretfully oppose. You seem to be a fine ''editor'' (keep up the good work! :) ), but I'm not convinced that you would be a good ''administrator'' '''yet'''. I noticed particularly that your Wikipedia namespace contribution count is low, which, in particular, doesn't inspire confidence. The error with the suggested arbitrary support of another candidate is forgivable, but it doesn't help. If you apply again in the future, I may yet support you - deal with the issues here and you'll be a fine candidate.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' Unsuitable username. Change it for your next RfA.
'''Weak oppose''' - sorry you're a good editor and in 6-8 weeks I'll support, however your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&contribs=user&target=Lradrama&namespace=4 project space contributions]  indicate that you have only started to gain deletion process experience in the last few days.
'''Neutral''' You have great admin potential but there is more to the role than vandal-whacking.  Try making contributions to the article space in addition to  your regular patrols; finding references; adding citations where appropriate and other equally valuable additions to the body of knowledge that we are here to amass.  You can also demonstrate your knowledge of the [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] by citing them when contributing to XfD discussions and when giving reasons for tagging articles for deletion too.  Admins live by these policies, so getting used to citing them before the request is made on your Talk page would be a good thing.  A little more experience in this area will serve to show that you know your way around the main areas of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral'''. Your answer to question one could be performed by pretty much anyone, and your edits are not amazing (over 300 in your own userspace), but otherwise I have no reason to distrust you.
'''Neutral''' I too see a great potential, but I am not ready to give you my support...yet.  You will be a great admin someday, but first your need to just get out and edit more.  I think you are well on your way however.
'''Neutral''' - I see considerable potential also, and would be inclined to vote for you with more expereince.  Keep up the hard work!
'''Neutral''' You need a bit more experience. Try again in a few more monts and I will give you my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I used the same strategy that you used for RFA recently and it did not work. As for any admin hopeful I suggest that you work on RfA and XfD. Your kindness champaign work is really good and I want to see that be kept up.

'''Support''', indicates a general desire to help Wikipedia. No "bad" edits. Seems well-versed with Wikipedia procedure. However, some advice for the future: Firstly, edit summaries. Use them ''every time''. Secondly, your RfA will fail, unfortunately. Try again in two or three months. In general, it's extremely hard to pass without at least 1000 edits, sometimes more. That may seem like a tremendous amount, but you can rack that many up surprisingly quickly. While you're working on those edits, be sure to engage yourself in a variety of activities. [[WP:AfD]] is a stereotypical one, as is [[WP:RCP]]. There's plenty to do, and only doing it will get you the gold-plated mop and diamond bucket. If you have any questions or require any more advice, give me a holler on my talk page. &mdash;

'''Oppose''' until you have more experience.  369 total edits is not enough, and barely any contributions outside of main article namespace.   <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''; less than 500 edits; edit summary usage is poor; not enough project-space edits; not enough info provided in self-description to adequately judge possible misuse of tools. <font color="darkred">
'''Oppose''' You've been here a while, but you need to be more active. I'd like to see at least 1000 edits, preferrably 1500. Use edit summaries at least 75%ish of the time, and be more active in the Project namespace; I like to recognize names of RfA candidates. Also, more info in your self-nom description would be nice. -
'''Oppose''' per above. I would suggest you come again in a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' per above. Just for your own reference, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Luckyluke&dbname=enwiki_p these are your edits] compared to [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sceptre&dbname=enwiki_p Sceptre's], a user whose RfA is passing right now. Note the difference in layout of namespace edits. Come back in a few months, and I'd be sure to vote for you if it looks right.
'''Oppose''', lack of edits. Thanks for the prop JHM, as well
'''Oppose''', for me less than a thousand edits can make an admin, and this is below my criteria. --
Oppose.
'''Oppose''' 1500-2000 edits will give you a chance next time. Use edit summaries as much as you can. Use the Community Portal Open Tasks. Make sure you vote on some AfDs and keep reverting vandals. Read the admin's reading list and the pages on consensus. Apply again in a few months.'''
'''Oppose''' as per all of the above, plus an almost non-existent introduction which tells us nothing about you or why you would make a good admin. --
'''Strong oppose''' 369 edits and only a Wikipedian since October?  Plus, 8% summary usage for major edits?  Read [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards]] and then reconsider why you self-nom'ed.&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose'''.  As per above.  Edit summary usage is way too low.  Also, ~120 edits in the last 4 days and then the next edit is 7 weeks back is just not enough for me. --
'''Oppose''' Come back three months later please.
User needs more experience.  --
'''Oppose''', per all the above. The nomination reasoning speaks volumes to me. He seems unsure of why he deserves adminship. I don't want an admin that will be that indecisive. --
'''Oppose''' for now for the above reasons but if the user reapplies in a few months I might reconsider. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' - inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' More experience, more edit summaries, and more support votes. The last one is a given, but still, sysops must be held to a better standard. --Jay '''(
'''Support''' I have no reason to oppose this user. I certainly suggest the candidate listens to what's being said in the opposition, and also enable the edit summary reminder in the preferences. With any luck, the next RfA should be successful.
'''Support'''. A good user, acting in good faith, and definately trustworthy. I would suggest working more on edit summaries and in other areas. Also, so you know, you can enable a preference in [[Special:Preferrences]] to remind you to use an edit summary. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Oppose''' Edit summaries are important for admins, since they often need to explain there actions through them (ie why they are deleting a page, ect). Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALuvcraft&diff=148758398&oldid=148756441 this] is not something I like to see in admins, as it shows a lack of control.  <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Weak Oppose''' per above, try to participate more in a variety of spaces (ex. Wikipedia). -
'''Sorry, but oppose''' I'm sorry but in my opinion you don't have enough experience. You barely have any User talk edits which to me suggests an inexperience with vandalism fighting however this coupled with <100 talk space edits suggests you don't have experience with dispute resolution/disputes, either. Try building up some experience and coming back :)
'''Oppose''' I think that this user has too few Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and user talk contributions and does not use edit summaries enough.
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience.
'''Strong Oppose''' Lack of edit summaries, removing contnet from page, and the evidence Wikihermit has all compeals me to Strongley oppose. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. My apologies, but the very first sentence of your response to question one bothers me greatly: ''"block the IPs of repeated vandals and'' '''''users who do not understand how Wikipedia works'''''." While I agree at times it is necessary to temporarily block vandals, blocking someone simply for their lack of knowledge about Wikipedia is not a valid (or desirable) thing to do. Instead, one should take the time to  help them, either by giving them links to policies and guidelines, or by personally explaining areas they have problems with in detail. I have done both, with great success, and I shudder to think that those people may have been blocked simply for their "newbie"-ness. Second, while I think it is great that you've been editing for years, the simple fact is, you don't have nearly enough edits to show a firm grasp of the policies and guidelines that an administrator should know. Thirdly, your continued "empty" edit summary is disturbing, especially after so many years. <s>On the off chance that you do not realize it, you can go into your preferences, and set it so Wikipedia will remind you if you haven't included an edit summary.</s> (I see you've done that now.) In addition, I see little or no activity on [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], or [[WP:RFCN]] and I don't get the feeling you truly grasp the depth of Wikipedia's infrastructure well enough to understand, much less effectively use, the tools of administrator. Finally, the evidence provided by  Wikihermit, and the lack of interaction with others, disturbs me. It is really part of an administrator's job to be able to interact with others politely, and appropriately, and I simply don't see that at this time. In conclusion, while your contributions over the years are most certainly appreciated, I don't believe that at this time, you would be able to effectively handle administration duties. <sup>
'''Oppose''' per above. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''- ''"I hadn't realized that edit summaries were important"''. Explaining your actions is ''very'' important. I do not believe you are ready to be able to correctly use administrator tools. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Possibly Temporary Neutral''' until other info surfaces. You know, there is a setting that reminds you to add a summary. This could be a support, but I didn't want to look tediously at every diff.
Leaning towards oppose. I'm afraid I can't support, for a number of reasons. The first, and the most pressing, is that you hardly use [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] at all, which is very important so people know what you're doing. Under Preferences, in the editing tab, there's a checkbox that says "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" - I'd recommend turning this on. That aside, you say you wish to work with vandalism yet I can't see any vandalism warnings or reports to AIV in your contribution history. Finally, <2000 edits in 3 years really isn't very many, and particularly the fact that you have less than 50 to Wikipedia space in the last year, doesn't give us much to assess you on. You seem on the right tracks, though, so I'm not opposing. In a few months of solid editing (with summaries), I may support. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''', I just can't support either even though you appear to be a civil and dedicated user. I would suggest gaining some experience within Wikipedia's inner workings in the Wikipedia space and try again in 6-8 weeks. If I see the improvement, there should be no reason why I won't support the second time around. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Moral Support''' - not really enough experience. Q3 also concerns me (an "edit conflict" is a completely different thing from a "conflict over editing"). I would advise withdrawing this RfA and returning in 3-4 months after gaining more experience. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small><sup><font color="Purple">
'''Support the effort''' Seems to be on the right track, just get some more experience and come back sometime in the future.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you seem to have good intentions, but your lack of editing is my main concern.  Get involved some more, try back in the future, and I would probably be more inclined to support.
522 edits is extremely low for an administrator candidate. Hasn't demontrated sufficient dedication, experience and capability to/on Wikipedia for me to even consider supporting. Suggest immediate withdrawal, with a note to consider [[WP:ER|editor review]] if you want feedback on your progress so far. '''
'''Oppose''' more reasons than one. Get a few more edits, and get a bit more experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' not that I have "editcountitis", but your edit count at this moment is sort of low for an admin candidate. You'll need more experience to earn the trust of the community, and just about all your current edit count in the Wikipedia-space. Finally, we always like to see some editing in admin candidates. Good luck! —
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid a bit more work is needed. We do appreciate your willingness to serve and I look forward to seeing another RfA soon.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience and low edit count. Not for now, sorry.
'''Neutral''' I have a good feeling about Lwarf and I don't believe he would abuse the tools but I think he needs a little more experience before we give him the mop.
'''Neutral''' You're doing well and you've made a good start here but it's probably a bit too soon to go for adminship at the moment. Keep up the good work though and try again when you have bit more experience here. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka

'''Neutral''' per The Sunshine Man. you seem to be a good editor, but it isn't clear that you have at present enough experience to become an administrator. The Sunshine Man has beat me to making the helpful suggestions, though. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]<sup>([[User talk:Nihiltres|t]].[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|c]].
'''Support''' - I'd like more interaction with other users, but beside that, nothing holding you back and, after all, ''adminship is no big deal''.
'''Support'''. Looks like a reliable, trustworthy editor. I'd like to see more participation in tagging articles for speedy deletion if you intend to assist with that backlog (shows you know what you're doing). But I ''really'' like your AfC contributions. It shows a dedication to assisting new users ''and'' building an encyclopedia, which is what we are doing here.↔
'''Support''' - I checked out the participation in the DB discussion per Hipocrite and saw not "process wonkery" but levelheaded reasoning.  Editing record is respectable as well.  --
'''Support''' - A good individual who will make a fine and trustworthy administrator.
'''Support''' Looks like a good potential admin.--
'''Supports''' with extreme confusion to the only oppose vote so far.  I've read his entire history regarding Daniel Brandt, and he followed policy by the letter and did a very good job.  What's the problem?
'''Support''' - I'd like to point out, neutrally, that Hipocrite's "wonkery" comment is bordering on uncivil. Please let's keep calm. ''
'''Support''' - Strong Wikipedia supporter..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per Hipocrite. ~
'''Support''' Great user. I only wished you had a little more experience. -
'''Support''' Hand over the mop or the vacuum, either will do for this ready and able nominee.
'''Support'''. Could use some more experience, but you've proven yourself. '''''
'''Weak support''' mainspace contributions outside of AfC are a little thin, at least recently. However, judgment in choosing appropriate articles from AfC seems solid and there's no indication that he'd misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - The opposing users have not convinced me that the candidate is untrustworthy. -
'''Support''' Likes the small things. Of particularly favourable note to me is helping in [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]]. Heavens forfend! '''Planned''' articles? Quick, enmop before sense makes an appearance!

'''Support''' Trialsanderrors makes an excellent point, suggesting this editor has the right temperament for adminship.
'''Support''' per Hipocrite. Excellent point by Trialsanderrors. —
'''Support''' Support per criteria set out on my user page.  Please remember it is a mop, not a gavel nor a billy club this community is giving you.  Some of the comments of others in this RfA might encourage you to treat the concerns of other users too lightly.  But the fault lies with them not you.
'''Support''' looks good, good article building and he cares about policy.--
'''Support'''.  Hipocrite's oppose caused me to dig for about half an hour yesterday into this user's contribs in that and other discussions, and all it did was reinforce to me that this user has a good head on his/her shoulders (and I couldn't see a single instance of "process wonkery", but hey, it caused me to do my research, so thank you!).  May not have the most experience in process at the moment, but, based on what I saw yesterday, I trust that they will study and learn before jumping into something they're not entirely familiar with.  I waited until today to !vote to see if anyone brought up something I hadn't caught, but nothing swayed me.  I respect most of the oppose voters, but I see no reason not to hand over the mop.  —
'''Support''' I think this user has what it takes to be a good admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' as I see ample evidence of need for the tools and a willingness to help in backlogged areas. Also, I don't see anything that supports the oppose reasons put forth by Hipocrite and MECU. I thinl Maelwys will do a fine job as an admin. ···
Just enough experience for me. MECU is being harsh. Hipocrite's objection I find less that convincing. Process wonkery is good thing. Trust the user to wield tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia. - <b>[[User:NYC JD|NYC JD]]</b><small> [[User_talk:NYC JD|(interrogatories)]]</small> 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just saw trialsanderrors' comment - my sentiments exactly. - <b>
'''Support''' per NYCJD.
'''Support''' - what's this? Do I hear the sound of a masochist who ''desires'' to perform thankless tasks? Quickly, friends! The mop and bucket for this one, before he gets wise to it! <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support.''' 2,800 edits is plenty of time. 2,800 edits and no blocks mean that this candidate has performed 2,800 actions in accordance with our policies. That means enough to me.
I'm not seeing any reason not to trust Maelwys with the admin tools. With regards to Hipocrite's concern: although I happen to disagree with pretty much everything Maelwys said at the DRV, his argument was reasonable. I don't think the opinion he displayed there, however [[Wikipedia:The Truth|wrong]] it was, has bearing on his trustworthiness as an admin.
'''Support''' 2800 edits is more then enough. -
'''Support''' (switched from neutral). --
'''Support'''. I hear and agree with Radiant's concerns on experience with process, but some of this opposition is pretty funny.  We're trying to gauge the motivations of people we don't know personally from their choice of minor words (ie. "deny me adminship)?  Also, as an '''administrator''' who has been guilty of having a fair-use image on his user page, I know how easy it is to run afoul of that policy- in this case (as in mine) it seems much more like absent-mindedness as opposed to lack of understanding. --
'''Support''' per pretty much everyone else :) Why not?
'''Support'''. All the oppose votes seriously looks like nitpicking and people tryign to find any reason possible to oppose him. Isn't adminship not supposed to be a big deal?--
'''Support''' Per Trials and Errors and Scimitar. Wonk away, just don't lose control of it.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]  User seems well-suited to adminship, willing to perform such tasks, and the response to Hipocrite is perfectly fine (and probably a lot less than I'd say in response to a useless oppose vote).  When I was made an admin, the question was, are you willing and able to do the job, and are you likely to abuse the tools if you're made an admin?  It's yes and no, and so I can find no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I'm with Ral315 and NYC JD, among others. No red flags and nothing that's come up among the opposing opinions particularly concerns me.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''', although I don't agree with the answer or the rationale behind the answer to Question 4. --
'''Support''', the arguments above this point are good and the concerns raised below are trivial or ridiculous.
'''Support'''.  After a look through their contribs, I'm convinced this user is familiar with policy, and I saw no civility problems or other issues that would prevent me from supporting.  Good contributions, and obvious willingness to help out with gruntwork like at AFC.  Good work with adopting users and responding well to their questions.  I don't agree with the answer to Q4, but I don't believe in denying someone adminship or other privileges based on a theoretical disagreement.  Edit count is also not a reliable indicator of experience.
'''Support'''. I believe the opposition based on the "deny me adminship" comment is unfounded. More user talk experience would be desirable, but as long as Maelwys proceeds cautiously with his newly found powers (if promoted), I don't see a problem.
'''Oppose''' - process wonkery RE Daniel Brandt is a deal breaker.
'''Oppose''' for use of fair use image in userspace: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Maelwys/Erin_Davis&oldid=92721053]. This occurred in December 2006 when the fair use policy was clearly established that use of fair use images outside article namespace was not appropriate. --
'''Oppose''' This user just does not have enough experience for me as of yet. I particularly would like to see more interfacing with other users. I see evidence of 69 user talk messages thusfar. A history of effective communication with other users is important to me in an administrator. I think this user should keep up the good work and come back in a little while.
'''Oppose''' - AfC is good training for AfD and CSD, but without significant experience dealing with users, I'm not convinced they're ready for the conflict that will come from performing deletions and blocks.  It's too easy to just decline an AfC and ignore the submitter. <font face="monospace">
Lack of experience with process.
'''Oppose''' per Kukini.
'''Oppose''' lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. Also the "you want to deny me adminship?" doesn't sounds too well for me,--
'''Oppose''' Must agree with Kamikaze, as the user seems slightly uncivil to me. He says "you want to deny me adminship" as if it's a trophy and the ''"actually it's not "quote"'' seems like this user needs to have some time to cool down before going after the M&B. Also, unexperienced in needed areas. [[User_Talk:VD64992|<font color="orange">VD649</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Must agree with Radiant^.
'''Oppose''' per the inappropiate "You want to deny me adminship" comment to one of the opposers, and I feel that the candidate needs more article writing experience.
'''Oppose''' per inappropriate comment, and just lack of experience. As other opposition.
'''Oppose''' for various reasons cited above, but mostly for lack of user interaction (ie talking) which I feel is key to adminship. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant and Kukini.--
'''Oppose''' I come as a "swing voter", seeing a 75% support rate, and I'll encourage the candidate to try again in another couple of months.  Processing CSDs is a good start, but he needs more experience with XFD or AIV or other admin areas.
'''Oppose''' Changed form neutral. I would rather err on the side of safety here than give someone the tools who has not '''demonstrated''' the abilities necessary. No disrespect to the candidate intended, but the low number of talk edits are, for me, decisive. Sorry, and, per Yechieman, come back in a couple of months for a better result. Sorry. --
'''Neutral''' leaning support. Not quite enough experience for my taste but one has to like an admittedly masochistic candidate who ''wants'' to do thankless repetitive tasks. Also, the oppose rationale of Hipocrite seems pretty far fetched. (additional comment: I still am not satisfied with the user's inexperience but the opposition based on the "deny me adminship" comment are so utterly ridiculous that I'm almost tempted to support as a protest...)
'''Neutral''' As per Pascal. -- ''
'''Neutral''' but quite favorable.  I don't have the time to look into his time on Wikipedia, so I can't speak to his edit history here and thus don't feel comfortable making a Support vote.  However, I've had experiences with him as a moderator on other sites, and he's always been rational, fair, and even-handed.  I have no doubt he would keep up his track record here.
'''Neutral''' The lack of user talk activity means it's not possible to tell how the user will deal with vandalism or to a lesser extent, editing conflicts. I'd definitely support Maelwys otherwise.
'''Neutral''' - see my comments above.
'''Neutral''' The early opposition rationales are so wrong that I was tempted to support simply to offset them.  However, there is a lack of demonstrated experience in communicating with other users and working through the AFD process.  And my review of his article talk page contributions make me concerned that he may be too willing to use [[WP:NOR|original research]] to write articles.
'''Support''' - Can't find any reason ''not'' to support and user seems like a well-rounded, good-intentioned editor who knows what he's doing and could be a compliment to the site with the tools. Cheers,
'''Support''' Probably could use some better edit summary usage (on minor edits, mainly), but other than that, the user seems to know what he's doing. &nbsp; '''
'''Support''' with reservations. You appear to have little experience with adminny things, such as [[WP:XfD]] or [[WP:RCP]]. However, there is potential to be a great administrator, as you do have a reason to have the tools.
'''Support''', reasons given in proposal.--[[:ca:Usuari:Xtv|Xtv]] - (
'''Support'''.  Sure.  <span style="color:red">'''Happy Holidays!!'''</span> <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Seems to be a good contributor, with a mature attitude.
'''Support''' - good contributor.
'''Support''' Excellent user. I'm impressed with conflict resolution skills (edit warring counts as a conflict, in my opinion).
'''support''' --
'''Support''' Does a great job with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery]].
'''Support''', seems fine to me.
'''Support'''. I've encountered this editor a number of times over at the [[WP:DEP|Dead End Pages]] project, and I know the mop will be in good hands.--
Per my note in the Oppose section below. It would be helpful if he learnt the CSD criteria by heart (to avoid repetitions of Phil Bridger's diffs below), but he's evidently familiar with plenty of other admin-related areas, and I see no reason not to give him the mop. If this RfA is successful, I recommend that he refers to [[WP:CSD]] before carrying out any speedy deletions.
'''Support''' CSD issue is a concern but we all must learn. with +19,000 edits and +12,000 of those in the mainspace it is a no brainer (even if it is mostly Janitorial). Janitorial work is necessary to maintain the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' - Adminship ''is'' janitorial.  He's smart.  He'll figure out the admin tools fast enough.  He's loyal - virtually all his edits have been in good faith.  We need more admins like him.  '''''
'''Support'''. level-headed and common sensed; would make a great admin.--'''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A solid editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', hard-working, dedicated, serious and calm editor, all vital characteristics for adminship. --
A couple very small mistakes, isn't a problem IMO. I also, don't see helpfully using AWB as a problem.
'''Oppose'''. Has demonstrated in the last 48 hours a lack of understanding of speedy deletion criteria.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_graffiti&diff=prev&oldid=178411722][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICT_Definitions_and_Terms&diff=prev&oldid=178410645] Also both of those articles were tagged without an edit summary, making it difficult for anyone reviewing contributions for this AfD.
'''Oppose''' I cannot in good conscience support someone who has contributed mostly janitorial work for adminship. There's no need for admin tools to do that kinda thing.
'''Oppose'''. Does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. Absolutely not ready for adminship. ---
'''Oppose''' Very much so, per Phil.
'''Oppose for now.''' I may be wrong, but I can see very little [[WP:AIV|vandal reporting]], [[WP:AFD|AfD discussion]] or warning of vandals on user talk pages. While the maintenance work is impressive in its quantity, I'd also like to see evidence of the kind of work which runs into admin-related tasks and would give this user experience prior to a future request for adminship.
'''Oppose for now''' Not ready yet based on deletion confusion. Only speedy when you are absolutely certain the article meets all the criteria and nobody besides the creator would ever object. When in doubt, don't speedy. If you're going to get involved with deletions, please participate in some of the more disputed AfDs and DRVs. Learn to independently verify notability before commenting in an AfD, doublecheck our guidelines each time, etc. I suspect I'll be happy to support in the future when you've got more substantive experience engaging in discussions. --<font face="Futura">
'''Oppose'''. The activities cited are blocking the occational IP vandal you come across, and speedily deleting pages, aswell as closing AfD discussions. I don't see all that much AfD experience, not much reporting to AIV, and I share the above concern about speedy deletion. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mill%28insult%29&diff=177414670&oldid=177408914 This edit]] especialy I find concerning. In an AfD discussion, you ask for speedy deletion, without indicating what criteria for speedy deletion should be used. In other AfD's I see a lot per nom !voting. All in all, for the tasks you are requesting the tools for, AfD closure, Speedy, and IP blocks, you have not convinced me.
'''Oppose''' per Kim Dent-Brown.
'''Oppose'''. CSD issue and AWB usage is too much for me to support., and per Kim Dent-Brown.
'''Oppose''' per Phil, CSD concerns are glaring. Despite 19,000+ edits, there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate the candidate has a good grasp of process. --
Per Coredesat, Phil Bridger and relatively uninspiring answers to questions. '''
'''No for Now''' Seems like a solid editor in many respects, but I'm having some serious issues with the candidate's understanding of CSD. Making decisions on CSD is one of the most important things a sysop does, and whether  intended to be used or not, at some point he the candidate be likely need to do some CSD related work. Once he or she has a better grasp on this I will probabally support
'''Oppose''', due to a seeming lack of understanding of CSD.  I invite the editor to come back in a couple of months when they can demonstrate an understanding of the process, and I'll be happy to support.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]].
'''Oppose''' &mdash; The mechanical work that makes up the bulk of this user's contributions is important, and I have no problems in general with users who do mostly that.  But those kinds of users tend to develop a fortress mentality that is not conducive to being a good administrator.

'''Neutral''' with sentiments of support. Lots to like here, a productive and dedicated editor, but the [[C:CSD]] issue above concerns me. Poor deletions not only anger editors (mind you good deletions also do that!) but cause additional work for others. I'm sorry, but Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Neutral''' (leaning towards support)- I like your contributions but the CSD issue is a problem.
'''Neutral''' Plenty of contributions, but agree with the CSD problem per above. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
Stuff the transclusion ;) -- <strong>
'''Omg I thought you were already an administrator Support''' Majorly has been an exceptional administrator on the English Wikipedia. We'll surely see more great things from him. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' Weren't taken away, thus no reason not to have 'em back.
'''Support''' obviously. <b>
(Double edit conflict) '''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Welcome back.  &#10154;
'''Support'''. The reconfirmation RfA is not necessary, but Majorly's return is necessary, and if this is the only way we get him back, so be it.
'''Support''' - Welcome back, we need you! :) Love,
I very strongly support this nomination. Majorly was always an excellent administrator, and one you could go to for help. He made very good and sensible use of the tools. It will be good for him to be an admin again.
'''Support'''. Majorly should return to his usual [[niche]] of "Asset to the community." '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support'''
'''Welcome back''' per Newyorkbrad.

'''support''' already was, and will soon be again. --
'''Support''' Well duh. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''<s>Conditional oppose until AD learns how to spell</s>''' :p '''Hell yes''' ...and bring out the champaign.--
'''Support''' no real reason not to.  Wait, there isn't any reason to oppose. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Strong Support''' as per CO ..Hell yeah You must be kidding me? .. he deserves it..he left without any sort of drama and he should get the tools back :) ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''  As per nom and Newyorkbrad.See no reason not to.
'''Hell yes'''. You must be kidding me? Seeing this confused the hell out of me...I guess I'm not too observant considering I hadn't noticed Majorly wasn't an admin for a while. Regardless, Majorly is trustworthy and has proven he knows how to use the tools appropriately. -
'''Support''' A great former admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Thought was admin already.
What the!?! Majorly got desysoped!?! Get that mop back! I miss you as an admin! At this case, I will '''strongly support''' this RfA.
'''Support'''...but unneeded. He can get the bit back without going for an RfA again.
'''Support'''. <s>Jumps on the bandwagon</s> But seriously, you need the mop back. Wikipedia NEEDS you.
'''Support'''. Welcome back. —
'''Support''' This must be a lot more fun than trying to win a Request for Bureaucratship!  In all seriousness, I'm a little surprised that Majorly felt he needed to ask for the tools; I place him in the highest regard among administrators who are both substantially active and careful with their judgment.
'''Support''', Per nom.
Of course, very good addition to the sysop team. '''
Absolutely, welcome back.
'''Of coarse!''' Your still gonna be a good admin, I trust you!
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely!
'''<big>+</big>''' Ain't done no wrong by me.
Has a proven ability in nuking vanity/spam/attack/nonsense pages. T minus 4.75 and counting...
'''Support''' - Read all above if it's not already obvious. —
'''Support.'''
Didn't even need to think about this one. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support.''' Per nom and above. --
'''Support''' Thought you were one already... HAH!  I made a joke.  But seriously, '''full''' in my support.
'''Support''' - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">
'''Strong support''' —
--
'''Sure.'''
Of course! You were a very "devout" admin, and I believe that you will be one when you become one again. Good luck!--
'''Strong Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' —  per Jmlk17's "joke" :-) --'''
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad
'''Strong Support'''. He's one of our better admins when he does have the tools, let's give them back.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' while some have raised concerns here, none of us are perfect and it is not enough for me to say oppose here, and Majorly has done some outstanding admin work.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Support'''
If I could issue only one single support ever, this would be it. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Welcome back. —
'''Support''' obviously. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' It wasn't strictly necessary to ask for reconfirmation, but it shows a respect for the community that should  be encouraged.'''
'''Strongest Support''' - The excellent of Majorly is apparent, and very much evident, throughout Wikipedia.
'''Support.''' I know this editor's previous work, and I have no qualms about him having the tools back. I do join those who feel this RfA is unnecessary, but opinions may differ on the logic of reconfirmation RfAs, so we'll probably never solve that.
'''It's a no brainer''' --
'''Support'''.  I wouldn't be opposed to having you back.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''', one of our top 20, in my humble opinion.
'''Support''' restoration of rights of an andmin with reasonable experience and no major problems. `'
'''Support''' - I've had positive experiences with this editor and I can't think of a reason to oppose.
'''Support''', I haven't seen any serious problems with Majorly's work as an admin, nor since giving up the tools. --
And nothing more to say… — <small>
'''Support''', definitely. Very good admin here and on all other projects, extremely hardworking from what I've seen from Commons, certainly no reason to keep the tools from him --
'''80 !votes in and no "Majorly support" joke support''' '''
'''No brainer support'''.  -
'''Support''' He was a good admin before, he will be a good admin again. <font color="Green">
'''Support'''. The candidate is qualified and dedicated.
'''Support''' If I support this user's 'cratship then I don't think an RFA will be much of a problem. Majorly has the one of the greatest levels of common sense I have seen from a Wikipedia user.
'''Support''' A good admin and editor in all of my experience.  I don't typically like to see people come and go from positions of responsibility without recourse, but since we have no rules barring this at WP, why make an issue with one of our better people.  For the good of the project. Cheers! --
O_o ?? -- <b>
'''Support''' Let's evaluate on the merits. -
'''Support''' &mdash; The confirmation RfA isn't really needed, as you resigned voluntarily, but I'm per Newyorkbrad on this one<small>, since he's nearly always right</small>. —
'''Support''' Never knew he left. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Support''' as per all of the above. I've always wanted to become an administrator, but I support this RfA for Majorly. [[User:Sjones23|Greg]] [[User talk:Sjones23|Jones]]
'''Sure''', even though I think it would have been better to just ask for them back.
'''Support''' of course. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong support''' As we all know, Majorly was a great administrator, and almost all agree that he should get the tools back. Also, I would not say that looking for community reconfirmation is unnecessary or a misuse of the RfA process for two reasons. Firstly, the whole purpose of RfA is to gauge if community trust in an editor is sufficient to allow them to become an administrator. This is exactly what Majorly is doing here: seeing how much the community would support him getting the tools, regardless of whether or not he had them before. Secondly, instead of directly asking a bureaucrat to give him his sysop status back, he is asking the ''community'' for this. Thus, he can be absolutely sure that the community approves of his resysopping through consensus, and not through a personal request. Cheers, and happy editing, '''(
'''Strong Support''' Majorly was, and will continue to be a great admin. I have seen no convincing opposition. --
'''Strongly support'''. He was a good admin, and his willingness to undergo RfA again is commendable.
'''Support''' Great admin. --
'''Strong support'''. Wikipedia needs more admins of his kind. ~ <span style="white-space:nowrap; color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">| <small>
'''Strong support'''  So what if he wants a reaffirmation from the community, let him have it! --
'''Support''' obviously.  Nothing wrong with running it by the community again to see if Majorly is still trusted and respected.  I trust and respect Majorly, ergo I support resysopping.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' No problems here. --
'''Support'''. I wish other decisions were this easy! --
'''Support'''.  Uh huh. -
'''Support''' - Fo' sho'. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support'''.  Proven to be trustworthy and responsible.--
'''Support''' per Guy, I don't have any objections to a candidate checking to see if the community still supports them having +sysop on the project.
'''Strong support''' - Its probably a matter of simple logic at this point, a user with such a colosal ammount of contributions to the project with nothing particulary problematic on his contributions as a writer or as a sysop is definitely worthy of my trust. -
'''Support.''' - Tools, shmools. Just because Majorly gives up the tools does not invalidate the consensus deeming Majorly well worth those tools. That's how consensus works. Since Majorly first became an admin, the community has always believed that Majorly can be trusted with the tools.  There is no consensus that says otherwise and I can't imagine there ever would be. Dedicated, thoughtful, wise, Majorly is an admin's admin - someone other admins turn to for guidance. Whenever I see Majorly's name on something, I always pay special attention to his post because just about always has important information that adds to any discussion. Other than the ax grinders, the opposition is that he shouldn't expect a pat on the back. If you perceive that this is a matter of patting Majorly's on the back to help him keep going, why deny him that? We're all different and each of us has different experiences. Why is it so difficult for you to show an unselfish concern for Majorly's welfare? Those in the opposition who are turning this discussion to be about themselves should look again into their hearts to find the kindness and support for which they perceive this situation calls and for which they have denied. --
Completely agreed with Cecropia in Discussion.  I have no issue with reconfirmation RFAs whatsoever, and to be perfectly honest I don't understand the (somewhat) significant opposition.  Administrators are administrators per consent of the community, and asking the community whether they still consider you an acceptable administrator is perfectly in line with the spirit of Wikipedia.  —
Unquestionably '''support''', good admin in a number of places.  Folk who hand back tools and then find a need again cause me no problems --
'''Support''', I think he has already demonstrated admin abilities.
Protest-neutral-protest support. What kind of twisted logic is leading certain people below to believe that they should vote against someone they support just because they don't think the vote is necessary, I'm not sure –
'''Support'''.  We need an experienced admin who knows when to take and break, and when to come back!
'''Support''' a Wikipedian who has consistently shown good judgement and common sense.
'''Support''' While I think this RfA is kind of silly, in asking the question, "Will this user help Wikipedia as an admin?" I would have to say yes.
'''Support''' - I don't understand the arguments for opposition at all.  He just left a month ago.
'''Support''', obviously, for so many good reasons that there's no need to list them. That said, I must also add that I'm deeply disturbed by certain behaviour exhibited in this RfA, with a far excessive agressiveness.--
'''Support''' -

'''Support''' Not happy at this [process, not sure why he gave up the tools only a month back when he could have just taken a break. Anyway I still have no hesitation in supporting for his good track record. Thanks,
'''Support''' because he was and will again be an excellent admin. Whatever you think of whether we should go through this process or the reasoning behind it, there is no sense at all in opposing someone who is an extremely useful admin on that basis. If he were to not become an admin because of people not liking the fact we are going through another RfA, how would the project stand to gain? [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
Bleh
But of course.  &mdash; <tt>
Alex has proven he can be a great user of the tools, and I still trust him with them- &ndash;
'''Support''' candidate. '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' There's nothing to suggest that he will misuse the tools; he was a great administrator and I'm sure that he won't abuse the tools. —&nbsp;'''
Looks to have picked up the usual specious opposition, but there don't seem to be any meaningful problems.
'''Support''' I ''know'' this user will not misuse the tools and will apply them responsibly and maturely.  I don't think treating [[WP:RFA]] as some kind of meta-commentary process is very effective, though, but I certainly won't play that game and oppose/neutral on such a basis.  --
'''Support''' - we need as much help at [[CAT:CSD]] as possible.  Also, the "thought he already was an admin" comment applies here.  --
'''Support''' - unquestionable -
'''Support''' - Community minded and will not abuse the tools - happy to support this candidate. The very fact he has sought reconfirmation to me suggests he has been able to learn from past mistakes.
drama, i liek. —
'''Support''' Why not indeed? --
'''Support''' while not drinking Champagne. --
''''support''' --
'''Support.'''  I can understand the comments saying this RFA is unnecessary.  However, yes, Majorly does have community support.  (Personally, I might have just asked for the bit back, and opened a self-RFC or editor review for feedback, but whateveer).
'''Support''' Answers to the questions are horrible. All are vague, and none put forward an actual answer but point to something else, to be applied case by case. It is, however, the way the judgement or exegesis is decided upon that is important. While this would normally account of an oppose, this user has not abused the tools in the past, regardless of other policy violations. Anonymous page creation will return, so we need all the hands we need.
I'm
Former Admin who left on his own call instead of being forced... I have no objections to that. Give 'em the mop! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super
'''Hell yeah!''' only saw this now, sorry Majorly :-)--
'''Strong support''' - this is an obviously trusted user with adminship across multiple other projects and former admin here who gave up the tools voluntarily - of course he should be supported! It seems obvious that Majorly is deserving of the mop, and I'm surprised that this admittedly unnecessary process is being used to get it back.
'''Strong support''' for reasons too obvious to enumerate. '''&ndash;
'''Strong support''' No qualms or concerns; great contributions. <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' must say I'm not thrilled about the timing but ultimately a net gain to the project. About the comments cited for incivility below but I have seen much worse and if that's the worst that can be found then I'm not too bothered. cheers,
'''Support''' Because the opposes are not convincing. -
'''Support''' - Only seen good from this editor. Cheers,
'''Support''', a trusted user. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Support'''. As an outsider to the emotions broadcast in the ballot, there really is no problem. People make mistakes. I'm not going to punish someone for handing in their admin tools and then wanting them back.
'''Support'''. Strong user. Don't see any problems. --
'''Support''', a completely trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', greatly encouraged by CO's link to a comment by Majorly asking someone to treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. --
'''Support''' - Long overdue; thought he was an admin (honestly!) --
'''Support''' User had the tools before, don't see why he/she shouldn't. <font color="green">[[User:VivioFateFan|VivioFa]]</font><font color="red">[[User:VivioFateFan|teFan]]</font> <sup>([[ User_talk:VivioFateFan|Talk]],
'''Hell no''' You must be kidding me? <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Oppose'''.  You voluntarily rescinded the +sysop bit, there is no need for an RFA, and I cannot see any point other than to make yourself feel better.  This is my own little protest at the whole pointless exercise.
'''Oppose''': Let's just say that I still hold to the [[Cincinnatus|Cincinnatan ideal]] and that this user's missteps disdain (and embracing of opaque processes) leave me cold.
Oppose, per Neil.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
His recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=168407686 support] of an utterly unjustified indefinite block gives me reason to not want him to have the block button himself.  He demonstrated poor judgment as an admin in the past, and I see no evidence that it has improved.
'''Oppose''' Announcing retirement then returning (or being talked into returning) a month or so later is a sign of poor judgement and lack of balance. I am not certain that someone showing this degree of volatility can keep their cool in all circumstances.

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=168407686] shows that the candidate doesn't even review a situation before supporting a block (Kmweber does far more than make edits to RFAs) and supports blindly. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=130113274] shows that the candidate doesn't mind assisting in trolling. And aside from that, as Gandalf points out above me, users who announce retirement and then come back a month later are unreliable.
'''Strong oppose.''' There is no need at all for this RfA, you could just request them back quietly - you brought it here so you could be praised as an editor, not to know you still have the trust of the community. This is a '''strong oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' I cannot help to feel this is an ego boosting exercise. This is a misuse of the RFA process and the answer to the "what have you learned from the two RFBs" doesn't fill me with too much confidence. Those that seek "power" are not always those who should have "power".
'''Oppose''' Didn't answer my question [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly&diff=prev&oldid=169476329 when he had the chance] showing he doesn't care about the concerns of editors since he already has the votes. I also agree with [[User:Neil]].--
'''Oppose''' Basically per Friday. He supported a terrible indef block while making clearly inaccurate statements. Even more worrisome is this: ''The general consensus is such votes are harmful and so, the block is good - he is "harming" the editors of the encyclopedia.'' There was no such consensus, and he's saying an indef block is justified if an editor has an opinion that enough other editors disagree with in the absence of any disruption. I don't want an admin supporting those types of blocks. If the whole Jimbo desysopping thing hadn't just happened the block would have been overturned much quicker than it was.
'''oppose''' answers to quetions were very short and not very clear.
'''Oppose''' (reluctantly).  I'm concerned about [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] that could be taken as [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Postman_Pat&diff=153777005&oldid=153775438] intemperate user talk page comments,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diego&diff=163800616&oldid=162338420] reversion of warnings & criticism from his/her talk page,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&diff=163800043&oldid=163677447][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&diff=163829932&oldid=163807536][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majorly&diff=166285977&oldid=166280159] using history deletion without giving a policy rationale,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newland_House_School&diff=prev&oldid=155215759] indefinitely blocking an editor without citing a policy reason, reviewing and declining unblock requests made against his own blocking,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angleaside&diff=158271763&oldid=158271321] And other similar issues.  Taken together, I come away with concerns about Majorly's approach to accountability.  It's important for any editor to be accountable to his or her fellow editors, but it's vital for an admin.  I recognize the positive contributions Majorly has made previously as an admin, but the concerns nag at me.  I feel that wwe have a sufficient number of admins who are willing to use confrontation, and that balance would better be served by more conciliation rather than more confrontation.  As Majorly wrote, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=169373194 adminship is no big deal, and that also means not getting it is no big deal].  Can we support someone for admin who doesn't appear open to criticism from those perhaps less temperate and less civil, someone who doesn't clearly explain why admin action was necessary?  I can't.  I wish I could.  --
'''Oppose''' per Friday.  If the candidate's previous RfB's are any guide, the candidate believes I bear a grudge against him for some reason.  In order not to aggravate this situation, I had intended to refrain from commenting here, but Friday's rationale is too compelling.  Candidate too often resorts to overly-emotional or simplistic thinking, does not exhibit a stable temperament, and shows evidence of immaturity in his judgment.  In some areas of policy, he is competent notwithstanding these flaws; in others, they do pose a danger.  On balance, I think his mophood is not of benefit to the project.
'''Oppose''' for a combination of reasons, but ultimately because of his record with blocks.  All in all, I'd trust him to close AfD discussions.  He's good at that.  But I don't trust him around contentious blocks; my impression is that he makes too many snap judgments without actually researching the situation - and can't be bothered to research the facts before presenting his judgment, nor to change his mind when the facts are presented.  I don't have a strong opinon about his use of the protection tool, he used it about 600 or so times and I don't recall disputes over that.  I'd like to give him the deletion tool back, I'm convinced he would be a net benefit with it, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the protection tool.  We've got a strong consensus against giving someone the tools on the restriction that they only use some of them, see badlydrawnjeff's last RfA for a clear demonstration.  So I have to make an all or nothing decision.  If I had reason to think he had made some change in his attitude toward blocking, I'd go neutral.  But his recent comments regarding the blocks others have made convince me that he still lacks appropriate judgment in this area.  I'm also quite troubled by the evidence Ssbohio found that he has reviewed and declined unblock requests for his own blocks.  Basic accountability requires that he allow an uninvolved admin to review.  It would be wrong for him to ping a friend to rush to rubber stamp the review; it is even worse to decline the request himself.  (In this case, the right outcome was reached, but Wikipedia would be better off if a different admin had declined.  And this is the most recent block that Majorly issued, so he certainly hasn't changed his ways since.)  His block log summaries on September 5 were also inappropriate, showing a lack of judgment.  I must oppose; on final consideration I don't want him anywhere near the blocking tool.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. Also, I once observed the candidate escalate an edit war by logging out to make a revert. In the interest of full disclosure, I had done so first, but clearly by accident. It's hard to assume his almost immediate IP edit was also an accident. As Xoloz says, the candidate "resorts to overly-emotional or simplistic thinking", and I've just seen that a lot with his embrace of "voting is evil" dogma. --
'''Strong Oppose''' unreliable
'''Oppose''' Too hostile to naysayers on RFAs, as recently as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gurch 2|last week]].
The continued denial of using an IP address abusively right up until concrete proof in the form of a CheckUser is provided makes it a no for me.  I also wonder how many other registered user accounts he may be running.  --
'''No''', drama-magnet, impulsive, and not well-suited to the task. I voted neutral on his original RFA before the name change, and nothing in his actions since then makes me likely to support his candidacy this time, especially with the attention-seeking aspects of it. -- ''
'''Oppose''' On reflection, and after reading one or two of these incidents I was not previously aware about make me oppose. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Majorly is probably a sockpuppet of [[User:Matthew]]. --
Per [[Special:Undelete/User:G1ggy/Chatlog Majorly]] (admin only). I know I'll get absolutely raped for even bringing this up again, but so be it.  Especially if this vote changes things...&nbsp;
Oh my. There was an incident a few months ago where Matthew was responding in real time on User talk:Tony Sidaway to a conversation Tony was having in the admins' IRC channel.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=130103272] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=130106012] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=130113274]  If Matthew and Majorly really are two different people, then it seems likely at a minimum that Majorly was copying the channel to his "mate."  Also, when gmaxwell first brought up the issue of the logged-out edit in the dispute over the RFA template, Majorly's response was, "it's impossible, I never even use that range, and where do I go to complain about checkuser abuse."  Only after lengthy discussion did he decide that maybe he was at his grandmother's house that day and might have done it but doesn't remember.  Neither incident by itself is conclusive, but the two together raise questions about his temperament.
'''Oppose''', switched from neutral in light of recent developments. Even if Majorly is not a sockpuppet of Matthew Fenton, some of the other related behavior outlined here - such as logging out to edit war and aggressively denying it, and possibly leaking IRC logs, are not a good sign... :/ '''<font color="#C31562">
'''Protest neutral''', but otherwise support. Using RFA as a meta-technique for extracting criticism from the community is a misuse of the process, and given the nature of criticism on RFA, will likely be completely ineffective. Regardless, I strongly echo Newyorkbrad's comments above: welcome back.
'''Neutral''' &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Neutral''' - I too think that it would have been better to just ask for the tools back. It took me a while to find the previous RfA, and having reviewed that, I don't think there is a need for this RfA. Might I suggest that Majorly ask for this RfA to be closed per [[WP:SNOW]], if he feels that the community have shown their trust? I recently went through a similar process to that being gone through by Hit bull, win steak, and I'm not sure how useful these popularity contests are. I personally didn't have the guts to ask for a WP:SNOW close, but I do think that it can be disconcerting for other people who have RfAs running to see other RfAs get much more attention. Regarding the amount of time, might I suggest that people spend more time reviewing the contributions of the other people currently at RfA? I've just !voted in Hit bull, win steak's RfA and this one, and I feel I should have spent the time reviewing and contributing to the other RfAs. So I'll go and do that now.
'''Neutral''', if anything leaning towards opposition, due to the at-best-pointless nature of this exercise, per several of the above comments.
'''Another protest neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''' - echoing the above neutral comments. And I would like to know why you felt it was necessary to give up the tools, and whether you will be doing this again.
'''Protest Neutral''' That is a support, but I'm not in the mood to massage Majorly's ego, which frankly seems the only point of this RfA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Teeth gritting, hair tearing out, neutral''' I know Majorly as a good user, but I cannot ignore the users who oppose. Neutral for now. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Neutral'''. I have similar doubts as the above as to the necessity of this RfA but still can not oppose a user who I have full confidence in to not abuse the tools.
'''Neutral''', Majorly was a good admin and will very likely continue to be one he has the tools back, but whatever his intent, I can't help think this was not the best way to go about getting the mop out of the closet.  To some extent it perhaps hurt his reputation more than it helped it, but in the end there is no real reason to oppose.--
'''Neutral''' Giving it up then coming back so quickly?? I see that you have everything needed as you have been an admin but I think that if you give up youre adminship, you should have to wait a while to get them back. 12 or so months.
'''Protest Neutral''' Per Gracenotes and Pedro. Welcome back, but there's little need to go through a RfA again to regain the mop. <font face="Forte">
Between my belief that this process is a waste of time and the unresolved checkuser thing above. '''
'''Neutral''' and I promise to make my final decision soon.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]]
'''Neutral''' until sockpuppet questions are fully explained.
'''Neutral''' pending results/explanation of concerns raised by Gmaxwell. <font face="Broadway">
'''Neutral'''.  I await an explanation from Gmaxwell, as these are very serious allegations that I hope were not made lightly. --
'''Neutral'''. I've been reading the oppose/neutral discussions, since I know Majorly only barely, and I'm convinced that he's used the admin tools rather aggressively on some miscellaneous occasions (I won't elaborate as it's all been covered above). Still, in my experience it's not unusual for editors to let their hair down after they've had admin status for a while, and I don't see anything I find really egregious. Done some things I don't like, but not enough for me to oppose, considering that he's done a lot of good, uncontroversial work as well. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Neutral''' - It pains me to do this, since I remember Majorly being a good admin, as I said in my earlier Support vote. However, I can't ignore some of the opposers' concerns. Ignoring the allegations of sockpuppetry (which I find implausible, and anyway he is innocent until proven guilty), I am very concerned by the deleted chatlog brought up by H<sub>2</sub>0. Threatening to sink someone's RfA as a petty revenge for making an RfA vote that he disagreed with, and admitting to having done so in at least one earlier RfA, seems to me to be duplicitous. Also, the edit war brought up by W.marsh concerns me on multiple levels. To argue that we don't need a tally on RfAs because "it's consensus, not vote counting" seems to me to be complete insanity. If we move away from voting on RfAs and let the bureaucrats decide, then Wikipedia will become like other sites on the Internet - that is, run by a cabal who promote their own friends to positions of authority. Don't get me wrong; I don't think he ''wants'' that, and I know he's doing what he thinks best for Wikipedia, but I think that his disdain for democracy and popular rule are very dangerous. Also, using an IP to revert on such a controversial issue, and then denying it until conclusive proof was provided, is not a good sign. I won't oppose, because I don't think his sysopping will be harmful to the project; to my knowledge he's never abused the admin tools, and I know he always acts in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interests. But I can't in good conscience vote to give him a position of authority in the face of this evidence.
'''Neutral''' - Have to say, per Walton, as I can't read the chat log myself, but it sounds pretty grave.
'''Moral support''' And how is 2854 edits since July 2005 being new here? &mdash;'''
'''Oppose'''- Vandalism Watchdog isn't a sysop chore...and specifying age isn't what you're supposed to say. <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
Answer to Q1 does not require admin tools.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; it pains me to be the first to oppose, but I have to say it - you aren't experienced enough in the type of work [[WP:SYSOP|sysops]] undertake. Having a look at your last <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&target=MakeChooChooGoNow 1000] contributions, although you've done wonders for the article mainspace, you have all of...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=1000&target=MakeChooChooGoNow&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=4 19] edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Remember *sysopship is no big deal*, but if you do want the [[WP:SYSOP|mop and bucket]], get down to some [[WP:XFD|deletion debates]], pack some [[WP:RCP|vandal-slaying]] under your belt (to actually prove your answer to Q1), and try to volunteer at [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]] or any other backlogged Wikipedia page. Don't let this get you down - your on the way to the mop, but you need to refocus some of that marvellous energy towards the sysop side of operations. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, and you could've thought of a better answer for question 1-_<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' - I think this username needs to be [[WP:RENAME|changed here]] before he is nominated. It looks like it is unfamiliarly confusing or a uservio. '''[[User:Future54|Future]][[User talk:Future54|5]]
'''Oppose''' just based on Q1 alone, haven't even checked experience.--
'''Oppose''' - Okay! Let's look on the bright side of this RfA... Erm, well, I couldn't find much of a bright side (Well, you ''are'' healthy... hopefully...). So I might as well tell you the dark side - yes let's all join me on the dark side, to quote Darth Vader. You don't have my minimum requirement of 3000 edits. You have made 19 Wikipedia namespace edits (A large chunk of which have been to the proceedings of this RfA) & even worse, only have 1 Wikipedia Talk edit to your name. Your edit summary usage is 47% for large & 7% for minor edits - this is really really ''realy'' bad, but can easily be fixed by setting the "automatic summary" setting in your preferences. You have no GA, FA, FL or any FC for that matter. Although sysop tools for vandalism watching could help, based on your answer to Q1, you don't sound like you really really ''really'' need the tools just yet. In fact, the fact that you didn't even follow the example set by others in the RfA process, such as in how to answer the questions properly, is enough to make me oppose on it's own. I'm not here to completely crush your spirit, unlike Darth Vader, but I suggest you do a few things, as I'd rather help you than quash you. 1) Withdraw this RfA. 2) Go back & improve on a few things - get your edits up, get an FA, get waaay more Wikipedia namespace edits & try to stay out of trouble. 3) Learn about what admins do & how to properly answer questions. Lastly, never ever give out personal info. Whether it's true or not (I find it hard to believe that a 31 year old can't see if his RfA questions are not even close to other's), you should never give out your info, even if you're older like you say. Anyway, continue to edit here & you may consider shortening your name to a less complicated one, as that is an often used oppose at RfAs. Anyway, wishing you the best. Regards,
'''Oppose''' per above. Improve your experience on wikipedia, because you are relatively new here.'''<font color="teal" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' per Spawn Man, he's hit just about every nail on the head.  Plus the slighly hostile response to the neutral comments below doesn't bode well for a stressed-out admin...
'''Oppose''' In all sincerity, he can reveal anything he wants to, the consequences are his.  And the username doesn't matter.  In equal sincerity, I think both the answers to the generic questions and the odd response to the first two neutral posters show a lack of respect for the community.  I envy your abilities in the mainspace, but I can't support you as an admin.  --
'''Oppose''', weak answers and generally lacks of experience. Vandal fighting can be done without the tools.
Piling in here, but '''Oppose''' - I haven't even checked your history but your answers to questions 1 & 3 are instant nos.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal''' Very low edit summary usage, no AIV reports, very little interaction with other user via User talk pages and Wikipedia talk, very bad answers to questions, one does not need admin tools to fight vandalism, yes it mkes it easier but its not needed. i suggest you edither withdraw it or an admin or b'crat will per [[WP:SNOW]]. <b>
'''Oppose''' - Over 2000 Edits its pretty good and your mainspace edits is excellent but what bothers me is the Answers to your question which I think is far from acceptable....--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Opppose''' sorry but you've recently been removing references from articles (often ones you've created), for example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MLW_Century_424&diff=121722471&oldid=121722370] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ALCO_Century_424&diff=prev&oldid=121722929]. When Morven asked you about this on your talk page, you replied "...the tables I've been adding to the articles would supplant the offsite references". This appears to show a fundamental misunderstanding of [[WP:V|verifiability]] which is perhaps our most important content policy. As a fellow [[railfan]] I greatly appreciate the excellent work you've done on Wikipedia articles, but administrators here ''must'' show they understand of policy. You also need the ability to interact with users without jumping down their throats and your answer to Anas' neutral opinion below is almost exactly the opposite of the one we need.
Didn't have to go past the user page -- and the political userboxes thereon -- to find good cause to oppose this candidate.  Sorry.
'''Comment.''' I think you're out of your ever-lovin' mind for posting sufficient personal information that you can be tracked down. Especially if you want to do sysop chores - there are some rough customers out there, and even if you don't want to get involved with them, they want to get involved with ''you'', sometimes. I won't oppose you for this reason, as it's your funeral (not literally, I hope), but I would think that identifying yourself as you have necessarily limits what you can do, safely, as an admin.
'''Neutral''' weak answers and low experience. —
I've just got to say - I love your username :) We need someone who can make the trains run on time ;)
'''Support''' as nom.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Great contributor, great editor. As well as this, Iridescent nomination = instant support. —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support'''.  A hard working and dedicated editor.  I haven't agreed with everything I've seen from Malleus Fatuarum, but he's been willing to reconsider his opinions when asked, and generally has something useful to contribute to a discussion.  I'm confident that giving him admin tools would make him even more of an asset to Wikipedia than he is now.
'''Yes''', a good choice. Does what we're here to do. '''
'''Support''' A great editor will be even better once given admin tools
'''Support''' The user will do fine, and perhaps even contribute further with the new tools . --
'''Support''' Have read conflict material - ultimately benefits outweigh risks to the ultimate task of 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers,
'''Support''', no big deal, and I don't think there's any doubts about Malleus Fatuarum's committment or trustworthiness.  Lack of experience can soon be remedied by pitching him in at the deep end (it's not like it's a difficult job).
'''Support''', what's there not to like.
'''Strong Support''' - Of course. I did once offer nomination to him. Regarding the opposition, wasn't that user that was reverting Malleus using uncivil behaviour? At least that's what I think (from what I caught, it might be a different story!)
'''Support ''' - I have always found Malleus to be helpful and civil.  His heart is in the right place and I think he would make a good admin.
'''Strong Support'''. I think Malleus is a helpful, committed editor, whose contributions are civil. The contributions sometimes are assertive and possibly misinterpreted as uncivil by people who do not share his viewpoint. I think almost all existing admins would have some failings found if one had the time or motivation to dredge through their editing history, and I do not consider any of the supposed problems found so far to be of any great importance when considering his nomination.
'''Support'''. I have always found Malleus helpful & he has gently guided me in making improvements to many articles. To the best of my knowledge his criticisms are always constructive.&mdash;
'''Support'''. Friendly, supportive, self-effacing. I think he would make a great admin. So he doesn't have experience in some areas, well so what, he had no reason to prior to this. The man is intelligent enough to get the experience as he goes along. No-one is born an admin, you get the job first, then you learn how to do it. As regards his conflict management. In my view one doesn't deal with conflict by bending over and puckering up. You state your case whilst simultaneously listening to objections. If they make sense then you do an about face, if they don't then you stick to your guns. I feel Malleus is man enough to do this when he's actually one of the active parties of the conflict. When he's the mediator he's level-headed and fair-minded enough to defuse any conflicts. He's got my support... cheque made out to Carl Albert Stuart Heath please Malleus, it may be quicker to use my initials though, ta ;) --
'''Support'''. A fine editor, who I have collaborated with on several articles, particularly those under [[WP:GM]]. He is someone who I have often turned to for help and ideas when I reach my own limitations and he has been more than willing to help when asked.
'''Support''' per nom and above. Although I disagree with the reasoning of the opposers, I would advise Malleus to take it slow with the tools at first, and confer with other administrators before making any potentially problematic blocks or the like. Good luck!
'''Support''' There seems an increasingly trend of editors being accused 'incivility' by others unwilling to admit they've simply been proved to be wrong. Malleus shouldn't suffer because of this.
'''Strong support''' I have now looked at Epbr123's links. I see nothing half so uncivil as Epbr123's own behaviour, cited at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123|his RFC]]. I would appreciate if any editor who wishes to endorse "per Epbr123" would specify ''with diffs'' which comment he finds objectionable (since only one of Epbr123's links to "incivility" actually ''is'' a diff, it is sometimes difficult to tell which comment he even intends.)
'''Support''' Would probably make a good admin. Many worse wikipedians have become admins.
'''Oppose''' Malleus is a very devoted and skillful article writer, and one of the few users who doesn't mind doing the dull task of copyediting, but I'm afraid I don't think he's quite ready to be an admin. He has had virtually no experience in admin related areas, so I have doubts about his need for the tools and his knowledge of some key guidelines and policies; he is still not fully aware of the guidelines in the areas he is working in at the moment, eg. [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32#Universe|here]]. I also don't think he is coolheaded enough; his conflict resolution skills could do with a lot of work, eg. [[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum#" I believe that it has"|here]], [[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum#That was rude|here]], [[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum#Ferrets|here]], [[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum#low|here]], [[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum#RE:I am sensing...|here]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFeatured_article_criteria&diff=168846583&oldid=168842365 here], [[Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop/Archive 1#Three more questions for consensus|here]]. When offered to be nominated for admin, he stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum&diff=next&oldid=163200248 here] that the only use for the tools he would have would be to protect articles and block editors; as he has no history of vandal fighting, I imagine he intends to use these tools during content disputes; this is something I don't feel comfortable about.
'''Oppose''' While I am pleased to see the work the user does around here, I am hesitant when it comes to their levelheadedness after seeing Epbr123's diffs shown above.
'''Oppose''' Editor reverted an edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=next&oldid=161142342] on the basis of a lack of [[WP:RS]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:POV]] according to his edit summary, and then shoved in  his own [[WP:OR]] opinion straight after.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=next&oldid=161162192]. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''  Sorry.  I have doubts about conflict resolution skills and ability to keep cool in disputes after reviewing some of  the instances where this has been an issue.  The diffs above were helpful in making this assessment.  Despite the meaningful contributions in terms of copy editing, I feel that its best to oppose ''for now'' to send the message that communication, keeping a level head, etc are essential to being an effective admin.  Also, I see a lack of need for the mop, by your own admission.  I'm more likely to support a somewhat inexperienced but aggressive vandal reverter or AfD contributor for adminship than a more experienced editor who seems a bit of a hot head.  I have no doubt that adminship is in your future, but hope that you can learn to get along better with others and also take an interest in XfD, vandal cleanup, etc...<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''': I see nothing from this editor that demonstrates his knowledge of important policies, thus, I am extremely hesitant to support at this time.  I'd suggest taking the recommendations given to you by [[User:Gaff]] above, and that will greatly help you in the future.  -
'''No''' - It pains me to oppose a great article and content writer, but the problems with conflict are, to say the least, concerning. Sorry. -- <strong>
Per Pedro's diff. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]].
'''Oppose''', without prejudice. I had a lengthy and difficult discussion with Malleus at [[WT:LEAD]] in September (it's not archived yet and can be [[Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Citations_in_the_Lead|read through]], if voters are bored). I felt he did not have a proper understanding of our content policies, particularly Verifiability, and that he tended to be disputatious without cause. Since, we've amicably posted to the same threads at [[Wikipedia:Content review/workshop]] and I've become sure that he has the best of intentions and a desire to aid the project. But the LEAD conversation is too recent. WRT adminship, I think he ought to wait two or three months to absorb more of the P&G discussions and become better acculturated to dispute. To Malleus directly: this is without prejudice because I'm making no final claim on whether you can become an admin. I think you can and will become one; I hope you don't take this oppose as an indication that I don't value your opinions on the workshop and elsewhere. I'm just not sure you're quite ready.
'''Oppose''': I must concur with [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]]'s reasoning, per the diffs there presented. Contributions seem to be top-notch, but it's the diplomacy aspect of adminship that I think could use some work. I look forward to supporting the candidate next time around.
'''Oppose''' - concerns about [[WP:CIVILITY]] (raised above) put me off supporting. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''.  Can't support after Epbr's diffs, but won't Oppose you either. Good luck anyway.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''' You are a great editor who is an asset to this community. But the ability to keep cool in disputes is a major concern here. Thus, I can't support or oppose this nomination either. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'm not going to oppose, because I think Malleus is a very valuable asset to the project, and I can't practically-speaking see any real harm done by his promotion. However, civility concerns here are substantial, and I think he and I have similar lessons to learn (see my failed RFA) before we are granted the tools. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' after four attempts, you still haven't been able to correctly format this RfA - you are meant to replace "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" with your description of yourself as an admin candidate. You almost never use edit summaries, which is an issue for admins who need to do a good job of communicating with users. Related to this issue, you have only one edit to a Talk page, and that was over two years ago. The ability to demonstrate that you can communicate with other users is important for an admin candidate. Similarly, you have just two edits (apart from this RfA) to Wikipedia: pages, and none to Wikipedia talk. I'd suggest you get more involved with Wikipedia processes like [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and then request an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Far too few edits in Talk and User talk space.  Severe lack of [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Marcschulz&site=en.wikipedia.org edit summaries.] --
'''Oppose''' Your answers and lack of Wikipedia-space edits give the impression that you are unaware of the [[WP:ADMIN|tasks admins perform]]. If you review that page and still wish to be an admin, you could work by communicating more with other users and displaying your understanding of Wikipedia policies. Your current use of edit summaries (very low) and lack of Talk page edits don't allow us to see how well you interact with fellow Wikipedians.
'''Oppose''': Not enough interaction between other users, lack of talk and user talk edits. Also not impressed with answers to questions and RfA not correctly formatted. Edit summary usage also poor, may I suggest changing it to forced in your preferences? <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your RfA is not set out correctly and the ''YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER'' is meant to be a descriptino about why think you should be an admin, I suggest getting your edit count up to about 2000 (with at least 1000 to the Mainspace) and using an [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] <u>much</u> more. Kindest Regards &mdash;
'''Oppose''' While I disagree with edit counts as a criteria, your grammar in the RfA is less than encouraging. I appreciate the anti-vandal stance, but perhaps you should focus on the de.wikipedia
'''Neutral''' 4% edit summary for major edits, 0% for minor edits (of which there were none) and limited use of talk pages for discussion mean I can't really support. Answers don't inspire confidence, either. Cheers,
I have seen this editor's work over a period of years (we work in the same area) and I remember the discussions we had over [[manifold]]. I'm confident that MarSch will use the extra tools to the advantage of Wikipedia and thus I gladly support the request. --
'''Support'''. I don't know the background to all this encryption key stuff, but looking at the article [[AACS encryption key controversy]], it looks like the number he published on his userpage is exactly the same as that already quoted in the lead section of the article. Although I know next to nothing about this, it's a mystery to me how publishing it on his userpage could cause more legal trouble for Wikipedia than publishing it in an article. As such, it doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to oppose an otherwise adequate candidate.
'''Oppose''' Not withstanding your long standing (allthough sporadic) contributions you have virtually no input in admin areas such as [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:AIV]] etc. Mostly though [[User_talk:MarSch#Your_user_page|this discussion]] on your talk page is deeply worrying. I can't trust you with block or protection buttons after looking at the ramifications of that. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' The [[User_talk:MarSch#Your_user_page|discussion]] [[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] mentions is also troublesome to me. It does not show a willingness to build concensus or good conflict resolution skills. --
'''Oppose''' per the discussion that Pedro brought up.  The proper place for the discussion of the censored 16-digit hexadecimal number is [[AACS encryption key controversy]], not your user page.  It's one thing to protest censorship, but when it could cause legal trouble for Wikipedia, it's not worth proving the point.  That's the same reason we don't allow fair-use images on user pages.  --
'''Oppose''' per Pedro, as the discussion shows a lack of flexibility and misunderstanding of the issues involved; how can we be sure that candidate won't take advantage of admin tools to support his (proven wrong in the referenced discussion) points of view? plus, candidate should not seek the mop as a solution to being "annoyed" at the lack of "privileges".
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. I suggest you try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per Pedro and all others above. --'''
'''Oppose''' per concerns over the discussion Pedro pointed out which show a misunderstanding of key policies, a lack of understanding the appropriate use of userspace and disregard for the project and consensus.  Also your userpage appears to have always been nothing more than a point (and a fair-use image).
'''Oppose''' per the candidates obvious unfamiliarity with the position and its duties.
Oppose per the userpage discussion. '''
'''Oppose''' per Pedro.
'''Oppose''' as above. I would consider supporting you in future if you showed an understanding of the concerns raised during the key controversy. Also, I would like to see more contribution in general (over the last four months, you've averaged somewhere around 40 edits per month). '''
'''Oppose''' per the discussion that Pedro brought up.
'''Strong oppose'''. The candidate's conduct during the encryption key controversy showed that he did not have the project's best interests at heart. Someone who cannot distinguish between censorship and a refusal to allow Wikipedia to be used as a medium to further software piracy is fundamentally unsuitably to be an administrator. His actions were disruptive, aggressive and showed a complete misunderstanding of the underlying law and policy, never mind a lack of common sense. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - no particular reasons for wanting to be an admin and concerns about policy understanding. The answers to the questions and the fairly low edit rate bother me too.
'''Oppose''' User would do well with reading up on admin requirements and familiarise themselves more with the process of the adminship process. Would consider supporting next time, if such concerns are addressed.
'''Oppose''' I dislike opposing over single incidents, but admins need to know how free speech and censorship applies on Wikipedia. If the whole First Amendment applied to Wikipedia, our policies would be unconstitutional and there would be very little need for admins. Its one thing complaining about people removing stuff from your userspace, but complaints should be grounded in policy, not claiming that your free speech is being infringed upon. <font face="Broadway">
'''Oppose''' per above. The answers to the questions don't show what administrative tasks that you are going to be involved with. Low edit rate also. I suggest a withdrawal, and more experience needed. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Strong Oppose'''.  11 edits in the past year? '''
'''Oppose'''.  Not active enough for my taste, need a few hundred edits per month to meet my criteria.  Based on current consensus, I'd recommend withdrawing per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''. Essentially an inactive, single-purpose account.  Sorry.
I'm not so sure. You look like a good content contributor with a lot of experience, but you have only 11 contributions in the past year (not counting this RFA). <b>
'''Support''' I'm not asking myself if you need the tools, only if I think you will abuse them. I don't think you will, so here's a support.
'''Moral Support''' - I think you're a good editor, but sadly your RfA is unlikely to pass this time round, as you jumped in too early. I suggest you withdraw, wait 6 months and chalk up 2500-3000 edits, then I'll nominate you myself. You could also consider applying for [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]], or an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose'''. You need to have more experience editing articles, interacting with other users, and in project areas. Most candidates for adminship have several thousand edits. While sheer numbers aren't important, experience is, and so is enough article editing and interaction to give a sense of who you are as an editor and what kind of admin you'd make. Come back after a few months of regular editing. Best, --
Image in signature.
Have to oppose due to your signature. --
'''Oppose''' of the articles you mention in your answer to Q2, [[QEMU]] if the only one you've edited in the last six months (you edited that in the beginning of February) and you have never edited [[DistroWatch]]. [[WP:SIG]] is very clear that "Images of any kind shall not be used in signatures.". You have fewer than 500 edits in total and have only made three edits in the last two months (apart from two to this RfA). Your answer to Q1 is poor, especially as the Undo feature gives you almost the same abilities as the Admin's revert tool. Your talk page shows you don't have a good understanding of image uploading policy, and this from the header on that page is really unacceptable: "If I decide to give myself a barnstar or two here and there, I think I deserve the right to do so... and make a few exaggerated claims along the way." Altogether this adds up to an obvious oppose, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Just not active enough to be given tools.  I agree the user has longevity at Wikipedia, but that doesn't necessarily mean a good, all-around editor.
'''Oppose''' Fewer than 500 ''total'' edits - roughly 100 of which have been to the candidate's own userpage.  Also, oppose per [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]].  --
'''Oppose''' No need for sysop tools.
'''Oppose'''. Gwernol has written everything I was planning to write. Also, I do not trust Martinultima with the tools due to the comments on his talk page. ···
'''Oppose''' I'm not happy with the level of commitment to the project nor the answers to the questions. No real justification as to why the user needs admin access. User is able to contribute significantly to fighting vandalism without this. Edit summary usage for major edits is too low also. It might be wise to withdraw this RfA.
'''Oppose''' I don't feel that this person needs the sysop tools right now. '''
'''Oppose''' usually I don't consider edit counts that much in RFA, but 500 edits are just ''too'' few for an admin candidate over two or three years. The image in the signature indicates a lack of familiarity with the policies. Additionally, your answers do not convince me of your need for the tools. —
I cannot in good conscience support a candidate whose user page says "As of February 2007, I’m no longer regularly contributing to Wikipedia".
'''Oppose''', sorry but 400 odd edits in two and a half years shows distinct inactivity and per your answer to question 1 - there are many easy ways to revert edits made by vandals, say [[WP:VPRF|Vandalproof]] for example, I don't think you have a need for the tools.
'''Oppose''': Plenty of time here but a lack of edits. While the inactivity is a problem I also am not quite sure why you would need the tools. Especially since you are "not quite as active on Wikipedia now". Also your edit summary usage is quite low for major edits and suffering a little in minor edits. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' You need more editing experience before I support.
'''Oppose''', not enough recent edits. And get that stinking picture out of your signature. --'''
'''Oppose''' I can't support the picture and more edits are needed.
'''STRONG Oppose''', per [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]]. Violating [[WP:SIG]] is worthy of a strong oppose in my opinion.
'''Neutral''' Due to Question 3 and pending answers to my questions. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' - as per "I'm not quite as active on Wikipedia now ". We need very active admins because we already have a bunch of people who became Admins and then just Disappeared..Sorry..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral''' There's no reason you can't revert vandalism without sysop access (especially if you use Twinkle or Vandalproof, but I do it "by hand").  Other than that, you haven't provided a satisfactory reason for needing the tools.
'''Support''', been here long enough to understand policies.
'''Support''' I think this user won't misuse sysop tools based on his edit history, and will help the admin backlog get smaller. I wish we had an RFA were we judged a user by the content of the edits they make, not how many they make.--
'''Oppose''' give it more time, and I'll support probably. Your edit count, while not particularly low, shows you aren't as active as I'd like a new admin to me. You'd like to close AfDs? You haven't had nearly enough experience in that area. I suggest you withdraw, and get an [[WP:ER|editor review]] instead. --'''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, very little experience in administrative-type activities.  Suggest withdrawal. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Not enough edits in WP space. --
'''Oppose''', please spend some more time before expecting admin tools.
'''Oppose''' You've made a start on admin-related tasks, vandal fighting, warning and contributing to XfD and other policy areas but your contributions are too few in number at the present time to give a good idea of how you would use the tools effectively.  Take some more time to contribute in the above fashion and to the article space as well before reapplying or being nominated in six months or so.
'''Oppose''' You are inexperience in many areas. Come back in 6 months or so. Good luck in editing.--
'''Oppose''' 1000 edits isn't going to cut it.
'''Oppose''' sorry, just too inexperienced, keep editing and try getting involved more with WP edits. '''''
'''Oppose''', not experienced enough yet in wikispace.--
'''Oppose''' You seem to be a great user, but your edit count is a bit low and you don't have much experience.--'''
'''Oppose''' 1000 edits and 57% edit summary is questionable. Answers to questions were confusing and unimpressive. No choice but to oppose. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor (keep it up!) but you need a little more experience, especially in admin areas. ''
'''Oppose'''.  The candidate needs more practice doing the kind of activities admins do.  If he wants to handle deletions and undeletions, why hasn't he been much on AFD?  If he wants to protect and unprotect pages, why hasn't he been much on RFPP?  Experience is critical, and it can only come with time.
'''Oppose''' - this looks premature. I'll be willing to be persuaded next time.
'''Oppose, suggest withdrawl''' Sorry, but you're severely lacking in the experience department. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''', needs more experience in admin activities. Needs some xFD participation and take a look [[WP:AN|administrator's noticeboard]]. You will know how admins work. Suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''', pretty much per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Resolute&diff=prev&oldid=151306000 your own reasoning right down the street], or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Schutz&diff=prev&oldid=151313789 this one as well] . Also per complete lack of experience in all areas, account created today, edit summary usage, e-mail not enabled, spelling, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/mattbroon&diff=prev&oldid=151311732 support of own RfA], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/mattbroon&diff=prev&oldid=151311981 placing current date on RfA tally], <any other conceivable reason here>, etc. Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. I strongly recommend self-withdrawal before <s>imminent [[WP:SNOW]] closure</s> this causes migraine to someone else. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Dear God No''' [[Tmesis|Absofuckinglutely]] not. --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
Strongly recommend withdrawal. Users have varying levels of expectation for experience, but you need more than a few hours' worth of editing Wikipedia to understand what being an administrator entails. Take your time to explore Wikipedia more thoroughly as an editor and find articles and tasks that you enjoy working on. —
'''Oppose''' too new here, too few edits, etc. etc. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' Is this a joke?
'''neutral''' - way to new an editor to be able to judge one way or another -
'''Support''' as per my nomination =) --
'''Support'''. Even though I disagree with him on a number of things, he's been a pleasure to work with on various articles and conflicts. --
'''Support''' -- Matthew would be make an excellent resource as an admin.  He's always been there for me when I needed help.  He knows his wikilaw, and he spends hours a day on WP; exactly the kind of admin we need. -
'''Support''' i'm sure the majority of his opposition is deletionists against TV cruft. Sure we all can see based on Matt's edits its primarily TV series... but this sorta material is what historians write numerous books on... this information will be of significant interest in 20-30 years... and if not documented now entirely gone in 50 or 60 years. I see no reason Matt shouldnt be given the mop, he writes well, and his answers to the questions have left me satisfied. &nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' - I supported last time and will support again, my comment from the last RfA still holds, a trustworthy user, with pleanty of experience with a large and decent (recently flawless) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=MatthewFenton upload log] --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Looking through a nice chunk of your AfD's actually scares me. (Not even counting the indicents in preious noms). I'll look over your edits very strenuously in hopes that they can change my mind. Plus [[WP:DGFA]] worries me in your hands. Not only that, but I went through all your recent AfD edits, and you really don't seem to understand policy. And this is AFTER I've forgiven your blocks and the FA incident. --
'''Oppose''' I have not seen any evidence that the issues brought up at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MatthewFenton 2]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton]] have seen substantial improvement.  I'm not at all sure that this user is clear about how to contribute well to discussion;  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4&diff=prev&oldid=98464612], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don%27t_Destroy&diff=prev&oldid=97313851], and, especially [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Evidence#Elonka_and_MatthewFenton_intentionally_blocked_return_moves]].
'''Oppose'''. Seems to have a unique idea of what's encyclopedic ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airdates of House (TV series)|example]]) and the incidents referred to by Jkelly also concern me.
No way can I support a user for adminship who [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton|utterly misunderstands]] Wikipedia's fair use policy.  We are here to write  freely redistributable encyclopedia; this is non-negotiable.  I fear what would happen if MatthewFenton were given the tools to put his views into action.  --
'''Strong Oppose'''. You haven't improved from your previous two RfA's. I can't support someone who still doesn't fully understand Wikipedia yet. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' You've got pleanty of edits but that doesnt necessarily equal experience.  At this point your contact with other users (as well as your edits) seem to opinionated and negative to earn you an admin. status, sorry.'''
'''Oppose''' - I only ran into this user for the first time a few months ago, and since then, his actions have led me to believe he can't be trusted with admin tools. For a start, he seems to feel very strongly about articles he edits, to the point of implying authority on them and violating [[WP:OWN]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_and_Improved_Carl_Morrissey&diff=85817664&oldid=85807428]. He accuses other editors of bad faith and guideline violations, and yet refuses to acknowledge his own mistakes when they're pointed out to him (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions/Workshop#Elonka.2C_MatthewFenton_and_Ned_Scott_intentionally_blocked_return_moves|blocking return moves]]). This isn't the kind of attitude someone with adminstration responsibilities should have. His behaviour in the recent Naming Conventions dispute (the one which is currently at the ArbCom) makes me believe that had he been an administrator, he would have very likely used his administrator tools to his unfair advantage (e.g. during the move-wars he was involved in). In general, he is a very tedious and painful editor to deal with. His talk page for example, gets selectively archieved, often as fast as a single day (see this [[User_talk:Ned_Scott#My_talk_page|conversation]]). --
'''Oppose''' mostly per uncontructive behavior documented at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence]].  I also have concerns about his understanding of policy.
'''Strong oppose'''. Even after forgiving the blocks (I don't care that they got overturned, you still did something to cause them), we have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airdates_of_Desperate_Housewives&diff=prev&oldid=99398401 things like this]. You can not just dismiss arguments by saying "you have no argument". -
'''Oppose''' per Jkelly, SuperMachine, Yaksha and Amarkov. I do commend the nominee on his effort and patience in working on improving and waiting a respectable amount of time between RfAs, but I am not yet convinced on the issue of whether or not this candidate will use the tools as intended.
'''Oppose''', not to overdo it here, but I echo the other users who find this editor to be rather opinionated and unhelpful on AfDs and elsewhere in project space.  Not to say he isn't a valuable contributor, and everyone is welcome to their opinions, but I dunno that I'd support him as an admin (a group I feel must avoid controversy and incivility rather than court it.)--
'''Ultra-Strong Oppose''' per everyone here, but especially Nishkid. Although many of your contributions here are impressive, your lack of Wikipedia policy is downright horrifying. I'd ask you to come back in a few months, but sadly I think that's out of the picture. This is your third nomination. Why the rush? I feel that your intentions are not as good as they seem if you keep coming here for nomination without sufficient growth as a Wikipedia user. So, not only are you not ready and not suited for this job, you also seem to be in some way politically motivated (not sure if that's the proper term) into getting the job of Administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' per AfD diffs provided above, comments on the "Don't Destroy" essay, and prior RfA involvement. I don't trust him with tools.
'''Strong oppose''', especially per Nishkid64. It's too soon since your last RFA,considering you have done almost nothing to address the issues raised then. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. In addition to the less than sensible AfD participations I've also been witness to, the other issues such as the blocks and the RfCs raise too many red flags, sorry.
'''Oppose''' based upon the diffs provided in the above contributions.  You have a lot to learn about policy and interaction with the community before you can be trusted with the admin tools.  I recommend withdrawal at this time.
'''No, no, no.''' I agree with comments by Nishkid, Chacor, Jkelly, Amarkov and just about everyone above. I just don't trust you anywhere near enough to hand over the mop cupboard keys and let you loose with the tools. I also support aeropagitica's recommendation of withdrawal.  '''
'''Oppose''' and please fix your signature while you are at it. Not everyone has fantastic eyesight and I find it hard to read it. See [[WP:SIG]] --
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' - I would leave WP instantly if this person was made an administrator. No comprehension of or support for fair use policy. Totally unacceptable activities in RfC, AfD, and in his interactions with various users. Comes across as condescending, arrogant, and WP:OWNing articles and even edits. Image and even article contributions totally irrelevant when it comes to being suited for the tools. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
Absolutely not.
'''Oppose''' per all the above. --
'''Oppose''' - Switched from Neutral because I read the RfC for this user. I cannot trust this user with admin tools, no matter how well he does in other areas.
'''Oppose''', absolutely not.  Matthew's lack of understanding of [[WP:NOT|core]] [[WP:NOR|policies]] makes him unsuitable at this time to be trusted with the sysop tools.
'''Strong oppose''' per above. Matthew is an idiosyncratic user who with an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. He has the unique knack of taking uncontroversial topics and making them controversial. For instance, a (protracted) discussion about adding colour to a TV infobox turned into an edit war. His attempt to get around consensus was exposed [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Template:Thebillepisodes|here]]. <br>Performances at xFD (such as [[WP:TFD#Template:HouseCharacter]]) are rather careless and imply a willingless to conveniently misinterpret to his own advantage.<br>Exchanges like [[User_talk:MatthewFenton/Archive/Archive_1#Hey|this]] are worrying: MF's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUdstyle&diff=97320910&oldid=97310727 characteristic response was to suggest RfC] (eagerness to make mountains out of molehills, conflict and take things to a personal level were expressed at his own RfC).<br>Finally, his oppose comment at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feydey|Feydey's RFA]] show a severe lack of understanding of fair use policy, and contempt for those working to it. I can not trust him with the tools, which I am wholly confident that he will mis-use.
You're a good guy, you enjoy being here, and you work hard on the project; however, the comments made by the oppose !voters are hard to ignore.  I suggest you withdraw for now without prejudice for another RfA after addressing the issues in the oppose section. --
I agree with Samir, you have some positives, but also some a bit of inexperience, therefore, I am '''Neutral'''.
It looks like you have some positives, but almost an equal amount of negatives, but I still don't think you warrant an oppose vote as you do have those positives. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Neutral, changed from Support''' As I looked through your logs and edits a little more closely, as well as reading your answers to the questions posed, I realized that while you are certainly an excellent editor, your skills are still a bit rough and your knowledge a bit short for me to fully support you. Your block log leads me to believe that, while your blocks were overturned, you are fairly untrustworthy. Furthermore, your dismissal of arguments in AfD discussions makes me realise that you may not understand [[WP:CIVIL|being civil]] as well as being reasonable. I still think that you would make a fine admin, but the day on which you become one is the day that you understand a little more about Wikipedia, tools, and policies. Then, I will fully support you. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I've had at least one minor, rather [[WP:LAME|lame]]  dispute with Matthew which we can all laugh about now, so I recuse myself from voting and asking questions. I do however see much promise in this editor and hope to see him resolve his issues with the community and try again some day. &mdash;
'''Support''' You seem to have done many reverts of vandalism. I believe you need more experience though but i'll support you for trying.
'''Support''', looks like you have a strong start here; several more months amd consistent, helpful editing will surely propel a future RFA to success. --
I am afraid I have to oppose - you have only been active for one month, most of your edits are reverts of vandalism (which ''is'' a good thing), but it is too early to say if you understand Wikipedia well enough to be entrusted with adminship, after just one month and less than five hundred edits. Give yourself enough three or four months to better acclimate yourself to Wikipedia. Join one of the projects and expose yourself to a broader range of Wikipedia that way. --
'''Oppose''' Far too inexperienced.  You have only recently joined the project, and have yet to truly find what you like and would want to contribute to around here.  Plus, no offense, you seem to even have a difficult time setting up your Rfa.  Please expand your horizons around here, join some projects, and then try again after you have built up a bit.
'''Oppose''' As much as I like to support almost everyone per [[WP:ADMIN#No_Big_Deal]], I think that you haven't fully grasped policies. I would probably support you in a few months however when your edit count is above 700 and you've gained everyone's trust. Moral support, but still opposing. --<sup>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Ideology</b></font>]]</sup><sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk to me]]</sub>  <small>
'''Oppose''' per answers to the questions.  I believe with more experience to the project, this candidate will be suitable to run for adminship again. '''<font color="#1E90FF" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Your attitude towards database hygiene is good but one month is far too short a period of time in order to gain proficiency at this and to get a grounding in the [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] that govern the actions of admins here.  Your answers to the standard questions aren't explicit enough and don't provide evidence in the form of diffs, which is the ideal way of highlighting good and bad edits.  Try again in four or five months when you have built up a solid evidence base from which to draw examples of your aptitude with admin-related tasks.
'''Oppose''' you've only been active one month. And you nominated yourself, which technically is allowed however I feel that it shouldn't be, especially for someone who's been active for less time than me '''
'''Oppose'''. You've done good work so far, but none of us are to know for how long that will continue. Come back when you have a bit more experience (more edits, particularly in the project namespace) and a bit more confidence that you'll pass, and I'm sure you will. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Oppose''' I agree with
'''Oppose''' - Per below two thousand edits, and lack of experience. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Excellent work so far, but you really do need some more time here. In addition try and get around the 'pedia a bit more to see what admin tasks there are other than vandalism fighting. I won't oppose as I think this is a [[WP:SNOW]] RfA I'm afraid, and I want to lend some moral support. Please don't feel discouraged, and keep up you excellent attitudfe. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''As nominator''', and per the featured articles, and the huge amount of mainspace edits.
'''Support'''- Seems to know what he is doing. I'll support him. Just dont abuse the vandalism privilige.
'''Oppose'''.  You were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mattythewhite blocked] barely 3 weeks ago due to an apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia's copyright rules.  See  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite/Archive_6#Please_stop_uploading_other_people.27s_pictures.21 discussion].  Too soon after I'm afraid. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' user has no understanding of [[WP:NFCC]] it seems.
'''Whoops''' Recent block, but no mention of it in A3? Surely that was a conflict? '''
'''Oppose''' Block less then a month ago is not good. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Regretful oppose'''.  You are a nice guy who has done a '''lot''' of good work on football articles for Wikipedia.  However, I am concerned about the copyright issue and block, but I am equally concerned that you have been laser focused on the football articles.  It doesn't look like you've been exposed to much of the rest of Wikipedia and run into some of the other issues that administrators deal with.  I recommend withdrawing the acceptance at this time and spending some time exploring the other sides of Wikipedia.  Gain some experience in these other areas and keep up the good work you have been doing, and I will be happy to support you next time.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Despite this user's positive contributions, I have serious misgivings about this nomination because I do not trust him.  A few weeks ago, I became aware that he had uploaded several images of football players taken from other websites and incorrectly tagged them as his own.  I entered into a dialogue with him in good faith to straighten out which photos were his and which belonged to others, so I could limit my deletion to others' images.  He claimed that the images taken with two particular camera models were his own.  Strangely, he claimed that he was not sure whether he had taken some of them.  I even undeleted many images I had already deleted based on his specific assurance that he was the photographer.  After some checking, it became clear that most, if not all, of the images he claimed as his own (including many he specifically asked me to undelete) were also taken from other websites.  There were well over a hundred images involved, some of which were uploaded after our dialogue began.  I blocked him for a day to stop him from uploading more images so I could clean up the mess, which took quite a while.  My concern here is not that he mistagged a large quantity of images.  Our image tagging policy is complex so that could happen to anybody.  My concern is that when he was asked about these images, he provided inaccurate information about their source in an attempt to prevent their deletion.  As a result, I cannot trust him, and I don't know how he will be able to enforce Wikipedia's policies with this in his history.  If you want the full details of our dialogue, you can see his comments at [[User_talk:Butseriouslyfolks/Archive_2#Images|this section of my talk page archive]] and my responses [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattythewhite&oldid=146389108 on this snapshot of his user talk page]. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - the block itself I can overlook, but I dislike the fact that you failed to disclose it. Also, as an admin you need to keep track of things and be by-the-book, and I've already seen you get distracted and forget minute but essential procedural details. Answers to the questions are too succint for such a prolific editor, you should let us know more about what makes you tick! Adminship is no big deal; so: keep up the outstanding editor work; study, learn, live and breathe wikipedia policies; pay attention to detail and procedures; and always be more honest and candid than you think you should be. Best of lucks either way!
'''Strong Oppose''' Copyright misunderstandings are one thing, deliberately calling images your own that are not is completely another.  Someone who has made questionable judgments so recently has no business with the bit at this time.
'''Oppose''' I cannot support such a recently, justiafably blocked editor, even with 43k edits and the admission of wrongdoing. I suggest withdrawl, to reapply in a few months (in which you can definitively show that you have no further problems with picture licensing). &mdash;
'''Oppose''' You were recently blocked and you were blocked for deliberately trying to circumvent the rules. Further you did not present this as part of your nomination. I think we need a good deal of time and a good deal of proper work and dialog before we go any further. --
'''Neutral''' You are a great editor, but that does not necessarily mean that you will be a good administrator. I like your articles but I would like to hear more about how exactly you would use the admin tools.
'''Weak Support''' - Not really a high enough editcount when compared to general RfA standards, but seems like a trustworthy user. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support.'''  Max is quiet but effective.  Looking at his contribs, which are not watered down with talk posts like the rest of us, one finds that Max is both constructive and meticulous.  The quality of his edits is consistently high, with virtually no opposition to his edits (which accounts for his low talk edit-count), and this shows he has a feel for the project.  My guess is that he reads Wikipedia more than he edits.  Applied over time, the nature of Max's contributions, in my humble opinion, qualifies him for the mop.  I believe Max will utilize the admin tools in the same way he has done with the general tools, and that is: responsibly. Please take the time to look over his contribs carefully.  Thank you.  '''''
'''Support'''. Adminship is about trust, not a reward for number of edits.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. Also, what Grace Note said.
'''Support.'''
'''Moral Support''' You seem to be a good editor so I'll support, but I suggest you withdrawl and apply again in about 3 months. Otherwise, a 'crat will probably close this early per [[WP:SNOW]]
'''Support'''
--
'''Weak oppose''' I really hate to do this, but I'm opposing for lack of experience.  The edit count is lower than I would prefer, the edit summary usage is insufficient (about 50%), and the candidate has not experienced any difficult situations (e.g. vandalism, content disputes) that would lead me to know how he would deal with those situations.  Other than that, the content contributions are first rate, and a second request in a few months is likely to earn my support if I'm still around.
'''Oppose''' Editor is very inexperienced, especially in project-space, a necessary realm for administrators.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in the few admin areas in which he wishes to participate. I'm not sure he needs (or would ever use) the tools. ---
'''Oppose''' per low Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and total edits. Also, I see very little need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' The editor seems like a respectable editor, but has a lack of experience and low edit count. I don't think he's ready for adminship yet. —
'''Weak oppose''' for the same reasons as YechielMan. I would definitely support if the current level of contributions continued for the next few months. ···
'''Weak oppose'''. Low edit count generally isn't a deal breaker for me if there are compelling, or at least good reasons for handing over the standard-issue broom and super-sized bucket. Like Lankybugger, I am somewhat concerned with the lack of talk space edits though. Personally, I believe that communication is good and using talk pages (even if it's just to add templates in order to explain one's actions to new editors) is important. I'm also not to thrilled with the answer to Q1, to be quite honest. This may all be a misunderstanding but especially redundant articles are something that can usually be dealt with regularly. And, frankly, I just don't really see the need for adminship in this case. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Your edits show quality work and thought, and I'm not a believer in edit count for its own sake. You could be a great admin. But I have to agree with those who say you need more experience on the project including more interaction on Talk and Wikipedia pages and in dealing with policy issues, user problems, and problem users. Come back in three months or so and I'm sure things will go just fine. Best, --
'''Oppose'''.  Simply put, some things can only be learned through experience.  While you seem a fine editor, I would like to see more interaction - i.e., edits - throughout the project before I would support.  Raise a few articles to GA/FA, participate more in the wikipedia space, etc.  Not because those things are good in and of themselves, but because in doing so you will learn more about the way the project works.  --
'''Oppose''' Only approximately 1500 edits, very low edit summary usage, too inactive for an admin and showing little need for the tools, you could be a sysop in the future with about 3 months of solid contribs and improvement. <b>
'''Oppose''': While the user has been around for a while edits have not started to pick up until recently. Until this user's edits level out and become active in the many different aspects of the project I will have to oppose. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' needs more experience. —
This editor does not demonstrate a need for the admin bit.
Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. '''
'''Oppose'''. This user does not need the tools at the moment. '''
'''Oppose''' per low Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and total (mainspace) edits.--
'''Weak Oppose''' a good editor, but more experience would be needed before I can give support.
'''Neutral''' Basically for a low edit count and a lower project-space count. Also, your ''biggest'' activity was this month; I don't consider 60-100 edits per month ''active''. You can continue your good article work with out the tools. :-) —
'''Neutral''' while you have a decent amount of good mainspace edits, there's little evidence of your understanding of policy here.  Your edit summaries could do with improvement as well and I'm not 100% of exactly what you need the tools for.  However, your contributions are good and with some more experience I'm sure you could succeed here at RFA.
I see no obvious problems with this candidate; I am therefore withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement per my policy.
'''Neutral''' - as per
'''Neutral''' While this user has made positive contributions they should make more use of the cleanup tools available to everyone before requesting access to the admin tools. Also needs more recent activity.
'''Neutral''' for the same reasons as those noted by [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]].
'''Neutral''' While the user's contributions are very good and the edit count doesn't concern me at all, I'm somewhat concerned with the low use of talk pages or edit summaries. I would be willing to support if the user agrees to alter their preferences to remind them when they've not added a edit summary and if they could expand the answer to Q1. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' leaning heavily towards oppose. I'm not at all sure why this user wants the admin tools, since none of the things he mentions in his answer to Q1 require them. Contrary to those above, I do have a bit of a problem with the edit count - he has a much lower edit count (both in mainspace and generally) than I do, and I certainly don't consider myself ready for sysopship. He has very few talkpage posts (less than 40 so far this year), which makes me think he doesn't have experience in either discussions or disputes. His last contribution of any kind on any XfD was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightning_safety&diff=prev&oldid=58396206 a year ago], implying he doesn't have much interest in the matter. If he doesn't intend to get involved in either vandal-fighting/protection/blocking, deletions or interface redesign, I'm not at all sure what admin tasks he ''does'' intend to do.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral''' A nice self nomination, but I don't think you're ready just yet - keep up the good work though my dear, and you'll be an administrator before you know it :)
'''Neutral''' leaning toward support per adminship is no big deal.  Edit count may be "less than average" for successful RfA candidates, but in my opinion is enough to establish the user is trustworthy.  The only thing keeping me from supporting the candidate is the weak answer to why he wants the tools - as has been stated above none of the things he states he intends to do require a sysop bit.  If the candidate would like to elaborate on what adminstrator duties he plans to partake in I would likely be persuaded to support.
I can't oppose someone for inexperience who has been editing a year longer than I have, but I guess I would prefer to see a little more recent activity. Pick up the pace and come back in three months and this might become a landslide support.
'''Neutral'''. Largely because of Q4. The failure to mention merging as an option when encountering redundant articles bothers me somewhat. -- '''
'''Neutral''' I am not going to oppose just because of low edit count:I hate that. But you do not show much experience in namespace, and while you may well have been there, without edits to show we don't know that. Experience in the major pages on namespace is really necessary for an admin. Get that, then re-apply.--
'''Neutral''', needs to be more active on the project. Answers are slightly weak and do try in five to six months time.
'''Support'''.  What is going on here?  Over two thousand edits improving articles on Icelandic grammar aren't enough?  If you wait until he has another two thousand edits on Icelandic grammar, would that convince you that he would make a good admin?  Maybe you are afraid that as an admin he will go insane and delete any article not written in Icelandic, and are waiting for signs that didn't show up in the past three years and two-thousand edits he has spent here?  If you look at RFA's discussion page a moment, you will notice that we need more admins very badly; "doesn't need it enough" and "waiting for power level to reach NINE THOUSAAAAND" are not valid reasons to deny us another much-needed admin. --
Looks good to me, nothing indicates that the person will abuse, and I like self-noms better.
'''Support''' Why not? This user has enough main space edits, and I would trust them with the tools. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
He's been around long enough, and proven he isn't a fly-in-for-the-power-grab game-player. Enough experience and common sense. '''
'''Support'''. Candidate shows no ''neediness'' for the tools, which is one good reason to support. —'''
'''Support''' after examination of their edits. Good contributor. A specialist editor and long time contributor who ''would not abuse'' the tools. No evidence of incivility. -
'''Support''' I don't think he'll mess up. We have many admins who never use tools - do we not trust them? Should they be admins? There isn't a limit on how many admins we can have. And to those who think he's inexperienced, if he needs help, I'm sure he can just ask a more experienced admin (I'd be very willing to guide him ^_^). '''
'''Support''' per lack of a convincing reason why not to. Shame on the edit counters.
'''Support''' Per [[User:Riana|Riana]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''-He has over 2000+ edits, and almost three years experience, it is time he becomes an admin!
'''Support''' - plenty of experience, and the answers seem fine. I supported his previous RfA, anyway.
'''Support''' agree with Majorly and Riana.
'''Support''' - Per Majorly and Riana. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">

'''Support''' per Majorly.  After a careful review of the candidate's contributions, he appears trustworthy and ready for the mop.  I'm confident he will use it well. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' I feel that it is time to give him the additional tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I think this user is a good candidate for adminship and can be trusted. Sure the counts are low for some but I think we are able to judge safely that this candidate does not represent a threat.
'''Support''' -- why not? The opposers are picking on what he hasnt done, and not focusing on what he has done. We need more admins anyway.
'''Support''' - I agree with much of the above. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(
'''Support''' - great editor with a lot of knowledge. I wish you good luck Max.
'''Support''' - After reading comments and more further reviewing the candidate, I realized that my oppose !vote was a poor decision. Best of luck. --
'''Support'''. What Majorly said. --
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user with many good edits, more than capable of using the mop.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per Majorly, I think Max can help us all if given the tools, whereas he sounds dedicated. --[[user:wpktsfs|w]][[user:wpktsfs/poetry|'''p''']][[user:wpktsfs|k]][[user talk:wpktsfs|'''t''']]
'''Support''' - We need more admins and I don't believe that your previous failure for adminship should be used against you now despite how recent it was.
'''Support'''per Majorly--
'''Support''' per Majory and Rspeer and inasmuch as I think it to be quite clear that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of Max's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Support''' I believe that Max Naylor is trustworthy. --
'''Last minute support'''. Clearly a good editor, no reason not to support.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Oppose''' your last RfA ended on May 1 of this year.  I think as a matter of procedure four months should pass between one RfA and another by the same candidate.  And his answer to question one describes exclusively tasks which every user can do.  Plus his experience may be a little lacking  '''
'''Oppose''' Based on review of your contributions, I think you're a fine editor.  But your answer to Q1 suggests that you want to be an admin to delete articles.  That makes me uncomfortable given your apparent lack of involvement in the Article for deletions process.  Feel free to correct me if I am missing something, but admin/sysop is sort of like being a janitor and cleaning up messes after the community has come to consensus through AFD (for articles) or a series of vandal warnings, RFC, etc (for problem users).  I don't really see that you have been very involved in these procedures, so its hard to understand that you are ready to take the reigns.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''', contributions not admin stuff. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Weak Oppose''' I like to see someone who participates in more Wikipedia related articles (or discussion), sadly, this editor is not one of those people.--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' Just too little experience, but keep working and you'll get there!
'''Weak oppose''' - Although you did have a "spurt" of activity around December 2006 (126 edits), your real activity seems to have started in February 2007. I think you should wait an other couple of months. In addtion, Q1 doesn't indicate any real likelyhood of needing to be an admin.
'''Oppose (moved from neutral)''' - After taking a closer look at the candidate's work, I really don't see a need for the tools.  This, combined with virtually no admin tasks performed (there are only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Max+Naylor&namespace=4 3 AfD edits] in his project space edits) worries me, and I am unable to support. - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Seems like a sound editor, but I'm concerned about his understanding of policy. More interaction through the Wikipedia talk namespace would definitely be helpful here, in particular the answer to question 6 confused me a bit. [[WP:NPOV]] has nothing to do with representing a ''worldwide'' view of every topic, it has to do with ''conflicting views'', regardless of what part of the world they come from. I very much doubt anyone has conflicting views on baked beans, so there is no bias there to be biased towards. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Oppose''' - due to the fact that the answer to Q1 describes things that everybody can do, the clarification mentions 'revertion' (sic) (which everyone can do, assisted by scripts if wanted to make it easier), and deletion (few XfD contributions don't lead me to believe that the editor is well-versed in deletion criteria).  The contributions are great, however it would be nice to see examples of what the editor wants to do as an administrator, and examples of where the editor has contributed in that area.
'''Oppose''' I accept absolutely that any comment based on edit count is going to attract flak. But we have only submitted edits to go on. If we are going to judge this user's competence in handling admin-related issues, then we can judge this only on the edits in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. There is no other yardstick, unless we adopt the philosophy that adminship is no big deal, and give it to everyone, which I do not recommend. This user does not have enough edits in [[WP:NAMESPACE]] to engender confidence in  admin abitities.--<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Too few edits or too few weeks between previous RFA don't matter so much to me.  But the responses to Q1 and the clarification in Q5 are a bit of a concern.  I'm not convinced this user understands what admins do and therefore I can't say whether or not he'd do a good job at it.  Almost everything this user wants to do per Q1 and Q5 can be accomplished with [[WP:TW|Twinkle]]. --
'''Oppose''' for low edit count, insufficient edit summaries, lack of variety in Wikipedia activities.
'''Oppose''' Low Wikipedia-space edits and too recent to the last RfA.
'''Oppose'''. I don't see any negatives about this candidate (such as incivility or a history of edit-warring), but I do see a lack of positives: too little experience of XfD to justify deletion tools, and too little exposure to the more conflictual areas of wikipedia. I hope that I would be able to support a further nomination in the future, but I think that this renomination is premature. May Naylor is clearly a valued editor, and I hope he will keep up his fine contributions, but he hasn't persuaded me that he is ready for the mop. --
'''Oppose''' per BrownHairedGirl.  Candidate has not yet demonstrated competence in an admin-related areas, and is thus unready for the mop.

'''Neutral''' Your answer to question one is quite simple - every editor can do as you describe, admin powers not required.  If you have legitimate grounds for marking articles for deletion then you can either use the appropriate CSD tag or take the article to AfD, using your business case to illustrate just where it fails the notability criteria to refer to the relevant [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]].  Keep working away at admin-related tasks in addition to your regular contributions and try again in three or four months' time.
'''neutral''' - strongly agree with the comments of Cool Blue and aeropagitica listed immediately above.  seems as if the candidate is contributing to articles but has not done enough in terms of "admin tasks" to warrant the tools.  but definitely keep trying!
'''Neutral''' - You really seem like a sincere editor. However, in reading through the questions (including the oft-referenced #1), you don't seem to have a lot of experience with the project-space part of Wikipedia. By being involved with the various discussions, you not only show interest in such discussions, you also can help show your knowledge/understanding of guidelines/policy and how such applies. You mention (I think) that you would like to help out with [[WP:AFD]]. The first step would be to comment on nominated articles there. Experience in a process may be helpful when closing discussions within that process. Anyway, not enough to oppose, but not enough to support either. Hence neutral, though hoping you keep going and growing : ) -
'''Neutral''' -Candidate is a great person, who has really focused on the Iceland part of Wikipedia.  The Icelandic grammar article is a thing to behold (and given that there are only maybe 300,000 native speakers of the language, we should be thankful).  But I doubt that Iceland articles are all that contentious (very interesting however), so without a broader editing (over a longer time), it's hard to tell how they will respond and what they can offer.  But if the candidate became an editor, it wouldn't be the worse thing ever, but I think they should wait a few more months.
'''Oppose'''. Too little activity (only ~285 overall edits) & command of the English language is not up to admin standards. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
And because I have to leave for a few hours, '''Support''' as nom. No one beats the nom :) Update- I do see Prolog's point though, that hurts you somewhat.--
I wish I had beat the nom '''Support'''. Great user and I like the answer to number 1. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' per nomination--
'''Support''' Does great work with image tagging, would work well on CSD image backlogs. Had a minor disagreement with the user and I can only congratulate him in the way he delt with it much more [[WP:CIVILITY|civil]] than I was
'''Weak Support''' I've worked with you and you seem to be a good user overall, but I think that you are too heavy on your deletions, and need to analyze them more before deleting.
'''Support''', based on my experience with Mecu I don't think he would abuse the tools.
'''Support.''' based on seeing user around.
'''Support''' Based upon what I've seen of this user, he knows what he's doing. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Strong support''' - excellent editor to work with, very civil and level headed, and does lots of thankless maintenance work. Give him the mop!
'''Support''' - I've seen a lot of good work from Mecu in a variety of areas.  He has worked hard on orphaned image patrol and has an obvious need for the tools. Take a look at the administrative backlog in areas of image deletion and the benefit of giving Mecu the bit is obvious. --
'''Strong support''': a diligent user working on deletion field. If we don't have such member like (s)he, Wiki will become a mess.
'''Support''' - per nom.↔
'''Support''': per nom
'''Support'''.  Candidate has provided thoughtful answers is aware of his shortcomings.  ~
'''Support''', while concerns about speedy deletion/blocking are valid, I'm satisfied with Mecu's answers to these concerns.
'''Support''' User is dedicated and has gathered a great deal of edits.  I don't quite see eye-to-eye with the opposition.  You do not have to spend every waking minute of your life on Wikipedia to be admin-worhty.  Not doing anything for two days is OK.'''
'''Support''' ~
&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per answers on your subpage. You saying "A block, by definition, is a punitive action. It is a "punishment" for someone whose actions have been detrimental to Wikipedia and fails to comply with requests to act on the benefit of Wikipedia" seems to conflict with the [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]], which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." Unless I'm missing something, that shows a fairly major misunderstanding of the blocking policy, which wouldn't be encouraging for an admin.
'''Strongly oppose''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Richclementi.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=103939504 Fair] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pelosi_Official_Photograph.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=103933393 Use] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tigerliliysuite.gif&diff=prev&oldid=103883322 Policing], lack of activity (stopped 25th, back 28th), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mecu&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 Lack of contributions (to the encyclopaedia - contributions are imperative for an admin)], shows no need for the tools, claims to be an eventualist yet (s)he tags for "RFU". (+ per Trebor) <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose'''. The candidate wants to work with [[CAT:CSD]], but I have serious concerns about his/her knowledge of [[WP:CSD]], even if he was to concentrate on ''image'' deletions. Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Wizard&diff=prev&oldid=100709220] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khanate_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=100710842] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Obsessed&diff=prev&oldid=100708323] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hidden_Hand_%28band%29&diff=100709626&oldid=96730022]
'''Oppose''' Per Prolog. For now.
'''Oppose''' per Trebor, who is correct in highlighting the candidate's misunderstanding of blocking policy.  "Blocking is never punitive" is a maxim every admin needs to know; trying to "finesse" the exact language of policy pages is useless.  Just remember, "Blocking is never punitive."  This is true, no matter what one might think one has read to the contrary.  Admins do not have the time to mete out "punishments."
'''Oppose''' - Very quick on the trigger with speedy.  Specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Wizard&diff=prev&oldid=100709220 this one].  Decent article, good content with 6 linked albums.  I dont know if, as of now, I could trust this editor with deletion capabilities.
'''Strong oppose''' per Trebor - unapologetic misunderstanding of policy [[WP:BLOCK]]. ''
'''Oppose'''. blocks are not punitive. '''
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=<!-- -->Special:Contributions&target=Mecu&limit=58&offset=20070115000400], unless you can explain how this could be something other than a [[WP:POINT|specific vendetta]] toward a [[Southern Lord Records|specific record company]]. —
'''Strong oppose''' per Prolog. Incorrect speedy tags are a big problem, especially with someone who wants to work with [[CAT:CSD]]. As an admin, you can, and probably will, just delete things you would have speedy tagged before. -
'''Oppose''' Per Prolog. '''
'''Oppose''' per answers regarding blocks and "staying away from AfD". Bit too trigger happy on images. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Weak Oppose''' - not satisfied with a few of the responses on the RFAQ page (e.g. age, blocks)
'''Oppose''' per Prolog.
'''Oppose''' - misunderstanding of blocking policy, very indiscriminate use of the speedy tags on decent articles.
'''Oppose''' per CharlotteWebb.
'''Oppose''' per Prolog &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. I share the above concerns about the candidate's understanding of deletion policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Obsessed&diff=prev&oldid=100708323 This] especially should not have been tagged as speedy. In his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMecu&diff=103983327&oldid=103982731 reply to Gwernol] below, the candidate accepts this but claims all were appropriate for [[WP:AFD|AfD]]. This appears to me to cement the lack of understanding of [[WP:BAND]]. On a quick glance the band seems to meet criteria 5, 6 and maybe 9. Also, the last change prior to its being tagged as speedy was a link to the Italian Wiki article on the band! (not bad for an allegedly non-notable band Maryland!) Strong deletion policy knowledge is crucial to adminship and I think [[User:Mecu|Mecu]] would be overzealous in using the tools in this area. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per Prolog. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Prolog. The speedy tags on the provided example articles are very troubling. This would not be a big deal if the edits had been (for example) two years in the past. As it stands, however, the listed examples are a mere two weeks in the past.
'''Oppose'''.  I do not trust this user with the deletion button at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Prolog (but certainly not for "lack of activity" in taking a 3 day break, per Matthew Fenton, for heaven's sake!)
'''Oppose''' the second paragraph in [[WP:BP]] states: "[blocks] should not be used as a punitive measure." --
'''Oppose''' per diffs given by Prolog. With better understanding of CSD criteria possibly support in the future.
'''Oppose''', need more time to understand Wikipedia's policy.
'''Oppose''' per Trebor, prolog, ''et al.'' --
'''Oppose''' per Trebor.
'''Oppose''' per Charlotte. Too deletionistic for my liking. --
'''Very Strong Oppose''' per Trebor.  Candidate's failure to understand the [[WP:Block|blocking]] policy deeply disturbs me.
'''Neutral.''' Your edits seems to be too one sided, focusing too much on images. Given that each image you deal with requires a couple of user talk space edits, some wikipedia edits, and some main and images space edits, it's deceiving how your counts add up so fast. I think you need more experience in other neighborhoods of WP. I can't oppose though because you're a good editor otherwise. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Neutral''' Excellent fairuse fighter that's isn't very agressive like some, but I seen him make some questionable tagging, like [[:Image:SIng.jpg]]. May change vote later
'''Neutral'''.  Great contributions, great guy, but I simply cannot bring myself to support someone contributing to the fair use issues we're having here at this point.  Thumbs up to sticking to the policy, but I can't be comfortable with it right now, but I could be swayed. --
'''Neutral''' Good and dedicated user, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with your zealousness in deletion.--
'''Neutral''' but leaning towards oppose. First, let me say I really appreciate the great work you have been doing on images. I've been working through your contributions and you are definitely helping Wikipedia a great deal and for that we all owe you our thanks. I was worried about the blocking policy discussion because blocking is the most impactful tool that admins have. I think that in reality your interpretation is very close to the preventative meaning of the policy. However I am disturbed by the speedy deletion examples that Prolog gave. Three of these four very obviously assert notability an should not have been speedied, and the fourth is borderline enough that you should not have speedied it, in my opinion. Speedy deletion, especially under criteria 7, will only work if nominators and (particularly) admins understand how it should be properly applied. Sorry, and please don't be disheartened by this RfA. Some of our best admins needed a couple of attempts to get the bit.
'''Neutral''' I know you're a great Wikipedian and a dedicated editor, but the diffs provided by Prolog really make me not to comfortable supporting. Sorry. ←
'''Neutral''' [er Anas. I would support, but the diffs provided Prolog keep me from a support. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' diligent no doubt, but prone to being trigger happy with CSD.  Close but not close enough either way.
'''Neutral''', needs more time in understanding process. May support in future. -
'''Neutral''' Has good and bad points; maybe I'll support next time.--
Less than 500 edits. Answer to question 1 shows no need for tools. All things can be done as a normal user. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but 112 isn't enough for us to judge if we can trust you with the admin tools or not.  I suggest a withdrawl.
'''Oppose''' - Need to hang around and contribute alot more before trying for admin again. Also, doesn't sound like you need the admin tools for the sysop chores you outlined.↔
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. 112 edits is not enough to show whether you will be a good admin. Also none of the tasks you named require admin tools. Plus, having conflicts within your first 100 edits or so is probably not a good sign. Finally, though it's a personal reasoning, admin candidates should at least have a user page telling a little about them. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>On Belay!</sup></small>]] 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) I'm considering removing this nomination because it hasn't been accepted technically by the user.
'''Oppose''' - While I'm sure you do good work in articles, you show no involvement in anything that would benefit from admin privileges.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - Not enough edits and your answer to question one doesn't require admin tools.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' while I appreciate your enthusiasm, you have nowhere close to the experience needed.  Please visit [[WP:RFA]] now and then to see what is usually expected of admin candidates.  I suggest withdrawing this RfA.

'''Oppose''' You simply need more experience. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience.  Also, do not delete legitimate discussions or warnings from your talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mehrshad123&diff=cur&oldid=108050451]
'''Support''' Yup.
'''Support''' - despite saying he's 'not a great article writer', there are plenty of mainspace edits which will be useful to new users looking for help. Plenty of experience in Wikipedia space (1,000+ edits) which is of even more value. Gained enough experience now, and seems to know what he's talking about. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Beat''' the nom... Well actually, '''eat''' the nom... --
'''Don't eat the nom until he has supported''' -- <strong>
'''Support''' But I have to ask, why the hell do you have so many edits? I'm on Wiki 4-6+ hours a day, and I hover around 800-1400 a month --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Support'''. Good article work, and lots of username reports. I'm sure the block button will come in handy. '''
'''Support''' A good participant at XFD; I'm not bothered by whatever he may have said about BJAODN - let's leave current disputes out of this because we're trying to evaluate a candidate who's spent months here already.
'''Support''' Melsaran is a dedicated, civil and experienced user, he's without a doubt prepared for adminship. Current opposers do not convince me otherwise. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I came come across this user many times at [[WP:AFD]], and have no doubt that they would have any trouble making decisions as an administrator. [[User:Nenyedi|<span style="color:green">'''Nen'''</span>]]
'''Support'''.  I predict the net effect of sysopping this user will be a positive one for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. User's answer to Q6 was satisfactory. Edit history is good as well, I see no reason not to support.
'''weak Support''': Melsaran provided a reasonably tactful response to a potentially thorny question. My only caveat would be this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikimedia_Commons]. The candidate could easily have resolved the issue with a quick search against "Google Scholar" or "Google News". I don't hold it against him, though, because: 1) he showed independence and grit by potentially "going against the grain" (but with a good-faith belief in the validity of his views, I like that); and 2) it seems lots of others failed to do Google Scholar search before chiming in on the AfD as well, so Melsaran shouldn't be singled out. Melsaran is probably someone who can express contrary and contentious viewpoints while still maintaining integrity and respect. In light of this, It seems fair to relax the emphasis on editing skills. The "warring" is a slight issue as well.
'''Strong Support''' Solid edit count, and I don't think he will abuse the tools!
'''Support''' per above.  A real vandal fighter and very helpful, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melsaran#Vandalism_by_IP_to_my_talk_page].
'''Support''' as Walton One said, adminship is about ''maintenance''. Melsaran has plenty of mainspace contributions; WikiGnoming ''is'' article work. No convincing reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I like his maintenance work and participation in XfD's; that experience comes in handy when using the admin tools. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Plenty of experience there for an admin candidate,; some good things too. Will forgive the edit warring.
'''Slightly guarded support''' &mdash; generally impressed with Melsaran's judgement when we've crossed paths, and if it's the gnomish admin tasks he wants to do, then please, let him at it, he'll be great. I understand the views that there's not enough evidence of experience relevant to all admin tasks, but I trust that Melsaran won't attempt those until he feels that he does have the relevant experience, and I trust his judgement towards that.
'''Support''' I think there is plenty of good reasons that this user should be an admin.
'''Support''' Two and a half months since the edit war, a clear statement that s/he was wrong and understands why, no further issues. On the plus side, an editor who has done a good job and will continue to do so. --
'''Support''' I feel that this user would not abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as per JodyB.
'''Support''' -
Per question 4, sorry, but if your best contribution is to an article covered in reference-needed and cleanup tags then I'm afraid you haven't been editing the encyclopedia enough. It's a question of trust, and I don't trust people who want to become admins without having helped improve the encyclopedia in any direct way first. <span style="padding:2px;font-size:80%;font-family:verdana;background:#E6E8FA;">
'''Oppose''' per Kamryn. --
Per Until. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Edit warring] over the location of an article is not something I want to see in an admin candidate. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=List_of_U.S._states_by_area Another example] of the same behavior. ---
Per lack of article writing. You can't deal with content-based disputes if you don't know what good content is.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki This] is unacceptable, and too recent. --
'''Weak Oppose''' without prejudice for future attempts. Your work has generally been great Mel, but the log Aude links to gives me serious concerns. I hope you try again in six months again once incidents like that have ceased (which I'm sure they will, given your speedy improvement as an editor, far quicker than mine).
'''Oppose''' Per the edit-warring over the genocide tag. It's one case where article writing experience would come in handy, I think.
'''Oppose''' Changing the title of [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] to [[Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide]] (as you did twice on Jun 4 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki]) is just one reason to oppose...no consensus to do this was apparent.--
'''Oppose''' this is basically POV edit warring[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Melsaran&page=Atomic+bombings+of+Hiroshima+and+Nagasaki], moving a page to the same title 3 times in a single day so recently is just too much too soon. (
'''Oppose''' Per cited examples of edit warring and POV pushing.
'''Oppose'''- per the POV pushing. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' The editing-warring issue is still too recent and too troubling.  Giving an editor the mop too soon does him no good, as the tensions resulting from any mistakes will likely make him as unhappy as everyone else.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' - per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&diff=135832869&oldid=135832582 diff] and answer to number two - lack of encyclopaedic edits.--
'''Oppose'''.  Given our respective histories, it's weird that I should be agreeing with MONGO on anything, but he makes a very good point above; renaming an article on the WWII atomic bombings to such a provocative POV title, and edit-warring about it, isn't the kind of level-headed actions I'd like to see in an admin candidate.  Kamryn (with whom I have a much friendlier history than with MONGO) makes some good points as well.
'''Oppose'''.  The repeated page moves of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing article to a POV-pushing title was wrong.
'''Oppose'''. My only interaction with this editor was in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_7#Wp:an.2Fi_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents this recent discussion] of his proposal to delete the [[wp:an/i]] redirect, which I had created precisely because typing the lower case in the search did not work and I was tired of hitting a search page. Seeing how he hounded every comment in disagreement to his proposed deletion, over such a trivial thing, does not give me confidence he will handle bigger things as an admin should.
Changed to '''Weak Oppose''' due to cited attempts to move [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide". I don't usually like opposing an otherwise good candidate based on one incident, but this was too recent (June 4) and seems to me like a fairly serious violation and/or misunderstanding of NPOV, which is basically our most important policy. I will probably support if the candidate runs again in a couple of months, but this is too soon.
On account of the above, and also due to a review of [[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks]], I do not have confidence in the candidate's understanding of NPOV.
'''Oppose''', as per the concerns cited by Kamryn and (especially) Mongo. Yes, it was three months ago, but the poor judgement in the renaming, compounded by the edit-warring over the title, lead me to believe that you are not a good candidate for the tools at this time. Perhaps later.
'''Oppose''' The grossly pov renaming of [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki]] and edit warring are a big concern.
'''Neutral'''. Melsaran is thoughtful and civil in her discussions, but I'm a bit concerned about her understanding of policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikimedia_Commons], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=150770151&oldid=150769703] No reason to oppose, I just feel a little more time and work with policy would be helpful.
'''Neutral''' - God knows, I'm the ''last'' person who should be opposing based upon the use of automated tools - my own RFA had that as a major issue.  However, I think that if a candidate uses some automation, I expect to see a very high caliber of other work: I'd like to see major foundation involvement, or significant involvement in policy evolution, or something similar to that as a means of evaluation for their critical thinking and judgement skills.  In this case, unfortunately, I don't see any way to really evaluate critical thinking.  However, I also don't have enough to push me to oppose.  So, regretfully, I remain neutral on this RfA.  All that said, however, I'd like to state clearly to those who debate about Janitor or Judge... having been an admin for a little over a month now... janitor.  WAYYYYYYY janitor.  I think I've closed, maybe, 2 AfDs - and those were clear cut, and frankly involved no judgment.  -
'''Support''' -- I dont believe you will misuse the tools. I think you have been around long enough to have some experience. You have shown civility and tolerance, even though you have not garnered any support but this one. i think you deserve a chance. Good luck. <strong>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' - Seems experienced enough, but unfortunately this request is unlikely to pass.
'''Support''' per the dissident.  I hope if this RFA fails (it will likely) that you come back back in September and try again.  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Support''' I don't think you'll misuse the tools, however there is a very high chance this rfa will fail.  I encourage you to try again in a few months should that happen. '''
'''Support'''.  I have no reason to distrust this editor or fear misuse of the tools.  Understanding of policy and guidelines appears to be sufficiently demonstrated.
'''Support''' Per Ganfon. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' You haven't been ''blocked'' in 2 years and a few thousand edits. Nonetheless, this request won't pass, so I recommend you withdraw, work on some of the concerns, try to participate consistently for a few more months, and consider asking some users if they think you're ready yet (eg through an [[WP:ER|editor review]]). Cheers, ~
'''Support''' There seems to be plenty of good reason to support.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, you won't misuse tools, and have been around. ---
'''Moral support''' No sense in piling on the opposes at this stage. Over the next three months, you should strive to address each concern listed in the opposition. Once you have addressed each concern in the opposition and three months have passed, I would suggest attempting RfA again. You are a good editor and would make a good admin once the below oppose comments have been addressed. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''', absolutely no indication user would abuse or misuse the mop. --
'''Support''' well phrased (almost) withdrawal matches good answers to optional questions. Although I am slightly concerned about the briefness of the main answers, I feel there is nothing to show that you would be untrustworthy as an admin. (Good luck addressing the concerns raised below :) ) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Oppose''' — The encyclopaedia is the most important thing at Wikipedia. I don't see much article building from you at all.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Member&namespace=0]
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 5.3. If an anon has no extensive history of contributions but has been vandalising recently, it's quite consistent with the information I gave (although not certain) that it's a dynamic IP, in which case banning it for more than 24 hours or so at the most would likely get the wrong user by mistake. Permanently banning an IP would only be done in unusual circumstances, due to the tendency of IP addresses to change hands and/or be used my more than one person. I suspect there are other similar situations; although the candidate would probably act in good faith, there would be too much of a risk of making mistakes through inexperience. If you intend to get involved in vandalfighting, using rollback scripts (which you can use even when not an admin) and making more [[WP:AIV|AIV]] reports would help you get experience. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 11:13, 2 July 2007 (
'''Oppose''' - Weak answers to the questions. Also user uses the word "ban", when only ArbCom and Jimbo have the authority to ban. Also, the user says he would block indef after one previous block, however, says nothing about IPs.
'''Strong Oppose''' - User is shown to have issues with Fair Use in images, the vast majority of this user's edits do not contain summaries, and the user does not seem to have the proper deciseiveness that I would look for in an administrator. I can't seem to get past the fact that this user could not even assertively cite his "best conributions", and that he wishes to use his admin powers for one central purpose, two at best. Unless this user can turn things around, I cannot support, and I'm not so sure he would even want to put in the painstaking work that would require.
'''Weak Oppose''' With [[WP:AGF|reluctance]]. 1) You didn't even provide an edit summary for the creation of this RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=141976186&oldid=141962416 diff] which is poor IMHO. 2)<s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gifted_education&diff=prev&oldid=41692986 This] appears to indicate no knowledge of [[WP:CITE]]. </s>3) (and this is a bit petty but...) Your sig. - please sort that out! ... I'm sorry, I really am but I can't support or even abstain on the basis of my first two objections. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I am very unhappy about the apparent confusion in this users answers bwtween "ban" and "block". I am also unhappy about the intention to use the tools in [[WP:AN]], where they are not needed. If the applicant did not mean what he appeared to mean, then this can only suggest an inadequate understanding of wikipedia structue. And lastly, and least important, the edit count percentage is very low. If this RfA fails, and if you re-apply, please enable compulsory edit count insertion in your preferences.--<font color="Red">
'''Strong oppose''' I'm sure the editor is a fine person, and will make a good admin someday.  The answers to the questions are minimal, however.  Failure to understand the difference between a block and a ban indicates inexperience with policy.  Now is not the time for the mop.
General inexperience issues. I look forward to seeing a nomination in a couple of months, but not right now, sorry. '''
'''Strong oppose''' Someone else who wants to police the project rather than build AND police it.
'''Oppose''' I don't see a lot of edit summaries in your history, nor a lot of talk page discussions. I believe that communication, discussion and consensus-building is an important part of adminship, and at this time you haven't demonstrated this ability. That isn't to say that you don't have those things -- I just haven't seen them in action. Just a suggestion for what to work on should this RFA fail and you want to go again. (BTW, the edit summary is critical regardless of whether you're going for admin or not it's something that should be in just about every edit). --
'''STRONG Oppose'''. I do not believe he knows enough about blocking, and banning people. In two to three mounths, I would be happy to support.
'''Neutral''' He doesn't know the difference between between a ban and a block.
I see some strange edits from you, such as [[Image talk:Original WonderBra Model.JPG|here]], I found an example of improper fair use rationales, and your answers to the standard questions are really weak.—
'''Neutral''' Only thing holding me back is that while you have been here some time, you only seem to visit Wikipedia every once in a while.  Not to say you ''must'' be here everyday, but I prefer a more experienced and more regular editor.
Give it a little more time before you try to become a sysop.--
'''Neutral''' - You are a consistent editor, but your edit numbers are small, like 16 edits for June (also about the policies). <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Neutral''' - Kind of towards oppose just a bit. As previously stated, you aren't all that active. You could also revisit some of the Wikipedia guideline pages if this fails and learn more about the policies, because you really don't seem quite ready to take up an administrator position.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience and answers.
'''Oppose''' - you don't seem to have given your RfA much thought (the description bit inparticular). The answers are '''''OK''''', but more contribs should have been made by an admin candidate in the time you've been here. And don't forget to use that edit summary! <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' over serious concern over lack of experience in area in which candidate propose to help with (XFD). I can count with one hand the number of AFD nomination that the candidate have taken part in this year, and I only need one finger in terms of TFD. Also am generally un-convinced with answers to question.
'''Oppose''' - Not quite there. --
'''Oppose''', sorry. Inexperience, see-old-RfA intro.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''- per the inexperience. Also, your participation at AfD is not satisfying. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Castrique&diff=155363753&oldid=155363080 This] shows that you're not actually willing to discuss the fate of articles, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CIML&diff=prev&oldid=144094623 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2008_State_of_the_Union_Address&diff=prev&oldid=103032554 this] shows poor judgment and understanding of our notability and verifiability guidelines. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahnentafel_of_Prince_Wolfgang_of_Hesse&diff=prev&oldid=59745323 This], along with the other diffs I provided, shows me that you think AfD is a vote, not a discussion. Admins should know better. Since you don't, you're not ready to be an admin. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' In your last RfA people advised you that they wanted to see more detailed answers to questions, more policy knowledge, and more experience. Suggest taking this advice. Suggest more detailed answers addressing these concerns directly. Best, --
'''Oppose''' - While your willingness to help in backlogged areas is commendable, it's about the only justifiable reason you gave for needing admin tools;  mediation and new user assistance hardly require you being an admin, and your level of participation in deletion discussions leaves me concerned about your experience in those areas. Referring people to your previous RfA instead of creating a proper introduction for this one also shows a slight lack of attention to detail. Also, though your desired areas of work are mainly administrative so your editing credentials are theoretically not as important, I noticed one of the articles listed at Q2 is still a stub which concerns me as you consider it to be one of your best contributions. A bit more work in these areas will help.
'''Netural''' I am netural for now. His edit count is ok, but I still see some gaps between edits. I will likely be swayed by additional questions, and futher review by myself on this user. I am as of now, leaning towards support.
'''Neutral''' Your answer to Q1 leaves me with the impression, that you don't know what admins do. I'll wait and see if it gets better. --
I don't feel a need to oppose this RFA. Although there was nothing wrong about what you wrote in your answers, I felt that they were a bit bland, and you could have put a little more effort into them to convince people that you deserve administrative tools.
'''Netural''' I think, it would be good if you participate more on [[WP:XFD]] to gain more experience, I only see 5 contributions to WP:XFD since your first RfA. However I must admit that you are doing a good work on main space. Keep with your good contributions.
'''Neutral''' - This is the first time I saw a snowball Neutral :O . This user doesn't et a oppose vote because he has been constantly editing since 2 years ago at a pace. What I'm worried about is about his experience in solving disputes. --
'''Oppose''': Not using an edit summary when listing your own RfA is, for me, inexcusable. I'm very sorry but I have no option but to Oppose at this time. <font face="Arial">--Kind Regards -
'''Obvious Oppose'''. Not remotely qualified. Talk page is full of warnings and a fairly recent block notice for disruption. Suggest immediate withdrawal.
'''Obvious Oppose'''. Would moral support, but too much vandalism recently. Strongly suggest withdrawal. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' In addition to the above comments you have only 124 edits, which is a tiny fraction of the amount that you need, and your answers to the questions are very poor. I urge early withdrawal.--
'''Oppose'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose and suggest immediate withdrawal''' Per above and edit count should be taken into consideration. You'd make a good admin in future months/years to come with some improvemets and work in [[wp:afd]], [[wp:tfd]], [[wp:ifd]] and other policy related areas. Also I noticed you have been warned several times and blocked once for vandalism.<font face="">
'''Oppose''' sorry needs more time, recent vandalism, need more use of edit summerys. Reapply in 5 months.
'''Oppose''' per lack of substantial replies to questions above, as well as the severe lack of experience on Wikipedia. ···
'''Strong Oppose and suggest withdrawal'''. Um... youre averaging 20-odd edits a month and you have under 200? no thanks.--
'''Oppose''' per above. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''', obviously, as nominator, for reasons stated above.  --
'''Strong support''' - MER-C is exactly what we should be looking for in an administrator. He/she is knowledgeable about policy and does a boatload of work on backlogs that go much faster with admin tools. I was especially impressed with the technical knowledge [[Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_4#Open_proxy_reports|here]], as the situation was over the heads of many current admins (including myself), and by his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MER-C/archives/11&diff=next&oldid=95279473 calm response] to a new sysop's ignorance of policy. Not only will MER-C make a fine admin, we would benefit greatly by giving this user the tools.--
'''Weak Support''' I 100% agree with Majorly on the XFD and other things. However I think that you are a great vandal fighter who could be of good use with the tools, I trust you. ~
'''Strong Support''' - someone I've seen around a lot, almost always doing the right thing.
'''Weak Support''' of someone who is experienced and obviously has a use for the tools.  But please be careful with the word "cruft" - it can be offensive to someone when you apply it to a topic that is important to them.  Just because something doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines doesn't mean that some people don't consider it important and we don't need to be insulting or perform a victory dance when we delete it. As with StuffOfInterest below, I'm concerned when you talk about someone accepting their fate.  This is not an us vs them - we are all here to try and improve the encyclopedia.  Nevertheless, you obviously have a use for the tools, so I support, even though I have strong misgivings about your answer to question #3. --
'''Support'''-per good vandal fighter.--
'''Support''', we do not have enough administrators who help with the deletion backlogs. MER-C will be an asset for Wikipedia. Concerns from the last RfA seem to have been adressed.
'''Support''' Per all above, but you need to take into consideration Stuff0fInterest's complaint. '''
'''Support'''  I have no doubt at all that this user will use the tools to the benefit of the project --
Definitely. &mdash;
I'm
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Weak Support''' I believe you are a little too zealous when it comes to deleting, but I'd still trust in you with the tools.  --
Seems trustworthy & has good knowledge of policies.  --
'''Support''' while I would prefer isn't as much of a deletionist, he does decent work at AFD.--
'''Support''' per (may I say this aloud?) AfD history. Regards,
'''Support''', a great vandal hunter and I think while a little on the deletionist side of life, nothing irreversible.  Good luck!
'''Support''' per nom.  I have had nothing but positive experience with MER-C.
'''Weak support''' (see Oppose/Neutral). --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support''' I co-nominated this user's first RfA, and was considering nominating again, just recently. This user is a valued contributor to Wikipedia, and definitely demonstrates the need for admin tools, an understanding of policy, and strong dedication to the project. '''
'''Support''' - A user that would definitely utilize the mop in a positive manner.<b>
'''Strong Support''' just like last time. Outstanding user, knows policies very well and will definitely make good use of the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong support''' an excellant vandal fighter who would benefit from the tools for that reason alone.
'''Very Strong Support'''- user needs tools, I have attempted to nominate him before. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>(<font color="#f00">[[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#f00">Hi!</font>]]</font>/
'''Strong support''' congratulations, you found my [[User:Opabinia regalis/RfA criteria|grandfather clause]] and didn't even really need it :) Keeping the signal-to-noise ratio in article space at a manageable level is one of things we need more admins to do, and MER-C has an established record of being willing and able to do it. While the plural of anecdote is not data, I've seen enough of his speedy-taggings that I have complete confidence in his deletion judgment.
'''Strong support''' Would help Wikipedia with the tools.--
'''Strong Support''' per above and because you a strong defender of wikipedia against vandals. Wikipedia needs more admins in the fight against vandalism. For strong support, would like to see your answers to Malber and his optional questions. Changed to Strong Support.
'''Strong Support''' This user is the epitome of "showing a need for the tools". I see tireless contributions and I think it would benefit the encyclopedia greatly to give this user the tools. Heck if we were paying him/her s/he should put in a name change request to MER-CENARY. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
Support, trusted and very experienced. Nobody opposing presents a convincing reason for doing so.
'''Strong Support''' good vandal fighter, the administrative abilities would only increase this user's usefulness on Wikipedia. I also remind the oppose voters that persistence in the pursuit of unencyclopedic material on Wikipedia is no vice.--
'''Support'''. Amazing at his strong points, maybe not the best at XfD, but at least he participates. I can't oppose him.--
'''Support'''- Strong contributor, knows the policies well, there is no reason to believe he wll misuse the tools, his having them will be a positive for the project.
'''Strong Support''' Fantastic asset to WP. Not all of us are article writers, but MER-C is civil, knows policy and can be trusted with the tools. '''
'''Strong Support''' - one of the best vandalfighters on this project needs tools
'''Strong Support'''. He's ready now. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' ''RfA cliche #1''.  More to the point, while Trebor has a point that simple pile-on votes are not useful, I would agrue that "per nom"s after a re-list don't fall into that category.  If something has already been relisted, showing that the previous arguments hav wider support can be an important part of moving the process forward.
'''Support''' Ther primary function of every editor is, or should be, the improvement of the encyclopedia. And the additional function of an admin is to maintain the encyclopedia, which I am sur MER-C will do brilliantly.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' per nom, Kusma, Opabinia regalis, Glen...
'''Support'''. Opposes based on "per nom" type AfD comments are especially unconvincing. --
'''Support''', without reservation.
'''Suport''' This user will make a good admin. —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson" face="Eras Demi ITC">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Careful support''' (switching from neutral) on second thought, my concerns don't outweigh his qualities.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' excellent vandal-fighter. '''''<font color="#FF0000">
'''Support.''' I see MER-C frequently on the AfD pages.  I value his nominations and contributions.  Some are trivial; others are not.  I think there is a critical distinction between one's personal opinion as an editor, and one's application of policy as an administrator.  Like MER-C, I am a deletionist, and I nominate articles from the orphaned list if I think they cannot or should not be salvaged.  That doesn't mean I would delete those articles without discussion if I had the power to do so.  Submitting an article for Afd means that you acknowledge the need for consensus.  If it isn't there, you don't delete.  Otherwise, MER-C's tireless, varied contributions on fighting spam, cruft, and vandalism convince me that he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I really do believe MER-C would know when to pull the trigger and when not to if handed the tools. I credit him with some common sense and the ability to confer in instances when he was unsure (including instances of [[:WP:CRUFT|cruft]], which let's face it, means all things to all people and little to none). He is an invaluable vandal fighter and also has been very pro-active in the rampant spam area ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MER-C/Spam&limit=500&action=history originator] of a [[:Template:Spamsearch|spam detector template]] which I have seen on many user pages since). As for '''Delete''' per nom? If there is nothing else to add to the nominator's argument for deletion, what else is there to say? Are we expecting people to make up stuff or waffle? Anyway, on a personal note,  I have turned to this user for advice on many an occasion in the past. Also, I would have been further up the list of support if it wasn't for an "inconvenient" wikibreak!
'''Support''' MER-C spends lots of time voting on AfDs, is a great vandal fighter and from what I have seen is a civil user.
'''Support''' a good candidate to make WP a tidier place --
'''Support''' Moreschi (#4) said it quite well. -
'''Support''' cant believe I'm supporting an amitted deletionist yet when ever MER-C has crossed my path I havent seen any issues of civility or lack of policy knowledge that would warrant a neutral or oppose vote. Also we need more gnomes
'''Support''' Though he/she hasn't created many articles, vandal fighting is 75% of what the admin tools are for.  Vandal fighters tend to have a strong grasp of policy, so I can fully trust this user with the mop. -- '''<font color="blue">
'''Weak Support''' Although I agree with Majorly about your AfD habits. Perhaps you should tone your deletionism down a bit? | [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font> · <font color="DarkSlateGray">
'''Support''' have never faulted his judgement regarding policy. Hit-and-run AfD voting? Sometimes there really isn't much more to say than 'per nom'. No reason to suspect he would abuse the tools. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms">
'''Strongest Possible Support''', of course. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.  We need more admins willing to tackle the deletion backlog.  It is a shame that this willingness is going to count against MER-C; doing the correct thing upsets people who don't agree.  The people who avoid any such issues doing nothing and staying out of trouble get adminned, and the editors capable of making ballsy calls - the ones we need as admins - do not).
I see few reasons to oppose that do not boil down to editcountitis.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Excellent vandal fighter.  Hope MER-C will fight some of the other backlogs too.
'''Support''' - Good vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. Easily one of the most productive, precise and civil editors around. Criticism seems to be focused on his laconic comments on AfD: If the reason is already explained in a 5 page long policy, why repeat it?
'''Support'''.  More deletionist than I am, but that's not a reason to oppose a good editor and vandal-fighter for adminship.  There is room for differences of opinion within the policies.
'''Crazy Support''' Consistantly beats me to the draw while RC patrolling.
'''Weak to moderate support'''. I'm glad to see that MER-C writes articles as well as just voting for their deletion. I do think that at times he could more fully explain his reasons for choosing to delete an article, hence the qualifier "weak to moderate". I don't however think he/she would abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Although I have not always agreed with him he has always done good work and would be a real asset to AIV --
'''Full Support''' I have seen this user's work many times (often beats me at recent changes) and I  approve of his [[WP:AFD|AfD]] work.
'''Support''', we always need more vandal fighters.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Support''' - editor is always a pleasure to work with, needs tools, won't abuse them (and some of the oppose votes are ludicrous) '''〈<font color="red">
'''Support'''. Great editor who'll help clear the backlogs and make good use of tools.
'''Support''' I trust MER-C. --
'''Strong Support''' I was going to nominate him myself. I didn't realize that someone had already nominated him.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Genuinely believed he was already an admin, awesome vandal fighter, not interacted, but seen about a lot and trust him.  (My apologies if my gender assumption is incorrect)  --
'''Support''' I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''', while I can see a slightly triggerhappy tendancy with deletions, the result is based on consensus and not personal opinion. I trust MER-C to uphold the consensus and keep what should the community deem to be appropriate. His vandal fighting is where he shines and I think he will use the admin tools to good effect.
'''Stongest Possible Support''' -- Removing material is a janitorial thing and admins are often janitors. Also MERC does lots of good work against vandals, even keeping his own vandal records, like [[User:MER-C/Blu Aardvark]].
'''Strong Support''' One of Wikipedia's finer contributors--I've always been impressed by his work. I must say, I find it a rather strange argument to claim that removing more content than he adds makes him a poor contributor--Wikipedia's problem has never been quantity of content, but rather quality; to find quality, you often have to remove a great deal of crap. An administrative role has nothing to do with adding content, but rather with removing content (through rollback and deletion), limiting who can add content (through blocks and protection), and performing tedious, boring housekeeping tasks. I do wish people would get it through their heads that adminship is in no way a reward for fine article writing, but rather that it is a tool to allow trustworthy people to perform tedious tasks that most would never even consider doing without pay, and most of all that it is "not a big deal." I also find it rather strange to criticize MER-C for his "drive-by" AfD votes--is it really a bad trait for an admin to be less opiniated, less stubborn, less wordy (unlike myself...), and less full of himself? If you ask me, this is what we should look for in an admin. Anyway, long story short, it's a pity that this RfA may not pass, as MER-C could truly be one of our better admins if we'd give him the chance.
'''Support'''. MER-C's work at XfD is impressive, and I have no doubt that he'll exercise good judgment in closing deletion discussions. His willingness to help at [[WP:SSP]] is a plus with me.
'''Support'''. Good vandal fighter, have no misconceptions. I know they will become a good admin --
'''Support''', MER-C would be an outstanding sysop, and should be given the mop without question.
''' Support'''. I appreciate MER-C's work on the [[WP:COI/N]] noticeboard. If he was an administrator he could probably do even more useful things there.
'''Support''' MER-C refuses to compromise on core policies of Wikipedia such as verifiability and original research. For this reason (s)he deserves our full support. -
'''Support''' per nom :-P
'''Support''' definate asset to WP --
'''Support''' does the dirty work necessary for the encyclopedia.  Disagreements about what belongs in Wikipedia is not a reason to oppose someone who is clearly working (very hard) in good faith to improve WP.  No reason to think he would abuse the tools and no reason to think that denying the tools would somehow shange his current activity.  --
'''Support''' We need more admin vandal fighters.
'''Support''' - Excellent vandal fighter.
'''Weak Support''' - seen this user a ''lot'' on reverting vandalism and deletion discussions.
'''Support''' Good editor. --
'''Support'''  I think he would be an active admin (which we need), but I do not think he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Dedicated editor, good admin skills. --
'''Support''', whether it will matter or not. MER-C is a good editor and would be a great addition to our current administrative team. Catch-22, it seems. Participate in AfD, get opposed, fail to participate in AfD, get opposed!
'''Support''', excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support'''ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''--
'''Oppose'''.  There is no way I can support someone who's only role is to remove material.  Claims in nomination statement that what stopped his first attempt at nomination was tenure is incomplete.  A big complaint raised was his tendency towards "ready, fire, aim" when it comes to [[WP:PROD]] and [[WP:AfD]] nominations.  I see nothing in his statements above which show he has taken this to heart and plans to spend more time researching than tagging.  His attitude seems to be that the burden is on the community to defend against his nominations rather than him to support them.  Finally, with statements like he made in question three above, "however the folks at [[WP:GUNDAM]] have accepted their fate somewhat", I fear he will be a bully of an administrator.  I've seen too many of those and don't need another one. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree with [[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]]. An administrator should be experienced in creating articles and adding new material, not just reverts. Also, mabye not enough experience in conficts. ~
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but we don't need more pile-on !voters at AfD.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandria_Country_Day_School&diff=prev&oldid=105264012][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cb_the_great&diff=prev&oldid=105271737][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WorldVentures&diff=prev&oldid=105271753][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Services_Applications_Deployment&diff=prev&oldid=105272581][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novacom&diff=prev&oldid=105272745][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_BONE&diff=prev&oldid=105272834][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Illusions:_The_Butterfly_Within_%28Mariah_Carey_album%29&diff=prev&oldid=105273205][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bangladesh_International_Tutorial&diff=prev&oldid=105273255][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hatchetman&diff=prev&oldid=105273987][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Untitled_Fifth_Crow_Franchise_Installment&diff=prev&oldid=105274042][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cantonese_American&diff=prev&oldid=105275588] Others I checked were brief "not notable"s or "fails WP:XXX"s.  An admin needs to show a good understanding of the policies and guidelines to close AfDs, and I don't trust this user not simply to bean-count. If I could be shown a few AfDs where the candidate has followed-up and argued his position in the face of opposition, or done some research to back up his opinions, I might be convinced otherwise.
'''Oppose'''. It looks to me like your XfD participation is almost completely just rapid fire "Delete per X". I want XfD to show that you understand policy, not to show that you can type out "Delete per nom". As above, if you can show examples where you did more, I might reconsider. -
'''Oppose'''. I agree with the comments stated above. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]]. I have seen MER-C on XFD very often, and although we are grateful for his work with deleting articles, it seems that he A)Racks up !votes though agreeing with others and B) Spends a disproportionate amount of time there. Sorry, dude. '''
'''Oppose''' : The "''weeding out the things that don't belong''" comment is beyond the pale. Though that's what I'm doing now. No offence.
'''Oppose''' per Trebor.  Everybody has to say "per nom" or "per [user]" but it just appears that you use that line too often.  Also, the fact that you had 3 !votes in one minute says it all.  It is impossible to review the nomination properly in that span of time.  Sorry.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all my comments below, and per Trebor. Too trigger-happy. --'''
'''Oppose'''. I had formed much the same impressions as above, but I wanted to put hard facts behind them. I decided to F3 for "mer-c" in the past few days of AFDs, and I found him to be even more ultra-deletionist than I had believed. On February 1, he cast 41 delete !votes, speedy tagging five of them, with NO keeps. The next day, he had 50 delete !votes, with five more speedy-tags. For February 3, he racked up 54 deletes, one merge then delete, one merge, and ''finally'', one keep. I don't see how anyone can properly research and assess that many subjects (a third or more of all articles on AFD), on top of the dozens of others he tags for speedy or PROD. I worry about someone so lopsidedly unbalanced towards deletion closing disputed AFDs unfairly, quick-closing AFDs as WP:SNOW deletes after a few "per nom" dittoes before a defender gets to it, or using "AFD is not a vote" to delete even in the face of a keep consensus. Worse, in reviewing other people's speedies and PRODs, where he would not be checked by anyone else's opinion, I suspect he would not have the judgment to not immediately delete. Any greater effectiveness in vandalfighting and spamfighting he would derive from admin tools would be eaten up in the deletion reviews and undeletion requests he would cause. --
'''Oppose''' I have also noticed the tendency at AfD to say very little (e.g., “Delete per nom”, “Delete per above”, but participate with delete votes frequently to the extent of almost being a rubber-stamp for the nominations.  Perhaps this is a result of being criticized for lack of experience in the prior RfA.  He/she has also a bit dismissive of attempts to discuss reasoning behind alternate views, and seems to rush the process a bit with attempts at speedy deletes.  In many case I see him/her voting to delete in the first few votes, but the consensus of other editors being to keep the article in the end.  Does this show an understanding of  notability?  The answers to questions above make me think that Mer-c is a bit of a zealot for deletion. --
'''weak oppose'''.  I am disappointed to see the arguments here so explicitly focussed on the specific issue of unarticulated voting comments on AfD's.  I think the bigger problem is the stated lack of contribution to article space content.  That coupled with proven undiplomatic tendencies, and yes, cursory review of AfD's before voting leads me to believe that this editor, while hugely beneficial to wikipedia, requires more experience in the article namespace contribution competencies before he is given the mop.
'''Oppose''' per this very recent !vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLady_of_Stavoren&diff=105242196&oldid=105237017], citing a criterion for speedy deletion that plainly doesn't exist.
'''Strong oppose''' per above and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Extranet&diff=prev&oldid=105046137 diff], you closed a RfA without deleting the "voice your opinion" template, and didn't even bother to add the final result, which is a bad action. I suggest that you refrain from doing the bureaucrat's job if you don't know how to do it properly. No need for admins who may take action before having the required knowledge.
'''Oppose''' per evidence of trigger-fingerness. -
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar, and candidate misunderstanding of speedy deletion.  The CSDs are strict and narrow. Most things that the community would find deletable in an open forum are not, ipso facto, ''speedy'' deletable.  The CSDs cover only those matters too definitive to bother discussing.  Any candidate must learn the CSDs, and abide relatively strictly by them.
'''Oppose''' for having too quick a trigger-finger. &mdash;
Sorry but I do not have trust in your judgement, I also worry that you would be to "trigger happy" as well. Also your AfD activity while numerous is mediocre, at best. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' per concerns brought up above and below. Sorry, ''
'''Oppose''' - Per reasons stated above--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. I've always been impressed with your vandal fighting, but you may want to ease up on the deletions. I really don't see a problem with the Gundam stuff, although that's probably just me. Your vehemence in wanting to delete stuff like that makes me hesitate to support giving you the delete button. –
'''Oppose''' - Items cited by Nishkid above don't really help his case. When policies are cited it seems to be in vague 3-for-the-price-of-one style.
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure I'd trust him with the delete button. [[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]] makes a lot of good points so I won't repeat them except to say that I always find the use of the word cruft a little disrespectful when used in regards to good faith editors. If he's purging material from a WikiProject I'd expect him to be active on the projects talk page. But he hasn't made a single edit on [[WP:GUNDAM]]'s talk page. The focus on deletion seems a little single minded for me to trust with the delete button.
'''Oppose'''. The points raised by StuffOfInterest are my thoughts exactly. This editor doesn't seem like he would use the tools appropriately. Far too likely to delete without thinking. ---
'''Oppose''' per [[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]].
'''Oppose'''. His contributions to AFDs have been plentiful but rarely constructive. —
'''Oppose''' Regretfully. An excellent contributor to the project, but unfortunately deletionist... and too quick on the trigger to show any genuine consideration. Also I share the concerns of Smerdis at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin phrases (2nd nomination)]] --
'''Oppose''' From the evidence presented here, it is clear that the editor still benefits from having his deletion decisions checked by others.  I'm not confident that a fair number of articles wouldn't be improperly speedied. --
'''Oppose''' I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of someone proud to be removing more content than he adds. So many others above me have said it better than I could. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I don't feel comfortable of giving deletion tools to him right now as per above. AfD is not a vote, and he will probably be too quick to press the delete button which will result in many problems. I also don't think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3ABeautiful_Dreamer_888&diff=105550907&oldid=105512565 this] was a very appropriate thing to do. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose'''. I agree with much above and particular that this user is too trigger happy. Before deleting an article, it should be looked at carefully to see if it can be saved. --
'''Oppose''' MER-C mentions {{tl|prod}}ding 1500 articles, but there is no record that he has ever used {{tl|prodwarning}} to notify the author as suggested.  It seems to me that he has trouble differentiating between newbies and vandals ([[WP:AGF]]). ~
'''Strong Oppose''' per Trebor and Groggy Dice.  I opposed this candidate a couple of months ago, and unfortunately I don't see much or any improvement at all, if anything reapplying so soon shows that the candidate is too eager to become an admin.
Not ready yet, no --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' A good editor, but is too trigger happy when it comes to deletion.  '''''
'''Oppose''' Those above me have elucidated my position better than I could articulate. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' Primary issue is trustworthiness with tools.
'''Weak Oppose''' &mdash; A good use at what s/he does, but I am also concerned by the deletion issues. This worries me because this user may delete valuable stubs without giving them time to grow, as is evidenced by the AfD voting patterns. Excessive deletion &mdash; especially on fiction topics &mdash; begins to cloud the judgement and blur the line between what should be kept and what should be deleted, and we are at a point where we need to look at things closely and determine if they have potential. If this user can show that s/he can look at articles with a neutral, understanding perspective (and perhaps write/contribute some as well) without the excessive axe philosophy, then I'd be willing to support. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''', as per [[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]].
'''Oppose''' No positive contributions to speak of.
'''Oppose''' Though Mer-C is a tireless individual, admin capabilities will do more harm than good in this case.  I feel as though he/she will act too quickly and against potentially viable arguments in deciding consensus in favor of deletion, and could cause problems with speedy deletes as well.  A history (the evidence of which I see above and in my own experience) of rapid-fire decision making is not conducive to administrative responsibilities.  I see too much potential for feathers ruffled by hasty deletions and deletion review backlogs.  --
While I trust the nominator, I feel that it is too soon, especially in afd, i feel that MER-C would ignore key wikipedia policies and just go on a vote to vote basis. '''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', disturbingly deletionist, apparently to the point of concentrating on getting stuff deleted above all else. No way such a person should get a delete button.
'''Oppose''' - per lame user subpage intentionally provoking a long-term vandal with obvious privacy violations when there are hundreds of other accounts to use.  Some are clearly fraudulent accounts, I might add, such as the one trolled onto the page by Anomo.  If that's how this user thinks vandals should be dealt with, with violations of privacy and general provocation, he should not be an admin.
'''Oppose''' - there seems to be a lot of "delete per nom" in AfDs he participates in, which bothers me. Also, what Everyking stated above-<font color="red">
'''Oppose''' - Nothing against MER-C as an editor.  His history of contributions consists significantly of AfD votes--that is not, however, my reason for not supporting.  There are a number of instances where he votes (usually to "delete" as noted above, though voting to "keep" would be equally problematic) on multiple AfDs within the span of a minute or two.  It is impossible to look at 4 articles, consider their merits, read (or at least skim through) the discussion thus far and comment on all within the span of one minute as he did on February 2 at 11:56 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wiering_Software&diff=prev&oldid=105072983], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Worms&diff=prev&oldid=105073014], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_II&diff=prev&oldid=105073020], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlie_the_Duck&diff=prev&oldid=105073028]).
'''Oppose''' My sentiments are close to Majorly's and Stuff of Interests. Mer-c definately seems to have good intentions, but at times he can be a bit undiplomatic in his approach towards things, especially from what i've seen of him on xfds. If he calms down, I might support in several months. Until then, he doesn't have the temperment to be an admin IMO.
'''Oppose''' It's hard for me to do this, but I have concerns with MER-C's editing pattern which by own account the "edit count dipped from 250/day to 200/day" during a slowdown, which seems to be far too many to devote proper attention to any of them. I am also concerned by the huge percentage of XfD voting as part of the overall contributions. I am also concerned about the pattern of these votes and if MER-C can exercise appropriate discretion given the self-cited deletionist preference. I already have philosophical issues with editors whose edit history consist almost entirely of XfD's; but an admin who has spent such a small amount of time creating content is unlikely to have the needed sensitivity in dealing with users who have spent hours/days/weeks creating their masterpiece, only to see it become the target of a deletion effort, with huge numbers of votes of the "ditto" or "per nom" ilk coming from mass deleters such as MER-C, who seem to spend little time actually reading the articles or making a meaningful effort at discerning notability.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' While anti-vandalism work is always appreciated, that alone doesn't qualify someone for administratorship.  Every time I see this person vote in AfD, the votes are rarely supported with any kind of substantive argument.  I don't see any objectiveness with this editor --
'''Oppose''', because everybody, but especially an admin who's main focus will be in AfD, should ''always'' give a thorough explanation of why he/she feels an article should be deleted or not. --
'''Oppose'''. I do like the vandal work, so I would support with a pledge to confine admin tools to blocking, only tagging for speedy.
'''Oppose''' Does not seem sufficiently concerned about complete and fair process before deleting the work of other editors, who are volunteers of a non-profit whose work should be valued.
'''Oppose''' This user already fights vandals very effectively, but as an inclusionist I cannot in good conscience support his request for adminship.
'''Oppose''' He's a good guy against vandals, but his admission to being part of a "deletionist cabal" on his talk page is troubling.
'''Oppose'''.  I was almost neutral, but things like "pre-empting votes" kept me out of that section.  I frankly don't want to see more tools in his hands until he has more restraint.
'''Neutral''': I'm rather torn about this one. I have no doubt MER-C would be quite helpful with our deletions backlog, but I do find him rather trigger-happy with speedy tagging: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NovaPDF&diff=prev&oldid=104557364 here] is one example that leaves me hesitant to trust user with the delete button. Like others, I'm also concerned about his attitude at AfD. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Latin_phrases_%282nd_nomination%29&oldid=105050502 This] is one example I find <s>really rather</s> a bit disturbing: Leaving a message telling people not to vote [[WP:ILIKEIT]] seems overkill in any case, and bolding it ''in red'' seems to me cross into incivility. Not enough to make me oppose, especially in light of the good work he does in opposing vandalism, but still concerns me.
'''Neutral'''. You're a good editor, and I've even seen you at some of the articles I've nominated for deletion, but too many of your replies are simply "per _____" or "notability", which seems to conflict with your opposition of not treating discussions like votes. If you fleshed out your arguments, or even made the initial argument in an xFD, this would relay that you understand policies, and you understand how to do preliminary research to see if a deletion would be valid. --
'''Neutral''', per points made my supporting and opposing parties. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' <s>No question MER-C should be an admin. The only concern from last time, lack of article writing, has gone out the window.</s> ~
'''Neutral''', like many of the supporters, I have had only good interactions with Mer-c, and honestly some of the people opposing on AfD grounds are people who infuriate me as rapid-fire ''inclusionists''.  It is a two way street.  But nonetheless, I don't necessarily see a pressing need for mer-c to have admin capabilities, particularly as s/his primary interest at the moment is !voting at AfDs. -
'''Neutral leaning support''' pending an answer to my question #10 above. —
'''Neutral''' I'm staying neutral to avoid the pileon opposition. My peers who vote support bring up some good points on behalf of MER-C as a vandal fighter. But when I look at the contribs, I see a lot of participation in AfD with very little participation in article building.  And without getting into the merits of the articles themselves, I see a lot of edit summaries for AfD that state delete. This strengthens the arguments of my peers who are voting to oppose. I'm not someone who believes every admin should be the best writer, but I do believe it takes some article editing and writing to truly evaluate whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion. My suggestion is to do some article creation and [[WP:GNOME|wiki-gnoming]] to understand what it feels like to build an article. Get a bit more rounded in the project. Then come back to RfA. AfD is too contentious an area to focus most of your attention on; it creates too much bad blood which you see coming back here in this RfA. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; background: #F0F8FF; line-height:8pt; width:30em;">&mdash;[[User:Malber|Malber]] ([[User talk:Malber|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Malber|contribs]] <small>•</small>
I'm not sure how much changed since I last saw MER-C, but I've encountered him on [[WP:AIV]] and in some cases he was a bit too quick to call a username offensive or to report a user without enough prior warnings. -
'''Neutral''' I just want to express my appreciation for MER-C's incredible vandal-fighting work. He is the strongest argument possible for giving non-admins the rollback button. Once I courtesy-blanked an old AfD page, Antivandalbot came in, and within seconds MER-C had re-blanked the page with the appropriate template AND followed up by reverting Antivandalbot's warning on my talk page. This is the kind of dedication that makes Wikipedia an amazing place.
'''Neutral'''. Generally, his performance on AFD is reasonable and responsible, even though there is a lopsided number of "delete"s there. But I am unhappy about the way he tried to get rid of the lists of hospitals. Instead of nominating a representative article from the category, he nominated the weakest and unformatted article in the category and intended to use the result there as a precedent to delete all the lists which were properly formatted.
'''Support''' I personally have had positive interaction, and I'm afraid the pile on oppose leaves a bitter taste. Whatever the negatives, and there are many, I ''personally'' think that Mercury getting the bit back would benefit more than it would hinder. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Per Merkinsmum. I'm going to [[WP:AGF|AGF]]; Mercury is comitted to the project. He knows what he's doing and I still trust him with the tools. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' Mercury's no monster, sure there were some contentious and rash decisions of late, but nothing really bad. I don't even think he gave up 'the mop' in controversial circumstances.
Support. '''
'''Moral support''' - You'll bounce back.  In the meantime, keep it fun.  '''''
'''Strong support''': In my opinion, the initial recall was just a backlash of people's strong feelings over that AfD. You clearly have a good record as an admin in general - it was the action that was controversial, not the person. We should continue to trust the person.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' should get the tools back. &nbsp; '''
Mercury plainly regrets his decision. His admission of error is commendable. I could name many users that have acted with far less maturity than Mercury, refused to admit any error in having done so, and retained their sysophood. I am inclined to grant him another chance. &mdash;
'''Full support'''. Although, I strongly urge Mercury to IAR and simply ask for his admin bit back, which he has a right to do at any time, for the sake of Wikipedia. Recall is a great idea, but more often than not the "mob" focuses on insignificant details, rather than the over-all issues. I still trust you with tools, and thank you for wanting to help us as an admin again. --
'''Support'''. He's a good admin. <font color="Purple">
'''Support''' You were a good admin. I still trust you.
'''Support''' <s>so that he may resume his wonderful contributions to [[cow tipping]].</s> Really, Merc had to make some tough decisions these last few weeks, and perhaps there were better ways to handle what happened. Overall I think he's been prudent, and certainly he has the experience. —
'''Support''' Way too much mountain, not enough molehill. I see no reason why he shouldn't get the bit back. --
'''Support''' (Formerly dead neutral).I think this editor has been a pretty damn good administrator for his time, always willing to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and help out where needed. His response to the recall was unproffesional, yes, but not enough so that he shouldn't have his mop returned to him IMHO.
'''Hopeless support''', but strong support nonetheless. Great admin to work with, and does prodigious grunt work.
'''Support''' I didn't like the recall and I don't like the way people oppose an RfA based on personal conflicts rather than concrete evidence of proven misconduct.
Strongly, as well. He is immature - first, he deleted all his userspace and almost resigned when his arbcom bid failed, then he got recalled and stormed off the project. He is power-hungry, or over-eager for adminship, his request at [[WP:BN]] got turned down and he rushes here, with a once-sentence nomination and no mention of the questions as well. I think a lot of the community may be interested in hearing an answer to question #3, for example. And there are reasons that a recall started, and going back after ''12'' days, of which all were under a different account speaks greatly of immaturity and power-hunger/over-eagerness. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose'''. I agree with Maxim's comments above, the storming off after the ArbCom elections, the silly edit summaries on your talk page, the sudden leaving, then coming straight here after [[WP:BN]] is not a good sign. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Oppose'''.  Since I oppose the entire recall process, those admins who agree to submit themselves to that bureautcratic <s>circle jerk</s> farce don't deserve the tools, as they only add more drama than is needed to the entire adminship process.  <font face="Comic Sans">
I think it'd be best to have a couple months of stable contribution before coming back to adminship.  I understand there was a rough run there, and I don't want to add to the pain, but I think more time is needed.  I also think Mercury would really benefit from doing some encyclopedia building in the next couple of months.  It helps center us as Wikipedians, helps calm us, helps keep our priorities straight; maybe that's what was missing before. --
Mercury has a history of not learning from his mistakes and reacts badly when he recieves adverse feedback - the result is often a rash action that clearly hasn't been thought through. Listening to the community and learning from experience is probably the most important quality in an admin and I simply don't think Mercury does this well enough. This RFA is a classic case in point. Mercury seeks his bit back @ BN - is denied and immediately creates this RFA and transcludes it without any voluntary commentary at all. This to me smacks of pique and doesn't sufficiently take account of the needs of the community to properly reassess his canditature for adminship. I'd like to support at a later date but I'd like to see some real evidence of lessons learned.
'''Oppose'''. Not a fan of this user's erratic behavior or needless involvement in many controversies. I also tend to prefer admins who show a strong interest in encyclopedic content/dispute resolution as opposed to policing/wikipolitics.--
'''Oppose''' I don't feel I can support after the issues brought up; the attitude that the user showed reflects on what he thinks of consensus, I think. Also, the same attitude suggests that the user thinks they know better than a group of editors, which shows a lack of respect and again disregard for consensus. Oh, and to be clear; I appreciate that sometimes you need time to cool off after something unfortunate has happened, but expressing your discontent in a blue streak of sulking isn't very mature.
'''Oppose''' Considering the way he gave up the bit, I think it will take some time before he has the trust and support of the community in such measures to regain the mop, if ever.
'''Oppose''' I told him on my talk page, after we seemed to settle whatever trivial differences we had after Durova's situation, that I would support this were he to run it through normally. However, I have to oppose for now since he basically tried to bypass his agreed upon recall and went right to the Bureaucrats first. Sorry, Mercury. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">
'''Oppose''' -For all the reasons people asked for Mercury's recall and were concerned for his mental health in the first place.  Is he a glutton for punishment or something, after his RfC where he was comprehensively [[pwned]], now he sets himself up for it again?  Seriously you need an antenna to gauge people's likely response before you open something like this.  Which most people have, at least to an extent.  Or you need to have some care to protect your own feelings.
'''Oppose''' - I cannot trust this editor with the sysop bit right now, not since his behaviour after the ArbCom incidents. Not right now, but in a few months time, perhaps. Really sorry -
'''oppose'''.  i watched the recall business from afar and the way you handled yourself was not good.  if we cannot trust you to keep such a simple promise without twisting your arm on that, why should we trust you now?
'''Oppose''' Many of the above concerns worry me. I think we should see a few months of editing before he gets the mop back. -
'''Oppose''' While I do not hold Mercury's behavior that led up to the recall against him, his actions since then - such as storming off, using OTRS to delete his userspace, and trying to blindside the community by appealing to the bureaucrats for reinstatement of the bit among others - are very troubling. Additionally, the fortress mentality that I perceive in Mercury is the antithesis of what I seek in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Due to above concerns.
'''Oppose''', major concerns about this user.
<s>I applaud you for going through this when you could have probably gotten your tools back by asking. (According to WP:FORMER, anyway, maybe I'm wrong and something changed regarding that)</s> But yeah, your behvaior, even the little bit I saw, was unbefitting of any editor, let alone an admin.
Yes, I supported last time, but I no longer trust Mercury's judgment. For example, during the initial phases of the recall, Mercury [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMercury&diff=177972920&oldid=177320175 removed himself] from the recall category, and this was noted by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMercury&diff=177029972&oldid=177029250 AnonEMouse]. Mercury's explanation for this was that recall should not be used as a shortcut around dispute resolution. While I agree with this, I also think that's it's bad judgment to remove yourself from the category when someone has ''initiated'' a recall on you. In [[User:Mercury/RFC]] and [[User:Mercury/Recall]], a large number of users (myself included) ''opposed'' the idea of you losing the tools, as shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mercury/Recall#Users_Against_Recall here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mercury/RFC#Mercury_should_retain_the_toolbox here], yet ultimately, you still resigned your adminship. The entire recall incident, in my opinion, was a gargantuan waste of time and a major drama-fest, and sadly, attempting this RfA so soon after all that is not good judgment. I sincerely apologize, Mercury, but for now, I'm going to have to oppose. I hope to support in a few months time.
'''Oppose''' Reading the whole recall drama left a bad taste in my mouth -- not the initial incident which sparked it, but how Mercury handled the recall itself. Granted, I'm sure it was very stressful to go through, but coming back and asking for an RfA (''without'' being open to recall this time) after only two weeks is of concern. --
'''Oppose''' I participated in Mercury's recall/rfc, and vocally supported the removal of the tools. Once things settled down and the drama had quieted, I felt pretty uncomfortable with the whole process. I felt bad for Mercury, as having to face an unstructured referendum on your acceptability as an administrator so soon after taking a public drubbing in the ArbCom elections seemed excessive, and I'd like to apologize for any hurt feelings. Still, I cannot support. I'm still not sure what his purpose here is, or if he's learned anything. In the past, I have made my opinions about Mercury pretty well known, and you can see my comments at [[User:Mercury/RFC]] and [[User:Mercury/Recall]] if you'd like to. I am opposing because we should be here to write an encyclopedia first and foremost, though the behind the scenes aspects of Wikipedia do play an important role too. Still, Mercury appears to be desperate for power or advancement in the Wikipedia hierarchy. This is his fourth RfA in addition to the ArbCom run and he's left the project three times (though one of those was fairly brief), and I think the leaving is ultimately why I'm opposing . Mercury is a magnet for and creator of drama, often immature, and doesn't have the best judgment. If, as people say, adminship isn't a big deal, or, as Mercury above says, it is just "moppish" than surely he will be willing to stay with the project without the tools. Show people you care about the project, not the extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' Write some articles.  Remember the point of the project.  I've read through your conduct in this whole sorry saga and, to be frank, I think you should give up on the idea of adminship for quite a long time. If you wonder why people don't trust you with the mop then here's a random example, at the top of this page you made no attempt to explain yourself then remarked that you are not much of a "wordsmith" yet at the very start of your very first RfA you wrote "I have always been good with english. In high school, I took the advanced english and lit classes. So the written word has always been my passion."  I'm sure you came across the word "disingenuous" in your studies.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I don't think I've ever participated in an RfA before, and I rarely will again, but given this particular user's history, I can't see how he's earned anyone's trust.  He's certainly proven his poor decision-making skills, and since decision-making is an admin's job, there's no way he deserves the buttons. --
If I can't trust you to hold to a direct promise, and I can't trust you to even be ''honest'' that you broke such a promise, how can I trust you with adminship? -
Agree with Amarkov. Admin recall wasn't the best of systems beforehand...[[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I think this is a bit too soon after leaving Wikipedia so suddenly.
'''Oppose'''. In addition: In my opinion, the existence of the DRV process should be no factor in an admin deciding an AfD case - in the comments, M appears to argue the opposite.  With some exaggeration for emphasis, there should be no “let’s see if it sticks” when deciding an AfD case.  --
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' per AniMate (whose assessment was spot-on, absolutely correct) and East (who was pretty much correct as well).  The ArbCom mess, that horrendous decision made on Angela's AfD... I'm sorry, but I think you've opened up a can of worms here.  You should have taken a wikibreak after that AfD closure instead of setting up the recall, collected yourself, maybe took a back-seat and just simply not used the tools for a while, observing exemplary admins like [[User:Lar|Lar]] or [[User:Anonymous_Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]], then using them again, if you wanted to retain the tools after that.  Because of recent events, however, I think the community will not accept you as an admin for a long time to come.
I object and statically agree with all that has been noted in this section. -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''. I expected to support, since I don't think one poor AfD closure merited a desysopping, and I stated on the RfC that no desysop was needed. However, I was disappointed on the RfC with the fact that he initially indicated that he would not honour his recall commitment, and only did so under overwhelming pressure from the community. I am also very disappointed to hear that he attempted to request his admin bit back without going through an RfA. I am accordingly very concerned that he does not fully appreciate the fact that administrators must be accountable to the community. Administrators are ultimately servants of Wikipedia. If the ordinary editors lose confidence in an administrator, that administrator cannot continue in office. I myself resigned in uncontroversial circumstances, but chose to go through a full reconfirmation RfA, in which several editors were able to voice concerns. Mercury should have followed this example. I'm not expressing any opinion on whether he was a good admin, or on his maturity or general character; I just think that a contempt for the views of the community is a very poor characteristic in anyone holding a position of trust.
Mainly per the affinity for drama as displayed by the deletion of his userpage as a reaction to the ArbCom election situation. And also per Walton. ''If the ordinary editors lose confidence in an administrator, that administrator cannot continue in office'' is a principle that should be set in stone. The concept of "Admin for life" does nothing but actually ''shorten the life expectancy of Wikipedia'' as a project to be taken seriously. However, in this vein, kudos to Mercury for his initial self-inclusion in AOR. And although the initial reason for the initiation of the recall was ludicrous, that's not a reason to overlook other, really considerable misjudgements on his part. I&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Lacking argumentation and discussion skills made themselves apparent when I recently came across some of the candidate's admin work.
Why proudly tell people during your RfA that you will be available for recall and then remove yourself from this category when someone actually attempted to recall you?
'''Oppose''' - feel I cannot trust candidate per above concerns.
'''Oppose''' - whether or not making yourself available for recall is a generally good idea, if you indicated that you were willing to be subject to recall, then you should stand by it when you actually are subjected to a recall process. I'm afraid that interfering with the recall, resigning your bit, and then trying to get your bit back with the recall closed is not the way to gain the trust of the community. <span  style="white-space:nowrap">—
'''Neutral Leaning Towards <s>Support</s> Oppose''' I'm thinking. The closure of Angela's AfD, and the evidence presented in the recall are enough to warrant substantial thought about outright support in your favour, but there's little evidence of any significant abuse with the tools in the past.  <font face="Forte">
'''Firmly Neutral''' - I really don't know what to think here. Before recent events, Mercury was a solid admin, somewhat erratic, but had good judgment definitely within the normal range. However, the early closing of the recall and the comments located there trouble me. I wasn't following the Angela Beesley AfD, and therefore won't comment on the matter until I have time to look at all that happened there. Regards, [[User:Keilana|<font color="C154C1">'''Kei'''</font>]][[User_talk:Keilana|<font color="9955BB">'''lana'''</font>]]<sub>
'''Neutral''' - I like this editor, but oppose concerns trouble me. Good luck in the future anyway.
'''Neutral''': I'd really hate to oppose you, but am hesitant to support, for obvious reasons.  I am very surprised to see you here (at RfA) so soon though (given that you've went through the recall process a short time ago). -
'''Neutral'''.  Regain the trust of everyone after a few months of editing.  '''<span style="color:gold">Happy New Year!!</span>''' <strong class="plainlinks">
Keilana puts it nicely. I like Mercury, but can't bring myself to support this ''recall'' RfA at this time, but I certainly won't oppose it. '''
'''Neutral'''. I didn't want to pile on the opposes, so I haven't. But IMO Mercury has demonstrated too many errors of judgement recently to be considered a safe keeper of the mop. --
'''Neutral'''. Mercury was a good admin overall, though he made some serious but forgivable mistakes in judgment in the recent controversy leading to his resignation. But the way he hastily requested resysopping twice in the span of two months over stress unfortunately concerns me that he doesn't stay cool well in the stressful situations that adminship entails. Sorry :( '''<font color="#ff9900">
Really poor timing, man :/ I suggest you withdraw, let everyone stand back and let their wounds heal, and try again in a few months. ~
Per Riana, and per some erratic behaviour of late. I think it's best to be steady. There are many many users who have never changed names, never deleted their pages, never resigned their adminships and then asked for them back, stayed cool through controversy, in short, have been pretty solid about who they are and where they stood. Your comments about the recall process also show that perhaps you didn't really understand the ramifications of the committment, and the perception the community had that you were changing things as you went, while perhaps partly unfair, was caused at least in part by not having set things out clearly enough at the start. I'm working to encourage category members to change that, see [[Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin_criteria]]. I strongly suggest some time as an editor to rebuild your reputation, before asking again for reconfirmation. I almost opposed over these points but in the end didn't see the sense of piling on, I don't see this as successful... a neutral gives me the chance to make these points just the same. Perhaps a withdrawal now would be a good idea? Mercury, I think you're a good person who means well and I enjoy interacting with you, but now is not the time. ++
'''First support''' Looks good to me! <font style="background:#990000;color:#FFFFFF;border:2px solid #999999">
'''Support''' (unfortunately not first): Michael has been very helpful in maintaining NPOV in pseudoscience and other topics. Adminship would be very useful to help deal with the most absurd of persistent crackpots, and also to deal with vandalism. --
'''support''' for the above reasons
'''Support'''.  Back in the middle of May I had a run-in with Michaelbusch on CSD patrol.  He has tagged an article for speedy deletion that I felt didn't qualify, and I also thought at the time that he was bitey to the creator.  I watchlisted this RFA way back then, knowing that it would soon come; I expected to oppose.  Several months later, though, things have definitely improved.  I don't see many problems in his recent editing history.  I wish he would slow down to distinguish between vandalism and test edits, and respond differently to each.  The only big mistake I've noticed in his recent contributions is reporting an editor to [[WP:AIV]] over a content dispute ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=167884143 diff]) and some related nonconstructive reverting on said editor's talk page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Useruser1x&diff=next&oldid=167995622 diff]).  Clearly few candidates are perfect.  Still, I'm confident though that Michaelbusch will refrain from doing anything boneheaded like deleting the Main Page, protecting the right version, or blocking an editor he's in a tiff with.  The candidate does good work on keeping out some of the cranks and crackpots.  (Pffft, [[thoughtform]].  You can't win them all.)  He's a good faith contributor who should have no trouble learning from his mistakes along the way.  &#10154;
'''Support''' - as above <sup>(am I way too supportive or something? i've supported all of the RfAs i've read)</sup> --
'''Support''', can't see any evidence of being a mental.
'''Support''' good uder, unlikely to abuse the tools. Would havve liked a longer nom though--
'''Support'''. He promptly helped me disguising a troll (and sockpuppeteer): when I asked Michaelbusch for help [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaelbusch/talkarchive3&diff=prev&oldid=157495370], user Michaelbusch promptly reacted by providing me necessary data [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKubura&diff=157497569&oldid=157427617].
'''Support''': I agree with [[User:Philosophus|Philosophus]].--
'''Support''' Everything above looks good. I also went through your deleted contributions and think that you have demonstrated a solid judgement in regards to [[WP:CSD]], and this is a service wherein we will require many admins to be focused on when the anon page creation starts back up. Good luck!
'''Support''' per nom--
'''Support''' - judging from some of his actions I find him reasonable and he is aslo a reasonable content contributor. `'
'''Support'''.  Trust him with the tools.  --
'''Support''' - absolutely!  Michael has been around long enough and has proven as a very helpful contributer.  I doubt any questionable issues will pop up.
'''Give him the mop''' There's no way I could oppose a fellow CSD-tagger. No potential to abuse the tools. Just a great user all around. My only caveat is that the use of the summary box could be a bit better. '''''
'''Support''' thoughtful answer to my question and has learned from prior mistakes.
'''Yes, give him the mop.''' Supporting per NASCAR Fan24.
'''Support''' We need more admins with a clear understanding of editing habits in areas of pseudoscience.  I can't think of a better endorsement than MartinPhi's opposition, recorded below.
'''Conditional Support''' so long as you're especially careful around deletion and ask for a 2nd admin opinion when in doubt --'''
'''Support''' I am confident that this user will not abuse the admin tools given to him. A fine contributer as well to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', here here, per {{user|Philosophus}}' wise words, above.
'''Support''' Though normally three blocks for 3RR would lead me to instantly oppose, this candidate  has strongly and eloquently demonstrated that they learned from their mistakes and clearly understand both the letter and spirit of policy now. Surely to be trusted.
'''Support''' We need more editors like Michaelbusch, and if he wants to take on the thankless role of administrator, more power to him.
'''Support''' Michaelbusch provides yeoman's service in vetting astronomy and planetary science articles. I wish I had more time to do the same. Looking over the objections, I only can say that it has been my experience that Michaelbusch attracts the attention of some of the more difficult Wikipedians and has had some trouble interpreting policy in those cases. I presume he's learned from the experience.
--
Candidate has indicated that they will deal with the speedy deletion backlog. Someone has to –
'''Support'''. I spend most of my wiki-time playing with the [[asteroid]]s (the little forgotten guys).  I have found Michael very good at keeping astronomical articles inline.  I have found Michael to be good at explaining his edits (and reverts) and always willing to answer further questions asked of him. --
'''Support''' Holla!
'''weak oppose''' - I think that this user has wonderful contributions to wikipedia, but these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jen_Cass&diff=prev&oldid=167298939] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_McGregor&diff=prev&oldid=167901795] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millais_School&diff=prev&oldid=167932369] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Spiro&diff=prev&oldid=167289336] diffs are a concern, these are requests for CSD that Michaelbusch has recently requested and were turned down by administrators. Every user (including myself) makes CSD nom mistakes, but these are 4 mistakes all within days/hours of each other, which makes me a bit nervous and makes me question this users knowledge of CSD policy. As sated above this user beleives that the [[WP:BIO]] policy is not "strong" enough, but as an admin your personal views can not play a role in deciding what passes BIO and what doesn't as that is decided by policy. .
'''Oppose.''' I know this user from the [[Crop circle]] article, in which my involvement has been very limited.  He was blocked for 3RR in an edit war in which I unfortunately participated.  In that dispute, he was unwilling to compromise on the issue of hand, which was a non-neutral and inadequately sourced sentence in the lead. His 4th revert, if I recall, was to remove citation requests.  If as mikkalai says he has actually been blocked 3 times, I think that as an admin he would need a much cooler head. ——'''
'''Oppose.''' Too many concerns here. In addition to other issues already mentioned, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=159244365&oldid=159216835 this edit where material with a ref was removed] that's about a month old concerns me. I am not convinced he's ready. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but your answer to Question 6 and the diffs cited by [[User:Tiptoety]] suggest a lack of understanding of the speedy deletion policy. I have some sympathy with your view on including every single professional footballer in the encyclopaedia, but your own opinions on notability shouldn't come into it; speedy is for ''uncontroversial'' cases which make no claim whatsoever of notability - not for subjects which you personally think don't belong. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Ove_Pedersen&diff=prev&oldid=167234347 Here's] a recent example which I find particularly worrying - not only does the subject clearly pass [[WP:BIO]] as it now stands, but it makes further claims of importance well beyond the bare minimum of playing professionally (he won international recognition). You're a bit too quick to tag things for speedy - I fear that you would be equally quick to delete them.
'''Oppose''' per Iain99.  Candidate clearly misunderstands speedy deletion criteria, could cause much wasted effort for others if given the mop at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Tiptoety et al., and per this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&diff=168153281&oldid=168151330] whereby the editor deleted first, then asked questions about notability of a ''section'' that had cites.  While it is clear from [[United Nations]] and other such articles, the editor has made many useful contributions, the actions as noted give me much to worry about.  Sorry.
I'm going to have to '''oppose''' this one based on those bizarre CSDs.
'''weak oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Ove_Pedersen&direction=next&oldid=167234343 this] is too recent. Otherwise a good candidate.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' due to concerns about understanding of deletion policy.
'''Strong oppose''' I tend to take the opposite side to Stifle in deletion discussions, but I am equally as concerned as he with your approach to deletion policy. I am not the least convinced he would follow consensus. The last thing we need on the project is someone who has trouble suppressing his personal views on such matters.   Come back in 6 months and show by your work that you are willing to follow the usual standards. I disagree with some of them, but I deal by arguing for a change in policy, not going my own way regardless. You say you'll do better in the future, but you still defend what you've done up to now, and that's the only way we can judge. '''
'''Oppose''' many little things add up, edit warring blocks, lack of AGF in AfD discussions especially with pseudoscience articles and under the circumstances I'd like to see the restraint in deletion exercised over an extended period rather than just the seeing the words ''"I need to exercise slightly more restraint in removing deleting pages than I have in flagging them"''(Q6 answer).
'''Oppose''' as I do not think candidate understands the speedy deletion policy well enough to actually delete pages. A recent example of a blatantly improper tagging is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AWinston_%28Bouvier%29.jpg&diff=168381863&oldid=168376691 this], which applies an article-only criteria to an image. This, to me, indicates more than just a slight over-application of the policy. It seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of CSD, what it's for, and how it's applied, which is worrisome as this is the admin task the user lists first.
'''Oppose''' With friends like these . . . The tone of the endorsements by the opponents of pseudoscience is frightening (Philosophus's use of "crackpots," seconded by several Supports). I'm amazed by the caustic carelessness and blatant disregard of [[WP:CIV]] on a Project page that prizes judicious behavior. I think Wikipedia would be well served by reining in this self-righteous contingent rather than ratifying it by giving Admin status to Michaelbusch.
'''Oppose''' per Stifle, DGG. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AWinston_%28Bouvier%29.jpg&diff=168381863&oldid=168376691 this] tagging was strange indeed. --
Hasn't showed that he/she can apply the speedy deletion criteria effectively. '''
'''Oppose''' Does not seem to understand blocking policy. I have seen this candidate regularly post AIV requests, when users have not been sufficiently warned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=167097092]. I feel the candidate will be too trigger happy with the block button.
'''Oppose''' Michaelbusch shows signs of being largely incapable of admitting a mistake, lacking the maturity of acknowledging an error in judgment.  This is dangerous, and he should not (at least at this stage) be made an admin.  Two other factors also militate against his adminship.  For instance, it appears that the user misunderstands the the (crucial) notion of the public-domain concept (see his response to my posting at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelbusch#Bouvier]).  There, he states that, instead of furnishing a representative picture that is "your own photo," I should try "to find public-domain or fair-use images...". Literally every public-domain photograph is <i>somebody's</i> "own" picture, leading michaelbusch's argument <i>ad absurdum</i>.  Moreover, and more importantly, he fails to provide any rationale for his questionable editing selection: he recommends to (and indeed does) delete an arguably representative and more neutral depiction of a dog breed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Winston_%28Bouvier%29.jpg], while leaving untouched an existing, admittedly and undisputedly <i>unrepresentative</i> picture of the same breed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bouvier_shaved.JPG] -- even after being expressly alerted to the difference.  This amounts to random and apparently willfully <i>ad hominem</i> editing behavior that appears illogical and indeed dangerous to the neutrality and the completeness of Wikipedia's purported knowledge base.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
I oppose this user because he has shown us signs that he will misuse the tools if he gets them. I see his odd tagging of articles for speedy deletion as a sign he will misuse the tools. I do not believe he will do it on purpose though. As for violating 3RR 3 times, that is old news. He was last blocked in April, big deal. Be more careful, and wait a few months and I will support you. Sorry:(--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per Stifle. '''
'''Oppose''' Per diffs given by Tiptoety.
'''Weak Oppose''' other reasons, but mostly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan-Jalalian&diff=169068218&oldid=169068090 this] - came across it on NPP..redirects aren't usually prime "new page crap" material, most of the time there's something going to be created there soon, especially with an experienced editor creating the redirect in the first place. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Woo''']][[User:Wooty/ENC|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|['''Woot?''']]]&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Well, this is going to be a long response. Per Q3, even though you know you violated 3RR. I can't understand how you broke it 3 times. I'll let you off the first time violating it for being a new editor. Second 3RR violation? I would say you're learning from your mistake so I gave you another chance. Third time in 3 months? I ran out of excuses. Now I might have read things differently, but in your Q1 you said "I also expect to be involved with 3RR violations". This worries me. In addition, people who opposed you raised up very good points (with references dated very recent) that you don't understand various policies. I do not wish to see an admin wheel-warring.
Reluctantly, I '''Oppose''', per Gnangarra, Stifle, et al. Concerns about depth of knowledge of deletion policy are not minor. I say "reluctantly", in that I rarely oppose good editors for adminship, per "no big deal." I also say "reluctantly" in that I would be willing to support this editor for adminship once concerns are addressed over a matter of a few months.
'''Oppose''' - per lack of AGF in AFD, blocks for 3RR and the line ''"At times, this led to me reaching the limits of my patience.."'' leads me to think this user may do so again. And therefore, not an admin I'd like be reporting to on either AIV or ANI.
'''Oppose''' partly due to the concerns raised above about your understanding of deletion policy/process and when to seek consensus rather than tag for speedy. Further, your answer to question 8 was not very convincing. Unblocking is as important a part of our efforts to prevent incivility and violations of [[WP:DISRUPT]] as blocking is. I would have liked to see a more elaborate answer. Specifically, I would like to know in which cases you would consider community support for an unblock more or less important than the opinion of the blocking admin.
I see that your a strong contributor to [[WP:AIV]], and that's good, but the issues raised about your speedy deletions worry me a little. However, that reason alone isn't enough to oppose you. I'll remain '''neutral'''.
I appreciate Michael for taking the toime to answer my question about unblocking. However, other concerns raised by the opposers are indicative that this editor is not quite ready for the tools...I suggest try again in a few months and this will turn out better for him.--
While I see that you are a great vandal fighter and a wonderful contributor to the project, some of the issues raised by the opposers concerned me. Issues such as  misunderstanding the various deletion criteria from time to time and violating 3RR three times have swayed me to '''neutral'''. I understand that nobody is perfect and should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, which you clearly have seeing as the last 3RR violation was seven months ago. If this Rfa passes or not, it will still be an experience from which you will learn from like what your strengths and weaknesses are. I think you just need some more time to brush up on your understanding of the deletion policies and once you've done that the next time round should turn out more successful.
As nominator - obviously.
'''Oppose''' (beat-the-nom I'm afraid) Very aggressive editor and proud of it - see [[User:Michaelsanders|user page]]. In my experience - see any talk page of an article he does a lot on ([[Talk:Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765)]] is a manageable size) - responds badly to questions on his edits & disregards the views of others. This does not need reinforcing with admin tools, which I suspect he would not be cautious in using.
'''Oppose''' as above, particularly userpage statements such as "''If I believe that I am right, I will fight. And if I am offended, I will not back down.''"  Does not appear to have the temperment required of a Wikipedia admin.
The attitude portrayed on the user talk page betrays a confrontational personality. I think we have enough of that already. We need people with a spirit of compromise and cohesiveness. -
'''Oppose''' per user-page issues.
'''Oppose''' Userpage seems far too aggressive for my taste. Sorry.
Recent warnings of 3RR violations? No thanks. --
'''oppose''' unwilling to endorse. After looking over his answers and his talk page, I'm unable to trust with tools.
'''Oppose'''--The answer to question one is unsatisfactory, any user can revert vandalism, don't need adminship to do that. The user page and talk page indicates temperament is not suitable for an administrator,  leaves me unable to trust you with tools.--
Sorry, oppose per Johnbod. Try to discuss first, edit second if there is a standing consensus or if the topic might be controversial. Put some time in editing with level-headedness and a will to discuss and compromise, and I'll support.
'''Oppose'''  A review of the edits shows that the candidate lacks the maturity for adminship.  In too many cases, the candidate does not "get" the big picture, does not seem aware of the #1 objective of any publication (to impart information on the reader) and lacks a natural instinct for reasonable compromise.
'''Oppose''' per all the concerns above. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Oppose per the obvious concerns about edit warring and warnings, as well as also Iterator12n to a lesser extent. '''
'''Oppose''' Recommend withdrawal, find a [[WP:ADMINCOACH|coach]], and try again early next year.
'''Oppose''' I don't see any demonstrated need for the admin tools. Any editor can revert vandalism, and is encouraged to do so. -
'''Oppose''' - per 1 & 2. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - per 1 & 2 and as per Daniel. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per 1 & 2. User page is just plain scary for a potential admin. Would suggest that this RfA is closed per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose''' - Agree with all of the above --
'''Oppose''' being firm but courteous is important at times when editing or admin actions result in conflict. However, an admin needs to be flexible and respectful when disagreeing. Conflict is inevitable in a project of the scope of Wikipedia. That is why we have in built mechanisms for dealing with conflict. While nom appears to have the firmness down, answer to question 3 and the userpage make it apparent that nom is otherwise not ready.
'''Neutral'''.  Opposing editors make some very good points about agression.  I won't flat out oppose, however, as I believe that it is possible you would act more calmly and officialy upon becoming an admin.  I suggest waiting a few months, trying to avoid arguements, come back to RFA, and point the fact that you haven't entered into any arguments.  Good luck anyway.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral'''.  While this user makes good contributions and appears dedicated, he's a little ''too'' confrontational.  I suspect that they'd be a controversy magnet if approved.  Calm down a little and come back in a few months so I can support.
'''Neutral''' -- Michael, you have a ''lot'' of valuable experience. You were recently invited to stand for RfA,<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaelsanders&diff=176136476&oldid=175900015][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMichaelsanders&diff=176566975&oldid=176563481]</sup> more or less said "OK"<sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeb&diff=176570502&oldid=175920176]</sup> and the next thing you know you're now getting picked apart here. Yikes! If you're still interested after this RfA, I encourage your finding a mentor who can help set you up for success in a 2nd RfA. Good luck and thanks for all you already do around here. --<font face="Futura">
'''Very weak oppose''' Your edits seem fine to me, you seem to understand discussion, policy & consensus, but with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Michfan2123&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 virtually ''no'' Wikipedia-space edits] I have to oppose as there's nothing to indicate how you'd use sysop powers.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' — Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gyorgy_Sandor&diff=prev&oldid=166865966 this] are unhelpful. Do you know how easy it is to categorize an article? Tagging an easily improvable article shows laziness and unwillingness to actually help the encyclopedia. Also, please remember to always use edit summaries, even if the edit you're making is ''really'' minor. Admins should always remember to explain their actions. Finally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OSU-Cascades_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=166866202 this] shows that you don't have much knowledge of the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]]; an article that is "''poorly written''" on a subject that is "''not very notable''" does ''not'' meet the CSD; that's what AfD, or simply improving the article, is for. Sorry, mate. --'''
Inexperience. '''
'''Oppose''' - You state that as an admin you will delete nonsense pages and block vandals, however I don't see enough experience in those areas. As Agüeybaná pointed out, you do not have a firm grasp on the criteria for speedy deletion.  Looking through your contribs, I can't find a single report to [[WP:AIV]], meaning you probably don't understand how to deal with vandals either.  Focus on these areas (and possibly XFDs as well), and try reapplying for adminship in a few months.--
'''No''' per Rise Above the Vile.
oppose per above. '''
'''Oppose''' sorry, but with fewer than 500 contributions, there isn't enough evidence to know if you have the policy experience and temperament to be an admin. Your RfA is malformed (you haven't got the name right), you should know if you read the RfA instructions that you should not support yourself and your answers to the standard questions show you don't understand that an admin does (your answer to Q1 accidentally implies you are going to use the admin tools to vandalize Wikipedia). I suggest you withdraw, get at least 2000 edits under your belt and then apply for an [[WP:ER|editor review]].
'''Oppose''' Awarding yourself a barnstar isn't very cool. --
'''Oppose''' - sorry. You seam do be doing a really good job there, but you just haven't got enough experience as yet. you've only been active for a month and we really need you to participate here longer so we know we can trust you. Also, you should get more edits, you've only got around 250, you need to demonstrate that you have experience in different areas of wikipedia such as talk pages, user talk pages and wikipedia space - try and get around 2000 edit. As I said though, you certainly do have potential so keep your head up. :-)
'''Oppose''', just not enough experience and no clear idea why you need the tools.
'''Come back later''' You're not yet ready by anybody's standards.  Keep on truckin!  If you want to be an admin, keep making useful edits.
'''Oppose''': Did you have a look about how RFAs work here? New user (first edit on March 5, 2007), no reports to AIV, no contributions in XFDs, 90 edits (!),you are even advertising your RFA, please any bureaucrat close this RFA. --
No need for tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Probably not. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Strong oppose''' fewer than 100 edits means we have no way to judge if you have the required understanding of policy. Your nomination strongly implies that Jewish editors cannot be [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] which is an astonishingly biased claim. You demonstrate in your nomination that you do not understand the role that administrators play on Wikipedia.
You must be kidding. Too few edits, and some of your edits (in [[Israel]] and related articles) were less than constructive. <b>Opposed</b>. -
'''Strong oppose''' per lack of experience and nomination wording, and suggest quick withdraw before this gets a bit nasty...
'''Oppose''' I can't vote support for someone who's been here w/ us for less than 10 days!!! -- ''
'''Oppose''' - Can somebody/anybody please stop this per disruption or per anything else they can think of? Thanks--
'''Oppose, obviously'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MiddleEastern/United_States&diff=115316852&oldid=115316740]
'''Oppose'''.  POV-pusher.  The nominating statement pretty much says it all.
'''Support'''. I have interacted with Mike33 before and he is civil, helpful and a good editor. I also find his honesty refreshing. Let's face it, 99% of people who apply for adminship have at least ''some'' level of vanity involved - the very difficulty of passing RfA makes the position of admin more prestigious than it really ought to be. And although his editcount is on the low side, I see him around in relevant discussions all the time and am 100% sure that he understands policy. This request will probably fail, but I think it's sad that he's drawn so many Opposes simply for being honest.
'''Oppose per (apparently) the candidate''' - this candidate seems to ''want'' to fail - he says in Q1 that what he has is already enough, he says nothing in the least inspiring, and he seems to put himself down in his own nomination. He says that he may not even use the tools given them. I can do nothing but oppose someone who sees adminship as a 'vanity thing'. Perhaps what you should do is have an editor review, because that is what this nomination looks like - a request for review, not the tools. Good luck in future, and keep up your work. -- <strong>
'''Strong Oppose''' Where normally I would be sat at Moral Support for the self nom and valuable contributions so far, your '''"vanity thing"''' statement shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of adminship and as per [[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous]] almost invites the RFA to fail. I strongly suggest withdrawal per [[WP:SNOW]], keep whacking the vandals, and spend some time understanding the roles admins play in our community before coming back here. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' And I suggest a withdrawal.  Not sure why a candidate would seemingly subject themselves to a failing Rfa.
'''Oppose''' You're in the right direction, but vanity is hardly what the role of adminship is. '''
'''Oppose''' I believe the same (without saying it the same way some others did) and your vandal fighting is very good, though you don't really seem to really need the tools. I like what you do, though the purpose isn't what people would look for when they look at an administrator. You seem to be doing fine right now with what you have, and I recommend simply sticking to it. Keep up the work you are doing though!
'''Oppose''' - I see no need for the tools; not even a claim to needing them. As an aside, adminship is not there as a vanity thing or an egoboost - it's just a couple of extra buttons for - well - administration! I would like to thank you for the good work you've done so far, but suggest withdrawal to avoid [[WP:SNOW|snowballing]] in this nomination. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support.''' Your edit count is (very) low for an administrator candidate, but I believe that you would use the tools responsibly. —
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you seem like a good contributor but you should get some more experience participating in things like XfD, etc. Also, your contributions have been somewhat erratic. Try to shoot for at least 200 edits/month to demonstrate consistency.
'''Oppose''' Kindly suggest withdrawing the nomination. You don't have much experience with the deletion process or with non-template interaction with other users. This makes it almost impossible to assess how you would handle the admin responsibilities.
'''Oppose''' per inexperience with mainspace and policy. '''
'''Oppose''' Just not quite there yet in regards to experience.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is major concern here. Try again after a few months and you may have my support. I also suggest that you withdraw from this nomination as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Inexperience. '''
Agree with above, more experience needed.
'''Oppose''' per Pascal. Also, I'm concerned about your understanding of Vandalism[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxi_%28TV_series%29&diff=prev&oldid=134469566], Mike! An IP editor DARES to change one word in an article, and you revert and put a vandalism template on his userpage[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.179.189.48&diff=prev&oldid=134469571]? And then you're suprised that he complains about the "Free Speech Police" and that he removes this ridiculous warning From HIS userpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike6271&diff=prev&oldid=139111021]? Sry, but this isn't the good judgment I want to see in an admin, this smacks of an authoritarian stance. Personally, as a noob editor, I think such harrassment of casual contributors is unacceptable. Pls show more restraint in your Anti-Vandalism work and engage more in talkspace (only ~20 entries), by contributing to controversial articles. An admin has to make reasonable decisions and to be able to discuss them. That's missing here, and so I can't support this nom yet.
'''Neutral''' Well, can't support at this time. I'm reasonably sure this won't pass, based on your contribution history (number of edits, lack of Wikipedia space edits). You might want to do more in [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]], looking at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Minsi|your recent contribution there]], there's probably a lot about policy you could pick up. Good luck,
'''Neutral'''. Mike, you are a helpful contributor. However I don't see that you would really use administrator tools effectively. You would also benefit from more experience in general mainspace editing.
'''Support''' Pleasure to see Darkest Hour Back at RfA. I [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darkest Hour|recalled]](back when I was [[User:Wikipedier]]) that he was going to help fight vandals. Good luck!--
'''Weak oppose'''. Sorry. You look like a good editor, but I am concerned that you may have a bit of a lack of experience (zero edits to [[WP:AFD|AFD]]), and your answers to the questions (especially #1) don't really show an understanding of what adminship is. I suggest that you continue contributing, and reapply in a few months' time. <b>
'''Oppose'''. You appear a fine and civil editor but I think your familiarity with the administrative side is weak. I note that here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thelmadatter&diff=prev&oldid=147313681] you say you are thinking of retiring. Something change? Perhaps a couple of months of reporting and such would make all the difference. --
'''Oppose''' Per answers to questions, as well as lack of admin-related edits.
'''Oppose''' I find answers a little weak, and a lot of your edits are to your own userpages. I also don't think you have much experience in the Wikipedia space, compared to your other edits. -
'''Oppose''' an obvious lack of experience, both with RFA and admin-related tasks.
'''Oppose'''.  Get more experience.  '''
'''Oppose''' sorry Minesweeper. I know you won't abuse the tools, I was your adopter after all, but you just don't have the experience necessary to be trusted with the tools. I recommend withdrawal. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Steel blue">The</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - You really don't have a suitable amount of Wikipedia namespace edits (Under 1,000, which is in my books, the bare minimum...). Also, you have a very high level of User namespace edits, which is in fact your second highest namespace edit group - This really should be lower and be ranked about 4th or lower in regard to ranking etc. I think you're a nice editor and you won't abuse the tools, but I don't feel you have the knowledge to become an admin just yet. I'd withdraw your nom before you think everyone hates you (We don't) and begin working on those aspects which the people above and I have commented on. Have a great week and keep at it. :) Cheers,
'''Oppose''' - very erratic edit counts, a huge amount one month followed by just 13 another, although we all must understand that in real-life situations, this is often inevitable. But the answers to the questions seem rushed and display minimal understanding. However, you are heading along the right track. Please take on board the issues raised here, work on them, and re-apply in a few months. You should be ready then. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose and Suggest Withdrawl''' ''Please do not be discouraged''. You have done some great and helpful work here, my problem was finding it in you contribution history amongst the relentless edits to your user page, your user boxes and your monobook.js file. I'm sorry, but I have nothing to judge your temprament on at this time. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I can't decide. I feel as if there is some ground to not support this user, but I do not see anything so major that I should oppose her. Sorry:(--
'''Support''' I wanted to nominate Miranda a while back, her work is impressive, even though there have been conflicts, people are human and these things sometimes happen. I don't think she'll abuse the tools, and I do believe she would benefit the encyclopedia with them.
'''Oppose''' Is already an admin. '''<big>:)</big>''' <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Good God No''' - I shudder at the thought of Miranda with the right to block users. High strung, prone to temper tantrums, a long history of biting new users and misunderstanding policy. I'm horrified that Miranda's assesment of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive277#HistoricDST] is that the admins at ANI didn't understand. This is extremely worrying because the first thing an admin needs to do is know when they have made mistakes and learn from them. As recently as September was castigating a user for removing templated warnings from their talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miranda&oldid=158120911#fair_enough] and undoing the removal. She didn't appear to notice the irony that she was doing the same thing herself.[http://en-wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMiranda&diff=158082787&oldid=158011900]. Leaves Wikipedia so often we should install a revolving door. This suggests the user lacks the ability to cope with editing stress and someone who reacts badly to stress really shouldn't deal with the additional stress that the use of admin tools inevitably entails. I have no doubt that Miranda is a committed and hard working editor but she needs to show a sustained period of stability before we can seriously consider making her an admin.
This user's comprehension of policy leaves a lot to be desired.  Constant threats of leaving and stress-induced wikibreaks lead me to believe that Miranda is far too unstable to have tools that could potentially do serious harm to the project.  Her inability to peacefully interact with new and established users further detracts from the good she has done.  I've seen her frequently misuse words such "troll" when interacting with users and I believe that she lacks the judgment needed to place a block on anyone other than simplest of vandals.  Essentially, I believe that bad outweighs the good. --
'''Regretful Oppose''' Personally, I have only had positive interactions with her. With me she has been very friendly. Also, her devotion to wikipedia is top notch. She is a very valuable editor, though she has some problems. With some users I have found her to be '''very rude'''. It would not be a issue if she was only rude one or 2 times over a short period of time, but she has been rude many times, both on and off wiki, since I have met her. She has a major temper, which is not a good thing for an admin to have. I am sorry that I cannot support you this time:( Good luck some other time!--
'''Strong oppose''' - this user has shown in her interactions with other users that she cannot be trusted. Primarily, she is rude, but has also shown off-wiki that she is unable to abide by policies. I agree with most of what John Reaves said, especially regarding candidate's wikibreaks/attempts to quit. --
'''Regretfully, but I  must oppose''' - This user seems to be high-tempered, and has a history of quitting and rejoining. While devoted to the wiki, I do not think that this user would be suited to the stresses and strains of adminship. Again, sorry. :-)
'''Regretful, but strong oppose''' — rude and unstable user (sometimes). Sorry. --'''
Miranda is almost comically rude and arrogant to people both on and off-wiki (yes, I know IRC is not Wikipedia - but it says a ''lot'' about how one feels and behaves regarding a lot of things overall). She is far, far too quick to label confused newcomers as trolls, routinely fails to assume even the tiniest smidge of good faith on the part of established contributors, has a temper problem, inconsistency and instability as evidenced by her constant retirements and deletions of her userpage, and is, to my taste, far too paranoid and willing to see sockpuppets waiting in the dark corners. I honestly don't mean to be all negative - she is a great article-writer, and has a sense of humour which I would love to see displayed more often, and perhaps even realise that it's OK to use that humour in situations where she is angered or irritated. I believe that with a few months of displaying stable editing, cordial interaction with her fellow users and continued wonderful article work, she would be a good candidate. I am willing to coach her, should she wish to be coached. ~
I have no choice but to '''oppose''' at this time.  This user's behavior and knowledge of certain social constructs has left a very sour taste in my mouth.  Bringing a newbie to AN/I who made ''good faith'' edits to a page she substantially expanded demonstrates an ignorance of [[WP:BITE]], [[WP:OWN]], etc.  That is not very serious until you couple it with off-wiki incidents such as those on IRC,<!-- This is about behavior, not actions. --> which include assessing numerous established users ''and'' newbies seeking help as "trolls", which is patently undesirable for a potential admin.  There are other incidents which I am too lazy to hunt down (naughty, yes, I know), but the opposes above cover all else that needs to be said. Signed, —
'''Strong oppose''' User can not show good faith as evidenced above.  I had intended on waiting for my question to be answered, but the opposes answer it just as well. <font face="comic sans ms">
I intended to support, but I was not aware of the problems raised just now.  Mitigating factors are the overall level of experience and the passage of time since the incidents that are now coming to light.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C2%A3sd&diff=prev&oldid=152819593 this] is your ''most substantial'' edit. Suggest you withdraw as I can't see anyone supporting at this stage.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —

'''Oppose'''. I honestly don't understand what was meant in the nomination, but your answers show you're not ready. Taking part in "everything" shows that you don't know what adminship really is, anyone can make a redirect, and we wouldn't have the [[WP:Mediation Cabal]], [[WP:Mediation Committee]], [[WP:RFCC]], and the [[WP:Arbitration Committee]] if users would listen to someone who told them to "not to do that again." Try installing something like [[WP:Twinkle]] to wet your feet with some auto-editing first.
'''Oppose''' - If you're serious about adminship, I suggestion you start by seeking [[WP:ADOPTION|adoption]] to learn how to flesh out your time here.
'''Oppose''' clearly not qualified, insuficient editing experience, the answers to the questions are not convincing, and the nomination statement about ''Wikipedia laying in ruins, and the words on the screen said: "Missingno. was here." '' does little to inspire confidence: the admin tools even if overtly abused are unlikely to leave WP in ruins, but it will create lots of clean up work for others - why chance it?
'''Oppose''' 51 edits? Appreciate your enthousiasm, but we need at least ''some'' experience. Oh and, please shorten your signature, and to something less ''grandeur''. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
Bad answers.
User has been unwilling to work with other editors and borderline combative and revert-warring on [[Kimbo Slice]], including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesaddestday&diff=147047209&oldid=145302519 templating] another user who he had a disagreement with. '''
Not nearly enough experience, with less than 3 months of editing and 196 edits, 16 edits in projectspace.--
Suggest withdrawl...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hidden_Palms&diff=prev&oldid=142719924 this edit] (in addition to the weak answers) makes clear that this user doesn't quite understand what admins are about...You need a ''lot'' more experience. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Few edits. Get involved with [[Wikipedia:Wikiprojects|Wikiprojects]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion|deletion discussions]] to enhance your Wikipedia knowledge. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience, apparent lack of understanding of the project and administrative responsibilities.
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience, lack of understanding of administrative duties.
'''Strong Oppose''' - By your answers, escpically number 1, shows very little knowledge of  what an admins job is. I recomend that you withdraw this RFA.
'''Oppose''' Come back in about 1000, 1100 edits. However, already you have made 4 reports to AIV. That's commendable for a newbie.
'''Oppose''' from a simple and obvious lack of experience and understanding of the application of policy. The meager responses to questions here demonstrates either an inability to communicate  properly or a lack of research on the RFA process, either of which concern me.
'''Oppose'''- You do not have enough experience to be trusted with the admin tools. Get some experience in anti-vandalism efforts, the [[WP:CVU|Counter-Vandalism Unit]] is a good place to start. Perhaps you could go up for editor review; another helpful toopl can be [[User:The Transhumanist|The Transhumanist's]] Wiki-school. Good luck!
'''Strong oppose'''.  Not anyone can request adminship and be approved.  Maybe in a few months.  '''
Support, appears to be levelheaded and intelligent, and unlikely to abuse the admin tools. The opposition to this candidacy advances the usual trivial concerns, but is unique in that it also offers vindictive and irrelevant concerns. None of the issues raised are sufficient to justify opposition.
'''Strong support''' - excellent contributor, excellent judgment. '''
'''Strong pre-acceptance support''' - calm, no-BS approach to his work around here. Thoroughly sound judgement. <span style="font-family:comic sans ms">
As nom
'''Strong support''' - --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' Best of both worlds. A very hard-working creator/improver of articles with an excellent knowledge of policy.--

'''No-brainer support.'''  Lots of hard work, even disposition—give him a mop. —
'''Support'''. Good editor, intelligent contributions to project space, no problems that I can see. And the oppose votes based on his cruft-fighting just work in his favour.
'''Delete''' per nom. Improves the encyclopedia both by adding stuff and by helping remove stuff that doesn't belong.
'''Support''' Good contributor - I beleive he has enough sense not to go closing AFD debates where he is the original proposer (in all but the most clear cut cases).  (double-edit conflict)
'''Support'''- I can't see this user misusing the tools. He is level-headed and I often agree with him, even when my opinions are the opposite of his. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Jorcoga</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jorcoga|<font color="#811">Hi!</font>]]/
'''Support''' I don't know this user and have never met him, but I believe he can be trusted completely with the tools. Also, great article work. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' no evidence that he would misuse the tools.  Is an excellent user who has made valuble contributions in deletion fora.  I do have some civility concerns per the diff cited below by Zleitzen and my own quick review of contribs where I found several comments more blunt than I think helpful.  While I don't see any personal attacks (which helps keep this a support) I still think it's important to maintain civility at all times and [[WP:DFTT|not feed any trolls]].
'''Support'''.  I can safely say that I believe Moreschi to be awesome.
'''Support.''' No brainer.
'''Support''' Blnguyen nominee &mdash;
'''Support''' ...  but I SHOULD add, only if you answer [[Talk:Grove_Dictionary_of_Music_and_Musicians#Public_Domain_Old_Grove|this]]. Grin. ++
'''Support'''.  Would make a good admin - and I really enjoyed your article on [[The Fairy-Queen]]. Huzzah for Purcell!
'''Editconflict Support''' per Blnguyen -
'''Support''' per nom. Proto and Kusma sum things up neatly.
'''Support''' with yet another '''I thought you already were...'''
'''Support''' God yes, would be a brilliant admin. Utterly capable, competent, writes very well thought out arguments in debates, and the day he gains the bit is not a moment too soon.
'''Support'''.  I trust this user to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Seen nothing but good work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' solid AfD contributor with some quality article-writing experience as well.
'''Support''' excellent to collaborate with on articles, smart, expresses opinions well, just needs to remember to keep any and all biting in check, since the bit tends to help sharpen the teeth.
'''Support''' My first genuine cliche moment in a long-time: are we sure he isn't an admin already?
'''Support''' a bit excitable at times, but a strong & thoughtfull editor
'''Support, <s>so he can actually delete articles instead of just [[WP:AFD|talking about deleting them.]]</s>''' Just kidding about that last part, I was trying to match the humour of "Delete per nom" above. Seriously, I've found Moreschi a knowledgeable, dedicated user who is genuinely willing to collaborate with others. I would however caution him to avoid using the word [[cruft]], as it does tend to rub people the wrong way. --
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful answers to questions asked, looks fine. -
'''Support'''. I see the candidate all over the place doing good work. I was surprised to see this nomination, only because I had no idea this nominee wasn't yet an admin.
'''Support''' solid user, committed to the project. Not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' good answers, can be trusted. '''
'''Support''' - Based on my own interactions with him, and my observations of his interactions with others. Would make a very good admin.
'''Support''': This fellow seems to check out. I don't see much potential for tool abuse. '''
'''Support''' a fine content editor.--
'''Support'''. An excellent editor of worthwhile articles, and somebody who can use his head. --
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong support'''. I was concerned by some of the "opppose" comments -- an overly quick-triggered admin deleting articles is not good. I looked at some of the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gundam]] discussion -- especially the section cited below. Without knowing all the merits of the individual articles taken to AfD, it seemed as if others involved with that WikiProject also thought some pruning was desirable. I don't get the sense that Moreschi was acting in bad faith. In fact, he seemed to spend a lot of time trying to work with the Gundam community while still holding to Wikipedia's guidelines (which represent the broader community's thinking on what's encyclopedic.) --
'''Support''' my first thought-he-was-one RfA cliche. But can we give him some pruning shears instead of the proverbial mop?
'''Support''' A fine editor on Wikipedia -- I have no doubt that Moreschi will make a great admin. '''
'''Support''', I trust Moreschi.
'''Support''' per [http://zip.4chan.org/m/res/332029.html]. I really hate campaigning, especially negative, especially offwiki.
'''Support'''. Strong editor, Blnguyen nomination, plenty of experience in admin areas, and I really wish the opposition would provide some diffs of his alleged shortcomings. "Delete per so-and-so" should be used sparingly, but sometimes it's the best way to express one's feelings. I'm not finding evidence that his ''intention'' was to form a "lynch mob" like some editors are contending, or of any of the other fantastical claims down there.
'''Support''', Moreschi would be an admirable addition to the RfA ranks. '''
'''Support'''. A creditable record, and no red flags for me.
'''Support''' No evidence this editor will misuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
Definitely. We need more administrators who understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a random list of articles. &mdash;
I'm
'''Support''' per nom.  Your great answers and 1000+ Wiki edits are proof enough that you deserve adminship. '''
'''Support''' per nomination.  Plenty of contributions, check.  Head on straight, check.
'''Strong Support''' - user gave me some helpful advice a couple of weeks ago. Lots of experience, particularly with relevant policy areas (AfDs etc). Can't see any reason to oppose.
'''Support''', after reading the "Optional blether from self".  That alleviated many of the qualms I had about supporting; it's lovely to see both the consideration Moreschi puts into deleting most things and the fact that he was aware of this issue enough to address it.  We might not agree on deleting, but I see him being a responsible administrator, and look forward to working with him. --
'''Support''' Resisted a strong urge for a knee-jerk oppose !vote for a deletionist... on closer look, seems to be a well-balanced candidate with a good grasp of process. --
'''Support''' an editor who is interested in applying Wikipedia's policies, rather than his own view of how Wikipedia should be. This is exactly what we want in an admin. if you don't like policies get them changed through consensus rather than punishing those who abide by them.
'''Support''' per nom.—
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' Has made a few mistakes, but nothing that makes me question his ability to serve as an admin.  Have faith that he would use the tools well.
'''Support''' Excellent job all around. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''. Everyone makes a few mistakes, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't see anything wrong. '''''
'''Support'''. I like the new signature, which shows flexibility.  I guess he's been a bit harsh, but I think that we over emphasize wikilove sometimes when strong direct communication an have its place. --
'''Support''' as above
The nominators put it well. --
We need more admins, and getting more schi is a good start.
'''Support'''. Model candidate.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' per all.--
'''Support''' - no, he's not perfect - who is?  He has worked hard here (without pay, like all of us), and is sufficiently self-reflective to learn from his mistakes, all of which seem minor to me.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Oppose'''. Has a past history of shotgunning entire sets of articles in an attempt to get some deleted before anyone can comment or muster opposition.
'''Oppose'''. Heavy-handed tactics with regards to slews of articles with little or no regard for opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia needs cool-headed admins, not partisans with an axe to grind. See support for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh]] and related incidents.
'''Disapproval''' - way way way to heavy handed, I do not trust this user at present, AfD participation is mediocre, at best. Also a lot of the deletion reasons users gives would apply to most of the articles the user has created. Also has a rude tone and is to dramatic, in short I believe this user will misuse the buttons. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Strong Oppose'''. Wikipedia already has too heavy a deletionist bias as it is. The last thing we need is another ultra-deletionist admin. Oh, and Folantin? "Delete per nom" doesn't constitute good AFD participation. It's a pity that admins tend to treat AFDs like a vote (despite official policy saying they're not votes), instead of ignoring "delete per nom" posts.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not sure I trust this user to respect and judge consensus neutrally in AfD discussions. ''
'''Oppose''' &bull; I really like Moreschi as a person and as an editor, but RFA votes are about what's best for Wikipedia.  Incivility, personal attacks, and systematic bias are NOT healthy things to the project and we shouldn't have admins promoting these.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''.  Although I have nothing against Moreschi as an editor, I do not think he is ready for admin-ship.  My main reason is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elaragirl&diff=prev&oldid=98259823 "FUCK OFF"] edit summary to a vandal ''just one month ago''.  That alone, I believe, is enough to oppose this RFA.  My second reason is the "Deletion!" link right after his username.  Although admins are editors too, it undermines their trustworthiness when they explicitly associate with a particular philosophy (the same would be true of an "Inclusion!" signature).  I think he would be a better candidate in a few months (assuming no incivility and no continued partisan affiliations).
'''Oppose''' changed from support, per MatthewFenton, Redxiv and Yuser31415. --'''
'''Oppose'''  I'm with Yuser31415. I really have trouble trusting this user to objectively close AfDs based on consensus, or even lack thereof. --
'''Oppose''' I've been using and editing on Wikipedia for quite some time now, and, honestly, I don't think I can find someone in the community so entirely not suited to not only not be administrator, but not even be allowed to edit. Not only do I think he should be denied administratorship, I believe he should have all editing rights removed. Regarding the whole Gundam scuffle, I believe that he has insulted Japanese culture and has opened up Wikipedia for possible litigation. I say nip this in the bud now, and kick him out. --
'''Oppose''' Has much going for him, but as some of the comments above suggest, he is not yet ready.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - would probably make a good candidate, but cannot support due to some of the above concerns.
'''Oppose'''. I have serious concerns about his approach and attitude.
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral) On the basis of sharp responses to legitimate opposes above and continued concerns about other responses (see below). Particularly unseemly is bringing up the off wiki-activities one user above, Everyking, who is perfectly within their rights to post an oppose vote here without harassment. The "pot calling kettle black" response to that oppose vote, and the various growing tit-for-tat threads here are not encouraging. --
'''Oppose''' per Zleitzen.--
'''Oppose''' I like the guy, he's one of the more rational deletionists I've encountered but RFA should not be a popularity contest. His responses to issues raised in this RFA are enough to make me vote oppose, but leaning more towards "not yet".
'''Oppose''' Needs to get rid of a few rough edges.--
Although I agree with most of this user's AfD judgements, I am still concerned if it will be dropped as a neutral admin upholdng consensus to the fullest. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''', leaning weak oppose.  I'm not going to oppose someone who seems to be a trusted user - we need more admins - but I have several misgivings that keep me from supporting.  (1) the diff provided by Zleitzen - profanities in edit summaries are unhelpful and civility at all times is important. (2) frequent use of the word "[[cruft]]" - this word is one that should be stricken from our vocabulary on Wikipedia.  Sometimes, a topic is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia because it has little significance outside of the fictional universe in which it exists, but that doesn't mean that it isn't important to someone.  Referring to things that are important to someone as "[[cruft]]" can be offensive.  You are taking what is important to them and calling it "useless junk or excess materials".  Nothing good can come from edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_18&diff=prev&oldid=101582215], for example.  (3) The deletionism Wikiproject concerns me greatly.  We don't need political parties on Wikipedia.  --
'''Neutral.''' On his merits, I would support, but the claims in the "oppose" section are hard to ignore.  I worry about how Moreschi will deal with stress as an admin.
Not worthy of my opposition, but I am a bit concerned about alleged deletionism because I've heard about how it's caused many gaps in coverage (even in the "real" topics). <span style="font-size:95%">&mdash;[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose''' - Moreschi is a good person. Deletionists and inclusionists are the yin and yang of Wikipedia; each one balances the other out. However, extreme deletionism bothers me. I'm not going to ramble on about philosophies here, though.
'''Neutral'''. The oppose and neutral commentary are convincing enough that I can't support, but not enough to oppose. '''
'''Support''' per editor who needs admin tools.--
'''Support'''.  Evidently trustworthy editor with good judgement.  No reason for him not to have the tools.
'''Support'''. I opposed last time due to inexperience, but he has plenty of that now. Good luck. --
'''Full support''' (edit conflicted) This time I see no cons about this user who'll certainly make a fine admin. Good luck.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' While I'd like to see a bit more activity, that would be a poor reason to oppose you, as you're obviously qualified for the job, and I have no qualms about your handling a wiki-mop for the English project. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good solid candidate who I believe will do a good job with the additional bit. ···
'''Support'''. Good editor, plenty of experience. --
'''A very well qualified editor who will, I am certain, use the tools as well here as he does elsewhere.--
'''Support''', excellent candidate, and we need admins.
'''Support''' - last time around I seem to remember there was consternation about your low edit summaries - pleased to see they are now 100%! Having an overall edit count of 20,000+ is very impressive and you have sufficient edits here to demonstrate understanding of our procedures.
'''Support''' I supported before, and nothing in the intervening time convinces me this editor ought not be made an admin.
'''Support''' again; I believe he has addressed the main concern of opposers to the previous RfA, namely his inexperience in english wikipedia.
Obviously a fine choice.
'''Support.''' He's a Swedish '''''arbitrator!''''' Certainly familiar enough with tasks.
'''Support''' Trustworthy and dedicated to the spread of information, regardless of the language. '''
'''Support'''. The only concern for me was lack of knowledge of English. You can be trusted with the tools. If you make a mistake due to lack of knowledge specific to the English Wikipedia, I dare say as an arbitrator you can be trusted to learn from the experience. --
'''Weak support''' per above. Those opposing your promotion have a point, but I think you are responsible and reasonable. Cheers. ''
'''Weak support''' - I won't count anything on other language Wikipedias because of possible slight variation in the policies, but I can still trust this user.
'''Support''' let's give him a chance --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Weak Support''' Answers are alright, tons of contribs., but as an admin. I'd like to see you boost that Wiki. Edit count.  Good luck, '''
- Obviously a user that could use the tools and is trustworthy enough to use them properly. Arguments per his low mainspace contribs are ridiculous - mainspace edits do not have any bearing on someone's usefulness as an administrator. --
'''Support''', clearly trustworthy, which ''is all that matters''.  His English is certainly better than certain admins who are 'native' speakers yet can't string a coherent sentence together, and to oppose on those grounds is ludicrous.
'''Support'''. Since there's no reason to think he's gotten himself into trouble with the tools on other wikis, it seems clear that he can be trusted with them here.  I can't see why perfect English is necessary for adminship; if someone doesn't understand something he writes, the reasonable thing to do is ask him to explain what he meant, which I think most people would.  I can't think of that many situations where poor English alone (not that I think his is very poor!) would get him into trouble in the first place, and I don't see why having admin tools would really exacerbate that extremely hypothetical situation.
'''Support''' (edit conflict) he has clearly demonstrated his dedication to Wikipedias, of various languages, and he meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|guideline]] for number of edits.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:Geo.plrd|<font color= "blue">G</font>]]
'''Support''' per delldot, Proto, ToaT, et al. Policies may not be identical across wikis, but process is broadly similar, and good judgement is always in style.
'''Support''' unlikely to misuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' Has experience with adminship tools in Swedish Wiki, & member of Swedish Wiki Arbitration Committee. Thus I believe he can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Strong support'''. I am utterly unpersuaded by the oppose votes. This candidate is an admin of good standing (and arbcom member) on Swedish Wikipedia. Re: the Serbian example- what extreme POV might a Swedish Wikipedian have? From my knowledge of other language Wikis, differences in policy are minimal- unless someone demonstrates that Swedish Wiki policy is very different from ours I see no reason not to grant the tools.
'''Support''' Has plenty of experience. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per WJB. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Has enough knowledge of tools and proceedures, good english ability, seems trustworthy. Doe's he have enough time to attend to en and swedish wiki's?
'''Support''' 1700 edits is adequate for a user who is clearly trustworthy and willing to learn the rules before enforcing them.  In my day (it's crazy that I sound like an old fogey already) admins were just trusted users who learned to use their new tools while "on the job." --
'''Support''': admin tools can only help a good editor.
'''Support''' as last time. While our policies are probably somewhat different then Swedish WP's, he's certainly shown he can be trusted.
'''Support'''. His English is fine, he seems very reasonable and measured, his articles are of good quality, and his experience on sv.wiki, though not entirely applicable here (after all, he can learn about any differences while on the job), is enough for me to trust this user.
'''Oppose''' No doubt he is an outstanding person, but his English is not good enough to be an admin on the English Wikipedia.  (I know, it is no doubt vastly better than my Swedish or Finnish!) --
'''Oppose'''. Certainly a fine user, but the enwiki contributions both in the mainspace and in projectspace are simply too few. Each 'pedia has its own distinct policies, and besides, adminship requires lots of community interaction, for which achievements on another wiki cannot make up. -
'''Weak Oppose''' - as others have said, you are an outstanding editor, but have little participation in any administrative process.  If you are going to receive a block or delete button on en, it is important to see that you understand en's policies for blocking or deletion. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Knowledge of policy does not transfer across Wikipedias. -
'''Oppose''' - not enough proven experience on the English Wikipedia. I generally do not believe that automatic transfer from one Wikipedia to en.wikipedia is correct. En.wikipedia has a very diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious user-base, so that any user will need to have a nice, well-rounded world-view and NPOV sense to become an administrator. However, on the small wikis, there is only one ethnic group and one religion usually, so somebody who is a terrible POV pusher - fascist/fundamentalist POV, does ethnic/religious hate speech etc on en.wiki could be considered mainstream on another Wikipedia. I am not saying this about MoRsE at all, but simply to point out why I value en.wiki participation. I can give two examples. I can remember the banned [[User:Bormalagurski]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski]] - who was a senior admin on the Serb wikipedia, was banned in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo]], for using multiple sockpuppets, continuously taunting and flaming Croatians, Bosnians and Albanian users, pushed strong POV using words like "terrorists" etc, kept on whitewashing articles like [[Srebrenica massacre]], etc, called Muslims terrorists, AfD vote stacking along ethnic lines, etc, etc. There is another current user, who is currently under a multi-week block, who is an admin on another small mono ethnic and religious wiki, who does the same whitewash blankings, insults other religions, edit wars incessantly, and on an off-wiki forum has called for a "keyboard jihad" and engaged in other inappropriate speech about Wikipedia conspiracies and admins along religious lines. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' I must apologize, but you simply don't have enough experience on ''This Wiki'' to prove that you would be a good admin. Even though, as mentioned above, your english isn't so great, if you showed more tried and true enwiki edits, I'd be happy to support. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose''' Very low level of participation in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with process of the English Wikipedia.  As others have said, wiki-process in each language is different, and one needs experience ''here'' before being given the mop ''here''.
'''Oppose''' Low contributions to all of WP, including little demonstrable process edits.  Participation in XFDs would definitely help the candidate.
'''Oppose'''.  I've not been impressed by his behaviour at [[Treaty of Nöteborg ]], I'm not clear that hius English is really up to admin duties, and he just hasn't done enough here. --
'''Oppose''' per enwiki edit count.
'''Oppose'''. His ability to communicate in English is adequate, but I would like to see more experience here on enwiki. I'm quite certain that tools wouldn't be ''abused'', but I'm afraid they might be ''misused'' due to lack of experience and knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above, except those that don't believe his English is up to standard. I think it's fine. '''
'''Oppose''' - adminship is not a reward, I'm certain you wouldn't abuse the powers however you show no actual need for them, you are hardly active and you don't contribute to the encyclopaedia much either. We really do not need another administrator who doesn't do anything to compliment the 1,000 or so we already have. Sorry! <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' far too limited interaction in Wikipedia space to demonstrate that we ''should'' trust this user. --
'''Oppose''' has created many new articles and left them uncategorized. Last of them today.
'''Neutral''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMoRsE&diff=77427616&oldid=77425834 a per my comments at your previous RfA], I still think that you are a good editor but I don't see a lot of participation in admin-related tasks such as vandal fighting and associated user Talk page warning edits or a lot of XfD participation on the English Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' He seems a fine user, but I see no need to give him the tools, as I see little evidence he participates in the areas where they would be useful. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Neutral''' per above two comments. I think he'd be alright but does not show a particular need for the tools and wonder if he might get confused with differences of policy between here and svwiki.
'''Neutral''' good editor, but need a lot more participation in admin-like tasks such as xFD participation, vandal fighting and the like. --
'''Neutral''' (leaning toward oppose) - Was going to oppose, but saw your large edit count on sv. I don't have a problem with international editors (I think we should encourage it), but I believe you need more experience in projectspace: you have <100 edits to critical pages. But, with some more experience, I would gladly support, as you have shown yourself trustworthy on the other wiki.
'''Netural''' per Patstuart.
'''Neutral''' for now. I think you would make a great admin, but don't want to see you getting to it just yet. You may know enwiki policy well, but you haven't ''demonstrated'' your knowledge of it. Personally, I like to see some more Wikipedia: space edits… though I'm not sure the entire community feels that way. That being said, I believe you have much potential! −
'''Neutral''' definitely experienced and trustworthy, but your low activity here is the problem. ←
'''Neutral'''. Your edits and answers are quality-wise very good, and I'm not going to oppose someone. However, you seem to lack expericnce in the XfD areas. Take out FA's in other languages and the new artices and you have under 100 wikispace edits. I'll certainly suport you at a later time, just not yet.--
'''Neutral''': Good answers, but low activity keeps me from a support. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''': per langauge issues. '''
'''Neutral.''' I think the candidate understands how to be an admin, given his Scandinavian experience, but he has not earned enough stripes on the English edition to receive my full support.
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate your eagerness to help Wikipedia. However, you have less than 1000 edits, so I think you need more experience. You also seem somewhat unfamiliar with [[WP:RFA]], as you mistook your tally for a date. I would suggest withdrawal. Feel free to reapply again in the near future when you have more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. You're only at ~600 edits so far.[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Mrld&site=en.wikipedia.org] More time and edits will allow you to better acquaint yourself with relevant policies and guidelines. Keep up the good work&mdash;any good vandal fighter is a welcome asset. --
'''Oppose''' "Amassed over 3000 edits" is not true as of this moment (2976). "Successfully nominated a large number of useless pages for deletion" doesn't appear to be the case either, and the past few CSD attempts had their articles either expanded or redirected, not deleted. Edit count is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anynobody&diff=prev&oldid=118495559 quite] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dynamictwo-o&diff=117899873&oldid=117899753 important] for this user, yet he has made insignificant contributions besides reverting vandalism. Also made 2 support !votes on two separate RfAs ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalie_Erin|1]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex43223&diff=prev&oldid=115356101 2]), hinting at a lack of care in considering them. –
'''Neutral''' You appear to be a prolific vandal fighter.  Practically all of your last 500 edits to the mainspace are reverts to vandalism and your user Talk edits corresponds with a similar number of warnings issued.  I see little in the way of actual article contributions and opinions expressed and backed up with policies and guidelines in the Policy space.  I don't think that you're a bad editor by any means, just that you need to expand your range a little to encompass more than vandal fighting.
'''Neutral''' The speedy deletion nominations are good and your edit count suffers somewhat by making them.  The vast majority of edits in the last month, none at all in January and only a few in December.  Come back in a couple months and I could support.  Age is not a factor to me. -
'''Neutral''' Whilst vandalfighting is a fantastic help, it is not what this website is about. Your answer to question 2 should be where you put your proudest achievements (articles), not really your vandal efforts - vandalfighting is rather easy (I have done it/do it myself) and it boosts up your edit count. Have you ever started an article, or expanded one? I'm not looking for a featured one, or a good one, but looking at answer 2 you don't appear to have written ''anything''. '''
'''Neutral''' I have to agree with Majorly. Your vandal-fighting is excellent, but you should do some article-writing. I do a lot of vandal-fighting, but I also have a variety of articles in which I help write. Help edit a few articles, as well as get more edits in the Wikipedia-space, and I think more users will be glad to support you next time. :)
'''Neutral''' excellent work in vandal fighting, but no article writing and relatively weak answers. —
'''Neutral''' you're a good hard worker, but you probably just need a little more time to establish yourself. Try writing/expanding an article or two when the vandals aren't around. Your answers to questions are still slightly weak, which shows me that you lack some experience. You also have few contributions to project-space, which could suggest lack of knowledge of policy (of course, it could mean that you spend a lot of time ''reading'', but no-one can prove that! :p) In all, come back in a few months after participation in XfDs, article writing, maybe even have a look around FAC and PR, and I would gladly support then. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
Strong moral support. —'''
Even though you've been here for awhile, I don't think you have enough experience.  I think you should withdraw from this RfA, wait a few months, get more experience in Wikipedia policy as well as main space edits, and answer the questions thoughtfully next time. '''
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal, but your lack of edits and the fact you feel your best achievement is a deleted article doesn't inspire confidence. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' The content of your edits and answers to the questions leave no indication that you need the administrative tools or understand what they are. I would suggest reviewing [[WP:ADMIN|the tools that admins have]] before deciding if that's what you actualy want to do or not.
'''Oppose''' for now. Get some more experience and come back in a few months. User may also benefit from some mentoring if interested in helping out as an admin.
'''Oppose''' per answers to Q1 and Q2 — don't see that you have a need for the tools. —
'''S''' seems to be a good candidate. -- <strong>
I'm not bothered by the SLG stuff.  [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Protest Support.''' This is specifically a response to the vast majority of the opposers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of an unofficial club in userspace for single-letter-name users. While it would be inappropriate in projectspace, the presumption with userspace content should ''always'' be to allow it, unless it's actively disrupting the encyclopedia, which the SLG was not. Non-single-letter-name editors were, reasonably and politely, requested not to edit the page. Some people decided to deliberately contravene this in order to pick a fight, and now N is being wiki-mobbed as a result when s/he has done nothing wrong. Furthermore, the alleged "racist comment" on the SLG page was not, in fact, racist, nor were any of the alleged "immature" comments particularly immature, nor was the SLG particularly elitist or exclusionary (far less so than, say, bureaucratship). All in all, I'm extremely saddened and shocked by the opposes, some of whom came from people I previously respected; it just shows the insidious influence of [[political correctness]] on Wikipedia, and the sad move away from the freedom that was once enjoyed in one's own userspace.
&mdash;
'''Oppose''' I'm going to have to oppose. This user has made some edits not assuming good faith and attacking other editors in the recent past. Most notably my experience with him, where I nominated an image for speedy deletion which hadn't quite been up for the 7 days, he stated that my "cavalier attitude towards established policy appalled him". [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikidudeman&diff=143286245&oldid=143262690]]. The image was indeed deleted and even if I was a bit too early to tag it, he didn't treat the situation very well by attacking me and being confrontational. Also this edit [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_10&diff=prev&oldid=144536313]] seems to indicate the same. I don't believe he has corrected his problems since his last RFA where his temper and attitude was also brought up and was one of the main reasons it failed. Perhaps in a few more moths and more experience dealing with people and not attacking them would be in order before becoming administrator.
Reverting an edit of an experienced user [[Special:Undelete/User:R/Single_Letter_Group|here]] on the basis that they were purely not a member of the "Single Letter Group" and therefore had no "right" to edit that page, is conduct which I consider unbecoming an administrator. Also, characterising a bunch of experienced users who protested the fact that this page was a joke as "trolls" (''"Looks good. I think we should ask R to have the page deleted and then re-create it after the MfD. That way we can start over. And somehow avoid attracting the trolls"'') isn't too fantastic either. Further, you supported the deletion of edits selectively on that page (''"Nice that you deleted the diffs from the people who didn't qualify"''), which was proven to be in terrible judgement by the general consensus at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/Single Letter Group]]. A lot of general concerns as well, as pointed out above, including having a confusing username. '''Strong oppose'''. '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Daniel.  Conduct of this editor regarding the "Single-Letter Group" shows both inexperience and temperamental concerns.  The timing of this RfA, so soon after that controversy flared, also demonstrates poor judgment.
'''Oppose''' Per Daniel, unacceptable behavior in a candidate, I also found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=145644514&oldid=145627815 this] to be disturbingly immature. --
'''Oppose'''. I have concerns about the candidate's maturity and judgement. Needs at least a few more months experience.
'''Oppose'''. I was coming here planning to support. But all the diffs above are slightly troubling, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/N&diff=146229155&oldid=146227856 this] totally did not help. He said "This is disturbingly immature", not "You should have let Cyde add himself to your page!" Defending yourself by saying "but look, he did something bad too!" is stupid, and I don't understand why so many people recently seem to think it's acceptable. -
'''Oppose''' per all the concerns above. I suggest that you do not lose heart over this and try running for adminship again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per 1. degree of involvement with SLG that includes edit warring (as laid out by Daniel) as well as encouraging misuse of sysop tools (deleting on-SLG edits), 2. immaturity shown on SLG MfD (''... is just mean.'') and by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=145644514&oldid=145627815 POINTy] ideas, 3. confusing username (I have commented on that already and now echo JayHenry's neutral comment).
'''Strong Oppose''' (and admonish nominator) in the interests of fighting systemic bias. His [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiaxue|deletion nomination]] of [[Xiaxue]] shows poor judgement. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiaxue&oldid=138549865 The article (when it was AFDed)] mentioned multiple claims to notability (blogging awards, hosting a TV show, being a columnist for several Singaporean newspapers and magazines). During the deletion discussion, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiaxue&diff=138571990&oldid=138569631 compared] the Bloggies (the most prestigious blogging awards) to "Hero of the Turkmen" (an award dictator [[Turkmenbashi]] gave himself). Fortunately, I, [[User:Rifleman 82|Rifleman 82]], [[User:SpLoT|SpLoT]] and other [[WP:SG!|SGpedians]] managed to save the article from deletion. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Although I originally came here possibly leaning towards support, each oppose vote has brought up more and more comments from the past that show lack of maturity and a lack of respect for others. The AfD stated above does not help his case either.
'''Oppose'''. This user's reaction to the SLG MfD, and to SLG in general does not make me feel good about this user becoming an administrator. Furthermore, the replies to the opposes further re-enforce my view. Note that I believe replying to opposes is good in most cases, but it is ''what'' was said in them that made me believe this user is not ready. --
'''Oppose''' - Immaturity and that comment.
'''Strong oppose''' in light of that comment on Cyde's talkpage - not something I'd like to see in any user, let alone an administrator. N seems to have a problem with controlling his temper, not an attractive trait at all in a potential sysop. ~
'''Oppose'''. Looking at his past edit history, as well as the concerns laid out by the opposers above, I see a reasonably good editor that shows ''exceptionally'' poor judgment at times. The way in which he has attempted to defend some of these poor decisions in this RfA has failed to impress me as well.
'''Neutral'''. I would support, however the opposes are too hard to miss. I would recommend trying again later. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Neutral''' Maybe it's because I'm stupid but I'm finding it impossible to keep track of all the single-letter user names.  I almost opposed because I thought this user requested adminship last week, but then I realized that that was R I was thinking of.  Or possibly E.  Or both?  Or W? H? A?.  I don't even know anymore.  Not much of a reason to oppose, but I'm genuinely confused and finding these names unhelpful. --
'''N'''eutral, leaning oppose except for the fact that I wanted to use something with an N in it, mostly per Daniel. Plus, I don't even know who you are. I must say that I do like the answer to Q4, however. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Neutral''' - lots of experience, good number of edits, interaction with other users, good Wikipedia space usage, but as is said above, the opposes are too hard to miss. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' While my interactions with N have been nothing but positive, I'm somewhat concerned over the Single Letter Group drama.  That affair doesn't allow me to cast a vote for support in good conscience.
'''Neutral''' <s>to avoid pile-on, but suggest withdrawal.</s> —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Oppose''' Reccomend immediate withdrawal after which you should wait until you have several months of experience under your belt.  You have 6 edits outside of your edits to this RFA.  It generally takes several months of experience.  Similarly, edditing experience generally needs to bea cross the entire scope of the project.  Feel free to find an adopter and build the required experience and come back in several months. As wall, your answer to the questions show a.) you do not fully understand the role of administrators and b.)most of what you described you do not need the tools for.
'''Likewise''' Check out the links in the wlecome message I left and work for a while. We'll need a few months and a lot of contributions to judge your abilities to admin effectively. Please withdraw. &mdash;
(ec x2) Sorry, this is premature. You have 19 edits, 11 of which are to this page or RFA. I suggest you withdraw this, read other successful and unsuccessful RFAs, contribute to many areas of the encyclopedia and try again in a few months.
Seen your work before.  I'll support.  [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|Buick]]'''[[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|C]]'''[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|en]]'''[[user talk:BuickCenturyDriver|t]]'''
'''Support.''' Subtler skills like this candidate's are really needed.
'''Support'''. All interactions I've had with Nardman have been positive, and judging from such interactions, I'm confident that he would not misuse the tools.
'''Oppose'''  Your temper really worries me.  I've been known to be brusque at times myself, but bringing edit disputes in front of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive7#Proposed_ban_of_.7B.7Buserlinks.7CCaptain_scarlet.7D.7D Community Sanctions]] is serious overkill.  You also seem to forget edit summaries a lot--  this isn't a deal-killer on its own, but shows you might need a bit more experience before you get the mop.
'''Oppose''' The candidate needs to understand policy and the wikiway much more than they do now before they get the mop. In particular I'd like to see much more conversation with users before running to noticeboards and dispute resolution. Interventions on noticeboards are often poorly judged and waste a lot of admin time over inconsequential issues. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_2&diff=prev&oldid=127646012#User_talk:Pce3.40ij.net  Wikilawyering over a deleted page] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nardman1&diff=prev&oldid=127569885 Being warned not to shout at AIV] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=125977108 Reporting a user for "wikistalking"]. Additionally, while reviewing the users contributions I noticed a couple of recent instances of reports not being acted upon (and in once case the candidate raised a checkuser as a result!). This suggests their grip of how/when to use the block button needs some work. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 07:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC). Trawling further to check I wasn't being unfair I also found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Week in the Woods|this AFD nom]] that clearly shows the candidate doesn't understand our policies on deletion bearing in mind he acknowledges the awards in the nom. It also appears that he earlier incorrectly tagged the page for speedy deletion under A7 - which doesn't apply to articles about books.
<s>'''No'''.</s> If this candidate were promoted, it will invariable lead to deletion/restoration wheel wars.
'''Absolutely Not''' - Per answer to Question 5 - totally clueless about what constitutes a free image, we happily accept the CC-BY licence here and more importantly on Commons, in fact we accept all Creative Commons licences which permit commercial use and derivative works, so that includes Attribution and Share-alike licences. I've also witnessed a number of alarming edits to userpages, such as a recent demand that Betacommand cease operating a bot, general moaning that Gen Von Klinkerhoffen had been unblocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=126548398] without being considerate enough to inform Eagle 101 he was being discussed at <s>both the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents and</s> the Community Sanction Noticeboard. There's no way I can support this candidate at this time. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' Sorry but less than 1000 edits to the [[WP:NAMESPACE]] over such a long period of time seems a little too low for an RfA candidate, I think you could definitely be an admin in the future with some more solid contribs and possible [[WP:XFD]] work, you may wish to consider applying for an [[WP:AC|admin coach]]? Regards --
'''Oppose''' mainly for the Gen. von Klinkerhoffen unblock incident. Sorry, but trying to say an unblock is invalid because the only thing really wrong about it was that it overrode community consensus is just excessive process wonk, a misunderstanding of what a community ban is (and its two definitions), and, to an extent, inability to use [[WP:IAR]]. Coupling this with problems with understanding images as raised by Nick and the combative attitude exhibited on this RfA leaves me with a serious doubt about this user's admin capabilities right now. —<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' I'm quite worried about this user's interpretation of [[WP:BP|blocking policy]]. In discussion, Nardman1 requested an unshared IP and a school IP to be blocked for an extended period of time because these users were "persistent vandals". The IPs had only received as high as a t2 warning for that particular day. What Nardman1 quoted from the blocking policy refers to the block durations and what duration is appropriate. The blocking policy he quoted: "If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP addresses, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption." This does not say that administrators should block users for long periods of time because they have vandalized. It says that when a user is in need of a preventative block for vandalism, a long-term block can be considered if the user has a past history of vandalism and/or has been previously blocked for that violation. Also, administrators are frequently requested to intervene and resolve disputes between editors regarding a particular article. It is my personal belief that an admin can be of help in these sort of disputes only if they have experienced these sort of conflicts before, or if they have witnessed an edit conflict. Judging from his talk page contributions, I don't see much article discussion coming from Nardman, which gives me no indication that this user will know how to handle or mediate editing disputes in the future. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Opppose''' Per Physicq210 and serious copyright concerns.
'''Oppose'''- Per the Sunshine Man- I think you need more experience in [[WP:XFD]] and more mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' per concerns mentioned in oppose section.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I hadn't realised that this user was responsible for the Bluwiki MfD. The ''last'' thing we need is more admins who want to delete people's userpages without their permission. Remember, if they're creating pretty userpages instead of editing the mainspace, ''at least they're not vandalising''. All admins should realise this important point. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Per user's stand on [[WP:FAIRUSE]]. In serious areas like this, there's no such thing as "too strict".
'''Oppose''': A couple things bother me with this user. To start off, as stated by numerous other users Q5 shows a lack of knowledge of the image fair use policy. Next, user's edit summary usage isn't the greatest could be improved, but also, user only has 3000 edits and has had the account since 2004. While they may not have been active until last year as stated in nomination user is a "low volume contributer" which to me doesn't show much need for the tools. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose:''' Per above, but especially given candidate's views on fair use policy.  Despite the wishes of many users and widespread practice on the Internet, copyright law is a fact on the ground and ''not'' subject to consensus or the personal preferences of laymen.
I am concerned about the claims made at [[:Image:Jiahu Flutes.jpg]].  Nardman1 originally uploaded this image as fair use, but it was deleted in March.  Than he reuploaded with a rather extravagant claim that copyright doesn't apply, even though copyright is (evidently) claimed by the source.  His claim is based on the idea that photographs of 3-dimensional objects are not creative works are do not have copyright.  This runs counter to our longtime standards as detailed both here and at commons; we have always held that only photographs of 2-dimensional works are protected.  All of that may or may not be relevant to this adminship request, but I'm concerned about the editor's attitude toward our non-free content policies.
'''Neutral''' - I have some objections regarding certain actions undertaken by Nardman (see questions above) but I also see that he could be a good admin, explaining my neutrality - <small>Please leave any queries on my talk page</small>
'''Neutral''' per the Bluwiki MfD - inability to assume good faith, and biting. (I don't disagree with Daniel's closure, but I stand by my statement). Also, seemed to take the LegoAxiom thing a little too personally. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' I'm just not sure.  I believe the user is experienced enough, but the majority of well-respected users here seem to have pretty deep reservations about it.  I'm not basing my vote on their opinions; I'm just going with neutrality because 1). the copyright issue(s) stated above, and 2.) their apparent quickness to anger over certain issues.
'''Oppose''' Based upon answers to questions one and three - far too vague and not enough evidence provided in the form of diffs.  Additionally, you only seem to have started contributing in earnest from April, although you have been registered since last August; you have contributed to the policy space less than twenty times in all that time and your use of edit summaries needs to improve as well.  You can force the edit summaries in your user preferences.  Also, try contributing to XfD discussions and back up these contributions with reference to [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] and new page/ recent change patrols with associated vandal warnings and reporting to [[:WP:AIV]] where appropriate will all do to assist your admin-related activities here.  Try again in a few months with this evidence and you may be more successful.
'''Oppose''' - 4 edits, three to RFA, one to his userpage. Suggest withdrawal.↔
I can only suggest withdrawal at present and read [[User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project|The NoSeptember Admin Project]] which will give you some idea as to when and why you should apply again or why someone might wish to nominate you. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Weak support'''. I've reviewed your contributions and they show that you understand policy and apply it well. I think you should improve your edit summary usage outside of automated edits though... Summaries really do help, especially when people want to know why their page was deleted once you become an admin. Your browser's autofill function should help with this. :-)
(from '''oppose''') - '''Support'''. You seem to have a good handle on things. A few things that are a little bit nitpicky about your answers to my questions, but nothing major. (If you want to know what they are, I'll email you.) ''
'''Support'''.  Three months and 2000 edits for a promotion are not new.  All you need to do is address the oppose comments (spelling), wait a month or two and maybe next time you'll become admin.
Support. Seven opposers manage to raise zero significant concerns between them, and based on a review of the edit history I doubt there are any to be found.
'''Support''' per Christopher Parham. Apart from the slight eagerness, which isn't much of a bad thing, I cannot see any reason why this editor should not be promoted. The opposers indeed raise nothing concerning in the slightest. --'''
'''Support'''.  Seems trustworthy and sensible.  I am, frankly, baffled by some of the reasons given to oppose this RFA, which display a clear and basic failure to understand what adminship is about (ie, it's nothing special).
'''Weak Support''' per the reasons given by others. Seems to understand things pretty well and won't do anything wrong, methinks.--
'''Support''' - Although you have only been a member for a short time, your record is exemplary. Even though there a few things needing to be touched up with your edits (edit summary, marking minor edits as minor, etc.) I think you have a sound knowledge of Wikipedia and would be a great asset as an administrator. The opposers seem to think that being an administrator is a major thing - but [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|it isn't]] and are only giving points that make it sound like it is.
'''Support''' I think Natl1 is good person to be a sysop. So what he's been 3 months here? 3 months is easily enough for me. If he had 2500 decent edits after 4 weeks, I'd support him!
'''Support.''' I'm not totally sold, but his answer to 4 gives me some confidence.
'''Support''' I've run into your work a couple of times, most prominently reviewing Coca-cola for GA, and it's always struck me as good quality.  I'll take quality of edits over quantity any day.  I've seen nothing particularly objectionable and much admirable in your behavior, and I'm convinced you'd use the tools well.
'''Support''' Seems like a nice person, and a good candidate. --
'''Support'''. No reason to think s/he will abuse the tools. --
why not? --KP<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' per the user's contributions.
'''Support''' per above
'''Oppose''' Only 2,008 edits in total, and only some three months experience, is not enough for me. Sorry. Come back in three months time.--
'''Oppose''' Making good progress, but I don't think now is the time. Go for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] and receive some constructive criticism from other editors. Fix up some mistakes based on the suggestions you receive there, and consider an RfA in 3(+) months time. '''
'''Oppose''' - Answers are too short and I stopped counting at 12 spelling errors.  To me this appears to be a lack of thoroughness or hurriedness and perhaps a further indication that you are trying to do this too soon.  I noticed that every comment on your editor review suggested that you wait longer; I would suggest that you heed that advice. --
'''Oppose''' One must be suspicious when Supporting a self-nominated RfA. Your record is not bad, but not quite admin level. Try again when you have a better record and someone else nominates you. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per After Midnight.
'''Oppose''' It's too soon, try back in a few months although you do have good intentions.  It's not your edit count all together that is low, it's just the way you have them spread out, try more Wikipedia mainspace edits, policy edits, and Wikipedia article edits. Keep up the good work, good things shouldn't be rushed. '''''
'''Oppose'''In a few months and no self-nom and you'll have my support. Your a good editor, but you need more experience. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' Sorry! This user has proved to be friendly and has previously nominated me for an RfA in which I declined for the moment and I'm very thankful for that; but because your account was only created in November '06 the lack of experience puts me off, sorry but I think you should leave it for 3 months (approx) and get some more experience in not just vandal fighting but other edits in the mainspace/user talk etc. Your a good candidate it's just this RFA is a little too early in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' for use of fair use images in userspace: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Natl1/CokeSandbox&diff=107559971&oldid=102220924] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Natl1/MLCC_Template&diff=107560003&oldid=98916752]. Admins should know better than to use fair use images in their userspace. And this was a month ago. --
'''Oppose''' per Anthony Bradbury. —
'''Oppose''' Come back in 6 months with more experience and I will fully support. '''
'''Oppose''' - Too new here. Users should be here at least 6 months before becoming admins.
'''Oppose''': too new, prefer more experience first.
'''Oppose''', needs more experiences before getting tools. Please have at least 3,000 edit countis.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience and should get an [[WP:ER|editor review]].
'''Oppose''' - needs some more experience. A bit concerned about [[WP:AIV]] - I've seen him upload a number of fair use images (yes, they are logos, but I'd say let someone else upload them). Also would like to know more about his stance on blocking editors, and how to show sensitivity in this sort of thing. Would also like to know what happens if he gets into a dispute and how he would work through things. Trust me, adminship can be a ''very'' difficult thing when it comes to blocking! -
Oppose. Due to the experience issues noted above. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Zazzer&diff=109064916&oldid=109064707 this confused vote in support] of an obviously unsuitable admin candidate makes me question your judgment.
'''Oppose''' As Sandstein notes, candidate's statement at the Zazzer RfA suggests -- at the least -- a significant lack of experience, if not a gravely flawed judgment.
'''Neutral''': In listing this RfA, you managed to totally screwup the RfA page and the answers to the questions are painfully short. Your answer to Q1 doesn't show a definite need for the tools, but as we're short of admins, I'll certainly not oppose based on that. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Neutral''' per above. '''
'''Neutral'''. Not a bad editor, but I'd like to wait a few months to see more. His main edits are in Coca-Cola, with a chunk of them being the fact template. (If you want to improve them try finding references for those points).--
'''Neutral''' It looks like you took [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEditor_review%2FNatl1&diff=94312856&oldid=94183397 this comment at your editor review] to heart and applied the moment you hit 2000 edits, which is just as arbitrary as any other number, really. I'm not too happy with your contribution to debates such as XfD at the moment, so if you can apply yourself to admin-related tasks and discussions for three months-or-so then I would be happy to review my neutral stance on your next application.
'''Neutral''' - please use edit summaries and remember to mark minor edits as minor.  I don't think you had any edits marked as minor other than js reverts.  As for editcountitis, 2000 is a gracious plenty, but lack of edit summaries convinces me that you could use some more time. Also, the answer to #1 concerns me a tad - "anything else which requires sysop tools" - what things require the sysop tools would probably be a good thing to find out before starting an RFA.  I would like to add one thing, though - great work with [[WP:IFU]].  I took a look at it when looking over the RFA and am already thinking about ways it could be expanded. (For example, the image upload page should have a link to it saying if you don't have a clue what you are doing, go here.) --
'''Neutral''' you're making excellent progress, but you'll need more time around and some more contributions before I can support. Answers are kind of short and edit summary usage needs some work. I know adminship is not a big deal, but I'd like to see more activity before I can support. -
'''Neutral''' I had an RfA about three months into my Wikipedian days, which I failed due to low edits and inexperience.  And while at the time I believed I was qualified for sysopship, looking back now, I'm not so sure (I've learned a ''lot'' since then).  I don't won't to oppose, as your record is clean (except for the fair use violation, which is not a ''really'' big deal), but the answers to your questions are short and somewhat suspicious.  Plus, you have a ''ton'' of spelling mistakes, which leads me to think that you may rush into things, without taking the time to think over what you're doing and checking to make sure it's right.  I suggest you withdraw now, and come back in four months or so; I'd be glad to support you then, provided you keep your record clean and keep your dedication to Wikipedia strong, like it is now. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Neutral''' for the reasons mentioned by [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]]. Also "''earliest 22:14, 27 November 2006''", does give me the over all feeling you are being a little too eager. Now none of these are really good reason to oppose. So I'm not going to do that, but it does at the same time make me slightly hesitant to support. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' I was leaning to support but given all factors, I think neutral is the best I can do. With a little more time, I'm sure I'll be much more confident in your skills. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  Please come back in several months after you have more experience and understanding of community norms.--
'''Neutral''' for all the reasons above. Keep editing. Work in as many corners of the wiki as you can and come back. --
'''Neutral''' for now. Nothing personal, get some more experience and maybe try again in a few months. —
'''Neutral''' per above. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Neutral''' &mdash; needs another month or two of experience before I can be safe to support. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose'''. Though I hate to say it, I have doubts about [[User:Navou|Navou]]'s judgment. This mainly results from his support of [[User:CyberAnth|CyberAnth]]'s proposal to create [[Wikipedia:BLP Admin|BLP Admins]], which he confirmed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ABLP_Admin&diff=105930691&oldid=105930478 here], where he was the first user to comment on the proposal. To support a policy that would create a new class of admins who would act more as policemen than janitors (able to override concensus when they believed it was wrong) to me reflects a misunderstanding about the basis of the decision making process in Wikipedia. "BLP Admins" would also have been able to use their tools in dispute they were involved in, which should have been indentified by him as problematic. As a result, I'm not comfortable that [[User:Navou|Navou]] has sufficiently understanding of the workings of Wikipedia or the role of administrators within it. Sorry. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you've been doing a good job, but I believe you require more experience. Your mainspace count is too low, and you could be more active on XFD. I see some vandalfight, but even in that area I'm not sure if you're experienced enough. Finally, I'm also not very impressed with your answers. Keep up the good work, gain some more experience and try again in a few months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' for a combination of not having been around long enough (although you're well and truly on the right track there) and answers which don't really seem to explain why you need to be an admin, although I may just have misread them.
'''Oppose'''. Need for adminship not asserted. ''
Based on your self-nom statement and weird over-focus on how well you can write, speak English, etc., and no obvious need for the tools, I cannot support yet at this stage. Keep working on the encyclopedia and don't let your talent, as you yourself describe, be wasted on adminning. &ndash;
Same opinion as above. I tend to doubt self-noms, but that is mainly because they tend to be inexperienced users. You are not inexperienced, but I am unconvinced of your knowledge and need for the tools. Nothing really bad and nothing really good about you. Neutral is my vote for now. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Neutral''' nothing is compelling me to support. Low main-space contributions and no real need for the tools. Also, I'm not so comfortable supporting an editor who has been ''active'' for only three months. -
'''Neutral''', no real need for the tools, only active for three months, but nothing overwhelmingly negative.  Make a bunch more contributions to the mainspace and try again in a few months.
'''Support'''. I feel that concerns from the previous RFA have been addressed and now Navou is definitely ready. I would also like to commend Navou for his activity at [[WP:CN]].
'''Weak Support''' - This user perhaps could have gone into a bit more detail when answering the questions and have a little more experience in main-space. However, I can find no reason to think this user would abuse the admin tools, and I have noticed a lot of involvement with admin tasks such as Community Sanctions and with interacting with other users, both key skills of an admin.
'''Support''' - Definitely not the lowest editcount I've seen at RfA, and I personally think that projectspace edits are as important as mainspace edits for an admin candidate. Although the opposers make fair points, adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' It is good to see a candidate with a high project-space account instead of so many with low project-space. I will support.
'''Support'''. Now a nearly equal number of projectspace and mainspace edits doesn't satisfy people? Huh? -
'''Automatic Support''' - if the only complaint is that he ''only'' has 1000 mainspace edits ... then ... well ... whatever. --
'''Support''' - Many arguments below are unsubstantiated and lack real support in their suggestions. Ready for adminship? - Definitely
'''Weak Support''' Like some others, I would like to see more mainspace edits but I am not willing to oppose based soley on that. Such is especially true given your extensive work in those areas which bear directly on the administrator's duties.
'''Support''' I am not particularly impressed by the answers, but my overall sense is that Navou knows what he is doing and can use the tools effectively.  I have seen his comments before.
'''Support''' Won't abuse the tools; experience level meets my expectations. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Strong support''' Navou is one of my most diligent and productive admin coaching trainees.  Almost since the inception of the [[Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard]], Navou has been closing discussions and performing general maintenance.  It is no exaggeration to say that he has been an essential factor in that board's smooth running.  Navou is also a mediator trainee at [[Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation]] and performed much more than his share of the drudge work in bringing that program from proposal stage to its present trial run.  Since I know how discussions at this board often go I had advised him to spend more time in article space and gain credit for a [[WP:GA|good article]] before trying this candidacy.  Having worked closely with this editor for some time, however, I have trust and confidence in him as someone who would use the tools wisely and who operates in areas where mops are in short supply.  So out of respect for both Navou and the community, I ask Navou to pledge to be open to recall for the first six months of administratorship and I ask the community to give him the chance to demonstrate his worth.  He has already demonstrated his worth to me. <font face="Verdana">
[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Seems like a good chap.  No major problems. --
User has too many contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. --
'''Oppose''' Wheres the counter at the top? Anyway you have less than 1000 edits in the article mainspace, thats too little for administrators. Thanks - <b>
'''Oppose''' - Too few mainspace edits for my liking & you only just marginally make it past other criterion I have. Thanks, but for now, it's an oppose...
'''Oppose''' - As per
'''Oppose''' - This user, I personally think, has not had enough exerience here on Wikipedia. User's contributitions are worthwhile and helpful, but I believe that five months is not long enough to become an administrator. Best of Luck in the future though.
'''Oppose''' per criteria 2 and 3 of [[User:Mr.Z-man/RFA|my criteria]]. For "Administrative duties", you have much experience in the noticeboards and such, but looking at your vandalism reversions from April 13, you have 14 reversions, yet you only warned 6 users that day. If users aren't warned, there is little record of vandaliasm and they will go longer without blocks. For "Quality of Work", I am not extremely impressed with what you say you are most proud of (sorry if that sounds kind of mean, I don't intend that). I understand that they are works in progress but [[Combat lifesaver]] has had a {{t1|worldwide}} tag on it since March 24. I would also suggest you read up on [[Help:Minor edit|minor edits]]. <font color="maroon">
'''Oppose''' too few mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' needs more editing experience.
'''Oppose''' Interaction with this editor at [[WP:CSN]] shows a disturbing tendency to ask questions without doing his homework.  Specifically, he asked a question about a case I filed that was clearly answered by the RFC I linked to in the request, then asked another question that could have been answered had he examined the diffs in the RFC in detail.  --
'''Oppose''' because I think applicant needs more time in mainspace.  I know people get irked by this suggestion at times but to be empathetic as an admin you have to understand clearly what editors are going through and under a 1000 such edits just doesn't cut it for me (although you are not far off - I'd say 2 maybe 3 months of solid work).--
Appears to be a suitable candidate, but I am withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement per my endorsement policy for RfAs.
'''Neutral'''- I would love to support you, as you are an established and experienced editor. However, as Tellyaddict has pointed out. You do not have enough edits in the section "mainspace". So I must stand neutral, sorry.
'''Neutral tending to Oppose''' I have seen the user around and they always seemed sensible to me but I get the impression that they are not taking the RFA a seriously as they might. Particularly for a self nom, very short answers to the questions provide very little information to assess the candiate against. While I do agree that the questions are in many ways proforma, its still a hurdle that the candidate should at least try and jump. May be prepared to reconsider later depending on how this goes.
'''Neutral''' basically for having a low mainspace count. I might have weakly supported you if your answers were better and longer. Also, reviewing your recent contributions, I noticed that you don't ''always'' warn users after reverting their vandalism. —
--
'''Oppose''' Per inexperience and vandalism. Also, you have less than 50 talk page edits. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' - Straight off the bat, the fact you admit you've only been really active since October this year shows me you're inexperienced. So far all your edits have been pointing towards being promoted to adminship, which although fair, is not the only reason why we're here on this site - Building an encyclopedia is foremost and you have done little to strive for that. I'd suggest waiting at least another 4 months before standing for adminship again, pick up a FA or GA, prove that you can understand our policies perfectly and stay out of trouble. With that combination, you'll be promoted in no time, but for the time being, 2 months work is not sufficiant to be granted sysop abilities. Stick at it and good luck. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per JetLover.
'''Oppose''' - per JetLover. Sorry, a few months more experience and a couple thousand edits will do the trick. For now, it's a no. &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' You were basically inactive until October. I think you need to establish trust in the community for a bit longer before asking for a position of trust. Wikipedia definitely needs vandalism patrollers, so keep doing what you're doing. Past transgressions can be forgiven if you prove yourself trustworthy for an appropriate length of time. I don't think two months is enough.
'''Oppose'''.  Impressive work in the last two months.  The problem is, it's only two months.  I don't think it's enough time to get a great handle on policies and procedures.  Plenty of work in the mainspace, which I like, but not enough in the Wikipedia namespace, the areas where admins do the most work.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA, spending some time in areas like [[WP:XFD]], tagging articles for deletion, maybe find a [[WP:BACK|backlog]] that you find interesting and work on it, and reapplying for adminship in a couple more months.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. Keep up the good work and consider adminship at a later date.
'''Gratuitous advice and neutral to avoid biting and pile-on.''' Thanks for coming forth openly about the vandalism. It was 6 months ago. Unfortunately, you persisted until you drew a block. You have worked hard and commendably to make up for that aberration. I would recommend that you continue reverting vandalism and in a wikignome role. In addition, I suggest making more substantial edits. There are redlinks begging to be turned into stubs. Take part in XFD. Don't let this discourage you. After 3 months, 3000 edits, seek an [[Wikipedia:Editor review]]. Heed the advice that generates. Hang in there and try again later. Good luck for the future. I recommend that you withdraw.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, you don't yet have enough experience (it appears you have only worked on a single article).  I'd encourage you to re-apply in the future once you've gotten more experience.--
'''Oppose'''. 26 edits as of now is not nearly enough for an RfA. I suggest withdrawal for now, getting more experience, and trying again in at least 3-4 months. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|Llama]] [[User talk:Llama man|man]]<sup>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you don't have any experiance at all.  Only 26 edits, no interaction with other users and not even a User Page...sorry come back back when you've been here for awhile.
'''Oppose''' You have only 26 edits, which is just a tiny fraction of what most editors will expect from an admin. While there is no set figure, most editors require at least 1,000 edits - some require 3,000 - evenly spread over mainspace and namespace. I earnestly suggest that you withdraw from this RfA, which has no chance of succeeding, and come back after you have gained three or four months of varied experience.--
'''Suggest Withdrawal''' Come back once you have more experience with Wikipedia and more edits. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
I never oppose in situations like these.  You see, this RFA will soon be closed, because you are too new to wikipedia.  spend at least a year and 1,000 edits, then you could try again.--
'''Neutral''': Come back with more experience and edits. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]

'''Oppose''' - sorry. Adminship isn't really meant to make editing life easier. If anything, it makes it harder. Your edits look great so far and you've made plenty of good contributions to the project but I believe you need more experience esp. as you've an ongoing Editor Review and that you'd previously applied for adminship [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nenyedi|just a few weeks back]]. Get some more edits behind you, maybe get more involved in ''WP:'' pages and come back in a while. You're on the right track -
'''Oppose''' as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2Fnenyedi&diff=114648377&oldid=114647954 my previous comments] on your first RfA.  You are making progress but you still have a way to go in order to be an admin, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Nenyedi&diff=next&oldid=121522194 as per Aquarius's comments on your Editor Review].
'''Oppose''', there seem to be some problems with your image uploads, some as recently as one month ago. You uploaded [[:Image:Fiercecologne.jpeg]] [http://shopping.fresheye.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?asp=32&dsp=op&cat=0200000000&key=%A5%A2%A5%D0%A5%AF%A5%ED%20Abercrombie%20Fitch Which is exactly the same as this promo shot from a commercial website]. You then changed the licensing from {{tl|logo}} to {{tl|pd-self}}. Also, you have uploaded some non-free images which are now orphaned. Admins need to understand free content and licensing laws, and the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation at least to an extent.
'''Oppose''' You're still quite inexperienced to be given the tools, and while you are on the right track, you seem overly anxious to become an admin.  Sit back and relax on the issue, have fun, edit more, join some Wikiprojects and contact other users.  Get more involved and gain more experience, then try back in a few months time, if you have gained the experience.
'''Oppose'''. Violated [[WP:3RR]] last month by repeatedly blanking his/her previous RfA. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nenyedi&action=history link] -- <b>
'''Strong and Serious Oppose''' - I know adminship isn't a big deal, etc., etc., but there are some serious concerns that need to be addressed. You only have 1171 edits total, or something like that, and only around 518 of them are in mainspace. Secondly, you violated [[WP:3RR|3RR]] on your first RfA, whereas administrators are supposed to deal with 3RR violators, not be them. Thirdly, you're too focused on vandalism. Expand your horizons. Fourthly, (and this is the 1st time I've ever used that odd-sounding word in my life) you vandalized your first RfA, by blanking it, and are breaking the very policies you're sworn to uphold. And fifthly, you don't seem to know basic policies, such as [[WP:3RR]], that administrators have to deal with on a regular basis. Try again when these issues are straightened out.
'''Oppose''' The 3RR is serious in my mind. I commend you for you enthusiasm and assume you blanked the page out of frustration and embarrassment. In fact, you may not have realized you were violating 3RR. But as an admin you are expected to know such things. Maybe later.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, I just don't see a need for the tools, or a mature understanding of them.
'''Oppose''': I don't see a need for this user to have the tools at this point in time. Perhaps at a later date. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' You have only a limited number of edits in Wiki, and none at all in wiki-talk. Although we try to avoid edit-count obsession, your total count is too low to please many editors, given that your contributions are all we have to go on to judge your potential skill at admin-related tasks.--
'''Oppose''', (edit conflict) sorry, I just don't think you've had enough experience or even much use for the tools at this point. Also, try racking up some talk mainspace edits. '''''
'''Oppose:''' You've: (1) Not been active enough in the past few months. (2) Nomonated yourself for adminship again too soon after your previous one. (3) not enough project-space or mainspace edits for an administrator. Please get more expreience in the project and main spaces, and then come back after 2 - 3 '''months'''. <span style="font-size:97%;">'''<font color="#229922">''~''</font>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"><font color="#229922">[[User:Magnus animum|Magnus animum]]</font></span>'''&nbsp;∵&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Magnus animum|∫]] [[User talk:Magnus animum/Steam|φ]]
'''Oppose''' get some more experience and you can be a good admin.
'''Undecided''' - pending answers to my questions above.  '''''
'''Support''' under the basic pretenses stated many, many, '''many''' times that Adminship is not a big deal, and that post count is not idicative of experience.  User has never vandalized pages, and has demonstrated interest in combatting vandalism.  I have noticed many times that people are willing to oppose because of your edit count, regardless that the majority of your edits are anti-vandal edits.
'''Support''' - I have no reason to doubt that the user would be conscientious with the admin tools. However, it does not help that the user forgot to login before adding his RfA - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=114643362&oldid=114627310] -
'''Oppose''' You need more experience, especially in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]]. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' simply not enough experience, low activity, I'd find it difficult to advocate such a relatively inexperienced user with the tools.  With 11 wikispace edits, I can't be sure that nenyedi is ready to make judgements on XFD's.
'''Oppose''' Less than 500 edits and less than a dozen to the policy space shows that you need more experience in all areas of the project.  XfD discussions where you can refer to policies and guidelines; new article/ recent change patrols; article creation/contributions; user Talk page interactions - all of these would be good places to start.
'''Strong Oppose''' The fact that the self-nomination is virtually non-existent is the first prime indication that user is unfamiliar with wiki-norms. Suggest withdrawl.
'''Oppose''' Also suggest withdrawal. Try again when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Per aeropagitica. Keep working hard! --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']] <sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose'''. 700 edits + no real self-nomination text = suggest withdrawal.--
'''Oppose''' While a fixation on edot count is certainly to be avoided, your count is quite low. And we do need some evidence of understanding of policy, which we can only see by your involvement in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], which is not at present extensive in your record.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Im ust oppose based on far too little activity. In a few months and a few thousand edits, definitely take another stab.
'''Oppose''' - less than 500 edits is way too low. An admin candidate should have around 5000.
'''Oppose''' Too little experience (less than 500 edits).
'''Oppose''' You need more experience in all areas. Your nom is incomplete, no statement, unsigned while not logged in (checking "remember me" when logging in fixes that). You should withdraw this nom and try again in a few months when you become more experienced.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry pal, but with that low of edits, you can't even get one key! Lol, but with a few months , you should come back. [[User_Talk:VD64992|<font color="orange">VD649</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Far too few edits, poor edit summary usage, bad answers, and self-nom. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Needs more experiences.
'''Neutral'''. I'll never oppose a user who I don't think will abuse the tools, but I don't think this user is quite ready.  The problem isn't so much the small number of edits, but rather the small mistakes that he or she has made just on this RfA.  Forgetting to log in and forgetting to sign comments simply doesn't look good for an administrator.  Keep up the work, and I hope to support next time! --
'''Neutral''' as evidenced from your self-nom, I suggest you withdraw and send several months gaining more experience.--
'''Neutral''' per Danielrocks123. Keep up the good work and come back in a few months when you have more experience.
'''Moral Support''' - Good editor, but probably will not pass this time round. I advise you to withdraw this RfA for now and work on getting some more experience with community discussion and policy ([[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]] is a good place to start). Come back in 2-3 months and you will probably pass.
'''Moral Support''' - You seem like a good editor indeed, but you need some more experience. Like Walton, I suggest that you try again after some time, in which case you would have more probabilities of passing. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Moral Support''' - I am going to echo what Walton and TomasBat have both said.  I think you are a good editor who shows a lot of promise.  Please don't be discouraged by not passing on this first attempt, and come back in a few months, and I feel you would have an excellent chance of passing.
'''Support''' the above reasonsings.
'''Moral Support''' I think that this RfA is going to [[WP:SNOW]] but a review of your contributions shows excellent work. Please see the comments made by those in oppose, and learn from them, in order to add value to your existing strengths. Best wishes, Happy Editing, and I look forward to offering my un-qualified support in a future RFA. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support''' for keeping his head up high during this. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' (nothing moral about it).  I haven't seen any reason to oppose.  I would advise you take note of the reasons for opposition, see what you can do about them, and in a few months try again.  Although please don't force yourself to do something you don't want to do just so you become an admin.  It's not that big a deal.
'''Support''' Samething Neil said.
'''Support''' This RfA will probably [[WP:SNOW]], but that's no reason not to support. Great editor.
'''Support''' This editor seems to be confident about his/her abilities as an admin, shown by this users' userpage and the fact that this is a self-nomination. I would suggest you reapply for months later after you gained enough experiance because I doubt this is going to pass.
'''Oppose''' A valuable editor that is not quite ready for adminship. I very much appreciate all the tedious and hard work that goes into being a "Gnome" but I feel this user lacks the expericance and pre-reqs for access to the tools. My two biggest concerns are he/she only being active for four months and a complete lack of community interaction. It is vital that an administrator not only have a broad depth of understanding of policy and the innner workings of wikipeida but that they are successful in their interactions with other users. I think this user will make an excellent canidate in six months time provided he branches out into policy/guidline discussion and can demostrate community interaction on the mainspace. Good luck Neranei.
'''Oppose'''. Hello Neranei, I feel that at this time, you don't yet have sufficient experience to be an administrator. In particular, you have very few edits to [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD]] and similar pages. I'm pointing these out because you mentioned that anti-vandalism and article deletion would be among your anticipated activities as an admin. As of this time, I don't see sufficient evidence to demonstrate that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism and particularly deletion. I'm not saying that you would abuse the admin tools, but without more experience in these and other areas, there is a risk that you might make a mistake. Most admin mistakes can of course be remedied, but it's still better to avoid making such mistakes. On the plus side, you haven't been blocked, and you make the effort to be kind to other Wikipedians. Please don't be discouraged by my oppose or if this RfA should fail. You may lack experience, but fortunately that is easily fixed. I encourage you to read more about [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion|Wikipedia's guide to deletion]] and start participating more on pages like [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]], [[WP:MFD|Miscellany for Deletion]], and [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]]. It's good that you also write, because Wikipedia is built on content. You said that you're more of a WikiGnome, but you might consider joining a [[WP:PROJ|WikiProject]] if you wanted to look for more things to do. The [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]] has loads of ideas. I hope I haven't hurt your feelings by my oppose. You're doing a great job so far, you just need to do a bit more work before I am ready to support you. Keep up the good work, try to expand your horizons, and if this RfA should fail, please try to see it as a learning experience so that you have a better idea of what you're good at and what you can learn to do better. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Good luck, and happy editing! --
'''Oppose''' You have made sterling contributions to the project since you started several months ago but I don't think that you are ready to be an admin just yet.  You lack contributions the policy space at this time, so I would suggest that you begin to contribute to the XfD discussions for starters.  You can then use these to display a knowledge of [[:WP:POLICY|the policies and guidelines]] that guide admins in their actions, choosing to keep, delete or edit articles according to these.  Showing your knowledge of the backbone of Wikipedia in this manner will be an excellent starter for engaging with other editors on their  talk pages when you have cause to comment on their contributions.  Admins have to be prepared to make and stick to a point based upon policy and there are many editors who enjoy disagreeing with such points because they are passionate about their subjects beyond the point of rationality.  It is not an easy job and can at times become very demanding and all-consuming.  You have to keep both your head and your cool in all circumstances and avoid [[:WP:BITE|biting]] recalcitrant editors at all costs.  You say that you monitor both the new changes and recent changes lists?  That is another really good place for admins to start, so keep up your efforts in those areas too.  I will be prepared to switch my opinion to support when I can see that you display a knowledge of policy and the ability to communicate this to editors who do not know the finer points of Wikipedia in a supportive and co-operative manner.  Regards,
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately not quite ready yet in my opinion - whilst your contributions have been very valuable, I feel that you are not familiar enough (yet) with policy and other processes in Wikipedia, as evidenced by your responses and contributions. Keep up the good work and familiarise yourself with policy, and you will have a better chance in a few months. In the short term, I suggest that you withdraw this nomination and work on some of the suggestions made by (aeropagitica) :). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Oppose''' per the sentiments of the other editors above. Thank you for offering to help Wikipedia as an administrator, but you are not quite ready yet. Please do reapply in a few months when you have more experience. --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I just don't feel like you have enough experience, since you have only been here since April. Come back in a few mounths. I will be happy to support you when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' I am really sorry, because I am sure that in the future, if you persist, you will be a great admin. For the present, all we have to go on in making these recommendations is the evidence, shown in your edits, of your competence and understanding of admin-related tasks. This means essentially that you need to edit in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], which you have done only to a small extent. Spend some time in [[WP:AfD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:CSD]], etc and next time you will be a shoo-in. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' - Neranei has been with Wikipedia for a little over two months (since April 29, 2007). In that short time, Neranei has not gain enought wide-range experiences to deal with being an admin. Please try again in three months (e.g., October 2007 or later). -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose''', sorry. You're doing well and your wikignoming is commendable, but you must gain more overall experience particularly in admin-oriented tasks. By the way (and this is in no way a reason to oppose, just a personal comment), the color combination of your signature somehow hurts my eyes.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', as per above reasons. <font color="Green">'''''Cheers,</font> <font color="Gray"> [[User: JetLover|Je]][[User talk: JetLover|tL]]
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose'''. I think this is an excellent editor who is probably going to make an equally excellent Admin at some point in the future. However, I would really like to see some experience in project space before she gets her mop.
'''Oppose''' but will support in a couple of months.  Needs more experience in project space before she gets the mop...
'''Oppose''' a good editor, but needs some more experience. -
'''Oppose''' I'm going to oppose, Not quite enough experience.
'''Oppose''' I went through your contributions & talk pages, and while I think you are an excellent wiki-gnome editor, I see little evidence that you are familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. I see a lot of spelling fixes, but nothing to indicate your activity in more "involved" areas (AfD, RFA, Admin Noticeboard, etc.) I hope this does not discourage you from editing at Wikipedia. --
'''Neutral''' - I'm neutral for a number of reasons. One, there are several verbal clues that indicate lack of experience with the project, which is why I'm reluctant to give him the mop. While adminship is no big deal, I feel this user lacks some experience in the project. I just don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing.
I love wikignomes (I'm one myself). However, you just don't show enough participation in the project itself for me to feel that you've got a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies. I'd love to give you advice, but I feel that (aeropagitica) has already given you a wealth of information; follow that advice and I have little doubt that, in a few months, you could breeze right through your RfA. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
I could easily Oppose, but that would be your basic pile-on, since everything has pretty much been said. Wikignomes are always valuable to the project, but, like most of the other !voters I think that you need to get a better understanding of policy. Get involved in XfDs, etc, etc. --
'''Neutral''' I too could easily oppose and I do not want to pile-on the opposition comments. Try again after three months and you will have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I think you are well on your way, but just take the time and edit for awhile, and you'll pass next time around.
[[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral'''. Per Cool Blue. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Neutral''': based on what we've seen from you so far, all indicators are that you would be a fine admin. At this point, however, your experience level isn't quite enough for me to roll into the "Support" category. But keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to put forward another RFA in the future should this one fail. --
'''Neutral'''. You're not quite ready yet, but if you use the next 3 moths or so to develop into an even greater wikipedian, you'll pass here no problem.
'''Neutral''' You do show what is required to be an admin. I think it's better if you to hold on for a few months longer to get used to the community. Good luck on your next RfA
'''Moral support''' - <s>I'm afraid you've been a Wikipedian for less than a month while most admins have been on for over 6 months.</s> I recommend that you get [[WP:ADOPT|adopted by an experienced contributer]] as your adopter could help you work your way towards adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Casting this under opposed merely because I don't think moral support belongs under the support header. It's good to see someone dive into vandal fighting with such earnest after being with the project for so brief a time, but I don't think you're ready yet. Seek adoption, increase your use of [[WP:Summary|summaries]], familiarize yourself with [[WP:PREP|policy]], and come back with a little more time to settle in. With all that said, if you chose not to withdraw your nomination early, you should [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NHRHS2010&action=edit&section=1 accept it] immediately. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
'''Support''', Hey, I'd be a pretty bad nom if I didn't! <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,
'''Support''' From my interactions with him, I know he is a good editor and can be trusted with the tools. --
'''Support''' - Even though I never interacted with this user, I don't think this user will cause trouble with the mop. ''Adminship is not a big deal''. --
'''Support''' A good user. The fact that he's a vandal fighter seems to have created many opposes--
'''Support''' A very good editor. Reverting vandalism is very important.
'''Moral support''' for the candidate's good attitude shown above and a clear desire to help the project.  Should consider withdrawing from consideration for the time being in order to gain some broader experience, but certainly keep up the good work and the attitude :)
'''Oppose'''- per lack of real mainspace contributions. Almost all edits to the mainspace are vandalism reverts. I also see no participation at talk pages, which leads me to think that the user's not interested in collaborating with others to help build the encyclopedia. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' per Boricua and Wikihermit, fighting vandalism is not building the encyclopedia, it's merely cleaning up trash. It's still the same that it was before the vandalism.
'''Strong Oppose''' Fewer than 100 edits to talk pages, and almost all of them seem to be vandalism reverts? How is an editor that doesn't even collaborate supposed to be able to deal with conflict, outside of edits like Wikihermit's example? Your English seems fairly poor, and combined with the above this leaves me very concerned about your ability to communicate with other editors, and could lead to misunderstandings in a dispute or other situation. In addition, your user page seems to be a bit [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE|blaggy]], not to mention your userspace smells like [[WP:BEANS|beans]] all around. Your edits are appreciated, but Wikipedia is a community, we work together, and I don't see anything like that from you. Reverting vandalism is important, but showing you know how to interact well with other editors, even when you disagree with them, is far more so. ''Changed to strong'': I read Q3 again, I'd skimmed it the first time, but he seems to seriously think that ''Edit Conflicts'' are the same things as ''Conflicts over editing'', I'm not sure if this is a very inappropriate and poorly worded joke, or if he seriously thinks that's what Q3 is about, but such a serious misunderstanding makes me think they are absolutely not able to hold a mop reliably. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose''' per the relative paucity of non-vandal-fighting experience.  There is much more to being an admin than perorming this function.  Your September 19th deadline set in your first RfA is also still to come.
'''Oppose''' — Boricuaeddie sums it up perfectly.
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Adminship is no big deal, RFA is even less of big deal. Candidate is taking this a little too seriously for my taste (BTW, Jaranda had 7 RfAs before getting the mop, so I wouldn't worry).
'''Oppose''' per comments here and my limited interaction with this user through his recent BRFA. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
I don't think you are ready for the unpleasantness that being an administrator entails. I'm also concerned at the intense desire to become an administrator which I don't think is helpful. I would strongly suggest withdrawing for the time being and not setting any arbitrary time limits or scales on future nominations.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of encyclopedia-building experience. Candidate has potential to eventually become an admin; I'd recommend focusing on substantial contributions to some articles.
'''Neutral''' for now. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' Vandal-fighting is your absolute strong point in Wikipedia (which is widely apperciated) but your lack of non-vandal-fighting contributions need serious consideration. You show most knowledge of policy which is great for RfA. Come back in 3 months times when you rack up some non-vandal fighting edits and I'm sure you'll get my support then.--<font color="red">
'''Neutral''' Vandal fighting is ''vital'' to the long term health of this work. If we never created or expanded another article Wikipedia would be valuable for years, but if no-one kept the assaults on this work at bay it would be useless within weeks. Your incredible throughput at [[WP:AIV]] is, to me, more valuable at keeping this place up together for the readership (the '''most important''' thing around here IMHO) than churning out thirty stub articles. '''However''' consensus has been that at least some solid article writing is important to demonsatrate an understanding of the bigger picture, and you just haven't got that. In addition I have a concern about interaction, and that you answers to the Q's do demonstrate a less than ideal grasp of English. I'm sorry, but admins will be required to interact more than just slapping a vandal warning on to a user talk page and I really can't see evidence of how you would deal with interaction beyond this. I'm sorry, and once again thank you for performing the essential but unglamorous work you do. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Of course! I am the nominator. Good luck.--
'''Strong Support'''Excellent vandal fighter.--
I think it's about time. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
I've seen the youtube video, and if I'm being honest, I found it quite funny. I trust NHRHS2010 not to abuse the tools. He's a nice guy and I'm sure he'll be fine.
<font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' I'm not convinced by the oppose arguments. It would have been safer/wiser to have waited a while after the last one. Unless someone can show me more convincing reasons to oppose, he otherwise has been here long enough and has sufficient edits that I feel comfortable.
'''Support''' Some mainspace contribs besides vandalism, mostly updating People name boxes, but it is still contributing.
Gross [[WP:DENY]] violations.&nbsp;&mdash;
Strong oppose per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NHRHS2010 2]] (from barely two months ago), and the perception that this candidate has insufficient judgement and lacks sufficient maturity to be a decent administrator. '''
'''Strong oppose''' — you have not addressed ''any'' of the concerns from your last RfA, which was barely 2 months ago, as Daniel mentioned. Nothing has changed about you, IMO, except that you have a higher edit count. Ignoring others' constructive criticism and requesting adminship once again without addressing previous concerns seems like you have a problem with listening to others. That's a pretty bad quality for an admin candidate. Also, I see nothing in your contribs that you have knowledge of our deletion policies and that you know to collaborate with others to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, as most of your talk space edits are slapping templates to vandals. Finally, I sense that you have a deep hatred towards vandals; that's very unhealthy. Vandals are humans, too, and deserve the same respect as anyone else. Just because they don't know how to respect other people's work, doesn't mean that they are less human than you or any one of us. I feel that you would be too trigger-happy and will block a user who probably just doesn't know how things work around here without thinking it twice, instead of educating and instructing. Today's vandal or troll could be tomorrow's Raul654. If you do not make an effort to help make this true, you're hurting the encyclopedia, and would do more bad than good if given the mop. Sorry. --'''
Very rare (for me) '''Oppose'''. Serious concerns with how thin-skinned this editor seems to be, as well as with concerns raised by Daniel and Agueybana.
'''Strong oppose'''. The evidence presented by Daniel makes it clear to me that this user is not ready to be an admin. I also am troubled with this coming so quickly after the last RfA, especially considering that the issues of the last RfA have not been addressed. While this user has a number of mainspace edits, I would recommend attempting to bring an article to a high level, FA quality if at all possible. As it stands, I do not believe significant knowledge of policy has been exhibited. Similarly, I do not feel as though this user has demonstrated the comprehensive sense of deletion quality to be an admin. I also agree with Agüeybaná that the user's attitude towards vandals is inappropriate. While I appreciate what has been done in terms of vandal fighting and thank you for your efforts in helping the project, I do not feel as though I can trust this user with the tools at this time.
'''Oppose''' You did vandal fighting which is good, but are you only doing vandal fighting? Think about it. Try to lighten up a little and build the encyclopedia directly (spelling corrections, referencing, maintainence etc.) ALso I'm concern via [[WP:DENY|DENY]] issues via this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4.130.132.149&diff=prev&oldid=169740665 diff]. You didn't address the criticism on your last RfA, which is not good at all. Good luck working on that. <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Wow that diff presented above by PrestonH sealed that one pretty easily for me.
'''Oppose''' I'm now withdrawing this RfA. I'm hurt. I'll come back when an administrator nominates me.
I'm not on his favorite admins list.
'''Neutral''' I know this user to be good, but I can't help but ignore Daniel and Eddie's concerns, and the concerns raised during your 2nd RfA (which I ironically nominated you for). As of now, I could sway to support or oppose, but I can't decide now. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' Firstly, you only have an edit count of 55. Secondly, I am not at all impressed by your answers to the questions above. Thirdly, you have no sysop noticeboard experience. In conclusion, I believe that this RfA should be withdrawn. Regards,
Pretty much all your edits have been this month. '''Oppose''', keep improving and doing what you're doing, try applying again in 4 months.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. I think what you have done is good, but I think it would be good to wait several months. Meanwhile, I suggest continuing as you are right now by doing a good job. ···
'''Oppose'''. Nima is certainly an enthusiastic contributor, but I see no XfD or other Wikispace involvement, very little interaction with other users and an admitted lack of experience with conflict resolution. A good enough editor, to be sure, but no need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' Please, I encourage you to read up on [[Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines]]. Also, I encourage you to view recent RfA's, especially the unsuccesful ones. They really tell you a lot about how RfAs operate. Thanks.
'''Oppose'''.Come back in six months, and after doing some of the same good work and contributing to the Wikipedia name space, come back if you still want to help as an admin.
'''Oppose''' I believe you are on the right track but still lack some of the needed experience for sysop tools (such as dealing with copyright issues, the deletion process, page protection, enacting necessary blocks, etc.)  Get involved in some Wiki-space and contribute to more [[WP:XFD|XfD discussions]].  Come back within 3-4 months and attempt another run.
'''Strong oppose''' - The user hasn't made a single manual edit summary. Come back in about 6 months. Also, a b'crat might want to speedy close this to avoid an ugly pile-on.
'''Oppose''' more experience required I think, do some XFD work, get more involved with other editors, and try again!
'''Oppose''' No experience in admin-related tasks such as vandal fighting/warnings and XfD/policy discussions.  Work hard at these for ~6 months before reapplying. Withdrawal from this RfA is suggested at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Persian Poet Gal.
'''Oppose''' You seem to have the majority of your edits in the past month and not much admin-like tasks.  If you get more experience in vandal fighting, policy, and spread out your edits over the next few months you will have my support then. '''''
'''Oppose For Now''' I like your dedication to Wikipedia this month, however previous months fail to show the same enthusiasm.  Come back after a few more 1000-edit months and I think you'll find yourself holding a mop. '''

'''Neutral'''. You are definitely enthusiastic, but there's not enough experience in Wikipedian functions. You should also use edit summaries. '''''
'''Neutral''' I like your enthusiasm, but you need more experience in Wikipedia's norms.--
'''Neutral''' You're not doing anything wrong, so if you up your contributing rate, get more involved in admin-like activities, and reapply in a few months, everything should go well :) In the meantime, you should probably withdraw, as it's unlikely you'll get very many supporters at this point in time. All the best, <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. Suggest quick withdrawl, as the nomination wasn't even done correctly. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support''': Looks good! No red flags and adminship is no big deal. :O '''
'''Support''' This is just terrible, that people cannot trust you because you don't know the RfA procedure like the back of your hand! Edit summaries are nice, but they aren't policy. Good luck, I hope you pass, and don't take the opposes too personally :) '''''
'''Weak Support'''. Although the candidate has a very impressive editcount in mainspace, I'm slightly unconvinced that this user has enough projectspace experience to indicate a full understanding of policy. This would be a valid reason to oppose, but I think someone with such a good mainspace count deserves the benefit of the doubt. Other concerns (e.g. edit summaries) are trivial. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support'''. Not the strongest candidate ever, but meets [[User:^demon/RFA Criteria|my criteria]] <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Strong Support''' - Whatever [[User talk:Majorly|Majorly]] said..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Oppose''' Doesn't use edit summaries, was unable to get their own nomination right, and doesn't have much involvement in project space. Sorry. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC) And 2 recent blocks. --
'''Oppose''' I fully agree with YechielMan, your edit summary usage is very bad, you have simply copy and pasted everything in your first RfA into this one, you still cant seem to get the progress right as the top is malformed, however good edit count but I dont trust you with the tools, Creating userboxes etc seems irrelevant to an RfA to me personally, you could be an administrator in the future just wait about 3-4 months and make improvements, Thanks - <b>
Malformed RFA and recent blocks.
'''Oppose''' Well-meaning candidate, but far too inexperienced in project-space at this time.
'''Oppose''' Candidate's heart may be in the right place but two week-old blocks for revert warring makes it hard to fully trust the user. The concerns about the malformed RfA and edit summaries are minor but they also indicate a certain lack of rigour.
'''Oppose''' - Concerned about very recent blocks for [[WP:3RR]] violations and the low edit summary usage which doesn't help other editors.
'''Oppose''' Two blocks for 3RR in the past '''week''' indicate that this user does not fully understand how to communicate with fellow users at this time. The very low edit summary use is also of concern. Recommend the candidate withdraw their nomination for now to prevent pile-on of opposes. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''.  The lack of edit summary usage gives me a little pause.  The two very recent blocks for edit warring give me a great deal of pause.  Take some time and come back; show through your contributions that you learned from your blocks, and have found other ways to work through conflicts rather than reverting. --
'''Oppose'''. I care less about edit warring blocks than other types, because edit warring, while bad, is not as bad as other things. But that means that I'll overlook a 3RR block from two months ago if you have an otherwise good record. Nothing can convince me to overlook two blocks in a week. -
'''Oppose''' An admin candidate needs to show not only compliance with policy but a tendency to work through conflicts and prevent them from escalating. The job is to defuse conflict; an admin's tools if used well can help this but if misused can make things much worse. No doubt the candidate will be able to demonstrate improvement in this area in the future, but not now. --
'''Oppose''' everything from the lack of edit summary usage to the nomination problems indicates the candidate need more familiarity with Wikipedia's norms.--
'''Oppose''' Just seems a bit too aggressive towards fellow users at time (edit wars), and the lack of edit summaries just rubs me the wrong way.
'''Oppose'''-two recent blocks for ignorance of a WP policy twice in one week is unacceptable. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''No''' per recent policy violations. Ignorance is one thing, but there's no way the second block can be anything other than wilful disregard for policy. Requesting admin tools so soon sets alarm bells ringing too, will the tools be used in accordance with policy or are they intended to help with this users recent edit warring tendency. The good news is that I don't see anything that a few months of editing can't fix. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' There are too many problems. Low edit summaries, low Wikipedia edits, and breaking of policy are all serious things to not see in adminstrators.
'''Oppose''' Three days ago you were blocked for breaking [[WP:3RR]] for a ''second'' time. Your recent edit to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ABarbara_Walters_1.jpg&diff=126247060&oldid=126218334 this image of Barbara Walters] show you don't understand our [[WP:FU|fair use policy]]. You were also editing your first RfA today, even though it is clearly marked as closed.
'''Oppose''' Concerns over the recent 3RR blocks, and the problems you had discussing with other users at [[Topics in ufology]]. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
I am concerned about the number of nonfree images uploaded by this editor which have been subsequently deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per recent blockings. —
'''Oppose''', low edit summary usage, per recent blockings with 3RR, low edit count.
'''Oppose''' - too many issues for me, sorry. The 3RR recent blocks really don't help -
'''Oppose''': User has been blocked recently for 3RR. Perhaps user needs more familiarity  of the policies? <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' It bothers me that (1) the candidate botched the nomination format (thanks to [[User:Black Falcon]] for fixing it), and (2) the candidate's edit summary usage for major edits is only 11%.  I will not formally oppose for reasons like this, but I do not trust the candidate with administrative tools.
'''Neutral''' for now. The RfA formatting issue doesn't bother me, but the low edit summary usage does. I will remain neutral for now until I have a chance to review the candidate's contribution history. -- '''
'''Neutral''' 7000 Mainspace edits and 11000 total edits[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Nima+Baghaei&site=en.wikipedia.org] but, two 3RR violations reported :-( [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nima_Baghaei] --
'''Neutral''' Not wild about the 3RR blocks in such recent history.  Everyone makes a mistake, but this is a bit too fresh. -
'''Neutral''' due to recent edit warring (and the blocks related to it). I also think edit summaries are important, and recommend that Nima Baghaei change his preferences so he receives a reminder to fill in the edit summary. It works like a charm. I would likely support in a few months if these issues were addressed by then. ···
'''Neutral''' too many red flags for me to support. If these issues are addressed and you return in another RfA a few months later, I might support. —
'''Neutral''' - and '''moral support'''.  You'll make a great admin someday soon, and your peers here at RfA just want to see you demonstrate that first.  Complete your edit summaries and engage in administrative duties (there are many administrative chores that non-admin editors can do) for a couple months or so, and then return here.  Good luck.  ;)  '''''
You don't have nearly enough edits for me to gauge whether you'd make a good administrator or not. With only 36 edits, it would seem likely that you don't have enough experience to avoid mistakes in using admin tools. Your nomination statement and answers to the questions are also quite short and don't make it clear why giving you admin powers would be a good idea. There's plenty of administrative things you can do without admin powers. Sorry for this time, with any luck, you'll be able to pass in a few months if you spend the time making constructive edits and demonstrating your knowledge of policy. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 13:33, 17 May 2007 (
'''Oppose''' per the total of seven edits in the mainspace and 36 edits total. Suggest a 'crat remove this thing before the pile-ons come on in. Sorry Nimrauko, but we just don't have enough material from you to make a judgement about your capabilities as an admin. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experiance. --
'''Oppose''' - didn't even read/follow the instructions for how to post this RfA (as I post this, the editor still hasn't "accepted", which is clearly supposed to be done before transcluding). If Nimrauko can't handle this task, how am I supposed to have confidence that he/she will handle the other admin tasks?
'''Oppose''', user is not ready for this I'm afraid.
'''Moral Support''' - your edits to-date look fine but I don't have enough here to determine how you'd hold up as an administrator. Get some more edits under your belt, maybe get involved in Wikipedia: space and come back in a while. -
'''Moral Support''' - per Allison and Ryan.
<s>'''Strong Oppose, suggest withdrawal''' - Editor has less than 50 contributions to Wikipedia. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but you haven't got enough experience yet. Users need to be here actively editing for around 3 months and have around 3,000 edits before they run for adminship - this is to show the community can trust them. I think your doing a really good job however, so keep it up :-)
<s>'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose'''.  Your desire to fight [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]] is commendable, and you do not need to be an admin to fight it.  Adminship is generally reserved for experienced users who have gained the trust of the community.  Be patient, enjoy yourself, enjoy Wikipedia, and the rest will take care of itself.  '''''
'''Oppose'''. This user is off to a great start and I'm impressed by his creation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxygen_Enhancement_Ratio&diff=128039281&oldid=128038879 Oxygen enhancement ratio]. Nevertheless, my admin standards are fairly harsh: I generally want to see a minimum one-year of experience, 5,000 quality edits and broad knowledge of wikipedia policy. That means if this user can make an additional 4,883 edits, learn wikipedia policy and resubmit this application in 364 days, I might be inclined to support on the next round. --
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but I have to oppose you because you have not been here long enough to prove yourself. I suggest that you wait 5 months before you run again. During those 5 months fight vandalism, edit articles and vote in [[WP:Xfd|Xfd's]]. Peace:)--
'''Oppose''' You've JUST joined Wikipedia.  Wait a few months, get acquainted, figure it all out, then see if you even want to be an admin.  Try back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' You have only 20 edits on wikipedia. You need to have enough experience, especially in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], for it to be obvious to editors that you know what you are doing in admin areas. This is, I am afraid, at present not the case.--
You don't need admin tools to do what you described, and more importantly, you're very short on experience. But keep up the good work. I hope you like it here on Wikipedia.
Adminship is [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal| no big deal as per Jimbo Wales]] but experienced is what is needed to be a good Admin..Sorry..Maybe in 6 months..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral''' Seventeen edits doesn't form a sufficient basis to determine your efficacy as an admin.  Try getting involved in admin-related activities such as new page/recent change patrols; vandal warning and reverting vandalism.  Do this and come back again in a years' time.
'''Moral Support''' It's clear that you're getting there. You will want to heed the advice of the opposers below. Also, try to become familiar with policy. Participating in [[WP:XFD|XfD discussions]] is a great way to do this. Otherwise, keep up the good editing! '''''
Wish you had more [[edit summaries]]. Sorry, more experience required. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. Soory, but out of 2593 edits, you only have five to article talk pages, thus leading me to believe that you do not discuss articles, which is good for discussing improvements in cases of revamps. The poor edit summary usage is also a worry. You're on the right track, however.
'''Weak Oppose''' - you're on the right track, but your insufficient answers to the questions doesn't inspire me with confidence that you know all the policies you should do when you're an admin. &mdash;
'''oppose''' the essays are people's first impression of many candidates.  Your's leaves me completely uninspired.
'''Oppose'''. Discussion is an important thing for me, as are edit summaries. Not quite ready yet.
'''Oppose'''. I think you're not quite ready yet, but keep up the good work. --
'''Oppose'''. While the total number of edits is not a problem (I don't subscribe to any particular minimum limit) the recent distribution is a bit odd: July 146 edits, August-November inclusive 6 edits, December (already!) 286 edits. If I have read this right it does not yet speak of a steady commitment which I'd like to see in an admin.
I'm sorry, but I see no evidence of the dedication I expect to see in an RfA candidate. Not even editing in the past couple of months is one of the nails in that particular coffin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' for now. You have around 200 edits between the two accounts, which is nowhere near enough for the community to judge whether you should be trusted with administrator's rights. I suggest reading through recent successful and unsuccessful RfAs to see what various candidates have by way of expirience. Also, ensure that you use edit summaries in your edits. You can adjust your preferences to prompt you for that. --
'''Oppose''' not enough experience. -
'''Oppose''' (sorry!) You only have 7 talk posts between the two accounts - I can't support someone who hasn't demonstrated they understand policy by discussing it<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' Between the two accounts, you have around 200, but on this account you have 166, with 50 mainspace contribs. You also do not use edit summary enough, which is big when it comes to RFA's. Basicly, it's lack of experience. Get more experience, and try again in a few months. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Oppose''' please see others comment on improvement before your next RFA, which I hope will be a successful one.
'''Oppose''' - I don't see why this user needs the tools. --
'''Oppose''' You need more experience.
'''Strong Support''' - I have encountered this user more than once (particularly in the POV-pushing on Runescape and Maplestory mentioned above), and I would be very happy if he gained access to the tools.  Responsible, hard-working and frankly, no reason not to!
'''Support''', per {{user|Wizardman}}'s great nom.  Two featured portals is indeed an impressive feat.   Good luck to you.
'''Support''' - impressive achievements, active user. Now you're thinking with portals. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Woo''']][[User:Wooty/ENC|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|['''Woot?''']]]&nbsp;
My one edit for today. '''Support''' as nom.
Certainly. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''', no concerns.  You do realise you don't need to be an admin to list / delist portals, though, right?

'''Support'''.  Everyone will find the admin tools handy at some point, even if blocking and deletion will not be a focus.  I trust this user.--
'''Support'''. A strong candidate who could use the tools to support article-building project work.
I couldn't possibly oppose a ''Wizardman'' nomination.
'''Support'''.  Not a perfect candidate, but no problems or concerns.  Has done a sufficient number and variety of edits, as well as vandal-fighting.  We need more admins who can translate, who can work on Canadian articles, and who can create templates (see {{tlu|User:OhanaUnited/Userboxes/Protect Environment}}), so he fits the bill.
'''Support''' Knowledgeable and trustworthy.
'''Support''' - sensible editor and featured portal work.
'''Support.'''
'''Suport''' - is a good editor, and has very good edits in the portal and article namespace.
'''Support''' Thanks for taking the time to field my questions. I think you fall under the category of someone who would not use the tools with great frequency, so I just wanted to make sure you had an understanding of process. In addition to scanning your contributions, I followed the string on your talk page and Wizardman's talk page regarding your preparations to complete this RfA, and you appear to be a pretty thoughtful person, who I seriously doubt would abuse any extra abilities. Best of luck!
'''Support'''.—
'''Support''' because [[UofT]] is the place to be...Go UT, Go UT, Go....Go UT, Go UT, Go...woot [[Image:SMirC-tongue.svg|20px]] ...but seriously, a good editor and I would definitely give OhanaUnited the tools.
'''Support''' - I've worked beside Ohana in the GA project for some time now. I trust him not to abuse the tools. Should make a fine admin. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Everything I have seen from Ohana is great. As far as I know, there are absolutely no things that would be worth opposing over.
'''Support''' I have had something of a heated discussion with Ohana in the past related to the delisting of [[Victoria Cross (Canada)]] as a GA. Ohana remained cool throughout and the discussion was very constructive in the end, with the VC for Canada article now an FA. At the time i had reservations regarding Ohana's communication skills and his lack of following due process. Yet i really do think that these have been adressed and that the whole incident was actually very constructive. I think he has the requisite skills to be an admin and so i support his nomination.
'''Support'''. Great work in the GA project. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' Good user, No reason to oppose.
'''Strong support''' - good work at GAC shows that he understands how to analyse NPOV, RS, V, WEASEL, PEACOCK and so forth. '''
'''Support''' per multiple reasons already listed. '''
'''Support''' per all the reasons above. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Discussion under Oppose isn't convincing, and I am convinced that Ohana will use the tools well. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support'''. my interactions with this user have been strong and I am confident that Ohana will use the tools correctly.
'''Support''' - don't really agree with those who oppose.  User seems well qualified.
'''Support''' User is well qualified and very trustworthy. Generally a good Wikipedian -
A very good Wikipedian indeed. '''
'''Support''' Another solid contributor, we need more editors like you!
'''Support'''. One of the most sensible and level-headed users at MfD and elsewhere. Oppose votes are highly unconvincing.
'''Support''' Good 'pedia infrastructure development. cheers,
'''Support''' I've gone back and forth through the opposes below, from respected members of the community, but I really don't see them having sufficent weight to balance the excllent and diverse contribution levels from this candidate. I don't see any issues here, and I'm happy to give my support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support''': Can't see any good reason to oppose, after all, this is for a position of janitor not CEO of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - good answers to my questions. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support'''--
No reason to oppose.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' I saw an oppose vote below about a nonstandard interpretation of IAR, but I don't think that has much practical significance.  I've seen OhanaUnited at Editor review, and I think he's an experienced editor who can be trusted with +sysop.
'''Weak support''' I had to think for a while to decide whether to support or go neutral, and in the end I decided that Ohana should deserve the benefit of the doubt despite the shaky ground here. Some of the concerns below are certainly valid, but they probably wouldn't interfere much with Ohana's performance with the admin tools. Besides, user is trustworthy. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''': '''1'''. Clear need for the tools -- stepping forward to fill a vacuum in the ongoing management of the protected [[Wikipedia:Featured portals]] page. '''2'''. 1000 mainspace edits is more than offset by his making large, high quality edits. From his work on featured portals and Good Article development and review, he clear knows encyclopedia development better than many candidates with 5000 mainspace edits. '''3'''. I respectfully disagree with many of the oppose comments. Ohana's stumbling on [[WP:IAR]] doesn't worry me -- it's a slippery policy to tangibly define beyond just simply parroting the [[WP:IAR|one sentence policy]] itself; Ohana clearly seems to have the requisite common sense it calls for using. As for poor answers on the "block vs. ban" question, I think even many admins are confused especially since indefinite blocks can evolve into bans per [[WP:INDEF]]. Finally, mixing up whether [[WP:BOLD]] is a policy or guideline is not a showstopper for me; I trust Ohana will not block anyone for their Failure To Be Bold. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support''' - seems reasonable and sensible. I don't think they'll go crazy.
'''Support''' Per Wizardman. 'Nuff said.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - yeah, you need to brush up on Q5, but I can see what you mean, and it's not exactly the easiest question I've ever seen in an RFA. No causes for concern, civil, good policy understanding with no faults that can't be fixed with experience (block/ban can be tricky at times, but I feel he understands it). Demonstrated ability to collaborate and resolve disputes.
'''Support''' Though there are some weaknesses, should be able to wield the tools effectively in the area for which he requested them. We cannot all be major article builders, and that need not be a prerequisite for the mop.
'''Support'''As Dlohcierekim said, there are a few weaknesses, but looks overall to be a good editor.  --
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient content-building experience. only 25% of ~4000 edits are in the main space. Too early to entrust the power to judge other contributors. `'
'''Oppose'''. Undoubtedly a good editor, and I've had good experiences with him before, but per his answer to question 5 he doesn't seem to understand things like the difference between a policy and a guideline. Particularly given the apparent fuzziness on policy, I'd rather not see him go looking for socks and doling out blocks without a second opinion, something he seems likely to do per question 4. And I give a bit of a pass to any conflicts that nominees here show us openly, but it is really not ever necessary to argue with anyone about barnstar eligibility. Even if the other editor was wrong per the way the barnstar descriptions were written, what was the harm in letting him have the barnstars, especially if it would encourage further participation?
'''weak oppose''' Nominee seems to be a decent sort, but only 1000 edits in main space, and many recent ones are minor cleanup or vandal-reversion (randomly checked). I don't see a need for the tools, nor do I have sufficient confidence that nominee will not abuse the tools. Perhaps in a few month I'll think otherwise. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' - I was seriously going to support as all my encounters with you have been extremely pleasant, but reading your answers to the questions all I can say is "WTF?" Q5's answer makes no sense whatsoever! Q1 show's no need for the tools (This shows that the editor may not even know what admins really do) and the answer to Mongo's question is worrysome as well. I don't feel the candidate has sufficiant skills or knowledge of the area to be a helpful admin - sure he would abuse the tools, but he is almost ceratinly going to make mistakes and stuff up his adminship duties because I feel he hasn't the faintest idea of what it entails. Also, his edits to the Wikipedia namespace only confirm this (His highest edit level is talk?! Nearly half go to this venture). as well as accepting this nom whilst saying he'll be doing exams etc, I don't feel he's ready yet. Sorry man, but oppose for now. Cheers,
Oppose per Q5 (IAR) answer.&nbsp;&mdash;
I'm not really sure this user knows what being an administrator is. Q1 doesn't actually mention the use of admin tools. (Also, Q5 is somewhat awkward.) --
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions fail to demonstrate competence, appear to demonstrate severe confusion.  I'm concerned also about the user's ability to communicate, as the answer to Q.5 does border on nonsense.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry; your own admin coach went neutral on you. --
'''oppose''' Did not say what they were using admin tools for (blocking, deleting, etc)
'''Oppose'''. I normally think that "doesn't show need for the tools" is a frivolous reason to oppose, but this user can't articulate any need or even understanding of the tools. It might just be poor communication. In that case I think Xoloz's observation applies.
'''Oppose''', per my comments in the neutral section, and concerns regarding his own admin coach being "neutral" at this RfA. This is the first time I've ever switched from an initial support to an oppose, and it was not done lightly.
'''Oppose''' per Fang Aili below.  It doesn't help that your own admin coach is neutral.  :(  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''.  Your answer to question 9 was very weak.  Review policy for a while, and come back ready for questions.  Best of luck anyway - '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
Reluctant '''oppose'''. Is a good editor and a valued contributor, but the answers to the questions (especially Q7 and Q9) seem to reveal an unclear understanding of policies and administrator tasks. As featured portal director though, I would enthusiastically support! <strong>
'''Oppose'''.  Maturity concerns, and I remind you that adminship is not a trophy.  Comments such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Biography%2FAssessment%2FAssessment_Drive%2FSummer_2007&diff=138102177&oldid=138068451 this] one -- yes, I too remember that horror on the "assessment drive", where people completely ignorant of topics were insisting that it was somehow ''acceptable'' to assess articles "start" "stub" -- with ''bots'' no less.  Opus has been a valued contributor here, and a prolific article writer, for one quarter of your ''life'', and you vow to "oppose him strongly" should he ever dare to run for adminship, because he dared to oppose that odious tagging project.  No, no, I'm sorry, I can never support for adminship anyone with this attitude.
'''Oppose''' Has not demonstrated a good understanding of policy and process.
'''Oppose''' Per your answer to questions 7 and 9.  I'm not sure if you understand protection policy, and you should read [[WP:CDB]].  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
Must '''oppose''' at this time, question 9, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=167449620 this] diff are most unsettling to me, knowledge of guidelines and policies at al.
'''Oppose''' essentially as Xoloz and Cool Hand Luke.  Even as I do not expect that the Ohana should abuse the tools, and even as I recognize that he is possessed generally of a civil demeanor and sound judgment, I am not certain that he knows, relative to policy, whereof he does not know (his answers, unfortunately, are not particularly allaying), such that he might inadvertently misuse the tools, or that he is optimally capable of communicating with other editors whom he might encounter qua admin; I cannot, then, conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]], and I must&mdash;albeit with much regret, since the candidate is, by all accounts, a fine Wikipedian&mdash;oppose.
'''Weak oppose''' Some pretty serious issues brought up by others, and the answers to the questions are pretty unsatisfactory.
Per Xoloz. The answers don't inspire confidence.--
'''Neutral'''. Can't see how admin tools are necessary here. I have no objections to any alleged lack of encyclopedia-writing experience.
'''Neutral'''. Ohana has clearly done a lot of great work here, but I'm not convinced he has a firm understanding of policy or what admins do. A few days ago he incorrectly described the difference between a block and a ban [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&diff=prev&oldid=167449620], even though this is something that Firsfron clearly explained during his admin coaching ([[User:OhanaUnited/Admin_coaching#Policy_discussion]]). This might just be a difficulty with the English language, but Ohana also seems to think that he needs to be an admin to promote portals, lists, and such, which is not the case. In my mind this adds up to an unclear understanding of the admin role. Please try again in a few months. I would love to support but cannot at this time. --
'''Neutral''' Fang Aili pretty much summed up what I wanted to say in one. Where I can see that you are a strong and experienced editor, there are some concerns that I can't overlook. For instance, I would be wary of promoting until I am sure that the candidate has a sure understanding of admin policy, and when admin can use their tools or not. I'd love to support you in a few months time. Keep up your good work though. Cheers- '''
'''Neutral''' per Fang Aili. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Neutral''' No solid reason to object, but no solid reason to support either. With regards to not understandingly fully the roles of an admin, he would need some time to sort it all out. Enthusiasm being visibly strong can be a double-edged sword; thus, I stand neutral.
'''Neutral''' (leaning towards oppose) I almost never oppose good editors but the answers to q5 and q7 worry me. The answers seem to avoid answering the question at hand and is confusing to read. --
Though no one of the concerns brought up by the people who are opposing you are good enough for me to vote neutral on you, all of them together cause enough concern for me not to support. Sorry:(--
'''Weak support''' User's been around since May, but editing has only recently picked up some. This leads me to wonder if the user is as familiar with Wikipedia policies as the an admin needs to be.  However, looking at their talk page and talk page archives, as well as some of their contributions makes me think that this is the sort of user who does mainly stuff that admin tools would be useful for.  The user seems sensible and level-headed and willing to learn from mistakes.  I'm willing to go out on a limb here. (But I bet I'll be the only one (post-edit conflict:I guess not!))~ ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' yeah sadly this RFA is going to fail. And I urge you to withdraw as you really don't have a chance. However I will say this, when I look at a candidate for adminship and I say "do I trust this user with the extra tools" my answer to this candidate is yes. The answer to Q1 was actually good for me. I just think that you will need more time and more edits in the project space to pass a RFA. Good luck! ~
'''Oppose''' - You're not very active, you have few contributions and you've come here today to submit an RfA, your last edit was the 29th.. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
Just over 400 mainspace edits, compared to 600+ on user talk pages. I think the former is too low, and the ratio of the two figures strikes me as very odd. I'd like to see you (or any candidate, for that matter) spend more time editing articles before getting the mop. |
'''Oppose''' per above, not active enough in the community tbh, and your editing ratio is a little odd. I think for a self-nom you could have put more effort into it, especially answer to questions 2 and 3. '''
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and MrDarcy.↔
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you'll need a lot more experience and higher activity to succeed in an RfA. Unconvincing answers. Sorry. -
'''Oppose''' Weak answers - no evidence provided, no diffs to examine; you do lots of vandal patrolling with VandalProof but I can see almost no contributions to the article space itself and zero contributions to the policy areas and XfD discussions. I would withdraw this and look at incorporating constructive edits to the encyclopedia along with your vandal revert contributions.  That would give you something to talk about in question 2 for starters.  You need to me more rounded as an editor before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly <span style="background:crimson">[[User:Kamope|<font color="gold">'''&gt;Kamope&lt;'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Kamope|<font color="yellow">Talk</font>]] '''·'''
'''Oppose''' - No experience in policy or XfD matters.  Minimal mainspace contributions besides vandal fighting.  Looks like a good vandal-whacker but not much other experience. &mdash;
'''Good Faith Support''' Your enthusiasm is inspiring. However, your apparent lack of editing experience is an issue. I suggest that you withdraw from this RFA, as it will not pass. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience yet. This user has been editing since May 2006, which is great, but has not yet done enough work to demonstrate his knowledge of policies and procedures.  Plus no answers to the questions above.  It takes quite a bit of time to gain the trust of the community, it's really rare that an editor gain the admin tools with fewer than 2000 edits. You'll want to withdraw this RFA, and perhaps try an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. I'd also recommend working on [[WP:XFD]] to gain experience in the Wikipedia namespace. You'll probably also want to read over this [[WP:LOP|list of policies]] to make sure you have a good handle on how everything works.  One other thing, most editors highly value the use of edit summaries, myself included, so I'd recommend always using those so other editors can easily see what you're doing.  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Strong oppose''' with only 75 edits, this user needs to get more experience. I will support you once you are a very active editor with lots of experience. Also there is no answers to questions at all.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience here is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sorry. See if you can get [[WP:ADOPT|adopted]] first, that will help you get the experience you need.
'''Oppose''' I do like your warnmachine. However, I suggest that you edit more. I am sure you have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and rules from all your months here, but still, inactivity is a problem. To become more trusted with the community. Dive in.
'''Oppose'''. I can't support as you didn't answer the questions whatsoever, and give no real reason why you need the tools.
'''Oppose''': I don't think a user with under 100 edits can have enough experience to be an administrator. Also, no answers to questions and vague nomination, which shows a lack of interest in this RfA.
Inasmuch as there are no answers and no acceptance of the nomination, it may be that the user dropped it here in an experiment. Perhaps he will come back by and ask that it be removed. -
'''Oppose''' has only made about 2000 edits since he joined.  His spelling in his answers is terrible.  He's a very arrogant self-nominator.  I almost think this is a joke '''
'''Oppose''' obviously. Please withdraw this nomination. It will not succeed, I assure you. --
'''Oppose''' self-evident.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, bad spelling (a pet peeve of mine), and the answers to the questions just did not sit well with me.  I suggest a withdraw to avoid a [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]], and gain experience before trying again.  Good luck though! :)
'''Oppose with Moral Support''' Weak answers and poor spelling and construction. However lets [[WP:AGF|asuume good faith]]. Thank you for your efforts and I hope that you do learn from this RfA and do not feel discouraged by what I suspect will be a long line of opposes. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. You don't need more edits, but you do seriously need to demonstrate more understanding of Wikipedia and a better ability to communicate. For now, I'd suggest withdrawing.
Inability to communicate with any degree of efficiency. Has not demonstrated an ability to show good judgement, and no evidence of dedication to the project and its' fundamental goals. '''
'''Oppose''' Good edit summary usage, you joined in 2006 but did not become active until a few months ago, I think its important for an admin to know how to communicate well with other editors and I stopped counting at 10 typos, the word '''I''' is usually capitalised mid-sentence too. Kindest Regards &mdash; <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Oppose''', per the way your questions were answered. The grammar is quite poor and admins have to communicate with other users. Also, scanning through your contributions, I found nominations for deletion such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julien_Aklei&diff=169440157&oldid=154793271 this]. If you look her up on Google, she has quite a lot of search results, suggesting notability, and if it fails WP:MUSIC, how about trying to fix it? Also nominations for deletion of articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afternoon_Records&diff=prev&oldid=168248619 this], a quite obviously notable label. Many of the pages you nominate for deletion are still here and have had the tag removed. For this reason and my other reason, I will have to oppose. —
'''Oppose''' You have to improve your skills in writing English.  I'm sorry but nobody would take you seriously as an administrator if you wrote in this style regarding any issue at all.
'''Oppose''' Several of the editors who commented on your first RfA were far too harsh, and I apologize to you on the community's behalf for that. Yes, your spelling and grammar are poor, but that is no reason to insult you like they did. That being said, your grasp of the English language seems to be quite poor, and communication is paramount when it comes to admins. Furthermore I don't see any encyclopedia building from you. Nearly all of your mainspace contributions seem to be adding tags, reverting vandalism or nominating for deletion. We're here to build an encyclopedia, bottom line. It's not that your contributions aren't appreciated, but I need to see well-rounded contributions from prospective administrators. Cheers,
'''Oppose''', while you do seem to be trying hard, and your edits are in good faith, you haven't yet fully understood Wikipedia policies. For instance, an article being a stub is NCD (not criteria for deletion). Also, you should consider improving your English as people are more likely to support someone who has a good knowledge of the English language. If you can improve in those areas I'd be more supportive of your RfA, but until then I don't think you're quite ready yet.
'''Oppose''' per issues raised above.  Still not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' - Referring to your answer to question 1, none of what you have stated requires admin tools. So the question remains "why would you need the tools"? --
'''Oppose''' The diff Jackrm has provided lead me to believe that you may misuse the tools. I'm not saying you will abuse them, what I'm saying is that you will accidentally misuse them. You are not ready for adminship. Sorry:(--
Nominate and support.
'''Oppose''' - I find Otto egregious, and sneaky at times. For example: [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_6#Category:Kyle_XY|this CfD]]; Otto removes articles from category, then claiming it only contains characters. Then edit wars to push his POV when somebody (and I) re-add articles back to the primary category. I don't have enough fingers to count how many times he's done this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kyle_XY_episodes&diff=129222575&oldid=129179229][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kyle_XY_episodes&diff=129227980&oldid=129224426] Also lacks knowledge of 3RR (making partial reverts). Also lacks knowledge of our non-free content policies.<sup>[[:Image:Trevglaad.jpg|1]]</sup> Edit: Otto has good intentions, but his actions are often performed wrongly.
'''Strong oppose''' due to serious civility issues. For example on his last block due to 3rr, he made the following edits to his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otto4711&diff=prev&oldid=120572454] with the choice edit summary "fuck admins in their fucking necks because they fucking suck." and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otto4711&diff=prev&oldid=120619789] with an edit summary "especially fuck that [[user:MichaelBillington|billington]] cooze and that [[user:Yamla|yamla]] douchebag plus that [[User:El C|el c]] cock", managing to insult three admins in one go. He has also been extremely incivil to other users such as here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126324727] telling [[user:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] "If your stream of crap helps you make it through the day then more power to you", and called [[User:Mister Jinxy]] a dick in an edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vision_Quest&diff=prev&oldid=130370678] here. When it comes to CFD, Otto4711 shows an unhealthy relish towards deletion as evidenced here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2007_February_15&diff=108460510&oldid=108455666]  with the totally unhelpful comment "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!", and instead of showing any remorse, we are treated to a verbal barrage here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15&diff=prev&oldid=108850611]. In short, Otto is totally unsuitable candidate for administrator due to failure to work with other editors in a civil way, and unlikely to be able to use the admin tools wisely.
'''Absolutely Not'''.  I wish I could support for the every-day contributions, including those to LGBT-related articles, but the responses to conflict like those posted above are simply not acceptable.  Can not handle stress and can not be an administrator.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Oppose''': I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of opposing based on a few diffs, but in this case I feel compelled to do so. Probably the single most important trait for an admin is coolness in the face of heated discussion. You'll face much more provocation as an admin than as a regular user. The recentness and level of incivility in those diffs, and the recent blocks for revert-warring, concern me. You've done good work, and I could see supporting you for adminship in the future if you can stay civil, avoid revert-warring, and demonstrate that those episodes were an aberration. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per Tim!. This user's reaction to a 3RR block is absolutely inexcusable, and his incivility issues will definitely be problematic if he is an administrator. You need to have good communication skills, and this includes being civil and courteous to other users, and not blowing your top. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' in the strongest possible way. Two 3RR violations in the last six months (plus a third block overturned due to [[WP:AGF]]) as well as the patently unacceptable incivility and lack of remorse. User doesn't display even close to the sort of temperment an Admin should have. Cheers,
'''Strong oppose''' per those diffs.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Tim!]]'s diffs, the user's subsequent lack of contrition following his block: "I've served out your 24 hour crap punishment. Unblock me now."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otto4711&diff=120650040&oldid=120649606] ''--
'''Strong Oppose''' <s>Spammed all RFAs yesterday with awkward comments, quite a worrisome behavior. Not to mention all of the above. Sorry, but no. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)<s> per above. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong oppose''' I dont tend to oppose to often but the diffs provided above about your incivility and inability to accept your policy violating actions are a serious worry, I dont think you would know what to do if in a difficult decision and you would insult people other then try to resolve it, I do not think your an admin material, at least not a the current time. Regards &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' Observed arrogant and abusive comments towards User:Johnbod a few days ago,
'''Strong Oppose''' per reasons Tim! stated. --
Are you kidding me? Barely suited to be an editor, not to mention one with access to sysop tools (!).
'''Strong Oppose''' with this worrying incivility and behavior. No way, sorry. —
'''Oppose''' This uncivil as an editor, I shudder to think what he would do when being uncivil as a sysop.  Very sorry, but no.
'''Oppose''' Incivility as an admin just won't do in my opinion. I am not willing to trust this user with the tools, I may [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] if reasons can be given behind the diffs that Tim! provided.
'''Strong oppose''' on civility issues. Otto does some fine work on XfD but his attitude towards people who disagree with him and his habit of claiming superior knowledge of Wikipedia policy are unacceptable. Take for instance this exchange with a user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otto4711&diff=prev&oldid=126266869 complaining] (with some aggression) about some of his CfD nominations. There's absolutely no reason for Otto4711 to reply with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126213289 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126267719 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126326875 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126327329 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126328126 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biruitorul&diff=prev&oldid=126334001 this]. I have no trust whatsoever in Otto's ability to accept disagreement with others and to de-escalate conflicts. I also am concerned that he would try to use his admin status as a tool to steamroll opposition from newbies. I'm not sure what Radiant! was thinking.
'''Oppose''' A sysop who behaves like that would damage the project.--
'''Strong Oppose''' per Tim!. -
'''Strong Oppose'''-Without even looking I know the user has 3 blocks in his log. Oh wait, now there's four. And some are for 3RR, in fact, one just ''last month''. This is unacceptable. I also remember talking with him many times and he has been incivil almost every time. Also, I remember he was once blocked and his unblock request was an incivil command (the diff is above in some else's comment). Lastly, one time when I was arguing with him about something on a page, he just gave up. Admins must not give up just because they don't feel like getting into something. All of these combined lead me to watchlist this page ''before'' it was even created. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small>
'''Neutral'''.  Withholding my above support until some reasonable explanation for the behavior demonstrated in the diffs given by [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] is given.
'''Neutral''' This is a good editor but appears too ready to show the sharp side of their tongue against admins and vandals alike.  I'm not confident that they can keep their temper in check when dealing with the fraught situations in which admins can find themselves.
'''Neutral'''. Adminship is no big deal, but I am a little concerned by some of the diffs provided above. I recommend that the user try to moderate their language in future. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' He seems like a nice editor, but the issues above make me not support.--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">

'''Oppose''' and suggest speedy withdrawal, or [[WP:SNOW]] is what will happen here. -
'''Oppose'''. Despite five deletions and requests to stop creating a redirect to his user page from the main space, [[user:Owie123|Owie123]] has just done it again!
'''Oppose''' and also suggesting withdrawing → Few contributions, lack of experience, lack of wikipolicies understanding. <i><b>
May I suggest withdrawing this this request until you have more experience?
'''Ditto''' -- ''
I've got to say the wikipedia space edit count isn't great, but I've seen a lot of good things from Ozgod and I think he could use the tools wisely.
Only positive experiences with this editor. I have full confidence they would use the tools wisely. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Support''', I've come across the contribs of this user multiple times and I'm feeling pretty confident it's a good addition to the admin team. --
'''Support''', I've seen some of the stuff this user has contributed and it's all good, so I believe Ozgod would be a good part of the admin team.
'''Support''' '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' —<font color="Green">'''''Remember, the Edit will be with you, always.'''''</font> <small>
'''Support''' - Seems experienced enough, and adminship is no big deal. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' I believe the tools will be used for good.  I don't feel that the candidate's inexperience in certain areas would lead to misuse of the tools, and that the candidate will continue to seek out new Wikipedia experience regardless of admin status.--
'''Support''', all my experiences him have been good, the quality of his experience outweighs any time problems.--
'''Support''', good user and nice answer to my question.
'''Support''', helpful contributor to the WP1.0 project, Ozgod has shown good judgment in all the work I've seen.
'''Support''', Sure, there's a learning curve but he'll do fine. No concrete history to suggest he'll be a problem.
'''Support''' <i>"I am mostly invigorated when I am dealing with a task that has a large volume of work to be done."</i>. Best of luck at [[WP:CSD]] then!!! Seriously, enough strength and civility here and some actual justification of the <b>need</b> for the tools, something a bit rare in a lot of RfA's. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' The user seems to have knowledge of policy, and admits to minor faults, which is refreshing. He seems like a good person who will assume good faith and do his best to make Wikipedia a better place. This user will certainly never abuse the tools. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support''' No problems exist that would cause me to vote oppose.
'''Support''' per above. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Support.''' Why not? [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support.''' Event though you opposed my Rfa I think you would make a good admin. You seem to know what your doing and you have a fairly good amount of experience.
'''Support''' Changed from neutrality.  Ran back through your contributions, and decided I liked the quality of your editing.  I am excited to see what you could expand into as an admin.
'''Support''' SNAAAAARF! --
'''Oppose''' - a look at some random AfD comments don't inspire confidence in me.  Examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kyle_Storer&diff=prev&oldid=133417358 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Dover&diff=prev&oldid=133419215 here] - I just don't think you're ready to be judging, and closing, AfD's, something you say you'll be doing. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' G1ggy's examples and candidate's answer to Question 4 both demonstrate a lack of experience of the sort needed to perform routine admin tasks.  More seasoning required.
'''Weak Oppose''' Seems a bit inexperienced. Skimming a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=5000&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ozgod&namespace=4 list of his AfD votes] I seem to find several votes that demonstrate confusion regarding policy. Particularly after reading question 4 I was surprised to see many "per nom" votes, and those were the best justified when it comes to policy. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
Oppose this user last February he had like 2200 edits but in the following then not as active. the user seems to needs to look up polices as his recnt afd votes seems he not look at them resently like the afd for William Spaniel to mention one of them.
'''Oppose''', poor AfD votes demonstrating lack of policy knowledge are a bit too recent for me to be willing to entrust this user closing AfD discussions. Would certainly be willing to consider again in a couple months.
I have trouble believing this user understands Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines given the above evidence. Put frankly, I can't trust this user to be an effective administrator on Wikipedia at this time. '''
'''Oppose''' - concerns regarding judgement. --
'''Oppose''' - fortunately, voting is not blind, and I find myself rather convinced by my peer's arguments above.  However, I'm probably an anachronism in that I see AfD as an actual attempt at measuring community consensus rather than a vote.
'''Oppose''' - not impressed by some of his AfD contributions, and IMO lacks general experience.
'''Oppose''' - not sure you're quite familiar enough with how Wikipedia works yet. Looking through your AfD contribs, a lot of them do seem a bit confused and I'm not sure (given you propose to close these discussions) that you're ready to do that. I also share worries that you see them a little too much as a vote. The fact you hadn't considered the use of userspace for drafting (though not very relevant to adminship) seems to me a further indication that you could use more time familiarising yourself with how things work. There may be policies that similarly you haven't come across and that may be problematic if you were to be an admin. I also worry based on your answer to Q.5. that you won't tough enough in applying [[WP:BLP]] - inserting poorly sourced material about living people is far more serious than in any other article given our high google rating - it can make someone's life unpleasant very quickly. I hope you won't be discouraged but I think you need a little more time before adminship is a good idea. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' I commend Ozgod's wikignome activities, but I think he's a bit [[User_talk:Ozgod#Talk:Zarina_Bhimji|muddled at times]]. There's no point putting an expand tag on a stub a few minutes after its creation. He replied on my user page instead of my talk page and [[WP:AGF|formed the conclusion]] that I had taken this [[User_talk:Tyrenius#Tags|personally]]. He stopped replying, and ignored [[User_talk:Ozgod#You_might_be_able_to_help|a request]] which I hoped would be just right for him. I think he needs more interaction with other users and more experience. He has the promise of admin material, but not yet.
'''Neutral''' Looking at the breakdown of your stats, you've only really been making substantial contributions since February of this year.  I'd like to see two or three months where you also participate in the policy space and demonstrate your knowledge of the [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] in your contributions to debates.  Apart from that, I don't see any cause for concern with you.
'''Neutral''' I'm also on the fence.  Giggy's diffs aren't too much cause for concern, but the comment on the football player doesn't really show the experience in dealing with non-notable biographies to recognize that it might be one.  I'll stay out of the main issue: playing in a professional link counts, but the article linking to another article doesn't prove much - after all, suppose I write an article saying "YechielMan lives in the [[United States of America]]" - that doesn't make me notable.  The reason I'm not opposing is that AFD is really about evaluating consensus, and if consensus is unclear then trying to weigh strength of arguments.  Overall I don't see this skill being a particular challenge for the candidate.
'''Neutral''' 3988 is a bit to low of an edit count for me to support someone. I would vote to support you if you got active in fighting vandalism, and were active in AFD'S. Sorry about that.--
'''Neutral,''' I agree with Sir james paul. Your count is kind of low, but that is not my principal concern. The fact that you do not have any real experience fighting vandals, is what worries me. However, I like everything else I see so I will not opppose. <br>--'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Neutral''' for the moment. I'd like to ask you about Q4, for I think it doesn't take into account the dynamics at AfD. Most of the information in these discussions comes from the interplay of comments: One person questions Notability, and another responds, and then the others have something to build on, & the discussion explores all the issues. Might having a  "voting phase" or multiple voting phases detract from the already fragile principle of deciding by the best arguments, not the most supporters? '''
Ozgod I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing in the diff links provided by "G1ggy". Your "development period" suggestion (in question 4) might have some potential in avoiding situations where an article is overzealously deleted because the user has not finished writing it. However, that is [[Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages?|one of the many applications of user-space]], we just need to advertise that more, especially to new editors who may not realize their work is immediately visible. I know this is written in big bold letters, but those big bold letters are far below the edit box and possibly difficult to notice. What's this about secret voting? I mean... what's this about formal "voting" of any kind, and why should it be kept secret? The strength of the arguments is much more important than the number of people supporting a position. Changing the software to facilitate secret votes — in matters as trivial as AFD! — would only cause more people to lose focus on the fact that  Wikipedia is not a democracy! I don't see why you would consider that bit helpful, or why you think the developers would want to micro-manage us like that, or if you were half-joking for lack of any obvious response to such an open-ended (but thought-provoking) question [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]]. Please explain! —
'''Neutral''' Pace WJB, I'm not sure that Ozgod's general understanding of BLP and the fashion in which it ought to be applied is all that inconsistent with that interpretation of BLP for which a consensus exists, and I would observe relatedly that even one who advocates for the strictest construction of BLP would suggest that even as one removes edits the contravene BLP, he should be civil and understanding in explaining policy to those good-faith editors (typically quite new) who make such edits, lest we should lose a prospective contributor over a misunderstanding; I suppose I interpreted Ozgod's response as reflecting such a disposition.  On the broader question, though, I am convinced on the whole the candidate is possessed of good judgment, a deliberative temperament, and a cordial demeanor, but I am not certain that his conversance with policy is such that he should not avolitionally misuse the tools (e.g., by acting whereof he does not know in ignorance of such lack of knowledge), and I can't at this point, then, conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of Oz's being sysopped should be positive]], and so I am rather regretfully unable to support.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. I'm slightly dissatisfied with insufficient experience (''not'' edit count proper). Please try again later.
'''Moral Support''' Suggest withdrawl, however. I recently had an RfA that didn't pass and most oppose comments were that I didn't have enough edits, and I have over 2,000. You're a good user and I'm happy to support, but I doubt that this nomination will pass. - <font style="color:#FF7518;background:#000;">
'''Support.''' I have interacted with this user and have faith they would not abuse the tools; however, I urge them to withdrawal and try in a couple of months and 1000 more edits or so.
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=80506723 Malformed] nomination.
'''Oppose''' Less than three months and 600 edits is not enough.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you appear to have good intentions but you need more experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' candidate lacks sufficient experience.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;Sorry, I'm not one for edit counts but 600 is not enough to gain the insight needed. As for the two articles you listed that you wrote, I would have like them to be a little more in depth. &mdash;
'''Weak oppose''', purely due to low edit count. I see no reason why this editor wouldn't make a fine admin after a few months' more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. I think more experience is needed.  While I like the enthusiasm, I think trying for the adminship now is poor judgment because the results are predictable given the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|standards/expectations]] people have.
'''Oppose'''. I suggest the nom take a look at [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of what most RFA !voters are looking for in terms of basic edit levels.
'''Oppose''' Not quite yet. That the user admits to frequently changing usernames is troubling. Stick to one username and come back in six months. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''per above and insufficient answers to questions. --
'''Neutral''' - It takes guts to go up for an RfA, and i dont want to turn this into a blood bath, 600 edits is just not enugh yet, and you are to new [on this account?] for me to consider supporting you, you're on the right track come back in say 2000 edits and around Feburary time and i'll likely support you if you keep up your good work, in the meantime however I really strongly suggest withdrawal to avoid a bloodbath. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''', ditto what Matthew said. Please consider a withdrawal.
'''Neutral''' per Matthew. Please consider withdrawal due to possible [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral''', you seem to have the potential of becoming a future admin, but not for now it's too early. Try again when you have more edits and exprience in the Wiki proccess. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', echoing what [[User:Mike1|Mike1]] and Matthew have said. Keep working hard, and you should make a fine one later. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. Could be a very solid candidate in a few months, just needs more experience in general. You could also pursue [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Great attitude, though!
'''Neutral''' Please do not be discouraged with this nomination and I offer my deep respects for your sincerity in wanting to help out with admin chores. But with less than three months of experience and less than a thousand edits, I suggest you withdraw from this nomination as soon as possible. In the meantime, look through and analyse past successful as well as unsuccessful nominations and get a clear idea of what adminship is all about. Be more pro-active in maintainence-related tasks and improve the quality of your edits. I have no doubt that in the next couple of months, if you follow all these guidelines, you would be a fine admin. In the meantime, best of luck for the future! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Normally would oppose in this situation, but you seem like my kind of admin and others have gone with '''Neutral''' rather than '''Oppose'''
'''Neutral''' per above. Also try to get involved in [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]] and other areas which administators are usually involved in.
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Not personal, but [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/P.B. Pilhet|674]] edits is just not enough experience. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Neutral''' Lack of experience would be a handicap.  Withdraw, get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] and work on participation in XfD debates and vandalfighting.  Getting involved in Wikiprojects would be a good idea, as would assisting in the featured article/good article reviews.  Try again in three-four months and ~3000 edits time. You would be a good admin in the future, hence the neutral vote.
'''Neutral'''<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral''' I suggest that you withdraw and try again in a few months when you have sufficient experience, though I like your attitude. - <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose'''. I don't see anything wrong, but he is very inexperienced. Usually a user needs some more time. <sup>
'''Oppose'''.  Looks like the user does good work, but I think more experience is necessary.  Demonstrating good knowledge and application of Wikipedia [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]] is key, and with only ~500 mainspace edits, I think more time to do this is necessary.
'''Oppose''' - needs a few more edits. Insufficient answers to questions. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - only around 500 mainspace edits and twenty-five project space edits. You need more experience before you can get the tools. Sorry! —
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience. Answers do not reflect understanding of what admins do. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.--
'''Oppose''' I would have to say that you haven't really shown me that you are good enough to be an admin. The 2511 edits is ok, but not great. The answers to the questions were kinda short and uninformative. The nom was not that great. You didn't really show why you need the tools or why you understand the processes of [[Wikipedia]]. Sorry, but I wil oppose. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. You're on the right track, but my dealings with you so far have shown some inexperience, so I'd suggest keeping up the good work for a while longer just at the moment. The lack of edit-summary use is a bit of a worry, but can be fixed by setting the options to force you to add a summary. As a non-admin, it's quite easy to help out in Prod-related areas just by removing unwarranted Prods and either opening the AfD yourself or suggesting the Prodder do so. Likewise, in a non-admin position it's quite easy to put things into the Next Update section for DYK, which makes life so much easier for the rookie who turns up and needs to update the template :)
'''Oppose''' (three edit conflicts). Based on what I've recently seen from you, I can't comfortably support. For about 24 hours (or less), there was a discussion, intiated by yourself, at [[WP:VPR]] about deleting the Reference Desk (Miscellaneous section). It was pointed out a couple of times that the discussion should be at MfD, but despite this, there was a clear consensus presented that the desk be kept, even iwthout full process. A few hours ago, you opened the MfD ([[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous|here]]), but in the process [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=prev&oldid=112633749 deleted] all of the previous discussion. This really confused me, and seemed inappropriate. We've seen very recently on Wikipedia that deleting debates causes problems, and that they should just run their course - I'd prefer to see an admin hopeful having this sort of understanding. Also, I wouldn't be comfortable with you taking care of XfDs, especially given your expression [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=112650208 here] that MfD is a vote. Perhaps the edit summary was a slip of the tongue, but your action of simply removing the emboldened part gives me the bad impression that you would, as an admin, decide XfDs on the basis on the bolded parts, rather than reading the discussion. Keep up the good work, and get to know process a bit more, commenting in XfDs and other discussions, and come back under a non elf-nom in a few months <tt>:)</tt> <strong>
'''Oppose''' per that horrible message on your userpage. You do realise this process is a week long? '''
'''Strong Oppose''' The most glaringly obvious, recent thing at this point is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=M%C3%83%C2%A9ni%C3%83%C2%A8re%27s_disease this..]..what were you thinking? <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']]
'''Oppose''' per concerns by Wooty and Majorly. Also not entirely content with the numerous links to this RfA from various other pages, which could be seen as advertising. While not a reason to oppose itself, would also recommend this user rethink the conspicuous use of '''bold''' during what appears to be every discussion.
[[User_talk:Steel359/Archive_7#RE:Category:Request_for_protection|See this conversation]]. Parker created a category and template that were redundant with [[WP:RFPP]], so after discussion I deleted them. He wasn't very happy about that, and hounded me to delete [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]] as well. I naturally declined to speedy delete an established process. At that point, Parker took it upon himself to wipe the category off the map himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editprotected&diff=prev&oldid=103929183] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editprotected&diff=prev&oldid=105223756], using my exact words in a highly [[WP:POINT|POINT]]y fashion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests&diff=prev&oldid=105225581]. A few days later he started accusing me of being biased against (non-notable) female porn stars because I'm not heterosexual, and posted a [[User_talk:Steel359/Archive_7#No-Confidence_Motion_regarding_Steel.27s_Adminship_uses|no-confidence motion]] on my talk page, threatening to "dig up much much more from [my] archives". All this because I refused to speedy delete [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]]. Parker as an admin? No thanks. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' – Disclaimer: I am active on the Reference Desks, so Parker would apparently see my view as an attack, however I would wonder how people are supposed to reach a conclusion as to a candidate’s suitability if not through their actions. And this is based on Parker’s actions. The suggestion to delete [[WP:RD/M]] seemed based on pickiness rather than the benefit to Wikipedia’s users and editors. While there is a role for that sort of view, I don’t think that role is an admin who is active in AfD/MfD/etc. Other comments by Parker (such as the suggestion to delete all questions that are not signed) seem to show an intolerance, or misunderstanding of the needs, of people inexperienced with Wikipedia. In addition, and this is probably less helpful, I get a general bad feeling about this. Parker seems to strike an argumentative tone, when a calmer approach and reason would be much more effective.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=next&oldid=112643979] While I can understand losing your cool, leaving the computer for a while and returning to edit/reply when calm would be a more positive action. Parker seems like they would benefit from more experience, perhaps until people opposing their actions no longer hurts their feelings.
'''Oppose'''. It strikes me that in my more than six months of activity here, I may never actually have opposed a request for adminship. Normally when I do not believe a candidate is qualified for adminship, the result is already apparent, and it is easy enough to remain silent. But I cannot help observe that when a candidate posts an edit like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=prev&oldid=112663931], my choice is clear. "Please oppose my adminship," you ask. Request granted.
'''Oppose'''. Partly due to a manifest failure to AGF where people disagree with the candidate but mainly because of the conduct described by [[User:Steel359|Steel]] above. Good grief... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
Well, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=112663931&oldid=112661366 you asked] so politely, I '''oppose'''.  --
'''Oppose''' I do not recall having expressed an opinion on a request for adminship thus far, but I feel compelled to in this case. This editor proposed eliminating the "Miscellaneous" Reference desk for no good reason, then posted a request to oppose his adminship. I feel that an admin should have an objective and judicial temperament, and the desire for"drama" shown by these two actions is the very opposite of that, So I am granting your request and expressing an opinion in opposition to your becoming an admin at this time. One reason is your lack of editing experience, and the other is your desire for Wikidrama. With some more experience and development of maturity, you might run once again for admin with different results. Best wishes.
'''Support''' Ever since the events of that RfC which I think he handled very well I kept noticing Pascal on [[WP:AIV]] and the surounding edits showed to me that we have a editor here that is prepared to follow guidelines and is prepared to listen to advice.
'''Support''' per nom.  --
'''Strong Support''' I have first interacted with Pascal while working on the article Germany. Since then, I have seen him around in other venues as well. He also has a very good distribution of edits, so I am sure that he has not neglected a single aspect of Wikipedia. I have full confidence in his ability as an editor, and I am certain that he will make a great administrator.
'''Strong  nominator support'''.
'''Strong support''' Pascal Teason is one of the finest editors here on Wikipedia, he is a genius at fighting spam, catching sockpuppets, and he has made good quality contributions to wikipedia, he's a helping aware user who knows what he's doing. I think he certainly deserves adminship.
I don't think I've done a '''Strong support''' ever (this may be my first), but he's deserving of it. As soemone 've actually worked with (by worked with I mean occasionally adding in a category or two to the uncategorizxed backlog while he worked his butt off to clear it). Plus his answers are great and his edits are spread out very well. --
'''Support''' A strong candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' per Wizardman. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="dark blue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="seagreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Having worked closely with Pascal, as he notes in response to question 2, I have been impressed with his edits from the first day we crossed keyboards. Reviewing his last 1,000 edits, I see nothing but more to recommend him: he warns users for spam, notifies editors when tagging for speedy deletion, welcomes users, always uses edit summaries, categorizes pages, adds citations to articles, prods articles before taking to afd, writes his own talk page warnings/advice notes where no template is suitable, and generally edits across a wide variety of pages and topics, showing his experience. He will make a fine admin.--
'''Support'''. A great catch, I was going to nominate him a while ago. Now, I forgot why I never did lol. '''
'''Support''' good user, not likely to abuse the tools. ←
'''Supports'''. Could use the tools, will use them well.
Yes
'''Support''': Highly qualified candidate, good contributions in several different areas. I have reviewed the issue raised by Samir's Oppose !vote find it to be a long way from outweighing the candidate's positives.
'''Support''' I've always been a fan of P.T's contributions, and I don't doubt that he will use the tools in a positive fashion. --
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - does a great job and no reason not to trust with the tools --
'''Support'''User has tons of experiance and is clearly capable of the work expected from a good admin.
'''Support''' Well respected editor, who will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Pascal is a excellent, hardworking editor who has plenty of experience in varying areas as seen in the responses for the questions.
'''Support''' Good all-round contributor with excellent broad-base knowledge of wikipedia.--
'''Support''' "Thought you were one..." --[[User:Groggy Dice|<span style="color:indigo; border:thin solid cyan; background:aliceblue">Groggy Dice</span>]] <span style="border:thin solid gold;">[[User talk:Groggy Dice|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Groggy Dice|C]]</span> 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) '''Strong''' now that opposers have made their case, and their arguments have struck me as really weak. !Voting keep in an AfD where many other people are !voting keep? Saying he will recuse himself from an area where he is inexperienced? If this is the worst that can be said about Pascal, I feel safe trusting him with the mop. --
'''Support''' -Solid answers to questions. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' - Our paths have crosssed many times and I have always appreciated this editor's approach and good sense. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[Special:Contributions/JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>
'''Support''' Seen you around before. I can't remember where or when, but I think it was good.
'''Support''' I've noticed that Pascal is a pretty active; good contributions overall and thoughtful answers to nomination questions. <b>
'''Support''' Seems like a great choice.
'''Support'''. ''
'''Support''' - Clearly a thoughtful and diligent contributor. --
'''Support''' ~
Seems like a good risk/benefit wager.
'''Support''' Helpful, patient, and committed. --
'''Support'''. '''
I've had good experiences with this user.
'''Strong support'''. Many of the 'opposes' are based on shaky reasoning (to say the least).
'''Strong Support''' - almost no problems with strong experience on Wikipedia.
'''Strong support''': hard working, level-headed contributor looking for consensus and looking for ways to improve the encyclopedia, by writing, maintaining (e.g. the categorization), and if necessary deleting, and also by discussing and proposing things (e.g. [[WP:HOTELS]], where I think I first met him).
'''Support''' - I've seen Pascal contributing w/ good edits around. -- ''
Seen him around, and seems a great all-round contributor, so yes. Can't imagine the opposes are anything but trivial, although I would be concerned if similar actions in the past were uncovered. &ndash;
'''Support''' contra Samir and Mimsy. Fine candidate. <b>
'''Support''' Well, thinking of what his description is, he seems like an Admin already. Go for it Pascal. Tesson! '''
'''Support''' Good answers to most of the questions. Seems to display understanding and use of mop. Suggest nominee review and reanswer question 6. Also vote to counter negative votes by #wikipeidia-in bloc. &mdash;
'''Support''' I completely agree with question #1. Great answers. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Strong Support''' -- I've worked closely with Pascal as part of [[WT:WPSPAM|WikiProject Spam]]. That sort of work is an acid test for a potential admin. More than the average vandal, a persistent spammer gets very aroused; the same sense of entitlement that lets them spam even after multiple warnings makes them indignant and belligerent when caught. Furthermore, seeing their potential income cut by losing their Wikipedia links also makes them aggressive in defending "their" turf. Pascal has always dealt with these situations very firmly and calmly. I was impressed enough to give him a barnstar a while back (not something I do every week). --
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Support''' sensible and thoughtful kind of guy --
support --
'''Support'''. Has put in great effort with vandalism in math articles.
'''Support'''. Level-headed and a joy to work with, even when on opposite sides of a given issue.
'''Support'''. --'''
'''Support''' plenty of good reasons to do so stated above. '''
'''Support''' - (hope I'm not repeating anyone above ''too'' much) - has plenty of user talk and WP space as well as general mainspace edits; fights spam, but not to the exclusion of all else. A good catch (where do you guys go trawling for these guys?) <font color="#ff9900">
'''Support''' per above comments.
'''Weak Support''' Samir's and Nick's arguments bother me, but I still find his contributions to be quite impressive and concerns to be minor ones.
'''Support''' as above
Good candidate. In the future, concerns about a mediation of the sort below should be brought directly to the mediator's talk page, as questioning the mediator or evaluating parties in a dispute can diminish the authority of the mediator in the eyes of the disputing parties and inflame hostilities. His comments in the specific AfDs mentioned below are casual but they do contain a bulk of serious argument, and comments on other AfDs have hardly been frivolous. —
'''Support''' smart, thoughtful editor
'''Support''', strong candidate.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support.''' Encountered user before, positive experience.
'''Support''' solid record of contributions. I disgree with his AfD positions, but don't find them as poorly stated as some of the opposers claim. Opposing because he chooses not get involved with images - an area that relatively few admins actively seek out - strikes me as particularly strange.
'''Support''' would be an excellent addition--
'''Support''' excellent editor.  Give him the mop.  --
'''Support''' this editor's being given the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good answers to questions, good contribution history, and none of the opposing reasons are very convinving.  -
'''Strong Support''' No problems with this user.--
'''Strong Strong Support''' A great Wikipedian that really does deserve the tools. --'''
'''Support''' --
'''Firm support''', bien sûr, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]] and per, inter al., [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]].
'''Support''' will make good use of the mop --
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure I trust him whatsoever.  I was asked to help sort out the mess at [[Breast implant]] and I felt that Pascal's involvement served more to harm than to help the situation there. --
'''Oppose''' per Samir. &mdash;
'''Weak oppose''', great editor with lots of experience, but several concerns make me consider this candidate for adminship again, as per Samir and Nearly Headless Nick.
'''Oppose''' - Good user, but concerns raised by Samir and Nick bother me.--
'''Oppose''' (at this time) his participation in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hookers with hearts of gold]] convinces me that he does not really understand what we mean by objectivity, and hasn't really grasped reliable sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_hookers_with_hearts_of_gold&diff=next&oldid=98847900] either (i.e. not blogs). Whilst I'm sure he's a great guy, I'd be mightly uncomfortable with him closing AfDs or making deletion calls at this time. Get some more experience.--
'''Oppose''' per all of the above commentators.  My major conserns stem from the user's labelling of others as mentioned by Samir, and the very distrubing fact that his inappropriate comments and actons in some AfDs have been pointed out as occuring during the last few days - who knows how many othe comments like those mentioned this user has made on AfDs which are now closed?  I feel that these actions together indicate that extra experience with policy can only improve this candidate, and I suspect that he will pass with RfA despite my oppose.  There's a lot of good from this candidate, which he should be proud of, but the issues brought up here are compelling enough for me to oppose.  <strong>
'''Oppose''' Samir and Nearly Headless Nick bring up some startling points. I do not feel you are ready for closing AFDs and other duties carried out by administrators. '''
'''Oppose''' per Samir and NHN. Whenever I see terms like "listophobia" and "wikibribery" I see someone I wouldn't even support in an AfD, much less trust to administrate. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Oppose''' per his comment above "I have no experience whatsoever with images. On the other hand, I don't plan to get involved with images as an admin." I'd support if he were willing to take on new areas, but a candidate who has no experience with images ''and'' doesn't plan to get involved with them I wouldn't.
'''Oppose''': I'm still concerned over the listcruft issue, but this compounded with the candidate not wanting to have any part in patrolling images and rectifying image problems forces me to Oppose. Admins are likely to come across a variety of image related problems, problems often find admins as well as admins finding problems. I understand where Proto is coming from on this, but to a certain extent, administrators cannot realistically pick and choose their workload for much of the time. Users will visit your talk page when they spot you are an administrator and they expect you to be able to help them, so someone might appear on your talk page and let you know that someone has been uploading images in violation of [[WP:FU]] on an article they (and perhaps you) have been involved in editing. It wouldn't be such a problem but there are colossal image backlogs much of the time, a huge amount of copyright violations and that's only what we know about, a random sampling of pages frequently reveals images without copyright tags, incorrect tags, images which could be moved over to Commons and there's frequently fair use rationale is missing from a images. I know deleting incorrectly used fair use images is unpopular, asking for fair use rationale and sources is very unpopular but it's a job that needs to be done as there are so few admins who are seem to be interested in patrolling images I'm very reluctant to Support a new administrator who wants to have no part in patrolling images in any way, shape or form. Sorry. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose''' for now - the combination of factors above troubles me even though he seems a good guy. Be back after some more investigation &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Heligoland. -
'''Oppose''' per Samir and Doc.  More experience is, in this case, a very simple solution to every concern regarding the candidate.
'''Oppose''': User is very active when it comes to article deletion, either by listing articles as [[WP:PROD]] or on [[WP:AFD]], as well as advertising his deletionist stance on his user page. Also, he has had an aggressive/[[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] stance in several AfDs, for example [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion globe]] where he calls an editor who removed his [[WP:PROD]] tag a "deprod specialist", and in this and several others he calls articles he doesn't like "cruft". I therefore fear that he cannot be trusted with deletion powers, and that the fact that he has to take articles to AfD is a necessary "check" on this user's impulses to delete pages.
'''Oppose''' per above, especially Samir. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Weak oppose''' The alternative to deletionism is not necessarily inclusionism and you give me cause to worry about how you will act closing delete !votes. Sorry. I loved the last 3 sentences of your answer to Q1 - they almost persuaded me to a Neutral. --
'''Oppose''': Should I give any more reasons! Several ones already pointed out are highly disturbing. However, I know Pascal is a fast learner and a nice person indeed. --
'''Oppose''' per Samir, NHN and listcruft - pushing for that unencyclopedic list means he is not aware of the difference between [[WP:NOR|original research]] and [[WP:V|verifiability per reliable sources]]. I personally consider these (along with [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]) to be our cornerstones.
'''Oppose''' instead. Still per Eagle 101 though.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised in above discussions/comments. ···
'''Oppose''' - I definitely have a hard time trusting on AfD.<b>
'''Oppose''' - we cannot have admins going around closing XfDs on the basis of ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. That way lies lots of ill-feeling and a thousand DRVs. More generally, recourse to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT shows a lack of working knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Terence Ong. The questions lingering make me worry.
'''Oppose'''. Was leaning to support because I agree with his stance in those list AfDs (we need as many lists as possible here). However, I could never support someone who starts an AfD nom with the non-word "cruft" or its various trite permutations: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion globe]]. To me, that is a serious slur against all users who contribute material to wikipedia articles. It unnecessarily adds an additional degree of confrontation and belittlement to a process that needs no  stoking in that regard. I would hope this user would more carefuly weigh the impact of his words in future AfD nominations or elsewhere at wikipedia.--
'''Oppose''' per Samir and NHN's - I'm not sure that his sometimes aggressive attitude is always utilised in a positive manner at this point, and I'd like to see if he could work on that before entrusting him with the mop. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
Need to consider vote after a cafeful review of user's history.
'''Neutral:''' Pascal's answers to the questions are very good, and he seems to have done some great work.  I suspect that he'll be an admin in a few months even if this RFA is unsuccessful, but my biggest concern is his contribution to the [[Breast implant]] flamewar that Samir discusses above.  I'll try to come up with a way to phrase my concerns in a question.
'''neutral''' - (''changed from oppose'') lack of experience with images lessened after showing commons activity[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Pascal.Tesson&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] --
'''Neutral''' I'm unsure where to !vote with this candidate so neutral. There are some good points but there are also the issues raised.
'''Neutral''' - Great replies to the questions, unfortunately with the concerns listed in the oppose section I cannot support. Sorry :( ——
'''Neutral''' per [[user:Eagle 101|'''Eagle''' 101]]. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
Sorry, no. Weak answers, no self description, this RFA was malformed far too many times. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Due to inexpereince and weak answer to first question. We just had to revert your many attempts to start your RfA, only to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SynergeticMaggot#Delete_a_page delete it]. Will support in the future. Good luck.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawl. Adminship is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced, sorry.
'''Moral Support''' By all accounts, you appear to be a very talented editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia.  This is precisely why I hope you don't become jaded by the results of your RfA and stop editing.  Spending your valuable time making Wikipedia a better place is commendable and much appreciated.  If you do still wish to become an administrator at a later date, I humbly suggest signing up for [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]], which is a program that will pair you up with an administrator who will act as a mentor of sorts to you and will help you become a bit more experienced in the technical aspects of Wikipedia.  Cheers [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Constructive Oppose''' I think this is a very well-intentioned editor with the best aims for the project but I do not think the candidate is ready at this time.  In learning about the wikipedia process, the candidate has been able to gain exposure to the different areas but actions such as setting up the Afghan wikiproject were not within process.  A number of speedy tags have been applied incorrectly, and articles the candidate has created have been deleted.  The candidate seems to be developing the technical skills necessary and will probably be a great editor and admin some day but community interaction and talking to people is an area for development.  I fear for this request's prospects but I hope that the candidate learns from it and continues to be an enthusiastic contributor.
'''Oppose''' Until he demonstrates a more consistent editing pattern.  Edits a few hundred times for two or three months, then drops to near zero.  Can't support if he may drop out of sight after RfA.  Maybe later. --
'''Oppose''' Your self-nomination statement does not give us much on which to base our decision.
'''Oppose''', not much in your self-nomination statement, and answers to questions are lackluster. Record shows a great degree of inexperience that needs to be worked on first. Get more experience and try again later, and you should have better luck. --'''
'''Oppose''' I do believe you are heading in the right direction and have the right spirit, but you may need to get up to speed with processes and such before applying for such a responsible position. You seemed to have a problem with the JS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Under_surveilance_crew&diff=108593042&oldid=108592494 here] and the reasoning was incorrect - although I might add, the decision to speedy was justified. So, keep on the right side of the non-admin tools and maybe try again in 3-4 months.
'''Oppose''' per Bubba, don't lose hope though.
'''Oppose''' You have in fact nearly 3,000 edits, and they are reasoably well distributed over the project. But I am afraid that your answers to the standard questions do not inspire me with the feeling that you fully appreciate the role of an admin. Sorry. Do try again in 2-3 months.--
'''Oppose''' You're a great user, but I'm a bit concerned about your inconsistent editing patterns, vague answers to RfA questions, as well as other incidents mentioned by MLA and Bubba.--'''
'''Oppose and suggest Withdrawal''' Your a good editor to wikipedia but you have very weak answers to the questions and the summary about why you think you should become an admin is short and uninformative. As well as this it seems your are only interested in vandal fighting and AFD's which is good but the tasks of an admin should be a little more varied in my opinion. I suggest withdrawal and make your edits on wikipedia a little more varied.
'''Oppose''' Your self-nomination is not backed up with diffs to provide evidence of your editing and admin-related skills and the answers are very weak.  The following examples make me suspect that you would do more harm than good with the admin tools at the moment - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Sheriff_of_Monaghan&oldid=108159052 incorrect use of speedy template], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFebruary_2007_North_America_winter_storm&diff=108590732&oldid=108586858 failing to deal with vandalism], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Rose_Paetsch&diff=108182051&oldid=108181881 quick-draw speedy tagging], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Nuss&diff=108183695&oldid=108182354 another speedy tag of a notable biography] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheldon_Kahn&diff=108179566&oldid=108179412 here too] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brianna_Glenn&diff=108162497&oldid=108161912 again here]; the creation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Brothers_Villagepedia&timestamp=20070213225512 this non-notable article on the Brothers Villagepedia Wiki]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APatricknoddy&diff=107946353&oldid=107943447 not responding to a legitimate editor's comment on your Talk page] about another speedy tag; finally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APatricknoddy&diff=107684588&oldid=107651687 a lack of familiarity with the project space].  The commentators above have provided ample enough evidence about other areas that require work before you reapply.  I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and concentrate on improving your editing skills for six months before reapplying or being nominated by another editor.  Regards,
'''Oppose''' -- per (aeropagitica), especially the ignoring of valid questions to their talk page, the recent creation of speedy deleted articles, and their late behaviour of joining every WikiProject under the sun simply to tag article talk pages concerns me. Needs more community experience and interaction. --
'''Oppose''' at this time. It is a good point to remember that people generally have higher standards for self-noms. However, you seem to be a good editor, and were your statements stronger, I would likely support. Keep up the good work and come back in a few months! ''
'''Pile on!''' Few edits, little or no experience in policy, lots of speedy tagging resulting in pages not being speedied, no fair use rationales, some questionable page moves, few edit summaries... ---
'''Strong support'''. I know PaxEquilibrium quite well, since we cooperated on a number of articles, mostly history and politics-related. In our little Serbian v. Montenegrin edit battles, he was always the cool headed guy, or the referee if you will. And I think that is a sort of person that an ideal admin should be - a cool headed, rational guy with good faith edits and NPOV, which I believe Pax definitely is. Hence, he has my support in this request, although I think he should have submitted it a long time ago. Also, if he helped me become a normal contributor, rather than sort-of-vandal that I was in my first edits, I'm sure he can do whatever the adminship responsibilities require him to. :)
'''Support'''. I concur with the nom on every aspect. We should help good people who are willing to work in mud-filled areas.
He is an excellent editor with a great passion and understanding of history. He is very cool-headed and knows his stuff. He is one of the best for the job of administrator and has my support, even though he should've become administrator ages ago. --
I've seen him about doing good stuff. Should be fine. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' All I've seen from this user was good work. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', looks good. --'''
'''Support''' I can support this user because he has shown calmness under pressure. He works in a difficult area of history and is to be commended for his efforts.
'''Support''' Good admin candidate.
'''Support''' Can't see any reason to oppose on current activity. I'm willing to Assume Good Faith about the past
'''Support''' Thought he was anyhow, see no reason to go against that. -
'''Support''' as nominator. '''
'''Support''' per a comment that [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|Badlydrawnjeff]] made - we are reaching the stage where it would be easier for experienced editors who have made mistakes or been controversial to create a sock account specifically to gain adminship. This isn't a healthy trend.
'''Support''' The most neutral wikipedian from ex-yu that i have seen.
'''Support''' Satisfactory answer to my question.  A few concerns remain, but with respect for the neutral and oppose positions these seem to be old history. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Support'''. PaxEquilibrium is one of the greatest wikipedians from former yugoslavia. He remains cool and has a calm level-headed atitude in conflict subjeckts, not a nationalist and fighting for tru causes, and that is the bridge between serb, croat and bosnian nationalists that plaigue wikimedia. --
'''Strong support'''. Very productive, calm and neutral user. I can't think of any other ex-Yugoslav user who would get votes from people with such a wide range of ethnicities and political views. In fact, I would say he sometimes keeps engaging with users when it is clear they are not editing in good faith. This has lead to a few POV warriors cooling off and becoming normal users - just one of the reasons why I believe he deserves adminship, and would be capable of using it responsibly. That's not even including his massive contribution to Wikipedia (14,000 or so edits), on subjects that would have been quite poorly covered without him.--
'''Default support''', can't make out sufficient reason not to. —'''
'''Weak support''' I trust enough to support. I don't distrust enough not to.
'''Strong Support'''. PaxEquilibrium. We have had our crossed swords moments but he is an excellent choice. He will be surprised to see me of all editors support him but I accept he is an excellent and comitted editor. We share different views, and clashed many times on Kosovo so perhaps my support from the other 'camp' may carry some weight for him.
'''Support'''. The numerous bad-faith opposes below merit zero-sum support, IMHO. Anyway, I don't see any real problems with this candidate. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong support''', I've only seen good things from this user. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''', very good user. Made very good significant edits to Balkan-related articles. Though, I am concerned about this whole "death" hoax and wish for a solution to the remnants of this hoax, which is still seen among the voters. --
'''Strong support'''. A guy who keeps calm under difficult circumstances. Also, the amount of canvasing going on here actually convinces me that having this guy (liked by members of all the different YU strata) as an administrator would be very useful to YU discussions on Wikipedia. --
'''Support''', Pax is an excellent Wikipedian who always stays level-headed and calm in just about every tough situation he's been put in.  No mater who the editor he is dealing with he tries to discuss and work out issues with them where many would have long lost their patience with them.  I think giving him the tools will be a tremendous help in improving Wikipedia, especially on the ex-YU related articles which seem to have plenty of edit conflicts, and certainly not enough discussion.   Currently, it seems most admins who get involved in such ex-YU disputes quickly loose patience due to the venomous personal attacks and accusations that come from them and feel the effort is not worth it.  I think Pax has the patience (and character) to deal with these tough situations and will greatly improve Wikipedia in a area that I think needs a lot of help. //
I've had positive experiences with PaxEquilibrium; certainly better than with most editors active in SE European articles. Most serious opposers refer to the HRE incident, which is indeed strange and worrying but also quite some time ago. Now, if adminship were really important, I wouldn't be sure, but as it is, I'm happy to support the request. --
'''Support''' - I can understand concerns over the HRE hack incident, but nothing before that or since has indicated to me that the ''person'' is someone I wouldn't trust.  The incident was bizarre, but not malign.  In my opinion, clearly has the experience, is someone I trust, and shouldn't be controversial.  This may not be the community consensus at this time, but IMHO that's unfortunate.  I support (and if this fails, will do so again when PE is renominated in the future).
'''Support''' &mdash;'''
'''Support''' - HRE's account was compromised. That may well have been partly his fault, but it does not sustain a finding of intentional wrongdoing on his part. HRE is the victim of Serbia-related editwarring, of which there is much on this website. I won't hold it against him. -
'''Support'''. We really need cool, level-headed admins who know a thing or two about the Eastern European region. I had been concerned about the hijackings of his previous accounts, which is why I hadn't voted earlier. But as he claims to have a strong password nowadays, and change it regularly on top of that, I have to say that he appears to have taken adequate precautions that that won't happen again. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
I do not think that this user will abuse the tools, so [[User:Ral315/WTHN|why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' GWH and Errabee have it, to my mind, quite right.  There are surely a few (rather trivial) concerns that remain unallayed, but there is also much to commend the candidate, and, on the whole, I think one can conclude with reasonable certainty that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of PE's being sysopped should be positive]], not least because his answers to the questions reveal that he intends to act with deliberative judgment and circumspection and, most crucially, understands that adminship is [[wikt:ministerial|ministerial]].
'''Support''' the past is the past, but please, consider establishing a [[Template:User committed identity|committed identity]] and don't give the key out to '''anyone''' --
'''Support''' <span style="font-family: Monospace, Times">
'''Oppose'''. Erratic edit behaviour. At [[Independent State of Montenegro]] (a fascist puppet state from WWII) he has at least twice inserted the flag of modern Montenegro, despite the fact that it is obviously incorrect (and he should be aware of this given his knowledge of Montenegro). Also, see [[Montenegrin parliamentary election, 1913]] for at least one occassion where he has created a two-sentence, totally unwikified article. Also, apt to sensationalism. See [[Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates#April_29]] where he refers to former leftwing Croatian president Ivica Račan as the "greatest modern Croatian politician" in an attempt to get more coverage on him in the news section. --
'''Oppose''' No explanation provided for how his password was compromised. I will (or a bureaucrat can) move this oppose to neutral after an affirmation that PaxE currently has a strong password (as determined by [http://www.securitystats.com/tools/password.php this tool] or similar, reliable tools, and will change his password every 30 days to a new, unrelated, also strong, password.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' Previous POV history.... --
'''Oppose'''. I'm just not comfortable with the whole HRE death hoax issue and the general controversy surrounding these accounts. And the hoax explanation doesn't smell right to me. Also, this is the candidate's sixth RfA and I'm rather disappointed that this was not mentioned by either the candidate or his nominator. I don't think six nominations is a reason to oppose but I like to see transparency in admins and admin candidates and withholding this information gives me pause. '''
'''Oppose'''. (Disclaimer: Although I used to be quite active, I haven't contributed to the English Wikipedia for nine months now.) I remember when HolyRomanEmperor died. I read everything I could about it on the English, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedias. Now, it was a year ago and I don't recall the details, but I sure know one thing: the evidence made me conclude that he faked his death himself. So today a Wiki-friend calls me and tells me: "our old acquaintance is making an RfA again; since you were so heavily involved before, at least give your opinion now". So here it is, and you could get it from any psychiatrist: a person who fakes his own death cannot be trusted to guide others only a year after the event. --
'''Oppose''' I cannot decide whether I believe HRE or not. (AGF is good advice, but it doesn't apply in cases of contrary evidence, and there is evidence here -- his story of a hacked account seems a stretch to me.)  I might be able to support in July -- a year after the hacking and "death". I was horrified by that stunt -- it may be the single most tasteless thing I've ever seen on WP -- and would need to see a long, spotless record before I could support.
'''Oppose'''. I don't like the fact that he changed his wikiname (smells like avoiding scrutiny from other editors), he had 5 previous RFA which failed, I believe people had good reason not to vote him then.--
'''Strong oppose'''. I still remember the fuss he created with his "playing dead" game. I watched the story unfolds in real time and I strongly believe that he stage it all. Even before hid account was "hijacked", he looked like someone desperately wanting to became an admin at any cost. His "death" and his extremely slow response to our questions (after he decided to announce that he is alive) made me believe that he stage it all.<br />I really don't think wikipedia should risk with making this person an administrator. He just doesn't fit the psihological profile of a person that I would give an adminship. Considering how hard it is to take away someone's adminship, I believe that we have little to win (note that he can do 99.5% of his intented work here even without admin rights) and '''much to lose'''.<br />Also, I really don't understand why he pushes this issue so hard? If this causes so much controversy, why not just give up and do the same work without those few extra buttons? If I were him, I would (for the sake of wikipedia) gave up long time ago. --
The fake death and alleged hijacking is difficult to sort through, and remains a cloud over the situation. I am puzzled that PaxEquilibrium chooses to raise, in response to this issue, the notion that Ferick might have hacked into the HolyRomanEmperor account. Naming a specific party is a serious charge to make, whatever one may think of Ferick otherwise, and furthermore this claim seems to me inconsistent with the more-plausible theory offered on [[User:HRE]]. --
I don't buy the fake death -- <b>
'''Weak Oppose''' - I have no quarrel with HRE/PaxEquilibrium, infact, I always enjoyed working with HRE even when we didn't see eye to eye on some things, and in that respect he always dealt with me fairly. But all this business with death, account hijacking, accusations, etc. really makes me wonder if we will ever know what really happened. I'm just not comfortable with granting a support vote at this time. --
'''Oppose''' I am not satisfied by the answers to Samir or Nishkid's question, which appear rather evasive. I am particularly unhappy with the apparent readiness to point the finger at another without evidence. I am aware of the potential injustice here to a contributer who may merely been the victim of a nasty hoax. But I am deeply uncomfortable with this candidacy. Concerns over neutrality in editing linger from the last RfA, we have the mysterious "death", and now the apparently baseless accusation and failure to openly disclose the numerous prior RfAs as pointed out by [[User:Sarah|Sarah]]. I'm not convinced this is someone who should be trusted with the mop. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe.  I'm sorry, Pax, I slept on it, and I'm concerned about the fact that you pointed a finger without evidence.  I give you points for withdrawing it, that shows maturity, but I'm concerned at the thought process that allowed you to do it in the first place.  My mother always says that when two things are odd, it's strange - when three things are odd it's coincidence, but when four or more things are odd, it's a pattern - I'm afraid there's a pattern of unusual editing and situations around you and I'm not willing to risk the admin tools on someone in that situation.
'''Strongly oppose'''. Per previous RfA (arguments given then) and his current POV-izing (very perfidious and "hidden"). He places filtered and channelized informations. A person has been rejected 4 times (5th time somebody deleted my vote "oppose" because of "unusual circumstances" and transferred it to the talk page). Is that enough!? Has any Pax's supporter here read the arguments on previous RfA's? "That was long ago" is not an argument.<br />The supporters only live in their world, without asking themselves what are those opposers saying. The supporters of Pax don't know the history of countries concerned in "problematic" articles, where Pax gave his contributons. He plays perfidious game, and those uninformed "buy it".<br />Some of Pax's supporters are here, because they support his cause. It would be nice to hear Kosova Albanian's vote here also. We still have no Shqip voter. The same thing is with the Bosnian Muslims. We still have no any vote from them. Some of them have also few things to say about Pax's POV.<br />Those who don't know him "get easily on the bait". Whenever Pax's intends to be an admin, he begans to "play nice". Do you know the axiom about wolf's hair and character?<br />Recently, he became too annoying to some users. If some users don't want to communicate with him, he should understand that, not to persist on communication. Annoying is a way of bad behaviour. User's talk pages aren't Pax's noticeboards. He annoyed me (I had to ignore him or delete his postings, I hope he finally got the message), and, as I see, user Mig11 (see the Mig's reactions  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMig11&diff=99809388&oldid=99761007] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mig11&diff=next&oldid=99823222]..<br />His report to the checkuser pointed towards me is special story. A try to kick out the serious opponent, which beats his filtered and channelized information. One of his the arguments of his accusation was that I have similar interest in a topic, that one vandal/trol had. But, point is, that he also has the interest in that topic - article Pagania. <br />About examples. Here are some recent ones. On the talk page of Pagania, he persistently pushes the story about Serbhood in that medieval duchy. His lines "''unified Serbian state''", "''unified Serbian realm''" are open greaterserbianism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APagania&diff=119537850&oldid=119233643]. His text about "autochtonous Serb" is greaterserbian propagandist POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APagania&diff=119537850&oldid=119233643].<br />On the talk page of the article Ante Starčević he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of word racism. At least, his arguments are equal to zero, especially when dealing with such heavy qualification of a person. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnte_Star%C4%8Devi%C4%87&diff=125342061&oldid=124834934]-misses the point.<br />What does this mean? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaGioZal&diff=prev&oldid=131166070]. On the talk page of user MaGioZal. "Croat, Serbs, Serbo-Croat-like peoples are probably all one people". You could imagine his "neutrality" on the matters of distinguished Croatian and Serbian language.<br />On the talk page of user Sideshow Bob, he expressed again his greaterserbianism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sideshow_Bob&diff=next&oldid=101442315], claiming that Bokelji "were and are Serbs". Despite numerous Croat community there. <br />Then, look at his contributions on [[Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence]] (section Relevance of Memorandum).(user Marinko talked with him, we don't have his vote here). "''...Not all of Croatia wanted to secede, a large portion of its population didn't want to....''" and "''key fact is that Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia''". Original research. Croatia wanted to became independent, to dissolve the partnership. Not to secede. Then this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACroatian_War_of_Independence&diff=110211529&oldid=110074949] They (forces dispatched by Vuk Drašković's party) went to defend '''Serb civilians''' from ethnic cleansing and discrimination. Total greaterserbian POV. Bosnian Serbs do what they want in Bosnia, and Pax speaks about "defence of civilians", defending openly greaterserbian politician? Any Croat, Bos.Muslim, Albanian will confirm that).<br />About criticism of users that aren't editing on day-by-day basis: what does that mean? That they don't have a right to vote? Who says that they don't know the matter, because of that? They dealt with similar topics as Pax, so they know what are they talking about and whome they are talking about. So, according to supporters, no user can go on vacation for a few weeks (because Rfa voting period is 7 days), if he wants to vote on crucial wiki matters? Obviously, it did happen what I've warned in previous RfA's: these candidacy for Pax's RfA will be persistently "pushed" till finally the opposers' absence because of various reasons (hospitalized, private life obligations- children, some have a lot to work with no time to write wiki-contributions...but they can still follow RfA's), and of course, vacations. <br />Arguments that "opposers came from the same country". Of course. That country was a target of greaterserbian imperialism. Laotans and Bushmans don't care a lot about greaterserbianism, it doesn't have any impact on theirs' lives. <br />If some users like/love/adore Pax, they can confirm and proove their friendship and sympathies towards him in other ways, but not by giving adminship. Let's stay serious. If you think he's a nice person, that's your opinion. Stevie Wonder is probably a nice person in private life, but I wouldn't take him to drive my car (especially with me in it).<br />Why is someone insisting on adminship of an user that was rejected so many times? There were and there are good reasons why he's not an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' the candidate does not deserve to be an administrator based on his previous history and conduct. We just need to look at all the previous RFAs: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor|RFA 1]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor2|RFA 2]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor3|RFA 3]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor3a|RFA 3a]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor_4|RFA 4]] under the PaxEquilibrium's previous userid, which was unfortunately highjacked. Anyone making a decision needs to take into the contributions and conduct under the previous username [[User: HolyRomanEmperor]].  By having HolyRomanEmperor/PaxEquilibrium as administrator will only weaken the Wikipedia in the English language further especially in the subject concering: Yugoslavia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosina & Hercegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Macedonia and all what eminated from that part of the world or from the peoples that live or lived in that region. PaxEquilibrium has a drive, a miss directed drive. What is the point the person has gone through five RFA's and failed?  HolyRomanEmperor/PaxEquilibrium as administrator will only bring more damage and conflict into Wikipedia.
'''Weak oppose''' - If you failed 2 RFA's under the normal rules (1, 3a), the second being just over a year ago - I think that this says something about whether the community thinks you can be a good admin.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Pax --
'''Oppose'''. I've been following this for a while and I was trying to just keep out of this mess. Having said that: I don't mean any offense but, instead of outlining the pro's and con's (just a general observation though: the whole 'not a big deal' thing works both ways and if someone wants something that really ''isn't'' a big deal so bad, it's not entirely unreasonable to question that person's motives), I'll keep this very simple. Do I trust the candidate with the tools? No, sorry, I don't. --
'''Oppose''' I am very sorry to join the ranks of those who have obviously been sent to this page to oppose the RfA, but to paraphrase Teke, even if we trust the editor, we can't trust the account, and that is reason enough not to grant the bit.
'''POV based Oppose''' I'm sorry, but the death issues just don't inspire the trust in me that an admin should inspire.  Sorry. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1ggy'''</font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:G1ggy | <font color="blue">Talk</font>]] -
'''Oppose''' per all above oppose comments. --
'''Oppose'''. Still too many concerns and questions. Of course, having your account hacked is a stressful situation for anyone. But your responses to it, then and now, still puzzle me. Also, while your levelheadedness is praised in the support comments, I see some of the opposite as well, in past blocks, in comments that we need more admins ''"desperately"'' or in requesting                    semi protection merely because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kor%C4%8Dula&action=history link spam]. --
No, no, no, a thousand times, no.  Per any above.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' just once (a 1000 times not needed).  Why? Because of my perception (on the basis of the detail provided throughout this whole RfA) that I can not trust this editor with admin tools at this time. Oh and for those who are helping to do the bureaucrats analysis of consensus - I <u>have</u> been editing constantly for months and months and months.--
'''Neutral''' per what Michael said.  I would've supported in a heartbeat, but there is ironic twist.  Just a couple days ago I was discussing old RfAs and who has had many nominations, etc. and HRE came up.  This was with a newer user (not newbie, just not around then) who read the linkings and was flummoxed by what happened.  I recounted the timeline as I remembered, but the most important part is that I felt there was absolutely '''no''' resolution to the issue.  I trust HRE/Pax Equilibrium as the ''user'', but I need to know why I should trust the ''account''.
'''Neutral''' me too. Given all the issues lately I feel uncomfortable with the history. sorry cheers,
'''Neutral'''. The low use of edit summaries is irritating b/c when someone looks through a user's edit history the lack of summaries makes determining information more difficult, even if edit summaries are used for all article edits. However, I won't oppose merely b/c of this issue, but the lack of edit summaries keeps me from supporting.--
'''Neutral''' pending answer to my question and a more thorough look into what happened with the compromised account. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Neutral''' I find myself adding a neutrality vote, even though I wasn't originally planning on voting whatsoever in the Rfa.  I believe the user could EASILY become a good admin, but what worries me is the lack of confidence my fellow Wikipedians have in them.  I believe that a good admin doesn't stem from editcounts, good work statistics, nor heavy involvement.  But all those things are very key.  But what they really need is trust, and the trust of admins and editors to not have issues, nor to have even the slight possibility of abusing the tools.  I would LOVE to support you and your efforts, but I am deeply sorry: I cannot.  It has become apparent that several people, including some who have quite esteemed editing careers here, do not wish to see you as an admin right now.  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not give up; persevere.  This will allow you to not only improve yourself as an editor: it will greatly improve your standing here.  I'm not suggesting that you need this, but alas, this is only the advice of an editor at 4am.  I believe you to be a good editor, but not in the correct mindset at this time for the tools.  I dearly hope to see you around here more however.
'''Neutral''' The why/why not battle makes my head hurt.
Nominator support!  Good luck! [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Strong support''' Oh yeah baby! Second to the polls! '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Support''' Would make a great admin.

''' Would make a great admin, totally support his work. <font color="00ff00">
'''Support''' Definately will make a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Well, N stole my witty joke, but in all seriousness, Pedro appears to be a knowledgeable and experienced editor who is willing to admit mistakes -- both excellent adminship qualities.  --
'''Support''' Looks like a great user who would do great with the mop, due to the fact that he is experienced in the administrative areas in which he wishes to assist. <font color="purple">[[Special:Contributions/TomasBat|♠]]</font>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. Definate support, great candidate. You'll do great :) [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] [[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
I have seen this user around wikipedia and I trust that he will make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal, <small>(and even if it was, I'd still support Pedro :-))</small> <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' I found the answers to the questions very very thought out and complete. Thank you!
'''Strong Support''': Great editor with good contributions and good answerers to the questions. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Though typically I like a higher edit count the amount of time he has been here breaks any qualms. Also, there is always the saying Quality not quantity. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Strong Support''' I had actually though Pedro was admin, but I'm happy I get to support him here.  And, as a bonus, he has the name of one of my favorite baseball players of all time, Pedro Martinez.  '''
'''Support''' I reviewed your contributions, katewannabe count and user talk page and could find no reason ''not'' to support you. --
'''Support.''' Although I have not interacted with this iser, I have read with great interest the discussions this user takes part in, especially at [[WT:RFA]]. Although I disagree with many of this user's points in the discussions in which he participates, Pedro's contributions to discussions are the kind of reasonable and well-thought comments I consider to be creditable evidence for suitability in adminship. Although it is important to write articles, I feel that it is not an applicable reason to oppose this candidate - I feel that Pedro will be the kind of administrator who keeps the wiki free for hard-core writers to do what they do best. One can contribute to Wikipedia in more ways than mainspace text.
'''Support''' Insert standard "thought you were already message".
<b>Support<b> -- Seems to be a well rounded editor, but some of the concerns posed by the neutrals need to be looked at. --
'''Support''' - per analysis of contributions, personal interaction previously, and good answer to the questions above.  --
'''Support''' - very good editor who I bump into almost every where, would make a great admin. --'''
'''Support''' True, the low contribution count to actual articles is perhaps unusual. But administrative work and editorial work have become increasingly separate beasts as the project balloons. Committed contributors like Pedro are deserving of the mop.
'''Support''' with a bit of unasked advice :) - I think there is still a bit of that "touchiness" you mentioned. From my interactions with you and what little I have seen of you in discussions, I think you would do better to assume good faith more often but more importantly, [[Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith|Assume the assumption of good faith]] and [[Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button|Assume the presence of a belly-button]]. Of course you are more than civil and I often find your arguments thoughtful. I see from your contributions that you have done consistently good work, so there is no good reason to oppose.:) -
'''Support'''. I see Pedro's votes in RfAs all the time, and they're usually well-reasoned, which causes me to think highly of his judgment. Plus, no one's brought up any reasons to oppose. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>
No doubt one of Wikipedia's finest editors, and these editors ''always'' gain my '''support'''. ;) –
'''Support''' - as per Majorly and Twooars..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">

'''Support''' - Trustworthy and committed to the project. (!Vote for Pedro.) -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Support''', of course. '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' No problems here. Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''- Pedro seems well suited for the mop, based on the jobs he intends to make use of with the privileges. I can look past his editing history and see that his need for the mop is suited for his situation, and ultimately would make a good admin.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''
'''Support''' - I have seen you around Wikipedia and you have done a lot of good work even if that is not actual article writing. I think you have enough experience for the tools and will make sensible use of them.
'''Support''' and how can I not '''[[Vote for Pedro]]'''? --
'''Support''' Pedro offers us his protection! :)
'''Support''' Committed user, seems to do great work all around the project.
'''Support'''.  Past use of sarcasm in no way excludes excellent users from becoming sysops.
'''Support'''- Per above. Would make an alright admin.
'''Support'''. There are many ways of contributing to this Wiki, and while active editors with lots of main space contributions are the mainstay, I see no reason why this should be the only criterion for adminship.
'''Support''' I've seen Pedro's comments all over the place, and I'm impressed by some of the answers above.
Oh, very much yes. '''
'''Support''' Sure, this is an encyclopedia, by someone's got to work behind the scenes (i.e. have more project than mainspace edits). Having a certain number of mainspace edits isn't admin criterion anyway. '''
'''Support''' You are trustworthy enough, and experienced in back-end work, and really that's all there is to it.
It would be nice to see a few more reports to AIV but I see no other problems, I've seen you regularly around here, you should make a great assett to the administration. All the best. '''
'''Strong support''', having offered to nominate! Pedro is an excellent, civil, and fairly experienced editor whose actions show a clear need for the tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' It's not a big deal, and I don't believe he'll misuse the tools. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' He is a great candidate. I like his answer to number 1. It's time to give him the MOP!
'''Support''' As much as I like a great article contributor, I must say that the only real question is whether the candidate can be trusted with the mop.  He has proven that he is willing to dig in and do Wikipedia's dirty work, and contrary to someone's Oppose vote, we DO need more administrators working in project space. There are horrendous backlogs out there, and there are some areas that will quickly go deep into the red if even one admin gets burned out that has been working it.  I respectfully but strongly disagree with the notion that any candidate gets pushed into being unacceptable by not being a heavy editor of articles.  If that's your only reason for opposing and everything else looks kosher, I strong urge you to reconsider. --
I don't think the candidate is familiar enough with actually writing articles. As far as I can tell the only times he's ever added substantial new content to an article are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_hammer&diff=138152738&oldid=138103102] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LNER_Class_V4&diff=98171311&oldid=98168677] and that was all unreferenced. I admit this is a bit of a pet peeve, admins who don't know how to write encyclopedia articles properly, I see them bumbling around and causing problems when they get into sensitive situations that require an understanding and appreciation of how articles are written. Then there was an exchange with me on WT:RFA where it was clear his being sarcastic was leading to misunderstandings with multiple editors, and he kept being sarcastic. he took the debate to my talk page and the talk page of someone else who complained [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaff&diff=prev&oldid=137327264]. All over some minor misunderstanding... just seemed like a worrying overreaction. --
'''Weak Oppose''', sorry. Looks promising, but I have lack of experience concerns, particularly in the project space.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I agree very much so with JayHenry, on his comments regarding your Wikipedia activity, and how much of it deals with administration. It can be viewed in different respects, mind you, but I see it as a flag. There are people who contribute to Wikipedia to simply become admins and hold their mighty wielding strength, and then there are people who have been here years, make thousands of edits, and never once consider the spot. Now, Pedro, you have, roughly, the same amount of contributions to Wikipedia as I do (two hundred more than me). Your highest article Mainspace edit count is 12 to Bishopstoke, while mine is 484 to [[Red Hot Chili Peppers]], followed by 134. Now I'm not the one being scrutinized here, but, nonetheless, I like an admin to be well rounded not only in the Wikipedia aspect of things, but in '''the actual articles we're all here to write'''. Out of the 15 different sections of Wikipedia listed at your edit counter, 13 of them have something to do with administrators. Your have two Portal contributions, and they are both made to a seemingly non-existent portal. You haven't shown any interest in Images, which can be an integral part of being an admin (Fair use disputes, deleting images, etc.). Really, I think it's high time you strayed out of RFA and head into some more concrete editing. I have no intention of being rude, mean, or disrespectful, mind you, but, please, join a WikiProject. Regards,
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh. Article work should be the main focus of any editor on Wikipedia. I think you're a bit weak on the article editing side, and most of your mainspace work appears to be RC patrol or AWB edits. Also, I find your sarcasm at [[WT:RFA]] really unhelpful. Responding with sarcastic and witty comments to other users is something you want to avoid on Wikipedia. I feel that discussion-style editing is a good evaluator of how a user can handle him or herself in normal everyday situations that they would encounter as administrators. As you could infer from what I wrote above, I'm not too confident about this, and so I must oppose this RfA. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' After sleeping on it I've switched to oppose.  Largely per my comments below.  I don't want this to sound inflammatory, but I'm concerned that Pedro is being given a free pass because he's friends with the RFA crowd.  The editor has simply done little work for Wikipedia and I can't support giving the tools to someone without experience.  He does not have anywhere near the level of contributions that is otherwise expected of admins, and I don't think many of the supporters have actually looked through the contribution history here to see how sparse it is.  Adminship should not be a clubhouse or a popularity contest. --
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh and Nishkid64. [[WP:ENC]]. I'd appreciate more contribution to the encyclopedia side of things. I also share JayHenry's concerns about this being a popularity contest - but then again, it has always been.
'''Oppose''' no sorry - your edits do not convince me that you are ready as yet.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience writing articles, per those above me.--
Tentative '''oppose'''. Concerns about him being promoted as part of the "in-crowd" worry me, and those who have looked at contributions don't have many positive things to say.
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience regarding article writing - for example [[Bishopstoke]] lacks citations.
'''Opppose''' I don't really want to see any more metapedian admins. Pretty much no real content contribution to mainspace. Removing crap from the encyclopedia is of course important, but I can't support his promotion as nearly all of his mainspace edits are automated. I appreciate that Pedro is well meaning and I'm glad for the contributions that he ''has'' made, but I can't support an admin that hasn't had article writing experience (it's what we're here to do, after all). '''<font color="#330033">
'''oppose''' per issues upon article contributing as described by W.marsh and concerns about taking adminship controversially as a "popularity contest" as described by JayHenry. –
'''Oppose''' - sorry, you seem to rub salt in the wounds of users that are about to get blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.255.64.5&diff=prev&oldid=139508007][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Testacate&diff=prev&oldid=139401589], I also don't like the fact that you don't seem to understand that you must [[WP:SUBST|substitue]] user warning templates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.57.7.174&diff=prev&oldid=139503649][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATestacate&diff=139401353&oldid=139401186][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dakingofdogz4&diff=prev&oldid=137885884], which any aspiring administrator should know well in advance of an RfA.
'''Oppose''' - Concerns about passing due to being in the "in-crowd". Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We all need to help write it.
Reluctant '''oppose'''. I don't think there's any harm in Pedro taking some more time and digging deeper into article writing. Almost half of his edits in the Wikipedia namespace are to [[WP:RFA]] pages. Nearly all of his edits to the Wikipedia talk namespace are at [[WT:RFA]]. Exuberant focus on RfA is distracting, and I think Pedro should look into joining a WikiProject or task force that relates to something he likes.
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh --
'''Oppose''' I've thought a lot about this one, but I can't support it. Pedro seems well-versed in RFA but not much else, and it bothers me. I'd like to see several months of mainspace contributions – not just vandalism removal, but solid contributions that show he understands how to reference articles and use templates correctly and so on. It's hard to understand the admin role without understanding how to write the encyclopedia. -
'''Oppose''' Nice person and very civil but I'd like to see a more rounded set of contributions. Ryan's diffs are also indicative that the user is a little too specialised and needs to get out of RFA more often.
'''Neutra'''l for now.  I see you are still using sarcasm to editors:  "(1. Wikipedia does not cite itself. 2. There's a "what links here" button just over to the left. A bit further left. That's it !) " [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=226_BC&diff=prev&oldid=135173787]  (June 1)  Agreed it's mild, and I wouldn't have been personally offended, but there are eds. here who would. '''
'''Neutral'''. I'd really like to vote to support your RfA, Pedro. You're performing some valuable tasks and you're obviously dedicated. However, I'm concerned that you don't yet have enough experience writing articles. Whether this RfA passes or not -- and I suspect it will -- I encourage you to make substantial contributions to a GA or FA drive on a couple of articles. Best of luck and keep up the good work.
'''Neutral''' (changed from support). Sorry but [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite]]'s diffs have now concerned me, for the reasons he gave, and I think Wikipedia would be a better place if as few vandals as possible knew [[WP:AIV]] existed. I can't oppose this candidate though, as the reasons to support balance this out somewhat, so I'm neutral. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''-Per Needs article deletion option.--
'''Support''' - shows a clear need for the tools and meets my criteria. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' Seen him around, strong contributor and shows a valid reason for having the ools.
'''Support'''. Although I was pretty surprised when he didn't list any image related tasks for Q1, and instead put something about usernames. '''''
'''Support''', mostly relying on adminship being no big deal to dispel any concerns about need for the tools. A review of the contribution history (at least for the recent past) shows involvement in areas that lend themselves to admin activity. The nominee in his introductory statement should have made it more clear that while he may have had an account as long ago as 2005, almost all his edits were after June of last year.
'''Support''' devoted editors make good admins. Merging histories and clearing CSD backlog are important chores, nothing wrong with them
'''Support''' Per above.  If I had to pick a fault I'd have to say it was a low Wiki edits count, but your overall edits are quite impressive.  Good luck. '''
Changed to '''Support''' Going out on a limb here, simply because the user looks as if they won't abuse the tools. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Tentative support'''. It's okay by me if someone doesn't use the tools too often, which seems like it would be the case here. I ''would'' like to see more wiki-space experience, and I wouldn't count on becoming bureaucrat for years at the rate we're going, but you are experienced in article space, which is where you would focus your use of the tools. Seems like a mostly reasonable request to me.
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, helpful and trustworthy. His dedication and experience meet my criteria, giving him the tools can only help build Wikipedia a better place. "Not seeing the ''need'' for admin tools" is a ridiculous reason to oppose.  &ndash;
'''Support''' per Alex Bakharev, PeaceNT, and others.
'''Support''' I don't see anything that leads me to believe he would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' per Nom.
'''Oppose'''. I see no reason you ''need'' the admin tools. Fixing page histories, changing usernames, and speedy deleting articles are areas that you don't appear to contribute to at this time. You also appear to want adminship purely for becoming a future bureaucrat. ''
'''Oppose''' For someone whose sole real need for the admin bit (I'm ignoring the "I want to become admin in order to become bureaucrat" pitch) is to help with speedy deletions I'm quite unimpressed with contributions to AfD, in number as well as in content. Checking about 40 recent contributions, there is a preponderance to offer meaningless qualifers ("maybe one day", "find stuff on the web", "NN"), little in terms of actual research on the subject, and a tendency only to become involved in discussion when it comes to preserving articles that contain nothing but plot summaries or other OR, like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville allusions|this one]]. ~
'''Oppose''' - per Q1 and also only 171 WP-space edits. You have a reasonable major edit summary (87%), but your minor edit summary is too low.
'''Oppose''' per Trialsanderrors.
'''Oppose''' does not have a clear need for the tools, Wikipedia namespace contributions are low in number and as Trialsanderros says also in quality.
'''Oppose''' : The editor doesn't seem to really need the tools; sounds generally uninterested / disinterested with the whole process; and exudes a certain, shall I say, ''blandness''.
'''Oppose''' per Trialsanderrors.
'''Oppose'''. You don't seem to actually want adminship much except as a stepping stone to bureaucratship. You also don't have enough projectspace contributions. -
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' No compelling reasons to have the added tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I don't think you have the proper requirements in the Wikipedia edits and the responses to your first question to become an administrator as of yet. Good job on your main space edits, but keep working on your Wikipedia edits and try again later. --
'''Oppose.''' I'm really not convinced that the candidate knows how to take advantage of administrative tools.  Speedy deletion is a very narrow slice of the administrative pie, and the candidate asserts no interest in cutting the rest of the pie.  Also, the quantity of edit counts does not imply quality.  I would like to see the candidate move an article into the "Good Article" category.  It may be in process, but until it's done, I don't intend to change my vote.
'''Weak Oppose''' per above. Seems to not reall ynot the tools and seems uninterested in the process.--
'''Oppose''' Needs to demonstrate a more appropriate mind frame.--
'''Oppose''' Nom statement and answers are too short for me. Question one is a bit vague. Also not doing enough admin "Stuff" (AfD vandal fighting etc). --
'''Oppose''' not satisfactory answers, specially optional question.
'''Neutral''' I don't understand your answer to Q1 - why mention changing usernames? This is an RfA, and not all admins become bureaucrats. I wouldn't say it's a first step either. --
'''Neutral''' Your answer to question one hints that you might be a bit too interested in getting these tools. Remember, Adminship is no big deal. I'll be neutral for now, assuming that answer stays up. Everything else checks out. '''
'''Neutral''' per Sharkface, I also think your edit summary usage needs some work. ←
'''Neutral''' per Sharkface217. Also, as Anas stated, please work on your edit summary. Cheers! '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''', use more edit summaries, don't really see the need of having the tools. Needs more edits in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Neutral''', turn on the ''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'' in your preferences and add useful summaries, increase your time at XFD's and try again in a few months.  Don't be discouraged though!
'''Neutral''' per edit summary usage and lack of experience at XfDs. Please come back in a few months, though, once you've gotten a little more experience in places where you would need the tools. ···
'''Neutral'''. Some of the oppose votes seem a little excessive; what I'm troubled by is this editor's desire to stop editting when conflict arises.  Conflict is a regretable, but sometimes neccesary part of being here, and even more so for an administrator.  Admins need to be able to stand up to vandals of all stripes; they can't back away. --
'''Neutral''' I think you need more familiarization to the customs to Wikipedia.--
'''Oppose''' due to ''very'' recent block for disruption and edit warring.  Candidate's actions leading to the block and his response to the block suggest to me that he is not ready to be an administrator.
'''Oppose'''  you were blocked two days ago for uncivil comments.  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Oppose'''  - unfortunately, you've shown a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes (the 3RR block thing) as well as incurring a subsequent block for incvility. And that was only two days ago. You're also being argumentative on your own RfA (''"What are you talking about?"'') This is not the behaviour I expect from an administrator -
'''oppose''' user was blocked, and block extended, ''yesterday''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Perspicacite] -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' for the blocks and the comments made afterwards. As I've heard somewhere recently, incivility isn't the first comment, but what happens afterwards.--
'''Strong Oppose''' per recent behavior described above.  It seems to me that you're applying to be an admin ''because'' you are currently embroiled in something of a dispute, and the diffs provided above, and block log, do not reassure me.
'''Strong Oppose''' (edit conflict) Obviously not...just freshly blocked? No.
According to Alison's diffs above, the user seems to be unnecessarily confrontational. Administrators have to regularly deal with upset and angry people, trolls, vandals and other editors of a less-than-polite manner. These diffs above makes me question the judgement and temperament when dealing with such people, as well as resolving and de-escalating disputes. The knowledge of policy and guidelines of Wikipedia is also a valid concern, given the recent block that has been given for incivility. In short, the ability to remain calm when dealing with high pressure situations, as well as knowledge of the policies and guidelines dealing with incivility and edit warring is crucial for an admin, and I am not confident of the ability to deal with these adversities associated with adminship. Furthermore, accusing respected editors of being incivil, especially when they are not, is questionable. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry to pile on but I cannot even offer my usual Moral Support at this time. I can however offer some un-asked for advice. Take heed of the comments by others here. They are respected editors and have made valuable points. Spend time reviewing the policies. Do not give up on Wikipedia. Best wishes, and happy (non-confrontational) editing! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I too am sorry to pile on here, but there are too many valid concerns being raised up here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and be more familiar with Wikipedia policies. In the meantime, do not be disheartened over this nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per valid and valuable concerns expressed above.  Also hasn't been around very long.  Keep editing, take the above concerns on board, work in the Wikipedia space, join a project or two, avoid blockable behavior and come back after a couple of months, and you'll get a much better response. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support''' as co-nom, best of luck Phil
seems trustworthy and could use the tools. Good luck!:) --
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry but I have to oppose. Almost all mainspace edits are vandal reverts, giving you no real experience of contributing content or dealing with disputes over it. Answer to Q.2 is weak as a result. Only about 200 talk contributions (user & article - including warning vandals) show that you haven't engaged much with the Community. And actually the answer to Q.1 is a little dubious- I would expect admin candidates to familiarise themselves with copyright policy ''before'' accepting an RfA nom. Just 163 Wikipedia space contribs are rather difficult to try and glean your policy knowledge from, and combined with lack of experience elsewhere suggests to me you need to get more involved in policy discussions before I would be comfortable supporting. You're doing great work as a vandal fighter, but I think you need to broaden out elsewhere. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Your Wikipedia space count is just too low, there's not enough evidence that you're experienced enough beyond vandalfight, which by the way I commend. Periods of rather low activity also denote that you might not have real need for the tools. I'll be happy to support in a month or two if you increase and diversify your flux of contributions.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Husond and WJB. I would definitely support in some time, with a more increased and varied output. Sorry. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Oppose''' Nearly all the edits are to mainspace or user talk. Also, I cite the points above that Wikipedia edits are low. I don't like to vote against a person that I think will use the tools and can be trusted with them, but I just think you need more Wikipedia edits before I can be certain you have the experience to be an admin. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - to be an admin, you need to have knowledge of deletion policy. The candidate does not demonstrate involvement in that. The core deletion policies ([[WP:N]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:ISNOT]] etc) have applications way beyond the AfD debates - an admin must be in a position to judge edits and adjudicate edit wars, etc. By the way, what's this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Philip_Gronowski&diff=prev&oldid=99927552] -
'''Oppose'''.  Upon seeing your handling of [[User207.6.209.233|207.6.209.233]], I believe you still have a bit to learn about handling vandals.  This was only a few months ago, so it's not like you didn't know the way to go about dealing with vandals.  It is never neccesary to feed the trolls or to bite back.  If you are to be an administrator, you need to always keep a cool head.  Your edit counts are enough to get you by (despite what the above say), but you need to be as professional as possible in handling vandalism to be an admin.  All the best :)
'''Oppose''' - Per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ver%C3%B3nica_Castro&diff=prev&oldid=115119280] edit summary. --
'''Oppose'''. The diff cited by After Midnight really says it all. Admins must be able to act with civility, even when under stress. As many admins will attest, administrators face criticism and abuse on a daily basis, and the spam seen in this diff doesn't even approach the rude comments that admins have to put up with. I suggest that in the future, please refrain from expressing yourself like that, and if you feel very stressed by something or someone, consider stepping back or at least pausing before making hasty comments. Even if this was a reference to ''Snakes on a Plane'', it was inappropriate and shouldn't have been said. Another thing: as others have said, more involvement in various policy pages would also be good. I hope you take everyone's advice to heart. --
'''Oppose''' per above. <b><font color="#00A86B" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. that comment pretty muchknocks you out of contention for this rfa, try again later.--
'''Oppose''' can't support a user who can't resist flame bait. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_review/Philip_Gronowski&diff=prev&oldid=99927552] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ver%C3%B3nica_Castro&diff=prev&oldid=115119280] Plus lack of edits outside pure vandal reverts. Suggest withdrawal.--
'''Oppose''', a quarter due to the actual edit (would have been neutral just on that), but the responses above give me little confidence that this user appreciates what extra standards of behaviour administrators need to behave to, and that attempting to Wikilawyer your way out of what the objection was for rather than accepting that you made an error in judgement is not befitting an administrator. The ER comment tops the cake, really. That, and the low experience in policy and process. Nope, not this time. '''
'''Oppose''' per objections above. I strongly suggest you withdraw this RFA, improve the issues noted above, and come back for adminship in a few months time. --[[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color= "blue" face="Harlow Solid Italic">'''''KZ'''''</font>]]     [[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<sup><small><font color= "red" face="Century Schoolbook">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] <sup>•</sup>
'''Oppose''' (Changed from support) My former statements still stand but I am opposing per After Midnight. -
'''Oppose''' per reasons listed by others above. I think more experience is required before you receive the tools. ···
'''Neutral''' Your experience fits your desired admin post, but I'd like to see some further experience in the other areas. You never know when an editor might need your help with page protection or XFD when you are an administrator, so a bit of prior experience helps. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Neutral''' On principle I will not change my support vote to an oppose, but I am withdrawing my support based on the civility issues that have been raised.
'''Neutral''' per some civility issues shown in the diffs and what I perceive as weak answers to the standard questions. —
'''Neutral''' I remain impartial, as I did not know Philip before encountering this RfA, but the stubbornness related to valid concerns is holding back my support. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Neutral''' (from Support) too many concerns brought up by the opposers makes me change my mind. -
<i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good user apart from the image concerns. I can forgive this user for not fully understanding image policy; to be honest, I myself don't really know much about image policy, and would have to look it up if I ever did any work with images (which I don't). But as long as the candidate isn't going to do anything with images, I see no problems. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't understand our [[WP:FAIRUSE|non-free content]] R&Rs <sup>([[:Image:Integra.png|1]], [[:Image:Cma a logo.jpg|2]] & [[:Image:Vandrosshits.jpg|3]])</sup>.
'''Oppose'''  --
'''Oppose''' You say you want to work with images, but you clearly don't understand fair use. Sorry. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Strong oppose''' - the number of red links in the upload log and those five images which I tagged today give me the impression that the candidate does not understand image copyright issues. Not to mention [[:Image:LCI cosmo.JPG]],  [[:Image:LCI Art.jpg]] and most obviously [[:Image:Teamflag1.jpg]] which are incorrectly tagged. ([[Template:Non-free 2D art|Hint: Here's why]].) Sorry.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. Contributions show a lack of understanding of fair use policy. Sorry, but some of these mistakes are not ignorable. —
'''Oppose''' sadly, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/StephenHjellum13&diff=130249708&oldid=130247865 this diff]. Not helpful, not constructive. No need to pile-on oppose on an RfA that's obviously failing, to do so is BITE-y and unnecessarily humiliating to the candidate. And if you must pile it on, do so in a constructive manner - tell them what they are doing wrong/what they can improve upon. That is enough for me to not support. &ndash;
'''Strong Oppose''' - I didn't release that it was was you who made the "''let it snow let it snow let it snow''" comment in that RfA last week - that really got to me, you were biting a newbie there and that's something we don't do. Admins must respect new user, without that - we won't evolve. Please think about things before you speak in the future and respect our newer editors.
'''Oppose''' per Riana and Ryan. '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Sceptre|Will]]. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Talk'''</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boricuaeddie|<font color="darkblue">'''Contribs'''</font>]] •
'''Support''' I for one am stricken by Pie Man.  Seldom do we see such great potential.  Pie Man is obviously a natural.  Why get in the way of his fast track to admin-dum?  One thing that I admire most about Pie Man is the [[cut of his jib]].  The guys got guts and that goes a long way in this world.  I for one suggest that Pie Man crush his opponents when he receives his inevitable adminship (crush in good faith of course).  I also sense sockpuppetry coming from the Oppose section.  I would go so far as to say that it is an anti Pie Man cabal, but that may not be civil. Nevertheless, their attempts are fruitless.  This is in the bag, congrats Pie Man.
'''Oppose''' per poor answers, plus I find it a bit disconcerting that your selfnom focusses solely on edit count. Also, your sig isn't even working. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' and I advise you to retract the nomination. Your first Wikipedia-space edit was three weeks ago and you don't show much experience in interaction with any editors other than vandals. You might one day be a fantastic admin, but there is no way any of us can tell right now and I'm afraid this RfA doesn't stand a chance.
'''Oppose''' too few mainspace edits and weak answers.
'''Oppose'''. alas, adminship is not a reward for just doing anti-vandal work. Gotta expand your horizons. Participate more broadly and try applying again in a few months.--
'''Edit conflicted oppose''', not enough experience and weak answers. --
'''Oppose''' not enough experience.
'''Oppose'''. I suggest withdrawal. <s>And you may want to fix up your signature.</s> '''''
'''Oppose''' - Due to lack of experience. I suggest you withdraw--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' -- Too low of an edit count. Also, lack of significant article contribution. '''<font color="teal" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' From what I've seen of you, you do good work, but judging by historical trends you are far too new here to have any chance of passing an RfA at this time.  I suggest you withdraw your nomination, keep on doind what you're doing, and come back in 3 months. <font face="monospace">
'''Moral support'''. I'd suggest you follow the Rambling Man's good advice and withdraw the request, as it is unlikely to succeed. Most people at RFA will be looking for a solid knowledge of policy, probably demonstrated by edits to the Wikipedia name space. In any case, being an administrator is not very glamorous. Active administrators generally spend their time on very boring tasks. As for dealing with vandalism, you can revert most vandals yourself. It is made easier with [[WP:POPUPS]] or [[WP:TWINKLE]], which anyone can use. For page move vandalism, you can use the {{tl|db-move}} speedy deletion tag. If you do want to be an administrator, have a look at [[Wikipedia:What administrators do]] as it explains the grisly details. Experience at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion]] is generally considered useful. On the whole, adminship is no big deal, just a few more buttons. It also means that it isn't a big deal not to be an administrator. Thanks for volunteering and better luck next time,
'''Oppose''' as you didnt give us any diffs for the vandalized articles indicating not sufficient dominance of the wikipedia tools at your disposal,
'''Oppose''' - Your talk page shows little understanding of what makes Wikipedia work.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdraw.  With 69 edits since last September (15 of which have been in your self-nom RFA), and a malformed RFA I would suggest this RFA goes not much further.
'''Oppose''' Most editors like to see around 3,000 or more edits, including a good contribution in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], which you have yet to demonstrate. This is the only way by which we can judge your familiarity with wiki policy.--
'''Oppose'''. Severe lack of activity, as Rambling Man stated, and a general misunderstanding/inexperience of Wikipedia policy. '''
'''Oppose''' Your contributions log shows that you need to become regularly active in nearly every aspect of the project in order to serve it well as an administrator.  The majority of your policy space edits are to this RfA - no XfD discussions or opining on other RfAs, debating Good and Featured Article prospects, etc; your vandal warnings in the user Talk space are sporadic and sparse, as are your article edits too.  Start to contribute reguarly and effectively to articles and to participate in admin-related tasks such as new page/recent change patrols and you may qualify for the tools in another year or so.  A one-year anniversary of having an account on Wikipedia is not sufficient reason to request additional responsibilities.  You have to demonstrate your capability to carry out admin tasks efficiently and effectively too. Evidence in the form of diffs is also an excellent idea in your answers too, as it saves having to hunt around for the evidence in  your contributions logs.  Withdraw this RfA now and start to work in the policy and user Talk spaces as well as building the articles with facts, references and citations.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Q1 of wishing to delete articles that "aren't very informative" is troubling. You should read about [[WP:XFD|Wikipedia's deletion processes]]. <font color="CornflowerBlue"><b>
'''Oppose''', recommend withdrawal or early closure. Not enough experience or activity in the last several months. --'''
'''Oppose''' lack of activity and experience. Suggest withdrawal or [[WP:SNOW]] is what's going to happen here. -
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience. You don't have to be a sysop to fight vandalism. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' -Lack of Experience for sure and very low "Wikipedia" contributions(for AngusMclellan), actually more then half your Wikipedia contribution is applying for Adminship but I believe if you apply in another 4 or 5 months, I will Definetly support you..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose'''- Q1 says that that you want to rv vandalism. You can do that as a regular editor so you do not need the mop.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (2)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Oppose''' per everyone else.--
'''Suggest withdrawl''' You seem to have good intentions, but I do not believe you will pass the nomination at this time. :( '''
'''Strong oppose'''. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Reasons are all above. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Nothing more to say.'''
'''Morale Support''' Try again in a few months and you should do fine. Cheers,
It's a first, if I remember correctly, but I have to '''oppose''' here for a lack of Wikispace participation  (34 edits including those for this nom), and only 34 main talk edits, sorry. —'''
'''Oppose''' few article talk edits, few WP edits, zero WP talk edits, little participation since January. I hate to oppose based on experience (I probably have some of the loosest experience guidelines around, in fact), as Plm seems like a fine user, but not one who should have the tools yet (or, judging from Q1, one who even needs the tools). --
'''Oppose''' The only evidence that we have to make judgement on is your level of involvement in, and competence in, admin-related topics, which exist in wikispace. And you do not seem to have been there very much, so I am unhappy at the idea of giving you the tools at this time. Get into wikispace and contribute there, and come back in three months time.--
'''Oppose''' briefly: low activity, insufficient experience. Sorry. —
'''Oppose''' You are not ready for adminship yet, but don't worry! You may get it yet. Just edit for a few more months and learn about Wikipedia, and you may succeed on your next RfA.
I'm not usually one to use arbitrary metrics as a measure of someone's ability, so I won't oppose based on that but the very low wikispace edits makes it hard to judge the user's grasp on policy.  User seems genuinely interested in making Wikipedia a better place, but the answer to Q1 can all be accomplished with the tools available to a standard user.  Nothing here to make me oppose, just nothing here to make me support, either.
'''Moral Support''' - Clearly an enthusiastic user, but not experienced enough yet. Although vandal-fighting is good, you need some experience in other areas such as [[WP:XFD|deletion discussions]]; some more article-writing contributions would also be beneficial to your candidacy. I suggest you withdraw now, and try again in a few months.
'''Moral Support''' - First, you need more experience. Edit count isn't everything, but it is a somewhat reliable indicator of experience. Second, you should work on some article writing. If you write a particularly good new article, it may be featured at [[WP:DYK|Did you know]], or you can work on [[WP:FA|featured articles]] and [[WP:GA|Good articles]]. Another thing you may want to do is join a Wikiproject; there are many out there that would welcome your help! As admins are involved in deleting and protecting pages, getting involved in [[WP:XFD|deletion debates]] may be helpful, as it will help you learn deletion policy. As for your reports to [[WP:UAA]], keep it up, and try to work on a higher success rate. I know you mentioned vandal-fighting, that is also important, keep that work up too. A couple more things, first, keep an eye on the RfA process and the talk page, and you'll get a good idea of how the process works. Don't let the failure of your RfA get you down, just keep working on the encyclopedia, and remember what [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] said about adminship: "It's no big deal". Finally, you may want to submit an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. The page there will give you an idea of what they are like and how they are run. If you have any questions about my suggestions or something, please do not hesitate to email me or go to my talk page, I would be pleased to help you. Good luck! Regards,
510 or so edits is not nearly enough experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose.''' Sorry, 500 edits indicate insufficient experience; the lower bound is usually around 3'000. Also, Wikipedia is not a social networking site: smiling at people is not what we look for in admins. What we ''do'' look for is at least some article writing experience as well as  participation in admin-type tasks, such as deletion discussions. Vandalism reverts and UAA reports aren't quite enough. Please do try again some months from now.
'''Oppose''' Not enough project activity, would like to see successful activity in locations like [[WP:AIV]] as an indicator of how you would block vandals.  —
'''Oppose''': I really don't wish to be too harsh, but you're spending too much time reporting fairly innocuous usernames, supporting motto of the day and other fairly unimportant stuff, when you really need to be editing the encyclopedia and building the project. This shows when you look into the breakdown of your edits, almost 3 edits to the Wikipedia namespace for every 1 edit to the actual encyclopedia. You also appear to have completely the wrong outlook on editing Wikipedia. Your nomination statement is worrying, ''"I am a very powerful contributor here in Wikipedia"'' is completely incorrect, you're no more or less powerful than any other contributor here. ''"I have over 500 consecutive edits today and I am very proud of myself"'' - edit count isn't everything and any nomination that boasts about edit count deserves to fail, quite frankly. ''"What I do is I reported inappropriate users to WP:UAA so they can get either blocked or unblocked to change their username"''. This does appear to be about all you're interested in and looking through, I see a fairly good accuracy, say, about 80%, but that's still too low for an administrator. Users having picked an unfortunate username in good faith are users just like you or I, and they need to be treated with care and compassion to make sure we don't loose them. ''"I gave smiles and an award to every user who contributed to Wikipedia"'' - that's not what we are about, you should be editing because you enjoy it, not because you want to be an administrator or want someone to give you a barnstar. The same goes for everybody else. Finally, I'm rather concerned that you've not investigated the RfA process and appear quite unfamiliar with the ''de facto'' requirements, somewhere around 3,000 edits and a good spread of edits across the namespaces. I also see a lack of participation in other administrative areas, such as deletion, page protection and such, so whilst I'm not keen on giving you the ability to block users, I'm completely against you having the ability to delete or protect pages. I'd hope you take the comments here onboard and return after several months, perhaps when someone else thinks you should be an administrator.
'''Suggest Withdrawl''' there's no way this will pass, people can easily find half a dozen reasons to oppose from your lack of experience and your nomination and questions alone. You should withdraw this now, and try again in some months --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose''' - While I'm loathe to give them too much weight, at least one of the 'Motto of the day's you suggested shows an aggressiveness I'm not comfortable with.  Specifically, "If you destroy a bus's windows, you'll be suspended" with links to vandalism and the blocking policy.  That might be true, to a certain degree, but it's certainly not the root ideal of the project. -
'''Withdraw''' Save yourself more pain, withdraw you're request.  While you may think 500 is alot, come back when you have at least <b>6</b> times that many <em>mainspace</em> edits.--'''
'''Withdraw''' Not ready. Get involved in improving articles, and try again in several months. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - Aww that was really cute! It really was. But that's where the praise ends I'm afraid. The answers to the questions are very vague and waver from the point. You need much more, I repeat ''much more'' experience all-round, especially mainspace and Wikipedia space. You're obviously enthusiastic. Keep it up and improve! :-)  <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. I'd suggest withdrawing. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
[[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral suggesting withdrawal''' Definitely not ready. &ndash;'''''
'''Neutral - Gently suggest withdrawl''' I'd strongly urge you to review the comments left here, to review some various RfAs (both successful and not), and to watch the RfA page for several months, reviewing issues that are brought up, and seeing how the entire process works, before you nominate yourself again. Good luck! <sup>
'''Moral Support''' — participation in the Wikipedia namespace is important. Drop by AfD (or any deletion discussion of your preference) a few times a day and give your opinion; that should prepare you sufficiently. I also appreciate your contributions to the mainspace, but articles like [[Luoding Railway]] are not really helpful to our goal, as it is unreferenced. [[WP:V]] is one of our most important policies; learn it, live it, love it. Please work on these areas and try again in the future. Best regards, '''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' - Poeloq, you are a good editor, you just need some more experience. Learn from what the editors here are telling you and try again in few months. Cheers!
'''Oppose''' On the right track, but I would like to see more experience both contributing as an editor and in reverting/warning/reporting vandals.
'''Oppose''' To be honest, your answers were somewhat weak. Although that might be the case, you were on the money. I would suggest that you participate a lot more on the admin noticeboards, as well become more active on Wikipedia as most people would make their decision on an RfA based on the number of mainspace (article) edits and the number of Wikipedia namespace edits; in your case you currently have under 600 mainspace edits and 80 Wikipedia edits. If you become more active, and are renominated in a few months, I will be willing to support you.
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with the above comments.  You are a good editor, but more experience is necessary, especially in the Wikipedia namespace.  I recommend partipating more in [[WP:XFD]], that's one of my favorites.  As a point of reference, it's a rare day when an editor was made an administrator with fewer than 2000 edits.
'''No'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough to judge by yet. Keep trying.
'''Oppose''' per Ronnotel. Insufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' due to insufficient edits (under 1,200) to judge character.  Sorry, but please try editing mainspace articles and Wikipedia space, such as [[WP:AFD]].  See you here in a few months.
'''Oppose but Moral Support''' You're definitely on the right track, keep it up! Get some more experience and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Per Stifle... but keep it up, and try again a little bit later on! :)
'''Neutral''' - Don't want to pile on, but you need more experience. Of course AFD, but also try [[WP:RFPP]], [[WP:UAA]], and other such pages. --
'''Beat the nom support''' great user.
'''Support''' Nice user.
'''Support''' Meets my standards. Answers are consistent with understanding the tools. Talk page shows no evidence of incivility. We have had teenage admins before, and I'm afraid I do not understand opposes based on ageism. I do recall reading conversations where the ability of the nom rather than the age of the nom was to be the determining factor. Please correct me if I've missed something, like an age limit being agreed upon.
'''Support''' - Hmm... I like the response to my question, but it could have been a bit longer. The user meets my [[User:Rudget/policies|standards]] and their edits don't seem to show incivility. Their is a good edit count and there is a good understanding of policy. I don't personally believe age should be a restriction for an admin, but this is just one opinion. Best of luck, &mdash;
'''Support''' Seems experienced enough.
'''Support'''.  No evidence teh editor will abuse the tools.  Good luck.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' A proud vandal fighter. Evidently, he wants to keep Wikipedia a clean, safe community. Keep up the good work, Preston! <font face="sprint SF" color="#66CCFF" size="larger">
'''Support''': good, consistent gnomework; plenty of vandal warning and [[WP:AIV|reporting]], no evidence of incivility or conflict. Age is a minor problem, but is it the only one? Yes, therefore support.
'''Support''' &ndash; All of my interactions with this user have been positive. —
My observations of this user have been positive.
Good experiences with Preston.
Support. A decent user.
'''Support'''. A good user with solid contributions to the project. My only concern is age, not so much because of maturity (the candidate's apparent maturity trumps that concern easily), but because the project will be one of a growing list of demands on the candidate's time. So long as the candidate bears in mind the fact that the survival of the project does not rest on their shoulders, and that it's OK to take time for other things (as anyone of that age will know is necessary), I'm fine with this user as an admin. Best wishes,
'''Support''' I trust that PrestonH will never abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Age isn't an issue.  If he isn't misusing his edit tools, why would he start misusing his admin tools?  Mainspace edits aren't an issue.  If anything he won't have the temptation to abuse the tools to support his main space work.  I see lots of wiki-gnome work from this user, and there's a lot of useful mop-wielding work that at this level.  Wiki-break isn't an issue.  In fact, I think it takes a lot of maturity to step away from the RfA process and simply let it unfold.  Many RfAs have gone up in flames because the nom attempted to defend him/herself against each negative issue.  It's more telling when the nom lets experienced editors/admins weigh in on their behalf.
'''Support''', in part to express displeasure with the age-based opposes, as there is not and should not be any age minimum for administrators and we have many younger administrators doing fine jobs. However, the timing of this RfA may not be the best, and given that it appears likely to be unsuccessful, the candidate might be best advised to withdraw at present and return later on when he has developed a somewhat more rounded editing profile and when any real-life pressures have receded.
Per Newyorkbrad. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - I'm more comfortable with this user as an admin than as an editor.  Grammar doesn't matter with blocking and protecting pages.  He's trustworthy, and that's what counts.  If he wants to do gruntwork for Wikipedia, I say let's take advantage of this.  Now.  He may not be as interested in 10 years.  '''''
'''Support''' - Good user and good luck. &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
Looking back on your prior contributions, I see that although you are only in your early teens, you have the experience that is often requested of administrators. You have demonstrated to handle situations with ease, a solid track record that is a plus in my book, and will to warn and report vandals. Better than some adult administrators for sure :-)
I have seen Preston's editing - he should do fine. The age concerns expressed below are bogus. -- <strong>
'''Oppose.''' It's nothing personal, but I do not think that the responsibility and stress of an admin job is appropriate for thirteen year olds, particularly since your user page already displays a wikibreak/wikistress notice. Also, vandal-whacking is only part of an administrator's job, and I see little involvement on your part in other admin-type tasks such as XfDs. Please do keep up your good work and try again later.
'''Oppose''' Age is a concern imo when it comes to different things like e.g. the ability to see deleted pages. This in itself wouldn't be sufficient reason to oppose, but in conjunction with an [[User:PrestonH/Autograph_Book|autograph book]], I personally have serious doubts whether the necessary level of maturity has been reached. Disclaimer: Since this reasoning is based on my personal [[floccinaucinihilipilification]] of autograph pages, I cannot and don't expect anyone to follow my logic. [[WP:NOT#SOCIALNET|But still]]. I&nbsp;
This user has not sufficiently demonstrated their ability to apply discretion and make decisions in situations where the decision isn't as clear as "yes, I'll revert this" or "no, I won't"/"yes, that's a typo" or "no, that's not a typo". Administrators need to be able to make good, educated, thoughtful, discretionary decisions and unfortunately this candidate hasn't displayed enough experience in doing so for me to be able to support. '''
'''Oppose''' I feel that the concerns raised above are strong. Although you are a good user, I suggest that you give this a bit more time. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Agree with Daniel above --
Great contributor, but I don't think 13 year olds in general have the ability for complex decision making that is required of admins (particularly in XfD, dispute mediation, handling AN/I issues etc.) This isn't necessarily hard and fast, but PrestonH doesn't have the past history in these situations to overcome my general concerns. A lot of experience in these areas and a track record of solid decision making would change my vote to support in a future RfA.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I can't support this user.  Users with editing patterns such as PrestonH's (lots of vandal-fighting and copyediting; little in the way of actual new content) tend to develop a fortress mentality that is not a desirable trait in an administrator.  While the kind of work PrestonH does is necessary, and I have no problem in general with those who do mainly that, I don't want them being administrators.
'''Oppose'''. This user is a good Wikipedian, and a nice person, but yet again, I agree with Daniel above. I also have some concerns with the way the questions are answered; lurking?
I suspect some real life issues are presently affecting this editor and that is the reason he os on a wikibreak during his RfA. Certainly his choice but it makes me think he is unsuited for the job at the moment. As far as the age of an admin is concerned I know we have some that are very young. But they are the exception. Therefore, when a very young person requests the janitor keys we must be doubly sure they are also one of the exceptions. I just don't see it here. Now, next year? Perhaps. But let's see. -
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.
Maybe in ten years.
Oppose, I'm afraid. I have to agree with Daniel and his points on this matter, and the others' concerns. I doubt your judgement in sticky situations, and even though there are valid administrators under the age of 18 who work fine and do well, I don't think I can trust you with administrator tools. '''
Weak oppose per Daniel. I like the guy and have interacted with him well before, but am generally left with an impression of giddiness - not necessarily a bad thing, but probably not what we want in an admin. I feel bad because I genuinely do like him but I can't support for the reasons above. Do some article writing work, try stepping outside RC and copyediting a little bit. For what it's worth the concerns about age are, IMV, completely baseless - I mentor 13-14 year olds and many of them would make better sysops than some of the dramamongers on ANI - but I wouldn't worry too much, it's an unpopular opinion and fortunately is likely to remain so. ~
'''Oppose''', not sure I would trust the user with the tools at this time.  This is not because of his age, but I would suggest opposing based on age/maturity is entirely reasonable and the dramatically-bolded expressions of anguished astonishment are unhelpful.
'''Oppose.'''  Two things.  First off, the reason that thirteen-year-olds are minors in this society is that, as a society, we view them as lacking the maturity, focus and judgment of their seniors.  Much more important, this is an encyclopedia, seeking accuracy and proper construction, and there's no way I want someone with the mop who has so many spelling errors and typos in his ''RfA answers.''  If he doesn't take enough pains there to get it right, where would he?
It's my opinion that the purely ageist opposes here are completely inappropriate, unfounded, and discriminatory, but after looking at his edit history, user pages, and answers to the questions here, I'm afraid I'll have to oppose, as per Daniel and Riana. The answers in particular don't seem to really suggest a firm grasp of policy, and his userpage material and talk page comments seem rather odd in a disconcerting way; I'm not really sure of any other way of putting it (see the pi page, for example, or the 20 edit rule matter in his recent edit history).  --
I haven't seen the issues Daniel refers too, but the lack of any mainspace work is discomforting. [[Portal:Music of Australia|&mdash;]]
'''Neutral.''' Preston is a good editor and an asset to the project, and I do not think that he would abuse the tools, but I think that more varied experience is needed. You've proven that you can fight vandals, that's good! But experience in many arenas of discussion on Wikipedia (think xFDs and other RFAs) makes for a more well-rounded admin that can react better when faced with dicey and unforeseen situations. Take some time off from the spelling fixes for a few months, participate in some processes, mint an FA maybe, then come back and I believe you should be granted the tools at that time.—
I was originally going to support PrestonH, but Daniel makes some good points. Can't support, but I don't want to oppose, either. '''Neutral''' for now. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support'''<small> (first!)</small> to let the bot run. Despite being an admin bot, I believe it is necessary for the 'protection' of the main page, as they recieve numerous accounts of vandalism.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ProtectionBot (was approved)]
'''Support''' based upon the Bot RfA comments and amendments.
'''Support''' and welcome our bot overlords --
'''Support''' I'm not the biggest fan of admin bots, however good nom, and the bots purpose seems needed
'''Support''' I don't mind admin bots as long as they have been tested and their purpose has been clearly defined. <b><font color="teal">

'''Support''' per Gizza.  This is badly needed.  I'm not even sure if I feel that an RfA is really necessary as I it seems well supported at BRFA, but I guess an RfA can't hurt. --
'''Support''' clearly needed and safe to use. <small>recommend to allow operation on personal account until this RfA is decided</small>
'''Support'''. About time.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - it is deeply needed.  Even with the excellent Shadowbot2 reports, we've had incidents on the main page recently. <strong>
Necessary, completely reversible. --
'''Full support'''. Necessary. Actions are auditable by moving them to a separate account. A big red button on its page is enough to prevent harm. If the code isn't be publicly released, I won't bother me much - the bot's tasks are simple and if Dragons flight vows that there's no self-unblocking mechanism plugged in (why would there be any?), it's fine by me. <small>(Bottom note: my healthy interpretation of the policies is that adminship is given to a '''person''', not an '''account''', so this RfA should IMO be a speedy promote.)</small>
'''Support'''per Gizza.
'''Support''', if it does not operate as desired or becomes obsolete, we can desysop at the drop of a hat (without the normal drama). This is a very low risk, high reward for the project thing to do, so let's do it.
'''Support'''. Dragons flight is already an admin and does a good job running bots and the reasons stated for why this account here needs admin rights are valid. Dragons flight can fully be trusted to use this account carefully and as explained (and for nothing else). This is not a cookie cutter RfA. So, discussion contributors should carefully check the motivation behind this RfA and think about how the underlying problem (protecting templates affecting the main page) should be solved without this bot if this RfA should not pass. Many thanks to Dragons flight for doing all this work. --
'''Support''' - this is needed urgently. IAR and common sense, please.
'''Support''' - There was a time when some admin actions, such as image deletion, could not be reversed. That time has passed. Thus, the only 'danger' represented by an 'admin bot' (like any bot) is that it will make numerous incorrect changes that would take a long time to clean up. However, '''this''' bot would be performing a very specific and simple task with a narrow scope. The chances of it 'going berserk' seem virtually nil ''and'' if it did the log of excess protections / unprotections could ''easily'' be used to create a list for equally quick reversal. Finally, bots which perform admin functions ''should'' be subject to more widespread review than normal bot approval requests and having an RfA may be a reasonable way to achieve that, but can we ditch the stuff about the bot not having accepted the nomination? Or does it have to be coded to do that... which it could. --
'''Support''' - Much needed &mdash;
'''Support''' It is about time. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' ←
'''Support''' - good potential for solving a serious vandalism problem --
'''Support''', this one will solve a lot vandalism problems on Wikipedia, this is needed.
'''Support''' Seems like a good idea —<b><font color="#00FFFF">[[User:Pilotguy|P]]</font>
'''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''support''': great user, answers to questions are awesome. (Actually, this bot could really help!)--
'''Support''' - definitely a useful bot. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="dark blue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="seagreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support'''. This is necessary. '''
'''Support'''. Completely necessary. &mdash;
This whole idea of an RFA is utterly unnecessary.  The bot's op is already entrusted with the sysop bit, so I don't see the necessity of making him go through this extraneous process to get a ''second'' one.  He's already trusted, and bot ops are responsible for the actions of their bots, so, granting this bit should just rely on Bot Approvals Group or bureaucrat discretion.  If it malfunctions it can always just be blocked.  RFA is entirely geared towards determining the acceptability of human candidates to be admins; try applying the process to a robot candidate whose human owner is already an admin makes no sense.  --
'''Support'''. I've been looking through dozens of template histories to find a vandal edit and in the meantime a giant penis was sitting on the main page. I don't want to do it again. &ndash;&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. I'm happy to support and have no concerns with the idea of a bot with sysop status, and I would also suggest Shadowbot2 is given a full bot flag (if not given one already) and is entrusted with a backup role in case there is any problem with ProtectionBot, you know, just in case. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' a needed bot and DF is certainly a very trustworthy person to run it. Anyone who thinks we don't need a bot for this should volunteer to do this task every day for the next 6 months :-) --
'''Strong support''' No concerns, it has only been coded to protect and serve (yes you may groan and vandalise my talk page for that), it cannot code itself, so it won't be going on a spree and/or code itself to block or delete. Unless [[penis]] becomes a featured article, it should solve the problems ;) --
'''Strong support'''; though I've been hesitant about giving a bot administrative rights in the past, I truly believe that this one is necessary. I speak from personal experience - it's no fun spending time protecting, unprotecting, uploading, and then deleting multiple images and templates each day, especially when you could be doing more productive issues that a bot couldn't do. Though my work was called "[[User:Flcelloguy/Awards|like clockwork]]" back in May, when I regularly did the protection work, a bot like this could be much more like clockwork than any human could ever be. Sure, there will be some issues with the bot malfunctioning, like with any other bot, but such errors are inevitable with any bot, and are still an improvement over human protection (which, as we've seen, can let things slip through at times). I've also appreciated the way Dragons flight has run this whole process: he has  responded to my (and everyone else's) concerns, questions, and suggestions with great patience and concern, has taken the necessary steps prior to bringing this RfA, and has also shared the code with several people who requested it, myself included.
'''Support'''.  I trust the owner so I trust the bot, and we need it.
'''Support''', a rare case where I'm willing to waive my requirement of having a lot of non-trivial experience in the main namespace. I trust the owner to be as accountable for this bot's actions as for his own actions. &mdash;
'''Support''' Bot owner is trusted. The bot is operated for a very good purpose, and cannot function without the priviledges of an admin.
'''Support''' of course. This shouldn't even be an RfA, Dragons Flight already went through this process.  Perhaps an RfA should also be undergone each time admins switch browser software or upgrade their computers?-
'''Support''' rationale seems to make sense --
'''Support''', especially due to the recent incidents with vandalism to Main Page transclusions.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
It is an insult to ask a human to do a machine's job. &mdash;
'''Support''', this bot is needed to help prevent further vandalism on the main page and I fully trust the creator.
'''Support''' I have read the source code, and if ran as is will act as a responsible and helpful admin. Any further tasks should require additional approval.
'''Support''':  Machines are good at rote, routine jobs - they don't get bored, and to the extent the code is good, they don't make mistakes.  The Main Page article is by far the most seen page in Wikipedia, so minimize vandalism to it is very important.  Let's use automation where it makes sense (as it does here) to free up the time of admins to do other, less rote and routine things where human beings ''really are'' needed.
'''Support'''. At first I was kind of worried about it going crazy and blocking everyone or something, but I realised that that really just won't happen. No administrator can be held responsible for the recent spree of vandalism on the main page, even if it could have been avoided by page protection. This bot is a solution to that problem. --
'''Support'''. Generally I'm cautious about admin bots but in this case its crucial that we don't allow the MP to be regularly vandalised as its often the first page a new user sees. --
'''Strong, strong, strong support'''.  There's really no question here.  —
'''Support'''. Any additional main page vandalism will not be tolerated, and I don't think we should overwhelm adminstrators to continuously protect those templates every day. I trust this bot and his operator. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. I've opposed adminbots in the past, but I believe the circumstances here warrant granting adminship to ProtectionBot. The bot's scope is narrow and a need has been demonstrated. We shouldn't hesitate to use technology to combat vandalism, as long as the benefit outweighs the cost.
'''Support''' per my comments on ANI (or wherever the discussion was moved to). This will help to solve a problem that is very important to solve, and only in the most technical sense will the bot be performing an administrator function.
'''Strongest possible support''', though I reiterate my belief that RfA is not an appropriate forum in which to discuss this matter.  &mdash;
'''Support'''. We need this. -- '''<font color="navy">
'''Weak support'''. I don't like bots as admins by nature, but this does look like a great bot and it would certaily use the admin tools well.--
'''Weak Support''' Seems fine, I would prefer it be open source, and don't really buy the reasons for it not being so, but it's not the end of the world, and it would be useful. - '''
'''Strong support''' - as a member of the bot approvals group who has reviewed the source code, I see no problems with this bot. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' Just don't start adding any functions that are not approved. ;-)
'''Support'''. Protection of the main page is paramount. Operating user is trusted. Thank you for creating this bot, Dragons flight. --
No concerns, opposition doesn't raise any significant issues and doesn't appear to be approaching the issue in a sensible way.
'''Strong Support.''' '''Absolutely necessary.'''
Needed admin bot, if something goes wrong which I doubt, then it could quickly be blocked and desyropped.
We shouldn't even have to go through all this silly bureaucracy just to re-approve a bot that has ''already'' been approved and to grant redundant sysop access to a user that ''already'' has it.  Adminbots should be approved on [[WP:RFBA|RfBA]], with an ''announcement and a link'' there from RfA.   But since we're doing this anyway, I will of course '''support'''.  —
'''Yes''' To all those people who oppose on code: What I would get from that is a distrust in the bot operator. AGF for wiki's sake! To those afraid of admin-bots: Guess what, we've entered the age of wiki where we need some automation in order to keep up with everything. Do they still built cars by hand at each step? No. The time has come where we need this. Get over it. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Certainly'''. It's necessary and the people involved are trustworthy.
'''Support.''' Vandalism to the main page is a concrete reality, while many of the reasons for opposition so far have been fear of hypothetical problems resulting from bot malfunction.  As [[User:Cyde]] said below, "If it malfunctions (which is unlikely), it can easily be blocked by ''any'' of our over 1,000 administrators."  This bot will do a great amount of good, and it would be well to recall that neither sysopping nor admin actions are irreversible, and a bot can be easier to reign in than many humans.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Protection of the main page is an important task but shouldn't distract administrators from other duties.  This bot is the perfect solution to our recent problems.
'''Support'''. I think this RfA is totally necessary given that a new account is being sysop access. There are not enough contributors voting in the average RfBA for that to suffice. I am convinced both through personal experience of mainpage FA vandalism and the arguments made in favour of Protection Bot here, at [[WP:ANI]] and at its RfBA that this Bot will be highly beneficial to Wikipedia. Its operator is a trusted member of the community.
'''Weak Support''' only insofar, and on condition precedent that, bot will perform duties detailed in nomination.--
'''Support'''. About time. -
'''Support''', I've dealt with the tedium of protecting the images (and forgotten to do so for up to five seconds after updating sections of the Main Page) before; in the hands of a trusted user, anything that helps to automate the process is more than welcome to hold the mop. Just make sure its password is a bit harder to guess than those used to control the robots of Hollywood. :)
'''Support'''. You've convinced me. I think the risks are being overplayed and the benefits outweigh them. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' - I'm tired of seeing shock images added to templates used in templates used in today's featured article, and watching RC patrollers tripping over themsleves to find the source of the vandalism (and often causing collateral damage in the process). Having this automated and having the code not public are just common sense.
'''Support''' - good useful adminbot. Commons uses adminbots for ages and it does not create problems.
As I said in the request for approval, '''Super-Über-Mega-Speedy SUPPORT'''. This is a very one-of-a-kind situation, and cuts to the very core of Wikipedia's ability to be any kind of trusted website. I'd admonish the opposition to try and protect every image and template that appears on the main page, all the time. We still haven't gotten it right after about a month of this nonsense.
'''Support''', unequivocally.  We need this. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support'''.  I, for one, welcome our new ProtectionBot overlords.  We'll make great pets. -
'''Support''' For great justice.
'''Support''', I can see the huge benefits of giving this the +sysop bit. '''
'''Support'''- he shall be our new God! '''
'''Support''', there is nothing stopping Dragons flight from continuing to run it on his account. Having a seperate account is more honest and allows seperation of these bot edits.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' performs a badly needed and annoyingly tedious function; this is exactly what bots are for. I'd be a ''little'' more comfortable if the source code were distributed more widely, but I trust the people who have reviewed it and the successful test run. Many of the opposes are either overly literal-minded or have 'computer program' confused with 'stage one in the robot plan for world domination'.
'''Support'''. A bot like this performs a much needed function as proved by recent vandalism and the user operating it is trustworthy. Login info is not stored in the bot's code, so security risks are no larger than with a regular bot or admin account. -
'''Support''' it's not like this bot can block us all, which was apparently a concern with TawkerbotTorA; blocking is not part of its described functionality at all. Nor will it just randomly decide to protect as many pages in Wikipedia as it can, since it's a bit hard to mess up checking if something is transcluded on the main page (unless Dragons flight put something in an "if" which belonged in an "else"). I trust Dragons flight and any admins reviewing the source code. [''Insert comment comparing it with a novel where robots take over. Oh noes.''] Those new to Wikipedia should at least have time to check out the content disclaimer before having objectionable images being forced into their sight. Finally, [[WP:ILIKEIT|ILIKEIT]].
'''Strong support''' - We can see that we ''need'' this bot from the instances of Main Page vandalism during the past month. The bot seems to only be doing good things, the operator is trusted and we can always desysop. As long as we still have people checking the images before the day changes everything will be fine. I'm fortunate that I didn't see any of the pics, it is extremely paramount to Wikipedia that it is not vandalised. Let's not fear the bots - ProtectionBot gets my first RfA vote! --
'''Weak Support'''. I have to ask though, do the transcluded Commons images ''really'' get vandalized all that often? --
'''Strong Support''' - valid reason, bot doable task, secure code.  Why make humans do this by hand (which they won't) when we can fully automate it and save ourselves some work.  I welcome our robot overlords! :) --
'''Support'''-This bot is needed due to the fact that there have been complaints non-stop to the various administrative boards and relevant talk pages that there's been an inappropriate image placed onto an article through the templates we use. And the opposition's reasons are mostly "not open source." If Dragon flight does not want to release the source per [[WP:BEANS]], then let him keep it private.—
'''Support'''; I suppose I'd prefer to see the code released, but I don't see it as a big deal. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Obviously necessary.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Necessary; and I can't see any plausible risk scenario.
'''Support'''. I never thought I'd support an adminbot, bot the recent vandalism makes this one necessary.
'''Strong support'''. As long as we're not requiring all bots to be open-source, I don't really see a pressing need to impose more stringent restrictions on this one, as long as the operator is trustworthy. —
'''Support'''.  Domo arigato, mister roboto.
'''Support''', this is a near-essential failsafe mechanism.-<font face="cursive" color= "#808080">
'''Support'''. Very much needed.
'''Support'''. It seems necessary. --
This is useful.
'''Support''' with some concerns. I am in general cautious in giving bot-like tools to admins or admin status to bots unless there is something extreme going on. (Examples of this include Curps's block bot to catch Willy on Wheels saving us from hours of move-backs and reversion.) I quite strongly opposed the block-bot of Tawker's Tor-catcher. Nonetheless, the "protect" tool is a much lighter tool than the "block" tool since any damage done will be mildly annoying rather than outright disruptive to anyone affected (a wrongly protected page can be brought to AN, a wrongly blocked user may be in a big quandry), so my concerns over this bot are much milder. Since vandalism affecting main-page articles is particularily nasty since it becomes so high profile, I will support this giving this bot the protection button.
'''Support'''; the bot is necessary to ensure we get no more cock vandalism.  I have no problem with giving a bot a few extra buttons, as it really is no big deal to take them away if the bot goes mental, and the work of a few clicks to fix any errors. Given some of the users we have sysopped (and often de-sysopped) in the past, I absolutely would trust the judgement of a few lines of code with sysop tools over many humans. However, the code really, ''really'' should be public.  The argument that 'it can be modified to vandalise' is a cop out.  There are many bot codes already publically available, any of which could be modified in much the same way, and we haven't had any problems.  Why should this one be any different?  If anything, as it'll have the sysop tools, it may need to be more accountable, not less.  As I said, I will support as it is necessary, but please make the code public, to ensure full accountability.
It can make only reversible mistakes; we need this. &mdash;
Confession time. Much to my chagrin, I am '''personally responsible''' for at least one incidence of the penis vandalism that has hit us. Why? Because one time, at 2 AM, I messed up and forgot to protect an image used in DYK. Despite having done DYK a number of times, I nevertheless didn't do all the steps in the right order. I was human and I forgot a step. Bots don't forget. Things that '''can''' be done by rote, that don't require judgement, '''should''' be done by rote, that is, done by bots, leaving humans free to concentrate on harder tasks that require them to think. This bot has been running in trial mode for a while and has operated correctly. I OPPOSE having to bring a bot whose operator already has the sysop bit here, the BAG is sufficient to approve such a bot, and RfA is the WRONG PROCESS... hold the admin who runs it accountable for any problems. But, since it's here, of course I '''Support''' giving it the bit. The opposers are, in my view, misguided or misinformed, except those opposing on source code reasons. I'd prefer the code be public but that's not a showstopper for me. ++
'''Support.''' This sounds like a perfect job for a bot. Let there be oversight, let the problems be worked out, let problems with the bots function reflect on its owner, let any abuse face severe and immediate consequences, and let the damned bot do its job and save us all a bunch of tedious, incredibly bot-like work. It'll do the job faster, without human error, and without complaint. I have nothing but respect for the people who take care of protecting these things, day-in and day-out, but I honestly don't see how you can enjoy what seems to me to be such mind-numbing work. Let the human admins put in their efforts where the human mind is needed. Where we have simple but very repetetive tasks, use bots. Isn't use of tools to solve problems supposed to be our strong point, as a species? As I said, oversight is important and should be present, these are reasons for ''caution'' more than outright opposition, in my book.
'''Support''', absolutely.  With how profile this is account will be, there is no way that it is going to be abused or go astray without being the fastest de-admin in the first case or the fastest bot shut-down in the latter in Wikipedia history.  The bottom line for me is that I'm more concerned about [[:Image:Vandalpenis0045.jpg]] appearing on the main page (as has happened at least once since this debate started) than I am about all the "black box source code" and "automated adminbot" concerns combined.
'''Strong support'''. There is a problem. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Organic solution]] is proven to be faulty '''SIX TIMES LAST MONTH'''. Yes, adminbots are bad, but we can't reprogram humans to make no mistakes. I made my decision: adminbot, not funny pic on the main page.
'''Support'''. This is a repetitive task well suited to a bot, though I'm a little concerned that it could be exploited to protect pages that should not be protected. I would appreciate more disclosure of the steps taken to avoid such exploits. Could a vandal get 100 heavily-edited articles protected by transcluding them into the featured article of the day?
'''Support''', of course, the candidate would be useful. I will repeat Gurch's sentiments here, also: <big><big>'''This is not a sentient entity. This is a computer program. It doesn't "know" it's an administrator. It can't "decide" to go and block everyone. Unlike humans, of course, which know such things only too well. In other words, if you don't trust this bot, there's no way in hell you should trust a human.'''</big></big> (text is licensed under the GFDL and whatnot). It would be nice for the code to be made available, but it's not essential, security through obscurity isn't as good as everyone checking the code, but it still usually works nearly as well. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Sounds like a good tool. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Nervous support''' Like [[User:Just H|Just H]], the idea of a robot with admin privileges gives me the heebie-jeebies. (See Oppose #9, below)  I, too, saw ''[[Terminator 3]]'' and ''[[I, Robot]]''.  Unlike the robots in those stories, however, this bot is not (to my knowledge) resistant to human control - worse comes to worse, [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] can just turn it off.  As for the open-code objection, while I understand it, I think that any mature society must recognise the need to keep some things secret.  If the user is trusted, so should we trust his robot offspring.  Finally, while I find [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]]'s objection fascinating (the bot's lack of volition and, thus, the inability to accept a nomination for adminship, see oppose #3, below) I think that the objection shows the reason why the bot ''should'' be trusted; if it has no will, it cannot go rogue, cannot rebel against its human master, and cannot do anything but that for which it is designed: protecting the Main Page from being infiltrated by giant penises.  furthermore, [[WP:IAR]] allows us to ignore this technical objection, does it not?  For all these reasons, I give my support and best wishes to our new robot overlord.
'''Support''', the benefits outweight the risks.
--
'''Support''' provide it aint self aware, such interesting paranoia
'''Support'''. I don't see  the problem.
'''Support''' I am amazed at the level of paranoia about a bot that is, at its core, so simple and widely viewed as a good idea (even by many of the opposing voters).  I agree that it would be better if the bot were open-sourced, but I hardly see that as a reason to oppose the RfA.
'''Conditional Support''' IF he releaces his source code.
'''Full support''' This is a needed bot that will perform highly repetitive tasks on a daily basis. I'd be willing to wager most of those opposing because the code isn't available wouldn't read it if it were. Ridiculous. I'd like to know how many people have read the code of all bots that are currently running. Seriously. Leave a message on my talk page. Full and unconditional support. '''''
BAG, check. Security, check. Purpose, check. I'm
'''Conditional Support''' - bot must do through both RFBOT and another RFA to do anything not already listed --
'''Support''', somone has to toil in the underground sugar mines.--
'''Support'''It is a function that we need.
'''Support''' necessary, but <u>no</u> scope creep please.
'''Support''', and intrigued by further possibilities.
support can we use it for it.wiki? :-( --
'''Support''' - it's long overdue. --
'''Support''' for the specific task listed. I would prefer to have the source code openly available, but I don't believe it is necessary. This bot will do valuable work. Every minute that a vandalized image is shown on the main page approximately 2000 users will view it.
'''Support.''' After a thorugh review of the discussion on this page, everything looks good. Reasons for not releasing the code are reasonable, as this admin's trust is not in question. The bot is no more likely to be "hacked" than a regular admin account, so that's not really an issue. And the kinds of tasks that it will be performing are both needed and hard for existing admins to do consistently. Really guys, everything seems sound. The paranoia I'm seeing here against an admin bot is rather surprising to me. –
'''Support'''. I've run across an improper image on the main page, and any automated proactive way of dealing with it gets my thumbs up. Don't knock it until you try it. It can always be blocked if there is an unforeseen bug or program deviation. This is not some bad 1950s Sci Fi movie!

'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order. I must say, this RFA is quite cool and quite unique. But remember, just because this bot isn't sentient now doesn't mean he won't be in the future.... (thinks about ''The Terminator''; yes, I know that this bot will never be sentient). '''
'''Support'''.  The task in question requires no judgement to do, there are serious repercussions if we forget to do it in a timely fashion; just the sort of thing we want a bot taking care of.  And while open source code would be nice, the lack thereof isn't a deal-breaker. --
'''Support'''. It can't do much damage. A more tricky one would be a bot that would delete things, we in fact might need one with the orphaned images... Too many of them and a bot would ease it a lot. But it's probably too early to have one like this. --'''
<b>
'''Support'''.  Solves a very important problem.  I too would prefer that the code be fully open source, but don't think that is worth withholding support for. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Trebuchet"><i><b>
'''Strongly support''' this. In the past I have opposed other "admin-bots", but having been one of the people who tracked down and dealt with the particular vandalism that this bot is designed to protect against... it's not a pleasant thing to do, and I think that we '''''need''''' a bot to do this. <span class="ipa">
'''Support''' This is needed, now.  While I share, to one degree or another, many of the concerns mentioned by "voters" below, I think that in the current situation quick, effctive action is more important than perfect action.
'''Strong Support''' With a chuckle to everyone who expressed nervousness about robot overlords.  I have some trouble believing that history will look back at this moment as Wikipedia's own little Skynet.  I'd also point out that everyone who posted here did so on a relatively complex ''machine'', and that almost all of you rely on automated artificial mechanisms of some kind every day.  As far as I can tell, this is simply another one of those mechanisms, and if it will help solve a problem, I'm all for it. Cheers,
'''Support''', it's a job that needs doing, and one eminently suited to being done by a bot. --
'''Support''', and I can only hope that those who in opposing expressed fear the bot will somehow rebel and turn against the community were doing so facetiously, as such an idea is obviously not based in reality. --
'''Weak support'''. I don't buy the "closed source" arguments, as there is no way to practically enforce them. Just ask Curps. That said, from talks with the developers, it seems that a MediaWiki feature that will supercede this will be coded soon, and that decreases the urgency of this request significantly.
'''Support''', mainly because it's an admin bot and people need to get used to admin bots.  It's not going to hurt anything, that's for sure, and it will undoubtedly do some good. —
'''Support'''.  This RFA is unusual, but needed to judge community consensus.  I'd prefer a MediaWiki feature for this task, and if one comes along, this bot may be able to be retired.  Until then, vandalism of our main page is intolerable.  Personally I think that protection of main page content should be the responisibilty of the admin loading it, but it has become to simple to make a mistake, and afterall we are only human.  It should be noted that I was a vocal opponent of the tor blocker bot, but feel that due dillenence has been done here, and the operator is trustworhty.  I'd prefer that the bot code be released under GPL, but do not feel that lack of that is a reason to oppose this request (anymore then saying I'd prefer editors multilicense or PD their edits, but would never !vote against one for failing to).  It should also be noted that this RFA is only step 3 of 5 in the full implementation process (1:code bot, 2:[[WP:RFBOT]] pre-trial, 3:'''RFA''', 4:RFBOT production trial, 5:bot approval) <unless bypassed through step 4 by someone else on [[WP:BAG]]>.  Should this bot malfunction in anyway, any admin may indefinantley block it under the bot policy as well.  —
'''Support''' —'''
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. On consideration, I believe the benefits significantly outweight the risk involved in giving this bot access to the tools. I trust the operator and strongly believe the bot will provid an excellent service.
'''Support'''.  I'd prefer to see the code publicly released, but anything that cuts down on the vandalism is strongly needed so I'll put that reservation aside.  For anyone saying they oppose admin rights just because it is a bot, they need to stand up and take on all these repetitive tasks then. --
'''Support'''. DF already has AdministrativePower, so this does not open any new vulnerabilities. ~~ '''
'''Support'''. None of the objections raised seem especially convincing and the benefits are clear.
'''Support''', can't see any problems with this. Even if it really screws up it can be stopped. '''<font color="#FF0000 ">
'''Strong Support'''. Vandalism of the main page can sometimes remain for a period of time while the admins try and find the one template, sub-template, sub-sub-template, etc., that was vandalised because it wasn't protected. This bot looks like it will be properly supervised and controlled, and its duties are sorely needed. --
'''Support'''. I admire the opposers' general "open-source-at-any-price" attitude (and have far less sympathies for "OMG a robot admin what next?" ones), but this is a tool designed to do a '''tedious job'''. The recursive tracking of templates used on the main page is difficult for a human to get right, (just because it's recursive), and it's important to get it right. Practicality certainly has to win over philosophy.
'''Support''', auto bots provide a valuable function helping to bring thoroughness, consistency, and round-the-clock eyes to the handling of mundane tasks. No worries since this bot can easily enough be tweaked or even pulled if it functions incorrectly. --
'''Support'''. While I normally do not support the granting of admin status to bots, this bot does not seem like the type that will go on random blocking sprees.  I have confidence that there is nothing to worry about with this.  --
'''Support'''. Reasonable solution to a serious problem.
'''Weak Support'''. I understand the need for this bot, so I support it. I think the closed source stuff is a tad bit paranoid, tho. --
<s>'''Oppose''' per 1FA.</s> '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Little danger, great benefit.
'''Support''', just to ensure that this extremely useful tool doesn't get sunk for entirely the wrong reasons.  As many others have said, this is a request for permission to run a tool; this is not a request to give a sentient computer somewhere admin privileges.  What actual admin would get blocked without hesitation if he did something outside a very narrow, preapproved-by-committee mandate?
'''Support'''.  The whole "but what if this bot takes on a life of its own and tries to '''destroy all humans!!!'''?" argument is so absurd I'm not sure where to begin.  We need this, so make it happen already.
'''Support''' I tend to think the code should be public, but I think the bot is a terrific idea. --
'''Support''' so long as the bot only does the job described in this RfA, and if it either goes wrong or starts doing other tasks without approval it is quickly blocked.
'''Support''' I trust the admin community can undo any (highly improbable) unintended harm.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">'''
'''Support''' - I trust code more than I trust some people (unless it is Microsoft code) --
'''Support'''. Useful function. The oppose comments strike me as needlessly bureaucracy or knee-jerk applications of principle. Certainly running this process to begin with counts as that. --
'''Support''' - Bot will be usefull and enough of the BAG crew has approved of the code to reduce most of my concerns. ---
'''Support'''. We trust [[User:AntiVandalBot|AntiVandalBot]] to clean up vandalism, why shouldn't we trust Protectionbot to protect? --
'''Support'''. I trust the operator to act responsibly and the restricted powers are reasonable given the task and the high profile nature of the recent vandalism. --<font color="#06C">
'''Support''' Trusted and responsible operator. No reason to think this will not be an asset, or, if there are unexpected problems, they will be dealt with promptly and properly.
'''Support''' Monotonous, full-time jobs should most definately be handled by bots. --
'''Support'''. If done properly, this will pretty much eliminate all main page vandalism, which is a Good Thing (TM). The idea of having the entire Main Page be fully protected even sounds like a computer program. if(onMainPage) { protect; }  Why should we take up human work time to do this simple, repetitive, constant task?
'''Support'''. The proper protections are in place to prevent any major problems, and any minor problems should be easily fixed. ''
'''Strong, utmost support.'''' This is badly needed.
'''Strong support''' - On anti vandal patrol, i find main page linked items that are not protected are very very often exploited for the obvious reasons.  This bot could help significantly.
'''Support''' - I'm a BAG member, but have been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks, and thus missed this entire discussion.  I just wanted to throw in my support for this bot. --
'''Conditional support''', provided you release the source under BSD, GPL, Public domain, or other free content license, and run another RFA if you do so much as add a comment. --
'''Support''' - it's all been said ''
'''Support''' - I can see both sides of the argument, but I trust Robert and I think the need is great enough for this bot.
'''Strong Support''' As a witness of the main page vandalism last week (UGH!). <just kidding>I do think it should have more mainspace edits though, and I don't like it's responses to the questions.</just kidding> :-) | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''O'''</font>]] <sup><font color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font color="Tan">
'''SkyNet Support''' A bot can't just decide to act up, and can do no more damage than a human with an unlicensed bot acting maliciously. Any protections that aren't supposed to be made would be blatantly obvious, and other admin actions that aren't supposed to be made would be even moreso. We need this bot
'''Support''', the function is needed. This is not a big deal. --
'''Oppose''' I absolutely without fail will not ever support an unsupervised admin bot. &nbsp;
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Security through obscurity is not. If the bot could do real damage if someone finds a buffer overrun, it's imperative that we all be able to check it for bugs. Moves instantly to support with release of code.
'''Strong oppose''', at least until the bot accepts or declines the nomination.  If the bot cannot do either of its own volition, I will go ahead and assume that all the '''support''' voters are completely unfamiliar with the rules that govern RfA.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Although the bot is doing a great job, I also don't like the agree of it being and admin.
'''Oppose''' All you have to do is protect images that appear on the main page or in featured articles.  That's not very onerous, is it?--
'''Strong Oppose''' &bull;  For a few reasons.  First of all, I am not comfortable with a closed source administrative bot.  This is a free and open encyclopedia, and any bot running on it, especially in the administrative department, should have freely reviewable code, so that we may be sure that the bot is ''not'' being used as a backdoor to other administrative functions, or as a way for the op to avoid sanctions for contentious actions.  Secondly, I do not see a bot as an intelligent enough being to determine what needs semi-protected, protected or unprotected.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per, surprisingly for me, Hipocrite.  If this gets dealt with, I'll remove my opposition.  There's honestly too much secrecy as is in some departments involving the bit, and having a secret code with a select group of "trusted" members of the community doesn't do it for me. --
If you don't want to release the code, that's fine by me. There may very well be risks of vandalbots; I don't know, having not seen it. But I refuse to trust something I haven't seen. -
'''Strong Oppose''' I do not trust most humans under the shaky structure of Wikipedia, [[The Terminator|lord knows what a bot would do]]. I won't support a bot until there's a far more stable policy making procedure in place.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Very Strong Oppose''' - Not until I see source for this bot, if there is source available, then please tell me where it is. Cheers! ——
'''Oppose''' If the code isn't public, I'm uncomfortable granting the mop.
'''Oppose''', code is not open. Genuinely secure code is secure no matter who reads it. (Willing to change !vote if this is rectified in time to audit the code).
'''Oppose'''. Bot needs to be open source. ---
'''Oppose''' Candidate has a total of <s>one edit</s> zero logged actions. Here is how I expect bot candidacies to be handled: 1. Run an alpha test on an admin account. 2. Ask Jimbo (or a bureaucrat in the bot approval group if Jimbo chooses to defer the decision) for a temporary promotion. 3. Run a beta test on the bot account and let the edits (and complaints on the talk page) pile up. 4. File an RFA. ~
'''Strong oppose''' - there is no reason not to release the source code. Vandals who have the technical knowledge to modify the bot for vandalism purposes already have the technical knowledge to write a vandalbot from scratch. And a bot that will function with admin privileges ''must'' be released with source code, as far as I am concerned. ''
'''Weak oppose''', largely on the "closed source" issue, mutable if either a) the source is made open, or b) a stronger argument for security-through-obscurity is made.  I'm not seeing any "vandalbot" implications beyond those already present in pywikipedia and AWB (about which Cyde is clearly correct, but since those two ships have already sailed...).  AFAICS the required functionality is a) to compile a list of transclusions from a given page, and b) to protect and unprotect from a list of pages -- right?
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>'''Oppose, see below''' Until source code is released. Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ''not'' release the source code. &mdash; '''
'''Strong oppose.'''  There is no need for this.  A five-line script can check the protection of the templates at 12:00:01 (UTC), and post a one-line message on [[WP:AN/I]].  The lack of releasing source code is pointlessly insulting...it conveys a "closed-room" mentality that should not be welcome here at all, and certainly should not be given free rein.  --
'''Absolutely and unconditionally oppose''' this per Alkivar.
'''Oppose''' per Werdna.  The request indicates that the bot does not need the sysops bit.  Recode bot to post relevant information about these "dozen templates and images each day" to its user page or elsewhere, where the many users involved in featured pictures, articles, and DYK (and others of course) can monitor and inform at AN or AN/I when sysops protection/unprotection is needed.
'''Oppose''' - Per Werdna. I'd at least want the code visible, since I'm paranoid like that.
'''Strongest possible oppose.''' Lack of transparency is not going to protect this bot, it's going to invite intense scrutiny. I have some experience with this on Wikipedia. Furthermore, lack of transparency with this bot not only goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, but what Wikis in general stand for. If you do not reveal the code, you will make the internet suck again.
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. An admin-bot on the Main page is an officially sanctioned, high-profile tool. This tool must be free. In addition, the security arguments for keeping the source closed are weak; it would be simple to create a vandal-bot or find one without access to this source code, and the greater security issue is the inability of anyone except an "approved" Wikipedia user who discloses his identity to obtain it. —
I'm going with Centrx. Bad Guys (tm) could do major damage by exploiting flaws in MediaWiki itself. But MediaWiki's source code is open. What's your excuse? I don't like this one bit.


'''Reluctant oppose'''. It should go without saying that the source for a bot with the admin bit be open for examination by everyone, especially on a project like this built on open source. A shame really, since this bot is sorely needed; I've seen one too many Main-page penises lately. -
'''Weak oppose''' I've been really on the fence, but even though I know nothing about coding, there's something disconcerting about granting a bot without open source code admin powers. --
'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite, Wizardry Dragon, and others. It'll get my support if and only if the code were fully [[free software|free]], but it's not, so it doesn't get my support. Centrx and Abu-Fool make especially compelling arguments.
'''Oppose'''. Admins have to be accountable for their own actions. Bots have no brain/emotions so can't be held accountable. Plus, I really don't like the idea of adminbots. --
'''Oppose''' No problem with bots automatically finding problems, but a human needs to be responsible for the final decision.--
'''Oppose'''. While I personally have no problems with an adminbot, I think that the source code should be open. A normal bot with closed source code is fine, but the bot's extra privileges make it extremely important that any bugs in the code are found, and I think that having open source code would increase the number of people who would be able to spot bugs. It's not a problem with the operator's coding ability, but leaving code open to public scrutiny is probably the best way to fix the bot if it malfunctions.
'''Strongly Oppose''' Not only is an unsupervised admin bot rather worrying (when the hypothetical situation arises that one is needed for the continued operation of wikipedia then I'll consider it, we are currently not in that state of need as such it shouldn't be used as it's arguement for inclusion). Another reason is as wikipedia is built around the concept of open source I'd prefer as much as possible if done likewise, so while it is not a major point of mine it is still is another minor reason for opposing that the source code is not available. Also the bot can not accept or decline the nomination! Not a good way for a bot to start of being an admin by ignoring the rules of RfA. lol
'''Oppose''' The reasons given for keeping the code secret seem insufficient to me. When TawkerbotTorA's code was released, the code was adjusted due to feedback from RfA participants. There will be no chance to do this on ProtectionBot, and the benefits of keeping the code secret seem minimal compared to the benefits of releasing it. I think there were cases in the past when vandalbots were combatted by specific antivandalbots, and if there were a vandalbot created as a tweak on ProtectionBot's code at least we would have a clue to ''its'' code and be able to combat it more effectively. (Has anyone considered the possibility that the current template vandal is a bot? If so, keeping ProtectionBot's code secret is completely pointless.) If the code is released before the end of the RfA, count me as a support. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 18:10, 9 January 2007 (
'''Oppose''' I will not support admin candidates without a significant history of writing quality articles. I think bots with extra permissions should be possible, but not via the RfA mechanism.
'''Oppose''' Closed-source worries me, and WP:RfA is not the right place for the bot.
Secret code, "trusted" users, etc etc etc.  This entire process appears to me inimical to the philisophical way we work. - <font color="black">
'''Oppose'''.  Concerns over supervision and closed source code.  How do we know what it is going to do unless we see the code.  Will it have a big red off button?  Why can't it simply generate a list of things that it thinks should be protected but are not, with buttons for interested admins to press to protect or unprotect them? --
'''Oppose.''' See [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TawkerbotTorA]]. I don't like the idea of a bot admin.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Nae'blis]] point 3.
'''Oppose''' disagree with bot admin. '''
Still strongly opposed to the idea of admin bots, but this one is necessary, so neutral/no !vote. &ndash;
Like Chacor I am also opposed to admin bot accounts but this is a very serious problem so this may be necessary. It's a shame it's not possible to allocate solely the protect function without other admin fucntions.
I prefer shouting at administrators when they mess up to having a bot to do the job. It helps to relieve stress. Primarily, though, I'm only casting this neutral vote so that I can write the following text where it will be read. <big><big>'''This is not a sentient entity. This is a computer program. It doesn't "know" it's an administrator. It can't "decide" to go and block everyone. Unlike humans, of course, which know such things only too well. In other words, if you don't trust this bot, there's no way in hell you should trust a human.'''</big></big> I mean, all those emotions, and things. You don't know what's going to happen. Wait, why are they trusted anyway? That's it, I '''DEMAND''' to see the source code to ALL administrators, now, otherwise they should resign immediately –
'''Neutral'''  I fully trust Dragons flight and his ability to program a good bot, but is a bot even considered a user?  As of now, only users are allowed to be nominated for adminship.  The policy on Administrators needs to be reworked before this nomination can pass.
'''WTF?? Neutral''' - Why the heck is a bot running for adminship? Maybe I'm not aquainted with this stuff, but isn't this for actual people & isn't there a separate page for electing bots? Also, isn't a fully automated bot kinda like what happened in Terminator I, Terminator II etc? And look what happened there, the computors started killing everybody & messing up the space-time thingy by sending Arnie back & forth. ;) Anyway, at the risk of sounding extremely dumb, what is this thing in layman's terms & what does it do? Who will be running it? (I assume nobody, which I think is kinda bad...) And how will this make Wikipedia a better place? And most importantly, what do we do if it causes armageddon & starts saying stuff like "I'll be back..."? Thanks,
'''Neutral''' - I can't support unless i see the bot at [[:Category:Administrators open to recall]]. Prevention is better than cure. -- ''
'''Neutral''' If it's a bot, it wouldn't need it since it can revert faster than a human can edit. This would be oppose, but supposedly as an admin it would never point of view push, so that makes it a neutral.
'''Abstain''' only because I'm a techno-dummie.  I fully trust Dragons flight, and strongly believe something must be done about the main page vandalism, but I simply do not understand the technical issues involved with bot programming well enough to be able to give a support vote.
Too few main namespace edits. Oh, also source code should be made public. Not that I do not believe in Dragons flight's good faith, but personally it contradicts Wikipedia' spirit. Necessary probably, but contradiction nevertheless. --
The bot is good, bot operator good also but the only problem about having a bot admin is that a single mistake can cause huge problems. [[User talk:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Cheers to</span>]] [[2007|<span style="color:#FFD700;">2007</span>]]! [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Abstain''' I would really like the source code to be release, so we can inspect and discuss the source. <sub>→
'''Neutral''' - I don't object to using it, but let's not call it an administrator.  It's just a utility.
'''Neutral''' - Uncomfortable with the idea of a 'bot running unsupervised with admin powers; persuaded by oodles of knowledgable and well-respected supporters arguing passionately in favour, but only to the extent of squeezing a neutral out of me, rather than a support pile-on. I earnestly pray we don't live to regret this and hope to live to reflect ruefully on my stupid cautiousness here when it works like a dream until discarded for some jolly good reason in the future.<small>Users are invited to post "told you so"s in January 2008.</small> --
[[user:psdubow|Psdubow]] may be un-traditional though he is still a great wikipedian. Would be a good admin.

'''Oppose''' not a lot of experience.  Low wikipedia/WP talk edits, low talk page edits, and low over all edits. Low edit summary usage. His contribs don't show enough experience for me to support. As well as the answer to Q1. He doesn't seem to display a real need to have the mop. You don't need admin tools to welcome users, fight vandalism or warn users. --Malevious
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you don't pass [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/Psdubow|my standards]].
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but not experienced enough yet.  You seem to have a good drive and aspirations, so use that to your advantage.  Gain some experience, <s>join a project</s>, and branch out.  Then try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but you don't seem quite ready for adminship. Not a lot of experience, and, honestly, you don't need the administrator's tools for welcoming new users, or warning them. We already have people blocking, but that's not a reason for opposing. Just gain some more experience.
'''Oppose''' I believe you do not have enough experience on Wikipedia and you should leave an edit summary when you edit. I am also concerned about your understanding of the image policy as you've had three images deleted. With this, I cannot support your adminship.++
'''Oppose''' You're on the right track but you have far too few contributions to the user Talk and policy spaces to show proficiency in admin-related tasks at this time.  Try performing new page/recent change patrols; vandal warnings and reports to [[:WP:AIV]]; discussing articles et al in relation to [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] in addition to your regular duties for a few months and I will reconsider my opinion when you reapply over the summer.
Not ready yet, methinks. '''
'''Oppose''' Having less than a thousand edits is not of itself a reason to opppose, if they are good quality, but you have only 19 contributions to wikispace, mostly in this RfA, and only 3 to wikitalk. Most admin-related work requires a familiarity with [[WP:POLICY]], which you can really only acquire by working in [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. I am sure that once you have done this, your application for the tools will be welcomed.--
'''Oppose:''' Lack of experience, and frankly, a shaky command of grammar and spelling for someone who seeks to represent an encyclopedia.  Like other Oppose voters, I'm curious as to for what he believes he needs admin tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but edit summary usage is very low, your edit count is too quite low, I think you need more experience and your answers to the optical questions are very weak, try some [[WP:XFD|XFD]] work and you may wish to help out reporting vandals to [[WP:AIV]], give yourself 4-5 months of experience and some quality contribs and make some improvements and you'll probably pass. Kindest reagrds -
Mate, you appear to be a terrific volunteer and a great article writer (especially in the area of 18th and 19th century American history)!  I'd like to see you with a bit of experience with "admin stuff" before you start actually using the buttons, however [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Inexperienced, and Q1 doesn't show a real understanding of the tools (except for blocking vandals, none of the duties listed are specifically for admins). This isn't a good enough reason to oppose, but the inexperience concerns are sufficient to prevent me from supporting. Would advise the candidate to go through admin coaching, do some XfD work and come back in a few months. <font face="Verdana">
'''Neutral''' to avoid a pile-on. Well intentioned user who only needs to pick up some more experience before getting all the support needed to pass an RfA. Cheers,
'''Weak Support''' - A little on the inexperienced side, but seems competent. I do have one concern, though; in Q5, the candidate states that "fair use images are better suited to Commons", which is incorrect (Commons does not accept fair use images). This gives me cause for concern, but it's not a good enough reason to oppose, considering that adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' Will do wonderful things with the mop. --
'''Support''' A bit unsure of his answers for some questions but I still think he is responsible and knowledgable enough to take on the task.
'''Support''' Good editor, will be a good admin. --

'''Support''' Always could use another admin in speedy deletes.
'''Support''' You claim you may be an administrator, I want you.
'''Oppose''' I struggled a bit here. I give you very high marks for beginning [[WP:YANKEES]] as that will entail considerable collaborative work which I happen to think is helpful for administrators. However, the project is only a week old so your collaboration there is minimal. It will be a great project and I am sure will attract a lot of attention. Your answer to optional #5 above by Nick concerns me some. The question was rather complex and probably needed a fuller answer. I'm just not sure you fully comprehend the depth of the issues there. As an administrator you would be called on to deal with image issues. I also think that your view of adminship is a bit too narrow. Please keep up your work here and continue your Yankees project. A little more exposure to some other areas will make you a home run for your next RfA.
'''Oppose.''' I find the answers to the questions a bit weak, and I think that this user needs a few more months of strong activity.--
'''Oppose''' Just not enough experience for a sysop, but user is definitely on the right track.  Try again in a few months when more experience is under your belt.
'''Oppose''' Per Q4. You say you will block someone when you are in an editing dispute, which is a big administrator No-No.
'''Oppose''' You need more experience overall and in Wikipedia-space. Also, you added your RfA to your signature. I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], but this really looks like you are advertising your RfA to me. These things should be fixed before I vote support.
'''Oppose''' per light RfA answers, most activity is within past month, and I am concerned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=126259790 this] edit. Friendship should not have an impact when considering blocking. If my best friend were vandalising, I'd block him if necessary. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' for now. User needs more experience on Wikipedia in general. Also needs to realize that admins are not just block-and-delete bots. <font color="#000000">&spades;
I '''oppose''' after looking at a sample of his contributions. He rarely uses meaningful edit summaries, making it difficult to tell what he's doing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:San-J&diff=next&oldid=128031257 Here], he rewards a "penis vandal" with a vague warning involving penis metaphors. He doesn't seem to have any experience with dispute resolution, and even his usual interactions with other users can be very [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luke2354&diff=prev&oldid=125946421 terse].
'''Oppose''': Lack of experience and I don't really like the answers to the questions. Q4 makes the user seem like they might rush to blocking a user or maybe deleting a page. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''; lack of experience.  I'm also a little bothered by the statement about copyright.  Heck, it IS a pain, but it's enormously important to the encyclopedia.  I haven't seen a demonstration of understanding.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Danaman5|Danaman5]].
'''Oppose''' Not happy with answers to Q.4 or Q.5. With a little more experience this wil cease to be an impediment.--
'''Oppose''' Per answers to the questions and lack of edits.  Stay with the project and get involved with wikiprojects to improve articles, and you will be successful in 3-6 months. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''', needs a few more months of strong editing. As per above, answers to a few questions were weak. --'''
Answers to questions do not show enough substance, so I cannot approve.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to question 5. '''
Answer to question 3 indicates a temperament unsuited to mophood.  Vandalism of an administrator's user page is usually a sign of a job well done, if for no other reason than that the kiddies are spending their time there instead of breaking the encyclopedia.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' needs more experience per answer to question 5. —
Inexperience, sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Neutral''' Leaning towards weak support, good edit summary usage and generally a very good user but I think your answers to the questions make it seem like you think all admins do is block and delete, they are expected to help resolve disputes and other tasks, not just blocks. Good luck and kindest regards!
'''Neutral''' - A good editor with considerable amount of experience but with just over 1000 edits is still a bit to low to apply and really need to take part in Wikipedia related projects and XfD's ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Friendly neutral'''. Get some more experience and try again in a few months (and next time you may want to omit the RfA link in your signature). —'''
'''Neutral''' You have weak answers to your question (especially Q3, Q4, and Q5) and you attempt to advertise your Rfa uding your sig. However, your partially qualified because you do vandal fighting and new page patrolling so there is no active reason oppose. Give it some time and experience and I probably support in the future. Good Luck!--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (3)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Neutral''' Basically sound, but maybe not experienced enough yet.  Please come back in a few months.--
'''Neutral'''... I almost leant towards '''support.''' I like this guy, they're a good editor, but a little on the inexperienced side at the minute. If the nominee came back some months later with more experience, I would most certainly support. --
'''Oppose''' Your comments in the last three AfDs you participated in were "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FYour_Geek_News&diff=130215885&oldid=128652429 Delete, have no clue what the heck it is]", "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FScott_Davies_%28goalkeeper%29&diff=130214773&oldid=129956041  Keep An OK article that deserves to stay until he is signed to a pro team]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exploding_sheep&diff=prev&oldid=129903412 Keep, a funny article that covers a concept]". Although, ironically, the consensus went with you on each occasion (albeit for different reasons), this seems to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of policy in what's probably the most important admin area. Also, you seem very inactive - aside from this RfA, you only have ''one'' Wikipedia-space edit since the beginning of June<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl''' this will probably not pass, you're borderline experience wise, but not even touching on your extremely weak chance of passing RFA by your comments and actions alone, you've had practically no time to improve since your last RFA, especially considering you've barely edited in the ''past three months'', you've definitely not come far enough since your last RFA to be here again --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose'''  Three months complete inactivity followed by filing your 2nd RfA 30 minutes after returning does not sit well with me. Very weak answers to RfA questions, which was a frequent criticism in your previous RfA, but you made no effort to improve your responses here.
'''Oppoose and ask for withdrawl''' I'm sorry - normally I would like to offer at least a moral support but by doing nothing for months on the project and then requesting Adminship the moment you start editing again is, frankly, disrespectful to the nature of RFA and to other editors. I'm sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' I'm quite worried about the answers to the questions, and the recent incidents at [[WP:AfD]] don't help very much either. It is unlikely this will pass, it seems like [[WP:SNOW]] to me. <font face="Impact">
'''Oppose''' No experience.  This should be withdrawn per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Oppose'''.  Not to just pile it on, but while this editor definitely had a couple of good months, only 45 edits in the last three months is not good at all.  I was able to find another comment on an AFD about it being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Idol_%28season_7%29&diff=prev&oldid=130869977 interesting].  Shows to me that policy pages should be read over a few more times.  Here's a good link: [[WP:LOP|List of Policies]].  I'd look over those and keep editing, trying for a few hundred edits each month.  Meanwhile, this RFA could possibly be closed under [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral'''. While I like the good job at [[WP:YANKS]], there is not much there, or anywhere in WP to show you ''need'' the mop.  However, it doesn't appear he'll abuse the mop, either.  Come back in a couple of months, after more work on [[Yankees]] articles and [[WP:PM]] or [[WP:AFD]].
'''Support''' I feel you deserve a chance.
'''Oppose''', I think you are not ready to be an admin. You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WPSUCKS&oldid=160898234 welcomed the User:WPSUCKS], when it should be reported to [[WP:UAA]]. Very few contributions on [[WP:XFD]] which is important to gain experience. And your answer to the question 1 is insufficient, there are a lot of other admin tasks which needs attention, such as [[WP:PROD]], [[WP:RPP]], [[CAT:SPEEDY]], etc. I will wait for some months. Keep with your good work. Good luck.
'''Oppose'''. You have less than 100 edits on talk pages, and you never really engaged in any discussion. Imho communicative skills and the will to discuss actions and contribs is absolutely necessary for an admin. Especially when contributing to highly controversial articles like [[2007 Lebanon conflict]], editing without entering discussions at all is a total no no for an admin (imho). Sry, but I can't support your nom yet. I suppose you try to interact with other editors and show us some discussion contribs in you next RfA.
'''Oppose''', sorry I just don't think you're experienced enough. You probably ''have'' been in some situations when the tools would be beneficial, but I'm concerned that you won't know the proper action to take in some situations. Take a look at some [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies|successful RfAs]], and please do try again in the future. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, weak answers to questions, and just not ready.
'''Oppose''' Tha lack of experience is a major concern here. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience, and the fact that your last RFA was 2 months back, is a concern. -- <strong>
'''Oppose'''.  In time, perhaps.  I agree with the lack of experience concerns expressed by others.  --
'''Oppose'''. As per experience concerns voiced by others on this page.
'''Oppose''' While I see some improvement over the last RfA (in answers to questions, etc.), I'd be more comfortable if you had more experience. I'd wait a bit and try again. But in the meantime, a snowball close might be in order here. Best, --
Strongly. Some of the stuff [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Sunshine_Man/Coaching#You_related_questions here] left me cringing in terror, as did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Doubtful_AfD_closes this].

'''Very regretful oppose''' - you're a great user, but you don't have a clue what the BLP policy is and the reasons we have it. My oppose is based on this quote from you "''I think that all of the policies especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV blend into this policy as if an article contains information which is unsourced and is not verifiable then it can be safely removed per the BLP however such moves should generally be discussed on the article talk page (consensus), I believe that without BLP that Wikipedia's autobiography articles would be allowed to contain non-neutral and controversial information so I believe it benefits the encyclopedia and should be adhered too. The Sunshine Man 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)''""[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Qst/Coaching&diff=139222867&oldid=139216314] - I wish you'd have let Riana decide when you were ready to run.
'''Neutral''' I have always had very pleasant experiences with you, however, many of the things Ryan talks about have a weight that can not be ignored. --[[user:wpktsfs|w]][[user:wpktsfs/poetry|'''p''']][[user:wpktsfs|k]][[user talk:wpktsfs|'''t''']]
'''Strong Oppose'''- User only has 95 edits after checking his count, only 6 Wikipedia edits, no Wikipedia talk edits, and your answers to the questions show no knowledge of Wikipedia policies and admin duties.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but it's a no.  You really don't have any experience yet.  I'd try again when you have closer to 1000 edits and have been around for a while.  Your heart's in the right place, but for now, I'd suggest withdrawing. '''
Oddly similar to the RfA below. Anyway, oppose per above and suggestion to withdraw. --
'''Oppose''' --
'''Support''' Beat the nom. I always thought he was an admin. O_O (oops) -
Hopeless aren't I? Ok. I'm weak supporting, but I'm locked in for support now. <strong>
'''Support''' good old thought he was one cliche.  Great help on IRC too. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' (earlier support comments moved to co-nom statement above).
'''Support'''. Clearly knows a lot about the workings of Wikipedia, but I very much wish that R would just help write up an article. It's fun and it's what we're here for, anyway. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <sup>
'''Support''' He's a smart guy who knows what he's doing, and I trust him to do the right thing. The concerns cited by Blngyuen are worth considering, but in spite of this I know that he will not be a bad admin. We all have our different strengths. I trust that R will lean on more experienced admins, including his nominator, if he is faced with difficult choices and doesn't know what to do. Cheers, ~
'''Support''' From my experience, R is good editor. His focus doesn't really bother me; we all have our strengths. The important thing is that I trust him to be a good admin.
'''Support''' - as nominator.
I've opposed and been neutral in the past, but this fellow is a fine exception to usual rules. Be careful with the mop, but should do well.
'''Support''' Have seen him around at [[WP:UW]]. Candidate is clearly dedicated to the project and would not abuse tools being entrusted to him. --

'''Support''' Seriously, this editor puts in the time and effort to improve this encyclopedia, and always acts with good faith.  This editor is a wonderful help to new users, and doesn't hesitate to contribute where necessary.  By all means, I think it is time for R to have the mop and bucket!<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Strong support'''. As I said in his last RfA, I have always been impressed by R's well reasoned arguments and comments. All my interactions with him have also been very positive and I can certainly say from a personal point of view that I have absolute confidence that he will be an asset as an admin. Insofar as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Brown|this AfD]] is concerned, which a number of people seem to be picking up on again, I would argue that it is an innocent mistake, which he withdrew after he was informed of it. As a cricket follower myself, I had never heard of said player, so it seems quite forgivable that someone unfamiliar with the sport would make that mistake. And it's also worth noting that by listing it at AfD, he was opening up to a greater community discussion, not making any kind of unilateral action that could cause concern as to his use of the admin tools. I'm also sure that R is sensible enough to ask for advice in the future if he's unsure of anything. So overall, I have no concerns in giving my strong support. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support'''. With respect, I'm fed up with other editors making comments like "too bureaucratic" - that kind of unnecessary Oppose has already lost us one good potential admin recently ([[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]]). Vandal reverts and maintenance are just as valuable as creating new articles - in fact, increasingly so, as brought up in [[WP:FLOOD]]. Not being a fantastic article-writer does not prevent him being a good admin; he's proved that he's aware of deletion policy, blocking policy, and everything else an admin needs to know. Basically, the opposers' reasoning boils down to ''Oh no, we can't give him a mop, because he spends ''too much time'' scrubbing floors, and not enough constructing extensions to the (already very large) building.''
'''Support''' I agree totally with Walton and my support reasons are the exact same ones.
'''Strong Support''' -<small> (2edit conflicts) </small> I have known this user for some time now and he is one of the most experienced wikipedians around. His contributions to article space and Wikipedia is excellent and I doubt it that he will abuse the tool.. I fully trust this user to use the tools wisely..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong support''' ''bordering on co-nom'' -  I've worked alot with this editor over the last 8 months or so, and I didn't vote in his previous RfA's as I didn't think he was quite ready for reasons mentioned previously and he sometimes avoided discussing a situation. I've seen this user develop over time and now feel confident to support. Unlike some here, I believe contributing behind the scenes is as equally important to the running of this encyclopedia and certainly has a greater requirement for the tools than writing an article. I question those who think that his contributions to WP:UAA, and from my perspective more importantly WP:UTM, are of someone who is not interested in furthering Wikipedia, and have not fully understood this editor or his contributions. I've seen increasingly more insightful discussions and actions from this editor that show understanding of policy. I believe he will certainly continue, as he already has done, to help the project and I wish him all the best. <sup>
'''Support''' (again)
'''Strong Support''' - I supported your last RFA and I have always thought of you as a right minded and good contributer. You seem to be well experienced and I have no concerns on your civility, good luck!
'''Support'''. <s>Although I think these political statements are not a very good idea,</s> I think he would make a great admin. --
'''Strong support''' I've offered to nominate him a few times already... --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''': I trust this user with the tools. —
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''- I've been watching him since I first joined Wikipedia, and I've never had any problems with him. As [[User:Walton monarchist89|Walton]] said, maintenance tasks are just as important as writing articles. He'll make a great admin. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse the tools. R can help with the tools, and it would be a shame losing his help simply because he doesn't do article work. —
'''S'''.  I've seen R (Teckwiz) before, and I think he's ready to be trusted with extra tools.  For example, I'll point to his clerking at [[WP:CHU]].
'''Support''', he's improved enough that I have no problems with his adminship.
'''Very strong support''' an excellent editor. I strongly supported last time, and R is an even greater user now than he was back then, so I am "very strongly supporting" this time around.
'''Support''' A trustworthy editor, I've supported before and so I still support.
'''Support''' R should have been a sysop LONG ago. Also, to the opposition based on the AFD'ed cricketers, the notability guidelines may say that anyone who played in a professional game is notable, but here's a thought: If I played a game of cricket professionally, would I be notable in hundreds of years to come like those included? <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' I have seen this editor contributing quite often.  He has been with the project for a fairly long time and seems committed to it.  I suggest that others who may not be familiar with him check out his latest [[Wikipedia:Editor_review/R|editor review]].  Additionally, I think any accidental misuse of the tools will be avoided by a kind admin guiding him.  I don't predict there will be misuse, as I see that he has a good grasp of policy.
You should have been sysopped ages ago, the four RfA's in seven months shows eagerness but this is not a bad thing, infact its a good thing. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Support''' per Qst - excellent editor, long overdue for access to the mop. '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' A great editor that is really passionate with his work. He definately deserves the tools. Good luck R! [[User:E|<span style="color:#000066;font-weight:bold">E</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:E|<span style="color:#ED9121">talk</span>]]</sup> <sub>[[User:EBot|b]][[User:EBot2|o]][[User:ENewsBot|t]]
'''Support'''. This is a user I have dealt with before, and I see absolutely no reason why they should not be an admin. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]

'''Support''', everything's been said, so I guess per all of the above! <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' Perhaps we should pause and consider what we would look like without dedicated vandal fighters. Even a paper and ink encyclopedia requires a night watchman to prevent vandalism and an auditor to monitor the books. I commend you for that work. Good luck.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor to me; no reason to oppose... <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' He's been a very good and helpful editor. I believe he will use the tools well.
'''Strong Oppose''' Too good to support. ;) &mdash;
'''Support''' No reason to oppose, will do a great job. '''
'''Support'''. Candidate has made some useful contributions. I'm concerned about maturity issues, but will give R the benefit of the doubt. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' I am confident that he would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as co-nom. '''
'''Suppost''' - I have a few concerns from some things that I have seen, but I have seen much good from you also.  I'll trust in Brad's recommendation to tip the balance in your favor.  By the way, please don't spam all our talk pages (or at least mine) with a thank you note when this is complete. A note on the Talk page of this RFA should be sufficient.  --
Long overdue.
'''Support'''. I do understand the concern of those who have expressed themselves as opposed to R's candidacy, all of whom are people I deeply respect, and dear friends of mine in many cases; however, my own personal experience leads me to believe R is willing to learn from his mistakes, and has nothing but the best interest of our project in mind. His field of expertise lies on technical issues, rather than article writing (as desirable as that would be); so I'm happy to support knowing that he'll make good use of the tools, adding his knowledge to them for the best of us all.
'''Support''' - Phaedriel's explanation above is ridiculously close to what I had planned to write. I believe that R will be responsible with the tools, learn from any mistakes and correct them immediately upon realization of problems ( we all make mistakes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Noarticletext&diff=132940882&oldid=132940643] :p ), and contribute greatly to technical issues that article-writers may find challenging or insoluble. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]<sup>([[User talk:Nihiltres|t]].[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|c]].
'''Support''' Will make a great admin!
'''Support''' no reason to oppose --
'''Support''' I believe he should be part --
'''Support''' - And put me down for 'support' in the next RfA too. -
'''Support''' - folks who focus primarily on editing articles don't need "the buttons".  Bureaucraticly minded folks, on the other hand, most definitely do.
'''Strong Support''', I am happy to offer my full backing to this user.  He has consistently offered his time and resources to this project and done a fine job.  I find most of the oppose comments to be rather petty, especially for opinions the candidate offered in the cricket AfD.  I can definitely find much sillier comments I made in AfD before I became an admin, but I learned from them as I'm sure "R" has.  Additionally, he handles criticism very gracefully, which is a desirable trait in a sysop. --
'''Support''' as I think the lesson in cricket history has been well learned and will not be repeated. (And, more seriously, for high level technical skills and anally precise knowledge of detail. The community needs some people with these characteristics.)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I strongly opposed this nomination last time around but I think he has learned from his previous mistakes.  The main criticism about him now is evidently that he doesn't write enough articles.  I am an article writer and creator with nearly 16,000 edits and I don't have time for admin-type tasks although I do occasionally get pulled in.  The converse is that someone who spends his time doing admin doesn't have time for writing articles.  Fact is: you can only do one or t'other.  This lad seems to have a talent for admin and maybe the writing will develop as he gets older.  I was perhaps wrong to oppose him before because of his lack of experience around how to deal with an unfamiliar subject but I think he has taken that on board now and will be a good, reliable administrator.  Good luck to him, but I wish he would get a more imaginative username.  A good username should have at least three syllables: like mine has  ;-)  --<b>
Arrrrrr.  [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg_|15px]]'''Support''' I don't see why not!
'''Support''' - The same reasoning as Walton's and what I said on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 2]]. -
'''Support''' I am going to support "R" this time around, and good luck to him. I wish he would do a little more writing, but everyone is not going to do everything.  I think he has been a good contributor in what he has undertaken.
'''Support''' I've read through R's contributions, and I believe he may make a good admin. So far, most of the dissenting opinions have been basewd more upon personal quirks and nitpicks -- some of them quite immaturely and rudely --  rather than addressing any real issues. Personally, I'd rather have an admin who knows how and *when* to edit than one who just edits everything in sight without taking the time to see whether or not the article really needs the edit. Quality over quantity, and I think R exemplfies this quite sufficiently enough to grant him admin status.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' just to cancel out those silly OMG he's in junior high, must oppose votes, the RFA is likely not to succeed though, just do some article writing and you will pass in a couple of months. Thanks
'''Support''' per Jaranda, signed teenage admin '''
'''Support'''.  I have come across R (née TeckWiz) on his anti-vandalism rounds on more than a few occasions, and have noted his diligence and thoroughness.  In looking over his other contributions, he seems to bring a calm, reasonable approach to his work on Wikipedia.  (To R, more directly: I see below that your request has encountered some resistance, primarily and ''unfortunately'' as the result of your age.  I hope and expect that, despite that, you'll not forget that you're a valued Wikipedian whose contributions are recognized and respected by many.)  <span style="font-size: 8pt;">
'''Support''' Questions about age are ridiculous. A 30 year old could have as much knowledge about Wikipedia as an 80 year old, as could a six year old. --[[user:wpktsfs|w]][[user:wpktsfs/poetry|'''p''']][[user:wpktsfs|k]][[user talk:wpktsfs|'''t''']]
'''Support'''.  Appears to be sufficiently trustworthy and dedicated to the project.  Let him toil away happily at Wikignome tasks.  At least it frees up editors who enjoy writing so they have more time to do so. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;
'''Support'''- per above + seems to be a good editor with a good number of edits and interactions with other users.
'''Support'''. I have seen the opposition based on the (lack of) encyclopedia building, but although the contributions there are on the thin side, the candidate has not come up ''empty'' there, he has some non-trivial contributions in various TV articles. Therefore, I believe he has some foothold in what the encyclopedia is about. I think R is a sensible person, and trust that he'll use the admin tools wisely.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' He's a good user and he's a kid. '''
I lost count of how many time he made a bid for the tools.  All I can say is "Good Luck".
'''Support''' Teckwiz can be trusted with the tools, frankly most admin tasks don't involve writing articles. This makes me wonder if I could pass an RfA now.
'''Support''' he's a very good editor, just because he doesn't do much artical work doesn't mean he shouldn't be an admin.
'''Support'''. Although I always think that content writing (and resultant dispute involvement) experience is helpful to producing a well-rounded administrator, I'm not sure its right to insist on it in all cases. We should use people according to their strengths - some people will be far more skilled at maintenance and administration than writing - that may make them a poor editor, but not necessarily a poor admin. I have interacted with R on a number of occasions and feel that he has his head screwed on correctly - I think he'll use the tools well in areas where he has experience and avoid those where he doesn't. Adminship is no big deal (apparently) and I think the project would benefit more from having R perform admin tasks to which he is suited than in not doing so. I would have liked a stronger answer to Q.5 though. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - I have seen him at work and I feel he is ready for the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support''' Multiple RfAs and respected editors on both sides of the discussion with reasonable views. I would like to see the 'crats decide this with published reasoned arguments. That is to say, the bureaucrats should judge consensus in this RfA through published reasoned arguments to determine administrator access. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose''' - Firstly the concerns raised in the last RfA have not been addressed at all in my opinion. There was a concern about the complete lack of article writing and its manifestation in dubious AfD nominations. Since then, TeckWiz/R has made about 120 mainspace edits in 2.5 months, all of which were machine vandal reverts. That was out of about 1750 total edits...So about 6-7% article edits (all of which were machine edits) seems far too bureaucratic. Secondly, This is the fourth RfA in seven months on top of the unaddressed concerns, which is a bit much for me. '''
'''Reluctant oppose''' good editor, dedicated to the project. However, I'm still unconvinced (as I was last time around) that the candidate has the level of maturity to be an admin. Much fuss came last time around over his words on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Brown]] and I'm sure some will find it unfair that I bring it up again but I find it extremely worrisome. Like I said last time, I'm positive that R would not abuse the tools but I'm not confident that he won't unknowingly misuse them.
'''Oppose''' without prejudice. There seem to be a bunch of little maturity issues which keep tripping the candidate up. I would not consider supporting the candidate in any RFA which starts less than one year from the end of this RFA. the candidate appears to be someone who can do their best work for the encyclopaedia as an editor, rather than as an admin at this time.
'''Oppose''' per bananabucket. Sorry, but this is an encyclopaedia, not bureaucraticopedia. You don't appear to be very interested in improving/contributing to the encyclopaedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=R&namespace=0]
There's no evidence presented in this RfA that shows any of the concerns I brought up at his last RfA have been resolved in any meaningful way. I still have grave concerns that R will unintentionally misuse the tools and I'm still far from convinced the user has the requisite level of knowledge to effectively work as an administrator and not at all convinced this user would be able to deal with sensitive and serious issues surrounding BLP subjects.
I am strongly opposed to this user retaining any additional buttons.  He is extremely overzealous and indeed, he is rather bureaucratic.    His lack of encyclopedic contributions is a bit of a concern, as is my perception that he appears to be a bit immature as well. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' The concerns in the last RfA brought up by Blnguyen have not been addressed. I talked to you about your lack of mainspace editing, and the ''complete'' absence of non-machine edits. We're all here to build an encyclopedia. It's hard to be confident in a candidate when there's no experiential evidence that this user can handle himself in tough situations like edit wars or BLP discussions (which always need to be handled carefully and sensitively). <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
'''Oppose''' as unhappy with answer to BLP question and also mainspace edits are the heart of our work,
'''Oppose'''  I am sorry, I am unhappy with the answers to the questions.  The answer to question 1 gives me a strong feeling of 'I'll block them all', in combination to the answer to the [[WP:BLP]] question, where new users get template-warned, while experienced users get a personal message.  If someone needs to learn, then it are the new users, and I think they need the personalised message more than the others.<br/>I am combining that with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:198.213.170.14&diff=prev&oldid=127566182 this] warning of two months ago.  You give here a final warning on a talk-page blanking.  The IP in question only has two edits, the moment he saved the talk-page blanking he may have gotten the 'you've got new messages' banner for the first time, but it results in a final warning.  For me, that is a bit too trigger happy.  Again, I am sorry.  --
'''Oppose''' as per Alfred Brown issue. I think your response on this issue during a peer review is, unfortunately, not very well-handled.
Per Blnguyen, and Nishkid64, especially. Not experienced enough doing stuff manually, so I don't know how this user would fare making decisions which a bot output can't do for you. '''
'''Oppose''' - I am starting to get annoyed at the seemingly never ending stream of RfAs for Techwiz/R. The community has clearly spoken 3 previous times on his lack of experience, but R's apparent desperation has led him to, not ''dealing'' with this issue, but simply waiting a few months and trying again. For God's sake, lad, go write some articles, stop plotting your next attempt at RfA. It is an invariable rule that those who most want power should never be given it, and until I see contributions that are not aimed at getting the bit, you will never receive my support.
'''Oppose''' - Comment on the Alfred Brown AFD showed that you have yet to embrace the spirit of wikipedia, that is building a comprehensive, collaborative encyclopedia. Vandal fighting is important, but content is at the heart of this project.
'''Oppose''' with all due respect to the noms and co-noms on this one. Per Nick, Pascal, and, to be honest, Dev (who said it more bluntly than I would, but whose sentiment I share entirely), but mostly per Blnguyen and Nishkid. There's nothing overtly wrong with the answers but they don't impress me and the expression strikes me as slightly childish and not the sort of communication skills I would like to see from an administrator to a blocked user or a person seeking administrative advice. I apologize for that as I know it sounds mean but it is honestly how I felt when reading the answers. I also agree that four RfAs in six months is a bit much, especially when each time the bulk of the opposes seem to be raising the same issues. R, if this RfA doesn't get through, I suggest you take a break from worrying about adminship and concentrate on what we've been telling you each time for the last six months: please cut back on the automated editing and focus on helping build the encyclopedia. Sorry guys, but no. '''
'''Oppose''' per much of the above, particularly bureaucratic tendencies and a rather insistent desire for adminship.
'''Oppose''' I read much of the previous requests for adminship.  Per Blnguyen and Sarah, the concerns in previous RfAs have not been addressed at all.  I'm uncomfortable with administrators who ignore the input of others on how to improve; who do the same thing over and over again, and expect a different result.  These numerous RfAs demonstrate something of a tin ear. --
'''Oppose''' with all respect to a good and well-intentioned editor. Per Sarah and others, I don't see enough encyclopedia writing to absolutely demonstrate that you need the tools, from the project's point of view. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. I don't feel that the editor has enough experience in encyclopedia building and dealing with editorial conflicts to make a good <s>editor</s> admin at the present time.
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions offer an almost anal level of detail; overstressing the need to show us how you know the minutiae of the processes, but lack the larger vision of creating encyclopaedic content. And what's the big deal with a bad name sitting at [[WP:UAA]] for more than 2 hours?  That generally means it's not an obvious case, rather than something that needs to be blocked.  Most new accounts never even edit anyway, and if they make bad edits they are warned and blocked as vandals.  A borderline name doesn't harm anybody. --
'''Oppose''' Per Sarah, who sums up my feelings pretty well.  Once again, another editor who focuses more on policing the project rather than building.  Both are needed, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me a lot of RfA's lately have too much interest in AfD's, vandalism, etc.  This applicant doesn't give me a vision of how they can help build the encyclopedia.  Almost a neutral, but Sarah convinced me.
'''Oppose''' per user's comments on the talk page of this nomination that he does not have enough time to write articles, I cannot see how he has time to be an admin.
'''Oppose''': This enterprise is primarly an encyclopedia-writing exercise. A little bit of experience over a few months of actually authoring articles will go a long way towards helping round out this editor's experience. I had large gaps in my understanding of WP until I wrote a few articles, and watched how they evolved afterwords, having to interact with a variety of other editors with other viewpoints, and defend my articles and edits in a number of bureaucratic actions. Until an editor understands what it is like to write an article, and have it attacked or defend a few AfD's it is difficult for me to put much credence behind claims of understanding of the processes at WP. Learn some more, author some articles, and develop some more skills relevant to writing encyclopedia articles before venturing to become someone making judgements over those who are actually building this project. One of the worst types of managers in real life is the manager who has no background at all in the enterprise he is managing, but is given a large measure of power over those who are doing the actual work. I have seen this produce disasters over and over, such as the wholesale exporting of the work of Xerox PARC to competitors, to the bankrupting of what was once the largest company in the world (AT&T) through this kind of managerial blunder, to the Challenger disaster. All of these are directly attributable to giving managerial powers to individuals who have only the slightest acquaintance with the enterprise itself. This inevitably leads to bad decisions and extremely ill will, and the loss of the real talent. In Wikipedia, we rely on volunteer labor and good will. I fear that this sort of nomination will be more negative than positive.--
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see admin candidates with more real contribution to article writing.
'''Oppose''' Junior high?  what?  I have no problem being ageist.  Teenage admins have shown repeatedly that they have poor dispute resolution skills, and here is one younger than that. I'm just not giving the banhammer to children.  Second reason: Not enough article writing.  Third reason, spends time editing meta stuff, not building the project.  We don't need more meta-stuff, we need writers. Admins who aren't writers are out of touch with what the purpose of this project is and I see nothing to think this user is any different.
'''Oppose''', simply not a content editor, and he will not receive my support until he becomes one.
'''Oppose''', no real contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''', administrators have to get down into the guts of the encyclopedia, and this user seems reluctant to do so. Which is perfectly acceptable in a volunteer editor, but not something I'm comfortable granting the additional buttons for. -- ''
'''Sorry''' R but I can not agree with this nomination either. Why? Two reasons - lack of substantial content editing, and what appears to be an almost obsessive interest in adminship.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry at this point I am going to have to agree with Dirk and Filll above.
'''Oppose''' Concerns about the candidate's temperament, due to some of the curt responses during this discussion and some of the activity raised below, including interpreting a vandal placing "you suck" on an article as "an attack on Wikipedia editors".
'''oppose''' per concerns of Blnguyen, Pascal and others. I hope that a bit more maturity and work article writing will change my opinion in the future.
'''Oppose''' per candidate's obsession with adminship.  &#10154;
'''Oppose''' per obsession w. adminship, the age factor (yes, call me "ageist" - apparently it's now politically incorrect to assume that people mature and gain better ppl skills with age).  Further, he lacks substantial content editing which further makes me suspicious of his obsession w. adminship. --
'''Oppose''' I don't think the age thing is a huge deal, but I do think an admin should also be a contributor. There's no way (as others have said) you can get a feel for the conflicts and frustrations that can sometimes happen while editing without actually adding content. Some of the worst admins are those that don't edit Wikipedia, and some of the best admins are those that contribute heavily in article space. Most admins are in the middle and do fine. I'd like all admins to have a fair amount of editing experience.
I'm aware the RFA is past closing time. However, I must add my '''opposition''' to this RFA. Nothing about age - that's rather close to [[WP:PA|personal attacks]] - but I do think you have an unhealthy obsession with becoming an admin. This is a major minus, it makes you seem power-hungry. Secondly the lack of proper encyclopedic contributions as brought up above. I'm not comfortable with admins who don't contribute a lot to the content - it's hard to judge how the candidate would do in disputes since there's no prior content dispute to go on. The answer to question 3 - "I try to stay away from disputes as much as possible" - does not help your case, given that as an admin you're very likely to get into disputes.
'''Neutral''', again. The oppose !votes leave reasons to have concerns. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Sitting on the fence'''. I agree that both the supporters and the opposers deliver good rationales. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Neutral''' The opposition just raises too many issues and thoughts for me to support.
'''Neutral''' You have contributed a lot thus far to the encyclopedia, but I would like to see you mature a bit as an editor before I could support you as an admin. --
'''Neutral''' Hey, R. You are a great editor, but the oppose arguments are just enough to put me on the fence. To provide my own very small concern (perhaps a typo?), I am slightly unsettled at the first part of your answer to Q.6 where you said you would ''probably'' assume good faith. In that particular situation, with no obvious vandalism, I don't think there would be another option that ''wouldn't'' violate AGF. After all, even editors who make mistakes have a [[WP:BELLY|belly button]].
'''Support''' as nominator, per above.
'''Support''' as co-nominator, with reasons given there.
'''Strong support'''. This user should have become an admin long ago. Article writing isn't everything. R is an experienced editor who clearly won't abuse the tools. <b>
Not insane.
'''Support''' - good luck!
'''Support'''good user--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''', with minor provisions. R is a good editor who has my every confidence, save a few things on IRC which I will not state on-wiki as it is not the appropriate venue. However, it is my opinion that people should only contribute to the project ''if they enjoy it''. Now, R became a near-recluse after his most recent RfA, which may allude to the fact that he does not enjoy contributing when criticized. Being able to take criticism as an administrator will be a crucial part of the job. But still, he's a solid contributor who has many positive contributions, save some of the frivolous things for which he's been previously opposed, not to forget that where a person's treasure lies, there his/her heart lies also. R's a great user and the opposers leave me with no other impression that he's like the rest of us &mdash; flawed. I have strong confidence he'll take other people's opinions into consideration as an admin, his heart's set on becoming one, so let's '''give him the mop'''! —<tt>[[</tt>'''
Content writing experience is helpful to producing a well-rounded administrator but I'm not sure we need to insist on all candidates having such experience. We should make use of our volunteers based on their strengths - some people are more suited to performing maintenance and administration tasks than to writing content. That someone is a poor editor does not mean that might not be an effective admin. My interactions with R lead me to believe that he has his head screwed on correctly and I trust that he'll use the tools in areas where he has experience and avoid doing so elsewhere. I think giving R admin tools will be a net benefit to the project. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Yes''', another editor who has shown vast improvements over recent months.
'''Support''' - He has improved tremendously. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' I have to say I do have some concerns about the stuff raised in the discussion section. But overall, I believe you're a constructive editor with experience, who has vastly improved with time. You should do fine with the tools. '''
'''Support''', per all of the above. Friendly user who would not abuse admin rights. Good luck. —

'''Support''' as before, as above, and as always. Teckwiz has shown me nothing but good intent, and therefore won't abuse the tools.
I support this nomination as strongly as I supported the last one. Now it is time to write my rationale: First off, I do not know why IRC is being mentioned here; I do not know how IRC is even relevant to Wikipedia, let alone adminship. Maybe that view is because I do not use IRC anyway, but even so, even if I did, I do not factor off-Wiki events into my participation at RfA. Secondly, regarding article writing, why can we not accept R's work for what it is rather than for what we want it to be? We need technical-wise administrators as well as article-writers, and R is a user highly familiar with policy and technical-matters. If he does not feel comfortable writing-articles at the moment, then fine; let him start writing them in his own time; I see no need to force him to do it. I am sure he will start writing articles when he wants to do it, and when he does, we can expect high-quality writing. In fact, I think ''telling'' him, or any user for that matter, to write articles is ultimately counter-productive. With the subpages, I do not have a problem with any of them: SLG was meant as a joke, and R didn't think it would go the way it did, which was why he had it deleted; the fact he had it deleted shows ''maturity'' on his behalf. Rant is nothing major as far as I am concerned, he had it deleted very quickly, and looking at the deleted edits, I see nothing wrong there anyway; with EfD, it is a joke page, nothing more, which is why it is in the "Wikipedia humor" category. With R's behavior, he is good-natured, and very civil and polite all the time; I have never seen him be uncivil. As for "obsession with adminship", R of all people knows that adminship is a technical ability and not power or rank. With R's username, I see nothing wrong with it: it is a good username, short and easy to type; it does not make him immature at all, and it does not have any relevance to how he would use the tools. Finally, those last words I used in the previous sentence, "use the tools", bring me to closing of the rationale: the two most important questions on RfA: do I trust R with the tools? Yes. Do I believe R will be abusive with the tools? No.
I've thought long and hard about R's adminship since last time around, and I've come to the inevitable conclusion that someone in my position would come to, which is "admins don't need mainspace".  R has everything else, including my support. '''
'''Support''', with my normal disclaimer: my own RFA was vulnerable to "lack of mainspace edit" warriors, and I believe I've been an effective admin.  I believe that R's collaboration with this project has been effective and further believe that he's taken some heat by becoming the public whipping boy for certain issues.  He has my respect, and my support.  -
'''Support'''.  I would be very disappointed not to have R join the admin ranks.  Do I trust him?  Yes.  Do I believe that anything that he might do that is not supported by consensus can be easily repaired? Yes.  R, I hope the community sets petty and small issues aside and finally makes the decision that I think you deserve.<span style="color:#01796F">--
'''Support''' per my nomination statement. ~
'''Support''' A very good editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support.''' Per nom. Opposing arguments are based on off-Wiki maturity concerns or the immaterial lack of content editing. You'll note that admin tools don't facilitate ''editing'' but the protection of the encyclopedia and its process, and I don't see serious concerns that this editor will disrupt either effort. As for the other concerns relating to non-article userpages, I believe they've been adequately addressed if opposers would just read up.
'''Support''' it is a shame that some people mistake good-natured playfulness for immaturity. I hope they laugh in real life and even once and a while laugh at themselves. No reason to believe that this editor will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems like a good Wikipedian.
'''Support''' - Adminship isn't about contributing to, or creating, articles, it is about recognizing the quality of other user's contributions to aricles.
'''Support''' In my on-wiki interactions with R, especially on [[WP:UW]], I have been impressed by his maturity. He has shown that he has a need for the tools, and I trust his best judgment. --
While I'm not enthusiastic about R's desire to be an admin, it doesn't seem like it's an "I wanna wield da power" sort of thing but just an eagerness to get full privileges.  Seems to create ''enough'' mainspace content, is looking to be helpful, and seems to have no real malice, so why not?
'''Support''' - I doubt he'd embarrass Wikipedia that much with adminship, and if he does, there's always arbitration isn't there?
'''Support''' - ''Please'', everyone, let's just give him the damn tools. He is ''more'' than ready for adminship, and has been so for several months (he was ''certainly'' ready at the time of his last RfA). He knows policy inside out, as demonstrated by his answers to the questions. The SLG was no more harmful than any other fun page, and it's gone; let's consign it to history, rather than robbing the project of another good administrator. I swear, the flood of Opposes here demonstrate perfectly why RfA is broken. If this fails to reach a consensus to promote, I will actually lose what sanity I have left.
'''Strong support''' - I find it sad that R has the same arguements every time about him becoming an administrator, yet others who have similar concerns about their editing don't get a single oppose at RfA. It does look like some people come out in force here when R goes for adminship. That said, R appears in admin area's all the time and does a fantastic job here. Maybe he isn't the most prolific article writer, but he would certainly benefit the project by having the tools, and I trust him more than quite a few current administrators to use the tools wisely.
'''Support'''- Would make a good neutral admin.
'''Support''' Much of the opposition comes for reasons I find irrelevant.  The SLG discussion was annoying, but when I first saw the page I thought it was cute, and at worst a bit of harmless fun.  Likewise for EFD.  I don't know what happened on IRC, but I really, really don't like dealing with IRC stuff: I've never gone there, and probably never will.  On Wikipedia itself, R has done a fine job.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.'''As per Newyorkbrad and Riana and has over 8000 edits with a good track with necessary experience and nothing in his edits to show concerns and not seen any diffs from any oppose vote to show concern and incrediable for a student of his age will be great Wikipedian for years if given the tools now.
'''Support''' with due respect to opposers. Ultimately the only question that matters is whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools, and I think R's dedication to the project reveals the most important part of his character. --
'''Switch to support.'''
Nothing to suggest R would misuse the tools inadvertently, let alone purposefully. —&nbsp;'''[&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. I see absolutely no reason to oppose. I notice no one harassed me over a lack of article writing at my RfA...double standards anyone? '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>
'''Support'''.  The "justifications" I'm seeing for oppose below are very disappointing.  Based on [[User:After Midnight]]'s interactions with [[User:R]] on IRC, AM suspects R might "delete the main page" (''clarifying that AM said R ''would not'' delete the main page, but "would do something [otherwise] completely inappropriate"'')?  SLG, EFD?  If I recall correctly, R was away when AM nominated SLG for deletion, and as soon as R returned, he had [[User:R/SLG]] deleted himself to remove the drama.  As for EFD, the only thing I can say is: ''it's a joke, laugh.''  '''In any event''', R has proven himself to be extremely helpful in keeping Wikipedia as spick and span as possible, he conducts himself in a calm, thorough, responsible, and reasonable manner, and he tries to promote on Wikipedia a sense of collegiality and friendliness.
'''Support.''' I just don't see any harm in granting this dedicated user adminship.  If he screws up big time, he can be recalled, but I don't even think that is very likely.  I find the opposers' arguments uncompelling.   To wit:  (1)  ''Immaturity''.   To properly deal with the vandals, he just has to be more mature than them.  Maybe you haven't seen RC lately, but that's not asking much.  Sure, R is young, but he's not filing flawed reports to AIV or anything like that.  (2)  ''SLG''.  Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Single-letter usernames were a little trendy for awhile, and maybe R got a little carried away with that.  But SLG got all esperanzariffic when R was on vacation; immediately upon his return, he recognized the problem and took care of business immediately.  These are qualities that I want to see in an admin.  (3)  '''EfD'''.  It's just fun.  It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's not like it's detracting from our goals.  Some of our most prolific contributors blow off some steam there from time to time.  (4) ''Desperation''.  Sure, 5 RFA's in quick succession is pretty lame, but is that a reason to oppose in and of itself.  Does his eagerness for adminship identify him as some sort of WillyOnWheels sock?  When past opposes have been based on "too young" or "doesn't write FAs" (things that are unlikely to change in the next three months or a year), why wait?  (5)  ''Parole template'' is just another wording of Template:second-chance.  (6) ''Cricketer speedy''.  Give it a rest already.  Do you really think that R will really delete, edit, or even read any article on Cricket for the rest of his wiki-life after that nonsense.  Anyway, please reconsider; ask yourselves if giving {{user|R}} admin rights will be a net benefit to the project.  Surely it will; I think so.  For that matter, Newyorkbrad thinks so, which should be a good enough argument for anyone.  &#10154;
'''Support''' from another "janitor" with [[User:A Man In Black/No featured articles|no featured articles]] so far.  User seems, though not [[perfection|perfect]], at least aware of their own limitations and capable of learning from mistakes, as demonstrated [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Brown|here]] for example.  This is all I can ask of a human being.  Also, frankly, some of the reason others have given for opposing just seem silly to me.  —
'''Support''' from another person down in the muck. I can write but do not like doing it. I personally enjoy looking for patterns, hidden vandalism, and trying to stay one step ahead of the vandals. I truely know how he feels. Based on his past history (not just since the last RfA), he has shown repeatedly he knows what a vandal is and what is a misguided/new editor.  He has shown that he knows how to use the tools and more importantly, be ''trusted'' to use them correctly. Rather than getting burned out spinning his wheels doing what he is doing now, I would rather see him help unload the already loaded AIV and UAA areas during peak times. (I swear I saw 10+ names & IPs awaiting AIV a few times in the past few days).
'''Support'''competant. Unlikely to be a problem.
'''Support''' Reservedly. I do have some concerns with R. Without proof, I cannot totally believe claims of his immaturity on IRC. However, they cannot be totally unfounded, which causes pause. I also take issue with the amout of RFAs, and the lack of response to them. You obviously want to be an administrator; why not listen to the suggestions by opposers? Also, the "fun pages" although not harmful, they aren't wonderful. That said, R is a good editor. I mostly agree with the nominations; he would do well with the tools, and would be an asset to the encyclopedia (albeit the meta side of it). Take the concerns about your maturity to heart. A word of cuation&mdash; if this RFA fails, I encourage you to do three things: continue being a great edtior, take the advice of those who commented here, and ''wait a considerable amount of time before requesting again''. &mdash;
'''Support''', as an admin and article writer with eight FAs to my credit I can say with conviction that articles aren't a big deal. Adminship is mostly about minor, technical maintence. A PhD and ability to write clear prose has never been even the sightest help with admin tasks. He seems sincere and wants to be useful, I don't think he will do anything to damage the project.
'''Support'''.  I understand the concerns, but my personal observations and interactions with R at [[WP:UTM]] have been sufficient to convince me that he wouldn't abuse the tools.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support'''.  I believe I went into a lengthy support the last time, I am not quite sure.  My support from the last rfa stands.
'''Support''' - as above my support stands from his previous RfA.  <sup>
'''Support''' - to me, everything appears fine. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support even though love of the Yankees is prima facie evidence of stupidity''' And yes... I'm a [[Boston Red Sox|Sox]] fan. In all seriousness, I share the concerns of the opposition, but do not feel they will actually amount to a crisis. Too many highly respected editors are on board with you so that if you did get sideways, there would be no shortage of those willing to intervene. I think just letting R do what R does well, and not making him venture into areas in which he is uncomfortable will suffice.
'''Support''' Per noms.
Eh what the hell, I think this is a go for admin. —— '''
'''Support''' as I believe I have on two previous occasions. The opposers have raised a great many points, all of which I have considered. However, when it comes down to it, I still very much hold my opinion that he will make a very competent admin. He has plenty of experience in the areas he intends to work ([[WP:AIV|AIV]] being one notable example) and has clearly stated his intention to avoid areas with which he has less experience. Sure, he doesn't have the mainspace contributions to his name that some have, but as has been pointed out by various people already, we have numerous very able admins who don't do a lot of mainspace work and, in numerous instances, never have. That's not to say that mainspace work isn't vitally important, but it is to say that it is perfectly possible to work competently in various areas as an admin without having done any great amount of article writing. And I agree with the points made by Riana, Nihiltres and Newyorkbrad whose comments are much more persuasive and coherent than my own. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Support''' based upon Newyorkbrad's nomination. If Brad thinks he'll make a good admin, that's good enough for me. -
'''Support''' - I have read and considered the opposing arguments, and feel that they are valid points, but I do not feel that R's lack of article writing keeps him from having the know-how and experience to be trusted with the admin tools. He is very experienced in admin work, and is basically doing whatever possible without the tools; the project would definitely benefit from his sysopping.
'''Support'''. I highly doubt that lack of article writing would seriously affect R in administrative duties. Although I highly value this, I'm open to bypassing that criteria if the candidate shows that they can benefit by being an administrator. Second on the issue of maturity, R has been on the project long enough to know what is the line for maturity. While we all have different ideas on what maturity entails, I am very certain that if R was to hold the mop, he wouldn't go rogue and decide one day to delete everybody's user subpages. Moreover, with so many failed attempts, it would be silly to suggest that R would give in to his juvenile side and forget his obligations and judgment as an editor of the wiki. Now of course, he has much to work on, but I genuinely think that R will be constructive and not go rogue. '''''
'''Support''': I would trust this user with the tools. —
'''Support''' Per right above ([[User:Mholland|mholland]]'s Support); I also would trust R with the tools. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' I had mixed feelings about this RFA.  There are editors whose opinions I greatly respect on both sides of this issue.  After I thought about it, though, I realized that it's not that big of a deal.  R isn't a vandal.  The things he does are aimed at improving Wikipedia.  His userspace things generally seem well-intentioned, if a bit ill-advised.  He never seems to be trying to push people's buttons.  I have some issues with how he responds to criticism, but that's mostly on IRC, and he does seem to be getting better even there.  I hope that if this RFA succeeds (or even if it doesn't,) R will heed the advice given to him by people when things get heated.
'''Tarragon Support''' Some good reasons to Oppose, but some great reasons to Support.
'''Support''' No reasons to question R's maturity on-wiki. Earlier I opposed someone for what supposedly happened on IRC and I regretted it later. SLG was a joke turned sour through no fault of his. I trust that R will seek advice from others if he's unable to handle a difficult situation. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' &mdash; for all the sound and fury about not making mainspace edits, I see no evidence that this user would use the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature fashion.  I hate to break it to people, but every responsible user ''should'' have tools; adminship is not a big deal.  --
'''Support''' I am sure this person will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' <small>(Originally opposed)</small> -- even though you like the [[New York Yankees|Yanks]] and I like the [[Boston Red Sox|Sox]]. "''But, Bushcarrot. R is way too immature to handle the tools.''" True, the Single Letter Cabal got out of hand, but R took care of it in a mature manner; what more can you expect? So, why don't we give him a chance? R is going to do a great job with the mop, and no one needs [[Nostradamus]] to predict that. '''<font face="Arial"> [[User:Bushcarrot|<font color="black">Bushcarrot]] <sup>[[User_talk:Bushcarrot|<font color="slategray">Talk]]</sup> <sub>
'''Support''' I have one or two concerns but I am going to support on the strength of some of the nominators, the fact this user appears to be a hard worker, and the lack of evidence that they would abuse the tools.
Ah what the hell.  I'd like to him get a chance. --
'''Oppose''' due to immaturity. Please note that this is not ageism, but rather a feeling from interactions both on wiki and off wiki that this user may actually get bored or silly one day and may not actually delete the main page but would do something completely inappropriate. --
'''Oppose''' No, because of his whole attitude about adminship and RFAs in general. I understand it must be stressful going through 3 failed rfas, but that's no reason to have the whole "adminship sucks" attitude. He's also desperate to be an admin it seems, which I don't like the idea of. I don't believe he's mature enough for the responsibility ( and no, this is not about age, as I am a minor as well). Sorry R... * '''
'''Absolutely not''': I was concerned about the candidate's immaturity, as displayed on IRC, I'm well aware that IRC doesn't equal Wikipedia (as was pointed out by the candidate about 5 minutes after I commented here), but it does, in my view, show aspects of the candidates character that are wholly undesirable in an administrator. I note that the candidate has been repeatedly kicked from official Wikimedia IRC channels for disruptive behaviour consistent with immaturity. <s>I also left a comment earlier, prior to the candidate's acceptance of the RfA, and I did ask he restored the comment when accepting and transcluding the RfA, I'm disappointed to see it hasn't reappeared.</s>
'''Oppose'''. I have no doubts that R has the best interests of the project in mind; regretfully, however, my interactions with him make me concerned that his behavior is often somewhat immature, and I am not sure he will be able to consistently apply the sound judgment required as an administrator. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Oppose''' all you do in the mainspace is vandal revert, nothing has changed since last time.
'''Strong oppose''' My observation of R has left a very sour taste in my mouth. One of the thing he has done is create [[User:R/EFD]], something more suited for rubbish heaps like Facebook and Myspace, not an ''encyclopedia''. He has only 500 mainspace edits since the beginning of March, and except doing some work on [[The Amazing Race 11]], they're all reverts. And when R doesn't revert, he doesn't even do anything in the Mainspace. Albeit adminship is not all about writing, I do expect ''some'' encyclopedic writing. I feel R is too immature, and even if Melsaran wants diffs, she won't get them. You don't notice immature because of diffs; it's a pattern of general behaviour and attitude. Editors for deletion strikes me as a bit immature. I'm extremely unimpressed with [[User:R/Paroleoffer]]. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This template makes it sound like a block is punitive, and consequently a serious misunderstanding of the blocking policy. Also, R edits his userspace way too much. Also, I forgot to mention the [[User:R/SLG]]. They had its own IRC channel at a time. That's social networking, not building an encyclopedia. And
'''Oppose''' - While EFD is fun, SLG was not, and the very demand for a single letter username echos the above maturity concerns. --[[User:ST47|ST47]]<small>[[User talk:ST47|Talk]]&middot;
'''Oppose''' My concerns of the previous RfA still stand. I don't think R has the maturity to handle admin duties. There are many signs of this: the deleted rant page, the way he reacted during and after his failed RfAs, the SLG thing, the notorious cricket AfD, the 5 RfAs and 2 editor reviews in the span of 10 months and, yes, I'll also include his age. I'm confident R won't delete the mainpage but that's not the issue here. I don't trust him to handle the inevitable interaction with problematic users in a way that benefits the project.
'''Oppose''' Per Maxim.
'''Oppose''' Too many issues. Having five RfAs is a real concern to me. What I have heard about the rant page and SLG are not good either. Though I don't go on IRC much, bad actions there could suggest potential bad actions here. Sorry.
For the first time ever, I '''oppose''' R's RfA. Your participation hasn't really improved. For the 139th time, ''please work on the suggestions people give you''. Your failure to listen to the suggestions made by established editors in your previous RfAs prevent me from being able to trust you with the tools. If this RfA is succesful, I'm sure you'll be a great admin, but I just don't think I trust you right now. Sorry. BTW, 5 RfAs in less than 1 year is 0_o --'''[[User:Agüeybaná|<font color="Green">Ag</font>]]
Basically per immaturity and this notion of RfA-via-the-battering-ram method. I just don't have the stomach for it, despite my respect for the nominators. -- <b>
'''Strong oppose''' - has spent a lot more time on EFD and SLG than articles since the last RfA. Spends more time on joking around than editing articles. Also, the obsession with adminship is particularly unpalatable and all the old things about no article edits except for basically all machine edits still hold. '''
Adminship is not a trophy. Neither a flying broom. It's a mop. -
'''Oppose''' per the issues raised above.
'''Oppose'''.  I am concerned that only 157 mainspace edits have been made since his last RFA, with 126 (chiefly reverts) being made in the 3 days immediately prior to this RFA being opened.  It strongly suggets R has learned nothing from his last RFA, and failure to respond appropriately to suggestions and/or criticism is not a good trait in an admin. I would not trust him with the tools at this time, particularly in light of the concerns about his immaturity.   If no improvement has been shown (and it has not), then why should another RFA pass where previous ones have failed?  It should also be noted Riana's co-nomination statement helped convinced me to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. As I said the last two times, ''write content''.
'''Oppose'''. I've found the oppose reasons to be much more convincing the support reasons. A case where the chance of ''abuse'' of admin tools is very low but the chance of ''misuse'' is very high (IMO).
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience, per above comments.
'''Oppose''' — I actually came to this RfA hoping you had addressed my concerns from your previous RfA, deep down inside I knew you hadn't though. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I honestly don't believe we need ''another'' administrator who is solely interested in the politics of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''', per Riana's third point.
'''Strong Oppose'''  Per my usual reasons of maturity, wanting to be a janitor rather than a leader, and, frankly, nothing seems to have changed since last RfA.
'''Very weak oppose''' I was planning to support but there was a large fuss on IRC around this editors RFA and I dont think he handled it very well.
'''Oppose''' Wow, 5 RFAs in the space of one year? From my experiences with this editor, I do not think he is ready to be an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. per above comments.
'''Oppose''' Candidate clearly is too divisive to inspire my confidence, and many of comments concerning the level of maturity leave me with serious doubts.
'''Oppose'''. I wish I could point to specific incidents that make me not think he'd be a good admin, but I can't. I just remember that I don't really trust his judgement (although as a note, from what I see he acted fine in the IRC incident). -
'''Oppose''' Maturity and Judgment issues.  And no responses please, I tire of the bickering over every oppose vote.
'''Strong Oppose'''. When I read all the discussions I think R should continue with his Wikipedia work as now, I miss the patience and engagement to take the tips and hints of the last RFA serious. I do not blame him for misusing the tools. My feeling is, that disputes that arise from creating articles together are not to be solved by R as admin. I have the feeling he lacks the experience from writing articles which I personally believe is very useful to deal with admin issues. Changed to strong oppose from oppose since R does not answer questions 8a to c using an excuse about lack of time. <b><font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FF0000">
'''Strong oppose''' Lack of article space experience, lack of maturity, '''far''' too eager for admin tools for my liking. Come back when you've finished high school and have a couple of FA's under your belt.
'''Strong Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. The candidate reveals an extremely detailed knowledge of every bullet-point in policies, and the correct technical procedure for blocking usernames, but it is important for admins to show tact and know the correct way of handling an issue, which might sometimes be different than the "recipes" given in policies. R seems to be too focused on following policies to the letter and has problems discussing issues with other users. He specifically says that he wants to help by blocking usernames, but in fact the username policy is one area where being too strict without seeing the larger picture causes a lot of harm and drives newcomers away. In fact, there has been a discussion at [[WT:U]] lately about how we need to have a more friendly attitude towards username violations, and I fear that R will not be able to show the necessary judgement beyond "it violates bullet-point 23, block". Also, I don't like the way the candidate and supporters are badgering the oppose voters. This makes it seem like those accusing R of being desperate for adminship are quite right indeed.
Even his signature exudes immaturity. —
'''Oppose''' - 5 RfA's in one year is too many. Going through this once is tough enough, and willingly exposing yourself to it five times indicates that admin *is* a big deal to the candidate. I'd need to see more maturity than I have.
'''Oppose.'''  I actually approve of R for avoiding writing, if that is not his thing, and I can see how it must be frustrating to do so much admin work without the extra tools given to a full-fledged admin.  '''But''' I want those extra tools to used with care.  R's replies to some of the questions above are rather shallow (or flagged with excuses about being busy) and, given his experience, that surprises me. --
'''Oppose'''. I have given this one a lot of thought but there's just no way I can come at supporting it. As with the previous RfAs, I still have concerns about maturity. I went through the edits since his last RfA and I'm seeing little but automated edits and social-networking. And I don't see any sign that R is actually listening to what the community has told him in previous RfAs because we've essentially been saying the same things each time and yet here we are again. Watching these multiple RfAs is like watching someone trying to bash down the front door while the people inside are shouting that the key is under the doormat. R, we've told you where the key to the janitor cupboard is, it's up to you to go and get it. I think these multiple, frequent RfAs without responding to feedback in the hope that you eventually get lucky and scrape through are going to backfire on you. I really recommend that you don't come back to RfA until you can answer a straight yes to question four. I personally don't expect you to go out and write FAs if you don't like writing, but there is a middle ground between writing full articles and only making automated reverts.
'''Oppose''' - I'm not comfortable supporting this candidate with the issues raised above. The number of RfAs in such a short period is also a concern for me. '''
Per much of above.  Lack of article writing, ignoring the concerns at (4!) previous RFAs and concerns of maturity.  Two additional points unrelated to my oppose 1) I'm unhappy with the defensiveness of the other opposers.  I frequently oppose so I think it's fair for me to say this: '''When you oppose, you owe everyone a clear explanation'''.  Stop acting like your unarticulated opinion is so obvious that you can't be bothered to clarify it.  The onus falls upon the opposer and you absolutely owe clarification to those who do not understand your position. <small>(As a corollary if I ever oppose and don't respond to a follow up, please poke my talk page.  You are always justified in asking me for clarification.)</small>  2) I had a spectacularly bad encounter with R.  Or maybe it was E.  Or L or I or O or N.  I know it wasn't Y because he has a consistent and distinctive signature.  But it could be any of the others.  Honest to God, I can't remember—I've looked but can't find it.  These names remain unhelpful to me.  This is not part of my reason to oppose, as it's partially cognitive failure on my part, but I think it was a mistake to allow the proliferation of these names.  We prohibit names that are too lengthy; in hindsight, should have done the same for too short. --
'''Oppose''' for a number of reasons. First, I think that substantive experience of editing in mainspace is an important pre-requisite for an admin, because that's the core of what wikioedia is about: no matter how well anything else is done, without content there is no project, and I belive that the experience gained from editing is essential to an understanding of how editors react to the use of admin powers; but R seems to lack that experience. Secondly, I share the concerns expressed elsewhere about maturity. R's comments about being bored, his creation of [[[User:R/EFD]], and some strange judgment calls all add up to me to a picture of someone who is well-intentioned but is not currently well-rounded enough to make an admin. Having been an admin for 18 months, I am increasingly aware that it is a role which requires an ability not to be offended by the inevitable criticism, as well as an ability to address the sensitivities of editors who editors who may feel harrassed and stressed: in short, it requires a lot of diplomatic skill, and I don't see the evience that this editor has those skills.<br />R is clearly performing a very useful role in vandalism patrolling, and I woukd encourage hom to continue with that good work, and to accept that adminship is something which we hope he will grow into. I really don't want to discourage R's participation into the project, but his promotion wuld be premature. Maybe in a few years' time? --
'''Oppose:''' Five RfAs in less than a year?  What the hell?  Quite aside from any other concern, an admin needs ''patience''.  Is there any compelling reason why this candidate has to keep hammering away with RfA after RfA, tumbling over one another in short order?  Does he need to be an admin ''that'' badly, and if so, why is that, exactly?  Frankly, I wouldn't want to see another RfA from him within the next year.  Beyond that, don't be silly: of course RfA is a vote, however much the word "vote" is ''verboten'' on Wikipedia.  Even so, the nominee's myrmidons disputing most Oppose votes may be legal, but they can't imagine that kind of behavior is helping the candidacy.
'''Oppose''' Not convinced the user possesses the necessary maturity needed of a WP admin. As others have said, said named user needs to heed the advice of others before submitting another RFA. Also, statements that one might quit Wikipedia if not granted adminship bother me. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Oppose''' Maturity concerns. Would be a liability if given the 'mop'. Apologies.
'''Neutral''' - were it not the fact that I like this particuar dude, it would be "'''oppose''' per confusing username".
'''Neutral''' I don't know, but based on the IRC comments I've seen in a past few weeks (yes, people think IRC dosen't weigh for adminship), it makes me feel that you think that adminship is a desire rather than a tool. Also, you have the skills of an admin, which is good, but there is one slight problem, try to do some article-building (spelling/grammar checking does count in this case). You should do some article-building so you can develop the skills of dispute resolution. Well, that is my comment of the day. ''However'', if his behavior both changes on-wiki and IRC during the course of the RfA, I might be willing to support.<font color="red">
From all I've seen from R, I know this is a great user.  However, maturity issues and the like bolstered by opposers trouble me from supporting. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Neutral Leaning to Support'''  The user seems to be very active in serveral administration tasks and can only be aided by giving adminship, and I do trust him with the tools.  While lack of encyclopedia writing is apparent, I don't see how this strongly contributes in either direction ot an adminship request.  The user seems reasonable about putting himself up as open to recall.  The only worry I have is an apparent slight immaturity that may work its way into admin responsibilities.  A solid candidate, with a bit more apparent maturity would have my full support.
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose, but persuadable. As I've said ad nauseam - including on at least one of your previous RFAs - I believe admins need to have a reasonable creation/expansion/rewriting history; until you've seen for yourself just how hard it is to create valid content, particularly on controversial topics, I don't think one's in a position to empathise with or credibly debate with people who are having material they've worked hard on deleted, and I don't think your mainspace contributions are up to scratch. I do also wonder why someone who doesn't appear to have any particular interest in content ''wants'' to be an admin. While your knowledge of policy is fine - which is why I'm not opposing - I can't really support.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
I feel unable to support at this time. It just seems, R, that you desire adminship to a degree where it has become one of your only goals here, to a degree where you desire it so badly that it has blinded you to the true purpose on this project. The tools are no big deal, and to attempt '''five times in nine months''' to obtain some extra functions really seems to bring to light a lack of patience and good forethought. Also, your apparent ignorance of the issues brought up by your previous opposers, over the last five requests, further makes me unsure whether you should be an admin ''at this time'', as it shows a lack of a willingness to listen and take action based on what others are saying, which is something much needed and valued among sysops. People are not opposing you for the fun of it; you can't just continue to schedule the next RFA. -- <strong>
I'm deeply torn here between some very good arguments presented by Wikipedians I respect greatly. I'm currently trying to weigh them up and either support or oppose, combined with recent editing patterns by R, but I still can't decide whether I support or oppose this nomination. '''
I'd trust R with the tools, but he seems over-eager to get them. I don't find five RFAs in a ten month period to be a particularly good thing. · <font face="Times New Roman">
Moreschi's support may be misplaced, if you accept [[:wikiquote:Rita Mae Brown|this]] line of thought. I don't know that I'd go that far, but since this is the fifth RfA where the opposition has mentioned broadly similar issues, there may be something to it. There's not quite enough in the opposition arguments to convince me that R shouldn't be an admin, but the case for has some gaps in it. If the opposition is going to look similar at every RfA, perhaps R should endeavour to address the concerns. Adopting Nishkid's advice could be the answer, and Wikipedia can always do with more copyediting, even if it is no more than running AWB to find duplicated words and common misspellings.
Worried about this candidate's immaturity. I won't pile on oppose.<s>However, I won't pile on oppose, because he wrote RBot which replaced Ral315's signpost bot.</s> '''
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose''' I disagree with his rationale in not acquiring the experience asked of him in previous RfA's.  I have a professional career.  My boss will often ask me to perform task or learn new skills that I have no intention of learning or using in the future.  They may not be directly applicable to my job.  But if I wish to advance, I need to learn/understand them.  R may never write an article after becoming an Admin (and I believe he will someday) but that isn't justification not to write article before becoming an admin.  Part of passing an RFA is showing that you know and understand the tools and culture of WP in multiple phases.  Part of passing an RFA is showing that you can be a good follower/listener.  Consensus has shown that you need experience elsewhere, show some effort to get that experience and many of the opposes will disappear.  Think of it this way, in order to graduate from H.S. you have to take courses that you don't want to take... and that you don't think you'll ever need/want.  But you still have to take them.  The same is true here, you may never think you'll want/use the experience you might gain by going outside of your comfort zone, but others believe you will benefit from it.  I tend to agree.  Get the experience, it'll show maturity on your part and help quell the dissenters.
'''Neutral.''' Over the past couple of days, I read all these pages of discussion, most of it very good, some just piling on, and then read the above comments by Balloonman, which I must echo.  Persistence is an important trait, both in life and at WP, as is patience.  You must learn to mix a bit of sacrifice ''and'' bliss.  Better luck next time.
Too many valid reasons listed by the opposes. I am neutral. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="steelblue">CO</font><sub>
'''Neutral''' leaning towards weak support. Some editors just aren't article writers but htat doesn't mean they can't help take care of the encyclopedia through other methods. R is a good vandal-fighter and I would normally support in this case but unfortunately the reasons for the opposes above cause me to withhold support from this RfA for now. --

'''Strong support''' as the nominator.
An excellent article writer, but you have no experience in wikipedia space[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Racepacket&namespace=4&year=&month=-1]. To have the tools, you have to show you understand all our applicable policies and guidlines so need to show some edits to [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:AIV]]. Adminship is a maintanence roll and you need to be able to show the community how you would handle youself with these tasks. Personally, Id stick to article writing as you are fantastic at that.
Has proved to be an outstanding editor in select articles, however, too few experiences both in Mainspace and talk, and more importantly Wikipedia namespaces.
'''Weak Oppose''' Good article writer, but less participation in admin. arenas like ANI, etc. '''
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience with ANI, AIV, UAA, etc.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience in admin areas is a major concern here. You are no doubt a good article writer, but experience is also needed in Wikipedia namespace as well. Try again after a few months with more substantial edits in Wikipedia namespace and you will have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  A good editor, but more experience is needed in admin-like areas.  I recommend [[WP:AFD]] (it's one of my favorites).  More communication with other editors (via talk pages) would be good, too.  More overall experience is needed to demonstrate your understanding of policies and procedures.  It's rare that an editor pass RFA with fewer than 2000 edits.  I recommend withdrawing this RFA for now.  I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]] if you have any questions.
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry. I admire your mainspace contributions, but like those above me have said, you definitely need more Wikipedia space edits to gain a better understanding of what it will mean to be an administrator. Keep up the good work, though.
Number of edits means I have to suggest you withdraw under [[WP:SNOW]]  '''
(treble edit conflicted) '''Oppose'''. Only 12 edits at the time of writing this comment. Your eagerness to help improve Wikipedia is appreciated, but unfortunately I cannot support your RfA you with only having 12 edits. I suggest you withdraw this RfA (as it is doubtful it will gain consensus to pass) and reapply when you have significantly more contributions. Best of luck to you. --
'''Oppose''', I suggest withdrawing this RFA.  You had five edits prior to submitting it.  Most admin candidates have thousands of edits. After you've been an active contributor for a few months, an RFA might be successful. --
'''Support''' He seems to have a good grasp of policy, is civil in discussions, and takes part in several administrative chores. From what I see, I think you should become an administrator.
'''Weak Support''' Good editor, I see no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools, also seems to have a grasp of policy (though maybe he should look at 3RR a bit more).
'''Support''' This user has been around more than long enough to demonstrate that abuse of the tools is not an issue.  Whether those 7000 edits are properly allocated or not shouldn't be a concern.
'''support''' --
'''Support'''. He may have described how he was irritated, but as long as he didn't ''act'' irritated, there's no problem. Although I agree he should think twice about 3RR for now, speedy deletion candidate backlog could always use work. --''<span style="color:#0000f1">
'''Support'''. nitpickers below aren't looking at the big picture. Being a sysop isn't becoming "elite", and the user doesn't have to have always been absolutely perfect. Reaper X has demonstrated the will to '''help''' this project, and I'm sure will not make any more mistakes than the next sysop. If we have concerns about their handling of a particular line of admin work, I'm sure s/he can refrain from acting their until they've been properly taught and have confidence. '''[[User:Pumpmeup|<font color="Purple">Pump</font>]]'''
This is to counter the opposees, which I find extremely troubling. '''<font color="red">
'''Weak Support''' - great editor, with edits in all the places to meet my standards.  Some of the issues raised  by opposes may give me pause to support 100 %.  [[WP:AGF|I'll give this user the benefit of the doubt]].
'''Support''' - edit history and answers bear out a solid editor with a good learning curve.
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor.
'''Support''' I've seen the work he does in music articles - always civil, always patient, always well-researched.  His knowledge of the rules and goals of wikipedia is admirable.  -
'''Weak Support''' - overall, a net positive (just). Contributions overall make up for the problems outlined below. cheers,
'''Oppose''' I see no evidence of work in the areas where the user wants to work the most with admin tools.  S/he'd like to work with 3RR but I see no reports to 3RR.  3RR is one of the most complex issues an admin deals with and a lack of experience there would be a hindrance.  Since June (6 months ago) I see 6 reports to AIV including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=150353006 one which was rejected] and one which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=161450551 already blocked] (although that was 3 minutes after it was blocked, so not a major issue).  Eight edits to RFPP since June including one that was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=169323084 already protected].  In addition, there is what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Reaper_X&diff=178683045&oldid=178673305 Hbdragon88] said about the lack of speedy experience.  I have no doubts that this is a good, productive user.  I just would like to see more involvement in the areas which he hopes to work in as an admin prior to supporting him.
'''Oppose'''. User page says, ''"My next task is becoming an admin, so I can have my hand further in the cookie jar"''. That's not what being an admin is about.
'''Oppose''' Probably [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:88.149.99.2&diff=121452489&oldid=120570602| not] the way to deal with a frustrating problem. --'''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">
'''Oppose''' - Not experienced enough for my liking and I'm concerned with Redmarkviolinist's diff about how this user handles situations. He ''could'' have phrased it better, but alas, he did not. Oppose for now. Cheers,
No fair use rationale on the image uploaded [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Odds_-_Good_Weird_Feeling.jpg here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Odds_-_Bedbugs.jpg here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Odds_-_Neopolitan.jpg here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bobnoxious_logo.jpg here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bobnoxious_-_Two_Fisted_Twisted_Rock_N_Roll.jpg here] etcetera, combined with the many red links in your upload log makes me doubt your capabilities with the non-free image policy. I understand that most of the images were uploaded in 2006, but the rationale issues should have been corrected once you realized their importance. Your userpage, as stated by Phil Bridger, makes me question your intentions of being an administrator. The comparison with the cookie jar shows a misunderstanding of the roles of administrators. The abilities to block, protect, look at deleted revisions etc., is not a prize nor is it to be used for your personal enjoyment. Sorry, but I am unwilling to support this nomination giving the outstanding issues. --
Oppose per DarkFalls as well as no intention of contacting the deleting administrator in the candidates' response to Q5, which is extremely worrying not only for deletions but for all administrator actions. '''
'''Weak oppose''' While I like seeing admins who can deal well with difficult editors, I have concerns that this editor wants to work on clearing the speedy backlog, but doesn't always have a grasp of speedy deletion reasons. Besides the speedy example given above, which is in the wrong category, this diff[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wipers_Box_Set&diff=163722706&oldid=150008591] on the [[:Wipers Box Set]] article is also in the wrong category. In fact, I couldn't find any reason for speedy deletion of that article, and declined the speedy. Perhaps some more work on correct use of speedy deletions before a retry?--
'''Weak oppose''' per above concerns.
'''Weak oppose''' also per above concerns.
'''Oppose''' per Metros and question 5. --
'''Neutral''' User has stated a desire to take [[WP:LSD]] but a glance at his/her deleted contributions shows absolutely no speedy tagging...at least that's what I see.  The majority is comprised of NowCommons and PRODs.  Not that I expect you to know the CSD criteria by heart, but I think experience is necessary to distinguish the intricacies of A7 and G11, etc. the most judgment-y of the CSD crteria.
'''Neutral''' - per oppose concerns. Although, I agree 7000 edits and a good experience in the mainspace is good, not much in the Wiki version, isn't.
'''Neutral''' You have good edits and experience, but I see that you edited one page 200-some times. This shows that you have much more you need to grasp before you become an admin. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4.5">[[User:Hiddenhearts|Hiddenhearts]]</font> <font size="1">
'''Neutral''' I'd support, but I don't feel you understand policy well enough yet. Sorry!
'''change to neutral.''' Actually, user has a large number of deleted contribs. This suggests an understanding of deletion policy.  Can't say I find "irritation" as a reaction to needing to settle matters via discussion to be a comforting thought. Discussion is essential to establishing consensus when there is disagreement. Also, I would still prefer more experience in the areas of interest. Nom is a good editor who is an asset to Wikipedia, but I would like to see greater experience and less irritation. Look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Neutral''' I do like what I see from Reaper for the most part, but the opposing side brings up an issue which is too big to support.
'''Neutral''' - Per [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]]. More experience in areas of Interest.
'''Neutral'''. Edit summaries often too brief or missing. Also, I could be wrong, but I thought reverts shouldn't be marked as minor edits (example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rage_Against_the_Machine&diff=prev&oldid=172225123], and similar examples around 04:00 Nov. 25.) as well as concerns raised by others above. --
'''Neutral''' I like seeing the +7000 edits, with +3000 of those in the mainspace, but there are two things holding me back. One is the oppose concerns, and two is the decline in activity I see in your contributions in the past 5ish months. Best of luck [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
{{User|Redmarkviolinist}} is a very hard worker, and I think he deserves this nomination.
This user is fairly new to Wikipedia.  Their contribs so far seem reasonable enough, although there isn't much of a history to judge from yet (although it is obvious the user hasn't really clued in to the use of edit summaries yet).  From browsing this user's talkpage and list of articles they've created, I think it speaks of a well-intentioned editor who is still very much learning the ropes, who is not someone I wish to see invested with admin powers.  Someday maybe; not now.  So...oppose.
Ordinarily I don't get involved in RfA's, but I was pretty surprised to see {{Querylink|User talk:Redmarkviolinist|qs=diff=169877008&oldid=169657690|Redmarkviolinist's deletion of unanswered concerns on his/her talk page}} (and this was a friendly and respectful question I asked him about a relatively minor matter), so I am not confident this editor yet understands the Wikipedia ethos as well as is desirable.
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Weikang&diff=next&oldid=166776571 Not a good idea]'''.--
Oppose and encourage withdrawal, as I explained on Redmarkviolinist's talk page several days ago. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redmarkviolinist&diff=168862941&oldid=168812756] -
'''Strong oppose''' per Barneca. Even discounting that, not enough experience yet. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Strong Support''' Wow, this guy knows almost everything! -[[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/IMG|o]]
<b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Support''' — knows how to enforce policy. --'''
Remember the '''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' We need more admins who deal with image issues, but edit summaries!! ;)
'''Support''', I've seen you, liked you, no reason not to trust you. Though on your userpage it says "<nowiki><br> should be <br/>", technically it should be <br /></nowiki> I believe. <tt>:)</tt>
'''Support''' - no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, so I wish you the best!  -
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Will make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great contributions on the image front. --
&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' Based on the views he's shared, he's unlikely to rush an image's deletion without proper consideration. -
'''Support''' Knowledgeable editor with experience in resolving image copyright concerns. Remember the dot is diligent and appears to be thoroughly acquainted with our non-free content policies. Good luck! ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''  - Doubt he will abuse the tools, seems to have a load of experience on the image front. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' I think he'll do great and we need more image experts.
'''Support''' As per Wizardman and Rlevse.Track is good see no concerns there.
'''Support''' The candidate knows how to apply image policy, and will do it effectively.
'''Support''' Candidate seems quite reasonable on image policy. --
'''Support''' - help with image backlogs is appreciated.
'''Support'''. Definitely. ---
'''Support'''&ndash; I'm not sure exactly what kind of administrative actions can be taken on image issues, but again, I can't possibly oppose a Wizardman nomination.  '''
'''Support''' Very knowledegable, and we do definitely need more image admins.
'''Support''' A good candidate, particularly so because of the backlog at [[WP:PUI]] etc.
'''Support'''
'''<s>Oppose</s> No reason to oppose this user'''
'''Support''' Knows his way around policy, seems curteous and switched on. Like to see more edit summaries though! Promotes more harmonious inter-user editing.
'''Support'''.  Reasonable explanations for NFC opinions and good answers to the other questions.  --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. It's almost a non-issue, but just get the difference between a block and a ban straight. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support''' No reason no to.
'''Support''' - seems like a solid user.
'''Support'''. Very good answers to the questions.
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:9pt;">[[User:AGK|<font color="green">'''Anthøny'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. A good editor and won't misuse tools. --
Seems fine to me.
'''Support''' - if there are any small gaps in knowledge, fixing that is easy.  It's more important to be bright, sane, and trustworthy - I see nothing to make me think that this is not the case.
'''Support''' Understands the principles involved, especially "don't use admin tools for your personal opinions". All else is commentary. Since he acknowledges that the view he holds is not policy, and merely does not plan to act against conscience, it is unreasonable to require him to change his mind to be an admin.
'''Support''' Seems to have a strong knowledge base in the area of the encyclopedia he intends to work, and the ability to look up a policy before he enforces it if it isn't his area of expertise. I don't see how ''lack of edit summaries'' is a disqualification for adminship, are edit summaries policy now?
'''Support''' - Good candidate, although I hate it when people don't use the edit summary. Yes, we need more users who specialise in the image area of things, and you have a fine set of contribs. Well done. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' per nom, Very Nice User  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' devoted users make good admins. We desperately need more admins interesting in images that may allow some human interaction (e.g. teaching users how to write fair use rationales rather than bot-assisted deletions based on formal criteria)
'''Support''' Whilst I am diametrically opposed to the candidate's position on non-free content, I am also aware that working with disputed images will inevitably alienate some section of the Wikipedia community. Although I will probably disagree with some judgments that the candidate will make should he pass this RfA, his record thus far suggests I will not have any reason to question the integrity or competence of his decisions.
'''Support''' per nominator. We need to have more people who can deal with images and that is probably the only thing that waives my usual criteria, even though we don't need to do so here. Plenty of people aren't 100% on the difference between a ban and a block, and now that it's been explained, Remember the dot knows the difference; it would be otiose for him to fail on that. (Hey, I said "otiose"!:))
'''Support''' - understanding of image-related problems is very good. Can find no evidence on the contrary to the high reputability of this user.
'''Support''' &ndash; I may not agree with this user's opinion on "non-replaceable" non-free images, but I trust that he will enforce policy objectively and that he will take into account concerns raised in this RfA.  He is an excellent contributor.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Support''' I disagree with his Fair Use aspects, and would like to see him more active in other areas.
'''Support''', looking through his contribs (random thru last 1000) I see no problem.  Poked around with the wannabekate, could use more edit summaries -but that doesn't really concern me (do edits marked as minor show up in this?).  I like the 'image use' knowledge he exhibits, and think he makes a good case for what he thinks, which shows a familiarity with policy in his area of interest.  Best of luck,
'''Support''' User would make a competant admin.
'''Support'''. I like how you handled the question about IAR
'''Support''' changing to support with reservations. The disagreements about NFCC notwithstanding, image-competent admins are a big need and clearly, RtD is unlikely to go rogue.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', solid candidate. '''
'''Support''' - Remember the dot clearly has a good understanding of the image policy, nuanced enough to form an opinion on part of it (with which I am inclined to sympathize to a certain degree), and is clearly a trusted user. With the statement that image work is a primary goal, I think promoting Remember the dot wouldn't be a big deal. :)
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Dealing with images is tough enough. Glad he volunteers to work on one of the most unthankfull admin tasks one can think of. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
I'm
'''Support'''.  We're not a cult.  He's already said he would uphold the existing image policies.  That's all that matters.  The fact that he personally disagrees with certain aspects of the labyrinthine image dogma is not a valid reason to oppose. --
'''Weak support''' --Support per Pascal.Tesson and JayHenry. What admin does agree 100% with all Wikipedia's policies?? The important thing is that an admin follow them (except in the odd IAR situation) since they closely approximate community consensus. My support is ''very'' "weak" to the point of ''"wobbly"'' because of the edit summary answer to Ronnotel above. ''Please'', just turn on the edit summary option in your prefs and do it -- each edit summary takes about 5 to 10 seconds and they really help others. --<font face="Futura">
'''Support'''. We sure need more admins doing image work, whether or not they agree with all of the principles underlying current policies - as long as they follow them.
Oppose for now. According to your candidate statement, [[m:Foundation issues]] #4 is not really your priority.  Rather than figuring out ways to compromise, you seem to state that you'd prefer to enforce strict rules. So I'm holding out for now. Why do you hold this position? If you can explain, maybe I'll change my opinion. --
A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges from all or parts of wikipedia. They are invoked by community input when no administrator is willing to unblock a user, or via arbcom. A block is not a "formal revocation" merely a tool to prevent a user from causing harm to the encyclopedia. They may be invoked without consensus (sometimes in bad faith), and can be overturned by any other administrator. Per your response to question 8, I am in doubt about your understanding of the blocking and banning process; and furthermore, I feel you are unclear of the distinctions between them.--
'''Oppose''' for ban/block confusion.  The reason, my friend W.Marsh, that some of us oppose when an important lack of knowledge is displayed is that it suggests a significant level of inexperience.  This one issue has now been set right in the candidate's mind; but, if the candidate was unaware of one important facet of policy, he is likely to have other knowledge deficits.  Since RfA is not a quiz, these problems cannot all be exposed now, so ''time'' is trusted as the elixir which solves most problems.  After three more months of good work, the candidate will have earned the benefit of the doubt (at least from me); but, for now, on the basis of available evidence, I'm too worried he'll employ the mop with significant misunderstandings of policy.  This is not a criticism of the candidate -- in my mind, anyway -- just an indicator that more time is needed.
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 6.  In practice, replaceability is a fairly straightforward issue.  Copyrighted images of living people or accessible objects, events, or organizations that merely show what they look like do not benefit us in any significant way, and they do harm our goal of providing a free encyclopedia.  I feel the candidate's position on this matter is counter-productive, and I'm concerned about his handling closures on [[WP:PUI]], where it tends to come up frequently.
'''Oppose''' per answer to questions 6 and 8, and especially to question 10.  Seems to have no comprehension of IAR; in fact, the response indicated to me that RTD had never even heard of it.
Sorry, but I can only '''oppose''' this nomination because of the apparent confusion of [[WP:BLOCK|blocks]] and [[WP:BAN|bans]].  Blocking is only a technical measure to prevent a single user for editing, primarily because of vandalism or to keep other editors from harm.  Banning, although sometimes enforced with blocks, is a formal decision by the community to revoke another user's editing privileges.  I also don't know where you are going with questions 9 and 10. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose''' - changed from ''Provisional support'' per above and candidate's response. Indicates a poor understanding of how edit summaries are used and why they are important to admins.
'''Oppose''' due to answers to question 6, and more especially 9. Free content is the name of this game, and we should ''never'', regardless of quality, use a nonfree image if replaced by a free one, nor should we take a "Nice if you can get it, use nonfree if you can't" attitude toward it. Similarly, nonfree image rationales are required for good reason&mdash;to explain the uploader's reasoning as to why ''this'' particular nonfree image is acceptable and necessary in ''that'' article. I don't see any other problems, and I hate to oppose, but unfortunately I cannot support someone who does not support the project's core goals.
'''Oppose'''. Firstly I have to say that I agree with Xoloz that the misunderstanding about blocks/bans is more than one of terminology and that unfamiliarity with a key facet of one policy raises concerns about other similar holes in knowledge of other areas. Alone it may not be enough to oppose, but I have other concerns. I'm not convinced that Remember the dot will properly apply our unfree content policy - Wikipedia's first and foremost priority is not impart free content, not knowledge alone. I find it telling that his talkpage is littered with notifications about orphaned fair use images and images lacking rationales. The orphaned ones should have been added into articles or tagges as {{tl|db-author}} by now and ratinales added. For example, he received notification that [[:Image:Instan-t icon.png]] lacked a rationale before this RfA even began, but no remedial action has been taken. Finally, my only direct experience of Remember the dot comes from these edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=161947501&oldid=161947384], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMikegodwin&diff=161050429&oldid=160511414]. Editing the userspace of others is generally over-confrontational - it is sometimes justified in clear cases of unsuitable content but not I think when enforcing a rather bizarre policy application (whenever the issue has been discussed, the consensus has been that Wikipedia logos can be used anywhere on Wikipedia although they are copyrighted). All in all, I am not comfortable with him becoming an admin at this time. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose'''.  Between disagreeing with Wikipedia's goal of free content, and his apparent lack of understanding of IAR, I'm not comfortable with him being an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Which is a shame as we do need more admins to work with images. But your rather tight response regarding edit summaries is very off putting - It's a pet peeve but admins should use them all the time (just as editors should really, but it's more important as an admin). In addition concerns raised by WJBscribe push me into this section. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per Carnildo, Pedro and Darkfalls. I believe '''Dot''' is not quite ready for adminship. Choosing to work in an [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images|area that I would'nt touch with a ten foot pole]] is a plus, but I believe the goal of free content is more important than the goal of informing. This is really splitting hairs, but I have to agree with '''Darkfalls''' that non free images are a last resort. And lord knows I've held my breath wondering if an unfree but in my mind essential image would pass muster. Understanding IAR is also very important for an admin as their responsibilties take them into weighing policy against common sense-- as in the blurry image scenario.
'''Oppose'''.  I was not happy with the frequent "experimentation" done with the common site javascript code (see extensive discussion at [[MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive Oct 2007#Internet Explorer fix for PNG transparency]]), which caused substantial disruption for a few weeks.  I truly believe this was good-faith work, but it was hastily implemented and re-implemented several times without much concern for the side effects of each change.  I am concerned about putting admin tools in Remember_the_dot's hands after this episode of unintended disruption. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Q5, Q6, and other comments show considerable disagreement with the project's free content goals, so I'm not at all comfortable with RTD making image deletion decisions. According to Q1, they want to make image work their primary admin task, so this is especially worrying. I'm also disappointed by their response to Ronnotel's request for edit summaries, and share Xoloz and WJBscribe's concerns. '''''×'''''
Oppose; concur with Meegs, and I'm particularly troubled by the response to Q7.
Strongly oppose.  The NFCC views are a permanent deal-breaker. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
Oppose per my neutral comment, and the plethora of other reasons raised above (mainly involving images) which cast significant doubts. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Daniel. He has said it best. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Oppose''' per most of the people above. Your answers to questions make me feel very uneasy about your experience and understanding of policy and guidelines how that will translate to actions you would take as an admin.
Sorry, not confident with your views on [[WP:NFCC]]. We are building a free content encyclopedia. Fair use should only be used when its '''needed'''. —— '''
'''Oppose''' per some of the concerns above. I also have to admit that I'm just  not comfortable with choice of name. When an editor chooses a name like "Remember the Dot" or something else that's a phrase or obvious "non-name", I find it can cause confusion to other editors.  It also makes it difficult to refer to this editor in third-party sentences: "I can't remember if Remember the Dot was there or not" may be understandable to those who are already familiar with the editor, but to others it can make a very confusing sentence.  Admins are looked to by newer editors, as rolemodels.  I'm just not comfortable that Remember the Dot sets as good an example as I'd like. --
'''Comment'''—WP has a stricter policy on non-free content than is imposed by many jurisdictions, including that of the US. So you are going to work against that differential?
'''Neutral''', A4..A6 made me uncomfortable about Remember the dot's understanding of FU, but not to the level of oppose.
'''Neutral''' Due to some policy inexperience questions brought up in the oppose section, though {{user|Wizardman}}'s nomination and later points are impressive.  Please do try again later.
User has enough experience with [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:RFPP]], and [[WP:SSP]], and no obvious problems.  The overall level of experience and maturity could be better, but even admins can improve.
'''Support''' Answers are refreshing, and his interpretation of IAR as "bend all rules" rather than "ignore them" entirely is fine by me. --
'''Support''' I see that this nomination will not be successful, but that won't stop me from supporting this user and giving some advice in the meantime. With the concern about taking personal attacks seriously, I believe that Retiono Virginian will get over that very quickly after this RfA; and I know from personal experience. I had a similar problem raised on my own RfA back in March, and before my RfA ended, I knew I had to ''immediately'' learn to not get bothered by personal attacks; as the attacks are nonsense. As for policy, read up on the policies the opposition thinks you may not be familiar with. If you follow all this advice, I am sure your next RfA will be far more successful than this one. Just keep positive, and consider this RfA to be a large-scale editor review; that is the best attitude to take.
'''Support''' - Ordinarily I would vote Neutral, as I'm not convinced this user has enough experience, and I was unimpressed with the answer to Q1. However, I need to cancel out Kelly Martin's oppose vote, which (once again) had nothing to do with adminship. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' &mdash; experience to dates demonstrates an ability to handle the physical Wiki functions associated with the Mop, and a requirement for the +sysop flag - Anthony cfc, now known as ~
'''Support''' &mdash; I like the answers to the questions, especially the IAR question, and I see no reason why this user does not deserve the sysop bit. Three months is usually enough time to determine if someone can be trusted or not. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">
'''Oppose.''' Experience is an issue, as I would like to see at least another month (maybe a little more) before supporting.  But the bigger issue for me is that I see little evidence, in the contributions or in the answers to questions, of any interest whatsoever in article building.  Consider participating in a wikiproject or finding some other way to do some more content-driven editing.  --
'''Oppose''' - You are a great editor in my opinion, however i think you take personal vndalism a little to seriosuly, and tend to make it a little bigger than it really is.  It has nothing to do with you as an editor, but as an admin i get attacked almost daily and have to take it in stride, ignore it, or be able to handle it and explain why I did it.  I think you need a little more WP experience before you could handle it.
'''<del>Weak</del> Firm Oppose''' per the answer to question five. [[WP:Ignore all rules]] is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia for an admin to understand, not just in knowing when to consciously break the rules and why. Without understanding a core policy like this, I can't support the nomination. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' I absolutely trust the good-faith of this user; he's on the right track.  The brevity of the answers, though, shows he's not quite ready for the mop yet.
'''Oppose''' User needs much more experience.  I prefer to see admins with several months-plus of experience, as well as several thousand more edits.  On the right track however.
'''Oppose''' per those citing a lack of experience and also the fact that the answer to Q5 is problematic (there is, as of this post, no mention of [[WP:RBI]] in that question or the answer). <s>A good faith candidate, though, and very probably one I'll support some way down the line.</s>
'''Oppose''' - I don't usually get involved in RFA but I've interacted with Retiono Virginian at [[WP:FPC]] and had cause to question his judgement - he [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Statepark, Wyoming.jpg|nominated]] a (now deleted) image for FP, claiming it to be his own work when in fact it was a copyright violation of a photography website. A quick look over his image contributions shows that he still has very limited understanding of Wikipedia's licensing policies - he's tagged a number of images with licenses which bear no relation to the details given on the pages he took them from. An admin needs a thorough knowledge of all Wikipedia policies, not just a quick vandal-fighting trigger. A bit more resilience when irked by nuisance users would also come in very handy - not everyone who comes here is going to be polite or friendly and an admin needs the maturity to know when not to get wound up. --
<s>Change to '''Reluctant Oppose'''</s>Now '''Strongest Oppose''' per [[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] above. Owch! -
'''Oppose'''. As with Xoloz, I can see Retiono Virginian is generally acting in good faith. However, his understanding of the various policies which admins deal with daily leaves much to be desired. Due to this apparent lack of understanding, I will have to oppose for now. I would likely support at some point in the future if Retiono Virginian shows a greater understanding of these policies. Adminship is no big deal, but a decent understanding of these policies needs to be shown in order for me to trust him with the mop. ···
Candidate has polarizing, political userboxes; no need to look further to find a reason to oppose.
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced and has committed too many mistakes, something I would ''not'' like to see in an admin. —
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, poor understanding of policies. An admin should have a good grasp of policies. The answers says it all.
'''Oppose''' per Chris Kreider. Perhaps in another few months' time. &ndash;
'''Oppose, for now''', though I'm confident you will be ready for adminship soon, such as after you deal with the issue / personal approach YFB mentioned above.  My advice to you is to seek an [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coach]], and read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  '''''
'''No''', and '''Hell no''' - check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelly_Martin&diff=126479822&oldid=126475300 this charming diff] for his reaction to "oppose" votes. Anyone who can say something like that should not be let near the tools in the foreseeable future -
'''Oppose''', sorry, but you've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARdsmith4&diff=126486927&oldid=126380907 just run to a 'crat] and asked that Kelly's oppose is struck out. I don't peronally agree with Kelly, but she is entitled to her opinion. To me it shows you can't take a bit of flack, which admins certainly must do.
'''Strong Oppose''' (edit conflict x2) per this user's reaction to Kelly Martin's oppose, both on this page and off. I don't agree with Kelly's personal opinion on userboxes, but things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rdsmith4&diff=prev&oldid=126486927 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelly_Martin&diff=prev&oldid=126479822 this] (threat to bring a "case" to [[WP:ANI]]?), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tellyaddict&diff=prev&oldid=126487941 this] show that this person isn't admin material.
'''Oppose''' based on Retiono Virginian's response to Kelly Martin's oppose. Kelly Martin opposed with a valid concern, and Retiono Virginian's response was to suggest administrative action be taken. Not only is it far too harsh of an action to suggest (relating to Retiono Virginian's ability to [[WP:DR|resolve a dispute]] with a cool head), but it's not something administrators should be involved with. It lends the impression Retiono Virginian misunderstands the role of an administrator if it was thought that admins would handle this. Not only that, but Retiono canvassed other users' talk pages to plead that something be done about it.
Absolutely not or ever because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARdsmith4&diff=126486927&oldid=126380907 this].
'''Oppose''': Answers to questions not long enough and specific enough. Also per diff provided by John Reaves. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''' While I don't agree with Kelly's reason for opposing, the candidate's reaction seems way out of proportion, and does not incline me to trust him to deal with new and/or troublesome users in a properly civil, calm, and helpful way, and that is IMO a major part of being an admin.
'''Nay, and thrice nay''': candidate condemns themself off their own keyboard. Maybe if they showed some idea of just how think their grasp of policy actually is, one might feel some sympathy: protesting like a small child is unedifying and unconvincing. Ther should be some considerable change in attitude before any renomination is contemplated. HTH HAND —
'''No thanks''' per YFB (what on [[Earth]] were you thinking?), David Gerard (assuming bad faith of opposers) and general aggressive attitude on this page. We do ''not'' want this sort of user with [[WP:ADMIN|sysop]] privileges.
'''Oppose''' This sort of reaction to a run of the mill oppose from Kelly Martin tells me that this editor hasn't been following current events in the community, which are something that I think is important for an administrator to be aware of.--
'''Oppose''' Suggest withdrawal per [[WP:SNOW|snow]].  Please consider an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor's review]] and consultation with an administrator (hint: [[User:Bishonen|Bish]], [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]], et. al) to be coached upon the duties of [[WP:ADMIN|administration]].  Retiono, you have the capability of being a good editor.  Yet, due to the lack of considerable content with your answers, I must change my vote from neutral to oppose. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' I'm no fan of Kelly's userbox stance but if your reply to her is indicative of how you respond to users who criticize you then I can't trust you with admin responsibilities.
'''Neutral''' - Keep doing a good job, participate in community discussions, and re-apply in 3 months.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, I know this user very well and he is always polite and kind but I think its a little to early for adminship. Good luck though! <b>
'''Neutral''' You're on the right track, but greater & broader contributions will provide further experience. You're a good vandal fighter, but more encyclpedia building can only help future candidacy and the project in general. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - I have to go with
'''Neutral''' You seem to be doing great, but I would prefer you spend a couple more months getting used to the community.--
'''Neutral''' There are many reasons to support and many reasons to oppose. I cannot decide so I will be neutral.
'''Friendly neutral''', for now. —'''
'''Neutral'''may be in a few month, I wold say in German WIkipedia, so I do it here as well.
'''Support''' with extreme confusion to objections regarding userboxes.  This quote "I just don't feel comfortable supporting a user with so many POVs to which I am personally averse" is ridiculous.  Everyone has points of view, not all of us choose to display them on our user page.  This is not a question of whether you agree with his religious views or whatever, this is a question about whether or not he would make a good admin, and he would.  I'm a Red Sox fan, does that mean I can expect to not get admin votes from Yankee fans?  This whole process is really screwed up.
'''Support''', 67% mainspace? Great editor! '''
'''Support.''' Let's get beyond userboxes. Who cares if he displays his viewpoints? I state many things on my userpage, simply in text rather than in boxes. Just because you're against this candidate's opinions should absolutely not prevent them from being an admin. The question we are asking in RfA is "Do we trust this person?" If not, provide evidence. I am simply not convinced that userboxes are appropriate evidence to make this claim.
'''Support''' As a British national, I would like it noted that the American language is a damaged form of the language spoken here for many years both before and after the founding of the North American colonies. But this user's fixation on its supposed purity is not a reason to oppose someone who is otherwise clearly a good editor.--
'''Support''' per criteria set out on my userpage.
'''Begrudging support''' per sufficient experience, including article writing plus counter vandalism.
'''Support''' - Seems experienced. <font face="monospace">
'''Support''' - I'm not wild about the userboxes, myself, but the candidates response when questioned about it (#5 above) is a very thoughtful and mature reply.  Contributions look good.  Counter vandalism is good.  Time to issue the mop and bucket.
'''Weak Support''' Ug. This is a difficult vote. You pass all of my qualifications for adminship, but there are so many concerns. These concerns are concerns of your neutrality. Neutrality is important in disputes that admins solve. I have determined that these concerns are not great enough to make me oppose, but I am uncertain that I have made the right vote. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Weak support''' I'd much prefer more article-writing, but there's nothing here to suggest major concerns, and this userbox thing is just about the weakest and least convincing opposition meme I've ever seen gain traction in an RfA.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. We just promoted a [[lawful evil]] [[User:Shimeru|admin]] (see userboxes half way down).  I think I'd rather have a [[chaotic good]] one (see [[Libertarianism]]).  Regardless, political ideology is irrelevant to an RfA.  My !vote is support because this user has a long history of vandal fighting and other Wikipedia janitorial duties.  RevRagnarok has been using AWB as a little mop; it's time we give him/her a big one.  --'''
'''Support''' Deeds, not words, is what matters and this nominee has acted in a manner that demonstrates the necessary experience to show that the tools will be used properly. A few silly userboxes aren't enough to convince me otherwise. In fact, I'd rather have someone who stands for something than someone who won't stand for anything, and this user has not done anything to show that his personal opinions have or will affect his participation and contributions.
'''Support'''. I disagree that userboxes on a userpage is enough reason to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate.  We all have personal beliefs that others are going to disagree with.  I have strong personal beliefs, but I don't believe that I allow them to influence my editting; my beliefs are my beliefs, and the encyclopedia is the encyclopedia.  I've seen no evidence that this editor is a POV-pusher outside of his user page, and therefore see no reason to bar him from adminship on those grounds.--
'''Support''' per all above. [[WP:NPOV]] applies primarily to mainspace; bias in editors is not in itself a problem, as long as it doesn't affect the editing of articles. Nor is it inherently harmful to have controversial userboxes. <font face="Verdana">
'''Weak Support''' -- I just looked at the user pages and/or userbox subpages of a cross-section of admins plus some commenting here. I'm not into user boxes personally but many Wikipedians are. RevR's user boxes were well within the bounds of what I've been looking at in the last hour if someone ideologically outside the center of Wikipedia's demographics. --
'''Support''' per Agent 86. The userboxes tell me that RevR and I wouldn't have much in common off-wiki, but what's that got to do with anything? Contribs seem fine, experience good, no rampant incivility, been here long enough to have a grasp of policy, and no persuasive reasons to oppose have come up.
'''Support''' - There's no reason to assume that this candidate can't differentiate between his personal beliefs and his role on Wikipedia. We are in perpetual need of new administrators to combat vandalism. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' - I dont see what your political beliefs on the ACLU/Europe etc have to do with your review. Though I can understand other users worries re neutrality, but your userpage is your userpage not an article. Contributions seem fine to me.
'''Support''' - does he know or is he willing to learn the rules?  Yes.  Does he break the rules?  Self-admitted 3RR sometimes, maybe, but not a habit.  Would he use the mop?  Yes, he already does a lot of cleanup work.  Does he POV push?  No evidence has been presented.  Does he have a POV?  ''We all do''.  Opposing this candidate because he ''has'' (as opposed to pushes) a POV is POV pushing.
'''Support''' I've looked through a fair sample of edits and seen no reason to conclude this editor is non-neutral in their Wikipedian behaviour and follows appropriate policies. I tend to agree most with Angus McLellan in the above. All of us have points of view, and the userpage is the place for that so long as that in itself doesn't contravene Wiki user policies.
'''Support''' - RFA isn't a referendum on whether you agree with someone, which, in case anyone cares, I don't.  RFA is a question of whether or not he can be trusted with three buttons - and that's a question that knows no political, social, or religious bounds. --
'''Support''' I find it worrysome that many of the oppose !votes are userbox centered. Does whether a user displays userboxes on his userpage determine if he would be a good admin? Is it acceptable to show one's bias in plaintext but not in the form of a template, and how does this impact the admin-skills of users? No, what RFA is about is how well a user would do with the Mop and Bucket. Would he use his new powers responsibly, and would he perform his duties without fault? I think that RevRagnarok would make a good admin, and that is all that counts (for me) here. [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Weak Support''' seems like an experienced Wikipedian, but the userboxes and general attitude towards the issue seem kind of jejune. -
'''Weak Support''' per Dorange and CharonX. Nothing wrong with making a joke, and the people above have convinced me that he is trustworthy enough.
'''Support'''.  I have run across this user through WikiProject work, and I find him to be extremely conscientious and forthright.  I have no doubt that he would act responsibily with admin tools.  I wasn't aware of his political leanings before now, and frankly, they don't enter into the equation for me. --
'''Support''' looks trustworthy, and I'm not going to hold his forthrightness against him.--
'''Support'''. The oppose voted are kinda weird to me. Okay, so he has userboxes. Not a reason to oppose IMO, so long as there's no fair use images in there (i see none). Plus, I would consider responsing to the opposers and explaning to be a good thing. So, support per Xoloz. (though I agree with him that Q5 makes it a lot harder to support him)--

'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins. Regarding the strong political views I have not found any examples of his views interfere with the editing.
'''Strong support'''. I find it very frustrating that so many people will stand against this awesome user and provide no examples of how his opinions have gotten in the way of his editing. We have a wealth of data on our hands and if you can't prove that his supposed "biases" have gotten in the way of his editing, please don't bring it up. Otherwise, the claim is just ridiculous and childish, in my '''opinion'''. <font style="background:#b22222;">'''
'''Protest Support'''. Since when has RfA become such a popularity contest? Oh wait... Right..... Judge the dude by his contributions. And Rev, the EU should be the least of your concerns - just think of the UN! *shudder* - <b>
'''Weak support''' Answer to Q5 takes some of the strength out of my support; however, the sheer volume of oppose votes for something as stupid as userboxes makes me strike out my neutral. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Strong Moral Support''' How dare a potential admins have opinions! How dare they display them in ''userboxes''. I'm outraged that this user has the nerve to not be a happy-go-lucky middle of the roader that ass kisses his way into a comfortable and politically correct position in preparation for adminship. Every potential admin should know that the Feelings Patrol has no sense of humor. Shame on you RevRagnarok!
'''Support''' a I see no evidence this editor would abuse the tools. He's also indicated that he wants to help out and has already done quite a few things to help out. ···
'''Protest support''' I'm supporting simply to counter some of the ridiculous opposes based on people's personal disagreement with opinions expressed by his userboxes. —
'''Support''' - has good experience performing maintenance-type work already, would be good for him to be able to kick it up a notch. Have edited with him on [[Universal Image Format]], and thought he held up quite well despite being subject to a storm of reverts, personal attacks and FUD from the anonymous editor. As for the userboxes - ''honestly, people!'' Is that the best you can come up with? As if there aren't already admins with opinions, and as if that makes any difference to their competence! We '''all''' have biases, and at least RevRagnarok has shown that he's aware of his! <small>—
'''Support'''.  C'mon, ''user boxes!?''  What, for the NRA?  Patently absurd.  Good contributer, if a Yankee.
'''Support''' Looks like the tools could be used well. What some might see as confrontational in answering or otherwise responding to the various "oppose" votes below, I see as making an attempt to bridge the gap and explain a point a view. While the userboxes do concern me a touch, the vandal fighting speaks for itself louder than my concerns. Now colour me confused about the objects, I'm going to sod off to the pub for a pint. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' per the reason above (I have little trust in anti-EU persons) and also, going through his archives and contributions, I've noticed long periods of inactivity alternating with sudden bursts of edits.--
'''Oppose''' I generally don't agree with use of userspace to soapbox, especially from an admin candidate. Having read the answer to Q5 I am further discouraged. Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''.  I'm torn here.  The candidate is obviously a good vandal fighter, which I admire.  But I'm concerned about the userbox and his insensitivity to others' concerns about it (which were first expressed a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARevRagnarok&diff=42240543&oldid=40671301 year ago]).  (I'm also not really sure what to make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RevRagnarok&diff=prev&oldid=71515766 this].)  In the end I've decided to oppose: an editor is free to express what he doesn't like on his userpage; an admin, however, will at times have to perform police functions that such expressions may complicate.
'''Oppose'''. One of the user boxes on this editor's userpage says: "This user believes that American English is the only real English, and will likely respond to any use of British English with 'How quaint!'". Many Wikipedia users use British English, and there are specific Wikipedia policies regarding using British English in articles where it is appopriate. I cannot support anyone for adminship who would place such a userbox on their userpage.
'''Oppose''', no choice given attitude displayed in UBs. No prejudice to future RfA given removal and acceptance of why such boxes are inappropriate for admins, even if well intended. <b>
'''Oppose''' I state my beliefs on my userpage, so I certainly can't object to the candidate doing so (though there is a real question whether the American English UB is in good taste.)  The answer to Question 5 bothered me a bit, because its forcefulness implies (to me, anyway) the candidate might be more interested in treating Wikipedia as an experiment in advocacy, rather than as an encyclopedia. What finally pushes me over the edge into opposing, though, is the candidate's apparent need to reply to nearly every opposer and neutral commenter here at RfA.  This is considered impolite by many commenters, and indicates that the candidate is not fully aware of wiki-norms.  Taken together, these three small issues do make me wonder if the candidate is prepared for adminship.   More experience can only help in this case.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. --
'''Oppose''' Candidate appears to be too divisive.  Responding to most of the opposes and neutrals demonstrates that the candidate does not handle criticism well.  Not enough article experience.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. I take exception to the candidate's so strongly pronounced views on use of English- use of that userbox does not show the best of judgment. But I would not have opposed for that alone- RfA should not be a popularity contest. But the badgering of the oppose and neutral !voters (especially with nothing individual to say to them) shows either hot-headedness or an unfamiliarity with "wiki-norms" (as Xoloz puts it). Either would be worrying in an admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
per Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. ''
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. This candidate appears to actively seek and encourage divisiveness. He attacks and belittles those who do not agree with his viewpoint and appears to regard this as normal behaviour. This candidate lacks the tack and the '''appearance of neutrality''' required of an editor. In the end I'm opposing because when I ask myself "Will this candidate wheel war?" and for RevRagnarok the answer is not a resounding "no".
I'd have to agree with the above.
'''Oppose''', Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are plenty of forums and newsgroups set up for that purpose, if the candidate decides to use them instead of us I'll reconsider my vote. --
'''Oppose''' - tough call, but the userboxes do bug me. not because they are ''childish,'' but the 'pro' or 'anti' statements conjure up images of potential conflicts of interest, when acting as an admin. id rather err on the side of caution.
'''Oppose'''  I tend to agree with many of the above.  It is not the opinions which concern me, but the tone of the candidate which if coming from an admin might tend to escalate problems rather than assist in working towards resolution and consensus. --
'''Oppose''' - I have to say that I'm troubled by the 'American English' userbox, and I'm disappointed that I am going to oppose on something so simple. However, as an Australian/British English speaker myself, I can tell you that I am tired of Americans who try to 'correct' my 'spelling mistakes' when I use the Queen's English. -
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and Richard.--
Neutral - don't like the POV userboxes on your user page, but in itself probably not enough to oppose. &ndash;
Agree with Chacor. I've never been fond of the pro-American English+anti-British English or the anti-EU userboxen. It's not, however, a real reason to oppose IMO. --
'''Neutral''' The userboxes are indeed not enough to justify an oppose, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting a user with so many POVs to which I am personally averse.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' sorry, don't feel comfortable with someone who is so anti-European.
'''Neutral''' - You were dead for more then a year and then you sprung to life with a couple of good contributions but just like
'''Neutral'''. I have no real opinion on this, but would only like to point out that I find it really alarming how far RfA has gotten from judging an editor based on how well he/she would perform as an admin. I think it's good, when people are honest enough to list their POV's on their user page. And the fact that this user's POV's are "really partisan" (whatever that means, that's just a term to disqualify any opinions adverse to one's own) is completely irrelevant. Wikipdia should not have a POV of its own, therefore we need as many editors from with all kinds of different POV's to collaborate to achieve an encyclopedia with a NPOV. BTW, though I'm also opposed to the imperialist project known as the EU and use American English, I completely disagree with the editors opinions, but do not believe they disqualify him from adminship.--
'''Neutral''', changed from weak support.  I was already concerned about the userboxes, but the candidate's decision to respond, albeit civilly, to nearly every oppose and neutral comment so far indicates that the candidate may not possess the keen judgment and decision-making abilities administrators need (I'm not saying that RevR lacks these skills, I'm merely saying that the decision has not provided evidence of such).  See [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47 4|this]] for a much more extreme example of why I'm concerned. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Neutral''' Answer to Q5 makes me very nervous. I'm not sure that someone who says that the EU "stands for suppression of free speech in the name of political correctness" (when did that happen??) and who seems to confuse common courtesy with free speech has what it takes to be an admin, especially when dealing with non-American Wikipedians. RevRagnarok is of course entitled to his own opinions and I most certainly respect them but as an international effort, Wikipedia needs admins who display a more profound understanding of free speech than "I respect you right to burn my flag because my country is all about free speech".
'''Neutral'''. Changed from oppose. For what it's worth, RevR demonstrated his good will by removing the problematic user boxes. —
No need for adminship. No obvious improvement since last RFAs (on the 17th and 19th of September respectively). &ndash;
'''Oppose''': Not enough general experience, stick around for a few months and participate in AfD soem more,then we'll see.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, not enough activity in non-mainspace issues for me, and more experience in general would be preferred. There's more to being a good admin than fighting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FRhythmnation2004&diff=76275031&oldid=76272934 My comments in your original RfA application still obtain] - more experience required in admin-related tasks. Recommend withdrawal at this time.
'''Oppose''' No need for adminship. No edits to some key pages. Mostly per what Chacor said. Also, deleting talkpage messages.
'''Oppose''' No need to delete talk page messages <small>--[[User:HagermanBot|The preceding comment was signed by]] [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per above. ''
'''Oppose''' per Sp3000, and the message on your talk page. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm still trying to get my mind around this: ''I witness constant and repeated vandalism on a daily basis, and I believe that as an administrator, I will be able to end that.''  You'll be able to ''personally'' end Wikipedia vandalism?  You'll be able to end the vandalism that you yourself see (that would be, presumably, by blocking anyone suspected of planning to continue vandalizing)?  What exactly could this sentence possibly mean, other than that you had to add something to avoid a short answer?  ''
'''Oppose''' - Original statement is too simple and response to opposition is definitely NOT admin quality. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Per everyone, sorry. Also low wikispace edits.
'''Oppose''' unapologetically. You have no need for admin tools (frankly, given your comments, I think you would misuse them) and your dismissive and self-serving attitude towards the opposition is nothing but contemptible. Your attitude on this RfA is in direct contradiction with your intentions stated in your answer to question #3. And your message on your talkpage seems to be an attempt to turn your talkpage into a vanity board. "Only constructive criticism"? Don't freely expect that to happen as an editor, let alone an administrator. And it is convention not to "clean" your talkpage, but to archive it. This issue alone shows your woeful lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes, a prerequisite for adminship. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Neutral''': Minor concern over whether the candidate knows image policy, I'll hold off until that's resolved. <font face="Arial Black">--Kind Regards -
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you are a reasonably new user to Wikipedia in terms of experience, you have not answered the questions, not wrote a brief introductory paragraphy about why you think you should be an administrator. General inexperience. Sorry, —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
'''Oppose''' - You're definitely on the right track, but you're inexperienced in too many key areas.
'''Moral support'''. You already have done a lot and seem to be a fast learner. --
'''Oppose''', you need more experience outside of vandal reverts and AFD discussions.
'''Oppose''' adminship isn't all about reverting and blocking vandalism. Per #2, I really would like to see some article building experience, since Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. '''
The makings of a good administrator, but experience is not sufficient at this stage. '''
Daniel says it well above. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' I need to find my words, because Pedro stole them. Seriously though, don't get discouraged; come back in a couple of months with a little more experience and I'll be happy to support. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Neutral for now, but <s>heavily</s> leaning toward support'''.  You have done quite a lot of editing, including 76 reports to AIV, I like that.  However, over half your edits are in the last two weeks, I don't like that.  I don't know if your time here is enough to demonstrate knowledge of policies and procedures, but your editing does demonstrate it.  I will take a little extra time on this one to take a closer look into your contributions.  My cursory look through your contribs shows that a lot of your recent edits were via Twinkle, and you comment on AFD extremely rapid-fire.  Could mean that you'd be too quick on the "delete" and/or "block" buttons.
'''Neutral''' I've seen this editor tagging CSDs, but not enough experience per T Rex.
'''Neutral''' You are a very good editor and I feel that you will use the admin tools wisely. However, the lack of experience in this project is a major concern here. I would like to advise you to remove this nomination and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' You are certainly getting there, but I do think some more experience is required. [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Rjd0060/Archive index|This MfD]] was a bit odd, although I appreciate that you felt that [[C:CSD]] wasn't working for whatever reason. In addition most of your edits are made with Twinkle, and although you've made significant volume contributions to some of the Big Brother articles the actual edits seem to be very minor. '''Please do not be discouraged''' I see from your archive talk that other editors already thought you were an admin so you are clearly doing a lot right. Basically I'm just nervous about your full understanding of policy, evidenced by some AfD comments that don't seem to bring a lot of value to the table. Focus on some solid article work if possible, keep up the AfD stuff and ever important vandal fighting and I look forward to a full support at a later time. '''Also''' ''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should be priority to make sure that the pages are accurate, and vandal-free'' - yes - totally agree - excellent comment. If you could help out on some of the accuracy part as well as the anti-vandal part your next RfA will sail through. Well said though, that's what being a [[Wikipedian]] is all about IMHO.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. since you're withdrawing you nomination.  Keep up the good work and see you back here in a few months.
'''Cautious support'''. After reviewing the candidate's talk page (and archive) and contributions, this seems like a very reasonable request, and the candidate is willing to admit his mistakes, which is a big plus. I'm not encountering any obvious shortcomings, so I support. (Although, you might want consider cutting down on some of those userboxes. I'm just saying.)
Looking through your contributions list to the mainspace, I see that almost all of your edits are semi-automated vandalism reversions. Vandal-fighting is an important job, but administrators need to be experienced with processes such as [[WP:XFD]]s and such.
Not enough mainspace, sorry --
'''Oppose''' You have some issues with images that are not properly documented. The fair use rationale is questionable [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ArenaBowl-Trophy.jpg here], missing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arenabowl1999.gif  here] and the Spalding logo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ArenaFootballLeague-Football.jpg here] is not yours and the work seems to be a derivative of their logo. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia and Wikipedia-talk edits are too low.
'''Oppose''' Just a bit too inexperienced for the mop just yet.  But seems to be on the right track; just broaden the horizons and edits, and try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - Short and inadequately written answers. Some grammar issues throughout the page, and forgot to sign in Q4 without realizing it instantly. A bit too inexperienced as noted above, come back after few months.
'''Oppose''' Per edit summary count and per edit count.  Try again in a couple of months.  May need an [[WP:ER|Editor Review]]. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''': Lack of experience. Edit summary usage for major edits is also low. Also I suggest signing your comments in the future as some were not signed above. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral''', too few Wikipepdia namesapce edits. I think anything relating to quantity of edits in a certain department is insufficient reason to oppose, so I stand here. The answers to the questions could really be exapnded as well, particularly number one and two as they don't show enough need for the "mop". --'''
'''Neutral''' Roastytoast mentioned that he would concentrate on AIV as an administrator, and judging from his AIV reports in the past, I don't see any problems. I don't really see anything that would indicate XfD or deletion experience, which is why I can't support this user at the current time. Perhaps if the user would bump up their Wikipedia namespace experience by participating in XfDs and also do CSD tagging, then I could make a better evaluation of this user's credentials. Another problem I see is a lack of encyclopedia writing work. Most of Roastytoast's edits are just vandalism revertions. My personal philosophy is that if a user writes articles and gets involved in discussions with others on talk pages, I can better gauge and possibly anticipate their suitability for adminship. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Neutral'''. I've noticed that Roastytoast is a dedicated vandalwhacker, and that's good. He's also done some good work with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League]]. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Roastytoast has enough experience yet. Maybe get involved with other areas of Wikipedia? I '''''certainly''''' don't want to oppose, but I can't bring myself to fully support just yet. I am pretty confident, however, that I will be able to support him in the future.
'''Neutral''' as suggested above, you need more participation in the article space, and you need to really involve yourself with other Wikipedia space edits like XfDs and the like. You're doing a good job fighting vandals, but that just doesn't do it for adminship. I would be very likely to support if these issues are addressed in a future RfA. All the best,
'''Neutral''' My only encounter with this user was at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triscuit]], and to be honest (no [[WP:NPA | offense]]) I didn't really find his contribution overly helpful.  I also don't like the lack of article work.  Sorry mate, maybe next time, and please seriously consider all the advice given above. ~
'''Beat The Nom Support''', great user, would do very well with the tools. Good luck! &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">
'''Strong support as nom'''. Well, I almost got here first... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' - Thought he was one already as well.
Good work at RFD and other places.
'''Support''' - Whatever. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - the diffs provided by Alphachimp do not seem out of line at all to me, considering "I can't possibly assume every deletion was the result of a good faith interpretation" is a fair statement -- not ''every'' deletion is the result of a good faith interpretation.  In addition, the diffs provided by KNcyu38 cause no concern for me, since the two RFAs in question failed ''overwhelming''.  It would be a shame to not support this user just because of opposition to two very-distinctly failed RFAs. RockMFR has an excellent track record, per the nomination, and will do a good job with the tools. --
'''Weak Support''' Seems to be reliable but the people who are opposing you have made some good points so I can not vote strong support. Good luck:) --
'''Weak Support''' Scored 20.5 on my [[User:Legolost/Admin Assessment Scale|Admin Assessment Scale]], this user passed by .5. But some fair comments below in the Oppose section, --
'''Unconditional support''' inspite of the opposition.  RockMFR is one of the most productive XFD contributors that I've seen in the last month or so.  His judgment can be trusted when it comes to deletion and to any administrative function.  His vast experience speaks strongly in his favor.
'''Support''' per Renesis--
'''Support''' great user, and ignore the two concerns.  The Esperanza debate is one that a lot of people had their strong opinions on.  It really doesn't worry me.  As for opposing an RFA due to the trust factor, I totally agree with him.  The point of a support vote is that you believe that not only are they qualified, but they can be trusted.  If you think his vote is bad in that situation, hold it across the board.  No supports or Opposes because of it.  I believe a trust factor is a major thing, and congradulate him for using it. <font face="Times" color="green">[[User:False Prophet/Esperanza|Wikipedia's]]</font> <font face="Times" color="Maroon">[[User:False Prophet|False Prophet]]</font>  <small>[[User Talk:False Prophet|holla at me]]</small> <small>
'''Support''', RockMFR seems very dedicated to cleanup duties etc., and would do well as an administrator. The issues raised in the oppose section seem to be harsh nitpicking that definitely won't affect his hypothetical duties or trustworthiness. --
'''Support''' - the Esperanza deletion arguments and various repercussions are finished and otherwise an excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - There was a lot of nastiness with the Esperanza deletions and deletion reviews, emotions were running high at that time and I know behavior that was displayed during any of the discussions by so many people was certainly not typical of their behavior anywhere else or at any other time. <span style="font-size:95%">--
''Weak'' '''Support''' I'm surprised that KNcyu38 is opposing due to some very sensible oppose votes in RfAs by RockMFR. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] ([[User talk:Xiner|talk]],
'''[Moral] Support''' as a fellow CVG member &mdash; although I agree with the points made below, and think that if you make the recommended adjustments, you will be fine on your next RfA. &mdash; '''
'''support''' I dunno, my one encounter with this guy was an argument that was borderline civil. On both parts. Yeah he's argumentative but RfA is pretty lame when it just promotes the sort of people who never offend anyone. There's more to Wikipedia than just being obsequious. So basically I think Rock appears to be doing the right kind of work, even if he's argumentative sometimes. --
'''Support''' looks acceptable.--
'''Support''' think the mop'll be used well.  Alphachimp's point is well worth taking on board but I'm assuming that you will do so.
'''Support''' as I see no indication the tools would be abused, and I see plenty to indicate that RockMFR would be an extremely valuable admin. ···
'''Support''' A trustworthy user and deserves the mop.  I feel that a disagreement in deletion does not disqualify adminship in this case.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">
'''Support'''. The opposition is utterly unconvincing to me. The Esperenza affair was overflowing with high emotions and a number of current ''respected'' admins said some things a touch stronger than the user's comments. It doesn't excuse any behaviour, but rather is simply an observation. The RfA participation reason is bizarre, to me. After all, oppose !votes <s>are</s> pretty much by their nature indicate the !voter does not trust the nominee. Claims about off-site behaviour are a bit dodgy to me, particularly without any proof. Finally, the nominee's response regarding physical/legal threats is spot on, as we should not tolerate serious threats on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' The Esperanza DRV was a mess and many people made mistakes and therefore i don't see why i can't support this user who has dedicated much good and hard work to wikipedia. -- ''
You know what, I'm going to '''support''' this RfA. I don't see any indication that RockMFR will implode Wikipedia with admin buttons. Their wide experience with processes - XfD, FA, RfA etc... - lends a credibility that, combined with the very good articlespace edits, I think should be enough for promotion to adminship. <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' -- I've read the opposing comments and I do not find the diffs especially alarming since, in addition to saying he had a bad feeling about a candidate, he also cited specifics. So I see no evidence of failure to AGF. Then there's the whole Esperanza [[List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions#Other terms|cluster f__k]] in which many otherwise well-respected, temperate and judicious editors and admins on both sides made ill-advised comments they probably all now regret. I'm not sure RockMFR's were especially out of line. --
'''Support''' - A user well-versed in Xfds who I believe will do nothing but good with admin tools.
'''Support''' Highly qualified candidate. I see no reason to oppose
'''Support'''  The nomination makes some excellent points, candidate is well qualified as stated by others above, and will use the tools well, especially on areas mentioned above and in nom.
Definite '''support'''.  Solid and detailed contributor, works well with others.  Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support'''. This is ridiculous. This candidate is ''more'' than qualified, and now the RfA voters are lynching him based on one comment. This user will make a great admin. --
'''Weak Support''', alphachimp's oppose doesn't convince me.--
'''Support''' I don't like to be one of those "per" people, but [[User:A. B.]] and [[User:Vassyana]] were very (how do I say this) ...convincing maybe? They were reading my mind concerning many of the points brought up by the oppose votes. Although I don't know this user personally, whenever I ran into them, it was in a positive light. Finally, I hope I'm not the only person who saw a little irony in [[user:Kncyu38]]'s oppose (citing "RfA participation seems not always to be based on the assumption of good faith" then directly quoting them in an oppose? Interesting tactic).--
'''Support''' - and I do wonder if some of the oppose voters have actually read Wikipedia policy recently :-)
'''Support''' - Appears knowledgeable of policy and to generally act in the best interests of the encyclopedia.  An occasional failure to AGF is a flaw but I believe his adminship will represent a net gain to the project. <font face="monospace">
'''Support'''. Well-qualified nominee with extensive contributions. I hope the closing bureaucrat realizes that almost all of the Opposes are just parrotings of one guy's comment. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm really concerned about your ability to assume good faith of other editors. Of particular concern to me are your comments in admittedly messy [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza DRV]]. In them, you accused the closing administrators of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=100811785&oldid=100808754 just not liking] MailerDiablo's closure. When confronted with the statement, you responded that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Esperanza&diff=100955382&oldid=100940341   "I can't possibly assume every deletion was the result of a good faith interpretation"]. Assuming good faith (both of new and old users) is a fairly important skill for an administrator, and I'm concerned that you do not have it.
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp. In addition to that, RfA participation seems not always to be based on the assumption of good faith: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Earle_Martin_2&diff=prev&oldid=118369778], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anynobody&diff=prev&oldid=118459014],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anynobody&diff=prev&oldid=118534975]. In RockMFR's own words, "I don't trust this user," and to me this outweighs a need for the tools. Call it "a gut feeling", if you will. —
'''Oppose'''. per Alphachimp and Kncyu38. Both raise concerns about RockMFR the would call into question there need for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' per the concerns raised by Alphachimp and Kncyu39. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Originally, I wasn't sure where I remembered the candidate from or if it was a positive or negative memory.  I searched my edits and found that I left a comment on the user's talk page one time with regards to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Patricknoddy&diff=108692984&oldid=108689476 this edit].  Having seen the opposition reference similar edits made by this user leads me to believe that these edits are not simply mistakes, but a long-standing behavioural issue.  As such, I have reservations about giving RockMFR additional responsibilities. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp.
'''Oppose''' per alphachimp. --
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp.
'''Oppose''' also per Alphachimp.
'''Oppose''' per above. Too argumentative.
'''Oppose''' per above, and from personal interactions of user. (Off-site so no diffs)--
'''Oppose''' per above, as well as through previous dealings with said user (off-site as well).
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per above. Ideals such as "''...if I came across a legal/physical threat, I would block indefinitely first and ask questions later...''" are the kind which wikipedia doesn't need & this gung ho type of attitude is the kind that gives admins a bad name & causes them to be mistrusted throughout. I'm actually quite surprised that other editors haven't picked up on this comment & I'm also surprised by the number of what I thought were reputible editors supporting this nomiantion. Come back when you decide to follow policy & AGF... Thanks,
'''Oppose'''. Rock has done some great work, but we simply do not need any more cowboy-admins. There is simply no need to act in the manner highlighted by Gaillimh. Rightly or wrongly, many new users see admin corps as the offical face of Wikipedia, I expect candidates to act with some level of decency and decorum.
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp.
'''Oppose''' Permanently block first and ask questions later?  Zero tolerance thinking at its worst, and I am therefore compelled to use the same heavy-handed approach in opposing an admin nominee who has demonstrated by his or her words that he or she cannot be trusted to use good judgment when making the hard calls.  //
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Homer_Simpson%27s_jobs_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=119858769&oldid=119840904 this AfD] comment. It gives me an uneasy feeling RockMFR would abuse the deletion button on the basis an article fails "everything" or make unilateral deletions against consensus.
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp.
'''Oppose''' → Alphachimp & Kncyu38 made a good point. <i><b>
'''Oppose''' per Alphachimp, Kncyu38, and others, as well as off-site experience. <i><b>
Great user but Alphachimp's reason for opposition is important. --
Alphachimp's concerns are troubling, but people who started deleting all the pages ''did'' ignore part of the closure statement, at least. -
'''Neutral''' per Alphachimp.
'''Neutral''' There are great reasons to support this user, but some just as great concerns have been raised. I cannot decide what to vote, so I will vote neutral. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Neutral''', my perception is that the opposition seems to be focusing on a quite narrow point-of-view, and perhpas not being entirely honest in their motivations. I would advise anybody voting on this RfA to use caution and to truly analyze the matter before effectively casting a vote. --
'''Neutral''' per alphachimp.
'''Neutral''' - Per Alphachimp--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' I looked through the contribs for a few minutes, and found that a report to AIV was commensurate with the vandal's activity, a comment at AFD was consistent with consensus, and a revert at [[Manchester Airport]] came with the explanation that the original edit did not provide a reference, nor could Rudget find one himself.  These are all good signs.  As an aside, I chanced upon [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikortsminda]], where Rudget commented under a previous username (Radio Orange), and I closed the discussion under a different username (YechielMan).  Time flies, doesn't it?  Oh, and let's thank the tireless bureaucrats who keep up happy with the username changing process.
'''Support''' Contributions indicate that the candidate seems to have well-rounded experience of the most significant areas of Wikipedia, sound policy knowledge (as far as I could tell), has contributed a respectable amount to article space and there are no civilty concerns.
'''Support''' This candidate has sound policy knowledge. He will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. As far as I can tell the candidate has made solid encyclopedia-building contributions to several articles and understands policy.
Per Shalom, once again. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support''' Namespace editcountitis be damned! I see a nice spread of constructive, well-informed edits across most namespaces. Although more WT: experience would be nice, nobody's perfect. :) <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Support'''.  Great answers!  I think this candidate will be a great admin.  Good luck! --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' Seems to know policy well and there aren't many users who would mention bans and blocks in their RFAs. Weak because of the ignoring of rules section. Rules should be ignored if doing so obviously helps the encyclopedia.--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' - Seems to know policy well, good answers to questions and I believe he would be a good Admin. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support'''. Previous interaction with user has been positive.
Appears to be a good user.
'''Support''' - Good answers. P.S., The fact that there are zero opposes makes me think that you haven't really involved yourself in a lot of disputes. This isn't necessarily a good thing. Most of the best editors who have several thousand edits and have been involved in several disputes tend to make enemies who oppose their Admin nominations regardless. A lot of people take things personally and oppose editors simply because they don't like them if they've ever had disagreements with the editor. So the fact that there are zero oppositions tells me that you likely need to involve yourself in disputes more often and get out of your zone of comfort.
'''Siva1979 is supporting many RfAs while opposing my RfA. Making me jealous...''' er, I mean, '''Support per Siva1979'''
'''Support'''As per Wikidudeman and find nothing in track to oppose.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' Should be fine, although interpretation of block/ban is a bit on the iffy side.
'''Support''' - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as I'm sure that many users that go through RfA don't fully understand the intricacies of what a ban is. Hoever, I urge you to read up on [[WP:BAN]] fully before use the tools should this RfA succeed. Apart from that, I think you're a very diligent user and I trust you with a few extra buttons.
'''Support''' good work in CSD; not all admins are expected to know all policies especially ones with which they do not expect to run up against in their early adminhood, so no real worries there. How many admins can build tomorrow's main page from scratch?
'''Support''' changed from neutral. The candidate gave mature an thoughtful answers. Per the discussion below, I'd suggest reading up on blocking/banning, but I'm not going to oppose over that. Based on that discussion, I think the candidate will ask others for advice before taking any deep plunges into areas that he's not entirely familiar with. --
'''Support''' - considering the relatively short amount of time this user has spent on Wikipedia, a lot has been achieved. Well done! :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' he's level headed and learns quickly, a good wikipedian.
'''Support'''—I don't see any damage being done.  '''
'''Support''' - Good job.
'''Weak support''' With similar reservations as already expressed, I still think Rudget will be fine in the areas he plans to work in.--
'''Support''' candidate has clue, and doesn't seem to be a process wonk. Which is good! '''
'''Support, but with concerns''' - A very likable and polite editor, but the answers to questions seem confused, as Daniel noted.  Depending on whether or not you pass, I recommend you match up with an experienced admin so you can gain practical experience, or go through [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching]].  Start by doing the things you understand well, and then increase your activities as you learn more. I will support because you are polite, humble and don't show any sign of abusing the tools.  Don't get in over your head. -
'''Support.''' Seems like a good candidate.
'''Strong Support''' - Good editor, no issues. Remember when you [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brylcreem2|nominated]] me back in early 2007? You should of told me about this one!
'''Support''' User seems reasonable, perhaps still a bit inexperienced (but aware of that and open to feedback).  Given the relativley short time user has been around, there may be some rusty spots in terms of policy knowledge.  However, seems to me that policy creeps to become ever more cumbersome and distracting from the task of creating/maintaining a quality internet resource.<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
No significant issues that I can see. The distinction between a block and a ban is of little practical importance.
'''Support''' I don't think that the candidate's answers to the questions are problematic enough to warrant opposition.
'''Support''' I agree with Panda.
'''Support''' This user has a calm, collected temperament, with sound judgement and a clear and sincere enthusiasm for furthering Wikipedia. I would welcome this user as an admin. <span style="color:blue;font-size:larger;font-family: Arial;">-- [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] '''·''' (
'''Support''' As I was mentioned in 3A as being one of those users that this candidate has been in conflict with, I thought it proper to add my support for this nomination. I didn't consider the conflict to be anything more than a minor disagreement over editing policy. We worked it through, and the end result was, as Rudget said, that we now "enjoy a great 'editorship'", which I think demonstrates maturity for one so relatively young (I'm referring to Rudget, of course, not me sadly). With the support of an admin coach I've got no reason to doubt that he could be a good admin. --
'''Support''' I like the answers, and I don't find the opposes to be particularly weighty. Not being familiar with the percentages for successful RfAs just means he isn't very focused on the RfA process, which is in my mind a good thing. If you ask someone for a policy interpretation in a question, there will always be ways to nitpick the answer. The question isn't 'Does this guy have the same interpretation of policies as me?' its 'Will he be a fair admin and not abuse the tools?'.
'''Support''' per Nom, seems to be a good user. No good opposes. -- (
'''Support''' - Overall seems rational and it's "no big deal" according to Jimbo.  However, I'm a bit troubled by the comment "hopefully becoming able to block, ban and decide on users."  This statement seems to point to a control issue.  Hopefully this new admin just needs a little more polish and doesn't really want to be admin just to show he or she has power.
'''Support''' A great user and has always contributed greatly to Wikipedia. I am sure he will use the administrator tools well and we certainly need more admins to deal with all of the backlogs! Great answers to the questions too. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
Per ''"A ban is used more effectively when dealing with sockpuppets etc, and prohibits most users from editing pages forcing them make new accounts and think about their actions"''. Someone who will unblock banned users' new accounts to "think about their actions" is not someone who I want to be an administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' Not convinced that the answers to the questions (in particular 3, 6, 7, 9, 12) show sufficient depth in judgment and maturity. Then again, perhaps I would not get that impression were I not aware of Rudget's age. But the fact is that I am and although some very young admins have done a great job, I'm afraid I can't support unless I'm confident that Rudget is mature enough to deal effectively not only with the obvious vandal but also with more subtle and often much more nasty disruptive editors.
'''Oppose''' - Per 6, 9 <s>and 10.</s> (#10) When you are in a dispute with a user, you do not report them to AIV, unless they are clearly vandalising. (#6 - and per Daniel), I don't think you understand what a block v. ban is. (#9) The BLP question -- ''As an admin, I would delete any article which qualifies or is blatantly an attack page, orignal reasearch and of course every article shouldn't have a POV which is biased or COI.'' That's not all of it, some reliable sources (such as television stations and magazines which present one POV) can contain information which is libelous or false (i.e. see politicians' articles, for an example), and should be deleted. '''
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but your flaws in the answering of the questions pointed out by Miranda above are a bit concerning to me. -- <strong>
Fully agree with Miranda, surprising as I find this.&nbsp;'''
I'm another who is concerned by the answers given to questions 3 ,6, 7, 9 and 12 and find I am unable to Support at this time. I'm never really happy when someone gets the answer to a question wrong then makes excuse after excuse trying to say they were actually trying to convey the correct answer through their response. Your response to the BLP issue is interesting and I'm not sure some of the comments directly above me are correct regarding their interpretation however. Reliable sources can and often do present POV or libel problems, it's how we use these references to correlate with the content that can present.
'''Oppose'''&ndash; Answer to the first question, "...hopefully becoming able to block, ban and decide on users," gives me the impression that the user is only in it for the power.  '''
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' There is simply too much evidence in the questions that the candidate has not gotten a good grasp of WP's policies yet.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions make me uncomfortable with the idea of this editor using the tools in the area they intend to use them, as I don't feel they have adequate understanding of the policies in that area yet.
'''Oppose''' Must oppose at this time, per answers to questions, mainly 3 and 6, would like candidate to have better grasp of policies(ban/block et al) prior to voting support.
'''Oppose'''. In his answers to questions, he quotes details from policy but seems to miss the big picture. That, combined with the fact that he seems particularly interested in blocking, makes for a dangerous admin in my mind.
'''Oppose''' - We need new page patrollers, but I don't like the answers to the questions nor the fact user does not know the difference between a block and a ban. Seems like user is simply paraphrasing appropriate policy pages without really understanding them, as others have pointed out. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Woo''']][[User:Wooty/ENC|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|['''Woot?''']]]&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - seems too inexperienced, see all of the above.
'''Oppose''' I'm Sorry Rudget. I've looked back and forth of this, and nearly just abstained, but on balance I'm too nervous (largely per Miranda) to support this request at this time. I trust you will prove all the opposers wrong and develop over the next couple of months, when I fully expect another RfA if this one fails. If it passes, I hope you will just go easy to begin with. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Questionable policy knowledge; shouldn't be sysoped yet, but hopefully with a few more months' experience. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, not active enough. You have under 500 edits and weren't even active for the last two years. --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry with fewer than 500 edits overall and fewer than 10 in the last 2 years, there isn't enough of a record to judge your suitableness for adminship. The answers to the standard questions are very weak: for example you can fight vandalism without the admin tools. I appreciate your experience on WikiNews but personally I need to see experience on en.wikipedia before I am comfortable giving out the tools here. I suggest gaining some more, recent experience and then trying again in a few months. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' with these answers to questions, it makes me wonder how you became an admin in wikinews in the first place, plus with few edits since January 2005 and less than 500 edits please withdraw
'''Oppose''' Same reasons as Wafulz basically.  Take several months to become reacquainted with Wikipedia.  A lot has changed around here in the time I've been here and I've only been here since December <s>2006</s>2005.  So you've probably missed a lot.
'''Oppose''' per edit count and above. ''
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol. You need more than 500 edits to be an admin and you must demonstrate a serious attitude in order to have the extra tools. You might be a serious person, but your answers were answered poorly and without much thought. The RfA is a serious deal. Adminship is not something that Wikipedia throws away to everyone. ''Advice for you:'' spend 5-6 more months on the English Wikipedia, make a lot of useful edits (just don't get editcountis), read over the admin reading, get some admin coaching, take some virtual classroom classes, and we'll see from there. If you do that, and try again for RfA, then we'll probably see the votes change. Cheers, <b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Moral Support''' Please withdraw this nomination before the [[WP:SNOW|snow storm]] hits.
Your answer to Question 1 shows no need for the tools. You don't need to be an admin to do all those things. And you're too new and probably don't know Wiki policy inside-out. I see no need for you to be an admin. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' you've been here 5 days and have made no edits to articles. --'''
'''Oppose''': You seem to have been an editor for about five days, not a month (your first edit was on 27 January), and all your edits seem to pertain either to your userpage or several images you uploaded. You should try back in about... six months or so. '''
'''Oppose''': No edit summary when listing this RfA. <font face="Arial">-- '''
Please withdraw...this will be painful. You just don't have enough experience after one month of editing. '''
'''Neutral''': I suggest withdrawal. You mean well, but you need some more time and experience before becoming a sysop. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Looks to be a level-headed person who is active against Vandalism. Will be an asset to Wikipedia as an Administrator.
'''Support''' - An excellent candidate for this position. He is always dedicated to ensuring that vandals don't get away with their havoc. Articulate and friendly, but knows how to take control of a situation. He has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, correcting and creating many articles. Wikipedia would benefit greatly from [[User:RyanLupin|<span style="color:blue">Ryan</span>]] becoming an Admin.
'''Support''' - Appears to be a good vandal fighter with almost 40 edits to [[WP:AIV|AIV]] <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support'''Adminship is no big deal, unlikely to abuse tools--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
I see no compelling reason to oppose. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>
It appears that this request for adminship won't succeed. Well, I hope that won't discourage you from running again. I suggest you listen to the advice your opposers are giving, and try again in three or so months time. Good luck.
'''Weak Support''' - I concur with Acalamari, I'd suggest a withdraw. But please don't be discouraged, from what I've seen all you need is another few months, and you'll be a perfect candidate.
'''Support''' - Ryan is a good guy, he has helped me a lot in the past and I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' not only his work against vandalism but his enthusiasm to help wikipedians is notable. Don't base all his contributions to wikipedia on the 'loopy AfD.' An excellent candidate for adminship
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Support''' Don't think he'll abuse the tools, and willing to help out at [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:AIV]].
'''Oppose''', for his [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv-links.co.uk|loopy nomination]] of [[Tv-links.co.uk]] for deletion. His interpretations need to be read to be believed.
'''Oppose''' - No-where near enough experience anywhere yet, although you do seem to be heading in the right direction. Give it a few more months and your RfA should look much better. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' per Speciate. That AfD is nuts.
'''Oppose''' The nomination of Tv.links.co.uk mentioned above is very strange, indeed.  Criminals are not deleted from the encyclopedia for the reason of being criminal.  The encyclopedia has a duty to convey accurately and fairly all ''notable'' things, be they great achievements or crimes.  Wikipedia is not [[Pollyanna]].  That nomination (from yesterday, by the way) severely calls into question candidate's understanding of key policies.
'''Oppose''' as per Speciate and Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' oppose per the afd. That's scary. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience here is a major concern. Although you are active against vandalism, your interpretation on that AfD page is a major concern. Just learn from your mistakes and try again after a few months. In the meantime, do not be discourage over this RFA. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Speciate. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Not enough depth in experience - almost 65% of your total non-deleted edits are Twinkle warnings, reversions, tagging, and reporting. Twinkle warnings comprise almost 80% of your user talk edits. Don't get me wrong, Twinkle is a wonderful tool but I'd really need to see more evidence of discussion with other users, more significant (non-automated) editing, and more edits to Wikipedia space other than [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]] to show knowledge of policy other than [[WP:VAND]] and [[WP:SPAM]]. <font face="Broadway">
'''No''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Inconsistent judgement. <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Oppose'''. I know this user only from the aforementioned AfD, but after seeing that he was up for adminship, I felt I had to express my feelings. That AfD shows some basic misunderstandings of policy and the AfD process, and I can not support the adminship of such a user.
'''Oppose'''. Low level of policy knowledge as shown by a rather curious AFD nomination mentioned above, and further shown by a low number of Wikipedia namespace edits. Agree also with Mr. Z-Man.
'''Oppose'''As per Zman and User has been active only  since June and very active in September.But feel you can try after a few months and you will have my support.Good Luck.
'''Oppose''' because of Tv-links.co.uk nomination you seems not to be ready. I am requesting some months to you gain experience. Good luck.
'''Oppose''' not so much for the deletion itslef, but rather for the rationale. Shows that you need some more time to grow and understand policy.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tv-links.co.uk '''No'''] -- <strong>
'''Weak Oppose''' Answers show some lack of experience, and I do not believe you are ready. Try again soon! <b><font color="E32636">
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tv-links.co.uk '''Oppose'''] and other obvious inexperience with policy that I don't need to link to --'''
'''Oppose''' Not quite there in terms of experience, but you seem to be well on your way.
Per the coolest AfD nom ever.&nbsp;'''
'''Neutral to avoid pile on'''  I won't oppose as there are a lot of positive aspects to your contributions, and your vandal fighting is very much valued. However the AFD nomination bought up by [[User:Speciate|Speciate]] is, well, scary. Sorry, an dplease do not be put off of down hearted. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''', a change from oppose, after a re-read of some of the user's work, for example, at [[Joseph McManners]].  Close enough to 3,000 todal, with over 900 mainspace, might do it for me.  No evidence he'll abuse the tools, but I'd more evidence to support. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. See also above discussion about edit counts, how low is good, and why they matter.
'''Neutral''' per Pedro, and I think that putting some more edits behind you will make that afd become a less glaring issue.
'''Neutral with moral support'''  Ryan, don't let this get you down. Please consider entering the admin coaching program. I do not think that this AfD thing is any big deal or anything that you have to "live down", it simply shows that you could use some good coaching. Good luck to you! --
'''Strong oppose''' Come on, are you joking?  A new account already asking for adminship?  I smell a sock ...
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but the standards for adminship are very high, and this is destined (through no fault of your own apart from applying so early) to fail. I suggest you withdraw.
'''Strong oppose'''  Come back after you have a track record that we can review.
'''Oppose''': Outside of the very basic answers you provided, you have made little contributions as a whole to Wikipedia. Please accumulate '''many''' more edits and retry.
'''Oppose''', no reason to support this user yet.
'''Neutral''' Another constructive IP user? Yeah, I was, too. But, you have to let us get to know you a bit first before running for adminship. It may help to reference to your IP. --
'''Neutral''' Unless we can see what IPs you edited from and assess their history, many people won't feel that they can vote meaningfully on your performance - no offence at all, and if this fails (which it is starting to look like it will), my suggestion would be to keep at it for a few months, keep on making good edits and fighting vandals per above, and you'll undoubtedly succeed in a 2nd nomination down the track.
'''Oppose''' Statement, answers, long periods of low activity, low WP edits, low talk edits, low general edit count, and self-confessed "temper problems". '''
'''Oppose''' per Sarah. ''Especially'' the poor answers. --
'''Oppose''' You say you want to be an admin to fight vandalism, but you have never made a single report to [[WP:AIV]].  Please come back when you are more experienced and have a strong need for the admin tools.  Regularly visiting [[WP:RFA]] will give you a good idea of what is usually expected of candidates.
'''Strong oppose'''. Even worse than the widespread belief that adminship is something everyone should eventually get if they are good, you're telling us that we can't criticize you for not editing very much, because you ''read'' the encyclopedia. If I had to pick a stupid qualification someone would advance as a reason for becoming an admin, reading Wikipedia would not have even occured to me. -
'''Oppose''' wth moral support, you don't have the experience yet.  Also, your answer to Q1: you can do all of that without being an administrator (and I encourage you to!), except for edits to protected templates, but you can still make requests for those with {{tl|editprotected}}.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits, and have a solid track record as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made just over 350 edits, and prior to March you'd never made more than 35 edits a month. You also need more experience with editing in the Wikipedia space (which builds experience and familiarlity with the type of processes and policies that admin are expected to deal with), which you've currently edited in less than 20 times. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience.
'''Oppose''' You do not yet have the experience required to be an administrator. On May 8, you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Studio_72&diff=129254981&oldid=129254713 this edit] requesting that a page you created as a redirect be deleted. I take this to mean that you are either not aware of, or do not know how to use, the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]], which allow you to tag pages that can be speedy deleted by admins with an applicable reason. In this case, you could have used {{tl|db-r1}} (for a redirect to a page that doesn't exist) or {{tl|db-author}} (for a page that you created, are the only contributor, and wish to have deleted). The backlog at [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] is a very common place for administrators to help. Try to familiarize yourself with some of the activities that adiminstrators are expected to handle.
'''Oppose'''. Please come back in a few months with a broader understanding of the 'pedia and I'm sure you'll get the tools. We appreciate your offer.
'''Oppose''' More experience required in all of the major spaces.  Try forcing edit summaries in your users preferences, linked at the top of the page.  Admin-related tasks in which you can participate are new page/recent change patrols; vandal reverts and warnings; reporting to [[:WP:AIV]] or other appropriate noticeboard; XfD discussions where you can demonstrate a knowledge of [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] in relation to the encyclopedic and notable nature of articles. Try again in six months with this and other experience under your belt and you'll be a fine candidate for the admin tools.
'''Moral neutral''', well done for being [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and applying with your brief experience of Wikipedia.  However, I'm afraid I can't support your application at this time because I'm not sure your level of experience is sufficient to trust you with the tools, and your answer to question 1 demonstrated that you don't need the tools at this time.  You can work on templates and anti-vandalism quite easily without being an admin.  Get some more experience and try again, good luck!
'''Neutral''' I concur with the Rambling Man. Spend a few more months around and get some experience and I might support. —
'''Neutral''', lacks of experience and edits. Concentrate on the duties usually done by an admin, and as what The Rambling Man said, vandal fighting and templates can be done without the tools. These days there are scripts like [[WP:POPUP|popups]] and [[WP:TWINKLE|Twinkle]] to help you revert.
'''Neutral''' As per all the above oppose and neutral votes. --
'''Neutral''' You don't yet know how much you don't know about this place. (After a while, you'll understand that sentence. :)
'''Neutral''' to avoid a pile-on. I'd recommend you enable the item in your preferences which alerts you when you've forgotten to leave an edit summary, as having less than 25% edit summary usage for both major and minor edits is a deal-breaker for some. Keep plugging away at the encyclopedia and when you've gained some more experience, I'm sure you'll get better results. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''.  Too little Wikipedia-space activity, and almost no use of edit summaries.  I'm also a bit worried by the article Sangak1 cites above, [[Abbas Kiarostami]]; I've started correcting the numerous formatting errors (spaces, use of italics, quotation marks, etc.), and I've removed some of the PoV language, but the article is still very PoV in tone. --
'''Oppose'''. Few Wikispace contribs (and most of those to WikiProjects) make it hard to assess policy knowledge. What contribs there are raise concerns about the candidate's interpretation of [[WP:NPOV]], especially  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAnti-Iranianism&diff=104840975&oldid=104840723 here]. The sentence: ''In wikipedia, Iranian president Ahmadinejad is considered racist'' I find especially problamatic. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia adopts an opinion because e.g. it is the majority opinion on such matters. That someone has been described as racist can be sourced and mentioned in context. That some of their speeches have been interpreted as racist can be sourced and mentioned in context. But Wikipedia should never as an encyclopedia determine whether or not such claims are true or false- it should provide information not judgments by editors. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''': Per this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sangak&diff=next&oldid=105339893] and I'm concerned at such a large number of edits to one AfD. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Oppose''' per Heligoland. (edited to add) I read your explanation about the "vote count" on Heligoland's talk page, and that makes me more concerned that you don't have enough experience in administrative areas to need the tools yet.
'''Neutral''' - not really going to oppose for edit count reasons, but you have 79 Wikipedia space edits, 31 of which were to a single AFD.  I would prefer to see some level of experience with administrative processes before supporting. --
'''Neutral''' I don't see much activity in the projectspace. Edit summary usage needs work.  --
'''Moral support''' - this RfA is likely to fail but don't give up hope. You're definitely on the right track here, just take a little more time. You could maybe get more involved in AfDs and general wikipedia namespace, get some more experience and come back in a few months -
'''Support''' good user, from what I've seen. I suggest that Sasha Callahan work on the concerns the opposition has raised, and come back in three or four months. I also recommend you enable E-mail, as administrators need to have E-mail enabled.
'''Moral Support''' - This user isn't ''crap''. That's definatly for sure. Just some more experience should make this user a excellent admin candidate. Don't be discouraged; many people fail their first Rfa. Look over the oppose comments and improve-then everyone should be glad to support the next time. Cheers, --
'''Oppose''' albeit reluctantly; You may indeed be ready for adminship, but there is very little evidence that supports that view. Indeed, there is so little evidence that I cannot be certain that you wouldn't run amok with the mop were it handed to you - and for that reason I will have to oppose. I am likely very wrong, but I would like it proven to me by a few months consistent editing and encyclopedia building.
'''Oppose''' Soory but I don't think you have enough experience. You have only been a few months, and that is not enough time to be experienced enough. You do great work here. You have a solid edit count, but there is also a lack of mainspace contributions. Keep up the good work, and try again in a few months. I am also opposing because of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sasha_Callahan#Three_Revert_Rule/ current edit dispute you are in], and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ichormosquito&diff=153303499&oldid=153058958/ rude comment about another user to another user]. I also don't believe the optinal question to yourself is not funny.  <b><font color="E32636">
'''Oppose, but with moral support'''.  I really like the work you've done considering the small number of edits you've done since creating an account.  You've done quite a bit of vandal reporting and your edits are well balanced.  However, a few more months of continued edits will be necessary before you gain the support of many editors here.  I recommend you continue what you are doing for a little while longer to created a longer track record.  Keep up the good work, your contributions are very valuable to Wikipedia.  If you ever have any questions, I'm always available [[User talk:Useight|here]].
'''Oppose''' per lack of overall experience at this time.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience. Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose,  SNOWBALL''' I'm sorry Sasha, but you need more experience. Comeback 3000 edits and 3 months from now, and we'll look again. It might be best to seek an editor review before self-nomming. You need more experience all the way around.
'''Oppose''' Unsatisfactory answers to the questions and lack of experience convince me that you are not ready for the mop. That's not say that you never will be, get more experience and try again in several months.--
'''Regretful Oppose''' I would love to support when you have a little more experience. -
'''Oppose''' - not even time editing under the username Sasha Callahan for the community to develop trust.  Will likely succeed in future nomination after more experience.
'''Neutral''' I ''do'' feel that your inexperience is an issue. A couple of months is a very, very short time. You may very well have edited as an anon prior to registering your account, but you haven't provided an IP (though understandable) to see the full extent of your pre-registration experience. Sorry, but not right now. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''' I quickly went through your contributions, and they seem good in general. I think that you could use the tools for the types of work you've done. However, I too think that with two months (named) editing and less than 1000 edits, it is too soon. This is not a question of pure counting, but that I like to be better able to judge your interactions with others. I encourage you to continue doing what you do, keep leaving the informative edit summaries, and keep on contributing. --
'''Neutral''' Well, I do commend you for going right in to this. It is great to see that you would LIKE to be an admin, and I'm confident that you would not abuse the tools if you received them. My only issue is that I don't see enough socialness. Your few usertalk space edits are warnings to other users, and I don't see evidence of communicating with other users. Your heart's in the right place, so I will remain neutral.
'''Neutral'''. I won't go into the experience discussion, but rather I'll make my point regarding trust. Receiving the mop requires that the community trust you; and the extremely short time you've had your account has given no opportunity for that to happen. Take time to know Wikipedia and, just as importantly, make yourself known and trusted by people here. Right now I'd say that's what's missing. Also, if you're serious about being an admin, you should spend a significant amount of time perusing RfAs so you learn what people look for in admin candidates and how best to achieve that profile. Should this request fail, don't be discouraged, take it as an opportunity to learn and improve and try again soon. Given your level of activity I don't think even editcount would be an issue in 6 months - 1 year. Best of lucks.
'''Oppose''' too few mainspace edits, can't support.
'''Strong oppose''' per very poor answers and poor selfnom. Did you even read [[WP:GRFA]]? Not experienced enough, if at all. &ndash;
'''Strongest oppose'''. Remember LegoAxiom? This <s>is like</s>[[User talk:Amarkov#LegoAxiom|''is'']] his twin brother here. I traced this request from a frivolous sockpuppetry report based on a frivolous vandalism accusation. -
'''Oppose''', please withdraw or have this closed early. --
'''Oppose'''. You mean well, but you've edited for two days.--
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience (98 edits in total) and no requirements for the tools whatsoever.  Suggest withdrawal at this time.
'''Strong Oppose''' I suggest withdrawal immediately, you have 104 edits, only 20 in the mainspace, you have never used an edit summary, no experience and no need for the tools, please withdraw thos nom and get about 5 months experience, show a need for the tools and use an edit summary and you should pass but for the minute please withdraw this.<b>
'''Oppose''' not enough experience; no need for the tools. -
'''Nominator Support''' per nom.--
'''Support'''. Valuable contributor, civil, unlikely to abuse tools. --
'''Support'''.  Has over 2000 edits in the mainspace.
'''Easy Support.''' Far more qualified than I was.
'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''.  Scharks is an excellent mainspace editor, but more policy experience would help. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Weak Support''' - good trustworthy user. My only quibble would be that I'd like to see more experience with deletion policy, particularly AfDs etc - that sort of thing makes up a large part of an admin's work. But this user's excellent mainspace contribs make up for that.
You know, we all bitch about not having enough admins to do all the work that needs to be done around here (lord knows I do), and for good reason.  And yet time and again when someone who works hard on this project in ways slightly different than those most favored by the denizens of RfA comes along, we see the same old litany of nitpicks.  So Scharks doesn't spend much time over at *fD, and he isn't a full time vandalism patroller.  Reverting and blocking vandals ''isn't that tricky''.  Doing speedy deletions ''isn't that tricky''.  *fDs are tricky sometimes, but Scharks seems sensible enough to avoid situations where he'd be in over his head.  As long as you care about this project, know your way around the place, and show yourself to be a sensible person, I see no harm in passing you the tools and spreading the workload around a bit more.  '''Support'''. --
Edit history looks good, candidates obviously has a decent head on his shoulders and isn't going to blow anything up. No substantial concerns have been presented to date by the opposition, so altogether Scharks seems like a good bet.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, good user interactions (per talk page), obviously focused on the real reason we're all here (building a better encyclopedia). While some have noted limited XfD / project space experience, I think [[User:Robth|Robth]] has hit the nail on the head: all admins may have the same tools, but not all have to use them the same way. --
'''Support''', although you still lack of XfD but I'm absolutely impressed by your role as an editor. What I can say, too excellent.
'''Support''' Looks good user to me :). --- '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Hope it works out for you --
'''Support''' See fixed criteria on my user page
'''Support'''.  Another sensible and level-headed editor who would be good with the tools.
'''Oppose''' regretfully. A valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but I don't think there is a need for the admin tools just yet. You said you wanted to get more active in XfD, but I have seen you have only participated in 8 TfDs and no other XfDs so far on Wikipedia. I suggest spending the next few months participating in XfDs (maybe AIV?) and keep continuing the article work. If you meet these conditions, I would undoubtedly support your next RfA. '''
Another regretful '''oppose''' per Nishkid. You need experience working with XfDs if you wish to branch into closing them. I would also support your next RfA if you showed some intelligent contributions to XfDs.
'''Oppose''' The candidate's low level of wiki-space activity suggests an unfamiliarity with process.  It is also true that I do question nominator's judgment with respect to adminship standards at this time, based on nominator's own very recent RfA.  The second factor is a minor negative indicator only.
'''Oppose''' Per above comments. You haven't really shown your knowledge of [[Wikipedia]]'s policy or your need for the tools. Sorry. :/ [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I like your level of contribution to Microbiology and the Australian Place infobox, but I would like to see more XFD contributions.  Please work on that and then apply again. --
'''Oppose''' The first thing you mention in question one is fighting vandalism, yet you have made only 2 edits to [[WP:AIV]].  Also, as Nishkid64 mentions, your XFD participation is minimal.  You seem to be doing a fine job as an editor, but to be an admin, I'd like to see you have more experience in the areas where you say you'll be using your tools.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience in xfd.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience in any of the administrative areas listed in the answer to Q1. Everyone reverts vandalism. It goes with the territory. ---
'''Oppose''', answer to Q1 does not convince me that you need a sysop bit
As above - <b>
'''Neutral''' While you are a good editor and show that you have a lot of great article writing experience and a good vandal fighter, you haven't shown, IMHO, that you know policy.  Being an administrator is a lot more than reverting and blocking vandals. Try getting more XfD experience and also try reporting vandals to AIV when necessary. Don't let this discourage you and try again later. '''''
'''Neutral''' Excellent contributor to the main space but showing no real need for tools especially with low participation in the project space. I'd definitely support in a future RfA if you start working on XfDs and the like. -
'''Neutral''' Great article writer, but you need more policy experience.--
'''Neutral''' per Darthgriz98 <span style="background:crimson">[[User:Kamope|<font color="gold">'''&gt;Kamope&lt;'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Kamope|<font color="yellow">Talk</font>]] '''·'''
'''Support as nom''' --'''
'''Support''' Good editing on articles about roads.
'''Support'''  I've found that in my time working with Scott, this user has been a fair arbiter in heated debates that have popped up within the USRD community.  From that, I believe that this user would handle other situations outside of USRD well.  That aside, from my personal experience of working with this user, I believe the said user has a fairly good knowledge of how the entire encyclopedia works, and is worthy of being an admin.  Hence my reason for supporting this RfA.  --
'''Support''' Scott is unquestionably one of the best and most dedicated editors that I've had the pleasure of working with at USRD. What has impressed me the most is his ability to remain calm in even the most fiery of discussions, an absolute must for an admin. Due to the nature of USRD, by participating in the project and the various XFDs, Portals, and subprojects, an editor learns about the inner workings of Wikipedia very quickly, and I believe Scott knows his way around Wikipedia very well. I see no reason not to give him the mop. --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  A good, decent editor who can be trusted.  Meets my standards for syops, has reasonable (if imperfect) answers to questions above, and has no red flags.
'''Support''' Those opposing per the answer to Q4 are being rather unfair. The candidate is trying to describe how he intends to continue to foster the community discussion aspect that is so central to Wikipedia. The question explicitly says that the material does not appear libelous to some, and as such, if it has any possible merit, it absolutely should be discussed on the talk page, but ''not'', as the candidate correctly notes, in the article. The question also fails to note whether the information in question has any possible sourcing that could corroborate it. It looks like people are jumping at the chance to oppose this quality candidate.
'''Support''' I agree with [[User:GlassCobra|GlassCobra]] on the opposition on the merits of his answer to Q4.  Also - even though situations like what the questions describe come up and should be tested on for qualifications, everyone - admin or not - will run into such situations and will need to know what is the best course of action to take.  Yes - [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|Adminship is not a reward]], but this RFA is not about that.  Scott has handled himself in well situations that were escallated from what I've experienced working with him.  Before opposing one's nominations think about all of the possibilities that might be of light in this nomination. based on that - I don't see Scott as one that would be likely to abuse his priviledges of adminship.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor and I feel this user would make a great Admin.
'''Support''' He has been a wikipedian since 2005, with much experience. I haven't seen him in any conflicts, and he has been a huge help to [[WP:USRD]]. He will make a great admin. —'''
'''Support''' We have some hideous backlogs here and anyone who is volunteering to tackle them should be welcome. Scott has has shown himself to be a good editor. --'''
'''Support''' Some of the opposition have some relevant arguments, although I don't think the user will abuse the admin tools.  If this passes, I am sure Scott will take it slowly, and only use the tools that he feels comfortable using.  His answer to #1 is a good indication that he will do so.  -
'''Support''' - the only concern is the understanding of BLP issues, and I would imagine by now the below opposition has resolved that.
'''Support''' - Strong editor - Always a great guy to work with. In USRD, he's supposedly next in line. :) <sup>
'''Support''' - good editor, deserves sysop tools. Good luck. &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
'''Oppose''' the answers to the questions show a lack of understanding of Wikipolicy.  Particularly 4, <s>6,</s> and 8.  Question 4 indicated no familiarity with [[WP:BLP]] which states, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons '''should be removed immediately and without discussion''' from Wikipedia articles." (emphasis in policy) <s>Question 6- he didn't even mention [[WP:RFC/NAME|RFC name.]]</s> Question 8 he implies that the project sets the standards for the pages under it's purview.  The various wiki-projects do not enforce anything. The standards they set are only good insofar as they represent the views of the participants of the project.  If a project were to declare that general notability guidelines do not apply to their project and that anybody from their target arena was worthy of an article then the rest of the Wikiworld can override the project.
'''Oppose''' - Scott5114 is a fine editor and a credit to the project, but I'm afraid that I can't support this nomination.  [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|Adminship is not a reward]] given to people in recognition of their services--it is a task taken up by people who want to deal with the muck and the thankless jobs required to keep Wikipedia humming, and I suggest the nominee keep that in mind as this process continues.  As far as my specific concerns go, Scott's answer to the first question is particularly troubling, as a prospective admin should be prepared to field requests from all sections of the project, which in turn requires a broad level of experience and knowledge.  Regarding this point, I think his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Scott5114&namespace=4&year=&month=-1 Wikipedia namespace contributions] are the most telling--the vast majority of these are edits in road-related project spaces, with no reports to [[WP:AIV]] or [[WP:UAA]] and a single edit each on [[WP:RPP]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=167996356#Interstates_in_Missouri]) and [[WP:AN/I]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=79078926]).  Although Scott has participated in a number of [[WP:AFD|AfD]]s, most of which were related to his primary interest, I have not been able to find any comments convincing me that he has a firm understanding of how to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines--a number of comments do not attempt to make an argument or address concerns raised by the nominators ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roadgeek|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scarran Dreadnaught|2]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of_media_using_the_Wilhelm_scream|3]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_overviews|4]]), and most of the arguments he did make in AfD do not reflect a full understanding of policies.  The one that really sticks out is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Mill Road]], which illustrates a less-than-complete understanding of [[WP:N]] and [[WP:V]] as well as the AfD process itself.  That being said, I am heartened by his participation at [[WP:IFD]] and [[WP:MFD]], which shows an interest in administrative tasks and forces him to branch out a bit.    If he continues to do work on more quasi-administrative tasks and shows a better understanding of the application of policy to topics other than roads (e.g. [[WP:BLP]], which is not demonstrated above), I'd be more than happy to support him the next time around. --'''
'''Oppose''' - response to Q4 is concerning. Otherwise a good editor.
'''Oppose''' per response to question 4.  Believing that "extremely libellous" material should exist on WP (in any form) is hopelessly out-of-step with current policy.
'''Oppose''' - per Jonny. I don't (currently) see any need for the tools and most of your Wikipedia related edits can be do without them. I may support next time though. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per the answers to Q4 and Q8.  Even accepting [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754's]] clarification of the answer to Q8 as a possibility of what was intended, I'm very uncomfortable with this view of Wikiprojects in practice.  Suggest the editor take some more time to brush up on policies and guidelines and try another nomination down the road.--
I'm very sorry to do this, but the answers to the questions, overall experience, and some of the other oppose comments speak for themselves.  I highly respect Scott as a level-headed user wherever I work with him, but I have doubts on how he can handle difficult situations that are outside of the roads scope.  The lack of knowledge on how to respond to queries he may not be the most familiar to is something that I should be able to invoke on any random administrator [candidate] without any trouble.  When dealing with something that has OTRS involved, you never discuss the situation in publicly viewable venues, since anything that has to do with OTRS is almost always sensitive.  Sensitive material, including libellous and/or unsourced ones, [at the very least on Wikipedia], do not belong anywhere [on Wikipedia, at the very least], not even talk pages for discussion.  The flawed judgements on the AFDs that jonny-mt pointed out will reflect on how good an administrator's judgement is, and by looking at those AFDs signify that more education on the various content policies/guidelines is needed.  Because of all that, I am going to have to say '''no''' for now.
'''Oppose'''. All the above explain why. Answer to number 4. I know you wouldn't abuse the admin tools; you're a good editor, but I can't support because of that.
'''Oppose''' Due to concerns over the user's understanding of policy, particularly question number 4 regarding [[WP:BLP]]. --
oppose I just did not like the answers I read to the questions --
'''Oppose''' per the answer to Question 4.  Whether or not one is familiar with the finer points of BLP, one should never do anything to preserve content that appears "extremely libelous."  The candidate either didn't read the question or didn't think before answering it.  On such a sensitive issue, this lack of care is a major concern.
'''Oppose''', due to your answer to question four. [[WP:BLP]] applies to talk pages too, and indeed every page on Wikipedia, not only mainspace pages. I can see you becoming administrator in a few months, when you've become more familiar with the guidelines and policies, however. --
'''Oppose'''. Good editor but needs greater variety of experience (e.g., edit more kinds of articles, get involved in XfD and/or policy discussions) and needs to demonstrate greater knowledge of policy and guidelines. --
'''Neutral''' - Has Good Edit History and Quality but as others have said, the response to certain questions does not match WP Policy.
'''Neutral''' Per answer to question #4, but still a good editor.
'''Neutral''' It's unusual for such an excellent editor to have such a contentious RfA. I never thought I would see the day when saying "I would allow the issue to be discussed" would be the wrong answer, but this time it was. While I still think that it was a noble sentiment, and while I don't expect you to memorize all of Wikipedia's policies, my support was dependent on the notion that, since I believe in your maturity and responsibility, you would look up any policy before taking action. You don't have to know all of the answers as long as you know how to find the answers when you need them, but there appears to be valid concerns about the research you put into your responses. I think it would benefit the candidate to get some mentoring from an Administrator about the duties and daily responsibilities of an Admin, and then apply again, if for no other reason than to have your RfA pass with flying colors. But for better preparation, this application would have easily passed.
'''Moral support'''. I suggest you withdraw this RfA before it gets closed per [[WP:SNOW]]. But hang in there, get more experience and try again in a while. —
'''Oppose''' - Sorry I don't think you're experienced enough at this time.  You may with to withdraw your nomination and read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' - 32 edits edits (less taking out edits in creating this RfA and another with a slightly different name) and the inability to see any evidence anywhere on Wiki that this user understands and can apply policy correctly forces me to Oppose at this time. Given a 2 - 4 months of solid edits, plenty of article writing and showing the community you can apply policy suitably and I'll happily support. I must also strongly implore you to withdraw this nomination quickly as it will likely be unsuccessful. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose'''. 32 edits, too new for adminship. I suggest you get 3,000+ edits before considering adminship. Also, get involved in RC patrol, AIV reporting, and XfDs since they will give you an idea of what adminship is and what it is used for. After you've contributed here for a bit longer, you can request an [[WP:ER|editor review]] to find out what other people think you can improve on, and from there you can consider going up for adminship again. I also suggest you withdraw this RfA, since there is no chance of it succeeding at this current time. '''
'''Oppose''' I regret, nowhere near enough edits, and no evidence of useful experience.--
'''Oppose''' but only on grounds this user is a bit too new. If he wants any help, he's welcome to ask me.... --'''
'''Oppose'''. Your desire to contribute is appreciated. But right now you have nowhere near enough experience on Wikipedia to be given serious consideration as a candidate for admiship. From what I can see looking at your contribution history, you've made only 32 edits to Wikipedia, with more than half of them being back in June 2006. Most successful admin candidates have made, at a minimum, at least 2,000 Wikipedia edits, and have a track record of several months as a consistent, positive contributor. Right now, keep contibuting becuase you don't have to be an admin to be a positive contibutor to this project. Then consider coming back and applying for adminship when you've got much more experience.
'''Neutral'''. 32 edits. Bureaucrats, please close this one before it gets too ugly.
'''Support'''. I've liked what I've seen out of this candidate and a quick survey of the contributions shows good involvement in AfDs and other admin processes.
'''Weak Support'''. I will look past [[WP:ECT|editcountitis]] in this case due to some evidence of good experience.
'''Support''' for a fair balance between mainspace and wikipedia space. He is also active in articles for deletion discussions. Finally, I would like to make a point of giving this editor my support ''because'' of his relatively low edit count (compared to others vying for adminship). There is too much concern about "low" edit counts — 1,500 is a damn lot! −
'''Weak Support''' trustable and reliable user. I would have to stress that your somehow low activity is the major issue here. ←
'''Support''', seems trustworthy and experienced enough.
'''Support''', I looked through your edits, they looked good to me. That coupled with the answers show that you'd probably help more than hurt with the admin buttons. And for the record, I disagree with the reasons of both oppose voters. -
'''Support''', your edits appear good ones to me. (And to speak only for myself, I like your answers to the questions.) I think you would make a good administrator.
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong with this user.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Seems like a good someone to trust with the buttons.
'''Support''' per above, although please get your talk edits up. Cheers! ''
'''Weak Support''' Your edit count is a bit too low for my liking, but as Adminship is not a big deal, you're minimally qualified in my book. '''
'''Support'''Great contributor, has done a lot of helpful things.  No real problems as far as I can see.'''
'''Weak Support'''. While the low edit count may be of concern, in going through your contributions (including those linked on the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Serpent's Choice|talk page of this RfA discussion]]), it seems we should look to the quality rather than the quantity. The nominee seems to always offer reasoning in support of any position (s)he takes in XfDs and other similar forums, and is an active participant across many of the namespaces. A need for the tools is apparent, and the nominee certainly appears trustworthy.
'''Support''' per user we can trust.--
'''Weak "good faith" support'''. I really have to grit my teeth since I'm an edit count guy, but lookign through all your edits, they are clearly very constructive. You've contributed strongly to AfD and to the articles you've edited, and you've done enough that I feel comfortable giving you the tools.--
'''Support'''. Always friendly and reasonable in every interaction I looked at. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Grantham_Hughes&diff=80778261&oldid=79433131 responded] very well to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serpent%27s_Choice&diff=80771695&oldid=80576709 this] IMO.  In addition, a serious contributor to the encyclopedia. And tons of policy and XfD experience.  Some opposes focus on edit count, which is not a reliable measure of someone's experience and is easily gameable.   After a pretty thorough look at talk and contribs, I'm convinced this user won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Serpent's Choice's work on AfD shows an excellent knowledge of policy, a willingness to research topics over and above the call of duty, and a very professional and responsible approach to controversial issues.
'''Support''': I trust Serpent's Choice. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Support''' low number of edits but reviewing them I do trust the user's judgement.
'''Support''' A remarkable editor whose XfD activity shows a strong knowledge of policies and guidelines and a talent for ferreting out sources for articles that might otherwise remain in question.  Edit counts?  Quality is preferable to quantity, in my opinion.  Serpent's Choice is a valuable contributor, and I see no problem in giving him the admin tools.
'''Support''' a good editor who satisfied my [[User:Danntm/RFA|guidelines]].--
'''Support'''.
Good edits; in perusing them I don't see anything that would indicate untrustworthiness.
'''Support''' quality beats quantity every time.  User is active at AfD and would make good use of the tools fighting the backlog there.
'''Support''' A good and trusted editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I believe this user can be trusted with the mop.  Also, 1,500 non-AWB edits is far more acceptable in terms of garnering experience than 15,000 mindless AWB edits.
'''Support''' per nomination.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support''' per nom. —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Despite the low edit count, I'm quite impressed with this candidate, particularly the depth of his AfD comments. The non-admin closures there have been good and I'm actually comfortable and confident enough in him that I think he'd be able to tackle all but the most controversial and acromonious of closures without problem. My one piece of unsolicited advice is that if you ever do decide to start counter-vandalism, please do so as an editor first to get a feel for actual blocking practice at [[WP:AIV]].--
'''Support''' Edit count matters not. This user is definitely trustworthy, I believe he's got what it takes to be a good admin. &ndash;
for your activity level I can't see a large need to grant you the powers. <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - answers to questions are a bit weird, almost as if you consider yourself too important to respond. Also, why are you telling everyone how important your day job is? And do you seriously believe that 'argument by reference to a big number' is persuasive? However, my oppose is mostly because you have less than 100 article talk and less than 100 user talk, which indicates that you have not gained sufficient experience in consensus building.
'''Oppose''' - Very few edits and I am particularly baffled about the excuse that "the research needed to reference articles appropriately is not a fast process." Not to to toot my own horn but look what I did to the [[Michael Jordan]] article in a 24 hour period from January 15th [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jordan&diff=100889510&oldid=100795858] to January 16th.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Jordan&diff=101198020&oldid=101196133] Here is a breakdown of the user's edits using interiot's tool.[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Serpent%27s+Choice&site=en.wikipedia.org]
'''Weak oppose'''. I'm not convinced by the above oppose votes (this is, of course, only my opinion), but I do feel you need a bit more experience before becoming an administrator. I'd anticipate supporting you should you reapply in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see some more experience in different areas.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in areas vital to being a good admin (various talk pages, mostly). ···
'''Modest Oppose''' Self-nom aside, editcountitis aside, above comments aside, I think that you could use a few more months here before we hand you the key to the toolshed. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose'''. You have some projectspace participation but little community interaction evidenced by low talkpage activity of all kinds. -

'''Oppose''' don't like responses to the questions, and like the commenters above, I feel that he is too inexperienced. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' 1500 edits is lower than what I have, and yet I'm no admin. Also, per above, the question responses sound like they come from an inexperienced person.
'''Oppose''' But please do not be discouraged. If you address the above concerns, you will have a good shot next time you run. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per edit count. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per above; sorry, I think you need a little more time.
'''Oppose.''' I'm going to pretend that the candidate has double his actual number of edits, based on his method, but it's still not enough.  He needs more experience, and he needs to familiarize himself with administrative tasks outside the deletion process.
'''Neutral''' This user seems to be a active and good editor, the only thing what concerns me is the edit count but except for that he/she seems like a really good candidate.<font face="">
'''Regretfully Neutral'''. In addition to the above concerns with tone I would be inclined to oppose a user for admin powers with SP's level of experience. Still, my personal dealings with SP have been very favorable and he is an excellent editor. I'm always happy to see him active on an article and he has shown himself to be a very "project first" type, even in a situation where others might be inclined to let their conflicts of interest or personal feelings color their judgment. I think that in some time SP will make an ''excellent'' admin, just not quite yet.
'''Very weak neutral''' only because of a lack of experience.  The bulk of your Wikipedia-space edits are within the last month, which is kindof lowish.  As others above have said, I will support next time. --
'''Neutral''' Keep editing Wikipedia, and come back in a few months when you have a lot more experience.  Hopefully be able to support you by then. --
'''Netural''' per Arnzy.
'''Oppose'''. We don't have the community resources in place to allow such a request to happen, whatever the merits. You have less than 500 edits. If you would like to see the admin interface, email me. I can send you screenshots. If you'd like to see the text of a deleted article, we can do a similar thing.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Barring a desysoping from ArbCom or Jimbo Wales admin status is intended as a lifetime appointment, not a peepshow for the curious.
'''Oppose''' per everyone else.
'''Oppose''' original suggestion, but giving all sysopp powers to someone with inadequate experience cannot be good, be for a week or a lifetime.--
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry; I hate to oppose, per Alphachimp.
'''Oppose''' Well this blows.  Now I feel stupid. ):
'''Support''', not moral. It looks like this is going down the tubes, and I do not understand why. -
'''Full Support'''. Looks like a perfectly fine candidate to me after scanning the contributions. Q1 is a little vague, but names areas which require admin tools. Editing a relatively narrow range of articles is not bad in and of itself.
'''Support''': This user is clearly involved in the right activities for an admin: countervandalism, XfD etc. I would strongly urge you to write a better answer for Q1, though.
'''Support'''.
'''Full Support''' Seems like a fully qualified and regular contributor who happens to focus on the mainspace.--
'''Moral Support'''. We who edit Judaism articles know you to be a reasonable person who injects a doze of calm into frequently overheated debates. However, I am afraid the community at large does not know you at all. You have very limited project and user interaction outside of Judaism topics and the answer to Q1 reflects that. Though we (Judaism editors) would hate to lose you, if you want to succeed at RfA in 3-6 months, you should branch out into the process- and maintenance-oriented areas of the the project (deletion, vandalfighting, policy discussion). Then users would be more comfortable trusting you with the tools. I suggest withdrawal. - <b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I don't like opposing a trusted user.  The question is whether you can trust her, not whether she spends all day doing nothing but deletion discussions.
'''Support''', answered question well, but the RFA isn't looking likely.
'''Weak Support''' per change of heart. You mean well, and part of me can't see you as an admin still, but you've been handling all the challenges put even in this RfA very well. (I'm NOT changing my vote again, I've done it too many times)--
'''Support'''. Good editor, very reasonable. No reason to think she will abuse tools.
'''Strong support'''. I've edited a few times with Shirahadasha, and I've watched her have to defend her edits. She's cool, reasonable, and civil under stress; she uses good sources well; and she knows how to write within the content policies. She's just the kind of editor who would make a great admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', as said above, no reason to believe user will use admin tools improperly. <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''', this editor gave excellent answers and has without a doubt done enough editing. Regardless of how much this user NEEDS them, this user's record shows that should an instance arise when she needed them she would use them appropriately.
'''Support''' - would make a good admin. ←
'''Support''' Candidate is not likely to make a great deal of use of the tools, but that's no different from the great majority of current admins. I would be quite surprised if the average number of admin actions, per admin, per month, was a large number. Answers seem solid, although I'd prefer to see no answers to frivolous questions. How the answer to "Q1 showed no need for admin tools at all" escapes me. The candidate expressed an interest in closing XfDs and moves. Unless you're a very bold editor indeed, or never bothered reading [[WP:DPR]], that calls for a mop.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', I'm very surprised by the oppose votes, I've seen only excellent, reasonable editing coming from this editor. --
'''Support''' Will not misuse adminship. <s>Also, my earlier support user was removed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FShirahadasha&diff=98107226&oldid=98106931] by [[User:Yuser31415]]. I am not sure why.</s> --
'''Support''' I have not had a huge amount of experience with this editor. She reverted me once, but did so in a model Wikipedian way with a nice civil note on my talk page explaining her reasoning. I feel her discussion above is genuine and she would be a credit to Wikipedia as an Admin.
'''Weak Support''' Seems like she'd be a fine admin, has the experience...but answers leave something to be desired.
'''Support''', I think the admin corps could use a bit of new blood right about now, even if it means some on-the-job learning.
support --
'''Support''': you appear to be a good editor.  much of the opposes appear to be rather silly reasons to me.  Hopefully, the you can use the tools to the best help for wikipedia.--
<strike>'''Oppose'''; your statements are too short to give anyone an idea what you would be like as an administrator. Personally I don't see a need for the admin tools; and there's not much of a vandalfight. Apart from that, you'd be a great administrator. Cheers! ''[[User:Yuser31415|Yuser31415]]'' 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)</strike> Changed to '''Support''', now the questions have been amended. ''
'''Support'''.  I think this user demonstrates the ability to use the tools properly. --
'''Support''' with the disclosure that I know the user IRL. The user is an an excellent, responsible editor who will not abuse the tools.
'''Weak support''' - just about alright, looks trustable enough based on his/her edits.
'''Support''' - I especially like the fact the user didnt spend all day on xfd, instead showing his contributions demonstrate an individual spirit.<b>
'''Support''', opposition is baseless, no concerns.
'''Support''' I changed my mind. I think you are ready. Good luck!
'''Support''' Goodluck --
'''Support'''.  Having watched how this RfA has progressed, I have to change my view to full support mode.  In the face of what I consider to be unnecessarily blistering criticism, Shira has shown hirself to be quite capable of keeping a level head and countering opponents with patience and respect.  As noted in the editor review, Shira has demonstrated remarkable growth as a wikipedian, and welcomes rational criticism as a way of continuing to improve hir editing.  A more thorough review of hir contributions indicates that admin tools could be quite useful for Shira, and I see no compelling reason to suspect they would be misused.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. --
Unpersuaded by oppose arguments.
'''Support.''' It's ridiculous to deny adminship because someone isn't interested in deleting things or fighting vandals. There are many roads to building the encyclopaedia. I will gladly support a renomination at any time and urge nominator/candidate to drop me a talkpage message or email so that I don't miss it.
'''Support.''' Good temperament for handling controversial work. I'm concerned about this RfA given the current tally and look forward to supporting on any renomination. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Q1 showed no need for admin tools at all. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. As per the Arjun, I think you are in no need for admin tools at al. I suggest you to put more work at reverting vandalisms. Best luck! --<span>'''[[User:Smcafirst|Smcafirst <small>or Nick</small>]]''' •
'''Strong Oppose''' <s>Seadog</s> Arjun nailed it on the head. You really don't tell us why you need the tools for what you do. '''
'''Oppose''': I scanned your last 1000 edits - almost all involve a fairly narrow range of mainspace articles.  It's not at all clear that you'd even ''like'' to do administrator work - closing AfDs, moving articles, blocking users, whatever.  I suggest you spend a fair amount of time with vandal patrol and XfDs and cleanup (see specific comments by others on this), and then you'll have a much better idea as to whether you'd really ''want'' to be doing admin work.
'''Strong oppose''' Just today, [[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] filed a three-revert rule violation report on [[WP:AN3]] concerning a situation in which neither of the two users reported actually violated the three-revert rule.  (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=98097972#User:BrianSmithson_and_User:Mwhs_reported_by_User:Shirahadasha_.28Result:No_Block.29]) The [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] is a major policy that I would expect any administrator to apply correctly. While users may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule,
'''Oppose''' You can do everything that you want in your answer to question one without the admin tools.
'''Oppose''', user does not require admin tools. You need to do administrative work before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' with a heavy heart; as so often, I totally agree with Crzrussian, but this candidate is not yet ready.  Please do try again soon!--
'''Oppose''' per John. --
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Crzrussian as well, so I have to oppose for now. If you are able to branch out some more, you'll be an excellent admin. --
'''Oppose''' - little need for the tools, very weak answers, and an admin should have his head round 3RR.
'''Oppose'''.  Shirahadasha seems like a qualified editor, but shows no real need to be an admin.  Admins' duties are more about the inner workings of Wikipedia, which require both knowledge of the mechanics of those workings and a willingness to engage in the sometimes tedious tasks involved in them.  I don't know that Shirahadasha has either of these things, at least not judging by the edit history and answers above.  Perhaps I'm wrong; if so, reapply in a few months and see what happens.  <s>Also, the answer to the sixth question is misleading from a legal standpoint.  The candidate says "the United States, for example, has a legal policy against age discrimination that frowns on asking this question."  The United States' law on age discrimination has nothing to do with administrative privleges on a free online encyclopedia.  This doesn't really affect my vote, I just thought you'd all like to know.</s> [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' An excellent editor, but you need more than that as an admin.  She may well make the grade one day.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - Doesn't really demonstrate the need to be an admin. I think she should continue as an editor and would do better off not getting involved in admin chores. '''
'''Oppose'''. Regretfully but with little choice given the number of concerns raised incl. lack of need for tools, misunderstanding of [[WP:3RR]], narrow edit range and weak answers to questions. None of these are insurmountable and I hope to be able to support a future RfA in due course.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, obviously an upstanding editor and potentially a good admin, but needs more experience with policy, admin tools; much wider edit range. A lot of the questions could have been answered better - I felt the analogies were kinda off.
'''Oppose''' Do not seem to need admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' Although I'm sure you are a fine editor, I'm not convinced that someone with only 4,000 edits (only a little over 2,000 to the main namespace) is experienced enough for adminship. The range of edits is just not very impressive. Come back after you have more experience and have a wider range of contributions. --[[User:MatthewUND|Matth]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' Primarily because of a bit narrow set of experience on mainspace topic activities to date, but I would have no problem switching to support with a little more widespread set of contributions in a few more months.
'''Oppose''' per Bwithh and others.  But please try again.--
'''Oppose''' per Arjun, John254, and Bwithh. --
'''Oppose''' Like so many others, I have to say "potentially excellent candidate - not ready yet".--
'''Oppose'''. Not yet.
'''Neutral''' best of luck to you in the future though.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but you don't seem to have an actual need for a mop. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''', leaning Support - Sorry, but you don't actually seem to have use for the tools. Maybe in a few moths. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Neutral'''. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure whether you sufficiently understand what Wikipedia is about. --
'''Neutral''' for now, but you have the makings of a great admin! I commend you for trying, it shows that your heart is truly in the right place with regards to Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' Best of luck the next time you're up for this with a bit more work and demonstration of need for mop.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I would love to support but think you're not ready. If/when you stand again, please drop a note on my talk page, (although of course that is not a guarantee of support). --
'''Neutral''' I don't see the ''need'' for tools, but I don't feel an oppose is neccessary.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:James086|<font face="comic sans ms">James086]]. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Good editor. Unsure of intent.
'''Support''' Good editor. Solid edit count, and good use of edit summies. I don't think you will abuse the tools. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support'''Good canadate.--''[[User:Wikipedier|Wikipedier]]'' is now
'''Support''' Has a good history of contributions and valuable vandal-fighting experience.  I agree with iridescent that having more experience in XfD's would be great, but since shoeofdeath wants to focus on the mainspace, I'm willing to be supportive. I think shoeofdeath'll be a good admin. --
'''Support''' Not a vandal.
'''Moral Support''' Shoe, I like you and you are a good editor, it's perhaps just not the right time yet. Good luck!
'''Oppose'''. Who cares about his extensive experience in the area where he plans to use his admin powers, he didn't bring us a shrubbery.
'''Support''' in the absence of significant concerns. On the other hand, appears to be sensible after an admittedly quick glance at the '''contributions'''  (not just a perfunctory glance at the '''numbers on wannabe kate report'''). Love the comment about "vandal-fighting" in Q1. And not enough wikipedia space edits? I am so tired of that oppose. lol. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' None of his actions indicates that he will abuse the admin tools.--
'''Support''' good answers to questions, no major concerns here. <b>
'''Support'''. Most vandalism happens on articles, which this user edits masterfully. I think he will help block vandalism accounts, helping to protect the project. I really don't care about sens x-space edit count, and could not be any more impressed if user occasionally voted on AfD.
'''Support''' (My first RfA comment; only found it by accident) Shoeofdeath was one of the main contributers in a major (tedious) cleanup project ([[WP:SU]]) which involved the speedy deletion of hundreds of pages and spotting dozens of sockpuppets. Whenever there was disagreement between us about what to do next there, he responded sensible and mature to suggestions. Vandalism is not solely fought on meta pages and ''recent'' patrol, but also in messy to-be-cleaned-up articles. I think admin tools in shoeofdeath's hands only help to make wikipedia better. &ndash;
'''Support''' no convincing reason not to.
'''Endorse''' Exopedianism is not a crime. --
'''Support''' I do not think that the reasons given by the opposition are enough reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Very good responses to the AFD question. Good luck with the rest of your RfA. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Moral Support:''' I like what I see and have read.  The mania for finding a hobby-horse upon which to Oppose is saddening, the more so in that lack of experience in XfD is only a problem for admins dealing with deletion policy, which I don't get a sense nominee plans to attempt.  I don't think cops are poorly qualified to be cops either just because they don't happen to be auto mechanics, gunsmiths or computer programmers, however much having working cars, guns and computers are important to police work.
'''Support''' - I see nothing to indicate that this user will misuse the tools.  This is the only really important metric -- this users knows enough to apply the tools properly, and to know when they shouldn't apply them.  --
'''Support''' - No worries here.
'''Oppose'''. A good Mainspace editor, but not enough Wikipedia space experience (only 68 Wikipedia space edits and 45 Wikipedia talk edits in 20 months of editing). More experience in this area is needed to build familiarity with the type of tasks admins are expected to deal with.
Per Zaxem. <b>
'''Oppose'''. Agree with Zaxem that shoeofdeath's contributions are uneven. I also note his blanking of his talk page. In one case (May 5, 2007) an admin suggested that he not blank an anon's comments while they were still at issue. He complied, but then blanked the page when the issue was dealt with. The lack of archives on his talk page make it difficult to research his approach to dealing with issues there. He is a serious and diligent editor, but major substantive edits seem relatively few (despite focus on article space). I would suggest that he round out his experience and re-apply for admin in a few months.
'''Weak Oppose''' for now, ack Zaxem. Although answers to questions are very solid  --'''
'''Oppose'''. Although good edit count and answers, I cannot find talk page archives to review. Regretably, did not know difference between reporting to [[WP:AN/3RR]] and [[WP:AIV]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShoeofdeath&diff=154033058&oldid=153750445 in August 27, 2007]. An admin needs to know policy better than that.
'''Oppose''' - I understand that blanking your talk page is not a violation of policy, but I find it very rude and unhelpful, even if they ''are'' dead. They're supposed to be archived so they (comments) are easier to find and so that people don't have to look at every diff in your talk history to find a single thread. Please participate more in the Wikipedia namespace and I'll be happy to support. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. I suggest you try again after a few months. In the meantime, do not be discouraged over this. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  While this editor has lots of experience in the mainspace, I think more experience is necessary in the Wikipedia namespace (participation in XFDs and such) in order to have a better handle on deletion policy.  True, he did claim that he wouldn't be using his admin powers there, but still, a little more rounding-out as an editor would be good.
'''Oppose''' with no prejudice for a future attempt. 25 AIV edits do not outweigh the dissatisfying lack of contributions in other areas. User has a good attitude towards adminship, but simply isn't experienced enough to satisfy my doubt.
'''Oppose''', I would suggest working behind the scenes in maintenance such as cleaning backlogs.
'''Oppose''' Candidate has very little experience in the wikispace, home of many admin-related tasks.  Before one is given the mop, one should be familiar with the most common admin areas.
I can't see enough evidence of consistently-good judgement being used in Wikipedia-space (administrator areas), so I can't support this nomination. '''
'''Oppose''' Per lack of experience in Wikipedia space...well, per comments and issues raised above as well.
'''Neutral''' for the moment. You've only participated in 3 XfDs in your entire time here, and I'm reluctant to give deletion powers to someone who hasn't indicated an indication of deletion policy (the fact that you only have five posts on your - recently blanked - talk page doesn't help, either). As with Monotonehell below, willing to reconsider if you can give a satisfactory answer as to exactly what parts of policy you ''don't'' understand and what you'll do to address that<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral''' I think you mean well, and I applaud you for that. However, an admin can't really limit themselves to just one area; I feel as though someone should be awarded the mop once they've accumulated at least a general knowledge of important tasks that they may be asked to perform. As I said, though, I know your heart's in the right place, so I'm not going to oppose.
'''Nuetral''' I am sorry but the edit count in the project space is just a bit too low. Come back with 200 more wikispace edits and you will have my support.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by

I'm sorry, but I have to oppose based on the answers to my question. The sole reason for asking the Rader question is to show your understanding of the BLP policy. As to the IAR question, it is used to show your understanding in regards to when to ignore a rule. Although I admire your anti-vandalism work, I feel you need to understand more on policy. --
I hate to do this, but I must strongly oppose per q4.  3RR has absolutely no relation with making multiple constructive edits.  It's about stopping edit wars; if no-body is reverting multiple edits, there is no war, so there is no 3RR to break, and no rule to [[WP:IAR|ignore]]. Please, PLEASE read [[WP:3RR]] closely before running again.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q4, user just doesn't understand key policies that all admins should know.
'''Oppose''' As with the people before me, I don't believe you understand 3RR. You don't need to [[WP:IAR|ignore anything]] when someone is reverting obvious vandalism, it is explicitly stated on the policy page that vandalism removals are exempt. Also, they have to be ''reverts'' not edits in general. As a side suggestion, I would change your signature, it's very close (if not exact same) to another user's. <span style="font-family: Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' per misguided and deluded answer to question 4. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Q4. Doesn't seem to be acquainted with policy.--
'''Oppose''' per all the reasons above. Seems a decent enough fellow but has a somewhat weak knowledge of policy. Keep working and try again in a couple months. focus as much as you can on helping with administrative tasks.
Clear case of inexperience. '''
'''Neutral''' Editor is a good vandal-fighter and seems to be trustworthy but the answer to question 4 is troubling. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid a pile-on but the answer to question 4 requires no admin intervention at all and certainly no interpretation of policies and guidelines.  A new editor doing this would not be in the wrong.
'''Support.'''  I'm familiar with SilkTork's work on the [[Wikipedia:third opinion|third opinion]] project and wholeheartedly support the candidacy. —
'''Support''' - trustworthy candidate.
'''Support'''. I've admired this editor's work, especially on the beer articles, for a while now. His solid record gives me confidence that SilkTork will make a welcome contribution to the custodial staff. --
'''Support''', but try to diversify out of beer in your editing patterns :)
'''Support''' - Yeah definitely. The user has helped me out quite considerably. I find him to be a cool, calm and supportive editor who will make an exceptional admin. All the best,
'''Support''' getting involved with WikiProjects--
Per answer to question #4 (a variant of which I was planning to ask myself, actually), I don't think you, at this time, have the soundness of judgement and the level of discretion required to be an admin. Perhaps later, if your approach changes substantially. ++
'''Oppose.''' I think your answers to Q4 and Q5 are concerning and both seem have the same problem at their root. The problem, and you sum it well, is ''"debating more than is healthy."'' We need people you can state their case clearly and with economy. Sometimes it is best to just walk away.
'''Oppose''' - per diffs provided and per answer to question 4. There are too many concerns right there for this candidate. Sorry -
Lack of AGF and clue regarding lar's judgement as shown in the diffs and the answer to #4, as well as ignorance of the role of checkusers, and the privacy policy. --
'''Oppose''': At this time, per the concerns raised here.  Given that those brief judgement lapses (and I'm sure that is all they were) happened so recently, I'd like to make sure that you have gotten it out of your system before giving you the extra tools.  I hope you keep doing what you are doing (well, almost everything : ) and come back in a couple of months. -
'''Oppose''' per all the reasons stated above. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' While I like the work you have been & are doing, the opposers raise a good point, and question #4 does leave me a little hesitant.  I hope you try again in the future however!  Best of luck.
'''Neutral''' I see some good contributions, and have few concerns about the trustworthiness of the candidate... however, I must agree - question 4 has be a little nervous. I look forward to a well-reasoned and thought out answer to Question 6.
'''Strong Support''' - As co-nom. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - As original nominator.
'''Strong Support''' - As an editor who has benefited extensively by the work carried out by [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] on Scottish Railway articles. --
'''Support''' no reasonable cause to object.  Have fun with the mop and bucket. '''
'''Support'''. Clearly no harm in giving this candidate the tools, does good edits, and it'll do WP:HERTS a lot of good to have an admin as co-ordinator. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' Been long waiting for this. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' Someone I've run into repeatedly (we overlap a lot) and have never seen anything but sense from<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Only problem isa that your username has one BIG grammatical error... the cardinal directions are always capitalized. :) · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Support''', certainly. --
'''Support:''' A very good user who <s>can</s> will use the administrative tools well. <span style="font-size:95%;font-family:sans-serif"><font color="#229922">
'''Support'''- Great editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support'''. I asked Simply south back in March if he'd like to go through this, but he turned it down. I'm very sure that the tools will be well used with Simply south. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' wherefore art thou? --
'''Support''' - Well-rounded user, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' As co-nominator. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Support''' - An Excellent editor..should have been an admin ages ago ;)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
Good fellow who has been a terrific volunteer for us.  I look forward to seeing more of him about [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' This person is reliable, friendly, and has a need for sysop tools so why not support this editor?--

'''Support''' Sure...I like the idea.
I'm
'''Support'''. --S[[WP:EL|l]]<font color="#006400">[[WP:GA|g]]</font>[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Support''' - I think it's about time you had these tools,
'''Support''' Good user for adminship.
'''Support''', per the above, and nom.
'''Support''' excellent editor, with the patience to explain my mistakes and admit his own. I have read the oppose votes, most seem to be based on experience and if not successful at this time, I hope Simply south will not be put off going for it in the future.
'''Support,''' user could use the tools. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' I don't find the opposition compelling enough to sway me. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">

'''Support''' Seems to be a responsible user.
'''Support'''.  Some of the answers might seem a little less than inspiring but a review of the user's contributions looks good and I see no reason to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. It's been a while, but his overwhelmingly bureaucratic approach to  [[Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Archive15#Discussion_award.5CBarnstar_.28or_better_title_needed.29|this issue]] has left a very sour taste in my mouth (if the process itself wasn't enough). Plus I have nothing to suggest he would interpret the tools correctly. Try participating more in the process and  acclimatizing further to areas requiring adminship, including [[WP:RM]] and [[WP:XfD]] as you stated in your first answer.
'''Oppose''' - I've seen you around a bit and I really respect some of the people who are supporting you.  Unfortuately, I am really not impressed by your answers to the questions.  You don't need to be an admin to review other editors - anyone can do that.  I'm just not comfortable that you have a strong enough understanding of what admins do around here, or how they do it.  As such, I'm not comfortable with you having the tools at this time. --
'''Oppose''' per After Midnight. I'm sorry, you seem to be a good editor, but the answers to the questions just don't do it for me. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose''' per a frankly disappointing answer to Q1. May reconsider if you expand upon this. '''
'''Oppose'''. From my experience, a decent, honest editor, but as others have said, I don't see that he understands what adminning is about.
'''Oppose''' for now. A genuine editor, but WP:RM is a very involved process, and you haven't proposed one solid fall-back admin area to focus on in case you get burned out there.
'''Oppose'''.  This user is very keen and always means well.  I dealt with this user on a number of occasions when he was new, and while I get the impression he's got the hang of things more since then, I don't really think I'd trust him with the admin tools.  I'm not concerned about him ''abusing'' them maliciously, just him making a hash of things.  (For instance, look at the mangled way this RfA was set up: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Simply_south&diff=prev&oldid=135150395] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Simply_south&diff=next&oldid=135150395] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=prev&oldid=135413229].)  Also, I'm not convinced by some of his answers to the questions above: you don't need to be an admin to ''participate'' in XfDs for instance, and also the answer to question 6 (especially "''I will tend to follow ruls but [[WP:AGF]] on newcomers and not [[WP:BITE]], for example.''") is not clear at all.  Sorry, --
'''Oppose'''. I have fondness for Simply south but when I saw this nomination I thought "oh no". There is no doubt in my mind he means well with everything he does, but based on a considerable number of his edits, I am convinced he lacks the required skill of judgement that he would need as an adminstrator. Based on what I've seen of his work I am not convinced he has thorough enough understanding of policies and procedures either.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't seem to have a strong reason for wanting the tools, "backlogs" is too vague. When a user doesn't want the tools for a specific reasons, I get concerned that they want them "just to have them" or for a misplaced sense of authority.
<s>Support</s> '''Oppose''' (Changed from Support) While I don't see any reason to suggest that this user will explicitly mis-use the tools, I am growing more and more worried that he still doesn't have the experience needed to properly use them.  I worry that there will be mishaps and accidental mis-uses of the Admin tools that will be unintentionally damaging to the project.[[User:Bobo The Ninja|Ninja!]]
'''Oppose''' I would like to see him gain some more experience.
Answer to question 6 indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of multiple policies.
Per everyone above. I don't think this user is ready just yet&mdash;<font color='red'>
'''Oppose'''. I also don't believe the candidate is ready.
The answers to the questions, per Riana and Ral, aren't too confidence-inspiring. As Slim says, I too don't believe this candidate is ready. '''
'''Neutral''' User undoubtedly has experience with [[WP:RM]], but doesn't have that much experience with XfDs, as of late. I can only count a handful of XfD participation in 2007. I would recommend more XfD participation in the upcoming weeks, regardless the outcome of this RfA. Also, this is isn't something for opposition, but I do find it a bit awkward that you have 600+ contributions to the Sandbox/Word Association game. I would have preferred if you had used that time editing articles, and not playing Wikigames. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Neutral''' <small>Failed to capitalise the personal pronoun in the above! </small> Seriously, good contributions but the answers fail to demonstrate any form of <b>need</b> for the tools - this looks just like yet another editor who misguidedly believes that adminship is some kind of promotion, which it isn't, hence why I can't support. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
I am less than impressed by some of the answers to questions, so I will wait and see for now.
'''Support''' - A user who is very active on Recent changes, I feel he will make good use of the tools. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Support'''-I support Sir James Paul's run for Rfa and although I have only known him for a very short time(from countervandalism wiki) he seem to be very intelligent and I feel he would make a charismatic admin. Since my name is taken, I am [http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/User:James-001 James-001] from Halopedia and countervandalism wiki. Peace. [[User:Spartan-James|Spartan-James]] 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC){{spa|Spartan-James}} (<small>{{tl|spa}} added by {{user|Sean William}}
'''Strong Support''' An avid vandal fighter who clearly would use the tools responsibly. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>'''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">'''&nbsp;[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff33">Wi</font><font color="#33ff66">ki</font>]][[User talk:Wikihermit|<font color="#33ff99">her</font><font color="#33ffcc">mit</font>]]</span>''' <sub>(
'''Strong Oppose''' - I have had the honor of working with Sir James Paul over multiple wikis, and I'm quite convinced that he lacks the maturity to become an administrator. Recently, last December, he submitted two RFAs at the Simple English Wikipedia ([[:simple:Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive2#Sir_James_Paul_.282.29|here for both]]), the second one day after the first was [[WP:SNOW|snowball closed]] due to the fact that Sir James Paul canvassed his RfA across many talk pages. Then there was [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2006_November#Wikiquote:Esperanza this] attempt to create Esperanza on Wikiquote, which would not be a problem normally, but he [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.147.241.163 logged out] and proceeded to vote-stack the VfD. You can't see the deleted edits, but the IP also nominated Sir James Paul to be president of Esperanza (read the VfD for proof). Sir James Paul also recently justified edit warring with [[WP:IAR]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_james_paul&diff=prev&oldid=116949888]), which is not good at all. Some of these events were a while ago, but I honestly don't think that Sir James Paul has matured since then.
Too much of the POV edit warrior for me to support.
Per concerns of KC (the evolution matter was straight out POV pushing) and the concerns raised by Sean.
'''Oppose''' - I have not had any interaction with this user, but I feel that he is not good around controversial topics.  To his credit, he brought up the conflict at [[Evolution]] himself, but I feel that I have to oppose because of it.  He dredged up an already settled debate that is discussed in the FAQ for the article, and as late as two weeks ago was trying to insert a sentence into the article against consensus:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=133960091&oldid=133958702]. (Note the uncivil edit summary)  He was called for (among other things) incivility by another editor a short time later: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=next&oldid=134223500 Also note that he seems to feel that "Ignore all rules" gives him the right to edit war:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=116947387].  He looks like a good vandal fighter, but overall I feel that he is not ready for adminship at this time.--
'''Oppose''' per KC.
Per KC (and personal observations) I strongly oppose - someone who is this prone to POV edit warring is ''definitely'' not the sort of person we need as an admin.  It isn't a matter of whether he will edit the article or not - that sort of edit warring says a lot about the editor's temperament and judgment. '''Strong oppose'''.

'''Strong Oppose'''  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=134223500&oldid=133960601 This edit] indicates this editor's lack of understanding of NPOV and verified sources for neutral articles.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution&diff=133960091&oldid=133958702 This edit] exhibits more of the same along with a lot of personal attacking.  And of course, there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution&diff=prev&oldid=134240832 this edit] which is the final one of a series of exchanges in the Talk:Evolution arena.  And we can't forget when he spammed 23 user talk pages on May 28, 2007 to get soldiers for his POV war against certain parts of the Evolution article.  And that's just one article.  I haven't the time nor the inclination to do the same for many other articles where the same modus operandi was used.  This applicant needs to have a better understanding of NPOV and civility before I would ever consider voting.
'''Oppose''' The issues raised by the opposers above lead me to believe that editor might misuse tools.
'''Oppose''', mainly per rspeer's diffs, but several other small things in the questions have set a few of my sensors off. In particular, the diff provided in Q4 is worrying, as XfD is a ''discussion'', not a vote, and that is an important distinction I would hope anyone with the power to the things would know well. Also in Q2; "I would consider my vandal fighting my best contributions" is not a statement I'm fond of. If there are no particular articles you've worked on worth listing in your answer, then I suggest you go and write something. Heed the other oppose votes, come back in a few months time with more experience and I'll likely support you. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''
'''Oppose''' - Mainly because, despite being counseled many times about it by well respected users (see his talk page archives & history), he still doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between good-faith edits which don't meet policy, and vandalism - which leads to [[WP:BITE|biting]] the newbies as shown [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshwood_Junior_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=137429058 in this very recent edit]. --
'''Weak Oppose''' per Sean William but not as strongly. Sorry, mate. &mdash;
I think his war on vandalism is quite extensive but i dont think he is a strong character nor that he could keep the war going for long (fighting vandalism is boring but if he could bann people himself hi might get a little fire in the nest).
First off the blocks!. '''Massive Support''' - That is so weird - I spent an hour yesterday reviewing your contribs and previous failed (and contentious) RFA's - and I was going to approach you over the weekend to nominate you. Although past critcisms (wanabee an admin / welcoming users to rack up count etc. etc.) will no doubt be covered again in this RFA all I see is a diligent and strongly commited user who could really use the tools -0 and would use them wisely. Good luck this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I don't necessarily agree with some of your AfD contributions, but the rest is sound. I had assumed you were an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good user. '''
'''S''' why not? -- <strong>
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSiva1979_3&diff=70373322&oldid=70366223 myself eleven months hither] (I don't find on a cursory look, and can't on the whole imagine there to exist, anything to suggest that the candidate is less fit for adminship than he was at the time of his last RfA, when I happily supported).
'''Support'''. Good all-round contributor.
'''Support''' dedicated user, who has shown the capacity to listen, learn and improve.
'''Support''', could use the tools, probably not a mental.
'''Support''' will do well with tools, probably not a mentalist. ~
'''Support''' I don't believe abuse of the tools is forthcoming from siva.
'''Support'''. No apparent reasons to oppose. Answer to q1 demonstrates good understanding of admin tools.
'''Support'''. I think you have earned the mop.  You are a steady and hard worker, whose only period of sustained idleness was due to hospitalization. Pedro is on the money on this one.
'''Support'''. No reason not to. --
'''Strong Support''' Siva has demonstrated dedication "the hard way", by toiling fairly consistently over the last year in wiki-gnome tasks.  Whatever objections I had in the past have been overcome by his time and effort.
'''Support''' I have some reservations, which I will note in the discussion section above, but "adminship is no big deal", and the reservations are not sufficient reason to withhold support.
'''Strong Support''' Siva's done great work on Wikipedia, and definitely could use the admin tools. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
I'm
'''Support''' nothing wrong with this user.
'''Support'''- I see no reasons to oppose. Seems to be a good editor and should help wikipedia by having additional editing capabilities.
'''Support''' - very effective around the wiki <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' per Pedro and Nishkid64. Trustworthy editor who is ready for the tools. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Strong Support''' - as per Nishkid64 and Mailer Diablo...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' From what I have seen of this editor I am certain there will be no abuse of the tools.
'''Support''', although I'm a little worried about this hospital business.  Couldn't you have found a way to do some vandalism cleanup while you were there? -
'''Support''' Good candidate, time to give him the mop!
'''Support''' nothing concerns me. —
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I have no worries.
'''Support'''. A dedicated, committed user who's been around for a good length of time and knows the terrain. Will be an asset as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' The hard work done by siva and my personal experiences give me confidence that they will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seen you around, thought you were already an admin! Will be good with the mop, no reservations.
'''Support.''' I hate to burst the bubble of the oppose voters, who I'm sure feel strongly, but closing AfDs is not hard. I had almost never participated in the process, and the few AfDs I have closed since becoming an admin were not difficult to close, even the contentious ones. Providing counts of google hits, while not the most in depth contribution, is clearly something. Google can at least give a basic overview of a subject's notability and an editor who didn't run something through Google before putting it up for AfD would be foolish (unless it's obvious, in which case, it probably qualifies under CSD, or at least PROD). I have encountered this user before, and seen them around. I have seen nothing disturbing, and although I can't say I already thought they were an admin, I must say I wouldn't have been surprised to find that out. Anyone who can make 17,000 edits with a clean block log clearly shows the dedication and temperament to become an admin. Even if he closes a few AfDs "incorrectly," it's a quick matter at DRV, no one will die. I can't imagine the net result of this user receiving admin tools to be detrimental to the project.
'''Support'''. There is absolutely no reason why this user should not receive the tools. A lot has changed since previous RfA's. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' I am certain that this user can be trusted with the tools. A history of predominantly minor edits is not a disqualification. --<font color="Red">
'''Support'''. You are highly spoken of. Others believe in you. With the respect of the community, you will make a fine admin.
'''''Support''''', No reason to beleive the user will abuse the tools. Nothing wrong with self-noms, too. --
'''Support''' this candidate can be trusted with the mop.  --
'''Support''' - no reason to believe this user will abuse the privileges. also maybe I am biased (having self-nominated myself 3 times) but there is nothing wrong with self-noms.
'''Support''' why not? Excellent answers to questions, and I see no evidence that he might abuse the tools. <b>
'''Support''' Good user, with experience. No harm :)--
'''Support'''. Good user, very civil, and apparently ''really'' wants to be an admin. No big deal. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. Kind, corteous, hard-working and a long history of commitment with the project. Don't be sad at this, dear Siva: the time ''will'' come; remember my words. All the best,
'''Oppose''', see not much change since the last RfAs. Siva is commenting more on AfDs, but very often just counting Google hits (like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baur H-AR|here]]) or repeating arguments already made by others before him. He seems to comment on AfDs only in order to become an admin; see also my comments at [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Siva1979 2]]. I get the feeling that Siva always tries to be nice and has completely avoided conflict, and don't see any evidence for the good judgment skills an admin should have.
'''Oppose''' per Kusma and finding another very recent AFD where Siva made the same argument, that's simply incorrect and specifically pointed out as being invalid on numerous guidelines and essays. Admins should know better, I do not wanting anyone closing AFDs if they think number of Google hits is why we keep or don't keep articles. And then there's the broader issue, the candidate hadn't participated in AFD since December 2006 and then participates in numerous AFDs in the 48 hours before an RFA, where he explains that his last RFA failed because of lack of AFD participation? I really hate to oppose good faith candidates, but not everyone is a good choice for admin work, even if they really want to be one. --
'''Oppose''' I normally prefer to state a neutral position if I can't find a justification to support. But I'm sorry, in this case I have to oppose. I've spent the last hour reading through this individual's AfD discussion history. To me his comments feel very "political", as though he's going to great lengths to give the appearance of not entering conflicts for any reason. However, I feel that conflict is a good thing - conflict is usually required to reach consensus. Overall, I feel that his contributions are tremendous, but the lack of any ''serious'' AfD contribution and the lack of working with AIV for someone who wants to help with vandalism just doesn't do it for me.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SecretWisdom&diff=prev&oldid=144181449 I] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eutychus&oldid=144334935 am concerned about] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baur_H-AR&diff=prev&oldid=144344123 how thoughtful this user would be as an admin.]
'''Oppose''', because of the answer to question 4.  The previous RfAs spell out extensive concerns about civility, knowledge of policy, and a lack of substance to edits.  To claim that the principal issue in them was AfD participation is inaccurate and misleading.
'''Oppose'''. I'm worried by some of the articles this editor has recently taken to AfD eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/_Antoine_Leroux], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eutychus]. Also concerns of Kusma, W.marsh & Hiberniantears, above.
'''Oppose''' Way too desperate for the admin bit it seems, whilst not really being suited (see AfD contribs above). I also thought it was really odd (and quite rude really) when he returned from his wikibreak and asked Phaedriel to nominate him! Surely it's the other way around - the nominator asks the candidate. Also a pretty poor lack of judgement by doing that - obviously Phaedriel, being so nice as she is didn't want to say it bluntly "No, you've just come back from a few months long wikibreak, give it a while longer and I will." Other users told you though, but to think you'd have been able to pass just like that, and to ask someone out of the blue to nominate you just seems really weird to me, and bad judgement. Sorry, not now. '''
'''Oppose'''. Relying on google to determine notability will get you in enough trouble as just an editor; it will get you in much more as an admin. And asking someone to nominate you just after returning from a long Wikibreak, while not really ''bad'', is kinda strange. So I'll have to oppose for now, but you may well make a good admin in a few months. -
'''Oppose'''. Although this user has made a large number of edits, I am not convinced that concerns from the last RFA (as pointed out above by Chick Bowen) have been resolved, particularly those regarding knowledge of policy and a lack of substantial edits.
'''Oppose''' I had been discussing with Siva whether he should be pursuing an RfA so soon after he had started editing again.  Especially given that many of his edits in the last five weeks do not address any of my concerns with respect to the last RfA.  I was worried that he does not communicate with anyone in the wiki environment (essential for an admin). This has not changed. I was worried that he does not appear to have a need for the tools and that he should present a good rationale for this need. His strong rationale does not seem to be forthcoming. I was worried about resume building and the rash of AfD activity right before this RfA shows that has not changed either. Basically, I do not have enough information to be confident that he can communicate his admin decisions.  Worse, there are plenty of examples given above to indicate that he can make poor decisions. The combination of poor decision making with a lack of communication is a recipe for disaster, IMO.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''' Answer to questions are my main cause for concern. A4, A6 and A8 (especially given the diffs provided above about Ghits vs notability) do not convince me that concerns of previous RfA have been addressed and I'm not comfortable with Siva closing AfDs. A5 more or less fails to answer the question and overall I can't escape the nagging feeling that the answers show a knowledge of Wikipedia policies which is mostly syntactic. Let me stress that I have complete confidence in siva's good intentions and I certainly can't see him/her intentionally abusing the tools but I'm not sure he has shown the sound judgment and communication skills we need in admins.
'''Strong Oppose''' - per Kusma, W.marsh, and Trusilver. Siva1979 has not explained any concerns raised, or my concerns over Q3. Also this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBaur_H-AR&diff=144344123&oldid=144342522 diff] is cause for concern, rather then look at WP policies, he used the 'google test' and claimed strong notability, when a review of policy makes it clear there is no notability.--
'''Strong Oppose''' This user is completely obsessed with the idea of becoming an admin, yet wants to add little else to the project. In the past they used to vote support on every single RFA, even ones where the candidate was cleary unsuitable. Between January and June this year their contributions consisted almost entirely of edits to other RFAs. Then around the beginning of June they started requesting a nomination [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phaedriel&diff=prev&oldid=136237160]. When it was suggested that they should focus on returning to editing for a while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASiva1979&diff=136672019&oldid=136234062], Siva began racking up new edits in the most cost effective way possible (i.e. leaving welcome messages - LOTS of them). Then exactly a month later they again suggested a nomination [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_D.&diff=prev&oldid=142843706]], which resulted in a fairly clear response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_D.&diff=next&oldid=142843706]. Clearly Siva can wait no longer, and has decided to nominate themself. This clear obsession with adminship, and no obvious interest in contributing (apart from as a mechanism to gain adminship), rules them out for me. Welcome messages can be left without the admin tools.
'''Weak oppose''' On the fence, somewhat.  Tools aren't supposed to be a big deal, but comments above and in early AfDs, so the argument that siva may not make heavy use of them doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.  That said, the recent AfD discussions, some of which are pointed out by Trusilver above, where siva responds with a keep based solely on google hits are a little off kilter - If his RfA is based on his wanting to be able to close AfDs, one would hope he'd have a better grasp of the deletion procedures and acceptable arguments in an AfD.
'''Weak oppose'''. Sorry, I've read over your past RFAs and thought some of the opposers were unfair on their descisions. Although after reviewing your recent edits and seeing the comment you made yesterday [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baur_H-AR|here]] (pointed out by one of the opposers above), I feel you have still not yet completely grasped Wikipedia policy, supported partly by your answer to some of the optional questions above. I'll be more than happy to support you in a future RFA, if I see evidence of better understanding of policy. --
I echo the sentiments of the above, and find what TigerShark has to say extremely compelling. '''
'''Oppose.''' Concerns from last RfA not addressed.
'''Oppose''' I hate to oppose you - I do not feel you would ever ''abuse'' the tools; I just do not see you having a need to use them. Of all the pages on Wikipedia you have edited, you over have 500 edits to your userpage, in your contributions, your recent contributions, I see a lot of template adding and welcoming messages. I am usually not very picky about these sort of things, nor do I want to say that would you do is completely thankless - I would feel comfortable to see if you had some active involvement in mainspace editing, but more importantly Wikipedia edits. I cannot ascertain the breadth of your knowledge on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' - Has not demonstrated a real need for the tools, and seems to me to be entirely too anxious for adminship.  --
If Siva1979 can't grasp the nature and extent of previous concerns with making him an administrator, it further confirms the belief that his desire exceeds his capacity, thus disqualifying him. --
I just don't know what to make of the sort of voting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070705063019&contribs=user&target=Siva1979&namespace=4 on display here].  How can you possibly evaluate 6 RfBs and 4 RfAs in 13 minutes? --
'''Oppose''' Lack of interaction within the Wikipedians community. Also, the candidate relies on minor edits to build up his edit counts.
As a wiki-gnome myself, its always nice to see other editors going through some of the tedious work, however, knowledge of policy and interaction with the community are prerequisites for adminship and I don't see much of either evidenced in this candidate's contribs.  Lack of changes in response to concerns from previous RfAs is particularly disturbing.

'''Oppose''' per all above and for giving a robotic answer to Q7. Copying and pasting from policies, especially when the result contains nonsense such "removing an article from talk pages," does not demonstrate an ability to exercise judgement. Nor do I like the idea of an administrator who believes in deleting anything unsourced about a living person even if it is not negative or controversial; we don't want another round of "Hank Aaron is in the baseball hall of fame" -type material disappearing all over the place. [[User:Clayoquot|Kla’quot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]])
'''Oppose''' per Kusma. It seems that the user is too eager for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Personally I find it comical to watch Siva continuously shoot down criticism for being ridiculously obsessed with becoming an Admin. His agenda is quite clear, and, while his edit count is quite impressive, very little of it appears to be focused constructively outside of the "WP" side of things (i.e article writing).  I could, in no way, give a support vote without seriously scrutinizing the entire necessity for a sysop in the first place. Don’t mean to be harsh, but the situation calls for it, as Siva is blatantly power hungry.
'''Neutral''' I like this user, but would prefer more experience in admin-oriented areas where he intends to use the tools. Virtually no participation in [[WP:AIV]], for instance. And no recent vandalfight.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' - I would typically support, but Trusilver and Kusma have raised some very valid points. Sorry. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Neutral''' Kusma has raised some valid points. Also this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phaedriel&diff=prev&oldid=136237160] suggests to me that the user is too overly keen on becoming an admin even if he has not contributed to the project for 4 months ( I understand he was in the hospital). But he should have known better. Also I have the same concerns as Shalom --
'''Neutral''' I wish I could support, but the issues raised by the opposing side just throw me off.
'''Neutral''' I stumbled on to this user at AFD and while I can say that this user seems to be dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Unfortunately the users above who oppose you have good points and make me unable to support this rfa right now. Please try again in a few months and I will support. --
Majorly makes some valid points in his oppose, and coupled with the AFD problems previously mentioned gives me some reluctance about supporting. --
The oppose votes make me concerned enough to not support you.--
'''First Support!''' I've seen you around, and, I think you'd make a great admin! You seem smart, and, civil, everywhere I've seen you. I can't see a reason to oppose at this time.
It's time already! —
'''Strong Support''' As last time. Cummon guys let's get real. This guy is totally commited to Wikipedia. Let's not slag him of with "wanabee an admin" criticsm yet again. As a recent admin I've realised that what's needed above all else is commitment and energy - which Siva has in spades. The backlogs are growing (just look at the image stuff at [[C:CSD]] for a start), and Siva has been here long enough to know what to do, and not to go heavy with a delete button. Sure, hitting welcome templates doesn't require much brain power but frankly neither does 90% of the dross at CSD. In addition we can see the excllent article building and AfD comments, that show this guy is not just here for a medal but believe in Wikipedia. '''He works damn hard at this project, and I see no reason whatsoever not to trust him to keep up that hard work with a couple of extra buttons'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Yeah. Sure. I can't see any reason to oppose. '''
'''Support''' I sometimes '''Welcome''' anons who may just be testing too. (If they persist in making unconstructive edits, then I persist in coaching them.) It's gentler than a warning and can have the same effect-- to let them know the Wikipedia community wants to encourage constructive edits, that it is watching for unconstructive edits, and that there are guidelines they need to follow. Some new editors are so thunderstruck by the Wiki concept that they make dumb, lame, unconstructive or vandalistic edits for the lack of anything useful to write. This is Siva's <s>6</s> 5th try. Maybe he's just out of fresh ways to request the mop.
'''Support''' Oh come on... Siva's been around a long time (in Wikipedia terms), if he was going to snap and become a problem, years of random conflicts and four stressful RFAs would have brought that out by now. This just seems like someone at minimal risk to misuse the tools. While it's easy to construct a reason why Siva shouldn't pass an RFA, I don't see any more compelling reasons why Siva would actually make a bad admin. --
'''Support''' - this looks good (apart from the fact this is the 5th request, but hey...) '''''Your time has come my friend'''''. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' - Because I have seen you around in many RFAs, other discussions in the past and you have demonstrated the crystal clear understanding of wiki policies and consensus building. Admin position to you will be an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Weak Support'''. Siva is an experienced Wikipedian (he welcomed me originally, when I joined in February 2006, and I remember him helping me out when I got IP-autoblocked due to editing from school). Yes, like everyone else, he makes mistakes; if you're welcoming hundreds of new users, it's easy to accidentally welcome a few who've been blocked. But his answer to Q1 displays a clear knowledge of policy and understanding of the admin tools, and he has experience in a wide range of areas. I think it's time to trust him with the mop; he may not be perfect, but I don't think he would misuse the admin tools.
'''Weak Support'''.  I must admit to having a few reservations about this user's suitability as a sysop, but overall I don't see anything bad about this candidate.  He's put in a lot of work here and clearly has a dedication to the project, and the majority of his edits demonstrate understanding of policy and guidelines.  Any lapses in judgement will be minor and easy to correct, and I believe the net effect of sysopping this candidate will be positive.
Nothing at all to suggest that Siva1979 will be abusive with the tools.
'''Partial Support''' While I realise that this user will be able to clearup backlog and generally do good with the tools, the concerns of the opposers do worry me as to whether this user is in fact suitable.
Strong support. Experienced user who does a lot of hard work around the wiki, and who clearly won't abuse the tools. The reasons cited by the opposers are ludicrous. <b>
'''Support'''. A good editor who knows Wikipedia well.
Won't abuse the tools, [[User:Ral315/WTHN|why the hell not?]]
This RfA is not going to succeed regardless of my input, so I'll give a heartfelt moral support. The comments here address a number of relatively small issues that can definitely be resolved. Heed the advice provided on this page and you will become an even more productive editor, regardless of the user rights of your account. —&nbsp;'''
'''Support''' - No reason not to.
'''Tarragon-Support''' The dedication shown by this user, far outweighs ans minor flaws. Best of luck,
'''Support''' wants to help and would be an asset in plowing through backlogs (which can be as much of an exercise in banality as welcoming IP's for 8 hours).  And he's a nice guy.  We need more Siva's as admins. --
Strongest possible support. &nbsp;&mdash; '''
'''Support''' Has done nothing in the interim to make me change my previous support.
'''Support''' Good user. May have made some mistakes, especially during that welcoming spree, but is an excellent contributor. Please keep good faith on him. Also, nothing wrong in copy-pasting answers from previous RfAs. Regards.--
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support'''. This user definitely seems devoted to the project and has a prodigious number of edits, including almost 7,00 in the mainspace. I see reasons to be concerned, but that he has welcomed vandals in the past does not mean he will abuse the admin tools. Overall, I think the benefits of promoting him outweigh the costs. However, he should definitely heed the issues raised by the oppose voters and try to avoid rushing to do things in the future.--
'''Support''', as per [[User:Dwaipayanc|Dwaipayan]]. Very dedicated user. --
'''Oppose''', virtually no change since the last RfA, no evidence that Siva even understood why it failed. For instance, he apparently copy-pasted the answers from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Siva1979 4|last time]] without even correcting the typos ("rollbock"). Sorry, but Siva1979 does not seem to have the judgment skills an admin should have.
'''Strong Oppose''' take heed that this user has in fact copied answers from their last rfa, and doesn't seem to have improved or taken heed to issues raised in this short time either. I mean seriously 5 times applying? I'm not saying that wanting to be an admin is a bad thing, but you think Siva1979 would have figured out improvements they need to make. Sorry - I just don't think you're ready for the mop at this time. --'''
'''Strong oppose''' Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20071001141458&limit=4000&contribs=user&target=Siva1979&namespace=3 this]. Spent days on end welcoming IPs... * '''
'''Oppose''', per Aillema and Kusma, looking through those welcome messages the majority were not recent editors, and I saw numerous from 2005. To give a welcome message to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User_talk%3AMattdonsisgay1&timestamp=20070918133622 User:Mattdonsisgay1] (blocked 15 months previously) instead of taking it to [[WP:UAA]], shows a distinct lack of judgement, in my opinion, especially for someone with intentions of becoming an admin.  Even though you do alot of good work for the project, I certainly would not be comfortable with you using the buttons at this time. Sorry <sup>
'''Oppose''' per Kusma and Khukri. I am also puzzled by your answer to question 4: you say you have learned to rely on more than Google searches for participating in AfD. Yet I go and check and just over the last two days you made these comments to AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MWV&diff=prev&oldid=161751077] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Moon_MUD&diff=prev&oldid=161750508] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Draafstein&diff=prev&oldid=161750173] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goodlettsville_Church_of_the_Nazarene%2C_Goodlettsville%2C_Tennessee&diff=prev&oldid=161570474] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motorola_C139&diff=prev&oldid=161569673] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_Arce&diff=prev&oldid=161568736] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?#:title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slowearth&diff=prev&oldid=161568214]. I don't doubt your good intentions but I'm not comfortable supporting.
'''Oppose''' even though I supported last time.  The candidate's contributions have always been minor edits, and that seems unlikely to change.  I checked the recent log: fixing talk page Wikiproject templates, voting on AFDs and RFAs, fixing soccer-related wikilinks, and so forth.  This is all valuable work, and I hope he continues to do it, but it's not the kind of approach I'd like to see in an admin.  The problem is that being an admin requires a person to think on their feet and not just to act automatically.  This is why we don't allow bots to be admins (with one or two known exceptions), and one user has been desysopped for running an unauthorized bot on an admin account.  Welcoming 600 IPs is a bot-like task, even if he didn't use a bot to do it.  What would happen if the candidate became an admin?  Probably he would start attacking the speedy deletion candidates, knocking off broken redirects and undocumented images by the hundreds.  But would these all be correct decisions?  In every large batch of deletion candidates, there are always a couple of outliers that don't belong there and can be salvaged, and a good admin can see these outliers and fix the problem instead of blindly deleting everything.  I don't see that judiciousness from the editing pattern of Siva1979.
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' This user's certainly been around long enough to have picked up policy by osmosis, but I can't really see any evidence of it. Shalom puts it perfectly; this is a user who's main admin area is likely to be deletion, but doesn't demonstrate any ability to tell an unsaveable article from one that just needs cleanup. Aside from cut-and-paste templating of talk pages I can see only two talk edits since January and, while the user talk edits are hard to pick out of the flood of cut-and-paste welcome messages, I can only see around six user talk posts in the same period. Despite your claims in the answers to the questions, you seem just as willing as ever to confuse google hits with notability and equate "sources aren't online" with "sources don't exist" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMotorola_C139&diff=161569673&oldid=161564769], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goodlettsville_Church_of_the_Nazarene%2C_Goodlettsville%2C_Tennessee&diff=prev&oldid=161570474], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raymond_Arce&diff=prev&oldid=161568736], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slowearth&diff=prev&oldid=161568214], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katrina_Rose_Dideriksen&diff=prev&oldid=161321257] for example in the last three days alone), and I don't think it's appropriate giving someone with this attitude deletion powers. You also either don't understand the username policy at all, or don't pay attention to what you're editing - neither of which is a good thing - if you really didn't see any problem with posting welcome messages to [[User:Vaginal discharge]] (total contribution history:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=51992856], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=51992793], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Hitzlsperger&diff=prev&oldid=51992641]) and [[User:Mattdonsisgay1]] (sole contribution; to move [[Cristiano Ronaldo]] to [[Cristiano 'The Gay Wanker' Ronaldo]]) — both on 18 September, so not in the dim-and-distant past).<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' per Iridescent; when someone wants to do CSD's I look for deleted edits as evidence of familiarity with the process and criteria, and found little.
'''Oppose''' Thank you, Iridescent, I've had much fun reading your comment.
I'm sorry, but welcoming such an obviously bad-faith user like [[User:Vaginal discharge]] is a deal-breaker to me. They should have been reported to UAA the moment the name was seen, or to AIV the moment the edits were seen. Given a general "welcome to Wikipedia" message suggests you're not paying attention to what you're doing, which is '''not''' a quality an admin should have. We don't need human/bot hybrids. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Does not have any Wikipedia Project space other than all of these RFA's. Evethough this user has been a member for than 1.5 years, they still need a lot more to learn. The fact that you have not been succesful with all of those other RFAs worries me. You need a lot more experience, good luck next time! --
'''Oppose''' - This is an easy decision for me, but one which troubles me. In your last RFA, I based my oppose on the Google test issue, and that remains a strong foundation for my opposition now. Plenty of difs have been provided above to this point (Pascal in particular). What troubles me is opposing you when you are clearly a dedicated, motivated editor, who has been here long enough to know how things work. In this case, I'm breaking "trust" into two parts; trust in technical matters, and trust in judgment. You have my trust in technical matters, but you still have not convinced me to trust your judgment. Your response to Question 8 above could actually represent this lack of judgment. The question is clearly asking you how you could physically spend nearly 9 hours making almost 700 manual edits. The hidden question is how could you make a rational decision on each of those edits. Your responses then fail to take the question very seriously, and in fact appear to brag about your ability to edit at a speed so rapid that it eliminates any possibility for well reasoned thought. If this RfA fails, I really want to see from you a greater application of rational thought. You knew from the last RfA what you were doing that prevented many respected editors from supporting you. This time around, your best chance of success would have been not to enter this RfA with hundreds of edits that suggest you have not grown since the last time through. I think there are many people who would like to see someone as dedicated as you (and I count myself amongst the many) pass through an RfA with flying colors. To that end, I am encouraging you to simply slow down you editing, and demonstrate a more thoughtful process.
Oppose, this user doesn't use enough discretion in normal editing for me to trust their judgemental ability if they were to become an administrator, and the comment ''"I wonder how many RfAs I must go through before being given the added tools to be an admin"'' didn't impress me at all. '''
I'm sorry Siva but you don't seem to be learning anything from your failed nominations.  I'm quite concerned with whether you will be careful enough around AFDs and speedy deletions.  Many of the concerns above -- but also at your previous 4 RFAs -- have been about the need for more care, and yet this problem continues. --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I honestly see no improvement from the last Rfa.
'''Oppose'''. After reading the reasoning of the opposers and the answers to the questions, I believe that there is a substantial chance of misuse (not ''abuse'') of admin tools. There are just too many examples of acting without thinking things through.
'''Oppose''' per above users' reasoning, and as demonstrated by your replies to some of the comments left here, the fact that you can't determine the difference between the ''quality'' of edits, and the ''quantity'' of edits. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I cannot support you due to issues raised by above users, especially Aillema, Kusma, Khukri, and iridescent. You still show a lack of comprehension about [[WP:PG]]. Try to work more on [[WP:AFD]], that is a good place to gain experience. Good luck.
Major judgment issues. Mattdonsisgay1 and Vaginal Discharge? Wow... -- <b>
'''Oppose'''. This "power-hungry" user devotes most of his edits on welcoming inactive anon IPs and making useless edits on updating his signatures. Furthermore, as mentioned by Kusma, this user did not even correct the "rollbock" typo from his copy-pasted RFA answers.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, Siva, I appreciate your enthuasiasm to help out, but I don't think the problems I perceived at the last RfA in judgement regarding AfD have yet improved sufficiently for me to be comfortable supporting your promotion.
'''Oppose''', sry. I like the enthusiasm of the candidate, and the civility in discussons. However, I'm deeply disturbed by this statement: "I give the benefit of the doubt to most of the RfA nominations because being an admin is no big deal." Sry, but the power that comes with admin tools is a big deal, imho. This requires trust, that has to be earned, this isn't something to take on the light side. The points made by other users here, as well as the candidate's own statments, supports the view that Siva isn't taking the matter serious enough. If there would be other rules here, say, a "sunset clause" thazt required another vote after a probation time of six months, I would perhaps support this nomination. But not under these circumstances.
'''Oppose''' Per Kusma and Aillemma. I think that IP welcomes are just to rack up edits. Judging from his last 5000 edits, he just seems to be doing minor edits like welcomes, adding templates or wikification.--
'''Strong Oppose''' per all the above concerns. ''Changed to strong: per [[User:Rackabello]]'s oppose.''
'''Oppose''' This is your fifth nomination, and your second self nomination. I think that shows that the community has big concerns about you becomming an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' I have doubt in this user's judgement (vaginal discharge?). Two self nominations in as many months after three failed noms also makes me concerned about power hunger. <small style="white-space:nowrap">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' Completely unqualified to be a sysop as far as I can tell. Answers to questions, as well as four previously failed RfAs show immaturity and a serious lack of judgement. I think a one year ArbCom ban from applying to be a sysop might be in order, to give Siva the chance he needs to mature and improve his Wiki-attitude.
'''Oppose''' Answer to question number six shows that he's no willing to spend much time on backlogs at all.
'''Oppose''' Per above reasoning.  --
'''Oppose''' I don't feel that this person necessarily has the judgement to be a good admin. Being an admin involves making good calls in difficult situations. The Google hits reliance at AfDs is of concern to me. Additionally, a rather odd flurry of activity in late July just days after the last RfA, after a proposal still in development at [[Template:Football]] (some of the changes were not even 2 days old) was pushed heavily on a selection of random WikiProject templates  ([[Template talk:WP Australia/Archive2#Request_to_change_template|Australia]], [[Template talk:WikiProject Japan#Request_to_change_template|Japan]], [[Template_talk:AfricaProject#Add_importance_parameter|Africa]]) on the basis that all WikiProject banners should look the same. While everyone is entitled to an opinion and I can see some merit in the suggestion, the only non-protected template of the three, Africa, was changed by Siva despite a lack of consensus and had to be reverted (it should be observed that if the 4th RfA had have passed, all three templates would have been open for the candidate to edit), and of particular concern was the attempt to solicit unrelated editors into the discussions on the various WP talk pages. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darwinek&diff=prev&oldid=147630632] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldux&diff=prev&oldid=147630623] Both diffs were almost straight after the creation of the suggestions on the respective pages, and it should be noted neither editor entered the discussions. The end result was a discussion at Village Pump [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=149867902&oldid=149864283 archiving diff] where a consensus otherwise was resolved. Siva did respect the consensus once established, but the conduct throughout the whole incident, while showing perfect [[WP:AGF|good faith]], unfortunately demonstrated a lack of judgement in my view. I would suggest the candidate wait six months and then try again, as I believe that people can make mistakes and errors and learn from them.
'''Oppose''' I dont normally like to participate in these things, but... why do you need to be an admin to do thousands of welcome messages? Or have discussions about templates? Sure, everyone would like to be an admin, but unless there's a decent reason...
'''Oppose'''I don't normally like to participate in these things either, but I recall a user (Raina?) once joking that this candidate is everywhere, all the time, and should be put on list so that she could be reminded he is not an admin. (or something to that effect). I fully agree with the views expressed by the "opposers" above and feel that this candidate lacks the maturity to be a good admin.
'''Oppose''' per Orderinchaos' reasoning. The candidate also still relies on google hits in most Afd debates that he participated.
'''Oppose''' Has not improved since last RfA, lack of judgement as shown by Orderinchaos.

'''Strong oppose'''; I've looked through the candidate's contribution and I am worried.  I see a lot of busywork that looks like it is meant to just blindly increase edit count and "visibility".  Even if we [[WP:AFG|presume]] that every one of those edits was made in good faith no no aim to look good for yet another RfA, the candidate is obviously going for quantity over quality&mdash; which would be disastrous with a mop.  I would not support unless he gets several months of more ''deliberate'' editing under his belt.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Strong oppose''' I have taken a brief look through contribs and even that (mainly concerning issues raised above) is enough to make me believe you are not ready for the mop. --'''
'''Oppose''' - After looking through the above reasons for oppose and the new answers for Siva's questions (especially #7), I'm changing to oppose. I don't feel this user is ready for the mop, not even after the fifth time. Regards, '''
'''Strong Oppose''' For the same reasons that I gave in his previous nomination, none of which have changed. In fact the user failed to even acknowledge the majority of my detailed reasoning in his answer to question 5. The user is still racking up quick edits in the apparent hope that it will secure him adminship. I hope that the clear message regarding the need for quality over quantity will have some effect, however I fear that he will be back here in a few months, with a few thousand more minor edits under his belt and with these fundamental issues still unaddressed. The candidate is entitled to keep applying, but almost seems determined to not address the issues that have been raised, and this is wasting community time. Siva, please understand that you will almost certainly never gain the required community trust to be given the admin tools, not even with a million edits, unless you address the very valid concerns raised above.
'''Neutral''' I can't really decide. Your number of edits are phenomenal, but you seem to be quite new compared to other admins. And reading some of the oppose comments, I neither support or oppose. (
Was originally '''Support''', but answer to Q.7 makes me a little uneasy. RfA's deserve attention from each participant. I won't oppose because of the decidedly strong contributions. But I detect a lack of good judgment in some of Siva's actions. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on, largely per HibernianTears (oppose 13). Also, I would expect more effort at winning trust with a more thorough self-nomination for a ''fifth'' RFA. It correlates with HibernianTears' observations about not addressing editing problems from previous RFAs.--
'''Neutral''' changed from oppose. I cannot support your nomination as you're a weak candidate on so many grounds, particularly judgement and deletion processes. However, you remain steadfastly good-humoured and are an absolute work-horse. I wish that you could find a slightly more worthy outlet for your energy that welcoming dud IPs, but I'd not oppose you for your clearly laudable intentions. The fact that all those edits weren't automated (which I suspected, but I'm happy to trust your answer) is astonishing. All in all, I wish you well, but cannot in good faith support you for the mop. I'll drop you a line at your talk page if this RfA fails, with some advice. --
'''Neutral''', which I've tried to post twice, but I've been blocked by edit conflicts.  Typos are not a huge deal, ''if you attempt to fix them''.  Spending a whole day welcoming SPA's is a tad much.  I understand and agree with many of the comments on both sides.  Better luck next time!
'''Neutral''' I do think you're a well-meaning, civil and hardworking contributor. But two of the issues raised by iridescent give me pause: (1) Missing some obviously inappropriate names. I can kind of understand this though, since I'd presume that doing welcome messages for 8 hours would make most people trance-y. (2) The dealbreaker is the lack of evidence for understanding of deletion policy. (Although since I'm not an admin, I'm relying on iridescent's honesty here). Low contribs in this area makes me slightly nervous. Best though, --
'''Neutral''' - I was tempted to support and then tempted to oppose. I finally succumbed to the convienience of the Neutral section, which is just as well. I've seen this user around everywhere and he generally tends not to make a complete fool of himself. Although the edits links provided above by various users are concerning, I don't think Siva would abuse the tools and I think all the problems pointed out above were in good faith and simply bad mistakes. I think we can all agree that Siva is an asset to the community, but for now, I think you need to work on your admin skills a bit more before you're granted the tools. Cheers,
'''Neutral''' After reading through this entire RfA, I'll have to say neutral. Has he done positive things? Of course. Do some of his actions make me doubt his judgment-making abilities? Possibly. I know this is generic, but I truly think that, after this RfA, Siva, you should give it about 6 months. Work very hard to make educated judgments, make strong contributions in the mainspace, try to participate throughout the namespace with comments that are backed up by policy, and make user/article talk page edits in an attempt to collaborate/better articles here. I think that you ''do'' have a great deal of potential. You simply need to back away from RfA's a bit, and focus on becoming a trusted member of the community. I am positive that, in time, you can become an admin if you put the work into it. The issues that have been presented are easily corrected. Cheers, '''
'''Neutral'''. What a puzzling user. His actions could be laudable, or they might simply reflect poor judgment. More substantive activity is necessary for me to make up my mind.
'''Support''' Man oh man...I thought that SJP was a sysop...I guess not...
'''Support''' I've known this user for a while and he has shown great maturity and trustworthiness.&mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Strong support''' - SJP is a nice, friendly and polite user who will not abuse the admin tools. I know that this person will make a great admin. :-) --
'''Support''' Seen this user around. Nothing wrong with this user.
I have encountered this user in many places around Wikipedia; civil as well. Should make a good administrator.
'''Support''' Definately a good faith user and a good vandal fighter as well.--
'''Support''' Hey, you told me that I'm allowed to (co-)nominate you! —
'''Support''' have a little faith in this user, very friendly and has shown some serious dedication --'''
I'm [[User:Animum|not]] Mailer Diablo, but I approve this candidate nonetheless! &mdash;
'''Support''' - I don't see any reason why not. &nbsp;
'''Support''' I trust the user with the tools. <font color="red">
'''Support''' He is a great vandal fighter. I believe that this user will not abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Regretful Oppose''' No question that your anti-vandal work is top notch - 400+ reports to [[WP:AIV]] - wow! But a quick click on your deleted edits shows about three contributions tags for [[C:CSD]] and little [[WP:AFD]] work. I'm sorry, and if I was a developer I'd probably give you the "temporary block" button (if there was such a thing). But you can't have part of the tools. Basically nothing in article work, nothing in CSD/AFD mean I just can't support this. I'm the first one to say that article creation / expansion is irrelevant if you've demonstrated policy knowledge through other avenues - but you simply haven't. You're brilliant at reverting vandalism (via TW) but I have no evidence of much else. I'm sorry, but best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', with regrets. You're doing great work fighting vandalism. However, I'm not comfortable with your answers to the RfA questions. Taken in context with your lack of article writing, this raises concerns about your communication skills. Keep up the great work.
'''Not a chance''' quite simply, I don't trust you one bit. Your are not mature. This RfA alone shows you don't follow the advice of others. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Weak oppose''' I'm not usually one for "strong", "weak", or otherwise colorful votes, since we all know that RfA in practice is not a forum for discussion. But I digress. Although your fighting of vandalism is very admirable and your lack of mainspace contributions do not trouble me as I believe article writing is not indicative of the potential quality of admin work, I see little edits in project space or anything else that would indicate a firm grasp on policy or dispute resolution. If you show some evidence of policy knowledge in your next RfA via participation in deletion discussions, etc., I would be glad to support. Another thing to consider&mdash;and please don't think I'm being harsh&mdash;is that your command of the English language is not very good. Administrators should be able to communicate articulately with other users. <small>(If you speak other languages, ignore the last two sentences: that's a plus in my book.)</small> Cheers,
I (although I surprise myself by doing this) agree with CO.  I find saying "I have been very mature." to be something ''very'' immature to say - I think you should let your actions, not your words, speak.  And no, I don't have diffs to prove this, rather it's a trend I've seen in interactions (direct and indirect) with SJP.  Oh, and while I don't oppose per this, I also prefer to see a higher level of fluency in English then SJP has demonstrated.  But I don't oppose per that.&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Pedro sums it up perfectly... regretful oppose.
'''Regretful Oppose''' I do not support Miranda's reasoning for this matterm as [[WP:BLP]] doesn't come in to it in anyway, however. This user stated on IRC, that they have the support of several users in good standind, one of these I believe to be Husond. However, I am in doubt supporting this, mainly because of the candidate's quickness in this RfA, it appears you want things '''now''', and are not willing to wait. I personally think you'll make a good administrator, but all you do is revert vandalism, although still a valuable and good job in it's self, it would be nice to see a varitation of article work/creation/vandal reverts. I also must point out that it appears you are unwilling to take advice, I commented on IRC that it maybe a good idea to tone your userpage down, as it is very bright and in your face. However, you're still a great editor, but I think you should not plan your next RfA, and carry on editing, create some articles, revert some vandals, join in discussions. Don't limit your editing patterns on Wikipedia, keep you head up high.
'''Oppose''' - can't support when I see answers like "For a article to be considered NPOV...must have roughly the same amount of negative, and positive information." - this is blatantly incorrect. User doesn't seem very mature, very little outside of AIV. XfD is crucial. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Woo''']][[User:Wooty/ENC|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|['''Woot?''']]]&nbsp;
Oppose per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sir james paul]]. Not enough has changed, and I agree with the assertions made above. Failing to note your previous username (and hence failed RfA) anywhere in the nomination doesn't read well in my book, either. '''
'''Oppose''' RfA's are about editors demonstrating that the community can trust them. Leaving out your prior RfA and identity does not lead me to trust you.
'''Oppose''' lack of experience writing articles shows in things like the poor answer to Q4 about NPOV.  I think this demonstrates how article writing is a necessary experience, it is the foundation for sound judgement  in the use of admin powers.  Failure to mention previous RfA doesn't help.
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal - indeed I have no knowledge of this user beyond what's in this RfA - but the answers to the questions (particularly re NPOV) inspire concern rather than confidence. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' - per Pedro. The little work in areas that are desired, can be come tricky when in the situation.
switching to '''Oppose''' per the absolutely infantile answer to the question on NPOV. Equal weight is obviously not about just the amount of information, and it is only one factor in NPOV. The candidate either has a poor understanding of policy or is unable to communicate clearly, either of which is a troubling thing.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose''' Unlike Kurt Weber, I don't have a problem with self noms. However, I agree with VanTucky and others that the answer to the NPOV question displays a clear misunderstanding of a major, if not THE major, principle guiding article writing on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' The answer to the NPOV question is extremely poor.  We can't give the tools to someone who doesn't understand the [[WP:WEIGHT|undue weight]] clause.
'''Oppose''' Regrettably, i will have to oppose your request for adminship. Your answer to, in particular, question number 4, shows an insufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I also question your choice of words, although this is probably due to you not being a native speaker of English (i suffer from this myself). --
'''Neutral''', per {{user|Pedro}}, above.  For me, it's simply not enough to oppose, but I do think article creation/focus on upgrading articles in quality-type of experience is needed at least to some high degree.
'''Neutral''' - answer to Q4 is concerning.
'''Neutral'''&ndash; I don't want to oppose, but I think you still need to do some work in mainspace.  '''
'''Neutral''' Another neutral I strongly regret. I offered to nominate SJP some time ago for the valuable work performed, but I confess I also share some of the concerns raised by the opposers. More time is needed to fix those concerns, sorry. Don't be discouraged though. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' judgement seems fine. 5000 edits & over a year is plenty of experience. am ''truly'' put off by attitude in oppose section. god forbid that someone who's mostly here to write articles should become an admin.
'''Support''' per lack of a reason given to oppose.  Just because someone contributes to Wikipedia in a different way than you do is no reason to oppose. The user is obviously trustworthy, and that's what matters at RFA. --
'''support''' per criteria set ou on my user page, although admiration for Phil Collins is almost a reason not to support.
'''Support'''. All of our interaction at WikiProject Motorsport in the past has been quite favorable, and Skully has proposed great ideas. I trust Skully with the mop.
'''Support''' unequivocally.
'''Subjective support'''. I've had good experiences with this user, and I think he would make a good admin. But with his lack of experience in wikispace I can't see this RfA passing. Work at AfD for a while and try again in a few months.--
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, zero chance of abusing tools.
'''Support''' per all above. Adminship shouldn't be an exclusive club for those who can reel off WP jargon. Any trustworthy editor in good standing should be able to achieve adminship. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support.''' Per above. Saying that 3,600 edits and 3 FAs doesn't show commitment is ludicrous, and actually suggesting that this user would actiely damage Wikipedia with the sysop tools '''which is the purpose of RfA on a very basic level''' is equally unreasonable.
'''Support''' trustworthy and experienced editor.--
'''Support''' Must agree with first contributor, oppose sections aren't too convincing. You have enough experience to warrant adminship.
'''Support''', strong answer to Q4. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support''' Looks like a good user.--
'''Oppose''' - You seem to have very little experience in XfD, AIV, RPP, etc.  I would like to see more experience in policy before you get called to start applying it. <font face="monospace">
'''Oppose''' - no real desire to have the tools as per Q1, and if you're going to use them for AFD, you don't have enough experience for me.
'''Oppose'''. Your response to Q1 is a bit unimpressive, and you lack experience.--'''
'''Oppose''' Too little AFD discussion. No need for admin tools for article improvement --[[User:Kzrulzuall|<font color= "blue" face="Harlow Solid Italic"><u>'''''KZ'''''</u></font>]]     [[User talk:Kzrulzuall|<sup><small><font color= "red" face="Century Schoolbook">''' Talk '''</font></small></sup>]] <sup>•</sup>
'''Oppose''' - You don't seem to show enough confidence in your responses.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose, although this is not your fault, your nominator said you have 5000 edits, you only have approximately 3,500. The activity on Wikipedia is low but not too bad and it would be good if you had more work on [[WP:XFD|XFD's]] and [[WP:AIV]], give it a few months and some more varied edits and you'll probably pass! Best Regards -
'''Oppose''' You hve only some 3,600 edits, although the error is obviously your nominator's not yours. And you have some great articles in your edit-count. The difficulty is that we have to give you either all the tools or none - there is no halfway house. And that means that we have to see enough participation in admin-related tasks - [[WP:AfD]], [[WP:AIV]] and so forth, to be confident that you will use the tools competently in these areas. And I regret that the number of edits you show in these areas does not yet demonstrate this.--
'''Oppose'''. Clearly a good editor and trustworthy. However the few projectspace contribs don't reveal a thorough knowledge and understanding of policy (and give some indication to the contrary- see [[User:Chaser|Chaser]]'s neutral below). If experience showing that understanding is gained in future, I would no doubt support. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''', sorry. RFA too premature, very low Wikipedia space count, no need for the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - Not 5000 but about 3600 Edits however your contribution to Wikipedia and as
'''Oppose''' Looks like 3600 good edits, but not enough indication (through procedural processes like AIV & XfD) to conclude whether you're ready for the tools. Broaden your horizons some and get active in the nuts and bolts of the project, and reapply after a few more months of quality work. --
'''Oppose''' per Cometstyles.
'''Oppose''' Nom and the answers were short and unimpressive. Low Wiki edits. Edit count is not low, but nothing else tells me that you have proven your worthiness for adminship. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for the quote in the yellow box on the top right of this subpage of the user's space at [[User:Skully Collins/Adelaide '94]]. Shows lack of understanding of [[WP:USER]] and hints at [[WP:OWN]]. Worse yet is the threatening of reverting any change and warning as vandalism. --
'''Oppose'''. I'll be ready to support when you have a little more experience in administrator areas, however. ''
'''Oppose''' - I see absolutely no experience in administrator areas. While adminship is no big deal, someone needs to have some experience. Even a little bit would be OK.
'''Oppose''' - Skully is on a great track:  Already a valuable editor and working towards a demonstration of enough experience with admin-type duties.  A little more experience in the later area is required, still, in my opinion.
'''Neutral''' insufficient activity and experience in the project-space. No other problems. Work on XfDs and do some vandal-fighting and you'll get there. -
'''Neutral''' You've been here too long for me to think you'd abuse the tools, but I'm underwhelmed by your contributions to AFDs, like [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heza09|this nomination]], which was a clear speedy. You don't need the tools for what you've been doing, but if you want to close AFDs and IFDs, I'd suggest getting some editor experience in those forums first and doing a bit of [[WP:NPP|New page patrol]]. Best of luck.--
'''Neutral''' - Personally, I have no problems giving the admin mop to somebody who doesn't focus on admin duties on Wikipedia (such as XfD, AIV, etc) but I still like to see participation on policy pages that way I know that the candidate understands Wikipedia policies and will take the correct action if he/she ever has to use the sysop tools. There is a big difference between giving the tools to somebody who won't use them often and somebody who does not know how to use them. Kudos on your fantastic article contributions. Don't let this RfA discourage you. Go out and participate in a little more policy discussions and reapply in a few months.↔
'''Neutral'''. Wonderful article writer, but definitely needs more experience in Wiki processes. '''''
'''Neutral''': I completely trust that this user will not misuse the administrative buttons but does he really has enough knowledge to be able to enforce Wikiedia policies correctly. If I just found some AIV reports or contributions in XfDs, I would have supported him. I asked him question 4 yesterday to give him a chance to clarify his position yet the question was not answered. If this user renominated himself after 3 months, I will definitely support him. He is a wonderful editor. --
'''Neutral''' Encyclopedia writer; but you definitely need more experience in Wiki process edits.--<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];PrestonH--><font color="red">[[User:PrestonH|'''Pre''']]</font><font color="brown">[[User talk:PrestonH|'''ston''']]</font><font color="#6495ED">[[Special:Contributions/PrestonH|'''H''']]</font><sup><font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/PrestonH (2)|(Review Me!)]]</font> • <font color="#CC5500">
'''Neutral''', good writer, has admin potential. However, you need more work in admin related areas and more edits in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Neutral''' per Chaser and NMajden. Thought I agree with the sentiment behind Derex's and BigDT's comments, I can not support at this time. ···
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user.
'''Support''' I've also seen the user around, and he seems quite level-headed; ready for the mop.
'''Support''' - He has contributions in nearly all categories and he is well experienced and seems to know what he is doing.sure.:)..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' Aren't the Carebears all about restoring love, harmony, and caring to the world? That's an ideal for an sysop. --
'''Troppus''' I've also been deeply impressed. Good luck! '''''
'''Support''' I see no problems with this user.
'''Support''', I've seen Dylan around quite a lot. The quality of his work seems top notch, and his interactions with others are most pleasant and level-headed. Gladly cleared for the mop!
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' A diverse and effective contributor.  No problem.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great work on Wikipedia, Slgrandson. I was thinking of nominating you, in fact. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Support'''. You had a pretty interesting approach to the standard IAR question. Nice contribs. '''''
'''Support''' Another familiar name, for good reasons. --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
-- <b>
'''Support.''' I consider myself to be most well-versed in wiki-events, so I am ashamed to say: "I thought he already was an admin." Mandatory support.
'''Support''' - Two reasons: 1) I've seen this user around and I get the impression that he knows what he's doing and won't abuse the tools and 2) Kelly Martin opposed because of a userbox and images.
'''Support''' Very impressive contribution record --
'''Support'''. As all the orphaned images mentioned in the notices on his talk page were uploaded quite early in his career here, I believe Slgrandson has learned from his early days. I imagine most editors here did things when they first started which they would never do now. Based on his contributions, I believe Slgrandson can be trusted with the tools, and see no indication the tools would be misused. ···
'''Support''' No blocks. No objectionable answers to questions. Cheers,
'''Support''' All my encounters (although not always direct interactions) have been favourable. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools, impressive work. —

'''Support''' he is going to become a good administrator.
'''Support'''-- will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' <s>to cancel out Kelly Martin's vote, as per my comments on other RfAs</s>. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' - is a little rough around the edges, but will refine self over time.  A diamond in the rough.  :)  I like your enthusiasm and dedication.  '''''
'''Support''' &mdash; good answers to questions, good record, no reason to believe user can't be trusted; oppose reasons fail to convince me. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">
'''Support''' - none of the concerns bother me, if Cyde looks carefully at his talk page history, he deletes old messages. Kelly is worried about user boxes again, however I'm not going to understand her fascination. Also, his ignore all the rules answer was that he would generally follow policy, but still apply common sense - which is a good answer. Finally, that leaves the only meaningful concern - image policy. The reality is the image policy isn't very difficult to grasp. If he believed that he understood it perfectly, when he clearly didn't, then I would be concerned. However that isn't the case.
'''support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Well dedicated and reasonably experienced, use of user boxes, talk page and images do not make me think he would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' per Phaedriel.
'''Support'''. I see nothing in his contributions, user page or answers to the questions here that makes me believe he will fail to use the tools properly. --
'''Support''' I can be comfortable with the tools in his hand. I am glad some people want to admins, otherwise we would have none.
--
'''Support.''' Informative userboxes help. [[User:Abeg92|<span style="color:#660000;">Ab</span>]]
'''Strong support''' - good editor, reasonable, polite, and level-headed person.  I have seen him around almost from the time he started here, and I have seen nothing but good from him.  Even as a newbie he was always one to ask questions first.
'''Support''' - a new administrator need not specialize in every single facet of Wikipedia. His apparent limited understanding of image policy is not of concern, these things can be learned. If a user lacks in a certain area like that, as long as it is not something they intend to focus on, that's fine with me. Keep up the good work! <font color="red">
'''Strong Support''' - It is good to see a good wikipedian-netzen go up for Adminship.  I've watched Slgrandson contribute over that past couple of years and I'm confident they will be able to continue being a positive influence on Wikipedia.  I fully support their nomination.
'''Support'''. Perhaps there are significant concerns hiding behind the quibbles about his answers to the questions but I don't see any. The candidate has ample experience and his edit history offers no basis for concern. Hopefully in his next RFA the candidate just lies to avoid this trouble.
'''Support''' --
Has the "I wanna be an admin" userbox, plus his talk page is full of a whole bunch of orphaned nonfree content notices.  Editors who upload lots of nonfree content, that subsequently ends up being deleted, are editors I don't want becoming admins.  An oppose is mandatory in these circumstances.
'''Oppose''', mostly due to a confused sounding answer to (4). I am left thinking that the Slgrandson has no idea what WP:IAR is about or what its purpose is... The mountain of orphaned non-free images is also troubling, perhaps more so from someone who professes to believe the strict rules adherence is important. Further, he has a fair number of Wikipedia: space edits ... but the overwhelming majority of them appear to be simple votes (with little / no discussion) or basic maintenance stuff.. Pretty much no wikipedia_talk edits.. as a result I'm unable to measure his understanding of Wikipedia overall. In the future perhaps? Today I just don't see enough good information to offset the worrysome stuff.--
Per unclear answer to Q4.
'''Oppose''' I actually like his answer to Q4 and the go get 'em attitude in Q1 but I doubt this user's understanding of image policy. If he could convince me otherwise I wouldn't have a problem supporting him.
'''Oppose''' From Q1: ''Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages.''  At least it seems to be an honest answer.  I find it troubling.  Hopefully, if this RFA passes, I am just reading too much into it.  The clarification of Q4 was not really a clarification at all; the User said it "depends on the individual Wikipedian" and "is a matter of choice."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Slgrandson&diff=prev&oldid=126488467]  Forced to read between the lines, I gather that the user is not crazy about ignore all rules but really doesn't want to make it an issue in this RFA.  I thought about asking the user clarify this again, but I already asked once and Q1 is unsettling enough.  No further clarification is needed for me.  Q5 feels like a bit of a dance as well, or the user didn't understand the question.  I do feel bad about this oppose because the user's main space edits seem very good.  Good luck to you.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;user opposed me unfairly in my own RfA and ignored me when I tried to talk to him about it, which is the kind of thing that really rubs me the wrong way.

'''Oppose''' per Black Falcon et al. "''Looking forward to'' blocking users and deleting pages" is not the attitude I'm looking for, sorry. —'''
'''<s>Weak</s> oppose'''. While I believe Slgrandson could be a valuable admin, I'm too much worried about his answer to Q1. People who look forward to blocking users and deleting articles, are not likely to show sufficient contemplation about when to do so. Sorry. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
Absolutely not, per answer to Question 1.
'''Oppose''' for his opposition to IAR. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules&diff=prev&oldid=67479605]
Based on his answers to ''both'' the IAR and PII questions, and his stated desire to 'block users and protect pages', combined with his apparent inexperience/lack of judgment when it comes to non-free images, lead me to believe that this user cannot be trusted with the tools at this time. Sorry. -- ''
Changed to '''oppose''' from neutral due to this edit to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Slgrandson&diff=127196646&oldid=127193467 rewrite answer to Q1] without addressing the issues raised from multiple comments on this RfA.
'''Oppose''' The asnwers to both Q4 & Q5 were unclear and seemed to miss the point of the questions, and of the underlying policy issues. The '''changes''' to the answers to Q1 & Q4 (both linked above) rather than striking out and re-wording trouble me. The answer to Q5 seems to imply that Slgrandson supports speedy deletion outside of the rather restricted limits of the approved [[WP:CSD]], and that is a red flag for me. In short, i don't trust this user with the delete button at this time.
'''Oppose'''. I find this candidate's honesty refreshing (''Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users and deleting pages''). Voicing loud and strong what others only whisper, his statement neatly encapsulates a key motivation for the endless stream of hopefuls whose names grace this page day after day. Of course, the correct answer is: ''assisting users and improving pages''. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Per his original answer to question 1 (incitefully established by the detail at optional question 8) I also am very troubled by the non-striking out at Q1 and also at Q4 which hides the reality of the prompting those answers gave him to adjust his appearance.  All in all not ready at all yet.--
'''Oppose''' per troubling responses to questions, as noted by all above, and revision rather than strikethrough of answers.  '''
Not convinced he's got the importance of BLP and per other concerns.--
'''oppose'''. Only 2/6 ratio for real article edits means seriously worries me. As well as some other expressed positions.
'''Neutral''' Whilst they look like they have a healthy amount of experience in both article and Wikipedia type contributions amongst other things (so i'm leaning to support), it seems from Q1 that they are not really interested in many other things as much. As stated numerous times, it is not all just about vandalism and deletions.
'''Neutral''' Per Majorly; I would probably support in the future, but for now, more rounded contributions are needed.
'''Neutral''' per Q1 and Q4. Q4 seems slightly confused and per David D. on Q1. Answer concerns me slightly but I do not think that this user would abuse the tools. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. I'm rather worried by "Something I've always looked forward to since I got used to this site: blocking users" answer to Q.1. I also agree that Q.4 is pretty weak. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Shows great promise, I think adminship would greatly benifit the encyclopedia
'''Support''' Good edits made in the past, fair and balenced, i dont think more expierience is necessary
'''Oppose''' - WHile you show potential, your time here has been too short. You also have less than 700 total edits with a total of 43 mainspace edits. ALso, your most edited wikispace page is the sandbox with 54 edits. While edit counts cannot be used to determine a users level of experience, a curosry glance at those edits can. While the underworkings of this project are important, it is important to remeber our ultimate goal, build encylopedic knowledge. Keep up at your current pace for 3 or 4 more months and you will be ready. If you need nay help or have any questions feel free to shoot me a line.
'''Oppose'''  — You lack edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=SLSB&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 where] it actually matters.

'''Oppose''' &ndash; sorry, but you've simply not been here long enough for "trust factor" essential in all Administrators to have developed. In addition, I'm a little concerned that you've lost sight of the goal of Wikipedia: to develop an encyclopedia - after all, you only have forty or so edits in the mainspace. Finally, I'd like to see some participation in [[WP:XFD|Deletion Debates]] (e.g., [[WP:AFD|AfD]], [[WP:MFD|MfD]], etc...), as deletion is an essential part of an Administrator's work. For now, however, I can't support your nomination.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, it doesn't appear that you've written much. Please contribute content and then come back with a new RfA.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in the main spaces in order to be confident that you would use the admin tools well.  Try demonstrating your knowledge of the [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] by participating in XfD discussions; working on new page/ recent change patrols; associated vandal warnings and reporting to [[:WP:AIV]] or other appropriate forum; assisting at the Help Desk for new users, etc.  Doing some, one or all of these or many other admin-related tasks will boost your experience and make the next RfA a highly-probable success.  I would withdraw this application at this time and start to work on some of the above.  Regards,
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, and just 630 edits. -
'''Moral Neutral''' You are well on your way, but you just need more experience all around. Give it two months and possibly get yourself an admin coach and you will do much better on your next RfA.
'''Moral Support''' to avoid a pile-on.  I have already written most of my thoughts on your talk page.  I wish you the best, but you are not ready to be an admin.  Combine your enthusiasm with more experience, especially in areas relating to the admin tools.  Also, please remember not to edit your own comments, just <s>strike</s> them out if you change your mind later.
It is very stupid not to vote for someone ''just because'' he has not been active hear to long. This man is a fine editor and I have faith that he will not abuse the tools, and be able to use them right. I am going to go against the croud and support you in your Rfa. --
'''Oppose'''. According to your first edit, you have only been here three months with this username, so I'm not sure about the five months thing. You've only been active since November, and while I'm sure your intentions are good, I cannot support yet. Also, your signature is quite long &ndash; you may wish to take a look at [[WP:SIG]]. Try again with more experience in about two months, or about 2000 edits. --'''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Oppose''' Not with that signature and not when you can't leave an edit summary when you list your RfA. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose'''. Most of what you mention you'd like to do does not require sysop tools, and you have virtually no participation Wikipedia processes, particularly XFD discussions. Also, your numbers are a bit off—I see only 1500 edits and less than a month and a half active participation (10 edits prior to that). An inaccurate portrayal in a self-nom statement does not look good. --
'''Regretfully oppose.''' I'm not convinced that you have the requisite experience to be an administrator. You appear to be a very fine editor with a productive wikiproject, but I can't see any indication that you are in need of administrative tools. You focused on vandal-fighting in the answers to your questions, but I couldn't find a single vandal warning or report to [[WP:AIV]] in your contributions. You have 136 edits to the Wikipedia namespace (and 4 to Wikipedia_talk), which is pretty low, and nearly every edit is in relation to your wikiproject. From that, I'm unsure as to what, if any, grasp on Wikipedia policy and guidelines you have. In short, I think you're a great editor, but not an admin candidate yet. Participate more in XfDs and policy discussions, perhaps take a more active role in finding and reverting vandalism (and dealing with vandals). Also, just as a note, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASmcafirst&diff=98034440&oldid=97999728 asking for people to vote for you on your user page] is generally frowned upon. —
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) per above. You are also advertising on your userpage for people to vote support for you. Usually canvassing about your RFA is frowned upon by some users, but canvassing people to ''vote support'', is frowned upon by everyone. (why did two users comments get removed)--[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Oppose'''. <s>There's just no way I can support a candidate with that signature. It'd drive me insane.<s> I see you now (may have) changed your signature to conform to [[WP:SIG]]. However, considering the signature, it demonstrates a clear and crucial misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the way Wikipedia works. Your enthusiasm to serve is admirable, but you will need more experience before becoming an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) per above. Deletion of pages and blocking users are the only tasks that require adminship; bots, reverting vandalism, proofreading, patrolling articles and the rest of the other things stated can be done without being an admin. There is also little, if any [[WP:XFD|XfD]], which I consider a very important part of being an admin. Also, there are few Wikipedia talk namespace edits, a long signature, and canvassing. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gre]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Stronger oppose''' (yes, I am allowed to go straight to that). Misleading nomination statement, few edit summaries, changing nomination statement without telling anyone, and canvassing. I hope I see nothing else bad. -
'''Oppose'''. Has a stupid sig (cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&oldid=98040995#WP:RfA]) that indicates to me he/she has more enthusiasm than sense. --
'''Oppose'''. I feel you need more experience dealing with AIV and XfD's before considering an RfA. Try again once you have met the suggestions left by everyone here. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' I am usually very supportive if you appear to know what you are doing, but I think you need to be here just a ''bit'' longer, at least a few months and get in at the least another thousand contributions. More activity in XfD, as well.
'''Oppose'''. You only became a regular contributor in mid-November. Although your contribution rate since then has been prodigious, you still only have just over 1500 edits in total. More experience in terms of time and contributions is needed for the community to build up sufficient trust to grant someone adminship. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future.
'''Strong oppose''':  I can't really believe you said ''Although the length of time sounded short, I made sure I know everything in Wikipedia.''  That's wrong on so many levels (using edit summaries on only 8% of major edits, to cite only one).
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. Very limited contributions in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], and not a vast number in mainspace. I think you need a few months more experience, after which you should succeed.--
'''Oppose''' Lack of participation in XfD discussions; no evidence of vandal fighting and issuing of warnings on user Talk pages as appropriate and little-or-no participation in project space all indicate a lack of requirement for admin tools.  All of these are easily solvable with new page/recent change patrols; reporting recalcitrant vandals to [[:WP:AIV]] or appropriate admin noticeboard and giving opinions at XfD discussions backed up with [[:WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]].  The last one may go some way to living up to the claim that you ''"know everything"'' about policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose''' due to screaming in the discussion section, lack of expierence, and lack of edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''.  This candidate obviously is unqualified, and this RfA was brought to my attention when he [[Special:Contributions/Smcafirst|posted a silly complaint]] to various opponents' talk pages (one of which happened to be on my watchlist).  Nick's apparent inability to accept constructive criticism leads me to doubt that he's even on the right track to becoming a sysop.  &mdash;
'''Neutral''' I think there are enaugh good points to take away and work on for a future RfA, which I think will garner more support. <small>And I hope this fixed the bot-parser</small>
'''Support.''' Seems simple. Over 3,000 edits, (not that 3,000 is a cut off point!) Seems to interact well with others, writes articles, decent WP space contributions, involved in projects... I see no compelling reason to not support.
'''Support''' has improved since the last request. A much better user.
'''Support''' - Good answer to $UIT's oppose vote. -- ''
'''Support''' Clearly a better candidate than in the last request. Well involved, has plenty of helpful edits and contributions, and seems to know what his tasks will be if he becomes an admin. <font color="red">
'''Support''' seems good enough for me.--
'''Support:''' This user's answers and Dgies' answers are basically the same and they have both been on wikipedia for similar amounts of time, so I fail to see why his RfA is  passing and this one is not. Per above reasons. &nbsp;<b>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Steptrip_2|<font family="Trebuchet MS" color="#D2691E" size="2">''~''</font>]]<font face="Vivaldi" size="3">
'''Support''' very simple w/ so many edits.
'''Support''' - I support every RfA. Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' He seems like he wants to do the right thing on wikipedia, and he's got a fair amount of edits. I support. [[User:Anonymous Dissident/Scrap page|<font color="black">---</font>]] '''
--
'''Oppose''' - Due to your answer to question 1. Comment: You say you'll work at closing AFDs, yet you really only participated in one--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''', I'm sorry but no, because you really don't have any experience on the chores that you intend on doing. In addition to the afd issue mentioned above, I looked at your contribs to WP:AIV. There were a total of 4 and none of the people you reported were blocked after the report. One of them was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=98064323 this], reporting a user that had vandalized an article 2 months earlier and was blocked for it (and had no edits since). Another was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=102574077 this], where an ip had one edit, which was adding "gsdfgsdfgdfgsdf" to an article. Similarly, since you consider those instances of vandalism serious enough to report, I'd have no confidence that you would only protect "heavy vandalized pages". You're supposed to have some clue on what you're supposed to do with the tools before getting them, so please familiarize yourself with the blocking and deletion policies and try again in a few months, thanks. -
'''Oppose''' per above and since this is the English Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Bobet. --
'''Oppose''' per Bobet.  Although I commend your continued dedication, you still lack experience in those administrative areas in which you seek to help.  Don't worry; just stick around, and you pick up the skills you need.
'''Oppose''' sorry you are not ready yet. Your answer to my question 4 is fairly significantly at odds with our [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]]. In your last RfA you were asked to change your signature. Although you have, its still very distracting and too long. I notice on this RfA you are not using your normal signature, but creating one by hand that matches [[WP:SIG]], so it appears you know your normal signature is not appropriate and are trying to hide the fact for the purposes of this RfA. Your user and talk pages include a copyrighted image (Bouncywikilogo.gif from commons) which breaks our copyright rules. You also created a redirect from template space to subpage in your user space (which I've now deleted). Add all this to the problem Bobet pointed out and it adds up to an oppose. You need more experience and you need to read and demonstrate a better understanding of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per your answer to question 4, which is at odds with the blocking policy. The most serious issue I see if when you mention that you would block shared IP addresses 'for shorter periods of time' - then give '7 - 15 days' as an example, despite the fact that [[WP:BLOCK]] states that ''"Dynamic IPs: up to 31 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 31 at most, to avoid collateral damage."'' While it is true they are guidlelines, I would be very reluctant to give a user sysop tools if they intend to block shared IP addresses for 2 weeks due to one user vandalising.
'''Oppose''' I am not convinced that you understand blocking policy. I recognise that you have changed days to hours throughout your answer to Q.4, but the fact that this is a consistent change throughout indicates that you were thinking "days" when you wrote it.--
'''Oppose''' Although you are a great user, it has been demonstrated here that you have neither the experience nor knowledge to become an admin.  I suggest that you try again in a few months, and in so doing become a greater asset to the project.  On the subject of blocks - 1-3 days is indeed a short time, but intentioally so.  The thing to always remember is that blocks are never punitive, and should only be dealt out to prevent *immediate* damage.  Hence we start of with short blocks, hoping that they have the desired effects, and can go up in block duration as repeat offences take place (it's not unusual to dish out very long blocks to shared IPs with a history of abuse (eg some schools)).  Thanks, <strong>
'''Oppose''' You really have to think about what you're doing when you block or report to AIV (at least I do), and I agree with Bobet and Ale_jrb that you just don't have the experience to have those tools yet. You want to stop them from vandalizing, not punish them '''for''' vandalizing. I think you're on the right track and I'd probably support in a few months with more RC patrolling. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry your answers as to why you want adminship seem rushed - indicating to me that you are not quite ready for even further complexity.  I also think your edit count is not particularly strong or diverse enougth at this time - particularly wikipedia edits.--

I am not convinced that this user understands that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a social networking site.  The userpage, especially the list of "[[User:Smcafirst/Best Friends on Wikipedia|best friends on Wikipedia]]", many of whom do nothing but collect signatures, is rather disturbing.  --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I know, "no big deal", but the nom statement and answers don't amount to what I like to percieve in admins. Nothing against the obvious project enthusiasm, the added responsibility requires more experience and deeper insight.
'''Oppose''' per the user's stance on blocking. 7-15 hours for a shared IP is a really long time, especially since most school-related vandalism could probably be stopped with a block of an hour or so. The comment about 1-3 days being a relatively short time is troublesome as well. It's my belief this user might use blocks as a punitive measure, so I'm going to have to oppose this RFA. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''.  This candidate appears to be an overzealous vandalfighter.  Neither his overly busy user page nor any of the above discussion leads me to believe that the candidate has any appreciation of what Wikipedia really is.  Strongly suggest that the candidate put down the vandalwhacker for a while, join a WikiProject, and actually participate in the process of writing the encyclopedia for a while first.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support. You say you would like to participate in AIV meanwhile you have only 4 edits/reports there. Most of your project-space contributions are in WikiProjects and the like, which you need not the tools to continue your work. You're an excellent user and editor, and have improved since your last RfA, however I'm not very convinced of your need for the tools. Good luck! :-) —
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose. While you have improved '''tremendously''' since the last RfA, a lack of relevant AIV contribs makes me nervous, and Bobet's oppose vote makes me wonder. If you don't get it, go at it with the vandal-whacking and there shouldn't be a problem with your next RfA.
'''Support''' as nominator; I have asked the candidate before nominating them and they feel that having the tools would be an asset to their participation in the project. -- ''
'''Strong Support'''; a user with a great personality, and a wordnerd. What more can you ask for? I also like people who are thoughtful on AfD. And, as Binguyen pointed out below, he is in his fourth month of high activity. That means he is less likely to burn out now, because he's not in the twilight of his pinnacle. That, in turn, means a greater chance for excellent admin output. Also, Binguyen pointed out below that SmicCandlish is rude in his copy-editing; although this is somewhat accurate in some situations, I don't believe that it will spillover to admin activities. It's merely something he needs to work on when copy-editing articles; hopefully, this RfA will open that up. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Active in XfD; vandal fighting,warning & reporting to [[:WP:AIV]]; Wikiprojects and apparently a Wikignome with many minor-edit improvements to the mainspace too.  I see no serious problems with this editor.
'''Support''' Per nom and I see no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' especially because of your answer to question 4.
'''Support''' - After reading this entire thing it looks as if you would make an excellent admin.  I'm glad to see someone else picked up leaving <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> to all user pages that don't have them when leaving vandalism warnings.
'''Support'''.  If Nane'blis trusts you, that's good enough for me.  Adminship is no big deal, and we need more admins.  Regards,
'''Support''' great editor all round and excellent answers.
'''Support''' seems like a great editor, should be an asset. --
'''Support''' This user is a good vandal fighter and answered the questions very well.--
'''Support''' per nom. Great candidate. -
I'm
'''Support''' per all above --
I '''support''' this candidate.--
'''Support''' Woah!  Great answers, great candidate. '''

'''Support''' Great candidate, will use the tools well. '''
'''Support'''. I recall your work at [[Albino bias]], where you demonstrated both an ability to add good content and a knowledge of policy.--<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">
'''Support''' Very nice, how much? (/borat).
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support'''. Good all-rounder, no problems apparent, and has always seemed an eminently sensible editor every time I've see him.
'''Support''' another one on the side of the good guys.
'''Support''' SMcCandlish is a great candidate for adminship. He is an active contributor to all the namespaces, and has gotten himself involved in policy discussion, XfDs, and has also done a lot of work in the article namespace. This user has demonstrated himself through his work, and I have strong confidence that the user will be a good admin. '''
'''Support''' Plenty of reason to support. Little reason to not support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]

'''Support.''' Wow.
'''Support.''' Get on it.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''', why not?
'''Support'''. SMcCandlish is a dedicated contributor, and has often learnt the ways of Wikipedia the hard way, and shows a desire to continue that learning. I can hardly see the ''Wilcox-McCandlish law'' debacle being repeated again (that's not redundant); and knocking his brash or untactful ''edit summaries'' is either a silly or specious reason to oppose a candicy. There is no reason to suppose he would abuse sysop powers. I admit SMcCandlish's praise of my "resolved" template brought me here, but his good work has swayed me to support. SMcCandlish certainly has shown himself worthy of adminship. —
'''Oppose''' mostly per the answer to question one. It seems you might not need the tools for Stub Sorting, Recent Changes Patrol, New Article Patrol, Copyediting. You mention little in actual sysop chores. Also a failure in understanding [[WP:COI]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilcox-McCandlish_law this]  which had to go through the deletion twice and my own interactions with you has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth relative to civility issues regarding the use of the word [[Bogus]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_3&diff=prev&oldid=91915736].-
'''Strong Oppose''' &bull; One of the "cardinal sins" in adminship (in my opinion anyways) is failing to recognise a conflict of interest.  This leads to all sorts of wheel wars, unfair blocks, and overall Bad Things<sup>TM</sup>.  It is important for administrators to be aware of their feelings and reactions, and have the wisdom to know when their judgment is impaired and recuse themselves from such issues.  That to me, is the prime thing I look for in administrators.  Skills can be taught.  Temperaments, less so.  ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' a few things stack up. Firstly, major activity has only been since November 11, so it has basically been only three months of healthy activity. His actions with respect to Dakota's AfD closures seem to not be the most way of moving things along productively. In November [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilcox-McCandlish law (second nomination)]], a concept which the candidate appears to have coined is  closed as a delete. A bit of post AfD dialogue occurs at [[User_talk:DakotaKahn/Archive26]], where there is also a post AfD dialogue on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella V 2nd Nomination]]. The candidate subsequently makes his debut at DRV [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_3]] and argues on procedural grounds to overturn Dakota's decision, despite an overwhelming consensus that the article was not notable. It was consequently deleted for the third time [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella V (3rd nomination)]]. The process wonkery and making a debate debut on an AfD closed by the same person who deleted an article about his concept doesn't seem like good admin judgment to me. The other thing that adds together is his undiplomatic edit summaries about other user's grammar [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biarritz&diff=prev&oldid=75676731 Fixed utterly atrocious grammatical malformations. Also typos and missing wikilinks]. There are a number of other irreverent edit summaries around, which seem rather gratuitous and potentially damaging.  There are many excellent Wikipedians, some of our best in fact, whose first language is not English, and are from non-English speaking countries and write hundreds of articles on Central/Eastern European topics which have low Anglophone coverage. Many of these people like [[User:Attilios]] do not have the best grammar, but are trying their best to cover topics which would otherwise be void on WP. I don't think that this conduct is  appropriate in this sense. eg, a group of people copyedited this article by Darwinek, a very prolific writer, so that it could be put on [[WP:DYK]] after concerns were raised about the English [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C5%99inec_Iron_and_Steel_Works&diff=105943596&oldid=104309893].'''
'''Oppose''' per the above opposes.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Dakota, especially.  Failing to heed the advice of WP:COI and WP:AUTO regarding a "law" with one's own name in it -- a "law" of very dubious note, moreover -- is an automatic disqualifier for adminship in my view.  Candidate must demonstrate great growth as a Wikipedian before I would trust him with the mop.
Object per civility issues, and because SMC has a tendency to drown out discussions through sheer sesquipedalian verbosity, as well as "Jimbo said so" arguments, and accusing people who disagree with him of [[WP:OWN]]ership and such. For instance, consider that [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 5|this page]] is 245kb long, and SMC wrote more than half of it, all in a week's time.
'''Oppose''' per the above. <font face="Georgia">
'''Weak Oppose''' per Radiant. I'm afraid he may indulge in too much wikilawyering as an admin.  Wikipedia is imperfect and never totally consistent in its policies.  I doubt it ever will be.  Unless people feel comfortable working in this gray area and work towards building consensus their contributions can be counterproductive.  I want to feel like we can all work together even when we disagree. --
'''Oppose''' per above ([[User:Radiant!|Radiant]] and [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] especially). <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Weak oppose''' per Dakota, Blnguyen, and Radiant.  I've limited interaction with this user, except a brief, peripheral event; Radiant summed up my thoughts afterward almost exactly.  Had it been a single instance, then I certainly wouldn't oppose, but it appears to be more of a pattern than not.  Verbosity, although not ideal, I can deal with; I was most concerned about labeling opposing viewpoints as being penned by "fans" (and the context strongly implying he meant "[[fanboi]]s") with no respect for policy.  No matter whether his/her position were correct, I would not be comfortable with an administrator assuming such bad faith without cause.  —
'''Oppose''' The points made by the opposers are more convincing that the ones made by the supports especially the [[WP:AUTO]] and [[WP:COI]]. Admins need to know better. --
'''Oppose''', per the personal attacks noted throughout this page. —
'''Weak oppose''' per [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] and own observations.
'''Oppose''' per Dakota and Blnguyen -

'''Oppose''' am concerned about the relatively recent comment at DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_3] and the complete lack of brevity. The potential combination of filibustering and misunderstanding process if a recipe for disaster, sorry. Also a minor point majority of activity confined to last 4 months. Cheers
'''Oppose''' I love the replies to the questions, length of the replies is not a problem to me, but I feel that there is a certain amount of stuff that needs to be learned before we hand out mops, one of them is when to back out when you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. Admins with conflicts of interest sometimes are lead to fail to act in the communtiy's best interest. While the mop is really not a big deal, to me admins need to be acting in the communty's best interest. Untill I can see that, I have to oppose. Regretfully, ——
'''<span id="SSPEvidenceLink1">Reluctant</span> Oppose''' did a complete bashing on a new user of an AFD.  Administrators must [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and have patience with such situations.  The user could have read the site for a long time and only recently signed up.  In anycase, I could close the AFD and no harm is done.
'''Oppose''' Firstly, content / [[WP:NPOV|POV]] disputes are distinctly not vandalism.  Calling them vandalism is a very good way of escalating such disputes.  A better edit summary would have been "reverting to a less judgemental definition of street hustlers that [[WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves|lets the facts speak for themselves]]".  If you really must use a generic term, try "policy violation" or "disruptive", which are still somewhat offensive, but less so.  Also, there are politer ways of making it clear to the closing admin that someone's AfD opinion should probably not be taken seriously.  You can use {{tl|afdanons}} as a polite welcome / caution message.  If they are a new user or a [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]], and their reasons for keeping or deleting are not that good, that is probably enough.  Keep in mind that it is very difficult to distinguish between sockpuppets and innocent meatpuppets.  If you really think there is sockpuppetry going on, the correct places to investigate it are [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser]].  Anyways, sorry if this oppose seems rather harsh, but it might be good if you found nicer ways of putting things before becoming an admin. —
I think Radiant's comments above are important - Wikipedia is not a filibuster.  Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that.  Still, I think [[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] has made a bunch of good edits and worked on some quality articles.  At first I leaned oppose, but I'll wait to see if anything anyone says convinces me one way or another.
'''Weak Support''' He's a nice guy, he made a Holiday Committee and made more edits to Wikipedia compared to his userpage than I ever will. If he had more edits and uses edit summaries, then I might give some more support. Its just that he is a much more descent contributer than me, and he possibly has work hard to try an become a good contributor. I'd probably give him more time to see if he improves. [[User:Efansay|<span style="color:#000066;font-weight:bold">E</span>fansay]]---[[User talk:Efansay|<font color="Purple">T</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Efansay|<span style="color:Goldenrod">'''C'''</span>]]/
'''Oppose:''' has very little edit count, and lack of use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I do not feel this editor has a very broad understanding of policies or guidelines to effectively be an administrator. First, these edits disturb me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polarwolf&diff=prev&oldid=160196683] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domthedude001&diff=prev&oldid=160196594] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kornfan71&diff=prev&oldid=160196441] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phaedriel&diff=prev&oldid=160641271] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ambirch1&diff=prev&oldid=160196345] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Efansay&diff=prev&oldid=160196159] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deflagro&diff=prev&oldid=160196045] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jackrm&diff=prev&oldid=160195862] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Djmckee1&diff=prev&oldid=160195428], as this could be considered [[WP:CANVASS#Excessive_cross-posting|excessive cross-posting]]. Additionally, the fact that the editor says "vote for me" further shows that the user does not understand that RfAs are not a "vote", but a [[WP:Consensus|discussion to determine consensus]]. I'm also concerned that the editor does not seem to understand [[WP:OWN]], as these edits would suggest, calling a project "my new commitee": [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donato011206&diff=prev&oldid=159537301] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bahama58&diff=prev&oldid=159537250] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qiufeng02&diff=prev&oldid=159537211] (and 19 others with exactly the same message). While I don't normally nit-pick spelling, when the name of a project is spelled incorrectly, (not intentionally) it does concern me, as spelling is something that comes into play with moving pages and creating redirects. As mentioned below, the lack of edit summaries are also a concern, and to Socks 01, I'd encourage you to go into your preferences, under the edit tab, and force edit summaries when you forget to make one. I'm not sure why the editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Smackdown&diff=prev&oldid=160184897 blanked the page] here, removing a redirect without explanation. If the editor has been watching [[WP:RFD]], I would think that at the least, an edit summary with an explanation would be given, but I still find no valid reason for blanking a redirect page like that. The editor says they have "created many articles", so I went to see what they looked like, and I could find only four, three of which are stubs, and one is an episode for a television show. Looking through the editor's talk page history, I see a repeated pattern of image problems, multiple notices, and multiple instances of the editor blanking their talk page, with no archiving. Wikipedia has an extensive infrastructure of policy, guidelines, and projects, and I do not feel this editor is even aware of many of the most important areas required by an administrator. All of this can change in time, of course, and I'd encourage the editor to watch RfAs for the next several months to get an idea of what is expected, and to find areas that the editor can participate in to get the necessary experience, such as [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:UAA]], [[WP:RFCN]], [[WP:AFD]], etc. I wish the editor much luck in the future, but at this time, I cannot support this request for adminship. <sup>
'''Oppose''', some obvious gaps in understanding Wikipedia infrastructure and procedures, which is probably simply due to the very low quantity of contributions.  Please stick around, join a WikiProject or two, ask a lot of questions and tackle some of the backlogs, and then come back to Rfa when you are confident that complete strangers could put complete trust in you based only on reviewing you contributions.
Strong oppose per inexperience, [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Holiday Commitee]] (administrators: [[Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Holiday Committee|1]] [[Special:Undelete/Wikipedia talk:Holiday Committee|2]]), blatant canvassing (only messaged those who he'd had the support of with the now-deleted HC), ArielGold, and general perception of immaturity and poor judgement. '''
Lack of broad editing experience. Canvassing. WP:NOT#MYSPACE. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Socks+01&page= Poor understanding] of [[WP:NFCC]] - no images contain appropriate [[WP:FURAT|fair use rationales]]. Perhaps later. ~
'''Oppose'''. Apart from the other important reservations raised above, the clicher for me is that Socks01's edit count is far too low to have gained anywhere near enough experience.  However, this seems like a friendly and well-intentioned editor, and I'd be happy to consider a fresh nomination at some time in the future when (s)he has much more experience. I suggest that at this point it would be best for Socks to withdraw the nomination. --
'''Oppose''' Very little experience. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Good user but too few edits and lack of use of edit summaries. [[User:Djmckee1|<font color="Blue" face="verdana">Djmckee1</font>]] - [[User_talk:Djmckee1|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">Talk</font>]]-
'''Neutral''', Friendly user etc., but too few edits and use of edit summaries. Not many mainspace edits recently either. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Holiday_Commitee&diff=159323072&oldid=159321619 This edit] seems a bit strange, arguing about ownership of something which is gonna be deleted soon. —
'''Neutral'''- He's a good guy, just needs to do a couple more edits. Mabye in a little while --[[User:polarwolf|<font color="black" face="bank gothic">'''Polar'''</font>]][[User talk:Polarwolf|<font color="navy" face="bank gothic">'''Wolf'''</font>]] <small>(
'''Neutral''' per all above. -
Go for it!
'''Support''' He really deserves the mop because of his excellent contribution.
'''Support''' Solid editor and good work history.
'''Support''' - great editor. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' a fantastic editor, that I've always found polite and civil, even when put under severe pressure.--
A dedicated, polite, helpful fellow. I come across his Africa-related work from time to time, and I'm consistently impressed with it. Q1 could definitely be longer - but brevity isn't much of a penalty in my book. He's shown a use fo the tools, and he's certainly unlikely to misuse them, so '''support.'''
'''Support''' No way to oppose such a dedicated user.  His answer are good, and he'll use the tools to everyone's benefit. '''
'''Support''' per Ganfon. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Support''', great contributor. <small><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' great editor.--
'''Strong Support''' great editor in political stuff, these editors in the future could be great help in political articles as mediators on talk pages. Also, he created a huge amount of these articles! -- [[user:Walter_Humala|Walt]]'''[[user:Walter_Humala/Esperanza|<font color"green">e</font>]]'''
'''Support''', excellent editor with strong commitment to objective and knowledgeable editing. Not convinced by answer to question 5 but other answers are good.
'''Support''' a very active editor especially in Africa-related topics. -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor. Meticulous about details. Knowledgable. Dedicated. He should make a good admin.--
Outstanding editor. Strong support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Just the sort of person who ought to be an admin.--
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' 2000 Article Starts = Dedication needed in an admin.
'''Support''', dedicated and very unlikely to abuse the tools. If the user wants the mop and bucket, by all means allow 'em to pick it up.
'''Support''', definitely. I'm amazed by the oppose votes here.
'''Oppose''' While the candidate's contributions to the mainspace are very impressive, the extremely small number of contributions outside the mainspace are underwhelming (i.e. only 260 in the wikispace). Such a low participation rate outside the mainspace provides me with little indication that the nominee even needs the tools, and his answer to Q1 doesn't persuade me otherwise. It also provides me with little indication the nominee really knows the key policies. Actions speak louder than words, so I'll be happy to support after a significant improvement in participation outside of writing articles. While adminship is no big deal, it's also not a reward or prize given out for prolific article writing.
'''Oppose''' Many of those "2000 created articles" are little less then stubs for many times very small political parties. Many of those created articles also lack any sources which account for one of Wikipedia's fundamental principals: [[WP:V|Verifiability]]. The following are some articles created with no sources: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_Youth], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Democratic_Youth_Organisation], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Democratic_Union], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Vanguard_%28Communist_Proletarian%29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Vanguard_%28Politico-Military%29], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Socialist_Party_%28marxist-leninist%29], etc... Upon reviewing this user for this RFA I have also noticed that after a discussion in March of last year on [[Talk:List of political parties in Peru]] over the use of these unverified stub pages in that article the candidate had waited until November to add them all back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_political_parties_in_Peru&diff=85496835&oldid=77377726] I also don't agree with the following edit conflict on the [[Shining Path]] article where the user continued to revert back to an image of pro-SP graffiti in Stockholm, Sweden claiming that a cell of the Shining Path existed there. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shining_Path&diff=76387523&oldid=76049362] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shining_Path&diff=76394400&oldid=76392317] Regardless of one's political beliefs the simple fact is that it was irrelevant to the article because a group of people out in Sweden claiming themselves to be followers of the Shining Path is irrelevant, yet despite this the user continued to insert it into the article. I've unfortunately found that trait to be common by looking at the user's edit history. With all of this evidence I can not support adminship.--
'''Oppose''' per Jersey Devil and for reasons dealing with the lengths of POV-pushing and vandalism this user went through to whitewash a notable controversy on [[Brinda Karat]] (who incidentally is a high ranking member of the ''Communist'' party of India) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brinda_Karat&diff=85003030&oldid=84955707],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brinda_Karat&diff=85225463&oldid=85156699]. The page history shows a protracted battle in which I tried to bring mainstream criticism to the article and was rebuffed by soman an another user even when I provided multiple reliable sources to attest to the facts[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brinda_Karat&action=history]. Also the users habit of seeing "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2006_December_20&diff=95564846&oldid=95562537 communalists]" everywhere is disturbing. Also the user in question accuses other of being politically motivated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2006_December_20&diff=95578010&oldid=95577144] showing utter ignorance of [[WP:AGF]].<b>
'''Oppose''' I get a bad feeling about this candidate's temperament and skills at dealing with other editors. Seems a little to prone to snap at other and be a little blunt [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gail_Omvedt&diff=prev&oldid=97552403]. Also very poor use of edit summaries, and not a strong reason given for needing the tools.
'''Oppose''' per those above. ''
'''Strong oppose''' per above opposes, and answer to question five. You apparently do not understand what semi-protection; it isn't ever used to stop content disputes with IPs, only vandalism. Also, ''adminship is not a reward for working on the encyclopedia''. Working a bit on the encyclopedia is sometimes nice, to show that a user isn't going to succumb to adminitis, but encyclopedic contributions are never going to get me to support a candidate, because adminship is about technical tools, not article writing. -
'''Oppose''' per those above.--
'''Oppose''' I'm uncomfortable with the answer provided to question 5, that's not at all my understanding of semi-protection should be for. This answer is particularly unnerving with respect to the "heated" arguments that are discussed in question 3. What happens when a "heated" argument involves an anonymous user and suddenly a page ends up semi-protected? Sure a lot of anons are vandals, but many are legitamite and may have different views than Soman. I'm confident based upon Soman's dedication to the project that they would not intentionally abuse their administrative powers, but "debates" - which Soman has said he is willing to engage in (Q3) - can get pretty heated, especially when they're political. --
'''Weak oppose''' - Very good contributor (created 2000 articles? Great!), but a slight lack of WP edits per above.
'''Pragmatic Oppose''' - Don't want you wasting your time on administrative actions when you're such a great editor. You don't need to be an admin, and your strength is in writing articles.
'''Oppose''' - per above. My eyes glazed over proletarian-speak in his answer to Q5. While we all suscribe to different ideologies, i'm not convinced that Soman would be able to divorce his biases from his administrator duties. <b><font color="saffron">
'''Oppose'''. Appears to have a poor grasp of Wikipedia's fundamental content policies.
'''Oppose''' at the risk of piling on, as there seems to be a serious lack of understanding of key policies. I suggest serious rereading of the basic pillars before anything else... <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' - it's fine that Soman is a passionate editor, but there is no evidence that there's the good judgment needed to be a solid admin. And if there are concerns about the grasp of content policies, there's cause for serious concern. --
'''Oppose''' per Jersey Devil and POV issues raised above.
'''Oppose'''. Seems not understanding what semiprotection is for.--
'''Oppose''' per Amakarov, Jayjg, ''et al.''.
'''Oppose''' per Bakaman and Leifern.
'''Oppose''' per above.-
'''Oppose''' per above - seems to have own interpretation of policy. --<small><font color="#808080">
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q5.
'''Oppose''' above notes including Q5.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry, but creating a lot of articles seems not so impressive if they're created as reference-less stubs. This also shows lack of grasp of core content policies. Also response to Q5 seems off - what does the numerical balance of editors with different political views have to do with semi-protection? Semi-protection is specifically about restricting editing by new or anon IP accounts, not minority view editors. I'm not sure where this 99%-hegemonic-forces-on-Wikipedia is coming from either.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q5. I also agree with Bwithh and TigerShark. ···
'''Oppose''' The lack of edit summaries is a concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per semi-protection concerns. -
'''Oppose''' - nothing to make me support. Too little XfD participation. Answers and previous actions show problems with understanding key wiki policies. Too many stubs. Try again later. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Neutral''' I understand that you are a great and valuable contributor to the mainspace, but neither your edit count, nor your answer to Q1 show any need of the tools. Plus, your edit summary usage needs some work. I would've voted oppose if it weren't for your rather impressive efforts in the mainspace. Sorry. ←
'''Neutral''' I will go neutral on this because of the answer to question one only the merge task requires admin powers and that can be requested from active admins already.  Excellent editor otherwise.
'''Neutral''' Virutally no XfD experience keeps you from a support.--

'''Neutral''' You have nearly 20,000 edits, and a good spread into [[WP:NAMESPACE]]. Only your answer to Q.1, which gives no indication of why you need the tools, stops me supporting. Do you want to expand your answer?--
'''Neutral''' In your answer to question 1, the only item that showed a need for administrative tools was Deletion debates and of those you have almost no experience.  Also, the answer was a little short.  You seem to be a '''great''' editor, but I'm not sure you'd be as useful as an administrator.
'''Neutral''' --
'''Neutral''' - no doubt an excellent contributor with an incredible number of contributions, but becoming admin would make this harder.  Wasn't blown away by answer to Q1 either.  I think a bit more interaction with other users on their Talk pages, along with some more clear demonstration of policy knowledge would make this candidate a good admin in the future.
'''Neutral''', good editor, but needs more experience in areas such as xFDs.
'''Neutral''' Wizardman summed up my feelings. Sorry. --
'''Neutral'''. Great mainspace edits but simply not enough project space contributions to be able to assess policy knowledge and judgment.
'''Neutral''' change from support. Excellent editor, but needs a bit more familiarity with policy, I think.
'''Neutral'''.  Great editor.  Answers to questions 4, 6, and 7 raise some questions about familiarity with policy and process.
'''Neutral''': Excellent editor, but unclear demonstration of policy leds me to be neutral. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Excellent editor but lack of WP namespace edits. Will surely vote support next time if the concerns will be addressed. I feel that many opposers here opposed Soman only due to his political views. -
'''Neutral'''. All my interactions with Soman have been positive, but purely based on past contributions and answers to questions, I don't think he needs the tools. There is nothing with him I find "opposing", hence this neutral comment. Wikipedia should encourage people from different backgrounds, and I feel that Soman has done good work in countering systematic bias in some fields. —
'''Neutral'''. Soman's contribution is impressive, but lack of edit summary usage and Wikipedia edits causes concern. Sorry.
'''Support''': (hope I'm not jumping the gun here, never top-posted on an RFA before[[Image:Smile_eye.png|16px]]) this user is helpful and courteous and willing to take constructive criticism. I happen to know that his real-life job entails a great deal of responsibility and therefore I have no worries about his steady hand on the mop. HTH HAND —
'''Support''',  He's a good editor and a good IRCer, I can't find how any of his recent behaviour has been even remotely offencive. Also he apologised, so it doesn't really matter either way.
'''Support''' Soms is a good guy. I believe the issue with Chacor was the product of misunderstanding constructive criticism. It certainly does not look like a personal attack to me. I'm sure he'll use this power for the good of us all.
of course
'''Support''' - I don't see that the alleged "ad hominem attack" against [[User:Chacor]] was particularly serious, and as for the editcount, that shouldn't be an issue. User clearly has ample experience of AfDs and other WP namespace tasks, and adequate awareness of policy. Obsession with high editcounts is a huge problem on RfAs; simply quoting a user's editcount is not, in itself, a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - Despite the low number of actual edits, I believe that Soms' knowledge of policy and procedure, as well as his above-stated willingness to help with backlogs, makes up for this; with the tools you may see him become more active as he helps to clear these. The fact that he works on articles off-wiki will also contribute to his low count, but does not take anything away from the quality of his contributions. As the most important matter, whether he will abuse the tools or not, I can say with 100% conviction that this man will not give anyone a reason to doubt whether or not he should have them; a combination of the responsibilities he is entrusted with in his RL job and his own character and actions gives no room for doubt. — <font face="papyrus">
'''Support''' as nominator who clumsily forgot to do "support per nom" earlier in the RFA. He may have a low number of edits and he may have not spent much time here, though he seems to know the ropes and aims to resolve whatever conflict he gets in. <span style="font-size:95%">&mdash;[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''
Okay. {{unsigned|Moondance2607}} <small>—
'''Support''' I trust this user with the tools enough myself after having spoken with him for a bit and seeing his understanding of policy. It seems unlikely that this RFA will pass due to the multitudes of people who don't know him, but just thought I'd put that out there. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Support''' per Cowman109, I have spoken to him in IRC before and he has more understanding of policy than many admins, even though he has very few edits, forgot edit count in this case.
'''Strong support'''. Has good understanding of policy, unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''NO''', per [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3#Disappointment|this ''ad hominem'' attack]] on me (which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=102870781&oldid=prev crossposted!] to [[WP:RFA]]). Yes, the user apologised, but that is ''not'' conduct becoming of an admin. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - 352 total edits ... and according to the edit counter tool [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Somitho&site=en.wikipedia.org], while yes, this user has been here since September of 2005, there were zero edits between November of 2005 and November of 2006.  So really, he/she only has two months of experience. Needs more time ... --
I dont normally oppose based on editcounts, but this is way too low. A decent amount of edits just demonstrate that you have skills to write an article, or to discuss issues with other users. Both of these I find important qualities for an admin. Plus the comment about Chacor was in bad taste and way too recent to forget &mdash;
'''Oppose.'''  Sorry, but discounting the 16 edits in  2005 on the two accounts, you've only been active for 7 weeks and have 337 edits—of which a total of 73 are to article and arcticle talk pages.  Add to that the incident with Chacor from less that two weeks ago, and this is a big no.  You simply don't have the track record to evaluate nor the experience to perform the duties. —
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. Good faith is irrelevant; if your comments are so easily misunderstood as a personal attack, that's a problem too. And, of course, lack of experience doesn't help. -
'''Oppose''' I just don't feel confident that you have enough experience here to be an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Despite the fact that you have been with Wikipedia since 2005, you don't have a significant number of edits under either username. While the term "editcountitis" does appear in RfA discussions, it's simply a fact that administrators have to have experience in contributing to the encyclopedia (the mainspace portion of your edit count) in order to learn how Wikipedia functions; how articles are developed, how disputes arise and are hopefully settled, what is acceptable and what is not, etc. The only way that RfA voters can evaluate a candidate is by looking at their record of edits and following their contributions. Your contributions thus far don't convince me that you have the experience to become an administrator. As a point of comparison, most successful RfA candidates have made several thousand edits, spread across mainspace (articles), article talk pages, Wikipedia ("process" pages like [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and the page you're reading now), and elsewhere. I suggest that for now you should contribute more to articles, offer your suggestions on article talk pages, and basically do things besides RfA/xFD. Please also be careful with your choice of words, because admins have to maintain a cool head even when stressed, and the tone of your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=102870781&oldid=prev  comment] did sound rather heated to me. I think you should also do more RC patrol, because dealing with vandalism is one of the major responsibilities for admins, and you seem to have little or no experience in reverting vandalism or warning offenders. Another thing: always try to use edit summaries, because they make it much easier for other people to understand your actions at a glance. I hope you will take this advice to heart, and maybe in the future, I might vote support. --
'''Oppose'''. Editcountitis is not a crime. A long trail of edits and significant time-in-service give us a chance to evaluate an editor's tendencies and general disposition. With such a small sample of edits with which to evaluate Somitho's ''modus vivendi'' under this username, no reliable predictions of behavior can be made.
'''Oppose'''. Low edit count, abuse of LURK MOAR, and abuse of operator priveleges elsewhere lead me to conclude that the candidate is definitely '''not''' suited to the job. ~ '''<font color="CC0000">[[User:Flameviper|Flame]]</font><font color="009900">[[User talk:Flameviper|vip]]</font><font color="00CC00">[[User:Flameviper/Esperanza|e]]</font><font color="009900">[[User talk:Flameviper|r]]</font>''' <sup><span class="plainlinks><font color="C0FFEE">
'''Oppose''' per lack of activity.--
'''Oppose''' per Wizardman.
'''Oppose''' per all above. ''
'''Oppose''' 352 edits total does not demonstrate sufficient commitment to the project.  At certain very low levels of activity, "editcountitis" (normally a pejorative) becomes synonymous with "good common sense."  This is such a case.
'''Oppose''' per above, low edits/activity (time), and poor answers to questions. '''
'''Oppose.''' The low edit count alone is not a reason to disqualify, but it's been only two months, the candidate has little familiarity with deletion policy (where he plans to be active as an admin, and where a username is a must even before you become an admin) or for that matter anything else.  I don't doubt he's a "good person" per nom, but it's not enough.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Fair enough, the medcab stuff is good, but I can't support someone who proposes to do things once mopped that they haven't been got involved in beforehand. Would deal with [[C:CSD]] and AfD? No speedy deletion warnings left for new users. Either Somitho doesn't have any experience of speedy deletion or hasn't been leaving messages, and I'd prefer to think it's "hasn't been involved" because the alternative is less good. No sign that Somitho has had a go at closing XfDs. Go out and be bold: tag some articles for speedy deletion; close some AfDs. Nothing very bad can happen.
'''Oppose''' for inexperience: '''63 mainspace edits''' and he wants to be an admin? I'm also worried about his dealings with FlameViper - an admin should maintain his cool even when provoked. However, I'm certain there's more to the story than I'm seeing, and would only be neutral if that were the only issue. The supposed attack on Chacor is not so much of an issue for me. '''
'''Oppose''' &bull; Per Chacor, but more importantly, per Kyoko.  This is something that was explained to me on my own RFA, and I agree with it.  The encyclopedia is here first and foremost, and most of the time, you are dealing with article writers.  To truly empathise with and gain respect from these editors, you should have some established contributions under your belt.  Sorry Somitho, this isn't a personal choice, this is a choice of what's best for Wikipedia, and I don't feel at the current juncture you would work well as an administrator here.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Tachikoma|Kyoko]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''', low visible contribution level.
'''Oppose''' per everyone
'''Oppose''' per Kyoko and Chacor. Lacks of edits in the mainspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should have at least some contributions to articles.  I'm sorry but its too early and I feel its not time yet.
'''Oppose''' This is ''the'' most bizarre RfA I have ever seen. I can't understand how the candidate has managed to get 11 supporters. And I don't understand how the supporters can be sure the candidate understands policy and has the experience required of admins with only 355 edits over the last three months. I'm truly shocked by this RfA. Is this an IRC RfA? Usually, candidates with edits less than 2,000 are quickly SNOWed. Where is the "ample experience of AfDs and other WP namespace tasks, and adequate awareness of policy"? I don't consider 156 WP edits "ample" or "adequate" and most of the AfDs I looked at were "per nom" or "per X" rather than unique application of policy. Messedrocker states the candidate "has been editing Wikipedia since September 2005" yet ignores that during 14 of those 16-17 months, Somitho made a grand total of fifteen edits. I really dislike seeing people who don't meet basic community standards for RfA nominated for adminship. It doesn't seem fair on the candidate to set them up like that. Also, with regard to the candidate's response to Lost: "Give me a few hours and I will have the article finished"...um...we shouldn't have to wait, stuff like that should be done well before you even consider accepting an RfA nomination. I feel like I've stepped into the middle of a ''The Twilight Zone'' episode...'''
'''Neutral''': Not active enough for me to support you as an admin right now (I think that administrators need to be fairly active&mdash;200-300 edits/month&mdash;to know how to behave appropriately in all the situations that arise or that they may fall into).  However, in contrast to Chacor, I think you handled that situation well, with a swift explanation and apology, which to me is a positive for support as an admin. --
'''Neutral'''. Lack of activity on-wiki concerns me. Okay editor, but 350 edits isn't experienced enough for me. ~
Remaining '''Neutral''' User has excellent ambition, but he doesn't prove knowledge of process yet. In a few months with more active editing, definitely. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
Often disagree with him but a steady head and an good decision maker.--
'''Support''' per nom user would make an excellent admin --
'''Support''' but perhaps you could use more edit summaries for minor edits?
'''Definite support''' excellent user, good judgement and able to keep his cool.--'''
'''Strong support''' for an editor who, in my experience, has consistently worked hard with an even handed approach to difficult or controversial issues, achieving agreement and a meeting of minds. Has abilities and judgement well suited to admin work. ..
'''Support''' No serious problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, pending replies to Daniel's, and good all-round contributor. &mdash;
'''Support''' - we (Sony and I) have had a number of minor content disputes in the past (gritty, but not nasty or uncivil and all within discussion pages), but I have nothing but the utmost respect for this user. He is engaging, thoughtful and his primary aim is blindingly clear; to further Wikipedia and its content. I would welcome this user as an Admin. <span style="color:#696969;font-size:larger;font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">-- '''
'''Strong Support'''.--
'''Support''', I think the hoax thing is a relative non-issue, and all your other positive contributions far outweigh it.  Good luck!
'''Strong support''' The hoax issue is overblown and rather minor.  And per Dave Souza and others.
'''Very strong support''' That some "editors" (and I use the term lightly) dredged up and presented as evidence a situation where  an alleged friend of the candidate created a hoax article as a reason to impugne the capabilities of this candidate makes me want to support him. Nice job, folks. If that is all you can find, then this is a pretty reasonable choice. It also says a lot about those making the negative comments; you should be ashamed of yourselves.--
'''Support''' - Per OM and others.
'''Weak Support''' I highly doubt he will misuse the tools but the opposers have a couple of points
'''Support''' Excellent editor and all the hoax issue is massively overblown.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, will be a fair admin.
'''Support'''. I've dealt with [[Great Irish Famine]] at some length and come away impressed by Sony's behavior. I'm not familiar with this "hoax" hoo-hah, but he's demonstrated good handling of sources and referencing.
'''Support''' as nominator (better late than never!)
'''Support''' evidence of good 'pedia building - not thrilled about material below but it was August and I see good stuff since. Overall I think a net positive for the project. cheers,
'''Support''' Always open minded, usually the voice of reason in heated discussions
'''Strong Support''' Open minded, neutral, always reasonable, willing to listen and consider arguments. The 'hoax' stuff just says to me that chill pills should be compulsory before coming on here to edit.
'''Strong Support'''. (''per'' Vintagekits - that must be a first!) A humble man that is able to analyse dissenting viewpoints and, where appropriate, modify and adapt his initial stance. Will grow in the job rather than become inflexible and partisan like many admins from the North East Atlantic Archipelago. A Star! &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  A very good user, has done a lot to create articles on WP.  We could use another sysop who can translate articles to/from [[Irish language|Gaelic]].  Concerns about past errors have been noted and considered, but overall, he can be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' I have ''crossed'' SY - I don't agree with him but the impression he has given me, personally, is that he is a good egg.

'''support''' --
'''Strong Support''', after much consideration. I've thoroughly examined the diffs in the Oppose section below, and I don't see that his conduct was inappropriate. It is perfectly legitimate IMO to disagree with a sanction taken by an admin against another editor; even if that editor is a "problem" editor or acting disruptively, there is nothing wrong with challenging an excessively harsh block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGazh&diff=148490921&oldid=148489359 This edit], cited by Folantin below as "defending Gazh", actually makes a very good point, which I will quote in full: ''"I didn't see the one-week block ''[of Gazh].'' Come on, Ryan! That's not going to solve anything. I've seen this kind of situation before - I'm especially reminded of [[User:Onenightinhackney]]. It follows a familiar pattern: a needlessly heavy block led to a user loosing the head, the block get extended for a an even harsher duration, which leads to the user getting more angry, etc. - its just feed a circle of resentment and ever more draconian "solutions." In the case of Onenightinhackney, the user, in rage invoked his right to vanish, the admin "accepted it" and deleted his page. A good contributor has been lost ever since. I don't want to see the same thing happen here."'' This is a perfectly well-reasoned, civil, good-faith objection to a block of another editor; to me, it shows that Sony-youth is concerned with the interests of the encyclopedia, and is prepared to stand up and disagree with a consensus of established admins. To me, this denotes moral courage. Sony-youth didn't even come close to being uncivil or behaving inappropriately; he put forward a legitimate opinion, and disagreed in good faith with other editors. This is exactly the kind of admin we need, and accordingly he receives my strong support.
No evidence to suggest that this user will abuse the tools.
Per Acalamari, Dave Souza. My reading of the Gazh drama is closer to Walton's than to Folantin's.
'''Support''' per W.Frank and Vintagekits.  Which should say something!
'''Support''' always found him to be a good editor and even handed - I think the "Gazh issue" is being blown out of all proportion and believe he understands the issues quite well after all the criticism.
'''Oppose''' Per this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazh&diff=prev&oldid=174384834]. One of Sony-youth's friends, Gazh, made up a hoax article, thus wasting everybody's time putting it through AfD. Sony-youth's response when [[User:Fram]] asked for an explanation of the hoax was: "It's really not that important. If [[Rijk Van Roog]] is a hoax then big deal. Delete it and get it over with. Who cares why Gazh created it. He did. So what? Delete it". This incident occurred only a few weeks back. I would not trust a user with that attitude with admin tools. This looks like favouritism. I'm not happy with the idea that some users will be allowed to bend the rules on Sony-youth's watch. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm inclined to agree with Folantin's oppose. It doesn't seem becoming of an admin to do such a thing. Although, if the candidate were to offer a reasonable explanation as to ''why'' he would say such a thing, then my mind might open to persuasion.
Absolutely not.  His behaviour with regards to the [[Great Irish Famine]] disputes did not sit well with me; getting involved in something one is rather ignorant about is not a characteristic I'd want a potential administrator to have.  Also, his snarky response to Gazh coupled with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Gaeilge&curid=13987874&diff=170549106&oldid=170541805 this diff referenced above] illustrates his poor communication skills and dismissive nature to good faith volunteers.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
Per all above. [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk:JetLover|talk]]) (
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> per all above. I feel nom is currently to contentious on the one hand and too dismissive of problems on the other. Snappishneess does not bode well. Admins need to deal with contention with greater dignity, aplomb, and coolness. The pressures do not go down when one has the buttons, and nom has not handled stress as well as one might have liked.
'''Oppose''' - per [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] comments and the fact that the issue in Oppose No. 1 occured recently.
'''Oppose'''; I say this with real regret as I have admired many of your positive contributions to the various Ireland furores, but I cannot support someone who doesn't realise that, for all [[WP:SPADE]] exists, like [[WP:IAR]] it is to be used with very great caution. Calling someone a troll is far more likely to exacerbate a situation than it is to resolve it. Come back in a few months having learned from this and I will support you, I guarantee it, for I see the good in you. Just not ready yet, sorry. --
'''Strong oppose'''; over the Gazh issue. Creating hoax articles is a pretty serious issue and there is no justification for taking the side of the hoaxer against another wikipedan who is asking why the hoax article was created.
'''Oppose''', reasons given above.
Very dubious about this per Folantin and Fram. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup>
'''Oppose'''. Not a big deal, but bigger than the candidate appears to think. Not convincing answers, and not indicating the kind of attitude I hope to meet in an admin.
'''Oppose''' Per the Gazh issue. Vandals of Wikipedia should not be treated so lightly. --'''
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazh&diff=prev&oldid=174384834 No]'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but, as the above have stated, you're lacking in the user communication department. Aside from all the above disputes your edits are quite thorough, though.
'''Oppose''' for the reasons given above by other editors. Sorry, but this is not the attitude I expect to find in an administrator. You do appear a capable editor, but I am concerned that you may not always act with a neutral point of view.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, and I wish I could add more value / help to the candidate, but the diff by [[User:NHRHS2010]] shows a lack of understanding that leads me not to trust you with deletion and protection tools. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' On account of the diffs raised above.
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim, Folantin and Fram.
'''Oppose'''; sorry but I cannot trust you'll be and remain impartial when you need to apply the rules against acquaintances or friends of yours.  &mdash;&nbsp;
Anything (BLP in particular) that has been through OTRS and/or ArbCom is almost always controversial, and with that, discussion cannot happen in a public venue.  At best, it has to be private.  Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose'''; absolutely not due to Gazh issue. That type of conduct is unnaceptable for a potential admin.
'''Oppose''' - has displayed what appears to be numerous examples of behaviour not expected by an admin. I mean this not just one or two occasions, which everyone will end up doing at one time or another while on a learning curve, but this is frequent, the most frequent of which is the replies to opposes here. The Wikipedia participation is minimal anyway. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose for now'''. This has been a difficult call, because I have found S-Y to be generally a productive and thoughtful editor and I was impressed with Sony-youth's answers to the opening questions. However, I have to agree with those who express concerns over his handling of some disputes, particularly (though not only) the gazh hoax issue: S-Y's conduct there was incompatible with adminship. Nonetheless, S-Y has now acknowledged that this episode was handled badly, and I think that there are good grounds to believe that he can learn from the responses here.  So although I oppose adminship for S-Y now I hope that the lessons will indeed be learnt and that I would be able to support him at a future date if he can demonstrate that he really has taken on board the feedback at this RFA. --
'''Oppose''' per Folantin.
'''Neutral''' While you do appear to be a good editor, the comments you made that were brought up in oppose number one didn't sit well with me.
'''Neutral''' for now, depending on whatever details come up later in the RFA.  You appear to be a great editor, but might not act with a NPOV at all times.  Good luck anyway!  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Neutral''' for the time being. The issues brought up in the first oppose make me uncomfortable in trusting this user to take some things seriously. Also, while it's a minor issue, that's an obnoxious sig. I'd like to look over some more of his / her work before making a final decision.
'''Neutral'''. I don't know enough about Sony-youth's editing and his contributions to cast a !vote here. But I think it's extremely poor form for someone to more or less defend a hoaxer. If this occurred a long time ago, I could oversee it. But this occurred only a few weeks ago. [[Special:Contributions/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Seem a capable editor but some of the points in ''Oppose'' are unsettling.
'''Neutral'''. All else aside, this RFA has clearly been sidetracked by the AfD incident. I recommend you withdraw for now and (if you wish) come back when it's more clear that the event is behind you, because it clearly concerns a lot of editors here.
'''Neutral''' Don't oppose in principle but I think some water needs to flow under the bridge in relation to the hoax incident so we can be sure this was a one-off. --'''
'''Neutral''' I think you would be a good sysop, but support the idea of a pause to allow the (few) vocal detractors to cool off and see progress.
'''Neutral''' Love the activity, but the concerns that were raised have neutralized me. [[User:Sirkad|<span style="background: #000000; color: #FF0000;">Sirkad</span>]]<sub>[[User_talk:Sirkad|<span style="background: #FF0000; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]</sub><sup>
'''Neutral''' Good overall, but the situation in Oppose statement number one made this a difficult choice and I have to be neutral. '''
'''Slightly tentative support'''. I had kind of an opposite reaction to answer 3 (relative to Kurykh) -- I think it's amazing that someone can go through 2,000+ edits without any substantial conflict. Gaining the tools generally means being involved with more serious disputes, but I'm sure SorryGuy's pacifism will be a good attribute in those events. I like what I've seen of his contributions, but I'll keep an eye on the comments of others in case I missed something important. —
'''[[WP:AGF|Support]]''' I've gone through a lot of your edits to get to this. Downsides are certainly your intermitent editing (which you have addressed above). You seem to have just one deleted contribution in a year and under 200 total but you did do some speedy tagging at one point. Very few AIV reports, but there we go, that's only one measure. Upsides, looking at some AfD contribution it seems good, and I applaud your policy of looking at the older AfD's to see if you can add value. Talk page is all civil (although I'm not sure I'd have archived months of sign-posts!). You recently consulted with an editor regarding vandal warnings (see [[User_talk:SorryGuy#RE:_Warning_vandals|here]] and [[User talk:Caster23|here]]) and your cool head in that mildly heated exchange was impressive. Article writing is certainly there. So on balance although I'd have liked a bit more input (read [[WP:EDITCOUNT|edicountitis]] into that !!) I can't see you abusing the tools, which is the fundamental thing really. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' -- <strong>
'''Support''' A good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - as per answer to Q6.
'''Support'''. Good answers.  Just make sure to be an impartial admin, and to not blow up when facing the trolls. <strong class="plainlinks">
He's got XfD participation.  What's the problem?
'''Support'''  I think its silly to tell a proven trustworthy and reliable editor to "wait a few months."  We need good admins now.  There are huge back-logs to be dealt with and the more trustworthy admins we have a work the better for the community.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support''' Seems knowledgable enough about the key policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' Will help give good deletion discussions
'''Support''', can't see a good reason not to.
'''Support''', seems sensible and trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per Pedro.
'''Support''', this is one instance when I think the quality of contributions outweigh possible "experience" concerns. --
Appears to be sensible. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
SorryGuy appears to be an excellent candidate, as evidenced by his extensive article writing and *fD discussions.  His answer to the first question shows an honest self-analysis of his strengths and weaknesses, and it further shows his good judgment by planning to wait until he gains more experience in certain areas before clicking the extra buttons.  Good luck [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Support''' Answers to my questions and question 4 are enough for my concerns. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support''' '''
Weak support, per experience. If not now, next time. Good luck. I&nbsp;
'''Support per pedro''' It would have been better had you had more experience and more recently. I will urge you to go slow and don't hesitate to ask when in doubt. Your answers to the questions leave me confidant that you will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' we're looking for sysops, not article writers.
The above user is wrong. We're looking for sysops ''and'' article writers. I prefer that users be both, but I see no reason that this user would abuse the tools, so I '''support'''.
'''Support''' Especially per your answers to Mr. Z-man's questions. These show a very responsible attitude; you won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems to be trustworthy, and the opposes have provided no evidence to show that his relative lack of experience has in fact affected his judgment.
'''Support''' per Gaillimh, good answers, unconvincing opposes.
'''Support''' per VoA.
'''Support''' inasmuch as, as Keegan just above me, I feel rather comfortable concluding with a good measure of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive]].
'''Regretful Oppose''' Man, I would love to support, but I don't think you have enough experience quite yet.  You are obviously growing everyday, and I will willingly support if the trend continues for a couple months or so.
'''Very weak oppose, leaning towards support''' per Jmlk. I want to support (that's why I made the oppose weak) because you are a good user (and I've met you in real life). However, the experience concerns concerns me.
'''Weak oppose'''. I applaud your FAC work but I am concerned about the overall lack of experience. I note a rather limited stat at user talk pages which gives me pause. I believe I can confidently say that another couple of months with consistency and some additional work at AIV and such and I would happily support or even nom. Thank you for your offer.
'''Weak Oppose''' per lack of experience, but you seem to be the right stuff.
'''''Je m'excuse'''''  ''I'm sorry'', but your not quite experienced enough yet. Come back when you helped out more at [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:UAA]], etc.
'''Oppose'''. Not experienced enough yet, and made less than 100 edits in the first nine months of this year. Good future potential for adminship. I'll support after a few more months of regular, positive contributions.
'''Oppose''' but sorry, guy, you do not meet my standards for sysop.  Try again in a few months after you edit substantially more than 2 articles.
Just not enough experience.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
--
'''Weak oppose''' for lack of experience, lack of variety in experience.
'''Oppose''', sorry. I also have concerns regarding the experience of this candidate due to little diversification/participation in admin-oriented tasks. In fact, participation in Wikipedia for more than a year has been low and unstable. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Very weak oppose''' for now. This candidate clearly has the raw stuff necessary; mature, well-written answers to the questions, and responses to feedback. An RfA is a good way to get some feedback, though an editor review accomplishes that nicely as well. Anyhow, keep up the good work, and get a little more variety, then come back. :)
'''Neutral''' - Your answer to question #3 gave me pause. While your avoidance of conflicts as an editor is laudable, I'm not particularly keen to see tools granted to editors who have no experience in handling major conflicts. Adminship and conflicts are mutually inseparable, and an admin who has not had major experience in conflict, and by extension conflict resolution on Wikipedia may learn it the hard way and end up causing seasoned editors to leave. Might I request that you elaborate on your answer? —'''
'''Neutral''': Mainly per the concern raised above.  Also, per your answer to  question 1, you mention you would like to work on AfD's, while I don't see that you've contributed to AfD discussions all that much, thus, there is a  chance that you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of content guidelines and policies.  At this point, I don't see any reasons ''not'' to support you, however nothing is really jumping out telling me ''to'' support you.  I am going to take a cursory look through some of your contributions before making any decision.  -
'''Neutral''' per above points. If you come back in a few months, I will gladly endorse your nomination. --'''
'''Neutral''' for lack of experience with policy. Considering what you said just above, perhaps you should not accepted the nom until you yourself thought you were ready. '''
'''Neutral''', leaning to support, primarily because of the candidate's response to [[User:DGG|DGG]], above. That attitude is precisely why I think the candidate will get the mop before long - just maybe not this time around. Best wishes,
'''STRONG NOMINATOR SUPPORT''' --
'''Strongly Oppose''' - Only 21 edits to Wikipedia space and your answer to question 1 shows no knowledge of administrative duties. Also, you don't need to be an admin to revert vandalism.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' - needs more contributions in a wider range of subjects outside Aviation. --
'''Oppose''', needs more expereience and edits. 21 edits is way too low an edit count for an adminship candidate.
'''Oppose''', needs much more experience, and does not need admin tools to deal with reverting vandalism, any of us can do that fine without admin tools.  --
'''Oppose''' - needs a lot more experience. Terse answers to the stock questions. I've no idea what this candidate is like -
'''Strong Oppose''' - 21 edits Wikispace edits and few others are not nearly enough.
'''Oppose''' Answers are sort of weak and much more participation is needed in the project-space before applying for adminship. —
'''Strong Oppose''' per question one. '''<font color="teal" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wiki edits.
'''Oppose''', please withdraw.--
'''Oppose''' lack of internal experience, suggest withdrawal
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience...try again in a few months.--
'''Support''' Simply because an editor fights vandals instead of writing articles does not mean that said editor should not have adminship. With activity at this level, any experience concerns can be dealt with extremely quickly.
'''Support''' User fights vandals but does not push a particular POV so okay and has contributed heavily in the last 2 months showing he has fast learner.
'''Nom support''' '''Cheers,'''
'''Weak support''' he has shown he is at least adept at fighting vandals.
'''Support''' changed from neutral. You know what... I say give it to him. As much as I would prefer to see some mainspace participation and possibly some other administrative activity, I can't understate the good work that this user does. He is among the best RCP'ers on the project and his ability to work with AIV can do nothing but help Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Per captain panda - you said it exactly. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' - I know I'm supporting against a consensus here but the fact that someone dedicates most of their time to vandal fighting opposed to article writing doesn't mean they are somehow less important. Vandal fighters must know policies or else it would be very difficult for them to actually accomplish anything. Vandal fighters are probably the most skilled navigators through wikipedia as they come into contact with all sorts of pages on a daily basis. This person has 185 warnings to AIV, which is extremely high in my opinion. Wikipedia wouldn't be wikipedia without people who write articles, however Wikipedia wouldn't be much of anything either if there weren't people like this who dedicated so much time to vandal fighting. Giving someone who spends this much time vandal fighting the tools to block vandals quickly would only benefit. This person seems to know the procedure in issuing warnings and I don't see them abusing the tools.
'''Strong Support''' - Wow..[[User:Wikidudeman|Wikidudeman]] has summed up all that I was going to say and more..We Don't need only article creators on Wikipedia, we also need those that protect those articles and believe me an Admins Job requires Article protection vandal reverts and vandal blocks, not article creation as a priority..He has very less experience but he makes it up with determination and Trust..we need more admins like him..Good Luck..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' I've edit-conflicted a few times before. :)
'''Strong Moral Support - Moderate Actual Support'''. Your activity level is incredible. Your dedication is totally demonstrated. The problem is we have a new phenomenon taking over from ''editcountitis'' which is ''months-contributing-itis'' .... and I'm afraid I'm guilty of it too. You just can't get a full balance in such a short time period. Per many of the above, vandal fighting is an excellent and valued contribution. As I've said before, '''if we never wrote or expanded another article the 1.9 million we have would be valuable for years. If we stopped reverting vandalism and spam the whole encyclopedia would be unreadbale rubbish within weeks'''. However your honesty in Q1 re: Speedy deletion shows you are not yet ready for the tools - I would sugest a withdrawal per [[WP:SNOW]], keep up this excellent, valued and extrodinary dedication and re-apply soon (2-3 months is common after one RFA) - if you keep doing what you are doing I'll be delighted to offer my un-conditional support at that time. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Weak oppose'''. Not to diminish the user's contributions - he looks to be a very valuable contributor - but there's not much to demonstrate this user is ready for administrative duties.  Vandalfighting is excellent but doesn't show much knowledge of policy.  Edits to the project space are too thin and too specialized (almost all to AIV) to judge this user's comprehension of general policies and guidelines.  I'm also hard pressed to find any substantive edits to mainspace, just a lot of reversions.  Don't get me wrong, the candidate appears to be a wonderful vandal fighter - but admins are also editors.  Just not ready for the mop.
I'm sorry, but I've got to oppose at this time. You've only been here for 6 weeks which isn't long enough to show how you are a trusted member of the community. An administator must have good commnuication skills and I see very little interaction with other users to show how you handle yourself in disputes. I would recommend taking a step back from the vandalism reversions and get involved in some debates, both article and policy debates - it will give you a far deeper understand of how wikipedia works, and to be honest, it's more fun. Take this advice, and you have the potential to be a good admin candidate in the future.
As Ryan and Arkyan said, although you have made many valuable contributions to the vandal-fighting side of Wikipedia (which is important), you have not yet demonstrated enough of a general understanding of policies. Keep doing what you're doing, broaden your contributions, and a future RFA will have a better chance at success.
Dang! I've never seen so many vandalism reverts. '''Almost all''' of your edits are automated vandalism reverts. Don't get me wrong, vandalism reversion is excellent, but you haven't done '''anything''' besides this. There is no way we can evaluate you and see if we can trust you with administrator rights if you have never added content to an article or engaged in a discussion regarding an edit war. I don't see much participation with speedy deletion or XfD's, so I don't know if I can trust you with the ability to delete pages. I suggest you withdraw, work on these things,and try again later. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
Administrators are expected to know, understand, and execute Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Automated edits don't do much to show a firm grasp of these concepts. Spend more time in the project namespace doing non-automated edits (such as participating in XfD discussions) so we can get a better sense for where you stand. Your contributions are invaluable, but I just can't get behind a candidate that shows no actual working knowledge of how to perform as an admin. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''': Let's just say, I seen better.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunatly, I have to oppose this rfa at this time Spartan. I've seen you quite a lot of times reverting vandalism, but I would suggest that you spend more time getting familiar to the policies and participating more in to the project space other than AIV. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Remember this isn't Vandalfightpedia.
'''Oppose''' While your contributions to the encyclopedia are great and very much appreciated, I agree that you need to broaden your horizon by getting involved in other aspects of the encyclopedia, show that you know the policies and guidelines, and gain the collaborative experience that is not only necessary for a successful admin, but also to show how you work with others and deal with various situations. Best regards,
'''Oppose''' per Boricaeddie.
'''Oppose''' Great efforts so far but it's just too soon.  Keep on truckin' tho! -
'''Oppose''' A fine contributor indeed, but I think this is a little too soon. He needs more time. And vandalfighting is not everything. ;) -- <font color="purple">'''
'''Oppose''' Like others have said above, vandal fighting is not the be-all and end-all to adminship.  Mainspace contributions are welcome too, as well as XfD discussions in the policy space, assisting at the help pages, etc.  You never know what an editor is going to ask of you, so being well versed in a lot of techniques and processes is a bonus, and knowing where to find the help articles for those of which you know little is good too.
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawl, too inexperienced, needs some good article writing and [[WP:XFD]] participation, btw, RickK was an article writer as well. Thanks
Per EVula. '''

Try again in a few months! -
'''Oppose''', I would advise that you do some RfA's and some XfD's. Antivandal work is AWESOME! However, little else has been done. You must be more well rounded. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per EVula. —
'''Oppose''' — Wow, 5,000 ''reverts''!? That's like, erm, so incredible! ;-) It must of been painfully hard work. But where are your ''actual'' '''contributions'''!? There's more to Wikipedia than repeatedly clicking "revert".
'''Oppose''' - [[WP:ENC]]. No article-writing contributions makes it hard for me to judge how you'd interact with users who DO write articles. This would be important in a conflict, or when you are entrusted with deletion/protection tools that require at least some knowledge of article writing to understand relevant policies (e.g. notability).
'''Oppose''' - I feel you need a much broader experience & experience at article creation and editing is important, too, to gain valuable perspective as an editor. Admins are article editors, too -
'''Neutral''' &ndash; undoubtedly, an excellent user. However, I'm afraid James hasn't been on Wikipedia for the trust factor that is essential in a candidate to be established. Perhaps some participation in [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s (e.g., [[WP:MFD|MfD]], [[WP:AFD|AfD]], etc...), and some article writing (or even [[Portal:List of portals|Portal]] development) would, for my part, help this user to gain a solid grounding in Administrator functions, as well as serve up Community trust. For now, however, I can't support this RfA - perhaps in a few months, but for now I simply think this Request for potentially damaging functions is a little premature. Keep up the good work - I'm sure you'll make a fine Administrator one day ~
'''Neutral''' - per AGK/Anthøny. Spartan-James has done good work so far against vandals and trolls, but needs about two months' more experience.
'''Neutral'''. Per many above. Outstanding enthusiasm and dedication, but what's the rush? More seasoning and some broader involvement in the project and we'll see. No prejudice against voting support at some point in the future.
'''Neutral'''. Still too new, would definitely consider in future, though. --
'''Neutral'''.  You have a whole lot of good quality edits, but you've been here a very short time.  I'd definately vote for you in the future.--'''
'''Neutral''' Some more content and discussion and you'll be there.
'''Moral support'''. Everything relevant has been said in the opposes below, no need to pile on. —'''
While your work here is appreciated, you are not quite experienced enough.  100 total edits is generally well below the desired threshold.  I reccomend finding somebody to adopt you and get a little more experience under your belt and try again.
'''Oppose''' Per Chris above. Also, requesting a page move at [[WP:AN/I]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_a_name_change_to_an_article|here]] shows a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's procedures. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
Per above.  Also, take a look at [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies|successful RFAs]] for an idea of what is generally considered admin-worthy.  You need ''a lot'' more time and experience but your enthusiasm is a great first step!  —
'''Oppose''' Your answers to the questions above were vague and gave little sense of why you want to be an administrator or what you would do after you became one. Your edit history is short and shows no evidence of administrative functions which are generally considered to be a precursor for being considered for adminship. Plus, your very recent past history of vandalism is hard to overlook.
'''Oppose''' per Chris, Wikihermit, and an absurdly low edit count - I try to avoid [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|editcountitis]], but 96 total edits is unreasonable.  Please, feel free to come back when you are more experienced and familiar with Wikipedia.  --
'''Oppose''' It's waaaay to soon, mate. If you do want to contribute & eventually become an admin, then heed some common advice. 1) Withdraw this self-nomination, as it's unlikely you'll get more than a few moral support votes. 2) Find yourself a niche for editing. This can be vandal fighting, as part of a wikiproject or building up a few of your favorite articles to [[WP:GA|good article]] or [[WP:FA|featured article status]]. 3) Continue to participate in admin-related tasks, like participating at [[WP:AFD]] (this is one of the quickest ways to familiarize yourself with the policies regarding content). 4) In a few months, request an [[WP:ER|editor review]] and/or [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]]. This will be a good way to gauge your progress. And as [[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] said, read through other RfA discussions to see what the criteria are.
'''Nominator support'''. You are a great user who would benefit Wikipedia even more as a sysop. ''
'''Strong Support'''. Beat the nom support :P <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support''' Beat nom too (well, one of them)!
'''Nominator support''' :) ~
'''Support''' Another excellent candidate for the mop and bucket.  A good all-round editor.
'''Support''' Per nom.  --
'''Support''' Great Vandal Fighter. Wikipedians contribute to Wikipedia in different ways. We should give adminship to everyone qualified and willing; no matter what way they help Wikipedia.--
'''Support'''. Admin vandal fighter per nom.
'''Support'''. After combing through this editor's contributions, I'd say he is ready for the mop. I was also really impressed by how [[User:ST47|ST47]] sought feedback from people who opposed his last RfA. That shows significant growth.--
'''Support''' needs the tools, has addressed all concerns in thelast RfA. Good luck.
'''Support''' - he'd be a great mop and is clearly dedicated. his criteria all meet my standards, get him on board!
'''Support''' I see no evidence he would abuse the tools. Give them to this puppy.
'''Weak Support''' You seem to be a good user, but I don't quite see why you need the tools. However, I see no real reason not to let you have 'em. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Support''' - no reason has been articulated not to trust the user with the tools.  This is RFA, not editor review. --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' two great nominators, and a very useful editor.
'''Support''' (but keep in mind that [[User:Jon Harald Søby|RFA sucks]] and that we should think about new ways of getting new admins).
'''Weak support''' Only problem here is that you haven't made ''any'' article work. You seem like a dedicated Wikpedian and vandal-fighter, which is why I support you. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Technically proficient.
'''Support''' hell if you want to oppose him for not writing articles you my as well desysop me because ''''''I do not write articles, I cannot write articles, I will never start writing them'''''' if you want you can check my contribs. there are more than one kind of wikipedian. Most admins need to work on other stuff than article writing. I have no FA's GA's or anything else. I use AWB, VP, and other tools. just because man invented the wheel to make travel easier man invented tools to help edit wikipedia. We need more non writing admins to help clear the backlogs [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' --
I trust the candidate to behave responsibly with the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Clearly dedicated to the project, and we could use help with backlogs. User has said he would get help from other admins if he comes across a situation he's unprepared for. --
'''Support''' - I think the user will be responsible
'''Strong support''' per nom <span style="background:crimson">[[User:Kamope|<font color="gold">'''&gt;Kamope&lt;'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Kamope|<font color="yellow">Talk</font>]] '''·'''
'''Full support''' - has my trust. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Weak support''', need more experience as an editor.
'''Support''' Looks good enough to me.--
'''Oppose''' The lack of article writing is a concern, as well as the civility issues brought up during the previous RfA.  I'll be the first to admit that I had a tough go of scrutinising the candidate's contributions given the enormous amount of automated edits, so if I misread the answer to Q2 or missed some article writing or successful mediations, I'd appreciate if someone pointed me in the right direction.  [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''Oppose''' per two major issues: zero article writing and failure to address in any way the monumental concerns raised in the previous RfA. I see a boatload of vandalism and external link reversion, but you don't need administrator access for that. Not a trophy. -
'''Oppose''' - answer to Q2 is not satisfactory and the irreverence towards actively improving content seems inappropriate. I did look through your edits back to October and didn't see anything that wasn't a software assisted vandal revert or AWB machine edit, and I feel that everyone needs to actually tweak the main body of the content etc, to get experience with fixing up NPOV at the very least, even if they are poor writers. Aside from that, mostly AfD pile-ons, templated messages,. Given that he spammed about 500+ usertalk pages with welcome messages just days before his last RfA, I am concerned about his attitude to quality control and product management. Q2 is somewhat ironic when the candidate used AWB machine edits to tag about 10 talk pages for deletion in succession, all of which were turned down. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20070122224057&limit=140&target=ST47]. I'd like to see more quality contribs like NPOV cleanups, original debate at AfD etc, and an active demonstration of wisdom, and less things like those AWB CSD tagging. '''
'''Weak oppose'''. I am not very impressed by several things. You seem to do mostly semiautomatic or automatic things without enough thought beforehand. Examples are the speedy tagging of talk page redirects above and also some of your bot's WikiProject taggings, where you apparently use the category system to decide whether a page should belong to a WikiProject or not. As the category system is not a tree and also sucks quite bad, this leads to many mistakes. (Probably the WikiProjects asking for the tagging also didn't think before requesting your bot's assistance, so it is not your fault alone - however, several Wikiprojects have tagged articles using your bot, and there seem to have been problems several times). When your edits are non-automated, you almost never leave an edit summary. I can't really tell whether your speedy deletion nominations have improved since your last RfA (at that time many were bad and [[WP:BITE]]ish) or whether you have simply stopped tagging pages for speedy deletion. The answer to Q1 is what leads me to oppose: you treat [[WP:RM]] and [[WP:RFPP]] as "harmless". That seems to be where your lack of writing experience as mentioned by Blnguyen comes in: apparently you haven't seen complicated edit wars where it is hard to decide whether to protect or not, and haven't been involved in complicated move discussions involving several conflicting policies, POV pushing, sockpuppetry and questions about the validity of different polling styles (read the archives of [[Talk:Jogaila]] or whatever the article's name is today for some taste of it). I am confident that you won't abuse the tools deliberately, but I don't think you have the experience necessary to work in the areas you mentioned.
'''Oppose''' I think you might be a little fast with the delete button, and I did not like your original answer to Q2 - "don't write, can't write, won't write". Sorry. '''
'''Oppose'''. I've never run into you, but I have to oppose based on Kusma's point, that you believe WP:RM to be "harmless." You must not have experience with the bitter feelings and bad blood that move requests can generate. The lack of article writing is another minus, but if it was just that, I would probably have skipped this RfA. --
'''Oppose''' I'm not a stickler for article-writing by any means, since I really only copyedit, but the original answer to Q2, pointed out by Majorly, almost showed ''disdain'' for article writing.  That's an indicator of bad judgment, and enough to have me worried about the candidate.
'''Oppose'''; seems to think that adminship is a trophy.
'''Strong oppose''', changed from weak support. I remembered where I saw the name; user was removing external links to images and citing [[WP:EL]] as the guideline for doing so ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Lady_Records&diff=103961738&oldid=102412617]), when the guideline didn't contain a single mention of such acts.  When I brought this up with him, he suggested I upload a copyrighted non-fair use image. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AST47&diff=104899158&oldid=104898064])  I can't trust someone with such a poor grasp of image policy with the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Writing articles isn't incidental, it's the defining characteristic of a Wikipedian. And, well, I'd prefer our admins to be Wikipedians, not [[wetware]] implementations of [[User:AntiVandalBot|AntiVandalBot]]. That's not to denigrate your other contributions in any way, but do try to do some editorial work.
'''Oppose'''. I think what I would have said has been covered by everyone else here. Cliffsnotes version: Without any actual article editing, I don't know how you can handle dispute resolution, since you really need some prior experience dealing with article discussion and disputes, etc. '''
<s>'''Oppose'''. '''Strong oppose'''.</s> '''STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE.''' I really do prefer admins to have at least some experience in article writing. Not necessarily writing an article from scratch, but some sort of contribution in that area. The article writing process is a great way to see how disputes can crop up, and how they can hopefully be resolved. While I understand that admins will have their own strengths and weaknesses, I also think that they should generally be good at doing more than just one or two things. I also want to point out that answering every/nearly every oppose vote makes you seem defensive and raises questions about your ability to handle criticism. It is of course your right to respond, but that's the impression that I get. Admins get a lot of criticism, both from non-admins as well as from fellow admins, and it is essential to be able to handle that stress. I hope you're not discouraged by this feedback. If you address these concerns, I might support you in the future. --
'''Oppose''' - there are simply too many concerns raised above for me to be able to support this candidate; on top of that, I offered to nominate ST47 for [[WP:ADMIN|the extra buttons]] around 2 weeks ago, and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47_3|he/she declined]]. I can't see what has changed in 14 days. On the basis of previous concerns by my fellow Wikipedians, and the rapid turnaround in desire for the Mop, I would like to firstly respectfully voice my concerns (i.e. oppose at this time) and secondly wish this Wikipedian all the best.
'''Oppose''' per Gaillimh, lack of content contribution (which wouldn't be enough to oppose for me by itself), and the civility concerns raised in the last (very recent) RFA.  It also concerns me that the candidate has felt a need to respond to so many editors that have opposed. · '''<font color="#709070">
'''Oppose''' the original answer to question 2 leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and the responses to question 4 and to Majorly's oppose #5 don't help. You registered here because there wasn't enough vandalism on another wiki? It all gives a sense that Wikipedia is an MMORPG and if you whack enough vandals you level up. I don't think you have enough experience dealing with content to make content-related administrative decisions.
'''Oppose'''. Not a big fan of people who close contested Afd debates, which you seem to have done multiple times. Also not a big fan of hasty "delete per nom" votes, especially this close to your RFA. ---
'''Oppose''' - Too much badgering of opposers (and please note, I will '''increase''' my opposition if you badger this vote). [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> '''Strong oppose''' Answer to Q2 did not satisfy me.  I made a quick search of the candidate's article experience, and it appears that the article the candidate has edited the most was [[Awards and decorations of the military of Sri Lanka]] with 11 edits with no edit summaries, I'm not impressed.  Switched to strong oppose per the candidate's uncivil remarks towards some of the opposers in this RfA.
'''Oppose''' anyone who thinks getting a thousand pages speedied is "fun". I do newpage patrol, I've placed plenty of speedy tags, but it's not fun. A lot of times, it pisses people off or hurts them when they don't understand why their garage band article or personal homepage can't be here, and you have to handle them with care, and sometimes, tolerate some abuse from them. It's necessary, but it's not a game.
'''Oppose'''- Not suitable for admin- has zero experience of writing articles.
'''Oppose'''. Before I read this, I was inclined to support, but I was obviously mistaken. Too many real concerns raised by Proto, Kusma, Opabinia regalis, and others, to support at this time. "I find it amazing that there are people who feel so strongly that they would argue their point so strongly to fix up an article". That says it all really.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' (Upgraded due to irrelevent attacks, which user asserts were really clever points that we misunderstood, entiteling him to remove comments. See Kyoko above.) We need admins, yes, and looking at RFA, we're getting several more in the next few days. Not all admins need to be article writers, but they should at least understand why someone might&mdash;say&mdash;take the time to fix up an article. User demonstrates no understanding of this perspective, and I would not trust him with admin tools. I also don't want newbie biters affixed with the community's seal of approval.
<s>'''Weak Oppose''' '''Strong Oppose'''</s> '''ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!''' I am concerned about this user's lack of experience in any areas outside of maintenance and vandal fighting. While I was leaning support at first, the two things that disturbed me most were 1) the behavioral concerns in this user's last RfA, which was only three months ago, and 2) the user's aggressive responses to oppose !votes in this RfA, which suggest to me that this issue has not been fully addressed. –&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' as per aggressive comments to RfA opposition. Plus I feel that you are too trigger happy with the speedy deletions.  Tagging 1000 pages for deletion shouldn't be considered "fun".  '''''
'''Oppose'''. No contributions means I can't trust him to have sympathy for contributors. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Oppose''' - I feel article-writing is vital for a good admin.--
'''Oppose''' - too many admins and admin candidates are not interested in building the encyclopedia.-
'''Oppose'''. The incivility in responses to oppose votes alone makes me think the candidate doesn't have the judgement and even temper that every admin needs. --<font color="black">
'''Strong oppose''' - insufficient grasp of policy, incivility without reason, and his change to Kyoko's vote show a certain maladroitness, and no need for the tools is seen. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Oppose''' - Moved from neutral - Although I encourage civil & calm replies to people's opposes on RfA's (I see no harm), ST47 have been placing obvious argumentative & uncalm comments & replies throughout this RfA. If a user cannot cope with negatives in his own RfA, how can we trust him to be calm in another person's RfA or anything else for that matter. I placed my initial reasoning for my neutral stance below in the neutral section, this erratic behaviour is not fitting of an admin. Sorry man, but it's oppose from me...
Civilty issues and refusal to write articles
'''Oppose''' &bull; There are simply far too much civility and personal attack issues here.  He's bordering on a block, not adminship. Wikipedia has a code of conduct.  Occasional lapses in judgment are expected and forgivable.  Continued misbhevaiour will be sanctioned.  ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''', civility and personal attacks '''in this RfA'''. '''

'''[[User:Crzrussian|Crzrussian]] memorial oppose''' The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FST47_2&diff=89722480&oldid=89715451 concerns I expressed last time], viz., my perception that ST47 is disposed to apply [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] too liberally (although [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] is quite right to observe that any admin action can be undone with facility, such that we oughtn't to be too concerned about a candidate's erring from time to time, improper speedies often never again see the light of day, and so [[WP:IAR|IAR]]ing is most pernicious relative to CSD), remain unallayed, and I cannot conclude with any degree of confidence that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of ST47's being sysopped should be positive]].  I am, as others, profoundly troubled by the candidate's conduct during the pendency of this RfA; even as I imagine most (all?) of his comments to be jocular in nature, I wonder whether one evidences good judgment by his repeatedly making comments that are likely to be misunderstood by many (most?) other editors, such that, the malhumor of those editors notwithstanding, the collegial collaboration on which the success of our undertakings here depends is likely to be imperiled.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Deleting comments made in an RfA, let alone your own RfA, is completely unacceptable. --
Leaning towards oppose. <s>By all that I see, you're a good candidate. However,</s> I'm uncomfortable about this being close to exactly 3 months after a previous RfA with so many issues brought up. I also have Proto's concern, except I find it more troubling. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=109329902&oldid=109324624 And I reeealy don't like this]. -
'''Neutral''' per Gaillimh and Amarkov. —
A very enthuisatic candidate, but I do not think is prepared enough yet to handle editorial-related issues that may crop up in processes (e.g. [[WP:AFD]]). May support in future. -
'''Neutral''' Needs to be a bit more well rounded.
'''Neutral''', too many oppose reasons to support but seems like a good editor.
'''Neutral''' per Amarkov.--
--
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry :-( You haven't got enough edits, you need to show in your editing that you can be trusted, this is the same for the length of time you've been editing - you've only been here a couple of says. I'd suggest re-trying when you have around 2-3000 edits and 4 months of experience. You are doing a good job however so keep it up! :-)
'''Strong Oppose''' - per reasons above. You are just not experienced enough yet — take Ryan's advice, wait a while. <big>~</big>[[User talk:Spebi|<span style="color:#690;font-weight:bold;">Spe</span>]]
'''Oppose''' with fewer than 250 edits in total, there isn't enough evidence for me to tell if you have the understanding of Wikipedia's policies and the right temperament to be an administrator. You didn't correctly transclude your RfA to [[WP:RFA]]. Unfortunately you just aren't ready yet. More seriously you uploaded [[:Image:DBmap.png]] and tagged it as a work you had created, which is extremely unlikely - this is clearly scanned from a book; this is not the only incorrectly tagged image you have uploaded. Incorrectly licensed images are a serious problem and admins cannot be confused on this issue. As I suggested on your talk page, get some more experience on Wikipedian, then try an [[WP:ER|editor review]] in a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' You simply must get more experience before your application will be successful.  Anyone prepared to go through RFA is to be applauded but you must understand some of the basic requirements - some months of presence here, some evidence of understanding of Wikipedia policy, some proof of time making this a better encyclopaedia.  Sorry to oppose but you should continue to contribute positively and re-apply when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' No where near enough experience. You have less than 200 edits, almost half being edits to your userpage. Admins need to know there way around here. They need knowledge of policies and a sense of how things work. I don't think less than a month is enough time to know all that. And having 0% edit summary usage is bad in my eyes. --Malevious
'''Oppose''': While the experience is an issue, your edit summary usage is also pretty poor and the answers to the questions is not very great. I think with a bit more time you may be able to have a successful RfA, but not at this moment. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW]]. Let's end this.
'''Oppose''' common newbie mistake. &mdash;
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.... --'''
'''Oppose''' - No way. You didn't even try to answer the questions and you don't have enough experience, or edits for that matter.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, edits, and very weak answers to questions. Just too early for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits, and have a solid track record of several months as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made just over 150 edits and have only been a reistered editor at Wikipedia since 17 April. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Beside your lack of experience, your answer to Q3 is hair-raising. I will not elaborate further, since I would be even more abrasive, but a candidate stating that he will just "do what he's told" is a non-starter for me.
'''Strong oppose''' - Q1 shows you dont have an adequate understanding of the tools and the fact that this RFA is somewhat malformed is a telling thing as well. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I can't support at this time, per Anonymous Dissident. If you're interested, an editor review may be helpful.
Giving advice in the support column rather than in the oppose: first off, you're not too young: there are no age limits on administrators; no one should care how old you are as long as you do good work and demonstrate knowledge of policy and admin-related areas (I myself am 16, and there are many administrators, as well as a bureaucrat, younger than I am). Secondly, I suggest you use edit summaries more often. That is fixed very easily by going into your preferences and selecting "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Finally, I suggest you enable E-mail, as administrators need to have E-mail on. With any luck, after some more time and experience, your next RfA should pass. Good luck.
I've seen no experience in admin-related areas (notably the Wikipedia namespace), the answer to Q1 suggests limited experience with Wikipedia in general, and there are limited interactions with other users.  Your edit summary usage is extremely low; please use it more so that others will know what you have edited.  Because of all this, I'm '''opposing'''. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' Your recent edits seem to consist of a flurry of welcome templates. You didn't bother to even use an edit summary for transcluding or creating this RfA. The answers to the questions are, well, basically weak. Some 18% of your edits are to your user space.  I'm sorry but '''please do not be discouraged''', because your work is appreciated and I look forward to interacting with you in the future as a fellow [[Wikipedian]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Way more experience is needed. Use an edit summary, and come back in a few months. -
'''Strong Oppose''' Well, I'm a broken record on this point, but let me go beyond my usual reasons for opposition.  I couldn't get past the poor answers to the standard questions.  Needs to get a lot more experience.
'''Oppose''' By judging this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMagictito&diff=159035010&oldid=156756586 link], I'm opposing here. Please come back with more patient. --
'''Oppose:''' On the one hand, I hate to pile on; on the other, I can't really vote Neutral when there's scarcely any reason to back.  The nom has yet to demonstrate experience, any wide grasp of Wikipedia activity or much skill in answering the customary questions.
'''Oppose''' Per above. Not yet ready. '''
Strong oppose, lacks maturity and judgement. '''
'''Neutral''' to avoid pileon. You have ''never'' participated in any kind of XfD; you almost never use edit summaries, and the multiple edits to [[Walpole, Massachusetts]] you say are your best work consist - in their totality - of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walpole%2C_Massachusetts&diff=160760198&oldid=146902568 this]. As per your own comments last week, get some experience in admin areas - particularly deletion - and come back in January or February; I'd personally strongly recommend getting some substantive article-writing experience in as well.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
What I said last time. I believe candidate has learned a lot since then, but some more time is still necessary.
Candidate gives the impression of being immature, and lacks any substantial experience in mainspace and in administrator-type areas. The fact that this user needed to be told by a number of users, myself included, to fix his signature as it violated [[WP:SIG]] '''only earlier this month'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stormtracker94/Archive_2#About_your_sig...] shows distinct inexperience. User is not ready for the tools. '''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Daniel|Daniel]]. And his use of the summary box could be better. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">
Upon second review, your first RfA was less then a month ago. You need more time to address concerns. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not quite ready yet. You still have to address the issues raised from your last RfA.
'''Oppose'''. I'm a little concerned about experience dealing with other editors on vandalism patrol. It's been about a month since I contributed to his [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Stormtracker94|editor review]], and at that time I noticed that he had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikophile&diff=next&oldid=156743047 twice issued warning] to an editor for vandalizing a page that the editor had not, so far as I can see in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&target=Wikophile deleted contributions log], touched. More recently, I see a lot of good vandalism clean-up, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sesame_Street&diff=prev&oldid=166380263 here], but I'm not seeing ''any'' warnings to editors. I believe good communication with editors who make inappropriate edits is an important part of recent changes patrol, and without seeing some example of the user engaging in that communication, I can't guess what skills he could apply in that area as an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' - I've seen you round, Stormtracker, but I don't think you're ready yet. Your comments in AfD show you're inexperienced. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet slang phrases (3rd nomination)|This]] isn't exactly a good argument to use in an AfD discussion - especially when you cite [[WP:POVFORK]] without specifying which article. You've tried hard to revert vandalism, but one month isn't enough to fix all of the issues from your last RfA. Wait a couple of months, read [[WP:ATA]], then come back here for another RfA. '''''
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see mainspace contributions from this candidate (i.e. improving articles). '''
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry ST.  It still looks like you need more hands-on experience.  Keep plugging away, give it a month or two, and perhaps you can try again.  Good luck!  --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' -- I don't think that 3 months is a long enough experience span, and I am moved to oppose by the candidates lack of answers to questions 4-7.  --[[User:FastLizard4|<span style="color:#228B22">'''FastLizard4'''</span>]] ([[user_talk:FastLizard4|Talk]]•[[User:FastLizard4/Links|Links]]•
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after six months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I'm not sure yet here. The number of edits are fine, maybe a couple more months of experience, though.
'''Neutral'''.  A good editor, but not enough time has passed since previous RFA to demonstrate a sufficient improvement.  I recommend taking another 6 to 8 weeks before trying again.  Bonus points for having exactly [[Firewire|1394]] edits last month.
'''Neutral''' because his heart is in the right place.  In [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Stormtracker94|his editor review]], he wrote last month that he planned to apply for adminship in January or February 2008; he should indeed probably wait until then.
'''Very, very weak support''' Although this is going to fail, it should be noted almost all of the opposes cite diffs from months ago. This user hasn't been blocked in quite a while as well. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - Per lack of experience. I think 1200 edits are nice, but the only main admin work you took part in was AIV and ANI, and there are much more parts to being a admin (I think, like [[WP:XFD]], [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:RFPP]] etc.). Try again in about 2-3 months taking part in those areas. Good luck next time. --
'''Oppose''' Street Scholar just came back after a four-month hiatus that started with a month-long block. Granted the block (for personal attacks towards a vandal) was probably overkill, but Street Scholar has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Street_Scholar long history] of personal attacks. That he so recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Street_Scholar&diff=153746001&oldid=153741830 considered and kept] the feminazi reference convinces me that this problem has not left us completely.--
'''Oppose'''.  Not using edit summaries frequently, getting blocked recently, politically incorrect language unbecoming of an admin, insufficient edit count, insufficient constructive discussion with other users, disappearing for months at a time, weak answers to questions, and no demonstrated need for the mop.   Sorry, but try again in six months, show some improvement, and I will reconsider my stance.
<s>I'm sorry, but I'll have to oppose. Q1 doesn't really demonstrate knowledge of what adminship is, and you seem just a little too inexperienced overall (only a few comments to AFDs). I suggest that you try again in a few months' time.<s> <b>
'''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Street_Scholar&diff=prev&oldid=115131046 this] and other diffs mentioned above showing lack of composure.  Also this editor is not very active on Wikipedia and doesn't have nearly enough experience in admin-like activities (XfD and other Wikipedia namespace).  Unimpressive edit summary usage.  I recommend a few months of high activity without edits that show that you can't "keep your cool".
'''Strong oppose''' Per everyone above. And especially your block log. Also, you have very short question answers. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose''' While I don't like to see "Pile-on" opposes, I do wish to comment, and suggest that you go into your preferences, to the 'Edit' tab, to 'force' an edit summary when leaving a blank one. I'd also suggest that you carefully review all the comments made here, reviewing each link given to you, and not take these personally or negatively, but take them as constructive criticism towards helping you in the future. You can still greatly help the project without being an administrator, and I would encourage you to make some changes mentioned here, continue editing, retain a cool head, preview before saving, and perhaps with time, things will change. However, at this point, I would respectfully suggest it may be best if you withdraw. <sup>
'''Oppose''' per the block log, and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKefalonia%2FStreet_Scholar&diff=155249074&oldid=46140208| diff]. Basically he speedied an RfC about himself that was in another user's talkspace. Granted, it was expired, so it should have been deleted, but I think Streetscholar doing the deletion himself (and without comment in the speedy tag or edit history) shows a profound lack of judgement. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Edits like this are unacceptable for an potential admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Street_Scholar&diff=prev&oldid=115131046/ This]. You have a long history for making personnal attcks. You have short answers to all questions, and they show little knowledge to what an admin does. You have been blocked several times as well. I strongely suggest withdrawl by [[WP:SNOW]].  Sorry. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Neutral''' I'd like to support this editor as most of his edits are valid, but the divisive reference to "feminazis" on his user page, horribly weak answer to Q1 and apparent refusal to use edit summaries put me off<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Weak Support''' is a good editor, but I'm concerned about how long this user has been actively editing. -
'''Support''' has fought vandals and has good track with POV bias and above all is a good editor.
'''Support''' I'm tipping this way because your track record appears to be positive and you have answered the negatives above.  I'm not too happy about what appears to be an over-reliance on auto tools to edit the mainspace but I think that over time your contributions will balance out to a mix of manual and automated.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' &ndash; <Steel359> A non idiot. </Steel359> :-) <small>—</small>'''[[User:Animum Delivery Bot|<font color="Green">«</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' He is quite devoted to the editing of Wikipedia including deltetion and other things. He is also quite willing to work and recieve the mop
'''Support''' Very active in cleaning-up Wikipedia. Seems very responsible and deserving of administrative tools. --
'''Support''' Although I suspect this RFA will not pass, and would suggest withdrawal at this time. My one direct contact with this candidate was a joint positive effort to help a newbie with an article that had been speedied several times, to see if it could be written off the mainspace to a level the fullfilled requirements (alas it was not to be). The civility, genuine wish to help myself and the new editor and communication skills were excellent, all prime admin traits (with respect to [[User:LaraLove|Lara]] below I have no collaboration concerns based on this personal experience). I am mildly concerned that a lot of recent edits are machine (AWB) based, and also concerns per [[User:Husond|Husond]] below, however I see an enormous ammount of positives here as well, and would sugest you continue what you are doing, take note of the comments raised in opposition and I look forward to giving a further (and less qualified) support at a future RFA in 2/3 months. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per what I said in the nomination statement. -
'''Support''' Policy and process knowledge over experience, in my opinion.
'''Support''' Low edit count is about my only unaddressed concern, but, editcountitis notwithstanding, adminship is not a big deal and I liked the candidate's upfrontness on Q4 as well as his reply to Q6, which takes care of the concern I shared with Husönd re: [[WP:RFPP]].
'''Support''' Believe it or not, I only had ''one'' edit to RFPP when I ran for adminship the second time, and I had said in Question 1 that RFPP was a place where I wanted to do admin work. I now spend a lot of time at RFPP. I don't see anything wrong with this user.
'''Support''' &ndash; this user seems to have a very similar history to what I had pre-RfA: I made some mistakes with [[WP:AWB|AWB]], to give one instance; and, without wanting to sound boastful or anything, I'd say I've turned out all right. The user clearly has a desire to help out, and piling-on Opposes because of some mistakes in the past isn't something I'm a fan of; we need more Administrators, and I can't see this user abusing his tools, even with the AWB misuse. Best of luck, mate :) Cheers,
'''Moral Support''' Knows a lot about policy and would not misuse the tools. Although more experience is always good. --
I see no reason, to beleive that this user would harm the project, by being given the tools. '''Support''' --
'''Yes''' -- <strong>
'''Support''' - I like your response to Q4, it shows humility and real devotion to the community. concerns about expierence notwithstanding, I feel that I could ''trust'' this user with the tools. --
'''Support''' per TwoOars' excellent reasoning in the discussion section above. [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup>
'''Support''' per TwoOars and all the above. Xfds and WikiProjects be damned, he's a fine, upstanding, average, modest, healthy, normal user. And there aren't that many people in the world you can say that about. Most of the oppose votes don't actually find flaw in his editing. Instead, they deride him for having done nothing spectacular or sufficiently obscure. It's [[WP:NOBIGDEAL|no big deal]], and there's no reason to object. --
'''Support''' - per above --
Moral support, suggest withdrawal -- <b>
'''Support'''. I like the socialist's reasoning above. This user has my trust: they are not going to abuse the tools and (especially with a little more reading of instructions to avoid AWB-like mistakes) they will make a fine admin. A little more experience would be beneficial, but there is definitely no solid reason to oppose beyond 'not enough edits to...'. Good luck next time as it is. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support'''.  Contributions to the project space may be a little on the thin side but this user seems to have plenty of other positive support to back him up.  I can't see any reason to mistrust this user.
'''Change from Neutral to Support'''  Really, you will do fine with the tools, and the experience will come faster if you have the admin's tools to bolster your editing!  '''
'''Support''', no big deal, I was voted an admin with only four months experience a year and a half ago, a real sign of RFA-inflation and I see no problems with this user. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support'''. No big issues here, a fine user, who will make a fine admin! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' as I think this candidate has a good overall record and would be a fine administrator. Please continue editing, and address some of the points raised in the oppose comments to come back with an even stronger record next time.
Support this RfA. The opposers don't persuade me otherwise. This candidate could do with some admin buttons. '''
'''Support''' --
—'''
'''Weak Support''' nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, but a bit more experience would be good.
'''Support''' It's just a mop.
'''Oppose''', sorry, per experience concerns on the project space. Particularly [[WP:RFPP]], an area where you intend to work at but have no record of any request or edit to. Vandalfight is not bad, but I would prefer to see you get more experience there also before you have access to the block tool.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Weak Oppose''' Definitely a lack of edits to any specific page and extremely low talk page edit count shows me they probably do not have much, if any, experience discussing and conflicting with other editors, and low Wikispace edits are concerning. Based on that, I was going to go with '''neutral''', but the fact that they've only been editing with any real degree of consistency since march makes me think this editor isn't quite ready for the mop. My advice, get a bit more involved with dealing with conflicts and talking about content on talk pages, and start helping out with some of WP'S TLA ANI ETC stuff and come back in a couple months --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Oppose''' per Husond and Lucid. It is always best to work in areas that you wish to work in once you become an admin. Would like to see more variety in the edits. Would be nice if a good majority of your edits weren't with Twinkle or AWB.
'''Weak Oppose''' A polite, knowledgeable user who needs more experience in some forums that they expressed an interest in, but also in general.
I came here expecting to support, but low project space participation, including what Husond and most of the guys above me have said, leads me to oppose - you need more experience in admin related tasks.
'''Oppose''' - I think you can achieve admin in the future, but I agree that some additional experience is needed. Consider joining a WikiProject for an area of interest to you. Gain experience working collaboratively (talk page edit count leads me to believe you may not have a lot of experience with this). Continue to explore the encyclopedia to find areas of interest to you where admin tools would be helpful. And do not be discouraged by this RfA. Look at is as an opportunity to improve so that you coast through the next one.
'''Respectful oppose''' You mean well I can tell but I must oppose per the reasons above as well. You need more experience and you haven't quiet yet dealt with situations where things can get ugly. Try again in a few months. -
'''Oppose''' Per lack of overall experience.  I would prefer a more active and more experienced user to get the tools.
'''Oppose''' Per Giggy.
And suggest withdrawal, sorry. '''
Sorry. Lack of experience in project space. You seem to be a fine editor (100% edit summaries, nothing controversial), but only 2.5k edits, and half of them seem to be done with TW and AWB. If you retry in a few months' time, I'm sure you'll make a great admin :-) <b>
'''Oppose''' - lack of writing experience. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - Too many edits made with automated tools, edits that are not essential and don't enhance the encyclopedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Ambi&diff=prev&oldid=148925109], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-03-16&diff=prev&oldid=148929390], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-20&diff=next&oldid=140215622]. Not sure about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=140539606] username report either, I get the feeling it would have been blocked if this user was able to do so themselves. It was clearly not a bad faith username so should never have been reported to WP:UAA. On the other hand, AIV reports all look good though. Heading in the right direction and I look forward to reviewing this editors contributions in 8-12 weeks at their next RfA.
'''Oppose''' Nick's concerns and those of others make me think that waiting a few months would be a good idea.
'''Oppose''' per Husond. I think the user looks promising, but I would like to see a touch more work on project space.
'''Oppose''' because of lack of evidence of rounded experience and lack of evidence of full engagement in communication - the talk pages I looked at were mainly tags or terse comments. I'd like to see more evidence of the human behind the bot. I have no other concerns, and in another couple of months I could be saying support.
'''Oppose''' Per Melsaran.--'''
'''Oppose''' per Husond's comments. I think you need a bit more familiarity with housecleaning tasks that non-admins can help out with (projects, etc) and some meaty "sagas" (discussions, colloboration, etc). However as previously mentioned once these minor concerns are addressed I think you will be ready for the mop. --
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a concern here. Try again after a few months and you will have my support. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', the lack of experience is worrying for me; particularly when "experienced-enough-for-adminship" users forget to sign important things like the candidate's acceptance and the answers to the optional questions. –
'''Oppose'''- you're an excellent user, but your lack of experience in the areas where you would like to participate if given administrator rights make me doubt your ability to do so. I would also like to see a little more participation in the mainspace. I agree with Deskana's comments above; an administrator needs to be able to correctly use every single one of his tools, should he be asked to. If he doesn't have much participation in many areas where an administrator is usually needed, then I doubt his ability to use the tools correctly. Give it a little more time. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' - Lack of experience in the areas where you would like to participate if given the administrator tools makes it difficult to determine whether you would be trustworthy with those tools. Not that this has anything to do with my position, but when I first saw your user name, I thought [[swastiker]]. Even if this RfA fails, please try again in three months. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose with sentiments of Support''' - I see an editor who has a specific need in which the tools can be applied, but without enough experience just yet. I think this is one of the better discussions I have seen here. Personally, I am less influenced by pure edit count, or places you have been editing, and more by the sample time available by which to judge your overall personality (to the flawed extent this can be done in a digital environment). Thus, following TwoOars logic, if you come back in a few months and simply have twice as many edits of the type you have been doing all along, that would be fine for me to support, because it would give me a longer period of time over which I can identify any patterns in your behavior which might lead me to support, or if I find anything that raises a red flag, oppose. One point of disagreement I have with TwoOars' reasoning: I am not a fan of the idea of rushing someone through an RfA simply because they might not be around Wikipedia in a few months. If that is the case, what's the point of giving you extra responsibility? Time served also demonstrates to me a commitment to the project. Come back in a few months, and if I see a continuation of what you have been doing thus far, an see that you have maintained the ability to learn and grow from mistakes, you'll have my support.
'''Oppose''' - less than 3,000 edits, not experienced enough. Wikipedia-space count isn't outstanding. Not real article contributions - enough experience to help struggling newbies? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, contrib count is just too low. Admins need to have lots of experience here and I just don't really think 2,600 edits is quite enough. Best of luck though.
'''Oppose.''' Insufficient experience at this time, especially per low number of substantive mainspace edits.
'''Neutral''' - How should I phrase it...lack of experience in the Project space. But this user isn't a c*** at all, so I won't oppose. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Lack of experience but a well-focused editor who aims to help Wikipedia <font style="color:red">
'''Neutral''' So hard to chose. --
'''Neutral:''' Just a bit more editing time!
'''Neutral''' Good candidate, but I believe they also need more experience.
I like your eagerness to fight vandalism, but you don't appear to have made any posts to [[WP:AIV]], which suggests a lack of experience in the area. You also need to try to leave edit summaries more often.
'''Weak Support''' Seems determined and has the experience.  The questions could have been answered a little better, but I think you'll be able to take on being an admin. without any problem. '''
'''Support''' I believe that SunStar would make a fine administrator, mainly because he has kept his ground in the midst of the questions he has been given. His answers could have been more formal, but they were respectively correct answers in the fact that he told the truth and maintained good manner, which is hard to find these days. I believe that his contributions, though few and not outstanding, were significant enough to let him be considered a member of wikipedia. All users should have the right to administrate, and I believe there is nothing stopping Sun Star. -
'''Support''' - Based on my personal interactions with this user, he has a level head and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. I've seen other admins with fewer qualifications made admins. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - Seems to be a excellent canadite for adminship only problem is lack of time on Wikipedia and seems to make that up in drive to make a difference.--
'''Support''' I agree with St. Daniel, needs more time on Wikipedia, though great candidate.
'''Support''' I don't see any red flags, and I honestly don't think that it's necessary to demand more than 1000 total edits and 3+ months.  Experience is helpful but so is enthusiasm.
Sunstar seems to know his way around, and I find the editcountitic oppose arguments unconvincing. However, since this nom appears likely to fail, drop me a line a month or two from now if you want a new nomination.
'''Support''' looks like a good person, and he meets [[User:Danntm/RFA|my guideline]].--
'''Support''', 633 article, 94 talk and 743 WP space edits is exactly my new arbitrary criteria for the purposes of this vote.  In all seriousness, nothing wrong, seems trustworthy, and thus why not?
'''Moral Support''' &bull; I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I suggest you withdraw.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - fails my criteria, sorry. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' Too early, especially for a self-nom. Also, with 633 article, 94 talk, and 743 WP space edits, this is a bit lopsided. ~
'''Oppose''' per above; you need to be around a little more. ''
Experience. --
'''Weak oppose''' per experience, but I'd like to see more of you in the future. --
'''Oppose'''. A good-faith nomination, but I must oppose this user per his lack of time commitment with the project, and his relatively low amount of experience in the mainspace. Consider going up for RfA again in a few months after you've accumulated more mainspace edits. '''

'''Oppose''' I must agree that 630 mainspace edits are a much too minimal. I would expect about 2000 in my own judgement. Your other spots appear to be okay. Work on the mainspace, then come back again. Good luck! --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#C71585">'''Tohru Honda13'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tohru Honda13|Talk]]•
'''Oppose''' Ehh...I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to RfA, but, just a few more months for this one. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose''' - no offence, but your very first edits were not those of Wikipedia newbie, making me unable to shake the feeling you are a sockpuppet of someone. IP editing doesn't make me feel any better about this either, that IP has some odd stuff going on with it. Your first edits weren't just knowledgeble, they were creepy. Can't support.
'''Oppose'''- Not enough edits to mainspace and other reasons--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, low mainspace edit count.
'''Weak Oppose''' - A bit more contributions needed for mainspace. But otherwise, getting there.
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with [[User:Pschemp|pschemp]]; it's odd for a new user to welcome some other new user on his first day.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hannah_s85&diff=prev&oldid=84023034]  Something's weird about this nom.
I would like like to support you, but unfortunately I must oppose. I have to agree with Pschemp's comments. You don't have enough experience under this account, anyway, but if you had more experience, I would feel happier overlooking the query about your history. '''
'''Oppose''' - you offer one example of your article writing: [[Blackford, Cumbria]], which is poorly formatted and isn't sourced.
'''Oppose''', I agree with everyone else. Come back in maybe two or three years.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience here is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Inexperience - Come back in 3 months and I may reconsider. -
'''Oppose''', too much unnecessary tagging of vandal accounts against [[WP:DENY]], and per Pschemp.
'''Oppose''', not that worried by edit levels, but share the concerns of [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] and [[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah]]. The nature of those early edits hasn't been explained sufficiently for comfort.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience under this name, and seems ambivalent about Wikipedia.
'''Sorry''', but you've too few edits to main NS and I don't much like the answers to 5 and 6.
'''Oppose''' per Pschemp, sorry, and low mainspace edits. --
'''Oppose''' I'm glad a lot of other users are expressing the same feelings I've felt since this user arrived.  I have been, and remain, highly suspicious of motives and similarities to former users.  Glad that many other people think this way too and I'm not one of a select few.
'''Oppose''' experience is not sufficient enough to demonstrate suitability for admin rights.--
'''Oppose'''.  I have no knowledge about the *puppet suspicions, but I'm concerned about experience and I'm especially concerned about your answers to the questions.  I didn't get a warm, fuzzy feeling that you understood policy and knew the best way to apply it and deal with conflict, which, in my opinion, will shine through from a good candidate.  In particular, I thought your response to question #4 was not very good and a very quick way to start unnecessary WikiDrama.  Bottom line, more experience needed all around.  —
'''Neutral'''  I see quite a few positive edits in a very short time, and nothing that really jumps out at me as a negative, but 3 months of editing here is a bit too new for me.  The candidate has participated in XfD and vandal warning, but I'd like to see a bit more evidence of policy grasp.  I may change my mind based on answers to optional questions once they are added here, but right now I'm leaning towards the opinion that this editor needs to have a bit more experience.--
'''Neutral''' but very encouraging.  I think that you really need a bit more experience on WP and a few more edits.  I'd particularly like to see more mainspace edits, enriching the encyclopaedia.  That said, I'm impressed by your involvement so far and I'm sure if you continue to contribute in this way for a few more months, your second RFA will be a walkover.  I'm with Isotope23, I'm prepared to reappraise based on more answers.  But please, do not be discouraged.
'''Neutral''' Quite a determined user, but a bit more experience is needed for something like adminship. Try again in a while, you have quite a handful of extremely positive edits in the AfD area. Keep it up.
'''Neutral''' as others have articulated, I think you might benefit from more experiance prior to becoming an admin. --
'''Neutral''' The editcount tally and spread across the main spaces is very encouraging.  I would like to see some more participation in admin-related tasks before my opinion turns to 'support'.
'''Neutral''' A great user, but edit count is still too low. I'll be glad to support in a couple of months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' I like the answers to the questions, I like the edit spread, and I like the user's additute. However, my concerns are the same as (aeropagitica)'s.
'''Neutral''' per everyone else. You're like that guy that needs a 1800 on the [[SAT]] but gets a 1790. You almost have a good enough edit count, you almost have enough AfD experience, and you almost got a support form me. I think if you had waited even a month you would've gotten a nice amount of support.--
'''Neutral''' - per comments above. Try again after another 2000 edits.
'''Neutral''' per all of the aboves. You're not ready. '''
'''Neutral'''. Excellent job so far, but not enough edits/experience yet. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' per all of the above. ←
'''Neutral''' per aeropagitica and others.  If your contributions continue with the quality and (less important) quantity you've shown thus far, in a couple more months I'll be glad to support.
'''Neutral''' Editcoutitis is bad. But I would suggest that you review the Administrator's Suggested Reading list a bit more, brush up on the relevant policy, and come back in a month or two. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Relatively good answers, but I'm doubting if the experience is enough. '''''
'''Neutral''' Come back soon. You're on the right path. Welcoming people on your first day [[WP:AGF|should be applauded]], not seen as a shortcoming.
'''Neutral''': You're doing great, but come back with more admin-related-task experience. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
<s>'''Support'''. Now that he's explained the previous account thing, nothing more gives me pause. Seen him around, and he seems to know what he's doing. [[User talk:Picaroon9288|Picaroon]] 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)</s> I've done some more thinking about this, and its lead me to wish to change to neutral.
<s>'''Weak Support''' due to lack of experience . Otherwise, SunStar Net seems to have a basic grasp of how things work here and would, I believe, grow into the extra bit quite nicely. </s> After further consideration, I cannot support, but I won't oppose, either. ···
'''Neutral''' You have great ideas, but you should try again in three months. But, the answers to questions were great.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:CJ_King|<span style="color:red;">C</span>]][[User talk:CJ_King|<span style="color:blue;">J</span>]]
'''Support''' as nominator, don't forget to transclude when you finish the questions. :-) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' Looks good. I encourage all candidates to canvass their rfa, nothing wrong with it in the slightest. It's just a guideline, and [[WP:GRFA]] is an essay... best of luck my friend :) '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' - When a bunch of people who don't understand policy/guidelines themselves... then you are obviously a good candidate. Really... who gives a damn you canvassed at the end of the day? But... you need to tone down a bit Supebfc and not argue.
'''Support''' - Good candidate, terrible oppose reasons. Can we just forget the [[WP:CANVAS]] and other frivolous issues, here? Although I rarely ever use it myself, maybe it's time to bring out the [[WP:IAR|IAR]], since these are extremely minor little things.
'''Strong Support''' Per Majorly.--
'''Pro'''. I discovered an admin blocked a user indefinitely for violating 3RR ''just once'' (and I noted that user seemed quite reasonable in the discussion I witnessed, as both sides were). Candidate's comments lead me to believe that they will block only as necessary, and if there are disputes candidate '''will''' listen to reason. All admins must undergo a learning curve, and while some will object that admins should be in perfect command of all rules at the beginning that ''doesn't make the need for more of them'' any less. This is the important thing I take out of the answers to my questions above. I blame myself for making things somewhat ambiguous. I do not particularly like the comment to ignore another user, however, because it either is combative or the user did not notice that the user had been unblocked. I do not want to set up a Catch 22 for this user since we all want the candidate to both appear nonplussed by the candidacy process, but also sufficiently interested to provide adequate reasoning on the hot issues. I feel that in the future I will start asking candidates this: '''How patient are you?''' How many rounds back-and-forth before a block? (If you answer with a number, you fail the question; you're supposed to ask another admin for assistance). :) --
'''Weak Support'''. As per my comments in Tenebrae's recent RfA, I believe that canvassing for RfAs should be allowed. The people best qualified to evaluate an admin candidate are those who have worked and interacted with that candidate before, and informing them of an upcoming RfA is not harmful. However, my support is weakened by the fact that the candidate clearly isn't aware of the prohibition against canvassing, which suggests s/he may not be fully ready for adminship.  <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Moral support''' - has the makings for a future admin.  Just needs to become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and understand why they are so important to uphold.  Starting with [[WP:CANVAS]]. '''''
'''Support''' Per [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|No big deal]].
'''Weak Support''' per Majorly and T —
'''Support'''&mdash;sysopship [[User:Jimbo Wales|is not a *big deal*]], and I'm confident that super can be trusted with the janitor's trolley ~
'''Support'''-Seems like a user everyone can trust but why are you opposing because he/she is canvassing, canvassing is not wrong. I don't see anything wrong with that, so we're saying that if you see a campaign ad you will most likey not vote for the that person eh?<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
Sorry to be a splash of cold water, but spamming strangers' talk pages for an RfA is a sign of... perhaps a lack or experience? I looked at your edit count page etc., poor use of edit summaries. Many months with no edits; this is ''tireless''? I haven't been voting in RfAs for a while and won't be around to vote next time you're nominated... but I say wait at least six months and contribute more regularly...
'''Oppose'''-You weren't active for a few month before this March, and you've been canvassing user talk pages saying "if you're going to support me, say here". --
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CANVAS]] vio. Admins should have a grasp of all major policies. A user who needs to canvas for votes doesn't deserve the tools yet. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a few months. --Malevious
'''Weak oppose''' We could always use some more administrators, but spamming others' talk pages is a sign of lack of editing experience. Just get some more editing practice. See if you can get a list of the most important Wikipedia policies. Don't give up! Go for it! ;-) [[User:ANNAfoxlover|<span style="background:lightblue"><font face="Times New Roman">A•N•N•A</font></span>]]
'''Oppose'''- From the user's response to [[User:William Henry Harrison]]'s comment, I can see he has some serious [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] issues. The user is clearly not capable of accepting criticism. By the way, I agree with [[User:William Henry Harrison]]'s comments. Thank you. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
Canvassing per above. Also you don't get to state whether a oppose comment is ignored or not. <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=97193167 This] is also pretty concerning, as it reflects a lack of understanding towards Wikipedia's policies.</s> A little more experience in Wikipedia, and I'll probably support. --
'''Oppose''' I would definitely support. Except for the fact of the [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]]. His userpage also in a since has canvassing on it. On the top, there is a bar that states '''I have been nominated to be an admin. If you support me, please indicate so on the RFA page. Thank you.''' Basically support me or don't vote. The user attitude concerns me as well. Especially concerning some of his responses to opposes. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Oppose''' for three reasons. The answer to Question 1 doesn't really explain what you intend do if you become an admin, so I don't see any particular need for you to be one right at the moment. The canvassing is a secondary issue, and is certainly "bad form" even if nothing else. A third point is the incivility shown towards one of the other contributors here: RfA is a place where you'll be critiqued, and simply asking for a critique to be ignored isn't a great idea.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per question one as well as incivilty on RFA.  Seems like the candidate doesn't need the tools. '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''', the things your nom said you're good at (improving templates and copyediting) are things you can do without administrative privelages. Your answer to number one even said that you don't intend to use the tools. so I'm going to havfe to oppose. '''''
'''Oppose'''. Per canvassing. The note on his user page is OK in my opinion, but the talk page spamming is not. --
'''Oppose''' Here we go again. A candidate has advertised his/her RfA to users in their talk pages. This is something that I do not like to see in RfA candidates. I cannot support.
Saying "I would like this comment from a non-productive user ignored." in response to a (in my opinion-) valid oppose, and the canvassing, means this is a '''strong oppose'''. That, and you have an annoying signature which takes up four lines of code. '''
'''Oppose''', the fact that the candidate is completely oblivious of what is obviously a  progressing hate for canvassing is nothing short of disappointing... --
'''Oppose''' The concerns above are putting me of supporting, your response to [[User:William Henry Harrison|William Henry Harrisons]]'s oppose shows a lack of being able to keep calm during disputes, the [[WP:CANVAS|canvas]] issues are a little bit of a problem but I suggest withdrawing this because you say you feel harshly treated so I suggest withdrawal to prevent you from feeling upset, I suggest: i) Using and edit summary more and ii) Becoming a little more active if possible an Goodd iii) Re-wording the answer to Q1, admins have no higher authority than other users. Good luck! <small>I also suggest removing the message about your RfA from your userpage.</small> &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per the answers to Q4 and the responses to other opposes above. Cheers,
'''Oppose''', canvassing issues. Don't advertise your RFA on peoples' talk pages, and you need more time before running for RFA. You don't really need to have the tools to do such things.
'''Oppose''' A little of all of the above, but mostly, as per Daniel, because your responses to people on this page are concerning and do not bode well for how you would cope with admin stress. '''
'''Oppose''' All sorts of little things add up: canvassing shows that the user did not bother reading the guide to RfA, edit summary is still subpar, response to William Henry Harrison above is completely inappropriate, policeman analogy is awful, answer to optional question 4 is shaky at best and does not show a good understanding of the blocking or semi-protection policies, a month ago, Superbfc did not understand how [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]] worked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=123531457], understanding of GFDL has also been questioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Irlam_Rangers.jpg&diff=132738923&oldid=132732973] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yonatan&diff=133118521&oldid=133108613], limited experience in XfD and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farmstead_Elementary/Junior_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=123276696 this example] (although ultimately, I do agree with the deletion) isn't exactly the kind of sound rationale we'd like to see in deletion debates. Heart is probably in the right place but not ready for adminship.
I'm
'''Oppose''' Significant civility matters trump any reason I might have to support at this time.
'''Oppose''' Poor handling of opposition on this page, and canvassing suggests a lack of understanding of the project's policies and guidelines.
'''Strong Oppose'''. —''
'''Oppose''' per the police analogy.  Being an admin gives you extra tools that you can use to help out -- it doesn't give you a position of authority over the community.  You haven't said how you plan to help out with admin work, so I'm wondering what you actually ''would'' do given the tools.  --
'''Oppose''' This RfA is likely doomed over the cavassing issue. I'm on record as not being necessarily swayed by it but it is clearly a huge issue which an admin should have been aware of. Regardless of how I or anybody else feels about canvassing it seems that there is a strong consensus against it. I sure don't think the banner is an issue on his own talk page. But the quick-draw response to [[User:William Henry Harrison]] is terribly concerning especially coupled with some of his comments about blocking (I would likely warn first then block). I believe he's just a little fast with the tools. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I'm big on civility and such, and an admin with a history of being uncivil is not preferred. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Oppose''' I keep following hmwith, so please don't think I'm stalking.  Anyways, I have a wide tolerance for uncivil commentary, but this exceeds my upper limit.  And what's with canvassing lately?
'''Oppose''' While I think the canvassing was just an unfortunate mistake on Superbfc's part (and hopefully a learning experience about what not to do in the future), the answers to questions 1 & 4 cause me to oppose here.  Admins are not policemen with weapons, they are simple janitors with mops.  We don't need more block happy admins.--
'''Oppose''' per incivility (even here on this RfA!) and canvassing. The analogy in your answer to question one was a bit unsettling as well. Like Isotope said, admins are more like janitors than policemen. --
'''Neutral'''. Honestly, a lot of editors are going to find it hard to support you with the canvassing thing. I didn't really consider that in this opinion, however. Your answers to the questions leave me a little confused about what you intend to do with the admin tools. #1 is really the issue here. Could you possibly give answers that are a little less...philosophical?
'''Neutral'''. You've done a lot of good work, but I think an admin needs to be able to handle disputes and criticism better.
I would have supported, but the fact that you half of my edit count this month (and I am in no way prolific) bothers me.  Canvassing isn't an issue, I just don't like the lack of activity.  Oh, and PLEASE use edit summaries. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]

'''Neutral''', to avoid pile-on oppose !votes. Sorry, just not admin-material. —
'''Neutral'''. You do good editing work, but I can't see much evidence that you'll use the tools very much, so it's hard to identify whether you'd be fully trustworthy with them. I do believe admins should be consistently active in some kind of administrative pursuit. The canvassing approach also concerns me slightly but not enough to merit an oppose vote. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Neutral''' - the things that the RfA says you do do not need adminship to complete. That could be a reason to oppose, but hey, Adminship is no big deal. My main worry, like so many others have said, is the canvassing. Canvassing is never a good thing, obviously. If you continue to edit well and do not canvass, you will pass next time you run for adminship. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Changed from oppose, due to issues surrounding his canvassing.  I'm still sticking with neutral, as I do still have reasons not to support.
Q4b may have been a bit vague, but I'm concerned that you went first to the presumption that blocking would be necessary. ··
'''Neutral''' per the canvassing. Whether or not people actually came and supported is not all that relevant IMO. While [[WP:CANVASS]] may not be policy, that doesn't mean it has no effect. It's still a guideline and ''"is considered a standard that all users should follow."'' Knowledge of and adherence to Wikipedia's ruleset is absolutely necessary for me to support a candidate; I consider most guidelines to be part of the rules. If you had kept the message a little more neutral, I might have overlooked it, but you asked only for support. <font color="maroon">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. Answer to Q1 is really unhelpful, and further answer in Q5 still doesn't indicate any general knowledge on the policies. On the canvassing issue, I don't think it was the canvassing that bothered other editors, but the wording.    "If you support me please indicate so" gives a very negative impression.
'''Neutral''' I made some comments above.  I think there are civility issues, that can easily be worked on to allow a successful RfA down the road.  '''About the canvassing issue:'''  a lot of wikipedia editors hang out in IRC chat rooms and I presume blab about their thoughts for RfA.  I think that too much is made over the issue of "canvassing" here.  '''Telling people that you are up for RfA should not be a punishable offense.'''  Becoming an admin has got to be a big deal, even though the catch phrase is "no big deal."  If somebody is excited about moving to another level of involvement with Wikipedia, how is that a bad thing?<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
Too inexperienced.<sup>
'''Oppose''' per too much inexperience.  Of the user's 106 edits, 70 of them are to his own user page.  No evidence of need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' - No evidence of need for tools. Needs more experience. &mdash;
I think we should pass. User needs much more experiance and a wider variety of work here. -
Thanks guys, thanks for your honesty, I shall request when I have much more experience and confidence. Regards to everyone,
Definitely.
Nominator support.
'''Support''' Good track liked his strong views particurly on 3RR.
'''Support'''. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' There is absolutely ''nothing'' wrong with this user. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Impressive answers. Definitely a support for me.
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools.
'''Support''' - sure.  and a sense of humor, too!  -
'''Support''' Has a reasonable spread of experience over the project, and has been editing since early last year. Should pass any editor's criteria - certainly passes mine. --<font color="Red">
'''Strong Support'''- Good involvement in Wikiprojects is always a good sign, and strong mainspace edit counts. Passes my criteria. <font face="Impact">
'''Support''' Plenty of fine examples given by nominator, supported by fine answers to the questions, and plenty of experience and time working on this project.
Think of it this way - if the candidate didn't mention RPP, would anyone (except Matthew) be opposing?  [[User:Giggy/Powderfinger|<font color="Green">'''G'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Opposing users have not demonstrated sufficiently for me that there is likelihood T-dot will abuse the tools. On the contrary, I am impressed by his willingness to accept consensus even when he disagrees with it. It may be that in the course of his very long comments, he has put his foot in his mouth, but the attitude seems spot-on for an admin. --
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user will abuse tools.
'''Support''', the fact that he misspoke once when he explained his views on page protection doesn't mean that he is likely to abuse the tools. Trustworthy candidate. <b>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I don't find the oppose arguements very convincing.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">
'''Support''', I'll go along with the nom, {{user|PeaceNT}}.
'''Support''' As [[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] said, there is no evidence to suggest that this user will abuse the tools. Seems like a fine user to me.
'''Support''', the oppose arguments are as usual, weak at best. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' - in the end, WP will gain more than pose by having this candidate as an admin. cheers,
'''Support'''. Looks like a good editor who wouldn't abuse the tools. '''''
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' I agree with Reywas92 that the oppose arguments aren't too convincing. I doubt he'll abuse the tools. <span style="border: 2px solid #828282; padding: 0px;">
'''Support'''. While there are a few concerns I do not think the rise to the level of opposition, at least not in my judgment. I think your interactions with other users are good and calm -- such is a needed quality. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but someone who intends to work with page protection that thinks [[WP:RFPP]] is about 'nominating' and 'voting', and that page protection disallows neutrality needs far more experience than they've got before they should be trusted with it. In addition, the fact that they cannot recognize how they intend to interpret policy in their own way after comments such as ''cases for deletion or non-deletion and act on those when I am convinced of the correct decision.'', instead of worrying about consensus. In addition, his comment about UAA reporting having ''anything'' to do with vandalism only accounts is concerning, as if it makes a name more or less appropriate. His lack of understanding of policy, combined with his lack of ''actually participating'' in many of the things he intends to help with is far too uncomfortable for me to trust with the mop. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose'''- per Lucid. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' also per Lucid.
'''Oppose''' — Don't need any more POV pushing Americans, thanks. Nor ones that consider IMDb a reliable source...
'''Oppose''' - per a lack of comprehension about policy and certain admin duties the candidate expressed interest in, specifically RFPP.
'''Weak oppose''', also per Lucid. Candidate is on the right track, but should improve on knowledge and comprehension of policy and process. —'''
'''Oppose''' Per Lucid.
'''Oppose''' Thank you for revealing the PastorDavid incident (I can't find a promise from Coelacan to oppose you though), but that incident seems like a severe overreaction by you to a legitimate concern. It's too recent for me to ignore. The small number of edits in userspace (warnings to vandals? normal editing conflicts?) as well as in wikispace is another concern.
'''Oppose''' per issues that Lucid raised --
'''Oppose''' - as per AldeBaer.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience in wiki-space, home to many admin-related tasks, as evidenced by grave misstatements regarding policy.

'''Oppose''' per Lucid.
'''Oppose'''. Too keen on the disastrous [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;
'''Oppose''' My worry is that the response to Q3 does not demonstrate sufficient appreciation of our use of non-free media. 'Free' is a fundamental pillar of the project. Commending civility, tho'.
'''Oppose'''. I am appreciative of the length and honesty in the answers, yet also somehow a little uncomfortable with the self-focus. I'd also like to see a little less reliance on "chapter and verse" and a bit more on negotiation and judgment. Policies are interpreted rather than used as absolutes. Consensus can change, and I'd like an admin to show more willingness to adapt rather than reluctantly accept. <span style="border: 2px solid #F10; background-color:yellow;">'''
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced.  Kind of a one-topic applicant.  Almost went to support after reading the POV-pushing American comment above, but I got over it.
'''Neutral''' - The answers to the questions portray someone who knows what they are doing. But the Wikipedia-space edit count is quite low. Up that count, and your RfA will look more impressive. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong oppose''' and suggest withdrawal due to the severe lack of experience.  It is apparent from your contributions that you don't seem to know anything more than vandal-fighting, and this nomination bolsters that.  I also don't see much interaction with other users, which is a huge part of becoming a good user in itself.  I suggest you get familiar with Wikipedia's core policies, get more experienced, and you may make a fine candidate.  Right now is unfortunately not the right time. —<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose''' - too new. '''
'''Moral Support''' - As Pedro says, you need more experience with the deletion policy and other admin-related areas. Don't be discouraged, though; you're a good editor, and your careful and well-written nomination statement shows that you certainly have the potential and maturity to be an admin one day. This request will probably fail, but I urge you to try again in a couple of months; I'd be happy to give you any help and advice you need.
'''Support''' appears to be a quality editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support.''' There is no reason to believe this user will abuse the tools, so there is no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - I agree.
'''Support''' ''Switched from oppose''. The more talk page comments I read, the more I see a calm, polite person with the reasonable disposition suitable for someone who has access to a few extra tools. I don't think, based on what he's saying above, that he wants to delete things from [[:CAT:CSD]] or [[WP:AFD]], but rather articles he comes across in his normal editing on wiki, and probably those related to his subject area, of which he has valuable specialist knowledge. Even if Christopher takes a few moments to figure out the difference between hard blocks and soft, I can't see how the net effect of his adminship could be anything but positive. Per RyanGerbil10. --
'''Very weak support''' Although this is someone I'd usually oppose due to lack of experience, the very fact that he seems to have always confined himself to his specialist field gives me the confidence that he'd only stick to areas he understood<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' Unless there are incivility issues I've not seen, i doubt '''nom ''' will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I don't see any problems, looks like a quality editor. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Extremely Weak Support'''. Good editor, but has little admin related experience. '''
'''Support'''. Has barely sufficient number of edits, but has worked on many high-quality articles.  He has learned to use edit summaries more consistently.  Wikiproject edits are, in my mind, as good as AIV, XfD, or AfD work.  It's possible that he doesn't ''need'' the mop, but on the other hand, will probably not abuse it.
'''Support''' I normally would be more uncertain with a user with fewer project-space edits, but I think I will be more lenient here because of the good things I see.
[[User:Ral315/WTHN|Why the hell not?]]
'''Support''' Even though this RFA may not succeed due to a lot of "lack of experience" type opposes below, I still want to offer my support per your valuable contributions as an expert in your area, as well as your calmness, humility and composition that you show here, including this very nice response above: ''"With or without administrative tools I wouldn't stop being a part of the community, thanks again.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 13:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) "''. Best of luck,
'''Support''' - I see no evidence that this user will execute the tools in anything but a mature and level-headed manner.  --
'''Support'''. While agree with those below that more experience would be desirable, everything in your contribs looks good. You seem calm and sensible and make good comments in deletion discussions. Vandal-fighting activity suggests you'd know when to use the block button. Not all vandals keep going past the last warning and need to be reported to [[WP:AIV]] and sometimes another will report them first - the reports you made were appropriate. Hopefully if this request fails you'll pass without incident in a couple of months or so - I suspect a bit more contribution in admin areas, and perhaps some experience of tagging articles for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] ([[Special:Newpages]] is a useful starting point) would address the concerns below. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' You may not have all the experience in the world, but your contributions and conduct during this RFA show that you have the temperment and restraint to use the tools appropriately. --
'''Support''' [[User:Tanner-Christopher]] has made substantial contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of food and drink, and I am confident he would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' In line with iridescent's reasoning.
'''Weak oppose'''. You're a good contributor, and your WikiProject is doing great, but I'm concerned that you may have a bit of a lack of experience in the project namespace (with no contributions to XfD, admin-related areas or anything except WikiProjects) and that you may need some more experience before becoming an admin. Try to gain some familiarity with the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] and the [[WP:N|notability]] guidelines. Voice your opinion in some XfDs. I'd be glad to support you in a few months' time. <b>
'''Weak oppose''' per above, try to participate at [[WP:XFD]] especially [[WP:AFD]], you gain much experience about [[WP:PG]]. You are doing a good job to main space. Good luck.
<s>'''Strong oppose'''</s> changed to '''Weak oppose'''. Gross lack of experience in general is concerning - but contribs seem to be good. I hope to see you back here in a few months, however. --'''
I agree with Melsaran.  8 AIV edits, but you want to block vandals...nada.  More project space experience, and come back soon! '''
'''Oppose''' I'd like a bit more expierience. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Weak Oppose''' candidates has a good attitude, but more experience is required for me to fully support.
'''Oppose''' You need more experience. In the meantime, do not be discouraged over this and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per lack of overall experience.
'''Oppose''' per lack of exp. I would suggest working for another month or two before returning. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' - more experience needed yet, although you are moving in the correct direction. Keep up the great work and in two or three months time, your RfA should look more attractive. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
As above - let me know at your next RfA in 2-3 months, and I'll support then. For now I have to '''oppose'''.
'''Neutral''' I see no reason to pile on. The concerns by others in oppose are very valid, and I really can't support this RfA. '''However''' I don't see anything that can't be "fixed". This is simply a question of gaining some experience in admin related areas, perhaps though more input at [[WP:XFD]] and via Recent Change patrol and New Page patrol with resulting contributions to [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:CSD]]. '''''Do not be discouraged''''' and certainly do not think that your work so far is not appreciated. If you would like to discuss further my talk page is always open, as, I am sure, is that of all contributors to this RfA and wider. Very Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I am in agreeance with Pedro, user has demonstrated calmness, and experience in his area. But use of AIV is a tad low, but no doubt will make great admin in future.
'''Neutral''' In terms of civility and maturity I see absolutely no problem, but I'd be a bit concerned about experience. I can see you've made some great edits and contributed well but, unfortunately, experience is the key. Contributing to an area where you are comfortable in is a plus for me. I would definitely support in the future if you had just a tad more experience in admin related areas. [[Hooah]].
'''Neutral''' but moral support. Would love to give support, but you're just too inexperienced in crucial policy areas, even for occasional tool usage. But I can't wait to support you next time. Please do drop me a line ''when'' you next run at RfA. --
'''Support''' seems like a trustworthy user. Don't see any potential for abuse. I really like the work you have done with GA articles.
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' - I've worked with Tarret in the GA project for a while and have noticed his work. In looking through his count and contribs, I'm further impressed with this user. He is a very constructive editor. I'm inclined to think he's never been in any conflict because he's so polite. His edits show his experience in a variety of areas, although AIV may be absent, he has reverted and warned many times through the ''years'' he's been editing. His edit count per month may be low, however, they are quality edits and he consistently contributes from month to month.
'''Support''' Even the opposers say that he won't mess up, so that must be good :) Seems to be a good article writer. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason not to trust you. Everything seems fine. It's true that you probably have little experience with vandal-fighting (less than four edits to AIV), but still, your overall dedication to the project is pretty good. <b>
'''Support'''.  I have not interacted with Tarret thus far.  Yet from what I've read just now of his edits over a long time, and his past and current RfAs, he looks good.  This editor has improved vastly since his last year's RfA - more edits, more consistent use of edit summaries, no edit conflicts, and a good answer to Question # 4.  All of those point to trustworthiness.  Not every admin needs experience across WP.
'''Support''' seems fine.
Tentative '''Support''' On taking a quick glance at Tarret's contribs, I do not find anything alarming. Also, no objection in this or the previous RfA is significant enough for me to oppose. And I like his/her answer to Q4 in the previous RfA (''What primary qualities make an effective administrator?''). Good luck. :) -
'''Support''' I really can see no problem here, and cannot understand many of the comments in the oppose section. Tarret will be a good admin, given the chance. --<font color="Red">
'''Mediocre support''', I have no idea what these opposers mean by needing more experience... since when is 2 years, 3841 edits and 941 Wikipedia space edits not enough? Having said that though, I just have issues with how he answered the questions, but not big enough of a concern for me not to support him. Best of luck. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' A great user, and no big issues that require attention. I agree with Anthony above. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' None of the reasons given by the opposition concern me. I am perfectly fine with this user having the tools.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' - Clearly a good editor with plenty of content contributions, and good work with GAs. I also dislike the opposes based on alleged inconsistency of editing; it's perfectly possible to be a good contributor without making 1000 edits a month, and people can't be expected to eat, sleep and breathe Wikipedia in order to become admins. However, the opposers do raise a couple of legitimate concerns; in particular, I agree with Pedro that when tagging an article for speedy deletion, you should always notify the author. I suggest withdrawing this RfA and trying again in 2-3 months, after getting some more experience with XfDs and other community-related tasks.
'''Support'''  Edit count is reasonable. If you fail, try making your presence more known on [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:XFD]] and [[WP:UAA]]. After a few months, you should be more than ready for adminship. '''<font face="georgia"> [[User:Bushcarrot|<font color="dodgerblue">Bushcarrot]] <sup>[[User_talk:Bushcarrot|<font color="dodgerblue">Talk]]</sup> <sub>
'''Support''' Track is okay.Good Editor.
'''Support''' No big deal.
'''Support''' Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.
'''Oppose''' In your answer to question 1, you said you would like to fight vandalism.  However, you have made few if any (4 or less) edits to [[WP:AIV]] or [[WP:ANI]].  '''
'''Oppose'''- your work with GA's is excellent, but your answers to the questions are poor, you haven't participated at AIV much, you are only making a few edits per month, and you apparently have not been in any conflicts, so we have no idea how you work under pressure and when in conflicts. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose with a good dash of Moral Support''' 1) Even today you nominated an article for speedy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_Rosenstein&diff=prev&oldid=151160627] and did not advise the articles creator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryo75&action=history] and I can see no other warnings / advice for Speedy Deletions which is a pet peeve of mine. More importantly 2) Low interaction on user talk, and article talk pages seems to be a lot of routine tagging, so I have very little idea how you will react to other editors with the additional admin buttons. 3) Your answers to the questions are very weak and I think you really should have spent more time on formatting them, preparing the responses, and generally reviewing the quality of the English used - this infers a level of haste I'd prefer not to see in an admin. 4) Very few reports to [[WP:AIV]] when you state that vandal fighting is important to you. '''However''' you GA work is great and in general things looks okay. I'm not fussed about the consistency of editing as it's quality not quantity or regularity that count. Regretfully despite this good work my other arguments prevent me from supporting this request, however I trust that should this RFA not pass you will continue your valued work here. Very Best.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''No''' - per the others. Experience needed. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Per Boriceddie, and Pedro. Need more experience!
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose'''Alright, you have the edit count.  You make good edits.  But it seems like you want to just block block block.   All admins fight vandalism, but it looks like you kind of just want to protect every page, block every IP that is just trying to help, and give warnings to users who disagree with you.  Another thing that bothers me is that you say you have never been under any stress.  Probably everyone has felt some stress because of small edit conflicts, or because their edits were reverted.  If you try for adminship again, think out your answers better. '''
'''Oppose''' Both your answers here and your contrib history are far too slim to give me confidence that you have the experience and understanding of policy to be given the sysop tools. I'd say try again in six months or a year after you've done some solid work and weathered disputes. As a GA reviewer myself, it is often a task that does not require a great deal of actual content contribution or debate with other users on an equal playing field. Thus it does not demonstrate to me the qualities required of an admin sufficiently.
'''Oppose''' Not convinced as to whether this user has had enough experience. Perhaps hasn't addressed the concerns raised in the previous RfA. Two poorly considered self-noms concern me, there is no excuse for a poor self nom; you can take as long as you want to prepare it and study the archive of past RfAs to understand likely issues which will come up.
'''Oppose'''. Tarret provides a valuable service to Wikipedia. However he is somewhat overenthusiastic with <s>blocking</s> reversion without edit summary. For someone with such a profile, I am very surprised that he has not come into conflict.
'''Oppose''' Per lack of overall experience.
'''Oppose''' Per Boricuaeddie. Some more experience and try again in a few months. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' There is a slightly disturbing lack of engagement and warmth with other users. Comments are few and terse. Answers to questions above are too brief and unsatisfying. There is an overall lack of evidence of rounded experience despite the length of time as an editor. Difficult to really know what Tarret is like, especially under pressure.
'''Oppose''' per SilkTork.  Generally speaking, the lower the amount of public experience, the more that the answers to questions matter to me.  In my own RfA, I knew that many editors had not met or interacted with me, and I tried to write enough in the answers to questions to make my personality known.  I have reviewed this user's contribs and read carefully the answers and there's not enough information there for me to feel comfortable with granting the tools at this time.  -
'''Oppose'''Your answers are weak, and although you fight vandalism you have made a few AIV reports. It shows you are probably unfamiliar with such tools you will have to handle. '''Cheers,''' '''''
'''Oppose''' You revert vandalism but don't report users? <span style="background:navy">'''
'''Oppose''' I feel that you just don't have enough experiance and your answers aren't very strong in my opinion.--'''
'''Oppose''' GA is not training for adminship; it encourages the qualities which admins should not have.
'''Oppose''' Needs lots more experience.  Also applicant should review Wiki policies, because I don't the applicant has a thorough understanding.
As a regular in the GA arena, I'm surprised to see fewer "I saw you at GA and I certainly can't trust you" opposition.  In essence, that's what mine is.  Anyway, the issue that springs to mind when I think of Tarret (there were several issues, but this is the first I could find) is [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates/Archive_6#Oh_Hold_passing_.3F|here]], where he "stole" a GA review and passed although it didn't get close to criteria.  More info [[User_talk:Tarret/Archive_2#Talk:Victoria_Cross_.28Canada.29|here]] and [[Talk:Victoria_Cross_%28Canada%29#GA_Passed|here]]. While we're [[Talk:Victoria_Cross_%28Canada%29#GA_Passed|here]], it's also interesting to note that Tarret ignores fair use disclaimers when performing GA reviews - so I'm not sure if he even understands our image policy.
'''Oppose''' but offer '''moral support''' for a future application - your answers are a bit weak (especially to question 3) and some more experience in article-writing would also be a good thing. Admins inevitably face conflicts with other editors, and an important part of this process is to demonstrate that candidates have the civility and understanding of policy to address those conflicts. Too little information is available here to make that judgement.
'''Oppose''' Some (but not all) of the above people show legitimate concerns. As a suggestion for the future, as this is your second self-nom that looks like it is going to fail, I wouldn't do another editor nominates you.--
'''Oppose''' - Q1 and lack of edits to admin-related pages in Wikipedia-space concern me.
'''Neutral''' Firstly, your answers are just incredibly weak. Your answer to Q1 doesn't show that you would use the tools much, but your answer to Q3 makes me unable to support- an admin that hasn't had a conflict has no way of showing they can deal with it in a reasonable manner. Secondly, your edits, while being good overall, are very low on a monthly basis, and are rather inconsistent. Making three edits a day in most months, and a lot of them in your contribs history showing they're very small ones doesn't make me think you'll be of much help to the backlogs. Really, I don't see that you '''will do anything meaningful''' with the mop, but at the same time I '''don't''' see that you '''will do anything harmful''', so I won't oppose. Good luck, I think it's just not there with you. --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Neutral''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTarret&diff=68268803&oldid=68266383 The comments that I made a year ago] still obtain.  You need more experience with admin-related tasks, as mentioned above.  Try again when you can demonstrate this.  Providing diffs in your answers is a very good way of cutting straight to the evidence.
'''Neutral''' I would like to say support, but then I read the oppose comments and lean to oppose, but then to support ect. Do another RFA in a couple months and follow the comments/suggestions that everyone gives you. -
'''Neutral''' - I think you have made some good contributions to Wikipedia and I do not think you would abuse the tools. However, I would like to see more evidence of experience in admin related work and a more wider overview on what you would do with the tools.
As with the other opposers and neutral'ers, you don't seem to have much experience in admin areas.  Being an admin is not something that you get because you are a great Wikipedian.  It looks like you are a good article writer, and that's where you're needed. :-)  Feel free to re-apply when you get some more work in admin-areas under your belt, but keep in mind that you don't need to become an admin.  Your plain editing is good enough. :-) '''
'''Neutral''' A bit more experience in admin related areas of the project space would be good. There is nothing really that stand out as bad though.
'''Neutral'''&mdash;I'd support, but I'd like to see a bit more admin-related tasks to ensure that the feet are at least wet. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''.  I don't see any problems with this user being an admin in the near future, but I'd like to see more "admin-esque" and a higher monthly edit count.  I don't feel this editor is really all that active.
'''Ultra weak support''' - I cross over with you a lot at [[WP:LT]] and [[WP:Lon]] (and much of what I do at [[WP:UKT]] overlaps with you even though you're not a member) and your mainspace edits are always sound (although you should seriously think about ticking the "prompt for edit summary" box). However, I'm not convinced you really know why you want admin status, and possibly just want it for the sake of it, and your number of talk & wikipedia talk/WPtalk posts is woefully low for an admin, so I've while I've no reason to think you ''don't'' understand policy, there's nothing to demonstrate that you do. In honesty it won't take much to push me either way on this one<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' - Another RfA quite typical of the ones we've had this week - very unremarkable. In a very big way. There's under 2,000 overall edits, and under 300 to the Wikipedia project space. This, coupled with the fact you've only been editing since April paints a picture of inexperience. The answers to the questions are very vague. However, you do seem to be heading along the correct track. In time, you should be a worthy admin, but that will take months of improvement. Not this time sorry. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, plus the answers are... vague, I believe it is said.  Please continue your participation, especially in admin-related areas, and try again in the future. Yours, '''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' Just a bit too new for my tastes, and you don't seem to have a very clear idea of why you should have a mop. A few months from now, assuming you stay on this track, and you should be good. You seem to have a very loose grasp on policy, I suggest reading through things like [[WP:CSD]] and helping out with some things like AIV, UAA, RFC/N, AN/I, HD, etc. Participate more in admin-related things like that and you should be golden. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose''' Seems to be a fairly new user (like me), and lacks overall experience. A little admin coaching might help you get through your next Rfa in a few months. Good luck next time! --
'''Neutral''' I don't suffer from [[editcountitis]], but personally, 1600 is too low a number for me. Altough possibly an unfair reson, when I vote, I prefer to recognize the name I know for, and I've never crossed your path in my involvement. Still 1600 isn't a bad number. Take some admin coaching, and you'll have my vote.<font face="Impact">
'''Support''', you are a very good editor with determination and patience. ''
'''Support'''  From the look of things, you have tons of experience and have worked on more than a ''few'' articles.  Your answer to number two was a little unconventional, but I liked it.  It showed a lot of determination from you, and the amount of edits you've gathered in your time here is commendable.  Moreover, you seem to have a firm grip on what you plan to do with the tools I hope you will soon recieve.  Best of luck. '''
'''Support''' Excellent user, with long running history of experience. Definitely deserves adminship.
'''Moral support''' TeckWiz, why didn't you wait a little longer? You should have waited at least 2 months before self-nominating again... now you'll have to wait even longer. I can't oppose, because you're a great user, but I wish you could have waited some more. --
I '''support''' TeckWiz's becoming an administrator in due course although it's clear that the consensus is due course hasn't arrived yet. With every passing week, you're becoming a more and more experienced user in different aspects of the project, and I am confident you will continue to make good contributions to vandal-fighting, getting more involved in other project-space work, and also keep contributing content to articles, which counts too. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is going to be here for many, many years to come and that in the grand scheme of things, there is no harm in waiting to become an administrator until you are even more familiar with the duties that you will then be called upon to perform. Please withdraw this nomination, but please don't be offended or discouraged. Your contributions are valued, and your Wiki-friends will be glad to discuss with you when the time for your next and hopefully successful RfA arrives.
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad and Majorly.  Good user but timing is not yet right for the community.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, truly but I feel that it is ''way'' too soon since your past RFA. I would've recommended waiting another 3 months so the community knows you are ready.
'''Oppose''' - (edit conflict) not enough AfD edits, if you want to close XfD debates, should already be doing stuff there. I also don't think you understand all policies. --
'''Oppose''' good, well-intentioned user, but he has spent no significant time that I can see on article building, which he has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=100793867&oldid=100774861 commented] that he believes is not relevant to adminship. This nomination comes very soon after his previous RfA, where experience was a concern. Lastly, I'm personally not comfortable with admins who self-identify as under 13 years old.
'''Oppose''' Nothing to do with age - I can see how a 10 year old could be a great admin, '''if''' s/he could show me a list of good articles s/he created and/or was major contributor to (in addition to maturity, etc.) His answer that 'adminship has nothing to do with writing' is 180°  opposed to my own view.
'''Oppose''' starting an RFA a month after another failed RFA shows a lack of self-constraint. Sorry, try again later.--
'''Oppose''' per Jersey Devil.
'''Oppose''' - the answer to #4 sounds a little off (protect for a half an hour and then consider blocking them if they can't work it out in that time???)  Also, your edit count is a little light and most of your activity has been within the last two months ... I'd suggest another few months ... get it up over 4000ish. --
'''Oppose'''- Per above comments--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Crum375|Crum375]], I think admins need to have worked on articles.
'''Oppose''', based on your unconventional (non-) answer to question #2 -- not only do I think you have misinterpreted it and as a result lost an opportunity to help us know why you are a valuable editor, but I don't think that the standard questions are the place for challenges to the RFA process. --
'''Strongly oppose''' per answer to Q2 ("I've written a few articles and worked on a few, however, I don't see why this is a question for adminship, as adminship has nothing to do with writing or adding to articles. A lot of my edits are vandalism reverts. ''Adminship helps manage Wikipedia, not write it.''") -- was it supposed to be a joke or something? <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' A facetious and way-off answer to Q2 blew it for me. If that's your opinion, fine, but stating it in the formal environment of RfA shows a thoughtless and almost aggressive attitude that worries me enormously. As does thinking you can close deletion processes when you've only been contributing to them for a short period. Regretfully, no. --
'''Oppose''' too few edits, not enough demonstration of policy understanding and, as per a number of editors above, answer to Q2 worrying.
'''Oppose''', no, no and thrice no re:Q2. <b>
Good god, no! ''Especially'' not after [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Question_.232|this ridiculousness]]. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - the response to the question about blocking after a [[WP:AIV]] posting - ''First, I would make sure the user has received a final warning'' is just not nuanced enough.  The extreme case - a registered user with only vandal-only edits, who has just attacked the main page article a couple of times - certainly should ''not'' be warned and then revisited when someone complains ''again'' - rather, the account should be immediately blocked, indef; let the user make a case for having the account unblocked.  It's only for mixed (some positive contributions) or marginal cases that a warning is important.  Per [[WP:NOT]], Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy; users have "rights" only when they show at least ''some'' inclination to be a positive contributor.  ''
'''Oppose''' per question 2 and generally low edit count.--
'''Oppose''' A key issue at the first RfA was inexperience of the nominee. Less than a month is not enough time to gain the requisite experience. Too new, too eager, needs to participate more.
'''Oppose''' - this is way too soon since the last RFA, poor judgment. What is more, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The job of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. Why should admins not write the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not a place for lawyering or career-building, and the idea that we should have some sort of divide between ordinary editors and process-wonk admins is just plain wrong and has to a certain extent already caused friction and wikidrama. Quite apart from anything else, admins with a solid background in article-writing have something to fall back on and are IMO less likely to burn out.
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) Sorry, I am only mildly satisfied with the answers. Maybe you should allow some more time before requesting adminship.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' - too soon, will consider support in 3 months' time.
'''Neutral''' I've seen TeckWiz around Wikipedia and have noticed some great work, but it's just too soon after the previous RfA. You are definitely on your way to admin material, but give it another few months. Thanks for all your work. '''''
'''Neutral''' My previous comments regarding XfD participation and vandal fighting still obtain.  Work on those and leave it until Easter before re-applying for an RfA.  You will have loads of valuable admin task-related experience then.
'''Neutral''': Great user, but I feel that the second RfA is too soon. '''''—[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' sorry, but you need much more experience.--
'''Neutral''' Too soon? Sorry. ←
As nominator.
'''Support''' per no big deal, exposure to many good examples of Teckwiz's contributions and per nom whose judgement is exemplary.
'''Support''' -- Previously voted no on first RFA, due to lack of experience primarily.  This former deficiency is just that; a former deficiency.  Don't see any issues now.
'''Support''' I had my eye on you since my previous comments on your last two RfAs but NewYorkBrad has beaten me to the line!  I see no serious problems here, should be a good admin.
'''Support''' - I remember your last RfA well and have seen you around a lot. You seem fair & the answers are all good. Third time's the charm :) -
'''Support''' - Good candidate. Third time's a charm, eh? //
'''Support'''. Funny. I saw this user's sig on a list of about six or seven reports on [[WP:AIV]] and decided to look at his previous RfA. I expected to see another nomination shortly. I just didn't expect it the day I looked it up. I'm glad to see the user getting more articlespace experience but that wouldn't have been enough for me to oppose his last Rfa. So, I support the candidate his third time around.↔
'''Support''' for frustrating the vandals...--
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' per Newyorkbrad's nomination; that is good enough for me.
'''Support''' - I've been watching his contributions for a long time. I believe he is a good candidate. May God bless him.
'''Support''' Ideal case of the way RfA should work -- editor took first rejections in stride, stayed dedicated, learned well, and is now very ready to be a fine admin.
'''Support''' After opposing TeckWiz's first RFA and gone neutral on his second one, I think that he's ready now. Actually, more than ready. He'll make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' This user is helpful to everyone who asks, and contributes in a variety of different ways.  I think the mop will be safe with him! --
'''Support''', any interactions I've had with TeckWiz have been positive. He's a great vandal-fighter.
'''Support''', got good interactions and edits. Looks fair enough.
'''Support''' Good editor, good contributions, good experience, good interactions. Good.--
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' A person I would trust with the tools.
'''Support''' I checked a bunch of diffs and they all seemed fine. Would have liked to see more experience with images but you can't have everything.

'''Support'''. Looks good. -
'''Support'''. Having checked on his contribs and general conduct I see no problems whatsoever. —
'''Support''' He understands the system well.
'''Support''' will do nothing but benefit the project, and I've had good interactions with him.
'''Support'''.  Certainly.  —
'''Support'''. Good AIV contributions shows clear use for the tools and when reading through [[WP:RFCN]] archives recently I was impressed by his well reasoned arguments and discussion. Very happy to give my support. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
Go for it, Teckie. [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|Buick]]'''[[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|C]]'''[[User:BuickCenturyDriver|en]]'''[[user talk:BuickCenturyDriver|t]]'''
'''Support''', looks like a hard-working and dedicated editor.  If anything Blnguyen's rhetoric below puts even further into the realm of support because the candidate handled the situation gracefully. --
'''Support''' Yankees fandom aside, editor does a lot of underappreciated, behind-the-scenes-type  work. Mopworthy.
'''Support''' I'm satisfied that this user understands the role of an admin, and will do a fine job.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good and responsible contributor. Responding to Blnguyen, I agree that the original AFD was a bit too hasty, but his willingness to dicuss it and correct his mistake is precisely the kind of attitude which makes a good administrator.
'''Support'''. Been around a while, contributions look sensible.  Willingness to admit faulty/hasty judgment, talk about it, and reach resolution with others major plus points here.
'''Support'''. Seems ready to me.
'''Support''' - holding the view that articles, for example [[Alfred Brown]], should have better sources doesn't indicate a lack of understanding of notability guidelines.
TechWiz is an excellent admin candidate. A really good natured chap, always looking out to help other users. I came across him at RFCN where he often contributes (No, not one of the I don't like it crew) and he always sticks firm to policy. He's also be an active clerk at [[Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations]] and again, has a firm grasp of policy. His AIV reports are always concise and follow after appropriate warnings. Giving TechWiz the tools would considerably lower the burden put on other admins! Now, to TechWizBot, when he first started operating it, my watchlist was full of the bot substing all my warnings from when I first started and didn't subst them! An admin with techinical knowledge can never hurt! I probably would have nominated myself if Brad hadn't ''stolen'' it off me ;-) Rant over - '''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - as per
'''Support''' Good user, firm grasp of policy. <b>
'''Support''' &mdash; normally, I'd have a few points of improvement, but this candidate seems a good all-rounder! <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' - A good candidate; well involved in Wikipedia and a long standing contributer - would make a good admin.
'''Support'''- I believe TeckWiz3 to be a good and longstanding contributor, well suited to be an admin, with a good exposure to the tasks required of an admin- a great asset to the Wikipedia project. (this is my first vote in an adminship nomination!)
'''Support,''' as I thought you were an admin already. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support''' the cricketers incident makes me uncertain of supporting, but your dedication compels me to support and overlook those few mistakes. —
'''Support'''.  Dedicated and serious and willing to say when he doesn't know things.  This seems to me to be a good candidate.
'''Support'''. An outstanding contributor who deserves something more than just a basic Wikipedia user account.
'''Support''' during my wikibreak. I helped with TeckWiz's most recent [[Wikipedia:Editor_review/TeckWiz|editor review]]. His occasional mangling of the English language shows his young age, but his technical skill is enough to give him admin tools. -
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. I've seen him asking questions how things work and trying to help others with what he has learned.  He'll be a help as an admin.  (But don't stop asking for help when unsure...)
'''Support''', per Newyordbrad. Maybe he'll be the youngest Wikipedian who holds admin tools. '''
'''Support''' Seen this user on RFCN, very level-headed and trustworthy.
'''Support''' as above --
'''Support''' - TeckWiz demonstrated his deep understanding of how Wikipedia and adminship functions technically through his probably provocative but apparently elegant answer to Q6. It is true that the basics of article-writing does not require admin tools - it's just the problems caused by article-writing that make admin tools necessary for article-writing to proceed smoothly. --
'''Support'''. I've looked at a sampling of his contributions, and concluded that he edits with a clear head and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I'd like it if he spent more time on articles instead of AfD, but that's just my own view of what's important, not a reason to oppose.
'''Support''' If (aeropagitica) and Húsönd are supporting, there's no reason not to. :) &mdash;
'''Support''' After talking to the user, I've changed my vote from Neutral to Support.
'''Support:''' From one deletionist to another, I understand the implications of every complaint about articles, which upon first glance appear non-notable. Come to think of it, I have in fact nommed an article about a Cricketer for deletion because I did not see the '''obscure''' "subsidiary" of the deletion policy which was the policy stating that Cricketers were notable, but enough with my anecdote, I '''Support'''. &nbsp;<b><font family="sans-serif" color="#D2691E">''~''</font><font face="Vivaldi" size="3">
A solid editor who takes the time to learn things for himself but still isn't afraid to ask questions. He can be trusted with the tools, as he will use them carefully.
'''Support''' I trust the user to use the admin tools fairly and correctly. If I'm wrong, desysop him, but based on past history I'm pretty sure I'm right.
'''Support?''' <font face="Verdana" color="darkblue"><sup>[[User talk:Z.E.R.O.|<font color="black">t</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User:Z.E.R.O.|<font color="black">'''z'''</font>]]</sub> <small>
'''Strong support''' as a user I can fully trust with the tools.  I would much rather have a user who might make more mistakes but is willing to accept that fact than a user who rarely errs but always thinks that he or she is right. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Support''' as I did on the previous two RfAs. Good luck TeckWiz! '''''
'''Support''' TeckWiz has adopted many users and is very creative with his userpage.  I think he should definitly be an admin.--
'''Support'''.  While I don't care much for his userpage his overall editing style on wikipedia seems eminently suitable for an admin.  I don't understand the objections regarding a lack of significant mainspace contributions - it seems to me those who spend their time writing 'compelling prose' ought not to be admins so as not to distract them! |→
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''' - although the opposers have raised some valid concerns about his understanding of AfDs, I don't think this user would be likely to close AfDs inappropriately. I also don't think that it's necessarily essential to have good article-writing contribs in order to receive the admin tools. Possibly TeckWiz is not the ideal admin candidate, but he seems good enough - remember that adminship is no big deal, and I've seen no evidence that this user would actively abuse or misuse the tools. <font face="Verdana">
'''Strong Support''' I'm taking time out of a suddenly very busy offline life to support a candidate who's mature beyond his age. Everyone makes mistakes; I'm sure he'll have learned much - and TeckWiz has remained civil throughout.
'''Support''' TechWiz has a massive amount of experience in vandalfighting, and as a fellow merkan I must forgive him for his naїveté in the field of cricket. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' - this user has a lot of experience and has improved since the past RfAs. Although a few valid concerns have been raised, I think a slight mistake is forgiveable and I can't find any other evidence that this user will abuse admin tools.
'''Oppose''' not ready yet - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_mallory&oldid=120150109]. I don't think Teck Wiz has enough understanding yet, and wanted to have a group of articles on first-class cricketers deleted, and appears to be unaware of [[WP:BIO]], which these articles pass easily. Also, in his previous RfA, he stated that article writing is irrelevant to being a good administrator. Here is a case where lack of experience in working with main text content is revealing. Also, since he made that comment, he has not edited any articles in the sense of writing/re-writing the content, so I'm not convinced there is an attitude change unless it is backed up by action. '''
As Blnguyen - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen.
'''Oppose''' I don't have much experience with TeckWiz. Most of it is restricted to [[WP:RFCN]]. But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&diff=120732753&oldid=120706165 this question] on [[WT:AFD]] perplexed me. It just gives me the impression that he doesn't have a firm grasp on our deletion processes.
'''Oppose'''. Despite his/her high edit count, TeckWiz has virtually no significant mainspace edits & their mainspace history consists almost entirely of bot reversions, eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor:_Cook_Islands&oldid=49215470]. The "Survivor" articles quoted in the question answers were short sub-stubs, expanded by other users. This user has confined themselves to the technical side of things, but has made a number of very odd calls for someone experienced in admin procedures (viz Leebo's comment above). As someone (marginally) involved in the "delete cricketers" saga, although I concede that yes, TeckWiz did concede that they were in the wrong, their discussion of the matter was faintly offensive, particularly their implication that the rules of cricket should be explained on every cricketers' page otherwise people wouldn't understand their career stats; I have no knowledge of the rules of American Football, but were I to make a similar request on an American footballer's page I'd (rightly) be laughed out. Sorry, but I don't feel someone with so little experience in contributions, and with what seems to be a tendency towards systemic bias, is appropriate for an admin at this stage.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> -
'''Oppose'''. Userpage leaves me with the distinct feeling that TeckWiz is here at Wikipedia more for social networking than to write an encyclopedia. The large number of inappropriate userboxes (ranging from the totally inappropriate "This user is 12" and "This user supports the Democratic Party" to the totally irrelevant ones relating to popular television programs) combined with a long list of "adoptees" (basically a "friends list" a la MySpace) leave me quite unconvinced that this candidate has more than a superficial commitment to the goals of this project. Having "become an administrator on Wikipedia" as a life goal next to "travel the world" and "become a teacher" also suggests that this candidate is status-seeking to fulfill personal interests.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. We need admins who understand this, and I fear that this candidate doesn't.
'''Reluctant but Strong Oppose''' - Concerns over judgement in relation to deletion debates - TeckWiz took [[Alfred Brown]] to AfD despite clear notability and appears to have carried out little or no research before deciding to tag the article. This isn't uncommon but I find undesirable in an administrator candidate. What forces this into a strong oppose is the attitude I perceive on TeckWiz's editor review. '''''I have replied on the AFD. Also, as you said, since I'm not that knowledgeable about cricket, I AFD'd it, and asked you about all the other cricket pages you created, instead of speedying them all. Thanks for commenting'''''. Perhaps it's just me and I fully expect 300 different interpretations of the quote by close of play, but this statement, to me, shows TeckWiz will not do any research on an AfD nomination, rather he will just nominate articles when he doesn't know about the subject and presumably feels they might need to be deleted - this attitude, coupled with a total lack of research being carried out prior to nominating an article for deletion, makes me think I cannot trust TeckWiz to use the deletion tools properly and more importantly, responsibly. In short, I can rule out abuse, which is great, but I cannot rule out misuse. Sorry. <span style="font-size:95%">--
With respects to the nominator, I don't believe this candidate is at all well-suited for adminship, largely due to his own views about  article writing as (un)related to adminship.  The diffs and rationale provided by Blnguyen better illustrate my own notions about this candidate, as they demonstrate his lack of knowledge about some of our most important ideals and policies.  I was also a bit unsettled at the importance and/or status the candidate places on having extra buttons to click on a website, as first mentioned by Kelly [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
As much as I'd like to offset the opinion that people should be opposed for not thinking article writing is relevant to adminship, I share all the concerns except that one. And reactionary votes are stupid. -
'''Oppose''' Per Iridescenti. --Cheers,
'''Oppose''' due to the concerns highlighted above, ''especially'' the article-writing one. Also – no offence intended, but I'll be honest here – I simply don't feel that a 12 year old child, no matter how smart, is suited to hold that sort of responsability. To function effectively in the longer run as a Wikipedia admin, one needs a certain minimal level of life experience, judgment and emotional stability that – although I can't say I've observed TeckWiz lacks these traits – are simply not associated with people in this age bracket. I'd be glad to support you some years later.
'''Oppose''' An increasingly useful member of the community, with visible maturing during his time here, I still don't believe Techwiz is ready for adminship. I share some of the concerns of others above. The cricket dialogue was worrying - the cricket WikiProject is used to these comments, but not from admin candidates and I firmly believe that admins should have some article writing behind them, not just stub creation. Age is no issue for me; as a 12 year old, Techwiz will be able to contribute with expertise to all sorts of articles that I wouldn't know what to do with, whether constructing them, expanding them, or POV bashing. If this RfA fails, I fully expect to see you as an admin some day; you're not far off, but for now this is an Oppose. --
This user does not appear to understand how AFD works, and as such I would not trust him with closing them.
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid that the issues raised above (per Blnguyen, Kelly Martin, and others) are enough for me to oppose at this time. TeckWiz is clearly a dedicated and well-meaning user, however I don't believe he's ready for adminship yet. --
'''Oppose''' --  I'm afraid you got the concept of Wikipedia mixed up. The encyclopedia revolves around content, not adminship. People come to wikipedia for the content it offers, which is built by the thousands of editors; not because of admins, who are really the support team. An admin is supposed to have the basic working knowledge on how wikipedia functions, and I don't see any demonstrative knowledge in the mainspace in the recent past other than reverts. On a related note, your handling of the cricketers' notability criteria is most disheartening. It clearly indicates that you were not in tune with core criteria and standards set in place on wikipedia. An admin functioning without this basic knowledge is bound to run into opposition from several editors over an extended period of time, which is not good for the project. I'm afraid that I don't have any confidence in your capability of handling admin-related tasks pertaining to article handling. My advice to you is to work on your mainspace contributions for a few months, if possible get at least one article to good article status and then try again. <small>I rarely opppose an RFA, but this time I am compelled to do so to get the above points across.</small>
I oppose George Bush and support his impeachment too, but these polemical statement are explicitly ''not'' the kinds of things that userpages are supposed to be used for, per Jimbo's explanations and what's in the best interests of the project.  Userboxes like this aren't even allowed to exist in template namespace anymore.  Keeping them around in userspace just shows bad judgment.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' - per [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]] and because the nominee has simply not contributed anything worthwhile.  How can he/she have contributed anything when "article writing is irrelevant"?  What an immature and irresponsible attitude!  What exactly has he/she done for the benefit of the readers?  Nothing.  It appears that he/she inhabits the AfD and suchlike pages but does not give any impression of understanding what the site is about: i.e., providing meaningful information for the readers.  If appointed, we will simply be left with yet another pedantic admin who is an admin for the sake of being an admin.  The sort of person who will perpetuate Wikipedia's poor reputation among academic circles.  --<b>
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen. I find the Alfred Brown incident worrying, and don't see how someone can be entrusted with the tools to enforce the rules when they appear uncertain about what makes, or doesn't make, real content.
'''Oppose''' without prejudice per kingboyk's summary above.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure TechWiz is a very bright and keen young man but he's not ready quite yet to have more editing powers.  I was the original writer of the Alfred Brown cricket article discussed above and I did find his reasons for deleting it, and continuing arguments about it with me, rather silly.  The subject of the piece was clearly notable and TechWiz could have discovered that if he'd bothered to do a minute's research before tagging it.  It wasn't a one off either, he said he wanted to delete a good many similar clearly referenced and researched articles as well.  It wasted time I could have put to better use on Wikipedia.  His argument that only sportsmen like Babe Ruth should have pages was unusual in a discussion about cricket to say the least.  His assertion that people from the '1800s and 1900s' were of no interest was again a little bizarre, as was his belief that nobody from more than 50 years ago might be of interest to anyone else.  I bear him no malice and can only admire his energy, but, on another point, if he's going to make an issue of his age then it's only fair if other people bear it in mind too at this point.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen. Good user but still not ready for adminship yet. Wait a little while more before running again.
'''Oppose''' Not ready to have the delete button or be a closer for XfD.  This is an area he explicitly intends to help with.  No evidence that he needs the other buttons, so no reason to grant adminship, plus strong evidence that we shouldn't.
'''Oppose''' This user is not ready, though may be someday. <small>
'''Oppose''' I must say I fluctuated constantly on this RfA but only from neutral to oppose. In the end - with respect to an obviously keen editor - TeckWiz's return comments to people's !votes are what pushed me to decline supporting him.  IMHO they show an argumentative and less than mature approach that does not make me feel confident of his gaining adminship. (I also will be very interested in his answer to Optional question 9 from Einar).--
'''Oppose''' It doesn't seem to me that the user is ready to be an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' I hate to hear the story of the cricket AfDs above. But my opinion comes from the following: On [[The Amazing Race 11]], in this [[Talk:The Amazing Race 11#Accurate Finish Order|talk page post]], TeckWiz wanted to include a link to an online article that contains leaked spoiler information for that season based on a message board posting. At the time in March, only 1 out of 7 respondees (myself not included) agreed, the others said don't. Then in response to an anon in April, TeckWiz again supported the link because the finishing order happened to be correct so far. I opposed the link with a very strong opinion (and another user agreed with me). TeckWiz made no comment after that, so I think he understood the consensus and reasoning. This is where I think immaturity may lie. Therefore, if the judgment to include that spoiler info is made by an administrator, I could not trust the credibility of that admin. (But I admit I would be shy to report that.) So I reluctantly oppose. However, this user has demonstrated a firm eagerness to control Wikipedia vandalism, more than the normal user. That is an important WP function.

'''Oppose''' due to both lack of article writing and deletionism ("is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's"? That's a totally outrageous sentiment; I don't care how much a person may like to de-emphasize inclusion/deletionism on RfAs, that's unacceptable.), which lead me to believe this user is not seriously interested in building an encyclopedia.
Too many concerns - maybe later--
'''Oppose''' sorry I do not trust this editor as yet.
'''Oppose''' That comment was troubling. &mdash;'''
'''Oppose''' On the basis of Q9, I totally oppose this nomination. I am very concerned that Wikipedia should consider giving administration status to someone who is so self-evidently unprepared and who does not have any clear idea of what an encyclopaedia is about.  Indeed, I rather suspect I have hit the nail on the head with that word "status".  It appears to me that this site should carry out a serious review of its administrators to see which are actively supporting the development of the site and which are basking in the supposed glory of their "status".  --
'''Oppose''' mostly per Blnguyen. Also, some of the replies make me a bit concerned about maturity and the sorts of replies you might make to newbies and trying people if you were under stress or pressure as an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' mostly per Sarah. The cricket thing shows a certain lack of maturity. While I feel fairly confident that TeckWiz would not abuse the tools, I'm not so confident that he would misuse them.
I am satisfied with Techwiz's commitment to the project, but the question I have asked above and Blnguyen above is currently giving me pause for thought.
Likely to flip-flop: I was going to support, purely because, well, articles would be nice but I don't insist on it for RfA and it's not really my business, but the diff cited by Leebo gives me pause for thought. The actual need to ask such a question is less perturbing - one cannot know everything about every nook and cranny of wikiprocess - than the presumption that AfD is a vote, which is, for want of a better word, evil.
Try as I might, I just can't come to a definitive conclusion about Techwiz (I've been thinking about this off and on since I blanked my last comment here). On the one hand, I see Newyorkbrad, a Wikipedian I highly respect, making a great nomination. He brings up excellent points. I've seen Techwiz all around Wikipedia. He seems extremely dedicated to learn and contribute. His grammar isn't completely perfect, but whose is? On the other hand however, I can't shake the image of Techwiz being immature and 12 years old. My interactions with him have left me with the impression that he might need to grow up just a little more. Much of his Wikipedia existance seems dedicated to becoming an admin. I don't necessarily have a problem with children editing and becoming administrators, but I just really don't like the feeling I get on this one. That's not a valid reason to oppose, and there are certainly good reasons to support. Therefore, I will be '''Neutral'''. Coincidentally, whatever the result of this RfA, I have no doubt that Techwiz will continue to contribute productively.
I've been on the fence with this one sicne the start and was hoping to be able to support before the final whistle. But I can't, sorry. Alphachimp's view sums up some of my dilemma. I like Techwiz and have good experience of him. I have the utmost faith in Newyorkbrad's jugdment. But the issues brought up by the opposers are just too great, especially Nichalp. So I'm going to stay on the fence, but I look forward to working with Techwiz whatever the outcome. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I hate to be one to oppose due to edit count, but with just over 500 edits, it is very difficult to review your ability to be an admin. You seem to be inexperienced, too. I suggest taking your mind off adminship (after all, we're here to build the encyclopedia, not get adminship) and doing some work on articles, getting involved in [[WP:XFD|XfD]] and discussions. Build up your experience here, and then without a doubt, you will pass adminship, if and when that time comes.
'''Soory but not now''' too few edits and the answers to your questions.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]]
He does not have many edits, which makes it hard to judge his ability, and the answer to question one does not show if he understands what an admin does. Sorry:(--
'''Oppose''' — Sorry but user has only been active in December, sorry but that isn't enough experience for me to offer support, I suggest an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|Editor review]] and a few more months experience, you look like a good user who is on the right track. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/

'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''': as someone who thinks there should be a mandatory threshold of edit counts in order to be a candidate, I plan to point to this RfA as an example of where edit counts might be a ''necessary'' but not ''sufficient'' criteria.  At least '''1000''' of your edits are simply posting "Welcome" messages to new users.  That may demonstrate dedication to the project, or the ability to do routine tasks repetitively, or simply an intent to get a lot of edit counts in order to look qualified for an RfA.  In fact, those 1000+ edits are worth ''less'' than contributing (usefully) to 20 XfD discussions, in my opinion.  Also, that you've posted 614 times to articles and only 11 times to article talk pages indicates to me that you've had very little interaction with other editors on improving articles - which means you quite possibly don't fully understand a lot of Wikipedia norms like [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]], at least not in the way that actually having experiening content disputes would prepare you.  In short, I worry that you don't understand or don't agree with [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not#Adminship is not a trophy]]. --
'''Oppose''' per all the above. --
'''Oppose''' While edit count is not the only consideration, it does give some idea of your depth of involvement and breadth of knowledge in wikipedia. Of your 3,219 edits as of now, 2,398 are in User talk. You have only 611 mainspace edits, which is low but not disastrous, but only 23 Wiki edits and only 6 in Wikitalk, which is not good. You may have read the policy pages and not participated, but without active participation we cannot tell that. I suggest that you take a more active role in [[WP:NAMESPACE]] and come back in three months or so.--
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal'''. Wikipedia: 23; earliest 12:02, 26 October 2006. These two factors need to be fixed. Edit for a few months and do some policy work in AfD or other. Yuo could certainly be an admin in the future with some improvements. --
'''Strong oppose''' echo Wizardman. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="dark blue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="seagreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jalaluddin_Patel&diff=prev&oldid=99088287 No] <b>
'''Neutral'''. Tellyaddict, I might support you in a few months, as now is just too early for me. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061230215258&limit=500&target=Tellyaddict this page] full of welcomes is nice, but not needed. Welcome users you happen to come across, don't actively look for them. --
'''Neutral''' Tellyaddict is an enthusiastic and capable editor.  I would be proud to nominate him myself when he has a bit more experience.--
'''Neutral''' I'm in a similar boat, so I can sympathize. I'd be glad to support in the future.
'''Neutral''': I would be willing to support after you have more experience. [[User:Sd31415|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#0095B6">SD31415</span>]]
'''Neutral''' You need more time and some more experience. I suggest withdrawing this RfA. ←
'''Neutral''' (And this is a true neutral, not a "neutral to avoid pile-on" neutral.) A good user? Absolutely. However, only 23 WP-space edits and 11 article talk edits means he does not have enough experience in dealing with the community. Yet Telly shows a need for the tools, and makes tons of positive contributions, so I see no reason supporting once he digs a bit deeper into WP policy and communicating with others in the article space. --
'''Support'''; As a member of the [[WP:BAG|BAG]], I have reviewed the code and found no flaws making me think that this bot could be abused or cause damage.  The checks it utilizes are very liberal and err on the side of leaving <s>articles</s> pages untouched, and the backlog of that task is large enough to warrant the use of an automated process.  I will be approving the bot for trial if it gets the sysop flag.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''; Full support, with the usual prerequisites, the source code is open to scrutiny, passwords are kept secure etc.
'''Support''' I trust ST47 and this is a pretty mundane, uncontroversial, boring, and repetitive task - perfect for a bot. <font face="Broadway">
'''Support'''. A good use of a bot that will free up admin time.

Very much so.
'''Support''' I had an idea for a bot like this once <font face="comic sans ms">
'''+''' Good work.
I would like to see this bot do admin work.
'''Support''' - Good bot, good operator. -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support'''. I've slogged through that backlog a fair few times, and I can assure you that this would be one useful Bot :)
'''Support'''. This is an ideal task for a bot, because a human is much more likely to miss something important (like recent editing). I do feel, like some others, that RfAs are not necessary for adminbots, but I think not supporting such a bot for that reason is counter-productive.
'''Support''' Code looks rock-solid.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' on a trial basis.
'''Support''' Would help a lot if it works well. If not then it can always be desysopped.
'''Support''' I trust ST47 to make this perform to the best of its ability. He knows perl like it is the alphabet and I'm sure he will be able to fix the problem if it errors. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Risk low, benefit tangible. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' As long as it has the backing of other reputable bot operators, it is a huge time saver. Admins are already busy enough, it looks like this bot would save admins a lot of time.--
'''Great idea'''
'''Support''' as a ideal task for a bot, which is extremely unlikely to do any harm in the hands of this trustworthy operator.--
I've looked at the source. I'm not great at perl, but it looks fine to me and it errors on the side of caution. :) <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">
'''Support''' a great idea and a simple task. <font color="red">
'''Support''' It's in the [[WP:BAG|bag]]...
Opposes lack validity, this is a good idea. --
'''Support''' mindless discretionless tasks are best for bots.
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support''' I think that it is good for bots to slowly start replacing humans, since they can ''really'' speed up things and avoid human mistakes (though they lack of judgement). I imagine a day in which Wikipedia will be ''entirely'' run by super sophisticated bots with super complex source code (so perfect that humans will no longer be needed), creating an error-free vandalism-free ambient and an encyclopedia that grows at ''extremely'' high speeds. Also, if this bot starts failing, then we can just desysop it and reconsider this option; let's give it a try. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support.''' This is a needed task to be done. --'''
'''Support''' I would like to see this bot having the admin tools as this is a very time consuming task. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
An excellent idea, and I strongly support this nomination. I've said it a few times before that we need more admins working in that category. I hope that, at the very least, if this nomination doesn't pass, more administrators decide to help delete pages in that category.
'''Support''' This is not so completely mindless as RedirectCleanupBot, but it's close, and after reviewing the first ten questions or so, I don't see any critical weaknesses in the bot's concept.
'''Support''' - per no weaknesses apparent.
'''Support''' - A useful bot performing an entirely mindless administrative task in a highly conservative manner.
'''Support''' - this is a perfectly mindless task which can be performed by a bot. If the technical bits are in question, that's for the BAG to deal with (though I think they've all been taken care of).  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Very weak support''' yes it's good but the opposers are right. How's anybody gonna research how the more prolific ones got banned if they want to? Still, [[WP:DENY|don't feed the trolls]] is a good reason to support.
'''Support''' I always wondered who was purging the category (since there is no monthly breakdown) and assumed there was already some sort of rogue bot around. I pondered it a lot, and I think that if clear logs are maintained (on the deleted AND skipped pages, for human review of the pages where the template should be removed), this is a good idea. --
'''Support''', of course. Any backlog that doesn't require human judgment can be automated, in my opinion. <b style="color:#c22">^</b>
'''Oppose''' I used to clear this backlog. There's plenty of reason why an old user/user talk page should be kept, that isn't defined by a category. It needs human judgement. '''
'''Oppose''' - only one edit. :-) Seriously, I'm probably going to oppose per Majorly, as I would prefer human judgment to be used here, particularly as the boundaries of the other adminbot still need testing (it seems that the redirect deletion bot can accidentally remove old evidence trails and so impede the work of Wikipedians investigating what used to link to a deleted article via a redirect). I also thought a different oppose reason might be nice. I'm also confused as to why the one edit the account has made should be proof that the bot is "owned by ST47". That is not normally required of bot operators, so why has that been done in this case?
'''Oppose'''.  I do not trust this bot operator.
'''Oppose''' I won't support any bot as admin. My own personal pref is that only carbon-based life forms with the ability to rationalize should be granted the tools.
No.  This is '''nothing''' like RedirectCleanupBot - that was coded in a way that there was NO way the bot could make mistakes.  This bot can make mistakes.  This task requires judgement (see Majorly's comment).  This should not be done by any bot, and especially not by a bot with as many flaws as have been noted by botops more experienced than myself.&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' per all opposers above. There's a reason why only 1,374 in 5,733,215 users are administrators, because tasks such as these '''need''' human judgment. I doubt any bot besides RedirectCleanupBot will be granted sysop buttons for some time. --'''
'''Oppose''' This is not a task that needs to be done blindly. We've had previous administrators attack this category with blind bot-like disregard and it did nothing more than create additional work and drama. Userpages are frequently placed in the temporary pages category incorrectly, and it takes human judgment to determine whether or not these pages should be deleted. Absolutely not.-
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and AP.  Please note that I am in no way opposed to adminbots whose scopes are clear and benefits tangible (see comments at ProtectionBot and RedirectCleanupBot).  However, contrary to the claims of the applicant, this is a category that absolutely does require human judgment and manual review of history prior to deletion.  Additionally, the existence of the pages poses little to no threat to the encyclopedia.  This is not a good target for a non-Turing-complete being.  —
Strong oppose, there are a variety of factors which would stop me deleting a page in these categories, and a number of them can't be scripted. Clearing this category needs judgement. '''
'''Oppose''' I think there are far too many problems that people have listed for this bot to work as it should.
'''No''' Potentially problematic. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I'm not too keen on having bots as admins. We give the powers of adminship to people because of their subjectiveness. I feel that we need humans to deal with all the "what if"s that can arise in Wikipedia, not bots that run according to a typed out code that only works for textbook examples.
'''Oppose''' sorry but we should worry about making people admins before bots.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
This job requires human judgement, and the bot can't replicate this. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Oppose''', not a suitable task for a bot - judgement is needed.  Plus I have the impression from the above that ST47 already runs bots on his admin account and gets away from it, so this isn't needed.
'''Oppose''' I feel like their is too much room for error.  Great idea at the basis though!
Just because there was recently one admin bot, does not mean to say that we need to make it a regular thing.
'''Oppose''' Function proposed for the bot is inappropriate for a bot, as it requires human discernment.
'''Opppose''' Per my comments on [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TempDeletionBot]], believe that more technical issues and controls needs to be discussed first.  —
'''Oppose''' - I'm not convinced that this task is appropriate for a bot due to judgment required. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm extremely wary of giving admin powers to any bot, and this appears a situation in which judgement is at least occasionally required.
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. While this sounds like a great idea in theory, I agree that this is a place where judgment is really necessary. If it can't pass a Turing test, it shouldn't be deleting pages. Sorry. -
I do not believe we need to be granting adminship to this bot.  The task requires more judgment than any ''algorithm'' could produce.
'''Oppose''', per Majorly.
'''Oppose''', rather strongly. I'm not convinced that this task is suitable for automation, despite the comments of the nominator and others. Somebody could vandalize a remotely hidden userbox, include hundreds of "regular" userpages in the category, and have the bot nuke them. While yes, that is reversible, no thanks.
'''Oppose'''. This is really a task that requires human eyes. The concerns about previous bot operation are also worrying, I'm not particularly satisfied with ST47's answers to those. --
'''Oppose'''. As much as I think this area could use clean-up, my admittedly casual experience with it indicated that human judgment was necessary. Even a cursory look showed all sorts of variables within just a few different pages that I suspect are outside the scope of this bot. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Indef. blocked members can always can come back to the encyclopedia with permission from the community, Jimbo, or Arbcom. I also agree with the point raised before that some socks pages may be deleted if we enable this bot. '''<font color="green" face="georgia">
'''Oppose'''. The targeted task needs human discretion, and should not be assigned an automaton. There is no way the bot is going to know about suspected sockpuppets, meatpuppets, e-mails, and other matters which might affect the decision of whether to delete the userpage.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly's succinct explanation of the problem's with the candidacy of this bot.
'''Oppose''' per Majorly and [[WP:SENSE]]. Think about it. Firstly, Majorly is quite right that this task requires human judgment. Secondly, is it really worth the risk? Unlike broken redirects, temporary userpages are not part of the encyclopedia. As per [[Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance]], and the fact that deleted material is kept in the archives, there is no urgent need for them to be deleted quickly. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't bother deleting them, but I do think that it's worth taking the extra time to have a human being doing this task. As to the question of ST47's judgment, I offer no opinion either way; I object to the idea of this bot, not to its operator.

'''Oppose''': Firstly, I can't see why all these pages should be deleted, and secondly, there appear to be technical issues with the bot's code, and with the operator of the bot.
'''Oppose''' It would be nice to automate this kind of process, but I can't see this happening, because with all the concerns raised above, and possibly more in the future, the bot is bound to make a mistake at some point.<br>If this was simply the wrong talk page thread being archived, that can be reverted easily but deleting a page would be a lot harder to revert because a) non-admins can't revert it and wouldn't know where to look since the content is hiden and b) deleting the page takes it off the category and what-links-here lists etc making the page harder to track down by admins.<br>If this RfA fails, perhaps another option to try would be to have a bot generate a list of pages in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages that are over a month old to allow admins to more easily manually review them. [[User:Tra|Tra]]
Protest neutral - wrong venue. (Compare with my comments on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot]].) This should be done ''via'' a proper [[WP:BRFA]] followed by an automatic ''+sysop'', even more so that this not a joint-venture of two sysops (like the previous bot), so no "shared accounts" etc. are involved.
'''Neutral''' - I'm sure unwanted deletions would be rare, but I think the benefits of the task are rather negligible as well. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#E6E6FA;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Oppose''' You have just 162 edits, and that alone shows that you are too inexperienced right now.  If you truly want to be an admin, gather much more experience by joining some projects and just getting involved.  Best,

'''Oppose'''. Suggest coming back when you have more experience. In the meanwhile, read up on our policies and enjoy editing! And please be sure to stay out of trouble. Best, --
'''Oppose'''. Blocked as recently as February 2007. Possible puppetmaster of various abusive sock/meatpuppets (see [[User_talk:Nlu/archive32#Possible_sockpuppetry|related discussion]]). Edited a talk page comment to distort the intended meaning[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATeniii&diff=110855337&oldid=110850435], and blanks user talk page without archiving. Only prior projectspace edits consist of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dynasty_Warriors_6&action=history repeatedly vandalizing an AFD discussion] and filing a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_16&diff=next&oldid=108736465 speedy closed DRV]. Has not demonstrated the requisite experience, judgment, and knowledge of WP policies and guidelines to make a reliable admin. --
'''Strong Oppose''' [[User:Wikihermit/Articles/RfA/Teniii|Blocked, blanking, '''104''' mainspace edits]]. Not enough knowledge, ect.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Wikihermit as well as Muchness. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Strong Oppose''' because of very little experience and low edit count. —
'''Strong Oppose'''. You don't have the adequate experience to become an admin, for the reasons stated above. '''
'''Support''' As nom --
'''Support'''.  Have had a number of positive dealings with this user on AfD and have been impressed by his dedication to actually fixing broken articles and not just crying for them to be rescued.  No reason to oppose, happy to support based on my interaction with the user there.
'''Support'''. Positive contributions, and his contributions to AfD discussions show a solid knowledge of policies and guidelines, and his willingness to help fix articles up; I trust him with the tools.
'''Support''' - for high mainspace contribution (which matters the most ) and great AfD contributions as well ..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''[[Supermassive Black Hole|Supermassive]] Support''' based on my experiences with this user in recent [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] discussions, where has always shown though behind his actions.  I respect Husond’s comments, but I believe the exact opposite is true.[[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen him around on AFD, and I can corroborate his attitude that he's willing to help in whatever way possible.
'''Support''' &ndash; He's already shown his willingness to use the mop he has; why not upgrade it?  Adminship is no big deal.  Edit summary usage isn't a deal-breaker for me, though I ''would'' like it to be improved, and perhaps he could also work on improving the quality vs. quantity ratio of your contributions to AfD.  I'm confident he can do it. &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Support''' per good mainspace contribs, would really like to see more in user talk but this user seems trustworthy enough, so OK, I'll support.
'''Support''' - I looked at the AfD cited in Q3, and I think the remarks quoted by the opposers below were taken out of context; in the circumstances, I think the candidate was justified in making those remarks. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''- good work on [[WP:AFD]]
'''Easy support'''. Someone who cares most about making a good encyclopedia is generally a good candidate for adminship. Just throwing that out.
'''Support,''' ain't no big deal. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Moral support'''. Some of your contributions to AFD have missed the mark, but I was quite impressed other cases (surely, you know which ones they are, whether anyone else here has bothered to study them or not) where you took the time and effort to improve the article, fully embracing the possibility that both would be nullified by an unfortunate vote-count deletion, or become a perennial favorite topic in the hell of deletion review. If this RFA fails (and it probably will), just remember that your strength (at least on AFD [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px]]) lies in taking such risks, in action, rather than argument. Don't explain how much better an article could be, just make it so. I'd like to see more of that from you in the future. Good luck. —
'''Support''' Some might be cooler when under attack but all things considered this guy is dedicated and will do fine.
'''Support'''. Changing from "neutral" to "support" after further consideration. Comments such as "I'm working on boosting my edit summary count as we speak" make me feel ambivalent, but 10lbHammer is obviously listening to criticism and working to improve things. Of course, doing things the right way on Wikipedia is something you should say that you will always do, not work towards! Go after it full hog. I would definitely say that this looks like a good admin choice. --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''.  I've worked with him on a number of country music related articles.  In a few instances we had some misunderstandings that could have led to an edit war, but he did a good job of warding that off by leaving a nice explanation on the talk page.  I've also been impressed with the speed at which he recognizes and reverts vandalism on any number of pages, and he is tirelessly working to create more (good) articles.
'''Support'''. Ability to accept to stand corrected is a great and increasingly rare quality in human beings and admins alike. And as for edit summary usage, let me just say that anyone who ''(abusive comment removed)''. And that's about all I'm going to say about that. —'''
'''Support''' Good history here and will be a good choice.
'''Weak Support''' I'm impressed by your edit count, but I agree with Husond. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Strongest Support Possible''' - Hammer's been extremely helpful to me during [[WP:AFD|AfD debates]], and 3000-something edits in one month is awesome (not to resort to editcountitis, however). Very impressed, and I know he'll be great with the tools. Adminship is no big deal, and I'm sure he won't go [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] on us.
'''Support'''. There are some legitimate concerns listed below, but it seems like TPH is dedicated to ammending these matters. [[User_talk:Zahakiel|<font color = "777777"><span style="text-decoration:none">◄</span></font>]]
'''Support''' I've mostly encountered TPH in AFD which he approaches more as a discussion or a collaborative investigation than is often typical. TPH will look into the neglected AFDs that have got few comments and generally do the boring work that isn't very popular. For both these reasons in particular and for generally seeming like a safe pair of hands, it's a real shame that it looks unlikely that this RFA will pass and I hope he'll try again in the not too distant future.
'''Strongest Support Possible''' You are a very good, experienced user. Good luck! -[[User:Billy227|Billy227]], [[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Billy227|Review my account!!]] <sup>[[User_talk:Billy227|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Billy227|contribs]] [[User:Billy227/sandbox|sndbx]]
'''Support''': I believe TenPoundHammer will take the constructive criticism in the ''oppose'' section below to heart, and from now on will be careful to follow [[WP:CIVIL]] at all times.  TenPoundHammer, as a personal observation, I'd like to point out to you that your username is suggestive of conflict or of an approach to conflict, and may give ever so slightly the wrong impression of you. People may come to the conclusion that you've chosen to stereotype yourself as someone with a sledgehammer personality or approach.  Changing it might be something to consider.  Let me give you an example:  the name [[User:Budgiekiller]] was chosen innocently enough, and referred to the fans of a rival team of the Canaries, the nickname of the [[Norwich City F.C.|Norwich City Football Club]] (soccer team).  However, many people interpretted the username to indicate a murderer of cute little [[parakeet]]s.  In response to feedback from people who thought that's what his username meant, he changed it to [[User:The Rambling Man]] and passed his next RfA with 100% support (though the support itself was no doubt due to spending 4 months working hard on featured articles, fighting vandalism, etc. - he even broke the 100 support !vote mark).  Good luck in everything you do, and if you need an admin coach, let me know.  Sincerely,  '''''
'''Weak support''': Although there are issues with personal attacks and "poor handling", nobody is perfect - this user is a rough diamond, however a diamond nonetheless.  TPH clearly has the right attitude to Wikipedia and should be an admin, and would hopefully grow from here. —
'''Support''' No argument - support =) <b><font color="red">[[User:Dep. Garcia|Dep. Garcia]]</font></b> <small> ( <font color="green">[[User talk:Dep. Garcia|Talk]]</font>  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dep._Garcia&action=edit&section=new +] | <font color="blue">[[User:Dep. Garcia/Help Desk|Help Desk]]</font> | <font color="orange">
'''Oppose''', sorry. On May 19th I recall noticing your omnipresence on [[WP:AFD]], and I recall thinking that your positions in multiple discussions there were lacking substance. In fact, allowing just a couple of minutes to decide position upon position is a behavior that seems to denote a particularly inadequate levity for someone who intends to attain a higher level of responsibilities within Wikipedia. Also, no vandalfight, and an edit summary usage far below the least acceptable. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' on the basis of the example given on Q3. some on your replies were "Delete as a non-notable author who a.) turns out hardly any GHits besides Amazon; and b.) ripped off "Eats, Shoots & Leaves". and "Where the hell did you get that concept from? I'm not "doing this out of a grudge against anyone who disagrees with my prescriptivist grammar line" -- whatever that freaking means. I simply stated an opinion on the page -- and I'm not the only person on Wikipedia who considers singular "they" substandard English. You'd better hold your tongue and avoid the personal attacks, and I mean now." This was only 2 days ago. '''
'''Oppose''' I think you AfD contributions are great but I think [[User:Husond|Husond]]'s comments are a worry and your edit summary usage is not very good either, I think if you make a few improvements you could pass at a later date. Kindest Regards &mdash;
'''Oppose for now''' I've seen this user at AFD and I want to preface my statements by saying that I really admire your willingness to change your opinion when presented with new information.  There are  way too many users at AFD who state an opinion and ''never'' change their mind no matter what evidence or how many sources are presented to rebuff their initial votes.  This user is open-minded and that's a ''tremendous'' credit.  But comments like those highlighted by DGG are a big red light.   If over the next couple of months the temper has been reigned in a bit, I'd support.  Also, the comments about perhaps taking a little bit longer evaluating an article before voting are comments I agree with. --
'''Oppose''' per examples provided by [[User:Husond|Husond]] and [[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]]. Without these examples I would've supported as the edit summary usage issue is not a good enough reason to oppose, but I am glad to see that you have made your edit summary usage now forced. However I still am not pleased by the examples provided. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
Sorry, but I have to '''oppose'''.  Communication is key for administrators, and edit summaries are very important, especially in the form of deletion comments, when most users only have those few words to see why an article was deleted. 47% for major edits is just not satisfactory.  Your comments on AFD are great, but I am troubled by the edit summaries.  <s>Also, you say in question three that blocking would be a last resort if you were in a conflict.  Blocking should NEVER be used to gain an advantage in a conflict, only in the case of a clearly disruptive user or vandal.  If in doubt, always ask another admin.</s> —<span style="color: red;">
'''Oppose''' I was very disappointed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/V_sinizter the opinion] given during this AfD. It better serves the community to take time to explain why a particular position is valid instead of 'So what?' and then adding a snide anecdote. This event occurred only yesterday. Help others with policy, or else users, especially new users, become discouraged.
'''Weak oppose''', you've made many fine contributions, but I think the ways you handle some issues (look at above links) point toward you not being ''quite'' ready. Please try again soon, and I'll probable support you then. '''''
'''Oppose for now'''. I'm sorry to say that, although TPH has demonstrated a very positive and keen-to-learn attitude to cleaning-up, improving the sourcing of articles, for which I for one gave a barnstar, TPH does certainly appear to need a some more work on his communication skills, especially when under fire. I have found it a ploy by some users who use information on my userpage against me [[WP:ATTACK|personally]] in deletion debates, so I know very well what it feels like to have one's words twisted against one. Someone engages you but in "a streetfight", you know you must exercise restraint. The situation referred to by DGG could have been handled a lot better. However, I am convinced that TPH is very motivated to improve, as he keeps on demonstrating. I am sure he will learn some "[[karate]]", and will make admin in due course.
'''Oppose''' Ten Pound Hammer is very quick to say something is definitely one thing or the other - and then equally quickly is forced to change his mind when he is shown to be wrong [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shrek4_2nd].  This causes no harm on an AfD debate, except to his chances here, but I fear that admin powers would see him summarily make changes which proved mistaken, causing a lot of work for other editors and damaging the project as a whole.  I'm sure a bit more experience wouldn't do him any harm here.
'''Oppose.''' Based on other people's input above, as well as on personal experience at AfD, I'd say that TPH still lacks the necessary maturity to be a good admin. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom ([[William Blake|?]]), but he's not there yet.
'''Oppose.'''  The AfD issues are troublesome.  Admins need to proactive, but also careful with decisions.  It's a fine line, and I think TenPoundHammer needs a few more months of showing that he has good judgement with that fine line.  Also, I was troubled about the Mac excuse.  I've tried out several things to make them work on the Mac, and somewhere below my comment is an editor who states that using Popups is mac compatible.  I've just switched over.
I don't trust this user to make well-informed decisions, and to make them correctly and decisively. '''
'''Oppose''' I've run into TenPoundHammer a few times. He does not assume good faith; actually, he assumes bad faith. I think that is an issue when applying for adminship.--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' per DGG, Husond and Mets, the general incivility and inability to AGF, and I find the answer to question three troubling. '''
'''Oppose''' Per Husond, Mets and especially DGG. I have worked with this user before, and a lot of the edits he makes do not even show a need for the tools.  --[[User:Nenyedi|'''Nenyedi''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Nenyedi|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Nenyedi|Deeds]]<sub>
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' as the answers to the above questions seem to display a lack of familiarity with some of the basic parts of WP, including policies central to the complex of an admin's tools and judgement like BLP. You seem like you're on the right track, and I could support in a few months. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Waters]]. This was recent and very poorly handled.
Some good reasons why, some '''good''' reasons why not.
'''Neutral''' I completely agree with Dfrg.msc.  I am a bit concerned with some of your comments as DGG pointed out above as well, but I'm not concerned enough to vote an oppose.
'''Neutral''' Reading through your AfD comments, I was pleased that you often give a thorough reasoning, but I disagreed with some of your comments, such as some of the ones you commented as speedy deletions. I didn't find anything that made me want to oppose, but it didn't give me the confidence to support.
'''Neutral''' per Leebo. Some of the AfD comments are concerning, but don't hold enough merit for an opposing vote. --
'''Neutral'''. While I respect your humility in Q3, the comments in question do raise concern, particularly the message you posted on his talk page [[User talk:Handyandy33#Nicholas Waters debate|here]], and they were made only three days ago, so I honestly can't trust whether you'll stick to your word or not. I'm withholding any stance on this as I've never interacted with you personally and therefore can't make judgments. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Neutral''' I'll clear up your vandal fighting on a Mac problem: I do RC patrol on a Mac and [[WP:POP|popups]] work fine for me – I even use [[Camino]] as my default browser and have for more than a year. The instructions are easy to follow and you should be up to speed in very little time. Combine popups with the bots in the vandalism-en IRC channel and the only thing you can't do is block vandals. Because popups  and IRC work so well, I don't see your need for admin tools right now, and the comments noted above put me in the same position as Dfrg.msc. I think you're heading in the right direction, but I can't quite support right now.
'''Neutral''' I really would like to support this RfA.  TPH does a lot of work around here.  However, there seems to be an issue with acting hastily and blowing the cool.  Also, I worry about answer to Q6 above:  ''there's really no need to keep an AfD discussion open if the nominator has withdrawn the nomination.''  I simply do not agree with this, as once the discussion has started, it should continue until consensus or other closure is reached.  This was an issue on another AfD ongoing.  I do see adminship in TPH's future, but maybe still a bit down the road, once more of the community is behind it. <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
As Dfrg stated, there are some good reason to support, and some good reasons to oppose. I am leaning towards support, but am pending the answer to AldeBaer's question. --
'''Neutral''' Although I'd like to recommend him, I'm not yet convinced that he seriously wants adminship.
'''Neutral''', you look like a good candidate, but some of the comments made by Husond are quite valid. <font color="purple">
I think you've improved enough since last time.  Go for it! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''support''' Already thought you were! this will just correct my oversight. I run into you a lot on AfD's and you are always rational and well spoken. Your edits appear to be well rounded, I can't see any issues myself.
'''Support''' Does great work with retail and country music related pages, would make a great admin --
'''Support'''.  When I first started commenting on AfDs, I saw TenPoundHammer there so many times I thought he already was an admin until I checked [[WP:LOA|List of Admininstrators]].  I have since seen him on AfD many, many times and his comments usually show that he has an excellent handle on policy.  His edit summary usage is concerning, especially for an editor with that much experience.  According to his first RfA he said he had set his preferences to warn him if he left the edit summary blank, and that was on May 21st.  Still, 3000+ edits in one month shows a considerable amount of dedication.  Only 8 reports to AIV isn't great for someone whose primary goal is fighting vandalism, but I only have 5 and I'm requesting adminship now also.  Overall, I see a trustworthy editor who would make great use of the tools.
'''Weak Support''' Good editor, but needs to use edit summaries more! Otherwise, I have no problems. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Would make a very solid admin.
'''Support''' No problems here. Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' His answers to the questions might not have the best in Rfa history, but his work is really impressive. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]

Changed to '''moral support'''. '''<s>Support</s>''', like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTenPoundHammer&diff=132708294&oldid=132684562 before]. This user combines workhorse qualities with a thoughtful general approach. His edit summary usage is still beyond the pale, so let me add once more that anyone who opposes based on something as stupid as that ''(removed personal attacks, possible OR)''. Good luck. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' I have reviewed many of his recent edits with particular attention to talk pages. In my judgment, he has improved since his first RfA and should now be entrusted with the tools.
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already!
'''Support''' 'bout time he has the godly buttons. —
'''Support'''. No problems.
'''Weak support''' diffs in the past RFA just don't convince me the candidate is someone terribly likely to abuse admin tools. He may not be the most civil editor in the world, I'm not either, but he seems to comment on the ''content'' not the contributer... which is a good sign. --
'''Support'''.  I nominated him last time, feel he should still get it. <font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''', effective editor who isn't likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Per AFD interactions
'''Support''' per excellent contibutions to AfD.
'''Support'''. No reason not to, this user has proven they deserve the tools. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' We need hammers ''sometimes''. Go for it. --
'''Support'''. No real concerns here (although please, use edit summaries!)
'''Support''' Input at AfD shows clear understanding of policy. Tonality since last RfA shows the user has taken editors' criticism and made strides towards improvement.
'''Support''' I've seen him around a lot and he comes across as competent and committed. I have no reason to distrust him. --
'''Support''' Very good work on music articles and at AfD - is obviously working to improve edit summary count and there's no reason to distrust TPH.  And since when did a little bit of levity become a bad thing?  Sheesh. -
'''Support''' - as per [[User:NeoFreak|NeoFreak]], It doesn't really matter that his RfA was just over 2 months ago and it might look like it was too soon but then so many  things can happen in just 2 months.. Immaturity is not a concern here..Thats the lamest excuse (in my POV) anyone can give for opposing someone..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - TPH is a hard worker for the improvement of Wikipedia, and I think being given the admin tools would only result in more good work being done. You might want to consider a script that forces an edit summary though.
'''Support''' Holy crap, hell yeah! ''<font color="#000066">'''
'''Support''' My oppose from last time is cited below.  But I feel the user has really worked to address the concerns from before.  The comments I reviewed at AfD were less hasty, and I've seen no evidence of any recent incivility.  Be careful not to bash people with that 10 pound hammer (and to put that in perspective, your standard hammer is a mere 16 oz and can do a tremendous amount of damage when wielded against someone), spend some time at [[WP:AIV]] before jumping too heavily into vandalism work, and continue to be responsive to constructive criticism (as you were after your previous RfA) and I think you'll do fine. --
'''Support''' - might give the deletion process the streamlining it desperately needs. '''
'''Support''' per JayHenry - overall I think you'll be ok - just be careful to fully review articles before using the delete button.
'''Support''' (edit conflict) - I've rethought the comments I gave in your last RfA, and, after some thought, changed my mind - I think it would be helpful to have an admin to "give the deletion process the streamlining it desperately needs" - just use careful with the delete button - but other than that, no concerns. Good luck! '''<font color="green">
'''Support:''' A good, thoughtful editor.  To be honest, I'd be very interested to see evidence that edit summary usage has any correlation to quality admins, or that there really are people who take a half hour or more over before remarking on individual AfDs.
'''Support''' -- I've never seen his comments in AfD seem out of place, or poorly considered.  I would trust this user with the tools.  --
'''Support''' I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator.  ''Power to those who desire it!''  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Support''' as I did in the previous request.  TPH has closed a lot of AFDs per the guidelines for non-admins.  It's time to give him the latitude to exercise his good judgment for "delete" as well as "keep" conclusions.
'''Support''' - seems qualified.  I like what I've seen of his work.  -
'''Strong support'''.  We sometimes disagree at [[WP:AfD]], but I never feel slighted.
'''Strong support'''; I've had the pleasure to cross his path often in AfD and on new page patrol.  We don't always agree, but even the most (to my eyes) brusque of his moves is made with careful deliberation.  I've been overly curt with other editors at times myself (wikistress gets to ''everyone''), and I know how much work and dedication it takes.  He's got it.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' as I did last time; a great editor who has only improved further since his previous RfA. '''<font color="#FFA52B">K</font><font color="#C31562">
'''Support''' User does solid work at AFDs; I don't see his speedy closes as a problem as they are not problematic and help decrease the backlog.
'''Support''' the above.
'''Support''' I'll support this editor for adminship.  Q8.1 right on the nail.  I feel confident the editor can address issues brought up in this RFA and will be trustworthy with the tools.  I believe the editor will use common sense inline with Wikipedia policy and guidelines to close deletion discussions. Answer to Q8.1 indicates the user has a grasping of consensus, however states not fully understanding.  Consensus is a difficult concept for some, however, I am happy seeing that this editor was able to explain that individual arguments should be weighed to generate consensus.  So, The first half of 8.1 indicates understanding.
'''Support''' This user seems like he would make a good admin. -
'''Support''' (from neutral) While the issues brought up by users such as Paxse made me apprehensive about my decision, I have come to the conclusion that you deserve the admin tools you desire for one very important reason (which seems not to have been mentioned so far). The ability to admit when you're wrong is something precious, something that many many admins lack entirely. If you're so arrogant, how is possible that you have been so gracious and accepting of the constructive criticisms proposed by users such as Paxse? I find the accusation that you are self-centered or power hungry to be outright slander. I myself am one touchy, self-assured bastard, and I get along great with you in AFD. Unlike so many admins, you have patently demonstrated that you have the ability to learn from your mistakes and take constructive criticism to heart. This proves to me that while your previous actions may have been hasty in many instances, you will continue to improve by leaps and bounds, and thus deserve administrative  powers.
'''Support''' I support 10 Pound Hammer's RFA. He is a tireless Wikignome in AFDs, even frequently noting, by a nonadmin closure, the speedy closing of AFDs by admins, such as in the case of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Amarillo+Bible+Church], where the admin speedied the article but did not close the AFD. It is past time to give him the mop. Attaboy!
'''Support''' - I'm supporting. Good AFD work, Major improvments since last RFA, Experienced, Good edit count.
'''Support'''. The numbers this time make this nomination look a bit iffy, but I believe that Wikipedia would benefit from this editor as an administrator. --
'''Support''' "Let the ''Pile On'' commence!" Knows his stuff, prompt and polite. His opinions are his own and I do not believe they would interfere with his use of the mop.
'''Support''' In my experience, he's quite helpful.
'''Oppose'''. Your last RfA failed only two months ago. Alot of concerns were raised by [[user:JayHenry|JayHenry]] and [[user:Husond|Husond]] about your poor and even hostile comments and edit summaries in AfD. Your low edit summary usage is still a concern as well. While I'm not one to lecture anyone about [[WP:BITE|biting]] others I don't feel that you've matured enough in your decision making over the two month period to be granted the admin tools yet. From what I've seen of your interaction with difficult editors (a key admin skill) I don't yet trust you to be a source of resolution.
The fact that you !voted on several AfD's within minutes of each shows you are too "jump into the deep end" and act first think second, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manycore_processing_unit&diff=prev&oldid=145973870], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Green&diff=prev&oldid=145973550]. Here are two other examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aspergum&diff=prev&oldid=144813282], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lebonah&diff=prev&oldid=144813409]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HM_Tiger This] comment left me a little worried as you suggested it be salted, it had only been re-created once and [[WP:SALT]] is reserved for ''repeatedly'' re-created articles, not just to help prevent it. Sorry if this is totally negative. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Necrotic_Disgorgement&diff=prev&oldid=145562253 this] comment shows a real lack of policy knowledge, if an article fails [[WP:BAND]], [[WP:COMPANY]], [[WP:NN]], [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:PORNBIO]], [[WP:SCHOOL]] it does not qualify for speedy deletion and Pedro's comments..
'''Oppose''', sorry, per the exact concerns for which I opposed you on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer|your first RfA]]: edit summaries, levity on [[WP:AFD]] and virtually no vandalfight. I see no improvements. Again, sorry. :-/ <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', because of concerns raised about articles nominated for deletion on user's talk page.  I am afraid that you may be too inclined to delete rather than improve articles, although I of course hope I am wrong.  Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Oppose''', You use [[WP:SNOW]] a bit to readily, and it has been only two months since your last RfA wait a bit longer. <b><font color="green">
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate this editor's commitment to building the encyclopedia. However, some of their recent decisions in closing AfDs seem rather unconsidered and even hasty, and the poor edit summary use would be more of a problem in an admin. These concerns make me unable to support adminship at present.
'''Oppose.  - And this is very reluctant, but I have to be honest to myself, yourself and the community.''' I'm really sorry TenPound, and I honestly expected I'd be supporting before my review. Your reply to Kurt (above) of ''even users in good standing?'' was not good as it <s>implied</s> means you judge yourself as in good standing (which I find <s>arrogant</s> a bit self centered), but I'd have let that go The ''Does this mean that his vote gets thrown out?'' was even more concerning for various reasons including the !vote thing but also implied you were keen to make sure you did not have opposes - that's just my opinion but I feel uneasy about it. Your use of [[WP:SNOW]] is very hasty and I'm not sure haste when not backed up by evidence of consideration or at the least re-consideration by an admin is good. Mostly however I've seen your good work at AFD  but I am not convinced the ''hostile'' (not a good word, but used previously) attitude has changed. I'm really trying to define this - I guess the simple answer is I see you as being too unilateral in the way you work to take on adminship at this moment. '''I'm really sorry''' - as I say I wanted to support based on interaction but I'm afraid I can't trust you to use the tools wisely ''at this moment'', and that is what RFA is about. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
As Husond. -- <b>
'''Oppose'''. I had a vaguely favorable impression of this editor, so I was thinking about supporting him, but hadn't looked into the WP:SNOW issue. Just now, there was an AfD for a Malaysian actress called [[Abby Abadi]]. TPH not only !voted "delete," but tagged her for A7. My Googling convinced me that she was probably a major actress in Malaysia, and that at the least editors familiar with Malaysia should have a chance to comment. Unfortunately, by then it was already nuked. He also tagged her TV series/movies, [[Gerak Khas]], for A1, even though the stub had basic context. This experience confirms for me that Hammer is too hasty, whether it's speedy keeps or speedy deletes, so I must oppose. --[[User:Groggy Dice|<span style="color:indigo; border:thin solid cyan; background:aliceblue">Groggy Dice</span>]] <span style="border:thin solid gold;">[[User talk:Groggy Dice|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Groggy Dice|C]]</span> 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [Now that the articles are bluelinked again, I think it's only fair to note that I've worked on them since, so the quality of TPH's tagging should not be judged by their current state. I still find, on reviewing TPH's recent AfD comments, a discomforting tendency towards "speedy" and "strong" deletes; I'd prefer him to be less constantly emphatic. --
'''Oppose''' Changed from neutral.  My concerns, especially over snow issues have forced me to change from neutral.
Per Husond and Pedro, too much concern here for me to cast my hat anywhere else. '''
'''Oppose''' My first oppose in fact. I've also seen you around AfD and while I agree with your closes, I share the concerns of Groggy Dice above. I think you are too fast on the deletion trigger and don't think you should have the ability to delete articles or block users without checks and balances. For example, in one of your many current AfD's here at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of action films: 1970s]] you have nominated 6 film lists for deletion. These articles were being written by two excellent contributors in good standing from the Film Wikiproject. You nominated the article for AfD nine minutes after it was created and while it was tagged with the {{tl|underconstruction}} template.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_action_films:_1950s&diff=146438511&oldid=146437835] This template is designed specifically to avoid deletion tagging while an article is being written while encouraging helpful edits. The fact that you feel no need to respect the template request indicates to me that you feel you personally know what belongs and what does not belong in this encyclopedia - before it is written. This sort of judgement call does not inspire my confidence in your ability to make careful and well considered decisions as an administrator. Your reasons for nominating for deletion were "a disaster waiting to happen" "Action film is purely OR" and "will become horribly unmanageable" none of which are valid reasons for deletion. Incidentally, [[Abby Abadi]] is a famous Malay actress who began her career as a singer[http://www.artismelayu.net/abby.html], moved into television and most recently has been the female lead in several feature films.[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007618/] She won most popular TV actress in 2000, 2001 and 2002 at the ABP-BH awards [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sBpZydErDtcJ:portalilmu.kempen.gov.my/index.php%3Fch%3D24%26pg%3D137%26ac%3D7053%26lang%3Deng+Abby+Abadi+award&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&client=firefox-a]  Yeah, that's definately a ''clear speedy candidate''. We don't need that sort of non-notable garbage in ''our'' encyclopedia. Do you know how many thousands of articles there are in [[:Category:American actors]] and it's 8 sub categories? Me neither. Do you know how many articles there are in [[:Category:Malaysian actors]]? Thirty four - and no sub cats. But they probably should all be deleted, right? Cheers,
'''Oppose''' You make way too many AFD nominations that are quick off the trigger.  See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil marriage in Israel]] or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination)]].  You need to start using tools other than deletion to improve Wikipedia when the problem with an article ISN'T a deletion issue, but a clean-up one.
'''Oppose''' - Another fine example of a good editor well on the way to making a good admin, but who needs a little more time. In reviewing the comments above, as well as going through many of your AFDs, it does look as though you are a bit hasty to pull the trigger. While you appear to be addressing this, I would simply like to see a larger sample period to make that determination myself. Likewise, your responses regarding Kurt Weber are a bit troubling in light of the fact your last RFA ran into trouble because of one of your responses in an edit conflict. I don't think you have said anything out of line above, but in light of the fact that some research would have demonstrated that Kurt is himself a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kmweber|self-nom]] a while back, perhaps simply letting his comments stand on his own record would have been a more suitable way to deal with an editor who has a strongly held position which is frustrating many (he voted against my own RFA with exactly the same phrase), but well within his right to express... a virtual equivalent of "turn the other cheek".
'''Oppose''' - Too worried over the technical count in the support/oppose lists (it may be important, but I think you can put your trust in Bureaucrats unless there is a good reason not to do so). There is nothing controversial about Jaranda's signature above, and there's really no point in updating the tally after one comment here. Recently withdrew 2 AfDs; please do more research before nominating. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_name_origins&diff=146403957&oldid=146403737 Set] arbitrary criterion for "cruft", when there are plenty of articles for other Simpsons characters to allow for such info if it is sourced. Other AfD concerns. –
''''Oppose''' In the last 24 hours, has initiated over 15 separate AfDs-- a mix of some very good nominations, a few very bad ones, and some that are debatable. At least two of them have been speedy keeps. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage_in_Israel], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_That_Laughing_At_The_Back]   I was reluctant to comment earlier on this because of often being on the opposite side of AfD debates. But the nomination of so many while at RfA is pending is beginning to look like trying to make a wholly unnecessary point about the activity as a worker at AfD, and seems to have been so ill-advised as to cast doubt on the present suitability as  an admin. '''
'''Oppose''' He's a hard working and well meaning contributor but TPH is way too quick on the draw with nominations for deletion in my view and with admin powers might cause a lot of contributing editors a lot of grief.  For someone without admin powers he also seems to close a lot of AfDs early which also gives me pause for thought.  I wish he'd just slow down a bit.  This [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amarillo_Bible_Church]] AfD was closed by TPH two minutes after it opened after no discussion at all.
'''Oppose''' per the concerns of others, above, with apologies. I can tell that you're a dedicated editor and that you've put a lot of time into Wikipedia, and I do appreciate that. I'm not sure that some of the concerns raised in your recent RfA have been addressed -- while general civility concerns have lessened, they're far from being gone. Browsing contributions linked in this and the prior RfA, I've noticed a bit much of two tendencies: (1) the "piranha effect" I've seen in a lot of AfD-heavy contributors, leaping at the sight of blood in ways that have frequently brought pointed and popular criticism to the project, and (2) at the risk of sounding like a political hack, flip-flopping when confronted with diverging opinions, and more in the sense of nearly complete about faces than in the sort of way that might give me a feeling you'd had a change of heart (even in this very RfA, the discussion below with DarkFalls and AldeBaer). A bit hasty on SNOW, which gives me concerns over what happens when/if you get the ''delete'' button. I'm not sure about your claim to be active on vandal patrolling, as I don't recognize your name from that, and the past few days of your contribs don't seem to show that tendency -- I could be missing some, however, in which case please do point it out. Finally, no email set, and I'm one of the fogies who thinks that's an important route for users to be able to contact admins. Perhaps I'd reconsider, with time. Either way, I hope you stick around, on the whole I do feel that you're an asset, despite this opposition to your candidacy. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">
'''Oppose''' per pretty consistent concerns of those above, which reflected my impression from my relatively few visits to AfD. Not ready yet; maybe next time.
'''Oppose''' Looking at some of the recent AFD nominations, I don't want this user to have the delete button yet.  Needs to spend more time considering the cleanup tools and other deletion tools, plus spend more time on considering which tool is appropriate to use.  While new page patrol can be the "firehose of crap", when a good article topic is started with a bad article the right answers are cleanup, tagging, and communicating with the creator, not deleting the article.  He says above that "the consensus thing is often over my head" and "consensus is kind of over my head" (answers to 8.1 and 8.4), so he isn't ready to be an admin.  When he [[grok]]'s consensus, or at least believes he does, then he'll be ready.
'''Oppose''' The questionable deletion tagging is a concern for me. Other than increasing minor edit summaries, I have no other issues. Be more careful in tagging and I will likely support next time.
'''Oppose'''.  I do not trust this user with the "delete" button at this time.
'''Oppose''' This user will be too quick to delete things without researching them first. This comment ''Does this mean that his vote gets thrown out?'' also doesn't sit well with me.
'''Oppose'''; I do not trust this user with the delete button. In addition to all the above, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_begining_of_life&diff=147082622&oldid=147082526 this] is not [[WP:PN|patent nonsense]], this is a good faith contribution, and labelling good faith contributions as "nonsense", even if they are redundant or unreferenced, is a sure way to dissuade good faith contributors. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Strong Oppose''' Although I do not consider self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting power rather than helping the project, it adds to other evidence that I see and read.  Why couldn't TPH get someone to nominate him?  The responding to each comment adds to that impression, as if TPH just wants this worse than anything.  I'm concerned about the maturity level of this applicant.
'''Oppose''' At the moment cannot support as per the above arguments which make me reluctant to trust this user with the delete button.
Per Husond, et al. Not careful enough; not delberate enough; not familiar with not only policies but the reasoning behind said policies. In short, hasty. Not ready for trusting with the buttons, particularly the delete and block buttons. One puppy's opinion.
'''Oppose''' per DGG, especially.  I also have seen a general pattern of over-hasty action from the candidate.  I worry that he would not apply deliberative judgment in applying the CSDs in particular.   He certainly needs to slow down a bit, and think more thoroughly before acting.
'''Oppose''' candidate just doesn't seem ready yet.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above, but it's the user's readyness to speedy delete without proper research, and statement that: "consensus is kind of over my head", that bother me most. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">
'''Oppose''' Sorry must change to oppose, problems brought up by Husond and some others above, seems to be a bit to deletionistic for me also.
'''Very Strong Oppose''' There are too many bad signs here. A self nomination, only two months after a failed effort. His reasons for wanting to be an admin are somewhat suspect. I sense a very strong lack of maturity here. A very bad idea to have this person as an admin, at least for the forseeable future.--
'''Neutral''' &ndash; Reviewing your contributions and the concerns of other contributors, I am slightly concerned with your practices regarding AfD.  It seems you're doing AfD just to do AfD, just to get your name out there, and you're trying to do it as quickly as possible.  None of the above are acceptable reasons to participate in the AfD process.  I'm also slightly upset by your apparent (and self-admitted) nonunderstanding of consensus.  I may be mistaken, but I ''am'' concerned, and I cannot support at this time.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - I'm impressed by your contributions, and I'm sure that you'd use most of the tools responsibly, but the concerns of others that you are quick to delete is somewhat of a concern, and I can't shake it. I suggest that you work tagging things for CSD for a while - noting the concerns which new editors will bring to you once you tag something of theirs may give you some more experience with which to judge whether an occasion is worthy of a light tap, or a ten-pound hammer. ;)
'''Neutral'''.  I ''really'' wanted to support you when you popped up on RfA again, as I knew you'd show up.  I supported you the first time around and I really, really regret not being able to do so again.  I like you as an editor, I've run across you many, many times in AfD's and by and large I like what I see.  However I was one of the editors who pointed out that you've become rather hasty with SNOW closures - and that was last week.  I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you plan to tone down the hasty decisions but unfortunately I require a bit more to show that you really will implement this change instead of just planning to implement the change.  My best advise would be "Slow down, friend" - be a little more deliberate with your actions here on Wikipedia.  Adminship is no big deal but I cannot support admins with itchy trigger fingers.
'''Support'''. Thought one of your previous RfAs passed. I have no idea why the oppose votes are worried about the timing. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomStar81 2|In this case]], I now understand. But what is wrong with having almost a month to change. You're ready for the tools now (although as of yet, you haven't accepted), and apparently you weren't a couple weeks ago. Big deal. You are a fine candidate.
'''Strong Support''' has a very good track .He has accepted the nomination because some one else nominated him.Has just under 20000 edits and is one of the most active and productive editors.
'''Support''' this is unlikely to pass, as it's too soon after the last one, but that won't stop me from supporting.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I like you man, but waiting just three weeks between RFAs is just not enough time to improve and put things behind you. It's just way too soon --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Oppose''' &ndash; I was not aware that there were <s>29</s> 22 days between TenPoundHammer's last RfA and this one. To me, this is a clear sign of "desperation" for the Administrator tools, which is never a good sign.
Sorry, far too little time between RfAs. Yes, someone nominated you this time, as opposed to last, but you didn't have to accept the nomination. There were concerns that your ''last'' RfA was rushed, as well. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I must oppose for now. Editor seems to be in a hurry at times, and can act a bit rash because of it. This third RfA seems to continue that pattern. I'd like admins to be a bit more deliberative. Slow down, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. :-) <strong>
'''Oppose''' - This oppose has absolutely nothing to do with any review that I have made of your contributions. My concern is that your last RFA was closed less just a bit less than 21 days before this one started.  There were no procedural issues or anything that I can see and it was not a borderline case subject to bureaucrat discretion. The fact that you are here again now shows poor judgment in my opinion.  The fact that you claim that you would have waited at least another month if you had not been nominated does not change my opinion.  You had the option to decline this nomination and, I feel, you should have had the judgment to exercise that option.  If you would like for me to support you for adminship, please withdraw this RFA promptly and do not accept another nomination until October 1. Also, when you do RFA again, please provide clear response to the items that caused your 2nd RFA to not succeed. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)  Note: Please, also, do not interpret my comments to indicate in any way whatsoever that you may not be valued here or could not become a fine admin in the future.  I am only saying that you must show better judgment and you must let enough time pass between RFAs to be evaluated by the community vs your prior attempt. --
'''No.''' I opposed you before but '''with reluctance''' bordering on no abstention or neutral due to your great work. This nomination acceptance after such a short time is very poor judgement. Self nomination or own nomination is totally academic - at RFA you are asking the community to trust you not to abuse a few extra tools. Whether other editors nominate you to have them, or you ask for them yourself is irrelevant. The point is purely trutworthiness. This is a community, and I fear you have judged the community badly by this rushed re-application which means I must again oppose. I'm sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral, suggest withdrawal''' - Seriously, having a Rfa after only 3 weeks is bound to fail. Wait a few more months, so that other users can see how you improved. Good luck next time! --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Neutral teetering on the brink of support''' I happen to like this user a lot and have been frequently impressed with his work in AfD. I supported him last time and I'm leaning to support this time, but I think it's just too soon after the last RfA.
'''Neutral''' I was '''oppose''' last time, and because this is not a self nomination, I wish to remain neutral and encourage a withdrawal on the grounds that less than a month is not enough time. As before, I still think you're on the right track, but want to see three or four more months worth of work to judge.
'''Neutral''' I was support last time around and didn't vote on your first one.  However I do think its too soon for another RFA.  I know you were nominated by another user, but IMHO accepting it shows a lack of discretion.  And I think admins need to use discretion alot.  '''
'''Friendly neutral''' much per New England and others. Three weeks from now, this ''would have been'' unhesitating support. —'''
'''Support''', as nom.
Been looking forward to the second RfA. :) [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''', gotta be. Great user who would not abuse admin rights whatsoever, and I wish you the best of luck! —
'''Support''', seems like a noble user. And most likely getting the job done. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:Zerorules677|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:Zerorules677|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Appears to be minimally qualified. --'''
'''Support''' So far, pile on!! <b><font color="E32636">
'''Support''' Glad to give my support. A great asset to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. It's about time. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Inactive and purely symbolic support because I had run ins with you in the past'''
'''Support'''.  Given [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia]], we need every admin we can get.
'''Support''' - Nice amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''' - good and thoughtful response to answers, meets [[User:Rudget/policies#Edit count|my standards]].
'''Strong support''' Courteous and helpful editor - much improved from last RFA. Shame American Brit isn't around any more! :) '''
'''Support''' &ndash; Per experience and Neil.  We need more nuke operators for November. &mdash;
I'm
'''Support''', not because we need more admins, but because we need more of ''these types'' of admins. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''' <b>
'''Strong Support''' As per nom and  Great track in particular the statement that you accepted the advice of the oppose votes  in the 1st RFA and waited 1 year before the next RFA and took the points raised positively shows your desire to contribute to wikipedia .
'''Support'''
'''Support''' As with [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The-G-Unit-Boss]], I enjoyed the use of quotes to illustrate this user's qualities, in the nom.
'''Support''' Contribs are in order on a cursory glance.
'''Support''' Looked at the contributions. Seems like a hard working Wikipedian. Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' Jawohl.
'''Support''' Easy choice.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''  --'''
'''Support''' - good pedia builder ''m'kay''...cheers,
Will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' - This editor is much improved in recent months: (a) consistent use of edit summaries, (b) lots of edits across lots of fields, and (c) gone through editor review.  It will be extremely helpful at [[WP:AFD]] to have an editor who is "fluent" in heavy metal/punk/goth, genres often outside the mainstream and subject to many nominations because "I've never heard of them, they only get 789 Ghits, so they can't be notable".
'''Support''' User's religion is of no concern to me. We could clearly debate the origins and adaptations of the swastika to no end, however, coupled with 'grammar' I find it innocuous, while still retaining a derogatory meaning, IE unrelenting and controlling. I'd much rather see it now than an hour after this passes.
'''Support.''' Unless y'all want to desysop me because I have a [[Confederate flag|Battle Flag of Northern Virginia]] on my door...
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''', good vandal-fighter, gives excellent reasons why should be admin. Has grown and seems to be growing, I get the impression this is a big-caliber human. He has noted people don't get the humour now, so I am convinced (okay, I know, this is just a feeling) this won't be a problem. And another  comment - from this Norwegian user: my personal impression is to cut an Englishman more slack in jokes about Nazism and Nazi symbols than most other, as someone has said here: the Jews may make jokes about Nazism- and I think, some of the same apply to the British. As this box has been removed now, it should be seen as solved.
'''Support''' The opposes for the grammar nazi userbox and being a satanist are completely looney.  There's no reason to oppose to me <font face="comic sans ms">
While I'm not thrilled with the method of response to the userbox issue, which I still don't find to have been suitably addressed, it's not enough to convince me that THA, who otherwise appears to be an excellent editor, is not qualified for the position of admin. I have no doubt that he/she will have learned from this experience and will have gained understanding as to how to how seemingly minor issues can become controversial when extra responsibility is attached. Not a strong support, but a '''support''' nonetheless.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the Nazi box on your userpage.  One has a right to free speech (which on Wikipedia is respected as a loosely regulated privilege, actually; Wikipedia is not a government, etc.)  How one chooses to employ that right is a reflection of his/her judgment.  This is a poor reflection on the candidate's judgment, as it is needlessly inflammatory.  Yes, the Swastika was and is used as a religious symbol.  The reverse Swastika (which is the Nazi symbol) in black on a white and red field is exclusively a symbol of Nazism, neo-Nazism, and the like. Reconsider your judgment, candidate, and I'll reconsider mine.
'''Oppose''' Your userbox is the Nazi flag with reference to the word "Nazi" and a reference to the SS to boot. Some people regard that as divisive and offensive. The history of the swastika is a strawman; you are using it in its Nazi sense. No one is attacking your pentagrams; that's another straw man. The box's inclusion on your user page calls into question whether you will be perceived by the community as open and impartial. Your answer to my question leaves me uncomfortable: particularly your reliance on WP is not censored. I suppose you'll never see incivility or a personal attack because those too are free speech. I too am against censorship, keep your symbol. But I cannot support you as an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Insensitivity, there is nothing amusing about the swastika on your user page, and making a joke about something like that is really not cool. And also per [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]], & [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]]
'''Oppose''' for the actual answers to question 4 which make some irrelevant distinctions (such as the one pointed out by Sjakkalle or that between the use of the template and the template itself) and comparisons (such as to the Jain symbol), but miss the main point, namely that an administrator can be expected to try to avoid misunderstandings where possible and may interact with people who may have a completely different understanding of satire (or none at all). I appreciate the commitment against censorship, but why then increase the risk that editors jump to or feel reinforced in the conclusion that their contributions have been deleted or even "censored" by some "Nazi-admin".--
'''Oppose''' The Haunted Angel is perfectly within his rights to have a swastika on his user page and I'm perfectly within mine to think him a total tool because of it.
Inexcusable user page content.--
'''Oppose''' The swastika existed as a symbol before it was co-opted by the Nazi party. "Afterwards", however, is not the same as "before". A black swastika on a white circle with a red background, furthermore, is ''absolutely unambiguous''. Answers to questions on this subject, while civil, don't imply much respect or concern for others' feelings, instead amounting to "Do I really have to get rid of it?" No, you don't have to, and no, my vote wouldn't change if you did. <font color="006622">
'''Oppose''' The Nazi box is very poor taste and so is the "Wikingpädi" nonsense. Being a citizen of a [[Nordic country]] I've way too often heard the American smear accusing Nordic people (=descendents of the Vikings) to be Nazis. You might be interested to know that the Nazis had very little following in our countries, which was clearly demonstrated during the [[Nazi occupation of Norway]] and [[Occupation of Denmark|Denmark]]. I have nothing against you personally, I don't know you, but "jokes" like these are not befitting for an admin.
'''Oppose''' - lack of ability to diffuse a wikidrama.
Even if you recognise your error now, it doesn't reflect well on your judgement that you had a Nazi symbol on your userpage for an extended period of time. The way you tried to defend it citing it being a religious symbol when it would obviously cause offense as something else did nothing to improve my opinion. Endorse the comment ''"I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship?'' by Nick mallory. '''
'''Oppose'''. Eep, the swastika symbol knocks this one out. See Nick Mallory's comment.
'''Oppose''' to me, the content on your userpage shows a lack judgment (or understanding) on your part.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
Didn't handle the above situation well.
'''Oppose''' per Addhoc and Daniel. Citing the religious aspects of the symbol and comparing it to an infobox for Jainism was an error, considering that the association with Nazism clearly went much further than just the incidence of a manji. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton monarchist89 2|Here's]] what might have happened if you had just removed the infobox (see the discussion near the top of the oppose section). Even if you disagree with the reasoning here, it's clear that the box offended somebody, and it's definitely not a necessity.
Moving to '''oppose''' per Xoloz and Daniel, and per my comments in the Neutral section below.
'''Oppose''' for poor understanding and lack of judgment.
I'm going to '''oppose''' because of terrible judgement exercised with the Nazi userbox, and becuase of what Addhoc said.
'''Oppose''' per the Nazi and Satanist userboxes. Userpages aren't personal websites, they are to facilitate your contribution to Wikipedia. Patently offensive userboxes, whether intended as such or not, do not facilitate the work you are here to do. Removing the Nazi userbox because of opposition during an RfA does not change the judgement that went into placing them on your userpage in the first place; in fact, it raises new questions about your motives for removing it despite your contention that its a joke.
'''Oppose''' per rationale above. <b><font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><font color="#ED9121">C</font>
One thing that an admin has to be able to do is to make concessions on minor points, so as to be able to stand their ground on major issues. To be standing his ground on this particular issue shows poor judgment. I regretfully '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' - in regards to the Nazi symbol, if you had just said, "It was meant to be a joke, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I'll remove it.", this would be a lot different for me.  However, you defended it and continued to do so.  You finally removed it after much back and forth.  Too late in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' The box was a joke, and it is not a big deal. I'm concerned that the candidate chose to argue once it was clear that people were bothered by the box, and that they employed such an obvious red herring in the process.  Even though they finally removed it, their defense leaves me with doubts about their judgement and respect for other users. I also share DS's concern. '''''×'''''
I support free speech, and if you were using a Swastika to make some political point that'd be one thing, but having it as some pointless userbox joke?  It's an obviously offensive symbol to some people, so I'm questioning the judgment and sensitivity here.  I'm neutral because the Angel hasn't had a chance to respond yet. -
<s>Very poor answers to question 4, all strawmen and red herrings. Yes, the swastika was an innocuous religious symbol for thousands of years; in the context of the userbox, however, it is clearly intended as the symbol of the Nazi party and hence can be expected to have problematic sensitivity issues. For example, it's very likely that an admin with a Nazi symbol on their userpage, regardless of intention, would not be welcomed in admin capacity within the very large and active [[WP:JUDAISM|Judaism project]] or the numerous similar projects. New users could easily be put off by a high-profile editor projecting that image. On closer examination THA appears to be a very good editor, but I'm withholding support '''for now''' until a better response is offered to the valid concerns raised here. This doesn't mean that I necessarily expect the box to be removed, rather that I would prefer a better example of how this user would react in similar pressured situations as an admin.
'''Neutral'''.  I can't support you with the satanic references, but it would be wrong of me to actually oppose you.  I believe that it is wrong to make judgments on RFA's about editor's beliefs, but I have doubts (because of this) that you would have a neutral point of view toward users editing against your own personal beliefs.  Very sorry I can't support.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
I can understand opposition relating to the swastika thing; personally I don't find "Grammar Nazi" offensive, but have trouble with the swastika.  But I have a big problem with people objecting because of his work on the Religion wikiproject.  Anyone who is opposing on that basis, please consider how you would feel if people opposed your RFA because of your presumed religious beliefs or Wikiproject affiliation.  Please, let's keep that out of it and look only at comments and actions.
Thanks for removing the swastika. I think that you were too hesitant and stubborn about it for me to be comfortable supporting, but I withdraw the "oppose".
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. Feel free to try in the future, but with under 1000 edits I can't see this passing, suggesting withdrawal. --
No project experience to warrant need for tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' You have only 913 edits in total; 557 mainspace, 127 Wiki and 19 Wiki talk. You need more to demonstrate an adequate grasp of the details of Wikipedia policy which an admin must have.--
'''Oppose''' Your talk page doesn't yield good results, including a WP:CIV warning. [[User talk:Sp3000|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Cheers to</span>]] [[2007|<span style="color:#FFD700;">2007</span>]]! [[User:Sp3000|<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">Us</span>]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Not enough interaction with other users, not a huge amount of Wiki edits either.  I'd try again when you've involved yourself in more dicussions and have racked up a lot more Wiki edits.'''
'''Oppose'''Sorry, after a few more months and a few thousand edits, possibly. But right now, you need to get a little more involved and check out [[WP:CIVIL]]. Hope you have better luck next time. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Oppose''' - too early. According to [[User:Insanephantom/RfA criteria|my criteria]], I'd like to see at least 1500 edits and some more ''activity'' to show enough experience to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' needs much more experience, edits, and time around. You'll need to work on your edit summary usage too. ←
'''Oppose''' per Anas. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="steelblue" face="Comic Sans MS">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">man</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience, and, well, the only vote in support is that user's second ever edit.
'''Unjudgeable candidate'''. On the positive side, I see an AfD participation level that's rather decent given his overall number of edits and what talk contributions he has seem good. On the negative side though, I cannot find anything that would indicate a strong understanding of policy in general. By which I do not refer to Wikipedia: space edit count, but even things like interfacing with new users and trying to teach them how things work. I suggest withdrawal for now. --
'''Neutral''' for lack of experience, so I recomend withdrawal at this time.  Why not provide some diffs for your answer to question three?
'''Neutral''' I agree with (aeropagitica), you certainly could benefit from more experience.  Thus, I recomment you withdraw.--
'''Oppose''' as you candidly point out, you're not so good at resolving disputes and keeping your calm. That's a definite problem for a candidate admin.
'''Oppose''' this diff scares me a little bit too much ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misty_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29&diff=prev&oldid=142033376 1]). And your nom was indef blocked as a sockpuppetteer within two hours of creating this RFA page; feels suspicious to me. '''
Serious issues in trust, when accepting a nom from a sock. Resolving disputes is one of the most important abilities for admins, and lack of understanding towards the process makes a serious objection. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry but you can't argue with the facts. --'''
'''Oppose With Moral Support''' Your candid answer to Q3 shows you are not ready for admin buttons at the moment. It also shows an ability to honestly assess your own strengths and weknesses, which will certainly help you in the future. Best wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' I recommend withdrawing.  A sockpuppet nominated you?  No support.
'''Oppose''' - but please dont be discouraged. Keep up your work and try again later. --<strong>
Not wanting to be part of the pile-on of opposes but unfortunately your answers to the questions do not demonstrate knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Try again in a few months. --
In anticipation of TT's acceptance, I support as co-nom. --
Restless and valuable contribution to the Wikipedia community and to articles. Very considerate and helpful in dealing with other users. The ideal admin.
'''Strong Support''' -  The user has been helping other editors and has been very active and he is long overdue :)..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strongest Possible Support'''&mdash;as co-nominator and close friend of one of the greatest Wikipedians we have <tt>;-)</tt> good luck, TT ~
'''Strong support''' Wtf, The Transhumanist isn't an admin??? I have to say that is one of the most shocking things I've heard since I've been here! Well, The Transhumanist has been one of the best admin coaches I've seen, he certainly knows what it takes to be an administrator, and his virtual classroom has developed some excellent lessons which he has helped guide prospective admins into writing. It also shows his understanding of policy - which is second to none. His helpful attitude, coupled with his dedication to the project and knowledge of policy will ensure he is one of our best administrators.
'''Support''', (edit conflict) woah, an admin coach without even being an admin? Now that takes skill! :) Good luck, Transhumanist! '''''
'''Support''' I was really thinking  about nominating TT sooner or later; surprised really, that he wasn't one (admin coach and everything). To get to my point... very strong support!!
'''Support''' Seems a much-improved editor since the previous RfA back in November.
'''Strong co-nom (late, but not too late) support''' - an epic contributor, an editor who has learned and developed from previous experiences, a humble, creative, honest and approachable kind-of-guy. Good luck!
'''Strong Support:''' As co-nomination; I thought he was one. '''<span style="font-size:95%;font-variant:small-caps;font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="#229922">
'''Support''' - Innovative and knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy.--
'''Strong support''' - great community player. Tons of behind-the-scenes hard work. I see the 'admin school' matter as being well in the past at this stage and I've seen nothing but civility from this editor. I like the honesty behind Q3, too -
'''Support'''.  In his early days, Transhumanist did some wacky things, and seemed over-eager for adminship, which made me come to this RfA with skepticism.  Looking over his work, he has improved incredibly, and does demonstrate great industry and dedication.  His fundamental outlook, heavy on community-involvement and Wiki-love, has never been in doubt.  I'm convinced he'll do a fine job with the mop. :)
'''Strong Support''' The VC is exactly the kind of work that we need here. I have been associated with it for about a month and have TH to be nothing but an encouragement. Sure, there were problems in the past but from what I see he has straighten that all out and has been very forthcoming here about those issues. I would further say that we do need more admins especially those with TH' work ethic. [[User:65.13.115.43|65.13.115.43]] 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (I forgot to sign in)
'''Support'''. My impression is of a considerate, patient, good humoured, wise and profilic contributor. Admirable qualities for an admin.
'''Strong support''' Takes time to help others.
'''Strong support''' Friendly, helpful, hard-working, probably overqualified for this!
'''Support''': From your work at the [[WP:VC|Virtual Classroom]], I could have sworn you were an administrator already. You are an excellent editor. Good luck! [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Oh yeah. All the way. I'm shocked he isn't an admin already. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Support'''. Clearly has improving Wikipedia at heart, and I have seen no evidence that he would abuse admin tools. WP:VC was a very good idea, and its initial hiccups were no worse than those of many other ideas initially scorned and later adopted.
'''Support''' Although I do [[User talk:The_Transhumanist/Award_Center#Questioning_the_idea|not always agree with his ideas]], I think this user is a valuable contriubtor and will only become more effective with the mop.
'''Support'''.  I admit that I don't entirely "get" this candidate, as he seems to pursue Wikipedia with an unmatched gusto and a sort of entrepreneurial spirit.  I came here to write articles, and only stumbled on the back end of Wikipedia when someone speedy deleted my article.  The Transhumanist seems to have come here to reform the systems that strike him as odd or unwieldly, which is cool.  Of the opposes below, I see none that even slightly convince me that the candidate can't be trusted with the tools. That is the only important question. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' - I see nothing to make me believe this user will abuse the tools.  I hear the concerns about dispute resolution, but I've looked at recent contribs and frankly don't see anything that concerns me.  I think this user has honestly grown in their understanding of appropriate dispute resolution techniques.
'''Strong $upport'''. I believe The Transhumanist has more than earned Admin tools. I've never experienced a more dedicated and caring user, and have absolute conviction that The Transhumanist would be a great Sysop.
'''Support''' per [[user:Haber|Haber]]. —'''
'''Support'''. Great person, always neutral and objective. I'm sure he would make a great admin.
'''Support''' A hard working guy who will use the tools well.
'''Support'''. The answers at the questions were good.--
'''Support''' - Hard working, and not likely to delete the main page. I have good experiences with this user. --
'''Support''' - Given his involvement with the Virtual classroom and former admin school, I always assumed he was already an admin. In any case, his long experience with helping other users and with Wikipedia processes leads me to support. A focus on internal Wikipedia details rather than mainspace contribs is not a problem, IMO, given how desperately we need more admins. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''', is he not an admin already. An excellent user. [[User:Tim.bounceback|Tim.bounceback]]<sup>(<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Tim.bounceback|review me!]]</font> | [[User_talk:Tim.bounceback|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Tim.bounceback|contribs]] |
'''RfA Clique Support''' Why, oh WHY is he not already an admin? ~ [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' I love his answers to the questions, especcialy 6. He would make a great admin, I'm surprised he's not one already.--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE support'''. Great intentioned user. I have confidence he won't misuse the sysop tools. In the words of one of his former usernames, [[user:Go for it!|''"Go for it!"'']] &mdash;
'''Support''': I have seen this user around a lot and have seen nothing but good work from this user. While there are some troubling things mentioned in this RfA, and there are some nice comments on the user's previous RfA, I do not think that this user will abuse the tools or make a bad administrator. Like many others I did think TT was already an administrator. Also, this has been mentioned plenty of times before, it is just a couple extra buttons. I don't think that he will abuse these buttons and the project can only probably benefit from another administrator with TT's experience. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000;">'''&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' Heck, I wouldn't have a problem skipping RfA for this user. You've greatly improved over the last few months.
'''Oppose''' While I haven't had experiences with this user, his answer to question number three troubles me. I like his answers about patience, etc. etc., but that's pretty boilerplate. It doesn't seem to reconcile with the seriousness of his prior action, and "hiding under other usernames" does not seem to reflect that an admin should not shy from controversy, if he is doing the right thing. Conflict is unavoidable, but it's also one of those things that should not cause an admin to meltdown.
'''Oppose''' We don't need any more admins, let alone admins creating schools to create more admins.
'''Oppose''' Not for the multiple usernames issue, but because I have seen nothing to indicate this editor has a clear understanding of what being an admin is: from his ill-conceived school, which went down in flames, up until the present time, it appears that the Transhumanist, while well-intentioned, is fundamentally ill suited for the mop and broom. One puppy's opinion.
I've never opposed for "lack of a need for the tools" and am probably on the record as criticizing people who oppose just for that reason, but it feels a bit different here. This is one of those candidates who seems to really want adminship, and yet has no particular use for it. If all you want is to see how the tools work, I'm sure someone could have set you up with an admin account on a test wiki months ago. It's just this combination of apparently having spent a long time grooming oneself for RFA yet having no particular use for the admin tools beyond the supposed prestige... I don't see how giving this user the tools really benefits the project. I do think we need more admins, but we need them so they can clear backlogs and otherwise deal with article issues as only admins can, not just so they can be slightly more informed as they converse on meta pages. --

'''Strong oppose'''  This is the first time I’ve ever commented on an Admin, but then again this is the first time I’ve been compelled to comment.  I have been observing Admins for the past few months, especially in contentious articles surrounding [[Evolution]] and [[Creationism]].  I try to picture The Transhumanist in such a situation, and based on his previous uncivil comments in contentious situations, I have no confidence that this person would deal well with it.  When I hire people for management positions, there are those who like to tell people what to do, make beautiful plans and spreadsheets, and create lots of lists and rules; on the other hand, there are those who roll up their sleeves and get the actual work done.  Transhumanist seems like the former, which isn’t a skill set required by Wiki these days.  The bureaucracy is established by consensus, and this person appears to be lacking in that style.  In addition, a quick look at their Mainspace edits is wholly unimpressive.  They have not added anything to Wiki and to the knowledge base of the encyclopedia.  There seems to be a lot of fluff and not very much substance to The Transhumanist.  I thought about adding the typical "seems like a nice person" comment, but I don't want to lie.
'''oppose''' This candidate's answer to question 3 is particularly troublesome. The candidate by his own description doesn't handle disputes well at all. Furthermore, he has an obsession with changing policy when he has little real experience implementing policies and other things by actually writing in article space. Many supporters assert that we can trust him with the tools but I'd be genuinely worried what he would do with the admin tools if he had another "full wiki-meltdown".
I'm afraid there is an underlying lack of maturity that could lead to The Transhumanist being more of a detriment to the project as an administrator. The strong desire for adminship and power is worrisome. --
'''Oppose''' Orangemarlin said it best. There is an intractable quality about this editor - a sort of vanity that is compounded by indulgent methods. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Oppose'''.   I am not convinced that the most serious concern raised in the last RfA has been addressed--that The Transhumanist values hierarchies, processes, and forms more than the real workings of the encyclopedia. His latest project, [[User:The Transhumanist/Award Center]], is a good example.
'''Oppose''' - this editor has made significant contributions to the project, and clearly has the best of intentions. However, I have significant concerns about the specific issues raised by both [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] and [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]]. In the absence of a demonstrated need for the tools, and given the history of troubled interactions, I feel that Admin status is unwarranted.
In my experience, TH tends to take an overly formal and bureaucratic approach to issues, which belies a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. This is not a good trait for a candidate admin.
'''Oppose''' per KillerChihahua, Radiant, John Reaves and Orangemarlin. I have been waiting for this RfA with some trepidation, and believe that TH lacks some fundamental understanding of how this place works. Deepest apologies. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per /kc, Radiant, OM, Doc Tropics and Swatjester
'''Oppose''' My reading is that this editor is going for adminship for adminship's sake - not for a need of the tools. With respect, let's remember <i>it's no big deal</i>, and I'm afraid I see all the signs that it is a big deal here - hence my oppose - sorry. <small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Oppose per several comments above: KillerChihuahua, w.marsh, John Reaves, Chick Bowen, Radiant and Pedro. I feel that most, if not all, of the concerns raised on his last RfA ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist]]) still apply. &ndash;
User focuses much on bureaucratic stuff, but fails to understand the basic purpose of Wikipedia. Heart's in the right place.
Doesn't seem to get why we're here - to build an encyclopedia. Not apt enough for the extra buttons. Not trustworthy with them. Lacks the right characteristics and focus. '''
'''Oppose''', I think Doc Tropics put it best. I could overlook the concerns more easily if there was a demonstrated need for the tools; as there doesn't seem to be, I feel uneasy about this.
'''Oppose''', Perhaps it was meant in jest, but I found the comment in 7 about neutrality worrying. The aim of mediation isn't to push the article in a direction that you think is correct, it's to mediate between editors. The aim isn't really to finish the article, it's to stop an argument. I think this is typical of a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and like many of those above I'm not yet convinced that, given these concerns, adminship is right for someone who is already very busy.
'''Oppose''' mostly per KC, W.marsh and Swatjester. And his previous talk about playing around with the MediaWiki namespace still gives me chills...'''
'''Oppose''' - Uncomfortable at this point to do anything but oppose, as per the concerns already raised.
'''Oppose''' Dont get me wrong, I think you have improved a lot since your first RfA, however I think Q3 seems a bit of a worry, I respect you for the fact that you admitted your mistakes etc, I think [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] sums it up quite well, however let me congratulate you on your excellent and thorough userpage design centre. Kindest regards &mdash;
'''Oppose''', a valued contributor, but the Q3 answer is just too troubling to grant the tools. '''· <font color="#70A070">
'''Oppose''' A good editor, but the question to question 3 is unacceptable to me. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Oppose''', mostly due to Q1 and Q7. I agree with W.marsh above, I'm reluctant to give "no need for the tools" as a reason as adminiship is no big deal, but it really seems like he wants adminship just for the sake of adminship, and seems to perceive adminship as a bureaucracy rather than the few extra buttons that it really is. I really don't understand this whole thing about "training" sysops; all a new sysop has to do is read over [[WP:ARL]], it's not that hard. Adminship should be granted to someone so they can ''perform'' administrative chores, not so they can write about them.
'''Oppose''' per my past comments, the admin coaching thing, opposing commenters above, and especially your response to Krimpet just right above. I still think that you have the wrong impression of RfA and adminship in general. How is RfA bureaucratic? Tell me, how is writing articles, getting involved in Wikipedia processes, discussing with other editors, learning from some contentious major dispute, and filing a request (or have someone nominate you) bureaucratic? You are blowing a simple process completely out of proportion, turning a meager request into some quintessential trophy. Yes, no one wants oppose votes (who wants to be criticized?), but it is from opposition and criticism that we learn our faults, not from unanimous support. Yes, occasionally we get some absurd oppose rationale, but you seem to be working on the [[availability heuristic]] a bit too much. —'''
'''Oppose''' I was meaning to oppose earlier when it was almost unanimous support, but then I had to go do some digging and evaluate the most recent opposition. Basically, my initial reason to oppose was the conflicts documented in Q3. This user has blown his top on a number of occasions, and I don't see how we can guarantee this won't happen as an administrator. Also, as Daniel said, your focus on Wikipedia seems misguided. AFAIK, one of the first things this user targeted was an eoverhaul of the admin coaching program, and his subsequent admin school program. From the start, it appears he had his eyes on adminship, which is precisely not the point of Wikipedia. A good editor in general, but I think the past actions are a bit problematic. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' For all the reasons already stated and then some.
Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' after considering the outcome of my failed discussion on [[User_talk:The_Transhumanist|Transhumanist's talk page]] which was a direct result of Transhumanist's apparent snipe at FeloniousMonk's oppose vote. Candidate has repeatedly failed to respond directly to my comments or at least not mask them in overlong posts, which was most evident in the Talk page discussion where a criticism of Transhumanism's attempts to grind out criticisms, as if they could only be unjust, was answered with what amounts to an argument that the candidate has a diverse selection of friends whose collective judgement passes as a replacement for candidate's own introspection. Thus candidate is conveniently absolved of any character flaws, despite the fact that we have multiple glaring instances of candidate being too absorbed in the RfA and in confronting users. As noted, candidate has many good qualities but I have a feeling that they lie mainly in the editing domain. This has been a hard call to make; I really want to turn it positive or neutral but I fear what might happen otherwise. It's become quite evident that this is A Big Deal, and candidate isn't seeing why people are becoming concerned. Eyes wide open are a prerequisite for this job. --
'''Oppose''' per conduct on this page.  If anyone wants to coach potential admins, I think this nom would be a good case study on how not to conduct one.  Anyone who perceives KillerChihuahua as "hostile" probably doesn't have the temperament for being an admin anyway.
I cannot approve someone whose attitude toward naysayers is less than acceptable.
Nope. I find the comments and replies to those who opposed totally inappropriate, the huge essay in response to Question 3 is clutching at straws, and shows a certain desperation to be an administrator, now that's not always a bad thing, especially when you stumble across a minor crisis only to find all the admins are in the jacuzzi or sauna, but here I seem to sense you want to be an admin just to stick an admin userbox on your Firefox non compliant userpage and sit in an ivory tower, peering down at regular editors instead of donning a pair of dungarees and following editors round making life easier (or more difficult, as is occasionally the case) for all.
'''Oppose'''. A user who thinks competence can be taught probably does not have it. Also, he has a disruptive signature and his agenda scares me. Also, I do not feel that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Transhumanist&oldid=71244522 various] names this user has previously used were adequately noted in this request. —
'''Oppose''' I was going to stay out of this but I was far from impressed by the candidates behavior during his attempt to rename <nowiki>WP:C</nowiki> to something else without regard to consensus or the impact of his changes to other uses. Not only was his behaviour exceedingly disruptive but I was very concerned about the lack of contrition and the (apparantly) mildly agresslve attitude displayed to editors disagreeing with this. That said nearly six months has passed and I didn't think it would be fair to drag up old news. However, I'm rather concerned by the combative approach that the candidate has taken in responding to some of the opposes and this suggests to me that he has still to learn how to respond positively to concerns raised. This simply isn't acceptable in an admin - not only do they need the patience of job but they also need to learn from mistakes. I'm not seeing any evidence of this right now.
'''Oppose''' as great editor with no demonstrable need for the tools and who has queried many oppose !voters here in RfA. --
Pending my private deliberation and answers to Qs 5 and 6.
'''Neutral'''. I know you are certainly experienced, but I have some doubts akin to Orangemarlin's above. '''''
I do really want to support this user. He demonstrates he's here to improve Wikipedia and would never intentionally harm her. But, answer #3 leaves me a bit wary. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose--
'''Neutral''' Leaning towards oppose as well. I think you're a great contributor (I thought you were an admin since ages ago!), but the points brought up by those who oppose are very good. · <font face="Times New Roman">
'''Neutral''' Just way too many issues from both sides; really good aspects, and potentially really bad aspects as well.  Q3 worries me a bit, but not as much as it does for others it seems.  Either way, I choose not to oppose, nor support.
'''Neutral''' While I would usually go with the multiple noms from admins I trust, there are just too many other issues raised above.
As nom. --
'''Support'''. I know TH has had some issues with some people before as evidenced by his previous RfA. However I believe his work demonstrates a competence for working here and his school, while derided by some, evidences a desire to help others. As an admin he will not harm our project but can and will bring needed experience. -
'''Support''' - per my
'''Support''' '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Strong Support''' This user would make a great Administrator. (Especially with an awesome total of 1909 edits in November of 2007) <big>'''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">[[Redmarkviolinist]]</font>''' <sup>
'''Of course'''.
'''You're freaking kidding me!''' I can't believe you're not already an admin.
'''Support''' I don't see any problem.--
'''Support''' This should have happened already, much earlier. I, for one, have always looked up to this editor. Amazing understanding of the way Wikipedia works, and a comprehensive knowledge of the policies and guidelines. Did I forget to mention a helping attitude? <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">
'''Support''' Glad to see you back again; pleased to support this time.
'''Support''' - have seen The Transhumanist change for the better over time. It has been a difficult journey, especially with those two past RfAs, but I think you are now ready. I would now trust you to know when to talk to people first and to use the tools responsibly.
'''Support!''' <font face="Berlin Sans FB Demi" size="2">'''
'''Support''' - I do not recall ever having seen anything but good contributions from this editor.
'''No doubt.''' A great user. <font face="Forte">
'''Very Strong Support''' - I will keep supporting this really capable, hard-working and completely dedicated to the project editor as long as it takes...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Strong Support''' - has one of the most useful sets of userpages on the 'pedia, evidence enough of TT's understanding of this place and its aims.
'''Support''' - good user. &nbsp; <font color="navy">'''
'''Support''', good user. '''<font color="red">
'''Support''' - clear willingness to help others constructively and to learn from mistakes, qualities essential to a good admin.
'''Support''', working hard positively to finally benefit Wikipedia as admin despite past RfA voting.
He is not going to misuse the tools, everything else is negligible. I&nbsp;
Ack! I was hoping to co-nominate, but this thing is already well in swing. I first met TH about a month after he started editing Wikipedia. I was slowly tweaking [[Portal:Middle-earth]] into shape and some guy came along and said, 'Hey cool! Why don't we move this over here and add these and change the color and rearrange all the boxes!' Perhaps not his exact words, but you get the idea. I thought it was great. Sure, I didn't agree with everything he was doing, but overall it was good stuff and I had no problem working with him... with a much improved page as a result. Since then from time to time he has come by and done cleanup for something I was working on, like [[Wikipedia:Featured content]], or I have seen him at the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page|Main Page redesign]] and [[WP:WELCOME|Welcoming committee]], or he has asked me for some template help on one of his projects like [[WP:TOTD|Tip of the Day]] or [[WP:VC|Virtual Classroom]]. We've always gotten along. Lots of energy and always looking to help and make things better. He's like
'''Strong Support'''.  The Transhumanist has made many many efforts to improve wikipedia.  His User page and sub-pages are amazing, and benefit Wikipedia greatly.  The Wiki School is especially great.  I would definitely trust this user with the tools.  <strong class="plainlinks">
'''Support''', I've seen nothing but good things, personally. <span>
'''Support''' 30k edits between accounts... Whew. I'm a little perturbed that opposers (though there are few) take his previous RfA objections and reiterate them, especially in relatively short order after transclusion. 30k contributions are a lot to flip through!
I too am a bit baffled by the opposition to this guy.  Clearly somebody we can trust. --
'''Support''' A great user whom we can trust. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I have no qualms: trustworthy and skilled.

'''Support''': The Transhumanist has contributed usefully to Wikipedia. --
'''Weak Support''' The concerns from last time (when I opposed) and still raised below are valid. However I was taken by the fact that you cited [[WP:BITE]] in your answer to Q10. Good response. On balance I think you will be a net gain with admin tools. Of course you're a massive benefit to Wikipedia with or without +sysop. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per Dorftottel, Pedro, et al. Fuller rationale tomorrow. I am out of time.
'''Support''' Most of my interactions with The Transhumanist have been related to the contents navigation systems in Wikipedia. We butted heads quite a bit in the olden days, but I can see a kinder, gentler TT in how he interacts with folks today. He is strong-willed and decisive IMHO, but he also does an excellent job in communicating his position and will change it when persuaded on the merits of an argument. Getting around Wikipedia is a trip, and we certainly can use a few more admins who are willing to put in the thought and time necessary to help move forward the never-ending progression of collaborations focused on making this project more reader friendly.
'''Support''' - Hardworking, very good at the technical side of things, and (as far as I'm aware) a nice guy. There's absolutely no evidence that he will abuse or misuse the tools. "Lack of need for the tools" is a weak reason to oppose; we have too few admins at present, not too many, and I don't see that there's any harm in promoting someone who doesn't urgently "need" the tools ''per se'', provided s/he knows how to use them appropriately.
'''Support'''.
I agree with Walton One: I also trust this user with the tools, and I have no reason not to. Using them occasionally and properly is far more preferable than someone who uses them all the time and frequently uses them incorrectly.
'''Support''' Both user and project should feel the benefit this user's sysophood. Adminship is not a big deal.
'''Support''' I don't think that eagerness to be an admin is bad; if a user feels they'd be more useful with extra abilities, then they have that right. Anyway, I believe the user has righted himself from earlier falls.
'''Support''' Based on past experiences with 'em.
'''Support''', a user who has displayed the desire to help the project (even though some people might not agree with the ways this desire has manifested itself) and patience with the  more or less ludicrous RfA process.  Time to give them the tools and let them exercise their full potential on the project. --
'''Strong Support''' I believe that this user will make an excellent addition to the list of excellent admins.
'''Strong Support''' I have no doubt that the user both needs the tools and will use them appropriately. --'''
'''Support''' --  What's the biggie??
'''Strong Support''' His work with users in coaching them, and with lists of basic topics is definitely quite good. He ought be commended on the good work he has done here.
'''Support''' A dedicated and helpful editor who is more than experienced enough.
'''Support'''.  While I understand the opposers, my only interactions with this user, in recent months, have been civil, even when at XfD's we disagreed.  Prolific, useful, experienced editor who can ''now'' be trusted with the mop.
'''Support''' I'm surprised he's not an admin already (though I was, in fact, aware of this).  His positive attitude on admin coaching, virtual classroom etc. outweighs the negativity that has been brought up from the distant past.
'''Support''' Though I understand the opposers' concerns, I think The Transhumanist will do just fine.
'''Support''' - am confident he will use the tools appropriately--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The mop isn't that big of a deal, and this user has proven himself time and time again to be a worthy Wikipedian who is responsible enough to handle the tools. --'''
'''Support''' -although it's scary with all that feelings he seems to generate, it's looks to me this is errors in the past. Not only is this candidate a vast contributor, he also loks like the kind of persons who grows- and I like that. If he says he needs to gnomify protected pages, I am sure he does, and a lot of them.
'''Very strong support--Consider me a co-nom'''--when I met this guy, he interceded and defused a content dispute, in what involved a "delicate matter" psychologically, so to speak. As an (I guess, now former!) [[WP:AMA]] member, I was '''quite impressed''' when the ''other fellows'' &mdash;ahhh, difficulty in handling 'confrontation' and 'rejection', etc.&mdash; became apparent. In the context, someone had "hijacked" a page and entirely changed its function. Some of you know how I abhor reverts, and the circumstances were such that I felt I had no other choice... a ''big thing'', at least to me! (Would that more of you felt the same way! <g>) {{indent}}So piffle on anyone holding this editor's feet to the fire for past indiscretion's, the way he conducted that refereeing intercession, and maturity he demonstrated (''while in the main <u>opposing</u> my "bent"'' and '''supporting''' that of the ''the other guy''&mdash;which was hardly (NOT!) confrontational or disruptive. ''Quite the opposite!'') speaks volumes and volumes about him&mdash;all to the good.<br /><br />Such is so much falderal, in any event, there are only a few questions that should bear: {{indent|3}}1) Is he someone that holds grudges and acts out immaturely? {{indent|3}}2) Does he have enough experience and skill on the wikipedia system {{indent|3}}3) Is he going to deliberately push the limits and cause disruption and such. {{indent|3}}4) Can he be trusted to continue being a good editor?<br /><br />I can't say anything but yes to all of those'', and Nothing I've seen "in evidence" makes me think otherwise. Consider, lastly, we all grow up as time takes it's toll. His self-nom was perhaps not for the best of reasons, or better say, probably should not have been so publically stated, for one in school and involved in a project like this, ''becoming an Admin'' is both a reasonable goal, and one perhaps commendable to some&mdash;last I heard, there was no age limit on Adminship, and his track record speaks pretty plainly that he will comport himself much more professionally than some (perhaps ''many'') who already hold the office. He has sufficient edit experience, and frankly, anyone around here that holds grudges from past disputes should be the one "under the microscope". We all make mistakes. We all, hopefully learn from them as time goes by. Inasmuch as this is a fairly interactive society, I'm quite confident that if any Admin steps over the line too often, they will hear about it from somebody... more likely, ''somebodies'' (or were those cat-fights I've seen on AN/I???), and with the work load and admin burn-out rate, if he's ''dumb enough'' to take the responsibility, let him share the work. Cheers! // <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (Correct ambiguous pharasing... my bad! // <b>
'''Support''' - Q8, answers to WP:IAR; Discussion, mentioning conflict of interest; and Q11, answers discussing the values of humanism. Trust with the tools is not an issue for me, because I think the Transhumanist is enough like me. I would not abuse tools, so in that sense I think adminship for him is not an issue. Thanks to Quiddity whose thoughtful research I took into account. After consideration, I came to the conclusion from my own experience and 'good answer' consensus theory, that there simply may not be enough editors or admins like The Transhumanist at Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Upon reviewing, I trust the candidate to neither abuse the buttons, nor throw his weight around in his administrative function. Beyond that, adminship is not a big deal. He wants the tools and explained why. As a bonus point, I also trust the nominator's judgement. ---
'''Weak Support''' While still not 100% convinced, I cannot see any evidence this candidate would abuse the tools. Read in conjunction with my stricken neutral vote below.
'''Support''' for all above--'''
'''Support.''' You look like someone who would use the tools well. Good luck.
'''Late Support''' I feel The Transhumanist has truly earned trust by tireless dedication - a user well suited for the tools. Good luck, <b>
'''Support''', there is some unsavoury stuff in this user's history, but that ''is'' history.  User puts a lot of effort into various things all over the Wiki and I'm confident that they'd use the tools wisely.
'''Support''' per same rationale as last time. Sorry TT, I didn't see this earlier.
I object. An important objection in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Transhumanist_2|his previous nom]] was that he was overly formal, too bureaucratic, and lacking in actual understanding of Wikipedia. His previous nom was withdrawn at ''36 opposes'', which seems indicative of significant issues, but more importantly I have seen no evidence that TTH has improved with respect to this earlier criticism.
'''Oppose'''. Agree with Radiant here--the very significant concerns from the previous nom have not been addressed in my opinion. I also find the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Transhumanist&diff=174653994&oldid=174587455 answer] to Q1 (which really should be on this page) quite troubling. TT's first response to "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" is "Editing protected pages would be useful" which is basically the exact opposite of what I would like to hear. As others mentioned in the last RFA, I don't see a real need for the tools. Instead I see a user who wants admin status for the sake of admin status, which is something to which I will always object on general principle.--
I share the above concerns. In particular, that the first thing he would do as an admin would be to fiddle about with the Main page (however trivially) brings back the worry I and others had during his first RfA. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - The candidate seems eager to edit the main page and overturn deletions.  This is especially worrying in light of the edit history, showing lots of editing of key lists without any communication with the associated WikiProjects.  While the optional questions above truly are optional, most noms to RfA answer at least ''some'' of those questions.  The Transhumanist has seen and edited this page long after some of these questions were posted, but has not answered even one of them.  In answering question 1, s/he chose initially to link to another page rather than post a reply.  All this bodes ill, painting a picture of an uncommunicative editor who does not understand that Wikipedia is a community as much as it is a depository of information.  I would rather that sort of editor did not have access to edit the main page. --
'''Oppose''' I find your answer to question #1 still carrying the vestiges of the past "I want to be an admin to alter the interface" attitude that I found repugnant in past RfAs. Second thing, your lack of hesitance to make pledges like in question #9 adds more to the feeling that you will easily make rash decisions. The latter may be more of my opinion, but the former makes you sound (if I may be blunt) arrogant and egotistic, qualities incompatible with adminship. —'''
'''Oppose'''.  I have no doubt that there is improvement, but many of the concerns from previous RfAs are still present.  As before, the Transhumanist seems primarily interested in categorizing, organizing and tweaking every last corner of the project, complete with constantly devised rules of how these things should be done.  Dweller mentions [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics]] as a positive, but it reminds me a lot of TH's previous overzealous categorization campaigns.  The answer to question 1 is also, as others have said, disturbing; it renews the previous concern of many users that this candidate will be editing the interface far more frequently and freely than is a good idea.
Oppose, pretty much because the above concerns are convincing. I'm afraid the concerns raised from your previous nominations still haven't been addressed. I don't think that his answers to the questions are satisfying at all, given the fact that to see the answers initially one must visit his talk page, and the fact that I really don't feel as I can trust your judgement when it comes to editing protected pages. I can also see in your answers that you need tools because it'll make your editing life easier; e.g., phrases like ''I frequently come across pages that I'd move but can't''. I feel that, in particular some of the comments you make at the Virtual classroom and on your admin coaching pages (even in some of your answers), your instructions to users come across to me as overly bureaucratic. I don't see appropriate administrator qualities in you right now. '''
'''Oppose''' - The Transhumanist is a very good editor. However, Radiant made a comment that didn't encourage me to support him.
I've found TT, [[User_talk:The_Transhumanist/Archive_7#Template:BT_list_coverage|in my experience]], to be highly bureaucratic, and to often misunderstand the point someone is trying to make. Use any of the reasons above if mine sucks. I supported last time, but not today.
'''Oppose''' No.
'''Oppose''' - Your condescending manner with your coaching "students" just grates on me I'm afraid.  Also, your answers to some of the questions with regards to an apparent eagerness to edit protected pages you can't currently worries me.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.  Prior concerns have not been fully addressed.  Given the depth of candidate's misunderstandings in the past, I need to see solid evidence that he has become more deliberative and less excitable.  Even his acceptance of this nomination has me a bit worried, as if the candidate considers gaining the mop a very weighty matter.
'''Oppose''' I am not quite sure that the user gets the point about consensus. The issues over the [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics/archive1|first geography FLC]] showed, to me anyway, an issue surrounding consensus. Renominating straight after it was failed seemed to be a bit POINTy to me. I suppose it is a bit of a gut feeling that I don't quite think you are ready yet.
'''Oppose''' Inadequate reply to q13 - I think you missed that one and its probably the most important one. Also, some of your answers to crucial questions (for example the one about whether you should reverse another admin) are too brief to allow proper understanding of how you would react to these situations. I don't mind a nudge on my talk page if you rectify these omissions and I'll happily review my position.
'''Oppose''' While it may be horribly unfair of me, TH always gives me the impression of thinking "consensus" consists of anyone who agrees with him and "trolls" consist of everyone who doesn't. As per the previous RFAs - and the IMO ridiculous "school" - he seems obsessed with adminship; while I don't want to stir the drama-pot, I have a feeling TH with admin powers would lead to an endless stream of "Durova incidents".<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' per !reply to question #13. The negative statements here resonate with my past experience with this candidate. Since my experience was over a year ago I thought the candidate might have changed since, so I asked question #13. By not answering, {{genderneutral|ey}} confirmed my concern. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' &mdash; User clearly very much wants to be an administrator.  Not a good sign.
See my now-stricken neutral below. '''
'''Oppose''' I still have the same concerns that were raised last time and the time before and I haven't seen any improvement at all. In fact, the bureaucratic issues seem to be worse. I agree with Radiant and others above and as with Moondyne I find the manner taken with "coaching" condescending (this is a new issue for me and I only became aware of it when watching the coaching of Auroranorth). I also share Steel's and Kurykh's heebies about you fiddling with the interface and iridescent's thoughts about this school and how it reflects on your views of adminship and becoming an administrator. Also, asking to restore Auroranorth's access to AWB (something even he recognised he "obviously [wasn't] ready" for) left me seriously questioning your judgment. Sorry, but no.
'''oppose''' reluctantly because in some ways your efforts are valuable. I have concerns about you wanting to give automated tools to editors who have just returned after extended blocks for various issues including disruption, yet silent when the editors actions were questioned and resulting in the editor being blocked for 7 days. Once the editor returned you complained about the removal of automated tools, to finish it off you told the editor to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Transhumanist&diff=175209067&oldid=175204235 count his edits] as soon as he had 500 edits he could get AWB back, the response from the editor shows a greater understanding, and he's a long way from being ready for RfA. Its this that concerns me about you having access to the tools.
Per Sarah and Daniel. --
'''Oppose''' per people above me.
'''Oppose''' - I think the user is too bureaucratic in his view of Adminship.
'''Oppose''' - This was tough (and almost voted neutral), as the user is obviously a well-meaning editor. It's just that, after seeing various XfD (and other) discussions, I just don't agree with the user's interpretation of some policies/guidelines. That said, there's a chance I may support next time. -
Don't want the interface to look like his sig. In all seriousness, per Sarah and Daniel. ~
'''Oppose''' I've seen little change since TH's last RfA. And the concerns are the same. And the nominee seems to want the admin tools more than anything.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.
'''Oppose''', mostly as per Radiant at the top. The editor comes across as a nice chap, a little steam engine, but the answers to question one do not really require admin powers, and looking over his edit history I see hundreds and hundreds of tiny little reflexive automatic edits, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shalakya_tantra&diff=prev&oldid=174947210 this diff] links a couple of words, but doesn't fix the broken grammar that surrounds those words; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurkha_Contingent&diff=prev&oldid=174946301 same here], from the same run. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanyang_Polytechnic&diff=prev&oldid=174935145 This diff], the only one he has ever made to that page, from an extensive earlier run, links "dental hygiene" to [[dental hygienist]] in a context where it would better link to [[oral hygiene]], and there were sixty runs of that pass. I know we're not evaluating the user's ability to edit articles, and I know that bots are not exclusive to admins, but I am worried that this user might get into enormous trouble with automatic edits, and that he might apply the same automated mindset to administrative tasks. The idea of a relentless, unstoppable vandal-whacker stroke administrator is superb, but there has to be judgement, and I need to see more evidence of it. -
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> (switch to '''Strong oppose'''). The points brought up above prevents me from casting a support vote. And what really made me oppose was at [[WP:ADMINCOACH|admin coaching]]. I am kind of surprised to see that your name is on the [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status|coach list of Admin coaching]]. Although there are no rules against a normal editor being an admin coach, but virtually all the coaches are admins. I kind of view this as a "being an admin coach so that you can become one"
'''Oppose.'''  I wasn't going to raise the issue of the main page redesign (because it was so long ago), but the user bragged above about his "key" role.  That was my first significant interaction with him, and I felt as though roughly half of my effort was dedicated to countering his disruptive (albeit well-meaning) involvement (which I believe otherwise would have derailed the project).  While he's made a genuine effort to improve, my subsequent interactions with him (and some of what I've read here) have led me to conclude that many of my (and others') concerns have not been adequately addressed.  —
'''Oppose.''' per Daniel. Too many concerns not addressed since last RFA. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">—
'''Weak Oppose''' I feel TTH is a good guy, but see no reason for the tools and have some concerns brought up by others. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Oppose''' Nothing has changed.
'''Oppose''' per Bigtimepeace
'''Oppose''' While his conduct is better than his previous RFAs, I think he still has a long way to go in terms of attitude and mindset, I think.  Also, per Iridescent, no more Durovesque incidents.
'''Oppose''' Per those who have concerns about the Admin School; it may be my personal attitude to doing things, but I wouldn't want someone who takes such a pedagogical tone to be the person newish users getting in to trouble by mistake come across. They need to feel at home, not feel lectured at or they will leave the project as quickly as they arrive.
'''Oppose'''. Good grief no. The first thing you want to do is go and attack the main page. There's too many other problems I find myself agreeing with, I just can't support this candidacy, sorry.
'''Neutral'''. I previously had opposed, but one part of my reason was slightly invalid, and I was politely corrected by Dweller. I still don't see anything special coming from the answers, and I would like to see a more full on answer to number 3. By this I mean something like "Yes, I was involved in conflicts <..> but now..", which does not seem to be said. I would like to see more of an answer here rather than directing to other places or previous RfAs, and answering himself.
'''Neutral''' I'm going neutral, which I rarely do, because I see both sides.
'''Neutral''' per Dlohcierekim's very well-stated support, and per RockMFR and Chick Bowen's opposition (and per working/arguing with him for 2+ years!). Might change, based on currently unanswered questions 15-21. --
'''neutral leaning towards oppose''' The concerns brought up by Xoloz and Radiant prevent me from supporting. However, I'm not so worried as to oppose outright at this point in time.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, swayed by some of the opposers, particularly Sarah. Will be glad to support next time if the remaining concerns fade. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''';  I see improvement, but I also see very ''bad'' reasons for wanting the tools&mdash; probably not power hunger, but certainly "tools for the sake of the tools".  &mdash;&nbsp;
I'm sorry, but I cannot support you at the moment. A lack of understanding in the difference between a [[WP:BLOCK|block]] and a [[WP:BAN|ban]], as evidenced in the first answer, as well as your lack of experience here on en.wiki in general, makes me think that you are not experienced enough, nor ready to become an admin at this time. Please keep up your hard work, and come back here in a few months time. -- <strong>
'''Weak Oppose''' - per above. Some more experience would be nice.
'''Oppose''' You lack experience. You only have about [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Thebestkiano&site=en.wikipedia.org 800 edits] in total. Moreover, you have less than 100 edits on the Wikipedia namespace. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sorry, way too little experience.
'''Oppose''' Sorry too little experience.However support your desire to do more in wikipedia.Please try again after a few months with more contributions.you will have my support. Good Luck.
'''Weak Oppose'''&ndash; You seem a bit too inexperienced, but I believe you're on the right path.  I suggest you try again in a couple months when you have more experience.  '''
'''Oppose''' While I recognise that you are on the right track, your lack of experience in admin-related tasks and your lack of understanding of the difference between a block and a ban mean that, in my opinion, this application will not pass this time. I urge that you withraw this RfA, and consider re-submission in two or three months time after making another thousand or so edits. --<font color="Red">
'''Support''', not even moral. Experienced with wikis, willing to help out, and in an unappreciated timezone. I think a month is enough, and I ''know'' if he needs help doing something he's not familiar with, he can come and ask me (or any other admin). Also a sysop of mediawiki.org - he's not going to be abusing admin tools. '''
'''Support''' - a bit moral. Keep up your hard work, like you did last month, and Im sure that, if this RFA doesnt pass, it will sometime in the future. Good luck! <strong>
'''Support''' - That he is an administrator at [[mw:User:TheFearow]], runs a bot, and has worked in Bugzilla shows me he has enough experience and I'm sure it will only help Wikipedia to give him adminship. And I'm sure he would do well in [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:PER]], [[WP:AIV]], and [[WP:UAA]].
'''Support''' Per no big deal and Tim above. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' I recommended for Matt to make this request, and I stand by that recommendation despite some reservations about overall experience with deletions etc.  He has shown a maturity and instinct far in advance of his one month of active editing, and his contributions - both human and automated - will continue to help Wikipedia for months if not years.  I trust him as much as anyone to strive for a well-maintained encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - sensible guy, willing to help out, won't do anything stupid. I see that there is some merit to the comparison between the Wikipedia community and a cult. If this RfA fails, TheFearow will at least know which hoops he should jump through if he wants to be an admin in the future.
The only complaint you've been getting below is of requesting adminship prematurely &ndash; in a few months, if you keep the good stuff up you'll ''breeeeeze'' straight through this process (like last week, there was 3 or 4 successful RfAs in a row). Great editor, won't abuse the mop. <small style="font-weight: bold">(
'''Support'''- Even though I take lack of experience as a serious concern, I've seen you around, and I think you would make a great admin. [[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy ">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Timecountitis is even worse than editcountitis. 1700 edits is plenty of experience, especially if well-distributed across the namespaces.
'''Support''' While he has not been here very long, how many of us can make 1700 edits per month? Clearly a dedicated editor, who will not abuse the tools.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' is not a vandal thus meets my criteria for adminship --
'''Support''' -- One could gain a great understanding of policy in 6 months, and having an edit count that high in a short amount of time shows dedication to the project; I don't think 1700 edits is too low either. And just becuase his non-mainspace edits come out as the majority of his work doesn't mean he's unfit. We need different type of contributors for different tasks. Because this user has no major editing issues and has become an admin on another wiki already, I'd have to say I support. He's demonstrated both that he can be trusted and that he works hard.
'''Strong Support''' I've changed my mind for the better.  Many people here on Wikipedia overlook mindset in the search for administrators, and hail the position like a prophet.  In reality, no, you haven't been around here for years and years making endless amounts of edits...but you've made great edits and are on an excellent pace.  You have demonstrated that you know what you're doing and know the policies.  I made the mistake of applying for adminship long before I was ready.  Although my quest continues, I see no reason why yours needs to.  You're a great editor and wish you the best.  See you when you get the mop. '''
'''Support'''.  See no problems here.  Matt, if you encounter anything you don't feel certain about, feel free to talk or e-mail me or any friendly admin, and we'll have you up to speed in no time.
'''Support''' Majorly's reasoning.
'''Strong Support''' You are a great editor, you have my support.
'''Support''' Trustworthiness is more important than knowledge of policy. No other significant concerns brought up by opposers. -
'''Support''', per Majorly's reasoning. I trust this user. He's shown devotion to the project during his short time here and I'm hopeful that this devotion will live on no matter how this RfA comes out, as it is valuable to the encyclopedia. Good luck. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
[[Image:symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''  I do not find any oppose reasons too concerning to me, especially with "not enough experiance" votes, as none of the oppose votes really brings concern that by promoting this user to admin will somehow harm Wikipedia more than benefiting it, therefore I'm willing to Support, especially since this is a self-nomination.
'''Support''' I trust this user and have seen through some of the opposes, although it was an interesting debate. [[User:TheFearow|TheFearow]] is not on a power grab, or a cabalist, or someone who should not be trusted with the tools. But he should of course be watched for a while, as all sysops are when they get the mop.
'''Support''' No reason no too. I don't understand a lot of the oppose votes. --
'''Support''' as above.
'''Support''' Low edit count, but user operates a bot. Still, knowledge is suggested by this. I will support.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around; no complaints.
'''Support''' - Brief period of intense activity, but said activity is prodigious, and positive in nature. In looking through your contribs, I see consistency in, and dedication to counter vandalism. Likewise, the bot demonstrates the value of users who, as you mentioned, may not feel writing is their greatest available contribution. Good luck!
'''Support''' User is committed to the encyclopedia, even with the lack of edits as demonstrated by the work on the bot etc
'''Support''' An edit count has no bearing on a specific user's contributions.  It is mainly dedication, trust, and having good judgement.  This user has those three traits.  Furthermore, this RFA seems to be going in the direction of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krimpet|Krimpet's RFA]], where that user didn't have as much edits as more experienced users. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:Vishwin60|action=edit&section=new}} →]
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, TheFearow, but I believe this is a premature request. Out of your 1500 edits, 1400 were made in June. You are on the right track, but this request is premature. As this is supposed to be ''helpful and constructive criticism'', I'll give you a bit of advice. Firstly, try to get at least 3 to 4 months of solid, consisent work (it's the best timeline, IMO), with a total amount of edits at around 3000 for a "safe" request. You also need to show some need for tools, in most cases. Your administrative section you have most contributed to is [[WP:UAA]], with 7 edits. See, if most of your edits were correct vandalism reverts, correct warnings, and a ton of reports to [[WP:AIV]], I couldn't care less that you have 1500 edits; I'd care if you have less than 1000, because it doesn't show familiarity and knowledge of policy. These are some of the pointers I can think of... don't hesitate to ask me question, if you need to, or ask for more pointers, if you need them, because I believe you are on the right track, and you should become an admin in three months if continue at this pace. --'''<font face="Arial">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Premature RfA, more experience (and time) is needed in all areas.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per the same reasons that I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group&diff=139897299&oldid=139847385 opposed] your [[Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Joining|request]] to join the [[WP:BAG|Bot approvals group]]. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I'm concerned about lack of mainspace writing experience. Contributing fact-based material to articles is, after all, central to Wikipedia. Please, find a mentor, identify an article or two of interest and put pen to paper. That will prepare you for an adminship.
Hasn't gained enough Wikipedia experience to be an effective administrator at this juncture. '''
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but your time on wikipedia so far is short...6 months with 1500 edits. If you gain more experience, I think you will be fit for adminship. <font color="green" face="vivaldi">[[User:Hirohisat|H]] </font><font face="Times new roman">
'''Strongish Oppose''' per the perceived power grab - was made a sysop on the Mediawiki wiki on 27th June 2007, requested a seat on the BAG last week and requests adminship here. Not comfortable giving this user adminship at this time, regardless of skill or experience.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Evilclown  '''[[User:Black Harry|<span style="color:black">Black Harry</span>]]'''
'''Strongly oppose''' — User is not interested in building an encyclopaedia.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TheFearow&namespace=0]
'''Oppose''' Just too little experience overall.  Needs more time around the project discovering, exploring, and editing before the tools should be given.
'''Oppose''' per Evilclown, and Nick
'''Oppose'''. This user has only really been active for a month - that isn't in my opinion enough time for someone to establish the necessary experience and trust to be an admin. And, although it isn't the basis for my opinion here, it may also set a bad precedent in terms of making it simply too easy to get socks through RfA if candidates can pass so soon. I do share the concerns expressed about the number of positions applied for so soon and in such a short period of time. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - you have't been active long enough to show you can be trusted. Edit count goes out of the window for me, it doesn't matter, provided you have shown to understand policy and need the tools - come back again in 2-3 months.
'''Oppose'''.  RFA is in danger of becoming about who can make friends in some chat room.  This is the opposite of what we want.  If you want to spend your time chatting with Wikipedians, this is your choice of course but it counts for nothing on-wiki, despite what a lot of people apparently want.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I just don't think you have experience.
'''Oppose''' I'm not confident that you have sufficient experience outside of technical matters to be an Administrator. --
[[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral'''. I think you have the right approach and skills to be an administrator, but I just don't think your time here is long enough. Ideally, most people look for around 1½-2 years experience and 3000+ edits. Perhaps try again in a few months when most people get the idea that you have improved on your edit count and experience. Kind regards,
I'm sorry but I think more epxerience is needed before re-running for RfA, I think you're definitely on the right track and you being an admin at Mediawiki is certainly a step in the right direction but for the minute &mdash; I suggest withdrawing this RfA and continuing to improve yourself. All the best. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">
After a few months of consistent activity, I would be delighted to support.
'''Neutral''' - I'm not really comfortable opposing or supporting. Both parties make good points. However, 1½ - 2 years is absolutely absurd.
'''Neutral''' - While I appreciate your length of time on the project, it seems you only really got heavily into editing last June. I do not think that you are not editing in good faith, but normally I like to see a candidate with at least three months of editing with regular contributions in a diverse area to demonstrate their knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies/guidelines. I hope you continue editing and hope to see you here again in three - four months. --
'''Neutral''' - I will not oppose as there is evidence that another body believed you trustworthy with the mop, but I feel there is a difference between being confident that you won't abuse the tools and trusting you to use them appropriately in a different environment. I would support a subsequent RfA after a month or two of further contributions.
'''Neutral''' 3K edits, 2 months, and I'll support. Great work with the bot, but a bit more experience would be nice. <font face="Papyrus">
Perhaps with a few months more of activity. -
'''Neutral''' - strong enough candidate not to out-and-out oppose; too short a period of time to prove experience and trustworthiness (both of which can, I am confident, be established in another, say, 2 months at the same level of participation) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Beat the nom Support''' Good to see you here again, Fearow. I still trust you with the tools.
'''Is the nom support'''
'''Support''' I trust this user will be good with the 'mop'. More non-automatic mainspace contributions would help, but otherwise, I think he will be a great admin. -
'''Support''' - maybe you should have waited a bit longer before trying again Matt, but I support you again. -- <strong>
'''Support''' I also think it would have been better to have waited for at least another month, but that won't stop me from supporting.
I think this is a good user, and I was thinking recently that I would support him in a few (addendum: >3) months. However, the last RfA was less than a month ago, and almost all of the opposes last time were along the lines of "premature request." I am sure that, when the time comes, you will be a good admin. This isn't it, though. '''
'''Weak oppose''' Not yet. It's been less than 1 month since the close of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheFearow|last RfA]] that largely failed based on limited experience and lack of substantial ''content'' contributions. You're doing good work, for sure, so keep it up, but 2000 additional semi-automated edits doesn't give any real sense of how well you "get" everything admins are supposed to, you know, "get." Sorry, I need a few more months and would like to see some more old-fashioned writing (good work on [[USB decoration]]...do more) and a greater demonstrated need for admin tools. &mdash;
'''Weak Oppose''' - as per [[User:Scientizzle|Scientizzle]] .--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''' I like how you have come along and grown since your last Rfa, but too little experience has been gained.  You are lacking in Mainspace editing, and overall experience.  I '''know''' you are well on your way, but sit tight, and keep up the good work until then.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, from neutral. Sorry, but you do not have enough contributions to the mainspace. This ''is'' important, since it's vital to know when to protect and to have experience with edit wars and content disputes. Also, you state that you do not like XfD's because it's not you're idea of consensus. Because of this, I can't trust you with the ability to delete articles. Sorry. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Oppose''' Not enough contribs to mainspace. Also, you have really been active since June which is quite a short period of learning for an admin. Also per Scientizzle--
'''Oppose'''.  The lack of experience concerns are worth looking at.  The statement that he won't do things that involve consensus is just bizarre and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia.  Also, he's not using the tools he already has all that effectively, and he wants bigger better tools?  I am reminded of a kid who can't pass his driving test but insists he needs a faster car.
'''Edit-conflict Oppose''' Experience issues - the last RfA was less than one calendar month ago and the interim period has not been long enough to provide evidence as to the competence of this editor in the role of admin.  I'm sure that this will become clear in time.
'''Neutral''' from support.  The candidate's confusion and somewhat nebulous answers regarding consensus are making my confidence waver, and the new statement that he would afford "very little weight to new users, or users with very little experience" is disheartening.  New/inexperienced users should be viewed with a grain of salt, but "very little weight" just because someone is apparently new to the project?  This disenfranchises people just because they are not "active" editors, when they may have extremely valid points to make in a discussion.
Why not. Good answers, and edit count is solid.
'''Support''' I have reviewed many of the more recent user talk page interactions and found that this editor is generally calm and professional in his comments. I consider that to be terribly important. I see not reason not to offer my support. --
Why not?--
'''Support''' Okay your edits are mainly over one and a bit months but I hope you can keep up the thoughput! Your answers to the questions are great, in partiular you answer to my query with a lucid and '''honest''' explanation. I see great civility here, and lots of activity within the project side, and your reason for wanting the buttons per Q1 are proved through your contribution history. Best Wishes. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' While I don't agree with some of your edits (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_Television_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=152096479 this]) I don't see any problems & you've got good reasons for wanting buttons<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support''' I see no problems that would warrant opposing.
Good answers to the questions, and I can agree with being on the sidelines with wikipedia. I'm often on wikipedia but not editing, just reading up on various policies, boards, ect. I'll '''support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support''' - I see that opposers have some point there, but I think that doesn't mean that you'll abuse the mop. --[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent editor.
'''Support''' looks okay.
'''Weak support''' - could have more experience, however should be ok.
'''Support''' I support this RfA. This user has been doing alot of work for [[WP:BBC|Wikiproject BBC]] and in 1 day assessed between 200 and 300 articles. If this is appltyed to the Speedy Delete backlog, it should not take too long to get rid of it. My point is that this user has proved he can do very very boring tasks without giving up. (The only reason he stopped, is that he had finished going through all the backlog ;) ) This user has been very civil and helpful when I have asked for his assistance. It is obvious from his edits that the tools would be useful espacly for the vandals. Keep up the edit count! :) '''
'''Support''' I don't see any reason why he shouldn't get the mop from the discussion, and I feel that he answered the questions quite well.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' — I'm confident he wouldn't be an abusive sysop, having interacted with TheIslander off-wiki and seen several of his edits appear in my watchlist.
'''Support''' - Time in grade is an overly beaurocratic oppose reasoning.  TheIslander seems to understand that the role of an admin is to help diffuse conflict and fix problems.  User has approximately a 0.40 article talk to article page edit ratio.  Substantially higher than most recent Rfa candidates.  More talk to difuse conflict prior to the DR process.  --
'''Support''' - Timecountitis is even worse than editcountitis. No valid concerns.
'''Support''' is a Vandal fighter and is neutral.
'''support''' No concerns, looks good. Has good experience. '''
'''Weak Support''' Don't think you will abuse the tools but more experience would be good.
'''Support''' This user has done some excellent work recently for [[WP:BBC|Wikiproject BBC]], clearing a huge backlog of unassessed articles. I think The Islander would do a good job with the tools.
'''Support''' looks fine, no reason to oppose, sufficient experience. <b>
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', contributions look good and the answers seem good as well.  The sudden edit spurt is slightly concerning but not enough to make me want to oppose.
'''Support''', I agree with {{user|T}}.
'''Drop my normal WP:CNN support''' for tallied support.  The opposes are ridiculous.  TheIslander clearly is cogent and wants to help out as an admin.  I see no reason why giving him the sysop bit would be bad for the project.  A question to the opposers: How many months, how many edits, how many vandal reverts is enough?  Because right now it certainly seems like your counting edits.  --
'''Support''', no reason not to, other than perhaps the edit explosion, but its not like he hasn't been around for a while. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' - at the end of the day, WP will gain more than lose by you being an admin. cheers,
'''Support''' - citing a lack of experience but failing to provide any evidence of this lack of experience having caused any problems is not a reasonable justification for opposing the candidate.  No reason to oppos, probably not mental, good enough for me.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse the buttons! --
'''Support''' A dedicated vandal-fighter; of which Wikipedia can never have enough.--
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but having an explosion of edits in a single month makes me think you could still use some experience. Edits are important, but so is time, so that you can look back and really see your mistakes. In addition, although your intentions to clear out the backlogs are good, If you go back to only making a couple edits a day (which, given the uncharacteristic amount of edits in the past month or so, makes me think you are going to Wikibonk) you won't be very helpful in clearing out the backlogs. I highly suggest you wait a couple months and work on some other backlog, like [[WP:MISSING]] or any of the number of backlogs that don't need a mop to help with, and show that you can and will keep up the amount of activity you've shown. As it stands, it kinda feels like you went on an editing spree so you could get the mop, or Wikipedia just happened to strike your fancy this month, not that you're a reliable editor with a good history who's given us a chance to judge their character very well. There are even more nefarious thoughts that come to mind as to why your edits sprung out of the ground like that, but I will keep them to myself to avoid putting a bias in other people's heads. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Oppose''' You only started editing here consistently since July. You also need more experience outside of vandalfighting.
'''Oppose''' If I could answer that question, I'd say in other areas that require admin assistance - deletion procedures, backlog clearing, maybe a bit of mediation or assistance with newcomers, etc. I echo the concerns about the edit count explosion, and the fact that just two days ago the candidate didn't know of the existence of the block log. Perhaps in a few months, but not enough experience or knowledge for right now. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Oppose''' with moral support.  I think you need more time on-project - get that, and raise your understanding of the project a touch, and I'll be happy to support at some point in the future.  -
'''Oppose''', though I'd support in the future.  --
'''Oppose'''. Need more experience, per above. ---
General inexperience concerns, comes through in the answers to the questions (proving they are good for something). '''
'''Oppose''' per experience concerns & the answers to question 5.  Too soon - looks to be a good candidate for future adminship. <b>
'''Oppose''' Vandal fighting is great. But Admin work isn't limited to it.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of overall experience.
I'm not confident. –
'''Moral support''' but as previously stated, you're not experienced enough to be trusted with the tools. I'd welcome you withdrawing from this RfA and running again in a few months. If your editing behaviour continues in its current vein, I'd probably nominate you, never mind support you. --
'''Oppose'''. User's contributions are largely positive, but almost 90% of edits are in the past 2 months, there is little substantive article building and rather limited experience in Wikipedia space, all of which suggest that the editor is insufficiently experienced for adminship at this time. Suggest reapplying in 2–3 months.
'''Oppose''' but would likely support in the future. This user simply seems to lack the necessary experience. I would like to see more article building and interactions with other users. I am alarmed that there are some things (such as the fact that block logs are visible to all) he has learned only ''four days ago''. --
All your activity is this month, and you don't seem to have enough experience in admin related areas.  Please try again in a few months. [[User:Giggy/Powderfinger|<font color="Green">'''G'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Nowhere near the degree of familiarity and long-haul experience that the mop requires. I would also like to see some more experience in maintaining good communication between editors. Try again in a few months --
'''Oppose''' the candidate lacks sufficient experience for me to be confident about their reliability in performing adminship duties.
'''Oppose''' per espresso addict. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' yesterday the candidate deleted part of the article on the UK's [[First Great Western]] railway company referring to customer and public criticism of the company saying that it was "horrendously POV". There is in fact extensive criticism of the company, which is one of the most controversial in the UK railway system (as a simple example, on 24 January in the UK Parliament Peter Luff, a Conservative MP, said "I have severe reservations about the management ability of First Great Western...repeatedly, its service...has descended into chaos...the problems include very long delays, the wrong rolling stock and a timetable that does not enable my constituents, for example, to commute...I do not think that the company is up to the job."  Mrs Sian James, a Labour MP, said "Unlike its fellow Welsh operators, which are doing exceptionally well, First Great Western is at the bottom of the pile."  Mr. Edward Vaizey, a Conservative MP, said "commuters...have received an abominable service...there are many important issues in my constituency; however, this issue has far exceeded any that I have come across...it would be hard for me to exaggerate the enormous chaos").  The candidate has here confused honest reporting of contentiousness with biased content, and should not be given powers to make such mistakes more widely.
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see a longer spell of serious editing to judge long term commitment. <span style="border: 2px solid #F10; background-color:yellow;">'''
I do not normally believe that 2 months of activity is enough to learn all the ins and outs of the site (particularly administrative areas, which can be delicate and complex). You do your current job quite well, however, and should this request pass I would advise you to take it very slowly at the start. ~
''' neutral''' The guy said sorry on his talk page.  I accept.  Saying sorry is a good sign!
'''Neutral''' per Riana.  I'll change my vote next time.
'''Neutral''' a top prospect at triple-A right now, but not quite ready for the call up to the majors. (oh, and don't trade this guy :)).
'''Neutral''' Just give it a couple more months, and I recommend that you get involved in maybe some other admin-like tasks, perhaps voting in some deletion debates? You're a great user though, I appreciate what you do. Cheers- '''
'''Neutral''' per Riana. You should get over the line next time if you keep up your great work.
'''Neutral''' You simply need a bit more experience. The only reason I'm not comfortable supporting this right now is time. Give it another couple of months and you'll breeze through.
'''Neutral''', [[User:CattleGirl]] is pretty spot on here.  Spend a bit more time doing some other "admin" duties (AFD, reviewing PRODs or speedy delete candidates for incorrectly nominated articles).  You are definitely on the right track.--
'''Neutral''' as above. Good user, just not quite enough time in yet. --
'''Neutral''' I'm definitely not opposed to you getting the tools but I'm not willing to support because I'm not sure you're experienced enough. As I said, I'm not ''sure'' either way so I'm sitting on the fence. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Neutral''' - Continuing with a week of thoroughly underwhelming RfAs, this seems to follow the trend. Considering you've spent over a year editing Wikipedia, your edit count (inparticular those edits to Wikipedia space) is disappointingly low. Most of your contributions were made in the past month. Was that to prepare for this? ;-)  However, I would trust you with the tools. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' - due to experience concerns, as well as others highlighted above. <font color="#cc6600">
'''Moral Support''' I suggest you withdraw this now and try to follow their suggestions and then renominate your self.
'''Moral Support''' You haven't done anything seriously wrong that the opposers have found, but this RFA is premature. I suggest you withdraw and try a little participation in [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol]]. You need more time, more experience.--
500 edits ''might'' be passable, except that you have next to no projectspace edits. Adminship is not ''about'' writing articles, so article contributions are irrelevant. -
'''Oppose'''- sorry, you don't have anywhere near enough edits for me, and you aren't active in Wikipedia: space. '''
'''Oppose''' your answer to Q1 shows you have no idea of the deletion processes, and the role that admins play in those processes --
'''Strongest oppose possible, and further'''; the candidate did not accept his self nom before posting it on the RfA page. This indicates lack of respect for process. // ''
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov, Slf67. Not nearly enough edits (I prefer around 5000). Understanding of deletion process is woefully inadequate: admins can only speedy delete articles under [[WP:CSD]] category, and undeletion without comment is wheel-warring. Try adding to your contributions, and coming back. :) -
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal''' per Q1.--
'''Oppose''' The nomination and answer to question one don't really give a detailed understanding of the scope and nature of the role of an admin on Wikipedia.  I suggest withdrawal and working in the project space in addition to your regular tasks in order to demonstrate knowledge of [[:WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]].
'''Oppose''': Sorry, not enough experience per evident contribs, summary use (42%) and weak answers to standard questions. Try again in six months. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Oppose''' per Slgrandson, weak answers, and insufficient contributions.  Work harder, use your edit summary, try hanging around here at [[WP:RFA]] to see what other editors consider important in an admin.
'''Oppose''' though you're on the right track you might need to put more experiance under your belt. Follow the suggestions above for a while and see where they take you. --
'''Oppose''' impossible to support you now. Please withdraw and if you're nominated in a few months time, drop me a line on my talk page (although that's no guarantee of support). --
'''Automatic Oppose''' per lack of edits and weak answers.
'''Oppose''', the fact that you thought this RfA had a chance means you don't know enough about administrative matters yet.
'''Oppose''', not experienced enough and weak answers to questions, suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' per the above. ''Much'' more experience is needed. ←
'''Neutral''' no need to pile on.  I would suggest taking some time to participate in deletion discussions and maybe get involved in the talk page for a proposed guideline.  Once you get a bit more experience in the project space you could always try again.--
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  Please withdraw, spend several month participating in the Wikipedia: space, such as xfD discussion, and consider applying for RFA later.--
'''Support''' - Moral support. -- ''
Oppose per poor self-nom and answers. I'd suggest you read [[WP:GRFA]] and consider withdrawing this nomination, as the opposes are just going to pile up. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Weak answers, low experience and poor edit summary usage.  Please get some more experience and then try again. --
'''Oppose''' your answer to the first question reads as if you want to introduce [[WP:OR|original research]] into articles, which is at odds with one of our core policies. In addition, administrators should not use their privileged position to edit fully protected articles per our [[WP:PROT|protection policy]]. These issues alone indicate that you don't understand some important basic policies that every administrator should understand and uphold. As Chacor said, I suggest you might want to withdraw this. Take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and then seek an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Good luck,
'''Oppose'''. You mean well, but you don't have enough experience and don't show a need for the tools. 2x edit conflict--
'''Oppose''' - Due to lack of experience and your answers. Also try using edit summaries more often--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' sorry but you need clarify why you need the tools and what you'll do with them, besides which you ought to have more experience here before the community agree to give you the tools.  Good luck in the future here.
'''Oppose''' and strongly suggest withdrawal. Much more experience is needed in all areas. Also, consider reading your edits before saving, typos are unforgivable for someone who'd be fixing mistakes made by the others.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per all the others. "I would like to edit locked pages" is a tad worrying. --
'''Oppose''' Very low edit summary usage, your very poor and incomplete answers to the questions make me douby whether you are experienced enough to be given the tools. <b>
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I must also oppose this nomination and suggest you spend some time looking at the [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|Guide to requests for adminship]] which should help you ensure you are clear as to what is required. As others have noted, you should try to provide an edit summary more often and also use the ''Show preview'' button more often to avoid cluttering up the page history with small incremental edits. I'd suggest you try again for adminship once you have more experience. All your contributions are welcome and I would wish you luck in a future RfA once the concerns raised here have been addressed.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to question #1. Editing locked pages should be done with great care, and the fact it's the first use of the tools you thought of is troubling. Cheers,
'''Oppose''' and withdraw. The answers you gave weren't very adequate, and you have little experience in Wikipedia. '''
'''Oppose'''. You have been on Wikipedia for 150 minutes; you have virtually no experience.
'''Strong Oppose''' user is here solely to get a page for his band <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe&diff=prev&oldid=176703858], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe&diff=next&oldid=176704003], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe&diff=next&oldid=176704269], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe&diff=next&oldid=176704602]. </span>.
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is major concern here. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I don't recommend this user to be an administrator. He has only contributed since December 6 so far. I suggest that this user wait awhile and see if he has more experience. But for now, I oppose. <font face="sprint SF" color="#66CCFF" size="larger">
'''Oppose''' Few edits, little experience, and no demonstrated need for the tools. -
'''Oppose''' No reason to use admin tools, and a lack of experience.
'''Suggest Withdrawal''' We appreciate your enthusiasm but I feel you need a lot more experience in Wikipedia. <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Too little experience
'''Oppose''' Not anytime soon.
'''Oppose''' - No real experience.
'''Strong oppose'''. Twenty-one edits is insufficent experience for an administrator. —
'''Oppose''' You didn't even say anything good about yourself for your nomination. --'''
'''Neutral''' No need for a pile on. Anyway, your enthusiasm is inspiring, but please consider editing for a considerable amount of time. I'd advise you to withdraw from this RfA, as it is highly unlikely it will succeed. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' - Sorry. You only have 305 edits, with only 18 to the wikipedia namespace. I don't believe you have nearly enough experience to be promoted. I suggest that you withdraw and give it a few months of good contributions, then I'll gladly support.
'''Oppose''' With this little experience, you should consider withdrawal of your self-nomination.
'''Oppose''' - None of the arguments you gave seem valid; plenty of people edit Wikipedia every day; and the small amount of edits also proves that you're just not ready for the mop. Personally, I suggest withdrawal before you get embarrassed.
'''Edit-conflict Oppose''' You do not have enough experience in admin-related tasks at the moment.  Consider vandal fighting and warning on their talk pages, with reports to [[:WP:AIV]] for persistent offenders; new page/ recent changes patrols; contributing to XfD discussions with opinions based upon [[:WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]] rather than 'per nom'; helping new users find their way around; referencing, citing and sourcing articles - there are many things that you can do well in order to qualify for admin status.  Try these and other ideas for six months to a year before returning with another application.  Withdraw this one.
'''Neutral''' I have now withdrawn my nomination. --
Enthusiastic '''support'''. --
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' - When I've seen their edits, I've been impressed. &mdash;
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Yes, he does have a block - but it's for a violation of a not-so-obvious rule, which took place 8 months ago.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''.  Won't abuse the tools.  <strong class="plainlinks">
Looks like a good user, and a block in March is hardly "recent". Thumperward has had plenty of time to improve since then.
'''Support''' Impressive contribs, and a block (that was misplaced even according to other established admins) to uphold BLP tenets is hardly concerning. Good luck!
I see the block as distant history especially since there have been no further such incidents. I am slightly concerned about you being a self described hot-head. But if you keep it under control you'll be fine. I'll keep a watch. You recent interactions with editors seem to be positive. Use caution with comments about being on "someone's side." That is very unwise. However, in looking back over your recent edits and interactions I see no reason to oppose. -
'''Support'''.  I have seen Chris' edits on homeopathy and I think he is making some good points.  I am a scientist but on that page I do find myself agreeing with the homeopaths some of the time too. Chris says he is pro science below but if he is willing to try and make such an article more neutral then this a good trait for an admin.  Clearly, sometimes, this will rock the boat a bit but in the end such editors are the ones that win the compromises that give us a more stable article.
'''Support'''. No major concerns here and adminship is no big deal, as the cliche goes. Without meaning to patronise however...do avoid hot-headedness in future if at all possible.
'''Support'''. Wpuld like to see a few more contributions to [[WP:AFD|AfD discussions]]. but plenty of other project space contribs, so no problemo.
'''Support''' - well-rounded.  '''''
'''Support''': A well-balanced editor who has a few minor infractions -- like who hasn't. It comes with the territory, especially if you tend to disagree with other editors or be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] in editing. Hot-headed? I don't see that being a concern. As someone else stated, it's all "water under the bridge."
'''Support''' It's a learning process, not sainthood.  Candidate understands how the community works, and knows how to stay out of trouble.
'''Support.''' The candidate's answer to Tim's question is insightful and implies an administrator who would conduct himself with due tact.
'''Support''' Balanced opinion, keen to work and able to balance contributions.
'''Support''' I see a contributor who made some mistakes in his early days but now looks a good candidate, and is remaining civil down there ↓ despite some quite heated exchanges between others. --
I second Dweller... his editing record speaks for itself, the three revert block was more than 9 months ago (not "relatively recent" in my opinion, as described below), plus has been handling himself with poise and calmness despite people opposing him over what looks like a content dispute. I support also since adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. Mahalo. --
'''Support''' Seems like they will use the mop responsibly. A short block is not a life sentence, and can be removed from consideration by considerable evidence of positive behaviour to the contrary, which has in my view been demonstrated.
'''Support'''.  Meets all my standards; 7500 edits /year is fine.  While I understand the concerns of the opposing users, the 3R block was 9 months ago.  Somewhat of a deletionist, the user, if made a sysop, ought to be very careful with the "delete" button, which it now appears to me, he would be.
'''Weak Support'''. My criteria for adminship: Editor is experienced [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], Strong edit history [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], No blocks or vandalism [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], Good quality articles [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], Uses edit summaries [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], Editor is civil [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], Involved in wide range of areas [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]], Editor is active [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|16px]], No recent edit warring [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|16px]], Shows knowelege of policy [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]]. Overall: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|16px]].
'''Oppose.''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but we prefer our admins not to be hot-headed. I am concerned, in particular, about your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive39#User:Thumperward_reported_by_Isarig_16:02.2C_5_March_2007_.28UTC.29_.28Result:_24h.29 relatively recent] [[WP:3RR]] block.
'''Oppose.'''</s> Chris, I have always found you to be civil and thoughtful, and you indeed were one of the more level-headed editors on the Beauchamp article, but I feel you have some underlying bias issues. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThumperward&diff=168469067&oldid=168468612 This comment] in reply to Eleemosynary just last month suggests to me that you have an alliance with this editor, and a "side" that you feel you represent. Perhaps it even hints of a strategic agenda. I appreciate the moderating behavioral example you have provided for Eleemosynary, but at this time, I do not feel comfortable supporting your RfA. I do not trust that you will not abuse the tools in some way. -
'''Strong Oppose.'''  I've observed him at one of the more contentious articles around here, [[Homeopathy]].  His edits are confusing such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=176748923&oldid=176701182 this one], wherein he removed references that supported the lead, added [[WP:WEASEL|weasel wording]], and generally weakened the lead.  This article arrived at a relatively strong consensus (despite the occasional edit- and POV-warrior fighting for the removal of all criticism) to become a GA status article.  Yet, he makes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrangemarlin&diff=176962022&oldid=176955155 this comment] as if he is an expert.  And what I've learned after 10,000 edits here, when someone claims they're something (he claims he's a scientist), it's precisely the point where I doubt him, and AGF goes sailing out of the window.  His edits on Homeopathy belies his self-description.  For these reasons, this person should never be an admin.
'''Extremely strong oppose'''--
'''Oppose'''.  BTW: it's "¿Por qu'''é'''?"
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by Fill.
'''Strong Oppose''' per ambiguous answer to Tim's question and concerns raised by Filll and OM.
'''Oppose'''. -- <i><b><font color="004000">
'''Oppose''' ''(sorry)'' as per Filll and OM - this sort of behaviour undermines some of the most delicate work we have here. Dismayed to see #RR issues at this point. Folks generally try to be on their best behaviour leading up to RfA so this does not fill me with confidence at all. cheers,
'''Oppose''' - Absolutely not. A self admitted "hot head", who is regularly involved in edit wars, including breaking 3RR [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_4#3RR_and_BLP] (not all 3RR violations have resulted in blocks - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_10#Gaming_3RR this] as one example) and gaming 3RR.
For the reasons of Filll above and Willow below.  I do want to say, however, that opposing someone at RfA is one of the harshest actions we can take against our fellow editors, though I believe it to sometimes be necessary (both for the good of the community and to give the candidate more time to learn and grow if they are willing to do so).  I appreciate Filll's sentiment of not wanting to add fuel to a fire, but when these circumstances arise, I think that those in the opposition have a responsibility, both to the community and the opposed, to justify why their comment was necessary, and explain how it can be addressed. --
Someone with a 3RR block within the last 12 months needs to be ''especially'' cautious in the run up to an RFA.  The fact that Thumperward is unable to show restraint in the run up to his RFA bodes poorly.  I don't think he has the temperament.
I originally supported citing the fact that I believed "enough water ha[d] passed under the bridge" since the block. However, [[User talk:Thumperward/Archive 10#Gaming 3RR]] from only a handful of months ago is worrying, and the response even more so. Spartaz is completely correct in his 19:11, 26 September 2007 comment in your archive. '''
'''Oppose''' Not every strong editor is fit for adminship. In this case, per the diffs provided here and outside experience, it is my view that the candidate is hot-headed to a degree that makes them untrustworthy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thumperward&diff=next&oldid=173325804 This] November version of his userpage and the "sociopaths" comment are but a small example. I would not rest easy knowing they have the tools.
'''Oppose'''. While I had supported, Daniel's evidence when added to the earlier concerns does make me feel as though this user can be rather hot-headed. As such, I can not support the user at this time. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">
per concerns raised by Filll and others.
'''oppose''' Having worked on some controversial topics with Chris, I think he already misuses the power that comes with being a normal editor with a lot of time for editing and reverting.  These abuses result in a breakdown of the community decision making process, they make Wikipedia a frustrating environment for fellow experienced editors and a hostile environment for new contributors.  Additional powers would surely only worsen these problems.  This is my experience from editing in the domains of [[free software]], [[GNU]], and [[Linux]].  Maybe his behaviour is different in other domains.  Sorry Chris, I feel bad about having to put this here, but it's nothing I haven't said to you already on Talk: pages, and an Rfa is exactly a call for these comments. --
'''oppose''' out of the same reasons like Gronky. I don't think Chris has already understood what NPOV means. --
'''Oppose''' per concerns about hot-headedness and 3RR block. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' per the concerns of Filll, Gronky and Willow, reluctantly think that Chris's approach tends to disrupt consensus rather than building agreement. ..
'''Oppose'''
'''Neutral''', I think he intended well with his [[WP:BOLD]] edits to homeopathy, he may not have realised this is a contentious subject. However, I am still concerned that this indicates somebody who is a bit hasty and inexperienced - which doesn't seem to fit at all with how long he's been here. I can't oppose due to a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, but this does raise enough doubts for me not to support.
'''Neutral''' I have to agree with [[User:TimVickers|Tim]].  I'm very sorry to write this, but my experience with [[User:Thumperward|Thumperward]] was, regrettably, almost entirely negative.  In late January 2007, I foolishly decided to improve a contentious article, [[Wikipedia]], inspired by my research on the ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]''.  After a week's worth of work/research and 227 edits on my part — more than I've devoted to most of my [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] — Mr. Cunningham appeared out of nowhere and took a meat cleaver to my work.  Over the next three days, he worked efficiently and [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] to remove most of my contributions without giving cogent reasons or asking me why I had added them.  Up to that time, I had been spoiled by my wonderful interactions with more collaborative Wikipedians (indeed, I'd just been collaborating with [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] — then calling himself [[User:Qxz|Qxz]] — on [[Wikipedia]]) and I was shocked and dismayed that all my work was in vain.  Part of that dismay is certainly my own failing; we all have to allow that our work can be edited mercilessly, even destroyed without Talking.  I'm sure that I liked my work too well and I hadn't then given enough thought to how to deal with situations like that; perhaps if I'd been more patient and skillful, we could've been reached some mutually agreeable consensus.  But consensus seemed impossible with Mr. Cunningham; he left me with the fullest belief that he could not imagine that any vision except his own was worth considering.  I do believe firmly that [[User:Thumperward|Thumperward]] was and is well-intentioned toward Wikipedia; however, my impression is that he has not yet learned to work well with others and I question whether he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Neutral''' - Edit count is not a problem but the hot-headedness and [[Homeopathy]] article problems cause me concern.
per Tim and Willow, I respect the work you have done here, but I am afraid I cannot support your RfA bid. Admins have to have cool heads and demonstrate consistently sound judgment. —
The incident User:Willow describes is very troubling, but it is almost a year ago. On the homeopathy issue, I agree completely with Tim Vickers. User:Filll's over the top replies here almost drove me to a support vote, but then I have to vote on the merits of the candidate, not on the demerits of his opponents. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Can't oppose at this time, but Filll's comments above are persuasive. Switched from Support, above.
Sorry, I think you need more experience.
The discussions on your talk page reveal that you aren't ready yet.  Erasing warnings from your talk page is especially telling - don't worry though, it's part of the adjustment process to wiki-collaboration.  My advice is to focus on vandalism just as you planned.  You don't need admin tools for that initially, and when you are ready for the tools, someone will let you know by nominating you.  Good luck.  '''''
Again, experience is a little low. '''<font color="Maya Blue">[[Christmas|Happ]][[Kwanzaa|y Holi]][[Hanukkah|days!]]</font>'''
No. Need more experience. Please come back later. Thanks, -- <strong>
Experience concerns. Get experience and try again in a few months when you're ready and I will support you.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger.
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl''' Too new, edit counts are way too low, horribly written nom, etc. etc. I highly suggest you withdraw, and watch [[WP:RFA]] for awhile to get an idea of what people don't want to see --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
'''Come back when you have more experience.'''
'''Oppose''' answers are inadequate. '''
<s>'''Support''' I love Pancho Pepe Jazz Band. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you don't need to be an admin to work on music related articles. --<i>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</i> <small><sup>([[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk]] •
'''Oppose'''. Nice contributions related to music, but the answer to Q1 sinks this nomination. We do not make people admins to give them the upper hand in conflicts they are currently involved in.
Oppose per Rspeer. You don't show a need for the tools. - [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">G</font>]][[WP:FING|<font color="black">1</font>]][[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">ggy</font>]] <sup>[[ User_talk:G1ggy |<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup>/<sub>
'''Oppose''' You've made good edits on Wikipedia so far (especially [[Pancho Pepe Jazz Band]]), but I don't think you have an understanding of many Wikipedia policies, and I don't see a need for the tools in your answer to Q1. I suggest you go for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] to get an evaluation of your contributions from other community members. Some things I suggest you do is get more involved editing articles and participating in discussions, and also contribute to admin-related tasks such as reporting vandals at AIV, requesting page protections at RFPP, participating in deletion discussion at XfD, etc. Also, read the relevant deletion, block, protection and other policies to get a better idea of rules we must adhere to on Wikipedia. Since you're interested in music, you may want to join [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Music|WikiProject Music]] and also familiarize yourself with [[WP:MUSIC]] notability guidelines. P.S. Wikipedia is not about credentials; we only look at the actual contributions you have made here, not your personal background. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
Per Nishkid. Suggest withdrawing and trying an [[WP:ER|editor review]] instead. '''
'''Oppose''' per nishkid. Suggest this be closed per [[WP:SNOW]]--<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Oppose''' - I didn't read anything but Q1, but Q1 reasons my oppose.
'''Oppose''' As everyone else has stated you need a better understanding of admin chores, a more firm grasp on the rest of Wikipedia, a more broad sense on editing in all spaces of Wikipedia, and quite frankly a lot more edits. Maybe after some more experience, background knowledge on Wikipedia, it's rules, what an admin does, and a lot more edits, then you might have a chance. Good luck in the future but for now, my vote stands as an oppose. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' All you Project [[WP:NAMESPACE|namespace]] (Wikipedia) edits have been in this RFA. That suggests that you don't have a very good grasp on Wikipedia policy, which is essential.
'''Oppose''' Per above. You do not show a need for the tools. If you still want to become an admin stay active in making articles better, fight more vandalism, get active in Xfd's, and come back to Rfa in 6 months. Sorry:(--
'''[[WP:SNOW|Oppose]]''' Being an admin means that you will have some additional responsibilities, such as blocking vandals, responding to posts on the [[WP:AN|AN]], and closing deletion debates.  Editing music articles does not require adminship.  I also concur with closing this per SNOW. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:Vishwin60|action=edit&section=new}} →]
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. Just not now. Using admin powers in disputes that you might have a WP:COI in (Peru v Chile) is a nyet nyet.
'''Moral Support''' I don't think your ready yet but I will give my support. You might want to rack up some more mainspace edits and try again in a few more months. In the meantime you might want to try the [[User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom]]. It could help you a lot--
'''Oppose'''.  Myriad problems.  User has 2275 edits, over half of which are to talk pages, and just under four months experience on WP.  Despite being part of various cleanup and anti-vandalism groups, the namespace edit count doesn't show a high level of activity.  User also does not understand policy and procedure - user filed an RFCU based on what a username "possibly implied" (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Masterofpuppets792]]).  MoP had a total of 4 vandal edits to four different pages at the time.  The article the user created could be considered COI (though it was written carefully), as the user works either for or closely with the SAR group (as noted by image uploads).  This user has neither the experience nor the understanding to be an admin at this point in time. He also didn't follow the instructions to file this RfA properly, and I have completed that for him.
'''Oppose'''. The candidate doesn't have enough article-building experience.
'''Oppose''' More article writing in a variety of articles are needed. -
'''Oppose''' - 4 months of activity? I really appreciate that you want to serve the community, but that's a little too short. Try again in a few more months, with some work in the Wikipedia: space. --
'''Oppose - Suggest Withdrawing''' You're a valuable contributor. But as per the concerns raised above, and the fact that I can't see any good reason you require the admin tools, I'm going to have to oppose the RfA. You make good efforts in Vandalism Reversion, and you shouldn't be discouraged by this RfA - your efforts are appreciated. Check out some of the info at the top of this page, apply that to your activities on Wikipedia, and retry in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Not ready yet. Insufficient breadth of experience for my tastes; please contribute more article writing and in the project space beyond [[WP:AIV]]. I see some recent deficiency in knowledge of the AfD process: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Quinn malformed nom], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_4&diff=prev&oldid=135852971 error in transclusion(?)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_5&diff=prev&oldid=136116261 improper transclusion], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joey_Dedio&diff=prev&oldid=146760957 removal of AfD header prior to close], & a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato virus U|questionable nom]]. Also, in any future RfA (not to mention everywhere else), please make an effort to improve your spelling and grammar&mdash;it makes a difference in how what you may write will be perceived. Keep up the good work, perhaps I'll support in a few months. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Not enough time here to know what an Admins job is.
'''Oppose'''.  Along with the concerns above, 60% of edits are to User Talk and definitely not enough experience with AfDs and other similar areas of Wikipedia.  I don't know if this RfA will become [[WP:SNOW]], but it's a possibility.  I recommend spending some more time getting experience in several various facets of Wikipedia and applying for RfA in another couple of months.
'''Oppose''' You show insufficient paricipation in Wiki-space, in Wiki-talk and in Mainspace. We need to be able to assess your ability in admin-related <strike>articles</strike> edits (slip of the mind), and vast numbers of edits in user-talk do not give enough indication. --<font color="Red">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on; in light of the fact that you've ''no'' mainspace edits I can see other than the one article you mention and a heap of minor reverts, this has no chance of passing, I suggest you withdraw<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral''' also to avoid pile-on. I would like to see some more WP and WT space experience.
'''Neutral''' To avoid pile on also. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#777">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of--oh, wait a minute, sorry. What I meant to say was that I'm very impressed by your 200+ reports to AIV and courteous manner, though I do think you need to work a little more in the other areas in Wikipedia space, like XfD. Keep up the good vandal fighting, I think you'll be a great admin!
'''weak support''' Good vandal-fighter, more work in other admin related areas as well as article work would be helpful. --
'''Support''' This user is a great vandal fighter who is unlikely to abuse the admin tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I've seen you around, and, I see no reason why you can't be trusted.
'''Support'''.  No reason to suspect user is evil or mental.
Since this is not editor review, but a discussion about trustability with some extra buttons, I can only support: Obviously trustworthy. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Support'''.  A smart vandal-fighter, with sufficient edits.  Has some edits to new criminology topics, good answers to his RfA, and excellent comments at other RfA's.
'''Support''' Tiptoety is a superb vandal fighter, and I personally don't believe he'd harm the project with the tools.
'''Support''' —
--
I am sure Tiptoety will be a great admin. He works hard to make Wikipedia a good place! He has made many vandals turn into better people. Including me. He taught me how to make Wikipedia a better place. I totally support Tiptoety!
'''Weak Support''' Well there are automated edits as Pedro has pointed out, but in general you are fine, but more experience would not hurt. All in all great contribs to AIV.
'''Support''' - Tiptoety is a hard working editor who cares a lot about making Wikipedia a better site and a safe place for those who edit. He writes articles, fights vandals, and contributes in admin areas of the site. Has he made mistakes? Sure, we all have. Has he learned from them and grown? Yes, he has; something which can't be said for many here. The most important criterion for me is whether an admin will abuse the tools s/he is given. I have the utmost confidence that Tiptoety will only use them for the betterment of the project. I am proud to support him in his adminship candidacy.
'''Strong support''' Seen this user around many times while doing vandalism reverts. I would like to see a police officer be an admin on Wikipedia.
'''support''' seems to be a good vandalism undoer
'''Support''': Great editor.  I've worked with Tiptoety on a few different things here and do not have 1 negative thing to say.  Would make a great admin. -
As the others have said, a good vandal-fighter. I'm not bothered that Tiptoety hasn't got any articles to a GA or an FA; neither of those are relevant to adminship, and I don't believe that he will abuse the tools.
'''Support''': Excellent vandal fighter, will not abuse the tools. --
'''Oppose''': I'm sorry, but I see very little other than vandalism reverts in your edit history. I don't have edit-count or project-space thresholds, but your contribs are a little too one-dimensional for me to think this is a good idea. At least half of your edits are marked minor, which is a bit odd as some don't seem to meet [[WP:ME|minor-edit criteria]]. <s>Little seems to have changed since the previous RfA a couple of months ago.</s> The bottom line is that I don't think an editor who's this lacking in experience building the encyclopedia or dealing with the sort of conflict and contention that arise here is ready to entrust with the tools. '''
I saw the edit to ANI that Pedro mentions as well, and it leaves me with no confidence you can be trusted with access to the priviledged information that can occasionally be found in deleted edits. &mdash;
Per Cryptic.
'''Oppose''' I've worked with this editor in [[WP:ORE|WikiProject Oregon]] and though he means very well and is trying very hard, I have been troubled ever since he used copyrighted material in an article he wrote and then pretended he wasn't the one who did it, per [[Talk:Multnomah County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue#Cleanup]]. That was in May, but because trust is the ultimate question in an Rfa, I think that the incident is far too recent for him to be trusted with the tools. I also think he lacks the kind of insight, maturity and judgment required of admins, and has far too little experience actually creating content. Please keep up the good work and wait for someone else to nom you next time.
'''Oppose'''. Your vandal work is great but I worry about your ability to apply deletion policy. This speedy deletion tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Les_Munro&oldid=160811317] was pretty hasty (only 1 min after the article was created by a new editor) and frankly "pilot in  Dambusters Raid awarded the the DSO and DFC" is a pretty clear assertion of notability. I would have hoped someone's instinct would be to help clean up the article, not delete it. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur]] (from a few days ago) really is astonishing - he was King of Assyria from 1076 to 1074 BC. Kings are pretty notable. Keep up the good work on the vandal front, but I think I your judgment on deletions could use improvement, sorry. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
I must echo WjBscribe above, the comment in reply to WjBscribe is highly unimpressive, if you have nominated articles for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] and hundreds (which you've probably exaggerated) are turned down, this shows a clear misinterpretation of the criteria for speedy deletion. I'm unimpressed by the answer to question 3, an user can only learn how to handle/deal with conflicts if he/she has been involved with one himself, learn how to resolve it correctly. I'm also rather worried about the sub-standard and bad grammar, I have counted several mistakes throughout this nomination, this is also unimpressive. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per the above comments, plus the fact that you uploaded [[:Image:MCSO.jpg|this image]] without a fair use rationale or a source, and you left it orphaned. I expect admin candidates to have at least ''some'' knowledge of copyright laws, and you do not appear to have that. --'''
Administrators need to show discretion and judgement. Vandal-reverting doesn't show this. I couldn't support, and per WJBscribe, I oppose this nomination. '''
'''Oppose''' – Content is the number one focus of Wikipedia in my opinion. Look at the main page, there is a counter for the number of articles in the encyclopedia, there is a spot to show off FA articles, the DYK section is meant to encourage new article creation, but note that there is not anything about vandals or vandal fighting. Now, vandal fighting is important, but us regular editors do it everyday, and most of us do not make a big deal out of it. Reports to AIV, sure in my 1 year 14,000+ edits I’ve maybe reported 5 users there. Being focused on vandal fighting, AIV reports, and then wanting the powers of an admin comes across as power hungry (especially since you have now twice self nominated), something akin to [[Cartman]] and respect my authoriti! Admins need to be well-rounded, this ensures that they know policies/guidelines forward and back. The only way to do this is by having your activities well-rounded. That means article creation, article improvement, vandal fighting, AFD participation, participation on policy talk pages, working out disputes over content with other editors, etc. The difference between vandalism and content dispute is a fine line, and in order to see where that line is you have to know both sides. Now, correct me if I’m wrong Tiptoety, but I don’t think you have participated in working an article up to GA or FA, or participated in GA reviews or reviewed FA candidates. Besides speedy deletes how many AFDs have you proposed? Speedy’s are usually easy to spot, that’s why it can be speedied. Knowing when an article should be AFD’d because it doesn’t meet [[WP:NOTE]] is a lot trickier and requires experience and knowledge of the process. Admins are looked up to for knowledge, and an admin needs to have that knowledge. You can get there, but you need to develop into a more well-rounded contributor. Start by going to the AFD candidates and reading some of the arguments and studying the articles up for deletion. Read the related policies, then jump into the debates. Go to FA and do the same. Then take an article you are interested in and work on improving it up to the GA standard. All of these and more will turn you into a great candidate for admin.
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't want someone who tried to speedily delete highly decorated Dambusters pilot [[Les Munro]] (and then took it to AfD) to have admin powers.  Editors who do nothing but delete vandalism don't understand the real business of the encyclopedia which is writing and improving articles.  Nominating that one minute after its creation wasn't 'helping new users'. If this was an isolated incident then I wouldn't mind but trying to delete an ancient king of Assyria the other day because he didn't have many google hits is just bizarre.  Other users have also noticed a lack of care in this RfA and above all administrators have to be careful.
'''Oppose''' - I feel evil opposing, but I'm affraid that this whole RfA has the feeling of little effort being put into it. The intro paragraph is, well, non-existant, and the answers to the questions are a little brief at times. Also the grammar leaves something to be desired, another sign of rushing the RfA, which leads me to question how suitable this candidate is (i.e. an admin should be careful and take time in what they're doing). Sorry :(
'''Oppose'''&ndash; per [[User:TheIslander|TheIslander]].  The intro paragraph, as well as some of the questions, make me think that this user hasn't put a lot of effort into this nomination.  I also question the motives for submitting a self-nomination based on the intro paragraph.  '''
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur|Weakly Fails WP:BIO, google search only came up with 87 sources, most not related to topic]] - You get that with people who died almost 1000 years ago.&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - sorry - I was prepared to support for the article you highlighted but the deletion-happy nominations detailed above are a real worry. Too many deletion-happy people are causing havoc at the moment and I don't feel reassured that this will help matters. If I see a GA at least in your future contributions that will counteract this. cheers,
'''Oppose''' - not ready yet. '''<font color="#5B92E5" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' - I can't in good faith support, sorry, trust issues, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=163187699 you don't say police cadet here] I too started out in a cadet type position, well we have [[Police_Explorers]], I was an Explorer for 6 years, before being hired on full time, and I have been full time now for almost 5 years, I'll be vested with PERS in January, so I can understand where you are coming from, but remember your [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/integrity integrity](doing what is right, when no one is looking <- canned academy response), it is paramount.
'''Oppose''' you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asharid-apal-Ekur&diff=prev&oldid=167047379 nominated] an ancient Assyrian king for deletion because you felt he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur&oldid=167047854 fails wp:bio].  Then, you claimed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsharid-apal-Ekur&diff=167110249&oldid=167091520 the text of that article didn't explain his notability]?  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa">SashaCall</span>]]</font>''' <sup>(
'''Oppose''' an editor of undoubted value to the project, but not yet ready for adminship IMHO.  Best wishes, keep it up, and hope to see you back here in a while.
A bit more experience needed. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, I'm not sure you're ready.  I share the concerns above about your policy knowledge and judgment.  Please don't let this discourage you.  I'm sure that with more time and familiarity with policy, you'll do fine.  -
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Les_Munro&oldid=160811317 This] speedy deletion tag is the first reason I notice not to support. Before nominating pages for speedy deletion, I check Google to see how notable they are, and maybe you should try it too. 2 of the first 3 search results are a [[BBC News]] article on Les Munro, and a page on the History Channel, which implies notability. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asharid-apal-Ekur&diff=prev&oldid=167047379 This] also is a worrying nomination. A king of a country is always notable, and the reason you stated for nominating it for deletion doesn't back anything up. I don't feel a need to state more reasons for my oppose, as I feel these 2 are enough. I'm sure you look back and notice your mistakes, and I hope you have a better knowledge of the notability and deletion policies next time you request adminship. —
'''Oppose''' I was torn between neutral and oppose, as it really does seem that Tiptoety is a valuable editor who is honestly trying to improve the project. However, I have to oppose, though reluctantly. Not for any single reason; I might be able to overlook a single indiscretion (we've all made mistakes). However, the e-mail address incident, the copyvio incident, along with a mediocre mainspace editing history and two self-nominations at RfA combined are just too much to overlook. To be fair, you have a very good vandal fighting history; some people prefer strong mainspace work, others strong vandal fighting. I think they're both very important, and a lack of one is no reason (in itself) to oppose an RfA (though to be honest I personally prefer strong article building). I'm also confused as to how you can have a userbox saying you don't have the courage to nominate yourself, but this is your second self-nom (not that this plays any role in my oppose, mind you). My advice would be to scale back your vandal fighting a bit (we know you're good at that) and do some encyclopedia building. Build up a few quality articles, just to show that you have the ability. And ''please'' wait for someone else to nominate you next time! Some people (myself included) hate self-noms on principle; it just doesn't look good, to be honest with you. You do seem to have admin potential, I'd just like to see more balanced contributions from you, plus a little time to distance yourself from mistakes you've made in the past. Sorry for the rant, and good luck!
'''Oppose''' Sorry to pile on, but I have only come across you at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur]], where you not only dug yourself a hole, but kept on digging against unanimous well-founded opposition. Doesn't suggest you are ready to me.
Oppose. I'd prefer to see you gain some experience, learn from your mistakes and show others that your judgement can be trusted. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Oppose''' - In my opinion you haven't developed much since your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tiptoety|first RFA]], not that long ago. I would like to see some more ''solid encyclopedia'' building edits. Although this is only one oppose.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Aboutmovies]] above.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per WjB above.
'''Neutral''' '''''Positives''''' - 1) Much imporved from your first premature RfA and certainly doing some article work is great. 2) Plenty of accurate looking [[CAT:CSD]] tagging. 3) Plenty of appropriate warnings resulting in blocks at [[WP:AIV]]. '''''Negatives''''' 1) Just a mass of contributions using automated tools - you've made over 200 this month and it's only the first  day! I'm worried about quantity not quality, and wether the finesse sometimes required is evidenced by this 2) Some of those irritating "you haven't used an edit summary" warnings which I find deeply [[WP:BITE|bitey]], personally. 3) A gross error of misjudgement where you posted a respect Wikipedians e-mail address at [[WP:ANI]] - I've not provided the diff for the sake of trying to down play it, but it's there in your contribution history. That just shows poor judgement, so I can't support. Best wishes as ever, of course, and my thanks for the work that you do. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''. Quantity of edits is outweighed by poor quality. Recommend having a day without Twinkle.
'''Neutral''' leaning toward support. Tiptoety is a valuable contributor and vandal fighter. Skimming some of Tiptoety's XfD edits, I saw more "per nom" comments than I usually want to see. A carefully worded and well-thought-out XfD comment might seem redundant in a long discussion, but it shows us that you fully understand the policies mentioned and how they apply to deletion. The answer to question 3 also doesn't give me complete confidence, as the toughest administrative decisions often come under duress and it's helpful to see evidence of handling such situations gracefully. Tiptoety has shown me that he is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leebo&diff=168434788&oldid=168159513 not afraid to admit mistakes] and resolve them, which is very important. Because of this, I feel that Tiptoety is capable of being an administrator, but I would like to see a little more development in the areas mentioned before supporting.
Will this user abuse the tools? I doubt it. I try to only oppose it I believe the user will be abusive. Because there are no recent signs, or signs in genral that lead me to believe he will be abusive, I will not oppose. The concerns though are enough to keep me from giving you my support. Sorry. Good luck in the future.--
Decent amount of mainspace contributions, but there doesn't appear to be that great a need for admin tools for dealing with vandalism - [[WP:AIV]] gets cleared out pretty quickly; reporting and repairing vandalism is a more pressing need, but doesn't require tools. I don't know that I can trust with the tools, but I don't see any sign that I can't; therefore neutral rather than oppose. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">'''
'''Neutral'''. I believe you are a very strong, helpful editor, however there has been some issues in this debate where I feel that I can't overlook- but I can't oppose either. I suggest perhaps some admin coaching, and some more manual editing, perhaps in different parts of the project as well, such as WP:AFD, WP:TFD, etc? But I am very impressed with the amount of AIV reports you've made, and the amount of articles you've tagged for deletion, so keep it up :). '''
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on.
'''Neutral''' Per Ohana.
'''Neutral''' - per Ohana. &nbsp;
'''Neutral''' This user is very helpful but i still see a lack of accurate assessing of situations. In some hot issues/incidents, it is always better to archive threads at the right and appropriate moment before it gets worse. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=168216476 This] {{tl|resolved}} could have been avoided. More experience would be definitely helpful. --
Why not? Don't see any problems, and will make a good admin. --
Eh? You're kidding, right? <Cliché goes here> &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' Just pop the old Cliché in as well, right next to [[User:Chacor|Chacor's]]. There we go, fits beautifully.... :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', a good contributor with a solid record.  --
'''Support''' I've seen Tristan around, mostly in XfDs and the Village pump, and I see no reason not to support this good candidate. Yes, let's give him a mop. —
'''Support''' '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' - as per nom..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' as nom. It's about time
'''Support'''-Nothing seems to be wrong with this User.-<font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">
Like Chacor, thought this had already been done.
'''Support'''- Excellent editor. [[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">'''Boricuaeddie'''</font>]]<sup>
'''Support''': Excellent editor who has a palette that is well-balanced.
Oh, I thought... '''
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and active user.--
'''Support''' seems to be a dedicated and honest editor.  There is no reasonable cause for opposing.  And as a general note unrelated to this discussion, it like when the nominator goes through the edit count, as opposed to self-nominated editors who just say they make good edits '''
'''Support''' Genuine cliche moment; excellent editor.
'''Weak Support''' although I'd prefer if this candidate requested a [[WP:CHU|change of username]]. The existing one is hard to remember. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' Seems like a great editor with plenty of experience. However, I do agree agree with Walton's comment on your hard-to-remember username. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">
'''Support''' - Wikipedia needs more editors like Tjstrf. --
'''Support'''.  Excellent and trustworthy candidate.
You're not an admin already '''Support'''? Good user, good edits, good answers. --
'''Support''', definitely. This user's edits are strong all over the shop. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
'''Support''' What Chacor and Moreschi said.
'''Support''' clean up on aisle 7 --
'''Support''' - thought you were one! You'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Will mop wisely.
'''Support''' - I don't see any real concerns. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' Although I could care less about anime and manga, I think that you will be a fine admin.  I do have to wonder what is up with the edit below mentioned by [[User:Nick|Nick]].  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Great editor, and will make a great administrator. --
'''I was just thinking of nominating him the other day (seriously) support'''. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/
'''Support''' Yeah, let's do it.
'''Support''' Best of luck with the sysop tools. <span style="font-family: Verdana"><span style="background:Silver;color:Black">'''
'''Support''' --seen him around, good impression.
'''Support''' "What they said" about sums it up. —
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support''', no doubts here.
'''Support''', although going to RFCU just because one person said the name was "hard to remember" smacks of trying too hard to keep everyone happy.  Remember that as an admin you will never be able to manage that.
sprt ths cnddt. Cn b vwl pls?
I'm
'''Support''', Don't see any reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' I agree with Isotope23 on this one. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''I don't see why not.  --<sup>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</sup><sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|(Speak)]]</sub>  <small>

'''Support'''. Engaging with unpleasant topics on behalf of the project is a task of the most dedicated "janitors". tjstrf has helped with unpopular and even distasteful subjects while maintaining neutrality. We'd be lucky to have him as an admin. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:·]]
'''Support'''. Good, experienced editor.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and likely to take on difficult admin tasks. --
'''Support'''. Since I thought you were a good admin before this RfA, I see no reason to think you wouldn't be one after it. ;-) -- '''
'''Support'''. Well, he helps a lot of people in the help desk. Pretty sure he would make a good admin.
'''Support''' I wanted to nominate the user back in May, but he preferred waiting, and [[User:PeaceNT|PeaceNT]] beat me in offering the nom again, also it's too late for a co-nom ;-) <i><b>[[WP:UCFD|<font color = "darkmagenta">«</font>]]

'''Happy to Support''' : ) -
'''Oppose''' Poor understanding about userspace policy. (your position in [[User:Centrx]] poor judgment and UI spoofing hardly seem neutral and objective) Tend to hold grudges against users he previously had disagreement with. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACertified.Gangsta&diff=128613531&oldid=128611983], classifying someone as "obnoxious" obviously doesn't help.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Because he lacks knowledge of what our [[WP:FU|Fair Use policy]] is. He thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bleach_media_and_materials&oldid=134391544 This] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Durin/Fair_Use_Overuse&diff=136003550&oldid=136002123 Applicable] with the policy, which it's not, it's a violation. I don't think someone so careless with the checking of the articles for vioations of policy should be granted adminship until they understand the basics. —
'''Oppose''', for several reasons: I was unaware of this editor until yesterday. I was a participant in the debate over the new LoliWikipe-tan image on the [[Wiki:Talk:Lolicon|Lolicon Talk]] page. Here is the image: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg], which may or may not be present at [[Lolicon]] at the moment--lot of reverting going on.  His haste to upload the image has been noted below. He was insensitive to objections, reducing some genuine concerns to [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus&diff=prev&oldid=135871201].  I felt bulldozed, with new anons showing up every time I turned around, one of them quite rude; eventually some other folks showed up to oppose, and things just escalated.  Granted tjstrf isn't yet an admin, and I'm not saying he is 100% to blame, but I have no confidence as to his ability to handle a conflict situation.  Later in the day I made an attempt to work out a difference of opinion with him over the caption for the new image (which someone had uploaded onto the [[Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan|Wikipe-tan]] page), after he reverted my edit. His talk: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tjstrf#Lolicon.3F] and my talk: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh123#RE:Lolicon.3F].  He was "fine with the current caption, personally"--end of conversation.  No willingness to find a compromise.  Today the conflicts seem to be escalating, and it is my opinion that he is ''partially'' to blame for this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Herostratus_threatening_disruption_over_image_on_Lolicon].  There are much more effective ways that he could be handling this situation, and it seems personal with him.  Tjstrf has an impressive record of participation and obviously has some strong social relationships here, but I don't think he's ready to be an admin.  -
Oppose - sorry I don't think you understand fair use. —— '''
'''Oppose strongly''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipe-tan&diff=135897478&oldid=135895562 this edit]. Images linking a Wikipedia symbol to children in a sexualised concept are unacceptable. To not only tolerate its presence on a Wikipedia page, but to describe an overtly sexual lolicon image as "an embarassing situation" leads to me question [[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]]'s judgment and suggests he would be weak in upholding the best interests of the project were he an admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' - the continuing Lolicon issue is not what I expect from a prospective admin. The overtly inclusionist stance in the face of reasoned arguments for the exclusion of the image is really unacceptable. I also find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=136203953] worrying, a lack of judgement and an expectation for someone else to magically solve the problem.
Changed to '''Oppose''' - sorry. I'm quite unimpressed with your judgement re. [[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe's]] diff above. -
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom. ~
'''Support'''. He has enough experience to be given a mop and bucket. -
An excellent editor who would use the mop effectivly. I agree the answers to the questions were a bit weak, but I already know Tohru, so I '''support'''. ·
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' seems experienced enough.--
'''Oppose''' per lack of proper experience in admin-related stuff in the Wikipedia namespace. Motto of the day is cute, but you seem to have an over-focus on something that's at best trivial. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - I have a difficult time on RFAs - I either get an easy descision for oppose like below, or I have to make a difficult decision to oppose like here. You are friendly, eager & civil. I could never think that you'd abuse the tools. However, your edit count is very low on both the mainspace & the Wikipedia namespace sides - I usually like editors to have at least 2K mainspace & 1K Wikipedia (And over 100 edits to wikitalk) - You haven't met any of these standards yet. In time, undoubtedly you will, but for now my vote has to be oppose. I don't think neutral is a good vote on RfA's - you're either ready or not. As per above, quote of the day is too trivial to be counted as real wikipedia space edits. I'm so sorry, but if you keep at that count over the next few months, I don't see why I couldn't support you then. Thanks,
'''Weak oppose''' per Chacor, lack of experience. Nothing personal, but I don't like the fact that your userspace edit count is nearly half your mainspace edits, and it is actually higher than your Wikipedia-space edits.
'''Oppose''' per Chacor and Arfan. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' Inexperience in project-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Neutral''' I usually hate to oppose candidates on edit count problems alone, but you state in Q1 that you wish to participate in [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]], yet you have very little edits there.  I believe that this alone is not reason enough to Oppose you, but I'm afraid I can't fully support you.  I wish you the best, however.
'''Neutral''' - Your edits are good and spread out. I doubt you'll abuse the tools, but your answers to the questions could have been more thought out, in my opinion,--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Strong nominator support'''. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Support''' frequents [[WP:ACID]]. Seems a good editor to me. So, I support.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor to me too. --<i>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Wikihermit</b></font>]]</i> <small><sup>([[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk]] •
'''Support''' - The user has been very good up till now and should continue this way..The tools would be good in his hands and I give him Thumbs-up..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support'''. TomasBat is clearly passionate about the project. I have associated with him on the Age of Empires III page, and have been particularly impressed with his contributions there. I am slightly concerned about a lack of familiarity with the project's policies, but I think Tomas will be good with the mop :P
'''Support''' I am seen this user around Wikipedia and I think that he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Great user and seen a lot in WP:AICD and welcoming users too.<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">
'''Support''' - I feel he is ready for the tools. You beat me to nomming him G1ggy. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Support''' - experienced enough, as demonstrated by editcount stats. I see him around in discussions all the time and am confident that this candidate has a sufficient understanding of policy. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]]<sup><font color="Purple">
'''Strong Support''' - I'm really impressed with the throughness you displayed in your answers to the questions and in your deep understanding of what Wikipedia needs. —
I do not feel that this user is ready, as of yet, to use the tools, as he is (as per Matthew) insufficiently familiar with policy and guidelines. Soon, grasshopper. Soon. For now, I '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''.  Good editor, but little evidence of experience in policy areas as per Wikipedia namespace edits and answer to Q1. IMO he needs to get more involved in these areas before being given the mop. <b>
'''Oppose''' I think a little more experience would help you a lot. Being an admin is hard, horrid work and I personally don't think you are ready at this time. But I encourage you to try again eventually. Happy editing :) '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="color:#002bb8">Majorly</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Majorly|talk]]'' | ''
'''Oppose'''; not enough experience for my liking, especially in dealing with areas he wishes to assist in. The only policy situation I have experience with him in is where he contacted me because I blocked someone who was violating [[WP:NOT#MYSPACE]].—
'''Oppose''' TomasBat is very helpful in the project, but I don't think he is ready for adminship. In Q1, he mentioned doing some AIV and RFPP work. Judging from his contributions, I see only 3 edits (2 reports) made to AIV, and no edits at all at RFPP. Given that this user is interested in deletion, it would be best to see some AfD participation. All the AfDs TomasBat has participated in are related to the general scope of his edits (AOE and Club Penguin). These ~25 or so AfD edits came during a two-week period in April. There have been no other AfD edits before or after this two-week frame. My particular concern about AfDs is that if TomasBat wishes to participate in deletion, then he must widen the scope of his AfD participation. Limiting yourself to topics that either interest you or you are an expert on, will not be particularly helpful when you are considering the deletion of articles of totally different caliber (perhaps something historical). The number of mainspace edits is a bit on the low side, and your edits seem to be concentrated on a few particular articles, but that's something I'm not really worried about. However, I do encourage broadening your contributions at the mainspace so that you can get an idea of what it is like to work on other articles, and engage in discussion with other users over topics you are not too particularly knowledgeable of. I think if you keep up the good work, and expand your contributions (in the article namespace and the Wikipedia namespace), then you should be fine for another RfA in a few months. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' I don't think you're ready to be given the tools yet, based on your edit count.  And your answer to question one was confusing; on one hand you want to fight vandals, while on the other you want to get involved with unblocking users (some of whom may have been blocked for vandalism).  '''
'''Oppose''' This editor needs more time with wikipedia, and a larger number of good, solid, edits.
'''Oppose''' The few edits made at AfD did not show a good understanding of WP practice or policy, eg.   "Are there supposed to be timelines on Wikipedia?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Club_Penguin_Timeline] . I hope to be able to say differently after a few months.'''
'''Oppose''' per only 781 mainspace edits, and a bit lack of overall experience.  But you are ''well'' on your way.  Gain some experience and try back again in a few months.
Per Nishkid. '''
'''Very Weak Oppose''' - While I feel you do have potential, I counted around 1,200+ of your contributions were on User Talk pages. While this is not necessarily a ''bad'' thing, like other says it brings to question your knowledge of policy - you have less than 500 contributions to Wikipedia space (AFDs, RFAs, etc). --
'''Oppose''' - Little vandal-fighting experience (15/past 500 contributions vandalism reverts, with zero warnings given following those reverts, and few [[WP:AIV]] reports, when editor is claiming that it is a high priority.
'''Oppose''' comments like he made in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Club_Penguin_Timeline this] AfD show that he does not understand Wikipedia. '''<font color="#330033">
I'm afraid I have to oppose for now; being an administrator really requires more experience than a lot of people think it does.  I'm sure if you just take the suggestions of the opposers to heart, you'll be more than ready for another RfA in a few months. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Leaning towards neutral, however my main concern is that you have less than 1000 mainspace edits, it would be nice to see at least 1000 and if you anticipate helping out with [[WP:RFP|requests for page protection]] and [[WP:AIV|AIV]] then I suggest getting more involved in reporting there, I think you could definitely pass in the future if you make some improvements. Kindest Regards --<font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="2E82F4">
'''Oppose''', not enough editing experience, particularly with actual articles. —
'''Oppose''' Your experience is too narrow, and more than half your edits are to user and user talk pages. I know Age of Empires is terrific (my daughter loves it), but it's a great big Wikiworld and you should dip your toes into the rest of the pool. Get some broad experience writing articles and participating in the rest of the encyclopedia, and I'm sure I'd support in a few months.
<p>'''Oppose based on contributions'''. Examining a sample of TomasBat's contributions, I found a confusing and uncited addition to [[Wikipedia in culture]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_in_culture&diff=prev&oldid=135319814], as well as adding a rambling paragraph and changing a correctly-spelled word to a misspelling on [[Wiki]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki&diff=prev&oldid=128335129]. I also found him piling on a user at [[User talk:AlexHillan]], who was blocked once for editing only in userspace and not mainspace. I find the comments Tomas left unhelpful, and he also supported other comments that perhaps were trying to help AlexHillan but which missed the big picture of WP if they were. (I said something worse about that situation here, but I'm withdrawing it because another user informs me I was reading the talk page out of context.) Meanwhile, my sample of his contributions turned up no edits that gave me a positive impression that TomasBat is ready to be an admin.</p><p>Now, that said, I absolutely do not condone the uninformed oppose votes cast by Black Harry, Gaff, Ozgod, and The Sunshine Man. TomasBat has made more contributions than I had when I became an admin, and those thousands of contributions could have easily shown his experience, maturity, and commitment to Wikipedia. It happens to be my opinion that they don't, but those who vote based on edit counts have no way of knowing, because ''they never looked at them''. I believe the bureaucrats should disregard those votes, but perhaps that is too idealistic of me. Therefore, I would settle for urging the bureaucrat to '''not count my vote'''.</p><p>
'''Oppose''' based on unclear style of communication, including at this RfA. The ability to communicate clearly is a critical quality for an administrator, and I am not as of now confident that this editor would be able to do so. This is not an irredeemable character flaw, however, and I would happily reevaluate in a few months' time.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin Timeline|this mess]], which suggests that the candidate lacks a grasp on core policies.
'''Oppose''' I think you need a little more time and experience. May I suggest you throw yourself into editing and the work you are already doing, pay close attention to admin related discussions and come back in a few months. I imagine you'll be a shoe-in.
'''Neutral''' per Nishkid. I'd love to support, but there are some significant areas where your experience is lacking. Please try again later, I would support with pleasure.
'''Neutral''' Editor claims vandalism is a high priority yet I see no significant entries at [[WP:AIV]]. I would expect any vandal fighter (sorry about the use of the word fighter, but there we go) to have at least 30 - 40 requests in there, and ones that were approved by the way. Really solid editing otherwise, and as per some editors in oppose, give it 3 months and come back. Sorry I can't support at the moment. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Looks like a nice person, but if you look at his [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Gaff&site=en.wikipedia.org edit count] he had very few or no edits for a long time and then 1000's of edits last month, I think he should try again in a month or two --'''
'''Neutral''' per Nishkid. I'd definitely support if you work on his advice. Good luck, Tomas. —

'''Neutral''' I have withdrawn my vote, after being accused of "edit-countitis."  I thought that I was allowed to have a say in whether or not I felt another user should have admin tools.  I'm not going to argue the point any longer, however, exceptt to say that as a non-admin, I feel uncomfortable supporting a user that I feel is less experienced and less knowledgeable than myself.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Extremely Strong Support''' He long since should have been an admin, I thought he was, and am now rectifying that oversight!  A humble but very hard worker who adds greatly to the project and the community.  He more than deserves the mop.
'''Support''', assuming Tom doesn't decline the nomination, and assuming that [[User talk:J Clear#Thank You|spelling skills]] are not a qualification.  I've seen a lot of Tom's good work for [[WP:SHIPS]] and also know he has a sense of humor (who else awards a [[User:TomStar81/Spelling|Spelling Award]]  to those who fix their spelling errors?), so concur with the nomination.--
'''Support'''.  Tom has shown exemplary diligence and dedication in his work on Wikipedia.  That he is not yet certain of where he will concentrate his usage of the tools is hardly a cause for concern; regardless of what he chooses to do with them, placing admin tools in the hands of such an outstanding editor can only be a net benefit to the project.
'''Support''', Good edits, long dedication. I think that he was good in answering Q#1 truthfully. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A committed, hard-working, knowledgeable editor, and if there's one thing Wiki needs in new admins, it's his kindness, civility and consideration of fellow Wikipedians.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (I'm much less worried about a responsible candidate who doesn't know what he wants to do with the tools than some that ''do'' know what they want to do with them.)
'''Support''' He is unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[WP:ADMIN#No big deal|no big deal]]. Some users get what they want at an RfA by having an editor who <u>writes</u> articles, but they still oppose. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
An ideal candidate. Not one who has been seeking the "role", but will merely accept extra duties to improve the encyclopedia further. '''
'''Support''' - expanded answer to Q.1 banishes all doubt in my mind.  Right on, for your honesty and candor.  --
'''Support''' Editor has a lot of experience within Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Switched from neutral. Expanded answer to question one not only resolves any doubts, but demonstrates considerable maturity. I'm sure you'll be an excellent administrator.
'''Strong Support''' - clearly an active and hardworking contributor. I have no problem with his answer to Q1; he is refreshingly honest, and while he may not have a clear idea of what he will be doing as an admin, he clearly understands what admins do and is willing to learn. In response to some of the opposers, it's pointless IMO to be pedantic about whether the candidate "needs" the tools; they will come in useful from time to time, and this user can clearly be trusted with them.
'''Support''' Come on, adminship is ''no'' big deal. Sure, he's likely to make a few mistakes in his start... or he's probably not going to raze 20 backlogs as soon as he has the extra godly buttons, but adminship is about trust, and I trust Tom. Simple. —
Another no big deal '''support'''. Tom may not be entirely familiar with the territory, and this is a little worrying, and I'm not entirely sure about the George Washington reference below, but I feel that he won't abuse the tools, and so there is nothing to stop promoting him IMO. Tom, if you want any advice, my talk page is always open :). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''', Has a fairly good record and is honest in his answers per above. I have read the oppositions and don't believe they are that severe. It may be true that this user doesn't have a high amount of administrator knowledge but that doesn't mean he would somehow abuse the tools of adminship. It's not like we have a limited amount of adminships to dispense and must choose only the super elite. This person, based on my viewing of his previous contributions, looks like he would make good contributions as an admin and does not look like he would abuse the tools or cause problems.
'''Support''' I think that anything this user needs to learn about adminship will be learned quickly even if he does know little now.
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with commitment to encyclopedia building. The expanded answer to Q1 answered my initial concern.
'''Support'''. This editor can be trusted with administrative tools and his adminship will benefit this encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' maybe the answer to question #1 wasn't great, but at least he was honest, and I like honesty. If he gets the tools I am sure he'll quickly learn how to use them, and will use them efficiently.
'''Support'''
'''Looks Good!''' I can't see how the user would abuse the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' a very good user who deserves the promotion.
'''Support'''.  I'm sorry to see that this RFA isn't going well so far, but I believe you'd use the tools well, and I also believe we need more admins who are dedicated editors, and not just people who've made 7000 vandalism reverts.
'''Support''' - Long standing editor with an excellent history of collaborative work.  I feel very confident that he will make good use of the tools.  --
'''Support''' - I've seen you around and noticed your good contributions. In terms of the editing dispute that you cite, it doesn't raise any red flags for me. While you may not have a good grasp of the tools yet, I admire your honesty about it and willingness to learn about them. I support your candidacy, as I think you will make a fine admin. It sounds like some of the 'oppose' votes have got you down, so I'd also like to offer '''Moral Support''' and encourage you to try again if this RfA doesn't pass.
'''Oppose''' Your answer to question one doesn't really show a firm grasp of what you want to do as an admin.  There are numerous things an admin ''could'' do, but what do you ''want'' to do, and what ''will'' you do?
'''Oppose''' The answer to question one pretty much says that you don't know what's involved in being an admin.  It sounds like you're an asset to wikipedia, but you need to be familiar with the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|administrators' reading list]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|how-to guide]], and [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|guide to requests for adminship]] before you can become an admin.  Do some reading and get yourself nominated again in a few months.  --
'''Oppose''' I am really sorry, and please feel free to answer this comment. How can you possibly allow yourself to be nominated for admin without knowing what the job entails, and indeed how can you have been here for so long without knowing this? I cannot possibly support an applicant who does not know what he is going to do with the tools. --<font color="Red">
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]].
'''Oppose'''. You don't seem to have the right view of adminship. Admins are, as the saying goes, "regular wikipedians witha mop and bucket". There are no powers, there is no rank. There is more responsibilities, and, per your answer to Q1, you are not ready for them.
'''Oppose''' If you don't know what admins do, how can we know what you'll do?  Great mainspace work, keep that up! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' due to answer to question 1.  Also, it seems a little weird that Oldwindybear nominated you soon after you nominated him.  '''
'''Oppose''' per Q1 answer, and candidate's reply to A. Bradbury. Role-model though he is, your George Washington analogy was fairly awful. You are not treading virgin territory here; 1,275 admins have gone before you, and will coexist with you. There are precedents established for admin behavior, and you should have a greater grasp of them than you do. Defiantly arguing the novelty of the task doesn't help your cause.
'''Oppose''' Per answer to number 1.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I have to do this. Your answer to Q1 is not satisfactory - find some admin tasks, get involved in the non-admin side of things, and then decide what you want to do. If you can name to me 3 admin tasks you have participated in, and want to help in, I will consider changing this vote. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Oppose''' at this time, answer to Q1, regarding admin powers, give it some time, more precisely decide what you actually need the adminship for and then come back and you'll have my support.
'''Weak Oppose''' It seems like you know that the tools exist, but...you don't know ''how'' and ''when'' to use the tools? Then ability is not the problem; judgment (or lack of) is. There is something called [[observational learning]], you know. Gaining adminship tools is like learning to drive a car: you know the rules, you know the basics, you're given the car (figuratively), you have 1,275 driving instructors helping you lead the way, and off you go. You might hit a snag or two, get a berating from another user, have some middle fingers going your way every so often, etc., but that's part of the learning process. (Ok, bad analogy, but you do sort of learn how to drive a car by watching your parents) Your hesitant answer to question #1 makes me kind of afraid of what you're going to do with the tools once they're given to you. Also, your...eh...inability to think of such an obvious answer makes me afraid of how you're going to deal with conflicts that require split-second decisions and how you're going to make potentially controversial decisions (in XfD's for instance). Oh, and your somewhat combative attitude above isn't really helping matters. Just my perception. —'''
'''Oppose''' Quite shocked to see the answer for Q1.
'''Oppose''', sorry but your answer to Q1 causes me to doubt that you really know what adminship is all about. I'm not saying you need to be 100% ready and should know the ins and outs to the letter--very few running RfA possibly can--but at least ''some'' grasp of what it entails would be nice. As other people said, get involved in some administration tasks (xFD, DRV, etc), and you'll get a better feel for what it involves. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Neutral''' - That [[User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] nominated is a big plus. Your long time here and obvious dedication is a big plus. Your article writing, maintenance and vandal fighting is a big plus. Your [[WP:AFD]] and image work is a big plus. Your spelling is a non issue. Your fairly poor edit summary use is a minor niggle. Your answer to Q1 is a major negative and your repeated references to ''power'' and ''promotion'' push me neutral at this time, as I see no evidence of knowledge about what adminship really means and why you need the buttons. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Your answer to question one shows that you have no clear idea about the uses to which you would choose to put the admin tools.  This makes me wonder what the motivation is for this RfA.  Until you offer a clear explanation as to  your intentions as an admin then I can only choose to be non-committal at this time. I would suggest that you read [[:Wikipedia:Administrators]] and also dedicate some of your editing time to new page/recent change patrolling; vandal reversion and the associated userpage warnings and also participation in the policy space, such as XfD discussions and Talk pages such as the RfA page and Admins noticeboard.  This should give you an idea regarding the desire for and usefulness of the tools in your Wiki career.  There are many other options available to you to practice being an admin, my suggestions are only the tip of the iceberg.
'''Neutral''' - There certainly are a decent number of pluses. However there are also some things that make me concerned. In your favor, you have been with wikipedia for quite a bit of time. Second, you have done a goodly share of actual encyclopedia contributing, unlike many candidates. Third you were actually nommed by someone; the fact that this is not a self nom shows that you are certainly trusted by some users. On the other hand the fact that you don't quite understand what a admin does shows some lack of real understanding of wikipedia's functionings. I know that that is only one real negative, but it is a big one. So for now, I'm going to have to !vote, neutral. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Neutral''' - both the s and o sections contain good points. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' Sorry you look like a good user but every one has a lot of good points try again some time in the future when you done some reading. --'''
'''Neutral''' This is an editor whose heart is, without a doubt, in the right place. I think that he is going to make an extraordinary admin...but not quite yet. He seems to have a very vague idea of what he intends to do as an admin, or even what admins do at all. If he comes back well informed a month from now, I will have no problem with supporting.
'''Netural''' I think it's obvious that your original answer to Q1 threw a lot of people for a loop: although you were honest (which is always a good thing), it's not what people expect to read. (Imagine that you were conducting a job interview, you ask the interviewee "So why do you want this job", & that person responds "I'm not entirely sure.") While I see no reason ''not'' to trust you with the Admin bit, I suggest that you withdraw your nomination, spend a few weeks learning just what the job involves, then try again. I do not consider withdrawing a nomination for that reason something to hold against a person in a future request; if anything, it shows a maturity by admitting one needs to learn a little more -- then doing so. It also shows that you are more interested in preserving a productive atmosphere at Wikipedia than the Admin bit -- which I believe all Admins should put first. I'd be willing to help you with understanding the job, if you were to do that, since I do have some experience with it & experience seems to be the only important objection anyone has raised. --
'''Support''' I supported in the RfA a few days ago, and I think TomStar's handling of the RfA's issues give even more reason to support.
'''Support''' This candidate can be trusted in using the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Won't abuse the tools, writing a number of FAs show dedication to the project, and the way he handled the edit war in his first RFA is pretty good and it wasn't his fault. We do need more article writing and specialist admins. I do agree with Xoloz above that it is too soon. Thanks
'''Strong Support''' - user shows ample understanding of the tools, shows a need for them, and show impeccable character.  Can't ask for more. --
'''Support''' - woah, last time it was a close-run thing for me, but this time it is even more difficult to decide! My rationale for supporting last time was that 'adminship is no big deal' and 'Tom won't abuse the tools.' Whilst last time I had some concerns, this time I am very worried by the speed of the refiling - impatient if anything. Meanwhile, your response to question 1 does not seem to be much more specific - 'when and where it is needed' doesn't show any more knowledge of policy or the uses of the admin buttons. '''However''', my comment at the previous discussion that this user will not abuse the tools still stands. I was quite impressed by your handling of your last RfA, and feel that putting the project first was a very sensible plan, in my opinion more than balancing the bad judgment displayed by refiling so fast. As I said last time, my talk page is always open if you want any advice, and (just about) I feel that you ought to be given the tools. <small>(And if this sounds like an oppose, that's because it very nearly was!)</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Strong Support''' This user has lots of relevant experience. There are some brilliant mainspace contributions and wikipedia space contributions. This user could've been an admin months ago. (B.T.W Don't neglect the edit summary!) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Strong Support''' - the mess last time wasn't his fault, it was due to a misapprehension over the whole question of him and oldwindybear nominating each other (which wasn't, actually, the case). He should have been an admin last time round; the short period between the noms is a pretty pointless reason to oppose, IMO.
'''Strong Support''' as nom. I would have gotten here sooner, but I was away from my computer all day.
'''Strong Support'''. I admire the integrity and character the user showed in the way he ended his previous RfA. If I had any doubts about supporting him last time, they are definitely gone now.
'''Support''' - no reason to believe this user would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' - I've run into TomStar81 on occasion and have seen mainly good stuff. --
'''Support'''.  Has done some good work as an editor and is committed to the project which is what we should want in an admin.
'''Support'''. I have run into him, and he seems like good folk.
'''Support''' At the end of the day the extra buttons come down to just one thing. Trust. We can argue all day along about editcounts, writing articles, project space, name space, civility, block logs, ammount of time between RFA's, use of the tools, edit summary use etc. etc. etc. '''At a fundamental level the question for me is, do I trust this user not to abuse the tools'''. And the answer is '''yes'''. I think you shouldn't have accepted nomination so quickly, because inevitably it would attract opposes as below. When you withdrew your last RFA I commented at your talk page that it was an admin quality action. I still believe it was. I therefore offer my support. Best.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support''', and cancelling out one of the more ridiculous pile-on opposes (take a pick). —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''' - unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Moral support''' à la AldeBaer. Candidate exhibits integrity, which I expect he will (one day) exhibit as an admin.
'''Support'''. I don't have any concerns about this user abusing the tools, and I'm sure they will find numerous ways to benefit the entire project. I think the situation that developed around your previous nomination was regrettable, and I find it unfortunate that events essentially beyond your control are having such a powerful effect on ''this'' nomination.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great prolific contributor who can be trusted with the tools. It's unfortunate that he had to withdraw from his previous RfA; if this were a ''self-nom'' 5 days after a previous RfA I'd be a little suspicious, but the fact that someone else offered to nominate him again after that unfortunate situation does not seem in bad faith to me. '''<font color="#FFA52B">K</font><font color="#C31562">
'''Support'''. A great editor and his handling of the unsuccessful RFA just highlights him being ready for a mop.
'''Support'''.  It seems churlish to punish Tom for someone else's hamfisted error of judgement.  Very much improved from when he got really angry about Command & Conquer how to guides being deleted.  I don't think he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per the reasons I stated in the last RFA.  Tom's an excellent, mature editor and I have no doubt that he'll use the tools properly.
'''Weak oppose''' Doesn't show that he will use the tools/knows what an admin does. You don't need to be an admin to help a WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose''' Last RfA was five days ago; I opposed then, feeling user didn't grasp what adminship entails.  This "rapid-fire" RfAing shows impatience, over-eagerness for the tools, and bad judgment.  Now I am more firmly convinced that more time most elapse before candidate can be trusted with the tools (I'm talking about a matter of several months, by the way, not less than a week.)
As mentioned by others, you dont need admin tools to help put with a WikiProject, plus your previous RfA ended '''5 days ago''' this is way too soon even though you withdrew it, if you weren't ready then then what makes you think you're ready five days later?
'''Oppose''' really for same reason of the last RFA, still don't see the need
'''Strong Oppose''' Nothing seems to have changed since the last RfA (only days ago) which was opposed for good reason. The refiling of a failing RfA after a few days and packaging doing so only to "benefit wikipedia" and "save others" is shifty. The constant reminders of the self made wiki-martyr bit and the combative responses to Xoloz leaves a  poor taste in my mouth as well.
'''Oppose''' Being an administrator demands attention to detail. I observe numerous spelling errors in both this RfA and your previous filing. Some will say that is petty but I think that we must be accurate and precise in our writing skills. One or two errors is understandable but I see too many in your writings. I also must agree with Xoloz. Your decision to withdraw was perhaps noble but you must now live with it.
'''Oppose''' Argh, I am seeing a sea of red in edit summary usage. I suspect that he's trying to use "withdrew last RfA" to win more supporting votes for his "nobility". Moreover, starting the 2nd RfA (this one) 5 days after the 1st one indicates that you don't have a clear mind.
I hate to oppose, mainly because of what was said in the nomination.  However, I just can't support considering the Q1 answer, where no admin tasks are cited.  I'm very sorry, but to support would be a bit unfair to other candidates I've opposed for that reason.  Therefore, I must.  Sorry. [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and the arrogant and aggressive responses to those taking time out to comment on this RfA.
'''Oppose''' Five days is too short of a time between RFAs.  Furthermore, the answer to question 1 is far from satisfactory. <span class="comment plainlinks">(<span class="autocomment">[{{fullurl:User talk:O|action=edit&section=new}} →]O -</span>
'''Weak oppose'''.  I for one am confused as to why the candidate would withdraw from one RfA with seemingly noble intentions of averting problems only to throw his hat back in to the ring 5 days later.  As others have stated the rapid renomination taints the nature of the previous withdrawal.  Any disservice to the project that was averted by the previous closure only seems likely to resurface within such a short period of time.  This rather strange and conflicting behavior leaves me unable to support.
'''Oppose''' Need some more practice, doesn't have the skills it takes an admin to become admin.
'''Weak oppose''' Well, I'm afraid I find myself in disagreement with Walton on this one. Personally, what I look above all in a candidate for adminship is familiarity with our procedures and sound judgement. I can recall multiple RfAs and RfBs where timing was an issue and, in more than a few cases, the determining factor. I believe that it should have been obvious to the candidate that, just like in those cases, timing would be an issue here as well. Withdrawing may have been noble and possibly even the right call but   the fact of the matter is that refiling a RfA a mere five days after the previous one is highly unusual and, at least to me, is something that indicates at the very least a momentary lapse of judgement. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' A bit too soon after earlier RfA.
'''Oppose without prejudice''' (including about the quick re-nomination). TomStar not only does not demonstrate a clear understanding of admin roles and responsibilities, and indicates that he's only just now been reading up on what is entailed, he has made it clear that he will use the tools mostly or entirely in service to a particular WikiProject.  Having "pet super-users" for projects is not what adminship is for.  And I can sympathize with project loyalty; I effectively "run" (as the most active participant) two WikiProjects myself, and am actively involved in over a dozen of them. I'd be happy to support in a future RfA if there's clear evidence of having done the homework, being more active in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, including XfD, and especially a broadening of Wikipedian priorities. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Neutral'''. I supported this editor's earlier RfA as a long-term editor with commitment to encyclopedia building; however, I am concerned that the timing of the current application is ill judged given the concerns expressed by others over the earlier RfA.
'''Neutral''' I also supported the earlier RfA, and although I understand the desire to see 'what would have happened', it would have been better to wait it out, improve based on previous RfA comments, and come back stronger. I echo the concerns of Espresso Addict above, but also want to note that I understand why you withdrew your previous RfA in the first place. You're a valuable contributor here and I hope you keep on with the dedication you've displayed.
'''Neutral''' If the candidate had waited more than a few days, this would be a Support vote - the candidate seems qualified. However, I fear that the user has replaced a commendable act in withdrawing to prevent an edit war, to breaking the spirit of that withdrawal by nominating so soon after, and not letting the debris settle. This raises considerable questions of judgment for me, although in saying such, I recognise this is not a self-nom. If the user came back in a few months, provided his hitherto good conduct and positive contributions continue, I would not hesitate to support.
'''Support''' - I support for the reasons that I mentioned when nominating Tony.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions, good history. <small>
'''Support''' Appreciate the detailed and honest answers to questions, good experience over a broad range of issues.
'''Strong Support''' This editor may actually be overqualified. -- <span style="font-family:Old English Text MT; font-size:15px">
'''Support''' per above. Concur he probably is overqualified.
'''Weak support''' Not all that weak, but I was somewhat concerned about your understanding of [[WP:FU]].  Regardless, you worked well with all the editors (not just myself) at the FAC, and it'd be silly for me to even go neutral given your work with the project.  I see no issues with your having the tools.
''' Strong Support''' - He is actually overqualified and he should get the mop..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' An examination of his contributions reveals that Tony is an exceptionally qualified editor who has a sound knowledge of Wikipedia policy. --
A good candidate for the mop, from what I've seen. '''
'''Support''' lots of writing experience, very courteous & knowledgeable when I've seen him.
'''Support'''.  He's shown good leadership getting [[WP:CHICOTW]] back and running.  I've been helping out with things there, and I'm not even a member of the project.  I don't see any problem with adminship, since he knows how to work with the community.  --
'''Support''' I've seen Tony a few times on AFD (I think), and I'm very impressed by the nomination statement.  This is as close to a no-brainer endorsement as I can think of.  Good luck.

It is my great pleasure to '''support''' The Tiger's nomination.  I have worked with him on his Chicago's Collaboration of the Week a couple of times - and he treats my ''Aussie'' attention to his group's with same utmost courtesy he treats his fellow city dwellers.  Indeed at times I think he may be single handedly creating all of the articles related to that city. His edit count in terms of its roundness of contribution is excellent, he understands images, templates, wikispace etc.  Good luck is all I can add.--
'''Weak Support''' - I didn't get what El_C's joke was about either, but reporting it to ANI was an extreme overreaction. I also don't think the answer to Q5 was entirely satisfactory; not all project leaders are necessarily admins, and the two jobs are rather different. However, in light of the candidate's frequent XfD participation and high editcount, this isn't a good enough reason to oppose. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support'''.  This RFA will be a learning experience in terms of how to deal with established editors collegially, and I this seems to be a one-time incident anyway.  Nominee seems familiar enough with the current state of AFD to help with it. The comments made by nominee at this RFA seem forthright enough for me.
'''Support''' I don't think the vandal argument is a great enough concern to oppose. After observing the other contribs of this user, I will support.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, who provides rational arguments of AfD.--
'''Support''', I personally don't have any problems with him becoming an admin.--
'''Support,''' just tone it down a bit. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
Alright, this may appear a bit weird, but in light of the fact that [[User_talk:El_C#joke|El C did not provide a sufficent explanation for his practical joke and why he did it on this RfA]], I'm now changing back to support. —'''
'''Weak support'''- I support as you are a good editor, but the reasons of oppose does not give me a strong reason to support you.
While there is no formal endorsement from WikiProject Chicago, I am a member of that WikiProject and have had ample opportunity to observe Tony's interactions with the rest of that project there.  I am convinced that if we actually held a formal discussion on the matter, we'd endorse him, and so I consider him endorsed.  He otherwise seems quite suitable as a candidate, and I therefore do support his candidacy.
'''Strong support''' - Tony is one of the hardest workers I've ever met on Wikipedia. He more or less singlehandedly revived the CHICOTW project (which is currently thriving and churning out GAs on a regular basis), he always has a friendly word and has been MORE than communicative in handling that project, he's made a great deal of mainspace edits in general, and is really an overall responsible and decent guy. I can't think of anyone who deserves this more. As for this El C "joke," I think it's in pretty poor taste. The timing and placement of this "joke" was unfair and reflects poor judgement, and it's in poor taste to then oppose someone's adminship based on the fact that someone momentarily tricked them, ignoring recognizing the huge amount of hard work they've put into the project. I have yet to meet an admin who is perfect.
'''Support'''. I opposed his TFA proposals, but was impressed with the effort he put into them, and how civilly he took their being shot down. --
'''Support'''The user seems like he would make a good admin.
'''Support''' The key characteristic of a manager (aka admin) is judgement, and Tony has that whether it's AfD determination or applying rules.
'''Support.''' From the little I have seen of this editor, I know that he is a good editor, loyal to the Chicago WikiProject, and has made good policy change suggestions in the past (TFA). On another note, I would urge him to keep going with that, because that is definitely an important think to accomplish, because there ''are'' fundamental problems with the current system. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' Clarified answer to Q5 and the Q5 answers seem tempered when view along with answers to Q1; He does give detailed thought to his actions and I think he will do the right thing when it comes down to it. --
'''Support''' per long history of excellent contributions. He has a good understanding of the various deletion discussion areas, and would make an excellent admin. Recommend taking it slowly at first, though. ···
Sorry, but if you thought that my joke directly below was vandalism, the real vandals will do circles around you. At this point, I'm inclined to think that you need more experience with interpersonal communications. Why did you not simply drop me a note? I'm really quite surprised.
'''Oppose'''. His [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal|proposals]] to change the process for Today's Featured Article show some fundamental deficiencies in regards to decision making. TFA is one of the few things that seems to work really well on Wikipedia. His proposal, frankly, is terrible. This causes me to believe that his admin decisions would be of similar quality. ---
Calling another editor a vandal on ANI without first discussing on their talkpage sets a bad precedent per [[User:El C|El_C]]
Per Naconkantari, plus the answer to Q4. You know why jaywalking is against the law? It's not just some archaic thing that nobody's bothered to retract, it is against the law because it is dangerous. Similarly, speedy deleting non-notable articles is against the rules no matter how you spin them, yet a lot of admins do it. That doesn't mean you can, because when it is challenged, you look like a complete idiot using your powers against policy. Especially when the decision in the AfD is keep, meaning you didn't even get the right ''result''. -
As above -- <b>
I'm sorry but no, the answer to question 5 just feels too wrong to me. Admins aren't leaders and have no more authority than any other editor, stating the opposite in your own rfa is not very comforting. If really the biggest inconvenience for not being an admin is that you don't get some 'official' recognition, then you really shouldn't be an admin. -
'''Oppose''', changed from neutral, per Bobet, answer to question 5 is very wrong. '''''
'''Strong oppose'''. Well I thought I'd be supporting this one but his behavior over the [[User:El C|El C]] joke has been astonishing. A post at <s>[[WP:ANI]]</s> [[WP:AN]] about a highly experienced contributor without contacting him first? Even worse, the explanation above said he only did so because the wording of {{tl|uw-vandalism2}} didn't fit... So (1) we don't use templates to communicate with established editors and (2) if a standard form message doesn't say what you want it to say- write your own message! Communication skills are vital to being a good admin- bad time to demonstrate a lack of them to be honest... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' as per evidence brought up by Majorly and communication issues described elsewhere.
'''Oppose''' I came here to support; however, one should not accuse an established contributor of vandalism on <s>ANI</s> (sorry, that AN, modified [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AXoloz&diff=123036558&oldid=123034123 per request]) before talking it over at his talk page.  This problem, combined with a poor answer to Question 4, persuades me that this just isn't the time.  Sorry.
I'm sorry, but I can't support someone who appears to want the tools (that's all it is, tools) in order to have power and authority. Your statements ''now that my user page is starting to embody the characteristics of a wikipedia leader''; ''for the good of the encyclopedia to vest persons with authority''; ''more comforting for me to be able to say “I am an administrator. Is there something I can do to help you?”''; and ''as an admin people are probably more likely to help me'' are all ''very'' worrying. &nbsp;<small>'''
'''Regretful oppose'''. I originally came to support as well, but the issues provided above leave me in serious doubt. Administrators aren't an "upper authority", nor community trust reflects leadership. I strongly advice you to to rethink your approach to this — remember, "janitor" is the key word.
'''Oppose''' per WJBscribe and the user's actions surrounding this RfA.  He makes a big deal about the difference between AN and ANI and that it's better that he did it at AN and not ANI.  But when it comes down to it, he still called the user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=122828934 a vandal].  In addition, the fact he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TonyTheTiger2&diff=123032751&oldid=123031255 edited other people's comments] on this AfD shows a complete disregard of the guidelines of [[WP:TALK]].
'''Oppose'''. Didn't much like the interaction with [[User:El C|El_C]]. This was a case on which assumption of good faith was beyond obvious. --
'''Oppose'''. Changed from neutral, based mainly on the first general comment. I'm still convinced that Tony is a good editor but I don't think he's ready for adminship yet. Frankly, I still don't really understand the explanation or how the whole template business figured into the decision making process (after all, templates are just tools - they're supposed to facilitate communication, not hinder it). That pretty much turned a (in the great scheme of things) rather insignificant error in judgement into a dealbreaker for me. Sorry. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Like Xoloz, I was also planning on making a hearty endorsement of the candidate, but could not quite reconcile Tony's answer to question five with my own notions of what an administrator's mindset should be.  With some further clarification, as I may have read the question wrong, I'd be more than willing to revisit my original plans of supporting this request, as things can often get misconstrued in such a forum where direct communication can be quite difficult at times. [[User talk:Gaillimh|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''gaillimh'''</span></font>]]
'''sorry no I oppose''' not ready as yet.
'''Oppose''' per answers to Question 4 and Question 5. I have grave concerns that this user still doesn't understand much about Wikipedia, it's policies and especially, the role of administrators. I fully expected to Support this nomination too but I regretfully have to Oppose. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose''' per answers to q4 and q5, and per poor communication skills during this RfA itself. Calling El C a vandal in a centralised discussion without asking the user what was going on first, seems to show that Tony is not yet ready for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' multiple concerns, well-aired above. --
'''Oppose'''. Administrators have a lot of influence over policy, and the many incarnations of his TFA idea have shown his apparent intent to take policy in the wrong direction.
'''Oppose''' Excellent contributor to WikiProjectChicago, but poor response to question 5.  Has demonstrated tendencies toward "ownership" rather than leadership.  In the initial efforts of providing article ratings, what contributor wants to find a talkpage message stating: ''You are being too liberal with your ratings. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. We want to be as strict as they are. In short, less than 1 in 1000 article should be rated as top. I believe that the 5 I have chosen are our top 5. I am open for debate, however. We probably should delete a top for everyone we add until we have 6000 articles tagged in our project. Shedd is either Mid or High, not top.''  but whatever, just keep contributing.
'''Regretful oppose''', still has done a lot of good work, but I just can't stomach the answer to 5. If people follow your lead, it should be because you've shown you know what you're doing, not because you're an admin.
'''Oppose''' for the second worst use of fair use images in usersapce I've ever seen. I just removed them, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TonyTheTiger/altimages&oldid=123381374]. This was an active page edited by TonyTheTiger from November to February with the intent of displaying the images and intent to leave the page displayed. I expect admins to understand this simple rule of the complex [[WP:FUC|fair use criteria]].
'''Oppose'''  There's not much point in expressing my opinion here as far as how the RfA is leaning, so I'm posting this just to make something perfectly clear: administrators are janitors.  I know that it has been said before in the opposition, but I would like to clarify for Tony's sake in just why the answers to questions four and five are just wrong in the spirit of everything admin.  Administrators are the people in the office cleaning up before everyone gets to work, while they work, and after they go home.  If it is agreed by the office that a particular painting is unfit, it is the lowly janitor that trudges in in overalls, takes it off the wall, and hauls it to the trash while everyone else keeps working.  An administrator is not the office boss, and adminship is to be no big deal because of that.  Accepting a nomination is the voluntary submission to undertake extra work, not to delegate that work out or to add an air of authority.  I have served in voluntary, elected positions of authority in life and it is in no way like being an administrator on Wikipedia.  I believe that Tony is in good faith in his answer to question five, that he believes he has respect and trust in the community and makes a good leader.  However, this is not what the mop and keys entails.  It is absolute grunt work.  If you were to try spending three hours clearing out an image deletion backlog of only 120 images, properly removing redlinks and researching source claims for fair use or free use, it is my belief that you will not use the bit much at all based on how you present yourself.  I may support in the future, should the user humble down, but I don't want extra hands that think being an administrator is a mark of authority aside from a gesture of trust and good faith.
'''Oppose''' very prolific but too arrogant.
'''Strong Oppose''' Answer to Q5 is about as bad as it gets. Definitely not the kind of attitude and motivations I'm looking for in an admin. (switched to strong oppose on that Martin Brodeur FAC bit)
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q5. --
'''Oppose'''.  First off, as has been stated above several times, candidate's answer to Question 5 is disconcerting, and hints at wanting the admin position for the sake of having it.  But more importantly (at least personally), the user indicates an unwillingness to follow standard Wiki procedure.  See user's opposition to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Brodeur]], where he objects to the article because of a lack of box score citations for every game referenced in the article, and claims that he will object to any and all sports FAC that do not follow his view of references.  I do not feel that this user exhibits the qualities necessary for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per the answer to Question 5, per the slight [[WP:OWN|ownership]] problems and per the issues with the user's [[WP:AFD|AFD]] responses, as pointed out by Leebo. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''.  Q5 shows poor instincts, I think.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Dppose''', as per the answers to Q4 and Q5, both of which i find worrying in different ways. Q4 suggests a willingness to ignor established policy and process far to easily. Q5 seems to indicate a desire for adminship as a badge of recognition, although the desire to help others is laudable.
'''Oppose''' as per Amarkov and Bobet. Answers to Question 4 and Question 5 concern me. While the user may have experience I think the user needs to have an understanding of the project. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q5
'''Neutral''' I've seen this user around Wikipedia, and I admire the work he has done as part of the Chicago Wikiproject. However, I've always had a feeling that Tony still needed to learn and gain experience in the dealings that would require administrative tools. Tony has stated he wanted to get active with the Main Page, but I have seen some of the requests he made at DYK (and one for ITN), and I get the impression that Tony is not too familiar with policy and such. The ITN item he requested was too US-centric (not really necessary too) and would have been shot down by almost any admin. As for DYK, diffs like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=118048112 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=111891015 this] are a bit worrisome, since if one takes a look at the DYK rules, neither of the two articles would qualify. Also, in regards to this RfA, Tony went to [[WP:AN]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=122828934] and questioned El C's edits, thinking it was vandalism. A bit of research, and possibly questioning the user on his talk page could easily resolve the matter. I feel that these sort of little things give the impression of a lack of experience. '''

<s>'''Support'''. Shows proficiency in both sides of the Wikipedia world--the maintenance and the editing/writing spheres.--[[User:Xnuala|Xnuala]] ([[User talk:Xnuala|talk]]) 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''neutral''' based on the El_C situation.--
Usually, editors at the succesful RfA stage are a bit more aware of their surroundings, the reaction to the dumb El C joke reminds me of a four syllable admin I've had to clean up after whos "bull in a china shop" routine (though well intentioned) creates lots of work for others.  Projecting this forward, I could see this candidate ending up in the same place. -
'''Neutral''' This incident makes me think that there should be a sense of humor requirement or related question in RfA.  Maybe an example of a humorous exchange you've had or something, I don't know.  While some might not have got the joke, it was clearly a joke.  We give adminships to personalities not usernames (as far as I know).
'''Neutral''' I don't think much of El C's silly joke and Tony's green response, but A5 bothers me and Leebo's AfD diffs don't inspire confidence.--
'''Neutral''' with moral support.  I'm not particularly impressed with A1 or A4, but I ''am'' impressed with Tony's dedication to the project, I just question why he wants the tools.  I hope he does get involved heavily with the featured article process, it's a valuable thing and helping out Raul is good, but adminship isn't required for it.
'''Neutral''' leaning toward support.  Excellent contributions to Wikipedia as a whole and his dedication to the [[WP:CHICOTW]] prove he is a dedicated editor, but some of his answers and userpage make him look too eager for admin status.  Combined with some of the concerns expressed above keeps me from outright support however.
'''Neutral''' dedicated editor but your actions raise too many concerns for me to support you.--
'''Neutral''' dedicated; but the views of those opposing his adminship suggest that that is not enough...
'''Neutral''' - I hate to oppose anyone who is doing their best, but I still have a few concerns about this user.  However, I'll keep an eye out for him in future and see if he's addressing the perceived problems raised by his opposers, so that I can consider support at a later date.
'''Neutral''' - Darn! I came here to support but some of the answers to the questions above disquieted me a little. Tony is an excellent and courteous editor but some of the answers bother me, esp. around adminship and its status in the community -
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a good/great editor with much knowledge and very capable.  But he still needs to gather further experience and his answers were a bit disheartening.

Sorry, I'm balanced for now. Think that Tony needs to understand about sysophood not being a trophy or a source of power.--
'''neutral''' due mainly to Q5 response. I see growth arising from the various conflicts, but perhaps a little more time would help.
'''Support''' - Seems to be an excellent editor. Has a lot of contributions to GA, FA, and DYK. I see this editor often on Afds, and I can trust him that he won't abuse the mop. --
'''Support''' This user has good judgement.
'''Support''' - Seems like a consistent editor. Lots of mainspace edits. A decent amount of user talk. Doesn't neglects edit summaries which some careless editors do. Overall, candidate is a very active editor who will benefit wikipedia with the mop. -
'''Support''' - Hirohisat just about covered it. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - Good work as director of the Chicago project, and clearly an experienced editor with contribs in a variety of fields. Btw, I don't see what's wrong with calling yourself "director" - lots of WikiProjects have a "co-ordinator", and "director" seems an appropriate title for the ''de facto'' leader of a large project.
'''Support''', no reason for him not to be an admin.
'''Support, changed from neutral.''' see below. Politics rule said it best: "24,000 edits is way to many to not be an admin".
'''Support''', minor issues, but overall deserving. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' Although the signature is a bit long.
'''Support''' A very active editor with lot's of edits (good mainspace and projectspace, as well as several GAs and FAs). Seems experienced enough for adminship. <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' I supported in the previous RfA and I think there is even more cause for support now that the main concerns of the opposers are four months ago.
'''Strong support''' '''
Strong support. '''
'''Support''' Pretty hefty list of GA's, FA's, and the like there, and he sounds like a pretty good candidate to me.
'''Support''', the FA and GA lists were just startling.
'''Support''' An excellent editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' While the editor may have been a bit quick with the Afds and did not thoroughly check if the schools were notable, I think that this user has an adequate understanding of policy and the afd was a mistake from which he has learned from. The most important thing is that he would not misuse the tools and is trustworthy. Adminship is not a big deal. --
'''Support''', nothing particularly moves me to think he would not be capable enough.  Oakshade's opposal, in particular, seems ungracious ("oppose because he dared to nominate a school for deletion and then had the temerity to politely and civilly withdraw his nomination"). Seems like he could be trusted with the tools.  I want to work in some kind of "He's G-R-R-R-R-REAT!" pun here, but don't have the strength.
'''Support''' - this user has a wealth of experience, and seems to know what he is doing. Good candidate. ;-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' Although the opposers bring up some points I don't feel any of them are too big to be overcome. I have no big issue with the "director" thing (I'm a company director off wiki so heck!) as the output from [[WP:CHICAGO|the project]] has resulted in excellent work. I also see a user who is prepared ot change their mind and discuss things, which are prime admin traits. 24000 or 2400 edits is academic - I just see evidence from the contributions of a commited editor who I trust to know policy and apply the tools carefully. Best Wishes.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I don't believe he's likely to misuse admin tools.
'''Support''' - Tony's a responsible guy who understands the purpose of the project, and works productively to improve it. I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Concerns about how to describe his position within the Chicago wikiproject seem overblown.
'''Support''' per many ideas above. 24 thousand edits, work on AfD, project "director", learned lessons from past failed RFAs, are all reasons to give him the mop.
'''Support''' - oppose votes aren't convincing. I'm not sold on the idea that if anybody suggests the RfA or AfD process is analagous to a vote s/he must be terrible editor and won't be a competent admin. Also, his nominations of articles that appeared to lack notability don't, in my humble opinion, represent meaningful grounds to believe that he wouldn't use the admin tools responsibly.
'''Support'''. The candidate's questionable use of the term ''director'' doesn't negate his strong contributions, teamwork and skills.
'''Strong support''' fine user; there is nothing to suggest that TonyTheTiger will be abusive.
'''Support''' I'm a little worried about the ownership concerns as mentioned in the oppose votes, but I support per the fantastic work the nom has done at WikiProject Chicago, and the project in general.
No reason to believe that he would abuse the tools. <b>
Changing to '''Support'''. While I've concerns (outlined here and on my talk page) about the whole "director" thing, I don't think it's enough not to support as I think you're replied to the insanely heavy barrage of questions very well. I don't get the "He wants to be an admin" opposes at all, either - what would he be doing submitting an RfA if he didn't?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
I think your understanding of role of administrators has improved since the previous rfa, and I think the possibility for misuse of the tools is low. Nevertheless, concerns remain, so please be open to suggestions for improvement if this request for adminship succeeds.
'''Support''' Tony is well intentioned and I trust that he would be sufficiently cautious not to create a big mess as an admin. I'm hesitant, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and supporting. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' I don't like Wikiprojects tagging talk pages and I agree with the removal of that one in question. But I have no reason to believe that he would abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Good editor, don't see him as potentially abusing the tools. --
'''Support''' Why is there no edit tab at the top of this section?
'''Support''' Seems to be a very active user in the Wikipedia community. Has a lot of experience and sounds to me like he knows exactly what he wants to do as an admin. <font color="black">'''''Maverick'''''</font> <font color="purple">'''''Leonhart'''''</font> (
'''Support''' Strong editor and well ready.
'''Support''' - high time this editor got the bit. Reasons for opposing amount to IDONTLIKEHIM - mostly that he participates in actually writing the encyclopedia. I truly doubt this editor will try to own any pages, and use his bit as a baseball bat.
'''Support''' Very experienced user and knows a lot abouut Wikipedia. He has 25,000 edits which I find to be very impresive. Good luck! --
'''Strong support''' I've disagreed quite strongly with Tony about Chicago's use of a [[WP:ASR]] template in the article space.  But he's dealt with me politely and in good faith.  What's more important is the stunningly high quality of Tony's work.  Military History and the Featured Article projects both have directors—while in general, I agree, I'm not a fan of the titles—it's very obvious that they shouldn't be universally banned, and Tony's opinion on the matter doesn't represent any sort of failure to understand Wikipedia. --
'''Strong oppose''', for several reasons. 1.) Edit count alone is never a good reason to support. Instead of just checking the candidate's edit count, participants in RfA discussions should evaluate the quality of individual edits. 2.) I don't trust people who fancy themselves "directors" of a WikiProject. Projects are groups that organize themselves in order to focus on improving articles within a specific topic. They should not have "directors" or "leaders", as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'm sure many people have helped the project just as much as you have. 3.) <s>From your answer to question 1, I can see that you believe adminship = power, as you mention that you want administrator rights in order to "win" discussions just because you have more "power". This is certainly not what adminship is for.</s> 4.) Also in question one, you say you wish to participate at AIV, yet I don't see much active participation in vandal-fighting or reports to the noticeboard. Also, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, you don't need admin rights to participate in [[WP:PR]]. 5.) AFD is not a vote. If you believe this, then you certainly can't be trusted with the ability to close them. I'm sorry, but you're not ready for adminship. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Weak Oppose''' per Boricuaeddie. -
'''Oppose''' I agree with Boricuaeddie in a few points. Firstly, AfD is not a vote in any way. It's much easier and better to say discussion and comments. I'm also quite opposed with a users who appoints themself a "director" &mdash; we're not a bureaucracy. Also, I've noticed him in disputes, including one that leaked over a bit on the [[WT:HOCKEY|WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page]]. The above just makes me not trust the candidate with the tools. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Oppose''': the candidate's comments leave me generally uncomfortable and unsure about their understanding of the sysop's role. A good contributor, for sure, but I'm not convinced the candidate will make a good admin.--
'''Oppose''':  The nom is engaged in an [[User_talk:RGTraynor#Gilbert_Perreault|edit conflict]] with me at the present time, but the basis for our disagreement isn't the reason I oppose.  Unfortunately, I've gotten a strong whiff of [[WP:OWN]] from his comments on my talk page, all the more jarring when this is an article on which his first edits have been within the last few months.    I don't foresee him being any less proprietary over admin work and decisions.  Obviously he is a diligent and active editor, but the qualities required to rack a giant edit count or to count GA coup have little to do with the mop.
'''Oppose''': I am concerned at the nomination of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Park High School]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School]]. We don't delete for lack of sources; we tag and improve. We delete when notability cannot be established after a search for sources. Undoundtedly poor articles but reseach shows numerous sources from which the articles can be expanded. I would expect an admin candidate to do this research first. I am comcerned at how the user would close AfDs.
'''Oppose''' like CJ, the candidate's answers and comments leave me unsure of his understanding of sysop's role and exactly what he plans to use it for outside of the WikiProject which he is involved in. Am also unease over the Director issue as has already been outline by others.
'''Oppose''' - I just encountered this user as the nominator for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curie Metropolitan High School]] where the user is attempting to delete a 3,000+ student Chicago high school because it hasn't yet established WP:N, a classic case of "Let's kill it instead of improving it." So far, unsurprisingly, the votes are a unanimous keep.  Even the user/nominator changed their stance from "Delete" to "Neutral" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCurie_Metropolitan_High_School&diff=154709065&oldid=154708262] as the level headed editors explained why this article should not have been nominated.  I don't think someone who displays this mentality should be an administrator and am concerned ill-advised reasoning will be used when closing AfD debates. --
'''Oppose''' - haven't had much contact with editor since first RFA but have seen arguments and comments made at XFD over the past few months that do not necessarily apply. Also concerned at the apparent power hunger of wanting the bit, added on to "directorship" of a wikiproject (which is rather against-the-grain of the "wiki spirit"). I do not trust the user with the tools at this moment.
'''Oppose''' ack all concerns raised above, seems to be looking for some sort of award --'''

(restoring oppose after <s>deletion</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TonyTheTiger_3&diff=next&oldid=154857359 removal] by candidate) '''Unconditionally oppose'''. The dispute with me is discussed [[User:TonyTheTiger/DR_bot|here]]. Tony claims that WikiProject Chicago has the right to tag whatever it likes, despite the objections of other editors. I '''do not trust''' him as an admin; and I doubt his competence as an editor. He is provincial, as his nomination to move [[Samuel Johnson]] from primary usage shows; and his judgment at FA and GA are among the worst I've seen.
'''Oppose''' Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question, Tony, but I'm afraid my concerns were not assuaged. Many big WikiProjects thrive without elections or titles; the open nature of Wikipedia means they won't mean much anyway, and will only add bureaucracy and inhibit participation by those who may not wish to go against you. I fear that elections will only solidify ownership by making it clear to everyone who is in charge. I therefore cannot support you in your pursuit of adminship/more power.
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns about temperament and ownership issues.
'''Oppose''', essentially on the basis concerns already voiced by others. Candidate is obviously a valuable editor, but I'm afraid he would likely use admin tools too aggressively on controvertial issues. — <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">
'''Weak Oppose''' You have grown quite a bit from your last Rfa, but I am still unsure, especially in light of the other opposes and neutral editors I see here.
'''Oppose'''.  My concerns about possible [[WP:OWN]] in the Chicago project were not allayed by the lack of response to my question about situations in which the candidate would refrain from using admin tools; the lack of response hints at a possible lack of understanding of the need for recusing under some circumcstances. The comments by the candidate about elections are also worrisome. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. '''Strong oppose, rationale given below. '''I'm very troubled by the comment "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTonyTheTiger_3&diff=154857359&oldid=154856910 I must commend you for finding the only semi-valid reason to object to my candidacy from what I recall about my contributions.], which comes across as being dismissive of other people's opinions, and to be quite honest, sounds pretty arrogant to me. This, along with concerns about [[WP:OWN|article ownership]], lead me to question your understanding of consensus. You've made a lot of valuable contributions as a writer and editor, but I'm not comfortable with granting you the admin buttons at the present time. Sorry. --
Discussion above raises serious concerns. Tony appears to lack understanding of the role of Wikiprojects, the role of consensus, etc. Also, interpreting the removal of a template as an effort to "derail his candidacy" is troubling; keeping conflicts about  content from turning into personal conflicts is important, and Tony displayed a startling lack of composure in this instance.
'''Oppose''' This user's bureaucratic tendencies disturb me a lot. See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Blanking|this discussion]] for a really great example.
'''Oppose''' Respectfully, I must oppose based on the WikiProject Chicago issues raised above.
'''Oppose.'''  I was neutral last time, declining to support because I didn't see a good case made for needing the tools.  Now I must oppose per the [[WP:CHICAGO]] issues, which to me indicate an attitude that could cause real problems in an admin.  The "Does [[WP:CON]] apply to talk pages" excuse especially rubs me the wrong way.
'''Oppose.''' Way too bureaucratic. Has no understanding of what being a sysop really is.
'''Very strong oppose''' per most above.
'''Strong Oppose.'''  Everything I read here is based on statistics, titles, formula, numbers, authority, and literal interpretations.  None of these are how Wikipedia works.  I see nothing to convince me that TonyTheTiger ''gets'' the Wikipedia community.  The "Director" issue, the tagging controversy (consensus is consensus, no WP has "power" above consensus), the "leading editor" garbage, and many other issues here are simply contradictory to the way Wikipedia functions. --
'''Oppose''' (switch from neutral) Sorry Tony, I didn't want to do this, but the myriad issues raised here truly do suggest that you aren't sure how the Wikipedia community works and that you are not ready for the sysop tools. Sorry, your contributions to the project are greatly valued though and don't let it get you down.
'''Oppose''' Obvious lack of understanding regarding process and policy and has demonstrated very poor judgement in many of the instances raised above, and in his conduct during this RFA. Suggest that the candidate undertakes a full review of process and policy, and spends time demonstrating their understanding, before being nominated again. However, the lack of judgement demonstrated makes me believe that it will be a long time before this candidate is ready.
'''Oppose.''' I find some of the opposition to be less than convincing. However, on two very narrow areas I find I must oppose. First, the diff given above involving the KKK comment suggest how you function under fire and I think you lost it. There is much incivility on Wikipedia and it is incumbent on administrators to demonstrate cool and professional conduct. Second, the persistence over the Corzine tagging suggests to me that you just don't know when to walk away. There are times when you ought realize that you've lost the argument, have little or no support to prevail, and should simply move on to other work. I think until these two issues are thoroughly settled I should oppose. --
'''Oppose.''' JodyB has articulated my concerns much better than I could have.
'''Oppose''' As this is the third RfA for this editor, I am looking for signs that the individual has matured, and learned from past mistakes which prevented prior RfA's from closing successfully. While clearly a valuable editor, I do not currently believe this person has my trust as an admin. The KKK comment is particularly disturbing, because it was made after two failed RfA's, and vividly illustrates the lack of growth which would garner my support. I was also put off by the editor asking if it was OK to post this RfA on a project page in which they are involved: While it was appreciated that they asked, it seems strange for someone who has already been through two RfA's not to know this would look like blatant canvassing. Moreover, I found the desire to do this a sign that this candidate simply covets the sysop tools far too much.
'''Oppose''' While impressed with all of your contributions, I was unimpressed with your handling WikiProject Chicago issues. Your signature makes it seem like you are still pouting over the director thing.
'''Oppose''' per Jody B, especially the inability to walk away. I'm also uncomfortable with the addendum to Q6 of "Of course, I could also help with all Chicago related WP:XFD" - Tony, does this mean that you would close Chicago-related XfDs? Do you think you would be able to do this objectively? The long answer to Q2 also leaves me feeling uneasy. There is such a lot that can be done without admin tools that I now tend to be sceptical about any long and overly detailed record of contributions as an answer to Q2, sometimes to the extent of overwhelming the reponses to other questions. A short and to-the-point statement should suffice for Q2, with a link to a separate page detailing their editing contributions. My stance on the WP:CHICAGO tagging can be seen at [[User:TonyTheTiger/DR bot]]. It's an interesting issue and debate, and one that I would encourage others to contribute to. I think the problem can best be summed up as: ''"Some people think low [importance] equals almost any connection, while others think low [importance] still requires a major connection, but less importance than the "importance=mid" ones. In other words, one set of people are mentally measuring "low" as a small but measurable increase from zero, while others are measuring it as a drop in importance from mid [importance]."'' Or even recognising that the line has to be drawn somewhere and saying, "no, this article is not relevant". Getting back to this RfA, a prolific editor should not feel discouraged because the community is not supporting their bid for adminship despite them being a prolific editor. Being a prolific editor is not enough. Interaction with other editors is more important, and it is this that some editors are saying needs addressing. I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting in a future RfA unless the 'director' and 'tagging' issues were fully resolved, no matter how many more GAs and FAs were produced.
'''Oppose''' Per most of the above, especially JodyB. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per several responses above and in the neutral section below. As you note, a lot of the things you do at the Chicago WikiProject are indicative of an administrative temperament. Unfortunately, it seems that you have a tendency to fight on behalf of the project when dealing with outside users. If your current directorship allows you to improve your own favored area of the Wiki (and it's clear that you do improve it), maybe continuing in that capacity would be of the greatest overall benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the issue here is a sense (true or not) that you see adminship as a vessel to grant you the hierarchical power to read your desired outcome into discussions. You will need to change that perception if you want to be more successful at RfA in the future.
'''Oppose''' Although incredibly experienced user, just too many problems.
'''Oppose''' - Boricuaeddie and Septentrionalis articulate my concerns.
'''Oppose''' A number of issues make me uneasy but the one that did it was the addendum to Q6. As Carcharoth pointed out, the closing of Chicago XfDs would certainly be inappropriate and makes me doubt that Tony would know how to use his sysop rights with the required objectivity.
<s>'''Oppose''' Per Boricuaeddie. Only two out of half a dozen AIV reports sucessful? I've made more than 200 and like 4 or 5 were rejected. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Oppose'''. Yikes... The misunderstanding of what Wikiprojects are for, the obsession over trivialities like ''talk page tags'', the bureaucracy and dismissiveness, the KKK comment... None of it seems like someone who will be a responsible admin who will take other peoples' opinions seriously. If you're so upset about not being able to call yourself a director that an essay about it is ''linked to in your signature'', and that other people call themselves "Directors, Coordinators, Leaders and Managers", please give us specific examples, so we can help fix that. You're a great article-writer, and I think that you should continue to be just an editor... Not a "director", "coordinator", "leader", "manager", or for now, "administrator".
'''Oppose''' As Jetlover said. I left a comment in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TonyTheTiger_3&diff=155206606&oldid=155198531/ Disscussion area] saying that if the coming down hard on opposers I would oppose, and I am. <b><font color="E32636">
'''Neutral''' for now. You provided a good answer to my question, but I am still somewhat unconvinced of your preparedness and trustworthiness to become an admin. And when in doubt, I refrain from supporting. Sorry. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' I think your content contributions have been great, but from my prior experience with your comments at AFD I think you may lack both a comprehension of the importance of process on Wikipedia and a sufficiently calm attitude in disputes essential to someone with the sysop powers. However, your understanding of policy is strong, imo.
'''Neutral''' - You have some good contributions, but the opposes bring up good points, and I am worried about your percieved [[WP:OWN|owning]] of articles, and your total understanding of the role of sysop. -- <strong>
'''Neutral''' - I'm sorry, because I know he is very well-intentioned, but I still have some concerns.
'''Neutral''' I'm concerned that this editor wants to be an admin so bad it hurts reading the answers to the questions.  But it's mostly he wants to be a cop rather than build the project.  Yes, that's my impression.
'''Neutral''' - As I understand it, there are only two projects with coordinators: [[WP:LGBT]] (for which I hold that role) and [[WP:MILHIST]]. In both cases, coordinators are elected and hold no power other than to mop up and to chivvy, roles any editor can take on at will. Appointing oneself a "director" rather implies you don't understand how leadership, for want of a better word, on wiki quite works: think [[R2-D2]] as opposed to [[Emperor Palpatine]]. :D Get rid of your self-appointed job and start a genuine discussion on whether your project ''needs'' a coordinator. Do that and you're on your way to being one with [[WP:ADMIN|the force]], <s>my son</s> young Padawan learner. :)
'''Neutral''' - the whole [[Jon Corzine]] tagging thing was enough to make me hesitant, but the reaction to it displayed here has unfortunately eroded my support for this candidate.
'''Neutral''' Good contributor but there are some issues, as per Dev920 and a few others, which prevent me from supporting. --
I think he may be good with Wikipedia because he/she wants to get involved and make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:Goodshoped35110s|<font color="#006400">Goodsh</font>]][[User talk:Goodshoepd35110s|<font color="grey">oepd3</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">511</font>]]
Unconvincing; has no idea of what adminship is.  Pretty much no participation in admin-critical areas.  '''Strong oppose'''. <span style="font-family: Segoe UI, Trebuchet MS, Arial;">'''
'''Oppose''' Positive interactions with user while he was trying to report a vandal to AIV, but needs much more experience in mainspace and Wikipedia space to gain more experience. If you keep up the good work, ToL, you can try again in a few months. In the meantime, though, I recommend you retract this nomination.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough overall experience yet; only a month and a half of active editing.  Some more time is needed to demonstrate that you have a sound understanding of policies and procedures.  I recommend getting some more experience in admin-like areas, such as [[WP:AFD]].  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on [[User talk:Useight|my talk page]].
'''Oppose''' per above. '''
You're too inexperienced right now, but I encourage you to continue to edit regularly, become familiar with the [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]], and participate in administrative areas. I give you the same offer that Useight gave: if you have any questions or need any help, [[User talk:WODUP|feel free to ask]].
'''Strong Oppose''' Not enough experience, might not fully understand our policies and admin works like [[WP:AFD]].
Inexperience. '''
'''Moral support''': I think you have great intentions and that, with a little time, you could gain the necessary experience. Heed what the opposers have said and see if you can't make yourself a better candidate in a few months' time.
'''Oppose''' Too new.
'''Oppose''' Serious concerns about assuming good faith. An administrator is a funnel of complaints. If you can't assume good faith, people only get more angry and a bad situation goes to worse.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but two months is ''way'' too new; I prefer someone who has been around long enough to show sound knowledge of policies and guidelines. Between the relatively short age of the account and the recent blocking (which is also a concern; great that the editor has taken the lesson to heart, but still a concern), I just can't get behind this RfA. Don't take it personally, though! I've seen admins pass similar hurdles in the past. I'd suggest submitting an [[WP:ER|editor review]] in a month or so (to give the reviewing editor more to look at and comment on); take any of that advice to heart and you'll already be on much better ground for a successful RfA. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
Has not shown dedication to the project sufficiently for me to trust this user with the extra buttons, and that block was nowhere near long enough ago for me to reconsider. '''
'''Oppose''' Candidate does not have experience as an admin at this moment. <font face="Verdana">— <small>
'''Oppose''' strongly suggest withdrawal.--
'''Oppose''' sorry but you are not as good to be an admin.--<span style="background:black">[[User:Jasz|<font color="#77ff77">'''JasZZZ'''</font>]]</span>  <span style="background:#77ff77"><sup>[[User talk:Jasz|<font color="black">Talk</font>]] '''·'''
'''Neutral''' the beginnings of a good editor, but not enough time here, yet. --
'''Moral support''' - your edit so far look great but you've a ways to go yet. Keep doing what your doing, maybe get involved in "Wikpedia:" spaces then come back in a while -
'''Oppose''' sorry, you seam likeyour doing a very good job, but you've only been here for 10 days and you've got around 70 edits. You should really be here for around 3 months before attempting RfA becuase the community needs to know they can trust you. You should also try for at least 2000 edits, across different name spaces, such as article pages, talk pages, wikipedia/wikipedia talk pages and user talk pages.
'''Oppose''' but I echo Ryan, you are doing a fine job with the few edits you have and you are learning policy and process very well, you show a good knowledge and stick around for six months to provide an accurate picture of your interests here.  It takes the time to become a trusted member of the community, so put on a watch and work ''without'' the aims of being an administrator in mind.  Happy editing, and please do read the pages linked to in the headers of this page for the future.
'''Oppose''' per the reasons given by others. Also, you don't need to be an admin in order to edit much of Wikipedia. There is plenty that you can do without becoming an admin. Don't be discouraged! You might be an admin yet once you get some more experience.
'''Neutral''' - As Ryan states you need to be around here a bit longer. This will enable the community to get to know you, as an editor, better. Keep up the good work and please try to use edit summaries :-). Your heart seems to be in the right place though so I'll be neutral.
'''Neutral'''. Likewise, you are a little too new at the moment for adminship but I was very impressed by your welcoming comments to new users and praising them on their articles. Definitely keep up the good work and hopefully I'll be able to support you in the future when you have a bit more experience. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Oppose''' Edit count isn't enough to really evaluate; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angel_Emfrbl&diff=prev&oldid=132783446 this] is really bad. I also suggest you withdraw.--
'''Support''' I have to support Uga Man, he helped me through a tough time. I was blocked for an unnecessary reason and he stood up for me. He helped me and allowed for my block to be turned around. I looked at his contribs and he doesn't have many but he has had enough to prove a point. That point is that this is somebody that has the moral capacity and respect for wikipedia that deserves to be an admin.--
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but you do not demonstrate a clear need for the tools, and I can't judge whether you understand policy with less that 500 edits in total.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits, and have a solid track record of several months as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made less than 150 edits, all within the last two months. You also need more experience with editing in the Wikipedia space (which builds experience and familiarlity with the type of processes and policies that admin are expected to deal with), which you've currently edited in less than 10 times. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you are doing some good work, but you aren't ready for adminship yet. As has already been pointed out, we have too little evidence available to have confidence that you know Wikipedia policy and have the long-term temperament to apply it fairly. A few other points you might like to consider: you should try to use edit summaries more, you rarely include them and they're important. Creating [[WP:V|unsourced]] stub articles like [[Kitty Hawk Middle School]] isn't too helpful. More information and proper sourcing is advisable. Avoid edit wars, particularly over contentious article; your insistence on including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=129680063 this] edit isn't helpful and your edit summaries here verge on the [[WP:CIVIL|incivil]]. I'd suggest you continue to make positive contributions, get some experience at forums like [[WP:AFD|AfD]], get another couple of thousand edits done then try an [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Good luck,
'''Oppose'''. Through your minimal experience and edit count here, I can't judge you at this time. '''
I realize that [[Historical rankings of United States Presidents|this entire article]] is a POV quagmire, and you're hardly the only user involved, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents&diff=132854991&oldid=132847819 this edit] tells me you really don't understand [[WP:NPOV]] or [[WP:V]] yet. ··
'''Oppose''' It was only two days ago that you considered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents&diff=prev&oldid=132854991 this] an acceptable edit summary, while it's less than six weeks since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uga_Man&oldid=121288750 this] was your user page. Additionally, you recently deleted what looks to be a bona fide attempt to add information to a very stubby article as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seguin%2C_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=122811415 "vandalism"]<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience with Wikipedia at this time.  --
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience.  Sorry, but less than 150 edits is nowhere close to enough.  Try again a few months from now.
'''Oppose''' - Low edit count, little experience and for reasons stated above--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' - The fact that you have below 1000 edits worries me. Perhaps you should try a few months down the road. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
'''Neutral''' - You seem like you are on the right track.  Stick around, make more edits, participate in a [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject|Wikiproject]], as well as participation in [[WP:ADOPT|adopt-a-user]].  Good luck. '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
'''Support''' Your interactions with other users is very low, as half your talk edits are to your page. In addition only four reports at [[WP:AIV]] doesn't show a massive ammount of vandal fighting. ''However'' - You are reasonably active at [[WP:AFD]], you have a very interesting /Help page that I have perused and seem to be very civil. '''Your handling of your accidental block was excellent''' - civility and calmness. I'm nervous about the amount of time you've been here and wether you can get a full understanding of Wikipedia in that time, but I see a well rounded editor and potential admin and [[WP:AGF]] that your contribution history will refelct your use of the buttons should they be given. For these reasons I'm offering my Support. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per the comments above. This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' This user could use a few extra buttons. --'''
'''Support''' Yeah, I concur!
'''Support''' - can't see any real problems.
'''Support''' - Per Walton one.
'''Support''' no real problems with this candidate.  And I can understand the mistake with the tally box (it is right next to the closing date/time and has no description of what it means).  BTW I'm the one who fixed it, but thats because I watch the RFA main page, and I saw the mistake.  '''[[User:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#50C878">New</span>]] [[User_talk:New England|<span style="color:#fff;background:#E52B50">England</span>]]''' <sup>[[Special:Contributions/New England|(C)]]
'''Support'''. Seems to have enough experience of vandalism fighting to suggest he'd know when to block people. Contributions to XfDs and (at a rough count) over 1000 edits tagging for speedy deletion show an understanding of deletion policy. Discussion with other users show Useight to be calm and reasonable. Can't see any reason why he wouldn't make a good admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Impressive work in your 2000 edits. I think there is plenty of reason to support.
'''Support''' I see good potential in this editor and I don't think that the admin tools will be abused in their hands.
'''Support''' - no reason to believe this user will abuse admin privileges.
'''Support'''. Everything appears to be great, no major issues. The tally thing is fabulous - it means you havent spent a month studying RFA (which is a good thing). [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' It's no big deal, right?
'''Support''' No reason to oppose. Good luck!
'''Support''' qualified for adminship. Him not knowing what the tally is for is definitely a good sign. —
'''
'''Support'''- per Pedro. --'''
'''Support''' agreeing with (aeropagitica)'s reasoning.
'''Support''' everything seems fine. <b>
'''Support''' I was thinking like Anas, I feel that the editor not knowing what the tally for is actually a goodthing, in some ways.
'''Support''' I had the pleasure of welcoming this user some months ago and I have seen him grow a great deal as an editor and learn from his mistakes. I expect to see many good things from this user in the future.
'''Support''' In my editor review, I advised Useight to wait a little longer before RFA, but I'm not too particular.  He has a clue, and who knows if he'll even bother to ask again when we finally think he has enough experience?
'''Support''' an excellent editor who does 'adminly' things. I love the tally thing - and definitely feel it shouldn't overshadow the debate. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''' Not just because he voted support for me, but also because I believe he is a good editor. He knows what he's doing and, despite being fairly recent, he seems to go for quality over quantity editwise.
'''Support''' like others, per Pedro.
'''Support''', he has enough experience.
'''Support''' Knowing that someone who despised vandalism as much as he does was an admin. . . would make me feel a whole lot better.  ''
'''Support''', as I do most of the time unless there are serious deal-breakers which I don't see here. —'''[[User:AldeBaer/welcome|AldeBaer]]''' (
'''Support''', seems a reasonable candidate and no problems in their edit history.
'''Support''' I reviewed your contributions - and while your Wikipedia space count is low (below five hundred), I was assured to see most of it was in regards to deletions rather than sheer randomness. I feel safe handing you the mop and do not think you will abuse the tools. --
'''Oppose''' You will obviously make a fine admin in the very near future. I found Daniel's diff above to be refreshingly comical, since more people should believe in the "discussion" side of this process. At the same time, I am uncertain I can support you at this time since it is pretty easy to figure out what that tally box is, even if its significance is marginal. To that end, I want to be clear that I am not opposing because of a simple edit mistake. I see this less a reflection of your abilities (which are solid), and more a reflection on your amount of time here. Like I said, if you stay on this track, you will easily have my support down the road.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough overall experience.  Keep up the work, and try again in the future.
'''Weak oppose''' - time being an editor is a weakness. I am not sure we gain the true measure of an editor with such a short observation period. I would certainly support when a few more months pass. --
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience at this time, per around 4 mths with project and predominantly rather minor edits.
'''Weak oppose''' While you've been very active for the last six weeks and have participated in several areas (and have had your user page vandalized at least twice, which gives bonus points), the time period is really too short for me to make a good judgment. I will support another try in a few months if you keep doin' what you're doin'. -
'''Oppose''' Too little experience at the moment, with resulting gaps in process understanding. A quick look through the nominee's recent contriutions found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verse_%28poetry%29&diff=144409392&oldid=144409263 this speedy tagging]. You only have to read the first few lines of Speedy [[WP:CSD#Non-criteria|"non-criteria"]] to see that DicDef is not a valid criteria. I would therefore be concerned with this user's main admin goal being to '''''"help clear the oft-present backlog at CAT:CSD"'''''. The user seems a little too confident that they know the processes in the areas they contribute in, when there are clearly gaps in that knowledge. The user needs a few more months of working with these processes to make sure they know them. However, general approach looks good and I will be happy to support after a little more "seasoning".
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FurryMUCK&diff=145814529&oldid=145798796 Slightly] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees&diff=prev&oldid=145382424 lackluster] AfD comments seem to still be coming up, and the "old" ones aren't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N.I.G.G.A.&diff=prev&oldid=131910026|that old]. That said, the bulk of his contributions in the AfD queue do seem to have been positive of late. I much prefer to look at experience in terms of output rather than edit count, but it does seem slightly odd that the editor hasn't been involved at all template namespace or wikipedia:talk namespace outside of his wikiprojects, and seems to only rarely use article talk pages. Would like to see more signs that the editor is capable of effectively handling complaints and steering discussions before opening him up to abuse from new users griping about his work on the deletion queues.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience indicated by above diffs suggests that the candidate is not yet ready to wield the mop with competence and confidence.  This is simply a matter of time; wait a few months, and you'll be ready.
'''Oppose''' Disregarding the tally diff (we all make mistakes), just not enough experience yet.
'''Oppose'''. A number of diffs prevent me from supporting at this time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verse_%28poetry%29&diff=144409392&oldid=144409263 This] inappropriate speedy tagging may not be indicative of a general trend, but it is too obvious and too soon (one week ago) a mistake for me to overlook. I was also unsatisfied with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deaths_in_the_Harry_Potter_series&diff=prev&oldid=139334148 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cultural_references_to_A_Clockwork_Orange_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=145540664 two] recent AfD comments. Though the "delete" recommendations are fine, the explanations provided are too vague to be constructive. Lastly, you seem to rely too much on Google hits as an indicator of notability (see, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radio_Monash_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=145569746 this comment]). Google hits can be useful as a general indicator of online popularity, but by themselves can neither prove notability nor strongly suggest non-notability. -- '''
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I view self-noms as ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Weak oppose''' - nice guy and good editor, however this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verse_%28poetry%29&direction=next&oldid=144409263 tagging]  was a recent error, possibly indicating a confusion between trans-wiki to wiktionary and deleting a very short article. Would support in 6-8 weeks.
'''Oppose''' Not enough evidence on which to trust this editor (which is solvable by experience and participation in areas requiring judgment, such as meaningful XfD participation and responding to requests for comment).  Aside from the one edit in December 2006, no edits until mid March.  Then on 1 April he creates the first version of this RFA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight deleted history]), which nobody else touched before it was deleted.  In short, no reason to trust, and reason to be suspicious is enough for me to not think a change in status to admin should be done at this time.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, answer to question 4 shows a lack of maturity and flexibility, and not enough editing articles and discussions.
'''Neutral'''. My first impression when I saw this is that I remember this user for leaving unconstructive comments at AfD (examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deaths_in_the_Harry_Potter_series&diff=prev&oldid=139334148], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_which_refer_to_other_songs&diff=prev&oldid=139049419]) however his recent contributions to those fora have been more constructive, so I won't oppose. I have confidence that I will be able to support with a bit more time, as the above opposers state, it hasn't been that long at all since the candidate started getting stuck in to things. - <font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' There is no magical threshold for time or edits.  But in order to promote an editor with such little experience, I think we'd rightfully want to see evidence that the editor had demonstrated really exceptional behavior.  While wikignomery is truly and deeply appreciated, I have almost nothing from which to judge how well you understand policy or how you would respond to conflict.  You're obviously on the right path, but I'm concerned with something like this:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture in Omaha, Nebraska]].  Why AFD a page like this when it's three days old and is being built by an incredibly productive and reliable editor?  And when sources on its sister topics are so abundant?  I think more time as an editor would be beneficial. --
'''Neutral''' - Per JayHenry and KrakatoaKatie. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">
'''Neutral''' - I don't see any major problems, but just a little more experience will help. [[User:Hirohisat|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Too soon, but otherwise impressive. I will support next time (don't forget to update the tallies of other RfA's - keeps the count up!) should there be a next time.
'''Neutral''' Not yet--not enough policy experience--I expect that  the judgment in these will improve with further experience. '''
'''Neutral''' per JayHenry -
'''Support''' First to the !polls on your first RFA as a support and back again. Ladies and Gents please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/People_Known_By_One_Name] and the opening comments there by this editor. Admiting errors, chucking [[WP:OWN]] out the window, honesty and civility. The edit count may be a tad low for some, but I think we've done that debate before. This is just down to '''trust''' and I can't see any reason not to. Very best, and I hope you get the buttons '''to help out'''. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">

'''Support''' - I don't see why not to trust him. --
'''Support''' Darn good editor, and I can't wait for him to get the mop!!!!
'''Support''' I supported last time. Good user.
'''Support''' An excellent editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as last time. He's done enough vandal fighting that I'm happy he'd know when to block people. Contributions to XfDs are OK and from his deleted edits I can see that he has correctly tagged over 1000 pages for speedy deletion so understands of deletion policy. Useight appears calm and reasonable in discussions with others. Seems fine. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' based on improvements since the last RFA and responses. Yes, we've had disageements, and WP is filled with such diversity.
'''Support''' - anyone can make a couple of errors with CSD; forgetting to check the history before tagging seems more like a casual error than a sign of inexperience, IMO. Not a sufficient reason to oppose.
'''Strong support''' &ndash; looks excellent, and the concerns raised by the opposers do not convince me at all. Contributions to XfD and related pages show thought[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ice_hockey_players_who_died_young&diff=prev&oldid=155049199][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advertising_antiques&diff=prev&oldid=152331271][[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_longest_songs_by_artist&diff=prev&oldid=152175647], sufficient vandal fighting experience, no reason at all to believe this user would abuse the tools. <b>
'''Support''' Looks OK, good luck! '''
'''Support''' TigerShark's diffs when seen in proper context show that Useight is being helpful in one instance and adding a useful note in another (which led to a solution). Therefore I do not see them as evidence of lack of policy knowledge. In addition to this, Useight has demonstrated that they can admit mistakes, which is a highly desirable trait in an admin. - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing to indicate that they will abuse the mop, and so soon after the last RfA suggests keeness.
Support. '''
'''Support''' --
The so far mostly regular (or at least oft-time-)opposers have not convinced me not to support. —'''
'''Support''' A real no-brainer... I'd trust this user.
'''Support''' User has just about enough experience where it's needed, the opposers do not bring up any issue which is hugely concerning to me.
'''Support'''. On the users own merits, they are more than trustworthy enough to deserve the mop. The answers are solid and I often see him contributing to AIV. Meanwhile, the opposers make no particularly disturbing arguments. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Support''', saying "3000 edits in 4 months isn't enough experience" sounds flat out wrong.
Yes.  Please. <b>
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUseight&diff=153209890&oldid=153176590 Was a bit hasty tagging an article for speedy deletion without checking the history.] <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUseight&diff=149038472&oldid=148270314 needs better understanding of what Wikipedia is not] </s>before getting the extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' For the same reason that I opposed the candidate's first RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Useight&diff=145789201&oldid=145775644]. Two very recents edits seem to show that the candidate is still not able to correctly interpret the Speedy Deletion criteria, claiming that external sources are required to avoid an A7 deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jdawg3k&diff=prev&oldid=154881322] and that the existence of the same information in another article is somehow relevant to a speedy deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worlds_largest_mountain&diff=prev&oldid=153652047]. As the candidate still mentions clearing CSD as his primary admin goal, I am not confident with him having the tools at the moment. Two self noms in the space of six weeks also concerns me.
'''Oppose''' As my Question 4 suggests, I do not believe enough time has passed since the last RfA, and I have not seen enough signs of growth. The difs pointed out by the other opposes further reinforce my current position. I do not want to discourage you from this project, and urge you to simply spend a lengthy (several months or more) period of time continuing your work, and taking to heart the points of opposition from this and your last RfA.
'''Oppose''' Too little experience as above, and too many bot edits (they're good for expanding your edit counts) like "added a period" "comma". & then your favorite article, "List of living supercentenarians" isn't featured or anything & you've done only 20 edits to it & you should have a real article that's your favorite & which you've developed it by a lot. (
'''Oppose''' Still just not enough overall experience.
'''Oppose''' 9 months and so few edits in the required places concern me. Just remember - you don't need the tools to be a good editor, they are not in any way a reward for good work, and just bring with them dull button-clicking and backlog clearing. Try going on [[WP:ER|editor review]] for a better summing up of your contributions, which may be what you're after --'''[[User:Bennyboyz3000|<font color="Orange">B</font>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Bennyboyz3000 2|<font color="purple">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I think its important that admins have experience of wikipedia over time, enough to see how the project changes, goes through phases etc. As a result, although you've been with the project for 9-10 months, you didn't really edit for the first 3 effectively, combined with some errors/incidents noted above makes me unable to trust you with the admin tools. I support the conclusion of other editors in saying that in 3-4 months time you'll be in a far stronger position.
'''Oppose''' per TigerShark.  Only one month since the last RfA, and evidence that the problems highlighted in that RfA continue to persist.
'''Oppose''' Candidate has not demonstrated sufficient improvement since last RFA.
'''Oppose''' - One month between two RfAs is too little.  On top of that; they are both self-noms.  It smells of power seeking.  I think you should give yourself some time to really get something out of the failed RfAs.  Otherwise, the experience is just bad because you are simply taking on criticism RfA after RfA.  Laters,
'''Oppose''' Too little time has passed since the last RfA. I think you should wait three months before trying again.
'''Oppose''', there is some good stuff here but also a few problematic recent edits as shown above.  Please come back in about three months so that we have a longer track record to evaluate.
'''Oppose:''' Insufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' per above comments.
'''Neutral'''. Unfortunately, in my opinion, you do not have enough talk edits, or my amount of required total edits. Your ratio of mainspace to total is still quite excellent, about 1/3. And it appears that you actively participate in adminship and admin intervention. I just cannot support right now.
Great contributor, but I don't feel confident supporting this request. Sorry...
'''Neutral''' Good editor and all, but the opposers have some good points. Will be an admins ome day, but a little more experiance needed. <font color="Blue"><span style="font-family: Arial"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Neutral''' Good editor but why the rush? --
'''Neutral''' - Recommend waiting perhaps 3 months until next RfA, and explain more clearly what you've learned from your experience and from the advice you received in past efforts. --
'''Neutral''' I would wait two more months. --
'''Strong oppose''', you've only been here like a month, made a handful of edits, don't use edit summaries or the minor edit button...you can't run yet. '''Cheers,''' '''''
'''Oppose''' 18 edits, poor answers.
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl''' the list of reasons why this won't pass go on and on. I highly suggest that you withdraw. --'''[[User talk:L (usurped)|L]]'''<small>[[User:L (usurped)|u]][[Special:Contributions/Lucid|c]]
'''Oppose''' I don't even know which one of you is running. But neither of you is qualified. '''
'''Oppose''', but if you keep your answers to the questions, you will be successful in the future. '''''
'''Oppose''', very poor answers, handful of edits, near malformed rfa... sorry, no. :( -
'''Oppose''' - too early. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''', but with no ill-will.  Here's how it works.  Edit here for a few months, preferably four to six; get to know some people; get a good reputation for common sense, maturity, intelligence, good judgement; get some experience across several project spaces; then someone will nominate you.  Best of luck in the future!
'''Oppose''' Sorry but you have a lack of experience. Please don't let this discourage you please. —
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support'''. Great encyclopedia building work, and good job with being honest about your mistakes. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font><font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Support''' based on my experiences of this user. Thanks,
'''Support''' This guy is freaking awesome and one of the best editors we have.
I'm SJP and I approve this message:)--
'''Support''' I was hesitant with the block from the summer, but I really think you learned from the experience. This is just the type of dedicated editor we'll need to have access to the mop.
'''Support''' Have worked in GA with this editor. He will make a great admin. '''[[User:LaraLove|<font color="BA55D3">Lara</font>]]'''
'''Support''' have a lot of respect for this editor. &mdash;
'''Easy Support''' per wide variety of experience, and willingness to admit mistakes.
'''Support''' From seeing VanTucky's work, I think that I can be certain that the community will gain from VanTucky becoming an admin.
'''Support''' seems to merit the mop.
'''Strong support''' — I've seen you work excellently under pressure and you demonstrate an incredibly rare ability to stay civil at all times (for example, [[Talk:SS Christopher Columbus|here]]). Your article work is incredible, and I'm sure you'll be very useful around here with the mop. Good luck! --'''
'''Support''' - good user.
'''Support'''.  I have seen his hard work in several places; no cause for concern. --
'''Support'''. With the experience of thousands of edits, an encyclopedic perspective, and dedication to expand and improve Wikipedia, I support VanTucky's promotion to administrator status. [[User:Larry R. Holmgren|Larry R. Holmgren]] 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 44 votes of support in less than a day. It is unanimous.
'''Support'''. Every time I've run into this editor it has been a pleasant encounter, and I've never seen an instance that would make me mistrust this user with the admin tools.
'''Strong support''' '''
'''Support'''. A good, solid editor that I've seen around. Cheers! <b>
'''Support''' - I have never seem something particulary worrying about this user's contributions during my time here, now that IP editing is going to be enabled even without consensus we will certainly need more admins and this user is a great candidate. -
Yes.
'''Support''' I've met VanTucky in person, & he struck me as a thoughtful, intelligent person. He's also taller than his username would suggest. --
'''Support''' VanTucky is an ideal candidate for adminship, I glad to see someone as wise and intelligent decide to accept a nom,  [[Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?]] will be for others.▪◦▪
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - experienced editor whose approach to contentious issues is calm and polite without backing down to fringe theorists and trolls. Will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''', all good stuff here.
'''Support''' Seems to spend too much time editing Wikipedia, other than that he is a fine editor and very civilized.
'''Support''' (too much time spent here? don't we all?), clearly has valuable skills we should be taking advantage of. ++
Per Tim Vickers, and per VT's contribs. Although I rather often found myself disagreeing with the way he comments (esp. opposes) on RfAs, that doesn't mean I don't trust him with the tools. I hope (and assume) that VanTucky himself understands that difference. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot[[User talk:Dorftrottel|tel]]⁠''' 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) To provide one example of what I mean: There are two doubtful concepts involved in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLaraLove&diff=170024132&oldid=170014009 this] comment, revolving around the use of "deserve" and "powers". Still not a reason not to support. —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''I am a bit late''' but this is my support Van Tucky ← A very calm and reasonable contributor. -
'''Support''' A good editor who is willing to learn from his past mistakes. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I might not agree with the candidate all of the time. However, he's a strong contributor, trustworthy and a good encyclopedia-builder. He'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''' good editor, can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Strong Support'''. I have worked a lot over the last year or so with this helpful and energetic editor, always willing to lend a hand. He'll remember me as [[User:Fire Star]]. This one will make a fine admin, IMO. --
'''Support''''.  While I dissented at the time over said AfD, I understood his arguments, and now agree with him.  A good editor with good judgment, so will be a find admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Sterling fellow. <font color="404040">
'''Support''' Experienced user, shall make a good admin. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - As Co-Nom.
Now you can help clear backlogs at RFPP rather than expand them. :)
'''Support''', looks good. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Said something good about something or other that I commented on so..umm..yeah...no but seriously, clearly a beneficial presence about the place. hop aboard. cheers,
'''Support''' As one of wikipedia' most prolific [[WP:GA]] contributor, I can attest to his great work at [[WP:GAC]].  Even my controversial interactions such as that found at [[Talk:Haystacks (Monet)#Good article nomination on hold|Haystacks (Monet)]] have been resolved well.  He is guardian of the project.  When we disagree such as at [[Talk:Greg Skrepenak#Quick-failed Good Article nomination|Greg Skrepenak]], I feel he is probably right.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/
'''Support''' Should definitely be an admin- great user.
'''Support''' Will definitely make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Though he strongly opposed my RfA, and was highly critical of me in several respects, he also stood up against unfair treatment toward me. That tells me he is a man of good character, and to me, character is king in an administrator. I cannot imagine him abusing the tools. -
'''Support.''' We don't always agree, but VanTucky is always respectful of my opinion and those of others, and willing to talk things through. He's shown the flexibility to change his opinion in light of new arguments or information, which is a key qualification in my view. I've had the opportunity to collaborate with VanTucky off-wiki as well, which has been a pleasure. I don't know whether he will use the admin tools, but I can't imagine him abusing the privilege in any way. -
'''Support''' An excellent editor who will act with integrity as an admin.  '''<font face="Arial">
'''Support''' I know this user to be very trustworthy. <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,[[User:JetLover|Je]][[User talk:JetLover|t]][[Special:Contributions/JetLover|Lover]] (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''', what I have seen from him is good, and apparently most others have the same impression. I need to support more people for adminship, and VanTucky isa good one to start with!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Can be trusted with the admin tools since he has valuable real life experience and has productively worked on many articles in the past.
'''Support'''.  Looks qualified.--
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''' We don't always agree when we have been in discussions, but I DO agree that he would make an excellent administrator.  No reservations at all. --
'''Support''' likewise. Great answers to the questions: now I can just put "see VanTucky's answer" if I get asked the same ;-) ''
'''Support''' He clearly has sound knowledge of the guidelines and policies, is a wonderful editor and when we were in discussions, I found him to be very pleasant. I think he'll make an excellent admin.
Having seen [[User talk:Alison/VanTucky]], it's not as bad as I originally thought.  And your comments to my neutral got me...&nbsp;
'''Support''' - Answers to the questions looked good.
'''Support'''. I offered to nominate VanTucky a few months ago, and I must say that I'm surprised to see this RfA active from the strength of his decline back then. Nevertheless, I have no qualms in supporting him here. V.T. is a high-profile user, and sustains high leve-headedness throughout his contributions here. He definitely knows his stuff, and I often see him around [[WP:MFD|MfD]] and [[WP:AFD|AfD]]. VanTucky contributes to the article space as well as the typical sysop. stuff, including [[WP:AIV|AIV]] and [[WP:AN3|AN3]]. Admittedly, he's a fairly controversial guy, and I can imagine he's got some users who aren't a fan of him, but then some of our best Administrators are - I say confidently, VanTucky is more than able of joining them.
While the opposes have merit, the most bothersome event is from almost three months ago and the others are not really serious enough to warrant an oppose.  I believe VanTucky will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' don't think the oppose rationales are enough to make me oppose. User clearly has long-term experience and has been overall beneficial to the project.--
'''Support''' I figured it was a matter of time before his RfA came up. Excellent contributions in a variety of areas (mainspace, vandal fighting, etc). <b>
'''Support''' This editor is a valuable contributor to the Good Articles project, and I think can be trusted.
'''I trust him''' I've seen him around, will make a great admin---
'''Support''' Not especially incivil.
I don't find the opposes worrisome at all. One man's everyday discourse is another man's incivility, I suppose.
'''Support''' - Brilliant work and great all-round experience. This user displays a wealth of knowledge and understanding when it comes to using Wikipedia. And I would just like to add that many of us say things we shouldn't when coming under pressure, it has happened to me before on or two occasions and we just learn from people pointing it out to us and through experience. Good luck. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' His GA review work is highly valued here. But can he better the project through the use of the tools? I think so!
'''Support''' Good interactions with the candidate at [[Talk:Veganism]], and I'm impressed by his and WDM's [[Augean Stables|Herculean task]] of cleaning up [[parapsychology]].
'''Support'''; some of the oppositions below might have made me hesitate to support, ''if they were relevant to recent behavior''.  I've looked through the recent activity from VT and I see nothing that makes me think he will abuse the tools.  He sometimes is a little more curt than you'd expect from an admin, but I think he got the point by now and will be more careful.  &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Weak support''' I believe VanTucky has a good track record in creating & improving content. There's plenty of relevant experience in administrative areas and collaborative efforts as well. I doubt this editor would ever abuse the tools. That said, VanTucky can be awfully abrasive, as demonstrated in several separate incidents linked below. I find myself in this section of the RfA, rather than neutral or even a weak oppose, because VanTucky has shown a capacity to admit mistakes and a willingness to accept constructive criticism. So here's mine: I support now because I expect stepped-up vigilance from VanTucky in the arenas of civility and good-faith assumptions, whether this RfA passes or not; this project cannot survive on content submissions alone, but requires an environment conducive to collaboration, and a few sour interactions can spoil that. Good luck. &mdash;
'''Weak support''' (switched from oppose) - problem with civility but still a good guy with strong contributions. I'm confident that he has learnt some lessons and will do well with mop.
'''Support''' Seems to get it even with the occasional slip up.  --
'''Support''' I have had good interactions with VanTucky and find his work valuable.
'''Support''' after looking at his contributions. Issues if any seem to be minor.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more administrators like VanTucky.

'''Oppose''' - per comment mentioned by Daniel below. I've restored it to [[User_talk:Alison/VanTucky]] for those who wish to see it. As a regular patroller on [[WP:RFPP]], I was disappointed to see you discussing using page protection to ''preserve Wikipedia's sanctity''. The "apology", ''"Nevermind, [[User:Deskana]] had the guts to do what you could not."'' ... isn't, to be honest. Total lack of [[WP:AGF|AGF]] there. This is not the kind of behaviour I would have expected from an admin, sorry -
'''Oppose'''. I think Van Tucky's aggressiveness in defending his GA review of [[SS Christopher Columbus]] — not a page I've had anything to do with — was completely inappropriate. I would rather not see admins throwing their weight about in this manner.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Christopher_Columbus&oldid=170260980#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination]

Incivility as shown by the examples by Daniel and Alison. If you cannot keep your cool with an administrator, how would you do against a troll? Call it bad faith if you wish, but I am unwilling to support this nomination this time. --
'''Oppose'''.  VanTucky has been uncivil toward me and other editors working on parapsychology-related articles on several occasions.  --
'''Oppose'''. Having read the above and researched the candidate it is better he waits a few more months before applying for adminship, a status he does not need at present anyway.  He needs to be a little more tolerant and collegiate in his approach. Please don't question this vote, as some are doing above, as I shall not be  changing my mind or commenting further.
'''Oppose.''' Due to this response: "It is not July anymore Annalisa, and honestly it sickens me that you would continue to hold a grudge because I disagreed with your approach to parapsychology articles."    Also, I feel disturbed that he even needed to respond, let alone do so as a personal attack. ——'''
'''Oppose.''' Per the repy given to [[User:Annalisa Ventola]] apart from 3 months not being a very short time ago, the response does not seem very civil. --
'''Oppose''' Discussions only get more contentious once one becomes an admin, as the stakes get even higher. I have seen far too many decent editors become problem admins. An editor with an existing pattern of uncivil discourse as a non-admin augurs ill for any improvement as an admin. I will be more than happy to reconsider based on future changes.
'''Oppose''': There are temperament issues that are outstanding, and the user is also hip deep in some of the sieve work of the various projects.  Projects are fine.  Like the poor, they will be with us always.  However, vehement editing of minutia is misplaced, and one's edit count gets awfully inflated with changing a character here or there (i.e. these are changes, not edits).  When the temperamental editing is combined with the rage over projects, we have a pretty sure predictor of future trouble.
'''Oppose''' Alansohn pretty much sums up my view. With the diffs people have brought up above and how you've responded at this RfA, I am concerned about civility and ability to diffuse situations, and also what Alison referred to as kindness. I have no qualms with your contributions as an editor, but since in many ways an admin is an ambassador for the 'pedia, I personally value communication ability just as highly as other judgment calls. ~
'''Oppose''' per Alison, MeltyGirl, etc.
'''Oppose'''per temperament issues cited by previous opposers.
'''Oppose''' per issues brought by Daniel, Alison, Bishonen, Annalisa and some others as well as the comments left by candidates at this very page to the opposers. --
'''Oppose''' the concerns given by the above opposers are too much for me to vote any other way.  '''<font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Sasha Callahan|<span style="color:white;background:#4CBB17">Sasha</span>]]
Agonizingly, because I like VanTucky a lot and my interactions with him have been quite positive.  I had witnessed isolated incidents of concern, but it appears from the evidence above to be a pattern.  I was unhappy at [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy|Murphy FAC]], you basically said Melty was a fangirl, and committed "egregious" errors, when she followed an accepted practice of not using citations in the lead.  She was new to FAC.  And we should always go out of our way to help newbies with patience and kindness, rather than insult them.  When she added citations you refused to acknowledge that she made changes (and still refuse above to acknowledge this).  The Alison incident; the [[Talk:SS_Christopher_Columbus#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination|SS Christopher Columbus]],  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive friendships between men and boys in literature and film|this AFD]] (full disclosure, I disagreed but mildly) where you aggressively responded to almost ''every single'' comment in opposition to your nom; similarly, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)|this nom]].  Those aren't discussions; they're wars of attrition.  I'm also concerned with comments like [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Number_57|here]] (you yourself don't pass the arbitrary threshold for which you opposed [[User:Number 57]]).  I'm deeply sorry, because VanTucky does so much good for the project, but in sum, I see a pattern of uneven temperament and unyielding, unapologetic behavior which raises a red flag for me. --
'''Oppose''' Some of the things highlighted by those preceding me are disturbing. -- <strong>
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Godwin&diff=prev&oldid=142591072 plus this one] where he tells someone "It's pretty fucking simple". I find that dismissive and demeaning to the other editor. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> —
'''Oppose''' Serious concerns exist regarding temperament, per Alison and R1evse.  It's very poor form to curse at Wikimedia's general counsel.
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''' <small>With more and more evidence of incivility surfacing, I unfortunatly feel that I must go from a weak oppose to a flat-out oppose. [[User:TheIslander|<sub><font color="DarkGray">'''The'''</font></sub><font color="Blue">'''Islander'''</font>]] 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)</small> - Good editor, some quality edits. Good admin material, in my opinion, with the large exception of his temperament. I'm sorry, but the issues brought up above are just a little too great for me to be able to support. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Per all of the civility and temperment issues cited above. -
'''Oppose''' very reluctantly because I think the general quality of the work is excellent. But I do not have confidence in the manner. We need a gentle tone in dealing with human beings, and people van be really upset with what may appear to be insensitive comments, especially from an admin. I would certainly hope to be able to support in the future. '''
'''Oppose''' Reluctantly but firmly. To many incivility issues and the diff from [[User:Rlevse]] that I missed is exactly what I '''do not''' want to see in an admin. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', After the reviewing the issues above, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/VanTucky&diff=170617648&oldid=170616514 response to Annalisa Ventola] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/VanTucky&diff=170953809&oldid=170949363 Godwin diffs provided by Rlevse], I'm sorry, but I must change to oppose at this time.
'''Oppose''', changing to oppose per info in several postings in this section.
'''Oppose''' Concerned about this user's temperament.
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but lacks the temperament to wield a mop. Far too much evidence of incivility above. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per the temperament issues raised above and I'm not happy with the issues with Alison and the deleted post linked by Daniel.
'''Oppose''' This is a good editor but the civility problem is the major reason I can't support. Editors can't help getting angry from time to time but we are expected to work our differences out in a civil manner. I think this editor is not quite ready for admin tools just yet.--
'''Oppose''' per Giano, Alison, et cetera.. I am very concerned with matters raised above, particularly his response to Annalisa and his dealings with Alison.
'''Weak Opppose''' regretfully. I've not had a lot of contact with VanTucky, but I have run into him a couple times, and I personally had no real problems with him, nor did I ever see any issues during the limited times I've seen his name. However, I also didn't look. And as I always do, when offering opinions on RfAs, I do look into the candidate's past contributions, and history. Some things concern me, others just give me a bad taste. One thing that bothers me, as others have mentioned, is the apparent need to counter every negative comment with a response, this indicates someone who tends to like having the [[WP:TLW|last word]], and that's a concerning trait in an administrator. As others have said, this editor appears to "dig his heels in" and not give up, whether he is wrong or not. Being an administrator often requires one to respond diplomatically, not insist you're right, and let matters drop at times. [[User talk:Alison/VanTucky]] is concerning, and his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VanTucky/Archive_7#Your_comment_on_Alison.27s_page response] to Riana expressing concern over the remark was less than what I'd expect from an administrator. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Godwin&diff=prev&oldid=142591072 diff] provided by Rlevse, where VanTucky curses at others during the Mike Godwin discussion is just as concerning. I realize Wikipedia is not censored, but I think that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Godwin&diff=prev&oldid=142594031 language] like that is really not necessary when discussing article issues, and ways to improve them. VanTucky was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:VanTucky blocked] during this Mike Godwin issue, for 3RR violations after reverting five times, despite many others explaining on the article's talk page why the tags he was adding were not appropriate. Upon requesting an unblock review, it was declined, and the blocking admin gave him a very civil note about the block, to which he accused the admin of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VanTucky&diff=prev&oldid=142712119#unblock "threatening"] him. Now yes, I realize this was in July, but that is something to consider in an administrative candidate four months later. As evident from the discussion that then ensued, VanTucky has a problem letting go, and again makes me wonder if he has "Last word" tendencies. To continue, I'm also concerned about this CSD tagging, he tagged [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMattiemac1093&diff=142710591&oldid=142709328 this page] with {{t1|db-bio}}, and [[User:Deb|Deb]] realized it was a mispaced userpage, so she moved it to the user's userpage, and removed the CSD tag. VanTucky then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mattiemac1093&diff=next&oldid=142711230 replaced] the tag. Two issues bother me with this. First, any editor other than the creator of the page may remove a CSD tag at any time, if they consider it inappropriate. Second, when he reverted Deb, it was in userspace, and not a violation of policy. Yes, again this was in July, but it is still something that concerns me somewhat. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Curtis_%28State_representative%29&action=history This] recent page creation would indicate a lack of proper searching for the subject prior to creation. A simple search for "Richard Curtis" in the search box (using "search" not "go") would have shown the politician was the fourth result. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=168765650 This] report recently to the [[WP:3RRN]], was improperly done, as shown by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=168729677 note] from the admin who evaluated it that page revisions aren't acceptable, diffs showing previous version must be placed. While I understand the applicant's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=168729677 reason] of "Sorry, it was pretty late", it does bother me a little bit. I realize that the response to Annalisa has been brought up before, but this too, is concerning to me, and I'll explain my own personal reasons: To say that another editor's comments "sicken you", and to call their comments "absurd", really rubs me the wrong way. I think that there could have been a much nicer way to address the issues Annalisa brought up, without using such words. Futher, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuristani_people&diff=prev&oldid=165779723 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lifecasting_%28video_stream%29&diff=prev&oldid=164182712 kinds] of edit summaries from a couple weeks ago, are really not helpful. I honestly thought upon seeing VanTucky was a candidate, that I'd support, but going through recent, and semi-recent items, there are just too many concerns at this point for me to support. I would really encourage VanTucky to learn how to accept it when others think he's wrong, even if he feels he's not, and just let things drop. It is not often that I offer an oppose opinion on an editor I have respect for, and I do indeed, respect VanTucky, his GA work, and other work is commendable. Unfortunately, at this time, I am not comfortable supporting this administrative request. <small>
'''Oppose'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Christopher_Columbus&diff=prev&oldid=164163438].
'''Oppose'''. No user should be making comments like the ones Daniel and Alison have highlighted, let alone an administrator. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Oppose'''. Going to have to be, after seeing diffs such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&diff=143345196&oldid=143326671 this one]. It makes me feel VanTucky shouts at editors for simply making a mistake. Also seems somewhat unfriendly, shows by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Godwin&diff=prev&oldid=142594031 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Godwin&diff=prev&oldid=142591072 this]. I know there is no rule against swearing, but it can turn a whole discussion on it's head, and turn all the editors mad. I am yet to see an admin cursing to get his point across, and I think there's a good reason for this. I feel these 3 diffs are enough. --
'''Oppose'''. A good contributor. But needs to work on the various issues raised above before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' - as per [[User:Rlevse]], and concerns raise by Alison, et al.
'''Oppose'''. Too many civility concerns raised above, some of them recent. --
'''Oppose''', due to concerns about civility as mentioned by many others. From what I have seen of VanTucky's contributions, he's thoughtful and has much to offer Wikipedia, but he should try to be more moderated in his behaviour. I don't believe people are opposing because they seek civility for civility's sake, but rather because intemperate comments tend to make a situation worse rather than better. If VanTucky addresses these concerns, perhaps I (and others) might support him in a future RfA. --
'''Oppose''' - The opposers are convincing in their concerns about VanTucky's attitude and approach to disputes. Incivility is damaging to the encyclopedia and indicates a personality unsuited for the supposedly quotidian but often contentious role of an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per the many concerns about civility, particularly as cited by Alison and Rlevse.  Civility, IMHO, is an absolute must-have for an admin.  <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Reluctant Oppose''' wish I could support you, in fact, I started out supporting you, but the evidence presented here is too compelling.  Changed vote to oppose.  One should never dismiss others with the word "fucking simple" or other cases where you've lost your temper and used that word.
'''Oppose''', primarily per Giano and DarkFalls. The Godwin incident is also quite worrying.
To me there is a vast difference between 'a forthright manner' and telling someone that someone else "had the guts to do what you did not". I'm unwilling to oppose given my respect for the nominator and the fact that this RFA will probably pass, but I'd like to advise Steven to try to keep the edge off his 'forthrightness'. ~
I'm not going to oppose based on one or two incidents, but I would seriously advise rereading [[Talk:SS Christopher Columbus#Failed "good article" nomination]] and considering how you could have defused the situation. I'm not trying to kick a dead dog here, but as an admin your decisions ''will'' be questioned&mdash;and you should be prepared to fully explain yourself without resentment.
And back to neutral again. '''
Per above comments. Not enough for me to oppose, but am not 100% confident adminship is a good idea at this time. -
I'm a little concerned with your attitude - although I think it's just a temporary thing and that you are quickly acclimating to the project. Can you tell me which person on your talk page has been with the project about five years, created over 2,000 articles and treated you with the utmost courtesy, respect and even deference? Do you think you've reciprocated? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VanTucky&oldid=170787949 (this version of your talk page)]. --
'''Neutral''' Concerns with abrasiveness and contentiousness.
'''Neutral''' The issues brought up may have been back in July, but they are of serious concern. Your civility seems to be slightly questionable at times. I'm still unsure, so I'll stay neutral.
'''Neutral'''. For better or for worse, VanTucky has been here long enough to know that when you're going through RFA, you ''stay on your best behavior''. If that means shutting your mouth and not snapping at voters for one week, then that's what you do. He has nobody to blame but himself here. No need to reply to me, I won't be back to argue with you.
'''Support'''. Edit count is fine, and I see no indication that this user would abuse or misuse the tools, so he should get them. --
'''Support''' per Rory. <font face="Verdana">
'''Support''' this is starting to get ridiculous. Please see [[User:Cool_Cat/Adminship_survey_summary]] to see what I mean. We need more admins, we can't find the ones we need. Anybody who has a strong set of areas, even if not all areas, should be strongly considered to be brought into the fold. --
'''Support'''. Nothing against him/her but edit count; there is no indication that s/he would abuse the tools.
'''Support,''' editor will not abuse the tools. [[User:Abeg92|Ab]]
'''Support.''' He has been a solid contributor to article-space for long enough that we can trust him with admin tools. Oppose voters: remember that the "project" is to build an encyclopedia, not to rack up large quantities of introspective comments in "Wikipedia talk:" space.
'''Support''' This user has given us no evidence that she will misuse the tools, and assures us that if she does there will be a mechanism for them to be removed.  Wikignomes could be the answer to the backlog problems in areas such as CSD.--
Mindless '''support''' per rspeer. —
'''Support'''. Someday, people are going to realize just how big the backlogs are and will support candidates like this. No reason to believe he'll abuse the tools.
--
'''Support'''. Despite low edit counts, the user knows the stuffs here, and willing to do janitorial works which has a huge backlog as of now. I hopw thw uaer won't misuse the admin tools. All the best.--

'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. I see nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' I like her attitude, she seems to be mature in her approach (including her approach to criticism, see below re archiving) and has good edits (just not stacks of them). I'm sticking my neck on the line this time and advocating that we promote her. --
'''Support''', edit count's really not that bad.--
'''Oppose''' Two problematic statements stand out to me.  First, you write that you don't comment so much on AFDs because usually the consensus is already clear by the time you see them.  I scan the AFD list frequently, and I make it a point to comment on AFDs that have ''not'' yet received sufficient attention.  Tens of AFDs are relisted after the five-day period for lack of interest until then, and failure to focus AFD contribution where it's needed shows a lack of sensitivity to the backlog needs.  Second, I'm not willing to give adminship to maintenance specialists - I'd like to see some contributions to articles, WikiProjects, mediation, or other fora where your voice can count.
'''Oppose'''  per low overall experience.
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wikipedia edits for my liking. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' You are not ready, participate in the project more, try again in a few months. <small>
'''Oppose'''. Overall just too little experience in various areas. Come back to RFA in a few months. ---
'''Oppose''' Just a lack of experience, come back in a few months for your bucket.
'''Oppose'''. Not that trust seems to be an issue, but I'd just like to see more experience overall. Experience hopefully brings with it knowledge of policies. -- <b>
'''Oppose''' - seems like a growing editor but I can't support this lower level of experience notwithstanding the reasonable attempt at insightful comment by [[User:Autocracy|Autocracy]] above - we must have some cut-off in terms of experience on the project versus plain desire to clean-up as an admin.--
'''Oppose''' A good editor making good progress but its too early at the minute. <b>
'''Oppose''' First, you nominated yourself. I oppose all self nominations for the Admin postion as I feel the fact you need to nominate yourself for the position indicates that the Wikipedia community has not put its full trust in you and identified you as a suitable candidate. Secondly, your experience with the project seems week, not enough edit counts or administrative type work. Come back in a year and you might be ready
'''Oppose''' for lack of Wikipedia experience. Just because we have a need for more admins to help with backlog doesn't mean we need to lower our standards. (This is not a direct comment about this user, but in response to the supports that "We need admins, this one will do!")
Two concerns. One, I dislike admin recall, for reasons that I really should write up so I don't have to keep telling people who ask. And two, you have to keep better archives, not just "click on the history". That is incredibly annoying for someone who wants to reference a particular conversation. -
'''Neutral''' not enough project-space activity and a generally low edit count, for an adminship candidate. I'd have to second Amarkov on the archive issue. —
'''Neutral''' - Seems to be good intention user but lack experience in both mainspace and the project namespace, recommend withdraw. --
'''Neutral''' - Per above.  Also, Wikipeda count is low. '''<font color="teal" face="georgia">
'''Neutral''' Good attitude and good work ethic, so it's purely down to experience on this one.  Involvement with admin-related tasks needs to increase alongside contributions to the encyclopedia - nothing wrong with being a WikiGnome - new page/recent change patrols; user Talk page contributions/vandal warnings and, as above, XfDs are always open for a policy-based opinion, so don't worry if all of the other contributions have voted one way, gauge your response with the policies and guidelines and show this in your contributions.
'''Neutral''' - A good contributer but I do not feel quite has enough experience yet to be an Admin. Once more experience is gained in contributing to the encyclopedia and been involved with Admin related tasks, I would support this candidate, good luck! <font color="red">
'''Neutral''' I appreciate your willingness to help Wikipedia, but I prefer you get more experience around Wikipedia.--
'''Neutral''' I would really have liked to support, but I just do not as yet see enough experience. I would anticipate supporting next time.--
'''Neutral''' No obvious problems; would support if endorsed by a WikiProject.
'''Neutral''' - Very experienced in terms of years but not in editing. I believe your a bit too early and maybe if you apply in a couple of months, I'd be the first one to vote for you..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Neutral'''. Let me first note that I have few concerns about your edit count and none about the fact that you're a "maintenance specialist". However, I am neutral because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=122411339&oldid=122406738 this] edit, where you seem to express support for the idea of banning editors from starting their RfA comments with "support" or "oppose". Without a satisfactory explanation as to why you would support imposing a ban on what amounts to a personal preference (editors aren't required to type "support" or "oppose"; it's a custom rather than policy or guideline), I cannot yet support you. (I realise that you probably won't be able to reply in the remaining 10 minutes of your RfA, but I also don't expect my comment to affect the RfA's outcome.) --
'''Ask for withdrawal''' While everyone certainly appreciates an enthusiastic new user, editors generally need a few thousand edits on Wikipedia to be strongly considered for adminship, and you have less than fifty, Victoria. I'd urge you to keep editing and do what you can to improve the encyclopedia, but I'm sorry to say that becomming an admin is not yet in the cards for you. --
yes this seems like [[WP:SNOW]]. Don't get discouraged, Victoria. Edit lots of articles, help on admin chores, learn the [[wp:5p|five pillars]] and you'll get there soon enough.
Per above. '''
'''Oppose''', sorry, I just think you're way too inexperienced at this point.  Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies|this page]] to see some of the successful RfAs. And like J-stan said, get into the habit of leaving an edit summary. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Sorry, but this has no chance of succeeding at this stage; while editcounting is A Bad Thing, 300 edits over two years is far too low for us to get any kind of idea about your understanding of policy. The fact that your talk page consists almost entirely of warnings also doesn't give me confidence that you understand policy at this stage. Don't get discouraged, though; plenty of people submit RFAs too early, and come back with more experience & become some of our best editors/admins.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, the candidate hasn't enough experience yet.  The lack of edit summaries is a real concern. The self-selected best contribituion is an article with no in-line references.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience yet.  Only 300 edits isn't enough for others to judge your knowledge of policy and procedures.  Very rarely does a candidate pass RFA with under 2000 edits.  Not to mention your answer to question 1 is nearly a copy of Kizor's (the RFA just below this one).  I recommend using edit summaries, contributing to [[WP:AFD]] and other admin-like areas, and withdrawing this RFA.  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on my [[User talk:Useight|talk page]].
'''Oppose''' - few edits and lack of edit summaries. Please consider joining a WikiProject or edit something that you enjoy. Come back in a couple of months and let's see where you are from then. '''
'''Oppose''' - Hate to pile on, but not enough experience. --
'''Oppose''' - sorry but you just don't have enough experience yet. Keep up the good work and consider taking part in deletion discussions such as [[WP:AFD]] to get a feel for areas where admin tools would be useful... <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Neutral''' I can't support at this time. You are too inexperienced. I suggest using the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in "preferences". Edit summaries are important in reviewing contributions.
'''Support'''. Definate support, I even offered to nominate. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' as nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">
'''Weak Support'''. I am willing to support. Your edit count is good, and I have seen no major non-civility toward other user's. I would like to see your answer to G1ggy's question before I switch from Weak Support to Support.
'''Support''' - Excellent editor; clearly shows a desire to improve based on his various editor reviews :P. I see a large number of constructive AWB edits in the user's contribs, and these are complemented (or balanced, depending on your view of AWB :P) by some civil and thoughtful responses to RFAs - and very nice to see some CFD discussions too. I am [[WP:AGF|assuming]] that your response to G1ggy is not passing blame onto the admin, but demonstrating knowledge of policy :). <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Strong support''' I reviewed Vishwin in May and advised him to wait before trying RFA.  He has waited long enough.  He is a highly active editor, managing the difficult task to keep track of thousands of U.S. road articles, and doing it with dignity, civility, and valor.  Checking his last 100 or so contribs, I saw a distribution across namespaces, from a new user welcome to an MFD to a subject-specific cleanup tag.  Everything about this editor looks perfect.  I don't know what was bothering people several months ago, but whatever it was, it is no longer a concern in my mind.  I am already labeling Vishwin as my tenth [[User:Shalom/Editor review archive|editor review subject]] who will receive sysop rights after I've reviewed him.  I wish him continued success.
'''Strong support'''  I've been working with Vish in USRD and the subprojects, and have come to him on a few occasions for help outside of the roads; I believe he's an excellent editor and highly active as well.  I think that he deserves to be sysopped, and would be a great admin.  --
'''Support''' Seems a well and scapable editor will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' I see no problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I know this user's work across wikis, I have no concerns with trusting them with the tools --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' - What for the last 8 months I though you were an admin!! ..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' - Concerns raised by opposers aren't sufficient to merit an oppose, IMO. I urge Vishwin to be more careful in reverting, but otherwise, seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - good candidate.
'''Support''' - user made a mistake, appears to have learned from it. I recall the way that Vishwin60 carried himself in a TfD debate a while ago (in which I took a position contrary to his); his conduct was admin-like.
'''Former Oppose, now Support'''. I hold Your nom in high regard. I trust xem to nominate a good candidate.
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse the tools. —
'''Support''' I see no major issues to oppose here.
'''Support''' -- I have seen this user around. He seems to be a good editor. -- <strong>
'''Support'''. Vishwin has been an extremely prolific contributor, with plenty of experience in maintenance tasks, and the admin tools will help him in his work. While he has made some small slip-ups as noted by the opposers below, he's shown an ability to learn from these mistakes and others in the past, and I am confident he'll be careful with his extra privileges. '''<font color="#FFA52B">Ƙ</font><font color="#C31562">
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to oppose.  Vishwin60 is a good editor, but I have some concerns about his capabilities.  I don't like the fact that vishwin may not accept that users will inevitably make mistakes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daniel_Case&diff=prev&oldid=141922813]).  I believe an administrator should be willing to give users a second chance, and to understand that nobody is perfect.  I don't like the fact that he accused of editor of [[WP:POINT]] because they seemed to disagree with him on an article's layout.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Route_52&diff=139995420&oldid=139994588]  Another thing that bothers me is his discussion with TREYWiki ([[User_talk:Vishwin60/Archive_09#WP:OWN|Here]] and [[User_talk:TREYWiki/Ttttrrrreeeeyyyyyy_Archive#Re:_WP:OWN|here]]).  I think that to request that users do NOT create an article because you are (or you [[User:vishwin60/Sandbox/Template:S3|will one day]]) is like forgetting the purpose of our project.  We are an [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]], not a race to see who can get the most DYK entries. [[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:G1ggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
It is true that Vishwin is a good editor, but there's too much that concerns me personally. When Vishwin60 performs a revert on a page, he never uses a custom summary, choosing to use a generic summary, even on something as important as removing a prod[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saskatchewan_Highway_956&diff=prev&oldid=143028196] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstate_190_%28Massachusetts%29&diff=prev&oldid=142739797]. This is fine for reverting vandalism, but when reverting good-faith edits, it is poor form to not explain why the edit was reverted. My conversations with him on IRC have been pleasant, but there have been instances where I question his line of thinking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Internet_Relay_Chat/Logs/2007-06-08_%28debate%29] outlines a logged discussion, posted by Vishwin, in which he unilaterally removed hundreds of links to [[Portal:U.S. Roads]] from articles, citing [[WP:SELF]] even though this policy does not apply to links to portals. Additionally, [[WP:PORTAL]] states that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Portal&oldid=141449338 "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas"], and removing links to the portal defeats that purpose. I also am wary of Vishwin's ability to wear his emotions on his sleeve, something that has been shown on IRC and a dangerous trait around Wikipedia, especially for someone with the added admin tools. Another issue that concerns me is his tendency to confront conflicts on an article by reverting than by discussing on the talk page. This was evident on [[New York State Route 52]], where [[User:NE2|NE2]] made several changes to the page. Instead of posting concerns on the design changes, Vishwin reverted, again using a generic summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Route_52&diff=139922944&oldid=139892916]. To Vishwin's credit, after NE2 reverted the revert, Vishwin used a custom summary on two subsequent reverts to explain his motive for reverting. Am I innocent on that page? No, I reverted once as well; however, I also posted a lengthy comment section on the talk page that ultimately helped to reach a compromise and end the conflict. Vishwin, who was now an interested party in the page, interestingly did not post to the discussion, other than one comment not relevant to the dispute over the junction table. My last comment addresses a recent situation that developed on the [[WP:USRD]] newsletter. In the introduction, Vishwin added a comment alluding to an unnamed controversy, later revealed to be an RFC for another editor. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Issue010&diff=142793532&oldid=140230832] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads&oldid=143357072#Shock_and_awe] This statement spawned the aforementioned discussion on [[WT:USRD]] as well as on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754&oldid=143195840#USRD_Newsletter_-_Issue_10 Rschen7754's talk page]. I question why this comment was added in the first place and what Vishwin was trying to accomplish by including the statement. My hope is that Wikipedia admins are capable of making better decisions than this. Do not misunderstand me; Vishwin is an excellent editor - however, only time and added experience will help to correct the issues addressed above. For all the reasons I've cited, I must '''oppose''' this nomination at this time. --
'''Oppose''': Although you have made a lot of great contributions to the project, one of the key components of administration is clear communication. So reverting a prod tag without commenting why is troubling. Giving the reasons for its removal can help prevent the article from going from AFD, and in best case scenarios you can even encourage the editor to help on the article! Along the same lines, you have a banner on your talk page promoting IRC over talk pages -- IRC has its place, but transparency is always preferred. Also, a username that differs completely from your signature is confusing, especially to newcomers. The good news is that all of these things can easily be remedied. --
Per Q9. In many cases, OTRS volunteers won't tell you why they did something, because they have an obligation to maintain confidentiality of conference. I'm quite sure people who have been given a trusted position and are doing a difficult job won't like you ''"tell[ing] him/her to explicitly explain why he/she did what they did"''. '''You don't tell anyone what to do''', let alone people who are actually bound by WMF policy not to. Even this kind of mentality is what makes bad administrators when dealing with newer users who they can "boss around". ''"Asking the admin community to see if that action was a reasonable measure"'' won't achieve anything either, because they (like you) don't have access to the information (and in many cases, for good reasons too). OTRS is not only ''"to prevent libelous material from appearing on Wikipedia"'', and any person who thinks that is what they do shouldn't be an administrator - potentially-damaging information or information which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia isn't always libellious. ''"It was because of a new OTRS member just learning the ropes of OTRS"'' - what the hell? The decision to protect [[Lava lamp]] was done by a legal intern of the Wikimedia Foundation who knows far more than you about the situation (you don't know anything about the situation, for that matter, despite what you think), so how can you say it was ''"because of a new OTRS member just learning the ropes''"? Unbelievable, and this is exactly the type of administrators OTRS volunteers hate - the ones who make their jobs protecting and improving Wikipedia for both readers generally and, in particualr, subjects of articles difficult. Strong oppose. '''
'''Oppose''' per Daniel. That sort of assumption of bad faith is uncalled-for in a potential administrator. ~
'''Weak Oppose''' [[User:Daniel|Daniel]]s Oppose worries me greatly, but I see a lot of good here as well. I would suggest that whatever the outcome of this RFA you take Daniel's comments to heart and learn from them. On the positive side, your work here is excellent but RFA is, at some fundamental level, a discussion on whether a user is trustworthy with the tools, and at present I really can't give that trust. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' <s>'''Oppose'''</s> (Changes per my comment at the end of my post.) This RfA lists Vishwin60, but the user posts as zelzany. A minor point, but I want to be clear on who I support to elevate to admin before giving such support. Also, June 22, 2007 misuse of the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Route_52&diff=139995420&oldid=139994588 Point] and July 7, 2007 (3 days ago!) misuse of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saskatchewan_Highway_956&diff=prev&oldid=143028196 Revert]. The answers to the questions leave something to be desired. His answer to Q6 shows a failure to understand that [[Help:Edit summary|an edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?".]] Answer to Q7 shows a failure to understand that IRC is not Wikipedia and that Admin's actions need to be transparent so that Admins can be held accountable for their actions. Answer to Q8 shows that he is not ready to deal with BLP problems on his own. Answer to Q9 shows that he does not know what OTRS is. Answer to Q10 shows that he is unable to work with two policies that compliment each other. Answer to Q11 shows that he does not know when to step aside from people he has a personal relationship with to let other admins handle the matter. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''
'''Oppose''' per Daniel and sketchy answers to BLP questions.
'''Strong oppose''' - Per Daniel. You '''need''' to remember that OTRS volunteers have more information on the situation than you do. Also, the candidate's use of "trolling" when describing [[User:Nick|Nick]]'s actions on IRC was wholly inappropriate. (Yes, I have logs, and am willing to e-mail them.)
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Daniel|Daniel]]. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''', sorry, just not enough experience or need for the tools. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3">
'''Oppose''' I do not agree with editcountis, but 106 edits (when reviewed) is far too few on which to base any decision as regards suitability. The only thing that I '''can''' ascertain is that you need to complete edit summaries with your edits. Spend some time around the place, and you will understand why your request is far too early.
'''Oppose''' per Dreamafter. Honestly, two days of active editing isn't really enough experience. But, as regards your stated aims of maintenance and cleanup, you don't really need admin tools to improve Wikipedia. <font face="monospace" color="#004080">
'''Oppose''' per everyone, and there's no description about Vistro, and the answers are painfully short. Sorry, and better luck next time! <font face="Maiandra GD"><b>
'''Support''' Of course I would support myself.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Inexperienced, you only have 190 edits. You say in your answer to Q1 that you would like to fight vandalism when you have no edits to [[WP:AIV]]. Plus, you need to spend time around to familiarize yourslef with the place and its policies, three months are not enough. You have no participation in the project-space; most of your edits in that space are in your essay. -
'''Oppose''' Due to lack of experience--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. '''''
'''Oppose''' sorry, and strongly suggest self-withdrawal. You need a lot more experience, but your enthusiasm is welcome. Try again after a few months on Wikipedia and a few thousand edits. Your username is confusing (this is not a reason to oppose, just a personal comment). Oh and you're not supposed to support yourself in your own RFA.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>

'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''- working on protected versions is a reputable reason for adminship.
'''Strong support''' - in my experience, Wandalstouring is a dedicated, hardworking editor--intelligent, balanced, and mature. An obvious candidate for the mop.
'''Strong support''' A very good contributor and mediator. He is always ready for help at any issue. -- ''
'''Support''' a good contributor.--
'''Support''' I know Wandalstouring as an exceptional contributor.
'''Support''' Looks like a good user. By the way what does your user name mean?--
'''Support'''.  The fact that this is even close is a sad statement on RfA.  First, to those who have taken issue with the reasons for Wandalsourings' self-nom, it should be noted that he is an active coordinator with [[WP:MILHIST]], a project that manages a number of high use (and thus protected) templates; thus, his need to edit protected pages is legitimate and presumably fairly frequent.  Beyond that, though, it's high time to outgrow this culture in which contributors who are dedicated, pleasant to work with, and familiar with the way we do things around here can't be easily handed a set of tools they're sure to use for the project's best interest.  Wandalstouring meets all those qualifications (I've worked with him on a few occasions and have a very favorable impression), and it would be a shame if we turned down his offer to help out. --
'''Support''' an excellent editor who has shown his commitment and dedication to the project.  Has earned the tools and we would be lucky to have him as an admin--
'''Support''' Given the user has been trusted to be an MILHIST coordinator, could need the tools. --
'''Support''' Thoughful and considerate editor.  Whilst not explicit about use of admin tools given his facilitative style and mediation of dispute in milhist articles will benefit from availability and the implicit authority perceived by many users.
'''Oppose''' Valuable contributer to military articles but I'm not seeing much need for the tools.  An occasional need to edit a protected template can be handled by posting at [[WP:RPP]].  Tagging copyright problems doesn't need admin tools and I don't see much participation at [[WP:IFD]]. &mdash;
'''Strong oppose'''. I have a couple tangiental issues, which would probably get a weak support alone. But the main factor is that you state you intend to be an admin ''so that you can edit protected pages''. That, and the fact that you view disputes and expansion as sysop chores. Admins do not get better dispute resolution powers, nor do they get better article expansion powers, and they are ''very'' rarely supposed to edit protected pages. -
'''Oppose'''. One of the weakest reasons for a self-nom I've ever seen. He doesn't need the tools and doesn't seem to understand the responsibility being an admin entails.
'''Oppose''' per NeoFreak, there's no clear need for the tools here.
'''Oppose''' A lot of Wikipedia space edits, but not in the areas expected of an administrator. I don't see enough evidence that Wandalstouring has an understanding of all of the tools or a need to use them. <font color="#1874CD"><b>
'''Oppose''' echo NeoFreak, but also I'm wondering about trusting someone with the tools who mainly wants them to edit specific protected pages. <span style="font-weight:bold;">
'''Oppose'''.this reasoning scares me.
'''Oppose''' - A large number of reasons not to be an admin. The nomination is made in good faith, but there are some very unusual elements to it.
'''Oppose'''. —
Neutral for now. A quick scan of his contribs suggests WT is a decent and hard-working editor. However, I have had some discussion with him re the ongoing infoxbox debate refed above, and I am consequently a little bit of the opinion that his understanding of NPOV may be imperfect- in fact, he perhaps has got slightly the wrong end of the stick about the whole issue, which makes me somewhat suspicious re his knowledge of wider policy. Will have a think about it and may change my mind later, however. <small>I think you may have shot yourself in the foot a little bit with your answer to Q3, btw...;-)</small>
'''Neutral''' untill I decide. For now, I will voice my concerns. You have 75% edit summaries for major edits and 55% summaries for minor edits. You should make sure to improve this. Also, tell more in the answers to the questions. They were too quick and didn't tell enough. Lastly, I note the oppose statements and in conclusion, will hold my vote here for now. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Neutral''' obviously a dedicate user, but the answer to Q1 and the nomination statement does not suggest any ''real'' need for the tools. That, and your edit summary usage, do not urge me to support. -
'''Neutral''' Actually, I don't mind users who request adminship for a limited purpose, so long as they make their intention plain from the beginning, and they show a well-rounded resume.  However, level of edit summary usage is too low, and wiki-space experience is borderline.  The candidate should be well-suited after a few more months.
'''Neutral''' per opposer's and answers.
'''Neutral''' by this statement, your RfA is quote ''[intended] to give me the ability to edit some of the military history project's protected material.'' You can always ask an administrator to unprotect the page, if it's fully protected or edit the page if it's semi, since you are an established user.  An admin's mop is designed for tools way beyond the scope of editing.  You have to ''know'' the policies, treat the community with respect (and expect respect in return), clean-up unneeded articles/pictures/etc., have a non-biased view, etc.  <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">
'''Nominator support''', Wantok is the sort of user that makes Wikipedia great!
'''Support'''  Even though I suspect your RfA will not pass (this time), I offer my support.  While you have relatively very few edits, your contributions seem to have substance.  You seem to handle yourself very well in conflict situations and have good communication skills, which are important for admins.  I would like to see more evidence of ''active'' vandal reversion, as that is where you get experience with the escalating levels of warnings that can lead to a block.  If you are not equipped with a vandal reverting tool, such as Lupin or Vandal Fighter, I would encourage it.    <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Moral support''' per κaτaʟaveno. Participate in [[WP:XfD]], study the [[WP:ARL|Administrators' reading list]] and catch up on [[WP:PG|policies and guidelines]], maybe consider an [[WP:ER|Editor review]] and keep contributing to articles. You may also want to take a look at the lists of [[Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies|successful]] and [[WP:RFAF|unsuccessful]] RfA candidacies to get an idea of what the community is looking for in admins. —'''
No signs of incivility, or evidence which indicates the user will abuse, so I'll support.
'''Support''' - Based on answers to questions, the candidate has a sufficient understanding of policy and the admin tools. Editcount may be a little low, but that shouldn't kill the candidacy, IMO.
'''Support''' -per Walton. I liked his answers to the questions as well. --
'''Weak Support''' Sigh. Why not?
'''Support''' I see no reasons to oppose. This editor has been here a while, and would make a fine admin. '''<span style="font-size:97%"><font color="#33ff00">''~''</font>&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I believe this user can be trusted with the tools, although he may not use them as much as some admins. I also support the idea of an admin from PNG. It will encourage the spread of WP in that country and be of value to the project. --
'''Support'''. &nbsp;Administrators represent the Wikpedia Foundation. &nbsp;For example, every decision an Administrator makes on an AfD automatically becomes Foundation precedent and policy. &nbsp;If the [[Five Pillars]] state that no original sources can be copied into Wikipedia, and an Administrator decides that they can be (as has recently been done), that Administrator's decision <i>is</i>, like it or not, Wikipedia Foundation policy. &nbsp;And that kind of decision directly affects the integrity of Wikipedia. &nbsp;Therefore, good judgement is <i>absolutely</i> essential in administrative decision making. &nbsp;The gross number of edits and contributions an applicant has made in the past (or is likely to make in the future) is irrelevant in determining whether or not an applicant has good judgement and is capable of making good decisions. &nbsp;What <i>really</i> counts in adminship is to know, understand, and live by the Foundation's Five Pillars, to know, know where to look for, and to understand the software processes that underly all of Wikipedia's articles. &nbsp;This applicant is mature, and is an experienced, professional web designer, developer, and maintainer. &nbsp;As such I believe he understands completly how to originate and use  Wikipedia's article source coding, its templates, portals, special pages, WP: pages, metas, delete, blank, and move pages, the use of subpages, and all the other Wiki software tasks Administrators are expected to know and through which they able to provide help to Wikipedia users, authors and editors. &nbsp;The applicant is a member of the WikiProject Melanesia, a contributing member of the neo-Melanesian language (Tok Pisin) Wikipedia (tpi.Wikipedia.org), and lives in and understands the cultures of Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Oceania in general. &nbsp;And he also speaks several of the languages and dialects. &nbsp;FWIW, in my opinion the applicant is certainly <i>very</i> well-qualified to act as a Wikipedia Administrator.
'''Weak Support'''. seems to know policy (as per answer to question) , and seems to be trustable with the tools. However, a few more edits would have strengthened my support.
'''Support''', per Walton and Wikihermit. He's been here a while, and can answer questions on policy effectively. --<font color="#3333FF">健次</font>(
'''Support''' This editor is in a geographically unusual situation ,and does not physically have the ability to amass a large body of edits. Those which he has submitted are useful and sensible and show an understanding of policy. A number of the ''oppose'' editors are themselves of limited experience, and while I intend to [[WP:BITE]] no-one, some of them may not wholly appreciate the difficulty of posting contributions from the Australian Outback.--<font color="Red">
'''Support''' It seems like this user has relatively few edits than a typical admin should have but I support his adminship per Walton.
Per Anthony exactly, and the second sentence of the nomination. '''
'''Support''' after some thinking. A long time contributor who hasn't been in any kind of trouble till now. Anthony.Bradbury's comments make sense. -
'''Support''' I agree with Anthony.Bradbury and Daniel.
'''Support''' -Per above. I don't believe it's that big of a deal.
'''Oppose''' I think your heart is in the right place and you have done some great work but, based on your answers above and your contribs, I do not see a huge need for the tools.  Also, and in general, successful candidates have somewhat more experience (Mainspace and Wikipedia edits) so that they can better demonstrate to the community their admin-related capabilities.
'''Oppose''', sorry, your edits haven't been very substantial and though you seem thoughtful I don't think you're experienced enough. '''<font color="#330033">
'''Oppose'''  unfortunately, the candidate made only 11 edits from September 2006 until April 2007.  If he keeps up his good work, I'd support him in the future though.  '''
'''Oppose'''-He has not made many edits at all, between Sept. and April and I feel and admin needs a lot of edits to show they are ready. He has been here for four years, and he has roughly 550 edits. I have been here for two months, and have 602 edits. I think that is a '''huge''' difference.  Sorry, but I don't think he has the edit experience!
'''Oppose''' This editor seems like a fine user, but I don't think he has had enough experience to warrant adminship.

'''Oppose''', simply too few edits. --
'''Oppose''', not really active or the anti-vandal that he claims to be. '''Cheers, [[User:JetLover|JetLover]] ([[User talk: JetLover|Talk]]) (
'''Oppose''' far too little experience.
'''Oppose''' - Nowhere near enough experience. Only 4 months of more than 100 edits each.
'''Oppose''' I can not support you at this time because there is not enough Wantok Wiki-history to establish an understanding of your potential.--
'''Oppose''' Too few edits. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', not yet, sorry.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience and edits. Not this time round.
'''Oppose''' I tend to overlook edit counts in favor of other qualities, but there has to be some base of edits from which to discern those qualities and at this number I just cannot give you the nod. I will say  that if the numbers come up over the next few months I would be happy to reconsider in a subsequent RfA.
'''Oppose''' -- edit counts do not usually mean much to me, but you have less than 800 edits. I just cant support a contributor with that kind of edit count. Sorry mate, maybe next time. --
'''Oppose'''  Wantok looks like a good person long-term, but the too few edits is important, because sometimes it takes a couple of thousand edits (give or take 10,000) to see a style or pattern evolve.  They are off to a good start, but I think adminship is a bit too early here.  So mine is an oppose that I hope in a few months will be a support.
'''Oppose''' Get more experience over the next few months, and I will be likely to support.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly but firmly. Reluctant because Wantok seems like a very nice person, and I think that it's important or editors to be nice; but firm oppose because Wantok had, IMO, far too little experience of wikipedia. Before I could support, I'd need to see a lot more evidence of Wantok's approach to policy and to areas of conflict; but I hope that Wantok's great start to editing will be followed by a lot more. If this RfA fails, please don't that as a criticism, just as friendly "not yet". --
'''Oppose'''. While the editor in question appears to be a wonderful and civil human being, there isn't enough experience under his belt. And although I'm not one to penalize simply for a low Mainspace and edit count, just above 800 is not nearly enough for adminship, and that 800 is spread out between many months. Maybe next time, but for now, it's a no. As well, [[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] took the words right out of my mouth. :)
'''Oppose'''. I am not thrilled by your answers to certain questions, say question 1. Maybe with some more edits or more consistency I would support your RFA.<font color="red">Metallic</font><font color="orange">95</font>
'''Neutral at the moment'''. Could you explain, if possible, the large gap in contributions between Septemeber 2006 to April 2007 (on enWiki)? Looking at your last 800 ish edits I see extreme civility (I'm confused by your comment that you think you may have been sharp in edit summaries) and a good diversity of work. I'm ignoring edit count, but at the moment you seem to have a "burst" of activity then go quiet. If you have time to address my question it would be appreciated, but this is, of course, optional. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I can't in all honesty support - I know editcountitis is A Bad Thing but I estimate that, of your 550 mainspace edits, at least 80-90% are reversions or extremely minor edits to footbal articles to update them with the new season's FIFA rankings. I see absolutely nothing in there that would lead me to oppose but nothing to lead me to support. You have only 20 Wikipedia-space & 19 user talk edits so I've no way at all of judging how well you understand and how you judge policy<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Neutral'''.  As expressed above, this user seems to have made a good number of positive contributions to Wikipedia and that's great.  As much as I ''hate'' judging on editcounts - the lack of edits in project space (or even talk) leaves me incapable of judging the candidate's understanding of policy, and I am unable to support.  Like [[User:Iridescent]] says, there's nothing to make me want to oppose but nothing on which I can support.
'''Neutral''' per lack of involvement in the project, as described above.  Participate in more admin-related tasks for a few months to demonstrate your aptitude in applying the [[:WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines]] before attempting another RfA.
'''Neutral''' Not enough policy knowledge demonstrated - more XfD activity would be good, or other policy-related work.  I'm not concerned with the overall edit count, however more administrative experience is required, in my opinion.
'''Neutral''' - I can't make up my mind; people can change a lot in a couple months, and with a new child, so I'm just not sure I can say for sure either way.  No bias to a future nomination, though.  --
'''Neutral''' You seem to be a great contributor, but I don't see a need for adminship. Almost everything you intend to do can be done just as well without admin tools. I hate editcountitis and 780 edits overall wouldn't be a problem to me, but to become an admin you may need more experience in Wikispace. So long, keep up your great mainspace work!
You have no contributions apart from to create this RfA, and have never even been sent a talk page message. The answers to the questions don't show much thought, or show any knowledge of what adminship actually is. So we have no evidence that you'd make a good administrator; you might do, but we have no way of knowing, and even if you are trustworthy (you probably are, but we don't know), the chance of making mistakes through inexperience would be far too high. I suggest that you read [[WP:GRFA]], withdraw now, and try again in another 6 months or so after you've given us some serious work to base an assesment of your adminship potential on. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 14:48, 1 June 2007 (
'''Support'''. I support, because she/he has been in Wikipedia for a time, and has contributed 2500+ edits, and fights vandalism. -[[U:GS1|<font color="#006400">Go</font>]][[UT:GS3|<font color="grey">od</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Goodshoped35110s|<font color="lightgreen">sh</font>]][[User:Goodshoped35110s/IMG|op]]
'''Support'''. I would trust this user with the mop, I am sure he will be dedicated enough to contribute well.
'''Support'''. We need more admins. I trust this user.
'''Support'''. Good, solid editor. Nice example of a qualified editor with a lower count. I really hope this passes.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Weak Support''' - You say you fight vandalism and revert typos, but you've had little experience at AIV and no edits at ANI (See:[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wenli|talk page]]). These are two key areas for admins to work in.
'''Weak Support''' - Not a great amount of experience, but doubt he would abuse the tools. <span style="border:2px solid #483C32;">
'''Support''', nothing suggests an inability to cope with the buttons.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wenli&diff=159495955&oldid=159494713 This] made me chuckle, for some reason.
'''Support''' I would trust this user with the tools. Very unlikely that this user will abuse the tools given to him. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' <small style="border:#090 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">'''
A fine user; should be a good administrator.
'''Support''' Good user who deserves the mop.
'''Support''' Qualified. --'''
'''Support''' I think will be a good admin and I find the oppose arguments weak.
'''Support.'''
Weak support, cancelling out ca. one quarter of one of the less well-founded opposes (take your pick). —&nbsp;'''Dorftrot
'''Strong Support.''' for <sup>(expletive)</sup>'s sake, you'd think we're all beyond the whole I-trust-him-but-I-don't-want-him-to-have-the-mop-for-the-pettiest-reason thing aren't we? This user obviously has Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and I'm sure will do a fine job with the mop. Good on you for trying to make a difference and putting your hand up to help. Good luck! --'''
'''Support''' -- Wenli has enough edits to satisfy my tastes, and seems to be trusted by the community.  --[[User:FastLizard4|<span style="color:#228B22">'''FastLizard4'''</span>]] ([[user_talk:FastLizard4|Talk]]•[[User:FastLizard4/Links|Links]]•
'''Support''' The opposers bring up nothing concerning, and as far as I can tell, this is an otherwise good candidate. '''
&nbsp;&mdash;
'''Oppose''' For starters, let me just say that I am not one to oppose. But quite simply I feel I must make a point here. My predominant concern is that of a lack of general experience, not only in mainspace, but also among the clockwork and policies of Wikipedia. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Wenli&namespace=1&year=&month=-1 fail to see] much, indeed any discussion as do I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Wenli&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 little concrete editing]. Most mainspace edits are AWB sweeps, inasmuch as the contributions are concerned. A fairly low edit count coupled with a lack of general experience is a no-no IMHO. Don’t take it bluntly but I do, quite frankly, feel that you would profit from a little more understanding. Furthermore, I note you have had little experience at AIV and no edits at ANI (as Rudget already mentioned). Consider some article writing too. One of the cornerstones of adminship is an all-embracing, all-inclusive and wide-ranging acquaintance with the “clockwork” of Wikipedia, something which I can’t seem to find in your contributions at the moment. --
'''Oppose.''' The candidate needs more experience, per Chris.  Some article-writing would be helpful as well.
'''Oppose''' — I agree, to some degree, with Chris. I don't see any signs of discussion, collaborative work, dispute resolution, or contribution to the mainspace. I don't think you're ready at the moment. --'''
'''Oppose''' Though I do not have any arbitrary standards here, i do not see any substantial work with articles in mainspace.  That's the basic part of the encyclopedia. '''
'''Oppose''', low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' Just not ''quite'' there on experience yet, but that will be remedied with time.
'''Oppose''' Could I trust this user with the tools? No, as they have not the knowledge and experience for me to do so. The only way to gain the necessary policy knowledge is to go out and get your hands dirty with contributing, and I just don't see enough of that.
Inexperience generally, and arguments about "specialisation" aren't really appropriate given we don't hand out only one of the three in the set. '''
'''Oppose'''.   When somebody makes a comment about lack of experience and quality mainspace edits, you should provideyour more substanitive works.  Examples that show that the allegation was unfounded.  Examples that show that you have made quality edits in the mainspace.  When you provide examples, I expect to see something profound.  Instead you provided these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Underwater_football&diff=prev&oldid=143419039 example] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutch_Progressive_Rock_Page&diff=prev&oldid=139772510 example].  That combined with the other opposes, lead me to oppose based on lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''&ndash; User needs a bit more experience in handling AfD and similar areas before I can trust them with the ability to close them.  '''
'''Oppose'''. sorry - the example cited under the neutral vote below does nothing for my confidence that this person is helping the 'pedia grow. Even then I could be swayed by some DYKs or GA but none are forthcoming  -contributions in Q2 above are somewhat vague and perfunctory sounding. cheers,
'''Oppose''' lack of experience at the coalface.
'''Oppose''' largely per the contribs highlighted below.  Blind deletionism combined with little interest demonstrated in article work is not a combination that I can support. --
'''Oppose''' - not quite there in edit count, especially in substantive mainspace edits, and per above concerns re: AfD.  Please request again in a couple of months, when I have more evidence.
'''Oppose''' - lack of real contribution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'

'''Neutral''' Teetor-tottering between Support and Oppose. I understand that he will not abuse the tools, and I trust him on that. I just don't feel I get enough of an administrator vibe from it. I can't explain it...but that's my reasoning, my horrible, horrible, God-Awful reasoning.
'''Neutral''' Per some of the above oppose comments, try back again after further experience on the project.
I'm relatively lax on experience, but it seems that much of your experience isn't substantive.
'''Neutral'''.  Can't support with the comments by the opposers, but can't full out oppose either.  My suggestion (for what it's worth =]): Come back after you get a bit more experience with Wikipedia policies.  Many people will oppose you because of your 252 (at the moment) Projectspace edits.  Just do a bit more work.  '''<span id="{{{User|Malinaccier}}}" class="plainlinks" >
'''Strong support.''' It's about time. ~[[user:Crazytales|'''Crazytales''']]
'''zomg support'''. --
'''Support'''. Question "Why the '''<censored>''' don't we have feature X yet?". Answer "Dev doesn't have admin bit, doesn't see the problem in the first place". Solution: Give admin bit to developer. I for one, support our dev overlords. :-) --
'''Support,''' no problems here.--
'''Full support''' per having a brain in his head. This user is also who we have to thank for all these new features (edit summary previews, undo feature, etc)
'''Support''' - does anyone really believe Werdna cannot be trusted with the sysop tools?
'''Strong stupport''' - Long overdue, long history of valued contributions, and every reason to think the English wikipedia would benefit from giving user the mop and bucket. -
'''Strong Support''' - developers need admin access, IMHO.
Sure, excellent coder, has proven himself trustworthy and experienced.
'''Support''' - proven to have the interrests of the project at heart.
'''Support''' A good self-nom.  Nice contribs, well spread edits, answers arn't too bad.  Should make a great, determined, dedicated admin.  Good luck. '''
'''Strong Support''' - if we can trust him with the source code, we can trust him with a button or two. --
'''Development Cabal Support''': friendly, enthusiastic…if he can put up with my PHP, he can cope with the mop. HTH HAND —
Yes.

'''Support''' - Capable and responsible; giving him admin tools is likely to benefit the project, per above.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. I trust Werdna. And there's nothing wrong with specialisation. '''
'''Weak support''', really weak. But, I believe he is trustworthy. ←
'''Support''' Why not? ~ ''
"If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end." haha what planet are you editing from? Anyway, I don't usually do "per X" votes but Sarah pretty much explains why I can easily support Werdna here.--
So you don't have that many edits. Doesn't matter, you're needed as an admin, '''support'''.--
'''Support''' because developers should have the tools if they find a use for them. Applying the usual RfA standards, like "too low edit rate" or even my favorite "not enough contributions to the mainspace" would be counterproductive in this case. With all the cool features Werdna's given us lately, surely his time was better spent coding (which will not generate any entries in his contribs list) than slapping test templates on drive-by scribblers or running up his edit count with welcomes?
'''Support''' - Oh please. Just because you don't see his activity doesn't mean it isn't there. He's a dev. He is insanely active, making your experience of using Wikipedia more enjoyable, that activity just isn't something that shows up in his contributions.
'''Support.''' Article writing has NOTHING to do with adminship.
'''Support'''. I can trust you with the tools, so even if you only use them once a month, I don't care. -
'''Support''', obviously a trusted user, opposition is baseless.
'''Support''', Werdnabot has pretty much made Wernda's RfA.
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Pilot her well, Werdna! <small>(2x edit conflict!)</small> —<b><font color="#00FFFF">[[User:Pilotguy|P]]</font>
'''Support''' as I believe Werdna can be trusted with them based on my observations. ···
'''Yep'''.  Otherwise he'll just have to write himself a backdoor in the software and get admin privileges that way. :D
'''Support''': This candidate doesn't have the profile of a typical RfA candidate, but he has made extraordinary contributions, and adminship would be useful in his ongoing work while creating no risk of tool misuse. Progress has been made toward addressing the areas that were of concern in prior RfA's, although his continuing to bear those concerns in mind would be most welcome. I'd urge the candidate to consult with other admins at first before taking any admin actions outside his primary areas of expertise.
'''Support''' - This editor is an asset to wikipedia.  The mop wont get in the way of that, but will increase their value.
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. I can't see any problem here. Werdna amazed me with the cascading protection earlier this month which was developed in just a few days. A true asset to the English wikipedia. --
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad. Not a typical candidate, but a trusted user for whom the tools would occasionally be useful; I can't see any reason why not.
'''Support''' as making Werdna an admin would '''improve''' WP.  Writing articles is not the be-all and end-all, it's important but Werdna has made so many important contributions across the rest of WP, giving him the tools works for me.
'''Support''', as per Trebor and Rambling Man above.
'''Support'''.  A lot of admins (including me) are limited in certain areas by lack of understanding of technical issues.  Having such an excellent programmer as an admin will be a net benefit to the project, even if he is (as he admits himself) less interested in content issues.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''--
'''Weak support''' - per Newyorkbrad.
'''Strong Support''' per Kim Bruning, fantastic reasoning. It takes more than article writers to keep the project going and keeping good editors hanging on to RfA no 5 is just pointless. I'm slightly concerned at the triviality of a couple of the Opposes too, which makes me all the more sure there's no really important reason to Oppose the candidate. <font face="Arial">-- '''
'''Support.''' Through his developer deeds he has shown he is dedicated to the project. My guess is he is probably more informed about how things work, than many who just edit; he will hardly misuse the admin tools (which is the major reason to oppose, most of the cases. Right?) //
'''<code>$userId = SELECT `user_id` FROM `mw_user` WHERE `user_name` = 'Werdna'; INSERT INTO `mw_user_groups` SET `ug_user` = $userId, `ug_groups` = 'sysop';</code>'''. Newyorkbrad hits the nail on the head.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I think it's time. --
'''Extreme Robot Support'''.
'''Extreme Support'''  - Good user, very helpful. '''[[User talk:Tyson Moore|<span style="background:#FFFF66;color:#000">T</span>]]<span style="background:#008">
'''Strong Strong Strong I woulda nommed support''' - yes, this a support !vote --
'''Support''': You're not an admin? '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Upset Support''' I would've nominated you! I trust this user. ~
'''Support''' I don't like the incivility, but I realise the benefit to Wikipedia that Werdna <s>could</s> would bring.
'''Support'''ing a technical admin candidate for once.  Valuable contributor, should be a worthy admin.
'''Support''', I think NewYorkBrad said it very well.  I'm a bit surprised to learn he wasn't already.  --
'''Support'''. He developed cascading protection, rendering an adminbot unneeded and ending a huge dispute. That alone merits a +sysop.
'''Support''' that I want pie.  Also, Werdna should be a sysop.  Really, really.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''About time''' I can't think of any reason why Werdna shouldn't be a sysop. Willing to help, and trustworthy (my new two step criteria). Perspective changes when you become an admin. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
<font face="Verdana"><b>
'''Support''' as a tech admin. And kudos for learning from past mistakes. --
'''Support'''. "I thought he was already one." ;-) <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' Your bot has helped me out a ton of times. I thought you were an admin! '''
'''Support''' – Werdna will use the tools, will not abuse the tools, and because he's a developer we'll all benefit from his perspective as an admin.  On a smaller or less utopian project than Wikipedia, a Dev would operate in God-mode as a matter of course.  Werdna has earnt the mop. —
'''Support''' - Lets see, 0% chance of tool abuse. Give him the mop already! He can do more damage as a dev, then he ever could with a mop! Since he has not, that leaves me to trust that he will do the mop proud. ——
'''Support''' per Eagle, directly above.  Have seen Werdna around and he seems to be a very helpful contributor. --
'''Support''' Yes, lack of activity is a bit of a concern but then again the question here is: do we believe that Werdna can be trusted with admin tools. Clearly the answer is yes. Let's please stop restricting adminship to people who average a hundred edits a day.
'''<s>Strong</s> Support'''. I frequently disagree with this guy's opinions, but I <s>don't see any reason why he shouldn't</s> think he should be an admin at this point. He's a productive developer (cascading protection, anyone?) and admin tools would help in that alone. <s>What's the holdup?</s> But Blnguyen's comments below are to be taken very seriously.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' would normally expect more activity but can see benefits of having developer/admin status; I know I sometimes come up against things that I have no idea how to do... its good to know that there's someone who will! --
'''Support''' <nowiki>{{subst:rfa cliche}}</nowiki>
'''Support''' per Khoikhoi.
'''Support'''- Suprised that you aren't an admin already. See user very often on Wikipedia.--
'''Support''' --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">HIZKIAH</font> <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Albeit flawed, he's made an overall positive contribution to the project.--
'''Support'''. Great user, great work, would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' (I'm afraid if I don't, Werdna will hack MediaWiki so I can't edit any more)! ''
'''Support''' Would make strong admin
'''Support''' The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' —
Obviously, devs need bits.  --
[[User_talk:DVD R W|<font color="black"> dvd</font>]]
'''Support'''  --
Support. I am disappointed by the edit counters; edit counts are useful insofar as they demonstrate obvious things like lack of experience that would make an accurate judgment of the candidate hard. They are not useful either in proving good judgment, or as an argument against a user who does have good judgment. Werdna will be a fine admin;  his judgment is sound and he is very experienced. This is all adminship demands.
'''Support''' An exceptionally well-qualified candidate.--
The cabal supports this candidate! Seriously though, has the project's best interests at heart, and is a valuable contributor. No reason at all to believe he'd abuse the shiny buttons. --
'''Support''' Definitely a user who understands the way things work around here, just try to remain civil in ALL cases. <small>P.S. Thanks for all the tools, they really help around here!</small> [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support''' Users can gain trust and respect from being a developer as much as an article editor, and I [[WP:AGF|AGF]] as regards maintaining improved civility.
'''Support''' per Chick Bowen.  --
'''Support''' for sure. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Excellent wikipedian and will make a excellent admin. --
'''Support''' what fred ^ said. (wow that [[rhymes]]!
'''Weakish support''', Glen and Majorly made me initially reconsider, but a number of mitigating factors, combined with the dev work, and the fact that Wikipedia will be better if he gains +sysop, make me lean this way slightly. '''
'''Support''' - it will be a net gain for en:wp -
'''Support''' - dedicated, intelligent, technical user. I'm convinced he will use the tools responsibly   --
'''Support''' - If you can trust him designing and changing Wikipedia's look, you can trust him with admin tools (I didn't even know he wasn't an admin until I read it on his userpage a little while ago) --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
While there are some people in the oppose column whose opinion I respect, there are a large number of people there who, in my view, are just flat out wrong about something related to Werdna's candidacy, and who are opposing for that reason. That alone merits my support, but the large number of supports who are giving hugely valid reasons (Sarah, NYBrad, Doc, Phil, Chick, Titoxd, Eagle, David Gerard, et al.) which you should go reread if you forgot what they were, really seal the deal. #'''Support'''. ++
'''Support''' - Though the answer to #1 seems to make be believe that Werdna doesn't really need the tools, I fully trust Werdna with the mop. --
'''Support''' trustworthy. —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>
<big>'''Yes.'''</big> Werdna is a dedicated Wikipedian who will certainly not abuse the tools. He may not have had many recent edits, but he's behind most of the recent new features, so he's certainly been around WP. If the tools might ever be helpful to him, then he should have them, as he's a trustworthy user and deserves to be given a few buttons, even if he might not use them all the time. Werdna's clearly a great candidate who should be promoted. --
'''Support''' - Great user and he has produced some of the best new features for Wikipeida.
'''Support''': His "lack of activity" belies the fact that he's been coding MediaWiki. He '''developed''' the cascading protection that has assisted the increased vandalism lately and several other MediaWiki improvements. He doesn't write articles, but writes code.—
'''Support''' - Werdna doesn't have the world's best way of expressing himself, especially when involved in conflict, but ultimately I feel the issue boils down to whether or not Wikipedia will be better or worse if Werdna gets the bit. For my part, I'm convinced it will be better. It is already remarkable that he has spent so much time developing protection and blocking tools ''when he has no on-wiki experience in using them'', and it is about time we rectify that. To say nothing of the need that developers can have to edit Mediawiki space interface messages. I believe that experience as an admin will help make him a more effective developer.  Good software is just as important to the project's success as good articles.  Consider, how often does [[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] write articles really?
'''Support''', easy. This will allow Werdna to do even more Wikignoming. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''〈<font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Good user, won't abuse the tools.  He may not use them for the same things most people do, but he should have 'em when he needs them. --
'''Support''' For obvious reasons listed above, Werdna has gone far too long without sysop access. Let us give it to him, this time.
'''Support''' no doubt.
'''Support''' Yes, of course. No abuse is to be expected. --
'''Support''' Yes, please.
'''Strong support'''. He's a dev, what better reason than to give him the tools? Our goal may be to write an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it's the ''only'' way to contribute. If he doesn't contribute much to articlespace, his having the mop and bucket or not isn't going to change it. Furthermore, in my experience, he isn't hot-headed or pushy. If he blocks someone unfairly or deletes something stupidly (which I am sure he will not), it's not like his actions can't be undone. There are no disadvantages that I can see in Werdna being a sysop.--'''
'''Strong Support''': Werdna builds an encyclopedia in his own way. He's the kind of builder who works behind the scenes to make everything a better place; I know, for one, that his contributions to various tools are invaluable. Giving him admin abilities can only benefit Wikipedia as a whole.  '''
'''Support''' shows commitment to the project.
'''Support'''.  The candidate has clearly developed a lot of time and effort to the project, and understands how his software skills can make it work.  I'd like to see him contribute more to the article namespace, but I don't think it's essential.
'''Support''' for the fourth and hopefully final time.  Andrew has contributed an immense amount of time and energy into the project and into MediaWiki.
'''Support''' I didn't contribute to the other three RfAs (to my knowledge), as I had no real opinion on the matters for supporting or for opposing.  In this case, I support as the tools will aid  in contributing to [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintaining]] the encyclopedia.  I'm not a writer, I've made that clear from the beginning of my contributions here and I passed RfA.  The buttons can aid in the building of the encyclopedia in maintaining the integrity of the articles that other editors have spend so much time writing.  We all do this for free, whatever it is we do here.  Werdna's developer work has aided the project and to not have the tools would not better his contributions.  I believe having them would.  It ''is'' possible to be a system operator in the sense of the word, without the gravitas (thanks, [[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]]!) that administrator implies.  It's not all deletion and blocking, there is access to [[Wikipedia:MediaWiki_namespace|MediaWiki]] to consider.
'''Strong support'''. Absolutely excellent developer and editor. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5">
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' committed user who will not abuse the tools.
I must admit to some ambivalence but he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I must also say I find some of the oppose-comments rather unconvincing.
'''Support''' Not the most exciting candidate content wise, but Werdna clearly knows what should and should not be done with admin privileges. '''
'''Extremely Strong Support''' After all your contribs you aren't a sysop? [[User:Geo.plrd|<font color= "blue">G</font>]]
'''Strongest Support Ever''' I wasn't planning on getting into RfA voting today, but when I saw Werdna up for discussion, I just had to vote.  Will be totally disgusted if he doesn't get the mop (Sheesh, if Werdna fails, who would ever succeed?  [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] would probably fail!) -- '''<font color="blue">
'''Dude,-this-guy-is-really-great support''' - excellent candidate, active on IRC, no chance of abuse.
'''Pile-on support'''. I hate clichés, but I thought he was an admin until scrolling through this page. -- [[User:Chris is me|Chris]] [[Special:Contributions/Chris is me|is]] [[User talk:Chris is me|me]] <sub>
'''Support''' Contributions, shmatributions-he's an excellent user and will make a great addition to the Wiki-warriors known as administrators. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. An unconvential candidate, but I'm pursuaded by the answers and arguments above.  He's obviously been a great asset to WP, so I don't foresee abuse of the tools.--
'''Support''' --<b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' for his technical work.
'''Support'''. He has access to some powerful tools already and has not abused them. People I know trust him, and he's always friendly and helping people out, which admin powers would assist with. I also don't think voluminous contributions are a prerequisite - he's edited and edited well and substantially, and that's enough.
'''Support'''. Werdna is a good egg. If he isn't able to pass Ye Olde Hallowed RfA System, then nobody should be allowed to. —
'''Support'''. Very friendly, helpful user. Deserves a bit more power. --
'''Support'''. It's understandable for a developer to lack much mainspace edits, but admin powers will clearly benefit him when it comes to creating tools like WerdnaBot and helping with backlogs. If someone can be trusted with the code, they can be trusted with admin powers. -
'''Unconditional Support''', Werdna should've been an admin a long time before this, and I was honestly surprised that he hadn't been made one already. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Strong Support''' Thinking that he has made a bot, I already support his RfA. Like ^demon said, "Werdna should've been an admin a long time before this". '''[[User:RyGuy|<font color="Red" face="Comic Sans MS">Ry</font>]][[User Talk: RyGuy|<font color="Blue" face="Comic Sans MS">Guy</font>''']]  [[User:RyGuy/ Signature Book|<font color="Darkred" face="Comic Sans MS"><small>Sign Here!</small></font>]]
--
Mild '''support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm with Radiant on this one. The diffs that the opposers are throwing out don't look so much like incivility. The user can obviously be trusted with the mop. Dedication to the project is there.
'''Strong Support''' Well qualified and can be trusted.--
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' With some reservations. Some of the reasons give for opposition are more relevant than others. The first one - a lack of many edit summaries in non-mainspace is almost laughable- while edit summaries are useful in mainspace edit summaries elsewhere rarely are. For example if one is replying on a talk page it does not help anyone to have the added edit summary of "reply" or "reply to X." The next question is whether there is a lack of mainspace contributions. With over 800 mainspace contributions I don't see any direct substantial issue there (indeed, before more recent editcountitis on RfA this would have been well within an acceptable range). Furthermore, Werdna has demonstrated his commitment to the project through his substantial work as both a developer and as a bot programmer. The most serious issue raised are concerns about civility and personal attacks. While Werdna does occasionally go over the line of what is acceptable I am not convinced that this occurs to an extent that it would impair his ability to use his admin tools. Thee only other concern is whether he will use the tools- I don't think he will use them that often but that isn't a reason for him not to have them. Since abuse of tools is unlikely there is no major downside to giving him the tools at this time.
'''Strong Support''' After seeing his edit count with wannabe Kate's tool, I see he has made 6 edits to the article [[Penis]]. That made me seriously laugh out loud. But anyway I trust him with the tools, thus my support. Peace. --
'''Support''' Invaluable contributor.
'''Support''' we've had our differences in the past... but I feel you've attempted to change. Let's let the past stay in the past. &nbsp;
'''Support''' per Newyorkbrad and Cyde.
'''Support''', for your constant dedication to the project (a new software feature every week, if the ''Signpost'' can be trusted), for the archival bot (and everything else you may have done to silently lighten the workload for others), and being the voice of reason in the Husnock RFAR. <span style="font-size:smaller;">(although you've only made a couple weeks' worth of edits in the last 6-7 months, and that some of your AFD nominations horribly missed the mark, please try to do better).</span> —
'''Strong support''' As competent and trustworthy a candidate as you can hope for.--
'''Wholehearted support''' - I strongly trust Werdna's technical ability to handle the sysop tools. --
'''Strong Support''' This user is one of the best bot makers on wikipedia (and i do'nt care about edit counts.)
~
'''Double Support''' Looks excellent.--
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' Quality editor. --
'''Support''' - for the person who created our revision undo and expiring protection features to be unable to edit the messages they provide because he is somehow trusted to develop but not to do such more menial things, is just silly. -
'''Support''' per opposes. -
'''Strong Support''' Werdna has done more to fight vandalism than most of the oppose votes below and if we wants to be able to combat abuse on the front lines, rather than behind the scenes on the MediaWiki source code and bots then so be it. It saddens me that most of the oppose votes appears to be knee jerk reactions to issues that Werdna has been grilled over many, many times before in past RFAs. Remember that Werdna is a teenager and his mistakes were made when he was younger. His continued dedication to Wikipedia despite the repeated rejection only shows that he has matured further and has learnt from his lessons. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
''Peace''. --'''
'''For''' - He welcomed me in a very nice way. --'''
'''F&mdash; yeah''', it's time already. He '''is''' competent to handle the admin tasks. He '''will not''' abuse admin tools is what I asked myself. He is not the most civil person around, and I am not one either. Administrators are only human, and this user is '''bold'''; and he was so before attaining adminship. I wasn't. Shouldn't he be administrator? '''F&mdash; yeah''', he should be. &mdash;
'''Qualified support''', essentially per Newyorkbrad. I think this whole RFA discussion shows, Werdna, that we trust you (or most of us do) to do good and do no harm with the sysop bit. Since adminship ought to be ''no big deal'', I support giving you the sysop bit. However, the Oppose votes indicate significant concerns about some of your interactions with other members of the community and I hope you have taken those to heart. If you pass this RFA, for your own sake you should stay out of conflict and pass on contentious mopping to others. I think there's a great chance you will become a great sysop. There's also a fine chance you'll continue to be a great developer who occasionally uses the sysop bit when needed. There's also a small chance you could become a flameout like some recent cases - please don't do that.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Not perfect, but meets the requirements of an admin. I trust his judgement with the admin tools and that he would keep "work" and "home" life separate (if that makes sense). A lack of article space edits? So what, that's only a major concern when the editor becomes detached from the considerations of normal editors. Wikipedians can serve Wikipedia in many ways, don't assume having a high article edit count makes a good admin. Werdna is just making the best use of the time he has (we're volunteers, not politicians), and still has a very strong grasp of main space editing concerns and perspective. Yes, for some people this really is possible. Don't be thrown because he's not what you expect. --
'''WTF support''' shouldn't you automatically have adminship?--
'''Support''', unconventional, but, well, he's a dev-and from the looks of it, a very good one! Is lack of "article writing" such a big thing when you're making the very ''frame'' that allows those articles to be written?
'''Support''' A fine chap; he needs and deserves the tools. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''.  A good admin is not always a good article writer.  His tool contributions show that he has the project's best interests in mind. --
'''Support''' - but ''perhaps'' reluctantly.  To me it boils down to this: the tools would help in some way with his work here, and I think we can trust him not to misuse them.  I would encourage him to remember that civility, empathy, and courtesy are important, of course.  Still, I think he'll do good things with the mop, so I support. --
'''Support''' - as per nom, seriously, why has it taken this long?! ;)
'''Support''' as per nom and in opposition to <inclusion of disputed question>. --
'''Support''' &mdash; I trust that he will appropriately use, both technically and according to policies and guidelines, the mop and bucket.
If we can trust Werdna to write the code for wikipedia, we sure as heck can '''support''' Werdna as an admin. ---
'''Support''' A fine editor. Will be a fine admin.
'''Firm support''' inasmuch as I think it quite clear that Werdna should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of his becoming an admin]] should be positive.  I am absolutely unconvinced that an admin need be a productive contributor to articles&mdash;his nvolvement in mainspace need only provide him with an understanding of the applicability of policies and guidelines&mdash;and  I think the candidate's trustworthiness and judgment to be quite propitious; the answers to questions seven, nine, and ten, I think, evidence reassuringly clear thinking and suggest to me that Werdna well understands that which is adminship.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' essentially per Kim Bruning. If I didn't think this might result in awesome new software features, I wouldn't support.--
<s>'''Very angry neutral''' I believe that editors should not be penalized for venting. I canot, however, support an editor who vented with a coven of people whose sole intent is to harass the people who supported the ventor - it shows bad judgement and a lack of loyalty under stress. However, given that most of the other opposes are garbage, I merely decline to support.[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 13:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)</s>'''support''' incident I was concerned about was long ago. I assume user will no longer engage in such behavior.
'''Oppose''' — lack of contributions, lack of activity, still seems slightly incivil at times, lack of edit summaries, fails my criteria, user shows no actual need for the tools realistically tbh :-\ <span style="font-style: Tahoma; font-size: 84%;">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' Sorry Werdna you are not nearly active enough. And your answer to Q1 is vague and shows me that although you might do a good job as a developer, you don't really need to be an admin. Also, this is your 4th request. A self-nom. As you've said, you have access to the admins channel, and I'm sure someone will do the job for you. --
'''Weak Oppose''' for now. Although I do not agree with 'lack of edit summaries' (it is actually very good), I cannot support due to lack of recent activity (and to a lesser extent, lack of mainspace contributions).
'''Weak oppose''', at least for now.  I don't think that edit summary use is quite good &ndash; in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Werdna it's very sparse] &ndash; and "I can't think of many [uses for the admin tools as a developer] right now, but I'm sure they'll be useful there", coupled with the earlier comment that he won't realy use them much anyway, makes me wonder why it's so important (four requests) for him to have them. [Those supporting him seem to disagree with him on this, and assert straightforwardly that the tools ''will'' be useful to him as a developer; what do they know that he doesn't?]  I've nothing at all against him as a developer or editor, and haven't seen or experienced any incivility, but I don't see the advantage for him (or for Wikipedia) to have a mop and bucket. --
'''Oppose''' : "I'm not really an article-writer" speaks louder than words. Erm ...... yes. Seems to me that Wikipedia (especially article-writers) does not really need this individual as an admin, particularly as he admits to being "blunt". He's a developer. Developer's develop. I think I'm right in saying that.
'''Oppose'''. Serious lack of contribs recently &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Not active enough. -
'''Oppose''' I find the refactoring of other users comments in an RfC and incivil comments in edit summary troubling. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FSir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington&diff=98617344&oldid=98616012] (The RfC is currently closed and the issues resolved.) &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Malber.
'''Oppose''' per Malber & Majorly.  Werdna is a great developer but development is a different skillset than that required for an admin and I don't believe that Werdna has demonstrated the skills of an admin.  --
'''Oppose''' based on this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDaniel.Bryant_2&diff=103361914&oldid=103358289].  Not that he should have supported Daniel but I cannot support giving the bit to someone who advocates consistently taking admin actions against consensus.  Sure the community is sometimes (even often) wrong, but I don't trust a single individual to decide when.  Consensus isn't perfect, but it is the best that we have come up with.
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace contributions. '''Continuous engagement in content writing is the only way to not ensure the candidate may understand the concerns of the article writers, whose being provided with a comfortable environment is the crucial adminning task.''' No disrespect to developers and programmers, but ''Wikipedia is an encyclopedia'' and the candidate is not running for the position in the software project. Additionally, answers demonstrate little, if any, need for the tools anyway. Ready to reconsider based on the answers to the questions. --
'''Strong Oppose'''.Per Blnguyen also we have enough admins who don't add to the content of the encyclopedia already.
'''Oppose''' for now, though I'm willing to be persuaded. I'm concerned that Werdna tagged this as his second RfA, when it seems to be his 4th, or do I have that wrong? I'm also concerned about the amount of discussion about individuals on IRC, although that's a vague impression I have, and I stand to be corrected. My biggest concern is that Werdna has hardly edited since October 2006.
'''Oppose''' I opposed last time effectively for lack of maturity, and still see some issues. First off, for me an admin '''must''' have good article writing experience. Admins are here to oversee the article writing, and if they have insufficient personal experience with it their attitude towards actual writers (from my own experience) shows it. Second, I see lack of sufficient justification of need for the tools. Also, the bold statement at the top sounds very political and  immature. I do like Werdna, I think he is a good and smart person and an excellent Wikipedian, and appreciate very much his help as a developer here and hope he can continue.
'''Oppose''' per Crum375. Previous experiences with this editor and the bolded statement in this RfA gives me no confidence yet that he will deal with controversies in a mature and respectful manner. -
'''Oppose'''. Three main reasons. First, I don't think we need any more admins who do their business on IRC instead of on-wiki; second, I don't like the bolded thing above; third, per Giano and Irpen -- I recognise we all contribute in our own way but it has to be more here and less in IRC for me to feel it's worthwhile.
'''Strong oppose''' I can't be bothered searching for dozens of diffs, but frankly I have always found Werdna to be hot-headed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Campaign_for_less_bull_more_writing&diff=prev&oldid=80634903]  and take everything on wiki far too personally[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington&diff=prev&oldid=98617344]    - I think this will translate to him [[WP:BITE|biting]] new editors with comments like "go do something useful"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:NFAN3/Christmas_Wishlist&diff=prev&oldid=90851094]  . I also question his judgment and knowledge of policy on some issues[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_to_Make_Money_Like_a_Porn_Star&diff=prev&oldid=80982938] as well as his maturity (as he has already threatened to leave the project "indefinitely" on at least one occassion[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werdna&diff=prev&oldid=81532793]) - and finally, his admittance that he may not have the characteristics of an admin[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werdna/Sysop_Accountability_Proposal&diff=prev&oldid=94047397] . This is nothing personal, and I can count the amount of RfAs Ive ever opposed on two fingers; but I strongly feel that there are too many serious issues here to ignore. '''
'''Oppose'''. Administrators need to be editors as well to understand the impact and importance of our ''core'' policies, [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NPOV]]. Above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral). In addition to the concerns I had below, I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with this candidate. Glen's comment was what finally had me decide that there was just too much doubt about the suitability of this nominee.
'''Oppose''' due to paucity of article contributions and willingness to block established editors based on IRC discussions. Trials in absentia are not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.
'''Oppose''' First off, thanks for the bot work, good job. Second, I think IRC should be avoided as much as possible. Lastly, I expect admins to have more balance with article writing to compliment their admin work.--
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' Administrators should contribute to the content, as this is an encyclopaedia... —
'''Oppose as above'''- more WP than mainspace edits, a dropoff in recent edits, and the fact that he nominated himself (herself?)
'''Oppose''' per Glen and Malber
'''Oppose''' per Glen, Malber, and not enough participation. Bots? I'm sorry, but I cannot buy the argument that good bot work = good admin work. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong Oppose''' - cannot do anything but oppose someone who states in their own RfA their "viewing of civility as of lesser importance to actually getting things done". That smacks of a blanket excuse for incivility and unfortunately massively undermines the user's stated determination not to be uncivil. Blnguyen's diffs persuade me to up to Strong Oppose. --
'''Oppose''' Doesn't really demonstrate why he needs the tools in question one - The answer seems to be 'because I'd like them'. His bots are great though - but adminship is 'no big deal' and certainly isn't an award. --
'''Oppose''' re: Crum375 and lack of maturity, as well as some quite inappropriate edit summaries provided by others. I'm afraid the user will be a bit reckless with the tools. --
'''Oppose''' per several others above.
'''Oppose''' The candidate seems to desperately want the buttons (as per his several other attempts at RfA) without actually needing them.  He does not have enough experience at policy pages, vandalism reversion, or even article writing.  As such, in my humble opinion, he is not qualified to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia as yet
'''Oppose''' I think that making Werdna an administrator will result in a net loss for his productivity and his enjoyment of Wikipedia, which would be a shame as his technical work is excellent and is well publicised. In my experience however, his interactions with other Wikipedians have not been of a satisfactory level, and aside from the confrontations, he has twice taken wikibreaks of a month's duration due to choosing wrong disputes to weigh into, "biting off more than he can chew" and getting himself upset. Aside from what affect it may have had on others, it has also had a bad effect on him. When you become an admin, one will get perhaps a five-fold increase in talk page messages and potential sticky situations to get into, and I feel that this would damage Werdna's productivity even more, especially in the technical depeartment, where there is obviously a lesser supply of human resources, and to which he has made many contributions, such as the cascading protection that earned recognition in the Signpost. I should note that this opposition is not meant to be a slight on an RfA candidate, since there are also some excellent article writers with 400+ articles, etc, etc, that I gave barnstars to, but are extremely emotional and unsuited to the role and I would not support them either. '''
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen, Glen and others.
'''Oppose'''.  I had to think about this one for a while.  Werdna is clearly dedicated and well meaning, and he has a use for the tools.  His tendency to become frustrated, overly agitated, and incivil, however is not a good trait for a sysop; and while this may have changed, he hasn't really edited enough since his last RfA to demonstrate if it has.  Adminship is not just about pushing the buttons at the right times; it's equally about dealing with the inevitable upset people who will show up seeking explanations for your actions, and dealing with them politely and patiently.  The diffs provided by Blnguyen above, among others, show that Werdna would be likely to have problems in this regard. --
'''Oppose''' mainly per Blnguyen. I normally abstain from commenting in the RfAs of "specialist admins", but in this case it seems to be one who also looks down upon "article writers"
'''Absolutely not'''.  Someone who trolls his own <s>AFD</s>RFA page with statements such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWerdna_2&diff=103366009&oldid=103365657 '''(BY THE WAY: Please Don't Bite The Opposers by arguing with them. If they're showing faulty reasoning, the crat'll take that into account at the end. Whether they're right or wrong, opposes tend to stick anyway (people who are wrong are often stubborn, and people who are right will obviously stay opposing), and all arguing causes is bad blood and a long page [I've learned a lot of this the hard way])'''] deserves no mercy from the community.  Such an [[WP:AGF|abject expression of bad faith]] and obvious disdain for [[WP:CON|consensus]] clearly exhibits a completely unacceptable attitude for an administrator.  I happily support (or fail to oppose) admin candidacies which are diametrically opposed to my own personal biases, but this user's biases are diametrically opposed to the interests of the '''''Project''''', not merely to my own personal views.  I can express nothing less than astonished and depressèd shock that there are so many "support" votes.  I can only assume that those !voters have, w/o wanting to imply too much in the way of negativity regarding the responsibility RfA !voters incur upon themselves, have not conducted a '''sufficiently''' thorough study of this RfA before !voting in/on/for this election/candidacy.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose, of course''', per Binguyen and all others who oppose. If this person becomes an admin, he'll ''create'' more disputes rather than solve them. Though he helps improve Wiki's interface, he still not deserves this position. We need a capable ''admin'', not a ''decorator''.
'''Oppose''', per Glen and Blnguyen.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Robth|Robth]]. The lack of edits in themselves are not a problem for me- Werdna contributes substantially in other areas to make up for this. But that low number of recent edits make it impossible to discern if Werdna has improved on the frustration and civility issues raised in previous RfAs. Whether he will behave more calmly and civilly in future disputes were he to reingage with the community as an admin is therefore an unknown. For that reason alone, I don't think this is the right time to grant the tools. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> '''Oppose''', still does not meet my criteria based on answers to questions above. This is changed from neutral below, my initial opinion. -- ''
'''Oppose'''. Too hot-headed.
'''Strong Oppose''' (changed from '''Neutral'''). Like I said, his Wikipedian editing has slid considerably (fewer than 200 in the last 3 months); before his RfA, he hardly made any edits this month. I feel that new admins must be close to their first (or second) peak of good activity, so that they can pack a punch early in case they burn out. This user has the tendency to leave for long periods of time due to disputes, which could be a problem as an administrator. Moreover, like I said below, his edit summaries concern me (stuff like "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kempeitei&diff=prev&oldid=80770689 OMGWTF]", "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/TawkerbotTorA&diff=prev&oldid=81003300 idiots]", [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly&diff=prev&oldid=93971993 using the word "retarded" in wording disagreements and having to be told by people to reword the heading], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Werdna_2&diff=prev&oldid=103711806 consistently] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ali_K&diff=prev&oldid=100835039 happy-go-lucky] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA&diff=prev&oldid=79674331 edit summaries], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daniel.Bryant_2&diff=prev&oldid=103361914 controversy against the people immediately before the issue involving them] are generally unacceptable for an administrator); admins must be professional. Also, Binguyen's comments (which are similar to mine in many ways) hit home. On the whole, I believe this stems from one thing: lack of enough consistent (or the type of) maturity necessary to be an administrator. Like a user displayed below, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA#Oppose]] is a major issue; it shows a bit of hypocrisy (and what I feel is once again behavior too unprofessional for an administrator) and simple over-badgering, which should only be done kindly and in the more extreme circumstances. Some of those were 3-4 months ago, others are more recently, but '''all of it occured since the last RfA'''. As far as maturity goes, I can relate; heck, in looking at my edits from 2005, I can see a HUGE difference one or two years in the teenage phase makes. Hopefully Werdna will learn from this experience and come back when he improves on these issues, which he failed to do last time. Take another few months and try to build off of this; act professionally and build up another impressive activity string. By the way, I just noticed: happy 16th birthday Werdna; don't take this personally. &mdash; '''
'''Changing to oppose''' - Ouch, after reading Deckiller's and Blnguyen's reasons-<font color="red">
'''Oppose''' due to participation in exchanges that should have been handled differently.
'''Oppose''' this time, per Blnguyen. ←
'''Oppose''', also per Blnguyen.
'''Oppose''' per concerns expressed above. --
'''Oppose''' per the civility issues listed above. Specifically, he does not follow his own advice about not [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA#Oppose|badgering]] oppose voters in RFAs. -
'''Strong oppose''' per Deckiller. --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but I can not support a candidate for administrator with the concerns addressed above.  '''''
'''Oppose''' per Konstable.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of contribution to articles, and I'm not convinced of user's understanding of policies cited by various users above.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen's comments. You are an extremely valuable member of the community, but you haven't demonstrated that you are best suited for some of the more central aspects of encyclopaedia writing, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen. --
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen. No real explanation has been given for why this user needs to be an admin.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' I do not think the expressed reason for needing the mop was very compelling.  I also think that as one who does not edit in the article namespace, and one who has had civility issues, that it would not be perceived as being fair for him to be adjuducating issues in the article namespace.  I really cherish this users contributions to wikipedia and mediawiki, and I hope that he will not have his feelings hurt by these opposes.
'''Respectful oppose''' I can't support someone who seemed to give up on the community not so very long ago to focus on MediaWiki. The change of heart is appreciated, but as an admin there will always be some people in the community looking to get you down, and I can't be sure that Werdna will react appropriately. In all other areas his work is fantastic, and I hope he intends to carry on with it. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen.
'''Oppose'''.  Too many civility problems in the past I'm afraid.  I see that this is your 4th attempt and I'm sure that would hurt but in my own good conscience I have to err on the side of caution as I don't really see that much improvement happening.  You say above ''The "read before you save" doctrine works wonders'' and then you foist upon us your advice about not biting oppose voters.  Participants here do not need to be told what not to discuss thanks.   You, yourself have [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA#Oppose|badgered]] RfA opposes.  &mdash;
'''Weak oppose'''.  Some concerns with the comments here from others, but also concerned about judgement and views of process as [[User:Werdna/Sysop Accountability Proposal]] demonstrates. —
'''Oppose''' per above.-
'''Strong Oppose''' for incivility.  I am all for the encyclopedia working well technically, but for it to work well in terms of building content conforming to NPOV, civility is essential.  This admin is likely to set a bad example.
'''Oppose''':  The "whose ox is it" views of "incivility" highlighted by Blnguyen are dangerous, but the 'I oppose anything that reduces any speech on IRC' in the candidate's answers to Irpen are exactly the wrong attitude to take, given the amount of trouble we've been having with the use of IRC as a sniper's roost.  However, there is a dismissiveness of the questioners and users in all of the candidate's statements here that I could not support.  Administrators are ''servants,'' not ''bosses,'' and people who go into the position with an idea that they're going to be moving "up" end up giving us tremendous problems.
'''oppose''', regretfully. A lot of flawed arguing is flying around here. Good admins need social and editorial skills. Good developers need technical skills. Making someone an admin on grounds of his being a good developer doesn't make more sense than making someone a developer on grounds of his being a good admin. I would say "what the hell, the man deserves it anyway, no big deal", were it not for the concerns voiced above, and my detecting an attitude of being right by default by virtue of deep familiarity with the wiki. I much prefer new admins to be timorous and treading lightly until they get the hang of things, to counter the "dismissiveness" of old hands that often cannot be bothered with preliminaries before getting to the bossing-around.
'''Oppose''' per Malber.-
'''Oppose''', very less active presently.
'''Oppose''' I supported on basis that all developers need the admins tools, but I can't overcome the incivilty in the links given by Blnguyen which some of the links happened after your last RFA, and also lack of article writing. The inactivity votes should be discounted but still there is no way this RfA will pass now, so please withdraw and take the crtisism by heart and in three months you maybe the first to [[WP:300]] :) as this RFA had the most ever votes now. Also if you need admin help tell me in IRC and I would help you
'''Oppose'''. Very positive bot work, but unfortunately outbalanced by what I consider to be a worrying IRC mentality, brusquely defended [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC#Lack of Jurisdiction (Werdna)|without addressing the real perceived problem]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&target=Werdna&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 lack of article writing], which I find more relevant with respect to the extra buttons, which are not really needed anyway (''"might be useful, can’t think of many right now"'' in Q1)... nah. --
'''Oppose''' per Blinguen. I am sorry, Werdna contributed a lot to Wiki and his development work may occasionally need tools, but there are just too many examples showing the wrong mentality particularily his behavior towards Aloan. Admins are supposed to bend backwards to keep productive users not to drive them out
'''Oppose''' and agree w/Jayjg's comment. --
'''Oppose'''. I wouldn't have bothered looking at this one were it not for the nasty, intrusive bold warning about discussion on the RFA, which I feel reflects a severe misunderstanding of the process of building consensus on Wikipedia. Looking through the oppose comments I've come across a number of other reasons to oppose that I won't bother to list as they're all previously stated. —
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen. I don't anyone here feels he hasn't done a lot of great work for the project, but civility issues need to be worked on ''before'' adminship. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  My first interaction with Andrew occurred when he (while logged out) told me to "bugger off" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Automatic_edit_summaries&diff=89002067] in an edit summary after I reverted an inappropriate edit of his (the addition of malformed documentation pertaining to a function that he'd just added to MediaWiki but had not yet been enabled on this site).  I assumed that I'd caught him on a bad day and didn't give it a second thought until I found this RfA.  As it turns out, this sort of incivility (and worse) is not unusual for him.  I'm also quite troubled by his comments regarding the role an administrator should take (ignoring consensus and doing what he/she deems best) and by some of his comments on this page.  He also has no need for the sysop bit (and basically acknowledges this).  The bottom line is that Andrew is a fabulous developer and an unqualified admin candidate.  I must say that I'm disturbed by the number of support votes accompanied by the rationale that Andrew should be made an admin because he deserves to be rewarded for his contributions as a developer (and because the role of Wikipedia administrator is a "menial" step down from his developer's pedestal).  I'm sorry, but we entrust users with sysop tools to serve the community, ''not'' to make them happy.  —
'''Oppose'''. Civility issues. The lack of article writing skills doesn't bother me. --
'''Unfortunate Oppose'''. Firstly, and unfortunately, I agree with the yello monkey (Blnguyen), who has eloquently stated his position. Secondly, I personally am against the idea of having admin decisions regularly made on IRC. While it is a useful tool for quick discussion, I '''strongly''' believe in having a sense of transparency that talk pages bring, and while I would not oppose anyone for using IRC ''per se'', I am leary of opening my trust to someone who may abuse it. --
'''Oppose'''. I originally supported (under my former username SuperMachine) before switching to neutral after many valid concern were brought up. So why have I now pulled a 180 and opposed? There's a number of reasons, none of which individually would likely have caused me to oppose. The first is civility, which seems to be sorely lacking. Far too many diffs demonstrating incivility have been brought up. Another reason for opposition is becuse of his reliance on IRC. I do ''not'' want to see admin decision being made on IRC and I believe that Werdna would use it for this purpose. Finally, by not withdrawing this RfA when it's already clear that consensus hasn't been reached, Werdna is risking starting a firestorm on Wikipedia. I really feel bad about opposing, since I do think that Werdna adds a great deal to Wikipedia as a developer.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate seems uncivil and a bit too young at the moment. ---
'''Oppose''' The civility and lack of recent activity trouble me.--
'''Strong Oppose'''. Lack of activity in recent months, and overall immaturity and incivility issues, as mentioned by Blnguyen, Glen, Malber, Majorly, etc. '''
'''Oppose''': I don't like to do this, but I do find the civility issues too much to ignore.
'''Oppose''' Regretfully, and after closer consideration, I have realized that beyond his qualifications, it is important to be civil. Politeness is the difference between neutrality and holding a grudge. The last thing we need is to believe that an administrator is biased because of their manners.
'''Faint Oppose'''. Per above. '''
'''Oppose''', among other reasons, an edit summary that contains the phrase "stinks of original research".
'''Oppose''', poor behavior, and some things downright alarming.
'''Oppose'''. He's undoubtedly an excellent developer, but the concerns above about civility and lack of involvement in the editing side of Wikipedia have convinced me that he would not make a good admin. I'm also concerned about the question Konstable raised.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">
'''Reluctant, but strong oppose'''. A good developer, but as all of the evidence presented above shows, he currently does not have the temperment necessary for a good administrator. ''
'''Oppose'''. As per reasons listed. Lack of temper management as shown in edit summaries, could not be trusted with administrative power at this moment. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose'''.  An strong argument has been made that Werdna makes an excellent contributions to the project, and is basically trustworthy.  However, a better question is, what's the cost/benefit to making him an admin?  The upside seems very limited, from his answers and his activity as an editor;  the potential benefit seems significant, given the issues raised about civility and recklessness.  Arguments that are tantamount to "adminship as a a reward" or "devs should automatically have the admin bit" reasoning are flawed (and indeed, not really argued at all, so much as just assertions).  It further seems to conflate "MediaWiki developers" and "WikiMedia developers" -- which, put that way, isn't in the least surprising.  Even if he did have server-side access, that would speak more to "trust concerning deliberate misuse" than the "happy-go-lucky" concerns expressed here.
'''Neutral''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDaniel.Bryant_2&diff=103361914&oldid=103358289 this] just strikes me as odd. It reads like pleasing everyone is a [[Bad Thing]] that should be avoided, and that pissing off people every now and then is a sign of a good admin. That's certainly not the way to go. --
'''Neutral''': What Geda stated ("I'm not really an article-writer")—and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Werdna&title=Special:Contributions&namespace=0 it really shows]. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>(
'''Neutral'''.  While I do believe that a developer (and, ultimately, Wikipedia) would benefit from having sysop powers, I intensly dislike the candidate's response to question number six (in part dealing with non-development-related communications via IRC).&mdash;
'''Neutral'''.  I think Werdna is a great, great asset to the project, and I personally like the guy, but BLnguyen's statement above gives me a lot of concern. --
'''Neutral'''.  Eh, now I'm not so sure due to BInguyen et al.
'''Neutral'''. I can pretty much sum this up using the answer to question 3. Werdna shows a willingness to improve on civility and recognizes past mistakes, which I am glad to see. However, the "my viewing of civility as of lesser importance to actually getting things done" line, especially when combined with Blnguyen and Deckiller's comments, gives me pause. I'm not going to oppose as I did last time, because I generally trust Werdna. But I also think civility is important, especially in admins, so I can't support either.
'''Neutral''' Apparently I agree with both supporters and opposers, so I'll just sit here on no man's land.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' - while we certainly need people who do development work on the back end, administrators really should be more involved in building the encyclopedia - that is, writing articles.  (I must say, in addition, that people faulting Werdna for not using edit summaries when, for example, he posts at AN/I or votes on AfDs have me pretty flummoxed!)-
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> changed to '''neutral''' until at least Werdna's answer to my question - whether on-wiki, off-wiki, on this RfA, etc, I don't care.--
'''Neutral''' - Should he be an admin? <span style="font-size:95%">&mdash;[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''
'''Neutral''' Been thinking about this one for days, still cannot make up my mind. Major issues are civility, and there's a question above I would like to see answered. I envy the folks who are sure on this one, pro or con. Wish I were. <font color="green">
'''Reluctant Neutral'''.  Good developer and active with many improvements to the project, as such would normlly be an easy support.  After much review of the discussions above, and links cites, and not one I think would maliciously use the tools; however improved user relations and consensus finding skills would be prefered to access the non-tool functions of being a sysop (e.g. dealing with xfds's). —
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.  I strongly advise that you stop trying to gain these roles of "power" (clerk at ArbCom, clerk at RFCU, admin, etc.) and focus, instead, on developing as an overall Wikipedian.
'''Oppose''' Just not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.  Heed the above advice.
Not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' - per Metros. General lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience.--'''
'''Opppose''' Lack of experience. —
'''Neutral''' You're very enthusiastic, but I'm afraid I can't support because I don't feel you have enough experience. Please try to spend a bit more time around and learn the intricacies of Wikipedia.
Everything I look for in a candidate; good answers, solid stats, and vandal-fighting experience. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:medium;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support:''' exemplary, cool head, polite, scrupulously fair, diplomatic, an excellent nominee
'''Support''' Great user, I have no concerns.--[[H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H</font>]]
'''Support''', seems to have an all-around experience here. No concerns raised. '''
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' - a look at this User's contributions show that his interests are wide and his capabilities numerous. His behavior is often exemplary. Strongly support for adminship. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Good answer to question 1. Seems like your going to do a load of stuff.--
'''Support''' Would make a great admin based on contribs, nothing really to dislike except the whole barnstar thing which kind of worries me. But hell yes, support. '''Cheers,'''
'''Support''' &ndash; the arguments below, whilst perhaps a little unnerving, are (in my eyes) not enough to counter the obvious [[ability|nack]] for Mop-related activities Wikidudeman has developed during his time here on Wikipedia. Best of luck! Cheers,
'''Support'''- I've seen him around and I trust him with the burden. I also think that the barnstars were just a coincidence. --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''
'''Support''' - with one reservation (not worthy for neutral); I feel admins need explain ''every'' edit, so I would hope Wikidudeman will enable the edit summary reminder feature. Otherwise, everything is great and have had good impressions of this editor. Safe with the tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. No reason not to. A great user who will make an even better administrator. [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
YES! [[User_talk:Giggy|<font color="green">'''Giggy'''</font>]] <sub>[[User:Giggy|<font color="red">U</font>]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' I really don't have any issues with this editor.
'''Support'''. Good candidate, though i have few run-ins with him, but those that i have had are good.
'''Support''' No issues. -
'''Support''' Based on the user's contribution history, this user is bigger than me.
'''Support''' A great contributer, experienced and civil. Good luck!
'''Support''' I've worked with Wikidudeman on both the [[Anabolic steroid]] and [[Parapsychology]] articles and believe he would make a good admin.
'''Support''' A solid Wikipedian who gets the job done. --
'''Support''' Whole lot of good - ticks all the boxes (ie. contribs, answers etc.) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0078FF;padding:1px;background-color:#EFEFEF;color:#0078FF;">
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator. --'''<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="#6666FF">
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Another editor with special knowledge in a given area and more prone to bouts of WikiLove than abuse, certainly no complaints from here. Quick review of last 1000 contribs suggests a mature and well-considered editor who would do well with the mop in some of Wikipedia's darkest corners.
'''Support''' - friendly and kind editor who deserves the mop. -- <strong>
I'm
'''Support''' per AFD interactions
'''Support''' - Good User ...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support'''  Track is good
'''Support''' A very expierenced editor fit for the job and ready to help people. The very job of an admin.
'''Support''' I do not believe he will abuse the tools.
''Support'' He will make fine use of the tools as a sysop.
'''Support''' I think that this user will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' After reviewing your contributions, edit counts & talk page I feel confident enough that you are aware of the policies and guidelines that you will not abuse the buttons. --
'''Support''' I have read through this entire thing and it's a pretty serious information overload. All I can really say is that every encounter I've had with this editor's work has been positive. I can't come up with a compelling reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate. -
'''Support''' Having read the user's last 2,000 contributions and the oppose votes carefully, I don't see anything here which worries me. A user's controversial opinions on select subjects or particular sociopolitical views, so long as they can make neutral decisions and respect consensus, should have no bearing on their capacity to use the suite of administrative tools.
'''Support''' good article contributions showing maturity and rational approach
'''Weak Support''' (changed from neutral). I urge the candidate to take heed of some of the points brought up here, but there isn't any solid evidence that he'll be a poor admin, so I support.
'''Support''' Solid editor. Deserves the mop.
'''Support''' After considering the evidence from both sides of the argument, especially the oppose, I believe that Wikidudeman will make a fine administrator despite some concerns. --
'''Support''' He seems to be a fine contributor, and after loooking over the discussion, I believe that he will do well as an admin. -- <font color="purple">'''
'''Support''', the opposition does not give me any real pause.  The "potential canvassing" brought up due to the barnstar thing seems positively silly - Wikidudeman seems to have a history of being generous with barnstars.  To cast aspersions of canvassing because of a longstanding friendly activity - and then to oppose essentially on the basis of being "nice" - really rubs me the wrong way.
'''Support''', good message on userpage, good philosophy, good efforts.
'''Support''' - does good work and will be a fine admin. -
'''Support''' - per Davkal (who opposes) below.
'''Support''', could use the tools, no evidence of being mental.
'''Support''' seems fine.
'''Support''' For those of you who have not spent time on some of the very contentious articles that WDM has been working on, it may be hard to appreciate the skill of this editor. My primary interactions with him have been on the [[parapsychology]] article and its ArbCom proceedings, but I've also been involved with him on other articles, such as [[electronic voice phenomena]]. He has an extremely cool head. He weaved his way between the pro-paranormalists and those who think that things have natural causes, and expertly drew up a draft that is now relatively stable. The quality of the article notwithstanding, what is remarkable is how WDM managed to forge consensus where previously there had been none. He is, above all, ''reasonable'', and for that I support his nomination. <font color="red">[[User:Antelan|Ante]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support''' I spent forty five minutes reading through the cases presented below, and this user has impressed me as mature and level-headed.
'''Support''' A cool-headed and responsible editor who can clearly be trusted with the tools.
'''Support''' - but only on the pretense that the aforementioned glitches in his editing history continues to diminish in frequency. Seems to be a worthy contributor, and past mistakes should remain in the past. An editor that will but the sysop responsibilities to good use. -
'''Support''' he sounds nice and sounds like he has common sense without being anal/excessively beurocratic.
'''Oppose'''. The nomination says ''His recent work on Parapsychology, '''Ebonics''' and Homoeopathy shows that he has sufficient maturity and diplomacy to deal with even very difficult and controversial issues'' (emphasis added). What's this about Ebonics? I see no recent edits by Wikidudeman in its history. But his absence from its edit history is not something I regret. Wikidudeman had a long and highly distinctive involvement in the closely related article [[African American Vernacular English]], as will be seen in [[Talk:African_American_Vernacular_English/Archive_3#NPOV_Concern|AAVE/Archive&nbsp;3]], in subsequent archives, and in the current talk page. I have seen some very worthwhile contributions by him to other, unrelated articles and their talk pages, but am disturbed by the combination of his utter wrongheadedness over AAVE (the myth that it's "rudimentary" [his term], and other nonsense exploded decades ago), his obvious lack of serious reading about it (even what was written in some of the clearer parts of an admittedly flawed article, parts that he didn't question), his utter unconcern about this lack of reading, and his confidence in the rightness of having the article reflect his ignorance. These archived talk pages are tiresome and longwinded (their creation wasted a hell of a lot of man-hours) and make occasionally unpleasant reading. Still, I urge people to skimread them. (Of course I, as one of his opponents within them, am not lily-white myself: you'll see me losing my cool, calling names, etc.) An administrator should have a strong commitment to having articles reflect the fruit of fairly recent mainstream academic study (which disagrees over details but agrees that AAVE is in no way inferior to standard English), not his own [[Dictionary of Received Ideas|received ideas]] and not (or only fleetingly) piffle uttered on the subject by this or that celebrity. Wikidudeman may have changed since March or thereabouts, when (to my great relief) he seemed to have lost interest in that article; I certainly hope that he has done so. --
'''Oppose'''. Hoary has ably described Wikidudeman's participation in the lengthy conflict at AAVE. I am surprised that Wikidudeman states ''I can't think of any long term "conflicts"'' in answer to Question 3, above, since the record of the AAVE article shows otherwise: a months-long (at least), many bytes, multi-participant dispute that included a poorly conducted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/African_American_Vernacular_English#Other_steps_in_.5B.5BWikipedia:Resolving_disputes.7Cdispute_resolution.5D.5D_that_have_been_attempted: mediation attempt] (that is, poorly conducted by the mediator), a misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to move [[African American Vernacular English|AAVE]] to [[Ebonics]], a parallel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ebonics misguided attempt by Wikidudeman to delete the existing Ebonics article], and much very heated language on all sides. Maybe our definitions of "long-term" and "conflict" differ sharply... In the end, the dispute died only because Wikidudeman seemed to finally lose interest, not because of any resolution engineered or even suggested by him. Throughout, his comments were inflammatory (as were my own, I'm sure, though I'm not running for Admin), unfocussed, obstructionist and unhelpful. Wikidudeman's comments were also, at times, offensive, stereotyping, and ignorant. I can't see how Wikidudeman's conduct in that dispute bodes well for his potential career as an Administrator. And given the record of his involvement in the above-mentioned mediation and AfD, and his [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=wikidudeman&site=en.wikipedia.org record of half-hearted commitment to edit summaries], I remain to be convinced that Wikidudeman knows and understands Wikipedia policy sufficiently to operate successfully as an Admin.
'''oppose''' per Hoary and Pinkville.
'''Oppose''' per Hoary, Pinkville and Pedro, below.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' Hoary and Pinkville gave me pause, but Pedro's comments below put me over the top.  However, none of their comments would have mattered if not for my observations with regards to [[User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft]].
'''Oppose''' per Hoary and Pinkville; the candidate's answers to the questions do not seem to match up well with other users' experience of the editor.
'''Oppose''' I was also part of the team that came up against Wikidudeman on the AAVE page, but it's not the disagreement with him or even his stubbornness and ignorance displayed in the discussions, it's his judgement.  In the conflict, his attempts at dispute resolution showed a poor understanding of Wikipedia policies: he did an RfM first, nominated a page for deletion when he wanted it merged, added a disputed item to an article's to-do list, and even[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrican_American_Vernacular_English&diff=105950331&oldid=105950090   wikilawyered].  Now, granted, he wasn't ignorant in all policies (this was a discussion, not an edit war); people can learn from their mistakes and the AAVE dispute was potentially an intense lesson for Wikidudeman in the procedures for conflict resolution, but his discussion style was unbecoming of an editor.  Wikidudeman would call long replies to his comments "rants" (saying he didn't have enough time to read them) and had complete disregard for verifiable sources (and sourcing in general).  His failure to bring up this conflict here means he is either not honest with himself about it or is completely oblivious to the conflictive nature.  From what else I see of Wikidudeman, it seems as though AAVE was an exception to otherwise good editor but while I see Wikidudeman doing a great job on all things sysop, any conflict resolution tools he is granted may, I think, not be used wisely.
'''Oppose''' Strong Oppose. In the recent paranormal arbitration case, Wikidudeman was heavily biased toward the (pseudo)skeptical side of the debate in a way that I feel is inappropriate for someone who wishes to be an admin - a cursory understanding of neutrality being a prerequisite in my opinion. For example, re the point that skeptical editors had engaged in edit warring, Wikidudeman said, "I have never seen this occur or seen evidence of it occur". A comment which, given the constant edit warring of the named "skeptical" parties in that case, displays either monumental ignorance (hence not fit to be an admin)  or monumental dishonesty (again not fit to be an admin). That is, one need only take a cursory glance at the edit history of the EVP article (one major basis for the case) to see that the named "skeptical" parties (LuckieLouie, Minderbinder, ScienceApologist) had engaged in repeated edit warring (including the use of sock-puppets), and gang edit warring to try to force their POV into the article. Given that Wikidudeman could not form anything like a correct/neutral opinion in such an easy case, there seems to me no way he could be trusted to form one more difficult cases. He would, I fear, simply be another pseudoskeptical administrator who would be wheeled in when a debate was going against the pseudoskeptics in order to threaten and intimidate users. It is therefore hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is merely an attempt by the pseudoskeptical community in Wiki to get another of their "own men" on the inside so that they can force their POV into articles despite many (most) of their views about content being soundly rejected by the arbitration committee. That Wikidudeman agreed wholeheartedly with so many points that were rejected by that committee is, I think, a further reason why he is unsuitable to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Hoary and Pinkville.  I would expect an adminstrator to behave in a more collegial and cooperative fashion than the conduct exhibited by the candidate in the discussions surrounding AAVE.  This is only a question of experience -- admins will still become involved in editing disputes of all kinds, but I expect them to comport themselves with a level of calmness and good-humor that I don't see in the candidate's record.
(edit conflict x2) '''Oppose''' The attitude in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Statement by frequently involved Wikidudeman]] is that Wikipedia should follow the [[Wikipedia:Scientific point of view|scientific point of view]].  He appears to want to go even further than that rejected proposal and actually remove articles on pseudo-science.  I don't want this user getting the delete button.  He appears to lack understanding of the fact that the basis for inclusion is [[WP:V|verifiability, not truth]].  While he wasn't sanctioned by the ArbComm, his basic assumptions were clearly rejected.  I also found his conduct in this case to tend to continue the dispute rather than calm it down.  I don't want him becoming an admin. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)  (Additionally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DeletedContributions&target=Wikidudeman his deleted contributions] reveal that he is marking speedy deletion taggings as minor edits very consistently.  This is incorrect, they are anything but minor.
'''Oppose''' per Pedro, Hoary and Pinkville. Also from [[User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft]], I see [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues and a cavalier attidude to policy. While he's a good editor, I'm not sure I trust him to use admin tools properly.<b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and Jkelly.--
'''Oppose''' per the AAVE discussions and some of the subsequent comments by opposers above.  It's not any one post by Wikidudeman that makes me oppose, but after reading that archive, and the AfD discussion, I simply don't trust his judgment.
'''Oppose''' I cannot trust this user with the tools after reading Hoary and Pinkville's statements.
'''Oppose''' I like Wikidudeman, and it is with substantial reluctance that I advise letting this valuable contributor ripen a bit more on the vine before putting these powerful tools in his hands. I also was a bit concerned when I read the statements of Pedro, Hoary and Pinkville. I follow the line of thought that anyone who wants to be in a position of power, probably is the wrong person to put in a position of power. While he is trying valiantly to bring some order to the situation at [[homeopathy]], for which we are all grateful, I just wonder about the prudence of this action at this time.--
'''Strong Oppose.''' My exposure to the candidate is fairly restricted, but far from limited, stemming from a content dispute at [[AAVE]].  Throughout, the candidate sought to edit-war his utterly uninformed perceptions of the subject into the article, all the while displaying an abysmal ignorance about the topic and extreme cultural bias and insensitivity.  He refused to listen to reason, to ample documentation presented by other readers, or to acknowledge the validity of scholarly opinions on the matter.  I urge voters to refer to the discussion pages of the article for examples of this editor's comments.  Here's a link to one archived discussion page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American_Vernacular_English&oldid=107517039]  This candidate definitely does ''not'' exhibit either the temperament or judgment to be an effective and impartial administrator.  In light of my experience with this user, I find his answers to the questions posed highly disingenuous.  A ''definite'' thumbs down.

'''Oppose'''. WDM has done a lot of great work on the 'pedia and is obviously dedicated to its cause. However, the above comments give me pause. I can't find any uncivil comments dated beyond February, and I would like to believe that WDM has left the incivility behind. However I also cannot find any apologies or admissions of uncivil behavior. Therefore I must oppose. I will reconsider if he re-applies later. If anyone would like to reply to my comment, please do so on the talk page. Thank you,
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. It gives me no pleasure to oppose a good contributor, but RfA is mostly about trusting someone with the tools and there are too many ifs and buts here for me to really trust Wikidudeman. I recommend candidate withdraws, does some serious pondering on the issues raised here and returns as soon as possible for an RfA that'll storm through. Whatever you decide to do, good luck to you. I can see you're one of the good guys, I just have too many questions over your judgement. --
There is evidence of edit warring, and Wikidudeman's statement to the effect that there was no edit warring is evidence that the problem remains. I cannot trust the candidate to perform administrator duties in a neutral manner at this time, so I must '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' - I basically ignored all of the details on this page about whatever contention there is about specific articles and opinions and edit warring, because, quite frankly, I a) don't care for the drama and b) I don't want to give up the next 2 hours of my life.  I will say that the drama itself on this page and the constant back and forth between your opposers and you and your supporters leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and doesn't exactly engender confidence.  Putting that aside, I decided to look at your edits to Wikipedia talk space and quickly found one which pretty well allowed me to stop investigating.  Your comments [[Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Enforcing bans. Flaw in policy. Proposed change.|here]] have me concerned that you do not have the judgment necessary to made the decisions required of an admin. --
'''Oppose''' per Fang Aili and After Midnight.--
'''Oppose'''–  I’m afraid I must oppose this nomination per Fang Aili and After Midnight.  While Wikidudeman has done some very good work, the above comments and the replies concern me. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Fang Aili and After Midnight, and concerns about an unclear understanding of NPOV.
'''Neutral''' So I think I'm going to stuff my personal reputation here with this, as this editor is so good and contribs are fab. '''But''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikihermit&diff=prev&oldid=147433939] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki&diff=prev&oldid=147433781] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woohookitty&diff=prev&oldid=147433396] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sr13&diff=prev&oldid=147432521] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shalom&diff=prev&oldid=147429796] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade&diff=prev&oldid=147429606] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wimt&diff=prev&oldid=147429517] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwsn&diff=prev&oldid=147460452] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lemonflash&diff=prev&oldid=147460318] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TenPoundHammer&diff=prev&oldid=147460045] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&diff=prev&oldid=147459884] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luna_Santin&diff=prev&oldid=147459637] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&diff=147431249&oldid=14740285511] barnstars to RFA regulars (including one to myself) in the few days prior to this RFA reeks of a violation of [[WP:CANVASS]]. I'm really sorry, as it looks like I'm throwing [[WP:AGF]] out the window, but I can only comment based on my personal beliefs. For what it's worth if it where not for this I would have been a strong support. I'm ready to get shot down in flames for this, but I doubt my oppose will change. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Good: Dedicated contributor, reasonable, more than willing to work with others, has respect for Wikipedia policies, and is an asset to Wikipedia. Bad: Sometimes misses important detail in conversations, (imho) compromises but has a strong point of view, and (imho) has a profound distrust of some other editors. --'''
'''Support''' This user is great. I have seen him a lot in my recent changes patrol. He is a bit new but I am sure he will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' Seems to be quite a good editor to me. Has contributed to several articles, passed 1000 mainspace edits, runs a bot of his own, and is constantly reverting vandalism. The tools would really make his job easier... And for those who say he is a bit new, maybe because he joined Wikipedia in this same year, he has already made over 4000 edits. Best of luck, <font color="purple">♠</font>[[User:TomasBat|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Tom</font></font>]][[User_talk:TomasBat|<font color="red">@</font>]]

'''Oppose''', and I'll give my reasons if/when I get a chance. '''
<span id="minor"/>'''<s>Weak</s> Strong oppose''' - You nominate large numbers of articles for deletion, marking the nomination as a minor edit every time ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subpoena_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=136457028], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bcratbacklog&diff=prev&oldid=136507586], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Zastavarecnemornarice.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=136969291], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birdhuman&diff=prev&oldid=136936066] in the last couple of days alone), while [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inkscape&diff=prev&oldid=133309505 undoubtedly minor edits] are marked as major; either you're sloppy and not checking your edits before you press the button, or you don't understand a fairly fundamental Wikipedia concept - either way it's not a good trait in an admin. Plus, while it's not a reason to oppose in and of itself there's something faintly iffy about trying to change your username twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username&diff=prev&oldid=115914186][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations&diff=prev&oldid=126739557] in three months<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
You say you want to become an admin, then a bureaucrat, then a steward.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikihermit/bio&diff=next&oldid=134101527] There is no need for more bureaucrats or stewards, so this would appear to be power for power's sake. I do not think Wikipedia or any organization needs people who seek power, and so I do not feel comfortable with you taking this first step. ··
'''Strong Oppose'''  I'm very unimpressed by your demonstrated understanding of image licensing.  This is my conclusion after reviewing a number of images that you have uploaded claiming GFDL or PD when it is cleearly not.  I'm also not impressed by this [[:Image:Antigay.png]] little creation of yours.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Strong oppose'''. Vacuous answers to questions, apparent poor understanding of policy, '''[[:Image:Antigay.png|creates extremely divisive userboxes]]''', and I can't find anything remarkable in his last 1000 contributions to offset these strong negatives.
'''Oppose''' per experience with user and anti-gay userbox, which clearly meets T1. Also because of today's revert, which you called "vandalism," but was not even close vandalism. Another thing is the answer to Q1. CSD backlog usually isn't handled that quickly, and sometimes piles up. Also, the point of admins if to determine consensus, so as an admin, you shouldn't only be closing ones that are obvious (regular users can already close obvious keeps). Lastly, you don't meet one of my only personal requirements: ''about'' 6 months on the project. --<small>([[Wikipedia:Editor review/R|Review Me]])</small>
'''Strong Oppose''' - anybody creating divisive and inflammatory userboxes shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. There's evidence to suggest this candidate would not discharge his duty as an administrator in a fair and impartial manner and may discriminate based on sex, sexuality or religion and as such, must not be promoted. As usual, don't bother replying to my comments as I'll not see them.
I see significant flaws in this editor's understanding of policy in many areas; plus, the whole homophobia thing = not good. '''Oppose''', as per [[:User:Nard the Bard|N]].
'''Oppose''' Poor understanding of policy is a concern here. I'm also concerned that this user would not able to fairly discharge his responsibilities in all cases, per Nick's comments.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Self-noms are ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger.
'''Neutral''' Good amount of edits and a good edit summary usage but you seem a little too new for me.  Not sure how much knowledge of policy and things you have only being here about 4 months, but that isn't enough for me to oppose. --Malevious
'''Support''' as nom. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Strong support''' - I think Wikihermit would make a good administrator.  -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|
'''Support''' I've seen the editor around and from what I've seen he has made pretty good contributions. I don't see any reason not to trust this user with the extra tools. --Malevious
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support''' - comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Best_User_Page_Contest_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=154290949&oldid=154288662 this] are really not helpful, but you are an overall great editor :-) Good luck! --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricu</font>]]
Improved much since last time, Wikihermit needs to become an admin :) -- <strong>
No problems here, good editor. '''Support''' --
'''Weak Support''' I was harsh to go netural at first. I would like to thank Boricuaeddie for striking out my vote. I was planning to at first go oppose, but decided on netural. Then I believe what Wikihermit said below about my Netural !vote. I am now going Weak Support because other than this mishap [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Politics_rule]], he is a, and excuse my language, a damn good editor. If you find that offensive, strike it, but it's true. Good luck!
(ecx2)I've seen him around, and I have no problems with this user. --
'''Support''' I supported this user in the previous RfA, so I suppose I'll support here too :) <font color="purple">♠</font>
'''Support''' - Good editor. Good background and good experiences with this editor I have.
'''Support''' I've always wondered why Wikihermit wasn't an admin yet... -
'''Definitly suppport''' a ''brill user and an excellent mediator on MEDCAB--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
'''Support''' I told you that you'd have nothing to fear! &ndash;'''''
'''Strong support''' - excellent candidate. A lot has happened since the last RfA, I feel. No issues whatsover here. Go for it! -
'''Strong Support''' - Alison worded it nicely. Give'im the mop! --
'''Support''' Very good editor, and my experiences with Wikihermit have been nothing but positive and good.  I expect the same will come with the tools.
'''Support''' Don't have time to say much right now, but the=is user is certainly trustworthy.
'''Support''' great editor, I think Wikihermit would make a great admin.
'''Support''' great guy, wanted to conom
(ec2, once by candidate) '''Support''' I feel that this editor has learned from his mistakes, which we can all make in early wiki-membership, and will make a great admin. --<font color="Red">
'''Support.''' Wikihermit is a thoroughly nice person who I think has learned a great deal since his previous RfA and is now more than ready to become an admin. He always shows a great willingness to take on board any advice or criticism and learn from it, and this is a really important asset in my books. I have no doubt that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
--
'''Support'''. The candidate seems ready for adminship. No red flags that I can see.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Since no-one thought to tell me he was in RfA! [[User:TheFearow|Matt/TheFearow]] <small>[[User_Talk:TheFearow|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/TheFearow|(Contribs)]]
'''Support''' Has made mistakes. The anti-gay user box was a particularly striking lack of judgment. Still, I think the overall impact of his sysoping would benefit the project.
'''Support''' Albeit fairly weak. While Wikipedia is not a [[WP:SOAP|soapbox]], it also is not [[WP:NOT#CENSORED|censored]]. While I don't at all like his apparent political stances, I have no problem at all with the userbox he created. Indeed, in the interest of full disclosure, if a user has any such strongly held controversial opinions, I'd like them to say it up front. These controversies aside, he seems to be a fine editor who is primarily concerned with bettering Wikipedia. Most of his more egregious errors, IMHO, seem to be well behind him. My one suggestion to this user would be to avoid articles where you have a strong opinion. Personally, I have very strong political and philosophical/religious beliefs, and therefore stay away from those types of articles, save for gnomish edits such as reverting vandalism, adding citations, that sort of thing. Just my two cents, good luck!
'''Oppose''', sorry. All out of honesty, I don't really know if I can trust this user. I recall questioning his judgement/character in many, many occasions.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' like Husond, I am concerned about this user's judgment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chunky_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=154439236 This neutral] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NHRHS2010_2&diff=prev&oldid=154307930 this neutral] from August 29 provide no explanation rationale apart from "for now", which is unhelpful. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/carlossuarez46&diff=prev&oldid=144722679 oppose] on Carlossuarez46's RfA and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jreferee_2&diff=prev&oldid=140201935 neutral] on Jreferee's RfA were uncalled for, as nearly everyone else who participated there had moved past the incidents mentioned on those RfAs. Finally, the MfD of Politics rules’ user page was not the only bad MfD I’ve seen from this user; [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:She's So Fine|this]] was a violation of [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BITE]]. I don’t feel comfortable supporting this user at this time.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Q.4. I was only vaguely aware of the last RfA and assumed it failed due to lack of experience. Now, looking through it fully, the poor judgment shown in creating [[User:UBX/homophobic]] and [[:Image:Antigay.png]] staggers me. Dunno what answer I was looking for - but I guess a bit more of an insight into the incident than "a mistake". Wikihermit's done some good work elsewhere, but I'm not comfortable with trusting him with the tools yet. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Switch to oppose''' per answer to question 3. Nom "flipped out" less than 3 months ago. An edit war so recently suggests the possibility of wheel warring.
'''Oppose'''. Wikihermit has done some very good work here on WP overall. While he did create that divisive anti-LGBT userbox, it was several months ago, before his last RfA, and he does seem to have learned from that mistake, so I would not oppose on that basis alone. However, some of his more recent edits still leave me hesitant as to whether he will be a neutral, unbiased administrator when dealing with articles related to LGBT and other issues: for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States&diff=148653243&oldid=148653121 removing a sentence from a paragraph as "controversial and unsourced"], while leaving the rest of the unsourced, equally potentially controversial paragraph intact; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_rights&diff=prev&oldid=151692448 several] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights&diff=prev&oldid=148653464 instances] of "drive-by" tagging articles for cleanup and sourcing without much explanation, or putting forward an effort to help; and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_rights&diff=prev&oldid=151692365 this somewhat puzzling edit] to [[Women's rights]], singling out a particular sentence ("In the developed nations of the world, women have continued to struggle against discrimination.") as needing a cite, when he could have just as easily found a cite from one of the several external links. He also does not appear to have added any input on the articles' talk pages as to how he feels they should be improved, leaving behind only generic templates. For these reasons, I'm not sure I can fully trust him with the tools at this time. --'''<font color="#C31562">
'''Oppose.''' One thing that really turns me off about a candidate is unreasonable or unhelpful opposition to the nominations of other admin hopefuls, which demonstrates to me that the user does not understand adminship enough to be trusted with the tools. Acalamari's diffs are evident of this problem.
'''Oppose''' per Acalamari diffs, not per Q4.
'''Oppose''' No serious research & article development efforts & too short of a stay & too many minor edits that even bots could do. In other words, you talk a lot but don't do much. Again, you haven't been in Wikipedia long enough. (
'''Oppose''' I would accept the explanation for the userboxes, except I wonder why this user has numerous edits to gender issue articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_attraction&diff=prev&oldid=116094296 this one], which make me feel there is a lack of NPOV here, which is essential for an admin.
'''Oppose''' I think others have highlighted the issues with which I tend to agree re Q.3 and 4 and just a sense that should try again in 6 months,
'''Oppose''' per above comments.  Someone who can so readily bring politics onto Wikipedia as to create such a divisive userbox does not have the demeanor I tend to look for in admins.--
I hate doing this, but WJBscribe and Acalamari point out extremely troubling behavior (in my opinion) in their comments. --
'''Oppose''' — I actually had this RfA watchlisted, primarily because I do not trust this person. Needless to say I don't believe we need homophobic administrators or ones that flagrantly misunderstand policy and guidelines ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juice_Plus&diff=133298620&oldid=133190577 example]/[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikihermit&diff=137263367&oldid=137263042 example]). You're also a very power hungry person, for example you [http://simple.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Administrators/Status_request_archive&oldid=5064#user:Wikihermit ran off] to an isolated wiki after your last RfA failed and tried to obtain adminship there... a day after you joined.
'''Oppose''' per Wikimachine.
'''Oppose''' - until there is a much longer time gap since edits on articles which appear NPOV. You should note that Wikihermit has at least been an active contributor to Simple Wikibooks, despite his failed RFA there, which is a good sign for the future.
'''Oppose''' I'm inclined to oppose based on the past judgment issues and the RfA on Simple Wikibooks just a day after registering. It also seems a bit hypocritical that you opposed people for their actions from months/years ago, yet you continued with this RfA despite some recent incidents in the past few months. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">
Absolutely not, per WJBscribe's observations.  A "mistake" is forgetting to sign a comment.  You might regret creating the userbox because it reveals your character, but it's far from a simple mistake. --
'''Oppose''' I'll never oppose a candidate merely for his/her "real-life" views -- however, as others have said, Wikihermit has a history of odd POV edits to articles on gender/sexuality issues (including the userboxes).  He disavows that this represents his person view, but POV edits are still bad, no matter what one's personal view may be.
'''Neutral''' I really want to support this user, but there's a voice in the back of my head telling me it's a horrible idea. I'm not sure if it's something about this editor though, or just my own insanity, but, while I otherwise feel pretty good about supporting this user, this gut feeling I suppose you'd call it is very concerning. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''
Sorry, but get to think of, I'm not exactly thrilled by outbursts of drama [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikihermit&diff=next&oldid=140105441]. I know this happened more than 10 "wikiweeks" ago (which equals about 5 real-world years), yet it seems awkward to assume that the character traits behind something like that could pass without residue in such a relatively short time, and this did happen after his first RfA. I also remembered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDrKiernan&diff=138050397&oldid=138049638 this] to which I replied [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikihermit&diff=138052941&oldid=138048829 here]. —'''
Good user here generally speaking, nice job running bots etc. Don't undervalue your contribs at all. However, like WJBscribe, I still feel uncomfortable about that userbox episode. ~
As much as I am reluctant to make this edit, and I do value your contributions very much so. I don't feel confident supporting you right now.
'''Neutral''' - leaning towards weak support - edits may spread far and wide and good to deal with, but per concerns raised above I think for the first time I will have to sit on the fence. --'''[[User:Bennyboyz3000|<font color="Orange">B</font>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Bennyboyz3000 2|<font color="purple">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' &ndash; I wish I could support; I really do.  I appreciate Wikihermit's full disclosure, and I think he's a good bot operator.  Unfortunately, I also feel that his mistakes have really been of great enough magnitude to merit a little more meditation before another RfA.  I have concerns that this user is still seeking a "rise to power", which was a concern during his last RfA; I think he needs to try a little harder to address users' concerns, particularly as a bot operator &ndash; he gives the impression, whether correct or incorrect, that he does not understand how [[m:Interwiki.py|interwiki.py]] works, even though his bot is executing its instructions.  Lastly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikihermit&diff=151876383&oldid=151812140 this] would result in a strong oppose from me if I were even slightly less willing to assume Wikihermit's good faith.  Running a potentially controversial, unapproved task under a bot-flagged account is unacceptable, especially for a member of the [[WP:BAG|BAG]].  It could just as easily have been done manually or semi-automatically with AWB.  Sorry; I just cannot support at this time.  &mdash; <tt>
'''Moral Support''' suggest withdrawal, edits are valuable, nothing really to base user on though.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal as this has no chance of passing - while your mainspace edits are valued, you have only 50 edits in the last ''year'', and have never participated in any admin-related area (deletion, [[WP:AIV|AIV]] etc).<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose'''  Per iridescent.  Suggest withdrawal, because this is likely to [[WP:SNOW|close quickly]].
- Me three.  Please stay active and involved, though!  -
Per above. '''
'''Oppose''' I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and try again after a few months. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but it's hard to support an editor who has very little edits and one who uses doen't use the edit summaries that often. However, I agree with the other editors here: stay active, participate in discussions, and continue to contribute to this project. Regards,
'''Oppose''' - Please withdraw. You're a valued member, but as has been already said, this RfA will not pass (In the immortal words of Gandalf...)
'''Oppose''' - no - nowhere near enough experience in any area yet. ''Please'' use that edit summary.  <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  While this editor may have had 5000 edits as IPs, there are less than 200 edits to go off of.  Please remain active, your contributions are valuable.  I'd also like to recommend using edit summaries for each edit.  Give it a few more months.  Keep it up.
'''Neutral''' also to avoid a pile on. I suggest withdrawal and try again in a few months. The answers to the questions make me think he/she doesn't know ''exactly'' what an admin does--<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 10pt">
<s>Very</s>'''Weak Support''' - Seems to understand some of the admin work, but I think this user can do better with a bit more work with some inter-user work (You currently have 195 user talk edits). --
'''<s>Support</s>'''; excellent answers to the questions, IMO, and very good participation with images. I'm also fairly satisfied with your mainspace work. I believe that your edit count is very low; it's less than 2000 edits in total, and you do not have much participation at the Wikipedia namespace. I suggest you get involved at XfD's and AIV and UAA and try again in the future, <s>as I do not believe this RfA will be successful at this time.</s> Yours, --'''[[User:Boricuaeddie|<font color="Green">Boricua</font>]]''[[User:Boricuaeddie/Puerto Rico|<font color="red">e</font>]]''
'''Support''' Wikipedia space & talk edits may be low but in terms of mainspace content (which is what this whole project is about) about as close to a perfect editor as I've yet seen<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Support.''' I was impressed by this user's answers. Also, anyone who has the patience to produce, and then go through, the Featured Pictures process, is already showing several of the characterostics we look for in good admins. Talk edits are not a concern for me, of the 70 or so article I have written, I think about 20 still don't even have a talk page. If a user is not involved in controversial topics, than talk edits don't tend to be as important. Also, I don't think that user talk edits are that important either, I archive my talk page at 30kb, and even when I'm active, it only gets archived once a month or so...
'''Support''' - I do not believe this user will abuse the tools, and support the adminship of qualified candidates from unlikely corners of the 'pedia.  -
'''Support''' OK, I have re-read the answers to the questions and they are good. I've decided it's unfair to neutral based on edit count so I'll change to support.
'''Support''' per Philippe.
–
'''Support''' looks like a prolific Wikipedian. '''
'''Support''' - You have a well rounded set of contribs. I would like to see you have been a little more active overall, but you have shown some good contribs. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' - reviewed the contributions and the editor's time here, combined with the effort involved in the individual edits negates any concerns regarding edit count. The edits themselves show a solid understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I see nothing to keep me from having faith WikipedianProlific will make a fine sysop.
'''Strong Support''' It is perhaps a divine hand that led me to discover this RfA. My history aside, I express my full support for WikipedianProfilic. I deeply admire his commitment to Wikipedia (he is not a photographer, but someone who has to draw meticulous and "perfect" diagrams, which is a distinct and highly skilled and valued profession by itself). This place should be grateful that he even bothered to give his remarkable contributions. He was so sincere in becoming an all-round Wikipedian, with full knowledge of policy and ability to help out in any kind of chore, including those outside his interests, that I cannot praise him enough. This is the first time I have regretted my retirement, and the first time I will come out of it to give my most sincere support. His only flaw is to overstate my role in helping him (which I sadly, could not complete). I hope you will forgive me my friend.
'''Support''' I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good track
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin candidate.
'''Support''' I once reviewed this user at [[WP:ER]], a very good editor.
'''Support''' per Q4. I would like to have seen a warning though--
'''Support''' - Impressive answers to the questions, in which he gave a fine excuse for the low edit counts. If those featured pics took that long to create, he has done a fine service to Wikipedia. And yes, he can be trusted with the tools. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Support''' lack of activity doesn't indicate lack of ability. Should make a fine administrator. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">
'''Support''' - You have excellent answers to the questions, which definitely supersedes the low edit counts. Edit counts aren't everything, and you have done great work with your art. Keep it up! Regards,
'''<s>Support</s> Strong support''' fine user.
'''Support''' Very dedicated editor,good answers.-
'''Strong support''' Conscientious, open-minded editor & contributor who thoughtfully takes into account others' suggestions, requests, opinions, and preferences. Acknowledges his human foibles, strives for continual improvement, and cheerfully owns mistakes. --
'''Support'''. Sorry, comment below meant for someone else. I think you are a good candidate. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;
'''Support''' - lowish edit count, however featured image work and good answers.
'''Support''' --Good answers.  An administrator's role is to make the encyclopaedia a better place for everyone to contribute. There are many ways to do this and this candidate has done some fine work for the project.--
'''Support''' - no reason to think this user would abuse the tools, looks fine. <b>
'''Support''' Per Melsaran. Also has created 4+ featured images. These aren't the "take a picture with a hi-tech camera," they are the "slave over the computer for hours" kind. Not everyone is strong in article writing. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  It's been said a million times before, but I guess I'll say it again: edit count is not a very useful tool for determining the value of a user's contributions or their familiarity with the project.  I think this is a perfect example of a case where counting edits doesn't work. I applaud the candidate for not changing his/her editing style just to bulk up his/her edit count.  Surely we can all agree that someone who does that is not a better admin candidate?
'''Support''', contributions are impressive, and user has shown dedication to the project. Administratorship need not be as political as some of the opposers think. (There are tons of guides for admins out there! If you need to do an admin-y task you're unfamiliar with, merely read one, and take a look at how it's done.)
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse the tools and I have to give credit to images people - it takes much longer than one supposes.
'''Support''' per Carlossuarez46 et al.  A long-time user, making lots of edits to pics rather than text, like one is unlikely to abuse the mop.  Especially since his pics are disgusting. :-)
'''Support''' Can't imagine him abusing the tools. Yes, there may be areas of policy which he's less familiar with but those gaps are not dramatic and I also trust him to be responsible enough to take this into account. The image backlogs could sure use an extra man and this is certainly an area in which WikipedianProlific has the required experience.
'''Support'''.  Could use a little more familiarity with policy-related issues but nothing serious.  Appears to be a dedicated contributor.
'''Support'''.  Mainspace contributions are great, has a good demand overall for the tools.
'''Support''' I think the answers to questions and responses to opposers show me that this user should have the tools.
'''Support''' I will not give in to accusations by users with an axe to grind.  The candidate, whom I never knew existed prior to this RFA, nonetheless has demonstrated dedication to creating featured content and maintaining high standards.
'''Support''' per (mostly) outstanding question answers
'''Strong Support''' I don't see his lack of mainspace contributions as a problem because his featured images are a direct contribution to Wikipedia. His wonderful answers convince me that he understands what is required by an admin. <b><font color="teal">
I can live with this user. Probably not a crazy fascist, or anything nasty.
'''Support'''.  I have a suspicion many of the "opposers" below haven't actually reviewed this user's contributions. Clearly dedicated, clearly knowlegable, probably not a mental.  Good enough for me.
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions above, seems to have a full understanding of what's what around the wiki. He threw me off a bit with the answer to number 6, but as long as he is aware of and willing to acknowledge IGNORE when it's called for, we should be just fine. Good luck. '''''[[User:Hersfold|<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>]]''''' <sup>([[User Talk:Hersfold|t]]/
'''Support''' - I'm convinced WP is ready to be an admin. His pictures and animations that he contributes are of extremely good quality and take far longer than a normal textual addition which results in a deflated edit count. I'm positive that WP would make a fine addition to the administration.
'''Support''', if we're supposed to assume good faith in general Wikipedia, why should RfA be any different? This user is sufficient enough. <font color="red">[[User:Croat Canuck|Croat Canuck]]</font> <i><font size="1"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' - I was decided by the answers to Q.5 - <s>but the responses to some optional questions (possibly prompted by a Divine Wind) has made me more certain.</s> 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)<small>(now adding sig - I wonder why I missed a tilde first time?)</small> [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Per the 48 hours extension - '''reconfirm Support''' I haven't seen much evidence that those opposing have understood the major reason for the percieved lack of edits; it takes some considerable time to perfect an image so that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You do not submit a work in progress, and then tweak it with several subsequent edits until it stops bleeding over the article page, and then go about resolving the texture issues... (actually, WP, you could do that in your userspace/sandbox. It would up your count)
'''Support''' - overall, a net positive in terms of 'pedia building, so 'yes' it is. cheers,
'''Support''' I think his image contributions are superb, and he's struck me as a level headed sort --
'''Support''' I believe your record supports that you have an unusual contribution style in which your edit count simply doesn't reflect your level of contribution. I think you handled [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection]] reasonably well and you have interactions to suggest you would make a good admin. I wouldn't usually support a candidate with this few edits in Wikipedia space etc., but I you are an exception. --
'''Support''' Looks good to me! --
'''Support''' per Hiberniantears above
'''Support:''' Three words: credibility; consistency; ability -- toss in a fourth: professionalism. Absent an obvious sign of misconduct, turpitude or dishonesty (which has yet to be presented here) there is enough evidence to enthusiastically support.
'''Support''' good candidate for admin --
'''Weak Support''' IMHO, AWBing and fixing grammar is considered a mainspace edit that isn't vandal-fighting. You could rack up a little more edits and a little more time on Wikipedia (but your answer to your RfA questions are exceptional). The major thing is I trust this user with the tools. There are other minor flaws, but I'm not going to list them because it would not sway my opinion significantly.--<font color="red">
'''Support''' per [[user:Pascal.Tesson]]
'''Support'''. Though neutral before, I feel the answers to the questions show an understanding of policy here, and I feel this user is a nice guy who can be able to assist if he has the mop.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers to the questions and clear dedication to the project. Contributions may not quite fit the typical RfA mold, but they show positive contributions, understanding of policy, and little risk for using the mop.
'''Strong Support'''. Sounds like a good wikipedian, will make a excellent admin.
'''Support.''' His answers are thoughful and very honest which I respect immensely. The editor could have fudged and tried to offer answers people want but instead he told you that he was already spending as much time as possible on the project and did not anticipate spending more. His contributions are excellent giving him the tools will do nothing but help him to do an even better job. Adminship is not brain surgery -- its about trust and I see nothing, an no one has suggested anything, to suggest a future of abuse.--

'''Support''' Many of the opposes seem to think you're inexperienced in wiki-space.  Now true, there's a difference between reading the wiki-space and editing it.  Close to 300 Wiki-space edits isn't trivial, so I think you know policy well-enough.  Take heed of the opposes, exercise extra caution before delving into administrator tasks that are unfamiliar.  I'm confident you'll do fine. --
'''Support'''he just volunteered to help settle an article's POV issues and is using sound judgement. We need more like this.
'''Weak support'''. He has little experience and sporadic editing, true, but the answers to the questions were really good, and the only think the opposition can find on him is the experience bug. I mean, if he'll be a good admin in a couple months, why not speed up the process a bit? I mean, we need more admins, no denying that.
'''Support''' based on record of contributions and answers to questions. I do not believe that a user must be prepared to use each and every admin tool (I, for one, do not) in order to contribute effectively as an administrator.
'''Support''' - Seems to be a good editor from my experience and I see no reason that this user will abuse the tools therefore I'm going to support.
'''Support''' Is an experienced user and I have no reason to think that this nom will not follow policy based on answers and editing history.
I'm impressed by the quality of the work you've done. Your editcount is ''severely'' deflated, but a close inspection reveals the very valuable work you have done. I'd like you to be an admin very mucb. '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>
'''Support'''.  Humility, willingness to take advice, and good intentions are more important than high edit count.  -
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience in wiki-space, home to many admin-related tasks.  A few more months of editing will do wonders, and ensure the candidate knows how to employ the mop when s/he receives it.
'''Oppose''' - Looks to be a great, all around friendly, professional and intellectual user. However, he or she needs some more overall familiarity and/or experience with Wikipedia. I'm sure what they have now is great and constructive in the very sincerest manner, but just fewer than 2,000 edits isn't quite yet enough. Several more months will help wondrously, in which time you should return here for a most successful RFA. Regards,
'''Oppose''', sorry. To be honest, I don't find this user particularly prolific. He's doing a good job alright, but I believe that more experience is needed before access to the admin tools may be granted to him.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per below.
'''Oppose''' lack of mainspace editing experience. About half of the 850 mainspace edits are AWB sweeps and many other of the edits are repetitive pattern edits. '''
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen and Husond. ~
'''Oppose''' per issues raised above.
Per Blnguyen -- <b>
'''Oppose'''. Lacks experience with admin-oriented tasks.
'''Oppose''' Lack of relevant experience and concerns about process knowledge.
'''Oppose''' — [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&curid=7159703&diff=154009808&oldid=153912593 Thinks] this is a vote.
'''Oppose''', per Blnguyen and the candidate's aggressive tone in replying oppose votes makes me worry.
'''Oppose''' per Riana.
'''Oppose''' per Riana and blnguyen.<b>
'''Oppose''' Mainspace edits/lack of activity. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen and Riana.
'''Oppose''' Just too little project space work with admin-related tasks. I probably would have gone neutral but I definitely don't care for the the user's tone when replying to dissenting opinions in this RfA.
'''Oppose''' per Miranda, Blnguyen and Riana -
'''Strong Oppose''' Inconsistent editing pattern over the past year.  Poor understanding of rules and terminology (not sure applicant knows exactly what a meatpuppet is).  And I have know clue what this candidate will do for the project except cruise around a few Rf whatevers.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. ---
'''Oppose''' mainly per Blnguyen and Riana. The image work is awesome but there isn't enough project or mainspace edits to get an idea of your aptitude as an admin, which is very surprising if you've just done four months of admin coaching. Also, the bitey concerns pricked me somewhat. '''
'''Oppose''' per reasoning of Blnguyen, Riana, @pple, and Sarah.
'''Oppose''' looks a goodie, but I'm afraid there's insufficient evidence in his edit record for me to decide whether he has enough experience to be ready for adminship. As I cannot yet trust him with the tools, the oppose is regretful, but I look forward to a future, successful RfA. --
'''Neutral''' while trusting that important questions will be honestly answered and not be evaded.
'''Neutral''' Very polite posts on ''this'' page, but there are far too few interactions with other editors over editing, or with Wikipedia policies, for me to judge the candidate.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Regretful Neutral''' I'm <s>dislike</s> am ukneen on the way in which you have replied to oppposers above. Whilst reasoned argument and discussion is excellent, I'm afraid comments like ''I'm dissapointed your making a judegement on my edit count, as I believe above I've adequately explained why my edit count is low'' do not sit too well - I would assume that [[User:Y|Y]] had already taken into account your replies but still decided where to place his comment. To <s>badger him about it is not really on.</s> I am sorry as I have no problems with your great work (I fully respect it), but I can't really trust you with a block button, and trust is what it come down to in the final analysis. '''Note - Moved to Neutral from Oppose'''. Candidate discussed on my talk page. I'm still not convinced I can support but the quality of his/her discussion there lends me to a rethink of my oppose as it was calm, fair and understanding, which are indeed admin traits. Best. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
Changed from support - some of the responses to opposition and neutral worries me.  I may change back, but I'll probably end here. [[User:Giggabot|&mdash;]]
'''Neutral.''' Candidate shows great promise but could use additional experience before sysopping.
Needs more experience. Strongly recommend that you return to reapply for RfA in 3 months time. -
'''Neutral.'''  WP explained to me what happened in the situation that was my main concern and reason to oppose.  I have changed my vote from '''Oppose''' to '''Neutral'''.  I would still like to see some more activity from this user; there still haven't been three consecutive months with 100+ edits and I consider under 100 to be inactive.  Just my personal definition of "inactive", though.  If this editor becomes an admin, I would be comfortable with that, but I would definitely prefer more activity.
'''Neutral''', per Mailer Diablo. Very strong answers, but in order to support, I need to see indications (via interaction with other users in real situations) of how the tools will actually be used.
'''Moral Support''', though I see no chance of this one passing now.  I suggest you withdraw (per [[WP:SNOW]]) and try again one month later.
If you're that familiar with policy you should realise that there's no need to add a "neutral" for yourself. If vandalism fighting gives you stress, you shouldn't really be an admin. Sorry, firm '''oppose'''. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but you've been nearly inactive for the last 3 months or so.  I suggest that you get back in the swing of things and then try again. --
Too new, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Cabrera&diff=63157174&oldid=62938656 this ''rewrite''] is worriesome which violates almost non notablity every writing policy in wikipedia and shows a very poor misunderstanding of [[WP:NPOV]]
'''Oppose''', per above. If you'd like to be an administrator, edits such as the last one will be held against you. So I suggest that you abandon this username and start afresh. When you choose a user name, you're free to choose a jolly one, such as "[something that you like] rules" (as opposed to "sucks"). But you'd be well advised to avoid a username that could be read, or misread, as implying that you are the deliverer of Wikipedia anything, let alone of Wikipedia rules. I'm willing to believe that your username was chosen with the best of intentions, but it can be reasonably interpreted as officious and arrogant. --
'''Oppose''' - For someone who claims an interest in XfD, your contrib history shows your involvement there is largely limited to two days last October and two days last November.  For a vandalism fighter, you have a good track record of warning vandals, but very little posting to [[WP:AIV]] which suggests you either lack interest in blocking vandals, and/or are not sufficiently experienced with the blocking criteria.  I don't really see a need for the tools. &mdash;

'''Oppose''' You don't seem familiar enough with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, despite your history.
Extremely weak answers to questions, and per John Reaves. I don't trust you with the tools at this time, simply. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but as Dgies demonstrated, your experience with XfD is extremely limited. Plus, your answers to the questions were rather unimpressive. --
'''Oppose''' not on XfD but w/ respect to a few other concerns --
Your account is too new and you have too few contributions to evaluate you as an editor. Contribute to the encyclopedia for a few months and then try again. I urge you to withdraw this RfA.
'''Oppose''' - signature contains an unclosed bold tag.  There's also the issue of doing only one mainspace edit (and that was unconstructive), no edits to Wikipedia space (other than this RFA and an editor review), and no proof that you've actually fought vandalism yet.  --
'''Oppose''' - too new and unfamiliar with policy. Recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikisteph888&action=history userpage contributions] lets me know that this user is not mature for adminship. '''<font face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' Vandalized. Tsk Tsk.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWikisteph888&diff=145785938&oldid=143799580] <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>'''''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Spend some time working on articles and actually fighting some vandalism. Although the saying is "Quality, not quantity", I'm afraid you have neither right now. Good luck in the future!
'''Oppose''' - Try again when you have more maturity and experience - and work on that edit count.
'''Oppose''' as too new.  Try again in four to six months, after a 1000 edits, and please use edit summaries.  I am eager to support RfAs for qualified candidates.
'''Oppose''', placed false barnstars on her pages.
Please withdraw, 250 edits aren't enough for adminship
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' I see no problems - contributions across the main spaces and effective vandal fighting/user Talk participation too.
'''Weak support'''. Few overall edits, but your participation everywhere shows I can trust yu with the tools.--
'''Support''' Isn't overly focused on one thing, participating, like wizardman said, everywhere, and as a Recent Changes patroller myself, sysop tools are neccacary to stop vandalism on wikipedia, what real good is a test1 template going to do?
'''Support'''-Passes most of [[User:TeckWiz/RFA Criteria|my criteria]] and per Wizardman. Try to get a little more XFD participation though. --[[User:TeckWiz|'''TeckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''' You've got a lot of contribs. and your heart seems to be in the right place.  Your Wikipedia edits are only a small percentage of your overall edits, but hopefully that will change if you become an admin. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' meets [[User:Danntm/RFA|my guideline]].--
'''Weak support''' - the answers to #4 and #5 are really rather brief and I would much rather see some more elaboration on both subjects, especially given that [[WP:RFP]] is something that you list as an area of interest.  I would strongly suggest reading [[WP:SEMI]] and [[WP:FULL]] and looking over some of the handled requests before diving in there too much.  But that aside, I have seen no reason not to believe that you are a trusted user.  [[WP:SSP]] obviously needs a ton of help and so there's a tremendous upside to you receiving the bit, thus I support. --
'''Moral support''' &bull; I suggest you withdraw in face of the avalanche of oppose votes.  Sorry, I think you had merit, but they are right that it's probably too early.  Consider becoming more active and coming back in a few month's time.  Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Please don't get downhearted if you lose - you'll get there one day.--
'''Oppose''' - sorry but I'm seeing an extremely low amount of contributions to the encyclopaedia. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - limited contribution to articles and no real participation in XFD's to show knowledge of policy outside vandal-whacking.  Easy to rack up edits with [[WP:VPRF]] so 3000 in 10 months shows limited input as well.  Not sure if the mop is needed quite yet.
'''Oppose''' - the articles that demonstrate his best work are poorly sourced...
'''Oppose'''. Low encyclopedic contributions. AfD votes are often [[WP:ILIKEIT]] and don't show much policy knowledge. It also doesn't seem the user has much experience in the adminship areas he is planning to work on outside of [[WP:AIV]]. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' 3000 edits for 10 months would require something exceptional for gaining adminship(personally, I have around 6,500 in half that time), and that's not the case here. Tools don't seem to be needed or warranted just yet. If he becomes more active, i'm sure he'll stand a good chance in the future.
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry. ''
'''Oppose''' Nothing very amazing besides the anti-vandalism. Edit content mediocre. Few written articles. Articles written none too amazing. Sorry, dude, but I have to say no. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">Mussolini ha sempre tarche</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Using VandalProof does absolutely nothing to convince me you'll be a good admin, the articles you are so proud of are bad, and you don't have enough process participation for me to believe that you really will know what to do with admin tools. -
'''Oppose''' per all the above reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Just H.
'''Oppose''', besides the vandal fighting, I don't see much editing in other areas.
'''Oppose''' Low amount of encyclopedic contributions, large majority in vandal fighting.
'''Oppose''' per Terence Ong.
Sorry, but '''oppose''' per above. '''''[[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<font color="#4169E1">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Hasn't made nearly enough valuable additions to the encyclopaedia. Being a good vandal-fighter does not necessarily make one worthy of being an admin.
'''Oppose''' per concerns of other users listed above. --
'''Oppose''' per above. More experience is necessary, vandal-fighting on its own isn't enough. Address the concerns raised by the opposes and neutrals and try again later. --'''
'''Oppose''' no where close to enough experience. &nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. 3000 edits for nine months' experience is not very high. While total edit count is not all that matters, there are low Wikipedia_talk edits, and most of the mainspace edits after July are vandalfighting. Vandalfighting is useful, but contribs to improving the encyclopedia is more important for an administrator. However, there is fine participation in the other namespaces, and a good balance. Great vandalfighter, too. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' This would be a hard decision for me to make, since I am on the fence I will have to be neutral, I completly concur with both the pros and the cons.
'''Neutral''' per my struck comments above, but the fact that only two-fifths of the articles he cited as his best work had any sources pushed me to neutral.
I do not like opposing editors unless I think they would do a bad job. I can not support him because of his low amount of edits for the time he has been here (I have around the same amount and I have been here for less than three months), and he has a small amount of edits in Xfd. --
'''Neutral'''. I don't think he would abuse the tools but neither do I think they are especially necessary.
'''Neutral''', but not going by encyclopedic contributions. Doesn't show too much of a need for admin tools.
'''Neutral''' Low activity and participation in the projectspace (XfDs, etc.) and no quality contributions in the mainspace. As Sir James Paul, I wouldn't oppose because you're doing nothing wrong and are on the right track. ←
'''Neutral''' due to answer to [[WP:SEMI]] question, as well as various other concerns above. Not enough to oppose, though. ···
'''Neutral''' I want to support, but you are unfortunately just not quite active enough, and three of the articles you linked to in question 1 were only one sentence long, excluding the infobox and tracklist.  Come back in a few months and I will most likely support.
'''Neutral'''. I wouldn't have accepted the nomination as written - "he deserves some status for the work he has done" - and I have to question the wisdom and understanding of a candidate who did. Perhaps not enough to oppose, but more than enough to rule out support.
'''Support''' - You're mainspace edits is too low but you're overall user contribution is really good especially your wikipedia related edits..----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Support''' per Cometstyles. --
'''Support''' - I'd like to see more mainspace edits and/or a clearer understanding of the admin tools (as seen in the all-important Q1), but given the shortage of admins and the fact that this user has over 4700 edits overall, I think we can trust this candidate with the tools. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' Don't see a reason to vote oppose.
'''Support''' No reason to say otherwise <font style="color:red">
'''Support''' - I trust you.  But more experience doesn't hurt.  I look forward to seeing how you've improved at your next RfA.  '''''
'''Oppose''', sorry, I don't really think you need to become an administrator to do most of the things that you've said. Also, your editing is too low to consider running for adminship. Try again later when you have more experience (and use your edit summary more often), and I'll probably support you then. Best of luck! '''''
'''Oppose''' Seems to be a good vandal-fighter, but I would like to see more article editing and discussion-based edits relevant to articles. Those things are frequently sources for dilemma and strife, and I think those would be good indicators of how a user will handle him or herself as an administrator. As the user said in Q3, he/she has not been stressed over Wikipedia, which means they are not totally prepared for adminship. Adminship is stressful at times, and with no prior experience of dealing with stress on Wikipedia, I wouldn't want to see a user go in to a heated dispute with only  [[beginner's luck]] on his/her side. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' Your mainspace edits are quite low, and while you seem to be gaining experience, I believe you have some time before you will be completely adept here.  You definitely are well on your way, and I hope to see you back here in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. I'm impressed by your work fighting vandalism, but your edit summary usage is a bit low and I don't think your answers to the questions reflect specific understanding of the duties and requirements of an admin. Review [[WP:ARL|the reading list]] and accumulate a few more edits in the mainspace. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:Verdana;"><font color="Black">[[User:Goodnightmush|Goodnight]]</font><font color="silver">
'''Oppose'''.  I'm borderline neutral, but it would probably take a few more months of editing to get me to support.  Too few mainspace edits, really only editing seriously for the past 3 weeks or so, not much in cleaning up or rewriting whole articles.  No nominations of articles to GA or FA status (at least I didn't see one).  You can see a start, but I'd want to see about 6 months of good solid activity from fighting vandalism to getting a couple articles to GA or FA status either leading the edits through a Discussion to do list or handling the edits directly.
'''Oppose''' I suggest you get a few months more of contribs here until and if you re-run for adminship. Your vandal fighting is great (also excellent with [[WP:AIV]]) but I think you should do a little more article work and get experienced in that field of Wikipedia, you seem to have suddenly re-appeared after being inactive since late December 2006 so I suggest adjusting back to the Wikipedia community, you could certainly be an admin in the future with some improvements. Kindest Regards &mdash; &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Communication is key for administrators, and edit summaries are very important, especially in the form of deletion comments, when most users only have those few words to see why an article was deleted. 77% for major edits is just not satisfactory. —<span style="color: red;">
'''Oppose''' per Nishkid.
Per Nishkid. '''
'''Oppose''' per Nishkid. A few months of solid editing, and I will support.
'''Neutral''' Good vandal fighter, but your edit summary usage is not adequate--
'''Neutral''' You do a fine job keeping the vandals away. I suspect you would do fine as an administrator but at this point I would like to see some editing beyond reversions and typos. I suspect your level of writing competence will rise quickly with some work. Comae back in a few months.
'''Neutral''' as JobyB said, you do good vandal fighting work, but I really can't see anything else, so what is there to judge by?  Also, edit summary usage is quite low, and you didn't edit at all in April, so there could be dedication concerns.  Another 2 solid months of editing and you should get through easily. [[User:G1ggy|<font color="green">'''G1'''</font>]][[User_talk:G1ggy|<font color="red">'''gg'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - excellent vandal fighting but I just can't see any evidence of how this user will interact in wider areas or why they need the tools other than the block button. I'm sorry, but why not involve yourself in other areas as well as your excellent RC patrol and pop back in a few months? A bit of rounding out and I'm sure you would be deserving of the demotion if you wish it.<small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - Everything looks good except the lack of mainspace edits. If you can improve. I might change to support. --'''<font face="Kristen ITC">
Per Nish. '''
'''Neutral''' A good number on the edit counter, yes, but the things that you say you wish to do do not require the mop. Work a bit more on admin activities (maybe read the Required reading?) and try to raise the edit summary usage. After that I will certainly support. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="SteelBlue" face="verdana">tennis</font>]][[user talk:teh tennisman|<font color="ForestGreen" face="verdana">man</font>]]
'''Neutral''' while adminship is all about being a janitor, encyclopaedia-building is a must, not just as an ideological pillar of WP, but also as a practicality necessary to show familiarity with the inner-workings of our community's most basic function, where the administrator's role is perhaps most valuable. Perhaps come back after gaining more experience in that arena. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral'''. No apparent need for the mop at this time. Additionally, consider changing your preferences to force edit summaries. --
'''Moral Support''' Your heart is in the right place. I suggest you spend at least 6 months at [[WP:FPC]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:PUMP]], [[WP:SSP]], join some Wiki-projects, interact with the community (in general, besides all the administrative stuff), and fight vandals. '''
'''Moral Support''' - you're obviously making a good faith nomination, and your intentions are great, but you really need to spend time around Wikipedia first. Get involved in [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrolling]], [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]], and contribute! Remember, we're an encyclopedia here, so try to get a [[WP:FA|featured article]]; it will greatly help with your next nomination. Cheers! ''
'''Oppose'''. User has 16 edits, half to this RfA. Needs experience. (RfA candidates generally have >3000 edits, among many other qualifications.)
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl''' - your intentions are good, and I have nothing against new users, but with around 20 edits, we have no indication that we can trust you with the admin tools or that you would know how to properly use them.
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal''' - You have good intentions, but 20 edits is really not enough. Multiply your current edits by 150 and then come back, and you will have a better chance. '''''
I appriciate your enthusiasm, but '''Strongest oppose and suggest withdrawal''' per 4 "actual" edits. I'm not trying to [[WP:BITE|bite]], but try and get yourself involved in wikipedia before applying here. AfD is a good start.--
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawl''' per above.
'''Firm oppose''' per [[User:Fabricationary|Fabricationary]], who properly observes that there is, at the end of the day, no empirical record on which one might reasonably base any conclusions apropos of the candidate's fitness for adminship, such that one can in no way be certain that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project]] of the candidate's becoming an admin should be positive.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal, you need more experience in admin proccess. We know you have good intentions, but 20 edits is simply too low. Get yourself more active in Wikipedia and run for RFA in six months time.
'''Oppose'''. Your keenness is certainly appreciated, but you are not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 Wikipedia edits, and a track record of several months as a consistent, positive contributor. This allows the community to develop the trust in them to agree to give them the adminship tools. Right now, just keep contributing as a regular editor becuase you don't need to be an admin to help build the encyclopedia. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again sometime in the future after significantly stepping-up your contributions.
'''Neutral''' - brand new editor; I was just about to drop off a welcome message, but got beaten to it a few seconds ago. Very few edits, although what I do see looks productive. Email not enabled. Stick around for awhile, until you're more familiar with the wiki, then try again if you like, eh? ;) It's an ''awfully'' big site, no need to take this step so soon. There are still plenty of ways for you to contribute.
'''Neutral''': Since you say you're interested in blocking vandals, you should consider getting involved in the vandal fight now. You don't have to be an admin to revert vandalism and warn vandals. Have a look at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] and you should get some good ideas for what you can do now.
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry I cannot vote for you at this time. You need more experience on the project, however your edits so far are a good start. Keep up the good work and if all goes well, try again in a few months.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user who will use the buttons well, methinks.--
'''Support''', I also think he's a trustworthy user and has serious awareness of admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per criteria set out on my userpage, plus favorable impression to Eli Falk question.
'''Support''' I would trust this editor with the tools.  Use of the tools evolves once you are given them.  He has a substantial number of contributions, uses edit summaries, is involved with the project.--
'''Support''' Has been a good editor on Wikipedia for a long time and can be trusted with the tools.--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose''', because of very little policy discussion. Coupled with all those AWB edits. -
'''Oppose''' per weak self-nom and weak answers to q2 and q3. Sorry, no real need for tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Nearly all edits are in mainspace. While this is good for an editor, it is not as good for a potential administrator. Answers to questions were unusual and somewhat confusing as to see the reasons in them to support this user. Nomination seemed to lack purpose in the RfA. I must oppose. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see more interaction with other editors, and more understanding of WP policies.  There's no real clear reason for the tools, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but no real need for the tools.
'''Oppose''', not ready yet, lacks of edits in other namespaces. Doesn't seem to need the tools currently. Maybe next time.
'''Oppose''' per not knowing what the tools are, per Chacor above. --
'''Oppose''': Seems to be a good editor to Wikipedia, but I can't see a sure-fire reason that you would need the tools. You don't need an adminship to revert vandalism or detect sockpuppets. As a side note, some of the questions (esp. question 2) are vague.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience in wiki-space suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Neutral''' - needs more experience.  Please see [[WP:MINOR]] - I think far too many of your edits are marked minor.  Asking a question on someone's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chacor&diff=prev&oldid=111241452], for example, never should be.  The same would be the case of making comments on a request page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TheCharminBear&diff=prev&oldid=111238521].  Minor edits are for things like reverting vandalism, formatting, spelling corrections, etc - if you are typing more than one word, it's not a minor edit. Also, I'm slightly discouraged that you had to ask what the tools are.  Still, though, I have a general rule against opposing good faith users, and thus, I !vote neutral. --
'''Neutral''' per oppose votes, nothing compelling to support. You'll need more participation in the project space. -
'''Neutral''' An editor with good potential but needs more participation in the policy and user Talk spaces to demonstrate familiarity with policy and ease of discussion of all matters Wiki.  Slightly less emphasis on AWB for edits would also be good - a spread of usages for edits would be a good idea.  Getting involved with more admin-related tasks would be a good thing.
'''Neutral''' Great potential, but need to see more policy experience.--
'''Support''' I see some possible minor issues here but nothing that can't be fixed. By that I mean your opening self nom was a bit "odd", and your answers to the questions didn't really seem to be fully fleshed out and with some unique ways of putting things - ''"Primarily interested in locating vandalism and contributing to eliminating it on a grand scale, despite this being an extremely lofty and challenging endeavor"''. Grand Scale? Lofty? Hmmmm.... '''However''' your answer to my optional question was spot on. No mention of page protection or losing [[WP:AGF]] but keeping a sensible head on. Yep, if that's your attitude then I trust you to make good and fair use of the tools, and thus am happy to offer my support. Good luck. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' The answer to Pedro's question was good but I am impressed by Wisdom89's handling of various difficult situations at [[Talk:Rush (band)]]. Appears to have a sound knowledge of policy. And I like the nom. Short and cute. (may change opinion though if some other evidence comes to light) - [[User:Twooars|<font color="Indigo">'''Two'''</font>]][[User_Talk:Twooars|<font color="DarkViolet">'''Oars'''</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' I agree with Phgao that you do good work with articles, however, when I look at the edit counter, there is no mention of any participation with any admin noticeboards (i.e. [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:ANI]]). I believe that a future sysop should at least have some experience with these admin noticeboards if he/she is going to be working with them if promoted. On the positive side , you have participated in AFDs, and I give you credit for that. What also concerns me is the lack of edit summaries (Edit summary usage for Wisdom89: 34% for major edits and 9% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.). Anyways, based on what Twooars has stated above, I am willing to support you.
'''Support''' per above and meets my standards with a featured article- you did not mention this in you nom statement or Q2. I would recommend you review [[WP:BLOCK]], though I don't believe you would go berserk with the block button. Quite the contrary. Also, you can set your preferences so that you must fill in the edit summary before it will save.
'''Support''' per experiences with user. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' The only flaw I see is edit summarues. We need more anti vandals.
'''Support''' overall, I can see a good 'pedia builder. Could have written a better intro above but overall looks trustworthy with tools.cheers,

'''Weak support''' per Folic Acid.  Good answers to questions, good prior work.  However, you have some more things to learn, so please take your time to learn more.  I will not oppose your RfA, because I ''think'' I can trust you.
Per the answer to Pedro's question.&nbsp;'''
'''Weak Support'''. Not terribly loquacious in the nomination statement, but recent contribs reveal useful edits in a variety of areas. The answers to the questions are adequate, if strangely phrased, and demonstrate this candidate's understanding of the role of an administrator. This request will probably fail, but I recommend the candidate to try again in a few months.
'''Weak Support''' User deserves a chance
'''Weak Support''' Based on some good answers to the questions, advise working on some of the concerns raised below.
'''Support''' Concerns raised below seem to be focused primarily on lack of edit count (edit-countitis anyone?).  Overall impression is of a reliable and trustworthy user, level-headed, unlikely to get into an edit war and act unilaterally to stifle dissenting views/diversity (ie be a "bad" admin).  Support with the caveat that be listed as an admin under review, not a bad move for all new admins.  <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Oppose''' - edits to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Wisdom89&namespace=4&year=2007&month=9 project space] mostly confined to featured nominations - hardly any involvement with deletion process or AIV.
'''Oppose''' - low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' Just not quite there in the experience...''yet''.  Keep up the good work, but try and start using edit summaries more.
Oppose per Addhoc, inexperience. '''
'''Oppose''' - You say you want to fight vandalism, but I see no reports to [[WP:AIV]], and the low number of User Talk posts looks like you're not warning vandals.  I think you need to work on fighting vandalism now, and get a feel for how the process works, before you'll be ready to use the admin buttons for that purpose.  The edit summaries thing is also something that needs to be fixed for a while before standing for admin.  It looks like you're doing good work on the 'pedia, but I don't think you're ready just yet.  - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Oppose''' for a lack of proven policy experience. (AIV, etc). That said, I don't have any prejudices against another RfA at some point down the road after the concerns above have been addressed. Best, --
'''Oppose''' - good intentions but more can be done with his current rights to fight vandalism and assist wikipedia. Leadership in the area of vandalism has little to do with title, and more with action.
'''No''', I can't support at this time. You seem to be doing some good things, but I would like to see some more experience. Come back in a few months and my signature should be in the support section. -- <strong>
'''No''' per Anonymus Dissident.
Wisdom89 says xe wants to help at WP:AIV, but has edited that page fewer than two times. Regular vandal-fighters will have vandals who vandalize past a final warning, and will need to report them to administrators. ''Adminstrative features would allow me to combat vandalism more effectively through Arbcom intervention...'' Simple vandals don't get to ArbCom. I don't mean to be mean or look like I'm assuming bad faith, Wisdom89 is here to do good things, and I'm happy about that. I think xe could make a good administrator in the future, but I must oppose for now.
'''Oppose''' per K. N.D. I checked contribs and was disturbed by the lack of talk contribs, too, especially that there's hardly any particpation in longer lasting discussions. Imho the candidate has admin potential, his answers show that he's serious and thoughtful, but he has to show skills at resolving problems to become an admin. Since, according to reports, WP isn't growing as fast anymore and the focus is shifting towards maintaining existing articles, a diplomatic approach towards editors and the ability to handle disputes will become increasingly important. However, I'm looking forward to revisiting this candidate again in a few months and I'm almost certain he will have overcome this lack of experience by then.
'''Oppose''' - Nowhere near enough experience in Wikipedia/project space yet, although your article work is good. The RfA introduction doesn't really sell yourself either, but that's not a big issue. Always use the edit summary. Try again a few months. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif">
'''Oppose''' don't feel offended, however your too many few mainspace edits (one third of them covering just a single article) fail to prove you can actually deal with the mop. --
'''Neutral''' for the very [[laconic]] self-nom, but swaying back and forth on the fence after looking at your input. We'll see. --
'''Neutral''' The lack of usage of edir summaries is a concern here, which is a very important guideline in this project. However, I must acknowledge the great work you did to some of the articles, so I do not think you deserve an oppose comment. I also do not think that you would misuse the admin tools given to you if you pass this RFA. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral.''' I'm uncomfortable with the lack of edit summaries. Anyone who wants to become an admin needs to give clear and frequent feedback to others. This user has done good work. A greater variety of work would be helpful. However, some [[WP:CANVAS]] concerns[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ThuranX#I.27d_love_your_feedback][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deckiller#Feedback] bother me with regard to this RfA. I think this person has a lot more to learn. (Surely you could have checked your wording and spelling better on your RfA self-nomination and subsequent remarks.) I'm definitely leaning toward oppose, but would first like to see how this person answers all the questions.
'''Neutral''' - I'm impressed by Wisdom89's efforts and ability to get an article to FA, as he did in Rush, and I have no doubt he was the guiding force for that, and for maintaining a highly polished article. His civility and ability to use the talk page is strong. His edit summary count isn't important to me, as it can be easily fixed if needed. I am a bit concerned by two things, though. One, he hasn't particularly branched out in terms of subject matter. While unique pages isn't important to me, trying a few areas out can lead to a wider experience in working out problems. Similarly, I see only limited wikipedia space editing, and feel that if he were to hang out at one of the AN, RfC, AfD or some other community input based Wikipedia space area for a few months, he could watch how things are handled more.  If he's already been lurking, then perhaps I'd be inclined to move to weak support. All that said, I have found Wisdom89 to be a conscientious editor (if not summarist, lol) and have confidence that sooner or later, he'll be a good admin and asset to the project.
'''Neutral''' 38% for major edits and 13% for minor edits is too low of edit summaries for my liking. Other than that, I don't see any problems, so I will only go neutral.
'''Support''' - per nom.
'''Nom Support''' <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards -
'''Nom Support''' ——
'''Nom support''' [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - dedicated, helpful user; will make good use of the tools. He knows how they work and will use them wisely and efficently. — <font face="papyrus">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as nom --
'''Support''' Per nom. --
'''Support''' per nominations and votes already cast. &mdash; <small>[[User:Springeragh/ESP|<font color="green">The still-Esperanzan</font>]]</small> [[User talk:Springeragh|<font style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''rαgђ&nbsp;</font>]] <small>
'''Support''' - good editor. ''
'''support'''; already doing admin-like tasks. article-writer != admin for me. ~
'''Support'''- '''
'''Support''' he will be a good admin :)
'''Support''' Definitely deserves tools, as her understands policy. Per nomination, and the many co-noms following. [[User:Alex43223|Alex43223]]<sup> [[User talk:Alex43223|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Alex43223|<font color="green">Contribs</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Alex43223|<font color="red">E-mail</font>]] |
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Worthy of the tools, and would make very good use of them IMO. --
'''Support''' [[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]] has been a great asset to the project, and deserves the tools. To rebute what  is said in oppose. His contributions on the toolserver, and in other ways have been fairly useful. You should not have to contribute thousands of articles to the mainspace to qualify for sysop access, when we clearly need sysops. Expecially those with a desire to handle more backend work, and have the experience to put the tools to use. I hope those below can rethink what they believe hurts this editor's RfA and put another light onto things.
'''Support'''
I've seen the Dragon make level-headed and constructive responses in dispute resolution, and believe him to be trustworthy.
'''Strong support''' I don't understand why Peter wants this, but if he wants it, I trust him more than any other to wield a mop with a strong sense of justice. I also think it's unfair to look at his mainspace edits as an indication of his willingness to serve this Encyclopedia and his passion for it. I do feel that mainspace edits give one a greater sense of the conflicts that can arise, and prevents a person from burnout, but I sincerely doubt that Peter will ever burn out. Peter would use admin tools better and more efficiently than anyone I can think of. Consider the whole person when you "vote".
'''Oppose''' I strongly believe that an admin should have a solid experience with working in the mainspace especially in some article writing. WD has 685 mainspace edits almost all of them been AWB, reverts or tagging. Sorry about it.
'''Oppose''' with less the 700 edits to the mainspace makes me a little nervous with this RFA. Also the edits are primarily with the AWB. Another problem I see is the wikipedia space, I see literally "no" XFD's.
'''Oppose''' While I am not familiar with the user's Wikipedia history, I recently had dialogue with him regarding his usage of AWB to blindly delete all blog.myspace.com links.  While blog links and Myspace links are generally not acceptable, several editors and myself contested his removal of valid links to Myspace blogs, as seen on his talk page.  Peter told a user to stop repeating the argument that was trying to be made, although the user had identified two new stances to back the argument that was being presented -- Point #11 of "Links normally to be avoided" and the WP:RS acceptance of primary sources (the official nature of certain Myspace blogs) for descriptive points.  He has continued the same AWB activity today without investigating Myspace blogs on their merits, and the negative response from other editors is clear on his talk page.  If this is the cooperation he will have as an admin, I have to oppose. —
No, per recent contentious controversial activity (per Erik for example) and especially per lack of article writing. '''[[WP:ENC]]'''. &ndash;
Changed to <s>'''oppose'''</s> '''strong oppose''' per Erik. I still don't care about whether or not someone contributes to the encyclopedia very much. -
'''Oppose'''. For me, the answer to the question pose by the candidate his acceptance statement, the short answer is no. There is not enough contribution to both main and wiki spaces to make me comfortable, which also goes to the need for the buttons. However, there are too many other things that sit wrong with me. The first is the mass of co-noms, the first which refers to this nominee's participation in "other official channels" (''sic''). If this is a reference to all the off-wiki chatter that goes on at IRC, etc., that doesn't make me feel confident. I am also leery in RfAs where the majority of "oppose" comments require some sort of "rebuttal" by the candidate or his or her nominators. That this nominee is the creator of the "Neutrality Project" also leaves me uneasy, as it adds yet a new bureaucracy to wikipedia that wasn't really necessary. This is not the place to argue the merits of this new project, suffice to say the {{tl|POV}} template is more than sufficient for flagging POV issues, and I'm unable to fully trust these types of wiki-clubs that set themselves off from the rest of the community and project some sort of authority that isn't necessary. I am sure that this nominee is a very nice person, but I felt compelled to answer the blunt question that was put.
'''Oppose''' nice guy, but the overall impression I get of this user is summed up by the word "officious". (This isn't really the place, but I have reservations about this "neutrality project" that largely parallel Agent86's.) Needs more experience in substantive and sustained article building to acquire "in the field" as well as "by the book" perspective on policy.
'''Oppose''' the mainspace contribution is far too weak. There are 600 odd mainspace article edits, and most are either automated or tagging, etc. The latest 200 or so, were done in groups of about 50 edits taking about 1 hour each to do a set of 50 AWB edits. There is simply far too few meaty edits. '''
'''Oppose''' - extremely weak main space contributions, too much use of AWB and not enough use of the "Edit this page" tab. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''', lacks of article contributions, I expect some article writing when one applies to become an admin. This user has done a lot of work in the community side of things, keep it up.
'''Oppose.''' I don't care about the mainspace. I have seen this user around the admin noticeboards and other Wikipedia talk areas, and I have often seen remarks I do not believe are appropriate for an administrator.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Little if any experience of writing this encyclopedia.  Needs to show an interest and dedication to the project before trying to climb the ladder.
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' - per Giano. We simply cannot create a divide between the "editors" who write the articles and the process-wonk admins, who do anything but. This has already caused friction within the project and is entirely unhealthy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The job of Wikipedians is to write that encyclopedia. Everything else is of secondary importance. Oh, and also per excessive bureaucracy at the Neutrality project, [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY]]. That's why we shut down Esperanza, in case everyone's forgotten. Does any other wikiproject function in that way? I can't think of any, bar the Advocacy lot, and ''that'' has more than enough problems even without bureaucracy.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew Fenton. May reconsider after 2 months. -
'''Oppose'''. My only real interaction with Peter was at ProtectionBot's RfA. While there absolutely were valid reasons to oppose adminship for the bot, one of Peter's reasons was that the bot's owner (Dragons flight), may use it as a "backdoor" for admin actions. Several other comments by Peter seemed directed at casting Dragons flight in a negative light rather than debating whether Wikipedia would be better off with the bot. In general, I believe that admin tools would likely be ''misued'' (though not ''abused'') by Peter, at least at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Agent86, RyanGerbil10, and Moreschi.
'''Oppose'''. Can't put it down exactly, but something tells me that this isn't a suitable candidate.
'''Oppose''' Firstly on the grounds of the existance, at all, of this personal attack page (which I only discovered now, while looking for examples of what I see to be the problem here) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wizardry_Dragon/Disputes&oldid=86183689] but also, in that, during the course of the incidents he claims to catalogue, I found [[User:Wizardry Dragon]] to be making claims that were constantly at variance with the facts and distorted them considerably. Whether this was an error of judgement, comprehension or integrity, I do not know, but it seems to me, that, whatever the reason, it would not be a good quality in an admin. --
'''My strongest oppose ever''' One of the worst experiences I ever had on Wikipedia was with Wizardry Dragon. I spent considerable time and efforts improving [[Host desecration]] only to see my 12 (!) edits reverted by Wizardry Dragon using VandalProof[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Host_desecration&diff=85870193&oldid=85870109] and a vandalism warning placed on my talk page. It soon turned out I was not alone. Other users also complained that Wizardry Dragon had reverted their edits using VP[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&oldid=85922491#VP2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon/archive_nov82006/#VP2]. The discussion demonstrated that Wizardy Dragon had no understanding of the definition of vandalism, as he claimed that an edit by Idleguy he saw as POV was vandalism. Giving this user admin tools will only increase their ability to disrupt editing and drive away content writers.
'''Oppose''', Beit Or's comment above seals the deal. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per much of the reasoning posted by Erikster above. Peter and I engaged in the MySpace debate a little longer than Erik would (it eventually moved to [[User:Eagle 101]]'s page), and I found Peter slightly hostile. Things eventually cooled down, we both essentially agree to disagree, but what troubles me is his blind removal of the links. His explanation, which I leave you to judge, was "I removed over 120 bad links, of which maybe 10 were good - so, which is easier, to just readd those ten good links, or to manually remove the 100+ bad ones? Sometimes when we use such tools there will be those few exceptions. Don't take it personally, as such automated removals are very INpersonal - just readd them and confer with the person doing them so they know to pass over that link next time" (found at
'''Oppose''', per all above.
'''Oppose''' per raised concerns. Seeing POV as vandalism is a grave misunderstanding of WP policies. --
'''Oppose''' per above stated concerns with mainspace edits and "officiousness". I didn't quite parse together that Peter M Dodge was Wizardy Dragon at first, but I've seen comments I would not support in an administrator. Sorry, not now; get your feet wet in article writing and please mind your tone/argumentativeness. -- ''
It would be churlish of me to oppose someone who does the dirty work at RFCU. Peter does great work there and I have no doubt that he'll make a good administrator some day. At the time, I can't support with so little experience in the main space.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' - while the lack of mainspace edits (particularly discounting AWB edits) is worrying, the candidate clearly does a lot of useful work.
'''Neutral''', switched from oppose, despite the lack of mainspace edits, it does not necessarily indicate a lack of trust from me.
'''Neutral'''. Fantastic work, but a good engineer has to have been a mechanic. You need to know what it's like being an editor if you want to help them.
'''Neutral'', Peter does a lot of good work around here, but a couple of things concern me. One thing is the apparent bureaucracy that exists on the Neutrality Project.  The other is the fact that Peter doesn't necessarily seem to want to be an admin.  I'm going to take some more time to go through his edit history and track this RFA, so I may reconsider later, but right now I'm neutral on it.--
'''Moral support''' to aviod pile-on. Mostly inactive before this month and weak answers to questions. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per the answers to the questions, implys that admin tools aren't needed. Sorry :/ ~
'''Oppose.''' While well-meaning, the candidate obviously lacks sufficient knowledge and experience, as evidenced by his/her poor responses to the questions and failure to properly set up this RfA before listing it.  FYI, Wooyi, wikifying and improving articles aren't sysop chores.  &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose/Suggest Withdrawal''' per lack of edits and it beign malformed the first time. Plus weak answers. Improve your edits and try again in 6 months or so.
'''Suggest Withdrawal''' - administrators typically have thousands of edits and a varied base of contributions.  You may want to reconsider applying at some point in the future after several months of heavy activity. Also, please note, that for most of what you said you want to do, you don't actually need to be an admin.  You can cleanup articles without being an admin and you can tag articles for deletion that meet the [[WP:CSD|criteria for speedy deletion]] without being an admin. --
'''Moral support'''. While I can't fully support myself, I can request that the opposers try to at least base their opposes on something to do with adminship. Having only gone through RfA ~two months ago, I can certify that the instructions ''were'' confusing. To Wooyi: I'd recommend several more months of active editing and participation in policy discussions, at which point I think you'll be ready for adminship.
'''Moral support''' I think you mean well, so I'm offering a !vote that's inconsequential anyway. I sympathize with your BLP revert because I myself made a mistake - warning the wrong user after a revert - ''during'' my recent RfA. I still insist it was bad luck.
'''Oppose'''. It was two months, your last nomination. That's just too soon considering you only really started editing in late December/early January. The fact that you trascluded this onto RfA before answering the questions also leads me to think you're not experienced enough. You also put it in the wrong place and forgot the hr. --
'''Oppose''' I have to agree with Deskana. Two months is not a long time in between requests for adminship. Wait a few months longer than two and you will get more support votes. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain</font> <font color="red" face="comic sans ms">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Deskana
'''What?''' You didn't answer the questions, nor make any sort of statement that you weren't going to. Two months is not a long time. You transcluded this pretty much right when you created it. And your nomination statement isn't even grammatical. -
'''Strong oppose''' -- Any editor who repeatedly inserts unreferenced negative information into the biography of a living person in blatant violation of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] using a javascript reversion tool [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ross&diff=next&oldid=117775605] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ross&diff=next&oldid=117810528] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ross&diff=next&oldid=117866010] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ross&diff=next&oldid=117867615] then issues completely unjustified vandalism warnings to the editors removing the unreferenced negative information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.244.188.132&diff=prev&oldid=117813174] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.244.188.131&diff=prev&oldid=117867496] should wait several months, at least, before applying for administrative privileges, in order to demonstrate conduct more appropriate for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Deskana.
'''Strong Oppose''' per all the previously mentioned hinkiness. You need a lot more experience before coming to RfA. And why do you have a note in the Neutral section when there are no other comments there? You should be leaving commennts in the discussion section above. ···
'''Oppose''' more experience needed for me I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' per John254. I think that the concerns raised by him and others arise from some inexperience and hastiness on your part. I think you mean well, you should just try not to act so hastily in the future. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per [[User:John254|John254]]. -
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, per Deskana.
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above, the user does not have enough experience and this is too hasty after the last failed RfA. '''''
'''Neutral.''' I will not oppose a candidate to whom I have offered a vote of support, but it is impossible to ignore John254's allegations of poor judgment within the past week.
support and happy new year ;) --
Support.  There was obviously no bad faith behind the bot, and if it wasn't doing something harmful then we shouldn't punish the user after-the-fact solely for misinterpreting policy (solution looking for a problem). --
'''Strong Support'''.  With two years experiance and 9000 edits, you certainly deserve to be an administrator.  Have a happy New Year.
'''Weak Support''' - looks good, plenty of experience with images[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Yao_Ziyuan&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6], and has come clean on the bot issue.  However suggest withdrawl and another attempt once the bot situation is another 2 months behind you --
'''Support'''. He's definitely qualified, and despite the bot situation, I am sure Yao will have no trouble with the admin tools. '''
'''Changed To Support''' Although i'd ask him to be more cautious with the bot.
'''Support''', could use the tools and is not a nutjob.  All the qualifications required!
'''Support'''- has plenty of edits, particularly in user talk and wikipedia spaces, which is always a plus. That, and it looks like he could ''use'' the tools, not just out for some power. As for the bot thing, no harm was done, and he came clean. <font color="#ff9900">
'''Support.''' Block appears to have been a misunderstanding.
'''Strong Support''' Besides the minor issue with the unauthorized bot, you are more than qualified. We should not let something so minor is as a now-resolved issue with a bot to stand in the way of granting this fellow adminship. '''
'''Support''' He appears to be a good editor and I'm sure he'll make a great administrator. The bot situation should not be a matter of concern considering that he was able to identify his mistake on his own and even apologized for it.
'''Strong support''' - a good candidate for adminship, answered all the questions correctly, even the "When should a punitive block be handed out" question that I deliberately intended to be misleading.
'''Support''' - we need admins to write articles as well.<b>
'''Support''' I think he is going to be helpful as an admin and probably not misuse the tools. So, yeah. ←
'''Support''' on the basis that the bot business in now seen and understood for what it was by all concerned parties.
'''Support''' will add a new facet to EN>WP in maintaining the neutrality of articles dealing with Eastern topics.
'''Weak Support''' the failure to know about the bot policy is disconcerting, but overall, looks like a good and responsible user.--
'''Support''', looks good and we need more content-based admins on WP.
'''Moderate Support''' The bot block was a minor mistake, and the process to which you went about it was handled very well. Considering your experience and edit count, I think that you deserve the mop. Not so sure about the bucket....Happy New Year!
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''': devoted users make good admins, the bot episode was a good-faith error, besides scripting skills might be quite usefull for an admin. Chinease-related articles are often subjects of editorial conflicts and familiarity with the culture, history and language is a very strong advantage here.
'''Support''' - I can't agree about opposition for the block, because as it is already pointed out, it is a minor mistake, with an apology given. This should not make him/her worse as an admin. Also, it is 9000 '''plus''' 8400 edits (by the script), which shows he/she is dedicated enough to the project. Good luck!
'''Support''' and Happy New Year. That block was minor; he's a good candidate other than that. --
'''Support''' looks great, is more than qualified.
'''Support''' A very good user of this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' Excellent user.--
'''Weak Support''' Meets my RFA standards and great user. Only problem is you don't rv vandalism.--
'''Support''', no concerns.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate; oppose arguments extremely weak.--
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:90%;">[[User:Sd31415|<span style="color:#1560BD"> —'''sd31415'''</span>]]
'''Support''' There never was a perfect candidate, but here's one where his strengths greatly exceed any weaknesses.--
'''Strong support''', productive, helpful user, no reason to distrust him. Should never have been blocked. Need more administrators familiar with Chinese topics (an under-represented 1/5 of the world). —
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  That bot problem was an innocent mistake, and he seems like a good editor aside from that one incident. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - User seems fine.  I'd actually prefer someone who made a mistake and appeared to learn and react to it well than someone who has been perfect and shows no clue as to how he/she might respond when they make an error.  He's been cool headed, acknowledged his misstep, and in general demonstrated the exact qualities that separate the raving loonies from the calm folks who can use the mop without bloodshed. -
'''Support'''.  He made a mistake, appologized, and seemed to learn from it.  The talk and other discussion edits I looked at were civil and reasonable.  Obviously a hard worker and contributes a lot to the project.  I feel confident that he's not going to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. The whole bot block thing really hurts, but you've seemed to learn from that. --
'''Weak support'''.  Looks like a good user with solid article experience and a healthy ability to learn from mistakes.  ''Lack of policy experience is a concern'', but I hope we can trust you to take things slow and observe carefully in order to avoid inadvertently misusing the buttons. --
'''Support''' Very good user.
'''Support''' Will be an asset.--
'''Support''' Well, I don't think the block this is very relevent and if that's the only significant blot I see no reason to object. --

'''Support''' Will we be better off if Yao Ziyuan becomes an admin?  Yes!--
'''Support''', very well rationed responses to the questions. ——
'''Support'''- not realizing something is not bad. '''
'''Weak Support''' per the issues raised (ie bot and not much participation) but I don't think he would in any way misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - Editor is knowledgeable and effective.
'''Support'''.--
'''Oppose'''. Even if the unauthorized bot is a misunderstanding (which your nomination statement leads me to believe it is not), you have no XfD, and next to no really important edits. -
'''Weak oppose''' this time around.  If renominated, I'll be happy to review again in another few months.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
I believe this candidate lacks experience with policy and process. He has virtually no process-related edits prior to last month, and has a tendency to be overly argumentative in deletion debates, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname)|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 22|here]], by which I mean making many edits regarding a single nomination and commenting on just about every other opinion.
'''Oppose'''. The controversy over the candidate being blocked for using an unauthorized bot ocurred very recently (just over two weeks ago). In my opinion, the candidate should have waited a bit longer before self-nominating for adminship (no matter what their feelings about the block). Doing so now smacks of courting controversy - which I don't think bodes well for a prospective admin. The diffs noted by Radiant also suggest something of this tendency. This, coupled with concerns regarding lack of experience with policy and process, pushes me into the oppose column for now.
'''Oppose''' The block for an unauthorized bot is simply too recent.  I'll be happy to reconsider the candidate in three months or so.
Echo Xoloz.
Echo Xoloz. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Singopo's reasoning. '''
'''Oppose''' with regrets. Looking at your contribution history, I see few spikes of activity amids longer periods of relative (involuntary?) inactivity, and at least one spike seems to be bot-generated. With that activity profile I can't be sure that you are fully up to speed on Wikipedia's Byzantine policies, and various mix-ups listed above deepen this impression that more misunderstandings are to be expected down the road. Two more months of active contributions and I will most likely support. ~
'''Oppose''' - firstly, a look at your current talk page raises some eyebrows: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yao_Ziyuan&oldid=98244036#.E7.B6.AD.E5.9F.BA.E7.99.BE.E7.A7.91 1] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yao_Ziyuan&oldid=98244036#Your_edits_to_the_article_L.C7.90_.28.E6.9D.8E.29_.28surname.29 2] for reasons such as acting [[WP:CIVIL|uncivilly]] (granted you apologised) and involvment in contravertial articles. Secondly your block as a result of failing to read [[WP:BOT]] is still to recent to be ignored. Lastly, you appear to have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Yao_Ziyuan no participation] in Administrator-related areas such as [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s and you appear to have done no [[WP:RCP|vandal patrolling]]. Therefore, I will have to oppose your request for administratorship at this time. My advice is to get seriously involved in [[WP:SPEEDY|speedy deletions]], [[WP:XFD|XfD]]s and anti-vandalism patrolling (perhaps join the [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrol]] or the [[WP:NCP|new changes patrol]]); you may also wish to get involved in the [[WP:DR|DR]] process to get some invaluble, first-hand experience how to handle disputes on [[Wikipedia]] the correct way...by tracking down cases that have done the exact opposite of [[WP:CIVIL|civility]], like you commonly see in cases in front of the mediation [[WP:MEDCABAL|cabal]]/[[WP:MEDCOM|committee]] and the [[WP:AMA|AMA]]. Do all this, and put some serious distance between yourself and that bot, and you've got my vote. [[Dixi]]. [[User:Anthony_cfc|<span style="color:black;font-weight:bold;">Anthony</span>]]
'''Oppose''' while you have the experience the block for running an unauthorized but was simply too recent. I also recommend becoming a little more active in [[WP:AFD|AFDs]]. I will be very happy to support you in a couple of months. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  I was on the fence regarding this nom; I feel that running an unauthorized bot less than one month ago without having done the prerequisite homework to find out what the proper procedure was does not bode well for future decisions based on policy (note that this has nothing to do with your block, simply the bot itself).  But the canvassing of oppose voters and asking them to change their votes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xoloz&diff=prev&oldid=98515380 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonathunder&diff=prev&oldid=98515383 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=prev&oldid=98515385 3]) is what pushed me over the edge.  —
'''Oppose''' A little too soon after the bot/block issue.  Admins must be very knowledgeable about policies.
'''Oppose''' Not mentioning the unauthorized bot in your nomination is a problem.  Any entries in a block log, even unjust ones, are highly relevant to an RfA.
'''Oppose'''.  The bot issue is a minor worry, but lack of experience in wikispace and a tendency to argue with opposers are alos problems.  I'm afraid that I also have worries about his mastery of English; an admin on the English-language Wikipedia needs to be able to communicate clearly, and I'm not sure about that in his case (on its own it wouldn't lead me to oppose an otherwsie perfect candidate, but in combination with the other worriess...). --
'''Weak oppose''' on the precautionary principle, per the various expressed concerns, especially these raised by Radiant.
'''Oppose'''. Too many issues have been brought up in this RfA for me to feel comfortable with this candidate as an admin.
'''Oppose''' - Changed vote from support after user page deletion and withdrawal flip-flop.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Neutral'''. Blocked for running an unauthorized bot? An adminstrator has to know better. It seems like 95% of your recent edits were done by the automatic process. Lack of project namespace participation also worries me. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Neutral''', the basic questions for all RfAs are important, and they are not much elaborated on.  -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral'''. I see no glaring reasons to oppose, but running an unauthorized bot is slightly upsetting. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Neurtal'''. --
'''Neutral'''. I'm concerned about his command of the English language. The answers to questions 10 and 11 have me scratching my head. I would be thrilled to have a Chinese speaker on board, but admins on the English wiki need to be able to communicate clearly in the English language. --
'''Neutral''' Should spend less time arguing with his opposers (see the enormous threaded dialog under the first oppose vote). [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good editor but the bot controversy make me believe that they should've waited a while before going for RFA. '''
'''Neutral''' Great editor, but involves in too many controversies. I didn't like how the user reacted in the deletion discussions on Chinese character titled surname articles and categories. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Neutral'''. I feel I have no choice but to withdraw my support following odd behaviour by this candidate. He has had his UserPage deleted and gone on a Wikibreak mid RfA. Also he withdrew from this RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYao_Ziyuan&diff=98725025&oldid=98696041] but appears to have since changed his mind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYao_Ziyuan&diff=98771620&oldid=98755229]. Until a good explanation is provided for this behaviour, I feel unable to support.
'''Oppose''' Thanks for the offer, but I would encourage you to spend a little more time getting to know us and the processes here. Maybe come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' at this stage, not cos you've done anything wrong but just because you don't have enough experience for me to judge how good you are. As Jody says, come back in a couple of months with a bit more experience under your belt; you might want to get some experience discussing [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] as well.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> —
'''Oppose''', you may have to elaborate on your answer to question 1, as sporting work isn't admin work (though it's always good to continue article writing when you become an admin), so I don't know what you would use the tools for.
'''Strong oppose''' Answers to questions were not good enough, and it tells me that this user is not yet ready to be an admin. Try again in few months with much better answers and I will support you.
'''Oppose''' per NHRHS2010.  Honestly, the answers to the questions were quite poor.  As an administrator, you're entrusted with significant tools, and in order to earn that trust, you need to demonstrate your understanding of Wikipedia's policies and how they would affect and guide you in your role as an administrator.  Try again in a few months.  Good luck <sub><span style="border:1px solid #330088;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I see no problems here. He's well established on a sister-wiki, and wanting to take on such a monumental task of offloading images to commons and cleaning up the deletions is a worthy cause and I think we should help him in this cause. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Support'''. As I understand this request, the user wants to delete images that are on en-wiki after he has moved them to Commons. This seems an admirable thing to do. I think we should assume good faith, particularly as he is in good standing on another wiki and give him the tools to do just the one thing he wants to do. Not all admins should do everything. What he wants to do is very much in the interests of the Project and I trust him to do just that one thing. --
'''Support'''. I disagree totally with Cool Blue, a trusted editor on a sister project has shown that they can be trusted, they have the necessary skills and that they either know or can quickly adapt to new policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not just between the users on the local project, but between users on all the projects.
'''Support''' Lack of experience across other areas of en.wikipedia is academic - he needs the tools for one thing so give them to him. Just because the tools are "all or nothing" is not this editors fault. This must be the first RfA in a while where the editor has clearly stated that they <b>need the tools to do a job</b>, rather than vying for a "promotion" that doesn't exist. Best of Luck.<small><span style="border:2px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Over 3000 edits on Hebrew Wikipedia (even though that's technically -3000 as they've been written backwards!!).  Moving images to Commons is one heck of a task, so glad there's someone out there who wants to do it.  So, he needs the tools to do the job. <div>—
'''Support''' - The candidate has explained exactly what s/he will do with the admin tools. Experience on Hebrew Wikipedia suggests sufficient technical knowledge to use the tools, and IMO admins don't have to be active in more than one area - the more admins, the better. <font face="Palatino Linotype" color="Purple">
'''Support''' He is known to be a responsible editor in good standing on another wikipedia (I don't know Hebrew, but no opposer has questioned this so far :). I see no reason not to trust him. It is enough to know that he won't cause trouble. I don't really care if he doesn't do anything other than what he stated.-
'''Support''' I trust Yonidebest to properly handle the area he has proposed to tackle. If he was a regular English Wikipedia user, I'd want to see more participation in other areas, but if his having the delete button allows our regular admins to focus on other stuff, then it's fine. I trust him to properly investigate other issues if he wishes to use the other tools.
'''Support''' Per pedro--
'''Support''' Who cares? Not even [[WP:ADMIN#No_big_deal|Jimbo Wales]]. You might want to clean up your answer to question one however. <sup>[[User:Wikihermit|<font color="black"><b>Ideology</b></font>]]</sup><sub>[[user_talk:Wikihermit|Talk to me]]</sub>  <small>
'''Support'''.  Experienced user who is seeking the mop for exactly the right reasons - he wants to dig in and help with one of the horrid backlogs around here.  Image work is some of the dirtiest around, and I gladly welcome another admin to help out.  When you get the tools, see me for even more image work. :) --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. Yonidebest understands what adminship is about -- do you? It's a mop, not a medal.
'''Support''' for what it's worth. My thoughts on this candidate should be obvious from my comments throughout this page. I promise not to make any more. —
'''Oppose''', I think I understand the merits of this nomination. However, you have only some 400 edits; the majority of which this month were made without an edit summary. If RFA's could be simple as to grant privileges to good faith users I'd support you, but that isn't the case. --
'''Oppose''' We can only give all of the tools, or none. At the moment your lack of experience in admin-related activities within [[WP:NAMESPACE]] indicates that there is no evidence to suggrest that you would be able to use all of the tools responsibly.--
'''Oppose''' All you would like to do is delete your images on Commons, and you don't have many edit summaries. -
'''<s>Strong</s>oppose''' Not enough edits, and doesn't seem motivated at the English Wikipedia. Contributions and priveliged access at the [[Hebrew Wikipedia]] means absolutely nothing here.
'''Oppose''' per Anthony.bradbury. You have good intentions, but given that you're quite a sporadic editor at en.wiki, and your sole purpose for being granted adminship is to delete your own images, it doesn't seem appropriate to give the tools to you here. Note that en.wiki is much different than he.wiki. <font face="georgia"><span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF">
'''Oppose''' - The edit count concerns me, as does the summary usage. --'''<font face="Perpetua" size="3">[[User:The Random Editor|<font color="RoyalBlue">Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι</font>]][[User talk:The Random Editor|<font color="Black">τ</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Anthony.bradbury and Phoenix2. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' <small>
'''Oppose''' Per the answers to some of the questions.  If you want to delete images on Commons, then my suggestion to you would be to file an RFA on Commons.  I think you have to be of good standing and have 200+ or so edits.  But, still, deleting images on wikipedia isn't the only thing that administrators do here. '''<font color="deeppink" face="georgia">
'''Oppose''' While I can see the reasons for your Rfa, you need much more experience, and have yet to dive much deeper into the project as a whole.  Good luck however.
'''Oppose''' not the most compelling reason for a need for the tools. Low activity is another deal-breaker. —
'''Oppose''' I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] here but the admin tools are given to benefit the Wikipedia community, by the looks of your nomination statemement and Q1 answer, it appears you only want to deletion your images, yes the backlog gets large sometimes but I think due to your low edit summary usage and low edit count is not good. Good luck! <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but other Wikimedia are significantly different, so experience doesn't really transfer across them. If you do things the way you would on the Hebrew wikipedia or commons, then you may well do them wrong here. So I must regretfully oppose. -
Not confident with this candidate getting the buttons. You need to prove yourself on ''this'' Wiki, as it is so different to every other. Going from enwiki to a smaller wiki is fine, because the same ''decision-making characteristics'' are needed. However, the opposite is not true, due to how intricate enwiki is compared to every other wiki. Not enough experience on enwiki, sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure how many images he has uploaded here but I don't really favor givnig the tools to someone for such a precisely defined task. His lack of using edit summaries and his reasoning for it suggests a lack of familiarity with wikipedia-en and that could prove a problem (the difference between whats acceptable there and here).
'''Oppose''' It would be great if there was a way to provide you the single tool that you are requesting.  Still, I can't see that its such a burden on the community that other admins delete the images you are tagging.  I advise that you just keep tagging them the way that you are and avoid the potential headache that admin tools might cause yourself or others.<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral'''You seem like a great user but the downside is that you should be using the edit summary more often.<font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="4">
'''Neutral'''You are a good user but your answer to question #1 only says you want to delete your images on commons, but you must be an admin on commons to do that.You don't mention any other of the administrator duties. You have been here since July 05 but you have not edited very much in that time. Please become more familiar with the role of an admin here and do try to get that edit summary use up. You can set your editing preference to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" which will help greatly. Good luck.--
I see no evidence that you would abuse the tools, but no evidence that you would really use them that much either, so I'm '''neutral'''. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(
Not much to go on to establish the user's grasp on enwiki policies and procedures, and the answers to the questions don't inspire a lot of confidence.  Given the number of contributions on the Hebrew wikipedia I'm certain this user is a fantastic editor, but not knowing their policies over there and how they relate to our policies here keeps me just on this side of the fence.
Your contributions to the hebrew wikipedia are amazing - but what it comes down to is will you be an admin here - and by that I mean will you actually do stuff here. I can't help but feeling that if we gave adminship to you - while you would use it well - it would be more like a tool that comes in handy once in a blue moon.<small>
'''Support''' without reservation, as nominator. It is time you got the tools. --
'''Support''' this RfA looks to be at a bad start, but really, the user was bold and closed some AfDs, he's ready for the challenge.  He edited a userpage but at least one admin thought that was a good idea.  He says we block indef for death threats, which is true, and even if it's a joke, a block reversed or shortened by another admin in such a case would not do a great deal of damage IMO.  I've seen him act like an admin, and this RfA should have some support.
'''Support''' I (not afraid to be in the minority) met Yuser31415 on opposite sides of a content dispute.  S/he advanced her/his position strongly but continued to be civil.  Yuser31415 does make mistakes -- we all do -- but s/he admits them and moves on.  I believe Yuser31415 will make a positive contribution as an administrator.  -- '''
'''Weak support''', would have been stronger, as I like what I have seen of Yuser, but striking out someone's oppose vote in your own RFA, irrespective of when it was made, is a very silly thing to do. And it's going to cause this RFA to fail, abjectly.
'''Support''' a committed user - his all-round work is quite good and reassuring when you look at his mistakes. He's done some controversial and unwise things w/o understanding of policy, but I'm impressed with his energy - he's always had the best intentions and purpose of Wikipedia in mind. I hope this RfA succeeds.
'''Support''' to register appreciation for this Yuser's enthusiasm and participation (including his comments in a situation that arose my very first night as an admin). Many of the concerns raised by the opposers are valid, however, and I hope the candidate will bear them in mind going forward.
'''Oppose''' (with a passion after the above heinous activities[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Yuser31415_2&diff=115417778&oldid=115416137]) - I’m sorry but I must sternly say: no. I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the Wiki to grant you sysop abilities, I do believe you are here in good faith, I have, however, seen some *very* worrying activities from you. To begin, on a personal note I’ve seen you edit my comments at RfA/B.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Grandmasterka&diff=prev&oldid=101667339] (and just as I’m about to post this I see you striking peoples comments, this is amazingly *unacceptable* [strongly emphasized], I’m almost screaming that making you a sysop would be a sincerely bad idea![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Yuser31415_2&diff=115417778&oldid=115416137]) I also get the very worrying feeling, from the way you behave and that you believe this is a “game”. I’ve seen you culling people’s user pages under the guise of NPA before as well[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WeniWidiWiki&diff=104786276&oldid=103998470], this is simply unacceptable for a highly trusted member of the community. You’re lack of contributions to the encyclopaedia as well is, to put it bluntly: horrific, at the time of this RfA since the 20th of February you’ve made a grand total of 50 main space edits, unacceptable, maintaining integrity is a crucial role for an administrator, I’ve seen it to often where an administrator forgets what it’s like to be a user and becomes trigger happy on the block/delete/protect buttons, the fact is as well: We’re building an encyclopaedia, not playing a game of Wikipolitics 3.0. Your AfD activity also gives me something to think about, e.g. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OttoBib.com]], clearly there was no straight consensus for a user to be closing that AfD. Frankly I do not trust your judgement, you show no actual needs to be a sysop, to quote your self, paraphrased: “I'll be ready to support when you have a little more experience in administrator areas and editing areas, however”. Sorry,
'''Oppose'''. I have seen Yuser act aggressively to [[User talk:Yuser31415/Archive 16#Please do not edit other users' userpages|modify other's user pages]] on [[User_talk:Yuser31415/Archive_17#en:User:CroDome|more than one occasion]], and threaten the user when reverted. I have also seen him/her warn users who didn't archive their talk, in spite of the fact that no guidelines or policies exist requiring that. I was also concerned when s/he [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive199#Non-admin unblock review|declined to unblock a user]], thus giving the false impression that s/he was already an admin. I also wasn't happy to see him/her [[User talk:Yuser31415/Archive 17#Closing AFDs|closing Afds which did not have clear consensus]]. This too, has happened [[User talk:Yuser31415/Archive 17#AfD closing|more than once]]. I was also quite surprised that when mediating a dispute, Yuser didn't bother to read the article and take action to rectify the egregious violations of [[WP:BLP]], where living people were actually accused of [[User talk:Yuser31415#the Zodiac killer article|being serial killers]] with no sources given to support the assertions..Taken as a whole, I don't see someone who is ready to be trusted with admin tools. I don't think Yuser knows the difference between being bold and running riot. If this is what we see now, I am highly concerned at the possible problems that can ensue if Yuser were given actual power and authority.
'''Oppose'''.  While I agree that Jeffpw should not have commented on the nomination prior to it being officially, transcluded.  That is not a valid excuse for the candidate to strike through the comment.  This shows too much readiness to be confrontational and especially when matters of self-interest are at stake. This was a serious lapse in judgement.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108942892&oldid=108941960 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FOttoBib.com&diff=107254256&oldid=106104619 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FGreat_Britain_and_Ireland&diff=107742181&oldid=107740669 this]. <font face="Verdana">
'''Oppose''' per evidence provided by One Night In Hackney.
'''Oppose''' - I dunno what to say. Golly gosh. <span style="font-size:95%">--
'''Oppose'''. I have serious concerns about this user's judgement based on actions in this RfA and diffs provided above. An explanation would not be sufficient, I would need to see a few months of displaying better judgement before reconsidering.
'''Oppose''' The diffs provided above are sufficient to give me pause in supporting this user at this time.  I would encourage moderation and constructive criticism when commenting in the policy space, user Talk pages and edit summaries.  The above diffs do supply you with a harsh voice but I realise that they have been extracted from the sum total of your contributions for evidence purposes.  More experience is required.
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry. '''
'''Oppose''' unfortunately the diffs provided above are worrying enough to make me doubt your judgment. -
'''Oppose''' - the candidate ''struck out the first oppose vote on his RfA''. His belligerence and arrogance are unbelievable. I spent a couple of minutes trying to decide whether I should use my own adminship to unstrike the comment, but I suppose the right thing to do is to just vote oppose and encourage others to do the same. -
'''Oppose'''. Appallingly bad behaviour with initial oppose. While Jeffpw might have been technically wrong in posting early, this is good time to practice [[WP:IAR|ignoring all rules]]. Poor, poor judgment exercised at the worst time possible.
'''Oppose''' - I started typing this as a neutral, ("conflicted", actually) but now feel I must oppose.  I agree with every point Jeffpw has made above, and a month ago would have vehemently opposed this nom.  However, in the past weeks I've seen Yuser calm down and back off a bit.  I believed he was making an honest effort to improve. I still believe he is trying. However, the striking out of an opposing !vote (which, if you look at the history, had already been [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYuser31415_2&diff=113708580&oldid=113694444 reverted by Deskana] and then [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYuser31415_2&diff=115413630&oldid=115413476 re-added by Matthew] after the nom was official, thus nullifying the procedural concerns) was '''appalling''', and tells me that Yuser is still too impatient for this job.  I know he has energy and enthusiasm, but he is just not ready to be trusted with more power or responsibility. - <font face="comic sans ms"><b>
'''Oppose'''. It may have been improper for Jeffpw to write an oppose prior to your acceptance of this RfA, but it is much more improper for you to strike it out yourself. There is a clear [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] in doing so, and this doesn't suggest good judgement on your part. It may have been a momentary lapse in judgment, but it is a serious and very public one when it involves your own RfA. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong oppose''' The substance of [[user:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]]'s oppose worries me. Mediating a dispute without reading the article is very poor practice- where [[WP:BLP]] violations remain as result it is extremely serious. But the way in which that oppose was dealt with worries me even more. The oppose, made by accident before the nom was accepted was correctly removed by [[User:Deskana|Deskana]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYuser31415_2&diff=113708580&oldid=113694444] and a polite note left on Jeffpw's talkape that he could restore his comment once the RfA was accepted and posted. Fine. It was then reposted by a third party [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYuser31415_2&diff=115413630&oldid=115413476] ''after'' Yuser accepted the nom [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYuser31415_2&diff=115412300&oldid=115411901]. Yuser then inappropriately decided to strike the comment and comment upon it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FYuser31415_2&diff=115417778&oldid=115416137]. The heavy handed approach taken to dealing with this very valid opposition seems to me to raise serious concerns as to how Yuser would conduct himself as an admin. Evidently criticism is not well received. <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' You've got quite a file of facts going against you, man. From the above instances, it seems you take [[WP:BOLD]] a bit too far. Cool it down and next RfA you have, I will support. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I don't think this user has the temperament to be a good admin.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] and [[User:Kathryn NicDhàna|Kathryn NicDhàna]]. Too much of a risk at the moment. [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka
'''Oppose''' as I do not believe you have a clear understanding of the boundaries of admin authority or propriety (per Kathryn NicDhàna, Jeffpw, and Matthew). ···
'''Oppose'''.  Many of this user's comments at the various noticeboards have left me with the impression that this is a person who is quick to point to rules without looking closely at the situation.
'''Oppose''' in the hopes that a seconder will reinforce the importance of Jkelly's statement above, which is exactly what I came here to say.
'''Oppose'''. Frankly, you seem to be acting like the second-worst kind of admin (the worst get desysopped and/or community banned), and you're not even an admin yet. '''''[[WP:BOLD]] is not a license to blindly charge at situations'''''. --
'''Oppose'''. The diffs provided by One Night leave me with an impression of poor judgment. I agree with the above opinions that you need to cut it down on the [[WP:BOLD]].
'''Oppose'''. I do not completely trust this user's judgement, One Night's diffs demonstrate the reason why.
'''Oppose'''. Having seen the diffs, I shudder at the thought this user could become a sysop. [[User:Errabee|Er]][[User talk:Errabee|<font color="orange">rab</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Sorry but I think I was wrong about you...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:small;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but those diffs that are being posted are quite scary.--
'''Neutral''' I think Yuser acts on good faith and has improved markedly since my early interactions with him in October 2006.  However, I think he needs some more time to mature as an editor.  Some of the oppose comments raise valid concerns—I hope Yuser takes the feedback from this RfA positively and uses it to continue his development.  I find that I cannot support at this time, although I expect to support in the future if he continues to improve. —
'''Neutral'''. Some of the points raised by opposers are valid, some less so. I've seen some quite strange comments from you at AN and ANI that, together the fuss over Jeffpw's first comment here, leave me feeling less than enthusiastic. On the whole, I prefer too much boldness to the opposite, but a little more reflection would be a good thing. Still, I see progress: just slow down a little and all will be well.
'''Oppose''' per lack of edits, experience, etc. Feel free to try after you amass WAY more edits. --
'''Oppose'''. It's good that you learned from your mistakes, but I feel you still need a lot more experience on Wikipedia. You've been here for a mere 10 days, far short of what I would expect in an admin candidate. Read Wikipedia policies, get involved in WikiProjects, continue editing the encyclopedia and maybe after you have a few thousand edits and months of experience under your belt, you can consider RfA again. '''
'''Moral Support''' Because of the self-nom and some not bad answers to the questions (your reminder that it's '''fun''' is excellent). Your input to the project is much valued and appreciated. I can't offer a full support, as I feel your main space edits are insufficent for you to have a full grasp of policy at this time - or at least for me to judge that you do. However I wish you well in this RfA; <i>should</i> it fail take it in good spirit, and lets hope the editcounters stay clear for once. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support''' Seen you around often, and I think you'd make a good admin. You definitely need more experience though. &mdash;[[User:Crazytales|<span style="color:#000000">Crazytales</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Crazytales|(talk)]]
'''Moral support'''. Clearly a good user, but not really enough experience yet - wait a couple of months, gain some more experience (extensive participation in XfDs is always a good idea, for instance), then try again. I would be happy to give you any help and advice you need. (Although in response to the opposers, I have to say that working out someone's percentage of edits to userspace seems a ''little'' pedantic...)

'''Oppose'''- the edit count is very low... which may show that the editor lacks experience too.
Insufficient grasp of major policy issues, I seem to remember some odd stuff with Esperanza, as well. Probably needs some more time.
Don't think candidate sufficiently 'gets it'.
Per above.
'''Strong Oppose''' Your edit count is '''way''' to low for me. I don't really support people with less than 5,000 edits. Get more edits, and I will be happy to support you.
'''Oppose''', I'm not going to be an idiot and say 5,000 edits are necessary, but with well under a thousand edits are the tools even that beneficial? --
'''Neutral'''. Not going to pass, so no point opposing. Make more edits, people love counting 'em round here. Just don't revert too much vandalism, else you'll need to make even ''more'' edits to compensate for this :) And... yeah, while there are perfectly legitimate reasons to edit in your own userspace (article sandboxes, etc.), you might want to go easy on them for a while. Re-apply one day when you're a bit more experienced (but not any time in the next 6 months otherwise someone will oppose you just for ''that'') –
'''Neutral'''. You may make a fine admin one of these days, but need more mainspace editing experience. Keep up the good work.
'''Neutral''' I will remain neutral on this. Your edits, although low, show activity in a decent range of Wikipedia, which is encouraging, but the gap between Wikipedia edits from January to June did pique my interest. Rather than oppose I will remain neutral and hope that you continue to stay with the project and in due time give this another try. --
'''Support''' We have to stop thinking of adminship as a trophy. Even with a 300 edits edit count this user hasent vandalised. He has done some controvesial uploading but that is not revelent to RFAs because adminship only allows admins to delete them. Therefore, the likeliness of vandalization with the tools. How could a user with a good record start misusing sysop tools.--
'''Support''' per [[user:Natl1|Natl1]].
'''Oppose''': per canvassing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dev920&diff=prev&oldid=108967697 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex43223&diff=prev&oldid=108967202 here].
'''Oppose''': per nearly non-existent answers to questions; no nominating statement; voted for self; incorrectly created nomination; 317 edits; need I go on?  And ''please'' people, quit it with the "moral support". —
'''Moral Support''' - insufficient experience, suggest withdraw. --
'''Oppose''' per recent block, silly threatening messagebox on his talk page (''"DO NOT: Add useless junk to my talk page, I am NOT an administrator, though I know some and if I find that you have, I will have you temporarily blocked. Thank you! :)''"). If that reflects his understanding of blocking policy, he's obviously not suited to the job.
'''Oppose''' per above comments. It shows that you lack experience and understanding of how Wikipedia truly works, so I recommend seeking adoption from  another user and come back in 3-4 months. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' Zero admin-related task edits can be found in your 317 contributions to-date.  Try reverting vandalism, warning vandals, reporting them to [[:WP:AIV]] and contributing to XfD discussions where  you can demonstrate a knowledge of policies and guidelines for starters.  Do this and return in a year-or-so, or perhaps another editor will notice your contributions in addition to your encyclopedic edits and nominate you.  Please withdraw this nomination soon.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein's]] and [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)'s]] comments above.  It also appears that you need significantly more edits in general, please take the next several months to make many more edits that will show what a great editor you can be!
'''Oppose''' per all the above. --
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawl before [[WP:SNOW]]. --
'''Oppose''' - no where near enough edits yet.  However, if this user continues to work in the same way over the next few months, then would be a perfect nominee when they have 1500+ edits.'''
'''Oppose''' obviously not qualified. Please withdraw. -
'''Oppose''' Multiple evidence of unsuitability as per above. I strongly suggest self-withdrawal.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Usually I wouldn't do this when it is unnecessary, but I am opposing due to evidence of probable sock-puppetry and your user page, which seems like a playing ground for putting as many userboxes as possible.  You speak 10+ languages at an intermediate or better language? And you are a Chemist, Professional Electronic Engineer, Professional Musician, Librarian, Professional Graphic Designer, Professional Editor, a Geoscientist, a Pilot, a Psychotherapist, Systems Analyst, and Webmaster?  Forgive me for doubting, but it seems you do not take Wikipedia seriously at all.  You will need to ''drastically'' change your behavior on Wikipedia for me to support in the future. --
'''Oppose''' simply not enough experience for me, 13 Wikispace edits?  Continue editing productively, show some understanding of policies (e.g. XfDs), create a more convincing self-nom, or, better still, find someone to nominate you for your good work, and we'll meet here again.
'''Oppose'''. I'm glad that you like Wikipedia, but please understand that adminship is something that is granted to editors that the community trusts have the knowledge and good judgement to enforce Wikipedia's policies. Given your short list of contributions, you just don't have enough of a track record to demonstrate those qualities at this time. I'm also concerned by the warning you have on your talk page ("DO NOT: Add useless junk to my talk page, I am NOT an administrator, though I know some and if I find that you have, I will have you temporarily blocked. Thank you!"), which suggests that you are unfamiliar with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]]. Please also refrain from uploading images like [[:Image:Serpents Egg.jpg]], [[:Image:Burning Crown.gif]], and [[:Image:Twisted Blade.jpg]] and claiming that they fall under the [[WP:GFDL|GNU Free Documentation License]], which I seriously doubt is true. Copyright violation is a serious breach of [[WP:IUP|Wikipedia's image use policy]]. In this case, I would direct you towards the "fair use" clause. I don't want to discourage you, but you simply need more time and experience with Wikipedia to realistically consider becoming an admin. And remember, many people will tell you that [[WP:WAIN|adminship is not a trophy]]. I suggest that you keep contributing to Wikipedia, become more familiar with its policies, and maybe someday you might become an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but need more experience. ''
'''Oppose''' Sorry man, but your edit count is insufficient, your edit summary usage is abysmal, and you got little admin task experience. [[User:Captain panda|<font color="orange">Captain</font> <font color="red">panda</font>]] [[User talk:Captain panda|<font color="teal">In</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Only 315 total edits, barely any kind of answers, let alone good ones...sorry, but you're just not ready yet. '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, and other concerns voiced above (userbox claims, etc.) are also relevant. <font face="Georgia">
'''Oppose''', not enough experience.--
'''Oppose''', please come after having more experience on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Yippee, I get to be the first!
'''Support''' as nominator, of course. --
'''Support''' have seen this chap around, helping on AfDs.
'''Support''', even though the majority of edits are within the past three months, that meets my criteria. I feel confident that this user would utilize the mop to its maximum potential. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', edits on AfD are ''contributions'' rather than simple yea/nay votes. Lack of user talk is compensated for by the type of interaction on AfD (many edits are of the "comment" variety). No doubt would live up to the answers given below.
'''Support'''.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat room.  User talk counts are not important when considering someone for admin duties.
Weak '''support'''; would prefer more article and user talk edits, but I've seen him around and I highly doubt admin powers will be abused.
'''Support''' per Johnleemk. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', meets my standards. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''', I don't see why not.
'''Support'''.  Adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support'''. Per Blnguyen.
'''(support)'''. — <small>Feb. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:49] <
'''Support'''.  He's a very good editor, and has backed up his opinions on AfD very well.  I liked the answers to the questions below also.  I'm not that worried about lack of talk page edits for him.  I think he'll do a good job. --
'''Support''' per nominator
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Good candidate, and good luck. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''.  Might be a little inexperienced quantitatively, but has enough good qualities to make up for it. -
'''Support'''. Good edits. Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' based mostly on answers to questsions. --
'''Support''' based on answers to my three additional quaestions.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great edits, great contributions to AfD. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Changed to support. I continue to see great work on AFD, and he is a fellow [[:Category:Wikipedians in Gloucestershire|Wikipedian in Gloucestershire]] after all :) --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) <s>'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. Wonderful advocate on AFD and a good editor. I've agonised about this ever since the RFA was launched, and I just can't push myself into the 'support' group at the moment because of the woeful number of Talk: edits. I may change my mind, and I'd certainly support a month or 2 down the line if he continues his great work and involves himself in discussion a little more. I accept that AFD is discussion, but it's of a different kind. --
'''Support''' per my interactions/observations involving AfDs. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
''"Adminship is no big deal"'' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', he is doing good work and will do fine as an admin.
'''Support'''. No big deal. He's an asset. --&nbsp;
'''Support''' although some more interaction would be nice.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Extra support with knobs on'''. I've had a few encounters with this user and he looks OK. Besides, how could I oppose an atheist Trekkie who dislikes American English? =)

'''Support''' could use the mop, bucket, and squeegee well. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough interaction with other people. He only has about 70 edits to talk pages <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' needing some more talk page edits. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Aeropagitica's speech convinced me a little, but less than 70 is still too low. A different kind of communication is needed when talking to people on User:talk rather than Project namespace. Admins needs to understand both of them!
'''Oppose'''. Seems to lack experience with active participation only from December. Checking contributions from the last month, I see AfD "votes" and adding cats to articles. Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any substantive content edits. I think prospective admins should be well-rounded and that includes writing for the encyclopedia. --
'''Weakly''' oppose on the basis of time on project.  Having edits to AfD ''can'' mean a great deal of interaction -- moreso than a similar number of edits to templates or boxes, for example -- so it's not exactly an isolated pursuit.  (AfD is a chatty spot from time to time.)  AfD is also one of the crucible spots of the project, where losing one's cool will be seen somewhat quickly, but I also think that folks need time on project to show whether they're going to peter out when the romance of novelty wears off or when they encounter their first Absolute Truth that no one else agrees with.
'''Oppose''', per JJay. Please keep building the encyclopedia and try again after a few months of active participation.
'''Oppose''' for now, fully expect to support next time round.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' per JJay and low talk edits.
'''Oppose''' per Geogre.  More time is needed for the user to understand wiki-process.
'''Neutral'''. Good candidate but needs more experience. --
'''neutral''', leaning towards support. Good user, but needs a bit more interaction with other editors. Will happily support in a couple of months if Aeropagita continues as at present.
'''Neutral''' very little use of Talk or User talk areas, admins need high communications skills
'''Neutral'''. as per all of above. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' leaning support, unsure about the amount and breadth of experience. No need to rush into adminship. --
We started out sparring, but my respect for Aaron has grown immensely. He brings a lot of energy and good ideas to the table and I think he'd make a good admin. (I recently offered to nominate him so I'll skip the commentary for now (I reserve the right to comment later) and go straight to support) ++
'''Support'''. It is good to have a few admins who think out of the box, and I'm already hawking him with civility issues. He's advised to keep down the drama, but I cannot deny that his heart is in the correct place. I'm pretty sure we can keep those problems in check.
'''Support'''.
He rarely does things perfectly. He frequently makes unwanted sexual advances towards women. He kicks puppies occasionally, I'm sure.  I'll keep watch on him should he fuck up, but I doubt that he will. Aaron, sail on!--
'''Support'''. Aaron's brave and smart and funny. In content disputes, he's good at breaking the ice, even-handed, makes intelligent suggestions, and understands the importance of well-timed archiving. ;-) He'll make an innovative and responsible admin.

'''Support'''--
'''OMFG don't oppose, are you kidding?''' &mdash; '''''
'''Support'''. Absolutely, under any circumstances. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
I take a short repreive from my RfA boycott to '''support'''. ''Give him a chance.''
'''Support'''. I was in the neutral column last time due to the IgnoreAllRules incident, but since then Aaron has matured greatly and is much more patient now than a few months ago. His handling of the Webcomics Arbcom case was calm and ordered. He has made a number of very good contributions to policy discussions. Aaron has a firm understanding of policy, and of the nature of the encyclopedia. I absolutely believe that he is ready to become an administrator now.
Aye. &#8212;
'''Support'''. Aaron's a fine, sensible Wikipedian, who ''understands'' Wikipedia like few admin candidates seem to. The timing of his last RFA was unfortunate, but I have no qualms supporting now. I value his judgment, and really belive he shouldn't be denied adminship because of personal or political spats.
'''Support''' Fine wikipedian, with a good sense of humour. He's dedicated and an independent thinker. He appreciates process, but is not a slave to it. He can be a very bold and forthright (an Aussie thing?), but has the neccessary humility to go with it. My only concern is that he has an long-running spat with Tony_Sidaway; but that is two-sided. My support would be stronger if Aaron was willing to pledge never to revert Tony's actions (there plent of others to do ''that''). --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', if his RfA fails, we're all doomed.
Every time I see that brenneman's made a contribution to an issue that I'm interested in, I look forward to reading it.  I believe that brenneman has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, more so than editors who always follow every process to the letter but never think about how we could improve. —
'''Support''':  Aaron can be prickly, but he has been dedicated since arrival to setting up standards by which the controversial matters can be assessed dispassionately.  Instead of relying on "IAR" and "experts," he wants to have guidelines (not rules) by which we can agree.  For this he has gotten the wrath of people who believe in a divine right of admins.  For this, he has the support of '''this''' admin, 100%.  This is a guy who wants to use administrator tools to help administrators work by the same rules as everyone else.
'''Support''' Absolutely. Completely. Unstintingly.

'''Sigh of relief'''.  I didn't really want to let this RfA go through without supporting.
'''Support''': (after edit conflict) He makes lots of contributions and it's good to have somebody who is sometimes critical and who is passionate.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Aaron has grown more in a short period of time than any other editor I know.  I have no doubt that this will continue..
'''Supportize'''. I normally don't make comments to RFA much much but Oof. What a fast learner. I had <THIS HUGE STACK> of objections. Talked with him briefly, and he addressed them all. Oh hmm, that and normally refactoring your RFA page leads to near automatic support from me anyway :-P
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', Aaron cares for Wikipedia and seems to have matured from earlier misjudgements.  My concern had been interaction with Tony Sidaway, and hopefully that is resolved now, as even Tony is supporting promotion.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''. This would be unqualified, but I think he has a Tony-sized hole in his judgment and that sometimes he lets his big mouth get the better of him; I should hope that he will make more of an effort not to let this happen. That said&mdash;I've always found him willing to talk about things reasonably afterward, as well as to have a productive chat with when we disagree about something. Most of the work he does is very good, and I'm not worried about him abusing admin powers, so after opposing last time I'm happy this time to support.
'''Support''' does good work here even if he has a big mouth ;). --
'''Support''', as last time.
'''Support'''. [[User:Alphax|Alph]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''  Absolutely.  Extremely.  Amazing editor.
'''Support'''. He's got my support.
'''Strongest Possible Support''' I'm surprised I spoke the exact opposite words during his last rfa. Aaron's always in the trenches, an invaluable voice in a sea of tumult. Add to that his knowledge of the Wiki(the footnotes in the formatting here), and we've got a situation here where we're lucky that he wants to be an admin. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''. I've seen much that I like from Aaron. I think he is an intelligent, hard working editor, who cares deeply about our encyclopedia. As do others I have concerns about some of his past actions, but I have confidence he will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. What can I say?'''
'''Support'''. He's shown he's willing to work hard for WP.
'''Support''', Aaron is at least as trustworthy of the mop as most admins I know (this may become my new personal guideline for RfA). Also, his ability to work out a compromise with Tony is admirable. --
'''Very Strong Support''' One of the best Wikipedians there is.--
'''Support''', generally level-headed and willing to consider the opposite view, and to change his mind if he's wrong.
'''Support'''. Great work on the Wikipedia, and he has a respect for the consensus of the community, which is very important in an administrator. <TT>
'''Support'''. One look at who is opposing this nomination says everything.  Why is wikipedia scared of an outspoken editor? I fully support his agitation, even if i don't agree with everything he says. Actually, on reflection, I do agree with everything he says.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''': good editor.
'''Support'''. His respect for consensus and process pushes my vote into this category.  —
'''Support''' -
Is this a request for adminship? If it is, I '''support''' it. --
'''Support''' pile on.--
'''Support'''. What I've seen of him suggested that he was kind and fair. I'm sure he won't abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' Will make a excellent admin --
'''Support''' I have some reservations about this user's past conduct, but won't rehash that here. I'm a big believer in personal evolution, and as he stands now, he deserves a fair shake.
'''Support''' - He can get hot under the collar from time to time, but he's got a very well-worked out understanding of policy, and takes a narrow view of admin resposibility, and I think he can be trusted not to misuse admin actions, and would make much positive use of them.  Plus, he's a nice guy. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>
'''Very Strong Support''', Aaron will make a good admin, he's open to discussion, engages with issues and people and cares about the project.  I would also add I've always found Aaron to treat me civilly, and I've disagreed with him on issues since he first logged into Wikipedia.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. I'm always a sucker for stories about those that start off on the wrong foot and end up well-loved by <strike>all</strike> most. Plus he has a cool name, and I'm looking forward to getting tons of admin requests on my talk page that I can't do anything about. --
'''Yes indeed'''.  He seems to actually be ''against'' wheel warring and abuse of admin tools.  We could use more like him, I think.
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -
'''Support'''. Tread lightly. -
'''Support'''. Good editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' as a good editor, someone very unlikely to abuse admin tools, and impressed by his answer to my questions.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' as  good editor/person.
'''Support''' innovation is a good thing.  --
'''Support'''.  Knowledgeable and experienced.  There's no reason to deny him admin tools.
'''Support''' - He should change his name legally to Awesome Brenneman.
'''Support'''. '''—
'''Support''' Who does not have a big mouth on wikipedia??
'''EXTREME WIKIBREAK SUPPORT''' from the Emerald Isle. I couldn't ''not'' vote "aye" on this. Cheers, Aaron, me lad.
'''Support''' per Geogre, SlimVirgin. &mdash;
'''Support:'''  --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, and has all the qualities to make an equally excellent admin. --
'''Strong support''' - another cliche moment methinks... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Karmafist put it well; WP is fortunate Brenneman wants to be an admin. He is well qualified: a good contributor, he has experience, a knowledge of policy and norms few may claim to equal (even among admins), thoughtfulness, a natural ability to listen and consider other points-of-view (and not, as is too often the case, the better to rebut them, but too actually understand what the other guy really thinks), and the willingness to reach out and try to find solutions or compromises. This has led to many improvements in those areas that he has involved himself. Sees and admits mistakes. Is passionate about the project. His troubles, such as they are, seem to have stemmed in the past (on his part) from a quick temper: I agree with Splash's caution, but also with Sjakkalle's opinion that this is much improved. I do not see a good reason to oppose this request, but much to support it. Regards
All we are saying, is ''give Aaron a chance.'' '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
I'm very disappointed by the factionalism I'm seeing here. It was sort of to be expected, but it's clear how the people piling on supports are those from the faction that, er, oppose the faction opposing. (Karmafist, Geogre, SlimVirgin, et al vs Tony Sidaway, Phil Sandifer, David Gerard, Ambi, et al.) Brenneman can be rough and rude at times, but this is often no worse than some of the things I've consistently seen from Tony and Phil. I think the people from both factions are really great guys, but this RfA just reeks of factionalism to me (though I'm not sure how the lines are drawn -- it's something to do with Kelly Martin or admin actions, I'd presume). Oh, and sorry for hijacking your RfA as a soapbox, brenneman. I'm sure any good you'll do as an admin will outweigh any bads. (And if you start acting like an ass with the mop and bucket, I'll be the first to try to get you desysoped. :p)
'''Support''' Aaron is one of those users that inspires strong feelings, largely because in turn he's passionate himself. Sometimes he could stand to temper his comments, but then who couldn't?  Regardless, I hope he'll take this particular critique to heart -- administrating is no easy task, and pushing an administrator button usually causes a large target to appear on one's backside.  But the bottom line is that Aaron has been a tireless contributor who '''cares''' about Wikipedia.  Does he hold some views that are heretical to some in the establishment (deletion comes to mind)?  Probably.  But opinions are no crime.  The only question that's left, then, his dedication clearly established, is whether he'll act properly in regards to his new buttons.  I have no reason to think he won't be responsible with his new privileges.  That he's clashed with other people is no reason to deny such a serious and long-time contributor, when we routinely hand the keys over to people because they're good vandal fighters.  I have no doubt he'll be a good addition. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Support''', because I honestly thought he was one already.
'''Brilliant Support''' --''Signed by:''
'''Support''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' I find his acknowledgement of his own mistakes and his desire to improve both mature and admirable. No one is perfect, but few are those who are willing to grow in spite of that. --
'''Support''' -- seems like a nice person.
'''Support''', with a hope that this will hit [[WP:100]].
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. That he doesn't bother with faux niceities isn't necessarily a bad thing. -
'''Support''' ←
'''Support''' as above
'''Support''' as above
'''support''' I think his adminship will be a good thing for the wiki.
'''support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=33923353 arbitration comments]. Very classy. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|Sar]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''w00t''' have fun writing the thank you notes... '''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' I'll be the first I haven't always agreed with him but I think he'd make a good administrator. <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Aaron Brenneman is ready for adminship
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Sure, helpful editor; would make a good resource as an admin.
'''Support'''. No big deal.
'''Support''' Ready to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no major problem.--
'''Support'''. Fuck politeness, lets concentrate on writing the damn encyclopedia!
'''Support'''. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. I think he's ready. -
'''Support''' Funny how the list of those who oppose this nomination is mostly filled with the names of those who I would vote to step into a pit filled with an extremely sticky substance and lots of broken glass. Hmmm - wonder what ''that''  means? [[User:Denni|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' May the power be with you! --
Absolutely not, under any circumstances.
Fine editor, but a bit too unpredictable. &mdash;
Not as yet. Gets too bogged down in clashing with others' personalities. Overly concerned with process. Hasn't worked out yet that on Wikipedia, gritting your teeth and working productively with people you consider idiots is ''not optional'' (c.f. his clashes with Tony Sidaway) &mdash; this is absolutely mandatory for an admin. Doing much better than last time though -
''' Strong Oppose'''-Civilty is lacking. Good chap, seems to know the ins and outs of wikipdia, but needs to work on the behavior aspect. Shows too much annoyance and impatience at opposing parties on the side of a debate, and not easliy approchable. Communication is an important aspct of the admistrative process.-
'''Oppose''' per Rdsmith4. Also, why'd you call that reference note "Idiots"? Are you calling us idiots for opposing you? That proves lack of civility even more. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Seen some subtle and some overt signs that this isn't a good idea just yet. --
You're a good guy and editor, but I don't think just yet, a bit too hot-headed at times.
'''Oppose'''-Occasional incivility [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aaron_Brenneman&oldid=37363802] and pedantry are a problem. Seems to have enormous difficulty accepting opposing viewpoints. His obsession with countering Tony Sidaway looks like compulsion to me and does nothing but divide the community. On a personal note, I didn’t appreciate his appearance on my user page to offer unsolicited advice/analysis of my contributions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JJay#Your_contributions]. I have to assume this was motivated by differences in AfD discussions. Nevertheless, his goal here was intimidation and he then proceeded to shadow my AfD participation culminating in a « fake edit »   [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FProject_Galileo&diff=34726562&oldid=34546945] that he knew would show up on my watchlist. At the same time, tried to drum up support for a combination stalk campaign/rfc against me [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe/February_1_2006#Can_you_review],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman/Archives/3#New_Age]. Maybe Tony was away at the time, but this behaviour strikes me as bizarre and unbecoming of a prospective admin. --
'''Oppose.''' As per David. I'm thoroughly disappointed that this is bound to pass anyway, but I have to show at least some concern.
On reviewing the evidence of obsessive behavior provided by
Fine editor, but trying too hard to squash the objecting votes by preparing a detailed, and naturally biased, rebuttal against all criticism of him. While this shows he wants the mop badly, it also shows he might be a bit too eager to settle some old scores if given admin rights. I hope people think seriously about whether Aaron wants to be an admin to improve Wikipedia or [[WP:POINT|prove a point]] to his haters.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but some of your past actions trouble me. While I appreciate that you've apologized and hopefully seen the error of your ways, I would prefer to see more time without incident before applying. While we should forgive and forget, this is a bit soon, in my opinion. Thanks!
'''Oppose''' - I'm troubled by his behavior since the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics|Webcomics]] rfar, which suggests to me poor conflict resolution and difficulty in getting over past conflicts with other editors.  I have full faith he's working to improve these skills all the time, I'm just not convinced he's ready for admin responsibilities just yet.
'''Oppose'''. Obsessive and annoying busybody behavior is bad enough; obsessive and annoying busybody behavior enabled by admin tools? Uh uh. --
'''Oppose''' - I have a nagging bad feeling about this candidate.  Too often, his personality has struck me as agressive or abrassive.  His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aaron_Brenneman&oldid=37789768 user page] contains a box of "nervous" users linked to [[occult]], and at least some of these editors Aaron has evidently had significant conflicts with.  The findings in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics|Webcomics RFAr]], especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics#Aaron_Brenneman.27s_warnings_to_new_users], are too negative and too recent for my taste.  Looking at his recent contributions, I don't have any smoking guns, but there is still a lot of what I percieve as veiled hostility towards some users, e.g. Tony, and apparent frustrations with the culture of Wikipedia.  Aaron also seems to have a strong tendency to do things his own way.  In the distant past that manifested as unannounced changes to deletion policy, and more recently by applying his own style to RFA and RFC.  This isn't necessarily bad, but I worry that he hasn't matured as an editor to the point that he would avoid being disruptive in the process.  Altogether, I can't really say that he won't be a good admin, and I certainly do believe his heart is in the right place, but I can't shake my sense of uneasiness about this nom, so I am opposing.  In many ways, I think this is a shame because there are a number of times where I can recall agreeing with comments and opinions Aaron has offered in the past.  Sadly, the last time I felt like this, the RFA succeeded anyway and a few months later sysophood was revoked by ArbCom.  If this succeeds, and it certainly looks like it might, I certainly hope that Aaron manages to control his behavior and avoids a similar fate.  If this fails, I would be happy to reconsider given several more months of good behavior.
'''Oppose'''. There have been too many valid concerns raised by oppose voters. I just get a bad feeling that this would be an ArbCom case waiting to happen. Perhaps I could support in a few months, if the level of conflict died down.
'''Oppose''' It is my policy to vote in opposition when a candidate speaks so vociferously in his/her favor during his/her RfA on his/her RfA page or any talk page. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Oppose''' strongly for reasons of incivility toward others.
'''Oppose''' Aaron has civility issues... perhaps if he could manage to calm down a bit maybe then i'd support in the future... but per everyone else here I dont think thats going to happen. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. The edits I've seen have generally been of very high quality. However, since brenneman was so [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics|recently admonished by the ArbCom]] for not respecting consensus, and for acting uncivilly under pressure, I cannot support at this time. I would gladly support a future nomination once the impact of this RFAR is not so recent. --
'''Oppose'''. An ArbCom admonishment asking the candidate to be "respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy" isn't the best way to encourage people to trust him with adminship. I also think [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]]'s assessment above is right on the money in regard to other issues that affect Brenneman's suitability for being an admin at this point in time. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I fear brenneman is a loose cannon, and while he could be very very good as an admin, he could also be a lot of trouble.-
'''Oppose'''. Absolutely not.--
'''Oppose'''. No.
'''Oppose''' due to unreconcilable differences with this candidate's philosophy. — '''
'''Oppose''', not suitable for adminship.
'''Oppose''' too controversial -
'''Oppose.''' Incivility issues concern me. I would support a future nomination if the candidate is able to show improvement in this area. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Argumentative and needlessly condescending.
Slight oppose, too much potential for trouble. &ndash;
I like Aaron, and think he's done a hell of a lot of Wikipedia, and will continue to do a lot, especially if this RfA passes.  However, he has from time-to-time had the occasional lapse of judgement (and, fair play to him, he admits them).  There is a possibility that the unpleasantness with Tony will escalate if they both have admin powers, and I'd like to see an undertaking that Aaron will not undo any admin action of Tony Sidaway, regardless of how boneheaded that action may be.  It'd be nice to get the same from Tony, but then only one of them is up for RfA :P
Great growth curve, however I do not think it is necesary to hand over admin tools just yet. I do not see any sign of RC patroling and other "admin chores". --<small>
'''Neutral''' for now, hopefully the Tony squabble sorts itself out by the deadline... [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. I see hope in Tony's comments above.
'''Neutral''', --
'''Neutral'''. I have stricken my ''oppose'' vote in favor of this position.
'''Nuetral'''. While I still have concerns over civility, I have been very impressed with some of this user's recent actions and discussions, and feel they would overall be a positive to Wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''' a great editor.
'''Support''' Good, experienced editor who has proven he can be trusted with the buttons... a no brainer for me
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. This editor can defintely be trusted with the tools :)
'''Support''', cliché, etc.
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' &ndash; strong presence at AfD, great answers to questions, and just an overall good editor. All the best, &mdash; '''
Yup.
'''Support''', good user, I trust him with the tools. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Knows how to calm down passionate users, myself included. --
'''Support''' Needs the tools, deserves the tools. --
'''Support''' good user.--
'''Support''' and create article for German town [[Bieswang]].<small>See "oppose" section if you don't get it.</small>--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Good work in AfD and all-around strong contributions.
'''Support''' A solid editor, should be effective with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Excellent trustworthy candidate. Already involved in a number of thankless tasks.
'''Support'''. Looks like a model editor, and the sheer idiocy of the oppose vote rather helped me make up my mind.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Big Wang Support'''. Trustworthy user who has a good deal of WikiExperience. I was going to nominate this user for adminship in like a week. --
'''Support''', great candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' great candidate, trust with tools.
'''Support'''. Reasonable editor, should be a good admin. -
'''Support'''. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' per above comments.
'''Support''' -
'''"Big wang" support''' <small>See "oppose" section if you don't get it.</small> --
'''Big wang support'''! [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support''', seen this editor around many times, in RC patrol, AfD, etc., always well-reasoned and a healthy sense of humor to boot.
'''Support''' the big wanker. - <b>
'''Support'''. Partly to offset the really weird oppose votes. Good luck, Adam. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - meets my standards --
'''Support''' Ok candidate. --
'''Support'''
Solid answers, solid track record, solid edit count. Solid '''support'''.
'''Support''': Good user, record against vandalism demonstrates need for the tools. (But guys, seriously, can't we drop the "big wang" stuff?)
'''Support''' Ofcourse, a great contributor.  Hopefully school won't take up all of your time if you end up studying abroad.  I'm still in tears over the first oppose vote.

'''Support''' I can trust Adam with the tools. He is an excellent editor.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments.  Can be trusted with tools.  The concerns stated under Oppose range from ill-founded to outright frivolous.
'''Support''' good Wikipedian. --
'''Support''' I trust Adam to use the tools well.
'''su[p[prt''' (My eyes wouldn't open because I was crying with laughter over SPUI's oppose)
'''Support''' I have trust in "Adam's big wang" (thanks for the chortle, SPUI).
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''' per JohnnyBGood. The fact that he has a life (other than Wikipedia) shows a lot of good things about him. If you feel that Wikipedia admins should have no other jobs, you should seriously reconsider your thinking.
'''Support'''... he seems like he'll do well with the mop, and put it to good use. --
'''Support'''.  Let his mighty wang wield the extra inch of adminship, and spewi forth his glorious munificence.  Good editor; clean nose.
'''Support''' (changed from weak oppose below)
'''Support''' - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. -
'''Support''' Good user. Could become a good admin --
'''Unnecessary support'''. Looks great to me.
'''Support'''. We Adams are supposed to support each other ;). -
'''Major support''', seen him around on [[WP:AFD|AFD]] more than a few times, definitely looks like a trustworthy user. Great editor, would be a good admin. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' Good, all-round editor; involved in a lot of extra-editorial work (such as your example of [[Portal:Poetry]]) which is improtant for an admin. Good Luck!
'''Support''' great editor...his username is not a convincing reason to oppose the nomination, especially because of the good work that he has done.  his username should not negate everything he has done for the project. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''': I disagree with the concerns I've seen voiced, below, and appreciate the work with the portal.
'''Support'''. Strong on encylopedia building, useful portal.
'''Support'''&mdash; [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' devoted specialt-admin and besides most of Oppose votes do not look well founded
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
I '''support''' this user.
'''Strong support''' I thought him to be qualified on [[August 1]], when I offered to nominate him, and nothing has transpired in the interim to make me question my support.  I am altogether confident that Adam will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and am quite certain that his being an admin will be quite propitious as regards the project (as set out in my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], the nature of the ''net effect on the project'' of a user's becoming an admin&mdash;to the extent I might reasonably ascertain such nature&mdash;determines what I think the appropriate disposition of an RfA to be; here, to be sure, the net effect will be, one may say emphatically, positive).
'''Support''' looks like another good addition to the admin crew --
'''Support''' solid contributor who I trust absolutely.  --
'''Oppose''', I don't trust anyone whose name looks like "Adam's big wang". --
'''Oppose'''. The possible college overload concerns me. Admins need to be wholly dedicated to the task.
'''Very Weak Oppose''' - falls just short of my 9 month minimum, and has had problems with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Adambiswanger1 images] --

'''Oppose'''.
'''Neutral'''. I am only familiar with [[User:Adambiswanger1|AdamBiswanger1]] from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States health reform 1912-1920]]. I found his comments there to be arrogant and disrespectful in that he asserted an understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines while suggesting that others editors gave only a cursory examination of the text, voted "reflexively", or were not capable of understanding the complexities of the AfD. Based on this encounter, I would not feel comfortable turning to him for assistance. From comments on his user page (e.g. ''"AfD is for deleting wacko theories, things made up in school one day, and non-notable companies. This is an encyclopedia. Therefore, I support fully any article of an academic nature, no matter how obscure (barring absurdity)."''), I have additional concerns that he still may not fully understand [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]]. With that said, I am otherwise unfamiliar with his contributions to Wikipedia to know whether or not he would be a good admin.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' - more tools for the knowledgeable people working on imagesleuthing sounds like a good idea to me. (
'''Support'''. I reread some of the questions below, and it seems as if the third one didn't imprint in my memory right away. As an admin, you might run into more instances where you'll have to be "confrontational" (in a good way, of course) with rowdy users, though. I doubt you will abuse your admin powers, and I'm sure you can find some good things for which to use them. I'm not holding to my regular voting standards due to you being an image guy. Good luck
'''Support''' Hard editor who works on tedious tasks. Admin priviledges will most likely not be abused.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Making Wikipedia's copyright status more robust is valuable work.
'''Support''' - we need more poeple to help with the images on Wikipedia --
'''Mild Support --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support'''. --

'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Good editor.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' edits appear fine.--
'''Support''', I had two edit conflicts with him at IfD today.
'''Support''' Looks like a good prospect.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Oppose'''.   While Admrboltz has a ton of project, user and image edits, he only has 262 article edits.  While the sheer number of edits in those other categories is amazing, I'd like to see quite a bit more article edits.  Furthermore, the bulk of his edits have been in the last 6 weeks.  I'd just like to see more experience put in before I vote yes.  Also, the edit summary usage is much lower than I'd like to see.  If the user had more article edits and a higher edit summary usage, I'd support. I know some may think that how much a month or two more will make, but I don't it sure wouldn't hurt. I've also never had any personal contact with this user, so I can't really judge this user's character. --
'''Neutral'''.  By the time this RFA closes, this user will meet my time criterion of twelve months.  However, since I do not know him, I do not have enough information to vote support.  I can only vote support for someone with a demonstrated commitment to NPOV and consensus.  I have added questions about this below asking for more information from your posting history; your answers may result in my changing my vote to support.
'''Neutral''', very little projectspace experience outside of Images for deletion.  --
'''''Of course!'''''
'''Support''' --
--
'''Support''' shows considerable familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. He clearly understands Wikipedia policy and etiquette, and he also has a great attitude (as shown by his request to delay this RfA).
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''support'''. Aecis is a good editor and will be a good admin. <font color="red">
'''Support''', not afraid to do the dirty work. --
'''Support'''. What more is there to say? --Jay '''(
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks to be a very good editor who could really be useful as an admin.

'''Open support''' for behind the "sinners" (oooo...), I mean ''behind-the-scenes type of worker''. --
'''Support''' - no-one, not even I, deserves it more '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' sounds good.
'''Support''', user has definitely shown a willingness to perform maintenance tasks and has provided good answers to the optional questions. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. If he can spend two years doing dirty-work edits without losing his mind, then he's admin material. --
'''Support''' Yes, definitely. --
'''Support'''
This user has my '''support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks good. --
'''Support''' ya, sure! --
'''Support''': you betcha!
'''Support'''. Seems like plausible admin materiel.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''.  Looks ready.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - A good, no-nonsense contributor with a vast amount of experience.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppport''' as per above. --
'''Support''' an easy choice.  Use your powers wisely.
Rather incivil towards editors with which he disagrees. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&diff=33734780&oldid=33733687] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion&diff=33735281&oldid=33735095]. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>
'''Oppose''' Per SPUI and per the WikiEN mailing list. It was recently stated on there that admins who don't edit articles are undesirable[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/036355.html], yet looking at his contribs, he does very little other than stubbing.
'''Oppose''' per Karmafist. --
'''Neutral''' per Karmafist, editing articles is desirable of course, but that's not the most important quality an admin needs (patience and fairness, I suspect, would be more desirable). I won't oppose though, because otherwise this editor seems fine, and I don't believe in opposing solely based on someones belief(s). —
'''Strong Support''' based on my experience of the nominee and the nominator. '''
'''Support''' I see no problems with this editor upon review of contributions.
'''Support''' Looks good here. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' good responsible editor. Lack of Wikipedia space edits is a bit of a concern though.
'''Weak support''' Soemwhat weak answer to question 2 and low Wikispace edits, but good editor otherwise. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' This is a user  that definitely won't abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' Good distribution of edits, especially many talk edits indicating much communication with other users, good answers to the questions.
'''Super Strong Support''' in light of the editcountitis brigade below. Edit count isn't everything, nor is time on project, but ability to learn how to use the admin tools and your actual experience on Wikipedia. I think you'll do just fine. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support.''' Slightly unreasonable opposes. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good Candidate, and no abusing admin tools. Many positives on his contributions, distributions of edits.
'''Support''' a good editor.
'''Support''' - great dedication to the Wikipedia project.
'''Support''' of course, I am the nominator :-)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no problem. (
'''Support''' Great user and I'm confident he is going to be a good admin. Give him a mop. ←
'''Support''', ond dwi'n ddim yn hoffi poblogi yn cymru pwy ddim yn siarad cymraeg :p
'''Support''' A very good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''' per Llama man. That said willingness to help out at [[WP:SUSPSOCK]] is appreciated.
'''Strong support''' have observed this editor from the distance for some time, and have never seen any cause for questioning him. A wonderful editor who I have reason to believe will be just as good as an admin.
'''Support'''. Diligent, give him a go. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per all above comments. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I remember first noting Agathoclea in February, when he created [[Agathocles of Egypt]], and was immediately impressed by his politeness and civility; I have absolutely no doubt he would never abuse of the tools.--
'''Support''' great user; confident he would use the tools well.
'''Support''' - Wikipedia namespace edits is less than satisfactory though still acceptable as it's over 300. I think overall this editor will make a good admin. --
'''Weak Support''' I would prefer he had more community and project interaction, but he's a good enough Wikipedian to become an admin. '''
'''Support'''; good impression. --
'''Support''' looks alright.--
'''Support''' See nothing here to indicate user would abuse the tools. <font color="green">
&mdash;
'''Support''' Excellent vandalism work and a nice edit count. [[User talk:Sp3000|Go]] [[Rubik's Cube|Futurama]]! [[User:Sp3000|Us]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Appears to be a very good and trustworthy candidate '''
'''Support''' &ndash; a solid editor who would not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Good editor with plenty of experience ''in the areas where he plans to use the tools'' who appears trustworthy.
'''Support''' Valuable with definite admin purpose and need for tools. --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Of course. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' cre cebgb, ybbxf gb or n erfcbafvoyr naq gehfgjbegul pnaqvqngr.
'''Support~''' I misread the edit count! I thought there were only 6 WPTALK edits.
'''Support'''. Not a huge number of wikispace edits, but he seems pretty active. --
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' You are ready, from what I see.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
support, I trust in him --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - a solid citizen.
'''Support'''. I trust his judgement.
'''Support''' --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support'''
I'm
'''Support'''Great service.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' I trust this candidate will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''', looks just fine to me.

'''
'''Oppose'''. Crz took the words right out of my mouth. I feel you need to get more active in project participation. '''
'''Oppose''' overall level of contribs low for a self-confessed gnome and no exceptional mainspace or Wikispace edits to make up for it.
Little involvement in Wikipedia processes or policy. —
May I ask of his English expeirience?
'''Neutral''', lacks edits outside mainspace but not so much as to oppose.
'''Strong support''' per my co-nom. - <b>
'''Strong support''' per nom
'''Support'''.
'''Lone Star Support'''
Clichéd ''I thought you were one'' '''Support'''. :)
'''Ditto Clichéd "''I thought you were''" Support'''.
'''Strong support''' I was able to constructively and respectfully disagree with Aguerriero (on Kylu's RfA), and his contact with me was engaging and well thought-out.  I have nothing but good things to say--  Good luck!
'''Support''' more candidates like this please. :-)
'''Support''' just makes it in at 6 months, otherwise looks like a great editor with terrific answers to the questions.
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' seriously, I've been using this comment quite often as of late, and I think it's due to the large amount of users that are well-versed in policies and have the level head needed to become a succesful administrator but just haven't completed an RfA for one reason or the other.  This candidate is obviously one of these users.  I've yet to meet the candidate personally but I've seen his work around AfD and when I do RC patrolling sometimes and I've always thought that he was using the extra buttons
<s>'''It's all been a pack of lies oppose'''<s> "I've been waiting for this moment"-primary nominator '''support'''.
'''Support''' per nomination and comments above :) &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Aguerriero has made great use of his ability to edit Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''e; not a typo. Excellent editor. '''
'''Support''' per contributions.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]

'''Support''' - I concur with the nomination and this user will make a great janitor. —
'''Support''' as my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]] met. Nice person to boot.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Aguerriero has quite a few edits in the short time he has been here. Many of his contributions are the thankless-unacknowledged type of work that many take for granted. I am thankful that people like this are willing do all that. Give him a mop.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''<span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support''' an excellent editor and contributor.
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Of course. I've seen nothing but great things.
Several ''good'' GAs is a viable alternative to my 1FA standard. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Support''' Having a FA under one's belt is not a criterion for me, but you having three defintely is positive!--
'''Support''' No evidence this user would abuse the m&b :)
'''Support'''.  Pleasure to work with on [[Crime in Mexico]].  Surely would be a great admin. --<font color="#191970">[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">
'''Support''', per all of the above. :) &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per convincing noms.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' - very positive contributions all round.
'''Support''' seems like a fantastic editor.
'''Support'''. A responsible, capable editor with good communication skills.
'''[[WP:38]] Support''' Nothing goes against [[User:Tariqabjotu/DSoDD|my "standards"]], as far as I can see. I've seen Aguerriero around quite a bit. -- '''
'''Support''' per above. No red flags, no glaring errors, no funny smells.. so you must be doing something right. :)
'''This one goes to eleven support'''. Helpful, bright, and courteous...will be a model admin.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems supporting. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Support''' esp. because of willingness to put self in admins open to recall. Time regardless, willing to help out at CSD is always good. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks like Andy will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Great user, and always [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] in every situation.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]], quality user, seen around a lot.
'''Support''' Slightly new for my taste but doubtfull to abuse tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Weak Oppose''' -- not enough time here, another <s>2/3</s> 2 to 3 months and this would be a support vote --
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Neutral''': Off to a promising start, but he is about two months too soon for that. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''', the user wants to help at AIV but I found little evidence of vandal fighting. Other than that the user seems legit and wants to help at AfD and CAT:CSD, which is where admins are ALWAYS needed. Tempted to weak support as user appears to have good edit history and answers are strong, but according to the above user hasn't been here that long either.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong support''', regardless of whether he accepts or not. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Strong Support'''.'''
'''Support''' per two excellent nominators.
'''Support''' Good luck mate!
'''Support''' Strong application above with plenty of evidence supplied; nice to see that you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctorbruno&diff=prev&oldid=76060908 prioritise your life and wait for an RfA opportunity], rather than rush in to it. One minor criticism would be that I can't see a lot of vandalfighting user Talk warnings since September 1 but you seem to have been busy enough inbetweentimes.
'''Extremely Strong Support''' for one one of the finest contributors and nicest guys around. --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' He has been great help with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Politics|Indian politics]] project. Always friendly and helpful. He would make a great admin. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' One of the best contributors around here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''', Really a nice contributor here.
'''Strong support''' - already hard at work! --<font color="Gray">
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' All politics aside, the question is can he be trusted with the tools, and the answer to that is unequivocably yes. Aksi, you've done a good job not overcommitting in response to Endgame. People don't have to write on everything or anything specific. -
'''Fuck yeah''' &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' per Blnguyen and Taxman.
'''Strong support''' as co-nom --
'''Support.''' I don't see need of tools as a vialbe criterion. I have a driver's license and I haven't even been inside a car for about two and a half months. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Looks experienced enough. What's the deal with all those questions, though?
'''support''':
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' meets my standards.--
'''Support''' Terrific editor, deserves the tools.
'''Support'''. Great answers to questions, looks like the editor can be trusted with the tools. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. Great user who has done phenomenal work on Wikipedia thus far. I have nothing but high praise for this user.
'''Great Support''' Good user and article creator. I hope the optional questions come to an end. It's making this RFA too long, and some are silly like the humour sense questions. --
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Super Strong Support''' - Had I been any active, I'd have definitely nominated him. He shows balance in his quantity/quality of contributions and so, would last longer on WP. I was amazed by the cool he showed when he was unjustly blocked. --
'''Ishtrong support'''
Breaking my wikibreak just for this '''Strong Support''' --
'''Support.''' A highly qualified user with good behavior; seems good to me.
Of course. - <strong>
'''Support''' Rethinking my earlier thought, I support this user. ——
'''Support''' per Blnguyen
'''Support''' good user, I like his answers to question, and a long nom just tells me that someone has a lot of faith in him already.--

'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' <b><font color="teal">
'''Strong support''' - This guy is totally [[NPOV]].
'''Support'''
Ah...How did I miss this nom for so long! Anyways, I am all for giving Akash the mop and bucket. I have known him for quite some time and he has proven to be an excellent editor, and at the same time shown inclination to do janitorial work. I am sure he would be helpful to the project with the extra buttons. —
'''Strong Support''': Yes, a very strong support. Frankly speaking, he has managed situations where editors like me (almost) failed or shirked to intervene. I know him from his earliest days, and have watched his progress with great pleasure. I am sure that he would become a great administrator too. --
Hell yes '''support'''. Discovered this RFA by accident, following a quick rvv on my talk page. So obviously the user needs the tools to shave vital seconds off the job! An excellent nomination from a quality user always helps (I would say that...) but everything is there in it and I see nothing to create doubts. Recent edits have been of an amazing quality and usefulness, putting my own to shame. Needs tools, won't abuse them, good answers, good nom, good record... 100% scored. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support''' - Definately support :) --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seen him around and no problemo. -
'''Suport''' per nom and comments above. No concerns.
'''Support''' per above. I'm impressed with what I see.
'''Support''' - great editor! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' ~
'''Super Strong Support''' - Everything I wanted to say has already been said. Akash is one of the most strongest and most deidcated editors I've seen around. Very level headed and an exemplary candidate for the post. He scores full marks.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --- Meets ''my'' rigorous standards. And not answering the questions is a better way to garner ''oppose'' votes than ''support'' votes. 16 questions-- give extra marks for being dedicated enough to answer then all articulately.
'''Support''' -- As per norms. He is very helpful, understanding and flexible. No concerns and so full support to him.   --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' I appreciate your maturity and ability to avoid being drawn into a flamewar.
'''Strong Support''' Aksi's great. Always been a great user. '''
'''Strong Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' seems like a qualified user, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' Not that it matters you're clearly gonna make it
'''Strong Support''' An excellent editor. Great in maintaining the [[Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/INCOTW|INCOTW]]. --
'''Support'''
Excellent editor. Just helped him fix some problems that required my mop, so I think he'll find a mop of his own useful. --
'''Support''' -meets my criteria--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Looks like he has the right qualities.
'''Support'''.  Will no doubt make a ''great'' administrator.
'''Support''' -- --
'''Become an admin, Aksi, an admin! Muhahahahahahahahhahahahaha!'''
'''Support''' We need more Admins. --
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate. Vandalism fighting, quality contribs, etc. And I am glad he has answered the optional questions as this shows great interaction and communication, and "showed some guts".
'''Support'''--[[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''S'''</font>]][[User talk:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="purple">'''U'''</font>]][[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''I'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Ding dong.  Special delivery from FedEx.  It's a new Mop! [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Answer 14. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''' Nothing that justifies an oppose, but neutral because adminship ''is not'' a badge of honour.
'''Support''' as nominator. -
'''Support''' as co-nom. --
'''Support'''. Friendly and civil are the key words.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' although please expand usertalk interactions.
'''Support''' seems suitable enough, although I would like to see better edit summary usage. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' looks good --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' good experience, good user.
'''Support''' - Experienced user, nice work building an encyclopedia, I trust him. <s>[[User:Afonso Silva|Afonso Silva]]</s> 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) - I changed my username.
'''Support''' good man would benefit from the tools. -
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. A user that I have collaborated with on several occasions, and who has convinced me of his great understanding of the Wikipedia principles. Will certainly make good use of the tools and, I'm sure, won't abuse them. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]]
'''Support''' I've yet to encounter the user, but he seems like a fine candidate for adminship based on a brief overview of his edits and the rousing support above
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' - per above --
'''Support''', although I don't necessarily agree that you speak English at a "near native" level
'''Support''' A great candidate. Although Wikipedia edits are low, his overall contributions to this project is a great mitigating factor. Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' - good, dedicated user, with a rare set of expertise
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' I don't know this user, but after going through everything and reviewing edits, seems like a good candidate for the job.
'''Support''' Have done numerous translation requests for user; who appears ganuinely interested in a better WP for all; shows good ability to reach compromise and importantly is scholarly, calm, reasonable, has excellent sense of humor, & doesn't WP:DBN.
'''Support''' I have seen this candidate before and he strikes me as well acquinted with WP rules etc. and fair-minded and reasonable.
'''Support''' Sure. --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' Amazing, I was just about to ask him why he's not a sysop yet. Absolutely needed on [[Macedonia]] related articles. --
'''Strong support''' -- A very good editor. No POV edits. Wikiprojects' participation comes w/ time and Chad project is moving. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support'''. Per nomination.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' We need more specialist admins
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': Specialist shall only make wikipedia a source of future reference, instead of we "seeking" references! --
'''support''':
'''Support''' A serious article namespace editor.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor, someone who keeps an impeccably encyclopedic NPOV style and has a talent to moderate and keep a cool head even when working in controversial, ideologically sensitive areas.
'''Support''' <s>It must be cool, because everyone else is doing it.</s> Nice contribs. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' This is a good candidate.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - came across this editor in my first few wiki-days and found his handling of difficult situations worthy of remembering.
'''Support''' - cool head handling stressful articles. --
'''Support''' - good editor, no reason to think that they will abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', I think Aldux will be a good admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' i believe that he will be one of the best admins we'll ever have. --
'''Strong support''' - another unsung hero.'''
'''Weak Oppose''' per WinHunter - <b>
'''Oppose''' Low project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process.
'''Neutral''' Though Aldux looks to be a fine contributor to the article mainspace and does do well, as mentioned above, with edits concerning POV and other conflicts, I cannot help noticing that his involvement in WP articles and his edit summary percentages are low. I would support if Aldux could get these up. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral'''. The candidate is an excellent editor, but his contributions show a tendency to work on own, with very less discussions with other editors and community in general. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' Wikipedia space and user talk edits a bit low for the amount of time the user has been here. Couldn't oppose because the reasons I've stated just aren't enough of a reason for me. Really good editor just can't support at this time.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' - Second thought, it seems I have been little bit too harsh. Though the low WP space edits and answer to the Q1 concern still stays, so I am not going to support either. --
'''Neutral''' per Andeh.

'''Neutral''' Low WP, user, template and portal talk. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' — as nominator. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' Good spread of edits in user Talk, XfD, RfA, project and mainspace areas; I don't think that the tools would be abused.
'''Support''' Per nom: After viewing several contributions looks to be a very good multifaceted editor with an exceptional temperament. Here is one response to a vandal’s insult on his user page “No, actually, I'm not. By the way I've had to cut your message down as it was taking up too much space”  --<font color="b80c20">
Double edit conflict '''support'''. I've been consistently impressed with Alex to the extent of considering offering to nominate him myself. The good amount of namespace contribs and the fact that he regularly warns vandals after reverting both make me think he understands Wikipedia and will use the tools well.
Civil user and a total work-horse. &mdash;
I was thinking of nominating Alex very soon, but I got beaten to the punch! --
'''Support''' Looks good, and I totally agree with his answer to Q6.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>

'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' per answer to Q6. Exactly what I was looking for.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per previous interactions with the user and getting beaten to the punch on reverting vandalism. --
'''Support''', past experience tells me that Alex will make a fine sysop. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
*raises eyebrow* Alex, you told me I could co-nom with [[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] on the 27th. Now, unless I've got my dates all screwed up... :p Ah, '''support''', obviously. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''<font color="purple">PEANUTS!!!!!!<sup>That caught your eye, didn't it?</sup></font>'''
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' [[WP:CIVIL|Civil]], very unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''  I don't think answer to question 6 indicates likelihood to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' appears to have the experience, honestly can't see any problems in the answers.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. Clarified his answer to Q6, so I see no reason to oppose. '''''
'''Support'''. I was going to say "Strong Support" from what I've seen, but some of the answers made me think that this user is mostly focused on vandalism in place of more important things such as XfD. Anyways, has enough experience and is a valuable member for the community. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
(edit conflict)Changed from neutral. Good luck! - '''
'''Support'''-Seems like he'll do a good job.--[[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''S'''</font>]][[User talk:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="purple">'''U'''</font>]][[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''I'''</font>]]
'''Support''' passes my criteria
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments. Good editor with solid contributions, no issues or worries.
'''Weak Support''' Nice guy, not ''too'' concerned over answers since almost nothing is irreversible. I'm a little uncertain about well roundedness, but still I'll give the green light.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I hope Q6a did help clear up some doubts for editors who oppose his RfA based on Q6. -
'''Support'''. Recent interation with this user leads me to believe he knows his stuff. At least enough to be given some rather unexciting tools. --
'''Weak Support''' I'm a bit concerned about the issues that Badlydrawnjeff mentions, but overall, I've a positive impression of the candidate and think that he'd be able to further help Wikipedia with the buttons
'''Very Strong Support''' I approve and enjoy your delighful edits, enjoy, hope you become an admin.
Good editor who would find the mop and keyring useful. --
'''Support'''--
Yes, '''support''', per anyone you like. Just don't leave me an RFA thank you message, they spam up my talk page.
'''Support'' I see no reason not to support this editor.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user, I find the opposes less than compelling. I would like to see slightly more mainspace experience in general, but by and large seems fine.
'''Support'''-Seems to be a reliable, efficient and intelligent user.
'''Support'''.  ''[[Life (cereal)|Mikey likes it!]]''. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support''' per JoshuaZ. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''.  Seems willing to apply common sense and reason, despite unhealthy interest in Big Brother. :D
'''Support''' as the opposes don't strike me as relevant, and he seems otherwise qualified, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''.  Seem to have common sense about the role of the rules, and to be a solid editor. --
'''Support''' per the "reasoning" of some of those oppose !votes, and for the number of hoops you've had to jump through.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support''' per above. Pretty helpful on IRC too. ~[[user:crazytales56297|'''crazytal''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''es'''</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|56297]] <sup>
'''Support''' Per above and the thoughtful, articulate responses to the oppose votes. They are dead-on, particularly in regard to the "encyclopedia building" arguments.
'''Support.'''  This user is a great candidate.  He's ''so'' on top of his watchlist - my talk made it onto it somehow, and he's been instrumental in helping me deal with [[User:Amrykid]] (now also known as [[User:Amkid]]).  He's a great vandal-fighter and he seems quite familiar with policy.  I just can't believe that this is his nine thousand, eight hundred and ninety-first request. <small>I'm '''KIDDING'''...I know it's his username.</small>
'''Support''', can't think of any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I have seen Alex do some great work regarding Big Brother. Since this topic, by its nature can get quite controversial and pages have had to have been protected due to edit wars, I can see Alex will understand the kinds of issues involved when protecting pages. I don't see too much of a problem with the oppose votes. When deleting articles, I think applying common sense is more important than citing exactly which rule you are using when. [[User:Tra|Tra]]
'''Weak support''' per Yanksox. For what he wants to do, Alex seems well prepared. It's hard to judge fluency in policy, but Alex is so cooperative, civil, and polite that it doesn't leave me worried.--
'''Oppose''' per question six.  Gives me great pause that he feels willing to "not wait for consensus" in situations that consensus is necessary. --
'''Oppose''' per question six. I would suggest a read of [[Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules]]. While application of IAR to block a blatant vandal is unambiguous, deletion takes more care. &mdash;
'''oppose'''. [[WP:NOT|wikipedia]] is ''not'' a "fight" against vandals. When you wish to contribute to the project by adding articles and proofreading, consider re-applying. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''weak oppose''' - lack of time editing wikipedia, please try again in half a year --
'''Oppose''' his comment in response to Avriette put me off. Besides being pointless, he never corrected "!vote?."
'''Oppose''' We are here to build content, not just act like a police force.
'''Weak oppose''' I've been on the fence for this as Alex contributes greatly to the project, and I value his contributions. The need to respond to nearly all oppose/neutral comments; however, pushed me over the edge, as, to me it implies immaturity and lack of trust in other Wikipedians and their ability to make decisions based on all the facts not just a few comments. --<font color="#06C">
'''Oppose''', sorry. Nothing personal but I would like users with clear and strong record on ''content creation'' to be admins and to be sure that they ''continue to create content'' after adminning. Adminship is not only a mop but also a stick. Only content creators can be trusted with a stick that can occasionally be used to hit other content creators. Blocking vandals and obvious trolls is a trivial job and the least conntroversial one. I am also not happy about the vague answer to question 8. --
'''Neutral''' Not enough information on his editing philosophy to make an informed decision, yet.
'''Neutral''' - seems like a fine editor but I've seen him/her/it change his/her/its mind quite a lot in RFAs. On one occasion I seem to remember it got patently ludicrous - either 3 or 4 vote changes in just one RFA. Admins surely have to be a bit more decisive than this, surely? It's about trustworthiness, really. Not a reason for opposing, though, so I sit on the fence.
'''Neutral'''. I would like to see more experience in mainspace editing. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Neutral''', leaning oppose. I can't quite put my finger on why this user's edits bother me whenever I see them, so I can't go straight to oppose, but the answer to Q6 leaves me with the impression that Alex does not have a good grasp on the community consensus here yet. Good work as a vandal fighter, but having the extra tools requires a level of trust I am not yet willing to give. -- ''
'''Neutral''' Switched from oppose.  I think user's heart is in the right place, and I don't think he'll go around making messes -- I'm satisfied he likely won't misuse IAR.  However, per nae'blis, I'm still not sure how good his grasp of policy is, given his initial mistatements in Question 6.
'''Neutral''' per Ghirla, I think you need a bit more experience.
'''Support''' as a nominator.&mdash;
'''Support''' normally, I'd like to see longer time between noms, but given the sockpuppetry issues, I will make an exception to the general rule with this nomination.  Also, should have been promoted last time.
'''Support''' and I hope there will be <s>no</s> less trolling this time. --
'''Support'''. I'd have preferred it if Alex waited a bit, but I was not impressed by the arguments from the opposition last time and I was very surprised that Alex was not bestowed admin duties then. --
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support'''. One of people whose edits I can safely skip when checking.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' a valuable contributor. --
'''Da (Yes, I support).'''
'''Support'''. Impressed with answers to candidacy questions.
'''Support'''. What I know of him is thath is edits are always working towards building a better encyclopedia and he is unfailingly friendly, polite and calm.
'''Support'''. Because I am an anti-Romanian, soviet ex-KGB smirnovist Russian irredentist anti-semitic stalinist vandal, I obviously support this candidate. Just kidding. But I do support. --
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' I didn't quite get why his previous request for adminship failed despite 76% support and nor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_45#Bureaucrat.27s_closing did] some others. It could be seen as one of these exceptions where bureaucrats might as well "call for a revote if this will make the consensus more clear."([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA|About RfA]]) 43 days after he had accepted the last nomination, he would sign this revote, a second nomination. That's little more than one month but according to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA|About RfA]] ("''If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination.''") it's enough. Shortly after his first nomination had been crushed, I told him that he would certainly manage to become an administrator if he considered the fair comment such as more edit summaries. He did and his contributions have, if anything, only improved. I see no reason why he should be wronged once again.
'''Support''' A good editor. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' An excellent editor, one that never involves in conflicts. --
'''Support'' (weak support, but still). Despite some earlier grievances and conflicts, Alex proved to be a sensible guy and definitely one of the most cool-headed Russian contributors to wikipedia. Especially his recent comments to various articles impressed me as quite balanced and constructive - a rare merit nowadays. I'm still not entirely convinced that he's going to be as impartial as an admin should be (especially in case of a conflict with some Russian contributors), but in this case I'm willing to give Alex the benefit of a doubt.
'''Strong support''' after reviewing a large number of his edits, chosen at random, to see if there is some merit to the opposition that came out of the woodwork. This is a good editor.
'''Weak support'''.  I am very tempted to vote neutral.  I will continue to support your adminship because I do believe that you will use the admin functionality wisely.  What makes we want to vote neutral is that you (and your supporters) seem to be trying too hard to make this succeed.  Your ability to contribute to this ''encyclopedia'' will not be significantly impacted by the success or failure of this nomination.  I think you are losing sight of that.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''ed him last time; haven't changed my opinion since. -
'''support''' - as per negative of various oppose votes
'''Support''' - he's a saint for deciding to go through with this! --
'''Support''' - for the work on "Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels", even if I prefer not to use any labels when in doubt, and address the nationality/ethnicity issues in a separate paragraph, to keep the rest of the article free from ugly edit wars. --
'''Support''' - A very level editor; stays cool when the editing gets hot; good answers to questions below.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Changed from neutral. I would have liked Alex to wait at least one more month before submitting this nomination (for a total of two months since last RfA), I also don't quite like when people are campaining for their RfA, but all in all, it seems that Alex is a sane voice in the midst of a lot of passions caused by nationalistic feelings. I trust that Alex will not use his admin privileged in disputes, and will not get invloved in furthering any POV agendas.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' Changed from neutral, per Oleg. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Mop and bucket is not a big deal. I only wish some people would realise it, instead of trying to turn some RfAs into warzones.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A great candidate for the role, respected by fellow editors. -
'''Support''', I've reviewed most of his recent contribs, and I think he'll do a good job.  I may not appreciate the POV concerns entirely, but I've seen that he's kept a good head on his shoulders in other disputes.  I just hope this process doesn't affect him adversely.  --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. You keep your promises, I keep mine.
'''Strong Support'''. Great editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- '''
'''Support''' very good editor.--
'''Support'''. When I just started with Wikipedia (end of 2005), Alex was helpful fixing mistakes in my first edits, showing by example what a good edit was. This made we feel welcome into the community. These are the qualities I would expect from an admin.
'''Support'''. Constructive user, no need to limit their capacity to be constructive. Ridiculous, irrelevant reasons cited for opposition. <code>// '''
'''Support''' per Oleg Alexandrov above.
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support'''. I am well impressed by his contributions. Since I gave him my support last time, I'll be coherent with my own principles and say "yes" again. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''; impressive contributions and experience, likely to be a good admin.
'''Support''' Good, consistent contributer.
'''Support'''  Good contributor.  I carefully considered my support for this second nomination.  Although I don't 100% share Alex's opinions, his thoughtful response to the Holodomor question below helped me decide to support his adminship again.  Good luck.  ''—
'''Support''' fit for the job &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Very good editor. --
'''Support''' - again. I think he is fully qualified and don't understand the "too soon" argument. Please don't make this political. ←
'''Support''' -
Bases for opposition appear insubstantial, and on my own knowledge of him I doubt he will abuse the new buttons.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like his articles, and I like his way of handling complicated POV situations.
'''Поддерживаю''' (huh, impressed with my command of Russian ? I '''Support''') for a number of reasons. Alex is a good man, whom I've met in a conflict situation. En.wiki needs Russian admins. My support for Alex's adminship is not an endorsement of his views as we can often have very opposing POVs. BTW: Apparently, I'm a [[Russophobia|Russophobe]] ;-) --<sub>
'''Support''' Have enough faith in him.
'''Pro''' Experience and respected editor --
'''Support''' level-headed editor
Confirm '''Support''' from the previous vote.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', he can really make non-POV pages.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' version 2.0
'''Support'''.
'''Support Again'''. --
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' per the strange and worthless reasons for opposition.  That being said, the level of incivility in the responses to objections to this RfA is similarly disconcerting.
[[image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' for various reasons -- apparently sockpuppeted at last nomination, weakness of opposition arguments, appears to be a decent editor, we need Russian editors.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. I can't say so far, that I feel respect to him. But I think, he is a valuable editor. And as was mentioned above, we need Russian admins - as to my experience, there are too many POV issues concerning Russia and the Soviet Union. And nobody seems to deal with them.
'''Support''' - Seems a good contributor, and the opposition seems built upon meatpuppetry and failure to produce real evidence of problematic edits. (
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' as per above.
'''Support''' per Piotrus and Halibutt. --
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Candidates should be judged on their own merits (and by all appearances this is an excellent candidate). --
'''Weak Oppose''' I realize the last nomination was flawed by puppetry, but this is still to soon afterwards for the valid concerns of several objectors to have been adequately, fully addressed.
'''Strong Oppose''' Signing all above-said about Mr.Bakharev as a ''contributor'', I doubt that he would use the administrator rights properly and neutrally. To be exact, I'm afraid of his possible passiveness in reacting  on pro-Russian POV-pushers and trolls. E.g., Mr.Bakharev is closely co-operates with renown and ''warned'' trolls [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] and [[User:Kuban_kazak|Kuban Kazak]], paying (I think) no attention to their attcks on Ukraine and Ukrainians. Recently [[User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#A challenge for you|I directly requested his help and '''position''']] over such an attack. He answered with a very doubtful statement that IMHO reveals his ''readiness to cover trollism''. I don't need such an admin. Neither do all of you. BTW, do we have any non-admin WP position for such a good contributor? Expert or something? I mean ''adminship is a responsibility, not an award''.
'''Strong Oppose'''-abakharev supports giving Ghirlandajo special rights placing him above other users. His support for contributors with strong nationalistic bias like Ghirlandajo who have been warned several times, speaks poorly about his objectivity as a moderator.--
'''Oppose, without prejudice''' Even taking the puppets into account, too soon. Withdraw, wait a few weeks and reapply, and I (and many others) will vote for you in a second. But this soon implys that you really really want these powers, which is unsettling and pushes me towards thinking you'll eventually abuse them, or that you dont understand some basic policies, such as 'Adminship is no big deal'. -
'''Oppose'''. Up to some degree I was supportive in your first nomination. And I certainly agree that in some areas you are a valuable contributor. In the same time in the recent [[Talk:Holodomor]] you stated that ''you "personally '''feel''' the Genocide theory is a '''lie''', since there was not published a single document requiring preferential treatment of Russians over Ukrainians, but the theory is so well published that we have to '''somehow''' mention it"''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holodomor&diff=prev&oldid=37426385]. I certainly don't want to affect your feelings but the United States Congress Commission on the Ukraine Famine in their findings stated that ''"Joseph Stalin and those around him '''committed genocide against Ukrainians''' in 1932-1933"''[http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html], and I trust the U.S. Congress Commission, not your feelings. And I know that my grand-grand-father died during the famine, quite early for his age. As an admin, you need common humanitarian qualities. I am not sure that you have them.
[[image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. ''*yawn*''... rather unimpressive. Charges of Russian nationalism, etc., not something we need more of.
Oppose. He came back too soon.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Alex, per all the above.
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex_Bakharev|The previous nomination]] causes this vote.--
Weak oppose. A little too early. As for Ghirlandajo and Irpen I think instead of helping Alex you're doing him "медвежью услугу", моё мнение, если бы не вы, шансов у Alex-a было бы на много больше. --
'''Oppose''' Per above.--<small><font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose''' - there is no need for controversial admins. There is already too much heat. Good contributor, though. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Per [[User:Ukrained|Ukrained]] --
'''Neutral'''. I think you may have taken the "at least one month between nominations" guideline a little too literally in creating another request for adminship. More time is needed before requests, I personally feel. Therefore, I am neutral to this request.
'''Neutral''' per Ghirlandajo.  The current Polish/Russian/Ukrainian/German controversies and edit wars are quite intense and I would use great caution before giving admin powers to any of the active participants.
'''Neutral'''. I find the drama unfolding in this nomination discussion rather disturbing. If the nominee had distanced himself from the petty squabbling, I would have probably supported. This seems like it would be part of a larger problem, though, and arming one of the "sides" with admin powers seems very unwise. I will be following this nomination with interest, and may yet revise my vote. --
'''Neutral''' per Ashenai.
'''Neutral'''.  Too much drama. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''.  Having reread the first request it appears there are doubts over POV pushing and personal attacks.  I suggest it is too soon to have remedied such doubts.

'''Neutral''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghirlandajo&diff=33696567&oldid=33675972] (I voted oppose last time because of that diff.) The subsequent rewording [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghirlandajo&diff=34216546&oldid=34207023] did not address the problem, either. However, the user seems like potential admin material anyway. I'd support in a month, but that diff is too recent to support yet. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Neutral''' - --
'''Support''' Can't believe you're not an admin already!
'''Support'''. Damn, I almost beat the nom
'''support''' This is the guy right here
'''Strong Support''' Alphachimp seems to be similar in actions to me (I sure hope that's a good thing). He does well in maintaining a good deal of upkeep and general maintance. I know he will do quite well with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' looks excellent.
'''Strong support''' from slowpoke nominator. :) -→
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' per all of the above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' It's about time. -- '''
'''Strong Support''' Excellent editor and an asset.  Also gets an insane amount of cliché points.  <s>Will have a question probably, just to be sure.</s>
'''Support''' with the whole "thought you were an admin" cliché. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' MediaWiki_talk ''and'' Portal edits? Wow! (Just kidding, everything else looks great too :) -
Another cliche '''support'''--
'''Strongest support'''. Alphachimp reeks of adminship. The guy's contributions can't be quantified. Hurry up and kick him upstairs already. --
I could barely restrain myself from prevoting yesterday. - <b>
'''Support''' very level-headed, well-rounded --
'''Support'''. Experienced, dedicated user.
'''Edit conflicted Strong support''' a very worthwhile editor.
'''I've-been-waiting-for-his-RfA support''' - Ever since he left me a comment on my talk page, I've sort of trailed him; but how couldn't I? I see his prolific signature everywhere, indicating heavy participation in many aspects of the project. =) '''
'''As if he needs more support''' shoe-in for the position. --<font color="336699">
'''Super-strong huge-ass gargantuan support''' Give him the mop already! --
'''Super-speedy given him the mop already Support'''  As the Co-Nom and as an ediotr who really respects him <font color="green">
'''Yes yes please''' support! I've been waiting for this for a long time, weeks even. A valuable contributor, combined with a great level of kindness and thoughtfulness. Not the slightest hint of doubt that he'll be an awesome admin. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''editconflict Strong Support''' per everythingeveryonseelsehassaid.
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support''' per everyone, in view of his love for backlogs, and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' strong answers to Qs, mad vandal fighting using VP (wonder why Ami voted?), should be good asset to anti-vandalism force.--<font style="background:white">
'''Extreme Primate Support''' Give it up for the Chimp, Ladies & Gentlemen. --
'''Not already an admin?''' This injustice is so great and terrible that I am '''<sarcasm>leaving Wikipedia forever and deleting the main page on my way out!</sarcasm>''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support from the Yellow Computermonkey''' - [[:Image:Blnguyen.JPG]].'''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', plain and simple, no primate pun here (as tempting as it is). Good editor, will be good admin.
'''Strong support''' When I first encountered Alphachimp, I assumed he was an admin, because he was doing work like one. When I realised he wasn't, I offered to nominate him, but others got there first... He is dedicated, conscientious, balanced, humble, helpful and knowledgeable. Did I miss anything out? Hard working too.
'''Support'''. I also thought he was an admin already. He certainly has the experience and temperement to do a great job.
'''Support'''. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' I have known AlphaChimp for quite a long time (in wikiyears that is).  I have been nothing short of impressed. I think Wikipedia would be harmed if we '''didn't''' give Alphachimp the mop =D.  I know he will put it to great use and so do the other users above and below me.  Godspeed Alphachimp. --
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' I don't know, you go to sleep for a few hours and along comes a great candidate like Alphachimp and suddenly you're at the end of a long, long list to support. That's it, I'm never going to sleep again... About time this editor got the mop.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', will make a great admin. --
'''Support.'''--
'''Alphasupport''' per.. well, hell, everyone. Excellent user, and will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - what a great candidate!!
'''Support''' He will be a good admin. Give him a banana.
'''Support''' &ndash; presses all the right buttons. Oh, and I've liked his username ever since I first joined :p <small>&mdash; [[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzasta]] &bull; [[User_talk:Riana_dzasta|t]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Riana_dzasta|c]] &bull; <font color="green">
'''6 edit conflicts later Strong Support!''' - tried to vote earlier and after my 6th edit conflict gave up! Been waiting for his RfA for sometime, well deserving :) -
'''Support''' - I had a recent positive interaction with him over something that looked like a mistake on his part; he was polite, responsive, and posted the appropriate explanations quickly to the involved users.  Also followed up with me to let me know the status later, which was great.
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support''' a primate of the first order.  Fully deserving of moppage.
'''Support''' per above, as the oppose vote seems unconvincing.
'''Support.''' Long overdue. —
'''Support''' per good answers, and all of the above. -
'''Strong Support''' <nowiki>{{RfA cliche #1}}</nowiki> plus excellent answers to the questions.
"Thought this user was already an admin" '''support'''
'''Support''' Very good responses to the Q/A. Also with that edit count, should have been admin long time ago. Very good.
'''Support''' - will be a perfect admin.
'''Mais oui!'''<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''', no problem
'''Support'''. Failed to meet [[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego's]] criteria, and per nom.  --
'''Support''' because of lots of positive contributios (even though it says above >15000 edits for Alphachimp and tool says 11561 on 11 August - that's fast typing!).
The way he presses the keys on his keyboard and buttons on his mouse increases the quality of this project.
'''Support''' No problems here. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, very mature attitude. Be cautious when you must, but remember to '''be bold''' too.  -
'''Support'''. I have seen nothing but great things. --<font color="3300FF">
'''[[The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)|Flying-Monkey]]-Support'''. SURRENDER VANDALS... --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''': per everyone above. —
'''Strong support'''. Not that this vote will make much of a difference given the <u>''overwhelming''</u> amount of "Oppose" votes ... but indeed we need more administrators like Alphachimp, good luck!. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Strong Support''' Alphachimp ticks all the right boxes, and then some ;) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Normally I don't express an opinion when it is pretty clear what the outcome will be (and I agree with it) as this isn't really supposed to be a "vote" so a "me too" doesn't add much. However, in this case, I have to say that I've seen a lot of the work that Alphachimp has done and would like to be sure that my voice is included in the support of Alhpachimp as an admin. There is no question in my mind that AC knows the rules, is Civil, Assumes Good Faith, and is deserving of the '''Mop'''. If anyone really needed citations of the quality of AC's work I'd be glad to go dig them out. I find Massiveeego's opposition interesting. It seems ME wants perfection - well, perfection doesn't exist in the world we live in. Maybe in some Platonic ideal but what counts here is good will, learning from mistakes, the ability to rectify mistakes as much as possible and adequate experience so that we can expect that the inevitable mistakes won't be too many or too severe. From my personal experience with AC and from reviewing AC's edits, along with everything said here so far, I am personally convinced that AC meets all the requrements to be initiated as an admin: sufficient experience, demonstrated knowledge of the policies and guidelines, demonstrated ability to learn and rectify mistakes, civility and assumption of good faith. I say "Give Alphachimp the mop!"

'''Support''' '''''"...but I thought that he was..."''''' Spare the mop and spoil the admin. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent editor.
'''Strong Support'''. Alphachimp. He always works a lot which means dedicated wikipedian. I would support him for admin because He always demonstrates kindness, and there should be more admin like Alphachimp who revert all vandals to protect Wikipedia, and kindness Wikipedian. He always uses his own bot to fix some templates.
Overdue
'''Support beyond all support''' You aren't one already? You're one of the few people on Wikipedia I admire (not sucking up :-P). Good luck as admin! --
'''Support''' meets almost all my criteria, so many edits it's hard to discern a 'pet' project, but  I'll skip that one for this candidate.  Just in case you need my vote, LOL
'''Support''' Seems like a good guy.
'''Support''' Good editor, good answers.
'''Support''' per Garion96
'''Support''' Need there be anything more said?

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Support''' - Positive contributor, and should make a postitively contributing administrator.
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' - have seen him around several times.  Strikes me as very helpful on many fronts and valuable to the project.
'''Support''' Would make a good admin. -
A quick check of first 100 and last 100 edits leaves me with no doubt; this mop's for you. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' no concerns here.
'''Support''' per track record and first three words of answer to Q1 (with the implied word "clearing" between the second and third words, and thankfully not "creating").
'''Support''', already assumed Alphachimp was an administrator.  Who doesn't like chimps?  --
'''Support'''. Hand the mop and bucket over, and make sure there are plenty of bananas in there.
'''Support''' Should've become an admin when he created an account. [[User:Jorcoga|<font color="red">J</font>]][[Image:Face-grin.svg|15px]]
'''Support''' (ugh... edit conflict) Excellent contributor.  One of the most obvious candidates who should receive adminship that I've come across. —
'''Support''' A prolific vandal-fighter and fine editor. Will make a good admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
"Yeah" sums it up. --
'''Support''' no probs.
WP:100. --
'''Support'''. Love to jump on a bandwagon.
'''Über Strong Support''' I know this guy, hes a very good person, and he deserves my vote. '''<font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Robomaeyhem|°≈§→]]</font>'''&nbsp;[[User:Robomaeyhem|<font color="black">Robom</font>]][[User:Robomaeyhem/Esperanza|<font color="green"><b>æ</b></font>]]
'''Exploding Pinapple Support''' '''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva</font>]] [[user talk:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="gray">La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - User has made quite a few valued contributions
'''Support''': seems like a great bloke.
'''Support''', also hate to fire out the cliché, but I'd have bet money Alphachimp already was one.  --
'''Strong Support'''. I would've tried to nominate this editor myself if I hadn't been on Wikibreak. He helped hunt down a whole bunch of sockpuppets of the North Carolina Vandal, which I blocked, and has a knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia that rivals a large number of current admins, I think. An obvious choice.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate.
'''Support''' will use the mop well, bring it on. --
'''Excessively strong support'''. Had I not been on a week-long trip, I would have voted here a lot sooner. AlphaChimp's work on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway|WikiProject New York City Subway]] has been exemplary. I, like many others here, at first thought he was already an administrator and was frankly quite shocked to find out that he wasn't. His work (as well as the contributions of his bots) has been a great contribution to Wikipedia. Unreserved vote of confidence; AlphaChimp is the epitome of what a Wikipedia sysop should be. –
'''Support''' thoughtful solid editor ++
'''Support''' - 1FA policy is ridiculous, IMO, seems like a good contributor. No reason not to support.
'''Strong support''' per answers to questions. Meets my 2k edit requirements; 1FA would be nice, but is entirely superfluous. I ''did'' already think he was an admin. --<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
'''Support'''.  I have never had interactions with this candidate, but I was swayed by the excellent and well thought out answers to questions.--
'''"You mean he's not an admin yet?" support.''' I guess I just figured you were humble. :) I haven't had much ''significant'' interaction with you, just yet, but so far every experience indicates that you have fair judgement and won't abuse the new buttons. Congrats.
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' wasn't an admin? '''[[User:Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#006400">Fr</font>]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User Talk:Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#3CB171">dil</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fredil_Yupigo|<font color="#B0E0E6">Yu</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#B0C4DE">pi</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good editor, soon to be a good admin. -
'''Strong support''' &mdash; great user. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Alphachimp has been nothing but pleasant to work with. —'''
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' with pleasure. A good editor and very helpful user.
'''Support''' - over 11,000 edits!Easily should be an administrator-
'''Strong support''' will be a great admin -- <i>
'''Support''' A dedicated Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. I have observed Alphachimp in numerous AfD discussions. Clearly an editor with a solid understanding of the project. Meets all significant RfA criteria. --
Support, whadda guy!　[[User:Ashibaka|Ashi]]'''[[User:Ashibaka/b|<font color="orange">b</font>]]'''
'''Support''' its an even number now --
'''Support''' And now it's prime.
'''Support'''.  Seen the chimp around a lot, all good work.
'''Support''', everytime i've seen alphachimp has been good, and don't see any reason to oppose. Thanks/
'''Support'''.  [[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|The very model of a modern wikipedian]]--he's even got portal edits!  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' without reservations, will make a great administrator.
'''Didn't know you weren't an admin already Support'''.
'''Thought he was an admin already (how original, I know)'''. Also, prime number. --
'''The bureaucrats are slow so I can still support!'''
'''Oppose''' Fails to meet my criteria.  --
Tough one, I even lost some (just some) sleep over this. Apparently a very well-respected editor, since the only oppose is (not surprisingly) from Massiveego. I looked at/sampled some [[WP:NYCS]] articles, and unfortunately didn't see any extraordinary article... :( I will have to oppose under 1FA, though even Mailer diablo supported...) -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Neutral'''A great editor, but refusal to join the open to recall category raised some doubts.--
'''Neutral''' I don't know... I think I'd rather stay out of this.
'''Support''' Per nom, but could you please expand your answers a little bit more --
Yes, please, with a cherry on top. I missed my chance - but Alai is a better nominator, anyway. Excellent candidate. Thoughtful and uncontroversial. She has a wealth of experience and a narrow but well-defined needs for admin tools. No exposure to vandal-fighting etc. carries zero concern with this person because she is know for her good demeanor and there is no risk of misuse of tools whatsoever. - <b>
'''Strong support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' per nom. Amalas has done great work on WP:WSS, where she has always been both a competent and friendly editor. It has also seemed "unnatural" to me that she couldn't close debates completely which is a real problem since the admins normally closing debates also participate in many of them. The workload at WP:WSS is often pretty big and more active admins there will be very welcome. I see no reason at all not to trust her with the mop.
'''Support''' Hard worker and friendly, per nom.
I'm
'''Support''' Have seen this candidate around and am always impressed. Clearly defined need for tools. Good luck! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' rawr.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' as eventual co-nominator. The problems when someone goes on wikibreak half-way through these things...
'''Support''' Very industrious editor.  I don't see the process-oriented admin tasks as too much of a challenge.
'''Support''' per others.  No concerns here, and I particularly like the process improvement work! --
Hard work on stub sorting is appreciated. Good luck with the mop. (
OMG, this user definitely has a great WP experience, and 18K+ of useful edits is no less valuable contribution than 1FA.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - plenty of experience, a good Wikipedian and hard worker. Amalas was actually one of the first Wikipedians I saw at work; <u>s</u>he kind of cleaned up after me by sorting the first stubs I made! --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="LightSeaGreen">[[Special:Contributions/Gray Porpoise|Porpoise]]</font><sub>
'''Support''' - Looks like this editor would make a great administrator.
'''Support''' I'm not particullary wild about the response to my question, but I believe there will be no harm done by this.
'''Support''' She is a hard worker and the tools will only help her in benefiting this project. ←
'''Support''' good contributor.--
'''Support''' - dedicated user, doing work that needs to be done but most of us wouldn't get around to, no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' seems to be an excellent contributor who could use the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks like a quality, process-focused candidate. Not all admins need to interact with users on a constant basis and leave messages all over talk pages. She has a knack for doing (in my view) some pretty tedious stuff; let's give her some tools to help her out.
'''Support''' - I don't normally do these and I hope I'm in good enough standing to comment, but I've seen her work at [[WP:WSS]] and she's one of the people I always assumed *was* an administrator already. Plenty of good contributions - in particular, it may seem small but the color-coded templates are great, helped clean up a very cumbersome page.
'''Support''' Your stub sorting work is much appreciated. [[User:Fortunecookie289|cøøki]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I love editors who do boring stuff. <font color="green">
'''Support''' per same reason as [[User:IronDuke|IronDuke]]. -
'''Support''' Defintely meets requirments to beoome an administrator, and I think this user would make a terrific one.
'''Support'''  We need more admis willing to focus on specific areas.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great work!
'''Support'''. I've seen her around at [[WP:WSS]], and she's always making useful edits. I'm sure she will be a good admin, too. '''''
'''Support''' A very hard-working contributor to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' sounds like a good contributer and it would be useful to allow her to delete things rather than just closing XfD's and needing someone else to do the dirty work, especially since she is willing to do the work.
good luck ;)) --
'''Support''' We need more admins. And everything looks A-OK. With > 18k edits, ''Give-er-the-mop''<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''Support'''.--'''[[User talk:Madhyako Pradeshlo|<span style="background:#FFFF66;color:#000">M</span>]]<span style="background:#008">
--
'''Support''' &mdash; [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''troppuS'''. thank you for answering my questions. it's my feeling that you're much more useful doing what you've been doing, rather than the too-common admin descent into LARTing users. but, i of course can't compel you to do anything. i look forward to seeing more work from you. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Support''' could always use more qualified help with AfD closings... but it is a tad different than SFD in that different policies are important and you might catch a bit more flak. You don't exactly see SFD closings on DRV every day :-) But nevertheless, candidate seems fine and if this nominator trusts him, that's a good sign. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Great user with high-quality edits. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''oppose''' - lack of experience with images[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Amalas] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Amalas&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] --
'''Neutral''' Great editor, but I am worried about how she will handle dispute resolution or mediating disputes in the article namespace. Most of her edits are made using AWB or stub-sorting and I don't see that this user has had much discussion regarding articles and such. I was looking at her contributions, and I found that 99.7% (marked by VoA script) of her last 2500 edits have been marked as minor edits, and 1339 of them have been made using AWB. It's just a bit of a pet peeve when I see an excellent user who hasn't dabbed into the wonderful art of article-building. '''
'''Comment'''. I'm neutral for this one too. Basically per Nishkid64, I kind of wonders if this user will be capable of interacting with users on constant basis. 251 User talk edits (41 in own page) is way too low for a admin candidate. The article talk page edit count is not that impressive either. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support'''.  gift vote-
'''Support''', all interactions with this user have been positive, and I trust he'll use the admin tools judiciously. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support'''. I like this user's attitude and edit sprawl.
'''Support'''. I like him! -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Positive contributor, like the attitude, overpolite-to-newbies == good. &mdash;
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', I like how he's nice to noobies.

'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' --
Support. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''--

'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Looks fine.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Looks a well balanced user --
'''Support''' I frequently see intelligent comments followed by his signature.
--
'''Support''' - good, trustworthy user.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' certainly
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''', been around long enough to know what needs to be done, works on articles, has a toolserver account, and isn't one already?!?!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' no userboxes --
'''Support''' sounds good, good luck to you.
'''Support''' Great work and good luck!
Looks like a very good candidate. Thanks for respondign to my question. If you engage new users that well, you will do well indeed.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Everything looks good here.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' &#126;
'''Support'''; everything looks good.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Edit history looks good. No reason not to support.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' great contributor.
'''Support''' definately...and I love your Wikipedia Status page too ;) &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. It takes some chutzpah to self nominate. And I respect that. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Seems like a slam dunk. -
'''Support''' I have no idea who you are, thus have no reason to oppose you--
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support''' thought you were one! --
'''Oppose'''--
'''Nominator Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' It would be a crime for me not to support this after getting my own special space in the answersheet. I feel so loved. --
'''Support''' Easy choice.
'''Strong Support'''. Great user and would benefit the whole Wikipedia community, especially Vandal-Fighting.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]

'''Support''' Granting admin abilities to this user can only result in good things. Good contributions too (VandalProof).
'''Strong Support''', one of the most helpful people I've met on Wikipedia thus far. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Very dedicated Wikipedia, who has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, and to whom Sysop powers would be well entrusted. --
'''Yet another Rfa Cliché #1'''. <tt>
'''Definitely'''. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
A bit longwinded for my taste, I mean those question answers just go on and on and on. And VandalProof? piffle, I mean really, what is so great about making 340 vandal fighters more efficient? Developers shouldn't get a free pass to adminship. Plus he's too nice of a guy. <s>oppose</s> (whack) More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per above
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. Helpful and courtious, will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Of course! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', where do I have to sign?!?
'''Support''' Very good contributions, his only faults are not knowing the meaning of archiving his userpage of which it is not uncommen to see grow larger than 75KB before I remind him and that he is a wikiholic:-)
'''Support''', absolutely. Grateful for VandalProof. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''', Must go to bed.
'''Support''', no question. .:.
'''Strong support'''. Great contributor. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Definite support after the [[User:Marlon Fire Thunder]] issues.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' would definitely make a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' helpful, amiable and trustworthy.
'''Support''' of course.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great user. Will make a great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', his contributions to Wikipedia have been simply impressive.
'''Strong Support''' I have no doubts that AmiDaniel being an admin will make Wikipedia a better place. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - definitely. -
'''Support''', yes! yes! AmiDaniel has demonstrated great commitment to the project and his VandalProof tool rocks! --
'''Strong Support''', Great user.
'''Support'''
''' Support'''. Liked answer to question 1. And thanks for [[VandalProof]]
'''Superstrong Support''' VandalProof is a monster. Even though my machine can't run it because of the bugs, I see it popping up everywhere, reverting vandalism extremely quickly. Props to AmiDaniel, and I hope I get the job of graphics designer. <tt>:P</tt>
'''Support'''. Who could oppose the Vandalproof developer.
'''WTF Support'''. I WANTED TO CO-NOM!!! -
Going to have to go with '''Support''' on this one. Good answers to the questions (#1!) and tends to play well with others. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
<s>'''Oppose'''. Why would we want to make life more difficult for the vandals?</s> Never mind, make them suffer! '''Support'''. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' -- has the best interest of the project in mind.  (Except for posting the same message to more than three people's talk pages, which seems to be the limit these days.)  --
'''Support''' great person, built a super-good vandal-fighting tool, and last of all, I didn't know he wasn't an admin! What a Cliché. PS: What does question 4 have to do with this RfA? ;-)
Quite obviously dedicated to doing the job correctly.
'''Support''' His promotion would benefit Wikipedia overall. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''', for obvious reasons.
'''Support''' per all of the above. --
'''Insanely Strong Support''' An absolute no-brainer, this one. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' No question.
'''Strong support''' - one of the "must be" admins, no doubt about it. :p &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''I was going to nominate so very very very strong support''' - 100%, AmiDaniel will become an admin --
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' per [[User:Kevin1243|Kevin]]
'''Support ON WHEELS!''' I've come across this user many times; an exceptional editor. -→
'''Strong Support''', everything points to a very able editor and excellent community member.
'''Support <strike>user using [[VandalProof]]</strike>''' would make Wikipedia a much better place

'''Strong Support''' - if anyone has ever made it clear they wouldn't abuse sysop right it's Daniel, nor is anyone more deserving. - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
<b>Support- But I almost said Neutral</b> [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support'''. Never given any reason not to trust him.
'''Support'''. Superlative, trustworthy contributor. I'm a little concerned about the issues raised by Ted's neutral vote, but I'm inclined to give AmiDaniel the chance.
'''Support'''--
Bandwagon '''support''', I've seen him in discussions and he showed sound judgment and good sense.
'''Support''' looks fine to me. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] Support''' Very smart and helpful user with his tools. Have him add the mop and the bucket to his toolkit. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]]'''''[[User:Actown|o]]'''''[[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', without reservation
'''Strong Support''', Whadda ya mean 'e's not an admin yet!? --
'''Support'''
Definately. --<font color="blue">
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I'm breaking my no pile-on rule again here, mainly because I don't think anyone has yet specifically mentioned the rather impressive handling of the situation with [[User:Avillia]] as a support reason (AmiDaniel mentioned it in the answer to Q3 below). We sometimes need someone to stand up for those that all other admins want to just be rid of with an indef block. In other discussions as well- I can't claim to always agree with what he's said, but I can say that they've always positively added to the discussion. Of course there's also the usual reasons like won't abuse tools, would use them well etc...
'''Support'''AmiDaniel has done a great job and by all accounts will continue to do so. Be well.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''support''' although I usually dislike all programs which only run under Windows, I love vandal fighting (and vandal fighters). --
[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] '''I wanted to co-nom but nobody ever tells me anything anymore  Support''' [[Image:Cry.png|20px]] — <font colour="navy"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|Natha]]
'''how else would I vote, support''' [[user:ILovePlankton|<font color="red">I</font><font color="orange">Lo</font><font color="limegreen">ve</font>]][[Plankton]] <sup>(</sup>
'''Support''', obviously. &ndash; '''
'''Strong support''' Can we get this to [[WP:200]]?  Clearly has the judicious and pensive disposition required of an admin.  Of course, cheering for Germany to win [[FIFA World Cup 2006]] is like cheering for Willie on Wheels to become an admin, but we'll let him slide there.
Diamond-encrused mop, please! - <b>
'''Support'''.  His ability to help the project as a vandal-patroller will be strengthened if he can block vandals.  That justifies making him an admin. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. [[User:Danlina| ]]
'''Support''' AmiDaniel, after Tawker, is one of the most important people when it comes to reverting vandalism.  His tool, VandalProof amazes me every time I use it.  I continue to work with him and I don't ever see that changing.  Good luck man. --
'''Very strong support'''. Great guy. 100% dedicated to Wikipedia. One of the most civil wikipedians I have encountered so far. I cannot believed he is not an admin yet!
'''Strong support''' I'm suprised AmiDaniel is not already an admin. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support.''' I thought AmiDaniel already had a mop! <font face="Verdana">~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <nowiki>{</nowiki>[[User talk:Cchan199206|t]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/Cchan199206|c]]<nowiki>|</nowiki><font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' ˉˉ<sup>
'''Hyper-über-support!''' unbelievably dedicated, and VandalProof is too awesome!  And he really needs it for the checklist and for developing other admin tools. This ''has'' to get to [[WP:200]]. &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' extraordinary helpful and knowledgable.
'''Support'''. It's mopping time! —
'''Support''' of course! -- <i>
'''Support''' Ding Dong Special Delivery from FedEx: A new mop!
'''Support''', of course. --
'''Support''' with no reservations. --
'''Strong Support''' This guy has done so much good for wikipedia.  --
'''Support''' Wiki-programmers.  --
'''Support''' Wide range of edits and user seems very ami-able. [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Totally unnecessary pile-on support'''.
'''Support''' A very good user with a wide range of good quality edits. I feel, he would be extremely valuable as an Admin.
'''Support''' Obvious candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower --
'''Support''' You created VandalProof. The only type of person to oppose you is a vandal.
'''Support''' I think AmiDaniel would make a great admin. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]]
'''Strongest possible support on WHEELS!''' Is a technical genius, kind, and will be a fantastic admin. Please promote ASAP. --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]]<sup>([[User talk:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User:D-Day/Templates I'd like to see on Wikipedia|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]] [[User:D-Day/You know you've been editing for too long on Wikipedia if...|too?]],
'''Support''' no question --
'''Support''' definitely. &mdash;

'''Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
The developer of VandalProof is not an admin? That's a darned shame...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I recall your name, but I can't quite place it. Did we ever interact? Oh well, whenever we did, I think you were a rather friendly one. --
'''Support''' development of VandalProof shows a strong commitment to the project, and user is unlikely to misuse admin tools. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''.  Vandals have no chance to survive, make your time.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''.  A textbook candidate.  --
'''Support'''. We need more like Daniel moping Wikipedia.
'''Support''' As a user of Vandalproof, i feel that the creator of this great tool has contributed more than enough to deserve Adminship.
'''Support''', of course. Rather than waiting for someone to officially hand him a "mop", he made his own. It's about time he gets the big ring of keys to go with it.
'''What? Hes not an admin Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Strong support''' I hope he develops the Vandal Proof to make some admin tasks easier.--
'''Strong Support''' As already stated, easy choice. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
Too good to turn down, even with just four months of experience.
'''Support''', technical know-how and positive user interactions.
'''Support''' I talked to him a few times.  He's helpful, friendly, patient and nice.  --
'''Strong Support''' I believe this to be a no-brainer, if there ever was one. --
'''support''':
'''support''' ambidaniel has shown to me that he can raionally discuss tough things AGF and i think hed make an excellent admin
'''Support''' - Excellent user. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' great job on your tool!  Glad to have you in the project. ---
'''Thanks-for-developing-VandalProof-Support''' –
'''Support''' valuable contributor. -
'''Support'''. Good stuff. -
'''Bandwagon'''. --
'''Support''', very nice and helpful even after I mistakenly put a speedy on his talk page because of being new to Vandalproof :). Definately a guy deserving of this adminship.--
'''Support''' One of the greatest anti-vandals out there.
'''Support''' No reason not to. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Super - Super - Super - Super <!--Super - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - SuperSuper - Super - Super - Super --> Support <!--Support - Support - Support - Support Support - Support - Support - SupportSupport - Support - Support - SupportSupport - Support - Support - SupportSupport - Support - Support - SupportSupport - Support - Support - SupportSupport - Support - Support - SupportSupport - Support - Support - Support-->''' Support, and he is an admin on another Foundation Wiki. --<font size="1">
'''146th support''', did a ''lot'' of great work fighting against vandalism --<font color="red">[[User talk:TBC|☆]]</font>
'''Even More Totally unnecessary pile-on Support'''. Who cares about [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]? A decision on any RfA ought to be based on more than one criterion. I liked how AmiDaniel addressed the 1FA issue in his answers.
'''Strong Support''', He demonstrates everything about vandalism, also being nice in Wikipedia. Also, He created vandal proof to fight with vandalism. Therefore, I absolutely nominate him to be Administrator. Ahh, I have been wondering why he hasn't become an admin of Wikipedia. Anyways, He is one of best wikipedian as much as Naconkantari for fighting with vandalism.
'''Support'''. Is clearly worth of admin tools. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Very strong support''' He is very dedicated to Wikipedia. He created vandal proof as said above. He should already be an admin.  We need more wikipedians like this! [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Support like GeorgeMoney Above''' I cannot think of a single reason not to support such a great editor! <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' duh! If you've never used VP you've missed out on Wikipedia ;). Either that, or you have a Mac, like me. --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I see no reason not to.
'''Support''' - As per above. I can not think of a single reason not to endorse this either. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/
'''Very Strong Support''' - a great asset to Wikipedia. '''
'''Support''' Undoubted commitment to the project, the tools will help him further his excellent VandalProof work. --<font color="2B7A2B">
--ⁿɡ͡b
'''OMGSQUEE SUPPORT''' --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Extremely Strong Support''': I thought he was an admin already! Guess not. How is this user not an admin already? This user took lots of time away from his life to create VandalProof and keep it up and running. 100% support. <font face="Times New Roman" size="4" color="black">[[User:Wikipeedio|W]]</font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="black">
'''Support''': No reason for not supporting. -
'''Support''' Even though I don't use VandalProof. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
Hmmmm. How do I put this? '''EVERY CLICHE IN THE BOOK SUPPORT!''' Keep up the good work.
Probably unnecessary '''support'''.  Just felt like I had to express my admiration for this great editor. [[User:Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''''M'''''</font>]][[:Image:Ceiling_cat_00.jpg|<font color="Blue">'''''r.'''''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''''L'''''</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
Super '''Support''': I'm going to use his VandalProof when I reach New York! --
'''Support''' -- Not to [[WP:SNOW|snowball]], but the creation of the VandalProof tool is one of the most significant blows to vandalism in Wikipedia history. Well done, sir! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nominator; everything looks great. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' good user with good contributions, VP etc.
'''Support''' -- quality editor whom I trust with administrative tools. -
'''Oppose'''. You armed Wikipedia with a useful tool. But what good is it when you gave it away to vandals and trolls? Your approval criteria have loopholes. For instance, the current approval policy is like this: ''New users with fewer than 250 mainspace edits and users who have recently been involved in edit wars or have a recent history of vandalism will likely not be accepted.'' But, I can spot atleast [[User:Holy_Ganga|one editor]] who is armed with your tool but involved in recurrent edit-revert wars and has recent block history. I don't know how many else are there without my knowledge? Inadvertently, you seem to have made Wikipedia a insecure place compromising the integrity of the articles therein. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''.  Clearly a hard worker and a solid member of the community.  I'd call him an excellent copyeditor.  But, that is all he is.  I worry that he has very few edits in the namespace that are not copyediting or vandalism patrolling.  I see no evidence of dealing with individuals over content disputes.  I'm sure he can use the admin tools for these areas, but along with it comes closing AfDs and other duties that require some real experience in the namespace.  I really wish I could support, but I can't.  Sorry.
'''Neutral''', does not pass [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but has significiant contributions to recent patrolling. -
'''Neutral''' has made a very solid start, but I don't feel he has been fully exposed to Wikipedia.  I'd like to see more edits in the main namespace.--
'''Neutral''' per cj.
'''Neutral''' per above. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
I think he gets the job done.  Seems intelligent, level-headed, and willing.
'''Support'''. In my opinion, Andrew's contributions to Wikipedia are more than sufficient for adminship. --
'''Support''' An experienced editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', waiving talk requirements. This user is so experienced, I trust him despite the lack of talk edits. I know most of mine are blabber, anyway. No actual reason to believe he will be a failure as a sysop. - <b>
'''Support''' - you seem like an experienced, level-headed editor who can be trusted with the admin tools :). Though your answers to the questions are a bit short, your nomination statement sums things up nicely. Your user talk edits are kind of low, but not reason enough for me not to support you. Good luck.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' More than meets my standards. Low edit count/time served is probably a matter of quality/quantity.
He has '''The Article'''. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' - good editor
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' High quality of edits makes up for the low edit count relative to time here.
'''Support''' Edit countis can be fatal and should be negated in some circumstances.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', long commitment, wide ranged edits, responds to changes, writes articles, FA participation i.e. solid editor.
'''Support''' Wikipedia could use some more level-headed admins, and the fact that Andrew's never been in a major content dispute is a definite plus in my book. Good luck!
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''; long-time editor, interested in maintenance tasks, trustworthy, and cool-headed.  Those objecting over lack of article talk and user talk edits should consider that work on [[WP:PR]] and [[WP:FAC]] requires significant community interaction. --
'''Support'''. Normally I oppose editors with weak edit summary usage, but you are strong in other areas and have already indicated a plan to improve that area. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Excellent record, gifted editor.
'''Support''' per AdamBis and Fabrictionary and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA criteria]].
'''Support.''' Anyone whose been with us that long deserves the mop, and maybe a barnstar... [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. This editor is clearly ready for the tools and won't misuse them.
'''Support''', largely per Dlohcierekim and also meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. My only complaint is the low edit summary usage, and I see you've already said you'll improve it.
'''Support''' I'd like to see more use of edit summaries, but otherwise a review of your contributions convinces me you'd be a valuable addition to the team of admins.
'''Support''', trustworthy editor who deserves the tools.
'''Support''', seems to cover all the bases.
'''Weak support''' Support, because he seems to be a good solid editor. Weak because he states he wants to help fight vandalism but shows no previous indicatsion that he has. Vandal fighting produces a LOT of user talk edits, and these seem to be lacking.
'''Support''' I'm sure he knows all the rules by now! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' If Andrew is commenting on FAC's, at peer review and elsewhere, that is sufficient. My vote is based on that and the fact that I see zero evidence that he will abuse admin tools...it's that simple.--
'''Support''' Per above. '''Comment''': Although I have had no interaction with this user in my brief past here on Wikipedia, I am casting my yes vote saddened to see that a contributor with more than 3500 edits can receive almost a dozen oppose votes which, in all fairness, seem to be based on technicalities. Moreover, I fail to see anything in this user's history that would suggest a possibility that he would abuse administrator privileges. Besides, he has been contributing for years which for me is sufficient proof of more than adequate experience needed for adminship.
'''Support''' based on excellent experience. Not going to oppose based on edit summary usage, but please work on it in the future. :)
'''Support''' based on seeing the user around and generally liking what I've seen. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom and others.  --
'''Support''' is a good editor and I believe will make a good Admin.
Andrew has good experience and is a clear asset to the encyclopedia. This is what adminship is for; none of the standards people are using below have any bearing on misuse of admin tools.
'''Support''' per nom and the work of Andrew's I have seen. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support'''. I believe that Andrew is unlikely to misues admin tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - seems mature and level headed. My only concern is the way he is addressing, one-on-one, all the people who oppose him. I'm more impressed when an RfA candidate lets things run their course and only deals with specific, fixable problems.
'''Support''' &ndash; as a protest vote to all those opposing who have absolutely no idea how FAC functions, or how deep a discussion it actually is.

'''Support''' 3 years, no evidence of misbehavior... Says it all, really.
'''Support''' - I sympathize to some degree with concerns about community involvement, but I have to respectfully disagree.  I have seen Andrew getting out and doing stuff and talking about it.  His contributions and behavior have been strongly positive overall.  Support.
'''Support'''. After being neutral for a bit, after some speaking with Andrew Levine I believe he is level headed and cautious enough to not misuse the tools. Specific examples that show he has been involved in possibly tense situations could be [[Talk:Krazy_Kat#Grammar_and_referencing_fixes_reverted]] and [[Talk:Black_Canadian#Micha.C3.ABlle_Jean]]. As for concerns that he is not too involved in vandalism reverting, I don't feel that this is a strong enough reason to oppose as he has indeed stated that he will get more familiar with the area before blocking people. The fact stands that Andrew Levine is the sort of administrator who mainly deals with maintenance of articles (in particular featured articles), and while he may not necessarily use the tools too much for common areas such as [[WP:AIV]], I don't believe he will abuse them. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Support'''. There's nothing wrong with taking your time to be sure you're right. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' plenty of evidence that he wouldn't abuse admin tools; no evidence that he would. --
'''Support''' Absolutely --
'''Weak support''' - responses to opposes have been polite.

'''Support'''
'''Support''': seems like a great bloke.
'''Strong Support''' per many of the above.
'''Strong support''': I have had the pleasure of collaborating with Andrew Levine for a month and find him to be level headed and quick to engage in discussions when needed as well as knowledgeable about Wikipedia's processes and policies. I think he would make an excellent admin and is certainly experienced in helping new editors as he has done so with me.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. -
Changed from neutral. --
'''Support'''. I think he can be trusted, low talk edits or no. -
'''Support''' The low talk edits don't bother me he seems very responisble.  Just promise me you will get into more discussions <font color="green">
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support'''. Edits are consistently high-quality, and he seems to have enough experience. -→
'''Support''' High Quality edits and I see no evidence that he will abuse his admin tools. --
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Article talk and user talk edits well below [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]]. Needs more experience in communication/interaction.
'''Oppose''' per above and answers to general questions that were too brief.
'''Oppose'''. Talking about things and using edit summaries is nice.
'''Oppose''' user states in A1 they want to block vandals and use rollback, yet I couldn't find a trace of any vandal fighting, such as warning any vandals via their talk page. So I get the impression the user has absolutely no experience with dealing with vandals. User is a great editor (see nom) but I feel adminship is a bit early and the user doesn't require it just yet.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''. Andrew has 143 edits to talk, 82 to user talk, and 2,072 to articles in three years. That's nowhere near regular enough, and it shows almost zero community interaction.
'''Oppose''' I feel that the candidate needs more experience in the areas he wishes to use the administrative tools.  Very little vandal fighting shows an inexperience in, well, vandal fighting.  This is one of the two main areas the candidate mentions that he would use the extra buttons for in his answer to Q1 and his editing history shows that he has little interest or experience in either.  The second main area the candidate mentions is dispute resolution.  Very low user talk participation shows that the candidate is inexperienced there as well.  Should the candidate gain some more experience in those areas, I'd be happy to support, as the candidate has been on the project for quite a while, which shows an eager willingness to help out.
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions (no trace of vandal fighting) and low number of talk edits. --
'''Oppose''' per above --

'''Oppose''' Per above. And also Andrew, pointing out that someone has been blocked before doesn't mean that he/she can't say oppose.
'''Oppose''' as per other opposing comments. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Oppose''' Per above. Number of his edits are very short even He has been contributing in Wikipedia for 3 years.
'''Oppose''' I hate to do this to a long-tenured user, but I do get the feeling that experience in admin-related areas is weak.  I share the concerns of FoN and SV, but what finally mind up my mind was this little slip above: "I don't object to [[User:Son of a Peach]]'s right to oppose, I'm just making a note for the benefit of the admins who oversee the process. [[User:Andrew Levine|Andrew Levine]] 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"  As every admin should know, bureaucrats oversee RfA -- adminship confers no special status particular to this forum.

'''Oppose''' per [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. [[User:Jorcoga|<font color="red">J</font>]][[Image:Face-grin.svg|15px]]
'''Oppose'''. I believe that interaction through user talk pages is critical to an admin and while I'm inclined towards the argument that project pages (etc) represent community interaction, I believe that there is a qualitative difference. Will be happy to support (drop a note on my talk page) next Rfa if this one fails if this is addressed, esp. if with evidence of tackling vandalism. If Rfa succeeds, happy to wish you the very best of luck! --
'''Oppose'''.  Very funny.
'''Neutral''' - though a great contributor, he does not meet my criteria of 300 combined edits in Talk/User talk namespaces. '''
'''Neutral''': He's got a really cool signature and a substantial edit count, but...very weak user interaction, page discussion and summary usage a future admin maketh not. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Strong Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' An excellant choice as a admin.
'''Strong support''' well versed in the ways of the Wiki. <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support.''' I have seen this editor around and like his work. --
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - good user.
'''Support''' based on nom and answers to the questions. Good luck!--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - meets my standards --
'''Support''' - meets Tawker's standards - <b>
'''Strong Support''' - I have seen him around here doing a lot of good work. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor. Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' His article space edits are of the highest caliber, his work in other areas is great, seems to keep a cool head. I also like his honest, open approach to question 1. It takes either a fool, an honest person or a very confident person to answer that question starting off with "I'm not too sure exactly what chores I plan on helping out with." I don't think Andy's a fool.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great answers to questions- good candidate for the mop.--
'''Support''' Brilliant contributions -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good vandal fighter ''and'' article contributor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - looks like a good all-rounder. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. Jay and Silent Bob as New Jersey patriots would support you too. -
'''Support''' per answers to standard questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I've often thought that the best shorthand for "good admin material" is "gets articles featured".  The FA process requires a focus on article quality and the ability to take criticism on board and move forward with it in the most public of Wikipedia venues.  The vandalism fighting is a bonus. -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Always writes succinct, useful edit summaries and is a keen RC patroller. --
'''Support''', excellent editor, no worries <b>
'''Support''', great asset to the project.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Support''' never ran into him before, but looking over diff looks good --
'''Support''', definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' He's proven himself a brilliant editor -
'''Support''' fantastic editor, unlikely to screw things up.
'''Support''' If his work at peer review is anything to go by, he's a level-headed editor who should make a great admin.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, excellent nominator.
'''Support''' per nom. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' His help has been huge in [[:WP:PR]] and [[:WP:FAC]] and, frankly, I thought he was an admin already. :)
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. Give him a mop. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' --
[[Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg|14px]] <small>'''Support'''.  --
'''EXTREME SUPPORT''' excellent editor, even on non-technical topics (which I'm not so good at). <small>
'''Support''', he seems to be OK.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' No reason why not.
'''Support''' as per Davewild --[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. Good user interactions and outstanding content contributions (both in depth and range). And his answer to question #1 is perhaps the most refreshing I've seen&mdash;gold star for honesty. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' we can always use more RC patrollers who can use SD. --
'''Support''', the user is an example for others. --
'''Support''', excellent contributions, demonstrable understanding of what goes on here.
'''Support''', no reason why not to.
'''Support''' good luck to you.
'''Support''' Just piling on at this point. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Meets my standards.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom. Good solid contributor, will be an even bigger asset to the project when he gets the mop. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''', looks good to me. --
<b>Support</b> Good participation in admin-related activities, among other things.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' almost 4000 edits, incuding template talk pages... how can anyone not support --
'''First Support''' - This Mouse is a good contributor who brings a lot to the project, including some much needed levity and goodwill. Especially since the little furball has gone out of his/her way to pick up some of the Admin slack, I say give him the mop-and-bucket and make him really work for his kibble. WP will only benefit in the long run. --
'''Hardcore support'''. --<font color="3300FF">
I have a number of RfAs watchlisted that have yet to exist. This was one of them, which means that AnonEMouse had apparently done or supported an action that I found incredibly vile and unfit. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was for, and much of it is due to the great experiences I've had with this user recently, especially over the last week. A hell of an editor, one of the most helpful people I've recently encountered, and, assuming nothing crazy pops up during this RfA, I'm more than glad to '''support''' --
Nom support - <b>
'''Support''' I recently had a good impression of him at [[Talk:Fiona Mont]], his answers and contributions seem good, and I've seen him around the place doing good work. I'm sure he will be fine. --
'''Support''' — Yuperz.. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' My first impression was a lack of quantity, but on further checking it became obvious that the quality and depth was far beyond anything I've done.  It takes a strong character to handle controversial topics with a level head.  Also like seeing good, thought out answers on the standard questions.  Support to the first most intelligent species on earth from the third. --
'''(Edit-conflicted) Support''' Good user, deserves the tools.
'''Support''' per nom and answers. We don't edit much in the same content areas, but I see no issues or reason to think user will misuse the tools, and he made good contributions to the discussion pages in the recent so-called "Giano" arbitration.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' per past experience with user. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - appreciate the detailed responses to the questions, nom's comments stand up well; looks like a good addition to the admin ranks.
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom.

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Looks like another good nomination for adminship. I don't think that the tools will be abused.
'''Support''' Good contributions and solid answers to questions.
'''Eeee, a non-mouse!''' Excellent temperament and helpful, level-headed editor. -- ''
'''Support''' Two things: A) I honestly did believe AnonEMouse was an admin, and B) For some odd reason I thought you were a girl.
'''I'm for it.'''  I've seen him around, but even if I hadn't the excellent nom and answers would have convinced me quickly.  Seems like exactly what we need.  --
'''Strong support''' Everything I've ever seen from AnonEMouse (mostly AfD-related activities, as that's where I spend so much time on WP) has been superb. He absolutely deserves the mop. --
'''Support'''.  Lots of meaty edits and talk postings in which you can seen his reasoning, which is what I normally want higher edit counts for.  Clearly knowledgeable in policy, cordial, and active in an area in which another admin will be helpful.  -
'''Support''' A very good understanding of policies and a great editor as well. An inspiration to myself on a personal level. (And I am one week his senior in terms of editing on this project too!) --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Standing on a chair and shrieking support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' I've had the pleasure of at least one disagreement with A E Mouse. At the end of it I still tended to think that AEM was wrong and I was right, but I went along with him anyway as (i) I wasn't so interested in the issue and (ii) he had been so civil that it seemed churlish to continue to disagree. If I'm going to be in an argument with anybody, I hope AEM's the one. (Who knows, next time I might actually win.) --
'''Support''', this unknown rodent is known to me from many places around the project, I have seen nothing but good from him.  <b>
'''Support'''. Seen him/her around, and impressed.
Mmmm.. Porn is good. <small>Thought he was an admin already</small> &mdash;
'''Support''' I've too seen him about, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to support him.--
'''Support''' User has an adorable username :), and fantastic demeanor.  Obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' <tt>;)</tt> --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - getting a guideline approved takes vast knowledge of policy --
'''Support''' Thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''', no-brainer. --
'''Support''', not only a valuable contributor, but a pleasure to deal with him. Has shown good judgement and maturity, and above everything else, his unfailing kindness is nothing short of of a delight. Go Mousey! -- [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' looks good. --
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''. Don't see any admin-related issues.
'''Support''' per previous encounters and observations, welcome this mouse to the admin house.  :o)
'''Support''' per above. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Support''' per [[Alice Barnham|high quality contributions]] ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' His answers to my questions adequately handle the issues raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The user also seems to  have a large  variety of edits to article space and has experience in the areas he wishes to use admin tools.
'''Support''' per JoshuaZ after edit conflict.  History of edits shows that this person can be trusted with the sysop tools.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Need more admins.
'''Support''' as per aeropagitica.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
"More candidates like this one, please<sup>TM</sup>! '''Support'''  (obviously!) ++
'''Support''' Good contributor to articles even though it is porn. BTW, has any porn editor become an admin--
'''Support'''. I was very confused about the porno incident, and once Anon defended his case, I changed my mind.
''"Support''' - User is honest and learns from mistakes. I believe they would use the tools well.-
'''Lol, pr0n''' support. --
'''Support''' If the porn incident had been part of a pattern then that would be different.  Everything else looks good and there's solid community support (plus the mouse cited an essay I started). '''
'''Strong Support''' (was Oppose) -- I've spent about 45 minutes going though all the links and diffs. I feel much more comfortable with the amazon/Brandy Alexandre incident and I can understand how someone would make that mistake acting in good faith. In the process of all of this, plus looking at a bunch of other edits, I am very impressed with AnonEMouse. Good luck, --
'''SupportEMouse''', my experiences with this mouse have been good.
'''Support''' Admits to and learns from mistakes.  Sounds like some people around here have never made any! ;) --
Was slightly uncomfortable after reading the diffs below, but I think you're more than capable of moving onwards and upwards. '''
'''Support with cheese''' - learned from initial mistakes and shown good judgement since.
'''Yes'''--

'''Support''' I have seen this contributor several times in action and was impressed by his professional actions and reactions. I believe that he will be a good admin.
'''Support''' I think the Pornstar/Jimbo incident was a good learning experience, which will make him an even better admin.
'''Last day support''' - For those tough and pertinent questions asked to the Arbcom candidates :) --
'''Support'''.

'''Oppose'''. The candidate may have learned from the incident outlined by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and the criticisms from Jimbo. But it was still pretty recent and raises certain trust issues. I'd prefer to see more time pass before this candidate becomes an admin.
'''Oppose'''. I share many of the concerns of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Zaxem. While I don't deny Mouse acted in good faith and behaved fairly well throughout the incident, this doesn't change the fact it was (IMHO) a very serious incident. It hasn't been long enough so I still feel there are trust issues etc. The simple but sad fact is, sometimes no matter how well meaning we may be, we can make mistakes which can seriously affect other people. When we make the mistakes, often we have to live with the consequences of them. IMHO, one of the consequences of this is that Mouse is not suitable for adminship at this time. Perhaps in 6 months - a year but not now. Also, I share the concern about Mouse not raising it. There is AFAIK no limit on the number of issues you can raise. Obviously you should not mention every single incident you've been involved in. However this incident is serious enough that IMHO anyone who truly understood the seriousness of this incident would have mentioned it. Yes you probably should mention other longer disputes you were involved in as well but this incident should have beeb mentioned for sure. The fact it was not mentioned means IMHO that Mouse still does not truly appreciate the seriousness of this incident. Sadly therefore, I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' I cannot find it in me to support someone who Jimbo has been critical of in the past, and given the past lapses in judgment I fear for the potential if this spills over into administrator-ship. -- ✎ <b>[[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]]</b> <sup>([[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|Talk to Me]]) (
'''Support'''.
'''Suppa!''' - As nominator. FireFox is ''on fire'' (edit conflict). -- ''
'''Support''' (after edit conflict). &laquo;
'''Support''' (deja vu all over again)
'''Support'''. Splendid contribution to the Encyclopedia. --
'''Support''', as AE has been pretty gracious in the way he's interacted with me since our meltdown two months ago. It's time to let that water pass under the bridge!
'''Very strong support''' excellent user, I wanted to nominate him :p. POV concerns had been taken care of. --
'''Support''' Editor will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' Deserves to be an administrator. Good luck --
I said it then and I'll say it again: '''Support'''.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''

Obviously. &mdash;
Honored to '''support'''. Mature, honest, responsible. Never makes excuses. A ton of multifarious edits. Experiance in the Wikipedia namespace. What's not to like? --
'''Support'''.
'''Easy Support''' good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:JuanMuslim|JuanMuslim]] <sup>
'''Support''' Good user
'''Support''' .
'''Support'''. Remember all that convincing you did to get me to change my vote to support?(I love it when candidates defend themselves). No oppose votes so far? I envy you, thanks to ''Boothy443''.'''
'''Support''' Seen this user doing good work.--
'''Support'''.  Been seeing him around a lot lately, thought he already was one.
'''Support''', of course. -
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
I'm a little miffed I got here so late, but, as last time, I give my full support. Anonym's a trustworthy guy with a well-leveled head.
Support.
Easy decison.--
Support, as last time.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''; good editor and likely to be a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. First someone without a name, now an anon. Who's next? (oh no, that's right... [[User:Who|Who]]'s already an admin).
'''Support''' -- Dedicated wikipedian. Has recently diversified the kind of articles he's involved in, which is a welcome change. I hope he will discharge his admin responsibilities in the most neutral manner.
'''Support''' again.   --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Great editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' This one is going to get a bit lengthy. AE's answer to my question was a bit puzzling, as I was looking for an article which history would tell me much about how he interacts with other users. However, I asked the question I asked and got the answer I deserved. From my interpreation, AE feels very strongly about article writing and improvement, even on articles that don't attract large amounts of controversy. While I on the otherhand, tend to be smack dab in the middle of it, which led to my confusion While I believe a large portion of responsibility of adminstration is dispute resolution, an equally large part is making sure wikipedia doesn't fall apart from neglect either. We need all sorts of administrators, so I strongly support AE's nomination.--
'''Support'''. It's my pleasure to support a great candidate and I'm very pleased to see this nomination doing so well.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' now. --
'''Support''' And don't change the name.

'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Increasingly good work; adminship should be no big deal.
'''Oppose''' until user gets a name. I mean, '''support'''. &mdash;
'''Anonymous Support'''.-
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', again.
'''Support''' Good editor will make good admin --
'''Support'''. Hey, a bandwagon this time!
'''Support''' - he is not anonymous but well known! --
'''Support'''. Yes, Anon deserves the admin tools this time around. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Always polite, and I have not seen any POV issues since his last RFA. I think he deserves it this time. '''''
'''Support''' Although I'm troubled by the "Anonymous Editor vs. Babajobu" commentary that's been made here as well...  Votes should be based on an individual editor's merits, not on whether or not a vote for one admin candidate will balance out a vote for another, or that if one votes for one the should also vote for the other.  It doesn't "weird me out", but it does strike me as an expression of a rather poor grasp on what's going on here on RfA...  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make a great editor. --
'''Support''' He's the only anon editor I listen to :-)  The tally here is indictative of when Wikipedia works. I was at the last rfa and it was clear that he often got a bit too far into the fray, regardless of whether he was right or not. He's learned since then to mellow out while keeping his high quality contributions from the looks of things. Congrats, my friend. You've earned it.
'''Support''', for the same reasons as in his previous RFA. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support'''.  In the few instances when he is too impulsive he proves to be reasonable... and that's just to harp on his most negative traits.
'''Support'''; same reasons as I supported his previous RfA.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  Switch to support, see below.  --
'''Support'''  --
'''s.u.p.p.o.r.t.(s.)''' (perhaps it means - Someone Unable to Please all People Over Really Touchy umm... Subjects) Deserves it, as he is willing to fall off the POV-NPOV tightrope, and show us all how its done.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
Personally I don't like your user name but I don't think your nomination will fail anyway. --
'''Support''' I looked at the discussion on [[Talk:Jesus]] and didn't find anything that troubled me. His last 2000 edits show improvement (never bad) in the use of edit summaries. --
'''Support''' - Wasn't even aware of the vote till I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarl_Meier&diff=33375312&oldid=32827759 thiss message] on [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meiers]] [[User talk:Karl Meier|talk]] page. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', as before. --
'''Support''' - maybe you could change your username to ''Non-anonymous editor''. :) -
<s>I would have voted oppose, but the oppose votes are pure POV push so I am unwilling to do so. The user's name is not acceptable for adminship, and I request that he have it changed before I change my vote to support. "You have been blocked by Anonymous Editor?" [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Support''' realized that I requested a name change on previous RFA and user agreed.
'''Support''' - --
'''Support'''
<font color="darkred">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A good player to have in the fold. --Jay '''(


''' strong oppose''' I have been involved in numerous revert wars and conflicts with this editor . This guy is an Islamist and he is a member of a group of editors which continuously patrols Islam related sites to delete , white wash or revise any insertion that portrays his ideology unfavourably. He colludes with a number of other editors , including Yuber, BrandoYusuf and others to gang up on pages to impose their points of view by strength of numbers. If other editors have experienced impartial contributions , then this has not been evident to me in my experience.
'''Strong oppose'''. He obviously doesn't respect important wiki-policies such as NPOV, and I am very sure that he will indeed abuse his adminship to enforce his views and ideas in articles re Islam. I feel that it's sad to see the amount of support votes he has recieved here, but ufortunately I can't say that I am that surprised. --
'''Oppose'''. I still feel he should have taken more time before attempting to do this again. I don't give that much importance to editcounts but even if did I wouldn't be convinced by the fact that more than half his edits are not on articles but on talk pages etc. A sign that he argues more than he edits, maybe?
'''oppose'''. I am not convinced that AnonymousEditor2 is capable of keeping POV out of his/her work. I don't like some of the behaviors he/she has exhibited. I realize people can change, and I encourage them to do so. Maybe I will support this user at a later date.
'''Oppose''' My objections about POV pushing and edit-warring from his last RfA haven't been fixed. -
'''Neutral''' I supported the previous nomination, had supported above and still think he will be a good admin but I feel that removing comments from a potentially highly-charged RfA was very inadvisable for his own sake and generally disappointing.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor_2&diff=33490158&oldid=33486982]
'''Beat-the-nom''' support, Art LaPella is an excellent user. I see no red flags in their editing, and since adminship is "no big deal", I'm happy to support to allow Art to simply copyedit the main page - and hopefully expand on that in the future. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' as nom. -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. per nom. Good user. Should have been made admin long back. Cheers. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' obviously. Candidate has a clear rationale for needing adminship, and there's no reason, other than a total failure to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], not to give it to him.
'''Support''' as the most explicitly stated need for the mop I've seen yet. Go for it.
'''Support''' Good editor, steady flow of contributions, knows his way around... I can't see any cons.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - good editor, why not?
'''Support''' per nominator's statement. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Nomination gives excellent description of a clear need for admin privileges.  Editor has been around for years as a trouble-free contributor; I don't expect he will suddenly turn rogue and start abusing the tools.
'''Support'''. Has been here for a long time, knows the ropes. Will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Good at janitorial work, needs a mop. -
'''Support'''. Looks good. --

'''Support''' on the basis of not having an admintype specifically for copy editing the main page, it must be all or nothing. And I feel this user can be trusted with "all". --
'''Support''' experienced, will not abuse tools, has fixed mistakes of mine, and has been curteous about it.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Art LaPella is one of the most courteous, patient and affable editors I have ever had the pleasure of encountering. Much more important than a knowledge of the minutiae of Wikipedia policy is being reasonable, levelheaded, and willing to consult policy or look for help when it is needed. In my experience, he is all of these things. The only thing I don't like about this nom is that the idea of nominating him didn't occur to me first. &ndash;
'''Support''' - has helped many a [[WP:DYK|dyk]] improve.
'''Support''' satisfies my requirements
'''Support''', experienced and trustworthy, will be good for the Main Page, doesn't look like he'll rush to do bad things in those areas where he is less experienced.
'''Support''' per his contributions to DYK <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' He's got a good rationale for needing the tools, and a good record to demonstrate that he will not abuse them.  I also agree with [[User:Joke137]] that openly consulting the policies in question is a good thing.
'''Support'''.  I'm willing to make a leap of faith here.
'''Support''' Reliable, long time editor; expect him to use discretion with the tools. --<font color="#06C">
'''support''' adminship is no big deal for responsible, trustworthy editors. He has 2+ years of dedicated work with no apparently problems, if he wants to help out more, more power to him. --
'''Support''' seems responsible. --
'''Support'''.  Comments on IAR and DICK are a breath of sanity (contrary to the recent trend on the former), he seems unlikely to misuse the tools, and whether he uses the blunt end of the mop with any great gusto isn't some I see as a basis for withholding support.
'''Support'''.  No evident risk of abuse, given Art's area of interest and past behaviour, and a credible reason for needing the tools.  I invoke again the No Big Deal clause. <b>
'''Support''' Per answers to my questions.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''. Although I understand some opposers' point, I don't see any reason Art can't be trusted with the mop & bucket. —
'''Support'''. Not ready to be a general purpose admin but more than ready enough to take on what he wants to do -- which is important overall to the Project. The Main Page is our front hall. Also, he's cautious enough to not move into other areas of adminship without checking carefully with others. He's no cowboy and he's eminently civil. His new powers will free up other admins to fight vandals, etc. --
'''Support'''. Based on his (limited) participation in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|pseudoscience]] case Art seems to be a cautious and level headed person who is unlikely to abuse power.
'''Support'''.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support'''; seems like he's got a head on his shoulders and isn't going to abuse the tools (though mistakes might be made). Good enough for me. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I feel that the candidate will not harm Wikipedia, and he has a clear use for the extra rights. He may not know as much of our convoluted policies as the average candidate, but he is aware of that and I trust that he will take that into account when exercising admin privileges. --
'''Support''', we need specialist admins and we need part-time admins, and there is no indication of any likelihood of misuse of tools, so absolutely support.
'''Support'''.  We're not nominating people for Wikipedia Dictator people, just giving them some simple access to tools.  Anyone reasonable should automatically be granted upon request, since we can always take back adminship easily if it turns out to be a problem. --
'''Support.''' Narrow, but clear and trustworthy need for adminship. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Weak support''' consistent with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FArt_LaPella&diff=85337630&oldid=85332067 my comment] supra and inasmuch as I have come to conclude that, whilst Art is not sufficiently well versed in policy as to be able properly to use the tools in most areas, he is possessed of sufficiently good, deliberative judgment as to know whereof he does not know and where it is he ought not to act, such that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will almost certainly be positive.  I hope and trust that, should this RfA succeed, Art will, in view of the concerns expressed by those opposing, be exceedingly careful should he decide to undertake admin tasks in areas with which he is unfamiliar, and I am quite confident that his judgment is such that he will be careful and his demeanor and temperament are such that, should he be apprised that he has acted other-than-properly, he will act cordially straightaway to remedy his error.
'''Support'''. Good user, cautiousness doesn't seem to be a negative in this case. Seems quite intelligent and able to interpret policy fairly.
'''Support''' Seems he will handle the mop well - solid sensible editor. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Oops - looks like I missed the deadline by 9 minutes - darn!
'''Support''' Passes my criteria
'''Support''' I for one think we need to be more willing to grant admin privledges to users with a narrow need who demonstrate the maturity and civility requisite for the trust involved.  I trust Art to use the admin privledges where he has the need and knowledge and to not use them where he is not informed. —
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the low number of wiki-space edits suggests a lack of experience with wiki-process at present.  Candidates need to have a good knowledge of some area of wiki-space before they accept the added responsibility of the mop.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz as wiki-space edits are important about wiki-process.--
'''Oppose''' While the candidate is to be commended for spending time to answer the optional questions, nearly all of his answers did not sit well with me and are not tendencies I'd feel comfortable with a user with extra buttons having
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink. Art's answers seem to convey clearly that he doesn't feel ready. If this is so, he would have been advised to wait a couple of months more. While I don't ask for someone booming with confidence and a sense of authority, I would like to see an administrator help out with "anything," which means taking on stressful situations. Consider this - this doesn't mean that you have to resolve stressful situations by yourself, but your "hands-off" sentiment doesn't sit well.
'''Firm Oppose''' per [[WP:XYZKKJ]] and per Xoloz, whose assessment of candidates' policy knowledge is usually correct. Unlike me, you are a good editor. Please stay an editor. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, the tools are not something that you can limit use to certain functions, it's a whole package. And, with no offense to the candidate, we don't know how you will function with the tools or how you will behave with them. It's not a lack of trust, but it's really a lack of understanding what kind of admin you could be. This is nothing against you, considering I think you are an absolutely fantastic editor, but it is just an issue with a lack of knowledge for the position. A proper analogy would be if an excellent doctor tried to pass the bar exam (with no knowledge of what is on the exam), they are a great doctor and well trusted, but they are ill suited for being a lawyer. That situation applies here.
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about lack of Wikipedia space activity and policy knowledge.
I'm afraid I share the above concern about lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. He is a great editor, without a doubt, but I don't think he is ready for adminship or that he has a clear understanding of what an undertaking it is.  I think admin candidates need to demonstrate a willingness to "get involved" because the community will get you involved when you're an admin.  I don't feel that the candidate's answers demonstrate the requisite willingness. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per weak rationale.
'''Oppose''' per concerns expressed by Xoloz and Hoopydink.
'''Oppose''' per the answers to the questions, which show that the user is unfamliar with important policy and is reluctant to get involved with controversial actions, both or which are very important for an admin. --
'''Oppose''', unfortunately, per Xoloz, Hoopydink, Aguerriero; seems a fine editor, but for admin, inexperience, weak rationale, underestimates involvement.
'''Oppose''' The real trouble is that, unfortunately, you get the whole package when your account is flagged. If this were simply a matter of being able to edit the mainpage, I'd support in a heartbeat, but it's more. I really want to think you have the policy knowledge necessary (and I'm sure you could in several months), but I just don't see it there. All of this isn't to devalue your contributions. You've done a lot of good for Wikipedia and I most certainly hope you will stay with us. I'd encourage you to learn a little bit more policy and return in several months.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good user, but the rationale for getting the mop is too weak. ~
'''Neutral''' Looks like an excellent user, but I am hesitant to give the mop to someone without a good grasp of the deletion and blocking policies.
'''Neutral''' Art is a valuable editor and I can see his reasoning behind his IAR and DICK answers. On the other hand, handing off situations to others isn't "management" – it's avoidance. Custodians who usually specialize in floor waxing sometimes have to clean out the clogged drains in the bathroom, and they have to know how to do it when other custodians aren't around to do it for them.
'''Neutral''' I'd really like to vote yes, because Art is doing so much good around here and could do more.  The trouble is that you can't be a partial administrator.  Either you have all the powers and responsibilities, or you have none.  I can't see Art deliberately misusing his powers, but if he doesn't know 100% what he's doing, he could easily make a slip.--
Proud to be the first to support.
'''Support'''. All around good user.'''
'''Fully Support''' Amazing credentials and brief overview of the user's edits leads me to believe that this user will in no way abuse the tools
'''Support'''
'''Suppport''', as nominator.
'''Support''' Very knowledgeable person and appears to be level-headed. Would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' I think Hoopydink said it best.
'''Support'''. I agree with Viridae's agreement with Hoopydink.
'''Support.''' It's good to have the extra tools- especially for those committed to building an encyclopedia.--
Brand new mop - 13 dollars. Camouflage-colored flamethrower - 650 dollars. [[Erdős number]] of 1 - priceless. For everything else, there's '''Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - need more mathematicians and scientists here. '''
'''<s>Awesome!</s> Strong Support''' --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] and [[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]].
'''Support'''. Arthur's committed to building a good encyclopaedia and won't abuse the extra tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - nice work :-)
'''Support''' - he has clearly proven himself to be a responsible member of the community and can be trusted with admin tools. --
'''Support''', does lots of good "administrative" work already.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support''' – a responsible and experienced Wikipedian; we're lucky to have him. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''. Having reviewed his contributions, I can say that they seem very consistently good. No signs of problems.
'''Support'''.I'm not sure we desperately need another mathematician admin right now, but it's best to be prepared, and hard to think of a better candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', all fine here.
'''Support''' shows civility in his talk page communication, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' as he is the master of the subject I will never ''ever'' understand ;). Seriously though, civil, helpful & dedicated - I rest my case. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''': We require as many specialists as possible as sysop. --
Extreme oppose, by which I mean '''support'''. Not only is he a subject matter expert, he is one who is willing to do all the nitty-gritty stuff on Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''.
Civility is the key. --
'''Support'''. Civil, friendly, very intelligent, and an Erdős number of 1, what more could anyone ask for?! --
'''Support'''.However, I would like to quote [[Archimedes Plutonium]] on this matter:[http://www.gatago.com/sci/logic/3275348.html] "''If coughing while trying to sing the song Silent Night is a flaw in singing, then Arthur Rubin above coughed during the entire song."''--
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Strong support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good egg, and have respected his edits.
'''[[Pythagoras]] support''' despite adding up my Q wrong. :) --<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Don't see anything wrong here.
Enthusiastic '''Support'''. will bring a little expertise to the project.
'''Support!'''Per nom.
'''Support''' an admin who isn't enthusiastic for the tools is less likely to abuse them.
'''Support''' It all ADDS UP..get it? ADDS UP and he is a mathematician! oh :P
Per Blnguyen and Hoopydink. We need more technical admins. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' for all the reasons above.--
'''Support''' - appears to be a helpful and friendly user.An example is at [[User talk:Arthur_Rubin#Four_types_of_error]], where he helped out someone who was upset about a proposed deletion of an article and suggested methods for improving it and fixing the concerns.--
'''Support''' G
'''Support'''. Solid user, and there's nothing wrong with being a little under-eagre to be an admin.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' You can count on my support. --
'''01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01010100 01100001 01110111 01101011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01010011 01110101 01110000 01110000 01101111 01110010 01110100 01110011''' --
'''Support''' excellent editor
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''.Looks like a successful nomination to me, but let's just add one more!:)
'''Support''' I was glad to see his name here. My cat agrees, but I fear our votes don't count separately... ~
'''Support''', of course. --
'''Support''' per my interactions with him. &mdash;
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''[[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. <s>It must be fun because everyone is doing it.</s> Just joking :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
I very much like the cautious willingness to massively trim inappropriate material from articles. --
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' everyone with an [[Erdős number]] of 1.--
'''Support'''I would rather see an expert who is reluctant to use the tools than someone with little knowledge and great willingness to use them.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Strong support''' &mdash; I can't believe I haven't voted in this one yet! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
Yes
'''Support''' changed per below -
'''Support''' per Cyde (and [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my usual reasons]], of course).
'''Support'''. Lack of desperation to be an admin is a plus, for me, when (almost) all the other boxes are ticked. '''
'''Support''' I like his answers to the additional questions.
'''Support'''. I like to see more people with mature academic credentials on the project, this one is obviously an asset.
'''Support''' An excellent member of the community.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Michael Snow.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. —
'''Support''' absolutely
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Responsible candidate who interacts well.
'''Support'''. Thanks for answering my questions. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|20px]] '''Support''' An excellent member of the community, does very good edits, should be an admin &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">'''''M'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' ! -
'''Support''' we need more mathematically-inclined admins.
'''Support''' An excellent editor who interacts well with the rest of the community and not overly eager to get his adminship. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Strong support''' :-) --
'''Support''' unreservedly.-
'''Support'''. I hate to seem like I'm jumping on the bandwagon, but I'm doing it anyway. The logical mind of a mathematician will make an ideal addition to the legion of admins. --
'''Support'''. Candidate seems to be qualified, and I don't see anything to indicate that their adminship would be harmful to Wikipedia - -
'''Support''' - Seems friendly and would be a good admin -
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
''''Support'''' looks good.
'''Clear support''' inasmuch as a general reticence in using admin tools is propitious, and since, where a user is altogether unlikely to abuse the tools (or avolitionally to misuse them, acting in area about which he is insufficiently knowledgable), there is no reason he ought to be denied adminship; even if he uses the tools once per month, the use will surely be salutary, which should dispose the issue, since the only relevant concern in whether the net effect of a user's becoming an admin will be positive or negative (as best expressed supra by [[User:Triona|Triona]]).If one edits a page also edited by Rubin, does he earn an [[Erdős number]] of two?
'''Support''' per above. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Somewhat Oppose''' Could use some more article edits, doesn't appear to need or want sysop tools at the present. I'd possibly support with some more experience.
Needs to have written or have contributed heavily to an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.
'''Neutral''', leaning on Support. Reversion does not require the tools, unless you want rollback.--
'''Neutral''' As he does seem to have experience in the right areas, I can't help but noticing how he does not seem too enthusiastic for the tools (as pointed out above). I do like my administrative staff to want their responsibilities, but I would support if he looked like he wanted them. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' More article edits will be better.--
'''Cliché support''', I can't believe I got to be first. Thanks for posting your responses to the optional questions before I even had a chance to ask (for some reason, I had a feeling you would). Of course, Ashibaka has been on here for quite a long time, and because you are the founder of the [[m:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist|Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist]], I must vote support. That and the fact that I have no doubts that you'll take on admin and maintenance tasks with gusto! --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', an astonishingly good candidate. The contribs list is extensive and varied, and has (more recently) good edit summary usage. There is excellent argumentation in AfD debates and the like (I particularly liked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_friend_society&diff=prev&oldid=35106256 this diff]) and the talk page shows friendliness and civility. Then, there's the answers to the questions. I feel I should move to blank them, for fear they will be used as model answers by those too lazy to work them out for themselves. They capture the essence of good understanding of policy, guideline and practise as well as demonstrating the flexibility of approach that is so important. I laughed out loud (actually) at the answer to Q4, which should be framed somewhere. A damn fine admin-in-waiting. -
'''Support''' obviously.
I've seen you around and like your style. Still, given how you seem to HAFFLATAHTR (Have a fondness for long acronyms that are hard to remember), I wasn't sure what to think, but [[User talk:Ashibaka/WikiProject Rectangular Corners|this]] sold me. If I may be so bold, consider using the magic .js stuff to force you to put in edit summaries, and work on making them a bit more explanatory, and I bet you won't get a single oppose vote. OK maybe not, but '''support''' anyway. ++
'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' because You're long overdue.  --
'''Support'''
'''lawdy... support!'''
'''Support''', excellent candidate, no doubt. – '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' edits look good.--
'''Strong Support''' best self-nom canditate in a while --
'''Support''' They've changed the questions, haven't they? --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' - a worthy user --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', looks good. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, brims with new ideas.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' looks good
'''Support''' good contributor on Japan-related articles --
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''. No objections.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', looks great!
'''Support'''; superb.
'''Support''', I can't find any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' the mighty and awesome AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD overlord.
'''Support''', looks good.  --
Standard "WTF, you're not an admin?" comment.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Clearly qualified for the position. -
'''YES INDEED'''. Level-headed plus sense of humour equals big win. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;
'''Support''' enthusiastic, level-headed and not a deletion fanatic
'''Support''', no need to accept your self-nomination reluctantly.  We're all human.  I think.
'''Support''', now I've had a chance to review your contributions I can finally add my support :) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No reason to expect any misuse of the extra buttons. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Why would I vote against a very trustworthy Wikipedian deserving adminship? <font color="#000000" face="Quake">
'''Support''' I was under the impression that this user was already an administrator. There's no reason why a promotion would be a problem that I can see. <TT>
'''Support''' especially for his answer to q.1 on "Requested Moves." On my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gurubrahma|RfA]], I answered that I would work on RM but due to various reasons I couldn't. Hence, this vote, so that the RM cat is lean and mean. --
'''support''' is a good contributor
'''support''' experienced and seems unlikely to abuse admin status <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''. Well deserved.
'''Support''' couldn't believe this user wasn't an admin already....

'''Support'''. Would make a great sysop.&#160;—
'''Support'''. Obviously experienced, good Q1 answer (not just "reverting vandalism," though that is extremely important as well), and creator of AWWD... on top of it. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' Nice anti-vandal work. -
'''Support'''. This one should be easy. -
'''Support''' Clearly. '''''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support'''. No argument here
'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  If we started an Association of Wikipedians Who Want Ashikaba to be an Admin would that overtake your group in members?  I think it might. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Squeezing in last second support'''.
'''Mildly Strong Oppose''', Not good at handling disagreements (See Talk Pages for details)

'''Strong support''' as nom. -- ''
'''Support''' - clearly a dedicated editor.
'''Support''' seems good though a little more Wiki-talk would be better, not severely lacking though and definitely not enough to warrant an oppose.
'''Support''' 7500 edits spread thoroughly between all areas of editing space seems good enough to qualify as an admin.
'''Support''' - Unless any disturbing revelations are unearthed, passes my only criteria: very unlikely to abuse the tools or other editors and at least passably well-informed about policy.
'''Support'''. No reservations, an excellent all-around editor. He has a higher Wikipedia Talk edit count than I do and I've been an administrator since last September.
Of course - <b>
Per the Crazy person above. &mdash;
'''Obvious, strong and swift support''' Will make an excellent admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' It's quite a lot since I first noted Asterion, and have always held his work in great esteem, especially the edits has done in such inflamatory areas as the Balkans, where Asterion is one of the very few non-admin editors without Balkan links active. I also greatly appreciate his zero-tolerance for PA: to much leniency has been displayed in Balkans-related issues towards incivility and PA, and I hope Asterion will give a hand in changing this.--
'''Support'''. I'd prefer it if you had never gotten blocked, but 9 months ago is long enough. -
'''Support''' per Nearly headless nick :). &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. I know him as a dependable, reasonable and intelligent editor.
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong at all. <tired cliche here> --
'''Support'''.  Seems well qualified and unobjectionable. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good, no immediate problems and a good spread of edits in the main spaces.
'''Support''' A Good candidate. Excellent quality edits.
'''Support''' - you have convinced the Russian. No more reason is needed to support.
'''Support''' - per Moreschi ;-) --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' per everything listed.  Seems like a fantastic user who obviously knows his way around the tools.
'''Support''' looks completely good.--
'''Support''' looks good all around.
'''Support''' Looking mop-worthy. -
'''Support''' No obvious reasons to oppose... '''
'''Support''' Long overdue. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Nothing to add to the above really. Good all-round candidate.
'''Support'''. Definitely qualified. '''
'''Support''' per all the above comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. I'm now crazy abotu the relatively high avg edits/article, but reallythere's ntohign wrong that I can find about you as an admin. --
'''Support.''' Positive interactions and experience, a well-considered candidate.--
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Another goody.
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
Sure, why not? (
'''A favor''' - definitely.
'''Support''' as per others.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Sure'''.  Seems eminently sane. It would be nice to have a resident admin on those North African topics. -
'''Support''' Keeping cool is crucial for admins, especially in sensitive areas. <font color="green">
'''Support''': Candidate looks good. '''<font color="#DC143C">
'''Support''' (edit conflict) Everything looks good here. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support''': Beyond passable! --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Seen him around.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above.
support --
'''Support''' obviously a good candidate for adminship. Nice job Szvest. ←
'''Support''' - Asterion is the type of user that could do with the extra buttons.
'''Support''' A very helpful wikipedist, from my experience!--
'''Support''' I thought you already were (alas, this sounds like the mother of all clichés).
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good anwsers to questions, and good amount of expierence. //
'''Support''' - long overdue. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - If those that opposed my RfA support here I have no worries at all.
I'm
'''Support''', seems good to me.
'''Support'''. No concerns. Will be a good admin.
'''Support''' great work.
'''Support'''. Very good user; will make a great admin. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
'''Support'''. Solid answers, a wealth of positive contributions, and cool-like-a-cucumber attitude make this a strong endorsement for adminship.
'''Support'''. ~
'''Support''' per pretty much everything above.
'''Support'''. Good, talented, complex editor. -
'''Support''' Solid candidate, good answers
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Strong support''' Such dedication
'''Support''' A great Wikipedian that has shown leadership throughout their editing history. --
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. Will make good use of the tools. Smart guy. -
Question 4 worries me, but question 6 was answered exactly as I expect an admin to act. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as nom &mdash;
'''Support'''.  In all my interactions with Atlant, I've found him very knowledgeable and helpful.  If I recall correctly, he's one of the first people I encountered here and he made a good impression on my newbie self. I'm pleased to support him for adminship.
'''Support''', has sufficient experience to become an admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', I find Atlant to be a competent user capable of making level-headed responses even under pressure.
'''Support.''' The opposition has not presented any hard evidence that this user will irreparably damage the encyclopedia. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Good edit history and experience.  We need more dedicated vandal-fighting admins like this.  --[[User:SquidSK|Squid]][[User:SquidSK/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''S'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. People are taking the IAR comment ''way'' too seriously. '''''
'''Support''' per Nauticashades. He seems to be a good vandal fighter.
I'm going to IAR and vote '''support''' here, since this seems like a solid, well-experienced user who's well intentioned and I do not think they will they will abuse SNOW or IAR or ROTFLOL or TTYL.
'''Support''' I ''like'' the response to question 4. I don't think Atlant would abuse IAR and I really can't get very worried about possible variations in the length of time it takes to delete someone's vanity article.
'''Support''' I think he's adequately responded to the concerns about IAR so I don't think he'll abuse it. Apart from that, a well deserving editor. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#1198e8">jam</font>]]
'''Support'''. I like the answers to the questions, especially to 4,5, & 6. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' meets my standards.--
'''Support''' - per good answers to the questions --

'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' Per the above and the fact that he lives nearby to me -- the more admins nearby to help local editors and topics, the better. An asset to the encyclopedia. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support -Strongly'''--Perfect answers shows that, user will have a good judgement on all areas in wiki.Good luck to you.
'''Support''' Stance on IAR is perfect.
'''Support'''. Answer to question 4 appears rational and moderate to me, so no objections here. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' I like the way this user responded to the questions and the opposes seem to me to be based on opposition to the official policy and unfairly penalising the candidate for indicating support for existing policy. This project needs more admins who are concerned to follow consensus rather than their personal interpretation of what is right. --
'''Support''' lots of being helpful at [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science]] is more important than 100% edit summaries or views on an essay such as [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support'''.  In my experience with Atlant, I found him to be reasonable in confronting POV-pushing editors.  I believe Atlant has demonstrated sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to weild the tools, and I don't see an over-reliance on IAR in the response to question 4 at all (I would oppose if I thought otherwise). &middot; '''<font color="#707070">
'''Support'''. Although I am a bit concerned about attitude toward [[WP:IAR]] and [[WP:SNOW]], I believe that the user can be trusted and will be a responsible admin.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]]. Things can be undeleted.  Speedies can be undeleted with minimal discussion (they were deleted with minimial discussion, after all).  I don't see a danger.
'''Support''' Good answers, seems to have a good understanding of the place.
'''Support''' Candidate has established a trust among the community and has obviously been a dedicated volunteer to the project.  I'm a bit concerned with the candidate potentially using the snowball essay, but we have deletion review, so no big deal
'''Support''' Great user, opposers are not compelling to me. --
'''Support'''. Sensible understanding of rules and how they relate to good judgement, has been around for long enough that I recall him w/o having any negative impressions. I would strongly prefer that people who support our SNOW/IAR policies be admins rather than vice-versa - I hope candidate will be bold when needed WRT these. --
''' Support''' I am familiar with Atlant's editing and record. I think Atlant's ''down to earth and common sense'' approach to editing and dealing with people is what we need. I see his views on IAR as just an indicator of not just blindly applying the rules as maybe some admins do. He seems very patient and courteous with editors with whom he has had disagreements, and if he retains these qualities under the pressure of a new, and somewhat difficult, set of tasks, I think will make a wise Admin. Short circuiting of discussions( as in WP:SNOW), I think we can leave to Atlants judgement. He has a mature approach to these things I think.--
'''Support'''. Great editor, I won't bother regurgitating all the above comments.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' Shows good judgement.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''&mdash;After reading Atlant’s responses and looking through a subset of edits, although I can see how some might be uncomfortable, I believe we have a sufficient track record that we can trust Atlant to delete/undelete/block/unblock. An ancillary value of the Wikipedia RfA process is that it spotlights emerging issues.  Badlydrawnjeff ‘s opposition and the discussion on [[WP:IAR]] revealed a debate  on [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming]] that I’d missed. Doubt that we need to brainstorm IAR since the [[Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules| suggestions on how to ignore all rules]] is already pretty good&mdash;especially as guidance for Admins, but…  Skål - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' without any hesitation.
'''Support'''. I like him, but he once removed a statement I made on a talk page because it <s>alledgedly</s> was racist. On second thought, it was the right thing to do. -
'''Support'''. As someone also wary of folks casually abusing [[WP:IAR]], I think his response on the [[WP:IAR]] question is very reasonable and does not portend the sort of problems this RfA's opponents have expressed concern about. --
'''Oppose''' per question 4 answer.  Seems too willing to depend on IAR and SNOW, which worries me for administrative actions, especially as he wants to work with the speedies in the future. --
'''Oppose''' per Jeff and not enough use of edit summarys. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' Editor has among his supporters some of the most marvelous Wikipedians I know, so I don't take this lightly; however, editor's flippant attitude toward IAR in conversation with Jeff is disturbing.  It may be ''policy'', but it is a '''subtle and deep''' policy by its own terms.  Heavy reliance on it is a dangerous trait in an admin.  I am open to persuasion on this RfA, but I was not impressed by editor's response so far.  By the way, any user of IAR should remember: 1) it is always possible to apply the rule to itself, and ignore its existence; and 2) [[Wikipedia:Interpret all rules]] now exists, a much better formulation of the virtues of IAR, IMO.
'''Oppose''' per badlydrawnjeff.
'''Support''' as nominator, you can't beat me to the punch. &mdash; '''''
'''Support''' I don't usually vote on RfA's, but Kmf recently came to my attention re:indexing the Wikipedia namespace, and e seems eminently sensible.  Keep up the good work (and don't get sucked into the madness!)
'''Support''' We don't always agree, and sometimes I think she's a little too conservative, but Kmf's heart is in the right place.  She cares about Wikipedia and its users, and it shows in everything she does here.  She has my hearty support.  --
'''Support''' I was about to nominate her myself after my wikibreak, but I was too slow!
'''Support''' - my interactions have all been positive, and the contributions all look good.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Strong Support''' clearly an awesome user.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' looks really good.
'''Support''' good editor, good image contributions.  Level headed, will be good admin. --
'''Support'''. Seems like a good user with decent experience. Props for fighting the linkspam. --
'''Support'''. Friendly and intelligent. --
'''Support''' Great answers to questions, edit history is very impressive, fantastic contributer. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' easy decision.  Thanks.
'''Support''' I've seen her name around, looks like a good choice. -
'''Support'''. A pleasure to work with and a valued ally in the fight against vandals. Go get 'em!--
'''Support''' This user looks good. -- '''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Indeed, Aude has been a pleasure to work with on the main page redesign project, and she undoubtedly will be a fine sysop.  &mdash;
--
Sorry I have to.... bring up the cliché. Damn yes, I really thought you were already one.
'''Support'''. Of course.
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''. Appears very qualified based on a random selection of edits.
'''Support''' of course.--
'''Support'''--
--
'''Support'''- Looks good.--
'''Support'''. great work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', good record <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''Edit summaries, seems like a level headed person, per others.
'''Support,''' great user.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.--
'''Strong Support''' Of course! You deserve this. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - looks like she'll be an excellent admin.
'''Sheep Vote^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^I Mean Support''' &nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' It would be great if you were an admin!
'''Support'''
'''Support''', excelletn candidate - no question. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''support''':  Good rapport and plenty of contributions; perhaps a mite overdue.
'''Support''' - Good vandal patroller.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%">'''—
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' per her always sensible and thought-out AfD decisions.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on answers to questions below. --
'''Support'''. I trust her. -
'''Support''' so do I. Good editor. --
Nice, friendly user who's been with us since Aug 2004, (active editor after June 2005). Heavy mainspace contributions; Aude is very experienced with anti-vandalism, and my understanding is that she's very, very good at this, as some answers below indicate. '''[[Roper v. Simmons]]''' is a beautiful article (well done!). Beneficial article edits elsewhere. I note that her Wikipedia space contributions are comparatively rather fewer; on a quick assessment I estimate edits to that space to be less than 6-7% on average over her active period. She has participated in some 30 AFDs; in those I checked I saw no cause for concern. Has placed 6 items on the copyrights board for review (all images). Has edited WP:AN 4 times, WP:ANI 2 times. However, although her WPspace edits are somewhat less frequent than many nominees, I do not see this as a reason, necessarily, to oppose such a strong candidate. WP has grown so much, so fast, that most would-be sysops will not be able to devote time to all facets of administrative duties; specialization is inevitable in complex organizations. Her answers suggest to me that if she does start to take a more active role in other areas, she will do so with an abundance of care and good sense. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' among the very best.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' -- Nice can be good.
'''Support'''. Will make good use of tools.
'''Support'''. What's with all the grilling down below - are you running to be Jimbo's replacement? ;-)
'''Support''' - female solidarity :) [if seriously, impressed over comm portal and other redesigns]
'''Support''', seems a good contributor.
'''Support''' - Good Luck :) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Like your user-page, good answers to Qs below, excellent photography/map creation :)--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions. (welcome the female, too)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship.
A small amount for her long time here at Wikipedia only thing holding me back sorry. Looks like you will make it though :)
'''Support'''. Fine editor, well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines etc.
'''''Natürlich''''' - <b>
'''Support''' appears to be an excellent user. Also, has 666 user talk edits.
'''Support'''. Have observed this user beating me on RC etc in the past. Seems the user would use the extra couple of buttons well and effectively. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|ЯEDVERS]]</font></b> 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ''Addendum'': Specialism in editing is a '''good thing'''. Not every editor should be a generalist. Admins with specialties are to be encouraged. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support'''. Not a fan of deletionism, as Hoopydink mentioned, but you appear to more than make up for it elsewhere.
'''Support'''. User has experience in all of the community maintenance areas, and their polite, preagmatic attitude seems to override any prejudices they state on their userpage.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good contribs, civil, can make good use of tools, feel he can be trusted with adminship.--
'''Support'''. I've never had the pleasure of meeting him until now, but the above references and my own small review give me a very favorable impression.
'''Support''' As per nomination. Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' -- I've neither interacted nor known about Avraham before. Let me tell you that their first edit was about a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Actuary&diff=prev&oldid=19724912 statistical fact] while their last edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_wikipedia/Administrator_Nominee&diff=prev&oldid=60727218 expressin an opinion instead of voting]. Deserved and ''chapeau'' mate! -- ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' per nom and answers to questions. Good luck! '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''
'''Strong Support'''. Despite a specific difference in opinion in the past, I believe that he would make a great admin. He has always remained civil and has been a pleasure to edit with. --
'''Support''' I liked his answers to the questions. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' brilliant user. '''
'''Support''' Civil user? legit! --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' Ya' can't argue with facts.
'''Strong Support''' - I am fine with Avi's strict stance on removing unworthy content from Wikipedia. Have you guys done NPP. There is so much rubbish there. Secondly, he may be of deletionist ideology, but do you have any evidence he would practice deletion against consensus? He also '''keep'''s notable stuff like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte]].'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Looks good, and "deletionist", all the more reason to support :).'''
'''Support''', didn't know him until now, but he looks like a thoughtful and earnest contributor based on my review.  That he will be a specialty admin is a bonus.  I also trust [[insanity|the nom]] and his judgment --
'''Support''' per nom.
I would and do oppose deletionism as a personal policy, but this editor's history tells me he considers the pros and cons on a case-by-case basis, satisfying my requirement therefor. '''Support'''. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate, clean history. --
'''Support'''. Appears (and I'm sure he is) a very good editor. Will make a fantastic admin.
'''Support'''. Can make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support''' Doesn't really pass my 4500 total edit requirement but this user seems ready for the mop. <font color="green">
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''', per nom.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - fine user that needs admin tools --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Changed from '''Weak Neutral''': I like focus on improving quality rather than quantity. Deletionist tendencies seem to be tempered by willingness to add corroborating material to strengthen articles.
'''Support''' seems fine
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' -- per nom --
'''Support''', duzhe dobry user. --
'''Support''' as per [[User:Crzrussian]].
'''Sup-per-nom'''. ←
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - In my interactions with this editor, I have only found him to be polite, courteous and dignified at all times. Wikipedia needs more like him. --
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Solid content editor.
'''Support''' He is good wikipedian, and also good contributor. I would support him to be admin. Wikipedia needs this kind of admin.
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''- excellent Wikipedian.
'''Support''' We need more admins like this!
'''Support'''. Claiming that someone is a deletionist is not a valid reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - =_= <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A kind, trustworthy user who would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. What more can we ask for? --
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''' per my brief overview of this user's edits - seems that almost all edits are dedicated to voting delete on AfD's, or editing actuary or Judaism related articles, along with helping out with templates... obviously a good editor, although his hardline deletionism and lack of diversity in editing leads me to vote this way (also, while mentioning that he/she'd help out with [[WP:AIV]], I've seen little to believe that this editor has any interest/much experience with reverting vandalism).
'''Oppose''' I can't find a single Afd where he voted keep.  If someone votes to delete every article they see on Afd, I certainly don't want them to have the power to delete pages at will.
'''Oppose''' based on his admitted willingness to throw out the wheat with the chaff as expressed here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHuaiwei&diff=36693205&oldid=36553025]. I would rather that admins at least paid lip service to keeping the wheat. Also because of the absurdities of the [[WP:NG]] page - the ridiculous fake policy template etc. - and finally because of the overuse of userboxes on the user page - [[User:Avraham]] - which to my mind, violates most of his own complaints about wikipedia not being a free webhost. --
'''Oppose fiercely'''. I have supported deletionists (and have usually regretted it) but will not support anyone who thinks it's okay to throw out the "wheat with the chaff". This attitude is damaging to any but the most narrow conception of an encyclopaedia. We might differently interpret what the "sum of all human knowledge" is but someone who believes that that is not ''vast'' should not be given a delete button.
'''Oppose''' (Note - support is crossed out above.) While I appreciate Avi's sincerity an answering my questions, I don't think I agree that discounting the given keep argument would be appropriate, considering that "notability criteria" are based on an essay, and without regard to the age of the stub. No offense, I'm just not sure that I personally would trust user closing AfDs.
'''Neutral'''. Generally a good contributor, but the fact that he posted in essay in Wikipedia space ([[WP:NG]]) along with a big template saying "This is not policy but it ''should'' be policy" makes me unhappy. Such things in the common namespaces such as Wikipedia are confusing and give the appearance that the essay is more than just an essay. The fact that he proceeded to add a 3RR template message to the longstanding and respected contributor Kappa in the ensuing dispute also counts in his disfavor.
'''Support''' -- as nominator. Well overdue in my opinion. -
'''Support''' An active and hardworking Australian Wikipedian.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. As another Australian Wikipedian, I have seen how valuable this user is to the project. --
'''Support''' seems like a good contributor, and uses edit summaries which is a plus.--
'''Support''': yes. --
'''Support''' excellent contributor. (
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per all reasons listed above.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''support'''. Solid contributions, calm and considered in zir interactions with other users. Is an asset to Wikipedia in every way.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Perfect candidate for an RFA.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'' per above. --
'''Support''', of course. -
--
'''Support''' A fine contributor --
<s>'''Oppose''' - this place is slowly turning into Ockerpedia!</s> '''Support''' a fine, fine Wikipedian.
'''Support''' --
Glad to '''support''' a great Wikipedian. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">[[User talk: E. Brown|Hurricane]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#000000">[[Special:Emailuser/E._Brown|E]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="FF0000">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen her around, good impression.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- Didn't know AYA was a she.
'''Support''' a hard working Australian Wikipedia of the highest quality.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' why not? [[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:black">Compu</span>]]
'''Support'''. Edit history looks good. She seems ready for extra responsibility --
'''Support''', per above.  A well-rounded user. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Has kept a cool head in some edit wars.

'''Support''' - Excellent Australian editor (another Australian).
'''Support.''' We've had our disagreements, but she'd nonetheless make a good admin.
'''Support.''' No issue.--
'''Support.''' Top editor.
'''Support''' wonderful user.
'''Support''' I don't always share her views, but she would surely be a great admin. Her extensive and invaluable contributions over the past year have proven that. Good candidate. --
'''Support'''. Good work.<small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Is it just me, or do female Wikipedians get a far easier ride of it on RfA?  Is this, a) because they are nicer and more civil or b) Because they're girlies.  I'm assuming good faith and going with a).  AYArktos definitely deserves the mop, though, not impugning that.
'''Support'''. Will likely make good use of tools.
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support''' per nom. One of those editors who seems to be everywhere doing useful things. --
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''. Dedicated wikipedian. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
You mean she wasn't one already?  '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' well overdue. She is a great Aussie editor across several projects. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' sounds good, gets my support, good luck to you.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
It's getting mighty full up on this wagon...
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' if there's still time.
'''Suppa!''' - As nominator! -- ''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' I thought he wasn't coming back until a few weeks from now, I would have nominated!

'''Support''' I was very impressed by Babajobu's offer to "supervise" LE's punctuation at the Arbcom hearing.  I do hope, though, that he doesn't get into many grammatical arguments anymore! :)
'''Okatepe, babun!''' &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''', extremely reasonable editor. &laquo;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' no question about it, solid editor. -
--
'''Support''', this will do fine.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Suppport''' - does he do good work? Yes. Will this help the wiki? Yes.

Actually, being a stickler for grammar is one ''more'' reason to '''support''' for me. ;) &mdash;
'''Suppport''': I really like editors who care about picky little details like punctuation and such. Though I disagreed with him on a few points about how to write numbers, I am impressed that he listened to others and learned from the exchange.
'''Support''' will not abuse admin privileges.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Calm, detail-oriented.  Give him a mop.
'''Support''' Very good at talk page discussion, keeping neutral.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Passed my quiz on IRC quiz, and has managed to settle a fight with another user. Both show remarkable ability to handle conflict--
'''Support''' A model of civility.
Good guy, and it's always fun to get into a discussion with him :).--
(edit confl) In all seriousness, not already one? <font color="darkred">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. When Babajobu edits a page on my watchlist, I don't even need to check it because I know it'll be well-written, relevant, NPOV, and sourced if necessary. Add to that that he's always civil and interacts well, and it's clear he'll make a great admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
Definite '''support''' -- cheerful, civil, good work.
'''Support''' --
Now I can support.
'''Support''' Great user with a good sense of humour. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. Hurray, another bandwagon!
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - definitely a character I had already thought was an admin. Interacts well with the community.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good bloke. Always keeps a cool head. '''''
'''Support''' Yay!  I found a sturdy rail on the bandwagon!  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
[[Image:LoveMexico.png|24px]] Sure, I'll support. -- <small> (
'''Support'''. Anyone doing Louis Epstein punctuation patrol deserves a reward for their service to the community.
'''Support'''. Kind and courteous.  Will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Long overdue. -
'''Support''', give him the mop already. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support'''.  Good contributor, very helpful.  Will make good use of admin tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good contributions, nice guy. :-)
--
'''Support'''  Change to support, see below.  --
'''Support''' Nice to have the opportunity to give a vote of support to an editor who faced a difficult afd with class.
Cool.
'''Strong Support'''  What can be said , other than this editor demonstrates integrity under fire.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Consistently writes helpful edit summaries. --
'''Suppport''' Good editor. I know him from the Louis Epstein case arbcom.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', actually edits articles.
'''Support''', as per nominator.  Appears to be a trustworthy individual who will make good use of the toolset.
'''Support'''. As admin, Baba will be useful to the en.wikipedia community.
'''Support''' - Sounds like he could help us all out.  --'''
'''Support'''.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Admired his patient work on [[Islamofascism_%28term%29]]--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I was impressed by his offer to clean up after Louis Epstein; clearly shows his commitment to the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' - I found Babajou to be overly combative in the [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG (2nd nomination)|SIIEG MfD]]; he seems to think it important to <s>"cleanse" Wikipedia of pro-Muslim bias</s> remove a pro-Muslim bias from Wikipedia.  This makes me very uncomfortable with this editor, and I feel obligated to oppose.
'''Neutral''' I don't know if I support or oppose. I can't support because I'm not too familiar with his edits with the exception of his Islam-related edits. I can't oppose because he might be a good admin. He has lots of patience. --[[User:JuanMuslim|JuanMuslim]] <sup>
'''Neutral''' - owing to previous incidents.. I'm not sure long enough has passed since then.  Wont oppose. --
'''Strong, Strong, Strong Support'''. Wooot! I'm so excited to be voting for Banes. He definately deserves the mop. Terrific, wonderful user. (and I'm first!!!!!!) --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' - I cannot think of a good reason not to.
'''Support double whipped with cherries'''. Superb candidate. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Yes please!!!''' this is already overdue! – '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. <cliche>Already thought he was one</cliche> '''
'''Yes.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Support''', apparently.
'''Support''' He will do fine--
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, whom I am certain will take constructive criticism to heart, and warn newbies better in future.
'''Extreme "He's so fantastic, don't you think?" support'''. Opposition? What opposition? <Glares at lunitics in the oppose pile> --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' could be trusted with admin status, appropriate answers to questions. Familiarity with warning templates will improve with more experience <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''- seems a good editor
'''Support''' The warning problem is a concern that I think he can deal with. Good editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I agree with Anonymous editor. Banes needs to learn how to deal with [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] using the warning templates. But I know from interaction with Banes in [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] that he is a quick learner and he can be trusted not to block someone for the wrong reasons. --
'''Support''' Kindness and decency should always be rewarded and there are few here that are more kind or decent. Banes states that he would use (test4) and then give a "final warning" when notifying vandals and that is because he is so decent. There is zero chance in my opinion that Banes will abuse his admin tools.--
'''Support''' - a very good user --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''-Know him and trust him to not abuse extra tools.--

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''', declining his first nomination because he wanted more experience suggests a sufficient level of maturity, and his edits seem fine.  But please look into using the templates more if you're gonna go big on the vandal fighting.
'''Support''' Good edit history and will be a good admin.
'''Definite Support'''. A very good user.  His quick review of policy will fix all the concerns below, but he has already shown a strong ability to work well with active and new users, and will be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Yeh I thought about this one a lot after all my ramblings below. On reflection I have decided that this admins many strengths far out-way the problems described in my original oppose vote (I still think they are problem, but I trust others above who say this will be fixed). Ultimately though I thought will I be pleased if this user fails this RfA and doesn't becomes an admin?, and the answer was no. Following on from that, will this user do any damage as an admin?- and as far as I can tell the answer to that is no. Can this user do some good as an admin? Certainly! --
'''Support''' my coach, of course support (surprised he isn't a sysop yet) three cheers from the House of
'''Strong Support''', I think Banes would make a great administrator. - <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#007700"><b>Ø</b></font></i>
'''"I'm-late-because-I-was-doing-[[Calculus]]-homework" Support'''. I'm convinced he has enough experience to be an admin, and the few rough edges can be always be fixed by asking first and shooting later, which is what I've always seen him do. No reservations from here.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' great candidate for admin.  --

'''Strong support'''. Knowing the warning templates is a lot less important to me than removing the rubbish.
'''Support'''--
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' now that he has received far too much advice from me and others about using the test templates, and is taking that advice seriously. Keep up on policy, it's good to Ignore All Rules but admins need to follow rules to avoid the appearance of bad behavior. --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' dedicated and a hard worker  &mdash;
'''Thought he was one'''
'''Suppose'''--
'''Support'''.  He has a very good grasp of adminship responsibilities.  --
'''Support'''.'''

'''Support'''. A good editor.
'''Support.''' Gladly. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Niceness trumps everything else -- that's the foundation that you need to build a Wikipedian on, and Banes has it in spades. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''', especially in light of Petros471's change of heart. —
'''Support''' sure there are areas for improvement, but certainly has enough experience --
'''Support''' I've decided to support in light of my conversations with him. I think he'll continue  to improve, with regards to warning vandals. Also his demeanor through out this has been what I think is the proper temperament for an admin.
'''Support''' excellent article editor, would probably make a judicious admin with a good sense of the needs of the content side of WP, rather than just the disciplinary side.
'''Support'''; great user. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support''': His name is out and leaves no bad aftertaste.
'''Support'''.
'''weak support'''. Hopefully you'll find something more interesting to do with your time than block and rollback vandals.
'''Strong Support''' a dedicated and helpful user, he'll make an excellent admin. &mdash; ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Fine guy.
'''Support'''.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''', sorry. Reverts vandals, but doesn't warn them on their talk pages, and the answer to question 4 seems to indicate that he doesn't really know which warning templates he should use (test4 is already the final warning). Intends to delete nonsense/vanity articles but admittedly doesn't know when he should delete an article like that (per answer to question 6). I'd have no qualms with supporting in the future, since he's a good user, but he just doesn't seem like he'd be a good admin right now. -
'''Oppose''' per Bobet. Sorry, Banes, you're a good editor, but I agree that you need some more experience, particularly with Wikipedia policies and procedures. Among other things, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies and procedures. Taking a look at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]] will show you some of the things admins do and talk about. I'm sure if you do these things, you'll get a resounding level of support in the future. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
<s>Reluctant</s> '''Oppose''' per the answer to question six, below, and somewhat for above as well.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with policy and process. Has hardly any Wikispace edits that aren't AFD/RFA votes.
'''Oppose''' per lack of basic Wikiknowledge as shown by answers to the questions, including unfamiliarity with CSD and test4 vs bv. Potential admins should already know about such things, not learn them during their nomination.
Perfectly acceptable answer to my question regarding users conduct from the long long ago. '''No opinion'''
won't oppose but cannot support. i think the answer to Q4 is in poor judgement, as i [[Template_talk:Blatantvandal#worse than useless|discuss here]]. i realize it is has become common practice to start with block warnings. that doesn't make it wise.
'''neutral'''. Would like to support, but som worrying points have been raised.
'''Neutral comment''' reading the votes opposed and then comparing the discussion here to the discussion at the roll back proposal poll makes my head spin.  Here we have a user who fights vandals, and we won't grant admin powers to do that more easily.  Over at rollback poll, the argument is that anyone who can be trusted to fight vandals will have no problem becoming an admin, and they should do so because there is a shortage.  Here the problem is that the user doesn't template vandals...  I'm convinced that a fair proportion of vandals are only encouraged by warn templates, it seems a trifling matter to vote no on.  I havn't read enough of this users history to vote "yes" in good conscience, but so far all the "no" votes make it pretty clear that admin status has become a big deal, and that to many users it is to be granted only when there is really no excuse at all not to. [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (move from '''neutral''' to here, voted '''support'''
<s>'''Support'''. Fine guy.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' - another good hand with the mop always helps.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Good work on [[scientific method]].
'''Support''' good enough edit history for something that's not '''supposed''' to be a big deal.
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support'''. Why not? --
'''Support''' as per the above commenters. As for the opposition, I respect the position of [[User:SlimVirgin]], but I feel that something has gone wrong if a general feeling of "unease" is sufficient to oppose someone's adminship. It's supposed to be no big deal. If that has changed, we should try to find out why, and then change it back. <TT>
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - When I first joined the Philosophy Project, I thought Banno was ''already'' an admin! He certainly acted like one, and has been the spiritual leader of the Philosophy Project for several months.  What I like most about his style is that he lets others edit without leaping into battle against them.  He lets their edits ride awhile, to get a feel for how well they work.  And then he brings up his points of contention, giving you a chance to discuss and/or revise them.  Which reminds me, I've got to edit the Philosophy Project's Policies per Banno's recent comments.  Thanks for the feedback, Banno!

'''Support'''. Maybe Banno can figure out the existential nature of the mop. Thus spoke
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. But what do ''I'' know. --Jay '''(
'''Support''', he may not be a wiki-holic or whatever, but he does nothing but good here.
'''Support'''. He's demonstrated leadership and common sense. --
'''Support''' See no reason to not trust you as an admin.--
'''Support''' "It might be fun" is, IMHO, the perfect answer to "Why do you want to become an admin?"
'''Support''' very good and dedicated editor.
'''Support''' --
'''Strongest Support''' I mostly interacted with Banno durring the dotsix affair, and I think he ought to become an admin on the basis of that alone.  He dealt ''extensively'' with a user that was clearly a troll and did so with an incredibly level head.  Once it became clear that banning was the only solution, he put in a tremendous amount of time getting it through RfC and RfAr.  I am absolutely confident that he will not abuse his powers.  Furthermore, his dealings with philosophy related articles is to be commended.  Philosophy articles are ''very'' hard to write well and everyone thinks they know what should be on them (even though few actually do), Banno has done a suburb job with those I have seen. --best, kevin <b>[</b>
'''Support''' Specializes in a subject that gave me so much hell (perhaps in a Swedenborg kind of way) last quarter and he does it well. So, of course. --
'''Support''' I have never met or observed Banno first hand, but he seems quite capable.
'''Support''', been here long enough and made good contributions. No reason to expect that to change. -
'''Support'''. Candidate has agreed to try expanding the topical range of his edits. I hope to encounter him more often. &mdash; '''''
'''Easy Support'''.
'''Oppose'''.
Oppose -  Per [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] --
'''Weak Oppose''' Per SlimVirgin. She's a very good judge on these matters and I respect her reservations.
'''Neutral'''. Although the 3701 edits look good at first glance, only 630 distinct pages have been edited, making that a 5.87 edits/page. More than two years with just 630 distinct pages doesn't suggest too much participation. However, I do like the level of project participation.
'''Support''' as nominator :-) --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Grr I wanted to nominate you support'''
'''Super-duper cliche (everybody should know what goes here) Support'''
'''support'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a good choice.--
'''Support''' Responsable editor, should make good use of the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''!
'''Support'''. Can be counted on to get things done (heck, is always underfoot asking what needs doing ;-)); I trust him to use the tools well.
'''Support''' time for another user to get the mop, bucket and keys. --<font color="66AAFF">
<s>'''Oppose''', doesn't know the difference between "presently" and "currently".</s> Oh, it's not April Fool's?? Nuts. Okay, '''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', knows how to use the tools already and is definitely trustworthy. --'''
'''Tréan tacaíocht''' Extremely helpful Irish Wikipedian, I'm dumbfounded that he wasn't already.
'''Support'''. A valuable contributor with good sense, in my opinion. -
Yesh, very good. Per nomination and all those above me and whatnot.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per all above --
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I thought {{{1|s/he}}} already ''WAS'' one... (Is that supposed to be substed?) --
I thought {{{1|s/he}}} already ''WAS'' one... probably Rory.
'''Support''', I was swayed by the candid commentary on past civility issues.<small>And also <nowiki>{{subst:Rfa cliche1}}</nowiki> </small> -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support''', with bells on --
'''Support''', with bells and whistles on --
Colo'''u'''rfulaluminium '''support''' - but please be nicer to UK users. --

'''Support''': good editor, thought he already was one.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' A dedicated user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - already an admin on Commons (and he hasn't torched the place!), answers emails for the Foundation (and we haven't been sued!), so I don't think he's going to abuse the tools.
''"Adminship is no big deal."''. -
'''Support''' good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
I see no reason to doubt this user's competence or good faith. I see no reason this user shouldn't be made an administrator.
'''Support''', Bastique is a very good editor who follows policy and assumes good faith. The diffs posted below do not overly concern me, I have seen a lot worse language used on talk pages about contentious articles.
Support per Mindspillage ''et. al''. Complete confidence in him.
'''Support'''. I've had the pleasure of getting to know him on en:, commons, and in IRC. Great guy, very neutral and level-headed. He knows what he's doing and we could use his experience. I don't think it's a good idea to bring crumbling skeletons out of the closet or deny him status soley for saying "piss". (OMG!!)--
'''Support''', will make a good admin.
'''Support''', I met Bastique on IRC as well. He has been helpful to me any time I've asked a question. The diffs provided below may be curt, but to me they are not indicative of someone who is lacking in responsibility or is vindictive. I think he'd make good use of the admin tools. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I believe Bastique can be a good admin. --
'''Support''', Bastique is a good admin on Commons and I don't see en.wp would be any different.
'''Support''' excellent and trusted multi-project contributor. Experienced as an admin, especially regarding images/copyright issues. -
'''cautious, [[WP:AGF]] SUPPORT'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzen_Johnson&diff=52408001&oldid=52388592 Here are the dif's] on the [[Suzen Johnson]] article.I can understand how the article might have caused some concern on the part of the subject. Concerns that were possibly addressed at OTRS by the subject. I see nothing on the discussion page, and a somewhat peremptory note in comments. Having seen the article as it stands today-- and it's a candidate for deletion-- I can see how it might be viewed as troubling by some. Having said all that, and understanding that as an OTRS user, for the Foundation, hemay be seeing feedback that the rest of us are insulated from, I'm going to ask this user to please be a little more communicative as an admin so that he is less likely to appear peremptory or as a POV pusher.
'''Suppport''', patient and helping to new users, who tend to need the most guidance. Has not abused the tools at Commons, good admin there.
'''Support''' per his answers on my questions'''
'''Support'''. I've seen nothing but good-humored and well-intentioned edits with the ''oppose'' evidence and most of it a year or so old, geesh. Bastique will be an excellent admin as evidenced by his overall editing and demeanor.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' per the reasoning that we do need more admins... seriously though I have no problem with him having the mop and bucket. <small>
'''Support''' a great, friendy editor &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''support''' mets said exactly what i was going to say
'''Support''' and good luck. :D <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' - after his frank replies etc., I'd feel churlish not supporting. I think he'll do the right thing, despite the glitches in the past.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Sure'''.
'''Support'''. I´ve seen Bastique around, always good contribs from him.
'''Support''' --

<strike>'''Neutral'''</strike>. Changing to cautious '''support''', as he is discussing, and per Dlohcierekim. <strike>I have only encountered Bastique yesterday, when he reverted away a fair bit of my editing on [[Suzen Johnson]], [[User_talk:AnonEMouse#Suzen_Johnson|explaining]] that he had gotten complaints about the article on [[m:OTRS]]. However, he didn't explain what exactly the issue he objected to was, just that it was "brutal". That left me in a bit of a quandary as to what exactly I needed to do to satisfy his objections, since I'm pretty sure [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzen_Johnson&oldid=52139393|the article version he reverted away] met WP standards of verifiability and NPOV. The general behaviour ("You did something I don't like, but I'm too busy to explain exactly what") is something I really don't want in an admin. That said, he ''was'' very civil, polite, and respectful, about what he did write, and has promised to help in more detail in the future, so this is why this is merely a neutral and not an oppose - at least he was nice about it. If he does actually work on the article constructively, I'll remove the objection. It had better be the near future, though, since the article is [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzen_Johnson|up for deletion]] in a close vote. </strike>
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke. --
'''You're not an admin??? Support''' For obvious reasons --
'''Support''' &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''' .... and he's a nice bloke.

'''RfA Cliché support''' '''
'''Strong support''' per cliché. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''

'''Support'''.
'''Support''', will make a fine admin.
'''Support''', with provisions, assuming that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WarriorScribe#Hiding_the_low_quality_work_at_Louisiana_Baptist_University.3F this] was an aberration and an example of someone just being human. -
'''Support''' I go away for two weeks and look who's running! I Can't Believe He Wasn't Already One...etc etc etc... Full throttle support, Daytona Stylee!
'''Support'''.
Reserved '''Support''' in light of the below. - <b>
'''absolute support''' --
'''Weak support'''; weak only because of the below stuff.
'''What the hell do you mean he's not an admin vote!''' '''
'''Support''' of course!!
'''Support.''' A little bothered by his/her lack of diplomacy in a few disputes, but, looking at the overall picture, I feel the good outweighs the bad. Unlike Ardenn, I think we need as many decent admins as we can get.
'''Support'''; one or two minor slips in civility are more than forgivable when balanced out with a few thousand edits of excellent work. - that's right, I'm starting a revolution and assessing a potential admin based on the 99.9 percent of their activity, not the 0.1 percent.
'''Vandal pwning support''' go go gadget mop
'''Support''' - I love that "<font size="+1" color="#008800">'''B'''</font>". '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - strong vandalfighter, both here and on Commons, and very active on OTRS. -
'''Strong Oppose''', per the diffs ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGasoline&diff=14664978&oldid=14664641], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGasoline&diff=14663263&oldid=14663227], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoghurt&diff=prev&oldid=13910677])and explanation in my comment below and ESPECIALLY this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=48997968] from less than a month ago. That is not the kind of behaviour that I associate with an admin. He may be a decent contributor to the project, but he is definitely NOT responsible enough to be entrusted with admin powers.
'''Oppose''' <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''' I read all the discussion concerning the petrol/gasoline controversy.The candidate did not come off very well.We don't need more (or, any) administrators like that.Civility is the prime characteristic of an effective administrator.
'''Oppose''' "I'm sometimes short with other editors" - this user is valuable but seems like he has a shortish temper, and has known to be uncivil on occasions. --
'''Strong oppose''' as per [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]]. The candidate made this remark on April 18, 2006: ''Some editors have nothing better to do than perform character assassinations and work hard to try and piss off the subjects of their articles. Don't you have anything positive to say about anyone, Alianus?'' I appreciate that it was indeed withdrawn: ''Alienus, while I won't delete this comment as it has already been 'seen', I do respectfully ask that you disregard it. It was written in some frustration and I apologize for any assumptions made.'' However, we need admins whose initial reaction to frustration is to moderate the debate. It shows that [[User:Bastique|'''B'''astique]] is self-aware and knows his weaknesses, but has not yet resolved them. I am sure he will, and at that time he will make a good admin.
'''Oppose''' Trust issues.--
'''Oppose''' I guess he will be one. He is not diplomatic.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]], This vote may not mean much, but diplomacy is very important. (I myself have had problems with admins who forgot diplomacy), and I consider myself very civil, come check my talkpage:-)
'''Oppose''' per BadgerPatrol.
'''Oppose''' per BadgerPatrol as well. As much as I'd love to, I can't really overlook that in this case. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' due to the note about the comment made by Bastique. Also, it would be preferable if this user used more edit summaries. (77% for major, 55% for minor)<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''' tending to oppose. His remarks on [[User talk:WarriorScribe#Hiding the low quality work at Louisiana Baptist University.3F|WarriorScribe's talk page]] don't seem very nice. No reason to oppose over just one dialogue though.
'''Neutral''' for the reasons listed above. Lots of great work so far, but not necessary to make a new admin that ''may'' get a bit hot under the collar.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Without these controversies, I would support.--
'''Neutral'''. Looking through the contributions I was pretty impressed. The Petrol/Yoghurt business is in the past, but the exchange with [[User:WarriorScribe]] was not conducted well and seemed to escalate needlessly. Being an Admin is only going to provide more situations where a calm head is needed.
'''Neutral'''. The edits this user made (shown in the oppose section) are a little disturbing, but I can't oppose.--
'''Neutral'''.I've seen Bastique around and have generally liked his work; I am surprised that he is not an admin.However, the diffs brought up by Kimchi and Badgerpatrol give me some concerns about his civility that I wasn't aware of before.It looks like this RfA will pass; but if it doesn't for whatever reason, then if Bastique improves his interactions with other users then I'd be willing to support a future request for adminship. --
'''Extreme I-beat-the-nominator! support'''.  ''Despite'' being a proud member of the CVU.
'''Suport''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.Looks Good.  And a fellow Texan.
'''I-also-beat-the-nominator Support'''. ''Despite'' being a Texan. (and also all-around excellent work on WP and good answers here) (
'''Support'''. Looks good. Hook 'em! &mdash; '''
'''Support''' as a Texan, Longhorn, and (most importantly) good editor and good admin candidate.

'''Support''', seems like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - looks like he's been a very good RC patroller. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' -- as nominator.
'''Support''' -- Fantastic user, very helpful in CVU IRC, and has helped me once or twice with specific problems (I really thought he was an admin). --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''', should make a fine administrator.
'''Support''', so he can go block vandals himself instead of bugging me :p--
'''Support''', despite it looks like I'm a lonely Sooner among this Longhorn gang! - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', give him the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]] already.
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
-- <small> (
'''Support''', of course. -
'''support''' to oppose this would be crazy, excellent admin material
'''Support''' We need more quality writters on wikipedia
'''Support''' Will make a great administrator
'''Support'''  Have seen Bbatsell in action recently regarding some vandalism on [[Coldplay]] and he/she acted in a swift an efficient manner. --
'''Support (thumbs Up)'''looks good from here too--
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've only been impressed with what I've seen of bbatsell's contributions. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like the right person to have admin powers
Good editor + (100% summary use / last 1000 edits) = '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good edit history and should make a good trustworthy admin and not at all swayed because he's a fellow Texan.--
'''Support''', good vandal fighter. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' -
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', a fine candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' We need more admins. The percentage of admins in [[Wikipedia]] is very, very, low and insignificant. If this goes on, admins in the future would have a very hard time maintaining [[Wikipedia]] from vandals. All the best!
'''Support''' Keep it up!
'''Oppose'''. Needs more project and project talk edits.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' - could use more project-space experience.  From what I can tell, most of those edits are vandal-reversions.   <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' per Quarl, I'm generally quite positive about this editor otherwise I'd have been leaning more towards oppose. --
Of course! --
Well, despite the fact that the candidate decided to "access" the nomination, '''support''' anyway. (grin) <tt>
Seems to be extremely friendly, and dedicated to reverting vandalism. I think he will also open up to other admin duties.
I'm confident he'll serve Wikipedia well as an admin. To be more succinct, per above :-)
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason not to --<font color="black">
'''I'll access support''' - looks good to me and can really use the tools --
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this RFA. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' Looks good; per Tawker.'''
'''Support''' Looks good, meets my standards, per [[User:Tawker|Tawker]]. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''. I cannot add much that has not already been said, he will use the tools well.
'''Support''' per Tawker. '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' Well-rounded edits, acceptable total edits, all around good evidence for fruitful adminship
'''Support'''.  User talk page shows a gift for being able to deal with upset users and bring them to a calm, rational discussion.  That's a good quality for adminship.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The E-mail is enabled, the rest seems good
'''Support''' changed from neutral with activation of email. --
'''Support'''. Low count in wikipedia namespace, however appears to be a knowledgable editor. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' – now he enabled his email –
Looks good. --<font color="#9966CC">
'''Support''' Changed to support after activated Wikipedia email.
'''Support''' Good committed user, impressed over his work on Northern Ireland page. --
'''Support'''--
'''Switch''' to support based on answers to my questions. Cautious user who will make sound decisions.
Good responses to questions below.  --
'''Support''', per above. --
'''Support'''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Answers to questions show his knowledge of the project and that he knows what it takes to be an admin. '''''
'''Strong Suppess''' Learn to type ;) <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Level-headed, good communicator - essential qualities.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Seems reasonable.
'''Support''' no problems here. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Per all above.  Looks good to me! --
'''Support'''. Like the answers to the questions below. Good editing record, would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits, but everything else is covered, so its not a dealbreaker. '''
'''Support''' I'm impressed.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Passed [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|my test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support''' - From what I have seen, he has always been an articulate editor and positive contributor to the project.  --
'''Support.''' Low edit count to Wikipedia namespace != lack of policy knowledge. Hasn't anyone ever heard of reading?
'''Support''' despite the fact that Mr. Bell apparently does not use the minor edit marker - Mathbot only finds 71 minor edits to the main namespace over his entire Wikipedia career. - <b>
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''.  Very helpful at a dispute on [[University of Kent]], and having had a look through his contribs I'd say he'd make a great admin.  '''
'''Support''' not that he needs it. Congrats on your adminship!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Oppose''', extremely low edit count to Wikipedia namespace indicates a probable lack of policy knowledge.
'''Neutral''', does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but has shown active RC patrolling. -
'''Neutral'''. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] and nominator [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] both have convincing arguments.
What about questions 2 and 3?
'''Strong Support''' - As co-nominator ——
'''I beat the nominator!'''
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' A future bureaucrat as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - per prior interactions with editor at [[WP:RFBOT]] --
'''Support''' Betacommand '''was not''' an admin before.... wow... this is news to me.  Snowball support --
Per Tawker. You must be kidding me! &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' - what do you mean he isn't an admin already!?! --[[User:Skenmy|Sk]][[User:Skenmy/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' This person should have been one ages ago! sorry about not signing
'''Support''' I don't think that the admin tools would be abused by this editor.
'''Support''' An excellent contributor to Wikipedia - also very surprised he wasn't Admin before! --
'''Support''' thought he was one. --
+1. Deserves the mop.

'''Very strong support''' - shocked that he didn't already have it <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' He does great work and I am honestly surprised he's not been using the extra buttons
'''Strong Support''' per above (I thought he was already an admin support :O)
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' I have seen this user around Wikipedia a lot, and while having not directly interacted with them, have been impressed with their contributions and way of dealing with things.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' and I'm not trying to use a cliche here - I really seriously did think he already was one. - <font style="color:#FF7518;background:#000;">
'''Support''' same feeling as Mike1.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Haven't really had any interaction with this user, but I have seen him/her around Wikipedia quite frequently. I trust this user would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' per Tawker. You're ''sure'' you're not one already?
'''Strong Support''' - a helpful user who always seeks to lend a hand. Great at bot works and would need the admin tools.
'''Support''' with no doubt.--
'''Support'''. Looks like he will be a good admin. '''''
'''Support''' per nom. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' quite apt and fair... curious what diffs the (first) neutral voter may provide though.
'''Support''', seems like he'd make a good admin. --

'''Support''' I have nothing but good things to say about Beta. He has always presented himself to me in a very levelheaded and professional manner, specifically in matters concerning [[WP:VP2]]. -- [[User:Moeron|<font color="darkblue" size="2" face="Constantia">''moe''</font><font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">.'''RON'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Moeron|'''<font color="red">''talk''</font>''']] | [[User:Moeron/Completed Goals|'''<font color="green">''done''</font>]] |
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''!!Deserve the admin tools--<font color="66AAFF">
Without reservations. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' per nom. Beta would make an excellent admin.
'''Very Strong Support''' Having had contact with Beta through his role with Vandal Proof I have found him to be a great resource.  When I had an issue I could find him live on IRC and the issue was fixed right away.  A reveiw of this page and his work show no chance of abuse of admin powers in my mind.
'''Support'''&mdash;Familiar with the issues. Constructive. No indication that Betacommand is unreasonably inflexible. Unlikely to abuse the buttons... [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' per answers to questions. Very helpful with VP2, to boot. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Support''', I don't think Betacommand would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' All run-ins I've had with this user have been positive. He helped me complete a huge task with his bot, and he was prompt at answering my questions and civil the whole time. The oppose reasons as they are now (bot malfunctions and a failure to adhere to English prescription) don't really sway me away from supporting Betacommand. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Strong Support''' - great user.
'''Support''' Passes my criteria
'''Support''' does good work, bot work a plus. Adminship no big deal, unlikely to abuse it. --
'''Support''' good user.  Some bot-related mis-haps, but since when are we expecting admins to be perfect?--
'''Support''' He deserves to be an admin, and knows how to abuse admin tools.
'''Pile on Support''' Normally I'd skip commenting in RfAs that are so obviously going to pass per [[WP:SNOW]]. However I guess this is testimony to how much I support his acquiring the tools... ''bring 'em on!''
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' Does much important work, and I think it is unlikely he will irreparably damage Wikipedia. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.'''   Based on their answer to my question, it likely shows they would handle criticism of their work with a cool head.
'''Strong Support''' Please, should there really be any doubt?  He'd be a great sysop! -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' A strong asset to wikipedia, will be a great admin.--
'''Support on wheels''' Whoah, you aren't already an admin? With your edit count? Hurry up, man! :P -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Candidate has clearly demonstrated that he can be trusted, and has useful experience with bot-related matters. Although I knew he wasn't already an administrator, I think the time has come –

'''Support'''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - no problems here. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - How'd I miss this? --
'''Weak support''' You'll surely use the tools productively; that is clear from q1 and your contributions. But [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sockpuppet&diff=66635406&oldid=66603173 Quarl's diff], as well as the ones I cited in q4, make me unable to give a full support. So be careful, and good luck.
'''Support''' per above. The oppose and neutral reasons mentioned below seem weak. Past problems have been few and of the type that demonstrate readiness to dust oneself off and learn. This is a fine, conscientious contributor who will use admin tools responsibly.
'''Support''' Low mainspace talk, but this is balanced by good userspace talk. Seems like a good editor.
'''Support''':  The user contributes both to helping field queries and in appropriate AfD actions.  He seems to cleave to conferring and acting modestly.
'''Support''' Oui....per above support votes.--
Sorry, I must agree with AmiDaniel.  You are very nice, but you need to communicate more intelligibly.  Also, please be more careful with your bot, especially being in BAG. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sockpuppet&diff=66635406&oldid=66603173] <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Oppose'''. I have a good deal of prior experience watching this user, and thought all day before adding this opinion. Betacommand seems like an excellent user, but I've always been troubled by the communication issues. The diff provided by Quarl is alarming, and seems characteristic of Betacommand's talk contributions. Administrators represent Wikipedia through their communication. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=20061012212245&limit=500&target=Betacommand&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=1 article talk] contributions and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061013132728&limit=500&target=Betacommand&namespace=5 Wikipedia talk] contributions seem to indicate a fairly low level of English comprehension. I don't believe your communication will properly represent enWiki, particularly in response to user inquiries. Remember, you are going to have to justify your actions, and clarify policy to other users. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. I can't find many article space contributions other than vandalism reverts and massive AWB sweeps. I'm not saying that you aren't a great vandal fighter, but there's more to this encyclopedia. As for being a member of the B/AG, you contributed to a brief, barely publicized election and won with 5 votes in favor. I'm not sure that's such a big deal, although I'm sure others would disagree.
'''Oppose'''I am opposed to the deletionist philosophy.  If that's what I wanted, I can just buy Microsoft encarta.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
Sorry, Betacommand, but I'm afraid I cannot support this RfA. Throughout my many interactions with this user, I've found him to be a nice, levelheaded guy, but at the same time I'm consistently bothered by his inability to think things through before acting and even moreso by his inability to adequately explain himself, his intentions, and his actions. His responses to questions are always overly brief and dismissive, which indicates to me either an inability or an unwillingness to discuss and clarify, which is, in my opinion, quite a shortcoming in a prospective administrator. Although there seem to be many reasons to hand this excellent contributor the mop, and although adminship truly is not a big deal, I just really cannot bring myself to support at this time. I hope to be able to support in the future, but I currently do not see evidence of the interpersonal skill necessary of an administrator. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' based on [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]]. I find it amazing that a user can rack up over 7000 edits and yet has less than 50 mainspace talk edits - seems to be evidence of very little article building experience. I am also concerned about the communication problems referred to by AmiDaniel, but am waiting for diffs to form an opinion on that point.
'''Neutral'''.  After considerable thought into the matter, I've removed my opposition on the grounds that additional information has shown that this user has adequately dealt with bot problems. Still, I agree with some of the concerns mentioned, such as those by AmiDaniel.  At this time, I can't support, although I'd like to. --
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor. Calm, polite, friendly.
'''Extreme Nominator Support''' Hell yeah! --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' as co-nom. --
'''Rfa cliché #1'''. <tt>
'''Yes, most definitely'''. --
'''Strong support''', absolutely. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-

'''Support''' I don't see any problems as far as I can see. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Fully capable of mop and bucketing!
'''Support'''
'''<s>Moral</s> Support''' Bwahaha.
'''Support'''.  Has lots of stellar reviews at [[WP:ER]], and is very familiar with processes like AFD and RFA.  Also has portal talk edits, so the last excuse for not supporting is gone.  --
'''Strong Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' of course, and meets [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Totally edit conflicted support''', excellent candidate, good editor, experienced in administrative tasks, and always polite and encouraging.
'''Support''' with full confidence.
Oh heck ya! Been after this one to stand for a while now. More candidates like this one please!&trade; '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support from downunder''' for the fellow Aussie. -
'''Weak Support''' I'm a little concerned with the lack of Article:Talk edits (other than Project templates).  The most he has ever edited in Talk is 6 for Dravid.  He is civil in his dealings with others, but I don't see much evidence of the ability to compromise or work through problems.
'''RfA support cliché #2'''. Seen him doing good stuff everywhere (not really). --
'''Support''' A great contributor whose work I've seen and admired. Can be trusted with the mop; making him an admin will improve Wikipedia. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', he's dipped his hands in many areas of Wikipedia and <s>is worthy of the mop</s> the mop is worthy of him. --
'''Strong Support''' a devoted Wikipedian with diverse interests and contributions, with more than enough experience for the role.--
'''Support''' per above, a good balance of contributions across all facets of WP life, a well rounded editor who will make an efficient admin. --
'''Strong Support''' everything above.
'''Absolutely.'''
<s>Oppose - too many damn Aussie admins already</s> oh, all right - '''support''' :)
'''Support'''. What can i say?--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Great editor and a promising potential admin. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I look forward to working with admin Blnguyen.
'''Support''' edit history looks good, no sign of potential for abuse of admin tools.--
'''Support''' Of course!!!! '''
'''Sounds like a great candidate'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - a fantastic editor should become a fantastic sysop
'''Support'''. Sure, he may be a "silent editor" but I've definitely noticed this editor around. From my experience, Blnguyen is a very solid contributor and would make a great admin. -→
'''Return Support''' <b><font color="teal">
--<font color="blue">
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Nomination and co-nomination say it all. Blnguyen has both the knowledge and temperament suitable for the mop. Let's give it to him.
'''Support,''' well-rounded and conscientious contributor, will make a fine admin.--
'''Support!''' It was about time, B! :)
'''Support''', based on my experience with Blnguyen. --
'''Strong support''' and excellent work with the Gastroturfing.
'''Strong Support''', I have seen him a lot on the project, and my interactions with him have been positive. Great Wikipedian and he will make a fine admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', also based on my experiences with Blnguyen.  --
'''Strong support''' - Very mature user and will become a great admin. -
'''Support'''. Only positive experience with this user. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support'''.  Looks ready to move up.
'''Support''' 10,000+ editors is a rareity :), serious wiki-addict it appears.--
'''Support''', of course. --
'''Support''' A great contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - obviously a brilliant contributor. Will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''', very nice nomination too. You have my full confidence.--
'''Support''' despite two edit conflicts.  Strong contributor, good work on AfD.  Hadn't noticed the silence, particularly with regard to RfA fishing but seems to be a strong candidate for mop status.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''': Naturally.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - great user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
<b>Support</b> Very active. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Obvious choice. [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''. Great editor and will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. What can I say.
'''Support'''.  Absolutely, everyone else has said it already. -
'''Support'''. On one condition – that he does not revert to the almost indecipherable signature that he was using until very recently. (Users need to be able to read an admin's username.)
'''Support''' Long awaited.
'''Support'''. He is a perfect example to all wikipedians!
'''Support On Wheels On Wheels''' lol you deserve it richly. - <b>
'''Support''' per above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Trustworthy, polite, patient, kind -- perfect candidate.
'''No worries support'''. <b>
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With 10,000+ edits he deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' per Jordy. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Absolute support'''. Our paths cross often in our various editing capacities. I think he'll make a great admin.
'''Support''' --
'''What, ... <RFA CLICHE REMOVED> Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per Xoloz and Jordy
'''Support'''. Can't oppose.
'''Support'''.  Looks like a good contributor who is ready.
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''; I've seen nothing but good contributions. —&nbsp;
'''Support''', of course. -- [[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per noms and own positive experience with Blnguyen. &mdash;
'''Full support'''. I have come across this editor frequently and he will be an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; yes, absolutely.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' - he's done some great work on WP and is a really good contributor. (
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. From his posts at [[WP:AN]] I had thought he was already an admin!
'''Support'''. Bumped into him on vandal duty a few times and he has always shown control and consistancy. My pleasure to support.
'''Support'''. Hardworking contributor on a number of Wikiprojects and well deserving of adminship.
'''Support''' good work.
'''Support'''. A fantastic contributor who has repeatedly displayed the skills required to make a good admin.
'''Fair dinkum support'''. Wow! 10k+ edits already! Obviously a committed member of the project! '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''
Another bandwagon '''support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''- I see this guy everywhere, and I'm always impressed with his contributions.
'''support''' did you say '''10,000+''' edits? --
'''Tie me kangeroo down support''' - Friendly, helpful editor who already does a useful share of vandal hunting and would therefore benefit from an extra button or two. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|≡]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|Я]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|Ξ]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''. I've seen Bing in action on several occasions and everything I've seen suggests to me that he'll be a good admin.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' I've crossed paths with Blnguyen in my counter-vandalism efforts; I have no doubts he'll make a great admin. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and he's a trustworthy and responsible editor. --
'''Why haven't I supported yet? Support'''- Will make a good one. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - give him a mop
'''Support''' Looking at his history, I am quite impressed by this guy.  Even though it's not needed, I stand squarely behind him.  --
'''Support''' - Trustworthy fellow Australian ed. that deserves a go. --
'''Support''' - haven't interacted much with him but he sure displays a cool head from the little I have seen at [[Ajith]]. Also, I trust the nominator. --
'''Support!!!''' Cos he has the same birthday as me, haha. :D--
'''Support''' per nom <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' Though I have no experience with him, he seems good, and [[User:Anwar|Anwar]] below is blatantly POV about him. [[User:Alethiophile|Al]][[User:Alethiophile/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''; confident in this user's potential as an admin. [[Special:Contributions/Aquilina|<font color="gray"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">A</span></font>]][[User talk:Aquilina|<font color="teal"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">q</span></font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''', although at this point I'm just piling on... :) ''and yet it was edit-conflicted!'' --
'''I thought he was already an adim support''' [[user:ILovePlankton|<font color="red">I</font><font color="orange">Lo</font><font color="limegreen">ve</font>]][[Plankton]] <sup>(</sup>
Have your '''Support'''!!!
'''Support''' do a good job!  --
'''Support'''. A ''salve'' for vandalitis.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per norm --
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian.  --
'''Support''' Oh Yes! --
--
'''Support''', I especially like the friendly or at least neutral talk page comments. --
'''Support''' See him around often.
'''Support'''. I have run across this user very frequently and have seen nothing unhelpful. No reason at all to oppose.
'''Support'''. Good editor. Will make a good admin, I think. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Awesome editing.
'''Support''', of course, per, for example, MONGO.  Well on his way to becoming the [[Ian Thorpe]] of Wikipedia (whatever that means).  :)
'''Support''' pile-on!  Seems like the right kinda-person for admin. ---
'''Unnecessary but morally reassuring Support''' – willing to do boring stuff AND WikiProjects, good combination –
'''Support''', can't believe I haven't already supported, a very friendly user who has a ridiculous number of fantastic contributions! -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
I fear this RfA might struggle to get up, but I'll vote '''support''' nonetheless. Too bad I couldn't have been the 138th person to give Blnguyen heaped-on praise and wished him all the best with the mop and bucket. Oh well, try again in a month?
'''Strong Support''' I just think its a good Idea. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support from the sunny Czech Republic'''. I like your articles about suburbs of Adelaide. -
'''Support''' A great, kind, and helpful wikipedian. He deserves this mop. -- '''''
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' of course!  --
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin.--
'''Support''' - oh no! My vote made it 151 which is an odd number! --<font size="1">
'''Support''' Well overdue.  --
'''Extremely Strong Support''', 10,000 edits is an automatic "yes" from me. --
'''Absolutely Spprot''', He always provides the good information on article, and just being nice to everyone.
Yes! Why aren't more people piling on?
'''Support''' Per Nomination, and meets my requirements. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
Whoops, I don't want to miss this one!  --
'''Support''' Good all round contributor, break out one extra new mop. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Strong Support''': I am confident, he will become excellent admin. -
'''Support''' Excellent user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose'''. Presumes bad faith in dispute resolution. His idea of cleanup is blanking out whole lines, paragraphs, sections and even supporting links without even a pretense of discussion. This is evident particularly in [[Ajith]]. Pushes his POV as NPOV. Unusually high participation in AfD shows herd mentality. Poor judgement of who is editor and who is vandal. Supports majority vote even in matters of fact. Amateur contributor. Vandal-fighting is a irrelevant criterion to become admin. Last but not least, fails miserably [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Mailer Diablo's test]]. Try again next year.
Well, thankyou to all of the community for turning out to discuss my presence on Wikipedia. I am extremely flattered by the raw turnout and gracious comments, especially from so many Wikipedians with whom I had not directly interacted - I am rather surprised at how many people had been keeping an eye on me. I hope to live up to the trust imbued in me by the large show of the support from the community. I look forward too continuing to work productively with everybody in the future, and will be talking to everybody personally in the near future. Thankyou. '''
'''Support''' super supportive nominator support! --''
'''Support'''. Great candidate, wanted to nominated him myself. Let's make him an admin before the end of the month.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Solid, responsible editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a wonderful editor, perfect candidate
'''Support''' excellent Wikipedia activity.
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''support''' "I've seen good work", as the saying goes.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --very good.
'''Support''' see him around
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
--
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. Edit counts are impressive. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship.
A bit new, but unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support'''. So far do good. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - looks like a great well rounded user.
'''Support''', excellent record.
'''Support''', yes, definitely.
'''Support''' seems to have the right attitude necessary to be a good admin
'''Support'''. Should do well as an admin.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Would make a nice administrator.&#160;—
'''Support''', in my experience a valuable contributor.
'''Support''' He seems to deserve it <font color="red">
'''Support''' impressive contributions all around, should make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Nice mix of contributions. |
'''Support'''. I have a good feeling, so it must be a support vote. -
'''Support''' Well rounded contributor.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Looked edit history over and concluded that he is unlikely to abuse extra tools and is ready for adminship.--
'''Support''' Seems like he will make a good admin <font color="red">†</font><font color="darkorange">
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. I was originally on the fence (partly because you're still fairly new, and partly because I hadn't seen you around) until I saw Interiot's hour-by-hour breakdown of when you edit. You have a flat spot eight hours long. Bravo. Either you're sleeping, or working, or something. But that's *healthy*! I wish most of us could do that. Enjoy the mop! <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Support'''
'''Support''', Well deserved.  Great activity with good diversity.  Be good with the mop.--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Comprehensive nom makes this support easy. Fine candidate.
{{User:Drumguy8800/Support}} great contribs.. nice.
'''Support'''. Mahvelous.
'''Support''' another great user.
'''Support''' - Looks like he will do the mop, bucket and flamethrower proud. ;) [[User:Prsgoddess187|Prsgodd]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Humble and hardworking. --
'''Support''' Per above -- '''''
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' A very worthy candidate! <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' and thanks for your tireless editing. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
All this, and sorts stubs too.  '''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''support''' user will do great work with a golden plunger!
'''Support''', although userpage could have more userboxes. --
'''Support'''. Soon every Finn on the English Wikipedia will be an admin. Muhahaha!
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''', very good editor. Have run across him on vandalism reverts many times. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' - seems to be a good well-rounded candidate
'''Support''': little early, perhaps, but appears to be ready.
Definite '''support'''.
As per nomination.
'''Support''' definitely.
'''Support''' I seen some of his work around --
'''Support''' One of the most hardworking and selfless wikipedians that I have come across. Pretty sure that he won't abuse the mop.
'''Support''' Nearly on attitude alone, not likely to abuse tools. If theres some catchup needed on policy issues his respectful and serious attitude will make sure it's done properly and without controversy.

'''Solid support''' as per his great namespace edits
'''Support''' -Normally do not support non-interactive editors, but with high edit summaries, excellent demeanour, humility, I am compelled to waive the usual administrative requirements of project-space and talk-space edits.
'''Support''', I have no reason not to. I would hope he does increase his community participation, though.
'''Support''' A hardworking editor. Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' 17k edits is a lot, and he has managed to not be involved in any problematic episodes, which seem to be happening lately. Non-interaction is a non issue to me.
'''Support''' per very gracious handling of oppose votes below. The admin tools are not an award, rather given in the trust that they will be used wisely for the good of the project. As long as a newbie admin understands that and uses appropriate caution, I don't see a problem with lack of experience in user and project space for the moment.
'''Support''' for his hard work in the main space and handling of the oppose votes
'''Strong Support'''. Per nomination. In one and one half years this user has done more than his share, and uses edit summaries at least 85% of the time; as well as contributed greatly to the project as a whole.
'''Support''', solid editor with solid edits. Has a good attitude, has a brain, deserves a mop. Project space edits aren't terrific but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a process-o-tron.
'''Support''', contributions are good and usually uses edit summaries. Admin tools would clearly be of beenefit.
Definite '''support'''.  Long-time, steady contributor; adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.  --
'''Support''', excellent contributor who will probably use talk pages much more in the future, now that their importance has been thoroughly impressed on him by the "oppose" votes below.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Good editor, and I think passing a vote of confidence like this one will help Bobo become more comfortable in user interactions (if that makes any sense). -
'''Support'''. Lack of talk space does not bother me; admins can come in various flavors.  I'm sure you will put the tools to good use. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.

'''Support''', very good contributor who will no doubt make an impressive admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''support''' this helpful person
'''Support''' once you become an administator, you will find that communication/interaction will be your most effective, benevolent tool.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> '''Weak Support''' due to lack of Project and talk edits, and for <s>not stating the reasons for "an ugly start"</s>.
'''Support'''. A devoted editor who hasn't stepped on any toes with his current tools. The limited experience in project space doesn't bother me with someone this conservative in style, who'll take the time to learn the policies and protocols. '''''×'''''
'''Support''', because I say so.
'''Strong Oppose''' Like Zsinj said below (under neutral). I'm sure Bobo192 is a fine editor but there is more to Wikipedia than JUST article editing. The Projects namespace edits are lacking sufficiently with only 98 edits. Also, he has almost no communication with other users, with only 313 user talk edits and 69 mainspace talk. If expands his edits outside articles, he would make a fine admin.
'''Oppose'''. Admin tools are principally there for cleaning up and dusting down and, sometimes, throwing out. Most decisions, policies and practises that result in such things occur, or occurred, in Wikipedia: space and related adn so a strong familiarity with it, as the nebulous mass of the community at large is important in an admin. Interaction with the users you have just dusted down or cleaned up after occurs frequently, and often with some irritation on their part. Thus, a steady record of good interactions is important since not winding users up is kind of useful (despite the manner in which some extant admins conduct themselves). Since the editor says above that the is "...most frightened of..." interactions, I think that some de-frightening would be very useful &mdash; most editors are nice people. -
'''Oppose'''. Sorry Bobo but i really find it hard to support adminship for an editor who shys away from the talk page to the extent you have done to date. Yours is an extreme example.
'''Oppose'''. Tough to do with an editor this active and ubiquitous, but I must oppose. I can live with being cautious over Talk pages but the absence of Wiki space contributions is too much. Less than a hundred out of 17K for Project. Only 14 to Project talk and nothing that shows any engagement with policy or "admins-should-know-about-this" stuff. Obviously very conscientious with edits and with summaries and an easy support once experience in Wiki space is shown.
'''Oppose''' as above, lack of project and talk edits. Would support otherwise.
'''Neutral'''. Although this edit has ''a lot'' of good useful edits, I don't see very many project edits. I'm sure this editor wouldn't abuse the mop and bucket, but with very few contributions to the Wikipedia namespace, I can't find justification that the editor is familiar with the policies and methods of admin actions. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral'''.  This is practically the exact opposite of [[User:Ian13]]'s RfA below; that lack of interaction with other users is a concern for me.  --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Neutral'''. How could you have 17K edits (My word!) and not a single image upload? You're a fine editor, which is why I can not oppose, but I don't see a need for adminship. [[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]] said what else I have to say.
'''Neutral''' Great guy, but with less than 100 Wikipedia namespace edits (and most of those probably just in [[WP:CRIC|one WikiProject]], I cannot vote support unless he becomes more familiar with Wikipedia.
'''Neutral'''. As per above. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per above. Looks like a great editor and answers to comments have been mature, but I am unable to personally support due to lack of interaction.
'''Neutral''' due to lack of experience in the project namespace and apparent lack of use of minor.
'''Neutral''' per lack of edits in Wikipedia namespace.
'''Neutral''' ''towards support'' per most neutral voters, no specific decline reason, edits are remarkable, lack of process and communications participation stuck me to neutral though.
'''Neutral.''' per Xaosflux basically.
'''Neutral leaning support''' per Zsinj.  I perhaps don't place the same level of importance on the talk and project edits in handing out mops, but in this case they just strike me as a little too far out of balance to say yes. &ndash;



'''Strong Support''' - Jude has been so helpful to me on the [[WP:CP]] backlog in the past 2 weeks.  He is very knowledgeable in many areas of Wikipedia, and can be trusted with the Sysopmop. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''OMGZORZ SUPER SUPPER ÜBER HAPPY YATTA HEY JUDE DON'T MAKE IT BAD I LOVE N00BZ SUPPORT OF FANTABULOUS PORTMANTEAUXISMS YOU R0X MY S0X PIECE OF CAKE CLICHÉ WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE ISN'T ALREADY ALL CAPS SUPPORT''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Extreme Jude Support,''' as nom.--'''
Sleepwalking '''SUPPORT'''.  And bah and hubmbug - I said I wanted to be the first support vote on this one.  I'm really pleased to be able to vote for Jude at last --
'''Support''' Short active tenure on my mind, but everything looks great; the nominator's description was also very convincing. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I still remember you from the meta cleanup project :). <small>
'''Support''' (hyper) Helpful, extremely prolific, has my trust. -
'''Support'''
--
'''Hell yes''' sorry for my language but he's a must be shoo-in for adminship
'''Strong support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''<s> When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide...</s>Support''' I couldn't resist. Very helpful, civil, and funny since I've known him. And plus, the Beatles rock too, so this is a win-win.
'''STRONG STRONG STRONG STONG SUPPORT''' - I was going to nominate but Shanel insisted on being the nominator.  We might as well strike out the oppose section as Bookofjude is a natural admin --
'''Support''' <small>(or rather, sopeutral).</small>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Ok. --<font size="1">
'''Strong Support''' I pestered Jude about going for admin only a couple weeks ago. Prolific editor, tireless vandal-fighter, and snappy dresser! Also, incredibly over-helpful on IRC to both old users and annoying newbies like myself! :D <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as per Sasquatch
'''Support'''.
Darn it, I was hoping to make the first 10 on this one, missed it! More like this candidate, please!&trade; '''Support'''... about time this user got mopheaded '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
Happy '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' This is one RfA that I feel is worth voting on, seeing as I tend to vote only in times of true belief.  His work on IRC and Wikipedia is amazing. --
'''Support''', definitely. A friendly, trustworthy, and tireless contributor and has definite use for the mop.
Obvious '''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Nifty user.&nbsp;—
For their foul devotion to getting things right, disgustingly nice attitude, horrendously amiable demeanour and unacceptable level of contributions, I sentence this user to the worst possible treatment Wikipedia can inflict...sysophood, the ultimate hell-hole.
'''Support'''. Shanel, I officially hate you for not letting me conominate :P <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Strong Support''' Highly useful contributor. Very helpful on IRC too. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
<s>'''Support'''</s>, great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Ultra-strong support''' Have seen this user both on WP and IRC and have very good impressions. <nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki>!
'''RfA-clichéd support''' I've seen this user around Wikipedia and seems to be well-suited for admin role. Understands policy well. -→
'''The old "I thought the user was already" trick'''. <tt>
'''Strong Support''' Jude has always gone out of his way to help me.  I am especially thankful for his technical help where I am quickly overwhelmed and he has been willing to tackle problems even when he doesn't intially know the solution.  Besides all that I certain he will make a great admin.--
'''Support'''. Together we shall destroy the copyvio backlog! Mwa-ha! --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]

'''Support'''... Wait... he ''isn't'' an admin? -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Song clichès aside, what a fantastic editor, I've been waiting for this rfA. -- '''''
'''Support''' great as an IRC op, have full confidence as a wikipedia op.
'''Support.''' I can't find any reason to oppose, and my every interaction with this user has demonstrated him/her to be knowladgeable, friendly, and practical.
'''Support''' I can't find any reason to oppose.--
'''Support''', experienced user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A no brainer, this one.
'''Support''', Jude is kind of an obligatory admin, and I was surprised to hear a few weeks ago that he wasn't already! --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per Sasquatch. What a kind, considerate, civil and overall, lovely editor. Just think, now we're going to corrupt him by handing him the mop. Go us! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Strong support'''. Obvious.
'''Support'''. I don't normally join in with RFA pile-on's (which-ever way the pile on is going), but in this case my jaw dropped so low on seeing this here I just couldn't resist.
'''Support''' Good editor, will make a good admin
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' for the same reasons already expressed. He has shown himself to be trustworthy and reliable.
'''Support'''. --
Vanilla '''support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''I beat firefox support '''--
'''I-beat-Benon, support, =]''' — FireFox (<small>
'''100% Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' strongly.  An excellent, and technologically sophisticated, editor.  Giving him sysop-tools will benefit the project.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' naturally!
Wow.  61 support votes in 16 hours?  He must be doing something right.  '''Support''' as well.  The interest in working on uncommon, but needed, tasks is a benefit to the project.  --
Hey Jude! It's time to take a sad wiki, and make it better. I don't agree with making people admins much anymore, but you asked for it, so now you're gonna get it! :-P
'''Support''', of course.™ --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Monobook support''' Yay!
Plain ol' '''Support'''.
'''Yes''' --
'''Support'''. Just based on what I see. :)
'''Support''' – was going to make a lame ''[[Hey Jude]]'' gag, but Kim and Sasquatch beat me to it. So, per Kim I guess –
'''AWB Cabal Support''': friendly and helpful. Has proven his trustworthiness with AWB, should have no problem with the mop. HTH HAND —
No problems here... '''support'''!
'''Support'''. Of course.
'''Super strong amazing undonditional support'''.
'''Support'''. I don't know Jude well enough to be more emphatic, but I have no qualms about a plain support vote.
'''Support''' without hesitation -- <i>
'''Support.''' Absolutely, you'll make a great one. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Puzzled Support''' He wasn't?  *Walks away shakily* --<em>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' with pleasure - <b>
'''Support.''' This guy's so good, I'd have to TRY to find something in his edit history or edit trends that would tick me off.
'''Support''', though don't let the stress get to you too much! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Yes. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Extreme Sartorial Gnomic Support''' oh yes. --
'''Strongly strong support''', looking through his edits everything I've seen has been positive! // <b><sup><font color="black">[[User_talk:TheTrueSora|The]]</font></sup></b> <b><font color="red">
'''Support''', gread editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--<font color="red">[[User talk:TBC|☆]]</font>
'''Super strong support''', Jude knows his job well, and he is one of the most friendliest users I have seen. He'll do well. --<font color="blue">
I'm a little late.  All the arguments to justify supporting Jude are already in.  So I'll go with the cliché: "per all the above".
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Was trying to wait till 100, but got impatient. Now I'll just be lost in a sea of supports. Sigh. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Jude knows everything, senior staff on the #vandalism-en-wp channel, why shouldn't he be an admin? --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''', a true asset and a committed member of the community. Go for it Jude!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Damn, I woulda been the first to <big>support</big>.'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Support''', wait weren't you already one? Give the mop!--
'''Support''' '''
'''Conditional support''', provided he improves his taste in music.  He will make a good admin, but some things are inexcusable.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', yup.
'''Support'''.  Really, how could anybody object? -
'''Support''' ~
'''Suppport''' --
'''Support'''.
I dare you to give me a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Fish.'''
'''Support''' He seems to be on RC patrol everytime I look.
'''Support''' Should make a great admin --
'''Support'''. ~
'''Strong support'''. Very good wikicoder, helped me sandbox a 3RR prototype. '''
'''
'''Support''' per above.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]

'''Support''' per "I thought they already were!" cliche.  Plus a helluva [[User:Bookofjude/monobook.js|monobook]] that I use a [[User:TKE/monobook.js|fork]] of.
'''Support''' Can we please give Jude 4 more support votes and push me down one more on [[WP:100]]? Jude deserves that spot a lot more than I do.
'''Support''' - Bookofjude is awesome!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --<small>

'''sure support''' -- <small>
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - a great person indeed! :) --<font color="blue">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Gee, I kinda thought he was an admin ''already''! But anyways, it's nice to have another Christian admin around here. (From the look of his name, I assume he's Christian.) He's also a great guy to talk to on IRC. --
'''Support''' Shane smash obvious RfA! Grrrr! --
'''Support''' A terribly solid Wikipedian.
'''Support''' a brilliant example of how calm and patient response  averts confrontation.
'''Support''', agree wholeheartedly with nom. --
'''Support''', quality editor.
'''Support''' per Tyrenius, to pick one.
'''Oppose'''. There CANNOT be a unanimous RfA. --
'''Support'''. Impressive FA work, good answers to questions.
'''Support''' per nom and Haukur. This is a good editor who has been around for quite some time and knows what he's doing. I'm happy to support.
'''Strong Support'''. In the past it used to be much easier to be an admin because "it isn't a big deal" and we'd give it to those who could use it to benefit Wikipedia, as you clearly can.  It's terribly frustrating to have to ask someone to take care of a vandal you should be able to do yourself.  Not only are you inconvienanced, but so is at least one admin.  And this focus on edit counts really kills me.  Have you done anything *wrong*?  You clearly showed remorse for the one incident that has been brought to light.  Some of the objections to you (except for # of edit counts) could be said about me.  There are areas where even I'd not be considered for admin such as "Not enough recent experience" or even "I don't spend most of my time fighting vandals, but writing articles". For those with [[Wikipedia:editcountitis|editcountitis]], the [[Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits|edit count list]] back in March put current '''administrator and bureaucrat''' [[User:Redux|Redux]] at  2,431 (main namespace) edits.  That number is now 2,628.  Now I'm comparing apples and oranges, but looking at edit counts alone is about as ludicrious as saying Redux shouldn't even be an administrator because he doesn't write enough articles, has "only" 6,197 total, and is not even a top 500 user. --
'''Support''', no reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. -
'''Support'''.  Has a Featured Article.
'''Support.''' Absolutely. When I was promoted, five weeks ago, I had fewer edits over a longer time, no FA, and nominated myself, so I see no problems here. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' –[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', 1FA. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He has a featured article and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' [[user:Some P. Erson|<font color="blue">Some P.</font>]] [[User:Some P. Erson/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Like the man said, quality not quantity, and also invoking the "no big deal" clause.  <b>
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">

'''Support''' The way I see it, it is really easy to rack up an edit count by hitting delete. It takes time and thought to enter a completed quality article, citing references, avoiding copyvio’s etc. That’s why I believe edit count quantity is nowhere nearly as important as quality of edit. The opposition has nothing to sway my input on this.
'''Support'''&mdash; Serious contributions like [[Carl Friedrich Gauss|Gauss]] and [[Leonhard Euler|Euler]] &mdash; dedication to the articles success is evident. AfD actions solidly supported &mdash; I may not agree with your determinations, but you told me the basis for your position & didn’t just give me more “per nom”.  Overall you have the breadth of experience that makes me comfortable supporting you toward knighthood with the power of blocking & unblocking editors, deleting & undeleting pages, performing complex moves, page protection and enforcing arbitration rulings. Use these powers for good, not evil!
'''Enthusiastic support''' I love his answer to the first question.
'''Support''' Everything looks fine to me.--
'''Support'''. Definitely agree quality over quantity, and this editor appears to be committed to building an encyclopedia.
'''Support''', based almost entirely on the following quote: ''"I plan to try helping out in some of the backlogs"''
'''Support''' Good editor who is  dedicated to quality articles.--
'''Support''' <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support''', excellent contributions.
- <b>
'''Support''' - Good contributions. Also like his remark about giving priority to writing articles over admin tools. I feel he will not misuse his tools. -
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy, thoughtful editor.
'''Support'''. Looks solid to me.
'''Support'''. A very valued and trusted editor on Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Normally, I probably wouldn't support given the relatively small edit count compared to time being a Wikipedian.  However, when looking at his contributions, all of them seem to have been manual edits and quite good, at that.  I really like how he carries himself when interacting with other users on their talk pages (even from his first user talk edit) and I'm assuming he's very trustworthy (in the limited interaction I've had with TCU students, all have been great :) ).
'''Support''' Quality over quantity. I liked the very common sense answers to the questions. Trustworty and could use the tools - pretty much what an admin should be.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- per nom and answers to question 2 --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', quality not quantity! --
'''Support''', liked the answers to the questions, agree with quality over quantity, and meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my standards]] anyway.
'''Support'''. Trustable user and good answers, while the edit count aint magnificent i believe quality is better then quantity. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' There are obviously enough quality edits - which is what edit-count criteria are supposed to establish, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. Good editor, good edits, good answers. --
'''Support''' good edits--
''Support'''
'''Support''' - Good editor. -- ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', gladly. '''
'''Support''' quality. '''
'''Edit conflict support'''.  quality over quantity, as said above.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' per well known cliché. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per low recent edit count (less than 500 edits since April) - edit count also a bit low overall.
'''Oppose''' Low edit count overall suggests user doesn't have the required experience to be an admin just yet. -
'''Neutral''', low edit count seeing as they've been here since Jan 2006, and I disagree with users method of reporting vandals on admins talk pages instead of [[WP:AIV]]. Tempted to support, also tempted to oppose, so inbetween it'll have to be.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support on WHEELS!!!''' Looks good to me! --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]]<sup>([[User talk:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User:D-Day/Templates I'd like to see on Wikipedia|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
'''Support''' I find nothing wrong in self-nominating. I am concerned, though, about your lack of edits on talk and user talkpages, plus comparatively lack of edits to projectspace. Nevertheless, I'm happy to support a positive and experienced editor.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me also. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''.  I am a person who's not too keen on self-noms, but BHG looks good to me. -
'''Support'''. Looks alright. No sign that they would abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Experienced.

'''Support'''. Great user and I'm sure that she will use the mop correctly. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great, hard-working user, should be a good admin too
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Conditional support''': Has only been there since the start of the year, but it looks like she's ready. --
'''Support'''.  The candidate's commitment to the project is clear.  Although I can see the force of the objections made by JoshZ and others, I'm willing to make a leap of faith here.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Dedicated member of the project. Looks like good admin material. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
While it's true that candidate doesn't have a lot of project space contribs, remember that we are writing an encyclopedia first here. She seems to have a clear grasp of policy, as evidenced in handling speedy deletions she doesn't agree with tactfully and properly, etc. She seems extremely polite in talking to other editors, even when correcting them. Her new articles are great and seem to comply with every policy imaginable, which shows that even if she doesn't post to the project space heavilly, she's certainly read a lot of it. So I'll go out on a limb here too and support. --
'''Strong Support'''. I'll make a leap of faith here due to your OUTSTANDING article contributions. But if this RFA fails, I highly suggest you join us at [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and do a little Newpage/Recent Changes patrol. AfD is relatively easy to do and gets you a high profile with the community and direct experience with WP policy. I'd be very happy to nominate you myself in a few months then.
'''Support''', she will be fine but I still like to see more project space edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
''"Adminship is no big deal"''. -
'''Support''', I'll echo [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] here.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. An experienced editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. She should have a good chance to use tools well.--
'''Support'''. Need more admins.
'''Support''' with enthusiasm, have seen this user's name crop up repeatedly on my watchlist lately and it's all good. Also, a lot of her work is the sort of very useful but unexciting (to me, anyway) stuff which suggests she would be likely to make a dedicated admin in the areas she proposes.
'''Support''' I like her attitude, she might not be a super-sysop straight-out-of-the-box, I have no doubt she will be soon, with some admin-experience. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''No Big Deal Support'''. We need more admins, and really, I do trust BHG.
'''Support''' BrownHairedGirl has been working in a professional manner, and has all the qualifications required by an efficient Administrator. Good luck !
'''Very Strong Support''' BHG has an excellent track record. I strongly support nomination for Administratorship. Best,
'''Support'''. I'll take on good faith that she'll read up on relevant policies she might have missed. Low Wikispace edits don't concern me too much. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support'''. I like what I've seen. After reading both sides of this discussion and her User page, I'm satisfied.
'''Support''' - competent and extremely active user. Should be an effective administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I think she will use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' as likely to use admin tools constructively and unlikely to abuse admin tools and inasmuch as ''Adminship is no big deal''.
'''Support''' there's no reason not too --
'''Support''' - Answers to questions, excellent contributions and other reasons already stated above make me trust her for adminisphip despite not having a massive number of project edits.
'''Support'''. I had considered nominating her myself. It looks like this might not make it, but judging from the opposes it will a month from now.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' This member is now ready to become an admin. Good luck to you! <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
<b>Support</b> I'm not going to hold early mistakes (or the fact that "assisting" is spelled wrong in the first answer to the questions below) against her. Great user, ready for adminship. [[User:Steveo2|Stev]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' These oppose votes are such b*******
'''Support''' - Ultra active user
'''Support''' Active in AfD, takes note of issues when they arise even if they are outside of her area of focus --
'''Support''' but lets see more edits in the project space!  Good Luck!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Seems like a very worthy candidate.
'''Support''' convinced me.  Also very active in wikipedia discussions such as Afd, Cfd and so on. --
'''Support''' I came to your user page to give you a Barnstar (which I have; it's well deserved) and saw the RfA. I like what I've seen of your contributions, and am not convinced by the oppose votes. [[User:Col_tom|Colon]]<font color="green">[[User:Col_tom/Esperanza|el]]</font>
'''Support''' A levelheaded editor asking for tools to help improve this project is fine with me.  --
'''Support''' Seems to be a sensible lady.  Should be ready enough. -
'''Support''' Initially I was going to oppose for the good reasons stated below, but I think this editor 1)can be trusted 2) will learn sensibly on the job.
'''Support''' - like Tyrenius, I was tempted to oppose, but I've satisfied myself that Wikipedia will be better off with her as an admin. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. User seems immensely qualified.
'''Support.'''  She wants the tools.  So why not give them to her?  She is a good person.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good, positive, track record.
'''Support''' - she has done immense work on Irish WP articles -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  It ''would'' have been nice to have seen more involvement outside the main article namespace &ndash; perhaps that's something that will come with admin responsibilities &ndash; but I don't think that that's enough to rule out adminship. --
Been agonising about this one... I think a bit more non mainspace experience would be good but I'm giving the doubt.. she can learn as she goes. Good article editorship, shows skill, like her style where I've seen it, I think on balance this will work out. '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''. Mel Etitis said exactly what I was going to say.
'''Support'''.  Seems like a sensible user who is unlikely to misuse tools.  [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good character, good intentions.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Has a load of experience. Only weakness is the talk and project edits, but what makes up for that is the HUGE amount of article edits. [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>
'''Weak support''' Still  needs more experience w/ things like RCPatrol, AfD. I sensed a reluctance to confront, but she did respond well to the template sorting criticism.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more good admins <small>
'''Support''' Didn't know her at all until the RfA.  I kept my eye on her contributions since it started, and I'm convinced that she'll make good decisions.  --
'''Oppose''' with a heavy heart. I don't think the that the user has the necessary experience yet beyond article space nor am I convinced that she needs the tools. She states that "The two tasks which I have in mind are reverting vandalism, and asisting in the AfD/RfD/CFD process" but I see almost no vandalism reversions or warnings to users and I see zero edits to [[WP:AIV]]. Furthermore, although there are a fair number of edits to CfD, there are almost no edits to AfD and RfD.
'''Most Reluctant Oppose Ever''' - I'm so sorry, but I have to oppose per JoshuaZ.  "Average edits per day (current): 185.87" over the last 2000 edits was unbeleive, but outweighing that was that only 0.75% of those were to the Wikipedia space and there was almost no talk or user talk edits.  I'm really sorry, just come back in a little while (at your edit rate in a couple of weeks) with some more Wikipedia space edits to learn more about the Wikipedia policies.  Once again, sorry.  We really can't afford to lose someone as active as you as an editor, but I just don't see you as needing admin tools. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Weak, veeery weak '''oppose'''. I'm a declared enemy of editcountitis and similar non-representative ways of measuring a user's involvement in the project; I believe BHG's wiki-enthusiasm is out of question here, and I am very impressed with the work she has performed here so far. A few things concern me here tho, namely: a) the extremely low levels of participation in Wikipedia space (compared to her enormous activity in namespace), which makes me wonder about her knowledge of WP policies and procedures. b) very little contact-talk-interaction with other users raises questions about how she will manage when confronted with potential conflict. c) almost no involvement in admin-related tasks. d) nearly 7,000 edits in two months only (fantastic!) raises however concern about potential burnout. With all this in mind, allow me to congratulate you on your amazing levels of participation and your contributions, and in the unlikely case this fails, I encourage you to nominate yourself again in a while... I might even do it for you myself! Kisses,
'''Oppose'''  At present, the low number of wikispace edits cause me concern. There is not yet sufficient evidence that editor has a grasp of policy and process, though her devotion to the project is impressive.  Hang around project-space a bit more, and I will gladly support in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. 7900 edits is good, but not so good when only 100 or so are in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Very reluctant oppose''' for all of the reasons above.  I do hope you'll try again in a few months, when I'll likely support.  Keep up the good work, which is most impressive!
'''Oppose''', you need to balance out your edits, need more project and defintely more user talk space edits.--
'''Oppose''' Lop-sided contributions to Main namespace, most of which is category sorting; very little in discussion of policy or on talk pages, scant participation on any deletion pages where one can lose one's nerve very quickly. Impressive edit count though. --
'''Oppose''' lack of project edits.
'''So weak that I can't lift a penny oppose'''; really nice editor and amazing rate of editing, but not well balanced enough. Sorry.
Reluctant but firm '''Oppose'''. I've had some recent dealings with this editor, and she's very nice. She's also a great article writer. However, I very much think she isn't ready for the mop and it would be better for her to wait than to be thrown into the deep end too soon. I'm confident I'll be able to support next time, when she has more project space involvement under her belt. --

'''Weak Oppose''' - a little more experience wouldn't go amiss. --
'''Oppose''' Per above --
'''Opppose''' Per knucmo2
'''Oppose''' per [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]]. Sorry! I think you need broader experience.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Neutral''' I've got mixed feelings--your a great user, but see JoshuaZ's oppose. --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose --
'''Neutral'''. With more interaction in Wikipedia: and User talk: namespaces then I would have no hestiation in voting support. You have a fantastic attitude to the project and a frankly astounding contribution rate so I'm sure you'll make a great adminsitrator when when your a bit more familiar with the janitorial side of things.
'''Waffle''' I like her attitude, but it takes more than atitude to be a good administrix. Brown Haired Girl needs moxy!  She may want to consider changing her user name to something more fear inspiring before reapplying.
'''Neutral''' Your awesome article contributions have moved me from Oppose. You need to participate in the project namespace. - <b>
'''Neutral''' fantastic contibutions so far, but I'd like to see greater participation in the project sphere.--
'''Neutral''', need more work in the Wikipedia: namespace.
'''Neutral''', Not opposed to her, but believe that maybe now is not the right time for her to join the admin team.--
'''Neutral''' Excellent mainspace contributions, obviously a talented and commited contributor, but needs wider contributions in other project namespaces and user talk interaction. Please do this and I will gladly support a future nomination. --<font color="2B7A2B">
Hi BHG - I request you to always keep a learning attitude in reference to your low count of projectspace and talk edits. I think you need to develop these.
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' for same reasons as nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Ding Ding Ding I believe we're looking at a promotion here!
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' An experienced, solid contributor. &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Great UBC article and very active Vancouver project.
'''Strong Support''' - fist he's from Vancouver, my good ole little city, he's been super friendly in various discussions and amazing photos.  Almost no chance of abusing the tools and could use the mop a fair bit --
'''Support''' per nom. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A very engaged editor, evn with only a few months here.--
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' all my interactions with this user have been strongly positive.
'''Support''' I have seen his name a few times on [[WP:AIV]], and every time it was a legitimate request for blocking.  This alone tells me he is ready to be an admin.  --
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support'''. Despite no having the pleasure of meeting him prior to this nomination, a thorough review of his contribs deserves nothing short of an enthusiastic endorsement.
'''Support''' Although the nomination mentions a narrow focus in article space, a large fraction seems to be to non-Vancouver articles. Everything else is in order.
'''Support''' Great candidate
'''Support''' per the above and great answers to questions below.
'''Strong support''' fabulous contributions and interactions with the community, great answers to the questions, understands admin role well --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', per nominator. I would like to know how we can have exponential growth of the website and too many admins at the same time.
'''Support''' excellent attention to detial
'''Support''' Has great patience and time in reverting vandalism--
'''More support for you.'''--
'''Buckets of support''' (despite having no portal edits). -- [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Cursory exam of contributions shows a pattern of hard work in keeping the project together.  In the words of the immortal Tone Loc, "Let's do it." -
'''Support'''. User appears ready to begin mopping.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - Fine admin material. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Strong support''' and we ''do'' need more admins. --
'''Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' contribs look good.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Buchanan-Hermit is a prolific contributor who has managed to avoid any major controversy, limited range does not concern me in the slightest. The answers below display the necessary knowledge of policy, making this an easy decision.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. Will make an excellent admin too. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Yes. --
'''support''' per Ardenn :) - <b>
'''Support''' (January 11, 2006 - wow, I must be old); would make a good admin. --

'''Support''' Seems to me that he will make a very good Admin.
'''Support''' Good work on the Vancouver project, and seems to be a generally all-around positive user.
'''Support''', good work all around.
'''Support''' good user, ready for adminship.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Strong support''' per nom and Rory096.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', no serious problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. As a [[WP:ESP/UPA|UPA]] judge, I'd like to say that your userpage is quite something as well! Great user. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' yes yes yes; and being an admin is no big deal.
'''Support''' per nom and what I've seen of this editor's work.
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support''' edits look fine to me.--
'''Support'''  It was this editor's civility and calmness during [[Talk:Lindsay_Lohan#Punk.27d_reference|this content dispute]] that impressed me.  He was clearly able to keep a cool head and focus on the content issues being addressed.  An excellent candidate. --
'''Suppport''' - civil, trustworthy ed and has some sense of humour. --
'''Support''' per above. Good user and will make great admin.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good admin candidate. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' I just saw that his RfA was almost over and came to check that I had indeed voted, and alas! I had not. So here's my much belated support--he's a great, friendly user, and I'm sure that I can trust him with the mop.
'''Oppose''' nothing against him, but there are too many admins, and I think each of these should have one opposition. I also don't think he's been here long enough, or has enough edits. Aren't you supposed to be here a year before becoming an admin? <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''oppose''' 1) Edits are primarily [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5000&target=Buchanan-Hermit Vandalism revert].  <s>2) Poor judgment</s>.
'''Oppose'''. As Bastique notes, most of your edits seem to be vandalism reverts. This is useful, but administrators need to do more than that.
A little more rounded experience first would be better. --
'''Oppose''' per Doc.
'''Oppose'''. As per Ardenn.
'''Oppose''' per Bastique, Mackensen, and ''HOLY JEEBUS THAT SIGNATURE''.  --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Change to oppose''' <s>per Mackensen & Doc</s>
'''Oppose'''. If he can manage nearly 7000 vandal reversions in 4 months without the rollback button, he doesn't need it.  Not enough experience in policy etc in general to convince me otherwise.
'''Oppose''' per Doc.  Too little experience yet for me to judge accurately user's administrative fitness.  In particular, more wiki-space contributions are needed here.
'''Opppose''' more time needed.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough contributions to creating an encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism is important but does not on its own further the aim of Wikipedia. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Oppose''' reverting vandalism can be done with [[WP:POPUPS|popups]].
'''Oppose'''; I don't feel this user is ready for adminship.
'''Neutral''', dedicated, prolific user but has accepted an RfA nom after barely 4 months yet ''demands'' 4,500 edits as a minimum to support other RfAs. This seems like a weird case of editcountitis, and I need to be convinced this user sees the editor and not just the numbers. <b>
<b>Neutral</b> Based on my standards, you need to be here for a year before you're ready for adminship. However, I didn't want to slap on another oppose vote because of it. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''' Strong amount of edits, wide variety of work, no reason to vote for this Rfa.
'''Support''' as per Thetruthbelow. I think I've chased some of the same vandals. Like his answer to Question 2--[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahoeitu|an AfD from last march]]
'''Support''' he is the very model of a modern wikipedian -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' Wiki-atitude seems to be well balanced, edit level since feb is very good.  I am wating to see the number of references / quotes from the [[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|The RfA Candidate's Song]] that make it into this RfA.--
'''Support'''. Very experienced user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
<s>'''Oppose''' You have no Portal talk edits!!</s> Oh well, I like your song so '''Support''' ;). --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - Per above. Good work!
'''Support''' - lack of MediaWiki edits does trouble me, along with lack of contribution to the Bulgarian Wikinews. On balance, however, I regretfully don't see you abusing the powers so I guess I have to support. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I like your attitude. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. The song alone would probably have earned my support to tell the truth. :)
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter (often beats me to a revert) who will make good and wise use of the old mop. Plus that song, of course. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Rje. Phenomenal song... also good edits and whatnot ;)
'''Strong support''' - a great editor with more than enough experience to becmoe an admin. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Yet Another Wikipedian that loves your song (YAWTLYS; pronounced as yawt-lys).
'''Support'''. BTW, I like the [[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|song]]. Please also see my comments on the talk page. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- will make an excellent admin --
'''Support''' --
I have to break with the pack of rabid [[filk]] fans here.... I'll only '''support''' if you promise not to ever sing that song in public. Not even at [[m:Wikimania|Wikimania]] late at night in the bar...  Excellent candidate other than that (although you gotta work on those portal talkspace edits man!). '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', meets my requirements. :-) -
'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Rfa cliche1|Cliché #1]]}} support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Another [[Template:Rfa cliche1|Cliché #1]] '''support'''! --
'''Support''' - well rounded user who can offer WP more from having the the buttons --
'''Support''' He has fantastic motivation to revert vandalism and will wield the admin-mop quite nicely.
'''Support''' Even if he weren't a stupendous editor, his amazing song alone would win my support.  One cannot ''sing'' of Wikipedia unless one ''knows'' Wikipedia very well. :)
'''Support.''' We need more [[m:Incrementalism|incremento]]-[[m:eventualism|eventuo]]-[[m:Darwikinism|darwikian]]-[[m:delusionism|delusionist]] admins. :o) [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''', excellent editor. <b>
'''Support''', This guy is no stranger to me, I take his requests all the time on [[WP:AIV]] with the security of knowing that 'his' vandals have been properly warned. -<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support''' per Obli.
'''Support'''. When I made a stupid comment on an RfA a few weeks ago, Bucketsofg was the first on my case. We need admins who hold people accountable like that. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]</font><sub><font color="#2000E0">[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</font><font color="#4000C0">[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</font><font color="#6000A0">[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</font><font color="#800080">
I'll be joining the chorus here.
'''Support''' - strong vandal fighter (saw him in action)
'''Support''' per several above, but overall excellent editor and will certainly make good use of the tools --
'''Weak support'''. Active for just over three months (barely made it).
'''Support''', as per everyone.
'''Support'''.&trade; --
Pile-on '''support'''. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]][[User:TantalumTelluride/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">lluride</span>]]<sup>
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' because without his support and encouragement I wouldn't have grown as a Wikipedian and the Polynesian mythology articles would not have improved 100% over the last few months. Plus, a sense of humour and a musical besides. Tangihia mai rā, e te manu tioriori!
'''Support'''. Did good work on the Polynesian mythology debacle.
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Friendly user, wastes time making interesting song - what more could you want?
'''SONG^H^H^H^HSTRONG SUPPORT''' &nbsp;
'''Support''', and immediately '''promote''' to [[Impresario|Director of Singing]]. Good candidate, fine potential admin and will wield the mop harmoniously. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' - user meets my criteria.  Use the mop well--
'''Support''' merely because of the editor's amazing little poem, "[[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|The RfA Candidate's Song]]."--
'''Support''' Have never seen his name in a negative context.
I say, no better candidate has ever sought the mop-pery! - <b>
'''Support'''. A good candidate for the mop! I had to check twice to be sure I had not already voted on this one.
'''Support'''. Hope you scrape it! [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Buckets of support''' over here.
'''Support''' per nom, good interaction with users, and that song that's going to be in my head all afternoon.  --
Pile on '''support'''.  But I can't not vote after ''hearing'' that song.  --
'''Extra Support'''. I used to make parodies of songs when I was younger. Maybe when I get nominated for Adminship in perhaps late 2007 or 2008, I should make an RfA parody myself. By the way, did you play the song yourself or was a [[MIDI]] file playing as you sung? ''(Update: He told me a MIDI was playing as he sung.)'' Nevertheless, it brought out a good chuckle! I like to see more funny and light-hearted admins in the future. --
'''Support.''' Unfortunately, he already ruined his chances of getting unanymous support, but we can still try to get this one into the [[WP:100]].
'''Support''' - I've been brainwashed into support by the song. --
'''I wish I had thought of doing an RfA-related parody song SUPPORT'''. (I can sing, too, you know. =]) &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Barrels of support!''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
Seeing the humor in the process is a good sign. --
'''Support'''  obvious reasons.
'''Support''' - [[Chocolate mousse]]. Sorry, totally random! Just like that weird button on the calculator that always gives a random deciaml... sorry... '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''support''' this one and great song too really loved it
'''Support''', I thought I had already voted here!
'''Super-duper support''', I've seen this user around and he's proven himself to be an extremely useful contributor to Wikipedia. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin
'''Another support.'''--
'''Support''' Rapid response to my question!
'''Support''' per all the above. :)
'''Support'''.  Involvement in AIAV is good, the 1000+ edits to Wikipedia space is also a good sign.  Suggestion, avoid using edit summaries to send messages (eg, "Please do not compromise the integrity of pages"), use talk pages instead.  Other than that, goferit. -
'''Support''', and suggest making [[Poet Laureate]] for Wikipedia.
'''Support''', will make a good singer^H^H^Hadmin.
'''Support''' --

Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per most of the above. --
'''Aiyoh! Support lah!''' Simple as that. Dun pray pray ah!--
Nice song, btw. --<font color="blue">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - not to pile on, but...
'''Support''' --
'''Singing Bucket Support'''. -
'''Support''' - I know how frustrating the [[WP:AIV]] lag can be :) (Plus having an admin with your sense of humor can't be a bad thing!)
'''Support'''. Fine answers and excellent song.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Jump on Top of Pile Support'''. Don't nobody move- the fall from up here could kill me.
'''Support''' per all above, despite joke below. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Good user, going to be a great admin! One more for support and you're in [[WP:100]]!! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
support.  Love the song.
'''[[WP:100|101st]] Support''' per all above. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Support''' Joviality is no crime.
'''Support'''
'''What the Hell, I haven't Already? Support''' I'm convinced I did... I mean, I was supposed to be the only non-sock of all of Bucket's socks to support. Drat.
'''Support'''. We need more funny songs. -

'''Oppose'''. I am shocked and appalled and petrified and mortified. Adminship is not a joke.
'''Comment''' - I don't want to make any enemies here, but he's been here only since 2005. There are others users who have been here since 2003 or 2004. I mean, I see all these nomination replies of nearly 99% "'''support'''" so, for the sake of Wikipedia and keeping the adminship as a privileged position, (I myself am not an administrator), I am neutral on this. (
'''Support''' per above. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} we need more admins like him.  --
'''Very strong support'''. I thought he was one already. --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor, and would make an excellent admin.&#160;—
'''Automatic support''' because I trust the nominator. His contribs don't look too shabby even neglecting that. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Extreme "Durin nominated, he must be good" support''' - What a fantastic user and one I thought <cliche>. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': An exemplar of the class, it would appear.
'''Strong Support''' Cactus is spectacular in his own right, and Durin's word is golden.
'''Support''' looking good --
'''Support''', per above. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]

--
'''Support''' Solid contributions.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' per above. --Ton
'''Support''': very promising candidate.
'''Support''', he's done a fabulous job here --
'''Support''' for all of the same reasons listed above--
'''Support''' - Great contributor. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''...with a nomination like that... -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' keep up the good work!
'''Support''' Awesome contributions! --
'''Support''' Is there anything to add to a nomination like that?
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
But of course. He once turned up at my page and, armed only with a kindly sentence, managed to repair a javascript error for me. Fancy that: he's smart ''and'' nice. Good combo, and not enough around. —''
'''Suuport''', and a well-deserved one. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor and good admin material; btw, OMG the no. of diffs in Durin's noms are soaring exponentially ;) --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''', good Wikipedian, can be trusted with the tools. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' sounds good, paintings are cool :-)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Oh yeah. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per nom! -
'''Sharp as cactus-Support''' from the snowy Czech Republic. -
'''Support'''. He deserves to be an admin.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make an exceptional admin. ---''Signed by:''
'''Support''', dilligent, dedicated, reasonable, and moderate. --
'''Support''', it is hard to support a user who has a period in his signature. Wouldn't a middot be better? (Like this: <font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus<b>&#0183;</b>man]]</font>) But I'll support anyway.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support''' per the '''solid''' nomination. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Experienced editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' certainly.
'''Support''' - Excellent work on Scotland-related articles.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate and I trust Durin's judgement.
'''Support''' of course. Good editor. --
'''Support''', great input on a lot of topics.
'''Support''' outstanding candidate.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
If Durin nominates someone, he's good. There are only a few people that's true for. But I did some checking anyway. Will be a great admin. Heartily '''Support'''. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''.
'''support''':  Looks very good.
'''Support''' - I'm surprised he isn't an admin already. --
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
I welcomed him '''support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
<b>Support</b>
'''Support''' - Great vandal-fighter.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support, per the other 71 people who all said what I wanted to say first.
'''Support''', dedicated and active editor. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent crop of prospect admins on this page, Cactus.man is yet another. --
'''Support''' LOVE the images, the scourge of vandals!
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''-- I've never had a bad experience with Cactus, he's a good editor and will be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose'''
'''Neutral''' due to lack of experience in the Wikipedia: namespace. I'm not confident enough that Cactus.man has good policy knowledge due to this lack.
3rd times the charm? &nbsp;
'''Support''' per my vote on CSCWEM1 --
'''Extreme <s>First</s> <s>Second</s> Third Shazaam Support!!!'''  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Ohhhh yeeeees'''--
'''Support like crazy''' &ndash; Can I vote twice? &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Last post before my wikibreak. Time for my record to fall!
'''Support''', of course! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Military history|<font color="#960018">h</font>]]
'''Support''' absolutely, give the clown the mop - I've been waiting to vote on this one --
'''Support''' as well --
'''Support'''. Very good user. Needs the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Can't sleep or leave, Wikipedia is too addictive Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks like a fine editor, and you gotta love the name.
'''Strong support''' for the third and hopefully final time. Great editor; nothing more to say. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''I finally get to support support'''!
<s>'''Oppose''' we can't let BDA's record fall</s> Oh well, '''Support'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Based on his handling of his second RfA, and of course his contributions to wikipedia, I think clown has proved himself to be worthy of the mop and flamethrower. :)--
'''Edit Conflict Support'''.  Great editor, and I like his answers to the questions.  Also, I said I would "probably support him in a couple of months" in his previous RfA; it's been more than 2 months now, and he hasn't done anything that would make me want to oppose him, as far as I can tell. --

'''Support''' - It's about time!
'''[[User:Prodego|Some asshat]] edit conflicted with me support!''' —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''.  Has my full trust. ~
'''Support'''. Assumed he was one already.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' (after edit conflict) with reservations to the [[Olive Garden|finest restauarant]] in the tri-county area that you last mentioned.
'''w00t for yu0''' :) <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash;
'''Strongest support possible''' per above and the other 33 and 1/3 times :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Give the clown the mop so he can clean up after those elephants.--
'''Extremely strong support'''.
'''support''' on the condition he orders mamrot tarte more often!
'''Strong Support''' As per previous: Always running across his good deeds and until I saw the first RfA presumed he was an admin. <sub>
'''Can't oppose, clown will eat me'''.
'''Support'''. You go clown.
'''Support'''.  I had my alarm set to midnight UTC so I could vote on this... and then I slept through it.  And then a clown ate me.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. Although, given the strong focus on vandal-whacking, I would encourage taking some invisible driving lessons in some other parts of adminning before leaping into them. The orange bar has teeth. -
'''Support'''. Was wondering why all the stupidity was happening, and realized it was April 1st Wikipedia time.  Still the 31st here.
'''Support''' everything has been executed with the best of clown. The date (April 1st (fools)) the precise time (00:00) etc. The most smashing RfA I've ever endured. Now, to the business: Solid work in the cleanup effort, and a good member of the community. Use the mop well. --
'''Support'''. For my time zone, April Fool's day has been over for 90 minutes, and yet I still support CSCWEM.-
I thought he already ''WAS'' one...  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Support''' must ... support ... clown ...  In all seriousness, great editor --
'''Support''', One of the best user names out there, always love a good Simpsons reference. Good editor wherever I've seen him. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]]
'''Support!''' Give 'em those anti-clown tools already! =)&#160;—
'''Support''' The Clown will make fools of us all. --
I'm reluctant to support since I don't like clowns, but I'll do it anyway. :) '''Support'''. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Do we have a [[WP:200]] yet? :-P '''Can't oppose, vandal will eat me!''' Great job of vandal fighting by the candidate. &mdash;
Support.  Again. --
This user constantly beats me to reverting vandalism. Admin tools would only make him faster. Obvious '''Support'''! [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''''Extreme''''' '''April Fools' Day Support''' &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' - Just make him an admin and end the nonsense of his previous RfAs. -
'''Support''' again. --
He's not already an admin? '''support''' .:.
'''Support''' will be a fine admin. this one's pretty obvious.--
'''Support''', definitely! He will be a great admin and needs the tools by now. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' again. In fact, here's a pre-emptive support for next time, you know, just in case! --
yep
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support''' Fight back!!  Eat the clowns right back! -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' <small>
'''Strong Support'''.  It is hard to imagine a better candidate for an adminship.  Or a better user name.
'''Support'''' Or a better time.
'''Support''' of course. -
'''Support''' once again.
'''Support''', good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers --
We need more people who are scared of clowns.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I can't even be funny on April Fools Day, hell yes :D --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''.  Let's quit clowning around and make the guy an admin already.
'''Support''', long overdue and all.
'''Support''' I have never seen someone get so many support votes so fast.
'''Support''' - Good enough editor --
'''Support''', ''honk, honk''.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', clearly! Just wished I had seen that rfa before I went to bed
'''Support''', a great contributor with mainspace.
'''Support''' - I seem to be too late. But I am concerned about the oppose votes he seems to be getting. If people start opposing because of user names, then it is a sad day for wikipedia. - Aksi_gr
'''Support''' of course, long overdue for this one.
'''Support'''. One of the best RC patrollers ever.
'''Support''' - consistently run across this editors changes.  Well deserved.--
'''Strong support'''  - what else can I say? - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''--
'''Oppose'''— He's very active in countervandalism, a good user overall, and would be a great administrator. //
'''Strong oppose''', this user will most likely abuse his admin powers. He can't be trusted. '''April fools!''' Really, I have waited weeks to get to support him.
'''Support''' Yes indeed, don't see why not. --
'''Oh Long Johnson / Oh Don Piano / Why I Eyes Ya[[Stream of Consciousness Poetry Cat|?]]''' //
'''Strongest support''' - what a great guy. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' for the 435th time this morning.
'''I came here for an arguement!''' ''Oh this is abuse.  Arguements are down the hall.'' --
'''Support''' --
'''Let's move faster to that [[WP:100]] support!'''
'''Support''' Good overall knowledge of editing. --
'''Strong Support''' Finally, another nomination! I have been waiting for your RFA and you will always have my support. It is time you became an admin! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Extreme Scott Baio Support''' And shame on you for not being an admin already! --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''. I may be fairly new around here but you have my vote.
'''[[WP:100]] Support'''. Of course. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''
Ok, look, I am getting aw'fly tired of voting support on this candidate. This BETTER not be a put on job and this admin had better get promoted this time or else... (what? Oh, I dunno... don't spoil the dramatic effect) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Strong Support''' too obvious for words
'''Support''' In light of my neutral vote being discounted, I'm left with no choice but to support. What a great candidate, always giving admins vandals to block at AIAV, its time he could do that chore himself... '''''
'''Support''' This user has the sort of user name where everytime I see a comment signed by him, I expect it to be a stupid, inflammatory remark. Strangely, it rarely is.
'''Support''', great editor.  --
We'll keep voting till we get it right! '''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Can't Oppose, clown will eat me'''
'''Support'''. I knew this RfA would be here when I came back from my break. I also knew I would support it. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will be a great admin. If he isn't, well..."Can't mess up, clown will eat me, can't mess up, clown will eat me."--
'''Support'''. good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Belated due to April Foolery support'''. Time to be serious. CSCWEM is a HUGE help to the community and deserves adminship more than (almost) anyone in recent memory.
'''Super Support''' Great editor ''and'' a Simpsons' reference name... Mmmm...
'''Support''' This dude isn't an admin yet? I've seen him around more times than I can count! --
'''support''' this person to be administrator
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support''' - 3 times support, lets let a bcrat make this one happen --
'''Support''' 'bout time! —
'''Hell yeah'''

'''Support''' not too shabby. &ndash;
'''ZOMG support!''' --
'''Support''' Very active Wikipedian. Excellent help to the community. Actions speak louder than words.
'''Support''' -
Must '''Support''' or clown will eat me. <font color="#000080">
'''Support (after edit conflict, grrrr, twice, grrrrrrr)''' Excellent vandal fighter. Deserves the mop. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Duh''' er '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' Great user, will be great admin. Maybe we will need a WP:200 list?
Very deserving. I have broken my leave to '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I think I've supported in the past, and wasn't aware the previous attempts had failed.
'''Support''' just like I did the last time.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor and sysop from my experiences from him.--
'''Support''' Funny, I thought I already supported you. If I did, feel free to strike this support; if I didn't, I'd like to take the opportunity to commend CSCWEM for his amazing vandal-whacking. Plus, he has a funny name. <tt>:)</tt> <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' I thought he already was one! - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' give this guy a block button so he can block all those trolls he finds.
'''Support''' give this dude the mop!--
'''Support''' as an inverse case of [[WP:SNOW]]. --
'''Support'''. A suberb wiki-editor. --
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. See if we can't hit 200 for the first time on an RfA. -
'''Support''' Much improvement since first RfA. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Strong support''' as per attempted, abortive co-nom on RFA 2. I'd go into chapter and verse on the whys and wherefores of the circumstances of said nomination, but as the outcome's pretty foregone anyway... BTW, nice timing on the self-nom!
'''Support'''; While I disagree with the way the second nom was handled, I believe that was a genuine mistake, and trust CSCWEM with the tools.
'''Support'''. Just piling it on. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', seems like a hard worker. I'm appalled he's not yet an admin.
'''Support.''' Second time on [[Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something|<code>100</code>]]? –
'''Support''' Let's get 200 by shows of faith

'''Support'''.  Helpful editor and has notable support in the system.
'''Support.'''
'''Strong support''' Hardworking editor and an excellent vandal-fighter
'''S'''upport. Amazing how he's managing without the mop.

'''Support'''. The sysoping of this 'pedian will contribute to a better overall experience to the everyday editor.
I couldn't bring myself to support this as long as it was at the nonsense April Fool's Day title, but now that it has a reasonable name, '''support''', of course.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' seems to be willing to feed the hoi polloi. Should have more ducks. Always more ducks.
'''Support''' like last time... --
I don't like at all anyone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me_3&diff=46479666&oldid=46478409 removing my comments], because they were more serious than they expected, and now I don't have a segway to say what I wanted to say. I am concerned that you spend too much time RC Patrolling, and that you need to play around with articles more of the time. There's a long list of things to do [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics|here]], and you could help there. Overall, try to balance more your experience, but I'll gladly '''support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[WP:200]] or bust! --
'''Support''' though I'm very dissapointed in all those who nominated him early, voted before it went live, presssured him into accepting a vote that he had clearly stated he didnt want and thus tarring his name.
'''Support''' --
'''Support, Cant sleep <s>clown<s> admin will eat me!'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -- Go go gadget vandal fighting!
'''Support''' - Don't really know this guy at all, but, he has gained the respect of some brilliant editors, so he must be doing something right. --
'''Support'''.  I'm sad, I was 3rd to support last time :-/ --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' clearly a good user with a massive vandal fighting resume.
'''Support''' As last time. Good luck! --
Must '''support''' or clown will eat me.
'''Support''' this is my first ever RfA vote and I think it's a good start.  As a recent convert to vandal fighting, I recognize the need for more vandal fighters, and this guy is a good choice to help in the struggle against vandals.
'''Support''': Impressive editor. --
'''Support''' Hopefully this is the charm! --''
'''Support''' per everyone above --
'''Support''' - Ditto.
'''Support'''. Well worthy. But hey, I'm just another face in the crowd... Now get some sleep ;-)
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - Well, vote 183, we have tied the record :-)
'''Support''' - landslide notwithstanding. --
'''Strong support''' - not intending to "pile on" here; I would have voted on April 1st if I hadn't been so hesitant about some <s>tom</s>April-foolery going on at the time. I absolutely trust this user to use the mop well. As for the main objections: he was asked to re-nom after the mix-up with RfA #2, and so here he has. I see no evidence of malicious or secretive intent at any point, and so no reason to object on the grounds mentioned below. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', Is where a WP:200? :-P --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Strong support'''. He's done some excellent work so far. [[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. I don't often vote on RFAs, but even in my somewhat limited Wikipedia experience I've seen Can't sleep, clown will eat me doing great stuff for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' like I did in the previous RfA --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Yes to the CLOWN!'''.--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">a</font>]]
'''Support''' the clown is a vandal fighter - needs additional tools - and shouldn't be punished for the zealousness of others - and has shown he can react properly to a difficult situation and let full community concensus make the decision <font color="#063">
'''Support''' Long overdue.
Clear '''platypus'''. (Yes, I know [[1 April]] is over. No, I won't change my vote. =]) &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
Wasn't going to, but the "oppose because of the past RfA" voters demand someone help cancel out their votes. CSCWEM did the right thing, and it's mainly the fault of his ardent supporters for forcing through what almost turned out to be a 17-day RfA. (And yes, I was one of the biggest whiners about that farce.)
Oh no, not you again!  '''Support''', and let's be done with it!  Seriously, this one will make an excellent admin.&mdash;
Send in the clown. He's ready to play.
I '''support''' relief at [[WP:AIV]]&mdash;let this guy block vandals himself! =) —
'''Support'''.  Seems obvious. --
'''Support''' in the most clown-loving fashion possible. The sheer size of this page is a testament to his true ability. He'll do fine, but I just worry about all the RfA thanks he's gonna have to do. My advice: Use AWB and subst: the pagename template! -
'''Support'''. Okay, I'll sacrifice myself and be number 199 - and now let's watch the edit conflicts as everybody else who's been waiting to be number 200 will jump at the occasion :-) --
'''Support'''. Got there first ;-)--
'''Support''' Your reputation procedes you,
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''  The 2nd RfA issue was a [[Catch-22 (logic)| Catch 22]] for the Clown.  After the 1st RfA, he stated he would follow advice given and wait until April.  As he stuck to his guns, waiting until April, he got complaints from sysops who would prefer he join already.  When he accepted, others complained of vote stacking.  This 33 1/3 RfA is now a metaphorical mirror back at Wikipedia, showing it is indeed a wacky wiki-world!
'''Support.'''  This vote isn't needed, but I'm putting it in anway.  In addition to the obvious reasons to support, it will be nice to have an admin that'll be up at the wee hours to notify.
'''Support''' - Seems to be good&mdash;and have to say, not many people are able to self-nominate themselves.  Kudos to you for being brave enough to do what not many people do (without arrogrance, of course). —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' - I supported your last rfa, and if anything you've only improved your standing since then.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''Support''' Completely support him, can do nothing but good with his new powers.
'''Support''' &mdash; Have never see him doing anything wrong. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">[[User:AzaToth|A]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">z</font>]]
'''Support''' &mdash; Reverted vandalism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] --
'''Support''' quality contributor would make an excellent admin.  Cannot see a problem with user's RfA record.
'''Support''' enough improvement has been made...Voting because this is ''such a close'' vote :-)'''
'''Support''', the 2nd nomination is a red herring. --
'''I-thought-you-were-an-admin-already-I-guess-I-stand-corrected support''' It looks like you might scrape through this time. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Talk Page Support'''.  Cognizant of the fact that you're chomping-at-the-bit, your use of the talk page is commendably high.  Therefore, I think you'll do fine.&mdash;
'''Support''' great Wikipedian.--Fil[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Not that it matters, but should have been promoted last time. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''', seems a nice person.
'''Support''', seen his good work. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''', of course.
'''Strong support'''.  I think it's clear that I should support a user who has done a lot to deal with vandalism on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Seen his vandal fighting a few times on my watchlist. -
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' per excellent vandal fighting. --
'''Strong support''', per everyone above. Also a true 24-hour editor, like me.
'''Strong support''', per everyone above. --
'''Support.''' Good user, good edits.  And I thought he was an admin already.  Plus he CLEARLY needs my vote to tip the scales toward adminship.  ([[WP:200]], eh, what?) [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''', good user.
Wait! Hold that bandwagon! Let me leap onboard '''support'''. Well, if I didn't vote for him, the chances are this nomination would fail. Such a poor turnout. <small>And my real reasons: good guy, about time someone forced the mop into his hand</small> ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''
'''Support'''.  Count me among those users surprised you weren't already an admin.
'''support''':  Of course.
'''Go go gadget support'''.
'''Cleared for adminship''' --Pilotguy <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''
'''Uffda! Support'''
'''Content'''.  Never seen anything bad, seen several things good.  This doesn't seem too much of a rush to me, and when things go wrong the time to fix them and do it right is ''shortly'' afterward.  I like the precision of the self-nom and its self-prediction.
'''Cant oppose''', clown will eat me (that's a support) '''

'''Support''' a joy to work with.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Wow, third time IS the charm, ain't it?
'''Support'''. I have noticed CSCWEM positively several times whilst editing. I prefer to look at what someone has done, not what they haven't. I know I am daily doing vandal rv. If that is all he does as an admin, I will not complain. Surely that will help the project immensely?
'''Supporting''' after the deadline, muhuhhuha! -<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support'''. Dammit, I was planning on voting an hour ago. Guess I forgot. Support anyhow.
'''Support''' - last time around I said I'd support with a little more time spent here. That time is up and I'm a man of my word. You have my full support. --
'''Oppose''' Per above, and inactivity with the Wikipedia community.  --
'''Oppose''' because he is too eager. 3rd times the charm? No, I don't think so. Three times in six months shows this guy is chomping at the bit for some reason more than just to assume more janitor work. He's showing us exactly what we want to see to give him power, and demanding promotion as fast as he can get it. Power hungry people are never good for a project. They only contribute positively until they get their promotion, and then it's ten times harder to get rid of them. If Clown Will Eat Me were making these edits for altruistic reasons, he would have let someone else nominate him. --
'''Can't vote support, clown will become administrator.''' Whatever, I know the votes are already in favor for him to get there, but it's just way too soon since that last tricky RFA, and I don't like that sort of secretive shit.
'''Oppose''' for precisely the reasons Xoloz has voted neutral below. Not that it will make any difference with so many supporters, but bad taste, too soon.
'''Oppose''', too few page moves and inadequate communication with the Wikipedia community. --
'''Oppose''' Really hate to vote this way, but I agree with what Xoloz says below, albeit I feel more strongly hence my vote.
'''Oppose''' Apart from reverting edits (I won't call it reverting vandalism, because it isn't always) what has this user actually done? The last admin request was unfortunate, to say the least, and I think a longer period of cooling of is required. Sure, the user has been active, but has CSCWEM really been involved in a true community nature? I honestly don't think so - it's more of a case of CSCWEM and his small group of followers - and if this nomination was accepted it would set a very worrying precedent.
'''Oppose'''. This is perhaps to date, my most painful oppose. I ''like'' the user. I feel however, that the people who cocked up the prior are to blame for this. I, too, agree with Xoloz, below (as we are wont to do from time to time). I really think CSCWEM should have waited a while. I know that's what we said last time, but last time we didn't have this complete farce of an RFA just days prior. I applaud his follow-on self-nom, but it is far too close to the previous (which I ''just'' found out about). Surely he's got enough stuff to do without dealing with ''two'' rfa's and indeed the mop. Cool off, wait a while, and tell your fervent supporters that if they desire the race for the mop so much, to confine it to their ''own'' accounts. I have serious doubts about the validity of this rfa, not because of the numbers (a clear consensus) but because of its proximity to the immediately prior rfa which was a travesty of process and consensus. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Reluctant Oppose''' due to the second RfA stunt.
'''Oppose''', not enough time since previous nomination.
'''Oppose''' I think I voted no on his RfA last time, too. (Or maybe I've got him mixed up with someone else, as unlikely as that seems considering his username).
'''Oppose''' First i was amazed by the level of support.  I was thinking the people opposing this must be nuts. However, having read the oppose and neutral positions i find i have to side with those comments. The first oppose vote on CSCWEM 's previous nomination was by splash at 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC). That was only 11 days ago!! I acknowledge that there are an impressive amount of edits but they are almost all anti vandalism in the main space. It's almost robotic since there are not even a few copy edits intersperced in between. The same on the article talk and user talk pages, literally ALL antivandalism. What am I missing here.  Why is CSCWEM 's so well supported by the community when he does not seem to be interacting with the community at all?  I have an uncomfortable feeling that this is all about getting the 'badge' and being 'IN the club'  rather than being about writing, editing and being an administrator on wikipedia. Don't we want administrators who are interacting with other users on a regular basis? Sorry for opposing against the majority but to be fair to others i have opposed for similar reasons I feel i must be consistent.
'''Neutral''' Not a strong reflection on the candidate, but I still have a bad taste about RfA number 2 -- perhaps because I just found out about it ten minutes ago.  Anyway, I can't support so soon after that very, very bad thing, although I realize CSCWEM isn't wholly responsible for it.  I might have weakly opposed if Massive hadn't done me a favor, as I really don't think this should be unanimous in the aftermath of that, either.
'''Neutral''' per his answer to Q.1. [[:Category:Articles to be merged]] doesn't require admin privileges - this shows some inexperience with the project in the areas ''he wants to work in.'' Also, answers on the shorter side. --
'''Neutral''' - CSCWEM is awesome, and will make an awesome administrator.  Fact.  However, accepting the 2nd RFA, with 60 or so ready-made oven-ready supports, was an error of judgement.  Creating it was not his fault, but nobody forced him to accept it, and he should have exhibited better sense.  The fact he subsequently withdrew is enough to keep this neutral and not a weak oppose.  All that being said, I think he learned his lesson, and will rocketh our asseths.
'''Neutral''', can't oppose, can't support.
'''Neutral'''.  I'm not convinced that the vandal whacking alone is enough reason, but I'm not convinced that it isn't either in this case, so I'll just sit on the sideline. —
'''Strong Support!''' HA! I beat the nominator here.... anyway, I've seen Canadian Bacon on this place for a while. He is long overdue for Adminship.
'''Strong Support''' as nom. Beaten again, argh! Good luck. :-) --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom! Basically you are a very strong user who flat out deserves the tools. Cheers.&mdash; <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Just came from [[WP:AIV]] where CB (I hope you don't mind me calling you that) is hard at work-- a simply marvelous vandal fighter!
'''Strong Support''' per nom and my interactions. Come on, now you can clear out the [[WP:AIV]] backlog for once instead of contributing to it. ;) --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Strong-ish Support''' Has done incredible vandalism reverting! Great job! --<b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, and seems trustworthy. I am sure he will use the tools well.
'''Support''' Strong candidate. -
'''Support''' - [insert cliche here].
'''Support''' the kind of editor of which I have no qualms about giving admin powers.--
'''Support'''
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Excellent vandalfighter. —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">
'''Support.''' From my experience, Canadian-Bacon has been nothing but an extremely civil and dedicated user, and should make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' Canadian-Bacon was all over the redirect vandals tonight. Give this man <s>(woman?)</s> a mop!--
'''Support''' A great vandal fighter!
'''Support''' - somebody's gotta clean up after the bot :o --
'''Strong Support''' Very dedicated user, would make a great admin.
'''Absolutely!''' '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' a great guy. --
<cliché>I thought he already was an admin.</cliché> --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Seen around a lot, so yes.
'''Support''', excellent contributor and fine admin-to-be, but now I want [[bacon]], darnit. By the way, with some 2'500 user talk edits, I'll have to disagree with Amarkov: any failings he might have probably don't include an inability to communicate with others.
'''Support''' He is an excellent vandal fighter. I've seen him around, a lot, and he is a great, civil user. He would be a great admin. ←
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' per nom. '''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
Scrambled egg support. Good user, but would recommend xe looks into other processes besides AFD as well. (
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' A respected editor, with alot to offer. Has quietened off over the last month or so, but edit history shows will respect the tools, and am sure will be willing to work outside of current areas of expertise.
'''Support''' I am certain that he will do what he can do well, and will seek advice as needed. Will not abuse tools.--
'''Support''' a good candidate and vandal fighter --
'''Weak Support'''. Great user, could have had more experience in a few areas, but I'll sign on. I am a longstanding member of Jewish Fans of Bacon. - <b>
'''Weak Support''' I think Canadian-Bacon will make a fine admin, more communication would do you well hence my ''weak'' support.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
<s>'''Oppose''', possible sockpuppet of
[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|20px]]'''Support.''' Yeah. Definitely.[[Image:Flag of France.svg|20px]] '''Appui'''. Oui. Certainement.
'''Yes'''. '''
'''Strong Support''' - Great vandal-fighter.
'''Strong Support'''. I have seen this guy a lot.
'''Strong Support'''- Per good vandal fighter. --
'''Support'''. Useful.
I'm
'''Support''' Because it's lunchtime and his username is making me hungry. Also, seems to be a good vandal fighter
'''Support''' - fully qualified, no concerns.
'''Support''' - great user and vandal fighter. [[User:TeckWiz|'''T''']][[User:TeckWiz/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:TeckWiz|'''ckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support'''-Looks great all around.  Total trust.
'''Support''' - No concerns here. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Of Course, Support''' Great editor A+ Adminship is a yes :)
'''Strong Support'''Really good editor. Vandal-fighting is top-notch, too.
'''Support''' absolutely!!  A great asset here: he's hard-working, friendly and contributes. He'll be fabulous as an administrator. --

'''Support'''. All-around great user. =) '''
'''Support'''. A strong user who can use the tools.
'''Support'''.  I've seen this editor around doing good work.  Plus, very strong answers to questions.
'''Support''', looks like a great candidate.
'''Support''' - Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' per nom.  [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' I am confident that he would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Should make a great admin.
'''Support''' This has nothing to do with the fact that i love having bacon for breakfast, i casted by vote of support based on the questions answered by the nominee.i don't know this uxor personally nor i have talked to this person in any of the wikipedia talk pages. --
'''Support''' <insert yet another tired old cliche (which is one :-)) here> ([[WP:100]] anyone? --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Based on what I've seen from Canadian Bacon in the past, he seems fit for the job. --<font face="Verdana">
'''Support''', good vandalfighter, will be an asset.
'''Strong Support''' please we need more vandalfighters.
'''Support''' - Pile on support! But really, this user is a great vandal fighter and would be an asset as an wp administrator!
'''Support''' Seen only reasonable, civil discussion on AfD. --<font color="00cc00">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' He will be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Despite comments below, he looks experienced enough to me.--

'''Support'''. Hopping on board the hoser bandwagon. Good candidate, will use the tools as intended.
'''Support'''. Granted, he doesn't have too many talk edits and is a bit new, but he more than makes up for that elsewhere. --
'''Support''' - Mmm, bacon. --
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate.
'''Support''' Get on it! [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.m]][[User:Dfrg.msc/EA|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' A great user overall, but you need to have more talk edits, and maybe a Featured article for your "wiki-curriculum". ;-) | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="2">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">
'''Support''' Per nom.

'''Support'''. Great anti-vandalism work.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Pile on''' [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Support'''- You'll be a fine administrator--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support''' -Pile-on support, actually. -
'''Support''' -A great editor.  hopfully this one goes to WP 100.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' -Will do great.--<span style="font-family:Tahoma;">
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' Particularly impressed by common-sense and cool-headed talk page contributions. --
'''Support''' - Sure, more mainspace edits would be nice, but C-B can help out in selected areas and make a contribution that's enough for me.  --
'''Support''' Has done excellent work fighting vandals.
'''Support''' i'll help this get to [[WP:100]] here, you pass my criteria but try to talk to people a bit more, for instance i've got half your total edits but 10 times as many talk edits, still you seem to be a good editor
support, It' OK --
'''Support''', yes. :)
'''Support'''.  Encouraging answers, great work all around, and I trust that this person will make a great admin as well.
To steal a phrase from somewhere, "we can't only give admin tools where they relate to vandal fighting, we have to give them all". Equally, while whack-a-mole may be fun, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that candidates should have some solid contributions in mainspace. I don't see them here.
'''Oppose''' per Angus, I prefer more article writing, the articles listed for number 2 aren't very strong (unrefernced) and I see little after that. Sorry
Simply too few talk edits. I'd still go with weak support if you had lots of XfD discussion, but you don't. -
'''Neutral'''. Canadian Bacon is obviously a dedicated and sensible vandal fighter, but that in and of itself doesn't require the tools. I'm pleased to see some participation at AfD, but there's very little time being spent in the Wikipedia namespace outside of that. I care little for the idea of special-purpose admins who only take on one or two roles in the community; the sysop powers cannot be delimited in such a way, so the candidates should be vetted for fitness with regard to all of the duties of adminship. Canadian Bacon has apparently little to no experience in mentoring problem users and arbitrating content disputes, two roles for which an admin must be suited in my opinion. I cannot vote oppose, because the candidate has demonstrated good character and I must give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am concerned about the lack of well-roundedness. Good luck, CB.
'''Neutral''': Almost halfway there for talk edits (per my recommended minimum of 200); in another two months, I could've said "Support" for this. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
Of course '''
'''Support''', but ''please'' use more edit summaries on minor edits. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support'''. I see involvement in a lot of areas: wikiprojects, copyright, article templates. Well rounded solid editor.
'''Support''', looks like s/he would be a very good admin
'''Support''', everything looks good to me. (
'''Support''' Wow can't believe people are opposeing you !!!
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', see no potential for abuse here, people are quite capable of learning on the job and people should not be penalised for being more interested in helping wikipedia the encyclopedia grow as opposed to looking after process.  If the user is trusted, they should be supported.  Adminship is no big deal. Answers to the questions are solid.
'''Support''' In my experiences with him, trustworthy and good-natured user.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good edits, plenty of experience.  I agree with Smurrayinchester on edit summaries, though.  --
'''Support'''. User is ready to take on more responsibility.
'''Support'''. Well-rounded editor who is ready to take on more tasks.
'''Support'''. CC helps with vandals. WP is not in position to get picky. For what I remember, CC's edits were generally useful. Being involved in internal WP processes would be plus but main task of admins is dealing with avalanche of vandalism and crap.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. I do share some of Radiant!'s concerns, but I have seen nothing that makes me believe that CanadainCaeser will abuse the mop or get his or herself into anything stupid. Basically, this user being an admin would be "no big deal."
Just spent a pleasant fifteen minutes skimming through CC's edit history. Very, very, ''very'' impressive material. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. >1000 edits in Wikipedia namespace is enough. Wouldn't abuse admin powers either. --
'''Support''' Great answer to my question :) This combined with excellent work otherwise, which many people above me attest to, makes me feel comfortable with lending my support.
'''Support''' Lots of contributions in the Wikipedia namespace which is important as well. I can't understand why he loves reverting vandalism, but it is an additional bonus for an admin.
Absolutely
'''Support'''. --
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''' No problems here. Would make an ecellent admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' More Canadians eh!
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support'''
'''Support''', everything looks very good. I wish I had that many edits to large articles.
'''Strong Support''' Lots of good work in AfD and on articles.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Seems ideal, and I'm impressed with the answers to the questions below.
'''Support''' I like what this guy is aboot.
'''Support''' I'll trust him. --
--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', seems like a cool person, could contribute as admin
'''Support''', should make a fine addition to the admin pool.
'''Support'''--

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
Easy '''support''' for great contributor and fellow Canuck.
'''Support.''' No issues whatsoever. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
--
'''O Canada'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' - looks good
'''Support'''-I had one very positive interaction with this user a while back that left a good vibe. I also like and tend to agree with his responses to the questions below. Should do fine. --
'''Support'''--
Support. I've looked carefully through this user's edits and I'm impressed. &ndash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
Deserved '''support'''. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''.
'''Hell no I won't not support'''!!!
And I won't not refrain from disagreeing with you. Try and work on the edit summaries but I have no other problems.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' 100% - outstanding Wikipedians.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Piling on, but I didn't want to miss the chance of saying "Hail!" to Caesar. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''', Hell, judging from the way you handle everything I though you already were an administrator... <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Oppose''', lack of familiarity with process and Wikispace, other than a large amount of AFD votes. Please get some more experience before running for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant
'''Oppose''': edit summaries are helpful and important, even for edits marked minor.
'''oppose''': what radiant said. Sigh. <font size="-1">
'''Neutral'''per above.
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor, but the opposing users have a point.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' per Radient! --
'''Extreme nominator support'''.
'''Support''' No problems with me. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - '''
'''Goal''' eh '''Support'''
'''Extremely long username support'''.  (KTHXGOAL)
--

'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Would be ''strong'' support, if only he didn't support <s>the Manure</s> Man U.
'''Support'''.
F.C. Vote of '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good contrib's, no problems.
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse powers, <s>but share some of Grutness' reservations about the editor's support for the  Manchester Marlins</s>
'''Support'''
'''Goooooooooooooooooooooal!''' —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''. Good experience with the user, especially with regard to [[David Beckham]].--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''If-I've-ever-given-a-support-vote Support''' One of the most responsible, level-headed, intelligent editors I have come across. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Back of the net support!''' <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' No reason to oppose! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Should make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Surewhynot?
'''Support''', fantastic work on the history of Manchester United pages.  Be very careful about whacking people with the blocking stick as soon as you gain admin privs, though.
'''Support'''. I have been very impressed by CTOAGN's dedication to Wikipedia. I have absolutely  no reason to believe that he would be anything but a level-headed admin.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' Wohoo! Let's get a Featured Article on soccer during the Superbowl (Superball?) &mdash;
Support. Welcome aboard, Cant. Can I call you Cant? &ndash;
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' cantseeareasontonotsupport.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Definitive Support'''. Without a doubt, CTOAGN (who incidentally does NOT support the "wrong team" - at least in my humble opinion) is a fair and honest editor, who has developed poorly written pages (mine especially) and would be a very good Administrator (again, humble opinions abide).
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Hope you enjoy the maintenance chores... <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, give him the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]] already.
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support''' Great editor, a valuable contributor within the Wikipedian community - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]]
'''Support''' without making any comment whatsoever about why, exactly, I'm supporting, because it's so durn obvious after all.
Cantthinkofagoodreasontooppose.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', after edit conflict.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support.''' I thought he already was one!
'''Support''' I've worked with CTOAGN on several articles and he is a very good and trusted Wikipedian.
'''Support''', not like you really need it, but I didn't want to miss the chance of voicing it. Congrats! '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''.
While I appreciate your "I am primarily interested in editing" stance, the eagerness to use the revert button and to chase down vandals concerns me. Please see [[WP:ANOT]]. Please also be aware that one does not require administrative privileges to revert.

This is bound to be a controversial RFA, but everyone deserves a chance, so support. &ndash;
'''Support''' per Chacor. <!--begin crazytales56297 sig--><font face="Verdana">«[[user:crazytales56297|'''<font color="#78abea">ct</font>''']]»&nbsp;<small>([[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Support'''. I believe the incident for which he was desysopped was a gross error in judgment. However, I have seen nothing but civil and professional behavior from Carnildo since, even in the face of the great deal of abuse he gets for running OrphanBot. I agree with UninvitedCompany's nomination statement: he does valuable work for which the admin tools would be very useful, and I have no reason to expect any similar lapses in judgment in the future. I am hesitant as a matter of form to voice an opinion in the RfA of someone I had a hand in desysopping, but I would like to state this publicly; desysopping is not intended to be a permanent measure for an otherwise good user who can regain the community's trust, and I think it is not too soon to reextend that trust to Carnildo.
'''Support'''. [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] is a real asset to the project. No reason for us to go without his admin work for some indefinite longer period of time.
'''Strong support'''; one incident does not a person make.
'''Support''', per Mindspillage and Lar.-
'''Support''' per Chacor.
'''Support''' 90% because of his excellent work in the notoriously thorny area of image deletion and 10% as an anti-hyperbole measure. One instance of bad judgment during an apparently contagious outbreak of bad judgment is not "destroying" anything.
'''Support''' I supported him once and I will support him again. Everyone makes mistakes and to condemn a former admin for his past mistakes incessantly would really demoralize any Wikipedian. I acknowledge that he had made mistakes in the past. Does that mean that he will never be able to gain his adminship for the resr of his time being spent in this project. Moreover, he is very, very unlikely to repeat those mistakes. If we disallow a former admin from ever gaining his admin duties because of past mistakes, every administrator in this project will be living in constant fear of erring due to some reasons. Just look at [[User:Chacor|Chacor's]] (formarly NSLE) past contributions as a case in point. We as Wikipedians must learn to forgive, although I do not necessary mean forget, one's behaviour in this project. Yes, the user's violations of policy is inexcusable, but is it unforgivable? Time is a great healing tool in these cases. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' I hope it goes through. You deserve a second chance. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' One grave mistake, in an affair in which everybody behaved poorly, does not obliterate an otherwise stellar wiki-career.  He deserves the mop, and we'll be better for it.
'''Support''' as per Mindspillage.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' per Mindspillage. The returning of his adminship is overdue. OrphanBot is an extremely useful contribution to wikipedia. Great user (barring the silliness back in February). [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', we need his help.
'''Support'''. He's served his time, has stayed around to help the project, and does good work. Easy decision. --
'''Support'''.  He's been around for a long time.
'''Support'''. I've read through the case at the center of the controversy. It's not pretty, but he/she has certainly been helpful in the past when I've encountered him/her (image related instances). I would like to see him/her have a second chance!
'''Support'''. Because he is deserved as a administrator or sysop of Wikipedia
'''Strong Support''' does invaluable work. Time has passed since his mistake, and has had already to go through the undignified process of desysopping and a failed RFA. The maturity he has demonstrated by responding calmly, and continuing his hard work (some have turned into a vandal, Annakin Skywalker style, for far less). I hope that, like AFD, the ''quality'' of comments will be assessed when closing this RFA, rather than merely statistical: many of the oppose votes come from people who have violated copyright, or can not be bothered to follow simple instructions in the upload process.
'''Strong Support''' should have had it restored last time around. Despite all the controversy and losing admin status, has consistently kept working in a difficult and contentious area, which is ultimately of great benefit to wikipedia. --

'''Support''' Carnildo has done invaluable work for Wikipedia. The fact that he has continued to make invaluable contributions to the project after making a terrible mistake, being desysopped and being soundly rejected for re-admining six months ago shows me his commitment to Wikipedia. Given the wheel war incident, there is little doubt that plenty of people will be wathcing his progress and any hint of such behavior would result in immediate action by the commmunity. We have to be prepared to forgive one shameful incident, recognize how much Carnildo has given and has to give and give him the mop back.
'''Support''', per nomination. --
'''Strong Support''' per Lar, The JPS and Gwernol. In the six months since he was desysoped, Carnildo has shown sound judgement and great dedication to the project.  In his response to the parade of nasty comments he gets from inexperience users about OrphanBot, he shows impressive patience and civility. Carnildo will be an even greater asset to the community with admin tools, and I am confident he will not abuse them. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. I prefer not to mince words and call the userbox incident a "mistake", as a mistake is something you do accidentally.  That was an error in judgement, but one that I don't think the candidate should be held to account for forever. Carnildo does terrific work in copyright, and we need more admins in this area. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''', per Uninvited Co.'s nom. and the above comments.  Most of what comes to mind has been said already.
'''Support''' (despite my almost ignoring RfA now that's it's gotten so friggin' complicated). At this point, it's pretty much a moral support. I don't agree with his actions that caused him to be desysopped in the first place, but that one thing doesn't mean he should have the sysop flag off permanently. --
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Support''' per Siva1979.
'''Support''', I believe in second chances and it has been 6 months.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''', I think that uninvited's nomination is worth the consideration, and second chances ''are'' possible.  User learned his lesson?  Give him the opportunity to prove it.
'''Support'''. I'm confident that Carnildo can be trusted with the tools, and I find his behavior after the desysoping instructive: he kept right on working, helping the encyclopedia. I find many of the opposes below ridiculous: people who hate OrphanBot, people who refuse to forgive. I'm prepared to give him a second chance. Furthermore, looking at the supports above, it appears that the Arbitration Committee is prepared to trust him, and that says a lot.

'''Support''' per Mackensen, Uninvited and Mindspillage.
'''Support''' - per Uninvited. I think Carnildo has done enough to regain trust.-
'''Support''', one ugly incident is forgivable. Carnildo's obviously committed to enforcing Wikipedia policy, as evidenced by a handful of the oppose votes below.
'''Strongly Support''' Carnildo is one of out '''best''' in images for over an year, and there are some bad backogs than ever before in there. His OrphanBot does amazing things. One incident is forgivable. A must for adminship.
'''Support''', one incident doesn't outweigh the shedload of good work he does. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Benefits outweigh risks. He has had 6 months to mend his ways. I've come across his edits from time to time and believe his judgement is sound. Hopefully, he will step back and gain consensus from other admins before blocking anyone but an obvious vandal. From the "oppose" rationales below, it looks like this civil war continues on a lower scale. May I perhaps respectfully suggest that the residual bitterness is clouding judgment?  Let's leave the past in the past and look forward to the future benefits this candidate can bring to an area desperate for attention. I believe his answer to question 3 shows he understands and respects the views of others and that he his able to carry out difficult work in a dignified and respectful manner. The only images in danger are those that '''violate policy'''. ''These images need to go regardless of how any of us feel about them.'' I give anyone credit for undertaking as unpleasant and unpopular task as this. Regardless of the outcome of this, I applaud his efforts and urge him to continue.
'''Support'''. It's time to put the userbox mess behind us for good. With [[WP:GUS]], I believe it is unlikely that things will escalate to that level again in the foreseeable future.
'''Support''', it is time for a second chance, being a full six months later. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision&oldid=38793718#Proposed_remedy_.3D_Admin_death_sentence expressed the view] during the case that ArbCom desysoppings may become forever irreversable if sent through the RfA process. At some point I hope to be proven wrong, due to the long term implications of that result. Now would be a good time to prove me wrong.
'''Support'''.  Carnildo has done his penance.
'''Support'''. Few admins have taken half the flak he has taken due to his work in images. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Carnildo's work with images is valuable. Now that several months have passed since ''that'' incident, he should be allowed to regain use of the tools in order to carry out his image copyright work more effectively.
'''Support'''.  Image copyright stuff is a pain in the ass, and we could use the help.  Plus, as nom says, it was a one-time lapse in judgement, and long in the past now.
'''Support'''.  Was among the best.  His perseverance (says a burned-out former admin) is deeply admirable.
'''Support''' per Kelly Martin. I doubt he would do similar things again. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I strongly opposed the desysopping, having thought, inter al., the disruption attendant to Carnildo's actions to have been de minimis, and offered the first support at the second RfA, in which support I termed Carnildo an ''excellent Wikipedian'' in whom I was altogether happy to repose trust.  Inasmuch as the latter is, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], the sole criterion on which I base RfA decisions&mdash;codified generally as whether I think it more likely than not that the net effect on the project of a user's being an admin will be positive&mdash;I must support, but I am a bit disconcerted that Carnildo devotes a good bit of his time to supporting the third of our [[WP:5P|five pillars]], viz., that the encyclopedia ought to be freely distributable and that Wikipedia ought never to infringe on copyright; many of us, of course, continue to believe that images ought to be dealt with on an individual basis, such that we ought always to contravene copyright law where it is eminently unlikely that legal action will entail in view of our infringement, and I cannot understand why one would think extant policy to be correct (to be sure, though, Carnildo is quite right to say that OrphanBot acts consistent with extant policy and toward the indemnification of the Foundation, but I rather think one might better spend time advocating for our enacting different policies).
'''Support''' - No doubts. -- ''
'''Support'''. After vacillating a bit on my lingering doubts about Carnildo concerning the rashness of action and resulting rancor and ill-will generated during the contentious times which resulted in the ArbCom sanction. The facts are that Carnildo's vast amount of beneficial work outweighs his controversial role in the wheel warring that occurred regarding the retrospectively minor issue of a type of user box. Absolutely unattractive behaviour from some of the active participants that day, to be certain. I am also certain that Carnildo's future work when re-instated will be most closely scrutinized by interested Wikipedians at large, and affected parties in particular. Safe as milk, IMHO.
'''EXTREME IMAGE-DELETING SUPPORT''' seriously, this user is my "go-to guy" on image copyright questions, and contrary to some experiences said here has been very helpful to me anyway.
'''Support''' Generally well respected edits and actions. ''
'''Support'''. I think we should stop punishing a very good editor for making an error of judgement in a situation from which, in my opinion, ''nobody'' came out well. I think Carnildo will make very good use of the tools, and his behaviour since being desysoped has been nothing short of exemplary. Carnildo should be let out of the dog-house, a bad call shouldn't hang over him forever.
'''Support'''  What is past is past.  Carnildo shows nothing other than dedication to the project.  He made a mistake in the past; let's let him make it up now.  I'll give a word of warning, though: the ArbCom will not look kindly on a repeat.

'''Support'''. Lets not extend the desysoping to "punish" him over an action. Remember that the main question is "will he use the tools reasonably". The pedophile userbox incident was an exeptional, diving issue, and while he should not have done what he did, I think he will avoid such things in the future.'''
I trust him. I appreciate orphanbot.
'''Support''' I see no reason to think he'll cause more problems than he'll do good - quite the opposite. --
'''Strong Support''' - There is so much work to be done in image copyright verification, deleting images which are invalid for use on Wikipedia and they are consistently backlogged for 5 days with 3000-5000 pictures on the queue. Because OrphanBot does basically all of the tagging, most people aren't familiar with the image deletion policy and the backlogs fill up because OrphanBot isn't allowed to delete. eg, Kimchi.sg aka Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh has deleted 16000 things in two months as an admin (mostly pics) and the other day I did ~550-600. The vast majority of people and dare I say it admins here aren't familiar with the image policies or what is invalid fair use. As for the comment that there are other suitable candidates out there that can do the job, I disagree, it is always the same 10 people deleting the images. Carnildo is a must for Wikipedia, unless the opposing admins below suddenly make a commitment to delete images and hunt down inappropriate fair use images or orphaned fair use images, which doesn't seem likely. What he does, others are unwilling, are unable or can't be bothered doing- so his one mistake must be balanced up against his rare ability. As for his refusal to apologise, well, if we had a regular admin review, then a lot of admins could be knocked off under that criteria. '''
'''Support''' A candidate I respect immensely. I have confidence in his judgement despite the issues mentioned here.
'''Support''' - Continued whining &amp; complaining from certain individuals goes against everything I believe RfA stands for. If certain individuals want to rehash old wounds once more and decry Carnildo as the most evil villain on the face of the wikisphere, then that is their problem. But at the end of the day what's done is done, the storm has passed, and it is time to rebuild. --
Sam Korn has given me the excuse I needed to '''Support'''. - <b>
'''Support'''. Hopefully we can set a precedent that people desyssoped by ArbCom can rehabilitate themselves. While no apology seems to have been forthcoming for the pedophile issue I think it's time to move on.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Carnildo did a big time blunder, but his work is good and he used his admin tools for more good than harm in general.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Strong Support''' A dedicated, responsible user who has made one mistake. Both Carnildo and her bot deserve the mop.
'''Support'''Though I never saw the incident happen I can only assume that it was a one time mistake. Invaluable contributor to Wikipedia, everyone deserves a second chance.
'''Support'''. I think he's done penance enough, and is appropriately remorseful. I imagine that all the time wasted because of the pedophilia thing will have taught him his lesson. :) --
'''Support''' - He has redeemed himself.
'''Support''', fair to give people a second chance, per all above. --
'''Support''' He has "done his time", and I doubht the is any risk of repeat offenses as it was a very unusual case. My personal experience with this user is nothing but positive, and we ''rely'' need more admins working on image and copyright related problems that know what they are doing. --
'''Support''' He's invaluable in image issues, which is a tough, thankless job. He manages to be moderately polite about it, which is probably very hard after the first hundred complaints in a given day. The Pedophilia userboxing was silly, and he was properly desysopped for it, but he has done his time, without making a big fuss about it, which was also likely very hard. Per CrzRussian I'd be happier if he added himself to the "admins for recall" category, but that's not specific to him, I'd be happier if most admins did so; I won't insist on it. I see there is some serious, reasoned, opposition to his re-adminning, and some "he deleted my image!" -- "so I was blocked six times, I still want to disrupt some more!" opposition, and hope that the bureaucrat manages to distinguish between the two.
'''Support''' - everyone deserves a second chance. --
'''Support''' - great worker. deserves the admin tools to do more work! --
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' Need more admins.
'''Support''' Changing from neutral. The user made one set of mistakes, since then he has continued to be a productive editor without any issues. Compared to how the other desysopped admin reacted he has been a model of self-restraint and hard work since then. As long as he understands not to use his tools in a controversial or out of process manner we will be fine.
'''Support''' per Mindspillage and my support last time. Carnildo deserves a second chance.
'''Support'''.  Changed from neutral.  Although Carnildo's answer to Q4 does not show any evidence on Wikipedia of his opinion of his actions, it does assert that he understands it was a mistake.  I see no reason to disbelieve him, particularly as he says he will discuss blocks before implementing them.  That seems to me to remove the greatest potential for a problem.  In addition, he sets a bar for desysopping which is lower than for most admins.  I'm also not clear that there's much more he could do to ''earn'' a second chance than he's already done.  Given the very clear use he could make of the admin bit, and the real value to Wikipedia of giving him that bit, I'm switching to support.
'''Support''' - I was unaware of the wheel-warring until just now.  As aggregious as that lapse in judgment was, Carnildo simply does too much good work to be overlooked.  This project is drowning in a sea of dodgy images, and Carnildo has shown the dedication and ability to make a real difference.  He takes more crap in one day than most of us take in a year, and handles it as well as can be expected.  That being said, I feel it would be wise for other admins to keep a close watch on Carnildo's actions should this nomination succeed, at least for a little while.  --
'''Support, of course.'''  We should look at the desysopping as a reset button - he recieved his punnishment and attoned for his significant mistake - and look at his actions since then.  Enough time has passed and the candidate has proven to be decidedly admin worthy.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' Shell <sup>
'''Support''', following  a credible answer to question 4. I am persuaded that the benefit to the project from giving Carnildo back sysop rights, in particular in the area of image copyright, outweighs the potential disbenefit. I don't see much likelihood of another userbox wheel war anyway, and Carnildo was far from being the only one to get carried away. I reiterate my hope that the closing 'crat will have the sense to ignore any opposiiton based on OrphanBot, which is (whether the uploaders like it or not) of crucial importance in the fight not to get our asses sued by a disgruntled copyright holder or opportunistic IP lawyer.  I also agree with Mindspillage that he demonstrates almost ''daily'' an ability to handle trolling of the most egregious kind, generally with complete equanimity.
'''Support''' (switched from nuetral) admission that blocking was mistaken and undertaking to take issues to [[WP:AN/I]], combined with time eleapsed and excellent work on images gives me confidence to support.
'''Support'''. He's overdue for a second chance. --
'''Support''' The absence of remorse is troubling but the key is whether he will misbehave again. I find the commitment to discuss blocks on the admin noticeboard to be a sufficient safeguard. --
'''Support''' - He acknowledges his mistake, and I see no reason to expect him to repeat it. Admin tools would let him be more helpful to the project.
'''Support''' - Seems to me that the image work overrides past mistakes.
'''Support''', solely because he's done more and better work in images than anyone else on Wikipedia, and he could do more with the buttons back.  He has agreed not to block anybody without discussion, and acknowledges that he made a mistake, and we could really use him back.  Everyone deserves a second chance, especially users as helpful as this one.  --
'''Support''' not much else left to say here.--<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support.''' You mean he isn't one? Wow.
'''Support.''' For a willingness to do the dirty work, and for the character to continue doing it after it blows up in his face. --
'''Support'''. As a de-sysoped admin, he must have learned of his mistake. [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''' everyone deserves a second chance, and the work on images really needs all the help it can get!--
'''Support'''.  I may not always agree with him, but he's doing extremely valuable work with image tagging.  If there's anyone who ''needs'' the mop, it's him.  —
'''Support'''. Extremly valuable on Wikipedia. He probably learned his lesson now, maybe it's time to turn the page and see him go back in the hard-working administrators ranks. --<b><font color="#006633">
'''Support''' In spite of the initially poor answer to Q3 , I think the answer to Q4 is evidence that he has learned from the incident. We need people who can enforce image policies. --
'''Support''' He does a very good job and adminship would help him in this. I believe he learned from his past mistake and is more responsible now.
'''Weak Support'''I've read this users criticisms and I'm not convienced he won't be a great administrator
'''Support''' in view of answers above.
'''Support'''. It is time to move on. He shows dedication to the project and has acknowledged the mistake and says he will not repeat former actions. He does valuable work with image policy and can well use the tools.--
'''Support'''. Carnildo is a very productive user whos productivity has been hurt by a exceptional mistake of Arbcom... where they acted punitively rather than preventative, in contrast with their stated purpose. Frankly the community has no business denying carnildo adminship, but it just wouldn't be like us to avoid cutting off our nose to spite our face. Also, it's taking great restraint for me to avoid going through and visably striking comments that mention the bot, or which have come from users with a history of copyright abuse... God forbid we have an admin who helps us execute the policy and practice of Wikipedia to better conform with our stated goal of free content and with the law...  --
'''Support'''. None of the oppose votes was based on uncivil comment or improper behaviour since his previous RFA, which makes me think he has learned to stay cool. Nevertheless past problems, I like giving people a second chance. --
'''Support''' Six months is long enough.  He has shown good judgement since.  --
'''Support''' He has made good contributions to the Wikipedia and I believe he will do good as an admin.
'''Support'''
From my limited (singular) and spectacularly negative experience: Unrepentant and unremorseful, unpredictable and impuslive, unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, disrespectful and as offensive as any user I've ever met on the wiki. Untrustworthy. <small>If you wish to discuss the above comment with me, please use this RfA's talk page, not my user talk page and not a threaded conversation bellow this.</small>
'''Oppose''' I've never met nor even seen the candidate before, but after looking at the situation that led to Carnildo being de-sysopped, I don't think that Wikipedia would be better off giving this user any abilities beyond that of a registered user.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strongly Oppose''' This user's violations of policy are inexcusable.  He has yet to apologize for his actions, and frankly his bot is the most destructive thing on this encyclopedia.  In addition, he is rude and condescending, the opposite of what an admin should be. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup>
Mark's work with image copyright has been fantastic, and he's a great asset to the project.  However, his blocking of Giano, El_C and Carbonite in the paedophilia userbox incident was quite possibly the worst thing that any admin could have done in the circumstances, and he did it without blushing.  That sort of unthinking ''stupidity'' is quite worrying, and not something I'd like to see in an administrator.  Might change to support if he can assure me he doesn't intend to use the blocking tool or, better yet, ''do anything stupid'' in future.
'''Oppose''' for bringing Wikipedia the closest it has ever been to total and complete destruction, explicit lack of remorse in the subsequent RfA, and I just don't trust him not to carry on his private war.  A justified, preventative emergency desysopping.
'''Oppose''' I read Kat's support and felt inclined to perhaps support or be neutral, however, I read the Arbcom case and the previous RfA; and my confidence has been ''completely shattered''. Most of my oppose is per Mark and CanadianCaesar, I'm just stunned and can't support.
'''Strong Oppose''' As per above and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_2&diff=44729663&oldid=44728691 my comments from the candidate's previous Rfa]. He still demonstrates no remorse, except that he lost his SysOp's mop in the first place. His ''bravery'' is actually '''arrogance'''. Give him his powers back and he will be even moreso. Besides, no one has yet made a compelling case as to why he really needs the Op Mop to be the number one copyright cop.  Especially not with Orphanbot doing most of his grunt work. Adminship is a duty and trust, not a reward. If you want to reward him, give him [[:Image:Choco chip cookie.jpg|a cookie]] or a barnstar. But he has proven himself untrustworthy and simply not worth the risk. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco4|See Guanaco]] for instance.--
'''Oppose''' per <S>above</s> CanadianCaesar, Kirill and w.marsh. Will continue to oppose until an apology and remedial action is forthcoming. -
'''Strong oppose'''.  We are not so hard up for new admins that we must hand the bit back to someone who has yet to show the slightest shred of remorse for the actions that caused him to lose it in the first place.  To have merely his word that the incident would not be repeated (although he has not offered even this!) would be insufficient; I am of the opinion that we cannot even consider giving the mop to him again until he acknowledges that his actions were ''wrong''—and not merely because they failed.
'''Strong oppose'''- no image would be safe if this user had admin powers.
'''Oppose'''. I don't trust Carnildo's judgement enough to support returning the admin tools and, as Kirill says, there is no shortage of other, more suitable, candidates.
Carnildo's works to OrphanBot is awesome, but as for adminship, I don't think so. Good editor really, but I'm sceptical of granting this user tools again. '''Oppose''' per Kirill Lokshin and R.D.H Ghost in the Machine. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per Juppiter and the follow up on his vote.
'''Oppose'''.  I read the arbitration case in full and was horrified.  What's '''''more''''' disturbing is that this user has not offered any apology ''whatsoever'' for his actions.  Additionally, looking over his/her 50 most recent edits, I counted ''thirty three'' edits with no edit summary (other than occasionally <nowiki> /* whatever section the edit was in here */</nowiki>, which ''does not'' count).
'''Oppose''' Per Srose. If the candidate would offer a good response to (Optional) question from Mike Christie above, I might change my view on this.
'''Oppose''' He already abused his admin powers once.
'''Weak Oppose'''. In a situation like this, it helps to go back to first principles. Those principles are trust (as set out above in the introduction to RfA, and includes having high standards) and need (by implication of the first standard question). On the issue of need, I am satisfied the nominee meets that criterion. However, on the issue of trust, I am not so convinced. The fact that there are a significant number of editors who feel like that trust has been broken speaks volumes. It is almost always possible to re-establish trust, it just takes time and effort. While time has elapsed, I don't see the effort. The nominee should have addressed the issue head on; instead, there is silence.
'''Oppose''': Having read up on the situation, I just can't justify supporting. It's nothing I have against this editor, but as many have already observed, he hasn't shown any remorse for his actions. I don't believe that merely "doing time", so to speak, is enough for one to earn back trust; one really needs to actually show that one regrets what one has done and that one won't do it again.
'''Oppose''' per his actions and per above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]

'''Reluctant oppose''' per Bishonen, and the difs provided. User's current contribs are good, and Orphanbot is excellent, but there are still some problems that I feel haven't been addressed. Sorry. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Oppose''' The question of whether Carnildo will abuse the admin tools when given them was already answered in February. Additionally, the nominee didn't say anything about the desysopping in this RfA (no thoughts on the matter?). Thus, I do not have a reason to waive item (x) of [[User:Tariqabjotu/DSoDD|my standards]]. -- '''
'''Oppose''' at least until Carnildo answers question #4. What could have possessed him to block 3 established users ''indefinitely''? --
'''strong oppose''' Last time i said that those stupid enough to engage in this wheel war didnt deserve the trust ever again, whilst i still stand by that the fact that he hasn't shown any remorse      make me want to strongly oppose
'''Oppose''' - not because of the blocks, but because they were given no experation --
'''Oppose'''.  Second chances are for those who understand that they screwed up in the first place.  I am not saying Carnildo should publically apologize for something he doesn't believe was wrong&mdash;on the contrary, I admire him for sticking to his guns, and for continuing to contribute to Wikipedia despite the consequences of doing so&mdash;but the error was egregious in my view, and if he does not indicate he understands this then there's every reason to believe there might be other errors. --
'''Oppose''' This really doesn't sound like a good idea. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm going to agree with the comments of [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]], despite being inclined to give second chances (Hence the weak opposition). &mdash;
''' Oppose''' Running OrphanBot is excellent work and is of huge benefit to the encyclopedia, and can still be done as an non-admin. However, the main issue is one mentioned by most of the other opposes. Even a "gross error of judgement" is forgivable, but for it to be so, there has to be confidence that the person who committed the error actually realises it was an serious error. Without that, we are simply risking the same errors happening again. Unfortunately, I do not have that confidence, the lack of response noted by others, and the unreplied question by Mike Christie in this rfa, all worry me. In short, excellent contributer, with very useful work with the bot, but not suitable for the sysop bit at this time. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Per the above. He seems to abrasive for this position.
Its an unhappy oppose for a Wikipedian who is many times more experienced than me and many others; per above all. --
'''Oppose''' per Agent 86 and Bishonen. I think his work on images is admirable, but largely can be done as a non-admin. A response to #4 above, or a pledge to ''only'' work on image-related matters, might allow me to change my mind, but for now I am firm. -- ''
'''Weak Oppose'''. I've been holding back from this one until now to see if Q4 would get a response, or to see if anyone else has provided any evidence at all of a recognition from Carnildo that he did something wrong. Had there been a recognition of mistakes made, then I'd be quite happy to consider supporting this RFA, I certainly believe in second chances. However, I see nothing from the candidate (only the opinions of others) that suggests a similar incident won't happen again. I certainly am not opposing because of the image work as some others are.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Whatever the rights and wrongs are, I suggest you give it at least another year, Carnildo. best wishes Bob
'''Oppose'''. It is true that one infraction can be forgiven. But it can't be forgiven if the infractor doesn't get that it was an infraction. With no apparent rememdy to the disconnect in understanding that gave rise to the whole thing, I can't support re-adminning the candidate. This does not disrespect his editorial work, but I am not lent the confidence I need to have a hand in dispensing a sysop bit here. We've had our finger toasted before by re-sysopping the de-sysopped, and it's a mistake we should avoid making again. -
'''Oppose''' Per above, no confidence at present. --
'''Oppose''' We have enough controversial admins as it is. ~
'''Oppose''' Civilty issues, among other things. --
'''Oppose''' This is a tough choice for me, but because Carnildo's reluctance to apologize or answer Question 4 make me feel that he has not fully recovered from the late unpleasantness.--
'''Oppose''' per above. Carnildo has contributed commendably to the Project as a non-admin, and I sincerely hope he continues to do so, but given the high-handedness with which he has wielded administrative powers in the past I am extremely disinclined to return them to him. --

'''Oppose''' - I feel bad about opposing, but there is no evidence of contrition for past behaviour. I wish there had been something, but there isn't. Absent that, I can't give this person my trust.
'''Oppose'''. His actions back then were the worst use of admin powers I have ever seen on Wikipedia and terribly destructive. That's not the reason I'm opposing though, it's the fact that he has not apologised or expressed any remorse - quite the opposite in fact (see Bishonen's comment).
'''Oppose'''. With regret. Per refusal to cummunicate on this RfA. I don't have high requirements for admins. But an admin should be able to address concerns brought up. --
'''Oppose''', per irksome apologists.
'''Oppose''':  Still no regret over his comments and actions.  That they were reversed/ignored is a testimony to the good character of the rest of Wikipedia, but, despite the massive amount of very valuable work he has done and does, I don't want to see another crisis.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] and [[User:Geogre|Geogre]].  If he admitted some sort of fault or offered some sort of apology, and noted that he learned something from his actions, that would change my opinion.  The pedophilia userbox war was very damaging, though, and I'm not convinced that everyone learned their lesson and promised not to repeat the behavior in the future.  --
'''Oppose'''. Tagging images and discussing copyright and licensing issues does not require administrative facilities. His poorly-considered blocks actions have incurred a human cost, as can be seen at [[WP:AN/I#User:Giano_.26_WP:CIVIL|WP:AN/I]], and I yet have to see any acknowledgment of that.
'''Strongest possible oppose''', this user has a terrible history.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Candidate has failed to even apologise for the conduct that led to desysopping, therefore the objection based on that conduct still stands. Also, from a pratical point of view, giving Carnildo sysop powers would mean that images targeted by OrphanBot would be deleted without another user checking to ensure that OrphanBot was correct. (yes, I realise that OrphanBot does not itself delete images, but I would prefer the 'oversight' to be done by a user without connection with the bot). I am also very concerned about the way that some of his supporters have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_archive_5_%282006%29&oldid=73080048#User_talk:Lar treating Giano].
'''Oppose'''.  Regretfully still oppose.  Candidate's work with image copyrights and Orphanbot are laudable. <s>but, if he can do these without the admin buttons, why take the risk of his abusing the admin buttons if he doesn't need them? Adminship is not a reward.</s> Based on candidate's expanded answer to Q#1, I now believe that having the admin buttons would further his work with images and I would like to be able to vote in favor of giving them to him.  Nonetheless, candidate still needs to address the issue of the original "pediophile userbox" incident and the fact that many Wikipedians still think this was a big issue whereas he does not seem to think it was that big a deal.  It is not sufficient to say "it was a mistake".  Candidate has made comments arguing that it wasn't that big a mistake.  Personally, I don't think it was as huge a mistake as some make it out to be (i.e. I don't think Wikipedia was at risk of coming apart at the seams).  However, it was certainly a bigger mistake than the candidate seems to think it was.  We need to understand WHY the candidate says it was a mistake, what sort of a mistake he thinks it was and to be convinced that it won't happen again.  Candidate seems to think that an assurance of not abusing the admin buttons is sufficient.  Wikipedians voting against this RFA seem to want more than a promise.  They are looking for a change of heart which, unfortunately, does not seem to be forthcoming.  I also agree with those who have said that part of the opposition to this RFA is about sending a message that those who abuse admin powers will not easily get them again. --
'''Oppose''' <s>Doesn't need admin tools to run OrphanBot, and I see scant evidence that he can be trusted to wisely wield the mop. [[User:BaseballBaby|<font color="darkblue">'''Baseball,Baby!'''</font>]] [[User talk:BaseballBaby|<font color="red"><sup>''balls''</sup></font>]]<font color="darkblue"><sup>•</sup></font>[[Special:Contributions/BaseballBaby|<font color="red"><sup>''strikes''</sup></font>]] 10:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)</s> I was asked to reconsider, and I have. I reread the ArbCom case and I read his answers to the questions. Unfortunately, I cannot change my position. I understand that there are images uploaded that should not be here, and I understand that it's a problem, but I do not see enough evidence that he will wisely wield the scissors. It's not enough to say, "Get over it because I have." Once bitten, twice shy.
'''Oppose''' as he's ''already demonstrated'' a tendency to abuse the tools.  No reason to believe his approach has changed since that time.  We need fewer hotheaded, drama-escalating admins, not more.
'''Strong Oppose''', after the answer to Q4. Every piece of kudos and praise that can be heaped upon Carnildo for his work with OrphanBot is highly deserved - magnificent work. His answer to Q1 indicates that his sysop activities would be restricted to dealing with image issues flagged up by OrphanBot. Normally that would  not be a problem for me - a single focus admin (dealing mainly with one particular realm) is possibly even a good thing. For me, the problem is that admins inevitably get drawn into many other areas on WP. Carnildo's answer to Q4 troubles me greatly. It cedes no recognition to the gravity with which his previous "transgression" was viewed by the community. My summation of this answer, from the language used, is along the lines of ... "I made a mistake, I e-mailed some friends to say so, it's no big deal - get on with it, I've been busy." Please correct me if I'm wrong with this summation Carnildo, and expand as need be, This answer suggests to me a disregard for community opinion, that important lessons have not been learned, and future problems will probably ensue as you get drawn, inevtably, into WP areas outside OrphanBot's remit. Sorry, but not for me this time. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Oppose''' This candidate has already had the opportunity to be an admin and abused that power. And [[User:Cactus.man|Cactus.man]] sums up my thoughts on the candidate's answer to question #4 perfectly. <font color='blue'>
'''Oppose'''. In all the circumstances, "was a mistake" just doesn't cut it.
'''Oppose''' OrphanBot is doing some great work, but there are such significant civility issues here that I'd be pretty uncomfortable coming to him if I had a problem. An administrator should be transparent, willing to be held accountable for his actions, and have ''much'' more respect for community opinion. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per above. &ndash; <font face="fixedsys">
'''Oppose''' as I feel that Carnildo takes blocking rather lightly, saying that the indefinite block was "just a few minutes of not editing," when delibrations over even short blocks are vetted on ANI, with a warning far more typical than a strong indefinite block.
'''Oppose''' per Cactus.man. Carnildo did nothing in his Q4 answer to demonstrate that he considers his "mistake" to be as serious as the opposing editors here do.
'''Strong Oppose'''. My experience of dealing with Carnildo is strictly unpleasant. He seems to be as "unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, etc" as ever. His bot, in its current form, is a disgrace of this project. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Strong Oppose''', per previous activity, along with creating a destructive bot. Admins can take care of any image issues, and OrphanBot disrupts Wikipedia and hurts the overall quality of the encyclopedia. --
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen.
'''Oppose''' per R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine).
'''Oppose'''. Candidate seems to be lacking in the positive communication skills necessary to be a good admin.
'''Oppose''' per all above. No admission that he did anything wrong. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<sup>[[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]</sup><sup>
'''Oppose''' Adminship isn't a reward, it's a responsibility.
'''Oppose.''' I don't normally vote in or follow RfAs, but after I stumbled upon this one while looking for some other information, and subsequently reading the ArbCom ruling and evidence (as well as the various reasons support and oppose here), I'm worried that this user's actions may well repeat in a heated situation again. I think his work with OrphanBot is great, especially given my occassional past efforts at tagging unsourced and unlicensed images manually (not fun), but adminship shouldn't be a reward, IMO. Also, as others have expressed as well, I really don't have great confidence in his ability to not repeat the errors of his past. I hate to assume such things, but if a person reacts in that fashion to one hot-button issue... --
'''Strong Oppose''' as I stated in his previous Rfa: Simply put, Carnildo is a bully. No bully should ever be allowed near Wikipedia, let alone admin tools. I also stated how everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves if they want it. In the previous months, I've seen no sign Carnildo wants it, nor that he has significantly changed his ways. Once a bully, always a bully. This is a proxy vote cast on behalf of [[User:Karmafist]] by
'''Neutral''' OK, this is a highly-divisive issue and I would lean towards support for a good contributor but for one thing; I cannot see any expression of remorse for the actions that you performed in order to have the admin status stripped from you in the first place.  Such an expression doesn't appear here or in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2|your previous attempt to pass the RfA]].  Is it possible to receive assurances from you that a repeat of this wheel-war event won't happen? <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''.  I would support Carnildo if he would simply and plainly admit he made a mistake, and state he won't use his renewed administrative powers to wheel war again. If Carnildo makes a public apology, and I forget to change this to support, the closing 'crat can count this as one. On another topic, I'm shocked to see so many opposes merely because some users (apparently) don't understand image policy.
'''Neutral''' per Eluchil404 --
'''Neutral''' pending satisfactory answer to Q4. ++
'''Neutral''', for the time being, per Cactus.man.
'''Neutral''' - But if he cracks into peer pressure and launches a "public apology", I'm switching to oppose.  It's not like it'd make any difference, and I'm sick of Wikipedia's panderings to public showings of remorse and The Prisoner style public confessions.  What happened, happened. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''' Switching to neutral. While an apology would have been better to help smooth out the hurt feelings caused by the issue, so much good work can outweigh even an egregious mistake. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. Sorry to those still angry over the issue though. -
'''Neutral'''Second chances are admirable, but it appears that he is too volatile at the current time, so i'm torn between both sides.
'''Neutral'''&mdash; [[Einstein]]’s quote, “It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible nonconformist warmly acclaimed,” came to mind as I read this. It is true that nonconformity often comes with great creativity; I applaud the independent spirit that does not "knuckle under" to publicly apologize.  Never-the-less, "''Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested to build a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect.''" The powers of the Wikipedia Administrator to delete, resurrect, ban, reauthorize and make things invisible to the average user requires as a minimum standard, mutual respect.  I can understand a number of Wikipedian’s feel that contrition for actions outside of the community norm is the relatively small price required to restore this mutual respect. This discussion documents that we haven’t reached that minimum standard. It saddens me to see such a longstanding and solid contributor unapproved; but the best indicator of future performance is still past performance&mdash;and although I will not oppose, I also can not support.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose, per the above. He seems hostile with the bot.
'''Neutral''' answer to Q4 is just enough for me... even if a bit late. --
'''Support'''. Please see further questions below.
'''Support'''. Yup, don't see any problems here. --
'''Not-very-but-still-weak support'''. He seems to be a good editor and he isn't likely to abuse Admin powers, but he ''has'' been inactive for quite a few months --
'''Strong Support''' CBDunkerson is a wonderful asset for Wikipedia, and would do well with the mop. —
'''Absolutely support''' despite my serious concerns with the distribution of his edit totals.  I mean, here this long, and only 3 edits to "Category talk" namespace?  But I'm going to overlook that this time and not just go blindly by the edit count numbers because I think he will be a fantastic admin. —
'''Support''', great editor. And {{tl|day+1}} was on my personal wishlist.
'''Support''' - he's a good choice for admin. -
'''Suppport''', worked with him&mdash;good editor and not somebody who'd abuse admin powers. &mdash;
'''Support''' good user as far as I know, everything appears to in order. good luck.--
'''Support'''. My impression of this user has always been good, and examining recent edits gives no cause for concern and much cause for supporting adminship. Evidently slightly idiosyncratic views on 3RR, so should be careful to respect others' views on when or not to block at [[WP:AN3]] if he should decide to get involved; this presumably isn't a problem since he says he simply won't work over there much. -
'''Support''' per Mirlen. --
'''Support''' Thoroughly wonderful editor.
'''Support''' - seems like a great choice for admin to me --
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' for keeping his head cool and showing good judgement in the Pigsonthewing case.
'''Support'''. Very good user. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' Has the experience and the quality of edits. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' a very good editor. I liked his answer to question 1 on 3RR.
'''Support''' Everything in order here.
'''Support''', of course. -
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', will make a good admin and very good edits [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Looks great from all angles. '''''×'''''
'''Support''', although he has only been really active for a few months, I see no major problems.
'''Support''' No problems here. A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A reasoned voice in the whole [[WP:AUM]] mess.  Unlikely to abuse the tools.  --''
'''Support''' per nom and everyone else. I couldn't ''not'' support a user like this. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', very active, no fear of burnout.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' was one of the first people to help me when I started editing. -
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' - Solid contributor. Put him to work.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Definitely''' --
'''Wholeheartedly'''
'''Strongly support''' solid, levelheaded, supportive, etc.  I have full confidence in you.  --

'''Support''', good user. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' meets my criteria. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''. 'Course. &mdash; '''
'''Strong Support''' I thought he was one --
'''Support''' this wandering mop-wielder.
'''Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support''' - I thought he already was an admin?!!  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Support''' per Cyde :-)
'''Support''', {{[[Template:Rfa cliche1|Rfa cliche1]]}}. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Support''' It's all been said, won't abuse tools and is a good editor. Good luck!
'''Support''' well deserved--
'''Support''' Certainly, for a fine user.
'''Support''', excellent user.
'''Support''' giving him One Mop To Rule Them All!! - Aksi_gr
'''Support''': helpful and friendly user, may his soul rest in peace (of which he'll have precious little once this passes :-). —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of course. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', Per above.--
'''Support''', looks great, keep it up.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' There is no reason not too. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
{{User:Go for it!/Vote StrongSupport}} I just awarded him a barnstar for his help with template programming on the [[Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day|Tip of the day]] project, and was considering nominating him myself.  But somebody beat me to it! --
'''Support''' - all looks just fine.
'''Support''' with a Slam Dunkerson.  Bad pun.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' as above.
'''Support''' This is such an obvious case for adminship that i say hand him the mop now!
'''Piling on Support''' of course.  --
'''Support''' seems to be a decent candidate for promotion.--
'''Weak support''', Good contributor from last few months.
'''Support''' I hope to aspire to CBD's level someday. He can stay calm under any situation. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''' good candidate --
I have '''''[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Lar 11]''''' Category talk edits... should I be proud or nervous??? More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup>'''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order here, give 'em the mop! —
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Is this a joke? You mean he's not an admin yet?
'''Support''' Funny thing.  I just ran into him.  Noticed he wasn't an admin.  Said "huh?".  Did some poking around thinking I might nominate him.  And here he is.  --
'''Support''' per Rick.
'''Support'''.  Plus, he has almost doubled his "Category talk" namespace edits in the last week! --
'''Painfully redundant support'''.  How is he not an admin yet?
'''Umm, yeah, support'''. Whoa. This is a [[Wichita State University|shocker]]. Really... he's NOT an admin?
'''Delete''', nn. templatecruft. Wait, wrong page...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Wait a secund... he's been here 3 years and still no adminship? Set things right! <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support'''.  Willing to let the Category talk namespace edits slide.  ;-)
'''&#123;{[[Wikipedia:Template substitution|subst]]:[[Template:Rfa cliche1|Rfa cliche1]]}}''', even though he only has 7 edits to the Portal talk: namespace.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', 93 people can't be wrong! Rock on to 100!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Will use the mop well. --
'''Support''' easy.
'''Support''' Blatant pileon on my part, sorry, I saw an RFA with 97 votes and felt it needed to be 100. Just kidding...CBDunkerson is a fine editor, whom I always took to be an admin already. He deserves this. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' 100! Way to go. --
'''Support'''. I have researched this user and like what I see. --
'''Support'''. Impressed with contributions and attitude to resolving disputes.
'''Support'''. Great choice.
'''Support'''. It's a pile-on at this point, but I only seem to get to this page once a week or so.  Anyway, good choice.
'''Support'''. Let's make it a Slam Dunk for Mr. Dunkerson--
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' [[Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something|Congrats!]] –
'''Support'''
'''Last Minute Nominator Support'''. What more can I say?





'''Support''' as per my nom :) --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support'''. Everything looks good here. =) '''
'''Support''' A worthy, thoughtful editor.
'''Weak support''' per lots of AWB/VP/whatever edits. No big worries. -
'''Support''' Everything seems in order.
'''Support''' I just had to check your user rights log! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''
'''Support''' - fantastic workrate. Seen around a lot.
'''Support''' - I've seen this user around, and seen him improve. Lots of AWB edits, but is helpful and participates in AfD discussions. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools. Only one worry: would like to see more evidence of contributions to articles.
- <b>
'''Support''' - An asset to the films WikiProject, will make a good sysop!! --
Versatile user, I c no problem here. (
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' looks alright to me.--
'''Support''' will make a good admin. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Support'''. Why not-great choice. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Suport'''. Great user, very civil and experienced.--'''
'''Support''' Amazing.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' - an excellent candidate who would make for a great administrator. I have worked with him on film assessment and other WP:Films related articles, and always found him to be polite, knowledgeable, and dedicated to the project. I believe he will get to know how to use the admin tools  very quickly to continue to support and improve Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I see no problems with him as an admin. --
'''Support'''. No concerns here. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support'''. Prolific and professional editor.
I'm
'''Support''', looks good. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Has the right traits to become a good admin.
'''Support''' Keeps cool, is civil, and no problems. --
Good answers, no red flags.
'''Support''' no problems here. ←
'''Support'''.  Fantastic user.  Personally welcomed me to WikiProject Films and I have had very positive interactions with him.
'''Support'''. '''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' no problems. '''
'''Support''', per nom. --
'''Support''' A good editor overall. | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="2">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">
'''Support'''. Looks absolutely fine.-
'''Support'''. Looks fine. -
'''Support'''. No problems.
'''Support''' - why not?
'''Support'''- Per a good editor. --
'''Support'''. No worries.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppport'''
'''Strong Support''' Is fully deservuing of the admin tools.
Because of partisan political user boxes like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:The_Gerg/Userboxes/User_Republican&diff=prev&oldid=93217145]
'''First support!!''' Seen Centrx around, and I believe he is a good, level-headed user. As you can see he has good reason for getting a mop, so let's give him one! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no reason to decline the request for moppery.
'''Support''', without reservation. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' a very eager user. - <b>
'''Support'''. He always seemed like a great user to me (I keep bumping into him). I could say the cliche, but I won't
'''Support''' seems good.
Always good to have an extra janitor around, especially in clearing of [[WP:CP|CP backlogs.]] :) -
'''Reasonably Strong Support''' I don't like it when people repeatedly state their position in an RfA (especially if that's an opposing position), but I don't think that means the candidate has a ''lack of good judgement about what makes a good admin'' but rather a ''single lapse of judgement on when to stop''. And to be honest, it wasn't even that. -- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
support.  me too. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''; great contributor. --
'''Support''': thoughtful opinions and have had constructive engagements with this editor on Wikipedia pages.
'''Support''' --
Thought he already was one.
'''Support'''. Nomination and answers to questions were a good start. A relatively quick scan of contribs seemed to suggest a good contributor. I'd hate to oppose based on expressing a valid (even though I disagree with it) opinion on someone else’s RFA, especially as that opinion doesn't seem to have affected anything outside of that RFA (I'm assuming good faith by believing "I have no disdain for that user..."). Good answer to my email check. Overall, this looks like someone suitable to help us out as an admin.
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' good stuff
'''Uneasy Support''' I see the logic of Psychemp's comments, although part of me believes that Psychemp's interpretation of Centrx's message was a victim of circumstance and wording. I don't want to ease in another wikipedian with an elitist attitude, but it doesn't seem like Centrx is going to turn out that way, so I am inclined to support. I'm also reassured for the same reason that Lar is opposed&mdash;Centrx goes out of their way to check whether or not they are doing the right thing, and I believe that communication is an important thing with admins, no matter how anal process can be.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' Excellent reasons for request, seems to be a level-headed contributor.
'''Support''' - no convincing reason to oppose, and has demonstrated a need for the tools.
'''Support''' - hard working, dedicated, and honest. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' this user's work on [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]] and related articles shows a strong understanding of policy and fairness, I think this user would make a fine admin.
I support you.
'''Support'''.  Looks like you're ready.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' -Personally I can't see how his RfA standards are relevant, unless he is holding someone to a higher standard on an RfA than what he expects of himself, which isn't the case. In any case, I like to see debate on RfAs but I can understand why non-admins are afraid to discuss their opinions......'''
'''Support''' good, determined editors make good admins
'''Support''' - I looked at his comments on Kylu's RFA and honestly, I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  I don't really agree with everything he said.  You can't really expect someone to already be doing administrative type things before becoming an administrator because ... well ... they aren't an administrator.  But still, nothing there raises a red flag.  I've looked at his edits.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me&diff=prev&oldid=64561398] doesn't thrill me - I'd suggest saying "please" or in some fashion making it a polite suggestion rather than a command.  Still, the user on whose talk page the message was left found the comment helpful, so I'm not going to get too upset.  I've looked over his edits, recent and older, and see nothing of concern.  Extensive edits to Wikipedia Talk show a firm grasp of policy.  I see no incivility whatsoever.  Basically, I can come up with no reason not to trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' - No reason to believe the mop and broom would be abused. -
'''Support''' - seems a fine candidate --
'''Strong support''' an intelligent and rational user with enough experience.  What more could we want.  Also, I detect some resentment on the oppose side regarding [[User:Kylu|Kylu's]] RfA, with one user stretching his oppose argument into a reason why he shouldn't be an admin.  I personally feel that is ridiculous, because he was showing how Kylu's editing style is unfit for being an admin--he was not saying that he does not embrace Wikignomes or small-time editors.  Centrx's answers to the questions are perfectly satisfactory, and he has shown what is in my opinion incredible maturity and dedication, especially given the length of some of his well-crafted responses on Kylu's rfa.
'''Strong Support''' I have met this editor and IMHO s/he is very reasonable and handles disputes well.
'''Weak support''' per nom, [[User:YankSox|YankSox]], and [[User:Mailer Diablo|Mailer Diablo]], with a note to the effect that, even as some of the issues raised infra by [[User:Lar|Lar]], et al., are rather off-putting, I am confident that the user's judgment is sufficiently strong as to suggest that his use of the admin tools will have a positive net effect on the project (and that, FWIW, is the [perhaps liberal] standard by which I adjudge prospective admins).
'''Support''' A long standing member of the community with a good reason to become an admin.
'''Support'''. No major issues, and while I respectfully disagree with his comments on Kylu's RFA he's well within his rights to oppose for whatever reason he wants.
'''support''' as per BigDT & AdamBiswanger1
'''Support!''' I just don't see holding one's voting against one. I for one, am glad that this user even bothered to participate in the RFA process. I see no real reason to beleive that this user will abuse the mop. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' a friendly and reasonable user, will use the tools thoughtfully. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Reasonable user who knows the limits of what experience will allow him to start using the mop on. I'm '''''extremely''''' concerned about the opposes based on his votes in Kylu's RfA, as they look like retaliation for taking an unpopular, if personalized, view. Have not seen any evidence of incivility, and I cannot find the "IRC is useless" (or whatever he actually said) comment here or on his talk page. Diff please? --
'''Support''' as per above. --
'''Support''' I've seen nom in action and think nom has the experience and judgment to use the adm tools well.

I don't really agree with his views on Kylu's RFA, but those are hardly sufficient to make him likely to use admin tools inappropriately.  He's indicated that he'll probably use the tools a lot, too, so all for the good.  '''Support''', no reason to oppose. —
'''Support'''. Don't think I've done it yet. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - concerns have been addressed --
'''Support''' - I have worked with this candidate on a controversial article and found him to be a reliable and level-headed contributor. I was going to nom him myself, but I waited too long :) --
'''Support'''. Nothing wrong here. Will be a great admin.
'''Uneasy Support''': Icey's stats and the Oppose/Neutral sections make me worry about how well this user will handle the mop; otherwise, he'll make a really fine admin. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Impressed with his stated reasons for wanting adminship. This work is necessary and his commitment to it outweighs any reasons to oppose.
I am very concerned about Centrx's apparent lack of good judgement about what makes a good admin, as evidenced in the recent strident and persistent oppose of Kylu in the face of very good counters to the objections raised. Also I wonder if the edit count isn't a bit inflated by needing to repeatedly minor edit things in order to get them right. I think this user is a textbook case of the assertion that time on wiki is not necessarily proof of sound judgement in and of itself. Finally, not enough portal and help edits. (tossed that one in so you can see just how ridiculous a reason that is to oppose) '''Oppose''' with regret. ++
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but his opinion (as shown on Kylu's RFA) that people who do work in wikipedia's back channels are "insignificant" is arrogant and shows little understanding of community. We don't all have to be splashy obvious editors, and his disdain for those who do this important but unnoticed work is troubling. Also, his average edits per page is *very* high.
'''Oppose''' per pschemp. --
'''Oppose'''- I've changed my mind at least six times about this nomination. I'm sure Centrx is sincere, but more than 3500 of his 6000 edits have been made since May 1. That bothers me for a self-nomination, and it bothers me more because of the nature of his statements on Kylu's RFA. I haven't been voting for RFAs very long so I could certainly be way out in left field, but it doesn't sit right with me. Oppose, and I hope he'll prove me wrong. -
'''Oppose''' Same concerns as pschemp are shared. --
'''Oppose'''. Some of his comments trouble me, nothing else really to say about it.
'''Oppose''' I see no interest in mediation and per the above, I doubt this user can responsibly hold the position of an admin.  The ability to mediate fairly and competently is a big criterion for me.  Technical experience might be the next criterion. --
'''Oppose''' As a newbie my first encounter with Centrx left me wanting to stop contributing, and an admin should provoke exactly the opposite feelings from a new user. During my editing of [[Lowell, Massachusetts]], Centrx just about blanked the entire list of famous people from Lowell. We had a brief discussion about it [[Talk:Lowell, Massachusetts | here]] but in all honesty I felt he was just going to do whatever the hell he wanted after seeing he had done the same thing [[Talk:Acton, Massachusetts | here]]. Anyways, I felt as a newbie I was being bullied and again that is not the feeling someone should get from an admin, so I oppose.
'''Neutral'''. Can't support, can't oppose.
'''Neutral''' I'm not going to ''vote'' as I'd look biased (considering your position on my own RfA), but I have no problems discussing things: When users start using editcounts and namespace-count requirements, it's just as silly as Wikibirthday and type-of-editor requirements. I didn't mention at the time that it took six edits for you to get in your single oppose correctly, as I've had to multi-edit things before, but would you still qualify to some people's arbitrary RfA standards if they divided your contributions by six or more? I firmly beleive that you have to look at the overall candidate before you give your opinion either way in a matter such as this. If you do make admin, I do wish you luck, however. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Neutral''' per IRC conversation with Centrx regarding my Oppose. '''
Indeed. (
I'm
'''Support'''. Great user which definitely has the priorities of an admin. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' Without a doubt.
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more admins with regular Village Pump experience.
'''Absolutely!'''
'''Support''' Get on it. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.m]][[User:Dfrg.msc/EA|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Handles vandals well. Good editor, won't misuse tools.
'''Support''' Quite a sufficient level of contribution at the projectspace & time on the project implies familiarity with process. WP:talk edits include 934 edits which include Stub sorting, Manual of Style with emphasis on disambiguation, Stub types, TfD, Templates, Redirect pages, Stub sorting/Guidelines, Citing sources, Stub types for deletion & Fact and Reference Check.  This would appear to be sufficient wikiproject-related to satisfy the most stringent test. Editing is sound. Positive contributions to the [[Libertarian Party (United States)]]; came through a rather famous dispute as generally resonable; meets the [[WP:CIVILITY|civility]] standard. No signs of incipient meglomania. Trustworthy enough to be an administrator with the ability to block/unblock/delete and reserrect. Do us proud - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' Looks like a reasonable candidate.
'''Support'''. Very good list of contributions, constructive attitude, substantial experience - there's nothing not to like.
'''Support'''--
How could I not '''support''' this candidate?
'''Support''' The only reason I hadn't supported 'til now was because I was waiting (not long) for an answer to the question, which was highly satisfactory. Full support.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Yes. =) '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate.--
'''Support'''. Well presented nomination that satisfies any criteria.
- <b>
'''Support''' Qualified candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support'''. Whenever I've seen this editor's work in the past it has always been good. -
'''Support''' A very good editor. Excellent nomination. -- ''
'''Support''' Always good to see a worthy nominee; good luck!. &mdash;
'''Support''' This is a valuable wikipedian.
'''Support''' as all of my interactions with Ceyockey have been very positive. Very qualified, IMHO. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font>
'''Support''' solid answers to RfA questions and has a good contribution history with plenty of disambig work.  Seems like a fine candidate.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Every possible reason.
'''Support''' good candidate.
'''Support'''  I've seen him around for a long time and he's never shown any signs of [[m:Don't be a dick|being a dick]].  What more could you ask for in an admin?  --
'''Support''' Seen him all over the place. A good, thoughtful editor. Will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' Solid answers, appears to have the qualities to have a steady hand on the tiller.
'''Strong support'''. I see him all over the place, solid history of contributions, strong answers, and most of all, the ''correct'' answer to John254's question (c.f. [[User:Mindspillage/admin]]).
'''Support''' no problems, good contributions, great candidate. ←
'''Support'''. Will make great admin, although I'm not very fascinated with his article contributions. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Poop''' he he - see, I can add poop to any RfA I want. --
'''Are you kidding?!'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - some of the people who I have been most impressed with in my short time here are admins who make it their job to help others rather than hinder them.  Ceyockey looks to me like he'll be that sort of admin.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' Seems good.
<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong oppose''' -- Stated refusal to issue blocks for scatological vandalism: "The vandals I've usually encountered to date would not warrent blocking because they tend to act in a manner similar to 'he he - see, I can add poop to any article I want..."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ceyockey&diff=next&oldid=92009543]
'''Support''' per above. --
Of course --
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''' Very impressive nomination.  It is especially good to see such a civil and cool headed user.  Perfect for admin role.
--
'''Support''' Has been very nice and helpful, is very nice in leaving Talk messages, and with his AFD/Speedy Delete history, he'll make a great addition to WP. --
Thought he already was one.
Positive interactions and contributions all around, will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' A very good resume as well as friendly and helpful on IRC. -- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Strong Newpage Patrol Support''' - 1000 deleted edits can't be wrong.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''' nominated by Durin, how can I not? -
'''Support''' count me in! – '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">

'''Support''' good nominee--
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''&#160;—
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' should use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - impressively nominated.  Chairboy seems like an article speedy-deleting machine, yet is polite and conservative   <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
Durin's nom is impeccable, and I've seen Chairboy about doing things that made me think he already was an admin, which, I suppose, is the best kind of endorsement.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; sounds like a perfect sort of user for Admin. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support''' He needs it for the work he does here.
'''Support''', I thought he was one already.
'''Support'''. No reason to doubt he'll do well.
'''Support''': Of course. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Speedy Support''' per Durin's nom. --
'''Support'''. I was recently involved in a minor argument with Chairboy, and can attest to the fact that throughout that debate, he conducted himself in a mature, even-tempered, professional manner. Good admin material!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', per nom. -
'''Support''' Durin's word is golden.
'''Support''' Will make a useful admin --
'''Support''' good editor and will be good admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' An easy choice - great admin material.  --''
'''Support'''. His contributions look good. I think he will make a good admin.--
'''Support'''.  This person will, without a doubt, make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''.  Doesn't get any easier than this. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a great editor. -
'''Support'''. '''
Durin does not nominate glibly, candidates he supports tend to sail right through, so this vote is more of a pile on than a needful thing to ensure the right outcome in a squeaker. But I could not fail to support a fellow [[Libertarian]], [[pizza]] eating, [[SpaceX]] fan who built a remote control camera tank, now could I?? '''Support'''. ++
'''Support''' of course.  --
'''Cliché support''', not only because of his most excellent responses to the optional questions, but also because of his obvious willingness to take on maintenance tasks and janitorial work. Give the guy a moldy mop and old bucket to go with his chair! --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''. Very impressive nomination, can't wait to have another great admin on the team.
{{tl|AdminCliché}}
'''Support'''. Great work, impressive devotion!
'''Support'''... "cats pajamas" lol, classic! - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support so strong it hurts'''. As per nomination and above,
'''Support''', of course. -
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Durin''', as per Durin (after edit conflict).
'''Support''' - Based on contribs, he might even deserve a gilded mop. Will be a good admin, I am sure. → '''<font color="006400">P</font><font color="4B0082">.</font><font color="008000">Mac</font><font color="228B22">Uidhir'''</font>
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' —
'''affirmative'''
'''Support''': chair, boy, mop, give.
'''Support''' Tireless contributor/worker bee. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Oh]]</font><font face="Arial Black" color="#A26310">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|no]]</font><font face="Arial" color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
Let's do this thang!  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">
'''Support'''. Vandals hate you, you must be doing something right.
'''Support'''. Absolutely amazing record, this editor has earned the priviledge of becoming an admin. --
'''Support'''.  If only we were all as willing to learn ...
'''Support''', per all of the above.
'''Support''' - answers to the questions, general conduct, and general vibe I pick up impress me significantly.
'''Support''' As Rob Church put it so well I get a good vibe off of him and his conduct has been very good, he also answered the questions well. <small>
'''Support''' Maintaining civility in deletion discussions can be difficult given the SPEWING FIREHOSE OF CRAP that Wikipedia is subject to, but we need it and it needs to be encouraged -
'''Support''' Chairboy welcomed me when I was editing anonymously and helped turn me into a regular Wikipedia contributor. --
'''Support''', a stronger case for admin I've not seen. -
'''support''' Excellent all round editor, that has a very cool head
'''Support''' One of the better admin canidates. - <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#007700"><b>Ø</b></font></i>
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  Contributions and participation are solid, but especially good is the honesty -- it shows the user is and knows they are accountable for actions, an excellent trait to have in an admin. --
'''Support''' I think he's learnt from his mistakes and he could use the tools with clearing out CSD/skipping the tagging process.
'''Support'''. You've made mistakes, which is why you'll understand those who do better. You've been civil and honest with others, and you've helped out pretty much everywhere. My commendations.
'''Support''' - He's done many admin related tasks already, participated in hundreds of AfD discussions so knows many of the Wikipedia policy and in general an excellent candidate. Has my full support.
'''Support''' a good, honest candidate --
'''Support'''. I seldom participate in RfAs for people I had no experience with, but I'm inclined to make an exception this time. Seems well-rounded, honest and humble enough.
'''Strong Support''' looks really good. Terrific ebayer, A++++, will buy from again. - <b>
'''Support'''. Seen this editor around. Noreservations.
'''Support''' I do not see any problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I like the honesty of his AfD mistakes, not that it matters so much doesn't it? :) '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. Willing to admit and learn from mistakes. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good, I am glad that you admitted to a massive cock-up earlier in your editing career.  Have you now read the policies and guidelines for editors and admins with a close attention to detail as a result of this?
'''Support''' Tons of edits, good time experience, and seems completely honest (admits mistakes).  Would make a great sysop. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good to me, and I appreciate his honesty.--
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' You stole my nomination for you!
'''Strong Support''' You are willing to learn from your past mistakes and you don't hide them either, you shall be a fine admin. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' - I'm glad that you admitted your Afd mistake. Good luck - <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''I'm sick of giving reasons support''' - you go make my reasons for me :) --
'''Support''' I'm glad the user admitted his mistake, will make a good administrator.
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' Many, many, edits and lots of experience, would make an excellent admin. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' - Excellent editor, can use the tools, fully qualified, no issues. The fact that we edit in at least one common area of interest (although I don't think I've crossed the candidate's path yet) is of course a little extra plus for me.
'''Support''' Ick, I've made my own AfD boo-boos. If everyone who made mistakes admitted them so readily, it'd be easier to work around here :) <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''', per all of the above
I'm
'''Support'''  I've seen Chaser around and see no reason why this user wouldn't make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Seems very willing to own up to mistakes, and that's a good quality in an admin. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per all above.

'''Support''' Per above-no problems here!--[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Has done a lot of great work as an user, and will continue to do so as an admin.--'''

'''Support''' Although I tend to not think very highly of self noms, you're more than qualified to be an admin.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' very good candidate. I like that you admit your mistakes and learn from them. All the best. ←
'''Support''' I can see good stuff here, and am pleased by the fact that you're willing to admit, and learn from mistakes <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]]
'''Support''' --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' All my experiences with this editor have been positive, and performs enough custodial work already that adminship makes sense. --
'''Support''' good candidate, reasonable answer to q1. And recently, I saw a comment of yours that seemed quite helpful and well thought out, which is the reason that your user name jumped out at me on the rfa list. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it was. Oh well.
'''Support''' Very good editor, have seen fighting vandalism --
'''Support'''. Bumped into this user some time ago. Had a look at contributions. Impressed.
'''Support''', seems a good bet on risk/benefit grounds, and don't see any significant issues.  Though I do hope the "sense of humor" self-nom-link doesn't represent your finest ever comedy stylings.
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''': I was impressed by the answers, particular to Q#1 - let's give this guy the tools to eliminate some work for other admins.
'''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' I trust the candidate will not abuse the tools.
A lot of people I respect are supporting, but I'm afraid I cannot support a candidate who considers his/her own RfA a foregone conclusion more than two days before the scheduled closure time.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=93719904]. All you need for an RfA to go pear-shaped is a well-argued last minute oppose and a 'crat who feels there's justification to extend the closure for further community consideration. Yet with more than two days before closure, this candidate didn't appear to consider that even a remote possibility. I'm concerned what a candidate who shows such arrogance during the course of his/her own RfA may do as an admin. The presumptuous arrogance is frightening and there's just no way I can support this RfA. Frankly, I think we've already had more than enough problems with arrogant admins. '''[[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]]''' 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Addit: On further review of edits, I also share the same concerns as
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> '''Oppose'''. Overall looks like some v good work but I'm a little concerned by the AfD point, especially in light of contribution at this [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Involuntary_celibacy|current AfD]]. ChaserT seems to have acted rather heavy handedly in crossing out the original nomination as bad faith without contacting the nominator on his talk page for an explanation and further comment. Though I agree that the page was not an attack article, I think [[WP:AGF]] was not heeded. The AfD gives the impression that ChaserT is acting as if he was already an admin and I am worried about potentially overzealous use of sysop powers. -
'''Oppose''' Due to fears of overzealous use of sysop powers. --
I don't generally hold self-noms to higher standards, but I do when they've committed prior errors (and aren't former admins). I'm glad you recognise your mistake, but am not willing to support at this time. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Seems a well-rounded contributor. Happy to be the first one to support.
'''Support''' - seems well-versed in policy and could use the tools. (
'''Strong Support''' I have often come across this user around Wikipedia doing good work, and until a moment ago, I was pretty sure he was already an administrator.--
'''Support'''. Good guy, has a sense of humor too.
'''Support''': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support'''. Well-rounded contributor, will use the SysOp rights well.
'''Support'''. User shows plenty of common sense and I like the answers to question 1, which shows a desire to perform maintenance work. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''. Good record of substantial work.
Of course.
'''Support''' -
We need more administrators who are conscientious and careful like Chick. --
'''Support''' Looks in order. Put him to work. ;)
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' of course. -
'''Support''' I looked this over earlier and everything looks excellent.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Another one whose careful and thoughtful work would be aided by the toolbox.
'''Support''' Absolutely, trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Fine contributions.
'''Support''', well-rounded user.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' I know Chick through his work at [[WP:MEA]]. He is balanced and polite and an excellent contributor.  He is well qualified for adminship. --''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', everything looks good
'''Support''' very good editor. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Yes --
'''support''' - while I dislike self-noms, I appreciate that you're not here to go stomping on vandals. <font size="-1">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - looks like he would be a good admin
'''support''':  Strong contributor evidently dedicated to building an encyclopedia.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' seems to be a great user...
'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent editor.
Support. Welcome aboard. &ndash;
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Pick your favorite RfA support cliche.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' level headed, good ability to perform the maintenance tasks that admins are supposed to do, but far too often don't
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I especially like the 'being nice to newcomers' diffs (I wish I knew how to be that nice without sounding patronising).
I'm familiar with Bowen's work: constructive and polite.
'''Support''
'''Support''' strong support for me.  Good editor.
'''Support''' --


'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent editor. --
'''Support''' Seems like a cool chick.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - Yes. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''' [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]] | [[User talk:ForestH2|+]] | [[Main Page|√+]] | [[Special:Contributions/ForestH2|√]] | [[User talk:ForestH2/Talkpage|√-]] |
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' great work in deletion and kudos for having the patience to dig through the wasteland that is [[WP:DEAD]].

'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' been here for nearly a year now, looks like they've contributed a lot. Weak support due to the reasons under the oppose votes.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Glad to hear someone wants to deal with backlogs.
'''Weak Support'''. I like your answers, but this is a weak support considering CanadianCaesar's comment.
Unfortunately '''<s>Weak Oppose</s>''' per your "warning" to Kappa. Kudos on you extensive contributions and your 2GA achievement. - <b>

'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' passes my criteria. <font color="green">
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Sounds competent. --<font color="blue">
CanadianCaesar's diff would be a deal-breaker if it occurred, say, a couple weeks ago. It was, however, a couple months ago, and the candidate has acknowledged his mistake and learned from it. We can ask for no more, and to oppose for this incident alone, considering that it was an honest mistake and we all are, indeed, human, is a bit on the harsh side. Explaining that the incident was a mistake and learning from it demonstrates maturity and understanding. Giving this user sysop privs would be a net gain for the project, with little risk. —
'''Weak Support''', seems to be a hardworking editor with the right interests for a good admin. Incivility and biting newbees are real problems but the diffs demonstrated so far are not that bad IMHO to completely torpedo the nomination. I rezerve my right to change my vote if something worse will be unearthed.
'''Support''' he has a good record except for the incident below, and I believe he has learned his lesson from it. No one is perfect, but he is learning from his mistakes. He seems to be very experience with everything else and he has good intentions for his administrative time here. --<font color="336699">
'''Weak support'''. Mostly looks fine. CanadianCaesar's diff is definitely concerning, but it wasn't that recent, and you seemed to have learned from that incident.
'''Support'''. Seems good to be. One mistake does not earn an oppose vote.
'''Support''' per concerns sufficiently addressed IMV. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' per above.
'''Weak support''' competent editor with lots of experience but the the incivility scares me a bit. But the individual isn't afraid to apologize and admit he made a mistake so I'll support. -
'''Support''' everybody makes mistakes, that is how you learn. There is no good reason why you shouldn't be an admin, so you get my vote!
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support''' - we need more deletionist admins.
'''Support''' per is reasons behind requesting admin and WP contributions
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' based on what I've seen of him in IFD. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support'''. I didn't even know the prod system existed until a friend of mine showed me an article he'd prodded, way after it had been implemented.
'''Support''' The prod complaint is interesting but was months ago and the candidate clearly has a better understanding at this point. The claims of a lack of civility are difficult for me to understand. Of the three diffs presented, one is terse and two are sarcastic but I see nothing uncivil.
'''Support''' I will not oppose an editor who makes one mistake like the one cited by CanadianCaesar. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKappa&diff=52652979&oldid=52568968]  We do ''not'' need administrators who treat inclusionism as vandalism, reverting deproddings and sending test messages for it, claiming to give "official warnings" to good, outstanding, well-established Wikipedians like Kappa.
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar; incident was only 6/52 ago --
'''Oppose'''. CC's link shows an overzealousness and a fundamental lack of understanding of the [[WP:PROD]] system.
'''Oppose''' per above. Lack of understanding of policy combined with rush to hand out unfounded warnings to established editors is a serious danger sign, particularly from someone who spends so much time involved with the deletion process --
'''Oppose''' per the above.  I note with ''great'' sadness that the offended editor stopped contributing regularly after this incident.  Now is clearly not the time for the offender, however contrite, to be promoted.
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar.
'''Oppose''' I hate opposing; I really do. However, I think civility is an essential quality in any admin. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure if Cholmes75 has his skills in that area to an admin-level yet: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=60733057&oldid=60730464] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=59805760&oldid=59801031] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=58057732&oldid=58056910]. If he can improve his people skills for the future though, I would probably support. Again, sorry! --
'''Oppose''' It looks like he's a good editor, but these diffs provided have swayed my vote.  These incidences of incivility are fairly recent, too. --
'''Oppose''' per Where, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' - Xoloz and Where have provided easy reasons for me to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' per the contributions cited by CanadianCaeser and Where.--
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar, especially after update provided by Xoloz. &mdash;
'''oppose''' per CanadianCaesar, we have no need for admins who enforce the own POV.
'''Oppose'''. From my review of the nominee's own talk page, it appears that as recently as May this editor did not seem to understand the [[User_talk:Cholmes75#AfD|AfD process]] or [[User_talk:Cholmes75#Speedy_deletion_as_non-notable|criteria for speedy deletion]]. I also don't like the tone of this editor's responses to some of the complaints on his talk page. In most cases, it appears that the attacks on this editor were unfounded, but there was no need for sarcasm (i.e.: [[User_talk:Cholmes75#.3F.3F.3F|here]]). An admin has to have a complete grasp of deletion policies and an even temperament.
'''Oppose'''The tone of this warning is enough for me to oppose. Whether you understand the policy or not, treating a long term established user like that is not on. ''consider this your first official warning on the matter''??? No.
'''Oppose''' Some diffs above show civility issues.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]].  I'm really concerned about such recent issues with civility as well.  --
'''Neutral''' - The resume looks good but Caesar's diff shows a willingness to dive into processes before you fully understand them, which I see as a red flag for someone we are considering giving more tools. (
'''Neutral''': I am lost for words about my support for this user, per the above replies and his [[WP:DP|deprodding]]. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''' Looks like a good editor, but the above prod business is worrying - not because you made a mistake, everyone does. But because of taking action before reading the policy, rather than looking it up if you weren't sure. As an admin, such an action could have much larger ramifications. Once this event is a bit further in the past, and there's no sign of it happening again, I'd support. -
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I really want to support. You hit the nail on the head for question 1 as far as I'm concerned. However, I wouldn't really want an admin to respond to my comment with "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=58150742&oldid=58144117 OK, whatever]". --
'''Neutral'''. Seems to be a fairly good editor.  Concerned about the prod issue raised by CanadianCaesar.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''', an excellent co-nom in Man in Black. I know how difficult it is to refactor comics blow-by-blow "summaries" into readable prose, and am impressed with your cool head as well. --
'''Support''', per AMIB's co-nom. ¬_¬ -
'''Support:'''  I tend to think Chris dials back the summaries too far, but his commitment, courtesy, and dedication are undeniable.  I am confident that Chris would be a solid admin.
'''Captain Planet Support'''. Although there hasn't been much XfD activity in the last two months, you are still a great user who has contributed a helluva lot to article and Wikipedia discussions. This user is a phenomenal encyclopedia-builder, as well. Keep up the good work, buddy.
'''Support''' per AMIB -- I think Chris' devotion to high encyclopedic standards, and his ability to communicate clearly and patiently demonstrate that he would make a fair arbitrator when dealing with disputes.
'''Support''' - There's nothing much left to say about Chris. Great nomination by [[User:Malber|Malber]], excellent choice. —<i>
'''Support''' why not, looks good. --
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''strong support''' Chris has shown to me he is willing to work through disputes no matter how hard that may be whilst remaining civil and nuteral,and  that he understands and properly applies process
'''Edit-conflict Support''' Looks like a good editor and the answer to question 1 shows a willingness to fight vandals too. I have noticed this also in the user contributions but I would like to see more on an ongoing basis.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor, that would be good using the tools.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' It's rare that I see an RfA candidate whom I already thought was an admin, but I think this is one of those cases. --
I would have liked to see a few more articlespace contributions in the form of writing articles, to come closer to fullfilling [[User:Johan Elisson/RFA|my guidelines (that I never follow)]], but I won't oppose because of that as the user is way to suited to be denied the rights. '''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'', looking good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' no qualms about it. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' No problems here. A fine editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per Siva1979.  He appears to be more than qualified. -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Easy Support'''&mdash;If we can't trust ChrisGriswold with block/unblock/delete/undelete, then we'd probably better give up on Wikipedia. Do good things well - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (


'''Support'''. I think that this user has the right mentality for an admin. Sure, he hasn't heavily participated in all of the deletion processes, but I think that he's familiar enough with them to be conversant. As well, he's helped with a notability guideline, which would imply interaction with other users, and that's the most important trait. —
'''Support'''. I think hell be a good admin especially in the wikicomics project. I strongly trust his capability
'''Support'''. The "cool head" of the comics project, one of these persons who genuinely try to understand and help while still keeping the encyclopedia first (maintaining standards, checking guidelines, ...). The chance of abuse of the admin tools seems quasi nihil.
'''Support''' i give my full support, A credit to wikipedia, its obviuos he will use his admin tools well.--
'''Support''' Even-handed and open-minded with a good eye for policy and guidance in discussion.  Aside from that, I don't think he sleeps, making him like a one-man neighborhood watch.  --
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support''' for a solid user.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''. Looks like a fine editor. No concerns.
'''Strong support,''' based on this editor's history of conscientious efforts to improve the quality of so many articles, the calm way he handles conflicts which arise, and his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines coupled with dedication to following them. On the rare occasions when I have not agreed with an edit of his, I have always been impressed by how well he expresses his position and with his great success in finding compromises that help us all to avoid edit wars. Off hand, I can think of no one else whom I would endorse more strongly.
'''Support''' As a member of [[WP:COMIC|the Comics Wikiproject]], I have seen him in many situations. I feel that he would be a good sysop.--
'''Support''' This editor has a good feel not only for valuable content but additionally how to interact with a variety of personalities here. Any concerns voiced for him are minute compared to the contributes he has and continues to make.
'''Support''' A well-rounded user with ample experience; the mop will be safe (and busy, it seems) with them. - <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' His constant excellence and fair-mindedness as an editor is something we should all strive for. -
'''Support''' No doubt at all that Chris would make a fine admin. <font style="font-family:Courier New;">--<font style="font-size:12pt;">
'''Weak Support'''
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; His calm, articulate and polite responses to even the most uncivil provocateur have impressed me as admin material for some time now. He knows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he has common sense, and I've only seen him get better at Wiki as time has gone on. --
'''Strong Support''' - no question about that. Good editor, great editcount, experience.
'''Support''' I've seen Chris' edits on the ''[[X-Men: The Last Stand]]'' article; very cool and level-headed, even when dealing with the same issue over and over and over... I have no doubt that he'll use the admin powers in a very fair manner, doing even more to improve the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. Looks like he would be a good admin. '''''
'''Support''' per reasons listed above.  User has exhibited level-headedness, initiative, leadership skills, and consistent awesomeness.
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support'''. Don't see any serious issues.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]]. Even someone who doesn't do much XfD work yet, may be able to be pleaded into helping out durring high backlog times. ;-)
'''Support''' No doubt.
'''Support''' From my interactions from Chris and what I've seen, I believe he'd be an awesome choice for being a Wikipedia administrator. As others have said above, he keeps his cool, he knows his stuff, and he would handle such responsibilities appropriately. --
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support'''. This user is a great example of someone who can be trusted with the admin tools.  They are very focused on the process of making articles better and will use the tools appropriately.  ''Adminship isn't a big deal''. Plus we need more [[:Category:Wikipedians_in_Pennsylvania|admins from Pennsylvania]]. --
'''Support'''.--
'''Unnecessary Support''' I know this is piling on, but I just wanted to voice my positive opinion of the candidate.  As the community has mentioned, he's certainly to be trusted with the tools, given his experience and dedication to volunteering here
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support.''' Of course. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
You mean he isn't one already? Damn. Thought he was.
'''Weak support''' Changed from neutral to weak support per good handling of [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Anthony cfc|this awkward conflict]].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' great editor who definitely deserves the admin tools. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Death of Superman Support''' real good editor, fake death. --
'''Weak Support''' I was previously neutral but have decided to support Chris' AfD. Good luck. --<i><b><font color="#FF0000"><font size="2">[[User:Anthony_cfc|Anthony]]</font></font><font size="2" color="#008000">[[User:Anthony_cfc/esperanza|cfc]]</font> <font color="#0000FF"><font size="2">([[User_talk:Anthony_cfc|Talk to Me]])</font><font color="#0000FF"> <sup><span style="font-size: 1"></span> <font color="#0000FF"><span style="font-size: 1">
'''Oppose''': Like Husond, I'm concerned about the lack of involvment with XfD and especially with countervandalism. Note also that when the ChrisGriswold does revert a vandal edit, he generally doesn't leave the warning messages on the vandal's talk page, suggesting a minor failure either to understand or to follow procedure against vandals. I'm just not quite comfortable giving the mop uder this circumstance. I'd be glad to support once the user has more experience in these areas.
'''Pointless Neutral'''. I have reservations per Husond, so I am sort of short of supporting... (Not that it makes a difference at this piont.) Good luck! - <b>
'''Support''' -Of course, I nominated him.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Overdue?!!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  He's certainly been here long enough to earn the extra tools.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Conditional support; Chris says that he is going to step up his activity. --
At least one admin will be beyond "editcountis" and "Wikiholism." With good faith, I '''support'''.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', [[User:Jondel|Superman Jondel]] needs [[User:Christopher Sundita|Green Lantern Chris]] to ward off the forces of evil. :) It's not only about the edit counts, but his quality of edits. Give him the power ring, for the sake of the wikiverse. :) --
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support.''' His account age outweighs his edit count. Besides, 1,110 is good enough.
'''Support'''...I can't justify opposing someone's nomination on either the grounds of origin or edit count.
'''Support'''. A pleasure. --
Will not abuse admin tools.--
Support - to try to counteract the idjicy of opposing because they want to fight vandals in their specialist areas. I remember when that was regarded as a positive -
Having a finger in every pie is not supposed to be a prerequisite to becoming an administrator. --
'''Support''', but you should begin some RC patrolling if you become admin
'''Support'''. A very good editor, and I am sure that he will not abuse his admin tools. --
'''Support'''. Admins don't need to edit multiple times every day.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
For the same reasons as Michael and David. Noticing one of the least convincing oppose sections in a while, I decided to give this request a good look. Edit counts are good for giving us a general idea of a user's experience, but they are not to be used for vetoing in the face of evidence of sensibility. There is evidence aplenty here, and I am encouraged by Chris' reasonableness. ''All'' admins should only want to sign up to help out in their particular area of interest (the sum total of which creates an encyclopedia through collaboration, nothing else); that's all I wanted.
'''Support''' subject specialists are ''good'', especially in comparatively rare subject areas. Isn't focusing one's anti-vandalism efforts on one's area of expertise a good idea? Yes, yes it is.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' needs to take a more active role in project namespace, but it is undeniable that we need more sensible, experienced and cool headed admins around. From my experience of his conduct, Chris is all of these things. -
'''Support''' I think the only valid reason to oppose someone's adminship is because you have reasonable evidence to think that he will abuse his or her admin capabilities. In the case of Chris, I don't think he will abuse it. I find it weird to oppose just because he or she isn't as active as you think they should be. --
'''Strong Support'''. it's high time. --
'''Support'''. Being an island is good.
'''Support''' We need more speciallist admins
'''Support''' per won't abuse. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' One of the few people in here who take the "assume good faith" directive seriously. ;-)
Changed to '''strong support'''.  We need specialist administrators who can make rational decisions.  We have enough vandal fighting automotons.  --
'''Support''' per Michael Snow and Dmcdevit. I've seen this name around, and never associated with anything that would make me doubt his capability to be a good admin. Seems sane and reasonable; I think claims of "inexperience" are not applicable. Someone who has been consistently around for this long, even if he could not always devote an extremely large amount of time due to studies, surely knows what's up by now.
'''Support''' as per many above, in addition, low rate of contribution does not seem like weakness to me if (as in this case) the absolute number & quality are above threshold.
'''Support''' per Mindspillage, although personally I would've liked to see a somewhat higher recent contribution rate. I don't thing you'll abuse the tools though.
'''Support''' per others above. It'd be great if Chris could expand his use of the tools to WP:AIV, etc., but there's no indication he'll abuse them.--
'''Support''', I don't find the edit count low. Shows understanding of policies and willingness to help, this is enough for me. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''support''':   Per David Gerard, seav, bogdan.
'''Support''', per everyone else above. :-)
'''Support'''. In this case, the so-called "inexperience" is balanced by a clear capacity to be an admin. If you prove you're capable of being an administrator, you don't need to be here every day whacking vandals. ''Remember: adminship is no big deal.''
'''Strong support''' per per above and Michael Snow and Dmcdevit. Christopher Sundita is clearly dedicated to making Wikipedia a usable encyclopedia, and one of the more promising candidates we've had up here in a while.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''. Since Christopher is unlikely to abuse admin privileges, I don't care if all his work would be limited to a small group of articles. Not every admin has to police all of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I have seen nothing to convince me that he would be anything but a good admin --
'''Support'''; everything I see is good, and wow, he's been here longer than me.  This one is obvious to me.
'''Support''' evidence that he will make good use of admin abilities.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' maybe not your typical vandal whacker, but surely enough there is no evidence (after 3 years!) to suggest that Christopher will abuse sysop privileges. There is much more to adminship than dealing with vandals. I would be displeased to see such a thorough editor be overlooked for promotion because of lack of discussion and AIV postings, given that even those aspects alone were not enough to promote quite a few users in the past. --
Changing to '''Support''' from neutral, now that I've thought about it some more.  I think he'd use the tools well; and I think that having admins who specialize in certain areas isn't a problem, especially for editors like Chris who help us counter systemic bias by adding much more information on topics that otherwise wouldn't be covered well. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support''': A three-year stay is long enough, but unfortunately he's been on and off throughout that period. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' - can't see any abuse of admin powers coming from this user.
'''Support''' per IDHAN.
'''Support'''. I like what I see, and your lower amount of experience is a very minor factor for me. I normally vote Oppose on editors that have similar edit summary usage, but you only seem to omit them on non article edits.  Still bothers me, but not enough to oppose. :) --<font color="3300FF">
'''Strong Support''' - Yet another unjustified attack against serious article editors and also subject matter specialists (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2]]). Also, it appears as though RfA is descending into a popularity contest, as I have also seen other users with similar edit counts and also more thinly sliced edits, or inflated by doing thousands of "welcome" notices easily getting through even though they never had any great interest in deletions let alone policy related matters. I cannot see any evidence that Christopher is either rude or agitational in his activity here; so I can't see how he would bring the office into disrepute - secondly, I don't see him going on a rampage in areas with which he has not chosen to previously familiarize himself (many other people who are not familiar with half the policies or don't even partake in the procedures involving them have easily romped home because they have a large group of friends to "vote" for them). '''
An unusual balancing-of-opposes-support from me. Opposing because the candidate doesn't have enough experience after ''3 years''? That does not compute!
I don't buy into the arguments made by the opposers, no offense intended and with every assumption of good faith. Here's an editor who's been around since forever, is sane, reasonable, and brings badly needed expertise to the project. Making this editor an admin would greatly benefit the project. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' from neutral.--
'''Strong support''' Everything checks out fine. We have a strong nom because of their longterm involvment with the community. Have reviewed the opposes and they do not sway me at all.  --
'''Support'''. Dedication to the project shown by ability to stick around for three years, sense of humour, no penchant for adhering to totally arbitrary rules which would detract from Wikipedia work. It seems to me that he'd benefit from +sysop and wouldn't be gallivanting around abusing the tools. --
'''Support''' - per keitei
'''Support''' per Blnguyen. Isn't likely to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per Keitei - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Oppose'''. The contributions show that the candidate is a great editor, but tends to be an island, with very less tendency of discussions. In fact all non-personal discussions he had were on [[Wikipedia talk:Babel]]. Also, the low activity concerns me. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' very low edit count considering they've been here for nearly 3 years, edits seem concentrated on a few specific types of articles, the user says they want to address vandals that appear in Philippine-related articles, admins should RC patrol not just watch a select few articles. I couldn't find any evidence of RC patrolling. Great editor but needs to get more involved with other parts of Wikipedia.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' basically per Andeh... while this candidate shows an honest eagerness to help the project, I can't support giving him extra buttons, especially as his primary reason for wanting them is to deal with vandals (an area he/she has little experience with).  Also, it seems as if he had the tools, he'd restrict his use of them towards people that edit on a particular subject matter (Philippine-related articles).
'''Oppose'''. "Tends to an island?" (Ambuj's comment.) Is that a pun? Anyway, I'm not entirely confident that you have a good knowledge of policy (despite your time here) and that you won't use the tools to simply lord over your favorite articles. (I may be able to help you out with those tricky page moves if I become an admin.) Doesn't meet [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. You're doing good work, but I'm not ultimately convinced you need the tools right now. I'll definitely reconsider in the future though.
'''Oppose''', too early, does not meet my standards. Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests an insufficient knowledge of policies.
'''Oppose''' I am not worried by the low-er edit count, but your answer to Q1 indicates you will probobly concentrate on little else than your pet articles. I would have liked to see you with a broader outlook.

'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki-space contributions suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process; also, low activity level generally.
'''Oppose''' per above. --<font color="336699">
'''Totally Oppose''' per inexperience - <b>
'''Oppose'''; Christopher has less than 500 edits this year.  I don't think admins need to be here 24/7, but more than one or two edits a day would be good.  He's stepped up his activity recently but still not to a very high level.
'''Opppose''', does not appear to have much experience fighting vandals.
'''Oppose''' per above, and poor answers to some of the questions. --

'''Oppose''' If the user wants the tools to block vandals and 3RRers in Phillipines related articles, then I don't see that as a strong enough need. I can't see any posts to AIV and only a couple of 3RR related posts - which indicates that this user is rarely, if ever, in a situation to require the blocking tool. If the user wants to address vandals and 3RRers outside of those articles, then I would like to see more experience with the vandal/3RR escalation processes - to be sure they understand policy and guidelines. General experience and activity also concern me.
Per freakofnurture: adminship is site-wide, not limited to a specific subject area, and I'm wary of setting the sitewide admin bit for a guy who doesn't have much widespread experience.  --
'''Oppose''' low talk count overall. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Weak Oppose''' -- "Oppose" for lack of experience (I'm finicky about that). "Weak" - my opposition is mitigated by good attitude, good contributions. Subject matter concentrated on the Philippines is bad? I think it's good to have knowledgeable people concentrating on articles, not just generalists. As for RC patrols -- they're Wikipedia's first line of defense. They still miss the many subtle errors, spam links and vandalistic edits that slip into articles that only an editor knowledgeable on the topic can discern. RC Patrols catch the common "Joey is gay" stuff but can miss seemingly reasonable items added to articles they are unfamiliar with, such as [[John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy|John Seigenthaler, Sr.'s]] biography. So it's just as important to have someone knowledgeable intensively watching a cluster of articles. If still in doubt, I encourage non-physicists try independently determining for themselves the merits of the physics edits being disputed at [[Albert Einstein]].  ...I will enthusiastically support a second RfA after [[User:Christopher Sundita|Christopher Sundita]] has accumulated more experience continuing what he's already doing.--
'''Oppose''': good editor, but after reading answers to questions below, I think he needs a little more familiarity with policy first, in particular the idea that some number of votes is required in VfD.
'''Oppose''' per Voice-of-all. --
'''Oppose''' Per the concerns expressed above regarding experience and understanding of Wikipedia's policies. --
'''Neutral''' 200+ Wikipedia space edits suggest that knowledge of policy is more than skin-deep. However, the improperly-formatted nomination and low overall edit count causes me to refrain from support.
'''Neutral''' More experience will be better.--
'''Neutral''' per Kungfuadam.









First support'''
...and '''support''' as well; distinguished contributions all over the place.
'''Support''' - looks good to me --
'''Support''' for a solid editor. --
'''Support''' after looking you over, can't think of a reason why not.  --
'''Support''', I don't personally have much experience with this user, but he looks OK.
'''Support''' - seems like a conscientious and reliable user. -
'''Support''' Can't find anything even slightly suspicious, therefore you get my support!
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', Per above --

'''Support''', strong across the board.  Heck, even Massiveego said yes...you must be good to go--
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', seems a very solid editor with a lot of experience and great contributions.  I think [[Plato]] would argue that the fact that Circeus has never sought the mop suggests that he would be an ideal wielder of the mop.--
'''Supprt''', very experienced but variation in month's contribution is significant. It is a drawback but still I suport.
'''Supprt''' --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Veteran editor, obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' An experienced and capable editor. I see him around a lot and thought he already was an admin. --
'''Support''' Looks like a very constructive and responsible editor.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' absolutely. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', good work
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Support''' per everyone <font color="#000080">
'''support'''. coulda sworn he was one.
'''support'''. sounds good to me. +1 for tuf-kat, and +1 for the right answers. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[User:avriette]].
'''Support''' ran into him somewhere i believe, our dealings were good. good editor who deserves the mop.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support''' per above. ''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' very good, hardworking editor
'''Support''' glad to offer my support. A great Wikipedian.
'''Support''', he could have been promoted to admin a long time ago. --
'''Total support''' without a moment's hesitation.
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support''': Very experienced, thorough editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' - looks good to me too - Aksi_gr
'''Support'''. Give him the tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent user! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' this vote has no point, but what the hell... one more cant hurt.
'''Support''', long overdue.
'''Support''', an easy choice here - great editor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Though you clearly don't need it to be successful here. Keep up the good work. -
'''Support'''. Rock solid.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''', great editor who will use the tools wisely
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression.
--
<font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks fine to me. --
'''Was-going-to-be-First support'''. Can't say I've come across you before (as you pointed out in your self-nom why), but I'm impressed with your nomination and answers to questions. Looking at your talk page, contributions to other people's talk etc suggests that you are always friendly/polite and great at explaining image policies. I think you'd do a great job as an image admin, so don't feel like you'd have to go off vandal whacking or AfD closing (if you don't want to). Anyway enough waffle, I'll let someone else have a go! (see I was going to be first, but then I took too long writting that, after spending too long looking through your history ;)
'''Support''', contributions and answers look good to me, I can't see any bad history. Will probably make a good admin (when not disappearing for months). -
I hate being forced to use the cliché.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Cohesion's self-[[scientific method#Characterizations|characterization]] as a ''communicator'' is a plus. I have been married to a communicator for decades; it is possible to use communication as a universal [[strategy]] for [[problem solving]]. Thus diversity of character among admins would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. --
'''Support'''. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''The return of that's hot.'''
<s>"Adminship is no big deal." - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 10:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Seems reliable, and [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]].
'''Support''' A good editor. --- <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good enough, although I would like to see him more active, he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Cliche --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not]]? --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', happily. Can easily be trusted with the mop. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' good answers to additional questions. they showed me that you are ready. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', no problems here.
'''Support'''. The good stuff. --
'''Support''' - everything looks good.
'''Support''', looks a good editor.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.'''
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' yep. Although, fyi, it's "pores" not "pours" over. :) <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Support''' After consideration of edits I perused, what's written here, and a response from the candidate, I am convinced he has the maturity to tackle the challenges of being an administrator. --
'''Support''' thoughtful answers to questions, plenty of experience, seems like a fine candidate to me.--
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''; high-quality contributor and apt to be an equally excellent admin.  Good answers to questions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  A very reasonable editor, understands policies, will do well --
'''Support''', good work with image-tagging, good balance of edits in other namespaces, seems like a strong candidate. — <small>Feb. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[10:23] <
'''Support'''His contributions look good, he's civil and he has shown he understands policy and I think he can be trusted with a mop and bucket.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Quality editor. Should be good administrator.
'''Support''' because this user will very likely be promoted by a unanymous desicion.  :)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Hard-working editor, should be a good Admin too
'''<s>Support</s> Strong Support''' per above and below. A very hardworker and should've been admin a long time ago. :)<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''', level-headed in disputes, a lot of maintenance work, knows WP, works in a wikiproject, etc. <small>P.S. I predict a support vote from [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]].</small>
'''Support''' - I have met Conscious before, and although we have had a small conflict (or was it two?) he has been very mature about them.  Overall, I know I can trust him with the tools, and know he will put them to good use.  -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Will make a great admin and will be very responsible with the tools.
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per below.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, mastery of maintainence tasks already thoroughly demonstrated.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Rfa cliché #1''' <tt>
'''Support''' A great user who would be a great admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', just my type of candidate! (well, isn't he ''everyone''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s type?)
'''Support'''. Me too! <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' seems to be a great candidate, taking a look at contribs I see no reason to oppose and user has shown the tools would be a help --
'''Support''' Good chap.'''
'''Support''' Will be an asset with the mop.  --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Very Strong Support''' Will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.

'''Support''' Civil in his dealings with others.  Was able to work with a bunch of footballers, so that has to count for something!  Narrow interests, but seems to be able to deal with others.
'''Support''' of course, and meets [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Strong support'''. How the ''f#$%$#@'' did I fail to notice Conscious wasn't an admin? If I had I'd have nominated him myself!
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Strong support''' per nom. and Grutness.
'''Support''' no evidence that nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''. No alarm bells after a brief but careful inspection. -→
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse tools, good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. No problems here. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Strong support''', well balanced edits, over-all good user.--
'''Strong support''', with no qualms at all.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. The world of football can always use another level-headed mopper.
'''support'''. A-class stubsman. <small><i><font color="#990000">
'''Support'''. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' the P.C. term is "stubsperson", O Lizard. - <b>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', has done too much for me to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Absolutely.--
'''Support''' Hard to argue against that amount of edits without putting a foot seriously wrong.
'''Support''' I thought he was one!
'''Support''', of course. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''',
'''Support'''. A very hard working editor, shouldn't have had to wait this long in my opinion.
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''' the mop must be given to this user. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support'''. No interesting comments here, move along... Seriously, I think you'll be a good admin. --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' better late than never support here. I've come across Conscious a couple of times recently and been impressed with his judgement. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' what everyone else said. --
'''Support'''.  Civil, mature, and hard working; ready for adminship.
'''Support''' Anything I might add has already been said.
'''Support''' Good user will be a good admin. ---
'''Support''' So many edits, so few enemies. Looks good to me.
Just-offered-to-nominate-him-myself-without-realizing-he-was-currently-RFA'd support (i.e., strong, if befuddled).
'''Support'''. Another stub-maniac :). -
'''Support''' A very good user with a wide range of good quality edits. I feel, he would be extremely valuable as an Admin.
'''Support'''. How could you not?  --
'''Weak Support''' Great editor, though User Talk edits are surprisingly low. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' good editor. '''
'''Support''' - Seems an excellent contributor.
'''Last minute support''' per the above.
'''Support''', as nominator. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose. =) '''
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' per Kalathalan. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>[[user:CrazyInSane|C<small>RAZY]]</small>`[[user talk:CrazyInSane|(<small>IN</small>)]]`[[Special:Contributions/CrazyInSane|S<small>ANE]]</small><sup>`</sup> // <small>
'''Support''' User seems civil, dedicated....good enough for me. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' as meets my standards and this is supposed to be no big deal. Insightful on AfD, no incivility, what more could I ask for?
'''Support''' An admittedly cursory review of Crusty's DRV work convinces me of his{?} readiness for adminship.
'''Support''', looks like a good admin candidate.-
'''Support''' I've been impressed with many things Consumed has done, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spore&diff=57984179&oldid=57984028 gently correcting my misconception] about strawpolls. He'd make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' Would make a good admin.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above--
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks good to me, and I love the name!
'''Support'''. My contact with you has been entirely positive, and I can certainly believe that you'd make a good administrator. Good luck.
'''Support''' run into him frequently in [[WP:AFD]]. Seems like a wothwhile editor to me, just check the box that says "prompt me to leave an edit summary".
'''Weak Support''', I never like candidates with a relatively low amount of article edits, especially those who has not been able to improve articles (no 1FA, but at least 2GA). Other than that, he will be a good admin for the tasks he has indicated. --
'''Support.''' —
'''Support''' meets my criteria, though wikibreak seemed a little long --
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.  --
Looks good to me. <s>Excellent userpage by the way.</s> — ''
'''Go for support'''. --
'''Semi-weak support''' low edit count, but user does not look like he/she will abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per nom, appears on my watchlist doing good things.
'''Support''' Already doing some of the chores, give 'im the mop!
'''Support''' Does good work and will do more with the mop (I like the new userpage better, BTW).
'''Support''' based on experience in areas where additional admin resources are needed.  I'd urge that ''whether or not'' this nomination succeeds, CC do some additional article work, as participation as an editor is the most enjoyable part of this project and also would help keep an admin plugged in to the needs of other users.
'''Support''' He needs the tools for what he is doing and he's doing a great job of it.  I didn't so much mind the userpage, and he immediately changed it to accommodate those who may have been offended.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' doesn't seem likely to abuse the mop. --<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' . --

'''Support''' per lack of convincing (to me) objections, and general apparent good sense.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', oppose votes aren't convincing at all.
'''Support''' per Grue.

'''Support''', editor not likely to misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I don't find the oppose reasons strong or convincing enough to date. I think the candidate will do useful janitorial work which is badly needed, and has also handled himself extremely well in conversations relating to this RfA.
'''Support''' consistent with [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my RfA ''standards'']] and per Tyrenius and Grue.
'''Strong support''' Great work on AfD, and anyone who raises that much ire among the sockpuppet community has to be doing something right.
'''<small>50th</small> Support''' Although a touch concerned about the points raised in the oppose/neutral sections, I don't think they're enough not to support you. Good luck! [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Concerns below don't seem to merit opposing to me personally.  Experience seems adequate.  I count the trolls' (or troll's) effort to screw up the RFA as a point in his favor. --
'''Support'''. I like his username. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana">~&nbsp;<b>[[user:Crazytales56297/B0x3n|<font color="#8000ff">c.</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support''', no points of particular concern under opposition.
'''Support''' Opposition unconvincing... I don't really care about edit summary usage that much, one seems to be based on not understanding what "<3" means (???) and as for the scientology thing, he's apologized and fixed it, seems sincere, what more can we ask? [[WP:AGF]] situation here. --
'''Support''' He'll be a fine admin.
'''support'''
'''Support''' Consistant with [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my standards]], and I'm not convinced by the opposition.
'''Support''' as per Starblind. --''
'''Support''' because I was wrong about the 3RR revert rule thing. Love,
--
'''Weak Support''' looks OK. I've read the oppose votes and they are not strong enough to make me oppose.'''
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria.  --
Hate to say the same thing as Massiveego, but oppose under 1FA criterion. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' activity since CC returned from a gigantic absence (July '05 - May '06 with minimal contributions in the interim) fails my experience criteria. Would appreciate if CC explained the absence. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate the candidate taking ownership of the edit summary usage problem, but I see other issues that cause me concern. He doesn't seem to have engaged much in article writing (if he has, he should be pointing it out in Q2), which I think teaches editors as much about Wikipedia as fighting vandals and deleting things. One needs to know as much about adding things as removing them. Also, his userpage suggests that he is here with an agenda, which doesn't become anyone, let alone an administrator. I am open to being convinced otherwise. --<font color="3300FF">
Changed to '''weak oppose'''.  I'm very sorry, but the lack of edit summary usage within two days of this RfA as well as the link on your userpage "Scientology kills" have given me little choice but to oppose.  Admins are often seen as the "face of Wikipedia", as incorrect an assumption as that may be, and the phrase "Scientology kills" may very easily scare off pro-Scientology users.  Additionally, I'd like to see more main namespace edits.  That being said, this user is a wonderful one and I will whole-heartedly support in a few months if more self-restraint is evident.

'''Oppose''' With apologies to the candidate, I have a ''very bad'' feeling about this adminship and the potentional for abuse. I'm very troubled by some observations and am worried about other factors.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  User persistantly vandalised my page, insisted it belonged to another user.
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FConsumed_Crustacean&diff=69971196&oldid=69969713 This] comment concerns me also.--
'''Oppose''' It's one thing to have and mention your personal opinions, but it's another thing to be offensive. Saying "Scientology kills" and "Scientology eats babies" is exactly that: offensive. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. I think this user has a lot of potential, but I am concerned about the low number of mainspace edits and large gaps of participation.  I also am concerned about the trumpeting of highly insensitive language on the user page, which suggests that one might apply that bias in Wikipedia work (now, if it were off-site, I'd give it much less weight).  These adminship decisions from each of us are necessarily risk assessments, and my concerns are enough to consider this adminship as too risky for the Wikipedia at this time.  However, I would be happy to reconsider in a few months if these concerns are dealt with.  Also, perhaps consider checking "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in your preferences--it's a very helpful tool.
'''Oppose'''.  I really think edit summary usage needs to be better, and more experience editing articles would be good.
'''Oppose''' For a number of reasons per Yanksox, but to be more specific, I am opposing largely because of the inappropriate usage of Wikipedia to voice discrimination against certain religious beliefs (had this been an issue when the candidate was a new user, I wouldn't think twice about it, but given that the candidate had a "Scientology Kills" message on his user page two weeks ago leads me to think that this is not a user I want becoming an administrator).
'''Strong Oppose''' I don't like this user's tendency to call any edits he doesn't like vandalism.  It seems very unprofessional to me.  Also, I don't see why someone who wants to be an admin should have strong anti-anything messages on his or her userpage.

'''Oppose''' due to [[WP:AGF|assumptions of bad faith]] and [[WP:CIVIL|less-than-civil]] treatment of Reggae Sanderz.
'''Neutral'''. I would like to see more actual article edits.
'''Neutral''' - looks pretty good, but I'd like to see more edits in the main space before supporting. Will look very seriously at supporting next time if the RfA fails this time round and s/he becomes a bit more active over a few months.
'''Neutral''' - I'm between neutral and support here, but I'll have to go neutral on you. I personally think you have too few main article edits, but you have a decent size of edits in the namespaces of wikipedia and user_talk. If you get above 1,000 main page edits, I'd definitely throw my support for you. --
'''Neutral'' per everything above. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I trust the nominators judgements, and the user looks like a valuable wikipedian, A* admin material -- much needed. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' yes, looks great. Good luck! --
'''Support'''. Looks like an honest, hardworking user. '''''
As co-nominator. &ndash;
'''Support''' - I've seen nothing but level-headed, well thought out reasoning from him in AFD, showing an excellent grasp of policies and their applications (and his work on hurricanes/storms/bad weather/whatever is top-notch).
'''Support''' Excellent user, will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', contributions speak for themselves. Has a great attitude and is always willing to help out. -
'''Support''' per nom.
Happy to '''support''' in spite of that 1FA stuff. :) --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Amazing cliche moment -- obviously great candidate!
'''Strong support''' One of the best editors here. Will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Hell fuzzy yes''', I've been waiting for this one. Strong presence at AfD and constantly running into him during RCP, which are surely two of the main areas admins hang out in. Should be a fantastic asset to the project. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support on wheels'''. This guy does a lot on AfD and no matter his opinion, he is invaluable to the AfD community.
'''Support''', excellent candidate.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''.  Solid candidate. Will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Strong Support''' Terrific candidate with great answers to the questions, will make a magnificent administrator.
'''Support''' Good contributions and answers to questions; would do well to assist with the backlog.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around quite a bit and have seen nothing but good things.  He strikes me as a dedicated Wikipedian who will use the extra buttons to further help the project as well as enhance his own productivity.  A no brainer
'''Solid Support''' - A very good candidate indeed. ''Give-em-the-mop''<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes''' ~<span style="border:1px solid #666688;background:#ccccff;padding:1px">[[user:crazytales56297|''crazy'']][[user talk:crazytales56297|'''tales''']][[user:crazytales56297/EA|<font color="green">56297</font>]]</span>
[[WP:100]] support. Well, okay, [[WP:25]] support. Or thereabouts.
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|fel]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">lib</font>]]

'''I think this is an "Are you f***ing kidding me? Of course!" strong support.''' --
'''Support''', now can you do [[Project Stormfury|something about the weather]] for me? :)--
I was thinking of nominating him, but now there's no need. :) --
'''Absolutely in every sense of the word Support.''' Nothing else needs to be said. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - I've seen this user in different parts of Wikipedia, and I can only say good things about him. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''I-thought-you-were-already-an-admin Support''' Have seen this user every so often. Sensible and definitely worthy of adminship. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Support'''&mdash;Since I incline toward [[m:Inclusionism|inclusionism]] (I thought I was a devout inclusionist until I started AfD & RC Patrols and discovered how bad the nonsense and vandalism can get), gave this nomination a little better than average look. Sane and reasonable in the AfD column. We can trust Coredesat to button & unbutton with good sense. Do it - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' good answers, and good performance on GA/FA lead me to believe this will be a good admin, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' Passes my criteria
'''Support''' Excellent contibutions to AfD, other edits are solid as well.  I have no doubt that Coredesat will be a capable and trustworthy admin.
'''[Expletive] Yes!''' - <b>
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. One of the most valuable people at AfD's. Very level-headed.

'''Support'''. LOL.
'''Support''', seen him around AfD/DRV, tends to do a good job.  My minor concern over question 4 is quelled a bit due to my experiences with him thus far.  Good luck! --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''. I'm confident that candidate will use the tools and use them wisely. Per nomination, "tireless and dedicated", especially in WP-namespace (with all the backlogs we have) is a good description of exactly what an admin should be. --
'''Support''' Great contributor to AfDs and the mainspace.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. We need more people at XfD. + a great editor, nice candidate.
'''Support''' What you mean he's not a admin already?!? [[User:Whispering|Whisp]][[User:Whispering/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. This could be listed as a textbook example of a "ready-for-admin-duties" nominee.
'''Strong Support'''. What's with all the expletives in the supports nowadays?
'''Support''' will use the tools well. --

'''Support''' :)

'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Duh.
'''Support'''. Pick your favorite support cliche.
'''Support''' on behalf of Esperanza. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Sufficient edits? check. Good answers? check. Barnstars from Ste4k? check. Satisfies all my requirements.
'''Support'''. Looks like he'll make positive contributions as an admin.
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support''' Per Chacor (Chacor got edit conflicted while NOMINATING him!).
'''Support'''.  Seen this user around, will make a great admin, and I like the answers to my questions.
'''Support'''. Adminship is not a big deal. --
'''Support''', user has already shown to me his familiarity with Wikipedia processes and willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''', great contributor at XfD ---
'''Definite support''' - Seen him around regularly in AfD debates.  Other edits have been solid and would be definitely be useful with the mop. --
'''Support''' not an admin already? hmph. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course.  —
'''Support''' --
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a flawless user and I would support his RfA, if there was anything more special to recommend him, other than a perfect wikivita. WP needs greater diversity on its admin level and Coredsat seems to blend almost too perfectly into the bulk of admins.
'''Support''' as nom
'''Cabal support'''. --
'''Support''' The main concerns for opposes in Cowman's last RfA we're not enough mainspace work and lack of time here. Neither of these are reasonable causes to oppose at this point. He has helped at many articles making both major and minor changes. In some cases such as  [[Henry Ossawa Tanner]] he has completely rewritten the articles.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' as per last nom.
'''Edit conflicted Support'''. I looked over your contibutions and I am very impressed by your involvement with other users/mediation cabal. Good luck.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. - Cabal experience as well as large amount of Wiki-experience indicates a good admin in the making. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2</font>]]—
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin candidate. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per above&mdash;
'''Strong support''' Yes. Very yes!!! Cowman is a helpful, knowlagable, excellent user, who totally deserves the tools. Best of luck. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. A kind, capable user whose committment to the project is admirable indeed. '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''
'''Where-did-I-put-that-"thought you were already an admin"-cliche support''' for a very dedicated user. [[WP:RFP]] needs all the help it can get! [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
''You betta smile, smile, smile...'' He'll be great, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support.''' [[User:FireFox/RfA|Will not abuse the tools]]. —&nbsp;
'''Definitely'''. --
'''Support''' per nom., etc.  —
'''Support'''. Will he abuse the tools? Nope.
'''Support''' I trust the nom, and see no reason to oppose.

'''Support''' I've seen this user around and believe he's certainly to be trusted with the extra buttons.
'''Strong Support'''. This is one of those "thought you were an admin" situations. Any interaction with Cowman has been a pleasure.
'''Strong There Is No Mediation Cabal Support'''. Meh.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. A truly hard worker. --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Perfect score'''. I've actually entrusted cowman109 with much harder tasks than adminship already.
'''Moo.''' --
'''Support''' Excellent editor. Will be an excellent admin. Has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm impressed with the nom's mediating skills. --
'''Strong Support''' a great editor that looks like he definitely could use the admin tools. -- '''
'''Strong support''' per all of the above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''', great asset to the project.
'''Strong Support''' Thanks for helping me cite [[DECv]] ;) --[[User:Deon555|Deon555]]|
Yes please. - <b>
'''Support''' He always do lots of work in Wikipedia, and never abused tools. Good editor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seems like a good maintanence person. He has helped to point out some oversighted overprotected pages. I hope you help me out with [[WP:PP]] after making admin.'''
'''Support''' excellent contributor.
'''Support''' positive contributor to Wikipedia, including posts aimed at educating editors.
Ack! I got up in the night and look at the auto-updated userpage of mine, and it says "Hey dummy, Cowman109's on RfA" and I just had to stop and give my '''MedCab Obligatory Support'''. You couldn't ask for a fairer, more reasonable admin! I'd offer you luck, Cowman, but you won't need it. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''', positive contributor. --
No reason not to... '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' hell yeah!
'''Support'''. Dedicated to helping the project in whatever ways he can - absolutely! --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' -- per comment on the oppose vote --
'''Support''', I think we have nice admin material there :) --
'''Support''' - Has significant experience in controversial matters, and definitely can be trusted.
'''50th support.'''--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per the above. --
'''I Tawker''' with the power invested in me to vote in this RFA do indeed '''support''' Cowman109's attempt to obtain adminship. This support does not contain any fine print whatsoever however it comes with no warranty whatsoever and may be backed by uncited claims.  Use of this support is at your own risk and Tawker will assume no responsibility for it (and man I write bad legal crap :o) --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' as solid contributor, will make responsible admin. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Xyra: will make a solid admin.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
--
'''Support.''' I've had nothing but good experiences with you. You seem very level-headed.
'''Support.''' As I said when I opposed Cowman109's RFA last time for lack of experience, "I anticipate supporting in the future", and here I am doing so. --
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Weak Support'''; low on the article work. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' looks great.  No problems here.
'''Support''' - He's good to work with on MedCab and he's definitely ready for the upgrade.
'''Holy cow - I thought I had already supported!''' [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support'''. Good Cowboy.
'''Oppose''' In my opinion administrators should have experience on article creation, commitment and improvement and I don't see enough of these to support.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''No FA'''? None I can see, anyway. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''neutral''' Little actual editorial contribution to articles, and <1k mainspace edits.  Popular enough with the RFA crowd to get adminship, but I'm unmoved by editorial contributions.
'''Neutral'''. Great answers, seems like a great candidate, but I believe that [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]] of 1000 article edits is not overly excessive. Looks like the nom will get the tools, but if he doesn't I will support on re-app with a few more edits under his belt.
'''Odd twice edit-conflicted Weak Support''' I like the fact that you're willing to spend some of your valuable time monitoring [[WP:AIV]] (you're a ''very'' active participator at AIV, which I also liked) and I appreciated and enjoyed your rather honest self-analysis.  Based on that, you seem have a very level-head, a trait I highly value in administrators.  The only thing that prevents me from strongly supporting your request is that you admittedly don't write or add much information to articles, which is our primary reason for being Wikipedians.
'''Support''' in good faith. You've done some valuable work. A sober and experienced editor.
'''Support''' While you do have a low number of Wikipedia space edits, you still meet [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. -
'''Why-is-this-section-at-the-bottom-and-the-questions-and-answers-at-top?-support!'''
'''Support'''. Why not?
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support'''. Crazycomputers has proved himself to be a very good RC patroller, his acceptance that he is not necessarily up to scratch on all of our policies stands him in good stead - a willingness to learn is far better than a delusional belief in one's ability any day.
'''Support''' His prices are INSANE!!!!!
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' with absolutely 100% NO cliches! I swear I'm going to get VandalSniper running, I really am. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - editcount is useles for basically everything, looks great to me --
'''Support support of course of course''' good vandalfighter, good programmer
'''Support''' - very good! --
'''Support'''.

'''Weak Support''' I get the impression the user mostly wants admin to fight vandalism, does that bother me? Not particularly, yet the answers to my questions didn't blow me off my feet nor shock me. I can't see the user doing anything mad/destructive with admin, though I have to weak support as I believe the user only wants to close AfDs ''after'' they've got a bit of experience. As the user has quite a bit of experience vandal fighting, I've looked at their edits and had to agree with the actions taken in most cases. And I have to agree with the nom, I also sick of giving vandals <nowiki>{{test4}}</nowiki>, they continue and I report them and 30+ minutes later they are finally blocked, or not blocked because it's too late and they've stopped vandalising. I suspect the user will be a fine addition to the anti-vandalism force. Charge! --<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - A good user. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' per Hoopydink and inasmuch as deliberative and cordial demeanor, combined with his sense that admins are not infallible and act only to interpret (and subsequent to act on) the wishes of the community, make him altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Giving this vandal-hunter the tools to block vandals will be good for the overall project and is sufficient justification for giving him the map-and-pail.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]

'''Support'''  A good user who has a need for the admin tools and shouldn't abuse them.  Knows his shortcomings and can learn to overcome them on the job.
'''Support''' - My concerns about article edits are balanced by his RC patroling and VandalSniper.
'''Support''' no worries here --
'''Support''' self-nom shows a committed honest user.
'''Weak Support''' per AndyPandyUK --

'''Support''' good vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. Good editor, unlikely to misuse tools. --
'''Support''' A good vandal fighter. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. Would have liked to see more XfD experience, but I don't see you misusing the tools.
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I respect someone who knows his strengths and weaknesses, and declares his intent and purpose upfront without ambiguity. We can't all be prolific authors. There's enough work to go around for everyone. Give the guy a mop.
'''<?php echo("Support"); ?>''' WP: edits could be more varied, but his contributions to AIV are valued and I'm not afraid he will abuse the admin tools. -- '''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' He always uses vandaltool to revert all vandals on articles in Wikipedia, and deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' as per most of the above
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Won;t abuse tools. End of story. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''': edits look consistent (mostly vandal fighting). Looks trustworthy to me.
'''Support''' will be more effective with tools&mdash;
'''Support''': Better than many of us! --
'''Support''' per above.  A candidate doesn't need to intend to use ''every'' tool.
'''Support''' makes some good points countering oppose votes --
He won't abuse the tools, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' I am convinced by the balance of the arguments.--
'''Support'''. He'll do well.
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Weakish Support''' You seem very eager to help and are willing to help out with alot of needed tasks. I would like to see you take it slow or get in contact with a vet of somekind to ease into the role. I do, however, think the tools will be put to good use.
'''Oppose''' per WP: editcount. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian
'''Oppose''' Relatively low number of wikispace edits suggests a lack of familiarity with process.
'''Oppose''' as per Xoloz, unfortunately. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per WP space edits and his own comments about infamilliarity with some policies. Reading up on a policy 5 minutes before enforcing it as the official face of Wikipedia is not good enough in my book. Great vandal fighter though. --
'''Oppose''' while I could pass the WP edits some, I don't really see much in the case of article writing which the answer for number 2 leads me to. This is an encyclopedia first, I'll support in a later date with more article edits as you are an excellent vandal fighter.
'''Oppose''' as per Xoloz.
'''Weak oppose''', lack of Wikipedia namespace edits signifies a probable lack of process knowledge.
'''Oppose'''.  The applicant says he is interested in stopping vandalism.  If this is true, then he should be more involved with AfD.  Bots can pick up a large amount of the normal vandalism.  The vandal-articles are another thing.  The only way to understand this process is to participate in hundreds of AfD debates -- really!  It wasn't until I had done that myself that I understood it (and not just ''Delete per nom'' -- really get involved).  It doesn't take too long to get that under the belt.  Come back when you have and we can have a look-see again.
'''Oppose''' per lack of exposure to community; too inexperienced to be adequately assessed.--
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose'''; I can't support a user who would nominate himself knowing that he'd be going on vacation three days before the end of the request.
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian and others.  A lack of familiarity with the process as a whole and a lack of time spent on the project seem to indicate that this RfA is a bit premature.  --
'''Neutral'''. VandalSniper is an ''amazing tool'', and you should certainly be commended for your excellent work on it. I'm just a little bit troubled by your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Crazycomputers&namespace=4 Wikipedia space contribs] matching up with the admin tasks you are interested in - specifically, closing [[WP:AFD]] debates. You have a somewhat limited involvement in AFD.
'''Neutral''' on the same basis as Alphachimp; Low WP-space edits, while not an enormous issue, just makes me unsure of how to vote here. Can't oppose, not completely confident to support. Sorry. :(
'''Neutral'''. Falls short of [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|my standards]]. Namely, needs more article talk edits. Will support on the next go around if this editor displays more article-interaction (we are, after all, here to build an encyclopedia).
'''Neutral''' you've got some good vandal fighting powers, but would like to see more contribution to the rest of the project related areas. —
'''Neutral''': I'm torn as to whether he'll be good with the mop, or he'll wait a few more months for renomination. This is because of the scenario about the the talkspace and Wikipedia edits. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' The nom is much too wordy, but I'll not hold that against Crz.
'''Strong Support''' Great user and is so helpful and does such an effective job. Crzrussian, does such a great job at everything.
<small>Read the first sentence and two supports and decided to...</small> '''Support'''
'''Support''' Objective and neutral.  Will promote and preserve encyclopedicity.
'''Strong support''' As a new admin, I would like a bit of relief at [[CAT:CSD]] so that I can actually do some nice article writing. Crzrussian has been tagging on NP patrol and it would be good if he didn't have to wait for admins to delete something while the author repeatedly removes the {{tl|db}} tag in the meantime. Also I've had to clear over 200 prods today and some help would be good. '''
'''Support''', good user, would make a good admin. --
'''Strong support'''. As if the listed attributes ween't enough, Crzrussian is also a strong asset to the stub-sorting wikiproject. A very well deserved nom, IMO.
'''Strong support''' I'd like to add more to the discussion, but the nominator has said enough. (Finally, I trust nobody will make this into some stupid [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner_2&diff=53718984&oldid=53718086 muslim-votes-for-jew thing]. That would be a damn shame.) [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' after reviewing strong work in RC Patrolling and using welcomes to encourage positive work.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - I wish we had more editors and admins as "crazy" (in scary quotes) as Crzrussian. ←

'''Support''' - your choice of cliche here --
'''Crazy about Crzrussian''' support.
'''Support'''. Impressive contribution count to the Wikipedia namespace. [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Я – за.'''
'''Support''' a fair and balanced editor who deserves the tools.
'''Support'''. A dedicated user across many areas of the project.
'''Support''' great editor, level-headed with a great sense of humour to boot.  He will do well with the mop.  And wasn't he adorable as a kid? --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', sure. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Strong and crazy support''' --
'''Support''' a well-rounded editor who will make a good admin. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', because he shares my pathological dislike of cacky articles on sutpid defunct shopping malls.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a very strong candidate. He has shown a great dedication to the project and a commitment to keeping it clear of junk.
'''Support''' gladly - my interactions with this user have been positive and he displays an excellent level of reason and good temperament. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' as he passes [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|my standards]] and nothing bad shows up on radar.
'''Support'''. Shows a willingness to work with others, even those that disagree with him on a given topic. Will do a good job of balancing assumption of good faith with vandal-whacking.
'''Support''' per everyone, and more good humor is always needed. -
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions, and good edits.  --
'''Support''' per everyone.
'''Support''' I had my disagreements with Crzrussian, but I found him to be a good user
'''Support'''. No doubt, he will be a great admin. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. Not only a welcoming user, but he displays remarkable wisdom on his edits and discussions.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
Well, '''yes''', of course.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Should be an admin --as per wordy nom.
'''Support'''. Great user.--
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor from whom I have seen many well-reasoned contributions.
'''Strong Support''' Whoa - how did this get so far along before I noticed? I must admit, the thought of nominating CZR actually crossed my mind a few days ago, but I never really gave it a lot of thought or followed up on it. However, I'm glad someone else did. --
'''Support''' Great editor. --
'''[[Russian reversal|In Soviet Russia, Crzrussian supports YOU!!!]]''' Excellent editor. -→
'''Support'''. I know him cause of stub-sorting. He will be a good admin. -
'''Support'''. Active, polite, civil; a fine candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower. --
'''Support'''. Even though I'm afraid this is going to come off like a kind of backhanded oppose, it really is a support. Active, polite, civil covers it quite well. He is sometimes ''wrong'' (since he's so active that can seem often), and clutches his opinions like a mother clutches her children, but he will do the right thing when pushed into it, and throughout the whole process is very nice about it. I think that's enough for adminship. We have enough of the other kind <small>(Tony Sidaway, the late great SlimVirgin, ...)</small>, who are generally ''right'', but are acknowledged even by their admirers to be rather rough around the edges about it. We also need some who are going to be ''nice'', even if they're wrong, as long as they will be right eventually. I know him most because of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annette M. Böckler]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annette_M._B%C3%B6ckler&oldid=52690377 (before condensing)], which he nominated for deletion without doing a thorough job of researching it, in many ways like the [[Elizabeth Macarthur]] incident below. He never admitted he was wrong, he probably still believes he was right; I suspect he still believes he was right with Elizabeth Macarthur. But, [[User_talk:AnonEMouse#AMB|throughout the whole discussion]] he was [[User_talk:AnonEMouse#Annette_M._B.C3.B6ckler.2C_redux|extremely kind]] about it, making arguing with him almost a pleasure. Another example was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_kondor_pada&diff=52694464&oldid=52691085 this unfortunate edit] on the legendary and extremely heated [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_kondor_pada|AFD of El Kondor Pada]]. Bad judgement, but, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEl_kondor_pada|when called on it], he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/El_kondor_pada&diff=52703111&oldid=52702171 immediately did the right thing] (even though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonEMouse&diff=52704712&oldid=52700889 still not apologizing]). Yes, we could wish he also be right always, admit fallibility more, strive to improve more than he does; but neither perfection nor contrition are required, doing the right thing eventually is enough, and doing it politely and with good humour makes me actively glad to have him wield the mop and flamethrower.
'''Support''', of course.&mdash;
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''' - an excellent wikipedian who will make an excellent admin. I have had frequent interaction as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey]] and elsewhere, and can only say positive things.
'''Support''', I'm familiar with his contributions and feel he will make a fine admin.
'''Поддержка''' - превосходный потребитель активно на статьях для пропускания. Превосходно. Я сказал это правильно? Heh heh. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Crazy Russian Support!'''
'''Support'''!!!!--
'''Support'''...a good sort of crazy.
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, Change to '''Support''' as per User:AnonEMouse and due to Crzrussian's responses.  I hope he will really try to reduce the small error rate and to work on how to practically demonstrate good-faith to new users. I take on board that it can happen and we could all be in that space.  I also note that the 99% of the time he gets it right and will be of real benefit to the project; the other 1% can always be undone by crabby Australians who think that women who got married, raised sheep, ... are important.--
'''Support''': methodical, polite, and helpful.
'''Support'''.Perfectly sane support, good admin material.--
'''Support''' - excellent nom, appears to have a lot of experience across Wiki. I suspect he'll be a <strike>OK</strike> good admin.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support!''' - the best Crazy Russian since Rasputin! :) <small><i><font color="#990000">
'''Support'''. Good user, most likely make a good admin.--
'''Support''' -- from
'''Support''' A very fine editor.
'''Support''' per Lacertae :)  Seriously, great editor, no question will make fine admin.  --
'''Support'''
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Crzrussian&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=101 No-portal-talk-edits]-support!''' ;-)
'''Support''' You mean he's not already? As a fellow stub-sorter, I totally support this RfA.
'''Support''' - lots of good edits and housekeeping.
Late to the game but '''я поддерживаю'''! For Mother Russia! :D (Looks good, balanced edits - though article talk is a bit on the low side, I suppose you're doing the talking on user talk - and you know, 1FA shouldn't be set in stone.) -- '''
'''Strongest possible''' spit take, late comer, clichéd, what he's not one allready '''Support'''. Can not say enough positive things about this guy, a shoe-in, and the Mailer-Diablo test doesn't say much about an editor's abilities as an admin. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With around 8,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' per everyone (aside from appliers of the once-justly-notorious "jguk test" (at least somewhat toned down by MD)).  Then again, as he's both a fellow stub-sorter and recently gave me a barnstar, I'm probably system(at)icly biased . :)
'''Support''' I haven't actually had interaction with this editor but I have edited articles in which I've seen his own edits and I like this editor's work a lot.  --
'''Support'''. Despite the fact that we have disagreed at times, Crzrussian commands my highest respect. Outstanding work at AFD.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Extremely active AfD participant. I see nothing wrong with this user, and Wikipedia will be better off if he has the admin tools.
'''Support'''. It seems I see this editor everywhere since I first saw this RfA. I don't know if it's because I haven't been paying attention in the past, or if I always noticed without seeing. Whichever way, what I've seen is a good indication of what to expect.
'''Support'''. Хотя на счет "russian" меня терзают смутные сомненья :-)
Seems a good sort... '''support'''! '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support enthusiastically.'''  He's a great contributor.
Happy to '''support'''. The only reason why I haven't supported yet, was before I thought I had already voted here! An asset, well rounded contributor, and zealous in his tasks. Wil make a great admin.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]] ''quote'' with gusto ''unquote'' despite 15 months here.
[[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|Hehehe, someone decided to own up?]] ;) I must, however, give you credit on your active participation in process. -
This is a really good editor most of the time, but I'm concerned about follow-through.  I wrote a response to his note on [[Talk:MILF]], but never heard from him.  As I predicted there, his edit (to make the page a redirect) was reverted by the next user to come along.  I see a lot of admin delete pages without checking "What links here."  If given the mop will your future edits be clean? -
'''Strong Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' per nomination statements and the candidate's excellent discussion on the talk page.
'''Support''' per outstanding nomination. Talk page is encouraging.
'''Strong support'''. An exemplary decency in handling the recall adds to immaculate qualification of this editor. --
'''Strong support''' (edit conflict) He has been a hard working admin, not infallible (who is) but prepared to reconsider and back down if he feels he's wrong. The project would be much better off with him re-sysopped. (interrupt of wikibreak to support)
'''Support''', absolutely.
'''Support'''. I think a two-month stand-down is easily sufficient redress for the self-unblocking.-<span style="font-family: cursive"> <font color= "#808080">
'''Support''' per discussion on talk page and his edit history since his recall which he took with a good attitude. I trust him to use the tools well.--
'''Support''' I am sure he has learned well from his mistake. --
'''Strong support'''. There is no need to guess what kind of admin he'll be, since he already was a great one.  His entire handling of the recall situation was commendable, and he has definitely learned from past mistakes.  <small>[[Russian reversal|In Soviet Russia, RfA supports YOU''!!'']]</small>--
'''Support''' - no reason not to. --
'''Support''' per noms and all above.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Slightly weak support''': Was disheartened to read the comment that led to his block by a fellow admin; I think it was in very poor taste. But he seems to realise his error in making it and in unblocking himself, so I can support.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - I generally avoid this place like the plague, but have to lend support here as in my experience he has proved to be an exemplary admin, and his current behaviour in handling his error does nothing but reinforce my good opinion of him.
'''Edit conflicted Strong Support''' - a brilliant admin - who made himself accountable, and when he made a mistake he reflected honestly on what he had done and resigned, with the true attitude of an administrator who there to "serve" the encyclopedia. He did not lose morale and stop working after he stripped himself of his status. And of course he is willing to be held accountable for his actions again. Furthermore, in the two months whilst he was an administrator, he did a massive pile of janitorial duty, honouring his "election promises" to the syllable and helping to clear the backlogs...(you can see at [[:Image:Admin.sxc]] - stats as of 7/7 roughly, that in terms of clearing backlogs as promised, he was one of the best in terms of work-rate and maintained his humble working demeanour, did not slack-off and play politics or engage in self-promotion after attaining the metaphorical "trophy")...as for the images, well, it is mostly the same 10-20 folks deleting the 600-1000 images everyday and personally I'm very glad to have more help in that regard. Adminship did not change him at all, he worked very hard and saw himself as "one of the boys" - which is the most important thing in an administrator. '''
'''Strong Support''' candidate is a dedicated editor that deserves the advanced tools.
'''Support''' per my nomination.
'''Support''' When there were procedural uncertainties during his recall, he voluntarily ended the process early and submitted his request for de-sysopping instead of milking the process. That tells me he's more concerned with the project as a whole than retaining the sysop powers. An excellent user who'll make a splendid admin (again). --
<s>'''Neutral.'''</s> I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of discussion on content based reverts like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Coulter&diff=67285670&oldid=67284628 this], but I realize adminship is independent of your decision to discuss something.  <s>However, I'm displeased that you unblocked yourself, saying that this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yas121&diff=prev&oldid=68131053 comment] was an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=68132962 "obviously preposterous comment"], yet [[User:Yas121|Yas121]] did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYas121&diff=68132499&oldid=68131294 not seem to find it so], nor can I find any record of you directly contacting Yas121 to explain the matter.  Administrators should be models of [[WP:Civil|civility]].
'''Support''' (again), lesson learned and handled well after he realized his error.
'''Support''' per nom. ·
'''Support''' by virtue of the fact that the entire recall was a canonical tempest-teapot situation.
'''Support'''.  Just an admirable response to a messy situation.  -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. What would we do without [[:Image:Ateam.jpg|Lt. Templeton "The Faceman" Peck]]?. But seriously, Crzrussian don't go through desysop-sysop again, you know what to do.
'''Support'''. —
Well I thought this wasn't going to kick off till later this week and I'd have time to jockey for a low support number. ha!. '''Support''' without reservation. ++
'''<s>Strong</s> Support''', was a good admin before and will continue to be one. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzasta]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:Riana_dzasta|wreak havoc]]'''|'''[[Special:Contributions/Riana_dzasta|damage report]] </sub> 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) <small>Not as strong as before, having some issues with the defensive attitude displayed in the oppose section. But you were still a damn fine admin, just relax a little. </small> &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.&mdash;

'''Strong Support''' a heart of gold despite the craziness.
'''Support''' per nom. -
&ndash;
'''Support'''; looks good, I'm impressed by what I see.  More and more when I participate in these things I want to see someone who has handled a troublesome situation well, and he has.
'''Strong Support''' I had planned on making a co-nomination myself, but since t'others sum Czrussian's abilities pretty well, I'll just mention that I'm amazed at how Czrussian carried himself as a Wikipedian after being the test dummy to the recall process.  Good stuff
'''<s>Strong</s> Weak Support''' To err is human. -- '''
'''Strong support'''.  One of our finest administrators.  His poise, grace and good humour through the recall process are to be admired.  He made wise and thoughtful decisions as an administrator before, and I'm certain that he'll continue to do so when re-sysopped --
'''Support'''.  Good explanation of previous incident at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Crzrussian 2|This RFA's talk page]] satisfies me.
'''The entire recall thing was a total waste of time, why the hell doesn't someone hit [[Special:Makesysop]] and save us from an obvious [[WP:SNOW]] support?''' --
'''Support''' Seems a perfectly good admin in my interactions with him.
'''Support''' all my dealings with him have been civil in the past. Seems like an admin ot afraid to make the hard decision.
'''Support''' dedication to the project and admin accountability. &mdash;
'''Support''' a good editor and admin. We have disagreed on deletions (prod, AfD), but he was always reasonable and civil. From what I have seen, an editor / admin with good judgment.
'''Strong support'''. Ok, you dropped the ball, you took responsibility for your actions and learned from them. I respect that. ''[[List of Latin phrases (A–E)|Errare humanum est]]''. I have only good things to say about Alexander from WP:WSS and elsewhere and I don't doubt he will continue to be a great admin.
'''Support''' I don't think the incident for which Crzrussian was recalled is worthy of a desysopping. I also don't think that people should take advantage of a recall to oppose on other grounds, so I'm not considering anything but the recall incident, which, whilst unfortunate, is a much smaller deal than other things that clogged up [[WP:AN/I|AN/I]] during the time I've been here. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 08:21, 4 October 2006 (
'''Support''' with pleasure. Good editor and admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - outstanding Wikipedian. Involved in some pretty contentious articles and handles flak well. --
'''Support'''.  Diffs indicate a good admin, and the way he handled himself shows good character. --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Support'''.  I don't think he should have been recalled in the first place.  --
'''Strong support per Tawker. <faints at the thought that anyone could possibly recall him>'''
'''Support''' Deserves anther chance. --
'''Support''', get back to work! hehe --<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. He's OK. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' per nomination statement. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', co-nom. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Strong Support'''. He's the only one on [[:Category:Administrators open to recall]] who's actually gone through with it, in any shape or form. As someone who resigned the "sysop bit" voluntarily, he could merely have asked for it back (<small>see our current hottest arbcom case for a discussion of this</small>). That he's leaving himself open to the slings and arrows here demonstrates ''unique'' good faith in the community. Yes, his mouth runs away with him occasionally - but never in an intentionally meanspirited way, and he is quick to realize he has done wrong, and undo. Please think how hard it is to be asked to step down, actually do so, yet continue to be active and productive; doubly hard to then try again to get back his position. Note this is a ''stronger'' support than I gave him in his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crzrussian|first adminship application]].
Extreme Soviet Support. <tt>:D</tt> &mdash;
'''Strong support''' Despite what's stated below, Russian is probably one of my favorite editors, an excellent contributor to this project, and definitely deserving of the tools (again). --
'''Support''' I think he certainly has earned a second chance.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' handled the recall-process with grace.
'''Support of course.''' per all above.
'''Support'''. I looked through the reasons for oppose below. I think the Deir Yassin comment pointed out by Kim was probably a serious (but good-faith and one-off) error of judgment; in all the rest I cannot find anything to reproach.
'''Strong [[Estonia]]n support'''.  I've had very few dealings with this particular escapee from the mental institution, but I see him all over the place - his AfD nominations and comments are consistently well thought-out, his behavior is civil as a rule <small>(we all make mistakes!)</small>, and other than unblocking himself (he's seemed to "learn his lesson"), he has never abused the extra buttons.  Great user, great guy - even if his nation of <s>nationality</s> ethnicity did invade mine three times. ;) (I'm kidding, of course!)
'''Support'''. Yes, he made a mistake, but he also had the guts to take responsibility for it. In the unlikely event that he does something wonky again, I'm sure he'll be willing to talk about it.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Responsible and thoughtful.
'''Support''' The lesson was learned and he remained a valuable contributor in the interim instead of just going away or giving up on the project. --
'''Support''' per behavior during and since the recall. Crazy he may be, but willing to learn and has a proven ability to administer the mop and bucket. Your backlogs are calling to you... -- ''
'''Support'''. He was a very hard-working admin and deserves his admin tools back. --
'''Support.''' Has generally avoided destroying vast sections of the encyclopedia. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' As one of the co-nominators.
'''Strong Support''' Personally, I think the recall was somewhat overblown and he should never have been recalled. The user demonstrates good judgement overall, and we are all human. --
'''Support''', Avi said what I was going to say.
Although [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlgrandson&diff=55671388&oldid=55195787 we've met each other before], it's now a '''Weak Support''' per comments in "Oppose" and "Neutral" sections. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' with pleasure; he's a solid contributor and good admin, from everything I've seen. I'd suggest that he does, however, take to heart some of the comments below and moderate some of his responses to avoid the potential claim of incivility; for admins, anything less than civil creates a target.
'''Support''' with the notation that Crzussian gets passionate about Wikipedia&mdash;which is a good thing&mdash;but sometimes it prevents stepping back and seeing another point of view. I know, I have the same issue. As for the misdeeds, I believe they can be chalked up to his passion rather than deliberately hurtful actions.<font color="FF6600">&mdash;</font>
'''Support''' While the glowing praise in the multiple co-noms comes across as hyberbolic, they have good reason to think highly of this nominee. For me, this nominee is a hard-working contributor whose ''overall'' track record indicates need for the tools and that they will be used properly.
'''Strong support:''' As a fellow administrator open to recall, I'm shocked to have found out that CrazyRussian was desysopped over such a contrived technicality to begin with. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support''' His strength of character during the recall has reaffirmed my faith in him and served as model of humility.
'''Support''' good contributor/good admin
'''Big Wang Support''' from my first ''<nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki>'' to my RfA, he's been there all the way.  He's an intelligent and devoted user, though he could probably use a wikibreak or a vacation.
'''Support''' The noms summed this up well, and I feel better given this was ''not'' a self-nom with even Mailer Diablo in the nomination pool.  Try to keep your odd remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yas121&diff=next&oldid=68130679] a little on the down side, some may not take the proper view of humor into them.  Take stock in what Chidom has said a few lines up.
'''Strong Support'''- excellent admin, and I didn't like to see him step down in the first place. --
'''Support''' he should never have been desysopped.
'''Support''' I commend him for being open to recall.  I liked his admin work before he was recalled.  I've read through all the diffs introduced in the opposition and neutral comments to date, and don't see any reason to oppose in that evidence.  In fact, some of it looks like good administrative work that is a basis for support.
'''Strong support:''' --
'''Support''' `'
'''Damn right'''. I've hardly seen more unconvincing oppose votes, especially number two... Don't you think your opinion shouldn't count if you've said you're ''leaving the project?'' More importantly, Crzrussian is one of the more exemplary users I've encountered and I have no problem giving him the tools back.
'''Support''' - <s>I thought he already was one</s>, I thought he still was one, I don't pretend to understand this RFA but I think that wikipedia is better off with Crzrussian as an admin --
'''Strong Support'''  I'm just sorry it's too late to co-nom.  In the realm of constructive criticism though, closing AfD's in which you were a participant is generally a bad thing® though the diff cited below is essentially harmless.
'''Support'''. Although you weren't the nicest of people to me (hint: the sarcastic tone) when I made that mistake on my second day as admin, I still think your actions speak louder than words. Welcome back, Crzassrussian. --
'''Support'''. Bowing to the recall and re-applying was the right thing to do, and I join with others in hoping to welcome him back. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Conditional Support''' Only if this [[Russia]]n can persuade the [[USA]] not to invade [[New Zealand]]. Ah, the irony. --
'''Support'''- Amazing. 5 nominations. I'm pretty impressed by you. And don't worry, Ageo020, the US will not invade New Zealand. '''''
'''Support''' per all above.  Opposers fail to appreciate Crazy's refreshing and welcome frankness, directness, (at times caustic bur always refreshing) humor, love of debate, good-faith desire to make sure every debate comes out the right way, and overall desire to make Wikipedia come out the right way.
'''Support''' - very well trusted user.
'''Support''' - despite the points made in the oppose section, I've never had a problem with Crzrussian (I've seen him a lot in AfD), and think he would be a great admin. Good sport about the recall, as well. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Never should've been desysopped in the first place, and if anything his actions since just show why he can be trusted more.

'''Strong support''' the only sysop who has shown the [[:CAT:AOR]] has some substance behind it. Very hardworking admin with many hundreds of administrative actions when he had his bit
I'll '''support''' that.  He did a good job with a dispute that spanned several Canadian political articles that would have driven lesser admins insane.  And how worried do you have to be giving priveleges to a guy who will give them up if six people ask him to?  --
'''Support''' -- Tawker has already said what I wanted to say. -
'''Support''' - I think this user has learned from their recall and can be trusted again with the tools. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Should never have been stripped in the first place in my view; the issues raised by those opposing appear to me to be trivial (from those I sampled) and do nothing to raise any serious questions about his integrity.
'''Support''' per GRBerry, Agent 86 et al.
'''Support''' per nom. He's been very supportive of my efforts as a relatively new editor. I think other newbies could benefit from his insights.
'''Support''' . He told me once how not to do things ... and he was right. --
'''Support''' disagree with recall, appreciate the humility of his apology. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' valuable member of the admin community.  Agree that the breach was procedural and in no way malicious.
'''Support''' per Jayjg et al.
'''Weak support''' There will always be inherent community trust issue with RfA's for former admins gave up or were stripped of their status under contentious circumstances. If it's an isolated incident, which it seems to be, and the candidate seems competant and trustworth in all other respects; then the commitment to sign up to [[:CAT:AOR]] gives me sufficient comfort that were a similar incident to occur again, a quick an effective remedy is in place. --
'''Support''' Dedicated to the project, and I see robustness. --
'''Support''' A real asset to the force McClowski.-
'''Support''' a great contributor to Wikipedia whose willingness to step down over something that most admins would not just serves to highlight what a good admin he is. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', displayed admirable qualities when confronted with a negative situation; also being co-nominated by 5 respected admins says something. --
If I may explain, it appears that much of the evidence provided below was the result of misunderstandings, out-of-context accusations, and personal grudges. It angers me that when the candidate tries to explain or clear themselves of something they are accused not accepting criticism in further oppose votes. I've had Crzrussian's talkpage on my watchlist for awhile. He has had his share of disputes, but no events that occurred with him convinced me that he ''wasn't'' a good administrator. And, for what it's worth, there is little acutal "criticism" below, insofar as I can see. Therefore, I '''support'''. Anyone is welcome to discuss my decision with me. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''S'''upport. Valuable and versatile contributor; high regard for his maturity in participating in the recall process.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' He is the paradigm of a good wikipedian, and will be once again an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Good editor, has been an admin before so knows the rope, and the oppose votes are almost entirely unconvincing.--
'''Support''' Per... all above? :) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' He made the foolish mistake of signing up for [[CAT:AOR]].  This category seems to be a bunch of very good admins (and I recognize some of the names in there as very liked ones) who want to ensure they have approval and any admins who are disliked by the community would never sign up there.  [[User:Anomo|Anomo]] 06:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)  I don't want to imply anything negative when I said "foolish mistake", I mean he acted in so much good faith by that it hurt him in the long run.
'''Strong support''' everyone makes a mistake once in a while, but not everyone has the grace and goodwill to admit it and learn from it. I would gladly co-nominate Crzrussian, sorry I missed it.  ←
'''Support'''.
Очень сильный '''support''', based on previous interactions with this user. --
'''Crazy Support'''. I have supported him the first time he was nominated and I am doing it right now too. Wikipedia wants you! -
This is the second time I have been able to give this editor '''crazy russian support''' in 2006.  I'll keep doing it over and over if I have to...:D  Seriously, I support CrazyRussian's bid for adminship without the slightest reservation. --
'''Support''', great user and he being resysopped will benefit the encyclopedia. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Hard working, serious, dedicated, and on the personal side, a dear and caring friend. I supported him once, I happily do it again, and I'd do it as many times as he needed. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' per above. —''
'''Support.''' Still, I would be a lot happier supporting if you would NOT leave yourself open to recall again, though: it's just leaving some people the opportunity to further disrupt things.  Several people voted "strong oppose" below: what's to stop them from recalling you immediately when this ends?  At ''least'' stipulate you will only be available for recall after 6 months or something.
'''Support''' per reasons given by Blnguyen. -
'''Support''' Meticulous and conscientious.--
'''Support'''.  I ''did'' encounter Crzrussian before his RfA, and initially found him somewhat offputting.  Over time, however, I've seen vast improvement to the point that now while I don't always agree with him, I don't grit my teeth when I see he's said or done something.  His handling of the controversy that led to his deadminning was good, and I see no reason to believe that an analogous situation is likely to recur.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - I never lost confidence in his judgement.
Still space for '''support'''? ;) Per all the noms. Thanks/
'''Support'''.  An asset to the project.
'''Support''' - a bit hot sometimes, but after looking at his contributions, I agree that he is a big asset to the project -
'''Support''':  I respect the voices of the objectors, but I respect Crzrussian's respecting of them most of all.  I think he learned from the mistake, but I also felt that the mistake in question was taking a rhetorical gamble rather than evidencing any hostility.  People this conscientious put me at ease.
'''Support'''&mdash;Crzrussian's contributions are valuable. It wasn't the intemperate comment which did him in&mdash;it didn't violate [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] & was a one-off event&mdash;he did himself in by self-unblocking.  I do believe that he has rent his garments, donned sackcloth, acknowledged his misdeeds and made commitments for the future. Believing this he is properly repentant, knowing that we all make mistakes, and confident that his work is of value, I'm willing to trust him. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Da, da, da!''' Sumas'shedshii, Ruskii, i ochen khorosho! He's a big big asset to the project. Yes, what he did wasn't the best, but the number of admins who haven't stepped close to the line once or twice is probably pretty small. That's not a reason to condone what happened - it is however an indication that, like all of us (probably), CZR is human.
'''Support''' per 141 of the previous 153 editors.
'''Support''' everyone can make a mistake. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Strong support''' per nom. Good editor, good admin, clearly willing and able to learn from mistakes.
'''Support''' per [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]].
'''Support''' as above
'''Да!''' [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
'''Support''' as I did the first RFA. But please Czrussian, be careful of your descision making in the future and work on somethings brought up in the oppostion and you will do fine. —
'''Support''' Sure - why not? Nice to see that the community doesn't hold a desysopping against everyone. --
'''Support''' I've seen him around a lot in the past, and I trust him.  No one is flawless and he has demonstrated his respect for the community by stepping down when asked.  Mother Wikipedia wants the comrade back as an admin!--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', as above. If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]].
'''Support''': we need more accountable Admins. Also, too high a proportion of Wikignomes at present.
'''Strong support''' Crazy Russian was one of the most open admins I've come across on WP. In my experience, he's always ready to consider others' positions and admit mistakes, admin or otherwise. And he doesn't seem to hold grudges. Given perfection isn't available (no really, not even from the opposers) this level of honesty and respect for others is priceless. Give us back our Russian!
'''Support''' per AnonEMouse, Accurizer, etc.
'''Support''' User with good judgement and firm beliefs.
'''Double support''', since I forgot to support you the first time round –
'''Support''' I think he is ready.
'''Support''' The time has come!!!
'''Support. He is ready.'''--
'''Strong support''' and I'm really sorry I have been so busy as to not get here sooner.  Crz is a tireless, intelligent, and resourceful member of this community.  If we could only have one admin, I would pick him in an instant.  I have always found him to be friendly, approachable, helpful, and willing to serve in any capacity whatsoever.  Heck, there was a detectible loss when he stepped down, as certain things stopped getting done and backlogs increased.  I raise my glass to a person who deserves and needs the mop, and whose credibility has only increased over the last few months. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support.
'''Support''' (although by this time it is probably academic that this RFA will pass). Did a brave thing by allowing recall, has made one mistake in two months, deserves a second chance. Excellent admin otherwise.
'''Support'''. One of the better admins, we need him back.
'''Strong Support''' -- I was travelling -- I did not even realized he'd been desysopped. I read Kim's diffs below and I must say I did not find most of his comments inappropriate ''given their context''. Sometimes a certain polite bluntness is called for (such as when someone deletes a ton of your stuff without comment); I find his comments in those cases Kim cited within the bounds of WP:CIVIL and appropriate. More importantly, I very much respect his judgement and I am always very interested in his sagacious remarks in processes such as RfA. I consider him one of Wikipedia's more valuable admin/warrior/leader figures. We need him. Maybe he should be on the Foundation board, too. --
'''Support'''. I'm willing to take his word that the events in which he lost his sysop bit will not occur again. --
'''Support'''. Seems to have excellent admin skills. I would only advise him to exercise the maximum possible patience in confrontational situations. <font color="green">
'''Support''' This will lead to a vaguely interesting issue about how to note this on [[WP:100]] (or [[WP:200]] if it hits that).
'''Support''', a reasonable and experienced guy.
'''Strong Support''' - That this is [[WP:SNOW]]ing in massive support?  '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=prev&oldid=68609613 not surprised one - fricken - iota]''' ;) Welcome back mate! I'll teach ya a few sysop tricks in case you're rusty :P
'''Support'''. I was waiting to be the 200th. --
'''Support'''! Tawker's said it.  A thoughtful, caring, kindhearted and resolute admin as you are, all the good crazies power to you and full steam ahead!  -
'''Strong Support''' A thought and reasonable editor who even when deysop conducted himself with the utmost integrity.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''.  I don't have to reason to believe there will be problems in the future.
Last minute pile-on '''Support'''. On Soviet Wikipedia, admin supp ... oh, damn, somebody already did that joke. --
Number 190 - The two-month recall break has served its purpose.
'''Support''' I have been extremely impressed with all of my personal interactions with Crzrussian, both as an editor and as an administrator. I think he took the right steps in backing out for a cooling-off period and I must give him my strongest support for the restoration of his adminship.
'''Support''' I fail to see why he was rm'd from the admin list anyway. People are so tetchy round here. You can't make lemon juice without ''squeezing'' lemons. '''HARD'''.--
'''Support''' per [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]].  I have found him to be both reasonable and astute in the application of his Admin powers.
'''Support''', good guy, has shown class and maturity throughout this whole process.
'''Oppose'''.  I like the guy, I really do.  But the reason he was recalled - complete lack of attention to even basic important policy - is a problem.  I had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_10#John__Bowker my own situation] with him regarding an AfD within a week or so of his promotion, which left an immediate bad taste in my mouth.  With nothing to indicate that he's given much attention to the issues at hand, especially since he wants to give attention to CSD and AFD, (although I do appreciate his follow-through regarding the recall as well as his promise to sign back up if promoted), there's no way I can support. --
'''Strong oppose''': Incivil user and lack of understanding of [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=63545440]. Lack basic insight such checking blanked pages for history but tags it for speedy delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longtail_stingray&diff=next&oldid=77913131] and when a new admin restored it rightfully as the original blanked redirect was a proper one, he tell him off [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=prev&oldid=78165871] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=prev&oldid=78166917] see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%28aeropagitica%29&diff=prev&oldid=78164532]. Gets quickly aggitated and posts often have a tone of demands, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75618401] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75623277] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75621374]. When pointed at existing guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=next&oldid=75620487] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=next&oldid=75626645], just brushes that aside in a manner not appropriate for an admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75619847] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75626540]. The unblocking was not an error, but symptomatic for how this users deals with issues. And this was mostly just in the last weeks. And yes, he will probably do a lot of good things as well.--
'''Oppose''' Any admin who thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_totalitarianism&oldid=64892845 this] is a keepable article (and not even in need of a cleanup tag) has serious misconceptions about Wikipedia [[WP:NOT|policy]]. ~
'''Strong Oppose''' per badlydrawnjeff. --
'''Oppose''' for eyebrow-raising response to Kim's vote above. Most of trouble and aggravation on Wikipedia is caused by editors who can't take a criticism without making escalating counter-accusations. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Oppose''' because of the responses to Ed. He is one of the people who actually have a clue abiut image copyright.
'''Oppose''' Kim made a ton of good points.  You come across as too impatient and pushy to be an admin. You prove this further in your replies to Kim, so i have no doubt these do represent typical edits. i think you need to approach your critics and problematic issues more calmly. I just don't need to see antagonistic admins in wikipedia. It makes the place a bad working environment and will inevitably drive off other users. I have worked with Kim on some articles and always found her/him to be very collaborative. It would heed you well to take note of her comments.
'''Strong Oppose''' per everything above.  You need to be able to take constructive criticism and not blow up on the person giving it.  Every point that has been made in opposition is a very valid point and you vehemently trying to explain your actions instead of accepting your mistakes is a serious issue.  Also, the fact that you "completely stand by [your] edits" is bizarre.  Many of the edits brought up show a blatant disregard/misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and I find it disconcerting that you would stand by such edits. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I cannot trust this user to close deletion discussions based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_characters_from_The_Simpsons&diff=75430349&oldid=75271325].--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
Crzrussian's talk page summary is a misleading recount of why I requested his recall. He does not mention this diff, where he says: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meir_Kahane&diff=prev&oldid=67280173 "future attempts to inject this POV will be met with a block"], a ''very wrong'' interpretation of blocking policy. As well, he was edit warring (with the user he later blocked) and using rollback for it. And there's the self-unblock. Has Crzrussian indicated he understand this and won't engage in any of them again? I don't see it, and his saying "I have never used my powers where I edited, I have studiously stayed out of conflicts of interest" is disheartening, because ''that was one of the primary reasons he was asked to resign''. The resignation was admirable, though, and I gave his recent contribs review with a mind for supporting if noting was amiss. However, even if this looks like a mostly protest oppose at this point, I'm deeply concerned about Crzrussian's loss of cool in the Ed g2s discussion(s). Representative sample (some of these may be mentioned already): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75618401 calls it a massacre, "How the hell else can one illustrate a biography if not with a portrait?"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75621374 "'''I am going to revert the whole set.''' BTW, I am ''incensed'' at the way you've gone about obliterating large amounts of my work without as much as a courtesy notice!"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75623277 "I cannot accept your unilateral actions on the subject, guideline or not. I am entitled to request and receive full process."], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75626540 "You are driving me up - the - wall!!"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=prev&oldid=75626645 "On a personal aside, you have also seriously pissed me off."]. This is not the behavior expected from an admin.
'''Oppose''' per SB and Dmcdevit.
'''Oppose'''. The understanding of the meaning of vandalism and blocking policy is far too imprecise even after several months of adminship and non-adminship. There is also a difference between disruption and vandalism: it is quite possible to be disruptive without vandalising anything at all. Learning to be done here, I think. -
'''Oppose''' I've had a few occasions to query his sense of proportion.--
'''Oppose''', history of taking aggressive positions.

'''Oppose''' per Sean and Dmcdevit.
'''Oppose'''  per  [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]], <i>and</i> especially per candidates response to critics.
'''Oppose''' While he does lots of good work, I don't see that giving him admin tools would be good for the project.--
'''Oppose''' Too soon for reinstatement and NPOV is a concern.
'''Oppose'''. Very quick to take sides in edit dispute, causes more problems than he fixes.
'''Oppose'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I was going to support especially after he honoured his listing on Admins for recall.  However the responses to other oppose votes above makes me think that he is too agressive and unable to take critisism. --

'''Oppose''' per Kim's comments.  --
Per the circumstances that led him to be recalled in the first place.  --
'''Oppose''' Not for his comment to Yas: that was stupid and offensive, but it should not be a permanent impediment to recovering his status. I'm opposing because of concerns about a possible lack of judgement on NPOV and related matters, as evidenced by his edits on the Deir Yassin, Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein pages.  (Note: This is my second time posting this message.  The first time, I was accidentally logged off the system, and someone reverted my comments almost immediately.  <s>I find this a bit puzzling, given that there is currently an anonymous "support" vote listed above. (#20)  Consistency, anyone?</s>)  [[User:CJCurrie|CJCurrie]] 00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Amended 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)  The anonymous vote has now been removed.
'''Oppose''' per above. I'd like to draw particular attention to his excuse for self-unblocking, "I didn't think sysops could be blocked". That's patently ridiculous, and shows a severe, severe misunderstanding of the sysop position. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' per above. Argumentative; does not distinguish between constructive criticims and personal attacks; hostile when questioned; and the utter failure to understand blocking is beyond astonishing. Unrepentant and has shown no desire to improve.
'''Oppose''' per Cyde and Werdna.
'''Oppose''' per candidate's responses to questions and votes.  That he or she has on some occasions shown poor judgment or imperfect knowledge of policies is okay by me; we're all human, after all.  But I am very bothered by the tone he or she has taken in the responses to the questions posed here and the votes proffered.  I would expect someone posting to an RFA to be on their very best behaviour and give responses significant consideration and deliberation.  That has not occured and thus I oppose the nomination.  --
'''Oppose''' pending satisfactory explanation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yas121&diff=68131053&oldid=68130679 this] absolutely unacceptable edit and summary, for editor and even more so an admin candidate.
'''Oppose.''' Has long engaged in questionable behaviour for an admin.
'''Neutral'''. I'd originally have supported, based on my previous experience with Crzrussian: he very generously offered me some of his time to help address the issue he raised at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RandyWang|my RfA]], an offer I'm still very grateful to him for, and I've generally found him to be well aware of how things are done. Unfortunately, I can't really feel confident in supporting amid the above concerns, especially those relating to policy and - equally importantly, I feel - civility. I'm concerned that Crzrussian need to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75626540 keep] his cool, avoid [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_g2s&diff=prev&oldid=75618401 vitriol] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=next&oldid=75626645 unfortunate irony], and generally take it easy without [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yas121&diff=next&oldid=68130679 provoking others]. I'm really sorry that I can't support, but I don't believe you deserve my opposition. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Neutral''' after discussing with Crzrussian off-wiki, it is clear through extra diffs provided he can successfully mediate bad situations. I'm willing to change my original verdict. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Neutral''' changed from support. My original praise still stands, but I don't care for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Malber&diff=80413093&oldid=80388777 this].
'''Regretful neutral''' I've spent a good deal of time during the pendency of this RfA contemplating Alexander's fitness to be once more an admin, and, although I think it likelier than not that the net effect on the project of his being an admin will be positive, I am not certain that I can reach a conclusion as to the net effect with the degree of certainty I'd think requisite for me to ''support'' (as set forth, for example, in my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines page]]).  When I nominated Crz for adminship several months thence, I was quite sure that he was possessed of the deliberative temperament and cordial demeanor that well befit an admin, and I think that assessment to remain, on the whole, correct.  I developed some concerns at the time of his voluntary relenquishment of adminship, and I hoped this RfA would allay them; instead, I have become more concerned.  At the time of the "recall", I wrote to another editor who had expressed concern at [[WP:AN|AN]] apropos of the surrounding issues that Alexander's "profession that he had no sense that an admin's unblocking himself was disfavored, which profession I believe, [led] me to question whether he was sufficiently familiar with policy to have become an admin in the first place."  As I explained then, "the standard for which I often advocate at RfA is that a candidate should be supported where the net effect on the project of his being an admin is likely to be positive and where, even as he may not be conversant with policy passim, he is altogether unlikely to act disruptively with respect to those policies (viz., that whereof he does not know, thereof he shall not act)...One's appreciating that admins should not unblock themsleves evidences a conception of adminship as one that confers infallability and, whilst something one might overlook in reviewing [[WP:ARL]] and [[WP:AHTG]], ought not to be foreign to an admin, if only because of its being facially sensible and intuitive".  Nevertheless, Alexander did much good work as an admin, and I was inclined, when first this RfA began, to support weakly, being relatively confident that, as an admin, he would continue the good work and avoid the disruption.  I have always known him to be quite jocose and inclined to logical argument over untoward personal argumentation, and I remain wholly confident that he is, on the whole, so disposed.  There have been many instances here, though, of his acting defensively and replying quasi-indecorously to those who have raised (somewhat) legitimate concerns; in that regard, I do concur in part with the ''oppose''s of [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarules2221]], [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]], and [[User:Splash|Splash]], the thrust of which I suppose I incorporate by reference, and I also think [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydweeb]]'s objections as to civility (not with respect to the comments intended as humorous but with respect to those styled more seriously) to be rather persuasive.  I have found Alexander's continued defense of certain actions with which I quibble to be disconcerting, and I must admit that I have been a bit disappointed by his conduct here; I was awaiting contributions from him that would make me confident that his understanding of adminship and of the tenor appropriate for correspondence between sysops and non-sysops mirrored mine, and I am not at all sure that it either does.  This request will, of course, be successful, and so I am eminently hopeful that Crz will take the comments offered by all those participating here and allow them to inform his work as an admin and am quite confident that he will continue to do good work as an admin; I'm just not confident enough to ''support''.
'''Neutral'''.  Changed from support to neutral in light of the comments by FloNight and Werdna.
'''Support''' as nominator. [[User:Alethiophile|Al]][[User:Alethiophile/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Beat-the nom support''' :-) A good record so far. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' meets my standards, per nom. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''STRONG SUPPORT <s>Support</s>''': Healthy mix of mainspace, project and talk. Nice user page, too. ;) An article on [[WP:FAC]] is good enough for me. -- '''
'''Support''' Thoughtful, trustworthy editor.  Signature could be shorter, but that doesn't rise to the level of meriting an oppose, in my opinion.
'''Support'''. Great user. Will be a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' When since did we start tagging edits to ''articles''? [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' not because I feel opposing on a signature is a bad reason, which I do, but because I have had multiple interactions with this editor and all of them have been postive. Cuivienen is a civil editor who as explained in the questions will use the admin tools correctly and for the better of Wikipedia. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''' His signature is a '''ridiculous''' point on which to deprive WP of the services of a good dude like Cuivienen.
'''Support''' Fine editor. Could have had a better nomination statement though. Shouldn't be denied the mop for signature issues.  --
'''Pardon-the-cliché-#1 support'''. New [[WP:SIG|sig]] complies, too. <tt>
'''Support''' Meets my criteria. <s>Would like to see more talk in talk pages though.</s> -
'''Support''' Actions in the Userbox War show maturity - subst'ing all his boxes and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seahen&diff=prev&oldid=51889866 moving on]. Same with acceptance of request to shorten signature. By the way, I was fine with his signature in the first place, and I certainly think any concerns about candidate's maturity were addressed by his inital shortening to "—[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]]<span style="font-size:85%;"> on <date></span>'''". <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support''' Great editor. --
'''Weak Support''' A good, civil and helpful editor. The problems with his sgnature not following Wikipedia guidelines is not a ''major'' concern to me here as his contributions to Wikipedia has been great so far. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a helpful editor, civil, not likely to abuse, and I've encountered him several times, and never even noticed the issue with his signature (sheesh). I'm inclined to be more concerned about admins who abuse of Wiki policies that affect content &ndash; like POV-pushing backed by biased sources.
'''Support''' if having a silly sig is all the negative one can say about a editor s/he's clearly admin material. I feel we can trust the user with the sysop tools. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' - as Mr EvindFOyangen has stated. -
'''Support''' This will probably violate [[WP:BEANS]], but I don't think a sig should knock down a RfA, unless it is obscenely horrible. I think this user would make a good admin.
'''Support''' Good editor, deserves the promotion.
'''Strong Support''', If I knew the way of nominating wikipedian for administrator, I would nominate him as admin like [[User:Alethiophile|Alethophile]]'s nomination. The reason is that He is very nice wikipedian, and provides edit summary when He created, edited article, and also revert vandals in any articles.
'''Support''' --
'''Weak support'''.  Excessive time and energy spent on a signature, and lack of concern for the practical difficulties it creates, is a legitimate reason for worry about a candidate's priorities in terms of working on the encyclopedia vs. frivolity.  However, the candidate seems to have matured on these issues considerably of late.  Furthermore, solid contributions and commitment to use of the tools within policy (although there may be too much of a good thing on the latter) convinces me that he is quite unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support''' A big sig is a illogical reason to oppose. It is like declining someone during a job interview because he/she wears baggy purple clothes that "distract" people. We are just giving him extra tools, not anything else. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''. Veteran contributor.
'''Support''' Good contriubtions to Wikipedia and has displayed a sound knowledge of policies and guidelines.
'''Support''' I can look past his formally horribly annoying signature because, as others have said, he can be trusted and he (for the most part) understands the way things should work. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Super-Duper Support''' - '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I don't see why one's signature should be a measure of their worth.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - sig issues have been resolved promptly which is a good sign to me --
'''Support''' per his answers on the additional questions and fixinf the sig issue
'''Support''', I'm convinced in his knowledge of policy, and the signature non-issue doesn't have any impact on my opinion of his ability to be an administrator.
'''Support''' - polite. well respected, appears well versed on policy. Much as I respect the opinions of some of the opposers there is a line between firmess and obsession about the signiture issue  -
'''Support''', (1) a forceful editor with a good knowledge of content issues (2) civil (3) in my opinion, his judgement is better gauged by his answers to the questions and his contributions (e.g. [[Hurricane John (1994)]]) --
'''Weak Support''' per sig issues, but that's never been enough to oppose a person, and quite rightly. - <b>
'''Support''', no major issues, and a good contributor.
'''Support''', Good friendly user who looks ready to help.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Loads of good edits, loads of civil talking, and the signature got changed quickly and civilly when  asked.  --
'''Support'''.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' ''SIGNATURE''itis?!? That's kwazy. Great editor, happy to help give the mop.

'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support.''' I've asked for, and received, this user's help so many times it would be a crime for me to oppose. An excellent user, in my opinion. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Smack-me-in-the-face-and-call-me-Amanda support''' per HughCharlesParker. -→
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. Have only had good interaction with this user. Great contributor. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, will be a great admin. Complaints over signature length are just silly. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support''', one who I have always had good interactions with. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">

'''Support''' per answers. Very helpful user.
'''Support''' - A helping contributor. Deserving it. -- ''
'''The 60<sup>th</sup> support.'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A signature is an absurd reason to oppose an otherwise fine user.
'''Support'''. I personally think long sigs should be avoided, but just as the userboxes were once, this is an ongoing discussion at the moment, and therefore for me insufficient reason not to support. --
'''Support''' Seems helpful, lots of edits, not concerned about the sig, several of the people who i respect the most on wikipedia have colourful sigs.
'''Support'''. I think that this user will be an excellent administrator, opposing based on one's signature alone is a silly reason to on its own, but there are several much better reasons why this user should be an admin.
'''Support''': good contributor. As far as the sig goes, he did change his when asked, and there's no need for incivility on this stylistic issue.
'''Support''': Have always seen good things from this user. --
'''Support''' seems to be willing and able.  Who cares about a signature? Let's not blow minor issues out of proportion and try to explain them as evedence of some larger "trend" or characteristic of Cuivienen.  All users have flaws, but this is not one that suggests he is unfit to be an admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - nothing to show that his sysopping would be a backward step.'''
'''Support''' - good editor--
'''Support''' - the signature thing seems over-the-top. A scan of edits and memory of interactions seems to present no problems. --

Fails to meet my requirements of having a sensible signature, which includes two HTML comments and a timestamp (copied from above: <code><nowiki><!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>[[User talk:Cuivienen|nen]]<span style="font-size:85%;"> on [[Friday]], [[9 June]] [[2006]] at 20:59 [[UTC]]</span>'''<!--Cuivienen's signature ends here--></nowiki></code>). HTH HAND —
'''Weak Oppose''' nomination is very short and doesn't specifically say what the nominee has been doing on wikipedia. Self-nominations are allowed... Should've read the signature guidelines long ago. Good editor but I just don't feel they are ready for admin just yet.--<font style="background:white">
'''oppose''' - commenting on each and every oppose vote is annoying and immature. This RFA is premature.
I've seen some pretty poor judgement from this user.  Just now he's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion&diff=58291391&oldid=58287221 nominated] the image page of an image used on my user page for ''Redirects for deletion'', citing it as a "cross-namespace redirect".  This shows poor judgement (he should've talked with me first rather than gone directly to Rfd with something that is used exclusively on my userpage) and a lack of understanding of policy (cross-namespace redirects are only forbidden when the originating page is in article space).  I cannot fathom what he hoped to accomplish by trying to get my image's page deleted as a ''redirect''; it doesn't even make sense!  --
'''Oppose''' - I too am concerned about the example Cyde cites. Especially when dealing with users who are clearly acting in good faith, admins should strive to ask first and shoot second. (
'''Oppose''' per Cyde, shows lack of understanding about some of the basic working of Wikipedia and in later comments on the same issue, ignores advice from more experienced editors who point out the errors. Admitting mistakes and learning from others is imperative in an admin. Shell <sup>
'''Oppose''' as per Cyde and Andeh.
'''Oppose''' per my [[User:Mackensen/Admin criteria|admin criteria]]. Come back (and still be here) in four months or so.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience, time on the project-wise. If this nomination fails (which, by the looks of it right now, won't), I'll support at one year or more of experience.
'''Oppose''' per pschemp.
'''Neutral'''. I'm happy he changed his sig, but I'm concerned that it was so long in the first place.  Will probably support next time, if there is one. --

I made number two! <small><small>(Umm...)</small></small> '''Support''': great user, well worthy of admin tools. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' Very good user, handles disputes professionally, would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Suppport'''.good user
''''Support''', rock on, Cyde. -
'''Speedy promote'''. I thought he was already like a developer or something. I can't believe he's not already an admin. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' this is going to be a runaway, isn't it? --
'''Support''' Go Terps! But seriously, your edits look fine to me.--

'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Good editor, easy call! But please....lighten up that sig ;)
Unlikely to abuse the administrator's toolbox.
'''Strong support''', I was going to nominate Cyde myself as in my view he has sound judgment and a good grasp not only of policy but also of the principles which underly policy. I believe he will make good and responsible use of admin tools.  I deferred nominating at Cyde's request due to the userbox war issues; I think those should be ignored as a bad period in the community's history during which many people did things which they regretted on reflection and it's still not clear how best to resolve these issues.  I have no reservations about Cyde, I know he can express strong opinions but I do not see that happening in an admin role - we are not required to be plaster saints while acting in our normal capacity as editor, although it does of course help if we remember to remain calm.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', ticks all the boxes for me.
'''Strong support''': User's issue /w userboxes is a bit goofy, but if the most serious stain on this user is something as banal as userboxes, he'll be fine. It's my distinct pleasure to affirm my support for
'''Support'''. I don't think he will abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' As stated above.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. The userbox 'debate' bores the tits off me but to each his own interests. I don't believe he'll misuse his admin powers. --
'''Strong Support''' A great editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' as per the above; I had intended to nominate this person myself as well.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''' the userbox disagreement brought out the worst in many, and I'm unimpressed with the other complaints.
'''Support'''. Userboxes smuserboxes. Cyde is a solid contributor, a fine editor and I have no reservations about him getting a mop and bucket with which to continue cleaning up.
'''Support''' Looks like a fine contributor at a glance --<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
I really need to look at RFA more often.
'''Support''' without any reservations whatsoever.
'''Support.''' Cyde and I went through similar cycles on the userboxes, though on different sides of the debate.  In many of the discussions, he and I disagreed, but it was still pretty easy to assume good faith.  I appreciate that he was trying to genuinely find a solution to fill the policy gap. I believe he will make a solid admin.  [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' - I feel the "too concerned with userboxes" comment a bit too concerned about userboxes. //
'''Support''', per [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorjam]].
'''Support''' user tried to bring some uncommon good sense into the userbox debate. &nbsp;
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' excellent editor
'''Support'''. I'm with TantalumTelluride, I thought that he was an admin already. &mdash;
'''Support''', I thought he already was a sysop. --
'''Support''', looks like a sensible candidate to me.
Tentative '''support'''. The userbox thing is like a good sense drain, so I'm glad Cyde has dragged himself back from it!
'''Support'''.  I have seen him doing good work since I arrived here. --
'''Support''' I only remember associating good things with this username and I've seen it in quite a few places, most likely because of the annoying signature. Userboxes? Meh. Abortion:politicians::Userboxes:wikipedia administrators? I just don't think we need to use wedge issues in determining who gets a mop.
'''Syooirt''# &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' very good user.--
'''Support''' though question answers aren't the most clear, they show a good attitude
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''.  Impressed by his dilligence during the Jason Gastrich situation; should make a great admin. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I think he'll do great. -- '''<font color="navy">
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good edit history, very solid answers. The oppose people below all seem be be making the same argument about the same fairly minor point, I don't agree with the argument but even if I did, I don't believe we should deny adminship over a single minor and stale point... not unless we just want to make adminship into a pure popularity contest. --
'''support''' he will make a good admin
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Because of his work resolving a dispute on [[chimera]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChimera&diff=35433405&oldid=35367525] Also, per nom and Grace Note.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Although I didn't agree with his stance on userboxes, I still think he would make an excellent admin. <font color="#08457E">
Level-headedness? Check. Great guy? Check. Hell, yeah. Definite '''support'''. (I initially thought this would be a pile-on support with little need for me to add, but since some people seem to have made it otherwise...)
'''Support''' - looks good to me.
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''' per [[User:BD2412|BD2412]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' After some review of his edits and comments, I see no reason to deny him use of the toolbox. I've even butted heads with him, but that doesn't mean he's not admin material.
'''Support.'''From his answers and comments I feel he has moved on from the userbox issue. I do hope this is right.
'''Support'''. Look, the dude went a little bit mental over the userbox thing. So did a lot of people, myself included. And I'm pretty much on the other side of the issue from him, and I was annoyed. But I'm still supporting him, because he's qualified, OK? He acted in good faith to protect the 'pedia, in a stressful time.
'''Support''' Thought he already was an admin! Despite the ubx issue (which I strongly disagreed with him on), he'd make a good admin. -
'''Support'''. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''', he'll make a fine admin. -
'''Support''' Box involvement none withstanding, I've had only good interactions with this user. He seems mature & able to handle controversy professionally.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' without doubt. Competent, confident; right attitude, right choice.
{{User:Drumguy8800/Support}} - Cyde has a long history of support for Wikipedia (3 years!).  He is an asset to the community.  The only question we need to ask is if he can be trusted with admin tools.  I believe he is a loyal supporter of Wikipedia, who could do it no harm.  I think he'll act responsibly, as his three year record shows.  --
'''Support''' per all the good comments above and a few of those below.  The userbox thing will sort itself out eventually, and really has very little to do with candidate qualifications.  Can't make a judgment wrt likelihood to wheelwar, but I don't think the danger in this case is sufficient to warrant opposition to this candidacy.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Great editors make great admins.
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support''' good Wikipedian, from what I've seen.

'''Support''' --
'''Support''', promotion is overdue.
'''Support'''. Seems reasonably sensible.
'''Support''', I particularly like his recusal/wikibreak about userboxes, and his handling of the fairly strong and single-issue opposition here. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', Cyde Weys is a good editor and would make a great admin, and the factionalism shown by the Oppose votes shows just what's wrong with the whole userbox debacle.
'''Support''', too late to be original.  See above.  |→
'''Support'''.  Solid work on portal maintenance, kind and level-headed.  The userbox thing is not ''that'' big of a deal.--
'''Support'''. If says he's done with userboxes, then I trust that he's done with them. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' I think this editor got the message loud and clear about the user boxes.
After a LOT of thought... '''support'''. The speedy delete tag placed on the "admins ignoring policy" template following a "keep" on TfD was a pretty bad mistake, and in fact, Cyde's whole conduct on userboxes was... iffy. But he's apologized and moved on, and God knows we've all made errors in judgement. 5,000 edits and a cool, reasoned temperment (and--OMG!--an ability to admit mistakes and deal with the consequences!) override the userbox stuff. I wish you the best of luck, Cyde.
'''Support''' If this worst thing in his history is the userbox issue, Cyde will make a great admin.
'''Support''', seems OK. I agree with [[User:JoshuaZ]], the userbox thing won't stop him from becoming a good admin.
'''Support'''. He got too much involved in the userbox issue, but many others did likwise - let's just get over with it. Overall, I believe [[User:Cyde|Cyde]] has respect for [[WP:PI|policies]] and hope he will make a good admin. [[User:Misza13|Misza]]
'''Belated still-on-wikibreak support''' I can't believe I almost missed this.  Cyde is a great editor and very knowledgable; the reason for every oppose vote seems to be because he is involved in userbox issues.  This is, at best, faintly ridiculous.
'''Support''', but change your signature! On a more serious note, the userbox issue is concerning, but I'm not sure its any indication Cyde wouldn't make a good admin. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' - Seen good things on portals and other projects. Could have handled the 'box' debacle better, but the same (and more) could be said of '''alot''' of people ranked admin and higher. --
'''Support'''. A good editor, I think he will not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' per conversation in IRC --
'''Support''' as a good editor.
'''Support'''. He'll be fine. --
'''Support'''. Has some hasty things during the userbox arguments, but as it's a small blemish on a fine candidate and he's stepping away from the issue, I support.
'''Support'''. Userboxes seems to be digging at the bottom of the barrell, in my opinion.
'''Support''' - looks like the closing hours, and there's been alot of hot air for the last week. I'd hate to see this guy lose because of all the userbox controversy. --

'''Oppose''' Per Xaosflux.
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_admins_ignoring_policy&diff=41673314&oldid=41559251 Tagged a template] for speedy deletion after it had been on TFD twice and had a speedy deletion overturned on DRV. I don't like that template either, but an admin must be a bit respectful of consensus.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose'''. Creating as admins users that have problems with either side of the userbox debate and have recently and vociferously dived into that particular problem in such a clear way is not something I am at all happy doing at present. The sort of thing that Sjakkalle cites above is very ready to be taken a step further by an admin holding the same clearly-actionable and actioned opinions. -
'''Oppose''' without prejudice to later renomination. Cyde Weys is one of the few still vigorously conducting the Userbox War; and there is enough evidence about other admins that an admin with that determination can be divisive, time-wasting, and destructive. If he pledged to abstain from all userbox/cat related admin tasks, I would reconsider.
'''Oppose'''. I am concerned that this user can be drawn to rash actions and may act on impulse. In spite of my positive interactions with him, I cannot in good conscience remain neutral. I think him a fine chap and hope he will mellow enough to earn a more enthusiastic response from the community. -
'''Oppose''' - Though he has been a great contributor, Cyde has involved himself deeply in the userbox debate and has never proven receptive to discussion of the issue. This is exactly the problem we saw with other admins that have been accused of being abusive: a lack of respect for consensus that led to eventual pushing of Wiki-POVs. For that reason I don't think I can trust Cyde as an admin. —<b><font color="darkgreen">
'''Weak oppose''' - userbox involvement per above. Your comments at the ubx DRV have been at times incivil, and I'm not particularly convinced by your answers to my questions. However, you are a good editor, and I did think you were already one, and if there is a next time, I'd probably support.
'''Oppose''' because as he says, his involvement with the userbox saga wasn't helping matters, '''weakly''', because he realizes and acknowledges this.
'''Oppose''' - Cyde's conduct in the recent userbox debates has been too divisive and unnecessarily inflammatory. Case in point: [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_Catholic_Evangelical|deletion review of Template:User Catholic Evangelical]]. Granted, since I created the userbox and proposed review, I did have a dog in the fight, and my proposal reflected my anger at [[User:Improv|Improv's]] actions at the time (though I never engaged Cyde). However, I think if you read that debate, especially Cyde's four comments, I think you'll agree he was unnecessarily inflamatory. If he does abandon userbox wars, that would be one thing, but I don't see much evidence yet. To be honest, I just don't think he respects consensus; and he takes his unquestioned interpretation of nebulous statements by Jimbo to be a license to make sweeping declarations that do nothing but enflame. I wish it were not the case. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Oppose''' too often acts incivilly. Too opinionated on the userbox deal. We don't need another wave of speedy deletions right now.
'''Oppose'''. His conduct on [[WP:UBD]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion|the related RFC]] has been unacceptable. Don't believe he can be trusted with admin status.
'''Oppose''' too heavily involved in userbox issue, too recently..
'''Oppose''' per <s>Alhutch</s> Grue. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Very good edits in main space, but very stereotypical with userboxe votes.
'''Oppose'''. Has shown a lack of good judgment in the userboxes wars. I'd be prepared to reconsider some time in the future if he's shown no other lapses of judgment.
'''Oppose''' per Sjakkalle and others. —
'''Strong Oppose'''. <strike>This user is particularly vehement in eliminating userboxes from template namespace. Though some may need to go, he has listed templates for deletion without proper rationale and persistently dodges consensus. Anywhere I look in the delete log, he is always there, sometimes even leaving the delete summary ''blank''.</strike> Sorry I was mistaken. Let me put it to you this way, he comes across, to me, as a rampant deletionist, one of which I couldn't support.
'''Oppose''' per Kinney and others.--'''
'''Oppose''' per Splash and Sjakelle.  Recent involvement in Userbox affairs has left a tarnish on an otherwise fine wiki-career.  I like the user, but this is not the time to promote.  Please reflect on calmer ways to solve problems.
'''Strong Oppose''' per NSLE, and per Cyde's own comment below. <s>I recommend trying again in about a month, or when the userbox issues and politics have died down a bit.</s> --
'''Oppose.''' ''WAY'' too much involvement in the userbox issue.  While I think the whole userbox issue is a big waste of time for both sides, at this point I think there is already enough damage to the Wikipedia community occuring over this issue and would vote to oppose the promotion of any editor overly involved in the issue on either side.  Come back and try again after this has died down. (Also, I'm somewhat biased against garish signatures that clash with normal formatting.) &ndash;
'''Oppose''', was quite rude [[Talk:God#Gallup_poll|here]].
Must '''opppose'''. Too many examples of undiplomatic or straight out incivil behavior. Admins have to be held to a higher standard. Also did not acknowledge there were legitimate issues raised [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion|here]]. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''oppose''' -- not on beliefs, but on behavior. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''' Just for recent actions with userboxes. Completely a recent thing, I'd be happy to support after seeing a good record.
'''Weak Oppose''' - This user has a sparkling record... until we hit the subject of userboxes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_28 Here], he voted tons of userboxes for deletion, when the policy is still being voted on now - it has not been adopted. Other than that, I'd have no problems with his actions. If he can clean up the act on userboxes, it might change to 'neutral' or 'support'. But for now, I stick with my position - I'd rather not have an administrator who edits based on not approved policy. --<font style="background:orange"><font color="green">N</font>
'''Oppose''' per Splash and others above. I appreciate Cyde's contributions to various discussions, and agree with him on many issues, but I have a gut feeling that discussion relapse into bloodbath if this is successful, and thus cannot support him in good faith at this time. — <small>Mar. 8, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[14:10] <
'''Oppose''' Activist and career flamewarrior (irrespective of userbox issue). --
'''Neutral''' Cyde is a good editor and I would like to support him without reservation, but this nomination comes too soon after the faux paus cited by Sjakkalle.
'''Neutral''' Good editor, so would support, but too strident/divisive on userboxes, and answers below didn't quite hit the mark for me (for vague reasons that just leave me vaguely uncomfortably ambiguous (if I ask about a case, it sort of suggests that a net "don't know, don't care" is not quite the answer I was looking for, but I can't expect people to go read 300K tomes just on my say so!), not stormingly annoyed), so would oppose... net: still on fence. May change mind, haven't made up my mind about making up my mind yet. Normally when I can't make up my mind I just don't vote but felt that since I had asked questions, I should say SOMETHING! Hope that helps! (ok, maybe not...) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Neutral'''. Perhaps later. -
'''Neutral'''. Later, not now. No real problems before userboxen issues came up, so here, not oppose, and if he keeps his promise on userboxen, then will support next time. But not now. Sorry. --
<s>'''Oppose''' per Cuivenen and [[User:Idont Havaname/Wikiphilosophies#Userboxes]].  I was happy to see him running for adminship and was going to support until I found out about this. --[[User:Idont Havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont Havaname|Talk]]) 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) </s> '''Neutral''' (switched from oppose). Since he has said he is no longer involved with userboxes and seems to be using the oppose votes as advice on how to improve his editing, I will most likely be willing to support him in the future, barring any unforeseen circumstances. --



Q: I'd like to hear your thoughts on a few issues before I vote, and I apologise that these seem to be focused on what you say you want to do less of, but deadminning is rather more effort than adminning, as well as more divisive!! So then... Which is more important/true/correct/key to moving the work forward: [[WP:IAR]] or [[WP:PI]]? What do you think of [[WP:DIAR]]? Relatedly, have you been following Tony's recent [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway|RfAr]], and what are your thoughts about the balance between gaining and retaining consensus and doing what you know is right? Finally, on [[WP:CSD#T1]]... there is a significant faction that think it may not be a correct interpretation of Jimbo's wishes on the matter. Support or oppose the criterion itself, and support or oppose the notion that it's not a correct interpretation? <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Strong Support''' as above.
'''Strong Support''' - DaGizza has proven to be a valuable contrubutor and deserves this position.
'''Support''' A very worthy candidate - go for gold!
'''Support''' Contribs and talk look good. I'm not a fan of RFAs being "advertised" on WikiProjects but it's par for the course at the moment and not a reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' An excellent candidate who will do well as an administrator <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' A good candidate and editor. --
--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Why Not! -
'''Of Course'''. -
'''Support''' A good user. Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''', of course.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''': It is a great pleasure to me. --
'''Support''' Really a great contributor.
'''Support''' Excellent editor; superb nomination also.
'''Support''' Absolutely; all around great editor.
'''Support''' Would like to see more communication with editors, but the all around good attitude of this editor is enough to make admin.

'''Strong support''', an experienced editor, courteous, civil, level-headed and would make great use of the tools.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Strong Support''' Unbelievably, you meet my requirements 100%. Good Luck on your campaign <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Strong Support''' - Obvious support here, a fantastic editor.
'''Jumping on the bandwagon like a 2001 Yankee fan Support''' -'''
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and level-headed. --
'''Support''' - absolutely.  Fine editor who has earned the responsibility--
'''Support!''' fine editor, nice guy.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' great edits and a thoroughly nice guy.
'''Support''', he looks good.
'''Support''' without reservation --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I trust him with the tools. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' So do I.
'''Strong support''' &mdash; superb editor.
'''Support''', looks good, adminship no big deal.
'''Yes''' <small>
'''Dafinitely'''.
'''Support''' No worries
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as above. Seen this user around, good impression.
'''Support''' as above; excellent editor  --
'''Support''' I gave him his first barnstar and thought of nominating him for adminship, but decided against it thinking that he was too young. I guess he is ready. --
'''Support'''. Good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Da'''
'''Yup'''
'''Support-a-rooney'''. Seems like a great editor who will be a great admin.--
'''Support'''. I go out of my way to support qualified antipodean editors that can mop up while the rest of the Anglophonic world sleeps (or binge drinks).
'''Support''' Great contributions. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' looks good, very congenial.
'''Support''' Many good contributions.  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' good contributor --
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; Oops. Sorry. Haven't been following this page for a while. Great editor, would do wikipedia immense good with admin powers.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' an awful lot of experience that can be put to good use by the community.
'''Support''' --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support'''

'''Strong Support''' Girik has obvious commitment to Wikipedia, is willing to contribute heaps, and is a good guy. He deserves it.
'''Support''' Deserves to get the mop. Cheers! --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good hardworking editor
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support''' Have seen a lot of contributions from him in my time on Wikipedia, a good asset to the wiki, definitely support. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Need more publicity, not less.
'''Support''' Competent.
'''Strong Support''' His contribs speak for themselves. [[Image:England flag.png|20px]]
'''Support'''.  Why, certainly.
'''Support'''. Thought he was one. — <small>Mar. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:31] <
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support.''' Looks good. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' great contributions--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Would make a fine addition to the admin, great editor.
'''Support''' from down under? g'day mate...
'''Support''' -- especially with new and improved sig.
<strike>'''Support''' - a trusted user. <font color="#000080">
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong support''' for a hardworking and committed editor.  Sorry I didn't get here sooner. --
'''Strong support''' Man, I can't believe I nearly missed this RFA! Amazing & extremely helpful. Deserves the mop. -[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I have no problem with granting him a well-deserved mop. --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. --
I think he's a good guy, having looked through his contribs. The incident with anonymous is slightly concerning. The reason it's not a deal-breaker, however, is the way DaGizza responded: he apologized immediately. That the subject of those remarks accepted the apology in quick time suggests to me that this was a reasonably good resolution. Support. —''
'''Support''' Good candidate, no hesitation in supporting. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Makes too many mistakes still. Needs more time to adjust to the rules. For example.. WP:PA "Care to explain" --
'''Neutral''': Don't think it's time yet. Also, per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics&diff=44789272&oldid=44322298 apparent campaigning]. The comment inviting people to demand explanations for edits is both pleasing and troubling; on the one hand, the user encourages feedback, a good thing. On the other; are there a ''lot'' of edits where the justification is not apparent? Not relating to this forum, but slapping it here; your signature's a bit bright...consider changing it? Ta,
'''Neutral''': not sure because I'm still concerned about the personal attack that he made against me when I hadn't even talked to him before. --
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support''', definitely.  A model Wikipedian! --
'''Support''', no real reason not to.
'''Strong support'''. We need more admins like Dakota. I agree with everything that SlimVirgin said, especially that she's civil and ''kind'' (in my view, the two most important qualities in administrators).
'''Strong support'''. I thought she already was one. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' - the nomination says it all. (
'''Support''' I don't want to be a hypocrite to another user so actually this should be a ''Weak'' support. Sorry Dakota. Reason for a weak oppose being of low article (main namespace) edit count. I recently voted oppose to a user because he had few edits in the main namespace (but he actually has more than Dakota). The reason I support is because she's a great Wikipedian and a loyal friend at that and would make a fine admin over all. I don't see her abusing admin tools either so I defiantly support.
'''Support'''.  I'm sure she'll do a fabulous job.  --
'''Suppoort'''. User has shown familiarity with Wikipedia policies & procedures, and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support'''. A superb contributor. Would make an excellent administrator.&#160;—

'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Although I have never directly interacted with her, I have noticed her positive attitude and kindness towards other users. Her contribs look very well, both in quality and quantity. I can't ask for anything else in an admin. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''
'''Support'''. Excellent choice.
'''Support'''. Funny, I ran into her edits while RC patrolling earlier today, and idly thought "she might make a good admin"! --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' without reservation --
'''Sure, why not'''.
'''Support'''.  Seems unlikely to abuse admin tools.  Contribs look good.
'''Mais oui''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Although Dakota's edit count may be low, from reviewing them, she is exceedingly decent to vandals and kind to everyone else. Agree with nominator, and good luck Dakota. [[User:Prsgoddess187|Prsgodd]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support!''' A wonderful, mop-worthy Wikipedian. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Excellent suggestion, excellent candidate
'''Support''' [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support''' I don't know if I can add more to what has been said, so I simply echo the above, and am glad to support Dakota.

'''Wide open country support'''.
'''Support''' she is an asset to our community.
'''Looking good.'''
'''Support''' certainly.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
[[image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''', user has a beautiful name. --
'''Extreme Esperanzian Support!''' I thought you were one already.
'''Support'''.  Nice all around. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per all above. ←
'''Support''' -- '''''
'''Support''' KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN!
'''Support''' although more discussion/talk edits than article edits is a little concerning.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' You deserve this and keep up the good work! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. The very convincing arguments of the Oppose voters and the lack of community support of the Support voters does give me pause, but I'll support anyway </end alternate reality>
'''Support''': my pleasure too. --
'''Support''': If anyone opposes, I will probably say "wha?" as a reflex to their reasoning. There is zero reason from what I seen that Dakota shouldn't be an admin. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' Yes please.
'''Support''' - she should make a great admin.
'''Support''' - Can't find a reason not to support! --<font color="green">'''Zsinj'''</font><font color="gray"><sup>
'''Support''' Easy choice.
'''Strong Support'''. Great user and good friend. -
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''North and South Dakota support''' [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' all published authors <tt>;-D</tt>. Seriously though, I've just spent a bit of time perusing Dakota's contribs in the various namespaces, and I can only say I agree with SlimVirgin in every particular. <tt>:-)</tt> Good luck!
'''Support''' Great contributor with enough experience to uphold Wikipedia's policies.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor! <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', obviously. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great admin material. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' and good luck in the Esperanza elections. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  &mdash;
'''Mind-bending Support''', absolutely no problem here; kudos for your great work in only 6 months.
'''Support''' --
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''', but so much for my idea of saying KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN as Proto beat me to it.
'''Support''', we need more civil admins.
'''Support''', What's not to like? --
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate, will make a great admin.
'''Support''', should make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' because of the cool alliteration in your username. Well, actually because you'd be a good admin. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' Of course! [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]]
Yes.
'''Support'''.
Indubitable '''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', as there is no valid reason to oppose.
'''Support''', She looks like she would make a good admin. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I see no reason not to. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' yes. --
'''Suppport''', looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Strongly'''
'''Support''' Looks like another great admin candidate. '''
'''Support''' Good, strong, wikipedian.  [[User_talk:Gphoto|<font color="green">-G</font>]]
'''Suport''' Helpful and knowledgeable.
'''Support''' excellent editor.
'''Strong Support.''' Honestly, he was on my "short list" of users I was considering nominating. Polite, intelligent editor who is mindful(and follows) the rules. I know Dalbury will not abuse the tools.

'''Support''' Good candidate --
'''Support''', excellent answers to questions, and clearly a thoughtful editor. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' A very good editor. The additional tools given to him would only benefit this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - Shows very good editorial experience and appears very promising as an admin.<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>
'''Support''' Thoughtful, mature editor.
'''Strong Support''' Obviously trustworthy; sincere cliche moment for me.
'''Support''' - experienced user with good handle on image policy[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Dalbury][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Dalbury&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] --
'''Support''' Looks like another good candidate.
'''Support''' - calm, thoughtful and rational. Important qualities in an administrator. Great that you have experience in image policy, too. '''
'''Support''' good work with images.
'''Support'''. Looks like a valuable editor to Wikipedia. '''''
'''Support''' as nominator-who-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-to-bed and ended up 21st! Ack!
'''Support''' Great nominee, would probably do a good job. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support''' This user seems to be someone that would work out as an admin.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems good for me.--
'''Support''' Experienced and mature user with a thoughtful mind --
'''Support''' per Riana_dzasta <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' - I have seen nothing but good things from this editor - in addition to being a good editor, he's very thoughtful and level-headed.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', answer to question 5 is reasonable. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, good editing and civility record. --
'''Support''' per nom
'''Weak Support''', Excellent edit count and knowledge of Wikipedia, but not sure about not warning anons (which I feel should always be done) and doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the job. Still, definitely wouldn't abuse tools.
'''Support''' Experienced, unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Strong Support x 33⅓''' - I like this comment from Alex43223 - '''doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the job''' - I like this level headed approach, which is in stark contrast to a number of perhaps more risky editors who come here demanding or begging to be made an admin because they've made x number of edits and leave me questioning their motives. Best Wishes
'''Support''' - He started most of the [[:Category:Lighthouses_in_Florida|Lighthouses in Florida]] articles, I made some minor additions to them in some of my early edits, he was very helpful and made it worth staying. No doubt he will make an excellent admin. --
'''Strong support'''. Very knowledgeable and civil. —
'''Strong support''' x13. Oops, number 13 comes again--'''
'''Support'''. Excellent nominee. Strong editing record, good reasoning and not ''too'' keen (a huge plus in my book).
'''Support''' Always good work, and per nom.--
'''Yes''' --
''Support''', hell yes. <b>
'''Sure''''

'''Support''' Very honest and reasonable.  Will likely use sysop tools wisely.
'''Support''' with pleasure. An excellent editor; very sensible, calm, cares about the policies. Will make a great admin.
'''Support.''' His edits (and his responses to questions) are thought out, and I like his attitude to editing the Wikipedia. <b>
'''Support''' I have not seen or interacted with Dalbury before coming across this RFA, and normally I wouldn't comment. However, looking into his edit history and his answers to the questions here, this guy would make a ''great'' admin. I really liked his answer to User:Fang Aili's question above. Appears to be over-flowing with good judgement and honesty. --
'''Support''' per all above
'''Strong Support''', sounds like he would make a great admin, also my question was well answered.
'''Support'''.  I do agree with Radiant! and Doc that Dalbury needs to ease up on the bureaucracy in the future, though.  <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support''' I dont see why not.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', wishing you good luck in vandal patrolling if need be. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''. Hope you will be a good admin. -
'''Support'''.  Seems very mature and fair to me. -- <b><font color="FF9999">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Will do well. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. If Mr. Chihuahua nominated this user, then I shall blindly support. --
'''Support'''. Good editor
'''Support''' Per nom. --
'''Support''' Dedicated, thoughtful editor and seems to have a good attitude towards adminship. Seems okay to me. --
'''Support''' strong candidate.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support'''. A solid Wikipedian.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Strong Support''' - I see him often on my watchlist and trust him greatly, so... super support! --
'''Support''' another excellent user. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
I object. Dalbury appears to be of the opinion that every change to a policy page, no matter how small, needs to be discussed first, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=74244720], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=73325794], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=72286360] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=prev&oldid=71509637]. I find this overly bureaucratic and less than constructive.

Let's kick this off the right way. '''Support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --'''
'''Weak support''' - he's an excellent vandal fighter, but I feel that he needs more time here. --
'''Support&mdash;Weak support, but support''' &mdash; I’d like more experience, quite a bit more experience. But I'm beginning to believe Wikipedia could use folks who are ''administrator-under-supervision''. Folks like this who are well motivated and don’t set off alarms other than inexperience should be given a supervisory committee and turned loose for 3 months, but monitored. If they abuse their ''administrator-under-supervision'' powers, any one of the supervisory admins can recommend they’re gone. If they perform well, they are administrators.

'''Oppose''' Concerned about what I would consider borderline uncivil comments above. In addition I think under 6 months of editing is too soon to be considered for adminship. Lastly comments like "I really don't think that leaving the articles here hurts wikipedia" from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KROQ_Top_106.7_Countdown_of_1980 |this Afd]] as well as the comment "this article does absolutely nothing to hurt the encyclopedia" from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monica_Bailey| this AfD]] are troubling. Comments like "seems notable to me" in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yellow_Pigs_Day| this AfD]] (where if you clicked on the sources you would see very clearly they were not reliable sources), again make me think that the candidate does not yet have a frim grasp on all the guidelines that an admin must deal with on a daily basis. I hope you find some usefull criticism in my comments. <font color='blue'>
'''Oppose'''. User needs to earn the trust of the commnity first. Fighting vandalism is a good thing, but not enough.
Oops! '''Oppose''' per hoopydink and per the response to hoopydink. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per [[User: Crzrussian|Crazyrussian]], who is per [[User: Hoopydink|Hoopydink]], so really... Per [[User: Hoopydink|Hoopydink]] --
Candidate's statement: <blockquote>I keep a level head and don't crack under pressure, I always mind [[WP:CIVIL]]</blockquote> Evidently forgotten in reply to Hoopydink. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''neutral'''. user is a good vandal fighter, but the borderline incivil comments to Hoopydink raies some objection to me. [[user:crazytales56297|<font color="#78abea">»</font>]][[User:Crazytales56297/EA|<font color="#00a060">c</font>]]
'''Nominator support''' - Of course I'm going to support. :)
'''Support''' per my co-nomination. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' -  Not only have there been good edits, but they have been to some obscure articles that many would shy away from. Deserving of adminship.

'''No-brainer support''', one who I was planning on nominating myself (but Spawn and Riana beat me). A great editor, user, person, advocate for Wikipedia, and I imagine will be a great adminsitrator. '''
Yes, ofcourse. He is one of the best, isn't he? &mdash;
'''Support''' - at least until someone gives me a compelling reason why not. Doesn't appear to be the world's most prolific article writer, but I could be wrong and it's hard to argue with 1 GA.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I'm
'''Strong support'''. I've been waiting for this RfA for ages. Must be one of the best users on here. Very good luck with this mate! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' ;) - <b>
'''Aw damn Support''' Geez, sorry about this one. I'm getting off Wikibreak to support this. Daveydweeb will be an excellent sysop.
'''Support''' I've seen this username time and again on new pages, recent changes, vandal warnings and speedy delete patrols. No problems with supporting.
'''Support'''. No single doubt about this user. -- ''
Yes, yes, yes. Perfectly suited for adminship at this point. &ndash;
'''Support''' not a difficult decision.--
'''Support''' very good editor. Particularly like the new AfD template he is working on. And who  ''hasn't'' got into trouble over speedy deletion before? Good admin material, IMHO.
'''Enthusiastic support.'''  A kind, conscientious editor who is eager to help and to improve in his capacity.  Excellent material for adminship.  --
'''Support'''. Looks like he'll make a good admin. '''''
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy, friendly editor.
'''Support''' glad I didn't miss this one. Absolutely. -
'''Support''' is here! [[user:Booksworm|Book]]<font color="green">[[User:Booksworm/Esperanza|s]]</font>
I am pleased to see someone else take up the "New Pages Patrol is not Whack-a-mole" mantra, and RW/DD seems to have taken the feedback from his last RFA to heart and then some. '''Randy support!''' -- ''
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' per Riana's nom. I think he'll definitely be a great admin. ←
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. My concerns from the last RfA seem to have been addressed.
'''Mucho Support''' I hold this user in exceptionally high regard; furthermore, that garbage at Daveydweeb's first [[WP:RFA|RfA]] about his name having some sexual secondary meaning in Hindu (or something) is frankly a farce. This user is long overdue adminship and I wish him the best of luck. (oh and his [[WP:ER]] work is also notable as showing Daveydweeb as a [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedian]] and a non-[[WP:BITE|biter]].) Cheers, [[User:Anthony_cfc|<font color="#000080">'''Anthon'''</font>]]<font color="#000080">[[User:Anthony_cfc/esperanza|<font color="#008000">'''y'''</font>]]<font color="#000080">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Although I was a bit worried about potential problems regarding dispute resolution, I see that your level of civility and kindness will probably not be tainted. You'll make a fine admin. =) '''
'''Support''' of course. Great user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''[[Special:Makesysop]]''' - /me goes to look for a 'crat to press the button --
'''Weak Support''' - A truely excellent editor and a brilliant admin candidate, ''but'' there's the usual Esperanza pile on happening and I sincerly wish other candidates could count on similair numbers voters for their RfAs. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Support'''. What's being in Esperanza have to do with an RFA? '''''
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate '''[[User talk:Tyson Moore|<span style="background:#FFFF66;color:#000">T</span>]]<span style="background:#008">[[User:Tyson Moore|<span style="color:#fff">yson Moore</span>]]
'''Support'''. If Spawn Man and Riana both nominate, that's a good sign. No bad things coming from this user. We need more moppers :D '''[[User:Fredil Yupigo|<span style="color:#9932CC">Fr</span>]][[User Talk:Fredil Yupigo|<span style="color:#6A5ACD">ed</span>]]
'''Support''' with pleasure.  Genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders --
'''Support''' Terrific user; will make a good admin.
'''Support''' I feel that it is now time to give this user the mop. A great contributor to this project and the added tools given to him would only improve the quality of this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': Definitely merits the tools.
'''Support''' I've been waiting to support this guy
'''Support''' because I have seen the candidate's contributions and he's unfailingly pleasant and an asset to WP. -
'''Strong Support'''. Sorry to use the over-used clichè, but I thought he already was one. ;) &mdash; [[User talk:Springeragh|<font style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''rαgђ&nbsp;</font>]] <small>
'''Strongly Support''' anyone like this guy.
'''Support''' - good editor &mdash;
'''Support''' seen him around (though never interacted) and he sounds great.
'''Pile On Support''' Do I really have a choice in the matter? Excellent editor.
'''Support''' per riana. Think she covered all the points --
'''Support'''. I've seen Daveydweeb (I still remember him as RandyWang) around a few times at deletion discussions and my editor review, and though we haven't interacted much, I still feel safe to say that I've had good experiences around him. He seems to have everything I look for in a good adminship candidate. --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="LightSeaGreen">[[Special:Contributions/Gray Porpoise|Porpoise]]</font><sub>
'''Support'''. Everything looks good.
'''Support''' - I supported last time, so I see no reason why not now --
'''Strong support''' - Excellent contributor, mature, responsible and committed to the community. Full disclosure - I am not an Esperanzan, but he is a co-podcaster at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly|Wikipedia Weekly]].  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good editor. Nice response to last RfA. No concern whatsoever.
'''Support''' - Took on feedback from his previous Rfa, and did great work at [[WP:ER]] <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' (changed from previous ''neutral leaning support'' below).  My change here has nothing to do with the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Daveydweeb#Response to Doug Bell|unusual alarm]] my previous neutral position seems to have caused and everything to do with the nominee's qualifications and demeanor. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems responsible and responsive. <font color="green">
'''Support''' --<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">

'''Support''' per nominations. '''

Hmm...What is that word, ah yes '''Support'''. I love to see kind and civil wikipedians running for administratorship.__
'''Support''' per noms; a good editor and will be a good admin.
--
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' I don't see why not. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support'''. Looks good. —
'''Support''' per noms. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support'''. I'm 5 minutes late, but this is an easy one. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#1198e8">jam</font>]]
'''Neutral''' This editor does not meet my strict and different requirements for adminship, but his desire to get an FA-article has not gone unnoticed.  It appears Daveydweeb will get his adminship, but I only hope that he continues to perservere in getting an FA-article.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator. --[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support''' - I have come across David a few times  and found him to be very civil and helpful. I would be glad to support.
'''Weak support''' - weak answers. - <b>
'''Weak support''' Although his answers are quite weak, his contributions on Wikipedia must be commended. Also, unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I too have come across David a few times, mostly at Category discussions, and have found him civil and productive. I also note that he has moved over 500 pages, though quite what that implies I'm not sure! (A brief glance at the moves suggests most are OK.) His editing spread across the namespaces is good, though not much in the Image namespace. Would the candidate be confident enough to be involved in Image issues? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)<br><hr>''I believe so, as I have been involved with image issues (mostly maps) at the Commons. As ever, though, if I feel unsure about anything, I try to seek assistance or say so (and look to try to undo any mistakes I make!). Thanks for your support,
'''Weak Support''', answers to questions are rather weak, but looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Terence Ong|nce Ong]] <sub>([[User talk:Terence Ong|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Terence Ong|C]])</sub> 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)<br><hr>''For those folk who'd prefer "stronger" responses, I'm happy to address any concerns you might have. In the meantime, thanks for your support! &nbsp;
'''Strong support'''.  David is a joy to work with, and his level of responsibility and meticulousness towards everything he does in Wikipedia is commendable.&mdash;
'''Strong support''' I offered to nominate him.... :(
'''Support'''.  I see none of the normal red flags and a lot of positives. &mdash;
'''Strong support''', don't need amazing answers when it's this obvious he'll be a great admin. --
'''Support'''.  I've always found David to be a knowledgeable editor when I've encountered him at CFD or on my talk page. I see no reason to believe he'll do a less than admirable job as an admin.
'''Support''' A great editor who does good work. Will use the admin tools responsibly.--'''
'''Weak Support''' An experienced editor and trustworthy editor, but I would also prefer better answers to the questions.--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' -- takes pride in work as well as having a clean [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=David_Kernow upload log], and a large [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=David_Kernow move log] that would be easier with admin tools --
'''Support'''. -
'''Weakish Support'''.  The answers are brief but, in my opinion, adequate and - ''most'' importantly - honest.  According to the candidate's edit resumé, he's never participated in a discussion on an AN/x and has only warned users about 200 times.  I will hope, therefore, that he does not use his admin powers to combat anything but the most blatant of vandalism.  While he's trustworthy, it doesn't seem that he has a lot of experience in the vandalism arena.  He's participated in lots and lots of XfDs, which makes me confident in his knowledge of the [[WP:DP|deletion policy]].  Overall, David seems to be a great user and, in my opinion, very trustworthy. [[User:Srose|<b><font color="green">S<i>rose</i></font></b>]] [[User talk:Srose|<font color="hotpink">(<b>talk</b>)</font>]] 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)<br><hr>''Yes, I'm pleased to report that my experience of vandalism has been very slight indeed &ndash; which, to me, says all systems are working well and folk are to be commended! &nbsp;So, yes again, at present I don't anticipate dealing with anything but the most blatant/straightforward vandalism. If, however, this semblance of control is barely being maintained, I'll happily consider what I might (learn to) do to assist further. Yours,

'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per  Srose <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' With slight reservations. Needs to tell when a question is meant as a joke(that is, my question 4). Other than that a very good candidate.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''', despite failing JoshuaZ's sense-of-humour question #4 by answering seriously.
'''Support''' I think his answers are very much to the point. ~
'''Support'''. Good, detailed responses expanded response to optional questions. 2500 user space edits??? How...? --
'''Support''' I really liked his answer to JoshuaZ's optional third question and he's obviously shown quite a dedication to helping make Wikipedia a better place (most of his contribs are rather unheralded activities, which shows that he derives happiness from simply helping out any way he can, which is quite a character trait).  To help shine some light on the query directly above, David seems to be involved in a massive project here: [[User:David Kernow/Contemporary national administrative divisions by country]].
Just the fact that the guy has 15,000+ edits merits support. -
'''Cautious support'''. Well, I felt able to say hello ;) --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per all above. Excellent user, valuable contributions, no issues.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- have seen this user about and witnessed only good things. -
'''Support''' - serious editor, no chance of abuse, can only be constructive having him as an admin. '''
'''Support''' have come across a few times. Great editor.
'''Strong Support''' (I started writing a small book about all the positives - and zero negatives - about my observations of him on CfD, but I think the fact that I "could" write such a lengthy treatise is enough : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Short version:Open-minded, and willing to discuss, and look at something from more than one point of view.  I think the same reasons go for why I think he's easily trustworthy of the mop. -
'''Support'''. Trustable. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor
'''Support''', though I share the concern about insufficient encyclopedia writing. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. I too share some concerns as above, but DK has shown skills in the major admin-related types of work.
'''''Super'' Strong Support'''&mdash;With 15572 Total edits, 6611 in Main, 2970 in  Wikipedia namespace, 467 in Template & 14 in Portal, I was puzzled why folks didn’t strongly support. So I went to look. Reviewed ''Portals'' & find that it is all good stuff—but mostly copy edit & category work. <strike>On to ''Main'': not one single new article, nice copy edit on [[Sir Alan Sugar]]; nice adjustments to [[Académie française]], & lots of good (some exceptionally good) clean-up.  No great new articles perhaps, but I see absolutely nothing that suggests you don’t understand what it takes to be a sound administrator.</strike> If you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to generate articles—folks who’ve actually edited quite a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better; you are <strike>light on new material, but certainly</strike> '''certainly long on new article creation, & editing&mdash;clearly better than 95% of all editors'''. If you’re going to field the emotional responses of blocked individuals or authors of deleted articles, you need to be rational—not easily annoyed—avoid overreactions & emotional tantrums; '''you’ll do fine indeed'''. If you’re going to enforce policy, you need to familiarize yourself with policy/procedure (know about moving articles, treating new users, marking for deletion, reasons for deletion, intervention against vandalism, articles for deletion closing/re-listing, mergers and reasonable rationale for blocking); '''you are certainly as sound as most others who’ve made admin when they made it'''.  BOTTOM LINE: Congrats on making it David (unlikely to jinx you by congratulating you this far down the list). Make us proud!   Skål -
An overview of the areas this user focuses on seems to be lacking. Deletion pages seems to be the only place of project involvement. Mainly minor articles edits too. I'd rather the user have more experience.'''
Oh no, only 1 help talk edit! Seriously, ''why aren't you already an admin''? -
'''Support''' 5000 mainspace edits. Thats good. But I am pretty sure this will come up in the oppose and the neutral votes. That you have contributed in only 6 AFD's. So during tis week, start discussing in AFD's and I think you should do good. --
'''Support''' absolutely.  A strong contributor to medical articles and a voice of reason in dispute resolution --
'''Support''' without hesitation. '''
'''Support'''&mdash;very strong article contributions. Light on Wikispace edits, but excellent judgement. I'd trust Davidruben to handle the mop safely; heck I might even trust him to treat me medically. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' A very strong candidate.
'''Support''' {after edit conflict)  Meets my standards in terms of time and edit count. Talk page indicates a civil user that helps others. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it is good to have admins with breadth and depth of knowledge.
'''Support'''. Strong knowledgeable editor I've bumped into at [[WP:CLINMED]]. Should have been made an admin some time ago.
'''Support''' a good candidate, and as a contributor in a critical area that people will reference needing 100% correct information --
Of course.
'''Strong support'''. I've followed David's edits (though not in a stalker way :) since I first got here, and have only good things to say. His template work has been vital for several projects, he has shown good conflict resolution skills, is a major vandalism and linkspam fighter in Medicine-related articles, and patient and civil to a fault. I won't even mention his actual "content" edits as they speak for themselves. As for his seemingly "narrow" focus on Medicine and such, I think dedication to an area which requires significant specialist input is nothing but positive. Mop him!
'''Weak support'''. Less than 200 Wikipedia projectspace edits, also dodgy answer to Q1 concerning editing protected pages - if there's a consensus, then unprotect the page. However, plenty of article contributions and I don't honestly believe he would misuse the buttons.
'''Support'''. A great editor who applies his expert knowledge/judgement where it is much needed. Handles conflicts well and good with helping new users. I suspect that he'll use a subset of the admin tools, but use them wisely. The only negative I have is a worry that his admin duties would come at the expense of being a writer.
'''Support'''.  Not a lot of project space experience but seems to have done his homework. --<font color="3300FF">
'''30 cc of Suppizort, stat''', and the drug pages could definitely use some admin watching, there's covert vandalism going on there....promise you'll look over [[Tramadol]] and maybe check the edit wars that sometimes flare up over the dependency issue?
'''Support''' A good editor who meets my personal [[User:Danntm/RFA|guidelines]], and although project space experience is highly preferred, I can live with an candidate who focused on article building.  I'm also glad to see people remembered and is paying attention to Mindspillage's adminship [[User:Mindspillage/admin|essay]].--
'''Weak Support''' - per nom, although [[User:Crzrussian|crz]]'s statement is worth noting --
'''Support''' A great editor, with good qualifications.
'''Support'''. I am confident that the canditate is qualified to handle the tools.
'''Support''' will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as there is little to no indication this user will abuse the extra tools of an admin. -- '''''
'''Support''' WP will greatly benefit from more admins with specialist knowledge in critical areas like medicine, and this editor shows diligence, commitment, and strong contributions to this important subject. Even his initials spell Dr.
'''Support''', per nom. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Support''' knowledgeable and careful contributor in an area that could use more admins.
'''Support'''.  David's been here for longer than ''I'' have (by a bit) and hasn't annoyed any of our productive contributors (I know ''I'' have).  That speaks to a levelheadedness and reasonableness to be admired.  I expect he will find the tools useful in working on Projects, as well as in dealing with the occasional vexatious or persistent vandal/edit warrior.  I also expect that he will continue to grow in the role, and I don't expect that he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' Although you are a little green for an admin as far as policy and projectspace goes, Wikipedia always needs more [[Starship Troopers|meat for the grinder.]] Make us proud.
'''Support'''.  Davidruben shows good judgement, civility, patience, knowledge, responsiveness, tenure.  Let's put away the arbitrary edit count requirements and evaluate the candidates themselves.  AFD participation, specifically, is not that important.  I'm sure Davidruben will be as careful closing non-consensual AFDs as his other contributions; his AFD "voting record" would only be needed for deletionist/inclusionist partisanship.  In the past, admins have slipped through the AFD editcount filters and turned haywire once they got delete buttons.  Some reasons for opposing admin candidates I've seen over time are just silly ("12 edits away from my personal minimum edit count", "not enough Template_talk: edits" - I won't embarass anyone with diffs), but these edit count requirements are just not that useful.  Avoid turning Wikipedia into an RPG where anyone can game the system and "level up" by [[Grind (gaming)|grinding]]!  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Competent and experienced.--
'''Support''' per nomination statement. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Even though he does not need the tools badly I will trust him with them.
Significant experience, no indication of problems.
'''No hesitation support''' very competent, composed, civil, and communicative editor.  I don't care what the edit count is in various areas as being more than sufficiently civil and productive is much better than racking up points.
'''Support''': I don't see evidence that he'll misuse the tools.
'''Support''': David is a very reasoned editor who does take time to explain what he has done.  No admin started out as perfect or totally experienced and as long as they build up their usage of the tools as they gain that experience, then I don't see how David couldn't be an admin.  We are all newbies once.
'''Support''' We certainly need more diligent wikipedians to take bigger roles. This guy can help.
'''Support'''. Has been around the block a few times, and seems very level-headed. Would make a good admin. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font>
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' Good editor, can use the tools, no indication that he would abuse them. --
'''Nominator Support'''. (I forgot to add my !vote as nominator, so a bit late. Apologies :-) --
'''Support'''. Good editor, will not abuse admin tools. '''
'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins
'''Support''' - good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Everything checks out well. I don't agree with the opp, especially given his understanding of of policies as expressed in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com|these]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga for Thyroid Disease|AFDs]]. Besides, every statement he's made in this nomination indicates he will delve into the backlogs cautiously.--
'''Support'''  Has made excellent contributions to some contentious articles.
'''Support''', given his profession, I think we can assume that he will [[Hippocratic oath|do no harm]]
'''Support''' We know he's a good editor and won't abuse the tools.  The question is, is he well-rounded enough?  Maybe a group of well-rounded admins are needed, but there's nothing wrong with admins who specialise in certain parts of Wikipedia.  In fact, they're needed, ''especially'' ones with technical know-how to go with the civil manner etc.  Ruben is absolutely the type of person needed to be an admin.  If he's unclear on the rules, he ''reads the fine manual'' (unlike some people who currently ''are'' admins, for truth!) and co-operates with both other editors and admins.  It's like telling someone they shouldn't be a Congressman because he hasn't run a law office.  Good Congressmen can read the rules, are smart enough to use them, and are civil enough to use them correctly.  SUPPORT.
'''Support''' per Quarl and Regan and inasmuch as I think it reasonable to conclude with a good degree of certainty that the candidate is possessed of judgment sufficiently fine that he should neither abuse nor misuse, even avolitionally (e.g., in view of his acting in areas of policy with which he is less-than-conversant), the tools, such that, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], I heartily support.
Seriously insufficient level of contribution at the projectspace (especially given your time on the project) implies insufficient familiarity with process. I am sure you're a terrific editor, but your answer to Q1 is unimpressive. All of your WP:talk edits appear to be wikiproject-related. I see zero policy discussion - which is a major strike against. I don't have enough evidence <small>(but will be happy to review any such evidence I may have missed)</small> on the basis of which to entrust you with either AfD or 3RR, and you're more than welcome to participate in ANI without a sysop flag. My apologies. '''<s>Strong Oppose</s>''' - <b>
I tentatively agree with Crz. (
'''Oppose''', while you appear to be a great editor those reasons are not enough to earn admin tools. Your question to Q.1 was somewhat unimpressive and as of yet you have failed to show us why you would need admin tools. And of course per Crz. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''½ Oppose''': Someone will shout at me for a half an oppose, but you've participated in 6 AfDs (if the figure quoted somewhere above is correct) and out of that, 4 were today, with your last 2 edits being to AfDs. As it appears you've followed (what I perceive to be) Ageo020s advice of participating in more AfDs this week to pass this RfA, I don't think I can support as it looks to me like gaming the system. Sorry. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose''' - David, I do not feel you have enough experience with dispute resolution to wield the mop yet.  In the future when you have more experience, I'd be happy to support you, if you've done well.  Until then, I can't.  Cheers, ✎ <b>
'''Oppose''' Crz said all that needs be said.  Candidate should simply find some project-space area(s) to which he feels capable of contributing: not merely policy-formulation, but XfD, various noticeboards, even working a page like WP:NEG can show project-space experience, as one trims the lists.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in XfD.
'''Reluctant oppose'''.  I am opposing for the reasons stated by other above -- in short, not enough experience in tasks which the new buttons apply to.  However, this oppose is reluctant, because this user contributions to mainspace look good, and with more experience will be an excellent candidate.  Best of luck.  ---
'''Firm oppose''' - totally insufficient participation in XfD. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Weak oppose'''. Good record, but I have to oppose given lack of experience in policy-related areas. Try again once you've gotten some good experience there, and I imagine you'll do very well. --'''
'''Neutral for now.''' A splendid editor, by all accounts, and if we trust doctors with our lives, I guess we can trust them with admin tools. That said... based on your reply to question one, I just don't see much of a need for them in the course of your work on Wikipedia. Vandal rollbacks, for example, can also be performed with the [[WP:POP|popups tool]]. I'd not hesitate to support this nomination at a later time once you've engaged more actively in some administrative tasks, because we ''really'' need more people in everything listed [[User:Dragons flight/Category tracker|here]].
'''Neutral'''. Pretty good user, but crz's argument is very sensible. '''''
'''Neutral'''. A stellar contributor, but does he really need the tools? I'll take the bench on this one and let you guys answer that question. —
'''Neutral''' I strongly believe that he won't abuse the tools, however I'm not sure he won't misuse them. Misuse as in accidental misuse, not malicious-ness. The lack of project-edits is my reasoning.
'''Neutral''' Great contributor, but simply not enough wikispace edits. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Strong support'''. Experienced user with over 10,000 edits. Helpful to new users and participates in nearly every aspect of WP. Would make a great admin.
'''Strong Support''' Deckiller has worked tirelessly on many articles and reverting vandalisms. As BorgHunter said, he is a tireless contributor and would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' a good editor. --
'''Very Strong Support''' Yes, yes, yes 10,000+ edits, excellent work with American Football articles --
'''Nominator support''' —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' Seems like a solid candidate. --
'''Support'''  Impressive answers.
'''Support''', good candidate, although he should use the preview button a little bit more.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support''', sure. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Great editor and leader; he will be a great sysop. -
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' Seems experienced and responsible.
'''Support''' do it.
'''Strong Support''' Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order, thought this user was already an admin.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' so many edits? needs to be rewarded, good luck to you.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.  Very strong candidate. -
'''Support'''. [[User:Danlina| ]]
'''Support'''. Strong candidate. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Meets my [[User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards|standards]]. I could wish he wasn't so merge-happy but I suppose nobody's perfect. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good work!
'''100% Strong Support.''' One of the most qualified editors, and one of the best nominations I've seen.  His dedication and service to this project is invaluable, and his behavior is impeccable - I see '''no''' other choice better than support.  People like him/her make the place better.  Again: '''100% Strong Support.''' [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' We need more editors like this as admins. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Not much to say really; exceeds my standards. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good Wookiepedian.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' - lots of potential to be a good administrator and to demonstrate quality leadership by example. --
'''Support'''. --
Absolutely '''support''' without reservation. Excellent editor, very proactive, and gets along very well with other editors. &ndash;
'''Support''' a very excellent candidate. <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''', I thought this user already...
'''Support''' - lots of good stuff here.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', nice work so far. --
'''Support''' looks like Deckiller would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Of course, <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support'''--
'''Support.''' Wow!
'''Support''' more than 10k edits, that awesome! --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Truppos'''. Sure, why not. :P --
'''Yes, yes, yes''' please! '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' to make Phaedriel happy, if she wants this so much I cannot bear to think about how sad she'll be if Deckiller isn't made Admin. (that was a joke, for those of you with humor-disabled minds. The support is real.)
'''Support'''. Strong contributor.
'''Support'''. A hard working helpful wikipedian who shows no signs of slowing down? Of course I'll support.
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support'''. Brushes and flosses his teeth every morning and only drinks pure Florida orange juice. —
'''Support'''. Another great editor for the admin staff! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Competent editor, seems like he would handle adminship well. '''<font color="8855DD">
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} I'm curious to see to what amazing use he'll put the admin tools.  Let's give them to him and find out.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I see no problems --
'''Support''' - thank God we have a little vote here. We can see who's doing a good job, and who needs to, lets just say, learn a few lessons. (Rob, I know your one of the tech guys, who rights the code and all, but I still think you're a nut.) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support!''' <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Should be a good administrator.
'''Support'''. I almost never vote on RFAs anymore, but my recent positive interactions with this user makes an exception.
'''Support'''. Deckiller is a great contributor to Wikipedia, and strives to make it a better place every single day. He has a great drive and determination towards keeping Wikipedia safe and clean, and deserves this honor. And he's also a Mofo.
Do not want "quick strike" anywhere ''near'' admin tools. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">




'''Support'''. Instead of a co-nom, I'll go for the first support. I've observed him closely ever since he joined because we edit is the same areas and for me he has been very close what an ideal wikipedian should be. He is a good editor, always prepared put in the extra bit of research effort, goes out of the way to be nice to people, fair and receptive to cricticism.
'''Strong Support''' per well written nom. - <font color="navy">
'''Strong support'''. —
'''Strong support''' - The great nom doesn't leave out anything for me to say. All I can say is that Deepu is one of the most dedicated editors I have met and that he would be the last person to abuse admin tools. And that is all I have to say about that :) -
'''Strong Support''' per Ganeshk (who is per Blnguyen, Age and Lost). A most deserving editor.
'''Support''' --
Sounds like a good idea.
'''Support'''; possibly over-due.--<font style="background:white">
'''s''U''p''P''o''R''t''' &mdash; per nom(s), great editor.
'''Support''' Andeh, this isn't possibly over-due, it '''is''' over-due. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''', As per the nom,
'''Support''', fantastic editor. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' With noms like these there's nothing left for me to add. --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Srikéit support''' Exemplary user... - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]

Its a '''STRONG THUNDERBOLTZ''' support (Thunderboltz is a brand of beer in India!) &mdash;

'''Very Strong Support''': We certainly require administrators like Deepu Joseph. He is  not only a fine editor, but a person of utmost integrity, and a real asset of the Project. (edit conflict)  --
'''Strong Support.''' Where have all of these absolutely excellent admin candidates come from recently? [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Really good guy!!--
'''Support''' per excellent noms and all above. Experienced, motivated user with no issues.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent candidate for adminship.
'''Strong Support''' - he's put in a strong effore on wiki, he knows how to use AfD and even knows a bit on checkuser/sockpuppet policy.
'''Strong Support''' Very good usage of AFD, knows some about checkuser, and would be a very good user of the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent and informative nom.  Great candidate.
'''Indian Support'''. Hahahaha...half of these supports are from Indian people.
'''Support as co-nom''' Sorry couldn't vote earlier.--
'''Support''' One of the best editors around here. I have fill confidence that you would become a great admin! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''':  Per nom, et al.
'''Strong support''' exceptional candidate, contributing editor with a good sense of judgment and a cool head.  He will be spectacular --
'''Support''' per nomination and the great things said above.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''&mdash; Can be trusted with the tools. Glad to see we have some easy decisions today. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' 3 nominators, a rc patroller, and a member of Esperanza.  I need not look further. <font face="Times" color="green">[[User:False Prophet/Esperanza|Wikipedia's]]</font> <font face="Times" color="Maroon">[[User:False Prophet|False Prophet]]</font>  <small>[[User Talk:False Prophet|holla at me]]</small> <small>
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' per nomination, a good editor .
'''Support''' - per nom and decent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Deepujoseph upload log] --
'''Strong Support''' - great editor with a cool head on his shoulders (needed for adminship).
'''Strong Indian support''' - you're right, Nish, but we all gotta stick together :) I have seen this user around and he's always polite and civil. Great editor, I can't seem him abusing the tools. Good luck! &mdash; '''
'''Support''' ---
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Strong support''' Yes. --
'''Strong Support''', per well-written nom.--'''
'''Support''' - per nom et alii.  There's nothing that would suggest anything other than supporting this nomination. &mdash;
'''Support''' Even if [I] hadn't known what a fine editor and coolhead he is, I'd have voted ''aye'' per the nominator(s). --
'''Supah-dupah strong Support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' per noms.
He isn't one?
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Strong support''' - Deepu is an asset to the wiki community. He is well understanding, coperative, and very helpful to all the new comers as well. I think that he is capable of taking this additional responsiblity, and I am proud to offer my support to him for the adminship. --
'''Random cliched pile-on support''', nom says it all. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
I see no reason not to support. I believe this candidate would make a good admin. But why are there more and more questions asked everytime? Seven now? This is just getting ridicules. -
'''Support''' per everyone
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''   Based on their answer to my question, it likely shows they would handle criticism of their work with a cool head.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Obvious support''' I know him from the time he took his faltering steps on Wikipedia and every day, I see only jumps in dediacation, commitment and progress. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per nom. ——
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''': His dedication to Indian topics reminds me of the time I met {{user2|Rama's Arrow}} early in the year. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
Why not add a floor to the [[Empire State Building]]? <strong>
TL;DR '''Support''' ~
'''Forgot to support'''.'''
'''Support''' No real problems
'''Support''' Seems like a good user. --
'''Strong Support''' This is a no-brainer! --[[User:Vivin|Vivin Paliath ]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' per above. I'm very impressed with what I've discovered here.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Strong Support''' Hope I'm not too late! --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support''' - how could I ever forget? ;-) &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per above. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''.  ENWP definitely needs more Indian admins like you.  I've seen too many NPOV disputes lately.
'''Half-hearted opposition'''-I don't like the ways of this user and I have a  very specific reason to dislike them. I used to be another user named Kuntan and I believe this user conspired to have my username changed because he is ignorant about the idiom of Malayalam and that proper name of marginalised people jarred on his snobbish sensibilities. (I remember that I called him and another user two rare instances of sensible Wikipedians from Kerala on his talk page prior to that.) However, since then, I have noted that this user is unduly patronising towards new users. His book-kissing and immature interpretation of policies is often annoying. The articles he prepared single-handedly resemble school book assignments rather than encylopedic articles, ([[Mahé River]] for example), although they are far better than most of the stupid articles related to Kerala like this stupid scatty piece like [[Mamankam]]. And I strongly doubt he has some petty biases from an edit summary he inserted for his revert of [[Malayala Manorama]] on October 16. The first thing he should do after election (a foregone conclusion), I believe, is to delete a few silly articles or stubs he created, like [[Kochi City Police]],[[Toc-H Public School]], [[School of Communication and Management Studies]] etc. But for my pleasure of cooking the goose of a unanimous election, I should have placed these remarks under comments section and abstained from opposing.
'''Oppose''' - Answer 11. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''', good answers.
'''Support''', Deiz has made some terrific contributions in a short period, and seems to have a calm level head and a grasp of the "not so glamorous tasks" involved in being a sysop. Great admin material. - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
"Thought the user was already" '''cliché support'''.
'''Support''', good user and I like the answers. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Strong Support'''! I work with this guy. Very agreeable.
'''Definitive Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. There's going to be a long list in your logs. :)
'''Unambiguous Support'''
'''Strong Support''' let this user's fine contributions speak for itself. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' well rounded.
'''Identical twin support''' (his edit count, distribution, and date of first edit are eerily similar to my own) inasmuch as Deiz is unlikely to abuse adminship (and likely to benefit the project as an admin) and as ''adminship is no big deal''.  FWIW, of the two instances adduced by Ted toward the proposition that Deiz has been incivil, I think that the first comment of Deiz is altogether Wikiappropriate and that the second, although perhaps not as decorous as one would like, is not incivil (and surely not a personal attack); I think one would have difficulty finding a user with more than 3000 edits who hasn't made at least one such comment in his/her time here at WP, and I don't think we ought to draw inferences apropos of Deiz's general civility and ability to communicate effectively with other users from such a small and innocuous sample.
'''Support''' a good editor who I believe he will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. Keep up the great work! [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', solid answers to questions and to the concern listed below.
'''Support''' makes lots of well-reasoned comments on AfD.
'''Support''' - looks like a great editor. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' He comes across well. Not perfect, but has learnt to improve weak points and I am sure will continue to do so. He also bothers to communicate and explain.
'''Support''' The issues brought up by neutral and oppose voters appear to be from awhile ago. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' helpful on chat and active on wikipedia. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Should do a good job and be a benefit to wikipedia.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good answers given below. Also seen him do some good work on AFD's. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Seems fine. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' too few nominators :-0 -
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor -- good wiki-essays as well. :)
'''Support'''. Needs the mop to carry out his maintenance tasks.--
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Can't say I've had a lot of experience with this user, but contributions look good, and [[WP:HEY]] & [[WP:CHILL]] helped put me into the definite support category. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''SUPPORT''' - I always knew that [[Portugal]] imported lots of things, but I never thought it would have to import Wikipedia admins! Really nice work, not only in the article namespace, but also in AfD and other project namespace stuff. Keep your good work!
'''Support''', makes good use of [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]]. I am huge supporter.
'''Support''', The Marine has a good feeling about this nominee.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' exceptional contributions, great vandal fighter, I give him my highest support -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Good user, with participation on [[WP:AFD]] and some good janitorial work. --
'''Support''' Use the tools with wisdom and restraint.
'''Support''' - Deiz would use the admin tools well.
'''Support''' great user, ton of edits, and just about everything that makes a good admin. [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers to the questions.
'''Support''', will make a fine admin.
'''What, I hadn't already? Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]</font><sub><font color="#2000E0">[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</font><font color="#4000C0">[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</font><font color="#6000A0">[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</font><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' (tho try to get your edit summary usage up ;) )--
'''Support''' I read your reply, dei. Perhaps I really got too carried away by the fact that some 850 Wikipedians are serving as administrators. So, without much consideration, I was going down through the list of people running for the adminship to see if anybody could fall as prey for not being in the community long enough. But I see that you've worked on various projects that coincide with my mission in Wikipedia. And I really liked your reply. It was convincing and not offensive. So I change my vote from '''Oppose''' to '''Support'''.(
'''Support''' Good contributions in many areas, trustworthy and should start mopping soon. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' <small>
'''Supprot''' Seems good enough. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no reason not to. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''. —''
'''Angry Support''' For not letting me know so I could nominate you!!!
'''Support''' No real concerns
'''Oppose'''. This user seems like a nice guy and I enjoyed some of our interactions. Nevertheless,  I was never a huge fan of his tag line, namely: ''Better Wikipedia articles through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass''...[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians&diff=300726&oldid=300724] and I am somewhat surprised that it does not seem to be addressed by either the self nom above, or the questions below. His user page, until recently, was also far too confrontational for me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deiz&oldid=44867568], the use of derogatory labels (i.e. ''scamcruft'', etc.) to link to articles in the mainspace, while humorous, is not exactly what I look for in an admin. I guess what I do look for is someone who can be an impartial referee, not a POV warrior or extremist on either the deletionist or inclusionist sides. Because one of the few things admins can do is delete articles, and that is a power that requires discernment and a certain degree of reflection, not flippancy. Maybe {{User|Deiz}} can be a bit more upfront about where he really stands. --
'''Oppose''', derisive language.
'''Oppose''' WP:Civil --
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Clearly a skilled editor and a valuable contributor to avrious houskeeping tasks, but the comments identified by JJay above concern me. I don't think they reflect they generally high quality of Deiz's contributions, so I'd be happy to support once they have faded further into history. --
'''Oppose''' until we get a method to remove abusive admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Relunctantly Oppose''' per JJay. Deiz is a good contributor, but I am not comfortable with his self-expression. Bureaucrat - please disregard Ardenn's vote. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Even though this user looks alright overall, the lack of edits is the real determining factor here for me. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Somewhat Oppose'''  "There are some diffs out there that I'm not too proud of..."  Give this some time to settle, and keep up the great work as an editor.
'''Oppose''': too deletionist.
'''Neutral''' but may change to Oppose.  I am concerned about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=40492537&title=Talk%3AStoner_metal] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=40577872&title=Talk%3AStoner_metal].  Less than civil. This is reinforced by his general lack of contributions to Talk (most seem to be in conjunction with redirects or adding <nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki>).
'''Neutral''', a little more experience would have me supporting though.
'''Neutral''' essentially per Stifle.  User looks good overall but there's not yet enough experience --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No questions. Has done good work reverting vandalism. Has on occasion helped people who had opposed him. Also voted to keep the Robert Steadman article which had been nominated for deletion, although he was certainly not a pal of the subject of that article ([[User:Robsteadman]]). Shows he can be fair.
edit-conflicted '''Support'''. Good contributor, unlikely to abuse the mop. Interesting answer to question 3!
'''Support''' Excellent user, calm temperment, completely trustworthy.
'''Support''' Hard working, doesn't blow his stack when wrongly accused of vandalism (see his talk page), and honest about his history (see his answer to question 3).--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Despite the negative talk from [[User:Robsteadman]], Deskana appears to be calm and civil in the face of opposition.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' as per AnnH and Elkman, and in spite of his issues with Robsteadman.
'''Support'''.  Have had a few interactions with and observations of this user in my duties.  I'd trust them with the tools. --
It would have been even better if he had just a little more experience, but from my analysis, the candidate meets the criteria.  Level-headed, and participates considerably in the project namespace.
'''Support''' Not the most experienced of users, but cool as a cucumber despite the mountain of garbage he's already had to put up with. I don't see why the streak wouldn't continue as an admin. --
'''Support''' - no problems I've seen --
'''Umm... yeah.''' Great editor, unlikely to abuse.
'''Support.''' Looks good to me.--
'''Support''' He puts up a good fight against vandals and although I think he has some stuff to learn (don't we all) he has shown that he can learn and move on from mistakes. I'm sure he'll be a big help to the overworked admins here. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA [[User:SOPHIA|Sophia]]<sup><small><font color="purple">[[User_talk:SOPHIA|Talk]]</font></small></sup><font color="#404040">
'''Support'''. Great work so far! [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' have observed editor before and am very contented with experience. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nikkinikon This] talk page, and all the diffs that it applies to, demonstrates the candidate's ability to stay calm and make good, common sense decisions in order to enforce policy. -
'''Support''', very much so.  Will do fine.
'''Support'''.  I know from personal experience on other fora just how difficult Rob Steadman can be to deal with.  You've probably done better than me at keeping your temper under control.
'''Support''', will make good use of the mop.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support:''' --
'''Support''' Can't see any reason not to. --
'''Support'''--
<b>Support</b>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good editor
'''Support''', no worries <b>
'''Full Support'''. I don't know whether it's really my place to vote, but from what I've seen, this user has shown a considerable amount of grace under fire, and a willingness to forgive and act on the basis of fairness and righteousness, even when it's hard. I've been concerned about questionable admin behavior, but I firmly believe that this user will act responsibly within Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Great work. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. Looks like he'll do good here. --
'''Support''', will be fine. --
'''Support''', I see no problems with this user.
'''Support''' without reservation.--
'''Support'''; good record and excellent handling of current situation. .:.
'''Support''' seems good <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' No seeming about it, this editor is cooler than a cucumber.  I should learn from this guy. --
'''Strong Support''' Beyond a great editor, also a great guy. Cheers! --
'''Support''' Deskana is a great user. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' I'm not a big fan of self nominations, but there is no reason that this user shouldn't be an admin --
'''Support'''. --
--
'''Support''' -- A very good mediator, ready to help, ethical in the face of abuse. All we want in admins. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor, will be admin.
'''Support''' Reviewed his contributions and talk page. Looks like a remarkable level-headed guys.
'''Support'''. Quality contributor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Good, consistent work.
'''Object''' Not very promising, it seems like you need more experience. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Not enough mainspace edits
'''Neutral''', for now: please take off the link to this page from your signature. It seems a bit tacky,  and I know of a few users who would oppose you just for that.
'''Neutral''' Even though the user is an excellent RC patroller and mediator and certainly has demonstrated that will use the tools with good judgement I support candidates who contribute more content to the encyclopedia articles.
'''Neutral''' per Joelito.  Willing to make an exception to my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|admin standards]], but can't quite cross to support at this time. —
'''Strong support'''.'''
'''Support''' a highly qualified candidate --
'''Support'''. A very mature, nice editor.
'''Support''' a brilliant all-rounder. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A model candidate from all I can see. I'm impressed with the AfD track record, having checked out a dozen or so contributions there.
'''Support'''. A hard-working Wikipedian (look at all those edits in the last year). And <strike>there is a need for at least one</strike> while I'm told that there are loads of admins with a strong interest in cricket, it'll be lovely to have another. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC) <small>(blushes) excuse my stupidity/ignorance. He'd still be a great admin.</small>--
'''Support''', a very strong candidate that will make a great admin. --
'''Weak oppose''', should've had an RfA already.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' obviously, over 1000 wikipedia edits --
'''Support'''. A great contributor.
Shoo-in '''support'''.
'''Support''': the nomination ''bowled'' me over... - <b>
'''Support''' based on personal experience - didn't even need Blnguyens wonderful nomination this time.
'''Support''' - Wow, the nominator did all the work for me! Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - good, hardworking, dedicated editor, adminship was long overdue
'''Support'''. A very dedicated editor who I have seen do a lot of good work, will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I see absolutely ''no'' reason whatsoever that this excellent user should not be an admin. Perhaps as impressive as the quality of the user's work is the quality of the user's answers to the questions and the superb nomination. --
'''Support''' I'm going to burn his answer to the IP editor (about [[Placage]]) into my forehead.
'''Give him the mop already!''' What a great candidate - he is obviously quite dedicated and hard working and his answers to the questions were very good.  I've witnessed his excellent work although I've never interacted with him, and I am very confident that this user will make a great admin. :)
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Answers to questions above are well thought out, comments to the upset editor are top notch. Seems like a perfect candidate.
'''Yes'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Not enough User: space edit support'''. So selfless. :-) <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' Really strong candidate for the mop! <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I've had no interactions with him, but he looks like a strong candidate. His ability to be verbose and speak his mind is wonderful. --
'''Support''' Fantastic candidate -
'''Pile on the mop'''. Solid.
'''Support''' More than qualified for the tools. --<font color="336699">

'''Strong support''' for a fantastic editor.  Mature and solid contributor.  One of the best.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APla%C3%A7age&diff=45216743&oldid=45207562 This] interaction says it all. --
'''Support''' Here is someone who seems, to me, that his adminship would improve the quality of Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' - per nom and a reminder for your West Indian cricket team bios that ''St Vincent'' needs to redirect to ''Saint Vincent and the Grenadines'' --
'''Support'''. I don't mean to sound unoriginal, but I thought he was already an admin! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''The President of Tawker's Account wishes it to be known that the WikiNation of Tawker Supports''' --
'''Support''' Solid, hardworking editor.--
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Strong support''', excellent user indeed.
'''Support''' Per all above. Passes my criteria. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' No problems here ;) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per all of above.  Highly qualified, no issues.
'''Support''' a solid user and a very certain elephant. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
Is an extra '''support''' really needed here?
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': seems exactly the right sort of candidate.
'''Support'''
Excellent editor.
'''Support''' - will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. Meets my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]], no issues of incivility, no big deal. Heck, after 50 opinions there aren't even any oppose or neutrals. Well, except [[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] of course.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' nearly an year on Wikipedia, with experience both broad and deep.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Experienced and hard-working. Passes ''my'' "[[User:Aranherunar/admin|criteria]]"
'''Support''' per the superb nom. -
'''Support'''Tons of edits, maybe need a few more Talk edits, but easily passed the criteria (
'''Support''' For his contribs to cricket, I hereby support his adminship. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Still confused why a person would write Weak Oppose if they are that surprised Deville's not an admin lol. --
'''Support'''.  An active cricket editor and admin status would assist the user further.  --
'''Support''' without a doubt.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' Good editor with that many edits, gotta support.

Do you own a [[Cadillac]]?  :)
'''Support'''&mdash;Reasonable & logical positions on AfD. And doesn't meet Masssiveego's criteria.
'''Support''', good editor, passes my criteria--
'''Support''' Very hard to fault.--
'''Support''' per nom...good contributor
'''Oppose''' Fails my [[User:Masssiveego/admin|criteria]].  --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Uber support''' solid contributor.
'''Support''' with the minor comment to question 5, that this is a Wiki. Everyone is in a position to change things.
'''Support''' Well rounded editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' as above --
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''.  I am impressed with his work on the Article Improvement Drive.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Answered the questions perfectly by my taste.
'''Support''' - Yes, a good candidate. -
'''Support''' per involvement in many projects.
''"Adminship is no big deal"''. -
'''Support'''. I've seen your work here at Wikipedia, and I use your bot to maintain the AID. You show great commitment to Wikipedia, and you have my vote.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around.
'''Support''' per nom. Meets criteria, good user. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' well deserved--
'''Support''', looks OK, although I can't know for certain that all the gibberish on the talk page isn't really discussion about how stupid the Finns are. =)
'''Support'''! --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' Looks good. --
'''Support''' per nomination and solid record of interaction with the community.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''--
Strong Oppose for your orphaned picture (just playing ^_^) '''Strong Support'''. Excellent contributor. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' per nomination. --
'''Support''' per "Masssiveego"'s oppose. (oh, and all that good stuff up there:)) ---
'''Da'''!  --
'''Support'''. Very impressed with the thorough answers. .:.
'''Support'''. Good answers, looks like a solid candidate.
'''Support''', excellent user. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good candidate. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' -- The right stuff.
'''Support'''
I see no reason not to '''Support'''. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' great canidate, well qualified.--[[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#000000">preschooler.</span>]][[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#E9B901">at</span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. His <s>declination</s>, <s>declension</s>, <s>disinclination</s>, turning down of nomination previously shows that there is also a maturity in "learning the trade before learning the tricks of the trade", which is usually a very good sign.
'''Support''' - definitely!
'''Support'''. Recall positive interactions with and observations of this user. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Suport.''' Great candidate.--
'''Suport.'''
'''Support''' Solid contributor and interacts well with other users. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' can be trusted.
'''Support''' per nom. Meets/surpasses my criteria. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' looks good. [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Inteligent and NPOV comments on talk pages.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. This is the user who will ''never'' abuse his powers.--
'''Well, I can't deprive you of your chance!''' What do you say if I support?--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">a</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support:'''--
'''Support'''. Candidate looks good enough to be an admin. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
Having discussed the issue I had with Dijxtra at length below, I am satisfied that it was only one of misunderstanding and that Dijxtra will take steps to eliminate the possibility of such misunderstanding in the future. Because Dijxtra is not only willing to admit a mistake but take steps to rectify it and keep the same confusion from happening to other people, I am hereby changing my opposition to '''Support.''' --
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Weak Oppose'''.  Would like to see a little more non-article contributions.  Also, you say you want to work with [[WP:AIV]] but have only made <s>[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&article=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&user=Dangherous&dbname=enwiki_p one]</s>one edit to it as a user, and that was about vandalism on another project. —
'''Oppose''' one orphan picture, inactive.  --
'''Oppose''' In the response to JoshuaZ #6, the candidate is indicating that he would indefinitely block for something that [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of sock puppets|is perfectly legitimate]]. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Oppose''' due to lack of understanding of blocking policy detailed above.
Nom support - <b>
Yes &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' User will make a good sysop: no reason to oppose, and seems to avoid conflict! --
'''Support'''. Prolific contributor, provided detailed answers to the standard questions and seems to understand policy.

'''Support''' — Looks good. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support'''. I wish I'd answered the questions as fully.
'''Support''' A good user. It is time to give her the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' Good answers, good user. |
'''Support''' -- Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' Seems good :-)
'''Support''' - came across Dina way back in early September when she thanked me for adding something to an article she was working on (the [[:Gang Green]] article, I do believe). I'd only been with the project a couple of weeks and such contact is very encouraging. Nice to see she is still around and doing well! Support not a problem. Nice one, crz.
'''Support''' no comment.
'''Support'''. Definitely, =). '''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' with no hesitation whatsoever.
'''Support''' as she appears to be both an excellent editor and an outstanding admin candidate.
'''Support'''. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Support''' per above-no problems here; excellent user.--[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No problem here - start swabbing the decks!
'''Support''' - should be a great addition to the admin corps.
'''support''' --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' per all above - fully qualified, no issues.
'''Support''' great work.
'''Support'''; has done a lot of great work as an user, and will continue to do so as an admin. --'''
'''Support''' like what I see.
'''Support''' Very good editor, will do good for Wikipedia.
I agree with the above. (

'''Support''' Good answers to my questions, a strong and well balanced admin. Mopping time.
'''Support''' good answers.--
'''Support'''. I'd like to see more wiki-space edits. I ould say that of almost anyone though. The answers to your questions are pretty much ideal though. --
'''Support''' per nom. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' have seen Dina around and she seems like admin material.
'''Support''' If she's not an admin already, now is the time to promote her. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Weakish support''' Dina seems to be a great contributor; my support is somewhat weakened by a ''very'' low number of talk edits on articles (76) and in the Wikipedia-space (12). I never look at editcounts except in regards to talk pages (I feel that it helps me see how someone can interact with the community and/or amidst a contentious issue), and I would definitely prefer to see more interaction from Dina. With that said, I'm still, obviously, supporting. --
'''Support'''. For sure.

'''Support'''. Per all above.
'''Support''' looks good --
'''Support''' Knows how to use the tools well, and good candidate.
I'm
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Been-waiting-for-this-one-Support''' <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
Whatever post I have seen from this user was good ones. Hence '''Support''' ---
'''Support''' Impressed by her conduct in the dispute I helped to resolve (see Q2 above). A cool head - unlikely to misuse admin powers. --
'''Weak Support''' I see no problems other than the low talk and WPtalk edits (hence the weak). Apart from that, great.
'''Support'''. Cool user. Looks responsible and I like her answers above. -
'''Support'''.  Just ran into her work fixing an AfD/prod botched by another user. I liked the way she explained things in her edit summaries and that she was careful/considerate at the AfD to add an extra comment about what had happened, to reduce any possible confusion.
'''Weak Support''' Answers are convincing, and very good edit summaries. However she needs to contribute more in project/project talk space. --
'''Support''' -- I was going to support anyway, but I think your answers to the optional questions are excellent. --
'''Support''' per nom, answers to questions and my own positive observance of user's activity.
'''Support'''. I'm a little hesitant about the low talk page edit count, and that she's only been active since July. But her answers and record are very good. --
'''Support''' - Great candidate.
'''Boring, unnecessary support''' - I don't do RFAs much, but I'm perusing RFAs and this one looks good.  Wikipedia needs less bureaucratic admins IMO.  I've seen too much arguing going on already.
'''Support''': Plenty of edits, plenty of experience, good question answers. Should be a good admin. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' seems very even-headed despite the conflicts mentioned and would most likely not abuse the tools.
'''Support''' - we need more admins, and she's certainly qualified. -
'''Support''' I like the way she describes her easing her way into admin duties instead of recklessly diving into them. I also like the detailed answers to the questions. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' ..without any hesitation! All the best with the tools. ←
''Communismo or muerte support'' <small> That's what everyone does when they see Crz </small> &mdash;
'''Support'''-When I ran the edit counnt using [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Dina&site=en.wikipedia.org Interiot's tool] I was surprised at the low number of eidts up until I saw the number of edits in the last 5 months and my jaw hit the floor!
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per experience/answers.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''', per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom. '''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''', sound candidate --
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' Dina seems like a trustworthy user. | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="2">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">
'''Support''' per nom. She looks like an excellent candidate to me. Best of luck, -
'''Support''' She looks to be what it takes to make a good admin
'''Support''' Looks like excellent candidate.  -
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. More talk-page would be nice. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Support''' No problems to be seen.
'''Strong Support''' Obvious experience with Wikipedia demonstrated. --<b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Why not? --
'''Support'''. No reservations.
'''Support''' - vandals beware.
'''Support'''. Sad that Dina's low key. We need more outstanding Wikipedians like her. '''''
'''Support'''Good dispute resolution; hard-worker.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose Dina.
'''Weak Support''' - Good reply to questions, that dispute with 62.147.39.XXX was not your fault. I guess he/she overreacted a bit.
'''Support'''- Needs admin tools to fight vandalism. Good Editor. --
'''Support'''. You're good at what you do.
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions.
'''Support'''
'''Suppport'''
'''Support''' A good candidate, will make a good admin.
'''Fiance support''' Feel free not to count this vote -- I'm a reader not an editor, but I know how good an admin she'll be and how hard she's worked for it.
'''Support''' per nom and the above reaction.
'''Support''' per nom.  Seems like a good, level-headed editor. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor!
'''Support''' Wow, almost missed it, great editor.
No sorry, if just becoming active, just on sometimes doesn't see good. How long has she been on? Reply and maybe It'll change but for now ''No''
Too few project/project talk space contributions. I really don't feel comfortable supporting admins who only plan on doing vandalism stuff. -
A well-deserved wait. However, she'll have to do a lot of WP maintenance in due time. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''  He was super helpful with [[Retreat of glaciers since 1850]], and I've seen him around elsewhere.  Always civil and helpful, would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' With confidence.--
'''Support''' good admin candidate, very unlikely to abuse the bit --
'''Support''' Good users make good admins. Seems unlikly to abuse the power and has demostrated the knowledge of how to use it in the above responces. ---

'''Strong Support''' (edit conflict) - Excellent canidate who particpiates in all aspects of Wikipedia, from maintenence, to article creation, to vandal fighting, to XfD, to wikignoming. Highly unlikely to abuse the bit, tries to maintain civility and neutrality and is conciencious about avoiding COI. Very helpful all around. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' Valued article contributor, and an active participant in Wikipedia-namespace discussions. '''
'''Support''' Very unlikely to abuse the admin tools.  Good contributions in all relevant areas, would be very useful in assisting with the backlog.
'''Support'''. Good user. Best of luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' - this guy knows what he's doing. I have no reason to think he'll misuse the tools. Good editor who I've seen around quite a lot recently being eminently reasonable. And talkpage spam often cheeses me off as well.
'''Support''' - Good, level-headed editor with a prolific contribution history. --
[Bell] [Bell] [Bell] - jackpot! You win a mop. (
'''Support''' per above... [Mop] [Mop] [Mop]! --<b><font color="#006633">
'''Support''' - pass go, collect mop
'''Support'''. Reasonable, trustworthy, and could use the buttons.
'''Support''' - After reading the user's statement, his answers to the questions, his user page, and his contributions to recent discussions, I believe this user can be trusted with admin tools.
'''Support''' solid contributor and a voice of reason in contentious discussions like the Esperanza MfD.
'''Strong Support''' Sound judgment, great demeanor, absolutely trustworthy -- should have been an admin months ago!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Looks like they'd make a good admin.
'''Support''' - Oh, good.  Great candidate.  Has been helpful all over.
'''Support''' good candidate.
'''Support''' Level headed and is intelligent, has a good grip on wikipedia policies and procedures looks to be an excellent candidate for admin ▪◦▪
'''Support''', Doug Bell made his article when he was new. Any hint of vanity has surely been eliminated by now. I think he would make a good admin.
'''Support''', good contributor and even if his bio was a newbie mistake I don't think infallability is a requirement for adminship. --
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' Looks like a solid candidate. I don't have a problem with giving him a mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Would definetly be a great admin, good luck! <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support''' - Good vandal fighting, a lot of back end work fixing templates, and a regular at XfD discussions, but not a lot of recent article space work. I still support this one.
'''Support''' seems alright to me.--
I'm
'''Support''' Responsible.--
'''Support''' No major concerns here. It is time to give him the mop. An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good Wikipedian. He deserves the mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''', thoughtful, intelligent and works well with others. --
'''Support''': Nice. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.
'''Yes'''.
'''Support''' for qualified, experienced user with both mainspace and wikispace issues, who can use the tools well. As ever, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every word he's ever written anywhere on the site. With regard to the Oppose and Neutral comments below, no candidate should have to have (or is likely to have had) experience with ''every'' process on the site, and I think his conduct on the [[Doug Bell]] mainspace article was perfectly understandable.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' looks great
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Good egg. --
'''Support''' - Good user. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]

'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' This user seems to be a valuable asset, technical know-how, conflict resolution skills, neutral in controversial topics, give him the mop.

'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' as a good editor --
'''Support'''. I love his answer about not commenting and non-involvement on the article about him. It demonstrates his high level understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will make a great admin.
'''Pile-on Support''' Great editor and approach to the community!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Calm and intelligent, from all I've seen around. Good stuff :) --
'''Support''' The recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&diff=88630013&oldid=88526733 healthy exchange] on Lulu's talk page is a plus, the concerns raised by Trials&Errors below are a minus.  The apparent tendency to be around when arguments start (albeit in a minor way, and raised by the editor in his answers to #3 above) is also negative.  I'm voting support because when I've run across him on AfD he's been remarkablyy well reasoned and constructive.  He's not perfect, but I trust him with the mop.
'''Support''' - I honestly don't know him very well, but I can't fault him for turning a few red links about himself into a minimalist stub, which seems to be the primary objection to his candidacy. As [[User:Pete.Hurd|Pete.Hurd]] said above, no one is perfect, includiing admin candidates, but there is no reason to think that he would misuse the tools given him, and he has done a good job of being fair and reasonable in those instances I have encountered him. The comment about poisoning the coffee is one I also can't hold against him, unless, as a computer expert, he ''can'' figure out a way to poison coffee over the internet. Then I '''really''' wouldn't want to be on his bad side. (That was a joke, too. Not a good one, but a joke.)
'''Support''' - I would support this editor as an administrator.
'''Support'''. The edit to [[WP:BUR]] was useful, though the edit summary was unfortunate. Since it's not possible to undo an edit summary after pressing "save", we shouldn't blame someone too much for a once-off lapse in sensitivity, and he behaved with dignity during the World War that followed. Also, I am convinced that this editor, as an administrator, will be helpful to and sympathetic towards victims of stalking.
'''Support'''.  This is a case where the merit of the candidate shows up in the very limited reasons that have been found to oppose.  So he made a vanity article about himself when he was a new user&mdash;he didn't know about the ''guideline'' [[WP:AUTO]], and tried to handle both the article and the AfD discussion in a neutral manner.  He has been uncivil or made other mistakes at times, and then reflected on these mistakes and apologized where appropriate&mdash;this is, if anything, a good sign, because it proves he is a human being who gives a shit and not a very clever robot. --
'''Support'''. Appears to be, with some exceptions both apologised for and acknowledged by him, an ''exceptionally'' polite user, which is something I'm ''very'' fond of. I'm especially fond of him making mistakes and apologising for them (yes! apologies are good for an admin!). His edits/comments to the BCrat's NB and to [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] (which were not a Good Thing&copy;, especially the BCrat's NB one) and subsequent apologies even to the point of notifying Cecropia fof this RfA (who might very well oppose) shows maturity. We need more mature admins. Keep it up, nicely done.
'''Support''' Good luck! [[User:Jam01|Jam]]<font color="green">


'''Support''' After reviewing badlydrawnjeff objection, I think Doug's apology shows his maturity. Good editor, will make a good admin even if he decides not to use the tools that much.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' Thought about this one for awhile, and I think that candidate will do a good job with the tools. Best of luck :)
'''Support''' Makes good contributions, a good editor, even has the decency to apologise for his actions if he makes a mistake (as mentioned above). Will make an excellent admin. --


Per my neutral vote :) <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' per MONGO.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]<font size=2><font color="Blue">
'''Support''' per SCZenz, AnnH above.
'''Support''' simply because of some of the utterly ridiculous opposes. Nothing in my (albeit limited) experience with Doug suggests he can't be trusted. --
'''Strong oppose''' - limited experience with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Doug_Bell images] --
'''Oppose''' - I'm opposing because he either does not understand the simple basics of WP:COI, WP:NOT & others in relation to his [[Doug Bell]] article. Many articles along those lines have been deleted, yet Doug Bell is reluctant to take a stand on which view he thinks is right, probably to avoid the real issue. Below is my post which I placed on his
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_November_16&diff=89186731&oldid=89184452 this wildly inaccurate and possibly incivil comment].  Completely unnecessary, and we don't need more admins like this.  --
'''Oppose''' per badlydrawnjeff.
'''Oppose''' per badlydrawnjeff.
'''Oppose''', mostly because you started an article about yourself?  Or is that incorrect?  It seems almost unbelievable that I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding it.  Anyway, I'm a haggard deletionist I guess when it comes to wikis and I don't like vanity much.  I'm not even really "into" Wikipedia that much and I still, when lacking anything better to do, go around and tag new stuff for deletion because I just don't like vanity.  The article itself still seems unspectacular, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between you and any other cubicle worker for a game.  If I cared more I'd nominate it for deletion, it looks like a resume!  Seems you'd be unlikely to make a good judge for what needs deletion.  Probably won't make much of a difference with all the support votes, but... --
'''Very weak oppose''' I've hesitated to comment on this RFA, especially since I rarely comment on RFAs at all and have had little or no interaction with Doug Bell.  However, ever since I first saw this RFA I've had an odd gut feeling that it's not the world's greatest idea.  I can't put my finger on why I feel that way, but the fact that others have found reasons to oppose pushes me from being neutral on it (I don't comment when I'm neutral) to going with my gut and opposing it.  However, my lack of a specific reason combined with the fact that I can see Doug Bell's side on every issue anyone else has opposed him on, pushes this back into a very weak oppose. ~ '''''
'''Neutral''' - Don't know this user. --
'''Neutral''' Looks good other than the <s>vanity</s> article on himself and the subsequent claim that he's notable. This would usually be grounds for outright oppose, but since it was written in January I'll go with neutral. ~
'''Neutral''' per Trialsanderrors. That article is pretty much just his resume and doesn't assert meeting [[WP:BIO]] at all... but it seems kind of dick-ish to AfD it during his RfA. However, it was one of his first contributions and he hasn't editted it in 7 months. --
'''Neutral''' - I don't know much about this candidate, though most of his contributions seen quite nice, but [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge| this one comment about poisoning the coffee]] has left me with a bad aftertaste, so to speak. Thus I have to remain neutral on this one. [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Neutral'''  My knowledge of this Wikipedian is limited to the interaction I witnessed between him and badlydrawnjeff at DRV, referenced in BDJ's oppose vote above.  Doug showed [[moral character|character]] in retracting and apologizing for his personal statement about BDJ, while maintaining his stance regarding the deletion in question.  Still, I don't know enough to support his adminship; I would just pass on something that I've learned in my year as an admin.  Maintaining civility at all times is the single most important part of an administrator's work, and the #1 key to a happy and productive career with the mop is to always err on the side of ''extra'' civility, ''extra'' respect, and treating every contributor, even blatant trolls and vandals, with a level of dignity that raises the bar, rather than ever lowering it.  Treating each person as though they ''might'' be a [[Baucis and Philemon|visiting god]] doesn't get in the way of efficiency, it turns out; quite the contrary.  I realize how much free advice tends to be worth, but I wanted to put the idea out there at least.  Thanks for reading, Doug, thanks for caring about Wikipedia, and good luck with you adminship. -
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
This guy sounds real good.  Including his other account, he's been around longer than I have, and seems to have a good grasp on policy.  He's admitted some of his own mistakes, and has substantiated his self-nomination for me.  --
'''Support''', yep, this user sounds good. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Prolific contributor all around, could use the tools well. (
'''support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.  Here for nearly 2 years with 7000+ edits?  Sounds good to Me! --
'''Support'''.  I have interacted with him and found him reasonable and it's not very often I see an RfA for an editor I somewhat know and think is good.  Please use edit summaries more... but, the amount of good he does I can't oppose on just that.
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Use more edit summaries, but good number of edits. --
'''Support''' - Some quite superb additions, and additions and creation of lists. I like [[List of Kansas birds]], and the [[User:Dsmdgold/Medieval Articles|Medieval Subpage]] is good an' all! --
'''Support''' Fellow medievalist :) I remember being involved in a couple of debates with him in the past - one where we were on opposite sides (spelling of Old Norse names) and one where we were on the same side (his top-quality image galleries). He's made a good impression on me and does so in this nomination as well. I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin tools. I trust him to increase his use of edit summaries (they really make the 'pedia much easier to use :) and I especially encourage him to be thorough in documenting administrator actions. -
'''Support''' - more than qualified --
'''Support''' nothing wrong with being supportive--
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' Good editor, no reason not to. <TT>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' no problems, but edit summaries...gotta keep those up.--
'''Support''', but please use edit summaries.
'''Support''', a fine user, and my usual extra points for the selfnom.
'''Support''', -
'''Definitely'''; good user, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' sounds good to me, is involved in projects which is a plus.
'''Support''', no apparent propensity to abuse the privs.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. USE edit summaries though. This can be learned easily, so I am not opposing over this.'''
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I see good edits from this editor and good participation in project space.
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, good track record. As for edit summaries, if one asks nicely, perhaps the [[User:JzG|code fairy]] will bring you some javascript magic (from whereever HE got it) to make it almost impossible to forget to add them... whoever wrote this deserves hearty thanks. But I digress. Anyway, support! ++
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, seen him around.
'''Support'''. Definitely. Have you seen the variety Dsmdgold has to offer? He's jumped at every article I've ever created--
'''Oppose'''.  Low usage of edit summaries is a major problem for me.  Also see this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_literature&diff=prev&oldid=33731696].  Dsmdgold didn't leave a message on the talk page for that IP which concerns me.  It was also done [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballad&diff=prev&oldid=33896070 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballad&diff=prev&oldid=33854968 here].  Dsmdgold explains his reasoning in question 5 down below, but I feel that it should be handled differently.  I think potential administrators should be much more engaging in talking to users who blank pages instead of ignoring them completely.  It is much harder to keep track if a user has been vandalizing pages if it isn't put on the user's talk page.  --
'''Oppose'''. Too few [[edit summaries]].
'''Oppose''' per <s>Dsmdgold's</s> PS2pcGAMER's reasoning.  Looks like he makes really good contributions to the Wikipedia though, so I wish him the best, however this process turns out.
'''Oppose''': nothing personal, this person is a good editor, but I do vote oppose when edit summaries are this low.
'''Oppose''' per PS2pcGAMER.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''' The combined weight of the concerns of both PS2pc and Oleg (edit warnings and low edit summaries) tip the balance in favor of my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct.  No harm in editor waiting a few more months, as he is dedicated to the project; this will give time to see these concerns addressed.
'''Oppose''' - edit summary usage must be higher. Come back in a couple of months. --
'''Neutral''' I dislike self-candidacies, and I don't know this user. --
'''Neutral''' Only concern is low use of edit summaries, strive to improve and I'll reconsider --
per PS2pcGAMER/lack of warnings argument <small>
'''Neutral''', sorry, but I would prefer more edit summary usage, however I don't feel this is reason to oppose.
'''Neutral''' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support''' as nominator --
'''Support'''. We need more admins and I have a good impression of this candidate. I'm not particularly worried that he has 'only' 94% edit summary usage and less than 200 template edits :)
'''Petition firmly accepted'''. Unquestioning approval. Duja is a good man and will make a fine admin. -
'''Strong support'''. Will be nice to have such a clear-minded admin. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' A fine candidate. --
'''Support''' per nom. Very good answer to question 1 too. Good luck! --
'''Weak support''', experience seems to fit with what they want to do as an admin. Even though they haven't done much vandal fighting, the users last reverts were in July and showed they know the basics, besides I don't see anything in the nom suggesting vandal fighting. User has been here a long time too.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. Balkan, South Slavic and former Yugoslavia issues definitely need a devoted admin who knows the matter well. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]]
'''Support.''' Seems like an excellent user. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Why not?
'''Weak support''' - Concerns met (per Oppose #1) - and per AndehPandy.UK <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''', looks good, although I don't understand why you added these extra fair use rationales. The standard {{tl|logo}} and {{tl|bookcover}} seemed to me to explain the fair use adequately already. By the way I am an admin and have less than 20 image edits, and most of my template edits are trivial.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': Looks like a good and civil editor that has touched various places and followed protocol - plus a perfect answer to my question.  —
'''Support''': How can one object to this nomination? Also, [[Novi Sad]] is indeed a lovely city! Finally, at last, I found someone I can trust to take my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANikoSilver&diff=78085748&oldid=78081564 block-virginity]!
'''Support'''. Levelheaded and civil editor. Regards,
'''Support''' - a true NPOV user. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Undoubtful Gargantually Strong Support'''. There are little (or no) admins from where he comes -  and he ''more'' than qualifies according to [[wikipedia]]'s standards for one. --
'''Support'''. Apparently level-headed, long-term editor with many substantive edits.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' Very good editor.
'''Support''', looks like a great editor.
'''Support''' Seems like a perfectly good admin candidate, based on answers to questions above. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Appears to be an excellent editor. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
Less than 200 template edits '''support'''. Ringing endorsement from nominator and good answers.
'''Support''' good enough for me. Actively works on a wikiproject. Also, we need more serbian editors --
'''Support''' Meets my standards, and has shown his longevity and dedication to Wikipedia.--
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Strong Support''' Critical thinking, moral integrity, emotional maturity & tactful reserve are characteristics of this user- at least this is what I see when I look at his wiki personality . I doubt such traits could be detrimental to the wiki admin position.
'''Strong Support''' I am quite impressed by your editing and handling of conflicts. It becomes even more commendable if we bear in mind that you are deeply involved with such hot topics as the Balkan-related ones. I'm also glad to learn that you are willing to clear the backlog on [[WP:RQM]]. Many more pros. Definitely yes.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per the nominee's answers, and the experience definitely a bonus. Excellent editor. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' I know him for a long time, and until now I did not know that he live in the same city as I do. LOL :))))
'''Support''' per excellent answers to questions; seems to be a good editor and will do well with those power tools! All the best, &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Why did HolyRomanEmperor remove my last support vote?
'''Strong Support''' I cannot believe my eyes: an admin candidate from x-Yugoslavia and nobody objects. Duja, you should be a magician. Besides this, Duja satisfies all my criteria
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' - thoughtful response to questions, good edit history.
'''Support'''. Haven't met him much before, but what I see now looks good, and anybody reaping so much praise after getting their hands dirty with Balkan-related topics simply has to be mature and reliable.
'''Support'''. From what I can tell by his edit history, Duja seems to be a valuable and experienced editor, civil at the core despite taking part in topics that can easilly derail. He has also been involved in various administrative aspects of Wikipedia. As a slightly negative note, his experience in both editing and administration is lacking depth, but he told that himself and I wouldn't hold that against him, especially seeing as I seem to be doing the same thing. He has my support.
'''Support''' - per [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] and a willingness to edit contriversal articles --
'''Suppport''' - per nom, a willingness to get into the mud (in a good way) and the fact that we need good admins --
'''Strong Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions and a great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin already, and his answers are good. Also, is the mathbot report not working for anyone else? It gives me some weird login page. --
'''Support''' per nom, good editor
'''Support''' - absolutely no reason to expect abuse of buttons. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support''' - we absolutely need more admins interested in Balkans-related issues, and when speaking of a trustworthy and solid editor like Duja, support IMO is the only reasonable vote.--
'''Strong Support''' - This is the kind of hard working admins that we need here in Wikipedia.
No reason not to. -
'''Support''' - a strong candidate
'''Support''' My kind of Admin, passes my criteria
'''Support'''. Great candidate for admin on Wikipedia. User has my full support. --
'''Support''' Excellent editor, has my full support. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great editor, meets my criteria.--

'''Support'''. Good editor, will be a good admin. --
'''Support''', great editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Never intereacted w/ the user but i trust most of the votes above. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' He will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor; should do well as an admin.
'''Support'''.  Courteous, conscientious user with a solid background and a clearly stated need for admin tools (in areas that need more admins).  --
'''Strong Support'''. I support Duja over 150%. With all his edits on topics of the regions of former Yugoslavia. He is the right man for the job. I agree with the nominator. Though, here's a tip for Duja, be careful and don't create many Serb propagandas and write too Serbcentric.
'''Support''' Per good answers to the questions above: ''Give-em-the-mop''<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''Support'''. Excellent, deserves to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Looks good. --
'''Support''', Duja scores 20.5 on my Admin Assessment scale, enough to warrant a Support --
'''Support''' per nom and all of above.
'''Support''' per nom, particularly impressed with the answers.
'''Support''' per nom and good answers.
Excellent answers to questions and '''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' as everyone else has covered.  I've never run across the user, but the contribution history is great and so are the answers to questions.  Duja is what adminship is for.
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I've never actually interacted with Duja, but everything looks good. --
'''STrong Support''' - strong editor, has the core mission of WP at heart. '''
'''Support'''&mdash;Easy call. Do it. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Strong Support''' as per nom.
'''Support'''.  Just pile it on! --
'''Pileon Support''' --
'''Jumping on the pile Support''' Seriously, Duja is certainly a trustworthy user and will make good use of the extra buttons
'''Support''' I think you'll do a great job.
'''Support''' because I believe he will make a wonderful administrator.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 06:11, 30 September 2006
'''Support''' ~
'''Full Support'''. Meets my 2k and civility requirements. I also really like the answer to Question #7; besides being accurate, it shows the candidate has a sense of humor, even in situations where he is under pressure. I like that. We all need a sense of humor on Wikipedia. Too many don't. :) <font color="#0000FF">
This one's obvious, and I thought he was one already.
'''Support''' Seems sound.--
'''Support'''. There's nothing quite like a pile, especially when you're all the way on top. Seems like a pretty good user.
Hm... 90th person to '''Support'''
Nominate and support.
'''Strong support''' per my experience
'''Support''' the user has contributed to the wikipedia community, not only with a strong editing history, but also with contribtions to essays such as [[Wikipedia:Light one candle|Light one candle]] and [[Wikipedia:No angry mastodons|No angry mastodons]]--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent editor. No worries at all. --
'''Support''' -- I have encountered Durova in several places here and have been impressed with her understanding of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Always seen thoughtful comments from this editor.  Seems very well versed in editing articles as well as actively involved in wikipedia space. Will be an asset with respect to building this encyclopedia.
'''Suppport'''.  --
'''Support''' Great editor already, would be even better with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' per above --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
Sure.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' per nom and others.
'''Support'''. Exactly the kind of person we want with the tools. She could use them and she has an excellent record.
'''Support''' 7,000 edits in the time span of one year shows not only experience but a strong commitment to Wikipedia.  Would make a great sysop! -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Excellent editor, measured, neutral. Helpful to call in to the talk page when the dispute seems deadlocked. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - great editor. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Irrationally Strong Support.'''&mdash;After carefully reading (twice) [[Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner]], I am convinced that Durova is adequately thoughtful and reasonable in response (or in lack thereof). I fully respect
'''uncharacteristically strong support''' nothing but positive interactions, observed plenty of creditable behaviour under adverse field conditions.  trust with tools, glad to have as admin.
'''Support,''' excellent editor in every respect.
'''Support''' Passes my criteria
'''Support''' a good editor who will make good use of the admin tools, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' excellent devoted editor
'''Strong Support''' excellent all round editor. Good communicator and explainer. '''
'''Support''' - I believe that she'd make a great admin. ←
'''Support''' - Durova has contributed excellent material to articles and maintained a level head in some very exasperating situations. Will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - And glad to do so, now that Durova has responded to my one concern.
'''Support'''. Wishing to be the first to support Durova, I added this page to my watchlist as soon as it was created three days ago. What a pity I was asleep when the voting started :) --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' Doesn't seem to like AfD's, but in light of the sheer breadth of experience in WP namespace I won't hold it against her. ~

'''Support''' without any hesitation whatsoever.
'''Strong support'''. Extremely polite, excellent contributions and generally a pleasure to work with. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' experienced and dedicated Wikipedian.  I was impressed by his answer to question three, as it illustrates an honesty and ability for self-actualisation.  I also like that he's willing to tackle some of the more complex vandalism problems.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' good WP:space work.--
'''Support'''- great articles, and I think this user really needs the admin tools.
'''Support''' In my opinion, this user would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks like an honest, hard working user. Nice work on Joan Of Arc. '''''
'''Support''' Impressive article writing and a good attitude.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per nom, questions and interactions.
'''Support''' - Familiar face on the PAIN board.
'''Support'''. Everything looks good to me. I remember you from many months ago when a real amusing gem of an accusation was made against us. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Cruise&diff=42413020&oldid=42410317 Your response].)
'''Support''' per all above.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per above and the nom.
'''Support''' per above,for efforts for neutrality.Can bring a different point of view.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support'''. An impressive resume.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Answer to question 4 displays competent understanding of the policy and application. &mdash;
'''Support''' &ndash; solid editor, calm user when in conflicts, and seems to have good grasp on Wikipedia...why not? —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support'''.  In my (limited) experience with Durova, I found Durova to be reasonable and knowledgeable of policy.  The answers to questions above confirm my initial perception. &middot; '''<font color="#707070">
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments above.
'''Support'''. Strong editor, shows civility, is not a jerk. Passes my criteria lol.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]]. Seems like ''not-a-nut''.  I trust Radiant.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' Dude! This girl has written essays!
'''Support''' Very solid editor; wish she participated more at AfD.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong Support''' This editor knew enough to go out of the way to state the superb number of edit counts.  Why am I saying this?  Because there are a lot of people who have editcountitis who might vote oppose without this information.  This user is smart.  It is clear that there isn't a good reason to oppose and even the opposers have mostly changed their mind. --
'''Support'''. Have interacted with her before and had the impression of her as a fair and thoughtful contributor.
'''Support''' I've seen Durova around, interacted with her on [[Charun]] (a difficult situation), and think she'd make a good use of admin powers. ~

'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''; excellent and thoughtful editor, most likely will be an equally excellent admin.
'''Support'''.  While I suspect that Durova might not always use the stun gun as much as would be appropriate, not using the tools is not the same misusing the tools.  I trust this user not to misuse the tools.  Regards,
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a good and level-headed editor.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''. -
of course. ++
'''Sorry I'm late Support'''. As Per Kirill.--
'''Support''', excellent editor ---
'''Support''' Will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' thanks for clarifying your position, Durova.
'''Support''' per experience and dedication to making the project better. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - we've only recently crossed paths and we didn't kick things off on a high note at all did we? I felt you were a little quick to accuse me of foul play and willing to make negative assumptions regarding my behaviour in what has become a very complex dispute spanning many months. Administrators are only human (I think, I saw a bot here last week), so they can and will make mistakes. To give you the benefit of the doubt I don't think you realised in the first instance the vast scope of the problem you'd stepped into before your comments regarding myself were aired. That said, your willingness to step into the ring of fire in the first place when many others didn't shows an admirable quality in you that I admire. Your willingness to help others out in very very testing situations can only be of benefit to Wikipedia. All things considered, you have my support. --
Fine candidate who I remember seeing around a lot about a year ago, seems very level-headed and highly unlikely to abuse the tools. I'm glad Durova's stuck around and is now at RfA. --
Can't support, as my only real interaction with Durova has been her what-I-found-to-be-unhelpful involvement at [[Talk:Jonathan Sarfati]], and more especially her contributions at the subsequent [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel]].  Broadly speaking these were in defence of the latter editor, and making some extremely sweeping characterisations of the actions and motivations of the "anti-Creationist" editors involved in the same dispute (whose concerns as to WP:AUTO, POV-pushing, and undue weight she seemed distinctly dismissive of).  But I will refrain from opposing out of regard for a number of the above supports, and because my own annoyance, whilst exacerbated by references to essays [[WP:NAM|telling one not to get annoyed]], does not amount to any reasonable suspicion of likelihood to misuse the tools.
'''Strong Support''' - He demonstrates thorough collaboration with other editors, tireless reversion of vandalism, a strong desire to achieve consensus, and all-round excellence. Make this Wikipedian an admin! -
'''Support''' Yes. A bit too soon though --
'''Support''' No outstanding reason; just support.
'''Support''' per Richardcavell.  Having reviewed some of this user's edits earlier, I was inclined to query him on his talk page as to whether he might accept a nomination for adminship (I don't add this to insulate the self-nomination against criticisms [as levelled below, for example, by Moe], but rather to illustrate that my confidence in this editor's ability to be an admin preceded his having put himself forward for consideration).
'''Support''' Per Richard and Joe.
'''Also Self Nominated Support'''. All your papers seem to be in order. What I do see in your edit history is a whole lot of Adminy type stuff...AfD voting, vandalism rollback. You obviously have the credentials. What ''doesn't'' jump out at me is major article contributions...however just because I haven't noticed them doesn't mean they're not there, and it also doesn't mean you won't make a good Admin. We need all the mops we can get, so have one yourself.
'''Support''' Just passes my standards.

'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Strong Support''' - Looks good. I believe he will be a good admin [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' based on the very good reason that I can't find a reason not to, and adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Go for it. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Will do fine.  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Self-noms are fine - they show initiative, one of the most important traits for Wiki-admins to have! Edits look good, contribs look good, attitude looks good. Good candidate all around.  And we are running low on admins, so let's give him the opportunity to prove himself.  --
'''Support''', give him a feather duster. The one with the pink feathers, if you have it.
'''Support''' Nomination is maybe a tad early, but I've had positive personal interaction with editor.  Seems like good wiki-janitor material.
'''Support''' Very proactive in seeking resolution to problem issues, both of formatting/categorization and of interpersonal nature. Good at resolving copyvios.  Dedicated to the 'pedia.  Give him this honor/duty.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Partially just because of the oppose votes here...But I think he has made enough good edits to prove himself trustworthy.'''
'''Support''' Strong contributor, strong vandal fighter, will do well with the extra tools!  I would have nominated him if I would have thought of it -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' per the nomination. If 5 months is too soon, meh. --
'''Support''' Good job!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good editor. Devotes a lot of time.

'''Support''' as per above...
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' looks good! --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' appears to be a good fellow, and adminship should be no big deal.--
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''.  Adminship should be NBD.
'''Support''', close but hits the right buttons
'''Support'''. Meh, why not? <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Meets great requirements. Comment: Make a little less user talk edits. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support'''. A solid citizen whose good sense has often been seen over at AfD.  Ready, imo, for greater responsibility within the community.
'''Support''' per nom! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
--
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Strong Support!!''' this guy is really nice and very skilled. Although I haven't edited a lot, I've been looking at Wikipedia everyday for the past 2+ years and I've seen him around.
'''Support''' God spread of contributions, looks worthy. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''. Dedicated user.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.  Strikes me as hard-working and sensible.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't meet my standards. A little to soon of a nomination. And self-nom is usually not a plus, I would have waited for someone to nominate you.
'''Oppose''' Not active enough with the Wikipedia communittee.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, just a little to new for me.  In a month or two with someone else's recommendation you will have my vote--
Reluctant '''Oppose''' - have to agree with Moe - good start - need more time. <font color="#F0F">
'''Oppose''' - agree with Moe and others.  Five months is too little time to become an admin, in my opinion.  Please try again later if this nom fails.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Neutral''' I think this user needs to be here a little longer. I have no problem with self nom. --
'''Neutral'''. Needs more experience.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''.  I like the self nomination.  It shows initiative.  But I think another month or two of experience wouldn't hurt.  If you nominate again in 4-8 weeks and otherwise look as good as you do now I'll be on your side. --
'''I beat the nom support''' Looks like a very good candidate for the job, demonstrates a strong grasp of policy.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' per me. (
'''Support''' Deals firmly, but courteously, knowledgeably and helpfully with problems. See [[User_talk:Will_RGC]].
'''Support''' good contributor. ←
'''Support''', very effective vandal-fighter, kind, courteous and helpful - perfect for the mop.
'''Support''', I am familar with DVD's contributions and feel he will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Quick skim of contribs suggests knowledge, range and civility. <tt>
'''Support''' - per Tawker --
'''Support''' - looks good :) -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. The additional tools he would receive would definitely benefit Wikipedia i the long run. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good user and deserves mop. I've seen that this user is a great vandal fighter.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support''' - have a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADVD_R_W&diff=53544240&oldid=53237424 this diff], which demonstrates why he should be given the admin buttons. -
'''Support''' per Richard. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' appears suitable for the job, loves edit summaries.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Everything checks out. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Support''' Per Richardcavell. Deserves the mop & the flamethrower. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very good RC patroller, he could use the "block" tool. '''
'''Strong Support''' I see your name all the time...I just don't remember where...
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' One of my favorite Wikipedia usernames ;) and an editing record to match. Whenever i see him around i'm always impressed. Will be a good 'un. '''
'''Support''' good editor. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Yes'''.
'''No worries'''. <b>
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, erm, '''Support'''
'''Support''' --
--
'''Support''' excellent knowledge of policy and guidelines, fairly applied and across a wide range of areas. Will make a great admin [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -- Resuscitated the architecture portal, &ct.
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' – good experience with policies and vandalism –
'''Support''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Deconstructivism&diff=55332648&oldid=55330837 by the way], ''You might be thinking of Deconstruction'', but the featured architecture article is at [[Deconstructivism]] (in Q2)- ''
'''Support''' - '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Also first saw DVD-RW at [[WP:AIV]]! Great vandal fighter. Hopefully you won't need to use AIV before too long. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">'''haz'''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
--<font size="1">
'''Support'''; better than [[Blu-ray]]. -- '''
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' All around good candidate.  --
'''Support''' with pleasure - <b>
'''Support''' looks fine to me.--
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  DVDRW is already busy doing administrative tasks, and is clearly to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''Support''' per nom, good bunch of candidates at the mo! -

'''Support''' - Good contributor.
'''Strong support''' - Actually thought he was an admin. DVDRW has been very helpful and welcoming to me, as a new wikipedian.--
'''Support''' per above //
'''Support.'''
Of course.
'''yep,''' fits my criteria.--
'''Support'''
'''OMG HELLZ YA! ANOTHER CRAZY RAMBLING SASQUATCHIAN SUPPORT FOR A DAMN GOOD USER! (per Tawker)''' '''
'''Support.''' Cliché.
'''Support'''. Excellent vandal fighter; understands deletion process; plenty of experience; can be trusted. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''Vandal fighter.
'''Support''' Looks like another good candidate for the mop and bucket. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Support''' Good contributor. With 5,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per that shouting Sasquatch thing/dude (and therefore per tawker).
'''Support''', I've seen this guy around fighting vandalism and contributing. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' - he's been hassling he a lot at AIV.'''
'''Support''', Good contributor with a strong record of communicating well with other users.
'''Support''', seems a good editor. '''
'''Support''' Work so far equals no worries at all.
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Proud to be the first to support, per co noms.
'''Support'''. As fourth co-nominator, though I beat two of the others =D.
'''Support''' All my experiences with the candidate have been positive; he's always willing to help out, he does great work with vandal reverting, and is creating some cool tools.  I believe Wikipedia would be better off in giving him the extra buttons as he'll certainly put them to good use.
'''Support''' per all 4 noms and Hoopydink! A brilliant contributor :) [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A fantastic contributor who has helped tremendously with VandalProof and has also created some other really handy tools - no question he is deserving and zero chance of abuse, A++ -
'''Support''' Looks like another good admin candidate. How many co-noms does it take to make an admin? <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' A helpful contributor to this project. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Not much left to say, the oh-so-many nominators have covered everything. Eagle has been an axcellent contributor thusfar, I have no doubts that this will continue.
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' oh what to say now, per all above. --
'''Support!''' I have nothing but good experiences with you, from your work helping newcomers, to your efforts at WikiProject Stub removal, to your valuable time as a VandalProof moderator. You've done a lot, you're dedicated, and I have no reason to believe you'd abuse the extra buttons. Good luck. :)
'''VP cabal support'''
'''Support''' per above. <font color="blue">
'''Strong (Cabal?) Support''' I've been consistently impressed with the tools Eagle is developing, and the speed at which he responds to queries. Eagle has identified some high-need areas of Wikipedia, and is working to solve them using his great programming skills. I almost conomed, btw.
'''Support''' per trusted nominators.
'''Support''' Although I've only known Eagle 101 for a short period of time, he's helped me a lot with many so many things around Wikipedia, answered numerous questions, and is very welcoming and kind to new users. Would make a brilliant administrator. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
'''Yup'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' I think he would make a great administrator. He helped me with my VandalProof problem, so, this is how I will say thanks :) .
'''Support''' as co-nom - one more co-nom left to vote ;) <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' to Eagle from the Books WP. Good work so far.
'''Support''': Thanks for the [[User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter|WikiVoter]] tool! --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' per nominators --
'''Support''' He deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' per Daniel. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support''' per all of the above. --
'''Strong Support''', Nothing left to be said that hasn't been covered.
- <b>
I was told this wasn't going live for a bit so I am late to the party but obviously I '''support''', as a co nom... ++
Super I wish I had known about this earlier support.
'''Support''' without a doubt.
'''Super Super Support''' He has been a great asset to wikipedia i Thought he was an admin allready or i would have nominated him my self I feel that Eagle will provide a great new asset with the mop for both new users, IP's, Policy, Veterian users, and every other part of wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''', I thougt he was an admin. Good and friendly user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', can think of no reason to oppose.
'''Strong Support''': A great asset to Wikipedia. Helpful and patient, he'll do great work with the mop. --
'''Support''' Wikipedia certainly can use an admin who is talented with tool development and vandal fighting.--
'''Support''' -- per nom, and per nom, and per nom, and per nom --
'''Support''' per noms and AbsolutDan and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]].
'''Support''' - Looks fine. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Support''' - and can you start working on WikiMediator to clear up the backlog at MedCab?  Thanks. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''', per nom, co-noms and other supporters.--
'''Support''' seems to me that he would be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' He did a lot!
'''#wikipedia-drillmaster support''' The noms have summed it up quite nicely. I have seen nothing negative from Eagle in the whole time I have known him. We need more backend savvy admins. He has process down and has a bunch of quality communication skills as evidenced by his work on #wikipedia-bootcamp and the fact that 50% of his edits are to the User talk namespace. —
'''Plus one more support''' cause there is enough for this fine contributor. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support''' - do I even have to state why..... the reason is visible from space! --

'''Support'''.  Toasters are currently on backorder, will you accept a blender?
'''Support''' per all those above. —''
'''Support''' per noms and all above. Good user, can use tools effectively, no worries. Any concerns about Wikivoter can be discussed elsewhere and do not reflect on qualifications for admin'ship.
'''Support''' Sometimes we are rightfully scared of the word "vote," but I didn't have an issue with the name and the promotion of this, and he changed the name due to concerns. No issues, go for it.
'''Support''' per all of the above
'''Support''' &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Clearly well fitted.--
'''Support''' Vandalfighters are welcome here. -[[User:Ravedave|Ravedave]] <small><sup>(
'''Proud Support''' Good vandal fighter and great with programs.  Needs a mop however. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - good contributor.
Why didn't I '''support''' yet? [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' ....... (that's my reason and I'm sticking to it) plus all of the reasons above etc. etc.)
'''Support''' He's a nice guy and knows what he's doing on Wikipedia, what more do you need?
'''''Strong oppose'''''.  Creation of Wikivoter is wrong.  WikiVoter is an extremely bad idea which contributes to the idea that AfD is a vote, and discourages valid participation in ''discussion''.  Anyone who creates such a tool should not be an admin.
'''Oppose''' while trust the nominators, I see almost nothing in article writing, this is an encyclopedia first. Thanks
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda.
Neutral yet again!  [[User:Eagle 101/WikiVoter]] makes me uneasy.
'''Strong support''' as nominator.'''
'''Strong Support''' per the excellently written nom. --
'''Support''' per nom. Perhaps go for a shorter nomination statement next time so that I don't have to read so much (j/k). This user definitely deserves the mop. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Sometimes even the [[dark side]] is right  ;)
'''''Very''''' '''Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', I don't think I can add anything to the nomination. Ed has been a fantastic contributor since his arrival.
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - per nom
'''Strong Support''' yes please - <b>
'''Support''', been around a while, very impressive upload log, contributed quite a lot to scientific related articles. Answers were very satisfying. I'm happy and convinced even though the user fails my [[User:Andypandy.UK/RfACriteria|criteria]].--<font style="background:white">
--
'''Support'''
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Strong Support''' based on the nom and a brief overview of the candidate's edits, I think that the candidate would do well to have the extra tools and would become an even more valuable asset to Wikipedia with said tools.
He has my full trust and '''support'''!
'''Support''' --
'''Retiree Support''', of course. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''per brief review of user's contributions and the nomination. --
'''Support''': I have supported the specialist, as I do believe that the tendency, if any, on the part of administrators to deal with issues about which they may not have much knowledge is one of the most dangerous dimensions of wikipedia's functioning. In order to remove this, we require administrators who are well aware of one or more subjects. --
'''Support''' I cannot see a reason to not support! '''[[User:Political Mind|Politic]][[user:political mind/esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' - No worries about this candidate. Good work.
'''Support'''. What great candidate.
'''Support''' Another excellent candidate coming through RfA. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''': Organic chemist, goes after vandals - what's not to like?  —
'''Support''' A great candidate. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Thanks for your valuable contributions.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' The road to my PhD was loaded with broken bottles of vodka...anyway, the world needs more organic chemists to be admins.
'''Organic Chemistry Rocks Support!''' I've read some of your contributions here, and I have to say I've learned a lot.  As a college engineering student Organic Chem is a must, and your work here has helped clarify the concepts for me greatly.  Thanks for your great work!
'''Pennsylvanian Support''' Would make a great addition to the administrative group. Has a lot of experience. Just one question for him, what part of PA do you live in? --<font color="336699">
'''Support'''. Of course...deserves the tools.`
'''Support'''  Looks good and a non-bad answer to my question.  Keep the admin backlog clean.
'''Support''', I really like what edgar has to offer to the community.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good candidate --
'''Support''' No problems that worry me.
'''Tawker.Support''' == 1 --
'''support''':  Looks like a natural.
'''Support'''; will make a great admin and wiki needs more scientists. --
'''Support''', but try to avoid the dangerous chemicals when doing janitorial duties.  --
'''Support''' per Guinnog. --
'''Support''' per Guinnog. As a science student myself I know how much more work goes into writing on a technical subject.
'''Very Strong Support'''--It should a policy at wikipedia if you create 100 articles about science and you have P.hd you automatically get adimship.--

'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''I'd-think-of-something-witty-but-I'm-blinded-by-awesome Support'''.
'''Support''' - we need admins who like to have fun with [[ester]]s.
'''Strong support''' - breaking my "I have to have interacted with them to vote" rule here - I couldn't pass up what seems to be the perfect candidate. Vandal fighting, civility, picture creation ''and'' article writing. Surely not? &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support!''', contributions are overwhelmingly impressive, and appears to be a very positive editor. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Strong Support!!''' Per nom.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian. Very trustworthy and that's probably the most important quality to have as a Wikipedian. --
'''Support''': a clear positive addition to Wikipedia. More tools is for this editor is better.
'''Support''' per everyone.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' oh yeah, bring forth the mop. --
'''Support''' Meets my criteria quite easily. --
'''Support''' another great Blnguyen nom! --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' Lets join the bandwagon! ^^ --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Spectacular candidate, speedy promote please! '''
'''Pile-on support'''.
'''Support'''. Good user, and you are also a specialist, which makes the decision even easier!!!
We need more science editors with deep knowledge to spread the cult of Wikipedia among academia and to keep writing awesome articles. This editor is [[pH]] 7, well balanced. "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support'''' ++
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|20px]]'''Strong support''' the prefect candidate &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">'''''M'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - very impressive candidate -
'''Support'''. Trustworthy candidate, good contributions.
'''Support''' SCIENCE FTW! Seriously though, good candidate. -
'''Support''' Edgar181 has shown flawless civility and steadfast dedication to the project. I wish I had had the fortune of working with him, but his answers to the RfA questions as well as his talkpage responses speak well for his character. I'd also like to compliment Blnguyen for the great nomination.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' Good contributor, and also knowledgeable on Science.
We need all around editors, looking at your history I think you'd do a great job.
Can't think of a better bloke!
As nominator. '''''
'''Support'''. Good luck. --
'''Support'''. He's a dedicated, accomplished and polite editor, and I think he'll make a fantastic admin. &mdash; ''
'''Support''' veteran wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Excellent contrib's.
'''Support'''. An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', we need more friends of elves as admins.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cynical&oldid=38908481 answered my one concern] politely and logically
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', definitely a trusted uesr. Another CSD patroller is always a good thing, but don't forget the CSD credo of "When in doubt, send to AfD". --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', good editor, lots of work
'''Support''', but ''please'' use edit summaries more.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' seems to be a nice hardworking user. A little bit low on the main-space edits but very good on the new articles, so I assume his edits should be very good
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good all-around editor, will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Perhaps participation in WP-space is a little low but I can't oppose for that. No major problems.
'''Support'''. He deserved it. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' only good contact with editor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' &ndash; What took so long? &ndash;
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not]]? --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', though I would appreciate more use of edit summaries.
'''Support''' Appears to be solid contributor.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - a friend of the Elves is a friend of mine.
'''Support''' and death to editsummarycountitis.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''.  The edit summary percentage is not absurdly low and I've seen him around for a while making good edits. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', seems fine. --
'''Support''', although I would caution user to use edit summaries more it is not a matter I am prone to oppose on.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Yup'''.
'''Support''' please increase your use of edit summaries, however this issues does not rate an oppose from me. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''': good candidate otherwise, but I do oppose when edit summaries are this low.
'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash;
'''Support''', as co-nominator.
'''Support''' - He secretly must be an admin, right??
Absolutely.
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support''' - He's an excellent candidate. -
Support as per nominator [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' unquestionably.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
There's not really much to say.
'''Support''' by all means. (Aargh! Edit conflict x2!) [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' A great contributer. Will be an excellent admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' with the expectation that Encephalon will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support'''. A steady hand and a cool head coupled with a thorough knowledge of guideline, policy and practise as well as outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia mean that Encephalon will set a standard that most admins will have to aim at. One other important quality he has that certainly some editors don't is actually ''reading'' a discussion before adding his commentary to the bottom of it — you can be sure that a comment from Encephalon is one that takes into account all that has already been said and thus is the kind that actually moves things forwards. -
'''Support''' A fine editor with plenty of experience. --
'''Support'''. Everything I've seen from Encephalon has been good.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support'''. Seems pretty obvious why :)
'''Support'''. I'm at the point where the adminship is something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But I do wish it on you:>--
'''Support''' A great editor.  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} he'll do fine.  If he wants the mop and bucket, then let's take advantage of that and give them to him! --
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin. --
'''SUPER STRONG MEGA GIANT SUPPORT''' Editor is plainly brilliant, extraordinary thoughtful... just amazing.  I think he was certainly qualified for adminship on his first day here.
'''Support''', overdue.
'''Support''' as per nom -
'''Support''', user has certainly shown good judgement and willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' (insert superlative of choice).
'''SuperduperSupport''', good user, works on RC, CP AfDs, been around long enough, etc. I'm happy to support.
'''Support''': comes highly recommended.
'''Support''': Excellent nominee for Admin.--
'''Support''', where did the standard bot-inserted comments go?
'''Support'''. Dedicated Wikipedian. Thorough answers to questions. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' What hey said.
"More candidates like this one, please"<sup>TM</sup> '''support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Speedy''' --
'''Strong support''' - another cliche I'm afraid. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Strong support''' without reservation. '''
'''Support''' &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; strong candidate.
--

'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''
'''Big support'''. Yup, big.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. His edit history is solid, would do well with admin tools. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Support'''. Massiveego, you so funny. --
'''Support''' Looks good!
'''Support''' good user with a great contribution history. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Yes!! --
'''Support''', or more like a ceremonial display of confidence at this point. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''' absolutely. '''''×'''''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Need I say more...--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Certainly.
'''Support''' highly qualified and easily up to the admin role
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' shows every sign he'll be a fine admin. Taking a wikibreak, far from disqualifying him, shows sense of balance in my book.--
'''Support''' Finer user and if Titoxd recommends you than I will follow his lead. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Looks like a good all-rounder.
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - about time. --
"''He wasn't one already?''"-style '''Support'''
'''Support''', all the right qualities
'''Support''', good editor. |→
'''Support'''; will be a great administrator. -
'''Support'''. great job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Great editor, no reason not to promote. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' Great admin material. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Yup'''. -
'''Edit conflict support'''.
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support'''. Another one who's looking very good!
'''Support''' - Definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''
'''Mega-strong Support'''. E, was absent for a while, but now, back and fully functional. Good luck.
'''Strong Support''' Pretty impressive edit count, I'd have to say. Meets my requirements 100%. Keep up the good work and good luck. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Strong Support''' exceptionally well mannered, courteous and cool-headed in his dealings with others. I think will have a very sensible approach when it comes to issues of POV disputes and wikipedia development, especially in what is likely to be a critical year for wikipedia (its size now over that million mark, issues of accuracy/libel, ?[[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia 1.0]] etc).
Yeah, I guess. -
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong support''' per nom. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', it is always a pleasure to deal with him, and he will make a great administrator. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Strong support.''' Encephalon is, undeniably, the finest Wikipedian I have ever had the good fortune of coming across. He routinely reads the archives, keeps himself informed, is polite, well-mannered, thoughtful, and concientious. He can apologize for his mistakes (which are few and far between). He has a extremely thorough understanding of the workings of Wikipedia and rather than sling mud always, always, gives good rationales for his opinions and discusses them, rather than arguing. This editor is so far above the necessary bar for adminship that this RFA is practically unneeded. We need more people like Encephalon: the sooner he's given adminship the better.
'''Very Strong support.''' -- I tried nominating him as well, I guess he just doesn't like me ;) --
'''Strong Support'''.  Good experiences when encountering the user, also has strong experience with deletion review, afd, ...  --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''' Diplomacy is an absolute necessity in Wikipedia.
'''Support''' and welcome to [[WP:100]] -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' a truly decent candidate. I've always found Encephalon's manner and activities perfectly suited for the role of admin. --
'''Cliché support''' - I thought he already was an admin! &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Because I didn't get to be #100, I get to use the cliche "I thought he already ..." Good contributions and a chap with a sense of humour, will be a fine admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' - very strong candidate. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''.
'''Pile On Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' It all looks good. --
'''Support''' Good editor. --
'''Suppoty''' Really a good contributor.
'''Support'''. Seeing as his name is Encephalon, I'd love it if he helped me clean up the Xenosga lists :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' gets my vote of support
'''support''' this person to become administrator
'''Support''' - Encephalon's contributions to disease articles are very impressive.
'''Support''': I am late to the party? --
Sounds vaguely familliar!
'''Support''' - looks good to me. &mdash;
'''Support''': I nearly missed this one.
'''Of course'''
'''Support''', naturally. A very qualified, intelligent editor.
'''Support'''. Fail to disagree with anything above.
'''Support'''. In case 123 doesn't make it obvious that this person should be an admin.
'''Support''' Per prior 123 people.
'''Oppose''' Noticable drop in post counts per month.  May not be emotionally qualified for the job.  --
'''Strong Support''' as nom.
Yep
'''Strong Support''' excellent editor who deserves the tools--
'''Good Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Strong support''', conscientious and dedicated editor.
'''Strong Support''' Definitely admin material. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' seems to be an excellent candidate who has proved his trustworthiness to the community multiple times over and I see no reason not to give him some extra buttons so he can further help Wikipedia
'''<span style='color: darkblue'>Strong Support</span>''' per above. Seems trustworthy, great article contributions, a treasure chest of image uploads, and WP: involvement (albiet a bit low recently, but the serious contributions and talk involvement make up for it).'''
'''Strong Support''' Candidate is incredibly dedicated and would be a great administrator. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' astounding contributions.
'''Free Support''' (ok sorry, I watched Free Willy 1,2,3 and now I like whales a lot) --
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Good luck! --
'''Support''', obviously.
'''13,397 Supports''' Absolutely. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

Su-su-su-su-'''support'''- Good contributor. "
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' dedicated editors make good admins
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - refreshing ''zero thought required vote'' when our paths have crossed I've always been impressed -
'''Support''' per nom. It looks like this user would make a good Admin.
Thought he already was one.
'''Support''' per nom
'''Strong Support''' he has proven to be an excellent member of the community and deserves the mop. --
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' I am taking Tony the Marine's word for it.  In the RFA's I checked the last couple months I spent more than an hour on each candidate looking through their history.  My main concern is that an admin is courteous and encourages others.  Although I am fully aware Wikipedia needs all the help it can get to counter vandalism, I tend to initially oppose candidates who are mostly concerned about AIV tools because their approach is mainly to stop others rather than build the encyclopedia and I've seen too many RC patrollers ignorantly abusing newcomers. --
'''Support,''' lots of experience.--
'''Strong Support''' A great contributor! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - no question about that...
'''Support''': No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate for admin status.  Good answers to questions below. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' absolutely. He deserves the mop. :) --
'''Support'''. Why shouldn't I? Great user. '''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''
'''Support''' per nom. --[[User:Bigtop|<font color="blue">Big</font>'''<font color="gray">top</font>''']] <small>([[User talk:Bigtop|<font color="blue">tk</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bigtop|<font color="red">cb]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Bigtop|<font color="gray">em</font>]]|
'''Support''' - <b>
'''Support'''per nom --
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Ticks all the right boxes ;) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''.  --
'''Pile on support'''.
'''Support''' <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Doesn't get much better than this.
'''support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' yes. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' per above. Take a mop and bucket &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' per above [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Yeah.—''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. Seems like a very trustworthy contributor and I've seen him around. --
'''Support''' per nom and above. You'll make a great mop-wielder.
'''Support''' Seems devoted and conscientious.--
ERcheck seems a kind and careful editor who has already contributed greatly to the encyclopedia and who is likely to do more good things with the mop. Per nom, many others, thoughtful answers to questions... More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''support''' ++
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''', meets my standards no problem.
--
'''Support''' -- '''
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support'''. Contributions look good, and his patience in waiting 2 1/2 months since his first RfA is a good sign.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support''' I like and trust the nominator a lot. The nominee's great too, btw ;) '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
You really ''aren't'' an admin? Wow.
'''Support''' per NSLE.
'''Support'''.
Support <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Seen him around, seems sensible. &ndash;
'''Support''' Per NSLE, Are you certain you're not an admin :-)  Great user, seen him in AFD often. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''.  <font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' - Good editor. Put him to work.
'''Support''' - Good vandal patroller.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.  Happy to switch from a previous oppose; no reason for any doubt now.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good.--
<strike>'''Oppose''' for beating me to too many vandalism reverts.</strike> err.. '''''Very Strong''''' '''Support''', awesome user, warns on every revert; no reason to oppose here. Well... never mind. (Added a very after seeing through the whole situation with [[User:Maoririder]].) --
'''Support'''. Emil Skog? This candidate looks all OK to me.
'''Support'''. Insert cliche about thinking he already was one here.  Totally deserves it.
'''
'''Support'''. Excellent work. Appears very conscientious.
'''Support''' per ↑↑↑ <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%">'''—
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', yes, definitely.
'''Support''' of course. Good editor. --
'''Support'''. I see no reason why not. :) --
'''Support'''. Excellent Wikipedian. Even reverted a vandal to my userpage once ([[User_talk:ESkog/Archive3#Thanks|ref]]).
'''Support''' Of course! <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', with lots of reasons; so to save you all from my usual RfA essays take a look at [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]], and add on "nice work on mediation/mentorship/general helpfulness".
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; good asset to the project. -
'''Support''' See him around and is a good editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good contributions, good interactions with people from what I have seen.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''', and use the mop wisely. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''. Good editor, will make a good admin.
'''Support'''' a worker; give him a broom.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', good and diligent editor. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''support'', per everything said above
'''Support''': Obviously.
'''Support'''. Good editor, very friendly - I doubt we'll have any trouble with this one.
'''Support'''. Edit history looks good, see no reason not to--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''':
The run of wonderful users continues.'''Support.''' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support!'''
'''Support'''.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' <small>
'''Support''': I am sure that I am not the "last". --
'''Support''': I'm sure he'll do a great job.  I've enjoyed his open minded attitude particularly on AfD.  --
'''Butter Support''' '''
'''Support''', looks like very good admin material.
'''Support'''  Not that another support vote matters.  I've seen some pretty good edits from ESkog on a number of articles.
'''Strong Support''' - I'm not sure if any more votes help at this stage, LOL --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - random meetings seem to have left a positive vibe.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''' per above.  I seem to have been unlucky in not meeting the user before.
'''Support''' Why not? -- '''''
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Balanced, polite, unlikely to abuse, good person to get the mop all sudsy. --
'''Support''' seen him around, very good user.--
'''Support''' - Excellent user from what I've seen! -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Tempted to put fake votes on oppose and neutral columns because they look lonely. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship.
'''Support''' Of course
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''', I just hope not to see his level of activity level off.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' I've seen this user around. A solid editor, should be a good admin.
'''Support''' <small>
'''Pileon Support''' Seen this user around, liked what I have seen. ++
'''Oppose'''
'''It's-A-Self-Nom-So-Beating-The-Nominator-Isn't-All-That-Impressive Support'''. Seems like a good chap, I've seen him around AfD from time to time and he looks to have a good head. Pretty well-balanced contributor, too.
'''Increasing support by 100% support''', why not.  Note that you really don't need to be an admin to help out with wikifying articles, though.
'''Support''' good work on many articles, will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Superb contributor to poker articles who has done a tremendous amount of work on WikiProject Poker in the short time it's been around.  Can't find any civility issues or evidence of silly mistakes which would make me worry about him being an admin, and if he works on admin tasks half as hard as he's been working on the poker project he'll be a huge asset as an admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I've seen him on AFD and respect his judgement. I considered nominating him myself but since we don't go back too far I give my full support instead. --
'''Support'''cheese.
'''Support''', thoughtful, well-rounded and reasonable, from his opinions in AfD. Clean record and good attitude. This shouldn't be a problem. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''', he deserves it because he is a good contributor and most of his edits, I have seen, are for the good of Wikipedia.
'''Support''': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''', somebody doing good work helping to write the encyclopedia should be rewarded with the trust of the community, not admonished. No potential for abuse apparent.
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''--

'''Support'''. I've looked through this user's contributions, and he seems polite, hard-working, and non-controversial. I haven't yet seen an example of how he'd behave under pressure when goaded, so I'm a little hesitant, but I see no reason to think he'd behave badly. &ndash;
'''Support''' looks good
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
A thoroughly deserved '''support'''. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' will do fine job.  Give the mop!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.--
'''Support''' Seems like a valuable and reliable editor. Likely to handle adm tools well.
Standing at the rail '''Support.'''
'''Weak oppose''' (for now), you say you'd like to be involved more in wikispace from now on. I'd be happier if you'd do that a little more first. --
'''oppose''' - a ''whole six months?'' <font size="-1">
'''Neutral''', as I can't find much evidence about how (and if) you would use your admin tools (so can't support). Neither can I find anything that suggests you might abuse them (so not oppose).
'''Strong Shazaam! Support''' as nominator.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' Seems like a kind and knowledgable editor. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup>
--
'''Support'''.  Good long term editor. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]

'''Support'''. Saw her a few times while editing and all I've seen was a good, matured attitude to editing Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' edits a little low in talk and project areas, but everything else nullifies that.--
'''Support''' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support'''. I also recommend more participation in project areas and engaging in discussion at talk pages, but as Mongo said, great experience in other areas make it in excess for that. - '''''<font style="color:green;">
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Fine record, solid user.
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' Good editor, will make a good admin. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A capable user.
'''Support''', looks safe enough to me.
'''Support''', like her answers to my questions.
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.Edit history looks good.--
'''Support''' He's a solid, unbiased editor who would use the admin tools well.
'''Support'''I don't really know you, but there's no way I could ever support your opponent--
Give the user the benefit of the doubt. So far the opposition lists insubtantial or no claims. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Oppose''', Lack of complex problem solving skills. --
'''Oppose''' I cannot support a user whose nominator harasses any user who opposes.
'''Oppose'''.  I'd like to see EurekaLott be more engaging with users by leaving a message with anyone who vandalizes instead of (for the most part) just reverting.  As EWS23 says below, fighting vandalism is a 3 step process that I feel all (potential) admins should follow every time. Minor edit summary usage is also on the low end of what I like to see.  This isn't to say that I think you'd be a bad admin at all and good luck with the vote! --
I don't know this user.  But, he's linked on my user page because I liked his user page. He should be given some credit for that.
Yeah that is a nice user page and almost everything about this editor is good, except I think he/she needs more than 67 talk page edits. Also the answers to questions can be a little better. --
'''Neutral''' Concerned about the amount of Talk, User_talk and project page edits. --
Indeed. I applaud the extensive amount of contributions to main article space, but the talk page count is somewhat low. Communication is an important citeria of adminship. Fabulous editor, however. -
'''Neutral'''. I'd love to support, but I feel that fighting vandalism involves three steps: 1. Revert vandalism, 2. Send the user a [[Template:TestTemplates|test message]], 3. If necessary: repeat steps 1 and 2 until a block is warranted. This user has shown no evidence of step #2. Whether this RfA is successful or not, I hope the user will show more effort to use UserTalk pages. Best of luck!
'''Neutral''' per anon and EWS23. I would strongly prefer to see more talk space edits, and a very large number of the article edits are cat, rem cat, re cat, rem links.
'''Neutral'''.  as above.  branch out.
'''Support''' I'm thoroughly impressed. EVula looks like a great user who could surely do some good with the tools. --
'''[[Professor Hubert Farnsworth|Good news everyone]]!''' I support this RfA. -
'''Support''' I have worked with Evula in the past and have found that he is a very good editor who deserves to finally get some admin tools (that he will surely use well).
'''Support''' as nominator and per reasons listed before --
'''Support''' -- why not? :) [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' Nice, reasonable answers to questions.  Though not really influencing my decision, that project logo is really good work.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support'''. seems promising. Cheers --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''<s>Support</s>''' EVula is a very dedicated and communicative editor. He took the suggestions on his editor review on board, demonstrating that he is willing to improve and step into another level of participation within Wikipedia.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  EVula is helpful and I trust him with administrator tools.
Lets all '''discov'''--er...'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on honest answers and a wealth of projects under his user page! --
'''Support'''. -
'''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wilder|Oh, no!]]''' they are attempting to control and sensor the internet and remove peoples freedoms. ~
An undoubted '''support'''. Just a quick glance at the [[WP:MK|Mortal Kombat Wiki Project]] will show he has done a huge amount of work, and it's hard click on history for any MK page and not see his name. ~ '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Great editor, has done a lot of work on a variety of different WikiProjects.--'''
'''Support, complete with maniacal laughter''' You have to support after seeing what EVula has done for the MK articles. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor, works on several WikiProjects.
'''Support''' per detailed answers to all of the questions. Loved your honest answer to aero's question --
'''Definitely!''' has always been very helpful in combatting fancruft at [[WP:FIREFLY]]. I've come across him many times there as we worked together to promote/improve several articles there, as well as at [[WP:BIOGRAPHY]], and have no hesitation in supporting his nomination! --
'''Strong Support''' Has made extensive excellent additions to the encyclopedia.  Extremely civil, cordial and easy to work with.  This seems like an easy call.
'''Support.''' Nice and thoughtful person in my experience.
'''Strong Support.''' Will do a good job with the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' based upon answers given above and general attitude displayed, all positive.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Will not abuse the tools. --'''
'''Support'''.  ''[[Wikipedia:Editor review/EVula|Holy Shit!]]''  Anyone who contributes to a ''[[The Zombie Survival Guide]]'' article and uses profanity in an edit summary should have the magical powers of an admin.  But seriously, I thought it was really cool that EVula asked for an editor review to improve him/herself. That coupled with some of his other deeds (AfDs, userboxes, etc) makes it easy to give my support. &mdash;
'''Shiny Support''' In both [[WP:FIREFLY]] and [[WP:AFD]], I have nothing but positive experiences with EVula.--
'''Support'''.  Looks good. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support.''' From EVula, I've seen only good edits, conscientious efforts, strong awareness of Wikipedia policy, and dedication to Wikipedia's goals.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Okey-dokey.
'''Support''' [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.m]][[User:Dfrg.msc/EA|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Dfrg.msc|c]] <small><sup> [[User talk:Dfrg.msc|1]] .
'''Support''' Great editor who will be a good addition to the admin team.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - experience with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=EVula&namespace=6 images], and no other concerns here --
'''Support''' - bumped into this editor a while ago, all good!
'''Support''' Trustworthy and experienced user.
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments above. Strong editor, no issues or concerns.
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in order.
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''. Seems to me like a user with his head in the right place. '''
'''Support'''. I have seen
'''Support''' per above. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''. EVula seems a nice editor. He could be a nice administrator.--
'''Support'''. A friendly editor who is dedicated to wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Not afraid to be assertive -- I saw that during Elonka's RfA (I don't rememebr which side she was on, but she was questioning one of the other commenters) -- yet always civil. Nice balance. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be reasonable and informed.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' He's a good Wikipedian who will make a good Admin.
'''Support''' per nom.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Pile-on Support''' - not that it's needed :) --
--
'''Support''' per everyone above, seen him around and he seems like an excellent users.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' No evidence this nominee will abuse the admin tools...I also had a similar run in with Dreamguy.--
I think EVula would be helpful as an admin.
'''Support'''
Late to the party! '''
'''Support''' - Just in case this ends up being a close one.  ; )  --
'''Support''', I was going to put down Oppose, just so the unanimity didn't go to EVula's head...  Seriously though, the answers to the questions were good and even the editing conflicts were minor  or cases where EVula was on the correct side of [[WP:V]]/[[WP:NOR]].--
'''Nominator support'''- it should be pretty obvious from the above, but it seems to be tradition for nominators to place their mark here as well. So here's mine :)
'''Support''', of course. Was wondering how much longer this nom was going to take to appear. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support'''. All seems well. However, something seems wrong with your "vote here" link. I'm too busy to fix it though :P
'''Support''' despite the redirect!
'''Support'''. I too have been consistently impressed by the quality of EWS23's edits and interaction with other users, will be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Good edit history and user can be trusted with extra tools in my opinion.--
'''Strong Support''' because of  nom statement and  despite  minor edit count deficiency<grin>.  Over-all excellent editor who has gone for quality over quantity, who uses edit summaries, and who understands the importance of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.148.235.184&diff=prev&oldid=50006614 welcoming] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheWorld&diff=prev&oldid=48879706 guiding/teaching]  rather  than abusing/humiliating  newcomers.  I would prefer more RCPatrolling, but I feel that, were  [[User:EWS23]] to err, it would be on the side of caution rather than blocking someone who did not deserve it. <sigh> I see from the user page that the nom is deficient after all-- I see no mention of
'''Support''' Very thoughtful, trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', without question.  Very deserving of the mop.  After all, I gave him [[User talk:EWS23#Not-so-random_acts_of_kindness|this barnstar]].  --
'''Support''' Ding Ding Ding we're looking at an excellent candidate here!
'''Support'''. Oh, yes.
'''support''' looks like theyll make a good admin
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. -
'''Support''' [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] has convinced me, and I have personally seen great contributions from [[User:EWS23|EWS23]]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - also one of the best nom "speeches" I've seen yet &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' solid contributor. Keep up with the good work. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Strong Support''' - I was pretty shocked he wasn't an admin already, he knows what he's doing --
'''Edit-conflicted Support''' definitely--
'''Support''', a familiar name, with nothing but good edits coming from it.
'''Support'''. Obviously a great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' hard to know what to add to the above, so I'll simply say "yes". [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Super Strong <s>Oppose</s> Support''' awesome editor; always civil, calm, and very experienced.
'''Strong support''', no reservations. I have no reason to believe that he does not know how to handle admin tools, and every reason to believe he won't misuse them. Additionally, he has worked significantly in behind-the-scenes activities, as well as illustrating articles, a definite plus in my book. We need more civil admins like him.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per nomination --
'''Support''' Lots of experience with wikipedia and wikipedians. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Level-headed, and doing mostly janiatorial work anyways. I suspect admin tools will make him more effective.--
'''Support''' I was initially concerned that too many of his Wikipedia space edits might be Esperanza related but there are more than enough to other areas. The candidate seems to be well rounded and will make a productive admin.
'''Support''' per my judgements and per all above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''; a blessing to the encyclopedia.
'''Support''', is a very hardworking and awesome to work with contributor! -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support''' from fellow Esperanza election volunteer.
'''Support''' with no reservations, per above and beyond. --
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks good.'''
'''Support''' - I like what I see in his user contributions.  1. When reverting, he's assuming that it's a well intentioned test.  We need folks that don't assume vandalism for everything. 2. Disambig link repair is thankless, repetetive work that makes the project better, and he's done it.    Plus some other things, but American Idol is on and my wife wants me to fake interest in it. -
'''Support''' --
Pile-on '''Support'''. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]][[User:TantalumTelluride/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">lluride</span>]]<sup>
'''Support''' Logged in just to vote here, support without reservation. -- '''''
'''Support''' Looks good to me --
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.&trade; --
'''Support''' Should make a great admin --
'''Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' per nom. I like his Wiki-beliefs!
'''Support'''.  A balanced, committed wikipedian; giving him the mop will help make the project better.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Yes. --
'''zOMG! Support!'''
'''Support''' Give him the mop. :) --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]]'''''[[User:Actown|o]]'''''[[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''
Thank you, please send more. - <b>
-- <small> (
'''Support''', user has shown familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and is clearly interested in performing maintenance tasks. --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''', a very good editor. No doubt will be asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I'm glad I checked the noms! You'll be a great admin. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support? Yep!''' A very strong candidate who have succeeded in wowing me. -→
'''Support'''. You're not an admin already? --<font size="1">
'''Support''', of course. -
More like this candidate, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' - Looks like a good admin-to-be. [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Of course. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]

'''Support''' no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''esoppO'''. I backwards oppose! HA! Okay... yea.. he's a good guy :-) '''
'''esoppO''' per above ;). <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per all above. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Nicest guy I've met through Wikipedia.
'''Support''', ticks all the boxes and then some.
'''Support''' - '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Roll on Eric. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''. I've come across this user before, and he's always seemed to be level-headed and knowledgeable. I see no indication that he would abuse admin tools.--'''
'''Support''', this user is a good all-round Wikipedian who helps in many places, such as combatting vandalism/spam/personal attacks/etc., welcoming new users, RfA, copyediting, NPOVing, etc. This is exactly what I look for in an administrator and this user will definitely make an excellent one. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', to pile it on!--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Thanks for ALL your contributions.! --
'''<s>Speedy</s> Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - What's more to be said? <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Isn't-one-already?-cliché support'''. —&nbsp;
'''Support absolutely'''.  Great user.  Helpful and knowledgeable.  Deserves everyone's support.
'''Support!!!''' While sometimes a ''little'' difficult to work with, Extraordinary is certainly extraordinary: he is knowledgable and works well with others. Would make a fantastic admin! &mdash;
'''Support'''. Has a whole bunch of good edits and has a good knowlege of policy. --
'''Support'''. Trusted, trustworthy, tactful user. Mopinate him now.
I-can't-believe-I-haven't-supported-as-nominator-yet '''support'''! -- <font face="tahoma">
'''Support''', another awesome candidate! and that makes two in less than 90 minutes! I think I'll have a heart attack...
'''Strong support'''. This user has been doing considerable and consistantly excellent cleanup work on popular music articles for many months. EM has proven to have good judgement, and familiarity with policy. There is no reason why this user shouldn't be able to carry out their own history merges, page moves over redirects, and vandal blocks. Just watch out for burnout, EM.
'''Strong support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. I'd've nom'ed him myself if I'd seen his return from a Wikibreak... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' the name says it all. :p &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Good good editor. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support'''.  Always uses edit summaries, good editor, ought to be an admin already.
'''Support'''. I first came across EM  some time ago in a debate over a FA removal candidacy for an article that he had been the contributor to. His response to criticism (which was fairly extensive) was excellent; he was measured and reasonable throughout and fully responsive to suggestions and comments, both negative and positive, without ever losing his cool. Full support.
Y'know, I really like the ending to your answer for #3. '''Support'''. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Very Strong Support'''
'''Support''' No reason not to. --
'''Enthusiastic Support''' - <b>
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Extraordinary Support'''
'''Even more extraordinary support.'''--
'''Support'''. I like your answers, particularly Q1. It's best to do the difficult things first just to get them out of the way.
'''Support''' Best of luck
'''<nowiki>{{RfA cliche}}</nowiki> Support''' -
'''No one in the history of Wikipedia has ever been more deserving.'''
'''Support''', I'm surprised that I haven't bumped into you yet.  --

'''Question''' - Why don't you have any category/portal talk edits?'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. A solid experienced editor.
Obviously.
'''Support''' - per above
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Passes my RFA criteria. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Extraordinary indeed. Very easily passes [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' - Excellent user, seen his good work --''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I thought he already was one! --
'''Support''' per nom(s)!
'''Cliché support''', hell, I really did think he was one.
'''Support'''. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Amazing editor. --
'''Support''' Although Wikipedia namespace edits are a relatively small proportional of total edits, however clearly a dedicated Wikipedian and meets my criteria. --
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
I've never met this user before, but he sounds like a good person to support in a RfA. So, '''Support!''' [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per nomination --
'''Support''' deserving. '''
'''50th Mechanised Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''':  EM does sane, careful work, and I have no hesitation supporting.  I'm sorry to see James going to actually oppose.
'''Support''' without reservation.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' If this guy isn't made an admin then i'll eat my couch (no, i don't know why i just said that)
'''Support''' All seems good. Some of the oppose comments that you havent been here long enough dont bother me, editors need to remember that some people have excellent experience as an IP. I am sure you have!
'''Suppport'''--
'''Support''' - Fantabulous work on [[Mariah Carey]] that I've used as the standard to work on [[Alison Krauss]], which he has ''also'' helped with!
'''Support''' I found this user's userpage back in January, and I looked into their contribs. I was amazed. This person truly is extraordinary.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support'''.  3FA>1FA. -
'''Support''' Looked at the oppose links and found nothing to keep me from supporting this obviously experienced, level-headed editor.
'''Support''' looks fine to me, gets my support.
'''Support''' great contributions, good natured humor ˉˉ<sup>
Nice userpage! '''Support''' from <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
I could not possibly '''support''' EM more. He's an excellent contributor to WP, and a pretty cool person, to boot. Highly experienced, highly qualified, and highly worthy of being an admin. --
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Oppose'''; he's been aggressively pushing deletionism all over the place and virtually ignoring my compromise suggestions or responding to them as if they were something a world away from what I had actually suggested. Maybe some people think that's pretty mild stuff, but a person who makes a mission out of reducing the size of the encyclopedia and won't have an honest discussion about a compromise suggestion is ''not'' the kind of admin we need more of.
For the same reasons as nomination.
'''Support''' quality contributor. - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''', Overall a good contributor.
'''Support''' -- There should probably ''always'' be a fuss when considering a nominee; but this appears to be a solid editor with a good understanding of what we need to uphold.
'''Support''' --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''
Not too much maitenance activity for about a month.  But that's not a reason for opposing.  And since there seems to be none, I'll support.
'''Support''' One of our very best editors on African articles, I'm surprised he isn't already an admin--
'''Support''' -
'''Slightly Strong Support''' This member has contributed well and now he deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' He's seemingly an all-around good guy. I praise him for taking great efforts in having us better understand East Africa. --
'''Support''' Looks good --[[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' A good contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Well, gee, I trust Ezeu. Don't we need more administrators?
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support''', I trust Dmcdevit's judgement.
'''Support''', but please use edit summaries more.
'''Support''', excellent user in my experience (done great work on African music stuff), don't think he'll abuse the tools.  Sidebar: I'm glad I became an admin before all this crap about namespace edits/scrutinizing every anon interaction/edit summary usage/policy quizzes was necessary, as I'd never make it today, despite using my admin powers for years with nary a single significant dispute.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Since his arrival, when he was promptly awarded an Exceptional Newcomer Award, this user has been one of the few who regularly appears on my watchlist, and I have had nothing but positive and constructive interactions. Addressing comments below about low talk page use, one explanation is that he simply edits in topics frequented by few other contributors.  For example, he and I are of the handful of editors on Ugandan-geo-stubs, and there really isn't much to discuss. -
'''Support'''. Ezeu is a good-natured editor contributing quality content, and I'm sure he would be a fine admin. I second BanyanTree's remark on the supposed scarcity of user interaction. There simply aren't as many active editors in this corner of Wikipedia as in some others. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
I think Ezau has gotten some opposes here that make little or no sense to me. Number of edits to talk pages? Not using the exact right templates in the exact right order? RFA put in the wrong place briefly? Man, the requirements people have are getting out of hand here. I'll probably get some revenge opposes myself for saying this but I think all those reasons are not, put together, worth even a neutral. Dmcdevit is one of our best editors, one of our best Wikipedians. We elected him to ArbComm after all, so we expect him to be able to weigh facts and draw sound conclusions. If he researched this candidate and took the time to nominate him, that says a LOT about the quality of the candidate right there. I have no reservations here. Adminship is ''no big deal''. '''STRONG Support'''. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' has the right temprament for an admin. (Shifted from '''Neutral''') --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Weak support.''' I'm concerned with the improper use of the test templates, but the candidate looks good otherwise.
'''Support''' after much thought and sitting on fences, which has made my bottom sore. I think he's learned a lot just from this RfA; he'll learn more. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' as of an experienced, hard working editor, who might benefit from the tools
'''Support'''.  Although I have some concerns (esp. those raised by Tigershark below), I think in balance making Ezeu an admin will be good for the project.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Support''' Good editor & seems like will be a responsible administrator. Should be given a chance. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Good editor and vandal patroller;  we've crossed swords at times, but I believe you're level-headed and responsible.
'''Support''' seems like he would be a good admin --
'''Support''' per Lar -
'''Support''' Strong contributor watching African articles.
'''Support''' After reviewing a sample of his edits, reading the comments of this RFA discussion, and watching his interaction during RFA, I going to support.  I think he will take [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]]'s comments to heart and be a good admin.
'''Weak Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Swatjester&diff=prev&oldid=49479345 Malformed] RFA request.
'''Oppose''' Another candidate who talks about using the admin tools to block vandals without hardly ever editing [[WP:AIAV]] (4 edits in this case) and also failing to consistently warn vandals (e.g. 3 reverts at 1:24, 1:54 and 2:00 on the morning of the 21st - no warnings). I want to see this user demonstrate a greater commitment to reforming vandals (via warnings) rather than just blocking them, and also to gain greater experience of the blocking process (by contributing at AIAV) before being let loose with the blocking tool.
'''Weak oppose''' per TigerShark, blocking is a last resort and is only to be used if the vandal has been amply warned, with IP's we really don't know who it is and a firm test4 might correct the behaviour in question. I've included my optional questions below, I may change to neuteral or support based on what I see --
'''Weak oppose''' Per Tigershark and Tawker.
'''Oppose''' per Tigershark.  If one mentions blocking as an area of interest in Q1, then one should have sufficient background in that area (AIAV) before being given the tools.  Here, more experience is needed.
'''Oppose''' Per evidence of the malformed RFA, the lack of interation with the community and evidence of recent misuse of test templates.
'''Weak oppose''' Per above. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Less than promising answers. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>

Lack of interaction with the community; only about 4% of edits are to user talk. Also, poor use of edit summaries.
'''Neutral''' mainly due to the [[WP:GRFA#Follow instructions|incorrectly done nomination]] and the low [[WP:ES|edit summary]] usage. ''
'''Neutral''' Not sute yet
'''Neutral'''. There are reasons to support and reasons to oppose.
'''Neutral''', I want to support but the points that TigerShark brings up are too important. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
''' Conditional Neutral''' I don't oppose, but I really need to see more AIV usage if he's a vandal fighter. Also, user talk summary is rather low for a vandal fighter. If this is rectified, I'd have no problem supporting.
'''Neutral''' - The positives and the negatives seem to be cancelling each other out.  Whilst there is evidence of anti-vandalism, there are also slip-ups and evidence of unfamiliarity with the warning process.  --
'''Neutral'''. I agree with Knucmo2. I don't see any major problems that would cause me to vote oppose.
'''Neutral''' Concerns brought up by oppose voters are interesting, but I don't consider them damning. Not contributing to [[WP:AIAV]] especially does not seem like a problem to me. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', I don't see any reason to oppose at the time being. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support. --
'''Neutral''' per most above. Edit summary usage in particular needs to increase.
<b>Neutral, formerly Opposed</b> I did say Oppose, until someone pointed out the error of my ways.








Strong premature '''support'''! ;) &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
''"No big deal"'' '''support'''! --
'''Support''' a kind editor who would benefit from a mop and bucket <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. of course. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great user, friendly too! [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
''"Adminship is no big deal."'' -
'''Support''' - this is one user I welcomed! :)
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy, level-headed user.
'''Support''' An excellent user who will continue to find vandalism. We need more admins like this. -
'''Support''' Easy choice for me.
'''Support'''. Always friendly on IRC and good editor. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' Per all of the above. '''''
Of course. If Sjakkalle thinks you "have a good amount of contributions to articles, a good record of fighting vandalism, and a good record of being sensible", little more need be said. Good luck.;-) —''
'''Support''' I'm sure this user would be a great admin.
'''Support''', she's good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' (so many good noms lately). Meets criteria, great editor. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', looks like another good'un.
'''Support''' - Seen her around doing lots of good things. --
'''Support''' On the fence a bit...but, can't find any reason to oppose so you get my vote...good luck!
'''Support''' this is another one of the good ones, for sure.--
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - an obvious choice.
'''Support''' friendly and civil, a good grasp of policy and very dedicated to the project. We need more admins like this. --
'''Support''' changed from neutral...hope to see you in #vandalism-en-wp.
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''. Good editor, friendly person; will make a good, level-headed administrator. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''', seen her around; never have had real communication, but from what I've seen, no problems here. --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Extreme "What an Esperanzian!" support''' - kind, civil, exciting, invigorating, knowledgeable and all-round nice. Keep it up! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. We seem to run in similar circles, and we have cooperated in dealing with vandals (although we've never spoken before - hi, Erica). We can always use more admins like her, and I wish I could always stay as civil as she does.
'''Support''', this mop's for you
'''Support'''. I've looked though her talk and user talk edits; she's a good communicator and will do a great job. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''  Rc patroller, good amount of edits, lots of experience, why not?  --
'''Enthusiastic Support!''' I was about to nominate her myself :) --
'''Support''', very friendly user. --
'''Support'''. Looks good, as far I can tell. [[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''', good user. &mdash;
'''Die die must support!'''--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">a</font>]]
'''Support''' - no issues here.
<b>Support</b>- I was a little unsure about how to vote for this nomination, until a read all of the other support votes.
<b>Support</b>- Good contributions, experienced, will be a good addition to the rank of admins. --
'''Support''' You don't need thousands of edits per month to be a valuable and trustworthy contributor.
'''Support''', looks good. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Military history|<font color="#960018">h</font>]]
'''Support''' will make excellent use of the tools and we could really use a few (million) more good people over at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems|Copyright problems]]. .:.
'''Support''' A nice person. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' The 2 oppose votes look like socks...
'''Support''', I am always impressed by her contributions and feel she should certainly be an admin. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' good candidate --
--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -- Strong RC patroller.  Good editor.  Level headed.  Work well with the mop! -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' good editor, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Need I say more?
'''Support''' Good editor.  Promotion well deserved--
'''Support'''. Good editor, good level of activity (whatever the oppose voters say), and quite enough good quality edits edits over variety of namespaces.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.   Has some real contributions to encyclopedia in addition to vandal fighting; good answers to questions. —
'''Support'''. Could do great things with the mop. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' I'm fer her.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Upon closer examination, I actually know this person in real life. Scary.
'''support''' <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Strong Support''' This user has been valuable to wikipedia.  Will be even more so after adminship. ---
'''Support'''. Looks like a good choice.
'''Support'''. Keep it this way, it's great. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Strong Support'''. She will make an excellent admin. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Yes please!''' A superb vandalwhacker who I'm often to be found trailing behind, Speedying and Blocking what she leaves in her wake. Now you can do your own dirty work, Erica! :o) ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seen this person around, very good user.--
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' She can be trusted with the golden mop.--
I've seen this editor around, and what I've seen, I liked. Seems to have a good, level headed approach to things and I see no reason to oppose. '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' per answer's to Masssiveego's uh... questioning... --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Solid candidate. --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support'''. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Support'''. A worthy selection.
'''Strong Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Strong support''', answers to Masssiveego's questions were, to my mind, exemplary.
No way!  Boooo!!
Are you kidding me, this guys a joke!
'''Oppose''' Unresponsive to my questions after 24 hours.  --
[[User:NSLE|NSL]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub> at 01:28 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-04-03]])</small> - from support; didn't look into edit patterns, activity has only really increased recently. No reason to oppose though.
'''Neutral''' low edits in the main space and most of them in the last month. No reasons to oppose
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Alex Bakharev]].
'''Neutral''' as per NSLE and Alex and also feel there is no real reason to oppose.
'''Neutral''' Not always right, but her willingness to work with others for consensus makes up for that. Sometimes she is too quick on the trigger and could assume a little more good faith. This may come with more experience, so I am reserving my vote until then. --
'''Support''' as per the nomination statement I wrote above. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' as a fellow male European, erm, I mean, looks OK given account age and contributions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' see [[user:edivorce#Voting_on_RfA's|rational]]. --
'''Support''' 3000 edits a definite dedicated user [[User:[[User:Mjal|Mjal]] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]</s><p>Wish I'd be. My first edit was mid-2004, the 6 months only refer probably to the fact that I'm well beyond the nomination threshold. You'll have to reconsider that vote.
'''Support''', Experience should not be a bar to gaining adminship.  All a user needs to do is earn the trust of the community.  As I see no votes which actually call into question whether that trust should be given, I support. Adminship is no big deal, therefore experience of Wikiprocess is noreason to dismiss somone.
'''Support''', we've had candidates with [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Linuxbeak|less experience]], so why not?
'''Support''', no big deal.
'''Support''', no ethical problems with the user and has a committment. "Not enough experience" stuff is smth I never understood in such cases. Obviously not a newbie. As such, ethics and committment is all that matters. --
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lack of experienc with WikiProcess.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, who has gorgeous new signature!  Incidentally, I'm sure Femto will make a terrific admin soon -- just wish for a little more learning time.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more edits in wiki namespace, sorry --
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. Just too soon. --
'''Oppose''' not enough participation in WP space yet, but will likely support a future nomination with more experience there.
'''Neutral''' until more project/process experience (56 edits to project namespace).  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' Editing project pages more often will be better.--
'''Neutral''' Would like to see more Project related editing.
Not sure yet.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' lean toward oppose, as per the oppose votes limited activity in the project namespace, otherwise all seems in order. --
'''Neutral''' per above (due to lack of project namespace edits).--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''repeat above
'''Neutral'''. Not going to vote against you but see Radiant's oppose comment. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Obviously.''' However, I'd like other people not to vote until he accepts, so that we don't get another CSCWEM debacle again if he doesn't accept right away.
'''Strong support'''. --
'''<s>Weak </s>Strong Support'''. <s>It's somewhat concerning that you have notes on your talk page for untagged images from one month ago. Are you unfamiliar with our [[Wikipedia:Copyright|Copyright policy]]?</s><small>Concerns addressed [[User:Werdna648|Werdna]] [[User talk:Werdna648|(talk)]] 01:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)</small> Otherwise, a nice editcount, good history of interaction, and exceptional contribution to the area of pictures
'''Support'''. -- excellent contributor of photography, many of featured status. Administrative tools will not be abused by this user. -
'''I've never seen so many image edits Support''' Be good to have admins with more variety of edit history like this. -
'''Support'''.  I've seen Fir0002 on FPC quite a bit over the past few months (since I started being a regular there, he was active there long before that) and Fir0002 has always been levelheaded and quite a benefit to that sub-community.  I am not sure that Fir0002 has really explained why he wants to be admin as well as I would normally like to see, but it comes down to if I trust this user with the mop.  And the answer is that I do, completely. --
'''Support'''. I'm most aware of Fir0002 from his photography, but he's clearly a major asset to Wikipedia.-
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. A long-term committed user.
'''Support'''. See [[User_talk:Fir0002#Questions]].
'''Support'''. Fir plans to use admin tools when dealin with images and he's an expert there. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' - Very active at [[WP:FPC]], don't see any reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Lots of photographic contributions and very active.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', 47 FPs?! More than enough to equate [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]] as a substitute! -
'''Support''' - a rare SushiGeek nom + its pretty easy to rack up some project editcounts if one wants adminship but lots of null edits really don't tell us anything at all. Great photographic contribs and we always need more people to clean out old images / moved to commons etc (and this gets to be my longest vote of the day)--
'''Strong support'''. <span class="ipa">
'''Support'''.  Looks like a good specialist admin.  --
'''Support'''. A bit low in the Talk namespace, but otherwise qualified! [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support'''. I'm impressed by the long list of images.
'''Support''' I have absolutely no doubt Fir understands the main encyclopedia body, and a serious image admin could be a big boon.
'''Support''' - I cannot belive that all this time, since seeing Fir0002 around [[WP:FPC]], that I sincerely thought he was already an administrator, *sigh*. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - asset to Wikipedia. Everyone loves pretty pictures. &mdash; [[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a must have for adminship because of his work with images.
'''Support''' very good editor in my experience.--
'''Strong Support''' a VERY talented photographer. I love the photographs he has taken. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support'''.  He goes out of his way to help others' FPCs too.--
'''Support''', I doubt he's going to abuse the tools (and he takes some of the best pictures I've ever seen). &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate (great pictures, also)
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. No reason to suggest they'd abuse admin mop. If a picture is like a thousand words... this user has contributed many many thousands.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''', should really get that email enabled first --
'''Support''', kept his cool in a debate with Canberra wikipedians ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra/Archive02#Image additions]]) and we all learnt something--
'''Weak Support''' despite the linkspam - <b>
'''Weak support'''. Good photography related work, but would appreciate more main space edits apart from photographic work.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Support'''. He has been doing good work on photography and images and has made valuable contributions over that time.
'''Support''' always good to have admins with specialty skills, such as exceptional photography.  He has proven that he can be trusted with admin powers --
'''Support'''. Well-known user here. Australia is far far away from my country but thanks to his photos I would like to go there in future. -
'''Support'''; works well with others and is a valuable contributor.  The tools should be useful for all of those image edits. --
'''Support''' someone with photography experience is also a handy addition to his valuable contributions. --
'''Support.''' Looks good from here.--
'''Support''', and about time too! <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''. He improves other people's photos. I think that speaks for itself. -
'''Support''' I definitely feel he would make a good admin, he has shown himself as a responsible editor for quite a long time and would definitely use the tools well. <small>
'''Support'''. Changed from neutral after the user enabled email.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' -- from
'''Support''' - RFA cliche 4 --''
'''Support''' - Very responsible editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. Experienced, I'm sure wikipedia will benefit from his service. I also love his pictures, great contribs in that area. -- '''
'''Very strong support'''. Fir, I always thougt you WERE an admin already. Great work, looking forward for more FP from you --
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With around 4,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. We could use more people who know something about pictures, and the admin tools are helpful in maintenance tasks related to images. Don't see any reason this user will abuse the new tools, especially as it appears their use will be mostly limited to images (at least at first.)
'''Support''' - You give this community, and the world, so much in your photographs. Enjoy the mop you're about to be given.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.  Better late than never. --
'''Support'''. Fir0002 has taken many excellent photographs and definetely cares about the visual quality of our articles. There is one thing about Wikipedia articles that I know for a fact - an article here is not good without good pictures in them. His images give a crystal clear example of what something looks like. He definetely deserves the "mop." --
'''Support''' -'''
Two things, the signature spam and the voting templates ([[User:Fir0002/Discussion_on_templates]]). Reasons were presented in lengthy discussions to discourage both. Fir just ignored/dismissed them. An admin should be open to discussion and be able to admit to own wrongdoings. --
I'm very glad for your photography contributions but I see practically no project space edits and in general very few edits that don't have to do with photography. This doesn't really signify to me that the user is ready for adminship. I also share Dschwen's concerns. — ''
'''Weak oppose''' Great editor, pictures are superb, nothing in his answers to the questions makes me think he really needs the admin tools though. "I'd certainly brush up on it" should really come before accepting a nomination for adminship, in my opinion. I also don't like the hesitation about email, or the many typos. I'm sure, on the other hand, that he would not abuse admin tools if given them. I just don't think he is ready for it yet. --
'''Neutral'''. Please first enable email.--
'''Neutral''' E-mail is not enabled. Otherwise a little bit low on edits, but could be a great specialist-administrator
'''Neutral''' I have to be honest here - Fir0002 is a great editor, and I absolutely love his contributions to Wikipedia. But giving him admin privileges would be like giving a ceremonial degree to someone, and discredits the whole process. Nothing to me suggests that he needs them - the only task he's intended at needing them for is deleting old edits of images. I'm pretty wary of handing out such powerful tools to people who have only vague notions of what an administrator does or can do. At the same time, it's clear that fir0002 is not a major risk - the worst that is likely to happen is that he makes a minor gaffe like unblocking someone upon request or does something without understanding all the ramifications or conventions that go with it. If this was anyone else, I'd be voting oppose...but I won't, simply out of recognition and respect.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' edit counters will be pleased, over 9000 edits. His 400 project edits only seems low in comparison to the huge volume of contribution... looks like a great admin material.
'''Support''' A fantastic user. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' - meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]].  I like also that he is knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy but is truely an editor, helping to build our encyclopedia. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' Excellent user all round.
'''Support''' Good at mediating disputes, likely good admin material. --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Nothing appears to be wrong, but alot appears to be right.
'''Strong Support''' How could I fail to support such a strong user? [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Saurpport'''.  Er, '''support'''.  And, apatasourus on the back for three featured articles.  --
'''Support''', especially after such a well reasoned and presented nomination.
'''Support''', certainly. --
'''Support''' per nom. Obviously Firsfron is overdue for adminship.
'''Support''', excellent user.
'''Support''' A good admin candidate, looking at contributions and answers to questions below. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' in all that I've seen of him, and my interactions, he has been extremely courteous and professional. He has dialup, but nobody can be perfect, I guess =D.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' seems to be a great editor and I'm confident that having the extra tools will benefit both Firsfron as an editor and the Wikipedia project at large
'''Support''' Great work on TV-related articles
'''Support''' per ↑

'''Support'''. Can't think of anything to add, an exceptional candidate.
'''Support'''. <s>Heyhey, let's jump on the bandwagon!</s> :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', due to his work on articles relating to dinosaurs and television stations, and per the answers to the below questions. Would make a great admin. —
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''',
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience, well rounded and thoughtful. One moppery, coming right up! [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support'''. I am a relatively 'young' wikipedian and it must be said that Firsfron's example, guidance and support have been exemplary - anyone would have guessed that he already WAS admin. He has always been prompt and courteous in all communication and I have witnessed his powerful, fair, non-inflammatory and decisive mediations in times of potential difficulty between wikipedians. A few editors stand out on WP. Firsfron is one of them. With extra tools, he'll be a phenomenon. -
'''Support'''. Experienced editor. Also I like dinosaurs :). -
'''Support''' - great editor
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks all clear to me!
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' None here either.
'''Support'''. No dings, no problems, no big deal.
'''Support''' I have not seen this user around Wikipedia, but the numbers say I should vote for him. So I will. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]

'''Very weak support''' per about half your 400+ WP:space edits being to the dinosaur and buffyverse projects, which is good, but does not bespeak fluency with the administrative processes. - <b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nominator, all around good contributor.
As an editor, he is careful with references and conforming to manual of style. As an administrator, he will show similar attention to detail. '''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support.''' looks good to me.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong Support'''. I really like the effort you put into admin coaching, by the way. [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Strongest Support''' This just goes to show that I should check RfA more often. I've known Firs for ... geez, six years now? Seven? Exactly the kind of person we need as an admin.
'''Support''' this editor has a great attitude!  Really liked the answer to question 2 --
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
Tried-and-Tested '''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Meets 3/3 support''' <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''20 ounces of meaty support'''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' from what I can see there don't appear to be any problems. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Neutral''' - Are you all friends or what?  I can't touch this request.  I don't see anything wrong but at the same time I don't see anything about how the user deals with mediation issues.  You can count on me looking for a dispute Firsfron is involved with to see if he deals with it fairly. --
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Beat me to it. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Support''', looks good. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great user! [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' quality articles.
'''Support'''. A good selection.
'''Support'''. Let this be the first "I thought she already was one" comment as well.
Good user.  Willing to tackle some sensitive topics.
'''Support''' good user, I see no problems --
'''Support'''. Sensible editor, will use tools well.
'''Support'''. Sensible and gracious editor.-
'''Support''' I've worked on a few different things with Flow, and we haven't always seen eye to eye on everything, but she is clearly a competent, civil editor. Wikipedia will benefit greatly from giving her the mop.
'''Support''' She seems very tactful and mature. It looks like I'll enjoy her presence, contributions, and anything else about her on WP. --
More like this candidate please<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''. Though Richardcavel raised a scary point, I think this user's pretty cool and unlikely to abuse powers.
'''Support'''. Looks good --
'''Support''' balanced editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', Regardless of the edit count and experience, I'm giving her my suppport because of her creation of articles such as [[Harvey J. Alter]] and the research she put in for the Hepatitis C article. I love editors who will take the time to research and create articles because that's what I spend most my time doing and understand how long and laborous it is when compared to reverting vandalism. Great articles FloNight and I hope to see you as an administrator soon. Good luck -
'''Support''' - see my struck-out oppose vote. -
'''Support''' per nom, + bonus point for liking biographies. ←
'''Support''' - calm, smart, sensitive, rational - constitutionally, tempermentally, and intellectually a sterling choice for admin. -
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Great contributor, will be a fantastic admin
'''Support''' - looks good. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''' edits look fine, no reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' (A comment she laft on a page I'm involved with was so insightful, I'd vote for her just for that)
Of course.
Support with pleasure.
'''Support''' with no hesitation.
'''Support''' looks fine to me.
'''Strong Support''' Wonderful editor, absolutely trustworthy.
'''Support'''&trade; --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''': Yes, [[Florence Nightingale|FloNight]] --
'''Strong support'''.  I'm impressed by the nominee's graceful answers to the questions below, the quality of those of her edits that I've reviewed, and the fact that she has fun as a wikipedian (as evidenced by the case discussed in the first ''oppose'' below).  A great editor who will be a fine admin.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Support''' I see no problem here. Interesting user page, suitable Q&A below.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support.''' Well balanced edit count, and I like her answers to the questions.--
'''Support''' - (s)he isn't one? Golly gosh. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''', good contributor and satisfactory answers to questions below. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''.  Ideal admin. material. --
'''Support''' I seem to see her name everywhere - a busy productive editor!Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA [[User:SOPHIA|Sophia]]<sup><small><font color="purple">[[User_talk:SOPHIA|Talk]]</font></small></sup><font color="#404040">
--
'''Support'''. She does a really great job. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''. Productive, high-quality edits, good community interactions. --
'''Support'''. The "of course" was already used, but I'll use anyway. Of course. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''. All experiences have been positive. Will make good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Of course, excellent candidate.--

'''Support''', looks good to me, yes.
'''Enthusiastic Support'''. I didn't see this until now or I would have voted sooner. FloNight does good work, and she does ''hard'' work. Working with her is a distinct pleasure. She never loses her cool intelligence when dealing with difficult users and situations, which she is not shy of doing. FloNight is an angel, is what, and God knows she's an ornament to the 'pedia. FloNight is who I wanna be if I ever grow up...
'''support'''
'''support'''--
'''Support''' I was lucky enough to be the editor who 'formally' welcomed Flo, and I was surprised at how quickly she delved into Wikipedia. I feel she has the experience and disposition of an editor who has been about for years, and am confident she would make a good admin.--
'''support''' Looks good to me. Can't wait for this one to go through.
'''support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Often seems to be a calming (or at least, a calm) voice in contentious areas.
'''Strongest support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good work. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''.  Easy decision, FloNight is serious about "do no harm".
Piling on at this point, but '''support'''.
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support''' RfA cliché #1.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' Great job calming things down during the [[Katelyn Faber]] debate.
'''Support'''. Because I do. --<i><b><font color="#5ADD22"><font size="1">[[User:GeorgeMoney|George]]</font></font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">[[User:GeorgeMoney|Mon]]</font><font size="1" color=green>[[User:GeorgeMoney/Esperanza|e]]</font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''. Will make good admin. [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]

'''Support''' Definitely.

'''Support'''. We need more admins with her talent for mediation. [[User:Feezo|Fe]][[User:Feezo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Unlikely to abuse admin tools, appears sane.
'''Support''' - everything looks okay here.
<s>'''Oppose''' . I know this is going to snowball for support, but given Mccready's diffs and, to a lesser extent, Kotepho's, I'm rather suspicious of this admin. These aren't dredged up from history by someone with a long grudge, either; they're fairly recent examples of questionable or outright bad behavior. With the suspicions about admin abuse lately, we need to ensure that our admins are as blameless as possible. [[User:Captainktainer|Captainktainer]] 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Based on the explanation on the talk page and looking at the user's history better, I'm removing my opposition. Haven't decided yet whether to move to Support yet, so I'm just going to leave this struck out for now. [[User:Captainktainer|Captainktainer]] * [[User talk:Captainktainer|Talk]] 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)</s> Having now thought about it, I'm convinced that FloNight deserves support.

'''Oppose''', not enough main space edits by my standards, sorry


'''Oppose for now''' I don't have anything against her and have not had too much interaction with her, but looking through her contributions I feel that she's not been too careful in her changes and perhaps has not quite done enough (recent) additions to the site...instead focusing on vandals. While that needs to be done, I'm not sure another anti-vandal is going to do more than participate in a race to be the first to warn/block/ban a user. I would be willing to revisit this in future or reconsider if people can provide better evidence than my (admittedly not complete) look through her prodigious history. --<span style="background: #CCEECC;">
'''Oppose'''. It's a basic prerequisite for me that an admin candidate has moved on from the newbie habit of blanking user talk to archiving. I'm sorry to say that something doesn't "smell" quite right to me here either in terms of attitude. --
'''Oppose''' - per Kotepho. --
'''Oppose''': doesn't seem ready yet.
Flower power.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''. Looks good. --
'''Support''' A good user and I see no problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. It is time to give this user the mop. We need more admins! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good!
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. --
'''Support'''
''"Adminship is no big deal"'' -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The username gives me a happy feeling, too :) --<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support'''. yes please. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
--
'''
'''Support'''. I thought he already was one. This should have been done long ago. :)
'''Support'''. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' an excellent candidate for adminship. -
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' good editor, will be good admin --
'''support''':  Excellent candidate who evidently exemplifies good rapport.  Keep up the good work!
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''done enough right without doing anything wrong
'''Will you Use Your Powers for Good or for Awesome?''' --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' -- '''[[User:Tvaughn05|<span style="color:#007700;cursor:crosshair;">Tvaughn05]]</span>
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support'''. A tireless <s>anti-vandal</s> page mover and disambig-er who deserves promotion.
'''Support'''' great user, excellent potential
'''Support''' seems to be quite reasonable editor
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor (and trustworthy nominator.)
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - no explanation really needed
'''Support''' Hard pressed to find a reason not to...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - it's about time. --
'''Support''', no reason why not.
'''support'''. great user. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
Ok —''
'''Support'''. Heh, not much else to say. Great editor.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''; no more needs to be said.
'''Support'''. Great article editor with proven understanding of policy & procedure.
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}}
'''UKSupport''' some great contributions <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''': seems like a nice person.
'''Support''':Very good.
'''Support''' Its all about action and consequence. Serve time at Wiki, work well, and they stick you with a mop. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Excellent candidate <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''' Brilliant editor -
'''Support'''.





'''Strong support'''. Francis has been around for a while and I was surprised to learn he is already not an admin, as he is very reasonable, knowledgable and easy to work with. --
'''Forgot to support support'''

Looks competent to me.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this promotion--
Unqualified, 'feck the border' '''support'''!
'''Support'''. &mdash;
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
--
'''Support''', although he occasionally forgets to use edit summaries. And he's getting stronger support than I did. :(
'''Strong support''' - Francis is an ideal mediator. The best thing is that He never gives up!!! Moreover, his knowledge of French and computing is not only a bonus but a necessity for wikipedia. -- ''
'''Support''' - (comments provided in appropriate section) --
'''Support''' Solid record, good contributor, will make fine admin.
'''Support'''. Don't see any reason not to, will make very good use of admin tools. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' I believe in happy admins. -
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' ....and add one to the first tally! No explanation required; I feel the above points sum it up quite nicely! Look forward to seeing you made admin. --
'''Support'''. Good contributions to several articles. &mdash; '''''
'''Strong Support''' I know Francis and I trust him. He was involved in [[Moldovan language]] edit war conflict and had a positive influence. I hope he will be a good Admin.
'''Support'''. Nice to have rational people around, other than that he is a cool dude ;) --
'''Support''' - My impression of Mr. Tyers is wholly positive, and I believe he will be a valuable addition to the Janitor Corps.
'''Support''' Cursory review of this editors' contribs reveals a good egg.
'''Support''' see him around.
'''Support''' I've seen him making good edits in the past.  Seems to be an able editor unlikely to abuse admin authority.
Francis Tyers (aka "Franklin Gonzales", aka "spectie") has wilfully, and without any regard to common sense or the dignity of man, behaved as we would expect an admin to behave.  Further, he has persistently, despite many requests, been level-headed, mature, and an all-around Top Bloke.  If we can't cut him down in the street, we can at least promote him to adminship.  '''Support''' the bugger.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''': --
'''Strong Support'''. Really Bonaparte, it's clear from your history that you absolutely hate his guts. But as anyone can see from your voting pattern on RfA, you seem to think that by voting "Support", you will automatically get an admin willing to do anything you want. --
'''Strong Support'''.  Will make a terrific admin.  --
'''Wholeheartedly support.''' Will make a great admin. :)
'''Support'''.  Great history and will make a good addition. --
'''Support'''. Will likely make good use of admin tools.
'''Support''' yes --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor!
'''Support'''. A fine admin candidate. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good distributed contribs. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per everyone else. --
'''Support''' - a trustworthy, friendly user who has helped in a broad range of Wikipedia domains. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''

'''Support''', doing a good job. -
'''Support'''. Looks great. --
'''Support'''.  The only things I can say about Francis are positive ones.&mdash;
'''Support'''. Solid contributor.
'''Late to the party support''' Francis is the first person I've ever offered to nominate, after I saw how he helped out a newbie user (the [[Cassiobury Park]] article author) in a most gracious and highly efficient way. He already had someone else lined up  to nominate him, of course but I promised to heartily support his candidacy, so here I am, and sorry to be late! I think he's going to be an awesome admin. ++
'''Support'''. warwick legit.
'''Soutenir''' sans hesitation - cette editeur est un bon homme, et tres aidement. Je pense qu'il conviendrait de redefinir le role et les criteres d'un administrateur.
Translating into English with my limited knowledge of French (smack me if I get anything wrong):  ''Support without hesitation - this editor is a good guy and very helpful.  I think he'll help (?) to redefine the role and criteria of an administrator.''  By the way, this counts as a '''support''' vote for the original nom from me as well.  --'''
'''SUPPORT''' <s>support number 50</s> I believe you would do fine to be an admin.  You are a well respected member of the community
'''Support'''. FrancisTyers will be useful to the project.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' -- We've only just met, but I find this editor to be most pleasant, aware of policy, and calm in a crisis. --
'''Support''': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support''' - balanced editcount shows at least some knowledge of Wikipedia policy, especially in areas of image rights. (
'''Support''' - Will make a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - Lots of edits!
'''Support''' - Would prefer a bit more project space edits (for an admin) but looks good otherwise. --
'''Support''' - Seems like a fine user. <font style="color:#FF1111"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC1111"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><sup>(
--''Signed by:''
'''Support'''. --
'''support Why not?
'''Support'''. Everything looks in order to me.
'''Support''' -- Need more admins who know a subject area well.
'''Support''' Temperant, good editor, been here long enough, hopefully he'll be an admin soon.
'''Support''' 400 project edits are enough. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' -- seems like a nice person.
'''Support''' - No big deal ;)
'''Support''' could have more project namespace edits, but I like admins who actually contribute to articles. -
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Good to have someone who knows a specific subject well
'''Support, with a bit of concern''' regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tomf688|my own RFA]].  It seems the problems that most of the "oppose" people have here is a lack of project namespace edits.  Huh?  He has nearly 500 edits there.  I suppose this community has become much more stringent since October; I only had 150 or so =\.  --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
--
'''Support''' I see no evidence that he will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' a hard-working wikipedian who's clearly requesting admin tools for use, not show, and is highly unlikely to abuse them. (And a self-nom, good!)
'''Support'''. Needs the tools, as Bish points out. As for not having enough experience of project space, that is not exactly true, but most of his project space edits are on the [[Swedish Wikipedia]], where he has been involved in many policy discussions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', user seem sompetent, unlikely to abuse tools, and experience can be gained. If a user only has interest in editing articles, the tools are still useful, and adminship should not be seen as a process based role. Good editors are good editors, regardless of where their edits lie.  Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' --
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' per others above.
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Of course I support chess players! (But mostly becuase Fred is a good and responsible contributor.)
'''Stöder''' förstås, den här är en fin advändare.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', seems sensible enough.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', browsing through his contributions, I see nothing but good things from him. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. I don't normally vote on users I haven't had any experience with, but I'll make an exception here, because I like the answers to the questions. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' an easy vote -
'''Support''' upon reviewing the candidate's contributions. Hopefully he won't abuse the tools to push a Swedish POV the way Wiglaf did. --
'''Support''' Unlikley to abuse powers
'''Support''' seems to be a hard-working editor with a good expertise on a specific area
'''Support''' --
Support. Welcome aboard. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. User appears competent and unlikely to abuse tools. Experience in WikiSpace is likely to grow according to the answers to questions below.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''', lack of familiarity with process. Please get some more experience before applying for mopmanship.
'''Oppose''', hasn't participated enough in project edits like [[WP:AFD]]. Most of the project edits he has made are focused on [[Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board]]. --
'''Oppose''', more experience needed in project edits as per King of Hearts.
'''Oppose''', more experience needed in project edits.
'''Oppose''', as King of Hearts above: more experience needed in project edits. //
'''Neutral'''. Well-balanced user, except lack of project and project-talk edits, indicating lack of familiarity with the project.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!

'''Support'''. Great contributor, always cool and seeking consensus.
'''Support'''. I've only had good experiences with Fropuff. --
'''Support''', now that the questions have been answered. &mdash;
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' →
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good contributions in article namespace, which is, after all, what [[WP:ENC|this is all about]].  <TT>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Good editor.  We can trust this user --
'''Support'''. Good editor. Massive number of Article edits outweigh lack of edits in my normal favourites of User talk and Project namespaces. A quick glance over his user talk shows that he's willing to colloborate, although I'm not quite sure if that's the case, considering I can't understand about 80% of the maths jargon that is there. In any case, seems like we can trust him.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good user. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''
Is the username intentionally cute?  :)  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I am a little oncerned about the low number of contributions to policy discussions, as I think ideally administrators should participate in that portion of Wikipedia.  However, the user seems to watch over a large number of pages for vandalism, and does so well - so I think it would be best to provide the tools of adminship for vandal fighting.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''', but I agree with Johtex. --
'''Support''' been around for so long now? gets my support.
'''Support''':
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' obviously a maths expert, will make a useful admin --
'''Support''' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', low project-space participation, most of which is content-related rather than admin or deletion related.  [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?user=Fropuff&dbname=enwiki_p&namespace=4] --
'''Oppose'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Needs the tools and seems unlikely he'll abuse them. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' <s>Has lower than 1,000 mainspace edits, but still great article-builder and editor nonetheless.</s> Situation understood. This user definitely will make a fantastic admin.
'''Support''' - another "why not" case
'''Support''': Put together the editcounts of the two accounts, and you'll see a promising admin in time to come. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|standards]].--
'''Support''' He said: "The people I argue with the most are my friends!" I say, keep it up, and I am really honoured to be one!
'''Support''' wonderful to see an editor with expertise in unique and interesting subjects.
'''Support''', absolutely. Very level-headed in difficult situations, good contributions, not at all likely to abuse the tools. I did hesitate a little about the previous account, but from what I see, the contributions and work under this account are solid.
'''Support''' great combination of expertise and diplomatic skills, should use the tools well.
'''Support''' It doesn't appear that this editor will abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''', fine by me.
I've had this user's talk on my watchlist for a couple months now (I can't remember why) but he's civil and articulate, and patient, considering all of the crap he's had to deal with. I feel compelled to give my '''total support''' here. '''[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
Have seen him rational when dealing with some of the least rational areas of WP.
Of course. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''wtf he's not admin yet?''' ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''', he deserves to be an admin!
'''Support'''. Давай! Well, er, per [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] of course. Whatever. This guy deserves it. --
'''Support'''.I see no problems whatsoever with this user, and his answers satisfy me completely.Should be a great admin.--
'''Support''' no danger of abuse here --
'''Support''' absolutely!!A fine contributor and levelheaded to boot --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I think that we need an admin who can cross cultural/language boundaries so well. I might just ask FPAS if he could go easy on this sort of thing - eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riksm%C3%A5l&diff=prev&oldid=74669675]. An admin shouldn't be participating in an edit war; rather he should be above it. -
'''Support''' - nice editor. The number of the mainspace edits is below my requirements, but since he worked before under a different account I guess I can waive it.
'''Support''' Good to see a solid candidate with under 3000 edits
'''Support''' Good answers to question 2, answered with a dose of humour --
'''Support''' I came across this person when he was fighting a persistent POV warrior and I like his attitude. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' all linguists, absolutely. - <b>
'''Support''' My pleasure to support a friend :) --
'''Support''' I don't usually vote when the outcome seems clear but I have seen Fut. Perf. around and I think he'll be a fine admin so I am glad to support him. --
'''Support''' As mentioned above, the candidate seems to have overwhelming support quite early into the RfA process, but I figured I'd chime in with an extra voice of support, as he seems to be an ideal candidate who can certainly be trusted with a few extra buttons
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' as nominator. Wha? I revisit the page 12 hours after the voting opened and found myself <s>31st</s> 34th to support.
Perfect '''Support''' at Nightfall ~
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support''' without question. Should have been made admin long ago. --
'''Support''' will make a good, responsible admin.
'''Unconditional Support''' when Nishkid (some one with excellent judgement) says ''he conducted himself well and in no way was his behavior beneath the standards expected from an admin'' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' Great candidate. Give him the mop !
'''Support''' as co-nominator.--
'''Obvious Support''' one of the best users around, will do well with admin tools! --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Would do good. Cheers --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' A very level-headed user. Would be a great admin as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' Seen him around. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Good answers.Seems like he will use the admin tools responsibly.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' One searches for adequate adjectives to describe his dedication to vandal-busting, his willing to walk an extra 100 miles to help others, his helpfulness, his whatnot....and I refer to both his old and new account'''s'''. ''Wholehearted'' support for a long-overdue RfA. I'm sure the fact that he has these new tools at hand will prove an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Have seen this user around; I see no reason why not. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' I've seen him around and like what I've seen.
'''Strong Support''' This guy is going to be a fine admin. I'm only sad I didn't get to nominate him (I know the whole story about him, and you can take my assurance that nothing improper has ever occurred).--
'''Support''', per the "no big deal" clause.<b>
'''Support!''' Great user, dedicated to the Wikipedia principles, would benefit from the mop. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]]
'''Support''' All the way from the [[Republic of Macedonia|AR-OH-EM]]! -
'''Support''', but I want you more active in [[WP:HOG]]!--
'''Support''' per nom, good answers, comments above. No issues here.
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''. Seems sensible.
'''Support''' - good responses.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I generally agree with Anas' opinion with regard to previous accounts, but in this case I am happy to accept Caliga10's and trialsanderrors's evaluations of the account's history. Best of luck Fut.
'''Strong Support<s>, but conditional</s>''', good editor,calm,neutral as posible as, a good mediator in disputes.<s> Condition:I want to learn why he used two user names.</s><font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support''' - Excellent candidate. Give him the mop! --
'''Support'''. Go!
'''Support'''. Yes. I am not taking any chance. --
'''Support''' was impressed by his demeanor, reasoning, and position in a recent sysop RFC.
'''Support''' I can safely say that Future Perfect at Sunrise deserves to be an administrator. He is a good editor and commenter. His calm and polite attitudes towards problematic issues were always to compromise. I believe his contributions to wikipedia as an administrator will have a positive effect. I wish him success in his future works.
'''Support'''. He contacted me off-wiki to explain the account situation and everything seemed just fine. He'll make a great administrator.
'''Support''' OK, seems clean. I was expecting a response from him though. Good luck Fut! <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
Troppus noelip emertxe.
'''Last minute support''' Will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>

A Big Yes!! <small>I beat the nom support</small> A diligent editor to the encyclopedia.--
'''Support'''' -- he's done some amazing work here!
'''Support''' per the cogently written nom. --
'''Support'''. I know his work well and I am sure that he shall be a very good administrator. --
'''Support'''. My interaction with this user has been positive; infact I was thinking of nominating him.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Of course. A nice editor with contribution in several areas, especially regarding India.--
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''' per Gurubrahma.
'''Support''' &mdash; has done very good work in [[WP:POI|Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics of India]] &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Best one I've ever seen. Great user! &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good. Stats show more than a vandal fighter/janitor as well.'''
'''Support''' per nom. He has made many accomplishments and it's about time we gave him the mop.
'''Support''' – per nomination –
'''Support''' the well-deserving candidate. -
'''Support''' agree with nom --
'''Support''' A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strongest possible support''' - One of the most helpful users I have ever met. From the time I joined wikipedia, Ganesh has always been there to help me. One of the most worthy candidates for adminship I have ever met. -
'''Support''' per nom. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support''' Definitely!
'''Support'''God of templates.--
'''Oh, hell, yes!''' <tt>
'''Support''' per nom! - [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''  I really like the way he handles edit conflicts.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' great work.
'''Support''' per above. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''- A good Wikipedian. Civil, level-headed and has a solid grasp of the way things are done here. I have no qualms at all about entrusting Ganeshk with the mop, bucket and keys.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per the superbly written nom. <b><font color="teal">
'''Strong support''' An excellent candidate for adminship, and we do need more admins on India-related topics.--
'''Extremely Strong Support''' nom says it all. Helped me immensely when I was a newbie. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong support''' Good candidate; very helpful.
'''Damn.''' This user has a lot of edits. Seems to fit like a glove into every criteria: project involvement, seniority, promptness, civility&mdash;good luck!--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', per nom.&#160;—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to be a good admin material
'''Support''' per nom. Good work on India-related articles. [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Per all the above. --
'''Support 50''' --
'''Support''' -- [[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' per everything said above! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Okay.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Major Support''' Complete support. I totally believe Ganeshk is capable of becoming an editor and hope to see this nomination go through. I also hope to see Ganeshk as a Beaureaucrat someday!
'''Total support''' based on everything that I had already written in Ganesh's editor review. Why aren't more people piling on??'''
'''Support''' No problems here. [[User:Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''Mr.'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''L'''</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', with no reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Meeets my standards, excellent user... No reason to oppose :) <span style="text-decoration: overline underline;font-family:Segoe;font-size:70%"><font color="black">
'''Me too Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' -- Nice contributions and no issues.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - enter cliche here --
'''Support'''. A good editor .
'''Support'''.  I've only ever seen good things from this editor and know he'll be a 1st rate admin. --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Civil, professional, and helpful. -
'''Support'''.  Busy, civil, and calm.  --
'''Strong support''', I am been quite favorably impressed by the quality and breadth of Ganeshk's contributions that I've intersected with, and I'm not even around half of the Wikiprojects he works on!  Very professional and a major contributor.  Waste no time handing this one the mop. --
Happy to '''Support''' - <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''', due to the previous arguments, and the user's contributions.

'''REALLY STRONG SUPPORT''' great contributor, will make a great admin... '''
'''Support'''. Multilingual. Looks good and no reason to believe they'd abuse powers.
'''Support''' no hesitation supporting this candidate, excellent work all round. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support'''. I love to support good working users. :) -
'''Support''', excellent candidate. -
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support'''--
The nominator is one of those noms that comes up with good candidates regularly. Everything checks out. More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' -- from
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With 5,500 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' - Very good contributor.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]] despite 17 months here. Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 22% of his reverts (see Voice of All's log). This clearly shows he has been a stubborn POV warrior. And I almost forgot - he has a ''fair use'' image on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ganeshk/sandbox/partywise subpage].
Does not meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. Ganesh is heading in the right direction, though. -
'''Support''' as nominator.--
'''Support''' like last time --
'''Support''' I'm now thoroughly convinced editor is capable, calm, and kind.  No reservations any longer.
'''Support''' Per nom. --
'''Support''' like last time --
'''Support''' per nom and [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''. I could have sworn that he was already an admin. I seriously thought that his previous RfA was successful. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' Lots of edits, been around for a couple months, civil and very kind, should be a great administrator.
'''Support''' I saw some of his work at [[Talk:Jesus]].  Stayed cool in the face of some very frustrating circumstances. --
'''Support''' good user, good answers to questions, trustworthy nominator. everything appears to be in order.--
'''Support''' Has improved heaps since previous RfA.
'''Support'''. Nice work following through on the reccomendations of your last RfA.
'''Support'''. Same as last time.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Definitely ready now.
'''Support''', a reasonable editor, consensus-oriented. --
'''Support''' this solid and interesting editor.
'''Support'''. It is time.
'''Support''', I think he's been around long enough now to convince me that he won't repeat his conduct of a few months back.
'''Support:'''--
'''Support'''. Looks great. --
'''Support''' per all of the above.  Well deserved--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', per everyone else. -
'''Support''' as the items I felt were good qualities in him last time around have been upheld or improved upon since then. --
'''Support'''. It's time. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''. He will be a great admin.

'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gator1&diff=31343082&oldid=31342748]. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Certainly'''
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We've had our moments but he's always openminded and fair. He'll be a good admin - just don't neglect those pets! [[User:SOPHIA|Sophia]]<sup><small><font color="purple">[[User_talk:SOPHIA|Talk]]</font></small></sup><font color="#404040">
'''Support''' <cliche> --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''', anything I can do to aid the Gator.
'''Support''' Enough said. --''Signed by:''
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support'''
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;
'''Support''' great nom. Good examples of civility and AMA activity is a bonus. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">
'''Support''' per nom. - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Undoubtedly will be a useful admin. Agree with above also - very good nomination information. |→
'''Support''' &ndash; Go go gator! &ndash;
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Worked with this editor on a cat related article, and he will be a great admin. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Keep up the good work! --
'''Support''' per nomination.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. Huh? He's not one?
'''Support''', I think he's done a great job since the last RfA -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support.''' Another great candidate!
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
''''Support''', a little more in the mainspace would be nice, otherwise no complaints.
'''Support''', another excellent candidate. RfA is currently blessed with several amazing candidates.
'''Supported''' him before and I '''Support''' him once again.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support with proviso''' -- Good editor, good admin material ''but'' weak in English grammar. Please keep that in mind when wielding mop.
'''Support''' for 3 reasons A)Many contribs here and successful here like he is in life.  B)Uses the name of the college football team, the [[Florida Gators]]. C)All these people cant be wrong!lol:)--
Strong '''Support'''. A solid editor, with a good collection of crime-fighting experience. --[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
<b>Support<b>
'''Support'''.Contributions look good and he shows  knowledge of Wikipedia policy which are good assets for an admin.--
'''Highly Support''' I've watched Gator1 contribute and help reach consensus in some very conflicted discussions. I believe he will be an outstanding admin.--
'''Weak support'''. He was involved in some sort of content dispute but I don't remember what. I hope he's got over it. Otherwise looks OK.
'''Support'''.  this looks like a no doubter.
'''Support'''. Experience, check. Quality edits, check. Community participation, check.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' - seen his good work --''
'''Support''' and would've supported three months ago had I looked.  Apologies.
'''Support'''. Great editor. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. Has done some good work. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' no probs --
'''Support'''. Geez, how'd I not notice this yet?
'''Support''' This guy has ice water in his veins. His ability to remain calm when others would go nuclear is awesome.
'''Support''', seen him around, seems like a good guy. — <small>Mar. 15, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:06] <
'''Support''', edit summaries could be less chatty, but they are informative for the most part, and they are consistently present.
'''Support'''; Great anti-vandal work; plays well with others.
'''Support'''... There is nothing that would prevent me from this support. Good editor.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I've looked up much of the user's work on countering vandalism and he does seem to remain civil in heated discussions. Further adding to this vote of support is also the fact that there as just to many users here voting support are amongst those I respect on Wikipedia.--
'''Incomprehensibly Strong Support'''-- I've had nothing but good interactions with gator. Super strong support.
'''Support'''. I'm willing to give Gator the benefit of the doubt, and let bygones be bygones. His work in the latter months has been most impressive, and I hope he retains his humility as he rightly assumes the responsibilities of admin. Congrats, Gator. :) --
'''Bandwagon support''' &mdash;
'''[[Wikipedia:Times_that_100_Wikipedians_actually_agreed_and_voted_to_support_something]] level Support!''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
I just wanted to be part of the history Jeffrey mentions above. That Gator1 is a flawless candidate doesn't hurt.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I'm a little late to the party, so you don't need my support, but you deserve it anyway. Excellent response to the last Rfa and conduct since. -
'''Support'''. I have had no problems with this editor.

'''Support''', for sure. Gator is great. End of discussion. --His Imposingness, the [[Grand Moff]]
'''Support''' --
'''More Bandwagon Support''' &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
I'd ordinarily vote oppose in this case. I'm pretty concerned that the user has spent roughly equal time on Wikipedia: and related namespace as in the main article space. Further, there are less than a thousand edits in total (out of four thousand) in main. I realize the need for users to participate in the Wikipedia machine, but this smacks of a career of it. Hooooowever, my interactions with this user have been very good. As such, I can't bring myself to vote oppose. I will not be voting support, however. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
Yay, first '''support'''! --'''
'''Support''' Looks like a good contributor in all relevent areas of WP; well-written nom, too.  I don't think that the tools would be abused.
'''Support'''
<s>'''Oppose''' Come back when you have 20,000 edits. </s> '''Strong support.''' Good contributions and good answers above.
'''Support''' - per experience and extensive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=GeeJo&page= upload log] --[[User:T-rex|T]]-[[User talk:T-rex|rex]] 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)</br>'''Comment''' And those are just the ones on Wikipedia. I've uploaded far more [[commons:Special:Contributions/User:GeeJo|over on Commons]] :)
'''Strong Support''' a very good editor and a very positive nomination.
'''Support''' (...he's not already?) --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Support''' Some good contribs in DYK and excellent user page by the way --
'''Strong support''' High upload and edit count, as well as great answers to the questions. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support'''ing a Good Editor <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Support''' the amount of hard work this user is able to generate in such a short time amazes me.
'''Support''' seems to be an excellent candidate who has shown quite a commendable dedication to the project.
'''Support''' per above answers, is also a prolific contributor in writing articles and the improvements of them. see:  [[User:GeeJo/Gallery]] [[User:GeeJo/DYK]] :GeeJo also participates at the Wikipedia Reference desk. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=GeeJo&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=4] ▪◦▪
'''Support''' good answers and obviously experienced.--
'''Strong support'''- A very good editor.
'''Strong support''', excellent user. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I have no major concerns here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' and yes please, we need more admins who are knowledgeable about images. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per statement and answers. Good editor, has made valuable contributions, no troublesome issues.
'''support''' per all above. <small>(first Wikipedia contrib on Vista RC1!)</small> ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytal]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|'''56297''']] <sup>
'''Support''' - no problems here. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' looks good.--

'''Support''' This user needs the mop? Go for it and good luck to you.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I'm satisfied with the answers to questions 8a and 8b above.  I think I could find a few fine points to pick on but this is not the place for that kind of discussion.  Comment to Jusjih and GeeJo, I grant that Jusjih's explanation clarifies any ambiguity about whether he thought Chinese law applied to Wikipedia (Chinese or English).  I would have been willing to support Jusjih's RFA if he had clarified the issue better during the time that his RFA was open.  --
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Guess my vote''' Good user, I'm seeing his detailed DYK nominations all the time. He has a lot of experience as well.
'''Support''' this candidate.
'''Support''' yup.
'''Conditional Support''': I'd rather see this user spend more time in the RC patrol for once (per user talk edits). --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - familiar face on [[WP:DYK]] .
'''Support''', dedicated user and good answers to questions. --
'''Support''' Only 14 contributions to AfD since March is a bit of a problem, but the ones I've checked have substance. ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' 1000-edits-a-month-avg is decent. I love ur answer for '''Q.8b'''. I can see consistency in your edits. Plus most of ur edits are in project namespace. You're one of those backstage people, aren't you? I believe u'll make a great admin. Cheers. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I see him at the DYK area. '''
Super-duper nominator support. --''
'''Support''' - I have had the pleasure of fighting spam with this very level headed editor.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]
'''Support''' - Support.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' yes --
'''Support''' Not enough image talk contribs....just kidding!!! Looking at edit history, this user should be a shoe in for admin!!!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great editor with whom I've had at least side-interaction with quite a bit. Surprised he's not already an admin.
'''Suppport''', He's a keeper --
'''Strong Support''', one of the best.
'''Support''', absolutely.  Great editor who deserves the mop--
'''Support''' - Of course! <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Great job! Keep it up!
'''Support''' Without a doubt. --
'''Support'''. Edits look good, amazing amount of image uploads, FA etc. I'm only wondering about the wish to work on [[WP:AFD]] closings, with only 10 votes (5 of them in 7 March) on AFD articles...
'''Support''', looks great.
'''Support''', looks good to me.  Make that one mop to go. &ndash;
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Great editor, future great admin.
'''Support''' looks ok to me --
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, of course! <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Perfection in a crystal glass --
'''Support''' – A great editor '''''×'''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' sounds good, good luck.
'''Support''' excellent combination of talents.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Looks great. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Tireless.
'''Support''' per Patman2648. Can't believe this guy isn't an admin! -
'''Strong Support''', was going to nominate him, but someone got there first!  Will be a fantastic admin. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Ok. -
'''Support''' Definite. —<b><font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''', meets all of my RFA criteria. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor. —&nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' He would make a great admin. I heard he was a great vandal fighter.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Amazingly hard-working, truly dedicated Wikipedian.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Any reason not to support? --''Signed by:''
'''Support''': --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Strong support.'''
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} With a nom like that, who could refuse?  I'm impressed.  Give him another 3 jobs.  --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per nom. - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Great job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' per nomination.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support.''' Oh yeah!
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support'''!  I'm convinced by the nomination.  He's done great work for us already, and I like how he gives attention to [[WP:1.0]] on his user page. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' despite a troubling lack of image discussion. Just kidding. Great candidate.
'''Support'''. This one is a no-brainer.
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support''' this very fine editor. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -per nomination
'''Support''' Very qualified. (On another note, 74 is my lucky number!)
'''Support'''. (I've always felt extreme indifference to the number 75.)
'''Support''' - my second bandwagon vote in a row from the look of my contribs, but have noticed this editor many times for their quality edits. - [[User:Dharmabum420|dharm]][[User:Dharmabum420/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. Yep, me too!
'''Support''' no brainer.
'''Support'''. Dedicated editor. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - without a doubt --
'''Strong Support''' From his work on the Wikipedia 1.0 project, I know he's dedicated and hardworking, definitely the kind of person you'd trust with the mop and bucket.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' another good editor up for adminship. --
'''Support''' and good luck.
'''Support''', as it appears he is in what appears to be a wave of excellent users applying for adminship.
'''Support'''-- Appears to be a good prospect
With the waves of opposition in this RfA, I fear my vote might seem of little consequence.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good candidate, solid contributor. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' Don't mean to pile on here... &ndash;




Proud to be the first to add my support vote.-
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent VandalProof moderator, excellent user, all-around excellence. ''Vandals beware'', you're in for a scare. Will make an (excellent) admin.
'''Support''' - seems to be a good guy
'''Support''' - Very good VandalProof Moderator, also has been more then willing in helping me to develop some of my tools. ——
'''Strong support'''. Efficient, polite, friendly, helpful, experienced user that I for a long time thought was already an admin. --
'''...''' these type of happy, supportive and useful people are what wikipedia needs more of.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but good contributions from this user.
'''Support''' - ditto [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]]. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Daniel</font>]].
'''Support''' - Glen has come along very nicely as an editor.  He is knowledgeable about the policies and guidelines.  He is cogent and I think he'd be a wonderful addition to the list of admins.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' Seriously, he would do very well to have access to the extra buttons, as would Wikipedia.    I've been wanting to see some more Pacific candidates and the fact that Gien is a Kiwi is great, as he'll be active when much of Ireland, the UK, and the Americas are not.

'''STRONG <s>OPPOSE</s>''' ... err ... I mean '''support''' as co-nom.
'''Support''' <s>Terrific candidate</s> Strong candidate despite some rough edges shown in older edits as discussed in the oppose section ''(revision: 10:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC))''.  Based on his userpage there's something specific that I'd like him to look into, but I'll wait til the RFA closes before asking ;-).
'''Support''' - I've never come across him before, but seems like an excellent and sensible user.  It is always reassuring to find such people.  Keep up the great work!
'''Strong support''' as co-nom <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. Duh. '''<font style="background:black">
'''Support''', per Jorcoga. :D

'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' no brainer (and it's a good thing, because mine is in the shop) - <b>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' He will be a great admin in dealing with vandalism with all the tools at his disposal
'''Support.''' All of my previous interactions with this user indicate that he'll make an excellent addition to the team. Level-headed and productive, and no doubt even more productive with a few extra buttons.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''ed for being well-versed and having the experience of being told when wrong and correcting himself. Being able to adapt is an important quality. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oui'''!<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' Solid-looking editor, should be handy with the tools. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' per Jorcoga :P --
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support''', despite confusing username. Should be good addition to anti-vandalism force. Charge!--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' incredible work on anti-vandalism, excellent answers to questions.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' great editor. --
'''Support''' Definate commitment to WP, would make good use of the mop, esp when all of us are asleep. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<sup>[[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]</sup><sup>
'''Support''' Per this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKnowledgeOfSelf&diff=66512665&oldid=66487806 edit] to my talk page. J/K, but really I've been impressed with this user since returning to WP, I assumed he was an admin already. Nice nom(s) and answers to questions+good contributions=easy support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate -- <i>
'''Support''', certainly.
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Long overdue RfA''' --
'''Support''', deserves the mop and bucket :) --
'''About-damn-time support'''. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' meets my ''very high'' standards.  'Nuff said, this support has it's reason --
'''support''' well rounded. '''
'''Support''' good ratio of WP edits to main edits. --
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' I'm very impressed.
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Excellent work around the 'pedia. --
'''Very Strong Support''' Long overdue for an RfA, and he has been very helpful (almost like a mentor) to new VandalProof users (like me). Has cleaned up lots of vandalism around here, too. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
'''Support''' --
'''Ass-kicking avoidance-engendered support''' per, to name two, Hoopydink and Omnicron; consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my guidelines]]; and inasmuch as, even as I dabble in [[weight training]] and sometimes play [[judo]], Glen could surely beat me down in seconds...
'''Support''' - took a while to respond to a note on his userpage regarding my use of VandalProof (more than 24 hours), but was helpful regarding the issue.  Anyways, very good user overall.  -
'''Support'''. Yes. :) &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. I have strong reservations about the user's use of deceptive characters in his name, but I will look past that. Would ask the nom to consider a name change, as users may try to look you up as Glen when you're an admin.
'''Support''' '''<sub>[[User talk:J Di|talk to]]</sub>
'''support''' Pretty unconvincing opposes. No evidence candidate would make a bad admin. --
'''Support''' per nom. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Great candidate. I see no problems here.
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support''' make that four beautiful users in a row at the top of the RfA page. Very glad to see such brilliant talent being granted the tools for enhanced output on this site. Retail associates prove themselves, they get more responsibilities. So do Wikipedians. It's a system that's worked since the dawn of time. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Glen has been a responsible wikipedia editor and has demonstrated the qualities necessary for an administrator.--
'''Support''' I am honestly surprised he was not already an administrator, but I found in my interactions with him concerning [[WP:VPRF|Vandalproof]], he was responsive and helpful, and I have little doubt he would make a talented admin.--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Joiiiiiiiiin usssssssss, GIen. Joiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin usssssssss.'''
'''<nowiki>{{#ifexist:RfACliché|Support|{{subst:RfACliché}}}}</nowiki>''' <b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support <sup><small>(on wheels!!)</small></sup>''' ^^ what they said.
'''Support''', of course. '''
'''Support''' Duh. --

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. GI <strike>JOE</strike> en! And knowing is half the battle.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>
'''Support''' per digital_me.

'''Support'''.  There are a couple of diffs of slightly intemperate language listed under ";Oppose" that concern me a little, but I don't see any evidence of real incivility.  I hope as an admin his phrasing will err on the cautious side, and he comments below that "five months on I would absolutely phrase my thoughts in an appropriate manner."  I believe him.  Plus he clearly can use the tools and will be a real asset.
'''Support''' per nom & co-nom. We definitely are in need of admins watching the boards "after hours"; perhaps with GIen as an admin, I won't see the CSD backlog hit 150 much (or at all?). --
'''Support''' per nom and co-nom. --
'''Strong Support''' User is proficient at what he does and should adequately handle admin duties as well. --
'''Support'''. We need more help at CSD, but no help in deletions, but also in declining requests that aren't speedible. I think Glen can do the job.
'''Support''' and now for my non sequitor... 50 million elvis fans cant be wrong... &nbsp;
'''Support''' per [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]]'s nomination 'speech' --
'''Support''' will benefit by having the tools. --
'''Under the wire support'''
'''Cabal support''' VandalProof told me to :P
'''Weak Oppose''' Fails my [[User:Masssiveego/admin|criteria]].  --
'''Strong Oppose''' Theres a of antivandalism work and that's great.  But I'm concerned about how he handles himself in dispute with comments like: "I mean who really gives a flying f#@k?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tilman_Hausherr&diff=prev&oldid=45426307]. --

'''Oppose'''.  GIen's editing work shows he is really helpful to Wikipedia for his reverts of vandalism and small edits.  He overlooks and has handled lots of bad edits and vandalism.  I would really hope he would continue.  In addition, he has made real contribution in some creative areas.  His style is quick and decisive and, within his area of expertise, correctly done.  But he uses the same style in certain "button" areas, like the Scientology series articles, in his comments on discussion pages.  He isn't always right in areas outside Body building and vandalism reverts, but his curt, certain style doesn't allow that he might be making a mistake.  At his present level within Wikipedia he does a fine job, possibly better than anyone else.  But as an admin, I strongly oppose because an admin's job includes keeping editor's tempers cool and resolving disputes.
'''Oppose'''. Misuse of the promotional photo tag, shows the user does not grasp copyright issues on WP. See [[:Image:Metrx.jpg]], [[:Image:Phosphagen.jpg]] ect.--
'''Support''' Passes my criteria, and I am the first to vote
'''Support''' answers to preformat questions displays clear thinking. Good response to my question. Meets my criteria.&mdash;
'''Support.''' (double edit conflict) Goddamn it! I started typing my vote first! [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
(insert cliche about thinking that she was one already) '''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like a perfectly good editor; answer to question one plus the edit history demonstrates a requirement for the admin tools.
'''Support''' Good enough.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' as nominator. :) <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Good editor, giving my support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Everything looks fine here.
'''Support'''. Demonstrates the key criteria: need for the tools and trust. I agree that both elements exist.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Good editor who is likely to be a good admin. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' as co-admin coach. Impressive responses to various questions + scenarios brought up during the admin coaching. --
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Solid answers to questions, good editor.
'''Support'''. Good effort at admin coaching, good wiki mentality, excellent article contributions. And I'm confident in Firsfron's judgement. --
'''Support'''--perfect contributions, good dominate on wiki rules and seems neutral enough. Good luck to you.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Strong support''' per nom.
'''Support''' The additional tools given to her would only benefit this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Response to Q.4 shows clear thinking and to talk of using discretion in conjuntion with [[WP:IAR]] shows a mature attitude. I've seen Ginko around the vandalism arena previously and looking back I'm hard pressed to find anything unseeming. On a side note, and as an RCP, I couldn't agree more with their position on deletion of talk page warnings.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]].
'''Support''' Yeah, seems pretty good.
'''Support''' candidate seems to have the experience necessary to use the buttons, which I'm sure will prove to help her become a more efficient editor, and will therefore further help the project.  Seems to be quite dedicated and trustworthy, as well based on my brief overview.
'''Support'''. Well-rounded contribs, fine answers, no reason suggested that the user cannot be trusted.

'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' per above. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''&mdash;per nom and comments above. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' good work.'''
'''Passable Support''' for being here eight months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''', seems like a good user. Experience is definitely sufficient. Good answer to #4, as well. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Support''' Good mediator. --
'''Support''' Per nom, now for the [[WP:SNOW|snowfall!]]. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by

'''Late to the party, completely unnecessary, WP:SNOW support'''. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Support'''.
I am wary to give the block button to someone who thinks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Removing_warnings_poll&diff=prev&oldid=70800797 removing talk page warnings] is vandalism and grounds for blocking.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]]. A little more article building would be nice, but I am definitely leaning towards support.
'''Strong support''' as co-nominator.
'''Strong support''' as co-nominator. He'll make a first rate admin. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. (adding to the nominators' comments) I particularly admired how he handed a recent troll who had taken over all conversation on a talk page, by simply presenting well-researched facts that countered their claims and undermined POV "evidence". More recently in another article he has been handling some kids who really want to do the right thing by educating them in the ways of the Wiki without being at all harsh. In addition he's contributed heaps of really good photos, particularly to the Perth articles, <s>including a couple of featured ones,</s> and I feel he is an excellent standard bearer for the "Wiki" brand.
'''Strong support''' as co-nominator
'''Support''' -- a valuable, sensible editor who I trust will use administrator tools wisely. -
'''Support'''. Isn't he an admin already?
Well, all the admins Cyberjunkie has nommed so far have been ''excellent'', so I see no reason why you shouldn't be, either :) Support, does a good jobb. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - this user looks responsible and sensible. Roll out the big red button =) <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' You can set your preferences to force edit summaries before saving, so that is no big deal.  More participation in XfD discussions would be good as well.
'''Support''' per my co-nomination above.--
'''Support''' Have watched Gnagarra for a while and he is more than competent.
'''Support''' Come across him many times, and is very helpful, level headed, and trustworthy. All one needs to be an admin in my book. --
'''Support''' Umm..ditto. A diplomat and a good one, and good with editing.
'''Support'''
I'm
'''Support''' looks alright to me.--
'''Support''' with confidence that Gnangarra will use the tools well. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Support''' positive, confident editor.
'''Support''' Active in many branches of WP: space, so lack of AfD participation is not a reason to withhold the mop. ~
'''Support'''. Glad to support a fellow [[WP:PERTH|WikiProject Perth]] member! --
'''Support''' Very active editor; deserves the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - per Moondyne's nom --
'''Support''' Gnangarra is a fantastic editor and I have no hesitation in trusting him with the mop.
'''Support''' - good user, qualified for the tools.
'''Strong Support''' - a very skillful Australian editor that I 've seen around, most notably with the flora articles. '''
'''Support'': Plenty of edits and experience. I don't see any reason to not support this user. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' a good Australian candidate --
'''Support''' per answers to the questions. I think he would make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''&mdash;Reasonable edits on [[Perth, Western Australia]], [[Kings Park, Western Australia]], [[Banksia integrifolia]], [[All Saints Church, Henley Brook]], [[Mount Henry Peninsula (Western Australia)]], [[Swan River, Western Australia]], [[RuneScape]], [[Banksia brownii]], [[Fremantle prison riot]], [[Australian Ringneck]], [[List of schools in Perth, Western Australia]], [[Avondale Agricultural Research Station]], [[Kangaroo]], [[Banksia menziesii]], & [[Western Australia]]. Will do the job. Ausi, Ausi, Ausi… Skål - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' - longterm and obviously dedicated editor. Gnangarra's contributions have made the encyclopedia a better place, and I see nothing to suggest he would abuse the tools. -
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per answers to questions.
'''Support''' &ndash; I thought he is already an admin. ;-) &mdash;
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. '''''
'''Support'''. Despite the questions raised by Radiant, I believe you will make a competent admin.
'''Support''' Great candidate, convincing answers, valuable edits. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support''' Despite limited XfD experience, he has demonstrated the ability to do so well, and that is the important thing. A great editor all around, good a dealing with disputes which is also very important.
'''support''' he sounds nice and has good souloutions to problems
'''Kiwi Support''' per Williamborg and having 1 FA. That's enough for me. --

'''Support''' - Great recommendations and track record!
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' great editor.
'''Support''' - Seems like this editor would be an asset as an administrator.
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' A good role model for Australian users. [[User:Jam01|Jam]]<font color="green">

'''Support''' a level-headed and prolific contributor.

'''Support'''.  I have found Gnangarra to be a thoughtful and invaluable editor.  I am confident that the user will be an exemplary admin.  --
'''Support'''. A user who always seems to do the right thing, and he constantly pops up in my watchlist with good changes. That and he's a West Aussie.
'''Support''' Valued and trusted Wikipedian. I expect great things from this user. '''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' Seems the perfect candidate.--
'''Support''' Per norm.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Humble per Support #3.
'''Support''' Per nom,<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support'''-You're lucky I don't fear co-noms!
'''Last minute support''' --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Gnangarra appears to lack substantial participation in our various processes; many of his Wikispace edits are simply to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject AFL/Quiz]]. I see hardly any evidence of the "frequent irregular visits to AFD" mentioned, nor of several other of the glowing but vague praise given by the nominators. Of course, I'm not saying that there isn't any, but it appears to be rather exaggerated to me. (
I was looking through Gnangarra's history and this user seems to be fairly level-headed and I didn't run across any objectionable edits. However, Radiant raises a valid concern. I went looking for XFD participation prior to November and didn't really come across any. I'd support the request if the user were to be more active in that process. --
A random sampling of your diffs was generally favorable, but one deeply disturbed me. Starting small... it would be nice if you consistently used edit summaries. I was mildly disturbed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=84244579 this edit]. I would have opposed the rename per  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java&diff=next&oldid=84238450 this opinion], but it is difficult to understand how the merge proposal qualifies [[User:Dreddlox]] as a "vandal". Early sophistication is a poor argument for sock puppetry given that Dreddlox was likely a ([[Java (programming language)|Java]]) programmer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&diff=84881029&oldid=84880620 directed to] instructions from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java&diff=58854213&oldid=56509378 several potential locations]. I was deeply disturbed when you abandoned the appropriate channels for your suspicions in favor of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java&diff=84238450&oldid=84237795 declaring hasty accusations] on the [[Talk:Java]] discussion page. This action associated the entire merge request (and by extension, anyone who voted for it) with either insincerity or stupidity. This [[WP:BITE|bite-the-newbie]] behavior limits discussions, taints votes, generates resentment, and serves to degenerate sincere discussions into name calling; perhaps this is common behavior in the realm of politics, but disturbing behavior for someone seeking the mop. I understand that dealing with the same merge proposal more than once was tiring, but administrators should demonstrate an ability to deal with recurring (and even stupid) problems with more tact. Resorting to personal attacks is not the answer to such a fundamental problem (as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java&diff=84362784&oldid=84362476 your own advice] would suggest). Apply some creativity to the problem or prepare to see history repeat itself. May I suggest something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java&diff=89112882&oldid=87973682 this notice]. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a very proficient vandal fighter and is just the sort of person who would use the tools right without making a big deal. Also impressive in other areas. Looking at the talk page, also seems to be very willing to offer help when it is asked for - which is very often, I might add.
'''Edit conflict Support''' Looks like a good vandalfighter with a good spread of edits in the main spaces.
'''Support'''. I'm satisfied with the approach you take to vandal-fighting, and impressed with how frequently you take the time to warn vandals appropriately. I see no red flags, so there's no apparent reason not to support. :) [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''. I went hunting through the user's last 3 months of activity looking for red flags, but wasn't able to find anything concerning. Indeed, I came across a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishkid64&diff=prev&oldid=89873869 competence], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dabolim_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=82846577 humility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALuna_Santin&diff=86911672&oldid=86901540 lightheartedness] that made me reasonably comfortable. Gogo, you seem to be doing a great job. If you want to pick up the mop, I have no issue with it. --
Thought you already had the bit '''support'''. Excellent vandal whacking and wonderful demeanor when dealing with others; unlikely to abuse the tools.
I'm
I am
'''Support''' always see him reporting vandals, can't see why not. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' seems like a very great candidate, give him a mop! ←
'''Support per above. Dedicated editor, good record, no concerns.
'''Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A great vandal fighter and contributor to the 'Pedia. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Support''' Seen this user whacking vandals many times. Good work. --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Looks good. '''''
'''<small>edit conflicted</small> Support''' - whee, vandal stomper. ''And'' an article writer. Yes please. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Nominator Support'''. Somehow, I ended up as support #17 instead of Support #1 lol. '''
'''Support'''; user is a fine all-around contributor and a proficient countervandal, has need of the tools.
'''Support''' - he is an experienced editor and vandal fighter, and I am glad that he has been honest about his experience at [[WP:Afd]]. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' - We need more dedicated vandal fighters, and they need the tools.
'''Support'''; seems obvious to me.  Will be a fine admin.
'''Running around with no pants on SUPPORT!'''; I was about to nominate this user myself, but I was beaten to the punch. :) -→
'''Support''' - Slay vandal, win vote. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong Support''' due to the answers to questions (that was exactly what I was asking) and his civility with vandals.
support --
'''Support''' User is a good vandal-fighter, and I'm sure this user will also make a terrific adminstrator.
'''Oppose'''  Go get a life! You've only been around since April, and you've made 10,000 edits.  That's 50 edits a day- one every 30 minutes of your life, including sleeping.  So go get a life! Then again, if you REALLY want to become an admin, which will make you make many more edits and rot your brain....  then I '''support''' you for adminship. I'm really supporting you- that was just a comment.  :)
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
--
'''Support''' Dedicated vandal-fighter
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Strong candidate, Vandal fighter who could use the tools.
'''Support''', dedicated vandal-mopper, obvious need for the extra tools.
'''Support''', very careful and polite vandal fighter-- the way it should be done. We could only benefit from making him admin. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashi]]'''[[User:Ashibaka/b|<font color="orange">b</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''support''' prety good user.
'''Support''' Frickin' awesome....! <font face="Papyrus">'''[[User:Kyo cat/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0c0">K</span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Looking at the contribution record, I like all the vandalism reverts. I think we can benefit from your adminship. Please treat the office with respect.

'''Support''' Good editor and vandal fighter. -- ''
'''Support''' Wikipedia will benefit with Gogo Dodo as an admin.
'''Support''', very catchy username, and always good at AIV.
'''Support''', good vandal fighter, we need more admins with kind of dedication 10000 edits shows.
'''Support.'''  This user is great vandal-fighter, as everyone else has said, and takes the time to use the correct warning, usually with the "-n" informative add-on.  Additionally, s/he is always civil.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' strong candidate who seems very dedicated to cleaning up vandalism.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' reverting vandalism is a good thing.
'''Support''' admin tools help with vandalfighting. --
'''Support'''  Good contributer and an asset to Wikipedia. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.m]][[User:Dfrg.msc/EA|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Dfrg.msc|c]] <small><sup> [[User talk:Dfrg.msc|1]] .
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Vandal fighter ''and'' polite? With 10K edits? Heartily support. <font color="green">
'''Support'''--<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Strong support''' for The Alliance, of course.
'''Support'''- No reason not to.
'''Support'''- I have come across Gogo many times in the Survivor articles. He is always active in inmproving, editing, discussing arguments, and just being a great editor. [[Wikipedia:Editor review/TeckWiz#second time|editor review me!]]-[[User:TeckWiz|'''T''']][[User:TeckWiz/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' Vandal fighter? Yes sir!
'''Support''' - Friendly, impartial and policy abiding vandal fighter!
Gogogogogogo! —
'''Support''' due to good editing and wonderful Tiny Toons username.
'''Support'''. We need more fearless mopslingers like Gogo Dodo.
'''Support'''i'm not familiar with this user so i'm basing my vote on the answers to the questions and the user's talk page. it seems like this person is always ready to lend a helping hand. i'm a new user and i think that'll help me too.good luck! -
'''Oppose''' The majority of this user's support for adminship comes from his vandalism reverts. While a noble and needed cause this does not, in my opinion, qualify a person. User does not demostrate that he is fluent in the real requirements of an admin: indepth sysop understanding, an ability to understand and participate in article writing, dispute resolution, the often delicate art of combating POV and a firm grounding in enforement of the policies of wikipedia outside of blatant vandalism. There is no real established way that wikipedia will be improved my giving these types of users the reins of adminship. Despite this I heartily thank Gogo Dodo for his user level efforts at improving wikipedia.
Stomping, fighting, and so on, have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' - looks good, but a majority of edits seem to have been done with a script-supporty-automated thing (I'm missing a word in my vocab), also falls a little short of my criteria for rfa canidates of 9 months experience --
'''Neutral leaning strongly towards support''' - I would think an ideal admin would be involved in pretty much everything and not centered mostly around one subject (i.e. vandalism reverting).  However that's just my opinion of what an admin would be.  Since I can see no reason why he ''wouldn't'' be a good admin, I'll keep neutral but leaning towards support definitely. -
'''Neutral, leaning towards support''' per WarthogDemon.
'''Neutral, not leaning towards anything'''. Vandalism fighting using scripty stuff, while nice in cleaning up the encyclopedia, doesn't show that someone can use admin tools well. After all, you can't just mechanically do administrator things with an automated tool. I also can't overlook 1 Wikipedia talk edit; an admin candidate should have more policy discussion than that. -
While the vandal fighting is recommendable, I would prefer that this user becomes more familiar with process before becoming an admin. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 09:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral; I would still prefer more experience but see no reason to oppose. (
Me. ;) I've only seen good things from Goldom, I don't believe he'd abuse the tools at all. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support.''' [[User:FireFox/RfA|Will not abuse the tools]]. —&nbsp;
'''Support''', no clear reason to oppose. I'd like to see more Wikipedia space edits in the future, but that'd really be a bonus.
'''Edit conflict Support''' Seems to be trustworthy and hardworking.  Someone made an [[User_talk:Goldom#Ask_this_to_Aldux|unblock request]] on Goldom's Talk page, thinking that he was an admin already! <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. If I were to choose one word to describe Goldom, it would be... dependable! --
'''Support'''. Adequate time and number of edits. See no evidence of incivility. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoldom%2FArchive_1&diff=62318821&oldid=61924503 This dif shows Goldom can remain cool under fire and not escalate under provocation.]
'''Support.''' Good responses to questions, as well as reasons above.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. I haven't interacted with him before, but everything that I've seen here appears to be in order.
'''Support''' First off, Goldom has shown himself to be a strong, hard-working contributor. Second, I ''love'' his self-nom and his answers to the questions. It's obvious that he knows exactly what he wants to do on WP, he knowshow he can be helpful, and he knows what his strengths and weaknesses are. Just from what is written above, I can tell quite plainly that he doesn't think he's perfect (which is good, because nobody is), but that he does his absolute best in what he's good at. Despite not having any interaction with him, I think, from what I've seen in the past few minutes, that he'd make a very good admin. --
'''Support''' per Kicking222. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above.

'''Support''' looks good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per all good reasons above. '''<font color="Gray">[[User:The Gerg|Th]]</font><font color="Green">
'''Support''' per nomination statement.

Yes. - <b>
'''Support'''. Strong candidate. Good answers to questions.
'''Support''' - looks good
'''Support''' good luck!
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Thank you for running. --
'''Support''' per answers to questions.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' No problems with this editor that I can see. --
No reason not to... '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', of course. Excellent credentials, and I liked his answers. Another mop over here, please! ;) [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' trust with tools.
'''Support''' as he's trying to help me out now with a sockpuppet that is attacking me, but he doesn't currently have the admin tools to simply block the sock... yeah, of course I trust him with the tools. ;P -
'''Support''' Seems sensible and level-headed.--
'''Support''', fine.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support,''' please help us with the backlogs!!!--
'''Support''' - no brainer here --
'''Support'''. Well thought out and reasoned answers and nomination.
'''Support''' Thoughtful, no problems handing him a mop.
'''Support''' Very good answers to the questions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for good statement and answers to questions. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', clean history, understands policy, no civility issues, fine candidate. --
'''Strong support'''. Goldom meets my 2k edit requirements, passes civility, is knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies, good nomination statement + reasons for needing the tools, and has some good answers to the above questions. I looked at his talk page and recent contributions, and see nothing troubling. Good to go. --<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' An accomplished editor who will make good use of the admin tools. I've seen his work at [[WP:AIV]] and other places and he's impressed me with his good judgement.
'''Support''' Don't see any issues here.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Deserves the promotion.
'''Support''', definitely does good work, and definitely could use the tools --
'''Support''' - Well balanced and dedicated. Can be trusted with the tools. -
'''Support''' excellent user all around.
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria.  --
'''Sorry, no FA.''' -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Neutral'''. Fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]] by having much less than 200 main talk edits. I would like to see more article development/interaction.
'''Strong Support'''. '''
'''Strong Support''' per very good editor, very good answers to questions, and a very well written nomination.
'''Support''' looks fabulous --
'''Strong support''' I normally don't like cliches, but when I saw this I actually had to check his deletion, block and protection logs to verify he wasn't already an administrator.
'''Support''' - looks good to me<s>, but I'd prefer mainspace edits more than WP space edits</s>. --
'''Strong support''' the personification of the ideal Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Experience is exactly what I looked for and I see it. Should get the mop. &mdash;
'''Support''', very promising.
'''Support''' [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|18px]] I trust Blnguyen wouldn't nominate a candidate not suitable, apart from that I've seen this user around a few times myself and by the answers they look quite eager and prepared for admin. According to Blnguyen has been contributing heavily to many articles too, also apparently passes the classic 'Diablo Test'. Even though they haven't conjured a huge amount of edits, possibly because translating pages takes along time? :) Partially passes my [[User:Andypandy.UK/RfACriteria|criteria]] too!--<font style="background:white">
Support, with no misgivings. This is what adminship is for, and translation work is particularly appreciated. (And thanks to Blnguyen for the thorough nomination.)
'''Thought-he-was-already-cliche Support''' Honestly. -
'''Cliche Support'''. No seriously, you aren't one already? Great contributor, great answers, and great nom.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' seems to be a good guy
'''Support''' As adminship is 'no big deal' I see no reason not to :) --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' Looks like a strong candidate for the mop and bucket. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate for adminship and would make great use of the extra tools per his answers to Q1/Q2
'''Support''' - Great work. He forgot to mention his participation in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Porto|WikiProject Porto]]. For his participation in the deletion discussions, he'll certainly know how to use the tools. <s>[[User:Afonso Silva|Afonso Silva]]</s> 08:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) - I changed my username.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' - I know from experience that tranlsations can be hard work, so I'm very impressed with the volume he has completed. --
My salutations to this great user. --
'''Strong support''' with great pleasure.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per the very thorough nomination.
'''Grand Supportka''' Very qualified candidate.
'''Strong support''' meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my criteria]] and more! —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' Meets my [[User:TedE/Administrator standards|criteria]] for administer.  Thanks also to the nominator for providing enough information to evaluate this candidate.
'''Support''' I've seen the Grandmaster's work all over Wikipedia and he'll make great use of the tools. Welcome aboard.
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely; I have seen great contributions from GrandMasterKa. And I don't think there's anything about this user that goes against [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|my standards]]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor.
'''Speedy Close per [[WP:SNOW]]'''. You are the recipient of the inaugural Crzrussian {{cliche}} which I have not bestowed upon any RfA candidate yet. Crazy name recognition = avalanche support. - <b>
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''OMG Support!!''' Excellent editor, a class act.
'''I'm [[Minnesota Wild|Wild]] to support! --
'''Support''' He really ''deserves'' admin tools ;) --
'''Support''' 'Bout time. --
'''Support''' For a man with less than 4000 edits, he has all the experience I want from an admin, and, by the way he presented himself, I've often mistaken him for an administrator anyway. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''', very good editor.  --'''[[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:blue">Dom</span>]][[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:red">th</span>]]''[[User:Domthedude001/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]''[[User:Domthedude001|<span style="color:#FFBF00">dude</span>]]
'''Support''' per above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per well written nom and answers.
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Cliché support'''
'''Baa'''
'''Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Moo''' per Jaranda. xD Really '''strong support'''. ~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <small>([[user talk:cchan199206|talk]]/
'''Keep''' (stolen joke '''support''')
Yet another seriously-thought-he-was-already '''support'''. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Shows great leadership in his active participation at [[WP:PNT]]. -
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Strong Support'''- He is good wikipedian, and he always work a lot for becoming admin. I would also highly recommend this user for admin.
'''Strong Support''' - Perfect for the job. Good wikipedian <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support''' kind, civil, and qualified Wikipedian who would be a great asset to the admin corps. What more can I ask for? --
'''Support'''. Overall, this looks like a good candidate for adminship, though I do see some indicators that he may be (what I regard as) excessively strict in some cases.  For example, as I did some random spot-checks through his editing history, he added the "ad" template to one page, along with a strong edit summary, though the page looked appropriate to me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerald_G._Fishman&diff=next&oldid=56767110], and I have some minor concerns with actions around [[Talk:New Chronology (Fomenko)]] where he took it upon himself to delete other users' comments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29&diff=prev&oldid=52500074]  Yes, a few of the comments were excessively long, but there were other ways that the situation could have been dealt with, such as (1) archiving the page and starting fresh; (2) first posting clear instructions on "How to use a talkpage"; (3) start off by trying to educate people on their own talkpages about how to be better Wikipedia participants; or (4) [[WP:REFACTOR|refactoring]] just the excessively long messages; before jumping into what he did, which was (5) deleting a large section of the page, and/or editing other people's comments because he felt they were OT [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29&diff=next&oldid=55638433]. Looking at later actions though, it looks like he did try some of the other methods over the next few weeks though, so I find this encouraging.  :) Also, the above actions were what appear to be isolated occurrences, in a history of many hundreds of other good, worthy, and civil edits. In other words, I don't see any compelling reason to oppose adminship. This is a good Wikipedian, well-deserving of admin access.  :) --
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support'''.  Have seen around, will be great admin.  I agree with Elonka's first point about the harsh edit summary, but like she said, not a big deal in context.  --
'''Support''' for sure.
'''Support''', no doubt about it. '''
RfA cliché #1 '''Support''' &mdash; <font face="tahoma" COLOR="#C11B17">
'''Strong support.''' Will be a solid admin. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' Per answers well-reasoned nomination statement.
'''Absolutely'''. <b>
'''Support''': Of course. --
'''Support''': just remember adminship requires tedious work :). It's like being a retail associate ^_^ &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The "real AFD regular" --
Eu '''suporto'''--
'''Strong Support''' Seen alot around AfD and quite surprised the sysop bit is not already set --
'''Support''' <s>Following the trend.</s> Keep up the good work. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', definitely behaves like one. Don't worry, you'll get someone vandalizing your page soon. <small>Finally, someone found the documentation of the vandals in my user page useful... <tt>:P</tt></small>
'''Support'''. Hats off to the translators. I have seen him in AFD and he has good edits should be a good one.--
wow, what a Grand nomination. I think Blnguyen has Mastered the art of writing good ones. But the candidate deserves every word. "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' ++
'''Strong support''', great editor--
'''Support''' Seems friendly enough for me, intelligent, and willing to do the work. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''. Good editor and will grow into the role. Premature FA nomination (now failed) for the [[Museum of the Portuguese Language]] article suggests that there is still more to be learnt, but otherwise no qualms. Good luck!
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' from [[Bloomington, Minnesota|Bloomington]], per nom.  --
'''support''':
'''Support''', not like he needs it at this point. -
'''Support''' Good user...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' Great edit history, impressive contributions. -
'''Pile-on Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent candidate to me
'''Pile-on Support''' --
'''Support''', I'm late, but I would have nominated him after my current break.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''; always impressed by this editor's contributions at PNT, and am sure the bestowal of adminship is in the best interest of the articles
'''Support''' A name I'm familiar with. Great work, good answers to the question below. There's always plenty of deletion-related work to do, and Grandmasterka seems to understand the deletion policies well. <b>
'''Support''' - well overdue -
'''Support''' - Very good history of community service and diligance. -
'''Support''' - Overall, seems to be like a good editor and should make grater positive contribution as an admin.--
'''Strong support'''. - a deserving candidate.
'''Support''', and I hereby *snatch* the coveted 100th spot for myself! ;) My interactions with him couldn't have been better; thoughtful, professional and very dedicated. The kind of admin you can blindly rely on. You are great, GMK!
101 support! <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''
Minnesota '''support''': good editor.
'''Support''' it's-a-pile-on-so-it-doesn't-really-count-except-for-the-symbolism support.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' I don't think it's proper of an administrator to tell hard-working Wikipedians to "get a life" (Qute: ''I respectfully request that the author get a life.'', from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Olympic_Medal_Statistics:_Medal_Count_Winners|this Olympic Medal Statitics AfD]]). [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]], right? &ndash;
'''Weak Oppose''' Feel I must agree with Damsleth above, I do not feel that such comment in an AfD are appropriate, especially for a potential adminsitrator. Apart from that appears to be an excellent user. --
'''Lol I beat both the noms support'''. Gee, I wonder if you'll pass? -
'''Support'''. Maybe it's the pressure of not yet having my Christmas shopping done, but I'm racking my mind to recall seeing this user. I was trying to do so because it always gives me pause when the nomination lays it on so thick, which triggers my overdeveloped sense of scepticism. So rather than rushing to respond (which isn't something I do in any case), I took time to go through the nominee's contribution history and to all the other useful things one can look at in assessing a candidate. Happily, this nominee seems well suited to the tools and I am happy to support.
'''Strong support''' Unquestionably. --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me! The only candidate I can recall (other than myself) with more Wikipedia: edits than mainspace edits at the time of their RfA.
'''Strong Support'''. Sysop's Choice<sup>TM</sup>. Well put, Crz. '''
'''Support''' - great wikipedia.  If CRZ is that strong a support as to nominate, I support too.
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions, seems like a fine candidate.  Wikipedia needs more admins. -
'''Support''' per noms. //
'''Strong Support''', slightly belated, from the co-nominator.
Looks good, plenty of experience. I especially like the varied afd comments - a mixture of keeps and deletes, always with reasoning provided.
'''Support''' looks like a responsible, experienced editor.
'''Support''' This is actually the first prospective admin whom I genuinely thought, as the cliché goes, already to be one.  In any event, whilst I would surely have supported this RfA irrespective of the participation of others here, I cannot imagine that anyone supported by the ever-exacting and eminently reasonable Xoloz, Crz, and Amarkov should ever fare poorly here.  I wonder, in fact, whether we might get [[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]] and [[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] to support here (this is not, to be sure, a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] and is offered jocularly).
'''Strong Support''' knew he wasn't an admin because I'd looked into nominating in the past.
'''Support''' with pleasure. --
'''Support''' although DRV could use another hand... ~
'''Support''' Will have good use of tools, trusted editor.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''', I'd always thought this one was an admin already. But as apparently that's not the case, that needs fixed! Excellent editor.
yes, of course --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - looks good, I like the WikiPhilosophy, excellent nominators, no reason why not.
I'm
'''Support''' Everything seems in order.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<span style="color:DarkRed">''sign here''</span>]]
'''Support''' No hidden agenda as per [[User:GRBerry#POV_risks_and_Affiliations|POV risks and Affiliations]] section on your talkpage. I've also appreciated your discussions and the way you dealt w/ reliable sources at [[Talk:Mami Wata]]. Deserved and welcome to the board. -- ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good choice.
'''Support'''. I trust the nominator.
'''Support''' per nom. Mainspace edits a little low in comparison to everything else, but that's not really a problem. --
'''Support''' per noms and Amarkov.
'''Support''' as per the noms.
'''Support''', all checks out very good.
'''Support.''' Almost ''too'' qualified. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' excellent candidate.--
'''Support''' as per above. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
Eu '''apoio''' este utilizador.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Number 40? :) Wow. Nom support. - <b>
'''Support'''-Great user. Only thing that I wish is that he doesn't make XFD too primary, LIKE he stated because other things are important too. And on an unrelated note, this is my 2,000 th edit! [[User:TeckWiz|'''T''']][[User:TeckWiz/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:TeckWiz|'''ckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Support''', obviously --
'''Support''': Looks like an easy one.  He's aleady correcting admins that miss steps in processes!  —
'''Support''' Outstanding.
'''Support'''. Haven't always agreed with him, but seems like a good candidate for adminship.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Looks like this RfA will pass easily, and rightly so, but I'll just pile on my support, too. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', per nom(s) &mdash;
'''Support''' appears to be an excellent editor.
'''Support''' Great Job! -
'''Support''' - well-qualified candidate, good statement and answers, no issues.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Do I really need to state my reason? &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Support''' strong candidate, impressive noms.
'''Strong Support''' - User is logical and careful. Seems to always have a clear sense of what's right. Strong support! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support''' One of the best users of this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Solid candidate with excellent reputation
'''Support''' I've never come across this candidate, but his contributions look stellar, and I trust the judgment of both of his nominators --
'''Strong support''' given past experience with this user over at AfD, as well as answers to questions. --'''
'''Support''' - Happy Holidays --
'''Support''' though if this had been a self-nom I would have opposed had the candidate written a statement similar to Crazyrussian's. I don't intend to penalise the candidate or raise the point further here though. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' valuable, responsible editor. Lots of AfD experience.
'''Support''', and merry Christmas.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' - May very well have the best user page on wikipedia.  If not for lack of experience within the image namespace this would be a strong support --
'''Support''' - GRBerry's AfD participation suggests a strong knowledge of policy and a commitment to Wikipedia's principles.
'''Hooray!'''
'''Support''' - Often see him around, respect his decisions
'''Support''' One of the best in a while. I'm very confident he will be a great admin here. ←
'''Support''' One of those guys you always see around saying and doing sensible things. Surprised to find he wasn't an admin yet. -
'''Support'''. You're doing such a great job as it is that I'm almost tempted to oppose. You're going to make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''', Without question or reservation. This is someone who I actually thought was an admin already! --
--

'''Support''' Everything seems to be well in order here. <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' Great user! --
'''Strong Support''' Have what it takes to be an admin and will use tools wisely.--
'''Support''' - changed from neutral.
'''Support''' I thought you were a sysop already.... '''
'''Support''' quality AfD work.
'''Support''' Shows good understanding of policy and good judgement.
'''Support'''. If this didn't end tomorrow, I'd say "[[WP:100]], anyone? --
'''Support''' ''Sysop's Choice''
'''Strong Support''' Great Wikipedian that is there to help if needed. Shows excellent leadership throughout his edits. --'''
'''Strong Support''' Has deep knowledge of WP, and is quite skillful at resolving conflict in ways that improve content - improving content is at the core of WP.
'''Support'''
Unfounded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_3&diff=prev&oldid=92266714 "abuse of discretion"] accusations.
'''Support''' It is a great honour for me to be able to be the first supporter of this excellent user. I am not sure how you are not an admin already!!!
'''Support'''. I understand Joturner's objections in regard to few edits within the last 3 months. This is certainly a concern. I think, however, that this is far outweighed by the depth of this editor's contributions to Wikipedia, particularly in work related to administrative tools. He has an [[:Image:BDSM collar back.jpg|incredibly cool featured picture]] (dare I say, one of the best I've ever seen), spectacular use of edit summaries, and has been around here for time enough to have a cool perspective. It's my honor and pleasure to support him.
'''Support''', don't see why not.
'''Support'''. Why should we punish people for not being active all the time who are clearly qualified and trustworthy to handle the tools nicely? People have lives outside of Wikipedia and just because someone may not be active all the time does not mean that they are not worthy of the tools. It just means that his helpful janitorial edits may be a bit fewer than other administrators if he isn't active all the time, but a little sysop help is much more beneficial than no sysop help. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Support''' I can't oppose because of a drop in edit frequency. I feel that there is enough information to establish a perspective, and evidence to support considerable administrative usage, especially since you are not a burned out user. I actually like that you are going for adminship with a ''refreshed'' attitude. Besides, administrators only hurt the community when they abuse their tools or, as a group, do not perform the janitorial duties. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' per nom - <b>
'''Relaxed, late-breaking nominator support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' Cliche!
'''Support''' Very good editor. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' Any ulterior motives must be gone by now! :)
'''Support'''. The apparently scanty interaction with other users due to few edits to article/user/project talk spaces is a minor concern; but the great experience he shows in other areas, combined with the long time he's consistently invested in the project easily compensates for this.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my criteria]] —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' Edits show a fair and even handed approached. Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' long term and quality editor -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' The fact that you do have a life outside Wikipedia makes me support you even MORE!
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' BDA has high standards.'''
'''Support''' per one of [[User:Tariqabjotu/DSoDD|my standards]]: (h) taking into account other editors' comments, the recent inactivity should not be a problem. Grendelkhan's answer also provides some reassurance. -- '''
'''Support''' This user is a great contributor and deserves the admin tools. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' Seems like a very strong user who has done a great deal for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Nice amount of edits Grendelkhan. -
'''Support''', I thought you were an admin already... --
'''Support''': fine. --
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' per nom, three years and 7,000 edits?  Now where did my RFA cliché template wander off to...
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' - per nomination -- [[User:PerfectStorm|P]]<font color="green">[[User:PerfectStorm/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Seems like a perfectly reasonable and hard-working fellow. Also, hey, Grendel Khan! With fury and grace, eh? --
'''Support''' Looks substantive.--
'''support'''. looks good.
'''Support''' per, inter al., [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]], who expresses more cogently than I have yet the idea that, where a user is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even through ignorance) the admin tools, he or she ought to be supported for adminship, even where he or she intends to use the tools infrequently: ''a little sysop help is much more beneficial than no sysop help''.
'''Support''' per Cowman et al. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Adminship is '''No big deal'''. In three years, this user hasn't convinced me that they will abuse the mop, no matter however few edits the user has made recently. Good luck! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Not needed but happily given Support''' - experienced editor who probably should have been "mopped" a long time ago :) -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' a lot of distinct page edits, been here a while. I'm happy.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. You clearly deserve the [[Wikipedia:Administrators|mop]]. --
'''Support'''. <s>Why?</s> Why not? --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom.  Substantial contributions and a long time editor who should make proper use of the tools.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Established editor with good edit history. No "oppose" is a testament to this. '''
'''Hrm I honestly thought I already supported Support''' He's obviously qualified and I really like his willingness to spend some of his valuable time keeping an eye on [[WP:IFD]] doing some RC patrolling with his new tools.  I haven't seen many recent RfA candidates citing the wish to cleanup the images and media for deletion backlog for wanting the tools, and he'll certainly be of great help to Wikipedia in that respect
'''Support'''. Over qualified. Good luck.
'''Support''' - Why would I oppose? '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Support''' Meets all of my criteria --
'''Speculative Fictional Support'''
'''Support''', naturally. Longstanding contributor with good edits.
'''Oppose''' For the same reason I gave on Misza13's rfa. (Or one of the reasons.) I find the huge number of support votes incredible. And on top of that, because of what Joturner says concerning date that all these edits were made,  though the number is impressive, I wonder if this editor will be here much now. If not, what is the point? There also is an enoromous number of the same support voters (or clique members) in many, if not all, of the current rfa's. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">[[User:Lingeron|Sha]]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">
'''Big time nominator support'''. I think I said it all above.
'''Strong support''' I've worked with Gryffindor on several occasions.  Very good, valuable contributor. Levelheaded and polite.  Will be an even more valuable member of the pedia with the mop.  Go to it, Gryff!  --
'''Support'''; everything looks in order, but try to work on those edit summaries. They are important.
'''Support'''. Meets my [[User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards|standards]]. --
'''Support''' - strong candidate with positive appoach -
'''Support'''. His image work is fantastic, and he is very thorough in copyright questions. When he and I have disagreed (usually on naming conventions questions), he was always polite and nice. I also like the answers to questions 2 and 3.
'''Support''' I have slight concern with his low edit summary numbers, but everything else looks great. Given the sheer number of mainspace edits, I am highly surprised that he wasn't nominated earlier.
'''Support''' Looks like he'd make a good admin. <small>
'''Support''', I see no problem.
'''Support''' Read his admin coaching page & he seems like good admin material. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' He's a good admin candidate. I'm pedantic about spelling and grammar, though. Please be mindful of these, Gryffindor -
'''Support''' The sorting hat says: "Hmmmmm...Cabal House."--
'''Support'''. Completely trustworthy. -
'''Support.''' Good editor, will make a good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good admin candidate. --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers. --
'''Support''' - Wow! Your answers to the questions are the longest I've ever seen - practically essays! :) A friendly and courteous Pedian - good luck!
'''Support''' - per all of the above.  Great editor and deserves the promotion--
'''Support'''- Friendly, enthusiastic, and hardworking.--
'''Support''' A simply brilliant Aussie --<b><font color="teal">
'''Extreme "Oh, no! Not another cliche!" support''' - great guy. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Good guy.
'''Support''' Does rock solid work, reliable.
'''''Support'''''  Great, personable contributor and an asset to Wp.  And for those wishing to preclude his adminship based on 3RR, ''noone'' is a paragon of virtue.  Get over it.
'''Easy Support'''. Easy. --
'''Strong Support''' A brilliant user. Will be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per TBC. &mdash;
'''Admin coach support''' to a responsible, courteous, and kind Wikipedian with an excellent grip on policy. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
Wha... He's not... '''Support!''' But use more edit summaries, ok?
'''Support''' definitely. --
'''yes, Si, oui, jawohl''' A capable multilingual admin
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Would be a good admin. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''', got a great coaching. very good
<s>'''Oppose''' because I'm a Ravenclaw</s> '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Meets my requirements over 100%. Great edit count. Oh. and besides, I'm a fan of Harry Potter and my favorite house is Gryffindor. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support'''. of course. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good editor, though an annoying signature.
'''Suppport'''. A trustworthy user. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' despite our ongoing dispute as to Gryffindor's interpretations of [[WP:NPOV]]. --
'''support''' sehr gut.
''"Adminship is no big deal."'' -
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' as above.
'''Super gigumbous support''' just one of those guys...
'''Support''' great user! Keep the edit summary usage up though.. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Appears to be an excellent editor and I'm really impressed with [[User:Gryffindor|<font color="red">Gryffindor</font>]]'s response to the 3RR issue. Too many editors whine and rationalize away their mistakes but [[User:Gryffindor|<font color="red">Gryffindor</font>]] admitted the mistake while also explaining what happened. I'm sure [[User:Gryffindor|<font color="red">Gryffindor</font>]] will make a great admin.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  As the person blocking Gryffindor for the Terrible Crime of 3RR, I draw the opposite conclusion to those commenting/opposing on those grounds:  to wit, that when he makes a mistake, he is capable of acknowleging it, as ALboy comments, and that he's capable of learning from it.  (I've no doubt that it was indeed a matter of good-faith intent, and an incomplete understanding of the rule.)  That's surely a better recommendation than "has never made a mistake" (which is not only unlikely, but would implicitly be qualified "... so far").

'''Support'''
'''Support''', despite the fact that he's in the wrong [[Hogwarts Houses|House]]. But work on the edit summaries. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[User:Hermione1980|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''support'''
'''Support''' Perhaps not a "born admin" in terms of what is planned for the tools, but a great Wikipedian who will grow into the post.
'''Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' of course. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''', should make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on past experiences and his sincere desire to improve the project.
'''Support''', yup.
'''Support'''. One of the people I consider most suited for adminship. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' - should do fine from what I've seen over at the [[Wikipedia:German-English translation requests]] project
'''Support''' - I hope we find many more of this kind of Wikipedians ;-)
'''Support''' Because he voted for me in the [[WP:ESP|Esperanza]] elections. Wait, did he? Oh, whatever, he's a good guy. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
Automation for edit summary reminding has been around for a while now. There is NO reason to have a low percentage of edit summaries any more, and that needs to be corrected going forward, IMHO. Still, that flaw is handily outweighed by all the positive aspects of this user. Sehr Güt! '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''.
'''Support per [[User:Utcursch|utcursch]].
'''Support''' Edit summaries looking better, very positive contributor. Messy userpage though ;) .:.
'''Support''' A rather late admin coach pileon support, but this editor really deserves this mop. Hard working, diligent, good admin material. '''''
'''Support''' Good candidate --
'''Support''' Good candidate, however, the stunt with the redlink signature is not amusing. :).
'''Support''': Have observed candidate's style in many differnt places, and he is very capable. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' - Great contribution to wikipedia. - Aksi_gr
'''Support'''.  A great user from what I have seen, with a potential to grow as an admin.  Not impressed with the opposition arguments.&mdash;
'''Support''', someone please check that I hadn't supported before... <tt>;)</tt>
<small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good editor and thoughtful and (long) answers to questions.
'''support''' - anyone without at least one 3rrv isn't trying hard enough :-)
--
<s>'''Oppose'''. I only support members of [[Slytherin]] house.</s> '''Support''' The [[Sorting Hat]] told me to change my vote.
'''Oppose''' 3rr violation. --
'''Oppose''', sorry. I feel bad opposing someone who is obviously committed to the project, but to be consistent and fair to other candidates I feel I have to apply my own personal standards consistently. My reasons for opposing are: 1. I think someone who has had "admin coaching" should have a ''much'' higher edit summary usage. I would expect both minor and major edits to be closer to 100% than the 33% he has for minor edits. 2. I'm impressed with the number of contributions he's made to the mainspace, but I'm unimpressed with the (relative) number of edits to project space (265 out of 9148). 3. The fact that until a couple of weeks ago he had never even heard of Willy on Wheels makes me think he is inexperienced in some area but I'm honestly not sure whether it's because he doesn't participate in project space or whether he's not involved in vandal fighting or if it's something else, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable about the level of experience in admin related areas. 4. Just from scanning his contributions, it seems that most of what he does is creating redirects, adding pictures from commons, adding extra bits of info etc. I might have missed something, but I fail to see any editing activity that warrants admin tools. I don't believe that wanting to see how the rollback button works is a valid or relevant reason for granting adminship. Nor is wanting to be a mediator in NPOV conflicts since this can be done entirely without adminship. So, sorry, but I feel I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''': though this editor has progressed, I have to agree with much of what Sarah said. Not ready yet.
'''Neutral'''. It would be much better to use edit summaries more often, including for minor edits.--



Obviously, as nominator. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Support'': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support''' and hope this won't be turned into a farce once again. --
'''Support''' Why not!!
'''Support'''. I trust Essjay's judgment, and after going over the evidence, I believe it is at least six months past the time Guanaco should have been granted adminship. --

'''Support'''.  I have examined Guanaco's contributions since the last RFA.  I find a committed editor working on cleanup, RC patrol, and mediation, including deftly handling some of our most controversial articles.
'''Support''', will be an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Wha...? You mean he's not...''' How can we have a [[Llama|Peruvianllama]] as an admin and not a [[Guanaco]]? '''Support''', and start searching for possible alpacas and vicunas to nominate!
'''Support''' as I did the last two nominations.-
'''Support''', very good handling of controversial topics. <font style="color:#FF1111"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC1111"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><sup>(
''Signed by:''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' unconditionally.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' -- Good pick.
'''Support''' Read Guanaco's RFAr, and frankly the desysoping seems a bit harsh.
--
'''Support''' the birth of the [[Lama (genus)|Lama Cabal]]!! But in seriousness, per [[User:Borisblue|Borisblue]], the RfAr decision seemed out of line with the evidence they presented. Re-adminship is now overdue. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' His past is his past and I'm sure he'll make a good administrator. <small>
'''Support''' Wow... looks like there's a lot of editcountits at RfA today! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' should be fine. --
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' confident that this editor will not abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' Guanaco for the first time. Has been doing good work.
'''Support'''; this user has shown a great maturity in dealings with him on the Mediation Committee.
'''Support''', work at the Mediation Commitee seems solid, I see no potential for abuse here, and since adminship is no big deal I am happy to support a good contributor who has earned the trust of the community.
'''Support'''. He's been contributing here for as least as long as I have.  In all that time he's had his problems here - who hasn't?  He also has lots of horrible user boxes on his page!  Apart from that nowadays his edits and useful behaviour around the place suggest he is the sort of person who can be trusted with admin tools.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''', as before. --
'''Support'''. I think Guanaco has learned.
'''Support''' No problems here. Deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''', I agree, no problems here.
'''Support'''. I think Guanaco's paid his dues since desysopping and his behaviour since then has been great. I so no reason not to promote. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' - why not try [[WP:AGF|assuming a bit of good faith]] once in a while?  Smart, knows his stuff, and I'm sure that people will keep an eye on him, even though they really shouldn't need to.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Support''' "Not a big deal."
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as usual.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' --
Whole-hearted support. I believe that at this point, Guanaco would be less likely to abuse admin abilities than most successful nominees. &ndash;
'''Support''' trying to see the good in people. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
I don't normally vote.  This is borderline, and Guanaco most certainly should be an admin.
'''Support'''. I need not a reason. I think Guanaco is a very valued contributor and deserves the role of an admin. --[[User: XenoNeon|XenoN]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Hope you do better this time... Seriously though, you seem to have gotten your act together and I would be bitterly disappointed if the community didn't support your return to adminship. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''
'''Supportaco'''.
'''Support'''. I believe that he realises that he has made mistakes, has undertaken not to make them again, and so should be given another chance. --
'''Support'''. Would clearly be a good admin. Since desysoping seems to be becoming less of a big deal, resysoping should also be less of a big deal.
'''Support''' I believe in second chances and he';s earnede it this time.

'''Support''' I would be pleased for Guanaco to again become an administrator.  Guanaco's adminship was removed as a result of the first arbcom proceeding where there was credible evidence of mistakes made by an administrator.  I note that the current remedies being proposed by the AC in this [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed decision|much more egregious case of inappropriate blocks]] are much more lenient.  Guanaco has been active on several other wikis in the meantime and we should welcome him back here.  It's clear to me that we need qualified help with a sense of project history.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.  Additionally, I'm still not keen on re-adminning the de-adminned, and there is nothing truly ''extraordinary'' about this case to change my general opinion.
'''Oppose''' I remember when Guanaco was a loose cannon. I'm not interested in finding out if he's got his act together now, we have plenty of suitable admin candidates.
'''Oppose''' - while Guanaco has my full respect, I'm still not convinced that now is the time to grant him adminship. The past record is sketchy, and I'd like to see some more time before re-applying. Thanks!
'''Oppose''' per Guanaco's past history of being a cowboy and going off on his own to unblock anybody he feels like it without discussion, and his sordid participation in the [[User:Michael]] fiasco, for which I have yet to have received an apology from Michael, and which caused [[User:Hephaestos]] to leave Wikipedia.  And see previous discussions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco2] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco3] and the RfA at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco].   And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=11047802&oldid=11046414 this edit] is problematic.
'''Oppose''' - Guanaco is already dangerous without admin powers. —
'''Oppose''' due mainly to answers to questions.  I don't think Guanaco has given either a clear picture of what he wants to do with admin powers if restored (hopefully his attitude to admin powers has changed), nor has he given a clear picture of having changed.  Different answers to the 1st & 4th questions would probably have gotten a support vote from me. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>
'''Oppose'''. In resysopping the desysopped I think we need to do away with the "no big deal" thing; clearly the deal is, at the least, bigger than it was before (or less not big). We're not short on excellent admin candidates, and I'm not really persuaded by the answers to the questions; there doesn't seem to be a particularly clear appreciation of what it was that got him desysopped before. We don't need to risk a repeat of that given the high rate of truly excellent candidates coming through RfA at present. Charles Stewart puts it quite nicely. -
'''Oppose''' per Splash. --
'''Oppose''' I'm dissatisfied with responses to questions (or the lack thereof). -
'''Oppose''' I have no reason to forget past behavior in this case. <font size="-1">
Oppose due to failure to answer my question; will reconsider if question is answered.
'''Oppose'''. Imperiousness is not a helpful admin trait.  No indication that this has changed.&mdash;
'''Neutral''' for now.  Guanaco has been around for a very long time and knows the system here inside out, however I have a long memory and can remember my frustration at the way he would sometimes take unilateral actions without discussion.  Unfortunately I haven't seen as much of him around in recent months, and whereas this is no reason to oppose (everyone should take a wikibreak from time to time) I can't really support because I only know the old Guanaco who had his admin tools removed. --
'''Neutral'''. Was de-adminned before so I'm not keen on re-adminning when there's no process to de-admin bad admins. But, that said, hasn't done anything too bad lately.
'''Neutral'''. I'm not entirely sure that adminship should be restored here, with the RFA in mind.
'''Neutral''' at this time.  There were encouraging things about the past, after all.  First, he didn't go crazy and get demoting with a storm of cursing and vandalism.  He took the demotion and kept working.  Second, his crimes have been repeated, now, by folks who aren't getting demoted (which doesn't lessen them as much as it should shame the people doing them).  That said, the propensity to cross the line and, very specifically, to "wheel war" is of utmost concern.

'''Neutral'''. I don't trust Guanaco very much and feel we have much better admin candidates in line but also mostly agree with [[User:Geogre|Geogre]]'s comment above.
'''Support''' a great editor who will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' Fantastic nom and seemingly fantastic canditate :) -
'''Support''' as per convincing nomination and positive impression I've had of Guinnog's contributions in dealing with sensitive or difficult situations, where I've seen him occasionally.
'''Support''', this is the sort of person I want to see as an admin. While I didn't dig quite enough to co-nom, I did a level of research more into this candidate than usual when simply !voting on an RFA, and whilst I came across some (relatively minor) issues, the attitude shown by this candidate to fixing and learning from them was admirable.
'''Support''' The nominator paints an excellent picture of the candidate and per my own brief overview, I think this candidate is not only to be trusted with the extra buttons, but he will make very good use of them as well.
'''Support''' per nom, looks like an absolutely excellent user and one I would certainly trust with the tools.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''<s>Support</s>'''. We needed a ''Botswanan'' administrator, anyway. - <b>
'''Support''' great editor, will be a great admin. Awesome to see people learning from minor mistakes. Good luck :) [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' learn to use AWB properly!
'''Strong support''' - Nothing but positive interactions with this user.  Meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]]. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Weak support''', despite misuse of AWB and possibly in denial of having an [[WP:ITIS|infection]] ;) (see Qs), I liked A2.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''.  I have seen this editor around a lot, and have only seen positive things. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support strongly''', for he satisfies all my criteria (which, no, I haven't explicated at Wikipedia). —
'''Support''' Would have liked to see more *fD edits in last 1,000. From what I saw judgment looks sound.
'''Strong support''' levelheaded with a great attitude --
'''Support''' Well, what can I say? His dedication to this project is exceptional. It is time to give him janitoral duties. A great editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good candidate!
'''Support''' per above. From what I can see there don't seem to be any major issues. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Helpful user, will make a good admin. Better than me at vandal-fighting anyhow! --
'''Support''' per nom, answers, and above.  Contributions in several areas.
'''Support''' for a user with barely 8 months experience, has quite a lot of edits. time to give him admin tools --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''', good editor who will make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''. Quality editor. Will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Good editor. '''
'''Support''' with the faith that Guinnog will take the comments and criticisms below to heart, and will learn from them. Their concerns are valid.
'''Support''' per the awesome nom. --
'''Weak support''' While I'm disturbed by Guinnog's comments at [[Talk:7 World Trade Center]], they did occur over a month ago, and he does seem to have learned from it. No other major issues that I can see.
'''Support''' thoughtful, and committed editor with the capacity for learning and improvement.  My perception is of a responsible person who is likely to mop well.
'''Support''' I have slight concerns about civility issues but they seem minor enough. The user is more than willing to admit his mistakes (which are rare). The project will benefiti from Guinnog having the mop.

'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' This might come as a shock to a number of the people in opposition below. In no way do I mean to undermine what they say, I simply have a different opinion now. As noted below, I was directly involved in the [[7 World Trade Center]] dispute. To be frank, I was upset with Guinnog's behavior at the time. Recently, I opposed an admin nominee because of an incident that had happened two weeks prior to his RfA nom. There was no time for him to demonstrate new behavior. In this case, there's been two months since the rather negative debate at 7 WTC. If it had been in the last two weeks, no question I'd flatly oppose. The behavior was quite poor. However, two months time is enough time to demonstrate improved behavior. It is my belief that this user has clearly demonstrated learned behavior from this incident. I note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crime_Expo_SA&diff=prev&oldid=70668887], followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crime_Expo_SA&diff=prev&oldid=71380278#WHY_DO_YOU_REMOVE_MY_DISCUSSIONS_.3F]. Understanding of the role of consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot&diff=prev&oldid=70931307]. Understanding that a site on the net isn't necessarily usable (a point of contention on 7 WTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=70947586]. He understands that NPOV is important [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&diff=prev&oldid=65896760]. He has recently demonstrated willingness to seek input on spellings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Bulge&diff=prev&oldid=71069254]. He's been calm in the face of insults (an important characteristic for admins) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Guardian&diff=prev&oldid=68589546]. Further, he understands [[WP:CIVIL]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=prev&oldid=63448917]. He's also exhibited a good sense of humor, also important for an admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Guardian&diff=prev&oldid=68589546][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=prev&oldid=63444258][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations&diff=prev&oldid=63444923].  Also, I have reviewed the recent [[User:KarlV]] dispute extensively, concentrating on Guinnog's role in the dispute. There was '''''considerable''''' heat generated in that discussion, but from everything I've read, which includes diffs provided by one of the people against Guinnog in the debate (I discussed it with the opposing person on IRC), Guinnog wasn't adding heat to the debate. In fact, rather the opposite. I found considerable evidence that he was actively working to reduce heat and add light to the conversation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=69094261][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=69126980][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=69101810].  Guinnog's behavior in the last two months have convinced me he is quite capable of being a good administrator. Further, if there are any doubts about his ability his willingness to stand for recall in the face of such doubts should allay any such fears. --
'''Support'''--
'''support''':
'''Support''' Guinnog and I had some serious disagreements on talk pages related to 9/11 articles but he remained generally calm and civil throughout that episode, so that is to be commended. Additionally, he helped me bring [[Redwood National and State Parks]] to FA level and that is notable. I don't see any strong evidence he will abuse his admin tools.--
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Excellent editor, will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, cares about policies, is reasonable and civil. Will make a trustworthy admin.
'''Support''' per Gwernol and Durin. See nothing to worry now. Learning from past mistakes is a good thing. Makes admins more helpful to users that need coaching.
'''Support''' - good candidate --

'''Support''' I've encountered Guinnog around before, doing much good work. I usually wait some time before offering opinions on a candidate to allow any notable concerns to be raised (call me a lazy sod, but it does make the assessment process somewhat less onerous :). I've been watching this one for a while now, and was leaning towards a neutral, given the concerns raised by opposers below, particularly the 7 WTC issue. I've just spent a considerable amount of time trawling through the archives reading the extensive and long running debates in more detail than before, and there were some issues, although I have to say that Guinnog generally conducted himself civilly. What has convinced me to support is the fact that two of the main protagonists in the various debates on the opposite side of the fence to Guinnog have come out in support. This is telling, and Durin's excellent analysis demonstrates that the candidate has learned from the experience, and there is no reason to believe he will misuse the tools. Extensive use of AWB for a large number of minor edits, is not a problem for me - being a part time wikignome is no reason to be disbarred from adminship. We need a diverse range of admin types, not a bunch of clones being churned out of a wikifactory. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''': enough experience, and cares about the project. I would have no difficulty working with this person as an Admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;weak, but support. The response to question 2 was good (although an "easter egg" link jumps out; Guinnog might well review the Wikipolicy on piped links with attention to the guidance to avoid [[Wikipedia:Piped_link#Easter_eggs|easter eggs]]). And service time is rather short. But for all my grumbling here, I'm comfortable that Guinnog'll be a satisfactory admin.
'''Support''' per Cactus, Williamborg, and, especially, JoshuaZ, and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my RfA guidelines]].
'''Support''' - Guinnog seems very much in earnest, which is more than I can say of my perception of some admins; and seems interested in what's best for Wikipedia, rather than in the "status" of being an admin. Cheers,
'''Support'''. Seems to take policy seriously, which is important.
'''Support'''. To counter Cyde's strawman oppose. However, it annoys *me* that my "voice" counts much less than Cyde's oppose. Guinnog deserves the mop. No valid reason presented here not to give him the sysop bits. --
'''Support''': seems to have learned lessons from what he mentioned in question three, seems to try to be civil. I see no evidence that he would misuse the tools.
'''Support''', a dedicated, civil user, and nothing shows an unfamiliarity with policy.  Guinnog will (hopefully, seeing all the oppose comments, which I've read and disagreed with) make a good administrator.
'''Strong support''' for an intelligent and objective voice of reason, regardless of popularity, whose concern is providing access to the sum of all human knowledge. Durin and MONGO are to be commended for putting the present interests of the project before past conflicts.
'''support''' I have read through the comments on this RfA and looked at the talk WTC7 archive four. What I saw was a user who was trying to improve an article.  There is no doubt that many editors did not agree with the content he wished to add but he was trying to make his case. Many other experienced editors also agreed with his opinions.  Whether one agrees with the edits he wished to make or not, one cannot deny that he tried to present a case for his edits. If i had seen him edit warring over the artilce in the same time frame I may have opposed, however, there was no obvious edit warring on the main page while the discussion continued. To tell you the truth I was move worried by other admins trying to use an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&diff=57102887&oldid=57096060 argument from authority] to counter guinnogs argument. i see no reason why this editor should not be promoted to admin status.
Guinnog the level-headed? Natch. ''
'''Support''' I too enjoy beer. Whatever this AWB thing is does not trump that. Also, per above support comments.
'''Support''' per answers and [[User:Durin|Durin]] and [[User:FloNight|Flonight]]'s comments.
'''Support''' impressive answers, responsible editing, and a demonstration of desire and ability to make the kind of edits that the mop is about. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', a strong and reasonable editor. Would made an excellent administrator.-
'''Support''' as a dedicated user who won't abuse the tools, and per Petros471's comments. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Vast majority of edits were made with AWB. I don't see a lot of content in this persons contributions, and it took an awful long time for him to start using edit summaries correctly. I'd like to see an admin with a bit more experience in all the parts of wikipedia, not just fixing spelling mistakes. Also, his offer to mediate in the KarlV affair when he had clearly already made up his mind was unhelpful and showed his lack of knowledge of consesnus and being neutral. I don't expect anyone to agree with a certian point of veiw, but if you offer to mediate, you should at least consider it.
'''Oppose''' His relentless lack of [[WP:AGF]] over a long period of time at [[7 World Trade Center]] this isn't the place to continue that debate but there are plenty of examples [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&diff=56016919&oldid=56015493][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&diff=prev&oldid=57010931], Especially worrying is his insistence on the addition of links and/or sources that exist only to push a POV. During the most active phase on [[7 World Trade Center]] he worked constantly against consensus and wasted an enormous amount of time wiki-lawyering in support of additions that were clearly not consensual. <s>He was not above personal attacks personal attacks </s>(link removed) and over all took the position that the article was not complete until he got his POV pushing sources included. Now, we all have our opinions about what should and shouldn't be added to articles we work on, but this went far beyond a simple difference of opinion and ended up somewhere else entirely.
'''Oppose''' per pschemp
Please register a separate bot account for ''en masse'' automated edits.  Seeing thousands of robotic edits in a user's contribs annoys me and makes it a lot harder to find relevant human-made contribs.  --
I've reviewed [[Talk:7_World_Trade_Center/archive4]] and I find it quite a disturbing (review Durin's comment at the very bottom) example of POV pushing, and as outlined in response to Samsara's neutral, I have serious concerns about Guinnog's judgement, and his ability to admit fault, and to let things go instead of trying to have his argument carry the day. I also do not think well of his contribution to how poorly that whole affair unfolded. With great regret, given those folk I highly respect who are in support, I must '''oppose''', for I do not think I trust his judgement at this time. The excessive and inappropriate use of AWB and the long time to start using edit summaries are also of concern, but far smaller and would not in my view be sufficient to oppose in and of themselves. In view of how hard it is to remove admins at this time, (if voluntary recall were more widely accepted, or if ArbCom processes were more lightweight... but they are not) I do not think this is a good risk. Perhaps later. ++
'''Oppose'''.  I have dealt extensively with Guinnog on [[Talk:7 World Trade Center]], and don't have confidence that he will respect [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]].  Also, have seen problems with civility. Time and again, we cited policies such as [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]], [[WP:V]], and [[Wikipedia:Consensus]].  Despite that, he comes back at us with comments like "What is it that you think gives you and your friends the right to censor wikipedia?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A7_World_Trade_Center&diff=57010931&oldid=57007499]  <s>Other troublesome diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=57053622]</s> That was all at the beginning of June, and Guinnog came back on June 22 and reinserted the material into the article (despite extensive discussion and consensus) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=60039773] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=60083490].  Aside from my dealings with Guinnog on this article, I'm aware of his valuable, positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia.  I'm just not comfortable with him having admin tools and doing things like closing AfDs. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]]
'''Oppose'''.  Assumptions of bad faith seem to be of concern.  I'm also worried about repeated cries of "Censorship!" in discussions of minority viewpoint inclusion; it as an unnaceptably confrontational approach to a legitimate content disagreement. I am not confident that this user, if made an administrator, would properly enforce policy in similar content disputes. --
'''Oppose''' - per above concerns.
'''Oppose''', per 7 World Trade Center discussion page.
'''Oppose''' - too many serious concerns. I think this is a user who might make a good admin, but it would be helpful for him to have a few more months before another nomination so we can be sure the lessons have been well learned. If that happens, I'll give sympathetic consideration when the time comes.
'''Oppose''' per RX Strangelove and Lar.  For now, there are serious concerns about editor's temperment.  Six months of problem-free editing would go a long way to allaying these concerns.
'''Oppose''' per SCZenz.'''
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. Needs problem free time to prove he can handle the tools responsibly.
'''Oppose''' per Lar.
'''Oppose''' per pschemp.  <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup>
'''Oppose''' for now. The 7 WTC discussion makes me uncomfortable about supporting adminship at this time.
'''Oppose''' per above concerns and my comments below. -

'''Weak Neutral''' -- I was going to oppose as this user fails my 9 month standard, but answer to question 2 impressed me, and I couldn't bring myself to oppose over a single month --
'''Neutral''' Changed from oppose, per [[User:Durin|Durin]]. -- '''
'''Neutral''' Changed from oppose following [[User:MONGO]]'s reassurance in support vote.--
'''Cheating nobody-beats-me nominator Support'''
'''Beat the nominator support'''.  I need another admin to do my bidding. --
'''Support'''. A great mainspace contributor. Good edit distribution between Talk and WP namespaces. [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support''' seems like a great contributor
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', great user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. How did this great user slip past without having a nomination for so long? [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
--
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''. A great contributor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''18,000 Edits!?--
'''Support''' But the candidate should have voted mindlessly in AfDs (project spaaaace) for a few weeks and this would have been a landslide of editcountitis voters :-) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' 18,000 edits? Need...medic...
'''Support''' absolutely.  Caveat that edit summaries should be used more frequently. --
'''I found the end of the previous voter's sig support''' - and no, you can't support per Tawker with this vote :) --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
I know, [[User:DarthVader|DarthVader]]. How?
'''Strong support''' - so many edits shows a real committment, plus there are plenty of edits to the project namespace to show a knowledge of policy. &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  More edit summary usage would be good, but how could I not?  --
'''Weak Support''' - More edit summary usage would be good, more project editing would be good, and a lot of his edits are minor copy-editing stuff.  However, he is still a good user overall.  Deserves the toolbox.  -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' strong editor with attention to detail needed to take our wiki to a higher quality. Give the editor a broom! --
'''Support'''.  All my interactions with Gurch have been positive.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Lack of edit summaries has nothing to do with being an administrator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' Yup. 18000+ says it all.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good. Edit summary use is NOT low, I know the actual stats.'''
'''Support'''. In this case, the edit count summary is misleading. It seems clear that this wikignome will make good use of the tools, and has been very uncontroversial.
'''Crazy Yee-haw-hoo-doggy support'''. Yes is the short version.
'''Support'''. According to VoiceofAll last 500 edits mostly have summaries which knocks out my only complaint.--
'''Support''' for sure - <b>
'''Support''' as per all above.
'''Support''' Absolutely. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''ANOTHER LONG RAMBLING ALL CAPS SUPPORT FROM SASQUATCH WHO THINKS THAT GURCH RHYMES WITH LURCH AND CHURCH AND I LIKE BIRCH!!!!! OMGWTFBBQAYBARTULOLROFLBRB!'''
'''Cliché support.'''
Bien sür. '''
'''Suppurch'''
'''Support''' [[WP:TINC|CABAL!]]

'''Strong support'''. Gurch is an excellent user with whom I have had some extensive interactions. At one point he took the time to create a spreadsheet for me using a software tool he wrote. I have little doubt he will make a fine admininstrator.--
'''Support'''. Looks good-- admin status would help with vandal control.
'''Support'''.  Entirely satisfied with answers to the questions. —
'''Support''' - '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
I like his answers.
'''Support.''' Well-rounded user.--
'''Support.''' Why not?  A good editor. -
'''Support''': Could become Wikipedia's ultimate spellchecker. --
'''Support''' this excellent candidate
'''Support'''. Well qualified and will make a great administrator.&#160;—
'''Support''' -- from
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per his promise on IRC to help me out with the 5am backlogs on [[CAT:CSD]] =D.
'''Support''' ...
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With 18,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin. In fact he should have , in my opinion, been am admin long back.
'''Support''' An excellent contributor who will make Wikipedia a better place if en-mopped.
'''Support''', commendable performance, deserving of adminship.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has addressed concerns to my satisfaction.
'''Support'''. --
'''Thumbs seriously down''' Does not have any templates signifying any ability to communicate in a non-native lanaguge, or can prove such an ability any other way, I'm sorry. :-(
Wouldn't normally pass my criteria due to project edits ratio, but due to mitigating factors I believe it would not be right to oppose this user. Therefore, I am '''neutral''', for now.
'''Neutral''' Only makes 3/4 on [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|my test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' Lack of edit summaries is a minor stumbling block. However, the user has shown that he is dedicated to this project. It would not be right to oppose him just because of edit summaries, given the amount of work and dedication he put into this project. Moreover, edit summaries are an important part of Wikipedia. Anyway, if you become an admin, I would personally be delighted. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Unfortunately, does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]...sorry. But one thing's for sure - Gurch is a fantastic WikiGnome around. -
'''<nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki> support''' per nom. Sensible + knows policy + good Q1 answer = give him the mop.
'''Support''', wasn't he one already? --
(edit conflict x2) When are you going to let me give my '''nominator support'''...

'''Support''' a unique RFA using a list method, found some recent comments that shown the user can handle agressive users well. Been here for quite a while too.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' for a very well-written RfA and a good record as listed therein. You'll be a great admin! --
'''Support'''
Nice Portal Talk edit! — ''
'''Support''' Very nicely detailed nomination. [[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Good canidate. Well done. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''' why the hell not?
'''Support''' - Very good contributor, and I really appreciated this detailed nomination.
'''Support''' '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Strong oppose'''. No help talk edits.
'''Cleared for landing on Adminship 49S''' per Pilotguy and nom --
'''Strong Support''' Well written RFA.
'''Very Strong Support'''--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Good editor, deserving of the promotion.
'''Support''' with a nod to the strongest nomination I have ever seen.
'''Support''' and might I add '''Excellent example links in nomination speech'''. No reason to oppose this adminship. --<font color="#999fff">
'''Support''', sure. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''{{[[Template:Rfa cliche1|Rfa cliche1]]}} --
'''Hayeupp'''.
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Strong Support'''. Great editor and very civil user. I was involved in a discussion to try to stop a PROD tag being put back on by another user on a de-prodded article, and this user was very helpful: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.184.17.216&diff=next&oldid=50367110], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USSA&diff=50369988&oldid=50368029]. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Full support.
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' Excellent editor, will be great admin. --
'''Support''' -
'''Supoort''' - per nom - not much more to say as the nomination is superb -
'''Support''' excellent credentials, nomination says it all!  --
'''Strong Support''' I have found him very civil & willing to work problems out when I interacted with him. Nom says the rest. Will make a fine admin. --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like the ideal candidate
'''Support''' per nom - makes it easy! - <b>
'''Support'''. The nominator really doesn't leave me with much more to say. -
'''Support''', great editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Support''' diffs provided indicate no potiential problems.--
'''Support''' - everything seems to have been covered by nom and the questions. Should make a good admin. --
'''Support''' - looks very good
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I can't find anything to oppose, and I like that. —
'''Support''' per epic nomination and thoughtful answers to questions.  --
'''Support''' - name association is ''Good Chimes''
'''Support''' - really happy with this nom -

'''Support''' Great user. --
'''Support''' - excellent member, I also like the nomination style. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]'''
Pile-on '''Support'''.  Great user, no problems.  Great work on the list of railways.  Also, congrats to the nominator for (a) picking such a great user and (b) writing up a nice nomination.  -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Great editor, and it's nice to see some heavy evidence presented in the nom itself.

'''Support'''. A strong, experienced candidate.
'''Support'''. I've seen Gwernol around from time to time and have always enjoyed my experience.
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Strong support''', no question, I have seen this user around a lot and seen great interactions.  Let me also remark that that was an impressive bit of work on the nominator's part.  --
'''Support''', I'm familiar with his contributions and feel he will make a fine admin. Accolates to the nominator for a well researched and referenced nom.
'''Support''', no objections.--
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' - a wise nomination statement for a wise candidate.'''
'''Support''' - the nomination is impeccable. I can't improve on it. -
'''Support''', a fantastic user, and the great evidence and great answers to questions make it a very easy and enthusiastic support. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom.  <span class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' as above.
'''Support'''. Passes the year test.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support.'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Looks like we're getting a great batch of admins coming in.
'''Support.''' Impresive histroy.  Great nomination. -
'''Support''', sorry I'm late to join the bandwagon - I was ''so'' sure I had already voted, G!
'''Support''' good answer to Q1, lots of house keeping work, and good answer to Q2, I am a great fan of that sort of good reliable contribution.
Absolutely.  --
'''Support''' Polite & efficient - a good candidate for Adminship. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With 9,000 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin. In fact he should have , in my opinion, been am admin long back.
'''Support''' Great contributions; support without hesitation. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]<font color="#D47C14">
'''Support''' in a spirit of 'What, you weren't an admin already?'
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', but would prefer the free photos were uploaded to Commons rather than here.
'''Support''' as per nom, seen this editor around before and does great work. Thought he was an admin. --
'''Support''' - the ideal admin.--
'''Support''' From what I've seen, a very polite, very civil individual. Also exceeds my requirements. "More like this candidate, please!" —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support'''; giving this editor adminship will help them continue their excellent work.
'''Support'''. Looks like he's reasonable and does good work.
'''Support'''. I rarely participate in RfA, but I recently had the most uncontentious AfD discussion with Gwernol. One might argue that he was just being courteous due to his ongoing RfA, but the multitude of other supporting comments in this discussion refutes that completely.
'''Support'''.  How can we not support this with an extensive nomination like this.  I hope it becomes the norm -- it certainly saved me some time.
'''Support''' just so I can get my name on this list... But really, per nom. Very extensive contributions, active, civil, very detailed and transparent answers to questions, no problems here... One of the better RfA candidates I've seen in a while.
As nominator. →
'''Support'''.&mdash;
'''Support''' Shame that the other RFA failed, very good user --
'''Support''' looks great! Best of luck! --
'''Support''', experienced and awesome contributor. - '''''<font style="color:green;">
'''Support''' as per first RfA --
Thought he was one!  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Both from personal experience and from looking through his impressive work here I know that he will be a great admin.
'''Support''' 101%. And just for the record, ß and þ ''are'' Latin characters. ;) &mdash;
'''Support'''. Longtime editor. Someone who edits Wikipedia for that long time and along with his wife is really dedicated to this project. -
'''Support''', after objectively analysing contributions.
'''Support''', although we disagree on the Userboxes issue, nominee's answers to my questions on the subject were well-reasoned and civil.
'''Support'''. Being the aforementioned wife, I do most certainly support [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]], and I even do so with a perfectly clean conscience :) I honestly feel that he will help improve this community even more than he already does, should its members decide to grant him admin powers.
'''Support'''Well mannered. --
'''Support'''. I opposed last time, but I've had some discussions with Haukur since then that make me think he'll be a thoughtful and careful admin.
'''Support'''. Very good and responsible contributor. Answer to the IAR question also indicates a great deal of maturity.
'''Support''' edits look good.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' Excellent user. —
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support''': the [[joint venture]]. --
'''Support''', of course. -
Thought he was one. He has been very civil and reasonable in my dealings with him.
'''Support''', I supported his original RfA and I'm supporting this too. We need more admins who try to preserve correct spellings.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', should have been made admin last time around. Disclaimer, I largely agree with Haukurth's views on article titling (although I would go less far in certain cases), but I recognize that there is room for dispute, and I trust that Haukurth will ''not'' abuse his privileges in relation to this (I mean, I am an admin, and I share Haukurth's views, and yet I don't go about abusing my privileges because of that).
'''Strong Support''' Editor deserved adminship last time; his sound judgment is fit for any role in Wikipedia.
'''Support'''.  An intelligent, thoughtful, committed editor who would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' He is a civil and thoughtful editor who has made many valuable contributions. 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC) That was me, sorry
'''Strong Viking Support'''. One of the best. Just don't let the janitorial tasks get in the way of adding content.
'''Support'''. Good editor, deserves the tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for same reasons as previously
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.  No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Glad to have someone like this involved with the project. -
'''Support'''.  Let Him be promoted this time. --
'''Support'''.
--''Signed by''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  After reading this nominee's response to Q4, I am quite confident that he will make a terrific administrator.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.Seen him around quite a bit. I think he will make a good administrator.--
'''Support''' again, should make a good admin.
'''Support'''  Edits I've seen from user have been good, and deserves lots of credit for the numbers previously opposing that now support, disposing me to think well of his ability to take on board reasoned criticism.  Remaining objections to date seem very slight.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''&mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. A good editor and should be a good admin.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', not one already?
Absolutely, I'm glad I saw this in time to squeeze in another support vote.
'''Strong oppose''', per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haukurth|''oppose'' comments on Haukurþ's previous RfA 2½ months ago]]. Not that I know the cases mentioned there, but my recent experiences with Haukurþ (e.g. [[wikipedia talk:naming conventions (people)#Thomas]] and similar hair-splitting efforts trying to ''compromise down wikipedia's quality'') are that he hasn't changed a bit in these two and a half months. His answer to question 4 below strikes me as particularly dishonest in this sense (I want to assume good faith, and had hoped to be able to use a less strong term than "dishonest" in that sentence, but that's the weakest terminology I could find without becoming dishonest myself) --
'''Oppose''' per Ghirla's diff.
'''Oppose''' Amalekite. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC). Even worse -> user reverted Jimbo when Jimbo was ruling on something as god-king. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_19&diff=35860015&oldid=35859017]
'''Neutral''' Per previous RfA and Ghirla's comment, I think you don't quite have the [[WP:COOL|coolness]] necessary for an admin. But there's nothing ''wrong'' with your policies, answers to questions, etc. so I can't vote to oppose. If you were try again in 6 months, I think I could support you.
'''Neutral'''. Per comments above.--
'''Neutral'''. Per Per above.
'''First Support'''
'''Support''' Seems fair.
'''Support''' You seem to be in the same scenario as me, I have an edit count similar to yours, and am often frustrated with the same things as you. Although I do not yet feel obliged to seek adminship, you have been here for quite at time longer than me, so you have my support. Good Luck!
'''Good faith support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I thought I recognized this user from [[Talk:Axis mundi|somewhere]].  Contribs show a decent spread in areas touching on admin-ish things with specialization in a topic area in which the user is knowledgeable and discussions look friendly and constructive. -
'''Support''' - good clarifications in response to JoshuaZ. &mdash;
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' meets criteria, excellent user. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' - Could we just stop the editcountitis, people?  3600 edits spread across multiple namespaces is more than enough for him to learn how wikipedia works. Would he make a good admin? The answer is 'yes'! -
'''Support''', as per Richard.
'''Support''' per Richard. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per Richard
'''Support'''. Seems alright to me. Have a mop.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools. Edits in the "Talk" namespace suggest a good understanding of consensus building.
'''support'''
'''support'''. good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. Good luck.
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Hmmm... project space edits a little lower than optimal, but long tenure.  Anarchist, but thoughtful answer to question regarding his personal beliefs. Hmmm... Cantabridgian by birth! Well, that tips the scales... enjoy the mop! :)
'''Support''' Seems like a worthy candidate.  Give him the mop. --
'''Support''' Any person who spends a month in South America running guns for General Delagando gets MY vote!
'''Support''' - Sufficient experience and seems solid. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' for fellow new pages patroller.  --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' this user can easily be trusted. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Good admin candidate. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' seems good.
'''aye''' give that man a mop & a beer.
'''he has my support'''
'''Support''' to counter extreme editcountitis.
'''Support'''.  Been around long enough.&mdash;
'''Support''', seems good.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[Dr. Pepper|What's the worst that can happen?]] '''
'''Oppose''' Not enough project edits, and not active enough with the Wikipedia community.  --
'''Oppose''' after making so many edits in [[April]], [[2004]], there is significant decline in activeness here.
'''Oppose''' Not right now...  Expect admins to be more active and have more experience in the project.--
'''Oppose''', due to lack of edits in Wikipedia namespace I would conclude that Heah has insufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies.
'''Oppose''' -- I like to see more project involvement. Get your hands dirty and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' I want more wikiname space edits, especially for a self-nom, maybe in a few months --
'''Oppose''' sorry. I like your article contributions but project is just too low for an admin candidate. If this doesn't pass, I would support next time if you get involved and project and policy.
'''Oppose'''. I have no fear of anarchism, unless it is the kind that leads to starting sentences in lower case, dropping punctuation, and otherwise breaking conventions which help readers.
'''Oppose''': degree of care taken in writing is like body language in live communication.
'''Oppose''' attention to detail is very important for an admin - not seeing that - experience seems to be sufficient so no problem there - but not persuaded over the last week to change my initial impression from oppose. <font color="#063">
'''Neutral'''.  Has much of the right stuff, but the very idea that there is not much that one can do if he or she is not an admin is distasteful to me.  I can't say for certain that this user has an appreciation of all that can be done on the project. --
'''Neutral''', just for now. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Sure. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Very Strong Support'''. HereToHelp has a very large number of edits, and they are steadily increasing. I think that he could help Wikipedia a lot more if he has the additional sysop tools. Also, the way he has invited, welcomed, and assisted other users on Wikipedia is amazing. Definitely deserves admin, and has a bright future ahead.
'''Strong Support'''. He is certainly Here to Help! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
How could you oppose a user named '''''HereToHelp'''''? I like what I have seen of this user. A deft, gentle touch in vandal fighting is just the thing. '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' Absolutely, per above.

'''Support''': hes here to help!--
'''Support''' Per above. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' Although technically he doesn't quite meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|minimum standards]] for edits to the main article space, I'm impressed by his demeanor.  Also, since a large number of his edits to project pages have been to create something, rather than simply debate and vote, I'm happy to add my support. —
'''Support''' Just barely made my minimum standards qualification.
'''Support'''. Per above. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''. I have recently been working with this user on the Scientific peer review project and found his attitude to be excellent. He is up to being a good admin. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''' C'mon should already be an admin... [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Very Weak Support''' Meets most of my requirements but has only about 1000 edits in the articles in Wikipedia. Needs more edits in articles but OK to me. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support''' The total number of edits is more important than where they are. In this case, the user has a wide variety of edits aside from the mainspace edit total which is not low in any event.
'''Support''' per Deckiller. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Looks very good. [[User:Aucaman|'''Auca''']][[User:Aucaman/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''m'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Absolutely--
'''Support''', 1000 article space should be fine to me. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support:'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Edit summaries will become a habit with time, I believe.
'''Support''', cause the user is [[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]]<small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''', it seems as though this user has a quite fitting name. --
'''Support''', good user. I know you're HereToHelp. =) I find the oppose vote silly - the discussion HereToHelp removed from [[Talk:Main Page]] was obviously some kind of joke.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor with solid record (and adorable username.)
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Has experience and has made good contributions; I trust that he will not abuse admin privilleges. --
'''Support''' A great editor, the perfect user to be an administrator. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. I was going to nominate wasn't I? To be honest wasn't expecting you to get this much support!
'''Support''' per above. Looks like a great editor.
'''Support''' Have had consistently positive interactions with this user. --
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Once he takes on a page, it's a sure thing that the page will improve.  I've worked with him on the Main Page redesign, the Help page overhaul, and lately on Tip of the day.  In each case, his contributions improved the project and helped push it along.  He's on our side - one of the good guys.  A good choice for admin.  --
'''Support''' Someone interested in Math who can write!  And seems to be a very nice person!  You've got my vote!  --
'''Support''' sounds good enough, good luck to you.
'''Support''', good experience with this user; lives up to his username. I hope that HereToHelp understands now though that just deleting comments from talk pages isn't a good idea, unless it's his own (and that's debatable). —
'''Support''', Oh are you now? PROVE IT!:>--
'''Support''' I thought he already was one. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''', piling on it seems, I just found out. Clearly a knowledgeable and experienced advocate of this project.
'''Support''' See no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' Have worked with very happily. --
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''HereToSupport''' :)
'''Support'''.  I'd encourage using edit summaries more.  However, he's a good candidate by the rest of my standards, has experience in many areas of the site, and (per his answers to the questions) looks like he could really use the tools well. --
'''Support''' Good user. -
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Great user from what I've seen, and deserves to be admin! ~'''Linux'''erist
'''Support'''.  Excellent experience working with him.  He's definitely here to help. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Your not one already support'''  wow, you really desrve it, how can you not be one already?  ITS A CRIME!!!
'''Support'''. Yep. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Looks gooood to me. --
'''Support''' Fine by my count. --

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' - very suitable for adminship from what I've seen
'''Support''' - I've seen him doing good work on keeping Wikipedia going behind the scenes. --
'''Support'''-He's helped me a lot with getting used to Wikipedia, including the [[Portal:Rock and Roll|rock portal]]...yeah
'''Support''' -Looks good! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' Excellent work in project space, the username says it all. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' -- suitable candidate. -
'''Support''' -- good candidate.
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''': Excellent editor so far. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
Will '''support''' if there is a committment to use edit summaries for article space edits, including minor ones.
'''Support''': seems like a swell bloke.
'''Support''', seriously thought he was one.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=38515701] Editing the comments of others.  Needs another year.  --
'''Neutral''' I would support but for the dreadfully low edit summary count for minor edits. That may seem an insignificant issue, but I feel that describing what you are changing on a page is important and indicative of a willingness to work with the community. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Neutral'''. It would be much better to use edit summaries more often also for minor edits.--
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Strong support''' a level-headed contributor to a controversial topic. And your answer to question 1 is reassuring - I like editors who sacrifice a little speed for some thought.
'''Strong Support''' Honest user, that will never abuse tools. Would be an excellent addition to admin team, and I love the self interview. I might <s>steal<s> borrow that for something. No question support.
'''Whitie-tightie Support''' GREAT candidate.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Strong support''' Excellent, well rounded editor. Great fun to work with but also works hard on serious topics.
'''Support''' per Kotepho and inasmuch as, amazingly enough (I've disagreed rather stridently with Hero w/r/to, for example, [[WP:NOT EVIL]]), the question answers are almost identical to those I would have given (well, they are, of course, considerably more succinct and cogent than mine would have been, but the underlying beliefs are the same).  The edit history he keeps, FWIW, is rather remarkable; not only has he preserved a very fine record of his important contributions, from a glance at which one quickly learns about him, but so also has he made such preservation meticulously (I tried to document my AfD participation as he and barely made it through 20 discussions before I jettisoned the idea).
<s>'''Support'''</s>--
'''Support'''. Has several edits under his belt, has contributed very neutrally to some of the most controversial topics on the encyclopedia, and seems to be a very friendly editor. He has my vote.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support'''. I am rather impressed by the level headed tone he has been able to maintain while dealing with one of the most delicate and controversial subjects of the last times.
'''Strong Support'''. Experienced level headed editor, sense of humour. I thought he '''was''' an admin!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per FloNight.
'''Support''' Sure, editor is a bit "rough-round-the-edges" with a few things (the vandal warnings), but he has a marvelous set of bedrock principles.  He's right for the mop.
'''Support''', also per handwriiten instead of templated responses to vandalism noted in the oppose votes.
'''Strong support'''.  Fundamentally sound judgment, does not shy away from difficult issues, seems capable of thinking twice, very stable and level-headed.  Just the sort of person we need, with Brandt's mob chasing off the likes of Katefan0. As to the warnings, what wouold you be more likely to respond to - a generic warning or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&oldid=45857228 this gem]?
'''Extreme Neutralizing-the-antihumor-bots'-votes Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Examined issues raised in opposes carefully and found nothing that causes any worry here.
'''Strong Support''', especially after the Lolicon thing. Also, we need more admins that have a sense of humor, and that are committed to actually writing the encyclopedia.
'''Support''', bascially on FloNight's strong recommendation above.
'''Support''' - I have been convinced very thoroughly that he will make a great admin by the opposes below. Our admins need a sense of humour, else they're just dehumanised parts of the lumbering bureaucracy that Wikipedia can be at times. All the 'negatives' raised below are either A) funny or B) minor infringements made in good faith. --
I like the breath mints thing, you can't go wrong with breath mints.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]

'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per FloNight. Also, by not using the boilerplate warnings, he turned a vandal into making good contributions. And that is bad because....?
'''Strong support''' Everyone has flaws; what matters is your attitude. Also per Sam Pointon. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support''' per FloNight, JzG and especially Garion96. I never thought I'd see an admin candidate opposed because he helped a newbie "vandal" become a productive Wikipedian. He should be applauded for that, not criticized.
'''Support'''. Willing to take on difficult niche issues. -
'''Support''' per FloNight and Xoloz. --
'''Strong Support''' this editor will be a very good admin.  There is absolutely no evidence that he will abuse the authority --
'''Support''' this guy for sysadmin; oppose humorless scolds
'''Support''' per his explanation on my talk page.'''
'''Support'''. per FloNight.
'''Support''' per  [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]]. There is a difference between humour and messing around. This guy gets the job done in his own way, and it works. '''
'''Support'''.  Everytime I look at something that appears to be a problem, I see an unorthodox but effective way of handling something.  This guy looks to me now like he has what it takes to be a very proactive and valuable administrator; I apologize for my earlier oppose, and I hope others will reconsider their positions also. --
'''Support'''. Hardworking user who would make a good admin.
'''Strong support''' Having a good sense of humour and a level head is a real benefit in an admin. We need more admins with this attitute.
'''Strong Support''' actually writes personal vandal messages? Forgot to sign a post he moved? Seriously, is this reason to oppose? Every time I have seen him in action or interacted with him, he has shown himself intelligent, thoughtful, and an assett to WP. Great sense of humor and unlikely to misuse admin tools.
'''Support''' no reason to oppose. A very good editor.<font color="green">
'''Strong support''', per much of the above, and frankly, much of the comments below as well. I think the links posted below, especially those vandalism warnings, show above all that this user has a very healthy view on vandalism and on interacting with the users behind it. --
'''Support support''', quite frankly, per most of the opposers.  Dig the humour and the day-brightening-effect you can have, which is [[WP:BITE]] antidote and can lessen the confrontation in many cases.
'''Strong pile-on-from-the-mailing-list support'''.  Seems like a smart and trustworthy editor with a tendency to do the right thing.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&oldid=45857228 Mahk Twen] diff, in particular, convniced me — there are very few people willing to put that kind of time and effort into such tedious work as vandal warnings, and we need every one we have.  Frame that diff and hang it on the wall.  —
'''Strongest Support''' Would be ridiculous not to accept him given the integrity of his work and his proven record of actually caring about Wikipedia, unlike many other ppl who are already admins. --
'''Support''', I'm impressed by how he handled the pedophilia hoo-ha-ha when it happened in the midst of the pedophilia wheel war (and the subsequent MfD). This shows his ability to edit controversial articles and to keep a cool head (changed my support from neutral: the parts that swayed me from support to neutral are, on further reflection, not correct or valid). --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', seems a good editor capable of upholding the standards.
'''Support'''.  Has done a whole lot of good work so far, and shows no evidence of untrustworthiness.  Added to that, he's shown a cool-headed thoughtfulness throughout this RfA.  --
'''Strong support'''. There's a difference between treating Wikipedia like a playground, and treating it like a place where you can whistle while you work. The only semi-plausible reason for opposing is one misunderstanding about fair use...and that's it. Nothing is wrong with non-standard vandal warnings (if there is, somebody desysop me and fuddlemark now for occasionally exercising our sense of humour while on RC patrol). The vandal would very much get the point of the message, and at the same time think "Hey, these guys aren't pompous tightasses after all!" The fake categories are a non-issue. My overall experience with Herostratus has been positive, and I can think of few better candidates to wield the mop and bucket. The more people who understand the essence of what WP is about - having fun while you work, while not making fun the centrepiece - the better.
'''Strong support''' per JzG and Johnleemk. Adminship is no big deal, and the good thing about Herostratus is that he makes it seem that way.
'''Support''': we need more admins who can approach the job with a dash of humour. HTH HAND —
'''Support''' - good editor, good wikiradar, thinks ''first'', overall good Wikipedian. Quite a few Oppose votes below read like recommendations for giving him the mop. Click [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=802612676252440863 here] for anticipatory celebrations.
'''Support''': I've had a look through some edits, and H seems to tackle difficult issues with good humour.
'''Support''' to balance out some of those incredibly silly oppose votes. --
'''Support'''. Goodness, yes. More common sense is always good.
More editors who are able to take non-cookie-cutter approaches are always valuable. I see no problems that would stop him from being a good admin. --
'''Support''' - nice to see an editor who actually takes the time to write relevant warnings, rather than using impersonal templates. Adminship is no big deal, and I'm not aware of any requirements that admin candidates do any RC patrolling. --
'''Support''' - on the basis that an admin with a sense of humour would be a positive addition to Wikipedia when we've started to suffer from a degree of humourlessness in our editing patterns across the board. Also, the user has good reasons to need the tools and would deal fairly with vandals: the main job of an admin being to use the extra buttons to preserve and protect the 'pedia against the hard of thinking. And doing that with flair and wit against a vandal using poetry to vandalise us... well, hats off, just hats off to Herostratus. Quality editing and no mistake. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Redvers|Я]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|Є]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Good sense of humor and unique approaches.  For the record, the absurd oppose votes convinced me this editor is highly worth supporting. Shell <sup>
<strike>'''Oppose'''. While I appreciate the sense of humor, and I empathize with getting carried away with ones sense of humor (we can smell our own), I don't appreciate the humor in the [[Wikipedia:Snark!|snarks]] listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/articles here]. I had never heard of snarking and I have to say I had a rather negative reaction to it, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think it embodies the correct attitude for an admin. <font color="3300FF">[[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] ([[User_talk:Aguerriero|talk]])</font> 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)</strike> Change to '''support''' after speaking with others. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Sharp, funny, and capable.  Herostratus is needed because Wikipedia process should remain personable.

'''Support''' per Flo and KC.
'''Support''' I like this guy. He's honest, he's funny, he has personality, and he believes in process without being a process drone.
<span class="ipa">
'''Support'''  Jeez, some people are treating adminship like the [[Nuclear Football|football]].
'''Support'''. Quite apart from the absurdness of some of the justifications of the oppose votes, Herostratus would make an outstanding admin. He has a cheery outlook, which will ''help'' him get through the often-stressful job of being an admin. He has a proven track record of contributions and of admin-type actions. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  I like his moxie.
'''Support'''. I've liked his sense of humour for a long time.
Been agonising over this one a while. While there are some people I respect on the oppose side of the tally, and I do think Mindspillage has a point (which has been addressed, I think), on balance the large number of of voices speaking out in support, and a review of contributions, convince me to '''Support'''. Keep the sense of humour, but temper it with seriousness when it's called for. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support'''; seems like a good user. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be balanced and reasonable, and has a good sense of humor.  I find the "Oppose" rationales unconvincing.
<s>'''Support'''.</s> Wikipedia could benefit from an admin with a sense of humor. So what if he replies to vandalism with a little song and dance? It doesn't mean he doesn't take vandals seriously, it means he is willing to deal with it in a way few people have thought of, which I thoroughly respect. The experience is certainly there. Make sure you understand copyrights thoroughly. (I tend to avoid pictures myself.) I also find the oppose votes unconvincing, and I strongly believe that this user can learn on the job and will be an invaluable asset to the community as an administrator.
'''Support''', his way of dealing with some vandals is far superior to slapping a template on their page.-
'''Support''', nothing wrong with having a sense of humour. I think he'll be a worthy admin. --
'''Support'''. A sense of humour can keep you sane in the madhouse. --
'''Support'''.  We could use more admins with a sense of humor.  And I thought that rhyming vandal notice mentioned below was pretty clever. [[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Not much wrong with him and also had a very good sense of humour. Bringing lightness to editing on Wikipedia is a good sign. '''
'''Support''' - give me more editors like him. --
'''Support''' - I am automatically inclined to favor someone who demonstrates a sense of humor. On top of that, the work Herostratus has shown on the pedophilia-related work demonstrates that he is the kind of calm and lighthearted person we should be encouraging to gather up the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' for the helpfulness and kindness he showed an experimenting new user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&oldid=45857228 here]. This kind of good faith brings many new, testing users into the fold rather then [[WP:BITE|biting]] them and turning them away. -'''
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - I like the fact that he deals with vandals personally rather than relying on templates.
'''Writers Block Support''' <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''I'm borred support''' [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color=red>sta</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|<font color=yellow>E</font>]][[user:GangstaEB/pagemap|<font color=purple>B</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''.  Since when is an admin not allowed to have a sense of humor?
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' the Mahk Twen message shows a very healthy and positive attitude.
'''Support''', can't see any reason not to.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''. I'd trust this user with the tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' didn't seem to take vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mahk_Twen&diff=prev&oldid=45857228 here] very seriously. Also a bitwr for the type of subjects he/she is editing but the fact that about 80% of the last 1,000 edits are either edits to it are discussions on it. I also couldn't find any RC patrolling in the last 1,000 edits. Placing "''WTF man''" on a users talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frankovich&diff=prev&oldid=48964848 here] regarding vandalism shows lack of knowledge when dealing with vandalism/blanking.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Agree with Andypandy. Certainly doesn't seem like a strong candidate for adminship.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' per Andeh
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a good editor, but does not take vandalism seriously enough.
'''Oppose''' per Andeh. --
'''Oppose''', uh, sorry, uh, no, I guess, uh, no.  No grasp of copyright, thinks vandalism is funny, and anyone who happens to casually mention 'I might undelete some articles' makes me concerned.  Expressing an intent to wheel-war before even getting the administrative tools does not provoke trust in the candidate's good intentions.
'''Oppose''' per SCZenz. Going back through the past 1,000 edits the talk comments are not those I'd hope to see from a sysop and there seems to be nothing in the edits that indicates the admin tools would be useful. -
'''Oppose''' Likley to abuse tools per experience on [[Lolicon]].
'''Oppose''' Attitude to vandalism is a concern, per the thoughts expressed above. --
'''Oppose''' per all above. --
'''Oppose''' per issues and concerns raised above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' even before reading every single opposing comment. I like editors and admins with character, as they are people. However, I see a general inability to take things seriously. On [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|my different standards]], I note that I (m) ''seldom'' oppose candidates due to content on their userpages. However, the fake categories at the bottom of your page made to look like the Wikipedia sanctioned categories is not conveying an image of seriousness. Then, there are the unnecessary uses of web lingo to communicate in edit summaries and comments (as mentioned previously in this RfA). And how about [[Wikipedia:Snark!]]? The [[laissez-faire]] attitude towards vandalism once again contributes to the lack of seriousness. Like I said, I like character as we're all human. However, I don't get the impression that you'll be serious when you need to be. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for conduct unbecoming an admin per Andeh and others above -
'''Oppose''' strongly due to history of actions unbecoming of an administrator.
'''Oppose.''' Doesn't meet my criteria.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Too many concerns about conduct raised above
'''Oppose''' due to a number of concerns raised above.  I appreciate a sense of humour, but you need to spend more time learning maintenance tasks and copyright.  In addition, I agree with Mindspillage about the concerns regarding "snarking."
Per Hipocrite, seems like too much of a risk to use the tools improperly. —
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' as above.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Andeh.
I do not think this user has the comprehension or disposition to act in this capacity. '''
'''Oppose''' User is to controversial at the moment to be admin at the moment. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry.  I like the guy and gave him a parrot.  There are too many foul mouthed sysops on the project, and I worry he's going to fit the same mold, based on the above.  Really undermines the encyclopedia. --
I don't think he'd be a bad admin, but the disproportionate amount of User namespace edits, and the lack of heavy involvement in certain articles strikes me as a bit of a lack of drive. He seems smart, but he has an unsure, stream-of-consciousness tone that won't come in handy when mediating or explaining policy.
'''Neutral'''. I like answer 4, I agree being able to admit mistakes is vital. Humor shown in your "interview" is also a plus. But Oppose 1 and 2 make good points, and your answers 1-3 didn't convince me. Neutral for now. -
'''Neutral''' per Adambiswanger1.
'''Neutral''': Has spent a fair number of months on Wikipedia, but from all I've heard, he needs to be corrected. --

I really, really like the sense of humor displayed in the vandalism warnings. Shockingly, treating people like ''people'' who can be talked to and not just bossing them around, even if they have done something dumb, is generally pretty well-received. And where it isn't, well, you tried. What I really, really don't like is the "snarking" bit. This sort of thing causes problems for Wikipedia when the companies involved have problems with the heavy weight criticism gets in the article. If the article shouldn't exist, get it deleted. If it should exist at all, it should be a neutral picture, not heavily weighted toward criticism to make an example out of them. Mention criticsm and problems but don't make it the focus unless it really is such a tremendous scandal that it deserves an article of its own. I don't know this editor at all otherwise, so neither support nor oppose.
'''Neutral''' although i can't see the point in his adminship, he's definitely a good editor --
'''Neutral'''<s>'''Oppose'''</s> intended to sit it out until saw the pro-support spam on someone's talkpage. Probably not your fault - but I cannot ignore it. Sorry. - <b>
'''Strong Neutral''' - I see points for both sides on this one.  --





'''Sympathy Support''' Let us stop discouraging this user any further. It takes a brave soul to nominate himself/herself. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak (not pro forma) support''' Having reviewed the user's contributions, I am confident that neither would he volitionally abuse the mop, etc., nor would he, ignorant of policy or unfamiliar with process, otherwise inappropriately use the admin tools (it seems likely that this user will seek the input of others before undertaking actions about the propriety of which he is unsure).  To be sure, my support would be clearer were there a larger edit history at which to look (one complete with involvement in sundry Wikipedia-space discussions), but the good in his work assuages any fears I'd have w/r/to abuse/misuse.
'''Moral support''', per Joe. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''.  Question answered well enough.  Reasonable edit counts, seems trustworthy.  Not at all vandal obsessed.
'''Sympathetic support''' per Joe.
'''Support'''.  I see nothing wrong with promoting this user.
'''Support''' Despite edit count, won't abuse powers.
'''Support''' per Yanksox --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support'''.  Has demonstrated good judgement and faultless civility in editing, vandal fighting, xfd votes, etc.  A further thousand edits would only allow the candidate to demonstrate his evident suitability again.  --
'''Support'' I am convinced he would exercise good judgement and be reasonable as an Admin.  That's all really matters to me.
'''Support''' He knows how to handle things properly and find out what he needs to. He will be a good admin. Note: using VandalProof.
'''Strong Oppose''' Must be here 3-6 months and if that's not the case at least a 1,000 edits. This user has 668 edits the last time I checked. As this user has never been in an edit war, he hasn't reverted much edits which is needed to become an admin. If you nominate yourself or someone else nominates you in 3-5 months I'll support you. Suggest returnal around late July, early Augast.
'''Oppose''', of the four items listed under the admin tasks, three can be done without admin rights. I suggest getting first experience with those before trying again. --
'''Oppose''' You seemed to have made a promising beginnig to a bright wiki-career. But you need to spend more time & gain experience before we can entrust you with the tools. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per reasons stated above. Like MartinRe and Srikeit said, a good start, but more experience is needed.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' <sigh> If only you had more experience. The good thing about a low edit count is that it is easier to sample.  From what I've seen of your talk page and edits, I think you will do ok in about 2,000 more edits. More edits will help assess your judgment. You don't really need admin powers for most of the things you list. The most dangerous/beneficial tools I can think of are the powers to block other users and delete articles. Could you list what tasks on the admin attention list you have in mind?
'''Please [[WP:SNOWBALL]] Oppose''' no where near enough experience.
'''Oppose'''. I would trust the user with admin tools, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Oppose''' I'm worried by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=55451694&oldid=55451372 misplaced RfA]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose'''. Looks to be pretty much the same level of experience as I am, and I would never consider that to be experienced enough for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' - per above --<font size="1">
'''Oppose''' – due to relative inexperience. Nothing personal –
'''Oppose''': A long time with low edits is a matter of serious concern, as either dedication or authenticity may be suspect.  Not everyone needs to be racking up thousands and thousands, but, at the same time, there isn't a great deal of article creation (which can mean slow but weighty edits), either.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient experience.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', mediation doesn't require adminship, and having only 39 edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests you haven't done much of it.
'''Oppose''' Low edit count, and not enough experience of using Wikipedia and its associated policies and guidelines. Come back in a few months time. --
'''Oppose''' per above --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose'''. Nothing personal, just a little more experience and variety in edits shall be useful. --
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience. --
'''Um...No''' not enough experience or edits. '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''Neutral''', needs more experience.  Will support in a few months. --
'''Neutral'''. Not enough overall edits or wikipedia namespace edits. I will support in a couple of months. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Can't support per insufficient breadth, can't oppose per this user's good work thus far. Shouldn't be too much longer. :) <tt>
'''Neutral''' (from support) You seem to have had a good beginning to wikipedia, but# too short on overall experience as yet. Sorry. Regards,
No reason to doubt good faith, competence or desire to help whatsoever, but I'd love to see a little bit more general interaction somewhere. Nevertheless, well done on nominating yourself; it takes balls which, in four incarnations, I've never had. :) '''
'''Neutral''', lacks of experience and edits. Try again in three months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Wikibreak Neutral'''. hasn't been here long enough for me to know whether I want to support, but nothing suggests to me a need to oppose. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Neutral'''.  Too new for me.  More edits and more experience --> support in the future.
'''Neutral'''.  Just a little too new, look forward to supporting in the future. .:.
'''Neutral'''. I like your attitude, and how you have become an active vandalism reverter, but give yourself some time and maybe join a few projects. Also I suggest you become acquainted with [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]].--
'''Neutral''' as per Geogre.  Adminship is no big deal, and your edit count could be ok, but contributions are still limited, and I have a higher standard for self-noms (at least one other Wikipedian should know what a good admin you will make :-).  Come back in a month...
'''Neutral'''. I can tell you would be helpful as an admin, but I'd like to see more experience from you.
As nom.
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''', all checks out fine.
'''Support''' Will make an excellent admin --
'''Support''', other than that it seems you were out skiing from December to February... ;-) --
'''Support''' gladly. He'll make a fine admin.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' checks out ok, no skeletons that I can see. Go get 'em Tiger!
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''', definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Wiki-student support'''. My Wikimentor has proven ot be capable of doing good [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion votes]]. Hoary...I am so glad...--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">a</font>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', well deserved --
'''Support''', will do a good job.
'''Support''', A well experienced person.
'''Support''' - give him a mop - and take away the skis!
'''Support''' Veteran editor, obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' An excellent user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Hooray for Hoary. --
'''Support''', and a well-deserved one! :) -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He probably doesn't remember this, but he was helpful to me when I was new. And, while I hate saying something so boringly unoriginal, I thought he ''was'' an administrator.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Yes indeed. <font color="#000080">
'''support''' several good noms appearing here in a row, I'm glad to see!
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Reliable, competent, and level headed. Should be an ideal admin.
'''Support''', good edits, answers and nerves.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', roll out the clishe...
'''Support''' looks like he should have been an admin for a while now.
'''Support''', seasoned, experienced editor who more than meets requirements. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' meets my criteria! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', another good candidate.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor who stays very cool during content disputes.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Given the length of this list my support seems superfluous but is nonetheless heartfelt. Hoary makes excellent contributions to Wikipedia in a great variety of ways, and always in a genial manner.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''&trade;. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''. --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''', a great editor. --
'''Support''': seems like a swell bloke.
I can't believe I haven't voted on this yet.
'''Support''', well deserving
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Uses the preview feature well. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
Late '''support'''. Especially like the answers to all the questions below. Nothing to suggest that he would abuse his mop. -
--
'''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Has been professional in previous encounters. --
'''Support''' Excellent.
'''1st Support''' Hoopydink makes a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, I believe will do a good job as an admin. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Super-Duper 2<sup>nd</sup> support''' - User certainly presents themself well, and have good faith within the user. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
I had some concerns about some of this editor's actions and in particular some nominations, wondering if he gets the wiki way... but I've had a chance to talk to him and I think he does get it. Moreover, the record of contributions is solid, and shows a prelediction for the sorts of things that good admins do before they become good admins. I think Hoopydink is a fine candidate and I look forward to working with him. '''Support''' ++
'''Support'''.  He's not already? --
'''Support'''. Contributions look good!
'''Support'''; seen him around, been impressed so far; good answers and examples.
'''Support'''. Honestly, I was pretty sure you were already an admin. Past experiences give me no reason to worry he'll abuse the tools, and he seems more levelheaded than many. Always responsive and helpful on IRC.
'''Support''' despite the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=73808173 slightly malformed nom]. User meets my civility and 2k edit requirements. He's also a clear asset to the [[WP:AIV]] board. Best of luck on your RFA, Hoopy. :) <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. The candidate's <small><s>abject cruelty</s></small>'''helpful criticism''' on my own RfA well and truly demonstrated that hoopy knows what he's doing. :) [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''. I don't see why not.
'''Support''' I'll support on the basis of the above answers to questions and the quick and constructive response to observations on the copyright status of some of the images that you have uploaded. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support.''' (edit conflict) I like to think I am on top of things. When I see "I already thought (s)he was an admin..." votes, I think to myself, "Wow, they need to pay more attention!" However, I was caught off guard for this one. I am '''positively shocked''' that you are not already an admin. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
I ''really'' hate to drop this cliche, but after reading his posts at ANI and elsewhere, I had to double-check that he wasn't already an admin.  Several times. --
'''Support''' Strong candidate [[User:Adambiswanger1|AdamBiswanger1]]<sub>
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Excellent user, trustworthy, and could use the tools. Every time I look this user up I'm surprised there this user isn't an admin or that there hasn't been a previous RfA.
'''Support'''. based solely on the highly organized and detailed summary of user's contributions.
'''Support''' Highly qualified candidate with ample article and project space experience.--
'''Support''' great editor! -
'''Support'''. This is a very well executed request from a clearly capable candidate, I have no doubt he will use the tools to continue his good work.
'''Support''' per Agent 86 and Luna S., consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], and insofar as, like Daveydweeb, I often find myself admiring Hoopydink's RfA comments, such that I think he/she has an excellent conception of that which an admin should be and is possessed of the measured judgment that portends propitious tool use.

'''Unsolicited co-nominator Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' A great asset. Set him to work asap...
'''Support'''. A good editor, vandal fighter, and communicator.  Looking through his contributions and talk page, it's clear that he learns from his own mistakes, is helpful to others, and takes [[WP:BITE]] seriously. '''''×'''''

'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. I see your name ''all over'', and I've never had trouble with the users you report to AIV. You're a great user, and will make a great admin :).
'''Strong Support''' - I hate to invoke RfA cliche #1 but I for the longest time ''honestly'' believed he was already an administrator. In fact it wasn't until my own RfA that I realised this wasnt the case. Long overdue, strong support. -
'''Pile on Support''' - there, I did it --
'''More Support Yet!''' - me too.
'''Support''' no question.  An asset --
'''Jump up and down on top of Samir's head support''' I wonder what a hoopymop looks like....
'''/me supports'''  --
'''Support:''' my, my, it seems like my RFA has encouraged all the regular vandalfighters at #wikipedia to run. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support''' and happy to
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Great user, will be a great admin. -
'''Support''', great editor, has done a lot of work fighting vandalism.--
'''Support''' Yes! Yes!
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''', I do believe I was tempted to nominate them in the past. No need now.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - per RfA cliche #1 and CrazyRussian --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already. He'd make an excellent addtion!
'''Support''' reasonable, attentive user with a good work ethic. Yeah, that sounds good.
'''Suport''' don't see why not, alot of good edits for a short time.
'''Support'''.  I'm more than happy to support Hoopy.
'''Support'''.  Hoopy has a good sense of humor and was very civil and helpful in the two rather lengthy discussions we had.
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Support''' I too thought the user was an admin; I confess that I checked the User Rights log to make sure I wasn't going crazy.  Hoopydink does well in RC patrolling and Wikipedia discussion, I trust 'em with the tools.  Please, though, do more than AIV and CSD.  There is much much more out there...
'''Support''' -- worthy admin candidate. -
'''Support''': not even close in my book.
'''Very Strong Support''' Hoopydink is an excellent user, and I'm so glad that he's going for the tools. He's an excellent presence on RC patroll, and a great, knowledgeable editor. I have no problems supporting him. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. Due to the high esteem in which this user is held, I will wave my standard of at least 200 user-talk edits.
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor.  Besides, his username continues to be an endless source of amusement for my child-like mind! :)  Hoopydink... giggle...
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. User is well experienced and is willing to do work for the community.
'''Support''' per his Contributions <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Absolute, yet unnecessary Support''', despite our [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=74278087 recent disagreement]. <tt>:-)</tt>. Cheers, and good luck, &mdash; '''
Of course
'''Support'''. Great user, great vandal-fighter. --
'''Support''' per above and answers to questions. Great user, excellent vandal-stomper. :D --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Wish I had found this earlier pile on support''' [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - User appears to be sane. Sane people tend to be good administrators. Therefore, Hoopy will make a good administrator. —
'''I'm always late to the party Support''' - I see this guy all over, "What, he's not an admin yet"? etc etc. --
'''Support''', I think Hoopydink will use the tools well. ---
'''Support''' Yet another "he's not an admin yet???" vote.
'''I-thought-I-already-supported-this-RfA-but-on-second-check-I-hadn't support''' - <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Support''' Good Editor with a a lot of great work behind him <font color="SteelBlue">[[User:Aeon1006|Æon]]</font> <font color="red"><sup>[[User talk:Aeon1006|Insanity Now!]]</sup></font><sub><font color="Green">
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with the tools. —
--
'''Support''' per nom, answers, and comments above.  Quality user, no issues.
'''Support'''. Worthy contributor and countervandal.
'''Support''' - a strong editor, no concerns whatsoever. '''
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Great vandal fighting work. //
'''Support''' '''<font color="blue">°≈§→</font>'''&nbsp;[[User:Robomaeyhem|<font color="black">Robom</font>]][[User:Robomaeyhem/Esperanza|<font color="green"><b>æ</b></font>]]
'''Support''. --
'''Support''' another fine candidate.  Long history of exactly the right kind of stuff. <b>
'''Support''' would make a really good admin. --
'''Support'''&mdash; I think I'm safe in congratulating you on making it! Use your Wikipowers thoughtfully and well! Skål -
Pile-on '''Support'''. I have nothing but good experience of this editor who I am sure will be a great admin. --
'''Support''' <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Support''' An excellent editor who is calm, civil and well suited to becoming an admin. Welcome aboard.
'''Support'''. Excellent answers, excellent summary usage, civil user, could do great things. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor
'''Support.''' Seriously...I thought he already was one.
'''Support.''' Does good work.
'''Oppose''' due to interactions on IRC, and from what I've seen there, Hoopydink is '''not''' civil. Thats not exactly what we want for admins.
'''Oppose''' per ILP. I will reiterate my oppose even if it gets deleted. Whether or not the user is blocked, it is irrelevant. The point here is that Hoopydink completely personally attacked another user without reason (on IRC) and even sent a negatively worded threatening e-mail (I can paste this on my userpage with addresses deleted to prove my point if I need to). There is '''''no excuse''''' to personally attack someone, regardless of what the issue is - whether you don't like someone (again without knowing them, this cannot be fair), heard bad things about them (again without asking them for verification, this cannot be fair), or whatever, you just don't personally attack someone OR send them harassing e-mails. Harassment doesn't make a good admin. Being calm, level-headed, approachable, trying to remain neutral in the midst of issues that don't directly involve you, that makes a good admin.
As nominator, I entirely agree with everything I wrote above. --
'''Strong support'''. Very good editor, will make a brilliant admin; this is a long overdue nomination, which I'm pleased to support.
'''Strong support''' per nominator. Humus sapiens is a brilliant and prolific editor and will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. So, why *isn't* he an admin already? I don't get RfA sometimes.
'''Support'''. Fair-minded, dedicated contributor with plenty of excellent work behind him and hopefully much more ahead.
'''Support'''. Good calm editor, and well versed in policy. Will use tools wisely.
'''Support''', it's about time! One of Wikipedia's best! --
'''Support'''. Reviewed  this editors contributions and decided that he is qualified and trustworthy for extra tools.--
'''Support''', excellent choice; bold yet accommodating and works well with others. And yes, long overdue.
Strong qualifications, unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''': good editor, well-qualified (and I like the earthy name).
'''Support''', everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''', a strong and unbiased editor.-
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', good experienced editor.
'''Support''': excellent combination of strong editorial skills, good community involvement, and even-handed user interactions. --
'''Support'''. Great work so far!
Can't see a single reason why not.
'''Support''' (with extra measure for clever Latinity in his user name).
'''Support''' - no problems seen --
'''Support''' - I just love this guy.
'''Support''', an outstanding candidate. It surprises me that it took this long for him to be nominated.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Wholeheartedly. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. Dedicated editor. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1434 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' clicheX2, I can't believe this guy isn't an editor.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A level-headed and very consistent editor.
'''Support''' Probably can be trusted not to abuse tools, admin is no big deal.
'''support'''. Yup, another good one.
'''Support''', yes, looks good to me too.
A booming voice says, "Wrong, cretin!", and you notice that you have turned into a pile of dust.
'''Support'''.  I have reviewed this user's contributions and statistics, and he seems like a great user. --
'''Strong support'''. Finaly an editor who understands what NPOV is all about.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. Worked with him on an article articles, looked at his other work. Will be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. --&nbsp;<strong>
'''Support''' Experienced and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support''' as per Xoloz. --
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin.
'''Strong Support'''. [[User:Humus sapiens]] will be a tremendous asset as an admin!
'''Support''' per the clichés above. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' this could get a lot of votes
'''Support'''. A very appropriate nomination. --
'''Make him an Admin? Make him a prince of the Hawkmen!'''
'''Support''' Definitely
'''Support''' per nom, solid record of contributions.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Solid editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
[[Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg|30px]] per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' ton of edits and very expericenced. I'm suprised you are'nt already an admin.
'''Support''' Good editor. Should be good administrator.
Tempted to oppose out of sheer cliche hatred.  But instead I'll cast my scorn upon the perpetrators, '''support'''', and admit to my own surprise.

'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Well rounded.
'''Support'''. Basically like a clone of me, only smarter, more patient and religious. Would I trust myself to be an admin? Of course! --
'''Support''', and hope rollbacks will be accompanied with a message on the vandal's talk page. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' this well-balanced editor. --
'''Support''' per Dakota. --
'''Support''' a fine editor. --
'''Very Strong Support''' I've enjoyed working with him tremenously. He has helped to achieve comprimises often. --
'''Support'''.  Very positive experiences working on difficult subjects.
'''Support''' - 11,000 edits is a huge number compared to the average person who requests adminship, the answers to the questions seemed quite suitable too. I see no problem.--
'''Support'''.  Curious why he isn't already an admin. —
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' For goodness sake, if Hs isn't an admin, no one else should be.  A slam-dunk.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', Really he deserves to be a sysop. A very great contributor.
'''Support''', this user has done well.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, will be a great admin.
'''Support''' nice work. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong support'''. As should be expected with the candidate's roughly fifty million edits, I've seen this guy around. I have little doubt that he would better the project.
'''Support''', can't say anything more than has already been said. .:.
'''Support''', per nominator and for standing up to loaded questions.
'''Support''' this experienced user.
'''Support''' - Just one comment; it shouldn't be the case that the comment 'he has 11,000 edits' should be followed by the though 'I can't believe he's not an editor already'.  Admin status is not an edit count trophy. -
'''Support.''' User has been ready for the mop for quite some time.--
'''Support''', yep.
'''Support''', as eminently qualified. Handling of additional 'questions' was good, too. Mild amusement at the nominator's observation that "he's not an editor already". -
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' to this tireless 6-days-a-week contributor. - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Support'''. Of course. &mdash; '''
Definite '''Support'''.
'''Support''' --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]


'''Support'''. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' only 2 votes to go :) ''<font color="#990011">//</font>''
'''Support'''.  Hooray for pile-ons. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''[[WP:100]] Support!!!''' Yeahy. Good editor, would make great admin. [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' Good guy, very patient. Hey I just pushed you over 100, do I win a cookie???
'''Can't find the block I know I issued you support''' '''
'''[[support]]''':
'''Support'''. --
'''Belated Support''' My observations of this admin candidate have been good.
'''Support''' seems to be a fine editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Nobody is perfect, but the aprpoach demonstrated to difficult topics is better than many and cooperative.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - <font color="#08457E">
'''[[Spontaneous combustion|Hot support]]. Great editor.
Despite his having been locked in a stasis tube for 30+ years, and the fact that each use of his powers leads to the death of a random human somewhere on the planet, I vote '''support'''.
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' tons of experience! <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Weakest possible Oppose''' It does not appear that mine will be the deciding vote.  Therefore, I’m reserving for myself the distinction of being the only editor to oppose the nomination by a ratio of over 100:1.  I do so because as the vote shows, he’s everyone’s friend, including mine!  If Wikipedia were a social club, I’d nominate him for President.  Admittedly, I’ve only observed his behavior on a limited number of topics for a fairly short period of time.  Yet, I’ve noticed what in my judgment is a pattern of compromising quality when there’s a risk to his “Political” standing in the community.  In addition to his numerous and outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, I believe this partly explains why he will be (almost) universally confirmed for adminship.
'''Oppose''' I have not interacted with Humus sapiens in a significant fashion except on the article [[IRmep]] via an anonymous IP.  On this article, he passively let the user [[User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg]] be disruptive and push into the article unsourced opinions.  It is my feeling that [[User:SlimVirgin]] also facilitated Moshe by blocking people Moshe was revert waring with -- see [[User_talk:64.230.120.237]].  IRmep is a pro-Arab organization which contrasts with the pro-Israel POV that is shared by both [[User:Humus sapiens]], [[User:SlimVirgin]], and [[User:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg]].  Neither [[User:SlimVirgin]] or [[User:Humus sapiens]] discouraged Moshe about his disruptive behavior or stopped it -- that only occured when a neutral administrator came in (i.e. [[User:Bastique]].)  This episode disturbed me significantly since it demonstrates that Humus sapiens has a significant and worrisome blind spot, especially for an administrator.  See most of [[Talk:Institute_for_Research:_Middle_Eastern_Policy]] for the details.  --
'''Undecided''' based upon shifting standards. This good editor writes in a narrow range of articles and is supported by those who oppose CTSWyneken's nomination "because he writes in a narrow range of articles." Why does that disqualify one, but not the other? --




'''Support''' without reservations as nominator. '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''
Without a second thought. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Hurragh!--
'''Support'''. Why not?--Jay '''(
'''Support'''. a goody.
'''Support'''  Despite minor head-butting, H. is an asset and will administrate Wp nicely.
Have seen this user in various places doing good.  --
'''Support''' Good editor, will be good admin. --
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support''': Civil, cooperative, good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Plenty of project and Wikipedia namespace edits. Proud to support a fellow military history buff. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">
'''Support''' Sure. --
'''Support'''.  I could trust someone with over 10000 edites and almost 2 years of [[Wikipedia]] experiance.   Good Luck!  --
'''Support'''. It's about time. Let's give him admin's chair. -
'''Support''' <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Support''' Experienced editor. --
'''Strong Support''' - This guy should of been an admin long ago. --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support''' - Definitely.
'''Support'''. Good editor will be a good administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Well rounded, use of edit summaries, seems to be civil. --
'''Support''', will wield the title well.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': good contributions, especially in military history and customs.
'''Support''', I've come across Husnock (though never conversed) in military-related articles, where he's shown his knowledge of the articles and of Wikipedia procedures. Reasonable answers to the optional questions also lead me to lend my support, though I'd recommend reviewing [[WP:CSD]] if you decide to get into "speedy delete patrol" (or whatever they call it). Also, I think you might like to take a look at some of the conversations at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]] before you try your hand at some of the "heavier" admin tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''.  Works for me. -
'''Support'''.  Came across him when he was doing medals for US soldiers in the Vietnam war.  Was willing to do work to make things better, compromise etc.
'''Support''' - he isnt an admin yet? --
'''Support''' nothing wrong with being supportive--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. <TT>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - he isn't already?
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Fabulous user.  Sorry your species was destroyed by a [[Dowd]] in [[The Survivors (TNG episode)|this show]].  You provide a great legacy for them. :)
'''Support''' so many edits? needs to be rewarded.
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Oppose''' The "sysop chores" he lists don't need admin status. No personal issues; he just needs to explain which ''admin'' projects, like AFD and vandal watch, he would help out with.
'''Oppose'''--
This seems to be a very dedicated user, but I would like for him to become much more familiar with the processes of page deletion before being given the power to do so. (Question 7) If you research more into the process, I will gladly support your adminship. -
'''Support''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' at last! Good luck! --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' He provided me with ''damn'' fine feedback on my editor review, which initially led me to think that he was already an admin. Given his positive attitude and keen knowledge of Wikipedia policies, I have no doubt that he would use a mop well.
'''Support''' A great user. Plenty of afd experience, good amount of vandalism reversion (always followed by warnings, as far as I can tell), and very civil and levelheaded. When I learned he wasn't an admin (somewhere around a month ago, give or take two weeks) I was quite surprised. And in addition to all of that, [[Portal:Iceland]] looks very nice.
'''Sustentação''', '''Burðarstoð''', '''Unterstützung''' and whatever else applies. ~
'''Support''' - good user, seen him on IRC and wiki, would be a good admin
'''Support''' He's a good Wikipedian.
'''Support''' as co-nom. -
'''Support''', obviously, as nominator.--
'''Support''', top-notch vandal fighter. --
'''[[Shine On You Crazy Diamond]]. Quite surprised Husond isn't an admin already too.
'''Support''' Why ever not? --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Strong Support''' I have had a few run-ins with Husond before, and nothing to me suggests that this valued vandal-fighter would be anything less than a superb admin.
'''Support''' - great user. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' - great user has been very effective in vandal fighting active in AfD as well
'''Support''' per answers given above and effective vandalfighting, something that can only be strengthened with the admin tools.
'''Edit-conflicted support!''' Given past experiences with him, I'll gladly look forward to working with Husond as an admin -- you could even say I've been ''waiting'' for it. And as I recall somebody saying quite simply in my own RfA: "vandalfighter needs tools." User is effective and reasonable.
'''Support per nom''' *shifty eyes* '''
'''Support''' Seen a lot of good things from this editor. Good luck :) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Very strong support'''. Vandal fighter, vandal fighter... We need more vandal fighters with admin powers --'''
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''. Impressive vandal fighter. I have no problems providing tools for specialist editors when I am confident they would not misuse them in other areas.
'''Support.''' (edit conflict) per answers to questions and many of the above votes.--
'''Strong Support.'''  Affable, committed, level-headed, civil, and an excellent vandal bopper.
'''These things can't be closed early! Curse you, Captain Planet!;}'''
'''Support'''
Естественно, я поддерживаю етого кандидата. Потому что у него есть тараканы. Я поддерживаю всех с тараканами. - <b>
'''Support''' as per above.
Yeah? '''Hell yeah!''' An excellent user, and a pleasure to see around -- Husond will make a very high quality admin. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' Not much else to say.
'''Support''' Demonstrated knowledge of WIKI and will continue to grow.
'''Strong Support''' per all the above reasons. A very good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per noms --
'''Strong Support''' - I have just good experinces with him. Will make an absolutely good admin.
'''Support''' per above,
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' no bad experiences with him.--
'''Support''' --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per the excellent nomination and answers.  Normally I would look for a little more time on the project but the circumstances here make that much less relevant.
'''Support'''. Amazing noöne has opposed yet. <small>I hope it stays that way</small>. I haven't <u>met</u> this editor, ''per se'', but I've watched him, and I see absolutely no reason to oppose. Per noms. &mdash; [[User:Springeragh|<font style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''</font>]]
'''Unconditional Support''': Civil and knowledgeable editor. He has done a great job so far on [[WP:RQM]] and other unpopular corners of wikipedia. Regards,
'''Support''' Have had good interactions with him. Good house-duck to have around.
'''Support''' - As per my stricken neutral comment below...
'''Support''' - Per noms. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Strong support''', I have had frequent interaction with Husond, and he's extremely polite and civil. Would make a good mop-wielder. '''
I agree to mopifying this versatile user.
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Three noms, thats a good thing --
'''Support''' per everyone above <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' This is a great candidate. ''Give-em-the-mop''<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''Eu suporto'''. I believe this will be the first admin from Portugal. Correct me if I'm wrong.
'''Super-Support''', what a very kind user. A great help to the project the tools will only make him a better editor.--
'''Uber support'''(edit conflict) this guy helped me get my mop, and is a valuable asset to WP. [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen him patrolling quite a few times, and he seems to have good judgment. "He's Not An Admin Already?" --
'''Support''' As ridiculous as I think the "he's not already an admin?" support statement is, I actually was shocked to see this RfA.  If anything, it's overdue.  Plus, he used the word "honour" with the ''correct'' British spelling.  How cool is that?!  --
'''Support''': I've had to revert his user page more than once so he must be doing something right!  :)  —
'''Super strong support''': He's a nice guy, knows what he's doing, and is great on the anti-vandal front. This RfA is probably overdue. :) —
'''Support''' &ndash; Good editor, nice (helpful!) person; perfect mix. Will be a wonderful admin. — [[User:E@L/Esperanza|<font color=#336600 face=papyrus>E</font>]]
'''Support''', definitely. User has his act together and will use the tools well.

'''Incredibly strong support'''. ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''.
I see '''no reason to not support'''.
'''Of course I support''' I have seen him (or her) a number of occasions busily trying to better Wikipedia. I see no reason from the edit count and from the question answers to oppose him. (or her)
'''Support''' per Runcorn.
Hmm. Thought I voted already a while back. Maybe I was edit conflicted by one of the many people who obviously feel he'll be a great admin like I do. '''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. The coffee loungers say hi. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac15</font>]]'''''
'''Support'''. European support from the EU member. -
'''Support'''. Good editor!
'''Strong Support''' - Great wikipedian, has my support.  Would do the job great.
'''Support''' I've seen Husond around quite a bit, and have seen nothing but positive things from him. -- '''
'''Pile-on''' Friendly user, good guy, seems to place the best interests of Wikipedia at the forefront of his editing style
'''Support'''. Seems to be sensible and experienced.
'''Strong support'''. Great editor, very civil and experienced.--'''
'''Support''' passes my criteria
'''Support''' very kind user, has brought smiles to my face from some of his edits.<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>
'''Support''' , pr nom.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support''' He's very involved.. I don't actually know him very well, but I've seen his edits everywhere --<b><font color="CC0000">lov</font><font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font><font color="CC0000">laughterlife♥ (
'''Neutral''' for now.  I am concerned that he has been here only since July 2006.   However, I do have a  question for the candidate - If consensus is found to promote you, will you use the admin channel of IRC?  If so  - What do you feel you can discuss there which will positively benefit Wikipedia that cannot be discussed in an open forum?
'''Neutral'''. I feel obliged to echo Giano's concerns. No evidence has been presented that the nominee has substantial experience in mainspace, other than vandal-fighting, and that he has been sufficiently involved in dispute resolution procedures. With recent instances of admins running amock, I don't think we should be so facile in entrusting tools to newbies. --<font color="FC4339">
Although he founded the userbox project, Ian is a good moderate, thoughtful guy (not a POV userbox in sight). He's got a little less article experience than I normally like to see in an admin, but I've seen enough good stuff to trust him with a mop. --
'''Support''' per Doc. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Extreme "He isn't an admin yet?" support''' - nice, caring, thoughtful user that we're about to corrupt by giving him the mop - go us! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' will use the mop well. --
-- <small> (
'''Support''' he is an asset to our community, excellent potential to become a great moderator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Experienced enough, with no evident admin liabilities or abuse concerns.--
'''Support'''. Shows qualities we need in new administrators. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. He knows what he's doing.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Although I would like to see more article editing. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator. [[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:black">Compu</span>]]
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter --
No reason not to '''support''' this user. Good edits, lots of edit summaries, good vandalism reverting. Clean record. --
''"Adminship is no big deal."'' -
'''Support''' - has demonstrated common sense, and I've no reason not to trust him
'''Strong Support'''. Will be an excellent admin. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Mild Support''' This user deserves it.
--
Another ''He isn't an admin yet?'' '''support'''. Also, per the "13" ;-) --
'''Support''' What the hell, he isn't an admin?? Great editor, will be a good admin.
'''Support''' a little concern he may be too concerned with process rather than wikipedia's goal of being an encyclopaedia, but on balance believe he will make good use of the admin tools. --01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Don't know where my sig went
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' edits look decent, no reason to suspect that admin tools will be misused.--
'''
'''Support''', thought he was one.
'''Support''', I also thought he was one. Thanks for sticking up for userboxes! --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' --<small>

'''Full Support''' Due to the lack of sense many of the opposing votes below make, I feel this user is more than qualified to be an adminstrator. Ian represents an individual (who does NOT live in a pineapple under the sea), instead a robot who copies and pastes AFD tags all the livelong day. Why settle for an encyclopedia when you can create a community of educated individuals, who have beliefs, dislikes, and talents?
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong Support'''.  He is certainly qualified.  -
'''Weak support''' (changed from neutral) - definitely a good editor, and although I would like to have seen a few more article edits, I'm sure he'll do a good job.
'''Support''', already has the mentality of an administrator. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Much positive involvement in the community. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' per Doc, but disagree with Doc's negative assessment of the userbox project. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''.  Handles disagreements well; adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support''' Would make a good administrator. <small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good guy. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' great user and knows policy really well.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Doc. I would prefer more article space edits, but Those Who Cleanup and do Thankless Tasks Also Serve.
'''Support''', seems OK to me.
OPPOSE-Frankly from what I've read Ian seems to lack the leadership qualities needed to keep vandals and other miscreants in check.I think vandals will find it far too easy to take advantage of this "jolly good fellow".Sorry Ian but I do not think you have what it takes to be a good administrator. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by

'''Oppose'''. Two soon since last nomination and still too little experience building the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose VERY VERY WEAKLY''', [[WP:ENC]]. On your first nom I said come back in a month, but still no article contributions of note.
'''Weak Oppose''' Needs to contribute to Wikipedia the encyclopedia rather than other stuff.
Has more edits to userboxes and to userbox-related pages than to the encyclopedia. &#8212;
I am afraid that I cannot support nor be neutral when folks are not in the content areas.  Policy does not exist without the content, and knowledge of policy without contribution and work in content is null (just as writing endless articles and not knowing the policies would be onanism), and user pages and user page matters without content are web developing rather than encyclopedia building.  Nothing against the fellow, but administrating means content in the policies and policies for the content.
Per Geogre. You do good work, but not enough in the article space.
'''Oppose''' per Cryptic and Geogre. --
Nothing personal, but we are here to write an encyclopedia and it seems you haven't been doing too much of that.  —
'''Weak oppose'''.  Only 19% of edits are in the actual article mainspace, and many are vandal reverts.  Don't get me wrong; vandalism fighting is good, but mainspace contributions outside of vandalism reverts should be the largest percentage of one's edits. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Oppose''' - more article edits please.
'''Oppose''', seems like a nice guy, but I'd rather he had more experience in the encyclopedia part of this encyclopedia. Effort to shape up in this regard is solid and worthy of praise, but not there yet.
'''Oppose''' For many of the same reasons above. For example, he has roughly the same amount of edits to his user/talk page as he does to articles including vandal reverting. Well intentioned to be sure, but acting as "Chief Executive" (Community Justice) and "Project Manager" (userboxes) just seems to be building authority structures just for the sake of it and isn't really focusing on building an encyclopedia. And to be honest, I was put off when he gave Mistress Selina Kyle a Barnstar (not for her actions to be fair). I don't think we should be encouraging disruptive editors like that. Overall, needs to spend more time in article space. Lot's of people end up working policy but generally after spending a fair amount of time contributing to the encyclopedia, there's experience gained there that you just don't get elsewhere. (sorry for the long comment)
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Geogre.
I really wanted to support, but if you don't even have 150 major edits in the article-namespace, I don't think you can be qualified for adminship. (This isn't edit-countitis; it's common sense -- at least for me.)
'''Neutral''' Darn, I hate my standards for voting. :-( Sorry Ian. 574 mainspace edits concerns me. Especially when most of them are just vandalism reverts. Other than that I see no problems or signs he wouldn't make a good admin, I think he just needs to bring up that count.
'''Neutral''' &ndash; Evidently a good candidate, but I am concerned that he seems more interested in policy than directly building an encyclopedia. &ndash;
'''Neutral''', This was a hard one, but I have to agree with Joke. --<font color="green">'''
Neutral until more content contributions. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Neutral''' not enough edits yet, but still a good editor. --
'''Neutral''' due to lack of experience and significant contributions to the main namespace.
'''Neutral'''. The answer to my question makes it seem like you still have no interest in making good article space contributions, but other than that, everything else seems ok.&#160;—
'''Support''' -- Looks like a good user. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' despite misspelling "graciously" in the acceptance ;) --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' pretty much whoever NSLE nominates. - <b>
'''Support''' Much experience, looks good to me.
'''Support''' Very good editor with more than enough experience; all around excellent fellow. Also, has an impressive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:IanManka block log].--
'''Support'''. 2 FA speak for themselves. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' 2FA! zOMG!
'''Support''' civil and patient editor. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' A pleasure to work with.
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Pleasently surprised by the answer.
'''Support''' - actions speak for themselves --
'''Support''' - an excellent editor who has done some really good work on the FIFA World Cup article, the answers given below are also very good.
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' An exceptional editor. 2 FAs contribution is an outstanding achievement. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''More-FAs-Than-I'll-Ever-Achieve Support''' :)
'''Support''', meets [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Support''' per nom. I had not seen or heard of this editor before, but on reading this nomination and checking him out, I was pleasantly pleased and think this person will do a fine job.
'''Support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''', no reason to view him as untrustworthy.  Republishing such trivial logs is a silly thing to hold against him.  (Really, is it likely that Rob Church and I would have been willing to answer someone's question on IRC, but not answer the ''exact same question'' on the wiki?) —
'''Support'''. Definitely. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', per nomination. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', Per nominations above.
'''Support'''. Good collaborator, decent all round contribs. 2 FAs are impressive. Can't find any reason to oppose, so its a thumbs up for a fine editor. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', meets my criteria. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Support'''. Ian is another one of the Good Guys.
'''Cleared for Adminship''' --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Good user. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
--<font size="1">
'''Support''' looks good.  Trustworthy.  Agree with nom and the many positive comments to date. --
'''Support''' Seems a good user has made many good contributions to Wikipedia and seems to have a level head. --
'''Support''' Seems like a perfectly good user. Kind, good contributions. <font face="Book Antiqua" color="#FF00FF">
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful answers to questions and loads of good edits and civil chat.  Also, a big fat '''Endorse''' to what you say about the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]] - keep up the good work, Mr RobChurch.  Happy birthday, and, since we're talking about football, [[Image:Flag of England (bordered).svg|{{{1|20}}}px]] [[England national football team|Eng-er-land]]!  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -

'''Support'''.  I know from working with this user outside Wikipedia that he possesses all the qualities he needs to be a good admin, plus I've seen his great work on the various [[football (soccer)|football]]-related articles - he's a betterment to the encyclopedia and perfectly worthy of the mop. —
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' The prohibition against IRC logs is a wrongheaded policy meant to defend people who use IRC wrongfully.
'''Support''', have worked with him.
'''Support''' Don't know that well; left birthday message a day ago.  However, great contribs to Wikipedia as already stated, and appreciative as well.
'''Support''', I have briefly interacted with Ian before, and have only good things to tell from my experience.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support:''' Given his edit history on a football-related featured article, I asked [[User:IanManka]] for his views on an External Link dispute. His reply was thoughtful, prompt and referenced to the appropriate Wikipolicy.  No hesitation whatsoever in adding my support. -
'''Support''' Good contributor. With 3,500 + valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''': not only on account of [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]] but for various other reasons too. Strangely, some of our friends opposing nominations of others for not meeting  1FA standard have failed to turn up to support this nomination. Do some of us are using 1FA and/or any other such standard to justify their oppose, whereas the real reasons and rationale may be known to them only. Strange are the ways of we the wikipedians! --
'''Oppose'''.  An admin should be able to follow instructions when they're as obvious as "Reminder that publishing of logs will be met with a permanent ban from all Wikimedia-associated IRC channels." in the topic of the channel. Low number of real projectspace edits compounds this. --
'''Reluctant Oppose'''.  Seems like an quality editor and good person.  I am, however, troubled by the few project space edits outside of Hangman and would also like to see more edits on Talk pages.
'''[[WP:AGF|Oppose]]'''.
'''Oppose'''. No offense, seems like a nice person. However, admins often come into conflict with people. The solution to this is to be polite and respect to opinions of your opponents when in conflict, not to walk away, depriving Wikipedia of your opinion and reducing consensus. Can you simply walk away every time someone opposes an administrative decision you make? I don't think that would work very well. I do not mean to say you should stick to one side and refuse to change your mind or compromise, merely that you should try to work it out. I also do not mean to say I think conflict on Wikipedia is necessarily good, however, as long as guidelines such as [[WP:ASG]], [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] are followed, conflicts can help build consensus. I do not mean to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with "walking away", as it does at least avoid the negative aspects as conflict, merely that it is impractical for a Admin. Please do not take offense, you seem like a nice person.
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Neutral''' <strike>concerned at his block log, looks like the user was blocked accidently. Anyone have an explanation for this?--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong Support''' as nominator --
''Must....resist....cliché....'' <font color="darkred">
'''Ouch''' - such strong support it hurts to think about it!
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' Fine user deserving of full confidence.
'''Support'''. Idont Havareasonnotto. &mdash;
Lawdy. '''Supportissimo'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. I'd advise you to get a name at some point, though. ;) [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
<small>
'''Support''', as above, get a name. :P —
'''Support''' All of the times Idnt havaname comes under my little radar screen he has left a good blip, and an even better impression. '''''
'''Support'''.
Idont oppose. Good experiences with this user.
'''Support'' No reason to oppose and seems like he would be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Good article contributions.
'''Support'''.
<s>Oppose until anon gets a name</s> umm... '''Support''', user has shown a willingness to perform janitorial work. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' Good editor, good egg!
'''Support''', Idont havaproblem with this user. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  In deference to the dreaded RfA cliche, I won't mention the double-take I experienced when seeing his name here and realising he wasn't already an admi ... oh, whoops.
'''Support''' Wow finally. I have seen him around and he seems like a good editor. --

'''Support'''. Cliché, cliché, cliché. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''. I got a very good vibe from past experience. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheCoffee&diff=19484871&oldid=19422803] Seems like a very good editor, and I have no doubts he'll be a great admin. Oh, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TheCoffee&diff=21389260&oldid=21387054 flattery] is appreciated. ^_^
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' deserves it.
'''Support''' Idont haveareasontooppose.
'''Support''' - Great contributor.
'''Support''' --
'''Dele---''' uh, '''Remo---''' um, '''Oppo---''' - oh, IdontknowwhatImdoing. <small><small><small><small><small><small><small>SUPPORT</small></small></small></small></small></small></small>.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support'''.
Definite '''support''' -- nice catch, Jaranda :)
'''Support''':  On deliberative matters, he or she (it could be a female name she doesn't have) has been considerate and careful, and on contentious issues she or he (or a male name) has been clever in seeking a new alternative.  I must say, however, that I'm willing to give the user a name.  Henceforth, I shall call him "Bob."
Needs a name, though!
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''': --
''must ... resist ... NSLE ...''  (nope, couldn't do it) '''Support'''.  Sensible nomination for nonsensical nomen.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' Good editor, gave me my welcome message! Nice edit count, we could use an admin like him.
'''Support'''.  Strong user with a good history of edits and participation. --
We are getting so many weird user names these days that I have stopped opposing people on those grounds. Hopefully the newbies will adopt.
'''Support''', good user who could make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good editor --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Though I'd reccommend this user find a name before it's too late ;). -[[User:Mysekurity|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Support''', hopefully he can withstand the pile-on.
'''Support''', seems like a great choice.  I always like to see 100% edit summaries, so that is a bonus. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The opposition so far seems ill-founded.
'''Support''' Per all above <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Support''', there seems to be a general pointlessness to voting, as all we are doing is racking up the thankyous that Idon't havaname will have to do. It is totally acceptable to me if he does not issue out thank you's to users who voted for him.
'''<s>Oppose</s>SUPPORT''' On the grounds that <s>you dont have a name</s> you have made a difference. Boot^H^H^H^H &nbsp;
'''Support''' - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good. --Jay '''(
'''Support''' --
Strong '''Oppose''' per Alkivar.
'''Oppose''' -- too many userboxes. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Demonstrates lack of knowledge about why Wikipedia actually exists. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templates_concerning_beliefs_and_convictions&diff=33874474&oldid=33871697]
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' - great also on user scripting.
'''Support''', on Mathbot's behalf.
'''Support''', appears to have a fair distribution of edits over several months. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' - I'll never forget the time Ilmari Karonen helped me out when he went out of his way to make [[:Image:Mass-Spring-Damper.png]] for the article [[nondimensionalization]]. One of the first Wikipedians to help me out like that, and I've been here for some time now :-) I'm not familiar with all his contributions, but the ones that I notice are usually on the technical pages I frequent. His article additions are very well thought out, hence, I'm not concerned about the lack of namespace edits. Seems to be a character that's well mannered and mellow. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nominater. --
'''Support''', good choice! – '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
--
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
Has fixed my semi-literate javascript.  More than once. &#8212;
'''Support''', no reason not to vote. IK has a demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies & procedures, and shows a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' — a useful person to be equipped with the mop. --

'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', --
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. A little light on the article edits, but not detrimentally so. Has demonstrated willingness to participate as someone we can trust in the community.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; Valuable Wikipedian. Will do great as admin.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. I particularly liked a couple of the answers to the questions. --
'''Neutral''' for the time being. The candidate's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Ilmari_Karonen&namespace=0 input in the main space] is negligible: 671 edits [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Ilmari%20Karonen]. That the candidate is "great on user scripts" is hardly an evidence of his fitness for admin chores. --
'''Neutral''' That makes me wonder too...I see a lot of activity on afd but there is more to life than deletion.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Merry Christmas
'''Support''' A very good editor will use the new tools well.
'''Support'''. And have a happy new year!'''
'''Support''' Humbug --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
--
'''Support'''. This user seems to be very level-headed and solid.

'''Very strong support''' great work all around, an excellent choice for admin.
'''Support''' good edits, removes all the unnecessary stuff here. --<b>
'''Support''' I like his name. :) Oh, and he's a good vandal fighter and all that :P --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' per [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]].
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Yes'''.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
Merry '''supportmas'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' Good editor. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good editor will make an excellent addition. --
'''Support''' Looks good, less filling. Overdue, will be a great addition.
'''Supbaaart''' <strong>
'''Support''' Avoids pointless conflict, has positive interactions, does good work, will make a good janitor.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' agree with all of the above --
'''Support''' - yes. --
'''Support''' -- doesn't appear likely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' obvious.

'''Support''' eee (bah goom)!
'''Cliché support'''. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''.  Will make a wonderful admin.

'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Harrumph!''' --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Shane seems very active in Wikipedia and very mature. Glad to support. --
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor so no opposition, but I think [[User:Kappa/Records|this RFC]] was the wrong way to go about resolving disputes.
'''Neutral'''. I thought I'd support once email was enabled, but I must agree with Sjakkalle.  Kappa is a noble contributor.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You betcha. --
'''Support'''. Seems quite helpful.
'''Support'''. Good level of activity, per er His own tool. --
'''Support''' see him around all the time, I trust him. -
'''Strong Support''' I thought you were a admin --
'''Support!'''  He's not one already?! &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''. I know it's an RFA [[cliché]] but I'm amazed that Interiot wasn't an admin.
'''Support''', valuable Wikipedian. --
'''Oppose all oppose votes'''. This man deserves admin powers 5 times over.
'''Support!!!''' I was "so" sure he was one already! '''''<font style="color:green;">
'''Support'''. A quality contributor. --Jay '''(
Excuse my French, but why the hell wasn't he an admin. in the first place? I '''oppose''' the oppose votes :-) [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - looks like a great user. --
'''Support''' - Of course!
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Couldn't he just write his own admin tools? &#126;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good user.--
'''Support!''' 'nuff said.&#160;—
'''Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support'''. --
For great justice.  --
'''Support''' I think he is quite capable and trustworthy.--
'''Support''' then again, maybe Interiot's Tool is programmed to give good numbers for Interiot… --
'''Strong Support''' This adminship is waaaaaaaaaaay past due.
'''
'''Suppport''' Dedicated, well respected and deserving. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' Definitely trustworthy and would make good use of the mop and bucket. <small>
'''Yup''' Was planning to nominate him after arbcom polls anyways, --
'''Support''' of course! I didn't know he wasn't a sysop. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support'''. He would be a very good admin. -
'''Support''' I now use his tool more than Kate's
'''Strong support''' - loving the tool - keep it up! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me.--
'''Support'''; worthy.
'''Support''' looks like an excellent contributor --
'''Support''' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
"I didn't know he wasn't one!"<sup>TM</sup> '''Support'''. All around nice guy and solid contributor, toolsmeister extraordinaire. ++
'''Support'''.&mdash;
'''"Argh, I was late and was edit-conflicted!" support'''. He's an excellent contributor, and I was surprised when I learned he wasn't in ''<tt>ug_groups=sysop</tt>''.
'''Strong support!'''  I use his edit counter frequently (much more than Kate's, though since it was down for a while I haven't linked to it on my user page in a while), and my interactions with him, although limited, have been positive.  I agree with the others in saying that adminship is long overdue for Interiot; his tools are great, and he seems like he can be trusted with admin tasks. --
'''Support''': The editing tool is great and has a healthy amount of edits. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Butter Support''''''
'''Support''' of course --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Pleasant, intelligent, reasonable and coherent.
I don't often vote on RfAs, but Interiot fully deserves my '''support'''.
'''Support''' Rock-solid. Good gent, and I am certain he will find the Admin toolkit to be useful.→
'''support'''
Wow...So many cliche'd thoughts I have about thinking he already was one! Of course! -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' –
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. |
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Should go without saying. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good good.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Per everyone else! -
'''Support''' per [[user:Trysha|Trysha]].
'''Support'''. -
Trundle out the ol' cliché ...
'''#1 cliche Support''' Good egg.
'''Support'''. Yes, cliche at this point. Great tools. No question that he deserves this. &mdash;
I don't believe I didn't see this RFA. You are very deserving of it.
'''Support''': anyone who ends with sockpuppets voting against him must be doing something right. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support'''.  That edit counter is pretty cool, yo. -
'''Strong support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''. Good track record.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''...there's nothing more that needs to be said.
'''Support''' At this point I'm just adding my voice to the overwhelming din. --
'''A Strong DUH Support''' —
Thought he already was one! :-)
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Your tools are very useful, and I'm sure you'll do many more great things with admin abilities. --
'''Tool-assisted support'''. How can you not support Interiot?
yeah, like what i've seen.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' One of those "duh" supports. '''''
'''Support''' per Smurrayinchester. --
'''Support''' for the many reasons already listed.  -- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''' Wow!  You're not already an admin!  I can't believe it! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="yellow">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - as per everyone else who said 'What the hell?' when they realised Interiot was not, actually, an admin.
'''Support''' - have yet another support vote!
'''Support''' - why the hell not? Who doesn't use the count tool? Oh, and a perfect edit count record on recent modifications. A worthier candidate I have never seen. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - Great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' has six letters. This guy's not admin? So per pretty much everyone above. --
'''Support'''.  great contribustions.
'''Support''' for the counter I now have linked to my user count link. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support''' Seems very nice and helpful :) -
'''Support'''. I've never encountered him, but I see no issues. We can always use more admins on New Page Patrol. I've checked some of his contributions and they seem polite, well thought out, and intelligent.
'''Support''' Looks like a high-quality, established user. Participates in WikiProjects, enters XfD discussions, I like the template work I checked (at random), always uses edit summaries, could use the admin tools, and I like his answers to the big three questions... sounds good to me! --
'''Support''' - Since there's already a wonderful article on the [[nocebo]] effect, I went ahead and redirected your planned duplicate [[reverse placebo effect]], saving you some time. Looks like a wonderful editor for adminship!
'''Support''' Seems good.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks like a very good editor. --
'''Support''' No issues here. A very civil user as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''&mdash;Meets my criteria. [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Irongargoyle|See my analysis of Irongargoyle on the discussion page]]. Overall little risk that the tools to block, unblock, delete & undelete will be abused by Irongargoyle. Let's do it. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''': Looks like an easy choice.  —
'''Support''' per his answers to the questions. Good luck! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Edit-conflict Support''': Easily passes my standards by a margin. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', ''always''! ;) - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
Hell yeah, and perhaps we could speedy this. &mdash;
'''Support''' per above and nom. Terrific user.
'''Support''' seems to be a good guy
Thought he already was one...
'''Support''' well qualified candidate.--
'''Support'''. per 1n3. :P [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' This user's thoughful, flexible approach to Afd makes me confident that s/he will monnitor and close such discussions with care. I can only assume other tasks will be dealt with in the same fashion.
'''Relaxed Support''', scores 20.5 on my [[User:Legolost/Admin Assessment Scale|criteria]]. --
'''Support''' a solid user with a good mix of experience.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - IMO that was a model answer to my question. A good editor as well, one who clearly will not misuse the tools.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Impressive answers, food for thought for existing admins too. --

'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, and impressive contributor to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, buddy. =) --
'''Support'''.  Good answers, demonstrated need of sysop tools.  --
'''Support''' Looks A-OK, I don't see any reasons to hold back "the mop".
'''Support''' Checked out the contributions, and making this user an admin would only enhance the current activities.  Insufficient evidence to reject. --
'''Support''' - Good answers to questions. I feel I can trust the user with the mop. -
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' reasonable answers. --
'''Support''' Irongargoyle is a bit greener than I would like, but I've always found this user to be reasonable and show good judgement.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.--
'''Support''' -- has my support. -
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. -
'''Support''' Noted a query about talk page archiving at their talk page, however, that is in no way a reason to oppose given their contribution history.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - Nice edit break down, edit history, and clear question answers (smile). I disagree with some of his "notability" work, but that's definitely '''not''' a reason to oppose.  Happy to support. : ) -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to be an excellent candidate
'''Support''' no evidence suggesting he would abuse the tools and seems like he needs them. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I appreciate the editor's thoughtful contributions to AfD, but encyclopedia building seems a little on the weak side. I'm also worried about understanding of the image fair use policy, per concerns raised on talk page.
'''beating-nominator-to-the-draw support.''' Ish is one of the most credible editors I've seen around- diligent, considerate, non-aggressive, with demonstrated grasp of policy. Peace!--
'''i got beat Support.''' Of course I support him!; I did nominate him, after all.  Interesting how I got beat to the vote.
'''Support.'''  A serious contributor with valuable specialist knowledge on lingustics. --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' as above.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', never mind about the edit summaries. An advice to Ish ishwar, use more edit summaries from now on. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' more edit summaries is desirable, but it seems a trivial matter.  This user shows little risk of abusing powers.
'''Support''' -- and watch the edit sums.
'''Support''', even though edit summary usage is quite low.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!

'''Support''' Edit summary usage excluded, I think Ish Ishwar ''would'' make a good admin - any disagreements? --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''--
I'm a fan of arbitrary criteria just as much as the next guy, but edit summaries are a joke. Edit summaries are the current fad simply because someone bothered to make a script to calculate it. --<small>'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. I don't think edit summaries are important enough for this. --
Great, great editor, friendly on the few occasions we've talked. I couldn't possibly oppose on edit summary grounds since I'm pretty dismal about summaries myself, and anyway I think their importance is being overstated a bit. They are nice, definitely, but let's not exclude a good candidate on those grounds.
'''Support''' Lack of edit summaries is a petty and nitpickery reason to justify an excellent editor being excluded given the mop.  As long as he promises to try and use them from now on, I don't see a problem.
'''Support''' I agree with Brian0918's comment on edit summaries.
'''Support''', although edit summaries are useful, they shouldn't be a preclusion to adminship.
'''Support''' Candidate has addressed the edit summary issue very well, and elaborated on their thoughts on edit summaries. I see no reason not to support. I also encourage people who voted oppose based on edit summaries to read the extra question number 4 and the response recently posted by Ish ishwar (and change their votes).--
'''Support'''.  Switched from neutral.  Ish ishwar has answered below and has altered his monobook to force edit summaries, which is a more than reasonable response to the concerns raised. -
'''Strong support'''. Knowledgeable, reasonable, peaceful, authorative, and contributing high quality content in high quantities: this is the kind of admin we need. Although I do think that edit summaries are quite important, I note that Ish already used them in the most crucial cases (interaction with other editors); his thoughtful and honest response below shows that he is willing to extend his use of them. &mdash;
'''Strong support'''. Ish makes collaborating a pleasure. Courteous, considerate, intelligent, even-tempered. If people find his lack of summaries objectionable, why not leave a note on his talk page? Ish is the kind of person who takes our suggestions seriously. Personally, I don't see much reason for summaries on each of dozens of copy edit revisions on articles that wouldn't even exist without him; when the page history shows nothing but his name, and we can compare before/after, does it matter which part of the edit was done when? That time can be better spent on creating more articles on underrepresented languages. And I believe Ish does summarize when he's not the primary contributor.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. Ish has never been anything but polite and reasonable, he's made fantastic contributions to linguistics and Amerindian language articles, and he always goes out of his way to address problems or difficulties. He's also said he will "make use of edit summaries more in the future." --
'''Support''', good editor.  And I think he's gotten the POINT about edit summaries by now.
'''Support''' seems to be addressing edit summaries issue productively, no other reason to object that I can find. --
'''support''':  Strong contributor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' see [[user:edivorce#Voting_on_RfA's|rational]]--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Pretty strong aupport'''.
'''Support''' Using edit summary now. --
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' as good editor.
'''Support''', great editor, and now that he was self-imposed the necessity of using edit summaries, I'm sure he'll do great with the mop in his hand. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''', good editor, based on his answers won't be doing anything stupid with admin tools, and uses edit summaries more now. If he doesn't object to being an admin, I don't se why he shouldn't be made one -
'''Support''', seems to be a good hardworking editor
Edit summary issues.
Per NSLE.
'''Oppose'''.  I am also a big fan of edit summaries.  If you are interested in increasing your edit summary usage, there is a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Force edit summary|force edit summary]] script available. --
'''Oppose''' Edit summary usage is quite low.
I do '''oppose''' nominations where edit summaries are this low, but I may support a future one after that has improved for a time. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) I started to read the long statement on edit summaries below, but without any use of upper case, it is difficult to follow. Using standard mixed case is a courtesy to readers; long text without it comes across as someone who didn't want to bother to communicate clearly.
'''Oppose''' per NSLE --
'''Oppose'''. Major edits need sumaries, a higher rate is not that much to expect from an admin.'''
'''Oppose'''. Having too many edits without summaries increases others' burden to find what exactly you have edited. I wonder if this habit will show up here when deleting pages with no reasons left while I know a very persuasive administrator at Chinese Wikipedia deleting too many things with no reasons. Even though I am also an administrator there (but not here), I am getting tired of his persuasive actions. This is why I oppose you here.--
'''Neutral''' - As others, I'm concerned about edit summaries as there are an important part of communicating with other editors. <s>Although from his contribs he looks like a fine editor, he seems to have relatively few edits in the User Talk and Project namespaces.</s> --
'''Neutral'''.Along the same lines of the above comment. Use more edit summaries and I will support.
'''Neutral'''.  Outstanding amount of article namespace contributions but I would like to see more experience in the project namespace (250 edits, 1%).  Also I prefer properly copy-edited comments.  As for edit summaries, now is a good time to plug my new user script: [[User:Quarl/auto_summary.js]]  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' I agree with Quarl, maybe next time --
'''Neutral'''.  (I had been opposing.)  I like the fact that he's using more edit summaries now, with the aid of the script that he's been using.  I'd like to see him continue to do that, i.e. for a few months longer than just an RfA period - make it a habit.  The edit summary issue and the project namespace edits (addressed by Quarl) were the only concerns I had, so if he takes care of those two things, I'll probably support next time. --
As nominator - of course
'''Support''' - looks good.  Has done a great job handling the youTube situation, doing so consitantly and methodical without causing any problems --
'''Support''' His record and responses make me confident he will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Good contribs, and balanced edit count. &mdash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong. Edits look balanced. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' Everything looks reasonable. I really like the way you handled the youTube situation.--
'''Strong Support'''. A very strong nominee. He's balanced himself in all aspects of Wikipedia, and I am impressed by his answers and his participation in article discussion and namespace discussion. '''
'''Support'''. Seems like an ideal candidate. (I do somewhat disapprove of your [[Wikipedia:Piped link#Easter eggs|use]] ;) of easter egg links in your answers, though it doesn't bother me as long as you don't use them in articles!) --
'''Support''' Looks like a reasonable candidate for the mop.
'''Support'''--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Support'''. '''''
'''Support''' A very sincere and good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Cleared up all the misunderstandings w before the discussions. Thats smart --
I have had personal interactions with J.smith, and found him to be level-headed and helpful. He'll make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. All checks out well, we need more people to deal with backlogs and I like his initative with regards to nonreliable sources such as YouTube videos.
I see no problem here. (
'''Support'''. Good and trustworthy contributor.
I'm
'''Support''' always very civil, sufficient experience, plus adminship isn't a big deal.
'''Support''' someone who deals positively & constructively with YouTube has my support --
'''[[Borat|I like!]]''' --
'''Support''' I am confident he's going to be a good admin. ←
'''Support''' I've only ever seen good things from this editor, and I particularly like the description of the way that he is dealing with the Youtube question - boldly, methodically, and fairly, but with community input. --
'''Support''' Adminship for J.smith seems like an ideologically small change, but one that can, in practice, only bring ''more'' benefit to Wikipedia than this user already brings. Also, gets that there really is no general case for [[WP:IAR]], and seems (by his explanation) to have the judgement to deal with specific manifestations of that policy. :) Good luck.
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''support''' per Gracenotes, who said it well.
'''Hell Yes! Support''' I have been extremely impressed with the calm way he has handled the youtube thing. Has dealt with editors who disagree with the exercise with curtesy and respect while still making his points in a civil way that took account of the objections raised. [Basically lots of things I'm jealous that I don't always do well].
- <b>
'''Support''' He's a good user and would be a better Admin. Thank You and Happy Holidays |
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong Support''' Never have I seen a man more qualified with your modesty and dignity. Bravo.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''As much support as I can give''' He helped me, as I am a new user set up a talk page and user page! He also helps me with everything I need! Thank You!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''; definite yes on this one; I've bumped into him many times and he's always doing something right.
'''Support''' - excellent editor, can use the tools effectively, no issues or concerns for me.
'''Support''' You deserve it. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''', J.smith has demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --
'''Support''' Hard worker.
'''Support'''per above. [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''', meets most of my expectations.--'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' passes my criteria
'''Support''' lots of Wikipedia entries in contribs and seems to be aware of the policies quite fine.
'''Support''' The guy's got gusto! --

'''Neutral''' - I'm concerned about the user's experience and familiarity, to be frank. Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NGC_1531_and_NGC_1532&diff=prev&oldid=91529410 this one] during an AFD (demonstrating unfamiliarity with history merges) and his repeated edits to {{tl|para-stub}} to include the WikiProject link in the stub text itself worry me somewhat. However that being said, he's defined his scope of activities in Q1 in such a way that I feel he'd do little harm if he obtains the mop and bucket, would just like him to be a little more knowledgeable before I personally could support. -- ''
'''Support''' as nominator. Good luck! --
'''Support''' — Everything seems in order.. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Everything seems ok.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''support''' You are a generally nice guy to be around and I think you'll make a great administrator and be able to use the mop and bucket wisely :D
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' This editor appears to have learnt the lessons regarding civility and good conduct that they had to endure at the beginning of their time here.  I don't think that the admin tools will be abused.
'''Strong Support''' Willing to learn from past mistakes.
'''Support''' good user who can definitely be trusted with the buttons.  Good luck!
'''Support''' good luck.--
'''Support''' Seems a responsible person per the User's Contribs <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' good guy, bad internet
'''Support''' per the above. &mdash; [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProj]]'''''<font color="green">[[User:AnemoneProjectors/Esperanza|e]]</font>'''''
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' - very honest about the dispute with 9cds and a good edit count too. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', a good user. '''[[User:Trampikey|Trampik]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' good user.--
'''Yay''' – about time. —&nbsp;
<small>Cliche</small> &mdash;
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Nothing really to criticize about. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No major concerns here. A very honest editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Clear Support''' - I've only had good interactions with this user, and can find no reason to oppose, yet plenty to support.  <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]]


'''Support''' Very good user, giving my support.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Administratorfy'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Shine On''' per nom. Impressed with answer to Question 5 too.
'''Support'''. The user possesses the right balance of firmness and fairness for adminship.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Tra|Tra]]
'''Support''' no issues here --
'''Support''' Excellent all round contributions --

'''Support'''. Spams the IRC chats with join/quit messages. ;-) [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', will make good admin. --
'''Weak Support''', isn't likely to abuse tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' - I'm actually lying in a hotel room at [[Mount Maunganui|the beach]] but need to interrupt my 10+ day thus far wikibreak to support this man. Loooooong overdue, and an early welcome to the team mate, great to have you on board :)
'''Support''' - good luck with the mop!
'''Support'''. Great editor. '''''
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''.  Looks like J Di is ready for adminship.  Wouldn't dare hold bad net connections against him.  ;-)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I appreciate the concerns raised by Joanne and Mr Sox. However, my observations of J Di since the dispute have been positive and unless someone wishes to provide some diffs, I feel comfortable in supporting.
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support'''
'''Neutral''' Has clearly shown a turn around, but I am so deeply troubled by the extend of the dispute that he was involved in. It was so bad that it resulted in him "retiring"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J_Di/Retired]. I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy with this blantant fact looming over the candidate.
'''Neutral'''. I would have strongly opposed a few months ago, for several reasons. I see a lot of support votes and as I haven't been around much lately I'll have to take their word for it that he has changed. However, his talk page, for one thing, still worries me. The ´don´t remove vandalism´ sign is quite egoistical to me: J Di, do you want all readers of your talk page to see every penis or whatever kind of vandalism that is placed there if you don't happen to be around for a bit - rather than have someone remove it like everywhere else? Also, why the 'no messages on the talk page' thing? This makes it more difficult to judge the improvement - as even after reading the archives, I don't know what J Di did with those comments or questions from people that have complied with the request and emailed. These things might seem minor but against his background, they worry me. As I said, I haven't been around all that much in the last few months, so I feel hesitant about opposing, but I'm absolutely not comfortable with this candidate as a future admin either. --
'''Support''' - as nominator --
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' buddy don't break a sweat with WP - as per [[Jesus]], only the sinless should stone the sinful.
Haven't-we-been-here-before '''support'''. ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Leaving aside his many excellent contributions, which are out of the question and speak for themselves, I wish to put the accent on his patience, his resilience and admirable will to overcome many stressing situations. His integrity is to be commended, and has shown a love for this project that I deeply admire.
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. And hopefully you learned by now, there is no need, when you get stressed out, to "quit" or "delete my page", or "withdraw my nomination" or any of that. If you feel stressed a bit at some point, just take a short wikivacation saying later that you were busy in real life or wanted some time to think or something like that. That is to say no need for dramatic jestures.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' per nom.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' seems like a good editor who would most likely benefit from the extra tools
'''Support''' Great editor. Will be a definite asset with the tools. Only needs to calm down a bit. --
'''Support''' per above (and per below when there are more supports.--
'''Support'''. Obviously dedicated to the project. I believe he has made significant progress in improving both his communication skills -- grammar, spelling -- and his handling of wikistress in recent months. I'm a little hesitant -- the block button can be can be a stressful tool to wield (or I think it ''should'' be, anyway) but I think it is time. &mdash;
'''Support''' Strongly.--
'''YES!''' Finally, I think I can support.
'''Support''' I see nothing in the posts by RX Strangelove's oppose to go that way. Not really that big of a concern and those seem to be legit edits. We can't leave a comment for every edit, Jaranda has nearly 1,600 user talk edits so that seems pretty good.
'''Support.''' Definitely. Jaranda's always struck me as a very good editor, with a level head and good contributions. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' He is a good editor and I have no doubt that he will put admin tools to good use.--
'''Strong Support'''. It's about friggin' time. This editor's been through RfA <s>four</s> six times before (I found the last one before when I did a search specifically to find out why this editor wasn't an admin.) And I still felt they deserved another chance. Not only productive, but appears to have a greatly improved temperament.
'''Support''', per Grandmasterka '''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', has long been a contributor to our community in many ways. Would make a good admin, I think. --
'''Absolute Support'''. Was waiting for a chance to ask the candidate if I could nominate.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' - 14th time lucky? - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''': Why not? --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', long time contributor. Will be a great admin.
'''Strong support''' would make a wonderful admin --
'''Weak support''' seems like a good user and I like the comment on not wasting time in question 2. However, I was honestly a bit surprised to see his native-English-speaker userbox because his writing frequently includes minor spelling and grammar errors. (Ironically, one previous RfA ended in "no consicious, because of communicaton and spelling concerns, in which I dealt with.") Maybe try a browser-integrated spell checker?
'''Strong Support''' for opposing cruft. -
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' What his (slight) faults, Jaranda has never failed to display kindness and a willingness to discuss with fellow editors.  He has ample experience and a firm grasp of policy.  The complaints against him do not reflect qualities that lead one to become a bad administrator.  He should have been approved long, long ago.

'''Support''' the "I quit" stuff is a little bothersome, but there's no reason to suspect it would make him abuse admin tools. It's not like he started vandalizing articles or making personal attacks during any of the incidents, he just said he was leaving. Other than that one blemish on his record, he's a great contributer and Wikipedian, and should be an admin if he wants to be. --
'''Support'''. Good experiences interacting with this user.
'''Support''', per nomination --
'''support'''
'''Strong Support'''; yet another "I thought ____ was already an Admin!". &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''', has shown himself very capable over the years. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' strong devotion to project, good judgement ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''', without reservation. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', no reason not to. &mdash; <font face="tahoma" COLOR="#C11B17">
'''Support''', as always.  He's done a lot of great work here in a variety of areas, and I think he'd really help us out in the admin ranks.  Having just rollback isn't good enough for frequent RC patrollers.  The block button is also needed; sometimes a block just needs to be given ASAP, and not being able to find an available admin to do it can be quite stressful, even though we have many active admins.  I like his answers to the questions too. --
'''Strongest support''' - great user. [[Absolutely Fabulous]]. Wonderful. Give him the mop! &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Strong support''' - I am wondering how contributors like Jaranda took this long to become an admin. Deserved. -- ''
'''Support''':  The work's the thing.  I see frustration in the past, but I don't see flailing or striking out in frustration.  The people who say, "I'd as soon leave" are better than the ones who say, "I'll get you for that."
'''Support''' You're not an admin?! Well, let's make you one.
'''Support'''  I haven't seen any edits in the last few months that concern me; seems like he has addressed many of the concerns voiced in previous RFAs. I trust that he'll use the tools judiciously.  <b>
'''Support''' one of the easiest votes I have made.
'''Support'''. A kind and helpful user. I'm sure he can be trusted with the tools.
Changed to '''Support''' from Oppose. After careful thought, and reading some of the more constructive supportive comments, I feel I will change my vote.  I think that more good will come from Jorge being an admin.  He seems to genuinely care about the community.  I am still worried about the outburst when he gets stressed.  Jorge, you really do need to count to ten or take a step back from these situations. You also have to learn not to take comments too personally.  People can be cruel online and say things they would never say in real life. You must look at such nastiness and let it be like water off a ducks back. If this RfA passes please do continue to seek advice from your fellow admins as you seem to be doing at present. You still have much to learn (as we all do). Please, never use the delete or block tools as an emotional weapon. If you are emotionally involved you should ask another admin to deal with the situation.  This is true for all admins, but due to your tendancy to get stressed now and then, you should always ask yourself "am I too involved to be impartial". Good luck and happy editing.
'''Support''', seems to have gained enough experience to be admin-worthy now.
'''Support''' Excellent Wikipedian. Will do a good job with admin tools. In the beginning, do not hesitate to ask for second opinions if you have any doubts.
'''Support'''.'''
I could've sworn I'd already voted '''Support''' like less than an hour after this RfA went up. :P <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' I hope you do it this time.

'''Support''' per beak below.
'''Support'''. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">'''haz'''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' The issues with stress do appear to have declined since the last RFAs, and I'm sure everyone agrees that RFAs are stressful for those involved, whether they want it to be or not :). The most important matter is that Jaranda has experience and can be trusted and there is no doubt in my mind that Jaranda will not abuse the tools in any way. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- would have been admin a long time ago if you didn't keep backing out --
'''Support''' a bit concerned with Wikistress... Jaranda: please prove us wrong an if you ever get too stressed, just as for help. It is a big responsibility, hope you thread with caution.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - If he ever decides to leave, then we lose an admin. No harm done. If he stays, what I think, then we gain a good admin.
'''Support''' For the reasons stated above.
'''OKAY, LYKE A DAMN STRONG SASQUATCHIAN SUPPORT! Great user, great vandal fighter, we'll help him through the stress''' '''
'''Support''' Good user. --
'''I'll give you a chance support'''. Your remark in the "Comments" section shows passion for the project, and has convinced me.
It's about damn time.  --
'''Support''' - meet my criteria.
'''Big support'''. This is a very good user and he should have been made admin long ago.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' based off answers to my questions.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''[[WP:AGF|Support]]''' --
'''Support.''' I am happy that this user will be able to handle the potential stress of adminship, per my question. — '''''
'''Support''' as in other times.
'''Support''', and no, I'm not mad at you for the minor league baseball thing.  If anything, the baseball conflict has shown me that he's open to discussion and is willing to discuss changing things instead of simply ignoring what's established, which is important. --
'''Support''' ''
'''Support'''. I've flip-flopped in my head a few times on the question of Jaranda's RfA and have settled in the affirmative. His perks outweigh his drawbacks, and I admit there are a few. I feel he has learned from the past and will catch himself before using the buttons in a knee-jerk fashion. No one is perfect, and Jaranda seems rather self-actualizing about his editing flaws, which have been discussed at length below. I think this process has cemented his resolve to serve the 'pedia as a fine sysop.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' hopefully when he gets stressed he will consider puttin up a wikibreak template and take a break :).
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' seen this person around plenty, very good user. good luck --
'''[[WP:100|100th]] Support''', hard working editor with large amounts of great contributions--
'''Support''' because I too share similar fates with you. I think someone opposed me on one of my RFA's before because quote: "same problem as Jaranda". Hope this fixes things. :) — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
Having read comments below from the candidate himself, I am a little bit concerned at the apparent over-sensitiveness of this user. I don't think he'll benefit Wikipedia as an admin in the long run.
'''Oppose''' Although it has been months since this user's last RfA, he has withdrawn and declared "I quit" so many times, I can't trust this user to appropriately handle the additional stress administrators have to face. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above. Too many conflicts/acting out per answers below.  --
'''Oppose''' per above
'''Oppose''' (changed from Neutral) after some deliberation. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per numerous threats to quit WP. I am sorry. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. I'm really sorry. I really want to support, but I just can't. An administrator should not only display familiarity with the conventions and policies, but also an ability to authoritatively and intelligibly communicate them. Imagine a newcomer going to an esteemed Admin for help, only to have the Admin reply with the following language: "A lot of time which I could have spent with my friends and stuff instead goes to wikipedia and I don't like that" and "I could handle wikistress easily, but I do need time for myself as well, my grades even went down some, I always used RFA as an excuse to leaving, but that was a deadly mistake." And this is just the surface.
Sorry, the stress and impatience seems a bit over the top...considering the number of times you've threatened to quite Wikipedia etc. An admin needs to be reliable, perhaps another few months in which you don't have any of the stress booms. Again...sorry, I can imagine that you really want Adminship considering how often you've tried... '''
'''Oppose'''. Two reasons. One, anyone who gets heavily involved in Wikipedia Review for any reason other than trolling the trolls probably doesn't have the maturity to be an admin: it implies you take the wrong things seriously. Two, the stuff about "editing too much" and "getting stressed" does not show you in a good light at all: it implies you treat Wikipedia like a dirty sekrit, which is not a good approach.
'''Oppose'''. I would normally just not vote in an RFA if I didn't support the candidate, but Jaranda has (in my own opinion) made a mockery of this process by walking in and out of it as he sees fit. This is, regrettably, an awful attitude for an administrator to have on Wikipedia. There aren't many criteria I set for candidates, but at least having some respect for the position and the voting community which grants access to it is required.
'''Oppose''' Not the right sort of attitude for an admin in my opinion. I would happily change my vote to support if the user say spends another year on Wikipedia without threatening to leave (again). --
'''Oppose''' changed from neutral (see below).  Underwhelmed by response to Grace Note above.
'''<s>Delete</s>''', unfortunately this user does not seem to have the temperment for adminship. Would support after 6 stable months here. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ''Vote moved to '''Oppose''' after heavy lobbying by Joturner. :) --
'''Oppose''' This user really needs to sort out their priorities regarding their personal and online lives. Someone who lets their friendships and grades suffer due to editing should ask themselves what they are trying to achieve/avoid by editing on Wikipedia.  Admin status won't mean a reduction in pressure as it opens you up for enquiry from all users and you will be held to account for your decisions.  Someone who ''"panics a lot"'' and lets their grades go down doesn't demonstrate a level-headed character and calm in the face of opposition and may be wont to a) make bad decisions and b) beat themselves up about it.  You'd be better off avoiding admin duties for the timebeing and concentrating on improving your grades and friendships, returning when you have a better sense of perspective. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];(aeropagitica)--><span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Weak oppose''', was willing to overlook a lot here, but after coming across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin_coaching&oldid=60773476 this assertion] (of adminship: "...even though I'm not one nor want to be one".) I have to oppose. The admin coaching program is where potential admins are "groomed" (their words not mine), and those involved should show that being an admin on one of the most consulted reference works in history is to be taken seriously. Yes, a person can change their mind but it should have been addressed before accepting a nomination. <b>
'''Oppose'''. -
'''Oppose''' - aeropagitica put it well.
'''Oppose''' per aeropagitica, and due to stability concerns.
'''Oppose''' per above.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' as per above. &ndash;
'''Oppose''', not just per above (altho, in particular, I do rely on some of the comments made by Journalist, Nobleeagle and (aeropagitica)), but also because of some of the ''neutral'' comments and other things I see below. What I see presents some serious concerns and I just don't have that peaceful easy feeling that says that this person should be an admin.
'''Oppose''', mostly per aeropagitica. Jaranda has done a lot of great work here, but the problems with stress and persistent levaing are too glaring for me to support right now. '''
'''Oppose''' per Harro5 and aeropagitica.
'''Oppose'''; ability to handle stress as an admin is paramount. --
'''Oppose''' - Candidate's comments show enthusiasm for Wiki, but the proven instability of character and confused thinking in the comments are a cause for concern. Jaranda deserves praise and support for the commitment shown to Wikipedia, but the stress of Adminship is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Counseling, guidance and advice by a respected Wikipedian might be more appropriate.
'''Oppose'''; admins need to be able to handle stress well.
I just have an uneasy feeling.  Good contributor, but I'm a little worried about the wikistress.  He says he's handling it, but the last time he tried to quit was this month- June 2, when his userpage was deleted.
'''Neutral''' - Great contributor with the need of sysop tools. Though [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AShow_Three6Mafia.jpg&diff=53935372&oldid=53934630 this] edit makes me worry about his apparent knowledge on image tagging policy. Where a image should be tagged <nowiki>{{PUIdisputed}}</nowiki> and be listed on [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]] was tagged with <nowiki>{{no license}}</nowiki> instead. Also, admin needs to make a hard decision in many situations, I would worry if a admin is afraid to make them. --
'''Neutral''' per CanadianCaesar.
'''Neutral''' per above --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' I am for creating more admins, but
'''Neutral''' An excellent contributor with the need of the tools but he has many spelling and grammar mistakes in his writing.
'''Neutral''' per CanadianCaeser. --
<s>Oppose</s> '''Neutral''' ''Still hold these concerns but I don't think it's worth opposing over at this point. Also per [[user:freakofnurture]]'' Still worried about volatility issues. I also see a lot of reverting over content issues (non-vandalism) without followup comments to either the user talk page or the article talk page. Just some examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Roethlisberger&diff=prev&oldid=59869540], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwyane_Wade&diff=prev&oldid=60215813], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troy_Aikman&diff=prev&oldid=60198765]. I'm not crazy about the reverting pattern and would worry about rollback usage.
'''Neutral''' per CanadianCaesar. --
'''Neutral'''. If this was his first RFA I'd almost certainly support. The Wikistress issue, persistent threats to quit, involvement in Wikipedia review, and six or seven previous RFAs mean that I can't, but none are reason enough to oppose.
Question for the candidate: Having read your comments, you've had a lot of previous requests. My question is, why should people support you for adminship now? What has changed?




A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour? — '''''
'''Super Strong Support''' As per nomination.
'''Super Strong Supprt''' During the userbox war, he made considerate, mature, well-thought out comments that weren't devisive. He tells it like it is without offending anyone. I support him strongly. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]]-[[User:D-Day|Day]]  <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|My fan mail.]]
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' per D-Day. As a sidenote, we could all do well to consider [[User:JDoorjam/Koan of Jimbo|this]].
'''Support''', slight worry about experience but not enough to put me off.
'''Support''' Excellent user, great potential. Good luck!
'''Support'''--
--
'''Support'''. If he can navigate the userbox war without pissing people off, he can handle anything. --
'''Support'''. Good people/communication skills. Good at de-escalating conflict. Remains calm under fire.
'''Support''' has shown great maturity.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Solid candidate, good stats, seems responsible
'''Support''' I though that he was an admin already...oh well.'''
'''Support''' A solid user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''always support a fellow Esperanzian :-)
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Need more admins, plenty of work to do.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''. --
Makes sense when I come across his posts, even if I sometimes disagree with them. Has shown level-headedness that should be typical of admins.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' as per nom. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.  A good, level-headed editor.  I've had nothing but a good experience with this editor.  --
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support''' level-headed attitude to the biggest flame war Wikipedia has seen = would make good admin
'''Support.''' Very nice and sensible user.
'''Support.''' Generally very sensible and constructive.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Edits look reasonable, see no reason for concern.
'''Support''' Civil head, even in uncivil conditions.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Has a lot to learn, but don't we all.  Heart is in the right place, and is intelligent to boot.  I believe JDoorjam will tackle the admin learning curve with gusto.  Will make a fine admin.  --
'''Support'''. Good attitude and very helpful.
'''Support''' what more is there to say? Plenty. He's done work in articles, (check that off), dirty work (check that off) and works out in the community (check that off). Long story short, but I have a small issue with the little anti-support ballot. It just stinks. --
'''Support''', looks OK.
'''Support,''' I'm familiar with some good work he's done.
'''oppose'''. vandalism is no reason to request adminship. you can revert without the revert button. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Neutral''' I would vote support but most of his Wikipedia space edits are deletion votes and conversation. And also, he has been here since July 2005 but I'm not sure if he's knowledgeable of policies.
'''Neutral'''. leaning towards....   <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]



'''Strong Support'''. Meets my criteria. My comrade-in-arms with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars]] and a solid editor all around. We could always use an extra janitor in the Star Wars department, not to mention a good vandalfighter. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong Support''' Looking at his edits he is not only kind but he seems to know what he's doing, he is the type of administrator we could really use!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' meets my criteria. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' per Doom127. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Not so long ago 3000 edits was considered huge, and many of these are considered edits rather than small things which only take a few seconds each. Good contributions and no negatives. <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] ([[User talk:CBDunkerson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CBDunkerson|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> Yup, forgot to sign. Sorry. --
'''Support'''- He has done an excellent job with the Star Wars wikiproject.
'''Support'''. Has been around since August 2005 and has done a lot on the SW wikiproject. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I am the nominator--
'''Support''' Good contributor, and also a Jedi. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''', per his work on the SW wikiproject.
'''Support''' to counter extreme editcountitis.
'''Support''' Has experience and diversified enough edits.--
'''Support''' Limited but good interaction with him. I saw him when he first dealt with Doom127 and the [[User:Brazil4Linux]] sockpuppet invasion. I thought he was an admin at the time because of the tactful way he mediated the situation (before it became clear that any resonable discourse with B4L was impossible). On a side note, Rick Browser is B4L, for anyone who didn't bother to check NSLE's link. Go figure, eh? --
*'''Support'''. Good editor. -<small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
*'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I am a pretty new user, but he seems like he would be a very good admin. But who cares if he only edits in two sections?? If he only edits those, they will be taken care of very well while the other admins will be able to edit other articles.  Oh, but I'm not an admin myself, just in case only other admins can vote...
'''Support''' - Worked with him in the ''Star Wars'' WikiProject&mdash;Good editor and vandalfighter.  Why not? —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">
'''Mild support''' I wish that he would have waited a while before going up for RFA, but I don't think he should be denied the mop. We need more admins, after all.
'''*Strong Support*'''. While I agree that he is on the early side of admins, one must remember that he didn't nominate himself. I am entirely confident that he will be a very responsible admin, as his previous contributions show. He has now made nearly 1700 edits to main namespace, and will be a quite capable and responsible adminin. About the distribution of his edits: he has made very good edits to the sections he contributes in, and he can imrove those areas greatly rather than helping very mildly in many areas. It is better to know evrything about one thing than one thing (or a little) about everything. -
'''*Strong Support*''' As mentioned above, his Star Wars expertise alone makes him worthy of RFA. I also admired his attempts and patience to reason with [[User:Brazil4Linux]] during a long edit war.
'''Support'''. Good user.
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. ([[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|See why]]).
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support'''.  The answer I was looking for in my hypothetical, below, was "I would find an uninvolved administrator to help out," since it is can be a problem if you use your administrative buttons to resolve editing disputes.  With the request to keep this in mind, provisional support.
'''Support''' I trust this user will be a fine admin. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' good contributor, would not abuse the mop. &nbsp;
'''Support''' even though he mainly edits in one area it's no reason to deny.
'''Support''' - looks OK to me. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' will make good use of the mop. --
'''Support''' and damn the editcountis. --
'''Strong support''', inasmuch as his work against vandalism and toward consensus will translate well as he partakes of admin activities; notwithstanding that this editor hasn't been as involved as other prospective admins with certain namespaces, there appears to be nothing to militate against his being sysopped, and much to suggest that he will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' ''adminship is no big deal'' and ''editcountis is fatal''. I see nothing that would cause me to sway though slightly more detailed question answers would be nice --
'''Support''', I'm satisfied he will perform well, so why wait?
'''Support''' - Why not? '''
'''Support''' Jedi6 seems inclined to use the tools correctly - shows understanding of policy, and all admins should ''not'' be required to be [[Wikipedia:Wikipediholic|wikiholic]]s <font color="#063">
'''Support''' - I like his answer to questions, especially the fact that he admits his limitation of knowledge in regions outside his area of expertise (star wars+video games). As per above, he also shows a good understanding of policy. -
'''Support''' another potential member of the [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin|rouge admin cabal]].  I'm a bit disappointed that Jedi is not a flammer, we could do with more of those on Wikipedia to counteract all the flimmers.  Probably.
'''Strong support'''. Jedi6 has been instrumental in the Star Wars WikiProject and elsewhere. I feel he can make a valuable contribution if he is given the mop.
Based on Jedi6’s answers to my questions below, I pledge my '''support''' for him. He has mastered much of the wisdom of an effective administrator. I remind him that terms like “vandalism” and “protecting” are the same type used by Chancellor Palpatine to manipulate Jar Jar Binks, convincing him to propose an end to democracy in the Senate. These terms drip with hatred, pride and fear. In choosing the best path for Wikipedia, always remember the big picture. Don’t ever let yourself become a '''''Jar Jar'''''. --
'''Support'''. Jedi6 has what it takes. He has a lot of experience. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by

'''Support''', seems qualified enough, though he is a bit timid.  The answers to my questions numbered 2 and 3 were "block" and "block", respectively.  And by the way, I'm really sorry about that whole sockpuppet incident that almost threw your RfA into jeopardy.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Support''', staying generally within his area of knowledge should be commended, not given as a reason to opppose, in my opinion. --
'''Support'''. Keep up the good work. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''', give that boy the admin's lightsaber.
'''Support'''. Fantastic editor!
'''Support''', per all above. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Looks like the Force is with you.
'''Support''' T-Shirts for everyone!
After the deadline ... closing 'crat please feel free to discount this support if you feel it's appropriate to do so. I've been agonising over this candidate but decided to come down on the side of support. Although I have some experience and narrowness of focus concerns, on balance I think this editor will make a good admin. More activity would be better, but I've seen enough to decide and the question answers show thoughtfulness, which swayed me (I think Cyde's #5 question dichotomy is false, there are other sorts of admins besides rouge and timid)... '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Oppose''' relative inactivity until last month, cannot be certain that policies are well-versed to this user, given low project edits.
'''Oppose'''. Not very active, especially in namespaces other than the main one.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I would like to see some more edits from you.
'''Oppose''' Per above
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Inactivity with wikipedia community. --
'''Oppose''' - I don't see enough experience with Wikipedia processes, I'm afraid. It's not just AfD clearing and rollback you need to be familiar with.  Sorry - if this doesn't passes, in a few months, you'd definitely get my vote. The advice I was given was to look at [[WP:DRV]], because it really does throw you in at the deep end with policy being cited left, right and centre.  It was good advice.
'''Oppose''' Agree with NSLE.
'''Oppose''': not ready yet.
'''Oppose'''.  I'd like to see a few more active months here or more project namespace involvement.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' would like to see a longer history of active contributions.
'''Neutral''' Candidate has nice edit distribution, and some time under his belt.  Mild concerns about process familiarity prevent support now, but I like his wiki-record so far.
'''Neutral''', looks OK so far, but I'd prefer a little more experience.
'''Neutral''', to low on edits, no reasons to Oppose
'''Neutral''' per NSLE, but seems like a good editor otherwise. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Neutral'''. Editor is on the way, but only has a recent spike in edits. &mdash; '''

'''Neutral leaning support'''. Neutral mostly because of the extremely narrow focus of subject matter for edits; leaning support because everything else looks fine. —
'''Neutral'''.  I'm going to sit on the fence here.  The doubts regarding process perhaps need to be addressed.
'''Neutral'''. Could be more active within the wikipedia community, but keep up the good work. --

How did Luke's preconceptions and fear lead to his failure in the cave and later to his near sublimation by the emperor? In the end, what action did Luke take to show that his Jedi wisdom finally caught up to his Jedi power? --





Do you see the role of administrator as being more comparable to that of policeman or that of janitor?

'''Support''' looks good --
'''High-caffeine-content super nominator support''' - <b>
'''Support''' - Looks good to me. --
'''Support.''' I like your answer to question 1. Maybe you can help me clear the [[CAT:PROD]], as I do this nearly daily.--
'''Support''' sounds like the tools will do him well and he'll do well with the tools.
'''Support'''. So qualified it makes my teeth hurt.
'''Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good choice.
'''Support''' He is the kind of candidate I look for in RfA and he is extremely professional, a point that I like in my administrators. Good luck! --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' been here 11 months, appears to contribute heavily and revert vandalism well enough. This makes me want to support.--<font style="background:white">
'''Yeah!'''. What else?--
Holy crap '''support''', clearly has more use for the admin tools than most of the candidates I've come across. Meets [[User:Grandmasterka/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support''' per above and below (Qs) -
'''Support''' per nominator. -
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.'''
'''What-the-hell-else-am-I-to-vote Support'''.
'''Support''' This is my ideal candidate..quiet, doesn't make waves, yet does stellar rock solid work.
'''Strong Support''' I think this user has the potential to be a phenomenal admin based on a brief overview of his edits and the community support above
'''Strong Support.''' A very good editor. --
'''Support''' - A very good contributor. <s>[[User:Afonso Silva|Afonso Silva]]</s> 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC) - I changed my username.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good candidate for the mop and bucket.  Good answers to questions below. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': yes. --
'''Support''' Of course! An outstanding user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Textbook candidate. --
'''Support''' no reservations.
'''Support''' - I remember seeing this RfA somewhere... <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''. I've seen you on RFD, you're a great contributor.
'''Support'''. (1) Seems to know what s/he's doing. (2) Seems additional buttons would be useful to and well used by this user. (3) Seems trustworthy in general, honest in approach and, from a quick glance at contribs and answers below, level-headed. That'll do nicely. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support''' Lots of edits... not that this matters but you also show good initiative when fighting the vandals.
'''Support''' for work on Special:Shortpages and other experiences. --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', a very solid user; lack of talk page edits balanced off by Wikipedia space edits very nicely. Great job! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' - --
'''OH **** I'm out of CLICHE's SUPPORT''' - per Tawker --
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''', no complicated line of reasoning needed.
'''Support''' Another good editor that will make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''', Kindness, good contributor, and also experienced.
'''Support''' - dedicated users make good admins
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' Overwhelmingly qualified.  --
'''Support'''. About freakin' time. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''', regardless of notable article edits. Excellent contributor.
'''Support''', great editor. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. A very good editor. -- ''
'''Extremely strong support''', whoa awsome editor! Definatly deserves it. --
'''Support'''. Civil, and a regular RFD participant. —
'''Support'''. Great credentials, and persuasive recommendations above.
'''Support'''. Deserving one. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Great answers, seems he has the kind of attention to minutae that is best put to use by an admin.
'''Support''': Looks pretty solid and could put admin rights to good use.  —
'''Support'''... very qualified.--
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Notable article edits are unacceptably low.




'''Strong Support''' As nominator and even if I wasn't the nominator.
<b>Support</b> An impressively wide range of edits. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - I would have been happy to nominate him for adminship myself; never crossed my mind that he might not be one already.  Good editor, good guy, has made a sterling contribution to the project, most of it in the form of good, solid content.
'''Strong support'''. Well-rounded and level-headed (and, there's nothing wrong with even careless mistakes, as long as they're not repeated, and you admit when you're wrong). Happy to recommend the mop, bucket and keys.
'''Strong Support''' I'm very impressed with this user's work and perspective.
'''Support''' Give him a mop

'''Strong support'''.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''', but be sure to raise your number of Portal Talk edits. It's frightfully low ;-) <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support''' per nom.  --
'''Support''' per nom. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' seems a good admin material
'''Strong Support''' nice guy, good responsible worker.--''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' the nomination.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. My interaction with the nominator makes me trust his judgement fully, and a small analysis of the candidate's contribs confirms this. Good luck!
'''support'''looks good, admits when hes done wrong and fixes it
'''Support''', great answers to questions.
'''Support'''per Royboycrash23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', impressive article contributions, will be an asset as an admin. <b>
'''Support''' I have noticed his huge contributions. Give him the mop. <span style="border: 0px solid;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose. Another example of quality beating quantity.
'''Support''' Everything looks fantastic. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
It's a pleasure to '''support'''. —
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' do well with the mop! -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - looks good. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - Good work!
'''Support''' - a simple support from a simple wikipedian. --
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Valuable editor with good reason. -
'''Support'''. Give him the mop.--
'''Support''' coz Whouk did!
'''Support'''!!! Necesitamos mas Puertoriqueños
'''Support''' per Kukini. --
'''Support''' - great editor &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Joelr31 would be a great admin for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - Promising history. Good to have a Puerto Rican voice. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Pointless pile-on support'''. But seriously, congrats, and, this is a bit premature, but I'm sure you'll be great with the tools. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna|Werdna]]</font><sub><font color="#2000E0">[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</font><font color="#4000C0">[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</font><font color="#6000A0">[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</font><font color="#800080">
'''Support''' 3416 is a huge amount of edits. Keeping this user from the mop for almost a year is too long. He is definitely a trustworthy and experienced user. Who in the right mind would oppose this one? [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Fine editor, good luck!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''', insert "didn't know he wasn't one" cliche here --
'''Support''', from another DYK junky.

'''support''' -
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''' - seems good.
'''Support''' Good guy, good editor. Knows his way around the wiki quite well.


'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Everything looks good.  (Reviewing his edit history and writing was a pleasure!)
'''Support'''. I agree with Steveo2... Very nice range of edits! Beautiful. -→
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' until we get a method to remove abusive admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''' Don't like the above response comments.  Failure to monitor own RFA.  --
'''Oppose'''. As per Ardenn. He has a point that all should ponder over lunch.

'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' Wow, those are some great accomplishments, and the answers are superb. --
'''Support''' per nom. Great answers to the questions.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' great work.--
'''Support''' An impressive editor, I doubt that admin privileges would be abused.
'''Support''' Good answers and you said "I feel I had learned a lot from the conflict with Kingjeff". You convinced me with that.
'''Support''' - per experience and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Johan_Elisson&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6 work with images] --
'''Support''' A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''Long term contributor. Honest about his very few edit wars (which are minor anyway). Deserves to be in.
'''Support'''. Great editor and I have no doubt he will make good use of the admin tools.
'''Woah.''' Um...he isn't an admin? OK, I would have nominated him if I had known this...
'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Support''', possibly even over-due here.--<font style="background:white">
'''Weak support''' everything looks great; weak because I have an aversion to unnecessarily large sigs.
'''Support''' strongly per nom. -
'''Support''' per nom.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, and great contributor to Wikipedia. He/she is also a very good encyclopedia builder, which a lot of us recently created admins are not. --
'''Support.''' --

Eww, created a Featured List...! But otherwise a very complete, well-rounded, knowledgeable, levelheaded editor, who has been most helpful in my dealings with him. '''Support.'''
'''Support''' per Nishkid64. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Absolut Suppørt''' ~
'''Support''' &ndash; damn straight. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' - Crossed paths with JE a few times. No problem. --
'''Absolutely.'''
'''Support''' -
Yeah, hard-working dude. Should have been moppified ages ago.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support.''' Calm, hard-working and honest. Admin material fer sure. /
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions to Wikipedia. No reason to not trust this user.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per all above, highly qualified editor, no concerns.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per all above.  Will almost certainly be a great admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' per all of the above all of the aboves. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. -
'''Support''' -- he's been here long enough. /
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent track record. --
'''Support'''Need more swedish admins --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' good stuff; seems to be a highly qualified candidate and I'm surprised he's not an admin already
Hm. Almost missed this.--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
Nice contributions, nice answers. - <b>
'''Support.''' Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' As a rugby player I really dislike football ;), but that aside he's a good editor and has made alot of good contributions, let him step up to the challenge.
'''Support''' Great editor (featured articles by himself? I'm impressed), and pretty good answers.
'''Support''' I've been coming across his work for years, and to restate an old saying "I thought he was one long ago". --
'''Support'''. Long-term editor with substantial encyclopedia-building experience.
'''Support''' very impressive.  lots of experience and great contributions to the project. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' &mdash; Four supports in a row. Just when you despair that the pool of administrator candidates is getting shallow, you see a string like this. Support - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] ([[User talk:Williamborg|Bill]]) 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC) And it adds to the pleasure of supporting when I realize I've linked articles to a featured article he initiated and built&mdash;I've already voted for his work. How could one not support! [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' The majority of his edits are in the mainspace, which is a very good thing, but still has experience in AfD and RfA. And how many Wikipedians write that many featured articles? --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator, of course.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seems logical, feet on the ground, broad minded, knowledgeable. 1453 edits may not be oodles of experience, but stupid he ain't. The fact that he's been able to resolve disputes renders a low number of project and user talk edits rather moot. If he has more disputes maybe he talks more. :)
'''support''' having read through his past participation re: resolving conflicts I trust him with expanded powers.
'''Support''' Is it about edit count or edit quality?
'''Support'''. Good work with the encyclopedia and seems to handle dsiputes fairly well.
'''Support'''. Contributions to articles are very helpful and he does use talk pages appropriately and solve disputes.
'''Support''' per John Reid.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
strong '''support''': sensible and thoughtful
'''Support''' looks good to me--

'''Support''', strong candidate, unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. I've seen Joke around on the physics pages and he has impressed me with how he handled some of the disputed I came across. --
'''Support''' Solid, serious editor that understands the principals at work here. An expert in his field who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. A quality editor.
'''Support''' Looks like a very dedicated, thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' I liked his edits on [[Big Bang]] which popped up on my watchlist from time to time. —''
'''Support.''' Quality of edits and dialogue more than overrides any numerical concerns, at least for me (good point made below re editcount not reflecting on the effort put in)--
'''Support''' - Quality outweighs quantity when the quality is this good. Doesn't seem likely to dive in and abuse something he doesn't understand. (
'''Support'''. Slow and steady wins the race.
'''Support''' Experience should not be a bar to adminship, which is no big deal.  The issue is whether we trust the user in question, and experience does not affect that trust.  Experience is something we all lack, and gain daily, and where is the harm in learning as you go? Unless Radiant is suggesting [[User:Joke137|Joke137]] is unlikely to seek advice on how to act, I fail to see how experience should count against.
'''Support''' - editors who devote themselves to content get my vote.
--
'''Support''' although more useful edits at project pages like this one will be much better.--
'''Support''' as per [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]].  At a glance at this page, seems likely to be a good admin who stays focused on the task of keeping the often controversial cosmology articles NPOV and scientifically accurate.  Joke's recent stub on [[Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism]] is a good start and I liked the fact that references were provided.---
'''support''':  Per Charles Matthews.
'''Support'''. A solid contributor. Besides, we shouldn't judge level-headedness by editcounts. --
'''Very Strong Support''' ~ Looking back and some of his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_vacuum&diff=prev&oldid=37244518 edits] whoa. That's fantastic hard work and dedication. Oddly enough I was pushed to vote by some of the negative comments, please dont equal random vandal-reverting or discussion with quality edits. How much cognition does it take to revert silly edits? Can you really compare that to quality information? Consider which one benefits wikipedia the most, we are here to BUILD an encyclopedia, and J137 is doing just that. &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support''', No Joke, indeed a good candidate:>--
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support'''.  Good edits.  Should have the tools. --
'''Support'''.  Very solid editor, good community member.--
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with project and process.
'''Oppose''' per TantalumTelluride --
'''Oppose''' 75 WP space edits would be enough... if only Joke137 had at least 2000 total edits.  1500 will not make the cut - sorry! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.'''
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Neutral''' Good editor but needs more edits. Please try again in two months if this doesn't go well.--
'''Neural''' same issue, however, I cannot justify an opposition agasint you becasue I do the exact same thing regarding articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Earth_%28video_game%29&oldid=26280390], which is why my [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=MegamanZero&dbname=enwiki_p edit count] is lower than say, a category lister. However, there's still the issue of lack of talk namespace. -
'''Neutral'''.  Enough edits in general, especially considering the quality, but a lack of involvement in Wikipedia internal processes.  If this improves somewhat (doubling it wouldn't take particularly long) I would be happy to support.
'''Neutral''' until more project/process experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
Changing vote to '''neutral'''. I agree that the quality of edits is more important than the quantity, but I still think Joke needs more experience in project space. --
'''Neutral'''. I'm on the fence.  Total edit counts are enough for me, but like above, I want to see more project space contributions.  Your usage of edit summaries is commendable though.  --
'''Neutral''', leaning to support, but I have to agree with the need of more project space edits. Most likely this will pass, and I'm happy it will, so I suppose this will serve more as a suggestion for the future than an actual vote. Happy editing! '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Strong nominator support'''.
'''Support''', great user! &mdash;
'''Strong support'''.  I was giving serious thought to nominating him after mine concluded.  I've seen him around, and he's done a lot of great work here. --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. <s>He voted against me. I'm voting for him. I win.</s> -
'''Support''' Yes good editor. --
'''Support'''. Could have sworn he was already an admin... &ndash;
'''Support''' --

Good lord.  With a nomination like that, who can help but '''support'''??!  :-D  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' -- A pleasure to work with, level-headed, calm, reasoned, and thoughtful. --
'''Thunder support''' - Enjoy! ''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', I always assumed he was an admin. The facts that he is a great contributor and will make a level-headed and trustworthy admin go without saying.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''', affirmative action for Minnesotans (and because he's money)
'''Support'''. I like parks, even the state parks. :) -
'''Support'''. Great editor, good at working with people, and seems everyone already thought he was an admin already. :) --
'''Support''', he will be a great admin. --
'''Support'''. Never been one to say no to anything from Minnesota (aside from Mondale :-). --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', I doubt he would abuse admin tools. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor.
'''Support''', seems to be a fine editor with some good reasons to use admin tools.
'''Support'''. I recall Jonathunder as being a great editor from when I first joined Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Very good, experienced and responsible contributor.
'''Strong Support'''. Very civil and a lot of experiance in the Wikipedia namespace. Glad to support a great editor. --
'''Support''' with pleasure.
Clear '''support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' trust BDA's judgment and don't want to see his head explode :-) --
'''Support''' {{[[Template:rfa cliche1|rfa cliche1]]}} &nbsp;
Cool.
'''Support''' With pleasure!
'''Support'''. No reason to think he will abuse admin tools.
'''Strong nominator support support''' as per nominator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
Bandwagon :)
'''Support''', as per nom and all the above comments.
'''Support'''. Easygoing manner and willingness to take on maintenance tasks are two things, but another is that I don't want BDA's head to explode. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]

'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' for great wikijustice.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good editor. --
'''Support'''; excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Good record, He is ready to use new tools.--

'''Support'''. I feel admin tools will assist jonathunder in improving en.wikipedia.
'''Support''' <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. THAWO.
'''Support'''. A good contributor with great tools makes the efficient Wikipedian. --Jay '''(
'''Support'''.  --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' sounds good to me :-)
'''Support'''. --
I guess this poll is meaning to end January 7, and not December 7. Fixed that.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Strong Support''' - as nominator --
'''Strong Support''' - Pending answers to questions, although I imagine he would make a wonderful admin. Good luck with it!
'''Support'''. I've talked to the user on the antivandalism channels, very polite and thorough! <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' no question on my mind. -- <small>
'''Strong support''', of course. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' per Wizrdwarts. --
'''Support'''. Convinced won't abuse admin tools. See also [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">

'''Support''', I've seen nothing but good contribs from Josh.
'''Support''' a little bit too low on the edit counts, but for the developers we obviously should have different requirements. If he could do something with the open proxies it would be great (do you need check user privileges for this?)
'''Support''' per nom.

'''Strong Support''' per nom.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' A great user. Perfect for admin.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Tawker. --
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' per freakofnurture. ~
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom, and per '''10''' barnstars on [[User:Joshbuddy]] (!). Like the new sig much better. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Joshbuddy Support.''' I'm not sure what that is exactly, but apparently I forgot to vote when I co-nommed. Gooooo Joshbuddy!--'''
More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support'''. User looks good all around, with some solid article contribs.'''
Support, doesn't commit the heinous sin of making jocular comments in RFAs.--
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' - as per nomination
'''Strong Support''' to a great Wikipedian who would make a great admin!--
'''Support'''; more editorial/policy experience would be nice. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Hell Yeah!''' per all above; and for all the good work he's done with the bots. --
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Yes''.'''
'''Strong support.''' Edit count: Sure Josh only has a couple thousand edits, but he ''wrote'' Tawkerbot2; thus, I think Tawkerbot2's '''109,953''' edits should be included in his edit count. Civil, sensible, and knowledgeable--he's everything you could ever hope for in an admin candidate. Just please, for the love of God, change your signature =D.
'''Strong Support''' Apart from all thats been said already above, the bot is more than ample proof that he's a responsible editor (though I believe we should give him one of Tawkerbot's functions also: the big <font color=red>'''STOP'''</font> button :) -
'''super duper support''' joshbuddy in my experince is responsible thoughtful and knowlegable on wikipedia, just the kind of pepole we want to give adminship!!
'''Support''', even though you don't show the motivation required to hunt down and slaughter innocent chickens. :P -
'''Cleared for... adminship!''' User seems to have a good understand of how WP and, more specifically, how reverting vandalism works per his involvement with TB2, among other things. Off to the janitorial closet you go! --
'''Support''', valuable contributor.
I thought he was an admin already! --<font size="1">
'''Support''' everything has been said. --<font color="336699">
'''Support'''.  Busy, thoughtful, civil etc etc.  --
Writing Vandalbot took a lot more effort and know-how than getting a few thousand article edits anyway.  --
'''Strong support.''' 'nuff said.--
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - if he's writing bots, he can probably be trusted with the tools
'''Strong Support''' - Tawkerbot2...
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' With the devolpment of Tawkerbot, he must have some experience and some knowledge of everything. I think the candidate will be fine and will use the mop and tools well in dealing with vandalism, and other dirty work.
'''Support''' because it's not that big a deal.  Since he's an involved and conscientious programmer, I know he'll have the attention to detail and understanding of cause and effect that will head off any abuse of tools. <font color="3300FF">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. From what I've seen I trust this guy.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above. --<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''A TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE FUCK YEAH SUPPORT! (per Tawker)'''. '''
'''Support''' Seems a good user. '''
'''Sure''' - Just be nice and contribute some effort to the Wikipedia namespace. OK?
"At least a year"? Why wait? —
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' responsible, committed and capable editor, with nothing to indicate admin tools will not be used in the same way.
'''Support''', but only on the account that Joshbuddy will start using the tools on obvious things only, but as he gets accustomed to more Wikipedia policy he can use the tools more.  I trust him though, so its a support from me. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Strong Support''' seems very capable, and a fair [[wikipedian]]. We could do with more of this kind of editor becoming an admin!
Seen this one around, no doubts for me. '''Support'''. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' per [[WP:0FA]].  Without him recent changes patrol would be quite a hell. --
'''support''' --
'''Support'''. Per Tawker's nomination.
'''Support''' The writer of Tawkerbot2 and they ''still'' oppose on editcountitis. Sigh.
'''Support''' Not only based on Tawkerbot2, Joshbuddy will clearly be an asset as an admin -
'''Support'''. The ''oppose'' comments just don't pursuade me otherwise.
'''Strong support'''. I have worked with this user in the past and he has proven to be kind, thoughtful and co-operative. '''Not to mention Tawkerbot2'''. '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''
'''Support''', it's all gravy.
'''Strong Support'''; deserves a Knighthood for Tawkerbot2.
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font color="green">
'''Support''' definitely --
'''Support''' Quality Wikipedian; good answers to questions. No worries, will be good admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Co-coding the best anti-vandal bot on this fine enyclopedia is good enough in my books, and I could find another twenty reasons '''
<small>My God, I was almost positive I'd already ... </small> '''Support'''ed per Tawker.
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per response to question below. JoshBuddy seems to considerably care about the politeness of his bot. : )
'''SUPPORT!!!!''' -→
'''Support''' - per comment below.
'''Support.''' Active, helpful user. One of the most persistent FAC submitters I've ever dealt with. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' While he has a good record, he hasn't been around for a very long time. I like my admins to have at least a year under their belts.
'''Oppose.''' I'd like to see a year of experience, as well. Also, I'd like more namespace edits.
'''Unhappy Oppose''' I trust Tawker, but you're well below my amorphous editcountitis standards. - <b>
'''Oppose''' - fails my criteria.
'''Weak Oppose''' he's been here about the same amount of time I have, he's got roughly the same amount of edits as me (I think) I just think he needs to spend a little more time here at wiki until I can throw him a good ol' support vote.  Your signature is a bit over the top. :-( Keep editing and have another RfA in a few months and I'll be happy to support you, the above will too, probably. ;-)--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' There are too few wiki-space edits for me to have confidence the user understands wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' Currently doesn't have the amount of all-round involvement I look for. --
'''Oppose''' great editor, though I would like to seem some more edits and experience--
'''Weak Oppose'''. More Wikipedia namespace edits will be better.--
'''Weak Oppose'''.  While Tawkerbot2 has conquered a good portion of vandalism, I'm uncomfortable because of lack of participation mentioned.  Joshbuddy has little experience with mechanics of the system, it's not all about vandalism '''directly''', issues like semi/protection, blocking, and merges, and the different areas of deletion take practice which comes from involvement.  It pains me to vote this way because of what the bot has achieved, but I don't think the user needs a mop and keys.
'''Oppose'''. Wiki-space participation is crucial for administrators because they need to be familiar with the Wikipedia policy process due to their role in interpreting and enforcing policy.&mdash;
'''Opposition on wheels''' look, only 2000 edits, 3.148 (close to pi) edits per page. Not enough edits, even if he can write a neat bot, he doesn't have sufficient edits. Also, that's a lot of edits/page.
'''Oppose''' some of his edits that I looked at seemed to be arbitary or POV. --
'''Oppose''' per SushiGeek. --<span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and most of the concerns raised above.
Your signature makes me want to leap down the DSL line and do something drastic. '''
Seems to have the skills and mindset to be an admin, but the low Wikipedia namespace editcount makes me hesitate.  The best way to get an intimate knowledge of policy is to fight down in the trenches in AfD, CfD, or something like it.
'''Neutral'''. Great bot, but your own edit count leaves some things to be desired, I'm afraid. I'd gladly support in a couple months.
'''Neutral''': Your stay has been long enough, but [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|WP:1FA]] is lacking. --

'''Question on bot / politeness''' Could you explain your thought process on how to make the bot you programmed sufficiently polite? Have you considered any measures to make it [[WP:BITE|newbie-friendly]]? Did you run into any technical difficulities, or are you happy with your bot's politeness as it is?
'''Support''' Great user, no concerns
'''Total, complete support''' Good luck!--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''', completley. The very epitomy of Wikipedian ideals.
'''Very Strong Support''' JoshuaZ is a very impresive user.  He handles everything with greatness.  He has made outstanding contributions, and everything he's done seems lagitamte.  Many people, including myself have sugested that he apply for adminship for a long time.
'''Strong Support''' cool headed and experienced user. [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="D70000">_-'''M''']] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help">'''''o'''''</span>]]
'''Weak support'''.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support'''; experienced editor, shows thorough knowledge of policy, immense dedication. No hesitations. ~
'''Strong Support''' - do we have a "best new editor of the year" award?  Josh has a good understanding of policy, a good range of edits across Wikipedia, and consistently high quality contributions.
'''Support''' - solid, trustworthy citizen who won't abuse admin. powers.
'''Weak support''' - I generally woudln't support your RfA, because you have not been here that long, but I see that your edits are solid and constructive.--<em>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''', having had good experiences. --
'''Support'''.  Standards are great, but they should not get in the way of the spirit of the Wiki.  This user always seems to be on hand to help out, and I honestly thought he was already an admin.  He has my support. --
'''Strong support''' - wait, he seriously wasn't already an admin? &mdash;
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''Strong support''' balanced, helpful and active editor. Ideal candidate.
'''Weak support'''. Like others above, the cliché holds that I thought this user an admin already. I do have concerns that this editor jumped almost immediately into administrative issues and may be pining for "authority"; however, we have no clue (unless he answers here) how long he hung out before registering, and he has been a solid, helpful editor in every respect. I have no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. Seems well versed in Wikipedia concepts. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support.''' Often I have run across this editor and have thought to myself, "He would make a good admin." I can think of no better time to state this opinion out-loud for once. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''', great Wikipedian. I've seen him around on Wikipedia especially at AFDs, and I like what I've seen of him. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. He seems to understand procedure well and his "saves" speak well of his approach to articles. --
'''Support'''. I was initially skeptical, but after reading the candidate's responses below and seeing his (often brutal) self-honesty, I was moved to whole-heartedly support. We could really use more admins with self-knowledge and other-focus like this one.
'''Support'''. I don't think I've seen an admin candidate with more detailed and honest answers to questions than this one. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. I appreciate the thoughtful answers to the questions below. —
'''Support''' -
'''Edit Conflict Support'''. A very good way for an RFA candidate to impress is to speak wisely at such venues at [[WP:AN]] (whilst running the "career politician" risk referred to below). Josh does this. I've no doubt that he will use the buttons wisely. --
'''May Day, May Day''' --
'''Support''' no reason IMO to oppose.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Whoops...I already thought he was an admin. Great user! [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. I go to sleep for one night and see what I miss...
'''*faints*''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
--

'''Support'''. At one point, going by his behavior and knowledge, I too thought that he was an admin already. —&nbsp;
'''Alright then'''&mdash;

'''Zupport!'''  Great editor, I see no reason to suspect he'd not be a great admin --
'''Support'''  Excellent editor, good knowledge of Wiki rules, broad range of main space edits, willing to overlook the fact that he's a math geek ;)
'''Support.''' I even went to the permission log to see if he was not a sysop already... '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I see this guy everywhere, and everything he's done confirms he will be a diligent and responsible sysop. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Definitely deserves the mop. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - long overdue --
'''Strong Support''' Marvelous editor.  Quite possibly the "Rookie of the Year" for 2006. :)
'''Support''', based on my first hand experience with him. Much more Wikiwise than the calendar shows. He also is willing to look at both sides of an issue and change his mind if given better information. A good character trait for an admin.
'''Suppose''' per multiple nominations and interactions on talk page.  Definitely admin material.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' based on interactions in WP_talk:RfA, RfC and other places. -
'''50th Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' One of several obvious, excellent nominations lately. JoshuaZ will be an even greater asset to WP as an admin if his history and our past interactions are any indication.
'''Support''', although young by Wikipedia standards, he has been very active in the Wikipedia namespace. --
'''Support''', he is a very good editor who is always on hand to help others. I go by the maxim that if you're clearly ready for adminship you've been here long enough.
'''Support'''
'''Support all the way''' I have nothing but good things to say about Joshua. --
'''Strong Support''' positive experinces with this user
'''Support''' Very impressed with the detailed replies to the questions, and contribution history shows a cool head.
'''Support'''. He has more than enough experience. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Strong support'''. Balanced editor, with good user interactions and strong project participation. Relatively short time-base of WP involvement, but has managed to squeeze in a lot of experience. --
'''Support'''. Great user and very involved with the community. Time to give him the mop :)<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
--
'''Support''', great candidate, i thought he was an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Despite the short time he's been here, he's had a very positive impact and shown that he will be responsible with the admin tools and make Wikipedia a better place if given the responsibility of using them.
'''Support''' per above (hey, same username format!) - ''
'''Support''', naturally. Fits the current admin mold well.
'''Strong support'''. Perfect candidate. Lots of common sense and cares about the policies.
'''Very Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' sound edits and attitude.--
'''Cliché Support'''.
'''Support''' A Role User. Follows policies perfectly, but keeps [[WP:IAR]] in mind. --<font color="66AAFF">
Of course... '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''. Numerical time limits are useful to determine whether an editor has grasped enough of the Wikipedia policy base to do a good job as adminstrator; however, they are not infallible, and there is no reason why not to grant adminship to a well-prepared editor who is already knowledgeable about policy, even at an "early age", if it can be called that.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. don't personally know him, but good track record--
'''Support'''. The guy has been acting as an admin for some time. --
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''', good editor. We need more like him. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
Are you '''sure''' you aren't an admin already? Definitely '''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
RFA Cliché #1 support.
'''Support''', though he did mistake me for an admin a little while ago, which is obviously a terrible lapse in judgement.-
'''Support'''. Good editor, will make good use of tools.
'''Support''' very good at diffusing potentially acrimonious situations with respect to {{User|Jason Gastrich}} and on the [[Jonathan Sarfati]] page.
Don't care how long you've been there. You are exempt from my exacting standards. - <b>
'''Support''' - He's earned the mop.
'''Support''' - less edit in the mainspace that needed according to my standards, but seems to have a strong interest in the Administrative work and did it excellent so far.
'''Support'''  I believe in him. ←
'''Support''' - Ofcourseitsabouttimeithoughthewasalreadyanadmin. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
From my interaction with him he seems quite level-headed and has a decent knowledge of policy.  I quite enjoyed his responses below (questions and neutral votes) too.
'''Support''' But please edit more in mainspace, it's the focus of the project and you're good at it -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. I keep noticing good work by this editor. -
Why wait, you are already good enough! I '''support''' you!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''99th Support (almost 100!)''', great editor with a lot of experience, not likely to abuse admin tools--
'''Support [[WP:100]]!!!!'''. Ok, he has been around only three months, but has more than proved himself in this time. He has almost as many edits as me, and I have been around four months longer.--
'''Support''', happy to be the first <small>of the second hundred of editors</small> to support ;). <b>
'''Support''', no reason for me to oppose. A well-rounded editor with a style similar to me, it seems.
'''Support''', good work.
'''Support''' - Thought he was already.  Seems eminently qualified.
'''Support'''.  We've had differences, but he's a good editor.
'''Support'''. Seen him around, does great work.
'''Super Support''' Great editor, polite person, well round contributor. Who in the right mind would oppose? [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' - I'm a bit concerned about the lack of referencing (I think that should be #2 (behind NPOV)).  Overall-- looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - While I wouldn't normally want to enlarge the adminship count of the scientistic cabal that rules over all the creationism-related pages, I find JoshuaZ the most reasonable and civil of them.  His well-rounded editing is also a plus, he is very attentive to detail, and I find his self-appointed role on RfA very helpful.--
'''Support''' Quality editor, good value at AfD, should make an excellent admin.  Anyone who gets humour as well as JoshuaZ gets my appreciation in any case.
I don't support "young accounts" for Adminship normally, but there are exceptions.  JoshuaZ seems to be a perfect example: his involvement and knowledge of the project are beyond his cronological time as a member of the community.  Since this is a user who has managed to get to the level necessary for Adminship despite his limited time with the project, the logical move is to support.
'''Support on WHEELS!!!''' This might be a bit of a risk/project, but I have faith. --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]]<sup>([[User talk:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User:D-Day/Templates I'd like to see on Wikipedia|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
'''Support'''. Per nom!
'''Support''' good, qualified candidate. seen this user around plenty and find no reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' per nom. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support'''. 3 months is too long for this user not to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Sure. --
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Full Support'''. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Last minute Support'''. Good thing I caught this before it closed. JoshuaZ's contributions to the management of my RfA show a good head and neutrality, and his edits are impeccable.
'''Support''' very cool-headed and polite. Despite voting against a tfd I nom'd, he was very good in communcating why it should stay and responding to my comments. And BTW, who cares that he hasn't been here your standard six months. He obviously has a good understanding of the system, and I applaud your Rfa questions to other users, as they have also helped me to decide (actually not to vote).
'''Support''' --<font color="FF0000">
'''Full Support''' Very knowledgable, keeps a cool head. --
'''Support'''. —''
'''Slightly Strong Support''' If I knew you were not already an admin, I'd have nominated you myself! But I think 3 months is a tiny bit too soon.
'''Support''' after reading questions posed to
'''Support'''. Not like he really needs it, but why not voicing it when you like the candidate?
'''support'''
'''Support''', and glad to do it.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Oppose'''. Three odd months is too soon to become an admin, in my view at least six are required. I am also concerned that this user sometimes fails to understand that proper sourcing actually requires a footnote or other direct reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=46272889&title=Fred_Phelps], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnational_Association_of_Christian_Colleges_and_Schools&diff=48702126&oldid=48693617], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Falwell&diff=50535510&oldid=50535434], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=40621969&title=Henry_M._Morris] An assertion that something is sourced, or a direct quote, without providing the source is not good enough. This is especially true for the controversial articles, such as these extremist Christian articles. I realize that balance is difficult to achieve here, and that these articles can be magnets for vandalism (which this user spends a fair amount of time reverting), but I sometimes wonder if this user doesn't lean a bit too hard to one side. Besides that I see mostly good edits and a relatively constructive approach to AfD (although I have only looked at a small sampling). --
'''Oppose''' - Too soon. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree that grilling candidates for what is supposed to be "no big deal" is rubbish. That you do it without having been here for more than a couple of months shows where your priorities lie: too far from mine for me to support you.
'''Oppose''' - Seems to be an intelligent and friendly person, but doesn't pass my personal requirements for adminship, most notably that he claims to be proud. (No, it is not a matter of semantics.) --
'''Oppose''' Just how many of his edits were from the Q&A? <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
'''Neutral''' I must hold you to the same standards everyone else on RfA is normally held against; you just have not been here long enough regardless of the number of edits you made during March and April. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Great user, but the time here may not be long enough.--
'''Neutral'''. This user is very helpful and active in structural aspects (Rfa,AN/I, etc.) of Wikipedia and even though I feel inclined to support his lack of content contributions to the encyclopedia impedes me.
'''Neutral'''. User involved himself in an RfA where he was not listed (the most likely reason why he 'was not mentioned in the final Arb Com decision').  I too have noted his penchant for making authoritative-sounding comments to others while lacking any actual authority.  Coupled with a lack of longer experience, this raises a worry.  Finally, he seems to have had trouble with NPOV. That said, I cannot vote oppose because I have found that he is willing to make compromises in conflict.  Therefore, my opinion is neutral. I think that ''more experience'' might aid him in being a good administrator.
I have stricken my "oppose" as on reflection, Tawker is absolutely correct that this is [[WP:POINT]], moreso than a specific objection to a contributor.  Having reviewed the questions posted ''by'' JoshuaZ, they seem to all have been encouraging questions, to address specific voting problems that were being encountered.  As much as I detest the policy of permitting "Questions" of RFA, I cannot in good faith oppose this excellent contributor's nomination on that basis alone.  '''Neutral.'''  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 17:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC) <small>(copied from above  ~
'''Omgzorzzz''' first post!!!!1111!!!!oneoneone
'''Support''' - excellent Wikipedian who I have worked with on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|Doctor Who WikiProject]].
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', per nom. <font style="color:#BB0055"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#AA0077"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><sup>(
'''Support''' edits look good.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[Wikipedia]] needs more [[administrators]]. Would be an excellent sysop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. A careful, constructive, and courteous editor who doesn't lose his head under stress. (At least, that's why I offered to nominate him myself a while back.)
'''Support''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support''' Josiah is a fantastic editor and is always very level headed.
'''Support''', everything seems to be in order.
'''Strong Support''', Josiah has, where I have encountered him, demonstrated a very level headed approach that will serve him well as an admin.
'''Support''' --
'''support''' - seems like a solid user. <font size="-1">
'''support''' - looks very good
'''Support'''--'''
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support''', looks good. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''', as per nom... oh wait, I ''am'' the nom. :) Josiah is one of those humble individuals who doesn't like to toot his own horn, which is why he had to be asked three times to stand for RfA before he finally accepted.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression. Has shown dedication to his WikiProject of choice.
'''Support'''. Josiah's an excellent Wikipedian, and has really earned the adminship.
'''Support'''. Sprry, [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]], I disagree. If someone proves themselves to be a truly trustworthy Wikipedian and positive contributor, they deserve adminship. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''--
Support. Welcome aboard. &ndash;
'''Support''' without reservation. Always polite, friendly, and does plenty of good work. Have encountered him plenty of times in the Project namespace. &mdash;
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' --

'''Support''', very solid editor, give him the mop.
'''Support''' solid
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' go for it. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', very reasonable and polite. --
'''support''':  Good contributor, merits advancement.
'''Support''', finally.--
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' good editor who will make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  I rarely vote in these, but I rarely see someone come by that I'm passingly familiar with who shows that they have the stuff, either.  Enthusiastic support. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>(
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' and marvel at the quality of candidates so far (four users with only two opposes between them). No matter how small the contribution he intends to make, I'm sure it will be for the good.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' will do great job.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems like a nice person.
'''Support'''. I saw his comments on T-man and Dyslexic agnostic's RfAr. He comes off as thoughtful and level-headed.--
'''Support''' Answers to question were thoughtful.
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''.  Seems like an editor who won't abuse the tools. --
Doesn't seem to want to ''do'' anything as an admin
'''Oppose''' per Cynical.
Excellent article editor, so I won't oppose. But, really not a lot of contribution to project space, and not a lot of evidence from the answers that the candidate needs the tools. Given recent events, I think we could do with creating far fewer admins. --
'''Pre-emptive Strong Support'''.'''
'''Support''' I've long considered JPD an exemplary Wikipedian and have had plans to nominate him for adminship for quite some time. Although I've dipped out on that honour, Blnguyen has done the task justice, comprehensively outlining why JPD ought to be given the mop. He has sound knowledge of policy, excellent communication skills and he never loses perspective. Long overdue.--
'''Support'''.  An excellent candidate who has been around since May 2005 and contributed solidly throughout the project.  JPD has a level head and I'm certain he'll be a great administrator. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per well-written nom. More like this one, please!
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' great Aussie editor, per nominator.
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor.
'''Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''' Cursory glance at contribs and reading talk page lead me to believe ''JPD'' is ready for adminship.
'''Support''' per nom.  Have always appreciated his thoughtful comments on talk pages.
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Another ridiculous nomination statement. Another quality candidate. When you're promoted, remember that websites are never CSD A7. - <b>
'''Support''' per nom and all of above.  Quality user making contributions in several areas, no concerns.
'''Support''' Good contributions to sports including cricket. Updates cricket related articles frequently. eg: darrell hair, pakistan tour to england 2006 --
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALostintherush&diff=72741040&oldid=72637651 Historical] '''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' I can't find reasons to oppose. A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Has a good overall knowledge of editing. --
'''Support''' - per nom and clean [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=JPD upload log] --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will be a wise mopper.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''''. -
'''Support''' per nom. --

'''Support''' per nom, above, etc. —''
'''Support''' You want [[Spic and Span]] to go with that mop?
'''Support''' per all of the above. --
'''Support''' per answers and contribs.'''
'''Support.'''  Very trustworthy; answers to questions are ''more'' than satisfactory!
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' seems to be very well-rounded and well-versed in many areas of Wikipedia.  It seems as if he's certainly to be trusted and will do good work on the administrative front.
'''Support''' Good history, good perspective. I believe he would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' I have no doubts he would make an excellent admin. Have seen his work, esp around Australian related articles. Thumbs up from me.
'''Support''', great editor, very civil and experienced--
'''Support''' per TBC.
'''Support''', no reasons to oppose. Per all above --
'''Support''' without reservation.  I've seen the user around a lot and everything I've seen has impressed me favorably.  Clearly understands both policy and article-writing, will make an excellent admin ---
'''Support''', this user is very active, and just as importantly, is very civil, based on my running across him, such as in AfD discussions. Seems that he would be an excellent admin. --<font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''', that glowing nomination won me over completely :) Great answers to questions, appears to be sensible and level-headed. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' No hesitation as he has been very polite in the occasions where we have been in contact and has a good record of watching pages which are also on my watchlist.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' appears to be contributor with a good variety of experience.--
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. I don't see why not. --
'''Support''' as it appears from Philosophus' userpage that he is no longer participating on Wikipedia, my request for more information was made two days ago, and my own checks have turned up nothing to object to, I will certainly support this nomination. User is a solid editor, and I feel we need more Admins from Down Under anyway, as so many of us are off-line when things need fixing. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' strong candidate.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Oppose vote is uncompelling.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
[[Sydney Swans|Red and white]] '''support'''. --
'''Support''' This user has had enough experience and edits to become an administrator. I trust you will fulfil your role admirably. --
'''Strong''' per nom. <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support''' - perfect nomination.
'''Support'''. Heck yes. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. per above...I trust Blnguyen's judgment.
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support'''. Impressive range of contributions and a very impressive nomination summary.
'''Support''' -- I have no reason to expect anything other than worthwhile admin activity from this user. -
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above. --[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support'''There are currently {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} administrators, {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} users and {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles on Wikipedia as of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}. JPD will make that {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} + 1 when this RfA closes.
'''Support''', 'cause I'm all spineless and such. Look at all those smiling, happy people above me - how could I resist that? ;)
'''Support''' per nom. Also, the oppose vote hardly seems to be a good reason not to approve JPD for adminship. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and answers.--[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin.
'''Support''', of course. '''
'''Support''' - Per excellent nom and nice answers to question. -
'''Support''' well-rounded and highly civil contributor, clearly fit for adminship.  As a slightly off-topic aside, kudos to Blnguyen for writing one of the most persuasive and comprehensive admin nominations I've ever seen.  Great work.

'''Support''' I'm convinced and believe that this adminship will be a good thing for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' A good user!
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''--[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - pile on. -
'''Back from holidays pile on support''' --
'''Even though I don't Like Australian Wine Support'''
'''Support''' - better late than never.
'''Support''' Fine candidate.
'''Support''' as a strong a trustworthy administrator candidate -
'''Oppose.''' Overuses warning templates when taking a few more seconds to write relevant warnings would be more effective and courteous. --
'''Support''' I see no cons. You have efficiently contributed to the English Wikipedia in a vast array of areas. Your roles in sister projects indicate that you are a dedicated, experienced and trustworthy user.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' been here long enough, and has proven to be an excellent user. Good luck! --
Of course <strong>
'''Support''' as you clearly have a stong understanding of the policies. Impressive history and contribution to other wikiprojects. Also, your answers to the questions were just what I would like to see from a future admin.
'''Support''' Seems like good admin material - lots of XfD contributions and vandalwarnings in the history.
'''Very Strong Support''' awesome contributions.
'''Strong Support'''. Very good user across all Wiki projects!
'''Support''' - looks good to me --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Yup. <b>
'''Very Strong Support'''. Although I kind of wonders how effective you will be while monitoring both English and Chinese Wikipedia at the same time. But anyway, strong support! <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Strong Support''' Admin in 7 wiki sites shows quite a lot of experience. Could use it over here as well. Excellent answer to question 2. --
'''Support''' No concerns here
He isn't one yet?!
Per Kimchi.sg/Awyong. You're kidding, right? &ndash;
'''Support''' Terrific user.
'''Do we really have to waste time on an RFA - someone just speedy close this as an obvious promote Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Great contribution history, especially your participation in copyvio issues, which aren't much fun to deal with.
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' I trust this user with the admin tools.
'''Holy cow''' Uh, yeah, I'm on the bandwagon! --
'''Support''', definitely. You weren't an admin all this while?? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
The editor has shown good knowledge of policies; and with the experience behind him, I am sure he will be an asset to the project with the mop and bucket. —
'''SUPERDUPERSTRONG support'''
'''Support in the sense of all seven of its letters.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. This is about as close as it gets to a case where we don't need to wait for a full RfA. I particularly note [[commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Jusjih2|his bcrat nom on Commons]] in support of his eminent trustworthiness. But I suppose it wouldn't hurt to wait 7 days either, the place is holding up alright. -
當然'''支持'''。 -
'''Support'''. A clean sweep!
'''Support'''. If there was a Speedy Admin, I'd vote for that. '''''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''A very responsible and helpful admin at en.WS.  I have full confidence in him.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate, obviously trustworthy.
'''Support''' great editor with a history of fairness.
'''Support''' Has been here for quite some time. A good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support 支持'''. --
'''Support''' meets my criterion: You must have no more than 5,000 mainspace edits. ~
'''Support'''. A solid contribution history and a level-headed and cooperative attitude make for a fine admin. &mdash;
'''Deserved Support'''. Welcome to our admin family. -
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Major Support''' You really deserve it <nowiki>~</nowiki><u>'''<font color="black">[[USer:IAMTHEEGGMAN|IAMTH]]</font><font color="#6C6C6C">[[User:IAMTHEEGGMAN|EEGG]]</font><font color="#939393">
'''Strong Support''' Plenty of edits and experience. -- <font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom, good answers to questions, comments above. No issues with this user and the sole oppose comment to date is frivolous.
'''Wholehearted support'''. Meets my sole criterion: whether I trust the person to exercise good judgment. This is exactly the kind of candidate I had in mind when [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/055829.html I said recently] that I usually only participate in RfA when either I know the candidate, or where I am so impressed by the candidate that I feel justified in making a judgment despite not knowing them. I very much look forward to working with you, Jusjih! --
'''Support.''' Clear history of good judgment and conscientious contributions.
'''Strong Support.''' Very nice resume.  Experience in other wikis is a plus.
'''Support''' - no reason not to. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' More than meets my editcountitis requirements, unless someone can unearth real evidence of inadequate understanding or incivility. Transwiki experience and copyright involvement are real plusses for me. ''5,000 edits in the maisnspace? Really!''
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''', except for the disturbing lack of Portal talk edits.  <tt>;)</tt> --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
Thank you for addressing my concerns. Since they are not relevant to your case, I hereby state that I '''support''' your becoming an administrator.

'''Support''' The user has an exceptional experience of being an admin, thus being an admin on English Wikipedia will give benefit to us all. Good luck! <span style="font-family: comic sans ms">
'''Support'''.
An asset to <s>7</s> 8 wikis.
'''Support'''. Bureaucrat on Commons and I've had good interactions with them there. <span class="ipa">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--[[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''S'''</font>]][[User talk:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="purple">'''U'''</font>]][[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''I'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' looks like a phenomenal contributor to a variety of WMF projects and I've no reservations whatsoever about Jusjih using the extra buttons.  Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''. Already has a solid foundation for being an admin in other sites, should join the largest Wiki of them all. '''''
'''Support'''. —
'''Strong Support'''. Obvious candidate for the mop. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support''' per [[WP:CSB]].
'''Strong Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Worthy enough. I feel Adminship will only enhance nominee's efforts in English Wikipedia. My only concern is if this person will be able to manage adminship chores from all wikisites at the same time. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support''', I see nothing wrong here does not seem like someone you have to wory about with the ''extra buttons'' ;) However I am a little heisitant due to a little weakness in the questions but overall this seems fine--
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support this editor.
'''Support''' Great resumé. --
'''Support''' Numerous [[WP:ADMIN|administrator]] accounts on various Wikipedias, as well as bureaucrat status in two Wikipedias shows experience; in addition the answers to questions are of high standard (especially question 2). [[User:Anthony_cfc|<font color="#000080">'''Anthon'''</font>]]<font color="#000080">[[User:Anthony_cfc/esperanza|<font color="#008000">'''y'''</font>]]<font color="#000080">
'''support''':  Evidently a good contributor and responsible candidate.
'''Support''' will obviously make good use of the mop, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', well-qualified candidate.
'''Oppose''' Does not have enough mainspace edits per my criteria, which is on my user page.
'''Oppose''' I am deeply disturbed that Jusjih considers Chinese law in his consideration of what is appropriate on Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' Jusjih looks to be well qualified having become an admin.  I have some residual doubts about the Chinese law issue but since Jusjih has indicated that he will ignore Chinese law, I will take him on his word. --
He has a good head. Better than I do. Handled the people attacking me on my RfC well.
Very level headed and neutral when voting on AfDs, would make a great admin IMO!
Will look at both sides of an issue.--
'''Support''' obviously, as nominator.
'''Support''' without any reservations whatsoever. JzG is a fine candidate for admin.
'''Support''' completely.
'''Speedy Support''' 100% --
JzG is about the only Wikipedian I can imagine supporting for adminship in these circumstances (admits to strong opinions, assorted conflicts, new account, etc.)  That says a lot.  --
Edit summary usage more often, please, but '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Excellent user, well-versed in policies. (
'''Support''', fine candidate. <s>
'''Very Strong Support''' [[Just zis Guy, you know?]] is one of the best contributor, a very calm, friendly person. I believe he will be a very good admin. I trust him and we need him. Many times he helped me by being such a nice person. I'm happy that I can vote for him wholeheartly.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. Good judgement and grasp of policy. -- ''
'''Support'''. Good judgement, and a level-headed, fact-backed, and calm contributor to many hot AfD debates. -- [[User:Saberwyn|Saberwyn]] - [[User:Saberwyn/Zoids expansion project|The]] <font color="blue">[[Zoids]]</font>
So strong '''support''' it isn't even funny any more. I nominated Just zis Guy, you know? for adminship myself but he declined it. Now that he's been nominated again, the least I can do is offer my support. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I met Guy during a conflict whose outcome I did not quite agree with at the time, but it gave me an opportunity to watch him work under stress. He played by the book, then went the extra mile. I have since seen this was not a fluke. I could say more (including some advice) but I see others have already covered everything I wanted to say.
'''S'''upport. Defender of the wiki on [[Simon Wessely]], in which he masterfully ensured [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]] despite heavy pressure, including having his personal email address plastered on offsite messaging boards and remaining [[WP:COOL]] despite all this. Great admin material. Agree about edit summaries, but dispute Oleg's assessment that this should bar one from adminship.
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''; while I do think that edit summaries are important, I do not think that not using them is such a strong reason for opposing. -
'''Support''' - given the promise on edit summaries. --
'''Support''', thanks/
'''Support''' like madness! Particular fine user.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Just zis Support, you know?''' - very good contributor --
<s>Oppose, way too new</s> (kidding) '''Support''', I've seen JzGyk? around and he's shown good judgement overall. His willingness to fix his edit summary weakness and, of course, his answers to my optional questions are enough for me to lend him my support. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''. Does excellent work on AfD and should be given the power to delete. Would also make good use of the other buttons on the mop.
'''Support'''. He'll be a fine admin. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Without any reservations at all --
'''Support''' Changed vote from neutral, see below. &#126;
'''Support''', we need people Just like zis Guy, you know? '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' I've seen him around on AFD and he seems eminently sensible. --
'''Support'''. I hang around on AfD a fair bit, and I regularly see him there. He certainly has a good grasp of the deletion policy, and makes insightful comments. No problems,
'''Support''' .
'''Support''', as I think he has shown good judgment, and is taking steps to fix his edit summary ratio. That said, ditch the RFA link on your signature - many users dislike them and you don't want to get oppose votes for that reason. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support''' change neutral to support. I think JzG will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.  Good work on AFD.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''', I didn't know he wasn't a sysop. --
'''Two Thumbs Up''' - Level-headed, reasonable, has a great attitude towards the deletion process.
'''Just support, you know'''.
'''Weak support'''. Weak because I don't know him that well, but he does seem good.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' see no reason to oppose, (pssst:edit summaries)!--
'''Support'''. Will make good use of tools.
'''Support''' per above.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' have seen JzG about in former incarnation, and now with the force summary, that's history. --
'''Very Strong Support''' Consistent, solid editor, would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''', should make a fine administrator.
What else is there to say? -
'''Support'''
'''EXTREME Support''' <small>
'''Support'''. My only concern was edit summaries, but that's been dealt with. Would make a great admin.&#160;—
'''Strong support'''. Guy is a very nice person with a lot of good faith, and I think he will make a ''great'' admin! [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Appears competent and neutral. --
'''Support'''.  His well-done defusing of an afd/revert-war situation that arose yesterday impressed me quite a bit.  That's one of the most important features an admin should have, calm sensibility and the ability to encourage other wikipedians to do the same. --
'''Support'''. All the edits of his that I have seen have been fantastic (I often run across them on RC patrol). I honestly thought he ''was'' an admin, as his attitude towards Wikipedia seems to be great, and having a sense of humour is always good. —
'''Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' Level headed, good answers below - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]]
'''Strong support'''. Clever chap and not afraid to stand his ground. He'll be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' We likes him, precious. --
'''Support''' A good user.  We have had a good exchange of ideas on the discussion of inclusion/exclusion of legislative candidates.  He has strong opinions that I don't always agree with, but I feel confident he will not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' –
'''Extreme [[wikipedia:vanispamcruftisement|vanispamcruftisement]] support.''' &mdash; '''''
'''Support.''' All experiences have been positive. Just work on those edit summaries. :o)
'''Support.''' Seems to be OK, although I kind of sceptical towards admins who don't write articles: they tend to interfere with those who actually write this encyclopedia. --
'''Suppport''' Seems fine, especially now that the user seems to have rectified the edit summary usage problem. --
'''Support''' sounds good to me, gets my support.
'''Suport'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''no reservations except a slight lack of edit summaries.
'''Support''' see notes under Neutral below.
'''Support''' sense of humour is important.
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong support''' - one wise editor who, in my opinion, most certainly deserves adminship.
'''Support''' for good answers, and for being so prolific/helpful on AfD. --
'''Support''' per CyclePat.
'''Support''' without reservations. -
'''Support''' due to all reasons stated above.
'''Super-duper industrial-strength support'''.  You know, in the future, you have to let me know when you change your account and go out for an RfA ;) <span style="font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color: #333333;">--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' A fine editor in my experience.
'''Strong Support'' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support''' (but only if someone tells me the link to the "force edit summary" gadget, because this is a fault of mine too)...  I've interacted with Zis Guy before and been impressed. That he had to be convinced to stand for admin speaks volumes to me, we need more admins like that and less who see it as a badge/status/power trip... IMHO anyway. ++
'''Support''', Very honest. A admirible quality. -
'''Support''' - ZOMG! Can't believe I didn't see this! Rock on, JzG!
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''. Thoughtful user with good judgment and common sense. We need admins like that. -
What? You're not an admin? This has to be a cruel joke. A really really cruel joke.
'''Support'''. I've seen JZG around a fair bit, and he seems to conduct himself honourably at all times. He's just zis guy, you know?
'''Support''', obviously.  And welcome to [[Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something]].  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose'''--
'''<s>Oppose</s>'''(see bellow changed January 16 to '''support'');: Right now I feel JzG, labeled the [http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=1060&end=1080&view=yes&id=1156 Foul mouthed] [http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=1060&end=1080&view=yes&id=1158 Internet Antagonist], is not ready. Though we have some good times we have also been involved in some heated disputed that are still unresolved (probably due to lack of wiki process know how). Anyway, '''you have stated on several occasions that; YOU ARE NOT READY FOR ADMINSHIP''':  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=32403407 possible outburst], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=34943656&oldid=34940146 Lacking knowledge of procedure], etc. The most important question then being; What has made you suddenly change your mind? I have worked hard the last few days to analyse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=User:Just_zis_Guy%2C_you_know%3F&offset=0&limit=500 JzG's REAL history]. I personally feel that he is a sneaky, unknowledgeable (on wikiprocess) and a ticking time bomb waiting for someone to do the bad thing, that way he can snap at him. I have a series of questions and many concerns that can be found at [[User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC]]. (For the dignity of JzG and the clarity of this vote I have not added them here) I ask that everyone please acknowledge this page by leaving your signature on that [[User talk:CyclePat\building a case for RFC|talk page]]. (I may still feel obliged to post it here!) --
'''Neutral''', see comment at '''Oppose''' above.
'''Support'''.  In my experience with Kaisershatner, I've found this user to be able to work on contentious articles civilly, and to play a positive role in informally mediating questions of Wikipedia etiquette, demonstrating familiarity with Wikipedia policy.&mdash;
'''Support''' - looks good and, in my opinion, is unlikely to abuse ''AdminPowers&trade;''. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' significant experience. Clearly has been around for a while, and knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' But I would have liked more of a description than "I've been hanging around". Hopefully that won't effect this RFA.
'''Support'''. Pithy.
'''Edit conflicted Support''' However, I agree with Moe '''and''' the editor appears not to be an RC or NP patroller (but that's not a problem) and also, there's a lack of edits to Wikipedia talk, but once again, that doesn't matter.
'''Support''' Fine record, longtime editor, stupendous-beyond-belief username! :)
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''', i was looking for flaws, but i didnt find any.
More like this candidate, please&trade; '''Support'''!. A few more edits in wikipedia talk might be nice though, good admins help shape policy as well as enforce it. But that's picayune in relevance. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
I've disagreed with Kaisershatner on almost everything.  But, from what I've seen, I believe he can be trusted with this responsibility.
'''Support''' Saw someone else support you, checked your contribs then would up here. Full Support. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Two thumbs up. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' - I am [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:128.135.47.204&diff=prev&oldid=45273790 tendentious] to support based on his frequent improvements to wikipedia. -
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A little more varied edits into talk pages and Wikipedia space would be nice but I still think this user would make a fine admin. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Some of his edits, I dislike. But I also don't like peas. Doesn't mean it's not good for you. This promotion is good for the wiki, peas or no peas.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' no reason to suspect he'd misuse admin tools or otherwise cause problems. --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' very experienced.
Support. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' good editor--
'''Support''' A fine wikipedian that there's no reason to restrict from having admin tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Worked with this editor in the past and see no reason to oppose based on edits then or since.--
'''Support'''.  No explanation required, he's more than ready for the mop, and will do fine.  Plus his name is awesome.  Wait, that sort of was an explanation.  Damn it!
'''Support'''; He's done good work on difficult pages without antagonizing people.
'''Support''', good candidate. --
'''Support''' – very good. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''
'''Wait, seriously, I haven't supported yet?''' Apparently not. Great ediotr, strong contributor to articles, and it's doubtful that he'll abuse the tools.
'''Support''' Seems thoughtful and careful. A little more use of the show preview button may be indicated, but that is pretty minor. --
'''Support''' I was a bit concerned that this editor has over 200 edits to [[Ayn Rand]], but I reviewed those edits and found no reason for concern, and I see no evidence of [[WP:OWN|article ownership]].  Nor do I share in my fellow editor's concerns regarding "lack of deletion votes"; it might be nice for once to have an admin who hasn't been ruined by the toxic environment of AfD.  I am tempted to oppose so that he will spend more time on the cleanup backlog (which largely does not require administrative rights) than fighting vandalism, as the former is far more important to the quality of the encyclopedia in the long term, but I can hope that he will not discard his intent to do cleanup merely because he gets the keys to the mop cabinet.
"[[Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg|30px]]" per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' a good editor.
'''Support''' No good reason I can see not to give him the mop.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' I really hate to be the first oppose vote on the list. But that will not influence my vote here.
'''Weak Oppose''' due to very low Wikipedia and User talk edits. I would like to see a little bit more experience in the actual policies of Wikipedia even if you want to be an admin primarily to deal with vandalism. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Weak Oppose''', few edits outside of the article space.--
'''Weak Oppose''' per Cuivienen.
'''Weak Oppose''' per above.  --
'''Weak Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' per Cuivienen.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more wikipedia namespace experince with self-noms, sry, maybe in another month --
'''Weakest of Opposes''' Some more namespace experience, some more interaction with other editors, and I'll gladly vote support. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' I am not completely convinced that Kaisershatner has made a compelling case for needing the tools. Vandalism fighting is mentioned but the user has only made two edits to [[WP:AIAV]] (see [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&article=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&user=Kaisershatner&dbname=enwiki_p here]) and has relatively few User Talk edits (for a vandal fighter). I'm not opposed to admins who are primarily vandal fighters, but if that is what Kaisershatner intends his main focus to be - I'd like to see a bit more experience.

'''Oppose.''' Not enough evidence of familiarity with policies, nor for a need for admin tools. —
'''Oppose''' as per freakofnurture.

'''Neutral''', good editor, though I would like to see some more project and talk edits --
'''Neutral''' -- I would ''really'' like to support but this editor does not have enough experience on talk. I worry that we may ruin a good editor by making him an admin out of his depth.
First to '''Support'''. Looks fine to me. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Beat-the-nom-support''' (grin).
'''Support''' Wellrounded, sufficient edits and time. Doing good things.
'''Support'''.  It looks like you've been doing plenty of mopping already, and you don't even have the mop yet.  It's time to fix that.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. A trustworthy editor who has shown more than a little skill on the patrols.
'''Support''' you + mop = better Wikipedia --
'''Support''' Excellent work at the mediation cabal. Due for the mop. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', ticks all the boxes for me.
'''Support''', an asset to the project, perfectly qualified for the mop.
'''Support''', experienced with Wikipedia processes. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''
'''Hockey fight pile-on support.''' Looks qualified enough for me. -→
'''Support'''.  I take it back, ''he's'' the very model of a modern wikipedian. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
{{[[Template:Rfa cliche 1|Rfa cliche 1]]}} OH WAIT IT WAS DELETED :(  Anyway, '''support'''. --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' your last 500 contribs really span a lot of activities - merges, AfD, AIAV, rvv(+warnings!), even transwiki. :-O Definitely one suitable for the mop.
'''Support'''. Your self-nom statement is an understatement of the work you have done. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good job.--
'''Support''' Robust, Hardworking editor
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' very good.
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
<s>Oppose, too liked</s> Nah, just kidding.. '''Support'''. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' please - <b>
'''Support''', prime candidate. Wholehearted support.
'''Support''' no evidence that this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''', despite a bit of misgivings based on what Grouchy McGrouch said below :)
'''Support''', per Cyde. (Lack of interest in spending time in the internal structure of Wikipedia is a good thing.) <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Support''' User could use the tools. We need more admins paying attention to copyright issues and this candidate has the necessary knowledge and attitude to do that work.
'''Support''' I'm totally impressed with what I've seen of this user.  --
'''Support''' I was impressed by this editor when I came across his very first edit at [[Enduro]]. --
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', civil in his dealings with other editors.  Has a calling for what he wants to do with the encyclopedia, and understands that not all editors can do those things.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', has helped Wikipedia in many ways and could do even better things to help with admin tools.
'''support''' no reason to oppose. --

[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
It's your birthday... so here's the mop!-[[Wikipedia: WikiProject U.S. Presidents|<font color=blue>President</font>]][[Image:Tux.png|10px]][[user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny|<font color=black>G</font>]][[user talk:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny|<font color=red>a</font>]][[user:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny/pagemap|<font color=orange>n</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A favorable disposition. --
'''Mehhh''', lack of project talk edits shows little interest in policy.  --
'''Support''' as nom. -
Considering your answers, I have no choice but to '''support'''.
'''Support''' Very valuable contributor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' ran into this person on Talk:Main Page the other day. Looks like a solid contributor who will make a superb admin. good luck.--
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px|Support]] '''Support'''. I agree with [[User:Lethe|lethe]]. <small><span class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid Black; vspace: 1px; padding: 4px;"><font style="color: Black; text-decoration: None; font-weight: Bold">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - from a look through his contributions. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - His contributions and his answers to the questions make him a trustable user.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' - well-balanced, active contributor.
'''Support''' - Based on an interaction on [[Polar Bear]] in December.
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' – I mostly recognize Keenan from the reference desk, but he's done good work in the article space too. Looking though his talk edits, I am impressed with his communication and experience. He admits to being stubborn, but it seems that he is not forceful, and that he's always willing to discuss issues of disagreement. '''''×'''''
'''Support''' A trustable user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Great editor. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''', naturally.
'''Support.''' see no reason not to... --
'''Support'''. Per nom. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
Good user.  Nothing I see would suggest that he wouldn't be a good Admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''': don't think he'll go crazy on us. --
'''support''' He is very trustworthy.
'''Support''' looks as if would make a good admin, from what I've seen. [[User:Col_tom|Colon]]<font color="green">[[User:Col_tom/Esperanza|el]]</font>
'''Support''' Despite his self-proclaimed "radical mergism", in my experience with him he always uses the talk and keeps a cool head- even when insulted.  So i see no reason not to trust him with a mop and bucket.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support''' Excellent user; the reference is an understaffed gem of Wikipedia's structure.
'''Support''' due to sane edit history and activity correcting vandalism. --
'''Support''' per nom. Keep up the good work!
'''Support''' per nom and good answers. --
'''Support''' seems like a good user from nom and answers to questions.
'''Support''', great editor with good responses to the given questions--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - good user.
'''Support''' Wholeheartedly, outstanding user.
'''Support'''. Awesome job. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' excellent editor.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools, quality article contributions.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' An excellent editor (probably even better, if the edit couter was working), giving great contributions, and still having time for janitiorial chores, even if he's not an admin (yet)<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''' will make a good admin. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' appears to be a strong editor.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. tools.wikimedia.de appears to be down, so I can't use Interiot's tool, but Keenan Pepper's nomination and what I've seen from his contributions look very pleasing. I trust he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' - of course! --
'''Support''' as a well-tempered user, and answers to questions below.  Also helpful [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=49972980 at the reference desk].  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''', per Xoloz.
'''Support''' -- Actually wants to improve content!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Good combinations of contributions and community interaction.
'''Support''' good contributions, and particularly good work on the reference desk. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''

'''Support''' - good contributions and interaction from what I've seen.
More like this candidate, please<sup>TM</sup> '''support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. A firm one. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems pretty dedicated, I see no problem here. Plenty of edits. Seems OK.--
'''Support'''. One of the best [[WP:RD|Reference Desk]] helpers available. Active, knowledgable, useful. Keenan has my vote of confidence.
'''Support''' - per above
'''Support'''. as per all of the above
'''Support''': OK, fine. --

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Yes. —
'''Support''' from another physics student.
'''Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support'''; I've been familiar with his work for a while now (tuning and intonation especially); everything looks good for giving him adminship.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I haven't interacted with this user myself, but from his contribs and answers, he seems ideal for an admin. <font COLOR="#008b8b">[[User:Condem|Con]]</font><font COLOR="#FF0080">[[User:Condem|'''D''']]</font>[[User:Condem/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason why not.

'''Support'''. Strong, level-headed editor.
'''Support''' trustworthy and level-headed editor. --
'''Support''' I've seen Khokhoi around and (s)he is a very useful contributor indeed and would benefit from admin tools.  Has obviously learned from past mistakes of edit warring.--
I offered to nominate him last week, so that's a definite yes.
'''Support''' just came across this user today. Looks great- good luck! --
'''Support''' I am very pleased to see you nominated here. You do a very nice job.
'''Support''' A name that I have seen so often around WP spaces that I thought they were already an admin.

'''Crazy 40,000 edits Support'''. Although this user has a questionable past, I have no worries or doubts about the user at this very moment. In fact, I have seen this user ''everywhere'' and I am impressed. Best of luck with the RfA.
'''Support'''. A worthy user, and gets a definite yes from me for his sock-hunting alone. --
'''Strong support'''. We need more admins on controversial topics, not less. I've never seen anything to make me doubt this user and I was surprised when I looked at the previous RfA (I found it while digging around months ago.) I still think the project would greatly benefit from giving Khoikhoi admin tools. YES I KNOW ABOUT THE ARBCOM/PROBATION THING. His handling of it is all the more reason to support in my book.
<small>2x edit conflict</small> '''<s>Unbelievably strong </s>support'''. Give the man the mop, he can only do good things with it. I cannot believe the last one didn't work out. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzasta]]''' <sub>[[User_talk:Riana_dzasta|wreak havoc]]|[[Special:Contributions/Riana_dzasta|damage report]] </sub> 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Shoulda mentioned the arbitration case, but I'm still supporting you. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I voted oppose in his last RfA, and with good reason. I'm proud to say that my concerns are now dealt with. Over the past year, he has made a strong effort not only to be more concious of policies, but to find different ways to contribute, even when unable to edit in his primary area of interest. Khoikhoi would, and WILL, be a great admin. --
'''Support''' without hesitation --
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' The added tools given to him would only benefit this project. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He always doing more valuable work, and being civil in every situation.
'''Support.''' Goddamn absolutely. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen this user's (good) work countless times. Will make an outstanding admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I've seen khoikhoi in action in intense eastern-european-nationalism-conflicts, and he has always looked very poised, calm, and rational. We need firm but civil admins like him to defuse disputes.
'''Support''' Khoikhoi made some very good edits to a page on a former Russian Prime Minister. I've seen nothing but hard work from him so far.
'''Strong Support''' no hesitation - a prolific editor.
'''Strong Support''' - long overdue
Khoikhoi is a prolific, productive, and thoughtful editor. He's a fine writer (having do-authored the 1000th featured article, too [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/English_Wikipedia_Announces_Thousandth_Featured_Article]), pitches in with combating vandalism, and has been invluable in fighting problem banned users like Bonaparte and -Innana-. He's sensible and cool, and I think adminship is well deserved. I would have been pleased to nominate.
'''Support'''. [[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi]] is, thus far, the only editor to have been put on [[Wikipedia:Probation|probation]], to have continued to edit prolificly, not to have left Wikipedia, and to have had the probation removed after no restrictions had been applied. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. 
'''Support'''; needs block button asap. Please keep up the rc patrol of course!--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''', have seen you involved in process for a long time, and well deserves the mop. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''', I have come across Khoikhoi a few times in my travels in wikipedia and I've only seen good reports although I am not sure he is a [[Khoikhoi]]. --
'''Support''', not one yet? With the experience and the time span here, he will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' so he can stop flooding [[WP:RFPP]] and protect those disputed articles himself! ;-) --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' I was under the impression that Khoikhoi was already an admin, and apparently he isn't, so I'm certainly in favour of giving him the buttons so he can become one
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Good user --
'''Support''' Has taken a drastic turn from a now gone Arbcom probation, and become a productive and friendly editor. I can trust Khoikhoi, and I believe a change for the best has occured. Loyality exists greatly here.
'''Hell yes''' ~[[user:crazytales56297|'''crazytales''']][[user talk:crazytales56297|56297]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy, friendly editor.
'''Suport''' Respected and good user. --
'''Petition accepted''' late, but present. -
'''Support''' Lot of respect for Khoikhoi's work whenever we've crossed paths. |
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around a lot and think that he would make good use of the tools. --
'''Support'''. impressive attitude.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. For Khoikhoi, the tools would be well deserved and hard earned.--
'''Weak Support''' per his probation. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Has redeemed himself and is now a valuable asset to Wikipedia in almost any way one can imagine. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''; what I've seen has been excellent indeed.

'''Yay!'''
'''Support''' Has made a considerable effort to change his behaviour, and I have no problem trusting him with the tools.--'''
'''Support''' - per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECTRE&diff=prev&oldid=68126209 this edit] --
'''Support'''.  I remember and was briefly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Chick+Bowen&page=User%3AZmmz involved] in the controversy that caused his probation.  Even then, he struck me as one of the more civil and reasonable editors (though that wasn't saying much) within a vicious nationalist battle, and as has been noted he has only improved since.  I've no doubts at all about supporting him.

'''Support'''. Wikipedia needs hard workers. --
'''Support without any hesitation'''. We need more admins like Khoikhoi. -
'''Weak Support''' convinced that he's grown and is a hard worker, but have to say he could contribute a bit more to AfD discussions he participates in. --
'''Support'''. Khoikhoi was one of the first people I encountered on Wikipedia, and I've seen many good things from him since. Khoikhoi will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I thought this user was an admin already.
'''Support''' -- He's ready now.
'''Strong support''' - always calm, rationale and plays it straight, and one of the few who are willing to go into nasty areas and stop POV pushing on nationalism related battles. Very few people have the courage to go in there to a mess and clean up. Khoikhoi is not one for parading about. '''
'''Support''' - definitely. -
'''Support'''. Should have been promoted years ago. I hope this RfA will not be hijacked by trolls as the previous one was. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Strong support,''' no hesitations whatsoever. Khoikoi is a diligent and dedicated contributor, and one whom it is always a pleasure to deal with. I second Ghirla's sentiments about the previous RfA above, and note that Khoikhoi's willingness to combat and forestall  the more egrarious examples of nationalistic POV-pushing (of all hues) is an asset to the project. It may give rise to the occasional conflict or yelp of complaint, but in my experience it's those with one-sided pro- or anti- views pushing their barrows oblivious to any other, not Khoikhoi. The vast range and scope of Khoikhoi's contributions provide many more reasons to support, and I've no doubt Khoikhoi will prove an able and responsible admin.--
'''Support''' I've found Khoikhoi to be a good user, and have no problems with supporting. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. Wha', he ain't one?
'''Support''' in recognition of his diplomatic skills.--
'''Support''' as per his hard work, dedication to NPOV and friendly attitude.
'''Support'''.  Ah, the inspirational tale of a revert warrior-turned-admin material. --
'''Support'''' For a while I actually assumed he's already an admin. He is extremely neutral when it comes to controversial issues, maybe even too neutral :)--
'''Strong Support''' - I believe Khoikhoi not to be simply a good editor, but one of the very best of wikipedia. His dedication in opposing pov-pushing and in countering nationalistic bias has been truly heroic, and has earned him an endless number of personal attacks. Without an editor like him, nationalistic bias and neglect of policy would be much major in controversial articles.--
'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already as well. I've seen his edit history and it's something alright
'''Support''' - Of course.
'''Support''' In hope that Onisilos bees will guide you as an admin
'''Support'''&mdash;
'''Support''' Dedicated to the project, obviously able to learn from mistakes, respectful of community procedures, per Fys.  I suspect that, in reality, the oppose voters would have a very hard time finding recent diffs showing  Khoikhoi's contributions being part of the problem instead of part of the solution.  No reason this user shouldn't have admin tools.
'''Support''' I came to know about this nomination after an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allah&curid=740&diff=82266386&oldid=82266207 edit in Allah article saying] '''go and vote against this JEW named PUTNAM from California USA'''. I do NOT know him personally or his religion. I have gone through some of his awards and edits. For me having his Jew is not a problem and I will love to support him. ---
'''Support''' Jews named Putnam from California are Cool.
'''Support''', good user despite the earlier probation, and he definitely seems to have learned from his mistakes. <cliche>I thought he was already an admin.</cliche> --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Support''', seen around and with seems good... Another drawn here by the vandalism... Thanks/
'''Support''' -- I'm a fan since long. --

'''Support'''-- Because of his *kind* correspondance with me way back over my little involvement in the Persian people dispute. --
'''Support'''-- I see him around [[WP:ANI]] very often, and he's almost always filling out 3RR reports. Admin tools given to him would be in good, trustful, and useful hands.--
'''Support''' -- I think user will not abuse tools and will contribute well as an sysop. Learning from past mistakes is always a plus by me. --
'''Support'''. Notwithstanding [[Borat]]'s [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libya&diff=prev&oldid=82269829 stirling argument skills].
'''Support''' --- keep running into the guy.
'''Support''' --- A good administrator does not shy away from controversial topics. Level-headed and civil. Past is past, Khokhoi will make a great admin. Regards,
'''Support''' Not the best, but better than the rest.
'''Support'''. An Excellent wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Judging from my not so numerous encounters in articles and talks, I noticed that he is a reasonable person. I came to vote here after noticing an ugly edit summary in my watch list. I suggest the account who made this edit investigated and blocked permanently: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi%27a_population&diff=82268487&oldid=81987550]
'''Support'''  The user has helped settle many disputes in wikipedia in an amicable manner.   --
'''Support''' no concerns here, good editor.
'''Support''' Judging from the above and his contributions, I have to support.
'''Big Support''' - he deserves it, and will certainly be good at it (believe me: Khoikhoi and I go way back).--
'''Support''' No reasons to vote otherwise.
'''Support''' if only on the basis of the quality of the oppose votes: I might be suffering from a bout of contrariness, but the impression is of someone who has managed to do good works and is receiving a bucket-load of slurry in payment. HTH HAND —
'''Support'''. May the wisdom of [[Socrates]], the patience of [[Nasreddin Hodja]], and the humour of [[Karagiozis]] be with you and all those you administer.
'''Support'''. Based on his contributions. And encouraged by the silly "posse" accusation of the opposers.--
'''[[WP:100]] support''' for the protect buttons. '''
Pile-on '''Support'''. I second Coredesat's cliché: I thought you already were an admin. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]]
'''Support'''. A devoted Wikipedian who has shown his commitment to neutrality and who has produced some truly impressive articles. Will certainly make a great admin! ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]]
'''Support'''. A fantastic candidate. He should be an admin.--
'''Support'''. I'm dizzy counting stars!--
'''Strong support'''. A true NPOV-champion. With so many gangs of editors engaged in petty nationalistic turf-wars, it's always nice to see someone who knows the difference between a tourist brochure and an encyclopaedia. This user has had so much mud thrown at him from just about every ethnic group out there (just have a look at some of the "oppose" comments...), it's amazing he's still going strong. We need more admins like this, who are prepared to get their hands dirty in order to save articles, not bland RC-patrol daleks. My hats off to you, sir.
'''Support''' I have nothing but respect for this user.
'''Support''' Someone keeps vandalizing pages encouraging us to vote against 'this JEW from California' so I have to vote for him. I judge a man by his enemies.
'''Strong Support''' In all my dealings with this user he has been nothing but professional, courteous, level-headed, and very knowledgeable.  As mentioned in the nomination, he edits a lot of controversial articles, especially those dealing with ethnic and nationalist topics.  A big part of editing those articles is removing POV.  Consequently, there are those who strongly dislike him and have waged a very unfair and undeserved smear and vote-spamming campaign against him and he still continues to rescue various articles from propoganda. He will make a great admin.--
'''Support''' a review of this user's contribution shows he will make a good admin. The opposition below is in large part shameful and biased and the racist spamming from anonymous IPs will not be tolerated.
'''Support''': I believe this editor will put his past experiences to good use for the benefit of the articles.  I have been impressed with his recent contributions.
'''Support''': anti-Californian bigotry must not be rewarded.
'''Support''': he should be admin--
'''Support''': One of the all-present Wikipedia names. --
'''Support'''. Per nomination.
'''Support''' as per Konstable.
'''Support''' A good candidate for adminship. --
'''Strong Support''' When I first came to Wiki I thought that he was an admin for a long time actually :)) I know that many people said this already, but it's true.. As for the edit wars that have been mentioned et al. Frankly, I think that he is doing a good job trying to keep the concensus (whether we agree or not with "the concensus" is a different matter :)), he does great maintenance even in articles in the farthest corners of Wiki, which I find extremely impressive. Even if people think he has deficiencies, as far as humans go, I would say he is pretty high up at the top :)) Nobody is perfect u know! Good luck Khoi :)[[User:Baristarim|Baristarim]] 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) - Just for the record.. Unfortunately I had been away from Wiki for a week coz of heavy real life stuff, so it is the first time I am running into this "Jew from Cali" BullS... What the hell on earth is going on?? Gees.. Anti-semitism & et al is a disease, but worse, it is just a lame excuse brought up when people don't like u 4 something else.. 'oh, him? he is a Jew, that's why..' - real low, that is. u got a POV, argue it scientifically, that's all I gotta to say.. don't give up Khoi :)
'''Support''' I beleive will be a value to the wiki as an admin.
'''Support''' meets the currently unpublished WatchingYouLikeAHawk's standards.
'''Support''' Khoikhoi would make a perfect admin.
'''Support''' Great User
'''Support'''
[[WP:200]] is still far, so I '''Support''' now that "JEW named PUTNAM from California".
'''Support''' A huge amount of (balanced) edits. The fact that he is editing controversial topics should not stop the adminship --
'''Support''' per the fact that so many people changed from opposing since the block and last RfA. (I also tried to dig through his contributions to see if I could find incidents of recent POV warring, but couldn't, among the huge quantity of good work. The man is an editing machine.)
'''Support''' every time I've seen him, I've liked what he's said or done.  I'm sure he'll make a great admin. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support''' Good editor, good contributions, good evidence that (s)he has learned from past mistakes. No reason to think Khoikhoi cannot be trusted to use the tools well. --
'''Support''', prolific editor and I have no reason to oppose. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Fair and open-minded, good use of discussion pages in disputes.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''!
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support'''. A good and prolific editor. --
'''gogogogogogo''' -
'''Strong Support'''. Have come acros the editor on several occasions, and am impressed by their patience, balanced views and insight in various fields.
'''Strong Support'''. Committed and level-headed willing to be an admin would make an excellent one. --
'''Strong Oppose''' [[User:Khoikhoi]] has an organized group to purvey the NPOV on wiki and is discriminating the users on national basis.
'''Oppose''' for far too much nationalistic POV warring: see the RfAr case Thatcher cites. I don't see enough change since then.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, after reading your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Khoikhoi_2&oldid=81303221 initial response] to Q3 and the facts that came to light since then I can't support you for now. I also don't believe you that you "forgot" your arbitration case, which ended last month. I recommend you withdraw and reapply later with full disclosure. ~
'''Oppose''' as per concerns raised by Trialsanderrors, Thatcher131, Williamborg, history of editwarring, 3RR violations and lack of candour about history means I can't trust with tools just now.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Irksome bullying of oppose voters by supporters. -
'''Never. Ever.'''  Vandal, POV edit warrior, sock-puppeteer - as recent as [[Special:Contributions/Blurb sock|Contributions/Blurb sock]] & [[Special:Contributions/Blurb-sock]], it seems.  Promote him, and I predict he'll eventually be in front of the [[WP:RFAr]] getting desysopped. --
'''Strong Oppose''' [[User:Khoikhoi]] has an organized group to purvey the NPOV on wiki and is discriminating the users on national basis (see above). --
'''Strong Oppose'''. This user is a POV-pusher.
'''Strong Oppose''' [[User:Khoikhoi]] is leading a group of user, menaging and communicating among group genarally by e-mails not in talk pages directly.This group acting in a systematic way to revert articles, when one of member make 3rv reverts than one another continue with 4rv(against punishment for violating 3rv rule). All member of group are very radical nationalist. They are working generally Turk/Turkey and Religion related articles to put anti-Turk POV and anti-Islam POV. Some of the member are suspected as Suck poppet, one is clear; [[User:Tekleni]] and [[User:Tzkeai]], till to 03 Oct.2006 there were two users , at that date [[User:Tzkeai]] redirected to [[User:Tekleni]].'''No need like an Administrator in WIKIPEDIA''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Oppose'''Right [[User:Khoikhoi]]has made a considerable effort to change his behaviour, but I still do not trust him with the tools and I'm not sure if he can be neutral or not.--
'''Oppose''' this time. One more time and it will be a great idea. (''p.s. Please do not remove messages from my talk page. If someone sent me a message, I want to read it, whatever the content. I am mature enough to be surprised to see a hundred odd users just spontaneously gathering to express their support. Do not erase stuff from the talk pages of others.'')
'''Oppose''', --
'''Oppose''' this time. At the same time I appreciate Khoikhoi's impressive volume of edits. --
'''Oppose''' this time, not ready yet
'''Oppose'''. I never thought I'd say it, but I'm with [[User:Netoholic|Neto]] on this one. I dislike the badgering above, and I very much dislike the use of adminship to "fight vandals". When you want the mop to ''clean up'' (such as difficult moves and the like), I'll happily support. See also [[WP:ANOT]]. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose'''
My first instinct is to support, but I am disappointed Khoikhoi didn't mention the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman|arbitration]] case he was involved in in answer to question 3. (Khoikhoi was placed on probation for a year for edit warring, which was lifted 6 months early for good behavior.)
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Khoikhoi was found to have engaged in persistent edit warring with regard to Persia- or Iran-, Turkish-, and Kurdish-related articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_peoples&offset=20060325200652&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_people&offset=20060315103056&limit=100&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_people&offset=20060318233829&limit=100&action=history]. He was blocked for edit warring at [[Iranian peoples]] and for 3RR violation on four other occasions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Khoikhoi]. His probation was lifted early; a good sign. But honesty & diplomatic candor are virtues in administrators. I agree with Thatcher131] that this should have been acknowledged & addressed more directly in the answer to question 3. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Neutral <s>to oppose</s>''' I don't like the fact that Khoikhoi did not mention the arbitration case. Yes Khoikhoi got the probation lifted early, but is there any reason for why Khoikhoi could not have mentioned it here on this page? ——
'''Neutral''' Good editor I suppose, but the ultra-Iranianness points toward irrationality.
'''Neutral''' I just want to note that an anonymous user has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=62.75.221.178 busy] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/220.218.159.138 trying] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/220.228.145.151 influence] editors to "go and vote against this JEW named PUTNAM from California USA."  He or she has been blocked and his or her edits reverted but this attempt to win (negative) votes should be noted.  --
<s>'''Neutral''' I confronted Khoikhoi, for the first time, during a dispute of the dispute related with [[Altaic_Languages#Controversy|Altaic controversy]]. During the dispute, I had found his manner quite agressive and impolite. After all, he said that he had also been stressed out because of real life as well [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:E104421#Reply]]. Then, we managed to improve our relations, although we could not solve the dispute yet. Actually, we gave up the issue for a while. For the adminship, i decided to support Khoikhoi at the beginning but i just learned that "[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman#Others_placed_on_Probation|''Khoikhoi is placed on Probation for one year'']]" on 7 May 2006 because of edit/revert wars. For this reason, i find his application is an earlier one. If [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman#Khoikhoi_edit_wars|Khoikhoi's arbitration case]] is explained in detail also here, i may change my decision to </s>'''''<s>conditional</s> support'''''.
This is an interesting one which I'm inclined to both support and opoose. I remember dealing with him back when I was an admin over edit-warring on a pagee (the exact page is beyond my memory at this point). However, I have seen this editor improve, and agree that his positive handling of sanctions imposed on him is commendable. I also agree with some of the oppose camp regarding his past, and therefore will choose not to make a decision - at this point it looks like it won't matter anyway. Good luck. &ndash;
'''Support'''. No outstanding issues; looks dedicated to the project, trustworthy, in my opinion.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. This user will do great.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support''' she has always been [[WP:CIVIL]] in her interactions with me. Seems to be doing good work contributing. Been here with an account only a week shorter than I have so I certainly cant object on those grounds :) Keep up the good work! &nbsp;
'''Support-as-nominator-who-fell-asleep-and-was-relegated-to-voting-fifth!''' -
Nice puppy.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''. Good participation in project talk namespace.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has taught me a thing or two...
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''support'''' &mdash;
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' -- KC will be great for more reasons than I can list here without taking up half a page.  I've learned a lot from KC, and have relied on "one puppy's advice" more times than I can count (unless I take my socks off).  :)
Ditto. --Jay '''(
'''Support''' Good editor, will be good admin. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Solid user. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">
'''Support''' Sure. --
From what I have seen, would be a great administrator. I agree with Natalinasmpf's analysis of KillerChihuahua's comments on Dunc's RFC.
'''Support'''.**
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per Johnleemk. Also, has a fine taste in RFA voting :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems like she'll be a good admin. --
'''Support''' good answers to the questions and creative username. I see no incivility.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', will do fine.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I find the civility objection unpersuasive. -
'''Support'''.  KC seems to me to display sound judgment and an open mind. -
'''Support''' - I consider the civility objection to be without any factual basis. I have seen nothing but good contributions from this editor thus far. KillerChihuahua's style of prose is refreshing compared to the annoying amount of tip-toeing in discussions here at Wikipedia. →
'''Support''' --
'''Woof woof... er support''' --
'''Support''' - My personal observation of how she deals with fellow Wikipedeans is as follows.  As previously mentioned, KC is a nice puppy (most of the time).  I think she does have a temper (who doesn't?), but it only appears to manifest itself under really trying circumstances.  That means, KC is a nice puppy but not an easy push-over.
'''Support'''  is logical,  .....
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Will likely make good use of tools.
'''Support''' - Good amount of experience, good manners, good spread across various project spaces, great use of edit summaries.  Looks like someone we can trust with the admin tools.
'''Support'''... you've done great work. Don't stop... don't stop the funk! :"D [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support'''. I've only been around (again) for a short while, but your good work is evident in revision histories of some important articles. Keep it up! - ''
'''Support'''. Looks good. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' Not perfect, but close enough.--
'''Support'''. Her behavior in the Free Republic affair, acting as neutrally and mature as possible in spite of all the frustration we've suffered at the hands of the offending user convinces me that she can well be trusted to use adminship effectively.
'''Support'''. My interactions with this user were peripheral but quite positive.
'''Support''': I have frequently worked with KC and she is one of the most fair and insightful editors on Wikipedia.  I have no doubt that these qualities will serve her well as a sysop.  I'm glad I got back from vacation in time to throw my support behind her. (ack, forgot to sign):
'''Support''' Sounds good to me, good luck.
'''Support''' --
'''Sup ... port'''. That was me stumbling over the principle of never using <nowiki>{{blatantvandal}}</nowiki>, presumably as being too cruel to  our vulnerable PENIS PENIS PENIS snowflake vandals. But I won't nitpick with this excellent user, who I see doing good work and saying sensible things all over the place.
Seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' I see little of substance to opposition below, it's no big deal.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - User views the use of "fuck off" in edit summaries as not a problem, and not a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Duncharris&diff=28959138&oldid=28959135].   Accuses people who find such edit summaries to be problematic and unnecessary of being "brainwashed", and insists that their motivation is simple puritan-esque affrontry at the use of "bad words" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Duncharris&diff=29010091&oldid=29009845]. Not someone I want rendering judgement over whether a block made for incivility should stand.
'''Weak'''. I like to see more policy-space involvment, it assures me that the candidate if comfortable with the guidelines/rules/ideas that they'll be enforcing. -
Oppose. Not always "polite and thoughtful" enough. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Weak Object''' As per [[User:Extreme Unction|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Ξxtreme</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Unction</font>]]|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yakkity yak]]</sub></font>. This kind of ideal is what provokes vandals. You might as well tell them they can't say "fuck you", but instead say "fuck off" if this user gets through. Edits are good, but as with all I've voted on today, maturity is questionable.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppse'''. Response to the cited RfC and answers to the questions indicate a distinct lack of subtlety of approach. Needs more time, experience (and perhaps criticism) to see that, sometimes, what lots of people say is wrong ''is'' wrong. -


Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - He's doing a lot of tedious repetitive work which seems to inflate his edit count; the number of contributions with real substance is a lot lower than the average for those with 4000 edits. Not that that's a bad thing, mind you. In any case, his substantial contributions in chemistry are excellent and valuable. He seems to understand the system. Support. -
'''Support''', of course. --
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
This vote has been brought to you by [[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|New Page Patrol]] (R) - because if you don't, chances are no-one else will either (tm).  '''BIG Support''' the Shazaam.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''

'''Support'''. I would have nominated him myself. :)
'''Support''' per answers and looking over his contributions, seems to have a decent grasp of policy and a willingness to learn, should make a good janitor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great candidate. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. This person sounds responsible.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have come across this user several times and his work is sound. He will be a good safe pair of hands with the mop and bucket. --
'''Support''', hits the spot.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Looks very well qualified. --
'''Support'''.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. It all sounds good, been here long enough where I have no fears. Edits also seem good.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', seems like a user who could use the mop.
'''Support''' definitely qualified --
'''Support''', good contribs, good answers. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' per nom and Bduke. Meets/surpasses my criteria. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Dedicated and humble too ;)
'''Support''' well deserved--
'''Support''' dedicated, well deserved [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Kilo-Support''', bringing the vote tally of this RfA to (1033/0/2), which is by far the most supported ever. To the closing bureaucrat: please speedy promote this user. =)
'''Support'''--
'''Weak support''' per above --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''
'''Full support'''; this user is impeccably qualified and merits the mop.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''- User's contributions to the project are outstanding- great candidate.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''', looks good. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Military history|<font color="#960018">h</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great work.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Don't see why the "restricting edits to registered users" opinion or slightly low talk-page count should be a problem. kL has shown more than enough of the right stuff.
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' will make a good admin --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No problems that I can see. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' Is a good editor. Should be a good administrator, too. No reason to think he will abuse any powers. Learning on the job is okay with a careful user.
'''Support''', good editor. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' fine user. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''': looks like he's ready.
'''Oppose'''. Although the additional questions have been answered, I still don't feel that this user fully comprehends what it means to be an administrator. Using edit summaries, having lots of edits, and being around for a long time might sound good, but I'm unsettled by the way the candidate has answered the questions presented to them.
'''Oppose.''' The stats look good (although talk edits are rather low), but I find the candidate's answers to some of the questions to be troubling.  The answer to question one is not very compelling, and the fact that this user's most major conflict was a result of adding an ''s'' to the word jungle does not speak to the level of experience necessary to handle the controversies faced by an admin.  One thing that really worries me is that the candidate is in favor of restricting editing to registered users, a rather unwiki-like viewpont.  I think this user needs to interact more with the community and needs to spend more time coming to understand its values.  I would happily support in the future.
'''Oppose'''.  His answers to the questions don't convince me that he has the sort of understanding of Wikipedia I like to see from admins.  I'm particularly concerned about his reply to wmarsh's question about AfDs.
'''Oppose'''.  Unfortunately, I'm not comfortable supporting at this time.  Although the edit history looks fine, I'm unhappy with the responses to the questions below.  In particular, I consider interaction with the Wikipedia community as an important part of adminship, particularly since conflicts can and will arise between users.  --
Thanks in advance for answering a pedantic question. You mention that you'd like to close AfDs as an admin, so here's a hypothetical situation usually left to admins. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet [[WP:BIO]] or [[WP:N]]. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD? --
'''Support''' The user has 3xxx edits. Very impressive. His edit count per day is impressive as well. He has been around for 1 year in this community, and I've seen his talk page where he arbitrates problems in peaceful manner. (
'''First Support''' user has a good balance of edits; many edits to Wikipedia space imply knowledge of system. <font style="color:#77AAAA">'''s'''murrayinch</font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#77AAAA">ster<sup>(
'''Support''' a civil and productive Wikipedian who keeps a level head and gives wise advice. Will make a fine admin and gets my support.
'''Support''' meets my criteria —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Users who maintain a high level of civility is most suitable for adminship. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Beat <s>the nominator</s> up Kimchi''' support. - <b>
'''Edit conflict Support''' As does he mine.  Passes [[User:Digitalme/*FA|*FA]] with * FAs.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''', per nom :-) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Very good editor with a nice contribution history.
'''Support''' - Supporting per nom and all preceding votes --
'''Tenth Support''' --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. It was about time to see this name on the list. One of the most sensible and reasonable voices to be heard at AfD and RfA. Civility ensured. Quality contribs. What else can we ask for?
'''Support''' #13 &mdash;
'''Supporting''' per all above. Good user.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per all above and [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|my different standards]]. I've seen nothing but wonderful contributions from Kimchi.sg. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' User has shown exactly the kind of behavior that I want to see in an admin candidate.  Polite and friendly as well as demonstrated willingness to undertake housekeeping jobs.  (plus I love [[Kimchi]] ;-)
'''Support''' appears experienced in tackling vandalism and has been here for a while, I'm bought.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. --
Regardless of the raw data presented in this nomination, I legitimately thought s/he was an admin already, and a good one.--
(Edit conflict) '''Strong Support'''. I run into this user on AfD constantly. Very civil and helpful, good edit distribution, nothing wrong here.
'''Strong Support''' seems good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support''' - I thought you had an appointment with Durin, but you appear to have taken the plunge anyway.'''
'''Strong Support''' has worked well in many areas of Wikipedia. Civil & productive as Gwernol says. --

'''Support'''. Kimchi typically has sound judgment at [[WP:MfD]], and he has plenty of [[User:Kimchi.sg/New|experience]] in the main namespace. --
'''Support''', I have a good, reliable impression of this user.
'''Strong Support''' As it happens, I had inquired recently about nominating editor myself.  He exhibits exceptional judgment, great calmness, and true dedication to the routine tasks that are tailor-made for the mop.  His adminship will be a boon to Wikipedia.
'''"#1" Support'''

'''Support''' no glaring reason to oppose that I can see.
'''Support'''. I see you being helpful all over the place, and I thought you were an admin already.
'''Support'''. Always had a good impression of this user, civil, substantial editor, helpful and respectful. Besides, I ''like'' [[kimchi]]. :D
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't think the link that NLSE provided is an example of incivility, but prehaps improper terminology. Aside, from that extremly minute comment, I see no issues.
'''Support''' Appears to be a good editor with a consistent record as well as good overall communication with other users (important for an administrator, in my opinion). -
'''Support''' per Yanksox. --
'''Support'''. User supports my standards; Will make a great admin. ―'''

'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Kimchi is a conscientious worker, a good communicator, and will do a great job. '''''×'''''
'''Strong Support''', well-balanced non-egotist with a kind and supportive manner to newbies, yet strong when appropriate. Would be an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. An experienced, committed user.
'''Support''' - well deserved. --
'''Support''' <font color="green">
'''Support''' Good stuff.  A slightly snarky edit summary doesn't count in my book, and user's good contributions are umm good.  Did I say good enough in that last sentence?  Good good good good.
So he was incivil once. Is there a pattern? Not as far as I can tell. Give him a good spanking with the mop and bucket we're about to hand him. Kimchi is one of our most mature Singaporean editors (if not among the whole editing population); I'm frankly surprised he isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' great dude!
'''Support'''
Good editor, I don't buy the incivility argument, and I certainly don't buy that he fails the 1FA test (which... well let's not get started on why that's not a test I'd use myself), and GREAT answer to Petros471's question. '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support''' I see no reasons why ''not''.
'''Support''' Dear lord, you consider '''over 4000''' not a lot of edits?  I think I had around 500 when I got adminned.  --
'''Support''' - W00t. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' I thought I did this last night. Polite, civil, reverts vandalism, seems knowledgable about wiki protocol, what's not to like? --
'''Support''' Seems to be fairly experienced, helpful, and has a satisfactory record. However, as noted, he has a case of incivility, but its quite minor, so I'll still give my vote.
'''Support''' (was Neutral) Satisfied with question. :) -- '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Even though after 2 years in Korea I still hated kimchi (that's vegetables fermented in chili and vinegar, folks). Incivility microscope is on super-high magnification below. <b>
'''Support'''.  "Incivility" below seems like an isolated incident.  Otherwise, a great contributor and potential administrator. [[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Because I know he will make a good admin. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' Sounds like a good choice for admin
'''Support''' Editorial contributions, project participation and communication are all exceptional.  --
'''Support''' based upon contributions and answers to questions below. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Support'''.  Civil and busy.  --
'''Support'''. Worthwhile contirbutions to *fD, Deletion Review, decent vandal fighting. This demonstrates interest in and understanding of the day to day tasks of an admin. <font color="#000080" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>N</strong></font><font color="#FF0000" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong>scheffey</strong></font><sup>(
'''Support'''. Good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
I've run into Kimchi.sg more than a few times and always felt the user was of strong calibre. At the moment, my RfA supports are mostly based on a combination of minimal edits/time, attitude while editing, and a strong dose of intuition. All three are telling me to '''Support''' kimchi.sg. Good luck! <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' person is trustworthy and will become a good admin.
'''Support''', one possible laps in civility (per NSLE below) is not enough for me to oppose.
'''Support''' Fine contributor and worthy admin candidate. Extra bonus points for answering SO MANY questions. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' As per Cactusman, Kimchi is a good contributor and would make a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' for usual cliched reasons about being surprised he's not already, blah, blah.
A very good user, indeed. --
'''Support''' - trustworthy and handled himself well despite the minor incivility issue that [[User:NSLE]] has brought up as of late. --
'''Support''', great user --
'''Support'''. I thought I already said this, but closer examination reveals that I didn't, I just commented on the ongoing discussion. I don't share the incivility concerns, and I don't see any problems with the guy mopping up a floor or two. --
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Weak(ish) support''' As per this entire page.
'''Support'''
'''Mmmmm...support...*drool*'''. -→
'''Support''' seen this person around a little, good user.--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''': I would support rather than find fault. --
'''Support''' Good editor and I think will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. I am confident he will do well[[User:sumalsn|sumal]]
'''Support'''. I am convinced that Kimchi.sg will make a good admin. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''. Friendly, great user, good answers to questions. --
'''Support''', overdue nomination IMO. --
'''Support'''. Candidate looks good. -
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SGpedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=58202774] is the worst edit you could find: I'm thoroughly impressed. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' with no hesitation at all.
'''Support'''.  Looks alright. Not too concerned about possible incivility cited by NSLE.
'''Support''' Definitely an editor who knows policy and will use the mop responsibly -
'''Support''', and best wishes.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' very Helpful User,
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin already, actually. And I'm the 99th vote! ~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]]
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.  Damn.  I wanted to have the 100th support.  oh well.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
Wow! Kimchi.sg sure is getting a lot of questions. Maybe we have a prototype admin exam in our hands here? ;). In any case, he answered my two questions thoughtfully on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kim_Bruning&diff=59810642&oldid=59724168].  I like Kimchi.sg's answers, I even learned a little :-) . So I'll '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You mean you aren't an admin already?
'''Support''' per comment number 5.
'''support''' great editor, will be an asset as admin.
'''Strong support'''. As of late, I've been more concerned about users who will set a good example, and less about janitors. As Wikipedia grows, people look up to the administrators for ''both'' janitorial duties and overall contribution advice, and I think this user displays an ability to do both by the sheer amount of Wikipedia space edits and a somewhat acceptable about of talkpage edits. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Weak oppose''', possible incivility - diff (edit summary): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SGpedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=58202774].
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but some answers just aren't what I'm expecting, and I have reservations about incivility. -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. It seems to me, that Kimchi.sg has difficulties to discuss respectfully with editors, who have a different POV. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=40396463]
'''Neutral'''. One minor incident of possible incivility, as cited by NSLE, is not enough to make me oppose, but it is a cause for concern. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Neutral'''; minor incivility case; <s>doesn't seem to have worked on getting an article/list/portal to featured status</s>--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Neutral''', good editor but possible incivility per NSLE. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Totally neutral'''. I can't decide...--
'''Neutral''' due to incivility concerns.
'''Neutral''' per Royboycrashfan.
'''Neutral''' The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Sagar]] (see my question below) seems to be an isolated incident so I'm not opposing, however it has various aspects that concern me.  I don't think it was a good idea to first prod and then AfD the article - a university is clearly notable, so the response should be to fix the article.  Another minor matter, the link given in response to my question is to ''disambig'' rather than ''deletion'', as intended - I wouldn't mention this except that I noticed in the candidate's edit history a number of ''oops'' comments (suggesting a tendency to act first and think later) - but then don't we all, betimes!
'''Neutral''' per incivility and seeming misunderstanding of policy on deletion which came before this. --
'''Neutral''' -- was intially opposed, but after reading answers, decided that a neutral vote would be more appropriate --
I think that one needs a high edit count for this. A high edit count means yoou have contact with more users. The more users you talk to the better. When you revert vandalism, there is always a vandal who will defend his edits, so it is a good idea to gain some serious experience here. This experience comes with edits. Otherwise, I think you'd make a great mop & bucketer. I say neutral (as above), someone throw me some evidence and i'll be swayed either way.
'''Nominator support'''. —
'''Support''' per [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup>.  Definitely worthy of moving up in the ranks.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, excellent nominator, excellent rewrite -- a sort of trifecta here! :)
'''Support''' for this worthy candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Antandrus.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Good all-round editor. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', admins with specific expertise in subject areas are a bonus --
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - looks good
'''Support'''.&trade; --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Good work in several arenas. --
'''Support''' with no doubts that Kimvd will make an excellent admin. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good & Sold contributions.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' hardworking, sane, constructive, knowledgeable.
'''Support''' The little deranged voices in my head are agreeing with the other users above. -→
'''Support''' very strong editor, I have no doubt he will use the mop well --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' edits look fine to me.--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate for adminship.--
'''Support'''. looks good.'''
'''Support''' per nom and above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Looked good after only reading opposition. She [[Talk:Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality#Conservatism_Section|stays civil]] under fire. Impressive.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I have seen a lot of good work on the troll-paths from this user.
'''Support'''- I think Kim would use the admin powers as they're intended.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - looks pretty impressive to me.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.  Has been involved in some controversy, but has managed to stay cool under pressure.  That's a good quality for an admin, since they'll be expected to be involved in controversy.  --
'''Support''' managing your cool under pressure can be a very hard thing to do, so I congratulate you.
'''Rfa cliché #1'''. <tt>
'''Support.'''--
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support''', not bad for someone  who wastes time fighting vandals (see [[user:ShootJar/Proposal]] for more on why vandal fighting isn't needed).
'''Support''' combination of expertise and tact, committed to high standards, values contributions of others, and strong committment to WP ethos
'''Support''', would make good use of the mop. Highly unlikely to abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. Has a refreshingly different, collaborative and self-effacing approach. Also see my reply to Ted. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Getting another evolution-related article up to featured standards was my proposal a few months back; I'm glad someone's actually doing it!  --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', level headed, civil, and ''professional''.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', strong technical writer, good understanding of NPOV and has shown an excellent touch in guiding new users in policy. Will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Agree with above statement, will be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. from left-wing Darwinek ;). -
'''Support''' - Good contributor.
Bandwagon '''support'''. --
'''Strong Support''' - she's a great asset to the project.
'''Support.''' —''
'''Support''' per above. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Wholehearted support'''.  Tons of good edits, and a history of constructive comments.  --
'''Support to death''' Can't beelive she wasn't already admin!!—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With 5,000 + edits she deserves to be an admin.
'''Support'''. Nothing but good contributions fromthis editor - the mop is definetely in order.
'''Support''' Great contributor who I've observed working well with some very difficult users.
'''Support''' per above -- excellent candidate.
'''Support''', would make a great addition.
'''Strong Support'''. I've seen this user around a lot, the user meets my specs, and I would trust the user with admin tools. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' --''best, kevin'' <b>[</b>

'''Support'''. Looks alright. None of the comments in the ''oppose'' votes swayed me.
'''Support''' (I was convinced after reading the oppose votes!)
--ⁿɡ͡b
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I wholeheartedly support this Request for Adminship. No questions asked.
'''Support''' Wouldn't abuse tools and oppose votes indicate she's doing something right already. .:.
'''Support''' I would have kicked myself if I had missed this RFA.
'''Support'''.  I know ''Natural selection'' was a tough one to deal with, everything I've seen of Kim has been positive.--
'''Support''' –
'''Strong support''', an excellent editor, and we need more support votes to counter such comments as by Lou franklin below.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Belated Support'''
'''Support'''
'''support''' You seem to be getting attacked on the board by vandals and trolls. That's the best recommendation I know of :-). --
'''Support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''': good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', yes, why not.
'''Support''' -- Like ''all'' other editors she has a POV, but as a skilled editor she adheres to NPOV. She has exercised restraint in disputes, and I trust her to exercise appropriate restraint with admin tools.
'''Support''', per above. --
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Unfortunately, Kim tends to use Wikipedia to push her POV.  She was unable to work with another editor and started an RfA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marcosantezana) against an editor that is basically a POV war.  Unfortunately for Marcos, he doesn't follow the rules.  Kim uses the rules as a bludgeon.  She tries different tactics to get her POV across, such as creating a disambiguation page to push her views (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection_%28disambiguation%29&oldid=51839832).  I'm sure she is well-meaning, but I fear her definition of ''consensus'' is when editors agree with her (note this comment after several editors tried to work on a decent introduction to [[Natural selection]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_selection&diff=prev&oldid=45735466].  What she is saying is that she is ready to tear apart the article, [[Natural selection]] over a dispute with me).  What she was trying to do was to recast everyone who didn't agree with her as pushing "Darwinian Natural Selection" and her view as "Modern Natural Selection."  She did the same thing to [[Quantitative genetics]], and I eventually stopped editing articles that she owns.  Another example of unilateral action: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_the_clothes_free_movement&diff=48535115&oldid=43571576].  Basically, I believe that Kim will use the admin tools to push her version of ''The Truth''.  As I have said on another admin candidate, there is nothing more horifying than an admin who knows ''The Truth''.
'''Oppose''' Her expertise in certain areas is very good (biology).  However,  I feel she would use the tools to push her own agenda at times, as discribed by other voters.
'''Oppose''' Teds comment worries me. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Oppose'''&mdash;a position I feel forced into by the answer to my question 6, or rather by the fact that my questions weren't answered, but evaded. I feel an admin should be able to deal with such questions directly, simply and honestly in a convincing way. The response does not convince me and I fear bodes trouble for the future. Her intelligence and knowledge is an asset to Wikipedia but can be an obstacle when dealing with those who have not arrived at the same understanding. In the case cited it is not unreasonable to suggest that "Natural Selection" should be an article about Darwin, because that is, in fact, what most people would expect to find. There are other solutions, e.g. the modern theories could go in an article called "Modern theories of natural selection". There seems to have been an insistence, however, that one way was the right way. This does lend some credence to Ted's objections as above. I would like to state that I have no objection to someone being a "left wing lesbian" or any other personal affiliation provided it does not intrude on NPOV editing&mdash;an honest declaration, as in this case, is actually a safeguard.
'''neutral''':
'''
'''Hahahaha, I beat the nominator Support'''. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]</font><sub><font color="#2000E0">[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</font><font color="#4000C0">[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</font><font color="#6000A0">[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</font><font color="#800080">
'''Support'''. Tends to forget edit summaries on own pages; not a big deal, but it will show when the numbers are posted. Otherwise, well-rounded.
'''Support'''. More than adequate time and edit count. Good balnce to edits. Was asked to accept adminship twice before this RfA was posted.
'''Support''' - sometimes edit summaries do use more diskspace then they're worth (looking at user pages...) --
'''Support''' per above. Don't like your sig though.
'''Support''' As nominater.
'''Support'''. Excellent user. Will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' if he checks the ''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'' in his preferences/editing, can't have admins deleting/protecting without leaving a reason. ---[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' per above
'''Excellent vandal fighter.''' --
<small>
'''Support''' Need someone with both a zeal for the wiki and a friendly, mediating personality. Give 'em a broom!--
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' Looks right for the job - good luck!
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Pleased to '''Support'''. Awesome sig, btw. - <b>
'''Support''', excellent, well rounded editor.
'''Support''' very good editor with a wide variety of edits. No major or even minor conflicts, and seems like a nice person.
'''Support''' Good job so far, keep it up! <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Good participation in the community. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''. This is one the users that uses RC script, so I have been keeping an eye on him. Looks like someone else nominated first. He is a good vandal fighter with a good range of edits too.'''
'''Support''' Per above. Love your sig. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin already... --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. He ticks all the right boxes, this is a no-brainer.
'''Support''' ♪…a model wikicitizen♬  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks good. --
'''Support''' I've encountered this user some times before. He has shown to me what a great admin he would be.
'''Support''' Looks like a good user.
'''Support''', this guy has done more than enough for Wikipedia and it's about time we give him the mop.
'''Support''' A Great User.
'''Support''' He's going to make a good admin.
'''Support''', excellent editor. <b>
Got my full '''Support.''' &mdash; [[User:Webdinger/In Memory|†]] <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">
'''Support''' Excellent editor. -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support.''' per nominator. -
'''Support''', looks great --

'''"You must be kidding!" support''''. Wow, I don't know if I could support more strongly.
'''Support''', isn't he one already? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>

'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
<b>Support</b> I've seen him around, I think. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. A model user. Will use the mop well.
'''Support''' The ideal Wikipedian. '''''
'''Support''' per nom and multiple people suggesting that he be an admin.  --
'''Support''' based upon edit history; a solid contributor to Wikipedia and would be useful with the mop and bucket. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''52 is the loneliest number Support'''
'''Uh huh''' '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Trustworthy well-rounded editor.
'''In Soviet Russia, editor supports YOU!!!''' A mop-deserving editor for sure. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Absolutely
'''Support''' of course.--
'''Support'''.  Ted's points below are well thought out, and I gave them careful consideration while reviewing KoH's edits.  While I agree with his conclusions, I feel this user has a solid history that suggests he'll be a good admin.  I'm watching you, KoH, do good. -
'''Support''', of course. --

'''Support'''. Deserving of mop and bucket.
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''. You are very good editor. I agree with that.
'''support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. A quick investigation reveals he is civil and dedicated. Good enough for me.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. No reason to think they'll abuse tools. .:.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No doubts. -- ''
'''Oppose'''.  This candidate has few real discussions in the Article Talk space.  This one entry (the largest number of edits in Talk is for [[Blue Whale]]) is telling: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlue_Whale&diff=49359321&oldid=49161822].  The ''ultimatum'' given does not bode well for an administrator.  Administrators should have a minimum amount of civility and grace, and I don't see this for King of Hearts.
'''Support''' with utmost pleasure as his nominator. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Sneak in before this is official''' ... Kingboyk is ''that'' good. I first ran into this editor during AfD discussions of various [[:Category:micronations]] articles. What could have been a contentious exchange turned into a collaboration on refining criteria: [[Category_talk:Micronations#Comments_on_criteria_sought]]. (you can see him in action from the AfD discussions linked from there) His constructive, consensus seeking and gentle editing style is just what we need in an admin, in my view. Plus, anyone that dear Phaedriel nominates is aces in my book. Happily '''support'''! <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' -- I usually prefer candidates to wait a little longer for adminship, but in this case, I'm making an exception. An outstanding user, with dedication to the project that speaks for itself. -
'''Support''' Would like to see this user more active but other than that, he's a fine candidate.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Strong candidate for adminship. Very positive.--
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Stonking credentials and very persuasive recommendations above.
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' edits look fine.--
'''Support''' - Looks as though this editor would use the mop for what it's ment to be used for. --<font color="green">'''
'''Support'''. He edits, he debates, he's civil. What's not to support?
'''Support'''. Good job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', certainly deserves it. --
'''Support''' Good all-round user.
'''Support''' - some great editing here. --<font face="trebuchet ms"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.Contributions look good and he seems quailified and trustworthy.--

'''Support''' - good user.
'''Support''', very nice indeed.
'''Support'''. Yes. --
'''Support''', excellent AfD contributions and general awesomeness.
'''Support''' Great user, excellent potential for the adminship.
'''Support''', participates actively in AFD. --
'''Support'''. Some very good finds in AfD, all with superior reasoning behind them.
'''Support'''.  Looks great.  --
'''Support'''. Was surprised he wasn't one already!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I worked with him on AFD once and could see he would make an excellent administrator. ...
'''Support''' I've seen him around in a positive light always, and besides, if Phaedriel trusts him, so do I. '''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Easy decision. -
'''Support''': Looks like he will be a very good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', could have sworn I supported a lot earlier when I read this and looked at your edit history, guess I never got around to it though.
'''Support''', nothing but positive interactions with this one. Besides, I can't argue with the nominator's case. Well I could...but...:>--
'''Support''' Great contributions to afd (and in general). <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' as per nominator, should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' Pile-on vote for all the obvious reasons.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - new but keen, instincts seem to be sound, answers to questions are good.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Although this user is ''relatively new'',  I feel that [[User:Kingboyk]] would make a good admin.
'''Weak oppose'''.  91% of edits have been since early January 2006.  ~2.5 months seems a bit low for an adequate understanding of Wikipedia process to have been obtained.  Furthermore, while Kingboy has considerably more edits in the WP namespace than I do, most are [[WP:AFD]] or relating to the ArbCom elections.  A great user, but some things just have to come with a bit more experience, in my humble opinion. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">


Something's a little whacked with the formatting of this RfA, hitting the '''vote here''' link brings you to someone's sandbox...
'''Support''' as nominator. -
<s>'''Weak Support'''
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Strong Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -

'''Of course''' Why weren't you nominated earlier? <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' per nom --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Kjkolb is a very good editor who probably shouldn't have had to wait this long.
'''Support''', experienced and hard working user. I am also surprised you were never nominated before - it's time to solve it.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good user. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems the obvious choice. I hope this editor won't mind if I call on him once in a while for guidnace.
'''Support''' Per nom. --
'''This-guy-makes-me-feel-a-bit-inadequate Support'''.  (Though where are those portal talk edits?)  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' I love those that list copyvio!
'''Support'''. Please see my comments on the talk page. --
'''Wow-that's-a-lot-of-edits Support''' - also has enough project space edits to be experienced &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', more power to deal with copyvios!
'''Support''', per nom. --
'''Support'''. Of course! :P --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' per above. Keep on editing!<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' per answer to question 8.
'''Support''' You have an astounding number of edits. Keep it up!
Well rounded, experienced, level-headed. '''Support''', of course (to coin a phrase... [grin]).
'''Support''' -- knows what he's doing --
'''Support''' An experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support'' --
'''Support''' - well rounded user who can offer WP more from having the the buttons --
'''Support'''. Must have been slipping under the radar for a ''long'' time to have avoided an admin nomination before now. Great user. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="sandybrown">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="cornflowerblue">
'''Support'''. Civil in his comments (see, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATedernst&diff=31575240&oldid=31523626], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=39724477&title=User_talk%3A85.189.30.225], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:198.65.167.213].  Also when addressing numerous copyright violations.).  I also liked the way he approached link spam on [[Chernobyl disaster]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster#Link_removal).  Willing to spend time to do it right, as opposed to blustering through.
'''Support''' A very civil user who would use his sysop powers wisely and with a cool head.
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor with an impressive wiki-career.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support''', good answers.
'''Support'''. From both previous comments by other users, and from what I've seen, he looks good enough for the mop. --
'''Support''' I'm almost tempted to oppose; despite a clear need for the admin tools for a long time, the candidate did not self-nom or get someone to nominate. Kjkolb should have been an admin months ago and a failure to request the tools earlier indicates a possible lack of iniative on the candidates part. Admins should be willing to speak up and take the initiative when necessary. That said, this is one of the most qualified admin candidates I have ever seen.
'''Support.''' Very surprised that he isn't one already! &mdash; [[User:Webdinger/In Memory|†]] <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">
'''Support.''' Voting support for his time spent on wikipedia, since sept. 2004 goes so far back, very proud to be able to vote for such a qualified user. -
'''Support''' Looks like this one's going to get into [[WP:100]]. It's a shame that great editors like this one weren't offered the mop a long time ago.
'''Support''' without reservation --
'''Weak support'''. Only 350/11,000 edits are to user talk i.e. lack of interaction.
<s>'''Oppose, not enough edits.'''</s> '''Support''', of course. Cool dude, good editor, etc.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', yet another editor I thought was already an admin. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>

'''Support''' Will do well --
'''Support''' Excellent candidate and well deserved promotion.--
'''Support'''. A great asset in wikifying and chasing copyvios.
My pleasure to '''Support''' - <b>
'''Support'''
A civil, industrious user --
'''Support'''. An easy vote. Congrats!!!
'''Support''' per nom, good answers to questions, and solid editing record.  If people are asking him admin-type questions, it's probably time for the bucket and mop.  --
'''Support''' My first vote, might as well make it one that I won't regret:-). I vote as per nom.
'''Very strong support''' per answer to number 8. --
'''Support''' Excellent user--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - hardworking, meticulous and conscientious editor with an enviable track-record of remaining cool in discussions. --
'''Support''' - how come nobody nominated Kjkolb before? --
'''Support''' Yeah, what they said. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[:Template:Rfa cliche1|Unbelievable]]. —''

'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' - Of course! '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Pile-on support'''. --
'''Support''' I messed up bad.  I've successfully nominated two other [[WP:MEA]] contributors and somehow missed you.  I'm sorry, I guess I just assumed that you were already an admin.  --''
'''Support''', excellent record, no reason to believe the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]] would be abused.
'''More support.'''--
'''Support''' - Great descriptions in his edits, very clear what he's thinking.  Great trait in a potential admin. -
'''Support''', I have generally seen good work from this editor.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Piling On Support''' highly qualified and well deserving of mop status.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Lets get mopping? --
'''Support'''- um, how is it that this editor wasn't given the mop and bucket months ago?
'''Support''', well-rounded good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', but of course.
'''Support''' without question.--
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Probably last Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Committed editor working on dry topic. -
'''<s>First weak support</s>''' <s>changed to '''First support''' (see below)</s> changed to '''First strong support''' (see below) - I personally don't have a problem with Konstable being a sysop, as his history appears to be in order. However, third party nominations show that at least one member has a lot of trust in the user, which isn't blatantly obvious here. --
'''Support.''' – can't see any problems here. Re: the above comment, I see nothing wrong with self-nominations, they show a certain amount of 'bravery' for want of a better word, and it certainly does not mean nobody has trust in them. Konstable is a solid contributor, always acts in good faith. He (?) does a lot of good work reverting vandalism, I've noticed he helps out at Articles for Creation quite a bit too, amongst many other things. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Me too. I find no problems in self-nominations myself. It shows that the user has initiative to wanting to contribute more to this project. Besides, he is here for one year already and this is his first RfA. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  This is an easy support.  You have the necessary experience and you stomp vandals.  The request is also well written and clear. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I too don't see anything wrong with self noms. I've seen him on the vandal fighting scenario many a times. He could definitely use the extra tools.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. -

'''Support''' - been around the block, fights vandals, and wants to fight them more.  --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Support''' Seen him on RC patrol and we had a backlog at [[WP:AIV]] just last night. I like people who know their strengths and want to capitalize on them.
'''Support'''. Seems fine. Will help backlogs, and stats show that he is active in AN and the related pages (abuse reports/OPs...).'''
'''Support''' per above. No problem in self nomination <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I have seen this user around, everything looks good me (including the Q4 answer). --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' - good work! :)
'''Support'''. Great user! --
'''Support''' His contributions reflect experience in what he wants to use the admin capabilities for, and he seems to be rather civil and trustworthy, so sure, good luck!  I also like that he's from New Zealand, for his time on Wikipedia will probably be when most admins are asleep
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Looks like a good contributor, meets my standards.--
'''Support''' per VOA and hoopydink. Have seen him on RC patrol, seems pretty sensible. :)
'''Support'''. Backlog of 40 minutes at AIV? Bah, you should have been around when no reports had been touched for 2 hours ;) --
'''Support''' images.
'''Support''' per all above, quality user, no issues.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', great editor, has done a lot of work on RC patrol.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Konstable’s answer to optional Q4 shows willingness to help with backlogs, but more of a focus on abuse reports dealing with abusive editors. I say: '''Yea!'''
'''Support''' Helped me with things in past, valid contributer uses edit summaries well.
'''Support''' Talked with on IRC... seems worthy of sysop permissions [[User:DemosDemon|<span style="color:blue">D</span>]][[User:DemosDemon/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]][[User:DemosDemon|<span style="color:blue">mos</span>]][[User_Talk:DemosDemon|<span style="color:maroon">D</span>]]
'''Support''' meets my criteria. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support'''. Very helpful user, and certainly appears qualified for admin rights.
'''Support''' Looks like the tools will better help him ''police'' Wikipedia, and keep its quality up to par, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', naturally. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''; I remember seeing Konstable around when I used to do more RC patrol.  Good editor, can use tools.  --
'''Support'''. I really don't see any substantial issues. The answer to my question was fine. We really do need more admins.
'''Support'''. A friendly, helpful user who has done a lot of work to improve New Zealand articles. I am particularly grateful for his help with Māori articles on the en:Wikipedia and for help he has given me to make major improvements on the Māori language Wikipedia.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''', This person is freindly, talked to him before. Would make great admin --
'''zOMG Support!''' I thought Id done this already! Not too sure about these Kiwis though... ;) -
<s>'''Neutral''' leaning towards '''Oppose'''. I feel there are more reasons why a user should want to be an admin. I think most of all they need to ba adaptable to different problems and to help clearing backlogs, and I think at present the user does not show this. Will reconsider if Q4 is answered. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to support.
'''Support''' As nominater. <font color="blue">
'''Strong Support''' Anyone who has edited Wikipedia for nearly five years has a handle on how Wikipedia works.  As such, while I haven't encountered the candidate personally, I feel confident in strongly supporting the RfA as the candidate has demonstrated a long and consistent dedication to the project.  Furthermore, the candidate is to be trusted with the extra buttons (no blocks or warnings in five years speaks a lot louder than x-space edits).
'''Weak Support''' This is indeed a difficult case. This user has been in this project for about five years and this is his first RfA! He has never been blocked and shows a consistent dedication to this project. He has also a good knowledge of policy. However, the low Wikipedia space edits is a minor concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''"Support''' Since this user's been around 5 years he should know a lot.
'''Support''' User doesn't get into conflicts that much and has made 5,000 edits.
'''Support''' per above. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' You don't spend five years hanging out on the same website and never develop an understanding of policy.
'''Support''' Meets my requirements.
'''Support''' Very signficant record of useful contributions.
'''Support''' I'm ignoring my usual standards on this one, anyone who's been here 5 years knows how it works and won't be abusing the tools.
'''Strong Support''' My usual criteria hardly apply here. I was nearly convinced by the oppose points of view below, but then Hoopydink reminded everyone that Kpjas' contributions work out to "one edit every eight hours for five years in a row." That's dedication. Also, I'd ''really'' like for Wikipedia to never forget its humble roots. It seems like by far the majority of users populate Wikipedia for only a couple of years and then vanish; we've got entire ''lists'' of admins who are no longer at all active, and a hundred more who are only semi-active. It says a lot to me that Kpjas is still (or again) hanging around, editing and ''interested'' in contributing as an Administrator. It seems quite clear that he is unlikely to misuse the tools, and judging from his contributions and recent edits, he's a friendly and helpful user. There is no doubt that Wikipedia has evolved since 2001, but there's no reason we can't learn from the past; a great way to do that would be to promote and support the efforts of long-time users who were ''there'' from the beginning (or nearly the beginning): we've lost so much that even basic facts, for example, "Who founded Wikipedia" are now huge points of contention. Helpful, knowledgeable, and ''willing'' to do the job; considering our huge Admin backlogs which grow larger every day, there is no reason to be choosy over this user. --<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' per above. (Changed from neutral - see below for reasoning)
'''Support''' per all above, especially Firsfron. Five years veterancy is worth so much more than a mere stack of project-space edits could possibly be (for those who must count edits, count some of the 38,000 on the Polish Wikipedia). A contributor across multiple projects who is expressing a desire to be even more helpful here, and whom should be permitted to help as much as they please. --
'''Throwing out the standards and giving him my support''': anyone who has stayed active for 5 years is admin worthy.  <font face="Times" color="green">[[User:False Prophet/Esperanza|Wikipedia's]]</font> <font face="Times" color="Maroon">[[User:False Prophet|False Prophet]]</font>  <small>[[User Talk:False Prophet|holla at me]]</small> <small>
'''Strong support''' per BryanG and, to be sure, Firsfron, and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standards]].  (I should add, I think, that, IMHO, the only relevant question here ought to be as to whether the candidate is likely to abuse or, even avolitionally [in view of his non-conversance with a specific area of policy in which he nevertheless acts], misuse the tools; surely this user's judgment and sens de soi-même are such that one needn't to worry).
'''Strong Support''' -- 5 years with no blocks, as well as experience on other language wikipedias is more than enough reason to support --
'''Support''' - Firsfron has informed me that Kpjas is an admin on the Polish Wikipedia, with a substantial amount of edits (37,000!) with 2600 to the Wikipedia space there.  As I said below, anyone who has hung around for five years probably has a substantial knowledge of policy, and since my experience concerns have been allayed, I trust Kpjas will do his job well. --
'''Support'''.  (Changed from oppose vote below.)  I spotted [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Kpjas&dbname=plwiki_p this link] on someone's talk page, indicating 37,000 edits in the Polish WP, including 2,600 to WP space.  Given that, and knowing Kpjas is an admin on the Polish WP, I feel only good can come of making Kpjas an admin.
'''Support''', as seems to be well established admin on Polish Wiki.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong Support'''. I was going to do either a "weak support" or a "neutral" when I learned of this user's work on the Polish Wikipedia. Five years of experience, far more than anyone else on this page I think, is plenty. (Waiving my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FChristopher_Sundita&diff=62336396&oldid=62334431 previous stupidity].) 37,000 edits to another Wikipedia (one of the largest) cannot be ignored, and accounting for edits on another wikipedia will become a part of several revisions I will make to [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. Outstanding work.
'''Support''' We have know he won't abuse the tools (from his massive amount of time on the Polish wiki) and we know he will use the tools productively here. We need more people paying attention to the speedy deletion cats.
Admin on other wiki is automatic support from me.
'''Support''' [note that the Polish WP edit counts don't carry a lot of weight with me - this is not the Polish Wikipedia :)] even though WP: space edits are a bit weak, I'm definitely willing to waive that based on the fact you have sysop experience. Will do good work with the tools. :) [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''', per lack of sanity shown by opposition.--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Support''' if he is doing a good job here, and at Polish WP, where he is an admin, I am sure he will do a fine job here. Most policies don't change much between languages, and if there is, I am sure that Kpjas will learn them quickly and well.
'''Support''' I'm not sure I understand the "lack of WP edits" concern below.  From what I understand, being an admin means that you're given a mop (more tools with which to help). And I haven't seen any concerns about this editor's temperment. ''And'' he's an admin elsewhere? The only reason that I don't vote "strong support" is that I have not personally encountered this editor. -
Im going to '''Support''', even though the answers to the questions are poor and I think you need to put more time into answering them. Regardless you are an excellent well meaning editor, active across loads of wikis (including meta) and the founder of the Polish one. I have to say that you are welcome (IMO) to the admin tools here on en-wiki as I see no reason why you would abuse them. Seeing as you are one of the earliest contributors and have probably been arounsd longer than any of the people voting here I dont think they can claim you have no policy knowledge. --'''Errant''' <small>
'''Support''' No problems seen in review of edits. Looking forward to working with this fine user.
'''Support'''.  Good users don't stay around for 5 years that often, and when they do we should be acknowledging them.  Adminship is not a big deal, so give him the mop I say. --
'''Support''' Very experienced. <small>
'''Support'''. His five years here and experience on the Polish WP are good enough for me. '''
'''Support'''.  5 years, no blocks or other bad behavior, and 42 THOUSAND edits between en and pl?  of course!  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' per Heah. That's a very impressive record.
Exchanges such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia/Nupedia2Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=295406 these] are definitely interesting. Heavy activity in Wikimedia projects since they were conceived indicates that he can be trusted with admin tools. Five years of experience say that he has the ability to deal with conflicts positively, because he wouldn't have lasted this long if he couldn't do that. Overall, I am not swayed by the allegations of inexperience, so I '''support'''.
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', long-time experience proves he can be trusted.
'''Support'''. I do trust this user not to abuse the tools. A helping hand on sysophood is always welcome (See [[WP:CP]] ;-) (please don't thank me for "voting", thanks) --
'''Support''' per [[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]'s comments - his Wikipedia space edits are irrelevant, since he's already an administrator elsewhere. If he's not already aware of policy, I'd be very surprised.
Changed from oppose. Please try and be more active on en.wiki as an admin. --
Support, we can use people with long-time and cross-project experience.
'''Support''' I can trust an admin from another 'pedia with this much experience.
'''Support'''. Maybe if you mentioned you had 37k+ edits on the Polish wikipedia and were an admin, then I would have supported you in the first place. You now have my trust. And for all those people who think there's a difference between the pedias...let me just tell you...there is NO DIFFERENCE.  --
'''Support''' Experience counts for everything :) -
'''Support''' per additional information available. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' -- having been in conflict with Larry Sanger is a good thing, perhaps. /
'''Support''' I was asked to reconsider by Firsfron, so I did.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' based on long-term dedication to the entire Wiki project.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Five years of experience shows that the user is familiar with most rules of wiki. Clearly, we would benefit with Kpjas's tenure as admin. --
'''Support''' - we don't pay admins so the more experienced users.. the better --

'''Strong Support''' I don't know about you, but someone whose read the policies and witnessed the evolution of this site for the last five years knows a LOT more than someone making XXX project space edits in 3 months. This user has been pacing, and I'm glad to see an interest in the tools, becuase it shows that the user is ready to pick it up even more. I don't want a burned out admin, which seems to be the case nowadays with standards that cause people to tailor their accounts for months (thus burning them out). Oh, and could someone explain why (lately) RfA candidates practically already have to be administrators to be given the tools to become...admins? It honestly seems like a double standard. But I'll leave this subject for the talkpage discussion. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Suppoort'''. Seems pretty good to me.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per Deckiller.
'''Emphatic double sister hearty support''', whatever that means.  Seriously, I couldn't have said it better than Deckiller, not to mention this person is two accounts shy of being a single-digit user here.  Increased edit summaries would be nice, but I have the utmost confidence that Kpjas will make appropriate use of the admin tools.
'''Support''', good editor with long time experience. That's what we want as an admin, but I would like you to have more edits in the WP and User talk namespace. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' There has been quite a bit of activity on the ''Oppose'' and ''Neutral'' side of this RfA. I believe this user has worked hard. BTW, its not so much the edit count quantity, but more the quality of the edit that counts. "Give-em-the-mop" -
'''support'''. any user that has been with the project since 2001 deserves admin. <!--begin crazytales56297 sig--><font face="Verdana">«[[user:crazytales56297|'''<font color="#ff00ff">ct</font>''']]»&nbsp;<small>([[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]|
'''Support''' An exceptional circumstance. He asks for some trust, and if he feels the tools would be an asset which would benefit the project, I am prepared to extend that trust.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' for nominee's five years of staying power.--
'''Support''' per JungleCat.
'''Support''' Will be an asset to Wikipedia.--
'''Support'''.  Experience on Polish Wikipedia bears strongly in determining whether he can be trusted with the tools, so I think concerns about insufficient activity on English Wikipedia are misplaced.  Even if he only uses them occasionally, it does some good and no harm for him to have the tools. --
'''Support''' per SCZenz--
'''Support''' trust with tools, experience not limited to a short span of time, I think that's a plus.
'''Support'''. One of those 'he is not an admin yet??' cases.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' /
'''Support''' he's got more than enough experience. -[[User:Ravedave|Ravedave]] <small><sup>(
'''Support''' He doesn't need a mop, he needs a ham sandwich.
'''Support'''. Needs to sell himself a little better, but hey, he's Wikipedian #11, and a big contributor to pl. as well.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' per Thatcher131.  Editor is too inexperienced in wiki-process at this time.
'''Oppose''' being here for 5 years and having less that 5000 article edits doesn't give me the impression that this user is committed to spending time on Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose'''. 5000 edits in 5 years. That's not much. Also Per Crzrussian. '''<font style="background:black">
'''Reluctantly Oppose''' On his User Page he wrote ''My participation in the English Wikipedia waned and now I'm usually available at the Polish language version and spend quite a lot there.''. On his contribution list the first screen (250 entries) goes back to March, the second screen goes back year ago to August 2005. What the advantage of having an admin who is simply not here, bot on the other Wiki? I could change my vote, if there is a joint Pl-En project that will benefit from him having the tools
'''Reluctant oppose''': not active or experienced enough yet.
'''Oppose''' per above.'''
'''Oppose'''. Only 4500 edits in 5 years, and almost no interaction with other editors.
A reluctant '''neutral''' - you seem like a great, experienced editor, but from your answers to the questions above and user contributions, I don't see any compelling evidence that the admin tools would greatly enhance your editing.  You said you want to increase your activity by "fighting vandals/vandalism, watch speedy deletion cat, wikify, tag and categorise, extend my help to newbies, generally oversee smooth relationships within the community" - all those are noble goals that can be done without the mop (other than deleting CSDs, though you can tag them).  You have a great number of edits in the mainspace, though your usertalk edits are quite low, and as Thatcher131 pointed out, your Wikipedia space edits aren't in administrative areas.  I would gladly support you in a few months if you actively worked on those five items you listed above.
Regrettably, I must concur. This is not the Wikipedia of five years ago, or even three years ago. Thousands of people - ''tens'' of thousands - edit not just every day, but every hour; as such, interacting with them has become of greater import. Kpjas is a kickass editor, but an admin also has to have the requisite people skills to deal with upset contributors - and with vandals, and well-meaning POV-pushers, and curious neophytes experimenting. I '''do not support at this time'''.
This is a case where an extremely poor nominating statement (by both the nominator and candidate) almost, or may yet, sink a good candidate.  The original statement said nothing about Kpjas being an admin on the Polish wikipedia and having 30K+ edits there.  Of the administrative tasks named by Kpjas, only CSD requires the sysop tools.  Kpjas' complete lack of participation in deletion-related areas on en.wiki did not give me any assurance that he understands the guidelines, for example the fairly contentious difference between lack of ''assertion'' of notability (A7) and lack of notability (requires AfD). The most powerful admin tool, and the one that has the potential to cause the most harm if used carelessly, is the block button, and nothing in Kpjas' experience on en.wiki or his answers gives any assurance that he will know when, and ''when not'', to use it.  It is very likely that his admin experience on the Polish wiki has in fact provided him with experience in these two areas, but nothing in the nominating statement mentions any of this.  I also have the impression, based on the sketchy nomination, that adminship is being sought as a reward for faithful service and not because KPjas intends to use it.  Perhaps this is unfair of me.  Based on his qualifications on pl.wiki I certainly can not stand behind my oppose statement any longer, but I am not willing to support at this time.
I share many of Thatcher's sentiments. I don't think he'd misuse admins tools, but I am concerned about the relatively light activity on en.
'''Neutral''' per the points brought up about his experience, I am changing my vote to neutral, still wary about activity on this project vs. pl. --<font color="336699">
'''Support'''. Absolutely.--
'''Strong support''' Without a doubt.
'''You Mean You Weren't One Already?''' per nominator. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I thought you were one!
'''Strong Support''' No question. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - a great ambassador for wikipedia - a powerhouse of the barnstar brigade. '''
'''Support''', very nice guy and knows a lot of the ins and outs of Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per DakotaKahn.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''&trade; --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - per above --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' - very good editor, should make a fine sysop
'''Support''' --
'''Really obvious support''' Great interpersonal skill. And back oh-so-long ago he was the one who first [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAmiDaniel&diff=41427578&oldid=41427572 welcomed] me to Wikipedia =D.
'''Support''' - clearly is now responsible editor, would make a reasonable admin.
'''Support'''. A solid contributor.
Yeah. --
'''Support!''', is a very kind and courteous contributor, always very helpful and nice to work with.  The answers to the questions below were obviously well thought out. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. For the same reasons as everybody else, he has more than proved his readiness.
'''Strong Support''' Kukini is a friendly member, who helps new members contribute to wikipedia better.  We need admins who bring the wikipedia community together.  <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' Good attitude and caring approach to new contributors gives confidence for successful adminship.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Don't even have to edit analysis Support'''.'''
'''Support'''
'''Pile-on Support''' <strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' anyone with this many edits should be an admin, though the 8000+ editd to User talk space is rather strange. '''<font color="Gold">[[User:The Gerg|Th]]</font><font color="Green">
'''Support'''. Absolutely! --
'''Support''' - wow, looks like a great, positive user.
'''Support''' - outstanding welcomer (he was the user who welcomed me 4 months after I joined after he noticed that I had not been welcomed). I also like his name as I'm Hawaiian =) [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', sure. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' and surprised he wasn't an admin already.  --
'''Support''' His effort in [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/BB]] is an example for us all. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' per answers to my questions below. -
'''Support''' Fantastico!
'''Support''' per above! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' level headed and diligent.  --
'''Support'''. Does a lot of talking, but looks like a good choice nevertheless.
'''Support'''. Seen this guy around and seems worthy of the mop. -→
'''50th Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support'''--
'''There are 52.14 weeks in a year and this is the 52nd support'''
'''Support'''[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great number of edits and a lot of experience. Just bring the edit summary usage for minor edits up! &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Seriously, you're kidding me, he wasn't one already?''' --
'''Support''' per everyone else who beat me to the cliché ;) <tt>
'''Support''' per everything above. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' yes
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Should have happened a long time ago
'''Support'''--Per everythings on above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' Great user! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Meets my standards; excellent user. <span style="text-decoration: overline underline;font-family:Segoe;font-size:70%"><font color="black">
'''Support''', looks good.
<b>Support</b> I've been voting "support" a lot lately, but I've seen quite a few members who truly deserve it. Kukini, you're no exception. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''' Good, strong, all-round user. --
'''Support''' for the creator of useful tools like [[:User:Kukini/Welcome]].--
'''Support''' with whole faith this person will do well.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  I think I had one of the earliest interactions with Kukini on Wikipedia (Dec28), and am pleased to see that they have developed a very positive wikipersona.
'''Support''' - good user; will meet everyone's standards I am sure.  --
<b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support''' with pleasure - <b>

'''Support.''' Will make a great one. [[User:EWS23/E|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''More support''' for you.--
'''Support''' - good answers to questions and plenty of edits, seems up to the job.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' -- from
'''Support''' I'm so glad I didnt miss this! Strong, very strong, support. What a great editor, plenty of goodwill, friendly and helpful, we need more like this. -- '''
'''Support''' - yes! --

Does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article]], but has made exceptional service to the community. -
Seems like an incredibly friendly person, but the imbalance of namespace edits worries me a bit.  We always appreciate those who welcome and help acclimate new users, but I'm not sure what the tools would be for. Shell <sup>
Doesn't meet my nine months.
'''Neutral'''. The ratio of 2:1 for talkspace to normal edits is a bit much in my opinion. While welcomeing new users is definatley an important part of wikipedia, adminship does not give any extra user welcomeing tools.--
'''Support''' - as nominator --
'''Support'''.  Great vandalwhacker, would make an even better admin. Plus, I need a noob admin to stalk !admin in #vandalism-en-wp so i can endlessly annoy them; all the old admins have stopped stalking it :-/ --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' Has been around for a while, done good article work, great work against vandals and vandalism, and has found the Golden Wiki Idol in the Temple of Jimbo. Meets all of my standards. --
'''Weak support''' I would prefer more detailed answers to the various questions, but everything else appears to be in order.
'''Support''' per nom and per Rory.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per rory. Vandal fighting for the win.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Per nom [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''support''' of course i support this good user, nothing but good experinces with them
'''Support''' as per [[User:Benon]] --
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I like to see fellow vandal fighters get put up for RfA.  Astrovia, Comerade! --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' everything is in order; I trust that he won't misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; I don't see any major problems.
'''Support''' I like what I see on your page and in your contributions.  Nice going!  --
'''Support''' per several above --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - looks good.  Also, vandal fighters with admin tools is a good thing.
'''Support''', for "[[The Second Coming (poem)|Things fall apart]]; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world"... unless we have more good vandal-fighters like kungfuadam, of course!
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter --<b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''': Excellent vandal-fighter, and would make good use of the upgraded admin tools. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', needs the tool, will use the tool, is not a nutjob, good enough for me.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per Proto. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. A good vandal-whacker is not all that's necessary to be a good admin, actual editing of the [[encyclopedia]] is needed too, and Kungfuadam passes that mark. I've been trying to work on [[Io (moon)|Io]] and he's done a good job in that article.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A well balanced edit count, lots of edits, and a combator of vandalism. You can't ask for much more.
'''Support''', Good contribution to talk pages and mainspace.
'''Support''' this nomination.
'''Support''' Have no prob with this editor becoming admin, will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Kungfuadam is active in vandal fighting, but he has also done lots of good work in other areas of Wikipedia, which is always great. :D --
'''Support''' - vandal+editor=good administratorň - Aksi_gr
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per everyone above <font color="#000080">
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', it all adds up to the mop.
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', I like his answers.
'''Support''' Great contributions.
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support''' -
'''support''' - good user.
'''Oppose''' Totally inactive with the Wikipedia community, project edits, photo uploads very low.  --
From oppose.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''', strong editor, great contributor to [[WP:PNT]], vandal-fighter, has noticeable presence in community, civil -- meets all criteria for me. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support'''--
--
'''Pro''', as they say over on [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen de].
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''', he's a great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Pro''', natürlich. --
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions. Perfect canditate for adminship - Aksi_gr
'''Support''': Good editor, deserves administrator priviledges. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Very Strong Support''', obviously.  I've worked with Kusma quite a bit in the German Translation community.  A very knowledgeable, nice, and supportive user.  Couldn't ask for a better candidate.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' this excellent contributor and kudos for his work on the German portal. --
'''Support''' - Not much more needs to be said.
'''Support''' - Will be a fine admin. --
'''Strong Support''' Wise and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''', obviously, with the puzzled "he isn't an admin yet?" look.
'''Support''' Keep up the good work! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''; yes, absolutely.
'''Support'''; per above. Looks promising. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
It goes without saying  '''''×'''''
'''Support''', good guy.
'''Support'''; from what I've seen at [[WP:PNT]], eminently suitable [[Special:Contributions/Aquilina|<font color="gray"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">A</span></font>]][[User talk:Aquilina|<font color="teal"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">q</span></font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. Excellent candidate. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' For all your excellent work thusfar - I will point you to more work! - Articles needed from the German encyclopedia [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/de]] muhhhaaahhhahah!!  A great candidate --''
'''Support''', should make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''. This user seems very capable.
'''Support''' Good work!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', from one Minneapolis resident to another.  (Actually, I live in Bloomington, but close enough.)  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''', knowledgeable and civil. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', another notch in the string of great candidates as of late, deserving of mop + bucket.
'''Support''', should be just fine.
'''Support'''. Solid contributor.
'''Cliché support''' - I thought he already was one! &mdash;
'''Support''': Good editor, see no reason to the contrary.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' especially after seeing how he handled the Kopernikus problem.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', great contribution to mainspace and wikispace both.
'''Support''' this nomination.
'''Support''' well deserved.--
'''Weak Support''' barely makes it.  --
'''Support:'''
'''Strong support''', does great work at [[Portal:Germany]] and in translation.
'''Support''' along the lines 'not-an-admin-yet? I thought he was...'. --
'''Support''' Great contributor.
'''Support'''. Great Wikipedian. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support.''' He isn't an admin already? Wow.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', great job at [[Georg Forster]], helpful mediator, very experienced and active in Wikipedia
'''Support''' - nice hardworking editor, should be a good admin
'''Definitely Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Would make a great admin.&#160;—
'''Support''' Capable and I second the "polite" part, even when we don't always see eye to eye. I like that signature. Gets my support, good luck.
'''Support''' - Good editor and nice guy. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', agree with Mmounties.
'''Support'''. --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''of course. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' per nom and recommendation from Mmounties. —
'''Support''' No evidence that admin tools will be misused--
'''Support''' for good record, good recommendations. --
'''Support'''&trade;. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong support''' per nom and recs.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
--
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Fine editor, will be an even bigger asset to the community when armed with a mop. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Aye''', why not.
'''Support'''ing a fellow Minnesotan...
'''Support,''' {{tl|RFA cliche 1}}.
'''Support'''
'''Suport''' of course.
'''Strong support''' as nominator. --
'''Ditto''' Will make an awesome admin ++
/me thinks this was already overdue - go for it, Kylu! :)
'''Support'''.  [[Cincinnatus]] is a good metaphor, and I can relate, having resisted nomination myself.  I think Kylu will be an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' of course
'''Strong support''', congratulations to the nominators for making her accept. Long overdue, as her work in mediation shows that she was qualified for the job at least several months ago.
'''Ballistic Support''' Kylu kindly reverted vandalism on my userpage in a snap, before I could even notice. Besides, '''Adminship needs a woman's touch'''.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Tenth support''' - yep.
'''Support''' She appears to have thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies judging from her answers and her actions. I like the fact that she appears to be a very positive person. --
'''EXTREME ASEXUAL SUPPORT''' despite my full participation in the not-ready-for-rfa campaign. When it comes down to it, RfA is an art, not a science, and it doesn't really matter whether one is fully prepared for the RfA, the adminship is what matters, and Kylu's definitely ready for that—well, as ready as she'll ever be. :] --
'''Support''' as no reason not to, really. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Double edit conflict support''' Another excellent candidate for the mop and bucket. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
Proxy support. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheProject&diff=61788504&oldid=61651268 this diff]. [[User:TheProject]] is away from the wiki and thought likely to be during the entire course of this RfA. TheProject asked that this support be entered and the diff given. The 'crats will have to decide whether to count this or not, or just deem it moral support. ++
'''Support''' I have worked with Kylu in the Mediation Cabal and found her invariably helpful and kind.  --
'''Support'''. Why didn't anyone tell me this was live, damn it! I would've been the first to support.
'''A delicious support''' Kylu is awesome. Friendly, nice, helpful, NOT EVIL, and above all, a gnome. I give boat loads of festering approval. --'''[[User:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake|<font color="MediumBlue">The Prophet Wiz</font>]][[User talk:The prophet wizard of the crayon cake|<font color="SeaGreen">ard of the Cray</font>]]
'''Absolutely'''. Friendly, helpful and sufficiently well-traveled for me.
'''WHY ISN'T THIS USER AN ADMIN(Support)?'''
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support''' Can he breathe?  CHECK.  Is he a good user?  CHECK.  Does he act like a dick?  NOT CHECK.  Sounds good to me =D --
'''Will you beat me up if I oppose you?'''. Of course, support!--
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Her answers to my questions and the seemingly unending praise on her talk page lead me to believe that she is more than qualified.
'''Support''', gladly. She is newer than most I would support, but has the right sort of personality needed: kind, intelligent, cool-headed, diligent, courteous, and now she's blushing I'm sure. (Oh, right, [[Wikipedia:List of cabals|musicabal]], too.) Another one I offered to nominate who got snapped up by someone else instead. (Now, why didn't those someones ping me when it went up, huh?)  :-)
'''Strong, strong support!''' Her tremendous expertise and friendliness will be put to good use as an admin. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''', she has done a lot of good work in her brief time with us. I cannot fathom why she should have to wait based purely on arbitrary periods of time; she will quite clearly use the admin tools for the furtherment of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' On the contrary, [[User:Kylu/rfa|this page]] does not indicate that she is too eager to be an admin. Looking at the page, I get the impression Kylu was explaining why she wasn't an admin and saying that she wanted to wait. It was only after Where, Lar, and TangoTango insisted that waiting was not really going to do much (and that she could always try again) that she decided to accept a nomination. And what eagerness can be discerned from the page is certainly reasonable; we want admins who take their job seriously and want to serve the community (that's a whole lot different from being ''power-hungry''). This user clearly has the stuff admins are made of and I don't see any reason why a time issue should keep her from promotion. So, while Kylu fails with grace some of my standards (particularly regarding tenure), I must note that I have [[User:Joturner/Different Standards on Different Days|different standards on different days]]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' – not too soon at all, if anything adminship for this user is overdue –
'''Cleared''' I have no doubt she'll do a phenominal job and will treat the tools with care. --
Has got her heart in the right place. ''Adminship is no big deal'' --
'''Support''' per all.--
'''Absolutely'''. Go gettem. <b>
'''Support''' - You need the tools.
'''Support''' Seems pretty good to me. '''[[User:Political Mind|Politic]][[user:political mind/esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Voting for another vandal-fighter admin on board.
'''Support''' after going through the rfa discussion subpage on her userpage --
'''Big Support''' A kind hard working user, Wikipedia could do with many more Kylu's!! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' She's done well; that RfA page pretty much helped decide my vote. She will continue to do well.
per above [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''. Just barely meets my time on Wikipedia requirements, but based on your contributions and your RfA userpage, I might've ignored that anyway. You'll make a great admin.
'''Very Strong Support'''I thought she ''was'' an admin! <tt><font color="#FF00FF">
'''Kind of Weak Support''' The editors that oppose have a valid opinion, however, I believe that a use for tools is stressed for particular purposes. It also appears that this editor has garnered trust within the community. It appears that a good admin will emerge from this RfA.
'''Support''' Great user, needs the tools and won't abuse them. Opposing based on her time here seems wrong. Seems to know policy better then some who've been here longer.--<font color="ff6633"><font face="comic sans MS" size=+1>Joe
'''Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
<font color="#FF00FF">'''Think Pink Support'''</font> per noms and co-noms.
'''Support with a herring slap to the head'''. <s>No justification necessary</s>. Given the multitude of disagreement, I must digress from my earlier "no justification" argument.  If Kylu is the type of person we '''don't''' want as an admin, then we should seriously re-think the RfA process and I'll commit Wiki-suicide.  She makes plenty of effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, whether working actively on RC patrol, cleaning up and working in MedCab, or being a gnome. I don't care what the edit count says, I don't care about the contribution quality over the last 500 edits, blah blah blah.  Kylu would make a great administrator.
'''Lots-o-support!''' See "reason" above. :)
'''Strong bovine support - moo''' Not enough article contributions? I completely disagree about that - and the most important thing here is two questions: will a RFA candidate abuse the tools, and will they abuse the tools? There's plenty of evidence that Kylu is more than civil enough and sensible enough to learn how the sysop tools work. Kylu is civil and has good edits spread across numerous namespaces. If you are afraid that Kylu may make a mistake for being here not as long as Jimbo has, remember that sysops are not perfect beings - they can make mistakes too. In fact, it's expected that in the beginning a good or two may pop up, but Kylu is more than responsible enough to address any mistakes that may pop up. Adminship is no big deal, really. Our standards seem to be increasing as our number of editors increases, which means our percentage of administrators is dropping by the day. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''01010100 01100001 01110111 01101011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01010011 01110101 01110000 01110000 01101111 01110010 01110100 01110011''' (it's [[binary]])--
'''Support''' without reservation. An excellent, civil, and intelligible contributor.
'''Support.''' A username I've come to trust, every time I see it. Smart, trustworthy, civil.
'''Support''' Three months is enough.
<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Light Red Support'''</span> - The only other person brave enough to have a light red sig, how flattering.  --
--
'''Support''': consistent positive attitude unlikely to change so I don't require more time before supporting this nomination. Lot's of mopping already evident too, and 100% Mathbot score suggests dedication to the job.
'''Support''' Excellant job, sure to make a good editor.
'''Support'''.  I see no convincing reasons to oppose.  Kylu has been editing long enough for us to see what kind of admin she'd be, and everything being said is positive.  This standard of 6-12 months experience is new and, in my humble opinion, excessive.  I would be tremendously disappointed if the kind of knee jerk "looks like a great candidate, but she should wait longer on principle" arguments below won out. There needs to be a ''reason'' that to ask RfA candidates to wait. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.  True, he has been here for a shorter period of time but that means nothing.  Tenure not a very logical reason to base anything on, because an eager participant at 3-4 months can easily overshadow the knowledge and experience of an average user over two years. --<font color="3300FF">
'''strong support''' Having seen Kylu's great work and having worked with them I get the impression they will make a great admin, Some of the oppose rationales below don't swing me at all, Kylu is one of those Wikipedians who we should embrace as an admin, because they've shown dedication to Wikipedia  and are obviously not about to go nuts with the admin buttons.
Eh? No one told me Kylu was up already! Kylu has this message on her user page going "No, I am not an admin!". Everyone kept telling her: "Just you wait, you'll have to take it down before long!" <snicker>

'''Support'''  Good candidate --
'''Support''' Helped me with useful links to create [[User:JamieJones/Templates|my own awards]] for the [[WP:KC|Kindness Campaign]]; and sent me a cookie which made me smile!
Newness does not imply unreadiness. And hey, you can always learn on the job; it's the wiki way. —
'''Support''' - Claims of "too soon" are silly, you're a valuable contributer, and deserve the support. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
I approve^h^h^h^h^h^h^h'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. Kylu's reasoning is the closest I've found to my own. -
--[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. I've read through all the support, neutral and oppose posted so far and believe Kylu will be a fine admin. Yes, time here is short but there is ample evidence of her maturity, civility and dedication. I see no evidence to suggest she'd abuse admin capabilities.
'''Support'''G
'''Support'''
'''Big time support''' per nom. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Seems well qualified. --
'''Support'''. Kylu has served as an exemplar mediator, and she has an exceptional capability for both dispute resolution and communicating with parties, in my experience. Not only is she exceptionally friendly and helpful, but also useful, which - in my opinion - is really what one should be looking for in an administrator. It is with not the slightest doubt that I recommend this fine user is given administrator privileges, as I am certain she shall use them well. --
'''Strong Support''' Kylu was nothing but helpful in welcoming me to Wikipedia whenm I started my account. I asked her a question and she answered it as best she could. She is a person who in my view is well on the way to becoming a good, well rounded admin.--<font color="0000FF">
'''Support'''.  Kylu has been around for easily long enough to show that she's trustworthy enough to get some basic tools. —
'''Support'''. Why wait, this is inevitable and a very good user.
'''Strong support'''. She deserves no less. --
'''Support''' per above, answers, and the impression I got from seeing this user's edits in the past (namely, thinking she already was an admin before I checked, that seems like a good indicator of a well-suited person to me). Time here is short, but other work makes up for it. I also don't see making many minor edits as a negative - if no one corrected things like spelling mistakes, this place would be a mess. That may not be something that counts towards admin-readyness (as anyone can do it), but it certainly shouldn't count ''against'' it. -
'''Support'''.  Been here long enough to show we can trust her with the mop, with no evidence of harm to the encyclopedia or incivility.
'''Support''' She seems to be a good person.  Also, I liked her answer to the question of whether the glass is half empty or half full.  Her answer shows to me that she focuses on what she still has, rather than what she has lost.
'''Absolutely'''. Great, helpful user. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have been attempting to have some code changes incorporated into monobook.js, and Kylu has been the only user (developer or otherwise) testing them or providing me any feedback. Despite concerns about experience, in this case I would trust her to use the tools well.
'''Support''' Helpful friendly user.  I don't accept arguments discounting this user on "too soon" without reviewing her work - I see no inexperience in this user.--
'''Support.''' It looks to me that Kylu's definitely cut out to be an admin, and can make some of her strongest contributions in that area. Wanting to be an admin is not a bad thing. Sheesh. She seems quite knowledgeable about a lot of nooks and crannies of the 'pedia that I sure don't know about. I actually have the feeling that she'll be great.
'''Support'''. Her interaction with others as I've seen it here and elsewhere indicates she's mature and knowledgable enough for the job.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' moved to support, because even though the user is newish they seem very determined to be admin according to their answers and their RfA page in their user space.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Per nom.  :) <font face="Book Antiqua"><b>[[User:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_</font>]][[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed1</font>]]
'''Support''' does not matter to me if it is early in your WikiCareer. You are a good editor, and as Where says, this adminship is overdue.
'''Support'''. --
'''Centurian Support'''. Quality over quantity, I always say :D
'''Support''' - I've worried before about adminship coming too soon, but this editor shows involvement with the thankless maintenance tasks, strong contribution history, and a sense of pleasure in Wikipedia.
Missed [[WP:100]] '''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support with the force of twenty rocket boosters'''. Kylu may have spent a short time on Wikipedia, but xe made amazing use of that time. Xe may have added little information to articles, but xe has worked dilligently with other tasks. I commend this user! --
'''Support''' Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, after all. So many of us tend to forget that, from time to time... either way, [[User:Kylu|Kylu]] looks plenty trustworthy to me... Good Luck! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' User is very tolerant of newcomers, and actively involved in both the encyclopedia and the community. The amount of time a user spends before coming an admin becomes irrelevent after the first month.......her actions should speak for her, and her evidence of experience.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support'''.  Clearly a mature and balanced individual whose contributions to the project will increase with access to the admins tools.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Tech Support'''. "Hello, have I reached Wikipedia tech support? I need a good, calm, and respectful admin." "We've got one in stock: The name's Kylu." -
'''Obvious Support'''. Even though Kylu is relatively new, she has a great understanding of how Wikipedia works and has made significant contributions in her time here. Personally, I don`t see why the distribution or quantity of her edits should matter so much. Kylu is a candidate who is more than qualified (certainly more than I), and would be an excellent admin.--'''
'''Support'''. Seems like she knows what she is doing.
'''Weak Support''' -- I was "neutral" leaning towards support -- great candidate, could use more experience. Since it looks like this vote will be close, it's time to drop my neutrality -- support.--
'''Oppose''' at least temporarily. The answer to my second question seems rather unusual in that Kylu didn't explain what unusual circumstances would justify such an early nom after basically only two months here(only 34 mainspace edits in April) - the answer basically said it was a win-win punt but didn't explain why one should support such an unusual case.'''
'''Oppose''' sorry but 2-3 months just isn't long enough for me.
'''Oppose''' yeah, too soon, too eager. - <b>
'''Oppose.''' Too soon for me.
'''Weak oppose''' Just too early, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per lack of significant article contributions, the most important aspect of this encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen --
'''Oppose'''.  Great editor, but two months just is not enough time for me to be comfortable. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
'''Strong Oppose''' Sorry, but it's too soon, for one, which doesn't assure me that she can continue editing so ferociously for a long period of time, and won't just get bored with Wikipedia one day.  Also, after reviewing her last 500 article namespace edits, I haven't seen more than a 5 real edits--mainly just spelling corrections, stub templates, and vandalism reversion (clicking a button).  Seriously, take a look.  Also, we have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anwar_saadat&diff=prev&oldid=63377188 this], which is discussed [[User talk:Kylu#Admin's work|here]].  In addition, I have found many votes for "Speedy delete" in AfD's, using A7 as a catch-all phrase, though most of the time it does apply.  In a few months with some meatier contributions, I'd be happy to support.
'''Weak Oppose''' Kylu feels like she has all of the markings of a good administrator, but I would really prefer to see her wait until she's been around for at least 6 months and then vote her in.  --
'''Oppose''' as per AdamBiswanger1 (particlularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anwar_saadat&diff=prev&oldid=63377188 this]discussed [[User talk:Kylu#Admin's work|here]]) and as per Cntrix below.
'''Oppose''' Has not been here long enough to rule out the possibility of an ulterior motive.
'''Oppose'''. This user is too new, and most of the user's edits are insubstantial and meaningless for the purposes of RfA. A very surprising vast majority of the user's contributions to AfD are "me-too" votes, some "Delete per nom" after a unanimous dozen of Deletes (e.g.: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%E0%A8%B5%E0%A8%B2%E0%A8%95%E0%A8%BF%E0%A8%95_%E0%A8%B2%E0%A9%81%E0%A8%A4&diff=prev&oldid=51940428], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Day_of_Design&diff=prev&oldid=54460577], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mixed_drinks_in_BattleTech&diff=prev&oldid=52946486], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerrard_crime_family&diff=prev&oldid=52947503]). I looked through 90% of this user's AfD contributions—which constitute maybe a third of WP namespace edits, and 9 out of 10 are like this; only a couple are not in unanimous AfDs, a couple have helpful reasoning. These are not evidence of understanding inclusion policies and guidelines, and are pointless besides: they had no effect on the outcome of the AfD. (Validity of propensity for "Speedy delete" for non-notability, in view of CSD, should be verified by viewing deleted text.)<span style="display:none">
'''Oppose''' Just too new, and the frequency, or lack thereof, of editing in some of the namespaces disturbs me in looking at someone for adminship. -'''
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Not enought experience in terms of length of time on Wikipedia as of yet, in my opinion. However, would happily support in a few more months. --
'''Oppose''' without any bias at all toward the user.  My feeling is that time and activity are most important in laying out the sort of tracks that we need to see how the user will respond under stress and duress.  Time without edits is meaningless, as are edits without time (sort of like faith and deeds, I guess).  Becaue demotion from the ranks is a big deal, promotion to the ranks requires more caution than I would like.  I look forward to future support.
'''Oppose''' with similar concerns to many of above comments, 2-3 months of active editing is much to short for me to establish a good, contestant, over all picture of the user.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Sorry. You haven't been around long enough. --
'''Oppose''': not ready yet.
'''Oppose''' This was a tough one, she has many traits that would make her desireable as an admin. However, 3 months of on and off editing is simply not enough, six months to a year is needed to create a valid picture of yourself. Additionally, the on and off editing characteristics worry me, I personally wouldn't want an "on and off" admin. I understand that there is more to life than Wiki, but taking on a sysop roll is a large responsibility that requires accountability and frequent response.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Centrx|Centrx]]. This is way premature. Maybe after a year and some substantial article edits. --
'''Oppose''' - like Phr, I was weirded out by [[User:Kylu/rfa]].  I don't see any reason to create such a page - in my opinion, it gives the impression that an adminship is a customary reward to a few months of frequent editing.  However, Kylu seems enthusiastic and helpful, so I would gladly support her in a few months if she keeps up her good work.
'''Oppose''' Editor simply needs more time before mophood.
'''Oppose'''...for a few more months.  Will likely make a very good admin, but a bit more longevity would be nice.  It will allow the rest to make sure this person's attitude towards the project is stable over time.  I know my own views have changed over the months and if anyone looks at themselves at three months, six months, nine months, or a year into their involvement they will likely see changes. --
'''Oppose''' purely on edit count + time, but I will support next time
'''Oppose''' per my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]]. 2 months isn't enough.
'''Oppose'''. Far too soon for me.
'''Neutral''' I'm weirded out by [[User:Kylu/rfa|this page]].  The candidate has been thinking about adminship a little bit too hard.  You may have to turn off javascript to view it (it apparently has an accidental javascript loop).
'''Neutral'''. Everything's in place, I even like reluctant admins... but the RfA is too soon. I think my minimum would be 6 months at the least, and 1 year is perfect. Will support RfA in October.
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but too new.
'''Neutral''' per the points brought up above. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''', lack of experience in main and Wikipedia namespaces fall slightly short of my RFA standards so I feel I can't support. I wish you all the best though.
'''Neutral''' citing lack of experience and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Mehmood_Alam&diff=63191302&oldid=63191204] specific edit you made which was an attempt to help enforce copyvio policy but left the article looking lousy and the anon user possibly mystified as to what he had done wrong. Painstaking care and excellent communication are vital in this role. Sorry. --
'''Neutral''', as I am not so much worried about the user's intentions as her experience. All WikiGnomeLove aside, less than three months is just not long enough to "get" the policies and procedures here, in my view. Good luck to her if she makes it, but I am leaning against at present. --
While I'm ''quite'' impressed with the answers that this user has given, I cannot find enough evidence (in edits as opposed to here) to support them.  I'd have liked to see some substantial interactions on policy pages, or deeper demonstration of nuanced views on deletion.  Some shoulder-to-shoulder work on a difficult topic with me, or lending a hand with a tough negotiation and I'll support next time. -
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose, simply because I think more experience is needed.





Could you explain this [[User:Kylu/rfa|page?]] Thanks,
You have been here for a VERY short time. How can one be convinced that you have NO ulterior motives?
Support of course, per my nomination statement.
I claim this spot to place a loud '''support''' as co-nominator! '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''I-may-be-the-last-nominator-to-support-but-at-least-I-was-the-first-nominator support''' for all the reasons given above.
'''Suppose'''.  of course this user would make a good admin, despite admitted slight policy wonkism.  There's more to adminship than vandalfighting. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''': Of course! [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="D70000">_-'''M''']] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help">'''''o'''''</span>]]
'''Support'''. Congratulations to the nominators for brainwashing him. However, what's with the placeholders above?
Naturally.--
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''; likely to be an excellent admin.  Good question answers.
'''Support''' good editor, will be good admin --
'''Support''', just for spite (see below), and because I have some natural sympathy for the long-winded, being rather so myself! Also because even when we disagree (inevitably, my not being a process wonk!), he has always been a reasonable and thoughtful person, and a good contributor to the project.
'''Support'''. Have had only positive interarctions with this user.
'''Support'''. I like the answers below, and the wide focus. May be a vital admin in areas that others might not jump into as quickly.
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' - per all of the above! --
'''Support''' Another good one.
'''Support''', my interactions with him have been good so far. He will make a great admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Really, really, really didn't want to use the cliche but just had to use it again Support'''. <small>He isn't an admin yet?</small>
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I will flesh out my reasons later. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 07:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Don't see much need to flesh out in great depth now; suffice to say, Lar is mature and well balanced. He does good work here (such as working with me to set up the [[WP:Beatles|Beatles WikiProject]]) and I'm sure he won't abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' and not just because you copied by RfA style, but the answers are pretty good as well! Hard to pin down specific support reason, just overall good :)
'''*faints*''' - that's twice one one RfA page you know.... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''', obviously.  Will make a great admin. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Military history|<font color="#960018">h</font>]]
'''Support'''. 700 mainspace edits gave me pause, but I see good depth and breadth in the edits. I'm impressed with his communication on talk pages and appreciate his thorough answers to the questions below. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''  No reservations. --
'''Support''' with no hesitation whatsoever.  He's a good editor who is already doing most of what an admin should be doing.  Give him the buttons.
He isn't an admin? Oh, ''''Support'''. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' per noms  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' for the thoughtful answers to the candidate questions.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''; seems sensible and a considered contributor. [[User:Col_tom|Colon]]<font color="green">[[User:Col_tom/Esperanza|el]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Stupendous, very thoughtful editor.  Perfect disposition for adminship.
<b>Support</b> Very ready to be an administrator, "on top of things" on Wikipedia, but not enough community interaction. (Just joking on that last one, Lar.)
'''Support''' per co-noms.  I would have supported sooner, but I was reading the long-winded responses to questions.  (Just kidding!) --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''', a very well-qualified candidate. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of co-nominators, but I would have also gladly nominated you.  --''
Bandwagon '''support''' - seems a fair and intelligent person, and though I haven't personally interacted with him, I trust the judgment of those before me in this case.
'''Support'''. Long overdue. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' Yes
'''Support''' - another easy one.
For great encyclopaedia!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A good editor who will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support'''. He's a bit of everything.
'''Support''' Sure, why not. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''I could have sworn I supported yesterday but my name isn't on the list support'''. --
'''Support''' - I thought he already ''WAS'' one...  --
'''Strong Support''' Logging in on wikibreak just to support this candidate support. Wow, Lar really deserves the mop, he is a level-headed, calm, polite, and practical editor. We need more like him on wikipedia. It's high time. :) -- '''''
'''Support'''. I have known Lar long enough to trust him. --
'''Support''', good editor and haven't seen any problems. May check back if NSLE expands on what he's saying below. I don't think the placeholder thing is that odd, given how much of RfA is pre-figured on IRC. --
'''Support''' per multiple nominators <sub>+</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''', meets all my standards. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', nothing to complain about here. <span style="font-size:95%;">-'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Unconditional, Conditional Support''', the quality and quantity of the nominators, leaves me with no choice but to support this candidate. However, a warning to the wise; if you want to stay with Wiki for the long haul, try not to become too involved in political entanglements or dramas. This can be difficult, especially for an admin, but I have learned it best to stick with 'Pedia and community-building activities.--
'''Strong Support'''. Lar was very helpful on irc in resolving a copyright dispute between myself and Durin. Would make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' per article creations and Beatles project work.
'''Support'''. If Lar wants a mop, I say we give it to him. --
'''++Support t/c''' lol - <b>
'''Support''' Time for a great user to get a mop! --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Strong support''' - Although I considered a neutral just to spite him for not letting me get in another co-nom. Great user that will be a great admin. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-

'''Support''' Yep, he'll be good.
'''Support''' per (multiple!!) noms. Not much more to say, thoughtful considerate editor, will make a fine admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support'''. I came back from health related wikibreak for this one. There really are too many noms. My interactions with him have been positive and that says a lot. The quality of his contribs say much. He will be a good trustworthy admin.--
'''Strong Support''' per above and below (answers to questions). Excellent answers to the question, we need this user to have the extra tools to be able to accomplish some of the tasks that he wishes to accomplish.--
'''Support''', go gettem. <b>
'''Support''' very few mainspace edits, but then again, that's not necesarilly a bad thing. --
'''Extreme barbeques cabal support'''! <font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' - Another thought-he-was-already-and-we-need-to-fix-that-immediately-darn-it.  Lar's been an extremely positive, levelheaded contributor when I've been around.
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' He's a nice guy that helped me make a [[table (database)|table]] for one of my subpages. --
'''Weak support''' - Have no problems with this editor, and I think he'll be a great admin, but four nominators is overload - 2 is enough. --
'''Strong support''', of course. Four people have felt that he's good enough to nominate as a candidate, and from my own personal experiences with them, I really have to agree; he's a great canditate.
'''Support''' Going to be a great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good edit count, though more name space edits would be helpfull. Has been doing this long enough and affably enough. Liked the answer on question 4. (And thanks for the praise for RCPatrol.)
'''Support''' Sounds like will be a good admin.
'''Support''' --
Seems like a nice chap.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor. I was on the opposite side from him on the Webcomics RFAr back in December, but he seems like a sensible guy.
'''Support''' great user, and I'm very surprised he wasn't already an admin. keep up the good work.--
'''Support''' Lar has helped and encouraged me to become a better Wikipedian, no kidding.  I was surprised to learn that he was not an admin and I really think he deserves it.
'''Support''' Lar seems to be an excellent Wikipedian.
'''90th Support''' I found this while asking Lar if I could nominate him myself.
'''Support'''.  I find myself in the cuious position of being mister 93, following mister 90.  Lar's a good editor.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' per all of the above, and the fact that none of the below arguments to oppose seem reasonable to me. I am, however, a little bothered by the number of nominators and their badgering of a couple of the opposers--though I agree with their arguments, it seems inappropriate on an RfA.
'''Support''', it looks like this one's going to make [[WP:100]] soon. &mdash;
'''Support''' - outstanding editor.
'''Support''': I would rather miss being the 100th supporter than wait any more, but Lar will cross the century. --

'''Support'''(
'''Support'''. Great candidate. -
'''Support''': Admin quality.
'''Redundant Support'''. '''
'''Full Support'''. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''':
'''Support''', gladly --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' Looks into other side and is an [[m:Inclusionism|Inclusionist]]--
'''Support.''' —''
'''Support''' has great diplomacy and a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
I would have supported had this come, say, three weeks ago, but a recent altercation has left me with the difficult decision to '''oppose'''. Not willing to go into details, but it involves Esperanza. Also, even if someone said they'd strongly oppose, there is no reason to do what you did above, Lar. Just let her voice her opinion when she chooses to.
'''Oppose'''. Not someone I'd be comfortable with having the delete button.
'''Oppose''' too many nominators. -
'''Oppose''' - appears to be ingenuous, proud and opinionated. This is a valuable combination of assets for contrasting opinions amongst equals, which is where Lar belongs: amongst equals. --
'''Weak oppose''' - appears to be a little bit too policy-wonkish for my taste.
'''Neutral''' - seems to be a very nice editor, but the mainspace edits are very low.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. While Larry might not meet some of our requirements for namespace edits (particularly WP space), I have felt for some time that he would make an excellent candidate for adminship. Larry V leads [[WP:NYCS]], the project to create articles for all NYC subway stations and to standardize and develop them along the same format. He is constantly active on the NYCS discussion board, and is always calm and working to build consensus (<nowiki>{{RFA CLICHE #1}}</nowiki>). At the times I have disagreed with Larry, he has been fair, thoughtful and reasonable, characteristics well becoming of a future administrator. At times, Larry has even ''travelled'' on the New York City Subway system on trips specifically to clarify article ambiguities. Larry V. is an excellent example of a long-term hard-working Wikipedia user, and it is my pleasure to support him in this nomination.
'''Weak support''' waiving my criteria - <b>
'''Support'''. I generally want to see a lot more Wikipedia-space edits than you have (per [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]]) but your answers to the questions leave me confident that you know how things work around here. I trust Alphachimp's endorsement as well.
'''Support''' excellent article contributions and excellent answers to questions, particularly the focus on deletion. Sounds like a decisive admin in the making.
'''Support''' per Grandmaster and Alpha and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|guidelines]].
'''Weak Support ''' Good edit count and time with Wikipedia. Wants to help in many areas. However, I find little or no evidence of experience RCPatrolling or *fD. In 2000 edits, I found only about 50 deletion related edits. Although I did find about 500 reversions using popups out of the last 500 edits, I found no vandal warnings and no reports to AIV. He needs to participate more in these areas.  However, he is clearly a valuable and thoughtful contributor even without 1FA. He has edited many articles instead of focusing on just one. Larry V is passionate about the subjects he edits and quite articulate in reasoning with others. Review of his talk page and some of his talk edits shows that he needs to be careful not to let his passions carry him away. Cheers,
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. You appear to be a good user and will make a good admin from what I have reviewed. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - hardworking users make good admins
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' editing policy isn't neccesary for understanding it, so the low WP space edits doesn't really concern me. --<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Strong support.''' Your answers prove that you would benefit from the tools.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I appreciate his honesty in responses to the questions. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>[[user:CrazyInSane|''C''<small>RAZY]]</small>[[user talk:CrazyInSane|`(<small>lN</small>)`''S''<small>ANE]]</small><sup>` ''
'''Support'''. Meets my criteria, no concerns of incivility, no big deal.
'''Support''', professional enough. I like to see a mistake or two, becuase people who don't make mistakes have something wrong about them &mdash; they aren't human, and the human touch is key to Wikipedia. No offense to the users below, but the rationale behind the oppose votes below disturbs me. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''. As much as I want to offer some constructive criticism, alphaChimp has spoken <u>my</u> mind. --
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Moderate Support'''. Your responses to the questions have won me your support. Although you have contributed a great deal to the [[WP:NYCS]], I didn't see many edits in Talk or user_talk pages, but it seems apparent that you have the knowledge and expertise to handle sysop chores as admin. I'm taking your word that you will start getting more active in sysop-related activities if you become an admin. --
'''Support'''.

'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. Larry V makes not only numerous edits in Wikipedia, but comprehensive and well-thought ones. He has proven himself worthy of admin-ship time and time again with his intelligent contributions to articles (as well as in the creation), his NPOV in his edits, and his strict attention to protocol that he follows. If given admin-ship, he would definitely use it to the best of his abilities to make Wikipedia an even better place. If there are any doubts about the quality of Larry V as an adminsitrator, one needs to only look at his NYCS template, his adamance in making subway / train articles (particularly those referring to the subway) of astounding quality, and the countless times in which he has stopped people from putting false / malicious content into articles. I would be hard-pressed to find a better and more qualified candidate for admin-ship, and I strongly encourage his approval. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I'm bothered about the low number of talk page edits, to be honest, but I feel he has a good grasp of procedures. I hope he will use the talk pages more,  because talking to people about the encyclopedia is essential to building it.
'''Support''' I'm partially worried about experience when wielding the mop, but I have no reason to see why this candidate should be opposed.
'''Support''' What particularly impresses me about Larry is that he is open-minded and works effectively in a team environment. This is highly important in an admin, given the additional power he has over other editors.
'''Support''' Have seen him around on the [[New York City Subway]] articles, and have full confidence that he would not abuse the admin tools. --<font color="#191970">[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - though low WP-space edits, this user demonstrates clear understanding of policy. '''
'''Definite Support as nominator.''' Would make a good admin any day. --
'''Support''' per nom. would make a great addition to wiki. --
'''Thought I had voted already Support!''' I was a little concerned about the project edit level, but answers to questions and contributions assure me we have no problems with potential abuse here. So, done! :) -
'''Support''' A great example of what an administrator should be.
'''Support''' Seems like he would make a great admin and would not abuse the tools.  No problems here. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Has the experience.--
'''Support''' Just wanted to toss in my two cents before it's too late -- just found out about this RfA. I've only had a few dealings with LarryV, but I can tell you that he is truly the kind of editor who is the backbone of Wikipedia, working very hard -- in his case with superb articles on the NY transit system -- to make Wiki a reliable source of information. I am delighted to hear that he is nominated for adminship.--
'''Oppose''' Fails my [[User:Masssiveego/admin|criteria]].  --
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]], most important of the two criteria missed are the low project edits. If the nom wants to help in the important areas listed in A1, perhaps more time spent interacting in them would be appropriate before asking for the mop.
'''Oppose''' Low number of project-space edits suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.
'''Neutral''' for now. Larry wants to take on a lot of tasks, which is great, though I'm not sure he's quite ready for them. Looking through his AfD contributions, I couldn't find a single keep vote other than [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress (band)|this quasi-withdrawal]]. Maintaining [[CAT:CSD]] or new page patrol is almost unreviewable as the only record is the deletion log and clueless newbies who see their pages deleted often don't know where to turn. I couldn't find any evidence of new page or RC patrol, so I'm hesitant to support.--
'''Neutral''' Looks to be a great contributor, but due to Kchase02's points and low WP space edits I cannot support right now. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''', due to low WP edits. Good answers though. If RfA doesn't succeed, will definitely support any future RfA's of this user. Good luck.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Haven't really interacted with her but I've seen her work on articles and with newbies and have been impressed.
'''Support''' Sure; seems like a good editor who remains civil.
'''Support''' Excellent editor with a long wiki-career and obvious devotion to the project.
I see no reason to oppose this user. I have had limited interaction, but in those times have always felt respect for and from her. No need to thank me with a standardized thank you. Good luck. '''Support.''' --
'''Support''' I know her from Wikibooks. She's definitely admin material.--
--
'''Support''', because of my experiences with her. --
'''Support''' looks good. Excellent, civil editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Fantastic editor. <font color="#08457E">
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I believe that 20 months more than qualifies her for adminship. --
'''Support''' A helpful physics user, always answering questions.  I like her. -
'''Support''' Good!
'''Support''' Excellent candidate. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''; likely to be a superb and cool-headed admin.  I especially like the way she handled herself at [[Talk:Highland Park, Texas]].
'''Support''' - wonderful user. --
'''Support''' of course --
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' excellent editor & communicator. '''''×'''''
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' A good contributer to [[Wikipedia]]. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' per above. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Seems like a quality candidate. -
'''Support''' - looks like a great user to me --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. An easy choice here.
'''Support''' It's nice to see a candidate who shows up just wanting to help make the encyclopedia better, without trying to RC-Patrol-race to the perceived goal of adminship. -'''
'''Support''' per AKMask. A model Wikipedian.
'''Support'''  No reason to oppose, perfectly good user. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Intelligent and pleasant. Does good work on articles for deletion.
'''Support'''. --
More like this candidate please!&trade; '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - strong user, should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per what they said.
Distinct '''support'''.
'''Support''' I can remember hearing one of her (if there are more than one) spoken articles. Should make a fine admin. --
'''Support''', for future services to vandalism patrol
'''Support''' -
'''Support''',great job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Great work, no reason not to. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' per above, and answers to my questions --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash;
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} seems sensible. Good candidate.  Has my vote. --
'''Support'''  Looks good!  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' I've only seen good editing from her. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Looking good to me!  --
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' per nom and everyone else! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Strong support''' - Having known Laura IRL for nearly twelve years, I can vouch for her incredible even-temperedness and unflappability, her keen sense of fairness, and her incredible analytical intellect. She's incredibly dedicated to Wikipedia and the pursuit of knowledge in general, and I honestly can't think of a better person to help further the Wiki cause. Strong support from me!
'''Support:'''
'''Support'''. Edit history looks good, see no reason for concern.
'''Support''' A pointless pile-on support, with the standard Rfa comment #1: Youre ''not'' one already? We should {{tl|sofixit}}.
'''PILE-OOOOOOOOON!!!''' Will make a stellar admin.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. All experiences have been positive, will make a good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Meets my requirements, 100%. Enough edits and right number of months for me to consider her an admin. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' (though the anon voting "oppose" had a good point). --
'''Support''' - A breath of fresh air. Wish all noms were this easy.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Good range of contributions not just this wiki but several others.
'''Support''' Looks like great admin material.
'''Support''' per everyone. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Go for gold!
'''Support'''.  Great editor; level-headed and intelligent.--
'''Support''' - not crossed paths before, but contribs look very good. &mdash;
'''Supportizzle''' per nom.
''Support''.  Good, friendly user.
'''Neutral''' Average edits per day is less.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great guy to have around.
'''Support'''. Always polite. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support''', why not?
'''Support'''. From experience. --
'''Support''' --
'''support''' - definitely -
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''', I like him. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''', everything looks good to me. -
'''Support''' our maths experts, on whom I rely to make numbers make sense.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support'''. What I've seen from him in my short time here leaves me with nothing but good impression. --
'''Support''' - solid, diplomatic. --- --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, a good impression.
'''Support'''. No reason to expect any misuse of the extra buttons. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support''' Good contributor, no evidence of problem behavior. <TT>
'''Support'''. Took a good look and found nothing in his edit history to indicate he wouldn't be a responsible admin.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', clearly an excellent editor.
&#8212;
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''', but I forgot why.
'''Support''' per all of above, pettiness of opposition, and excellent choice of username :) .

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' has sufficient experience <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' absolutely --
'''Support''' --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', a good editor.
'''Support''', good editor.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''. Seems like he will use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' - This Wikipedian knows what "being bold" means, and consistently steers clear of "being reckless". Wonderful person to work with. --
'''Support'''. I'm around less, but my vote still counts.--
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Exemplary RFA candidate. --
'''Support''' based not on edit count but rather on contributions, answers to questions below, and the faith that other users I trust place in him as shown above above.  &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Very impressive editor and very thoughtful answers to questions, like what I've seen of his work, and I do not think all admins need to be AfD voters on every case. ++
'''Moral support''', mostly to get to be the 50th vote, but also because of the user's history of intelligent, reasoned edits. :)
'''Support''' most definitely.  &mdash;
'''Just-under-the-buzzer-Support''' as a very knowledgeable editor, and one who won't abuse the tools. I've seen his helpful edits all over the place at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics|math reference desk]]. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' due to misleading information on nomination - 5 edits out of the last 500 hardly qualifies as 'active' Afd participation in my book. He would make a great admin, but someone who considers 2 dozen votes in two years as 'active' deletion vote participation doesn't have the same sense of judgment as I do
looks like a great editor. doesn't seem to have an particular use for adminship though, per first question. no reason to oppose at all, but also no real purpose for adminship here.
'''Extreme nominator support.'''--
'''Strong Support''' - per nom --
'''extreme edit conflict support''' one of the best candiates for admin in my book :D
'''Support''' definitely would make a good admin. <small>
'''Strong support''' Great contributor, will make an excellent admin
'''Support''', activity in building an encyclopedia includes participating in the Spoken Wikipedia project, which I have seen him be a part of. Good contributions to AFD, including filling in for [[User:AFD Bot|AFD Bot]]. Note that <tt>vandalwhacker != good admin</tt>, but the converse is also true: <tt>vandalwhacker != bad admin<tt>.
'''Support''' of course, give the guy the mop.--
'''Support''' as a trustworthy editor and valuable vandal fighter.  Lightdarkness has also helped me iron out some problems with my own js tools.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. I was just about to nominate you myself.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - yes. -
'''Support'''. Opposition for Adminship based on large number of vandalism reverts seems like an oxymoron to me.--
'''Support''' all the way. --
'''Support'''.  Absolutely; nom tells it well. ~
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Would make a great admin.&#160;—
'''Support'''. I'd like to find something funny to say in relation to your username, but I'm at a lack of words :). -
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter would be a very good admin. --<b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' very good user. I was so darn sure that this person was already an admin. kind of blows my mind that they're not.--
'''Support'''
More like this candidate, please<sup>TM</sup> '''Support'''! (not everyone has to do everything. Sure, more this and that would always be good, but... (I expect to get dinged for "not enough" vandal fighting when the time comes) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Strong double-conflicted support''', "Whaddya mean he's not already an editor?!?" cliche in effect --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. All experiences with this user have been positive, and answers to questions sealed the deal. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - My interactions with this editor have been always excellent. Deserving of mop and bucket.
'''Support''', solid answers to extended question set.
'''Oui, oui!''' Everything I've seen's been good, no problems here. (editconflicted support!) --
'''Strong support''' per nom.  When first I read that Shanel was nominating Lightdarkness, I knew I'd want to vote "support" and figured I'd be one of the first three or four.  Instead, twenty-plus people have already expressed support in the RfA's first three hours; perhaps that immediate and overwhelming outpouring of "support" votes says it all.
'''Support''' - thankyou for replying to my question Lightdarkness.
'''Like Totally Support Dude''' I thought you were an admin already. Can't believe you're not! Awesome editor, deserves a mop very much so.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. of course. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' would have liked more time here on Wikipedia but what there has been has been good. :-) <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Knowledgeable about policy, and we always need more good people working the vandalism frontier. Writing skills are not a prerequisite to adminship - give me an in-the-trenches vandalwhacker any day. (
'''Support''' Go go gadget vandal fighter!
'''Support'''; this is an excellent candidate, no qualms at all.
'''Support'''. Even if I hadn't seen Lightdarkness's good works, I don't think I'll ever doubt Shanel's judgement. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Support'''.  This recent rash of discrimination against those who work to stave off vandalism puzzles me.  Greatly.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Fantastic work!
'''Support''' - Wikipeda would benefit from him having the mop. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - Fits all my requirements to be an admin, even exceeds expectations in vandal fighting. Have personally seen some of his contributions and they strenthen my belief in his abilities. -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Worthy of adminship. --
'''Support''', great editor. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Weak support''', I don't have experience with this candidate myself, but judging by others' comments, he seems all right.
'''Support''' Candidate seems level-headed and devoted to the project, as a vandal-dealer-wither type he should make good use of admin tools. --
'''Support''' for everything '''
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' in my experience on RC patrol and speedy deletions I've noticed lots of good contributions from this user.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom and answers to questions below.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Says will help out with [[WP:RFI]], good candidate, thought was one already, per all above; I think you get the idea...
'''Support''' oh yeah.
'''Support''' insert support cliche here <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
'''Support''', always sensible.
'''Support''', trust not to abuse admin tools. —
'''Extrene-Shanel-stole-my-nomination''' -- <small> (
'''Support''' - Definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' - been around for more than a year, > 3 months of serious activity, and all of that activity has been good. Great candidate, and will do the mop proud. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' This user has shown his abilities in vandalism fighting. His edits have helped Wikipedia get rid of vandalism. Should be given the mop so that he can be much more effective! --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor and vandal whacker. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Super can't-believe-you're-not-already support!''' --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''' per all of the above.  --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''', even though I generally don't vote when the outcome already seems determined. I was extremely impressed by the answers below, and the patience displayed in answering all of them. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around and thought he was one.  I'd like to see him around in article space more, but all of the behind-the-scenes work and reverting of vandalism tells me that he could certainly use the admin tools. --
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Strong Support'''.  Very full and sensible answers below.  Again, I'm especially supportive of RFAs from vandal-fighters who will be able to do their job more effectively if they can block vandals themselves.
'''Support'''. I thought you were already an admin.
'''Support'''  good candidate for admin --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Solid Support''' 1200 deleted edits can't be wrong.  Support Newpage patrollers.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''"Whoa... he's not?"-cliche-support!''' Constantly beating me on reverting. --
'''Support''', it is a falsehood that I am not failing to be unimpressed with his answers. --
<b>Support</b> What's with the quadruple negative that guy above me used? That's hard to do.
'''Support''' why not?, I'm suprised he's not a admin already to be honest. --
'''Edit conflict Support'''. Whack all those vandals out there with that mop! -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' - I thought he was! '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
Yes indeed!
'''Support'' Vandal fighters needed as well as editors
'''Thought I allredy supported Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
This page is 46 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. --
'''Thought he already was one/thought I'd already voted/pileon ''support''!''' &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' Likeable, experienced user. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' Let there be light..... darkness!!!  - [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' per question &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user around quite a bit and I think that LD definitely should have the mop. --
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable, dedicated to anti-vandalism. Would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Solid, respectable work with keeping the encyclopedia in good shape. And yeah, put me in with the "he wasn't already?!" camp!
'''Support''', meets my standards.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Support''' I can see reason to oppose this editor.--
'''Support''' A good, responsible vandal fighter as well as my baby's daddy. --
'''Support'''. 99 getter!--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''[[WP:100]]!''' Haha. --
'''Support''' yes yes. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' Finally got a working godmode-lite from this user. Shows a responsible no-nonsense approach in answers to questions as well.
'''Support''', Have seen them very active around Wikipedia.
'''Extreme Utimate Support'''. 101% committed for the good of the Wikipedia Community! Keep it up.
'''Support''' Whenever I see this editor he is putting in good work fighting "teh infamous vandals". I believe awarding him the mop can only help wikipedia. Well deserved. '''''
'''Support''' Very active fighting the vandals, should make a great admin --
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support'''
''Support to the max''' '''
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression.
'''Support'''. Exellent editor, with admin potential since the start. --
'''Suppport'''. Answers seem to show a good understanding of policy. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I've seen him about before, and it wasn't even vandal wacking but creating some sort of programme to update a page... forget now, but the name stuck in my head
'''Support''' Unneccessary vote, but a case of "I thought the user already was!"
'''Support''' It's good that he also supports other wikis which are facing vandal attacks.
''Now '''support''', b/c 10,000 represents such a very large commitment; I would ask that he be careful to remove the '''m''' from any non-minor edits.  Otherwise Watchlists and RC's are messed up.''
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' I thought... :-)
'''Support''' per the nominator and my (limited) experience with the user.  However, I would suggest (based upon the Oppose votes) that you make more non vandal reverting edits.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support''' I've got a good feeling about this user, I think he has proven that he understands policy, stays civil and that he interacts well with other users. --
'''Support''' Not that my vote will matter that much, but I feel that somebody has got to do the "nitty-gritty" work of stub-sorting and reverting vandalism.  You have done all of that quite well, and much, much more.  I know the vandal's work from both sides of the table, committing the act and cleaning it up.  You will be a great admin.  And, kudos to you for answering all of those optional questions!
'''Support''' per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my criteria]].
Sorry, your last 500 mainspace edits have been vandalism reverts, a good portion of your 10000 are likely to be vandal reverts. By not working on (or, working very little on) articles it doesn't necessarily help build an encyclopedia, and fail my criteria. '''Weak oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''.  Per NSLE.  Also, how can there be 9 support votes when he hasn't even answered the questions?
'''Weak Oppose''' Editor has only been active in the community for three months.  Certainly, he has a great start, but I'd like to see a little more editing time before mophood.
'''Oppose''' per above.  --
'''Oppose'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Oppose''' per NSLE. --
Need more experience. Practically started editing in mid-January, 2006.
Serious reservations based on candidate not being active long enough, and having not enough articlespace participation other than vandal cleanup.  Main redeeming virtue is bot implementation skills, sort of a technical specialist rating.  The following is not a criticism of this particular candidate, but rather a general outlook on my part: I'm not keen on WP having too many admins who haven't been active in article writing, since that creates bureaucracy, and maybe doesn't hold sufficiently tightly to WP's goal as an encyclopedia writing project as opposed to a giant BBS.  The senior admins at my university (i.e. the dean of this or that) are mostly selected from the professor ranks rather than having purely administrative or management backgrounds and I think that gives them a perspective that's better suited for the university's functions.  I don't believe in editcountitis but I consider some reasonable level of involvement in article authoring (preferably in some serious subject and preferably including writing a few articles of moderate complexity from scratch) to be an important part of the mix of characteristics of good admin candidates.  The articles written from scratch don't have to be FA level or anything like that, just not trivial.
'''Neutral''' for now. Reverting vandalism, stub sorting, VfD, and stub-sorting can give a highly inflated edit count compared to users who primarily write and edit articles. I'd like to see a little more writing, and a couple more months' overall experience.
'''Neutral''', Lightdarkness is a great vandalfighter but I'm not sure anyone who has been editing for only 3 months in earnest should be given adminship.--












I looked through about the last 3000 mainspace edits, and they are all reverts and AWB prompts. Can you please give examples of articles where you have made substantial edits, of a proactive nature, with which you are pleased - aside from the two stubs you have mentioned. (I do not mean to denigrate your massive contributions, just to inquire about your taking the initiative facets of your contribution). Regards,
You mentioned that "vandalism is obviously the biggest problem affecting Wikipedia".  Could you elaborate on why you feel that way?  What would you say the second or third biggest problems are, and why are they smaller than the vandalism problem?
Do you think there is a reasonable upper bound on how many questions an Admin candidate can be expected to reasonably answer in a week's time, and has this list exceeded it yet? And did you know that answering questions is theoretically optional for the candidate? You may be on your way to a new record number of questions, how does that make you feel? (are your fingers sore yet?) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' per the first RfA. I'm seeing your name all over wikitech-l. Definitely won't abuse the tools - so I'm convinced. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#1198e8">jam</font>]]
'''Support'''. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
&ndash;
The above question was just out of curiosity. I '''support''' anyway --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Very helpful editor; will make a good admin.
'''Support''' per SlimVirgin. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' of course! Great technical knowledge, has use for the tools, and is nice and helpful.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Candidate seems excellent. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' We need more technically-minded admins; [[CAT:PER]] in my experience often gets backlogged with technical stuff (although it's not too bad at the moment), and it would help to have another admin willing to help there. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 13:45, 18 September 2006 (
'''Strong Support''' don't withdraw this time - I'm happy that you respect criticism, but you do have to distinguish between 73 supporters and 7 opposers.
'''Weak support''' - I trust this user and nothing that bothered me was brought up in the first RFA, but Ligulem has very little experience in the image namespaces [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Ligulem&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Ligulem] --
Only seen good things, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
Me too. (
'''Support''' per comments and answers to questions. Good, experienced user with no significant issues. As with all candidates, I urge continued contributions to the article space as well; no admin should be ''only'' an administrator.
'''Support''': I have found this editor thoughtful and sincere.
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support''' A sincere editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' Seen good things from this editor, no probs suporting. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
--
'''Support''' I am very satisfied with the answer to Lost's question.--[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support''' template specialist needs tools, we need template specialists, contributions to the main and wiki space are quite good as well
'''Support''' technical expertise is extremely valuable in an admin.
'''Support''' meets my standards, and we can use admins with technical expertise.--

'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''' (changed from neutral, see below). The response to Mcginnly's question is well thought out and right on the spot, and I do not have any reason to believe Ligulem would misuse the admin tools. Moreover, I think Wikipedia (and especially template space) will benefit from this user having the admin tools. Good luck! &mdash;
'''Support''' Good choice for an admin! --
'''Support''' Mr Ligulem, no worries.

'''Support''' per ligulem's honest and frank answers --
'''Support'''. His expertise and technical knowledge aside, Ligulem is honest and corageous in voicing his thoughts, and willing to discuss ''and'' listen. I'm sorry we have talked so little, dear L...
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I recently had the distinct pleasure of working with Ligulem on a project that involved examining all 2000+ references to [[template:infobox city]] and changing parameter usage in over 500 of these articles.  He is a tireless worker, which is in my mind an important criteria for administrators.  I'm sure there are backlogs he will be able to help with. --
'''Support''' per last time, Template specialist, seen editor around.
'''Support''' Thoughtful response to blocking.--
'''Support''', credible reasons for wanting the tools, plenty enough mianspace edits for me, no indication of likely abuse, template work is just as valuable as mainspace.  Overall, plenty of reasons to support and no real reason to oppose, invoking the No Big Deal clause.  Memo to stores: issue one mop and bucket set.  <b>
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions. --
'''Support''' Ligulem looks like a great candidate who is human like the rest of us. Those impressive answers show honesty and dedication. Very good -
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions asked above, and seems like he would make a fine admin one day. --
'''Support'''. Has to use {{tl|editprotected}} way too often. —''
'''Support''' - Long overdue... and will save me having to make template updates for him. :] --
'''Support''' - This user would benefit the project by having a mop. -
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support'''. Last time, I also was with you. You gave someone an adjective when you were not even an administrator. I have recently been called a "troll" by one of the administrators. Perhpas, we are degenerating fast into a virtual mess as far as our level of interaction is concerned. I highly appreciate that you understand the point and withdrew last time. I wish you all the best. Let us remember [[Abraham Lincoln]]: ''With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up <s>the nation's</s> wikipedia's wounds, and emerge as [[Wikipedia:Better than the Best|Better than the Best]].'' --
'''Support''' per above. —''
'''Support''' for many reasons cited above but especially his response to McGinnly's question about blocking established users.  It's right on the money.  --
'''Support'''.  I have been consistently impressed by Ligulem's technical expertise and willingness to help others, and I feel confident that he will be an outstanding admin. --
'''Support''' - Consistent positive contributor in many areas, shows good judgement.  Mop-ready.
'''Supprt''' Seems like a mature sort of person who will help others.
'''Weak support''', a very unique and odd RfA. But apart from that everything seems in order.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Do I really need to say why? —
'''Support'''. I have seen Ligulem's template work and believe that he would benefit from the admin tools. —
'''Support''' I do not see anything wrong with this candidate so I say yes.
'''Support''' Wiki also needs admin plumbers.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''Everything has been said, although not everyone has yet said it. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Oh yeah.''' &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per all of the above, good contributor.
'''Support''' you get my vote
'''Support''', passes my RfA criteria.--
'''Formerly Neutral Support''', due to the candidate's honest, thoughful and articulate answers.--
'''Sorry I'm late Support'''
'''Oppose''', based on lack of encyclopedia building experience, per the very honest answer to my question. I believe that the current broad set of admin tools should be handed only to those with broad experience with content building, and that other mechanisms to allow users such as Ligulem to assist technically should be sought. Also, I believe that admins are currently perceived, rightly or wrongly, as ambassadors for the project.
'''Oppose''' just as I did before, as I see no improvement. That, and he called me a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=43769434 dick]. --

'''Neutral''' per Espresso Addict (in Oppose camp). Would support with greater evidence of article contribution. Won't oppose solely based on this though. On the other hand, my opinion in this should probably be drowned out per [[WP:SNOW]]. :-) --
'''Neutral''' per poor grammar in nom statement. Attention to detail is important, especially for an admin. If english is not the nom's first language, then submitting his self-nom statement to a friend for review before posting should be a basic course of action. Otherwise a great user, therefore not an oppose.

'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
- <b>
'''Support''' - No worries.
'''Support''' - Frogs rule.
'''Support'''.  All my experience with him has been very positive.--
'''Support''' Kermit would be proud! [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''. Seems like a really solid user.
'''Support''' A really good admin person to have onboard. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Edit Conflict Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Yeah, go frogs. Great contribs, plus dedication. -- '''
'''Support''' - I've bumped into him numerous times in my herpetological edits, he plays well with others and seems sane. :) -
'''Support''' a solid candidate all around. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' found evidence of vandal fighting, contributed quite a bit to frog related articles. Been here a while too. I'm bought.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great work on featured articles.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom, Dryman, and many, many others.
'''Support''' Anyone with this level of frog "passion" is ok in my book.
I like salamanders better than frogs but... "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup>" '''Support''' ++
I'm hoppy to '''support''' this editor.  (OK, that was bad.  I'll try to toad the line from now on.)  --
'''Support''' for a myriad of reasons, but I particularly liked the first three sentences of the answer to question one. The nominee summed it all up quite nicely there.
'''Support''' well, its all been said. I also thought #1 was answered perfectly. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' I can't see this RfA "croaking" now. Great editor, no concerns. --
'''Ribbit'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Ghouly Support'''
'''Support'''. You have done great stuff for frogs.--
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Great candidate, will do well with the tools.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- a valuable editor who I trust with administrative responsibilities. -
'''Support.''' I too met this user at the Frog FAC. It was a wonderful article. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Tawker.Support''' == '''True''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Constructive editor. I hop the jokes don't get any worse though.
'''Support''': per nom. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><font color="#C11B17">Matthew</font> <b><font color="#3366ff">
'''Support'''. Very useful user and I like frogs. :) -
'''Support''' Good, solid, genuine, mature, original answers, which prove you don't have to conform to an off-the-shelf admin identity. You just know this person is going to be an asset in the role.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I can definately see a solid admin coming. Good job and good luck.
'''Support''' Really useful to Wikipedia! Great contribs! Good luck ;)
'''Support''' Very dedicated editor and as admin would be a bigger asset in his area of specialty. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—

'''Ribbit'''. Good user.
'''Support'''. I'm all out of vaguely witty comments to make, so we'll just leave it at that.
'''Why not'''?--
'''Support'''. I have two [[Southern Leopard Frog]]s in my koi pond this summer - good omen, and a good editor. -
'''Support'''.  Despite my still being conviced it's a platypus, not a Platypus.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Easy support. Great contributor.
'''Support'''. I find that he's a toadally awesome editor--easy to work with, friendly and knowledgeable.
'''Support'''. Why not?--
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian. Could bring a good name to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.--

'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">

'''Support''' Why not, he looks like he'd be a positive influence!
'''Support''' Cool name! :) --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Certainly knows how to edit, thus will be a credit (awww, it rhymes) to the janitors tearoom. Don't like his username though, it gives me the creeps. '''
'''Βρεκεκέξ κοάξ κοάξ'''. Join-the-frog-choir support.
'''Support'''. He has done a good job on our amphibian articles and seems to be a sensible person who will do a good job with the mop.
'''Support''' Excellent work.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' More scientists please.'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''' we have too many admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''' I don't have anything against this editor. I don't even know him (her). I'm opposing on the plain basis that there are way too many support votes here. Like an inordinate number. I find this a tad strange. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">[[User:Lingeron|Sha]]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">
'''Neutral'''. I like amphibians, and LiquidGhoul seems to be a reasonable, trustworthy person, but I haven't found any of his activity in areas where the admin tools are actually used, so I don't feel that I have enough evidence to support.
'''Super-duper Strong Nominator Support'''
I have interacted with LV before.  Should make for a gread Admin.
'''edit-conflict Support''' Had several worthwhile interactions with the Dark Lord, and believe he'll only use his admin powers for <s>good</s> non-dastardly reasons.
'''Support''' - having encouraged this user to request adminship months ago, it is time. Xoloz is right about LV's calmness and judiciousness.
'''Strong support''' I sat out Lord Voldemort's last admin vote because I wasn't convinced by the arguements either pro or con with regards to handing LV the admin mop. Since then, though, I have been impressed by LV's ability and calm attitude and think that LV will make a great admin. I should also state that I tend to be very conservative in my votes for admin and I believe LV has a proven track record to support becoming an admin. While the issues raised in LV's first RfA were valid, since then LV has risen above those issues, shown an ability to learn from mistakes, and has massively grown as an editor.--
'''Support Under the Imperius''' Tom Marvolo Riddle has me under his control
'''Vote-which-must-not-be-named'''. Welcome to the Potter-cabal.
'''Strong Support''' Harry Potter jokes aside, Voldemort is a model user and would make an excellent admin. --D-Day<sup>([[User:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User talk:D-Day|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
I'm so sorry but I just want that little fraud Harry Potter beaten so badly I must '''support'''.
'''Support''' Great user, easy support. This should break 200.
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.  LV's comments in Project space are reliably helpful -- I'd like to see more candidates that I can say this about.
'''Support''' per nom and well-thought-out opening statement above.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' - no complaints about You-Know-Who &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Strongest Possible Qualified Support''' - it is a distinct honor to even ''vote'' in this RfA: LV is hands down, one of the nicest guys on Wikipedia.  He is an asset not only to the goals of this Project, but to the community as well.  There are very few more qualified to be an admin than he, and admin tools would be in the perfect hands with this user.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''', and delighted to get another chance to do so. I followed his first RfA, and couldn't make up my mind, so didn't vote at all. Since then, I've noticed his contributions, and have absolutely no doubt that he's deserving of the tools. He's helpful, and he follows our policies.
'''Support''' - He seems capable and trustable.
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support''' per nom. ''
'''Support''' - definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Dark Mark Support'''. Very good editor, long merited this.
'''Support''', sure. Voldy (ahem, The Dark Lord) has learned and demonstrated a lot of Wikipedia policies and procedures since his first RfA. --
'''Support'''. "I think the thing I would most use adminship for is the real RfA-cliche #1... rollback. Sometimes I grow tired of vandalism and wish I had a better way of fighting it." I felt the same way before I became an admin. You are more than worthy of the mop.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[User:Ilyanep/Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. I've been impressed by LV for a good period of time now, and have seen him making thoughtful, anti-inflammatory comments on a number of occasions. (Too many diffs to sort through to find them, sorry.) He's also the only editor I have ever made an explicit offer of RfA-nomination to, so I'm very happy to support. But please try to avoid the temptation to delete all [[Muggle]]s. It will only cause strife and finish up at [[WP:DRV]]. -
'''Support'''. LV is a very thoughtful editor who will clearly make a good admin. He has improved a lot since his last nomination, which I opposed.
'''Support''' Would make a very good admin. Hand over the mop and bucket to him. <small>
'''Support'''. See no cause for concern, aside from him being pure evil, hating muggles, etc.
'''Support''', per Jayjg.
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''. Positive interactions, great history. ~
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' for the same reasons as last time. I like his sense, and see no cause for concern here.
'''Support'''.  Seems balanced, thoughtful, and judicious.
'''Support'''.  I supported last time, and I'm glad to do it again.  I'm convinced that LV will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. An all-round, good, decent, respectable contributor. I personally have not bumped into LV, however, his thoroughness in this RfA tells me that he is prepared to serve the community well. --
'''<s>Avada Kedavra</s>''' I mean '''support'''. I wanted to nominate him myself. Even temperament, learns from mistakes, and plus, my edit to his userpage still stands. :-) What can I say? [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[User:Hermione1980|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Cliché support''', I thought he already was an admin!
'''Support'''. [[User:Lord Voldemort|LV]] may not be the paragon of WP-Nice, but he has demonstrated a maturing attitude and presence. "We are none of us perfect, eh?" --
'''Support'''. There is not a single logical reason to oppose. Great editor.
'''Support''' Opposed last time- I feel he's ready now.
Cliché.
'''Support''' seen this person around a lot, great user, this one's pretty obvious.--
'''Support''' per all above. Great contributor. <span style="font-size:95%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">
Please consider answering the questions if you can... but you're a fine candidate either way. '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Excellent character. Keep it up. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. All experiences have been positive; will make a good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I have seen LV make good contributions in places, seems plenty experienced and to have good judgement.
'''Support'''. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support'''; my recent interactions with this user and an additional sampling of his interactions with others suggest that he's now ready to take on more responsibilities. And I definitely support answering questions on talk pages and changing the RfA format.  --
'''Support''' Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1434 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support'''Humble and friendly wikipedians are my favorite.
'''Support''', seems the polar opposite of his assumed username. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. LV has become a great user since his first RFA, and I am confident he will be a great admin.
'''support'''. No reason to oppose (there wasn't last time, either)
'''Support''' this time.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''. Very good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''.  No valid reason not to.
'''Strong Support''' He deserves this. '''''
'''Support'''. He seems trustworthy.  Just a shame about the name.  [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''LV! LV! LV!'''--
'''Support'''. Will make good admin. --
'''Support'''. A fine potential admin. --
'''Unconditional support'''
'''Support'''.  Good Lord, of course!
'''Wikliche "I thought he was already an admin Support'''.  However, I must take this opportunity to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJDoorjam&diff=42092150&oldid=42077826 extract my vengeance]: '''''MUCKMUCKMUCKMUCKMUCK!!! MUUAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!!!!!'''''  There, that feels much better. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Aye'''.  Coulda sworn he was one, and am surprised the user has failed once already.  Good editor.
'''Yes'''. Is less likely to abuse admin powers than [[Ming the Merciless]].
'''Support''', hope you make [[WP:100]]. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' For all the reasons I nominated him the first time.
'''Support''' of the "if not him, then who?" variety.
Cliched '''"Could've sworn he was a death eater!" Support''': Very friendly user who is delightfully evil and well versed in Wikipedia policies. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
[[Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg|30px]] per above. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I normally don't support users who might eradicate [[Harry Potter (character)|Harry Potter]] with their new tools, but anyway... '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Morsmordre!''' The Minister of War has a point below about that userpage edit; that wasn't a good idea. But it's not a big deal compared to the many good edits I've seen from LV throughout my time here.  --
Keeps calm on heated talk pages.
'''Support''', and a well-deserved one. -
'''Support''', as my experiences with have been posative; Not crazy about the Dark Side connotations  but have to admit user name is superior to some other fine arts allusions, such as ''Miss Piggy''. <G> <B>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', excellent editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', <s>because otherwise he'll track my family down and have his Death Eaters torture them to death.</s> No, wait, that's the real You Know Who. Support to this one is on the basis of him being a very good editor who is involved in many areas and could use the keys to the janitor's closet to work more efficiently. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]
'''Support'''.  FYI, Snape is a double agent (triple agent?).
'''Strong Support''' from one of the Dark Lords faithful. Joking aside, [[User:Lord Voldemort|LV]] is a fine wikipedian who welcomed me when I first started out and have seen nothing but good work from him. He'll make a great administrator. [[User:Danlina| ]]
'''Support''' despite minor reservations regarding the choice of user name per reasons given by oppose votes. —
'''Extreme "OMGWWTFBBG!!!111one!1eleven1!!" support''' - another joke nom - how immature! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
A '''Come on [[WP:100]] support'''
'''Strong Support''', an excellent Wikipedian. Desrves to be an administrator.
'''Support''', per all of the above.-
'''Support''', THAW. --
'''Support''' no reservations--
'''Support''' [[WP:100]] :) ^_^ &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''[[One Hundred and One Dalmatians|101 Dalmations]] Support''' —
'''Bonus Support''' if I get to ride a broomstick. Great future admin.
'''Support'''.  I usually don't do the pile on voting, but I've encountered this user a lot both here and at Wikibooks, and he's always struck me as adminstrator material. &mdash;
'''Support'''. This guy deserves the mop more than virtually anyone else on the project. Good grief, I've though he was one for a very, very long time. Wikipedia's a better place because of LV.
'''Support''' many contributions and in dire need of a mop. .:.
'''Support'''.&#160;—
'''Support''', whilst desperately trying to avoid any 'thought he was an admin already' cliches ... I thought he was an admin already.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', even though his name is that which should not be named; (I kind of thought he already was an Admin!) --
'''Support''' as first time round ~
'''Support''' I hardly ever come by RFA anymore as I rarely recognize many of the names anymore -- but I'm rather surprised to see that LV is not already an admin.
'''Support''' just a good user. The 6 months between the noms was a tad too long.
'''Support''' - Not that he'd need my vote, but seems to be a good user deserving of the mop. &mdash;'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' with pleasure. - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Strong support''', good editor, would make a great admin. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' happily. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Support''', excellent interactions with the user during the intial stages of the [[WT:SPP|semi-protection proposal]], although I'm worried that [[User:Hermione1980|Hermione]] supporting and Harry not doing so would cause a rift between those two.
'''Support!''', absolutely!  I have always had the best of interactions with this user.  He is always courteous, and often amusing. :) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]

'''
'''Strong, Über support.''' No question here.--
'''Support''' -- best acceptance I've read in a long time.
'''Snape kills Dumbledore'''  --
'''Support''' Wow... you're not a sysop already? --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
Another WTFNOTALREADYADMIN?! '''Support''' -<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support'''. Thought he was one already.
'''Avada Kedavra Support''', wouldn't abuse '''The Unforgivable Curses'''. Overall, a well-rounded, way-too-humble, Dark Lord. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support'''. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support'''. Very good. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per LV's favourite support comment. I am also impressed with his comments about not personally thanking everyone who voted here - [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thryduulf|my feelings exactly]].
'''Strong support''', of course :)
'''Strong support'''--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - it doesn't take a ''legilimens'' to spot that this user shold have been promoted a long time ago.
'''Support''' - excellent editor; I've seen him interact ''thoughtfully'' which strongly suggests he has what is probably the most important quality an admin can have. --
'''Support''' The death eaters forced me to!
'''Just barely support.''' I admit that my experience with this user is minimal, which is why I could not in good conscience vote oppose.  This was a tough decision, because I would prefer an admin to be a bit more...verbose, I guess.  I guess I'm just not a short answer kind of guy.  Nonetheless, this RFA will surely pass, and I trust the opinions of my fellow editors when they say that this will be a great admin for the project. --
'''Support'''
<s>'''Oppose''', killed many people during his reign of terror</s>'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' per above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Super Jedi Support''' per the mass editors above. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' We can use some Avada Kedavra against vandals <font color="66AAFF">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Obviously this vote will have no real effect on the outcome of this nomination, but I just have to throw another voice into the crowd. This should have been done long ago.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks like a dedicated wikipedian: bold, headstrong, and all the other stuff we're looking for. As a side note, I can't believe there are users judging him by his name instead of his contribs. That's something really disappointing to see at an Rfa: votes on the basis of superficiality.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. As a [[Sith]], I normally support a different type of "Dark Lord", but I pledge myself and my lightsaber to your teachings, my master. More seriously, I see this user around a lot and have never seen any conduct unbecoming of an administrator, or even unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I feel that this user will not abuse administrator priviledges, and will put them to good use. Good luck. --[[Darth]]
'''Support''' The great lord Xenu would.
'''Oppose''' I like LV and appreciate his actually waiting before a second renom, but I cannot support for several reasons.  First an admin should know not to use a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Voldemort&oldid=44568430 fair use image] for his user page ([[WP:USER]]).  I'm also not crazy that he uses a character's name for a user name.  Basing your online identity on another person's character has always seemed immature to me.  Third, despite Xolox's nom, I'm not sure that I can trust him.  I haven't looked through some of his more recent edits, but some of his earlier edits show a [[WP:NPA|brusqueness]] unsuitable for an admin, even if he has reformed. Best of luck otherwise! --''
'''Oppose''' This guy scares the hell out of me. I see him flitting around everywhere I go whispering in people's ears, trying to stir up controversy and trouble, acting like he's everyone's servant while egging editors into attacking each other. Lord Voldemort feeds on contention. I've seen him play both sides of the fence more than once when, if it weren't for him, there wouldn't be any fence, or any trouble at all. There are only three people who scare me at Wikipedia. For the sake of harmonious editing, it would be a mistake to let any of them have admin power. --
'''Oppose'''. A user taking a name from a copyrighted book is a little on the grey side for an encyclopedia concerned with the appearance of copyright fidelity. It looks even less professional that the user's name is that of a "dark lord" of a children's book. I think the grey area turns black when the user wants adminship. Personally, I don't want anyone named Lord Voldemort representing a professional venture to which I contribute. --
'''weak (obviously) Oppose''' I wasn't going to vote at all because I didnt see much point but I dont want an administrator who wont stand up for himself, and his response to the above votes was lackluster,
'''Neutral''',

'''Neutral''' per American Saga --<font color="red"><b>











'''Co-nominator Support''' --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong support'''. The noms say it all. He is one of the most hard working people I have seen and would be a great help if given the mop. -
'''Strong Support''' Lostinthetruth appears to be completely trustworthy and has shown quite a dedication to the project, so I see no reason not to give him some extra buttons to work with
'''Support'''. -
'''Hells yes!''' --[[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Strongest support''' - Sorry all, I've got the strongest support. I wanted to nominate him last week, but due to school tasks, hmmm. He was the first one who welcome me and since then I always "observe" his contributions. Really, why these "oppose" and "neutral" section should be added? :P. Cheers -- <span style="font-family: comic sans ms">
'''Strong support''' - I was just wondering a few days ago why he wasn't an admin already :) Great answers to questions, too. All the best. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
My pleasure. &mdash;
'''''Support''''' seen him around, looks good :)
'''Support''' Seen around, thought he was one... --
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate for adminship.
'''Stronger than Imoeng's Support''' a great editor.
'''Support''' - Looks like a great candidate to me, and answered the questions nicely.--
'''Support'''. Great editor.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''(Super Strong Support)'''<sup><math>\infty</math></sup> (which, btw, is technically stronger than [[User:Rama's Arrow|Rama's Arrow's]] support) - Lost is the kind of editor that everyone would love to monimate. A truely exemplary user. His work at [[WP:HD]] and the large number of DYKs speak volumes about his dedication. He would be the last to abuse the tools. Pleasure to support.--
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' I can't imagine this user breaking [[WP:BITE]] or going crazy with the tools. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 15:16, 31 October 2006 (
'''Strong Support''' Very sensible User with excellent judgment, patience and passion <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Strong support''' - Keeps his cool under pressure. Dedicated contributor. Deligent work at the help desk. A pleasure to support a model Wikipedian. Let's give him the mop. -- <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Absolutely. --
'''Support''' I considered nominating this user myself a few weeks ago - a fantastic user with plenty of edits! --
'''Strong Support''' OMG, as close to the perfect Rfa candidate I've seen.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great user and good contributor to Indian articles. Why do I have to say all these things? He has 3 fantastic noms, all of them who are admins. --
'''Very strong support''' - Good edit count, as well as fantastic contributions to India-related articles. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Super strong <s>jealous</s> <s>envious</s> happy-for-Lostintherush-because-he-deserves-it support'''; only seen good things out of Lost. '''
'''Indian Support YAY!''' Great editor, who has done too much as a part of WikiProject India. (And I have done too little lol)
'''Strong Support'''. Have seen him work around [[WP:INDIA]] for quite some time and seen him showing the best attitudes and attributes expected from an admin. Very happy to support him. Cheers. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Strong support''' - Oh dear, I've been pre-empted. '''
'''Support''' all good here --
'''Support''' as nom.  First time I've beaten Blnguyen at something :) --
'''Support''' per nominator. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Per nominator and above comments.
'''Support''' - very unselfish. Helped me with [[Kaka Joginder Singh]], [[Rana Bhagwandas]], [[G.T. Nanavati]] and other DYK's even though he would not receive the credit. A true wikipedia.
'''Support''' great at [[WP:HD]]
'''Support''' all the way! --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
Needless to say, '''support'''. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Support'''! For unselfish, unstinting work in the spirit of Wikipedia, particularly at the help desk and DYK. --
'''Support''' as illustrated by the ability for the user to deal with conflicts --'''
'''Strong support''', a very trustworthy contributor to wikipedia, good understanding of using tools.
'''Support''' --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' --
'''How-dared-someone-else-nominate Support.''' A fine contributor, exceptionally helpful person, tireless vandal-buster, to say nothing of his reliability in maintaining [[WP:DSI]] and now even a BOT! Needs to be handed the mop. ''Speedily.''
'''Support''' An ideal candidate.
'''Support''' Why did I not see this before? I'm sure he'll make a great admin. --
'''Support''' 'coz Lostintherush is not a faceinthecrowd; he is a definite asset to WP - wd hv nommed him had I only been more active here. Good that I did not miss his nom, --
'''Support'''. Outstanding! Splendid! Exceptional! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lostintherush&diff=56820164&oldid=56802999] - And, yes surely an asset to the Project. Strange that I came so late here! --
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments above - highly qualified user, no issues.
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''. Positive contributor, don't see any areas of concern.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Have seen him around and had a positive impression.
'''Oops, Almostlostintherush Pile-on Support''' ~
'''Support''' without hesitation per excellent group of nominators.
'''Strong support''',a good quality editor.Needs some tools.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' I think Lost is a fantastic editor, who will make a wonderful admin. 100% support :) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''Lots of help desk work is good. I'd like to see some more process involvement, but will support anyway. Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' I'm impressed, good luck man! <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Beat-the-nominator-support''' - Very good editor, great vandal fighting and such.
'''Support''' - glad to be one of the first here.
'''Strong support''' keep up the level of contribution. We need more dedicated users (and admins for that matter) such as you. Good luck! --'''
'''Support''' - <sub>
'''Support''' - civil, helpful, knowledgeable --
'''Support''' per answer to question 1. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom, good answers to questions, and user's record of contributions in a number of areas.
'''Support''' Helps new users; reports and reverts vandalism; lots of descriptive edit summaries; many additions to user Talk pages; nice user page.  Let this editor help with the mop and bucket. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support''' - Strongly recommend this user. Has been very helpful helping new users, knows the admin rules inside out and not at all trigger-happy, will make a fine admin. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
Concerned about the short time on wiki, but his contribution record, answers to questions, review of the Talk Libertarianism archive, and general approach suggest nothing to be concerned about. A "no big deal" support. ++
'''Strong support''' Look at the accolades he's earned, friends he's made "in 3 months."
'''Support.''' Opposers too picky. User is solid and excellent thus far, and I see no evidence why this will change. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - trust me guys, fantastic editor with a fantastic attitude that will do us all proud with the tools -
'''Support on wheels!!''' Solid user, very helpful.--<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''', great guy. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' due to anwser to question #1 - AIV backlog can get long and unblock is an important part of the vandal-fighting process
'''Support'''.  Just met him last night, and was quite impressed after a readthrough of the answers and a lookthrough of the contribs.  We need more like this.
'''Yup'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support:''' Trusted by others to moderate [[User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscussion Manager|WikiDiscussion Manager]] and has enough experience on AFD/CSD to make up for his lack of experience on adminstrators' noticeboards apart other than [[WP:AIV]]. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">

'''Support''' Looks like an excellent user, though 3 months is a little short compared to most prospective admins.
'''Moderate Support''' - I've come across him and found him concerned and helpful.  Possibly inexperienced tho.
'''Support.''' Experienced vandal fighter amongst other things, three months is long enough in my opinion. Very strong answers to questions. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' I like the candidate's willingness to watch [[WP:AIV]], as it can never have enough eyes.  Helping out with some of the backlogs is great, also, as is his willingness to answer unblock requests; it's very important that these be answered in a timely fashion
'''Support'''&mdash; The issue should not be how long one has contributed or what specifically has been contributed, but rather whether the editor shows the skills, intellectual scope and predisposition to thoughtfully and successfully handle the admin tools combined with enough Wiki-mileage to understand the pitfalls. The best indicator of future performance is past performance&mdash;I’m comfortable that Luna Santin can be trusted to delete, undelete, block, & unblock without abusing these powers&mdash;anyone who can survive the [[Libertarianism]] discussions without a lingering taint of partisanship and & still wants to be an administrator gets my support.
'''Support'''.  A safe pair of hands.
'''Support''' 3 months is quite less, but I have seen that this user is phenomenally active in wiki from my experiences. We need this user to be an admin. --

'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above and personal interaction.
'''Support''' I have seen this user around, I'm certain that he can be trusted with admin tools.--
'''Support''' Vandal fighter needs tools
'''Support'''. I see a lot of long-time admins on [[WP:ANI]] that I have somehow never managed to run into before, and I wondered upon meeting this user if he was another one. ;-) 'Nuff said.

Seen this user around, consistently impressed. '''Support'''. [[user:crazytales56297|<font color="#78abea">»</font>]][[User:Crazytales56297/EA|<font color="#00a060">c</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've seen nothing but good things from this guy. We always need more admins, so I'm pleased to support.
'''Support''' Can't be too harsh upon time, some of the best admins we have were adminned in about the same time. This user did have me convinced at moments that they were an admin. I see nothing here that will show a complete or any kind of abuse with the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' will make a fabulous administrator --
'''Support''' I have only the utmost respect for the candidate.
'''Support''' - Seen this user around, everything looks good to me. --
'''Support''' I see no major concerns here. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor. Experienced in a number of areas.
'''Support'''. Good vandal fighter and a level headed editor. We need more of those as admins. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per answer to Q1. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' <small>Nominator support added by [[User:Aksi_great|Aksi great]]</small> -
'''Support'''. -
Opposition is spurious.--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Support''' Luna Santin looks like a solid, dedicated editor. We need more good admins. I don't see any issues here.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''~Luna was one of the first Wikipedians I interacted with when I became a "real" editor, and I was overwhelmed by his kindness in helping a newbie like myself.  Throughout my short time here I've only seen more of the spirit of willing helpfulness.  I think he'd make a great admin. —<font color="8100b4">[[User:Keakealani|K]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Keakealani/Esperanza|e]]</font><font color="8100b4">
'''Support'''. Good vandal fighter
'''Support'''. Excellent countervandal and a fine all-around contributor.
'''Support'''. Although short time on Wikipedia, looks dedicated to the project. -
'''Support'''. Very impressed by answers. -
'''Support''' Very dedicated to the project
'''Support''' - a little AWB issue w/ subst has nothing to do w/ adminship --
'''Support''' A terrific editor who will mop wisely.
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter. --
'''Big support''' -- ''
'''Support''': We certainly require more new administrators who are honest and unbiased to run the show without bringing into elements of subjectivity to their approach.   --
'''That's hot.'''
'''There is No Mediation Cabal Support.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've seen this user's work and been impressed. Will make good use of the mop.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' 7500+ edits in 3 months?  That's twice as many as I've made in 5 months.  Experience is not measured solely by calendar time.  Also, considering the well-thought through answers, I'm ready to support.  --
'''Support''', very active and alert at recent changes monitoring - I'm very disappointed that I didn't notice this RFA until it was 70+ votes in.
'''Support''' Great editor to be around, would make superb admin. --
'''Support''', I see no problems.  Since when is 3 months considered not enough time? What happened to everyone having a minimum of 3 months, with barely anyone having minimums over that and a few having minimums of less? --
'''Strong Support''' - I have known Luna San (-tin omitted on IRC, where I first met the candidate, and it stuck) for a while now and have seen some excellent work in CVU, but also an excellent ability to converse with other members. The candidate doesn't strike me as someone to abuse the mop, and we need more good RC patrollers with sysop to handle blocks more effectively. I've seen AIV backlogs caused by none other than the candidate :) Good luck, Luna, not that you'll need it. --
'''Support'''. I can see how the oppose voters might be worried about the time he's been around, but I was nominated after a similar time frame myself and I do think in some cases it can be quite enough, both for the community to assess a candidate and for the candidate to gain the necessary skills and knowledge. I hope but also expect that Luna realises that a lot of learning is done 'on the job' but I expect that he'll do well. --
'''Strong support''' - I've seen only good from this user.
'''Support''' Good vandal whacker, good answers to the questions. 3 months is enough for me, especially since this user has show he has a fair understanding of policy. All admins learn while on the job, and I trust that this user will be a quick learner. There are two questions I have asked myself: Do I trust this user with the mop, and do I believe this user will benefit the encyclopedia with the mop? I answered yes to both.
'''Support''' Luna already watches and responds to admin notices, such as RFU.  Though he can't do anything about it, he rationally explains blocks or expresses opposition while making it clear he's not an admin and does a bang-up job of it.  I also know him from #wikipedia-bootcamp, where he has shown sufficient policy knowledge to weild the mop well.
'''Support''' per above <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Strong support''' &ndash; but it's all been said already :) &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' per above. Very helpful user, great deal of impact on the community despite not being here that long. Three months isn't a reason not to support if he's shown that he's qualified. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter at this point, but I might as well say that. :P --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''-- has done work with WDM. Luna is a careful person, I feel that there is 0% chance of any type of abuse. As "adminship is no big deal", and I can't find any reason that would cause me to oppose other then short time with the project. 3 months to me is plenty of time, especially since Luna-San has shown his use in backlogs and in general knowledge of policy. One fine canidate! ——
'''Support''': good vandal-fighter, and on the flipside great at helping people out. Moppify this guy! -
'''Support''', will make a good admin ---
'''Late support''' &ndash; Level-headed nice guy and great counter-vandal. --
'''Full Support''' Excelent User.  Works on many many asspects of the Wiki. Hand her the mop <font color="SteelBlue">[[User:Aeon1006|Æon]]</font> <font color="red"><sup>[[User talk:Aeon1006|Insanity Now!]]</sup></font><sub><font color="Green">
'''Support''', Per all [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Late "Was counting on camping for #100" Support''' &mdash; '''
'''9 more til' [[WP:100]] Support''', great user, very civil and helpful--
'''Support''' Fits almost all admin criteria like a glove. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' per all the reasons listed above :D [[User:DemosDemon|<span style="color:blue">D</span>]][[User:DemosDemon/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]][[User:DemosDemon|<span style="color:blue">mos</span>]][[User_Talk:DemosDemon|<span style="color:maroon">D</span>]]
'''Support'''. I initially wanted to doublecheck on the mediation things the nominator mentioned, but I couldn't contact him, but now I saw Luna have some real nice interactions with newbies. Great user. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Very good mediator.
'''Support'''. Friendly user, helpful user. Good edit count, good sysop material. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - only three months with the project, and a lack of experience with images --
'''Oppose'''. Good editor, but limited time with the project.
'''Oppose'''. Good contributor, but still very new. Should wait a bit longer and gain more experience before applying for adminship.
'''Weak oppose'''. 3 months look too short.--
&ndash;
'''Neutral''' Very good editor, but I would prefer a few more months of experience as a registered user.--
'''Neutral''', per the reasons under my previous oppose vote above.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''', my minimum is 6 months. Looks like a great user, and will surely pass irregardless.
'''Support''' for this exceptional contributor, with no reservations whatsoever.
'''Support''', looks good. However, needs more Wikipedia space edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable and friendly.
'''Support'''. Keep up the good work!
- Seems cheerful, kind, and competent. Like this editor's style, like their articles. Happy to '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' -- More like this candidate, please.
'''Support''' <s>the musicabal</s> a well-tempered editor whose work I've admired.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''': Definitely capable. -
'''Support''': Definitely 100% on me, you meet all the requirements to me. - [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support''' per everyone else! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate; lots of edits in wikipedia, and highly active for the past four months. You have my support.
'''Support''' A good and friendly user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Normally, I'd be inclined to oppose a candidate of brief tenure; however, the quality of editor's classical music contributions sways me.  Excellemt editor.
'''Support''' But do you need help archiving your user talk page?? :-) --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
--
'''support''':  Looks good; as a solid or even exemplary contributor, candidate will likely help maintain needed balance among admin selections, which seemingly veers a bit too much toward favoring vandal fighters rather than editors primarily dedicated to actually building an excyclopedia.
'''Support''' looks good, although [[User:Makemi|Makemi]] is a little new.
'''Support'''. Be careful with the mop, though.
'''Support'''. Just about been here long enough to show an understanding of WP policy. Good luck. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''', we'll makeyu an admin yet!
''"Adminship is no big deal."'' -
'''Support'''. I was leaning support and on reflection I think, ''yes''. --
'''Support''' Definately. --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Weak support'''. Looks like a good editor.  Just squeaks by on just about every [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|minimum qualification]] I have, but crosses the threshold. —
'''Support'''
'''Support'''well rounded --
'''Support''' And note that Makemi seems to be the first of the current batch to get Massive's approval. That takes effort.
'''Support''' per above --

[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' - my 3 main criteria are: be nice, be fair, and contribute well.  This user qualifies on all 3 counts.  --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', can't see any reason not to and the answers to the questions indicate a level headeness that suit the role.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', based largely on my review of Makemi's work on AfD.
'''Support''' Excellent contributions to music articles and a spread of work in other areas, gets my vote. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Oppose''' excellent editor but I prefer admins to have more experience throughout the project space.  Will have my vote in a few months, now is a bit to soon.--
'''Oppose''' A little too new for me.
'''Oppose'''- off to a good start, but needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' not long enough,
Reluctant '''Oppose''' good start - but too soon <font color="#F0F">
'''Oppose''' Basically an echo here... good start, but a touch to new. -'''
'''Oppose''' agree with all of the above.  Needs some more seasoning.  --
'''Neutral'''. Good, quality edits, but only 3 months experience, and also per the reason given above by [[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]].--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. Seen user's work, no doubts for me. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' this user will definitely not abuse the admin tools and meets all my standards for adminship.  (S)he made one mistake, which CrzRussian pointed out, but that is not a reason to oppose for adminship, especially now that Mangojuice apologized. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' Good number of edits, and as I always support those who commit to the vandal fight, I give you my support, good luck with the nomination.
'''Support'''  Have found editor to be helpful and assertive.
'''Support''' with cliche, "''I thought this editor '''was''' an admin''". Well articulated answers, clearly states philosophy on user and talk page, does great work, well qualified.
'''Support''' good editor
'''Support''' I like what I see. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I believe the incident involving db-corp was a learning experience, and the lesson was learned. It's necessary for one to make mistakes so that they are exposed and solved, if not, both the user and the project will be harmed.
'''Support'''. I liked his approach to the academics notability guideline. I have no concerns about giving this user admin powers. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''I support.'''--
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' While I do not condone circumvention of policies and guidelines, I am not so shocked by this occurrence as to vote oppose, nor do I see it as an indication of the nominee's character.  I've come across him many-a-time, and from those experiences and his answers to the questions I see a level head and good knowledge of policy.
'''Support'''. - I'm familiar with MJ almost entirely through his work in the crypto corner. I've found him to be an excellent WP'ian and expect he would be well-suited to adminship. I've had a couple of disagreements with him, but nothing that can even be remotely characterized as a conflict. His work on getting [[Cryptography]] through the featured article process has been excellent. Knowledgeable, and steady.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. He deserves the mop. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' - excellent debugging with a template parameter [{{fullurl:User_talk:Omniplex|oldid=59266981}}#Template:ifdef '''='''] issue. --&#160;
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' - excellent candidate with firm experience and a willingness to do the work of an admin --
'''Support''', generally.
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', The one negative comment below appears to be a simple indiscretion on Mangojuice's part and I don't think it is indicitive of any attempt to circumvent process.--
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - MangoJuice is a wonderful editor, and a helpful user. He would certainly be a great admin.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. Mangojuice handled themselves very well in the VaughanWatch/Eyeonvaughan et al debacle, and I've not seen anything that presuades me that they would not be a good admin.
'''Support''' per the standing exception to my admin rules, i.e. that if I have mistaken someone for an admin at least once, I generally support them.
'''Support'''.  I also agree that Mangojuice handled themselves well during VW/EoV, both here and over email.  Other interactions with Mangojuice show a commitment to the project and a mature outlook.
'''Support ON WHEELS''' - Constructive criticism towards my RFA, seems helpful to editors. --<tt>'''
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' as per the nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -'''
'''Support''' per nominator, constructive contributor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. My interaction with MJ was positive when he deprodded an article that I had prodded. My review of his history is positive, and I like the answers to the questions. Cheers,
'''Support''' good editor, will be good as an admin
'''Support''' Meets my criteria for support. --
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''', gread editor, meets my criteria--
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' per the "no big deal" clause, because Mangojuice seems like a decent and reasonable editor, and because what you don't know when you are given the mop, you learn soon enough.
'''Support''' No problems or general weirdness detected, grab that mop!!
'''Support''' - I see no problems with this user. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">

'''Changed to support''' so as not to poop party. Great editor, one mistake, community doesn't give a flick, JzG thinks it's no big deal, '''''why not?''''' - <b>
'''Support''' Thought I already did.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; excellent editor, level headed and calm; good answer to AOL question no. 5 below; likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]], excellent contributor, and is quite level-headed.
'''Support''', over all shows positive commitment to the project (wikipedia) and most likly make a greater positive contrabution as a admin.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems skilled at having a calm, polite dispute, per answer to question #3 and [[Talk:Shock site]]. : )
'''Mango-a-go-go''' support!  Ideal adminship material.
'''Support''', one more can not hurt can it? [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support'''.  Looks a like a win for Wikipedia... if they become an admin.
'''Support'''. His great job at getting [[Cryptography]] motivated me to look closely at his edits, and he is likely to be a good admin.
'''Support''': [[:Image:Mango 24.jpg|yes]]. --
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but I like a little more experience in my administrators. Maybe in a few months I will reconsider, but as for now, not yet. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' failed to respond to my query left on his/her talk page.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' you don't pass nor fail my criteria. <font color="green">
I dont care if he becomes an editor or not, I just care that if he does become an admin he should be careful not to be as mean as some of the others.
'''Well, of course'''. Good egg.
'''Support''' per nom. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Excellent editor, excellent nominator.
'''Support'''. good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good editor - put him to work
'''Support''' meets and surpasses my criteria. Mop and bucket time! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Solid contribution history --''
'''Support''' Excellent work
'''Strong Support'''. Will be a fine administrator. --
'''Support''' per nom and I've seen his impressive editing in the past.
'''Strong support'''. Will be a great admin.--
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support'''; has performed well under pressure and isn't prone to conflict; besides that, a good editor. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''', not admin already?!
'''Support''', looks all right to me.
'''support, naturally.''' I really, truly thought he already was one. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', despite the rumour started by the nominator that Mark is an egg, I assure you he is actually a person.
'''Support''', still significant variation in editing process, I support.
'''Support''' Yes.--
'''Support''' Interesting work that he's done with military pages, and images pertaining to the military. -
'''Support:''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support:''' Excellent editor.
'''Support''' as per nom. Should make a good admin - Aksi_gr
'''Support.''' Will make a good admin, from what I see.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' Checking your edits is interesting read.  ;-)  --
'''Support''', yep!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per BD2412. --
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Support''', mop time
'''Support''' I tire of the opposition in Rfa's not providing adequate diffs to explain their opposition...I see no evidence this editor will abuse adminship--
'''Support''' for his matured approach. Good luck! --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' Good quality article space work, minor concerns about apparent diminishing edit rate adequately answered in questions below. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' Cool, calm,collected, could be creditable as an admin.
'''Support''', looks good and I trust the nominator's judgement.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Oppose''' Not active enough with the wikipedia community.  --
<b>Weak Oppose</b>
'''Support''' - though he does not meet my requirement of 300+ project-space edits, his answers to the questions and his nomination paragraph make me want to support him. '''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Somewhat low on the experience end of things, but I don't see that as a compelling reason to oppose in this case.  Seems like someone who would make good use of the tools. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Has been active for 3+ months, has 1500+ edits including plenty in project and talk spaces.  Everything I see is good.
'''Support''', I see no reason why he should not be an admin. His number of edits may be a little low but this editor has shown he understands policy and as a result edit number is unimportant. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''', I have been temporarily cured of the [[WP:Editcountitis|flu]]!--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like he would be a good admin. Don't care too much about edit count. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Edit count is sufficient in my opinion. <small>WARNING TO SELF: [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|Editcountitis]] is contagious. </small> --
'''Support''' after a well writen answer to my question. I believe it would be good for you to have the mop. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<sup>[[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]</sup><sup>
'''Support'''.  Edit count doesn't mean much (although there's certainly a difference between 500 and 5000).  I'm pleased with what I've seen from this user and I have seen him around fairly frequently.  He's kind, supportive of new users, and a good vandal-fighter.  Let's give him the mop! :)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per Siva, Sorry, and Srose; inasmuch as, pace BlueValour, with whom I rarely disagree, I think Martinp's understanding of ''merge/redirect'', etc., to be fine, even as I think his procedural handling of the AfD to have been less-than-perfect; and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]].
'''Weak oppose''' as fails my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]] in terms of edits. I would have done a neutral, but someone has to start. Please see [[User:Viridae|Viridae]]'s comments below.
'''Weak oppose''' not ''quite'' ready yet. I would definitely give my support with a few more months' contributions and a non-self nomination. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Oppose''' Edits need to be boosted.  They are a reflection of experience.
'''weak oppose''' Seems like a good editor, but with just 1700 edits and (essentially) only 3 months editing, its a bit early to tell.  come back soon!  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Weak oppose''' - per [[user:CrazyInSane|CrazyInSane]] --
'''Oppose'''. Please read through [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of what most people's standards are, I don't consider [[User:Themindset/RFA|mine]] that difficult to attain.
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria.  --
'''No go for support - oppose''' per CrazyInSane. --
'''Weak oppose''' needs some more experience, should try again soon.
'''Weak oppose''' I'd like to see some more experience.
'''Oppose''' Just needs more experience overall. More *fD experience. More IfD expereince. More editing. I see a lot of welcoming user with vandalproof. Welcoming users is important. However, with only ~2000 edits, there needs to be more substantial edits, more Fairuse image review and cleanup. More vandal warning and reporting to AIV. Try building a stub up to an interesting article-- with a list of refernces at the end. Find a subject that intersts you. Dig up some information and add it to Wikipedia.
'''Weak oppose'''  Nothing at all wrong with gnomish, minor, or semi-automated edits (I'd kinda have to say that, wouldn't I?), ''but'' 1700 edits consisting largely of such isn't really enough to judge someone's suitability in a meaningful way.  Either a lot more of the same, please, or a wider range of editing to judge your "latent experience" by.
'''Oppose''' - needs more experience.--
''' Strong oppose'''. See attempt to premature close an AfD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassfield Elementary School]]. Applicant quite failed to understand the difference between a 'Delete/redirect' and a 'Merge/redirect'. Further, instead of simply accepting that the closure did not have general acceptance, a vigorous defence was mounted.
'''Oppose'''. 2053 edits is much less than what I expect from an admin. Not only that, but he has more User talk edits than article edits. Try again with about 3-4000 more edits (especially article edits) & don't self-nom. You are a great contributor, but I won't support you until the issues above have been cleared up. '''<font style="background:black">
'''Oppose''' - Per above comments, but mainly noting low edit count in mainspace (600)
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose however. Seems to inexperienced and a self-nomination. Relatively small amount of contributions (little over 600 mainspace edits) and only been here since the end of January 2006 after which the nominee states he was initially inactive for a considerable time (began contributing actively since April 2006). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060716182346&limit=500&target=Martinp23] It will take alot to change me from turning to oppose.--
'''Neutral''' I like your contributions and I can see no reason to oppose. You have involvement with AFDs and lots of RC patrol. I just don't think you have been contributing at this level for long enough. Keep it up, come back in a couple of months And I would be happy to support you.
'''Neutral leaning Support''' I do think some more experience (in the form of editing across all spaces) is necessary, but the candidate has a great track record of vandalism reversion, and the extra buttons would enable to him to be even more effective in that respect.  The candidate (like all RfA candidates) is to be commended in asking for the extra responsibility, as he/she has demonstrated an eager willingness to further help the project
'''Neutral leaning Support also''' - Hoopydink took the words out of my mouth; and will probably change my vote upon newer questions. I will add that my personal interactions with Martin have been very <S>popular</s> grr... '''positive''' - I just cant believe this is his 23rd RfA! ;) -
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Viridae|Viridae]].
'''Neutral''' per above neutral comments.  I would give support in three months.
'''Neutral''' per GIen. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''

I don't see anything from a first glance that tells me he will abuse admin powers, so, why not.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' - Martyman has done great work on the [[Australian Capital Territory|ACT]] through the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra|WikiProject Canberra]], has a great spread of edits over all name spaces and great fighter of vandalism. I'm very happy to give my support to this great Aussie editor. --
'''Support''' great work so far.
'''Support''' has made significant contributions in article and wikipedia namespaces, will make a great admin.--
I have been working with Martyman and others on [[Wikipedia:3D Illustrations]] which is coming along nicely (anyone interested in commenting or helping drive this guideline from proposed to accepted, please chime in on the talk page there). We were working with a user who meant well but whose communication style was not quite the same as most of us expect. Martyman got a little frustrated at one point which he shared with me, but taken as a whole I feel his conduct in the entire matter (determining there is a problem, consulting with others about what could be done, leading the discussion on the guidelines, doing a lot of the spadework to create new templates, working with other users, etc) is just the sort of consensus driven approach we all should be using. So I strongly '''Support''' this nomination. I think he'll make a fine admin, and with the admin powers, he'll be able to make image cleanup much more efficient. ++
'''Strong Support''' Deserves to be an admin. Keep up the good work! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks like he could use the admin tools for awesome.
Like the answers to questions, as well as edit spread and intentions. '''support'''. <font size="-1">
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Great work on the 3D thing. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' friendly and helpful candidate - should be a good admin.
'''Support''' If Marty is willing to extend himself further it is a good thing for WP.
'''Support''' Has done great work on the Canberra Wikiproject.
'''Support''', seems like a happy little Vegemite.
'''Strong Support''' for a trustworthy, dedicated and constructive Wikipedian whose contributions, particularly his map-making and alike, have been invaluable. I can only imagine his efforts increasing upon adminship. Well-deserved, :)
'''Support'''. A very hard-working and dedicated user; go for gold!
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
Support,
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Very active and dedicated Australian contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Ambi and I had it all worked out ... then you had to go and ruin it by self-nominating ahead of time!  Oh, well, '''support''', for certs.
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression. And he's Australian!
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' I encountered Martyman by chance on 3dnatureguy's talk page. His work is a good example of how patience and persistence can lead to a good outcome. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:3dnatureguy]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Dedicated to the project and a helpful guy. &#126;
'''Support''' looks good.--
'''Support.''' No problems at all.
'''Support''' now, since it kept crashing last night. Very good and helpful contributor.
'''Support''' fine example of a dedicated and helpful user, also a tireless contributor to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra|WikiProject Canberra]].
'''Support''' I've seen him around, and my recollections are all positive. --
'''Support''' what scott said. 've seem him around, great editor.
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. He does good work --
'''Support''', although it looks like he doesn't need any more. :) -
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' - Great contributor.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Oh! mommy, can I please jump on that bandwagon.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' great contributor with a good variety of edits.  Definetly deserves it--
'''Support''' Definitely knows what he is doing and calmly argues his case.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' - no problems here.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - has done good work on ACT and with maps and will be a good Admin. --
'''Support.''' I cannot think of someone more suited.
'''Support'''  - good work <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. Good contributions.--
--
'''Support''' user has made a significant contribution towards removing unlicensed/unsourced images from wiki. This job would be made much easier with the delete option. Give em the mop! &nbsp;
'''Support'''. User makes good contributions to the AU wikiverse. Will be a good admin. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%">'''—
'''Support.''' I can find no reason to object. --
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Martyman is a genuine saint. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - strong work on the mainspace, as evidenced by the plethora of high-quality Canberra articles, but also good contributions behind the scenes, on the reference desk, for example. --
'''Support'''.  Will likely make good use of tools.
'''Support''' good editor with extra involvment in projects. Should be good admin.
'''Support'''. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''. The fact that you're from Canberra was mighty off putting for me, but then I compared that to Tasmania, and then compared Tasmania to New Zealand, and finally came to the conclusion that [[Helen Clark]] isn't very attractive. So, based on that, I'll support you. Your being a great and committed contributor didn't really factor into the decision much.
Martyman would not be a good choice, as most of his edits are really disguised vandalism.  To make him an administrator would be a mistake. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' - Recently, I had an image that the OrphanBot had problems with.  The OrphanBot notified me of the problem image, but the image was already gone.  Apparently it had been deleted shortly after OrphanBot detected the image, without giving me a chance to review the image and make any corrections needed.  I went to CLW to explain my position, a few minutes later I had a message from MartyMan which in essence said that I should've known the image was a problem even though I had no notice about the image and I had quite honestly forgotten about the image among the several thousand other things I had submitted to Wikipedia over time.  As a result, I have serious concerns over this person's ability to perform administrative duties in a fair and impartial manner.  Also, I think this matter is between me and CLW and that he had no business involving himself at this junction.  Perhaps later if it proceeded into mediation or arbitration it would've concerned him.  These are two reasons why I am opposing his candidacy at this time.
'''I beat nominator Support''', he's great but please have more main space talk contributions. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''; while I'm not fond of the extremely low articletalkspace edits, and putting an article through FA can be enlightening, the user seems very polite and knowledgable. No specific problems to point to beyond those two small matters. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''; I like this user's responses to the questions. And about the low talk space edits &mdash; AfD is essentially one giant talk page. I think Master Jay will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. I wholeheartedly agree with this user. Instead of debating between Inclusionism and Deletionism, we should concentrate more on Vandalism, an -ism that is often neglected. --
'''Support''' No major problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as belated, but still super, nominator support! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' Would make good use of the tools. General contributions are good and his extensive use of warnings when reverting vandalism only serves to reinforce my belief that his approach to blocking (and other admin actions) will be level-headed.
<strike>'''oppose'''</strike>'''support'''well of course im going to support, it is Jay after all :p
'''Support''', good candidate. --
'''Support''' looks good. --
'''Support''', we need more like him. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. I recognize you from AfD and RC Patrol; you're a great asset to these projects. I like your answer to question 2.
'''Support'''. Looks good from here.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' And my vote fo support is one of the hardest to get by my standards. I believe in forgive and forget.
'''Mega support''' Master Jay convinced me to change my choice on IRC. :P
'''Support''' A good user that would benefit from the mop and bucket. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. Excellent user.
'''Support''': great asset, and nominates good users for the janitorial position, it'd be fair to return the favour '''
'''Support''' I gave Jay a minor interrogation on IRC last night (including the questions below, he was writing the answers when the servers went down so I'm guessing they will appear when he gets back online). That convinced me to support. I do note the concerns raised below by Rx StrangeLove and totally agree that a proper edit summary should have been used in most of those cases. On balance I think Wikipedia will be better off with Jay as admin rather than not; but Jay please be careful in use of rollback (admin one or otherwise).
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I completely agree with the nominator that vandal-fighters have a special reason to become admins: that while we wait for an administrator to block a persistent vandal reported at [[WP:AIV]] a vandal might deface another half-dozen or dozen pages.
'''Support''' My interaction with this user have only been good.--
'''Support''' - I have interacted with this user on user talk pages and on IRC, and have had plesent experiences --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The user may revert too quickly but it happens to the best of us. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''. His ability to stop vandalism deserves the extra muscle. The user is unlikely to abuse the mop, as well.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' seems good.
Support. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' after speaking to Master Jay and looking through Master Jay’s contributions have come to the conclusion that Master Jay would make a good admin. --<b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good candidate. --
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' Quick learner, experienced. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Jay has been very helpful and supportive of me during hard times, such as today. Will not only be beneficial to vandal fighting but also to the community as a whole. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Seems happy to help, I can encourage this behaviour. --
'''Support''' - Great user, and friendly too. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' With a comment to try to be nicer and be more willing to assume that newbies don't know something and be more willing to tell them why you are reverting what they have done when you do.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support'''.  Great vandalfighter, and as I've mentioned on other RfAs, that IS what adminship is about.  Everyone has an edit button; only admins have the block button, admin rollback, etc. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong support'''. Checked his contibs, etc. and he seems to be OK.
'''Support''' - Errs on the side of [[WP:AGF]]. I like that. --
'''Support''' because he's a good candidate. --
'''Weak support'''. I've thought about it a bit, and after looking through the diffs provided by both parties, I believe that Wikipedia will most likely benefit from having Master Jay as an admin. The only reasons I'm giving weak support is that Master Jay's low number of Talk space edits and reversions of what appear to be newbie tests concerns me. Please be careful with the rollback button. Other than that, Jay seems all right. '''
'''Support''' - there is nothing here to suggest he will be anything but a fine admin in the future.
'''Support''' uses common sense and good judgement. He should be a great asset to WP. --

'''Support'''. Objections aren't very strong. Everyone makes a mistake once or twice. Plus, he is a great vandal fighter. Give him to mop and let him clean up the messes himself isntead of posting on WP:AIV.
'''Support'''. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Weak Support'''. I have been going back and forth for a few days, but I'm hoping he has learned from previous mistakes.  I also feel that he is a little over-eager for the mop, but he'll do a good job. --
'''Very Strong Support''' I very strongly support all my fellow canidates.
'''Support''' - Excellent vandal fighter. (
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Solid editor; other than some concerns about rollback (which Master Jay has promised to be more careful with in the future), there's absolutely no reason to believe he will abuse the tools. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Weak Support''' after reading these comments, I'm changing to neutral. Adminship is no big deal, and if the candidate proves to be unsuitable, adminship can be taken away just as easily. It looks like abuse of power is unlikely though.
'''Oppose''' I have some slight civility concerns about candidate, given my own harsh exchange with him at Naconkantari's RfA and a similar exchange at TigerShark's RfA editor had with Jayjg more recently.  These mild worries wouldn't normally motivate an oppose, but combined with low talk page edits, I believe more time editing would be beneficial here.  I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't see many edits in article talk, nor solid comments in Wikipedia talk pages.  Whilst there is also a lot of RFA and XFD contributions, I can't see much too solid in the Wikipedia spoace outside those forums.  And reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_Jay&diff=prev&oldid=39002207 this] makes me wonder if the user wants adminship too much.  That adminship is no big deal should perhaps cut both ways.  The user is an excellent vandal fighter, I have no doubt about that, and it's with great displeasure I find myself voting in this way at this time.
'''Oppose''', following Hiding's reasons.
'''Oppose''', Per above.
'''Oppose''' due to the civility concerns mentioned above combined with a weak answer to question three and low participation on talk pages (test messages on user talks aren't the same as collaborating or resolving disputes in my opinion).  &mdash;
'''Oppose''', as per all above. And i require at least 6 months of membership.
'''Oppose''' And fairly strongly, He reverts good faith, non-vandal edits with a tool that only leaves a admin revert-type summary. And then doesn't say anything to the newbie editors about why they got reverted. We shouldn't be rolling good faith edits back like this, and it seems a little arbitrary and/or heavy handed. If we're going to be rolling back edits for content reasons at least he should be making an attempt to explain the reverts. #:Examples:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Italy%2C_Toronto&diff=prev&oldid=42700789][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhutan&diff=prev&oldid=42387145] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&diff=prev&oldid=42696672][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morristown%2C_Tennessee&diff=prev&oldid=42292531]
'''Oppose''', use of a automated rollback tool for content issues is an awfully bad way to go about things, and giving the user additional powers until they realise this may not be the best idea.
'''Oppose''' per Rx StrangeLove.
'''Oppose'''. After reading these comments, I do not feel comfortable supporting Master Jay's nomination. I am glad, however, that you are learning from your mistakes. Stay clean, and I'll support you in a few months. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' as per Covington, reluctantly.
'''Oppose'''. I am very grateful to Master Jay for his work against vandalism and for this I would like to strongly support. The thing that stops me (at the moment) is, I feel, a quantity over quality issue. I feel that high totals are not enough. I would rather see lower totals but with a sense of more care being given to them, especially dealing with new editors, when there may well be a need to provide support, information and encouragement. This of course takes time and reduces the edit count which seems to be so much of a feature of these RfA, so that particular culture has its part to play in encouraging bad habits. The nomination starts off by proclaiming 3,600 edits in six months, as if that's enough to settle the question. Another point that makes me oppose at the moment is that I feel calmness and politeness in facing opposition is essential. I am sure that Master Jay is taking note of these things and working on them.  I will be happy in a couple of months to support.
'''Oppose''' - I'd be happy to support a bit later. --
'''Oppose''' - since this is going to be a close one, I'm going to have to change my vote to 'oppose' for the same reasons as I mentioned in my neutral vote, and for the concerns that others had above. He's a bit too keen to revert other people's work. -
'''Oppose''' - It doesn't seem as though he can distinguish between vandalism and a content-dispute (per StrangeLove's evidence and lack of rebutting evidence other than personal note of repentence) (something ironically that I have also had trouble with recently). More non vandalism related talk edits would demonstrate for one that he is willing to discuss issues related to pages, and two that he has not just been looking at the edits to the page without reviewing what is happening behind the scenes. This combines with the users obvious want to obtain the power to close XfD's doesn't quite come to me as a person who knows how to distinguish consensus on topics well enough to be the final decision maker. [[User:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans</span>]]
'''Oppose''' as per Steven and Covington above.
'''Neutral''', curiously few talk page edits.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral'''. I'm trying out a new (rather tedious) system I've come up with for evaluating RfA's. I may use this from now on, I may never use it again. So, after going through all this, I ended up with Neutral, per my [[User:Evilphoenix/RfA_Votes/Master_Jay|evaluation]] of Master Jay by my [[User:Evilphoenix/Admin criteria|personal criteria]]. Best regards,
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Neutral''' after reviewing some discussions this user has had. Seems to be polite to vandals and others in general.  Still no major debates though (anywhere, article talk pages or user talk pages) that I can see, where the user had significant vested interest but remained cool and collected. Also, I'm still a little concerned about the rollback. —
Per nomination.
'''Support''' I know Mathwiz2020 will not abuse adminship and will contribute greatly to wikipedia. I respect his efforts to fight vandals and expand the schoolwatch programme. In conclusion, Mathwiz2020 is a great choice for adminship. --
'''Support''' I am definitely confident that Mathwiz would make a good administrator. <small>

'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' Automated tools are good! We can trust him. --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', Good editor. Would make a great admin, even though BlueMoose has returned to WP.
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Would make a good custodian. --Jay '''(
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter. (
'''Support''', although as a vandal fighter, one should have a decent amount of experience in [[WP:AFD|AfD]]. He has less than 100 wiki namespace edits, but I'm going to support because in his time on AfD, he has shown an ability to learn quickly, judge fairly, and do something about ''keeps''.
'''Support''' --
Good guy.
'''Support'''.  --
'''2+2=Support :D''' '''
'''Algebra Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looking this over and I see good reasons to support.--
'''Support'''.  All signs point to yes.
'''Support''' Sure. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good luck with AWB - I just discovered the program, and we really need someone to administer it. --
'''Support from a math hater'''. I hate math! ;). Civil and responsive. Good overall experiance. I would like to see more project edits though. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">
'''Support''' those math articles need someone to find the percentage of vandalism. --
'''Support''' As per above.  Also, I haven't ever had any personal contact with him, but I have seen a number of edits by him recently which gives me confidence in him. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Keep on with what you're doing. -
'''Support''' Seems well qualified and trustable.
'''Support''', will make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good edits, very good answer to question 1.--
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Good amount of edits, and great answers to the questions.
<strong>
'''Support''' Good user, meets [[User:Danntm/RFA|my criteria]].--
'''Strong Support''' Met him through the [[San Francisco International Airport]] article; constructive edits and good answers to questions (especially question #1) all lead me to support. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' per good and friendly response to my previous vote--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Smart, trustworthy fellow with whom I've had positive discussions.
'''Support''' - per nom and experience --
'''Support'''&mdash;Had a similar initial reaction to that by


'''Support'''. -
May consequently block.
'''Support''' great judgement, could always use another attorney as an admin ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' per nom, and great answer to Q1. --
'''Support''' Good answers above.
'''Support''' I am impressed with his answer to question 1. A good editor as well. --
'''Support''' Moved from Neutral per ruling of the [[Court of Historical Review]]. ~
'''Support'''.  Looks good. --
'''Support''' - fits --
'''Support''' with pleasure. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Support'''' Will use the mop wisely.
'''Support''' Great user
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and strong answers, good user, no concerns.
California Uber '''Support''' definatly a good user <nowiki>~</nowiki><u>'''<font color="black">[[USer:IAMTHEEGGMAN|IAMTH]]</font><font color="#6C6C6C">[[User:IAMTHEEGGMAN|EEGG]]</font><font color="#939393">
'''Support''' - why not? --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Strong Support''' seems to be an excellent candidate who can certainly be trusted.  Good luck!
'''Support''' as there is a reasonable explanation for the imbalance in editing, which isn't really a problem on this scale in any event. - <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''.
'''Pile-on support''' - Excellent editor and extremely unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket.
Can't oppose.
'''Support'''. His smile is enchanting! Edits are more beautiful. --
'''Support'''.  MCB an admin soon.  :o)  Great contributions in many different facets of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''.  Good editor, thoughtful comments, no doubt about sensible use of the extra buttons. --
'''Support''', can't see any reason not to.
'''Support''' - User has made many valuable contributions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' per nom. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support''' Looks like a well-rounded, responsible editor.  Send more like him. -
'''Support'''Looks fine to me :-)
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions, excellent background. -
'''support''':  Great on the upside, little or nothing of significance on the downside.
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me; well-rounded and sufficient experience.
Hell yes.
'''Strong Support''' per a review of this user's edits. Good all around contributer. One slight criticism is your high user space edit count; however, I don't have much room to criticize in that regard as I  made a lot of edits early on. I see no reason to oppose, excellent!
'''Support''' You're looking fine to me.  And I learned something new when I checked out your talk page.  (I really need to look into 3D photography now...)  --
'''Yep'''. Balanced contributor.
''''Support''' good candidate --
''''Support'''. good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Suppprt''', esp. commitment to Commons backlog. -
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', but answering the questions by [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] below will be much better.--
'''Support''' - looks alright.
'''Support''', yep, looks all OK.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''': Well balanced, experienced and knowledgable editor; has the makings of a fine administrator. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', seems sensible enough.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Excellent user, deserves the mop and bucket. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no rason to oppose, good answers to questions.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. An excellent editor - will make an even better admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' from neutral,
'''Support''' Great involvement.
'''Support''' Great involment and number of edits. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Cliche''' --
'''Support''' Will use the mop well. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''&trade;. --[[User:24.46.201.42|24.46.201.42]] 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC) <font size=1>Note: This is me, this <s>piece of shit</s> sub-par computer doesn't hold cookies very well. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Suppose''' a trusted and good user. <font color="#000080">
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' Per Above.  --
'''Support''', another solid future admin.
'''Support''' I see no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''. Good user.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' as nominator --
'''Support''' looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Meets my standards.
'''Support''' Still relatively new, but otherwise a very good editor.
'''Support'''. His recent handling of a dispute I was involved in (edits from him: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harro5&diff=prev&oldid=42034686] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meegs&diff=prev&oldid=42041705] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meegs&diff=prev&oldid=42042658]) showed he has what it takes to be an admin.
'''Support'''. looks just fine.  <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', In good faith and editor meets my criteria. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''.  Excellent work on [[WP:AFC]] and other places. <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">--
'''Support'''. Excellent potential if it the workload can be kept up!
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[User:Siva1979|Siva1979]]
'''Support''' clearly knows what he's doing.
'''Support''' a good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' even though the candidate has work for 4 months only while I suggest 6 months.--
'''Support.''' A reletively new user but a very good one.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' A most excellent user despite only four months' editing. <font size="4">[[☺]]</font> -- <small>The pathetic</small>
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, shows wisdom.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support'''. Going through this user's talk page, Meegs always posts with civility. I am particuarly impressed with the amount of work put into NFL articles.
'''Support'''' great user, excellent potential
'''Support'''. Reminds me of me.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong WikiProject National Football League Support''' good editor.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - [[Wynaut]]?
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''support''' good answers. clean up is the right idea. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Support''' Good editor, very civil.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', sounds good to me as well.  ;)
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}}
'''Support'''. I am proud to support a qualified fellow WP:NFL'er.
'''Support'''. Nice 100% edit summary. Oh, and please don't burnout, we need you. :)
'''Support''' - like said at the top, we need you here. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' --''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' good editor, should be good administrator.
Oui. —''
'''Support''' gets my support, good luck to you.
'''Support''' without a doubt. Looks like a responsible editor, very active on [[WP:AFC]]. Judging by Interiot's tool, he is actively editing Wikipedia around the clock. Does he ever sleep?
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per everyone else. -
'''Support''' Excellent editor. <font color="#08457E">
'''Neutral''' Almost meets all my requirements except he's relatively new to Wikipedia. Other than that I don't see a problem.
'''Neutral''' meets but one condition of my stanards, so won't support, but looks good.
'''Neutral''' Superb record for such a short period of time-- already has a barnstar. Clear, insightful thinking and communication. Helpful to others. Will be an excellent admin. My only reservation is the question of sustainablilty. User may be setting a burnout pace.
'''Neutral'''. Great potential, just give it a bit more time.

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.''' Great candidate. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. As a great nominee, I predict a pile-on.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Great admin-to-be. User has article-building and communication skills. User also has a good level of mathematical understanding, which I will take advantage of by making him re-do all the proofs for finding derivative rules. Fyi, I will get quite a laugh with the [[Chain rule]].
'''Support''' Great canidate, I'm supporting.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]].
'''Super Strong Support'''. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I'm very impressed with Melchoir's skill to write great articles, like [[addition]]. --
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', was he an admin? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good stuff by Blnguyen, but I'd support the candidate if the RfA was blank (tongue in cheek there, people).
'''Support''' Sounds almost too good to be true *rubs eyes in wonder* Nah, seen him around, does a great job. Should be a good one. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. I saw only lots of good work by Melchoir.
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
Adding '''0.99999999... of a support''' to the tally - <b>
'''Support'''. Seen him around, fully deserves adminship. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Support''' A fine editor, should do well with the admin tools.
'''Support''' A tireless worker in all namespaces, and able to keep a cool head even when fighting vandals and just plain ignorant folk.
'''Support'''. Nguyen nominations are about as automatic a support as it gets.
'''Support''' - I could almost do this kind of support by bot it's that strong --
'''Support''' One of the best editors of this project. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Multi-faceted editor. Hardworking and dedicated. Blnguyen's nomination says the rest although it could use one very interesting link in the copyright infringement warnings section - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srikeit&oldid=34101879] ;-) --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', an experienced and excellent contributor.
Per Blnguyen's terrific co-nomination.
'''Support''' Per nom.
'''Support''' Great user, great nomination. '''
'''Support''' Despite being disappointed with his response to Q4 which includes WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, my favourite Rule and Essay respectively, he eaisly passes my criteria, I love the [[0.999...]] article and I believe he will be an great admin
'''Support'''.
Certainly.
'''Strong Support'''. Blnguyen has a habit of making candidates sound better than they thought, but in this case I don't need his nomination to convince me!
'''Support''' 0.999... per nom.
'''Support''' This, is what I call an all-arounded editor. Would love to see his continued editorial work even after getting his mop and bucket. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Strong Support'''. I thought he was already an admin.
'''Support'''.  From your answer to question 1, I'm not that convinced you really ''need'' the tools, but I see zero potential for abuse here.  Welcome!
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' Without reservation.
'''Support''' Great editor.--
While I would still like to have my question answered, I see no reason not to trust this user.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. I'd add a witty comment, but someone already used "0.9999999... Support". --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Support''' - Not that it's really needed.
'''Support''' - Didn't realise Melchoir wasn't already an admin, as the cliché goes.

'''Support''' for a qualified, experienced user per excellent nom statement, responses, no troublesome issues.
'''Support''' - without the use of a bad math joke, per nom --
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''. Not really much to add that hasn't been said above. —
'''Support''' Outstanding editor, and extra points for being so civil and friendly.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''. Note that I think the particular kind of not committing to a particular schedule or set of tasks expressed above is a good thing for Wikipedia. Here-there-everywhere admins are valuable as a "glue", filling in the gaps as needed. &mdash;
'''Support'''&mdash;We can use FA oriented mathematician who understands the tools. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Back from vacation support''' --
'''Support'''. I'm most familiar with his work on the reference desks, but from looking things over he seems a great contributor in all sorts of ways.  --
'''Support''', it is high time Melchoir was made an admin.
'''Support'''. I have seen Melchoir around many times and it's all ok. -
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate.
'''Support''' happily. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' what reason is there to oppose? [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. Don't see any issues.
'''Support.''' Good and dedicated user. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Support''' He deserves the masamune... err Admin mop :P
'''Support''' good editor!
'''Support''' per excellent nominations --
'''Support''' Good editor. Besides, I haven't been on a bandwagon in awhile. -
'''Support''', nice candidate, nice nomination. Good job.
'''Support''' Great candidate. Vandal fighter too? Forget the "mop", I’ll get you a [[baseball bat]].
'''Support''' Definately a good editor.
'''Support''', an easy one. <b>
'''Neutral/leaning to support''' Answered my question thoughtfully, but reacted too emotionally.  I consider admin decisions require a cool head.
'''Support.''' Honored to be the first vote in support of this worthy candidate.
'''Support''' Excellent user. -
'''Support''' Merope, whom I have not previously had occasion to encounter, seems altogether deliberative, trustworthy, and cordial and appears well acquainted with extant policy and practice, such that he is surely unlikely to abuse or misuse, even avolitionally, the admin tools.  I don't see anything remotely objectionable here, and I imagine that the candidate's becoming an admin will benefit the project.
'''Support'''; a quick review of her contribs shows nothing to worry about. Edit summary usage, patrols, and afd participation are all good. Granted, she hasn't been actively editing for as long as she's been here, but there is nothing noticable to suggest anything less than a good understanding of policy, except the diff pointed out by Wknight94. Oh, and does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Barnstars/General&diff=prev&oldid=76609856 this] make you a feminist, Merope?
'''Support''': Per solid contributions and good answers.  Seems to have reasonable understanding of policies and takes an interest in improving policies (per answer to my question).  —
'''Support'''.  It was my previously expressed intention to nominate this user for adminship.  I ran across Merope when they questioned a warning I gave a user.  I then took a look at the contribution log and found a person who is almost unfailingly polite and welcoming to new users and actively tries to help people out.  There's no doubt that Merope would make a far better admin than many of us and certainly is better prepared than I was when I became an admin.  I rarely cast my vote in RfA's but I think this one more than deserves to pass.  Wikipedia is improved by Merope's contributions.  --
'''Strong Support''' I was just about to write some very positive things on your editor review when I decided to check the RfAs and here you are! Friendly editor, commendable contributions (esp. to WikiProject Novels), efficient NP patrol, etc, etc, etc. --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' (Changed from ''neutral''); after all, adminship is no big deal. Having read the nominee's responses since I commented and looked into more things about this editor, I am quite happy to change my mind to "support". Whatever spurred this editor to go from zero to sixty seems to have done her well. Whether or not she gets the mop I hope she keeps up with the standards she seems to have set for herself.
'''Support''' per above. From what I can see there don't seem to be any major problems. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' This seems to be a strong candidate. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Supprt''', scoring 23 (pending on 24) on my [[User:Legolost/Admin Assessment Scale|Admin Assessment Scale]], Merope has the highest score yet. Good luck ! --
'''Support''' ~
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>

'''Unconditional support'''
'''Support''' satisfies my expectations, and is a fan of [[Joss Whedon]] to boot.--
'''Support''' good answers.
'''Support''' - Excellent patroller, knows policy well, not afraid to help out new users.

'''Support.''' It's rare that a candidate goes up whom I have never of. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Solid user. Good to see fellow people dedicated to new page patrol. --
'''Support''' I [[Tongue-in-cheek|wanted to oppose]], but couldn't come up with  any good reasons.  Oh, and 3 months is plenty of time for someone who has been around since 2004, even if not heavily active, and for someone who is well qualified otherwise. --
'''Support'''. Heavy involvement or not, this user has been around since 2004. Meets (barely) [[User:Themindset/RFA|my standards]], but more importantly I don't see any reason not to trust the nom with the tools.
'''Support'''. I liked the answers to the questions. Adminship is no big deal, and I think that while three months is not a particularly long time, it's enough to establish that the user is not going to use admin tools for the wrong reasons. --[[User:Danielrocks123|דניאל - Danie]]
'''Support'''; seems OK.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' after striking neutral !vote below. &mdash; '''
'''Weak Support''' Doesn't seem to have the range of edits an admin should have. For eg. Very few categories and templates have been created by the user. Satisfactory answers to the questions though. --
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, unless the editor has serious issues. I see no evidence that Merope has any such issues. Give her the tools; [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Strong support'''. Meets my 2K and civility requirements, and is willing to help others. Given the restrictive climate of RFA these days, I applaud anyone willing (and with only four candidates, there's apparently hardly anyone willing, anymore) to submit him/herself to the RFA process. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' A very civil user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - ''
'''Support'''-Why not, you have done alot of hard work--You deserve it--
'''Support'''. The answers to the questions are good and I feel that Merope's edits over the last few months have given no cause for concern. I don't know what else we really need from a candidate.
'''Support''' Hard worker, will not likely abuse admin privleges, very civil user.
'''Support''' per answers to questions and, IMO, sufficient experience.  2-3 months active edition is enough, especially when appended on to a longer period of reading and occaisionaly editing.
'''Support''' per answers and some good edits
'''Support''' We should not use some arbitrary floor to weigh experience; some users gain "experience" faster than others.  I think Merope is a solid enough editor to not misuse the tools, regardless of the time editing. --
'''Support''' for being here almost two years, despite so many recent edits in so few months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' I've seen this user around; she is helpful and good at new page patrolling. Also, she has sufficient edits and experience to become an administrator. --
'''Support''', oppose section raises no important concerns, edits look good.
'''Support''' per kindness to the new users in BITE adherence. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Although I express concerns over the user's experience, I feel that she has demonstrated that they can handle the tasks involved in being an admin. She's had a good deal of experience with others, and contributes to RfA and AfD discussions. --
'''Strong support'''. We certainly could use more literature around here.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. This user makes good sense. I think she is doing a good job and I appreciate her work. I like her areas of emphasis. KarateLady
'''Strongest possible support'''.  One of this site's most pleasant, constructive, positive and hardest-working users.  "You mean she wasn't one already?!?"  Sorry...had to say that. :) -
'''Support''' despite the 3-month thing; she's a great vandalism fighter.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' I've seen Merope contribute to the AFD discussions and I think her contributions are well-balanced.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Merope looks like a level-headed and polite editor.
'''Support''' - I believe that she'll be a good admin. She wants to help the community and I see no reason why she'd abuse the tools.
'''Support''', I beleive that Merope will make an excellent and fair adminstrator.
'''Support'''.  Merope does good work at NPP.  3 months is enough experience. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' good new page patroller.
'''Support'''. I encountered Merope only today, when I asked her a question about a deleted article which had popped up again.  Her knowledge about reposts, and the proper response thereto, was, no pun intended, encyclopaedic, and she was very helpful in the discussion about what I should do with the reposted material.  I assumed that she ''already was'' an administrator, and was quite surprised when she said she was not.  I fully believe that, as an administrator, she will be of equal or greater help to a great many other editors. ---
'''Weak support'''. I think she is a very good user, and will probably make a very good admin. My concern is her lack of experience. I worry that people who become admins too soon tend to burn out.-<span style="font-family: cursive"> <font color= "#808080">
'''Support''' seems like a great editor that will make a good admin. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great editor, someone I hoped would seek adminship. --
'''Strong support'''.  Late in the game, a good way to see the quality of a nominee is to look at the oppose comments.  In this case, the opposes make it clear that there's no reason at all not to give this editor the mop. '''''Several''''' months of hard work is plenty to give us a good idea of the kind of job she'll do. --
'''Emphatic support''', for the same reasons as SCZenz.
'''Strong support''' - if lack of experience is the best we can come up with, then I see no reason  this user shouldn't be an admin. she's an active contributor, she's not shown any tendancy torwards abuse, so [[WP:AGF]] -
'''Strong support''' - Looks like she'll be a thorougly wonderful admin. --
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience, per only substantially active since early July.
'''Oppose''' per my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]]. Sorry, but less than 3 months isn't nearly enough time for us to be sure that you won't do anything untoward.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I '''liked''' the answer to my question (apologies to Mcginnly for intellectual theft), but the time thing (three months of active editing only would IMO set a bad precedent) is a real concern. However, I would be voting neutral were it not for the a weakness when it comes to actual article-writing. No [[WP:GA|GA]]s or [[WP:FA|FA]]s have been mentioned and overall the answer to question 2 was a bit weak. IMO admins should set an example to us editing-wise as well as in other areas - a view which I know is deeply unfashionable, but we are here to ''write'' an encyclopedia, after all. I suppose the other thing is that in my experience admins who regularly contribute in a significant manner to the article mainspace are less likely to burn out. This vote isn't set in absolute stone, but at any rate I will definitely vote "support" when more experience has been acquired, if I have to.
'''Strong Oppose''' due to misleading nomination that skews that facts quite a bit.  The candidate mentions that his/her level of involvement has increased dramatically over the past several months, and this is patently false.  It could just be a severe misuse of the word "several", but the candidate has only been actively (and I use the term loosely) contributing since late July 2006 (so basically two months).  Prior to this influx of editing in July, the candidate hadn't edited since February 2006 and has made seventeen edits between 6 October 2004 and 6 July 2006.  Ergo, the user has been a Wikipedian since July 2006.  I find the nomination to be grossly misleading and definitely not someone I would be comfortable with trusting with extra responsibilities and buttons
'''Oppose''' - try again in 6 months... --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, 3 months is my cut off date. Most likely support next time if there is one seeing as you are probably gonna pass.
'''Oppose''' Like the others, I feel the user has insufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' - would like to see some more experience first.
'''Oppose''' Inexperience.--
'''Weak Oppose''' - would support with another month or two of experience, and more contributions to administrative areas of WP. --
'''Oppose''' on experience.
'''Neutral''' - I'd like to see a bit longer of active posting.  Under three months really isn't enough.
'''Neutral'''.  The edit history and answers to admin questions seem fine.  Recent activity is also impressive, but I find it difficult to gauge long term staying-power based on less than 3 months of active editing.  As a result, I can't fully support just yet.  Still, I don't see any particular reason to oppose. --
'''Neutral''' - No real reason to oppose, but the relatively short period of activity prevents me from supporting.  Burnout (temporary or permanent) can happen to the best of us, and Merope isn't yet at the period where we know if that will be the case here.  I would also like to see some more encyclopedia building.  --
'''Neutral''' - per cholmes75. I have no doubts about your skills however I feel the possibility for burnout is a valid concern. Take it easy if the RfA passes, ok?
'''Neutral''': Mostly for the time concerns. If the RFA doesn't make it, the user should definitely try again in a few months; shows great promise.
As nominator &mdash; '''
Wait, he isn't already one? &ndash;
'''Support'''. User has always come across well on IRC. Majority of prior opposes were due to lack of experience, if I read them correctly; I don't think that's an issue any longer. We need admins with image experience.
'''Support''' per Chacor :P
'''You're kidding, right? He wasn't one?''' --
'''Support''', great user and would make a great admin. --
'''ZOMG Support''' - as this page has finally finished loading... now I bet as soon as I hit save I will get edit conflicted.
'''Ditto everyone above support''' - <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support.'''
'''Wholhearted support''' after flooding up my watchlist with album edits from his bot (your words rocker) ;-) and having come across him on WN where he uses his admin tools well IMO. MR is obviously 'devoted' to the entire WM project. Im suprised he aint an admin already! --'''Errant''' <small>
'''Support''' Does a good job as admin over at Wikinews.--
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support'''.  Of course! -- <i>
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' a definitive improvement since last time.
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin candidate. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' great admin on WN, would be good here :)
'''Support''' I have no doubts that this user would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - good user.
Moo
'''Support'''. While I don't recall seeing this editor before, his answers and my review of his talk page and contributions leads me to think that this nominee has vastly improved since his last self-nom and has learned much from that experience. Good job.
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around before. Seems like a very diligent and respected editor. Has improved quite a bit since his first unsuccessful RfA. --
'''Support'''. A refreshingly easy support. --
'''Support''' While I don't envision MessedRocker to be the sort of admin with thousands of entries in his log per month, he's certainly shown quite a dedication to the project.  He's been an editor for nearly two years (with pretty consistent editing throughout) and has never been blocked.  This, coupled with an overview of his contributions and talk page lead me to believe that he's a trusted member of the community, and as such, would do well to have the extra buttons to help mop up
'''Support'''. He might not be an editing-machine, like some, but Messedrocker has more than demonstrated that he is a level-headed editor who can be trusted with the tools.
--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Support''' as co-nominator.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' NO NO NO ARE YOU NUTS.....wait I mean YES YES YES.

'''Support''' I like the change of pace to a long tenured contributor who is not edit count obsessed.--
'''Solid Support''' for a solid user. --
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''', meets the expected standard.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' per nom and all supports above. Whatever I want to say has already been stated by those above me. -
'''Support''' per nom and per answers to questions. Looks like you'd make a good administrator. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per all above, quality user with no issues, already an admin on another Wiki project.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' It's always quality edits, not quantity that gets my approval. Good candidate.
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support''' and I'd have supported last time too had I been around.
'''Support''' I've seen only the best from this user.
'''Support''' He cares.
'''Support'''. An asset to the project.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' The user is very experienced and is sane.  Therefore, the user can be trusted to not make insane decisions.  This is like an easy SAT question.
'''Support'''
'''Jumping on the bandwagon support''' --
'''Support''', one of the easier calls, I think. <b>
'''Support''', great editor, meets my criteria.--
'''I already thought he was an admin support'''. Great user, and really did a good job cleaning up the [[YTMND]] article. —
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. I have seen him spearhead new Wikipedia policies and ideas.  We need a thinker like him with us.--
'''Seriously, seriously thought he already was one''' &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Cliché omitted support''' of course. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Yes please.''' [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Quality is much better then quantity, good use of edit summaries (99%/100%m) <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor
'''Support''' good all-round contributions.
'''Support''' Seems to be a constructive part of WP which would benefit from the sysop tools. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' per the little voices in my head. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''; I've seen Messedrocker around here and there, always making thoughtful edits.  --
'''Support'''; Very outgoing and involved user. He was a Wikipedian for a long time and deserves to be an admin. --
- <b>
<b>Support</b> A quick trip to the archives revealed that I voted against you on your last nomination, but said that I'd probably support you on your next run. This vote is not based on that "promise," but on the fact you you are clearly a hard-working member, and everything else said above. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''', without reservations. '''
'''Um Support...'''--

'''Full Support'''. You have my full support. You'd make a great Admin.
'''Strong Support''' for a good editor --
'''Support''' as I see a good user, and no valid reason to oppose.
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support'''

'''support''' --
'''Support'''.  As an admin on Wikinews, Messedrocker has been very active and helpful there.  I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same here.
'''Support'''. No reson not to!--
'''Support''' per [[user:tmorton166|Tmorton166]]. <font face="Times" color="green">[[User:False Prophet/Esperanza|Wikipedia's]]</font> <font face="Times" color="Maroon">[[User:False Prophet|False Prophet]]</font>  <small>[[User Talk:False Prophet|holla at me]]</small> <small>
'''Support'''. All the reasons have been already told <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support''' All reasons, including this reason, have been told (:P)
'''I thought you were an admin already.''' ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]].[[user talk:crazytales56297|<small>chasing cars</small>]]//
'''Support'''. He's great on Wikinews, too.--
'''Support''', d'oh.
'''Support''', A very good user, wikipedia would benifit from giving him the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. See no issues here.
'''Support''' no brainer.  should move forward.
Adminship is no big deal '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' Messedrocker will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Messedrocker has experience as admin on other projects, knows his way around after contributing to en-WP for 2 years and is knowledgeable and active in policy discussions on IRC. He will make a fine admin.—
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' You seem like a very likeable person, but when asked about FA's you point me to a nomination for a peer review of an article someone else substantially wrote - and the split article [[Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution]]? Well you only seem to have done the splitting. I'm uncomfortable with this. --
And of course, support.
'''Support'''! <font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Dmcdevit asked me on IRC what I thought of this candidate, so I did some digging. I liked what I found even though there were a lot of edits to just a few articles, that's explained well. This editor is a bit longwinded... (grin), but he can be pithy when he wants to be: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=42417548]... read that quote again and think about what it says. That sort of calm, reasoned, thoughtful approach to dealing with an extremely contentious subject area is just what is needed. '''STRONG, longwinded support''' (I expect all those opposes to melt away as soon as someone verifies the email link works (cmon guys, I would have neutral-ed, but I digress)) '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' No reasons not to. [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="D70000">_-'''M''']] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help">'''''o'''''</span>]]
'''Support''' Have seen this user on [[WP:AFD]]. Seems to be level-headed & has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will use the admin tools well. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor, and as Dmcdevit said, willing to ''discuss''.
'''Support'''. Thanks for responding so quickly.
'''Support''' Bumped into this one only a couple of times, but is the classic "thought he was already". No reason to not support.
'''Support''' trust with tools
'''Support''' per nom --
''"Adminship is no big deal."''. -
'''Support''' with an emphasis on keep learning your job.
'''Support''' per nom, good answers to questions. - '''
'''Support''', and I like the April upsurge in projectspace edits.  Keep doing that. --
'''Support''' per nom and question #3.  (But you should fix the Flying Spaghetti Monster userbox -- it's appearing to the right of the container, for some reason.)  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
Happy to '''Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support''' Altogether a great "Meta Magician" --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', meh. I think this guy would use the tools well.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse the mop.
'''Support'''. Should be an admin soon.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great addition to Wikipedia.  Would not abuse admin powers.  I also like that he took the time to provide long responses to the questions below, giving people a better idea of him and how he would use his admin powers. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Nice answers to questions.
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Metamagician is good.
<b>Support</b> Deserving in his own right, but DmcDevit nominating him would have done it for me anyway.
'''Support''': I've come across him a few times, and he always seems to be sensible, rational and level-headed. --
'''Support'''. Has a level head.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' looks good.  Should be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <small>
'''support''':
'''Support''': Less than five months as a Wikipedian, but it looks like he's ready to join the club. --
'''Support''', per that enthusiastic nomination! --
'''Support''', falls a little short of my standards but the fact that he's been nominated by an ArbCom member adds enough for me.
'''Support'''. Just meets or exceeds [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my various RfA criteria]]. Please remember edit summaries are not just for articles.
'''Support''' I've seen Metamagician3000 on AfD and elsewhere and trust his judgement.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks good. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Even though he hasn't been around that long, well as a matter of fact neither have I, in my opinion you would be a great administrator, as per your edits and that great nomination.
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
<s>Strong</s> '''Oppose''' <s>per Cyde.</s> per my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|Standards]] (not enough time)
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you're not quite ready. Maybe in a month or so.
'''Oppose''' Not active enough within the WP community, and per Cyde
'''Oppose''' - After a cursory review, this one seems to meet my requirements, except for the pride issue. Pride in one's accomplishments is useful for creating a lot of disparate POVs to consider, but a potential administrator must have already transcended pride in order to find neutrality. (No, it is not a matter of semantics.) --
'''Support''' Looks good with lots of participation in XfD, vandal rollbacks and associated user Talk warnings. Also, has [[User_talk:Metros232/Archive1#Admin|refused a previous invitation to RfA]] for sensible reasons.
'''Support''' meets
'''Support'''.  With 9000 edits in 11 months I was worried about quality of edits, but you seem to be an outstanding editor.  Excellent work with the Wikification project! With your interest in CSD and its backlogs, you are a great candidate for admin. --
'''Support''' my own experiences of this user have all been positive. --
'''Support''' per nom.
I'm
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per Pgk.
'''Support''' Has the qualities needed to be an administrator.

'''Support''', with all that work in sensible deletion, how could I not? <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' solid users make solid admins... and admin-gnomes are in dire need right now. ---
'''Strong Support''' I was going to nominate you, but you were in the middle of an editor review, so I decided to wait out. Great user; I've had nothing but great run-ins with this user. '''
'''Support''' Very good answers to questions.
'''Support''' Wow, you are very dedicated to say the least with 9000 edits in 11 months.  Keep up the great work![[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' clearly qualified.--
'''Support''' Very clearly qualified.

'''Support''' Well qualified and dedicated. -
'''Support'''
Keep, verifiable. (
'''Support''' - esperienced and seems [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ARafaelJimenez.jpg&diff=68439988&oldid=58021726 knowledgable] with image policy --
'''Support''', vandal fighter needs tools. And I like his answer to Q4 - circular logic rocks. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' Great candidate, the tools should be his! <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support''' per above.
- <b>
'''Support''' because of the answers to the questions and I can see no reason why not.
'''Support''' good candidate and some nice answers to the questions. --
'''Support''' - I can't stress enough how good he is for the Wikification Drive! Great candiate. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elaragirl </font>]]</font><font color="Red">|</font><font color="Orange">|</font><font color="Yellow">|</font><font color="Green">|</font><font color="Blue">|</font><font color="Purple">|</font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' passes my criteria
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', I like what I've seen. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''-'''
'''Support''' <small>We need admingnomes.</small> ~
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' Will make good addition
'''Support''' We definitely need more gnomes with power around here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Very good answers to questions...edits indicate a strong candidate.
'''Support''' - good editor, no reason to think he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - looks like user would be an asset to wikipedia administrator team.
'''Support''' Plenty of edits, good experience, and great answers to questions. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per Pilhet's response --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - good contribution history, good answers, fully qualified candidate, no concerns.
'''Support''' Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Has great edits and experience, and has answered the questions well. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support'''. Deserved as per above. -- ''
'''Support''' Great editor. --
'''Support''' Varied edit counts, and almost 100% edit summaries. Definitely deservant. [[User:DarknessLord|<font color="black">D•a•r•k•n</font>]]•[[User:DarknessLord/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]•[[User:DarknessLord|<font color="gray">s•s•L•o•r•d</font>]]•[[User talk:DarknessLord|<font color="turquoise">i•a•n</font>]]•••
'''Support'''.  Solid history of positive contribs, should make a great admin.
'''Support''' Many fine contribs. Good luck! [[User:Jam01|Jam]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Strong worker bee. Good answers. Looks like they'll be a great admin.
'''Support''' per everyone.  Good variety of quality editing experience.
'''Support''' Great editor, already doing so many housekeeping jobs!--
'''Support''': As per above. Well answered questions and good quality edits. A lot of experience as well. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' Don't see any problems here....
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[User:FireSpike|FireSpik]]
'''Support''' - no problems here. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'': Fine. --
'''support''' per above and answers to questions. People who thanklessly do cleanup work almost always make great admins... they're already participating for the reasons good admins participate. --
Another '''support''' vote never hurts.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. The most important qualities in an admin are maturity, judgement and trustworthiness.  From everything I can see, this user passes.  Hand him a mop. —
'''Support''' per responses given above,looks good ▪◦▪
'''Support''', no problem. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''': What colour mop do you want?
'''Neutral''' - Don't know this user. --
'''Cleared for Adminship''' Per my statement above. --
'''Support''' the time is right. An excellent editor who will do well with the tools.
'''(nom beat me by 18 days) Edit-conflicted Support''' easily covered all the concerns in the first RfA. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''', good guy.
'''Support'''. I've seen nothing but good things from this user. It's a pleasure to express this opinion
'''Support'''.  All indications positive.
'''Support''' --
'''troppuS''', seen them around a bit.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've seen Mets501 around a lot. I am curious about those ''two consecutive wikibreaks'', though... that's original. -- '''
'''Support''' Let's play ball!
'''Support''' - good editor, good vandal fighter
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Strong Support''' Definitely --
'''Support.''' I have thrown a mop at you. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like another good candidate for the mop and bucket. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Looks good, Support'''. :) --
'''<nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki>''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''', based on my experiences with the candidate. --
'''Aye'''. &mdash;
<small>Cliche</small> --
In April I opposed your RfA with a comment of "Intentions seem good and can't find anything overly negative. But it is just to soon, give it a couple of months." and I still stand by that comment, '''Support'''. ---
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor, and he's open to recall, which is a plus.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—

'''Full support'''. Good editor, friendly, meets my 2k edit requirements; an admin need not like conflict to ''be'' a good admin. --<font color="#0000FF">
Why isn't this user an admin yet? '''Support!'''
'''Support''' -- this is how all second nominatins should be --
'''Support'''. Yes. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Barely meets my criteria of 200 maintalk edits, and I do find it strange that the nom has over 4000 article edits, and such few article talk edits. But not that strange.
'''Support''' per nom, Alpha, and T-Rex.
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''', changed from "Neutral" based on explanation provided. (Thank you).
'''Unnecessary pile-on vote''' -→
'''Support''' per nom and what I've seen elsewhere.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Edit Conflict Support'''...no reason not to, many reasons to do so. The fact that they are involved in many different actions inside of the Wikipedia namespace strenghtens my opinion of them in a positive way. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''', although this user needs to water down his or her RfA standards :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Edit Conflict & Support''' Give me one good reason to oppose. That's what I though. '''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="indigo">i</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' happily. Although I'd like to know...how come he can edit [[MediaWiki:Edittools]] while thousands of regular users (like me) really can't? --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' (after I finally found the darn support box) --
'''Support''' - Great editor.  Enjoy the mop! :)

'''Support''' While his ~30 reports to [[WP:AIV]] is not as many as I'd like to see from a candidate who pledges to frequently watch AIV, any watching would be great, as there are often backlogs there (sometimes for 45 minutes to an hour).  Also, the user seems to be quite trustworthy as well, so I cannot see the candidate misusing the tools

'''Support''' Vandal fighter extraordinaire!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I am very surprised not to have encountered you earlier! Definite support -
'''Support''' looks great.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ~
'''Oh no 62nd support'''.  ;-)
'''Support''', looks good and trustworthy. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Been waiting for this user to come up for a new RFA since the last one. Mets501 has proved himself to be competent, patient and even-handed. And he meets a lot of famous people... check his webpage. I'm behind this one all the way. <b>
'''Support''' [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Strong support'''. The efforts of this user blow me away. --
'''Support''', he meets his own [[User:Mets501/RfA_standards|RFA standards]] : )  , those are roughly in line with mine as well. --
'''Support''' nice guy --
'''Support''', great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--
'''Support''' Good user, bad franchise ; )
'''Support''', with pleasure. (We really need to split RFAs into sections to make editing easier). --
'''Support'''. Edit history shows no serious issues.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' looks very good now, also Mets will win NL --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great user, no problems supporting :) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' Not much to add (I hate that) other than I've read through all the oppose (and followed the links) and have read through all the other comments and statistics. From everything I see, Mets will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' - great contributor. --
'''Support''' awsome user --
Oh no, the first oppose. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-homosexualism]]. Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but if something gets no google hits, it's unverifiable... not "non-notable". This apparent confusion over a core concept of inclusion (basing it solely on notability) makes me uncomfortable supporting the candidate at this time. Shows general confusion about why we have articles... including "This is one of the most visited math articles on Wikipedia" alone as justification for having an article. Also his guidelines for RfA voting seem a little naive about the role of admins... there's no magic formula for who makes or doesn't make a good admin. And if there was it wouldn't have anything to do with edit summary usage. Looking through his contribs I just keep getting this same kind of vibe... sorry. --
Oops second '''oppose'''. 0FA, though I think with just a bit of work [[Polar coordinate system]] can make a good FAC. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' This user has now twice removed my vote and referred to me as a "sockpuppet." The fact that this user is even running for adminship astonishes me.
'''Strong Oppose''' striking oppose votes on your own RfA is an absolute no-no.
'''Oppose''', very unfortunately. Per Grue, I cannot imagine any situation in which removing oppose commentary from your own RfA is a good idea, even if you're sure it's a sockpuppet. It's unfortunate, because it was obviously a silly situation and the candidate is excellent otherwise; however, knowing when ''not'' to act is absolutely critical to adminship.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator.

About time! &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' -- a mature editor who I have no reason to suspect anything other than serving the project well. -
'''Strong Support''' Mike is a model Wikipedian, keep at it! [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#CCCCFF">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' I like his style. --
'''Support'''. Seen him around, would make a great sysop. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Good user with good aswers to questions. No problems supporting. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''', seems fit. But please warn user page vandals in future. Thank you.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support.''' But are you sure you won't burn out and jump off a bridge like a pre-med student taking 23 credits in one semester :) ? [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good and honest answers, user gets my support. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support.''' Good user making a strong contribution who will effectively use and will not misuse the tools.
'''Strong support'''.  Mike is a ''great'' user.  He's kind, well-rounded, trustworthy, and has common sense: the four most important aspects for an admin.  In addition, he is very active in deletion discussions and on RC Patrol.  We'd be hard-pressed to find a better candidate.
'''Support''' per nom and others.
'''Support''.''' Give this guy the mop, already !
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' - Just too bad I didn't get to cast the first vote
'''Support'''. Good enough of an editor for me to waive my six month requirement.--
'''Support''' Looks like a great admin candidate. Good answers to questions and anti-vandalism work too. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Would be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support''' All around good user with intelligent answers above. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' - Mike is gracious and patient, even in the face of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dremora&oldid=74635753 my monumental forgetfulness]. Excellent answers to questions, too.
'''Support''', excellent user. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' Will do good work with a blue rag-type mop.
'''Suppa'h''' Deserved. -- ''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' A good editor, one doesn't need experience in images to be an admin there are alot more areas they help in.  <font color="SteelBlue">[[User:Aeon1006|Æon]]</font> <font color="red"><sup>[[User talk:Aeon1006|Insanity Now!]]</sup></font><sub><font color="Green">
'''Support'''Appears to have alot to offer. Good Luck!
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support'''. <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''', no problems over here.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I thought your reaction to the situation presented in Q5 was perfect? Im at a loss to think how one could have responded better truth be told! (tho that isnt my +supp reason - well, not the only ;) -
'''Support'''. Great user, should do well as a sysop. --
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions. Vandal fighting you do? ''May the Force be with you.''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per JungleCat. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support''' per nomination and above comments.
'''Weak support''' I like your list, and I've had a better root through your articles, I hope adminship won't divert you too much from adding content.--
'''Support''' - Model Wikipedian.  Good answers to Q.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''&mdash;Solid & sound judgement. Let's do it. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' nice answers, seems to be very well-rounded, trustworthy, and a good person to work with.  He will be an even more valuable asset to Wikipedia with the extra buttons (although I can safely say that [[WP:AIV|AIV]] is watched a lot more than non-admins think... I thought it was never watched either, but now I get "block conflicted" nearly 25% of the time ;) )
'''Support''': we require new administrators to balance the "degeneration", and I think he  belongs to a school of wikipedians, free from subjectivity and biased opinion. --
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support''' - What's not to like? --
Out-of-time support #50 - <b>
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience with images [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Mike_7][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Mike_7&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] as well as falling short of my current standard of 9 months --
'''Weak oppose'''. Too little experience with the project, in particular relatively limited experience with encyclopedia building.
'''Oppose''' as per 1FA concerns. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' as (co-)nominator. -
'''Support'''
'''Technically premature support''', despite the pile-on co-noms.  (Please can we knock that sort of thing on the head?  It's just getting to be silly at times.)  Mike does sterling work on categorisation, and in my book, "low-key" is generally speaking a good thing.  I might normally find it necessary to disclaim favouritism for a board-games editor (and indeed, worker in the field), but with Cheap Ass I don't think that's really an issue. :)

'''Technical support''' the extra buttons will help him in CFD/CFDU work where he has been hanging out at; <s>I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned category stuff in his answer to question 1</s>.
''Provoking me isn't easy, but of course that means that when I am provoked, I can be fairly savage.'' '''Approved!'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks like a very good candidate for adminship. 30k+ edits and you didn't stick you head above the RfA radar horizon earlier?
'''Support''' - and why aren't you an admin?
'''Support''' per noms --
'''Strong Support''' How are you not an admin? 30k+ edits, wow!
'''Strong Support''' as the user is (''censored'')'n good an editor.
'''Support'''. Honestly the first time I can say I thought someone was already an admin. -
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' Looks good here. '''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Of course'''. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Levelheaded, hardworking, civil, and not overeager for the tools - but definitely with use for them. I look forward to seeing you plow through the backlogs at [[WP:UCFD]]. And in addition to all that, we get another sysop with an article.
'''Support''' A mistake not to! <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Looks good to me.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom, and for happily taking on (and even completing) a long list of thankless tasks. -- <i>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' per noms --
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Huge experience and no cause for concern that I can see.
'''Support.''' Wow, definitely should be an admin. '''
'''Support''' Very experienced, with many fine edits! [[User:Jam01|Jam]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' absolutely.  --
I'm
'''Support'''. Maintenance work is always welcome.
'''Support'''. Kudos for the will to dig through underground jobs.
I'm not
'''Support'''. CFD master. Guy who likes this dirty job. :) -
'''Support''' seems ok.
'''Support''': his work at [[WP:CFDU]] has been good.
'''Support''', very positive interactions on CfD. --
'''Support''' - does excellent work, can be expected to continue to do so.

'''Support''' his good work with the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' because of his magnificent work and because of his nominator who is [[User:Kingboyk]] who I have a deep respect for. -
'''Support'''.
Need more people like this in the trenches. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Looks like he will make a good admin. '''''
'''Strong Support'''.  Mike and I don't always see eye to eye (see jc37's co-nomination for an example), but he does a lot at UCFD, and does a damn good job of it.  He can definitely make good use of the tools.  --
'''Support''' Good balance and consistent
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Ding Dong Special Delivery from FedEx: a New Mop! [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''': Even though he voted twice to delete my wicked cool dead celebrities categories.  Shame shame shame!!!  ;-)  —
'''Support''' - all said somewhere above.
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''' - will use tools constructively. -
'''Support''', glad I caught this, Mike's a good editor, unlikely to abuse the tools.

'''Support'''
'''Support''', Why wasn't he and administrator sooner? God, he has nearly 20,000 edits in just over a year!
'''Neutral''' Seems like a nice guy and the co-noms indicate a lot of support. But his answers don't seem to demonstrate a need for the tools: he said that he won't be blocking people or deleting material, two primary functions of an admin. Also, would like to see a better understanding of relevant policy, or an indication that the policies have actually been read. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - Don't know this user. --
'''Weak Support''' I would, of course, like to see quite a few more edits on a variety of pages (talk and Wikipedia, as noted above).
'''Support'''. He's honest and obviously a dedicated, thoughtful contributor. He's been here since 2004, will likely be here for quite some time longer. I'd be pleased to see him as an admin.
'''Support'''. Though I agree with the low edit counts in the two noted namespaces, this user seems to be a great candidate, with over 10,000 distinct pages edited. '''
'''Support''' as nom
Clearly won't abuse tools. --
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''' per nom. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' Long time editor, tons and tons of work, seems good. User admits, and from question 1 I'd agree that he doesn't have much need for the tools for what he does, but surely someone who's done this much won't abuse them, and any admin work they do is better than none. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' -

'''''Edit Conflict'' Support''' - after 22000 edits on 10000 distinct <s>articles</s> pages, in my book he doesn't need significant Project space edits for me to be sure he'll be a good admin. If he was going to be a problem admin, it would have been apparent long ago. --
'''Support''' 20000+edits... wow. Total yes. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Support''', why not?
They tell me you're a terrific editor. Please stay an editor. I pledge to fulfill all your admin requests ASAP. I am supporting you because I am sure you will not abuse the tools, though I don't think you'll help us too much with backlogs either, and besides, we have plenty of non-creative drones who can't write to save their lives (read, me) whose job it should be clear the backlog in [[CAT:CSD]] or [[Special:Shortpages]]. So I respectfully support - and suggest withdrawal. - <b>
'''Support''' mind-boggling number of edits. Content specialists are a good idea and just because there's no immediate ''need'' for the tools doesn't mean they won't be useful to him.
'''Support''' no big deal and I can't see him misusing the extra buttons
'''Weak support''', won't abuse the tools, but I'm unsure of the need for the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you'll find a task to do, given your astounding record in the mainspace.
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Great editor.  No reason to think he will misuse the tools. --
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', you don't stick around for two productive years without knowledge of how things work.  In particular I'm voting here because of the reasons given to oppose.  Since some tools just make it easier to edit, experienced editors should have access to those tools.  If people want admins to be "policemen" then they should form a new level of admin defined to do that.  That isn't what admins are for ''now''. Those opposition votes seem directly counter to the idea that admins don't have special authority compared to non-admins.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Editor assistance|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', a slam dunk, err, home run, eh... nevermind. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support''' per Schmucky and inasmuch as, quoting myself (a neutral and reliable source, to be sure) from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar (second nomination)|the current Rmrfstar RfA]], ''inasmuch as it really matters not that a candidate will use the tools infrequently where one can be certain the candidate would not abuse the tools or, in ignorance of policy or in view of an indecorous or unilateral streak, misuse&ndash;even avolitionally&ndash;the tools. One need not to worry, I think, about Rmrfstar's acting irresponsibly, and he surely appreciates how properly an admin ought to conduct himself, both inter-personally and vis-à-vis consensus (recognizing, notably, that an admin acts only to interpret the views of the community and to implement whatever action it is behind which a consensus lies).''
'''Support''', demonstrates understanding of policy through application.
'''Support''' -- strong editor, will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' of course. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong Support''' - in my view, it should never be forgotten that we are writing an encyclopedia, and all the rest is only subsidiary. I simply don't see any reasons for not making him an admin.--
'''Very Weak Support''': The edits and longevity are astounding, but... what makes me worried are the low use of summaries, (user) talk participation and Wikipedia activity. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Editor assistance|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Low use of summaries doesn't bother me when held against other deeds.
'''Support''' - strong editor, great history of adding to wikipedia.
'''Support'''. If any of his numbers seem low, that is only in respect to his massive contributions to the mainspace, which should not be held against him. He satisfies [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]] and his answer to my question (#4) satisfies me completely. Good luck.
'''Support''' - hard working editors make good admins.
'''Support''' per Joe. Would have like to see more AfD and RCPatrol. COntributions offset.
'''Support''' per the rest. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''', from his contributions and his answers, I don't see a reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. Clearly stating what he would or wouldn't be confident doing shows maturity and trustworthiness to me. -
Non-main namespace edits are a useful indicator of experience and familiarity with common practice, ''when there is evidence to the contrary''. When it is clear that we do have an intelligent editor with good judgment and experience, and much good work in the encyclopedia (where it should be), then to oppose based on numbers is absurd.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Mildly surprised he's not an admin already. I don't see how low edit counts in other namespaces should be counted as a negative, unless there were some other indications that there might be a problem.
'''Support''' as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|my standards]] met and no significant rationale to oppose (incivility, vandalism, etc.). I'm a little puzzled by the allegations the user spends too much time editing articles, that's why we're here.
'''Support''' per Joe&mdash;
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' per all of above.
I see no possibility of abusing AdminPowers&trade; [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
Good user who deserves the tools.
Candidate will find out about how being an admin is different in his/her own time. It's an interesting ride. '''Support.''' -
'''Support''' - 20,000 edits should exceed anyone's standards. --
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate
'''Oppose''' This user is a fantastic editor and has made invaluable edits to this project. However, the administrative aspect is a completely different side of Wikipedia and not a "promotion," or an "upgrade" from being a "common user." I don't believe there is a need for the tools, since once you get admin status (and you are interested in doing the chores required), you can't assist on the level of articles, you need to focus on the whole scope. The answer to question one shows a lack of knowledge of what being an admin entitles, I also really don't like reading, "I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason '''I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past.'''" Sorry, I don't want to seem like I am bashing this user, but this request isn't needed since there really isn't a request for the tools.
'''Oppose''' Per Jo above. His percentage of Wikipedia project space edits, at just over 2.5% is a bit too low for my liking I must admit. I would very happily support in the future when the user imporves his amount of Wikipedia project space activity. --
'''Oppose''' for two reasons - I'm not convinced he needs the tools, and his edit summary usage is poor.  He is a very active editor, and that is great; but I don't think we need any more marginally active admins. This oppose vote is not meant to impugn the editor at all; I hope he keeps up all the great work (and starts using edit summaries). --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, MisfitToys, but there just isn't a good enough balance of edits: 207 user talk and 311 article talk in well over two years shows almost no community interaction; and seven edits to project talk shows no discussion about policies or guidelines.
'''Oppose''' More non-article space activity, please.
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose''' A great editor, but not enough evidence of the need for admin tools or experience in those areas. --
Until questions are answered.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' Seems like an excellent editor, but unfortunately answers do not seem to require admin tools. If you were to complete some active RCP and some other participation on WP: then I will  be happy to support if you run for admin again. And of course admins can still participate in article contributions, as the idea is that they are still normal users, but they also have the duty to participate in the wider scale of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' WP space edits are a bit on the low side and it seems like he wouldn't use admin tools much.
'''Neutral''' per my comments in the oppose section, but the user doesn't appear untrustworthy. -- '''
'''Neutral''' I find it really doubtfull that you will missuse the tools, but I also doubt that you especially need them. YOu seem to be a fantastic editor and we can never have too many of them. Keep up the good work.
'''First support''' per my nom --
'''Second support''' - no need to even read the statement :) &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I always support good bot programmers.  And this one has been around for awhile.  --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' looks like a fine contributor to me.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''', looks good to me. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''' - looks like a conscientious editor with a good attitude. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Obligatory cliché THAW support.''' --
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support''', obviously. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. Talented editor. He is also Polish, like me. :) --
'''Support'''. I like the gnomish aspects, very much the kind of disposition needed in admins.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support.''' Promptly delivered newsletters are no accident. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki> [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''01010100 01100001 01110111 01101011 01100101 01110010 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110011 01110101 01110000 01110000 01101111 01110010 01110100 00100000 01001101 01101001 01110011 01111010 01100001 00110001 00110011''' --
'''Support''' do we even need an RfA for this user!? [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A good addition to the ranks. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support.''' I approve! :)
'''Support''' This user seems to have all the skills to be an administrator and is also very kind. [[User:PerfectStorm|P]]<font color="green">[[User:PerfectStorm/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''; hard working user, good question answers, excellent user scripts. <font style="color:#CC1111">'''s'''murrayinch</font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC1111">ster<sup>(
'''Support''', of course.  --
'''Strong support'''. I'm tempted to resort to the old cliche, but I'll stay serious and say that Misza is an incredible user and a great asset to the project. Few times in my wikilife I've found somebody so professional in his editing and at the same time, so deeply kind to his fellow users. He has my most wholehearted support, if I've ever given one.
'''Oh. My. God.''' Is this user not an admin yet?! '''Strong Support'''. ~
'''Support'''. ~
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', nominator told me enough.
oh my yes. Great editor. "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' everything looks great. -- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per, well, everything. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' 6 Portal Talk edits!!! How can I oppose?? ;) --
'''Support''' per Srikeit ~.^ &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' I've seen enough of Misza13's work to know that making this user an admin will improve Wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''', my interactions with him on IRC have been great, will make a great admin. P.S. He did my userpages for me :D --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' per nom.  Also because of the good responses to the standard questions. --
'''Support''' per nom. Love 'pedians who think edit warring is as pointless as I do. --
'''Support'''? [[Pinky and the Brain|Zort]]
'''Strong Support''' - very valuable addition to the admin team
'''Support'''. What else is there to do? '''
'''Support''' - Can't find a reason to oppose. --
'''Rather redundant but still support'''
'''Support''' Damn I can't of anything witty to say for this nom..hmm...oh well, I support anyway!
Looks good to me.
Useless pile-on support. <tt><Andy123> ;)</tt> --
(edit conflicted) '''Strong support''' from the bottom of my heart. You can't be serious? He's been an admin for at least 6 months hasn't he? Kind, civil, highly useful and active. What more might one want? &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Come on! --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support.''' — '''''
'''Pile-on support'''. Nothing to increment to the above. '''
'''Piling on support''' top quality mop candidate.
'''Support'''' --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
Furry Orange '''Support''' - Bring forth the mop. --
54 68 61 6e 6b 20 67 6f 6f 64 6e 65 73 73 20 47 48 65 20 '''73 74 72 6f 6e 67''' 6c 79 20 '''73 75 70 70 6f 72 74''' 65 64 20 74 68 69 73 20 52 66 41 20 62 65 66 6f 72 65 20 69 74 27 73 20 63 6c 6f 73 65 64 21 21 20 3a 29<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' as per above.
'''Support''' Most absolutely! -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' during it's days of activity, Misza13 was a principle member of [[WP:CCD|Concordia]]. Fantastic user!
'''support''' goddamit, so many people have beaten me here, however mizza is a kind a thoughtful person that stays cool under pressure and has a good knowledge of polices, and as such will make a superb admin
'''support''' Very good editor. [<font color="grey">'''
'''Support'''.

Yes please - <b>
'''Support'''. Superb candidate. '''
'''Support''' An excellent vandal fighter!
'''Support''' Looks like a good choice. ---
'''Support''' Excellent, does some great work, the tools will only help. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support'''. I thought Misza13 was already an admin.--[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikom]]
'''73rd Support''' I recognized the name right away because of the bot.  I've seen this user in action, and didn't know that he wasn't an admin.  He'll be one now.
'''Strong Support''' Nothing but pleasent dealings with this user. Already thought he was an admin, etc. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|I'm all ears]]
'''YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy user, and friendly fellow.
'''Support'''; great userscripts and alternate Wdefcon template.
'''Strong support'''. "Quite ready for adminship" is an understatement. Misza13 has made an overwhelming number of tedious edits to expand and preserve Wikipedia's content. --
'''Support''' I really like Misza13's work on the Article Improvement Drive. A true asset to Wikipedia.
'''Confused support'''. Really, not an admin yet? ''continues to stumble around the room in a seemingly drunken state''
'''Support''', not that it really matters anymore. Excellent user.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per above, and soon below.--
'''Ultra Support'''. I still can't figure out why he isn't an admin yet...&trade; - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Help reach [[WP:100]] Support''' -
'''Why-didn't-you-tell-me-STRONG-SUPPORT'''.
'''Support'''. Can't believe I didnt see this one. Stellar editor, great guy, easy support. :) -- '''
'''Why not'''. ''<font color="#990011">//</font>''
'''zOMFG übersupport''' Holy crap, no one told me this RfA was going on! I've been waiting for it to happen for three months! Misha's extensive knowledge about the technical goings-on, his civility, and everything else is completely up to par with what an admin should be.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''AAAAAAA'''. A aaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaaa aaaaa aa aa [[WP:ADMIN|aaaaaaaaaaaaa]]. A aaaa aaaaa aaaa aa aaaaa aa aaaa aa aaaaaaaa. Aaaaaa aaaa A aaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaa aaaa aaaaaaa aaaaa. Aaa aaaa aaaaa, aa aaa aaaaa aaaa aaaa aa aaa aaaaa aaaaa, aaa aaaaa'aa aaaa aa aaaa aaa aaaaaaa. A aaaa [[French fries|aaaaa]]. --
'''Support''' per nom.  I like chips too.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Need anything more be said than what is above? [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' this is really a no-brainer (the RfA, not the candidate!)
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''... no reason at all not to! :D
'''CoUldn't Resist Piling-on Support''' shows commitment and dedication to the project.
'''Support'''! Level headed, good grasp of policy, no signs of incivility and plenty of experience... --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' per Deskana :) -
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''.  Pig pile!  A very good contributor, who definetly deserves administrative tools.
'''Support''': Looks like a person without malice. Enough experience, motivation and common sense to make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good solid editor, who will be an excellent admin.  (mfp mpp / mfp mmm mpm / ppm mpp / mmm fmp / mpppppppffmfmfmmfp [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Misza13&diff=prev&oldid=63968107]. :) --
'''Support'''. A good candidate to join the 'mop'n'bucket team'.--
'''Support''': nice bloke.
'''Ongstray upportsay''', your toaster is in the mail.
'''Support''' There, as of now we're tied for [[WP:100]] :) It's always nice to see people even nicer than myself be put into a position of responsibility! <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Candidate seems to be qualified, and I don't see anything to indicate that their adminship would be harmful to Wikipedia. -
'''Wah!''' Quite [[Singlish|powderful]] eh?--
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''' desperately needs the power to block.
'''Support''' G
'''Support'''; just about every reason why has already been said. :) <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Seems unlikely to misuse the tools.--<font color="#999fff">
'''Support''' per above. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' per what I said in the neutral category. Good luck, Misza13. --
'''support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good to me! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
just in time to support.
'''Support''' - I will give you all the support you need, because we need an editor like you. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
[[WP:ADMIN|Indeed.]] [[Sherlock Holmes|''Indeed?'']] [[Stewie Griffin|'''Indeed!!''']] [[British comedy|IN...DEED...]] indeed; inDeed?!
'''Ridiculously late support'''. --
'''Excellent Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' I think this user will be down-to-earth and probably won't let adminship get to their head. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font>
'''Support''' - first vote on the day after this thing was supposed to be over already ;)
'''Support''' --











'''Support''', as per nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Michael is unfailingly helpful, kind, generous with his time and frequently works with other editors in a very positive manner. Moreover, he is an expert on plants; an invaluable resource for those of us that work in that area. He does his share of vandalism reversion, moves articles, etc., and will make good use of admin tools.
'''Support''' per nom. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' really nice guy who's always there to help. &nbsp;
'''Support''' [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''. I'm glad he's nominated at last. -
'''Support''', I've seen nothing but good contributions from him - and I absolutely trust the judgement of the nominator and many of the names above. – '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. Edit history is good and I think he will make a good admin.--
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Supportissimo''' -- ''
'''Support''' you betcha--
'''Support''' nice guy - plenty of experience. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' 25,000 edits wow --
'''Support''' -- I went through a bunch of his edits looking for fights, and liked, for example, the way he went about things [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=prev&diff=15557371 here].
'''Support''', per nom, very impressive.
'''Support''' - This excellent editor has my full support
'''Support''' &mdash; 25.000 edits!  holy smokes!  &mdash;'''
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', resistance is futile.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''', looks OK.
'''Support''', I like what I see, keep it up! --
'''Support''', very experienced user. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', for your tireless contribution.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', a ton of good contributions, I liked the answers to the questions, would probably make a great admin. -
'''Strong support''' (and about time!)
'''Support''', very courtious to this newby.
&#8212;
'''Support''': He deserves it and will be a great help to the project. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support''' Impressive wiki-career, obviously trustworthy.
'''support''' that is a lot of edits
'''Support'''.  Was due for this a long time ago. -
Twenty-five ''thousand'' edits--did I read that right? What are we waiting for?
'''Support''' - just a few edits then. Plenty of experience... <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Speedy promote''' and delist.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. Good edits... Although I'm not sure why he wanted me practical joke to say "new massages"? No hard feelings you meany you.... : )...
'''Support'''. great!
'''Strong support''' I see no reason why he should not be an admin. He's an editor, and he edits, and does a damn fine job. He doesn't try to run the world, and perhaps that's a good thing. Improves practially everything he touches. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', good track record.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' good editor, should be admin --
'''Support''' Certainly a very pleasant guy, who's just waiting for someone to hand him a mop. -
'''Support'''--
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent improvements to all plant articles, has lots of expertise. --
'''Support''' Most definitely.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Everything looks in order here, give him the mop!
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
Support.
'''Support''', good answers to questions.
'''Support''' very helpful Wikipedian. --
'''Support''' It is high time he had the mop. '''''
'''Support'''.  --
Every possible reason to '''support'''.
'''Support'''.  Yes, he deserves the promotion.
'''Support'''. Strong, constant editor.
'''Support'''.  Huge contributions in the tree of life project. Very helpful user too. Having admin status will be a significant help to this project.
'''Support'''. 25,000 contribs says a lot - a lot more than a few picky comments. --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions and experience. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''' excellent editor; give him the tools. --
'''Support'''. What are we waiting for?!--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Michael is unfailingly helpful, kind, generous with his time and frequently works with other editors in a very positive manner. Moreover, he is an expert on plants; an invaluable resource for those of us that work in that area. He does his share of vandalism reversion, moves articles, etc., and will make good use of admin tools. --
'''Support'''. Indeed, yes! Extremely valuable here on Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' - Guess what? Not everybody can love you.  I'm one of them. No support whatsoever.
'''neutral'''. I have seen more unpalatable actions by this wikipedian than I care to remember. In the botany parts of Wikipedia there is an uncomfortable degree of error which is prevented from being fixed by him. However, I suppose that making him an administrator is not likely to make things all that much worse; and I can hope that this new status will lead to his taking the Wikipedia policy guidelines more seriously.
'''Support''' of course per nom, and good answer to Q3. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Great editor, has improved a lot since the last RfA.--
'''Super Support''', gosh, not an admin? --
'''Strong Support''' - he deserves it. And both of us have gotten blocked by Curps for "pagemove vandalism". :p &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Extremely strong support''' has been very helpful in assisting me with [[WP:DR]]. --
'''Strong support''' per answers to questions. I've seen this editor around a lot, and I think he would make a great admin. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
Stats show nothing obviously wrong (thats all they are good for), seems like a good vandal fighter, A1 seems good, and we could use more admins on the image backlog. This user is active in deletion and AN related activies.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I haven't directly interacted with the candidate, but I have seen him on the XfD pages and in talk page discussions and have been impressed with his comments in both. --
'''100% Support!'''<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' - based on extensive personal experience of seeing Mr. Lefty's excellent anti-vandalism work and sound knowledge of policy. Will make an excellent admin
'''Super Support!''' I was actually going to nominate this user for adminship more than a month ago, but I decided it was best to give him a bit more time. He's an excellent vandal-fighter, and actively contributes  whole-heartedly in AfD discussions. --
'''Support''' Meets my time and editcountitis requirements and I saw no problems on his talk page. I believe he has learned from the "silliness" mentioned in the previous RfA. Not sure an overdeveloped sense of humor is a detriment.
'''Support''' - [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Strong Support''' although he sometimes spoils my work by reverting vandals faster than me. :-) --[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.

'''Support''' I assume he'll get a left-handed mop. :-)
'''Support''' passes [[User:The Bread/Admin|my criteria]]
'''Support''' - Active editor who does good things, while article creation is not a strong point the user could definitley do good things with "the mop" {{=)}}. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' looks good.  I opposed for inexperience last time --
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support''' Looks very good, committed, and dedicated editor. I give my full support.
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Very strong support'''.  Mr. Lefty is, in three words, a great candidate.  I see him around [[WP:ANI]] very often, he's great at fighting vandalism, and he's very good in XfD discussions.
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor; candidate has a fine edit distribution, leading me to wonder at the opposing rationales (a rarity, indeed.)
'''Support''' per norm. <small>
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' seems fit.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support, Mr. Lefty. Support to da ends of da woyld.''' And no one gets that joke. ~
'''Support''', just as I did in the last nomination, in which I said "''Well thought out answers, good work, diligent service. What's not to like?''".
'''Support''' ''ON WHEELS!'' Oooooh, the irony. --
'''Support''' what's not to like about this user? --
'''Support.''' Won't accidentally block Jimbo. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good Editor, IIRC I've meet him in AfD.  Also, support pr RyanG.--
'''Support''', of course! '''
'''Support''' I've seen no contributions by this editor that would lead me to believe the tools would be abused.  From what I've seen, Mr. Lefty has a good grasp of policy, despite the concerns over the lack of "encyclopedia building." —
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support.'''&mdash;Wikipedia needs those who work valiantly at reverting vandalism; your ample experience there earns an A<sup>+</sup>. My [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/T-Z#W|Criterion A)]] states “If you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to generate articles. Folks who’ve actually edited quite a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better.” Afraid your rather weak on contributions&mdash;I’ll award a generous C. Overall I trust your judgment enough to turn you loose with the tools&mdash;but please go work on some serious contributions to balance out your sound technical skills.  [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' No reason not to this time. --
'''Support''' It seems that this editor has now contributed enough to demonstrate that they'll know what to do with the tools, and will have a need to use them. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'Mon the lefties! ;) [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''', good user and is ready for the tools. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''support''', Lefty isn't an admin yet? ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]] - [[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]-
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Strong Support''' Mr. Lefty is a brillient user, and I have no problems supporting. Will do good work with the mop. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Weak support''' lack of encyclopedic content is light on the scales against a sense of reasonablness and responsibility to established editors. --

'''Support''' - it's about time. --
'''Support''' - From the answers given above, the only area really lacking is the substantial contribs, quality editing. But the willingness to help at admin intervention against vandalism is very appealing, so here is my support.
'''Strong Support''' very helpful and positive Wikipedian.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' per my comments in the pervious RfA.
'''Support''' - Great vandal fighter, helpful, does great maintainence job. (This is the first time I voice my opinion in a RfA, [[User Talk:EstebanF|am I doing it right?]]) --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support again''', per other RFA.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per all above. Incredibly active.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Even though I think this vandal fighter would be slowed down by having to actually block people.  Just continue attacking vandals.  --


'''Support.''' Good work with the vandals, and good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' While I no doubt would disagree with a lot of his left leaning political views, he has shown to be a highly competent editor who deserves the mop.
'''Support''' having seen Mr Lefty around and gaining a positive rather than negative impression through this.
'''Ultra strong support'''! I've seen Mr. Lefty around a lot, and was led to believe that he, if anyone, was already an admin. Very experienced, and civil to my knowledge. --
I was hoping to be the very last supporter (little things please little minds), but I can't be sure I'll be online at the closing time, and didn't want to miss the opportunity to support this. --
'''Support''' per all of above, and with apologies to Steel.
'''Support''' How did I miss this RfA?
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building, which I feel is a key underpinning to the deletion policy.
'''Oppose''' Lack of notable article edits make it impossible to assess decision making and dispute resolving abilities.
'''Oppose''' per my philosophy at [[User:Blnguyen/RfA]]. I feel rather disappointed that administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart; they never seem to suffer post-RfA letdown or change negatively IMHO. The [[Actinopterygii]] article is a good job and I think you should definitely write more, as when you think about it, article writing is the most backlogged thing on Wikipedia - it's surprising how many prominent people/things never get their article improved despite the availability of people who do know stuff about them. '''
'''Oppose''' Lack of encyclopedia building which is one of my main focuses for becoming an admin.
No favour either way, although encyclopedia building a bit on the weak side. &ndash;
It's weird... I can't explain why I don't feel that I should support this user. Perhaps it's what Chacor said.
'''Neutral'''. User fails one of [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]] by not having enough article talk edits, which displays lack of article building experience. I am leaning towards support though, as this looks like an otherwise great contributor.
'''Neutral''' per my crossed out oppose vote, please work in articles more.
'''Support''' As nominator.
'''Support''' As someone who was waiting for this one. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''' Notwithstanding that this user's answer to question two does not evidence a level of [[pride]] commensurate with his contributions, I think it quite plain that he is possessed of the deliberative disposition and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin are rather auspicious and is well-acquainted with policy, such that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will surely be positive (the latter is my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|overarching RfA guideline]]; after all, [[q:Pride and Prejudice|success in adminship is not entirely a matter of chance]]); I should, then, be quite pleased to support, even were I not categorically [[prejudice]]d in favor of those candidates nominated by [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]].
'''Support''' It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single editor in possession of ability must be in want of the admin tools.  Any more cliches for support votes?
'''Support'''. (aeropagitica) summed it all up. '''''
'''Support''' looks good.  Strong editor --
I see no problems here. Go for it. (
'''Support''' good candidate with a good history and valuable contributions. ←
--
'''Support'''. [[The Darling Buds of May|Perfick]].
'''Support.'''  As everyone else has said, he's knowledgable, civil, dedicated, and a good vandal fighter.  As a side note, congratulations on your fatherhood. :)
'''Support''' Great user. '''
'''Support''', excellent indeed.__
'''Support''' - much as I would like to oppose based on my loathing of Jane Austen, that's not really on, and no matter how hard I search for a pretext there doesn't seem to be one. So here I am in the support column. Damn!
'''Support''' great candidate.--
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.
- <b>
'''Support,''' though I would recommend stepping back when angry and waiting for the anger to pass before responding under stress.
'''Support''' per all of above, and on the assumption that the candidate is not [[Married_..._with_Children#Jefferson_D.27Arcy_.28pronounced_.22Darcy.22.29|this]] Mr. Darcy.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great candidate. ''Give-em-the-mop''<small><sup>'''TM'''</sup></small>
'''"Of course" support''' :) '''
'''Yes'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
I'm
'''Support''', user seems to like fighting vandalism, and isn't a grumpy old sod, so he's okay by me!
'''Support'''. Seems responsible and willing to fight vandalism. -
'''Support''' purely on the grounds that anyone who chooses such a great user name ''must'' be in want of promotion - and because I enjoyed the jokes above.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I love me some wiki-gnomes. <font color="green">
'''Support''' a father-image for fighting vandalism.qualifications is impressive. -
'''Support''' No problem here.
'''Suport'''. Looks good. '''''
'''Support''' There is no major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of the above. Make us proud with your use of the mop!
'''Support''', but nothing original to say at this point, so...''"per all of the above"''.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per above. There doesn't seem any reason not to. He's good, too good.
'''Support''' Looks like a great candidate.
'''Support''', looks good. —
--
'''Support'''&mdash;Observed MrDarcy's work for some time. Absolutely comfortable with both the skill and the maturity. Tools are in safe hands here. Do us proud - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
Not that this RFA needs any more '''support''', heh, but I'll throw my two cents in. User looks like a rational, intelligent individual with a level head. Set 'im up! <font color="#000000">&spades;
'''Support''' No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per consensus.<b>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''', Close to 5000 edits and participation in many Wikiprojects - [[User talk:Sp3000|Go]] [[Futurama]]! [[User:Sp3000|Us]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' MrDarcy will be a great addition to the administrator community.
'''Support''' =) -
'''Support''' a prolific and valuable editor.
'''Support'''. Nice candidate - no comment really needed. --
'''Support''' per quality of user.
'''Nominator support'''  --
'''Support'''. I have no reason to oppose--great editor that meets my specs. ―'''
'''Support''' seems friendly and shows a history with dealing with vandalism and troublesome users. Shame about the short nomination though.--<font style="background:white">
'''Weak Support'''. I don't see any problems, but I'd have preferred a longer nomination and better answers to the questions.
'''Strong support'''. I have come across this user numerous times in the past months, am aware of the conflicts with Striver, and the situation with the newbie, Chuck.  Kudos to Mtz206 for helping Chuck, and for keeping cool and reason on the more controversial articles.  No doubt, Mtz206 will be a great admin and won't abuse the tools. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''': I like the answers, and civility is a much needed addition to administration. (A different) [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']]
'''Support''' Good answers, they take precedence over edit count, candidate demonstrates that they wouldn't misuse the tools.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' per, to be completely accurate, everyone above and in view of the exceedingly patient and cordial fashion in which he has dealt with [[User:Chuck Marean]], a newbie whom others might have disregarded in view of his having (inadverently) disrupted the project several times but with whom Mtz continues to work, demonstrating the temperament, judgment, and moderation that well become an admin.
'''Support'''. More or less meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]], seems unlikely to abuse tools. Willingness to help a new user is a good sign.
'''Support'''. Good user that will become a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', meets my requirements.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' meets my requirements. (These days a lot of admins leave this project. ) <font color="green">
'''Support'''. This is a case where a low number of projectspace edits is irrelevant because the user does not intend to monitor projectspaces as an admin. Seems like a good user.--<b>[[User:SomeStranger|<font color="orange">SomeStrang</font>]]<i>[[User:SomeStranger/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]</i>
'''Support''' lack of project edits is a concern, but I was impressed with the answers to my questions.
'''Support'''. I suppose more project space edits wouldn't hurt, but particularly considering the impressive consideration, patience and goodwill he has displayed when trying to guide [[User:Chuck Marean]], I consider it very unlikely that he would do something with the admin tools without fully understanding the consequences and implications of that action. --
'''Support.''' The user always being civil in conflicts is a plus.--
'''Support''' - Very civil contributor. I believe he meets all the requirements to be a good admin.
'''Support''' A look at his contributions shows active participation in wikispace over the last few months.  I am confident that he will mop up well.
'''Support''' Very good contributor.  Quick at vandal reverts.
'''Support''' Excellent wiki philosophy, good contributor, patient with newbies, ability to work with others...what else is there? --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per answers to questions.'''
'''Support''' Civility is a great asset in an admin.
'''Support''' Strongly.--
'''Support''' Seems like a great candidate.  Also, help is definitely needed at [[CAT:CSD]] so he/she'd be a great asset in that respect
No problems here. —
'''Support''' Conscientious editor who keeps his cool.
'''Support''' Seems to be a reasonable person who's familiar with the encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' - Yup. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' think that he will be a strong admin willing to take it to vandals and others who break with Wikipedia policy.--
'''Support'''. Good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Meets my standards [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color=red>sta</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|<font color=yellow>E</font>]][[user:GangstaEB/pagemap|<font color=purple>B</font>]]
'''Support''' meets my standards, good answers. -
'''Support''' per civility, courtesy and knowledge of policy demonstrated at [[User talk:Chuck Marean/Archive1]]. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support''' Based on actual edits and period of involvement with the project, I have no concerns that Mtz206 will abuse sysop privileges. It is irrational to assume that few project-space edits conclusively means lack of policy understanding. Today it is lack of these edits, tomorrow it is to many of those edits. Remember kids, editcountitis can be fatal! Perhaps it is a good thing that Mtz206 is willingly to work with the policy that is there, rather than change it. --
'''Support''' Seems to deserve it and won't abuse the tools. '''
'''Support'''. Good user -> good admin
'''Oppose''' Sadly, the lack of project-space participation does not give me confidence user understands wiki-process. This is especially relevant given that the editor's answer to Question 1 lists tasks that require project-space experience.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz
I just don't see the kind of project experience that I'm looking for. Doesn't meet my [[User:Cyde/Admin criteria|admin criteria]]. --
'''Weak oppose''' per Cyde and Xoloz.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' sorry. My personal RfA standards require a minimum project participation.
'''Oppose''' Does not meet the level of all round participation that I like to see in candidates. --
'''Oppose''' More project edits would be helpful. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Oppose'''. Wikispace participation is necessary because of the admin's role in interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy.&mdash;
'''Oppose''', lack of Wikipedia namespace edits suggest low policy knowledge. Additionally, admins often need to work with categories and templates, so getting some experience with these would be helpful.
'''Neutral''', great user, though I would like to see some more project edits. --<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Neutral''' project edits.
'''Neutral''' per all above.
'''Neutral''' needs more wiki namespace edits
'''Neutral''' more wiki namespace edits will be better --
great guy... would make a good admin &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Good contributor; entrust him with the crystal mop and bucket. --
'''Support''' as per nominator.  ;-)
'''Support''' a very careful editor who is both polite and uses useful edit summaries. 121 space edits is enough to know your way around IMO, and he shouldn't be punished for simply doing more in the main encyclopedia body.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' per nominator. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I'm sure he will make a great admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I see nothing wrong with this user. May the good times roll! --
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' - I think he could be a good admin.
'''Support''' seems good.
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} This user focuses on the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia.  I looked over his contribs, and I'm impressed.  We should give him admin tools, as they'll only help him improve his contribution to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]] above. Impressive contribution history, and to those who are concerned about lower wikipedia space edits, remember we do need some people to write the encyclopedia, too! Would make a good admin. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' A user that actually edits the encyclopedia?? Wow hes a shoe in!
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''', answered my question in haiku format.  More seriously, seems a valuable addition and unlikely to abuse things. --
'''Support''', after careful review, I find this editor easy to get along with and light-hearted. Although determined when necessary, this editor would not dwell on the negative aspects and continue in the effort to create the encyclopedia. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. Nice contributions and seems level-headed and pleasant to work with. --
'''Support''' - all my reasons are metnioned above. Yeah. All of them. --
'''Support''' no reason not to --
'''Support'''. While Wikipedia space edits are less than I'd like, answers to questions convince me he is well-versed in policy. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.Ok, wikipace edits are low...but I'm going to support anyway, since this editor has done enough good work, that I hope he will expand his horizons. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', altho so more edits on the main namespace wouldnt hurt :) //
Nice bloke, around awhile/ '''Support''' should be/ Miles long.
'''Support'''. Steering clear of Wikipedia namespace is a ''plus'' in my view.

'''Support'''
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support''', a solid editor.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. No big deal.
'''Support'''. Good contributions. No reason to expect misuse of sysop powers.
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support''', We need more people like him at the helm. --
'''Support''' although I would agree with some of the Neutral vote comments. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' hope to have him as an admin.
'''Support''' looks a good editor, adminship is no big deal and a little on the job learning don't hurt.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of Wikipedia: space edits, although I like the haiku.
'''Weak <small>tiny</small> Oppose''' Due to low edit count on Wikipedia namespace. Also because I'm not convinced he has a good working knowledge of policies, but I could be wrong about that.
'''Oppose''' Due to low number of Wikipedia:space edits.
I'm thinking about it. Myles, can you please explain your relatively low (121) number of Wikipedia space edits (about 2.5%)?
Wiki-space edits are low, but editor seems to have done pretty much everything else. Whether this succeeds or fails, I'll remind editor that it is a good idea never to assert yourself in an area where you are inexperienced; until you edit more in Wiki-space, you are unprepared for those admin tasks that depend on it.  Still, I get the impression editor is solid, so I won't oppose.
'''Neutral''' per Xoloz, needs more wikiname space edits --
Per above, just barely fails my standards due to process-related edits. If you can answer my questions well I might change to support.
'''Neutral, leaning to Weak Oppose''' Sorry, but there is not enough project namespace edits in my opinion.
'''Neutral''' Lot of great work but is borderline with my standards for an editor.    Would like to see more Wiki-space edits.  I am sure that user is an excellent contributor however I just like to be reassured that admins are extremely familiar with all aspects of the project.--
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a good editor with good taste in music, but needs to demonstrate more familiarity with administrative tasks, i.e. ''Wikipedia:'' namespace. — <small>Mar. 9, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:37] <
'''Neutral''', low Project namespace edits, but too good to vote oppose
'''Neutral''' Purely due to number of namespace edits. However, this guy is far too good to oppose! --''Signed by:''
'''Neutral.''' I'm afraid I have to agree with the comments above.
'''Neutral''' -- per above. I too might be persuaded to support if I though nominee could promise good use of admin powers without project namespace involvement.


'''Strong Support''' - Amazing contributer, glad to support such a great canidate! --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Definitely. (
'''Support'''. Astonishingly good vandalwhacker.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support''' per Flowerparty. -
'''Strong support'''.  Great contributor to the vandal-fighting effort.  --
'''Weak support'''.  Awesome vandal-whacker who warns, but little else. Seems intent on not damaging the project, and answer to #3 probably means we won't see this user in wheel warring. So, support, but I wish to see more from this user whether or not the RfA passes. --
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter, but try to write some articles if this does not pass, --

'''Support''' - If he's going to be a vandal fighter, we should properly equip him for the task.  -- <font color="#668353">
'''Support''' - strong dedicated vandal fighter
'''Support'''. His interest is in vandal control and he is good at it and he can make good use of the tools. If this does not pass do more article editing, talk and user talk then try again in 3 months and you will pass.--
'''Support'''.  I agree with Dakota and Adrian.  Naconkatari's strength is vandal control, and I think the mop will arm him better for the task. --
'''Support''' a very good user. Giving Naconkantari the block button will be helpful to Wikipedia. He won't have to go through the intermediary of a page like administrator intervention against vandalism anymore.--
'''super duper''' support!
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think he is capable and ready.
'''Strong support'''. Meets all [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]]. In addition I see absolutely no evidence to suggest this user will abuse admin tools, and responses to vandals suggest he can keep cool. Wikipedia is a big place, with a lot of users and admins. I have no problem at all with different admins focusing on different types of task, in this case being mainly (though not by any means exclusively) a vandal fighter. Whilst editing articles is of course extremely important for building an encyclopaedia, I ask the oppose voters: wouldn't it be a good this to give admin tools to Naconkantari to allow other editors to edit articles rather than revert them, to help protect other peoples work from abuse, to give that little bit extra chance that a random reader to this site sees a real article rather than nonsense?
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' wow this is the third "always thought this person was an admin" vote this week!! Will make a great admin!
''"Adminship is no big deal"''. -
'''Support''' Seems competent
''Support''.
'''Support''', has done very good job cleaning up so far, this would help him do it a bit faster. From what I've seen, he's been knowledgeable and helpful when needed (based on his talk page), and I trust that he wouldn't be rash in his actions in areas where he didn't have that much experience. -
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent vandal fighter, he is ready willing and able.
'''Support'''. I have seen a fair amount of community involvement from the nominee. I would also like to see some more article writing, but I still trust him with adminship. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' he is a good vandalism reverter <font color="red">
'''Strong support''', great vandal hunter.
'''Support'''. Would make good use of administrator tools.&#160;—
'''Strong vandal thwacking support'''! for one of the best around. Please help make the vandals weep by voting for him.--
'''Support'''. Not "getting involved in issues" strikes me as a non-issue. The goal of this project is creation of an encyclopedia, and I fail to see why focussing on that and not involving oneself in the backstage hoo-hah and drama is somehow a negative. --
'''Support''' per Calton. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. All he needed the last nomination was more time. --
'''Support''' We're supposed to be voting on whether or not a person can be trusted to use admin powers well. I think it's obvious he will -- in spades. --
'''Support'''.  Will be a potent vandal fighter. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''.  Contributes not by creating good content, but by ''keeping'' the good content intact. Dogged vandal fighter that I have stumbled across a hundred times in the last few months.
'''Support'''. Assuming the deleted edits come from new page patrol/speedy nominations, they are impressive on their own.
'''Support''', we all would benefit by providing Naconkantari with admin tools.
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter, but should get more involved with other aspects of Wikipedia. Being an administrator isn't just about fighting vandals. --
'''Support'''; a very effective vandal fighter, and I believe he'll make a great admin. --
'''Support'''; would trust with admin tools without a second thought ~
'''Support'''. You don't need to be a good editor to be a good admin.
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support''', but candidate in the future must address the concerns of people who are opposing him, or staying neutral.
'''Support''' everyone contributes in different ways. This is an editor who (a) could benefit from admin tools and (b) has enough experience to earn ''my'' trust at least.
'''Support''' he's a great vandal fighter. I don't mind giving him the tools that can make him even better. --
'''Support''', for his counter-vandalism activity.
'''Support''' as first nominator '''
'''Support''', I don't see the problem with him mainly clearing up vandalism.  It suggests he likes the clerical work that adminship seems to entail.  You also can't accrue that many edits without working out how this place works. |→
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Will make a fine administrator.
'''Support'''. Fantastic contributer. &mdash;
'''Support''': As I said when I nominated him last time, he conducts himself well while reverting vandal after vandal and doesn't lose his cool. He deserves to have the ability to revert vandalism faster and block them so that he can revert more vandals in a given time. Yes, most of his edits are vandalism fighting, but he's good at it and fair in it. I have faith in him that he will not abuse his admin tools and he can learn along the way the various other going-ons in the community, if he chooses to later involve himself in areas other than vandalism.
'''Support''': I wanted to wait before voting, and today I see that it was a smart thing to do. ko.wikipedia had a massive vandal attack today, and while there were three of us working on it (Nacon, bookofjude, and myself), Naconkantari took charge, was granted temp sysop, and put an end to the problem. For that excellent work, I support Naconkantari as an admin. However, people like Naconkantari will soon put those of us who arn't admins out of business over on #wikipedia-en-vandalism. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' Reverting vandalism in time is vital to keep Wikipedia and similar sites good.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' of the "he isn't already one?" variety. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' - the oppose votes have legitimate concerns, but I think that rejecting Naconkantari would send a very poor message as to WP's admin selection process.
'''Support''' - The right tools for the right job.
'''Support''' No problem. --
'''Strong support''', oppose votes here are silly. I often keep the en-vandalism channel open, even if i'm not watching it, and the non-admins there furiously poke me because such-and-such username or IP needs a block. Nacon has shown good judgment in this area and is quite capable of dilligently performing this task himself. Who cares if he doesn't write articles? Neither do I, and I passed almost unanimously. Total number of reverts nonwithstanding, when it comes to admin privileges, I'd prefer a vandal-whacker over an edit warrior any day of the week, thank you. — <small>Mar. 8, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[13:53] <
'''Support'''. Super vandal fighter. Let's give him the tools to do that faster and better. All else may come in time. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good, and could be even better with admin tools. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''support''', though noting the oppose concerns of Splash
'''Support''' per nominator's comments. Naconkantari's contributions show that he's a fantastic vandal fighter. So why not give him that mop and make him an even better one? If he made 10000 edits within 4 months equipped with just CDVF/godmode-lite then I predict he could even stand up to [[User:RexNL|RexNL]]'s m4d ski11z. [[User:Misza13|Misza]]
'''Support'''. Did an extremely good job in cleaning up the WiC clone on the Korean Wikipedia, no reason why as good a job can't be done here.
'''Support'''. His style has a good fit for the powertools. I have a few tough words for anybody in their right mind who says this kid isn't legit cause he doesn't spend time uploading his PhD to the server. Sit there at one in the morning and rollback loads of "john is gay" and "penis" crap and you'll be begging for a block button to. Just saying it as it is, is all. --
-- <small> (
'''Support''' no reason to believe that he would abuse admin tools, he did 15k reverts that someone else didn't have to do (or perhaps no one would have seen) --
'''Support''', as I don't have anything to make me believe that he would abuse admin tools. That said, after you're done with this RFA, go write an article, man!
'''Support''' impressive anti-vandalism work and a calm manner.
'''Support''' would make good use of tools. &mdash;
'''Support''' to make Naconkantari's vandal fighting even more effective.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' user has shown great ability and the sheer volume of work in such a short time shows a dedicated person.
'''Belated I thought I'd already voted support'''.
'''Strong support!''' It gets annoying when, every time I attempt a rollback, I get a little message saying that someone else (almost always Naconkantari) has already edited the page or rolled it back.  I'm not saying that's bad, though - contrarily, it's great!  I'm suprised that Naconkantari isn't already an admin, considering the amount of reversions he has. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''. He does good work and I am confident he will expand his activities now. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I'm unconvinced by the reasons given for the oppose votes. Admin tools make vandal-fighting an order of magnitude easier, so helping his prolific vandal bashing sounds like a good reason to give my vote.

'''Strong support'''. An excellent vandal fighter, and this is enough. He would make good use of admin powers.
'''Support!''' <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Almost voted oppose, just reverts too much vandalism, needs to learn to share! :-). Excellent work.
'''Support''' -- seems like a nice person.
'''Support''' <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]

'''Support'''. 15 thousand edits in three months! It's unbelievable! I have also three months here, and only 400 edits.
'''Strong Support''' I thought he already was an admin...anyway, 15,000 edits in 3 months is astounding, even if it was mostly reverting vandalism; editing articles is important, but so is vandal-fighting, especially for admins. His excellent anti-vandalism record more than makes up for his otherwise lower level of experience.
'''Strong support'''. Wikipedia would benefit greatly if there were more editors as active as Naconkantari. He'll make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Does an excellent job, and adminship will only help . --
'''Support''' - is an excellent vandal hunter, often beats my bot to reverts (don't ask me how).  Naconkantari is usually on IRC and would be a great person to send multiple vandalism reports to --
'''Support''' - I am sure the encyclopedia will benefit from Naconkantari being given the tools. I don't need any criteria other than that.
'''Support'''. His dedication in the war on vandalism is impressive and with some extra tools he will be even better.
'''Support'''. He needs the tools.
'''Support'''.  It can definitely be argued that contributing to articles is important too - and it is; I encourage him to do more of it - but he has reverted tons of vandalism, and I think he could benefit from the tools.  In occasional RC patrol confined to watching vandalism of people's user pages, I have noticed his user page gets vandalized quite a lot, so he must be doing something that vandals don't like. :-) --
'''Weak Oppose''' Hardly has any actual editing experience. It looks like he has 9743 article edits, but they are all reverting vandalism. Also, it looks like he has 6741 edits to talk pages, but if you look through the contribution tree it's mostly reverting talk pages of vandalism and warning vandals. I'm sorry Naconkantari, but if all your edits seem to be vandalism reverts I can't support. I am glad this user is around though, quick on vandalism reverts. If he interacts more with users and actually starts editing articles more, I will suppport a future nomination.
I need persuasion. This is still less than the fairly-bright line of 3 months and an editor who withdrew once because of being too soon should really be making sure that their renomination is clear of that kind of problem. Then I discovered, from last week, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 2]] which the editor declined as being too soon. What changed in the last few days? Also, looking through the last 1500 edits I see almost no encyclopedia-writing. Racking up 15,000 edits isn't so hard when they're handed to you by the IRC bots, although reverting vandalism is obviously an important part of holding the Project in good shape. Being a vandal-whacker is not a qualification for adminship. The edits to Wikipedia: space are largely AfD and RfA with a few reverts, and I can't find much in places like AN or AN/I or debating zones to adequately judge things on. Some good examples would be nice. Given the preponderance of vandalism warnings, I'd also like to see two or three examples of good conversation engagement either on Talk: or User talk:. -
'''Oppose''' I see very, very little communication between Naconkantari and other users (beyond vandalism warnings). It is very important that Administrators can express themselves in a meaningful and calm manner, and I have no idea how this user might react in a stressful situation. Secondly, he's been around for just four months. In my opinion, this is barely above the minimum amount of time to become familiar with the myriad areas on Wikipedia. There are just some things that take time (not thousands of edits) to discover, become familiar with, and actually apply. I believe it's important to have a grasp on the project as a whole, and to understand how different aspects of Wikipedia influence eachother, in order to make informed decisions on many of the issues admins deal with. No doubt, Naconkantari may prove to be admin material in coming months, but it is far too soon to tell. &#126;
'''Weak, pained Oppose''' per Splash. Naconkantari is so very good at what he does best, and vandal-fighting is a key function with a clear use for the mop.  Still, the fact that user declined a second nomination ''only last week'' is discomforting.  User needs a just little more time to mature as a Wikipedian, I think.

'''Weak Oppose''' Naconkantari has done great work for fighting vandalism, but an admin needs to be involved in more issues.
'''Oppose''' per Moe and Splash. Needs content and talk experience, not just reversions.
'''Oppose''' weak oppose, a little too soon and some experience outside anti-vandalism work would demonstrate a better working knowledge of wikipedia which is required by an admin. --
'''Oppose''' for same reasons as [[User:Sarah Ewart|Sarah Ewart]].  More to this than vandal fighting--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience of article editing.
'''oppose''' per moe. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''', would prefer to see more article contributions.
'''Oppose''' this time as too new, but would likely support with longer experience and more additions to articles.
'''Neutral''', wishing to support. NaconK is perhaps the best vandal fighter I've ever seen, and in a few weeks, I would have nominated him myself if no one else had. Due to his massive effort against vandalism, I cannot and will not oppose, but I can't support anyone under the three-month threshold. Echoing the same issues commented by Splash and Moe, I'll stay neutral this time, and will surely support in a while with more involvement in policy discussion and interaction with the community. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Neutral'''- moving my vote here, I'm not really sure the reasons are clear enough, but it seems it's a passing nomination anyway, so take the oppositions as constructive criticism :). <s>'''Weak, <small>tiny oppose</small>''' While this user evidently has no problem handling the monotony of vandal fighting, I think some more involvement in articles and its surrounding community is due, the absence in community barely outweighs the tireless vandal fighting.</s> A clear candidate if [[WP:RFR]] is passed, though. --<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Neutral''' - per Phaedriel, et al. If we had a "vandal fighter's toolset" that didn't have other uses I'd support N for that wholeheartedly, but the admin tools can be used for other things too. Some evidence of wellroundedness, participation in policy, projects, article creation etc, would be good. That said, I'm not opposed and wish N all the best when this sails through, as I expect it will. Just consider dabbling in some other things too, that's all I'm saying. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Neutral''' - Definetly a fantastic vandal fighter, but there is more to adminship IMO than that. Love to see this user back ASAP with some actual editing experience.
'''Neutral''' Normally, high edit counts are a plus for me. But I would rather see someone with a fifth of the edits this user has if that meant more went towards actual editing rather than reverting.
'''Neutral''', seems good and could use rollback... but, I think it'd be good to see him in content disputes since admin will give him some leverage in that... or more on AfD and protection... I suppose this is good example of why I think some limited powers might be good. I feel kind of bad denying tools he could use.
'''Neutral''' until more content contributions; already has rollback. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Neutral''', Fellow vandal fighter and much respected for his commitment to fighting vandalism. Great potential to become a great admin, after he engages other editors in discussions about the project and learning the joys and pains of editing Wikipedia. Will certainly support in the future.
'''Neutral'''. I don't want to oppose, but I'm not yet ready to support either. Would probably support a later nomination. --
'''Neutral''' per Alan Au.
As nominator.--
'''Support''', as per nom.
'''Support''', even if we disagree on a few things.  The few things that worry me don't affect me enough otherwise. --
'''Support''' per nom. Seems good. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support''' from past experience with this user, I believe the user can be trusted with admin tools. The user also passes their own standards at [[User:Nae'blis/Standards]].
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Demonstrates a clarity of vision regarding site policies that mirror the founding principles.  Any new tools granted to this user are highly unlikely to be abused, and that's really the most important standard of all.
'''Support'''. I wasn't able to find anything that would hurt the nominee's case. Also, coming across edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hroðulf&diff=prev&oldid=83728992 like this] make me feel very comfortable with Nae'blis' potential adminship. --
'''Support'''. Good answers, especially question 1. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' per answers, and not only good edit summary percentage, but good edit summaries. --
'''Support'''.  Though it isn't an admin-chore, I'm especially glad to see someone attacking those {{tl|fact}} tags! --
'''Support''' I've seen this user around being helpful, thoughtful and most importantly, civil.  Looks like a good candidate. —
I '''support'''.
'''Support''' Highly qualified, he's done well around AfD, and I'm happy to support.--
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' - per Brad Beattie --
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''[[WP:SNOW]] Support'''
'''Support''' very good editor.
- <b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - good devoted editor, and, frankly, I thought he is an admin already
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin this summer. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support'''...as long as I can call you "Moridin." :) --
'''Support''' Nae'blis would make a great admin.
'''Support''' I performed a review of his contributions (though admittedly not as deep as for someone I nominate) and found nothing wanting. Outstanding candidate, and should be given a mop with extra big mop head. --
'''Support''' From what I can tell, this user qualifies. =) '''
'''Support''', civil and well spoken.  Must obviously be patient and driven as well since he made it through all 9,685 pages of the Wheel of Time series. :)
'''Support''' ''Despite the fact'' that [[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]] read all 9,685 pages of the Wheel of Time series --
'''Support''' per good answers, comments above, no concerns with this editor.
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' Liked your answer to question 3. Very comprehensive --
'''Support'''. You deserve it. '''''
'''Support'''; of course.
'''Support.''' Just don't fall into the Wikibyss again! ;-)
'''Support''' Good answers to questions as well! [[User:Jam01|Jam]]<font color="green">
'''Strong Support''', I've seen Nae'blis around the place often (although never actually talked to him), and everywhere I have his input and edits have been thoughtful. Wikipedia will benefit if this user gets the mop. '''

'''Support''' (rubs eyes in disbelief)
'''Support'''.  What have you been waiting for?
'''Support'''. A good editor. '''''
<tt>

'''Support''' I thought he already was one.
RFA cliche #1. And I don't say that often ;) (
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
I'm
'''Strong Support''', per above/answers, plus when I was rather a casual user on wikipedia, still having it bookmarked under references along with Webster’s online dictionary, I was rather upset to have my first category placed on cfd around aug, Nae'blis was considerate enough to drop a message helping me understand better. I'm not supporting based on that alone, however it is why it's strong ▪◦▪
'''Strong Support''' - In my dealings with Nae'blis, I have gotten the impression that he already not only was an admin, but was one of the most pleasant to work with. I was wrong on the first point, but I have no reason to believe that this promotion will change my opinion on the second point.
'''Support''' A familiar name on AfD's. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support'''. For your work at the help desk.
'''Support''' Without any reservation.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom.

'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' He seems to know what he's doing. Will be a good admin? Yep. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Support'''. Geez, are you kidding me? I thought he was an ''Arbitrator''... well, not really, but you know what I mean.
'''Support''', hey look, it's a round 60. Please let there be more admin candidates like this. -
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. I've run into him occasionally. Good editor. Give him the mop already. -
'''Support''' sounds good, very good.
'''Support''' - good guy.
'''Support'''. Thought he was one.
'''Support''' per nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' ''#include i-can't-believe-this-one-not-an-admin-already.cliché'' <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''', as per nom. Very good editor. --
'''Support''', great user. Looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Strong Support''' The [[Wheel of Time]] thing does show deep psychological issues but otherwise great user who can be trusted with admin powers.  Good luck Nae'blis!  You should also consider getting active in dispute resolution tasks as your levelheadness and great communication skills would be very valuable in those aspects of Wikipedia
'''Support''', can I really say anything that 72 others haven't already said? :) <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Sniper support''' Right on target.
'''Support'''. I though Nae'blis already was one... —
'''Support''' per above, thought he was one as well.  ;o)
'''Strong Support''' Emerging from my flu-induced haze to sing the praise of this candidate, thoughtful and kind.  There is no one better suited for the job.
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong here. Nae'blis is very, very patient. This is a quality that many more Wikipedia admins need. Give him the mop!
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable, solicitous, and committed editor. --&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Very, very, *very* obvious. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom and comment above.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''' (almost superfluously) --
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''', of course.
strong support --
'''Support''', too tough to find a good reason not to support!
'''Support''' Very capable of becoming an administrator.
--


'''Support'''.
strong support-'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I, too, watch the vast herds of goats alone. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''SUpport''' - clearly knows ins and outs of WP. ''
'''[[WP:97]] Support'''
'''''[[Wheel of Time]]'' support!'''  I ''was'' going to wait to be number 100, but I think everyone else has the same idea, and I'm not very patient. ;) I've been wondering when someone was going to nom you...  Nae'blis is a fantastic candidate: he's a civil user, great vandal fighter AND participates in XfDs.
'''Support''' and gripe about not getting to be the magic 100th supporter.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No doubts here. Good luck! --
'''Support'''; looks good:  I see everything I like.
'''Support''' good editor, hopefully better admin.
'''Support''', three months late but finally done ;).
'''Beat the nominator support''' Looks good to me!--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Nominator was busy support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Wanted to beat the nominator, but got too tied up Support''' Excellent editor. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Appears to be a solid editor.  Use of edit summaries to describe [[MoS:DP]] edits seems to communicate an awareness of and attention to Wikipedia's editing guidelines.  Articulate answers to questions below. --
'''Support''' solid contributor, very reasonable.
'''Support''', certainly.
'''Support''', of course! [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Very Strong Support'''. Natalya is one of the friendliest users on Wikipedia. <s>He</s> <u>She</u> has a deep understanding of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and customs, as evidenced by <s>his</s> <u>her</u> frequent contributions to the [[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|new contributors' help page]]. --
'''Support'''. Have seen her work around, think she deserves it. (and yes, girls/women at wikipeida are often referred to as he, o well)--
'''Support'''. The answers given to the questions below are very good.
'''Support''' very civil and experienced. Also very fun to talk to if the subject is ginormous puffins. <tt>:P</tt>
'''Support''' per good answers to questions below and good work in various cleanup tasks.  The informal mediation at the Good Articles page shows a very positive attitude and an ability to help people reach consensus.  --
'''Support''' never seen this user, but I like the name...
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|40px|Nice. Liked my propaganda, I mean, Esperanza logo. ROFL.]]--
'''Support'''; great answers and always a good user.
'''Support before it officially becomes a pile-on'''. Great work. I look forward to meeting you over on [[WP:RFI]] (let's hope you make it there!).
The nominator said "active since January 2006", but I've seen Natalya around before that.  Easy support.
'''Strong Support on WHEELS!!!''' Friendly user. Will be an asset to the project. Case Closed. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|on]]
'''Strongest possible support'''. Natalya is an extremely courteous Wikipedian, active on RC patrol, and the [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Nominations#Informal_Mediation|mediation at WP:GAN]] left me completely impressed. She has done a bulk of the boring, repetitive and thankless work of disambiguating pages, and has good contributions to the article namespace. I don't have any reservations as to her preparedness for the position.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. Great contributor to the whole Wikipedia community and would benefit being admin.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per G.He. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support'''. I was thinking of nominating her myself... --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.Liked answers to questions..
'''Support''', has made excellent contributions to disambiguation pages and MoS:DAB discussions. --
'''Support''' Good user, good answers to questions.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - meets my standards --
'''Support'''. Quick study, well-rounded, shows a particular aptitude for communication. <tt>
'''Support''', great user, answers are excellent, she isn't one?? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''
'''Support''', definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''!! A great team-player and a positive force everywhere she goes.
'''Support'''. A little low on edits, perhaps, but they do appear to be of good quality. As a huge plus, she appears to be a tireless contributer to one of the less-sexy aspects of editing (to some, at least). Although i have no personal experience of interaction with her, she seems like a solid candidate. Thats good enough for me. '''
'''Support'''. Calm, rational editor with a gift for putting out flames and smoothing out troubles. Good answers to questions below. The extra buttons would be well used and used well by her. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|≡]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|Я]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|Ξ]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''': As someone who spreads goodwill throughout WP, it looks like she will be an asset as an Admin.
'''Support''' Without reservation, Natalya is a supurb admin candidate (there's been a few on RfA of late hasnt there?) Strong support indeed. -- '''''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Weak support''' changed from neutral.
'''I thought she was already an admin!''' Civil, dedicated, I'm sure she would handle tough situations very well. I liked her answers too, they back up her great record.--
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Enthusiastic Support'''.  Tons of good edits, and the answers to the questions clinch it.  Clearly a thoughtful asset to Wikipedia.  Pass her a mop.  --
'''Support''' '''<font color="Red">
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - she has some very good people skills, enabling her to handle conflicts very well and deflating them before they get a chance to heat up. That, and the fact that I think she's been 'around' enough to get a good grasp on policy and the places and people to go to if she has dobuts, makes me very confident to support her. --
'''Support''' Natalya is a extremely good contributor, with lots of good edits to her credit. She has also displayed calm and level headedness. With such peerless qualities, she deserves to be an admin.
Plain old '''support''' - she deserves it.
'''Support'''. Meant to do this last night. Has always been polite and insightful on talk. -
'''Superfragilisticexpialidocious support''' - <s>Diabolical</s> <small>(Heh heh!)</small> Excellent editor. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - she is really, really lovely. She kind of has this aura of civility, good practice and niceness that you don't get often. She's always patient, considerate, helpful and friendly to everyone and makes a much better Esperanzian than I am or ever will be. She really does put the rest of us to shame. Now, we're going to corrupt her by handing her the ''AdminPowers''<sup>''TM''</sup>. How awful of us. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
Well, why the fuck not? '''
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent user. Meets my specifications, and I would trust with admin tools. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support.''' I only have positive things to say about this user. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]


'''Support''' Great user, excellent potential for admin, good luck!
'''Support'''.  Looks like a good candidate.
Oh yes please! Big fan.;-) —''
'''Strong support.''' What is there to say? She'll make a great one. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' avec plaisire - <b>
'''Strong Support''' I've seen only good things from this user. Friendly and committed to the project. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Happy-Birthday-why-isn't-she-yet?-support!'''
'''Support'''
--ⁿɡ͡b
'''Support''' OMIGAWDAGURL- I mean... Looks like an excellent editor. *cough* Yes... :) Should make for a great admin.
'''Support''' - This lady ''owns'' the Esperanza [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/A|alert page]] (uh, in a good way). Encouraging and helpful to others. She'll do well with admin tools. <b>
'''Support''' of course.'''
Super strong '''suppport'''. Incredible asset and will make good use of the tools. .:.
'''Support''' Does a responsible all round job, including detailed attention to e.g. disambiguation link repair
--<font size="1">
Per Robchurch... among others. More candidates like this one please!&trade; '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support:''' --
'''Support'''--
'''<font color=green>Support</font>''' – will make a great administrator –
'''Support'''
Support: --
'''Support''' You've got the respect of some hard-to-please people behind you already. My standards are pretty light in comparison. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''', I've seen good and friendly work.
'''Support''' '''
'''Piling On Support''' excellent editor, well worthy of mopping up
'''Support!''' Very friendly person. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''': good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' the lemon picture on her user page sold me (just kidding; good candidate) &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per RjE. [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Big green plus sign image'''.
'''Support''' - Calm, cool and collected.  Knows how to calm down nasty Esperanzans when necessary. --
'''Support''' I thought she was already (a great) admin. --
'''Support'''.  Not a ''lot'' of edits, but well-rounded. --
'''Extremely Strong Support''' Natalya is an extremely friendly member. She made me decide not to leave this project. We need admins who bind the Wikipedian community together. Without the wikipedia community, this project would be doomed. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
Not enough experience for me.
'''Useless oppose''', just doesn't meet my standards of experience.
Doesn't pass [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but I must credit for your good work on Wikipedia. -
'''Neutral''' an exceptional part of the community, seems very friendly and approachable, and a great facilitator with respect to dispute resolution.  I just would have liked to have seen her edit more substantially in the mainspace in terms of article content.  I see that as an important part of understanding content as part of the encyclopedia.  Thanks --
'''Strong support'''. Got here first.
'''Superstrong support''' as nominator. If only I'd remembered to put in this official vote when I was creating said nom, I could've been first! --
'''Support''' Very very impressive contribs and edit stats. He has my support --
'''Support'''. No problems I can see.
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter.
[[New Orleans]] is the most beautiful city in the U.S., and quite possibly the world.
'''Support''' I've noticed his contributions for some time now (actually I thought he was following me around at one point - he just makes so many contributions to new/troubled articles that he was inevitably working on a lot of the same articles I was). --
'''Support''' very good user. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' per previous good interactions and the No Big Deal clause.
'''Strong Support''' due to overall excellent contributions to AfD.
'''Support'''.  I ''knew'' this was going to go live while I was asleep.
'''Support''' He always beats me to vandal reverts! --
'''Support''' A very good vandal fighter, impressive contributions and edit stats. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' could use the tools. --
'''Support''' I can't usefully add anything to what Andrew Lenahan and Siva1979 have already said.
'''Strong Support''' over 21000 edits! Wow! --
'''Support''' excellent editor who has earned the promotion. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support'''. Excellent editor and vandal fighter. He/she has a great deal of edits to user_talk and Wikipedia namespaces. --
'''What?''' Not an admin? You're the second recipient of the Crazy Russian Cliche. Really, I never use it... - <b>
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' I often see the candidate's name in the edit history of [[WP:AIV]] and always assumed he/she was addressing the reports, rather than making the reports.  I like his/her eagerness to stop real-time vandalism, an action I feel to be very important in terms of Wikipedia maintenance.  I also appreciate the candidate's honesty and self-realisation in regards to XfD's.
'''Support'''&mdash;If not good enough to be an Admin, then we may be setting the standards a bit too high.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Great vandalfighter and good communication with others. -→
'''Support''' as an excellent vandal-squisher. We always need more.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I'd say something, but it's been said.
'''Support:''' Very rare I say anything in these parts, back to the shadows. --Signed and Sealed,
I've met him a few times before, and I give him a very nice '''Support''', despite being a little weak in minor edit summaries and talk participation. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Weak Support''' I would like to see more work on edit summaries and writing articles, I am happy that NawlinWiki is a referre, and user seems to be qualifiied enough to hold the mop and bucket.--
'''Support'''. I've run into NawlinWiki many times on AIV and always found them a good spotter for naughty things going on.  Please try to up the percentages on edit summaries though. :)
'''Support'''. I've seen NawlinWiki around a lot and developed a sense of trust for his judgement. Edit summaries % is a worry as above but I've go no other concerns -
'''Support''', does a good job with a lot of thankless work. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' - he was on my hitlist [[User:Blnguyen/RfA]].'''
'''Support''': Have seen NawlinWiki's work and see no reason not to support him. A strong candidate indeed. --<font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Support''' I like this editor. --
'''Support''' without question. One of our most useful vandal fighters, NawlinWiki has shown a strong understanding of policy and is a reliable contributor. Will make an excellent admin, IMHO.
'''Support''' great editor.
'''Support''' -- not only a vandal fighter, but also helped out with putting actual truth into the [[John Goodsall]] article when I've been fighting vandalism to it.  --
'''Support''' A great vandal fighter who will use the mop wisely.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Changing my vote from neutral in the light of expansion of answer to question 1. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. I was quite impressed when I first saw him on my watchlist.
'''Support''' - Time.OnWiki != Experience.  I should mention that I was promoted at 2 months... with heavy vandal fighting... it's not a big deal --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Noticed as a result of baseball-related contributions; seems like a good editor. -

'''Support''' per all of above.  Good editor, can use the tools, no worries. Suggest adjusting Preferences to remind when an edit's about to be posted without a summary.

'''Support''' I had a so-so encounter in an AfD involving Clearview Mall, but aside from that, I'm all for it.
Very happy to '''support'''. I've run into NawlinWiki several times in the course of my vandal hunts on Wikipedia, and I've seen excellent work as a countervandal and in working with others.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Slightly qualified support'''. I think it's worth raising as a concern that NawlinWiki is sometimes more deletionist than I would like. MarkGallagher/Fuddlemark raises an excellent point that NawlinWiki is far too prone to rely on "NN, delete" as his deletion justification, and I would hope that he/she will cease that behavior. However, on the whole this editor has contributed strongly to the Wikipedia, is polite and productive. If I think it's a problem I'll have to monitor AfD more closely and try to counterbalance.
'''Support''' per nom...good contributor!
'''Support''' Has made ''some'' worthwhile additions in content and seems active in the community.  No red flags. -
'''Support''', and how. Good guy and well-deserving. I have no doubt he'll wield the mop responsibly.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Omg I overlooked this one Support'''. I see his name on WP:AIV all the time. Give him the mop :) --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' though it already looks headed for a successful close --
'''Support''' This user has contributed in many edits and is obviously now ready for adminship --
'''oppose''' Inflated edit counts due to vandal fight and such look impressive but what does it tell us about the candidate? NawlinWiki has only 120 article talk page edits and hardly any of those few are actually part of a conversation but mostly vandalism reverts.  Most of the articles mentioned above, in response to question 2, have been created in the last few days. I need to see a lot more evidence that this user is actually interacting with other users in wikipedia. The nominator says above "''NawlinWiki is an incredibly friendly and helpful user''".  I think it would be a good idea to be more specific with regard to where these interactions have occurred.  It is hard to find any looking through the NawlinWiki's edits.
'''Oppose''' -- only 4 months here, edit count is not everything, try again in 6 months I'll likly support --
'''Oppose'''. Per David D. 14,000 edits, but only 120 to article Talk: pages? Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, and this editor needs to interact far more in the actual creation of encyclopedia articles.
'''Neutral''' for now, very weak answer to question 1, brief answers to other questions give me very little to go on. --
I like NawlinWiki, and it's good to see more referees editing :-).  However, I think he may have a little ways to go yet before becoming Cluey enough for adminship.  I'm also unimpressed by some of his AfD nominations, such as the one he cited in his answers to the questions, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killa killa|this one]].
'''Neutral''' per Pgk.
'''Support''' - an excellent and valuable contributor whom I have worked closely with on medical projects. Helpful, courteous, will do a great job as an admin!
'''Support'''. I've been impressed with NCurse's dedication to the medical area of the project and have no hesitation in supporting his RfA.
'''Support''' Have full confidence that NCurse would be a great admin, from what I've seen of this user. --
'''Support''' per Aude.
'''Support''' per Aude. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Support''' I have nothing to add. Rock on. --
'''Support''' been a co-admin on huwiki for 6 months now, worked with him 10 months, a perfect admin, sometimes a workaholic editor. Wikipedia will find a new asset in him. --
'''Support wholeheartedly,''' he's an excellent admin on Hungarian Wikipedia & Hungarian Uncyclopedia, always helpful and can keep a cool head; and he is also a valuable contributor both here and on HuWiki. Plus he has a good sense of humour. :) –
'''Very Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' we've been co-admins for several months and I always wondered his calmness, patience and the workload he is able to cope with. Excellent choice :) -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.''' Being both friendly and technically capable since our first encounter, I have been amazed with the huge amount of work NCurse does for the Wikipedia projects to which he contributes, and had assumed he was an admin on en from the outset. In particular he has been singlehandedly responsible for establishing the medical genetics Wikiproject and I feel his successful adminship would further assist his work on this Wikiproject as well as the Wikiproject medicine. --
'''Support''' per nom. Very civil and would use admin tools well.
'''Support''' He's a hard-working, dedicated editor and admin.
'''Support''' Another excellent candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nom; excellent contributor in every respect.
'''Support''' per nom. Looks incredibly qualified to me.
'''Support''' - one of the few sane people on huwiki. //
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''': He is one of the two best admins on Hungarian Wikipedia (and good admin&contributor in other projects, too). No doubt. <span style="background: #fff0e0;"><font color="red">♥</font><font color="white">♥</font><font color="green">♥</font>:&nbsp;
'''Awesome Hungarian Support'''. A very established editor in his own right. He has the capabilities, intelligence and experience to be an excellent administrator on the English Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' A proven user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've had nothing but great experiences interacting with NCurse. He'll make a great addition to our admin corps.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' - per all the above --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I've seen plenty of positive contributions from NCurse and no negative or questionable ones.--
'''Support''', scores 21 on my admin assessment scale. Keep on rollin' --
'''Support''' great organizer and prolific contributor.
'''Support''' great contributor. I have seen him before and he does a great job as a wikipedian. Also, he has experience as an adminin other wikis. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Hardworking, knowledgeable, pleasant, will make a great admin.
Beat the nom! --
'''Support''' only good, no bad.
'''You know I completely forgot that I'm supposed to support this.''' --
'''Support'''. I have never run into this user in my editing, but the contributions look good, and the answers are just fine. Good luck! <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate.--
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' definitely.  Level-headed and contributes well --
'''Support'''. Easily meets my criteria for the work on the English Wikipedia ALONE! Minor grammar mistakes don't concern me, the meaning always seems clear, which is all that matters.
'''Support''' - meets criteria and yeah, I know this is a pile on but I'm making it --
'''Support''' - a good candidate.--[[User:Deepujoseph| thund]]<font color="green">[[User:Deepujoseph/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor, will make good use of the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' He's been one of the most active contributors and an excellent admin in the Hungarian Wikipedia, and he has been rather active here as well. I have no idea where finds the time to do all this simultaneously, but I have no doubt that he is qualified. --
'''Support''' per above (although with a heavy heart, because that means he will have less time on huwiki :,-) --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' seems to be an intelligent, hard-working, valuable contributor. That, and some Magyar pride, makes me vote for NCurse! :)

'''Support'''. Seems completely trustworthy and is obviously qualified.
'''Support'''.  Good answers and demonstrated need of sysop tools.  Plus, anyone who loves clearing backlogs should really get the mop.  --
'''Support''' positive experiences with him
'''Strong support'''. His dedication to the encyclopedia, as well as his positive demeanor, can be grasped from the amount of work he has dedicated to [[WP:1.0]]. No doubts here whatsoever.
'''Support'''.  A good article writer, among other things. --
'''Support'''. A good all-around editor, and has done a lot of good work for medical articles, especially now that I've been too busy to maintain MCOTW. —
'''Support'''. Based on his work in the Hungarian Wikipedia, the English one will only get richer if you accept him as admin..
'''Support'''. I know his activity on the Hungarian Wikipedia and I trust him. --
'''Support'''. Good user - well worthy of adminship on en:Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' &ndash; fantastic user, should be an asset to en. &mdash; '''
'''Igen'''.  --
The language thing will come. Right now we have a potential admin who can be trusted with his tools. Do it, NCurse!
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' per above comments.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' seems ok. --
'''Support''' - [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support''' - already thought he was an admin! --
'''Support''' - A good editor. would do better with a good sense of homour though, seems a little plain.
'''Support''' - I didn't want to be one in the "million" supporters, but seeing the signpost, I thought I should help him get at least a hundred support votes. Also,  more importantly, I think this enhance interwiki cooperation between the Hungarian and English Wikipedia in a way that with him being a single user couldn't be achieved. --
'''Support'''. Great work in Medicine Portal, Medicine WikiProject, and related articles. Should do great work with the tools. -
'''Support'''. A bit weak in article creation, perhaps, but balanced by useful coordinating work at the Medicine portal and elsewhere.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Don't see any real issues.
'''Strong support''' - Prior experience. -
'''Support''' - He does an enourmous job in the Hungarian Wiki and is a strong leader. I think he's absolutely the rigth choice to become an admin in ''any'' of the wikis (of course language knowledge is a must and his English is OK, IMHO) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Teemeah --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' he's not an admin already?? [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' loves removing backlogs?  Give him the buttons!
'''Support''' A little Project-heavy, but projects drive brilliant prose, love to have help with {{t1|adminbacklog}}'s! —
'''Support'''. Per "''Lengyel Magyar két jó barát, eggyütt harcol s issza borát.''" :) and per his great Wikipedia edits. -
'''Support'''.  Great nom, great answers, great editor. I've not run into this editor before but I have no doubt their adminship will help the project.--
'''Support''' per what he intends to do as an admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Mainspace edits are a bit less, but I know how much time goes in maintaining projects and portals. His being an admin on another wiki is a bonus. -
'''Support''' [[User:Delta Tango|D]][[User:Delta Tango|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' No, worries. Thanks for your work on medical topics.
'''Support'''&mdash;another fine administrator coming. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Oppose'''. This user was not very friendly with me on my first encounter and pushed his opinions rather forcefully. It seemed if you don't agree with his ideas for portals or make yours *just like* the medicine one, even it doens't make sense, you get an earful. While he seems to be improving, I don't think he's ready for adminship. I'm shocked so many people have supported him and I'm sorry 944 mainspace edits is not nearly enough for him to have a good understanding of what goes on. The not so great English doens't help either. Perfect English is not required, but it sure helps one hell of a lot to be able to explain things well when the subtle nuances of your admin decisions need to be explained. I just can't see where this is a good idea.
Seems like a great user, but 944 mainspace edits out of 4071 isn't really very much. Also doesn't seem to have a very firm grasp on English, as demonstrated by adding s to the end of words (1-2 dozens of AfDs) and the lack of words like an and the in his answers to the questions.
'''Neutral''' per Jorcoga. I'm a bit concerned, but I'm not concerned enough that I'm going to oppose.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]].
'''Neutral''' per Jorcoga and Mindset. A promising choice, but language skills and edit summaries (important) need improvement. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' I think Wikipedia will benefit from giving this guy the mop.  A top-notch vandal fighter. --
'''Weak Support'''. Very good vandal fighter. I'm a bit worried about your inexperience, being that you made your last 4,300 edits+ within the last 2.5 months. --
'''Support''' About time!
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  "...it's my duty to make sure that this place doesn't fall apart while this great project tries to document everything worth writing about known to humanity."  Well said.
'''Support'''.  I've actually been coming across your work for the last week or so in the vandal fighting arena . . .   And it looks like you could use a mop.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Weak Support''' A good vandal fighter but the low article talk edits is a bit of a concern. Anyway, I feel that Wikipedia will benefit greatly by giving this user the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' OK, the above answers are good and you seem to have a firm grasp of policy, demonstrated by the AfD contributions and vandal warnings.  Not too happy about
'''Support''' per (aeropagitica) I would probably prefer all references to ED were removed due to their hostility towards other editors, and I think it wise if (when) promoted that you remove this. However, Netsnipe has shown he is experienced enough with the tools, and another admin from this part of the world has got to be a good thing. -
'''Support''', per vandal-stopping capacity and experience, notwithstanding the timescale. --
'''Support'''&mdash; Overall sound record. Already working [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse|long term abuse]]. No indication of any inclination to take the powers for deletion to an extreme. Has a sense of humor, which is good in an admin; I grant you that  [[User:Netsnipe/User Bureaucratic F**k| Bureaucratic F**k]] is hardly great humor, but certainly not a reason to turn down an admin candidate if there is no evidence it underlies deeper problems. And I’m particularly heartened that CrazyRussian only provided a Weak Oppose for inexperience and failure to use the preview button (flaws from which I still suffer as well); that’s almost praise.  Give him the tool belt  (no, it isn’t a mop or we’d award it with less pain) and let Netsnipe do some good.
'''Strong support''' - it's so great when I see a report on [[WP:AIV]] from Netsnipe because when I see the report, I can trust that the user has been warned and almost always deserves a block.  Meets my [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|standards]]. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' I can trust this user.
'''Support''' Netsnipe has had his share of confrontations etc. and has retained a positive attitude. I smell a rouge admin (just kidding, loved the userbox though) :-) [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', significant volume of anti-vandal work.  AFD contributions are normally well thought out and solid.  Should be trusted with the tools.
<s>'''Support'''</s>, a vandal fighter.  I also will address concerns from others:  For, "Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why," I think he should have included the userbox in Question 4.  For his not using the preview button, [[Wikipedia:Avoid using preview button]].  [[User:Anomo|Anomo]] 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)  Changing my vote to '''Weak Support''' per Cyde's comments.
'''Support''' due to anti-vandal work.
'''Support''' I would've liked to see more article writing from the candidate, but it seems as if the candidate will use the extra buttons primarily to work on vandalism prevention and maintenance.  I feel confident in the candidate's abilities in that respect and believe that he/she is to be trusted and is very well-intentioned, which are two of the most important characteristics I look for in a candidate.
'''Support.''' I'm pretty comforatble with this one.
'''Support''' - I'm always seeing this user in and around XfDs.  I'm consistently impressed.  Per investigation of the situation in oppose number two, I see no evidence whatsoever of an "edit war".
'''Strong support''' - I have awarded this editor a barnstar for identifying possible wikistalking against me.  As of this writing the investigation remains underway, but one offending account has already been indefinite blocked as a sockpuppet/vandal.  Not only did [[User:Netsnipe|Netsnipe]] spot that my post to [[Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse]] was removed twice, but followed up to report that (his?) initial notice on my user talk page had also been deleted.  This is exactly the kind of diligence that foils persistent troublemakers.
'''Support''', excellent vandal-fighter! --
'''this.Support(Netsnipe);''' --
'''Weak support''', on this rare occasion of a newish user, <small>and the users nice gift they sent me '''voluntarily'''.</small>--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong support''' - He isn't an admin already? I'm shocked, seriously. Don't always agree, but a responsible editor.
'''Hell yeah''' <!--begin crazytales56297 sig--><font face="Verdana">«[[user:crazytales56297|'''<font color="#78abea">ct</font>''']]»&nbsp;<small>([[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' Diligent work. F**k userbox is not helpful for newer users.
'''Support''' - determined vandalfighter needs tools
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' about damn time too. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I think that you have been here for a long enough amount of time with many edits and I particularly liked your response to Q7. --
'''Support''', don't see anything to be concerned about. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' yup.
'''Support''' Netsnipe looks like a decent editor that could be trusted with admin tools. Good interaction with others, and nice response to optional question # 7. Doing a little research before speedy deletions, hasty moves, etc shows quality contributions to Wiki.
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around doing anti-vandal work and thought he already ''was'' an admin.
'''Support'''. Examples I've seen tell me '''Netsnipe''' won't block new users for mistakes. Seems cool headed and unlikely to bite new users or delete poorly crafted new articles. Could someone provide me examples of the alledged edit warring?
'''Support''' I can trust him with the mop, and candidate seems dedicated to helping out other users, although I would like to see a higher proportion of experience in the mainspace.--
'''Support''' Convinced me, although I would like to see him make more mainspace edits. --
'''Support''' Needs a little more editing experience, but I trust him with the mop because he talks to people.
'''Support''' The conflict handling I have seen him do (at AN/I, for example) seems vey level-headed and correct. A good contributor who looks like he would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. I really, really hate to use such a cliched line, but when I first saw Netsnipe I thought he ''was'' an admin. --
'''Support''' Strong anti-vandal, seems to be very level headed, have never seen anything negative from him.
'''Strong support''', very experienced and civil editor; has done a lot of work against vandalism.--
'''Support''', good editor, I grant that the low mainspace editcount is strange but the answer to Question #7 is good ---
'''Support'''. I like the golden rule attitude (although the link should be disambiguated - hint hint ;-) --
'''Support''', vandal fighter, started slowly editing in '03! --
'''Support.''' First encountered this user today; appears very tactful and grasps wiki policy firmly. A fine candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' experienced with policy and coolheaded. Shell <sup>
'''Support''' <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. I didn't know he wasn't an admin before. Experienced and seems ready for the job. :) --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' per comments and answers to questions.  Good user, can use the buttons, no significant issues.  Concur that "that userbox" would best be dropped.
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''' seems to be good for me. Good work!
'''Support'''; don't see why not.
<small>AUSSIE</small> aussie AUSSIE &ndash; '''support'''. Oppose concerns seem easily remediable. All the best, &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, especially #7. --
'''Support''' as a vandalfighter that would benefit from the adminship
'''Support''', without reservations. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' per inexperience (and failure to use the preview button). - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Inexperienced, and I'm not very impressed with his edit warring on [[Allegations of Israeli apartheid]].
'''Oppose''' seems like a nice guy, but needs more mainspace editing experience.  Part of knowing what to delete and what to keep is learned from contributing articles.  --
User's sig is not in line with [[WP:SIG]].  Admins need to follow the guidelines.  --
'''Neutral''' per Nishkid64. 2 months more of continuous great contributions and this'd have been a clear support.
'''Neutral''' seems like a good user, but since this is going to pass anyway I have to register my objection to that garish-website-from-1997 signature.
'''Neutral''':  I support the user, but I have to be neutral on RFA due to time.  Because he is heavily involved with the dark side, he comes into contact with our nastier folks.  So far, his temperament has been very good and shown excellent character, and that's why I'm on "neutral" instead of my usual "oppose" on folks with such a short time on project.  In time, I would be a support voice.
'''Support''' as nominator, of course --
'''''Strong support''''' During my Wp tenure, I've observed Nightstallion valiantly galloping to any number of topics and articles.  It was his stupendous participation, though, [[Template_talk:Infobox_Country/HDI#Process_for_implementation|in the project to incorporate the HDI in the country infobox/template]] that truly won me over: in between the time when I issued a call for assistance and when I awoke the next day, Nightstallion had completed ''almost all'' of the data entry for 150+ countries!  Furthermore, I find Nightstallion to be analytical yet eclectic, amicable, and conciliatory ... traits that will serve him well as an Admin.  Thus, I look forward to working with Ns more and offer my unsolicited support for Nightstallion's RfAdmin.  Enjoy the ride!
'''Strong Support''' has my full confidence.

'''Psychically Beaming Strong Support''' for this excellent contributor who will use the mop well.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. Gets involved in discussions, see him around a lot.
'''Support''' admin is no big deal (certainly not a big enough deal to vote oppose because of one's signature) and you deserve it.
'''Support'''. I know little about Nightstallion, but I know that Netoholic is wrong and overbearing in just about everything he does.
'''Weak Support''' I would clearly vote oppose in this situation as I clearly agree with Thorpe and Radiant but I just can't as I also agree with E Pluribus Anthony. I don't know if this will pass or not but try to get more involved into article writing and AFD's, and next time you will get clearly get more than 75 support votes. --
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I have seen a lot of his work and he always makes a good impression on me. -
'''Support'''. I knew Nightstallion from his work in [[Template:infobox country]] where he did a great job implementing the HDI information in all countries in a few time.
Hell, yes.  '''Support'''.&mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He does a great job here.
'''Support''' seems very well researched and trustworthy. Contributes a lot, and is a good Wikipedian -
'''Support''' Helps out on [[WP:RM]] and appears to understand policy to a decent level (yah, the sig though... oh well :)) <small>
'''Strong Support'''. Nightstallion is an active, helpful member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics|WikiProject Numismatics]], and I can trust him to use admin tools. I would encourage him to tone down his signature, but I think he would be a good admin. --
'''Support''' per everything else...a strong mediator(?), good communications, personable.
'''Support''' I see this guy all over the place. He is a common face on RFAs and VFDs. His reasons are also not stale or shallow. They are well thought out and specific. I like that. --
'''Funky Signature Appreciation Support'''. Minor edits help the encyclopedia, too.
'''Very Strong Support'''- Ich hab' gedacht du bist schon Admin! :) Ich wünsche dir viel Erfolg! He will be a good admin and we trust his opinion on various topics concerning Central Europe and so on. Let's vote with him!--
'''Support''' the reasons for opposing such as not enough edits to project pages and concerns over your signature say little to convince me that you will use your admin tools unwisely.--
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. With his active participation, he will be a good admin. --
'''Support''' Thought he was one --[[User talk:Wikiacc|«]]
'''Support'''. Contributions look good.  His signature doesn't cause my guts to tie themselves in knots. --
'''Support''' Ditto on the above. His sig is cool, yet confusing. I feel like I should call him NGTTLINIHSALO with this current sig.
'''Support''' Great guy, fine editor. His signature drives me nuts, but that is a tempary situation. (I prefer the one with the question marks.) '''''
'''Support'''. His signature doesn't bother me.--
Valuable contributor. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
Support -
'''Support'''. I have seen him around the wiki and is a helpful and useful person.
'''Support'''. I thought long and hard about this one... then remembered that "adminship is no big deal". There really is no reason that I can see (especially after reviewing the very weak "oppose" reasons below) why Nightstallion should not be an admin. ''Really'' needs to change his sig to one that renders though - I just see a bunch of squares.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor, seems non-crazy.
'''Support'''. User's obsession with signatures aside, giving him the ability to delete pages would allow him to do much more productive work with required page moves and disambigs.
'''Harrumph!''' --
Definite '''support'''.  Longtime contributor, will make a fine admin; NBD.
'''Please change your [[WP:SIG|sig]]''', Netoholic is correct, diffs for any talk page (or anywhere) where your username is signed, becomes very frustrating to read (sideway scrolling, clutter and so on). It simply isn't worth it for the rest of us.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Personally, I think the oppose votes have been getting more and more ridiculous lately. A convoluted signature causes you to oppose? Come on, now. I don't like them, sure, but he'd make a fine admin, which is ''what you should be looking at''... &mdash;
'''Support''' yes. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Ring in [[2006]] with new tools in your bag o' tricks!
'''Support''' the creative. And Happy New Year. --
'''Support''' pretty signatures.  better to clutter talk pages with personal expression than to clutter articles with it... [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.  I can't see that Nightstallion's interpretation of what constitutes a "minor" edit has any bearing on being a good admin. --
'''Strong Support''': Although I am more active in the german wikipedia I did come across some of ns edits and did find them fair and moderate. I think he would make a good admin. As concerning the ''personal'' signature it is just that, as is a user page. I think this in no way (dis)qualifies any candidate for admin-work. Much more interesting are strong nerves and levelheaded reactions to sometimes emotional discussions (being objective and understanding while protecting textual and lexical integrity of an article - sounds like a mission for batman hehe) and I think he will do great. I also liked his interwiki work. --
'''Support''' <small>(changed from opose post agreement to remove image from sig)</small> Nightstallion has a tendancy for janitorial work (seen a [[WP:DPL|link repair]]) and admin powers will only fuel this. Also appears to be a friendly communicator, very useful.--
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' after changes. See my comments below under neutral.
'''Oppose''' - First of all, as of this post, this RFA is still not linked from [[WP:RFA]], and so is invalid.  Second, Nightstallions signatures are atrocious.  I can't support anyone that would knowingly continue to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nightstallion&diff=32852220&oldid=32837493 diffs hard to read and clutter the page source] for personal vanity. Worse yet, he's also chosen to use his signature to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trade_bloc&diff=32859635&oldid=32858860 promote this very adminship vote]. --
'''Oppose''', you don't seem to contribute much information on articles. I was just looking through your edits and most are marked "Minor" or you are on a talk page. Please consider making some major edits. --<b>
'''Oppose'''. First, just about all contributions are marked as minor, indicating that Nightstallion doesn't know what a "minor edit" is. He should familiarize himself with Wikipedia custom before running for adminship. And second, there's not a lot of edits to Wikipedia space, except for '''120 RFA votes or remarks''' in the past month.
'''Reluctant oppose.''' Maybe in another month or two, I could support. The whole experience thing is slightly bothersome, and I really don't care for images in signatures. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. Too many minor edits.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant on the minor edits issue.  An admin certainly needs to have enough experience to know what is and is not a minor edit.
'''Weak oppose''' as per Radiant. User seems more concerned with flash and style (see number of userspace/User template edits) than the Encyclopaedia as a whole. If minor edits should not change factual data, there's room for improvement here. And the signature thing '''is''' concerning, however hypocritical that may sound. Again, Nightstallion seems more concerned with getting a 'cool font' into his signature than making it legible to all. --
'''Oppose''' Per Radiant.'''
'''Oppose'''. Per Radiant. Would likely support in a few months if more edit summaries are used and there's slightly more familiarity with Wikipedia policies.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant and Neto comments, I concur.  --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose'''. --
Thanks for changing the sig. '''Neutral''' on the minor edits count. <font color="darkred">
Neutral per low edit count, but I honestly don't think that signature objections are serious. So it is a bit long in edit view... so what? It's small in normal view. It's pretty. It's unique, and means that I can spot Nighstallion sig easier then most of other users sig = saves my time. I like it.--
'''Neutral''', competent editor, but I can not ignore the fact that ''Nightstallion'' is somewhat unfit for adminship due to his argumentitive and sometimes negative personality. Clearly, he has engaged in sufficent defenses over every situation brought to to the rfa, and in his dealings regarding some editors, he does not always answer in good faith. Such things make me speculate weather or not he is suitable for mediation, which, I believe, is a very important ability required of our administrators. Also, in a personal engagement, when I constructed a query and left it on his talkpage he decided not to respond and/or explain his posistion at all. I hope this changes, he would be quite sutible for the posistion. -
Obvious '''Support'''. Huge amount of edits! Will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - After checking his contributions, I may just say that he seems a very experienced contributor, with lots of articles created, several participations in wikiprojects and a good editcount in every namespace. He'll make a very good admin.
'''Weak support''', too many userboxes though.
<s>Hope to see better use of edit summaries in the future, but a minor niggle.</s> '''Support'''. [[User:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; color: #161;">Kirk</span>]] [[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 10px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]] 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC) I thought those stats looked odd. Based on user's answers and the more rounded approach promised, still support.
'''Support''' Great user. [[User:Master of Puppets|Mopp]]
'''Support''' &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', knows this website well. I trust he will use the mop responsibly.
'''Support''', not an admin?
'''Support''', I trust him with the tools, good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - enter cliche asking why it took so long here --
'''Support''' - very good contributions. &mdash;
'''Support''' - everything looks great. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I'm not crazy on the 'Nippon Animation' category, but otherwise he seems sensible. -
'''Well duh! Support''' - would have loved to nominate him myself. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' - looks like a good one.  Lots of contributions.  Will probably be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - looks good
Yes.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- strong user.
<b>Support</b> Great edit count, including an abundance of edits in the Wikipedia namespace.
I would be honored to vote '''Support'''.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' for another Japanophile (^.^)   --
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. -'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Everything seems to be in order here,  its mopping time! —
'''Support''' per solid record of contributions and positive interactions on talk page.  Definitely even-tempered and won't abuse the mop.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great user who has earned admin rights. --[[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#000000">preschooler</span>]][[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#E9B901">@</span>]]
Hooooooooooly ''crap'' that's a lot of articles created. No question about this... '''Strong support'''.
[[Image:Smile.png|15px|All the way!]] Fits all of the admin criteria. Excellent phenomenal '''Support''' and a kiss from [[Care Bears|<font color="ff99cc">Love-A-Lot Bear</font>]]! --
'''Support'''. A deserving user, and will likely be handy with a mop.
'''Support'''. This user doesn't need the mop, they need a deck scrubbing brush and some industrial strength floor cleaner!!! --[[Darth]]
'''Support''', looks good. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Military history|<font color="#960018">h</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support,''' of course. -
'''Support''' This user is making great edits
'''Support''' per all the above.
'''Support'''. Good editors.'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''',
'''Support,''' I think the guy can be trusted.
'''Support''' Everything checks out.--
'''Support'''  Additional generic compliment (sorry they've all been taken).--
'''Support''' No reason not to.
'''Support''' Why dosen't anyone oppose for him not being here you enough like the dude above??  <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
'''Support''' We need a category titled '''"I'm going to die if this user doesn't get sysopped!"'''. <font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''' I've seen your anime/manga wp work. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' --

[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support'''.--
Please send more - <b>
'''Support''' Is there really anything else to be said?--<em>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''. An amazing amount of quality edits, very experienced, and obviously knows his way around Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I have crossed him enough times to realize he is a good wikipedian with common sense. --
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''', I've seen him around, always good contribs from him. Go for it, Joe!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Nihonjoe has been doing a superb job.--
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good editor who contributed a lot to Wikipedia, especially regarding Japan-related articles.
'''Support'''
'''Yes''' indeed!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Good user
'''Support''' Good stuff. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''', great contributions, great attitude -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support''' - I thought he was ''already'' an admin (based on what I noticed of his presence and accuracy in edits). --
'''Support''' - I've heard of him and not in a bad way.
'''Support''' - too valuable to not be an admin. But fix your signature, even though I can see it perfectly fine. --
'''Support''' But please, change the signature. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but your answer to Firsfron was disturbing.  Have the courage to say, "NO, that's unethical!"  An administrator is not a politician.
<s>'Likely temporary '''oppose'''. I don't know how many different scripts the average user has installed, but I know I have a fairly large number of scripts installed - yet half of his new signature (the first half) comes up as boxes for me. That's a problem for an admin, I think, and a borderline violation of [[WP:SIG]]. Change it to something more users will have the font for and I'll immediately support. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Oppose''' has non-English characters in his sig on English Wikipedia. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
<s>Changing vote to '''Neutral'''. Will change vote to ''support'' if Nihonjoe considers reviewing [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frys104|this case]] upon promotion to administrator (I didn't see any specific policy against this, so I hope it's not illegal. I wouldn't normally even consider this move, but I'm at my wits' end with the current admin reviewing the case).--
'''Support''' wherever I've seen you, you've been doing a good job. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Ditto. I've seen this user around and have been very impressed. -
'''Support''' Looks good. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' very impressive, especially on your tireless work with sports articles.
'''Support''' [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support'''.  Huzzah!
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support'''. Great editor, very civil and friendly.--
'''Support''' based soley on current talk page and most recent archive.
'''Support''' An impressive editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Extraordinary and hyper active user. I just want to know whether you are going to join the Indian admins club or not. --
'''Support''' I encountered Nishkid several times before and I'm impressed, Still a bit new in my opinion, but he shows an willingness of learning that not much people have. Was thinking of nominating him in October.
'''Strong support''', ditto Jaranda - only met Nishkid64 on a few occasions, but displayed the qualities that ''I'' want in an admin. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Strong support''' Good editor, remarkable participation in AfD, and visible willingness to meet what's expected in an administrator. Also knows how to cheer up this place.--[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support''' per all above. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' - good participation in AfD discussions. --
'''Support'''. From what I can see there don't seem to be any problems. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - well, isn't it obvious I was going to support :) --
'''Support''' Good participation at AfD, in addition to vandal patrolling. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">

I '''strongly support''' you. Keep up the good work! <b><span style="background:#a00">[[User:S!|<span style="color:#fff">•S</span>]][[User:S!/E|<span style="color:#0c0">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Well, eleven days thither, following our having amicably resolved some issues relative to [[Portal:Baseball/News]], about the proper content of which we were of different minds, I offered to nominate Nish, and, even as he wasn't then sure that he was ready for an RfA, I was and am.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.'''  I have been consistently impressed with Nishkid's work.  He <small>(I'm assuming)</small> is always encouraging, civil, able to reference policy for his arguments, and is a great RC patroller.  As for the below neutral, it appears to have been an honest mistake.  Keep up the great work, Nish! :)
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' A strong editor.  BTW, IIRC, the image is from CNN.--
'''Support''' Per good answers to the questions above. ''Give-em-the-mop'' -
'''Support''' Seems like he will work hard and be a good admin ~
'''Support''' Nice answers to the questions, deserves a mop.
'''Support''' Good editor, excellent XFD discussion. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
'''Support''' Constructive editor and good vandal fighter.
'''Support''', I like the answers and the large amount of wp-space contribs.
'''Support''', seems fit.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. A few minor misunderstandings apart, this editor seems responsible and committed to the project. Experienced enough for me also. '''
'''Support''', I have seen your great work on Wikipedia and I have to say you are great I really hope you get the position----
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You do good work around Wikipedia. Your usage of admin tools could really help out.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per nom --

Great user, lots of experience in his 8 months with the project, and aside from what seems to be an honest mistake - no reason to think he'll abuse the tools; all this results in '''support'''.
'''Support'''.  Although editor is a little weak on article-building and hasn't had much experience dealing with conflicts, he is active, he seems to be conscientious about improving, and he's unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Permission to land into Adminship''', i.e. '''Support'''  - I only think he could do with a bit more previewing, but the rest is OK.—
'''Support''', I trust this person to become a administrator.
'''Support''' - a familiar face on afd.
'''Hungover Support''' Stay away from the Vodka, thats all I can say. Oh, and give 'em the mop.
'''Support''' I see, even within this Rfa: thoughtful responses to criticism, good humor and a willingness to admit when wrong.  I think being an admin has its own learning curve, as does Wikipedia, and this user has the potential to do really well. And if he (?) makes a mistake, I see a lot of evidence that it'll be corrected and learned from. Great qualities in an admin.
'''Support''' per above.  Valuable contributions in several different areas.  The Oppose comments suggest that the candidate isn't perfect, but which of us is?
'''Support''' I trust this users judgement, and think the he is ready for the mop. A thoughtful and fast learning user, you should grow into the tools quickly. Good luck. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <s>quite impressive credentials, good guy</s> [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 07:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Sorry put a vote over wrong RfA. This one fully satisfies my requirements. The argument about Macginny's question seems to be a misunderstanding. I am supporting this nomination as well
'''Support''' per Dina. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', I've seen consistently solid work.
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Oppose''' <s>Inability to investigate even simple mixups. (The attack below was by [[User:Jpfloru]], as [[User:The Golux]] pointed out repeatedly, and as is clear from the edit history.)</s> ''(Resolved)'' I <s>also</s> have a hard time finding editorial contributions over the last eight weeks or so, and none of the AfD contributions I checked showed independent research efforts. The [[Tôn Đức Thắng]] article uses other encyclopediae as sources, so I can't find enough evidence to trust that [[User:Nishkid64]] has enough research competence required for an admin. ~
'''Strong Oppose''' (changed from oppose)<s>In most respects you're a good candidate</s>, but I'm seriously concerned about your attitude to blocking, it appears to be quite uninformed - <s>and so reluctantly</s>, I can't support you at this time. I really think you need to have a good read of [[WP:SOCK]], [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:BLOCK]] and then consider how you might treat an established user differently from a newbie vandal. --
'''Oppose''' Per McGinnly. The seemingly simple decisions are the ones that need the most care sometimes, this is one of those times.
'''Oppose''' The reply on McGinnly's page isn't the kind of behaviour I would expect from an admin.
'''Oppose''' as Equendil. --
'''Oppose''' per Equendil.
'''Oppose''' per Equendil.
'''Oppose''', wow, that reply on [[User:Mcginnly]]'s talk page (cited above) was not a good sign. What were you thinking Nishkid? That kind of interaction does not represent the level headed attitude I would expect from an admin.  Calming problem situations is one of the jobs, not inflaming them. Sorry, but this is not usenet.
'''Oppose''' - If you were to become an admin, you would undoubtedly be subjected to ''real'' attacks from others (not just ones that you misinterpret).  Despite your attempts to defuse this situation, it's a troubling sign that you reacted the way you did, especially in the middle of your own RFA.  --
Don't know if I have enough contributions to count (I normally just read stuff) but this user did misread someone else's contribution as mine and accuse me of a personal attack - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Floru|here]].
'''Neutral''' no real reason to oppose, but [[Tôn Đức Thắng]], one of his proudest contributions, has an unreferenced tag on it.
'''Neutral'''. I'm appreciative of Nishkid's frequent contributions to AfD, but I feel his encyclopedia building experience is on the weak side, particularly the issue of referencing.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' —

'''Support''', since he has been here since late 2002, he has more than enough experience required. --
'''Greatly Support''', from what I have researched he seems like a great canidate for an admin.
'''Support'''; mainspace edits are infinitely more important than any other type.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' User seems well-versed on WP and will be a good admin. --
'''Support''' admin is no big deal so oppose reasoning doesn't do it for me.
'''Support''', because I suffer from accountagitis.
'''Support'''.  Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and I see no reason why this person cannot be trusted with the added responsibilities that come with it.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - seems to be an experienced and high-quality contributor, and it's not as if adminship is a big deal. --
'''Support''' As a similar "newbie" who has only been here since, oh, January of 2003, I definitely appreciate the kind of level-headed, concise editors who can keep their non-article edit counts fairly low as they contribute, as it often speaks volumes about their unwillingness to get involved in petty bickering, revert wars, sniping, or superflous non-article chatter and debate (as compared to needed non-article chatter and debate, of course).
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor, unlikely to abuse admin tools. The main article namespace is the backbone of Wikipedia. If an excellent contributor wants admin tools for the occasional edit which requires them (such as a move to a page which has two redirects in its history), I think we can entrust him with them. Some months ago I opposed [[User:Khaosworks]]' nomination for lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace and I now regret now having done so.
'''Mild Support''' - I agree with the reasoning of [[User:Gator1|Gator]]. However, I would add that   it would be beneficial for his user interaction to increase; although, [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] has said that adminship isn't meant to be a big deal. It would appear that if we were to use [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo's]] reasoning then the majority of wikipedians should be admins. I see no reason to depart from this conjecture and the only real reason I can see for denying SysOp priviliges is if the camdidate is extremely new (so new that we don't know if he/she will be a threat) or if the candidate poses a real risk of abusing his/her SysOp privileges. --
'''Support'''. Another long-term good contributor who decides maybe the toolbox might be useful after all, and I see no reason not to support. This should be no big deal. (Also, I hear you on question #3, having felt similarly, and that frank answer leads me to suspect abuse of admin rights will be unlikely.)
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''' I find it inconceivable that a user who has shown such fortitude in his dedication to this project would abuse or misuse the [[orb]] and [[sceptre]] of adminship.
'''Support''' --
'''support''' because he is a good long time contributor
'''Support''' even if you can just do a half dozen vandalism rollbacks a week, it's a help...I see no reason to oppose your promotion.--
<small>
'''Support'''. Good long term editor should have the tools. --
'''Harrumph!''' --
Strong '''support'''.  Excellent contributor; level-headed and well-spoken.  Will make an stellar admin.  Adminship should be '''no big deal'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''Strong oppose'''. Blatant lack of user interaction - in three years' time, he has made less than 50 edits to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Nixdorf&namespace=3 user talk pages], and only 16 edits to article talk pages in the past ''three months''. Also I am unimpressed by his almost total lack of contributions to Wikipedia space (17 in the past ''year'') and WikiTalk (5 total). Accountagitis is no grounds for promoting a user who shows no familiarity with process and no community interaction.
'''Oppose''' Ok, this fellow is certainly a wonderful article writer.  With so few edits to Project space, though, I can't understand why he needs adminship, and his first answer is too short to clear up the matter for me.  I ''want'' Nixdorf to be an admin, but if this is something he desires, he should show some familiarity with Project space.  I will support in ''one month'', even, if he makes a serious effort there.
'''Oppose'''. Despite his long tenure, this great editor has actually done very little admin-type work. Very few vandalism reverts, zero participation in VfD/AfD, and minimal user interaction, as others have noted. I'm sure he could learn to become a good admin, but at this point I don't think he's ready.
'''Oppose'''.  As above, thanks for all the good contributions, but adminship is strongly related to user interaction, and I am opposed to a candidate with so little experience in that area.
'''Weak oppose''' based on lack of interaction with other users. In all that time you've been here, you should know the community a bit better. How can people size you up well without having talked with you? --
'''Oppose'''. Per Radiant.'''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough community interaction.
'''Neutral'''.  Edits and article participation seems good, with an excelent use of edit summaries, but a noted lack of User_talk and Project_talk type edits indicate low user interaction, a trait I feel admins should have.  Other than that, I have no reason to oppose, and wish you well on your nomination.
'''Neutral''': Dormant LTU <strong>
'''Neutral''' for now; I think (s)he'd make a great admin, but a little more activity, 'specially in userspace, would be good. Will likely support next time. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Neutral''' per Zoloz. No offense, but 50 is way too low, I probably have been averaging 50 '''per day''' as an admin lately. Not sure if he could handle that right now.
'''Neutral''' as per above. I find the low community interaction a little bit of a problem, but there is nothing to indicate that this user will misuse admin powers.
'''Neutral''' See my crossed out oppose comment --
'''Support''' per the above statement. (
'''Support''' seen this person around, very good user.--
'''Support''', won't abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Keep up the good work!
'''Support'''. Have seen his edits around. A good user. --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support'''. Article on Pepper Martin clinched it. Now go get [[Gashouse Gang]] up to featured status!
'''Support'''. Good editor with a lot of experience. Not likely to abuse admin powers --
'''Support'''. Good user. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Alrighty!'''. :) -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Good contributor, seems generally knowledgable. -
Support. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Excellent Wikipedian. Keep it up. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. For my money, a strong vandal fighter merits being an admin. Vandalism spoils great articles for the short time it is on them and someone happens to access them. Vandalism undermines article credibility. Please keep on fighting it.
'''Support'''. Good to see strong experience in writing articles to complement the greate anti-vandal campaign.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''', great editor --
'''Support''' - great editor, super fast responses to "the list" of questions, well deserving of my support --
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', looks good from here.--
'''support''' good candidate --
'''Support''' as per above.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''', will do fine.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  NoGuru is a thoughtful editor who'll do well.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' Could be a tad less harsh.
'''Support''' good user --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Strong Support''' Very well balanced, experienced editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''' --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support'''<span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', but get to work on those page moves. <sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=No+Guru&page=]</sup>
'''Support''' Definitely should be an admin.
'''Support''' - Yep. Nothing more needs to be said. -
'''Support'''.  Giving him the mop and pail will allow an effective vandal-reverter to be a vandal-reverter.
'''Support'''. As per all of the above
'''Support'''
'''Support''' "better late than never" support from
'''Support''' meets the majority of my criteria. Good user. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''.
'''Conditional support&mdash;'''he uses the "minor edit" tag too often when the edit isn't minor. IMHO, warning about an image's liscense isn't anything minor.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Fits like a key to a lock!
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''

'''Support'''.  At first, I was surprised to see that only 7 out of more than 1,100 user talk page edits were to his own talk page.  But after cross checking, I found his responses to comments on his talk page on the commenter's talk page.  The responses seemed always polite and reflected a good ability at conflict resolution, so thus my support. —
'''Support'''. Bumped into him a few times before in recent changes, seems trustworthy.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Don't know your work that well, but from what I've seen, you're good to go.
'''Support''' per nom, good record of contributions, and well-reasoned answers to questions below.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my criteria]].
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', excellent contributions. -- [[King of Hearts|King of]] [[King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]]
'''Support''' a great editor, excellent admin potential
'''Suppport'''. See no cause for concern here.












First Vote --
Encouraging answers to questions, and certainly a great edit history. I'll look forward to seeing him around as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' -- I have been waiting for this nomination to happen... BD2412, what took you so long to nominate him? ;) [[User:NoSeptember|NoSeptember]] pops up on my watchlist rather often as well, and his contributions are sensible and thoughtful.
'''Support''', mais bien sur, as nominator.
'''Support''' good contributor, I trust the nom. -
'''Support''' good answers to questions and BD2412 is a very trustworthy nominator. Please use edit summaries more often.--
'''Support''' with no reservations.--
Absolutely support. Good judgment and wonderful attitude. And, as per GregAsche: "god contributor" :)
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' with no reservations.
'''Support''', I've seen him around doing good things. - '''''<font style="color:green;">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' some great contributions to wikipedia main space and wikipedia name space --
'''Support''' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support''' No reason not to. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup>
'''Support'''. Looks good. -
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' per nomination. --
'''Support''' Cliched, but I thought he already was one. --
'''Support''' Fine editor, and the nominator is a great guy. So of course I'll support. '''''
'''Support'''
'''Strong <s>September</s> Support''' , hic, January support, especially for his answer to Q.1. --
'''Support''', I liked the answers to my question.
'''Support'''. An amazing editor doing amazing work with legal and judicial articles.--
'''Support''' –
'''Support'''
'''Support''', a cursory scan shows him to be a courteous and knowledgeable user, and courteous and knowledgeable users have a tendency to become courteous and knowledgeable admins (usually).  I also like his answers to the questions, and trust my fellow supporters (up ^ thataway).
'''Support'''. Intelligent, experienced, responsible and good contributor.
'''Support'''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Best of luck. -
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I trust any nomination made by BD2412 to be a worthwhile candidate.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per good edits and the answers to questions especially question number 1.--
'''Support''' Seems like a good idea--
'''Support''' good knowledge of law and Wikipedia.
'''Support''' good as an editor, civil, good answers to questions. Like others, he pops up on my Watchlist, often with sensible, good-faith edits. Would be an excellent admin, who would be very very unlikely to abuse his powers.
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''', as I've seen him all over the place, and has struck me to have good knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' No evidence of helping new users, or active conversation skills.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' the actions of a nominator reflect the actions of the nominee - specifically BD2412's recent rampant harassment of Masssiveego.
I vaguely remember this editor being impolite at times, but maybe I am thinking of some else or he has changed. Not sure, so '''Neutral'''.'''
'''First Support'''
'''Support''' Meets my standards (enough experience; no bad behavior) --
'''Support''' Looks like he'd make a good administrator. <small>

'''Support'''--

--
'''Support''' Solid user, good edits, it's a go. --
'''Support''' Sure. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Fills my requirements.
'''Support''' Obli-de Obli-da  :)
'''Support''' Meekly... not a ''lot'' of experience and edit summaries need a bit of work. But candidate seems sensible and suitable overall.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''-- Articulate, clear thinking in talk pages.
'''Support'''  Give him his own mop!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' a very good contributor <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''', would like to see higher edit summary percentages though.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', good work so far. --
'''Support''' nice work, no reason to deny adminship, although I would prefer if this editor had been a little more active, has only seriously edited for 4 months
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' naturally.
'''Support''': --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
Unlikey to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Lots of experiences and great behavior the whole way through!
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', will make a good admin.
'''Support''', but increase your use of edit summaries! Irritated by [[User:Esteffect|Esteffect]]s oppose comments, I'm sure no admin is completely clued up on all processess prior to adminship. What's important is that a new admin checks policy pages etc prior to taking actions. If Obli remembers that, I'm sure he'll do fine <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} I'm confident Obli will learn everything needed to be an admin along the way.  Will use the tools responsibly - no reason to believe otherwise.  I have just three more words for you: --
'''Support''', increase your edit summary usage, though.
'''Support'''. I like the way your signature reminds me of Lego.
'''Support'''. Keep it up. --
Hmmmmm, yeah, '''Support'''.
'''Just-In-Time Support''' and I'd be happy to newb it up on [[WP:ANI]] with you.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Late support''' for a promising candidate.
'''Oppose''', because every RFA needs an opposing party. :p Seriously though, Obli earlier today thought 3RR was violated after three reverts (three reverts is, of course, the maximum; Four is a violation). An admin really should know these things - It suggests to me a little, little bit of inexperience with processes admins need to excel at. Still, you should get the adminship easily enough anyway. Seems like a good enough user otherwise.
'''oppose'''. there are plenty of people speedying articles already. why the hurry? why not just put articles through the normal process, or tag them with {{tl|db | foo}} when necessary? Oppose on grounds of no need for adminship. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">



'''I was going to nominate her soon support''' Excellent user --
'''Support''' In my experience with her on the [[Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy]] page...well let's just say I thought she already was one! &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
I've seen her around, and I'm a bit surprised she isn't an admin.
'''Support'''.  I've seen ''him'' around and I've only seen good things - and good job clarifying your gender on your user page, ''James''. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Support''' don't care if they are a he or she, he still gets my support.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Apart from the fact that he marks '''all''' of his edits minor, I think that he'll be a great asset to the Wikipedia administration.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support''' as nominator.  Sorry for not doing so sooner, I was called into work and was unable to get to a computer sooner. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]

'''Support''', expanded answer to question 1 swayed me. —
'''Support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Support''' - <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#007700"><b>Ø</b></font></i>
Good editor, but unfortunately I think you're too new. Compared to CS,CWEM, I've hardly encountered you at [[WP:AIV]], where most RC patrollers report persistent vandals, and I've not interacted with you enough. Therefore, I have to respectfully '''oppose''' this nomination at this time.
'''Oppose''' Too new...great work, but not been around long enough.
'''Oppose''' User needs more experience; marks too many edits minor.
'''Oppose''', you're a good editor with good intentions, but I have to agree with the above: you need a little more experience and you need to learn a little more about Wikipedia policies and procedures. Also, your answer to question 1 suggests that you don't really know what admins do: the things you propose to do as an admin can already be done by non-admins. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose'''- no offense intended, but based on your question answers you seem to be unfarmiliar with a lot of wikipedia's policies and structure.--
'''Oppose'''. Per Urthogie. Those are not sysop chores, although they are necessary.'''
'''Oppose'''. Actual active time is really rather short. The answers to the questions do seem to show some considerably unfamiliarity with the fairly important details of various things. Even the expanded answer to Q1 is weak. One does not need admin powers to be able to deal effectively with vandalism alone. I think some more time spent swimming around in more pools and doing more things will allow a better demonstration of the editor's good judgement and may also show the editor various, important, things that he hasn't come across yet. -
'''Oppose''' - too new
'''Oppose''' per Urthogie. --
'''Oppose''' nothing against this editor, just too new.  i've seen an awful lot of nominations lately for folks with just a few months experience.  i don't understand it, as we don't seem to be really short of admins.  in my opinion, it takes more time than that to get to know this place well.
'''Neutral''' Upon looking at Ohnoitsjamie's contributions, I see a lot of good contributions to Wikipedia. Pretty active on AFD, but lacks any voting on RFA's and other places. Concerns to how Ohnoitsjamie's been fully active as he's only been contributing heavily since November. It's the same situation with a similar RFA as you are great contributor but have hardly enough time here on Wikipedia to consider you admin material..yet. I think you would feel more comfortable with the admin tools in a couple of months, in which I will support then. Don't let this vote discourage you though, I think your still valuable to Wikipedia. —
'''Neutral''' The answer to question 1 doesn't help, can't non-admins Wikify and Expand articles? How are they admin chores? --
'''Neutral''' Looking at the user's talk page I see a lot of flippant and sarcastic replies to vandals or to people questioning reversions, etc. (I can provide diffs if needed but go from the bottom up, you'll see quite a few). It's my view that it is best to always try to be friendly, even when delivering a message that the recepient may not like. Excessive flippancy or sarcasm in an administrator is not a trait I think is good. So for now I suspend judgement (but am interested in what others think... is my view valid?) I'm also not so keen on the answer to question 7.... coverage does not need to be roughly the same, it needs to be proportionate and appropriate. That may make dealing with NPOV questions harder. ++
'''Neutral''' per all above Neutral votes (or whatever people want to call them). --
'''Neutral''' still seems a bit new, although no reason to oppose given time <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Strong support'''. Oh dear, let me be the first to support this. Per nom. Usually we are in opposition to each other in content disputes because of our different background and POVs, but we can always get along. --
'''Strong support'''. A great editor who has silently improved quality of numerous unattractive articles. He is always available and helpful to other, less experienced users. I also admire his civil manners and self-control.
'''Strong support''', excellent editor, helpful and wise in dealing with conflicts.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' Just look at this example of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.137.80.121&diff=prev&oldid=75373854 civility and explanation].
'''Support.''' Just remember to warn vandals in the future. No big deal. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I keep running into your pic of Lion Shrine and never with bad thoughts. So good luck, and please keep on your good work.
'''Support'''.  Reviewing this user's contributions shows that this user is a great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Very good at dealing with conflicts. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' Skill at dealing with conflicts is a plus.--
'''Strong Support''' excellent editor.
'''Support'''. Excellent user.
'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom, answers to questions, and excellent responses to the oppose and neutral !voters. Excellent candidate, no issues.
'''Support''' based on long term and positive experience.
'''Support''' Definitely seems trustworthy. -- <font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', but warn vandals.
'''Support''' if you keep your word that you'll warn the vandals. Few things frustrate me more than reverting an IP vandal with 6 vandalizing edits and not a single previous warning.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''', per other comments (obviously, since I'm the nominator).--
'''Support''' -- a calm voice in the frequent Polish/German POV fights --
'''Support''' --I know his edits and are NPOV. --
'''support'''. i am glad to see somebody not on a jihad against vandals. andy should be ashamed for criticizing his plethora of ''edits'' as opposed to his blocks/bans/reverts/warns. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Support'''. -
'''Weak support''' I can see some room for improvement in mediation (see response to 4th question), but seems good overall. : )
'''Support''' I'm a bit concerned about the lack of wiki-space participation, his believing that RfA is a vote, and the lack of warning vandals after reversions.  Having said that, Olessi seems to be a very dedicated volunteer to the project and certainly seems trustworthy.
'''Support''' - devoted editors make good admins
'''Support'''. Excellent admin potential. I commend this wikipedian for behaving neutrally on very contentious subjects. He does not seem to have much experience in admin space, so I urge him to verse himself in Wikipedia guidelines and policies before long. Good luck, <font color="FC4339">
'''Support'''. After examining the contribs, I can only support this excellent editor, and I'm more than sure that he will make a good admin! :) --
'''Support''', do not expect any problems, editor appears to be sensible.
'''Support'''.  Based on my previous interactions with Olessi, he's got all the qualities an admin need, and he's got them in abundance.&mdash;
'''Support''', knowledgeable and unbiased. By the way, opposing the nomination on grounds of Olessi not having warned vandals seems completely ridiculous. --
'''Support''', will be a great admin, unbiased, experienced, but mostly because of the answers to the questions.
'''Qualified support''': Adminship is no big deal, and I do believe that Olessi would make a good administrator. However, you should try to warn vandals far more often - it's an important way to deter future vandalism, and potentially win over a few new users. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
''''Strong support'''.'''
'''Weak support''' you look like a great contributor whose mediation skills in particular will be appreciated, but as a janitor, I'd have liked to see more Wikipedia space edits. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Total support''' This is a non-brainer. very courteous, fair, keeps cool, and is a stickler about [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Wikiquette]], something that I really value. I am surprised this user is not a sysop yet. Gets my support under all circumstances. Good luck.
'''Support''' Quite surprised Olessi isn't already a sysop too. Best Wishes
'''Strong support''' This user is da' shit, man. --
'''Support''' I don't recall why I did not see or discounted edit count and time w/ wikipedia. Although reverting/warning/reporting vandals gives the experience to not make unwarranted blocks, I have to consider  8,000 edits since March sufficeint to support. Especially when they are real, article writing edits.
'''Support'''- Editor of great intelligence.
'''Support''' - of course! Olessi is one of the best editors I've encountered, and I have no doubt that he will be a great admin. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Strong support'''. Excellent editor, intelligent, polite, level-headed. WOuld make a great admin. --
'''Oppose''', wants to tackle vandalism but has never warned a vandal (as far as I can see) after reverting their vandalism, please read [[WP:VAND]].--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki-space edits suggests inexperience with wiki-process, fundamental for an wiki-mopper.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient edits to Wikipedia namespaces. Maybe try again in 90 days.--
'''Oppose'''. I have often found myself editing in similar areas as Olessi, and find myself very ambivalent about the concept of Olessi becoming an admin.  Though I have sometimes agreed with Olessi, and sometime disagreed, and though Olessi does have many qualities which I believe would be useful in an admin, ultimately I have strong concerns about POV issues. Specifically, a tendency to get involved in a large quantity of page moves.  I have watched Olessi move many many articles that could potentially have been controversial moves, but without any kind of advance notice on the article's talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Alcibiades%2C_Margrave_of_Brandenburg-Kulmbach&diff=57643542&oldid=45339234][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heiligenbeil&diff=prev&oldid=58518681][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pogesania&diff=57641439&oldid=56891491].  And in cases where there ''have'' been "Move" discussions on the talk page, though I don't always disagree with Olessi's choices, I have seen a pattern of Olessi in the camp of wanting to move articles from English spelling to foreign language spelling. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vossstrasse/archive1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wilhelmstra%C3%9Fe&oldid=75725333][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=57465211][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish_Biographical_Dictionary&oldid=60251085][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palais_Esterhazy&diff=prev&oldid=53600687]).  I have concerns, especially by Olessi's answer to #5 about wanting to move articles to "accurate titles," that Olessi would use adminship both to continue to move articles without notice, and to gravitate to controversial WP:RM situations, and use the tools to potentially push an agenda of moving Wikipedia articles to foreign-language titles. I am also uncomfortable with Olessi's answers to questions #3 and #4, which I do not feel are entirely accurate, as I feel that at times, instead of acting as a neutral mediator, Olessi has actually said things which have escalated a dispute. As such, I am not comfortable supporting adminship at this time. --
'''Oppose''' because of issues such as the undiscussed, one-man rush decision to change the spelling of voivodship, with the consistent edit summary "Correct spelling", when all it would have taken was simply entering either "Voivodship" or "Voivodeship" into the box and clicking "Go" to see that either is a correct spelling.  That was, of course, though an unnecessary move, something that had good results in that you now get to the article by using either spelling, but that isn't the reason Olessi offered for the move and didn't factor into his intentions at all. The problem is also exemplified by the rush to add diacritics to various [[Jizera]]-related articles without a sound basis for doing so, though in Olessi's favor he did change them afterwards. Bit it also includes the general sense that Olessi imparts that English usage is irrelevant, such as in the discussion of the ess-tzet at [[Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board]].
'''Neutral'''. I could oppose this RfA per lack of Wikipedia-namespace experience, but you have made a good deal of contributions in other aspects of the encyclopedia. It seems that although you have been on Wikipedia a long time, you have not really participated in many XfD's and other stuff of that nature. Also, it seems that you really don't warn users when reverting vandalism, which is a big problem when it comes to blocking users for vandalism. You have made many fantastic contributions to articles, but if you had some more AfD experience, I would definitely have supported this RfA.
'''Neutral''' I am going to go neutral on this RfA because I think that you are a really good editor in all respects except one - warning vandals. I have been through your article contributions and associated user Talk contributions from your first edit to December 2005 and compared the vandal reverts that I have found with the associated editors' Talk pages.  The difs are located [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Olessi&oldid=82852249 on this RfA's Talk page].  I will happily change my opinion if evidence can be provided that vandal warnings have been issused for associated reverts in the last ten months.  Reverting vandalism is an important part of any editor's job.  Warning vandals is important for the community in order to know when someone is either a persistent pest or a one-off.  If warnings are missed out on then a vandal can continue for so much longer, where they could have been stopped earlier if the warnings had accumulated.  This is the only thing that I would request to change about your editing style; in all other respects that I have studied you are an exemplary Wikipedian.
'''Neutral''' I don't have enough information to make an informed decision yet.  Still researching.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a decent person, but does not have enough namespace experience at this moment.
'''Neutral''' If we look just at the edit counts, I'd be worried about the low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace as I mentioned in my original oppose vote.  I don't know this editor personally but the large number of support votes from people that I know and respect inclines me to trust that they know this editor and that he can and will come up to speed on policy even if he doesn't have much experience in those areas at this time.  --
'''Nominate and support'''. Good luck!
'''Enthusiastic support'''. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] is a wonderful editor, gifted with words and insight, friendly, generous with help, industrious and superbly educated in the sciences (and who knows what else!).  In addition to her own work on FA's such as [[Sequence alignment]] and [[DNA repair]], her insightful and careful reviews were critical to the quality of several recent [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]], including [[Talk:Photon/Archive2#Suggestions_from_a_non-physicist|Photon]], [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Enzyme|Enzyme]], [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Enzyme|Enzyme kinetics]], and [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Enzyme|Enzyme inhibitor]].  Having similar interests, we have edited several articles in tandem such as [[Protein]], [[Phi value analysis]] and [[Beta-peptide]], and it has been a rare pleasure.  I believe her integrity and devotion to Wikipedian ideals are beyond question, as are her keen discernment and scientific expertise.  Moreover, [[User_talk:Opabinia_regalis/Archive_1#Hey-hey.2C_and_good_work.21|she has already served as an admin on another wiki]], has contributed significantly here to administrative tasks and seems ideally suited to assume the role and powers of an admin.  We are all very, very lucky to have her in our midst.
'''Support'''. Good editor, helpful and knowledgeable.
'''Support'''. This fossil is a major asset to wikipedia. ~&nbsp;''[[user talk:crazytales56297|<sup>(t)</sup>]]'''

This one's no dinasaur! </joke>
'''Strong Support''' Excellent contributor, this nomination is [[Mya (unit)|long overdue]]. ~
'''Enthusiastic support!''' I was most impressed by the featured picture opabinia created. Was quick to change a minor quibble I had without any complaint that I was being nitpicky, etc. I also followed the melanoma "controversy" as it was unfolding and was impressed to see how well opabinia handled it. A great editor who will be a great admin.
'''Strong support''' for excellent editor.
'''Support''' per excellent nomination and well-thought-out answers. Excellent editor, no concerns.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - Impressive contributions --
'''Support''' Good answers to questions show good potential for adminship.
'''Support''' The edit counts are lower than what I'd normally look for ''if'' I only paid attention to the counts.  The quality of the edits more than makes up for the counts. —
'''Support''' impressive editor --
'''Support''' Per nom. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Fantastic editor, great collaborator on the MCB project and really handled a stressful situation with [[User:Mussaali]] on the RNAi article with poise. i have no doubt that this editor can use the tools as part of the project work. I have no doubt that the block button will only be used in extreme cases where all talk and negotiation fails.
'''Support''' a good candidate with great contributions --
'''Support''' the five eyed wonder.
'''Support''' per all reasons above. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. Definitely a dedicated member of Wikipedia.
I'm
'''Support.''' An excellent editor. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' of course.--
'''Support''' - do the 5 eyes help you see vandalism?
I'm [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] and I '''support''' this user. (<small>Lol...I had to steal it</small>) '''
Certainly.
'''Support''' solid contributor.
'''Support''' Well, his contributions to this project speaks for itself. A very good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - Per nom.  Good answers to the questions.  Should do a great job.
'''Oh yes.''' Fantastic contributions, level-headed and sensible. Actually, beyond sensible - her blunt, no-nonsense approach towards fellow contributors is refreshing. <small>I almost always feel glad I'm not on the receiving end, though!</small> Should be a good one. '''
'''Support''' [[CAT:CSD]] surely needs more mops.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Great contributions. --
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more science-friendly admins. --
'''Support''' Reliable, responsible, knowledgeable. --
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor with specialized knowledge but wanting to do also general tasks
'''Support''' Knowledgable person with a mop.--
'''Support''' as per nom.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac15</font>]]'''''
'''Strong Support''' I've seen nothing but good things from the candidate, and I particularly like the answers to the optional questions from Malber
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', a courteous and experience editor. I have no doubt that Opabinia will be a fantastic admin. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''. Scientific knowledge and a record of hard work in article space are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for adminship, but its always nice to see someone with those qualities around the place: if Opabinia wants the mop, I am more than happy to let her have it!

'''Support''', thought she already was an admin; won't abuse the tools; is a cool Cambrian panarthropod ;-)
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
More candidates like this one<sup>TM</sup>! '''Support''' ++
'''Support'''. It would be good to have another administrator who has judgment in science areas.
'''Support''' Solid Wikipedian who deserves the mop.
'''Support''' No question about this one. Twenty of him, and all the rest of you can go home. Honest. -
'''Support''' per willow --

'''Support'''. Good answers, good history.
'''Support'''. Very impressive candidate. Excellent answers, high quality edits, eloquent discussion on policy. I could go on.
'''Support''', per nom.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Yes''' --
'''Support'''.  Excellent, knowledgeable and balanced contributor to medical articles.
'''Support''' due to prior experience with candidate on peer review, excellent contribution history, and answers to questions above.  Definitely an asset to Wikipedia and in my opinion, in no way likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Absolutely'''. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong support''' - as he does an enormous job in the peer review page, he is a good editor and would really need the admin tools.
'''Support''' She seems to be a fine candidate, and I don't understand the reasoning for the oppose vote.
'''Support''' - Sorry to come into this so late: just found out about it. She has been absolutely indispensable to the [[WP:MCB|Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject]]. I've been nothing but impressed by her dedication, boldness, and skill. &ndash;
'''Support''' - came across this user's work and was impressed.  That sounds like good cause for a support vote to me.
'''Support''' very strong editor would definitely be an asset as an admin.<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>
'''support''':  Everything looks in order; nice to see nomination of a strong contributor to biology articles.
'''Support'''. Don't see any issues, good to see editors on this list.
'''Support'''. What ↑ they said.
'''Support''' She doesn't pass my criteria, but her self support kicks ass, this is an exception
'''Support''' I think she would make a fine admin. Very good answers to the questions. A well deserved admin role approaching very swiftly…
'''Strong support''' per, well, everyone. I haven't had any previous contact with this editor, but her contributions are nothing short of extraordinary.
'''Support''' Obviously a capable editor and should make a great admin.
'''Support''' Excellent editor.  I have never personally dealt with this editor but have noticed him/her a couple of times and clearly shows the qualities desired from an admin.[[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support:''' Looks like a good solid editor who understands how wikipedia works.  Low chanse of admin-abuse = support. ---
'''Support''''. Her contributions speak for themselves.
'''Strong support'''.  I can't recommend ''Opabinia regalis'' enough.  S/he has demonstrated his/her ability to go from stub to featured status in a matter of days.  His/her edits are well-referenced, comprehensive, balanced, and easy to read for the general public despite the complexity of the subject matter.  I'm amazed by his/her eagerness to take criticism, follow it up with careful research, and expand into details that are proabably stretching the boundaries of his/her impressive knowledge base.  My only concern is that s/he might start devoting more time on bureaucracy and less time on subject matter requiring his/her unique expertise, but this is a hobby and she certainly deserves to have the tools to aid wikipedia in whatever manner she chooses.  --
'''Support''' great editor. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe&diff=63879534&oldid=63878327 this] AfD comment.  I wrote the bulk of the "totally meaningless nonsense" in question, and although apparently less readable than desired, it was at least accurate with respect to its topic, qualified for neutrality, and accompanied by mainstream media references to show notability.  I spent a lot of time on it, and hoped to work with other editors to make it more accessible.  To deride it as "blather" and "totally meaningless nonsense" was uninformed and discourteous.  Opabinia has done good work in article space, but I cannot support the adminship of someone who would leap so superficially, and insensitively, to judgement.
Change to '''Neutral''' due to revealed [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Opabinia_regalis image experience] --
'''Strong Support''' as nominator. -

Seems to be in order. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' np here
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I'll support but I would like to see more use of edit summaries as there are quite a few gaps in the Wikispace edits. On that subject, there are no Wikispace edits at all in July of this year and almost all of April, although your edit history shows that you were active in these times.  Are there any particular reasons why this is the case? <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Candidate meets my 2K and civility requirements. We need more level heads around here; the removal of the flag from his signature shows a willingness to be flexible. User's answers to the questions seem fine; user's WP:talk space edits are very low, but that was never one of my requirements. No dings, no big deal. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''&mdash; Main space edits:4778&mdash; Wikispace edits: 341&mdash; Blocked: never&mdash; Images: 76&mdash; Moves: 13&mdash;  First recorded edit: 18 October 2005. Edited and commented on a longstanding NPOV conflict&mdash; [[Nuclear power]] &mdash;  edits seem mildly partisan but completely sane and reasonable. Edited and commented on a potential NPOV conflict&mdash; [[List of civilian nuclear accidents]] &mdash; edits completely sane and reasonable (and well referenced). Ample evidence of [[Special:Recentchanges|recent change]] & [[Special:Newpages|newpage]]  patrols.  [[Edit summary]] usage for Oscarthecat: 99% for major edits and 99% for minor edits (based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits)&mdash; fixed that earlier problem. No evidence of imprudent or inappropriate behavior jumps out (other than the signature issue, which is fairly small change in light of the rest).  Understands enough Wikipolicy that you can give him the delete/undelete/ban/unban powers&mdash;he can be trusted not to abuse them.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per [[User:Williamborg|Williamborg (Bill)]]    --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nomination. [[user:Some P. Erson|<font color="blue">Some P.</font>]] [[User:Some P. Erson/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' good editors make good admins
'''Support'''. I would prefer to see more WP-space edits, but looks perfectly okay to me otherwise. I don't care about signatures &mdash; in fact, it's cool to see U.S.-flag guy nominate U.K.-flag guy (twice!)
'''Support''' per Grandmasterka. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Supported then, support now'''
'''[[Bicolor cat]] solidarity support''' per nom and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standards]].
'''Support''' - Williamborg summed it all up very nicely! -
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong, I believe tools will be used and not abused.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' 4,500 edits! This guy deserves this! (
'''Support''' - no reservations here.
'''Support''', the user in question has undoubtedly met my qualifications, which don't really exhist.<small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support''', couldn't find any particularly troubling edits, has satisfactory experience.
'''Support'''.We can trust this guy to do well as admin. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Looks like a strong user, plus he's a cat.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''', because I see no compelling reason not to. I suggest you increase your involvement in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk spaces, but that's not going to make oppose. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''. Would ideally like more evidence of how you'd behave in a difficult situation, but you are clearly already acting as an administrator and are contributing in a positive manner.
'''Support'''. Committed, dedicated editor.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' not many user talk/talk edits, especially for an RC patroller, but he seems level-headed. I would also like to see an answer to Netsnipe's AfD question below, but I'll support pending that answer.
'''Support''' - good contributor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Solid user with a solid record, no significant incidents. Best of luck.
'''Support''' per above. Solid user. —''
'''Support''' per nom <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support'''Appears to be a quality user, would make good admin.
'''Support''' A good user with a good track record.--
'''Support''' per comments above.  Good user, no issues.
'''Support''' I give you the support, your track record shows you have what it takes.
'''Support'''. Slightly weak answers, leaning towards weak support however your generous main space edit count gives you a full support from me. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - project and project talk space edits are VERY low<s>, and the image in the signature</s> —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Weak oppose''' - Oscarthecat has enough edits in (main) to show dedication. But along Mets501's concerns, I'm concerned with the lack of edits he's had in the project/-talk space in his time here. Anyone wanting to be administrator really needs to get some experience keeping track of what's going on around the place on the noticeboards. Most of his AFDs also appear to have been single line votes. Oscar: are there any AFD nominations you could point out that show considerable research on your part? -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Weak oppose'''. Few major edits apparent in the past month and relatively low percentage at article talk pages suggests not only a lack of significant edits but also a lack of engagement with the community over content building.
'''Oppose''' per Netsnipe - <b>

Sig problem solved. Based on my old criteria for an admin, would likely gain support but I think I'll go neutral. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - worried about an overuse of fair use images in edit history, but besides that no other worries. (and for the record, I see nothing wrong with the flag in the sig...) --
'''Nuetral - leaning t'wards support'''--
'''Neutral''' - (leaning toward oppose). I'm torn.  On one hand the quality of normal edits is great and I want to [[WP:AGF|AGF]].  On the other hand though, I agree with some of the opposers, specifically dealing with the amount and quality of Wikipedia namespace edits.  Having looked over some of them myself, especially the AfD votes, I'm concerned with single line voting.  If the user can provide evidence satisfactory to [[User:Netsnipe|Netsnipe]]'s concerns, then my vote can be assumed to be a support (if I don't update it).  In that case I may still have additional concerns, but not enough to prevent supporting. --
'''[[Professor_Hubert_Farnsworth|Good news everyone]]!''' I support the [[Holophoner]] player. -
'''Support''' - I remember Oz's discussions with the (subsequently permablocked) user he discussed above.  Although the situation must have been stressful, Oz stayed admirably civil and constructive.  His recent edits show even more maturity and judgment, and I'm confident he would wield a mean mop.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose that I can see. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''. Although I only met the user earlier today, I have to say that I see that this user is a great article-builder who has the experience to handle tough situations and deal with user requests. Best of luck with your RfA!
'''Support''' --
Sure - <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and answers. Quality editor, will use tools effectively, no concerns. Plus we need more lawyer-admins. :)
'''Support''' - why not?
'''Support'''.  Polite.  Solid contributor to the encyclopedia.  Seems a good bloke despite the whole lawyer thing.  If he uses the tools, I expect he will use them well.
'''Support''' - of course! <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Won't abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. meets
'''Support''' User often forgets to warn vandals, but apart from that no cons. Furthermore, he appears to be a great editor and it's good to see someone willing to work on [[WP:IFD]].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' When you revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oakland_Raiders&diff=prev&oldid=83492374 this kind of thing], though, be sure to delete (or speedy) the offending pages. As you left it, the offending page and its talk page redirect to the Raiders. [[Al Davis]] wouldn't like it – and he gets cranky. I put the {{tl|db-attack}} tag on them, and I doubt they'll last long now that this particular audience is paying attention. ;-)
'''Support''' Great user, won't abuse the tools. :)
'''Support''' meets my burden of proof for the tools.--
'''Support''' - good editor, handled himself well when dealing with a difficult editor over quite a period of time, I suspect he'll do well with the tools.
'''Support''' Excellent editor/contributor in a wide range of issues. Has image uploads in science, sports, from the [[Arby's]] logo to an old flag of [[Waziristan]], seems fair minded in afd issues, and looks to be level headed over all. ▪◦▪
--[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I can't see why not. The neutral !vote below about not warning vandals is a reasonable point, but there are many admins that I know of that do not warn vandals. --
'''Support''' But do recommend that Ozzy refrain from biting the head off of bats/chickens/newbies if/when they become admin.
'''Support''' Good, well-thought out, and nuanced answers to a ''lot'' of questions, esp. #9 -- many editors are too quick to apply this to articles. Stayed level-headed with [[User:WikiWoo]]. Can use the tools and won't abuse them. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Support''' excellent answers to questions. Clear thinker. &mdash;
I have always said we needed more lawyers as administrators. <tt>;)</tt> &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good, well-rounded, experienced editor likely to be a good admin. --
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''', conscientious user with a wide range of contributions.
'''Support''' a good candidate with whom I only had good experiences, even if we disagreed on some points, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support.''' (Edit Conflict) Seems almost disturbingly well-suited to be a wiki-admin. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Really good answers to the questions, and I like his answer to the first question. Although you need to increase your edit summary usage, as admins are selected Wikipedians, and therefore should give good examples to the non-admins. Cheers -- <span style="font-family: comic sans ms">
'''Support.''' Responsible person <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support.''' By the way, we still have a game of hangman to play. '''''
'''Support''' Seems like a rational enough guy. --
'''Support'''. Experienced and dedicated editor.
'''Support'''. Godd editor!
'''Support''' sure, looks good.  Need more Canadian admins --
'''Support''', need more lawyer admins :-) -- Seriously, the well thought-out replies and the solid record are convincing.

'''Support''' nice edits, good observation skills.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per above. I reviewed the deleted Wikiwoo talk page and nothing seem alarming on Osgoodelawyer's part.
'''Conspiratorial support''' (see below) I thought Oz handled himself well in dealing with a difficult (and delusional) user, who was convinced half of Wikipedia's editors were in the pay of the Ontario regional governments.
'''Support''' without question. --
'''Support'''. Good answers, good edit history, appropriate variety of experience.
'''Support''', no problem here.  I have come across Osgoodelwayer a few times, and each time he has shown the right kind of balance of politeness and firmness in dealing with problem users, especially WikiWoo. <b>
'''Support'''.  I've had limited interaction with this editor in regards to City infoboxes.  He was the first person to bring up some [[Template_talk:Infobox_City#Some_issues|very good points]] about their mechanics.  <s>Given that we couldn't see all of his interaction with wikiwoo it was hard to judge how Oz will use his admin powers in a silimar situation.</s>  I would hope that he would be very careful and not "jump the gun" using them.  Given what I have seen so far, I think that Oz will be very careful with these new superpowers and weigh all the evidence first.  Besides the Ontario government paid me $10,000 (one card off from a million) so I guess I too am part of his "Conspiratorial support" (see above). &mdash;
'''Support''' good replies and the solid history --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' a smart, capable editor who will make a strong positive contribution as admin.
'''Support'''.  I've dealt with user and he seems reasonable.
'''Support''' --
Hasn't warned quite a few vandals recently, and I don't know of any reason why not.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''': Yet again promising, but might need some time in spellchecking, copyediting and, more importantly, patrolling (per minor edit summaries and performance in user talk). --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' First support. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''. Has done good work in the CVG field.
'''Support''' - tends to be a bit reversionist, but otherwise it's all good. -
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' &mdash; '''BUT,''' you need more interaction with others; you have <300 user talk edits.
'''Support''', would benefit from the tools.--
'''Support''', resolved issues.
'''Support''' Well-rounded wiki-career, fine editor.
'''Support''' Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select Start! Now your nomination gets 30 free supports!
'''Support''' Here's two thumbs up for a committed Wikipedian and a fellow gamer. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. Fine editor.
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I recall bumping into the user somewhere, mfd maybe, and he had a good grasp of whatever it was that needed doing, so based on that I'll support.
'''Support''' - already was one, no? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''I thought he already was an admin Support'''--[[User:ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. A well-balanced and experienced editor, he clearly knows what he needs to know.
'''Support''', level-headed contributor.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
Support. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', great CVG Wiki Project participant.
'''Support'''  good editor --
'''Support''' I've seen you around - you deserve the <s>Master Sword</s> mop. -- <font color="#668353">
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Certainly
'''Support''' - <font color="#08457E">
'''Support''' <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' - no issues seen, seems pretty active all around to me --
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''.  Give him the mop and pail.
'''Support'''. Why not? Good job. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I have played a minor role in the Zelda articles, and have seen Pagrashtak contribute to articles, talk pages, FACs, FARCs and so on in a civil way. In line with [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|criteria]], he passed with flying colours.
'''Support'''. User has demonstrated a good balance of WP activity. More ''talk'' entries would be a Good Thing, but the user interaction Pagrashtak has had seems appropriate, helpful, and balanced (overall). --
'''Support''' Can't think of any reasons NOT to, so hand 'em the mop!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
[[Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg|30px]] &mdash;
'''Support'''. Though focus seems to be on video games, I think the most important qualities are to understand policy and to have good dispute resolution skills, and I think that the handling ESRB issue shows a reasoned, civil demeanor that would carry over well to the execution of admin duties in other areas. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. One of the most friendly useres in existence.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I've seen this user's work, and I think he would make a great admin. -
'''Support''' You've got my support. Fine editor, should be fine administrator. --
'''Support''' a great editor, excellent admin potential
'''Oppose''' Not active enough with the Wikipedia community.
'''Oppose''' This user has been influential in organising the CVG community on wikipedia, however, they have kept to that side of things. Needing the responsibility primarily for image tagging and FAC, both of which they can participate in with talk pages to all but the actual deletion stage, doesn't influence me enough, as a somewhat conservative type person, that they need the adminship powers yet. [[User:Ansell|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans</span>]]

'''Support'''. 3,300+ edits, plenty of experience in project space perfect rate of summary use, speaks English fluently enough to crack a few puns on afd, no sign of conflict, seems like a strong candidate. — <small>Feb. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[19:08] <
'''Support'''. Great on articles+great on AfDs+great on community matters+great on vandalism=will be a great admin.
'''Support''' Sounds good to me. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' seems to have the makings of a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seems diligent and capable; should do well as an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' this one is obvious
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good attitude, good answers to the questions, excellent use of edit summaries per Mathbot. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[User:Hermione1980|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
--
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship.
'''Support'''. Good job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', no problems here.
'''Support''' per [[User:Hermione1980|H]]
'''Support''', yep.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' based on answers to questions. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Contribs look good and he seems trustworthy to be an admin.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good editor, grasp of policy, compsci <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
{{User:Drumguy8800/Support}} Oh my gosh, is it going to be unanimous?
'''Support''' great user, support of course
'''Support'''. Wide variety of contributions, all of 'em good. -
'''Support''' From what I've seen by reviewing his contributions he seems like he's a very good contributor albeit one who eats too many web cookies :) <small>
'''Support''' without any doubt.
'''Support''' This one is easy. I've had Paolo's talk page on my watch list since October 2005 and have seen nothing that disturbs me.
'''Support''' no-brainer. Good contributions, level-headed, should make a good admin.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Great contributions and the excellent answers to questions clinch it. --
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions.--
'''Support''' per Quarl. —''
'''Support''' [[User:Paolo Liberatore]] will be an excellent admin. <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''', by Zot.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''. Looks like PL will make good use of tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppport''', should make good use of the toolset.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Support. The reasons for opposition are well-intentioned, but don't convince me. Pengo looks like a fine candidate to me.
'''Pre-emptive support''' for an all-round first-class Wikipedian.
'''Support''' I will second Green Giant on that.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; Great editor, should be great admin.
'''Support''' .
'''Support'''. Good user. Just try to get more user talk edits.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' He will be a great admin -
'''Suport''' First-rate Wikipedian. Solid user, and unlikely to abuse tools. --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support'''. Been here long enough to know WP policy. Unlikely to abuse adminship. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. Great interactions with Pepsi. Will be a good admin.
'''Suppport'''. Great contributer and thanks for reverting a lot of nonsense. --<font face="trebuchet ms"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>
'''Support''' A good editor.  --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A great contributer. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. A great editor, and soon, a great administrator.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', speaks two languages that look like utter gibberish to me.
'''Support''', good editor. --
'''Support''', promising. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' good editor, good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course. He's new but does good work. --
'''Sorry, I prefer Coke Support''' everything appears to be in order.--
'''Support'''. I met Pepsidrinka recently at MFD, and I have observed that he is very civil and responds well to criticism. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' A good, civil editor with a lot of experience.
--
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]

'''Weak Weak Support''' Almost neutral. Because of my standards I have for voting, you don't meet admin criteria yet, but because of your outstanding behavior and flawlessness (if thats a word) I support. Besides, I don't see any real reason to oppose.
'''Support''', he has a level head on his shoulders that shows in his edits to oftentimes controversial areas.  I think he's fabulous admin material. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I too prefer Coke, but despite this, he has shown to be remarkably civil and helpful. :) -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Per above, Islamic wikiworld needs more good admins and Pepsidrinka seems to be an ideal candidate
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support'''. Looks good  '''''×'''''
'''Support''' definitely a good guy.

'''Support''' I don't trust people that drink Pepsi and you are borderline with my own criteria for admins but becasue a large number of people I trust are saying great things about you above then you have my vote.--
'''I am disturbed by the anti-Pepsi sentiment displayed here support'''. This user has shown a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and a willingness to take on some maintenance tasks. And damn you Coke drinkers, but drinking Pepsi is a ''GOOD'' thing dammit! --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Support''' Looks good, although a little new.
'''Support''', good editor, and from what I've seen on Talk pages and AfD has a very balanced viewpoint and can handle themselves in a disagreement...  but all that soda will rot your teeth!--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' a perfect record and a great user. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Pepsi sucks, but Pepsidrinka doesn't.
'''Support'''. See no cause for concern.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' -- Seen this user around a lot, I like it when users stick out in a positive way. --
'''Support''' per above.

'''Support''' Pepsidrinka has been a quiet but steady force for sanity and NPOV in the Islam-related articles. If he can keep his balance there, in what may be one of the most contentious areas of WP, he has what it takes to be a good admin.
'''Support''', with every confidence
'''Support'''.  just fine. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' from another Pepsi drinka. I've seen good stuff from you, too.
'''Support''' Familiar with this editor from afd contributions, great work. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Per Zora. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &mdash; Of course! Have seen him around. Good editor.
'''Support''' Meets my requirements. Good number of edits in a period of 4 months alone. Very impressive. Good Luck. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support''' --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', even though Pepsi is ftl. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong support''' per everyone else! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''
'''Aye'''
'''Support''' Ofcourse - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''.  Have encountered this user on RFC.  Level-headed, good editor. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''' Good solid editor. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' Full support
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' a thinker.
'''Oppose''' No...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=45221495]...are you kidding me...the 9/11 commission's reports on the events of 9/11/01 are only "plausible" and that the "amateur researchers" that refute this are not "conspiracy theorists"? "Again, the 9/11 ''story'', though plausible, cannot be called 100% fact" LOL...no way can I support a POV pusher like this one...no way...oh, did everyone hear me? NO way.--
'''Oppose''': would like to see more experience first, especially given some relatively recent mistakes such as changing established date styles in articles and controversial page moves without discussion.

'''Heh-heh-I'm-faster-than-y'all-support''' &mdash; '''''
'''Support'''. For some reason, I thought he was an admin already. --
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' and uphold the rights of Peruvians and Llamas everywhere --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' has plenty of experience across wikipedia, will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. I think Mr P Llama will make a good one.
'''[[Revenge of the Mutant Camels|Llamas are llovely]]'''
'''Double edit conflicted support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Non-restricted-support''' for the non-Peruvian non-Llama --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' most edits vandalism related, but other ones too. I support the man who thinks he's a llama from Peru. --
'''Super Freak Support''' —
'''Edit-conflict Support'''. I'm delighted to cast my first RfA vote to someone who passes all my [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|RfA criteria]]. Especially for "[[User:Petros471/RfA_criteria#Your_talk_page|talk page]]" and "[[User:Petros471/RfA_criteria#Mistakes.2FErrors_in_judgment|Mistakes/Errors in judgment]]" --
'''Extreme "zOMG!!!111oneeleventy-one" support''' per cliché. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Yes please!''' Llamas and Alpacas of the world, arise! - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support'''. He will make good use of the tools, as evidenced by his vandal-hunting without them.
'''Support'''  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' Of course - he introduced me to the [[WP:CVU|CVU]]!  (Have any of you ever heard the llama song?) --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="yellow">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' What lovely creatures llamas are.
'''support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support ''' --<span class="plainlinks" style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' –
'''100% LLAMA SUPPORT''' —

'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.

'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''. Impressed by user's activity on user_talk pages (i.e.- understands the importance of warnings), will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. UH-OH, IRC CABAL!  (Actually, I just can't think of anything to say that hasn't already been said.)

'''Support''', of course. -
'''Baltimora Support''' A [[Tarzan Boy]] llama!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good, responsible and sensible contributor.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' this dedicated wikipedian. --
'''Support''' - good guy. --
'''Support'''- Good editor
'''Support'''.  edits look good, interactions have been positive. --
'''Support''' YTMND would be more than I could handle. You deserve adminship.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', multiple interactions with him have always been terrific. -
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - seems to be a really nice editor
'''<s>Extreme Virgin</s> Support!!!!''' (oh, wait, that's an old meme already). I would have nominated him myself, as he shows good judgment overall.
'''Support''', I see him around at night and he helps revert vandalism, good user.
'''Support''' of course.  I remember he stayed commendably cool over the St Francis High School incident, and I am certain he will make an excellent admin.  --
I seriously cannot believe you're not an admin yet.
'''Support++'''.
'''Support'''.  Seems trustworthy; the wikibreak doesn't bother me. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme Llama support''' Granted, my interaction with PeruvianLlama has been limited, but when I have come across him, he seems like a curteous and knowledgable guy.--
'''Support'''. Thanks for the tips and pointers. And getting me to spend my free time editing.
'''Support''' We need more virgin admins. :P --
'''Support''' --
'''Big Spitting [[Camelid]] Support''', An enemy of vandals is a friend of mine and mop worthy.--
'''Support'''Good editor and vandal fighter.
'''Support''' '''''
'''Support'''. <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#007700"><b>Ø</b></font></i>
'''support, till the cows come home'''
'''support''' funky username. oh yeh, and he'd make a good admin, too <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter with whom I've had nothing but good experiences with.  I trust him with the keys to the janitor's closet.  --
'''Support'''. Good contibutions.--
I '''Support''' this quadruped.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', per pgk and many others! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Why not? User seems great.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Not that I needed to, judging from the above, but pleased to anyway.
'''Support'''. What else can I say about a llama?
'''Oppose'''.  Not been around enough.
'''Support''' I beat the nom!
'''Support''' - should make a good admin, and answers show a decent understanding of responsibilities (or alot of RfA experience ;) ). Ach, only 2nd! |→
'''Support''' from what I've seen, he's quite good.
Great answers to questions, like what I've seen of this editor. '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
Support. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''; admin coaching is good sign. Recently saw him in action at a content dispute at [[WP:RFI]] and was impressed with what I saw - sure he'll make a good admin if he keeps that up [[Special:Contributions/Aquilina|<font color="gray"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">A</span></font>]][[User talk:Aquilina|<font color="teal"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">q</span></font>]]
'''Strong support'''. I had the opportunity to review Petros's edits as a part of administrator coaching and everything I saw suggests that he is well-suited for the position. I believe he will make a fine administrator. —
'''Support''', verily. I associate "good work" with this name.
'''Support''' per nom and review of question #2.  Seems very willing to help out and able to learn from mistakes.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Marvelous, highly trustworthy editor.
'''Strong Support''' Does good work at RFI, and is an excellent editor overall.--
'''Support''' --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''
'''support''' nothing but good expernices with this user, and is alwaays willing to help out
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Excellent. Keep up the good work. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. Has proven his loyalty. --
'''Support''' From what I've seen, would currently make a good admin with a calm and reasoned approach.
'''Support''' definitely. --
'''Support''', Everything seems to be in order.
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''', looks ''very'' good. Also reflects well that he turned down his first nomination for a solid reason. That shows real character, or something. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Support'''. Looks good.--
'''Support'''. How come I've never seen you?
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Solid support'''. I've seen this guy around, making good edits.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' good canidate indeed.
'''Support''' He is worthy. '''''
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Keep up the good work! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - friendly, helpful and even-handed user.
'''Support''' - Very capable and willing. great partner when reviewing [[WP:RFI]] cases. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' -- But caution that I nearly went neutral due to excessive automatic edit sums. I like to see what I'm buying.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' Well rounded.
'''Support''' Encountered user a few times in my duties.  Keep up the good work! --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Fine editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' No problem here!
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very good person.
'''Support''' - A good choice for administrator. -
'''Support''', gladly. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' because admin-tools are for janitorial work not for writting articles.
'''Support''' Seems to have a good attitude, although might be a bit too policy-bound.  I would caution the gentleman to always remember to put product ahead of process, but otherwise he should be fine.
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': looks like he's ready.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good watchdog is a good reason.
'''Support''' Seems to be a solid candidate to me!
'''Support''' Helpful, good attitude.
'''Support''' Would make a good admin. [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I reviwed info nad contributions, and I think he should be an admin.--

'''Strong support''' - we can't be having this. He already is one and has been for ages. Suggest '''delist''' as joke nom. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' - Has the kind of material that admins need.
'''Support'''.  Great answers to the questions, and he seems like he'd use the admin tools very well.  We have many registered users, and if some want to concentrate their efforts here on behind-the-scenes work and reverting vandalism, that's fine with me.  In general, I do prefer people to use article talk pages more.  However, for people who spend much of their time here reverting vandalism, that's not as much of a concern; I'd rather just see a simple revert and a standard warning on a user talk page, and it looks like he's doing that. --
[[Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg|30px]] per above &mdash;
Seems good.
'''Support''' Great admin candidate.
'''Support''' Looks good, no concerns
'''Support''' Maybe some might feel that you need to do other article edits besides just reversion in order to be a decent admin, and maybe that is true.  However, I feel that your article edits have been decent and just.  You've done the work needed to be done.  Great answers to the questions as well.
'''Support''' per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my criteria]].
'''Support'''.  The nominee's answers to the questions reveal a patient, thoughtful user. --
'''Support''' For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support''' will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' Good understanding of using the admin tools according to response to all the questions.
'''Weak Support''' His vandal fighting technique is superb, though lacking in diversity regarding contextual edits within articles. A good facilitator, however, so giving a nod.
'''Oppose''', sorry - you seem like a nice guy, but a quick review of your contributions indicates that pretty much every article edit you've ever made has been reversion.  Administrators should actually have a handle on what article editing and creation is about, because that's the most important facet of Wikipedia, not vandal-whacking.
'''Oppose''' candidate does not meet my criteria and I also agree with Proto in regards to type of edits--
<b>Oppose</b>Doesn't seem like he's done enough.
'''Oppose''' per copyright question, even though offical wiki policy is no legal threats, copyright claims are infact legal threats (take it down or we sue basically), also seems too new.
'''Oppose''' very few content edits to articles (for an admin).  That's what we're ultimately about.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Very low talk namespace edits.
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|standards for admin]], plus as I state in my standards, vandal fighting alone doesn't provide the perspective necessary for deleting articles and resolving disputes. —
'''STRONGLY OPPOSE'''. Vanalism is an intrinsic problem of wikipedias technology, as far as existant. However article editing and contribution is something a bot cannot do, and what this is all about. Admins who constantly revert or fight vandalism tend to snap at some point and start deleting articles away like nothing, before even discussing. This does not concern any of my articles, as anyone is welcome to verify, but those of others which ultimately concerns me, as any missing article is some missing spot of knowledge in others, and apparently 90% of the internet users are incapable of proper searching
'''Oppose''' until more substantive contributions <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Oppose''' Poor judgement. --
'''Oppose'''. Being an admin is more than vandalfighting.  Experience with conflict resolution and Wikipedia space policy issues is important.&mdash;
'''Neutral''' tho I don't like being neutral, there's an interesting trade-off with this user between being a good watchdog but a limited encylopedia builder.  I agree with Proto's comments on reversions being the overwhelming majority of article edits but I do appreciate the other good work and a watchdog specialist admin isn't necessarily a bad thing which leads me to a neutral position.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to see some more work in the mainspace. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' would like more content edits and article authorship.
'''Extreme "What he said" support''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support.'''
'''Strong Support'''. I have a lot of trust in this user's judgement and his interpretation of policy. He has approached me many times with requests for a block or the speedy deletion of a page and I can't remember a time that I didn't agree with him about one of those requests. Of course, being an admin involves more than just blocking and deleting but based on these experiences I've had with him, I have no doubt he'll be a good, trustworthy admin. --
'''Support'''. One of the best vandal-fighters we have. <span style="font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color: #333333">--
'''Strong Support''' Good lord yes, excellent vandal fighter --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Orangest Furry Alien Support''' I enjoy working alongside pgk, great fun and great anti-vandal device. --
'''Support'''. Hot damn, that's a lot of edits.
(Remember, edits is not always the main factor.) <font color="darkred">
'''Support''' good editor that fights vandalism. --
'''Support''' good editor and vandal fighter, misuse of tools unlikely. (Please see additional question below)
Awesome editor.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong suppa Support''' - The guy's already got the mop stuff since the day they started! They know what to do and what not to do! I support [[:Category:Orphan Administrators - w/o a nomination]]. Enjoy! -- ''
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter

Need more admins. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''' I've had the impression that hes been here longer, he shows experience. '''''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Despite being around for 3 months, I feel in my gut that we can trust Pgk with the admin tools.  I don't see a reason to make him wait another 3 months or whatever when he's already proven he has what it takes.
'''Support''', a good user who deserves the tools.
'''Support'''. Pgk has shown a firm grasp of policy over the last three months, and he would make excellent use of the admin tools.
'''Support''' - it's about time!
[[Image:LoveMexico.png|24px]] Of course! By the way and off-topic, he has coded a portable  replacement of the vandalism bot in python. -- <small> (
'''Support'''.  Trustworthy editor, will make a great admin. --
<s>'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Terence Ong]] <sup>[[User talk:Terenceong1992|Talk]]</sup> 17:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)<s>'''Strong Support''', he will make an excellent admin with his involvements with Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. -
Hmmm, let me think about it for a minute... ... ... '''SUPPORT!!!'''
'''Support''', no reservations, plays a good game of whack-a-vandal. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support'''. This vandalfighter deserves to get his arsenal enhanced with more powerful tools.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support'''.'''
'''Absolute Support'''.  &mdash;
'''Support'''. Vandalfighting is a Good Thing (tm), which should be made easier when possible.--
'''Support''' - Definitely.
'''Support''' absolutely no question - easily long enough and edits enough to see that this is a very valuable contributor - opposing on basis of time seems to me to defy any logic at all --
'''Support''' Works hard, keeps a level head, have a mop. --
'''Support''' I love users that work tirelessly to give vandals a good [[ass|*]] kicking :). --
'''Support'''. Somehow, those oppose votes look like [[WP:POINT]] votes to me. &mdash;
Cool.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. Again, as with [[User:Wiki alf|Wiki Alf]], [[User:Pgk|Pgk]] almost always beats me to reverting vandalism, so even though I'm really ticked off, I'll still vote for you.--
'''Support'''.  (edit conflict) [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pgk]] was added to my watchlist several weeks ago, before the page was created.  I am pleased that I've made it back in time to declare my strong support toward seeing this individual promoted.
'''Support'''.  Does good work; doesn't seem likely to abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''.  I absolutely agree with [[User:Wgfinley]]'s concerns, but I don't think this user is anything to worry about; he is a good user, and can be trusted.
'''Support''' as per all of the above.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Tireless counter-vandal (but be sure to consider the other sysop chores as well). Keep up the good work!&#160;—
'''support''' yep. -
'''Support''' Geez, <insert tired cliché> I really really thought he was one. Long over due.
'''Strong support'''. Very much on the ball.
'''Support''', per administrator.
'''Support'''.  Interacted with editor in several areas of wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. Does good work. --
'''Support'''.  Another thought-he-was-one-already moment –
'''Support'''. A top-notch vandal-fighter. I also like his use of edit summaries.
'''Support'''. His contributions look good and he consistently uses edit summaries. I think he can be trusted with admin tools.--
'''Strong Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. Thanks for pgkbot!--
I support WGFinley's right to have an opinion, and to share it with us without being hassled about it. But I also '''Support''' this editor's candidacy. Normally I would think 3 months too few, but not in this case. (says the newbie) ++
'''Strongest support possible''', for one of the ''nicest'' and well rounded editors I have ever met in these wild frontiers.
'''SUPPORT!!!''' What a great guy, happy adminning! -[[User:Mysekurity|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Strong Support'''.  Seriously awesome vandal fighter.
'''Support''': [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki&user=Pgk nearly 8000 edits], infallibly consistant use of edit summaries, created an IRC bot <s>with more personality than himself [{{fullurl:User:Pgk|oldid=31956313}}]</s>, and I [[template:Rfa cliche1|thought he was one]]. &mdash; '''''
'''Support'''. I thought s/he already ''WAS'' one.... Thank god somebody created [[Template:Rfa cliche1|this template]].--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''support'''. i appreciate Pgk's hardwork. admin tools will be of use to his/her work here. i don't understand the opposition due to limited time here. Pgk has been here for a quarter of a calender year. that is a long time in the wiki world. i feel pgk has a great understanding of how the community works.
'''Support''' Great user, an amazing amount of vandal-fighting.
'''Support''' Often beats me to the revert on vandalism. Must be the bot, perhaps we can RfA it?
'''Support'''. A solid contributor, foe of vandals everywhere.
'''Support''' Watch out vandals, Pgk's gonna have a mop soon.  --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''''.  Normally I do not support those who have contributed just 3 months, but exceptions are made for exceptional contributors.
'''Support''' Would make a quality janitor. --Jay '''(
'''Support''', without hesitation. --
'''Support'''. Candidates who chase vandals and revert vandalism are excellent candidates for adminship. My experience is that the vandalism has been growing over the last months and RC Patrol has not scaled with it. We need all the extra hands, and Pgk seems to have eight of them all doing a marvelous job.
'''Support'''. Sorry I am so late, other ongoing discussions have kept me away!
'''Support'''. I appear to be late to the party as well. Blame the egg nog. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. (almost an oppose for making me scroll all the way down to support) but it was worth it --<span class="plainlinks" style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' sounds good, good luck.
'''Oppose''' too little time
'''Oppose''' While Pgk appears to be a tireless vandal fighter and I applaud that, I'm getting concerned about the vast number of recent elevations to admin for people who have only worked on the project for a few months and amassed a slew of edits because they are vandal fighting.  I don't think edit counts are a good reflection of anything to be honest.  I hope Pgk will take my vote in good spirit as I applaud the effort but I think this has just gone too far with folks who need to have some more time in before being given this kind of responsibility.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Chasing around vandals, reverting them endlessly, does not admin material make.  Show me that you grok the Tao of Wiki and I'll reconsider.
'''Strong support'''. Oh my, yes! Per nomination. "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup>" ++
'''Strong support'''. Back from illness and sorry for being late. I haven't been sulking. '''
'''Support''' I have said before and I will say it again "There is no one I would rather support for administrator than Phaedriel".
'''Hell yeah''' --
'''Strong Support''' Yes, please.
'''Edit Conflict Eternal Support''' does she even need an RfA? Nope.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support times infinity''' -→
'''That's hot.''' Sharon is quite possibly the nicest, most genuine, most ready-to-help person I've ever come across. We need more people like her!
'''Hell Yes'''
This is a record for me. Booted out with edit conflicts six times '''Support''' --
'''Strongest support''' By FAR the best adminship candidate in Wikipedia's history. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Titanium Plated Support'''. You damn bet I'm supporting :D
'''Wicked, wicked, wicked strong support''': —
'''Support''', even though I just know I'm going to get yet another edit conflict. &mdash;
'''Strongest possible support.''' Not only does she pass [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]] with flying colors, Sharon is without a doubt a blessing to this encyclopedia. Her diligence, dedication, and kindness are near-legendary. I don't know what else to say...she'll make an amazing administrator.
'''Huge Support'''- '''[[User:Darthgriz98|<font color="#08457E">Darthgriz</font>]]
'''Enormous Support''' - Definitely Wikipedia's finest editor [[User:PerfectStorm|P]]<font color="green">[[User:PerfectStorm/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Too many nominators, but what the heek ;)
'''Strong support''' - Phaedriel is kind, intelligent, knowledgeable, and a great editor. She will make an awesome admin. --<font color="#0000FF">
'''Oppose :D''' - I wouldn't want to condem an AMAZING well suited for adminship reader never to edit again --
<small>James Hetfield says</small>&mdash; '''YEAH!''' --
'''Support'''--
That's an awfully wordy nomination for someone who doesn't need to do much more convincing, guys. :-) '''Support''' a consistently kind, productive, considerate, and diligent user.
'''Fully Support''' great user who will undoubtedly make a great administrator
How the heck is Sharon not already a sysop?!  --
'''Overwhelming support!'''
'''Support'''. How can one not, with such history and such detailed nominations? This will be a pile-on for sure.
'''Support'''.  Is this necessary?  Hasn't anyone read [[WP:SNOW]]? :-)  --
'''Hip, hip , hooray! support''' Phaedriel is the best of the best.
'''Cliché support''', my dislike of co-nominations wasn't enough to overcome my liking of Phaedriel's good qualities. --
'''support''' because the RfA clique said so (set your sarcasm detectors to stun) --
'''Support''' of course. Simply a wonderful editor and leaver of the kindest and most pleasant messages. Been waiting for this for a while -
'''Support''', really great candidate. This seems very inevitable and that my vote isn't necessary, but here it is. This week, Today's Star shines on Phaedriel.
'''Support'''; would that they were all this obvious.  Superb user, likely to be a superb admin.
'''Support'''(duh?) This nom was sort of obvious.
'''Support''' Should have been adminned a long time ago.
'''Support''' per all above.. and below.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Natural Support''' a wonderful person. I'm not sure but I remember reading something about her being a police officer(??), in which case it is only natural to accord her the badge and cuffs here.
'''Support''' A positive force.
'''Could we have [[WP:300]] here?''' --
'''Bandwagon'''. There really should be a CRLF between support and oppose. --
'''Strongest support ever.''' Obviously.
'''Support'''. The most qualified candidate I have seen in many months. —
'''Yes.''' -
'''Unconditional full-blown 100% support'''.  Oh, complete with '''you weren't one already?'''
'''Strong support''' looooooooong overdue! :p &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Double edit conflict Support''' An excellent candidate for adminship and a great role model for admins-to-come. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''of course I support!''' Phaedriel's already an admin, she just needs us to give her the buttons. You can't ask for a nicer, more competent person as an admin, and quite frankly she's as nice a person as you're ever going to find. I'm predicting a little [[WP:SNOW|snow]] to fall on this discussion. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''. ~
'''Suppport''' outstanding candidate.
'''Saw this on RC Patrol and stopped dropped everything I was doing to support''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Super Support''' Impossible not to... you'll do great :) --
'''Total and utter support''' - wouldn't have it any other way. Birthday in a matter of hours too! If the RfA is still unanimous tommorrow, we could end it and give her adminship for her birthday :) --
'''Strongest possible support''' (might have to do battle with some nominators for that title though) Wonderful user, kind to others, excellent editor, more like her please. She knows exactly what to do and how to do it. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support''', definitely. --
'''Support''' Excellent nomination. Nothing to say that hasn't already been said, and likely said better.
'''ABSOLUTELY''' <sup>2 edit conflicts later</sup> Phaedriel is a shining beacon of [[WP:CIVIL|light]] on the project, support without a <s>milli, micro,</s> nanoseconds thought -
<span style='color: darkblue'>'''Strong Support'''</span>. '''
'''Support''': While help talk and image talk edits are low, portal talk edits are high enough to compensate. —
'''Support''': candidate is exceptional.
'''Quickly support''' to avoid snowball support edit conflicts. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Very strong support'''. Sharon is both a great editor as well as good natured and incredibly tolerant towards others. Not the least shred of doubt here.
'''Support!''' I support you ''this'' much: |<------------>|. Isn't that a lot? :)
'''Strongest Support I Can Ever Give''' Phaedriel is my idea of the perfect editor. Not only is she kind beyond compare, and have such a compasity for helping the community, her cotributions to this encyclopdia can not be over looked. The ammount of not only Native American and Oklahoman subjects she has given to us is amazing, as is Phaedriel as a person. She is one of our greatest. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Strong support''' without question. Kind, intelligent, caring, and has integrity. She'll make a great admin.
'''Strongest of supports''' Active editor, but also very active in the community and is pretty much the person that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy.

'''Support'''.

'''Support''' - Phaedriel is the totally perfect editor. '''
'''Support''' longtime editor, nice to see the work on portal namespace.
'''Support'''.
'''Well, duh.''' <b>
'''Strong Support''' per all above; I've seen nothing but great things from Phaedriel. -- '''
'''All the novel strong supports are taken, so just strong support''' Wonderful in all senses of the wiki. If she's even half as good an admin as she is a friend, we're a very lucky community to have her on board. <tt><font color="#FF00FF">
'''Support''' :) -- '''<font color="00470F">
This is ridiculous. Add me to the queue. - <b>
'''Support'''  Phaedriel is a natural admin candidate who will do nothing but improve Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Yeah :)
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''
Gifted and spirited. No hesitation.

'''Support''' for all your hard work and the comments you left on my talk page.
'''Strong support''' - per all of the above -
A regular gal with a helluva resumé.  '''Strong support'''.  And her "Soundtrack of Wikipedians" idea is just awesome.
'''Indeed Support''' I'm num 86 yay.
'''
'''Strong There isn't any cliches left Support''' Between the time I clicked on to this site and now, three people added their name to this list [[User:Jorcoga|<font color="red">J</font>]][[Image:Face-grin.svg|15px]]
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. I don't wish to appear to be bandwagon-hopping, but she really deserves adminship (90 supports in 10 hours is unbelievable by the way).
''Wow, excellent strong support.''' A support from a fellow ex-Oklahoman (I lived in OKC for 8 years)--
'''Strongest Possible Support''' This user is perhaps the most universally respected non-admin currently editing. She is consistently helpful and wise in her wikipedia activity. --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' per Rogerd. --
'''Support''' - A pleasant user. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''; with this much community involvement I'm rather surprised that we haven't interacted but hey, not everyone hangs out at FAC.  An important member of the community and a strong proponent of Wikilove, which is key part of being an administrator. --
'''Support - Support - Support & Support...''': It has come as news to me that she was not an administrator. I found her always caring for the Project, as also to the fellow-wikipedians. I am sure that she shall have an active role as an administrator. --
'''Strong support'''. A very kind user. Will be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Seriously, how many users get this many noms? <font size=1>Dammit, I'm only number 99.</font>
'''Support''' per all the nice remarks above.
'''Emphatically support'''. Phaedriel is passionate about building and improving Wikipedia, and she is unfailingly kind in her dealings with other users. In terms of her technical skills, I'm sure that she will learn whatever she needs to know. Far harder to learn, in my opinion, are the people skills and overall good judgement that she already possesses in spades. --[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikom]]
'''Super Strong Support''' Editor has the inside track for being the kindest Wikipedian ever! :)  This will set the RfA record, and it should, because someone so sweet deserves recognition!
'''Sublime Support''' for this sublime user. Hell yeah! --
'''Support''', Wikilove notwithstanding, Phædrial represent all of what a good wikipedian should be. Technically savvy (see the plethora of userpages), well-versed in both articlespace and wikispace, and perhaps the single most delightful person with whom to interact herein wikipedia. Not to mention being endowed with an above average helping of common sense. She truly exhibits the traits we want in an <u>administrator</u>, not just a friend and a great person overall. --
'''Double plus good support''' The nicest Wikipedian I know; responsible, level-headed, great contributions, good answers to questions below. <b>
<s>Oppose - too popular.</s> '''Strong support''' - kind, considerate, lovely, civil, useful, beautiful user. Give her the mop already. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''OKC Metro-Support'''
'''Absolutely'''. Not that you need the support, but I thought I'd register mine. We haven't interacted directly much, but I've been very impressed with your work, attitude, and the respect others have in you. Keep it up! Triple edit conflicted support by the way. -
'''Complete Support, many more like her please.''' Phaedriel has given many editors reasons to be proud of themselves, and now it is our turn to give her many reasons of being proud of herself. It is her understanding of other users that has made her so helpful to the project--I believe that there is at least a handful of users that decided to stay on wikipedia because of her encouragement. Phaedriel is the role model of civility and wikilove. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' - Uhh, she wasn't one already? Really?  I could have sworn... Well typically if I have been going on the assumption that an editor was an admin already, they get a support vote.

Multiple-edit-conflict '''total support'''. You've never met an editor who you can trust more with the extra buttons. Sharon is a perfect Wikipedian on every level, needs and would make good use of the buttons and would be an excellent addition to The Cabal. And, it's about time she was was given they keys to the janitor's closet - we need her! [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Strong Support''' Goes ''way'' beyond [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
edit-conflict '''Support''' - wait, what? She's not already?! Wow. Excellent and positive editor, from the many times I've seen her in various arenas, should be a fine addition to the admin ranks.
'''Support sur roues !!!!!!!!!''' La meilleuse wikipedienne. And I know my french sucks. xD <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana"> ~
'''SUPPORT WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE''' If there is a nicer Wikipedia less likely to abuse the tools I challenge anyone to find them. She's also super-kawaii! >^____^< -
'''Support''' model Wikipedian.--
'''Strongest Possible Support I Can Give.''' Wow, where to start. First off I'm shocked I haven't seen this already, but, well wow, she accepted! Phaedriel has to be, without a doubt, ''the'' nicest Wikipedian I've ever come across, and while niceness is not the #1 admin criteria, I believe it is a very important one. A kind, friendly, and helpful admin can only be a benefit to the encyclopedia, for sure. Secondly, Phaedriel is also competant, excellent with html (look at some of her userpages, mine among them), plenty of well-spaced edits, active Wikiproject participation and founding, and much more. Ok, I'm done. :) Support this brilliant candidate. -- '''
'''Support''' He isn't one already? Total support! '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support'''. Enough said. (↑ I thought this user was she?) -- ''

'''Support''' with best wishes. Although I was saving this comment for [[User:Slgrandson#My statistics (edit #3000)|my 3000th edit]]...instead I ended up welcoming {{user2|John Hill6633}} with it. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''. Highly respected and helpful user, with quite a large collection of barnstars and awards. --<font color="#191970">[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">
'''Support''' no brainer.
'''Very strong Support''' highly helpful, polite, informed and experienced.
'''Support''' of course, fantastic editor, very surprised that she wasn't an sysop! -
'''Support''' I don't usually vote in obvious landslides but this is someone who deserves to be in [[WP:200]].
'''(edit conflict) Strong support'''.  I was not only sure that she was an admin, I was sure she was a good one, too. That is completely the truth. I postponed my wikibreak to support this user.
'''Support''', of course, per Thatcher, and inasmuch as I'm waiving by ''no admins from states below the [[Mason-Dixon line]] policy.
'''Duh'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Really impressed with what the user has done.  An amazing effect of spreading the wikilove. —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. I could go on with superlatives, but it is not needed.
'''Support''' very strongly.  Does great work AND goes out of her way to treat others with kindness.  A role model for all of us -- even, or perhaps especially, those of us who have been here for a long time.  &mdash;
'''Support''' Nothing to add that hasn't been covered above.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' An outstanding user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Per the 136 supporters before me :) <font color="red">[[User:Thistheman|Thisthema]]</font><font color="green">
'''supportive gesture'''.
'''Support''' We need more people as nice as her on this planet. :-)
'''Support''' Even if only from distance, I'm still watching still the same pattern. Absolutelly kind and helpfull person. I only hope that the adminship will not affect her good mood. Good luck! ''
'''Omg-she-wasn't-an-admin-already support''' Great user that you just bump into everywhere. '''[[User:Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#006400">Fr</font>]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User Talk:Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#3CB171">dil</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Fredil_Yupigo|<font color="#B0E0E6">Yu</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#B0C4DE">pi</font>]]
'''Support''' how can I oppose the most civil user on the entire English Wikjipedia? --
'''Support'''.  Great portal work (and thanks again for my user page!).--
'''Support'''  Good user and editor. (although I do think one nomination per RFA should be enough)
'''Support''' Excellent contributer who makes the wiki a better place for all, and is a welcoming presence for those with questions, as admins are supposed to be. -'''
'''Support''' per all said above :) --
'''Support'''--
'''Strongest support imaginable'''. If there were only '''one single admin''', it should be Sharon. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Strong support'''. At first I merely thought Phaedriel wrote well. Then I thought she was nice. Then I thought she was incredibly kind. Now I have grave suspicions that she is not human, since no one can be so pleasant, and yet get things done. In her private life she must secretly pinch babies or kick puppies or something to make up for it. Anyway, as so many wrote above, I have not yet met anyone that I would like better as an admin.
'''Strong Support''' very active, very civil, and very good contributions.--
~
Great Wikipedian.  [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)<s>  Change to oppose over image issues.
'''Strong support''', just about the only instance where pile-on voting is warranted.
Well, this one looks close, guys, so I'd better get my '''support''' in there to make sure it passes. (
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support'''. I'm not sure if you need admin tools, but you certainly deserve them. Great work, keep it up! +
'''Strong Support''', its way overdue. Good editor and will make an excellent administrator. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''<font color= "dark green>A sick Tdxiang support!</font>- I'm sick. but I'll support Sharon. Now time to  take a rest...--
'''Enthusiatic Support''' - I've been a [[User:Phaedriel|Phaedriel]] Fan since before I even registered on WP. Being able to support her for Admin gives me a warm fuzzy glow. --
'''I guess support... ;)''' -- I thought I'd leave Phaedriel hang before she knew if I'd support or not. I'm only supporting anyway cause she's a cop & I want some "favours"... ;). Plus I want her to get to 200 votes....
'''Strongest support possible and then some:''' Phaedriel is without a doubt one of the kindest and most level-headed editors here on wikipedia. We need more administrators who really care about the editors here, and Phaedriel will be one of them. I've been waiting for this nomination for a while now. <font color="Black">'''The'''</font>
No question from my mind, support. I need more people like her on the admin team.
'''Incredibly strong support''' - an amazing editor
'''Strong support'''. While most of what I could say has already been said, I have to reply to Ligulem's comment. While the technical side of Wikipedia's administration is clearly important (as I'm beginning to pick up PHP so I can actually ''code'' some bugs out of existence and not be limited to reporting them), it is not the only thing that requires attention, and not working on it should not be something that should be held against a particular nominee. There's much more to adminship than a few buttons: remember that you're becoming one of the public faces of a Top-20 website, and your actions may be the examples new users look upon. Certainly, Phaedriel here is one of the editors who I would certainly look at as how the ideal comminity user should be, and adminship would just make her spotless behavior more prominent as the ideal example I mentioned. Even in this case, she has demonstrated quite good grasp of the technical side of Wiki, so I can't hold that against her. In a way, she is precluded from working on the MediaWiki namespace, where her design abilities would be most beneficial, because she still doesn't have the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]]; either way, I would trust her with both. Add one to the tally from here.

'''A jar of iguanas Support''' -- Simply positively stupendous. Greatly jaw-dropping double-thumbs-up doubleplusgood. Absolutely terrific completely and totally delicious. --'''
'''Support''', definitely overdue.
'''Support''' a role model. --<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Shreshth91--><span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. I can't think of a better candidate for adminship than Sharon. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Strong Support''' — Probably as deserving as any candidate has yet been. Though I've never personally had... well, any discussion with this user, I've observed a good deal of kindness and friendliness on her part, as well as an eagerness to help out others. She certainly meets all possible criteria for the position. Do the encyclopedia a favor and make it official.
'''Strongest Support'''. '''Angel'''
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Complete support without qualm, hesitation, or extra adjective''':  The good part of not checking RFA often is not getting into more arguments.  The bad side is missing when someone thoroughly pleasant, judicious, careful, and thoughtful like Phaedriel gets nominated.  I'm sorry I'm so late.
'''Support'''.  http://www.wikipedia&ndash;watch.org/hive2.html#299 (don't click, it seems to be on our spam blacklist so I had to improvise...how lame is that?) &mdash;thought she was already...
'''Support'''
'''My Strongest Support ever''', Sharon is living proof that Angels do walk among us. Sharon is wonderful, she is the type of person that makes you realize that there are better days ahead of us.  There's no other like Sharon.
'''Strongest possible support''' per Geogre.  She is ''the'' nicest person I have met here, bar none; and I've seen her around a lot.  I am really surprised that she is not an admin yet. --
'''Support''' The co-nominations are excessive, no doubt, but I see no logical reason find an aversion to "wikilove", unless it has shown an inability to deal with vandals, which it has not.  Seems like a very intelligent and talented editor. Congratulations.
'''Complete Support 100% cannot be changed no matter what''' Great member who is very sweet and nice, and really deserves this honor!
'''Support.''' Seems like a competent, friendly person and an ideal admin (and possibly future arbitrator).--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Overwhelming support'''. Nightstallion said it: if Wikipedia had only one admin, it would need to be Sharon. (Now here's for bureaucratship!) ;) <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''; an exemplar of a Wikipedia editor.
'''Support''' - Sometime back, When I landed on her talkpage to make an offer about nomming her for rfa, I saw many users already do so. --
'''Support''' No additional commentary is needed other than to say that Phaedriel is an outstanding editor and one of the kindest, caring people here. I wish her well with the mop and bucket. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' never have I seen so many nominations for one RfA!!
'''Support''' per the gushing but true praise of Tony the Marine. <font style="color:#00BB55">'''s'''murrayinch</font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00BB55">ster<sup>(
'''Support with a big smile''', she is such a lovely contributor. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support''' with absolutely no hesitation whatsoever.  I know it's a cliche, but how come Phaedriel is not an admin already?!?!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' She's a cutie pie. :-)
'''Support'''. Not really necessary according to the overwhelming count, but since I'm here... -
'''Strong support''' per all of the above. You just need <s>5</s> 4 more supports and '''Welcome to [[WP:200]]''' hope you make it there &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Strong support'''.  A class act: mature and elegant. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''. The force is strong in this one.
'''Support'''. I've never seen this user before in my two and a half years of editing, but she's got 197 supports, and she's pretty, so what the hell. Oh yeah, and I just looked at her edits and they're really really really good. Seriously, I did. Consensus rules!
'''Support''' for a candidate with eight nominators and a ninth attempted and the start of a new page, [[WP:200]], and possibly the best record I have seen on RfA. &mdash;
'''[[WP:200]] Cleared for adminship :)''' Congratulations Sharon, there is no one more deserving of this than you. No sense in repeating what has been said above, but your interactions with the Wikipedia community before your membership here is now paying off. Best of luck to you, you are an inspiration to us all. --
'''Support!'''  Would you please help me finish this bottle of champagne?  8-)
'''This page is nearly 100kb long support!!''' Well deserved. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - How is she not already? I understand the reasons behind Ligulem's 'neutral' vote, but I think we need admins who can deal with conflict without being nasty even more than we need admins who understand the technical side of things. I've been on the other side of disagreements with Phaedriel a few times (similar to the situation 'Shannon' describes - though I'm unfamiliar with that one), but never found her to be anything but pleasant. Would it be better if she could also do PHP programming and complicated template work, always considered and attempted to address not just the mistakes of angry new users but also the mistakes of admins she respects, knew every facet of copyright law and image tagging by heart, and could walk on water? Yes, but perhaps we are then setting our standards a bit too high. --
'''Support'''. <small>Oops, I knew you guys would get the 200 spot while I was sleeping!</small> This is one of my biggest cliches ever. I see that admins on the tech side are good for wikipedia, but an admin that is sensible and kind could do a lot for the community (yes, specifically for the community and it's numerous conflicts). '''
'''Support'''. I'd feel silly if I didnt slap my signature to this. Congrats on the adminship!
'''Next stop, [[WP:300]].'''
'''Strong Support''' Nicest and most friendly person on Wikipedia. - <font color="navy">
'''Absolutely.''' --
'''Is It Too Late To Co-Co Nominate? Support'''! Besides being a great editor, combines good judgement and good humor with an uncanny ability to spread Wikilove and good will. In short, just what the Cabal is in dire need of now-A good cop who is also a community builder.--
'''Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong Support''' - I'm great supporter of the truth, and I don't like women in socks. --
'''Hell.'''  You're not an admin already?  How did I miss that?  Enjoy the mop, and may you avoid the despair and frustration it too often brings.
'''Support''' of course. <font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''', without any reservations.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' We need more admins such as Phaedriel.
[[Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song|She is the very model of a modern wikipedian]]. --
'''Support''' - this is the sort of guys we need.--
'''Strong Support''' I thought she already was an admin.  :-)
'''Support'''.  All the metrics I might mention have already been covered above, so I'll just say that her user page is an oasis. -
I'd normally oppose someone who ''already'' does this much good work for adminship.  But I do love a bandwagon.  Beautiful editor, warm and comapssionate and has demonstrated that she's got stones, too.  Great with the wiki-markup, not afraid to say what she feels... but if her non-admin efforts suffer for having the mop, I'll raise and RfC quick as a rat up a drain pipe. -
'''Support''' from me also.  I only hope that sysop responsibilities don't take the edge off her wikilove campaign. --
225th '''Strong support'''... This is unbelievable...
'''Support'''. As I said in my rant (which I removed from the neutral section, you can read it on the talk page if you want, somone else copied it there): It has nothing to do with Phaedriel. It's true. I was proving a point by abusing this landslide election as a platform for my rant. I'm an idiot. Apologies. Seeing how she behaves during this election session is truely impressive. --
'''Strong Support'''. ''A little late, this one. Sharon had asked me to conom, but it went live without me. Then I was holding out for #200 but missed it.'' Sharon has done great work with her WikiProject and portal. She's also done more than probably anyone to foster a sense of community here. I have absolutely no hesitation at all in handing her the mop. --
'''Support'''. Best answers I've read in a long time.
'''Support'''. Wonderful Wikipedian
'''Strong Support''' with pleasure. probably one of the best noms wikipedia has ever seen.
'''Support''' My pleasure.
'''Strongest Support Here''' I first came across her looking at the recent changes and came across her Wiki Soundtrack, and I '''LOVED THE IDEA'''. I have watched her super quality edits, she is so nice that I added her to [[User:Kitia/Friends]]. Of that list, [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] is already an admin, [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]] rejecte, and I will probably put [[User:Abdullah Geelah|Abdullah Geelah]] up in the future. I don't care wheather she is a sock of a banned user, she deserves my support. I would rather have her an admin than myself. --
'''Support'''. I know it's a pileon at this point, but seems eminently suited for adminship.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', wonderful user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Even though the support column reads in part like some users mistook it for [[Wikipedia:Requests for a Date]], but reading the responses by the nominee it seems like she is very aware of her limitations and will use the tools judiciously. ~
'''Support''' - Whoever has such wide support from such an intelligent community, deserves my vote. I've seen your work, keep it up! --
'''Of Course''' Supporting this user is a no brainer. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Glad I got here in time! -
'''The reminder...''' (yes, this is a support :p) Sharon, please try to improve on your situation under oppose and you shall no doubt be a truely great administrator. But even with your situation below, I can't help but to support. I don't have a doubt in my mind that Sharon would be a great admin. I'll even go out on a limb and say she is the most deserving person on Wikipedia for adminship. Sharon is a great contributor, excellent friend, and she has the time and dedication that goes along the responsibilities of being an administrator. She will absolutly not abuse the administrator tools and I think we can establish that she made her presence felt in the community by the number of voters at her RFA. I believe she's the greatest practitioner of [[WP:LOVE]] of all time, she's always been there for me and she was the reason I came back to Wikipedia in June. ♥ Sharon, you are a truely amazing human being, a great friend and a general, all-around saint. I sincerely hope you enjoy your time with your new tools. Now, shoot for [[WP:300]]. Your friend forever — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' - Strong positive contributor on many levels, highly valuable to WP.
'''Of course'''. This support is merely a drop in the bucket, and normally I wouldn't bother, but Phaedriel certainly has my support and confidence. She is definitely among those I admire for strength and courage (and overall kindness :]) and I think she'd handle adminship exceptionally well. Best of luck! --
'''Support''' Of course. <font color="red">[[User:Carmelapple|C]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Carmelapple/Esperanza|a]]</font><font color="red">[[User:Carmelapple|rm]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Carmelapple|el]]</font><font color="mediumseagreen">
'''Support''' User is very kind.
'''Support''' Will make a very good sysop.
'''Strong Support''' Don't know this user. Just looked over her contributions and talkpages and userpages. She is very kind.
'''Strong Support''' User is very kind, knowledgeable, uses good edit summaries etc. She will make a very good admin. <small>
'''Very Strong Support''' I am going to nominate her for Bureaucrat if she wants it. If we had 1000 Phaedriels on this planet, there would be world peace. I am honored to know her and vote for her. <font color="#4682B4">
'''We just beat CSCWEM Support'''. Kind, courteous, etc. per everyone else.
'''Dammit Support''' I was shooting to be the record breaker, which is why this is such a late pile-on. Thought '''s'''he was one and all.
'''Support''' per nom. above. Great Wikipedia editor! --
not just pile on '''Support''', everything looks fantastic here. —
'''Support''' Fantastic editor. She would be the model administrator. --
'''Support'''. Phaedriel is one of a rare breed of Wikipedia editor who is capable of being both affable and practical in terms of ensuring a better editing environment, and carrying on our principal goal of writing an encyclopaedia. I have always seen her to be extremely helpful and considerate in dialogue, and to have excellent judgement on matters relating to encyclopaedia editing. As such, I believe that Phaedriel, without a doubt, shall be an ideal admin. Keep up the excellent work, Phaedriel! --
'''Extreme HyperLesbian With Three Cherries On Top NPOV WP:OFFICE Verifiability NOR The Jimmy The Danny and the Holy Erik Moeller Support On Wheels Is Communism Squidward and every other prolific vandal you can think of I Won't Take No For An Answer!!!!!''' - See my nomination above. —
'''Very Strong Support''', Phaedriel, in my opinion is one of the absolute best Wikipedians of all time. There are only a small handful of other Wikipedians that are comparable to her. Though she may have only ~5150 edits, she is kind and hardworking and definetly deserves the "mop." --
'''Support''' based on her user page's self-portrait alone.
'''Support''' clean record, extensive history with wikipedia, and judging from the other support votes, already extensive community support  --
'''Support''' per bandwagon. Besides, this nomination comes with impeccable credentials in every way.
'''Very strong support'''. No reason to explain- the nom, answers to questions, and other votes say it all. --
'''Support''' --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' Good character, seems very dedicated to the project.
'''Support''' (another edit conflict!) - Phaedriel is a kind user (though we've never actually chatted, she said some very nice things about me to [[User:Yanksox|my boyfriend]]) and although I do worry that she may be unable to be "mean" enough to block a user and share a smidgen of the concerns below, I do think she'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' truly deserves adminship.--
'''Support''' per noms, and the fact that I was about to tell Tango how his bot was clearly counting wrong...
'''Support'''. August 4th support, the eighth and final day. It feels like the end of an era.
'''Support'''. I just read your user page on Wikilove, and am already eminently convinced that you are exactly the sort of person who deserves unfettered access to the technical innards of our encyclopedia. Hopefully this will be just enough to push you over the edge.--
'''Support''' (Not that it was needed.) I might be the only person on WP who has never dealt with this user; with that said, I'm not just incredibly impressed with her editing prowess, expertise, and answers to the questions posed, but I'm really quite touched by the outpouring of support for her by the many co-nominators. --
'''Support''' No Kicking222, I've never dealt with her either. But even after just a brief look at her contributions page, it seems quite clear that she has made some awesome contributions and that she deserves administrator status. --
'''<big>Support!!!</big>''' O my God. How could I not have known? I wanted to co-co-co-co-co-nominate too :( Words '''cannot''' express Phaedriel's qualities, so I won't even try. Love u, you make Wikipedia worthwhile, and you'll make an exceptional admin.</big>
'''Support'''  Meets --
'''Support'''. Every time I've crossed her path has been a positive experience. -
Phaedriel is obviously an extraordinary editor and person and that is actually why I am opposing. I do not doubt her competence or trustworthiness at all (I'd be crazy to), but I do wonder how becoming an admin will compromise those traits that have made her, rightfully, the only Wikipedian that has her own fan club. The fact that she is using a reduced version of her lovely signature on this page (so as not to disturb the signature police, maybe?) somewhat worries me in this regard. Phaedriel has demonstrated herself as being capable of so much, both from an editing standpoint with her portals and wikiproject she has started, to her incredible interpersonal skills. I just think, with all that, why bog her down with the tedious and menial tasks of adminship that will occupy her attention and divert her from the truly great things she can offer the project? I really believe that if a user like Phaedriel is going to contribute to the "greater good" here at Wikipedia, it's not going to have much to do with her protecting pages, deleting vanity pages, and applying blocks to vandals -- she has advanced far beyond that. Furthermore half of "adminship" is really about the elevated status you receive. Phaedriel, as an ordinary editor, has achieved a level of community acceptance and respect that far surpasses what the "admin" label affords, so it's not as though the passing of this RfA will change anything in that regard. Besides, it's always really nice, especially as a non-admin and probably for new users as well, to see that a non-admin can carry just the same "weight" around here (if not more) that an admin does. Finally, before I get a barrage of angry comments, obviously this preceding comment is made with the full recognition that this RfA will pass by a record-setting landslide and my intention is not to hinder that with this vote  - just adding my two cents as the process permits and encourages. — ''
Image issues.
'''Oppose''' per Kotepho. Improperly tagged images indicate lack of understanding of copyright policy. Although [[:Image:OklahomaCityPolice.jpg]], [[:Image:Shffbadge.jpg]], [[:Image:Mengeleold.jpg]], [[:Image:Meeker.jpg]], [[:Image:Unclesamwantyou2.jpg]], [[:Image:Twogunhart.gif]], and [[:Image:Kevrichardson.jpg]] were uploaded in the period from December 2005 to February 2006, [[:Image:Blue-star.gif]] was uploaded last month (June 14), so I cannot excuse this as newbie ignorance.
'''1FA''' :-S -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Phaedriel's comment above.  Phaedriel says she never intended to use the star image in articles; only in userspace.  That's completely the opposite approach.  Userspace should be held to an even higher image standard.  A great user otherwise, and I know your adminship will pass, but it's important for admins to know image rules (at least to some degree).
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''neutral''' per ligulem. Too much wiki love. Certainly i would not oppose based on this and love is great and all, but smooshing, hugs and kisses to an extreme start to get us a little off track from the goals here. Love the portals though.

'''Neutral'''. Two things, and obviously neither is a very popular opinion. I'm not exactly sure why Phaedriel wants to have all co-nominations approved by her first, and I don't know why she might be picking and choosing among them. Considering there are six or so co-nominations, I can't see this nomination suffering from over-co-nomination simply due to the addition of one more; an explanation wouldn't hurt. Secondly, I love the nominee's userpage as much as a lot of users here do, but I have but one issue with it, and that's the section labelled "Being Indian Is ...". I'm slightly worried about POV pushing, or even the appearance of POV pushing, on related topics, for much the same reason that a number of users here opposed a recent RfA candidate due to religious views expressed on his userpage. I'm eagerly looking forward to being able to move this to the support column.
'''Neutral''' Because of aforementioned image copyright issues.  I can see people making fair use mistakes, but I do not like PD and GFDL mistakes that are recent.  Though I cannot oppose as this is a good candidate.  Please better yourself with some research into copyrights on wikipedia.
'''Reluctant switch to neutral''' per
'''Nominate and support'''.
'''Nothing wrong with specalist admins support''' - sure, he'll mostly focus on moves requiring deletions but its a flag, specialist admins are a good thing --
'''Support'''. Bloody good user. A strong enough contribution record that I'm prepared to support even if he doesn't intend to use the flamethrower very much.
'''Support''' Probably won't use the tools very much, but hard to imagine he will abuse them
'''Support'''. Excellent editor.&#160;—
'''Support'''.  Dedicated and reasonable long-term contributor.
'''Support''' --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
I've seen this editor's work for a long time and I believe that he will be a good admin. -
'''Support''' inteligent, diligent, hard working, experienced and friendly. What other qualities could you ask for in an administrator?
'''Support''' looks like he's in it for the long-haul. &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. Excellent editor. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Absolutely nothing wrong with specialist admins, in fact they are, in my opinion, a very good thing in the more specialised area of janitoring. Besides, I very much doubt that Philip will abuse the tools - he's been here longer than most of us admins.
'''Support''' Around since 2003. Definitely committed. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support''': excellent role model of an admin already.
'''Support''' per Tawker. [[user:ILovePlankton|<font color="red">I</font><font color="orange">Lo</font><font color="limegreen">ve</font>]][[Plankton]] <sup>(</sup>
'''Support''' Kwazy good editor.
'''Strong support''' per all of the above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' not enough portal talk edits.
'''Steal RadioKirk's cliche support''' Per above.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''', most definitely.
'''Support''' dammit where were you hiding till now? ;) <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
Yep, good candidate. Highly unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Even in disagreement, civil and level-headed. Brief answers to crappy standardised questions notwithstanding, very good editor. Whatever happens, just don't spam my talk page with a templated thank you message. Support. --
How can I not support?  I wish there was something brilliant I could say, but I guess the facts speak for themselves.
'''Support
'''Support! Fits my criteria (however much that's worth) -- [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A strong editor with high level of talk communication.
'''Support''' I like a guy who writes what he knows and works with people. Give 'em a broom! --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', very committed. He's done alot of good, and could do even more for Wikipedia as an admin.
<span class=votesupport>'''S''' - per above --<font size="1">
'''Support''', seems like a good candidate. --
'''Support''' who would propose deletion of this guy? (get it? he was prodded by other users, and...oh never mind) --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''A "holy-cow-that's-a-lot-of-edits" support''' per The Land. -→
'''Support'''.  --
'''A Buchanan-Hermit support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' from history enthusiast. -
'''Support'''. Has been around for a long time and knows what he's doing.
'''Weak support'''. Concerns about poor judgement are valid, however. The editor needs to revise some of his practices. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support!''' OMG Can't believe he hasn't been nominated until now --<font color="black">
'''Support''' seems overdue for adminship.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', per Terence Ong. --
Thought-I'd-already-voted-already redundant '''support''' (oh, must've been the [[User:Master of Puppets|MoP]]... [grin]) <tt>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' An A+ user.
'''Support.''' Accomplished editor, no reason to suspect tools won't be put to good use.--

'''Support''' Felt like I'd join the party. Excellent edit summary, particularly in talk pages (shows good judgement and ability to collaborate).
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' definitely seems like a good user, would be good with the tools. --
'''Support'''; many years of good contributions. --
'''Support''', great contributor to Military History and other fields and I'm sure will be an equally good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', a nice bloke.
'''Support''', per many of the above --
'''Support''', I see no problems --
'''Unnecessary pile-on support'''. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''', of course.&mdash;
'''Support''' -- very surprised this editor isn't already. -

'''Support''' an excellent editor and one who is guaranteed to use adminship sensibly.
'''Support''' Hard-working, long-term editor. Just what the mop is for.
'''Support''' seems reasonable.
'''Support''' no problems here. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate
'''Support''' edits look fine to me.--
'''Support''', despite all the unkind things he says about peerage wonks ;)
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Passes [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|my test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Big Bandwagon With 4-wheel drive Support'''. I've seen so many excellent edits from PBS. Good editors dont always make good admins. The two require different skill sets and temperments. But I have full confidence he will.--
'''Support'''.
'''support''' Seem him around. Appears to ber a good wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Philip's a good smart man.
'''Oppose.''' Has shown consistently poor judgement when supporting the idea of "approval voting" and similar notions that in practice boil down to "consensus is a majority vote" over at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]. There's also the problem of supporting bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. These actions are in my opinion inappropriate for and incompatible with adminship.
'''Oppose.''' The diacritics issue worries me.
'''Oppose'''. Significant edits are just 11%. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' Does not appear that he needs or wants the tools from his one sentence answer to Q1. - <b>
'''Neutral'''. I would like to ask Philip to explain his relation to [[Bombing of Dresden in World War II]]. While without a doubt he has done a great job policing and expanding this article, it has been my experience (many months ago) that he treats this article as his personal 'turf', and his opposition to expanding lead (to confirm to [[WP:LEAD]]) based on the logic (IIRC) that the current lead is NPOVed and any change will POV it is one of the reasons that would prevent this article from going to FA. I'd like to stress here that this was my only negative encounter with Philip, and as many other supporting him show above it was likely an exception than the rule, nonetheless I feel somewhat uneasy about giving the 'mop and bucket' to Philip until I am sure he would not, for example, protect the article just to keep it in the current NPOV shape.--
Definitely. Have seen him around. Good editor. &ndash;
Looks great - <font style="color:#FF7518;background:#000;">
'''Support'''&mdash;Rather like the technical orientation; might have liked more contributions & edits, but okay... Overall meets my criteria. Will make sound Admin.  [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''': Should make a good one. Experience in mediation should be a bonus. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' (duh).  --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Looks perfectly competent as an editor; I don't believe that the tools would be abused.
'''Support''' Mhmm.
'''Support''' seems to be a great editor who can certainly be trusted with the buttons

'''Support''', absolutely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - impressed by answers to questions. Looks a valuable addition to the admin ranks. --
'''Support''' &mdash;You've done your homework and done it well.  I see no reason not to support your bid. &mdash;
'''Support''', sounds like a voice of reason and a level head. Good answers to the questions.
'''Strong Support''' an excellent editor.
'''Support''' --
Sure, why not?
'''Support''' leaning to strong support. Answers denote maturity and profound knowledge of the functioning of Wikipedia.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' worked on a MedCab case with him, a very sensible editor
'''Support'''. No concerns. Will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' Great user with good answers to the questions, will make a good use of the tools.

'''Support'''.  I've never encountered this user before but on the strength of the answers I am in total support.  Then checked his/her user page -- 11th grade!  I'm even more impressed.
'''Physics Student Support'''. Seen this user around. A good thinker and hard worker. '''
'''Support''' great answers, and all the signs of a good sysop, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''

'''Bay Area Support''' ~
'''Support''' - Seems conscientious --
'''Strong Support''' excellent editor, superb answers.--
'''Support''' - very good answers, seems nice and determined.
A user with opinions, not all of them shared by me, but solid experience and unquestionably well intentioned all leads to my '''support'''.
'''Support''' - this user's valuable (and vast) contributions to Wikipedia say it all. Also, this user's leadership throughout a contentious [[WP:SRNC]] impressed me personally. --
'''Support'''. Invaluable to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]].
'''Support''' Yeah, yeah, why not? The Oppose vote doesn't faze me.
'''Support''' I don't support "per nom", but in this case the nominator has said everything perfectly.  It says something that this user did not nominate themselves and has been productive for so long.  I reject the rational behind the oppose votes. --
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' Disagree with the oppose votes, so supporting here. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good answers to the (remarkably long list of) questions ---
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Long history of positive contributions.  As an aside, I note that I am troubled by the number of oppose votes &ndash; on this and other RFAs &ndash; by participants in the Great Highway Naming Dispute.  I would have thought that those individuals would have been so embarrassed by their overwrought reaction to a petty issue that they would prefer not to dredge it up again.
'''Strong support'''. Excellent editor I have worked with on a number of airport articles including [[San Francisco International Airport]], very level-headed in contentious situations. --
'''Pile-on support''' per others.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor, though I would recommend a quick refresher course in things like CSD, as I have had to remind him of some policies recently. --
'''Support''' Seen him around quite a few times and he has impressed me with his good contributions. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. He is a good editor, and provided good answers in my opinion. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''No'''. [[Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive2#People commenting when voting]]. User believes that comments left next to "votes" such as those used in just about every process I can think of right now, including AfD (and every other *fD), RfA, DRV, RM, etc, etc are ''bad'' and should even be ''removed''. This is a complete perversion of everything that Wikipedia's idea of consensus stands for and it is very possible that this user's beliefs will bias him when closing discussions in these processes.  This means that this user may misuse admin tools, and should not be granted the +sysop. --


"Out of retirement" oppose per [[Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive3#What is the point here?]]: "If we were to leave the New Jersey highway naming convention as it is now, in the future, someone may use the "exception" as an example of the "uselessness" of whatever convention comes out of this and we'll just be back at square 1. --physicq210" Admins should support consensus, not the imposition of a [[foolish consistency]]. --
His comments on a recent requested move at [[San Francisco]] show he has strong inclinations for "rules lawyering", which is something that I think disqualifies him from being an admin. His reason for opposing the move is becaue it doesn't follow the US city naming guidelines[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Francisco%2C_California&diff=71688536&oldid=71688324]. One of the major reasons was that San Francisco was an internationally known city and did not need to be disambiguated so can be an exception from the guideline. Inflexible adherence to a guideline is not a good trait for an admin. He seems to be of the position that Wikipedia should be prescriptive rather than being descriptive. For example he opposes any city renaming requests unless the guideline is changed first[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco%2C_California/archive2#Individual_polls_vs._collective_polls]. But in that poll, nobody is advocating for a change in guideline that will "change everything"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASan_Francisco%2C_California&diff=71713243&oldid=71705798]. He also tried to get the poll nullifed early on when the votes were against his preference[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco%2C_California/archive2#Vote_Stacking.3F]. (The vote eventually ended up as no consensus). My observation from this is that he likes rules and likes to enforce them with no exceptions -- something that Wikipedia is not. This plus his creation of the rule of no discussion when voting at [[WP:SRNC]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1&diff=70470870&oldid=70470415] (something against Wikipedia principles) lead me to oppose making him an admin. --
Per review on contributions and per Brenneman. - <b>
'''Support''' per my nom statement above --
'''Support''', this should've happened a looooooonnnnng time ago. <b>
'''Strong Support''' Great user, seen around alot, very active in Wikipedia. Will make a great admin. --
'''Support.''' — '''''
'''Strong Support''' passes [[User:Digitalme/*FA|*FA]], great contributor.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Cleared for landing on Rwy 17R''', I mean support.--
'''Support''' - excellent user, won't abuse the tools. Please do consider reducing your sig though. (
'''Strong support''' a very competent, extremely friendly user. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: #FF4500;">[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''support''' pilotguy has always striked me as being someone who works well with wikipedia stress and id have to search his contribs really rally hard to find anything that bugged me
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''', based on involvement and comments above.  --
'''Support''' - Nice contributions and a good vandal fighter. This won't make change my vote, but I'd like to see a more compact signature.
'''Stong support''' good editor, will be good admin --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great contributor. Good experience in vandalism. Regular and helpful changes to the defcon too. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Met him on IRC. Seems sane, reasonable and helpful. I think he'd be a suitable admin. -
'''Support''' will use the tools well. --
'''Support'''. Another good vandal fighter and per Tawker.'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Strong Support'''. Great user and very helpful in the field of countering vandalism!<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' - CrazyRussian's diffs lead me to support, actually. -
'''Strong support'''; extremely clear-headed. ~
'''Support''', without second thoughts. My own continued experience with Pilot (which comes from no less than 5 months ago) and a thorough check of his many contributions only lead me to believe that he's thoughtful, meticulous, and most important, kind in his dealings with other users. CrazyRussian, I have utmost respect for your opinion, as I have proved by supporting your own candidacy; but I believe you're being a bit too harsh judging Pilotguy here. From all the things you pointed out, I only agree that his sig is somewhat long and would be better off if simplified a little. But every other aspect, I find debatable for the same reasons alleged by Joturner, Andeh & Rory. I especially disagree with considering a notice at a user's own userpage regarding a current RfA as something negative; many, many respectable admins have done this in time, and I can't think that having posted said notice in turn has had any impact in their administrative performance. Please, don't switch sides merely over what I said; I simply wanted to share my opinion on your position with you. Огромное спасибо!
'''Support''' - passes my [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|DSoDD]]. Most notably: (h) positive comments from others; (g) signature is/was no big deal; (c) I have seen nothing but positive interactions. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. --
'''Support''' even though he has been blocked twice, wrongly. :-D Long time user, reduced sig as requested.--<font style="background:white">
I know Pilotguy from RC/CVN work and he's always friendly. I think I'll pick '''Support''' RfA cliche #2. (2x Edit Conflict!) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Great counter-vandalism work; no objections (and gosh, now I'm worried that perhaps my sig is too big?) <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' I have come across him in vandalization reversions and at other times, and he seems to be a fine candidate for the mop-and-flamethrower. Good Luck! --
'''Support''', will be a fine addition to the administrator community. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''', meet my criteria
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' no brainer support
'''
'''Support''', likes planes, er, is active in fighting vandalism and seems helpful and level-headed.--
'''Support''' An excellent vandal fighter. No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''', maintain [[WP:ROUGE|2000]] until established on the [[Wikipedia:List of administrators|localiser]].
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', excellent candidate, adminship is due.
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support''' hell yeah!
'''Support'''. Great user, will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Good all-round contributer. Will be an asset with the tools. --
'''Control tower to Pilotguy, you're cleared for adminship.''' -→
'''Cleared for admin.'''.  Loads of good edits, loads of adminish stuff already.  --
'''Strong Support''' Great, Friendly user. <font face="Croobie" color="red">
'''Support''', per nom. Ideal admin material.
'''Support''' - Helpful user, very active in fighting vandalism. --

'''Support''' –
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Contributions makea compelling case.
'''Support'''. Been around a while, does good stuff, does it reliably and well and does a mixture of it. Well qualified. -
'''Support''', is good stuff.
'''Support'''! Friendly, and would make a good admin. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''.
'''SUpport'''. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Aviation metaphorless support''' per nom, Tangot, and Splash, to name three.
'''Cliche Support'''. Would have supported anyway. :)
'''Support on WHEEELS!!!''' Great user. Is to the point and doesn't take crap from anyone. Give him the mop and let him clean the place up. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|What up?]]
'''Cliché Support'''.  I seriously would have bet money that he was an admin. [[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', great contributor. [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Surely''' will use the admin extra buttons judiciously. Great contributor and vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. I have no reason otherwise, this is a great editor. <span style="text-decoration: overline underline;font-family:Segoe;font-size:70%"><font color="black">
RfA cliché #1 '''support'''. -- <font face="tahoma">

'''Support''' seems to be suitable admin material -
'''Support''' per above.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. He deserves the mop. -
'''Support'''... although you need more ''Help talk:'' namespace edits! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' one of the good guys who will make a great admin.
'''MAJOR support'' Good, reliant editor. (also a good source for userboxes...)
'''Support''' meets my [[User:Where/Adminship criteria|adminship criteria]]. -- [[User talk:Where|Where is]]
'''Downwind support'''
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With around 9000 valuable edits under his belt, I am sure he will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Helpful person. All I have to say.
'''Support''' Kind, civil user who can easily be trusted with the tools. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Cleared for adminship'''. No doubt in his abilities or suitability for being an administrator.
'''Full-on support'''. I'm glad I came back in time to vote support on your RfA, Pilotguy, you're one of the awesomest guys on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. No problems here.
'''Support''' Exceeds my requirements. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Cleared for adminship''' Pilotguy has been a solid contributor to the project for six months. Based on my experiences working with him, in addition to his good record, I have nothing less than full support for him in this RfA.   --
'''Support'''.

'''Support''', clear for takeoff.
'''Very strong support'''! A model "citizen" of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' absolutely - Use the tools well and do good things--
'''Support'''. Seems friendly, and tools will help with vandal fighting.
'''Support''' for tireless battling against the vandal hordes. Especially impressive in a spate of userpage vandalism a few days ago.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Per Tawker and the may I add my $0.02 and say he's an exceptional vandal fighter - [[User:Stollery|Glen Stoll]]
'''Support''' No problems with me. [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color=red>sta</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|<font color=yellow>E</font>]][[user:GangstaEB/pagemap|<font color=purple>B</font>]]
'''Support'''. Not an admin already?
I stayed neutral for awhile because of signature concerns but those seem to be worked out now, so here comes support '''#100'''!!  --
'''Support'''. A bit low in the talk namespace, but what the heck. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="#A8A8A7">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - looks good, and I'm pleased that he doesn't pussyfoot around with vandals.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' For the reasons stated above.
<font size="1">
'''Late-and-not-needed Support''' -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Support''', not that it's really needed.
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support''' Looks like fine admin material to me!
'''Support'''. I make exceptions for people with relatively low WP-space edits who have outstanding article contributions, which Pilotguy clearly does. The question one answer addresses that concern anyway, because the user says they will start in familiar areas. No other possible concerns. A great vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. Excellent user, would make a great administrator. —
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - solid user, looks quite patient when dealing with recurring problem users... if he can be patient with sockmasters, he can probably handle other issues well, I'd say.
'''Support''' - I thought i already voted. :'( <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
Piling it on '''support'''. Excellent user, will be a great admin. --
'''Support''' Without question or hesitation... --
'''Late Support''' I've known Pilotguy for awhile now, his behaviour and attitude are well-suited to being an admin.--'''
'''Support''' seems to be a nice guy  --
'''Support''' will be a great Admin -- <i>
'''Support''' I thought I already supported you once. *Please remove this support if I voted twice* — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''
'''Neutral''' by popular demand. Thanks to all for the effort expended in reasoning with me. - <b>
'''Neutral'''. Outstanding work, but you haven't been here a year yet. It would be churlish to oppose solely on those grounds, but I won't support condemning another good editor to the admin corps.
'''Neutral''' per Mackensen.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have nothing but the highest opinion of plange. I didn't even know that she ''wasn't'' an admin until I saw the RfA discussion pop up on her talk page.
'''Support''' --
'''Browncoat support''' Looks like a good editor; little doubt that the admin tools would be used well.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, highly focused on improving content. No reason for mistrusting use of the tools.
Weak support. I would prefer to see some more experience with process, but lots of activity in various wikiprojects is laudable.
'''support''':  Per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support''', the large volume of usertalk edits as opposed to a relatively small mainspace count concerns me slightly, don't forget the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''', Overall good and excellent contribution from his side,
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' Outstanding editor with a steadfast commitment to making Wikipedia a better project in several facets to which she actively contributes (WikiBiography, Good Articles, Bot creation, etc). Plange also has a very even keel temperment, tiredlessly [[WP:AGF|assumes good faith]] and actively works with all other edtors for compromise where there is disagreement. These are some of the most sought for characteristics of a good admin and Plange exhibits them to a "T".

'''Strong support''', looks like an excellent user. Definitely admin material. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The added tools given to her would only benefit this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. Still shocked by the number of talkspace edits you have. This user definitely deserves to be an administrator. She is a great contributor to Wikipedia, and she also is an active participator on article and Wikipedia discussions. How can you do so much WPBiography tagging? That's insane.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Strong Support''' Wikipedia need more admins like her; ones who stay cool and calm.
'''Strong support'''. Excellent, well-rounded, capable editor who'd make a great admin. —

'''Support''' for a highly qualified, experienced user with no troublesome issues.
'''Strong Support''' Will make a fine administrator, although I do wish mainspace edits made up a greater proportion of her total edits. Nevertheless, that by itself does not override other tremendous qualities. Good luck!
'''Strong Support''' of course, will make a fine admin, which will complement her existing works... --
'''Support''' looks good!  Surprised I never ran into her as of yet --
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' I've got nothing to add. Way to be, Plange. --
'''Support''' Good user giving my support.
'''Support''' Has been great for Bio. [[User:Delta Tango|D]][[User:Delta Tango/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' per nom and above. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Strong support''' - civil, friendly, hard-working, qualified, and no problem with number of edits considering her work on FACs, FARs, and the Bio project.
'''Support''' - Great contributions to WP Biography --
'''Support''', great editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Shiny Support''' great, hard-working, and effective editor.--
'''Strong Support'''.
Well I was gonna comment oppose so that Kingboyk'd have to keep working but on second thought... Anything to let Kingboyk slack off, I say. :)  Ok seriously... Heck ya, a great editor by all metrics I've checked. More candidates like this one, please!<sup>tm</sup> '''support''' ++
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;[[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Strongest support''' Wow, I'm late. Amazing writer, very civil, will do well with the tools.
'''Support'''- if the only reason somebody is '''<font color="red">NEUTRAL</font>''' is due to lack of time, I'm not convinced.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''. Passes all major criteria--
'''Support'''. Model, progressive Wikipedian. Also she is interested in American history, as I am, and she improved many related articles greatly. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Strong Support''' - As has already been stated, a model wikipedian.
'''Support''' to quote an RfA voter from a while back: "Ding Dong Special Delivery from FedEx: A new mop!" [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' No problem with supporting, and recent handling of [[Robert E. Lee]] shows good understanding of dispute resolution process. &mdash;
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''', per nominator. --
'''Support''' looks like an excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support'''. I see no issues at all.
'''Strong Support''' no problems,high edit count,experience he'll be a great amin I'm sure
'''Neutral''' - looks to be a good editor, but lack of time with the project prevents me from supporting --
'''Support so strong it shakes the very foundations of Wikipedia!!!''' Ardent vandal hunter, trusted editor, and all-around good egg.
'''Support'''. It's about time. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' as nominator-dealy.
'''Support.''' <small><small>([[Help:Edit conflict|EC]])</small></small> <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' a good addition to the mop squad. --
'''Support''' - Please...no...not...another...cliche...Aaaaargh! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' meets most, if not all of my criteria. I'd like to see a few more talkpage edits, but it's all good :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' without question. --
'''Support''' - Seems to be good.  Go ahead with that mop! :) &mdash;
'''support'''
'''Kaboom!''' (or something to that effect); go get'em tiger! -[[m:Wikimania 2006|<font color="red">'''M'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Hits the spot, I'm a sucker for mass-annihilation of vandals
'''Support'''. Vandal-fighters should be encouraged and empowered.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Judging your talk page (incl archives) and in honor of your efforts fighting vandals...  --
'''Support''' Don't see any problems here. --
'''Support''' per same reasons as I voted for TigerShark.
'''Support''' <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support''', I don't see any problems either.
'''Support'''. All experiences have been positive, will use tools well. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
''''Support'''. Will be very efficient. Will use tools very well [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - admin status will help him do his job. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Changing from neutral per answer to my question.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per BD2412 & Richardcavell - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' - Definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''. Superexcellent (that's a word, apparently)
'''Support'''.
'''Suppport''', should make a fine administrator.
'''Suppport'''. of course. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' just the way I like'em.
'''Support''' a trusted user. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' Per answers and a sampling of the user's wikipedia namespace contributions. A good candidate, among other things seems willing to be cautious and learn as he goes along. --
'''Support.''' You've been an editor since September, huh? That violates my "No September editors" policy. OK, I'll let it slide this time :-).
'''Support.'''  Good amount of edits, been here long enough, will most likely not abuse tools, no reason not to. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as well... absolutely no concerns here.
'''Support''', no questions, this user is fabulous! -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' per above sentiments. --
'''Support''', definitely!
'''Support''' I se eno evidence this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Weak support''', good contribution but less towards wikispace.
'''Support'''. I would have prefered more edits in the WP space, but I'm still willing to support. --
'''Support?''' I don't exactly remember who he is, but if he is who I think he is, this is a no brainer. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
--
I like what I've seen, and besides... Can't be pro one and anti the other! '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looks good
'''Support''' per all 63 reasons above.  I figure Mongo had two different ones in mind.
'''Support'''. All interactions have been very positive, looks good. .:.
'''Support''' Impressive vandal figther and Wikipedia editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', could definately use the tools. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' - good work so far! --''
'''Support''', learns from his mistakes, which is absolutely necessary for admins to do.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' No probs. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' I think he agreed with me recently, as good a reason as any for someone to be an admin IMAO. '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great work.
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Looks like a good bloke.:-) —''
'''Oppose''' Main talk space edits too low. Not active enough with Wikipedia community. --
'''Oppose'''. Concerned that he has made only 47 article Talk: page comments.  Have read the explanation below, and still am unsatisfied.  Discussions about article content are public, not private conversations between individuals; they belong on the article Talk: page, where everyone can read them.  If you're really concerned that people won't notice them, then you can alert them on their User Talk: page as well.
'''Oppose''' per Jayjg. Though this will succeed anyway, please keep this in mind at least. Thanks.'''
'''Stütze''', o ja, ich bin alles dafür!
'''Support''', just about. A little short of my usual standards but from my interactions with him, I would be confident he will be a good admin.
'''Support''' Well rounded contributions, has been here for a while, a good editor, seems like a polite and calm guy, etc. Should make a good janitor. Also more bilingual admins is a good thing. --
'''Support''' meets most, if not all, of my criteria; fairly well diverisified, solid answers, polite, and the above reasons. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' you mean you're not an admin already? I'd have nominated you myself if I'd realised this.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, well-rounded wiki-career.
'''Support''' <strike>Haven't had a great deal of conduct with him, but the question answers impressed me [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)</strike> <strike>Changed to oppose on the basis of John Reid's comments [[User:Cynical|Cynical]] 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)</strike> Happy to change back to ‘’’Support’’’ per answers to JayZ’s questions below
'''Support''' Good number of mainspace edits. --'''<font color="#E32636">
<strike>'''Oppose''' anti-onion POV warrior</strike> '''Support''', wonderful editor. Has a keen mind for policy, has a solid history of interaction, general neat guy.
'''Support''' Seems like a decent candidate, and I don't buy the oppose arguments. If the user is trustworthy it follows he can be trusted to close AFDs. It's not even as if an AFD result is secret or absolutely final. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' because Sarah says so.
'''Support''', of course. -

'''Support''' - I'm not fussed about 'deletionist bias'. He clearly is already operating as a good admin should. -
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' meets criteria, good user. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Totally biased fellow English-speaking Berliner '''support'''. Even if he does have peculiar views about vegetables, he will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - so what if he's a deletionist by nature?  Many admins are.  What's important is whether the user happens to be trustworthy, sensible, and comprehends the nature of consensus.  ProhibitOnions seems sensible, good-natured, and seems to understand consensus;  ergo supporto, as they say in Latin.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as a fellow Berliner (that will raise the number of Berlin en-admins to a glorious ''3'')
'''Support''', even though I vehemently disagree with his viewpoint towards onions. --
'''Support''' cause adminship is no big deal, and bias against deletionists is not an acceptable reason for opposing in my opinion.
'''Support'''.  Believing in something does not mean that you can't follow consensus. I would like to see more deleted edits, though. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' everything looks good. --
'''Support''' OK in my book. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' despite anti-onion bias. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''', satisfied PO is ready for the mop. Surprised by the deletionist label, if anything I've seen inclusionism in recent AfD activities.
'''Support''', random sampling of AfD was pretty balanced - and consistent with personal observations.  Well spoken when defending his opinons.
'''Support''' Calm headed and experienced are what sold me. --
'''Support''' a calm and cool user in heater arguments. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' even though you don't like onions. :)

'''Support''' per nom, Kuru, and RichardCav.
'''Support''' Has shown the ability to remain calm on  contentious AfD issues.  In response to opposition, I just don't anticipate ProhibitOnions ignoring consensus at closing and deleting out of process.  That would be very out of character from what I've seen.--
'''Support'''.  I saw him on the list of high edit counts and saw him on several AfDs, and thought he was worth nominating.  And now I see he's up for nomination.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' for so many reasons.
'''Support'''. Excellent.
'''Support''' Even though onion [[prohibition]] is a bad thing. Good well balanced editor. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' good work on AfD, seems like an appropriately reasonable person, would make a good onion
'''Support''' . Good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. "Strong deletionist bias" '''[[Relational operator|!=]]''' inability to determine consensus. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. I've seen your work, and your votes to save some [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline|pretty good articles from deletion]].
'''Keep'''. No, wait: '''Support'''. Well, honestly. Has all the skills an admin needs, so let's give him the keys to the cupboard. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Great editor, and good answers to questions below.  --
'''The heart of the fooshkoot is bitter'''. (this is not an oppose vote)
'''Can'tProhibit''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Ick unterstütz Balina.
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Seems to have generated goodwill in the community.
'''Support''' though I tend to side with JIP's comments - we gotta watch those pesky tomatoes. --
''' Weak Support ''' ProhibitOnions has shown to be an inclusionist recently, but I don't know him all that well.
'''Oppose''' -- Strong deletionist bias displayed on AfD. While I find this acceptable in an editor and participant in AfD, I do not want this user to be ''closing''.
'''Oppose''' Per above, not active enough with the Wikipedia community. --
<s>''' Neutral''' I am the world's biggest inclusionist, so I can't vote Support. I can't oppose because he deals with the n00bs and is very active iwthin the Wikipedia community.</s>
'''Support'''. I opposed last time due to a concern over Proto's knowledge of policy, but he is more experienced now. Work in the encyclopedia is excellent, and I think he's admin-worthy.
'''Support''', I trust him with the mop. A good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
<s>Nice fellow. Engaged me on my talkpage regarding a misunderstanding quite awhile back[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Megaman_Zero#bicycle_award], and whilst a little off base, showed civilty and a williness to listen to explanation.</s> I was referring to another canidate, but I still hold support. -
'''Support''' I also opposed last time around, but my concerns have been addressed.--
'''Support''' I supported last time around and am very happy to do so again.
'''Support with slight concern''' I think you would make a good admin, but I'm concerned that is was only the better part of two months since your last one. That's no ground to oppose though!
'''Support''', very good experience with mainspace and wikispace.
'''Support with confidence''' really has adressed everything with patience and good grace. --
'''Support.'''
'''Strong Support''' he has adressed all the concerns from his previous RFA and I am confident he'd make a very good administrator. <small>
'''Support''' - another mop over here please!
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Good guy.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as per last time
'''Support''', I didn't vote last time because I didn't think you were quite ready (hence, no support), but also didn't feel that you would make a bad admin (hence, no oppose). However, I think in two months, you've addressed some of the concerns from your previous RfA. Bring on the mop! --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
We're Knights of the Round Table, our shows are formidable. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impeccable. In war we're tough and able, quite indefatigable, though many times we're given rhymes that are quite unsingable. Oh, and '''support'''.
'''Support''' all the way. --
'''Support''' No concerns here. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. No brainer.
'''Support'''. Didn't comment/vote last time (if I remember rightly that meant something along the lines of "neutral, but haven't fully investigated oppose reasons to decide if they were bad enough"), but your responses below are impressive. That and other things I've seen meet my [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' - Good work
'''Support''': I say "Protogo for it" ;-)
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'll probably generally disagree with him on article content ;-), but he can work with his opponents without turning nasty, and I'm positive he won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per my support of last nomination. (
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. I was somewhat surprised to see the previous RfA fail, and this one looks much better. Proto is a reliably good editor, even if he was responsible for [[Shoe polish]] being the Main Page featured article. It happens to be the case that I learned a fair bit from watching Proto when I was new here, and he seemed like good stuff to me then and does now. -
'''Support''': I supported him last time, and his behavior hasn't worsened.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools, edit-conflict support.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', seems like a nice bloke.
'''Obvious why didn't you tell me you were running again support'''. You'll be getting the mop a couple months later than you should have, but no problem.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' I'm taking him at his word that the GNAA thing was just a misunderstanding (see Comments section below).
'''Support''' a great user. <font color="#000080">
'''Very Strong Support''' --
'''Hayeupp.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' from one bumbling dolt to another --
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' '''
''Proto''typically cliched witticism/pun on name '''Support''', because this editor has grown considerably since last time, when I was among the oppose contingent. (and bumbling dolts do need to stick together!) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''. Has amply demonstrated that he is deserving of mop and bucket.
'''Support''' Will do fine, I opposed last time but things have worked out great.
'''Support''' good editor.--
'''Support.''' Not sure why I didn't chime in last time, but I would have supported then, and I definately support now. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' -
As per last time.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', quite probably the most deserving candidate currently on the page.
'''Support''' looks good. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' per the above. --
'''Extreme "zOMG!!!! He didn't get s-sp'd last time?" support''' - what a great guy. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' Previous concerns no longer apply.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Voted for him last time; haven't changed my mind since then. -
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Bumbling dolt support'''.
'''Support'''. Impressed with the full-disclosure and growth. .:.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' seems like a great editor and eventually a good admin
'''Support''' Impressed with this users history and nom statements. I rarely vote here, but felt compelled on this one. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">
'''Support''' satisfies all my criteria
'''Support''' seems like a well rounded individual.  --
I'm too tired to remember why IO '''support''' Proto, but I do remember that I do.
'''Strong support'''. What can you say about a user like Proto?
'''"I thought I already voted" Support'''
'''Support''' - looks like they will be a good admin.
'''Supported and ReSupport'''--
'''Support'''. Good candidate! On a side note, your edit count is rather uniform, which makes me smile. --[[User:Deskana|Darth Revert]]
'''Support''', of course.  Thought you already were.  Now you will be.  8-)
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I've been on the opposite sides in a couple of arguments and Proto is mature, calm, and intelligent.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Well established and experienced editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support'''...have been of help before ;)
'''Support'''; impressed with what I've seen [[Special:Contributions/Aquilina|<font color="gray"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">A</span></font>]][[User talk:Aquilina|<font color="teal"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">q</span></font>]]
'''Support'''. Today is his one year anniversary here at Wikipedia! Also, he's ready to don the mantle; will make an excellent closing admin.
'''Support'''. Heading for [[WP:100]]! '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', as per (self)nominator.
'''Support''' bumbling dolts.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Will make fine admin. --
'''Heck YES''' its about time you ran!!! <small>
'''Support''' As a fellow bumbling dolt, I sympathise. '''''
'''Support''', will make a good admin.
'''Support''' for same reasons as last time. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]

'''Support'''. Great experience.
'''Support''' ---
'''Support'''. Took a lashing last time, learned from it, and kept working. Keep that up and you'll make a great admin. As one who opposed last time, I'm glad to see I can support now. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', whoever's next please add to [[WP:100]]
'''Support''', sounds like a good admin. And added to [[WP:100]]! - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''. Of course! Was sad to see that last one didnt pass. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]
'''Support''' - As much a 'deletionist' as I am an 'inclusionist', but more than worthy of the mop. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''&trade;. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', happy the last RfA had the right influence
'''Support''' - I see no reason to oppose, and Proto is certainly qualified. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', no reason to oppose giving him the mop. &mdash;
'''Support'''
<font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Prodego Prodego] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TigerShark Tigershark]; plus how can you not trust a user that makes an article on [[Shoe Polish]]? There's the ultimate assumption of good faith in not deleting and it made it to featured.  A mop.
'''Support''' for this energetic chap. --
'''Oppose''' Not active enough with the Wikipedia community, rarely deals with newbies, and a wikipedia show polish feature on Wikipedia, three orphan pictures total.  --
'''Oppose''' per my reasoning on the last nomination.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate's former apathy (former not in the sense that it is resolved, but in the sense of "I haven't seen it in a while") and fear of the #wikipedia IRC channel doesn't give me much trust in the user. Like it or not, #wikipedia is a way to contact users and resolve disputes, and if he's so gung-ho against it to the point where one can literally see the vitriol, it doesn't leave me with much confidence.
Referring to yourself as a bumbling dolt doesn't exactly instill me with the confidence to hand you the mop. Self deprecation is unbecoming. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Neutral'''. Would have opposed more or less for the same reason as last time and for his overwhelming deletionist urge. I'm also concerned about his misunderstanding of CSD criteria. Nevertheless, my opposition would be incredibly bad form after Proto's indication below that he enjoys discussions with me. And while I must admit that the comment did cause some fleeting alarm for his sanity, I quickly decided that it demonstrated a wellspring of common sense so rarely found among aspiring admins these days. Good luck. --
'''Support''', good answers to questions show understanding of process. &mdash;
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support'''. Will make good use of the mop. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Mild support''', not enough editings but a good experience with main space.
'''Support''' nomination for admin.
'''Support''', meets my criteria, good and experienced editor. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', seems OK.
'''Support'''.  Good editor, ran into them a few times on [[WP:AIV]]. --
'''Support''' A good user and excellent replies to questions. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good track record and thoughtful answer to questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Run into this user at FPC regularly and I think would make a good admin. |→
'''Strong support''' per FloNight and previous experience with user. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' seems to be a good, well-rounded user. I thought editcountitis on RfAs died a while ago, but apparently I was wrong. for the record, I had about 1,800 edits when I became an admin. edit count means very little. good luck.--
'''Support''' I don't remember where I saw this user, but I remember thinking to myself at the time, "here's a good future admin."  So, here we are.
'''Support''' Took a look at his edit history, looked good. Has my support.
'''Support'''. Good candidate, and would make a good administrator. (Of course he has "enough edits"!)&#160;—
'''support'''  - vi clinches it
'''Support'''. Good self-nom and answers. Plenty of experience despite relatively low edit count. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''', with identical sentiments as TheKMan. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. good work. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', you got my support. I like your answers.
'''Support''' - would have prefered you waited for a non self nom but you're a great editor --
'''Support'''. I've seen some good editing and the questions have been well answered.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. It seems that people need more and more edits to become an admin. First the edit limit is 1500, then 2000, now 3000~40000. Editcountitis is scary. Anyway, you deserve the mop, regardless of your editcount.--
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
""Support""
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', great answers to questions, and have seen editor before making good edits. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''. Saw through his contributions. Brilliant; low edit critics are simply too harsh. --
'''Support''' - Although I've heard of the user, I've not (to my knowledge at least) seen any of his work so my reasoning is twofold: 1) To attempt to cancel out those opposers who feel that 2,800 isn't enough edits. That sort of criterion is totally unreasonable in my opinion and 2) I trust a lot of the supporters above. Good luck! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. Contributions look fine, and 2,800 is plenty to demonstrate competence.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Good number of contributions. You deserve the mop! --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' - good editor, good work in article and wikipedia namespaces
'''Support''' hey, I like [[vi]], too, but you play games on a [[IBM Personal System/2]]? --
'''Support''' looking fine to me.  --

'''Wholehearted Support''': Wikipedia needs more video/PC game admins, and you're one of the best candidates in that realm.
'''Support'''&trade;. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Dedicated, mop-ready 'pedian
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Very weak, but still, Support''', changed from neutral, per above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good answers and the vi won me over ;) .:.
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' PS2pcGAMER has been more than helpful at [[WP:FPC]] recently and his/her contributions to several policy discussions I've witnessed recently have demonstrated a clear commitment to consensus.  This is not someone who will act hastily or without the consent of the community and s/he deserves a mop if he wants one! ~
'''Support''' excellent and very helpful editor <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good contributions, reasonable number of edits, vi user. :)
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''
--
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits.  --
'''Oppose''' Good editor however does not meet my criteria.--
'''Oppose''' I hate to bring you down on the edits here but 2800 just isn't enough for me - just give it some more time.
'''Oppose''' Pre my own standards. I would give it a couple more months.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience in project namespace - it makes it seem to me that you don't have much knowledge of policies.
'''Neutral until questions are answered''': Emacs or vi?  Pepperoni pizza or sausage? How many sealed seals that seals sealed could a seal steal if a seal could steal sealed seals that seals sealed?  If you become a "made man", what delicious foodstuffs would you provide your fellow admins with? --
'''Neutral leaning support'''. If the user had, lets say, another 500-1k edits and perhaps another month of experience I'd give my strong support. If this RfA, for some reason, fails - you'll have my support next time round!
Not enough MediaWiki: edits. --
'''Neutral''' closer to support though.  Would like to see more project related contributions. —
'''Neutral''' - to low on the mainspace edits. No reasons to oppose



'''Strong support''', of course! --
'''Strong support''', naturally! --
'''Strong support''' As one of her admin coaches, I think I should be supporting eh? This user has a firm grasp on understanding policy, and she knows when to apply it. That is a major plus for all admins. I know from experience that she is incredibly patient when dealing with situations that get heated. Also she is one of those users who contributes to the encyclopedia, which is what this is all about.
'''Strong support''' Per all of the above. --
'''Extreme "Absolutely green wellie wollies fantasmogorical" support''' - so there Pschemp! Take that! Pow! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>

'''That's hot.'''
--

'''Support''' - hardworking editor
'''Strong Support'''. Of course. One of our elite so far this year. '''Her February activity level is easily in the top twenty of all time.''' She's been around for a long time (edit count does NOT reflect reading and learning counts). Support all the way. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Her conduct thus far does seem indicative of a potentially good admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Strongest support possible'''.--
'''Support''', makes sense.
I seriously thought she was one already. Seriously. Extremely strong [[Image:Finny.svg|35px]] '''Support'''... she's going to rock. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+

'''Strong Oppose'''...I mean '''Strongest support possible''' &gt;<font color="red">:</font>) Without giving a long litany of reasons why I think she deserves it, she deserves it. She has all the people skills I wish I had. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a(?)]]</font>
'''Support'''. Friendly, helpful, good editor. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. Was thinking of nominating her myself&mdash;because she's a dedicated editor with her head screwed on right, and not just because the pictures of her with the "vandal-whacking stick" and the kitty in the sink make me smile. :-)
'''Support''' would benefit from admin tools <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course! ;) [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' in spite of silly oppose votes.
'''Support''' Strong character, trustworthy, personable. —
'''Support''' Ditto.  I like what I see here.  --
I broke my Wikibreak just so I could support a user of the highest caliber who will be an excellent administrator. There's no doubt in my mind about that. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' Without reservation, great candidate. '''''
'''Support''' When you see and a user with great skills, a high number of edits and experience all with a smile, it is a challenge to not support. --
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, meets and surpasses my criteria easily. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Weak support''', I don't have experience with this user myself, and she appears to have only a short period of real activity, but the amount of recent contributions is impressive, and if she's nominated by JoanneB, she has to be doing something right.
'''Support''' - Strong candidate doing alot of good. --
'''Support''' Don't see why not. --
'''Support''' per all above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above, admin is no big deal.
'''Support'''. All experiences have been positive; will make a good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Strong support'''.  I would, however, like to see more deleted edits. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' per nom. What more is there to say? --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Definate Support''' &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Very experienced and wise contributor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', slight concerns over relatively recent burst of power-editing, but more than satisfied she knows what it's all about.
'''Support''', a good mediator, too. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' for good record, good recommendations. --
'''Support''', solid editor.  Involved in many out of the way articles.
'''Support''' such high quality in such a short time <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' does a fine job, will make a great admin. --
'''Strong support''' - will make a great admin. &mdash;

'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Superwomanvandalplusgoodeditor!''' Supporrrttt!--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">a</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I've seen her make good edits, and she seems very trustworthy.--
'''Support'''. We need more sexy, sexy, Esperanzian admins. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''--
'''<span style="color:#66E566;">Speedy</span> [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:lime;">Green</span>]] <span style="color:green;">Support!</span>''' --
'''Support''' looks good. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', is well suited to be an admin. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, no hesitation. Doesn't need the full mop though, just an attachment for the end of her hockey stick ''':'''-) --<font color="2B7A2B">
I '''support''' her, but really, I hope she gets enough sleep. --
'''Support''' - Definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''. I'd add some witty words of support, but I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, so I've got to stay quiet and keep my head down. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support'''. Cliché, cliché. Cliché? Cliché! &mdash; '''
'''Support''' <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Strong support''' An exemplary Wikipedian in numerous ways; great article contributions, friendly and supportive of fellow editors, good work ethic and excellent judgement. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''', of course. Thought I had done so already. Sic your cats on the vandals.
'''Support''' Helpful, kind, dedicated. Ideal admin material. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''  --
'''Strong Support''' great active user, can be trusted with the tools.--
'''Support''' seen this person around, very good user.--
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''', extemely friendly editor - will make a good admin.
'''Support''' - very good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support''', no issues strike me here as reasons to oppose.
'''Reluctant oppose.''' Despite a phenomenal level of activity in recent months, she has only been participating seriously in Wikipedia for three months, which does not seem like enough time to become an administrator, high edit quality or not. Furthermore, her Wikipedia space edits are low for such a prolific editor. I would be willing to support in a month or two. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Oppose.''' Excellent candidate. Keep this up for a few more months, and I will be happy to support your RfA.
'''Oppose.''' Too new.
'''Oppose''' 5 orphan pictures, edit conflict,  Inexperience as per above.  --
Would really like to support, but I'm not sure about the activity level and some rather biting comments I've seen made. So for now, '''Neutral'''. .:.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  7500 edits is more then enough to earn a promotion. --
'''Support'''. Looks all good.
'''Support''' Cant think of a good reason not to. '''''
<font color="darkred">
'''Support'''. Sure thing. Athletics on Wikipedia? That's Punkmorten. Most of athletes-related articles are created by him, great success in CSB. I can only recommend him to other voters. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Everything looks pretty good, except there could be a little greater participation in Wikispace talk pages...that's where the policies and guidelines are made.
'''Support'''. Looks fine. --
'''Extreme support'''. I'm mystifyed why there are so few votes.
'''Support''' Wonderful editor, trustworthy.
'''Support''' to the max. Punk and I have collaborated on a few wide-ranging music-related cleanup projects, and he's one of the finest people I've met on Wiki.
'''Support''' no doubt--
'''Support''' Looks Good. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Back in Oct, Punkmorten was asked to start using edit summaries.  I skimmed his last 750 edits are so, and they all seem to have edit summaries, which is a great thing and shows the user listens to people's suggestions.  Also, he has quite a bit of experience with AfD. --
'''Support''' per nomination, and I like the 100% edit summaries, as listed by [[User:Mathbot|Mathbot]]. Looks like a good user, although I haven't bumped into him before.--
'''Support'''. Well rounded editor, active in the editing of article and project namespaces. Would make a great administrator.&#160;—
Thought he was one.  --
--
'''Support''' --
'''Harrumph''' --
'''Support''' per everyone else. --
'''Support'''. He is very level-headed and works well with other editors, making him a perfect candidate.
'''Support'''. Solid editor, good edits, lots of contributions.  Will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Experienced and fair.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' excellent edits and fights hard to maintain the edits as the vandals pass through.
'''Support''' <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''; everything looks good; fine candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Supposrt''': --
'''Support''' no problem.
'''Support''' as above, no good reason not to. <TT>
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' as per above. Looks excellent. --Jay '''(
'''Support'''. Great contributor.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', my prior experience of this user suggests that he would make an excellent admin --
'''Support''' sounds good to me
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A moderate voice on AfD. I don't always agree with him, but he's always civil about it.
'''Support'''. Yes. --
'''Support'''. A bit curt sometimes but almost never condescending. Experiance is nothing close to a problem. I've run into him(general term) several times on the Wikipedia namespace and he has over 1000 project edits! He also seems to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Glad to offer my support. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Solid contributor.  You shouldn't have to put up with stuff such as that of below.--
'''Support'''.  Valuable contribs on AFD. -
'''Support'''. --
Oppose, because I can't see any reason why this person should be an admin.

'''Support''' ~ Per nominator &mdash;
'''Support''' ~ I have thought for some time that Quarl would be a great addition as an admin. <small>
'''Support''' - a very intelligent user who'd make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - Also hereby nominate user for [[Beatification|sainthood]].
'''Support''', one of the good guys. I am confident Quarl will make good use of admin tools. -
'''Very Strong Support''' I wanted to nominate him soon, good lord yes Excellent work in AFD's --
'''Support''' - A good editor.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' - Solid contrbiutor.
While he has only been ''really'' active since December (how can one possibly make ''6610'' edits in just ''one month''?! amazing!) and has had relatively little interaction with other users at Talk and User talk pages, his efforts make him a clear case of quality of his contributions over quantity of time. Happy to say '''yay!''' to quality. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' Good judgement.
'''Support''', looks good. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', solid contributer, good editor.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, who has done everything right as far as I see.  Good show!
'''Support''' I'm a bit concerned about burnout (99% of his 6.5k edits in under 2 months...) but observing his behavior in AfD a bit he seems sensible and has knowledge of process, seems to make good contributions, so he should make a good mop bearer. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' If he can tell me what the character before and after his edit summary is because my computer shows an unknown character ;) j/k

'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''. Hard to participate in AfD without running into him, and even harder to argue with his judgement or logic. Will make a good admin.
'''Support''', very valuable contributor at AfD (useful comments), deserves admin tools.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', great editor. Very active participant in AFDs. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' — fantastic all-around editor. --
'''Support''' :  A great editor and all-around helpful Wikipedian. -- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Level-headed, active.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' This is obvious [[User:
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' per above. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression.
A no-brainer.  And I don't mean Quarl has no brain, I mean that the decision requires no brain to make.  But that does not imply that those who do not vote support have no brains, and ... I .. oh, fuck it.  '''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' anyone who makes life easier for editors.
'''Squarl'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support:''' --
'''Support'''. Good qualifications, valued user. Highly unlikely to abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Coders rock!  Always need more of them around.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">
Am surprised he isn't one, frankly.
'''Support''' --
'''Ok'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Strong editor, excellent technical contributions, no evidence of abuse. <TT>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' -- seems like a nice person.
'''Support''': I awarded Quarl a Barnstar and I think adminship is reasonable too.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' His [[User:Quarl/monobook|monobook]] is really cool. &#126;
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''. Solid editor plus those scripts as an admin could be a good combination.
'''Support''', I see no potential for abuse.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Who cares about the superbowl, I watch for the ads! Support''' (I love wireless networks!) Quarl has expressed doubts about whether his nom was too soon. With 9000 edits! We need admins who are good editors and toolsmiths, as having a variety of perspectives is important, not all admins should be policy wonks and nothing else! ++
'''Support'''.  Valuable contributions at [[WP:AFD|AFD]] and elsewhere across Wikipedia.  --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''' per nom.  Quarl is a great contributor to Wikipedia.  --<strike>''
'''Support''', I'm amazed he isn't already an admin. I wonder how many times I've seen "Merge per Quarl" on the AfD pages -- a fine editor, and if 9000 edits is not enough, I don't know what is (I feel like a seasoned veteran with about 330...)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', He's a great editor and his scripts are doubleplusgood! --
'''Support''', would make a nice sysop.&#160;—
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Would be a good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with this editor!
'''Support''' Good judgement, polite, industrious. An excellent choice.
'''Support''', should make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' Seen his good work around. --''
'''Support''' naturally.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[User:Quarl|Quarl]] has what it takes to be a good administrator. -- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
Support, and welcome aboard. &ndash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Weak oppose''', user seems to be well-versed in AFD but shows little experience with other processes. Or if he does, please point out where.
'''Oppose''' for now. Main activity in December and January, would prefer to have waited a month or two longer. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I note the candidacy statement says active since August, but 15 and 18 edits in October and November doesn't strike me as active. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant!, not enough active time to fully understand all policies. Also, good at scripts != qualified for adminship.--
'''Neutral'''. Majority of edits coming only in the past few months, so technically, he/she has been active for only 2 months.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!

'''Neutral'''. I came across his "location canonicalization", changing <nowiki>[[City, State]]</nowiki> to <nowiki>[[City, State|City]], [[State]]</nowiki>, and it immediately struck me as fucking useless. I have no idea how and if this would affect his actions as an admin. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>
'''Support''' I'm the first one!
'''Support'''
'''support''' - wanted to be #2 but only get to be #3 :-(
'''Support'''. Nominee seems to understand and abide by wiki guidelines and customs. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
I guess I should support too, as nominator. :)
See no reason not to '''support'''. &mdash;'''
--
'''Support''', looking good.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. He was instrumental in setting an important Main Page Top 8 topic. --
'''Support''' 100% edit summaries is completely unacceptable, I want to see atleast 150%! Will make a good admin though, great leadership skills.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', I could see no reason not to support. --<font color="green">'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; Obviously. Great wikipedian.
'''Support'''.  I'm surprised he isn't already an admin --
'''Support''' - good work in CompSci area <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Great Wikipedian, has excellent potential for adminship (and a fellow Dutchman on the English language Wikipedia)
'''Support''', thought he was one.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Clearly qualified. --
'''[[Cliché]]'''.
'''Support''' Deserves the tools.

'''Support'''. Good job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seems ok to me. -
'''Support''' - great contributions on articles and templates. Deserves to be an admin here. --<font face="trebuchet ms"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support''': yes. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A great contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - yes, definitely! --
'''Support'''. Good contributions, seems trustworthy.--
'''Support''' Nice edit history, doubt they would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' per above. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Obviously. &ndash;
'''Support''' No reason not to. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]]

'''Support'''.  Good work.  &mdash;<tt>
'''Support'''. Makes good contributions, is friendly, and keeps a cool head.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''; so many great editors coming through here!
'''Support''', hell yes.
'''Support''', everything looks good.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' edits look solid.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. :)
'''Support'''. Groovy. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Totally'''.
'''Support''' - no reason not to. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. See no cause for concern.
'''Support''': Hmmmm, <5700 edits, but I guess I'll let this one slide. ;)  An excellent candidate. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Yes <small>
'''Support''' per nom. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' sounds good, gets my support, good luck to you.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
''' Support'''
'''Support''' Per above, nothing more to say. --
Yep. --
'''Support''', great editor with lots of experience --
'''Support''' Experienced editor. <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><font size="5"><sub>'''''o'''''</sub></font></span>]]
Very experienced. I '''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''--Seems like a good guy with good intentions.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Terrific vandal fighter, makes few mistakes.  Well-rounded also, with contributions to project/image spaces too. --
'''Strong Support''' with all those reports to [[WP:AIV]], it would be great if he could just take care of it himself, as it would free up other admins so they can worry about other things. [[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I opposed last time but he is ready this time
'''Strong Support''' - I've seen RadioKirk around a lot and he's really involved and always friendly.  I think he even knows that nn-bio equals non notable bio too :) --
'''Support'''. An oppose is physically impossible. :-)
'''Support''' I've had positive interaction with this editor.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' all the best.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, trustworthy nominator.
'''Support''', excellent editor, great interactions --
'''Support''' excellent wikipedian -
'''Support''', have watched him on RC patrol for a while now and been grateful for his work. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' reaches my standards.
'''Support'''. Looks like a very trustworthy editor who understands Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. </cliché> --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support'''. Lots of reasons to support, none to oppose. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' as above.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Support'''. Great improvement. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' ==

'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. Because I do. --<i><b><font color="#5ADD22"><font size="1">[[User:GeorgeMoney|George]]</font></font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">[[User:GeorgeMoney|Mon]]</font><font size="1" color=green>[[User:GeorgeMoney/Esperanza|e]]</font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''- terrific efforts in the fight against vandalism. A smart, well-rounded and clearly capable candidate.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Doing good work, so might as well have the tools and the badge.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No reason why should not be.
'''Support'''. His statesmanlike handling of the [[User:Jim16]] business has convinced me.
'''Support'''. This dude kicks a$$. :D [[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of course, per Reyk, Davewild, Tantalum, and Fetofs, to name four.
'''Support''' per all other reasons. --
'''Support''' - solid editor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be acting like an admin already and won't abuse the buttons. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''', solid editor background, participates in Wikipedia namespace. --

There are better women to obsess about than [[Lindsay Lohan]], but a guy's gotta have a hobby!. '''Support''''''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' Trustworthy, great editor and reverts vandalism---Admin Role Model (though not an admin) <S>{{unsigned|Primate}}</s> --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good quality candidate. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''', the extra tools will be good for him because he will delve into backlogs. Go for it!--
'''Support''', this mop's for you. <b>
'''Support''', fantastic article namespace contributor. Usually I like to see a little more Wikipedia namespace, but this user's outstanding article contributions more than make up for it.
<b>Support</b>
'''Support'''
'''Qualified Support'''  Dealing with vandals is important, but an admin should have a variety of expereinces, i.e. RfA and Arbcom.
'''Support on Wheels!''' I've had nothing but positive experiences with this guy. Is an asset to the product. Give him a [[Swiffer|mop!]] --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]]<sup>([[User talk:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User:D-Day/Templates I'd like to see on Wikipedia|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
'''Oppose''': too hung up on user boxes. See his user page.
'''Oppose''' - My only previous interaction with this user was during an edit conflict over a reference in the [[Lindsay Lohan]] article.  The conflict that occured between us was eventually resolved in a civil manner (as [[User:RadioKirk|RadioKirk]] mentioned below).  I appreciate RadioKirk's honesty about the conflict.  But I still have significant concerns about his behavior during the conflict (especially his use of edit summaries and his reply to my comments in a manner that I believe qualified as harrassment).  In other words, I think this user is an excellent contributor, but not yet qualified to be an admin.  When he cultivates a calmer, less over-protective approach (which I firmly believe he has the potential to do), I will support any further nominations made for adminship. --
'''Neutral''' leaning support for now, I need to think about this. He is an otherwise great candidate but his area of focus has been narrow. Poke me in two days if I haven't made up my mind.
'''Neutral'''. Wondering about scope and experience. I may change this later. --

'''Neutral''', partially per freakofnurture, also per incorrect answer to question 4.
'''Strong support in an RFA I'm sure will reach [[WP:100]]''' Outstanding editor. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Very Strong Support''': I have known him for long. I can certainly say that he is an asset of the Project. --
'''Strong Support'''. He is a [[late bloomer]] — and this flower I am sure will go on for [[WP:100|100 years]]. -
'''Strong and Obvious Support''' - Would've nominated him myself after my RfA was completed :)  Excellent contributor who has been very accommodating, even when I have disagreed with him.
'''Strong Support'''. The amount of edits and valuable contributions by this user is scary. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support'''. How many edits can the human body withhold?--
'''Support''' The very good example of a 'reformed' editor.
'''Support''' Always uses summaries and quality of edits seem good.
'''Support'''. Tremendous contributor. Even in the case lethe points out Nirav simply did his best to gather opinions and discuss a controversial issue. It had not been handled well by others previous to that, and his efforts were clearly an attempt to be helpful. -
'''Strong Support''' per all ten reasons stated above. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''.  Discussion with user ([[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Rama%27s_Arrow#oppose_argument|see talk]]) has convinced me that I misinterpreted some of Rama's remarks, and that Rama is more familiar with and committed to Wikipedia practice than I assumed.  I no longer think that Rama is a nationalist, and I change my vote to support unreservedly. -
'''Support'''
'''Very strong support'''  - As one of the users who interacts with him almost daily. His work on articles like Patel and Jinnah has been extra-ordinary. He is a mature person and a perfect admin candidate. -
'''I beat the nom support'''. You have my support for the 14 reasons above. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  A prolific and energetic editor who has proved to be an asset to the project.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Thoroughly Confused Support''' I could've sworn you were one already. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' Did a tremendously nice job on Hindu and Bharat(India) related articles. He would be an asset to wikipedia.
'''Support''' Yezzir! Very happy to support this deserving candidate.
'''Support'''. Strong candidate, whose Wiki-enthusiasm and commitment with the project is clearly out of question. Easy choice.
'''Support'''. Rama's Arrow is a fantastic contributor who has made a big difference in certain area of the project. The answers to the questions below are very good. The answers display an understanding and dedication to Wikipedia that is important in an admin candidate, but also show an ability to recognise his own failings (which is perhaps even more important).
'''STRONGEST EVER SUPPORT, AND I MEAN IT'''. Whooppeeee! Yahhhhhhhooooooo! I've been waiting for this RfA for, like, forever, and finally it's here!!!!!!!!!!--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' great editor, maybe even too active :-) I hope you take a break every now and then. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Trustworthy, very friendly editor.
'''Support'''. We need more like him.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Will make a good admin. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' not a admin?
'''Support''' Known him for an year or so, great editor. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' has given me great advice!
'''Support''' defenitly a good editor who could use the admin tools well <span style="border: 0px solid;">
'''Support''' per cliché #1 and per the answers within the [[User:Ardenn|Ardenn]] discussion. First, [[User:Rama's Arrow|Rama's Arrow]] is absolutely right: a candidate is entitled to know how the voters feel about that candidate's tools and abilities&mdash;or the lack thereof&mdash;and not have to deal with an editor making a general point, regardless of whether that point is made to everyone's RfAs. Second, while this discussion is necessarily confrontational, it remains civil, and '''that's''' what we're looking for in an admin. Deserves the mop.
'''Support''' willing to admit his own mistakes, that's a big plus in my book. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''I can't believe I almost missed this! '''
'''Support''' Nobody is perfect, and this user seems to have potential. At the very least, Rama's Arrow is a committed Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. --
'''Weak support''' excellent editor and contributor. However, responses to "oppose" votes reveals need to be more accepting of the short-comings of others. Too easily offended. Needs to put matters in greater perspective and not waste energy arguing futile points.  Energy would be better spent focusing on project instead.
'''Support''' Good, high quality editor; no sign will abuse tools. --
'''Strong support''', or '''powerful support''' as Nirav would say!  He's a superstar, in my opinion! -- <font face="Arial">

'''SUPPORT''' Especially after seeing his constructive feedback on the Pakistan Talk page
'''Very Strong Support'''. We are in touch for quite a long time. An extremely helpful and wise editor. Has a number of FAs to credit. I would have liked to be the first one to vote. Sorry, Rama...was travelling. Regards.--
Outstanding and brilliant editor. '''Strong Support''' --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Strong support''' There was a time when I thought that I'd have nothing to do with him. Yes, I'm the user on whose contribs he had committed trolling and vandalism. After he apologised, I was still circumspect, but he proved me wrong with great all-round work. Yes, he loses his cool, but he realises his mistakes. From my experience with him, I can say that he holds no malice and is sincere with his efforts in WP. I've recently become inactive on WP but asked him to let me know in case he needed help on his rfa nomination. Had I nominated him, half the oppose votes would probably have not been cast. Knowing this very well, he still went ahead with a self-nom as he wants to stand up by himself and own up to his mistakes. I admire him for that. I don't think he would have accumulated 11k odd edits just to become an admin and undo others' work - also please look at the quality of those edits. If his real intention - as some oppose votes seem to hint at - is to destroy the integrity of WP, I'm sure that the self-policing nature of WP wouldn't let that happen. However, if we deny the opportunity to him to become an admin, the loss would be as much WP's as his. Sorry for a longish vote. --
'''Oppose''' until we get a method to remove abusive admins. I also don't think anyone should get in without any opposition. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose'''.  I was pretty neutral, until I saw the candidate's responses above, which filled me with foreboding (though I should add that I find Ardenn's reason for opposition either frivolous, mischievous, or just wrong-headed).  Rama's Arrow's comments here  confirm dab's misgivings below, and I'd be unhappy to see this editor made an admin just yet. (I was also a little concerned to see a flurry of new-user welcoming just before the self-nomination, but perhaps that was just a coincidence.) --
'''Oppose'''. Self-nomination...hmm! Hindu-Arabic or Indo-Arabic numerals? Anyway, I have an issue with his user name which I believe is either a sign of islamophobia or far-right Hindutva. It looks similar to usernames like ''Sword of Allah'' or ''Jehovah's Gun'', for instance. Stubborn POV pushing (as evident in above conversation) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah&diff=52801537&oldid=52801139 here]. He has reverted the Jinnah article atleast 16 times to his POV in the past 4 weeks. That's more than assertion. That's ideology. Answers below are not satisfactory.
'''Oppose''' - Changing to oppose as a result of this: "I found his criticism of my work as arbitrary and disrespectful. In turn, I was abusive of him, and commmitted few acts of vandalism and trolling" and his own admission: "Unfortunately my talk-edits do sometimes expose any irritation or peevishness that I may be feeling, but I've been very comfortable with receiving criticism and I've worked well with others since."  Frequent examples of incivility abound that I did not look for originally, and concerns about responses above as raised by Mel Etitis. --
'''Oppose''' per Mel Etitis, answers to Q3, dab's misgivings, and harranging of opposes - it all adds up to making me nervous. --

'''Oppose''' per Tony and Doc.
'''Oppose''' per qualms expressed above and hypersensitivity to criticism. Sorry.
Per lethe and Mel.
'''Oppose''' Good editors don't always make good admins, and the reaction to oppose votes concerns me. Admins receive a lot of flak, and the best skill an admin needs is the ability to ignore it, or at least not take it personally. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above.  --
'''Oppose'''. It is obvious that Rama is not only an amazing editor, but probably a good person as he's said. He may even work well with peers and seems to be a great editor - however, if you react to a negative vote ''that'' negatively, it's never a good sign. One might work well with peers, however, if you're going to be an administrator, you must be able to show restraint from criticism. It's especially suprising to me, when the majority of people support the user, he attacks most oppose votes as if it's an attack against his being. I've read his comments below, and I understand he respects all votes and is sorry for his comments. However, kind words and apologies do not nullify some actions, especially when it comes down to an adminship nomination. I am forced to respectfully oppose this nomination. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. But I feel that the candidate's responses to other oppose votes above was over-sensitive. Admins need to be able to be more level-headed than Rama's Arrow currently seems to be.
'''Oppose''' Mainly per Mel and Zaxem. The candidate is a good editor but there are two many issues for me to feel comfortable with him as an admin.
'''Very, Very Weak Oppose''' As per Mex and Zaxem. You need to keep a more level head, and thought it pains me to vote this way because you seem like an amazing editor, your reaction above made me change from Support. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' due to childish attitude to other oppose votes.
'''Oppose''' due to his response to prior oppose votes as voiced above by others
'''Weak oppose''' per Knucmo2. Admins get a tremendous amount of criticism and shouting-at, I don't think this user is ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose''' much of his edits are just doing one thing, like 1000 edits adding a category to pages, another thousand adding a template, and more like that. This shows care only for edit counts. And because of incivility, I don't think he's ready yet. --
I suppose Rama's good deeds more than outweigh his mistakes, so I will not vote oppose here, but I would ask everyone not to cast sheep votes and review the user's history. In my opinion, Rama has often proven too convinced of himself and too aggressively immune to criticism for me to be comfortable about his adminship (see also the Hindu numeral debate above, and Rama's wordy 'refutations'. It is simply not true that he never indulged in pov-pushing, but this is of course not illegal) . My premonition is that Rama as an admin will need watching by other admins. That's not a disaster, but it leaves open the question whether his promotion will be a net benefit. I have no doubt about Rama's basic good faith, but he has repeatedly shown lack of common sense in the past. Of course in the zeal of this self-nomination, he is telling us he has learned from his mistakes and this is all in the past, but what else than the  past do we have to judge a candidate by?
'''Neutral''' - Looks like a good contributor.  However, I am concerned about the discussion related to the first ''Oppose''; thus, I don't feel I can support at this time.
'''Neutral''' as well, worried by the opposes, but not enough info to oppose. - <b>
'''Neutral'''. I'm concerned with the way the nominee handles criticism. However, I do find Ardenn's initial comment as out of place.
'''Neutral''' until the conflicts are better resolved.--
'''Support''', make him a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive7&diff=prev&oldid=43456492 rouge admin]! —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' - I agree with BorgHunter --
'''Support''', with the perfunctory "I thought he was one already".  Level headed and I appreciated his contributions to hockey related articles. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' having had a look through his contribution history. Ra Ra, RasputinAXP. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. Yeppers, this one is a shoo-in. Go get them, RasputinAXP.
'''Support''', A good editor for long time.
'''Strong Support''', No comment. This user's contributions says it all.
'''Support'''. Will make a fine admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Borg ;) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''', I am the slowest nominator ever. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom, good answers to questions, and good contributions.  (Though, for a second, I saw that he edited [[Campbell Conference]] and thought he was editing [[Cowbell Conference]].  You gotta have more cowbell.)  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. Highly unlikely to abuse the tools by misadvising the royal family and getting himself assassinated--wait, where was I?
Contribs history shows a lot of maintenance work, VfD activity, etc.  Plus, reasons for opposing did not convince me.  Ergo, support.
'''Support''' Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,224 articles and ~1448 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support''' per nom, definitely worthy is right!
'''Support''' good answers, not likely to abuse tools. .:.
''"Adminship is no big deal."'' -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''- User is to be trusted.--
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good answers to questions. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', like, totally.
'''Moderate Support''' because of the good answers - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Support''', good answers and good work on the project.
'''Unequivocal support'''.  No doubts whatsoever on this one; a solid and thoroughly reasonable Wikipedian.  Can I vote twice?
'''
'''Support'''. Changing from ''neutral''; assuming good faith. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' Yes
'''Support'''  I've had several positive experiences with editor.  Good-natured fellow.
'''Support'''. Keep it up. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''' Fine contributor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Slapshot support''' he shoots he scores. An upstanding editor.
'''Support''' --
Bit of a [[WP:ROUGE|deletionist]], and I wasn't completely happy with how our [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com|first encounter]] went at the time but I've changed, he's changed, we've both improved our understanding of how things are done here, we've talked offline, and I am happy to '''support''' this candidate with no reservations. Fine nominee. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - haven't run into him, but a perusal of his edits suggests good work to me. --
'''Cleared for Adminship''' I like what I'm seeing. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support'''; frequently see him around, always impressed. [[Special:Contributions/Aquilina|<font color="gray"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">A</span></font>]][[User talk:Aquilina|<font color="teal"><span style="font-variant:small-caps">q</span></font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', yes.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Solid work all around.
'''Support''' looks good <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' Good man, worthy admin.
'''Support'''; good editor, and I'm impressed with his work and comments on AfD.
'''Oppose''' RC patrolling mentioned as a reason for needing the tool, but only 3 edits to [[WP:AIAV]]. Also a lack of warning messages on user talk pages following reversion of vandalism causes me concern about whether the user's approach to dealing with vandalism is well balanced.
'''Oppose''' In researching his work, I agree that he needs more experience dealing with vandals, AFD's and other types of research in general.  Perhaps another 6 months to a year before another consideration?
'''Oppose''' -- Another unreadable, silly sig. Need more maturity.
'''Oppose''' uneven CSD work, looking over the contribs I see a pattern of marking things for CSD and having other editors and admins come along and remove the tag...improving the article, prodding it, saying that it's not a  CSD etc. Also seems to have a misunderstanding of what the nonsense critria means. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Tracks&diff=prev&oldid=48887413] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mingrong_auto_part&diff=prev&oldid=49106346] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wallace_Chang&diff=prev&oldid=47502249][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantv.net&diff=prev&oldid=4751390] I think an admin should handle deletions better than this.
'''Reluctantly oppose''' While I think this user is a good editor, and given the number of support votes will probably become an admin and probably a good one, I'm just not comfortable with giving this user the power to speedy delete.  I have the sense (and since I can't see the deleted edits, don't have much way to examine the record), that the user would be too aggressive in speedy deleting vs. using AfD and {{tl|prod}}.  I have some reservations regarding my concerns about judgement and discretion that I stated below, but it is the issue of aggressive deletion that has swayed my vote to oppose. —
'''Oppose'''Agree with
'''Oppose''' Concerns over POV and aggressiveness, as above voters.
'''Neutral''' Not really convinced to support yet. I might make a decision later.
'''Neutral''' Due to concerns raised by TigerShark.  [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) back to neutral since sig concerns have been dealt with. Still concerned over TigerShark's concern.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support''' looks like an active, mature, well-meaning user. Should make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. I know him well from his work in cricket. Good editor and decent guy.
'''Cliché'''.
'''Support''' Yes --
'''Support''' Seems to be a good egg.
'''Support''' <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Looks good, put him to work.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Fine record, friendly user.
'''Support'''. Leaves nice comments on my talk page :) &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' About time and was planning to nominate him myself. No. of edits to main namespace are on the lower side though. Great answers to the questions, btw. --
<s>'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
FPC maintainer? Sounds ok. If you can do the big jobs, you can do the small jobs too.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' --<small>
'''Support''' especially for talk page, responses to questions, and (response to) mistakes on [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''': featured picture involvement is nice, and a good editor otherwise, as well.
'''Support''' A great contributer. -- <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. '''
'''Support''' edits look solid.--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' nothing to add. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''An almost Neutral Support''' I'm sorry Raven. I almost voted oppose/neutral when I saw your main namespace edit count. Only 754 under the main namespace! That's considerably low. I would like to see more main namespace before he passed adminship but based on his good character, I vote support.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' very good Wikipedian, excellent potential for adminship.
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Suitly emphazi''' this user.
'''Support''' - yes, give him the tools and he'll finish the job.
'''Support''' - great cricket contribs.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]]'''Support''' - I thought he was one already. --
{{User:Drumguy8800/Support}} I thought you were one already too, considering all the servicing you do at [[WP:FPC]].  Most definitely support..
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - I've learned to follow instinct.
I understand the concerns raised below.  If I am unfamiliar with a candidate and don't see much "policy" action, I almost always oppose as well.  However, my interactions with this user have shown him to be thoughtfull and approachable, and I have little doubt that any issues that arise will be only of the "learning the ropes" variety. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  My experiences with him have been very positive, and I don't see any potential for abuse of powers.--
No reason not to trust this user. '''Support'''. <small>(No need to thank me, if you were planning to)</small> --
'''Support'''. Friendly user and  found no reason not trust him with extra tools.--
'''Support'''. Does a great job in both FPC and Reference Desk. I too thought he already was an admin. --
'''Support''' as above. [[WP:FPC]] has benefitted greatly by his contributions.
'''Support''' as per above statements. <small>

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Oppose''' Great editor, but too much of a technocrat for my taste. --<small><font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose''' No meaningful participation in AfD, TfD, etc.  In the area where he has the most pure edits, AfD, contributions consist entirely of reverting one blanking and one nomination that he quickly withdrew, for example.  Very few deleted edits suggests little CSD familiarity (beyond perhaps G1 nonsense, per answer to question 1).  Overall, I don't think there's evidence of how this candidate feels about and how much they know about deletion (a key admin role), which could lead to problems. Sorry... --
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh.
'''Preemptive before-teh-nominator support''' --
'''Support''' per the cogently written nom. --
Yes.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' I see no reason he wouldn't make a great janitor. The nomination is excellent, plus I've personally observed the candidate being polite and sincerely wanting to do the right thing, which is always a good sign. --
'''Super support''' per nom. Time for the mop and bucket! - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''

'''Support'''
'''Extreme "Wow. Just wow" support''' - <cliche /> I honestly did think that you were an Admin already. Top guy all around. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''... Nice resume!
'''Support''' Won't abuse tools. Solid candidate.
'''Support''' with no hesitation. --
'''Support;''' have encountered before and always found him helpful & knowledgeable about Wikipedia. <font style="color:#FF7000"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC5000"><u>inch</u></font>[[User:Smurrayinchester/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC5000"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC5000"><sup>(
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support.'''
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
Broadcasting on the London station of the Wikipedia editing authority, this is a support vote from

'''Cheers''' &mdash;
'''Support''' steady and reliable!
'''Strong support''' - An outstanding all-around Wikipedian with a great sense of humor. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''support''' <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">
'''Support''' per all above <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment is by
'''Support''' ditto.  Good editor.
--
'''Support''' No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' An excellent nomination.
'''STRONGEST POSSIBLE SUPPORT''' Excellent candidate, excellent nomination!  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support'''-- a good editor. Nomination is excellent.
'''Support'''. What interaction I have had with was pleasant. He is civil, friendly and his contributions show that he is a good candidate and should make a good admin.--
'''Strong Support'''. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''', based on my trust on the nominator and the few times I observed the candidate's work.
'''support''' very strong candidate
'''Support''' I made it through half the nomination background, then decided that Redvers would make one solid admin. --
'''Support''', no questions asked.
Indeed.--
'''Support'''. Well, the nom said it all. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''. All interactions with the user make me believe that there shouldn't be any issues with him wielding the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]].
'''Support''' Yesum.
'''Strong support''' as admin coach, deserves it!
'''Support'''.  of course <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent editor, another cliche moment for me.
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' From one Esperanza member to another. --
-- <small> (
'''Support''' Solid user. Will not abuse tools. Great contributor. --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''', yes, good user.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
Gosh, here's a good one :-). Just look at those contribs. Yes, full support, by all means. —''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''-- Helpful & responsible. Deserves the responsibility! [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
Support: yes fine. --
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''. Looks great! &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
'''Support'''. An easy choice.
'''Support'''. Per all the above.
'''Support'''. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good!
'''Support''' great editor. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per strong nomination and strong edit history.  ''He has created about 60 articles, most of them full-length'' would probably have been enough, but the entire record is impressive. &ndash;
'''Support'''. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Strong Support'''.  (I thought he already was one!)  Great answers to the questions, and wanting to tackle image copyright concerns just makes this support vote stronger. --
'''
'''Support''' There really isn't anymore to say that hasn't been said. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''. Go for it!
'''Support'''.  I know it is cliché, but I seriously thought Redvers had already made admin!  I know you will do well.  --
'''Support'''. This mop's for you
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' another great editor, it's nice to be able to put up some supporting RFA votes. :)
'''Support''' - would be a great administrator
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. No doubt.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Huh? He wasn't already one?
More candidates like this one please! '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Confused support''', I could have sworn this guy was an admin already. -<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support''' - Yes. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Good solid contributor, no hesitation. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' often see his name, doing good things and making mature, positive contributions. Will be an excellent admin.
'''Completely Gratuitous, PILE ON Support'''--
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} I'm impressed. --
'''Support''' Yes Yes Yes [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - it's a pleasure to support. --
'''Support'''; excellent mainspace edits, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Oh yeah, and that just made [[WP:100]].
'''Support'''. '''[[Special:Contributions/Newsmare|<font color="red">◄</font>]][[User talk:Newsmare|<font color="red">ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Piling on I suppose, but edit record looks good.
'''Support''' per cliché.
'''Support''' as per all of the above :) -
'''Support''' -- seems like a lovely person.
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wikipedia Project edits.  --
As nominator, without hesitation. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I don't think I can see a single flaw in this user. As with most candidates, I've never had direct contact with her; with that said, Renata looks like an excellent user who has done great work to improve WP, and I'm confident she'll do a great job with the admin tools. --
'''Support''' Seems good
'''Support'''. My interactions with her have always been positive. —
'''Support''' without question. --
'''Support''' I got about 1/2 the way through a thorough review of her in anticipating nominating her myself a few months back. I ran out of time to complete it. What I found was stellar. Long, long overdue. --
'''Support''' per
'''Support''' - good luck on the image backlog :) --
'''Support'''. Nothing but positive experience with Renata3.  She's been a big help on the Community Portal.  Surely, she would make a fine admin. --<font color="#191970">[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">
I MOST CERTAINLY WILL <u>NOT</u> SUPPORT SOMEONE WHO WILL BE ABUSIVE! SO THAT MEANS... '''Support!''' --
'''Support'''
'''Preposterous fellow ex-Soviet accountant in NYC Support''' - <b>
'''Support''', will make a great admin.
'''Support''', everything's in order here. Good answers.
'''Support'''. Excellent nomination, this nominee certainly could use the tools and will use them well.
'''Support''' no big deal and seems like a good user based on her answers and a brief look at her edits and talk page.  It's always nice to see a candidate willing to work on copyvio problems
'''Support''', without a doubt.  (One edit conflict).  <font color="red">[[User:Thistheman|Thisthema]]</font><font color="green">
Solid record.
Sure.
'''Support''' the new beginning
'''<nowiki>{{RfA cliché}}</nowiki>''' Even though Renata stole my userpage idea. ;) -→
'''Support''' per lovely article work and responsability. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - excellent contributor. '''
'''Support''' Good work on FLC.
'''Support''' yes, yes, yes,

'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support''' - a reasonable editor whom I had the pleasure to work with in the past, a perfect candidate for 'mop'n'bucket' superpowers :)( --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Support.'''  Another good solid user.
'''Support''' Although your claim to fame [[U.S. generally accepted accounting principles|First Article]] is tagged for a clean-up! hehe
'''Support''' I see no problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Experienced, dedicated editor.
'''Strong support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' good hardworking editor, cool when the editing went hot
'''Support''' - looks good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' Looks good! --
'''Support''', solid editor, great work with Lithuania topics. --
'''Support''', good article writer, great editor. And a [[User:Renata3/camp|proficient nitpicker]] :) ''<font color="#901">//</font>''
'''Support''' Excellent editor - enjoy the mop!
'''Support''' per nom, brilliant editor.
'''Support''' for her dedication to Lithuanian topics. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''. For work relating to Lithuania. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
Third time's the charm for Renata3?  I talked with her a bit at Wikimania; she meets all of my in-person qualifications for being a good administrator.  Plus, she's cute :-P
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Always had great interactions with Renata, I trust the new tools won't be abused.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' So I was looking at this RfA cause I thought it was 50/20 and was trying to figure out why... then I realized I just can't read. Anyway... -
'''Support''' - I keep seeing you around, and assumed the cliché. Good luck with the ''AdminPowers''<sup>''TM''</sup>! Regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' very nice, this user is ready to be an administrator.
'''Happy to change to support'''. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I think she'll be a great adition to the admin team. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - why not? --
'''Pile-on Support''' - glad to see someone willing to work on copyrights --
'''Support''' An excellent Admin candidate. -
'''Support'''. Don't see any issues here.
'''Support''' impressed by contributions - giving admin tools will benefit the articles
'''Support''': seems like a great editor.
'''Support''', this editor will contribute greatly, give her the tools.  --
'''Support'''. Good contributor and seems to work well with others.
'''Support''' and thanks for your many fine contributions regarding Lithuania.
'''Support!'''.  Renata is a very dedicated editor, and a pleasure to deal with.&mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' - strong commitment to quality writing. '''
'''Support''' per Cyde Weys. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Possible inexperience in image rules  --
'''I prefer Wankel support'''! --<font color="3300FF">
<s>First</s> '''Second Support''' I see nothing I don't like. --
'''Support''' Looks good, with participation in XfD discussions, vandal warnings, etc.
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Weak support''' Surprisingly low edit count. Given quality of edits, should do ok.
'''Support''' Looks fine by me, and satisfies my [[User:Danntm/RFA|standards]].--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per record of good contributions, solid answers to questions, no issues of concern.
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' Nice answer to the optional question --
'''Support''' I like what I see, and I like how you have handled disputes.
'''Support.''' Good answers to the questions, well-rounded user...sounds good to me. ''I'' live without popups, though! :-P

'''Support'''. Looks like he will make a good admin. '''''
<tt>
'''Rotary Support''' Looks fine. -
I'm
'''Support''' [[User:FireSpike|FireSpik]]
'''Support''' No problems here. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', Aye. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' although more edits are desirable, I see no reason why this editor would abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Zoom zoom zoom''' Nothing to oppose and assuming he drives a Mazda, that's a reason to support.
--
'''Support''' Very good edits, even though the user has a somewhat low edit count.
--
'''Support''' Granted, Wiki stats aren't something that is stellar. However, strength and not number of contributions is what matters here. I think if Renesis takes a cautious clear headed approach, he will be fine. His edits display a sound knowledge of policy.
'''Support''' Candidate looks well-qualified and dedicated to the encyclopedia. I have no qualms supporting him, despite objections. —
'''Oppose''' Editor has insufficient experience in wiki-process at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' now per Xoloz, especially if you want to close XfD's. Future support likely. ~
Disapprove of "fighting" in an encyclopedia. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. - <b>
'''Oppose''' sorry. Just not enough experience for me. You've been editing for over a year but only have 2000 edits, 232 in WP, 226 in talk. I don't think this is anywhere near enough experience for an admin candidate.
User looks good, but appears to have little experience in process except for the last week or so. (
'''Neutral''', as per '''Radiant'''. --
'''Neutral''' per Radiant. Half of the XfD edits have been made in the last two weeks or so. I would definitely support if I could see a bit more participation in XfD's for the next month or so. '''
'''Neutral''' a good user with a great attitude.  I just need to see a bit more experience before supporting
'''Neutral''' per Radiant. I've been here 2 years or so, but I've only clocked about 2 months serious time on Wikipedia. If, say, you had been on here a year with over two or three months solid work, I would be glad to support your Rfa. However, until that time has come, I must remain Neutral. If you do run again sometime after 3 or so months, I would be glad to vote for you.
'''Neutral''' changed from oppose. The standard was never not to allow '''any''' fansite links, but given the circumstances I can understand Renesis' actions toward the article. I still don't feel 100% comfortable supporting this RfA, but I don't think there is a need to oppose. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' a good user with a helpful attitude. I need to see a bit more experience before supporting.
'''Neutral''' inasmuch as, whilst I am altogether sure that Renesis is possessed of the cordial demeanor and deliberative disposition the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious and am thus quite confident that Renesis would not, qua admin, abuse or misuse volitionally the tools, I can't conclude to any reasonable degree of certainty that he/she is sufficiently well-acquainted with policy as to be unlikely to misuse the tools avolitionally (e.g., by acting whereof he/she does not well know), such that I don't think it categorically plain that the net effect on the project of Renesis's becoming an admin will be positive, and so, consistent with [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my RfA guidelines]], I must, rather regretfully, remain ''neutral''.
Pleased to be the first one to '''Support'''.  Excellent choice of an excellent janitor.
'''Support''' a good, hard worker.
'''Support'''; he has mainly done vandal fighting, where the features of an admin may help him (and the project) much. -
'''Support'''; always working.--
'''Support'''; I do not see him abusing the tools; interaction with him has been good; keep running into him on RC patrol. Given his answer to Q.1, I believe he is clear as to why he needs tools and what tools he would use. He clearly mentions that he'd be diversifying activities as time progresses - which is what I like to see in admins. hence, this vote --
'''Support''' He has the time, the edits, the temperment, and he's a janitorial sort, which is what admins are supposed to be.  I'm not sure what more one could asked of him.
'''Support'''. '''—
'''Support''' as nominator. Although he does mainly reverts, he also does other things like interwiki links (which a lot of people are too lazy to do). He would be mainly a janitorial admin, and I trust him, so why not promote? I see nothing wrong with a dedicated janitorial admin to fight of the hordes of vandals that come everyday.'''
'''Support''' Wow... He has beaten me to so many reverts I thought he was already an administrator!  Will be very helpful with blocking vandals.  --
'''Support''' good vandal fighter --
'''Support'''. He is clearly both experienced and an excellent vandal fighter. I see no reason not to give him the vandal hunting tools.
'''Support''', will make an excellent admin. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.

'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' Very helpful in vandalism irc channel and in wikispace. -
'''Support''' Everything looks fine.--
'''Support''': we require administrators with different "talents" and "flairs", and his 50,000+ edits in  '''Dutch Wikipedia''' indicate that he has the talent and the flair.  --
'''Support''', form my personal interactions, I trust both the nominator and the nominee. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''', massive recent spike in activity might be a cause for concern if it wasn't for all those edits to the Dutch WP. I can't seem to get away from this user when on vandal patrol- he keeps on getting there first! Also meets [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''', give this guy the rollback button! -
'''Support''', Is not a hot head, deals with vandalism calmly and quickly. Already has a minor rollback feature and does wonders with it. Give him the full rollback and he'll revert vandals even faster.
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' if he has proven himself on another language Wikipedia, I see no reason not to trust him here.
'''Strongest support'''. One of the most rational and mature vandal fighters I've seen on here.
'''Support''' RexNL is a beast ;) <font color="red">
'''Support''' I like to think that I'm a fast rvv'er, but RexNL often beats me to the punch. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Oh]]</font><font face="Arial Black" color="#A26310">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|no]]</font><font face="Arial" color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' I have crossed his path a number of times while reverting vandalism, and he is fast and fair. Also, being an admin on another wiki bolsters the idea that he will not abuse his privileges.
'''Support''' Excellent work, experienced in the Wikiway and his vandal fighting is machine-like. He'll be a great addition.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. I'm perfectly fine with an admin doing only vandalism reverting, nobody can be perfect. -
'''support''' excellemnt vandal fighter
'''Support''' - enthusiastic, hardworking wikipeadian, I am also pleased with his answers
'''Support''' as per nom; very diligent indeed! --
'''Support''' very reasonable and devoted user
'''Support''' Friendly, reasonable user who is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Giving RexNL the ability to block vandals will be a good thing for Wikipedia.--
'''Support''' great vandal-fighter, unlikely to abuse the tools. More project participation would be nice (as others have mentioned), but I'm confident that will come with use of the mop. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', very quick at reverting vandalism. --
'''Support''' - does not seem to have any issues with users, does do a great job of catching vandals / accidental edits - having access to the block button would be an asset to the WP community
-- <small> (
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Tough decision, but I trust him. --
'''Support''' ran in to him after he reverted vandalism to my user page today! Seems a good vandal fighter and unlikely to misuse admin tools. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
Support '''
'''Support''', definitely.
'''Support''' one of the better admins at nl.wikipedia. Already very effective at en.wikipedia.
'''support''' - doing good work; admin would make it easier for him. Some slight caution along the lines of Pgk; trust he would use his powers cautiously until familiar with them
'''Oppose''' For now, undoubtedly a good vandal fighter, but the vast majority of his edits have been this month. Project space edits appear limited to this month. Although he does a lot of vandal work (and was rapidly responsive to requests to warn users as well as rolling back), I haven't seen him list anyone on [[WP:AIV]], put together I don't believe he currently had a good enough working knowledge of the policies and processes required to be an admin --
'''Oppose'''. Wikipedia: space (Project space) edits are an important factor in an admin since that is naturally where most admin work is or stems from. Recent surge of activity is encouraging, but it suggests experience of enwiki policies etc is limited to a pretty short timeframe. More expereince on enwiki is needed, and more experience in more parts of enwiki, too. -
'''Oppose'''. Eeek.  Everything was done this month!
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I just saw your edit count and you made over 7,500 in just this month! Although I like your enthusiasm towards vandal fighting, I can't vote support knowing all you did was revert vandalism. I'm not completely sure that your up-to-date with Wikipedia policy too. I would like to see more RFA/AFD/TFD/CFD votes. Although I will support in the future! —
'''Oppose''' -- I would like to see this kind of activty over the course of a few months, rather than a few weeks. Also, Wikipedia adminship is not just about vandal fighting, so I'd like to see more edits along with those reverts. --
'''Weak oppose''' - little or no experience of en.wiki policies; only actions have been to clear vandalism.  If he can manage 7,500 reverts without needing the rollback button, he can probably manage without it a few more months until his participation in areas other than anti-vandalism has improved.  Come back in a month or two with increased participation in other areas, as you seem sensible enough.
'''Oppose''' I saw you reverted some vandalism, and I see your name all the time. I came here with the intent to support, but with the vast majority of your edits this month, I don't think you are clear on policy yet. And 10,000 edits in one month suggests that you might burn out. -
'''Neutral'''. I agree with Pgk on this one.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Neutral''' yes a very good vandal fighter, but I am not sure whether he has edited enough articles yet since I see mostly reverts in his contributions. --
Per Pgk's oppose.
'''Neutral''' per Moe Epsilon --
'''Neutral''' While you are getting in a ton of edits, most all of them have been in the last few weeks, most of them look good, and I edit conflict you often on RCP, but would like to see other types of editing as well.
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support''' most contribs are vandal-fighting and copyvio catching. There has been an emphasis on all-rounded admins who write articles well, but I believe an extra person to delete copyvios (instead of just flagging them) would still benefit the 'pedia.
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' excellent user, great answers to questions, has a real use for the tools.
'''Strong suppport''' as one of the many people who have dropped by his talk page offering to nominate him, after seeing him work harder than other admins at [[Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations]].  From what I've seen, ReyBrujo is very polite and hard-working, attributes we need in admins. --
'''Strong Support''' Another great user. When I first came across him I thought he was one. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Mammoth Strong Support!!!''' Rey is an outstanding user, experienced, friendly, and is obviously aware of everything that is expected in an administrator, as easily witnessed by his most commendable and extensive participation in [[WP:ER]]. Also speedy tagging, countervandalism/spam, etc, etc, etc. I could go on forever.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Rey is one of the most knowledgeable users around. Also per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AReyBrujo&diff=28173453&oldid=28169621]. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Looks like he could be very useful with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Looks Good! [[User:FireSpike|FireSpik]]
'''Support''' No problems here. A very good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good faith editor, has a clear need for the tools, should make a great admin. Glad he finally decided to run. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and for his honesty and throughness. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">5</font>]]'''''
'''Support''' thoughtful, positive, and performs tasks to completion.  Excellent work at [[WP:ER]]. [[User:Dar-Ape|Dar]]-[[User talk:Dar-Ape|Ap]]
'''Support''' I've liked what he has had to say in copyright policy discussions. I am also surpriused that he was not already an admin. -- '''<font color="navy">
'''Support''' per all above, clearly qualified.
'''Support''' per all, good editor

'''Support''' You left an excellently worded review for me, so I can tell that you are familiar with wiki-policy. You don't seem to be the person that would misuse the tools. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Support'''
'''Yes.''' --
I'm [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] and I '''support''' this user. '''
'''Support''' a level-headed and experienced user who can use the tools. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Support''' per norm.
'''Strong support''' as yet another of the many editors who had previously offered to nomimate him for adminship. —
'''Support''' why oppose his nomination?
'''Support''' absolutely, don't know if he passes my criteria, but I don't care, this is an execption
'''Support''' A great user who would greatly help clean up vandalism, if granted the tools.
'''Support''': I've just implemented his [[User:ReyBrujo/Tools/phs.js|tool]] right now. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
I read somewhere a few months ago that he wasn't considering being an admin, otherwise I might have offered to nominate him myself. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong Support''' How could I not?  You are an excellent contributor and I greatly appreciate your review on my Editor Review.  Keep up the great work! [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A good user! [[User:Jam01|Jam]]<font color="green">
I'm
'''Ayuda!'''<sup> If this is wrong, tell me.</sup>
'''Support''' a good candidate --
How the hell are you not already one? &ndash;
Thought he was one too! --
[[Borat|Very nice]]! --
'''Of course'''. A very good list of RfA candidates right now. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''. A very great contribution on main space.
'''Support''' Good candidate, he'll do well with the tools. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''support''', good work! /
Exceptionally qualified ([[Special:Contributions/ReyBrujo|contribs]]), very helpful ([[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]]), will use tools well (question 1).
'''Support''' You've always been kind and helpful when I had any questions, and levelheaded during the argument with Kranar. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' A good candidate for adminship --
'''Strong Support'''. Kind user, actively helping on giving out reviews to users in [[WP:Editor review]]. Should be a very good admin. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Strong support''' I thought he was an admin, a good one!  He's very active in video game related articles.
'''Support.''' Good editor, very active. '''
'''Support''' Excellent editor, will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' - Deserved! -- ''
Wow, that's a lot of copyvio removal work. Keep it up! (
'''Support'''.  I love it when the decision is this easy :-) Tireless defender of the project against copyvios, give him the mop to help with the work. <b>
'''Support''' Yet another wonderful candidate. [Insert cliché here] -- '''
'''Strong''', come-back-from-Wikibreak, '''Support'''. The only RfA candidate to date to have ever earned the coveted [[User talk:ReyBrujo#Spamstar|Spamstar of Glory]] for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' he left me an editor review that was very detailed, had constructive criticism and showed a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policy. No major, or even minor, civility problems that I see. Seems like a good choice for admin.--
'''Support'''- It's about time you ran!--<font face="comic sans ms">[[User:SUIT|'''SUI''']]
'''Support'''- Looks pretty good.'''
'''Support''' - I have had a chance to observe and appreciate the work of ReyBrujo as our areas of activity have intersected while dealing with inapporpriate external links. ReyBrujo is familiar with policy, knows when to be assertive and when to back off. ReyBrujo will do a fine job with mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. I have also noticed Rey's fantastic reviews and his valuable work at WP:SCV. I am very happy to support his RfA, but Rey, I would really like to see you particpate in RfA's. I feel you are very good at evaluating candidates and your input would be highly valued.
'''Strong Support''' Great editor who I encountered on Album Wikiproject where he significantly helped me with some of the technical issues I was having difficulties with. -
'''Support''' Sound. ''
'''Support''' When I'm 64.... - A good user and a credit to Wikipedia. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Huh?  You aren't one!'''--
'''Support''' Happy to support a trustworthy fellow Wiki-gnome! :)
'''Support'''. Of course --'''
'''Support''' thorough and well-informed, works hard to address any concerns ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support'''  nice answers and contributes well.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' WikiGnomes tend to make excellent admins as they are not usually drawn into situations where they are tempted to abuse their privileges. I have only come across ReyBrujo occasionnaly but I like the little I saw and the RfA application is solid.
'''Support''' - [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=ReyBrujo&site=en.wikipedia.org looks] good --
'''Support''' - has my support.
'''Strong support'''- Why isn't he an admin yet? Great editor and should do well as an admin. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''''''
'''Support''' ReyBrujo was very helpful in answering my questions about fair use rationales and gave me a very thorough [[WP:ER|editor review]].  He would definately make a good admin and contribute to the project greatly with the tools.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Good candidate, highly likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Oppose''' '''[[User:culverin|Culv]][[User:culverin/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Don't know this user. --
'''Support''' - Good user, sensible, polite, good judgement on AfD writes good articles.'''
Yes.
'''Support''', definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' excellent editor, level headed.  Will be a fine administrator.  --
'''Support'''. I have had positive interaction/discussion with this user and see no good reason not to support.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''He's not?!''' <tt>
'''Support''' Insofar as I can see, there are no issues. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Everything is in order here. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - enter clich(e with e thing on it) here --
'''Support''' rounded experience, good manner.
'''Support''' per nom and Tawkér (or Tawkèr?).
'''Support'''- no objections. This user deserves the Admin powers.
'''Support''' - a trusted user with already a barnstar; another potential vadalfighter
'''Support''' - always a hard worker at AfD. Always has a useful opinion.
'''Support''' no problems here.
'''Support''' Absolutely
'''Nominator support''' at number 21.  This is what you get for nominating someone in a different timezone.  --
'''Support'''. Appears to have a good balance of community- and encyclopdia-based work and has been around long enough to know how things work. Recent edits to AfD show a well-balanced and knowledgeable (and non-ideological) participation there. The 'This' mention in Q3 really doesn't read all ''that'' badly, I have to say, but the restraint shown by avoiding such an article must surely bode well when it comes to deciding whether or not to press that admin button. -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Has an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies. We need more people like him at the AFD. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. I have been frequently impressed by Richard's good work at AfD, he will use the tools well.
'''Support''' Appears to be a strong Wikipedia, who has got a good level of activity on the project. --
'''Support''' Good editor. Enabling him to fight vandalism more easily is clearly beneficial.
'''Support''' Thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy.
'''Support'''.Trustworthy editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''support''' Edit count on the low side, but high enough to conclude that he won't misuse the admin tools. --
'''Support''' - when I've run across him in various places, he always seems civil and knowledgeable, and looks to be a solid choice for admin.
'''Support''', per nom and marvelous answers to questions. That's all I need to know you're a great user (actually, I already knew you were ;) ).
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' great candidate &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' with pleasure. <b>
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Mopper like.
'''Support''' I would prefer if he sometimes gave sources in AfDs rather than just assert that they exist (this might have changed the outcome of some AfDs, such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urinal etiquette|this one]]) but other than that, everything looks great.
'''Support''' -- valuable editor. -
'''Support'''.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - making a valuable contribution.
'''Support''' - A very learned person who brings a wealth of knowledge to Wikipedia. Worthy of the admin role. <b><font color="darkblue">[[WP:AFL|R]]</font><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Rogerthat|o]]</font><font color="darkblue">
'''Support'''. A reliable, solid contributor.
'''sUPPORT!''' Great guy, knows what he's doing --<font color="black">
'''Support''' per RadioKirk :-) [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Seen him around the traps, no issues at all.--
The I hate to bust the "You mean he's not" cliché '''support'''.  Seriously, no question at all.  --

'''Support''' absolutely. One of the best editors we've got.
'''Support'''. Strong contributor in all areas. Everything points to a good administrator. '''
'''Support'''.  In general, a thoughtful, moderate voice in AfD and elsewhere.  No skirmishes with other editors.  Only reservation is that I'd like to see more long-term involvement with some articles (though i think he may have a few of these too). -
'''Support''' Edits look good.--
'''Support''', per above; positive contributions. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''. Could use a bit more experience, but it's not worth opposing over.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I've seen this username around a bit, but I can't remember and can't figure out where.  I wish I could, it would help me with the vote.  Anyway this vote based on answers to questions. -
'''Support'''. I seemed to overlook this RfA earlier in the candidacy.
'''Support''' - I missed this one early as well!
Does not pass [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but has shown to have active participation in process. -
Support per nom.
Support looks good.
'''Support''' There appears to be nothing to fear. -- '''
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' Seems like a sensible, level-headed candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Nothing really seems awry.
'''Support''' Nothing to make me vote against, always a good sign.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose. '''<font color="Gray">[[User:The Gerg|Th]]</font><font color="Green">
'''Support''' per nomination statement.

'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Support''' - good editors make good admins
'''Support''' - no doubt.
'''Support.''' Wohvere, I stume ót kastern, thaw ebt thwí lal het epople thwí eseth trosnomčilālý gehu tídē tunsćo? [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', I've seen him around, he's done good things and I don't see any indication that he'd abuse or misuse the tools. -
'''Support''' 300 WP namespace edits and many more talk prove familiarity with WP, an understanding of the community and the skills needed for advanced editing. --
'''Support''' Reliable user, no qualms about handing him the mop.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' no problems that I can see. --
per nom, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' no reason not to. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' fine editor hand him the mop <font color="green">
'''Support''' His efforts to improve DPT were evenhanded and useful; even if they have been swallowed up again.
'''Support'''. Good answers, solid user, and meets my criteria.
'''Support'''. Experienced, solid user.
'''Support'''. Seen you around.
'''Support'''. Good candidate that is deserving of the status.
'''Support'''. Fair minded editor, will make fair minded Admin.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support,''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' The 3RR backlog could use some attention and as such, I'd love to see this candidate be equipped with the means necessary to address the situation  He seems like he would be a great resource there with his seemingly level head and NPOV (I haven't yet met the user but per a look at his edits and talk page, I feel comfortable with my two cents)
'''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' looks good to me.
'''Support''' with no reason not to. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
No reason not to support.
'''Support'''.  More patient than I am with [[British Isles]], for one thing.
'''Support''', edit history looks good; grasps [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:RS]], and the essentials. --
'''Support''' - impressed by his contriubtions.  I'm sure giving him the admin tools will benefit the articles.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - no indication editor will abuse tools.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' Seems solid and experienced.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Sorry, oppose'''. 0FA and too few WPspace edits. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Hells no.''' And dont ever strike out my vote again.
'''Neutral''' I was being a bit silly opposing on such narrow criteria, especially when you're very close to the mark. I just feel that Wikipedia space edits tell a true understanding of Wikipedia policy, but your other edits in other categories outweigh it. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Neutral''', would prefer to see a higher Wikipedia namespace edit count in order to show a better policy knowledge all-round.
'''Support''' per nom - good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' positive experinces with him
'''Support''' Answers to questions, edit summaries in contributions and statistics show that this user would use the admin tools sensibly. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' An excellent editor who is already active in important admin-chore areas. --
'''Support,''' diligent and considerate, an excellent editor in every respect.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, who I believe would not abuse his admin tools. --
'''Support''' Great candidate; has been around for quite a while, is obviously a trusted member of the community, and is willing to help out on a large backlog in [[WP:CP]]
'''Support''' I've seen him around - enthusiastic and very helpful editor.  And he's willing to help out at a backlog that needs attention.--
'''Support''', but I'd like to see more involvement in the Wikipedia space in the future. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' - per nom and decent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Robth upload log] --
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' '''''[[WP:CP]]''''' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'''Support''' [[User:Adambiswanger1|AdamBiswanger1]]<sub>
'''Support''' Small number of AfD's is a concern, but I had a look at them and found them well-reasoned, with various instances where other editors seconded his opinion. No concerns there, and everything else I've seen is beyond reproach. ~
'''Support''' One of the best editors in Wikipedia. If he wants it, he deserves to be an administrator.--
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' - My interactions have always been positive and I feel he/she would do a great job as an admin.
'''Weak Support'''. Lack of AfD participation normally precludes a support. However, user is a respectable and reasonable person, and I believe s/he will neither intentionall abuse the tools nor get into situations where s/he may come to unintentionally misuse them. - <b>
'''Support''' - [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Having the know-how to deal with [[WP:CP]] = definite support. --
'''Support'''  3FA. [[WP:CP]]
'''Support''' Quality contributor, just be careful about XfDs.--
'''Support''' Can be trusted and will use tools in less looked at areas of the 'pedia.
'''Support''' per Yanksox and others above. Has made valuable contributions and can use the tools effectively. No one area of activity should be a ''sine qua non'' for adminship.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Let's see.  Does great anti-vandalism work.  [[WP:AGF|AGF]].  Seems quite reasonable in all other cases. --
'''Strong Support'''. Great editor, with whom it is a pleasure to work.--
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' Must. Crush. Copyright. Backlog.
'''Support''' meets the critera of Tawkerbot --
'''Support'''. The attitude of the candidate is admirable, and having more people who don't just spend all their time on RC patrol is a [[good thing]].
'''Support''' We ''definitely'' need more people to deal with copyright stuff.  XfD participation doesn't bother me; he said himself that he doesn't plan to close them. --
'''Support''' great editor; has done a lot of work on [[WP:CP]]--
'''Very Strong Support''' Like Robth, I take much interest in ancient Greek topics; and I still remember my satisfaction when he started writing his brilliant articles, especially on periods partly ignored by wikipedia like the 4th century BC. Robth would be, IMO, the perfect admin., with his great expertise and a guarantee of remaining well anchored to the namespace.--
'''Support'''. Given that he's not planning to close XfDs immediately and wants to work on the copyright backlog, I see no reason why not.
'''Support''' per [[WP:BULL]] --
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' The minor lack in AfD isn't reflective of any lack of participation or knowledge about WP, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' Per above. Knows about WP, despite afd.
'''Support''', as above; there's plenty of things to do other than XfD's, and the copyright backlog is always really large.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' Candidate has indicated that he won't participate in XfDs, so I see no reason to call him out on that. WP:CP must have quite a backlog; it'd be nice to see an admin over there. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' It looks this candidate has the focused eye for speedy deletes and copyvios. So the lack of AfD activity is not too critical. Everyone has their own specialties. So no probs here.
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support''' You gotta support this editor
'''Support''' 3 FA's under his belt - my kind of admin.--
'''Support'''. Good edit history, like the FAs.
'''Support''' solid writing experience, cooperative attitude, and not afraid to help reducing backlog. This is the kind of admin we need more of. &mdash;
'''Support''' - In spite of the minor concerns below, I think this is a worthy candidate. --
It seems like featured article is your niche and you've recently started working copyright problems where we could always do with more people, but your lack of experience in Articles for Deletion (about 10) ''participation'' per se is a bit of a concern. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Oppose:'''
'''Neutral''' Lack of participation in AfD articles and the low edits on Wikipedia namespace is a major concern here. However, you are a fine editor and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Fails my criteria of atleast 5000 edits --
'''Neutral''' per Siva.
'''Neutral''', fails two of [[User:Themindset/RFA|my standards]], which usually is an automatic oppose; but I will wave the standards and vote neutral due to the users contribs to FA.
'''Neutral'''. I'm appreciative of the editor's commitment to rewriting articles to improve flow; however, I'm worried about the lack of participation in AfDs, per Netsnipe.
'''Full Support''' Excellent editor. Very helpful and active in the community and WikiProjects. Always supportive and able to resolve differencies peacefully.
'''Support'''. Great work so far!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' - I guess I should get my name in here too. -
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', el Wikipedia requiro mas de adminstratores mexicanos.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' good editor. Some AfD activity wouldn't hurt though. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Wow. The oppose votes make absolutely no sense. Why has no one commented on this?
'''Support''' per KI.
'''Support''', like KI, I'm concerned at the trivial arguments being used against someone who seems to me to be a good wikipedian and quality editor.
'''Support'''. Well, I dunno, I trust this guy...
'''Support''' Would make a great administrator.
I '''support''' you.--
'''Support''', seems good.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Strong, active editor. He shows every sign of being willing to use his powers for good. Give the guy a broom. -
'''Support''' Active, experienced editor. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', excellent choice. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Editor with good contributions to article space.  Seems likely to exercise restraint in use of admin tools.  I am troubled by the rationales for many of the oppose votes.
'''Support''': Will Beback does not nominate editors who are not well-qualified.
'''Support''' per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my criteria]].
'''Wholehearted and unconditional support'''. I rarely participate in RFAs, and I have probably voted most often to oppose editors that I don't think should be administrators. I've seen [[User:Rockero]] do many fine edits on the [[Southern California]] topics that are on my watchlist. I can recommend him as an admin unreservedly because I trust his judgement. I am extremely disappointed in some of the oppose votes I see below that show the many of the voters have not really examined Rockero's edits. For all of those who are voting oppose per [[User:Freakofnurture]], they should also be copying his ''Tentatively oppose''.
'''Support''', fine edits on topics not always covered by biased Wikipedia, including translations from the Spanish Wikipedia on non-Mexican related areas.
'''Support''' For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support''' Good editor,
'''Support''' Calm person, good editor, thoughtful, started a WikiProject, positive energy
'''Support''' WP needs more admins who specialize on a narrow range of topics.
His work is specialized because he focuses on what he knows best, and the call for more diversity in his edits is misplaced. An editor who uses editing tools to write what he knows how to write will likely be an administrator who uses admin tools only when he knows what he's doing with them. Which is exactly what we need. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I had a few misgivings about bias but the answers to the addition questions suffice.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' a positive and constructive editor, unlikely to abuse sysop tools.--
Excellent editor and Wikipedian. Rockero, you have my full '''support'''. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' a good user <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''.  Whilst there are a number of oppose votes there seems to be no evidence that he will misuse adminship.  I'm going to Assume Good Faith.  [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks like an experienced and positive editor. Thumbs up! —<i>
'''Support'''. An experienced editor. --
'''Support''', I had a few doubts with regard to administrative duties, but considering that this user is very active, maintains civility, and the support from other posters whom I respect, I'm going to support.--
'''Support'''.  He has been very helpful to me as a fledgling editor, and though his range of topics may appear "narrow", that is a red herring.  His treatment of those topics is diplomatic, civil, and fair, and wikipedia could use an administrator with extensive knowledge on those topics.
'''Support''', per Michael Snow's excellent analysis above. Some of the reasons to oppose are quite frivolous, IMO - we need more editors dedicated to particular areas of Wikipedia, not less.
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' experienced and unlikely to abuse tools. .:.
'''Support''' seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''' Nothing to disqualify. Should make a good administrator.
'''Support'''. This user has my full confidence. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -- I don't think this editor is well-qualified ''but'' he seems cool, clear, and extremely able to learn on the job. I think he'll grow into adminship nicely.

'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - A little biased.

'''Oppose,''' per freakofnurture. —
'''Oppose''' Orphan pictures, barely active enough in the wikipedia community.
'''Oppose''' - Virtually no participation on [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:RFC]], has also advertised his adminship on user page (Sounds like more of a peeve I know, but adminship is not a popularity campaign). --
'''Strong Oppose''' Darth Vader said to me that I should have 1,500 edits before I should run again. So you should have about 500,000.
'''Oppose''' I have concerns regarding their judgment, though my vote is liable to change pending the user's answers to my questions. Cheerio,
'''Weak oppose'''. On one side, he seems like a good editor and could be a promising janitor. I am certainly pleased about his diligence (and patience!) on answering so many questions below. On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the answer to questions on admin tasks below (1, 3, 4, Tigersharks question 1) below. I feel an editor should have some experience in catting, helping newbies, vandal fighting to begin with. This, perhaps, is the wider range of topics FreakofNurture would also like to see. Also, the fact that you're relatively new, and mainly make a vast number of minor edits makes it harder to read what type of admin you would be. No contributions on [[WP:AN/I]] or [[WP:RFC]] or similar pages make it harder to assess what type of judgement calls you would make, which are so vital for an admin. Feel free to comment on my vote. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]
'''Oppose''' Not sure that the candidate has made a case for needing the tools. Vandal fighting is mentioned, but doesn't appear to have made any edits to [[WP:AIAV]] (I'd like to see some experience here before supporting). Deletion is also mentioned, but I would have preferred to see more than a handful of edits to AfD pages.
'''Weak oppose''', definite potential, but need to see more participation and demonstrated understanding in projectspace, per many above. No-one is questioning commitment or motivation, take it all on board and you'll be sweet in a couple of months.
'''Oppose'''. Projectspace is an important aspect, because admins end up making policy.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per freakofnurture, not ready yet, nothing personal.  --
'''Strong Oppose'''.  The promotion to adminship could greatly sway perceptions of the Border Protests which are ongoing in America.  His clear biases are self-evident that he could become dangerous when given powers above the average editor.
'''Oppose''' per freakofnurture.  More time to gain experience will be helpful in this instance.
'''Oppose''', no experience in areas where admins need experience. See above oppose votes for where you can gain such experience, and I'm sure you'll make it in a few months (if you don't this time).
'''Neutral''' Not really pushed to support. No real reason to oppose I guess, but not fully convinced he is qualified. I might change my vote later.
'''Neutral''' but leaning oppose. He's a good editor, with many high quality edits as Jersey Devil said, but I'm a bit concerned about the administrative side of it, particularly his answer to JoshuaZ's fourth question. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''', answer to question 1 makes me think he doesn't need admin tools much. --<font color="orange"><strike>''[[User:Rory096|Rory]]''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|0]]</font>'''[[User talk:Rory096|96]]'''</strike></font><sub><font color="maroon">[[Special:Blockip/Rory096|(block)]]</font></sub> 18:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Now leaning towards oppose per revised answer to 4, BorgHunter 1 and Oge Naws 2. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Neutral''' not leaning to either.
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning towards support. Would be support except for </s> the answer to question 4 which indicates a lack of knowledge about relevant policies. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Now neutral leaning towards oppose. I'm further concerned by the revamped answer to question 4. It appears that the candidate had time to see if there were any relevant policies, and basically knew that his answer was inconsistent with current policy, and yet his revised answer is still far from following policy. Furthermore, his answer to Tigershark's first question and the user's lack of visible vandal fighting (together with his intention to use his admin tools to help fight vandals) makes we worry. However, his contributions are of first class and he clearly has the right intentions, so I don't intend to oppose for now.
'''Neutral''' Tempted to give support simply to offset some of the most unfair and ridiculous reasons for opposition I've ever seen. However, others got there first and my natural inclination here is to be neutral. Not particularly swayed either way. --
'''Neutral''' leaning support per JoshuaZ and Kingboyk. No real reason to support, however, but less reason to oppose. --
<s>'''Neutral''' leaning to support, looks like a great editor but I have to think about it. Poke me on my talk page if I haven't changed my vote in three days time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Per Moe's comments above.
'''Neutral''' not sure
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support''' Sensible user with good judgement. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jpistheman&diff=prev&oldid=85437308 this] gets a big tick in my book. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' Good number of edits, good editor, nice to see interest in doing some of the manual tasks that require the use of admin tools.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Strong record of worthwhile contributions; this nomination by an editor with differing personal views emphasizes that he can be trusted to work in a careful and unbiased way.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''' I've been looking through his logs and talk page, and he seems ok to me, will sure not abuse his adminship. Also, in the future, please remember to always capitalize ''I'' when used as a pronoun.
'''Support''' Glad to support such a good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good editor, calm, reasonable. Unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''', as per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The answers to all the questions are good --'''
'''Support'''. Well rounded and level headed editor. Would be an ideal admin as far as I can see.-
'''Support''' good article contributions, good answers, and best of all, common sense. "No unnecessary bureaucratic entanglements" should be a campaign platform.
'''Support''' certainly good enough.--
'''Support''' Why not eh? Seems a well rounded fair user who is prepared to tackle problems in an open and friendly way. --
'''Support''', no big deal. -
'''Support''' per the strong answers to the quesions. --

'''Support''', knowledgeable, reasonable, polite, and understands policy. --
'''Support'''  an even keel.  We could use his influence in many areas.
'''Support''' per  Daveydweeb and others above. The r/l situation has been explained to my complete satisfaction, and there are no wiki sitatuations of any concern that I have seen.
Weak support. I would prefer to see some more experience with process, but helping out at the reference desk is laudable.
'''Support''' per nom, satisfactory answers, comments above. I'm sure he'll bear the comments on this page in mind.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' - I take an editor's actions into account more than their words.  I think this candidate's actions indicate he will be an asset as an admin.  --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - I've met Rockpocket on AfD and RCP a few times and have been impressed. '''
'''Support''' No cons here.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>

'''Yes''' the fact that SlimVirgin is recommending him says a lot for his grasp of NPOV.--
'''Support''' I read his explanation for the 'ethical issue', and it sounds reasonable to me. All the rest seems fine too.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Candidate looks extremely mature and dedicated to the project. A pleasure to support. —
'''Support''' Obviously, anyone nominated by SlimVirgin must be OK.--
'''Support''' seems to be a good guy. The opposing arguments does not convince me
'''"Could've sworn I'd already supported" support''' per nom and, insofar as RP seems to be possessed of the deliberative temperament and, on the whole, cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I think it altogether likely that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]]; I do, to be sure, share in Badlydrawnjeff's concerns as regards IAR, but I rather imagine that RP's actions qua admin relative to IAR will be fairly consistent with that which I'd hope them to be.  I ought also to observe that there is a sufficient history on which to base an inference apropos of the user's judgment and, most importantly, willingness to abide a community consensus that I'm not at all troubled by the "real-world ethical problem" raised by some opposing; I think it further altogether possible that one might be wholly evil off-Wiki and nevertheless, in view of any of several motivations, on-Wiki a constructive editor whom one may trust to act, for his/her own reasons, toward the betterment of the project.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  I have seen some good work from Rockpocket, but on a handful of occasions I have noticed that he has a tendency to unilaterally remove information from a page rather than first challenging it and going to the talk page.  It was on minor stuff, but that is important for me in an administrator.  Also, I don't think he has enough edits to his credit yet for adminship.  I hope he will keep up the good work and come back again in a few months because I feel there is potential here.
'''Oppose with reluctance''' Rockpocket potentially has much to offer, but as yet he has some weaknesses, as Ludahai notes.--
'''Oppose''' per question four.  Anyone who's going to consider discussion on issues where they think IAR/SNOW can apply as "procedural filibustering" cannot be trusted with the tools.  We work through consensus, and no single person should be trying to stop that at any point. --

'''Oppose''' - as per above. --
'''Oppose''', leaning on support but the ethical issue concerns me.
'''Oppose''' Points above lead to reasonable doubt about this editor's suitability.--
'''Neutral''' Was on the verge of oppose per 8, but rationalle behind other opposes (buisness ethics lacking?) so weak no reason to join them. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Neutral''' Was on the verge of support, but ethical issue has me concerned—not quite concerned enough to oppose, but certainly enough not to support. —
'''Support''' Everything looks A-okay to me!--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' per impeccable nom.
'''Support''' as above; excellent candidate.
'''Support'''ed after reviewing contributions.  Pretty much the ideal admin.
'''Support'''. Everything looks good.
'''Support'''.  He seems to be a fine editor.  Let him be promoted. --
'''Support''' I see this user around all the time, we can trust him with the admin tools. -
'''Support''' as above. Does a lot of stuff.
'''Support'''. Will make a great administrator.
'''Support'''
'''Administratorfy'''!--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Very good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''.  While I personally haven't ever had any experience with the user, judging by his edits he seems to be well rounded.  Looking at his talk page, he seems to be well respected and often people ask for his advice or opinion.  Having 100% edit summary usage also always looks good in my book.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Positive user. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Easy Support''' great edit history, good editor.
'''Support''' very good user who does good work.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Polite and does good work, will make a great janitor. --
'''Support''' Tally Up! Its not big deal! Even if it was I would still vote +ve. --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support'''. The concerns raised in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rogerd|first RfA]] have been [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=rogerd&dbname=enwiki_p addressed], and I feel this user would make a great sysop.&#160;—
'''Support''', good credentials, no reason not to. <TT>
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', looks and sounds pretty good. Good answer to question three.
'''Support''' - Good editor.  -- ''
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The more prolific article authors are the people who deserve adminship.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', would make a good admin --
'''Support''', seems like excellent admin material to me.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' All the i's looked crossed and t's dotted. --Jay '''(
'''Support''' Everything looks in order here.
'''Support''': yes. --
'''Support'''; indeed valid contributor and nice guy. Plus MONGO's thoughts on adminship are always right on the money as far as I am concerned. -
'''Support''': He would make a great admin, and is almost a namesake - what a laugh.
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong Support''' I wanted to nominate him --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seen him around, always in a positive light. '''''
'''Support''' gets my support, good luck to you.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good history, good answers to the questions. I believe candidate can be trusted with admin tools.--
'''Support''' Looks like he's improved since then. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good editor. --
'''Support'''.  Good editor, probably a good admin. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Nothing wrong with being supportive--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', solid contributor. -
'''Support'''.  I could have sworn I voted support on this a few days ago, but I don't see my vote anywhere, and so I'm stumped.  Anyway, I think Rogerd will make a good admin. —
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Neutral'''.
'''Nominator support''' you didn't beat me :P <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]]
'''Support''' I almost beat you here. Basically per nom this user is a great example of what an admin should be. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''' Why aren't you an Admin yet?
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I know this has gotten ''really'' old but: You're not an admin?? &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' 100% certainty he'll be an enormous asset to the team '''
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate for the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Strong support'''. Wow, why didn't tell me about this? A great user and also a great colleague to work with in AMA. --
'''Strong support'''. Of course. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Support'''. Without a doubt, admin worthy. '''''
'''Support''' per above and dealings with at the AMA.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' A thoughtful editor who can work effectively with those from diverse perspectives.
'''Support''' Shows promise of being an admin more interested in process than in agenda-pushing.  The project can always use more than that, because [[WP:PII|process is important]].  One mild disagreement: I don't agree with the answer given to #4 above.  Making a Nazi hide that fact doesn't (to my mind) improve the project.  I'd rather know who I'm dealing with.  --
'''Support.''' A good editor
'''Strong Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' seems good to me, should use the tools well.
'''Support.''' Glad to give the tools to this outstanding vandal fighter. One minor concern that I have, though, is the number of spelling errors in his contributions to this RfA. An administrator who is also a native English speaker should take care to always spell his contributions correctly, in order to be both well understood and taken seriously.
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate, definitely worthy of the tools. <b>
'''Support''' I'm confident that user will make a great admin. He has answered all answers very well, impressive. Good luck! ←
'''Support''' Good number of edits and time. Good quality edits. AMA mediator.  God answers.
'''Support''' A good contributor and editor. Friendly, levelheaded and hardworking. [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Support''' I thought he already was an admin, to be honest.
'''Support'''. Great user, will make fine admin. '''
'''Support'''. No reason to oppose and with Martin nominating, I have confidence in the candidate. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' '''[[User talk:Tyson Moore|<span style="background:#FFFF66;color:#000">T</span>]]<span style="background:#008">[[User:Tyson Moore|<span style="color:#fff">yson Moore</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor who will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' No problems here. [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Suport''' Congratulations.
'''Support''' What a great asset to Wikipedia!
Yes. '''
'''Support''', per nom. --
Wikipedia can always use another guard. (
'''Support''' per nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Your work at the [[WP:AMA|AMA]] is great, I am sure you will make a fantastic admin!
'''Strong Support''' Hurry up, get the mop, get back to work, and start [[WP:BLOCK|AD]]-[[WP:PROTECT|MIN]]-[[WP:DELETE|ING]] <code>:)</code> &mdash; [[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[User:Deon555/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub><font color="orange">
'''YA RLY'''. Admin tools would probably benefit your AMA-ness. --
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin powers.--'''
'''Support''' per all of the above.
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Responsible, friendly and dedicated. Mop him boys. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.m]][[User:Dfrg.msc/EA|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Per all above.
I'm
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Mainly due to moral opposition to Centrx's badgering of the candidate. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', per [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Royalguard11&site=en.wikipedia.org Interiot's tool] a lot of edits in such a short time (most edits in the last 6 months!
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''': A good editor who will use the mop wisely. '''<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' nothing more to add --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''.  Mostly based on handling of Centrx. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a stong candidate. And if you can handle that grilling from Centrx, you can handle anything.-
'''Support''' very strong understanding of policy and will use the tools just fine.
'''Support''' Looks ok. -
Looks good, I don't find the opposition very compelling here.
I asked the questions above in relation to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centrx&diff=84975080&oldid=84973768 this assumption of bad faith] and the user thinking that [[User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nat Soc|this userbox]] is appropriate for Wikipedia, but the answers to the questions above about AGF and policy formation are weak, many automated edits, and most of these AfDs are empty votes added at the end of a long list of deletes (e.g.: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lionheart_helm&diff=prev&oldid=89139694], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Joan_of_Arc_Studies&diff=prev&oldid=93707919], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ecopath&diff=prev&oldid=85985288], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cobra_Number&diff=prev&oldid=85987001], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Best_hrithik&diff=prev&oldid=85986269]). The answer to one question is simply a resort to a generic "oh, it must decided by consensus", but the answer to what "consensus" ''is''  I don't see that this user understands that consensus must comes from reference to the principles and policy of the encyclopedia. It is not a poll and it has nothing to do with political parties or a "secret formula". —
'''Oppose''', although not for (all of) the same reasons as Centrx. Weak answers to questions are a real concern for me, and I have a hard time understanding why so much of this user's edits are to userspace (yes, I know Userbox Migration is a lot of them, but that leaves you with under 6000 other edits in six months. I expect this will pass regardless, but I hope this user will take to heart some of the criticism leveled here and proceed carefully and neutrally, rather than becoming a partisan admin, of which we have had plenty in the past. -- ''
'''Strong Support''' All these good nominations lately --
'''Support''', I actually thought that he was already an admin, however cliché that is. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Strong Support''', obviously --
'''Support''' does a lot of good work on AfD --
'''Support''', does good work and I have no reason not to support. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Mild hot.'''
'''Support''' - How can I oppose a guy that corrects my spelling (Even if it ''was'' an intentional typo :P) --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''. Great work.
'''Support'''.  Great editor that needs a browser edit if possible. :p No j/k. Excellent editor, could do good with a mop! ~'''Linux'''erist
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - His work on articles for deletion is notable. -
'''Support'''. Seen good work, lots of involvement in things like afd, too.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''', I've met him at AFDs almost every day, definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', good contributor to many areas of Wikipedia, meets my standards. Would be strong support if not for the short question answers, btu I'm still happy to support this user without any reservation. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - looks like a fine editor.
'''Support''' - Admin is no big deal.
'''Support''' - I've seen him on AfD too, and he does good work there.
'''Support'''&trade;. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''. Good editor, will make good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' he's an all-round good editor that would make a smashing admin. --
'''Support''' <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', although the answers do leave a lot to be desired. However, Roy is dedicated and will grow into the post. Will be interesting to see your switch from AfD voter to AfD closer.
'''Support'''. I see this guy around, he'd be a great admin.
'''Weak Support''' - satisfies my criteria, the answer on Q2 worries me
'''Support'''. Would make good use of the mop.
'''Support''' Experience, edits and enthusiasm, perfect. --
'''Weak support''' - good vandal fighter but rather terse answers to questions 2 and 3. &mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Answers to questions could be better, but I have no real concerns
'''Support'''; Very involved, very intelligent editor, no major concerns.
'''Support''' Seems to have taken some heat for answers to standard RfA questions, but I find honesty such as "''I see myself as more of a good editor rather than great.''" quite refreshing.  I also liked what I've seen in his contribution history.
'''Support'''.  As far as I can tell, he knows his way around the project, and seems level-headed.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', fabulous editor, strong vandal fighter, active in the community, helps with scut like stub sorting, and a Degrassi fan to boot!  I think he'll make a terrific admin. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' - good editor. --
'''Support''' he is a valuable and cool-headed contributor over at AfD, would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' good work on AfD, seems level-headed enough for adminship
'''Weak-support''' would realy like to see further expantion of the questions... but no reason to oppose. Seems like he could be a good admin. ---
'''Weak support''' have good observations of Royboy, especially having been vandalized 40 times, but the answers to the questions are cringeworthy.
'''Support''' from what I have seen, will make good admin. --
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''', very active user. --
'''Support''' very good user. While I would like to see more detailed answers to the questions, they are no reason to deny adminship to a worthy candidate.--
'''Support''' though as others have said the answers to questions could be better.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' will make good use of the mop. --
'''Weak Oppose''' As pointed out in comments section, answers are quite brief.  I like to see a bit more thought go into an RfA response.
'''Oppose'''. It looks to me that the only thing this editor has other over candidates is a reasonably high edit count, but it seems to be all "quickies" like RC patrol and AfD debates. Edit count isn't everything, and if you must have numbers, the participation in ''zero'' WikiProjects would seem to be relevant. His answers to questions are terse and unsatisfying. I want to know what Royboycrashfan has done for the encyclopedia, not the meta-encyclopedia.
'''Weak oppose'''. Citing [[WP:WINAD]] as a reason for "speedy" deletion on an AfD, after all the AfD work the candidate has done, seems to indicate a lack of familarity with policy, or rashness of judgment ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kos_%28Persian%29&diff=45513567&oldid=45509810]).
'''Oppose''' Per above, no images. --
'''Oppose''' after looking over answers to the standard questions, I decided to oppose. I would like to see a little spark than that. Basically a good editor, I would possibly support next time.--
'''Oppose''' sorry but I just can't support someone who puts so little thought into their RfA answers. Take it more seriously and I'd consider supporting next time.
'''Oppose'''. Very low (only 65) talk namespace edits.
'''Oppose with a heavy heart''' because of the terse and unsatisfactory answers to the questions below. If you make them longer, I would be glad to reconsider. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Oppose''' because he doesn't need the position to do what he wants to do. Royboycrashfan is a good editor and helps with many cleanup chores that do not require an administrator position. I'm not convinced, from Royboycrashfan's answers, that he will use an administrator position to do any major sysop chores. This nom seems to be more of a status symbol than a mop and bucket. I vote to rename the position of "administrator" to "janitor" to make it clear to everyone that this is not a privilege, but an added responsibility. --
'''Oppose'''.  Hasn't been here terribly long and answers are weak.  &mdash;
'''Unfortunate oppose''', but a lot of good points have been brought up above.
'''Neutral''' Answers to questions are on the short side, I'd like to see what else Royboycrashfan has to say. Might change vote depending on answers. Solid editor all around though.
'''Neutral''' per lack of detail in questions.
'''Neutral''' Can't support, can't oppose.
'''Neutral''', needs a bit more experience.
'''Neutral'''.  If he reanswers the questions then I'll change to support, because he's a good editor and will make a good administrator, but some semblance of effort would be nice.
'''Neutral''' Not swayed either way. Good editor but adminship request hasn't convinced me. --
'''Neutral'''. This guy has everything going for him, except for the questions... &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' per Lukas above (under oppose).
'''Neutral'''. Borg makes a great point. PLEASE answer the questions with more thought so we voters don't have to hold back...&mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Neutral''' as per Rspeer and Dragon's Blood. While I have seen RBCF around and he seems like a good guy and a good editor I see little reason for him to be an admin. He is active and does make valuable contribution but I do not see them going up with him being an administrator.
'''Support'''. Not a knock-out candidate, but solid enough. From what I'm seeing as I look around talk pages, this user certainly does his part to abide by [[WP:CIV]]. Maybe now you've got some extra time, you should look into some other more admin-related areas of Wikipedia (like conflict resolution) so you can better use the admin tools that I hope you get.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Cool signature. Trusted not to abuse tools. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks like a solid, well-rounded user focused on building an encyclopedia. &ndash;
I'm surprised that somebody with his record is put in a position of having to defend himself against editcountitis. He's been here steadily for quite some time, is usually sensible and takes constructive criticism well, and has successfully shepherded through a featured article on a subject that's a magnet for people with a hobbyhorse to ride. What more should he have to do to show we can trust him? --
'''Support''' per Michael Snow.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.. per michael snow. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', looks good, and Michael Snow can be persuasive when he wants to be ...
'''Support''', yes, definitely.  Meets my [[User:Proto/standards|standards]].  Polite and knowledgable.
'''Support'''.  Ticks every box he needs to, and per [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edit_counting Edit counting]
'''Support''', long participation, good edits and to site [[WP:ADMIN]] again "Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community".
'''Strong Support''' Edit counts are not everything. The user is immensely experienced and I feel he deserves to be given the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  No indication he'd misuse the tools.  Turning experienced editors down for adminship on the grounds that they don't edit enough does not make sense.
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support''' looks good to me.
'''Support''' - I like what I see. This editor could be a bit more active (2000 edits over 1.5 years could be considered thin-spread). --<font color="green">'''Zsinj'''</font><font color="gray"><sup>
'''
'''Strong Support''' It's OK to have a life outside of Wikipedia.
'''support'''. --
'''Support'''. Not that many edits, but has been here for a while. Was very civil to me. —''
'''support''':  Good evidence that candidate is a solid contributor dedicated to building an encyclopedia, especially considering quality edits in helping bring an article to featured status.
'''Support''' As per above and most of all ''works well with others''. <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
Yes please. Rob's case does appear to illustrate the unwisdom of mistaking number of edits for value of contributions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', solid contributions and very civil.
'''Support''' The nominee's own comments strike me as more convincing than the opposes. Contrib's are just fine even if spread out over time and seems thoughtful editor.
'''Support''' He has a laudable 100% use of edit summaries and his edit count has increased over time and averages 270 per month over the last three months.
'''Support'''. Good user, adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support'''. Seen him around, like his style, has been involved in [[Wikipedia:Discussions_for_adminship]] (you should be too!), and anyone that Michael Snow and Mindspillage endorse has to have some major positive qualities. His edit count is fine, and the kerfluffle about voting by [[User:cmouse]], below, is not relevant. (we have 5 computers on my home network, on any given day they are going to have the same IP... so what? That does NOT prove meatpuppetry) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' I see no big problem.--
Unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Sockpuppetry is undesirable but the evidence provided below is quite weak.
'''Support''', looks OK.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor and the reasons given for opposing seem unconvincing. Creating admins should be "no big deal". --
'''Support'''. Per above, especially what Michael Snow said. --
'''Oppose''' I like the user but I don't like the number of edits to the main namespace in over a year and a half, 894. User could benefit if he was steady in article editing.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't see the evidence that the low edit history is due to the extensive scope of the individual edits as claimed by the nominee.  While some of the edits are extensive, the majority are typical.  I don't see the scope of experience or evidence that the admin tools are needed. I suppose if it wasn't a self-nomination I might be moved to neutral. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Does not meet admin criteria
'''Oppose''' Activity in main namespace over time period does not match up with stated admin chores of wishing to revert vandalism, manually reverting without godmode light is not that difficult and would have greatly inflated a  moderltley active editors edit count over the time concerced. There is a great deal to be said for letting good editors get on with being good editors rather than letting them be side tracked into admin chores, so without a significantly better contribution to those chorse prior to being an admin... Being an admin is not a promotion or reward. --
'''Oppose''' On [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Llull_winner this AFD], he made an edit by accident as [[User:Cmouse]], whom he said was his girlfriend and he used a computer where she was logged in by accident.  Now, that's all understandable, ''but'' I notice on Karmafist's Arbcom voting page, both Rspeer and Cmouse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006%2FVote%2FKarmafist&diff=34476212&oldid=34475993| voted] '''within three minutes of each other!'''  Sorry, but that's just too close to sockpuppetry (or perhaps meatpuppetry) to be ignored.
'''Neutral''' I had conflect with this user before but I don't want to do a oppose, staying neutral --
'''Neutral''' - frequency of edits is not an issue for me, but experience in communicating with other users is. I am very close to supporting though.
'''Neutral''' Needs to interact more with others
'''Neutral'''On the one hand, I would prefer more additions than deletions. On the other, handled the sockpocket accusation more better than some people might.
'''First support''' we need more people closing xFDs (where x != A)
'''Emphatic support.'''  I agree completely with the nominator.  His high edit count and extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy makes him wonderful admin material.  He is kind and generous and welcomed me and made me feel a part of the project.
'''Support'''.  What a great user!
'''Support'''. Looks awesome, great nom. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' as nom for a very sound contributor to the project.
'''Support'''. Beyond my standards, sie's polite and civil.
'''Support'''. Always looking for folks willing to do deletes. And the user writes, too! --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">
'''Support''' per above. Meets my standards. Assuming other users reviewed talk page and found no incivility. Quick review of AfD discussion revealed nothing troubling. Would encourage user to go slow blocking vandals, though. It can be easy to mistake a newbie mistake for vandalism, and a block for innocent mistakes would be something to avoid. Saw strings of welcoming newcomers. Saw no warnings about CSD's. When I welcome, I check new pages and try to let editors know if I tag for a speedy delete. But then I saw no speedy tags sitting on undeleted articles either.
(edit conflict)'''Support'''.  A very good user, and noticed nothing worrying in contribs. However, I'd like it if edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dejan_Stankovi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=67298260 this] were followed by giving the user, say, a test1 template.
'''Support'''. Overall the candidate seems like he would be an asset, not a liability. A few of the edit counts bother me a tad, but I don't see any thing there worth opposing over.'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' The reasons for oppose below are not substantial enough for me to go against the norm. I believe that this user has done some great things here. His added responsibilities would only benefit this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks good. I also do the little things, and I appreciate them more then some.
'''Support''' Strong in a wide variety of departments.--
'''Support''' looks good

'''Weak Support''' per above.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Looks like a good user. --
'''Support'''. Appears to be a kind and hard working contributor who could make a fine admin.--
'''Support''' Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my standards]], and after checking a few random AfDs I'm not all that concerned by the oppose reasons below.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  He's experienced in the main space.  He's not as deep in policy as he could be, but I trust him to use the tools well.  Very civil, and interested in helping in multiple *fD areas.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''&mdash;Although I read Crzrussian with interest in each of these debates and often find those views compelling, use of the mop requires decent and steady, not brilliant. We run little risk that we'll regret giving the powers of adminship to someone who secretly plans to unleash a campaign of abuse. I'll sleep fine with Runcorn at the Admin controls.
'''Support''' per nominator; can't see any problems.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Seems like a responsible, hard-working editor.  On the whole "insubstantial" issue, I'm firmly of the view that mony a mickle maks a muckle, or your preferred idiom to that effect.  If anything the world and/or the wiki's been set on fire a few times too many of late.
'''Strong support''' Courteous, erudite, extremely literate, conscientious, hard-working, knows all the ins and outs. A future bureaucrat, let alone admin!--
'''Support''' The candidate seems to be quite trustworthy, so I see no reason not to allow Runcorn to use the extra buttons, as they would certainly help him be more efficient in recent changes patrolling.  I also like his willingness to volunteer his valuable time to help out with the *fD backlogs
'''Support''', contributions suggest sufficient experience and level-headedness.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per all of above. Contributions in a variety of areas, no issues.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' A well deserving user who should get the mop & bucket of adminship.
'''Support''' Meets my criteria. --
'''Support''' per nominator, will make a great admin.
'''Oppose''' I believe that edit count doesn't show the persons true contribs. Also per <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b>    --
As nominator.
Hah! Pre-official nomination '''support'''! &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Strong support'''. excellent editor
'''Support'''. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
--
<small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I know from working with Rune on a project for Esperanza, that he knows how to react when things do not go as planned. That is something admins encounter often, and I believe he is more than capable of being able to handle all the new tools.
'''Support''' No bad faith edits. Trustworthy, and has many edits all over...well rounded. '''
Yes.
'''Support'''. of course <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent editor, cliche moment for me.
'''Lucky #13 Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' &mdash; Per NSLE :)
'''Support''', 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... ''thought he was one!''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', looks good to me. --
'''Support''' Excellent editor (has loads and loads of minor edits) and vandalism reverter. --
'''Support''' per nom. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' &mdash; per all the above--
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' per etc and whatnot.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''', but how can he be Welsh if he's Mexican?
Support. Excellent editor and I have see a strong well-balanced contribution in chemistry articles. --
Support.--
'''Support''', I thought he already was an admin! &mdash;
'''Support'''; I already thought he was one&trade;. <font style="color:#0077FF"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#0055CC"><u>inch</u></font>[[User:Smurrayinchester/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#0055CC"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#0055CC"><sup>(
'''Support''' echoing KnowledgeOfSelf's comments, top notch. --
'''Support'''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Happily support'''. I feel a bandwagon growing...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nomination. --
'''Support''': ditto. --
'''Support''' per nom -
'''Support'''. Solid candidate.
'''Support''' - I know his good work in FLC, he deserves this.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' without hesitation. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' seen this person around, very good user. I can't believe so many people beat me to the punch!--
'''Support''' good work here. --
'''Support'''. This editor shows outstanding depth and breadth of edits.
'''Support''' yes, per nom. --
'''Support''' per everybody! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]

'''Support''' Hells yeah!
'''Support'''. Indeed.
'''Support''', will be a fantastic admin -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' per above, keep up the good work!
'''Strong support''', he isn't already?
'''Strong Esperanzial support!''' Great editor. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. You seriously haven't been nominated before? This is an example of how we all need to be on the lookout, we are missing lots of good candidates. -
'''Extreme "Sorry I'm late" support'''! Fantasmogorical user. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Support''' as per nom. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Excellent user.
'''Support'''. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support''' Excellent.
'''Support'''. Indirect interactions and observations from afar have been good and reliable and thorough. No worries on length of service or activity and involvement and has model usage of edit summaries (oh come on, I'm just being trendy). Plus, with Titoxd as a nominator you'd need a seriously good reason not to. -
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor, good edit counts, 100% summaries, no conflicts, enjoy your mop. I bet this will hit WP:100 as well.
'''Support''' per nom. Let's go for [[WP:100]].
'''Support'''. Good editor, engaged in important processes. -
'''Support'''. A good Wikipedian who will carry the mop and bucket proud. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''. Definitely someone worthy to be an admin.
'''Support'''. All the right ingredients
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; It seems tome that he is the right guy for the job. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">
'''Pile on support''' Titoxd isn't Durin-level nomwise (yet?), but his noms are always good. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Seems like a very well-rounded editor. Glad to support.
'''Support'''. Simply the best. --
'''Support''' :) &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support without reservations''' - one of the kindest user user around. Earned my support [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rune.welsh&diff=38279302&oldid=38211397 long ago].
'''Support''' - this one's a no-brainer (um... the vote, that is...).
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', He really deserves for sysop.
'''Support''' per everybody, great editor.
'''Support!''' <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' Good Luck! --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' and then some. No question. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' everything looks great.  Happy 5,000th edit, by the way.
'''Damn it.''' How come everyone's getting so much support votes nowadays?
'''Support''' I disagree with Rune's attitude about how to handle conflicts, but that's pretty minor. Overall, a very good editor.
'''Support'''... chalk this up to "you mean he isn't one already?" ...
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. 99-getter. Now lets see who gets [[WP:100|100]].--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' 100! :D--
'''Support''' - ahh Shanel beat me to 100! --
'''Support''' When I saw him in the list of current RfA's, my jaw dropped to the ground. I can't believe you weren't one already, Rune!--
'''sure, why not'''.
'''Support''' Very good contributor, should already be an administrator. -[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support''', one of the best '''''×'''''

{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} BTW, that's a nice tool collection you have. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', forgot to vote days ago, kind of feels like voting again, well, enjoy.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Definite :)
'''Suppport''' - very good user. --
'''I know Rune very well''' and I can stand up and say '''Rune Welsh RULES!''' Great user! GO FOR IT ,RUNE! <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''. Might as well join the pile on. Also one of the few occasions that I can personally use the well known cliché- I thought you were...
'''Support'''.  Another obviously good candidate.
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Of course he should have the mop. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]]
'''Support''' per cliché.
'''Support''' Wow, 122-to-zero has to be some kinda record.
'''Support''' -- seems like a lovely person.
'''Support''', that'll be a [[WP:100]] then.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, no reason to oppose. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''', superstar -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Edit conflict to First Support!''' User seems to be a good canidate, with good intentions, and over 2000 edits, which is fine by me.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - nom statement and questions look good as do edits. Adminship is not about being on stage solo, it's about being part of a choir, a team. There is no I in we. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. Nothing disagreeable here, and has easily enough experience (2000+ edits over 18 months is hardly insubstantial) to know what's what.
'''Support''' impressive good quality edits to a wide range of articles. But this on your userpage swayed it for me ''until I realized that specializing in something in Wikipedia is pointless''. Exactly my ethos. --<font color="darkgreen>&nbsp;[[user:tmorton166|Errant]]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User_talk:tmorton166|talk]]</font></sup></font><small>(formerly
'''Support''' - seen him about the place being nice, civil, kind and useful. Give him the mop! &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] and others.
'''Support''' his answer to Q1 mentions that he wants to deal with repeat offenders of cruft insertion, resolve disputes, and clear backlogs in AfD and CfD.  I think that's a perfectly satisfactory answer.
'''Support''', more sysops willing to work behind the scenes also mean less backlogs and increased efficiency. -
'''Support''', per Mailer diablo and Adambiswanger1. Behind-the-scenes admins are good.
'''Support''' I good interactions with him, won't abuse the tools
'''Support'''.  I've seen him around on FAC, and he seems to be an intelligent and levelheaded guy with a solid grasp on the fundamentals of what we do here. Sure to make good use of the tools. --
''''Support''' - I think he would be a level-headed admin who wouldn't abuse the mop :).
'''Support''' - Good understanding of what it means to be an admin.
'''Weak support''' per Seivad, Fabricationary (who, I think, states quite well what ought to be the calculus over which candidates for adminship are adjudged), and Mailer Diablo, to name three.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''support''', 18 months seems long enough.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my standards]], looks like a civil editor who won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' 'No Big Deal'. I see no reason to beleive that the user would abuse the tools, nor do I see reason that the user doesen't grasp policy. Good luck. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' A dedicated user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per all above, per answers to questions, and because there's nothing wrong with a passive admin. --
'''Support''' per above. Good luck! :-)
'''Support''' another multilingual user.
'''Support'''. Excellent per above. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Come on people lets get to the important stuff, whether the user can be trusted. Lets see, long time user, lots of great contributions, no significant screw ups, not even any people complaining significantly. It's clear by his editing track record that he can be trusted, and lacking any evidence that he cannot, he should be promoted. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yay for anti-vandals!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Dedicated, friendly and good faith editor... should make a good admin. --
'''Support''', does lots of good work.
'''Support''' per all above. --
'''Support''' meets new standards. <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Oppose with current statement''' the entire nom statement is about why he didn't do edits and doesnt mention why he wants to be an admin <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' Per Crzrussian above. --
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian. You are still unexperienced but I will gladly support you if you request adminship again in a few more months. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian and Caf3623.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.  RyanGerbil, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAC#List_of_Australian_Football_League_premiers this kind of response] just makes it harder for the admin closing the vote to figure things out.  I have seen excellent contributions from you, and will support when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' You seem like a decent person who would make a good admin, but I feel you need to be able to tell us not about the watching, but about the doing - more hands on experience and interaction and you'll be fine.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.--
'''Oppose''' per the above. --
'''Neutral''' Seems quite passive for an admin candidate, real world activities notwithstanding.  I would like to see more interaction with other editors and intervention beyond reverting vandals in the main article space before turning to support.  A little more participation is all it takes. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - going a little bit against [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]], I'm giving a neutral because although he failed ''At least 350 combined talk, user talk, and Wikipedia talk edits'', he has a substantial number of Wikipedia space edits to show interaction with the community.  However, his answer to question one seems to contradict itself.  How can you take a more active role in dispute resolution with a mop, not a broadsword? —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Neutral'''. Only 54 main talk edits shows lack of direct article interaction. Maybe now that the course load isn't so heavy, the nominee can get a little more involved and reapply in a few months. Will definitely consider supporting then.
'''Neutral'''. Very good article contributor (the stats are near perfect), but I don't see much motivation to be an admin or demonstration of policy knowledge or maintanence tasks. The answer to the questions don't seem to give me much confidence in that respect either.'''
'''Neutral''' - I won't oppose but I can't support either. I'm wondering why he wants to take a 'more active role,' as an admin, in tasks/discussions in which he hasn't yet participated. In a few months, with more dialogue in the talk spaces, he will gain more and broader support including mine.
'''Neutral''' - a few more talks will be better.--
'''Neutral''': Excellent period and editcount, but you're almost there. I suggest you aim for more namespace contribs, and eventually you'll get them all in a matter of time. So good luck on this until the next try. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral'''.  I think a little extra experience would enable others to evaluate the candidate. --
'''Support''', irrespective of whether he accepts or not, <s>remove if he doesn't</s>--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
Utter nominator '''[[advanced life support|support]]'''. The Scope for admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Why, of course. Sensible, active, and polite. -
'''Strong Support''' - an unfailingly polite, helpful editor, committed to the steady development of Wikipedia, which exhibits patience and teamwork. Great asset.
'''Support''' I am impressed with his responses to the questions.
'''Support''' per 2 page essay aka the question answers :) -
Cliché.
'''Support''' per nom. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Nothing to suggest privilege abuse. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' despite dearth of edits in Portal talk per Bucketsofg - <b>
'''Support''' Excellent answers, excellent editorial career.
<small>Holy crap, NSLE ...</small> '''Support'''ed.
'''Very Strong Support''' Samir apart from being a magnificent contributor is a very helpful & reliable person. I'm sure he will be a great asset with the mop. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', great and friendly user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Pace Minfo (''neutral''), I think his status as a [[Ottawa Senators|Senators]] fan ought to earn him some sympathy votes, in view of how the [[2006 NHL Playoffs|series]] against the [[Buffalo Sabres|Sabres]] went.  On a serious note, though, JFW succinctly enumerates the reasons for which the project would benefit from Samir's being an admin, and I concur heartily in his nom.
'''Strong support''', great ed and a thoroughly nice bloke. <b>
'''Support''' trust with tools, productive editor, seems very likely to make productve editor (although nom says "he should become administrator before he becomes a gastroenterologist" and I'd hate to think editorship would deprive the world of a needed gastroenterologist ;-} )
<span class="votesupport">Support</span> --<font size="1">
'''Support''' per all the reasons above. Nothing else to say that hasn't already been said. — [[User:nathanrdotcom|<font color="navy">'''Natha'''</font>]]
'''Support''' upon examination of edits and discussion entries.--
'''Support'''.  My interactions with him editing various medical articles have been good.  He will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' All of my experiences with him in the medical world have been pleasant and his portal is especially cool. You can claim any of the medicine featured articles if you'd like!
'''Canucks over Sens Support''' - per Tawker. Oh well, the Sens are my 3rd team in line, (Canucks, Oilers, Sens) - but that has nothing to do with adminship does it :o --
'''"[[Mighty Ducks of Anaheim|Mighty Ducks]] über alles" support''' per Tawker. ;) -→
<b><font color="teal">
'''Strong support''' - great user, calm, sensible and friendly.'''
'''Support'''. Kind, patient and talented - just the kind of admins we need.
'''Support''' fully deserving. '''
'''Support''' - All my interactions with him have only increased my respect for him. -
'''Supprot''', He is being nice in Wikipedia, and good editor. Revert every vandals in Wikipedia. So, I nominate him as Admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Of course yes. Amazing editor. Contributed in several subjects, including his special interest medicine. --
'''Support''' -- [[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
Pretty obvious '''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per his comments.. --
'''Support''' - A very good editor.
'''Support''' per NSLE. --
'''Support'''. He is experienced enough and ready to handle admin tasks. -
'''Support''' genuinely nice guy. Keep up the great work.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''', sure. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Doctor and Wikipedian! Cool! -
'''Support'''. Great answers. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Excellent answers to the questions.
'''Support''' A good editor with all qualities required become admin. -
'''Support''' - For his good work, in main and project namespaces. He will surely help!
'''Super happy mega fun lightning support'''
'''Support''' Passes [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|the test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good answer to question 3.
'''Support''' about time. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Pile-on!''' No reservations at all.
'''Support''' As a sysop, I was involved in the situation he described in Q.3. Before you draw out your daggers, gentlemen, let me hasten to tell you that I was the admin he contacted to look into the situation with the erring admin. I found the conduct of Samir to be unblemished through out that episode. I'd have liked to nominate him myself and write a long nom like the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ganeshk|one below]] but I guess there is no need for that as Samir has answered the questions really well. --
'''Support'''.  Consciencious, and clearly to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''<s>Cliche</s> Support''', would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions, balance, and communication. '''''×'''''
<b>Support</b> I have just decided to raise my standards for RfAs. However, you do meet my new ones. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''' - Polite and helpful. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' pretty sure this isn't a dupe :P --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Go Sens Go!! --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Sure!'''

[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' excellent answers to the questions
He comes up with some of the oddest (and most educational) pictures of any editor I've yet encountered. Head and heart are in the right place. More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' This user would be a good representative/example of what a Wikipedian should be to other Wikipedians - he is polite and he contributes! I wish I could do as well. &mdash;
'''Support''' without question.  Or, rather, with excellent answers to questions below and willingness to help out in backlogged areas.  --
'''Support''' –

'''Support'''
'''Support''' (I may support the Sens if they get rid of Krusty), good response to question 1, has shown familiarity with Wikipedia procedures. His willingness to be tarred and feathered in Toronto (and other underprivileged areas) as a Sens fan far outweighs his being a Sens fan. --
'''Support'''. Racing towards the century! But, I can not wait any more. --
'''Support''' -- from
'''Support''' per nom (why have a gastroenterologist when we can have an admin?) and based upon my review of his userpage and contribs.
'''Support''' would make a great admin —'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/EA|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' - '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' The Scope for admin.
'''Support''' Friendly, polite editor with fine contributions history.--
'''Support''' Great answer to question 3. And per nom, and per above. Will be a great admin. --
'''Support''' nice and civil editor.
'''Support'''. As I'm No. 86, I feel able in saying "per above".
'''Support'''. I just reverted vandalism on his userpage, so you know he's doing something right. ;)
'''Support'''
'''Support (almost WP:100!!!)'''. great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems like a very good choice for editor --
'''Support''', excellent balance of traits needed for an admin. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Make it to [[WP:100]] Support.''' I spy a good admin and look forward to a substantive editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', he deserves a mop.
'''Support''' excellent skills and piling on is fun! Shell <sup>
'''Support''' Deserved. -- ''
'''Support'''. Ticks all my boxes. '''
'''Support''' Fine contributor, both articles and images. No hesitation in supporting. [[WP:100]] is that way -->  --<font color="2B7A2B">
His poetry is terrible.
'''Support''': as nominated. --
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With around 3,000 + edits, he does deserve to be an admin.
'''Support''' per nominator. My conversations with him have always been positive. +[[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Gladly.
'''Support'''; user always kind and helpful. <font style="color:#00BB55">'''s'''murrayinch</font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00BB55">ster<sup>(
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' worthy of advancing to adminship.
'''Thought-he-was Support''' A cliche that definetly applies here for me.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. Lots of experience, specific answers, significant contributions, and I find all the current oppose votes either silly or nonsensical.
'''Support''' - appears to be level-headed, and is a good contributor from what I've seen. --
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' no brainer support of a candidate with solid credentials and good references.
'''Support''' because s/he fails the ludicrous 1 FA test.
'''Oppose'''. Only one edit to image talk shows low participation in vital areas of the project. Also most of his last 5 edits are concentrated around double-balloon enteroscopy - there is no evidence he has contributed outside of this narrow field, for the last 10 minutes.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]] despite 11 months here. Looks like a specialist in a limited field. But admins need to be ''wholesome'' with good judgement of a clever vandal and a clumsy editor.
'''Neutral''' good Wikipedian, I just don't se why he needs adminship. Oh, and he's a Sens fan.
Per [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|question 2]], you are well on your way. :) -
'''Support''' -
'''Suppose''' Excellent contributor to the Sciences, an area where we really need good people. Also has demonstrated good conflict resolutions skills.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''', trustworthy, calm user, that would make good use of the admin tools. --
'''Support''' per above.
Could use more user talk edits, but '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' great article contributions, actions are intelligent and well-reasoned, and more admins with science backgrounds is a very good idea. Not every admin needs to be a vandalwhacker and not every one-off vandal needs a test template.
'''Support''', no questions asked! --
'''Support''' Seems to have the experience, is trustworthy and dedicated. Good admin material. -- '''
'''Support''' but please issue warnings to users like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ill_Ni%C3%B1o&diff=prev&oldid=48197934 this] when you do revert vandalism. --
Good candidate, but do remember to issue warnings as requested above! '''Support''' is given on this basis.
'''Support''' edits a wide range of articles with sufficient edit summaries been here quite a long time too. I'm convinced even though they fail my [[User:Andypandy.UK/RfACriteria|RfACriteria]].--<font style="background:white">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Per Pschemp, JoanneB, Opabinia regalis and Banes... "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup>" '''Support''' ++
Oh, hey, a sciences editor! We need to '''support''' more non-vandal-only editors into adminship. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Not likely to abuse tools, trustworthy user. No problem at all...
'''Support''' per nomination, the answers, and my review of his user page and contributions.
Yes
'''Support''' Samsara is a great contributor and would do well to have these tools. --<font color="336699">
'''Support'''. Fabulous candidate, and the endorsement of Ragesoss only serves to confirm this impression. Great choice!
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' for the fact that he seems to be an excellent editor, but the points made by Crzrussian have slightly affected my vote
'''Strong support'''. I have come across this editor many times and in several difficult situations. He will make a great admin. The points made by Crzrussian do not alter my view one little bit. An admin does a variety of things. They do not all have to do everything, nor should they if we want our admins to remain sane. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - per above --
'''Support'''; this is an exceptional candidate, and likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' would have co-nominated but missed it (spent the day off-line driving to a student's thesis defence) Samsara is level-headed and hard working in the service of the wiki (RC & AfD are not the only forms of service to WP).  He's been a positive force in some trying times on [[natural selection]], not only does he deserve the mop, but he's sure to use it well.
'''Strong Support''' - fellow article writer and science enthusiast.'''
'''Support''' Thrustworthy contributor. --
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Samsara would benefit from use of the tools.--
'''Support''' A great user. It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''', per nom
'''Support''', per nom. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''', per Quarl.
Excellent user, unlikely to abuse tools. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - excellent user, good admin material
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' - good editor, strong contributions to the encyclopaedia.
'''Strong Support''' a real asset to the project.
'''Support''' -- very good editor, will be good as admin.
'''Support''' if for no other reason than he has contributed less than once per week to [[Talk:Natural selection]] in the past several months, successfully bypassing the constant infighting.  He actually fails [[User:TedE/Administrator standards]], due to his lack of activity on [[WP:AfD]], which has now made me rethink why I have that requirement (curse him for making me think!).  He is an editor's editor, and I really don't see him doing any significant amount of banning or AfD.  His reasons for why he wants the tools are good, and I believe he has demonstrated the maturity to use them wisely.
'''Support''' everything looks good and I apologize for the impolite manner in which I questioned you earlier.--
'''Support''' Never encountered this user before, but edits look good and seems like a stable and reasonable person. Good answers to the questions as well.
'''Support''' I worked with Samsara on [[Frog]], and it was the best contribution I have had on Wikipedia. Things got done, discussion was constructive and we finally reached FA on a broad subject. That is the kind of admin I would like to have on Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Support'''. Fine. --
'''Extreme "I met Pchemp just after you" support'''. So there. Mwa. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' per my interaction with Samsara and reasonable answers to questions.
'''Support''' I disagree with some of the answers, (especially the attitude towards blocks of AOL and related issues) but overall a very good candidate who will use the tools well.
'''support''':  Per nom, et al.
'''Strong support''': Has experience handling controversy civilly. Knows how to work a project. Has produced great product as an individual contributor and as a sort of team leader. Wants admin tools for other tasks besides fighting evil and has immediate plans on how to use them. Seems to put Wikipedia in perspective -- I liked his answers to question 3; the first sentence might give some the shivers (an admin walking away from a fight?) but he's not out to be one of the legendary warrior-admins. What's not to like?--
'''Support''': I once rv an edit of his and gave the edit summary "rv vandal removal of cat". He came quite politely to my talk page and the thing was settled very fast. We need admins that _talk_ _and_ _listen_ to people. All Wikipedians should be like this, but for admins it is more important, as they should give good example to others. Samsa, thx again for having come to my talk.  And all the best for your adminship in case the RfA goes through.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I was previously -71.57.105.178-, --
'''Support'''. RC Patrol is not critical to becoming an admin; his level-headedness, and commitment to the project are what have me sold.
'''Support''', excellent candidate per above. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Samsara seems very qualified.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' per [[User:pschemp|pschemp]] (&nbsp;<small>Is that OK? You can put down [[:Image:Fieldhockeygirl1.jpg|the stick]] now [[Image:Face-devil-grin.svg|20px]]</small>&nbsp;) HTH HAND —
'''Support.''' Looks fine to me.
'''Oppose''' I have counted merely seven AfD discussion in his 767 WP:space contributions. That, along with the the noted lack of RC patrol, or any other janitorial/deletion activity, and along with the answer to Q1 leads me to believe that Samsara has not demonstrated familiarity with deletion/vandalism policies, or indeed a need for those tools, as he evidently does not plan on using them (Q1). In that case, I cannot grant them. Samsara appears to be a great contributor - he should stay that way. He does not need to janitorial tools to do it. - <b>


'''Oppose''' per Freakofnurture.
'''Oppose''' answers to Q1 and Q4 show limited need for admin tools, and, combined with the low project space edits (excluding wikiproject ones) do not give confidence that editor knows the ways of the mop well enough to entrust with all the extra buttons. Good editor, yes, but being a good admin is a different skillset, and I would expect potential admins to be more involved in the discussions/decisions that they will have to make as admins. Regards,
'''Neutral'''  pschemp deleted comments from Mongo. Samsara should answer Mongos question. Is there something to hide?




'''First support free with nomination''' --
'''Support'''. Meets my standards.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' no brainre, great editor!
'''Support''' whoa, are you the same Sam Blanning that I know of?
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Marvelous editor, marvelous nominator.
'''Support''' cliche.. thought he was one, etc.. Mop and bucket time! - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' No probs, --
'''Support''' Great editor!
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per all of the above! --
'''Support'''.  Cool head during the Gastrich mess, should make a good admin. -
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Easy Support''' --
'''Support''' Impressive conduct during gastrich affair.
'''Support''' per the nomination. No logical reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' per the nomination.
'''Support''', now get to work! Oh wait, you already are. Keep up the great work. You deserve the mop. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''. sure. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Good work, calm head.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Dismal science and all.
'''Support''' good fellow.--
'''Support''' looks like he could use the admin tools.
'''Support''' will make good use of adminship. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Speedy''' "''he's not an admin yet?''" '''support'''. [[User:Misza13|Misza]]
'''That's hot'''.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''', of course. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' seems decent.--
'''Support''' great editor.  -- '''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' -per nom. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' Excellent candidate --
'''Latish support''', courtesy of me not realising this was Last Malthusian at first glance.
'''Support''' Very good editor, very knowledgable and even-handed.
'''Support''', fine editor & wikipedian
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A good editor.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' everything looks good.
[[Deck of cards]] '''Support'''.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Has the measure of the trolls around here.
'''Strong support'''.  Very good common sense in articles having problems.
'''support''':  Looks good.  [[User:Ombudsman|Ombudsman]] 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)  -  Addendum:  This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=44050576&oldid=44050263 edit], endorsing the premature and entirely suspect AfD of the [[Peter Fletcher]] article, has caused second thoughts.  However, assumption of good faith carries greater weight, so there is no reason to withdraw support just to make a point.
'''Support'''.  Oh, crikey, ''yes''.

'''Support''' Looks good to me too, good spread of contribs. --<font color="2B7A2B">
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} I just got done reading his user page. I really like his attitude. He's got my vote.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Moral support'''. I know this RfA is doomed, but I thought I'd deign to give my support anyway... oh, never mind. Good editor, though; I see him around, making good edits, etc., and we need more vandal fighters.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', as the first person to ever edit [[user:Samuel Blanning]] and [[user talk:Samuel Blanning]] (in a page move), I of course have to support him :)
'''Support'''. See no cause for concern.
'''Support'''. Looks solid and mop-worthy. —
'''Support''' of course.  I can't believe I forgot to sign when I first noticed this. I loko forward to ofering Sam the [[Wikipedia:Rouge admin|rouge admin's]] badge of courage :-)
'''Support''' -
I '''Support''' giving him a mop -
'''Support''' even though at the moment it's obviously gonna happen anyway.
'''Oppose''' This editor does not always abide by Wikipedia policies.  He sometimes makes up his own rules as he goes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality#POV_tag.3F] This editor also engages in edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=43869270&oldid=43868413][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=43433084&oldid=43430725][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=43284949&oldid=43284710][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41738065&oldid=41737722][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41353500&oldid=41353281][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41094732&oldid=41094101][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41094086&oldid=41094000][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=41010138&oldid=41006516][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality&diff=40018240&oldid=40004154] I'm sure he's a nice person, but has he has helped to make Wikipedia a more neutral encyclopedia?  No.  I'm sorry, but no he hasn't.
'''Oppose''' Needs to be more neutral.  --
'''Oppose''' --
<del>'''Neutral''' I have seen some work by this editor, and would like to see more from him. Still too new for my standards; unsure of decision making process, if someone could provide specific links for me to view, I would be more than happy to overturn my decision.
As nominator, <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>(
'''Strong Support'''. Interactions with the user leave me with an impression that he can be trusted with the tools. —
'''Support''' per excellent noms and the candidate's strong record.
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' A very good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks like a good admin-in-waiting.
'''Strong Support'''. Thoughtful, intelligent, and nice. Complete trust. - <b>
'''Support''', good user. I recall observing Sandstein's fracas with a Clueless Aggressive Newbie which he refers to under 3, and admired his coolness under the erratic flailing and flaming from the touchy newbie. I took over shortly afterwards, as I thought the person was starting to need admin warnings, but found myself unable to be even close to as patient as Sandstein. Well done.
'''Support''' No problems here. =) '''
'''Support''' , fills all criteria, and a seven-month old comment that has been apogized for just gives me more reason for support. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - [[User:FireSpike|'''FireSpik''']]

'''Support''' A familiar username on AFD. Very good work, will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks great.--
'''Support''' per Elaragirl. If he has the maturity to apologise, he's ready to make sysop. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' definitely, I offered to nominate Sandstein in October, but Guy and Schutz have done that well now. Yes, Sandstein would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''', of course, as per my co-nomination.
Of course.
'''Sniper support''' Right on target.
Weak support. I would prefer if you diversified a bit beyond AFD. (
'''Strong Support''' per Elaragirl and Riana. This guy knows what he's doing.
'''Support'''.  --
I'm
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent editor with firm grasp of policy.
'''Support'''- Good Luck!
'''Support''' looks like he will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support''' Near perfect record of excellence here on Wikipedia. Mop him!
'''Support'''. Appears to be a good editor and I believe will be a good admin as well. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font>
'''Support'''.  Excellent record.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Convincing answers and no problems at all. He is perfect admin material. Good luck. ←
'''Support''' no evidence that admin tools will be misused.--
'''Support''' Per nom, and comments here.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Strong support''' I've been consistently impressed by Sandstein's contributions. --
'''Support''' sounds good enough for me. I think the "free speech" issue is not worthy of an oppose.
'''support''' --
'''support''' comes with a good nomination, and looking over things it seems to be backed up
'''Support''' Good user all-around.
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - familiar face on xfd.<b>
'''Support''' Honest, fair user with an excellent track record.
'''Support'''Has a <s>good</s> <s>nice</s> <s>excellent</s> OUTSTANDING edit count. <font face="Papyrus">'''[[User:Kyo cat/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0c0">K</span>]]
'''Support''' Bernese government employee named [[Albert Einstein|*stein]]? How could we possibly say No? ~
'''Support''' Go for it. -- ''
Appreciate, empathize, support, etc. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I have no doubt Sandstein will be an excellent and fair administrator.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' from me too. --
'''Support''' Why not? --
'''Support''' You're allowed to pile-on when it's positive, right? Looks to me like he'll be a good admin... <font color="green">
''''Last minute pile on support''' seen very positive work, and should make a solid admin.
'''Support''' Well spoken, thoughtfull. Doesn't get his feathers ruffled. Good editor.
'''Oppose''' has demontrated opposition to free speech in the RFC he cites in his third question. I would rather not have another administrator with this problem.
'''Oppose''': per [[User:Tariqabjotu]] and his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner&diff=45969626&oldid=45968239  this comments  .] Tariq might change his vote in support but I will keep my opposition. I do not support people who think we should be feeling less and should hide our affection for being admin. We could be neutral, nice and good human beings even whatever religion we choose or whatever we decide to put on our user-pages. ---
'''Oppose''': I have experienced this user to be prejudiced against some topics, even thereby disregarding Wikipedia policy, and as somebody who values a diverse encyclopedia, this is of some concern. Wikipedia is not a hobby horse for particular opinions, it is an encyclopaedia. In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination)]], he argued for deletion on flimsy grounds, i.e. because of [[WP:BIO]] (not a valid criteria, just read the full page), he made libelous remarks on living people ("esoteric mumbo-jumbo") and said that articles on her books are "generally best characterised as pieces of advertising". Now I haven't read any of her books, and there are many books that I don't value at all, but to characterize a wikipedia article on a  a person or a published book as "advertizing" or "cruft" betrays prejudice. He also calls articles about her or her books a cruft-fest and a a walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aeon_Center_for_Cosmology] After deleting her published books and her biography, apparently every reference in other articles (unrelated to the AFD) were deleted as well in a very indiscriminate manner. I had nothing to do with the history of this article, but even I, who am not an expert on Aurobindo or Astrology, have heard about Patrizia, and her published books are available in libraries and on Amazon.com. After reading about the deletion on [http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/Patrizia_Norelli-Bachelet.html kheper.net], I have created a new article on the subject, and only some minutes later it was marked by Sandstein for [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]]. He also seems not to create or expand any articles, his main tasks seems to be voting on AFD's. This user does not seem to be tolerant to articles on certain topics, and has only just recently misinterpreted Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Mallarme|Mallarme]] 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The user sill misinterprets Wikipedia policy and says that the subject does not meet WP:BIO's standard for authors: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". However, the same page has this to say: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." She is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or like writers, where I think she is notable. (It so happens that for some people a published author and religious leader like PNB is more notable than a person who is famous because he manufactured printed toilet paper in Germany (like [[Manfred van H.]], an article mostly written by Sandstein) :) )  --
'''Neutral''' For the most part, I like what I see, but it would take me awhile to support anyone that has made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner&diff=45969626&oldid=45968239 this kind of backhanded prejudiced statement]. I know someone is going to say this is revenge for a !vote against me, but I won't be entertaining those types of responses. -- '''
Definitely! Her not being an admin is a detriment to Wikipedia. &ndash;
'''Strong support''' - '''
'''Support''' - I offered to nominate her myself, but a nomination was already underway. For sure. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''; definitely a good candidate.
''Curses on those pesky people who posted above my commented-out vote'' '''Beat the nom cliche Support'''. Enough said. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support'''--[[User:Deepujoseph| thund]]<font color="green">[[User:Deepujoseph/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as co-nom. I have been extremely impressed with Sarah's contribution to the project.
'''Support''' - I liked her handling of JackP.

'''Support'''. My own observations of Sarah have been nothing but positive. She handles conflict exceptionally, understands policy, and is a great contributor to boot.--
'''Support'''.  Good interactions with this user.  A positive person.  Regards,
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor. I'm impressed by the civil and level-headed interactions with other contributors as well as dedication to the encyclopedia.
'''Strong support''' intelligent, level headed, and contributes.  She'll do a brilliant job --
'''Support.''' Great user.
'''Support''' --
'''Cliché omitted for safety reasons Support''', ditto above. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Support''' solid contributor, quality civility, well worth a mop.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools
'''Strong support'''. In my experience, very active and exceptionally capable and civil. Also, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASarah_Ewart&diff=68826098&oldid=68820033 used to think] she was already an admin.
'''Strong support'''. High time, too! Cheers,
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''. I'm impressed. Will be a good admin. --
'''Strong support'''.
No problems here.
'''Support''' I've seen this user around, and I think she'll make a great admin. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support''' I think this user has been around long enough and made enough useful edits to become an admin. --
'''Support''' Provides a consistent presence a lot of the Australian related articles I hang around. I'm sure you'll be great! :D
'''Support''' This exemplary editor has been a lot of help and support to me. She will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' Looks like excellent editor.--
'''Support''' - ''
'''Support''', good editor, will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' My only criticism is that she makes many of us look bad by comparison. I have encountered this user on occasion, and found her to be an excellent user. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Why the heck not! - <b>
'''Support''' No worries about this excellent editor having admin tools. Have noted her thoughtful comments and felt they were right on.
Pile on '''Support''', cliche omitted for fear of being badged an RfA groupie. ++
'''Strong support''' I am pretty sure that Sarah will be an excellent addition to our happy family of administrators; her civility in dealings with EddieSegoura has been of special note for me, and I am glad to see that her content work looks substantive enough too. &mdash;
'''Strong support''' per noms and all comments.  People debate whether RfA is a vote or a consensus or something else.  In this case, the vote is overwhelming, the consensus is clear, and whatever something else might be, this candidate qualifies.
'''Support''' Looks like an excellent candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per noms, absolutely. An excellent candidate and a great user, knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia, with the wise head of an admin already on her shoulders. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' One of the best editors of this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Super Strong Support''' Are you kidding me?  Truly monumental cliche moment here -- totally in shock. :)  The editor is outstanding in every imaginable way.
'''Support'''. Meets the critical criteria of need for the tools and trust of the community. (Was she ''really'' not an admin yet?!?).
'''Support''' good trusted user. No reason to deny the tools.
'''Support'''. User performs admirable anti-vandalism work and clearly has appropriate admin temperment based on question three.
'''Support'''. Solid user with civility, respect, and experience.
'''Support'''. <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Strong Support''' one of the best editors on wiki.  Will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' An all around good user, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strong nominator support''' per nom 57 votes above :-) —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Pile-on support''', obviously.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - a very good user--
'''Support'''.
--
'''Support'''. ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]].[[user talk:crazytales56297|<small>chasing cars</small>]]//
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' Well balanced edits. Time to give admin tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We've [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tench (2nd nomination)|clashed]] over deletion policy but she's always responded in a calm and civil manner. Dedicated, passionate and professional editor, would make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' with pleasure. A very good user.
--
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' per above and answers to questions, I've seen her around a few times, and she would make a great admin (I thought she ''was'' one, as cliche as that remark is). --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' - Absolutely. --
'''Support''' whole-heartedly.
'''Support''' can find no reason against. &ndash;&ndash; '''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Nice, helpful user. --[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikom]]
'''Support''', even though AfDs were a little old, user certainly has the potential to become a deletionist :).--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' what are you doing not being an admin? Its a disgrace. Goodness, we need to do something about that.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support'''. She should get the mop and bucket. —
'''Support'''. Range of contributions, especially good on sourcing and copyright.
'''Support'''. Yes. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' A strong opponent of linkspam.
'''Support''' Completely qualified. I hope I'm like her someday.
'''Support'''. Good edit history, well balanced.
'''Support'''. Great user. Good answer in Q1, in my opinion. --
'''Support'''. Mature and liberal editor. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom, all the above, etc. Nothing but good things to say of this dedicated person.
'''Support''' with no hesitation. Excellent user.
'''Support''' Seems like she'll make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Strong (edit conflict) support!'''  Sorry to be late.  I've worked quite well with Sarah and think she would make a great administrator. --
'''Support''' - Sarah is a doing a wonderful job already, and I would love to see her nomination reach at least 100 votes of support.

'''Unanimous [[WP:100]] support''' --
'''Support'''!!  I wanted to be 100. :( Anyway, on a serious note, Sarah is a very civil person and has the trustworthy background I require in a candidate.  I was involved with the Litch case she cites above (I reverted some vandalism by Litch) and she behaved in a perfectly civil and helpful manner.  She's a great editor.  Give her the mop!
'''Unquestioned support'''.  A valuable member of the community.
'''Support'''.
'''Sad but Enthusiastic Support'''. You're going to push me out of the top ten RFAs :(.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom. Good editor.
'''Support''' Have seen Sarah's work and she is indeed a great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per above.--[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support'''. <span class="ipa">
'''Support''', and note the extreme dubiousness of applying "1FA" criteria above and beyond all else.  Or at all, frankly.

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' fits my rules
'''Support''' good editor, will be good admin --
'''You're bumping me down on [[WP:100]] Support''' Bummer. :( But, I believe Sarah will be an excellent addition to to the admin squad. She displays common sense and is calm, something that is invaluable in being an Admin.
'''Support''' per Rogerd--
'''Support''' - I've always noticed her great work on many of the articles on my watchlist! --
'''Support''' Having looked through her work and the above comments, I cannot possibly withhold support.--
'''Support'''. I don't consider 1FA to be an overriding principle.  I've looked over a few of the contribs, and I'm convinced that there is no reason to block support on this one.  I specifically don't agree with the opposition that there is a lack of editing experience. --
'''Support'''. Due to low edit count in MediaWiki namespace and per answer to Q4. --
'''Support''' - per nom. Well done. (
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression. And go Aussie cabal!
'''Support'''. I've been impressed since the exic*rnt days.
'''Support''' - She has answered all the questions to my satisfaction ; though few comment about her lack of editing experience ...but i personally feel that it should not be held against her if she can perform her duties to her abilities .
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.  Well deserved.
'''Support''', great editor, very civil.--
'''Support''' per [[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] and others.
'''Support''' Readers should choose their own cliche to use here. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Seen her around; I understand the opposing voters' concerns, but for me those concerns are outweighed by the reasons to support.
'''Support'''.  Looks like admin material based on what I've seen at [[WP:CLINMED]] and her edits on medical articles.
'''Support'''&mdash;When it gets over 80 supports, I don't often bother offering an opinion, but this is going to be impressive support. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' I usually don't vote in these things, but this is an exceptional user!
'''Support'''. Always impressed me with her considered contributions to talk, and serious edits in article space. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' My experiences with this user have all been positive.
'''Support''' I have yet to encounter the candidate, but from a brief look at her contributions and talk page, I feel confident in asserting my belief that Wikipedia will be better off with her having the admin buttons
'''Support #140''', is there really any point?! Fantastic user, have seen her around and like what I see. Should be an asset to the project. All the best! &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom and others.
'''Support''', pretty much everything has been said now. Since a few editors below are concerned about article writing, you may be interested in [[Wikipedia:Danny's contest|Danny's contest]].
The 1fa criteria is a joke. Although it is important for candidates to have main space experience, having a featured anything is not necessary. If some people feel it is, it is of course their own opinion. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Strong support''' Sarah is very professional and does a fine job. I am highly impressed with her work and positive attitude. She is an asset to Wikipedia. KarateLady
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Piling on is fun.
'''Support''' Very well-rounded, conscientious edits. No reason to not trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' If the only thing that anyone can say against Sarah is lack of experience with featured articles, she certainly deserves to pass.--
'''Support'''. Absolutely. --
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support''' - I generally avoid piling on, but in this case I feel it's warranted.  Levelheaded positive contributor all around.
'''Definitely Support''' Preparing for best admin in the future, and always assuming good faith in every situation. I'm also very proud abour her hard working in Wikiproject.
'''Support for teh Sarah!''' Yay! ~
'''Yet even more support''', as if you needed it.
At this point just piling on and running up the score '''support'''.  No question about this on my part. ---
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. My pleasure to return an unwavering support vote. This one's a Jedi. -
'''Support''' per 159 other supports. An excellent Wikipedian. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]

'''Oppose''' per 1FA concerns. Yes, I know people up there are sharply divided. But that's my criterion. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose.''' For tormenting and for being a general pain in the ass [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelly_Clarkson&diff=48930520&oldid=48912499]. Not half-qualified to be an Admin.
'''Oppose''' I trust journalist.
'''Neutral''' pending answer to question. --
'''Powerful Support'''
'''Support''' with pleasure. -
'''Support''' I had some concerns but I think he'll be good with tools.--
'''Support''' Looks good to me -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' - meets my standards --
'''Extreme Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - the nom pretty much summed it all up. :) &mdash;
'''Support''', per above. -
'''Support''', Wow, quite a few featured articles! Definitely yes.
'''Support''' an outstanding contributor who I hope indeed will not spend very much of his editing time on janitorial tasks.
'''Support''' Too many featured articles... must reset brain... <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><font size="5"><sub>'''''o'''''</sub></font></span>]]
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', great ed and great future mopper <b>
'''Speedy''' best FA writer who is not a admin period
'''Support''' per all above. LOL Jaranda. I wish I could speedy support this nomination. :-)
'''Support''' Looks fine. Good job on this articles.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - very good allrounder (bats, bowls and fields)
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support'''. He's linked to my user page in Q4, what choice do I have? But seriously, Saravask is an asset who I'm sure will make a fine admin. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' - One of the best editors I've seen on wikipedia. Definitely administrator material. --
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' - a pleasure. <font color="navy">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', if only for [[Rabindranath Tagore]], which is an incredibly good article.  But for other reasons as well, definitely trustworthy with the mop --
'''Support''', though I wish he won't spend his time on admin tasks.
'''Support''' Great editor and has experience, mainly supporting because I like his answers to No Guru's questions in the oppose section. -
'''Strong support'''. Why not? Wonderful editor who takes a mature approach as shown while editing [[Kerala]]. <small>Sorry that I couldn't be the first one to vote. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Saravask&diff=prev&oldid=50545634 reverted vote] before he accepted the nomination.</small>--
'''Support''', as per everyone above. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Support''', too many featured articles. :-) --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' - It would have been oppose if Saravask hadn't explained his edits from late October 2005 as the product of inexperience. -
'''Support'''--
''Support''' reaches my standards.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Anirudhsbh|Andy123]] :). (that would be a '''support''') ''
'''Support''' Good editor. Will be good admin.
'''Support''' per FloNight [[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Extraordinary editor. Deserves the mop. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' A great editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''': I have seen his work and he works with zeal. I know that he shall be a real administrator. --
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''', per nom. Candid acknowledgement of previous misdemeanors shows responsibility.--
'''Support''' Excellent editor. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' -- Good editor.
'''Support''' this nomination.
'''Support''', yesss.
'''Support''' sounds good, gets my support.
'''Support''' This guy should break into WP:100, he's a great editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom and edit count.  <font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''' Slight concerns about spread of mainspace edits outweighed by other contrbutions. Has made mistakes in the past (we all have), but I am sure he has learned from them. Will make a good admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' Will support till he call me a buffoon... ;) --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. Patience is an excellent admin quality. Good to have the extra tools for dispute resolution.--
'''Support''' if ever I did! One of my Wikipedia heroes. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Viva Chavez! Viva Tagore, a personal favourite of mine! Viva Saravask!
'''Support''' 9,000 edits?!?!?!?!?! <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
<strike>'''Oppose'''</strike> after having read through examples provided by Knucmo2, and additionally concerned about POV throughout the Hugo Chavez articles.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 10:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)    '''Strong oppose.'''  I voiced my concern on 29 April.  Saravask has not responded as of 1 May.  My concern is that, with an admin as a possible gatekeeper, vested in the Venezuela/Chavez articles current POV (which is decidedly not NPOV), it could become hard for future editors to improve the articles, or work on removing the POV.  I am changing to '''strong''' opposition, because Saravask has not responded to these concerns.

'''Oppose'''.  I don't mind editors who do one area of articles (India and Cricket), but I'm a bit wary of a one-trick pony, so to speak.  Admins should have broad experience, and editing four articles just doesn't give broad experience in the variegated types of conflict resolution and policy implrementation issues that a proper admin is going to have to deal with.&mdash;
'''Neutral''' - Is a valuable editor but tends to look for argument a little too much. --
'''Neutral''' - Seems like a good editor but I like to see admins spread their efforts beyond [[WP:RPP]] and [[WP:AIAV]] and the 2 other areas mentioned below. And the response to question 4 leaves me wondering why he has not bothered to establish the notability of [[Rathindranath Tagore]] and [[Samindranath Tagore]] for almost a month after he created them. --
'''Neutral'''A little to quick to shoot first, etc. See [[Talk:Kerala#The_largest_city_in_Kerala]]. Need more time to mellow. On the other hand, remained reasonably cvil throughout.




'''Support''' Saxifrage has acted in a manner that made me assume when I first encountered him that he ''was'' an admin.  I was quiet surprised to find that he wasn't.  I support him wholeheartedly, without reservation. -- <b>[[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]]</b> <sup>([[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|Talk to Me]]) (
'''Support''' Passes my criteria
'''Support''' I like everything I've seen so far. ~
'''Support''' I thought they were an admin already -
'''Support''', impressive contributions and diplomacy.-<span style="font-family: cursive"> <font color= "#808080">
Indeed. Also not afraid to ask questions when he's not sure, which is something we could use in more admins. &ndash;
'''Weak Support'''. I don't know Saxifrage very well, but he played a minor role in helping me set up [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback|Requests for feedback]], a process where newcomers can seek feedback on articles they write (or major edits they make). For some time, he helped respond to feedback requests posted there, but he has not responded to a feedback request for a long time. Requests for feedback is getting backlogged, and desperately needs Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers to respond to feedback requests. If Saxifrage continues to respond to feedback requests, I will change my support level to Strong, and may even use MSN Messenger to bribe several Wikifriends into supporting him (just kidding about the bribing part). --

'''Support''' This editor could really use the admin tools; they seem to be an admin in all but status-change anyway! Good interactions with users, good use of edit summaries, contributions to main/Wiki/Project/userTalk spaces are all in order.

'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Shows an impressive level of civility in his interactions  with other users. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' But my account is two and-a-half hours older :) [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support'''; all is well, and appears to be a fine candidate indeed.  I'm impressed by the nomination, by the way:  it's quite a fine gesture.
'''Support'''. An impressive nomination, but more importantly, an impressive contribution to Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be any threat of abuse from this editor.
'''Support'''.  I've seen plenty of good and nothing bad from Saxifrage.--
'''Support''' good by me.--
'''Support''' Looks good. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Support''' I have seen nothing but great edits from this user. Keep up the great work. =)
'''Support''' I like the candidate's self-realisation in Q3, which says a lot about his wiki-character.  Experience and trustworthiness are areas in which I have no reservations about, either.
'''Support''' - Fairly new?  You've been here 4 times as long as many admins.  Shows good knowlege of wikipedia's policies, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ASilvermints_roll.jpg&diff=84270332&oldid=49474676 Image policy] --
'''Support''' Had shown Good Judgement in the past and expect the same from him in future too <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Strong Nominator Support''' As per above.
'''Support''' great answers to The Questions.
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments above. Quality editor, no issues or worries. The sole oppose comment to date (below) appears highly unconvincing.
'''Support'''. I had no idea that he wasn't an admin already. —
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' but please don't be a scourge! - <b>
'''Support'''. I must admit that I did not read all of the nominated's answers to the questions. It's too long! hah. [cough] User is definetly qualified in most aspects. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support'''. An editor whose first edits are to a a sandbox, and who immediately started using edit summaries back when practically no one made a fuss about them.  I like that a lot.  Seems eminently sane. -
'''Support'''. [[Mentor]]s come in different forms. I'm confident that this nominee will make a good admin. Cheers --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''.  Always seems civil and restrained. --
'''Support''' Everything seems ok, no cons.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  No diffs.  --
'''Support''' Although I don't always agree with this editor, that should be taken as major vote of confidence for this user.  It's clear he's open-minded, fair, supportive and, most of all, civil.  Good choice. --
'''Support''' no danger of abuse --
'''Support''' good contributions. PS to the nom- never be apologetic in your nomination. Just state the facts --
'''Support''', a civil and reasonable editor. &middot; '''<font color="#707070">
'''Strong Support''' -- valuable spam fighter. --
'''Support''', roused me from giving a one sentence reason for non-deletion here:[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sollog_%282nd_nomination%29]] to a well rounded argument even though it contradicted his own opinion.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''; will be an asset to the community.
'''Support''' - A good editor who will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' - Saxifrage edits well, is seemingly fully qualified, and is a solid Wikipedian.
'''Support''' - One of those "I thought he ''was'' an admin" cases. I've seen him work on the WikiProject Spam quite a bit and he's the type of guy that needs a mop and will use it effectively.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - He edits well, he's always polite and civil, and he doesn't lose his temper. He does a lot of admin-like work already, so the tools will just help him be better.--
'''support'''. Looks like a good editor. '''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' bodes well as budding admin.
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Strong support'''. This is a very rare type of nomination, a well-thought-out, well-written nomination from a newer user, which reflects on the candidate in a very positive way. Best of luck to you, against the vandals and trolls (like the one on this page.)
Pile on '''support'''. Looks good to me. Regards,
This is one of those people whom I rarely agree with but nevertheless think of as a constructive discussion partner. Join the mop mob!
'''Support''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support''' Seems good
'''Support''' --no kiddin. I thought you were already an admin! --
'''Strong Oppose''' Saxifrage has used the highly uncivil tactic of libelling users as wikipedia policy violators on their talk pages in the convincing format of making a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). That is a tactic that can not be spotted in a single edit (and therefore does not threaten one's reputation much), but must be seen by comparing multiple edits, and that is what makes it so underhanded. Saxifrage has also committed wikistalking. Saxifrage would therefore no doubt abuse the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Makes me nervous.
[[User:Spawn Man|Spawn Man]] 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - I have no opinion on this user whatsoever, hence why I'm placing this in the "Neutral" section. In fact, I don't even know this user, so it begs the question why I even placed a neutral vote here in the first place. Hope you make it Saxifrage... Damn, I just made myself un-neutral. I better go....
'''Support''' - I don't know why but I assumed that he was on already. Hmmm. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Weak support'''. I am not sure about this user but he looks all right. &mdash;
'''Support''' thought he was already one. --
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Would make a good janitor. --Jay '''(

'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs RC patrols!  Admin status would help him with rollbacks and speedies.&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Why the heck not?
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
Muito bem [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks like the type of dynamic yet nice admin we need more of.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I don't doubt this user has the ability to use admins tools properly.
'''Support''' been looking over this off and on and have decided there is no reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' See num 16. As have I! I'm squeezing this vote in before I go cook dinner :-P
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great admin material.
'''Support'''. Lots of edits in Wikipedia namespace. I see him a lot around here and that's really good. He got so many Rfa thank-yous that he had to create a whole seperate subpage for them. That speaks volumes. Solid editor. Give him the Sacred Mop. --
'''Support''' (I really like the user-friendly user page...)
'''Support''' Helpful in Wikipedia.  Would make a good admin.--
'''Support''' Seen him reverting quite some vandalism, doing a great job --
'''Support''' Sure. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Someone should have poked me so I could've got here earlier! →'''
'''Support'''.  Seems like a winner. -
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support'''. I agree with Jay.  Great RC patrolling goes hand-in-hand with great administrating.  --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' per FireFox. Comment: Since Admin tools are most useful to combat vandalism, I fail to see the rationale of those who are opposing based upon a record of "Too much" (!?!) vandal fighting. A bit nonsensical, that.
'''Support'''. Would make a great administrator.&#160;—
'''Strong Support'''. Would have been a plain support, but seems to be attracting a number of baseless oppose votes.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Oppose'''. Too many userboxes. --
'''Oppose''' per discussion on IRC. I think admins should try to be able to make a case for their arguments or assertions with more weight that "well, thats what I think". -
Looks like an exemplary editor, but I don't agree with three-month adminships.  Try next month. --
Respectfully '''oppose'''. Following the advice to look into his track record, I see the person is 90% busy with reverts and other cleanup. I am afraid that this indicated a certain mindset of a warrior and tough guy, rather than encyclopedia contributor. Constant policing does not improve negotiation skills and may produce a false impression of being always right. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but this editor must have more of '''different''' experience.
'''Oppose''', vandal fighting and fixing double redirects is good, of course, but I went through the contribs and didn't see many substantial edits to articles. Sorry, but I don't think you're ready just yet. -
'''Weak oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''', blatantly anti-American.
'''Oppose''' due to short time on Wikipedia.  Despite making a large number of edits in that time, I think a longer time is needed to learn about how the community works before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' due to short time on wikipedia. IMO more experience is needed for a) kknowing when to actualy push that delete button and b) handling AfD closes; among other things. Looks like a good editor though and i will probably support any re-nom in a month or two.
'''Neutral''' Concerned about potential POV issues via his userpage. Also concerned he may need more experience in real life. Am willing to wait and see where this goes.
'''Support'''. I have seen this user deal with trouble users and still maintain his composure. If there's one person on wikipedia who deserves the mop, it is Scm83x. --
'''Support'''Damn! I thought I was gonna get first support. Anyway, as per BWD.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent veteran editor.
'''Texas-sized Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support''' *sugh* Cliche time once again, I really thought he already was. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', As above described.
'''Support''' Absolutely fantastical magnificent uber-ultra-megazoid support. Guy who opposed my original RFA and became a guiding light in becoming a good editor, provided some major reference help for [[Cheers|my first FA]], and has generally become my Wikibuddy for being an excellent editor with a calm head.

--
'''Support''' Without hesitation, even though your a longhorn...hehe --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' looks good, user could be more active though, only 8.26 edits a day.
'''Weak Support''' Everything fine apart from not being very active.
'''Support'''. He'll do great with the extra buttons.  Hook 'em &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Support''' per all above.

'''Absolute support'''. A brilliant contributor on all sorts of topics. Has a good grasp of policy and process, as shown in the thoughtful answers.
'''Support'''. Everything looks to be in order here. —
'''Strong Support'''. You meet 100% requirements to me <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support'''. Well-rounded user.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Well experienced. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Deserves the extra responsibility. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Great, consistently contributing editor.
'''Support''' Looks like a long time editor, with plenty of wiki edits. Sounds like a fine pick to me.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', you'll do.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above --
'''Suppurt''' --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' and Hook 'em.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' record is in good standing; no logical reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' great user, great record. <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Edit history inspires confidence.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' per all that above me.
x-factor '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Sure <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. <s>Maybe your promotion will take the intense pain of the [[Kevin Pittsnogle|Pittsnogling]] y'all are about to receive. :)<s> nm.
'''Support''' Great contributions, no reason to oppose. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I see no reason why this user would not deserve the powers of adminship.
'''Support'''.  Should make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' Great character, lots of edits where it counts
'''Support''' Good experienced editor. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—

'''Comment''' - Prodego is correct about the edit-count/day.  However, IMO, the straight average reported by the edit counter carries a risk that a user may be penalized for being cautious in the their edits when they first join up. Scm83x's editting activity has increased as he has gotten more experienced.  Over the last 6 months, he has averaged about 16.7 edits/day. Over the last 3 months, 24.7 edits a day.  I agree though, that I'd love to see him edit even more since I think he makes such good edits.
'''Of course'''. Although some questions have come up regarding his professionalism, it's always something to work on if and when this user gets the tools back &mdash; especially given the very valuable criticism in the oppose section. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Edit conflict support''', You shouldn't have given up the tools in the first place. All my encounters with Sean Black have been nothing but positive (and he is easily approachable, through IRC or otherwise, to ask for help from). So, uh, give him the mop again. <font color="DarkGreen">
I didnt even know he wasn't an admin anymore. Or something. Definently works in the best interest of the project and if he wants the tools again, can certainly be trusted with them. --

'''Support'''. Sean has already shown that he is a capable and effective admin.
'''Support'''
Obvious '''support'''. --
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with the mop again. —
Nevermind, resupport - <b>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''StrikeIt Support''' --
'''Thought he still was one.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. It's a good thing that you have the maturity to give up the tools when you are under significant stress.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
No brainer - here's the key to the closet, now undust that mop and go back to work, dear Sean ;)
'''Support'''. Well, ''yes'', of course; hope the adminbreak was relaxing. Sean is a dedicated contributor and a good guy.
Back to '''Support''' per Danny below
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' I also thought you were still an admin.
'''Strong Support''' no reason to oppose.
'''Support''', certainly. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' - for one, I do not care if there is the odd "inpolite" edit/delete summary, I think we are all guilty at it at times and what point does that make on adminship '''none'''. Seriously, enough of the childish insults (such as the one's I've read below, I was about to hand out a <nowiki>{{npa}}</nowiki> on some of the personal attacks below, sure, RFA can be a tough place but it's not a place for two year old baby fights!
'''Support''' - of course. He did a good job before, He'll do a good job again.
'''Support''' - Can't see why not I think he's amply demonstrated he'll be a "safe pair of hand" with the extra buttons. --
'''Support'''. If he voluntarily resigned, I think he should get the admin tools back if he wants them. (not like some admins who were desysopped by Arbcom) <font face="Verdana">~
'''Cleared for <s>touch-n-go</s> adminship''' --
'''Support'''. Was and still will be a good admin.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. A good editor and a good admin. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''support''' I always found sean to be one of the best admins on Wikipedia, and I think most admins have the odd blemish on there record
'''Strong support'''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Strong support''' When Sean resigned his adminship I understood it was because he though that doing so would reduce the obligations he felt to the more stressful and time consuming parts of his involvement... I understand now that he discovered that it didn't result in the improvent he expected. To the admins in the opposition: are you offering to stand for Re-RFA yourself? --
'''zOMG-I'm-going-to-kill-Sean-for-not-telling-me-he-was-on-RfA Support'''. I for one have not looked at the opposition (yet), but I haven't got used to him not being an admin anymore either, nor did I think he really needed to deop. So that's enough for me to support. --
'''Support''' No reservations. Good egg.
'''Obvious support'''.  A level-headed and dedicated guy.  --
'''Hottest.'''
'''Support, of course'''. We've seen that this user was not abusive of admin powers, and should not be denied having back what they gave up. --
'''Support''' - Just the kind of rogue admin we need. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
In my encounters with him he has been agreeable. His contributions indicate experience in maintenance matters, and I don't think it is especially problematic that he deleted things like "Template:O RLY?" with unexplaining messages. If he was an administrator before for 7-8 months with no real problems, I do not see why he should not be an adminstrator again, though it was a waste to ask to be de-admin'ed and then ask to be re-admin'ed. —
'''Support''' - the opposition arguments did not convince me

'''Absolutely''' Wikipedia will be better protected when Sean gets his extra tools back. [[User talk:Sean Black/Archive/7#Good quick work]]
'''Support'''  hope it's less stressful in the future -
'''Support''' clearly looks ready to take up admin tasks again.'''
'''Support''' Though I have had no personal interaction with Sean (to my recollection) I see no reason to deny the tools to someone who give them up volunteerily. -
Clueful and helpful. No reservations.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Definitely, he did a pretty good job when he had adminship originally and I'm sure he'll do a good job now, the fact that he decided to give it up doesn't matter in my opinion in terms to his re-request. <small>
'''Strong support'''. He was a very kind and helpful admin.
'''Support''' per BryanG - well said. '''
'''Support''' See? This guy is honest. That's what I like..honesty!
'''Support''', from what I saw of him as an admin, he always seemed to be doing a good job to me. No reason to expect anything different now. -
'''Support''', but I'd rather not say why, in case he gets a swell head.
'''Extreme [[piñata]] support''' HTH HAND —
'''Support'''', very much so.
'''Strong support''' - never knew he was desysopp'd at all and see no reason why not to return the ''AdminPowers''<sup>''TM''</sup> to their rightful owner. Good luck mate! &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
Never should have given up his admin bit, and glad to see him returning to the fold. '''Support''' ++
'''Strong support''' per Lar. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support.''' again.--
'''Support'''.  A bit [[WP:ROUGE|rouge]] at times, but we are not supposed to be infallible, only sincere and open to criticism.
'''Support''', with a reminder to be ''more'' professional than expected.
'''Support''' was a good admin once, will make a good one again.
'''Support''' - was a good admin. I don't see why he gave up the tools though -- having a vaccuum cleaner doesn't mean one uses it (as the state of my apartment sadly is testament) --
Of course, it's like he never gave up the position.  Sean Black was an excellent admin (and will continue to be one!).  All of the oppose reasons given below are utterly spurious.  Admins naturally end up taking actions that some people don't like, and so you get lots of grousing.  In this case it's the "Community Justice" people complaining that their vigilante template was deleted.  Boo-fricking-hoo.  Sean Black should be commended for that.  --
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Strong Support''' of course. Nice, civil user. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]

'''Support''' -
'''Support''', I'm useless crud, and some of my edits are also useless crud. I'm more than happy to support despite the points raised by the oppose voters. --
Yeah, has shot his mouth off a time or two. Has also made exactly '''one''' adminstrative decision that I diagreed with. But has always been approachable, able to perform introspection, and responds with good grace to input. This is far more than I can say for many of our current admins who ''aren't'' re-applying. -
'''Support'''.

'''Support''', in light of comments below.
'''Support''' per Kelly. —
'''Yeah, okay.'''
'''Support''': sometimes people retain admin 'rights' while taking a break, but just as valid not to. Welcome back (I trust!) --
'''Support'''. Nothing's changed, and I don't find the opposes convincing. --
'''Support'''. Was a high quality, active and helpful admin. Then he was a high quality, active and helpful user. Now he should be a high quality, active and helpful admin again. Has need of and will well use the extra buttons. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. Any standing admin will accrue detractors such as those below, it's part of the position. That doesn't take away from the fact that Sean was, and will be, a good admin. (
Support.
'''Support'''.  I've seen worse edit summaries by better (or at least more active) admins, so one case doesn't seem that big of deal.  Stress induced break should certainly mean his entire time as a user and admin is counted in determining continued suitability. --
'''Support''' a very good admin.
'''Support''', an excellent admin.  Could be a bit more civil sometimes, perhaps, but reliably does the right thing. --
'''Support'''. Sean's a good chap; everyone says one or two things they'd like to take back. No reason not to support.
'''Support''' Do I think this user would use admin tools to help the site?  Yes.  '''That's all that matters'''. --
'''Support''', obviously.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support'''. Sean never abused his adin powers when he had them, and I see no reason why he shouldn`t be given them back. Even if his deletion of the CJ template was taken as abusive, his contributions to Wikipedia far outweigh it. Voluntarily giving up his admins powers to avoid undue stress, was, to me, a very mature and thoughtful thing to do. He has proved before that he can be trusted with admin powers, and I gladly support him now that he is ready to have them again.--'''
'''Support''', of course. Sean is a clear-thinking, affable fellow who has had a few difficulties in the past - but might I ask those below who oppose him on this count, surely don't we all have the occasional lapse in judgement and stressed-out state of mind? It is most impressive in particular that he voluntarily gave up his powers when he felt he was no longer responsible to apply them; lesser Wikipedians would have not done so. To quote [[Ryunosuke Akutagawa]] in ''The Story of a Head That Fell Off'': "It is important - even necessary - for us to become acutely aware of the fact that we can't trust ourselves. The only ones you can trust to some extent are people who really know that." Thus, I think Sean deserves the return of his administrative privileges as he will, I have no doubt, be of greater service to our project with the ability to carry out administrative functions once more, as he has proven in the past. --
'''Support'''. Sean made a responsible choice to have his admin powers taken away when he felt it was right.  Now he feels it is the right time to have them back, I think the time is right too. --
'''Support''' honest, direct, and decisive. And it ''was'' useless crud.
'''Support''' give him back his mop! --
'''Support'''. I trust Sean and believe it shouldn't be held against him that he voluntarily asked to be desysoped. I feel comfortable granting him janitor status once again.
Support, but don't make us do this again.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Me #100.--
'''Fuck yes.'''
'''Support'''. Aye, a fine admin is/was/will be Sean Black. He truly deserves this... -- '''
'''Support''', no problem resysopping anyone who resigned, within reason.
'''Support''' absolutely.  I ''really'' should pay more attention to this page, I nearly missed this one.  Of ''course'' Sean should be readmined if he wants it.  And I understand 100% the taking time out when it gets stressy.  That was exactly the reason I left the Arbitration Committee, taking time out when you need it shows good sense.  And I trust Sean fully to know when he's ready to return to the good job he's always done. --
'''Support''', certainly. As you resigned from your previous position as admin, and were not forced to do so, I see no reason why you should not take up the position again. --
'''Support''', per Draicone, above. I agree. You were in good standing at the time you started your sabbatical; I see no reason why you shouldn't resume your duties. --
'''Support'''. Some reservations, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. -
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. He was an admin for quite a while and didn't seem to do too much wrong. He's shown that he can be trusted so I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Basically, although I find examples of previous incivility disturbing, he '''was''' an admin, and, by all accounts, a good one.  I personally believe that the requirements for '''''re'''''-sysopping somebody (that's not been involuntarily desysopped, of course) should be '''''significantly''''' lower than an initial sysopping.  Given that, support, although if he passes, I'd respectfully ask nominee to take others' concerns about civility under consideration in his future actions. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Support''', I had no idea he resigned. '''
'''Support''': May we wish you a happy return. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Supporty McSupport'''.  Sean's a good guy and a good admin.  I'm sure he'll take the concerns about cranky edit summaries under advisement.  This is requests for adminship, not sainthood.  —
'''Support'''.  I see no reason not to. --
'''Support''' I've talked with Sean on and off for most of the time I've been on #wikipedia and find him to be quite a bit more thoughtful and deliberate about admin actions than he seems to be given credit for. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' One of the best damn users on Wiki. Period. '''
'''Strong support''' excellent admin, gave up adminship willingly, I don't think he should even have to go through this. He may have been hasty in his comments at times, however his actions have been perfectly in line, and his edit summaries aren't nearly bad enough for me to think of not supporting him.
'''Support''', he was one of the first people I met on IRC, and has always been helpful to me and sensible - even with my constant ribbing. -
'''Support''', a head crammed full of Common Sense, something in far too short supply sometimes. --
'''Support'''. Excellent history.
'''Support''' While I have some concern about some of the difs and logs in the oppose votes, and Blnguyen's oppose is particularly disturbing (for the simple reason that I have a lot of respect for Blnguyen), that vast majority of Sean's edits have been fine, an occasionally flippant, rude, or terse summary of a block or a deletion does not seem to me to be fatal to adminship. Sean performed well as an admin and I have confidence he will perform well in the future.
'''EXTREME OMG-FORMER-ADMIN SUPPORT!''' -- <small>
'''Support''' per the help that I've received from Sean Black over the short time I've been at Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Was a good admin in the past.
'''Support''' -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - No reason to believe admin powers would be abused, however I do find some issues with [[WP:CIVIL|lack of civilty]] troublesome. -
'''Support''' Good admin, has not and will not abuse tools.
'''Support''' one of the most upstanding and useful members of the encyclopedia. -'''
'''Support'''. This seems to be a case of RFA blowing problems out of proportion, to the point that even some of the people supporting seem to be buying into the idea that we're dealing with a constant source of inappropriate comments and summaries.  That really isn't what we're looking at here; I see a few grumpy edit summaries and a few cases where his comments were too blunt, but we're talking about a very small number of edits.  More to the point, we've already seen that he does substantially more good than harm as a sysop (no harm seems to have come from any of the cases cited below).  So all in all we have a good (not perfect, but who is) former sysop offering to help out with admin work again; more fools we if we decline. --
'''Weak (but not ''weakest possible'') support''' Though some of Sean's admin actions were deleterious, the net effect on the project of his being an admin was positive,  Where a user is unlikely to abuse or misuse the admin tools, IMHO, or where a user's good admin actions are sufficient to militate against his not being approved for adminship (in view of those deleterious effects), he or she should be ''support''ed for adminship.  There remain two issues of which one must dispose: (a) whether Sean's voluntary desysopping is sufficiently demonstrative of poor judgment or a mercurial disposition as to render him unfit for adminship and (b) whether Sean's request for resysopping, concomitant to which has been much discussion, parts of which have consumed the time of users who might otherwise have contributed to mainspace, has been sufficiently disruptive as to demonstrate a poor appreciation for the nature of the project, demonstrating some qualities that are particularly inauspicious vis-à-vis adminship; I resolve each question in the negative, although the answer to neither is plain.
'''Back from Wiki-break support''' He has a fine sense of what matters and what doesn't. He didn't abuse admin tools before and he won't now. He's blunt and could tone it down sometimes but he gets it.
'''Support''' This is only the second RfA that I've voted in, but this seems unusual. However, I am willing to support on th egrounds that he has an idea of what he is getting into. If he tones down the retorts, he will be okay.--<font color="808080">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Chili14|h]]</font><font color="red">[[Main Page|i]]</font>
'''Support'''... I thought long and hard on this one. IMHO, he didn't abuse the tools before, that's enough for me. '''No big deal''' and all. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' Good admin.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' Sensible gentleman, already approved once...
'''Support''' - This guy isn't an administrator yet? '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Support'''. One of the more light-hearted-yet-sensible users on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. This page is 101 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable. Lets not rant on people. In the absence of evidence that suggests the candidate had ever abused the mop or are there any reasonable suggesting this I hereby vote support. --<small>
'''Support'''. User has served with distinction <s>on ArbCom</s> [as an Admin], which of course has resulted in opposition to him by those whose behaviour has resulted in deserved sanction. -
'''Support'''. Once an admin, always an admin. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Maximum Hotness''' --
'''Support'''. Was a fine admin before, will make a fine admin again.
Weak but firm '''support'''.  To Sean:  I like you, but if this happens again, I will most likely have to oppose.  If you're stressed out again, take a wikibreak, which does not require deadminning, and spare us having to validate you with new votes.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Welcome back to the front/fold (delete as appropriate). -
'''Support.''' Quite frankly, I don't think someone giving up their adminship for a period is reason to deny it to them when they ask for it back. Are there no questionable admins, who simply hold on to their adminship, even though, if there was a revote, they would in no way pass? Either create a system where each admin is subject to re-election at set intervals, or allow admins to keep their adminship for all time. Do not enforce a system where the only people punished are the people who act responsibly by temporarily waiving their admin powers.
'''Support''' - relinquished admin rights in good faith, I know you were a good administrator, and I'd welcome you back with a mop and bucket. --
'''Support''' He is an excellent and trustworthy editor, and we would all benefit if he got his tools back. Regarding what the opposition said, incivility can be a problem. But since SB has been here so long and people have only come up with a handful of diffs, and based on my examination of his talkpage, I don't think incivility is a major problem with him. And he admitted his mistakes and implicitly agreed to work not to repeat them in the future; this shows that he is willing to take constructive criticism, which is an excellent quality for an admin. --
'''Support.'''
''''Nuff said support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Maybe he was being dramatic by asking to be de-sysoped, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a rock solid contributor who has consistently exhibited some of the finest qualities in an admin, especially towards new users and folks in trouble.  If WP desysopped or punished everyone who made a bid for attention or did something silly once in a while, it'd turn into a ghost town overnight.  SB has my support and my confidence.  -
Supportize. What else can I do? He's too useful. Opposes proves my point of useful admins getting opposed on re-rfa because they've pissed off too many people. ;-)
'''Very Support'''--

'''Support'''; capable admin and I trust him to do the job well again.  He's human, and this is a request for adminship, not a canonisation to sainthood.
'''Support'''
Deleting [[Template:Tracker]] with the CSD: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:Tracker Eh? Useless crud.]'' shows a complete disregarding of policy for policy.
'''Oppose''' while awaiting an explanation of why he resigned last month, particularly as he states above that it was in order to "avoid undue stress", while in the questions below he states that he has never been in a stressful situation. I did note that a mediation was started at about that time, which this user apparently refused to participate in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-06-10_User%3ASean_Black_and_Man-Faye&diff=58099419&oldid=58091594]. If that was what precipitated the resignation, I wonder if this user would not be better off avoiding the stress of adminship for a more extended period. --
'''''Strong''''' '''Oppose'''. Deletion summaries like the one quoted by Computerjoe, and comments like the one in the diff provided by JJay are not the sort of thing I want to see in an admin. Being civil is one of my 'must haves' in [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
<s>'''Weak Oppose-may change to Neutral'''</s> '''Oppose''' - see below original text - <s>If you want sysop tools and privs, apply for them, u did u got them, u were happy, then u gave them up, due to whatever, u requested them removed, got rid of them, u were happy, now it seems you want them back again..? If you get them this time, try to be more decessive ;) Adminship is a big step. Good Luck! --[[User:Deon555|Deon555]]|[[User_talk:Deon555|talk]] 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)</s> **: Sorry, but after seeing the 'useless crud' thing, i tend to disagree, but it's very close.. Good Luck! --
<s>'''Oppose''' per JJay. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''Strong oppose''' as I didn't like the list either. --
'''Oppose'''  I'm not nearly the "process-wonk" that some folks think I am, but Mr. Black is a bit too anti-deliberative/unilateral for me to support his reacquiring the mop [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=54748887&oldid=54747089]. He isn't the most civil user I've ever come across either.
'''Unhappy oppose'''. Calling someone else's work - created by an established editor in good faith - "useless crud" is really not a good idea. Way too many admins already have this attitude--I can't stand the thought of another (even though you already were one).
'''Strongly oppose.''' Immature and has abused his tools previously.  Exactly the sort of user who should not be an admin. I agree with Xoloz that Sean is not particularly civil but I'd add that he is rather more civil to those he feels have power than those he feels do not and that is not a good thing.
'''Oppose'''. I'm opposing for the simple fact that I believe new users should wait a minimum of 6 months before applying to be an admin, and I believe it's only fair ask that de-admined (for whatever reason) users should wait the same amount of time. If I had to give a better reason, I would say that some of the language used by SB in the evidence seems a little harsh, and I would probably be upset if I was on the wrong side of those edits.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Whilst you are undoubtedly an excellent user, I feel the 'Useless Crud' incident to be offensive. I did not know about this before I supported you, but other comments make me feel I should oppose. I will be looking in to the incident to see if I can possibly withdraw my oppose vote.
'''Strong Oppose''' I had to think about this one quite a bit, but I have to say I'm sorry... I really am (and please don't let the size of this comment send the wrong message; I just wanted to be clear in my rationale). The fact of the matter is, I'm baffled by your decision to give up adminship. In your answer to my question regarding the reason for giving up adminship, you stated "As I said, it was an effort to avoid undue stress, both on Wikipedia and in general." I don't expect you to go into detail about the "in general", but I would have liked you to have shed at least ''some'' light on the Wikipedia part. This is especially interesting because in the answer to standard question three, you state, regarding whether you've ever gotten into conflicts and received stress, "Not really. I try to avoid fights. If anyone can point any out to me, then please do so." I'm not sure how one can say one gave up adminship due to stress, but then say they've never been faced with stress. But that alone left me on the fence. And so, I took a look at your contributions (especially around the time of deadminship since I wanted to get a sense of what may have caused you to givevotes/seats adminship up). The most notable red flag was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-06-10_User%3ASean_Black_and_Man-Faye&diff=58099419&oldid=58091594 harsh reply] in a Mediation Cabal case. There was also another [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27 Notability (fiction)|Mediation Cabal case]], which you didn't respond to (these definitely should have been mentioned in question three). Subsequently, a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean_Black&diff=57820776&oldid=57813476 removal] of a reasonable request from your user talk page. I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean_Black&diff=prev&oldid=58273540 an unnecessarily rude edit summary] regarding someone's signature and an [[User talk:Sean Black#Wikipedia:Deletion review/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)|unnecessarily rude statement]] regarding that signature as well. More recently, I saw some unnecessarily harsh edit summaries: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rose_Tyler&diff=prev&oldid=64154592 biting a newcomer (July 16)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufasa&diff=prev&oldid=63877435 attempt to be funny, but fighting insults with insults is not necessary (July 14)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terror_Firmer&diff=prev&oldid=63596414 rudeness again (July 13)]. Okay, okay, perhaps I over-reacted on some of those, but combined with the diffs pointed out by Xolox and ComputerJoe, I get a bad feeling about this; at the very least, you need to be a bit more professional in your responses and edit summaries. -- '''
'''Oppose''' - take a look at the user's deletion log [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Sean+Black&page=] - several of the more recent summaries seem whimsical.  Also of concern in the block log is this block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Sean+Black&page=User%3AGlad2DoSumGood].  Blocking a user without a single warning seems odd ... maybe he was a reincarnation of a banned user ... I don't know ... but if so, the block summary should have said so.  Sean removed others' comments from an RFA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joshbuddy&diff=prev&oldid=59569981] - in fairness, they were in response to him and rendered moot when he changed his statement, but still, IMO, removing someone else's comments is inappropriate, IMO.  Inappropriate edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=58457266].  This UBX edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_preference&diff=prev&oldid=53216198] is questionable as it takes a good-natured joke and turns it into something less than good natured.
'''strong oppose''' Sean has presented himself as an unbiased meditor and later it was found that he had strong POV which lead the conflict get much worse. Other incidents lead me to think that he should not be given more tools to push his POV.
'''Strong oppose.'''  I've seen his work, and he's pretty nasty and cranky.  Also, to be perfectly honest, either he is a child, or he edits Wikipedia under the influence or on some pretty heavy medication.  He just seems irritable and impaired to me.  There are hundreds of editors who have never been admins who should be given a chance before this guy should be given his position back.  He's one of the worst admins I've ever seen in action.  Also, he's primarily a "pop culture" contributor, and we have too many of those, so I think we need an admin who is into more important topics than this guy.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  I have always found this editor's actions to be baffling and standoffish.  One of my first encounters with him was when I went to work on [[Bruce Campbell]] back when I was fairly new.  He had recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Campbell&diff=42554700&oldid=42511655 blanked] a large section of the article, an action I questioned on the article Talk page but to which he never responded.  I thought it may have been a random edit, but he clearly watches and actively edits the article to this day.  Then I got into AfD and found things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster this], where he allowed himself to be drawn into flaming by Brian.  Additionally, I find his inflammatory edit summaries to be unbecoming of an administrator.  For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Name_is_Bruce&diff=prev&oldid=57228644 "remove ugly and unnecessary templates"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Wind_Waker&diff=prev&oldid=58672072 "Remove idiotic category"], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vampire_in_Brooklyn&diff=prev&oldid=58891050 this].  Sorry, I request higher standards of conduct. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' nasty and cranky is not good. I don't know why he have up the admin postion he had since he declines to go into it below, but I do NOT think it is ridiculous to wait six months until reapplying as someone above mentioned. Sean can use the time to do some valuable editing without getting caught up in all the trivial process stuff that ties up some of the best editors from being productive.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Joturner|r]] and [[User:BigDT|BigDT]].
'''Oppose'''; my first and only encounter with Sean was [[User talk:Paolo Liberatore/Archive2#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lar|this thread]] on my talk page, where he wasn't especially civil (he apologized, but then started being uncivil again, at which point I cut the discussion). Here, I see that people have found more of this behaviour from him. There is just more than enough to oppose. (
While it's clear that Sean is a valuable good-faith contributor, and he did the right thing by resigning his adminship when he felt he was using it improperly due to real-life stress (I was witness to one quite questionable incident somewhat before he did, and I take it there were probably others): first of all, while being bold to enforce generally-accepted positions is fine, using admin powers to enforce points of view not specifically covered by policy is not.  Saying that noting the opinion of four people (out of eleven) at a CFD as sufficient grounds to conclude no consensus is "ignoring all arguments and common sense", when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_22&diff=55987513&oldid=55986653#Category:Disaster_movies_to_Category:Disaster_films they explained their views] fairly extensively, is just too bold.  It goes beyond the bounds of reasonable admin discretion.<p>Second of all, Sean has some civility problems, and when he doesn't he tends to be too terse, providing little or no explanation for actions that he should know some will disagree with.  It's important that anyone who takes action against users who can't reverse it always explain the reasons for their actions, and I'm afraid Sean just rarely seemed to have done that.<p>Therefore, unless evidence is given that Sean is likely to do a great deal of good with admin tools, I must '''regretfully oppose''' for the time being. —
Regretful but strong '''oppose''' on the civility concerns raised above.  De-adminning himself shows a degree of self-awareness that I praise.  But if he could not trust himself just to step back and not use the tools, I'm reluctant to put them back in his hands.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Oppose''' per joturner. Sorry. :(
'''Oppose''' with reservations regarding civility.
'''Oppose''' Sean Black has shown poor judgement in my personal experience, and his response when I confronted him about the situation did nothing to restore my confidence.--
'''Oppose''' this time, civility and your own judgement that you were not fit for the tools just a month ago. --
'''Oppose:''' I oppose on log/edit summary civility grounds, the userbox incident in external link 8, as well as the statement, "I have found a renewed urge for these tools". This suggests to me that they are just mere playthings that are whimsical or possibly a lustful desire for toys. --Signed and Sealed,
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> per joturner's reasoning.  Maturity is a major concern --
'''Oppose''' Joturner's comment made me oppose despite the fact that the candidate is very experienced and has been trusted with the tools before. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' based on comments above. --
'''Very strong oppose''' per all of the above opposes. I have observed this editor for a while, and I actually wrote part of an oppose factor in [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria]] based on his actions. My first observation of him was with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FXoloz&diff=52551641&oldid=52551106 this edit] in opposition of an RfA, linking to the candidate's last 2000 edits without any surrounding context whatsoever. The ensuing discussion off the edit was an attempt by several editors (including a good faith attempt by that RfA's candidate) to guess what in the world this was supposed to be about... Sean Black never explained why he was opposing based on the last 2000 edits and dodged an opportunity to explain this after an offbeat comment on the situation from another user. I know the RfA was pretty much a forgone conclusion at that point, but ''you are an administrator''. RfA is '''not''' a vote and you shouldn't be leaving everyone to guess what your intentions are, ''especially'' with an oppose opinion. I still consider it a disservice to the community and a disservice to the RfA candidate. It didn't help when I observed that he seemed to be using the RfA talk page to try to reform RfA simply as a knee-jerk reaction to a no consensus RfA that was opposed by more than 30 well-respected editors, and indeed I was shocked after reading the thread to find out he ''was'' an administrator (the opposite of the old RfA cliché.) After reading the evidence presented above (including the supports,) it sure seems like the lack of judgement I've observed in the past was not part of isolated incidents, and is making it very difficult for me to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in this particular case. It will be a long time before I can support a candidate who I directly associate with the kind of admin behavior I will never condone on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''', per BigDT and others...
'''Oppose''' Incivility overrides whatever good that he has done.
'''<s>Reluctant</s>Strong oppose''' of course. On the basis of his nasty response to my 1FA essay [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sean_Black/No_featured_articles&oldid=54249492] in which he only toned down after advice from fellow Wikipedians, as well as the B-list. Sorry, but I feel that he needs ''more'' time to reflect before passing the mop again. -
'''Oppose'''. While I think [[User:Themindset|Themindset]]'s suggested threshold of six months before reapplying after resigning adminship is a bit too much, I also think that reapplying after just one month is too short a period for someone who found the whole idea of being an admin so stressful that they felt the need to resign very recently.
'''Oppose''', per joturner and BigDT.
'''Oppose''' per the "crud" deletion summary and the Xoloz RfA vote.
'''Oppose''' per Petros471. --
'''Oppose''' after reading all the discussion here and checking the diffs Grandmasterka, Joturner, and others have provided. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' for above examples of incivility. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think that just because someone has become an admin means they are automatically qualified to continue indefinately despite new behavior that would have probably kept them from succeeding in their first RfA (or at least that I would have opposed for), or in this case, re-earn the position despite it. -
'''Oppose''': Admins are seen as role models and mentors. Disparaging edit summaries and lack of communication reported above make otherwise good bold actions potentially damaging.
'''Oppose''' mainly for incivility in above diffs.
'''Very Strong Oppose'''. Well I counted that in 8 months of sysop, he did 516 deletes, 159 blocks and 48 protects, which isn't a lot (For the record I have 3602, 411, 65 in about 20% of the time). Personally I feel that administrators need to set a good example and be a role model for the community, as this is the biggest impact that they can have in their actions, and from the edit summaries and antics given I don't think that this is the case. And for those who feel that I am rankled by the actions themselves - this is not correct, I don't have a stake in any of the deletions at all, but I think some of the comments are impolite and flippant. And this has occurred many times. He also seems to get rankled easily when others try to debate him which does not appear at all accountable. The response to the Mailer Diablo test also appears to show an unnecesary level of indignation and perhaps an easily wounded ego ("...this idea that anyone who hasn't brought an article up to featured article status isn't a "real" editor. That's just insulting. I'm a real editor, dammit, and I don't appreciate any implication otherwise. Ridiculous.) which is not what I want in an admin. As for the stats above, I can't see how his achievements are great enough to outweigh all of this. '''
'''Very strong oppose''' per Blnguyen and others. --
'''Oppose''' It's been said above. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Oppose''' per all above. Appears to show frequent flashes of incivility--
'''Oppose''' partially per all above, but mostly for the answer to Lar's question. A tendency towards losing one's head combined with an unwillingness to subject oneself to scrutiny do not make me confident... --
'''Oppose''' due to civility concerns.
'''Strong oppose''' due to persistent incivility, as was established by the examples others have already given. --
'''Strong oppose'''. Civility issues. I think a simple mistake like putting three dashes instead of two is something that can be overlooked, but SB seems to make quite a pickle of it. We all make mistakes and there is no reason to be blasted for it.
'''Oppose'''. Patterns of incivility are well-documented above, especially by [[User:Joturner]]. I wasn't planning to vote, but when scanning the comments looking for an explanation or perhaps a resolve to improve, I found a rather disturbing reply, including ''"They [my edit summaries] sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude."'' This is absolutely  not the attitude I want in an administrator. It's not even the attitude I want in a contributor. If one cannot or does not wish to keep one's emotions under control, then he has no business being an administrator, in my opinion. —
This is a user with a genuine desire to do good by the project. However, while I do not strongly disagree with any single incident that has been quoted, the overall impression is of one who regularly antagonises others, and it's a sad day when I '''oppose''' because I feel I'll regret not doing so. A bit more inclusionism and constructive negotiation would go such a long way, Sean! -
'''Oppose'''. Capricious page deletions, questionable blocks, incivility, and disregard for consensus as is evident even in his responses below.
'''Oppose''', incivility, deletions, Joturner and Blnguyen as well as the others said it all. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' He has been an admin before, the fact that wikipedia stresses him out isnt enough to justify my oppose, however if he had been nominated by someone else he would probably have my support, however it was a self-nom so oppose. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><font color="#C11B17">Matthew</font> <b><font color="#3366ff">
'''Strong Oppose''': changed from Support, in the light of available "in-puts". It took me more than 24 hours to decide! And, a day of wiki-break. --
I was unaware Sean Black was no longer an admin. I always have misgivings about administrators who ask to be desysop'd so as to avoid undue stress; I'm slightly more understanding of those who do so on philosophical grounds (Kim Burnning comes to mind). I expect an admin to have the self-control to simply refrain from using admin tools if the work that this entails proves too taxing. I, myself, have done so and for about a month mostly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=2000&target=El_C focused] (<small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060312061721&limit=2000&target=El_C compare]</small>) on authoring and translating articles ([[User:El C/IDF|mostly on the IDF]]). But this isn't the reason I'm opposing. I find that SB has the tendency to involve himself in issues which he is not entirely familiar with, and is prone to exclamations which are overly emotional and indiscreet. I am refering specifically to the plea he issued to myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&diff=45011905&oldid=44823531 here], which I found both surprising and disheartening; and was dissapointed that such a note was not communicated to me privately. <small>I do not wish to revisit the issue behind that note and will only do so if there remains exceptionally strong interest.</small> I will, however, note that I always got along fine with SB. I realize that this opposition is less related to use of admin tools, still, it is enough for me to withdraw the support I extended SB in his first RfA.
'''Oppose''' - Civility is a big deal for me --

'''Oppose'''; I'd probably have opposed anyway, but that disturbing secret list of oppose voters really seals the deal.
'''Oppose''' per Matt Yeager, Petros471,  Bucketsofg, and the others. Also, the inordinate (seemingly impossible number of support votes) for this editor makes me suspicious of a collaberated effort at getting him nominated. I have stated this suspicion at two other rfa's and still say the same thing. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">[[User:Lingeron|Sha]]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">
'''Oppose''' Per ComputerJoe's reasoning above. --
'''Oppose''', because of incivility  and the deleted lists of oppose voters.--
'''Oppose''' per all above .-
'''Neutral''' per Randy Wang.
'''Neutral''' per elaboration to question #1. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. I have some concerns that someone who recently took time out from WP because of stress should want to jump right back in as an admin, though.
'''Neutral'''. I really, really want to support, but his retort to the mediator bothers me. I'm not sure we need admins who take their toys and go home (or threaten to do so) when challenged or questioned.
'''Neutral'''. Not sure at the moment. Some of the oppose votes concern me, especially joturner's. '''
'''Neutral''', leaning much more towards support than oppose.  I've seen sean do good work as an admin; i've also seen him use his admin duties in ways i wouldn't support at all, but due to the circumstances and the fact that i see some things differently than many others here, i don't at all think that those instances are enough to warrant an oppose . . . if it weren't for his civility issues, which i think are especially important when we're talking about admins, i'd still be putting my name under support.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' as nominator. ---
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', even though he disagrees with my [[Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article#Requesting_TFAs|awesome proposal]] =).  Impressive maturity on the Sam Spade RFC, and valuable contributions. Gotta fix that country music thing though. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' Genuinely shocking cliche moment for me -- if I'd realized, I would have offered to nominate!
'''Support'''. An experienced editor who knows the project well.
'''Support''' &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support''' -
[[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 15:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Glad you waited until I was back from wiki-break.
'''Support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' Very patient user who explains his decisions in detail. Not trigger happy at all.  As a mediator in the Sam Spade RfC he showed how effective he could be as a voice of reason and a calming force. We need more like Silence.
'''Support''', happily - just my kind of candidate!
'''Support''', per nomination. --
'''Rfa cliché #1''' and, judging by the names currently on the list, this won't be my only cliché support today. <tt>
'''Support''' offering my non-cliched support as I haven't run across Silence before, but on reviewing the contribution list, this is an obvious "yes". [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Yep, no problems there.
'''Support'''.  Tons of good edits and civil talking.  --
'''Support'''. Very impressed by Silence's handling of the dipute at [[Talk:Vestigial structure]]. Good user.--
'''Support''' A very experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per the many positives of this candidacy. The one negative for me is a potentially insufficient community interaction, reflected in the kinda low level of User talk edits. - <b>
'''Support'''. Per all above. I too have had good experiences with Silence. Go gett'em tiger. -
'''Support''', no problem here. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' looks good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. I feel proud to even be permitted to sign my name on the support section to make Silence an admin.
'''Support'''.  Experienced and interacts well with the community --
'''Strong support''' A good man. Shocked, shocked am I that I failed to nominate the man myself. On the same subject, I like staplers.
'''Support'''. Has left a good impression on a few encounters, and is being supported by other people I trust. -
'''Support'''. Qualified and experienced. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''': Already cleaning messes, needs a bucket to put them in.
'''Support''': I don't think I ever expressed my appreciation to Silence for stepping up to help push [[Rosa Parks]] through FAC.  Thanks.  Looking back through this user's calm and knowledgeable posts to [[Talk:Rosa Parks]], I have no concerns about his suitability for adminship. -
'''Strong Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''"Silent" support'''; no serious concerns after a thorough check. -→
'''Weak support'''—not because I have any issues; I just don't know much about Silence (pun maybe intended [edit conflict—I came up with it first =p]) and so don't have a compelling reason to emphatically support.
'''Support'''. User is active in the project space and, from all interactions that I've seen, civil. —
'''Support''' –
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' -- user talk pages show level-headed discussion and a willingness to help out wherever necessary.  The sounds of [[User:Silence|Silence]] are nice and civil.  --
'''Support''' with bells on -- recently encountered User's calm and effective methods.
'''Support'''. Wanted to leave this vote totally blank for the humour but that wouldn't work. Ah well! Sssshhhh.... (there I got my humour in) --
'''Support''' per the stapler pic &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:crosshair"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' RFA cliche 3 --''
Oh, I can't believe I missed this nomination. I actually wanted to nominate Silence myself, but he seemed to think this nomination would fail and I'd have a chance... the man is modest. Anyway, Silence comes with my highest recommendation and I believe he will be invaluable to the continued development of Wikipedia. Most strong support. '''
'''Support''' A great user!
'''Support''' - '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' - I like his style. Humour and integrity are necessary qualities in an admin. I think he has both. --
'''Support''' per your good qualities.
'''Support''', enthusiastically.  Good work, good personal style, good writing, good answers to questions below.  Good good good!  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Are you kidding me? Just have a look at [[Wikipedia:Vital articles]] for an example of his great work.
'''Strong Support''' It'll be nice to have someone to knows policy and won't abuse it. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|What up?]]
'''Support'''.  This person will make a good administrator.
'''Cleared for Adminship''' --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
<font color="#fff">'''Silent Support'''</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A very friendly user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''SUPPORT!!!!!'''
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.--
'''Piling On Support''' seems to have every credential for moppery.
'''Support'''
'''Yes.'''

'''Support''' Excellent bed-side manner. Shell <sup>
'''Support''' Deserved. -- ''
'''Support''' I would like to nominate this user as administrator because this user demonstrates good behaviour, and edits good articles.
'''Support''' Hate to pile on, but he certainly deserves my support per most above. Yes please. '''
'''Support''' Extremely good contributor. With around 10,000 + edits he deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''', worthy of adminship.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great and experienced editor; friendly and civil. --
'''Support''' It'll sound strange, but the way Silence handled the lone oppose persuaded me to vote. You've got to like having someone as an admin who understands the importance of "little things." <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''. Outstanding and helpful contributions, very well-balanced editor, has both quality and quantity on their side. Nothing wrong here.
'''Support''' my observations of this is editor are positive.--
'''Adfirmo''' - I actually did think he was one already. --
'''Support''' From what I've seen, Silence is exactly the sort of person who ''should'' be an administrator.  His contributions have been uniformly constructive in nature, he is always civil and helpful, and goes by Wikipedia policy.  I have no worries about him ever abusing admin powers.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - with pleasure. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''I thought I already voted Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' enthusiastically. Erudite editor, great guy.
'''Support'''. A truly qualified admin candidate. (Nice thesaurus work, Herostratus, by the way.)
'''Support'''.  I don't know many people who put as much time into the project.
'''Support''' per his opinion on [[pi|pie]].
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' per the usual cliches.
'''Support'''.
Knows [[Latin]] quite well but doesn't have any templates signifying ability to communicate an a non-native living language. :-|


Can I vote here? If so, yeah. -
Huzzah! &mdash;
Well, yes. Was a good admin, was a good user, should be a good admin again.
'''2x Edit conflict, nom conflict support''' '''
<nowiki>{{subst:support|per=above|reason=outstanding ebay user, quick communication and payment, a++++++}}</nowiki> er...'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. --
'''Woop''' — FireFox (
yeah, okay, i guess.  --
'''Extreme "Oh my God! Oh my God! *runs round in circles* The world is coming to an end!" support''' - he isn't one? What a travesty! </melodrama> (edit conflict) --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''More 2 × edit-conflict support'''.  Seems to be a traffic jam on rushing to support.  Good enough for Mindspillage, good enough for me. —
'''3 × edit-conflict support''' give him back the mop.
'''Support''' <font color=purple>/me hands Silsor a mop and bucket</font> <small>
'''Support''' - sounds good.  --
'''Support''' Like answers to questions. Interesting reason to desysop. Good reason to want it back.
Give him back the mop '''Support''', A very dedicated user to the project. Go for '''[[WP:100]]''' (probably this time there will not be any edit conflict 2x already) --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support'''. I see absolutely no reason why not to. --[[Darth]]
'''Support''', like duh--'''
'''Support''', was good, will be good. If you don't feel like we need to finish this off for a week to swell your head, I think we can speedy this one. -
[[Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg|16px]] -- Um, I never knew he quit.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', plain and simple. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''3 fucking edit conflicts support'''.&trade; --<font color="orange"><strike>''
I have to confess I have a concern about Silsor misusing the admin powers if Silsor gets them back. In [[User:Deskana|Deskana]]'s optional question Silsor says "often have to prod other people". That is a CLEAR misuse of {{tl|PROD}} and Silsor will have to promise to stop doing it, we can't have editors getting deleted that way, [[WP:WONK|process]] or not. But hey... '''Support anyway''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''
Of course.
'''Support'''.  Clearly he knows what he's getting into and, given that his successful earlier adminship, there is no reason for concern.  --[[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Support'''. Valiant.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. No-brainer.-
'''Support''' Didn't know he ever gave it up.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Obviously. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. He didn't abuse his powers the first time around. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Pile-on Support'''. Like, duh. <span style="font-size:95%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Support''' - I think it's strange that he requested de-adminship and now wants it back, but admin status is 'no big deal'.
'''Support'''. Couldn't keep away from the 'pedia, huh? The cobwebs have been cleaned from your old mop - it's still here...
'''Support''' Obviously an asset.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Welcome back (we hope)--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''' per MONGO. &mdash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Super Autofellatio Support'''
'''Support''', sure no problem.
'''Support''', trustworthy user.

'''Support''' Sure! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' As if this really needed to be discussed.
'''Support''' Anytime for the fine once and future admin who is clearly not a petty power-hungry nob--
'''Support''' I think if you give up your sysophood for valid reasons then you should get it back with RFA!
'''Support''', good with the mop.
'''Support''' of course!
'''Support''' for sure --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Unhesitating '''support'''. --
'''Support''', good user.
'''Juustuburger'''.
'''Support'''. Great comeback. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I am not totally cool with his actions regarding the "RfD", but I am prepared to overlook this. He was not power-drunk last time, and he understands our policies.
'''Support''', I think he can have his adminship back.
'''Support''' It's all good.
'''Support''': Time is dynamic and life is a flow. Sometimes, persons require a break, and when they come back, they perform better. --
'''Support''' - I can't believe I hadn't supported yet --
[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|30px]] — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]][[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[user:nathanrdotcom|nrd]][[User:nathanrdotcom/CJ|<font color="blue">o</font>]]
'''Support''', great admin.
'''Support''', of course. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''';  I see no reason to hold the deadminship process silsor chose to use against him.  The only issue for me is his ability to use the tools wisely.  --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I still do not fully understand why he asked to be de-sysoped in the first place. He was a fine admin before.
'''Support''' and added to [[User:NoSeptember/Desysop#Voluntarily desysopped admins who have requested readminship:|this.]]
'''Like OMG Like totally DUH! Like support!''' *swishes blonde hair around* &nbsp;
'''Support''', of course &ndash;
I see no reason to oppose on the basis of the request for de-adminship. He is unlikely to abuse admin tools and is on the right side of most issues.
'''Support'''daamn, rory don't need to say <span class="censored" style="display:none;">"fuck"</span> in order to be supportive--

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Experience and sanity.
'''Support'''. Do I need a reason? -
'''Support''' Experienced and the opposers haven't convinced me that he might misuse his powers.  [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Support''', the opposition votes are utterly unconvincing. --
'''Support'''. Thought about this one a '''long''' time. The overriding factor: even if he uses the tools only once a month, he's roughly 0% likely to '''abuse''' them. Yes, there are backlogs, there are users who need admins to be there for them but, as I've read a few times, "adminship is no big deal."
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose over a "Request for Deadminship", or because he's not active all the time. That's really petty. He's proven himself as an admin and he won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' without question. He is relatively inactive at the moment because he is away from home. -
'''Support''', I suppose saying RfA cliché #1 would be a terribly unwitty joke. --
'''Support''', satisfies my criteria. Regarding the request for de-sysoping and other jokes I think some playing outside the mainspace is permissible. I am impressed that nobody questioned his previous actions as sysop.
'''Support''', belated but enthusiastic! (I really ought to pay  more attention to this page) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', leaving me the sole retired admin... bwahahahahahaha! Hmm, Actually I was pretty darn jealous of silsor beating me to the punch on the deadminship thing. I still am too. If he wants the admin bit back, well, I think he's gone totally insane! Then again, he certainly won't blow up the wiki, so support anyway.
'''Support''' Would make a fine admin. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - plenty of believable testimony that this person was an effective admin in the past. Like others, I wish there'd been a more considered answer to the first question - it's almost disrespectful. But our role here is to identify people we trust with admin powers, and surely this is one.
'''Support''' - adminship is no big deal, and neither is relinquishing it.  Silsor has been an excellent and reliable admin.
'''Oppose'''.  His old "Request for Deadminship" remains pretty confusing to me; his reasoning was cryptic at the time.  I fully support eschewing admin ''power'', and I do think some folks take it much too seriously.  If Silsor had made it clear that was his reason at the time (I think he's done so now below), I would have admired him.  Since he denied any such motivations at the time, I was left scratching my head.  Ultimately, I do think silsor should have adminship back, now that he's offered a clear explanation.  In light of the time he wasted with RfDeA, though, I do think there should be symbolic opposition, and I guess I'll do the honors.
Wikipedia is not a playground. —
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> changed to '''Oppose''' I am concerned as is Xoloz with the prior "request for de-adminship" made by silsor at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/silsor]]. That request generated very significant debate, to which one of silsor's responses was rather less than entirely civil [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/silsor&diff=27039092&oldid=27038401], where he states that some who disagrees with him on his request for de-adminship are suffering a disease. He further went on a small revert war ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/silsor&diff=27088439&oldid=27088045] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/silsor&diff=27106592&oldid=27106431]) when a number of users had raised objections to the entire process, which by his own statements seems to be a potential violation of [[WP:POINT]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/silsor&diff=27468650&oldid=27465236]). Later on, he stated his intention to discuss any insights gained from this effort ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/silsor&diff=27508481&oldid=27486127]), but to date he has made no comments on [[WT:RFA]] regarding these results. This concerns me. Doing a casual review of some of his recent edits, he seems ok though his contribution rate of ~2 edits per day over the last two months is a bit lower than I like to see in an admin. I'll review more later. At this time, I remain neutral. --
'''Oppose''' he doesn't really seem to understand or care that people objected to his use of process as personal amusement and attention-seeking. If he'd just asked to be desysopped normally, or understood now that people objected to his actions and not to "somebody not wanting more power", it wouldn't be an issue. --
'''Oppose''' - Seems very inactive for a potential admin (again) at the moment.  Perhaps adminship will spur slisor on, but I have similar concerns to the ones raised by Durin, browsing over Silsor's edits.  Describing a valued, but departed editor as "batshit insane" is odious. --
'''Oppose'''.  Deadminship proposal shows lack of committment.  Is frequently uncivil.
'''Oppose'''. The deadminship proposal to my mind showed a flippancy and self-importance I found really off-putting. Answer to question Q1 strikes me just the same way. In this case a self-nom would have been better: "I'd had it up to here etc., but I'm ready to help out again and you all know I can etc." The answer to the optional question ''almost'' overcomes this but even here there's a kind of pomposity that nags ("I also wanted to see how Wikipedians would react to somebody not wanting more power, which turned out to be a pretty bizarre concept to some.") Finally, having met a few lunatics on the Wiki myself, I have to ask what purpose is served posting 40K+ worth of e-mails. I have some e-mails from BigDaddy777 people might find amusing, but I think it's better to let the batshit float away.
'''Oppose'''. Even if I didn't already find his attitude to adminship and other users unappealing, question 1 would have convinced me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' needs to tidy up loose-end questions arisng from above opposition 1st.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, I do not like to see an adminstrator who is not 100% committed. If any wikipedia user who wishes to become an admin is not 100% committed to our community, he or she must not be an adminstrator in the first place! They are supposed to be role models to our community who directly supervises Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Too many valid concerns have been raised above for me to feel comfortable supporting this request. The answer given to Q1 also troubles me greatly. I expect candidates to explain what they propose to be doing if promoted to admin, and not to be told basically "check out my past history yourself to get the answer or don't bother voting". I always check out candidates contributions, as I'm sure every other voter does, but I still expect candidates to state their intentions. It is interesting to note that the candidate was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSilsor_2&diff=50771257&oldid=50760575 asked 4 days ago] to expand on "the same stuff as before".  Quite frankly the original answer to Q1, and failure to respond to a request for clarification, display a disrespect for fellow editors that is entirely inappropriate for a potential admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral). He seems blase about the whole thing. Q1 remains effectively unanswered. I'm basically in agreement with [[User:Cactus.man|Cactus<b>.</b>man]]. --
'''Oppose''' I have given the user more than enough time (see Cactus man's vote above) to at least explain question #1 and to show some interest in being an admin but he has not answered yet. This, coupled with his low activity in this wikipedia leads me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Durin.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per his answers (and lack thereof) to the questions below, per the concerns raised about his request for de-adminship, per his general arrogance toward others, per his lack of respect for the adminship process (which to me suggests that he devalues process and consensus altogether--he only seeks it when he ''has'' to), per his innactivity over the last few months, and per the evidence of his incivility and poor editing style presented above. Then again, as he was already found to be an able admin who never abused his tools, I would certainly support this RfA (should it fail, which appears unlikely) if he were to withdraw and try again, this time in the respectful and mature fashion expected of sysops.
'''Oppose''': his answer to question #1 worries me, as does the whole de-admin thing. --
'''Oppose'''. Cactus.man's analysis here seems to be absolutely correct. Frankly the answer to Q1 is just plain rude.
'''Oppose''' per several editors above.
'''Oppose''' I would have preferred a clearer answer to, question 1. Don't think this user is ready to pick up the mop and bucket again.
'''Oppose''' Q1 answer is not "correct" IMHO :(. Besides that is obviously a good candidate - just try again in a couple weeks with a fresh take on things :). <small>
'''Neutral''' - I can't bring myself to vote support because of this user's past request for de-adminship, and his non-chalant response to the nomination. Just seems like adminship doesn't mean anything to him. '''
'''Neutral''' Same things as TDS.  It would be a strong support but he doesn't even seem to want it. --[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral.''' While I think you're an overall great guy on Wikipedia, I'm a little concerned with your behavior, as evidenced by telling me "MYOB" in #wikipedia when I asked you to change your nick when it was 'SOLLOG'.
'''Neutral'''. I don't really want to oppose, but his responses to the questions seem a bit disaffected. --
'''Neutral''', I was going to vote in support but the reasons given by those voting in opposition are troubling.

'''Support'''. I'm glad that your signature doesn't contain your whole username ;). [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strongest possible support''' per nom! -
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Hey, you have a pretty cool name.--
'''Support''' I've come across NHNick's edits a number of times and have always ben impressed with his knowledge of policy and even-handed civil approach. I believe he'll be a responsible user of the admin tools.
'''Strong, strong edit-conflicted support''', no questions asked! - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''No-brainer Support''' --
'''Support''' - <b>
'''Strong Support''' will make a good admin.
'''Strong Support''': I found him very active. --
'''Strong Support'''; all my (extensive) dealings with him have lead me to believe he'll make an superb admin.
'''Support'''. I've never personally interacted with him, but everything that I've seen would suggest that he is both a great user and a superb future admin.
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' Seriously, this is one of a recent rush of great candidates for adminship and I can't see any reason why he won't use the extra buttons to help his own editing as well as Wikipedia at large
'''Oppose'''. His continued persistance to join the hunt is simply not on. '''
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy candidate.
'''Support''' Meets [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]] and I have seen this user around Wikipedia. Seems like a very good editor and contributor. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana"> ~
'''Support''' - excellent editor, civil, and helpful. I feel this editor would make good use of admin tools, and be likely to stay active in using them. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''', but needs more article namespace edits. --<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Shreshth91--><span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - Why not? —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Suppport''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Suppport''' per nom.'''
'''Support''' excellent candidate, contributes and is level-headed.  --

'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Strong Support''' A solid contributor, one who is an active member of our community, especially in the RfA's ;) He fully deserves the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' mostly vandal fighting, seems to be involved in a lot of deletion processes so should be ok deleting articles. Even though they are using the sandbox still, maybe I won't have to wait 20 minutes after reporting vandals at AIV?--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''

'''Support''' seen this user around, thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''', I've seen so much of you around, and never been unimpressed. :)
~
'''Creepy, transparent-like Support''' '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2</font>]]—

'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', of course. He's an excellent user. :) --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''<font color="dark green>Sick Tdxiang support!</font> I'm sick, but I'll support Anirudh!--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Looking at his edits and history with Wikipedia it would be a crying shame if he wasn't handed the Mop and bucket.  Good luck Sir Nick! <font color="green">
'''Support.''' Obviously.
'''Strong support''' after conversation on IRC and extensive examination of edits. --
'''Super strong support''' - definitely admin material. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Absolutely certain of his qualifications for adminship.
'''Support''' Strong editor who deserves the tools! '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Suport'''. Keep up the good work. -
'''Support'''. One of the best editors in [[Wikipedia]] to be nominated.(
I'm going to have to '''Support''' here. I haven't run into Sir Nick very much, but at the times I have he's seemed cordial enough and helpful, plus were I to have any editcountitis-related RfA criteria, he'd still have blown them away. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' level headed despite sounding blunt. wouldn't abuse admin tools, --
On account of his awesome username. :) — ''
'''Support''' good user, interesting username!
'''Support''' per all
'''Support''', I've always had good interactions with Sir Nicholas etc., great contributions. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Seems like a good guy.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user with good experience.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', all my interactions with Nick have left a good impression.
'''ZOMG Route 66 Lingeringon Cabalish Support''' He has experience and knowledge beyond his edit count and asks other experienced editors when he is unsure about something. He is highly unlikely to abuse the tools and can make great use of them in XfDs and vandal patrolling.&mdash;
'''Support''' per all above.--
'''Support''' We need MORE crazy named admins!!!!
'''Support''', we need a Gryffindor editor to fight Lord Voldemort.  LV's relentless power grabs are threatening to turn the wiki into a tool for evil.
'''Support''' - good luck beating Tawkerbot2 though, that's next to impossible --
'''Support''' - pops up on my watchlist doing good things.
'''Support.''' Its Anirudh! It would be headless not to support.
'''Support''' - per above nominators. --
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''', meets all of [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]], and every experience I've had with the user has been positive. I just wish we could get some more admins from [[Ravenclaw]]... [[Quidditch|<font color="green">'''Ravenclaw Beater'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Everything is already said. <b><font color="teal">
'''StrongSupport''' Nuff Said. --
[[Harry Potter (character)|Harry Potter]]'s Birthday '''Support'''. —
'''Support''' -- <b>
'''Support''', seems to check out fine.  --
'''Support'''. I see nothing wrong here. If I had a strict criteria, you would surpass it.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate.  Level-headed, tactful, constructive, and great use of edit summaries.  He has my full support. --
—&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''.'''
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''', looks like fine admin material.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''', good user. --
'''<nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki>'''
'''Support''' Sorry I couldn't have been here sooner, Anirudh, but you know how it is with you know what... :-) <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support++'''
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' Meets my criteria. --
'''Support''', is it too late to jump in? :) I swear I thought I had already supported thee, Sir Nicholas! [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''', I saw nothing wrong and can make good use of the tools.--
'''Support''': I like Noms, User page and Talk page.
'''Support''', while I would never support a headless admin, a nearly headless one is fine by me.
'''Pile-on support''', and would whoever supports next please list on [[WP:100]].
'''Oppose'''. This user's past and continuing conduct on RfA gives me serious concerns about how he would actually exercise his duties as an administrator.
'''Oppose''', Checked his last 250 edits, only a few good contributions. 3000 edits doesnt make a good admin. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><font color="#C11B17">Matthew</font> <b><font color="#3366ff">
Fails 1FA. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per above --
I'm not saying he isn't potentially a good admin, but I'm surprised at the low number of article contributions, especially after six months. Am I missing something?
'''Neutral''': A little too soon by my standards (almost one month), in spite of excellent use of edits. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''': I'm curious what the "various other pseudonyms" this editor is also known by are, and why.--
'''Neutral'''. Falls short of [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|my standards]], namely does not have 200 article talk edits. This is not sufficient for me to oppose.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Aww, not first support'''; superb history. <font style="color:#BB0055"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#AA0077"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><sup>(
'''Support''' Because adminship should be no big deal righT?
'''Support''' 12K edits in over two years?!?!  Good grief, yes!
'''Support'''
'''enthusiastic support''' (and I'm never enthusiastic about anything). ''Very'' pleased with the spread of edits for this user. <font size="-1">
Everything looks in order here. Move along, move along. --
'''Support''' - enthusiastic, hardworking editor.
'''Support''', looks good to me. -
'''Support''': thought he was one.
'''strong support'''. If I hadn't already thought he was an admin, I'd have considered nominating him myself.
'''Support'''.  12K ought to be enough for anybody.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', looks good to me. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', good record <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' The 1K edit in Wikipedia space is even more important.
'''Support''' ---
'''Support''' His edit counts are impressive. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
We're Knights of the Round Table, our shows are formidable, we do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impeccable.
'''Support''' in a pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosic manner, true [[user:Phroziac|Phroziac]] style :-) <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support, bells and whistles included'''. Has been an excellent Wikipedian to work with. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Sjorford is a very dedicated user who has significantly improved his conduct to others. I see no reason to believe he would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Strong support''' Should have been sysopped a long time ago.
Support. Welcome aboard. &ndash;
'''Super Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Very strong support'''. Solid reliable user in all my experience.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', strongly agree with nominator.
'''Hesitant Support''' - I notice that the user has relatively few Project space edits( of course a "relative" measure is thrown off by the huge amout of Article space edits), and that they are mostly AfD votes. Still, given the number and quality of other contributions, I am going to have faith that this will improve when the user is an administrator. --
'''Support''' --

'''Support''', very experienced editor, will make a good admin.
--
'''Support''' experienced editor, will be a great admin for WIkipedia.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course --
'''Support''' yes certainly. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support''' --
'''Strongesest support''' one of the most experienced and hardworking users.
'''Support''' his significant experience on Afd should give him at least some understanding of the proper deletion process - we need more admins with such knowledge
'''Support''', we could always use another AfD closer. Sjorford's done good work, and shows willingness to perform maintenance tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' - I've seen this chap helping around a lot. Given that he has 12k edits (I didn't know that), he definitely should have been one a while ago.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - loooong time contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' If he wanted to go all evil I'm sure he'd have done it by now. He's proved his dedication to the project and I'm sure he'll do a good job.
'''Support'''. This guy should be sorted as an admin. -
'''Support''', its time for him to give him the tools. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', clearly understands Wikipedia policy and has demonstrated trustworthiness (and btw, you're hired). [[User:Alphax|Alph]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''', seen the user around, doing good work.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' obvious decision for me.
'''Support''' What, not an admin already? A wide-range of contributions shows his dedication. Hand him the mop.—<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I like this guy. —
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Edits seem fine, plenty of dedication, issues raised on prior RfA seem to be long gone.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good edit history and good answers to the questions leave no reason to object.--
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not]]? --
'''Support'''
I thought $USER was already $CLICHE -
'''Support''' - should make a great admin.
'''Support''' Of course.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for sure. -
'''Support''' seems like a nice person.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Of course!
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. He is a good user.
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Support''' A wikipedia legend.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' without a doubt. --
'''Support''' - I see no risk Sjorford will misuse the mop and bucket. For example, he'll make sure always to wring the mop out after each use.
'''Support''', per above.
'''Support''' as nominator. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' edits look solid.--
'''Strong support''' without reservation. (Hell, he helped reform my user page ;))
'''Support''' found him very helpful many a time - the situation he refers to in Q.3 doesn't qualify as a conflict, imo. It is more in the nature of a mis-understanding and as one of the people involved in the matter, I feel that his actions were forthright and aboveboard. --
'''Support''' He re-decorated my user page for Pete's Sake! --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]]-[[User:D-Day|Day]]  <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|My fan mail.]]
'''Support''' (see [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]]).
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' for exactly the same reasons as I supported last time.
'''Support''' <span style="font-size:95%">'''—
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Support''' - The ideal Wikipedian - <span class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid Black; vspace: 1px; padding: 4px;"><font style="color: Black; text-decoration: None; font-weight: Bold">
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' - Definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' like last time --
'''Support''', good user, it's time for his mop and bucket. - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', solid. --
'''Support''' good all around.
'''Support''' My pleasure! A good user, who is not only active with the community but, whose interactions with the community have been civil and helpful.
'''Support''' This vote goes against my personal standards but I think he would make a good admin. :-D
'''
'''Support''' - still a little light on the article-space edits, but good community-spirited Wikipedian.
'''Extreme "I thought you were promoted last time?" support''' - good luck, mate. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Weak support''' - I'd like to see more edits, but [[m:Editcountitis]] is a really bad reason not to support someone.
'''Full Support''' like last time. Keep it up!
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' -- Right for the job.
--
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''' &mdash; Great credentials. Can't believe I hadn't voted till now.
'''Support'''. great job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent record. &mdash; <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">
'''Support'''. Good work at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]].
'''Support'''
Unlikely to abuse admin tools. On another note, its too bad the DfA didn't take off.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good contributions to [[Fawlty Towers]] among others obviate slightly low mainspace edit count.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' (of course!) [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. I've seen a lot of this work and I've never failed to be impressed.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Oh yes - great candidate. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' again as per vote in 1st nom.
'''Support''', of course. -
<b>Support</b>, seems great to me, but what do I know.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''.
'''Extremely strong support'''. Will make a great administrator, without doubt. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
I have been awake for an extraordinary amount of time, yet I feel the cumpunction, um, cumpulsion, uh, somthingorother to support Smurraysomethingorother.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' - [[User:Dharmabum420|dharm]][[User:Dharmabum420/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''<span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''', as per last time, which really doesn't seem like a long time ago.
'''Support''', I've seen Smurrayinchester around, and he's a really good editor.
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support''', and would've supported two months ago had I looked.  Apologies.
'''Support'''. Will be a great admin. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' this excellent editor.
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Smurrayinchester has been helping me out at the [[Wikipedia:Tip of the day|Tip of the day]] project, and has been very supportive, providing assistance and encouragement.  I've found this editor a pleasure to work with.  Definitely admin material. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. Good luck! --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm not compelled to give a reason for supporting your RFA. So nyah. >:-( --
'''Support''', of course. Thought he was one. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' will be a fine addition to the admin base. --
<s>Support</s> '''Cliché support''', is familiar with Wikipedia policies & procedures and shows good common sense. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Support''', just like nearly everybody else. -
Everything looks good here. I would like to see this month end up near February's edit totals to prove that this soon-to-be-admin didn't experience a wikiburnout. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' after edit conflict.
'''Support''', per [[User:Go for it!|Go for it!]].
'''Bandwagon Support''' &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Joining the bandwagon for a nice fellow.
'''Support'''
Yes please. —''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', without question.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -per nom. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' ah yes, come across Smurrayinchester before, very good editor
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per reasons in the nom. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  It took me a really long time to scroll down to here... --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''support''' this person to be administrator
'''Support''' good editor - should make a fine admin.
'''Support''' - I've seen him do good work quite a lot. --
'''Support''' Good work in Wikipedia namespace, will be a fine admin. Nearly got to be #100 ''':'''-) --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Oppose'''
'''I beat the nom support!''' Experienced and balanced editor. <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Another beat the nom support'''
Hey oy. I really shouldn't have to do this, it's implied... but eh, if that's what you're after.--
'''Support''' Would definitely make a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' as per all comments above. --[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Editor is an insightful, generally spectacular WPian, for whom I have the highest respect.
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -
Stop with the damn cite.php in RfAs, it's annoying. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''', well rounded user and vandalism reverter, I particularly liked his work on [[USA PATRIOT Act]]. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' - meets my standards --
'''Support''' wiz plezher - <b>
'''Strong Support''' although a bit too wedded to his edits if you ask me ...
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like the answers to the questions. Would be a great asset with the mop.--
'''Support''', excellent user, should be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. Not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''--
'''Edit conflict Support''', of course. -
'''Very strong support'''. Snoutwood is quite simply the gold standard. Sean's nomination has pre-empted a 5 para essay from this user, but if the pleasure of nominating Snouty is not to be mine, I'm thankful, at least, to be able to lend my full support to this first among Wikipedians. —''
'''Support'''
Can't see why not.  Well-rounded user.
'''Support''' per nom and interest in uncommon admin tasks (per question #1).  As far as the RfC in question #3, Snoutwood's statement may have been a little harsh, but it did bring up some issues with deletion at the time.  That led up to development of the {{tl|prod}} system, which has helped to cool the issue down and reduce the contention with AfD.  That's a good thing.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' per [[Wynaut]]!
'''Support''' Will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I've had nothing but pleasant encounters with him.  --

'''Support'''. He was civil to me when I made an unintentionaly angering edit, and looking through his archives, his hawk eye on [[Ansel Adams]] is always great to see. Good luck! -
'''Support'''.  With pleasure.  This user has done some good janitorial work, reversions of vandalism and is polite and cool. --
'''Support''' Familiar name
'''Support''', excellent candidate <b>
'''Support''', all around <s>good</s> great user.
'''Support''' per nom [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Support''', he's great. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' A very civilised wikipedian, I had an accidently mixup with him back in October or so when he was Blackcap about Kate's tool, I wrote him a message that accidently could be taken to be mean if seen in textual form solely but he realized that I was just kidding with him and he was really nice about it. He's a great person and a wonderful editor, I look forward to seeing him as an admin. -
'''Support'''. Great mainspace editor, unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' why not?
'''Support'''. Two thumbs up. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I really did think he was one....
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Per nom
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No reason why not.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per nom
'''Support'''. --
'''Lesbian pile-on Support''' per nom (P.S. Your RfA ends on the same day as mine.. COINCIDENCE).
'''Support''' Couldn't say otherwise! <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. Only just come across this user for the first time at [[Wikipedia:Abuse reports]], on visiting here produced the usual 'I thought...' reaction. Looks good, and would certainly find admin tools useful.
'''Support''' See no reason to oppose.--
Of course... '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Snoutwood''' make a great administrator.
Yes, I '''snoutwood''' this user too.
'''Support''' No hesitation, quality contributor. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' Well, duh! <font color="66AAFF">
<b>Support</b>
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' - good user.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Gosh, hope I didn't miss the deadline. --[[Darth]]
'''Support''', as nominator. '''—
'''Support'''; have had good experiences with this user, and feel he would make a good admin. Not too keen on the image in the sig, though. <font style="color:#FF1111"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC1111"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><sup>(
'''Yes'''. '''
'''Support''' I remember  he welcomed me back in  October :) --<font color="green"><b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per his response to question 4. We need more rational admins. --

'''Support''' --
'''Extreme "/me faints" support''' - he isn't one? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|es]]</font>
'''Support''' soothingly.
'''Support''' - great user, friendly, helpful, knows policy. No evidence he'll abuse the admit tools.
'''Support''' - good work on the image copyright issues, plus generally good editor.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Mouldy sandwich support'''. :P An extremely responsible and level-headed user.--
--
'''Strong Support''' He deserves it. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've seen SoothingR in all the places an admin needs to be, and I've never seen him explode or anything.  Deserves the admin position fully.

'''Support''' Looks good. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good luck! --
'''Support''', I've always ''assumed'', SoothingR was an administrator, judging by his well-behaved manners and activeness. Well, that can be fixed by passing his rfa :)  <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support''' for this candidate's nomination. Mop him a.u.b. --
'''Support''' looks fine to me.--
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin.
Sure, why not? Another editor who I thought was already an admin.
'''Support''' I feel he'll make a great admin!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks like a good editor. --
'''Support''', seems reasonably soothing.
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong support'''. --
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
If you don't take your vitamins, you won't grow up to be big and strong.
'''Support'''. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' I'm sure he'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''': all of above and he nuked his userboxes.
'''Support'''. A fine addition to the admin roster.--
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''': Yes. --
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''You're kidding me!''' I seriously thought he was an admin. In fact, I was ever so close to asking for a vandal block. --

'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', especially he's gotten rid of all those stupid boxes. Great editor, should make a great admin.
'''Support''' <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">
'''Support''' per MONGO.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. As I did last time! --
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''. Natuurlijk ;) <font color="red">
'''Support'''  - Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name. --
'''Support''', should make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.--
<s>'''Oppose''' not enough userboxes</s> I'm so funny. I should actually vote that sometime...anyway, seriously, '''support''' as a terrific editor who would be an asset to any encyclopaedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''', thought he was one (no not really, but it sounds good). — <small>Feb. 17, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:14] <
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Strong Support''' - user has done nothing but good for WP. --
'''Support''' - A great asset to Wikipedia --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''!  I've seen him around, and he's done a good job.  I like his answers to the questions too.  Also, it would be good to have another admin that was active in the metal-related pages, given the conflicts there (one has led to an [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu|ArbCom case]]). --

'''Oppose''' --

'''Neutral''' It is too early after the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SoothingR|last]] rfa and his comments, while withdrawing on that rfa, do not suggest a proper acceptance of feedback. --
'''Neutral''' The number of comments and requests for reasons for oppose votes suggests that as an admin, SoothingR might be excessively defensive, which is not good. So, neutral for now. If I'm questioned about it in a harassing manner, it goes to oppose. ++
'''Support''', as the nominator. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Strong from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Westman&diff=prev&oldid=24420923 start], if narrow in focus. Still, I believe she has the tools and will use the mop wisely.
'''Support''' - no problems seen --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', no problems here. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', thoughtful, well rounded, experienced and polite user. Pass her the mop!
'''Support''' a committed and balanced editor who I'm confident will become a committed and balanced admin.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''', great user. Would be even better with the mop.

'''Support''', no problems here. I hypothesize that she signs as "Sue Anne" because that is her real name, as encouraged on [[Wikipedia:Username]].
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No duh! --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' a skillful and good user, respects NPOV, copyright policy.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' You deserve this! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support'''--
'''Support''' While I agree with Hetar's comment, I can't see how I can vote against someone I think will make a good admin based purely on that. I hope the nominee changes her sig or her [[Wikipedia:Changing username|username]]. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' Without a doubt, an excellent user, will make exceptional admin
'''Support''' This user if promoted will make a great admin
'''Strong Support''' Per the answer on my questions
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support'''. Good answers to the questions and a good (if somewhat narrow) editing record make me trust this editor would be a good admin.
'''Support''', but I echo what was said by Hetar, and would appreciate it if you'd change your signature. Having a signature totally unrelated to your username can be confusing for anyone, not just new people. --
'''Support''' sounds great to me! &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - No problems
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', great editor. <b>
'''Support''' The sig issue is a minor one.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''"Why not?" Support'''. Per the 38 votes above.
'''Support''' as for nominator's own word.  --
'''Support''', The Marine is very impressed with her.  I'll be looking forward to welcoming you to the Admin. Club.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Thoughtful answers to questions.
'''Support''' <small>
'''Oppose''': A sig that is different than your actual user name is confusing, especially to newer users. Administrators should have simple and clear signatures which add to the openess and clarity of their actions. --
'''Oppose''' Very small number of Talk entries in the Main space (and few for any one article).  This suggests either very little experience with compromise and working out differences or unaware that differences can occur.  Neither is good for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' don't need more admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''', lack of experience in Wikipedia namespace suggests a lack of policy knowledge, and also please adopt an unconfusing signature.
'''Oppose''' Per abve --
'''Neutral''' - I'm a little concerned about the lack of responses to people with image problems on your talk page. Not super serious, but it seems a little odd. - '''
'''Neutral''' per
'''Strong Support''' as nominator.'''
'''Strong Support'''. Blnguyen, I am always amazed by your nominations. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong Support''' thats a hat-trick. :) - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' Really ''really'' unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket.
'''Strong Support''' can this nomination be copied to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The perfect candidate]]?
'''Support''' Very impressive! --
'''Support''' - very helpful and forthcoming apart from all the contributions described by Blnguyen --
'''Support''' I said I might support in August. Well it's Augu... hm... no it's not. But with a nomination like that and a amazing (especially vandal-fighting) record, I can't say no. I won't comb through your edits to find some mistake as this, after all, is [[User:Joturner/Different Standards on Different Days|not an FBI investigation]]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Shoo-in Support''' —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Rouge Support''' per my vote in RfA 1 - <b>
For the first time I feel that a candidate is narrow in the scope of edits and work - you at least need to expand into more India-related topics. Yet the amount of janitorial work thus user has already done is very, very good.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I am highly confident that the tools will not be abused, used well, and will display excellent judgement in all tasks.
'''Error: Cliche Limit Exceeded Support''' - Please contact an administrator --
'''Support''' - A very worthy candidate. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Strong support''' per cliche. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' - meets my requrements
'''Strong support''' - supremely qualified in every way. I don't know what else to say, really.
'''Support''' without doubt. This guy contributes so much, I wonder if he's the [[Energizer Bunny]] in human form!
'''Support'''. I had to oppose Srikeit in May, but now that he has four months of editing under his belt, I can confidently say that he is a fantastic user and more than qualified for the job. '''''×'''''
'''Support''' Terrific user that needs the admin tools. By the way, Blnguyen, that is one hell of a nom statement. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' as I did last time. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' This user is just cricket...get it? "cricket" as in good and he edits a lot of cricket articles...hahaha..oh :P
'''Strong support'''.  What's not to like?  Srikeit is courteous and helpful and with 8500 edits in barely 6 months, I have a feeling [[Special:Contributions/Srikeit|this]] will be a place to watch in the future.  I have no doubt he'll be a <s>good</s> great sysop.   --
'''Support''' very hardworking and competent.
'''Support''' - No worries at all. Very nice contributor!
'''StrikeIt Strong Support'''!! - One of the finest and most friendly contributors I've seen on Wikipedia. I am absolutely confident that he will make a fabulous addition as a new administrator. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support''' Yes, of course. Great contribs. -- '''
'''Support''' Would make a great admin.
'''Retiree Support''', good user, friendly, will make a good administrator. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Last time was a joke. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Super-duper strong cabalish, jumpin' thumpin' round the whole fuckin' world support'''. I suppose, you guys got me. :D --
'''Strong support''' absolutely brilliant editor, unfailingly polite, contributes in heaps, knowledgeable of policy, and level-headed.  Will make a terrific administrator --
'''Strong support''' I need not explain, just look at the user's contributions! --
'''Very strong support.''' I really thought he already was one.
'''Strong support''' - lovely guy/gal. t(h/s)awo. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks like Srikeit would make an excellent admin.
Somewhat belated '''support'''
'''Strong support.''' Good candidate.--
'''Support''' Because a good friend of mine told me about his support of him, and that's good enough for me. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support''', while I dislike co-nominations (and this one had two!), that's not enough to me to not vote in this RFA: I've seen Srikeit around, and he does good work. He can be trusted with the admin tools. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''', as I did the first time. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
An overdue '''strong support''' as co-nominator. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor. --
'''Support''': Sounds good to me.  And over 1,500 Wikipedia namespace edits seems more than sufficient to demonstrate knowledge of policy IMHO.  Copyvio infractions in the first few edits is quite forgivable too.  —
'''समर्थन''', an obvious choice who has clearly shown he can be trusted with the tools, the only thing that matters. Enforcing a 6mo minimum instead of evaluating the candidate's ability to be trusted does not help the project. If it's not obvious, this also means I give up my impartiality to call this one in case it's close, even though I don't think it will be. -
'''Support''' as I did on his last RfA. In the time since then Srikeit has continued to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia and shown he can be trusted to use the tools. Wikipedia will be improvede when he gets the mop.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Great work! --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''', as I did last time. Srikeit has more than proved himself capable of handling the tools.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support''' for my good friend. I have seen him work tirelessly for wikipedia showing a dedication that very few have. H has great knowledge of the working of wikipedia due to the countless hours he has spent RC patrolling, then creating new bios, adding voice and now as a clerk at RFCU. I would have co-nominated him, but it would not add to the superb nomination already done. -
'''Support'''. Although just 6 months kinda concerned me, it was 6 months that totally outshine my 2 years here. On a side note, how do you rack up 8000 edits in 6 months? Anyways, solid contributor, balanced and reasonable, i liked the answers.
'''Cleared for Adminship so much that I need the [[F-117]] just to keep up''' --
'''Support''' I'm not sure I can follow up on any of Pilotguy's comments, but you definitely will do a good job as a sysop.
'''Support''' -- diligent, hard-working, mature, civil, judicious according to others' comments. Besides, candidate satisfied [[User:Crzrussian|Crzrussian]], an experienced admin with high RfA standards; I use him as my [[Consumer Reports]] when looking at RfAs.--
'''Strong Support''' - I know this user and believe he would be great with adminship.
'''Super strong I thought he was already an admin Support''' You will do a fantastic job - that I am sure of.
'''Strong Support'''. '''
'''Support''' - Based on the nomination, he must be a good person. Even if he ''is'' sort of new, hopefully there will be other admins working constructively with him to iron out mistakes. —
'''Support''' - From what I have read here, it appears he will do a good job.  Good luck!
'''dON'T yOU hATE iT wHEN yOU pUSH cAPS lOCK sUPPORT''' Already thought he was an admin. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Srikeit shows true dedication to the Wikipedia project, as evidenced by his 8000 edits in some 6 months and his overwhelming work on [[Cricket]] articles. He is the near-perfect model for a Wikipedian and I'm proud to support his RfA. <small>Postscript: I got the 69th vote, how lucky for me!</small>
'''Support''' yep
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strikeit Support''' for Srikeit.
'''Support''' Another excellent candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Yeah''' Wikipedia will improve greatly from this. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' - honestly thought he was, extremely helpful user -
'''Support'''.  Know Srikeit, he's ready for adminship.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' - would put the tools to good use. However, as I remarked [[Wikipedia:Editor Review/Srikeit|elsewhere]], talk edits << user talk edits. Almost no edits in the talk spaces of cat, img and template - am not saying that they are necessary. --
'''Support''' My experience of the candidate gives me confidence, backed up by another of Blnguyen's wonderfully thorough nominations.
'''Support''' We need energetic people like Srikeit.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', of course. &mdash;
'''Support''' No doubt about it.  I wasn't going to miss this RfA like I missed the last!
'''*Burps*''' --
'''Support''' this time, although I could have waited one more month for this. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Well mannered and up to the task
'''Support''' Good candidate, will be a bigger asset with the extra tools. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''', obviously.
'''REALLY STRONG Support''' No-one can deny how useful this user is! He's inspirational in his edits. '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', I have always had good interactions with him, and am impressed by his contributions. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Good editor, who I have come across on Wikipedia before, meets my criteria for support. --
'''Support''' per all above. Specialist in a useful field.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - will make good use of the tools. --
'''Where are the Portal Talk edits?''' —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Very strong support''' As for last RfA. [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''', I expect good things.
'''Strongly Support''', As I awarded pretty star him for kindness about 2 months ago, He would also be good for admin by demonstrating kindness, and helpful user.
'''Strong support'''. Fabulous credentials, and impressive knowledge of policy. We need more admins like him.
'''Support''' I must be nuts. :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' <font color="green">
'''Support''' Very good user. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' per all above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' per all 105 reasons above. <small> (I hope there are no bad reasons!) </small> <font face="Book Antiqua"><b>[[User:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_</font>]][[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed1</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Strong Support'''. --'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Jump-on-the-bandwagon Support''' per all comments above me.
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''', but might lean towards '''weak support'''.  I voted against this user in May because (s)he was far too new.  It's now July, and Srikeit meets my 6 month minimum, but not very well.  So my opinion is that he is still too new.  Though Srikeit registered in January, it was not until February or March that he had any article edits (first two months of edits were own user page and other user talk pages).  I find the nomination and my own perusal of Srikeit's edits reassuring, but I would feel better supporting a candidate with a real history at Wikipedia, including policy pages.  I find almost no edits whatsoever to Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespace.  I would definitely consider this user again in the future, though I like candidates who know themselves when they're ready (and therefore turn down premature nominations). -
'''Oppose''' as per lethe. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test before deprecation]]. Looks like a specialist in a narrow field. Readily adopts majority voting as a solution to conflict resolution even on matters of fact (see Q.3). Too soon from previous RfA. Try again next January.
'''Support''' You have been active in many different parts of Wikipedia, and seem to have a good understanding of its policies. I was looking at some of the comments you left on user pages, and they seem level-headed enough. <strike>However, I think that your nomination would be stronger if you had a specific conflict to talk about; it would've given me a more specific idea of how you act diplomatically.</strike> Also, I hope that not being an admin hasn't kept you from "help[ing] out more seriously" around here! --
'''Support'''. I have to stress, though, that the points raised by [[User:Cleared as filed]] below are valid and important to me, too. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]

'''Oppose''' for now.  I could be convinced otherwise by stories from others of working out problems with a reasonable and calm attitude, but my own limited experience with this editor has been fairly testy (for example, he reverted a change I made to the content of an article with "''rvv''" in the edit summary, despite the fact that I had left the rationale behind what I was doing in my edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tecumseh%27s_curse&diff=27008649&oldid=26441843]).  That, actually, was one of the few edit summaries he left on an article I was looking at — most of them appear to have no edit summary at all, something particularly important when you're making changes that other people might disagree with.  So my personal experience, combined with the comments of [[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] below, the limited answers to the questions, and relatively short Wikipedia history compel me to oppose.  —
'''Oppose'''. Yes, I have no doubts that Stax is a well-intentioned user, but the points raised by [[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed]] and [[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] show me that Stax is a little too new or unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies to be a good admin right now. A quick glance of contributions also shows an underuse of edit summaries. I'm sure you'll make a great administrator if you take the comments and concerns raised in this RFA. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
Per Cleared as filed.  Someone who can't tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute should not have a rollback button. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Cleared as filed.
'''Oppose''' Exactly the same thing as Cleared as filed happened to me with this editor. He reverted my revert of someone who was making unexplained removals in an article by saying "rvv". Better understanding before reverting is needed. Otherwise, please keep reverting vandalism if you see it and good work. --

'''Oppose''' per Cleared as Filed.  Questionable reversion history prevents awarding of rollback button at this time.  Learn from the above criticisms, and I will be happy to support reapplication in several months.
'''Oppose''' for now, per the above. <sub>└</sub>''<sup>
'''Neutral''' Stax is a good editor, and I think administration should be in his future.  However, in regards to question three, I believe the candidate is not being entirely truthful.  His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_skew_theories_for_The_West_Wing&oldid=27598992 lack of diplomatic word choice] in a recent AfD, recent [[WP:BITE|newbie biting]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WestWingTheory&oldid=25960197 here] following an edit conflict, and use of CAPS and put-down edit summaries lead me to believe that this editor may have to choose his words more carefully as an admin.  However, all this being said, ''his actions have never been malicious'', just sometimes angrier than I would hope to see from an admin.  I will vote support if Stax can show me that these sorts of issues will not occur in the future. -
I have the same reservations as Scm83x, but Stax is overall a good contributor, and I would be happy to support him next time.  --
'''Neutral''' I see one (or maybe two) cases of bad judgement, but not a pattern.  Please start using using edit summaries more. --
'''First Support'''.  I've encountered Steel359 a few times on AIV, edit summary usage meets my criteria, has a FA, and didn't freak out in conflicts that I can see.  In short, I see no reason to assume that Steel359 would abuse administrator privledges.
'''Support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon&diff=prev&oldid=68803429].
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Has a FA and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' This editor appears to be a sensible candidate for adminship, based upon answers to questions above and contributions. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' Will make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support'''. This user has been around for a while and will do a great job as an administrator. Plus, one of the more well written RFAs I've seen. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a terrific all-around editor and I'm rather surprised that he/she's accomplished so much since April.  The candidate's RC patrolling will certainly become more efficient with the admin buttons and it seems very unlikely that he/she will abuse the tools
'''Support''' - Reasonable, evenheaded, well-spoken, and calm. It's almost a shame to inflict an admin bit on him. -
'''Support''' - I have seen nothing but positive contributions from this user. --
'''Support''' seems good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">

'''Support''' Okay.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' - From my experience with the user he works hard and is conscientious. I'd like to see him get the bit.--
'''Support'''. Seems fine.'''
''' Support''' - [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
''' Support'''
'''Support''' A hard-working and civil person, I have seen his help everywhere, including helping me with an article I've been working on. He is a great guy, and will do well as an administrator.--
'''Support''' Saw you on AfDs before I became an admin, and I saw nothing wrong. Good luck.
'''Support''' Good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --
'''Support''' Obviously good editor, I decided to be flexible in my six month standard.--
'''Support''' More CVG admins is a good thing !
'''Support''' Although you'll probably turn out to not be my kind of Admin, you've done some really good work with the MGS3 page and we need another Admin at the Metal Gear pages. Also I found out about the [[WP:LEW|lamest edit wars]] from your page and I'm a bit fan of those (
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' — Steel's a great editor. I've worked with him in the past, and have been pleasantly surprised that he maintains his cool even when I know I wouldn't. I've also been pleased to see that he maintains a good fight against vandalism, and is an all around benefit to the community in numerous ways. He certainly would make for a great admin. The ''only'' reluctance I have is that it might mean he has less time to build pages, but hopefully he'll be able to balance both admin duties and his quality work. Good luck to you, Steel.
'''Support''', impressed me with his willingess to support me against the prevailing wind at [[talk:King Bowser]], with a result which was (IMO) correct for the encyclopaedia.  Other comments above and looking at other contribs persuades me that this is characteristic. <b>
'''Support''', very civil editor, great work on CVG related articles.--
'''Support'''. Strong user and countervandal, has definite need for the mop.
'''Support''', no major issues and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools.
'''Strong support''' - and very impressed that you used inline citations in your self-nom, :D
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''. User seems trustable. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor
'''Support''' Solid editor that will improve Wikipedia, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', excellent nomination. Good contributor, and I have no reason to believe that Steel359 will make anything but a similarly good administrator. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', without reservations. '''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' per good answers and great track record.
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've known Steel for some time now and can thus give him my support; he's a genuine user and isn't just out to get power.
'''Support''', per nom --
'''Support''' - best self nom I can recall, terrific answers, great stats = super sysop! (God that was cheesy...) -
'''Support''' - Fully qualified for this, good endorsements.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I'd like to see more article contributions but he's over the bar. --
'''Oppose''' -- <s>lack of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Steel359 experience with images],</s> also fails short of my current standard of 9 months with the project --
'''Weak Oppose:''' I like your answers and willingness to clear backlogs, but too many of your AFDs back in June/July were one line votes based upon the research established by others. I need to be convinced you have the patience to go through things with a fine tooth comb, because long term abusers know a lot of tricks to cover up their tracks. I'm willing to reconsider if you can show me an incident where your persistence or investigative skills paid off though. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support'''. Let me be the first this time. --
'''Very strong support''' - surprised he's not one already. --
'''Support'''. Steinsky's been around a while (though most active in May 2005), and the Wikipedia-space contributions show a fairly even spread among different areas. Decent answers to questions, though I think you'd be a little ''too'' slow with the speedy deletes (though it's probably better that you're cautious than deletion-happy). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' Good contributor working on areas of Wikipedia where admin tools would be useful. -
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - and about time!

'''aye''' good edits, good experience, good answers.
'''Support'''.  Excellent Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Good editor. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom, good contributor all around.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support'''. Good editor, reasonable guy.
'''Support'''; especially like the question answers. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support'''. Trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Contributions are uneven, but of consistently high quality.  Willing to give him a shot. -
'''Support''' 'tis an honour to be opposed by Masssiveego (aka Boothy II) --
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' My experience with him at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia]] was agreeable. &#126;
'''Support'''. I guess I might as well jump on this bandwagon. User seems to be a perfect candidate for adminship. I'm surprised I don't remember ever coming across his user name or signature before. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''support''', plenty of experience <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''. Go for it! Admin in the making.
'''Support''', thoughtful, well-rounded and experienced user. Happy to support. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Of course!''' If my computer hadn't crashed, I'd have voted much sooner.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Occasionally snappy, but all in all very impressive: I think he'd be a very responsible editor.
'''Support''' excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - conscientious, considerate and a good communicator. -
'''Support!''' Hey - I started editing on Evowiki and then went ''big time :-)'' a couple months later. Great editor and deserves the mop!
'''Support'''. Seems like he will use the tools well. --
'''Support''' - looks good. --
'''Adminstratorfy'''.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' Somewhat too easily irrated, lack of temperament. --
Nominate and support. (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Radiant! Doesn't indicate a strong need for the tools, but trusted and prolific editors can be trusted with tools that are no big deal. —
--
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate for the mop.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good user, who will use the tools wisely. '''''
'''Support''' per nom__
'''Support''' per nom --'''
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' Despite lack of participation in AfD's and such, this user definitely demonstrates that he/she has the experience and knowledge to handle admin tools. '''
'''Support''', looks good. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', looks like a highly productive editor who would do well with the admin tools.
'''Weak support''' per Amarkov.
'''Support''' I see no problems here. A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Nice work so far. Would also like to see him involved outside the scope of the main space.
'''Support.''' See no probs in this user getting the mop. Great work so far. ><<span style="font-family:verdana">
I'm
By all means...
'''Support'''. Go for it!
'''Clear and present support'''. What were Radiant's words? "Solid and constructive user". Precisely.
'''support'''. Thanks for pointing this one out, Radiant. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Support''' He deserves the mop.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nomination and questions. This user sounds good, especially when it comes to civility which would be neccessary when you get to block people.
'''Support''' - 180 article creations is impressive, and with almost two years of heavy experience I see no reson why Stemonitis should not be an admin --
'''Support''' - per nom. --
'''Support''' I know how you feel, having to go and bother an Admin to do your bidding, and then they may not do what you asked them to do after fighting the vandal for hours on end. Good Luck! [[user:Booksworm|Book]]<font color="green">[[User:Booksworm/Esperanza|s]]</font>
--
'''Support''' despite essentially insufficient project-space participation. I am certain that there will be little abuse of the tools. - <b>
'''Support'''. Doesn't look like [[stemonitis]] to me!
'''Support'''. Great edit count (no, I do not have editcountitis), excellent writer of articles, and lots of experience. &mdash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. Steady ...
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Acs4b|Ac]]<font color="green">[[User:Acs4b/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Good, good user. ←
'''Support''' would make a good admin. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. I know it's a cliché but I tought he already was one. -
'''Support''' a good candidate --
Of course.
'''Support''' -- <b><i>[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:crosshair"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. It'd be nice if Stemonitis would pin down at least one backlog requiring the tools that (s)he'd be willing to pitch in at consistently, but seems to be a reliable editor and unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''', seems likely to make good use of the tools (and unlikely to misuse same).
'''Support''' Excellent editor, I trust he will not abuse the tools.
'''Support'''- XfDs are only a small part of adminship.
'''Support''' - Nice long history with WP, plenty of edits, seems like a valuable editor.  Why not give em a mop?
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Good guy.
'''Support'''   '''
'''Oppose''' - Simply not enough participation in XfD. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Oppose'''- Seems to want to use adminship for the use of evil. I do not trust this person at all with adminship, I think that if this person became an admin, Wikipedia would be destroyed. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
Sorry, but I'm going to have to change my !vote to '''neutral'''. I have the same concerns as before, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=1000&target=Stemonitis&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=4 this] shows sporadic deletion discussion, at best. <s>No XfD for the past 5 months?</s> -
'''neutral''' Were there to be more AfD work, I'd be happy to vote support.
'''Support''', as nominator <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', I second what Quarl says. --
'''Support''' Slightly on the deletionist side but as long as he keeps his and the community's opinions seperate, it would be fine.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Shows a firm desire to help keep the Wiki clean.
'''Support''' per Tintin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good, responsible and sensible contributor.
'''Support''' - looks like an excellent admin to me.
'''Support''' with a traditional, "You mean he's not one already?"
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', 1700 edits in the main namespace over five months is plenty. I also agree with Tintin: be sure to follow the consensus even when you might disagree. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' as per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my guidelines]]. Is often a great asset in AfD discussions, and as such shows an understanding of policy, which is the real issue with Adminship.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A glance at the candidate's contribs stifles any thought of opposition. —''
'''Support''', good edit summary use, need more deletionist admins. Hail CSD#A7. — <small>Feb. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:44] <
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support''' --
I've made my mind up ;)
'''Support''' - I have had good first hand experiences with this chap on AfD.
'''Support''' he's a good editor. --
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' He has so many edits to his name so should have enough experience of Wiki but I think Stifle focuses a bit too much on AFD.
'''Support'''.  Nobody used to care about contributions in this space, that space and and that talk space.  Damn you Interiot, you've created a monster!  Oh yeah, that Stifle, he knows AfD like the back of his hand and will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. 1700+ edits to article namespace is enough for anyone, his experience in AFD without report of uncivil or incorrect behaviour shows he has qualities needed for a good admin.  Shame about being so deletionist ;-) |→
'''Support'''. Perfect candidate for the mop. --
'''Support'''. Yes, seems to be an excellent candidate.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' as per [[User:Quarl|Quarl]] <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Every interaction I have had with him was polite; in my experience he is competent, not prone to off-the-cuff judgement, disciplined, and courteous. Just what we need weilding the mop and flamethrower. Good Luck. --
'''Support'''.  I've been impressed during interactions on AFD. -
'''Support'''. Sounds like a great candidate.  Good answers to questions; no bad behaviors to speak of.  I'm neutral on his deletionist tendencies, it should not be a factor in adminship unless it leads to abuse, which is clearly not the case here. --
'''Support'''.  Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Answers to the questions are sound, certainly knows specifics of afd and his total edit history is good. Don't see him abusing tools.--
'''Support'''. Looks good. I doubt he will abuse adminship. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I made a mental note to oppose, but I couldn't remember why.  After a quick skim through his contribs, it looks like it was something to do with being too delete-happy or not understanding the CSD.  However, his more recent contribs show that his understanding improved leaps and bounds since I last noticed him, and it really wouldn't be very nice to oppose him.  I ''am'' a bit concerned that he's too delete-happy, however, and would like him to lay off closing AfDs or speedying stuff for a few weeks, just to let those terrible admin hormones work on the transformation before he jumps in with both feet.
'''Support''', frequently see this solid editor with a similar opinion to mine in AfD's, works for me.
'''Support''', I especially like his "Delete unless cleaned up" policy in AFD. Very active contributor. --
'''Support''' per Quarl.
'''Support''' Great cleanup work. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support'''. Good guy. --&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Of course! [[User talk:Computerjoe|<span style="color:black">Compu</span>]]
'''Support'''. Thanks for being fair! +
Yes --
'''Support''' per Ifnord.
'''Support'''. My name is [[John Bambenek]] and I support this candidate. --
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Support'''. I met
'''Support''' gets my support, good luck to you.
'''Strong Support''' Great work on AfD.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' everything appears to be in order. good luck.--
'''Support'''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good editor --
Irish stub-sorting cliqueish '''support'''.
'''Support.''' A good user who will use the tools well.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' - no problems with me. --
'''Oppose'''. Stifle's activity in project-space seems to consist almost entirely of deletion. If you consider deletion to be in Talk space instead of project space, then activity in Talk space consists almost entirely of deletion, too. Such a focus on deletion makes me uneasy, as I feel it would give someone a skewed perspective on the project.
'''Strong Oppose''' - Seems to be totally into deletion. Only 1700+ edits on main namespace out of a total of 7800+ edits (i.e. < 25%) and answer to Q.2 have led me to this. [[WP:ENC]], right? I have never interacted with him before and I ran into him due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Hammer&diff=42114782&oldid=41744078 this] where he says whatever hell it is. I do not expect people to vote, without even looking at the associated articles. Voting on AFDs, without even looking at the article and the external links, may help one in gaining editcount but not in building an encyclopedia, imho. In another associated aticle for deletion, he makes a passing comment to [[WP:BIO]], but doesn't mention why and how it violates that. Writing an article is a labour of love and if we are here to build an encyclopedia, we are to co-operate in developing article content rather than deleting it. Unless one is a good editor, it is very difficult to become a good admin. I vote "oppose" very few times and this is probably the first time I am voting "strong oppose." A better safe than sorry vote. --
'''Neutral'''.  and I have made up my mind :) <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' active in stub sorting and somewhat of a deletionist on AfD.  Persoanlly, I'd like to see more positive article editing.
'''Neutral''' for now, due to lack of edits. I'd love to see more non-smoking Irish metric system advocates contributing to Wikipedia. But Stifle has hardly written anything in the mainspace, not even the (much-needed) Irish railway station project he mentions on his userpage. His high edit count consists largely of stub sorts and deletion votes (note that Stifle added himself to the 7,500 category in [[Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts|List of non-admins with high edit counts]] before he had reached that number [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AList_of_non-admins_with_high_edit_counts&diff=41528579&oldid=41526207]). I cannot support an RfA, no matter what the edit count, without significant contributions to articles; I'm perhaps more surprised that this is Stifle's weak point, as he seems to be an interesting and knowledgeable person.



'''Support''' - Seems like a good enough user. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Strong support''' - a good user, familiar with policy, and having good experience with the wiki. Full support. --
'''Support''' He seems like a pretty good user and has good experience. I'll give him my support.
'''Support'''. Seen him around doing good work. --
'''Support''' Has a good level of experience and a solid editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great user, but I'm a bit scared that he likes to write about knives. *scared* That's my saddest attempt at a joke. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Regarding the idea of Wikipedia being a "chore," I can attest to this. There's a bare level of editing required to satisfy the addiction, which explains why I'm here instead of staying on break where I belong. Incidentally, it appears I was one of several sysops to ''delete'' the template in question...
'''Support''' Enthusiastic editor despite the chore remarks (we've all been there at some point); the admin tools will be used sensibly.
'''Support'''. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' per the above comments.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' and 73s de --
'''Support''': Contribs looking good, no reason not to trust user with the tools.
'''Support''' - per above really --
'''Support''' Very yes! Seen a lot of good things from StuffOfInterest, and I'm sure they'll do well with the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''', only seen + stuff out of StuffOfInterest, and Wiki would be better if this user had the buttons. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Support''', StuffOfInterest does good work and wants to help out further, I see no reason to hinder this goal.
'''Support''' Good work, good tenure, and I like the work on transit related articles.--
'''Support''' I have seen this user around [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:RFPP]] before and it all looks good to me, so I have no reason not to support. --
'''Support'''. Looks like an honest, hardworking user. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''<font color="black">
'''Support''' Will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. This admin shows no record of POV-pushing or anything of that nature that would lead me to think he would abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  Looks like good stuff to me.  ;-)
'''Support'''.

'''Support.''' I like to see users who want to do more than just monitor [[WP:AIV]], but the user seems civil and thoughtful and demonstrates his need for the tools.  --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and answers. Appears well-qualified for the tools. Re the Oppose !vote, I am not a big fan of POV userboxes but their presence should hardly be disqualifying either.
'''Support'''  per nom. and great answer to Dmcdevit's question. -
'''Support'''- logically, you should have passed the declined RfA.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''. Need more admins, this one will do.
'''Support'''.  As long as the POV userboxes don't affect his editing, I think they're perfectly fine. --
'''Support''', after having a browse of the user's contribs. Thanks/
'''Support''' - solid editor, very likely to be a good admin. --
'''Support''' - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. -
'''Support''' Based on past experience, I'm quite surprised that your userpage (and particularly potentially insulting [[User:StuffOfInterest#Religion]]) has not been a bigger issue. Nevertheless, I don't see any evidence of your point-of-view becoming an issue in the encyclopedia. -- '''
'''Support''' seems likely to make a good admin. --
'''Support.''' Look forward to seeing you with mop and bucket. And I liked his response to '''Oppose''' vote below.
'''Support'''&mdash;That StuffOfInterest believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned, hardly distresses me. I'm rather confident all users have points of view; concealing ones POV serves no purpose; what matters is editing in Wikipedia itself. I’m willing to trust the evidence that StuffOfInterest believes “that articles need to reflect a NPOV”; this is sufficient to bestow the power to block, unblock, delete and undelete. Let's do it. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' seems to be good, devoted editor. Besides he has learnt the lesson and removed the political userboxen
'''Support''' &ndash; should be a good one. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I like his style, have seen good edits. -
'''Support''' a great editor.  seems like he would make a great admin. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' I've seen him at AfD a couple times and he is pretty civil. Given that, I support.
'''Support''' I've personally had positive experiences with the editor.  I also am motivated to support out of disagreement with the opposers below.  I share SOI's believe that the open declaration of one's biases is preferable; I have always done so on my own userpage, and have only gotten one question about it, which I managed to resolve in a friendly manner.  Essentially, the only difference between SOI's page and mine is that he uses (properly userfied) userboxes.  As this is in accord with WP:GUS, I don't find much worthwhile in the opposition point-of-view.  Users are not androids, and shouldn't pretend to be; although we all must act neutrally here, when we fail to do so on occasion (as is inevitable), checking our biases should be an open and easy thing for our fellow editors to do.
'''Support''' Everything looks fine here. —
'''Support''' I concur in part in Xoloz's assessment of the propriety of the use of advocacy userboxes and in part in Dmcdevit's ''false dichotomy'' formulation, but, in any event, not particularly inclined to reach the userbox question because I think it quite plain that SOI is possessed of the deliberative temperament, judgment, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious and am altogether confident that SOI, qua admin, will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I am confident that the net effect on the project of SOI's becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is, after all, my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|principal RfA standard]]).  The userbox issue need be reached only if one thinks the use of advocacy userboxes to be demonstrative per se of poor judgment or to be demonstrative of an improper emphasis on other-than-encyclopedic tasks which emphasis might tend toward disruption (or, at best, toward the determent of collaboration); the former objection is, IMHO, without foundation, whilst the latter is persuasive but not to any great extent.
'''Support''' - no incivility, seems to know policy, good answers, & edit summaries, & edit count, nice spread of edits throughout project &... etc etc, seems like a textbook +Sup to me! And pish posh to the "admins shouldnt express POV in their userspace" view - You'd rather we all just pretend we have none? Obviously we all do, and although I have no userpage there's no point pretending to be a mindless drone; after all, it would be naive to assume our POV doesnt affect editing pattern in at least ''some''way
'''Strongly oppose''' anyone with POV-advocacy userboxes and categories on their user page. I thought we had moved beyond that. Instead, upoon visiting the user page, I am confronted with SOI's point of view on religion, sexual preference, political party affiliation, capital punishment, censorship, church and state, and, incredibly, POV userboxes themselves. Not someone whose userpage (and judgment thereof) reflects well upon the encyclopedia, and certainly not someone I trust with adminship at this point.
'''Opposish''' largely per Dmcdevit's reasoning.  Admins (in my view) are held to certain standards and administrators and their actions reflect not only on the user but on Wikipedia, and more broadly the Wikimedia Foundation.  I don't feel that the candidate's POV (not necessarily the views themselves, but the overt broadcasting of them) is at all a reflection of Wikipedia and its aims.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit. I am sorry, but really too much not to be concerned. And yes, I've got 1 naughty user box myself - but I am not standing for admin. --

'''Oppose'''. I tend to agree that it can be best to be upfront with one's biases, but I feel this editor has relatively limited encyclopedia-building experience.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit.
'''Neutral''' - Unsure. He doesn't seem well rounded, mostly doing reversions and jumping into conflicts, but that in itself isn't enough to oppose. Looking at his diffs, it appears he treats Wikipedia like a chore, and that makes me nervous. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator. --
Yes please. &#8212;
Sure, seen him around and seems to make good contributions and has good sense.  Frequent partial blanking of his talk page without archiving is a bit odd, but to each his own I guess. --
I see I'm already late to the '''support''' party. I tend not to vote at all unless I've measured the candidate's contributions personally. Superm401 has demonstrated the ability to rise above the contention of the moment and to point the way towards harmonious resolution. That is what all of our Admins should be able to do. I'm lending my support to a candidate that has demonstrated that ability to my satisfaction. Superm401 (I've wondered what that means) will be an excellent Administrator, fair to a fault and a calming influence where there is disharmony. We need more Superm....
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor with well-rounded wiki-career.
'''Support''', we need more good admins, has a good history of positive contributions, and we always need more [[United States Academic Decathlon|AcaDeca]] Admins.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', edits in widespread namespaces; trusted editor, will make a trusted admin.
'''Spport''', let's see if anyone finds the crap joke I just made.
'''Support''' - looks to be a good egg. --
'''Support''', looks well-experienced to me, good choice to join the mop mob.
'''Strong support''', I've mainly seen this user in [[Harry Potter]]-related articles, where he shows plenty of good sense and a level head. Also displays a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A very good understanding of WP, and close involvement with the community.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''', good contribution history.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''. Made a good impression at [[WP:RD]]. —''
'''Support'''. Good contributions.
'''Support''': Great work! &mdash;
'''Support''', looks great to me. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. —
He's not one already?  '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''support'''. I would like to see a lot more edits in the main namespace. However, I am quite pleased with your edits as I see them. <font size="-1">
'''support''' impressed by his work at the Help Desk
'''Super Super Super Support!''' Nobody helped [[WP:MF]] more than this guy! --
'''Support''' Would make a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Has done good work on [[WP:IFD]], and watching for copyright vios.  As an admin, would be better able to deal with such problems. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Neutral''' Holy lack of edits in the main namspace Batman! (I mean as opposed to the total) Other than that, great.
'''Neutral'''. Relative lack of edits in main namespace (articles). However, nobody can complain of lack of community participation.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' as above. While it's great to see an editor so devoted to the Wikipedia's operation, contributions to actual articles are the only way it can grow and improve. --
'''Support''', not one yet? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Of course'''. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Open the iris''' on this user's sysopship. I think his IDC has been well confirmed. You have a go! <small>Yes I'm sad</small> --
'''Strong Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Suppport''' 4 years, good contributions, not an admin?
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' yes please

'''Tango, you are go for adminship'''--
'''Why not?''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' I don't think someone should lose their adminship until their account is deleted. Even so, they should be warned say, a week in advance. If he was sysoped once, he can be sysoped again.
'''Support''' as an early user and your contributions to policy --
'''Support'''. To Ardo, things were different four years ago, plus it was Simple English Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia. Anyway, I support this application due to the experience of the user. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support''' Tango will be a great admin. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
'''Support''' did you kill Tangotango? :P '''[[User:Fredil Yupigo|<span style="color:#ABABAB">Fr</span>]][[User Talk:Fredil Yupigo|<span style="color:#898989">ed</span>]]
'''Support''' I have no doubts that this user would be a great administrator. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong support.''' Definitely keep up the good edits and the work on Stargate! '''
'''Support''', another very qualified candidate. '''
I'm
'''Support''' seems good enough to me! <font face="Ancestory SF" size="4" color="#006400">
'''Support''' seems like a solid editor with long-term experiance. ---
'''Support'''. Looks like a good candidate for the job. --

'''Support''' I see very few blemishes. -
'''Support''', after seeing his work on here and at Simple.--[[User:tdxiang/TVB|<font color="gray">T</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Well established user, just a little worried about the level of contributions. By this I mean you aren't as active as most current admins, but I'm sure it won't be a problem. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' - I've observed his calm, quiet and serene behaviour on simple.wikipedia, I just think that there are many people, including me of course, that can benefit from his presence as an admin. --
'''Support'''. Time to break that common dirge of editcountitis. Tango is a good admin candidate from every angle. Good luck. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Conditional Support''' Very experienced, and wouldn't misuse the tools but make sure you do actually use them. There's no point promoting some-one who won't use the tools.
'''Support'''. Looks like he will make a good admin. '''''
'''Support''' per Voice of All's comments --
'''Support'''. Nominee has demonstrated a need for the tools and trustworthiness.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', I have no problems with what I've seen of him before. :) -
Support per (self-)nom.
'''Tango Alpha November Bravo Oscar''' operation admin is a go. --
'''Sockpuppet support''' - Certainly a very strong user, and knows Wikipedia very well. Plus, he has a great name ;) - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' - I support this wikipedian becoming an administrator.
'''The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything Support'''. '''
'''Support''' I believe there is promise in this user as a future admin.<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>
'''Support''' - For nice contribs. ''Peace''. --'''
'''Support''' - I thought I already had supported. Never mind that... good, strong contributor, should make an excellent admin. Cheers, <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Good contributor.  Looks like they'd make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Unlikely to misuse the tools. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great editor, and reasons for opposition are wholly unconvincing.
'''Support''' Three Barnstars, only 22% edits un-summarized, et cetera... looks like this user passed my test. [[User:DarknessLord|<font color="black">D•a•r•k•n</font>]]•[[User:DarknessLord/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]•[[User:DarknessLord|<font color="gray">s•s•L•o•r•d</font>]]•[[User talk:DarknessLord|<font color="turquoise">i•a•n</font>]]•••
'''Support''' - Definitely has the makings of a decent admin. :)
'''Support''' has done a variety of jobs on wiki.<b>
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''': As per above. Seems like user will make a good admin. Good luck! <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Any guy who is involved with Stargate in anyway is.... well, awesome. And your work with it does rock. And you should be an admin. You deserve the mop.
'''Support'''. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''. Yes, a sure support. He is around for ages. But, please remain active at least to a reasonable (?) level: [[Last Tango in Paris]] :) --
Undecided, because of his almost complete lack of participation in process the last four months or so. (
'''Neutral'''.  No specific reason to oppose, but short/wishy-washy nomination statement and #1 and #2 answers leave  me wondering for what specific reason we'd support this editor. --
Suggest '''indefinite block''' as sock puppet or impersonator of existing administrator [[User:Tangotango|Tangotango]]. (Just joking, of course, but if he becomes an admin, people are more likely to confuse the two.) --
'''Weak neutral''' I don't see any problems with this candidate, but not a real need for admin tools and low participation in policy discussions, moderate participation in article space.  There isn't enough here to oppose or support, so I've withdrawn my weak oppose and am replacing with this equally weak neutral on the basis that adminship is no big deal. —
'''Neutral''' - Don't know this user. --
'''Nominator Support''' Alright lets get this underway! --
'''Support'''. Why not? :-)
Aye.
'''<nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki>'''
<s>Mmm... tango</s> '''Support,''' of course. — '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no question.
'''Support''' Support without delay =)
'''Support''', Tangotango will surely be a good administrator!
Competence, common sense and usefulness. No further criteria, m'lud. '''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Very good contributor.
'''Support''' - With pleasure. --
'''Support'''. Yep. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. But where are the ''Help:'' and ''Help talk:'' namespace edits!? And what about the ''MediaWiki talk:'' space edits!? Disgraceful. You need to improve this, or you'll be beaten with a fish. --
'''Support'''. Answered my question, good user.--<b>[[User:SomeStranger|<font color="orange">SomeStrang</font>]]<i>[[User:SomeStranger/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]</i>
'''Support''', gladly.
'''Support''' I like the more original answer to question 1 - sounds like a good use of the admin tools. (NB: Despite the similarity in names, I have no connection to this candidate.) --
--
'''CLEARED for adminship''' Helpful to the newbies, among other users; won't abuse the admin tools. --
'''Strong Support''', Tangotango is a friendly, great and helpful editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - With  unalloyedpleasure. --
'''Strong support''' I was apparently the 3rd person to bug 'em to try for admin! :-) I've had very good confrontations with this user.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' - Helpful user. Especially with the answer to question 4. -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Will be a great addition.
'''Support.'''
'''Support on Wheels''' - <b>
'''Support'''[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' Good all-round user, meets all my criteria. --
'''Support''' - Wikiw00t! <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''. Civil, newbie-friendly, great wiki philosophy in general, good answers to questions, dedicated editor. --
'''Support''' - excellent user. --[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Textbook candidate.  --
'''Support''' - per Tawkercat! Meow! --
'''Support''', good user.  --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', per nomination; good deal! --
'''Support''', great answers.
White Rabbit '''Support''' (Because I'm late! I meant to vote on this one much, much earlier!)  <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' the promising candidate having a positive outlook and friendly nature. Still, I would have preferred the candidate restricting the answer to Q1 below to only admin-related works. -
'''Support'''. How is this person not yet an admin?!?!
'''Support''' per nom! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' for his contribution to Wikipedia and apparent will to continue! Also familar with Wikipedia process. --
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Well, if things continue going this way you just might win'''. On a serious note, this user is completly deserving of the admin. tools, and I trust him with whatever he does. <b><i><font style="background:#cc1100" color="white">[[User:Thetruthbelow|Thetr]]</font></i></b><b><i><font style="background:#cc1100" color="black">[[WP:UPH|u]]</font></i></b><b><i><font style="background:#cc1100" color="white">
'''Support''' Everything looks good to me.--
'''Strong oppose''' per above.  Less candidates like this, please. --
'''Support''' good user and many excellent contribs.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''

'''Support''' of course, per the Editor Review.'''
'''I-could-swear-you-were-already-an-admin-support'''. No, realy. I swear you were.
'''Support''' per a good answer to question #1. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support'''. I see no reason to oppose. Productive Wikipedian... would probably be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Everything checks out here; no reason to oppose. What does Celestianpower's comment mean?
Hell no! Ok, '''Yes''' ;) :D --
'''Support''' Very helpful, can't see why he shouldn't be admin.
'''Support Support Support Support Support Support Support''' I would be in euphoria if I supported anymore. Sorry Tango.
'''Support''' great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--
'''Support''', no explanation necessary.
'''Support''', It's about high time that you tango with the mop.--
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Total support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good editor and I think will make a good admin.
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support''' - because he's not too stuck-up to help newbies like me with little things.
Silly season '''Support''' Good editor. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Strong support'''. Definitely. --
'''Strong Support'''. Very friendly, and came when I called for help. He is a helpful contributor, and Adminship is what he deserves. [[user:Booksworm|Book]]<font color="green">[[Booksworm/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good. [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Of course, yet another fine candidate. -- '''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - obviously. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Japanese trains are surely better than the Czech ones. :) -
'''Support''' Passes [[User:Anonymous anonymous/RFA Criteria|My RFA criteria]] <font color="green">
'''Support''' Sorry, I thought I had already voted on this. --
'''Support''' a professional user. Administrators must be well-rounded, reliable, and professional contributors, because you'll have new users looking up to you (and trust me, that's more important than custodial duties, since you have a chance to set the right example). I would like to see more edits, but that's no big deal whatsoever. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' for all the great reasons above. ---
'''Support''' to <s>avoid</s> help out with pile-on. -
'''Support''' will make a great admin '''
I dunno, this may be too many Rfa cliché #1 votes in one day... ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''. Good editor, deserves the new tools.

'''Support''' As per above.
'''Support''' per nom, and a quick review of edits showed me this user is mostly helpful and contibutive. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''; had interaction with this user; always polite and helpful.
'''Support''' A great editor; precise, informative and willing.  Great to have a conversation with, and easy to approach. --

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per all of the above. &mdash;
'''troppuS andreW emertxE''' per Tawker
'''Support''' Yup Yup.
'''Support''', and besides the excellent answers to questions below, thanks for the vandal fighting.
'''[[WP:100]] Support'''.  Do a good job! --
'''Held off until 100, but missed it :(''''''
'''Support''', very good, well-reasoned and reasonable answers to the questions below. --
'''Insert clichéd message of mind-bendingly huge support here''' [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">'''haz'''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''', friendly, responded to my <nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki>, great editor. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' No problems, good editor, will use the tools well. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Strong support''' - almost missed this due to my wikibreak!!! Promptly helped me as a newcomer (when I was one, I mean) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good answer to question 3. Seems to have creative responses to controversial issues.
'''Unnecessary last-minute homosexual pile-on support.''' ;) -→
'''Strong Support''' '''
Suprised it's been so long since the last one. --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong, strong support''' It was about time! Will be an outstanding admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''.  He's done a superb job with current events.  He would be a greater asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --
'''Very Strong Support''' awesome editor. And would people queue up please? I've been edit-conflicted twice.
'''Support''' a patient and dedicated editor who will make an exceptional admin. Tariqabjotu is dedicated to the project and is one of the smartest, most knowledgeable editors its been my pleasure to know here. He is calm, meticulous and insightful and shows a broad and deep understanding of Wikipedia policy. An excellent candidate.
'''Strong Support''' Can't miss this one. Well deserving candidate. -- <font color="navy">
'''Support''' as co-nom --

'''Support''' - Another breaking my wikibreak support. -
'''Strong Support.''' I don't do many edits on the [[Middle East]] and [[Islam]] articles but I have read many of them. In a "corner" of Wikipedia where NPOV is very tricky, Tariqabjotu's edits have stood out as being neutral, and he is highly deserving of the mop.
'''Support''' as nominator because it outnominates mine. - <b>
'''Strong support''' - Outstanding contributor --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' Fantastic user, great person, will become one of the finer admins.
I won't make a cliche, I won't make a cliche, I won't...aw, forget it, I thought he was already one. --
'''Strong support''', possibly my strongest ever. Tariqabjotu is a great editor, with plenty of article writing and wikipedia-space activity, and has always shown an enormous amount of maturity and judgement. And when it comes to use of the tools, he looks like he'll work very productively. Finally, It is very reassuring that he has never seemed even remotely overeager.
'''Support''', strong candidate.
'''Support''' I can see no reason why not. Plus the stream of contributions seems to more than warrant adminship.
'''Strong Support'''. Always was qualified, always will be. I've been very impressed. I wish I could have conominated.
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Very pleased strong support after edit conflict
'''Strong co-nom support''' --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''  Always has thoughtful contributions. Seems to be very community oriented. Seems like a solid editor all around.
'''Support''' (edit conflict) what more can I really say, he's fully qualified and extremely impressive.--
'''Strong Support''' Give this candidate the [[Gold plated|Gold Plated Mop]], Please! <small> Trumpets in the background… </small>
'''Support''' excellent work over at [[mosque]].
'''Support'''. Great contributor, and well-qualified. '''''×'''''
'''Support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' He's made a lot of usefull tools and wonderful edits here. --
'''Support''' for good work in one of the most emotive areas of WP --
'''Support'''  Obviously very hard working in a very important area of wiki.
'''Support''' very strong candidate for adminship.
What a no-brainer this was. '''
'''Strong Support'''. Without reservation. He is well qualified for the tools.--
'''Support''' Why ever not? --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' well-rounded user, buttons are no big deal
'''Support''', should have become an admin ages ago and does excellent administrative work already.
Most definitely worthy. &ndash;
'''Strong Support'''. My dear. How long have I waited for this nomination. Some controversies in the past have cost the community of not having this wonderful editor as an admin before. —
'''Strong support'''. We've waited an absurdly long time for something that really should have been a forgone conclusion long ago. Per noms.
'''Support'''. I also awaited this nom for a long time. I still think that the reasons that the previous RfA failed were pretty sad; Ambuj and Grandmasterka put it well.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. A very good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
One of the best. &mdash;
Nomination's too long '''support'''. Can we put the nom and questions on a subpage and transclude it here? It takes up a largist number of lines. :P
'''Support''', great user. He should be an admin long time ago. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Oh my God, yes, yes! <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
Absolutely.
I '''Support'''ed before, but the contibutor even improved since.
'''Support''' per above answers, an excellent choice for Admin. ▪◦▪

'''Support''' of course.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', seen good things from this user. '''

'''Support''' Seeing as absurdity rules, I guess I'll support you for having a username that starts with T and ends with U ;) In all seriousness, you're a great editor, and I think you'd do well with the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Strong Support''' Truly remarkable editor, highly trustworthy. This promotion should have happened ages ago.
Opposed last time, IIRC. This editor has improved a lot and is now worthy of support in my view. I do not think too many co noms is a valid reason to oppose because I don't agree that co noms necessarily beat us over the head. Rather, at least often, they bring different facets to our attention we may have missed. I actually rather like a number of co noms as it shows strong support by folk who have done some research. But then I am biased on this point, I had [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lar|4 noms]], including pschemp herself, although her nom didn't bring much new info about me to light, to be sure. Also I don't think that the candidate has a lot of control over conoms. C.f. Phaedriel's [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel_2|candidacy]], there were a lot of co noms piling on after the fact. How does one politely tell co noms no? Not really fair to the candidate to oppose over this, IMHO. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''', has both the maturity and commitment required of an admin.
I'm
'''Copy and paste''': ''Support -- Deserved. Szvest 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)'' -- ''
'''Definitely''', I thought the candidate already was one, and I'm disappointed in seeing that he previously was denied adminship solely for expressing his religious views on his user page. --
'''Shine On''' - Support. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Strong Support'''. Very experienced editor; has contributed a lot to Islamic related articles.--'''
'''For Sure'''. Very good editor; has contributed much to a niche category.--[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above...
'''Support'''. Qualified candidate who shouldn't have the excessive number of nominators held against him.
'''Support''' I've been waiting for this to come up again. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Seems to pass all my criteria, and will sure not abuse admin tools. Nothing from the last three RfA I should worry about. Incivility is rare. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Support.''' I've supported before, and I'd gladly support again. More than meets [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]], and will make a great admin if given the chance.
'''Support''' per norm.
'''Strong, strong support''' Will be a welcome addition to the Wikipedia Community.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">
'''Strong Support''' Great editor, who writes articles from NPOV, and is qualified to be an adminstrator.
'''Strong Support''' well balanced and positive/cooperative editor. Go Tariq! ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]]
'''Strong Support''' The arguments presented above are much more convincing than those in the oppose sectin. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' Trust all the noms judgement --

'''Strong Support''' Fantastic Wikipedian! '''
'''Support'''. Very impressed with this user's work, particularly on the [[Mosque]] article. Even complimented him on it at the time. He should make a fine admin. —
'''esoppO''' Editors who suffer from hypernominatia, hypoPOVia and a reflexive urge to respond to opposers in invisible ink must be treated with a dose of Admin-X. ~
'''Support''' no evidence he will abuse admin tools and the userpage issues of the past have been addressed.--
'''Support''' as I did last time. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Edits, working and handling style of articles, dealing style with problems etc.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Strong Support'''. Very friendly user and excellent editor. I would be glad to see him in our company of admins. -
'''Support, long live Tariqabjotu the admin!''' You've made over 13,000 edits. Some people become admins with 1/13 of your edit count! Not only that, you do pretty much everything on Wikipedia. Support big time.
'''Support'''. Has dealt with criticism well, and shown restraint in waiting until now to run again. No serious issues identified by opposers. Easy support. --
'''Very strong  Support'''- He is an editor who always tried to update wikipedia with current affairs. In addition to that incivility is rare. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Partially because I think you'll make a good admin, partially because those opposes are so ridiculous. --
'''Support'''. Decided to be sensible when his friends weren't.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. My concerns from the last RfA have been completely addressed, and as I've seen only good or outstanding contributions from Tariqabjotu, I'm feeling slightly silly about them now. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) <small>(Er, the objections, not his contributions, obviously.)
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Yes.''' --
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' Although I personally agree with what ALM Scientist said, the nature of Wikipedia is that it does not care if your main priority is your religion or Wikipedia. And as long as Wikipedia policies at least seem to be your main concern, other editors are okay with you.
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''' Hook, line and sinker --[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''': This time I again failed to be 100th. But, following [[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]] is it self great to support a great editor! --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; The current RfA nominations lineup is the best in Wikipedian history, bar none. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Keep It Up!''' I can see him being very beneficial as a sysop here. Have not seen him around, but he'll help the admins with a lot of work if he gets the mop, bucket, and keys. I'm
'''support''', always been good from this viewpoint/
'''Support'''. Will make good sysop. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''.  -

'''Support''', As per the nom.
'''Strong Support'''. I've remember tariqabjotu/joturner back in '05, and I've seen nothing but improvement since then. The man should've been promoted a long time ago. <tt class="plainlinks">

'''Support''', same as first time! --
'''Strong Support''' I've had only positive interactions with this user in the past, all of which lead me to believe that they will be an excellent admin. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Super strong support''' - I'm tired of seeing his reports at [[WP:ERRORS]] and him only being able to close "no consensus" votes at [[WP:RM]].  Nothing but respect for this excellent user and soon-to-be administrator. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support'''. Long overdue.
'''Support''' per all the above comments.--
'''Support''' I'v not seen him but his edits look good all around. He should be good at being an administrator.--
'''Support'''.  It's nice to see that the - frankly, vile - opposition to has last RFA, based purely on Jo's religious beliefs, and not based at all on his actions on Wikipedia, has finally died down.
Another-little-note-on-my-talk-page-'''support'''. ^^ -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': Obviously.  —
'''Co-nom support'''
'''Support''' - Been here a while, should be an asset.
'''Strong Support''' Promotes civility as a means to dispute resolution.
'''Oppose''' - per most of the concerns brought up at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2]], also per pschemp --
'''Oppose''' I think that potential admins who respond to every oppose vote are not secure enough, and cannot accept an oppose vote, so they should not be admins.
I change my vote to '''Neutral''' because I am more interested in presenting only my views against him which I have done. ---
'''Nominate and support.''' –

'''Support.''' —
'''Strong support'''. Would make a great admin.&#160;—
'''Support'''; absolutely.
'''Support''' - need to work on major/minor edits as NSLE notes below, but to me that doesn't outweigh positive contributions and strong policy knowledge. (
'''Support'''. per above.  exactly what I was thinking. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' confident he'll make good use of admin tools. --

'''Support''' - If successful, it would be one of the most rapid rise to adminship of any user in recent memory. But I think that Tawker has the stuff. He's demonstrated that he'll revert vandalism ad nauseam. What more do I need to see? -
'''Support'''.  Knowledgeable, friendly, trustworthy, dedicated.  Per [[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]]. ~
'''Support''' good user, takes criticism well and responds carefully and kindly, which is very important in a vandal fighter.
'''Support'''.  I'm worried about how early this nomination is, but you're an incredibly hard-core vandal fighter, so as far as I'm concerned you should get the mop and bucket now.  Your responses clearly indicate you want the tools for vandal-fighting and not a newfound interest in closing AfDs (or whatever); otherwise I could not support you.  -- <font color="#668353">
'''Support'''. A bit early perhaps, but I think Tawker deserves the mop and bucket. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' - for the same reason I supported him last time. --
'''Super strong support'''.  He's a great vandalwhacker, and that IS what adminship is about (not completely, of course, but moreso than article writing).  Everybody has an edit button; only admins have admin rollback and blocks. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong support''' per Rory096. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' - Major contributions to Wikipedia. Keeps his head in the face of criticism and conflict. --
'''Support''' - If he needs and deserves the tools, why waiting?
'''Support''' per pretty well all above supports (''addition: and JoshuaZ's support below, which does an excellent job of detailing my reasoning for this support [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)''). I find absolutely no evidence that Tawker will abuse admin powers- supported by the responses to many questions below. There is plenty to suggest that good use will be made of them, and all evidence points to Tawker having the right attitude towards it (well IMHO at least!). I am still slightly puzzled as to why people see article contributions as an important admin criteria. Whilst I have no doubt that article writing is the most important job here (after all Wikipedia wouldn't exist without it), admin tools have nothing to do with actual article writing.
'''Support''' On one hand your bot targeted an OLD pic of mine, on the other hand you do a lot of anti-vandal work, and given the amount of obsessed craven vandals on Wikipedia lately, we need good admins...so you get my support...congrats!
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I don't often give my reasons for voting one way or another in an RfA, but in this case I will due to the importance of the RfA and the unique nature of the candidate. I apologize in advance for the length of this note. I think that we often lose sight over what RfAs should be about. An RfA should determine 3 things: 1) Can the user benefit from admin priveleges? 2) Is the user likely to abuse the admin priveleges? 3) Is the user lacking in knowledge of policy or general competence to an extent that they can do serious accidental damage with admin priveleges? To determine answers to these questions, people have developed a battery of different tests. Common criteria involve edit counts, edit summary percentages, number of articles brought up to "good" or "featured article" status etc. However, we sometimes forget that these criteria are a means to an end, not definite necesseties in and of themselves. The fact is that Tawker is a unique case where we can answer these questions without using standard criteria. Can he benefit from admin abilities? The answer here seems to be unequivocably yes given his various answers. Is he likely to abuse them? The answer should be again obvious, no. Even after spending months combating vandals, he has never once lost his temper with one, and is by everyone's descriptions a reasonable individual who works well enough with the community that he has constructed not one, but two bots, one of which we have let him put on active on an almost completely general basis. Is he incompetent or unaware of policy? I think again, the answer is obviously no. The competence required to construct and maintain his bots indicates a level of technical knowledge exceeding that of many admins and in the process he has learned a large amount about the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Furthermore, his other edits and his general vandal reversions have let him pick up a good understanding of other rules and guidelines. I am also confident that if he does not know the relevant rules/guidelines/past precedents on something, he will ask others for assistance. Given all this, I do not see why he should not be an admin.
'''Support''' Will be a great admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
would make a great candidate. <small>
'''Support''' per Joshua.
'''Support''' after some consideration.
'''Support''' I think hes ready eh? Keep up the good work.
'''Strongest possible support''' Go go gadget IRC vandal fighting!!! Tawker has shown me every intention of being a great admin.
'''Support''', after spending a whle reading his answers and thinking about it and then spending even longer working out where the last voter's signature ends.
'''Strong support''' based mostly on the TawkerBot2. 13,000 vandalisms reverted in a month convinces me this guy deserves the mop. I doubt most of us here have ever had 13,000 reverts. Tawker accomplishes in a month what most of us couldn't accomplish in a year. Smart, smart, smart. --
'''support'''
'''Support''' Very good vandal whacker. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support.''' I've given this one quite a bit of thought. Usually, this would be far too new for me to support. However, my experiences with Tawker both on IRC and in Wikipedia User talk space have been very positive. I have absolutely no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools, nor reason to believe that he doesn't understand the policies which use of those tools are governed by. In the end, for me, this user was too good to not support. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Tawker is a solid member of the counter-vandalism effort, operating bots, and helping out at IRC. He'd do just fine with the mop. --
'''Support''' 'Tawker and the bots' have helped Wikipedia greatly, even if not in the conventional way.
'''Support''' A veritable dynamo of awesomeness. --
'''Support''' Yes it's early but after considering the man, the bot and the answers below I can't see any reason other than "too soon" not to support, yet it's not too soon for Tawker to be a massive help to WP.
'''Support''' absolutely. Perhaps has done more to fight vandalism than any other user, ever.
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' per vandal fighting. --
'''Support''' per JoshuaZ and Tawker's answers below. Impressive.
'''Strong Support''' Tawker is the author of one of our main vandal-fighting tools and his work would certainly benefit from the access to the tools. What more can be said?
'''Support''' one of the first people I would go to if I needed help with something.  He is certainly commited to wikipedia. --[[User:Sir_Lewk|Lewk_of_S]][[User:Sir_Lewk/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per JoshuaZ, Makemi, and Rory.
Just came out of IRC arguing vehemently against Tawker unblocking his own bot... saying that it would be wrong for an admin to unblock his own bot! when Tawker pointed out he wasn't an admin! Imagine my surprise. So anyway... this is an odd case, he doesn't fit the numericals of many of us but darnit, he's admin material. Yes, please, do become more well rounded but... '''STRONG support'''. PS he wasn't arguing in favour of unblocking his own bot anyway, I was confused two ways there... <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support''' per  JoshuaZ.
'''Support''' per nomination. ~'''Linux'''erist
'''Support''' helpful cheerful very positive user. Knows wikipedia's in and outs pretty well, though I'm sure he has more to learn, but then again, so do we all.
'''Very very very very strong support'''. He's been absolutely incredible so far. I was going to nominate him myself but I guess someone already beat me to it. This guy should be given the mop pronto. :) [[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Strong support''' I can't tell who does a better job, CSCWEM or Tawker. &mdash;
'''Support''': Great vandalismfighter!! Go! Go! Go! --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' &mdash;
<strike>'''weak Support'''. Tawker would do a hell of a lot of good for the CVU with block-powers. Not quite sure about about his non-vandal-revert contributions, I'd expect more encyclopedic involvement from my admins. +[[User:Hexagon1|Hexagon1]] ([[User_talk:Hexagon1|talk]]) [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|30px]] 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)</strike> <br>'''Support''', looking over recent contributions, it appears he has started making more encyclopedic edits, and I'm a little scared at how fast he replied to my vote. I was also convinced by Rory096's vote - after all, admin-ism is just vandalwhacking powers beyond the scope of normal users. +
'''Support'''.  A trustworthy user (and that's the only qualification you need!)
'''Support''' not likely to abuse the tools and hey, might figure out a few new tricks for us while he's at it. .:.
'''Support''' per JoshuaZ. I admire the user a lot. So what if his edits are bot-like? He would make an extremely useful admin. -
'''Support''', the feedback he has been handling about his bots has already made him well informed and in line with Wikipedia policy issues. He is ready.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. It's funny, when people mostly work on writing/expanding/copyediting articles, their admin noms are opposed because "admin tools are not essential for that". When they fight vandalism, they get oppose votes because "they are not active in the main space". It's a miracle we have any admins at all.&mdash;
'''Strong support'''.  Several objections below are that the candidate is primarily a vandal fighter.  In my opinion, that is exactly why this RfA is in order.  The most important thing a vandal fighter can do is to block persistent and incorrigible vandals.  Until they have admin status, they can only warn and then wait for an admin to show up to finish the job.  In the meantime, more pages are vandalized.  Give this guy the ability to block vandals.  That is for me a sufficient justification for my vote.
'''Support''' Like many of the opposers, I generally prefer to see a longer membership; but I've had Tawker's bot's talk page on my watchlist for a while and I have seen him put up with and respond considerately to more than enough hasty (read: uncivil) comments for me to feel I know his style well enough to offer wholehearted support. I find his responses below balanced and reassuring too ~
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">

'''Support''', changing vote, great user, with a good grasp on policy.
'''Support.''' Editcountitis need not apply here, good user that needs a mop.
'''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''': excellent vandal fighter whom I have run into on a number of occasions. I have also been impressed by his work with Tawkerbot2 - not only with its ability to revert vandalism, but also with Tawker's willingness to address issues with the both while being upfront and courteous about the problems. Would make a great administrator. --
'''Support''' Normally, I would not support a new editor, but the sheer volume of vandal fighting he's done and helped others do has given editors more time to edit Wikipedia.  If he weren't a level-headed person of course, that wouldn't matter a hill of beans.  But, this isn't the case. <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support''' One of those people who works hard behind the scenes with little reward to keep wikipedia vandalism free --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', great work and no reason to suspect anything bad in the future. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', great vandal fighter but I would like him to have more major edits in the article space. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Shame on the opposers. --
'''Support'''. Yeah. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Naturally.
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''  (low risk of misuse) + (significant benefit to Wikipedia) = (my support) --
'''Support, bitch'''. Screw lack of article-edits or whatever you're whining about. This guy is not going to abuse admin tools, period.
'''Strong support''' Dedicated,level-headed editor who will get a lot of use from the tools and will not abuse them.
'''Support'''.  You don't need a PhD in Armchair Philosophy to revert clearcut vandalism, and it seems appropriate for him to be able to add a little more muscle to his bag of anti-vandalism tricks.  Since he'll probably continue to spend most of his time on vandalism issues, he has plenty of time to gradually get acquainted with other administrative tasks and associated policies if he ever finds the time or the inclination. --
'''Support''' per dedication to Wikipedia. ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' he needs power tools to do his job to the best of his ability.  I trust him with them.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' because Wikipedia will be a better place once this person is given the tools necessary to fully clean up after vandals.
'''Support'''. A great wikipedian who will benefit from Adminship. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', for Tawkerbot2, fastest blanking revert in the west!
'''full support''' -- so he fights vandals and doesn't contribute to articles so much? The amount of work he put into vandalfighting alone merit my support. Hell, I'd support adminship for his bot too, admins looking after existing articles is exactly the backup needed by editors who prefer to busy themselves with writing articles.
'''Support.''' if sysop tools will enhance his abilities to keep this place ticking over, wikipedia can only benefit.--
'''
'''Support''', going to be a good admin.
--
'''Support''' yes. --
'''Strong Support''' Tawker, you've created a super-good vandal-fighting bot, Tawkerbot2. I respect you very much. Everytime i'm vandal-fighting, I come across your bot, and I always know that someone is with us to protect Wikipedia until the end.
'''Support'''.  Why on earth not?  There's nothing wrong with specialty admins, and this one would certainly be trustworthy.
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''. Very good. this guy deserves adminship. if you can do that much in reverts i can see you doing a lot with admin rights. --[[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#000000">preschooler.</span>]][[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#E9B901">at</span>]]
'''Support'''. I looked over his edits and am confident that he will be a capable trustworthy admin.--
'''Mega support.''' No question.--
'''[[How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back|I am Tawker, please insert support]]''' '''
'''support''' Not just supporting Tawker because I wrote on my "manifesto" that he was already an admin. A vandal-cruncher. --
'''Support'''. Okay, so he doesn't do anything but whack vandals &mdash; so what? He whacks them good'n'hard. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''. I usually would want an editor to be here longer before becoming and admin but Tawker is amazing. Love the bot. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''  10,000 is two months???  Keep up the good work pal.
'''Strong Support''' - We need more good programmers to be admins.  And I've talked with Tawker (he setup a Wikipedia channel on his [[Ventrilo]] server) and he's great.  A lot of the oppose votes below are based on "not enough time".  We need to examine what that really means ... they're basically saying, "Not enough days have elapsed since the account was created".  In actuality, Tawker has put in a lot more of his time than most RfA candidates have.  Number of months is relative.  We've seen enough of him in these past two months to know he's going to be a great admin.  We don't unnecessarily need to wait any extra time before we hand him the mop.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' per nom. I'm sure Tawker will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' per JoshuaZ and the idea that adminship should be no big deal. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' Edits to project space can quickly and easily be inflated in someone is attempting to become an admin. On the other hand fighting vandalism is becoming a full time job and if someone wants to do that then provide them with the tools to help.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per JoshuaZ. —''
'''Support'''.  Based upon my own personal interactions with Tawker, I believe him to be a trustworthy individual who, as an administrator, will only improve the Wikipedia experience for visitors and editors alike.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia will benefit from having Tawker as an administrator. While there are valid concerns in the oppose votes, I believe Tawker can address them by going slow on the non-vandal related admin functions at the beginning, and gain more experience in these areas on the job.
'''Support'''.  A fine administrator on Wiktionary, and certainly has shown general good judgment from all I can see. --
'''Support'''. Adapted himself quickly to wiki practice and standards and shows ability to cooperate and communicate.
'''Support'''. I totally '''support''' him to become an admin. The RFA is getting weired every day. I mean: Too much Vandal revert? No contribution to articles? C'mon, thats what admins are for. Counteracting vandalism! Now only people making '''''supposedly''''' good contributions to articles are allowed as admins and vandal fighters are shunned? Come on! --
Quite unlikely to abuse the tools, and I think we have seen enough of Tawker to make a fairly reasonable judgment.
'''Support'''. After reading this page and doing a random check of Tawker's edit history, his relative youth is a non-issue for me; '''he gets it'''. Besides, if somehow he (or any other SysOp) was somehow possessed of demons after receiving the tools, well, it's as easy for the community to taketh away, is it not?
I really hate to be a dampener, and hope you understand there's nothing personal in this (not even your bot going wacky and targetting me), but how many of your article edits have been to improve and expand? They've mostly been vandal reverts, no? High usertalk edits are warnings? Project space contribution is low. I recognise your contribution of Tawkerbot2, but I think that for now, the only thing you need is godmode-light. '''Reluctant but strong and firm oppose'''. (I've included my optional questions below, a good answer could cause me to sway to neutral or support...)
'''Oppose.''' Definitely on the right track. Keep this up for a few more months, and I will be happy to support your RfA.
'''Oppose'''. Two months is too new. Previous RfA failed because of too-newness, but the editor hasn't waited graciously for the (imo fairly-bright) line of three months. Makes me feel that he is too eager. Also, does essentially only vandal fighting for which admin powers are a help but not a necessity. Thus, little participation in other areas of the project (and essential experience in them), including the writing of, wait for it, the encyclopedia. Needs longer, broader and more general experience. Lots of hours being entertaining on IRC has little to nothing to do with what is needed in an admin, imo. Also, no particular evidence of policy knowledge beyond [[WP:VAND]] and [[WP:CSD]] &mdash; has the editor participated in such discussions, and can that be usefully guaged in 8 weeks anyway? (Not that I think him ignorant, but it seems like a strange assertion that needs challenging.) And I want to be absolutely clear that, should this succeed, it does not mandate Tawker giving any of his bots admin access. -
'''Oppose'''. Too few major edits in the article namespace indeed. An administrator should have more experience in that area.
'''Oppose''' per NSLE and Splash.  51 major edits + only two months active editing + second nomination already = a very uneasy feeling about this candidate for now.  I look forward to supporting someday, but please do spend some time do content editing, and wait a tad for adminship.  Some content editing is a very important prerequisite to mophood.
'''Oppose''' Per all the above really, not much else I could say. Great at whack-a-vandal, but I'd like to see more contribs to article writing and/or improving.
'''Oppose''' - as above.  Keep up the good work though.  Tawkerbot is the win. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Weak oppose'''. Has done a lot of good work, but have to oppose per NSLE and others. [[User:Aucaman|'''Auca''']][[User:Aucaman/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''m'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Seems like a good guy, but some experience only comes with time. --
'''Oppose'''. My reason for opposing is simply one of time. It is my firm belief that an Admin nominee must demonstrate a reasonable amount of contribution to the Wiki, quantitatively judged by edit distribution and quanity, and qualitatively judged by, well, examining edits. I also believe that a nominee must also demonstrate commitment to the Wiki in terms of time. I believe that three months is the absolute minimum, and my personal preference is for four to five. This is not a statement about the ''quality'' of a candidate...a candidate that has what it takes to be a good Administrator has those qualities from their very first day on the Wiki, and a candidate that does ''not'' posess those qualities will not aquire them even in months of contribution to the Wiki. I believe that requiring a certain time commitment serves both as an opportunity for the candidate to observe and digest the various elements of the community, but also allows the community time to evaluate the candidate. Trust, but verify. Verification requires time. That is why I am Opposing. I would also like to comment on some elements of your answers that I noted. These are ''my'' opinions, and do not neccessarily reflect the viewpoints of the community as a whole. I happen to dislike NSLE's question #3, as I don't neccesarily agree that blocking abusive vandals who have targeted you is a conflict of interest, so to me the question itself is problematic. My feeling is that if users are vandalising and being uncivil, that is problematic, no matter if they are attacking you or someone else. If you would block them if their actions were directed at another user, I have no issue with you blocking them yourself. However, it's perfectly alright to get a second opinion, I just don't feel it's an absolute ''neccessity''. Also, your answer to NSLE's question #1 seems to discuss taking steps to confirm whether the established editor is really using a sockpuppet or not. This is just me being picky about semantics, but in my mind the phrasing of the question ''you find out that an editor, ... has been using sockpuppets abusively.'' Implies the editor ''is'' a sockpuppet...in other words, you are informed as as established ''fact'' that an editor is abusing sockpuppets. I'd be interested to see what your response was, with that interpretation. I do however like your answers to a lot of the other questions, and I thank you for your work with Tawkerbot2...the more tools we have to fight vandalism with, the better. I think you are on the right path, but I feel you need some more time to experience Wikipedia, and learn more about the subleties of the culture here. Best regards,
'''Oppose'''.  After visiting this page three times to think it over.  I definitely appreciate how useful the bots are and Tawker has always been friendly when I've looked over his talk.  However, two months of solid contributions is just too little.  I simply do not think there are enough examples of how Tawker works with others, outside of bot-related activity, to make an informed decision.  The two RFAs in just short of a month make me uneasy as well.  This is definitely a case where the "come back later" is for my benefit rather than the nominee's. -
'''Oppose''' Inexperience, too quick on the draw.  --
'''Oppose''' Too new, too low on major edits and major edit summaries, and as I state in my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug Bell|admin standards]], vandal whacking alone doesn't provide the proper perspective for dispute resolution and making decisions on deletions. —
'''Oppose''' I share the concerns of NSLE and others above. And two months just isn't enough time.
'''Oppose''' really only active for 2 months.  As others have said before, some experience only comes with time.  --
'''Oppose''': not really long enough experience, sorry.
'''Oppose''', but try again in a few months. Please use edit summaries more and turn off the minor edit default.
'''Oppose'''. Revert wars over {{tl|unblock}} templates, calling their restoration "disruptive". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44478525&oldid=44478416] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44478755&oldid=44478600] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44479260&oldid=44479121] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44480006&oldid=44479714] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44480340&oldid=44480279] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44480481&oldid=44480444] --
'''Oppose''' try again in 6 months
'''Weak oppose''', has only been really active for two months.
'''Oppose''' the tawkerbot is reverting good faith edits which is rather worrying.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, two months is just to soon to really know where you're going with this. I have no further advice beyond what others have said, but between the bot and AWB, 10,000 edits isn't what it used to be. --
'''Oppose'''. Don't get me wrong, I like behind the scenes guys and vandalfighters, but he is still too new for now.'''
'''Oppose'''.  Being an admin is more than vandalfighting.  It requires familiarity with the ins-n-outs of Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia culture.  Two months of super vandal fighting is a great vote of confidence.  Waiting another four months won't kill you, and I have few doubts that your nomination then will be overwhelmingly successful.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, Splash, Ëvilphoenix and BanyanTree. --
'''Oppose''' Tough one, because I think Tawker is a great contributor to Wikipedia. Other editors I respect disagree, but I don't think a concentration on vandal-fighting is a negative. However, I do strongly believe that two months as an active editor, no matter how great I think that editor is, is not enough time. Even if such a new user is completely familiar with our policies and guidelines, has a firm grasp on how Things Are Done - some more time is needed to fully process meta-themes and memes that float below (sometimes far below) the surface here. It requires not just knowledge and understanding, not just large and valuable contributions - but a longer-term feel for the community, how it reacts and how it doesn't. Personally, three months of active and meaningful contributions is the *absolute* minimum for my support, even for such a top-notch contributor as Tawker. For contributors without his Herculian contributions, 4-6 months of active and substantial editing is needed in my opinion. If this RfA fails, I would cast a support vote for him a month or two from now, barring any unlikely negatives between now and then. --
'''Oppose.''' Not enough experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' for distribution of power reasons. Tawker's programs and bots do so much for Wikipedia that Tawker definitely "deserves" to be an administrator, but he has said that he will start enforcing the same areas that his programs control for information, giving him God-powers over Wikipedia with no oversight. The people who take action against others based on specific information should never be same people who generate the information. --
'''Oppose''' on time.  Probably the great user the 100+ people above say, but given that it's extremely difficult and time-consuming to de-op unsuitable admins (and effectively impossible to de-op the marginal ones who'd there'd be no consensus to promote on the basis of "what we know now") a modicum of precaution is indicated, and two months isn't a sensible interval to assess this.  I note that it very much tends to be the vandal-fighting specialists that are nominated on such bases, by and supported by others, and call upon them to apply a bit of self-correction in their community standards, and a bit less haste.
'''Weak oppose''' Great user, on the right track, but now is just not the time. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
Too soon after last nomination. That with some of the other thing mentioned (time, etc.) leads me to oppose for now. Sorry. --
'''oppose''' - too new and apparently too young. (Not even young enough to drink.)<sup>[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Eclecticology#Reply]</sup>--
'''Oppose''', with sorrow, per above. Excellent contributor, but Splash and EvilPhoenix make good points.
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''' - <s>as all above</s>. This is a very close one; good vandle fighter (and Twakerbot 2 keeps getting better, it would seem), honest and intelligent user, but its the fact that this is a second RfA so soon after the other. For me, a set length isn't perhaps necessary, but some sort of regularity is required. The whole accidental minor edits things if the sort of the we newbies tend to do, it needs some time to iron that sort of thing out. if I were you I would take heed of the [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me]] debacle. A significant number of Wikipedians will reject all admin nominees for people who have been contributing regulalry for under about 6 months, for perfectly understandable - if a little inflexible - reasons. Set a date - say the end of June - reject '''all''' nominations before then, and if your contributions are hlaf as good and as useful as they are at the moment then you'll sail through.
'''Neutral''' - won't oppose, as I don't think he'd do anything dumb given the tools, and will be a benefit to the Pedia, but I can't bring myself to support Tawker; he's had very little experience of anything other than vandal-whacking and AWB. And just disable the 'mark all edits as minor' thing.
'''Neutral''', As per Proto I must [[Switzerland during the World Wars|plead the Swiss]]. But in another month or so if Tawker continues will have my unreserved support.--
'''Neutral''', I've come across the user on many occasions, but put simply: 2 months is too new. I, for one, now have 3-4 months of experience and have failed 2 RfAs, and I only plan another one in mid-May. Great vandal fighter, many edits, but too new!
'''Neutral'''.  I suggest taking 2 months to focus on building articles and train others to fight vandalism.  Would give a better perspective of Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' No reason to oppose, but he's a little too new.
'''Neutral''' because I'm not a regular RfA commenter or reader, otherwise moderate support because I agree with Moe that 2 months normally isn't enough, even for intensely active editors (in fact I'm afraid of editors like that burning out or going berserk over something).  However, Tawker apparently brings experience from maintaining other wikis that would apply here, given that I'd think of him as a "specialist" admin whose main activities would involve technical tools.  The usual admin candidate qualities I'd look for (basically, lots of on-wiki time with understanding of WP editing and admin culture, good dispute-handling experience and thick skin; candidates who say they've never been in a stressful wikidispute probably are not experienced enough) apply to Tawker somewhat less.  I also wonder if he'd like to contribute to server side coding (or maybe already has contributed) and I'd think such back-end contributions are also relevant to RfA's wrt examining the candidate's participation level.
<b>Neutral</b> Though all of that in two months is impressive, two months just isn't enough time to decide whether one is a trustworthy member.
<b>Neutral</b> Good contribution especially in such a short period of time, but I would feel more comfortable supporting the RfA after a few more months. --
<b>Neutral</b>. Please use edit summaries more often as I do not consider 67% for major edits high enough. Deleting pages after your success will even require reasons.--
'''Neutral'''. Impressive number of edits, but not enough editing/writing of articles for me to support.
'''Neutral''' needs 1-2 more months of such power editing. After all, time is key, not necessarily edits. Great user though. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Neutral''' Great guy and great programmer, but two months and not much interaction in the Wilkipedia namespace is not enough. WHat is the rush? Give it a couple of months, get involved in the community and I will surely support.
'''Neutral''' while i don't think that tawker should be denied a mop and broom because he spends all his time fighting vandals- rather, i think ardent vandal fighters benefit greatly from admin tools- only ''51'' major edits ''is'' a bit concerning.  will probably change to support if needed . . . --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Moved to Neutral''' Your bots are doing some productive work, but you don't quite meet my usual thresholds, most of your edits seem robotic in nautre themselves (many via AWB's). I'd suggest moving all of your automated editing to one of your bot accounts. —
'''Neutral''' ''(Change from oppose)'' Have had some interactions with this user since my vote above and also reviewed more of his edits. I can't underestimate the value of his and Joshbuddy's contributions to Wikipedia through the Tawkerbot. I would vote full support, but just can't bring myself to do it because of the short time on wikipedia. But I think he will be a great admin, whether now - or in a couple months when I will definitely support. <font color="#063">
After a lot of consideration, I'm placing an opinion here, rather than in the section above. I like the user; I think the user has the right stuff needed in a competent, sensible, head-screwed-on admin. I think, given time, that stuff will manifest. I don't see quite enough of the sort of editing I'd hope for in someone who is going to find, very quickly, that they'll be at the front line of a lot of disputes; your first month of adminship is rather comparable to being tied up in stocks while shit is thrown from all directions. This alone would drop me to a neutral here. Then I see the responses to the questions I placed below. I'm not too keen on two of them, which don't, to me, quite grasp what I was after. I'm still not opposing, because, as I said, I think the user should be an admin. Just, I don't think it should happen yet.
'''Neutral''' - I don't think Tawker deserves an oppose, and I don't go in for arbitrary time periods/numbers of edits, but I'm concerned that his amount of time editing is relatively short and the evidence above suggests more experience of major edits would be useful before becoming an admin. I'd probably support in the near future once these criteria are met. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]




















Can you explain your actions in these diffs– [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44478525&oldid=44478416] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44478755&oldid=44478600] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44479260&oldid=44479121] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44480006&oldid=44479714] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44480340&oldid=44480279] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=44480481&oldid=44480444] (all fairly recent)? Is this the type of conduct you would engage in as a sysop? If not, what did you learn from this experience, and how would you handle such a situation as a sysop? —




Although still high, your number of edits in March were less than half the of those that you completed in Februrary. Is there any reason for this and what level do you - roughly - expect to to be contributing at in the future? Also, what caused your sudden interest in editing Wikipedia, after a slow start?
[[Loaded question|Have you stopped beating your wife?]] --
How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? The amount of questions in this RFA is ridiclious just like these questions.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a stink? --[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
Beat the nominator cliche support.
'''Support''' After looking at all the things Teke has done, I think he would be a great admin. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
'''Support''' - Teke seems to be experienced and have a good grasp of policy.  I see no evidence that he would abuse the tools, and his editing would benefit significantly from having them as outlined in his response to the first prompt.
'''Support''' Will make a very good admin. --
'''Support''' seen nothing but good things. (good to see a frat member up for rfa)
Yes please. - <b>
'''Support''' Excellent main to WP space ratio.  An excellent editor all round who deserves the buttons.  <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools based on past edits by this user. Has a good grasp of policy too. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Has a good deal of user_talk, talk, and Wikipedia namespace edits. I think Teke knows the Wikipedia policy very well, and will definitely be successful as admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', give him the mop :) --
'''Support'''.
<s>'''Support'''</s> Will use the tools well. Not that it actually matters at this point, but I'm changing to '''''strong support''''' per Teke's responses to Kokota below. Any editor who can handle themselves as well as Teke can, and have other contributions as excellent as Teke's, deserves the word "strong" in my support of their adminship. --
'''Support''' <font color="blue">
'''Support'''. Looks good. Seems to have an interest in tasks that need more admins too.'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good grasp of policy; gets stuck in to awkward-but-essential areas such as moves and merges; good spread of edits. Let this editor flourish the mop. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per (aero).
'''Support''' will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Strong support'''. '''
'''Pile on Support''' - is this one going to be a all support sweep.... --
'''Support''' will make a great addition to the admistrators. --
'''Support''' - per the ''Tawkerator'' :) -
'''Dogpile support.''' Every experience with Teke thus far has been positive, I have no reason to suspect he would abuse any of the tools, and I believe he's dedicated to improving Wikipedia.
'''Support''' ~
'''Support''' seems good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Per Above.
'''A 16oz [[Beefsteak tomato]] Support''' per very well written nom and personal experience with editor.—
'''Support''' looks okay and ready.
'''Support''' I like that the candidate is willing to help out on some of the bigger backlogs and it seems as if he/she is certainly to be trusted with the extra buttons
'''Helped me tremndously support''' --<font color="336699">
'''TKO by TKE support'''.
'''Support''', will make a good administrator. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', don't know this person personally, but I believe this person will make a good admin. —''
'''Support'''. Seems sensible and well-intentioned, from what I can tell. -

'''Support''' of course.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per all of above.  Excellent user, can use tools effectively, no problems.
'''Support''' per all of above. Do I even need to say much? --<b><font color="#006633">
'''Support''' Looks like this person will be a good admin. A-OK.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support) '''
'''Support'''. Good editor, will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''&mdash;anyone who will help reduce the backlogs on [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] with solid previous behavior should be an automatic admin. Do good work!
'''Strong support''', great editor, very civil and friendly.--
'''Support''', Per all of above. --
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per all of the above and the assistance I have received from this user in the past.
'''Support'''. Well, why not.
'''Support'''. Clearly a fully qualified and candidate, who is dedicated to Wikipedia.--
'''Y. E. S. Exclamation mark.''' A very helpful and civil editor. -→
'''Piling On Support''' excellent mop candidate.
'''support''':
'''Support''' Will only do good with the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''GDI support'''. If you can't go Greek, go...be a sysop. :)
'''Support''' of course. Fabulous user, plain and simple. If I go to Tennessee in the next few years, maybe I'll stop by for a beer.
Not for Wealth, Rank, or Honor, but for Personal Worth and Character, do I '''Strongly Support''' Frater Teke for Wiki-Pyjanitor, er, adminship. ZB#695,
'''Support''' - looks good.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support.''' —
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Everything looks good to me. --
'''Support''' - He's a good guy, I'm sure he'd make a wonderful admin :)
'''Support''' - he would make a good admin
'''support''' --
'''support''' -
'''Support''' [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
'''Support'''. —
'''Last Minute Support''' I would have been first if I had seen it earlier.
'''Also a last minute support''' - Per above. Can be trusted with the mop. -
'''Super strong support''!!  I can't believe I almost missed this...

'''Neutral''' - would prefer significantly more article Talk: page interaction.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor
'''Support'''
'''Support''' The old cliché. '''''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - appears to have great potential for administrative responsibilities.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Edit history impressive; marvelous wiki-janitor.
'''Support''' good edit history.  Will do good job.
'''Support'''. '''—
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong Support'''. Experiences with this user have been very positive; will make a great administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Everything looks good here, not likely to abuse tools, see additional questions below.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''. I came across this editor a while ago, on CfD I think. He seemed thoughtful, deliberative and careful. He is knowledgeable of Wikipedia and its ways. I'm also relieved to see from Interiot's tool that, unlike some of out recognisable editors, this one actually does sleep. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Wow...he does sleep.  Sleep is good for dispute resolution and NPOV. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''; experienced, works well with others, will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. Extensive history of good edits.  Encountered this user on the [[Google Maps]] article, doing a great job of keeping control of the article's external links and spam.  --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''' Excellent editor --
'''Support''' Solid article editor/clean-ups. Calm and professional.  And, hey, a Texan.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support'''
The eyes of Wikipedia are upon you and saying '''support'''!
'''Support''' - this is the 'droid we're looking for.
'''Support''' - will make a great admin.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Contributions look good.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''. Excellent editor.
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Strong support''' beaten me to the RC punch too many times to oppose.
'''Support''' - give the Android his own mop!
'''Pile on Support'''. Good user.'''
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. CFD needs heping hand.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''CFD-based Support''' :) --
'''Support''' Good user in my experience.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Down with humans! Up with robots! Seriously, though, I was peripherally involved in the situation TexasAndroid describes in the third part of his answer to the third question, and I think he handled the situation admirably.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''--
Support.  I think [[City of Heroes zones]] and [[City of Heroes enemy groups]] could be improved a lot, but I like the wikignome work. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' Seen this user around and always seem to give calm and well reasoned comments.  Good use of talk pages. Looks like someone who may well mediate his way out of blocks but should have the conveniance of it when it is needed. Most importantly seems to be the kind of editor that does good research before barging into a situation.  I particularly like the arb enforcement contributions he seems willing to make since this inevitably gives more weight to arb com decisions.
'''Support''' He's often a voice of reason in heated discussions, which is an exceptional quality for an admin to possess. --
'''Support''' No question at all. A terrific user that would benefit from the tools and has done amazing work in every single possible aspect of Wikipedia. There are very few users this proficent and this incredible.
'''Support'''  Enthusiastic support - in my experience, Thatcher has been a cool-headed and productive editor.
'''Edit conflict Support!''' I've noticed this user around a lot and, I confess, I ''did'' think s/he was an admin!!  I especially applaud the user's hard work on the aforementioned [[WP:CHILD]].  This user is levelheaded, trustworthy, and dedicated.  Bring on the mop!!
'''Support''' No cliche.  I've had the knowledge that Thatcher131 was not an admin burning in the back of my mind for a while, but since my interactions with him have been all secondhand I didn't ever ask why he had not "made the run" as it were.  I'm proud to be among the editors who hold a high opinion of Thatcher131. <small>I even hit ctrl-c on my comment because I fear edit conflicts in making my comment here</small>
Editconflict '''Oh noes, cliche Support'''. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I could right per above or per nom (or per Syrthiss since my thoughts are almost identical to Syrthiss's unfortunately for me Durin had priority on nominating Thatcher otherwise I would have nommed Thatcher months ago).
'''Strong Support''' - insert '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[User talk:Glen S/Templates/RfA cliche #1|RfA cliche #1]]}}''' - but I really did think he was! -
'''Infinite Support''' - Definitely one person who deserves the mop and bucket. Cool, Calm and Collected all apply to Thatcher. :)
'''Strong Support''' per all of the above. A truly dedicated user. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' per all above. He is extremely dedicated.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' He's not an admin yet? Really? Hmm... he should have a [[squeegee]] too, for that extra sparkle and shine.
'''Strongest support''' per the excellent nom statement and answers to questions. Enormous contributions in a number of areas, always level-headed and a voice of reason in tough situations. He's helped out in admin situations for a long time and he's to be trusted 100% wielding the tools for himself. I would, however, encourage him to write another article sometime.
'''Continued Support''' after reading the exchange under scrutiny. ~
'''Support''' ~
'''STrong support'''.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''': a nomination from Durin is golden.
'''Support''' I've been very impressed by his hard work at [[WP:RFCU]] --

'''Support'''. User has done admirable project work in several important areas and clearly has use for the tools. I have no concerns about the use of those tools. I must respectfully disagree with the interpretation of what was written by those who currently oppose. I don't think that was a threat at all. Indeed, user could not have banned anyone at that point. What he said strongly appears to me to simply recognize the reality that willful and repeated action taken in contravention of that vote would surely result in a ban. I don't have any concerns.
'''Strong Support''' - per nom and good [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Thatcher131 upload log] --
'''Strong Support''' As a fellow clerk at checkuser, I have seen Thatcher do tons of stellar work there. His behind-the-scenes contributions are absolutely invaluable to the checkuser process. As Durin has explained with several diffs in his magnificent nom, Thatcher has been heavily active in several important areas of Wikipedia and his actions and reasoning has always been impeccable. I don't think that the diff cited below is a solid enough reason to oppose. On the other hand there are volumes of evidence showing why Thatcher would make a great admin and I feel he's one of the most deserving admin candidates at present. --
'''Support''' - he does impressively good work in many areas.
'''Support''', he's not one yet? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions and a good editor. Deserves to be given the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom and most of above (like not cliche #1 because I knew this nom was coming).
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I've been working almost all night today, but that doesn't prevent me from supporting someone who should have been adminned months ago...
'''Support''' with pleasure. Sensible, intelligent, reliable, and a good editor.
Thatcher is an asset to the project and real pleasure to work with. I only regret that I was beaten to the nomination.
'''Strong support''' Nom has an excellent grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has interacted positively with many editors and admins about complex and difficult issues at Check user and Request for arbitration. I have no worries about his misuse of admin tools. The example given does not persuade of a problem. Rather it shows me that nom has gained valuable experience dealing with problem users.
'''Strong support''', knowledgeable and judicious contributor. In fact, is this some kind of joke? This one ''has'' to be one already!
'''Support'''. --

'''Super strong support''' I already thought he was an admin, but all my interactions with Thatcher have been promising. I have full faith that he'll be a great admin.
'''Support''' I've seen the candidate around and have no reservations that giving him a bit of responsibility could only help the project
'''Weak support''', was going neutral but.. nah, what's under oppose at the moment doesn't bother me, really.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and my own observations of this user. I don't really see what all the heat is about in the oppose section, when taken in context. -- ''
'''Support''' - would like to see more article and less policy work, but agree that he seems quite soundly sane, and that the roads business in the oppose section is a vast red herring. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom and based on (very limited) prior interaction, hard-working and provides clear, helpful input in a variety of areas, as his contribution history clearly demonstrates.
'''Support'''. --
'''Very Strong support'''.  A fair, balanced, thorough editor.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)  One edit is given as the reason to oppose Thatcher131:  that only one (marginally) questionable issue has come up is good enough reason for me to switch to strongest possible support.

The piggy will get you! :O [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' as having seen this editor in many places and been impressed with the balance, patience and solid work done for the project.
'''Support''' despite my opposition to his [[WP:CHILD]] proposed policy.
'''Support''' consistently helpful.
'''Support''' for clerking at Requests for checkuser.
'''Support'''.  Sounds like he knows his shit; per users above I trust and a quick survey of contribs.  Diff below is of concern, but I've no interest in sinking an RfA over one comment if it it isn't representative of the user's overall approach to an issue.  I requested more information from the oppose voters, and I'll still look at it if I get it, but things look good to me at the moment. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''.  Thatcher knows his stuff, there is no doubt about that.  The most important justification for giving him the tools is that he needs them to do the work that he does for the project.  I found this myself when asking him a question about an ArbComm case that involved a deleted page.  Without the admin tools he couldn't help me.  Making him an admin will mean that he can serve the project better.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Weak Support''' the mainspace contributions are slightly below my requirements but still are quite reasonable - he wrote at least two good articles and copyedited quite a number of them. Contriburions to the Wikipedia space are quite good. Overall seems to be a good fellow.
'''Support'''&mdash;Looked at this yesterday & realized this one required a more careful read through than many. Rory096’s concerns about your (Thacher131) advocating "banning" anybody who just "disagrees" with the decision made by the judges over at [[WP:SRNC]] gave reason for pause. However I appreciated David D posting the background to the controversial discussion to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Thatcher131]]. After reading it I can somewhat understand your response, but would strongly encourage you to look to the calm, reasonable approach Tony Sidaway took on the same page. Sidaway more closely models [[wikiquote:Laozi|Laozi]]’s dictum: ''“A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, ‘We did this ourselves.’”'' I believe an administrator should strive for the most gracious, minimal impact possible to do the admin job. That said, I am willing to trust the substantial administrative powers to block/ban to you. Please read all of the support and oppose comments carefully, reflect on the lessons to be learned from them & use the admin powers wisely - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''support''', thought Thatcher was one already ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]] - [[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]-
'''Support'''. The comments of his I've seen have been intelligent and reasonable. (The comment cited by the opposition would give be pause if I did not know the context; it was a trying issue for all involved.)
'''Support''', and ''who'' would be edit-conflicting with me now? lol.  Likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - I think he has explained his position well --
'''Support''' He has always been very professional everytime I have come across his editing. Plus, I already thought he was an admin.
'''Support''' Pretty much per everyone above. Seen him around a lot being very reasonable. --
'''Support'''. Have seen him doing useful admin-related jobs competently, and the incident about the highwaymen is rather to his credit, in my opinion.
'''Support''': reasonable and active user. Willing to listen and learn, so has learned.
'''Support''' with a Hope that he understands his mistake and does not repeat in future. <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support''' per Durin's excellent nomination. --
'''Support''' We musnt let trolling get the upper hand on RFAs. Would make a good buffer against abusive editors.
'''Support''' Talented and reasonable user.--
'''Support.''' Seen him around. Always impressed with civility and conduct. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' keep up the good work show them whos boss
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Like many of the others who are in support, I have seen this candidate around quite a bit. I feel this person is very civil. I am not afraid to say ''Give-em-the-mop.''
'''Support''' - while I would like to see him more active in the namespace, his work with [[WP:RFCU]] has been of very high quality.--
'''Support''', Rory's diff notwithstanding. - <b>
'''Support''' I like the way they handled themselves, in the worst case scenario which has been portrayed below by oppose voters. A disruptive editor is a disruptive editor, and the block log as endorsed by many independent editors shows that his comment was not without a strong precedent.
'''Support'''. Of course; exactly the kind of hard-working, in the trenches, grunt work editor that would benefit from admin tools.
'''Support''' - Has been a positive contributor in admin areas for a long time, and has shown good judgement and temper.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' wholeheartedly. A valued editor who has become a real asset to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''', a very qualified candidate, and the provided explanation of the edit most oppose voters refer to is perfectly acceptable. (
'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already.

'''Support''' this candidate.  Seems a good sort.
'''Support''': already acting well in admin-related areas.
'''Strong support'''.  Clearly knows policy, clearly makes the encyclopedia better, and, finally, even more clearly willing to wade into difficult situations and make hard decisions.  One can see from the oppose votes below that this has given Thatcher some detractors, as would be expected.  This is actually a good sign, IMHO.  Because of this, FWIW, the oppose dialogue below makes my support of Thatcher all the stronger. ---
'''Support''' per nom, good editor
Per Rory096 - suggesting the application of blocks or bans when necessary does not indicate a bad admin candidate, it indicates a ''good'' one.  --
'''Support'''. This is the first time I've voted at a Request for Demotion to Low-level Duties, partly because I hate the way one mistake is typically blown out of proportion; that appears to be happening here. The applicant has a talent for managing difficult WPians; Thatcher131 is brave in the face of criticism and abuse, and shows a rare ability to understand psychological nuances in an online community. I've seen examples of the applicant's good work in admin areas, which indicates a keenness to take up the role. Rejecting this application would be shooting ourselves in the foot. I ask the opposers to reconsider.
'''Support.''' --'''
'''Support''' While I recognise the concerns highlighted by Rory's diff, it doesn't seem to merit such heavy criticism when seen in its context, and doesn't really indicate that there is a problem with this editor which would preclude them from adminship. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' Seems like an asset to Wikipedia and I'm unconvinced that Rory's diff is indicative of a loose cannon. --
'''Support'''. -- ''
'''Support''' Generally impressed by the approach, able to make decisions and doesn't shy away from being firm where required.
'''Support''' I have always respected his approach on [[WP:RFCU]], and thought he already was one. Good luck! --
'''Support''' A user that will contribute a lot with the tools, and I'm not convinced at all on the strength of one diff that he'll go ban users willy-nilly.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support'''. Does good work. Seems to be sound.
'''Support''' Good work. --
'''Support''' per the strong and detailed nomination. Thanks to [[User:David D.|David D.]] for providing the transcript of the disputed edit on the talk page. Looking at it in the context of the months old acrimony and disruption caused by the Higways naming issue, I don't see a problem here. I am sure Thatcher131 will make a fine admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' - Puts an effort into less thankful parts of wikipedia, as such shows his commitment to the project.
'''Support'''. No issues here.
'''Support'''. I can't see any reason why a user as well-rounded as Thatcher131 should be denied adminship over a single sarcastic comment. --
'''Support''' While in retrospect Rory096's comments may indicate an sense of mistaken hostility, one must remember that at the time, discussion and tempers became so heated that there was talk of opening another RfAr over SPUI's antics and refusal to accept the results of the poll (and was hence agreed upon as disruption by numerous admins and editors). In the context of the time, I believe that Thatcher's comment(s) fitted the mood, and should be commended for bringing the gavel of reality down to earth, not demonized for trying to stop others from whining about a result everyone else agreed on. --
'''Support''' Has done an excellent job of cleanup and clerking. Should, by all means, have the tools to sweat the "small" stuff.
'''You-mean-I-haven't-already-supported-yet...geez,-how-did-I-miss-this-[[WP:RFA|RfA]] Support''' - great user who could benefit Wikipedia by having the mop, especially regarding this users' interest in RFCU (being a clerk and all) and the enforcement of the results of these checks. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Support'''.  My dealings with Thatcher131 have been entirely positive, a review of contributions to talk space shows that this is also a fair-minded user who can admin when an opponent has a point. Should be even more of an asset to the project as an admin. <b>
'''Support'''. Nothing to add to what has already been said.
'''Strong support,''' I thought Thatcher was already an admin a couple of months ago.  Thatcher has a very cool head and is fair-minded, and isn't afraid to get tough when Wikipedia policies are at stake.  We will be lucky to have him.
'''Strong Support''' <font color="red">[[User:Sugarpine|S]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Sugarpine|ug]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Sugarpine|ar]]</font><font color="darkyellow">[[User:Sugarpine|p]]</font><font color="orange">[[User:Sugarpine|in]]</font><font color="purple">
'''Strong support''' per [[User:David D.|David D.]]. Many thanks, David D. for all your research work on the talk page for this RfA! --
'''Support'''. Great user, will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' On the balance of things, I think it will benefit the community to give Thatcher admin tools.
'''Support'''. He's already been doing the job for quite a while anyway, and the supposedly controversial diff doesn't bother me in the slightest, given the context. -
'''Support'''
User does good work and therefore I '''support'''.
I've seen Thatchet acting as a voice of reason in complex or tense discussions, and while the issues raised by the opposers gave me pause, I'm convinced that he would act reasonably and according to community standards.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to '''oppose'''.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=73213156 This comment] just two weeks ago shows that this user is not yet ready for adminship. The user advocates "banning" anybody who just ''disagrees'' with the decision made by the judges over at [[WP:SRNC]].  This shows that this editor is not familiar with our policy at <s>[[WP:NBD]]</s> [[WP:CCC]], and seems to think that people should not be allowed to express disagreement with a decision, whether that decision is valid or not. The user may make a good admin sometime in the future, but I don't think that now is the time. --
While I have seen some good come from this editor, the diff that Rory provides is very, very disturbing. The "accept or get banned" mentality is unproductive and more than a little extreme. I am, of course, willing to reconsider if this is explained to some degree of satisfaction.--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |

'''Oppose''' based on the diff provided by Rory.  We all make mistakes (I am certainly no exception), but telling another editor "Accept it, or get banned" is just plain scary.  Especially since it was less than a few weeks ago.  Consider what he might have done had he actually had the button.  --
'''Oppose''' per above. I'm not even gonna invoke 1FA here. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose'''Per attitude to editors. Also, he freely and often puts himself in the middle of admin disputes, a behaviour that does not bode well for his actions should he actually become an admin. I don't think he's ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose'''. There's been way too many questionable blocks in the recent past. Additionally, the candidate seems not interested in main space editing, which is the only reason why this project exists. --<font color="FC4339">
'''No''' per the first diff.
'''Oppose''' per above oppose votes. User needs to work on positive communication skills with other editors.
'''Strong oppose'''. Threatening bans on well-respected editors in absence of a serious offence is definite no-go territory for admins. -
'''Oppose''' per Rory. --
'''Oppose''' per Rory096. -
'''Moderate Oppose''' per Rory, Singopo.
'''Strong Oppose''', per Rory. Not the right attitude at all.
'''Oppose''' Per Rory and others.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Rory.
'''Oppose''' per Rory. —''
'''Oppose''' Per Rory, and recent enlightenment of this user mocking others. I think admin civility is now a big issue for consideration and this user seems to thinking mocking others is ok. --
'''Oppose''' per Rory's diff.  Judging by the massive support, this won't make much of a difference at this point, but that's a very disturbing attitude to see brought across for someone requesting the tools to do exactly that. --
'''Strongly oppose'''; alarming attitudes.
'''Oppose''' per Rory and alarming controversies until a clear, transparent and implementable deadminship is developped. Also, I am dissatisfied by the mainspace contibution. How can the user work on providing the comfortable environment for editors unless the person knows for sure what is editing and how editors act in real life? --
'''Oppose''': Lacks experience in article space.  Attitude to banning is concerning.   Primarily we are here to write an encyclopedia, I feel he needs more experience in this department first.
'''Oppose''' per Giano.
Changed from weak oppose. &ndash;
'''Neutral'''. Re above, one diff does not an oppose make for me, particularly given supporters pointing out how difficult the discussion was. However, I find this user's contribs fairly radically skewed to the Wiki space and I generally expect a plurality in main space. Thus, a neutral.
'''Neutral'''. Very few of those edits are to core article content. That is the fundamental mission here, after all.
'''Neutral'''.  I really like his work with RFCU and AE - AE in particular because it is such an under-watched page.  I strongly wanted to support him, but the comment brought up by Rory leaves me concerned. --
'''Neutral''' Edit mainspace more.
'''Neutral''' although Rory's point is quite valid, I don't know if I can't apply [[WP:AGF]] and know that Thatcher131 will improve. He certainly has other positives.
'''Neutral''' If I'm to believe the rory comment is a one-off in context remark, under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? --
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' we badly need people on images, I can hit delete all day long and the que still builds on me --
'''support''' per tawker
'''Support''', my experience with him left a good impression.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' - Per above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Experienced, trustworthy editor.  RfA Cliche moment, yet again.
I just love it when it's this easy to support.  This user has earned this through a lot of hard work.
'''Support''' looks mature, lots of article edits, no political userboxes, my type of guy/gal --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Civil and trustworthy user, just the kind of person we need as admin.
Cliché '''support'''.
'''Support''' because, when I was misusing fair use, The JPS actually told me when he removed the image from the article. General good user.
'''Support''', I've had only good experiences, has been long with the project and has some edits ;).
'''Support'''. Good image cleanup work, good edits, good communication, experienced. '''''×'''''
'''Support''', excellent work all around. Here's your mop, now get to work! :-P --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per above.  Seems like an excellent user. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''' We can always use another admin who enforces policies and does dirty work himself! <font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''' per above and answers, despite the glaring lack of portal talk contributions, tsk tsk. --
'''Support'''. Definitely. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''.  Don't forget orphaned fair use images though! --<font color="orange"><strike>''
I'm sorry I can't support someone unless they have at least one copyvio image in their signature... ok, I guess I'll make an exception this once. '''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', doubtlessly would help the project.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', per Mailer Diablo.
'''Support''', and thanks for the 'education' -
'''Support''' - good editor, sensible person, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=28435108&title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBates_Motel this] made me laugh. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - He seems like a good guy all around. He could even mentor somebody, and I would recommend that he does. He also teaches at an institution of higher education which likely means he's a rather refined guy. Also, per above. --
'''Support''', has a good understanding of policies and guidelines, per everyone. |→
'''Support''' A solid user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' a good user, and good answers to standard questions --
Cliche '''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. A few admins tools would help a good editor like this.'''
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per Computerjoe.
'''Support'''.  A model wikipedian.  --<font color="grey"><b>Buck</b></font>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px|Support]] '''Support''' per above. <small><span class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid Black; vspace: 1px; padding: 4px;"><font style="color: Black; text-decoration: None; font-weight: Bold">
'''Support''' per nom, many above, and my own judgment. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' per above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]

'''Support'''
'''Support''' - definately overdue. I've been an admin nearly a year and The JPS joined only 2 days after I did.
'''Support'''.  Should have been one a long time ago.
'''Support'''. After looking through his edit count, his talk page, and his contributions, he seems to be a great editor unlikely to abuse admin powers. --
'''Under no circumstances''' would I object to The JPS being made an admin :)
'''Strong support''' Another outstanding admin candidate.
'''Support''', will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Of course. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' Good editor.
Excellent candidate.
'''Support''':  Seems a decent enough fellow. -
'''Support''' as per nom. --
'''Support''' A strong editor who will make a good admin. I was impressed with how he handled the Hamish Ross nonsense.
'''Support''' -- Very well qualified.
'''Support''' -- I know I've run into him and I had a good experience. Just don't ask me when. :) --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', like his attitude to copyrights.
'''Support''' --We need help from folks like [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] to show our good faith effort to eliminate image copyright violations. -
'''Support''', thought he already was an admin.
'''Support'''. See no reason to believe admin tools will be abused.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a longtime polite and helpful user, ''and'' someone who could really use the admin tools to help clean up the image copyright problem.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', no reason for me to oppose. Help with images is always needed.
'''Support''' looks like he has the potential to be a great admin, plenty of experience <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support Only If..''' the issues in the Oppose section are addressed well to show JPS can handle issues with other users. Otherwise no problem here.--

'''Support''' edits look solid.--
'''Support.''' See no problem here. Also, it'd be nice to have another admin dealing with copyright problems.
It all checks out. Why not make this editor an admin? '''Support''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'<s>''Strong keep''' - asset to Wikipedia. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>[[User:Celestianpower|tianpower]] <sup>[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]</sup> 18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</s> Errr... '''Strong support''' - asset to Wikipedia. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': --

'''Support''' no worries here. --
'''Support''' strong user.
'''Support''' because he gets oppose votes for doing the right thing in the right way -
'''Support''' he/she is nice and polite and informs people when they're doing something wrong without being hostile
'''Support'''&trade; --
'''Support''' as I have good experience from The JPS.
'''Support'''. My experience with The JPS has been positive. And taking care of copyvios is commendable &ndash; sadly, it takes a lot more to deserve the designation "copyright paranoia" these days.
'''Support''' Going to be a good administrator.
'''Strong Support''' An amazing asset to the Wikipedia community [[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''"Probably passed the deadline but need to add very very very strong support" support!''' Was only thinking last week of asking The JPS why the hell he wasn't an admin. Now he will be. And about bloody time too! I ''really'' need to keep RfA under closer watch.... ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|≡]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|Я]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|Ξ]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''. Hope I'm not too late :). --
'''Late support'''. Missed this one. Definitely helpful editor.
'''Oppose'''. I have some grounds to believe that the guy will abuse his admin powers to delete properly tagged images and to decrease the quality of WP articles. The JPS, please find something more useful to do. Write new articles, for instance. --
'''Oppose'''. OK, I am going to be bold. I oppose because destructive admins can do more harm than good. Like causing contributors to run away so that no new work will be done. What would you be without the working man?
Lack of interaction with the community; only about 4% of edits are to user talk. Otherwise, user is great.
Although a good editor, but less than satisfactory user talk edits. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Strong Support''' - as nominator --
'''OH NO DEAR GOD ANOTHER LONG ALL CAPS SASQUATCH SUPPORT!!!''' '''
'''Strong support''', of course. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Hands down. --
'''Support'''! --
<small>Don't say it... Don't say it...</small>'''Ah dammit, thought he already was one Support''' <big>PER TAWKER</big>
'''Support''' per nominators. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
User has been a great contributor and thoughtful communicator from his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutrality&diff=prev&oldid=6031267 first edit].  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. ''Great'' user. Appears to pass my [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|RfA criteria]] very nicely.
'''Support''' I trust Tawker's judgement and you seem to pass my RFA criteria. <font color="green">
'''Support''' per werdna!
'''Support''' The Project for administrating the project.--
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate for the mop and bucket, based on number and spread of edits. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''support''' great candidate, anyone willing to clear a backlog is generally my kind of Wikipedian. --
'''Support''' per Wmarsh. --
Not having the pleasure of knowing theProject, I've taken the time to review his contributions, and the conclusion I've reached is that he deserves nothing short of a strong and loud '''Support'''.
--[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom, record of contributions, and willingness to help with cleanup tasks.  --
'''Support'''
No comments, except '''support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
Yet-another-cliché '''support'''. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''. Good editor, deserving of the new buttons.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''. He's been ready for awhile and could do more with the mop.
'''Support''' Meets all of my criteria. --
'''Support''' per noms.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''''Oui''''' - <b>
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' Give 'em the mop. --
'''Support''' per noms. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
I think I know you well enough already to '''support''' your adminship. See ya around. :D <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
Support. There's not much more to say, but I particularly appreciate his work with transwikis, a sorely neglected project on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per noms. -
Per the trifecta of Sasquatch, Kylu and Dmcdevit. '''
'''Cliché Support'''. --
'''Support''': Good answers. -- '''
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, talk page responses and RFA answers demonstrate consistent civility and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. <b>

'''Support''' more than qualifies for the position--<font color="336699">
'''Support''', per nomination. --
'''Support''' great editor, meets my criteria--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  A pretty easy call, this one.  We need more people getting grease under their fingernails in the backlogs.  I've never even heard a whisper of a conflict with the user.
'''Support''' theProject's answers show that (s)he would make an excellent admin. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Demonstrating good contributions. As Ohnoitsjamie said on above.
'''Support'''--
'''Support!''' -→
'''Support'''; theProject will be an excellent admin on Wikipedia. [[User:OntarioQuizzer|Andy Saund]][[User:OntarioQuizzer/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' For sure
'''Well, duh: Support'''.
'''Support''' Everything (particularly talk page) looks very positive, you will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''', I am familar with his positive contributions and feel he will make a good admin.
'''YEs'''.'''
'''Support''' gets my vote of confidence, good luck to you.
'''Support''' per nom. Encountered him when processing his prods for transwikied stuff. Good editor!
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. See no issues.
'''Support''', sound and valued contributor.
'''Support''' per nominator.
<b>Support</b> -
'''Support''' - Solid.
'''Support'''. Meets most of my criteria; overall solid user. Would like to see some diversification, but it's no big deal whatsoever. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', Vandals beware.
'''Give the man a mop'''.  Seems to spend an inordinate amount of time fighting vandalism.  Based on his contribution record, he probably needs to get a life, but we need more people like him.  --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' Meets most of the criteria for adminship. No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems to be a good user with a high amount of contributions, doesn't look likely to abuse admin powers --
'''Support''' - but we'll have to make sure he has some time to do "non wiki" things :) --
'''Support''' I'm voting on RfAs based on people I already thought were admins by sheer conduct and visibility.  A mop in good faith.
'''Support''' Has tremendous experience and would help Wikipedia with the tools. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''', great user. --
'''Support''' wiki needs vandalfighters with the tools
'''Support''' This user is great for admin
'''Strong support'''.  I've often seen TigerShark reverting vandals, and it seems to me this is something that, for very practical reasons, especially justifies adminship.  Without adminship, he can escalate the warnings up to the point of blocking--but then must wait for an admin to come and finish the task.  Much more efficient for everyone if he has the tools--an adminship--to do the job that he does so effectively.
'''Support''' Will be very efficient if he has the mop [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Almost obsessive vandalism reverter. Seems to be more interested in that than substantive contributions, but that's why he'd make a good admin. -
''"Adminship is no big deal"''. -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. So he hasn't done much in Wikipedia talk: big deal. He's a great vandal fighter and would make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''.  Hard working editor. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per Bucketsofg. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Weak support''', edit tree is a bit weird but editcountitis is worse.
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks good (Oddly this is alot like my RFA below)
'''support''' i feel this user would make  a valuable admin
'''Weak Support''' will find good uses for the tools - edit tree seems a bit unhealthy. Also quite green, but the answers to the questions are well measured.
'''Support''' I can't believe this user isn't already an admin! ~'''Linux'''erist
'''Support'''. Considering the user's familiarity with the vandal-fighting process, I can live with 6 Wikitalk edits as long as he makes an effort to comb through and contribute to the area in the future.
'''Support''', strong vandal fighter who'd do well with the mop -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' With the amount of crazed obsessed vandals that have been running around recently, we need vandal destroyers like TigerShark more than ever.
'''Weak support''', Nice work but most ot the work has been covered in recent two months.
'''Support''', changed from weak oppose per excellent response to my rather pathetic oppose.
'''Support''', see [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' Excellent vandal fighter. <font color="#08457E">
--
'''Support''' He can very much use the tools and I see no reason to suspect he would abuse them.
'''Strong support''' per Richard, Bucket, The Wub, and, yes, Mailer.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. He's been around almost a year and has been highly active the past two months. Would make a great admin. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', whilst some have raised concerns on edit spread, I like the high user:talk edits, which suggest to me a reasoned attitude to the user's main activity in recent times, and suggests to me the user will readily pick up the stuff people feel he lacks now.
'''Weak Support''' - He is obviously a good vandal fighter, and also seems to be writing good articles. But I am concerned about the big peak in the last 2 months. It beats me as to why the user took so long to discover tools which he could have found at the CVU page. Still, I vote support as I don't see him abusing his admin tools. All the best for the future - Aksi_gr
'''Support''' I don't get the concern over a recent spike in edits; he already had almost two-thousand before that anyway.  Seems fine to me, over a year of solid contributions.
'''Support''' --
'''<s>Neutral</s>''' - Good user but a bit too soon. But that shouldn't stop him, though'''
'''support''' (provided you don't put a note on my talk page to thank me afterwards...)
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' Reviewed edits - although unusual - it seems explained by the large amount of vandal fighting. Few interactions, but those that I have seen are positive. <font color="#063">
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' Fantastic answer to question 4 added by Joshuaz, is active with AFD, all around a good editor. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' As per Deckiller --
'''Support''' (changed from Oppose)  I saw your note to Proto and checked out some of your User talk page edits.  Very impressive.  You do deserve the mop.  --
Change to '''Support''', didn't notice that he's been around for 1.5 years.
'''Support''' as per norm. Good nominate. --
'''Support'''. After some consideration, I now think that my earlier concerns were misguided. Give this man (tiger? shark?) a mop!
'''Support''': His last comment in the comments section remind me of myself; I think he understands policy well enough.
'''Support''' - Looks like an excellent candidate. Low edits in one namespace or another often reflect non-standard interests or style, but IMO should in no way influence RFA. If the areas where the person ''does'' contribute are solid, and in this case they are, then they deserve our support. --
'''Support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' per CBDunkerson. We need admins of all stripes.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but I have to agree with Mr Yeager.  In a few months you will have my vote but now is too soon.--
'''Oppose''' Per Above --
'''Weak oppose''' Tough, for such an obvious vandal fighter, but Talk contrib's are remarkably low. Less than a hundred Talk generally and just 6 to Wiki talk. The last leaves me uncertain the user is familiar with P & G's.
'''Oppose''' per Marskell.  Editor needs more time to ensure a firm grasp of policy and process.
'''Weak Oppose''' the relative lack of talk-edits makes me wonder if he pays attention to what other people think.
'''Oppose''': shows promise, but I generally agree with above. Keep buiding the encyclopedia substantively in areas you know, and give this time.
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
'''Oppose''' weakly ... happy to support with a bit longer record.  --
'''Oppose'''. Very low Talk namespace edits. [[User:Aucaman|'''Auca''']][[User:Aucaman/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''m'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' re Matt above, but would support with more experience in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Definitely on the right track. Keep this up for a little longer, and you'll be an admin in no time.
'''Oppose'''. Only 84 article Talk page comments?  You need to interact on articles more.
'''Oppose'''. TigerShark has made 3356 to articles but only 84 to article talk, which shows almost no community interaction. I'm also concerned that he didn't seem to edit at all much before February.
Vandal fighting is good, but I see a serious lack of even distribution in his edit tree.  He has almost no edits on project talk, for example.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Matt Yeager]]'s oppose vote. Stick around a bit more and you'll make a good admin then.
'''Neutral'''. Although there is clearly a close involvement only recently, the contribs extending back are not trivial. TigerShark has started a good number of articles (including, to my lasting delight, [[The Flumps]]) so he has spent time on the encyclopedia. There seems to have been a marked shift toward vandal-fighting as a principal occupation. I am becoming wary of promoting such editors to admins if that is their sole or principal selling-point (as Q1 here makes clear it is). Adminship is just more rounded that, whether you originally intend it to be or not. You get tugged in various directions by that damned orange bar on your talk page and it is important to have demonstrated clearly a good handling of that kind of thing. Since he ''has'' spent encyclopedia-writing time and has been editing non-trivially for more than a year, I don't feel strongly enough to oppose. Good luck. -
'''Neutral''' -- I would like to support this user; might make a good if narrow admin. But I think he needs more balance and involvement in dicey issues. Please consider renom in a few months; meanwhile get involved in some areas requiring more back-and-forth. You can avoid all controversy, but only at the cost of remaining uninvolved.
'''Neutral''' will make a good admin at some point in the future, but he has only been contributing at a high level for 2 months.  --
'''Neutral''' - Sorry, but your talk space edits are very low as spoken above, and below my standards.
Of course. Goes without saying. But those of you that know me know I never miss a chance to point out the obvious! '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (yes I will re-sign once accepted) '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Strong Support''' per Lar.
'''Support''', great contributor, per nom. <font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' Make a great admin...
'''Support'''. Good user.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' but... oh no... it doesn't seem like he has helped out on a featured article! [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seen this one around, no doubts for me. <tt>
'''Support''':  TB has a different set of philosophies from mine on policy, but he works to help the uninformed and never resorts to assuming that the other person's opinions are worth less than his own.
'''Support''' definitely.'''

'''Superstrong Support''' God, Lar, you always beat me at these things. Anyway, I've known this editor for a while too; he's very civil, thoughtful, and experienced.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' without question. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
¿Pero como no?  i.e. '''yes'''.
''' Support''' despite edit count < 3000 - 4000, based on your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Zpb52&diff=prev&oldid=52931533 advice] to
'''Support''' per the Community Justice cabal.
'''Support-o-rama'''. Poked around this editor's contributions and didn't find anything questionable. -→
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', definetely ok by my book.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' Have seen him around quite a bit & must say am very impressed by his work. Will handle the mop well. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', I look forward to this user having the tools to better mediate conflicts and the other things that this user could do to better the project.--
'''Support'''. -- Seems ready for further custodial duties.
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''', nothing to see here, move along.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', sure. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', strong contributor. -
'''Support''' Willing to learn, a good quality to have. ~
'''Reserved Support''' despite the dearth of article edits, and b/c adminship is no big deal, or so they tell me. - <b>
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' --
'''Innocent'''.
'''Support''', making all the right choices. And I'd be making the wrong one by opposing this nomination. ;)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Sure! <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Penguin support'''. Per above. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on own positive experience with (very responsible) Tijuana Brass. &mdash;
'''Support''' A little low on edits, but its what you do with 'em that counts in my book.
'''Support'''. Tijuana Brass appears to be able to communicate well with other users, this is a very important trait in an admin.
'''Support'''; sufficiently experienced and able to keep his cool under pressure. --
'''Support''', a quality editor. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on past observation of excellent consensus-building. -
'''Support''' He's a great editor who knows his way around.  Besides, I used to listen to the Tijuana Brass when I was a wiseguy and rode around with my crew.
'''Support'''. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. [[User:Danlina| ]]
'''Definitely.''' I've seen this editor around; trust isn't an issue.
'''Support'''. Seems like an excellent contributor, as well as a deserving and active member of Wiki society. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' All interactions have been positive. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' I have not always agreed with this editor (e.g. in the [[Hardy Jackson]] debate I think my views were more in line with JJay's) still, I have never found his tone to be inappropriate or disrespectful.  He seems to be a good editor with a long history.  Give him a mop. -
'''Firm Support''' A nice funny member. Will be a great admin. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Strong Support''' Very nice user, good contributions, deserves a mop! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -- definitely  --
'''Support''' Looked through the contribs which all look great.  I thought Tijuana Brass was quite reasonable with respect to [[Hardy Jackson]].  Has my support.  --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' good nominate --
'''Support''' Nice to have some extra help around here. --
'''Support''', we need more admins who stay cool when the editing gets hot.
'''Support''' on the bandwagon. Adminship is no big deal and you'll definitely make good use of the mop
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' Has room to improve... but don't we all? ---
'''Support''', good answers to questions and good contributions.
'''Support''', seems to make a pretty good job of being man-in-the-middle of controversial topics while (proverbially) remaining cool.
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Good user.  --
'''Strong Support''' per most everything above. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' seems a very good candidate. '''
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. I had a negative personal interaction with this user. I doubt he has the temperament to be an administrator. --
'''Neutral''' for now, I'm still studying it.  I'm concerned that TB is not far enough up the learning curve yet.  For example, his messing up the counting for a straw poll at [[Talk:Criticism_of_Mormonism#Proposed_merger_with_Anti-Mormonism]].  I've done that myself, but always managed to correct it.  Is this lack of knowledge or lack of caring?  I'm still studying his edits.
Does not meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but has made active participation in process and RC. -
'''neutral leaning towards support'''. Good user, but I'm quite surprised by the ratio of article edits to edits overall. I've certainly no objection to editor participation in user talk discussions, but it seems abnormally high. Other than that looks a pretty good candidate.
'''Neutral''' Can't Support, because I have not found this editor to '''''always''''' AGF; can't Oppose, because he is too good an editor., can't Oppose.
Positive contributor, I can't see a single reason to oppose.
'''Support'''

'''Support''', blindfolded and with both hands tied behind my back.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', some userful edits made, especially to stuff related to Doctor Who. --<b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin. --

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
--
'''Support'''. Will make an excellent addition. --
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support''' over 8,000 edits and people still question a user's familiarity with Wikipedia...
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. After 8,000 edits you have to know what's going on at Wikipedia, and after this amount of time they aren't going to quit at the drop of a hat.--
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Strong Support''' Seems to be no reason to deny. Actually, this guy is positively brilliant. --
'''Strong Support'''. I was going to nominate him myself!--
'''Support'''. User has more than enough experience with Wikiprocess. -- [[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Good editor, good egg.
'''Support'''.  He's clearly an excellent editor, and [[User:Sean Black]] vouches for his trustworthiness.  If he reckons he's personally ready for adminship, then let him have it.  It's not a big deal.
'''Support''' his name regularly appears on my watchlist, and makes a lot of valuable edits.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.  I believe that with his level of edits that he has to have enough familiarity with WikiProcess to use the tools wisely. --
'''Harrumph!''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Fine, level-headed editor.
'''Support''': I think we require editors and administrators with different "flair" and "talents". All dedicated users should be elavated to administrator's position: this will make the community more vibrant. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Pile-on Support'''. I have seen him around.
'''Support'''. I know it's cliche to say so, but I was sure he already was an admin.... &ndash;
'''Support'''. See no reason for concerns about admin tool abuse.
'''Support''' per addressing of issues below.  --
'''Support''', thought that he was one already.
'''Support.''' Looks good. --
'''Oppose''', for lack of familiarity with WikiProcess - very little contribs to Wikispace except for AFD voting and WikiProject:Doctor Who. In my opinion, admin candidates need a bit more experience than that.
'''Support'''; good all rounder. Everything seems in order.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' — Good use of sumamrys, good all round contribs, definitley meets the 1FA thing, looks like a respectful and kind user who could do great things with the tools. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' great user. Good luck! --
'''Support''' Another great user who deserves the mop (as punishment for being a good user). As for character, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:195.1.15.183&diff=prev&oldid=81184044 this recent change] indicates that the user demonstrates proper restraint as well. --
'''Support''', great user, will not even contemplate abusing adminship <small>(do not quote...)</small> Good luck. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
Looks well-rounded to me.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support''' but please try to get a more broad experience.
'''Support''', good contributor and dedicated to wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' without reservation of any kind.
'''Support''' A very good contributor to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''Support''' one of our rising editors; obvious support. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]

'''Support''' diligent, well-informed & great work on RvB ˉˉ<sup>
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' such a great user that was partly responsible for my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChanging_username&diff=56440268&oldid=56438997 namechange] in light of the great contributions.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;per nom, discussion & review of User contributions of Wikipedia... Appears eminently trustworthy.  [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' Answered my question thoughtfully and kept a cool head.  Showed they would have these traits as an admin.

'''Support'''. Quality editor with good answers to the questions. I was particularly impressed with number 3, and this question is far more important than the first two in my mind.
'''Support''' Poor TKD gets squeezed for lack of controversy over his/her RFA. ~
'''Support''': I hope you'll spend more time warning vandals. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Should be a good admin. -
'''Support''' Has writing the encyclopedia at heart. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' reviewed this user's contributions, which look quite good.  Do a good job with the mop! --
'''Support''' Good Contributor, well familiar with wikipedia, and helped out wikipedia a good amount.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate. I would really like to see some more activity in vandal fighting, intervention, etc, as you will be bombarded with this as an admin. Since most likely you will succeed here, be bold, and at the same time use caution (work that out). I see no problems with giving this candidate the mop.
<strong>
'''Support''' No problems
'''Support''' unconditionally!--
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Tom has shown himself to be very level-headed and neutral, even on controversial articles. I think he'd make a great admin and I'm glad he accepted the nomination.
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash;
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
--
'''Very Strong support''' he is a calm editor, and friendly person. Let's vote with him!--
'''Support'''. Will make good use of the mop. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. A good candidate with patience and maturity. My only concern is that he appears to be busy in offline life but I trust he would find enough time for the admin work. --

'''Support'''. Haven't interacted much with Tom, but the contribution list shows him to be a good, responsible and experienced contributor with good use of talk pages and good work in the backbone of Wikipedia (i.e. the main article namespace).
--
'''Support''' Almost everythingh I can see from your record is positive. Hope you'll be a good admin --
'''Support''' - Fine contributions, no skeletons. '''''
[[User:Peter McConaughey|Peter McConaughey]] 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Tom Harrison's opinions are often internally inconsistent and partisan to the point of blind loyalty. If we were voting to "even the sides," I would have to vote against him, but we are not. Wikipedia cannot survive with administrative content control on '''''either''''' side. Therefore our votes are '''''not''''' a mandate for the nominee to push his agenda if elected. Our votes are support for nominees who '''''do not''''' use their influence to push their agenda, but let their edits speak for themselves. I am voting for Tom Harrison because he consistently makes a strong, informative article, that everyone can live with, a higher priority than his personal POV. If he says that he will continue to do so armed with his additional administrative power, I'll believe him. --
&mdash;
'''Obvious Support''' great editor will be great admin...oppose reasoning is weak.
--
'''Support'''. Great potential.
'''Support''' No question
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The user-page complaints about the insipid "Note that..." phrasing won me over. More seriously, the work on the conspiracy-related stuff inspired confidence. &mdash;
'''Support'''. There hasn't been a new RfA in almost two days, so I'll vote on this one. &mdash;
'''Support''' Tom is careful, patient, fair, and willing to work.  I think he will be an admin who won't need to spend a lot of time apologizing for being careless, impatient, unfair, or complaining about being overworked.
'''Support''' - Good choice. -- ''
'''Support''', impressive record.
<small>
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' - He'll be the the perfect admin.
'''Support'''.  Seems like a decent enough chap.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The small bit of interaction I had with him was positive and I think he can be trusted with admin tools.--
'''Harrumph''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - "<s>raoming,</s> roaming around" for ages (at least 2 years). --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Although I think some more familiarity with process may be nice, Tom is a good and familiar contributor. I ask, though, that you stop using external link style in your signature.
'''Support'''.  I like what I've seen, unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', per nominator.
'''Support'''. Looks good, fine edits. --
'''Support'''. Great choice, will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. Good editor. &mdash;--[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>(
Seriously? He's not an admin? '''Insanely, brutally intense support'''.
'''Oppose''', I would like to see some familiarity and experience with process (other than AFD voting) before a user gains admin status.
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''', per nom. Looking good.
'''Support''' per nom. - <b>
'''Support'''' looks good to me.
'''Support''' civility did impress me :) -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support''' This user is an asset to Wikipedia. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Doesn't have a large user Talk edit count.  This will have to rise as admins talk to many users on a variety of subjects. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': has found positive niche here on ships, and looking through edits does not shy away from controversial subjects. Flexible approach to maintenance task areas also good.
'''Support'''
[[The Black Cauldron (film)|Taram]] wishes you a happy '''Support'''. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Edit conflict Support'''. Très solide.
'''Support''' Assert to Wikipedia, and just nice Wikipedian.
'''"No big deal" support''' --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' <strike>[[User:Copperchair|Copperchair]] Sockpuppet</strike> good editor :).  Maybe should add some more info on ships of the Napoleonic era (my own personal interest).  Cheers.  --
'''Support''' - lend him a(nother) hand, give him the tools!
'''Support''' - Agent 86 said it just fine --
'''Support''' - satisfies my criteria
'''Support''' per good answers and above. --
'''Support''' - Impressive, definately an asset to Wiki.--

'''Support''' - looks trustworthy and experienced.
'''Support''', deserves the mop and bucket. --
'''Support'''. A good contributor.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' It looks like TomTheHand is a solid candidate. Good communication & enough edits. Wiki needs more good admins. Also, this candidate failed to meet [[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]]'s criteria. Very Good.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I can see no reason to not give this nominee the mop. Masssiveego's "criteria" looks like a bunch of conversations about nothingness to me. Maybe time for a little ego deflation.--
'''Support''', no reason not to support at all.
'''Support''' per nom. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per all of above.  Highly qualified, no issues.  There is a nice string of strongly supportable candidates on RfA today, which is a pleasure to see.
'''Support''' wow, that's three awesome uers lined up at the top of the RfA page. Very nice! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' appears to be an experienced and qualified user who will use the adminship well.--
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above, and passes my [[User:Aranherunar/admin|criteria]].
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' no reason to oppose this candidate.
'''Support''' with my respect for the nominator and the nominee. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Fails my [[User:Masssiveego/admin|criteria]].  --
'''Support''' Although it seems like many of your edits aren't really major, your history seems to indicate that you're trustworthy and you appear to have a reason to become an admin. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I have bumped into this user in several contexts and have always been impressed with his/her seriousness and balance.  I assume this bodes well for a conscientious adminship.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''  Taking a quick look through your edits, it seems like you are doing a good job.  I wouldn't mind you being a wiki-en admin.  --
'''Support'''. Ideally woudl have a few more significant article edits on en. but a user with a willingness to do lots of janitorial work and a level head will make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - even if there are no Portal Talk edits... okay, no really.  This user drops mostly into the same tracks as [[User:Dewet]] - experience on the si server helps much; but it's a different animal. Keep a level head (I think said level head has been kept so far) and you'll be fine. --
'''Support'''  Edit count does not reflect work on Slovenia Wikipedia. More than ample time on project.  Would have preferred more experience in area for  which he said he needs admin powers, but judgment seems sound. Affable, receptive to constructive criticism.
'''Support'''. Experienced. <tt>
'''Support'''. agreeing with all above comments.
'''Support''' If (RiskOfAbuse=LOW && AdvantageToWikipedia=HIGH) {Tawker.Support = True;} --
'''Support'''. Great user. Very experienced and will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. Great user and will make great admin.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per Tawker.
'''Support''', definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' editcountitis aside, contribs look good. Our CSD removal squad needs more people.
'''Support'''. I know the user from :sl and no problems there. Regards, --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. I also know the user from :sl and I like his work. --
'''Support''' - edit count below my usual reuirements, but taken into account his work on Slovenian wikipedia it is acceptable. It is almost a dream to have somebody familiar with x-Yugoslavia but neutral enough to be acceptable by everybody
'''Support''' Unlike my "imaginary", as my mom calls it, walrus, this is a nice user to users he hasn't even met.--
'''Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' A wise person.
'''Support'''.
'''[Insert random RfA cliche]''' Has hung around too long not to be an admin. -→
'''Support''' - Good contributor.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''', experienced and trustworthy. No reasons to deny him the mop.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''--
'''Suppprt''' --
'''Support''' per Buchanan-Hermit.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', and good luck. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''', based on the experience with [[:sl:Uporabnik:Tone|Tone@slwiki]], he'll make a good admin. Non-problematic for all, IMHO. --
'''Support'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong support''' polite, friendly, and also does physics! Regarding Tone apparently only having 21 notable edits, please see his userpage. Also, he has written a long physics article, and although he only got five edits for it, I can tell you from personal experience that I would weight these a lot more because you have to be dead precise with every word that you use for its technical meaning otherwise the article will not make sense. As a personal example, the physics article on [[Statistical mechanics]] called [[Vertex model]] which I created got me two edits, but it would have taken some 8 hours for technical correctness on a text editor, typesetting equations, also the pictures and captions. In that time, I could have done 500 small edits, as I have done at other periods in my presence here on wikipedia.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Watch your tone! :p Lets hope it's a good one. ;) --
'''support''' Not every admin must be a vandal fighter. Some can be AFD closers (which is also a needed function). --
'''Support:''' I know Tone from the [[WP:WPSG]], and he's a prime candidate for adminship==>better wikipedia. support all the way. good stuff Tone. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Loads of new articles, lots of languages, lots of all round involvement, and 2750 is more than enough edits.  --
'''Support''' for the same reasons as above.
'''Weekl Support''' seems like a good user, but sort'a low on experiance.  Since theres no solid reason to Oppose, my default is support in this case. ---
'''Oppose''', shotgun approach to looking at articles.  For example, consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katie_Holmes#Bibliography_2].  Stated too many entries in bibliography (actually the second mention).  Had a couple of responses, but didn't follow up.  From a quick look at his namespace edits, they are mostly adding stub or cat or things of that type.  I see a lot of User:Talk as welcomes.  These are all great things to do, but just why does he need the admin tools?
I'd like a bit more than: 'Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 17.73%' and 'Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 0.78% (21)' --
'''Neutral''', seems like a good guy but the history of primarily minor edits doesn't represent great experience. --

'''Neutral''', a little short of experience, particularly at AFD. I tend to have higher standards for self-noms as well.
'''Support''' A very good and conscientous editor who will use the tools well.--
'''Support''' I have no problems in supporting this user.
'''Support''' Seen Tony around all over the place. Very good editor, with the right attitude for adminship, i.e. ''no big deal''!
'''Support''' has sufficient edits, reasonable enough answers, agree this is no big deal.
'''Support'''has good edits, and we need more backlogging admins it would seem. [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Suport''' seems like a competent and trustworthy user who will make a great administrator.
'''Support''' while your wikipedia talk edits are a little on the low side, I think you will be a great admin. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Support''', seems to be a very experienced editor.--'''
'''Weak support''' per lack of WP talk edits. 1400 projectspace edits definitely helps with that. -
'''Support''' Right, I've voted - can I go off to the pub now, too? ;-)
'''Support''' Is civil, clear, and consistent with newcomers as well as other editors...even those who become a tad huffy. -
'''Support''' A very good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' looks alright to me.--
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''' not that many project talk edits, but that won't keep me from supporting! &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. Not much project discussion going on, but editing at other talk namespaces makes up for that loss. '''
'''Support''' This guy will make a great admin... need I say any more?? --
'''Support''' A good editor who deserves adminship.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support'''. A good editor with much experience.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
- <b>
'''Support''' no problems here, good candidate. ←
'''Support'''  Knowledgeable, good communicator.
I've spent quite a while reading through his past 1500 contribs, and I '''support'''.
'''Fer sure'''. While I note and understand the concerns raised by Ceyockey below, I can also accept that "Policy to me..." simply refers back to the form of the initial question -  "What does this mean to you?" As such it was perfectly understandable, especially since the main thrust of the question was dealing with the policy of IAR, a policy which seems to conflict with every other policy. From that point of view, I don't feel it is too great a problem.
'''Support''' always need more, experienced people at C:CSD. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions, good wiki-mentality, dedicated user. --
I think this user has decent common [[WP:SENSE]] and would be a good admin. (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great guy and good editor.
I'm
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Not especially familiar with this editor, but the record looks OK from what I can tell. -
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose this candidate.

'''Support''' '''
'''Neutral'''<s>'''Weak oppose'''</s> Tonywalton's heart is in the right place and the intentions are good.  However, I am concerned about the candidate's loose understanding of policy while noting that conflicts can often be resolved by referring to policy.  The response to my optional question included "By "policy" here I'm talking about things like [[WP:NPA]] or [[WP:NOR]]. Pretty much the things that are enumerated in the [[WP:5P|Five Pillars of Wikipedia]]."  Wikipedia policy isn't a quotatable commodity; it is sharp and delineated by  [[Wikipedia:List of policies]].  Yes there is much flexibility in the interpretation of policy and yes policy evolves as it should and must; however, it has a home and a specific definition that shouldn't yield to the interpretation '"Policy" to me is ...'. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''
'''Neutral''' pending answer to question 5.
'''Support''': great contributions, he's got my vote. --
'''Strongly support''': He's been a strong, active, and level-headed member of the Wikipedia community for a long time. This is overdue.
'''Suport''' for reasons stated above. -
'''Support''' Can't see a reason not to. --
'''Support''' looks OK. Good luck! --
'''Support''' - strong reasons are listed above in nom --
I'd say this is a tröstworthty and levöl-headed usör.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy, been here long enough, sensible ideas on consensus. --
'''Support''', but be careful when rocking the boat as you may fall out.
'''Süppört''', he's contributed a lot here and he's familiar with Wikipedia processes. That's good enough for me. --
'''Support''', looks a reliable contributor to me.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Looks like he has good potential to use the admin tools well.
'''Support''' For obvious reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Well-rounded user in all aspects of Wikipedia. (See talk page for editcountitis info)
'''Support''' Lots of strong contributions, understands policy well.  Great all-around candidate.

'''Support''' for a qualified, experienced user with no troublesome issues.

Of course.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Unterstützung''' ~
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Pro.''' As the say on the German Wikipedia. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom --
'''Support''' looks good to me.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''&mdash;Qualified & experienced user. Voice-of-All’s observation that “I suspect use of the tools will be sporadic,” is not in any sense a disqualification&mdash;Wikipedia editors grow into new skills and roles&mdash; Trödel can be trusted not to misuse the tools & that it the single most important qualification. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support'''. Easy to work with, respects and is able to gauge consensus. No reason to assume he would abuse the tools. Viel Glück! --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I have seen this user in action and consider him to be very subdued in reactions - a trait I consider to be valuable when a person has enhanced powers to react.  I have seen him disagree, yet avoid conflict.   I believe he will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' - solid editor would make good admin.
'''Support'''   He has been excellent to work with and will be an asset as an admin.
'''Support'''.
Pile on '''support'''.
'''Sure'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' based on answers above. --
'''Support''', without any question.  Am now wondering why I didn't nom him myself an age or two ago.
'''Support''' good answers from a good editor, should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Seems like a reasonable candidate.
'''Strong support.''' I've interacted with Trödel and he (she?) is very reasonable and civil. He is a productive Wikipedian and would make an excellent admin.  --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
He's not one already?  '''Support'''.
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' civil, succint, and smart. good addition. --
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Not only is his edit count high, his edits are very constructive.
'''Support''': Fine. --
'''Support''' No problems here!
'''Support'''--
'''Neutral''' Not that it matters a jot anymore. But I had a very ambiguous encounter with this editor over a template proposed for deletion. I have to refer to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_30#Template:POV-because]--
'''Strongest Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong support''' I could've swore this user was an administrator already. I've seen him around so many times, excellent work.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' I have seen him numerous times, and I know he will make an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support''' Nice work.
'''Support''' - see no reason why not, seems to have a good understanding of fair use[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Trialsanderrors] --
'''Support''' --
'''Suport''' Wikipedia needs him. (I voted here before without logging in. My bad)
'''Support''' Awesome editor all-around.  No reason to believe the tools will be misused. --
'''Support''' Perfect candidate for the mop and bucket. --
'''Support''' Have seen this user around, extremely productive to Wikipedia and the community in general. Worthy of the mop. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Strong Support''' an insightful voice of reason at Afd and DRV, quite a good all-around admin candidate.
'''Support''' Always a clear thinker on Afd, should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Good user, will make great admin.
'''Support''' Looks like another good candidate.
'''Support''', sound understanding of policy, good editor, uses his head. <b>
'''Support''' I've seen him around and know he does good work, but even if I didn't, his letters alone overqualify him for adminship on Wikipedia
'''Support''' A cool, level-headed user.
'''Support'''. Definately worth interrupting my wikibreak to support.
'''Support''' He wasn't an admin before?! --
'''Support''' per answer to question 5, and my past experience with him/her.  Shows good perspective.
'''Support''' - Good answers.--
'''Support''' per above; hear hear.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. The old cliche: He wasn't an admin? I thought he already was. --'''
'''Support''' in spades. Long time coming. - <b>
'''Support''' obviously. '''

'''Support''' I've seen him around - good guy, deserves a mop. <small>(The A's debacle in Detroit? What about Detroit's debacle in St. Louis?)</small>
'''Support'''. I have seen him around also, and he looks like a very valuable editor. '''''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' A very intelligent user and the PhD he has just re-emphasizes how important his contributions to this project is. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good answers, and have seen intelligent contributions from him, seems level-headed.
'''Strong support''', I wanted to nominate him myself...
'''Support''', long overdue. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. My, this takes me back, Trialsanderrors was actually one of the first people I encountered at AfD. Anyway, he knows what he is doing, and he deserves the mop.--
'''Strong support'''.  Judges encyclopedic content exceptionally well. --
'''Support''', an excellent candidate, no issues.
'''Strong Support''', excellent candidate; thought he already was an admin; trust Xoloz to only pick excellent candidates; no problems with his arguments in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft]] though he could have kept his cool better.
'''Strong Support''' per Xoloz whose judgement I trust implicitly.
'''Support''' A good candidate --
'''Support''' many, many interactions (starting with Wikiproject Game Theory involvement)), all very positive.  An exemplary wikipedian: knowledeable, energetic, and brimming with common-sense. Can't imagine a more deserving candidate.
'''Strong Support''' per nominator and questions. --
'''Support''': His/her comments in the WoW debate may not have been a greatest moment.  In general this is a civil, level-headed editorm one with whom I've been able to strongly disagree with one day and work with the next. -
'''[[Frank Thomas (AL baseball player)|Frank Thomas]]-sized support''' I have in the past questioned a user's judgment upon his accepting a nomination by a nominator about whom I had concerns, and, for consistency, I must, as Jcam, inter al., observe that I am reflexively disposed toward support here in view of my confidence in the judgment of the nominator, especially in view of his generally exacting RfA standards, especially insofar as T&E's accepting a nomination from Xoloz speaks to the former's judgment as well.  In any event, though, it seems quite plain that T&E is possessed of a deliberative temperament (and, as a component thereof, a reasoned sense of judgment) and amicable demeanor the presence of which in him, in concert with his knowledge of policy and practice, is quite auspicious; I am wholly confident that T&E will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I am certain that net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standard]]).
'''Support''' thought he was one an admin already.--
'''Support''' per the oppose votes.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. A PhD, thats excellent for a wikipedian considering when the average wikipedian is a teenager --
'''Support''' per Ageo020 <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' - Seen him around, knows what he is doing, remains calm. --

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''  only if he promises to help out on game theory articles more. :) I found him very easy to work with and think he would make a good admin.  --''best, kevin'' <b>[</b>
'''Support''' no reason to believe this editor will abuse admin tools.--
RFA cliche #1.
'''Yes.''' --
'''Support''', Good editor who will likely make a good admin... even if he is an A's fan.--
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' good thinker on AfD. Will close debates appropriately.'''
I trust Xoloz as a nominator, seen user around as well.
'''Strong Support''' from a straggler - just found out about this nomination! Trialsanderrors is a consistently well-reasoning, diligent, fair-minded, cool, calm and collected contributor, collaborator, and editor. His interest in formulating sound new guidelines is very valuable. He does much behind-the-scenes procedural editing work too. In short, Trialsanderrors is an all-round good egg and would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.  I thought he was one already. ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', from my encounters with T&E, I believe Wiki would be better if he had the tools. No doubt about it - the model RfA candidate. '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. Pretty unconvincing opposes. --

'''Support''' ''semper fi'' —
'''Support'''. See no serious issues.
'''Support'''.per nom, good replies.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' His argumentation in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft]] leaves much to be desired. Seems to actually have a "grudge" against the article or its subject, which leaves me wondering if he would be neutral enough to do his job as an admin. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/
'''Oppose''' per Havok, behaviour was slighty uncivil.
'''Oppose''' - Definitely needs to learn to keep cool under the pressure of a heated AFD debate. I'm concerned that with the extra tools, a hot collar will cause some confrontations best left untouched.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_13&diff=69872577&oldid=69772666].--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
I hate to jump around so much on one RfA, but thinking it over, getting a little hot under the collar at an AfD is not a reason to oppose. I think I'll go neutral on this because I still have some civility concerns about this user. Good luck! -
'''Support''': Turnstep's grammar and spelling are sometimes lacking, but otherwise he's a good editor. No reason not to make him an admin. -
'''Support''', I really liked his answers to the questions.  NBD.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' Yes, I am holding you to a higher standard. But you also clearly are showing initiative and desire to serve the community.
'''Support''' Just right for Admin. Meets my requirements, 100%. Good luck on your campaign to become Admin. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
[[The Strangeloves|I Want Candy]]!!! (question 4, bullet point 4) '''Support'''... hmm... 3,000 edits and getting worried that's too many, there's a twist! <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''. I don't remember ever encountering this user before, but I can't find anything wrong with him. He has plenty of experience (regardless of edit count) and the perfect attitude for adminship. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' per Tantalum and consistent with Turnstep's suggestion of a syntax for dates such that they will display consistent with a user's preferences without being links where such links are altogether unnecessary.
'''Support'''.  I'm much impressed by his answers to the questions below.
'''Support''', seems OK to me.
'''Support''' <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''100% support'''! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like the answers. Reasonable edit spread across namespaces. I'm sold! ([[Bow Wow Wow|I also want candy]].) --
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Clearly has thought a lot about the state of things and come up with positive suggestions.  --
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good editor.--
'''Support''' - he states valid reasons for the mop in the nomination, in addition to comments from TheKman. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - good user.
'''Support'''. Answers to questions well thought out. His rationale for self-nomination is even better and he makes a great point - the longer you edit, the more likely you are to be human and slip up.
'''Support''' per above. I don't agree with all, or even most, of what the nominee says below, but it is clear that he is a thoughtful, reasonable, experienced editor. I particularly like his statement about what makes Wikipedia different from an encyclopedia. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to be a reasonable editor. The number of the mainspace edits 2400 is slightly lower than my personal limit of 3000, but I like his answers to the questions

'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. I don't agree with everything you've said, or even some of the other supports ;-) But I do believe you can be trusted with the admin tools, that you will make good use of them without abusing them. As a nice bonus great use of edit summaries.
'''Suppport''', everything looks good.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support.''' One of the best candidates I've seen. User has good edits, good ideas, good sense of humor, and various other qualities that could be preceded by the word good. No doubt will make a good admin. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support.'''  I've never run across the user until reading this.  I find the edits solid and the answers to the questions down below to be satisfactory.  The self-nomination is a bother, but perhaps no one noticed the user and/or ambitions.  Users in good faith with a record, give 'em the key out of good faith.
'''Support.''' Good ideas, good approach. --
'''Support'''.
Wha? He's not an admin?
'''Strong support''' undoubtedly would improve the encyclopedia as an administrator.
'''Support''' -- Good worker with a good attitude.
'''Support''' - Definitly a trusted user, though I don't like his theory much (it might be true though). <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', always endeavours to justify his keep votes on AfD, and understands what 'verifiable' means.  Oh, if all inclusionists were the same.  Also always polite, sensible, etc (the usual).
I want candy too.
'''Support''', good attitude about adminship and good experience.
'''Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support''' per above. --
Good egg. —''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''. Answers to questions seem fine. --
'''Support''' the name seems familiar, but I can't place it.  I also can't find too much fault with the editor, although I disagree with the assertion that adminship is a big deal. But if people I respect will support you, and given adminship is no big deal, I will too.
'''Support'''.
--
'''Support'''.  Good user, sensible responses to questions. -
'''Support'''. Looks good to me&#160;—
'''Support''', just in case it takes an extra one to get this closed. ;) —
'''Support''' looks good --
'''Oppose''' A tad bit too hasty.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_superheroines&diff=prev&oldid=28903151] when the subject in question does exist.  [http://thecoadletter.com/article/0,1410,20297,00.html] --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aucaman/read/adminship this]. Too soon. Better safe than sorry.
'''Oppose''' Has been doing some great editing but has a strong lack of communication with other editors which is essential for adminship tools. Editcountitis doesn't really apply here since he's made many contributions over an extended amount of time. <del>The links provided above also make me worry.</del>
'''Oppose''' based on answers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should strive to eliminate the turgid dreck that often masquerades as an article.
'''Oppose''' based on answers and intro statement.
'''Neutral''' still thinking about this one. Don't like the intro statement, surely people should apply because they feel they can add by performing admin work, not because they might want to be an admin in the future (not a reward or promotion) but better get it now. Also some of the questions I'm not convinced of, how does being an admin enable you to better write a patch? Or is this some sort of bargaining? Comments about RFA don't inspire confidence either (although I agree te process could be better) "voting for the wrong reason" which perhaps not what was meant but comes across as voting for a different reason (and presumably a different way) to me is "the wrong reason". --
'''Support''' per nom. I've seen this user doing a good job with AfD, and I expect that this user will become a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. I'm very impressed; I haven't seen a lot of self-noms improve the way that this editor has. The fact that this editor gets stressed ''and knows how to deal with it'' impresses me greatly, and he seems to keep a cool head on AfD, which impresses me.
'''Support''' I am very impressed by the way he presents himself just looking at the answers to the questions below. Though, i do not usually vote for users with less that 5000 edits, he has showed the responsibility needed for the job. (Plus he is almost there- 4800+) --<font color="336699">
'''Strong Support''' brilliant editor.
'''<nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki>'''
'''Support'''. Great user. Easily meets [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support''' User's contributions appear to be strong.  With a cool head when under stress, would be useful with a mop and bucket. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Strong Support'''. Need I say more?
'''Support''' good edit summaries, vandal fighting and editing of a wide range of articles, I see no problem here.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' No reason to oppose really. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
... and I thought... --
'''Support''' - No worries, very good contributor.
'''Support''' since no reason to oppose. --
'''Strong support''' great user who meets all of [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my criteria]]. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' seems a good guy
'''Support''' excellent editor should make a great admin.
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support ON WHEELS!''' -→
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support with a side order of fries!'''

I hate to resort to the old RfA cliche, but I swear in this case is absolutely true!
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' good editor with an interesting angle, not a POV angle but a unique sphere of contribution.
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support.'''
'''Strong support''' seems levelheaded --
'''Support''' will put tools to good use.
'''Support''' yes ma'am - <b>
'''Support''' impressed by his/her contributions
'''Support!''' Looks great! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like this user's style! --
'''Support''' Fine candidate --
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', will make a great admin. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''', seems to be a positive editor and should make a good admin.--
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with the mop. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Yes. --
'''Support''' per seeing this one around a lot. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''support'''per nom, no reason to oppose
'''Support''', good work on the Satchel Cohen hoax. -
'''Support''':  yes, absolutely.  Excellent admin material (just don't forget to keep working on articles... have to remind myself of this too :-)  )
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' due to his wonderful history with wikipedia and his response to NSLE comments, civil, humble and intelligent. -
'''Support'''. I hate to go against NSLE, a knowledgeable and valued editor here, but the oppose vote is, well, wrong. This user ''was'' assuming good faith - indeed, assuming it beyond the level we generally require, trying to find a reason for the edits in question rather than making an assumption about them. There's no crime in asking a question or seeking calm, reasoned debate in others. But the main reason for supporting is the high-quality, well-thought-out answers below, revealing an understanding that Wikipedia decisions are rarely black-and-white, that Tyrenius will be wrong some of the time ''and is prepared to be wrong some of the time'' (a Good Thing) and, above all, that this user is can be trusted with the extra buttons and will use them to good effect. An ideal candidate on that basis. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support''' Good editor

I'm in agreement with the many editors in support, and in disagreement with NSLE. I think Redvers puts it quite well... Tyrenious was trying very hard to help do the right thing. '''Support''', but mostly because of all the other reasons to support. Excellent editor. ++
'''Support''' will make a fine administrator, and I am not swayed by the little assume good faith issue, because everyone deserves a little bit of breathing room, especially in something as tense as a joint encyclopedia construction. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' - --
'''Strong support''' I'm embarrassed not to have added my support earlier. A wise and judicious editor who will make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support''' - A good editor and one of the few voices of reason in the HRE debacle.
'''OH NO, I'M GOING TO GET SUED BY SASQUATCH FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT ON ALL CAPS SUPPORTS''' :) - per all above --
'''Support''' will use the mop well. --
'''Support'''...will make an excellent admin
'''Support''' - excellent editor with a good sense for dealing with things like the HRE Hoax  --
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''STRONG OPPOSE''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=61937395&oldid=61935570 failure] to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] in a very sensitive situation. I cannot support a candidate who made such insensitive remarks in good faith. '''Absolutely not.'''
[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Let me be the first to say:  Have a mop!  Tznkai seems mature, thoughtful, and level-headed.  I think he'll make a fine admin.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
I like your answer to Q2. <font color="darkred">

'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', RFA cliche # 1.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good user.
'''Support''' - No second thoughts. I'd be worried if you'd find a ''hottie gurl'' and forget about your duties! Cheers -- ''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, will use tools wisely.
'''Support''' has seemed stable enough from what I've seen of him (on AN and IRC) and I trust the nominator's judgement (sometimes).
--
'''Support''' - I've see this user mediate/help on #wikipedia, and he/she showed remarkable compassion, level headedness, and patience when dealing with a very anxious person.  Based on that interaction, I suspect this user to be stable enough to use the admin tools without flipping out and killing people like a ninja (who are totally awesome, btw) -
'''Support''' great guy. --
'''Mild Support''' - After his response to my question I am prepared to give mild support. Especially considering the "no big deal" point. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;

Aye. &mdash;
'''Support''' no problem and no big deal!
'''Support'''
<small>
'''Support''' .
'''Support''' A look at his contributions and talk page reveals a rock 'em sock 'em editor who cares about Wikipedia's success
'''Support''' per [[User:Babajobu|Babajobu]]. Partisans, please note that Baba and I are on EXACTLY the same page here. Someone we each feel this positively about has to have something going. :) Great candidate -- straight shooter.
Nominator-checking-in-and-seeing-that-she-didn't-support-her-own-candidate-not-that-it-really-ought-to-matter-in-determining-consensus '''support'''.
'''Support'''; been impressed with this one for a while.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good work on NPOV, seems balanced enough to make a good admin.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' In spades.
'''I had to use links (the browser) to vote'''.
'''Support''' A fine mediator of disputes.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': steady contributor, NBD.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Contributions look good, and my interactions with the user have shown a level head. --
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Strengths are a fairness and integrity, and a commitment to NPOV &mdash; so much that I don't even ''know'' what his personal POV is in the extremely controversial article where I met him. Weakness is a tendency to act as if he's in a position of authority. I'm confident that his strengths compensate for this, and that he will be a responsible administrator.
'''Support''', doesn't seem to be quick to judge, and if this RFA is any indicator, seems fair and reasonable to boot. —
'''Support'''.  About time.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Steady contributor of quality edits... --
'''Support''' -
--
Cool.
'''Support''' per sensible answer below. And sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion earlier.

'''Support''' <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Support''' - We tend to hang out on the same kinds of articles together and despite minor agreements we're always able to work things out.  He's willing to talk over issues in pursuit of NPOV.  --'''
'''Support'''.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Everything is in order. --Jay '''(
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' Sounds good to me. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]]-
'''Support''', very reasonable contributor in deletion debates.
'''Support''', good edits, have seen him around doing smart things, couldn't find any bad history. -
'''Strong Support''' Double-take cliche moment; he should have been an admin months ago!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Good track record. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' good luck!
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - let's give him his own mop!
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. Everything looks to be in order here.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Yes --
'''Support'''. Sure, why not? --
'''Support''', seems a good editor and a very reasonable and sensible user.
'''UkSupport'''
'''Support''' Of course. '''''
'''Support''' and delighted to do so.
'''Support''' easy decision.
'''Support''' seems a good user.
'''Support''' - Gladly.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Sounds like a great user. --
'''Support''' A fine editor.
'''Support''' - our paths haven't crossed for a while, but UkPaolo has always done good work.
'''Support''' looks good --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  I like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zillions_of_Games] <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%">'''—
'''Support.''' --
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Would make a great administrator.&#160;—
'''Support'''. Found nothing to really object to in his history, only good contribs. Give him a mop and bucket.--
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': another who thought UkPaolo was already an admin. --
'''Überstrong support''': the user seems like a responsible Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. No reason for concern.
'''Oppose''' I nominated you for adminship for an act of kindness. You reject it, saying it is bad faith, which it is clearly not. Then you automatically accept User:Mushroom's nomination? Why? You are not worthy of being an admin! --
'''Support''' (HA! even before nominator :P) Well-deserving RC patroller in need of an upgrade of tools. --<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Support''' Looks solid, I say we go for it.
'''Support''' This is the first time I've ever voted before the nominator, I'm so proud!
'''Support'''. --
'''support''':  Looks good, especially given that vandal fighting without stirring much retaliation, beyond a mere sixteen user page vandalisms, is an admirable feat.
'''Support''' good editor, good candidate --
'''Support'''. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' -- Sure
--
'''Support'''. My personal experience with Vary in dealing with a troublesome editor at [[Talk:Memphis, Tennessee]] was that she (1) exhibits fine judgment and (2) has plenty of patience.  Both of those qualities are necessary for adminship. - <font color="#013220">
'''Support'''. Good editor. Put her to work.
'''Support''' right on.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''', more than exceeds my expectations. Will you use your powers for good or for awesome? --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' --
'''Weak support''' I've never come across this user, but all seems in order.
'''Support''' This user deserves to be given the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' This user does a good job at patrolling for vandalism. Needs a promotion. --
'''Support'''. Civil and makes good edits. Way to go. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Wow another "Can't believe this user isn't an admin" nomination!!
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support'''. I like the fact that Vary has also taken the time to {{t1|welcome}} new users in addition to continuing the usual duties. Three cheers!
'''Support'''' great user, excellent potential

'''Sure'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.great job. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  While I'm here, I may as well, since she seems well-qualified. -
'''Support'''. Impressive RC vandalism work. A good Wikipedian.
'''Support.''' Oh yeah.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Congratulations.
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''support''' I like the edit spread and the questions. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Support''' Looks like a great editor!
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - It's rare to see such well thought out answers for these questions. You have easily what it takes to become an incredible admin, and I wish you luck in the future. --
'''Support''' Solid user who has clearly matured and will continue to do so with responsibility.
'''Support'''. Great answers to questions, lots of edits. And bunnies! --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks good, and could be even better with admin tools. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''. Good answers to questions and the editor's experience easily outweigh whatever was raised in opposition so far.
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' good impressions.
'''Support'''. Looks like she'll do a good job. --
'''Support''', good vandal fighter, appreciate the work she's done so far --
'''Support''' good job, keep up the good work!
'''Support''' - Great contributor. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''', looks vary interesting.
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Keep up the good work.  Here's your mop and bucket.  --

'''Weak neutral'''. Good edit summary use, supporters above attest to good vandal-fighting ability, but... a little weak in the project namespace (and I've never heard of her). May change my mind, if it matters. — <small>Mar. 9, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:45] <
'''Support'''. as a nominator. -
'''Support''' of course, great user --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' happily, with a "cliche" to boot.
'''Support''' Seems like a fine nomination. —
'''Support'''. Especially liked the answer to question 3.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', no question. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.

'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' Hard worker.
'''support''' genrally good guy
'''Support''' lots of edits.. and they look fine...please review [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]] to become more familiar.--
'''Support''': Yes sure. --
{{tl|test1}} thing gave me pause, but heck, I'm sure Vegaswikian can be trusted, based on what I've seen of him. As per the [[m:eventualist|eventualist]] philosophy, mistakes can be corrected.
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''' - Sheer piles of edits.
'''support'''. Conscientious editor and good guy.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', but agree with MONGO. --
'''Support''' lots of good work done, will be a good admin I think --
'''Support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Need more admins. -
'''Support'''. Good editor, edits indicate he can be trusted with admin tools.--
'''support''' this user poured gobs of effort and goodwill into trying to sort out a compromise in the "schools debate".  I'm not sure I agreed with his position, but I can't imagine anyone doing a better job of trying to make consensus work in that situation.
'''Support'''. Stayed neutral at first, since I would have expected a future admin to have at least ''heard'' of <nowiki>{{test1}}</nowiki>. That said, Vegaswikian is clearly not lacking in experience or effort, and I'm sure he could be trusted with admin status. He's made plenty of good contributions, and I have to agree with his answer to q8. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''', it's not all about what tags go where - a good editor whose judgment I trust and input I value. Thanks/
'''Support'''. Nominee has been busy doing good stuff. Nominee will have to study and practice a bit to work in new areas; seems modest enough that I trust he will do that.
'''Support'''. Active in cleaning up articles, participating and/or leading projects, and avoids losing temper with idiots who won't listen to reason.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''. very very little user talk editing. how do you fight vandalism this way?
'''Oppose''', per Alhutch and TantalumTelluride (even though they voted Neutral). I suggest that you take a look at admin activities (such as on [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]]) and maybe participate in more maintenance and article editing tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''', appreciate the enthousiasm but please gather some more experience first.
'''Oppose''' Mainly due to the answer of A1 which suggests inexperience and/or lack of communication with others. So far electing not to answer a couple of the optional questions, to me (perhaps unfairly) suggests that you don't have answers and I feel both are totally relevant to functioning effectively as an admin --
'''Oppose''' this potentially valuable editor. Not active in the project space enough. Looking through the candidate's contributions, I see only semibot edits, 95% of them marked as minor.--
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral) reconsidering my support. No offense, but I'm ''very'' surprised that the candidate had not heard of {{tl|test1}} or {{tl|bv}} before now. I don't understand how you fight vandalism without the test templates and the bv template. Also, I looked through Vegaswikian's User talk edits and I can't find a single warning of an anonymous user for vandalism. Correct me if I am wrong, but I actually can't find a warning of any user for vandalism.--
'''Oppose''' Answers (or lack thereof) to questions have really concerned me, especially the one regarding templates. Why haven't questions 6 and 7 been answered? I would expect an admin to have a reply to those, without thinking about it for too long.
'''Oppose'''. Feel he would do more harm than good with tools, regardless that his overall contribution is very much positive.
I was going to support, but then I read the answers to the questions and was left feeling distincly uncertain. Never heard of {{tl|test1}} before?! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Neutral.''' I agree with Alhutch. I don't want to entrust a user with the ability to block if he isn't familiar with the process of warning vandals with the appropriate templates. However, I also sympathize with Vegaswikian because of his answer to Question #8 below. --
'''Neutral''', pretty much per TantalumTelluride.
'''Support''', as nominator. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - This user will not abuse the tools. I personally see no reason to oppose, seeing as I was promoted at 3 months with 3000 edits. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I am sure this user will not abuse.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Firefox. I've seen Viridae a around a bunch, and I've been impressed with the way  he conducts himself. There's just no good reason for me to not support.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' Dedicated contributor who is highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Unfortunately it is quite apparent that few share my POV here & this RFA is quite reminiscent of my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit|first RFA]]. My advice: Relax, let some time go by, keep up your amazing contributions and re-apply again sometime in October-November. I see you as an stellar future admin. --
'''Support''' I found Virdae to be a very helpful user recently when I was making enquiries regarding my edit count at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)|'Village Pump']].
'''Support'''. Great job so far!  I think the candidate's varied experience to this point likely has given him a firm grasp on policy areas.  I hope he will commit to quickly learning what he doesn't already know.  I don't think arguments based on tenure or edit count are convincing for this candidate. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' 3 months is enough time, lots of users passed with 3 months before
'''Support''' a valuable contributor to ''articles'' plus enough maturity for the mop.  Even if he is not totally familiar with all the weird little nooks and crannies of this place, he can learn on the job--the only irreversible thing you can do with the mop is piss people off and he doesn't show a tendency to do that.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', seems to be good at dealing with people. --
'''Strong support''' per FireFox and Srikeit.
'''Support''' per nom.  Viridae is ready for the mop.
'''Support''' per above. Would make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I feel this RfA is a bit premature.  Three months is usually not enough time to gain the experience necessary to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink. Has not been here at least 5 months, as stated in [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. Will gladly support if you request adminship again in a few months. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Weak Oppose''' nice editor, too soon. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Two more months in the oven and you have a support
'''Oppose''' Per above, a bit too soon, although would happily support in a few more months. --
'''Weak oppose,''' a little too early.--
'''Oppose''' User would benefit from a few more months of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Fails two of my criteria (less than 6 months, and less than 200 maintalk edits). Will most likely support in November.
'''Oppose''' Too new and lacks a great deal of communicative experience.
'''Oppose''', too new. --
'''Oppose''', just too soon, sorry.
'''Oppose.''' Too soon for me.
'''Weak Oppose.''' Per above.  --
'''Neutral''' More time is required to get to grips with the complexities of Wiki policy and procedures.  Would be happy to support if this user comes up for re-assessment in the near future. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''', too soon. Come back in a month or two. --
'''Neutral''' per Guinnog. Please continue to contribute; in 3 months another RfA will surely be successful.
'''Neutral''' for now. -
'''Neutral''', too soon.
'''Neutral''': The edits and summary usage are looking good, but he's been only here for almost half the time I'd love to see admins get promoted. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''First support''' – his many months of previous administrative experience gives me complete confidence and trust in him. —&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I think W.marsh has been a fine admin, in all the cases I've noticed.  I missed all the drama from earlier this month, but from the links W.marsh has given, it doesn't seem so bad, at least not as wikidrama goes.  And W.marsh's apology seems admirably blunt and straightforward.  --
'''Support'''. I participated to an extent in that Masssiveego discussion. Considering the circumstances (People defending such an obvious troll who needed to be gotten rid of), I don't think your attitude during it is any reason to deny re-adminship. --
'''Support'''.  Works for me.  One of my favorite admins prior, and looks like he'll continue to be in the future. --
(quadruple edit conflict) '''Strong support.'''  W.marsh was an excellent contributor and editor; I was sorry to see him temporarily leave the project a few weeks ago, and pleased when he returned.  W. was also an excellent administrator and should be allowed to pick up where he left off without further ado.  Based on recent precedent that an admin who locked his mop closet voluntarily can request re-sysoping without another RfA, I don't quite understand Taxman's position that that precedent doesn't apply in this instance and that a new RfA is required - W.marsh may have been in a "conflict" about a particular block, but that doesn't mean he resigned rather than deal with the consequences of that conflict, or anything of that nature - but since the candidate doesn't seem to be complaining too much about being called upon for a re-Rfa, I suppose there's no point in pursuing the matter.  For what it's worth, I personally disagreed with the MassiveEgo block and thought that W.marsh overreacted to the criticism he received at that time; but everyone gets fed up with someone or something at one time or another, for one reason or another, and that's hardly the reason to deprive the project of his services as an admin.
'''Support.''' I believe that one incident with Masssiveego was not that bad and I have seen W.marsh doing a great amount of good work closing deletions discussions, so giving him back the tools would be a good thing to do. However, I would have been very opposed to him getting the tools without going through an RfA. That "I screwed up/I quit/Please pardon me out of process" mode of action would be a bad idea in the long run.
'''Strong Support'''. I see no problems here at all. Time to get the mob and bucket back.'''
'''Support''' Most of the time I really ''love'' that Wikipedia has a higher standard for civility among users than any other online (I'm going to avoid using the word community and drastically compromise by saying "thingy") that I've encountered.  But in this case, well... another, pretty obviously provocative user got under W.marsh's skin, he (probably) overreacted out of frustration, others made (somewhat compelling, but possibly overly strong) arguments in the other user's defense and W.marsh had a (self-admitted) "hysterical" reaction and left the project.  In other words, he behaved the way that pretty much anyone I've ever respected and liked in other online situations has done at least once, and now he's owning it and apologizing for it.  A good admin, a no-brainer.
'''Strong Support'''. Even after reviewing the whole incident, I consider W.marsh still a great admin. Welcome back and best of luck with the RfA. I only hope that people will realize that not everyone is perfect, and your actions in this one instance do not represent the character and personality of the overall user. --
'''Support''' Did lots of good work previously and seems balanced enough in responses to questions above to behave responsibly with the admin tools. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' OK, indeed [[WP:AGF|AGF]].

'''Support'''  W.marsh was a great admin, and will continue to be one.--<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''', glad to have you back.-<span style="font-family: cursive"> <font color= "#808080">
'''Support''' I thought he already was one.  ;-)  Seriously though, even to the extent his actions were mistaken they were not abusive.  He'll be a good hand with the mop again.
'''Support''' Will be a good vandalhunter. Is a good editor.
'''Support''' Deserves another chance, I think. --
'''Support''' We should have a "speedy" admin for cases like this. :)
'''Strong support'''.  And I usually don't vote on RfAs.
'''Support''': Always civil and fair.  Certainly seems to have earned enough credits to withstand a mini-meltdown.  This is an easy one... —
'''Support'''. I wish W.marsh would work on more articles like [[shotgun house]], but if he wants to do admin chores again, he should be able to.
'''Support''' per the above eloquent reasons. Should be given the mop back. --
'''Support''' (see top section for details) --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. I never knew he was de-sysopped. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I admire W.marsh's frank manner. Although please don't loose your cool - a wikibreak may be in order.
'''Support''' with exactly the same concerns as Fama's Arrow.
'''Support'''. Absolutely no reason he shouldn't be allowed back. --
'''Support''' an ex-admin who gave up the tools of his own free will. Why not? -
'''Support''' Come on back 'round now.  Next time things get heated, try a WikiBreak though! —
'''Support''' One of the best.
'''Support'''. Looking at the links it appears the only mistake he made was questioning his own judgment. —
'''Support''' Of course, I certainly believe in a second chance for this.--
'''Support'''--a bit grudgingly, but only because i really wish people wouldn't give up their admin status so quickly in such situations. ;) But a good admin, certainly trustworthy, and a conflict over how to deal with a troll shouldn't bar one from adminship.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' - just hit [[Special:Makesysop]] and save us a little bit of diskspace :) --
'''Support''' Well for what it's worth, I like the way you acted in that conflict. We can't expect admins to be angels, and sometimes excessively disruptive editors deserve a good thumping. Glad to support.
'''Support''', and welcome back.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Excellent administrator before, will be again.
'''Support'''. Easily passes the "one-bad-day" rule. The Massiveego problem was that, one bad day, and nothing else makes me belive he would misuse or abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Everything I've seen of his work has contributed to a most favorable impression. --

'''Support'''. I don't want to comment again in detail about the Massieveego issue, but W.marsh shouldn't be desysopped because of this (not even by himself :). But I do still have some strong doubts whether that block was justified and I would appreciate if it would be possible to openly discuss a block on WP:ANI without having the blocking admin taking this as questioning his adminship. If you don't want to be publicly scrutinized, then don't take it to WP:ANI. WP:ANI is not a "backing-up your fellow admin" club. Secondly, if an admin requests to be desysopped ''because he/she is about to leave'', then they should get the admin bits back per their request when they return. --
'''Bandwagon.''' --
'''Support''': blocking is over-used in contentious situations. I hope you are more generous next time.
'''Support'''. Welcome back.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' If he was once an admin, I don't see why not.
'''Strong Support'''. Having spent half an hour reading up on the reasons for your leaving, I'm very sad that you did so at all. Welcome back. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''', too scared to join the empty space below me ;) But seriously, welcome back. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' And thanks for your patience with the questions - Good luck!--
'''Support'''.--<font style="background:white">

'''Support''' Good editor and (was) a good admin.
Duh. Excellent editor, glad to see he's decided to pick the tools back up. Get to work! '''Support''' ++
'''Support''', of course; obvious one.  Welcome back.
'''Edit conflict, [[WP:SNOW]] support'''.  I've actually been keeping an eye on W.marsh following the Massiveego situation and I've been very impressed with him and his behavior.  He's always been an excellent admin and I have full confidence that the project will benefit immediately after he gets his extra buttons back.
'''Support'''. Sorry, W.Marsh, I hadn't checked RFA all week, or I would have commented sooner. I'm glad you've returned, and there was no reason for you to give up the tools. You're a good user, and a good admin. Best wishes on your second adminship. :) <font color="#0000FF">
'''Strong Support.''' Wow. Not supporting this should be considered a personal attack. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Talks and acts sense all the way. -
'''Strong support''' No worries at all. Good admin in the past and will be in the future. --
'''Support''' allow this user to continue to be a good admin --
'''Of course''' --
'''Support''' The evidence is clear here. He must be given the extra tools back. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good contribs and good editor. Makes the cut to admin --

'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Great editor. —''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good admin who was understandably not used to criticism. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' somewhat superfluous RfA for a very good admin --
'''Support''' Very civil and experienced; was a great admin before and will continue to be a great admin.--
'''Support''' Welcome back
'''Support''' Valuable contributor and top Admin.
'''Support''' per samir.
[[I Am The Walrus|"Support dripping from a dead dog's eye..."]]--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Support''' Cooling-down period has served its purpose.
'''Strong Support''' no problems.'''
'''Support''' huh?
'''Support''' good admin.--
'''Obvious support''' per...well, everyone. -→
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per Sean Black!
- <b>
'''Support''' per all the above.
'''Support''' -- welcome back. -
'''Support''' to help this get into WP100.
'''Support''' - Of course! Great to have you back! -
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support'''
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''. Couldn't care less about anything other than the fact that you were a great admin, so will be again. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' (
'''Support'''.  Was a solid, active admin and certainly will be again. --<span style="font-family:Palatino">
If we don't give the best to the best of editors who help to literatelly write the encyclopedia to write the encyclopedia, then I really do not know what else can be done. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Pile-on support'''. Was (is?) a great admin, without question.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Pile-on support that's here to add emphasis''', W.marsh was a great admin. I'm absolutely positive he'll be a great admin once again. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''I'm-Afraid-To-Join-The-Blank-Space-Below-This-Support''' as per fear of being the only one not to support. Also appears to be an excellent editor, should make a great admin again. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Sure thing.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', of course. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', is it an addiction? ;)
'''Support''' I see no problems here. Sorry for piling on ;-)
'''Support''' as many have written better than I can - Newyorkbrad, Dina, Ligulem to name only a few. From his general comments, W. Marsh seems to be better than that one incident, and admits himself at fault. None of are perfect, failure makes some of us better, it looks like W.Marsh is of that latter group.
Yessir. --
Sure.
'''Support'''.  Enough experience; wants to work on admin issues and so needs the tools.  Looking through his contributions I found good evidence of appropriate civil and informed behaviour: e.g. [[Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1|here]] in the external links discussion.
'''Support''' great edit summary usage, user seems civil, knows policy and takes fantastic pics! No reason to think he'll abuse the tools -
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' offered great help while I was mass-revising the [[Singapore Changi Airport]] article, among other airport-related projects. Deserves more tools for his trade. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' I counted two reports to [[WP:AIV]].  This leads me to believe that the candidate will not spend his valuable time dealing with the alerts there.  However, the candidate does seem like a good editor and quite trustworthy, so I don't see why he won't make a good administrator. (I would like the candidate to prove me wrong though, as AIV needs to be watched a lot more!)
'''Support''' meets my criteria easily, and great answers. That's all it takes to seduce me.
'''Support''' I usually like to see more Wikispace edits, but I'll waive that preference becuase the user seems extraordinarily capable.
'''Support''' - seems good
'''Support''' A good deal of experience and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - looks good to me! '''
'''Support''' per [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', great user.
'''Support''' shows the need, seems to have the experience.

'''Support''' Enough experience for me, and has good reasons for wanting the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Support''', most unintentially cliche, but through my recent interactions, I actually did think Wangi was an administrator.  Certainly shows the know-how and attitude for it! -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Support''' Well-rounded contributions, willingness to be a janitor, no serious issues raised. The nom statement is brief but the answers to the questions are fair enough.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Support''' - no reason not to. --
'''Support''' I've looked at Sean Black's diff, but I can't oppose on those grounds. Wangi clearly took part in discussion regarding the removal of [[April Fools' Day]] from the [[AFD]] article, even though he at first did the removal without discussion (but as a wiki, not every change needs to be taken to the talk page first). And I don't see why I should be holding Wangi accountable for taking part in an edit war since a few admins participated in the edit war (if I could even call it that). I hold nothing against those admins &ndash; and it appears no one else has &ndash; and so I'll hold nothing against Wangi. As those current sysops are still capable of donning the mop and bucket, so is Wangi, as far as I can see. -- '''
'''Support''' - Your janitorial work is excellent, I do not see that you'll abuse the mop, you meet my criteria.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Would make a good admin. -
'''Support'''. Isn't? Seriously? <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]], won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''', good editor. =) --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Certainly meets my criteria for an admin has made some good edits and will make good use of admin tools.
'''Support, although weak'''. Your edit summary usage is not that high; you should work on that.. Furthermore, please try to support your opinions with arguments. I've seen many contributions of yours on talkpages which are no more than a few lines, but either include no arguments at all or incomplete argumentation. However, this user has proven to be a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia itself and should still get admin tools, regardless of these mistakes. We're all human, after all.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>
'''Support''' Consistent and dedicated editor who I've seen around doing great work. The tools will definitely help him. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support'''' - Looks fine. Work on edit summary, though. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Support''' as meets my criteria and this is supposed to be no big deal. I see no concerns of incivility either, no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Deserves the extra tools assosiated with Adminship, and as for time at Wikipedia? For me, I couldn't care less if the person requesting Adminship had been at Wikipedia for less than a day its the quality of edits that count. Keep it Up Wangi!
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' <s>too popular.</s> '''Support'''. :D -→
'''Support'''.  Looks like a hard-working and informed editor that would use the mop well. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''': seems like a great bloke.
'''Support''' - recent interactions with the editor support my feeling that he will be a useful and level-headed admin. -
'''Support.''' —
'''Support''' --
'''Support.'''--
'''Very strong support''' per the maturity and clarity of thinking displayed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wangi&diff=prev&oldid=69594869 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=69602072 here]. - <b>
'''Support''' and please do help with those xFD backlogs.--
'''Support''' overall good user, enough professional potential. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Easily satisfies my contribution expectations, and despite others' concerns about Wangi's understanding and application of [[WP:DAB]], he was indeed helpful in the resolution of [[Democracy (disambiguation)]], and I could sense he was trying his best to figure out and explain what the guideline requires, as the guideline does indeed seem to get misinterpreted by many. I hope that opposition votes based on that will be reconsidered.
'''Support'''.'''

'''Support'''  per Stevietheman  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''support''' --
'''Strong Support''' excellent editor. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Fails to meet my criteria.  --
'''Weak oppose''' I'm sorry to nitpick, because my overall impression this editor is a good one, but such a short self-nomination statement bothers me a tad: Admins need to be capable of explaining themselves well; terseness in an RfA self-nom doesn't bode well for that.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AFD&diff=62652904&oldid=62627074].--

'''No featured article'''. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''oppose'''; worried about the heavy-handedness at [[WP:AIRPORTS]] when "enforcing" conformity among airport articles, detrimental to the quality of the concerned article, ([[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive3#Airports_not_included]]). --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Sean Black|SB]].
'''Strong Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]].  Admins ''must'' not exclude.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.--
'''Neutral''' per Xoloz.
'''Neu''', poor self-nom.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
'''Support''' Why not...you look good to me =). '''
Changed from neutral, willing to let talk page edits by as great edit summary usage plus you do use user talk pages.
--
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Seems a strong user.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support''' Looks good. --
'''Support''' Very positive contributions to our project. Good luck!
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' looks like s/he can be a large help as an admin
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' everything looks good
'''Support''' solid looking user, unlikely to abuse the tools and answers to the questions fine.  Once again, a lack of understanding of the finer nuances of Wikipedia should be no bar.  I'm an admin and I still make mistakes. Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' --
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] - Has done a lot with current tools, would be a strong admin.  Has fought to keep WP content on other sites licensed and to remove illegal mirrors.
'''Support''' Has been very friendly and will be most definitely be a great admin.
'''Support''' looks good or maybe I'm just thirsty. --
'''Support''' Great user, love wikis. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes! An editor who likes to work.
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''', looks pretty well qualified for wielding the mop. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''', will make a fine administrator.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great user.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' About time, has always left a good impression with me. '''''
'''support''' reasonable enough user. <font size="-1">
'''Support'''.  Clearly committed to the 'pedia and knows enough about policy and process to be an efficient and fair admin (without drowning in Wikipedia: space like I sometimes have).
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Looks good enough.
Support. &ndash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Heart's in the right place. Ditto brain and spleen.
'''Support.''' Has done nothing to suggest he won't be a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great Wikipedian. &mdash;
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Weak oppose''', user shows no indication of familiarity with process, other than a bit of AFD voting.
'''I-beat-the-nominator-support :)''' — '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Meaty Support''', excellent user. High points definitely make up for Yanksox's concern in my opinion (but please do take that criticism into account after this RfA).
'''Support''' No red flags as far as I can see. WAvegetarian appears to take part in a wide range of activities on Wikipedia. -- '''
'''Support'''
'''Yes, please.'''
'''Weak support''' per neutral section. Look quite good otherwise. - <b>
'''Support''' Things seemed a lot better until I saw those edits in the neutral section. Everything else is in order, though, and nobody can be perfect.
'''Support:''' I've seen this user around and there's nothing worrisome for me.
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''  He'll make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support''' I agree with Neutral 1 and 2, but it still looks to me like this user could use the admin tools, and those examples don't really show anything that would suggest he would misuse them. -
'''Support''' I've had...quite an experience with WAvegetarian when I was first starting out here.  Obviously, I've changed.  He is an excellent vandal fighter; I've had first hand experience! (In fact, I was planning to nominate him, darn!)
'''That's so hot.'''

good user, his reputation proceeds him. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Edit conflict Support''' This editor seems to have a sensible grasp of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, judging by the spread of edits and the answers below. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''', I'm impressed by his answers and his contribs are top notch imho - great candidate all right. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' (despite what another admin candidate, Yanksox, has to say below). --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Weak Support'''. Weak due to concern raised by Yanksox.
'''Support''' definitely, a good contributor who will make a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' solid contributor who I'm sure will make a solid administrator
'''Support''' I was ''neutral'', but a more thorough look at WAveg's contributions and community interactions convinces me that he is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and that his having the tools is likely to benefit the project, so I, my concerns about the issue raised by Yanksox notwithstanding, support.
'''Support''' for fellow RC Patroller. Pass the mop! [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''' per RandyWang.
'''Support.''' Seems like a great user. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Go Bulldogs! --
I'd have to say this here is a pretty hefty '''support'''!
'''A 16oz Cut of Meat Support'''  I've been looking for this RfA all summer.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' From what I have seen is a good user, should make good use of the admin tools. --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' I have had recent dealings with this user and a troublesome third user and I think they have been nothing but professional in their dealings.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''great big bags o'Support''' I like the answers given to the questions.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''.
Well you've been editing over a year, so I '''support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Suppport.'''--
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana"> ~
'''Support''', of course. -
'''support''' Knows his way around.
'''Support'''. Meets all three of [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]]. In addition, all of my personal experiences with WAvegetarian have been very positive.

'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''', looks quite thoughtful --
'''Support''' appears to be a good quality user and someone who won't bite sentient beings.  I really don't like the responses in the Neutral section (specifically the Again... bit) but it's not enough to sway my recommendation.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''', good for the community.
'''Support'''. A good editor, I'm sure he'll be a good admin too.-
'''Support''', deserves the promotion.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', WAvegetarian looks like an excellent candidate for administrator.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - does good work at [[WP:HD]] --
'''Support'''

'''(Edit conflict) support''', as I really like WAvegetarian's answers to the questions he was given.
'''Support''' per above. [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''OMG Cabalish Support''' --
'''Scrabble-tastic Support'''. Appears to be thoughtful, mature, articulate and responsible editor.
'''Support''' I am sure he will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per above, and per fair and open response to communication. Good Luck! --
'''Support''': All reliable editors should graduate to become administrators. --
'''Support''' per above, a reliable and trustworthy editor.
'''Support'''. Good editor. Let's give him a go. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Schizophrenic Support''' I ask myself, ''"would Wikipedia benefit if this user gets the mop?"'' Amazingly, the "other side" replied ''"yes"''. Hence my vote. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2</font>]]—
'''Strong Support''' Good editor who is always willing to help others on the Help Desk, reliable and "mature" contributor --
'''Support''' Meets [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A good editor and an asset to Wikipedia.--
No reason not to, and many good reasons to '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' A sound editor who displays good judgement and knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' - [Edit conflict] A good user who is obviously interested in the project but I feel the user can get slightly worked up when things do not run smoothly. For example, I closed an AfD nomination and forgot to mention I had found a few sources for them, to add them into the article. WAvegetarian responded with a slightly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKilo-Lima&diff=48704300&oldid=48673731 mild tirade]. I could certainly sense his anger. However, I could tell he had calmed down with his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kilo-Lima&diff=next&oldid=48704709 reply]. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good user, but I'm little worried about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_High_School_%28Seattle%29#Garfield_Slang.2C_Phrases.2C_and_Jargon    this] considering that the candidate listed this as being an article that he is proud of. This may seem ridiculous, but that section seems unencylopedic and intended for people that go to/did go to/will go to the school.
Per Yanksox. I don't think the candidate actually wrote that section or should be opposed over it, but one would hope that a Wikipedia admin would know that kind of speculation about random school employees and people and so on is utterly unencyclopedic and needs to go. --
First one for free...
'''Support'''. Very impressed with his work on images. Getting the rights to the AP images alone makes him admin-worthy in my mind. (Although I must ask why the images have a notice that they'll soon be deleted? Does this mean all Wgfinley's work was in vain? Probably should make an exception for famous images where permission has been granted.)--
--
'''Support''' Yes please! Good user, will be a great addition.
'''Support''' per nominator and candidates editing history.--
'''Harrumph!''' --
'''Cliché support'''. I'm surprised Wgfinley isn't an admin already. He has a level head and keen awareness of Wikipedia procedures. He could definitely make good use of admin tools. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' based on good edit spread and nice edits.
'''Support''' - based on the way the user dealt with some nominations below. -- ''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An impressively helpful user. More admins interested in mediation and assistance is a great thing.
'''Support'''.  Helpful and reasonable.
'''Support'''.  Solid editor, helpful, will make a great admin. --
'''Support'''. I agree with [[user:Jbamb|Jbamb]].
'''Support'''. Normally with such a low number of edits in en.wikipedia I would question the breadth of the user's experience in the community. However, because of WG's success in obtaining the AP agreements on the images, I will make this exception. Good work WG.
'''Strong Support''' Your my fellow AMA member! BUt seriously you will make a good admin. Some forget that some people can contribute very well with a few, brilliant edits rather than 50,000 "minor edits. Lets remember: "Its meant to be no big deal" --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', I don't know him very well, but his work on the Kelly Martin RfC convinced me that he has a level head on his shoulders.
'''Support'''; absolutely.  Fine candidate.

'''Support''' Though I disagree with his position in the Great Userboxen Conflagration, I think anyone who is passionate about mediation will make for a very helpful admin.
'''Support''' Even if he has a low edit count, I will trust him as an admin because of some of his contributions as an editor. --
'''Support''' fine editor --
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''Support''' Guy is one of the best users that I've seen, and I'm astonished he's not already an admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' good editor and opposition's arguments (where there '''are''' any) are weak to be polite.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Totally nice guy... don't let the power corrupt ya. --
'''Support''' - One of the few candidates I've seen recently who has a clue about the Tao of Wiki.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of course. &mdash;
You mean he wasn't an admin already? Darn you Mindspillage for beating me to the punch.
'''Support''' Thought he was one --
'''Support'''. I sure hope I haven't voted here before. --Jay '''(

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Sure. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for steady, well-considered work that maintains Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. <small>
'''Great big support''' &ndash;
'''Weak oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Seems too arrogant and self-righteous, another Kelly Martin in the making. Just like her, he suggests, without concrete evidence, that people who use userboxes are not contributing to the encyclopedia. Quote: "WHO CARES if we alienate a few people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia?" [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/036200.html] And I don't care about userboxes myself, but this is just not an acceptable way to deal with the community. There's no evidence that anyone here is "more interested in making a sticker book than an encyclopedia". People who use userboxes are typically editors in good standing like anyone else, and any decision to delete userboxes will have to be made in consensus and not dictated by the likes of Kelly. We don't need another admin with a "screw process" attitude.
'''Oppose''' As per Varizer--'''
'''Neutral'''. The user did an excellent job with those Associated Press-permissions, though he has made less than 1500 edits in one year and a half, and his edit/page average is 3,2 (!). I'll be glad to support if he's going to be more active, but now's not the time.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Neutral'''. While this user has obviously contributed a lot to the project, I have some concerns about his willingness to seek consensus, as described above in the Oppose section. If these concerns could be adequately addressed, I might be persuaded to change my vote to Support. <TT>
'''Comment''' I am simply commenting that you have an impressive record, however I will not vote because I have never met you before. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''The biggest support I've ever given''' (apart from possibly BD2412 and JoanneB). He's a wonderful user: kind, civil, helpful, useful. He's help me fix Linux repeatedy :P. I was thoroughly shocked when he said he wasn't an Admin and I'm honoured to have the first support. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''I-wanted-to-be-first-to-support!''' &mdash;
'''Easy Support''' yes
'''Support''' - Well, duh. <small> no spam please </small> --[[User:GeorgeMoney|GeorgeMoney]] <sup>([[User talk:GeorgeMoney|talk]]) (
'''Beat-the-nom Support''' (he'll probably insert his as #1 anyway) A great user, knows exactly what he's doing and when to do it. Very civil. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support''' The nominator said it perfectly. In addition, I find it quite honorable that he declined his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Where|first nomination]] in April and opted to wait a couple months. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Seems a very good contributor who needs the tools. No worries at all.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Where''' should I put my support? I guess here :)--
'''Support'''. I have met Where on IRC. I have found Where to be a very good contributer, looking further through all he has done. Where would do well with the "janitor's closet". //
'''Support'''. Good contributor, good communicator, will probably know when to '''not''' use the tools. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Dure|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Dure&nbsp;'''</font>]]    <small>([[User talk:Dure|<font color="black">'''T'''</font>]])[[Image:skull and crossbones.svg|15px]](
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', it was about time to see this excellent candidate display on my list!
A '''Where''' support. Not really sure '''what''' that is, so I'll just put '''strongest-possible-support''' instead!! :)<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Good answers to questions. Seems to be a model Wikipedian. Will sleep better at night knowing that Where's got the mop and bucket.
'''Where do I show my support''' - that is the question --
'''Support'''. Of course! I'd be surprised if the community rejected him as an admin. '''
'''Support''' This user kindly pointed out an error that I made, I got the vibe that he was a civil and well informed user.
'''Support''' I'm always the last one to know. :(
'''Support''' Wherefore art thou not already an administrator?
'''Support''' per nom.'''
'''Support''' yes. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''ing Where. Where knows where we know eachother from. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Insert obligatory ''where'' pun here. :)
'''Support'''.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
I honestly thought he already was one.
'''Support''' - Yes, it's the right time. -- ''
'''Support''', friendly user, a great Esperanzian, a very civil user, deserves to get the tools. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Absolute Support''' without reservations <small>per Tawker</small>
'''Very, very late support''' as nominator :) &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Definite Support''' passes my RFA criteria. Familliar with sysop tools because of the Test Wiki.   <font color="green">
'''Support''' amazingly active seeing as the user registered at the end of 2005, also a furious vandal fighter. Even though I don't like the users method of leaving a message on a talk page informing the user that the user has replied on their talk page which seems a bit silly.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''', with a lot of confidence that he'll do well. --
'''Support''', seems like an excellent contributor, and a friendly personality. Wikipedia needs more candidates like this one!
I was too slow to nominate '''support'''.
'''Support''' --
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' per above --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' per nom. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Hell yeah Where!'''
'''Yes ma'am''' - <b>
'''Where''' do I put my support? Where2 now? --
'''Support'''. Great vandal fighter, great contributions. --
'''Support ON WHEELS!!!!''' For all reasons mentioned. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|I'm all ears]]
'''Support''' why not? Looks good. -
'''(Insert stupid "Where?" pun here support)''' --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green">'''e'''</span>]]
'''Support''' Looks like an extremely helpful admin candidate. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];(aeropagitica)--><span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Avalanche pile-on support'''. Clearly interacts well with others and has the skills to be an admin. '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''
'''Support''' Good luck!
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
<s>Oppose, needs more talk page edits as well as one ore two more months of experience</s> '''Weak support''', oh well, I think I can make an exception this time due to the user's high amount of experience :) --
Where do I '''support'''? --
'''Can't believe I didn't see this sooner support''' Not only a very infomred and reliable user, a very nice one as well. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' looks good to me, good luck to you.
'''Support''', of course. Great contributions! - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''', meets all the important criteria.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Peer Pressure Support''' Everyone's doing it! On a more serious note, this user would make a great addition to the ranks of administrators, and I have no doubts at all about how he will act. Good Job! <b><i><font style="background:#cc1100" color="white">
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''support''' of course, where is a valuable editor and would do good work with the mop
'''Support''' per nom.
I do believe so.  --
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - can't find a reason to oppose, great user and will be a great admin. --
'''Broken laptop support''' '''
'''Support''' --<font color="blue">
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''
'''Support'''. Good luck! :) [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Strong support''' Extremely friendly, always happy to help. -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' - Sensible and reasonable Wikipedian.
'''Support''' --
'''support'''.'''
'''Let's see if we can get 100 supports support''' Good editor. [[User:GangstaEB|GangstaEB]] ([[User talk:GangstaEB|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|contribs]] • <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username={{urlencode:GangstaEB}} count]</span> •
More candidates like this one please!<sup>TM</sup> '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support''' Good vandal fighting, and always deserve it. Not only Vandal Fighting, also He demonstrates kindness.
'''Why not?''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Where? Why? When? How? Support?''' -→
'''Oojiwagga support'''. Yes indeed. -- '''
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Is helpful and kind, and I reckon Where would be able to do much more good with the admin tools.  --<font face="verdana"><small>
'''Support''' - Would make a great admin. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Cleared for ADMINSHIIIIP!!''' Thank goodness I got back from my vacation in time to vote --
'''Support''' Cmon 9 more and its the 100 club for you!!!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' will make good use of the tools. --
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support'''
— '''''
'''Support''' - to try to help the user get [[WP:100]] ;) ... in all seriousness, I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' - After review, all evidence points to the expectation of an exemplary example of exacting execution of admin responsibilities. --
'''100th support'''. Where is completely trustworthy, and will be an excellent admin.--'''
'''Just-missed-the-100th-Support''' –
'''Last-chance support'''.  This may actually become an unanimous RFA! :O.  On another note, does anybody else think it's funny that the RFA's title is Where2?--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Just-missed-the-RfA-closure-Support!''' I believe <s>101</s> '''102''' (edit conflict!) users have said more than enough, we may have to employ a headshinking device after this landslide. Congrats :) -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I see no problems.  I have noticed this user's civility on AfD. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support'''. Seems like a fantastic user that will make a fantastic admin. I also agree with the nominator that RfA standards have become ludicrously high. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' every indication he will make a find admin.
'''Support'''.--
'''Strong Support''' Trustworthy editor, possesses good judgment.
'''Support''' A great user and I see no problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Cliché support'''.  I thought he was one :/ --
'''Support''' I've had a mooch about his user page, talk and a few random edits, and it all looks good. Support! --
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''' more project edits, please.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I have no doubt that he will use the buttons wisely.
Good, well-rounded candidate.  All I see about him points towards a good Admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Very civil in AFD's & will use admin tools well. BTW was just seeing [[User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me|CSCWEM]] archived [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3|record breaking RFA]] & was surprised at some of the opposes including one that said "not enough page moves"!! Some people really do have quite ridiculous RFA standards. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Will make a good admin
'''Support'''. No reason not to. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support'''
'''Pile on support''' --
'''Whouk'''ouldn't support a great contributor like this one for adminship?
'''support''' Damm a clown beat me ^_^
--
'''Support, of course''' --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' per insomniac clown  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' for as many reverts done, only 13 [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]].  I like the friendliness of the user and user:talk space.  A person who keeps a nice yard can be trusted to take care of the public park.
'''Support'''Looks good.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. --
Question answers are kind of short by my standards, and I see no portal talk edits! But this user's record speaks volumes... '''Support''', will make a fine admin. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''; does good work, is familiar with policy, and keeps his cool (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz and Dave|this AfD]] for an example). --
'''Support''' Good friendly candidate, should make a great admin --
'''Support''' will be a great admin. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''', echoing DarthVader's comments above.
'''Support''' per all above.
'''[[Doctorin' the Tardis|Doctor Whoooo, HEY! Doctor Who!]] '''
'''Support''' excellent potential, good luck!
'''Support''' - per all above. Good contributor.
'''Support''' - fantastic user &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - good user
'''Support''' everything looks good.
'''Suppot''' for the same reasons as the above.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Fantastic record, definitely great admin material. Good luck with that mop, my friend!
'''Support'''. No reason at all to oppose.
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support''',
'''<s>Weak</s> Support'''. Too late... Nah, just kidding, he'll be fine.
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''&trade; --
'''Support'''. '''Support'''. '''Support'''. '''Support'''. '''Support'''. '''Support'''. Can that be counted as six supports? [[Joke|LOL]] --
'''Support''' Enjoy your mop!
'''Support'''. Sure, why not? With the vandalism happening to featured articles these days, we sure would welcome more help.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Why not? He agrees with me below. --
'''Support'''. Don't see any issues.
'''Very Strong Support''', Whouk is a great Wikipedian. He has done a variety of things on Wikipedia, such as reverting vandalism and VfD. As an admin, he will be able to take things a step further and be able to delete pages, which can be very useful, especially on those "vandal articles" (you know, "articles" that say stuff like "Vandals of Wikipedia! Read this!.) Lastly, Whouk has many excellent edits regarding to the UK. Excellent work! --
'''Support''', I trust him from what I have seen in ''Doctor Who'' articles on wikipedia.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good!
Definite '''support''' --
<b>Support</b>Good, wide range of edits. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Oppose''' don't need more admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''' Shortsightedness. --
'''Beat-the-nominator support'''. I like this user's writing style, discussion style, and attitude toward the project. Glad to support them for the mop. --
'''Support''' per me. (
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''
Of course.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' good answers, I agree with you on the rollback issue, but I won't harass you over it. ;) [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
- <b>
'''Support''' Questions convinced me :)
'''Support''' per nom --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' This users seems good. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><font color="#C11B17">Matthew</font> <b><font color="#3366ff">
'''Support''' Great answers to the questions..I'm sold!
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' per nom and excellent answers to questions.

'''Support''' per nom. --[[User:Bigtop|<font color="blue">Big</font>'''<font color="gray">top</font>''']] <small>([[User talk:Bigtop|<font color="blue">tk</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bigtop|<font color="red">cb]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Bigtop|<font color="gray">em</font>]]|
'''Support''', answer and editing statistics suggest that this user will be an ideal administrator.
'''Support''' Good spread of edits; good answers to questions - give this person the mop! <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. All good plus no big deal = no brainer on this one.
'''Support''' per nom and answers below.
'''Support''' It seems as if there's been a great run of RfA candidates lately and I'm happy to lend my support to yet another great candidate.  I really like his attitude per Q3 and am pleased that he's willing to tackle the copyright backlog
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Sure support'''.
Yes.
'''Support''' His civility in dealing with editors in recent AfD discussions [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deadmines|Deadmines]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination)|RuneScape armour]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zergling|Zergling]], and even with [[User_talk:Wickethewok#Gamecruft|anon IP users on his own talk page]], speaks well to his actions as a future admin.&nbsp;--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' per nom, this user should certainly be given the mop. --
'''Support''', I keep seeing this user buzzing around, working hard to improve Wikipedia, and am satisfied he'll make good and careful use of the tools.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I'll jump on the bandwagon here. --
'''Support''': On the way to becoming one of our best moppers. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' I like his style.
'''Support'''. All my basic pre-requisites are met, and seems to be a solid user.
'''Support''' Deserves the tools. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' Meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' Meets 2/3 standards. <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Hear all hear all - for the information of all crew''' - let it be known that Tawker '''Supports''' this RfA. --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' Very suitable.
--
'''Yes sir''', I've seen his name around, and usually attached to good thoughts and contributions. Easy decision here. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' I don't always agree with his AfD votes, but he has what it takes to be an admin: he's civil and committed to making Wikipedia a better place.  Bonus points for being named after an [[Ewok]].
'''Support''' per nom and answers.
Impressive. Okay, I '''support''' as well.
'''Support'''.  Looks like a great guy.
'''Support''' After taking awhile to consider you, and look you over, I think that you'd make a great Admin! Good luck. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
I '''support.'''--
'''Support''' Per nom.  --
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' per all of the above &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and inasmuch as Wicke seems properly to understand that, the benefits of [[WP:IAR]] notwithstanding, an administrator ought to act only to interpret the consensus of the community and to effect any attendant outcome.
'''Support''' per above.
I'm very concerned about the answers to Fuddlemarks questions (and followon discussion) but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, as there are other mitigating factors. Please don't let me down. Give your AfD closes a great deal of thought and care, and engage others (perhaps on IRC) to seek counsel if you have any doubts. With that caveat: '''Support''' ++
'''Support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
Promising, but not quite "cooked" yet. Despite copious participation on AfD, thinks that IPs can't "vote" on AfD.  Doesn't interact much on articles talk pages; most of the edits I chose at random on such pages seemed to be insertions of templates.  Overall seems like a thoughtful editor, but needs more time. --

'''Oppose'''.  Damn, damn, damn.  Mate, I know you're a nice, intelligent guy, and the amount of support you've got here certainly shows you've made a good impression on others, too.  However, your answer to my question &mdash; while not ''completely'' clueless &mdash; is disappointing.  Your view on proposing merges when nominating AfDs &mdash; particularly in an era with record numbers of articles nominated for deletion &mdash; is just plain Wrong.  As for my hypothetical Nobel Prize-winning Everest climber, assuming the assertions were true, then it should be a no-brainer: ''close as keep''.  AfD is not a vote, and twenty people who don't know their arse from their elbow (a pre-requisite if you're going to say "nn d" for someone who actually managed to successfully climb Everest naked, I mean, geez, that's pretty bloody awesome) cannot outweigh even one Clueful user who is prepared to offer a good argument and evidence to back it up.
'''Oppose''' per Mark. I've seem AfDs like that. Administrators need to courage to realize that AfD gets it wrong sometimes (or rather, the courage to make AfD get it right despite the raw numbers).
'''Oppose''' per Mark. AfD is not a vote, and is not for considering articles to be merged.
'''Oppose''' per Mark and Tyrenius.
'''Oppose''' per fuddlemark. -
'''Oppose''' Issues surrounding AfDs concerns me per Mark above. --
'''Oppose''' per Mark and Tyrenius.
'''Neutral''': A little higher minor edit summary usage will be better. It is now possible to set user's preferences to prompt when entering a blank edit summary under "Editing".--
'''Neutral''' I'm ranting.  Editors who have no idea what they are talking about argue with me over their nonsensical edits to medical articles all the time.  When you write an encyclopedia, you need experts.  Please value their opinions when you are an administrator, especially when the experts are fellow admins.  --
'''Neutral''' while I don't doubt that you are a nice guy, some of the answers to the questions just don't gel with me. Not enough for an oppose, but I can't support. Hope you understand.
'''Support''' - the nominator's supreme excellence has always astounded me. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Extreme Furry Foxy Support on Wheels!'''
'''Furry Cave Man Support''' I remember asking him to block somebody a couple months ago, couldn't believe he wasn't one then.
'''Support''', très bien. &mdash;
'''Extremely incredulous he-isn't-already? support''' <span style="font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; color: #333333">--
'''Speedy Support''' Excellent vandal fighter --
'''Strong support''' - Alf is one of the most level headed Wikipedians I've met so far, and I trust him to become a very good admin. I thought he was an admin when I met him, and I think Wikipedia will benefit strongly from his becoming one. --
'''Support''' all [[:Category:Furry Wikipedians|Furry Wikipedians]].
'''Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' there are several very good editors running for adminship at the same time as me and this one is one of them. --
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' per CanadianCaesar. (Just kidding.) Actually, I've seen a bunch of good contributions from Alf. --
'''Support''' "Isn't he already?" Great admin candidate.
'''Very strong support''' - a very good editor --
'''Support''' Seems like a wonderful user.
'''Support''' Good editor
'''Support'''. Good stuff. (Aside: I don't think that sockpuppet box is ever appropriate on an admin's user page. Newbies are likely to be confused by it when they call by to castigate you.) -
You've gotta be kidding me!  --
'''Support'''. I should make it an oppose because he and that rascal pgk made us wait! lol --
'''Support''' Its high time! '''''
'''Support''' and I honestly thought he was one. —
'''Suppa''' - I heard about them in the ''news''! -- ''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  You deserve it.
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighter, I've seen his reverts all over my watchlist. -- ''
'''Support''' -- Just stay away from cats :) --
'''Support'''. Wiki alf's dedication is unquestionable, 10000 edits in 5 months is amazing, as is the fact that he will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse admin. tools.
[[Image:LoveMexico.png|24px]] Full support. -- <small> (
'''Support'''.  Great dedication and motivation, will be a great addition. --
'''Support''' --
'''[[I Can't Believe It's Not Butter|I Can't Believe You're Not Sysop!]]'''
'''No problem!'''. -
'''Support'''.
'''{{tls|RFA cliche 1}}''' [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support''' was sure this user already was one.--
'''Support''' no one opposes?
'''Support''' Absolutely!  I can't believe he wasn't one.  &mdash;
'''Support!''' An admirable all-around Wikipedian.
'''Harrumph!''' --
'''Support''' (everythign has been said by now) --
<big><b><u>SUPPPORT!</big></b></u> WITH THREE Ps, '''Sorry for coming so late!!'''  SO MUCH FOR BEING IN THE TOP TEN like you wanted, but I am here, again, '''Support''' without hesistation, support, support, support, support!!!!!! [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Took me forever to get through that long list of edits, I looked at every one! ;)  Experienced editor who deserves the support.  --
'''Support''' ... he's not? Damn, so it wasn't a rollback button that let him beat me to the revert. Oh, the ''shame!'' —
'''Big time support''', even though I know this probably means the my ability to revert will be seriously hindered by Wiki alf's new rollback button :*-(. Sniffle.
'''Support''' No brainer. --
'''Support'''. Very good and responsible contributor.
Cliché pile-on '''support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' great editing record --
'''Extreme [[Melmac (planet)|Melmac]]ian Support!''' &nbsp;
Cool.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. This is definately overdue. I've seen this user around, looks like a good editor, and makes me mad whenever he beats me to reverting a vandalism. ;) --
'''Support''', and a well-deserved one. -
'''Support'''.  I'm a bit leery of the CVU Admin Syndrome, but my experiences with Wiki alf have been nothing but positive.  Well, except for the damn edit conflicts I often get with him when RC patrolling.  Durnit.
'''Support'''. Positive interaction and good edit summaries. --
'''Support''' yep. -
'''Support'''.  This is a name I am very familiar with when reverting vandalism.
'''Support''', I though he was already an admin.
'''Support''', what can I say, he reverted vandalism on my user page ;) -
'''Support'''. He's a ''people alien''.
'''Support'''.
'''Full Lemmy Kilmister Support''' Notable, all round Good Egg!
Support. Good editing record. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Definitely long overdue
'''Support''', we need anti-vandal fighters. --[[User talk:Wikiacc|«]]
'''Support''', user has been around for a sufficient length of time and definitely seems to know Wikipedia policy. --
'''Support'''. Very deserving of a mop and bucket.--
'''Support'''.  I first met wiki alf when he helped me on my talk page with a question I had asked.  I've since met him numerous times beating me to reverts!
'''Support'''. helpful and useful.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Support''' we need admins like Wiki alf --
'''Support''' We need more Wikipedians like Wiki alf, let alone more admins like him.  --'''
'''Support'''. Could have sworn he was one.
'''Support''' if for no other reason than how many vandalism reverts I've seen from this editor. Well done, give him the tools so he can continue this job. I am another editor who alf has beaten to the revert.
'''Support'''. His mop is long overdue. --Jay '''(
'''Support'''. Just jumping on the bandwagon here :)--
Sir Tan Lee. --
'''Support'''. Sorry I am so late, other ongoing discussions have kept me away!
'''Support'''. WikiAlf is one of the most easy to work with users on the 'pedia!
'''Support'''.  Will make a fine administrator indeed.
'''Support''' - yes, of course! --
'''Support'''. Dedication is amazing.
'''Support''' - definitely.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose'''.  No evidence that this editor groks the Tao of Wiki.  Endless vandal reverting does not, in itself, qualify oneself to be an administrator.
'''Support'''. Naturally, as nominator.
'''Support''' outstanding decision, Elle.
'''Support'''. William is a very experienced, even-handed, and valuabe contributor. His patience is sometimes limited, but that is a ''very'' large limit.--
'''Support'''. I'm taking the unusual step of supporting before the candidate has accepted and answered the questions, because (a) it will encourage him to say yes, and (b) I am satisfied with his answers from last time.
'''Support''' - obvious, since I nominated him last time.
'''Support''' - first valid vote ;-) (Relax, guys, I'm sure your votes will be counted by the 'crat as well. I think the protocol is to wait until the bell rings.). --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Supported before and still support''' -
'''Support''', but can I vote oppose so you don't waste much time on janitor tasks? -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', as I did in July.  Superb contributor and likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'#'''&mdash;
'''Support''', mature and committed user. Unlikely to abuse administrative tools.
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support'''. The ArbCom having removed the revert limitation as "unnecessary" and the reopened case having reached a better conclusion than the original, concerns in that regard are dispelled. I'd stress, hopefully without need, that William M. Connolley should be ultra-very-extremely-cautious in any use he might consider making of admin powers on anything related to climate change. -
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', with an encouragement to read [[WP:BEANS]] after response to number 8 below.
'''Support''' We need good knowledgeable editors who are willing to tackle controversial topics. The consequence of tackling such controversial topics seems to be some oppose votes. For willingness to take on such topics, I believe it would be fair if the percentage required to be appointed was reduced.
'''Support''', as last time. --
'''Support''' - he probably should have been sysopped last time.
'''Support'''. Good grief. --Jay '''(
'''Support''', same as last time.-
'''Support''', seconding Splash's advice above. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -
'''Support''' checked you over earlier and your edits look sound.--
This one's a cinch.  --

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good admin candidate. --
'''OMG Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I liked the answers to the questions below.  --
'''Support'''. I like all his 9 answers but I'm gonna give him a 10th question. -
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Seems like this candidate would make a briliant admin. --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support''' Certainly, old mate of mine from down the years in Cambridge.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' A pleasure.
'''Support''' --
Why do we always write "support" anyway?  Well I'm not doing it, dammit. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Highly knowledgeable contributor--
'''Support''' - Should be a good admin --
'''Support'''. Good contributor who will likely make good use of the admin tools. Decent responses to the optional questions. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''. I opposed last time, but I now feel confident that WMC would make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Enthusiastically '''support'''. --
'''Support''' Hooray for weather!
'''Support''' For atmospheric civility in RFArs and reversion edit summaries.
'''Support''' as per above. --
'''Support''', but of course. Anyone with that much patience... (PS: Is anyone else surprised at the lack of oppose votes?)
--
'''Support''', proud to support a fellow atmospheric scientist.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. But keep on editing!
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Have had very good experiences with him on the talk page for [[Talk:Global warming|Global warming]] and related-topic articles, with resolving disputes. &mdash;--[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>(
'''Support'''  '''<font color="green">
'''Support''',
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support''', just remembered to '''
Looks like a runaway, but '''Support''' regardless. -
'''Support''' very knowledgeable and good to work with even when he disagrees with you
'''Support''' Nothing I have seen would lead me to expect abuse of powers. --
'''Support''' –
'''Support'''

'''Support''' until the claim that he deleted materials from talkpages(excluding personal attacks and stuff unrelated to the article) for POV reasons is documented.
'''Support''' →
'''Yes, yes, yes, yes'''
'''Support'''
'''Certainly'''--
'''Support'''. Good, hardworking user; he'll make a good administrator. Outstanding patience and energy in dealing with fringe science and pseudoscience, as mentioned below. Keep up your fine editing once you're an administrator! &mdash;
'''Support'''.Valued contributor, sysop tools should be safe enough in his hands.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
"Aetherometry", huh? give the man a mop already.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;''
'''Support''''. WIlliams edits to the highly controversial [[global warming]] article are exemplary. Because William has been involved in so many controversial subjects, I suggest that votes against him should count as votes in favor if those votes come from people who have repeatedly promoted the "POV" pseudoscientific viewpoint as  if it is the "NPOV" mainstream.
'''Mop, bucket and cookies for WMC'''. I actually came here with some concerns about the way WMC has handled the Great Footnote War and [[User:SEWilco]]. But the aetherometrist Oppose votes below have done a great job of convincing me that the user will use adminship tools responsibly and well.
'''Support''' Oppose votes are poorly reasoned, WMC is a great contributor.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''
Fine. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  The nom appears entirely correct, especially with the ensuing discussion in the oppose section.  Some may find him too "controversial" to support, but that would be a shame.  One will get dirtied when combatting factions of POV-pushers who have a lot of time on their hands.  This is not a reson to oppose, but to support, else who will take on the job?  --
Will he abuse tools? No. Ergo, '''support'''.
'''Support''', same reasons as last time.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support science and reason''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''': he was asked eleven(!) questions and he answered them well, so he gets my vote.
'''Strong Support''' of contributors for core subjects the public expects Wikipedia to do well. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support'''. ''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good user that deals with a lot of the dirty work.
'''Support''', good user, and I must thank SEWilco for bringing this RFA to my attention, I might have missed it otherwise. --
'''Support''' with some reservations due to Oppose comments about removing others' Talk discussion.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' William M. Connolley is a responsible user, who has greatly contributed to several articles, and in does so in good nature.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I opposed previous RfA due to the arbcom problems. We need people like him- Wikipedia has a bit too much tolerance for crackpot scientific theories.
'''Support''', per above, and per most of the oppose arguments too. ;-)
'''Support''' He's a little controversial and has opinions, but who doesn't? I've seen him revert a little more than I would, but I see no reason for him not to be an admin. In fact, I'm surprised he's not already one. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Knowledgeable and wise. Scientifically minded. Accountable and authoritative. What's there not to like?--
'''Support''' Good editor
'''Support'''.  As before, and as above. --
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support''', because I feel that subject-matter experts such as Connolley should be spending even more of their time improving articles instead of diddling with vandals like the rest of us, and I hope he won't use too much of his Wikipedia time doing admin tasks. Adminship isn't some kind of reward for being a great editor.  That said, if he wants to help out with admin tasks, he's certainly well-qualified. —
'''Support''' I have avoided injecting myself in the various disputes to which this editor has been a party, and make no judgment on those matters; however, the editor is clearly experienced and professional.  I trust him to use admin powers fairly, and to refrain from using them in matters where he is an involved editor.
'''Support'''. I trust him.
'''Support'''. I'll break my personal vow not to vote on this page again to support him. Connolley is a good, long-term supporter of Wikipedia - how many times does he need to prove this? I'm 100% sure he would use admin powers in that vein,

'''Support''' the materialist-scientific cabal.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Oppose'''.  In my observations of, and experiences with, William M. Connolley, he showed himself the exact opposite of what is described in his nomination.  I have observed him, and/or interacted with him, in connection with several entries in non-mainstream science - a category of endeavour that he has a strong bias against.  He has treated with contempt and extreme rudeness any contributor who did not share his bias.  He reverted their edits without explanation, repeatedly deleted their posts in Talk pages (yes, he does this a lot) because he didn't like what they said, and generally treated them as if they were non-persons and the Wikipedia rules of conduct did not have to be followed in dealing with them.  I do not believe that working in - or knowing something about, or not being hostile to, or having an interest in - a non-mainstream science, is sufficient reason for being treated with this kind of contempt, and I think that it is outrageous that Connolley permits himself to act in this manner.  It is all right for Connolley to have a bias, and it is all right if he doesn't want to inform himself about areas that he considers abhorrent.  But if he has such a bias, he should excuse himself from working on entries that he is strongly biased against.  Instead, he parades his bias as if it was a badge of merit, and his ignorance of those areas as if it was a virtue.  Sorry, folks, that's not honorable behaviour.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Frank. (Too controversial at the moment, may support later). --
'''Oppose''' Connolley stirkes me as the type of editor who will abuse his admin status to enforce his pov.
'''Oppose''' Let's look at Connolley's behavior when he's miffed. In WMC's link number 4 from above  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aetherometry&diff=28183445&oldid=28183410] FZ only says '''I just don't like Connolley.''' And WMC removed that comment from the Aetherometry Talk page three times, and then changed the article's category to Pseudoscience, with this comment: '''(reinsert PS, thanks to FZ)''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aetherometry&diff=28222774&oldid=28155904]. Then he edited FZ's complaint about THAT action off the Talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aetherometry&diff=28242483&oldid=28240285]. That's just incredibly petty and downright dishonest. I have no confidence WMC will use admin powers any better than that. And all this on a subject he refuses to actually read or understand! Let me put this in Wikpedia terms: WMC calling Aetherometry pseudoscience without actually reading the source material is like a guy who's never seen '''any''' anime insisting that Blue Submarine #6 '''must''' be about tentacle rape because it's animated, Japanese, and takes place underwater -- or so he's heard. Why would you people trust a guy that won't even admit he doesn't know what he doesn't know?
'''Oppose''' per reasoning stated above.
'''Oppose''' per Frank and DTC. --
'''Oppose'''. He allows his POV to damage Wikipedia.

'''Oppose'''. I support NPOV, not SPOV, and I'm not convinced this user a/ shares that view or b/ would use admin powers to pursue the end of NPOV.

'''Oppose'''. Connolley is biased and rude. He refuses to read original sources, which is a cardinal sin in academic science. He unilaterally reverted the article on cold fusion, wiping out days of work by me and others, including 40 footnotes that I inserted with considerable effort. He will not allow any point of view but his own, whereas I and others who disagree with him were careful to preserve his statements. --
'''Oppose''': having watched his battle with an anonymous editor and later others at [[Michael Mann (scientist)]], [[Ross McKitrick]], and [[Temperature record of the past 1000 years]] about separate calculation errors Mann and McKitrick had made, I would have said his behaviour was less civil than would be expected from an administrator (the anon was as bad but has not been nominated here), too prone to quick reverts for an administrator, and too unwilling to consider other people's opinions and external evidence to enable a NPOV position to develop easily.  --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' - too much controversy. --
'''Oppose''' per above.  --
'''Oppose''' As an example of our strained communication: William M Connnolley read one my sources superficially, took a single sentence out of context, gave it a wrong interpretation, and wrote: "[[Talk:Coriolis_effect/archive3#Coordinate_transformation_is_irrelevant_for_meteorology|BTW, note that CT's favourite ref - Persson - supports this]]" I then showed how William M Connolley had fudged to suit his wishes, and William M Connolley did not reply to that. --
'''Oppose''' numerous concerns, including dishonesty and a lack of explanation of edits. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I believe he is basically a good guy but unfortnately I have no confidence he will use admin powers in an even-handed way.  On the plus side, he assumed good faith when I had a 3RR vio [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObsidianOrder&diff=33986735&oldid=32958099]  (actually my first 3RR ever).  On the minus side that 3RR was due to him repeatedly removing a disputed tag in the presence of a bona-fide dispute [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=33862159&oldid=33832963] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=33866393&oldid=33864683] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=33905552&oldid=33901847] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=34157217&oldid=34106403] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=34392471&oldid=34391378] the reasons for which were amply explained on the talk page.  Turns out he didn't actually taken the time to read the explanation on the talk page.  Earlier, he had deleted most of the sources for that article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=33756791&oldid=33645188] by reverting to a version which was more than a year old and not taking the time to copy the sources over.  (Btw later on we engaged in constructive dialogue and more or less arrived at a consensus version of that page).  Bottom line: he is not a bad editor, and I bear him no ill will, but I fear he might be a bad admin, particularly since he gets into fights on articles about controversial science topics.
'''Oppose''' - Treatment of Askanas (aka Helicoid) was bluff, his editing on the [[Aetherometry]] page when Askanas was active was butchery.  I do not think this candidate will act responsibly with new admin powers.--
'''OPPOSE''' : Not that this vote will seem to turn the tide ... but I feel it is a sad day when WMC get his appointment. WMC is very good at pushing a [[Wikipedia:Scientific point of view|scientific point of view]] in articles (''not NPOV''); he attacks people that he disagrees with and, attimes, impatient in disputes. He is someone the community cannot trust (especially with npov vs spov). From my earliest interactions with William, he has repeatedly been uncivil. He also has made mischaraterization of me.
'''Oppose''' Dishonest and impossible to work with if he disagrees with you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley_2&diff=35092374&oldid=35082752 See talk]. I am the anonymous user Audiovideo was talking about. --
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''', as per [[User:Kefalonia|Kefalonia]].
'''Oppose''' I am in agreement with him much of the time, and feel somewhat out of place in this oppose list, but [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] is not infallable and does not react well when he is mistaken.  While his editing contributions may be very valuable, I nevertheless do not think he's a good choice for an admin role.  Some time ago, I had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a reversion war with him on what would normally be a relatively dry, non-controversial topic: the [[Roche Limit]].  He violated the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule]] by readding the word "orbiting" to a figure on the Roche Limit page four times in one 24-hour period, at 21:53, 2 September 2004, 22:10, 2 September 2004, 08:46, 3 September 2004, and 16:50, 3 September 2004.  I followed the 3RR and waited, posting to discussion, before reverting a fourth time at 02:04, 5 September 2004.  A third party, [[User:Doradus|Doradus]], requested that we both stop the revert war at 02:27, 5 September 2004.  William M. Connolley then ignored this request and reverted a fifth time at 09:40, 5 September 2004.  Rather than defend his view in talk thereafter, as would be appropriate under the circumstances, he simply stopped responding on the talk page after a web reference to the original source was found and quoted on the archived discussion page at 16:56, 8 September 2004.  Both the page and the talk page were dormant after my post to the talk page from 9 September to 12 October 2004, in spite of the assurance that the dispute would be resolved in discussion- much to my frustration.  As (unlike him) I honored the cease reversion request, the page was to his liking and so he felt no need to justify his actions on the talk page.   He violated the 3RR rule, then he violated a cease reversion request, and he didn't even bother to respond on talk about the subject. --
I do not have any crank scientific theories I am pushing, and I more-or-less agree with him on global warming.  Nonetheless, he reminds me of the recent discussion on wikien-l about the "scientific point of view".  I think the opposition posters make some good points.
I have not yet decided how to vote. Dr. Connolley is quite active on Wikipedia. I see on [[User_talk:William_M._Connolley#adminship]] he is pondering running for ArbCom [but as you see, I decided against - WMC]. So he is interested in power. Sometimes he doesn't explain his edits very well. Consider the Reddi case, currently under arbitration. Reddi is accused of being insufficiently qualified to add to science articles, which he adds what is deemed pseudoscience. When Reddi attempted to join [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience]], Dr. Connolley repeatedly removed his name without explanation but with only snide comments. It was left to others to explain in a civil manner why Reddi's move was provocative to project members.  See also
'''Neutral''' for now.
This user seems to be a very good contributor, and we need more editors who know science well enough to provide reasoned responses to pesudo science. Howver I am concerned with the removal of other people's comments from talk pags, for any reason, and with reversions of edits that provided (or claimed to provide) references for alleged facts. I am not really worried about this user's admin actions, however, and I am not at all bothered by the likelyhood of this user's RfA passing.
'''Support'''. Your last RfA was almost a success (nearly 68% support), and it seems you made a good deal of improvements (like using edit summaries, RC patrol, etc.) I think you are qualified now. -- <span style="border: 2px solid purple;">
'''I beat the nominator!!!''' <sup>I'm aware of the fact he can't vote.</sup>
'''Support'''. I think Winhunter has shown himself to be a valuable contributor who is prepared to act on advice and criticism regarding his editing, this is a very good sign in an admin candidate. In my opinion, he is ready for the extra buttons.
'''Yup'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' His never-say-die attitude is commendable. Since his last RfA, he made a great deal of effort to improve his edits and has acted on advice and criticisms in a very positive manner. He is now ready to be given the mop. The level of his maturity is also praiseworthy as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I supported last time and has only improved since then.
'''Support''' I see no reason to dissent.
'''Support'''&mdash; Winhunter 2 obviously wants to be an Admin; look at the improvements in use of edit summaries for recent edits (100%) & project edits. Multilingual. Multicultural. Competent editor. Give him the tool belt.
'''Support'''. Seems fine and I see no reason to oppose.'''
'''Support''', as I did the last time. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. I supported this nominee last time around and see no reason to resile from that position. The user has maintained his standards and dealt with the only real objection from last time (being lack of use of edit summaries), so hand over the mop!
'''Support''' Takes to criticism well and is very polite.
'''Weakish Support''' due to concerns raised below; namely issues with poor question answers. However, obviously strong vandalfighter. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support'''- no concerns.

'''Support'''- This user is an asset to wikipedia
<font face="Verdana">«[[user:crazytales56297|'''<font color="#78abea">ct</font>''']]»&nbsp;<small>([[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I think we can trust this user.--
'''Support''' - determined vandal hunter needs tools
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. I think that you have done enough edits over a wide enough range of time that you deserve to be an administrator. --
'''Support'''. Thought he was one. --
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy editor with whom I've had positive personal interaction.
'''Weak support''' need more admins dealing with the huge image backlog, I also trust the user won't misuse AWB to inflate their edit count anymore. =) --<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' An admittedly cursory glance at RCPatrol edits and talk page revealed no problems. Will support in the absence of meatier ratonale not to.
'''Weak support''' - <b>
'''support''' this person to be administrator he is polite and trustable
'''Support''' per all above. Good contributions to make, no issues.
'''Support''' Good editor overall. --
'''Support''' good contributor
First invocation of '''[[User:Miborovsky/1FA|1FA Positive Exception #3]]'''. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Support''' We need more people to deal with image backlogs.
'''Support''' dedicated contributor.--
'''Support'''. Strong vandal fighter and editor. Desire to work on images, and Chinese fluency are pluses. --
'''Strong support''', very hard working and civil editor; has improved a lot since his last RfA.--
'''Support''', has improved since last RfA, I am convinced he will use the tools well ---
'''Support''', Met him in IRC and have run across him many times since im my vandal fighting. He will make a good admin
'''Support''', Yep, its good --
'''Support''' per all above. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Strong Support'''. Stomping vandals is a noble task. &mdash;
'''Support''' ~
'''Win-win support'''.  Oh yes I did.
A chimp just '''support'''ed you.
'''Strong support''' I have seen this user around and he is doing a great job.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', based on contributions, vandal-stomping, and willingness to deal with the image backlog issue. Ready for the mop and bucket. :) --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
per last time
'''Support''' - Looks fine.--[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Support'''. Ready for adminship.
'''Support''', without reservations. '''
'''Support''' Strong candidate.
'''Last-minute support'''. Thousands of AWB edits (repetitive and boring task) show dedication to the project. Meets my 2K edit and civility requirements. Multilingual, too? Nice. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Neutral for now''' Weakish answers coupled with an unreadable edit history due to the candidate making thousands of AWB edits disallow me from making a reasoned opinion of the candidate at this time.
'''Neutral''' Failure to make a rational discussion in [[Talk:Hong_Kong#Merge_with_Hong_Kong.2C_China]]. Winhunter did not seem to take regard into what Instantnood was saying and quickly deemed Instantnood's comments as "nonsense", while Instantood's first comments sounded logical, reasonable and perfectly polite to me. A very well contributor, but lacks the ability and observation an admin needs IMHO.
'''Netural'''. In response to question 4, in whitch way will adminship help you serve the Wikipedia community? Also, I feel sysop candidates should try to balance vandalism fighting with article expansion. It's nice that your trying to keep nonsense off Wikipedia, but it would also be good if you add content to some articles once in a while. --
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support''', good editor, wasn't he an admin already? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above, I'm sure this user will be fine doing tedious admin labor. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' His contributions to Wikipedia is immense. Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom, everything looks good to me. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' I offered to nominate him a few months ago and he said he wasn't ready yet. I've had good interactions with him and he seems to deal with criticism well from the one instance I remember where someone got insulting on his talk page. Lots of cleanup work, lots of content good work on the baseball articles in particular, should make a good admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', cliche sitation where I was sure he was an admin already. --
<s>'''Weak support''', I'm a bit leery because he has more edits in userspace than usertalkspace. ~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <sup>([[user talk:cchan199206|squirrels!!]])</sup> 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''strong support''' per explanation. ~
'''Support''' Looks like Wknight would make a good admin.
'''Edit Conflict Support''', will be a hard working admin.
'''Strong Support'''. Can certainly be trusted with the tools - I'm particularly impressed with the professional use of a sandbox, mentioned above.
Amazing '''Support'''! Nowadays, many Wikipedians don't have anything as prolific as his progress. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' good grasp of what is the task at hand for a sysop.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Looking forward to answering my questions, but it seems everyone is at peace with this user, so I'll add my own vote.
'''Support''' good stuff
'''Weak Support''', these 7 month old edits don't shout civility[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWknight94&diff=35050997&oldid=34849622][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWknight94&diff=34931822&oldid=34920082], other than that I'm bought.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support.''' I'm bought - <b>
'''Support.''' me too.'''
'''Support''' Well I'm convinced, seems very professional.
'''Support''' - Nice contributor, no worries.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I can't add anything else, so Good luck! --<font color="336699">
'''Support''', a clear asset and a model of dedication and good behaviour. Here's someone I'll easily entrust with the mop and bucket.
'''Support''', good work done. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per response to last question.
'''Support.''' Good question answers.
'''Support''' Excellent answers, including the good discretion exercised on the kumquats.
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, and also deserved to be an admin.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|20px]] '''Support''' Excellent editor per above, theres no reason why you shouldn't be given the mop
'''Support''' Will be good admin --
'''Support''' Per questions and the countless edits.
'''Support''' Good answers, well-rounded, don't have any hesitation to support.
'''Support''' why not? --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' - devoted users make good admins, also I like his answers.
'''Support'''--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', excellent user, ''tons'' of article edits, including a [[WP:GA|good article]], plenty of reversions, good activity in Wikipedia namespace. --
'''Support'''. Great contributor. —
'''Support'''. Solid and responsible contributor.
'''
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Another excellent candidate for the mop and bucket. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support.''' [[Pinky and the Brain|Narf.]]
'''Support''' - Seems like a good candidate...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - --
'''Strong Support''' You'll be an awesome admin mate.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. 12,000 edits!?!?!?!?
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''. Model behaviour and editing.  An excellent wikipedian who'll be an excellent administrator. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good, strong candidate who meets my criteria. --
'''Strong Support''' G
'''Support''' will use the tools well. --
'''Support'''. I have often seen this user making positive contributions, and I support his adminship. -
'''Support'''. Great answers. Very confident in Wknight94 abilities as an admin.
'''Support'''. Impressive. No reason to hold back the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]].
'''Support''' Good answers to the questions, overwhelming support from other editors, I'm certain he will make a great admin.
[[Advanced life support|Advanced life '''support''']]. Nominator.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carpal_tunnel_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=34071924 in the trenches] --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Excellent choice for an admin. →
--
'''Support''' good contributor to wikipedia, should make a good admin --
'''Support'''. Good editor, deserves the tools. --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - '''''<font style="color:green;">
'''Support'''. My experience with him on the [[WP:MCOTW|medicine collaboration of the week]] show him to be a knowledgeable, courteous editor who works well with others, and has helped several medical articles reach featured status. &mdash;
'''Support''' with no reservations.--
'''Support''' Can't hurt--
'''Support'''. Seems to be an editor's editor.
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''.  Valuable contributor, reasonable person. -
--''Signed by''
'''Support'''.  7 months of editing.  Promote.  --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' good candidate for admin --
'''Support'''.Contributions look good.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' Impetus behind a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#How_to_easily_create_a_new_list.3F|new list]] at [[WP:MEA]] a healty user with no visible symptoms. --''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a good candidate.
'''Support'''Gladly.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  Sorry about that, I meant to show my support last Tuesday.  :)
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168.212.16.2 Needs better vocabulary.  --
'''Neutral'''. I won't oppose, but I still feel that 2,000 edits is too low for a potential admin. I know that I was still pretty green at 2,000 edits and wouldn't have been ready to be an admin then.
'''Neutral''.  For same reasons as above.
'''Support''' No problems here. Will be a great admin.
I should add my own support as well :)
'''High Support''' Excellent work, Wwwwolf. No doubt this nomination is a well thought out one by a smart user. Full support. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''. Good grasp of policy, and Afd participation makes up for lack of user-talk edits. <tt>
Looks good.
'''Support''' Wwwwolf is the kind of editor we should strive to be.
'''Support''' low raw number of user talk edits doesn't bother me, most of them are long, thoughtful comments... I suspect many people maybe have thousands of user talk edits but have rarely posted anything but a template there :-) I'll take actual comments any day. And he has (perportionally) a lot of talk edits, and the content of his average project space comments suggests this is hardly a candidate who can't communicate effectively. Thoughtful, acts in good faith... seems like a fine candidate. --
'''Support''' per RadioKirk. Quality over quantity. Experience in area proposed for adminship use.
'''RfA cliché #1'''. (Sorry, RadioKirk. :D) -→
'''I'll pick another cliché''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', looks fine. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', Good user with good intentions. Also has a cool picture on his live journal.--
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Good user. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' based on civility, patience and intelligence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legend_of_the_Green_Dragon]
more like this one, please.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Good luck! :-)
'''Support''' - when I cross paths with him, he always seems to be thoughtful and patient when dealing with issues.
'''Support''' a balanced editor who is observant, communicates well and will not abuse tools.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support.''' —''

'''Support'''.  Kept a cool head in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37signals]], despite another editor who was being very argumentative in the same discussion.  Sounds like a good admin candidate for this reason in itself.  --
'''Support'''. WT edits a bit low, but otherwise very good.'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Seen him at AFD doing a good job. can be trusted with the tools. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' –
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ... good vibes ...
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per my criteria.
'''
'''Support''' --
I'm going to '''Support''' Wwwwolf. I'm appreciative of people who think before they type and consider the impact on others. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
Definite '''support'''.  (But how to pronounce your name?)
'''Support''' per cliché.  --
'''Support'''&trade; --
'''Strong support'''. Not only is adminship supposed to be no big deal, but on a more personal note, I've run into Wwwwolf on the net many, many times over the years, and he has always left a favorable impression. (Also, while I'm here -- isn't this whole "not enough user talks" thing just kind of silly? "Well, the man's been doing good work here for a couple of years and certainly isn't doing anyone any harm, but couldn't he, like, jump through some random hoops before anyone hands him a mop and a bucket so he can clean up after other people?" C'mon...) --
'''Support''' Very thoughtful editor, obviously trustworthy.
'''Support'''
'''Lesbian pile-on support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''. We need people helping out with deletion processes.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' My kind of guy &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks good and seems to take Wikipedia seriously. No reason to believe Wwwwolf wouldn't make a good admin <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' Edit history looks solid.--
'''Weak support'''.  Weak because of the relatively low edit count considering how long wolf has been here. --
More like this candidate, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support'''- I would trust Wwwwolf with the admin tools.
'''Support''' --<small>'''<font color="red">[[User talk:All in|t A]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support''' Seems to be well-qualified --
'''Support'''. Very good edits that I've seen. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Weak oppose'''. Generally good but very few user talks. To talk, telling image uploaders any [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images|problems]], such as no source, no license, or orphaned fair use images, can build up a lot of user talks.--
'''Strong oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Significant edits are low. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
Good editor, but I would like to see more user talk edits. Not enough to meet my standards. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
Agree with Linuxerist; interaction with other users is too minimal to be able to say whether there would be any concerns or not. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="gray">[[Wikipedia:Concordia|C]]</font>[[User:Cuivienen|uivi]]<font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font>
Does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but has shown active participation in process. -
'''Neutral''', lack of edits in main and project space means I can't support, but I do wish you well.
'''Neutral''' - doesn't have a huge amount of edits for aquiring admin status, per Stifle.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', definitely, no reservations.
'''Support''', more than qualified.--
'''Support''' - appears to be an excellent user.
'''Strong Support''' very reliable user.
'''Support''' this one's easy. (
'''Support''' Fantastic user. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', per above and nom. Definitely qualified. --
'''Support''' I thought he already ''WAS'' one... —
-- <small> (
'''Support''', without hesitattion.
'''Support'''.  Suprised he wasn't already one.  --<font color="orange"><strike>''
--
'''Support''', all experiences have been very positive.
'''Support.''' Thought he already was an admin.
'''Support'''.  Yes indeed; good admin material.
'''Support''', voted Speedy Keep on the Welcome template j/k will make a good admin
'''Support''' answer to my question convinced me.
'''Support''' for the answer on the questions
'''Support''' Very positive interactions, I thought he was an admin already as well -
'''Support''' A definite asset to [[Wikipedia]]. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Have seen around, will make great admin.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Fantastuc user with fantastic edits.Good time to mop, guy!
'''Support'''. Good editor, trustworthy and he reverted vandalism to my user page--
'''Support''' great vandal fighter, good contributions at *fD. And hundreds of deleted edits.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Of course'''. '''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Wonderfully helpful editor.
'''Support''' - not much in the way of "big" edits, but someone has to do the cleaning :-) &mdash;
'''Support'''. No, really, I thought he was.
'''Support''' Yes please!
'''Support''', good contributor. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', duh!
'''Support''' Absolutely! --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' for a trustworthy, friendly fellow X.
'''Support''' easy support vote for me.
'''Support'''. '''—
'''Support''' Great editor, should make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''--Without reservation. '''''
'''Support''' Very good editor. --
'''Support'''. Absolutely. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Support''' --
'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[User:Pschemp|<small><font color="green">psch</font></small>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''', looks all right to me.
'''Support'''--
'''Support with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns''' '''
'''Strong Support''' I have seen him do nothing but good work for our community. --Pilotguy <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have seen a goodly number of positive contributions by Xaosflux, seems to have the right temperment.
'''Hayeuppp'''. Some good candidates coming through these parts lately...
'''Support''' I though you were and administrator. . .
'''So Much Support I Can't Comprehend It'''... Wait, you're not already an admin? How did I miss that?! --
'''Support''' - give him the mop and the fire hose.
'''WTF How Did I Not Know This Was Here Support'''.
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support''', gladly.&#160;—
'''Support''', seems like a nice person.
'''Strong support''', I didn't know you weren't an admin already. --
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
Handgliding is very popular in Peru, and many people go there to surf every year.
'''Support''', no objections from me. -
'''Support''', seen this chap around quite a few times, and he was making positive contributions.
'''Support''',mop and bucket will suit them
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', holy shit, thought he was one. &mdash; '''''
'''Support''' --
'''Not an admin yet?!'''
'''Pointless support'''
'''Support''' in spite of the shameless and bourgeois use of userboxes. ;)
'''Late "how did I miss this RFA??" support''' I have appreciated the contributions I've noticed from this editor (particularly working with brand new pages).  With what he does, it seems he needs admin tools, and he will make a good janitor in my opinion. --
'''Support''' - I seem to be late to the party as well, but I can find no fault in this user. Will make very good use of the mop! --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', I can see no potential for abuse here.
'''Support''', yet another user who I honestly believed was an admin. --
'''Support''' Good editor, should be good admin.
'''Support'''. Will be excellent.
'''Support''' of course --
'''Support''' absolutely support, I think he'd make quite a good administrator. <small>
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' in opposition to the PJacobi WP:POINT opposition vote. I was going to remain neutral... &nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' is this the guy that nominated [[WP:BJAODN]] for MfD? In that case I'm not sure if he understands how Wikipedia deletion process works.
'''Oppose''' --
—''

'''Thank god he finally accepted a nomination support''' --
'''Support''', most definitely.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', his record speaks for itself.
'''Support''' -- very good and trustworthy editor. --
(edit conflict)'''Extreme "Oh my God, not another "Oh my God" support" support''' - Just, like, Oh my God! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''This-is-a-great-place-to-use-{{[[Template:Rfa cliche1|Rfa cliche1]]}}-but-I-already-used-it-a-few-RfAs-down-then-I-edit-conflicted-after-typing-all-that-out-support'''! --
'''Support'''
'''Cliché support''' (quadruple edit conflict) Xoloz has demonstrated good judgement and knowledge of Wikipedia policies & procedures in a variety of Wikipediaspace pages. --
'''Support'''. Cliché or not, I really didn't know Xoloz wasn't one already. &mdash;
'''YES''' (ec)
'''Resort-to-oldest-cliché-in-the-book support!'''
'''Support''' With a note that he better not keep that promise about resigning, because it will happen almost inevitably and we need him as an admin.
'''Support''' per great answers to questions.  --
More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' Oftimes I disagree with your comments, but they are always well-thought out and wise. Quite a bold workhouse too. Just stay away from the law-books please. --
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support-but-not-as-a-co-nominator as mentioned above by my esteemed colleague Herr Block'''.  I'm not quite sure what to say now that I'm not writing an extended paragraph extolling Xoloz' virtues.  He made quite the impression upon me in my days as a newly minted wikipedian, and continues to uphold his thoughtful approach that I noted back then.  From the morbidity of Recent Deaths to XfD and DRV discussions, I've found his comments well reasoned and insightful even in the cases where I disagreed with his view. --
'''Support'''. Invaluable member of the community. Should be a terrific admin. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]][[User:TantalumTelluride/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">lluride</span>]]<sup>
Edit-conflicted-Meg-Ryan-in-the-restaurant-booth(-except-not-faking-it) '''Support''' (no comments, please [grin]).
'''Support'''. His work so far has been great. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
Edit-conflicted strong '''support'''. I was really surprised to see the nomination, {{tl|Rfa cliche1}}.
'''double edit conflicted support'''
'''Support'''. I could not agree more with Encephalon's nomination. '''''×'''''
'''Support''' with pleasure. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
I had always assumed that Xoloz was already an admin </cliche>, not least because of the high standards that he consistently exercises in this forum.  How many of us have read a Xoloz and thought "wow!  he's tough!"?  Those high standards--which he voices regardless of the popularity of the candidate--are why I '''enthusiastically support'''.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Strong support'''

'''Support''' - cleared for takeoff.
Over-the-top '''Support'''!!! --
'''Support''', no doubts, honestly thought he was an admin already.
'''Support'''

Get [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] to RFA and then I won't ever have to do history-only undeletions again. <tt>:P</tt> Yes, that is a '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Good user, would make an even better admin.
Oh good lord yes '''Strong Support''', excepetional editor
Massive '''Support''' I've assumed he was one already, actually.
'''Strong Support''' Exceptional wikipedian: fair, cool head, great policy knowledge, Oh, and a bonus point for the humourous self-summary on his user page.
'''Support''': An excellent editor wanting excellence for this project will make an excellent administrator.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': not already?
'''Support avec cliché''' and three edit conflicts.
'''
Well, I usually oppose anyone with edit summary usage at less than 92.02%, but I'll make an exception here.  In all seriousness, Xoloz is eminently qualified, and I pleased to offer my '''strongest possible support'''.
'''Support''' <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support'''. More than fantastic user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. A fair and balanced editor :)
'''Support'''.  XSupportX XforX XaX XgoodX XeditorX. —
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', solid contributor to AFD and not afraid to weigh in on the more difficult ones. Will be a great admin.
'''Support''', he is got less than my requirements on the mainspace contributions, but I have had a very positive personal experience interacting with him, also a pile-up support per the votes above by people who I trust.
'''Support''' has clearly demonstrated he'll be a good and fair admin.
'''Strong support'''.
<!--'''Support'''-->Well reasoned responses to AFD/DRV/whatever, but I wish he would include a link to the discussion when he closes DRVs.
Uhhhh... if you could see [[:Image:HomeAlone.png|my face right now]]... This whole time, throughout my nom, etc., (and I've never said this before) I thought he already was one. Xoloz has all the positive characteristics of an Admin. Patience, wisdom, the ability to compromise and get get along with difficult people, and perhaps most important of all, a shout out to me in his acceptence!!! ;-) As well as many other great qualities. This guy should have been an Admin long ago. He was just too damn awesome for his own good (who would have thought that he wasn't already an admin with the way he handles himself?). ''Please'', I urge all to join with me and the many others already by voicing your support for this most-qualified contributor. And to think, he almost slipped this by me on my limited wikibreak... Sneaky little Xoloz. --
'''Weak support''' - I'm a bit concerned about "Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 3.5%", which means only 177 real article edits, but he seems experienced enough to be given the mop. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Good work at AFD.  Also great to have history and law experts around.  --
'''Support''' plenty of evidence he'd make a good admin. Low article edits in April hardly mean he'd misuse admin tools. --
'''Support''' Seen the user work on AFD's &....pretty much everywhere. Great admin material. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' He'll do just fine. ~
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I had some reservations about supporting initially; your addendum at the top has won me over :-) --
'''Support'''. See no problems here.
'''Support''', naturally. A benefit to the project.
'''Support'''. Very fine, sensible, careful, and responsible contributor to the project.
I'm shocked to see that Xoloz has only circa 5000 edits.  The impact that he's had upon the areas of the project that I frequent has been profound: His commentary is always careful, compassionate, and incisive.  He is patient, civil, and appears to understand the ''spirit'' as well as the ''letter'' of the wikirules, such as they are.  I was going to encourage him to back down ''somewhat'' from allowing any single person to pull the plug on him, but of course  this hypertrophied sense of fraternity is why I value him so much as a contributor. -
Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. You've got my vote.
'''Support''' I think "S'about time" sums it up. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Strong {{tl|Rfa cliche1}} support.''' Will make a great one. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Per above
'''Hope-this-gets-on-WP:100 Support'''. Great participation in the areas where decent admins are most needed (ie the various deletion-related discussions), and always gives logical explanations for his opinion, rather than simply a one-word vote.
'''Support'''. Thought he already etc etc.
'''Support''' per noms, co-noms, and co-co-noms.--
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Yes, because I was waiting eternally to see if
'''Very strong support''', a model Wikipedian. —
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' Wiki-gnome support!  --''
'''Support''' - an admin for all the right reasons. --
'''Support''', this guy has a way with words and everything else to boot. <b>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Didn't realize he wasn't already.
'''Support'''.  I thought he already was one!  No, really! --
Per Tony, to be honest. Not 100% sure I agree with the user's take on everything, but I agree with the way he conducts himself and I don't think he'd do anything batshit insane.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Definitely. --
'''Support'''. It's about time. Please reconsider your promise, however. —
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Answered questions quite well. Very well spoken. Comparatively low edit count no problem--perhaps he is after quality over quantity.
'''Support'''. Obviously.
'''[[WP:100]] Support''' No hesitation for this fine candidate, will be an excellent admin. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Stopping in from wikibreak support'''.  Great candidate.
'''Support''' With this being such a close vote, I better add my seal of approval.--
'''Support''' I've only seen good things from this user. will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' Thoughtful, level-headed editor. Shows attention to process. Oddly, I find the promise in the acceptance over-humble: someone can suggest something in good faith and still be wrong.
'''Suppose'''. Thought he was one, think he should be one. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
I would justify my support, but I can't think of anything that isn't redundant with what's already been said.  Good user.  Well-rounded.  It's all in there.
'''Weak Support''', weak only because there are 2 1/2 nominators. Otherwise, I came to support. --
'''Support''' Per any number of reasons given.
'''Strong Support''' - Xoloz would be a great admin for Wikipedia.
'''Support''', of course. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''' for the record. Piling on in a positive way.
'''Support'''.  Excellent user, active in every area that I can see.  I have no reservations. --
'''Support''' without reservation. Xoloz is one of the users whose voice I listen for in [[WP:AFD|AFD]] discussions, and whose edits I can rely upon to be of good quality. I'm also impressed by Xoloz's insistence on seeing the job as that of a janitor rather than a general. --
'''Support''' per all above. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' trustworthy, civilised and polite.
'''Support'''
'''Strongest Possible Support''' I'm sorry I did not nominate you myself. It's just I thought you were a sysop already.
'''Support''' with pleasure. I don't always agree with him, but he's kind and fair.
'''Support''' I disagree sometimes, but (s)he has extraordinarily sound judgement. <small>
'''Didn't-bother-reading-which-clichés-have-already-been-used-support'''.  Xoloz THINKS. -- <font color="#668353">

'''Support''' please bring the diamond-encrusted ivory-inlaid mop for Xoloz. - <b>
'''Support'''. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' Wikipedia will benefit greatly from this promotion. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Strong Support''' a wonderful user all around and has the support of many fine editors, as seen in his nomination, whose opinions I highly value. -
'''Support''', although at this point I'm just piling on...:) --
'''Support''': has high standards for adminship, as do I, and I'm confident they will be met.
'''Support'''. Great guy who'll do an amazing job (hell, the page is 45 kb already) -
'''Support''' very civil, experienced editor.
'''Support'''
'''Super support''' per all above.
'''Support''' - Good candidate. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' per the plurality of comments above. Give the man a mop already. -
'''Support''': nice bloke.
'''Strong Support''' obviously.
'''Support''' -
'''Go get 'em!''' I've seen his work, he's civil enough.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support'''. Will make an excellent administrator. Also, editor seems not to be intimidated by the anti-userbox '''boo-hoo brigade''', which probably explains Kelly Martin's opposition. Having someone who can think for themselves is very important. --
'''Strong Support''' Its high time Xoloz got the mop, a fine example of a level headed wikipedian. -- '''''
'''Strong support'''. <span style="border: 1px solid #CC0000;">
'''Supporting''', strangely, for almost the exact reason [[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] oppose, namely, all the above users and comments Xoloz has attracted in his stead.
'''Support''' with [[bell]]s on!!!
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=2000&target=Xoloz&namespace=0].--
'''Oppose''' Above comments made uncalled for.  --
Oppose (not that it will matter).  Xoloz has a long history of process wonking, not to mention a fine talent for what I call "civil rudeness": saying extraordinarily rude things in a manner calculated as to not be objectionable enough for people to actually call him on the carpet.  A fine talent in a lawyer, I suppose, but I consider him unfit to be an admin.
'''Oppose'''  He ought to wait until sometime in 2007~2008 for nomination. Only 1 year or less. That's too short. Remember that adminship is a privileged position (I myself am not an administrator). (
'''Neutral only because this section is lonely''' - but secretly Support :) --
'''Support,''' of course. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' at last! ;-) [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
I was too busy trying to clear out a backlog to '''support''' first...
'''Yes''', I've a good impression of him from AfD.
'''Duh.''' [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - Of course. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''' - Explains himself well.
<s>clared</s> '''Cleared''' --
'''Support''' Good spread of edits, well-spoken and edits show representation in a good spread of areas. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Despite relatively low edit count, The oppose section is (currently) empty for a reason.
'''Support''', good and friendly user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' due to low WP edits and didn't really like A1. Other than that, they'll do.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong support''' As a person, Xyrael is kind, altruistic, and always tries to do the right thing. As a Wikipedian, he has contributed around the board. We need more administrators, and Xyrael has shown a commitment to Wikipedia and a strength of character that indicates that he is more than ready for the job. --
Should be a fine admin now and even better as he matures into the job. The catalyst thing is a concept we don't hear enough about, it's so true, you find catalysts everywhere if you know to look for them. '''Support''' ++

'''Weak Support''' My own experience with Xyrael is limited, but I like how he has played a major part in getting the Test Wiki up and running, as it gives Wikipedians and others an expanded playground to try stuff out, rather than relegating all tests to the sandbox Wikipedia provides.  The candidate also as a nice track record of vandalism prevention, as well.  Having said that, Xyrael has spent very little time creating and writing articles, which is the primary purpose of a Wikipedian.  Also, a close look at his *fD participation indicates that the candidate brings little to the discussion.  If the candidate did not seem to exude such an excitement about wikis, a trustworthy nature, a level-headed demeanor, and an eagerness to help make Wikipedia a better place, I would firmly oppose the request, but I cannot in good faith do so with the aforementioned character traits so visible in the candidate
'''Support''' High-standard user and firmly deserves a place in adminship. Agree with [[User:Lar|Lar]], when matured even more will make an excellent administrator. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' Good responses to questions.  I'm pleased with your experience in time and in edits. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''I just missed a support number ending in 0 support'''.
'''Weak Support''' As Vandalproof moderator, he gets my vote, but the edit count is quite low for adminship standards. --
'''Of course'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Civil, fairly experienced, even-tempered, and interested in tasks that require the tools.
'''Support''' - good answers to questions and would make an excellent admin, as evidenced by his VP moderatorship  I honsetly thought he was already an admin!  <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per above also
'''Support''' We need more guys like him that are willing to take care of the mundane tasks
'''Support'''. Has the experience and capability of being a fine admin. --
'''Support''' - good balance of experience, and shows maturity.
'''Support''' He deserves to be an admin, always [[Wikipedia:assume good faith|Assuming good faith]] in every situation, and also works a lots on Vandalproof.
'''Support''' I find no evidence that he will abuse or misuse admin tools. He is also a kind and civil user. And I have to agree with Where's statement as well with regards to the oppose comment by Wafulz. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''&mdash;I foresee Xyrael using blocking powers most as part of a fight against vandalism. I foresee this as an appropriate thing to do. I see the Wikicommunity never regreting this adminship. Do it. Do it now.
- <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - friendly, and I assume that he knows the tools well, from being on the test wiki. '''
'''Support''' Has satisfied my admin req's. Can only get better.--<tt>[[WP:CCD|<font color="gray">C</font>]][[User:Chili14|<font color="blue">hi</font>]][[User talk:Chili14|<font color="red">li</font>]]
'''Support''' good editor, although I would prefer more thorugh explanations of xfDs.--
'''Support'''. -
'''Yar bugger'''. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' because Xyr is a great user, polite, and he's done well on The Test Wiki. <font color="#78abea">»</font>[[User:Crazytales56297/EA|<font color="#00a060">c</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' per nominator!--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">an</font>]][[User Talk:tdxiang|<font color="gold">g</font>]]
Somewhat odd distribution of edits, but still gets my '''support'''. --
'''Support''' per nominator; helpful, productive user, strong history. --
'''Support''' in view of the candidate's conception of adminship (viz., that admins are not infallible and in any event ought to act, in almost every case, to interpret discussions so as to ascertain for the completion of what actions a consensus exists and then to undertake those actions) and inasmuch as, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA criteria]], I am confident that Xyrael will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools.
'''[[WP:VPRF#Moderators|VandalProof Cabal]] Support''' :) 'nuff said -
'''Support''' - why did nobody tell me this was here? :P. Great user: kind, civil, helpful and active. Give him the mop! Regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''First-RfA-edit-in-two-months Support on wheels'''. I've decided that RfA has improved, and am now willing to return in order to support fantastic candidates like Xyrael. More candidates like this one please. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' per nom <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support''' [insert glowing praise] &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''. This is admin No 1,000. --
'''Oppose''', for now. You might not necessarily do harm, but there's really no way to know based on your edits. I browsed through your article edits and it seems that you did indeed list every one of your larger article contributions in question 2 here. The rest are automated reversions and adding templates. In your wikipedia space contributions, I looked at around 30 comments in (afd) discussions and they were ALL in the vein of "delete per nom" or "keep per above", with nothing added to the actual discussion. Based on that it would lead me to believe you would close any discussion based on a 'vote' count, and since there's no evidence to the contrary, I must oppose. Please take the time to edit the encyclopedia and try again in a few months, thanks. -
'''Oppose''' largely on the stuff above. When I look at AfD nominations and opinions, I like to see whether or not users actually give their reasoning. I also noticed a distinct lack of actually quoting policies, or basing decisions on them, and little engagement in "borderline" AfD discussions where an opinion would have to be well-researched and well thought out. This leads me to believe you aren't entirely familiar with the policies. The lack of normal edits also bothers me- I don't believe that a user should have full administrator privileges unless they have made hundreds of edits to a variety of articles. They should be fully exposed to revert wars, edit wars, user conflicts, etc. --
'''Oppose''' per Bobet and Wafulz.
'''Strong oppose''' per above and review of unhelpful, "per nom" AfD contributions, I am convinced that Xyrael does not understand that AfD is meant to be a discussion to reach consensus and not a poll. The already disastrous AfD process cannot afford an admin who doesn't understand this, and that he doesn't already realize it it makes me question his knowledge of other areas. His AfD experience seems to be contained to a few binges where he went through and quickly mass voted on, at times, several pages per minute. These "binges" were on August 11, June 26, June 18, June 14, and June 1. The biggest flaw AfD has in my opinion is that most of the "votes" are entered by fly-by voters like Xyrael who think that it's better to vote on 101 AfD's in 3.5 hrs (June 14) rather than keep to those where he can offer meaningful input. I looked and couldn't find any meaningful AfD contributions at all; most were simply "Delete per nom" but even the rare instances where he decided to say something further usually wasn't very helpful.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_U.S._state_license_plates&diff=prev&oldid=58612240  Here] he votes on a borderline case as "Weak delete" and rather than explain why he thinks it ought to be deleted, he says "things like this have been left before I believe" -- not even bothering to find any specific examples, as apparently he feels his time is better spent doing fly-by votes on some more AfD's rather than committing any sort of time to one of them to provide meaningful commentary. But at least he actually said something in this one; the vast majority of them are "Delete per nom".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060827185914&limit=500&target=Xyrael&namespace=4]  Sorry to be so harsh but this looks like it's going to pass pretty easily, unfortunately. — ''
'''Oppose''' 1. Very few article space ''contributions'' per Bobet. 2. I cannot find a single AfD where the editor provided evidence of own research. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosegaferro|This one]] (listed above in the answer to JoshuaZ) is especially puzzling: "Possible merge into area's main area, if this exists". The "main area" was in fact bluelinked in the nomination (as is the suggestion to merge for which Xyrael takes authorship). This leaves a very poor impression of Drive-by-AfDing and a general lack of interest in what this encyclopedia [[WP:V|is built on]]: ''Research, Research, Research''. Kudos on the vandalfighting activities though. With more established interest in researched contributions I'm more than willing to support. ~
'''Oppose''' per Bobet, I don't see much in article writing
'''Neutral''' A great editor with good contributions, but I cannot ignore the reasons listed by both Bobet and Wafulz. Improving these will gain my support. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' A great editor, although I am concerned by the reasons stated by Bobet, especially in AfDs where it isnt really a vote, but more of a discussion. --
'''Neutral''' Good answering of questions, but a lack of significant contributions. Most mainspace edits are minor and very few article talk edits. May lack experience against vandalism.
'''Neutral''' leaning twards Weak Support. Looks like Xyrael would be a good vandal fighter. I believe this candidate wouldn’t abuse the tools, but there are some things this candidate can improve. Per, points mentioned by Bobet and Wafulz, I would like to see [[WP:BOLD|more interactive]] discussion in AfD’s. Also, more substantial edits in the main space would be good. If the decision was mine, I would be willing to give Xyrael the benefit of the doubt and trust ‘em with the mop.
'''Support''', as per nominator.  ;-)
'''Support''', agree with the above statement by nominator, Yamala is a very helpful and polite wikipedian and you have my support for adminship :)  I'll be a lot nicer to you in future!
'''Support'''. In addition to Hall Monitor's comments, I often notice Yamla orphaning and tagging unsourced images. Yamla is sure to make a good administrator.
'''Support'''.  We almost got into a revert war over [[Civilization IV]] a while ago.  Yamla was remarkably polite and open-minded, and we solved everything in a matter of minutes[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mareino&oldid=27383048].  I left the experience with such a positive feeling about Wiki that I soon became an RC Patroller myself. --
'''Support'''. Seems very reliable and deserving.
'''Very Strong Support''' I her around all over my watchlist, and I wanted to nominate soon as well, Just give the mop already --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support''' - Definitely.
'''Support''' per above.--[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="yellow">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">t</font>]]
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' good choice... &nbsp;
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. As a strong believer in [[Template:TestTemplates|test messages]], I'm extremely happy to see someone who edits UserTalk pages so frequently, and will be glad to have another administrator who understands that stopping vandalism isn't accomplished simply by reverting it.
'''Support'''.  I believe user [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] has been using [[Wikipedia]] long enough to earn a promotion --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. 2,000 good edits in article space - so what if no images uploaded? Not everyone has a scanner.<!-- and/or is willing to violate copyright law -->
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Its always good to give top-notch RC patrolers the mop and all of its cool buttons.
'''Support''' --
'''Pop-star-related Support''' Those articles are often a battle to work on <small>
'''Band-wagon Support''' — It looks like Yamla is going to win whether I add my support or not, so I'm just adding band-wagon support to get on Yamla's good side for a possible favor or return of support in the future. --
'''Support''': good [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|WikiGnome]], coverage on pop-culture articles.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support''' Changed from vote below.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' I'm thoroughly impressed by your contributions. -
'''Support''' Looks good to me. Thanks for answering the questions by the way. -
'''Support''' Without a doubt. --
'''Support''' Very impressed.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'' --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  I'm amused (and encouraged) by your handling of the image objection below. -
'''Support''' You'll do, I've seen better, I've seen worse, never hurts to have someone owe you one--
'''Support'''. Will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' —
'''Support'''. Cares about using good sources, and so has my support.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good edit history, unlikely to abuse tools.--
Almost didn't make it, but here I am.  Mop up, Yamla!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' helps make sure we cite sources, very important.
'''Support''' for his tireless cleanups.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Unsure''' that user is sufficiently familiar with WikiProcess.
'''Strong support''': Well rounded, brilliant editor.  His work on the Satchel Cohen hoax was exceptional.  He will make an excellent administrator --
'''Soxport!''' - Yes, I know, most people will think I have a bit of a bias (a 25 month relationship with the nominee).  But in sharp contrast to what most of you may think, it's in the other direction.  I'd like  to oppose because then he might get discouraged and decrease his editing times - thus increasing his [[User:Srose|Sable]] time.  But just look at all he's done!!!  He's reverted TONS of vandalism, helped a lot of newcomers, voted in (and closed!) AfDs and MfDs, copyedited extensively, mediated... All in all, with over 8,000 edits, he is experienced, levelheaded, intelligent, and eager.  I have to say I'm very proud of him and all he's done here; it's truly remarkable. :)
'''Fully Support''' Phenomenal editor; I had originally intended to nominate him myself
'''Huge support''' (although the Yankees and sox blow ; )) Very rational, civil, and intelligent user.  I don't forsee any obstacles for you in this process.  Should be a cakewalk.  Good luck
'''[[Hearts (game)|Shoot-the-Moon]] Support''': An excellent user if WP has ever had one. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Lots of edits, useful editor; would be a good admin. -
'''Support''' Absolutely admin material, although I find "Mistakes? None" quite hard to believe. -- '''
'''Support'''. <s>Although I don't support Yankees.</s> :) --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Wholeheartedly support''': Yanksox offered some kind words of encouragement to me during my early days at Wikipedia, at a time when I was feeling discouraged by vandalism and linkspam. Each time I have crossed paths with him since, he's been nothing but friendly, encouraging, and helpful. He's beaten me to the punch countless times in vandalism & new page patrol. In short, I see nothing but good things for Wikipedia coming out of Yanksox's inevitable adminship. --
'''Support'''. I've found Yanksox to be willing to cooperate and open to dialog, and has developed a great grasp of policy pretty quickly. Most important, he has shown he values the humane aspect of the project by consistently helping others and approaching fellow editors in need. That is a true virtue, which makes me give him nothing shorter of my wholehearted support. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' A great editor in all that I know of him.  --
'''Support''' I checked into Yanksox past comments with others. I believe this person would make a fine admin. I see no problems with giving this person the advanced tools to further the cause of this project. Yes, I support!
Well-rounded user. --
'''Crazy co-nom monkey support!1!111'''. This is so [[WP:100]].
'''Support'' - doomed never to be able to edit articles again support :) --
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Not an admin yet? support''' --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' Will make a fine addition to the ranks. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''[[Mo Vaughn]]-sized support''' First I remove my co-nom lest that section should get too long, and then I discover that I can't even make the first 15 ''support''s.  Oh well.  All that I'd have to say has already been said, and more succinctly at that.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' He makes me look like a Gnome :).  I've no problems with past jibs; I think he's matured enough.  Personal opinions in votes do not reflect actions as administrators.
'''I-wish-''I''-were-awesome Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Green lamp'''. Go ahead. But please don't thank me for voting. --
'''Third Nominator Support''' -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Strong support''' I have been consistently impressed with Yanksox.--
'''Support''' per nom, will make a good admin despite your poor taste in baseball teams ;)
'''Support''' great editor with right interests for an admin
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Co-nom support''' of someone who will be as great an asset to wiki as a dedicated and conscientious admin as he is as an editor, and who, it is obvious from this page, is his own harshest critic.
'''Support''' of course!
'''Support''' Great user, no problems here! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''support''', great name to choose  :)
'''Support''' A fine user. Would make a good admin in my opinion. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' No problems that I can see. Batter up!!!!!
'''Support''' Killer of vandals!
'''Support''' my twin. We started editing in a difference of merely three hours :) &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=63138436 this diff].
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sure, I'll '''clear''' for adminship --
'''Support''', despite Fuddlemark's links, which are valid. The explanations provided satisfy me Yanksox won't do it again; we've all learned from past editing mistakes.--<font color="#999fff">
'''Support''' per nom. Even if he's too new, we sometimes have to make exceptions.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' woah! I can't believe that in the 12 hours since I last checked there've been this many comments. I needed to seek assistance from an admin a few days ago so I thot I'd seek help from Yanksox. I was amazed to learn that this editor wasn't an admin. He really should be!
'''Not only did I think he was an admin, but I also thought he was a b-crat too! support + triple edit conflict support''' - per myself.
'''Support''' of course!<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.

'''Support''' per... well, the nom about covers it, doesn't it. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''', after reading the response to Mark below.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Strong Support''' per nom. You mean he wasn't an admin already? --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Wow...I would have nominated him if I knew he wasn't one. :-O
'''Support.''' Despite my respect for Mark, and he makes a very good point, I think Yanksox's adminship will help Wikipedia more than it will hurt Wikipedia.
'''Suppoert.''' Through experience and per all above. Good luck. --
'''Super-ridiculously-delayed [[John Goodman|Shomer]]-[[Shabbat|Shabbos]] primary-nominator Support''' - <b>
'''Support'''This guy is just what we need in an admin.
'''Support''' The first time I get to say, "I thought he was an admin already." I feel like I've lost my virginity.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''', in the few months I've been here, I've constantly seen his name popping up on page histories and talk pages. Obviously very prolific, and seems like a decent sorta guy too. Good enough for me! <small>&mdash; [[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzasta]] &bull; [[User_talk:Riana_dzasta|t]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Riana_dzasta|c]] &bull; <font color="green">
'''On our way to [[WP:100]] Support'''. Editcount impressive, pleasantly suprised by the answer. ;)
'''Support''' A little green, but has given me every reason to trust that he'll make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support''', excellent user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Excellent, trustworthy, and highly productive editor.
'''Support'''. per nom
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Does all of the right things to earn a mop.
'''Support''', prolific vandal fighter and researcher. Valuable member of the community.
'''Support'''. Valuable editor, exhibits good common sense, we need more like him. --
'''Support''' per nom(s). Sorry I didn't get back to you on your email question, but it looks like you have it figured out! Good luck. --
'''support''' had only good encounters with this user. --
'''support''' <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Strong support''', good for the community.
'''Support''', good editor, deserving of the promotion.
'''Support''' all my dealings with this user have been great.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Yanksox was helpful and later encouraging during my RfA. I do not see anything wrong with his attitude or edits. Definitely, this user should be admin. --
'''Support''' Yanksox is civil, intelligent, and hard-working. I have no doubt that the sysop tools will be put to good use. --
'''Pile-on support'''. The one mistake MarkSweep mentioned was just that - a mistake. I think it's reasonable to forgive.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; ridiculously qualified candidate. --<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Shreshth91--><span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I rarely participate in RfAs, but I think I know this user well enough to give a full endorsement. --
'''Yessuh!''' <b>
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' per above &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Support''': just one less than a century, but many more to come! --
'''[[WP:100]] Support''' I confess I was waiting to do this :P --
Missed it by ''that'' much '''Support'''. Needs more co-noms though. :) ++
'''Support''' - Passes my standards. —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' -O.K. I'm on the bandwagon.  The catch on the hoax is impressive.  I do wish the guy would keep personal activities elsewhere, but I don't see any more "love" pages around so this seems to have cut back already. -
'''Support''' Are you joking? I thought Yanksox already was an admin. This guy has more experience than plenty of actual sysops (8200 edits?! I'll never amount to that in my entire life!!!). With all my heart and the strongest vote possible, I say to wikipedia: YANKSOX ROX MY SOX! VOTE YANKEE FOR SYSOPPERY!
'''Strong oppose'''.  Yanksox nominated [[Al McKay]] for speedy deletion fairly recently, ''even though'' it was not a [[WP:CSD|candidate for speedy deletion]], ''even though'' he didn't even think the article should be deleted himself.  The reason?  The article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_McKay&oldid=53353446 started life] as a speedy candidate because its author was using progressive saves (note the newbie-biting in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_McKay&direction=next&oldid=53353446 tagging for speedy less than a minute after first save and using an inappropriate deletion reason]), and the author removed the tag once he judged the article was good enough to avoid being speedied (he was right).  Yanksox wanted the article deleted to punish its author for removing the tag.  (For reference: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_McKay&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=53366336], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkGallagher&diff=53381180&oldid=53367700]).  Now, I'm heartened that he Saw The Error Of His Ways afterwards, but the mere fact that he was capable of getting Wikipedia procedure so completely, heart-rendingly, indescribably awfully ''wrong'' in his over-enthusiastic participation in Chinese Whispers Policy Wonkism is something I'm ''extremely'' uneasy about.  I appreciate he's a good vandal-hunter, but newbies attract enough teeth marks as it is ... and as for making up policy out of whole cloth &mdash; that's ''Not Good''.
'''Oppose'''. You are ''the'' userpage vandal reverter. It's hard to go around Wikipedia and not notice your hard work... But you're still too new to be an admin in my opinion. You've only really been contributing a few months. Sorry, but that's what I think. --
'''Oppose'''. Mark's concerns trouble me as well.
'''Oppose''' As per other opposes already expressed. Also on the fact that the same group that has supported most of the rfa's as of late, has again supported this one. My objection, ahead of time, is that this group, at least for the most part, is a clique and far from a well-rounded representation of the wiki community. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">[[User:Lingeron|Sha]]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">
Not really wild about his behavior in and around [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Meta-Wiki]], just six weeks ago. Declared that we really didn't need to follow principles of [[WP:V|verifiability]] (which is not negotiable) if we happened to really like a certain article. That kind of attitude really disturbs me, and we need admins who understand we're writing an encyclopedia here, not running a fan club or advocacy group. Similar behavior on at least one other AfD, though he retracted it. Also, <s>because of that conflict</s>, he kept threatening to leave Wikipedia and supposedly even did quit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=57901111] (though he came right back). Not really a good way to handle stress/conflict. --
'''Neutral'''&mdash; may change in the future. "Mistakes - None." Are we kidding here? No one's perfect. I wish I could have seen one of your mistakes. I would then be able to judge your reaction to very intense, controversial situations, and how you go about 'correcting' your mistakes (yes, I'm giving the "through experience comes wisdon" speech). Additionally, is there any article to which you have contributed significantly, and not just copyedited?
'''Neutral''' per W.marsh. The incident still shakes my confidence, but I'd rather not oppose on old stuff.'''
'''Neutral''', still a bit too new and emotional for my liking, as evidenced by the Al McKay CSD thing and the Meta-wiki AfD: "''I'm starting to pack my bags for this site... I will not stand by idley while [the project]'s being cut down but it's own rules.''".
'''Neutral'''. I was going to endorse on his stats and "no big deal" but the account open only for two months? Too new, I'm sorry. Even another month would have made this an easy support.
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Strict policy at the cost of doing what's best for the project is a sweet, sweet, intoxicating nectar, but the fruit from which it is extracted has terribly sharp thorns.  I share Mark's concerns. -
'''Neutral''' It's hard to tell. I partially agree with the concerns about experience.  The nomination sounds too good to be true. --
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate. --
'''Support''' - Why not. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' a good person for the job.
'''Yup'''.  Polite and productive.
'''Support''' ~
'''Enthusiastic, strong support'''.  Polite, knowledgeable, extremely hard working, has thanklessly salvaged many articles from [[WP:FAR]] as well as writing [[WP:FA|featured articles]], and seems to be everywhere all the time, helping out others.
'''Strong Support''' despite being sorta new. Excellent user, commands my trust. - <b>
'''Support'''. I've seen the nominee around quite a bit. Participates in areas of the project that an admin should be familiar with, good record, shows need, and appears trustworthy.
'''Support''' per SandyGeorgia.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user, per SandyGeorgia.
'''Support''' without hesitation. --
'''Strong Support''' Will use the tools wisely. I actually thought you were an admin already.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Seems obviously qualified. (I also thought Yomangani already was one.)
'''Support''' another one that I thought was already an admin :-) --
'''Support''' around 4000 edits. Fine with me --
'''Support'''. Great user, will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''' Thanks for providing the difs, I have no problem in supporting your RfA now!
'''Support''' A great user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - I'll be evil and help make [[WP:RFA]] even longer even though this is an obvious snowball support :) --
'''Support''' - No reason demonstrated so far that this user can't be trusted. -
My name is Radiant and I endorse this candidate.
'''Support''' - Adminship is no big deal.  This user gets to the point. 4000 edits is experience enough. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
{{tl|RfA cliché}} &mdash; '''
'''Support''' Very solid and well rounded sounding. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Must... Support... Before... It... Is... Too... Late...'''
'''Support''' Per above
'''Support''' - I never object for inexperience related to the time-frame on Wikipedia, but instead only inexperience in editing. 4000 edits, despite only being here 4 months, is enough of a demonstration for me to support giving you the tools. Good luck! <font face="sans-serif">'''

'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' Yomangani has done some excellent work on [[Wikipedia:Requests for feedback|Requests for feedback]], a process I created to help (usually new) contributors get feedback on articles they have written (or major contributions they have made to existing articles). Unfortunately, Yomangani has not been responding to feedback requests since 29 September, and I have just returned from a one-week block, Imoeng is having difficulty coping with the backlog. Yomangani, please come back to RFF! Other Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers could help out at RFF as well.  --
'''Strong Support''' Per everyone above. Yomangani has contributed so much for the sake of articles' qualities, being friendly to newcomers at [[WP:RFF]] and significantly improve grammar and language of many articles, including Indonesian related articles. And 4000 edits? That is too cool. Strong support for Yomangani. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms">[[User:Imoeng/Indotemp|<font color="red">I</font>]]</span><span style="font-family: comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Strong contributor.
'''Strong support!''', excellent user, and admins don't always need to have extensive experience in image space. Explanation for lack of talk space edits works for me (makes a lot of sense). --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' User is excellent, but I'd normally consider him a little too new; it was the promise to be open to recall that swung the matter.
'''Support''' I think four months is enough time to determine if a user will be a good admin.  The answer here is a clear "yes." --
'''Support''' I know just about every applicant says they're going to help out with the AfD backlog, but Yomangani is one who seems to take it seriously (and is in fact helping out even without the sysop bit). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 15:21, 6 October 2006 (
'''Support''' Does very good work as reviewer.
'''Support''' One of my rare unconditional supports. His contributions to the project are outstanding and spotless.
'''Extremely strong support'''. Diligent, thoughtful, and everywhere. I can say honestly that Yomanangi's commitment to the mainspace is as excellent as I've ever seen in a candidate—if you watch [[WP:FAR]], you'll know that's not an exaggeration. Taking a two year-old FA from 0 to three or four dozen citations is not a task many undertake. For those who feel four months is not enough, check his Wiki and Wiki talk contributions and tell me he has not visited enough nooks and crannies to understand the place.
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support.''' No evidence user will irreparably damage the encyclopedia. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' After a full hour of looking at the user's contributions, talk page, etc., I've come up with a resounding, 100% YES.  True, s/he is new (although by that standard so am I - I only arrived 14 days before the candidate), but s/he has also proven to be trustworthy and dedicated.  ''Adminship is no big deal'', and I'm quite certain that this user won't accidentally (much less intentionally) block Jimbo. :P
'''Support''' - Seems like a winner.  Energy and good judgement.
'''Support''' - Have seen him handle conflicts, have my full trust not to misuse admin tools, 4 months is a bit short, but trust is all I require, I trust him to learn to use the tools unless he already know. Admin is not a bg deal!
'''Strong Support''' more then enough experince in article writing, wrote 1 FA and rescued several others, the oppose votes are not strong in my opinion
'''Support'''.  Normally I do not endorse such new editors, but being a major contributor to a featured article and volunteering one self to [[:Category:Administrators open to recall]] does it for me.
'''Support''' - good admin material
'''Support'''. The newness is a bit of a problem, but everything else looks great. Supporting per crzrussian's comment below. --
'''Support''' I honestly don't understand the ''insufficiently tenured'' objection.  One can surely appreciate that the candidate possesses the deliberative temperament, judgment, and cordial personality the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite propitious, and I think it quite certain that Yomangani will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I think it quite plain that the net effect on the project of Yomangani's becoming an admin will be positive.  Stefan and Srose, inter al., quite cogenty present the issue, viz., whether Yomangani's contributions are sufficient as to provide a basis from which one might infer that he will be a good admin, and they, IMHO, clearly are.
'''Support''', we have admins getting promoted when they joined the project three months or less prior to their RFA, so I don't see any problem with four months. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''': Seems to be a strong all-around user, and although four months is a bit short, I think it's sufficient in this case.
'''Support'''. Despite candidate's relatively new status, seems like a good user, and meets my civility and editing requirements. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' per Joe above.
'''Support''' Thoughtful and even tempered user, not likely to abuse tools.
Clearly a good-faith editor, no reason to suspect he'd change his behavior in the next few months, so no reason to suspect I wouldn't support him then, so why not support now? --
'''Strong Support''' - Has demonstrated to me in my contact with him an excellent character, and is very thorough and even tempered. Has politely and nonconfrontationally reminded me several times of the rules when I made errors of omission, for which I am grateful. I cannot see how this person would be at all likely to abuse the tools of adminship. Relative lack of experience and comparative newness can be a real concern, but do not seem to me to be real impediments for someone who is to all appearances extremely qualified to handle the tools of adminship well.
'''Support'''&mdash;Anyone who rescues articles from AFD gains immediate standing. Work on FAs a plus. Overall civility looks sound. This editor can be trusted to use the tools for delete, undelete, block & unblock thoughtfully. Let's do it. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Very Strong Support''' A huge amount of edits in the time he's been here.  Would make a wonderful sysop!. -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', all of his Help talk: edits are excellent.
'''Support''' solid contributor.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''. Knows WP.  Length of time on WP not a concern to me. Looks like a good candidate.
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate who will make good use of the mop, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Strong Support''' - This user has a very good record with cleaning/polishing and repairing articles which have fallen into disarray. With respect, to his demonstation of skills, a look through the WP edit log shows that this user has a very high percentage of AfD commentary, likely a majority which consists of original ideas, bringing new points to the table. These show the candidate having a good understanding of policy (POV, OR, NPOV etc), notability guidelines, how to weigh things up and make a good judgment and is good at and willing to explain themselves to other users. It also shows that the candidate is not just racking up a pile of "quicky" edits to cut corners and get themselves on the RfA market. His performance in RfA is easily more comprehensive than most admins and many other candidates who willl/would pass easily despite showing little thought or reasoning in racking up AfD edits. The candidate has not been around the longest, but longer than some people who have very, very easily cruised through, for which some of those opposing have supported. '''
'''Strong support''' per Blnguyen.
'''Support''', edits I checked look solid. No meaningful concerns raised by opposition.
'''Strong support''' per Christopher Parham.  I certainly appreciate the need for strict standards of adminship, and even for some minimum time to form an opinion and insure a user has the needed experience&mdash;but claiming that 4 months is too little is a very new and frankly nonsensical development. --
'''Support''' to offset the ridiculous opposes. --
'''Weak support''', he hasn't been a lot on Wikipedia but.. I've seen his work before and I'm quite impressed with his editing speed. I'd rather support.
'''Support'''--Good deal.
'''Support''' the candidate's knowledge of Wikipedia policy more than outweighs the fact that he is relatively inexperienced (and I do mean ''relatively''). Note: I am contributing here on the assumption that the RFA has been extended by a bureaucrat due to how close it is. If the RFA is in fact over then please strike this.
'''Oppose''' -- Sorry to ruin your winning streak, Yomangani, but I don't believe four months is enough experience in order for a user to become an admin. Check back in a few months. :)
'''Oppose''' Too new to form an opinion on. --
'''Oppose''' per McGinnly.
'''Oppose''' - only four months here and close to no experience with images, please try again in half a year --
'''Oppose'''. More time please.
'''Oppose'''. Useful contributions, but I feel the editor currently has insufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience.
'''Oppose'''. 4-month experience do not seem enough.--
'''Oppose'''. Wait another four months and you will probably see zero opposing votes.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, 4 months is just too short.  I'd like to see that you can avoid burnout before supporting.  --
'''Oppose''', sorry, but not long enough for me.
'''Oppose''' per my standards. More time needed. &mdash;
'''Oppose''': prefer more experience.
Talk namespace overall is quite low. Does this suggest that the user isn't communicative enough? Regardless of that, you meet my criteria on first glance, so neutral. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, not enough time on the project to satisfy my standards at this time.  I do admire your work, however.--
'''Strong Support''' Smart, effective, and overal great user. Crz summed it up quite well.
'''Strong nominator support''' - <b>
Wow, someone who wants to be an admin and has experience in the areas they want to help out in as an admin? That is something you don't see every day.--<font style="background:white">

'''Support''' should have been done a looong time ago.
'''Support''' Seems unlikely to abuse the tools  - <b>
'''Strong Support''' despite the crazy nomination.  Youngamerican appears to be an excellent user who is certainly to be trusted with the buttons given his longstanding experience and dedication to volunteering for the project
'''Support''' Seems a level-headed editor with many effective contributions; unlikely to abuse the admin tools.
<strike>'''Oppose''' nom is crazy</strike>'''Support!''' Can't think of any reason to doubt that Youngamerican will be a fine admin. :) [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' per excellent nom.
'''Support''' balanced and fair Wikipedian. I have come across him a number of times.--
'''Support''', mainly because I like your answers to the questions. Image-knowledgeable admins are very helpful.
'''Crazy Young Russian-American Support''' Per nom and his good standing with wikipedia. Liked your answer to konstable's question --
'''Support''' good answers, definitely has experience and a good endorsement from a crazy Russian!--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per my
'''Strong support''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">

'''Strong Support''' I offered to nominate this user some time back, but he refused the nomination. I am glad he accepted this nomination now. On top of this, this user is the one who welcomed me to this project way back in January 2006! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', excellent candidate that will help out a lot. --<font color="3300FF">
Excellent candidate, I have seen him around and he makes wonderful contributions. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom, answers, comments above - good user with no issues.
'''Support'''; an excellent editor, likely to be an excellent admin as well. [[User talk:Tizio|Tizio]], [[Special:Contributions/Tizio|Caio]],
'''Support''' easy enough.
'''Support''' easily based on a convincing nomination, persuasive replies to the questions and a solid record.
'''Support''' Very good user, deserves the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''End-of-cold-war Support'''. Seriously though, some of the best answers I've read on RfA.
'''Support'''.  A consistently responsible and thoughtful contributor, in my experience.
'''Support''' per all of the above. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support''' very persuasive nom, thoughtful and experience contributor.--
'''Support'''--

'''Support''' Impressed by his answer of Q4 (I would fall into that catergory ;)), plus seems to have a good record
'''Support''', great guy, will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Youngsupport''' ~
'''Support'''. Great user, who will make a great admin.
'''Support''' per the answers <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''', of course. Someone's got to explain West Virginia to us.
'''Support''' per... everyone!
'''Support'''; I've seen great work from Youngamerican at AfD and various political articles. --
'''Support''' seen him around, will mop wisely.
'''Support'''. Seems like a sensible and experienced editor, don't see any issues.
'''Support'''.  [[Roomba]]s?  All I got was a toaster!   How times have changed.
'''Support'''.  Upon review of this user's work I feel comfortable echoing what everyone else is saying.  Congratulations!--
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''; everything looks good here, and he should be an excellent admin.  (The easter eggs were pretty, and the nominator owes me five bucks ... just kidding ... used to live around there.)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Consensus says so.
'''Ctizens, please "!Vote"'''.'''
'''Support'''. Let's make happy some guy on the edge of the world, in West Virginia. -
'''Strong Support'''. Pleasure to deal with.  Brings a sense of fun and humor to WP (which is very much needed).  Armed with a [[Roomba]] &mdash;he probably has a [[Flowbee]] in that gunbelt too.  I'm
'''Support''' per above --
Yea, I guess
'''Support''' Excellent user, will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' --
'''Great Candidate Support''' – Yes sir!
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
By this point, a completely unnecessary '''support'''. Everything I wanted to say has already been said - damn! :) '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', seen YA around a lot, my impression is overwhelmingly favourable. <b>
'''Support''' looks like a very good candidate.
'''Support'''. Answered all the questions perfectly. '''''
'''Strong Support''' As per looking at this user's history, I think its a spot on choice.<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''support''' --
'''support'''
'''1<sup>st</sup> Support'''!<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator, of course. (<nowiki><grumble>How did someone beat me? I just created this page...</grumble></nowiki>)
'''Support''' Good deal of user_talk edits, and seems to have learned the tools of the trade. --
'''Support''' I opposed his first nom for being too new, I did say I'd support the next one if his contributions continued to be on and above par.
'''Support''' A very good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' great editor, more than ready for the mop.--<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Schwarzenegger Support''''
'''Support''' looks good
'''Support'''. Very good answers to the questions, I particularly like the comments made about featured articles. I am satisfied that Zsinj will use the tools wisely and in the best interests of the project.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I held off on the earlier RFA because I saw great potential with alas a short time in residence.  Now I can fully support and just hope that he doesn't bring his ''[[Iron Fist (novel)|Iron Fist]]'' down too heavily on all the poor hawkbats.
'''Southern Support''' I'm fer it, great answers.
'''Support''' - Insightful, dedicated, knowledgable in terms of policy, civil... what more could we possibly ask for? :)
'''Honest-to-God <nowiki>{{RfA-cliche1}}</nowiki> support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks like another good admin candidate. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support'''. Great candidate. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

Yes.  Good bad-image-worker, acts like a janitor already - give him the mop!
'''Strong support''', an excellent user. Will be a great admin.
'''Support'''. I was too slow to get around to nominating in time...
yes, please - <b>
'''Support'''. Give him the tools. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' and I wish you luck with the consistant backlogs at [[WP:RFI]] and [[WP:OP]].
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', deserves the mop and the bucket. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support'''. Quoting [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] after a database crash/DoS attack: <br />''Ah, well in that case, I can tell you exactly what happened. The hero of the day was Zsinj, a canny newbie who had his eye on the relevant monitoring graphs, and alerted us to the problem immediately, using very specific terms, allowing us to track down and fix it rapidly.''<sup class=plainlinks>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/022797.html]</sup> <br />He has already proven more than trustworthy, I have no reason to believe that lowly tools such as deletion and rollback should be denied to someone who already got to see the inner sanctum of server administration.
'''Support''' has great qualities and will be an excellent addition to the sysop group. -- <i>
'''Strong support''', of course.  This is a great editor, and would make a superb admin. --
'''Support''' exactly per Rory above (that was easy!) :) -
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support'''. Seen his edits around, very civil response to opposes, good editor can be trusted with the extra tools.--
'''Zsupport''' --
'''Cleared for adimship''' --
'''Support.''' Great work so far.
'''Support''' looks good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', and I'm a little disturbed by the opposes below. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''', a civil, responsive, and experienced editor.--
'''Support''', no issues whatsoever.
'''Support''' user does seem to be very civil and does seem to be a good candidate. Note: I changef my vote from oppose to '''support'''.  My comments can be seen under the oppose section. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I met him today on [[:simple:|SIMPLE]], where he [http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Zsinj deleted pages] on [[Paris Hilton]] and [[Ryan Stiles]] that were created by vandals. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' -'''
'''Support''', seems to understand things like copyright, which is important for admins.--

'''Support''' Friendly, trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Nothing wrong here.
'''Support''' Seems like a great editor who will not abuse the tools.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Fails my [[User:Masssiveego/admin|criteria]]. --
'''Weak Oppose''' - let me explain why, as much i want to suppot someone wanting to work with image management there are a few concerns, first I have been rather strict about a 9 month minimum recently. also, I try to give support to article writters more, and the answer to question 2 shows that this is clearly not the case, best of luck --
'''Neutral'''. Fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my article talk criteria]], which I believe is a sign of insufficient article building experience. Apart from that, seems like a great user and I will support on the next go around. I suspect the nom will get the mop on this go, and wish him the best of luck.
'''Support''', as nominator <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''', Its not about how many edits you have but what you have and can accomplish! [[User:
'''Oppose''' - Not enough editing experience. Perhaps later. ++
'''Oppose'''. Under 200 edit counts, no answers to questions.
'''Oppose''': Rarely adds a signature to his comments left on talk pages (for example, his most recent edit to a user talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UkPaolo&diff=prev&oldid=36938759], other examples at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EastEnders_the_great&diff=prev&oldid=26087475], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIP&diff=prev&oldid=25821862], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spangineer&diff=prev&oldid=25821319]). This demonstrates a lack of familiarity with common practice and convention on Wikipedia. We don't have a lot of edit history to go on here, and as a result there's little to go on to determine familiarity with Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' Talk page shows very little community interaction.
'''Oppose''' per above edit summary usage also very low. Suggest withdrawal. --
'''Oppose''' - premature. Please withdraw this and concentrate on editing.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but no. Far too premature!
'''Oppose''', too little experience. It's interesting to note that 4836.03 complained about Bling-chav randomly nominating people for adminship and said that when he was nominated he didn't think he was ready, but accepted anyway. If Bling-chav continues frivolous nominations he should be blocked.
'''Oppose''' Per above, lack of edit summaries/lack of edits --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Oppose''' per above. Please consider withdrawing and trying again later. --
'''Oppose''' lack of experience, lack of edit summaries. I was also going to make the point that JIP has made for me. --
'''Oppose.''' Lack of experience, needs more time.
'''Oppose''' per all other votes in opposition above. --
'''Oppose''' - per all other oppose votes. '''
Per above. Recommend withdrawal as bad-faith nomination.
'''Oppose''' as per above comments. I also advise you to withdraw as bad-faith nomination.
'''Oppose''' per above. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Oppose''' simply not enough editing experience, suggest you withdraw.
Oppose until more experienced.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' as per all above. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Netural''' Sorry, 186 edits is too soon. Please improve your edit summary rate, as well. Finally, your sig appears to be broken. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Neutral''' It's advised to withdraw. This is just too little time.
'''Neutral''' Not enough experience. I concur with the advice to withdraw and become more involved. Please use edit summaries.--
'''Neutral''' - If you don't have anything more to say on oppose but "per X, Y, and Z", then there's no reason to pile on. This isn't succeeding this time but I would hate to scare off a potentially great contributor. (
'''Support''' I've come into contact with this editor several times, and always found the edits made to be productive and conducive to the standards of Wikipedia.  I feel it would be beneficial to have this user as an admin.
'''Weak support''' not enough experience, but a great user.
'''Support'''. Good, experienced user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - per nom :). &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' per CP. — '''''
'''Support''' heart's in the right place, works hard, productive, sizeable edits, forgive the misplaced RfA.  Looks good --
'''Support''' good user. --
'''Support''' per Samir. --
'''Strong Support''' She has proved (to me) that she deserves adminship, and that she wouldn't abuse it.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support.'''-- As abosolutely been a great editor.
'''Support'''. Meets all of my criteria. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Support''' a good and very helpful user. Her presence at the Wikipedia Bootcamp is cherished by many. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Strong Oppose''' Incorrectly placed RFA.
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=57606830 Malformed] RFA request.
'''Oppose'''.  Looking through his Big Brother edits and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-01_JD_UK_and_9cds mediation case] involving
'''Oppose''' browsing recent afd debates left me unimpressed with policy understanding with too many per nom. Also, voting "keep" on a copyvio as "Copyright is beyond the scope of AfD" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marmion_Primary_School&diff=prev&oldid=55570511] was worrying, and closing [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph D. Campbell]] as no consensus was a call better left to an admin (I'd have come to a different result personally) and no tag was left on the article talk page indicating the result as normal. Regards,
<s>'''Oppose''' per Aguerriero. Nothing wrong with the answers you gave, just feel you shouldn't have blanked a message on somebody else's talk page. --
'''Oppose''' per all above, doesn't appear to have fully read [[WP:GRFA]] and [[WP:AHTG]]. Intentions seem good though.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per the above. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per all reasons above. Do not get discouraged by this and improve the quality of your edits over the next 4 to 6 months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all above in general; specifically the answers to several of the questions below are without content. --
'''Oppose''' - not only malformed the RFA, I noted she screwed up closing an AFD ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chilean_Spanish&oldid=56923225]), leaving a sig there that caused the page to still be on the list of old AFD pages (despite all the AFDs on that day being closed.  The preview button is your friend.
'''Oppose''' - the BB7 arguments have left a little to be desired, and I don't think only 2500-odd edits is enough experience.  But as [[User:Siva1979|Siva1979]] says, don't be put off.
'''Oppose''' There was nothing wrong with the answers, but I wasn't really blown away bt them.
'''Oppose''' per above concerns with edits being blanked, a bit overzealous in new page patrol and the answers to the last set of questions seem to indicate a lack of understanding of policy. Shell <sup>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Aguerriero||Aguerriero]] and [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]. I wasn't terribly impressed by the nominee's answers to the questions. I think a little bit more experience is required and some time allowed to pass after the recent dispute with [[User:JD_UK|JD_UK]].
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' due to apparent lack of understanding of policy.  I'm especially concerned by the answer to Drini's question (one reason we have outs like [[WP:IAR]] is because policy can't always cover everything).  &mdash;
'''Weak Oppose''' due to a deletion of a message on JD_UK's page. I don't really know, but he/she seems to be aggravating a fair few other members apart from JD_UK and myself. However, as an editor, he/she is generally OK, although as others have said, he/she's a bit hasty with deleting pages, comments and chunks of articles. I disapprove of he/she deleting Big Brother 7 chronology...
'''Oppose''' The answers to the additional questions are weak and appear to be not thought-out. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' After a lot of thinking, I've decided to go back to Neutral.  Whether intentional or not, the user can come across as very hostile and passive aggressive, and I feel he went too far when he deleted a message on my talk page and nominated pages for deletion literally a minute after their creation. The user also reverts page edits and deletes whole messages containing what he interprets as a "personal attack" without trying to speak to the person involved. The user also chooses not to respond to messages if he feels a response isn't necessary for whatever reason. However the person has shown some dedication towards some Wikipedia pages and seems to have support from some users, and it would appear the user's potential is not being exploited fully solely due to the lack of options this user has available to them.  I just wonder, should this adminship request be approved, would the user unintentionally misuse his abilities?  --<small>
'''Neutral''' Aaaargh. I'm really torn over this one, some of the concerns raised by opposers concern me also, but i want to see them as abberations as part of the learning process. I also feel that the number of questions below make it near impossible not to cause some one to oppose. They do not all convince either, me but i like some of them. I'll investigate a little more and see if that can sway me. '''
'''Neutral''' – a good contributor, but I'm reluctant to support her given some of the objections raised by those who have opposed. If she continues to contribute, takes a little time to read the policies, and takes on board what has been said above, I would support a re-nomination in a few months time –









'''Support''' - [[first post]] (even while on a Wikibreak).
'''Support''', good editor, not likely to abuse admin powers --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' This is a good editor, and would make a top-notch admin. His additions to game articles have been well-done indeed.
Just to be completely explicit, '''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', great editor. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' I've seen ALttP around before, and I've found him to be a good editor.--
'''Support''' meets my criteria fine! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Extreme Adrian Mole support''', he should have been promoted the first time.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''. Why are so many people opposing? It is as if the revert and block vandal button should only go to people who talk a lot on talk pages--
'''Support'''. What do have declining edits with adminship? We have lots of admins that contribute once a month, like [[User:Joy]] --
'''Support''' Looks good [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support'''. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
--
'''Support'''.&mdash;<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Great editor. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Good user.
'''Support.''' I think that the more questionable edits of A Link to the Past show that he is outgoing and headstrong. I realize that some people may not like that, but but we need more punctual admins on Wikipedia. --
'''Conditional Support''': after speaking with you on IRC, based on you continuing to help out in the video-game articles, that you be a little more open and willing to change your ways, that you do a little more vandal fighting, and that for god sakes you play some PSP instead of that silly DS!!!! I think you'll be a good admin, and unlikely to abuse the priveliges, so as admin is no big deal, I'm giving my support, but understand that it's a little weak, and taking some of my suggestions would be a good way to shore up my vote for sure.
Support ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
I am going to '''support''' this time. I believe LTTP when he says that the issues of temperment are behind him. Besides, [[User:Adamwankenobi|Adamwankenobi]] and [[User:Copperchair|Copperchair]] were stubborn enough to drive many people to the brink of insanity.
'''Support'''; good, solid editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Productive editor. I see no major problems with temperament and have worked with this contributor. —
'''Moral Support''' Better luck next time. But you definetly deserve more supports than objects. <font color="#000080">
'''Moral Support''' Per the above, you should not get this much opposition, IMHO. Best of luck for next time. '''''
'''Support''' A Link to the Past would be a good admin --<b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' # of edits have been declining lately, what's up? Another is he has a lack of communication with editors through thier talk pages. My final reason for opposing is his responses to the admin questions aren't very promising.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Oppose''', Number of edits have been declined after month of october and response to standard questions are not satisfactory.
'''Oppose''' - I'm worried about this candidate's temperament. I'm very happy for him to continue as an editor. -
'''Oppose''' - I don't care so much about the edits, but the temperament issue seems pretty large.  Most remarkable are the answers to question 3 below and the response to RichardCavell above.  We should never be hearing the words "I've not lashed out since..." from an admin candidate. Moreover, the candidate admits below to committing personal attacks several times. If these aren't indications that a candidate has potential to abuse admin tools, what would be? --
'''Oppose''' 5 months is really not a long time, the "I have not lashed out since..." isn't terribly encouraging to begin with.  What has the candidate given us as a track record since then to prove he won't make personal attacks again, etc.? Basically just 2 weeks of recent active participation, the bulk of which seems to be creating redirects. I'm not convinced. --
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate your honesty with regards your temperment. I believe that everyone can change themselves for the better. Step up your involvement and interpersonal skills for a few more months, and I will be happy support your nomination.
'''Oppose''' Since editor's last RfA, his activity level is low.  It is thus reasonable to wonder if we have sufficient evidence of his improved temperment yet.  Fewer edits here mean fewer reasons to become angry here.
'''Oppose'''. A very good editor, but like Christopher Parham (Neutral #2), there has been too little editing and interaction in recent months to assure me that his "nasty temperament" is gone. I am not encouraged by histories like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thank_you_Mario%2C_but_our_princess_is_in_another_castle%21&action=history] either, despite the fact that he did eventually try to start a discussion on the talk page. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' Has been involved in some bitter disputes before, and lack of edits doesn't show an improvement in temperment as far as I'm concerned. --
'''Strong Oppose''' 1) Low number of edits between December and February (as well as the not-so-high number during November and March); 2) Responding to so many (legitimate) oppose votes displays inability to accept criticism; 3) Informing users about your RfA in a way that appears to lead them towards supporting ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ral315&diff=prev&oldid=46557931], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Man_In_Black&diff=prev&oldid=46558162], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreplySpang&diff=prev&oldid=46558180]); 4) The edit summaries, as brought up by someone else, for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thank_you_Mario%2C_but_our_princess_is_in_another_castle%21&action=history Thank you Mario...] border on incivility; 5) The answers, especially to question one, are vague. I don't mean to pile on; I just wanted to be clear about my complete reason for opposing; the first one alone would have earned an oppose, but the others pushed this toward a strong oppose. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I dislike the candidate's tone in response to criticism. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Answer to question #1 is too vague, and you haven't been able to clarify it yet despite several invitations to do so; I'd like to hear specific examples of what you want to do, not generalities. This is an important questions that deserves a detailed response. I am concerned by phrases like "I usually try to not bite the newbies" - why "usually"? when do you consider it okay to violate [[WP:BITE]]? I just see too much evidence of not listening to others and getting defensive very quickly in your answers here. These are not good attributes for an admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' As many above, I am afraid his temperament hasn't changed. Instead of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], he directly speaks about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Princess_Zelda&diff=next&oldid=32438815 vandalism], warning the editor that he will be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.161.194.45&oldid=32564451 banned] instead of a more sensible approach. I don't think he will give the warnings as he told Nichalp below. --
'''Oppose''', I agree with [[User:Ryan Delaney]]. --

'''Oppose''', as the tone of the responses to above oppose votes suggests to me that ALttP's temperament may not be ''currently'' suited to administrative duties.  And vote-pimping (diffs spoted by joturner) is always a negative.
"''Temperment? I haven't lashed out at anyone since the time of my last RfA. Honestly, that is in the past now.''" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/A_Link_to_the_Past_2 I don't think so].  —''
'''oppose''' - I think you have the stuff to be an admin, but not yet ready. its not your temperment, its the way your respond to critisism. While you dont seem "mean" in any sense, your being sarcastic, and that can translate into ''sounding'' rude. i think you'll get there eventually
'''Oppose''' - responses to criticism right on this page put me off. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I find candidate's conduct on this page to be a worrying sign and bodes badly for a potential admin.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Tone towards oppose voters very argumentative; some things just don't come across well in print. .:.
'''Oppose''' Concerns over temperament
'''Oppose''', activity concerns me.
'''Strong Oppose'''. I won’t deny that this is partially based on personal experiences with this editor. But please don’t think I haven’t also fairly reviewed his overall and recent history. In fact, that’s part of the problem. As others have stated, the user’s edits dropped off dramatically after his first RfA, and there simply haven’t been enough to prove that his temperament has truly improved. In short, to be an admin, I think he needs to acquire and display a great deal more maturity than his past edits have demonstrated( heck, to be an admin, I think he needs more maturity than ''I'' have thus far demonstrated on the Wikipedia). --
'''Oppose'''. The first notice I took of ALttP was his edit-warring in [[Thank_you_Mario!_But_our_princess_is_in_another_castle!|the Mario article]], with only the most cursory attempts at discussion. Although I agreed with his opinion on the AfD, I feel his methods displayed a disregard for other editors which I wouldn't want to see in an admin. --
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Strong oppose'''.  From what I've seen of him, he causes lots of trouble.  I would make a better admin.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. The answers to the questions are weak, I am not comfortable.--
'''Oppose''' per Joturner and Ryan Delaney. --
'''Oppose'''.  Candidate's tone and revert war history honestly aren't terrible, but admins should strive to behave beyond reproach.
Ordinarily, four-five months would be more than enough to allay the concerns that caused me to opposed last time; but you have barely edited in that time period. Not really enough recent information to make a qualified judgment.
'''Neutral leaning support''' lots of experience, but too specialised for my liking. Continue editing.
'''Neutral''', as that extremely long period of time with no edits is worrisome, and even after returning, the number of edits per month (for March) is quite low. Not extreme enough to oppose, but enough to not support. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Neutral''' Leaning towards support. The candidate seems sincere and qualified but I would prefer slightly longer to verify that the candidate has reformed.
Per answers to questions.
'''Neutral''', seems a bit lackadaisical in regard to admin duties. Can't support on that basis, but it isn't a reason to oppose.
'''Neutral''', per Computerjoe and Stifle. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' — A1 below is very vague. Also has seemed too defensive on this RfA—RfA is no big deal, remember. ;) Support in a month-ish if better answers to questions are given. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Neutral''', as I know realize this is the guy who saw Sean Black talking about [[Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!]] in #wikipedia and then redirected it (I thought as a joke) saying it wasn't notable, then when reverted kept going and never brought it to AfD.  --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Neutral''' - Last time around, I did say I would support in the future. But, there hasn't been enough activity since then for me to support now.





'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, I must oppose at this time as you've only been here approximately 30 days and have less than 100 edits.  Please continue you work and try again in a few more months.
Aaron, your grammatical skills and wikiquette will make you a great editor.  Once you have been here a little longer (on the order of at least a few months) with some more edits (on the order of thousands), and have a stronger grasp of Wikipedia's policies, we'd love to consider you for an admin.
'''Oppose''' per CSCWEM. Don't despair, please continue to contribute actively and try again in 5-6 months.
'''Oppose''' too new
'''Oppose''' I can't see anything you've done wrong, so if you keep going as you are, you should get to be an admin in a few months. You need to have been here long enough for people to be confident you're trustworthy - there just isn't enough evidence yet. --
'''Oppose''' Please do not consider this a disapproval of you personally. It's only that people feel comfortable to support candidates after they get a better measure of theit experience & dedication to the project. --
'''Support''' no harm in supporting. adminship is no big deal. seems like a well-intentioned user.--
'''Support''', why the hell not. :) --
'''Support''' - calm and polite user, and very willing to help out with things. :) --
'''Support''' - from what I've seen he keeps his head when others around him have lost theirs. Be an admin, my son.
'''Support''' - no reason not to. --
'''Support''' - shows eagerness to clean up - give this kid a chance. --
'''Support''' - Seems mature enough (in wikipedian terms); has a screw-on head; seems to understand what is required; unlikely to mistreat people --
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse tools, has a good head on his shoulders. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Strong Support''' in order to even out the vote of [[User:RJII|RJII]] who seems to be opposing for political purposes. So, you had a dispute with him over one or two articles, this isn't about those, your vote appears to be merely vindictive.  -
'''Weak oppose''' A little low on the edit history, but more pointedly, I don't see in this user's edit history or responses to questions below where the admin privledges are needed. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' You show great initiative in wanting to serve the community in such a capacity - keep it up. However, the areas in which you have a history in working with can be contributed to well enough, without additional sysop tools. Familarize yourself with areas often dealt with by admins, i.e. AfD, anti-vandalism, etc, and you'll have a mop and bucket before you know it. Hang in there. --
'''Oppose''' for now, as I really don't know enough about you. I'm posting my standard RFA ''optional'' questions below, but if you answer them well, you may be able to convince me I can trust you with the tools.
'''Super StrongOppose''' Per low edit history & answer to questions. As well for vote begging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FrancisTyers#My_RfA
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience yet. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Onthost|Mike]] --
'''Oppose''' great contributions thus far but I feel you need some more experience in all facets of the project.  In a few months you will have my vote but I just don't feel your ready right now.--
'''Oppose''' For starters, I find nomination statements that say "this is me" to be unacceptably brief and glib.  If you really want adminship, tell me why, and want you've done, before you answer the question.  Separately, needs more experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Has been here a long time, but has a very low amount of edits.  If Aaron maintains the recent activity for a few more months, then I wouldn't have a problem. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Strong oppose''' In my dealings with him, I've found him to be very unreasonable. I strongly question his motives for wanting to become an administrator. He accuses others of bad faith and dishonesty ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism/Archive29]). He refuses to accept multiple credible sources when they are presented to him. Very very very unreasonable. His buddy  [[user:infinity0]] just failed in his attempt to become an administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0  Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0]. Notice Aaron was the first to vote for him and one of the very few who gave him a supporting vote. The opposition to infinity was overwhelming and his behavior on Wikipedia has obviously been reprehensible, but Aaron thought he was a good candidate. That right there tells you '''there's something seriously wrong with Aaron's judgement'''. Also, notice that infinity is voting in support of him here. Now that his buddy failed, he's attempting it to become one. Let me just point out to you that he and infinity have been engaged in a lot of disputes and edit warring with me in the [[anarchism]] and [[individualist anarchism]] articles. I know why he wants to become an adminstrator. I'm confident most here will realize why as well.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient experience<s>, profanity</s>.--
Pained '''Oppose'''.  Having only encountered a  [[User_talk:Stillnotelf#RE:_Pirvates_vs_Ninjas|very polite AaronS]] yesterday, I feel very reluctant to cast a vote, especially an oppose.  However, I've seen two things in two days which make me uncomfortable giving him admin tools: A somewhat questionable {{t1|db-nonsense}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_versus_Ninjas&diff=42871729&oldid=42871049] and "test" vandalism of his own talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAaronS&diff=42986988&oldid=42986899].  Neither of these are critical problems, but they display a lack of familiarity with the [[WP:CSD]] and the proper use of a sandbox, both of which I think an admin should know. AaronS, I think you're a fine contributor, I'm just not sure you're quite ready for the mop at this time. -- <font color="#668353">
'''Oppose''', convince me otherwise. — <small>Mar. 9, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:32] <
'''Oppose''' as well. Regular contributions seems good, but has some problems in the areas related to admin powers. More specifically, the [[Pirates versus Ninjas]] example that stillnotelf refers to. It's fine if he wants to propose it for deletion (although it's relatively obvious that it would be kept) but quite another to throw around speedy tags. Imagine if he had the ability to speedy the page instead of just tagging it. In short, he should familarize himself with [[WP:CSD]] and needs more AfD/Newpages experience so that he can begin to learn the community norms. It's nothing personal&mdash;try again later.
'''Oppose''', sorry, but too many snarky comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AaronS&diff=next&oldid=33855261 this one].
'''Oppose''' keep up this level of activity a few months longer and I might consider supporting.
'''Neutral''', while this user meets my criteria, this user does not have the necessary experience as there's onyl one month where the editor has really power-edited. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral'''. Just neutral. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Neutral''', I'd like to support also as I scanned through the contribs and there's a lot of really good anti-vandalism and editing to articles like [[Anarchism]].  But there's snarky comments, and solicitation of votes, and I think he needs just a bit more time before trying again --




'''Oppose''' sorry. 567 edits just isn't enough to get any kind of picture of what sort of editor you are. In addition, an account only one month old just isn't old enough. I cannot support giving you the tools to block people, delete, undelete etc if I can't get an idea of what sort of editor you are. Enthusiasm is appreciated and recognised, but sorry, I have to oppose. Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. Please don't take this personally (or as me having editcountitis), but your length of time here (since June 9) and your contributions (<600) are pretty much deal breakers. I recognize that you probably edited under an IP address, but there is really no way (other than Checkuser, I guess) to link those contributions with your current account. They're not wasted...but they are lost for the purposes of this discussion. Please come back in a couple months when your username has a little bit more experience.
'''Oppose'''. You haven't been here long enough to have the experience. There is also this warning on your talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abcdefghijklm#Labour_Leadership_Contest_2006-7] which makes me think that you are not ready for the tools administrators have. I suggest you withdraw and try again in a few months.--
'''Oppose''', sorry but insufficient experience. Recommend withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' less than one hundred edits outside of Main, User, and User Talk. If you had a consistent IP during your IP-contributing days, providing  a link to that address and its contribs might give a clearer picture of your work, but probably that still won't suffice. -
'''Neutral''' Contributions in Portal Talk and Category Talk are a plus but low overall edits and time with the username are big minuses.  Diff's (i.e. links to specific edits) for the contributions mentioned in the nomination would be a big help.
'''Neutral''' I can't in all all honesty support you yet, per Sarah Ewart's excellent reasoning. I have no [[WP:AGF|doubt]] that you do have a lot of experience as an IP editor, but we just don't have the evidence available over an extended period of time that allows us to be sure. However, I will certainly not oppose you. I've seen you editing here a lot in the last month and have been impressed with your work and sound judgement. Give it another 2-3 months like this and I will be a strong supporter of your next RfA. My personal advice is to withdraw this RfA early, continue contributing and you will be an admin. Good luck,
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] --
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I don't see any incivility in a quick check of his edits.
'''Support''' his work on fair use is quite good --
'''Strong Support''' I've had great interations with this editor and I learned a great deal about fair use and copyrights from him. He is extremly valuable to the project and I know he could help with [[CAT:CSD]], seeing that it is a never ending backlog. I've seen images on CSD been up there for days, alot of people (read:me) are unsure of what to do. I know that if Abu was granted admin status, Wikipedia could flow better. He is an example of an editor contributing to the ultimate goal behind the scenes.
'''Support''' dealing with image copyrights can be a mess and this user does it well.
'''Support''' no evidence to suggest he wouldn't act responsibly. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">
'''Support''' - Highly experienced editor, knowledgable in fair use, and is willing to go the extra mile JUST to get pictures. This user will prove to be an excellent administrator. —
'''Support.''' I know I don;t want to deal with image copyrights. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per RyanG. Ugh.
'''Support''' Has been here for over two years and has not shown signs of incivility. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as someone who also works (albeit in a much lower level way) on the various image use pages, I was struck by the fact that Abu has always been willing to deal with uploaders (many of whom can get downright confrontational over the suggestion that "their" images might be deleted) with civility and good humour which is vital in such situations. I understand concerns that he's only really well versed in one area, but I do think there's scope for admins who are masters of one field as well as admins who are jacks of all trades on here, especially in areas like copyright patrol which need more admin attention. --
'''Support''' per Messedrocker. --
'''Support'''.  We need more admins willing to do image cleanup work.  I don't see any indication from opposing editors that there is a danger of admin tool abuse.  It would be a shame to turn down someone offering to do difficult, repetitive and often frustrating cleanup work, who has an established record of taking it on, because of a "lack of diversity" in their edit count.  Why aren't we seeing diffs if there is evidence of a [[WP:CIVIL]] problem?
'''Weak Support''' based on expertise on copyrights and time with Wikipeida. I do not see
'''Support''' as my criteria met and this is supposed to be no big deal. I see allegations of confrontive behavior but no specific examples. This editor has no incivility issues therefore I see no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Has numerous edits, no civility issues and makes an honest effort.  I like <font color="green">
'''Support''' He does important work concerning copyright, admin tools would help him a lot in that work.
'''Support''', excellent "fair use" fighter.
'''Apoio''' (support in Portuguese)--
'''Weak Support''' - support per nom, but worried about lack of diversity in edits --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Fighting Wikipedia copyright and fair-use violations is a horrendous thankless task sure to earn you the emnity of many users.  That someone cites this as their primary contribution earns them my vote.  If you are considering voting against this user just because of the lack of generality, I urge you to reconsider.  Abu badali, if this nomination fails, please do not take it personally.  Consider the votes of opposition to be constructive criticism.  --
'''Support''' He has done a lot of positive work for Wikipedia. Tackles tedious tasks.
'''Strong support''' We need more image copyright-policing admins.
'''Weak support'''. Abu badali doesn't have the broadest experience with the project, but his work enforcing our policies on unfree content shows me quite a lot. This is difficult work that brings a lot of criticism — very much as admin actions do — and through it, he's shown patience, civility, and a willingness to educate inexperienced users.  Also, have not been able to find any examples of the confrontational behavior alleged in many of the opposes. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' - much as though he does exceptional and volumous work on verifying images for use on Wikipedia, the written style used is often verging on confrontational. Secondly, from history edit notes - that's all he does: verify images. An Admin should have a wider perspective/background of input than just one aspect to the bulk of their Wiki contributions; and Admin's often need to make quick reasoned decisions which take human factors on board/create resolution/avoid confrontation. I suggest this nomination is reviewed in 6months+, where a wider contribution could be shown. Rgds, -
'''Oppose''' - I have been contributing numerous articles on wikipedia dealing with the 1920's and early 1930's. This person has literally driven me away from wikipedia because he refuses to let me place a public domain image on the 1930s article that illustrates how fashion became more conservative in that decade and how long skirts became in 1930 whereas the year (1929) before they had been worn above the knee. This person (Abu badali) has me banned and I will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. I had hoped to complete the articles on all of the early [[Technicolor]] films produced in 1929-1933 as well as numerous articles on the early [[talkies]]. Unfortunately, due to his confrontational attitude and unwillingless to help me correctly tag the image I am no longer going to contribute to wikipedia. I think it will be a mistake if you make this person an administrator as he will only drive away people who are only trying to improve wikipedia and contribute articles to it.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I don't see a broad enough array of diversity in this user's work and the edit count is a bit low for the time on here.
While I appreciate your dedication and depth of knowledge, since we cannot grant admin powers piecemeal, I must oppose until such time as you become a lot more experienced in other areas of Wikipedia. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Not enough main talk edits (communication) and Wikipedia edits (process), fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]].
'''Weak Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Oppose''' Per above.--
Per above, perhaps later. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Oppose''' Balance, as above, and while I understand the importance of vigilance on fair use, I do feel that he is unreasonable when it comes to supporting a fair use image. He has stated that he feels that it is inappropriate to discuss a magazine cover in an article after the fair use issue has come up. On the contrary, I believe that we should have the best images possible on Wikipedia. If sufficient reason can be given to support fair use, editors should be encouraged to do so. Many of the flicker images that he supports are of inferior quality and IMO the article would be better without an image. While I do understand the importance of good source and support of the fair use claim, when the rationale can be given, the better, professional image is important both to the encyclopaedia's image and to better covey the subject of the article.
'''Oppose''' While I am continually troubled by the anti-fair use attitude among many admins and editors, Abu badali appears to combine this attitude with a confrontational view toward editors who disagree with him on the issue. This is not the type of mix I want to see in an admin.--
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian - please reapply when you have more breadth of experience. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per Alabamaboy. --
'''Oppose''' (with regrets) due to overspecialization; would like to see more well-rounded experience and knowledge.  "Won't abuse the tools" isn't sufficient grounds for adminship in my book.  Also not happy about the AllTalking incident which appears to have driven away a contributor who was uploading pictures that most likely ''are'' in the public domain, with no apparent considered discussion of the issue (see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Abu badali|rfa talk page]] for some specifics).  Maybe there's good grounds for rejecting such pictures on the off-chance that they might be copyrighted, but an admin working in that area still needs to understand pre-1977 US copyright law enough to discuss the issues intelligently with contributors instead of just slamming policy.  See also [[m:avoid copyright paranoia]].  I agree that AllTalking's side of that exchange wasn't so great either, but AllTalking was a newbie and not an admin candidate ([[WP:BITE]]).  On the plus side, I'm very happy with Abu badali's getting so many free images for the encyclopedia, and I like the flickr pictures themselves just fine.  For the biographical articles they're featured in, they're better suited than the typical supermodel publicity shots that basically turn the articles into productcruft.
'''Oppose''' Just seems too intent to spend his time here removing as many images from articles as possible - carrying the fair use policy to its extreme - and why? For the most part, it worsens the articles and brings us to the point where the only imagtes we can have for the many actor articles here are free images, which would make up about 1% of all actor articles we have right now. It's not helpful.
'''Oppose''' per lack of WP space edits.
'''Oppose'''. By the looks of it, Abu badali seems to be a very civilized user who is certainly trying his best by changing Wikipedia for the better. He definetely deserves the two barnstars that have been awarded to him. However, people who do a lot of work on the Fair Use images are usually applauded by me..though not Abu badali. With due respect, he seems to have sold his soul to [[meta:Avoid_Copyright_Paranoia|copyright paranoia]], by taking this fair use issues way too far. Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chingy&diff=prev&oldid=67576425] for example. I don't think anyone would have cared about that image being there; it was definetely not necessary. I may be willing to support in the future if Abu shows that he's a little more laidback about hese images.'''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>
Would make a good commons admin, perhaps. But '''0 FA'''. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' Focus too narrow. ~
'''Oppose'''. Would prefer broader experience.
'''Oppose''' per above (focus and confrontational style). --

'''Oppose''' seems to suffer from copyright paranoia.
'''Oppose''' for above mentioned copyright paranoia.
Perhaps later. --
'''Oppose''' for aforementioned copyright paranoia.
'''Strong Oppose''' First of all, I checked the user who claims to be driven away's contributions.  He is a perfectly lagitamate editor and good contributor.  It's a loss to wikipedia that he has been driven away.  Secondly, A lot of editors put alot of time and hard work into iliustrating and beautifuying wikipedia.  This user seems to want to destory their work, by being ultra-anti-fair-use and ultra-copyright-paranoid.  Most imageless pages are ugly and this user seems to want to make more of them.  Thirdly, you said that most of your time would be spent detelting things that you felt didn't belong.  Personaly, I'm tired of running across editors and admins who have such a narrow view of what a encyolpedia is that they delete lots of things that should be deleted.  Our goal is to encompas humankinds knowlage, not to delete things that aren't common knowlage.  (I'm especialy tired of people who delete claiming things are "fancruft"  Fancfut isn't even a policy, it's an essay, and one that shouldn't exist.)  I strongly disagree that deleting non-notable stuff is just as important as adding good stuff, since obsucre stuff is perfectly lagitamate to me.  This users 2 main activities seem to be deleting images and removing content, both of which I think are desturctive.
Sadly I cannot support as the user has been here for over 2 years and has only managed just over 3,000 edits. WP edits is quite low too (which should be high for admins). I would support if the user got more involved with the project more often. Best suited as a fine editor, for now.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral'''. Lack of experience with Wikipedia namespace (400-500 edits) normally earns an automatic oppose from me as it indicates a poor knowledge of process and policy, but this user's good image contributions and support push it to a neutral.
'''Neutral''' Free images are tough to find, so that's a plus, but other issues have made me worried here.
'''Neutral''' per low article talk and Wikipedia contribs within a long time period. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''' I feel that the user lacks some of the necessary experience needed to become an administrator ((as evidenced by a low WP-space involvement), however I feel he's unlikely to abuse the tools.  I'm on the fence, so to speak.  On one hand, I'm leery of supporting a candidate who I feel might not be as well-versed in policies as I'd like, but on the other hand, I'd be remiss to oppose a user that I feel wouldn't misuse the tools on purpose.
'''Neutral''' I can't decide. I like someone who is willing to tackle the images, but I'm worried about his confrontational style.
'''Neutral'''.  On the one hand, he's done good work in dealing with problem images, and he's good at engaging other users.  On the other hand, he hasn't interacted with the community at large much: most of the edits to the project namespace have been listing things on IFD or Copyright Problems. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but 627 edits (200-odd in article space) is too few. Stick at it, write more articles, and you'll be alright to reapply.
'''Oppose'''. (edit conflict) Actually, you have more than 520 edits, but sorry, at 620 edits or so, with only around 200 edits to the main space, you still do not meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]]. Also, please note that articles do not "lose" AfD. I suggest you familiarise yourself a little more with Wikipedia policies and procedures. Keep doing what you're doing, and at 2000 edits or so, I'll probably vote support. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Oppose'''. Low overall activity for time period, low use of edit summaries and answers to questions don't inspire confidence. --
'''Oppose''', per Deathphoenix.
'''Oppose''': "Will block bad users?" What exactly is a bad user? As noted above, AfD's are not exactly lost, and for the other reasons above, per pgk, I must oppose.
<small>moral</small> '''Support''', reccomendation of withdrawing. --
<!--moral-->'''Support''', of course&trade;! --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' of course
'''Moral Support''' Brave to be nominating himself now! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - I didn't quite feel from your answers to the questions below that I could fully trust you with the extra buttons. Also, poor edit summary use and poor RFA formatting (you didn't even sign your self-nom with [[~]][[~]][[~]][[~]], and placed your RFA at the bottom of the main page rather than at the top).
'''Oppose''', sorry not quite yet.  I think you're doing a great job with marking pages for deletion under CSD, but I'd like to see more mainspace edits and interaction with the community before adminship.  Thx.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Oppose'''- inexperienced, rather terse answers to questions appear to indicate that he hasn't participated in writing articles?
'''Oppose''' Among other issues, he has only about 700 edits with slightly over 300 to mainspace. Most of the edits do not look very impressive. The answers to the questions below are insuficient. The self-nomination justification is insuficient, the "blah, blah, blah... get on with it" indicates a lack of appreciation for the importance and seriousness of being an admin.
'''Oppose''', too few edits to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose'''. Just a bit too soon.  Keep up the great vandal fighting, remember to use edit summarys (yep, they're really that important) and take a bit more time to learn your way around Wikipedia policies.  Look forward to supporting in the future. .:.
'''Oppose'''. A little too new. Come back in a few months with more experience and we'll see what happens. --[[User:Deskana|Darth Revert]]
'''Oppose''' not experienced enough. Also, lack of edit summaries!
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose''', too new, try again in a few months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', still to green--

'''Oppose'''. -
'''Oppose'''. Please use edit summary box.
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal, but just a tad more experience might go a long way. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' for being too new and low edit summary usage for major edits.--
'''Oppose''' your answer to question 3. Sorry!
'''Oppose''' - I don't think you have enough experience yet. Also, if you have 1200 edits of marking articles with the Speedy tag (if I understood your self-nom statement correctly), I don't understand why the "deleted edits" shows only 232. -
'''Oppose''' Edit count. <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' No images, inexperience.  --
'''Oppose''', not enough project contributions. —
'''Oppose''' Sounds like this user would want adminship as a trophy.
Weak, but firm'''Oppose''' Total edits (at this time) is only 707, poor answers to the questions, has very few user talk edits, and seems to be rushing to get sysoped. Don't take this personally, you can try again in a few months, and have 800+ more edits, then I may put a "strong support" on your next RfA ;)
'''Strong Oppose'''. Only 700 edits in 3 months, weak answers to questions, and not enough edits in the project space. When you have more experience, I just might vote support on your next RfA.
First edit! I'd like to know a little bit more about what you plan to do with admin before I change my vote.
'''Neutral''' - I don't have a problem with low edit counts, but I can't see that Acebrock is reliable and knowledgeable so that he might use the tools correctly. This isn't a 'no' vote, it's an invitation for him to demonstrate his ability. -
'''Neutral''', too little experience on Wikipedia to become an admin yet. Keep practicing and reapply in a month or two.
'''Neutral''', no need to further pile on the oppose votes, but.. A lot of the votes above state that you need more experience, and I hope you'll understand in what way those comments are meant. Even if you had (correctly) speedy tagged over 3000 articles, I'd still feel very uncomfortable in handing you the admin mop. It's no problem if you decide to specialise as a Wikipedian: if you happen to have fun with new pages patrol and you have a sufficient grasp on policy to decide about which pages need to go, then it would be a great help to Wikipedia if you had a delete button. However, I believe you need some experience in more areas to get that sufficient grasp on policy and the way things work around here. If you don't know how it is to create page and work on expanding it, it is hard to understand how it might feel for a new editor to see his very recently created page deleted without any explanation whatsoever. Also, if you've never done any recent changes patrolling, looking for vandalism, or if you've never had to find a specific addition in the history of an article, you won't understand the value of edit summaries. Giving someone without any experiences like these a delete and block button is creating the perfect conditions for some very frustrated well meaning but clueless newbies. So in my opinion, it's not just ''more '' experience that you need, but more experience ''in different areas''. --
'''Neutral''', the user seems reliable, however I would prefer waiting with this nomination for 2-3 months and then I would fully support him. Acebrock, you still have my moral support. --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Neutral''', come back in a couple months. Get some more main space editing experience under your belt, and I will support next time around.--
Don't want to contribute to a pile on; don't want to support this user at present.
'''Support''' - I trust him. --
'''weak support''' he's a good faithed user, a bit stubborn sometimes, but I think with some coaching he will be better. -- <small> (
'''Moral support'''. Just lending some, because a massively failing RfA can get to ya. — '''[[User:Philwelch|Phil]]''' ''[[User_talk:Philwelch|Welch]]'' <small>
'''Support'''. then again not giving you admin powers is letting vandals win. --<small>
'''Support''' per Philwelch --
'''Support'''. <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#007700"><b>Ø</b></font></i>
'''Symbolic support''', if nothing else, because of your courage to keep this RfA open till the end in order to learn how to improve, and because you could definiteley use some Wikilove in the process. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--Moral support, user doesn't seem to want to withdraw and I just don't like gang justice.--
'''Support''' per Pom. One day you'll be ready, Adam. --
'''Support'''. Good editor, willing to learn, would make a nice admin.
'''Support'''--Has made valuable contributions.--
Sorry, I do not conider this user to be familiarised with workings of Wikipedia policy yet. Please see [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Good_vandal_fighter_not_necessarily_.3D_good_administrator|my talk page comment]]. <s>Secondly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAdam1213_2&diff=36485250&oldid=36484827 blanking of comments on his own RFA]</s> ''Apparently edit conflict caused this, believe or not, up to reader''.
Can't support someone who's self-nominated twice in a week.  -
'''Oppose''' For now. Having spoken to Adam in IRC on several occassions I know he is very keen to help wikipedia which is good even if I'm sometime not convinced his focus is "right". However from some of those discussions and the answers below I'm not convinced he has the overall grasp of what wikipedia is "really" about and the ability to deal with the situations and decisions he is likely to meet as an admin. <s>I'm not sure on the relevance between being able to put together an IRC client and the need to be an admin or being capable as an admin.</s> The overall edit count is reaonable (2200) but the break down doesn't seem too good about 1400 of those on User and User_talk pages, Only 295 on Article pages (which for someone who reverts a lot of vandalism seems very low over the 4 months he has been active) and a looking through the history seems to indicate difficulty getting things right first time, which suggest unfamiliarity (we all have problems there sometimes, but I seem to see lots of "clusters"). Given that I know Adam I was in two minds as to if I should oppose or just add my comments as Neutral, but I feel I have opposed better candidates so... --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 10:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Struck out the above, since this seems to be a bit confused as to where it fits in Adam's response and so the comment maybe a little unfair, so I'll assume it's just one of his contributions to the projects, though I'm not sure if it's complete or anyone else is using it. --
I appreciate his earnestness, but I just don't think he's ready yet &mdash; and won't be for quite a while.  I'm also concerned that he's placed his userpage in [[:Category:Pages watched by the Counter Vandalism Unit]]; I don't think I could trust anyone who uses the "watched by CVU" template or category to have a strong enough grasp of common sense and its application on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''', very few edits to article namespace for someone who is committed to counter-vandalism. The answers to the questions (especially the optional ones) would indicate that he is not familiar enough with policy. And I don't think he expresses himself clearly enough, as I'm having a hard time discerning what he means in some of his answers here. -
'''Oppose''', as personal experience and actions makes me believe that he is not admin material.
'''Oppose'''.  You seem like you might make a good admin some day, but I don't think you are familiar enough with the way things work as yet.  Please try again in a couple of months. -
'''Oppose'''. This user has a controversial history, including his 2 failed RFA self-noms. he also has a history of self advertising and spamming pages for support. He has, ever since he joined, been constantly in search of that adminship bid. For example, on [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/October_2005#Template:User_want_admin|an October 2005 TfD]], [[User:Robchurch]] said ''We don't give out administrator status to those users who make a big thing of it, as far as I know. In addition, the creator ([[User:Adam1213]]) likely created this after making a big song-and-dance about his two failed Requests for Adminship, and supplemented it all with spamming Jimbo's talk page demanding adminship.'' Moreover, this user has too few edits to article namespace (IMO) and his challenging every vote seems immature.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' because this is yet another nomination seeking to use edit count, rather than suitability for the job, as justification for adminship
'''Oppose'''. His edit count isn't really that high. Also more edits to his own userpage than to articles [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Adam1213]. &mdash; '''''
'''Oppose''' - The answer to question 4 bothers me quite a lot as it seems to misunderstand the meaning of "blatant vandalism." (
'''Strong oppose.''' Adam has yet to grasp Wikipedia policy, or demonstrate the level of maturity and coolheadedness required of an administrator. His interactions with other users leave much to be desired; Adam has a desire for power not for the betterment of the project, but rather, for the inflation of his own ego. Adminship is a position of community trust, a stewardship of the community's best interests, not a way to make yourself feel more important. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Oppose''' - without prejudice in the future. Adam acts in good faith, but hasn't quite got it yet. It will come in time, I am confident of it.
'''Oppose''' per Essjay. --
'''Oppose''' - while I appreciate this user's enthusiasm, I don't think now is the time. (I will be happy to elaborate if the candidate wishes, but will leave it at that for now.) Thanks!
'''Oppose''' I would definitely consider supporting Adam in the future for adminship however I still don't think he's shown the maturity and grasp of policy that is expected of an administrator. <small>
'''Oppose''' Almost there, but not quite ready. A tad better grasp of the Wikipedia namespace (policies and processes) is all that is needed. --
'''Weak Oppose''' Having worked closely with Adam on many things, Wikipedia-related and non-Wikipedia-related, I know he has good intentions and is unlikely to abuse admin tools. However, there are a number of things that concern me. He did not sign his reply to an oppose vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAdam1213_2&diff=36482785&oldid=36482384 here] and has also not signed in many other places such as some of his replies in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAdam1213_2&diff=36586271&oldid=36580234 this diff]. I think anyone who is an admin should at least follow basic [[WP:SIG]]. Most non-admins manage that. Also, regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAdam1213_2&diff=36485250&oldid=36484827 this edit conflict], even if he didn't mean to blank the oppose votes, an admin should know how to deal with edit conflicts and be able to merge their changes with other people's changes appropriately, like most users can do. Also tends to not use common sense in some areas such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAdam1213_2&diff=36483501&oldid=36482785 here], where he added his own "questions for the candidate" to the bottom of the RfA. Wouldn't a sensible user realise that they are being asked the questions rather than asking themself more questions? Finally, I am not happy with his edit count breakdown, which consists of only 305 edits in the article namespace out of 2327 total edits. If this user really wants the admin tools to revert vandalism, he should put more effort in reverting vandalism on articles. Overall, I think he needs to improve his editing style and get more practice, based on the evidence I have provided. --
'''Oppose'''. Anyone who pisses off Essjay enough to leave doesn't deserve the mop and bucket. -
'''Oppose''' - Need a little more EQ, I recommand visiting the chatrooms more often. --
'''Oppose.'''
'''Oppose''' To be honest, I find Adam's editing manner a little erratic. I'm not confident that he's yet ready for adminship.--
'''Oppose'''. You seem like a good person, but your behavior is too immature and you're too inexperienced right now. Settle down and be patient.
'''Oppose''' seems still to inexperienced with what goes on here... <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. The jokes on his user page aren't funny.
'''Oppose''' for most of the reasons given above, but also his insistence on challenging every oppose vote makes me question his maturity.
'''Oppose''' An Admin should be able to look at big picture without getting bogged down in minor details. Replying to every oppose vote seems to be getting stuck in the latter. I'm also concerned that replying to every reply on a rfa might indicate a desire to always have the last word, which is an undesirable trait of an admin, IMO - an admin should only have the last word when they are required to, not because they want to.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Adam, I just can't support you. You are far too impatient to be an admin. You seem to want to block people as soon as they vandalize. You don't really grasp our policies. You as an admin would really worry me. --
'''Oppose''', lack of maturity as displayed in this RFA.
'''Oppose'' My main reason for opposing him is not the same as all of the rhetoric above - it's because he's so active in his RfA!  If Adam was a good, moral candidate, he would eagerly watch the votes, maybe update the tally now and then, answer any questions in the questions section, and that's all.  Instead, he personally responds to and argues with every vote of opposition.  And he wrote a whole section right before the questions advocating why we should vote for him!  I will not vote for such a candidate - sorry Adam. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - sorry, but the block capitals rant below mean I'm not even going to look into his edit history. His attitude on this RfA is enough to make me opposite it. --
'''Neutral''' A very enthusiatic guy from what I have seen, but comes off as a little immature.
'''Neutral''' per the oppose reasons, to avoid a pile on --
'''Neutral'''. I don't think Adam1213 is quite ready for adminship yet but I don't want to pile on the "oppose" votes.
'''Neutral'''. Moved from oppose. --
Not sure yet.  --
Seems like a good editor, but lacks patience, experience, and a tad inclined to argue everyone's opinion. Please review more guidelines and depict more leeway for critisim in the future, and I'll gladly support. -
'''Neutral''', I am not quite sure why he accepted this at this time. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]





'''Oppose''' please gain more work and interaction experience. Your RfA is improperly organized and you don't have a good idea of what being an admin requires.
'''Oppose''' as per above. Of your twelve edits, four have been in respect of this RfA. I suggest that you get a good few more edits under your belt and think carefully about the presentation of your RfA before making your next request. --
Unless someone here can show me a damn good reason to remove it, here's mine. '''
Yay! Someone with a reasonable number of edits, so I could actually go through the whole list realistically. Perfect! I found a large number of quite substantial edits, unlike many people who come to RFA with elevated edit counts (and unreadable contributions lists) due to vandalproof addiction and such. Discussion style during the one mentioned dispute was very solid, very calm, and basically what I'd expect from an expert. This editor will likely do very well, contributing many fine featured articles to wikipedia. If not promoted this time, I will gladly nominate again at a later date. (that, and I'll have more ammo for my position that RFA is broken ;-) .)
'''Weakest possible support''' I'm inclined to agree with Rob's "analysis".
'''Support''' (despite the growing ''oppose'' votes). I'm in agreement with what [[User:Robchurch|robchurch]] and [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] have to say. A lot of the "edit count", "edit summary", and contribution to the various spaces are useful criteria, but they ought not be inflexible. Despite the well reasoned oppose comments, I don't see why adminship is treated as such a big deal even though I keep reading that it isn't. This editor appears to have done good quality work and sets the foundation for good quality admin work.
Changed to '''Strong Support''' based on answer to <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]][[User:Audacity/Esperanza|<font color="lime">α</font>]][[User talk:Audacity|<font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b>'s question. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAgateller&diff=59386208&oldid=59374749] This editor can be trusted to learn while on the job. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) <S>'''Strongly support noms desire to be admin. : - )''' Urge nom to read '''oppose''' and '''neutral''' comments closely and review other noms that recently passed and failed. Will contact nom by email (checked and is activated) to thoroughly discuss the pros and cons of continuing current nom.
I have some concerns about the user's ability to remain calm in stressful situations given the answer to question 3, something we all, including I, have to watch. but per Robchurch, Agent 86 and Kim Bruning, the user has demonstrated enough knowledge of WP that a ''no big deal'' adminship is '''Support'''able. I suggest that if this RfA fails or is withdrawn that the user continue to edit, continue to contribute, and try again later. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support'''.  There are more than enough edits in the (main) and Talk: namespaces to show a civil, careful and conscienscious editor who can clearly trusted with the tools.  As others have pointed out above, we need to think carefully about the RfA process: as [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for]] says, we're looking for "evidence that [the candidate] can apply Wikipedia policies calmly, maturely and impartially", not evidence that they've already done a certain amount of work.  --
'''Support.''' I particularly bring to your attention the quality of Agateller's interactions with other editors even when the bad guys won the turf battle.  As I evaluated Agateller's record, I found myself disagreeing a lot on the substance, but appreciating Agateller's calmness, clarity, and wit, such as on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAeusoes1&diff=28023340&oldid=27618713 this edit].  Surely any of us learned a lot from reading that analysis.  We need more people like Agateller interacting with the many zealous neophytes that have much to learn about what [[NPOV]] actually is.  --
'''Support.''' One would be hard-pressed to find those who make contributions of substance in article space with a high edit count. Speaking from experience, I have spent hours on articles which were committed in a single click. In that same time frame, "stub sorters" could have racked up scores of edits. The current process works in favour of the latter user. Is that fair? If adminship is really "no big deal", why deny it to this user? --
'''Support''' volume of contributions may be comparatively low, but their quality is high. I like his emphasis on NPOV and in fact I like his emphasis on article space contributions in general. Answers to question 1 may not ''require'' admin tools but they would certainly be helpful, which is enough - not every admin needs to be a vandalwhacker. I'm a bit concerned that good users are getting passed over in RfA due to adminship-criteria arms races.
'''Support''' - I think we can benefit from his pre-wiki experience.
'''Support''', for one this user does not suffer from editcountitis. His high-quality edits surely make up for the lack of edits. Adminship is not a reward, but adminship is not a big deal either. --
'''Support''' -- reasons for oppesing are superficial --
'''Support''' -- Adminship is no big deal. --
'''Support''' -- No big deal, looks like a good editor, as per rob
'''Support'''.  Agateller has demonstrated that he understands the problems facing the Wikipedia community, and I suspect he has a better idea than most how to deal with them.
'''Support'''. It appears that people are opposing because he called a spade a spade. Unprofessionalism and over emotional editors on their pet articles are a serious problem for us, we should support people who don't care to play that game. --
'''Support'''. Per nom and much of above.  Especially per Gmaxwell.  Pet articles must die.
A classic example of why strict statistical criterion are a Bad Thing.--
'''Support''' edits on the whole very good. reliable editor
'''Support''', though I am going to remind the editor that, even though "angry young males" as a syndrome of sorts is correct as a generality, he never abandon [[WP:AGF]] for the sake of being right. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''. On principle, per RobChurch.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Strong Oppose''' One of the only things you say you'll do that actually requires admin powers is AFD, yet you've only comment on 3 articles' deletion pages.  I suggest you get some more experience of how AFD and similar processes work before becomind an admin. --
<s>'''Oppose''' per above --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)</s> <s>Changed to '''Strong oppose''' on basis of comments below, specifically the repeated uncivil use of the category "angry young males". I'm curious as to how you make this judgement on an internet-based medium. I do very strongly agree on the point you make about OR though. I recommend coming back in a month or two. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''strongest possible oppose''' on suspicion of trolling and certainty of incivility, as seen below. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Very strong oppose''' per civility concerns and epithets alone. <s>[[User:SushiGeek|SushiGeek]] 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
'''Oppose''' pre above; and the fact that there is only ~700 edits between now and October, 2005 means lack of activity?
'''Oppose''', doesn't appear to need admin tools.
'''Oppose, but moral support'''.  Needs more experience, but seems to be a fine contributor.  Keep on editing and try again in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' <s>for now; just too new. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]][[User:Audacity/Esperanza|<font color="lime">α</font>]][[User talk:Audacity|<font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b> 22:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC) To clarify: new as in inexperienced, not as in time. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]][[User:Audacity/Esperanza|<font color="lime">α</font>]][[User talk:Audacity|<font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b> 22:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)After some thinking at [[User talk:Robchurch]], I'm still opposed, but because this user has not done enough for the encyclopedia to earn this status. I think giving adminship to anyone who would help Wikipedia with the admin tools dilutes the meaning of being an Administrator. That said, candidate has done some great work, and will get my full support if he continues doing so. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]][[User:Audacity/Esperanza|<font color="lime">α</font>]][[User talk:Audacity|<font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b> 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry for the flip-flopping. Oppose per Tango, below, in the Comments section. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]][[User:Audacity/Esperanza|<font color="lime">α</font>]][[User talk:Audacity|<font color="black">cιτγ</font>]]</b> 14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)</s> because there is just too much danger of this user becoming an abusive admin. Maybe if desysopping was as easy as sysopping, I would support and hope for the best. But it's not; in fact, desysopping rarely happens for anything short of an extraordinary violation of decency. The nom's bluntness is a good thing, but the "angry white males" stereotyping suggests that he would not be able to work without prejudice as an administrator.<b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Oppose''' looks like a great editor but lacks project and talk space edits to demonstrate knowledge of policy and experience in admin tasks.  You can do a lot without the mop.
'''Oppose'''. A good editor who needs more experience, particularly in the Wikipedia space, before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Eluchil404. --
'''Oppose''' I like to see a user crack 1,000 edits.
'''Oppose'''.  I very much dislike the idea that adminship "must be earned" because it follows that adminship ''can'' be earned, which is incorrect; adminship is given to those who would make good admins, period.  At the same time, I like to see more time and edits to illustrate experience, knowledge, and ability to deal with difficult situations.  In particular, "I  walked away" is a good answer, but not the best answer, to question #3&mdash;it's the job of every Wikipedian to make sure the encyclopedia is accurate, and it's the job of administrators to confront the most obnoxious.  I will gladly support in the future if solid edits continue. --
'''Oppose''' as per above concerns re WP inexperience and very low talk participation.
'''Oppose''' Not enough all-round invovlement at Wikipedia at the moment to convince me. --
'''Oppose''' doesn't need admin just yet, doing fine as an editor. Needs more experience before proceeding to be an admin.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''. Notable article edits are just 2%. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' - no need for admin tools based on answer to question one, and dangerous sexism/bias. --<font color="#696969">[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Oppose''' needs more experience.  As far as when to try again, I will not consider supporting a re-RfA in less than 2 months --
'''Oppose''' based upon the answer given to question one. Closing AfD debates may require the ability to delete pages, but admin status carries far more responsibility than that.  There is currently no demonstration of intent to perform other admin duties.  More experience and knowledge of Wikipedia process and policy would be an advantage. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose'''. ''2'' user talk edits and 21 Wikipedia-space edits so far does not show an understanding of policy on Wikipedia, how the user interacts with others and how they would handle pressure. (Nor do the answers to the questions, really.) Adminship is ''not'' an entitlement, like some seem to think, and we have seen these priveliges misused before by much more experienced (and presumably Wiki-knowledgeable) editors. To the candidate: I'm sorry your RfA has become a battleground. Heed what the oppose votes are saying and come back in a few months and I'll probably support you.
'''Oppose''' for low edit counts.--
'''Oppose with the strength of zeus''' That edit count is simply too low. Doesn't show enough experience. User talk far too low as well, admins have to help peple, yo can't do that if you don't even talk to them.
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience in the Wikipedia: namespace; I can't support someone who wants to close AfDs who's barely even been there. Try again in a few months with more experience, and I'll gladly reconsider.
'''Oppose''' I don't like the stereotype of "angry young males" that you reference so many times in your answers.  I respect and value your contributions...don't take this the wrong way.  Coincidentally, I see nothing wrong with your edit count.  Regards, --
'''Oppose''', long way to go in several areas. <b>
'''Oppose''' There seems to be civility concerns. I would reapply in a 2-3 months. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''', not enough contributions. -- <font face="tahoma">
'''Oppose''', few contributions.--
'''Oppose''' Too few contributions. Gain enough experience and try again after 3 months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I didn't think there was anything wrong with the original use of "angry young male" in answer to a question.  But this comment is ... umm ... not in line with [[WP:NPA]] ... ''The mere fact that my epithet irritates you does indeed imply that you are in the category of persons for whom I use it as a euphemism.'' Umm ... yeah.
'''Strong oppose''' - I don't mind that the candidate mentioned "angry young males" particularly.  However, the suggestion that anyone who is irritated by this epithet is ''described'' by it, and is therefore acting emotionally and irrationally, makes me seriously question whether the candidate can accept criticism.   The edit history suggests he/she can, but this whole back-and-forth has created sufficient doubt in my mind. --
Fails my [[User:Cyde/Admin criteria|Admin criteria]].  --

'''Oppose''' fails [[User:Anonymous anonymous/RFA Criteria|My RFA criteria]] <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' partly for the comment ''"If it stresses you to admit someone new to the tree house club, don't vote me in."'' It's a shame too.  Agateller is obviously very experienced with computers/internet/technology and might be great asset... but without the ability to respect people who disagree with him (or her?) I fear that the likelihood of abuse is too high. However, if Agateller is willing to change his/her behavior I’d be willing to support on the next RFA. ---
'''Oppose''' Sexist comments, its discrimination peroid.
'''Strongly Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''', sadly, from the AYM dialogue.
'''Neutral''', too few WP and talk edits, does not meet
'''Neutral'''. I'd be willing to support, but I'd be willing to see more community-related interactions.
'''Neutral''' - a little low on edit count, not totally sure and not sure if tools are really needed --
'''Neutral'''. Sorry, not quite enough experience. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', edit count and experience. Give it five months and I will support you. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per all above.
'''Neutral''' - While adminship is no big deal, I still believe that knowledge and experience are important things to have when using admin tools. I'm not saying Agateller would not make a good admin, I'm just saying that, considering his lack of project namespace edits, participating a bit more would be very useful.
'''Neutral''' - It seems that this user is a good user who understands Wikipedia quite well. While the mainspace count is quite low, I would still support the user if their edits were of quality. However, an admin needs to deal with a lot of different users and the fact that this user has only 2 User Talk edits means I will stay neutral. '''
'''Neutral''' per the unsigned vote above, and my own anaylisis. It's not that I don't think you have the heart and dedication to become an admin. I just see little involvement in the wikipedia namespace, and I'm led to believe that you don't have the experience of working with [[WP:TROLL|trolls]], [[WP:VANDAL|vandals]], [[WP:TIGER|tigers]], and [[WP:DICK|dicks]] to work as an admin comfortably. If you revert some vandalism, report to [[WP:AN/I|ANI]] and the village pump over issues, and shift towards [[m:metapedianism|being a metapedian]], I'll probably support you at your next RfA.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]

<s>'''Oppose'''</s> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APgk&diff=57053754&oldid=57025286 Spam for rfa] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KansasCity&diff=prev&oldid=57053382], <500 edits, this page not formatted correctly, not listed on opening date on main rfa page etc. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC) changed to '''Extremely strong oppose''' following this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aido2002&diff=57056149&oldid=57055096 edit] --
'''Strongest possible oppose''' per Pgk. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''', sorry, but I don't think you're ready. 300 edits isn't much, and you've shown you're not quite mature enough by the spam and removing of votes, and the way you say you'll block "annoying" spammers.. -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Oppose''' and suggest immediate cancellation of RFA as bad-faith selfnom.
'''Oppose''' per Pgk, please withdraw your RFA. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Pgk, that is unacceptable behavior. Plus malformed RfA and very low edit count. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' because of edits to RfA.
'''Oppose''' per Pgk. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' One of your proud pages is a red link.
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' Per Pgk.
'''Speedy Oppose''', please try again later.
'''Support''' - While only active for the past 2-3 months, that meets my criteria. I'm also proud to be the first to support! --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' - hasn't done anything to make me think he'd abuse admin powers, and [[WP:AWB]] experience should give him a decent idea of the importance of janitorial work
'''Support'''. Positive community member prepared to do some janatorial work. Meets my criteria.
'''Support'''. Per Essexmutant. Keep up with good work. --
'''Support''' A good user and keep up the good work. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' looks like a good user, who could use the extra admin tools
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support'''
''"Adminship is no big deal"'' -
'''Support''' [[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. One way of gaining experience is by making edits. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
--
'''Support''' 100%! -
'''Support''' will be good admin, no reason not to support. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
I '''Support''' You too --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Helpful at CFD.  --
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin priviledges.
'''Support.''' Seems to be a good, well meaning user.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' - if you scroll down, you'll see my silly mistake. Gave it some thought, and you check out o.k. In fact, lets just say better than some of my other support votes. Just saying, is all. --
'''Support''' per Cynical. --
'''Oppose''' not enough experience, only one month of power editing with several months of little to no editing.
'''Oppose''' per Kl.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think this user has enough experience yet. User has almost no edits that are not AWB-assisted. Most edits this month are AWB-related. Almost zero activity on talk pages. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Oppose''' sorry, I require some more experience before I can support.--
'''Oppose''' Especially for a self-nom., I need a longer record (and more interactions) before I would feel comfortable conferring the mop.
'''Oppose''' Too little user interaction and experience outside of the main namespace. &#126;
'''Oppose''': needs more experience.
'''oppose'''. come back in three months. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''' -- Needs more experience/timeserved outside the use of AWB etc --
'''Oppose''' -- too soon, but try in two months.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough contribution to support.
'''Oppose''', and I feel bad doing this because I think you have the makings and attitude of a '''great''' admin.  I just feel that you need a bit more experience with editing in the main namespace in order to best use the mop.  --
'''Neutral''' More than half of AKGhetto's edits have come only from one month, which is a bit worrying.

'''Neutral''' due to lack of project space experience. Admins need to be comfortable with policies, and I can't infer that you are if you don't edit the Wikipedia namespace much.
'''Neutral''' this one gave me trouble. Not a lot of experience, etc. Makes me nervous when "adminship is no big deal" is used as a ''reason'' to support. User doesn't have enough experience where it counts to make me confident, but admitedly hasn't done anything wrong with a medium amount of experience so I'll stay neutral.
'''Neutral''' He's been making a pretty decent comeback, but that long a slow-down in editing should basically require a restart for ensuring he still follows the rules before admin'ing.



'''Well duh'''... like I would nominate if I didn't support? '''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I trust Grutness completely. Question answers a little on the short side, but who cares? Really? &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' - per nom. -- ''
'''Support'''. Good editor, will make a great admin.-
'''Support.''' Meets my criteria.
'''Support'''. Solid editor, safe pair of hands for admin powers. --
'''Support''' - Experienced editor. He really helps building an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', will be a great addition to the administrative board.--<font color="336699">
'''Strong support''', the questions aren't important because adminship is no big deal.  This user would not abuse the mop. --
'''Support'''.  Busy, civil editor.  --
'''Support''' Right, you can't be an admin if you want to be an admin, and you can't be an admin if you're not hyper on the idea. He's probably having an off day, and I am overall sick with this RfA system, it's an excuse for other users to rip apart candidates for stupid things like this. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' Does good work and will keep on doing it.
'''Support''' Good editor, will make an excellent admin
'''Support''' I can look past the somewhat aloof answers below.  The real question is whether he would abuse the tools; I think not.   <font color="3300FF">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' on the basis of good character and overall sound contributions to Wiki, which indicate adminship will be carried out responsibly and tools will not be abused.
'''Support''' seems like a good, committed editor to me!
'''Support''' - Looks like a good editor with initiative, let's see how they do as an admin. --
'''Support''' - Good editor, will make a excellent admin.
'''Support''' - Seems civil, productive, and ready for the mop.
'''Oppose''' per answers. Appears you have little interest in adminship. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Crazy Russian.
'''Oppose''' per Crazy Russian, as the answer to Question 1 is particularly insufficient.  Also, the editor's wiki-space experience is less than I like to see.
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian.  Lack of wiki-space edits as noted above,  and I don't get a sense of enthusiasm from his answers.  Seems to be a bit of a template-dropper, too.  He certainly is a good contributor, but I think he is more of a [[Wikipedia:Wikignome|Wikignome]] than an admin.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions aren't great and the level of wiki-space edits is too low for my usual criteria. --
'''Oppose'''; weak questions; would also like to see some more project edits--
'''Oppose''', does not appear to need/want adminship, and low Wikipedia-namespace edit level suggests poor familiarity with policy.
Per above, and fails my criteria.
'''Opoose''' Lack of Wikipedia-namespace edits is a concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per answers.
'''Weak, Very Relucatant Oppose''' - I really wanted to support ... the user has done a tremendous amount of work for environmental articles ... in fact, I had typed "support" and was just looking through edits to find reasons to make sure I was correct.  But then I saw this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zenoah_Engines&diff=59214685&oldid=58259474] - and that concerns me.  Policy knowledge is essential for an administrator and this article was incorrectly tagged as a speedy only a few days ago. It also is of slight concern that a few xFD comments are simply "delete per nom", even in controversial xFDs where a reason more than simply a vote would be more helpful. Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_18#Template:Bibleref] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_3&diff=prev&oldid=57139350] for example
'''Oppose'''. The user is certainly a great editor, but he has little apparent interest in or need for admin status. -
'''Oppose''' per answers and lack of Wikipedia-space edits. (A couple different points on my brand new set of [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|admin criteria]].) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
''Oppose''' - per CrazyRussian and Stifle. Questions don't make me think he's quite familiar with what adminship is. I've included my optional questions below, I may change my vote on the replies (and that used to be NSLE's line :o) --
'''Oppose'''. I think that you need to be fully committed to apply for adminship, and the answers to the standard RfA questions raise too many issues. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">'''haz'''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Oppose''' per the above.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Oppose''' Answers are just to breif.  One of the things that admins have to be able to do is explain themselves.
'''Oppose''' see [[User:Anonymous anonymous/RFA Criteria|My RFA Criteria]] <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per weak answers, and no reply to any optional questions to help out. -
'''Oppose''' per optional answers (or lack of them); despite their being "optional," in my opinion, one should at least attempt an answer at the majority of them. Since you have chosen not to answer any of them, I have to wonder if there is any real interest beyond the novelty of "being an admin." --
'''Oppose''' Answer to question one doesn't indicate a need for admin powers whilst editing. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose''' I don't like the answers form the questions at all, i'm just not convinced you need any such admin rights to put things in categories.
'''Oppose''' as per Stifle and not keen on answers.
'''Oppose''' per answers. '''
'''Oppose''' - Answers does not show any need for admin tools. --
'''Neutral''', you don't need to be an admin to remove vandalism.. great editor but answers really turned me off.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' Fine editor but answers to the questions below leave a lot to be desired. Might change to support if the additional questions are answered well. --
'''Neutral''' per all above, answers just not good enough.
'''Neutral''', the answers to questions are weak.--
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Andypandy.UK|Andeh]] and [[User:Kungfuadam]] --
'''Neutral''', weak answers to questions. Will reconsider if the additional questions are answered better.
'''Neutral''' at this stage I'm afraid. You don't need sysop rights to do the tasks in your answer which makes me wonder if you are fully aware of the responsibilities of the role - per ByranG this may tip after viewing the answers to newer questions. -
'''Neutral''' per messages above. The answers are too brief, and you could get about with those tasks without having admin tools. --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' until questions are answered. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Neutral''' undecided whether or not to support after some studying of talk and contribs. --
'''Neutral''' Seems like nom would not do much with admin tools. On the other hand, doesn't seem like he would abuse them. I don't see anything to give me a reason to go either way in supporting or opposing this nominee. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Not enough Image space edits.










'''Moral support''' Have contacted candidate and suggested withdrawing for now.
Too soon. Also, you may want to be a little more conscientious in filling out the RfA form. --
'''Oppose''' - Aleen, I'd like to thank you for participating, but I have concerns over your command of English. I don't know that you can appreciate the nuances. -
'''Oppose.''' The nomination and answers to the questions do not convince me that the candidate understands what adminship is.
Suggest withdrawal or delisting, '''strong oppose''' as far TOO early and no need for admin tools. There's no need for users applying to be admin when they won't even be around to help with what an admin does.
'''Oppose''' - Scant participation in [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], or any RC patrol. --
'''Support''' as a nominator.&mdash;
'''Support''' three words: moderated, logical, polite&ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Wholeheartedly support.'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', as per his level-headed comments in response to my "neutral" vote.
'''Support'''. We've been working together at the Russia Portal, and I found Alex to be a very productive and, what's more important, balanced individual.
'''Support''' good editor and I'm unimpressed with opposition.
'''Support'''. --

'''support''', of all my past support votes, this is one of my most wholehearted support votes on par with such unquestionable candidates I supported in the past as [[user:Mzajac|MichaelZ]] and [[user:Zscout370|Zach]]. Wikipedia needs admins. Anyone willing to do the work should get the tools except when there are questions of the potential possibility of one using them unethically. Absolutely no way for this extremely decent and committed wikipedian. Go Alex! --
'''Support''' seems like a generally good editor who only has to watch his language from time to time =)
'''Support''' one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I don't believe that the oppose votes carry much weight, and the one insult found was a particularly minor example. I would like the user to be remember that we can't be editors and administrators at the same time, however, and so not to allow partisan beliefs to influence his admin decisions. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
'''Strong support''', mostly for the patience in dealing with individual questions in this voting :-). My advice, or wish, if I may, when you become an admin: (1) be more careful with your language ;-) (2) try to distance yourself from your national prejudices, it's never enough ... even when you think you're neutral. --
'''Support''', seems like a good level-headed editor. --
'''Support''', agree with Lysy.
'''Support''', seems like a good and busy editor. Everybody slips up and makes a personal attack once in a while, so that's no biggie to this editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''—good-natured, good contributor.  ''—
'''Support'''.  No shade of doubt. Alex is a knowledgeable, good-natured, hardworking, well-balanced person.  Trustworthy indeed. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
I have been opposed before for reasons similar to those found below, and all of the opponents are forgetting the hope of reform.  I am not convinced that supporting him would not help Wikipedia. I came here to help edit an encyclopedia, and the RfA process has turned that (and doing more so lately) into a political process.  When I want to run, or participate, in politics, I'll stand behind a podium, not a computer screen.  For this reason, I change my vote from '''neutral''' to '''strong support''' [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Goood editor. --
'''Да''' How do you say "support" in Russian, I wonder? ;-) --
'''Support'''. Absolutely. --'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He deserves the admin’s title more than do many who were granted it.
'''Suppot''' Quite civil despite the acrimonious nature of the topics he often edits, and quite knowledgeable. Wikipedia needs more strong content editors as admins.
'''Support''' Support very strongly. Alex Bakharev is making a great contribution in the Wikipedia Russian and Ukranian projects. He is very supportive for new wikipedians. He will fight against vandals. His admin will make Wikipedia stronger. We need more good admins.
'''Support''' I support Alex Bakharev. He is quite devoted to making sure that articles remain NPOV. --
'''Support'''. I don't often vote, but this is one where it looks like it could matter. When it comes to [[WP:NPA]], I would disqualify a candidate for a pattern of problems, or for an egregious and unambiguous attack, or for a refusal to apologize for an attack. Alex falls into none of these categories, and he's a trusted and unbiased editor. &ndash;
'''Support''' - I first came across this user when I was involved in a dispute with Ghirlandajo, and he acted very politely and professionally in that case, showing that he is calm and worthy of being an admin. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''support''' --
'''support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''  I'd like more edit summaries, but on the whole seems like a good editor.  It's not reasonable to blame someone for comments made by their acquaintences. -
'''Support'''.  (Count this one.)
'''Support'''.  I am usually quite picking in supporting an adminship candidate.  I have read through every oppose vote and have not seen a reason to vote against.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I like how he explains his actions in detail. I think he will be accountable administrator.
'''Support''' Excellent resourcefulness, lots of contributions. Ability to settle disputes rather than start them. An '''excellent''' choice to administer wikipedia! --
'''Support''' A very diplomatic user who has good organisational abilities, as well as lots of knowledge on many topics. No doubts that he will by a worthy admin.
'''Support'''. Everyone who edits controversal topics has a risk of being involved in an edit war.  Putting such wars outside is unacceptable.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Collaborated and mentored on my first "...did you know?" article.  I found him productive and easy to work with.
'''Support''' '''and the 3 votes oppose by puppeteer and his puppets should be discounted'''.--
'''Wholeheartedly support''' - we collaborated on a number of articles, a pleasure to work with. For months Alex actively participates in the (rarely noticed and usually thankless) upkeep of the Russian project which badly needs knowledgeable and intelligent admins. &larr;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' nobody's perfect, but I've worked with Alex productively and think that overall his adminship will advance Wikipedia's goals.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' seems like a good user whose nomination has unfortunately been beset by an inordinate amount of sock puppetry. Please use edit summaries more often, though.--
'''Support'''. I think he would be a fine admin.
'''Support'''. I think none of the issues put forward by those opposing are serious. However, I violently disagree witk Alex' statement "Admins seems to be supposed not to critisize each other in front of mere users. I am loyal enough to obey this rule and use e-mails, closed IRC-channels, etc." below and I'd like to urge Alex to challenge admins on their talk page whenever he disagrees with their decisions. --
'''Very Strong Oppose'''This in the case he accepts the nomination. He was involved in page [[Transnistria]] and he deleted important references, so he didn't convinced me as a good Admin.
'''Opppose''' per too few [[edit summaries]] (sorry, Alex). As far as the vote by Bonaparte above, one may check his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:Bonaparte blocklog] before considering how much weight to give to that vote. (Although my vote should not carry to much weight either, I hope Alex suceeds.)
'''Oppose'''. It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGhirlandajo&diff=33696567&oldid=33675972]. --
'''Oppose'''. Although adminship is no big deal, admins should always follow [[WP:NPA]] to a T. The diff provided by Just a tag is unconscionable. There is no excuse for personal attacks on Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' although Alex is much more balanced, tolerant and polite than his friends [[User:Irpen|Irpen]] and [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]], he sometimes help them in their Russian POV-pushing or queezing out their opponents from the community. I am afraid, his admin power will not always be used for the good of the community.--
'''Oppose''' per insulting an admin like that. Criticism is certainly welcome, but not hasty insults. RFA later ad I will support.'''
'''Oppose''' - Nothing personal against the user, because I never directly interacted with him, but he took sides with some people who are very rude, while calling the rest of us for trolls. --
'''Oppose''' - Any [[WP:NPA|attacking]], especially Admin attacking is a very bad thing. And that one was fairly recent. Too many rude comments to other users. --
'''Very Strong Oppose''' Do we need a russian push-POVer? No.
'''Very Strong Oppose'''
'''Strong Oppose'''
'''Very Strong Oppose''' '''hasty insults, too many rude comments to other users.'''
'''Very Strong Oppose''' The candidate has strong POV, he supported an offensive Russian user Ghirlandajo that insulted and got to disputes with several other contributors based out of his dislike for their nationality[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo] for example(Polish Mafia, rv idiotic Moldovan nationalism). Alex Bakharev went beyond pure support, but expressed an opinion that the user should  ''have more rights than an anonymous trolls''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGhirlandajo&diff=33838163&oldid=33835704]. Supporting a known offender, involved in serious disputes with other contributors, and wanting him to posess more rights then other users(insulted as trolls), doesn't speak good for Alex Bakharev's neutrality. --
'''Oppose''' see my question for Alex and I against division editor on people first, second and third sort --
'''Strong Oppose'''. This candidate is clearly POV-pusher, and admin rights will help him to create  non-neutral articles. Habit to insult people is not positive too. --
'''Oppose'''. Far too many doubts about this editor's calmness and balance at present. Needs to demonstrate with greater clarity that he'll be a safe pair of hands. -
'''Oppose'''. Basing on the above votes and the e-mail sent to me by [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]], which reads ''"It's a shame that Russians do not have a single own admin here, while Romanians have four"''  I vote against just to keep NPOV on wikipedia. Besides, the statement that ''This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English.'' seems a bit (only a bit, maybe lower it to en-2?) doubtful to me. Sorry Alex, nothing personal. --
'''Reluctantly Oppose''' Unfortunately the candidate did not seem to handle gracefully the powers of adminship. An administrator should be willing to explain and unwilling to provoke edit wars. Wishing the best to the Russian community of editors.--
There are plenty of admin candidates; no point in taking a risk on one with this much controversy. —
'''Oppose''' Afraid, Alex Bakharev has got a POV on the national issues, which I wouldn't like to see in an admin --
'''Opppose''' My support to the policy of neutrality.--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per AndriyK, Andrew Alexander, and Molobo. --
'''Oppose''' because I'm not sure it was correct for you to solicit users on the Russian Wikipedia to come here to participate in this vote. [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC&diff=664395&oldid=664189] [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC&diff=675297&oldid=675292#en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FAlex_Bakharev]. --
'''Oppose''' due to low use of edit summaries for major edits.
'''Neutral'''. I'll need more time to evaluate the candidate's activity.
'''Neutral'''. --
'''Super-duper-nom support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I know his work from [[WP:WPSG]] and he does it really well. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Weak Support''', good answers to all questions but #3.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support''' I know Alfakim personally from WikiProject Stargate, and in my experience he is a nice guy who responds well to criticism. I didn't see anything uncivil in the conflict mentioned in question 3. Finally, while the lack of edit summary usage is a concern, I have faith in Alfakim to respond to the complaint. Would reccomend asking the hypothetical Rick in the question below if there was a reason for his actions.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Ultra Strong Support!!!''' I have interacted with Aflakim a lot, both in the Stargate project and elsewhere.  His knowlage of guidelines, and his ideas on how to make articles follow those guidelines are amazing.  His template making skills are extreme, and has contributed greatly in that area.  I am very surprised that this RfA is going so badly.  The only major oppisition point made here is that he has focused too much on Stargate.  '''Topics of a users contributions are not a reason to oppose.  All votes that oppose souly because too many of his edits are related to Stargate are invalid.''' Other people have stated that they doubt his knowlage of wikipedia guidelines.  On the contrary, he has done more than any other project member to get the Stargate project up to the standards laid out by our policies.  I don't see how anyone can't support this canidate.
'''Support''' per above.
'''support''' good with templates? Legit!!! --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Enough edits that I can trust he won't abuse the tools, and no evidence of incivility.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> -> '''Strong Oppose''' (as explained below) - The candidate's edits in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Alfakim&namespace=4 WP namespace] are mostly in Sandbox and Wikiproject Stargate, I doubt the candidate's knowledge in policies. Also, no evidence of vandalism fighting in the last 1500 mainspace edits, suggesting lack of RC patrol activities. I doubt the candidate's abilities in completing the things said in Q1. --
'''Oppose''' per above, admins need at least basic experience with tackling vandalism. User seems to have not read [[WP:SIG]] either.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|my different standards]]: (p) contributions (including project space contributions) seem to be focused almost entirely on subjects related to Stargate, (q) low percentage of edit summaries (looking at contributions), depsite the 91% for major edits reported by the program. Also, although I ''almost never'' oppose on these grounds, (g) that signature is quite lengthy. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Mr. Turner - <b>
'''Oppose''' Careless [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alfakim&diff=61746203&oldid=61744123 destruction] of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alfakim&diff=61741938&oldid=61726606 oppose] while editing this page.  Its been 15 minutes, I don't think you noticed.  Damage to other users comments, esspecially an ''oppose'' on a page like casts a lot of doubt on care in editing when it really counts.
'''Oppose''' per Winhunter.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' I just scrolled through all your contributions and can see little evidence of vandalfighting and no evidence (series of reverts) of RC patrolling. Otherwise a great editor. I largely liked your responses to the questions. Use edit summaries more please. If you dedicate yourself to vandalfighting more I can see no reason why I wouldn't support.
'''Oppose'''. Such lack of variety is contributions, lack of warnings, lenght of old signature, and destruction of oppose all worry me. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Oppose''' more and broader experience, more edit summary usage, more vandal fighting.
'''Weak oppose'''. Would prefer a broader level of experience than Stargate alone, and more interaction with users.
'''Oppose''' per WinHunter and lack of experience in certain areas.--
'''Oppose'''. -
'''Oppose''' per Winhunter. &mdash;
'''Strongly Oppose''' per Winhunter. Also, you don't seem all that interested in becoming an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' per WinHunter. I'm sorry, but that edit screams, "I'm losing, help me out, guys!" The idea is to demonstrate that Wikipedia is losing if you're not a janitor, and that, I feel, will come with a few more months of doing what you can now in the areas you plan to tackle once you're handed the mop, bucket and keys. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience in tackling vandalism. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', Lots to worry about here, the internal spamming is not a hanging offence but not what I look for in a candidate. Stick to what you know, if you need the tools you've got plenty of pointers on what to work at. <b>

'''Reluctant Oppose''' just for now. Make a commitment to reverting vandalism, and you will have my support. You might like to check out my upcoming vandal fighting project, here: [[User:Abcdefghijklm/VandalCleanup|Vandal Cleanup]]. My advice would be to get a month or so of experience of reverting, and then I will propose you myself if I need to!!!
'''Oppose''' for low usage of minor edit summaries.--
'''Weak Oppose''' – good contributor, but needs a wider range of experience before becoming an administrator (not necessarily with anti-vandalism, though I do think experience in this area is useful) –
'''Weak Oppose''' poor minor edit summaries and low talk and user talk edits. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Weak oppose''': '''"Oppose"''' mainly because it doesn't sound like he's had sufficiently deep or broad experience in dealing with strong controversy and inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. RC patrol is not critical but it is one way to get this experience. I'm less experienced than Alphakim is but I'm not sure that I don't have more experience with this stuff than he does. Lack of edit summaries and signatures sounds nitpicky but are very important habits since it's all about trust and transparency when working with others. My own lapse this week in not signing two controversial edits looked fishy enough to make an already frazzled fellow editor go into attack mode thinking I was trying to be sneaky. My opposition is only '''"weak"''' becuase of the positive stuff I see: No evidence of incivility or imperiousness. Good work ethic. Apparently well-respected within his "community" (Stargaters).  I could care less about article topics -- when ready, he can become the Stargate sheriff. Accidental deletion of [[User:CrazyRussian]]'s opposing comment was likely a "good faith mistake" and does not factor into my decision. (I'm very careful about previewing my own mistakes before I make them; pehaps Alphakim is, too). Old signature -- who cares? ''Sounds like a great candidate when he gets more experience''<br>--
'''Oppose'''. It looks like this has already been pretty much decided, but I made a promise to myself that I was going to do an in-depth review of one random RfA today, and Alfakim's name came up, so, here goes: Having read all of the above votes, I'm still left with a question in my mind as to ''why'' this individual needs admin access.  Looking at his edit summaries isn't much help, since he tends not to use them.  Also, I'm concerned by his answer to "how he would use his admin access", where he implied that he spends a lot of time doing random vandal fighting, but then that was proven to not be correct.  As for his posting about the RfA in the Stargate Project, I don't have a problem with that, since it looked to me like a good faith "alert to interested editors", and not a way to encourage voting for or against.  I know that in the projects that I routinely participate in (such as [[WP:PWNB|WikiProject:Poland]]), I would definitely be interested if any of the editors that I know were applying for adminship, though that wouldn't always mean that I would Support them.  ;) Ultimately, though Alfakim looks like a good Wikipedian, I just don't see that there's any need to give him admin access, or that it would be of any benefit to Wikipedia as a whole. However, I do wish to commend him for his work on the Stargate articles. --
I really want to support this candidate. He is kind and courtious, and is willing to admit his mistakes. He is a tireless worker, and has shown that he is perfectly willing to do chores, even if they get mundane (I found the work on adding fair use rationales especially impressive here). The fact that he added a self-promotion into the DeviantART article concerns me. However, everybody does make mistakes. I will have to look into how this candidate reacted later today. I really want to support though. --
Per above, if this user is very dedicated to WP why are the questions unansweredd. Also, does not completely satisfy my standards. '''Neutral''' nonetheless. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' New sig is much better and the positive response is encouraging, but he has a very narrow range of interest (most recent group of non-Stargate edits I found was in April) and seems to make a fair number of mistakes that would individually be no big deal, except that they keep recurring.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I know this user quite well from the Stargate project, and he's an excellent editor, but I'm just not sure he's ready to be an admin.  Admin powers wouldn't help him in his current work, so I think it's better to wait. --
'''Neutral'''.  The guy seems alright... but I'm not sure they are ready for adminship.
I've been thinking this one over some, and I feel like I've been a bit too harsh. In no way does this user deserve this much opposition, and in the end I don't feel like it'd be a great disaster if he became an admin. I'm not confident enough to actually support, but I am going to switch to '''neutral''' on this candidate. I do encourage you to come back in a few months, and hopefully there'll be a different outcome then.
'''Neutral''' Because the French just scored in the World Cup. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''










I see no problems --
'''Support''' - more SA admins!!!
Holy '''cliché''' crap support!
'''Support''' - solid record.
'''Support'''.
Strongly. From what I've read Alphax has a good understanding of the project.
'''Support''' Solid contributions and has been here long enough to gain some experience.--
'''Support'''. Alphax is a very hard worker and deserves to be an admin for his contribution.
'''Extreme "What more can I say than OH-MY-GOD!" support'''. Per cliche (if you hadn't guessed). What a fantastic guy. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' one of the editors I'm happy to accept the edit summary from without looking at the edit. Sorry I didn't realise you needed a nominator. --
'''Support''' I don't usually vote on RfA's, but all my contacts with Alphax have been positive, and ITHAWO.  I can't see him misusing the admin tools.
'''Support''' Very good editor who's is already a Wiki editor!
'''Support'''. Has solid amount of contributions, and has been around long enough to know the admin process.
'''Support''' It is time to give this user the mop. Has a lot of experience. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', demonstrates familiarity with admin process, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Probably can't write [[WP:FA|brilliant prose]], but shit, neither can I. — <small>Mar. 8, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[13:34] <
'''About Effing Time Support''' - for a hundred million reasons.
'''Support''' - I've known him for a while, he's an OK guy. The opposers have really silly reasons that do not convince me that i'm wrong. --
Support - ridiculously qualified, a hard worker and eminently sane. -
'''
'''Support''' ZOMG David Gerard nomination! <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support'''.  Self-nom isn't a valid reason to oppose, nor is opinion on userboxes (userboxes is becoming the "abortion" issue of wikipedia civil society isn't it?).  This user will do a good job.&mdash;
'''Support''' as per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|criteria]].
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' - A look at his contribs shows that Alphax 2 does a heck of a lot of gruntwork. From what I saw before my eyes glazed over, each edit was a small improvement to Wikipedia.  He's already got the mop and bucket well in hand.  Let's give him the rest of the janitorial tools so he can improve his support of Wikipedia.  --
'''Support''', because every time another turdy userbox is deleted, a fairy gets its wings.
'''Support''' - it's past due time for this user to get a mop.  --
'''Strong Support''' after edit conflect, I opposed him in his first RFA because his views with AFD, but that was back in October and he improved much by then, I could have nominated him myself. And with the userboxes, I don't see him get fully involed by them, and I'm positive that he will not abuse his tools. Thanks --
'''Support''' Enough already with the opposing "because this user dislikes userboxes too much". how about you judge them based on their qualifications for adminship and whether they can be trusted with admin tools? I see no reason to oppose Alphax, and in fact, I thought he was already an admin.--
'''Strong support'''. I don't agree with his "too many userboxes" rationale, but that has very little to do with how he will use his admin tools. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' - had a friendly and constructive interaction over ancient Chadian kingdoms recently with this wikienthusiast. -
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''. Should be a good admin, though I hope we'll not see the AfD dramas promised in the last RfA.
'''Support''', as per cliché.
'''Support''' credentials check out ok. --
'''Strong Support''' I supported first RfA, see nothing to change my mind --
'''Support''' per Nom :) --
'''Maaaate''', 'e'll be as competent as a dingo's tonker, strewth, and flat out like a lizard drinkin' whoile 'e raights the wrongs o' this 'ole bloody system, eh, as good an admin as any, bar none.
'''Support''', though I usually prefer candidates who do the majority of their work in the mainspace, Alphax has already shown enormous dedication to and proficiency in the internal workings of the project, which is, after all, what makes a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable and helpful; one of those adminly people that shouldn't be denied what is essentiall no big deal for reasons that just aren't that important in the long run.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per answer to my question.
'''Support''' --
Already acts like an administrator.  No reason not to give him the tools. &#8212;
'''Support''' Looks fine to me. --

'''Support'''. I'm not an anti-userboxer but I don't think that every admin has to agree with me. The minor-edits thing is not so good, but chalk that up to having the default-to-minor-edit box checked, which the nominee has promised to uncheck. The AfD closing thing, hmmm, well he has indicated that he's not much into closing AfDs anyway, and we do want to avoid deleting salvagage articles when possible; I don't see him as likely to go overboard there. And on the plus side - Excellent answers to the questions, good experienced editor, previous admin experience, looks willing to do the scutwork.
'''Support''' Will make an excellent admin.--
'''Support''' as per all the above reasons, he'd make a good administrator. <small>

'''Support''', great contribs, I don't care about userbox views and the minor edit issue is resolved.  He looks willing and able to handle the scut. --
'''Support''' looks OK, don't see a reason to deny.
'''Support'''. This is sort of a super-support, but not quite, yet so. Yay! [[User:Bratsche|<font color="#669933">Bratsch</font>]]
'''Support'''. It'd be impossible not to (and good luck, buddy....you're better than what they say). -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. This dude is on OTRS. Admins need to listen to him very carefully and have to do what he asks anyway. Hmmm,  I wonder if maybe he might just have what it takes to be an admin? That and no fair, I was going to nominate him! [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC) - Also support because he opposed people with userboxes, as per Grue. ;-) <ducks and runs>
'''Support''' For OTRS work alone... a terrible, terrible job to volunteer to do. Er... that more people should volunteer for! [[m:OTRS|Sign up today]]! ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
Yay.--

'''Support'''
'''Support''' &ndash; Though some of the information mentioned in the "oppose" section gives me pause, this editor does vastly more good than bad. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Whilst I have a policy against voting in support of people from Adelaide, I've decided to support Alphax because he has agreed to move to another city should he be given adminship. -
--
'''Support''' Has plenty of experience. IMHO, the oppose votes have absolutely nothing to do with entrusting Alphax with sysop privilleges. Quite frankly, voting oppose because Alphax "opposes people because they have too many userboxes" is going against everything RfA should stand for. --
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support''' I personally like this user. He always left a good impression on me. Althought the thing about the AFD votes and such below worry me. Other than that, I don't see a problem making him admin.
'''Support'''.  Let's all be happy. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''': Alphax has proven his dedication to the project, and has long been admin material. I trust his judgement.<!-- (And, just quitely, it saddens me that those with axes to grind on the deletion and userboxen fronts would sabotage an RFA for illegitimate reasons)--> --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''', though I may disagree with some of his actions/beliefs, he's a solid candidate.
'''Support''', What's not to like?
'''Support'''. Great candidate. I think userboxes usage is too trivial a thing to consider while voting on RfAs.
'''support''':  Pitching in at the help desk and earning the endorsement of David Gerard and Clockwork Soul pushes this candidate past the tipping point, plus the fact that moderation in all good things, even userboxes, is not a bad thing.
'''Extreme [[Thunderwing]] support'''. Long overdue for adminship.
'''Support''', after balancing the good work by the candidate and my personal recollections against the valid point raised by those opposing. --
I don't often vote on RfAs, but the ridiculousness of the opposition to someone who is clearly very suited to being an admin has pushed me to vote here.
'''Support''' I'm surprised he isn't already an administrator. <small>
'''Support''', and note the absurdity of opposing someone because of userboxes.  This is an encyclopedia, not a McDonald's play land.
'''Moderate Support'''. Although I initially held a neutral position. I have now, due to the reasons of support, placed my vote within the favor of your adminship. I agree with the the reasons of opposing your appointment and I advise you to look into the "criticisms" other users have provided you with. You will succeed.
'''Support''': Disliking userboxes is not a reason against adminship.
'''Support''': No clear issues and good, levelheaded discussion on the mini-controversies on this page. Oppose votes seem to fall into 2 camps - a) Driven by his putative opinion on userboxes, and b) based on his answers to questions on his RfA 6 months ago. To a) my response is that there is more to WP than userboxes and I don't care what he thinks about userboxes, to b) 6 months is a long time; all the discussion seems to be about perceived naivite to answers on some questions there which is hardly relevant with 6 mos more experience under his belt.
'''Support''' excellent editor and we need more like him.
'''Oppose''' opposes people because they have too many userboxes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Merovingian&diff=prev&oldid=35016226] , and generally hates userboxes too much. Marks all edits as minor even if they aren't. Sorry, cannot support.
'''Oppose''': self nomination; doesn't explain what's changed between now and the previous RfA.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''' after reading [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax|previous]] nomination. Also, marking nearly all edits as minor, even ones that make changes in meaning, is not a good practice, even if [[WP:ME]] is not binding.
'''Oppose''' per link Grue posted. Opposing someone (for ''arbcom'' no less) on the basis of "too many userboxes" strikes me as immature, and well, annoying. (If Alphax has a response I will certainly be willing to listen.) Also, the previous nom was rather disheartening, though I realize things can change in 5 months. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Caring about userboxes too much (on either side of the issue) will make me wary of anyone for a little while.  Now is not the time for promotion, since events after the last RfA don't make me feel more comfortable with this user having a mop.
'''Oppose''' Userboxes are the equilivent of stickers on a student's binder, and opposing somoene for that reason is like saying "You get an F for having too many stickers on your binders". Can't support an admin with that attitude. As well please mark minor edits if they are minor, and don't make them if they are major edits.
'''Oppose.''' Too much involvement in the userbox issue.  While I think the whole userbox issue is a big waste of time for both sides, at this point I think there is already enough damage to the Wikipedia community occuring over this issue and would vote to oppose the promotion of any editor overly involved in the issue on either side.  Come back and try again after this has died down. &ndash;
'''Strong object.''' --
'''Oppose''' per Grue and Xoloz.  Having userboxes or not doesn't prevent people from being able to edit well.  Also, per Xoloz, it's probably not wise to elect new admins who are involved at one extreme or another of the userbox affair until the userbox controversy has settled. --
'''Oppose''' per Grue, Xoloz, and Idont Havaname.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose'''. I still have the jitters from last time, and this is compounded by the userbox thing. Note that I'm not opposing ''because'' of userboxes-or-not, although I think it is a valid reason in the prevailing climate. It's because it's apparent that Alphax is unlikely to be averse to using admin powers to effect change by fiat and we've seen how that's not usually good (it is not always bad, but it generally causes much avoidable bloodshed). Comments on the mailing list of the type that say "oh, those lowlifes who edit AfD, I wish we could bury them in their own slime" (not a quote) but declining to actually do anything editorial about it make me feel queasy &mdash; a new set of tools and responsibility provide direct such opportunities. Alphax isn't the only one to use the mailing list in such manner (indeed Jimbo does the same, even targetting individual established editors) but that doesn't ease my worries or make it ok. -
'''Strong Oppose''' This is the same editor who, on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alphax previous RFA] threatened to close AFD debates as "keep" unless they had more than 10 voters!  Also, I agree with Splash.
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a good guy--probably--but far too few mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' - The minor edit thing and afd thing. -
'''Oppose''' due to invalid use of minor edits, and the likelihood of him joining into another holy war on userboxes. See what Grue said. For the record, I have no issues with edit count or self-nom-ness.
'''Oppose''' per Grue, Splash, and Stifle
'''Oppose''' comments and edit reviews convince me more time is needed
'''Oppose'''per above comments.(Plus, too few userboxes).
'''Oppose''' Has had trouble maintaining civility and badly overuses minor edits. Also seems a great risk for "policy by admin decree", which is a bad thing. —<b><font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose''' per Cuivienen
'''Oppose'''.  Previous RFA looks like it was too contentious, and I'm not sure we need more contentious admins.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Splash & others. Too contentious.
'''Oppose''' because of what Splash and others said.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Splash. Focuses on too much not having to do with an Encyclopedia (see first neutral vote). '''
'''Oppose''' -- Nominee has many good points and is an important contributor. Let's cherish him at that level. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' per Splash, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Has made recent anti policy statements.
'''Neutral''' Though 1000 edits in the article namespace is decent, as a proportion of his total edits (roughly 16%) it is far too low. We are building an encyclopedia here and even admins should contibute.
'''Neutral''' <s>I don't like the chatter here from David Gerard, not necessary in an RfA. It was made as a self-nomination, let it run as such. </s> Solid record although article editing is low, WP is an encyclopedia rather than a web-community.
'''Neutral''', sorry. Somehow I am not convinced to support yet. Perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''', can't support because of very petty voting habits (see Grue's oppose), can't oppose because he's a good editor. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Neutral''' Plenty of edits and relatively experienced but extremely but voting policy and small things, I dont' mind him not liking user boxes, its not like he's going to everybody's userpage and deleting their boxes, he just jokingly put that he doesnt' like too many userboxes, we shouldnt' blow that out of proportion! I'm edging towards support but don't feel strongly enough, sorry, you'll probably get enough votes anyways to be one so don't worry. --
'''Neutral'''. A good contributor, but his answer to Dbiv's question didn't really answer the concern: is Alphax going to radically uproot AFD by closing 9d-0k as "no consensus"? I share some of Grue's concerns as well, but they are not really all that serious. I'll sit this one out.
'''Neutral'''. Alphax is a good user but the oppose voters have convinced me to be unconvinced.
'''Neutral''', would support except for ubx issue. -
'''Neutral''' I don't know the candidate well enough considering some of the issues which have been raised. --''Signed by:''





'''Extremely Strong Support''' No question about it. --
'''Strong Support''' per nom. - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. If you get vandalized as much as his userpage (and photo), you have to be doing something right.
'''Really annoying, long drawn-out insanely-praising''' <!--do not correct this speling error or the one following it, please --> '''lots of boldced words that everyone will have to look at all week support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose + Strong Oppose = Powerful Support'''
'''Strong support''' as nominator --

'''Support''' as per all of the above!
'''Support''' per nom. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Strong support''' Sameer has not mentioned about his helpfulness so let me vouch for that. Regular worker at the helpdesk --
'''Super-duper strong support'''!! --<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Shreshth91--><span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Looking good to me.
'''Support''' Seems to tick all the boxes ;) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' Go for it.
'''Strong support''' per nom -
'''Support''' Looks like an extremely strong candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support.'''--
'''S-U-P-E-R S-T-R-O-N-G S-U-P-P-O-R-T''' --[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom. Very impressive. :)
'''Support''' Has the right stuff
'''Support''' Not only does he meet [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]] but he goes beyond them! --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' A blessing for Wikipedia. --
This was long due. --
'''Very Strong Support''': I know him for long, almost from the time he chose to become a wikipedian. A real gem among us! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Any enemy of the Vandals is a friend of mine and a welcome admin.  --
'''Undescribably strong support''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deon555&diff=prev&oldid=64074850 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deon555&diff=next&oldid=64074850 this]. This is just the kind of things that strengthen my faith in us. Dear Ambux, no matter what - never change, please. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>

'''Support''' Seems a very good candidate. --
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana"> ~
'''Support''' great user. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' His name and picture were used by an IP to vandalize my user page. Vandals know of him; he appears to be doing the right things.
'''Support''' Almost 600 portal edits?! I've been searching for just 1 to make for a month now, just to have it on my list :P -
'''Support''' good editor.
'''Cleared for adminship''', without any further doubt. Interactions with this user suggest this user is able to maintain a positive interaction with others, and is able to maintain a strong attitude (no pun intended), even through the toughest of times. --
'''Support'''. A very good distribution of edits, and I see no sign of incivility in contribs. This user would've gotten my support a month ago.
'''Wish-I-could've-beat-nom-Support'''  Pleasure to deal with.  Edits are well distributed.  Cool under fire from vandals.  Could use more time here, but a fine editor, enough to see my support too.
'''Support'''. Sound candidate.
'''Support''' excellent candidate per nom.
'''Support''' His promotion will have a positive result for Wikipedia. <b><font color="teal">
'''Hrm, I thought he was already an admin Support''' I suppose this might be a bit of piling on and I think that Wikipedia will do well to give Ambuj.Saxena the extra buttons <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Full support'''. User's contribs look good, and I feel we need more admins knowledgeable on India-related topics.--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''.  Everything that was said in the nomination, along with your answers to the questions, show me you'd be a great administrator.
'''Strong support'''. Got to know him with respect to his edits on [[Indian Institutes of Technology]], and didn't find anything wrong with him back then, and his contributions have widened since that time, which can only be a good thing. Hope you do a great job!
'''Support'''. Looks like a great candidate.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''support''' per all of the above &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Support'''; hard worker and handles stress and criticism well.  The IIT nomination was a grueling experience, but he did a great job of working with everyone on it. --
'''Support'''; everything looks good; I expect him to be an excellent admin.
Oh yes, '''support''' of course. -
'''Suppport''' - Handles situations very well.  Looks good. —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' good contributor, should be a good admin. -

'''Support''' Support. How could I not support? Gimme a reason to not support. I don't want to know the reason anymore. I support. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
~
'''Support''' seems solid.
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'' You have my support, you would be great as a SYSOP! Good luck <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor. The oppose vote is an example of where Ambuj did the right thing and the user didn't like it. Oh well, can't win em all. -
'''Support''', although I could've waited till early October. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(

'''Support''' He has surprised me with his ability to remain diplomatic under the most pressing situations (where usually I am ready to become confrontational).  Very much an admin material.  --
'''Support''' I've seen nothing to disuade me from endorsing this request, keep up the good work!
'''Support'''. Good contributor with an excellent knowledge of the policies. And hey, wait a minute...he shares my birthday too! -
'''Support''' Hv been inactive for a while, else, i'd have nominated him for RfA myself. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Extremely strong Support''' a very helpful wikipedian, would make an excellent admin.--
No reason not to. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''': edits look sensible and I haven't seen any reason to suggest this candidate would be difficult to deal with as an Admin.
'''Support''' the compiling, into a venerable tome, of the many Good Words with which he has graced WP. Good admin material.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''', without reservations. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''', great contribuater to the CVU team. :) --
'''Strong Support''', and everyone goes :o whaaa!? lol, even though i disagreed with u on my RfA, your definetly A-Class Admin material. and I do believe i said (in ref to RfA) ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Archive-5#Friends I'm sure i'll get there one day, and I hope you do too]'', I can't see it happening if i don't vote! Good on u Ambuj, I wish you luck ;). --
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' : deserves adminship. Has helped in PR and FAC of many articles, providing great judgement. --
'''Support'''. Someone should really close this, you're a shoe-in.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Strong Support'''.'''
'''Strong Support''' per nom. That's a '''''large''''' number of portal edits.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and personal interaction. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
One Article to write, One Article for peer review, One Article be made FA '''and the RFA shall bind him.''' -- '''
'''Support''' per nom, et al.
'''Support''' I'm jealous, IIT-KGP article is really good as per this chap's edits. Where are all the IITK alumni?
'''Support''' A valuable contributor.  The objections raised by SlimVirgin are not valid in my opinion.
'''Support''' per many votes above from many voters who generally use a fine toothed comb. He has my trust.
'''Support''' per lots of the above; a diligent and conscientious editor.--
'''Support''', seems to be a good candidate, opposing arguments do not convince me
Support, as I find the reasons for the opposition mildly interesting, and legitimate concerns though I may disagree with their meaning and importance, but wildly blown out of proportion by bandwagonning. There is no cause here great enough to deny this fine editor adminship in my opinion.
'''Support''' Had earlier opposed due to concerns raised by Slimvirgin, but upon further thought the matter does not look extreme enough to merit an oppose vote. Concerns about language skills seem overblown since AS's English seems to be more than adequate for the task.
'''[[WP:100]] Support''' - I don't think has been closed yet... '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2</font>]]—
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' if not too late. Has made solid contributions to the project, and while he may have made some mistakes causing the oppose votes, the whole thing generally shows that he is willing to discuss and admit mistakes.
'''Support''', I think he shall learn from the comments and be sure to be flexible in the future. No suggestion that he will misuse the admin tools.
'''Support''', edits don't seem to show any tendency to want to misuse the tools. Disagreement over the applicability of a particular footnoting style was valid, but the bandwagon opposes smack of some sort of non-native-speaker bias (I shouldn't feel that way, but there are a lot of names in there I don't recognize). (''::edit:: And I just had to come back here to fix my own typo, and I'm a native speaker!'') -- ''
'''Support''' My judgement is that this editor will not abuse admin tools. --
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with his English.--
'''Support'''. The issue is whether the nominee has a use or need for the tools and if the nominee can be trusted with them. For this answer, I believe this editor could use the tools and can be trusted with them. If I had the ability to raise one eyebrow, the concerns raised by SlimVirgin would not cause me to do so.
'''Support'''. i looked at the objections cited in the oppose section below and non seemed to be bad enough to warrant not supporting.  While nitpicking to an extreme is a bad thing s/he did at least try and justify the position. A willingness to express ones opinion is a good thing. I disagree with some of AS's opinions but that is neither here nor there.  I think I could work with this editor despite our differences.
'''Support'''. I do agree to an extent with both of the reasons for the opposing voters. However, I don't see anything indicating this user wouldn't be a good admin or would abuse or misuse the tools. -
'''Late support''' he nitpicked a FAC? Well, that never happens.... Strong contributions outweigh an occasional minor mistake.
'''Oppose''' Lacks judgement , balance and maturity .Example :in debate on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Kan Singh Parihar]] he  considers a former judge and  ALSO a former Vice Chanacellor of [[Jai Narain Vyas University]] not notable enough .Obiviously needs time to learn and develop .
'''Oppose'''. Given the numbers, this will end up as just as a protest vote, but I want to make it anyway. I recently encountered Ambuj for the first time during the nomination for a [[Rudolf Vrba|featured article]] I partially wrote, and I came away with a very negative impression of him; in fact, my first thought was: "I hope this guy never stands for adminship," then I saw this nomination. He opposed the FA nomination of a very carefully researched, 11,000-word article on the grounds that it didn't use citation templates, and didn't link dates the way he likes them to be linked. His comments are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FRudolf_Vrba&diff=66719836&oldid=66334987 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FRudolf_Vrba&diff=66905517&oldid=66825111 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FRudolf_Vrba&diff=66908918&oldid=66907744 here], and after it was awarded FA status, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FRudolf_Vrba&diff=67037134&oldid=66929487 changed his object] to something called "strongly abstain," whatever that means. He then [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Changing_the_rules_of_the_game|complained about me on the talk page]], implying that, after his opposition, I had edited policy pages to make it easier for the nom to pass, even though it had already passed. I have rarely encountered such rigidity of thinking, small-mindedness, disrespect for other people's hard work, and such a fast presumption of bad faith. I want to stress that I'm ''not'' opposing because he voted against the nomination; it was the way he did it, the reasons he did it, his misunderstanding of policies and guidelines, his presumption of bad faith, the lack of coherence of his opposition (some of which I still don't understand); and, above all, his bizarre "complaint" about me afterwards. The worrying thing is that this was him during his adminship nomination, when you'd think he'd be on his best behavior. Clearly, he seems to think there's no need for best behavior, and that's a concern too.
'''Oppose''' for the reasons listed above.  I realize this is also just a protest vote, but Ambuj's behavior in regards to the Featured Article (which I also did a fair bit of work on) shocked me. Ambuj seems to think that the purpose of Wikipedia is to promote conformity and rigid enforcement of template use, rather than the production of great encyclopedia articles.
'''Oppose''' based on the immature and very non-admin-like behavior described and linked above. --
'''Oppose''' - evidence is that he's a prolific editor with a helpful attitude, but we already have enough admins with vaguely deletionist tendencies and too much confidence in their own judgment. There are many good, and even great, editors who don't make good admins, and this is one of them. --
'''Oppose''' per SV - not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. I'm a perfectionist myself, and I understand this attitude, bur an admin must be able yo distinguish between what is critical and what is not. Many featured articles do not use citation templates, but that is not a sufficient reason for their being stripped of the featured status.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. I hope that these protest votes will help the user see that while formatting has an important place in the constructive article, it certainly shouldn't become an obstacle to the production of quality content. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per slimvirgin. --
'''Oppose''' because of concerns raised above.
'''Oppose''' While this person seems pretty good at being an editor, I think he would make an awful sysop. I have seen what happens when editors who show such intransigence and spitefullness become administrators. I feel that his response to Slimvirgin's vote proved exactly what she was saying- That he voted against featured status of a good article for unclear reasons that seemed to be based upon tiny perceived infractions of wikipedia policy, he has also shown a remarkable disdain for good faith. If this is the behavior of someone who is up for adminship then I don't want to imagine what might occur when he (as an administrator) is involved in a content dispute with an editor who does not have such privledges. However, I do not want to lose a potentially useful editor from the project, I just don't want to see him "succumb" to adminship.-
'''Rather mild but stern oppose''' on the basis that from what I've seen, this otherwise relatively productive and useful editor's grasp of English is, in my judgment, insufficient to qualify for adminship on [[:en:]] at this time.  I think the objections on the basis of his "odd" behavior on FAC are ... well, well-founded but probably not a sign that the guy's gonna turn into a vandal with a few extra tools.  '''''That said''''', I'm still going to have to respectfully oppose.  Admins on [[:en:]] should have an excellent grasp of English, as well as good performance, and I see grammatical, syntax and spelling errors in practically every one of his edits.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]. I hope I'm not being insensitive, but clear communication is an essential tool; an admin ''must'' have this at his disposal. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per Tomer. --
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and Tomer.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Strongly Oppose''' his nomination for adminship not because he recently supported an article for deletion  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justice_Kan_Singh_Parihar&oldid=65710791] (In debate on Wikipedia:Article for deletion/Justice Kan Singh Parihar), but due to his immature approach and lack of ability to judge the facts on its merit. Recently, he altered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tle=List_of_notable_people_from_Jodhpur&diff=66549511&oldid=66449458]list of notable people from Jodhpur [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_people_from_Jodhpur&oldid=66449458] without having any knowledge of their notability. His act is revengeful and amounts to vandalism. It is apparent that he is doing this because I totally disagreed with his views on the above said article for deletion. A person for WP adminship should have an unbiased thinking and maturity. His adminship should not be solely based on the number of people supporting him. It might be misleading.(
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.--
'''Oppose''' as per SlimVirgin and Tomer.
'''Strong Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.  Constructive comments are good; sinking FACs because of minor details is not.  If an excellent article has a few silly formatting problems, then {{[[Template:sofixit|sofixit]]}}! That's the wiki way, which is something I rather think we want our admins to follow. --
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin - [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Vrba|diff=66908918&oldid=66907744}} this] probably examplifies the "rigidity of mind" alluded to.
'''Oppose for now'''. Still quite fresh candidate (2006). Would like to see some polishing of communication and prioritising skills... --
''Oppose'' per SlimVirgin. Rigidity needs relaxing; this should come with more experience. --
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Change to Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. I am sorry. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. ←
'''Oppose''' not ready yet. I agree with Olve.
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Oppose''' per concerns expressed above.
'''Oppose''' per SV. That segment on FAC talk was unpromising.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. --
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Please do not harrass me about explaining my vote. --
'''Oppose''' -- Oppositions sound genuine. Some people with lack of maturity and depth may hurt wikipedia’s reputation. It appears that this guy is trying to control it with his own interest. Bureaucrats need to look in to this seriously.(
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Strong Oppose''' due to the reasons-cannot-be-given extension. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of a candidate, adminship should not result from an artificially skewed RfA. <small>EDIT:</small> In any event, the candidate fails my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]] through not having been on Wikipedia for at least 6 months prior to the nomination
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and TShilo12.
'''Oppose''' - per SlimVirgin.
'''Neutral.''' I'd like to see a little more time on the 'pedia.
'''Neutral''' per 1ne.--
'''Neutral''' per 1ne.
'''Neutral''' per some concerns above. --
'''Neutral''' per concerns that were raised. I still think the user is a good editor, but adminiship requires diplomatic skills as well. --
'''Neutral'''. Falls 3 days short of my 6 month minimum for support.
'''Neutral''' I've seen great things from Ambuj and I personally haven't run into any trouble with him, but SlimVirgin has a point, especially with that comment on the FAC talk page regarding her. That was not good at all. -- '''
'''Strongly Abstain''' (per [[SlimVirgin]] of course). Ahem. :-). AS seems to be a nitpicker, which is not a capital crime, and on FA would probably even be a good thing, but he's also not as gracious in reversing himself as I would like. Not an oppose, however, since he's actually right about criticising SV's actions on editing [[WP:DATE]], which does take courage, as SV is a well known and active admin, and not so good at taking criticism herself. Would support if he were a bit more gracious in accepting criticism or being overruled when wrong.
'''N'''eutral. Not sure if the exchange with SlimVirgin should mean admin status is withheld, but some [[WP:AGF]] would be an essential flavouring.
Change to '''Neutral''' per  [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]], JoshuaZ and nom's response on RFA talk. [[User:Ambuj.Saxena|Ambuj.Saxena]] please remember to [[WP:AGF]] in the future.
'''Neutral'''. Can't lean to support just yet. --
'''Neutral''' per Kingboyk. I can't support or oppose based on everything together.
'''Support''' as nom of course (see, you have a support, now you have to accept) --
Well, of course. :-)
'''Meta Support'''
'''Support''' from a fellow [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|gnome]] :) - '''
'''Extremely strong support'''. Amgine is very experienced on Wikimedia and would be a great admin on enwiki. Jimbo only has 2000 edits, you know. --
'''Support''' This is one of those cases where the normal criteria don't apply. We can ask "is the candidate going to abuse the tools" no "is the candidate going to misuse the tools out of incompetence or ignorance" no and "will the project benefit from the user being an admin" definitely yes. So support.
'''Strong support''' - as JoshuaZ says, this is a case where regular criteria don't apply. She handles [[OTRS]] requests, IIRC, and part of her "inactivity" is explained by the fact that she asks other admins to fulfill the requests she gets, as I know from my own experience. I don't have any reason to believe that she would misuse admin tools, when she has been given access to something significantly more sensitive and has not betrayed Wikimedia's trust. Remember: ''Adminship is no big deal''.
'''Support''' [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] put it perfectly.
'''Support'''; wow, you've been here two days longer than me (two years and a month) and not yet an admin.  Obvious support.  I think you do great work.
'''Support''' - I see no reason to worry about a 'low' edit count. This user seems sensible. -
'''Support'''. <font color="AE1C28">
Can't see a reason not to. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Meets my criteria, as well as being very experienced on wikimedia and wikinews anyway. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Cabal Support''' - Already in all the right channels.  --
'''Double edit conflict support''' without reservations.  Edit counts are no big deal.
Yup, '''support''' - seems trustworthy and dedicated.
'''Support''', looks good. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
To be honest, I always thought (s)he was an admin. As far as I'm concerned (s)he is active.
'''Support'''. To modify the cliche, I knew he wasn't an admin but always thought he ought to be.
'''Support''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' - good to be able to at last! --
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''', silly question, of course I do.
'''Support''' - having seen him a lot on Wiktionary, I feel confident in saying that he is a reliable, trustworthy and nice individul. Enjoy the mop :). --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user. I bet he can handle Wikipedia adminship as well. :)&#160;—
More candidates like this one, please<sup>TM</sup>! '''Support''' (like I was going to go ''against'' Mindspillage's co-nom...) Seriously, if ever there was a candidate that better exemplified why edit-count-itis is a bad thing, I can't think of whom it might be... '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support''' I hope you'll increase your level of activity.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I've interacted with this user in a number of places and capacities, and am confident in his temperament and competence. In addition, it would be sheer insanity to think that Kat Walsh would endorse a bad candidate.
Blah blah blah yeah.--
'''Support''' $user is not already an admin? &ndash;


Happy to '''Support''' - <b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)  ''Addendum:'' I'm still shocked that Amgine withdrew his admin nomination on en.wiktionary.org after the user GYRE created numerous sockpuppets, and recruited some friends simply to vote against him there.  The sockpuppets' votes would not have counted (of course) and none of the "GYRE friends" were regular contributors there.  The various flame wars they started were all discredited (e.g. it wasn't a self nomination, the allegations of abuse on wikinews were all false, the allegations of wheel-warring were all false, the allegations of inappropriate deletions were all false.)  These same enemies of Amgine (on en.wiktionary) seem to be enemies of all Wikis, opposed to the enormous difference Wikis are making for the entire world.  Why they specifically target Amgine remains a mystery to me.  Is he that good at exposing their deceit?  Perhaps so, if the vandalism resulting from his nomination on en.wiktionary.org is any indication.  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 17:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)  ''Correction:'' The primary opponent was Wiktionary User: Primetime, in addition to GYRE.  On en.wiktionary, User:Primetime has since been permanently blocked from the English Wiktionary for massive systematic copyright violations, numerous sockpuppets, ''tor'' attacks, and general misconduct.  --[[User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]] 17:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)  As an '''''unrelated''''' sidenote, the corresponding [[User:Primetime]] has now been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, as per [[WP:AN#User:Primetime]].  --
'''Support without any reservation whatsoever.''' Amgine is an excellent contributor, with superior understanding of Wikimedia and it's community; to deny adminship to this candidate is simply inexcusable. The work that Amgine does for Wikimedia, especially on OTRS and the press team, is simply extraordinary; granting adminship will only help with the great work already being done. '''Amgine has my complete, unequivocal, and unconditional support.''' [[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] •
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - understands the community in its widest sense. --
'''Support.'''- We need more Wikignomes behind the admin scene.--
'''Support.''' I know this user is trustworthy. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Needed for working on living people bios, defamation complaints, and other sensitive issues. It makes no sense to oppose tools to makes this important job easier.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.'''  Have had positive experiences with Amgine.  Cross-wiki love, too!
'''Support''' Amgine's a worthwhile admin at Commons.  He's responsible.  There's no need to oppose him (except to get him to work more elsewhere!)
'''Support''' - on reflection, and after discussing this user's activities with Mindspillage, I feel this user ''would'' benefit from having administrator tools, so I am changing my "oppose" to a "support". The edit count does not accurately represent the user's work behind the scenes. Edit count is not everything. If I recall correctly, I only had around a thousand edits in total to my name when I was made an admin. -
'''Support''' excellent user, both on Wikipedia and on the other Wikimedia projects.
'''Support'''.  A great user on Wikinews, Meta, and anywhere else he works --
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support'''. This is one of our top wikimedia people. He has already shown time and time again on many many wikis that he is up to the job of being an admin, and in fact can excel and inspire others to greatness. (sorry dude, it's true!)
'''Support''' :) sometimes I vote to be not dogmatic. My dogma is not to vote, I hate votes, but I know you will do good :)
'''Support'''.  Amgine is a dedicated vandal-fighter and a big help in OTRS.  This is a no-brainer. -
'''Support''' - he'll need it. Doubted to vote oppose, as he has lot's of other stuff to do ;)
'''Support''' - always helpful, always watchful, I trust him, he will use those few extra buttons in a good way --
Definite '''support'''.  Trustworthy, dedicated, not enigmatic at all.
'''Support''' - a valuable contributor on various Wikimedia projects. Absolutely no reason to expect abuse the buttons. The edit count is a totally meaningless measure in this case. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Support''' Helpful Wikignome. Trust him to use admin powers well. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I have minor concerns based on the wheel war at Wikinews, but based on the candidate's statements on this page and the statements in support of him I'm happy to trust him with admin tools here.-
'''Conditional Support'''.  Changed from oppose, see compromise discussion in comments section.
'''Great Support''' If he has Tawker's support, that's good enough for me. <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
'''Support''' Edits are enough for me.  There is no need to be involved with wikipolitics before becoming an admin. Article contributions are what matter in my books. <small>
'''Support'''  Giving him admin powers would help the project.  Given who nominated him, I trust that he won't misuse them.  [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Support''' After reading the comments on this AfD, I am confident we should give this to Amgine, in this unusal case.
'''Support''' - the project stands to gain greatly by having Amgine have sysop rights. I don't believe it stands to lose by doing so.
'''Support''' Don't forget wikinews through :)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Changed from oppose. The real questions on a RfA are ability and commitment. User has more than demonstrated those quailities. As to the war-wheeling, hopefully that won't recur. If the problem recurs, it can be dealt with. As to power, with about 1,000 admins, 1,000,000+ articles and 1,000,000+, no one can admin can hold "too much".
'''Support'''. I held off on this one for a while, but I think I can support. Low edit count is not an issue, and the issues on WikiNews also seem to be fairly old (two months is plenty of time to reform, and it seems that the actions discussed had taken place ong before then). I just hope I've made the right choice as this RfA is really close. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support''' the nom text itself made me see that this user is worthy of the mop. [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>
'''Support''' in my experience I've found Amgine to be insightful, fair, and reasonable. Even when we disagreed he directed our conversation to productive ends and deeper understanding. His work with Wikimedia has shown dedication and clear judgment. There are at least a half dozen other admins who will perform administrative actions on his behalf with only his assurance that the action is correct... To deny Amgine adminship would simple insert a productivity reducing and error inducing step into the process. To deny Amgine adminship would be a silent agreement that we'd rather our decisions be made by machines and the mindless processes that drive them. --
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amgine&diff=51551959&oldid=51551857 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amgine&diff=51598405&oldid=51595135 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amgine&diff=51623973&oldid=51613095 this]. —''
'''Oppose''' I am shocked by this one; it's not a self-nom! It's okay if one is not "the highest edit counter around here," but this is far too low for my standards. Just over a thousand edits? And about half of those coming during November 2004? No recent active months? Come back in mid- to late-August and I'll most likely support, especially since Tawker, a respected sysop, already has the confidence that you would be a great addition to the admin community. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' 'refused a lot on Wiktionary' is not something that instills me with confidence.
'''Oppose''' -- I'm kind of embarassed to have voted before finding out about [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration#Wheel_war_of_April_19-20 this RfAr] on Wikinews. I'm no longer so sure that this user should be trusted with admin privileges here. Wikipedia is a much larger wiki than Wikinews and if the user isn't patient enough there to settle that disagreement without issuing what looks to be an unwarranted one-month block, he will have trouble here. — ''
'''Oppose'''.  Contributions to en: seem a little light, regardless of work done on another project (this isn't meta: ).  Only a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=25&target=Amgine&namespace=4 small handful] of project edits in the last '''year'''. —
'''Oppose''' per [[User:GT|GT]] and reading the RfAr on Wikinews.  I don't think Wikipedia needs people who wheel-war.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Weak oppose''' for wheelwarring although the recommendations from Mindspillage and Tawker alleviate this somewhat, but not enough.
'''Oppose''' - not enough mainspace edits
'''Oppose''' same reasons as Blnguyen. <small>
'''Oppose''' The blocking incident at Wikinews is bad news. Sorry.--
'''Oppose'''. In addition to the Wikinews RfAR cited by GT, there's [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration/Amgine another] in which she was found to have "deleted templates out of process". That was closed in March and is still too recent for me to vote support.
Reluctantly '''oppose'''. I'm not keen on supporting editors for the mop who don't contribute much content and I need reassurance that I'm not just empowering another rogue, given that a couple I've supported have misused their powers almost as soon as they received them.
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure why you need administrative tools on Wikipedia just because you have them on WikiNews... plus, number of contributions is a bit fluffy and other editors raise some concerns. [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="D70000">_-'''M''']] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help">'''''o'''''</span>]]
'''Oppose'''.  The experience at wikinews looks attractive, but the wheel-warring there combined with the lack of experience here makes me cautious.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the activity level here on en: for me does not warrant the granting of admin status, and the answers to Q1 also do not convince me that it is needed. The link to the RfAr provided above by [[User:GT|GT]] also give me cause to doubt this candidates suitability to have additional powers here. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Strong Oppose''' Quite low edit count on en.wiki + evidence of wheel-warring on another project = no confidence in this candidate yet.  First, editor must establish a solid reputation on en-wiki by gaining experience as any other editor would.  Participation in other wikis doesn't aid one's resume when one wheel-wars on those other wikis.
'''Oppose''' per Cactus man and Dragon flight.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience with ''this'' project and the incident with WikiNews.
<s>Unfortunate '''oppose''' -- this user has not contributed much at all to enwiki in the past year, and there are now questions about possible abuse of power. Start contributing here a lot more and let things cool off for a few months and I might support then. [[User:Grandmasterka|<font color="red">Grand</font>]][[User talk:Grandmasterka|<font color="blue">master</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Grandmasterka|<font color="green">ka</font>]] 19:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)</s> Changing to '''Strong oppose'''. This user has not contributed much to this project recently from what I can see, and the support votes and comments below are not helping to convince me. I am trying to judge based on what this user has done here and on other related wikis, like I do for ''everyone else''.
After looking through concerns raised per above, sorry but '''oppose'''. -
'''Oppose'''. The WikiNews situation was a serious error of judgement. This, combined with the somewhat limited experience on this project, makes me question how Amgine would handle adminship. I may well support in the future if Agmine shows a greater commitment to this project and displays better judgement.
'''Oppose'''.  Needs time to straighten out their performance.&mdash;
'''Weak oppose'''. Needs more experience. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Oppose''' - Wheel warring raises doubts, as well as the WikiNews incident. --
'''Oppose with all due respect plus a hamburger''' - Amgine is an administrator on Wikinews, where he has attracted plenty of controversy and negative attention. I really don't want that to happen to him on Wikipedia where it'd be tons more stressful for him. Considering the respect I have for Amgine, I don't want Wikipedia administrative status to ruin him. He already has the stressful job of being Amgine on Wikinews. —[[User:Messedrocker|<small>THIS IS</small> M<small>ESSED</small>]][[Image:R with umlaut.png]]
'''Oppose'''. Wheel-warring is bad... if you got in an RFAr at Wikinews, what makes you think you would be able to behave in an acceptable manner at Wikipedia as an administrator?
'''Strong Oppose'''. Sorry, but no way. Nowhere near enough WP edits, and we definitely don't need any more admins going around speedying userboxes willy-nilly.
'''Oppose''': not ready yet.
<!-- '''Oppose''' -->Normally I wouldn't like considering issues from other projects, but the wheel warring is troubling.
'''Oppose'''.  Very few mainspace edits, and a troubling edit history; for example, strong supporter of indefinitely banned [[User:CheeseDreams]].
'''Oppose''', wheel-warring and mainspace edit count too low. --
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose'''. Changed from neutral because of low mainspace edits and support for the banned user CheeseDreams.
'''Oppose''' per above arguments.--
'''Neutral'''. Looks not very experienced to my standard, but I do not oppose.--
'''Neutral''' per above. Can't support, can't oppose.
'''Neutral'''. Valued contributor, but there is no excuse for wheel warring. In addition to the page GT linked, the relevant logs can be seen [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&offset=6400&type=block&user=Amgine&page= here]. On the plus side I did have to page through thousands of open proxy blocks to find that, but according to Ral315's summary Amgine's block was for a month over a one hour block. That's innapropriate, but the repeated blocks are inexcusable. For the record the one hour block did appear innapropriate, but that doesn't mean a one month block in response and repeated reblocking is the way to handle it. 24 hours is long enough to build consensus on whether it needs to be longer or stand at all. If you can't get consensus for the block, maybe it shouldn't be placed. <s> '''Support'''. A trusted admin on other projects with good edits here should be trusted with admin rights here too. Would be admin worthy with half the en.wiki edits&mdash;a perfect example of where edit count does not help show the more intangible qualities. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)</s> -
'''Neutral'''&mdash;call me a fence-sitter, but I can't decide either way on this one. I respect the answer to my question below but, with apologies, I believe this user needs more time to consider the consequences of actions '''before''' they're made. Yet, the tools are there, and I believe this user to be very good admin material. If there was a little more history showing that the lesson has been learned...
'''Neutral''' - if they had more experience I'd consider supporting.
<s>'''Oppose'''.  Blocking war between admins on Wikinews, while entertaining, is not conducive to the overall goals.  Would probably support in 6 months if the blcoking war is over by then.--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 06:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)</s> change to '''Neutral''' as long as tools are used only to help with [[WP:OFFICE]] tasks.--
'''Neutral'''. If he needs adminship to help with official tasks, the Foundation can award adminship by decree. Otherwise, he has to undergo the same process as everyone else, and be judged in the same way. He doesn't have enough involvement ''here'', on the English Wikipedia, for that judging to take place. I'm too meek to oppose, however, but I lean that way. --
'''Strong Support'''
Definitely not. Malformed RFA nom, fails too much of my criteria. User does not need to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' I don't oppose on malformed noms, but there is no need for tools.
'''O''' zero AfD participation, very few WP:space edits outside of the wikipediholic test etc., bad answers to 1 and 3. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''', needs to learn the basics. Almost never uses edit summaries, does not seem to know how to use the preview feature and lacks WP space edits. I'm also somewhat concerned about lack of diversity. May make a good admin in the future, but not now. --
'''Neutral''' I suggest you withdraw your RfA and try again at a later date, as the oppose votes could pile on and I'd hate to see you become jaded and stop editing as you seem to be a good person to have editing on Wikipedia.  Perhaps check out some of the recent successful RfA's to get a general idea of what the community is looking for in an admin candidate
'''Oppose''' too new
'''Oppose'''. Please return when you have more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, this candidate has been editing Wikipedia for fewer than 2 months, has less than 150 edits to all namespaces and has a malformed RfA (nomination not accepted, placed in wrong place in RfA list, incorrect information). She's made just two edits to the [[Kate Winslet]] article. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Most often, candidates will have very detailed answers to the questions above. They have a nice edit count in almost all the needed fields of Wiki editing, etc. You have quite a bit to go. Admin tools are dangerous in the wrong hands. Plus, admins are held under a microscope if you know what I mean. You really want to stay out of trouble. I have been here a while, and it will be a while before I can even consider such a responsibility. Keep working hard. Also watch other’s [[WP:RfA]]’s to learn what to expect.
'''Oppose''', didn't even sign their acceptance. --
I'm sorry, Andreasegde, but you've shown no need for administrative (administratorial?) tools.  You have a small amount of wp space edits, and no wp talk edits, which suggests you have little knowledge of policy.  From my review of your contributions, you seem primarily an article writer and contributor, not an admin candidate; one is not necessarily the other. I'd recommend withdrawing, spending some time becoming more familiar with Wikipedia policy, crafting some more specific, detailed answers to the questions above, and returning after a while.
'''Oppose''' didn't even sign acceptance and no specifics gives.
'''Oppose''', didn't sign acceptance, lack of edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', didn't sign acceptance.  Majority of edits are to talk page for [[Talk:Kennedy assassination theories]], or other pages regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Need to contribute more.
'''Oppose''' per all above. Please try again after you have been familiar with policies. In the meantime do not be discouraged by this. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. I see way too many similar article names in your contribs, and you've only been around for four months. Try again in half a year, maybe three months in the least, and try to edit more than seven articles.
'''Oppose''' - sorry, not yet.  Great contributor, but not admin material.  I would suggest withdrawing before an admin [[WP:SNOWBALL]]'s it.  -
'''Oppose''', didn't sign acceptance, not specific answers. Needs for time and edyts --
&ndash;
'''Oppose'''. A good editor who needs some more experience (in terms of time, editing a wider range of articles, and editing in the Wikipedia space) before adminship can be seriously considered.
'''Oppose''' Your answers aren't the most compelling and you didn't sign your own nomination.
Suggest withdrawal --

'''Neutral''' Answers to questions don't reveal any need for admin tools.  4177 edits is a good number, but an average of 19.890 edits-per-page reveals a very narrow range of interests.  Only 392 user Talk edits, too. An admin really has to talk to other editors as a major part of their job. As part of fixing/reverting vandalism, edits to article pages should show a good spread of interests and contributions.  I suggest an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] to allow you to understand the areas in which you can improve in order to stand a better chance of becoming an admin at your next RfA.  Until then, I suggest that either yourself or a bureaucrat withdraws this nomination. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I like Andreasegde, he's a good and well-meaning editor and a popular member of [[WP:BEATLES]]. However, he's not ready for adminship and doesn't need the tools at the moment. If he really wants to be an admin he needs to get much more involved in project space (and reduce his narrow editing focus) and come back in a few months. --
'''Neutral''' suggesting withdrawal.

Supported - found him very friendly to collaborate with
Candidate has nominated [[Christianity]] for deletion.  Screamingly unsysop-like behaviour.  He also slapped a POV tag on the top of the article for no reason. '''Strong oppose'''
'''Strong oppose''' User is disruptive and incivil, and is currently blocked.
'''Strong oppose''' per Timothy Usher and Lacimosus.  --
'''Oppose''' Per the other 3 people
'''Oppose''' Per the other 4 people; also is this actually linked in? From the date of the RfA It should be closed anyway.
'''Support''' Hey I'm first for a change!
'''Nominator support'''. I guess this is needed for those who count !votes. As usual with my nominator support's it should be pretty obvious from the nomination why I'm supporting ;-)
'''Support''' :) --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I was Andy once (Andy123) and Cliche support. --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. It's cliched and predictable of me to say so, but I ''seriously'' thought you already were one.
Andy has good social skills and will help retain a lot of promising new contributors with his sympathetic conflict resolution. '''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - I would trust the nominator with my life. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' A user that I run into quite often, a user that I respect, and a user that I would trust with the tools.
'''<s>Strong</s> Support''' per nom and above
'''Support''': I found you more amazing than your cow! Waiting to see more wikobatics from you. But, I found myself doing a bit of wikobatics on account of the edit conflict right now. --
'''Edit conflict Support''' Level-headedness and good judgement is amply demonstrated in his AfD contribs.
'''Support''' My interactions with this user lead me to heartily recommend him for adminship. He will do it well. --
'''Support''' I've run across this chap several times and he seems like a good candidate for adminship. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' Why not? --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Edit history shows user'll use the admin tools well. --
Wow. I'm sold by that amazingly solid and thorough nomination which gives any potential commenter loads of info, and by the spot checking I did. I totally agree that we need different sorts of admins and that not every admin need do everything (I raised this point on my own RfA question list). I have a great deal of respect for Petros471's judgement as well (we are co coaching a couple of folk for adminship now) so... "More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support'''. Should be a great admin. ++
'''<s>Strong</s> Weakish Support''' I've seen Andeh around quite frequently during RC patrol and at AIV.  I've also had discussions with the candidate on controversial football topics, and he's always discussed the issues in an intelligent, friendly, and calm manner.  The demonstrated experience in what he wants to do as an admin (Q1) coupled with his level-headedness leads me to believe that he will make a fine adminstrator who can certainly be trusted.
'''Support''' It's about time. --
'''Support''' Petros471's usual excellent nomination leaves little to say, but I've seen Andeh's work and its top notch. He'll make an excellent admin. The diff shown by Garion is nothing but a expression of his opinion which is a perfectly reasonable one.
'''Support''' Will use the mop well. --
'''Support''', what RandyWang said!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Of course, the nom pretty much says it all. Contribs seem to be in order.
'''Please incorporate criticism Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Weak Support''' I too disagree with the idea that ''there is no excuse'' for warning vandals without using the templates, but I don't think this will interfere with his admin duties. So he'll warn vandals with the standard warning templates instead of with beautiful prose. I don't see how that's a problem. -- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Whether or not he is a wiki-lawyer per below. I think that he can greatly contribute to the [[WP:AIV]] process, and do many things that don't require him to contribute lots of content to many articles. --
'''Support''' - a fine user. '''
'''Support''' Seems like a Wikipedian people can trust. I proudly support him. --
'''Support''' per nom. <font face="Book Antiqua"><b>[[User:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_</font>]][[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed1</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy User.
'''Support'''. I agree that the nominee's comment on Herostratus' RFA was overstated, but I think we should afford leeway on RFA votes. Extremely unlikely to misuse admin powers. —
'''Support''' per Caesura. Good enough for me, minor mistakes are not enough to result in an outright oppose.
'''Support''' Excellent user who I've seen doing good work. Lack of major article contributions is not a major problem for me, and certainly not a factor that's likely to lead to the wiki being blown up unexpectedly. A diverse range of admin types is a positive thing, God forbid if there was a clone factory churning them out. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Support''' per nom. A good and trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per nom.  Editor could put the admin-ness to excellent use.  --<font face="verdana"><small>
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Weak support'''. It's weak because of the comment on Herostratus' RFA that I strongly disagree with, but then we all have opinions on what makes a good admin and I'll give you some leeway on this. That comment's not enough to overshadow the good work you've done.
'''Support'''; especially after dealing with someone from AOL leaving {{[[Template:WoW|WoW]]}} on random userpages the other day. What fun!
'''Support'''. This user has made many, valuable contributions that are like a precursor to administrative duties. --
'''Support'''. Will not abuse tools. The fact that an edit made over four months ago is cited as a reason to oppose is enough to convince me that nothing seriously stands in opposition to an adminship.
'''Support'''. Oh dear, he has an opinion on treating vandals that differs from the norm. That's really not all that great of a reason to deny a qualified editor the mop.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Meets all my criteria, and appears to be a good editor. --
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' seems fine!
'''Support''': nice bloke.
'''Support'''. Sure, my standards say 6 months but the rest is more than good enough to outweigh a difference of 1 month.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' -- I'm sorry Andy did not appreciate Herostratus' fine poetry -- I guess you can't win 'em all. I've reviewed the comments of [[User:Blue Tie]] aka [[User:Anon 64]] aka [[user:72.13.168.149|72.13.168.149]] aka (who knows what other user names) below at opposing comment #15. (I've also dug a  bunch of the history that Blue Tie has obscured -- see the links I posted down there). I think Andy did just fine in the face of a confusing situation. If Blue Tie is indignant, I think he should look first to his own behavior and not try to scuttle Andy's RfA. (For what's it's worth, I never knew Andy or any of Blue Tie's personnae before this RfA).--
'''support''' Fine vandal fighter, and a good all round wikipedian. No problems. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' go process wonks!
'''Support'''. -
'''Strong Support''' - A lovely man. Would make a good admin, for exactly the reasons above.
'''Strong Support''' - I didn't realize he wasn't an admin already.  Support per nom.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support''' inasmuch as, troubled though I am about the issues many ''opposing'' raise, I am eminently confident, having taken a look at the body of the user's contributions, that he has the proper (measured) temperament for adminship and that the fact of the broaching of concerns here is likely to effect in the user such changes as might be necessary for him best to act with the admin tools (such that I'm not concerned about his judgment and think him unlikely to abuse or otherwise misuse the admin tools).
'''Support''' Doesen't look like you'll abuse the tools. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' Held off voting but after reading Andy's (very quick!) answer to my question (see bottom of page) where he even admits the comment may have been an ''over-statement'' I happily support. -
'''Support''' Another RfA candidate with good credentials - Wikipedia would definitely benefit from this user being given Adminship. '''
'''Support'''. Should be a great admin.
'''Support''': Less concerned about flexibility following responses. Plenty of experience.
'''Oppose''' purely on the Herostratus discussion diff'd below by Garion.  I could never back a candidate who had a mindset that saw a shorthand process as being superior to a creative, thoughtful, and imaginative solution to a vandalism issue.
'''Strong oppose''' Based on my observations, Andy is not acclimated to some important aspects of Wikipedia culture. Appears that nom has rigid views about key Wikipedia processes. For example the statement, “There's no excuse to not use the warning templates for users vandalising, especially IP users. Each and every vandal should be treated the same depending on their type of vandalism, some don't require poems written on their page..”  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHerostratus&diff=58617639&oldid=58617416] shows a lack of understanding about key policy and processes that admins use daily.
'''Weak Oppose''' I am too uneasy about the diff Garion96 and FloNight have pointed out.  It makes me feel that this candidate is will stick too rigidly to guidelines and bite others for not doing the same.--
'''Oppose''' I like this user, but I would have liked to have seen more substantial contributions to the content of the encyclopedia in order to be assured that he understands the appropriateness of content.  I can be swayed: this becomes a support vote if he presents the articles to which he has contributed substantially in terms of content --
'''Oppose'''. I think that this user is a good vandal fighter and janitor. However (and I've said this a million times), this is an encyclopedia, and a potential Admin should have atleast one developed article. Not only would this show that the user fully understands policies ([[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]), but it would also show that the admin fully identifies with WP's goal of spreading free, infinite knowledge. Quite frankly (and this isn't directed at the candidate), I'm weary of people believing that spending endless hours rv'ing vandalism means that one can represent ''the face of Wikipedia'', and is able to explain and adhere to the behavioural and editorial policies.
'''Oppose''' per above. --<font color="336699">
Per FloNight. Rigidity is not a virtue. We're dealing with ''people'' on this encyclopedia, not faceless, mindless entities. I heartily discourage the use of warning templates where appropriate and expediency is not required. They're there as a matter of convenience, not policy. —
'''Strong oppose''' per what I wrote on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus]].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHerostratus&diff=58617639&oldid=58617416 Sydney's diff] shows ''exactly'' the approach to administration that is the cause of so much stupidity on the project at the moment.  In that one moment, Andy cast his lot with those silly billies who play Chinese Whispers with policy and then insist on their views being enforced without regard to common sense &mdash; and anyone who does such a thing ''cannot'' be an admin.  If Andy proves, at some undefined point in the future, that he isn't actually as clueless as he claims to be, I'd be happy to support then &mdash; but as it is now, ''no way''.
'''Oppose'''. I have no reason to question Andy's dedication or motives, facts that I am sure will make him a good admin in the future, however I also concur with the views already expressed regarding his relationship to policy. Admins who regard policy as a straighjacket often end up causing problems by failing to recognise that all situations are different, and that any set of policies can never fully account for the human element of our project. I will support a future request if Andy refines his attitude to policy.
'''Oppose''' per MarkGallagher. The words have been taken out of my mouth, so I'm glad he knew how to use them.
I must be firmly opposed to this candidate until such time he admits that his previous statements regarding vandalism warning templates were utterly asburd. Having said that, he seems to be a good editor in general; if he is able to demonstrate that this one inexplicably clueless statement was simply a fluke, then he may have a stronger case for adminship in the future. Until that time, no.--
Per avove - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Fuddlemark.
'''Oppose''' per Journalist, while I agree with Caesura that you learned from the Herostasus RFA incident and you are an '''excellent''' vandal fighter, this is an encyclopedia first and you should have more major article edits. Find a subject that you know about and start doing some article writing, and I would happily support a future RFA. Thanks
'''Oppose'''  I have found his thinking regarding the rules to be dogmatic, narrow, rigid, thoughtless and uncooperative.  Not a good attitude for an administrator.  In fact, had he been an administrator, I feel pretty confident he would abuse the privilege.  He has also been in error on important ''facts''  in formal Wikipedia policy and made bad assumptions.  Finally, per Journalist, he does not have any formal edits (which may be a lesser concern for me).  Sure he is tireless in reverting vandalism, which is a good thing, but he does not need to be an Admin to do that, particularly when he shows a lack of reasonableness or normal courtesy.  However, I do not question or doubt the integrity of his motives.  --
'''Oppose''' per great concerns about rigidity above. --
'''Oppose''' for right now, per Orane and FloNight. Based on the examples presented I believe Andy is currently a bit too inflexible, but his last response to Blue Tie, acknowledging distress, is good. Learning to prevent such distress is important, but I'm not sure that Andy can 'go with the flow' regarding exceptions and mistakes. A bigger problem for me, which I think clearly illustrates his zeal and intensity, is the edit statistics. If they are correct, he is editing at the rough rate of one edit every 2-3 minutes (3 minutes between edits if he's spending 8 hours/day editing, 2.5 minutes between edits if he spends 6 hours a day) is... nuts. No wonder he has only 3 notable edits in the article namespace. I think someday Andy will probably be a good admin, but right now he's just way too fast. One can't help being inflexible at these speeds. He will burn out and leave if he doesn't slow down and smell the roses, and that would be a shame. -
'''Oppose''', inflexibility diff in interaction with Blue Tie shows candidate hasn't learnt to [[Wikipedia:interpret all rules|interpret all rules]].
'''Oppose''', per fuddlemark and SCZenz.
'''Not-quite-ready-yet-oppose'''.  The only thing I would add is that policy is a means to an end.  It's the end that we're after.
He just sounds like a process wonk to me (no offense).  I don't like dealing with process wonks as fellow admins.  Process ends up getting valued more than product, and you get absurd situations like someone who ''knows'' something should be deleted restoring it and relisting it at XFD.  --

'''Strong Oppose'''. The kind of admin who would seek to stamp out creativity and adhere dogmatically to a rigid interpretation of policy - for everything save copyvio, which I agree needs to be stepped on, hard- is not the kind of editor I want to have admin powers. Process exists to serve the product.
'''Oppose''' per Journalist. --
'''Oppose'''. The comment on Herostratus' RFA, but moreover his comment above, saying that he still thinks that that edit was 'highly inappropriate' makes me very, very hesitant in giving him the tools. He's entitled to his own views, but in this case, I think that the combination of those views and the admin tools are a lot of problems waiting to happen. --
'''Oppose''', lighten up a bit. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. I think he is a good editor and vandal fighter, but concerning policy and process I don't think he is ready yet. Process and policy are important but shouldn't always supercede other solutions.











Has shown inability to respect other editors who have differing views by him and blatantly looks down on users he does not agree with.  I also do not feel that he would be trustworthy not to let his biases effect his performance in administrative actions. <small>
This editor opposed my original [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin|request for adminship]] for the reason that I am a woman; he has never recanted or apologized for his position.  While I would never oppose an editor merely for opposing my adminship, misogyny is not a trait to be favored in administrators.  Wikipedia has many female editors and an admin who cannot fairly deal with them is a liability to the project.
This editor has only 1184 edits. Normally, this would not be a problem, however looking at the way he treats other editors, particularly [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] and other editors, and the moral POV-pushing he seems to frequently engage in, I must vote '''Oppose'''. Lack of experience is also a large issue, considering most of his talk page is people getting annoyed at him for POV-pushing and general disrespect and disdain for the Wikipedia community. I particularly disagree with his discrimination against female editors and other indications that he will not use his admin-tools responsibly - as Kelly rightly pointed out, an administrator who cannot fairly deal with female editors, or any editors in general, is a liability to the project.
'''Oppose''' Not enough editing across the namespaces, very little user interaction, project work, and little to no category or template work, just don't think is familiar enough with all the areas yet.
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits. Very pushy, and apparently will make a bad admin judging from above complains.
'''Oppose''' per Kelly Martin and Werdna648 above.
'''Oppose'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Not only lacking some experience, but sexism and discrimination of any sort cannot be allowed in a potential admin. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Oppose'''. Stereotyping users on gender or similar characteristic instantly destroys any suitability one may have had for becoming an administrator. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' until email enabled. --
'''Oppose'''.  Too abrasive. --
'''Oppose'''. Opposition to Kelly Martin's adminship some months ago is the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Not tolerant enough for an admin.
'''Oppose''' Piling on in response to users request for extension at Jimbo's talk page.
'''Oppose''' Charges against editor (POV pushing and misogyny) are serious. Even in his request for extension, ''Gentlemen(and ladies),...'' And posting a Request for admin and being unprepared to answer questions? Poor form.
'''Absolutely not'''.  I, for one, do appreciate the diversity Mr.&nbsp;Anglius brings to Wikipedia, but do not consider him to be fit for adminship for the reasons already mostly outlined above.&mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' per reasons stated by others above, user's talk page, and answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' per Kelly --
Contributions are so-so, civility is somewhat lacking.  --
'''Oppose''' primarily due to lack of experience.
One of the easiest no-brainers in RFA history. I'm going to go as far as to say '''Never'''. No need to respond; my opinion will not change.
'''Oppose''' not want to say "[[User:Boothy443|comhrá]]" to you - but if your nominator does not support you, I see little reason to.  If you are chauvinistic, as Kelly Martin has said, you do not meet [[User:Encyclopedist/My adminship standards|my personal admin. standards]].  Maybe if you addressed some of this, I'd rethink it - but as of now I will '''oppose.''' [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' did not answer the questions.
'''Oppose''' Not very active recently, Kelly Martins comment is concerning (to say the least), self nom then declaring a couple of hours later that they won't be around doesn't inspire confidence --
'''Oppose'''. Blanket labelling the reasons to oppose as "accusations" does not reflect well on attitude.
'''Oppose''', even lack of questions aside. Politeness is often present but civility is wanting, as only a brief perusal of his interaction will reveal.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' For reasons already stated.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' as per above.  Also, while a 70% edit summary is decent, I'd like to see you strive for a higher number (~85%+). --
'''"Oppose"'''. "
'''Oppose''' per Kelly Martin --
'''Oppose''' I don't like chauvanists
'''Oppose'''. All other things aside... < 1200 edits? You must be kidding!
'''Oppose''' We don't need sexists to admin, tyvm.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> considering this "user"'s "inappropriate" behaviour, I consider it "unreasonable" to support him. That includes attitudes to Kelly Martin and the request that Jimbo Wales (of all people!) extends this RfA.
'''Neutral''' Is there anyway some can delist this now? --
'''Neutral''', I dislike how he opposed in Keely Martin's RFA. --
Looks good.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Looks like a good user.
Sorry, I've been away! Thanksgiving, family and so forth. You can count this slot as my support vote.
<s>'''Support''' I see no issues. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]</sup> 00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)</s> <s>Switched to Oppose [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]</sup> 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)</s> Vote switched back to '''Support''' per demonstrated civility.
Solid contributor - no hesitation.
'''Support'''.  I have found Tony to be a very helpful and affable fellow in all of my encounters with him.  I enthusiastically support his RFA mainly because his attitude and demeanor are so positive---he wants only to improve Wikipedia, and I haven't any doubt of that. ---
'''Support'''. He does the right thing by Wikipedia everytime. Good luck!
'''Support''' an excellent, dedicated contributor. I disagree with the suggestion that one must have experience in ''every'' area of the project to be qualified for adminship.
'''Support''' I come across this editor all the time on new page patrol; their usage of the admin tools would only enhance the project.
'''Support''' - Qualified contributor, and is an excellent Wikipedian - met him on RC patrol, reverting vandalism. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Support''', and to those opposing him on the grounds that he has not participated enough in the Wikipedia namespace: Don't forget that we are above all an encyclopaedia, not a political experiment. What does it matter if he doesn't know all the intricacies of the system? He's good at what he does, and having admin tools would make him more efficient. That's it. We're not here to judge whether he's going to be a major player in the Wikipedia namespace, we're here to judge whether he can be trusted to use these tools. And I believe he can.
'''Support''': Once again, a good editor is in danger of being rejected because he actually creates and edits articles. A small number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace doesn't equal inexperience with AfD, AIV etc. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Support''' good, sensible user. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' A good editor how seems to focus on the encyclopedia proper.--
'''Support''' - less experienced than some, but a good thoughtful editor. He will make good use of the admin tools on rc patrol and cleanup.
'''Support''' Helpful, courteous, and seems to be a wonderful candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' — I see nothing that worries me, He seems knowledgeable and respectable, never ran in to him but I've seen him around and he seems to be a fine contributor {{=)}}. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
Sensible-seeming fellow, who I'm confident will help out where he can and tread cautiously where he lacks experience. And lord knows we need the manpower. --
'''Support''' - edit summaries are easy to fix and when people create articles saying "FatBoy last night stole his Mum's credit card to pay for porn and his girlfriend is a slut who likes cock more than she does food" - sorry for the crudeness, but I have seen all of that and worse on NP patrol - then there is zero point in wasting your time giving out these deletion templates. Looks like a good editor who is willing to learn more.
'''Support.''' It's time we got over namespace-itis. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. After considering the nomination, looking at the record, and balancing the concerns below, I'm confident this nominee will make a good admin.
'''Support''' - Anthony is a very measured user so I don't think he will start making any adventurous use of the tools in areas where he is not familiar. '''
Unlikely to abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' - [[User:FireSpike|'''FireSpik''']]
'''Support''', looks good. Just needs more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, when he becomes an admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''': overall seems a good [[Wikipedia:Wikipedian|Wikipedian]]. Has made vast [[WP:RCP|anti-vandalism]] edits, as well as numerous cleanup duties such as article tagging. In my opinion Tony (Anthony) seems to deserve [[WP:ADMIN|sysop]] functions to benefit him in his [[WP:RCP|fight against]] [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. Cheers,
'''Support''' For commitment to the ideals of [[Wikipedia]] as a shared knowledge resource, willingness to assist others (including adopting, new page patrolling and battling vandalism) sometimes in the face of offensive personal attacks, range and depth of contributions, including significant expansion of the Victorian battleships section. Good luck!
'''Support''' No compelling reasons to oppose.
'''Support''' Seeams good and comments in "Oppose" makes no a seriously sense.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''', a very promising editor, with a strong knowledge in his field of expertise. To those that object to his nomination on the grounds of wikispace, please keep in mind that our first duty is to right an encyclopedia, and that the rest is sencondary.--
support --
'''Support''' This user is very capable of using the tools, great vandal-fighter.
'''Support''' Inexperience is secondary to desire to improve Wikipedia.
'''Support''' A good communicator, regular contributor who has shown a good mix of involvement.
'''Support''' No compelling reasons to oppose. Lots of nitpicking oppose votes don't cancel the positives. --
Although his editcount is steady enough as it now stands, I don't think he's ready just yet. '''Weak Oppose''' per edit summary performance (79% major/40% minor) and for taking RFA risks less than two weeks too soon. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' Falls short of my criteria in Wikipedia namespace, only 107 edits my indicate a lack of experience in communication with the community in key aspects like AFD and other participation in other Wikipedia namespace areas. Edit summary usage is generally low, as stated above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Anthony.bradbury His logs] show that he hasn't uploaded ''any'' Images yet, and I find it hard to trust someone in an area where he may work with adminship tools, when he has no prior experience of it himself. Literally only 1 edit to the Image namespace, 0 to the template and 0 to the category namespace. I can't trust someone with absolutely ''no'' experience in the half of namespaces here (as indicated by his stats on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury]]). Edit count isn't important enough for it to matter here, but it's generally a little low for my standards. ''semper fi'' —
Because my neutral somehow got through w/out me seeing this reply from Anthony, I'm afraid I have to change to '''weak oppose'''. If you don't even know about the Wikipedia namespace... yikes. &ndash;
'''Weak oppose'''. As much as we desperately need additional hands at [[:C:CSD]], you don't appear to take a thorough enough approach to deletion in general - or, more specifically, explaining it to newbies. For instance, in just the last few days you nominated the articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Cunning&action=history Dave Cunning] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_clark_attorney&action=history Kelly clark attorney] with {{tl|prod}}, but did not place the {{tl|PRODWarning}} tag on the creators' talk pages. Similarly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andra_Cross&action=history Andra Cross] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mordechai_Yosef_Leiner&action=history Mordechai Yosef Leiner] were marked for speedy deletion, and neither creator was told about it. To be fair, you took the time to tell the creator of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Monroe_Kemp&action=history Harry Monroe Kemp] that you'd prodded their article, but one out of all those really isn't enough. Each of these users was new to Wikipedia - most hadn't received ''any'' messages from other users, let alone been welcomed - so it's important that, when nominating the articles they create for deletion, you take the time to first welcome them to Wikipedia and then explain what is being done to their article. This avoids inadvertently [[WP:BITE|biting]] the newbies, and can go a long way to reducing both the subsequent anger at seeing one's article removed, and the future creation of inappropriate articles. If you don't do this as a normal users on new page patrol, I can't be comfortable that you will do it as an administrator. Sorry. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Oppose'''- Not enough wikispace edits or CSD/Prod knowledge for me.
Anthony is a well-intended and constructive user, but if he is to adjudicate process it would help if he had some more experience with it first. (
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - <b>
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience in wikispace. And as a deletionist, I'm a believer in the process, which means if we delete something we HAVE to notify the author that it's up for deletion. I've mucked it up myself, but then again, I'm not running for admin, and with the reservations of others about experience, Wikispace edits, and WPtalk edits all motivate me to reluctantly but firmly oppose.  --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Oppose''' lack of edit summary, lack of notification to authors of articles tagged for speedy deletion and other points raised in oppose section show a tendency to cut corners and absent-mindedly omit policies and guidelines he feels are not right or too time-consuming.  Those should be addressed before joining adminship from a behavior and mindset point of view, not through a change in editing interface forcing an edit summary to be entered.
'''Weak oppose''' - falls just short of all my criteria, but just a little.  Would most likly support in a month, although would suggest waiting two. --
'''Oppose''' for reasons given here.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' per lack of project participation and concern over answers to some oppose votes.
'''switch to Oppose''' Needs more experience in admin related areas.
'''Oppose''' yikes the wikispace isn't making me pleased...however if you work on in the next couple of months I will be glad to Support you.__
'''Oppose''' Crz read my mind -- insufficent wiki-process experience at this time.
dislike the interrogating of people on the oppose side. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' per above, primarily due to lack of experience in the WP namespace.  I would probably support once the applicant gains more experience in the WP namespace. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, Xoloz, etc. We don't need unexperienced admins who learn their craft by blocking the more experienced editors, as have been done recently. Better be safe than sorry. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Oppose''' reluctantly per Daveydweeb's comments about handling newbies' new pages. My own example was 3 weeks ago on [[Honjaram]] when Anthony was prodding a village stub from India within 12 minutes of the article being started. His reply to me was straightforward and courteous though.
'''Weak Oppose'''. I feel that the candidate is an outstanding editor. However, some more experience in admin-related areas would go a long way toward giving the community confidence in him having the tools. Particularly, the candidate should address accusations of [[WP:BITE]] and (as he's already done) try to use those edit summaries. Will gladly support in a few more months and with some more edits in the Wikipedia namespace. —
'''Neutral'''. Sorry, but 7 Wikipedia talk edits is too low for my taste. You need more policy discussion. -
'''Neutral''' - edit summary usage doesn't really bother me, and while I don't normally like to see candidates responding to every opposer, your responses have been quite fair so far. However, for someone who wishes to work with CAT:CSD, your rate of warning people has been rather low. I'm honestly leaning towards support at this point, as I've always seen you doing great work otherwise, so if you could clear this up, I'd be grateful. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">

'''Neutral'''. You would have had my strong support had you had a higher wikipedia space count, but I feel that it is too important to be overlooked. Even in an otherwise strong editor.
'''Neutral''' The low number of Wikipedia talk edits is a major concern for me. However your contributions to the other areas of this project is noted. Thus, I feel that you do not deserve an oppose opinion because of this. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per inexperience in the project-space. '''
'''Neutral''', recommend familiarisation with project-space pages, perhaps come back in a month or two. -
'''Neutral''' per all of above. Wikipedia space contributions are too low. I think someone else said somewhere, great article contributors are needed, but adminship won't usually help them. If someone can contribute to articles, but doesn't know ins and outs of policy, I'm not sure how this user can work well in their capacity as an admin. -
'''Neutral''' per Nishkid64.
'''Neutral''' Although I am very confident with you having the tools, I would recommend you earn a little more experience. All the best. ←
'''Neutral''': Like others have said, I think a bit more experience in the WP namespace would be good. <s>One other little teeny thing is that you might try to be a little calmer during vandal attacks than you were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHeimstern&diff=88313928&oldid=88313321 here] (no offense taken, mind you, just a suggestion).</s>
'''Future Support''' Looks all good except the experience. ~
'''Neutral'''. Article-space contributions look good, but Wikipedia-space edits are seriously low for 3500+ edits.  Unless you are some sort of Wikipedia-space prodigy, merely observing the backlogs that will need to be tended to on becoming an admin is certainly not enough preparation!  I have no other concerns, so I'd certainly expect to support in the future. --
'''Neutral'''. Has excellent potential, but a bit too soon after this exchange [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DocEss#PETA] for me. Will support Dr. B in future with a little more experience in avoiding incivility.
'''Neutral'''.
No real need for tools. Low edit count. Weak answers to questions imo. I wonder how you'd handle the admin conflicts an admin gets into if you haven't previously dealt with anything. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' and recommend your withdrawal from the RfA.  While you have made some good contributions you haven't really dealt with a lot of things admins should be able to do.  Get some more experience and come back when you're more familiar wih all the tasks.--
'''Oppose'''. I also recommend withdrawal and submission of a request at [[WP:ER]] after a few hundred more edits. I don't see anything ''objectionable'' other than the lack of a longer track record and believe I would likely support with another ~1000-1500 edits as long as there were also around 400 WP edits by that point. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' - Suggesting withdrawl, main space edit <1000, WP edit extremely low. --
Nominate and support. (
support --
'''Support'''. Who hasn't done a little [[WP:OWN]]ing in their day? I trust this candidate. - <b>
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Trustable.
'''Weak Support''' not likely to abuse the tools, but edit summary usage is kind of low. Needs more participation in Wikipedia talk. ←
'''Support''' per [[User:Anas Salloum|Anas]].  Seems like he'd be a productive and reasonable administrator. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per anas. --
'''Support''' I trust both the nominator and the nominee. Some enhancement in edit summary usage is needed though. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' I believe candidate has seen the light. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Besides low edit summary usage and low Wikipedia talk, there isn't really much else to criticize about. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Support''' per crz.
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - per nom, experience, and image experience[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Anthony%20Appleyard] despite answering the age question --
'''Support''' - personally I'm not concerned about early days mistakes.
'''Support''' - expierenced and trustworthy. //
'''Support''' looks to be pretty experienced, perfectly capabale for admin. status.
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' per nom.
'''support'''.
'''Support'''. Knows the rules. Answered questions well. Looks good.
'''Support''' more then qualified.--
'''Support''' per nom. I have no problems with anything regarding his adminship. --
'''Support''' he deserves the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. [[User:Sd31415/Signature Book|<span style="color:DarkRed">''sign here''</span>]]
'''Support''' WOW, that's a lot of edits!
'''Support''', fully qualified candidate, good responses to oppose comments, no concerns.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support'''. Has his heart in the right place, and has made several good contributions to the encyclopedia. I believe Anthony will do well with the mop.
'''Support'''. As per Crzrussian and Szvest.
'''Support''' Yes.
'''Support''' per Sjakkalle.
'''Support''' The recent incidents in the opposition section strike me as hiccups that Anthony handled here well. The "apprentice administrator" attitude from A1 is awesome.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' You have what it takes to be an admin but miss a few points.--
'''Weak Support''' The many points raised by other Wikipedians in the Neutral and Oppose categories make me question your possible future status as an Admin. However, I do feel you are suited to the tasks of an Administrator and I reluctantly support your nomination for the mop. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Happy New Year
'''Support''', no concerns.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jahbulon_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=93778487 Articles are not buffers against disputes]. You can't say that an article should stay because merging or deleting would cause disputes on another page. -
'''Oppose'''. I've seen this candidate <s>revert-warring</s> engaging in occasional intransigent edits to include non-standard edits to disambiguation pages with unconvincing supporting arguments ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank_%28disambiguation%29&diff=76760275&oldid=76760050 example]), which leads me to have reservations about his judgment regarding knowledge and application of policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per question four.  --
'''Oppose''' Too many pointers that this might not work out properly, starting with lack of an idea what to do as admin, poor responses to Malber's questions, the seemingly abandoned articles in userspace, low edit summary count, and a propensity to vote subjectively ("[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Kleevage|I don't like porn]]") on some of the recent AfD's I surveyed. ~
'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately, while I was looking over [[WP:AFD|AfD]]'s, I came across this: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Rhodes]]. Your comment was "Delete. Yet another porn actor. Down the chute with it." You voted upon the fate of an article without truly verifying the subject's notability (nominators are sometimes wrong), and you just voted to delete the article based on your personal opinion of [[porn]]. I know you meant well, but on Wikipedia, even porn actors get an article if they pass [[WP:PORNBIO]] guidelines. I would like it if you would exercise better judgment in the future! Thanks. '''
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but voting to delete an article on a pornstar should be based on whether the subject is notable, not just because it's a porn star. Worried about what it would be like if someone who takes this view towards deleting articles became and admin.
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns for comfort raised in both the Oppose and Neutral columns.
'''Oppose'''. Per the concerns above and especially the "''I don't like porn''" vote. I am not satisfied this candidate would display the necessary ''neutrality'' to use the mop well.
'''Oppose''' I've changed my neutral vote to oppose - in addition to my concerns expressed below, I feel I must oppose granting adminship to an editor who votes to delete an article on the grounds of the subject being a porn actress without considering notability or other grounds for inclusion. I don't like [[Nazism]], but I still think it warrants an article.
'''<s>Weak</s>Strong oppose''' for now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAlicia_Rhodes&diff=96707107&oldid=96639553 This] is not the best way to withdraw your vote/!vote. Not a big deal for a non-admin, but removing your comments instead of striking them out (unless you've changed your mind in a couple of minutes after posting) is uncool. Another user commented on your opinion, yet you left his comment contextless.
'''Oppose'''. Very sorry Anthony, I found your actions around the [[Alicia Rhodes]] AfD quite inappropriate. You first leave a rather lousy comment, which is picked up and commented on here. What I didn't like is the fact you first deleted it completely, instead of striking it, then changed your vote altogether. I believe you did that due to comments at this request, just to please the opposers. An admin candidate shouldn't really be making mistakes like that, especially during an RfA. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Weak Oppose''' there are concerns already raised about poor use of edit summary, inappropriate responses in AfDs, but my concern rests with interaction with users in talk space out of total of 20000+ less than 1500 on talk pages. It makes me worry that if Admin might struggle with the negotiation in times of conflict - something that comes with the job! Would support in future if worked with other users to a greater extent and tidied up other issues raised. Cheers
'''Weak oppose''' There is certainly much to (re)commend the candidate, and he is surely possessed of many qualities the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious.  There remain, though, several unassuaged concerns apropos of his judgment as regards adjudging the strength of AfD arguments and ascertaining for what prospective disposition a consensus lies, such that, whilst I am altogether sure that he should neither abuse nor misuse generally (e.g., by acting whereof he is insufficiently familiar) the tools, I can't conclude with any significant degree of certainty that he wouldn't err with unnecessary frequency and thus cannot, on the basis of the instant record, be reasonably sure that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive]].
'''Neutral''' Per the Own stuff. I'm between neutral and support, but i'll stick here for now.
'''Neutral''' per the issues raised, also only 14 wiki-talk edits. A strong candidate but I feel I can't support with such a low number. I'm leaning toward support.
In light of the AfD voting and what seem to be personal opinions taking precedence over policy, I'm changing my support to '''neutral'''.
'''Neutral''' while reverting vandalism resolves an immediated problems, with your last 10 "rv vandalism" there's no follow up warning on the users talk page. Warnings normally reduce further attacks and enable admins to take action earlier with repeat offneders.
'''Oppose''' I can hardly sort out your statements (the answers to the questions seem to contradict your candidate statement), but all I can tell is that you have 24 edits. This is the English Wikipedia, and I look only at edits made on the English Wikipedia, not at Russian Wikibooks. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
Obviously.
'''Support'''. Has great knowledge of policy, and his spelling and grammar have gotten better (or he gets me to fix it :P). I know he threw a fit last time, but I don't think this reflects poorly on his ability to be an admin. I think he has matured since then.--
'''Support''', seen him around practically ''everywhere'', and always comes off as an experienced user. &laquo;
'''Support''' Good editor.
'''Strong Support''' Great editor and Wikipedian, will benefit from the new tools.
'''Strong support''' good editor and helps around the wikipedia. Deserves promotion. --
'''Support'''.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' &mdash; Even though he called me names. --''
'''Support'''.He will do a good job and I think he can trusted with the extra tools.--
'''Extreme "Quit this opposing - he should have been an admin months ago" support''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Celestial Support''' '''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools. Reasons for opposition (across all nominations) are either no longer applicable or are spurious.
'''Support''' I believe I didn't vote in your last RfA because of your poor spelling and grammar, but you seem to be making a genuine efffort to improve. You're also a top-notch vandal fighter, and I have no problem supporting. -
'''Support'''. I think it's great that you have 100% edit summaries. Though the grammar thing would have been a problem, it looks like it's improving, thus, my vote!--
'''Support'''. Near-model editor from what I've seen. --
'''Support''' - even if withdrawn, I want to let you know that I support you.
'''Strong Support''', he is like an admin. He can be trusted with the admin tools. --
'''Oppose''', too many nominations. First nomination was in october. Second and third and fourth nomination were '''each''' started less than a month after the previous one ended. Give it some time already. The first two hinged mostly on lack of experience, but there was significant objection to the third, and I strongly feel this needs some more time to be addressed.
Agree with Radiant. Give it some time. '''


'''Oppose'''. I have given this nomination much thought, Jaranda is an excellent vandal fighter, but I find that the problems this user has in certain areas, articulated by David D. and Durin above, mean that I cannot support at this time. Whilst I recognise that he would make good use of certain admin tools, particularly the rollback button, I do not feel that this would outweigh the problems of promoting a user whose grasp of policy is not complete (I believe it would be irresponsible to promote a user in the hope they would be "further educated" on the job). Also, given the level of opposition last time around, I don't think enough time has passed since his previous RfA for me to properly judge whether he has dealt with the issues highlighted. All this being said, I genuinely hope that Jaranda comes back in two or three months, having dealt with the highlighted issues, because I believe he would make an excellent admin in the future.
'''support''' -- <small> (
'''Support''' He was winning last time
'''Support''' per last RfA. --
'''Support'''. He has been here for a long time and made a mulitude of good contributions spread throughout the project, he reverted my page after a vandalism and many others as well. He has proven himself trustworthy and he should have the adminship tools.--
'''Support''' despite the objections in his RfAs I've seen nothing to make me believe he won't make a good admin, and my interactions with him have left me the impression that he's genuinly dedicated to the project, which is great.  There is some merit to objecting to the short time between nominations, but ultimately it seems like people are mostly objecting to him running for admin, not to the idea of him actually being an admin.  The ends justify the means in this case, I think he needs a mop.  --
I hate to oppose, because Aranda is a fine editor, but it has been less than one month since you last withdrew. I would like to see a bit more time between nominations in a siutation like this. Sorry. --
'''Very reluctant oppose'''. Aranda, I really don't want to oppose you.  You're a fine editor, and you always make efforts to change when people ask you.  Well, except here... I really think that you appear far too desperate for the admin position, far too impatient to wait for it to come your way, since you deserve it, and your stunt where you "quit" just to see what people would say about you didn't go over well with me.  If this RfA fails, which I hope it does not, I implore you to wait 2 months before trying again.
'''Weak, weak oppose''' per Mo0.
This is becoming a monthly ritual despite people recommending that you give it at least two to three months after the last attempt. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Aranda56_4&diff=33786838&oldid=33784243] Why do you always come back too soon?
Cannot oppose in good faith. Cannot support either as I agree this is too soon. Try around April, or May.
Support great user --
'''Oppose and speedy removal''' - First edit was yesterday, 47 edits in total. However, I believe this user is not a vandal, but a new user not aware of the process in Wikipedia. Please transfer yourself to [[Wikipedia:Editor review]]. Thanks. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose'''. You joined Wikipedia two days ago. You seem like a good user thus far, but I suggest you wait a while before submitting an RfA. People usually wait until they get ~3,000 edits and 6 months experience on Wikipedia. Also, read policy guidelines, and other Wikipedia protocol. '''
'''Oppose''' per others...Way too soon. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Far too inexperienced. Voting for self is proof of this. Please remove this rfa, and I ask others to [[WP:AGF|Assume Good Faith]]
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits or experience. If you really do want to become an admin, get some more edits spread out across namespaces and come back in at least 5-6 months. You obviously want to help the encyclopedia, but it's to soon to become an admin. For now, I strongly suggest withdrawal. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Oppose and speedy removal''', it is a nonsense - 2 days of wiki-career and 46 edits are not enough to evaluate an ordinary editor, what to say about an administrator. Speaking about himself as for a third-person is making me nervous. --
'''Support''' because someone could finally protect heavily vandalized articles from vandalism.--

'''Support''' [[User:Yaf|Yaf]] 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I believe that he would be a good admin for a largely neglected area on WP, especially with regards to providing [[WP:SPP]] tagging for newly-created firearms articles that, for some reason, draw considerable vandalism from unregistered accounts, and which largely become vandalized repeatedly currently. Not every admin must by necessity use all the tools of adminship from day one.

'''Moral Support''' I see no reason why somebody whose contributions are largely in a specific subject area shouldn't be an admin.  In fact in many ways they make the best admins.  I also see a lot of good activity against vandals.  Apparent lack of use of things like edit summaries and warnings on vandals' talk pages is an issue and should be corrected before running for adminship again, but I don't see a reason to oppose otherwise.
'''Moral Support''' I empathise with the problems user deals with. However, he needs to differentiate between vandalism and edits he disagrees with. He needs to report problems to [[WP:AN/I]] and vandals to [[WP:AIV]]. He needs to warn the spammers and vandals instead of just reverting. If user will take part in RCPatrol, warn and report vandals, take part in *fD, and demonstrate better policy understanding, I will look forward to supporting the next time.
'''Oppose''' "Editing firearms and ammunition articles for accuracy and format" does not require admin tools --
'''Oppose''' per above <s>and per generally insufficient answers to the questions.<s>
'''Oppose'''; doesn't need the tools. I'm also not thrilled about him rounding up all his buddies to come here to !vote for him.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fluzwup&diff=prev&oldid=92244414] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squalla&diff=prev&oldid=92153897] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LWF&diff=prev&oldid=92154397] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CynicalMe&diff=prev&oldid=92154208] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ve3&diff=prev&oldid=92154016] I'm not opposing  just because of that, but it's not a very cool move. There are some other technical issues, too, like forgetting to sign the above difs and not properly transcluding this nomination for 3 days. Again, not my primary reason for opposing, but not a good sign.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> <s>'''Strong oppose'''</s> '''Stronger oppose'''. I don't know how far I can trust someone who doesn't seem to know what the admin tools do with them. Nothing you say you intend to do, or have ever done, would be helped by admin tools. And looking through your contributions... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asams10&diff=prev&oldid=87466804 dear God, no]. You can't just bulldoze over objections with "No, I will not reconsider, for I am right". There are other questionable discussion edits, but that's by far the worst. And I've changed once again to a stronger oppose, per [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=asams10&site=en.wikipedia.org almost no participation in projectspace]. -
'''Oppose''' per question one. Administrative powers are not required to do what you have specified. --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of edit summary usage in general (averaging about 52% between the two), and lack of experience in general outside of a very narrow focus. I think a little more experience, especially with areas outside the main article space, would be good. As others others have indicated, nothing you've indicated requires admin tools. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font>
'''Oppose''' per the above. No indication for the need for admin tools or - with e.g. ten Wikipedia: namespace edits - an inclination to use them.
'''Oppose'''. Statement leaves the impression that he wants admin powers partly in order to gain the upper hand in POV disputes, though I understand his frustration with people who don't know much about the subject editing articles. --<font color="00cc00">
'''Oppose''' Answer to question one reveals no requirement for admin tools.  Withdraw this RfA and get an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] instead.  You can also try Esperanza for some [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]]. There is no admin cabal, is there?
'''Strong Oppose''' per the canvassing as indicated by Kafziel, lack of indication of necessary need for tools in question #1, condescending remarks contrary to [[WP:AGF]] in answer to question #3, seeming ignorance for general Wikipedia policy, blanket dismissal of oppose votes as ignorant in his comment in the discussion section of this RfA, and now the belligerence and arrogance shown in user's response to above oppose. Adminship is not for the narrow-minded. Expand your horizons, please. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
[[WP:WAIN|Adminship is not a trophy. Adminship is not immunity]]. -
'''Oppose''' 10 WP space edits, 6 of them to this RfA. I don't feel sure this user would block in the right situations especially because of the answer to Q1. If you want to block users see the [[WP:BP|blocking policy]] also rememeber the warnings (<nowiki>{{test1}} through {{test4}}</nowiki>) and to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].
'''Oppose'''. —
'''Oppose.''' Seems like a good editor but he no real reason has been put forth how wikipeida will be improved by giving admin status. His goals can be accomplished with a regular user's tools.
'''Oppose''' Appearently you don't know what kinds of tools admins need. Also, weak answers that dosen't require admin position. Try to come back again in a few months with more experience.--
'''Oppose''' Does not seem to need admin tools based on the answers given. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''- Reading instructions correctly and dealing with unforeseen results is a critical skill for administrators, in my opinion, and munging this self-nomination and not getting that fixed for three days isn't a good sign at all.  Neither is the lack of experience with discussions on deleting articles, wikipedia policies and guidelines, etc.  Three to six months more experience, with a focus on that (and a better understanding of admin tools), and I might be okay supporting.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience in XfD.  I'm not satisfied with the candidate's answers to the generic questions.
'''Oppose''' Good editor. Do not need admin status
'''Oppose''' Asams10 is one of my favorite editors, and works tirelessly to hold firearms articles to high encyclopedic standards.  However, I see an admin as someone who helps resolve controversy--so I would first like to see him work on communicating better with other editors.  He sometimes doesn't explain his actions or listen to reason--for example, he is very quick to revert even helpful edits (such as those meant to improve grammar)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AK-47&diff=87646774&oldid=87645534]. --
'''Oppose''' I don't like the confrontational tone you use in a lot of firearms edits, specifically on the AR15 page.
'''Oppose''' Does not require adminship to do the things he says he wishes to do, so what's the point here? [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I believe asams10 ''can'' be a good admin, I just do not have confidence in him yet. It's a bit of a [[false dichotomy]] to say we require admins to be experts on subject matter and on Wikipedia process & policy; subject matter experts are much more valuable, and correspondingly can do much more across the 'pedia constructively. Admins are given a few extra tools/responsibilities that are generally applicable regardless of their experience with a given subject matter. I expect I'll be happy to support you sometime in the future if you wish to run again, but right now per your own admission you're still learning new things every day. Don't get discouraged, many first RFAs go down in electronic flames only to have the nominee pass with flying colors later (or just decide to retain their editor privileges instead of get caught up in wiki-drama). Everything you mentioned in Q1 is possible as an editor, short of becoming a POV-warring admin, something I don't believe you want. -- ''
'''Neutral''' per Nae'blis. User doesn't really demonstrate a need for the tools. '''''
'''Neutral''' per Mailer Diablo; there's no reason why you can't continue your great contributions without admin tools. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral'''. It doesn't seem like you really have a need for admin tools at this moment. '''
'''Neutral'''. There's really nothing technical about being admin, but rather it's a janitorial role where you may handle tasks such as [[WP:AFD|AFD]]'s, speedy deletions, as well as enforcing policies, protecting pages, and dealing with vandals.  It requires a high standard of civility and trust that you understand the policies and know how to apply them.  I've run into Yaf, but aside from that, I'm not familiar with you and your contributions.  I normally only support or oppose when I'm familiar enough with the candidate to make a judgment based on my interactions with the user, and abstain otherwise.  I am concerned with points raised by Kafziel, Physicq210, and Amarkov.  I may support at a future time, once I get to know you better and you get more familiar with the procedural aspects of Wikipedia that admin tools are used for.  For what it's worth, I do have some other firearms articles on my watchlist and have added [[AK-47]], [[M1 Garand]], and [[M16 rifle]] on my watchlist. I am willing to watchlist others.  Please don't be discouraged.  Take the discussions here as constructive feedback.  --
'''Neutral''' I have also added the above-mentioned frequently vandalized gun articles to my watch list.  Expert knowledge about a subject is not usually required to revert vandalism to articles about that subject, as blatant vandalism, is well, blatant.  I expect this user can quite soon be a great admin, and continue to work on the subjects dear to him or her, but some more experience in the areas related to the tools is necessary.
'''Neutral''' While the candidate is certainly a good editor, I am not sure he fully appreciates what the admin role entails.--
'''Neutral''' seems to me that he doesn't really need the tools he's asking for.
'''Support'''. Per nom.--
'''Support'''. Adam would bring a strong focus on grammar and punctuation as an editor he would be an asset to the Wiki efforts --[[User:ketan1y|ketan1y]] <small>(User's first edit.
'''Support'''. Great attention to detail and unrelenting in purging articles of political agendas. His language skills are also top notch. --
'''Support'''. AStanhope's sense of fairness and singleminded goal of solving controversy through consensus would make him an excellent admin.  --
Perfectly decent editor - deserves at least ''some'' '''support'''. And the line "So - they're not sockpuppets. They're shills." is priceless :D -
'''Oppose'''. Good editor but not nearly enough experience. If the nominee becomes more involved in the community and edits more regularly, I don't see any reason to oppose in the future. --
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits for the length of time editing. Will support with more community involvement.
'''Oppose''' because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NCdave&diff=11712533&oldid=11711501], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astanhope&diff=11712633&oldid=11712594], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Astanhope&diff=next&oldid=11712633], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/NCdave&diff=12279126&oldid=12278319]. I do fully recognize that the target of his attacks was a troublesome user, but an admin should be able to rise above that.
'''Oppose''' per AnnH and not enough edits for the length of time.
'''Oppose''', good editor, but too few project namespace edits.  Also, in Astanhope's response to question 1, all of the tasks listed are ones that a non-admin can do. --
'''Oppose''' - too many questions raised over user's behaviour as pointed out by AnnH, although that was some time ago.  However I also have concerns that the user has too few edits in the time they've been here and those [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAstanhope&diff=36724788&oldid=36720623 three possible sockpuppet votes within half an hour of each other] when this nomination first began are highly suspicious.  Also I have suspicions over the history between the nominator and the nominee: comparing their contributions they do not appear to have ever been online at the same time and both have contributed to each other's user pages (Bltpdx's was created by AStanhope).  Even if they're not true I should not have to have these suspicions of a user that's about to become an admin. --
'''Oppose''' per AnnH.
'''Oppose'''. Way too few edits.
'''Oppose''' per Ann, Francs.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose'''.  The answer to the first question below confuses me.  The tasks you listed all can be done by regular users and don't require admin capabilities, so I am not sure why the user seems to really want to be an an admin.  Could you clarify any?  Furthermore, there isn't a lot of project space contributions, nor is there any edits to templates or images.  The latter two isn't that big of an issue for me though, as it is only a minor concern.  However, the edit summary usage is commendable. --
'''Reluctantly oppose'''. I'm sure that he's a nice guy and he's certainly been a good Wikipedian, but even with 1000 edits, I'm not sure that he's got the experience he needs. From a random sample of around 20 edits dating back from the last 150 or so, almost all of them have been spelling corrections, wikilinking and such, whether they have been marked minor or not. His answer to the first question also causes me some concern that he doesn't really understand what adminship is about.
'''Oppose''' per edits raised by AnnH. Also seems to be lacking sufficient experience. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience.  Just like me.
Not sure yet.  --
'''Neutral''' - Given the contributions you want to make per your answer to question 1, I don't really get that you understand what adminship involves. It's not a status symbol or anything like that and you are certainly welcome to continue working on all those things. If you are interested in another try in a few months, get involved in the Wikipedia: namespace and you'll have more success here. (
'''Neutral'''. I think he's a great guy, and I wub him, but I'm not sure about a) whether  he needs to be an admin to do what he wants to do, or b) there's enough policy experience.
'''Support'''.
I '''support''' you.
'''Support''' --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you have good intentions and look like a good user, but you need a lot more experience. I doubt this RfA will pass, as most users here look for at least 2000-3000 edits. Sorry!
'''Oppose''' - you don't have enough experience here yet. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' not nearly enough edits. The reason this is important is not that there is a specific "magic number" of edits, but that with only a handful its very difficult for those of us who don't know you to judge how you react to the wide range of situations an admin has to deal with. So don't take this as a personal judgement - we just don't have enough info yet. Good luck, [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but just not enough experience as of yet. --
'''Oppose'''. I suggest you withdraw. But you will be more than welcome to candidate again, with more experiences. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Oppose''' There is not enough information to make a good decision.  When I look at admin candidates, I first look through namespace talks.  I look to see how they react to other editors.  Do they have grace under fire?  Do they seem like they could make hard decisions in a neutral manner, then stand by them?  I also prefer to have editors who have made substantial edits in the namespace.  This is an encyclopedia, after all, and many of the administrator jobs are related to content.  Do it look like the admin candidate knows exactly what tools they will get and why they need them?  Continue to contribute and come back after there is a record where we can evaluate you.  Good luck.
'''<s>OPPOSE</s> per all above'''. Please see
'''Oppose''' per above. Also, next time around, try to take more time to write your nomination if it will be a self-nom. Also, put some more time into answering the rfa questions. Those are key.--
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' I don't suffer from editcountitis but you need more edits.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Your self-nomination appears to be your vehicle for getting advice from other editors on your performance more than a genuine desire to become an admin.  While seeking advice is good, I don't think using the RfA process for that purpose is appropriate.  Your answers to the questions below are too short, you have too few edits, and your apparent misuse (not necessarily bad-faith, though) of the RfA process calls your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines into question. Work on become an active editor first. --
'''Speedy Oppose'''. You only have 69 edits in 3 months, which is well below most standards. Aside from that, your answers are not all that good. You name tasks you would like to help out with, but you don't explain how you would help. The one article you cited as a major contribution was already explained elsewhere and redirected. For the third question, even if you've never been in any conflicts, you should be able to think of a constructive and elaborate response. It's obvious you're not ready for admin responsibilities.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Not nearly enough contributions to the project. Does not meet my standards either. —
'''Oppose''' per ShortJason, and lack of editing conflicts suggests not enough experience. Keep at it though, you have potential. -→
'''Oppose'''.  I'm concerned about your relationship with the deceptively-named user <tt>I like to watch BasebaIl</tt>, who has only 19 edits, consisting of vandalism and repeated attempts to post info about a non-notable, not-yet-published book.  Somehow in this very short time span, this new user found your RfA and voted support, and afterward, you supported him in an AfD process.
'''Oppose''' a typo in the answers sum it up. More experience needed.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Gwernol]] above.  Blanking a user talk page with warnings is A Bad Thing.  Also, you're about 2431 edits (including at least four portal talk edits) short of my usual edit count standards.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I suggest you try again once you've got a bit more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above. Sorry.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above. Also, you have vandalized three times. Once you deleted someone's oppose vote and put in your support vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Christopherlin&diff=prev&oldid=41706528] and twice you tried to close an AFD debate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TropicaI_Storm_Jason&diff=prev&oldid=43767379] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humbierto&diff=prev&oldid=43768175]. '''''
'''Oppose''', and [[user:backburner001]] nailed it: this seems more a validation of you as an editor than a legitimate reason to ask for adminship or a need to become an admin ("need" as in Wikipedia's). So, I'll validate your efforts and say, yes, you are on track, even as I oppose your desire to help the project further despite lacking the range of experience you'll need to actually do so. Six months on this path, give or take, and I'll be happy to support you. :) <tt>
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above, lacks of experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. You seem a civil user, which is very good. Civility is a very important quality for n admin so you seem to have a headstart there. First & foremost you should make solid contributions to mainspace articles. After all we are here to build an encyclopedia. You can also try your hand at RC patrolling, which is an important admin task. Also try & participate in [[WP:AFD]]'s etc & gain experience in the workings of Wikipedia. Follow these guidelines & soon you can be considered to be admin material. I really feel that you should withdraw now before the harsher oppose votes come along. If you want advice or opinions of other users about your performance I suggest you go to [[WP:ER]]. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' – again, there are enough oppose votes as it is, and I don't doubt for a moment that this was a good faith (self)nomination. Perhaps the notion that administrators require much more experience than this user has should be made more prominent, on this page or elsewhere? This sort of situation has happened before, we have [[Wikipedia:Editor review]] (OK, it's still a "proposal", but it's in use) if editors want their good and bad qualities pointed out; there's no need for them to construct an RfA, and suffer the force of consensus against them as a result –
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. RfA is not really used for this purpose. We have [[Wikipedia:Editor review]], which is what you were looking for, I think. Besides the reasons noted above, I wanted to address your talk page. You blanked most of it back in March, so I don't believe you meant to hide it in preparation for your RfA. However, if you were trying to archive it (as the edit summary says) then you need to follow this: [[Talk_page#Etiquette]]. Ask someone if you need help with that. Thankfully, we can still salvage yours w/o too much trouble.--
'''Comment'''. I have no doubt that you mean well, and I know that edit counts are meaningless, but 70 is a bit absurd.--
<s> Should have happened last time.
'''Strong Oppose''' (switched from '''Support'''), because this new format for RfA's is terrible, and somebody refactored my comment ''substantially'', to which I '''mightily''' object!
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' - <s>Malformed RfA,</s> Insufficent mainspace experience (615 mainspace edits) and unconvincing answers. --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Malformed RfA, lack fo MS edits, generall suckyness of this RfA tbh. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
Good on you for being bold, but not ready for tools just yet. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' lack of mainspace edits. Doesn't seem to really need the tools. --
'''Oppose''' I checked some random AfDs, and many of the reasons given did not show much thought; 'non-notable' as the ''entire'' AfD nom (twice in the ten random AfD diffs I checked) is not really very helpful, especially as [[WP:N]] is an essay. It's also unclear what the tools would be used for (although I don't hold mainspace edit count against RfA candidates). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 16:38, 29 September 2006 (
'''Oppose''' the clear consensus of those expressing an opinion on recent RfAs has been to use the support/oppose/neutral sections even when the proposed discussion section was available. The attempt to impose the discussion format without an accompanying process or [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] was, even if [[WP:AGF|well intentioned]], [[WP:POINT|disruptive]].
'''Searing Oppose'''. Initially malformed RFA; seemingly the user mistook this page as a place to try out a proposed policy in its infancy. If that's not reason enough to oppose, the user has no GAs or FAs and the number of edits to the article mainspace are lower than those for user talk. Wikipedia is not here for social networking: we're here to construct an encyclopedia. The answers are weak and some of the spelling and grammar is all over the shop. No. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (However, I can't work out this refactoring comments business - could somebody provide a diff?
I would prefer to see more activity in Wikipedia namespace to obtain familiarity with our processes.
What exactly does ''cleaning up and streamline ideas'' mean, and why would you need admin abilities to do that?  --
'''Set condition one throught the wiki..''' - Wow! Weak answers, and serious [[WP:OWN|ownership problems]]. Never even accepted self nom. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.93.207.12&diff=prev&oldid=77230342 This edit summary] concerns me, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anime&diff=prev&oldid=77232352 oh and this one too], You also fail to use fair use rationales on fair use image uploads, and rarely use edit summarys. You've shown a lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policys to me, (Advice: Withdraw, return in 5000 edits or 4 months, also please read [[WP:CIVIL]]). <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose'''. You have only ~780 edits, hardly enough for a potential admin. I suggest you keep up with the good work, and come back a few months later when you have a few thousand more edits. Also, I suggest you re-think your answers to all three questions above. They have to be thoughtout and thorough, not one-liners. For now, I also think you should just withdraw your RfA because the consensus will definitely be against granting you adminship. --
'''Strong Oppose''' user was blocked 3 days ago for personal attacks which the user believed were okay because they were in an edit summary; shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and a contempt for other users.
'''Speedy Oppose''' per recent block.
'''Strong oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4Kids_Entertainment&diff=prev&oldid=76607632 This] edit summary, and others from Matthew above tell me "no" for a start. The edit summary is very rarely used, and was blocked 3 days ago (above). Lack of civilty, and basically all of above. A bit of a bad time for an RfA I think. --
'''Oppose'''. The age of the account scares me (July 2006), as well as the weak answers to the questions. I'm also questioning some of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=B%26W_Anime_Fan page moves] I've seen, as they don't seem particularly helpful, especially because you did not notify [[User:Shanel|Shanel]] before moving one of his/her subpages. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:B%26W_Anime_Fan block log] is also a source of concern. I would recommend withdrawing this RfA, then giving it some time (around 4-6 months) to show that you deserve adminship.
'''Strong Oppose''' Recent block, and a limted number of contributions. Block especially makes me issue a strong oppose. Lack of civility also in my opinion.
'''Strong Oppose''' per any conceivable con.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, maybe later. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Strongest possible oppose''', lack of experience (account created July 2006), has been blocked six times for vandalism and personal attacks. Very young (born in 1995) - while I don't consider age to be a hindrance to adminship, this is a bit extreme. User page violates [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. Strongly recommend withdrawal or early closure as a failed RFA per [[WP:SNOW]]. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Strong oppose'''. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fist_of_the_North_Star&diff=77206638&oldid=77206350 diff] only 3 days ago show that you have issues with "owning" articles as previously stated. I'm afraid that if you were an admin then you would protect "your pages" from edits that you disagree with. Also placing Sprotect template on peoples user page without their permission could easily be seen as vandalism, especially from a non-admin.
'''Oppose''' per above. Please read [[WP:OWN]] and get more experience here.
Very strong oppose. Cannot put tools into this user's hands. Misuse very likely. &ndash;
Great contributions, especially to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:talk namespace.  Combine that with nice answers to the questions and 2000 article edits, and you have an admin.
'''Badlydrawnsupport''' I've been hoping to see this RfA.  Good work on AfD!
'''Strong Support''' Having a dedicated administrator so interested in championing "ugly duckling" content will be a great boon to Wikipedia.  Plus, he's a kind fellow.
Hey, I wanted to nominate this guy. Anyway, I agree with Jeff on some things, I disagree with him on others. But every encounter has left me with the impression that he is reasonable, will always discuss things calmly, and is willing to listen to criticism and dissenting views, and actually wants to understand them, rather than just disagree with them. Should make a good admin. --
'''Strong Support''' One of the most active guys at the AFD. Excellent user overall. --
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' - per all above --
'''Support''', absolutely.
Reviewed User talk: and Wikipedia: contributions and '''approved''' of them. &mdash;
'''Support''' nice guy - <b>
'''Support''' Great user...everything I've seen has been thoughtful and level headed.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I dunno, doesn't know the difference between "flair" and "flare"... oh, what the hell, seen this one around, '''support'''. ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
Never, he'd make a terrible admin. --
'''Support''' Regardless of whether you agree with his AfD positions or not, you always get the impression he's taken the time to consider them carefully, and he's open to discussion, which are two of the most important qualities in an admin. Very sound grasp of policy, generally polite, so I'm happy to support. Good luck!
'''Support''' with cliche "''I thought this person '''was''' an admin!''" I've seen this editor a lot, and while I too have disagreed with some of his positions on AfDs and such, I've also agreed with him on a lot of them as well. Produces good work and highly likely will be a good admin. Good nom, Guy!
'''Support''' passes my rfa criteria. <font color="green">
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''

'''Support''' seems like he would do well to have the extra tools and a pledge to stay away from issues where he might have a POV (some XfD's) shows an honest self-analysis and a good show of responsibility
'''Support'''. I may not always agree with his opinions, but I can't find fault with his wikiwork.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' absolutely.  I disagree with his stance on many AfD's, but this user is committed, works hard, and is openminded.  Wholehearted support --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''&mdash;looks good to me. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Indie Support'''  Good record, solid civility, and a degree in history to boot.
Having looked over the comments given, I believe this user is worthy of adminship.
'''Support''' Good user, will be great admin.
'''Support''' ... and all this time, I thought he was already an admin.
'''Support''' Great user and will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' Badlydrawnjeff is wikipedian whom I don't know well, but he meets all of my criteria, and is a very nice user to work with. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Cliché "I thought he was one" support''' '''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Keep''' Pretty far into the inclusionist camp, possibly even the most inclusionist regular contributor on AfD currently.  It's commendable that Jeff has remained staunchly true to his views without becoming dogmatic or confrontational about them.  While it's safe to say that we don't always agree, I think Jeff will make a good admin.  Welcome aboard.
'''Support''' have seen loads on xFD. Am very confident in his skills!
'''Support''' per the contributions I've seed on AfD and the answers to the questions. Great admin candidate-
Strikes me as having all the right stuff somewhere. '''
'''Support''' Add me to the list of folks who don't always agree with Jeff in AFD, but respect his dilligently researched arguments, his civility, and his awareness of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. <b>
'''Support''' From what I have seen, badlydrawnjeff would be the perfect admin. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', great editor, very active on AfD--
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
More candidates like this one, please!<sup>TM</sup> '''Support''' Sorry to be cliched, but I seriously thought he was one already. He's more inclusionist than I am, if such is possible, but well reasoned, not rabid. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support''' solid editor and professonal in that he uses summaries and avoids starting conflict. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' good work on AfDs, also per the support of several above --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Thoughtful, well rounded user. His work in AfD has seriously impressed me.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''Whether or not you agree with his inclusionist/conservative leanings, you must agree that his edits put the improvement of the project above all else. He first gained my respect when he took the initiative on internet memes, even if I did not completely agree with him. He will most certainly be fair-minded, objective, and disciplined in his use of the buttons and will all the while whack vandals with the proper balance of the carrot and the stick. It is truly an honor to be a small part in <s>his promotion<s> this discussion.
'''Support'''. I don't always agree with Jeff myself (despite the fact that I would possibly be described as a moderate inclusionist) but that's a matter of personal philosophy, and per the excellent answer to Q1 isn't an issue here anyway. What is important is that he is always sensible and polite, and that he genuinely seems to care about the issues at hand. Strong support.
'''Support'''. Like a lot of people, I don't always agree with him, but I can't fault his work here. -
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' for sure!
'''Support''' for he has shown to be a fair and reasonable contributor with positive history.
'''Support''' Badlydrawnjeff and I probably disagree on 90% of the AfD's we both participate in, but that is simply a difference of opinion and I have found that even then he tends to be fairly reasonable. If I could level any criticism against him, it would be that he should take a deep breath and try and be a bit more [[WP:COOL]] before getting involved in AfD's of articles he feels strongly about. Still, inclusion/deletion leanings on AfD should not be a qualifier here; what matters is if there is a reasonable expectation that the admin will execute his/her duties based on the current guidelines and procedures and not based on personal feelings or opinions of said procedures, and I think it is reasonable to expect Badlydrawnjeff will do so.  I would also hope that based on Badlydrawnjeff's comments about CSD:A7 that he would simply recuse himself from closing, editing, or modifying anything listed speedy A7.--
'''Support''' as per Just zis Guy you know?, we need more reasonable folks like Jeff.
'''Support''' great editor, hell if Isotope can agree to support someone he opposes this much of the time, the guy must be at least somewhat good at remaining neutral :) &nbsp;
'''Welldrawn Support''' Seems like a good guy. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|I'm all ears]]
I have to agree with various things said above.  I disagree with his position on AFDs and DRVs constantly, but that is no reason to oppose.  The answers to the questions allay most of my cocerns.  Though, I could go for less badgering about WP:SNOW on DRV.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', good work.
'''Support''' —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support'''. Good nom from [[User:JzG|JzG]], who I never agree with either, except this time. --
'''Support'''. I see this user on AfD quite a bit. Like many others, I've disagreed with him on occasion, however I believe he acts in good faith and maintains considerable calm compared to others who have been on the losing end of so many discussions (that's really not intended to be an insult). I am also encouraged that says he will not be involved in closing XfDs, as I do believe that would either present a conflict or exclude him from an area in which he is active. If there is any criticism I have with this user, it is that, on occasion, he will argue a minor detail past the point of usefulness. His answers to the questions below indicate to me that this will not be an issue in administrative duties, and I hope that this will indeed be the case.
'''Support''' Good and continues contributions to Wikipedia content and also active participations and engagement in Wikipedia internal and external things --
'''Support''' without hesitation --
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support''' per nom, glad to see this nomination actually. --
'''Support''' - the amount of work done is sufficient imho. //
'''Strong support''' - I really like what I have seen of this editor.  I respect anyone who isn't afraid to go against the flow in AfD, even passionately.  Ultimately, I see this editor using logic in his interactions with other users, which I think it valuable for admins.  I have no reason to suspect he would abuse admin tools. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' as per the nominator.
'''Weak Support''' Great nomination by an unexpected nominator. As per below, I don't think his reasoning on AFD is always sound - but it seems to be always in good faith, and you can't ask much more than that. The idea of him closing AFDs spooks me slightly, but then WP:DRV seems to handle all cases now so that allies my fears a bit.
<b>Support</b> -
'''Support''' per JzG's well argued reasons.  I beleive he can be trusted to use his powers safely within policy and guidelines, even if/when he wishes those guidelines and policies were different.  --
'''Support''' per nominator.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Weak support''': I've looked through some discussions and they indicate a willingness to engage and strength to not be silenced for convenience alone. Although more inclusionist than me on notability, support for supremecy of policy eg [[WP:V]] and civil disgreements I have encountered lead to support.
'''Oppose''' Is this a joke? I can't think of a single user that is less qualified to be an admin. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.--
'''Oppose''':  Both for temperament and for his stance on the include/exclude of articles.
'''Oppose''' per above concerns --
'''Strong oppose''' for pretty much the same reason as Geogre cited.  Also, he vigorously defends articles that make Wikipedia look very, very foolish and frivolous.  I think he's about as fit to be an admin as I am, and me being an admin is probably a horrifying thought to most people.  I don't want to accuse him of wikistalking, because I don't have conclusive proof, but I've gotten the distinct sense in the past from both his edit history and messages to me that he follows me around and closely watches what I do and actively tries to cancel out what I do.  I suppose that's his right, but I don't like it, and I fear that if he were an admin, he'd be even more aggressive in this behavior.  I've also found him unwilling to compromise.  I'd be willing to be more accepting of his ideas on internet fads if he'd quit almost singlehandedly sabotaging so many of my deletion proposals that I feel very strongly about.   He has harshly criticized my attempts to delete foolish and ridiculous sexual articles, accusing me of being prudish or anti-sex without even asking about my views on sex.  He makes a lot of assumptions and jumps to conclusions about me in that area.  I'm actually very open-minded and have had diverse experiences, but I dislike slangy dicdefs and anecdotal or word-of-mouth type sourcing for articles.  I think sexual articles should be held to the same rigorous standards as medical articles, because that's essentially what they are.  He seems to think that sexual articles should be filled with current mass-market media or "pop culture," which I think trivializes a very important aspect of human behavior.  He was also pretty nasty to me in the talk page for [[Hogging]] because I tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost.  He accused me of tagging it after he'd begun working on it, which is completely false.  In fact, after he fixed the article, I voted on AfD to KEEP it because he brought it up to minimum standards, and I couldn't ignore that, even if I thought an article on the concept was more suited to a slang dictionary.  He openly ignores policies such as [[WP:WINAD]] and thinks that pretty much any published newspaper or magazine is a reliable source.  Having been a journalist, I know otherwise.  He strongly opposes CSD A7, which as an admin he would be duty-bound to enforce.  I imagine him getting very creative in finding assertions of notability to get around deleting under CSD A7.  He spent an indordinate amount of time and effort trying to save an article on "cock blocking," a concept better covered by something like Urban Dictionary.  He scoffed at me for nominating a completely obvious dicdef, [[Dust bunny]].  He's had a pretty negative impact on my overall Wikipedia experience, and I fear that if he becomes an admin, it will become even worse and I will have to quit contributing under my name, get another account, and focus on radically different things that he doesn't follow, like biomedical science, clinical laboratory medicine, pharmacology, linguistics, and classics, subjects I know but don't want to completely restrict myself to.  I dread seeing his signature and avoid him whenever I can, but it seems that he always turns up.  I apologize for being so negative, but I'm trying to be honest rather than offensive.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Very strong oppose'''. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of this user gaining the mop, following [[User talk:Redvers#Daniel_Brandt|this conversation]] where he argued for an AfD closing statement to be changed in order to rewrite history because he did not like the reasoning behind the close (he wasn't arguing against the closure, just seeking a different reason to be given). That makes it hard for me to trust him with the tools as they allow for some degree of actual rewriting of history. Also, if a user feels so strongly as to argue that another user tell lies to fit with their personal policies, I'm unhappy about the potential for using powerful admin functions and then lying about how and why they were used. Sorry. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
Changed to '''oppose''' from support, per above but mainly per Redvers. He brings up a very strong point, and I don't think you being an admin and acting this way will help the current situation with disruptive admins any more.
<s>'''Strongest Oppose Possible''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Armando_%28Blogger%29&diff=prev&oldid=60691055 BLP is just a guideline, so we can break it].<s>'''Strong Oppose''' per question 4, which states, in practice, that we should not block individuals who tenaciously edit to reveal personal information about non-notable individuals in an attempt to harm careers.
'''Oppose'''. I had to think about this long and hard. I trust [[User:JzG|JzG]], and when my gut tells me to disagree with him I always rather just say nothing. But the only user to ever have gotten under my skin was [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|Badlydrawnjeff]] and I cut down my time here to nothing for a couple of months because of it. After a disagreement on an AfD he went through all my edits for days. I didn't feel stalked so much as bullied; how dare I argue against him. It's my $0.02, for all that's worth nowadays.
'''Oppose''' per Geogre and Redvers.
'''Oppose''', somewhat reluctantly, per Geogre and Brian above. His inclusionism is of a particular stripe that I think does actual harm to Wikipedia--not "what encyclopedic value can we discover in this article?" but, in his words, "Why shouldn't this article be here?" This has led to frankly ridiculous articles either being kept or dragged through prolonged discussions on AfD--his stance on "internet memes" in particular leads to a loss of selectivity that I find troubling. This is not to say he will misuse thhe tools, but in places where admin judgment comes into play, as in AfD closings, I just don't have the solid trust in that judgment I would need to support. That said, he's a good editor and seems like a nice person, and we agree on a lot of issues--strong opposition to [[WP:SNOW]] among them--but I just don't feel that he is admin material. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;
'''Oppose''', as per rodii above, I don't agree with the nominee's take on a what an encyclopedia is as demonstrated by his activities at AFD. No big deal ? Well neither is being an admin.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Question 3 indicates, I feel, that he is too contentious, but my biggest concern is the answer to question 5.  Actions outside policy take extra time, frequently, because of opposition on principle rather than disagreement with the action.  Thus Jeff seems to be saying that such things take time because he helps make them take time.  Following the letter of policy is almost always good, but I fear that an editor with such a straight-jacket view of policy will do the wrong thing (or war with those who are doing the right thing) in the few cases where it's not.  We need admins who put the goals and purpose of the wiki first. --
'''Oppose''' per rodii. As a regular viewer of AfD, I have to say I don't really trust his judgement on what is suitable for an encyclopedia. <i><b>
'''Strongly Oppose'''. The only experience I had with this user was on the Scoop Jackson article discussion page. He was very difficult to engage with, very petty and quite frankly offensive. He seemed to be of the view that if you disagreed with him, you were a vandal. These type of admins are about as necessary on WP as an extra dollar is to Bill Gates.
'''Strong oppose'''.  This editor does not appear to understand the basic issues surrounding [[WP:BLP]] - he appears to be endorsing the inclusion of information which is damaging to the subject of the article, but which is trivially important to the article [[Talk:Armando_%28blogger%29#Counsel_is_a_job_title.2C_counsel_is_a_job.|here]].  He lacks an understanding of policy and he is willing to act in a way that has the potential to hurt the project.  He does not appear to be admin material.
'''Oppose''' behavioral issues raise questions as to suitability for conflict amelioration.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Guettarda re BLP.
'''Strong oppose''', partially per Bryan G and Guettarda, but also because Jeff tends to rub people up the wrong way with his often aggressive stances on AFD, and at this time, I do ''not'' think giving him the ability to close AFDs would be suitable.  We see enough AFDs closed as 'no consensus' due to blind keep voting despite failing kinda important policies such as [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]] or [[WP:NOT]] as it is, and Jeff's pro-everything, ignoring-policy stance on AFD (examples - [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Drennen|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fed_Up|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alofoque (2nd nomination)|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clark_W._Roberts|here]] - ''"I know full well he doesn't meet WP:BIO, but it's verifiable"'', [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Seconds of Love|here]], just in the last few days) leads me to believe he would - even if he tried not to - fail to apply policy correctly.
'''Oppose''' per Redvers. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - An involved editor and passionate Wikipedian will get involved in some controversy. However, I am concerned over the amount of controversary, the number of people involved, and the heated nature of the clashes. A head-strong and opinionated person is great as a general Wikipedian, but not as an Admin. Considering the candidate's history I am somewhat surprised at the nomination. Also, given the candidate's independent nature, I am surprised he accepted the nomination.
'''Oppose''' per Redvers and NSLE.
'''Oppose''', I believe that badlydrawnjeff acts in what he believes is the best interest of the project. However, I also believe that he is overly argumentative, not due to malice, but due to his passion for Wikipedia. Someone's keep vs. delete "voting" record on AfD is not of much interest to me. What is of interest is the person's grasp and usage of policy, especially against his or her own interest, his or her open-mindedness to the other side's point of view and his or her ability to compromise. I think that badlydrawnjeff's strong inclusionistic beliefs has lead to some questionable AfD judgments, especially in the determination of whether articles meet or don't meet policies and guidelines (speedy criteria, notability guidelines, WP:NOT), and that he has not put due consideration into the arguments of others. In an AfD discussion, you're not supposed to simply try to win others over to your side, you should genuinely listen to what others have to say, and not just in order to counter their arguments. You should always consider the possibility that you are wrong or biased. Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable. --
'''Oppose''' I find myself convinced by the above arguments.--
'''Oppose''' I disagree with the candidate's stance on inclusion, I also disagree with the candidate's stance on SNOW and policy-mongering.  Appears to be involved in a number of conflicts at present.  I agree with Kjkolb's well thought out comment.
'''Oppose''' per Encyclopedia Dramatica adminship. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per Geogre, Redvers, and Rodii et al. Too contentious, applies the wrong reasoning, combative for no apparent reason other than obstinancy. No need for the tools, and unfortunately likely to cause more discord with them.
'''Neutral''' per question four and per Redvers
Changing to '''neutral''' after reading the oppose votes. Mostly meets my criteria, but a few respected editors are alleging harrassment now and that cannot be ignored. Also, despite assurances that the editor will not abuse the tools towards inclusionist ends, I can't ignore my gut feeling, which is now not to support this candidate.
Changed to '''neutral''' per answer to question 6. I still can't support someone who I am so far at odds with in policy and inclusionism terms.
Reluctantly '''neutral''' - I've been watching this one for days trying to figure out how to vote, because I like a lot of what jeff has to say and do. However I keep getting cramped fingers when I try to support him, so consider this an encouraging neutral. I might vote support on a future RfA if this one doesn't succeed, otherwise I wish him well with the bucket and/or mop. --
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with his inclusionism, but I don't think that's a good reason to oppose.--
'''Neutral''' (changed from support) - admins need to be closer to policy than this.
User's last 500 edits look good, except that they cover an entire year. Not really active enough. —
'''Oppose''' per weak answers to all questions. You're supposed to be thorough in your answers to these questions. Also, your last RfA failed with a vote of 9/8/5. That's not close at all! '''
No obvious need for tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions don't reveal a requirement for the admin tools or a knowledge of policy and process.  The user's low rate of participation over the course of this year indicates that they wouldn't be much assistance in clearing the admin backlogs.  I suggest that Bart133 withdraws this RfA and seeks an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] instead.  Then, with perhaps 500+ edits '''per month''' for a few months in 2007, they can go for some [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] to prepare them for another RfA in six months' time.  The intervening time can be filled with finding references for articles; creating articles from the requested articles lists; reverting vandalism and warning vandals and participating in XfD discussions, where they can demonstrate their grasp of [[:Wikipedia:Policies|policy and process]].
'''Oppose'''. Answers to questions fall far short. --
'''Oppose'''. His answers to the three questions have a ''total'' of 12 words. His description of having almost suceeded in his last RfA (with less than 55% support) leads me to believe that he doesn't quite understand the RfA process. Given that he put virtually zero effort into his RfA, I don't see any reason to grant adminship at this time.
'''Oppose''', per SuperMachine.  Most responses to your RFA are longer than your RFA itself. --
Sorry, but your answers to questions aren't particularly compelling :) You can help prevent vandalism without admin tools, and if you up your contribution rate, spend some more time looking around the place participating in XfDs and such, <s>and request an editor review</s>, an RfA sometime next year might just work out. Good luck! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
Don't see why not. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Not to rag on RexNL, but he was made an admin even though almost all of his activity was within 1 month, so I don't see why benon couldn't be one then. I know this RfA probably won't pass (sorry benon), but I will vote support to fill in this space.:p Give him a few months and he'll be a shoe-in --
'''Support''' - A bit short-tenured, but great vandal fighter who never fails to warn our new/anonymous friends. Reasonable contributions in the Project space as well. (
'''Support''' We need admins of all kinds.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools, 1 month is enough experiance and everything can be learned by being an admin anyways. --
Dispite the short time under his username, great vandal fighter and a nice person. '''Support.''' '''— <span style="font-family:Maiandra GD">
'''Support''' - extremely unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', I don't think a vandal would edit at the pace of 1500 per month and waste all that time during that month to abuse his admin powers.
'''Support''', especially for "Responses to questions", "Your talk page", "Mistakes/Errors in judgment" on [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]]. Also for good use of warning templates on vandal pages, and passes the ultimate questions- will this user do harm as an admin? No. Will this user do good as an admin? Looks like it :) If this RfA fails please continue the good work and try again in a couple of months or so.
'''Super-duper support''': This user is a committed vandal fighter. Some point out that s/he may need more experience. However, he has proven to be trustworthy and has frequently had to ask admins to ban people. We might as well facilitate the process and give him a mop.
'''Support''' An excellent vandal fighter!  Don't let losing this RfA (which I hope doesn't happen) put you down - you can do it! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Weak support''' Benon does a good job of RC patrolling but some times Benon's conduct can be a bit immature--<b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' -- <small> (
'''Support''', likely to do more good than harm. Deserves a chance.
'''Support''', User has demonstrated good faith in time here. If the user can be trusted in 4 months time, the user can be trusted now.  Adminship is no big deal.
'''Support''' see [[user:edivorce#Voting_on_RfA's|rational]].--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I believe benon will become a valued administrator, helping to mop the places others don't like. --
'''Support''' This user has been on both sides both as a vandal and as a dedicated user he will be a asset in restoring pages and blocking punks. [[User:
'''Oppose''' for now, good user but too little time, all activity in the last few weeks also, try again in a few months and your a shoo-in :) --
'''Strong Oppose''' I sorry, but 1,600 edits is not enough, besides 1,200 were in this month alone. His lack of inactivity is a problem. A good contributor other than that. Will support if you reapply in 3-4 months. —
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience as of yet.  The vandal fighting and high usage of edit summaries is commendable, but I'd really like to see an absolute minimum of 3 months of solid experience before adminship. --
'''Oppose'''. I think more time should pass before such a position is considered. --
'''Oppose''' per above needs more time. --
'''Oppose''' - too soon, too soon.
'''Oppose''' – too new, I'm afraid. You appear to be a good candidate, so I'll happily consider you in another 4 months at least.--
'''Oppose''' - I want to see if you can keep up your high edit count starting with February. You had a total of 10 edits before December. So, see you in a month or two.
'''Oppose''', started serious editing on 11th December and that's just not long enough to have seen things that happen and how to handle them and to have demonstrated thoroughly how you will handle the wide range of things that will come your way as an admin. Try again later. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
Per all above, too soon.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, two months of activity is not enough time. Do stick around though, you seem to be a good user. P.S. I admire your edit summary usage :-).--
Nothing personal, but I do '''oppose''' nominations of editors this new, as some things are only learned and seen over time.  Suggest trying again in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. Waay too new, and I though my 4 months before RfA was pushing it.'''
'''Oppose''': ten months too few.
'''Oppose.''' for now, if user shows regular activity and participation on current account, then he'll be a shoo-in for his next RFA. --
'''Nay''' more experience needed
'''Oppose.''' not been around long enough
'''Weak oppose''', as there is no way that you can learn about all the policies in Wikipedia in such a small sort of time, but most importantly, I try to look for important contributions to the article namespace. Most of your edits are vandalism reversion, which is ok, but I'd really like to see some more content.
'''Oppose'''. Too soon. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Oppose''' Your vandal fighting is great work but you seem to make mistakes, so I wouldn't want to equip you with a rollback button just yet. Maybe in a few months I can get a clearer picture of your editing.
'''Neutral''' Benon, you know I love ya, but I think it's really too soon for you.  You're great with reverting vandalism, but that's all I've seen you do these past couple weeks.  RFR would be perfect for you, but I don't feel Adminship is right for you, ''just yet''. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Neutral'''  Benon has been editing heavily for a while, but I don't think you're ready yet.  Keep up the good work, and in a few months, please try again. --
'''Neutral''' You've been registered for a bit, but have really just started editing regularly.  Be sure to look in to and work on the Project areas, as well as articles.
'''Neutral'''. Looks otherwise OK but has been really active for too little time.
'''Neutral'''. It will be better if you contribute more for longer time.--
Not sure yet.  --
'''Neutral''' - sorry mate but I think another month or so would do you the world of good. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. While I feel that "number of months" is just another form of editcountitis, the painful truth is that Wikipedia has A LOT of policies, and to even get acquainted with half of them, you need more than a month and a half. I wish this user the best of luck and hope they will come back in late March if they keep up this level of commitment.
'''Neutral'''. You have shown yourself to be a dedicated vandal fighter. However, being an admin is more than just fighting vandals. I suggest you read up on what admins do (such as at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list|Administrators' reading list]] and maybe check out some of the conversation at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:ANI]]. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Neutral'''.  I don't plan to oppose this user, but I feel that he needs to take more care over what can and cannot be speedy deleted before given the chance to play with the delete buttons himself (e.g. [[Wmsc]]).
'''Neutral'''. Benon, love ya, man, but I can't support you.  I personally would be willing to do it after another month.
'''Neutral''' until more experienced, and use correct spelling/grammer, please  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Has handled this RfA well, despite some obvious sockpuppetry. (changed vote from: <s>'''Oppose'''.</s> Only 23 edits before December 19th.  Active for less than a month and a half.  More time please, looks good for the future.)
'''Neutral''', its really too soon. Really needs more experience. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Too soon. Patience, my young padawan. I do admire your willingness to admit you were once a vandal, though. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' maybe next time and I agree with Quadell about admitting that you were once a vandal. --
'''Neutral''' definitely on the right track so far - another month or two and you can count on some enthusiastic support from this corner. --[[User:Peruvianllama|P]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Great vandalwhacker, would benefit from admin tools.  I can't believe people are opposing based on a joke.  --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''', has been here over 6 months and been making positive contributions during that time.
'''Support''' - I haven't really evaluated whether Benon is a well-rounded user, and I don't really think that's terribly necessary. Unlike some others, I do think a great vandal fighter can benefit from the tools of adminship, and Wikipedia can benefit from granting those tools. (
'''Support''' - unlike the last RfA, Benon has been actively contributing for a solid three months and his wait to resubmit shows patience. If he expands his range of involvement, he will be a great candidate next time.
'''Oppose''' Way too new --
'''Oppose'''.  Although editor seems to have accumulated a large number of good edits in recent months, I'm uncomfortable supporting a self-nomination based on a relatively short edit time, especially after past vandalism.  While I welcome his interest in reverting vandalism, I don't think admin tools are necessary for an editor to be an effective vandal fighter. I might be willing to support a much later nomination, particularly if sponsored by someone. --
Nothing personal, but per my previous rant, and the fact we're building an encyclopedia, not enough mainspace edits committed to building Wikipedia, and good vandal fighters not necessarily = good admins. Sorry. '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' I love to see an editor who has joined us after once being a vandal, but four months of active editing is not sufficient experience in such a case.
'''Oppose''' To new since he was a vandal account. Love to see vandals reform themselves though.
'''Oppose''' Not active in the wikipedia community.  --
'''Oppose'''. I usually like to see a little more activity in AfD or whateverfD and their subsequent talk pages for people looking to become vandal-fighter-type admins.
'''Weak oppose''' given that he still at sometimes behaves like if he was proud of his past, and it's still too recent. However, should '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback]]''' ever starts, I'd support for that. Meanwhile, repeat the mantra '''Admin doesn't equate to RC patroller''' (some admins do RC, some patrollers are admins) but no set is fully contained on the other. -- <small> (
'''Oppose''' Give it another 2 months and if you look good then, I'll vote for you.   --
'''Oppose''' Seeing as he is an ex-vandal, I believe he deserves to be given extra time until he is given admin. I believe in second chances but he just doesn't seem to have been with us long enough.--
'''Oppose''', not yet. Try again in June and everything will go fine. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', still a bit too soon.  Will have my vote in a few months--
'''Neutral''', too few talk and Wikipedia talk edits.




'''Support'''. --'''
'''Weak support'''. Came to en last August, vandalized six pages, disappeared until October, made a few minor edits, and has been pretty strong since mid-December, even using popups since January. I'm a little worried this user may be pining for "authority": first self-nom ended 5 February; second, 29 March; and, here we are, 7 May. Also, user's answers don't necessarily suggest needing the tools. Still, the user's activity suggests a relatively rounded approach, and I have no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' he's come a long way --
'''Support'''. 100% agree with Tawker. — FireFox (<small>
'''Support''' per Tawker.
'''Support'''. Open about past. Looks alright.
'''Support''' per Tawker. Shows a great personal growth. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I would prefer better spelling and grammar in the answers to my questions, but the answers contained within them are satisfactory.
'''Support''' looks good now. His illness is no reason to oppose. Get mopping, reformed vandal!
'''Support'''.  The poacher-turned-gamewarden meme has great appeal to me.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''', will make good use of the mop.
'''Support''' Am impressed by his admission of being a former vandal. Quite useful in RC patrolling & will do well with the addiional tools. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;
'''Support''' Maybe not one of the finest pasts, but I strongly believe that Benon has moved on from ''those'' days. Give him a mop! --
'''Weak Support''' per his answers on the questions, little bit low on the mainspace edits for my standards
'''Support.''' The third time should be the charm.--

'''Support''' a good user.
'''Eager support.''' Continued to contribute even with everything else that is going on-- brings dedication and strenth. I liked his answers in his first RfA. Most of the opposes then were for "not enough experience-- that's been remedied.
I dont '''support''' vandals y'know ;) --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>

'''Support''', of course. -
Underestimated him in January when he was creating [[:Category:Imposters of Benon|imposter pages]]. But I'll go ahead and '''Support''' his nod if it's of any consolation. --
'''Support'''--<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' Glad to give you my support. You did not give up hope and this time, your nomination seems to be heading for success. You truly are my inspiration. Third time lucky! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Naturally.
'''Support''' though more article edits will be better.--
'''Support''' good. --
'''Support''', as before.
'''Support''' without a doubt, a good user
'''Support'''.  Benon is our man on the "inside".  8-)
'''Support''', excellent user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', it is time.
'''Support'''. Reformed ?. Ok. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC) --
'''Obvious Support''' - Anyone who doesn't know who Benon is hasn't done any significant anti-vandal work.  It's only common sense that he get access to the tools.  I'm tired of getting bugged to make blocks for him :-P  And some of the objections below make no sense ... he has too few substantial article edits?  So what?  Adminship doesn't mean you're an article writer, it means you're a janitor, and Benon is a great janitor.  There's nothing you can do as an admin in terms of writing articles that you can't do as a normal user, so I would turn this objection around and say that people who only focus on writing articles shouldn't be granted adminship.  Now, there are lots of janitorial duties you do need adminship to perform, so it only makes sense that we hand Benon the mop.  --
'''Support''' - Good user

'''Support''' - Strong, solid.
'''support''' -- <small> (
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' good editor well deserving of the mop. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Go for it!
'''Support'''.
'''Autofellatio Support ON WHEELS!'''. It's not often we see a reformed vandal up for adminship. Congratulations on your success and ability to see that there are more constructive ways of editing Wikipedia than vandalism. Best wishes!
'''Support'''; I trust him. It's no big deal, after all.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke and most oppose votes are not well-justified.
'''Support''' My recent interaction with the user has shown him to be knowledgeable and practical, and his lack of edits to AIV has been clarified by his assertion that he typically contacts admins on IRC directly. Contrary to whatever userboxes he may have on his page, I do not feel that he has a tendency to bite newbies or vandals, and I feel they were just meant as misguided humor. The IRC conflicts bother me a bit, and so too does his recent inactivity and inability to provide a specific reference to a conflict he's had, but not enough to oppose. The other reasons given under oppose do not seem particularly convincing. My other reasons to support (under neutral) still stand, and I would like to again state that we need as many admins as we can get to help clear out the copyvio backlog, which this user's statements and contributions demonstrate he would do quite well.
'''Support''' -- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">[[User:That Guy, From That Show!|That Guy, From That Show!]]</span><i> <sup>(
'''Strong Support''' - Sure, the user used to be a vandal, but I've got my "User does not insult vandals" button on and I recall it saying somewhere that once reformed, vandals can be turned into valuable editors (as Benon has done so far) and even administrators (as I'd like to see now). If nothing else, let him atone for past infractions with future antivandalism efforts. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''support''' this person to become a administrator
'''Weak support''' '''
'''Support''' I've taken some time to think about this one. Rob Church, PilotGuy and others raise valid points, and if you pass you need to take these comments seriously. That said, I've encountered Benon myself while editing and I've been impressed with his work. There's enough good there (especially recently) to outweigh, for me, the concerns. Good luck,
'''Support''' WOW!  Just looked at the contrib page for benon (to see what times he was active), and saw there was really good anti-vandal edits etc, and an RFA, so full support, if your able to do so much goodwork like that, then i'm sure you'll be able to take it to the next level. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Eh, I kinda thought s/he was an admin already! But if Benon was a former vandal (as other people say) that has reformed considerably, this gives me hope too. I hope to become admin in maybe late 2007 or sometime in 2008, but I don't think I'll nominate myself. 'Til then, I know there's much to mature on. Good luck in your new adminship, Benon. --
'''Support'''. Based on his answer to my query. Good luck!
'''Support'''. Excellent vandal fighter. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support'''. Alright, so he's a former vandal. I think it takes guts to admit that in a RfA, and I believe in redemption. As for the possibility of Benon abusing the tools, they can always be taken away, correct? I'd give him a chance. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. Great Vandal fighter. --
'''Oppose'''. Same concerns as [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] but also the concerns I  hint at in my additional question. May change depending on answer. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 08:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Answer is noted, thank you. I'm still thinking about it but probably will stick with oppose. --
Agree. Also not enough REAL mainspace edits for my liking, I'd contend at least a third of them are vandal reverts.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. I know this might come as a shock to you and everyone in our IRC channel, but based on your past behavior I don't feel comfortable with you being an admin, based on [http://countervandalism.org/wiki/Staff_log#February_2006] your odd behavior seen in our channel, and also your conduct in that channel, though not blantantly innapropriate, is not reflective of an admin. Though you have contributed somewhat to improvements in our channel, and you do tag articles for speedy deletion, I never see you revert vandalism on a regular basis nor ask for blocks. I don't think you are ready for such a task and you ought to observe what others are doing right before you are trusted with such tools. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all the above.  Although I acknowledge great improvement, I don't think enough time has yet pasted since last nomination to be sure editor has learned to keep calm under pressure.  Also, given editor's history and previous noms., I would very much have preferred that this NOT be a self-nom.  I'm also still worried editor may be too eager for the mop as a sign of power, which it isn't.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. I'd prefer more time to have past between nominations. I'd consider supporting in a couple months.--
'''Oppose''', short on experience in the project namespace and on patience. I would recommend waiting a while. Also, bear in mind that low edit counts in Wikipedia namespace lead me to infer poor knowledge of policy.
"To all you vandals out there: This user [[Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals|avoids insults]] for [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|'''vandalism''']], moving straight to '''[[actual bodily harm]]'''."  If that is intended as a joke, it's in poor taste.  I would not trust benon3 with the mop. --
'''Oppose''' don't need more admins, and per Tony Sidaway. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''': does not appear to be ready at this time.
Not a chance.
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
Oppose - too many issues for now. May support a non-self nom in a few months --
Oppose. This comment he left on a blocked user's page indicates to me that he lacks the subtlety needed for dispute resolution: [[User talk:Colignatus|"it has been decided by the community via your rfc, that until you realise the errors of your ways we will not unblock you"]]. It's true, but you're not going to get anyone to reform by speaking from on high about the "errors of their ways".
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per Tony and Rob.  I just get a bad feeling about this nom.
'''Oppose'''.  Tony and Rob make good points about confrontational comments, and Pilotguy's note that he worries even CVU worries ''me''.
'''Oppose''' Per above --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]]. Needs to wait longer from last RFA. I'm not against self-nom in general but this nom would've been much stronger with the support of an active admin to point out his strengths.
'''Oppose'''. He has come a long way and that's a big consideration for me, but he's not yet at a point where I'd feel comfortable with him having the admin tools. Various edits and comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wdefcon&diff=prev&oldid=48426167 these] are worrisome to me regarding his attitude towards vandalism. That's not my only reason to oppose, but all in all I think it's too early, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' - I share various of the concerns above, including the speed with which he has self-nommed since his last RfA and attitude to combatting vandalism. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' per many of the concerns above.  No single issue stands out, but there are enough small issues to concern me. -- <font color="#668353">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but there are just too many serious concerns raised by the numerous opposers above for me to support at this time. Candidate also appears far too eager to acquire the tools, 3 self noms in just over 3 months after major opposition in the 1st two. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
'''Neutral''' I don't think that what your currently doing needs admin tools.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
<b>Neutral</b> I agree with Primate. For every reason to support, I see another reason to oppose. (Good luck, though. It looks like the third time might just be the charm!) [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Neutral''' My personal adminship guidelines are very loose (inasmuch as ''adminship is no big deal''); I recall only two instances in which I have opposed a candidate.  I was altogether comfortable supporting here, my reservations about Benon's command of the English language (and, more importantly, his ability to communicate successfully and productively with other users), but I have found myself increasingly in accord with the reasoning of those voting ''oppose'', and, so, even as there are still qualifications that militate in favor of Benon's being approved, I am compelled to withdraw my ''support''; though I don't think Benon likely to go rogue and use the mop wholly for bad, concerns about his judgment linger, which concerns were not ameliorated by his answers to questions but will likely be addressed by Benon's continuing to contribute for a while (should this RfA fail, I, echoing others, would hope that the next would not be a self-nom.









I find it admirable that you ''admit'' to vandalism. What I want to know, however, is why you did it in the first place? Secondly, if you didn't have the maturity not to vandalise when you were already a Law student at university, why should I believe you have the necessary maturity now? Thanks. --

'''Support''' -- <small>
'''Support''' as nominator --
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' why not?--
'''Support'''. Good user and has contributed well.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' as I did last time. This user is clearly experienced and will do a good job with the mop. Is the user going to abuse admin tools? No. So what is the problem with letting this user become an admin? [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' just to counter the silly "oppose, poor English" votes. If you look hard enough, there are admins with equally bad English; in addition, this user has demonstrated knowledge of policy, and will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''', someone doesn't have to have perfect spelling and grammar to be an administrator, especially given a condition that would make these difficult. Installing a spellchecker is yet another indicator of his good faith and great potential. --
Low chance of tool misuse + high chance of good tool use = '''support''' (again). I don't see high number of RFA's as an indication of thirst for power, rather an eagerness to help fight vandals (the problem laid out in the nomination that Benon can help with).
--[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' passes my RFA criteria. Ready for the mop. <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''', too soon, but you can't deny he's a good user. --
'''Support''', always good to have vandalism-focused admins. ~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <small>/
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' sure.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Support. You can't blame him for not making article contributions because he is dyslexic. You also can't blame him for being so impressive that people want to nominate him again and again. Sheesh!
'''Support'''. &ndash;
Doesn't strictly meet my standards, but I think it's reasonable to '''support'''. It's not his fault that he's dyslexic.
'''Support'''. Sorry to hear your dyslexic, but you still deserve to be an admin. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Support''' good user, no reason not to make him an admin. Good [[WP:VAND|vandal]] fighter.
'''Support''' he beats my failed RfA record!
'''Support''' as per the nominator.
'''Support.''' In response to the dyslexia-rationale opposes below, I don't see how dyslexia will reduce his ability to be an administrator in any way or form. Any dyslexic user can edit Wikipedia, and they can make a very good job of it, as has Benon. Each candidate must be able to communicate with other users, for example explaining blocks and protections. Benon can do this, no problem. Yes, there's the occasional spelling mistake or bad grammar but what does it matter in being an administrator? As long as he can be understood, which he can, I don't see the problem. — '''''
'''Support''' why not? Seems alright for a dyslexic person. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' it's not that big a deal and even stronger after reading the oppose aruments below. The editors/admins who put up a set of "their criteria" for adminship and post them on their userpages are just too proud for being the ones who can decide on something, and the whole thing resembles the familiar [[ego]]-[[masturbation]] far too much. Anyway is there any prevention for this tendency-to-egomasturbate effect in communities that are based on rules of being civil, kind to the others, and doing some voluntary work for the whole community? (repeating my argument from above)
'''Strong support''' per all above reasons (except maybe ackoz!! <grin> My criteria are posted on my userpage [like anyone cares] and Benon more than meets mine. :) ) His tenacity and dedication, despite multiple rebuffs to his RfA's, convince me of his commitment to Wikipedia.
'''Support.''' We cannot expect administrators to be absolutely perfect embodiments, in my opinion; if we do, our supply will rapidly dry up and die off.  This individual has shown a committment to keeping Wikipedia an easier place to edit and work in, and he is aware of and is attempting to compensate for a disability which he cannot help that has an effect on an area of the proposed job he may not even be called upon to employ.  I believe that he can be trusted with the administrator tools and that Wikipedia would be better off if Benon received the wiki-mop and bucket. &mdash;&nbsp;
Vandal fighting bores me. We need more vandal fighters. With a modern set of scripts in your monobook.js you hardly have to ever type anything, just push buttons and pull on dropdowns. So I see dyslexia as little or no handicap to an admin who primarily wants to fight vandals. I'm surprised people make a big deal of this actually. '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per Lar and FireFox.
'''Support'''. I agree with Lar; dyslexia is no reason to oppose the admin request. Hell, if people know kinds of things '''I''' have to deal with, they'd be surprised I even got this far. -→
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighting, an adminship would give more tools to do so.
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' seems like a good editor and vandal fighter, can be trusted and will put the tools to good use --
'''Weak support'''.  This is an unusual case, as I normally expect substantial contributions to the encyclopedia from admin candidates.  However, given the limitations the user has, it appears he's doing what he can to help, and doing a good job at it.  I see no evidence he'll abuse the tools, and every indication is that the wiki will be better of when he has them without them.  ''One important recommendation:''  Communication with vandals and other problem users is sometimes very important; please make sure to communicate clearly in these cases or seek assistance from another admin if necessary. --
'''Strong Support''' Wow, this user ''isn't'' an admin? &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I admit I was on the fence, but the rationale behind a lot of the Oppose votes needs to be counter-balanced.
'''Support''' will make good use of admin tools. --
'''Uber-support''' - <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Cleared''' Off you go to baggage claim to retrieve the admin tools. --

'''Support'''. Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]], seems unlikely to abuse the tools.
Thought-I'd-already-supported '''support'''. There's a difference between pining for authority and genuinely wanting to help the encyclopedia, and I see a strong demonstration of the latter. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' - I held off voting because of concerns (already cited) regarding spelling/grammar issues as although I don't believe they impede effective sysopping, they could cause flare ups with confrontational vandals. After reading his gracious response and pledge to make an effort plus to use Spellbound I am fully confident in my support. There are a lot of tasks on an admins plate and often once ''mopped'' their vandalism fighting gets brushed aside ('cuse pun) by other administration tasks. Solid vandal fighting admins are in short supply. -
—

'''Support''' - Benon is an extermely motivated and dedicated Wikipedian who has done NOTHING by help Wikipedia.  It's really a shame that no one will give him the chance.  I'm 100% convinced that Benon will help improve this project. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' as per nom. Where is right. We must support all experienced vandal fighters and give them their mops and blocking keys as needed!!
'''Strong support''' Seems to be not only well at handling his/her own conflicts, but also helpful in resolving the conflicts of others. Might be a good mediator.
'''Support''' I don't think the time between his RfA's is that bad a thing. Let him have a mop already. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Per all above.
'''support''' he's really ok.
'''Support'''. He's come a long way.
We've been here before. AGAIN? This is becoming like Jaranda, only minus the leaving. Per last time (lack of true article edits), '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Way too soon since RfA3. Seriously, give it 3 months. Also, nom reads like a press release from a campaign manager. We all know the score with vandalism. <b>
'''Oppose''' -- despite being the fourth nomination (the rest all self nominations) he still hasn't been here long enough, and seems a little overly eager to be an admin... --
'''Oppose''', with that kind of spelling and grammar in the answers to the questions at the bottom, I just can't bring myself to support.  One or two mistakes, fine, but not like this: ''un confterabley''; ''I could help''; ''particualrly''; ''all sorts f articles''; ''however I''; ''meotrship''; ''inclivil''; ''dont''; ''A quote ive shamelessley stealing''; ''philospy''; and countless others. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Oppose''' per Mets, Deiz -
'''Oppose''' It seems like too little time has passed since the last nomination since there had already been three in about 3.5 months (this makes four in five months). However, my main issue is in regards to (q) of [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|my different standards]]: I'd expect that as a native speaker of English your comments and edits would be more gramatically correct. Communicating effectively is important as administrators are often considered the face of Wikipedia and as they must articulate clearly to a multitude of users. However, from your answers below, I see an unreasonable level of disregard for the mechanics of the English language. I don't expect you, or any administrator, to be the next Shakespeare, but I'd like to see greater care towards effective and gramatically correct writing. Perhaps I'll support you in October after you take my suggestions into account. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Mets501 and Lethe.
'''Oppose''' too soon, strange nom too. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per Q2 answer. If one can't name article/contribution that he/she is particularly pleased then I don't think he/she have enough editing experience. --
'''Oppose'''. I regard patience as a virtue to be held by admins. The candidate seems to be lacking it a lot. &mdash;
'''Mild Oppose'''. I see that someone recommended a spell-checker to you; if you're in the habit of using it effectively next time you run, I'd be happy to support you. I quite liked the unusual style of the nom '''Where''' wrote for you, even if it wasn't perfectly executed. :)
'''Oppose'''. I have no problem with the spelling issue, if a spellchecker is used. However, I prefer admins with more broad experience, not just vandal fighting. You have to have diverse contributions and participate in diverse communities in order to understand the nuances of Wikipedia, which I think it necessary for adminship. Expand your horizons and try again in 3-6 months. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per all above. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose'''. Browbeating the Rfa process with machine-gun noms doesn't demonstrate a constructive attitude.  Waiting for a reasonable amount of time between Rfas means just that.&mdash;
'''Weak Oppose'''. Benon4 has a nice high edit count, but if you delete out the very high user talk count (2214 or 46.5%) you are near my bare minimum for edits for admin candidates. Along with the other negatives mentioned above, I have to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, Mets501, and especially Deizio. --
'''Weak Oppose''', I would like to see some more contributions in projects and activites other than just reverting vandalism, its also a bit too soon since the last RfA--
'''Sorry but no'''. Per above. -- '''
'''Oppose''' sorry. Per NSLE and Mets501.
Sorry '''no'''. Mostly per Tree Biting Conspiracy. I don't think contributors who do not focus on content should be ennobled.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; NSLE does this more justice that I could. Basically the nominations:content ratio is a bit off for my taste. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' for reasons above. --
'''Oppose'''. Last time I supported you. Your past RfA greeting is still on my talk page! But quick-fire RfAs are a big turn-off, a sure sign of desperation and/or hidden agenda. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]] anyway. No ifs and buts this time. Please come back next year.
'''Neutral'''. While those who have voted support and the nominator have good reasons to support, I agree with NSLE, Deiz, and T-rex.
'''Neutral'''. Definitely a good user, but some issues raised by the oppose camp prevent this being a support. --
'''Neutral'''.  Looking for broader experiences to support.
'''Neutral''', leaning to support. An overall good vandal-whacker, but saying, ''"I don't really have any contributions that I would say I are particularly noteworthy"'' really gives me pause. I'm not asking you to write an FA from scratch; even getting several articles off [[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified]], or doing overall clean-up of a couple of articles is enough to satisfy my [[User:Titoxd/RfA standards|standards]]. That said, I don't think it is an issue that would make me oppose your request.









'''Support'''. Benon is a good editor, and based on my experiences with him, is highly unlikely to abuse the tools.--'''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good knowledge of the project. Helpful to others. Civil and considerate. Dedicated editor. A pleasure to support.
'''Support.''' Have seen this candidate around, and have never had a negative impression of him or her. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. The nominee has pretty much done everything asked of him since the last RfA. A review of his contributions certainly demonstrates a need for the tools and indicates that this diligent contributor can be trusted.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have appreciated benon's common sense for quite some considerable time now, will make fine use of the tools. --
'''Support''' Nice editor, I'll give him my support.
&ndash;
It's time

'''Support''' - Interest in becoming an admin is not a crime.  Benon will do fine. -
'''About fucking time'''. &mdash; '''
'''SUPPORT!''' Has GREATLY improved since his last RfA. Per Werdna and CrazyRussian, it is about fucking time.
'''edit conflict Support'''&mdash;Meets the "why the He__ not?" criterion. Mind you, I'd never heard of the [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates]] before&mdash;but the cause seems good and they have the sense to back off advocacy when [[Jimbo]] infinitely bans. Five times&mdash;wow&mdash;what endurance and drive! But after reading far longer than I should have & considering all the thoughts that roamed through my mind, I see nothing that would indicate that Benon (1, 2, 3, 4 or even 5) would abuse the ability to button and unbutton. Let’s make Benon an admin.   Skål - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' Seriously, I see him around ''all the time'' and have always assumed he was doing admin stuff.  Aside from my realisation of my ignorance, Benon is always engaging and seems to be very enthusiastic about helping build Wikipedia.  I've no reservations whatsoever about trust or experience issues, so I enthusiastically support this nominination
'''Support'''. [[Kinky_Friedman#Politics|''"Why the hell not?"'']]
'''Fuck yeah support''' passes my criteria and it's a good oppourtunity to swear in an RFA
'''Support''' this user has come a long way since that first RfA, and is now suitable for adminship, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' per Tewfik. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Looks like a good candidate.
'''Strong support without the use of certain repeated words that I won't repeat yet again''', per answers to questions. Looks like a great admin candidate. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''support''' this person to be a administrator many months of good work
'''Support''' I really think benon will be a more than helpful admin. He's an excellent vandal fighter, and I feel he has proven himself trust worthy of the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''ed last time, will do so this time too. This user has worked diligently over many months and have displayed an understanding of Wikipedia policies. -→

'''Definitely'''. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Everybody has an edit button, but only  admins have block/delete/etc buttons. While this doesn't mean that admins shouldn't write articles, it does mean that you can't hold it against somebody on an RfA if they don't write articles much, as it just is not relevant. In addition, while he may not participate in deletion discussions much, he quite clearly does revert vandals frequently, and so a block button would be useful to him.  He has a reason to need the tools and there's nothing to suggest that he'll abuse them. This user should be given adminship. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Has improved since last RfA! Supported!
'''Support''' - has improved a lot, a honest user. I don't really care about mainspace edits, he needs the admin tools, I'm sure about that he will never abuse them.
'''Support''' He is a good editor and needs the admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' meets my standards, although you should remember about the mainspace.--
'''Support'''. So what if he's had five RfAs and isn't more active than a bot? These don't indicate that he'd abuse the tools. --
'''Suppoer''' per Keitei. ~<span style="border:1px solid #666688;background:#ccccff;padding:1px">[[user:crazytales56297|''crazy'']][[user talk:crazytales56297|'''tales''']][[user:crazytales56297/EA|<font color="green">56297</font>]]</span>
'''Support''' just because a user isn't the best at being an editor doesnt'e mean he can't be a great help with admin tools to take care of all the backlogs and mundane tasks that many hate doing. --
'''Support''' (again).
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support''', "weakness of Users spelling and grammer" make no sense in this matter. Impressive contribution and problem solving history. Need some tools to deal with vandal, throll attacks in wiki.
He should have been promoted a long time ago. &mdash;
'''Support'''; no comment as it'll turn in to a rant in response to the oppose votes.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|fel]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">lib</font>]]
'''Support''' Per above. Seems okay, and I respect self-noms (even if 4 out of 5 times ''is'' a little over-zealous)!
'''Support''' — Seems like a great user, your RfAs show to me that your eager which shows to me dedication. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support'''.  Failing 4 RfAs and trying again.  It confounds me how there is so much requirement for main article space edits when there is clearly a legitimate reason for not having much.  I've seen no strong indication in the oppose votes that this editor has ever acted in bad faith, and as such fully support. I suppose this user could be lying about dyslexia, but there is no reason to believe that. --

'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' as I did last time.
Benon's heart is in the right place. All of my interactions with him show he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. '''Support''' ++
'''Strong support''' - No reason to think the mop will be abused. -
'''Support, cautiously'''. As others have said, I don't see a real chance of any admin abuse and I therefore support. My only reservation is the lack of major contributions. I think you'll be a great admin regardless.
'''Strong Support''' I have started writing this now no less than five times in the past three days, each time intending to fully outline why I feel strongly about supporting Benon... and every time I've been interrupted or got waylaid, and lost all I had previously written. So I am going to quickly say this; I completely understand the opposers, and why they feel the way they do. And, indeed, I felt the same way, until recently when I got to know Benon a lot better. Guys, if you are sitting on the fence, or dont feel strongly about your oppose, then I urge you to reconsider. You have my personal assurance Benon will be nothing but a credit to the mop. Im just sorry it took me so long to get this down!
'''Oppose''' User page and some of the support comments above leads me to think the candidate may not have the maturity to be an admin. Disclaimer, I have had not contact with this editor before, this is just my initial perception.
'''Oppose''' After looking at your last RFA and the recommendations you received there I looked at your mainspace edits, in particular editorial contributions. I find almost nothing since July 5, the end of your RFA 4: about 8 edits on two articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Benon&namespace=0] and one editorial comment on talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Benon&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=1]. Your vandalfighting activities are much appreciated, but if an editor points out to you that your encyclopedia building experience is lacking, that's something to take to heart. Writing a encyclopedia doesn't always involve writing publishable essays. It can also mean questioning facts and finding sources, adding quotations or engaging in discussions about facts on article talk pages (which doesn't require perfect orthography). In light of this I also find your answer to Q2 less than forthcoming. ~
Sorry, but I cannot support this. It is your fifth RFA this year, and I note a lack of activity both in article editing and process space. Your activity appears to be mostly limited to a handful of vandal reverts per day, and associated warnings. In this era of semi-automatic anti-vandal tools, that really isn't saying much.
'''Weak Oppose''' per trialsanderrors and >Radiant!<. May change to neutral in the future after more thought. Seems like the candidate's heart is in the right place. --
'''Weak oppose''', a review of the candidate's contributions since the last RfA makes me agree with what Trialsanderros and Radiant say. I am surprised by the many enthusiastic supporters, though, so perhaps there is something I am missing here?
'''Oppose'''. Radiant's concerns are valid. I don't see why Benon needs the tools so bad. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Oppose''' per Radiant - I think there should be a policy limit on the number of RfA per year people can try for. --
'''Oppose''' per concerns listed by trialsanderrors and Radiant.  --
'''Oppose''' per trialsanderrors and Radiant.  The relatively light editing pace since the last RfA has done little to allay my concerns regarding inexperience.
'''Oppose''' per trialsanderrors.
'''Oppose''' per trialsanderrors and Radiant.
'''Oppose''' I see no use of you needing the tools. Besides reverting vandalism, almost all of which has been assisted by a automated browser or by popups, you have done very little besides that. After skimming through your contributions I saw no participation in any Xfds, very minimal edits in anything else. Are there any areas that you participate in besides vandalism that and admin needs to be knowledgeable in?
'''Oppose'''; very sporadic article editing (only 160 article namespace edits in 3 months, of which nearly all are simple reverts), and the need for adminship worries me.  5 RfAs is a bit too much, per above.
<s>'''Weak support''' a little concerned per lack of actual encyclopaedia-building edits, but I don't see why not to trust you with admin tools otherwise.--
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose''' as failing [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]], and not enough article building displayed (which ''is'' and important background for an admin to have). I'd like to add that I'm not a big fan of misleading "joke" templates at the top of userpages; wikipedia is not myspace.
'''Oppose''' - 5 RFAs in a year? And the first 4 have failed? That looks to me like bad judgement - the last thing an admin can afford. Sorry, but no.
'''Oppose''' per Moreschi. He brings up a good point. If your first RfA failed, you should have waited at least 2 months. If it failed again, wait 4 months, and so on. 5 RfA's in one year doesn't show good judgment or understanding of RfA guidelines.
'''Oppose''' per trialsanderrors, Radiant.
'''Oppose''' per trialsanderrors & Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' per Moreschi. Too eager.
'''Oppose''' per trialsanderrors and Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' per all above. --
'''Oppose'''- Anyone who has 5 RfAs in ten months does not show good judgment. Also per trialsanderrors and Radiant!
'''Oppose''' per above. (5 RfAs in that little time? Really? This discussion shouldn't even be possible right now.)
'''Oppose''' lack of mainspace edits & should've spent time gaining more experience.  5 RfAs in that short time does show a bit of poor judgement. --
'''Oppose''' sorry but I have to agree with the users above; 5 RFA's in one year is a little ridiculous.  You should show more patience and adherence to RFA guidelines. Also, a little more article building would not hurt your nomination. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'm not sure it would be fair to oppose over this, but there's nothing about dyslexia that prevents you from using the shift key.
'''Neutral''' - did you improve? Why yes. Based on your activity rate and statement though, I can't support you yet. I'm sorry. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
Switching to '''Neutral''' right now, due to his spelling issues, although in respect I'm not against his dyslexia. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''' Neither do I concur in the reasoning of every ''oppose'' but nor do I concur in the reasoning of many of the ''support''s.  Most relevantly, I am quite confident that Benon is sufficiently possessed of a deliberative demeanor and cordial disposition as to be altogether unlikely to abuse the tools, and I'm relatively confident that his judgment is sufficiently fine that he would not misuse the tools (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting in an area with the workings of which he is less-than-conversant), but I'm not sure that I can reach the latter conclusion with a level of confidence that would permit me to conclude that the net effect on the project of Benon's becoming an admin would be positive (that, after all, is my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standard]]) to a nearly certain degree, and so I must reprise my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benon3]] ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBenon3&diff=52348620&oldid=52340473 neutral]'', in part in view of the same concern I expressed there, viz., that I do fear that Benon's dyslexia might well tend exorbitantly to encumber his communicating with other editors whom he may, qua admin, encounter, especially in view of the en.Wikipedia community's comprising many non-native [[English language|English]] speakers (of course, given my prolixity, I ought not ever to pronounce as to the parsability of another's prose).
'''Strongest possible support''' as nom.
'''Support'''. Mainspace contributions are more important than endless chatting on IRC and talk. I'm sure Berig will read up on our policies. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' (edit conflict) looks great on cursory inspection, would reconsider if someone could give a reason better than lack of "project space contributions", which does not worry me.
'''Support''', a sensible contributor who seems unlikely to abuse the tools; though I'd advise that the user ease into using them in any areas where they feel their experience is a bit lacking.
'''Support''' - with all respect for the opposers, I feel that we are first of all mainspace editors, and that there is no better way to learn policies than through constant mainspace editing.--
'''Support'''. Berig's a great editor and I trust the nominator's judgment.
'''support''' in the spirit of 'less bull more editing'. Berig is fully aware of our policies, and can always read up on them if memory should lapse.
'''Support''' From what I have seen Berig seems like he would make a great administrator.-
'''Support'''. Berig appears to be a very good editor, and Briangotts is a good judge of character.
'''Support'''. When I was growing up, admins were chosen mostly on the basis of their mainspace contribs...all else was basically cruft. And the admin corps was the stronger for it. Then vandal-fighting became all the rage, and XfD involvement. Suddenly we had a large group of admins who couldn't write articles and didn't know how to interact with the writers or resolve editing conflicts without resorting to anti-vandal tactics (threats, blocks, protections etc). Moreover, these cruft admins lacked the moral authority and respect required to police a community of writers. In a short time Berig has demonstrated skills that are at the core of what the project is supposed to be about. I have no doubts that in no time he will master the policy cruft as well.--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. I've seen good contributions from you and I have no reason to suspect that you would misuse the tools. [[WP:AGF|AGF]].
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' While more wikinamespace edits are needed, we also need more specialist admins to improve this site as they are more familar with the text, and that's key to improve an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' great editor who's showed enough good judgment that I can be confident he won't abuse the tools. You can learn policy pretty quickly; not so much with common sense.
'''Support''' this person in my opinion has all the right qualities to be admin. <font face="Ancestory SF" size="4" color="#006400">
'''Support'''. Most of the admins on the site don't understand all the policies.  Seems sensible and competent.
'''Support''' you meet my [[User:Danntm/RFA|criteria]], and you seem like a good editor.  However, I would advise more involvement in the Wikipedia namespace in the future.--
'''Support''' Good article contributions show dedication to the project. You don't have to be a "career admin" to be a good admin.
'''Weak Support''' per above. Nobody has to be an expert in everything.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' I really don't like opposition for editcountitis.  If we can trust him with the tools, why not?
'''Support'''.
'''Weak Support'''. I support, because he is a great editor, and I appreciate his mainspace experience. Why weakly? Because reading his answers above I thought: "couldn't you give us some more convincing answers?"--
'''Support''' Per Yanis.
support, good luck  --
'''Moral Support'''. A good contributor but I cannot see neither a strong need for admin tools nor wikipedia namespace involvement. If you withdraw and come back in a couple of months (after working on any shortcomings), I am positive you will succeed without a problem. Best wishes,
'''Support'''. Top notch.
I'm impressed with your mainspace contributions. However, you need projectspace contributions, to show you are familiar with policy, and you only have 29. Even in theory, we can't only give admin tools where they relate to vandal fighting, we have to give them all. So I have to be able to trust that you know what you're doing with all of them, and I can't. -
Oppose per lack of WP-space edits. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I consider EVula's reasons for his "neutral" important enough to merit opposition.
'''Oppose''' per all. --
'''Oppose''' I can't support a user w/ very few edits re to communicating w/ other collegues. -- ''
'''Oppose''' Vandalism can be fought without access to admin tools, easier or not. --
'''Oppose.''' Not all great article editors have the foundation to be great admins. Huge lack of "nuts and bolts" experiance as it's been phrased already. Thanks for your work but I don't see the precedent for sysop.
'''Oppose'''. Weak answers to questions indicate a lack of experience, knowledge, and confidence with process. --
'''Oppose''' Plenty of mainspace edits are great, but <40 Wikpedia space edits and no Wikipedia talk edits menas not much experience in discussion with policies etc. Also per Daniel Olsen. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Oppose''' You're clearly a great asset to Wikipedia...but I just don't think you're right for adminship.  Your contribs. are large, although your time here is not and neither is your interaction with other users.  Sorry, keep up the great work and try again in the future.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I'll have to oppose although I acknowledge that you are proving an outstanding editor (and I specifically commend you on your contributions to Scandinavian folklore articles). But as of this moment I think that neither you have the need for the admin tools (you state that you would like to use them for fighting vandalism but I see no recent vandalfight) nor experience in the processes that would require admin intervention such as XfD (your Wikipedia space count is very low). I'd be happy to support after you've had a lot more involvement in these areas.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Weak oppose''' - You have done some good work on your contributions, but the answers to the questions are unsatisfactory. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. I share concerns about lack of policy knowledge and experience, which I feel is confirmed by your answer to Q10. The answer to Q5 suggests you have not been sufficiently involved in contentious issues and disputes on Wikipedia to understand the likely role of an admin in stopping an edit war. Finally, the answer to Q6 alo seems far to mild a response- an admin should be prepared to use the tools fearlessly (in appropriate circumstances). I suspect more experience (esp. of policy) will lead to your having more confidence to deal with difficult situations and I would then have no hesitation is supporting you at an RfA.
'''Oppose''' per WJB. Answers to questions don't demonstrate knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see a bit more experience with the project and suggest that the nominee review the relevant policy pages. This will help next time around with more thoughtful answers to the questions. I also object to [[User:Agent 86]]'s color commentary and coaching on the questions. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Lack of WP-space edits is my major concern; article-space edits are very good but probably don't require Admin tools to continue at the same quality.  I'd like to see better edit summary usage on minor edits as well.
Little projectspace participation - <b>
'''Oppose''' and suggest this be withdrawn: please try again with a bit more experience and more consistent use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' ''Why'' you want to be an administrator is perhaps the most important part of an RfA, but your answer to question 1 is very weak.  Furthermore, this is your principal reason for requesting the admin tools, and yet I see no substantial recent vandal fighting.  You seem to be an excellent editor, but remember: being an administrator is just about having a few extra tools.  It's not a trophy or recognition of being a valuable contributor, which you certainly are.  I would support if you were more involved in and familiar with these types of tasks.
'''Oppose''' I am hoping to see candidates with good understanding of policy and procedures. I also like to see strong evidence of effective and supportive user talk. Work on those areas and come back again.
'''Weak oppose''' The lack of wikipedia namespace edits is a concern here. Moreover, there is no strong evidence of knowledge of policies as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' While the candidate has a great deal of main space edits, they only have 375 talk page edits.  This suggests they lack team work experience.
'''Oppose''' per lack of project namespace experience. I suggest you get yourself involved in AfD's, AIV, etc. and then come back in a few months when you have nearly a thousand project namespace edits. You're a great editor on other parts of Wikipedia, so I'm sure you'll be fine with your potential future RfA. '''
'''Oppose''', low Wikipedia-namespace edit count indicated lack of familiarity with policy.
'''Oppose''' per the 29 Wikispace edits. WAY too low. Relatively high edits/article doesn't help either improve on the Wikispace edits and try running for adminship again at a later date. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of XfD experience.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more Wikipedia space experience before becoming an admin.
While your contributions to the encyclopedia are to be commended, your lack of involvement with the nuts and bolts of the site fails to show that you fully understand the many, ''many'' policies and guidelines that an administrator is expected to understand and enforce. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Neutral''' The importance of demonstrating your knowledge of [[:WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]] cannot be overestimated, as these are what guide decisions on admin tasks such as blocking, deleting and protecting articles.  The best way to do this is to contribute to XfD discussions and cite policies when you give your opinions.  Do this in addition to your other regular tasks and I think that you will succeed in gaining consensus on the next RfA.  Give it three months or so.
Neutral leaning towards support: I entirely agree with Amarkov, we need to give people all the tools. Since Berig has demonstrated a solid grasp of what Wikipedia is, that shouldn't be a major problem. Just in case anyone's forgotten, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game of nomic. An arbitrarily selected number of Wikispace edits do not demonstrate a candidate's grasp of core values. On other hand, more edits would at least demonstrate a passing familiarity with the insane number of badly thought-out policies, guidelines, essays, rants, and rulecruft which make up Wikispace. That's not to say that Berig should follow the example of those editors who appear to game the system by making zero-value edits, things like updating the count in RFAs, etc, just to increase their wikispace edit count.
'''Neutral''' per EVula. If he comes back in 3 or so months with more XP in other areas, I will support. '''
'''Neutral'''. This is one of those candidates that I sometimes see who I really want to support, but something is missing. In this nominee's case, I think it it the lack of experience beyond editing articles. The candidate's answers to GeeJo's questions are what keep me from endorsing  the nominee. The answers only seem to be half-way there, they don't really tell me what the nominee would do beyond deferring to more experienced admins or mulling it over. I'm still open in this RfA to be persuaded otherwise, but I'll more than likely support should the candidate be re-nominated again in the near future.
'''Neutral'''. This candidate has very good skills and has contributed but what makes him better than the countless others that have also written about Norse literature. I remain neutral and feel indifferent to him becoming an administrator or not.
'''Neutral''' low activity in the project space. ←
'''Neutral''' I do not to seem to pile on, so am voting neutral. But you have very few edits in [[WP:NAMESPACE]], and canvassing is not looked on with favour.--
'''Neutral''' Great editor! I am very impressed with your mainspace contributions. As much I would like to support however, unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia namespace is really not good =( <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Neutral''' - good editor, but not many wikispace edits. I'll be glad to support somewhere down the line when I see more participation in [[WP:XFD|Xfd]] and policy discussions. //
'''Neutral'''. Good editor. Should grow a bit more outside of the mainspace. Would support in future.
Still i support ya
'''Oppose''' Less than 100 edits in more than a year is bad, you need much more experience, suggest withdrawl --
'''Oppose''' per above. More [[edit summaries]] would be nice also.
'''Oppose''' as per above.  Please get quite a bit more experience before trying again. Also work on your edit summaries. --
Too inexperienced: Please, get experience and community trust by participating here, on the talk page, voting on policies, on [[AFD]]s, go on [[Help:Starting a new page|New Pages]] and [[Recent Changes]] Patrol, and try writing a few articles. We need to know that you are committed. Youll be good in no time if you take my advice.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. Suggest withdrawl.
'''Oppose'''You need more experience. I suggest you withdraw and take User:Journalist's advice.--
'''Oppose'''lack of experience --
'''Oppose''', too little experience. I suggest you try again in early summer.
'''Oppose''', per all of the above, really.
'''Oppose''' too few edits to judge how you will perform as an admin --
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Make lots of good edits to articles, using an edit summary each time, and then ask someone to nominate you in half a year or so.
'''Oppose''' too few edits, lack of edit summaries. --
'''Oppose'''. No evidence of solid decisions in controversial cases.
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions (most notably number two) are poor. The user makes it very clear (s)he wants to be an admin to block people, but the answers don't convince me the user has the experience. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' User has only been editing ''actively'' since April. It's clear thats this users only intentions on getting adminship is to speedy delete things as fast as possible and block without hesitation. Low edit count and edit summary usage also does not show very much experience either. Until the user gets a tad bit more qualified, I don't think I can support. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' 111 mainspace edits suggests a lack of experience editing articles, which after all, is what Wikipedia is for.  He seems like a good user and a valuable contributor, and I'd probably support him at a later date if he gains more experience editing articles and doing some vandal reversion, as it seems that's what he'd want to deal with should he get the extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' seems to be only interested in blocking usernames and deleting articles. Yet I haven't seen a huge amount of edits in AfD discussion. I think the user needs more experience and needs to get involved with other parts of Wikipedia. User talk is very low, see users talk page and uneccasary archive.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''',  Your opening statement and answers to the questions show me that you don't have enough experience to be an adminstrator. You need to get more and then run again when you are ready.--
'''Oppose''' - statements lead me to believe user is not ready --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
I have some good things from this user, not without his/her merits, but from what I've read, the editor needs to get a deeper understanding of policy, especially in relating to adminasterial (not a word, but whatever ;) jobs. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
I would advocate closing this RfA early and seeking an [[Wikipedia:Editor_review|editor review]] instead.  This will give you specific areas upon which to improve in order to demonstrate good admin potential.  The answers to the questions below do not currently demonstrate such potential. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' per others.  I would also like to see some more mainspace and Wikipedia-space edits. --
<s>'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Oppose''' Voting for one's own RFA makes me suspect lack of understanding of policies, which isn't ameliorated from reading various AfD votes (most of which are "per noms", none of which cited policies). If I read this correctly 1780 user talk page posts are mostly vandal tags (good!), but the puny article space and article talk posts signal "more time needed" at the least. The two prior RFA's don't look too good either. ~
'''Oppose''' You need more time, also, the time period between all three of your RfAs is troubling.
'''Neutral''', I see you have a good number of namespace edits, and a good interaction with other users, but you are lacking article talk page edits, at just above 1% of your total edits. These are important because they mean that you try and help get consensus when modifying articles. If you are going to work with merges, in example, if you don't use article talk pages you may merge stuff that others don't want, or are still discussing. Having reviewed your previous nominations (ended [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bigtop|July 7]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bigtop (2nd nomination)|July 10]]), makes me think you are trying "too hard" to become adminship, which is sometimes frowned upon here. And in this especifically case, I agree. Three times in 40 days is a little too much for my own taste. Spend some more time doing what you are doing{{spaced ndash}}
'''Neutral''' Bigtop certainly seems like a good user, but his very low number of article talk edits- which I personally consider even more important than actual article edits- worries me, as does his age (whether or not this is an irrational worry is open to debate). <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Neutral''' per everything above (especially self-support and recent RfAs - these things in particular make me worry about knowledge of policy); no need to pile on opposes right now.
'''Neutral''' Answers to questions don't display a wealth of knowledge of policy.  Low mainspace edits but good effort to talk to other users, something that is very important for all admins to be able to do.  Admits that he needs help in several areas but we all have strengths and weaknesses.  I would recommend [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] and possibly signing up for [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#Admin_Coaching|admin coaching]] too. Another RfA can always be submitted in three or four months' time. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">

Hear, hear. As stated before, although he and I disagree on almost everything political, I am yet to see as neutral an editor as Biruitorul.
In my experience Biruitorul is a friendly and knowledgeable editor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', the mainspace edits make up for everthing else for me. But you ''really'' need to get those edit summerys up and also the wikispace.__
'''Support.''' Has the experience; is a helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable contributor; does not edit-war or allow his own views to intrude into articles. I don't need to see dozens of "delete per noms" from this candidate to accept that he's able to grasp the principles of XfDs and admin-worthy behaviour. Edit summaries are a nice-to-have (there are plenty of established admins out there using these sparingly anyways), which could presumably be improved. I don't see the downside in making Biruitorul an admin, the reverse in fact.--
'''Support''' no negative stands out, and I don't mind if the nominee for focusing on building articles.--
'''Support''' Good and helpful user overall, qualified enough to become an adminstrator.
'''Strong Support''' We need more admins like Biruitorul who have experience in writing articles and getting into the trenches.  The fact that this user has not been involved in "WikiPolitics" is a strong plus, not a minus.  Instead of playing virtual cops and robbers in the Wikispaces, this editor has put in hard work to create articles and improve articles with information not readily available in the paper encyclopedias.  '''That's been the purpose of Wikipedia''', but I feel that many entrenched Wikipedians have forgotten this.  Rather, they just get into a tizzy whenever a Stephen Colbert comes up with a term called Wikiality.
'''Support'''. I met Biruitorul when he first came here, and I've seen nothing but good things since. He's proven himself to be a very neutral editor, plus I liked his answer to mikka's question. <tt class="plainlinks">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. With more than 13000 edits, he deserve to be an admin.--
'''Support'''. NPOV, meticulous article improvements, modest, friendly and approachable, and, to comment on what I see is writen below by opposants, I would also add experience.
'''Support'''. For the edit count, number of high-quality articles, a.s.o. Givig him responsibilities will also help moderate his political views.
'''Weak Support'''. I'd like to address some of the points raised by those who have opposed you  or have voted neutral. For one, I think that your work with Wikipedia so far has been grand. You've got all the signs of a good Wikipedian who would make a good moderator. There are some things, however, you are lacking in. As Nishkid pointed out, you have a lack of edit summary usage (something so minor keeping you from becoming an Admin!). Another thing pointed out was the fact that, although you are a great contributor to Wikipedia, you really don't need the tools. You're working well right now. Becoming an admin isn't everything. In fact, many admins eventually retire and give up the mop because they become too preoccupied with putting out fires, handling the vandals, and deciding policy. If you truely want to become an Admin, that's fine. However, you can still contribute above and beyond (look at [[User:Werdna]], who is highly respected Wikipedian who isn't and chooses not to be an Admin) what is expected of the average Wikipedian without the admin tools.
'''Support''' I have yet to see an oppose vote that lists a legitimate reason for opposing him. He has always been productive.
'''Support''' The fact that this user spent most of his time building excellent articles rather performing petty bureaucratic tasks should not go against him.
'''Strong support''' &ndash; despite his often-controversial talk page opinions, Biruitorul is a very neutral and professional main namespace editor. In particular, I believe his answer to question 5 above embodies the values all admins should have, particularly an emphasis on dialogue and co-operation. Even though some people have opposed his candidature because he "hasn't warned enough vandals yet", I don't think this should impact at all on his status as an admin. Giving admin status to someone costs nothing, but can bring about a lot of benefits for the project, and I think that with admin powers, Biruitorul can be become an even better contributor. I look forward to having you on the admin team :) [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''
'''Support''' Very polite, very neutral, very trustworthy, very good editor, very nitpicky opposition. The man is sure to make a great admin. <small>[bashing of other wikipedians removed]</small>. That "bashing" comment would be: ''"Too bad the opposers can't assess the value of this nomination by someone with fundamentally different POV."'' (meaning the nominator [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]], as he explicitly states in his nomination comment). I find its [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Biruitorul&diff=91311996&oldid=91273056 removal] and the addition of the bracketed text abusive. I stand by every word in my comment.
'''Support based on edit count and lack of incivility in talk pages''' Would recommend being careful about not blocking for newbie errors and going slow with closing to delete until you have more experience judging consensus.
'''Support'''. I've collaborated and interacted with Biruitorul on several occasions and I've come to known him as a neutral and careful Wikipedian who respects the others' opinion. He would definitely be a good admin. ''[[User:TodorBozhinov|Todor]][[User_talk:TodorBozhinov|→]]
'''Support''' This users ideas for problem solving is great let him be a admin.
'''Support''' A thoroughly rational, level-headed editor.  I cannot see how giving him the buttons would harm the project in any way, and it would undoubtedly benefit it.--
'''Support.''' This user's contributions in the mainspace will make an excellent admin willing to discuss issues rather than just block for them. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I doubt he'd abuse the tools.--
'''Support'''  I see no reason to oppose. --
good luck :) --
'''Support''' - to those that are critical of the number of wikispace edits, please keep in mind that we're here first of all we're here to right an encyclopedia; users to become admins should be first of all good mainspace editors, and Biruitorul is a fantastic editor. I may be a wrong, but I've had the feeling that some admins tend with adminship to neglect what should remain their main work, writing sourced articles; with this editor I know this will not happen.--
'''Support''', high level of experience, nothing in record suggests a problem.
'''Support.''' Just like Dahn, I disagree with most of Biruitorul's political views, but I see him as a very valuable Wikipedian. We Hungarians often can get into wars with editors from neighboring countries, but I don't remember any of us getting into a conflict with Biru, he is one of the nicest Romanians I met here. –
'''Support''' - neutral and a person that give help when needed.--
'''Support''' - Seems unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''.--'''[[User talk:Madhyako Pradeshlo|<span style="background:#FFFF66;color:#000">M</span>]]<span style="background:#008">
'''Support'''. Nominee has been much-scolded for lack of edit summaries, lack of participation in wikiprojects, etc. All of these are ''extremely valid concerns'', and (significantly) would be fatal flaws 95 times out of 100. IMO, this is the one of the 5% of cases that I would trust the nominee with the tools, and to improve in the aforementioned offending areas. Trust trumps ''readily correctable'' flaws, in rare cases. --

'''Strong Support''' This is someone that I respect, and will be an enormous asset to all good people, he's both creative and modest.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Changed to support. I have seen less deserving candidates promoted last week. Adminship is no big deal, says Jimbo. --<font color="FC4339">
We don't "fight" changes. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose'''. I would like to support this user, but I'm not so sure due to the lack of edit summary usage and the lack of participation in AfD's. '''
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Excellent mainspace contributions, however low use of project and project/user talk spaces as well as very low edit summary usages concern me.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I must oppose as well. You appear to be an excellent editor, but your Wikipedia space count is just too low, your edit summary usage is far below the least acceptable, and I see no recent countervandalism or participation in AFD (which doesn't really look good for someone who's willing to perform administrative tasks in those areas).--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong oppose''' partly per Nishkid, Crazy and Husond and partly because I can't really see a need for admin tools. Most of the "specialty" jobs you say you'd like to be able to do in question one can be done without adminship, eg, helping resolving NPOV issues, RCP, closing (some) XfDs, helping out on AN, ANI and RM. These jobs really don't require the tools and many, many editors are doing them now without the mop.  [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose. I don't care how credible you think a banned user might be, no one should be acting as proxies for editors who are under bans. [[WP:BAN|The policy]] is completely unambiguous on this issue: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user".
'''Oppose'''. You need to warn vandals, and you definitely need to use more edit summaries. Your article contributions are great, but writing articles is irrelevant to admin tools, as they do not help you with article writing in any way. You don't seem to have much participation in other things, thus, I don't see that you have need of admin tools. -
'''Weak Oppose''' per all the above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lacks of edits in several namespaces. Please warn vandals as much as possible, unless someone warned before you can. Don't be discouraged as you can still be a good editor without becoming an admin. If you want to, participate in xFDs etc. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Crz, who has been reading my mind lately.
'''Oppose''', despite the (unintentionally?) romantic nomination from Jmabel.  Needs to learn that we do warn vandals.
'''Weak Oppose''' The level of wiki-space edits, talk pages (particularly vandal warnings) participation  and edit summaries gets to me aswell as the decided lack of XfD discussion. Seeing as these are the areas of contribution this user will participate in as an admin, I think more experience in those areas is neccessary. The 12 000 mainspace edits is very good though.
'''Oppose''' He doesn't need admin tools to keep up the good work...(history shows that adminship is quite detrimental for Romanians)
'''Opppose'''. I respect JMabel's opinions, but I'm concerned about not enough project space experience. Come back in a couple of months.
'''Opppose''' Wants to close AfD's but has two or three AfD contributions since October, 13 total? ~
'''Neutral''' You look like a really good editor and I can't see any problems  with your encyclopedic contributions.  I '''do''' see less than ten XfD discussion contributions and no vandal warnings from a random sample of your user Talk page edits, latest to earliest.  I would feel confident in supporting you with more of the above in evidence. A minor point, do you have edit summaries forced on your preferences?  If you don't then I think that this would be a good idea.  If you do, then the gaps are probably where you have used the '+' link to add comments. Regards,
'''Neutral'''. I don't want to pile on opposes, so I'll just remain neutral. Although this user has many useful edits, the extreme lack of edit summaries is worth noting, as is the lack of Wikispace talk eits. '''''
'''Neutral'''. You're a great contributor, but do you really need the tools? If you're dead set on becoming an admin, I'd recommend you get involved more in admin-related tasks and come back in a couple of months. I'll gladly support you then. —
'''Neutral''' - not enough experience, but looks good.  I see no reason why I wouldn't support in 3 months --
'''Neutral''' not comfortable with the amount of experience in project space.  Also, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARomanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=90490157&oldid=90394247 advertisement of this RfA] by the nominator is a bit of a negative. —
'''Neutral''' no strong need for tools. ←
'''Neutral''' per Sarah Ewart. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' per Crzrussian. Try XfD for a start. Come back in a few months and I'll reconsider. -
'''Support'''. Good record from what I can see, appears suited to the tools.
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' Nice record, seems like a valued editor, would do a fantastic job as an admin.
'''Support''' Good user, with good edits, deserves to become an administrator.
'''Support''' One of our most valuable editors and I hope he doesn't spend much time in admin stuff even if he gets through. I would have probably abstained if this was four or five months back on account of his temper, but he has improved remarkably recently.
'''STrong support''' - great editor - knows what the project is about. This will hold him in good stead. '''
'''Support''' Good tempered, focussed contributor. I think it's daft to exclude people from adminship because they're not all-rounders. We do need specialists too. I have no worries that someone so well-balanced will misuse the tools in areas he doesn't have expertise of. --
'''Support''' - honestly, a monkey could close most AFDs, AFD closing is only one role an admin takes anyway, and 90% of our admins never close AFDs, so that's nowhere near a sufficient reason to oppose someone who seems sensible enough to be trusted with the extra buttons.
'''Support''' as per Proto. Replacing ''monkey'' w/ ''grandma'' though. -- ''
'''Support''' - I'm not sure how much use BJ'll get out of the tools, but I don't see him abusing them. So long as caution and prudence are exercised in areas where experience is lacking, I see no reason to oppose. Being an admin is No Big Deal, as some like to bring up over and over again.
'''Support'''. Participation in over 150 *fDs is ''far'' more than enough for an admin. If the user doesn't use the tools much, that's fine, but since there's no reason to think he'll abuse them, he should have them so he can use them sometimes. --
'''Support''' This is a user that won't abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per GeeJo and Rory, who make an argument similar to that which I make at every RfA of this sort and in my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], only with many fewer words and much more cogency than I.  Proto, too, is quite right, although, pace FayssalF, I'm not at all sure that [[Koko (gorilla)|Koko]] wouldn't do a much better job than my [[Technophobia|technophobic]] grandmother at closing RfAs.
'''Modest Support''' Definitely needs to use [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]] more often, but with that many edits, who can argue?
'''Support''' Of course
support --
'''
'''Support''' - while lack of vandal warning is disappointing, vandal-fighting is not the only thing administrators do. We need more administrators right now to handle backlogs. Edit summaries are a bit of a shame, too, but I'm confident that advice on this rfa would be enough to help this editor use them more.
'''Support''' - Friendly user with great edits. Deserves to be a administrator. --
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Oppose''' I am really sorry to oppose, as you are an extremely valued editor, with remarkable contributions especially to the mainspace and category space. However, after perusing your past 1000 edits I cannot find any particular need for the admin tools. Your participation in AfD and CfD does not seem enough to prove that you're experienced to perform admin tasks such as closing them. I see no vandal fight, no evidence that you would know when to apply blocks adequately. Also, your edit summary usage is quite below the least acceptable. Sorry, but at the moment I cannot support.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''- Per Husond--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per Husond. You seem like a great editor but it seems logical to gain experience in admin related areas, e.g. XfD & vandal fighting, ''before'' requesting the tools.
'''Oppose''' per very weak Q1, very low edit summary usage, and the concerns brought up by Husond. --
'''Oppose''' per Husond, needs more experience in administrative areas. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
''(Changed from neutral from weak support)'' I have to go with '''Oppose''' here. All my previous concerns still apply, and now there's the answers to questions 5 and 6 to deal with. You want admin tools to "protect and preserve the structure"... from whom? Your answer to question 5 leads me to believe that it's from the people who want to delete some of the categories in your structure, which makes it bad. You can not use admin tools to make things get kept when you want them to. And if you expect that being an admin will give your opinion more weight in CfD, you are sorely mistaken. -
I was going to sit it out, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=95602458 canvassing] means I must oppose. - <b>
'''Oppose''': does not appear ready yet.
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov.  XfD is based on consensus, and an editor shouldn't feel that he needs admin tools to close them if he is unable to persuade his fellow editors in the actual discussion.
'''Oppose''' per Hussond, and canvassing.
'''Oppose''' per crz, I was going to sit this out too, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&diff=prev&oldid=95602458 the cavassing] was really a huge mistake. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov's concerns, particularly regarding reverting vandalism. I would like to also see more use of our vandal warning system [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism] in practice, particularly with nominees who focus on their desire to protect wikipedia from vandals. -
Sorry Jack. I was going to support you, but vote stacking for an AFD or DRV or such is something that could get you blocked, so doing it for your own adminship nomination is entirely inappropriate.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, as well. The statement you gave at the Cricket WikiProject page gives me some doubts as to your understanding and necessity of admin tools at this time. '''
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per the canvasing and no history of warning or reporting to [[WP:AIV]]if you don't warn them and report them you can't prevent further vandalism because they could say "I didn't know not to, nobody told me".--
'''Oppose''' I don't see a real need and I think that a bit more understanding relating to XfD is needed. Reporting to AIV is important for people who want to fight vandals (as you suggested relating to the cricket articles), and I think edit summaries are important for communication which an admin needs to be good at.
[[WP:WAIN]], and inexperience in process. -
'''Oppose''' I am strongly saddened that I must oppose. First off, edit summeries are very important here in Wikipedia to say what you have edited and why, 2nd ALWAYS warn vandals and tell them, this is what you did, this is why you should stop. I suggest doing a little more research on the standards of the Wiki. Again I am sorry.
'''Oppose''' Seems to be a valued editor and a good chap, but I am concerned that at the moment, the candidate has insufficient experience at XfD as per this answer: "''5. What is it that you want to do at AfD and CfD as an admin? A: I find that as an editor I am limited to simply agreeing or disagreeing.''". There's a lot more you can do as an editor in XfD. In addition, I am concerned by the canvassing message in which the candidate indicated that as he would use his admin powers to especially focus on protecting cricket-related articles.
'''Oppose''' per canvassing, lack of vandal reporting, and lack of experience in process areas. --'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but too many concerns have been raised above for me to feel comfortable.
'''Neutral'''Plenty of work going on in CfD but I can find no participation in AfD to date.  Additionally, the answer to Q3 mentions reverting vandalism but I see no associated warnings about said vandalism in your user Talk history.  Vandals should be warned when they are caught in order to tell them that their behaviour will not be tolerated - to not do so doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the admin responsibilities towards countering vandalism.  I also see no reports of vandals to [[:WP:AIV]].  An understanding of [[:WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]] pertaining to the admin tools is vital for prospective admins, as is participating in the admin-related processes.
'''Neutral''' Seems good enough to become an admin, but I really would like more thorough answers, better AfD participation if you want to do admin work on AfD, and much better edit summary usage.--
'''Neutral''' per Husond. I looked at your record via Interiot's Tool, and although you are quite active on Wikipedia, you don't demostrate the abilities of an Admin. '''
'''Neutral''' A really good user who won't abuse the tools but shows little need for the tools.--<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Neutral''' I would like to see more participation in the AfD process. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per other neutral comments. --
'''Neutral''' per other neutral points. '''''
'''Neutral''' - great edits (tho not so great diligence with summaries), a long time valuable contributor, clearly; but the points brought up by the opposing users are all valid.--Dmz5<small>[[Special:Contributions/Dmz5|*Edits*]]
'''Neutral'''. I'm mostly concerned about the usage of edit summary-- or lack thereof.
'''Neutral'''. Love the high edit numbers, but the answers to the questions were very weak. Not oppose-worthy, but I can't support you. --
'''Neutral''' I recognise your efforts to improve the information to cricket related topics, but this "''As for the infantiles who write rude words and then run off laughing, the quick revert does it all''" while it removes an immediate problem, I struggled to find any instance since September where you reverted such infantiles, with the what I did there was no follow up warning placed on the  users talk page the lack of warnings before listings at [[WP:AIV]] are a consistant problem
'''Strong oppose''', obvious reasons. Having a joke rfa in disrupting Wikipedia is one thing; having a decent understanding of how to go about doing rfa properly is another. Not realizing that one doesn't normally neglect one's questions and a proper thesis on one's own adminship nomination is just the tip of an iceberg of things Bling-Chav has yet to learn about how Wikipedia works. The rfa is perhaps on good faith, but this user hasn't demonstrated a consistent grasp of policy and is not nearly ready enough for me to trust that he would make a decent admin or wikipedian. -
Account made only a few days ago. Zero contributions to the main article namespace. Recommend withdrawal.
Is this a joke? Bureacrat should remove this. --
'''Spiritual support''' Another newbie admin request, but I'm not going to oppose this one. Childish grammar mistakes indicate that this user can't do both admin work and editor work very well. Please gain experience and come back within one year.
'''Moral support''' Please withdraw and reapply after more experience. --
'''Oppose''' Lots and lots of image fair use warnings on user's talk page. ~
<s>'''Oppose''', user hasn't said why they'd need the admin tools.
'''Strong oppose''' mucking up this RfA, which is still wrong (look at the end time) and per J Di. --
'''Strongly oppose''' it would be best for everyone if this nomination were quickly retracted. Nomination by new user, nominee with little experience and no knowlede of admin tasks.
'''Strong Oppose''' user does not know what an administrator does. -
'''Strong oppose''', per [[User:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]]'s comments.--
'''Oppose''' I'm going to have to oppose this RfA because of the following;''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBobabobabo&diff=84282700&oldid=84281822 what are the tools]"'' and ''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBobabobabo&diff=84279042&oldid=84271891 I need feedback]"''.  Feedback can be obtained at an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]].  I suggest that you withdraw and obtain such a review, as none of your answers inspire confidence that you are aware of the nature and tasks that admins have to perform.  I am more than happy to expand upon this answer when you submit yourself for review.
'''Strong oppose''', this user has only been here a few months, and gotten on my bad side in her first few edits. She is also more than likely an abusive sockpuppeteer per [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Interrobamf]], in which at least 20 registered accounts were used by the range that she is on to vandalize.—
''''Strong Oppose''' Obviously doesn't know what being an administrator is or defintly doesn't meet qualifcations.
'''Strong Oppose''' very unsuitable candidate per the comments above. Also this user recently emailed me asking to be unblocked. However the user wasn't blocked and the email was an incoherent rant that shows this user cannot communicate effectively and completely misunderstands the nature of several key policies, not to mention making serious and unfounded allegations against several editors in good standing. I strongly suspect that this user is involved in sockpuppetry as well from evidence in the email.
'''Strong Oppose'''. I don't even want to comment this for obvious reasons listed above. I suspect the nominator is a sockpuppet anyways.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(

'''Neutral'''. I am inherently suspicious of nominations from editors like [[User:Starwarsrebel]]. The user has 18 edits, 5 of which are this nomination. --
'''Neutral''' when a user nominates another editor on the very first day. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Strong support''' - one of the most prominent member of serbian wikipedia. --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Strong support''' --
'''Very Weak Moral Support''' Although a prominent member of Serbian Wikipedia, his English edits are low. Nevertheless, he has proven himself in the Serbian Wikipedia. A potential admin in the future but not now. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support''' --
'''Oppose''' - This will get removed by a bureaucrat for the low edit count, but for what it's worth, I think that Bormalagurski's judgment is unreliable.  Look at his changes to [[No Name (band)]] and [[Slobodan Milosevic]]. -
'''Strong oppose'''. Did not answer questions, did not give reasons for wanting to be admin, has practically no experience, etc. etc. etc. etc.
'''Oppose''' Please try again later.  --
'''Oppose''', obviously low edit count, but more troubling are some of the edits to [[Slobodan Milosevic]] pointed out by RichardCavell. --
'''Oppose''' don't even need to explain this one.--
'''Strong Oppose''', low edit count, did not answer questions, no experience, and I have a feeling that
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Far too few edits in the English Wikipedia, and recently engaged in personal attacks.
'''Oppose''' - no questions, no edits, no edit summaries no support vote --
'''Strong Oppose'''  Utterly unsuitable. POV warrior, no edit summaries, candidateship "strongly endorsed" by buddies and nobody else, need I go on? --
'''Speedy Oppose'''.  User clearly has a political agenda to push and is seeking adminship as a tool to help push that agenda.  This nomination deserves to be speedy closed by a beaurocrat as clearly unsuitable.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' you've got to be kidding!  This user lacks experience alltogether. No summaries, no edits, no nothing.  --
Oppose. This user is a Serbian nationalist partisan.
'''Oppose'''. Inexperience + low use of summaries. We have no record to go on really, so no option but to oppose. (Bormalagurski, you could be the best candidate in the world, but there is no way for us to know this. Please re-apply when you have some more experience - see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards]] for a list of minimum standards)
'''Strong Oppose''' In addition to the highly problematic edits noted by Richardcavell, one also has these comments in the talk pages: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45390394&title=Talk%3AKosovo],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=45500439&title=Talk%3AKosovo], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=43778780&title=Talk%3ASlobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=43816027]and has removed from talk other peoples comments for no reason and without an edit summary: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=43787324].
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't meet [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|my personal standards]] and the question of sock puppetry needs resolving. No answers to the questions, on a self-nomination no less, just makes it firm, IMHO.
'''Oppose''' I need convincing. The nom doesn't provide any relevant information. --
'''Oppose''' <b><font color="teal">
'''First support'''. A good-natured editor. The only thing I see that Bornhj needs to improve on is not marking reverts as minor. --
'''Support'''
'''VandalProof cabal told me to support support :P'''
'''I'm convinced''' although I'm worried about you talking to yourself in the acceptance statement. ''Tariq, leave him alone man; he's just having some fun.'' -- '''
'''Support.''' User's contributions are of high quality. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good experienced editor.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]], no apparent reason not to.
'''Support''' Good editor, experienced. Please consider the thoughts of the oppose & neutral voters - they have valid points.
'''SUPPORT''' based on demonstrated abilities as seen in answer to my "Right <nowiki>delete the wro</nowiki>ng way by an anon" question despite not having !FA. <del><nowiki>{{User:Dlohcierekim/1FA}}</nowiki></del>
'''Support'''.  Although I would have liked to see more article edits and more encyclopaedia-building experience, I think Bornhj 2 is a good example of an editor who doesn't fit the pattern but could really use the tools and benefit the project.  It seems clear to me he won't abuse the tools, and it's also clear he knows what he'd do with them and understands the value an admin brings to the project.  Seems familiar with policy and also very civil.
'''Support''' per Rama's Arrow and Gray Porpoise.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Not enough article building/communication, as evidenced by less than 100 article talk edits. Not enough process knowledge as evidenced by less than 250 WP edits. I will absolutely support on re-app once these key areas are more fully developped.
''''Oppose''' per Themindset
'''Weak Oppose''' I feel this RfA is a bit premature, as more communication and policy experience is necessary in my opinion.  I would revisit the possibility of supporting with more experience in these areas.  I'd also like to see some article writing (perhaps on the simple Wikipedia, which would be great for both the candidate's English prose development as well as for the Wiki-world that wants to learn English).
'''Weak Oppose''' Per above --
'''Oppose''' as fails my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]] in terms of edits. Please keep plugging along, would happily support with some more time in.
'''Oppose''' I think it's too soon for this user to seek adminship.  I'd like to see more WP and article talk page edits.
'''Sorry''', I'm one of those 1FA guys. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' per Themindset. Editor requires more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates low familiarity with policy.
'''Oppose'''. Per [[User:Stifle]].
'''Oppose''' per themindset, especially considering claims to poor writing skills--
'''Neutral''' - less than 300 Wikipedia namespace edits, which fails my criteria. However, everything else looks great. '''
'''Neutral''' per Kalathalan. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''', I am on the fence here. Wikipedia space edits are low which doesn't indicate much experience in AFDs. Good work on the vandal fighting.--
'''Neutral'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Neutral'''. --

'''Extremely strong neutral''' to counteract the Freak ''supra''. Less than 300 Wikipedia namespace edits, which fails my criteria. However, everything else looks great. - <b>
'''Reluctant neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''', sorry. I'm a little off-put for the same reasons as the people above, but unfortunately don't have any contact with you to counteract those concerns. Not going to oppose, since you don't deserve it, but I'm not quite confident enough to support.
'''Neutral''': The edits are a little weak outside the main space. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(


'''Oppose''' Far too few edits; I suggest withdrawing this RfA. You obviously want to be an admin, so perhaps if you were to come back in September, I'd support you. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You don't spend enough time actually working on the encyclopedia.  The behind-the-scenes stuff is important, certainly, but an admin needs to have a more balanced experience. --
'''Oppose''' The time in user talk isn't the problem; it's the lack of time everywhere else. Could be a great admin in a few months.
'''Oppose''', not enough edits and not enough experience. You're getting there, but you're not there just yet.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not enough overall or article edits. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' number of main space edits. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Like the user, but not enough edits. Sorry. [[User:Master of Puppets|Mopp]]
'''Oppose'''. ''Waaaay'' too new, the edits seen on his contributions page fall foul of several content policies, has received warnings for posting articles without sources, and has little, if no contributions, to Wikipedia namespace discussions. What has the Queen have to do with Wikipedia?
'''Oppose''' - Too new. Less that 50 eits. Don't like his comment about allegiance towards the Queen. I am also concerened that [[User:SwannCom|SwannCom]] above may be his sock. -
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Not experienced enough yet. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Fails to meet my criteria --
'''Strong Oppose''' - per answers to the questions; they are obviously false (no one has the mental capacity to learn 100 languages), and an admin should not be dishonest. Too new and inexperienced. Also, inspection of the main RfA page's history reveals that the user repeatedly re-listed their RfA after it having been de-listed or reverted multiple times. '''
'''Oppose''' This looks facæcious and possibly a troll rather than a genuine application. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' good luck in the future, buddy, but based on your current number of edits and your blatant exagerations in answers to the above questions, i highly recomend that you withdraw your nomination . . .  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Oppose'''.  Posted before questions are answered and very weak self-nomination statement.  Please read through some of the other examples here to see what is expected in a nomination. --
'''Oppose''' Less than 1500 edits in two and a half years and originally malformed.
'''Oppose''' 1500 edits is too few for 2 and a half years. If you were to make a very large amount of contributions to the project, I will possibly support if you RFA again.
'''Oppose''', weak answers, not as active as one would like in an administrator, and little encyclopedic contribution.
'''Oppose'''. I have an internal policy to not oppose good faith requests for adminship even when they obviously won't prosper. However, in this case, I'd like to offer some advice, having just done a quick glance at your last 50 edits. You're using automated software to vandalhunt, and that's fine. But you're not following through. You need to warn the majority of the people you reverted. Not ''all'' of them per se - there are many reasons to ''not'' warn - but you don't appear to be warning ''any'' of them at all. So when they "reoffend", the next editor to review them will have no idea they are a known vandal. So vital minutes can be lost whilst someone else applies the needed warnings and requests a block. The inability to see the bigger picture is to be expected when you first get your hands on an automated editing tool of any type. But not just before you ask the community to give you buttons you need to prove you know how to use. Sorry. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
Don't be discouraged by this RfA. I recomend that you withdraw and submit again after some more experience. Also be sure to provide more descriptive answers next time around, as that would improve your chances of getting support from users who had not had contaact with you in the past - <strong>
'''Neutral''' You are on the way to being an admin but I don't think that you are there yet.  Redvers makes a key point above - you have to talk to editors to remind them of their responsibilities.  An admin has to be preprared to talk about each and every action they or someone that they are interacting with has performed.  Not informing vandals that they have had their efforts reverted is harming their efforts to be good contributors and other editors/admins efforts to stop persistent vandalism.  Other than that, I see that you participate in XfD discussions, which is good, but difs such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Glifted&diff=prev&oldid=63231605], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mechanist&diff=prev&oldid=63761508], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodney_Ascher&diff=prev&oldid=60150100], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodney_Ascher&diff=prev&oldid=60150147] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soul_Calibur_IV&diff=prev&oldid=20777671] don't refer to policies and guidelines such as [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:SOFTWARE]].  It is always good to use policies and guidelines to justify your actions because our decisions then are not arbitary; it also helps to demonstrate that an editor has a firm grasp of the principles of Wikipedia.  Keep editing and keep improving and you will be on your way to admin status in another few months' time.
'''Neutral''' per Redvers and (aeropagitica) --
'''Neutral''' (edit conflict) Please don't get down by this RfA.  Keep up the good work, get familiar with the policies and customs, and listen to the feedback provided from the RfA.--
'''Neutral''', please listen to Redvers and (aeopagitica)'s great advice. Good luck in the future. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Moral Support''' - let's not pile on any more, huh?
'''Support''' Supporting a lost cause. Anyway, brave to be self-nominating himself/herself. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'': because administrator privileges should be No Big Deal, right?
Very few substantive edits, almost none to WP namespace, no edit summaries, evidence of complete unfamiliarity with process. —
More experience is required before taking on admin duries.
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''': very premature.
'''Oppose''' per above.[[Edit summaries]] are important.
'''Oppose''' - 148 edits is too few to establish any kind of positive pattern, and it's certainly not enough to alleviate concerns from very recent uncivil behavior which warranted a block. (
'''Oppose''' per [[User:ESkog|ESkog]]; couldn't have said it any better. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Oppose''' - 149 edits in two months is not good enough; not enough edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience and recent block. I suggest you withdraw and consider reapplying sometime in the future after gaining more experience and having a cleaner record.  Happy editing! --
'''Oppose'''.  You need more experience.  Also a greater variety of edits would be nice.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience --
'''Oppose''' 150+edits doesn't demonstrate much experience with editing Wikipedia, and a 1% edit summary usage-?
'''Oppose''', not enough experience; answers to questions seems to indicate that s/he wants to do tasks that s/he could already help out with, but does not. <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#009900">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''Oh my.
'''Oppose''' Few too many edits.
'''Oppose'''. Please withdraw, unless you wish for constructive criticism.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. Too difficult to make a good read on someone after only 150 or so edits. Try again after a few thousand.
[[WP:SNOW]] - please withdraw, either canddate or a bureaucrat.
It is admirable that you want to be an adminstrator. I invite you to reapply in a few months, when you have more experience, and look forward to supporting your candidacy.
'''Neutral'''. Otherwise OK, but time on Wikipedia and number of edits are too low.

'''Support''' Appears to be well-intentioned.--
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> per my criteria about project edits.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Malformed RfA, only 1/6 edits in mainspace, almost as many (1/8ish) in userspace. Almost all of his projectspace edits appear to be in the sandbox (probably 9/10 easily, maybe more if you count other sandbox type spaces), and I see no [[WP:AIV]] edits, and blocking vandals is basically his only reason for wanting adminship. Also unilaterally moved [[Joseph Stalin]] to [[Josef Stalin]] rather than using [[WP:RM]], then made tons of redirects, so when he was reverted there were tons of double redirects. --
'''Oppose''' per Rory096, especially the Sandbox part.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per malformed RFA.
'''Oppose''' per Rory. Don't like practical joke on talk (for admins), nor refusal to use email (useful sometimes to go off-wiki). Would like to see more use of edit summaries and participation in AfD. Vandalfighting and RfA contribs both positive, though RadioKirk makes good point (neutral 1). --
'''Oppose''' (changed from '''neutral'''). You cannot be a janitor without the ability to get the memos. Period. (Per answer to [[User:FloNight]]'s question below.) <tt>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, must oppose this time. Lack of understanding of admin role on Wikipedia is highlighted by refusal to activate Wikipedia email. Email is essential for discussing banned users, complex vandals and such.

'''Oppose''' Refusal to activate Wikipedia email bothers me. Also answers for the questions are not at all satisfactory. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - questions worry me, "vandals better watch out" - we do not "war" with vandals, we only use the tools if utterly necessary, it just raises some concerns. Maybe later but not now --
'''Fairly strong oppose''' I rarely oppose at RfA, believing that ''support'' is apporpriate for every user about whom it can safely be said that he/she is likelier to use the tools for good (even if rarely) than for bad.  Here, even as I am confident that the user would not be volitionally disruptive with the admin tools, I have serious questions about the user's sometimes acollaborative disposition (unilateralism in action is, to be sure, an unattractive quality in a prospective admin; admins generally serve only to carry out the wishes of the community, interpreting various discussions in order to ascertain where the consensus lies and ought generally to be ministerial) and in any case about his fitness to use the mop, etc.--either an ignorance of policy or a good-faith belief that one is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia, notwithstanding that others disagree might well lead to his acting inappropriately/incorrectly.  Finally, I am very concerned about the page moves; setting aside that many were made without any talk page discussion, some surely contravene policy (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_Eastern_theatre_of_World_War_I&diff=52821251&oldid=52746189 the pagemove "correction" of "theatre" to "theater"]; the [[WP:MoS|MoS]] cautions against such BE/AE moves).
'''Oppose''' - per apparent lack of understand over MoS spelling conventions. This is a personal [[bugbear]] of mine and i would really hope an admin would know better than to Americanize articles that have little to do with the USA and everything to do with other english speaking countries, e.g. [[Middle Eastern theatre of World War I]]. Come back after more experience and i may support. '''
'''Oppose'''. I must oppose because he refuses to activate his email, seems confrontational, and answered the questions poorly. --
'''Neutral''' as per concerns raised in oppose and neutral votes. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' I don't really see a point in opposing. Minor mistakes in creating an RfA don't bother me all that much--it can be a little confusing--but this is a bit more than just minor mistakes. On a self-nom I'd like to see some really clear evidence that the user is involved in the community or has made very significant contributions before I could support. Editcount looks good, and he seems to be on the right track--but I'd prefer if he wait at least one to two months before requesting adminship again, and preferably if someone else nominates him. Then I may even be able to support. I'd also like to suggest that he withdraw the nomination, as this is going to turn into a bloodbath before long.






'''Nom support!'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''. I considered nominating him about six months ago, but at that point I didn't think he had enough edits here to succeed.-<font face="cursive" color= "#808080">
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' Brain is a great administrator over on Wikinews, and (IMHO) would be a great administrator here. From what I gather the number of Kiwi admins here on the WP is rather low. Brain, being based in New Zealand would be active when the administrators from the United States are either at work or sleeping.
'''Support''' per nom. A NZ admin would help in a variety of ways. --
'''Support''' per nom. Brian does good work monitoring highly visible articles (like [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]]) and is polite and courteous when communicating with other users.--
'''Support''': clearly trustworthy, which is really all that mathers cause adminship should be no big deal. [[WP:1FA]] is really optional for me. --
'''Support''' He has been an admin on Wikinews for 10 months. [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Personal bias, but has helped me a lot on stuff I've done on WikiNews and elsewhere.
'''Support''' meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|criteria]], and is already experienced with the tools.--
'''Support''' I'm familiar enough with Brian's contibutions to feel confident in his judgement.--
Wikipedia needs additional admins from New Zealand who can watch over related articles. In addition Brian has admin experience from Wikinews therefore  I '''Support.'''
'''Support''' I know of Brian's work mainly through the Māori-language Wikipedia where he was formerly active. He is polite and honest and a good worker. Wikipedia needs more people like Brian who are not interested in trumpeting their own greatness but just get involved in the way that works for them and the project
'''Support''': Admin experience at Wikinews implies that he won't misuse the tools (and I don't believe he'll mess up with Wikipedia-specific stuff).
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I'm satisfied that the nominee can use the tools and can be trusted with them.
'''Support'''. This is a case where your adminship on Wikinews should be given a lot of weight.  Your edit count is toward the low end of what people look for, but I am sure with Wikinews added in you would have a robust contribution set.  The other problem is that your proficiency with the technology (AWB) is being used against you.  I commend you for using the most efficient tools.
'''Cliche Support''' I thought he alr--*stops* you know where this is going <code>;-)</code> &mdash; [[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[User:Deon555/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub><font color="orange">
'''Obvious Support''' - he is an admin at WikiNews and has demonstrated there that he can be trusted.  Nobody has uncovered any reason to oppose other than editcountits ... good grief ... support.
'''Support''' I think he would do better with the tools.
'''Support,''' unless we inherently distrust Wiki-news. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I admit that I have seen BNZ more on Wikinews and Wikia than en.wikipedia. But I have seen him to be a fair and responsible user, and I do not think there would be any problem with him having the tools here: he has been here enough to know how things work, and personal qualities carry over from wiki to wiki.
'''Support'''. Brain clearly has experience with wikis, and is familiar with ''how'' to use the tools. While I am not certain this RFA may pass this time around, I recommend that you read a bit of our policies and guidelines, as there are some quirks that Wikipedia has and Wikinews hasn't (or you could argue it's the other way around... [[Albert Einstein|it's all relative]]). A bir more familiarity with process and hands-on experience couldn't hurt.
'''Support''' <b>[[User:lovelaughterlife|<font color="CC0000">lov</font>]]<font color="#009900">[[user:lovelaughterlife/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''; user has great experience on Wikinews.
'''Support''' Nice guy.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - nothing but praise for Brian.  Very competent, willing to do the boring crap no one else is wanting to do, and also willing to accept when at fault.  Already has admin experience from [[WikiNews]] I believe.  Would do be a good admin. --
'''Support''', per what I saw with [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Brian+New+Zealand&site=en.wikipedia.org Interiot's Tool]
'''Support'''. Looks like a decent editor. Regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
Nothing to suggest there would be a problem here.
'''Support''' Experienced editor, admin at Wikinews; seems like a good choice to me. --[[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', From what I have seen of Brian, he is an excellent editor and would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Wikinews experience as admin makes up for lack of experience here. Would ask user to be less taciturn in communicating with others.
'''Support''' A good Wikipedian who is qualified for Adminship.
'''Support;'''
'''Support''' Well deserved. //
'''Support''' More kiwi admins needed --
'''Support'''.
I'm seeing almost no mainspace edits that are not AWB or some script. You'll probably pass anyway, but I have to oppose for that. -
'''Weak Oppose''' From your contributions I'm not very convinced that you effectively have a need for the tools. Apart from today, no vandal fight, and you barely warned any vandal. Maybe another month or two would help dissipate any doubts. You appear to be a great user though and I might change my position before this ends.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per dire lack of meaningful WP: participation, including XfD - which matches up poorly with your answer to Q1. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per crz and Kchase02.  Candidate exhibits clear lack of experience with Wiki-process, and yet expresses a desire to work in areas which depend upon such experience: not a good sign.
'''Oppose''' per above. Too little experience with what he wants to do; not enough well-spread edits IMO. [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', good editor but needs more experience in too many areas. <b>
Essentially no involvement in Wikipedia policy or administrative processes. Answer to question one can be copied out of some admin handbook page; it is not the result of being familiar with the processes listed. Egregiously empty ballot-casting in what few AfDs there are. —
This candidate would benefit from more experience with process. (
'''Oppose''' per Radiant!. More process-related experience is a must, and process experience on Wikinews is not entirely equivalent to process experience here. Try to get involved a little more and give RfA another shot later. --'''
'''Weak Oppose''' as the number of mainspace edits seems a bit low.  More experience, and I would have no problem switching to support.
'''Oppose'''. A thorough look at your contribs reveals very little participation in janitorial tasks. Your contributions to New Zeland related articles is awesome. However, that alone does not qualify you for the mop. Your answers to the questions aren't impressive, either... not enough to convince me that you'd know what you were doing if awarded the mop. Sorry. –
'''Weak oppose''', per Q1/process involvement mismatch issues, and modest total "throw-weight of contributions", which might otherwise have modified such concerns.
'''Oppose'''. No slay vandal, no win vote. But excellent editor otherwise. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Strong oppose''' This user has attacked me for attempting to prevent abuse of process.
'''Oppose''' Due to edit history and unimpressive answers. --
'''Oppose''' per Lantoka. I may switch to Strong Oppose if Hawkestone provides differences which show that the candidate has attacked him.
'''Oppose'''. An admin ultimately requires 2 qualities: being trustworthy and a thorough understanding relevant policies. The first is clearly satisfied here, not least due to Brian's role as an admin on Wikinews. However the diffs of participations in XfDs provided by Kchase and lack of involvement in process mean that I don't think the latter quality is demonstrated. -
'''Weak Oppose''' per Xoloz. Perhaps more participation in the areas you plan to work in would give the needed experience. '''
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. Future support likely. ~
I feel that you do not have sufficient edits in talk space, and I believe that you might need more experience with user interaction and conflict resolution. Also as Amarkov stated a large proportion of your mainspace edits are script based, which is not a disqualifier in itself, however your low number of content additions could be. Having said that though you a appear to be a competent well-intentioned editor so I would not feel comfortable voting against you. If you run again in a few months I would be sure to offer my support.
'''Neutral''' while you seem to be a good user, I see almost no vandalism warnings to match your vandalism reverts. And per other concerns. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral''' <s>'''Weak Oppose'''</s> I think that you have the temperament and editing skill for adminship, certainly.  There are two things that concern me based on a quite limited perusal of your contributions record .. so I might be encountering a sampling error here.  First, as was pointed out, you seldom place warnings on the talk pages of anon-ip vandals; these are useful because they provide an indicator to other editors who encounter the vandal that this person has been naughty and facilitates escalation of response.  Second, I notice that there are a substantial number of cases where you have forgotten to sign your posts; I think that's something quite basic and particularly important for someone who is acting with the admin hat on.  I think the solution to each of these is just picking up the habits related to each ... which might come with more editing - but I really don't think 'too few edits' is in my mind - you have enough to qualify in my book. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (<small>''
'''Neutral''' I know that you're a good user, very active in helping users and wikignoming, but I'd proabably like to see more of the same, with a lot more involvement in the Project_talk namespace, as this shows us that you're using and discussing policy.  Also, I'd like to see way more vandalism warnings, as has been pointed out, as they're indispensable when deciding to block (or not).  Keep up the good work! <strong>[[User:Martinp23|M]]
''Switched from oppose''. As explained there.--
Leaning support. I would have loved to support (I was going to), but the points brought up from the oppose !voters swung me slightly. '''
'''Neutral''', same as Daniel.Bryant. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' per Seadog. You seem like you would be a good admin, but I would love to see you spread out your edits to other areas other than New Zealand. You're certainly capable of being an admin. I'd improve and try again in 3 months or so. --
'''SUPPORT''' --[[User:Racer951y|Ford]] 14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC) <small>Fifth contrib by the user. --
'''Support''' second that nom!
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support'''. I like the cut of his jib.
'''Support'''. Per my own nom.
'''Support''' - I can't help it, I trust him (recent developments). --
'''Support''' No second thoughts in supporting this nom. Brossow is supportive of others, level-headed and stays on point and trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Committed? Yes. Any ethical questions raised? No. Useful editor? Yes. What's the problem with the "too recent" issue is beyond me. --
'''Support''', his response to the issues raised on the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brossow|talk page]] is certainly better than I'd have done. I would usually perfer to see more experience in the WP namespace, but if Brossow finds a situation where he doesn't know what to do I'm sure he'll ask before acting.
'''Support''' I don't like his car, but his Wikipedia activities are adequate enough for adminship!
'''Support''' A great user who would not abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Would be a valuable asset to the admin team.
'''Support'''.  Adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Oppose'''. Whilst a member since October, only active since December. Lacks experience per my requirements at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|Standards]]. Sorry I can't support you at the moment. Try again in the future.
'''Oppose''' <s>obvious sockpuppetry<s> What ''appears'', but may not be, sockpuppetry on his own nomination.
'''Oppose''' not now... if I get to know him then maybe later.
'''Oppose''' per all the above votes.
'''Oppose''' He's a great contributor, but he simply has not been here long enough.
'''Oppose''' too soon --
'''Oppose''' as per the above, only two months real activity with the majority this month, limited contributions in the project namespace, needs more experience. --
'''Oppose''', much as I would like to support a fellow self-described [[anal-retentive]] [[grammar nazi]] from [[Minnesota]]. Some things are learned and seen to be learned only over time, and it is better for both the project and the editor that active participation before adminship be some months, not some weeks.
'''Oppose''': Temperament seems a little on the edge in this RFA, but the reason for opposition is inactivity in encyclopedic content and lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' on grounds of inexperience. Give it a few months.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as [[User:Kingboyk]] above.  A lot of edits, but not enough time. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Oppose''' No, not yet. Though you are on the right road, you aren’t there yet. The edit count certainly suggests commitment and availability. Your edits suggest the ability to write readable articles, good temperament, and the ability to work well with others. However, I’d like to see more time to show the sustainability of your effort and greater breadth of experience to show more of your critical thinking skills, your clarity of thought, and your people skills.
'''Oppose''' - Some borderline [[WP:OWN]]ership issues in a couple of recent interactions surrounding a discussion of copyrights relating to [[All your base are belong to us]]. Generally a good contributor but I'd like to see more levelheadedness before giving the mop. (
Despite the user's inherently kind and easy demeanor, I cannot stand by this. More and more nominations are being input with users that have had too little experience and are performing "burnout" editting habbits within the recent month proceeding the nomination. Please gain more experience. -
'''Oppose''' Better have more experience.--
'''Oppose''' Changing my vote, sorry. I don't see enough community intteraction, and the notice on your talk page that you will delete (rather than archive) old threads is classic newbie. <s>#'''Neutral''' --
'''Neutral''', I like all the work he has done in the Image area, but he still needs to be active a bit more, all but about 400 of his edits have come in the last month.
[[User:NSLE/Adminship Criteria|Standards]] barely met for "decent activity throughout". Seems a good one, though, so, '''neutral leaning weak support'''.
'''Neutral''' per NSLE.
'''Neutral''' Great user, but around 80% of his edits coming only from this month. Needs more time really.
'''Neutral''', looks good. However, like DaGizza said, around 80% of his edits come from this month alone. An admin must have more experience. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral'''.  Needs more time. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Give it a little more time :(. --
'''Neutral''', lack of Wikipedia namespace edits.
'''Support''' Well rounded, ethical, interesting new ideas, creative critical thinking skills, well read, and excellent temperance.  --
'''Support''' per masssivego
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, very few project and talk invovements, answer to question 1 doesn't really give a lot to go on  --
'''Oppose''' per Pgk --
'''Oppose''' - 458 edits isn't enough of a sample size for your work, and you've only really been active since December. Would like to see more work involving consensus either in the Talk or Project namespace. (
'''Oppose''' Would like to see more experience, almost no ''user talk'' and ''Project'' edits show lack of experience for two areas very important for admins, IMHO.
'''weeck Oppose''' I ward support this user but thare is allredy so menny amins wikipedia dos not nede mor amins there are 788 amins.**
'''Opposse''' Less than 500 edits, most of which have been in the last 6 weeks.  I know edits aren't everything, but if you try back in a couple of months, my vote may be different.  Basically ditto to ESkog's reasoning. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits in project and talk areas to demonstrate interaction with others as well as involvement in the back-end project that admins need to work on. Nothing in the answer to question one requires admin abilities to do. Please try again in a few months and make sure you look through the reading list given in question one. --
'''Oppose''' for now, but looks like you are good contributor so I'm sure you can be an admin in a couple more months --
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Make lots of good edits to articles, using an edit summary each time (even for minor edits), and in a few more months ask someone to nominate you. If you do that, I'm sure you'll be a shoo-in.
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience.  Good intention though; try again later.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Interesting ideas, but only two months' real involvement with the project.  Would probably support in a few months, as with most people here. Don't get discouraged. -
'''Oppose''' Lack of experiance and edits. Try back in a couple of months and I'll support :-) —
Please get that overly large template off this page and use links to it instead. Thanks.
'''Neutral''' Candidate needs more experience. Also, please use edit summaries on all edits, minor and major.--
--''Signed by''
'''Support'''. "The needs of the many, out-weigh the needs of the few", I think this is really true in Wikipedia. Its the facts versus the opinions, and in this case I know the facts win. --
'''Oppose'''. Administrators need much more experience, typically at least a couple thousand edits. I suggest you withdraw your request and become involved in the community for a few months before seeking adminship. --
'''Oppose'''. I second that and I too suggest that you withdraw get more experience.--
'''Oppose'''. I think you will indeed make a good admin, but not yet.  Regards,
Oppose, do not see a real need for admin tools. Answers to questions not sufficient to judge if support is warranted.
With all possible respect, '''no way'''. User shows no obvious knowledge of policy; has no significant history of communication with other users that I can find; edit summary use is almost nil; and, while the user was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Caldorwards4 blocked and unblocked] the same day (31 May 2006, yet!) after an investigation, it was clear there were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caldorwards4&diff=prev&oldid=56172252 issues] that still needed to be addressed. Meantime, the answers to the questions below are far, far less than convincing. I hope this candidate will broaden the horizons, so to speak, and consider acceptance several months down the road. <tt>
'''Oppose'''. Malformed RfA (no ending date), answers to questions are quite sub-par, and you can stop vandalism with GML and AIV. User also apparently has very little interaction with other users and very few projectspace edits. Focusing on articles is commendable, but I don't see why you need adminship. Email is also not activated. --
'''Oppose''', a solid editor in the article namespace, but with only 2% of edits in User talk pages, showing little interaction with other uses, and even less in article talk pages, demonstration small iteration with other users regarding articles. Does not justify tools; if given there is a chance he would use them to determine an article direction per Radio Kirk. I would suggest following Kelly Martin advice and interacting more with users (through user and article talk pages). Also, needs more Wikipedia namespace edits. --
'''Oppose''' I am bothered by the answers to those questions.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I'll have to oppose, largely per RadioKirk. I'll support in the future when these issues have been addressed.
'''Oppose''' per above.'''
'''Oppose''' per RadioKirk --
'''Neutral'''. Small amount of wikipedia namespace edits, indicating a lack of knowledge of wikipedia policies. Please continue as a valuable contributor to wikipedia, and perhaps learn more about wikipedia policies and processes. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. Your answers to the generic questions below in very unsatisfactory & shows that you lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies & are inexperienced. Try contributing more to Wikipedia namespace &, as RadioKirk says above, broaden your horizons & I will be happy to support in some time. Also I suggest that you withdraw this RFA ASAP. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Moral Support'''  Your willingness and desire to take on an added role in this project speaks to your character.  You seem to be very well-meaning and per a brief overview of your edits, you seem to be a great person to have volunteering to write the 'pedia.  Your choice to spend your valuable time helping out is quite commendable.  Having said that, administrator candidates are often a bit more experienced.  I'd be happy to help you become more involved in Wikipedia, or if you want a more experienced user to help, there is something called [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#Admin_Coaching|admin coaching]] that pairs future administrator candidates with current administrators.  This would help you get some experience with some of the more technical aspects of Wikipedia.  Good luck!
'''Oppose''' See "recently created admins" for what qualifications are generally needed.  Best wishes, and try back in a few months--
'''Oppose'''. Please check [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards]] for the minimum standards some people set for voting in an RFA. Can a bureaucrat please check the nominator's userpage? This may indeed be a bad faith nom as per aeropagitica's comment.
'''Oppose''' Fails most of [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. Not too active in Wikipedia. Been here since December 2005 and only 274 mainspace edits. Weak answers to RFA questions and answer to Q1 show they have no use for admin tools. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal, insufficient experience (manifested in the form of an edit count). Answer to question 1 does not appear to need admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Stifle|Stifle]].  Not ready per
'''Oppose''' Answers are very weak and show lack of experience, incredibly low edit count to even be considered for adminship.  Wait a great while longer and re-submit when you have much more experience.
'''Neutral''' Not enough experience at the moment, I suspect a bad-faith nomination.  Try again in a few months when more experience has been gained. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' No need to pile on. Please, please close this RfA per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter. Let's make him work harder.
'''Support''' - I constantly see him fighting vandalism, often beats me to the punch on reverts. Would make a good admin.
'''Support''' hysterical username, great vandal fighter. I would like to see more article creation however. But since admin tools are mostly for vandal fighting... I'd give him the mop. &nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' very good vandal fighter, but a tad too soon but who cares. --
'''Support''' A very good editor and vandal fighter, I'm surprised he isn't already an admin. <small>
'''Support''' on the count that I would have nominated him if BorgHunter didnt already get to it! A brilliant vandalwhacker.
'''Support''' not even two months here and is one of the better vandal fighters I've come across. I almost never support an admin nominee with less than 3 months of experience, but this will be an exception.--
'''Support'''; almost exactly mirror what MONGO said.  I rarely support someone this new, but this one's exceptional.  Give him the rollback and delete buttons.
'''Support'''; I fully support [[User:Can't eat clown will sleep me]]..........wait... &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Don't sleep, vandals will eat us.
'''Support''' for now--
'''Support''', looks good. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Can't sleep, Cant' sleep, clown will eat me will eat me''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Late nominator support''' —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup>
'''Support'''. This pushes the edge of "too new" for me, and I would usually not chime in for a candidate with such little experience. That being said, this user will be the kind of admin that will make life easier for editors, so I have to vote to give this user a mop.
'''Support'''I vacillated between support and neutral (based on time served), but the editor seems to be a Grade "A" fancy. Good egg that is.
'''Support'''. I doubt he'll become nefarious in another month, or abuse the shiny buttons until then. &mdash;
'''Support''' Great work.
'''Support''' Surprised he's not an admin already, I see his vandalism reverts everywhere I go. :)
'''Support''' if for no other reason than to cancel out some of those ridiculous oppose votes. --
'''Support''' without prejudice, this editor appears to be everywhere at once.
'''Support''' I've seen some of the great work this editor has done in fighting vandalism. Let's give him the tools he should have to help fight this plauge on our great project. --
'''Support'''. Seen him around a fair bit and he often beats me to the punch!
'''Support'''. Any Wikipediaholic has got to be good on the team.  This clown doesn't even sleep to stop wikking.
'''Support''', if for no other reason than [[User:Dark Lord Farley]] opposes. :-) --
'''Support'''. Tireless vandal fighter, would make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Any issues with him being green or less than tactful will be ironed out as the other admins mentor him. Shows great promise.
'''Support'''. Only barely meets my minimum time on Wikipedia requirement, but in the case of Can't sleep, clown will eat me, I'll make an exception, as he's a really good editor and overall nice bloke.
'''Support'''. A great vandalism finder. I had slight pause about the lack of article-writing but not about the short tenure as he has learnt a lot in the time he has been here.
'''Support''', excellent fighter of vandalism. I'm sure he will be a great addition to the list of sysops. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' exceptional vandal fighter. Also see my comment about account time.
'''Support'''. Not a lot of interaction with this user, but noted some great AfD contributions a while back. Yes is new but had outstanding newcomer award etc, probably ready to help the big club, does not need another season in AAA, rising fastball breaks in on the hitters and explodes in on their fists, can work on curve and slider with the big club.
'''Support''', as good as many people who've been here twice as long. Can't oppose, clown will eat me! <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Support'''- I would normally oppose a user with less two months worth of edits, however I think quality so far outweighs this.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Quality greaty outweighs time concerns. -
I oppose the opponents, plus I tried to nominate him once...Also, I like his user name.  [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. May have only two months of experience, and apparently little experience with anything except vandal fighting, but he/she has proven him/herself an extremely capable and talented vandal fighter, which is a large part of holding the admin mop.
'''Support'''. A regular at AIV. I realize that his edit count may be inflated by vandal fighting, but thats a '''lot''' of vandal fighting in 2 months.  Lets give him some additional tools to fight them. --
'''Support'''. Please note that I am currently being voted on for adminship so this vote may be inappropriate.  This user has not been around for very long and I'd normally vote to hold up for a while; six months or so seems more reasonable.  But I've run across this user on several articles that I watch and have already stopped checking Clown's edits.  They are always good edits and they are often incredibly fast.  Additionally, the user makes a lot of edits.  As a result, I support.  If Clown's nomination fails, I '''strongly''' advise that we look at this user again in the medium-term future once he or she has had more time to demonstrate capabilities.  --
'''Support'''. A quality user. While around for a ''relatively'' short time, in administator reckoning, I feel this user can handle administrative chores and tools.&#160;—
'''Support'''. Uses standard templates well.

'''Support''' without reservations, for the same reasons I supported Pgk's [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pgk|early nomination]], plus this is one more nomination I won't have to draft myself.  ;-)
'''Support'''. I see this user reverting vandalaism doggedly... should do well with the extra privileges.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Seriously, I considered subst'ing <nowiki>{{rfa cliche1}}</nowiki> for this candidate. He'll be a fine admin.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
--''Signed by''
'''Support''' - Sure. I see him everywhere.
'''Support, or the clown will eat me'''. I wanted to nominate you. :(--
'''Support absolutely'''--
'''Support'''. All experiences have been positive and adminship will definately help his vandal fighting capabilities.
'''Huge Support''' - I don't think there could be any reason to bar his promotion to our higher ranks! He always seems to be helping and making Wikipedia a better place--'''
'''Support'''. Has beaten me to numerous reverts. Adminship will help him with his mission. And definetely won me over with vandal fighting question. --
'''Support'''. Have seen this user around and like his style. My concerns are as voiced by others, a shooting star can burn out quickly. If this nomination fails, barring any change, CSCWEM can count on my support again on renomination. ++
'''Support''' There is no better way to learn than by doing. CSCWEM has demonstrated a high level of credibility, maturity, and common sense, so I see no reason to think the clown will abuse admin tools. --
Has done great work batting back vandals to protect [[50 Cent]]'s article. Whta could be more honourable :p ?
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' a great vandal fighter, despite a short stay, you have my confidence.  --
'''Support'''.  Worthy of early nom.  --
'''Dun't sleep after you get opped or clown will still eat you'''.Stay awake and edit happily as an op!
'''Support'''. Excellent vandal hunter, and a fair amount of good work with "normal" article creation. Experience is measured not just in number of months spent and edit count. Just be careful not to burn your self out to quickly!
'''Support''', are you sure you've only been here since November?!?!
'''"He's a tireless contributor"'''—I get it. *
'''Support'''. No question about that.--
'''Support'''. Who is under the clown's makeup?
'''Support'''. I've admired this user for a while now.
'''Wholehearted Support with a Side of Bananas'''. I'd been back from my wikibreak for less time than Clown's entire tenure here, and I was voted into the position with no mention made of my age after a break long enough to need to start over.  I see no reason to oppose whatsoever.  He constantly beats me at rollbacks, and I have the actual button!
'''Totally support'''. I would support him anyway just for the name, but this guy '''RULES'''! --
'''Support''' or clown will eat me.
'''Support''' -- From my experience he has proven himself to be a responsible vandal fighter and editor. Good Luck!
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighter. -
'''Support'''.  Not usually in favour of such relative newcomers becoming admins, but I definitely trust this candidate with a mop and bucket.  --
'''Support''' Has shown his worth. Adminship is no big deal, I don't understand the fuss about his tenure here or 'potential burnout'. --
'''Support''' I always see his name popping up in the RC feed, and always beats me to reverts when he is vandal fighting!  I think his actions in the past few months outweigh the fact that it only has been 2-3 months, and I'm sure he'd do great things for WP with adminship. --
'''Support''', seemed to have a positive impact on articles. //
'''Support''', have ran into him on several occasions, relentless vandal fighter and general all-round good guy. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
''''Support''' Every time I see his name, hes doing something good for the wiki, seems like a model wikipedian...well except that damn picture on his userpage, its cost me hundreds in counceling.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.  Very dedicated, and I see no reason to believe that there will be ''any'' bad effect to giving him admin powers.  --
'''Support''' Have seen this user revert vandalism on a consistant basis, he is very dedicated at what he does. --
'''Support''' I've seem him around Wikipedia, and I'm confident in his ability to be an admin. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="yellow">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' good contributor who I've noticed pop up all over the place
'''Support''', contributions and obvious dedication.
'''Support''', though a weak one due to agecountitis. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Adminship should be no big deal. If he fucks up, take the mop and bucket away from him and make him sit in the corner. At least, that's what supposed to happen. In reality, deadmining is nigh on impossible. Doesn't change the fact that he's a brilliant vandal fighter, though, and we definitely need more people with those handy rollback tools around.
'''Support'''. I like his style, but hopefully the power of being an admin does not corrupt him. And who cares if he has a short history, his edits are brilliant and he does not revert everything he sees just to get more edits.
'''Support'''. One of the fastest vandal fighters I've seen. Not been around for long, but the experience in his actions overrules the age of his account.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Seems to me, a person's familiarity with policies is a function of how much they read and interact here, not just how much time they spend here.  Just as it's possible to exist here for a long time and not learn much, it's also possible to learn a lot in a short time.  So it should be considered on a case by case basis.  I tend to think that a person who's been as active as CSCWEM has without any real problems that I know of has learned enough not to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' '''—
'''Weak Support''' agree with delldot and previous comments.  3 month is a good rule of thumb but commited editors with no problems should not be discouraged.  --''
'''Support'''.  In a case like this I'd normally oppose (due to the lack of experience), but it's my strong belief that this user will learn very quickly.  Just don't rush into using more sensitive of the admin tools before you learn all the policies, OK?&mdash;
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter, edittimeitis is just as bad as editcountitis in this case... (
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter.--
'''Support'''.  The length of time one has been a wikipedian should not be more important than the good work one does in that time period. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Support''' per time-based oppose votes. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''', great vandal fighter. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' I thought he already ''WAS'' one... —
'''very strong support'''' excellent vandal fighter, offten beats me to a revert, i wanna know there secret!
'''Support''' - It's haunting to watch CSCWEM reverting so quickly on IRC, will do even better with admin tools.
'''Support'''. There can be exceptions to the time of service standard and Can't sleep... is the exception.   It is not too early for him to get the admin tools, he's doing a great job. Once we get [[WP:RFR]] going, we can be more restrictive, but that hasn't happened yet.
'''Support''', damn the timecountitis.
'''Support''', I saw only good work from him. --
'''Support'''. Two months is just fine :) We need more admins. -
'''Support''' although only with us briefly, has made a large positive impact. --
'''Support''' A tireless vandal-fighter; I frequently cross paths with him on vandalism patrol. I don't see the short tenure as a big issue. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|Oh]]</font><font face="Arial Black" color="#A26310">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|no]]</font><font face="Arial" color="#7D4C0C">
'''Support''' based on this user's '''actual behavior'''' I have no doubt that he won't abuse tools and that he will be a good admin....too many oppose votes are jsut plain nasty, unnecessary and using weak shallow criterion.  Knock it off.
'''Support''' and I totally agree with Gator. --
I don't need another two months.  Some people take less time to prove that they'd be a good admin. —
'''Support'''.  I highly endorse this candidate.  --
'''Support''' Can't sleep, vandals will eat me--unless CSCWEM becomes an admin, that is. --
'''Support''' - change of vote because I have been watching this user's edits and am willing to make an exception over thier newness. --
'''Support'''. In current situation Wikipedia cannot be too picky and needs every hand in dealing with vandals. The clown does enough of work to give him mop.
'''Support''' I've seen him do a lot of good work.--
'''Oppose'''. Less than two months is far too new. Try again in another month and a half. You'll learn a lot and be surprised by much of it. Some decent level of experience is essential in an admin, and under two months is just not enough for me. -
'''Incredibly Reluctant Oppose''' per Splash.  More time is needed; the 'pedia is just too big to learn all one needs in less than two months.  Editor has, however, the coolest username yet.
'''Oppose'''.  Requires better vocabulary.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pammyfiend --
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per Splash. This is one great user and one of the best vandal fighters around, but two months is not enough time. I would easily support in another month or two.--
'''Weak Oppose'''. I bet he would make a good admin (an unually polite one too), but he would lack too much process experiece. In 2-3 months, he should re-apply and I will then support.'''
'''Reluctant oppose''', per above. If you fail this time, I'd be very happy to support in a couple of months if you're still working at the same level. Moving from non-editor to editor to admin in only two months can be risking burn-out, and I'd have concerns that you'd be up to speed with everything about Wikipedia in two months. But very good potential.
'''Oppose''' good user, but not enough experience.
Can't support, clown will need more experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I want to support but I agree have to agree with splash on this one.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I can't in good conscience add my vote to support until you have been here for 3-4 months. I feel he's a great editor but needs for time under his belt. —
'''Weak Oppose.''' Needs more experience. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by''
'''Oppose.''' Will definitely support with more experience.
'''Oppose''' Agree with above. I most likely will support in three months.
'''Oppose''' as per Splash.
Far too early. --
'''Oppose''': I've seen him around and he's a good editor, but I have to agree with others who are waiting for more experience. If this doesn't pass, please let me know when nominated again: I will likely support.
'''Oppose''' Per above - needs more time
'''NO''' just, no.  everyone, quit nominating people who have been here 2-3 months for god's sake.  no matter how many edits they make.  it's just not enough time to really get to know the place.  nothing personal at all.  would support in a couple months.  i'm feeling pissy about this.
'''Oppose'''. Too early still. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' -- you're my first oppose vote, solely on the grounds of I feel it takes a little longer than two months to fully inhale Wikipedia as a whole. I've been here a while and I'm still learning daily. You're definately admin worthy, but my only gripe is your two month tenure. Another month, and I don't see a problem. Let me know if you nominate again and I'll be more than happy to support. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. Decent user, but account length made me uneasy. <s>The last straw was an email I sent to CSCWEM, which he didn't respond to within 24 hours (where he was editing a greater part of). An Admin should be more aware of his email account. </s>I am sorry, and will support in the future. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. He's been here longer than I, seems like a cool guy and he's great at vandal fighting, I've just seen too many others get turned down on length of time as a registered user who were just as good with more time in to learn the ins and outs. In a few months, it'll be a very strong support. -
'''Weak Oppose''' Exceptional vandal fighter, but as others have expressed, a little too new to the project for me to support adminship. Nothing personal - try again in a couple of months --
'''Oppose''' Too new, I have been since October 2005, and dont think I am any where near qualified, I dont think someone this new is either, Nothing personal just a general belief I have and enforce.
'''Oppose''' Too new. Would support in a few months if all goes well.--
'''Strong Oppose.''' User has not even been here for two months. No matter how good an editor he/she is, there is no way that he/she can actually ''know'' Wikipedia in such a short time. Does he/she have extensive and intimate knowledge of the policies and procedures. Would he be able to explain them if a totally ignorant editor came to him? Also, I really don't mean to be insensitive, but you said that your best contribution was [[Mark Zupan]]. That's a stub at best. This is an encyclopedia &mdash; an administrator should be able to write a complete article.
'''Mild but firm oppose''' as per Splash, et al.  Will support any not-indecently-soon renom (no names, no pack drill), assuming the editor hasn't had any major personality meltdowns in the meantime.  (Or falls asleep, and is eaten by the clown, obviously.)
'''Oppose'''. Primary concern is I do not like crusaders. I'd rather we had more people contributing to the article space than looking for things to revert. Secondary to that is the (extreme) lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' - too new.  He's obviously a good vandal fighter, but I don't care.  Two months is not enough, at all.  BorgHunter should have thought about this nomination a little more.  4,500 edits is not that much if all you ever do is revert vandalism.
'''Oppose'''.  Too new.  Great work, but keep it up for a while.
Can not support nominations brought by users like [[User:BorgHunter|{{{2|BorgHunter}}}]] ([[User talk:BorgHunter|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BorgHunter|contribs]]) who attack other users for no reason, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me#It.27s_time.21 see]. --
'''Oppose''' as too new to WP. I'd personally prefer at least a 6 month minimum. Also, there is far more to adminship than vandalism fighting, as important as that is. But I've seen the user around a bit, and have not seen any other concerns, so a future support is certainly possible.
'''Oppose'''- I feel horrible, really. But, despite CDCWEM's excellent, excellent work, he simply does not have enough experince needed. I would strongly support in month or two more, but not now. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' – two months on Wikipedia is far too short an exposure to adequately assess the candidate. However, I'd happily support further down the track so long as his good work continues. All the best,--
'''Oppose''' - regrettably I don't think two months is long enough to gain the experience needed. I frequently see his username fighting vandalism, but I just don't think he's been here long enough. If there is a renomination in a few months, I will gladly approve and vote in favour of adminship. Sorry, I wish I didn't have to vote against it.
Sorry, I would prefer more experience. Thanks!
Too new to support, too good to oppose... another month and I'd have nominated you myself.
Completely agree with [[User:BD2412]] here, up to and including the "nominated" bit.
Just what [[User:BD2412]] said. Great user. But too new. Strong support next time.
Per BDAbramsom.  Give it another month or two and my vote would be different. --
This user has been an incredible vandal hunter, and in normal circumstances, I would not hesititate to vote support, but he just hasn't been here long enough.
Great potential. Come back in a couple of months, and will surely support.
Per BDA.
Awesome editor/vandal fighter, but <2 mo is a little short.  At least you have the rollback button already :)  Obviously I'll support the next RFA if this one doesn't succeed.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' changed from oppose on further consideration, I would still rather another month, however I don't think there is any "danger' in this user being an admin --
'''Neutral'''.  I'd support but again, only here for two months like Me. --
'''On the edge Neutral'''.  Edits look good, unlikely to abuse admin tools, would like to see a ''little'' more work before getting a support vote though, if you don't pass, try again in a month.
'''Neutral'''. A great vandal fighter! Please spend another month or so editing, and try to spread your editing around a little more so you visit all the nooks and cranies of the Wikipedia and you will have my wholehearted support for your next RFA.
'''Neutral''', bordering on support. You deserve to be an admin, but the only thing I was afraid of was a nomination that was too early. I see you all around the wiki, but it's just a ''tad'' too soon (and there are some issues about article writing, as [[User:Journalist|Journalist]] pointed out above. Come back in a month and you'll get strong support from me.
'''Neutral'''. He's a very good vandal fighter but it's too early and I am not sure that he has edited enough articles yet. --
'''Neutral'''. Greatest user name ever. Tempted to support just based on that. But can't support someone with so little experience. I like to see some time to demonstrate ability to work consistently through ups and downs. In some months I would support hands down. Answer to question about length of time does indicate impressive maturity though. -
'''Neutral'''.  Seems like a great editor, but I don't think he's been here long enough.  I'll probably support in a couple of months. --
'''Neutral'''.  Was inclined to oppose on grounds of newness, but fact is, whenever I see that username against an edit I know it'll be reliable stuff which improves the standard of WP. If this nom. fails, give it a month or two and you'll get in by a landslide.
'''Neutral'''. Hard to decide, but leaning towards supporting his nomination at some later date.
'''Neutral''', but I'd be very likely to support in another month's time.  BD2412 pretty well sums it up; I'd just add that there are some rough edges to be rubbed off by more experience. --
I almost went oppose per Grutness, but '''neutral''' seems kinder. This user is a textbook case for making a distinction between the 'tools' and the 'powers' of adminship. --
'''Growing pains!''' Wikipedia needs vandal fighters. Wikipedia needs people willing to evaluate new articles and work on AfDs. Wikipedia needs experienced article editors to help improve article content. Wikipedia needs a way to move beyond the monochrome administrator and have more than one type of hat to put on different types of "trusted users".  --
extreme beat the nominator support!, also whens more moremarmot tarte coming in?
'''Support''' as per nominator(s).  ;-)
'''Support'''.  Everybody who I thought was an admin isn't, this is really weird... --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''support''' - but not enough edits, too many frigg'n boxes, needs more sleep etc. --
'''Support''' Great user, won't abuse tools. Easy call!
'''Support''' - Duh.--
'''Support''', this time for sure. — <small>Mar. 15, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[23:30] <
'''Support''' Yay --
Of course I '''support''' but I think CSCWEM said he would not be inclined to accept until April.
'''<nowiki>{{rfa_cliche1}}</nowiki>'''
'''Support''' this badass without reservations. --
Sonuva bitch!  How did eleven people beat me to it?!  Anyway, '''Super masochistic extra lesbionic support'''.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Strong support''' - eh, almost April.
'''Support''' I opposed the first time not because I could not trust him, but because he was too new, and admins unfamilair to process can get in trouble. He has been on long enough and is a solid admin candidate and vandal sqaushing machine.'''
'''Strong Support'''. CSCWEM will put administrator tools to great use&#160;—
'''Hugest of all possible supports''' &ndash; Can't oppose, clown will hate me. &ndash;
'''Bam'''. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Strong Support''' &ndash; Invididual is a top-notch Wikipedian, and would make a terrific admin.
'''Support'''
'''20th support-before-candidate-acceptance''' - that shows you how people think of you - yo're very worthy of adminship.
'''Extremely Strong Support'''. April is near :)
'''Strong Support''', good vandal fighter, definitely. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' I voted to support in January, and I'm voting to support now. Great user, will be an even better admin. &mdash;
'''Can't Oppose or the Grue will eat me''' and other random cliche support. &nbsp;
Feh, why not. <small><small><--Understatement</small></small> --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support'''. Of course. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' per my own earlier offer to re-nominate him (me and ''how'' many other people?), and contra my purely precautionary-on-time oppose on his last RFA.
'''Support''' of course. And so many nominators. --
'''Support''' This is a very trusted user. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' - I uphold my opinion. And I also hate clowns. //
'''Support''' based on the deep and meaningful answers to questions 1 - 4 below.
'''Support'''. It's go time.
Heheh. —''
'''Support''': Another before acceptance.
'''Support'''. Same reasons as two months ago.
'''Support'''. Would have voted in suppport [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me|the first time]], and will again. Wikipedia is not the [[Rotary Club]], and adminship should be based on individual merits, not  how long a user has been here.
'''Support''': I hope he will accept nomination though ...
'''Support''': Certainly would be an admin that you can take in good faith.
'''Support''': I see his name come up on recent edits for reverting vandalism far more than any admin. He still hasn't accepted yet, I see, but hopefully he will. Wikipedia needs an admin like him... I totally trust his judgement.
'''Ahh crap.. i wanted to nominate him'''
'''Strong support''' fast vandal zapper. <s>I wish he was faster with talk page responses but oh well :)</s> He will be one of the best administrators in history. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' should already be an admin
'''Support''' like last time, or clown will eat me.
'''Support''' fantastic editor, no reason to be denied adminship again.
'''Strong Support''' he isn't an admin? how did ''that'' happen?
'''Support''' - super fast, he manages to beat my '''bot''' to vandal reverts sometimes and that's a highly tweaked and optomized peice of code! --
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support''', obviously.  Natural admin. -
'''Support'''. Excellent vandal fighter. Have seen him many times at [[WP:AIV]] and thought "he would be a good admin". Good contributions all around and believe he can be trusted with admin tools.--
'''Support''' assuming he accepts nom. [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''support''' agree with all of the above: great guy.
'''Strong Support''' Always running across his good deeds and until I saw the first RfA presumed he was an admin. ''Please accept nomination CSCWEM! [[Image:glenstollery.gif]]<sup>
'''Strong Support''' Have run into him a lot, and very often am beaten to reverting an article by CSCWEM; '''please accept!''' <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Strong support'''. Will make a great admin, without any doubt. There are so many positive things I could say here, but none of them would do CSCWEM any justice. So I'll just say, "Give him the mop." [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Ditto.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support'''.  An excellent, indefatigable editor who easily qualifies for adminship.
'''Extreme "Ohnoes! More cliched voting patterns!" support''' - go him! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Huge Strong Support''' - I'm so glad you finally accepted this RFA.  Great things will come to Wikipedia with you with the sysop mop! --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' of course. -
'''Support''' despite problems with listing the RfA and the unnecessary "pebbles" quote in comments, which had me very close to opposing on principle. --
'''Support''' has my full trust. ~
'''Support''' great user, and his user page often makes me hungry.--
'''Support'''. OK... 65 support votes by half an hour after he accepted the nomination... and still one week to go... I think this will be the most supported RfA ever. I certainly couldn't have waited any longer to add my support vote.
'''Strong Support''' deserves the mop, the bucket and the janitorial cap. I was only waiting for him to accept this nomination. Way to go, clownie... --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Oppose''' anyone who present the community with such a ''fait accompli''. How dare the nominators and nominee be so presumptuous as present those of us not watching the relevant talk pages or living in IRC with an RfA such as this: 10 days old and academic before we've had a chance to comment on it. CSCWEM should operate his RfA more repsectfully. Summed up, I think, by the demeaning comment below: I am not a pebble because I I did not know this was current before it was posted here. Poor form unbecoming an admin. The candidate should withdraw and resubmit and do this properly. -
I agree with Splash. By preventing a proper discussion and debate on the issue by only informing known supporters about the RFA, it is absolutely a ''fait accompli''. This, at best, shows a deep lack of respect for the RFA process. Please withdraw this RFA and go through the process in the same way every other admin nominee has.
It sets a dangerous precedent if a nomination can be kept under wraps for an arbitrary ammount of time, and people find out about it only through coincidence (they happen to read a random talkpage) or campaigning. While this situation seems largely accidental, it's not hard to imagine how this kind of thing could be gamed to get a highly controversial candidate on RfA with 70/0 support by the time anyone known to oppose them ever finds out about it. --
Would have supported, but I agree -- this is a fait accompli. I cannot support an RfA of this nature, no matter how qualified the candidate may be. I'm glad that he will become an admin, but I'm not glad ''at all'' that it is through such a despicable manner.
'''Neutral''' Changing vote per complaints that this is too extreme a violation of procedure and that it sets a very dangerous precedent.
I've been waiting for Carnildo to accept and am honored to be able to be the first '''support''' vote; surely he ought to regain his adminship, especially in view of his bot work and his attendant need for sysop privileges.  I concur with and in the sentiments of the nominator, but I should say (hoping not to engender more argument on the issue) that I don't think Carnildo's actions vis-à-vis the "pedophile" blocks/bans to have been untoward or improper.  Even assuming arguendo that they were, though, surely one oversight oughtn't to disqualify an otherwise excellent Wikipedian.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' Yeah, is rather quiet for an admin but anyway besides of few wierd blocks I think he does a decent job. And the bots are awesome. And he's helped numerous people with the sticky fair use issues. <small>
''NEVER!!!'' Oh, wait, this is ''[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]]'' - well why didn't you just say so... '''STRONG SUPPORT'''. (but, per your response to Q3, Sam does a lot of good here).
'''Strong support'''. His work regarding image copyrights is most invaluable and necessary to the project. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Rune. good user.--
'''Support''' def
'''Strong support'''. —
'''Strong Support''' Needs adminship because of his work with images --
'''Support''', shouldn't have lost it. — <small>Mar. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[00:20] <
I re'''support'''ed Karmafist. No reason not to you.
'''Support''', dealing with copyright issues needs to be done, yet it creates enemies. I respect his work in this area.
'''Support'''. He does great work, and when he was deadmined he behaved with maturity and professionalism and continued to do great work. Obviously, he is far more effective and useful to all of us as an admin. We've demonstrated that we know how to deadmin people when there is a problem, and he's demonstrated consistency and reliability in the face of the difficulties of being human. However you vote, realize that every day Carnildo spends without the mop is at ''our'' expense, not his. --
'''Support''' The incident that led to his desysopping was an anomaly, and everyone involved behaved badly.  I cannot imagine a similarly-charged situation arising again, because everyone has learned lessons from that painful first experience.  Otherwise, Carnildo's work is exceptional, and his adminship is clearly a benefit to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I think the ArbCom decision was fair, but he should have the mop back now.-
'''Support''' per Gmaxwell above and answers below. --
'''Support''' per Xoloz and Gmaxwell.
'''Support''' Forgive (but don't forget), anyone can make mistakes.
'''Support''', he was desysopped for defending freedom of expression, I have to support him. -
'''Support''' - I believe in redemption. --
'''Support''' - Changed from neutral; addressed my concerns in an unusually pragmatic way above. As I said below, I believe any opposition based on Carnildo's image work to be dangerously wrongheaded. &mdash;
'''Support''' per Gmaxwell. Needs adminship for his invaluable image work. '''''×'''''
'''Support'''. People are flawed as a matter of course. We all make mistakes, and Carnildo's mistake shouldn't prevent him from returning to adminship. It's not like he couldn't be banned instantly if he broke his promises... right?
'''Support'''. It's time for a second chance. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support'''. Per above, <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' Very helpful to the project - <font style="color:#137300;">
'''Support''' Arbcom's decision is a double edged sword. From the arbcom page, "For statements he interpreted as hate speech" if he interpreted the statements as hate speech then he may have been right to issue those blocks, HOWEVER that is not to say his interpretation was correct.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I see Carnildo's offer to not block anyone for a year is a good faith effort to calm fears and goes further than I think is needed - but with that commitment and the need for a mop to assist Carnildo's efforts on images I am changing my view <font color="#06C">
'''Support''' per Gmaxwell. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Disagree with his actions which led to him being desysopped, but a far bigger asset as an admin than as not. --
'''Support''' I have always found this user to be dilligent, polite and mature. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' For his work concerning images and per questions.
'''Support''' Carnildo has done his time in the stockade.  It's time for him to get back to work, suitably chastised.
'''Strong support'''.  Carnildo is one of our most dedicated image-watchers.  The blocking incident was unfortunate, but he shouldn't be permanently desysopped for it.
'''Support''' Carnildo was one of the best admins Wikipedia had. He understands policy, does the really dirty work, and takes the crap for it. Just look at his talk page and see how calmly he deals with confused (sometimes hostile) uploaders of images. Most admins simply revert anon edits (wow). Wikipedia would be a much better place if half the admins in that oppose list (some of whom have turned quite disrespectful or ferocious when challenged) were as well-informed in policy and as consistently tactful with dealing with stressful situations as Carnildo. --
Actions which led to his desysopping were bad, but isolated. Did more good than bad during his tenure as admin, and I agree with Kelly on this one.
'''Support''' - no reason to oppose. --

'''Support''' per Greg and Kelly.
'''Support''' from past experiences, and per random support votes above. --
'''Support'''. per Greg and kelly also. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. A close call but as an admin he seems to have done a huge amount of good work. His three blocks seem to have been an anomaly unlikely to repeat itself, especially since he now thinks they were not necessary.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''.  Per Haukur, I think Carnildo has learned from the mistake.  The blocks he made were called an "abuse of admin powers" by the ArbCom, but I think he had legit reasons for blocking right away rather than discussing, and he's adequately explained it.
'''Support'''.
'''Wheel war cabal support.''' Seriously, we all make mistakes, and Carnildo is a great editor.
'''Support''' May the first user without one mistake cast the first stone.  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''; the ArbCom did not intend to lock Carnildo out indefinitely.  A valued editor whom has certainly learned his mistake.
'''Support''' per Kelly.
'''Strong Support''' Impressive number of edits and deletions. I'd say you're perfect for the job. Good Luck though <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support'''. I'm convinced that you would not make the same mistakes you have in the past again, and in every other respect you re certainly admin material. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Strong support'''.  Carnildo made one error of judgement, he knows he made an error of judgement, and the unforgiving attitude of many Wikipedians is kinda disappointing.  He is an experienced and knowledgable administrator.  The argument 'how do we know he won't do it again?' is fallacious - not only could you apply the same argument to any prospective first-time administrator, going through this experience will probably guarantee Carnildo will excise better judgement (and other than this incident, his was impeccable).
'''Support'''. He clearly knows he made a mistake the first time around, and it's one I don't think will be repeated.
'''Support'''.  [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] is a real asset to the project.  No reason for us to go without his admin work for some indefinite longer period of time.
'''Support''' Based on Carnildo's contributions for the past few weeks, I would like to give this user a second chance.
'''Support''' based on his work regarding image copyrights.
'''Support'''.  No-one's indispensible to Wikipedia, but some are much less dispensible than others; Carnildo is one of the least. --
Carnildo was the one person in the "paedophile" dispute who did the right thing. The Arbitration Committee ruling was wrong. He is a great Wikipedian and should have his adminship restored immediately.
Support,, of course. The arbcom case is not supposed to be a scarlet 'S' forever upon his brow -
'''Support''' - my concern has been addressed and I'm always in favour of giving a second chance --
'''Support''' give this kid a chance. --
'''Support'''. Not much point now, but support on principle per NSLE. I too resupported Karmafist. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''OPPOSE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS''' Let's begin with fact he was [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo|desysopped]] by the Arbcomm for [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo's blocks|one of the worst cases of wheel warring and displays of poor judgement in Wiki history]]. All this only weeks ago! Worse, directly or indirectly due to his actions, a number of fine admins were desysopped either temporarily or permanently. Worse still, he refused to admit his mistakes, apologize and step down for them. Though I'm sure he will now, in order to regain the mop. The point is, to his mind he did nothing wrong. Likewise, when he is confronted with complaints about Orphanbot, he ignores them or brushes them off as ignorance of how it works. Or, in the case of Sam Spade below, just the words of cranks. When confronted with his overzealotry in enforcing image copyright policy he takes the road to [[Nuremberg Defense|Nuremburg]]. He has abused admin powers and shown poor judgement before and he will again. Maybe with a bit more time and a display of sincere contrition on his part, we should forgive and give him another chance. But this is FAR too soon. He has clearly not yet learned his lesson.--
'''Strong oppose'''.  Oh sure, let's give him blocking powers; it's not like he'd do something stupid with them, like [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo's blocks|indefinitely blocking some admins for no good reason]] or something! [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you do great work, but concern over abusing admin tools is the only reason someone should not be given them. When you have abused them there shouldn't be any leniency. If admin tools were really needed to edit here, I'd be more willing to capitulate. If you can't stop, think, and discuss before using them, then just live without them. I appreciate your commitment, but you should have thought about that before you blocked two admins that hadn't done anything yet. -
'''Oppose'''. Not yet.
'''Oppose'''. Too soon.'''
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Carnildo|No Way]]. At least not yet, let a few more months pass before reapplying.
'''Oppose'''. I feel it is too early, considering the circumstances of the desysopping. Will gladly support in a couple of months if no other significant issues show up in between.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I'm sorry, absolutely not, and probably never again. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Strong Oppose''' : Past behaviour is the surest predictor of future behaviour. If he's abused admin privileges once, he'll do it again unless something intervenes to change his attitude. There are candidates who fail to get admin privileges on this page despite the fact that they would not abuse those privileges. Why should Carnildo obtain ascendancy over them? -
'''Oppose''' Upon further review of February's incident, I have changed my vote. There are editors whose RfAs have been denied despite not going through an ordeal nearly as significant as yours. Although I'd like to forgive you, I simply can't. I must hold you to the same standards as other potential admins, even though you have made great contributions to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''': Abusing blocking privilege is too dangerous. Better wait for some time to regain trust.--
'''Oppose''': Not after blatant admin abuse.
'''Oppose''': Admin privileges should be given to ones whom we can trust. Carnildo had betrayed that trust, and it will be hard to gain it back.
'''Oppose''' Due to the incidents and issues mentioned above.
'''oppose''': This is quite a long explanation of oppose, but it is important it is here where it can be seen. I wonder how many of the support votes above are in fact votes not for Carnildo but votes against Jimbo for having the temerity to seize his encyclopedia and instantly de-sysop Carnildo to prevent a possible major scandal in the press.  Because lets face it that is what happened.  I was one of the three infamous editors who one quiet Sunday evening dared to voice the opinion (my opinion) that paedophiles openly editing was not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. (Full explanation and links here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Statement_by_Giano]) For that I was without warning indefinitely banned for "hate speech" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Giano_archive_4_%282006%29#Blocked]  I've a lot of friends so the ban lasted about 3 minutes, but Carnildo was wheel waring elsewhere on the subject, Jimbo stepped in an instantly de-sysoped him, and the rest is history.  Except in all that time Carnildo has not once contacted me, expressed remorse,  or even given me explanation of his views.  He would not just be a bad admin, he would be dangerous to the project as a whole.  That he comes here just a few short weeks later just displays his complete lack of understanding of what an admin should be.  Regarding his work with images: there is a widely held misconception on wikipedia that anyone who does seemingly dull work should be rewarded with an adminship -this is not the case.  People only do what they enjoy doing.  No one is asked to do anything, and anyone who expects thanks and great reward here is living in cloud cuckoo land, the same place I hope this attempt to regain admin powers is firmly sent. Incidentally, I am not an admin, have never wanted to be, and considering the standards of behaviour employed by many of them - see no need to be.
We all remember Carnildo's ghastly behavior. Too soon to forgive and forget. Hence, '''oppose'''. --
'''Oppose''': The wheel war and its aftermath was a serious drain on the community that far overrides any marginal benefits from a successful candidacy at this time. My feeling is that the de-sysopings should have been permanent, or at the the very least for a period of 12 months before any renom. Nothing said on this page convinces me that this user would benefit the community by ever being an admin again. --
<s>'''Oppose''', I think he needs more time to reflect on this issue. Come back in six months. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)</s>'''Strong Oppose''' per Bishonen and response. -
From my limited (singular) and spectacularly negative experience: Unrepentant and unremorseful, unpredictable and impuslive, unconciliatory and uncommunicable, unreflective and uncritical, disrespectful and as offensive as any user I've ever met on the wiki. Untrustworthy. That clerk-cum-prosecutor (unsuccessful, thankfuly) Johnleemk is the nominator does not surprise me, however. I do <u>not</u> wish to have a conversation thread bellow this; please respect that request and direct any and all comments on my vote elsewhere.
'''Oppose''' per above, too soon.
'''Oppose''': As per above. --
'''Oppose'''. Carnildo has demonstrated poor judgement in the past, as extensively documented here, and given the difficulty of de-sysopping people (unless you're Jimbo) I don't think we should be in a hurry to return his admin status. This is too soon.
'''Oppose''' not yet.
'''Oppose''', agree with Grue.
'''Oppose''', this is too strange for me. It bothers me deeply that Carnildo a) undertakes to not block anybody for a year, ''but'' b) doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong in the first place: I can't reconcile them. "In hindsight" the blocks of Giano, El C, and Carbonite become "unnecessary" and "unwarranted" (Q4 below)—words that make a trifle of the whole thing. I don't see any expression of regret, let alone remorse, for doing these unnecessary things, so I assume none is felt. If it were like Gmaxwell says, that "We've demonstrated that we know how to deadmin people when there is a problem", then perhaps; but have we? —Of course not. "We"? The community didn't have anything to do with de-adminning Karmafist, BorgHunter, Ashibaka, El C, and Carnildo. One person did that. '"We" ''still'' don't know how to deadmin people when there is a problem, and there was a whopper of a problem with this user.
'''Oppose''' per all, mainly. Try again in a little while and let the situation that occurred a little while ago neutralize. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Protecting the idea of freedom of speech is an admirable thing to do, but blocking people for something they ''might'' do but have not done is not.
'''Oppose''' At this time, simply still too much controversy.--
'''Oppose'''  After exhibiting such behavior as the user has, I do not think there is any way the community can ever trust or hand this editor the mop again. -'''
'''Oppose'''. I'd have voted to support if Carnildo had apologized, because everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, but I see from Giano's comment above that he didn't apologize. We lost [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]], one of the editors Carnildo blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACarbonite] and who was one of our best editors and admins, because of that situation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACarbonite&diff=38366452&oldid=36506877]
'''Oppose''', its too early now. Maybe in future. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per above.  --
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Strong and Permanent Oppose''' While I wasn't involved in the wheel warring and such around the previously discussed issue, I agree that the incident came close to permanently harming Wikipedia. As such, it will take a lot of time and supporting evidence for me to ever consider supporting Carnildo to again be an admin.--
'''Oppose'''. The misuse of admin powers was very bad, and I also have deep concerns about past disagreements between us.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  In my opinion, all of the people who engaged in that petty wheel war and who lost their adminship because of it don't deserve it again.
'''Strong Oppose''' people who blatantly abuse their admin tools (and do so seriously enough to get desysopped by arbcom, which is IMHO far too slow to desysop abusive admins) should ''never'' be trusted with the honour of being an admin again.
'''Oppose''' though I wouldn't say "never" and because people do make mistakes and should be given a second chance if they have proved that they corrected their ways.  I'd say an appropriate waiting period would be in order - say, a year.  If you show us for a year that you have turned into a person that can be trusted not to lose his head or abuse sysop powers, then I'll vote for you.  --
'''Oppose'''. Too soon. Come back in a month or two.
'''Strong Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Far too soon.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' Does not understand the true character of wikipedia and insists on cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face.  This type of user, who insists on following the rules, is more destructive than a user that breaks the rules to better the encyclopedia.  [[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]] sucks, and he knows it.  Just wants to enforce it on everyone to feel self-important.  No adminship, now or ever, until he gets rid of OrphanBot and begins to show understanding of what Wikipedia is. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup>
'''Oppose!''' --
'''oppose''' per [[User:Mo0|mo0]] those who lost there adminship thorugh petty wheel warring do not  deserve there admin privliges back
'''Oppose.'''
'''Oppose'''. Not a suitable administrator, as I am not myself. --
'''Oppose''':  There are ''so'' many issues here, so many that have not been addressed, so many that aren't being acknowledged by this candidate or the (surprisingly and blithely overly supportive) sponsors, that there is absolutely no way to support the candidate.  The candidate's unwillingness to address the issues that he brought up, unwillingness to disavow future actions of the sort, and the supporters' pretense that all will be well if we simply close our eyes and say that the ship is well steered and all the sheep are safe, are so off-putting as to make it impossible to support, impossible to engage in dialogue here which should have been entered into elsewhere, or even consider agreeing.  No: all is not well.  No: it is no harm, no foul.  No: the system has not healed itself.  No: the candidate hasn't shown any promise to never cause similar crises.
'''Oppose''' and I think this is my first RFA oppose.  To be granted adminship barely 6 weeks after being de-sysopped makes a mockery of behaviour standards. Particularly so that he doesn't appear to have acknowledged fault or guilt. --
'''OPPOSE MOST STRONGLY'''.  The most unsuitable candidate for adminship I have ever voted on.  Carnildo is one of the most unhelpful, destructive editors on Wikipedia.  I have yet to see him make one ''positive'' contribution to our work as he prefers to snipe and tear down others' work.  When one asks him for explanations or tries to address issues he raises he simply ignores others. The fact he has been stripped of adminship only weeks ago shows how wrong this candidacy is.
Per Taxman, above.
'''Oppose'''. With the issues raised in the arbcom case I lost trust in Carnildo. I haven't interacted much with him since, but I have seen nothing the has caused me to reevaluate this lack of trust.
'''Oppose''' - while Carnildo does good work, the lack of an apology and any contrite feelings makes me think now is not the time. Indefinitely blocking of well-known contributors is a big deal; we can forgive and forget, but the first step in that is recognizing your mistakes. Thanks!
'''Oppose''', after thinking about this for a while, there needs to be a great deal of caution when dealing with users who have been desysopped in the past, especially when it occured in a way as spectacular as the way his desysopping happened; and even then, it is still too soon to sufficiently regain the community's trust. Perhaps later.
I agree that some of the broader issues that pertain to the pedo-userbox event are complex. But there are important things about it that are simpler. On February 5th, Carnildo unilaterally banned three veteran users "for hate speech and inciting attacks", because they supported the blocking of individuals describing themselves as pedophiles. It seems that he acted this way out of a concern for protecting the freedom, such as it is, of people to edit and use the features of the encyclopedia without fear of sanction for what "[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:Carnildo|they are (in this case, being pedophiles)]]." <p>I will not say anything about the wisdom of trying to protect the freedom of people to say things by banning some people who simply said things. I am also not interested in here discussing what the encyclopedia's policy on (self-described) pedophile editors ought to be. We are here to consider Carnildo's use of administrative permissions. <p>Carnildo [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGiano blocked] Giano at 22:41, Feb 5th. He notified Giano of the block two minutes later. In the ArbComm case, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:Carnildo|he admits]] he "probably shouldn't have blocked Giano", because Giano's opinion didn't "seem quite as extreme as that of the other two", and because as a non-sysop, Giano couldn't possibly have acted to block someone—he had just expressed an opinion that (self-described) pedophiles should not be welcome on Wikipedia. Despite this admission, however, Carnildo has not once, to my knowledge, indicated remorse for what he had done or apologized to Giano. To this day, Giano's talk page has precisely [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?sort=name&article=User_talk%3AGiano&user=Carnildo&dbname=enwiki_p one edit] by Carnildo—the block notification. Ie, not only was the block placed with no prior attempts at clarification, discussion, or warning, Carnildo has not stopped by to try to discuss the issue with Giano, despite admitting he may have erred. On this RFA, he once more admits that the "blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted". Unfortunately, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_2&diff=44880397&oldid=44878826 his statement to Bishonen] suggests a rather extraordinary indifference to the harm he caused. <p>Carnildo's interactions with Carbonite and El C are of a similar quality: sudden bans with no prior discussion or warning, and virtually no meaningful or mature attempts at discussion or conciliation. In trying to look at this through Carnildo's eyes, I can see that the situation with Carbonite is a bit complicated. Carnildo probably sincerely feels that he acted essentially appropriately wrt Carbonite, who unlike El C and Giano had blocked someone for a reason Carnildo sees as wrong. However, this does not excuse the manner in which he banned Carbonite. This misuse of the block permission, and an inconsiderate manner in dealing with those whose views he does not share, is a common thread in Carnildo's actions in this incident. In the light of the preceding, I cannot support this RfA. —''
'''Strong Oppose''' Simply put, Carnildo is a bully. No bully should ever be allowed near Wikipedia, let alone admin tools. Give it a few months, and a change of perspective and this vote total may change though, he's done alot. Heck, I of all people should know how ugly these things are, and how everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves if they want it. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Neutral'''. I have no qualms about his fine work with images, but it's a little too soon since earlier incidents. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' because there are strong arguments both for (forgiveness, that you did what you thought was right for the right reasons) and against (a pretty damning ArbCom finding, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, reapplying too soon). I think you would have been better off waiting a few months to let memories fade, personally. --
'''Neutral''' while I thought Carnildo was great when I first got to know him, but as I read over time, maybe Carnildo is better suited to not have the mop.
'''Neutral'''. Too soon after the pedophilia controversy. I am not voting oppose because I was not involved in the controversy myself.
'''Neutral''' Ultimately this is still a human endeavor and mistakes are made.  Still it is very soon after the incident.....--
'''Neutral'''; it's just too early to make him admin again. Will support if nominated again after a couple of months. -
'''Neutral'''. I might be willing to give him another chance later, but right now it's still too controversial. --
'''Neutral'''. A good user with a rather large spot on his/her record now. Probably needs more time to prove trustworthyness again. <font color="#000080">
'''Neutral''' (moved vote from oppose) I am for giving people another chance, and Carnildo has a stellar track record before the incident in question, not to mention his work with the images. Nonetheless, a little more time is needed to let this situation cool over. He has my unequivocal support in a future nomination. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', per prior experience here and elsewhere I strongly suspect that Catamorphism will make an fine admin.
'''Support''', per nom.  Nom asked for help in the mechanics of posting the RfA, and I checked Catamorphism's contribs before posting.  Was rather impressed.  Seems to be quite civil, have a good chunk of wikignomish quality to them, and will most likely be a boon to Wikipedia when given the wikimop and bucket.  Good luck w/the remainder of the nom. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Per nom, and per own experiences at various sexuality related topics. --
'''Support'''. Serious, thoughtful contributor. An asset to the project.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', I've seen her around, been favorably impressed. :)
'''Support''' - just looked over the user's submissions, interactions and responses, and was duly impressed. Good to have someone so dedicated to dealing with issues arising in tough topics that I share some interests in - good admin material.
'''Support''' A thoughtful contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. Thoughtful and clear-headed, plus great taste in music.
'''Emphatic support''' as nominated.  Not sure if I'm supposed to vote, but I'll give it a shot just in case.
'''Support''' per nom.  I like this statement from their user page: ''Wouldn't it be fun to step away from your computer once in a while, go to a [[library]], look at a book (one made out of actual dead trees) about a subject you're interested in editing articles about, and add appropriate [[WP:CITE|citations]] to that book to relevant articles? Articles that only cite random, [[Peer review|non-peer-reviewed]] web pages that are cherry-picked to support a particular POV suck.''  That attitude makes for a much better encyclopedia.  Seems to have responded properly to people despite editing contentious subjects.  --
'''Support!''' First of all, they have great tastes in music.  I've seen this user in many places, seems they spend a lot of time protecting articles from a lot of the garbage that tends to creep into the 'pedia.  A mop could be handy. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' has been an excellent contributor and seems able to keep a cool head.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - when people who don't agree with you can nominate you, you're doing something right. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom - complete disagreement with political views, agreement over adminship.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', even though everyone knows that the Dreamcast was the last great game console.  ;-)
'''Support''' I'm kind of surprised Catamorphism hasn't been nominated already. Very nice and pleasant person and a fellow [[round tuit]] fan.
'''Proudly Support''' I'm sure this user will make a great admin! --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' - Consistently shows good judgment and knowledge of policies and guidelines. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''  I love the t-shirt on user page  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' - per nom, although political feelings are vastly different the ability to get along makes me support. --
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support'''. The "Wikipedia Opinions" section on his user page in particular leaves a favorable impression. I don't necessarily agree with all of them (the "anonymous users do more harm than good" bit in particular -- but that said, I ''do'' feel that the "In general, Wikipedia policies are too biased towards assuming that almost everybody is competent and well-intentioned" bit is right on), but I like the level-headedness and lack of frothing at the mouth. --
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' I changed my vote from oppose, because it seems that the polemical nature of this user is a bit overstated, and I have no problem with a slight dislike of WP:AGF or a distrust of anon IPs.  Anyone who has had to deal with serripticious vandals knows about this.  My only objection would probably be the pessimism and overall dark view of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I don't find the oppose rationale below very convincing. This user has Wikipedia views that are different from me, and probably others as well, but this is hardly a reason not to vote for them (I won't even mention political views, totally irrelevant). The question is, will they be a good admin. This user seems to have everything it takes, as mentioned by the nom and others.
'''Support''' per both noms.
'''Support'''.  I don't agree with Catamorphism on all their policy opinions, but their opinions seem always well reasoned and expressed.  I have also seen some of their work on gender and sex related topics, both on articles and talk pages, and I'm always impressed.  --
'''support'''.  The user seems to have been able to keep their cool while working on some of the most sensitive articles in the project.  Perhaps this is why their adherence to the principle of AGF is qualified.  I am assuming that this is nuance here rather than antipathy and so am supporting.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''No big deal Support''' Doesen't look like the user will abuse the mop. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' Thoughtful, trustworthy editor.  I wish [[ze]]r the best of luck!
'''Support''' I originally opposed after reading the accusations by interestingstuffadder, however I was contacted by WCityMike bringing to my attention of his shooting down of the accusations. I now feel Catamorphism exhibits all the qualities Wikipedia needs in a good admin. Good luck with the mop. --
Somewhat conflicted '''support'''. I agree with a lot of this user's Wikipedia-related opinions and respect their contributions, so I'll support. On the other hand, the political soapboxing on the userpage is a bit much, and the matter of other people's pronoun usage just strikes me as so utterly picayune I can't wrap my mind around the motivation for it.
'''Support''' because I've seen good work from this user on AfD and elsewhere and because a review of his handling of the interestingstuffadder accusations shows he did a good job of working with this editor.
'''Support'''; likely to be an excellent admin; good work on all fronts.
'''Support'''. <s>Because I too free.</s> :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom. I feel it might be timely to point out that a user's personal politics do not matter, so long as they observe due process as it applies to Wikipedia. This is of little significance to me, as nearly all of Catamorphism's opinions on the issues coming into question reflect my own, but some other voters might do well to remember that.
'''Support'''. Even if disagreements over politics and/or pronouns were valid reasons to deny adminship (which [[WP:NPA|they aren't]]), those opposing should ask whether WP would really be better off if this user doesn't become an admin.  Turning away editors with a history of positive contribution, as outlined in the nom, is unhealthy in the long term.  --
'''Support''' - There is nothing in this user's history to indicate that their adminship would be anything other than beneficial to Wikipedia. -
'''Support''' - I trust this editor to be a good admin. --
'''Weak Support''' - Although I am personally surprised by the userboxes, etc as referenced all around, I can't allow the personal affiliations of a great user to influence my vote. I am somewhat concerned about the [[WP:AGF]] issues, which is why my support of this user is somewhat weak.
'''Support''', per nom; they seem to have made quite a number of constructive contributions, and I haven't seen them be anything but civil. <font face="trebuchet ms"><b>
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''', nominee is being damned for responding to objections raised which don't seem germane to the topic at hand; are they unprepared to use the tools, and will they abuse them in their own self-interest? I don't think either of these things is true. --
'''Support''' Zer's level of civility while editing controversial articles is excellent.--
'''Support'''- It's good to have all types of admins, and this user has plenty of edits and solid judgement. --
'''Support''' - While I agree with some of the criticisms of this candidate and I disagree with some of the candidate's views, I am impressed with Catamorphism's answers to the questions posed below. I think s/he can be trusted with a mop and bucket.--
'''Support''' - I find that virtually every issue raised in opposition to this candidate is a red herring - particularly the pronoun bit. I see strikingly few references to any on-wiki behavior or editing habits that would demonstrate an inability for Catamorphism to properly use the administrative tools.
'''Support''' - per FCYTravis, others. ''
'''Oppose''': very strident about word use, objecting to perfectly normal grammar for political reasons, and too often harsh with newcomers about it.
'''Oppose''' as per above.
'''Oppose''' for now. 1. User inhabits too small a quadrant of the WP universe and should roam around a bit more. 2. 232 edits on talk pages is very puny. 3. Disagreement with [[WP:AGF]] as expressed below. 4. Too strong of an urge to express POV on user page is also not helpful in a quadrant where admins should act impartially. All things that can be fixed, with time. ~
'''Oppose''' for a few reasons. First off, strong ideology and lack of activities beyond this ideology and other narrow interests makes me agree with the user above who said that [[user:Catamorphism]] needs to get around wikipedia more before becoming an admin. Also, I have serious questions about this user's civility. I have had several disagreements with this user (which is fine and in no way by itself has anything to do with this user being qualified to be an admin, as I understand that many of my edits are controversial in nature). Throughout this process, I have tried to maintain a civil tone but have gotten nothing in return from this user but uncivil coldness. I say thank you, this user does not say your welcome. I tell this user that I agree with a particular edit and this user does not acknowledge me. A month or so ago, it had been a while since this user and I had been in conflict regarding anything (and had actually sort of kind of agreed with each other on one article talk page discussion) so I dropped a friendly note on this user's talk page. This user did not even bother with a brief response. I firmly believe that wikipedia works best when its users, whether they agree with each other or not, maintain a spirit of collegiality and civility. [[user:Catamorphism]] has been simply unwilling to be collegial or civil. As such, and because of [[user:Catamorphism]]'s narrow edit history, I do not think that, at this time at least, this user is administrator material.
'''Moderate to strong oppose''' - Admittedly no personal experience with nominee, but I have seen some of <s>his</s> their comments.  The being harsh about gender pronouns doesn't look good, you can't expect everyone to buy into the validity of genderqueer.  If someone truly and honestly believed I was female and called me she, I wouldn't have a problem.  Also much too pessimistic for an admin, lots of contradictory opinion to the WP spirit as far as AGF go.
'''Oppose''' per polemical user page.  There's a lot that concerns me there, particularly the AGF argument, the lengthy political discourse, and the use of inflammatory userboxes.
'''Oppose''' because I think there are several downsides and no upsides to having administrators who are very visibly espousing strongly-held political or religious beliefs, and who focus their Wikipedia contributions on articles in that field. Even though I have no reason to believe that Catamorphism will abuse the admin tools, I imagine readers and new users (who don't really grok Wikipedia yet) will be swift to suspect bias when being confronted with administrative action (no matter how justified) in an article related to Catamorphism's personal views. I'm afraid to say that my one interaction with Catamorphism (on an AfD) doesn't help either; I think his insistence that everyone adjust their language ([[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis|and thus, their personal ideas]] on sex and gender) to accommodate his supposed gender is incivil and reflects an attitude unbecoming an administrator. He has certainly every right to call himself whatever he wants to, but he has no grounds to request that other people (who can see a man's photograph on his user page) call him anything else but the standard English "he". They might do that out of courtesy (or conviction), once they get to know him, but to insist on it reeks of arrogance. Sorry.
'''Oppose''': too many divisive userboxes.
'''Oppose''' A lot of adminship is about managing situations and keeping them in perspective, as well as focusing on priorities. Catamorphism has not shown these qualities in this RfA, but has allowed a personal issue to have a disproportionate place.
'''Weak oppose''', picking fights with everyone who opposes your RFA is not usually a good way to go.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the above.  And also, though not really that important: The nomination is fishy. is Catamorphism an individual or a THEY? --
'''Strong Oppose''' files false reports of revert wars when she in fact reverts just as many times.
'''Oppose'''.  User page indicates an understanding of Wikipedia that I'm not comfortable in seeing in an administrator, esp. regarding AGF, anonymous users, and user-page expression.  A particular point of concern is the complaints about the test templates; an admin should know already that you don't ''have'' to use them if they're not appropriate. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] and perseverations on pronouns. Half a RfA devoted to ''pronouns''?! Sheesh.
'''Strong Oppose''' mostly for the same reasons as [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]]. In my view, the user page comments smack of elitism - i.e. anons "shouldn't be allowed to contribute" and AGF is flawed because only "A minority of the population has the ability" to contribute. That type of POV + the pro userbox stance and gender pronoun issue does not inspire confidence, particularly given the challenges admins face in dealing with a very broad mix of users. --
'''Oppose''' mostly on userpage. Similar reasons to my vote at RfA/Joturner2 - user espouses very controversial beliefs and is a quite bit aggressive about it. ''And zere it iz!'' lol - <b>
'''Oppose'''- too aggressive, I think.
'''Oppose'''- Often rude and unreasonable. Would she start banning people in sight if they do not call her they?
'''Oppose'''. Far too many (divisive) userboxes. Userpage is too political. Uncivil insistence on nonstandard pronoun usage. I would definitely not trust him with administrator tools. WCityMike's arguing with the oppose votes does further damage. —
'''Oppose'''. The userpage is way too polemical, use of inflamatory userboxes seem to be the rule, the behaviour seems to be sometimes a bit uncivil and this "they" thing is just surreal to top it off. Sorry but no way. --
'''Oppose'''- as per [[User:Krugs|Krugs]] and [[User:JJay|JJay]]
'''Oppose''' thinks that [[WP:DRV]] is [[WP:AFD]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_23&diff=prev&oldid=65704089]  .

'''Strong oppose''' per <s>inflammatory comments</s> poor response to criticism on own RfA.  Also nommed by an editor that has since been indefinitely blocked (and I'm not sure what to make of that) --
'''Weak oppose'''.  I think administrators need to demonstrate a better ability to work with others, particularly those who disagree with them.  --
'''Oppose''': without [[WP:AGF]] we would have a deluge of unnecessary conflicts. It is very important for the smooth running of interactions between strangers. I'm also concerned about [[WP:SOAP]], particularly with the narrow concentration of articles. Wikipedia is not the place to change the English language, flawed as it is. I'd be less concerned if the edits covered a wider spread of articles.
'''Oppose''' Some of the oppose votes concern me (especially regarding civility, although I haven't seen a mountain of diffs, just testimonials). Regarding the userpage, I, per [[User:Tariqabjotu|my own "standards"]], seldom oppose based on userpage, but the fact that you still haven't removed the stuff people have a problem with and the fact that the views expressed on your userpage (sometimes) creep into your editing concern me. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per user's Wikipedia Opinions #4.  The last thing we need is more elitist admins.
'''Oppose''' Per Grue's reasoning above. --
'''Oppose''' per some-but-not-all of the above.  Not confident in this user's ability to be unbiased.  The issue of preference for gender-neutral pronouns is just a harmless quirk, but the insistance that people use nonstandard English per this person's individual quirk is a bit over the top.  We can't get bent out of shape if some stranger on the internet incorrectly guesses our gender, particularly when there ''is no correct guess'' in this case.  The big reason is that admins must have a greater-than-normal ability to AGF, not a lesser-then-normal ability.
'''Neutral''' I am troubled by the comments on [[WP:AGF]].  But on the other hand I hate to puniliize a user for honesty in their RfA rather than giving safe answers.  The result is a conflicted neutral.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' Having interacted only a few times with the user but having found them (which pronoun I use on the user's request) to  be cordial, pensive, and sagacious, and having indeed thought them to be an excellent admin candidate prior to the nomination's being made, I came hither intending to offer my ''support''.  A few of the question answers disconcert (since the nomination appears likely to succeed, I'll not consume the time of others by enumerating those answers here but may later note them at Cata's talk page, and the colloquy with [[User:Interestingstuffadder|Interestingstuffadder]], the length of which is understandable and the civil nature of which is auspicious, is nevertheless a bit discomfiting (for reasons I can't fully explain), and so I'm rather ambivalent (though, of course, I'm probably well convinced of the user's good judgment and think it likely that they'll use the admin tools propitiously, such that I'll be happy to see Cata approved; I suppose I vote ''neutral'' only in order that I might express concerns that, were I a ''support'', might otherwise be unseen&mdash;of course, I don't really explain those concerns, so, basically, I suck).
'''Neutral''' See original comments in oppose - I left it there just crossing out the word Oppose so as to avoid messing up the reply or having 8 lines of crossout. After others' comments, and considering further, I agree with the above neutral that I shouldn't oppose based on honest opinions as long as there isn't actually any ''action'' that goes against policy. In the past, I have supported users being allowed to put whatever opinions they want on their user page, so I really shouldn't then oppose someone for doing so - it's not like if they hadn't written it, their views would be any less existant. So, I've changed to neutral. -
'''Neutral'''. While I try not to let a user's personal Wikipedia beliefs influence my RFA "voting", points 3 and 4 of their Wikipedia Opinions section are worrisome for me. Not enough to oppose since there's no evidence they'd actually act upon them in an admin capacity, so I'll go with neutral.
'''Neutral''' There is no dispute on the quality of work the User has demonstrated with their contributions. However, I also share concern about the sentiments they have expressed about the [[WP:AGF]] policy. I believe AGF is a cornerstone of the Wiki Community and a mindset that is of vital need for an Administrator. Good faith should be assumed on a level that is tantamount to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level that we hold guilt in society. A user needs to definitively demonstrate they are acting in bad faith and I think far too often the "Bad Faith" label is bandied about with newbies or more shy introverted users who do not "talk" as much as others in order to "positively prove their ''good faith''". Good Faith shouldn't hold the burden of evidence and I think that is where I most disagree with the candidate. The AGF policy serves as an internal checks and balance for civil discourse and it should be a looking glass that every admin views through--especially when the consideration of deleting articles or banning users is being made. This need applies to all users but it is of paramount importance with our administrators.
'''Neutral''' Userpage could cause tensions with other users, otherwise great candidate.





'''Weak support''' - no reason not to.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Experienced enough and will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' seems ready for the mop now. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Strong Support''' -- Has clearly demonstrated he knows what's going on.  Come on folks, adminship isn't some golden wand; it should be given to almost anyone who asks and has demonstrated a modicum of competence, especially considering how easy it is to take away again if necessary. --
'''Support'''. I like that there are admins focused on vandalism, even if nothing else.  Could always use one more. In my time in [[WP:CVU]] I have many times noted how admin tools could be useful in stopping chronic and rapid vandals. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per Delirium. [[user:ILovePlankton|<font color="red">I</font><font color="orange">Lo</font><font color="limegreen">ve</font>]][[Plankton]] <sup>(</sup>
'''Support''' --
'''support'''
'''Support''' sure, I like the dude. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', too concerned with edit counts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACchan199206&diff=53396513&oldid=53396234]
'''Oppose''' You are a promising editor who could be trusted with admin tools, but more edits in the Wikipedia namespace would be good, and by your answer to question #1 I feel as if you are too focused on vandalism. There are other areas of Wikipedia that sysops can deal with, so you may want to look into those options, such as [[WP:RFD]], [[WP:AFD]] and others. Once you achieve more edits and show intention to get involved in other areas needing administrators, I will support.
'''Oppose''', to low on the mainspace edits and talk edits. Speaking of vanadal-fighting - every vandal reversion is an article edit. Most of vandal reversions should be accompanied by either User talk or Wikipedia edit.
'''Oppose'''. I don't want the candidate to be discouraged, but the edit history doesn't show me nearly the breadth of experience I would expect to see in an admin. When users ask questions, you need to be able to answer them; and, blocking isn't always how vandals should be handled. 4-6 months more-ish, with emphasis on learning policy (and how it's applied), and I'll support. :) <tt>
'''Oppose'''. ''Constructive criticism/rationale.''-- You are doing the right things. Your time with the project is good, but I generally prefer 3,000 - 4,000 edits. You are reverting vandals and taking part in XfD’s and [[WP:PNT]]. You need to continue all of this. You also need to do a bit more. Communication is probably the most important function of an admin. I  see edit summaries with reverts, but I would like to see warnings and reports to AIV. I would like you to edit more articles in a substantial way. As RadioKirk says, you need more experience to know when blocking is or is not appropriate and more experience in applying policy. These are all things that only more edits/experience will improve. I look forward to your next RfA-- later.
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose'''. Showing great promise, but needs some more experience.
'''Oppose'''. First off, great edit summary usage (99% and 100%). However, there are several things I have a problem with. For being mainly a vandal-fighter and almost been here a year, 1000 edits isn't enough. More than 10% of your edits is to user pages...your focus should be more on the encyclopedia aspect. While creating a good identity is fun, 10% is a little much. Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhorken/Archive1&diff=next&oldid=50503613 this edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhorken&diff=prev&oldid=50754046 this edit] make it seem like you are implementing authority you don't have ([[WP:MFD]] would probably be more appropriate). You interacted with the same user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zhorken here] and created [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zhorken/Archive1&oldid=50502485 this] when none of that seems neccessary. Finally, your edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=42729427 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephon_Marbury&diff=prev&oldid=42565964 here] don't seem very appropiate. My advise: Keep editing a lot more, expand beyond vandal-fighting, utilize WP and user talk pages, and try to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] when writing edit summaries and dealing with people's user and usertalk page. [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']]
'''Oppose''', come back in two to three months time and I will support you. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' the current application, but strong support to your participation and encouragement for continuing with your work and getting more experience, especially in communicating with other editors, which I see as essential to adminship. {{unsigned|Tyrenius}}Whoops. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' After getting much more experience here, you will still have a chance to succeed. Please do not feel discouraged.--
'''Oppose''' per Jusjih.
'''Oppose''' per abakharev, every vandal revert should have a matching user talk page edit or wikipedia namespace edit. For help in this area I would look at [[User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof|VandalProof]].
'''Oppose''' needs more experience --
'''Oppose''', inexperienced and weak answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' - because he didn't answer my questions, and therefore, my concerns over his understanding of certain wikipedia nuances. -
[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose'''. The answer to question 4 demonstrates an insufficient grasp of [[WP:POL|policy]].  --
'''Oppose''' per Hugh. The answers to questions demonstrate lack of knowledge of policy.--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' seems solely concerned with vandal fighting.  But I take issue with others who criticize inexperience.  Anyone with over 1000 edits has enough experience to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Enough experience, however Question 1 makes me think he is to concerned with vandal fighting.
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose'''. 1,000 edits isn't enough experience, IMO. --
'''Weak Oppose''' You certainly have enoguh edits by my standards, and have more mainspace edits that me! It's just a lack of expericence. Oh, and happy 1 year anniversry at Wikipedia! '''<font color="Red">
'''Oppose'''. I would like to see more User Talk and Wikipedia namespace edits. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
--ⁿɡ͡b
'''Oppose''' – not enough experience yet –
'''Oppose''' - sorry but edit count aside answers below show user still has ''a lot'' more to learn. Try again in a few months perhaps? - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
'''Oppose'''. Nothing personal: in my opinion, time-wise experience is more than sufficient, but perhaps we require editing experience of a more extensive coverage, and more discussion to handle different issues. --
'''Neutral''' - Looks promising, but overall effective time here is shorter than I'd prefer. Limited involvement in XfD, and not much in Wikispace pages that I could see. Don't feel a need to voice an oppose, though. I'd suggest keeping up the great work, going after a little more community involvement (check the [[Wikipedia:Community Portal]] for some ideas), and trying back in a couple months. I would likely add my support then. <b>
'''Neutral''' per Tijuana.
'''Neutral''' answers to questions are both short and light on detail. Overall experience is promising, but there just isn't enough and especially there isn't enough breadth. The fact that you've never been in an edit conflict (answer to question #3) indicates that you haven't been tackling the harder parts of what an admin sadly has to live with and it doesn't allow us to properly judge how you would handle such cases. I'd suggest accelerating your editing and vandal fighting a little and working on the xfDs - [[WP:AFD]] is a great place to start. You'll learn a lot of policy and I'm sure become a better admin candidate. I look forward to supporting you next time. Best, [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per all above. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''moral support''' I think you're still a little too inexperiences to support, but you're definitely on your way, and please do not get discouraged by this or any other vote here. I'm sure that given sufficient time, if you reapply, you will become a great admin. In the mean time, I would like to recommend [[User:Voice_of_All/RC/monobook.js]]. It gives any user rollback abilities, and you may find it useful in your vandal fighting. --
'''Neutral''' per Tijuana as well. This user has potential but needs to flaunt it a little bit more. Don't be discouraged though, I think you can pull it off. :) -→
'''Neutral''' per Tijuana, also. Keep up with the good work and I will support you next time. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Neutral'''. Too fresh for me--needs more experience.
'''Support''' For what it's worth, I was impressed by your honest and candid introduction and your pledge to accept checks on your admin powers. I've had quite a few run-ins with fellow Wikipedians myself, and what's important in the end is working for the greater good of the project. I don't think that all admins have to have a spotless past, and what matters most to me is that an admin will take the time to understand and respect Wikipedia protocol and respect their position. Support.--
'''Moral support''' - a honest and accountable candidate, but the concerns raised below are, um, concerning. Suggest a withdrawal.
'''Support''' I'll not vote as neutral but maybe the support votes would help you be more active. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support''' Tis true you are not exactly the best candidate on paper but you have displayed a rare virtue by displaying honesty over your past mistakes.__
'''Support''' After reading your response to the NN question, I liked what I saw, here's to more breaking your way. Good Luck.
'''Support''' I also like his views on notability.
'''support'''--
'''Support''' You seem an ok guy, pitty you are not going to get through.
'''Support'''  You've had very good edits, I support!  </font></font>&mdash;<font style="background:white" size="1">'''''[[¡]]'''''[[user:randfan|<font face=Vivaldi color=darkblue>Rand</font>]][[user talk:Randfan|<font face=Times New Roman color=darkred>fan</font>]]
--
'''Moral Support''' - I have no doubt this editor will be a good admin someday, but for now I would also suggest withdrawal (per [[User:MER-C|MER-C]]), and reapplying later when more experienced.
'''Oppose''' without malice, I just think you need some more experience. :)
'''Oppose'''. You're not active enough, and I'm a bit worried about how apprehensive you are in your own self-nomination. I encourage you to get involved in the community first if you want to be an admin. --
Per Amarkov. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - I really, really like the attitude - "I won't go batshit" - brilliant - but one has to draw the line somewhere and that comment to Cyde "Are you out of your mind" is inappropriate. Which is probably a bit rich coming from me, but I'm not the candidate at RFA. What is more, the subpage was about to be deleted at MFD (and the Wikispace version has already gone)  without the db-author, so DRV was probably more appropriate than a repost.
'''Oppose''' - the [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] comments are unexcusable at such an early stage, particuarly if we are to trust this user with the [[WP:ADMIN|mop]]. Perhaps after a considerable drought of non-[[WP:BITE|biting]] and [[WP:CIVIL]] violations the user should be renominated for [[WP:ADMIN|sysop]] priviliges. My apologies and regards to the user, but this is my view on the matter. Cheers,
I'd prefer ''editors'' rather than people ''patrolling'' a beat. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''', per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avery_Coonley_School&diff=prev&oldid=90445715 this nom] for speedy deletion made earlier today. At worst it does not meet [[WP:CSD|CSD]]:G-11, at best it is worthy of a discussion at AfD. Also, he did not advise the original contributor, which suggests he may have deleted the article without discussion if he were an admin.
'''Weak oppose''' per his ludicrous crusade against episode summaries (and not just in relation to ''Family Guy''). --
'''Oppose'''.  The promises make me feel uncomfortable -- with so much of an administrator's work being subjective, experience and evidence of that experience are key. --
'''Oppose''' 2000 edits is way to small of an edit count.  Also, the candidate's answers to the questions did not satisfy me, I certainly do not feel comfortable with giving administrative power to this candidate.
'''Oppose''' Needs more overall edits and more experience with tool-related tasks.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''': Normally, I don't like opposing RfA's - your work on the MySpace article is good stuff. You seem like a rather good editor on top of all this too, but I'm forced to oppose. Citing Amarkov's example of your comment on Cyde's talk page, and your opposition to [[WP:NN]] over one of your own podcasts (''which may have been interesting, no doubt, but Wikipedia can't cover everything, sadly''), I cannot support until you can prove a slightly more calmish tone - making crusades against episode summaries and calling out users won't help you in the long run. No hard feelings, I hope. --
'''Oppose'''.--'''[[User talk:Madhyako Pradeshlo|<span style="background:#FFFF66;color:#000">M</span>]]<span style="background:#008">
'''Oppose''' He needs more experience.
'''Neutral'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=prev&oldid=88561609 This was in your last 100 edits], which is not good. I really did want to support, but I can't overlook that. Also, I'm not sure how much I like that you'll try not to do anything controversial. You'll find that anything related to admin tasks is controversial. -
'''Neutral''' — Activity level is too low, sorry. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''' some more experience, and a little more civility under stress. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and open an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review instead]].  You can use the feedback from this process to guide your future edits, as it will highlight the areas in which you need to improve.  You can also go for some [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] too.  This will open your eyes to some of the varied situations in which admins can find themselves.  I also suggest that you spend time on new and recent changes patrol, tagging pages for improvement or deletion as appropriate and warning their authors at the same time.  Vandals can be reported to [[:WP:AIV]] if they are persistent.  You can also get involved in XfD discussions.  This will allow you to participate and give your opinion based upon [[:Wikipedia:Policy|policies and guidelines]], also allowing everyone else to see that you have a sound grasp of the backbone of admin actions.  You can also assist at the [[:Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]] and [[:Wikipedia:Reference desk]] and contribute to the good and featured article discussions.  Joining a Wikiproject or too, such as [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza]] will also help to improve your profile.  When you have done some, all or similar things on this brief list, you can come back in six months' time with a stack of experience and edits under your belt.  A lot of people will know just how good you are so there will be no need for apprehension when you participate in this process for a second time.
I really appreciate your honesty, sincerity and openness in your nom (really!) I just think that if you got a little more active, a little less controversial, and if you waited a few more months, you could get overwhelming support. At this point it's hard to judge how you would handle admin tools.
'''Neutral''' Perhaps if you spend more time on Wikipedia, and as aeropagitica, go for an editor review again (I'm pretty sure more people will comment this time). I'm pretty sure you'll gain more experience as you go along, and become more active in the encyclopedia. I appreciate your honesty and condor in your nomination statement, however. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I am pleased by your honesty, but you still need more time and experience to learn all the ropes of Wikipedia, and become a great contributor.  Best wishes--
'''Neutral''' - I like the honesty - but he needs more experience
'''Neutral''' per most of the reasons above. ←
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose.  I'm sorry, but you need more time and experience.  Promises of good behavior aren't adequate without enough evidence of good behavior without exception.  The Family Guy episode AfDs actually pushed my from oppose to neutral because it shows that you are willing to take and defend a position that may not be popular, which is something admins must be prepared to do. —
'''Neutral''' - I think you need more experience. [[User:FireSpike|'''FireSpik''']]
'''Neutral''' Good work with AfD's and such, but I believe you need more experience editing the encyclopedia, and contributing to the mainspace. '''
'''Neutral''' I feel that you need more experience editing the encyclopedia. However, your good work on AfD pages must be acknowledged here. In the meantime, do not give up hope and re-apply after three to six months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Another month or two of good edits without losing your rag, and I'll be the first to support you. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' Needs more experience. I'm not opposing out of respect for your dedication to Wikipedia.
'''Neutral, toward Support'''. I hate to do this, and I know I'm not helping you along, but no matter how I feel about Cyde, the comment on his page was a little too risky. In all other ways I would strongly support. &mdash; [[User talk:Springeragh|<font style="background:#808;color:#fff;">&nbsp;'''''$PЯING'''''rαgђ&nbsp;</font>]] <small>
'''Neutral'''. You might want some more experience. You have good AFD work, but you'll be even stronger with experience. '''''
Too early. Come back in three months and I'll reconsider. -
'''Support''' of course. Yey I'm first! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Continues to have my trust, ArbCom [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-12/NSLE desysopped|never held formal proceedings]] on the question of NSLE's desysopping, and I am hesitant to judge him based on no facts. - <b>
'''Support'''. A good editor deserves a second chance. -- ''
'''Support.''' Second chances are important. The fact that the candidate chooses to remain after being desysopped shows dedication. Good luck. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' unless something convince me otherwise. I have seen this user around and believed that he was, and will still be a good admin. --
'''Support''' without any reservations whatsoever.  Was perfectly respectable before, and my opinion of him has not changed one iota. --
'''Strong Support''', what happened in the past is over, and I think we should move on and look at the future. With his past admin experience, he will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason not to give the user a second chance, and whilst I didn't come across the user as NSLE, I've seen the candidate using "Chacor" quite a bit around Wikipedia and have been impressed with his thoughtfulness and level-headed approach.  Also, he obviously has the necessary experience, so sure
'''Support'''. Obviously not going to make the same mistake again. Try not to hold a grudge, folks.
'''Support'''.  I think his history justifies giving him the tools again. --
'''Support''' all per above.
'''Support''' Has my personal trust. &mdash;
'''Support''' I'm not convinced he should have been desysopped in the first place. --
'''Support''', [[WP:OWN]].--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong Support''' - I think Chacor will be a welcomed addition back and great service to the community here at Wikipedia much like he was in the past. I too don't think he should have ever been desysopped. Welcome back hopefully. --
'''Support'''. I refuse to do the elephant thing and go "omg NSLE is NEVER EVER ACCEPTABLE for adminship!!1111oneone" I think we don't forgive much when it comes to RFAs on Wikipedia and I think this is the best time to start. Someone actually deserves forgiveness.
'''Support''' I won't say he "shouldn't have been de-adminned", but that whole matter was too "cloak-and-dagger" for it to have any bearing on my judgment one way or the other.  In my dealings with NSLE, I found him a friendly editor and a competent admin.  I do agree with Lar that his behavior over HRE's RfA was less-than-ideal, but that situation was bizarre for everyone, and I'm not inclined to let that mistake count for much.  We need moppers, and he acted well with his previously.
'''Support''' per Mike. '''
'''Strong Support'''. Chacor should not have been desysopped before. He's an excellent editor, with loads of experience as a normal user and an ex-admin, and I've worked with him a great deal. <s>A lot of the oppose votes are unfounded (Chacor is not abusive, for instance...).</s> --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''. As always, in a difficult nomination a reference to the basic principles is helpful: does the nominee need the tools and can he or she be trusted? I think there is no issue on the first point. On the second point, while there are some who do not trust the nominee, I think the fact he has addressed the core issue head-on and is willing to directly answer any questions on that point says a lot. His post-desysoping behaviour indicates that there has been active effort made to regain the necessary trust.
'''Support''': I know him as a good wikipedian, as also as a good administrator. Perhaps, I had missed to vote for him in his last RfA, being not very regular at that time perhaps on account of heavy work in my office. As regards the check user evidence, I do not have any comment to offer except AGF. However, all our processes are not infallible as I have see at least in one case: blocking of one of my close friends after hardly 10 or so edits treating him/her as a sock puppet of a banned user. Strange! --
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support''' Terrific wikipedian, especially in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|Wikiproject:Tropical Cyclones]] and in counter-vandalism. [[User:Hello32020|Hello32020]] 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I do have a few problems per [[User:Hurricanehink|Hink]], but not enough to keep me from supporting.
'''support''' per Chacor. ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]] - [[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]-
If RfA is not a vote why do we number these? Anyway, Chacor is just as great a guy as he ever was. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashi]]'''[[User:Ashibaka/b|<font color="orange">b</font>]]'''
'''Strong Support''' One of the best editors of this project and I was saddened that he got de-sysoped a few months back. Was even willing to be my admin coach as well. No doubt, he is a very helpful user. His behaviour since being desysoped is excellent. (On a personal note, although this user has never supported my previous 3 RfAs, the reasons he stated was sound and concise for his opposition) He was also a very good administrator as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've always found Chacor to be a good user, and trust him fully wth the tools. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' per Chacor's own "second chance" clause. --
'''Support''' - I have some reservations about completely unrelated issues from the Brandt thing, but nowhere near enough to deny a support. —
'''Support'''. Second chance thingy.--
''"Support''' Yes. <font color="red">[[User:Sugarpine|S]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Sugarpine|ug]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Sugarpine|ar]]</font><font color="darkyellow">[[User:Sugarpine|p]]</font><font color="orange">[[User:Sugarpine|in]]</font><font color="purple">
'''Support''' I never had reason to notice his previous admin actions, which means he was doing something right.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support'''. Switched from neutral. Per the answers on my question I think the case is overblown and while actions of NSLE were erroneus, he did not do anything unforgivable. I am trusting him with the tools
'''Support'''. Anyone whom both [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] and [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] oppose must be good admin material.
'''Strong support'''. Was a great admin and it would be good to see him with the mop again. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''', was a great admin, and still is a great Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Hell, I assume his good faith. And even not - everyone deserve a second chance. He's a nice user and I don't mind if he get his mop back.
'''Oppose'''. I do not trust this editor to be a good admin. For why, or to comment further, see [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Chacor#.5B.5BUser:Lar.7CLar.27s.5D.5D_oppose|the talk page thread]] ++
'''Oppose''', I'm unhappy that anyone coming up for admin should wish to focus on ''non contentious'' issues which is abrogating admin responsibilities.  Admins should not be afraid of confrontation where appropriate.
I only begin to consider supporting if NSLE hadn't lied directly to me about his actions. Frankly, I think the boo-hoo sympathy "Oh NSLE was afraid because [http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org/nsle-hive.png his personal information was being released]" which has caused some folks in our project to go easy on him is a load of crap. If you can't take a few random insults from a few k00ky outsiders without betraying the communities trust, you simply have no business being an admin. I might consider buying the argument that I've heard over and over that NSLE is young and people make mistakes... but his dishonestly isn't a mistake: it is intentional and disgraceful. Even if we were to decide to ignore evidence far stronger than we use to indefinitely block on a daily basis, we're still left with an inappropriate unprotection made for personal gain. Because of this I must leave my strongest possible '''oppose'''.--
'''Firm Oppose''' too early - the circumstances under which he changed from NSLE to Chacor are too recent. It would have been wise not to think about adminship until 2007. Also ALR makes a good point.
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Abusive sockpuppeteers do not deserve admin tools unless they're willing to come from the cold. NSLE's persistent refusal to be held accountable for his actions makes me unwilling and unable to trust him with any position of responsibility within the project.
'''Strong Oppose''' The past revert warring with Lar over actions of Danny, being desysopped and the "sockpuppets", whether it be true or not, was way too recent to be regranted adminship. His constant questioning of good faith opposers and comments made here aren't very reassuring. An admin candidate here shouldn't have to defend himself with a counter-point of view because of his actions. If he does, then it's probably too soon to get adminship. He made a fine admin in the past, but the fact remains he was desysopped and personally I lost some respect for him altogether.  — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' per Moe Epsilon and others.
'''Oppose''' per lar and Moe.
'''Oppose'''.  Not at all satisfied that this user has the trust of the community.
'''Strong oppose'''.  NSLE continues to deny that [[User:BRSG|BRSG]] was his sockpuppet, despite clearly convincing IP evidence to the contrary.  Combining the IP evidence with the timing and with other evidence both private and public, and there's simply no way that his denial is even remotely credible.  Sorry, no.  He is quite evidently guilty of the charge that was laid before him.  Really, NSLE, how many supporters do you think Brandt has in Singapore, and what are the odds that one of them (one of an empty set?) would edit his article all of '''seven minutes''' after your unprotect, from the '''same IP''' you used to do the unprotect, with '''no intervening edits''' from that IP, and '''no''' edits from that IP from any user other than BRSG until three minutes after BRSG's last edit at which point you  started editing again?  Your defense of "it was just a coincidence" gets sliced to ribbons by Ockham's Razor.  NSLE's continued refusal to admit his actions -- which wouldn't have been that big of a deal had he admitted them -- proves his unworthiness to be an administrator, especially when combined with all the other faults cataloged above as well.
'''Oppose'''. I do not like having to oppose, I know NSLE made very good use of the tools for the most part, but I feel it would be grossly dishonest of me to do otherwise. Checkuser evidence is used routinely to link accounts, and I do not feel NSLE would have been desysopped unless the evidence was conclusive. Without a reasonable explanation, it makes it very difficult for me to believe the protestations of innocence. Ultimately I cannot support a user I do not completely trust. I believe that supporting in this instance would implicitly suggest I do not believe in CheckUseer, a tool that has led to many people being banned, this is something I am not prepared to do.
'''Strong oppose'''  per Mackensen. Can not trust the nom.

'''Oppose'''. per above. --
'''Oppose''' - I wouldn't have put it has hard as Mackensen did, but even the simple possibility he lied is a danger to high to make him admin. I'm sorry Chacor, I know you may be innocent, but I feel I can't take the chance.--
'''Oppose'''.  There is no way in hell that I'd trust NSLE with the sysop bit ever again.  There's simply no nicer way I can put this.
'''Oppose'''. Simply put, I don't trust NSLE. Will not support now or in the future. Sorry, but not everything lost can be regained.
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid I am still very skeptical about the unprotection incident. Combine that with the incident mentioned by Lar and I cannot support.
'''Oppose''' Many excellent contributions in namespace can still be achieved without admin tools, which I think at this time should not be given to this nominee.--
'''Oppose''' per the HRE incident and Lar's evidence on this nomination's Talk page.
'''Oppose''' as per Mindspillage, Lar, Mackensen, Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, et alia.  The original incident leaves a really hinky feeling, the denials ring hollow, and not withstanding the apparently remarkable candor given by the edior in the answers to the optional questions, I cannot trust with the tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Kelly Martin, Ral315 and recent IRC discussion with Jimbo Wales. As much as it hurts me to oppose this user, the evidence from Kelly is very convincing &mdash; she's done her homework and she's trustworthy. Checkuser evidence like that states that it would have to be an impossible coincidence. I like this user, but the evidence against him is far too strong, and a refusal to admit it is troubling. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose'''. Too many unanswered questions here, and any user desysopped by ArbCom is going to have to cross many more hurdles before I could consider them for resysopping. -
No way.
'''Firm Oppose'''  He claimed to take a wikibreak and came back on a sock puppet, Chacor.  That's a vandal tactic.  This person should not even have been allowed to run again.  If NSLE voltunarily disclosed he was Chacor later, then he gets good points, but I suspect that someone with CheckUser found him out or maybe it was his IP given away on IRC or just him doing something to give himself away that did it (like disclosing his real name, or some kind of interests about himself like his high school).  And he's always seemed mean, especially as a sysop.  He also refuses to admit guilt in sockpuppetry and apologize.  Really now, if CheckUser catches him using a sockpuppet it's like if you catch a roach in your kitchen--there's not just one.  So if CheckUser catches him using a sockpuppet, then he's likely got hundreds that aren't caught because they were through proxies.  Also, NSLE/Chacor is only 17 and needs to grow up to gain more maturity.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but i'm going to have to trust the people with the "overwhelming evidence" in this one.  too risky.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Oppose'''. Per Lar - Trust and character worries. --
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to give Chacor the benefit of the doubt.  However, with so many lingering issues concerning NSLE, I don''t feel comfortable giving him the tools, at least not this soon.--
'''Oppose'''. I find the whole desysop affair bizarre, but I think only two possibilities are reasonable: either NSLE is lying on the sock issue, or Kelly Martin is. I'm inclined to trust Kelly here, seeing as Chacor is prepared to say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jaranda2&diff=prev&oldid=60294086 untruths]. If BSRG was his sock, I'm prepared to forgive and forget; but only after an admission of guilt. However, I am ''not'' opposing Chacor due to that event but on his editing since. I feel he gets offended too easily and also seems to [[WP:BITE|bite]] relative newcomers (see [[Talk:Hurricane Kyle (2002)#Todo]]). With this in mind I fear he may inappropriately block a good-faith editor. Chacor: ''[[WP:COOL|Chill out]]'' a bit and in a few months I'll be happy to support (irrespective of the sockpuppetry incident).--
'''Neutral'''. At this moment I cannot definitely support or otherwise. I have to think about this. — [[User:Gary Kirk|<font color="#9370DB" face="courier new">G</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#FF7F00">a</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I initially thought I was going to support it, but I'll have to think about it. He would be great with the admin tools, though he has done a few things that prevent me from supporting. I don't support the way he handled the Chris thing. Being bold is a good thing, some times, but redirecting an article without any support for it was not a good thing. The community collaboration he hoped would happen if we worked on it in user space didn't happen. I personally rewrote much of it, with a little help from one or two users. The same thing could have happened if we left the article in existence. Chacor has done similar actions throughout the WPTC in the past. He constantly discourages users in making current articles, including earlier today when someone wanted to make an article for active Hurricane Gordon. I don't think that's good admin behavior when people actually want to do things. I don't know, maybe it's just a lot of small things, but I'm neutral for now.

'''Neutral''' - I've decided to switch neutral, mainly because of the sock-puppetering and the damning evidence presented, if you where to just admit it i'm sure I and maybe others would be willing to give you a second chance and support your RFA. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but I would like to see more activity in your talk page. That shows that you are into Wikipedia and you establish connection with other users. Try to know the other users better and I'm pretty sure you'll make a great admin. -
'''Oppose''' Don't take this too personally, but of your 16 WP space edits, only about 8 are not from this RfA. I'd suggest a withdrawal to avoid pile on oppose.
'''Oppose''' per alphachimp
'''Speedy Oppose''' way too new, created 3 articles that were quickly placed in AFD as vanity related, --
'''Oppose''' - New user, please consider removing your nomination, try again in 4-5 months. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Speedy Oppose''' per Jaranda, and suggestion of withdrawl per Lightdarkness. Terse answer to questions don't help, either. --
'''Speedy Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Too new (e.g., user made his first edit less than an hour ago). Suggest withdrawl.&#160;—
'''Speedy Oppose''' all three of his contributions were speedy-ed as vanity.
'''Oppose''' per Palnu.  Most created articles have either been speedied or are on AfD.  A joke, [[WP:POINT]]-violating self-nomination. --<font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Oppose''' per above. I suggest withdrawing and trying again in a few months. --
'''Speedy oppose'''. Malformatted RFA and inability to make distinction with a self-nomination is an immediate and obvious reflection on the ability of the user to use the appropriate janitorial tools wisely.
'''Oppose''' suggest withdraw, per all above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''', too new, 17 edits and per all above. Is this meant to be a joke? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Super Speedy Oppose''' Lets [[WP:GF|assume good faith]]. This newbie obviously has so little understanding of Wikipedia that he/she may that anybody can become an admin. You should withdraw this nom btw unless you want to be embarrassed.
'''Speedy Oppose''' per DaGizza.
'''Oppose''' I'd hate to miss out on the shut out--
'''Oppose'''. Hate to pile on, but this case demands an exception. Does anyone else suspect that this might be a joke nomination or is the candidate really that obnoxious?
'''Oppose'''. May be trying for a record anti-vote.
'''Oppose'''. Good grief. --
'''Speedy Oppose''' per everybody. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Oppose''', suggest withdrawal. -
'''Oppose''', terrible nomination form.
Is this a joke?
'''Neutral''' Not even worthy of a vote
'''<nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki>''', That's all this new editor needs, not the embarassment of an accidental RFA. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' needs more experince in my opinion only 300 edits to article space and not much with edit summarries, try again in 2 months --
'''Oppose''' needs more experience and more edits, although edits aren't everything. Try again after you get some more experience. Best of luck for next time. --
'''Weak Oppose''', needs more experience and (admittedly) I would prefer to see more edits to article space, but I like your answer to the first question. Try running in 3 months or so, and I'll gladly support. -
'''Oppose''' Please withdraw before the pileon begins...
'''Support''', despite the low edit comments I can see you have 'changed your ways', I was a little unsure about the low article edit counts but you are a good active participant in AFD which wins some points with me. I think you would make a good admin --<font color="darkgreen>&nbsp;[[user:tmorton166|Errant]]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User_talk:tmorton166|talk]]</font></sup></font><small>(formerly
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' and good luck.  :)
'''Support''', no apparent reason to oppose (always a good thing).
'''Support''' good user.
'''Support''' have only seen good things really, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' I'm concerned by the low number of edits to the mainspace, but it seems you still have made major article contributions (per your answer regarding translating a couple pages) and I don't see a large reason to believe that would make you a bad administrator that would abuse the additional privileges. -- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', for the reasons for which I nominated him
'''Support''' While the edit count is a little small I know that this user is dedicated to wikipedia and its principals. I've only had good contact with him, so it is a pleasure to support. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Cliché Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.--
<s>'''Neutral''' - Aceptable explanation for the mistaken action of defending a link in violation of [[WP:EL]]. No support because judgement in case is wrong, but at least judgement exists. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Strong Support''' reconsidering his role in the conflict, we were actually both doing the right thing against forces on both sides arrayed against us. It's still a violation of EL, but EL isn't a policy, and he makes it clear that he saw it as questionable. In light of review of answer, change to strong support.
'''Support''' meets all my criteria and looks like a great user.  As long as he keeps using edit summaries from now on he'll be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I always thought CheNuevara was already an admin!  He is levelheaded, fair, and a very good contributor, editor, and vandalism-reverter. 85% edit summary in both major and minor edits is acceptable, in my opinion. All in all, I think CheNuevara will be an excellent admin. Good luck!
'''Cliché support.'''
'''Support''' Seems fine after glancing through edit history. Let's cut the requirement creep, shall we.
'''Support''' It's no big deal, afterall. I don't think the user will abuse the mop... --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I have no idea what that feeling was, but if the best the oppose crowd can come up with is "Not enough edits" then I've no doubt you'll make a great admin. Good luck! &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''.  1500 edits over a number of months means the candidate isn't going to go berserk and start deleting stuff at random, so there's no objection there.  Appears to be willing to put the tools to good use.  And no substantiation of accusations that the candidate doesn't know policy, which appear to be based solely on edit count (as if lurking couldn't get you excellent knowledge of policy).  I have no compunctions supporting; not a big deal, remember? —
'''Support'''. Low edit count doesn't mean the end of the world. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', if I had any question, he's more than shown me that he's worthy. --
'''Standard Support''' (no particular reason to oppose or remain neutral), Edit count ~1500, > 3mo here, check. (that's my nom criterium to shut up the editcounters). Understands trifecta, check. Understands foundation issues, check. All check.
'''Support'''. Seems sane and level-headed enough, and not too new for me. I ''would'' appreciate more use of edit summaries; it's not a deal-breaker but it's something an admin should recognize the use of.
'''Support''', because Chuck Norris will kill me if I don't. -→
'''Support''' - Passes my basic standard of "I don't think that user will make a mess with their mop and bucket.". Active participation in AfD demonstrates an understanding and respect for process, as well as usefulness of admin tools. -
'''Support'''. There's nothing wrong.
'''Very strong support''' I am disappointed that the routine methodology of edit counts is cited as a reason to oppose, when we clearly have an outstanding candidate here, who has amply demonstrated his responsibility, level-headedness, knowledge of  policy and ability to interact with other users in his accomplished resolution of the [[Democratic Underground]] war. The difficulty of such a negotiation should not be underestimated, nor the restraint needed to maintain civility under intense pressure. He has proved he is an exceptionally able and responsible individual, and he deserves exceptions to be made for him. He at least deserves more than a statistical analysis.  Would the project be better with him as an admin? I think there is no doubt.
'''Support''' I will support someone who is interested in mediating and others say he is fair.  BTW, I'm not voting Support just because Kim Bruning questions everyone who opposes :D --
'''Support''' the user's experience in the article talk area outweighs the apparent 'small' number of mainspace edits. Some of the oppose voters below said that Che is clearly a good user and has the right intention and the right way of doing things - yet people are upset about his number of edits. A person may have 50 edits and have written 40 Featured Articles and 10 forms of policy for all we know - an edit count does not an editor make, as I like to put it. See [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis]]. In his time here, Che has done a lot of good in what some are calling a short amount of time. It's as simple as that, really. Would Wikipedia benefit from having him as a sysop? Yes. Should we expect him to make a mistake or two on the way? Of course, who hasn't? People learn from their mistakes, and the world won't explode if a new sysop makes a tiny goof; it happens all the time with the more "experienced" ones. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Support''' per Celestianpower and Cowman; inasmuch as I am altogether confident that the user will not abuse or misuse (even if avolitionally, through ignorance) the admin tools; and in view of his disfavoring of [[WP:LIVING]], the succinct explication of which evidences much insight.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': analysis of work quoted in nom and comprehensive answer to my question indicates to me that Wikipedia would be better off with this editor as an Admin. It's not too late to add [[WP:V]] to the list BTW.
'''Support''': per nom. One of the first people I met here that could focus a conversation without digressing.
'''Meets 2/3 support''' <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Support''' - Changed from oppose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFayssalF&diff=66004758&oldid=65950512 as commented on my talk page]. -- ''
'''Support''' Excellent answers to questions.  A Thinking Wikipedian. Should do well with admin tools. --
Per the thoughtful answers the candidate has given. I think this editor will make a fine admin regardless of time/edit criteria... '''support''' ++
'''Support''' Per Tyrenius, go for it.
'''Support''' Sorry to potentially cost the nominee the counting of vote two above. I saw it after I looked over your RfA and decided to support, so probably +1 -1 and the net effect is zero. Supporting based on lack of past wrongs, impressive situation referenced by nominator, and response to Q5 below.--
'''Oppose''' inexperience, edit summaries. This RfA is premature. - <b>
'''Oppose''' very liberal with the "minor edit" option, but viewing his contribs, I see no reason to think that this is a guy with about 1500 standard edits.  His participation in AfD is standard if not better than average, but still, 367 is not nearly enough.  This year, the editor only began editing heavily in Jan/Feb, dropped off the face of the earth, and then came back in June.  With about 1500 more edits, particularly to the Wikipedia namespace, I'll be happy to support.  You seem like a very talented editor.
'''Oppose''' as per Crzrussian, low edit count and edit summary usage.
'''Oppose''' -- too few edits -- about the same as I have and that's sure not enough. I'd be happy to support in the future. (Comment: I'm probably more conservative and cautious in voting than most voters, so don't take my opposition personally.)--
'''Oppose''' for too few edits and low edit summary usage.--
'''Oppose''' 1500 edits is too few, recommend withdrawal and resubmission in future.
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria due to lack of experience, and number of edits (which suggests a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). --
'''Oppose''' as above; too few edits. Objectionable username.
I regret opposing because I think the user shows a lot of promise, but there arn't enough edits for adminship to be right at this time. Later, when there are enough, my support is very likely unless something really ugly happens in the meantime. --
'''Oppose'''. Really, really sorry, but the edit count is too low, particularly the "main" edits. Clearly a very decent editor of great talent: come back in a year or so and there should be no problems.
'''Oppose''': Despite being there for 1¼ years, he needs a lot more experience with edits and WP's clockwork before he really can get that mop. Try again in a few more months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''', does not meet my minimum standards for number of edits and activity.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but 300 edits to the main namespace are way too few. I feel this Rfa is premature try again after getting more experience.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience and fairly low activity levels. I also find the incessant questioning of opposing users a bit annoying. I won't count that against the nominee as they have not been heavily involved in it directly. I would have suggested that they request such questioning to stop, but it looks like it might be having the desired effect - not on me though.
'''Oppose''' 300+ main space edits. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Administrators clearly need more experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Way too few main space edits.  I don't understand why we would even consider making a newbie into an admin. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Needs more mainspace edits to tilt me over to support.
'''Neutral''' per Themindset.
'''Neutral''', needs more experience. -
[[Image:symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] '''Neutral''', Edit count to low for my liking, all though this user has been here for some time. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><font color="#C11B17">Matthew</font> <b><font color="#3366ff">
'''Neutral''' - changed from oppose; after looking through more edits, he '''has''' created a few articles, which shows article experience, and I like the answer to the optional question.  However, I'm worried about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfram_and_Hart_employees&diff=prev&oldid=60325632 this diff] —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Neutral'''. Fails my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]] but appears to be strong in other areas. Bring up edit summaries and edit more then tell me when you go for admin again so I can give my support.

'''Moral Support''' Chochopk is obviously very dedicated to the project, judging by the edit count etc. Only a bit more experience and knowledge of policy is needed. It is good that you put up this RfA, so that you now know what you need to improve with. Get involved in vandal combat, deletion participation, and read up on policies. 认识这，你会变成更好. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Oppose''' - I found Q3 uncivil towards the user (light [[WP:WIKISTALK]]ING?), that it's self to me would of been a neutral.. but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics&oldid=78840176#I_nominated_myself_for_RfA this] gets you an instant oppose. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' you seem like a good enough user, but you don't seem to know policy (such as with images, and RfA advertising) which means I must oppose. --
'''Oppose ''' per response to oppose #1 suggests insufficient policy understanding  for adminship. Answer to question 4 is particularly troubling-- deficient knowledge in area of stated use for the tools. The whole image mess requires a very thorough understanding of related policies. Needs more expereince in XfD and dealing with vandalism as well.
'''Strong Oppose''' per everyone else, particularly the canvassing.
'''Oppose''' You appear to be a good editor, but the canvassing does prevent me from supporting you, I am sorry. Also, I would like to see more participation in AfD. :-/ --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Poor knowledge of policies is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Insufficient experience for admin. tools.
'''Oppose''' Poor knowledge of polices and per all else above.
'''Oppose''' and recommended withdrawl, per above.
'''Oppose''' No real policy knowledge and per all above oppose votes. --
'''Oppose''' per first oppose.  And the advertisement is still there even after nom said he/she would remove it.
'''Neutral''' Per above, plus to avoid [[WP:SNOW]], I suggest that you withdraw this nomination.
'''Neutral''' Rather than pile-on, I would recommend reviewing your knowledge of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] and reporting those vandalising beyond Test-4 to [[WP:AIV]], in addition to contributing to XfD.
'''Neutral''' Please withdraw, and take heed of aeropagitica's recommendations.--
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' - Yes. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''' [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]] | [[User talk:ForestH2|+]] | [[Main Page|√+]] | [[Special:Contributions/ForestH2|√]] | [[User talk:ForestH2/Talkpage|√-]] |
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' great work in deletion and kudos for having the patience to dig through the wasteland that is [[WP:DEAD]].

'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' been here for nearly a year now, looks like they've contributed a lot. Weak support due to the reasons under the oppose votes.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Glad to hear someone wants to deal with backlogs.
'''Weak Support'''. I like your answers, but this is a weak support considering CanadianCaesar's comment.
Unfortunately '''<s>Weak Oppose</s>''' per your "warning" to Kappa. Kudos on you extensive contributions and your 2GA achievement. - <b>

'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' passes my criteria. <font color="green">
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - Sounds competent. --<font color="blue">
CanadianCaesar's diff would be a deal-breaker if it occurred, say, a couple weeks ago. It was, however, a couple months ago, and the candidate has acknowledged his mistake and learned from it. We can ask for no more, and to oppose for this incident alone, considering that it was an honest mistake and we all are, indeed, human, is a bit on the harsh side. Explaining that the incident was a mistake and learning from it demonstrates maturity and understanding. Giving this user sysop privs would be a net gain for the project, with little risk. —
'''Weak Support''', seems to be a hardworking editor with the right interests for a good admin. Incivility and biting newbees are real problems but the diffs demonstrated so far are not that bad IMHO to completely torpedo the nomination. I rezerve my right to change my vote if something worse will be unearthed.
'''Support''' he has a good record except for the incident below, and I believe he has learned his lesson from it. No one is perfect, but he is learning from his mistakes. He seems to be very experience with everything else and he has good intentions for his administrative time here. --<font color="336699">
'''Weak support'''. Mostly looks fine. CanadianCaesar's diff is definitely concerning, but it wasn't that recent, and you seemed to have learned from that incident.
'''Support'''. Seems good to be. One mistake does not earn an oppose vote.
'''Support''' per concerns sufficiently addressed IMV. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' per above.
'''Weak support''' competent editor with lots of experience but the the incivility scares me a bit. But the individual isn't afraid to apologize and admit he made a mistake so I'll support. -
'''Support''' everybody makes mistakes, that is how you learn. There is no good reason why you shouldn't be an admin, so you get my vote!
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support''' - we need more deletionist admins.
'''Support''' per is reasons behind requesting admin and WP contributions
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' based on what I've seen of him in IFD. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support'''. I didn't even know the prod system existed until a friend of mine showed me an article he'd prodded, way after it had been implemented.
'''Support''' The prod complaint is interesting but was months ago and the candidate clearly has a better understanding at this point. The claims of a lack of civility are difficult for me to understand. Of the three diffs presented, one is terse and two are sarcastic but I see nothing uncivil.
'''Support''' I will not oppose an editor who makes one mistake like the one cited by CanadianCaesar. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKappa&diff=52652979&oldid=52568968]  We do ''not'' need administrators who treat inclusionism as vandalism, reverting deproddings and sending test messages for it, claiming to give "official warnings" to good, outstanding, well-established Wikipedians like Kappa.
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar; incident was only 6/52 ago --
'''Oppose'''. CC's link shows an overzealousness and a fundamental lack of understanding of the [[WP:PROD]] system.
'''Oppose''' per above. Lack of understanding of policy combined with rush to hand out unfounded warnings to established editors is a serious danger sign, particularly from someone who spends so much time involved with the deletion process --
'''Oppose''' per the above.  I note with ''great'' sadness that the offended editor stopped contributing regularly after this incident.  Now is clearly not the time for the offender, however contrite, to be promoted.
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar.
'''Oppose''' I hate opposing; I really do. However, I think civility is an essential quality in any admin. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure if Cholmes75 has his skills in that area to an admin-level yet: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=60733057&oldid=60730464] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=59805760&oldid=59801031] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=58057732&oldid=58056910]. If he can improve his people skills for the future though, I would probably support. Again, sorry! --
'''Oppose''' It looks like he's a good editor, but these diffs provided have swayed my vote.  These incidences of incivility are fairly recent, too. --
'''Oppose''' per Where, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' - Xoloz and Where have provided easy reasons for me to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' per the contributions cited by CanadianCaeser and Where.--
'''Oppose''' per CanadianCaesar, especially after update provided by Xoloz. &mdash;
'''oppose''' per CanadianCaesar, we have no need for admins who enforce the own POV.
'''Oppose'''. From my review of the nominee's own talk page, it appears that as recently as May this editor did not seem to understand the [[User_talk:Cholmes75#AfD|AfD process]] or [[User_talk:Cholmes75#Speedy_deletion_as_non-notable|criteria for speedy deletion]]. I also don't like the tone of this editor's responses to some of the complaints on his talk page. In most cases, it appears that the attacks on this editor were unfounded, but there was no need for sarcasm (i.e.: [[User_talk:Cholmes75#.3F.3F.3F|here]]). An admin has to have a complete grasp of deletion policies and an even temperament.
'''Oppose'''The tone of this warning is enough for me to oppose. Whether you understand the policy or not, treating a long term established user like that is not on. ''consider this your first official warning on the matter''??? No.
'''Oppose''' Some diffs above show civility issues.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]].  I'm really concerned about such recent issues with civility as well.  --
'''Neutral''' - The resume looks good but Caesar's diff shows a willingness to dive into processes before you fully understand them, which I see as a red flag for someone we are considering giving more tools. (
'''Neutral''': I am lost for words about my support for this user, per the above replies and his [[WP:DP|deprodding]]. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''' Looks like a good editor, but the above prod business is worrying - not because you made a mistake, everyone does. But because of taking action before reading the policy, rather than looking it up if you weren't sure. As an admin, such an action could have much larger ramifications. Once this event is a bit further in the past, and there's no sign of it happening again, I'd support. -
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I really want to support. You hit the nail on the head for question 1 as far as I'm concerned. However, I wouldn't really want an admin to respond to my comment with "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cholmes75&diff=58150742&oldid=58144117 OK, whatever]". --
'''Neutral'''. Seems to be a fairly good editor.  Concerned about the prod issue raised by CanadianCaesar.
'''Support''' as nominator, of course.
'''Support''' great vandal fighter. Good luck. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support'''as co-nominator.
'''Support''' This RfA might have been a little bit premature, but I've witnessed this user's good work far too many times to refrain from supporting just because of a temporal sine qua non. Good answers, denote knowledge of Wikipedia's areas where he's willing to collaborate with the admin tools. I don't really expect him to run amok if promoted. If this RfA fails, I hope that Chris will not be discouraged and may continue with such excellent work in order try again in a couple of months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Helps to beat back the ever rising tide of vandalism. Avoids edit conflicts.
'''Support''' I count at leats 5,000 edits this month alone, I don't really care how few months he has spent on wikipedia, he has obviously spent many hours on here.  I have many months in wikipedia, and have done knowhere near as much for wikipedia.
'''Support''' Chrislk02 is a good editor and diligent vandal fighter. His activity might only have reached the current hights in the last two months, but evenso I believe (and have the gut feeling) that he would make a great administrator. [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Strong Support''': If I read one more comment about "He'll make a great candidate in another couple of months" I'll scream. Wikipedia needs admins outside America that can deal with vandalism while most of our present admins are either sleeping or at work. Just because someone has been here for 2 or 3 months doesn't always read that they haven't studied policies and guidelines too. There are also admins that have been promoted with less experience and less time on the project. For this reason I see no reason at all to refuse. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Support'''. The combination of a dedicated vandal-fighter and a contributor of meaningful content in mainspace is always good to see and I have no qualms that the candidate would misuse the tools. The concerns expressed below about needing a bit more experience are reasonable and frankly this RfA probably will not be successful, but if that is the case I hope the candidate can build on his good record in the future and return here in due course.
'''Weak Support'''. An absolutely fantastic Wikipedian who has already done a lot of great things for our encyclopedia, despite only being here for two months. I personally loved his responses to the questions; they were honest and well thought out. Objections raised below seem weak as well. I would be doing him an injustice if I did not vote support, even if he could benefit from a couple months more experience. —
'''Support''', seems to know his way around vandal fighting, and doesn't seem to be a sullen killjoy.  Would make a good admin, I think.
'''Support''' Is new but could use a mop well.
--
While you are a relatively new user your hard work is very much appreciated and your mainspace makes up for it. If this adminship run fails please do not lose hope, you are a very good user and deserve this honor.__
'''Support''' Seems completely trustworthy to me. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' WAY too new and per [[:Image:Cessna 165.jpg]]. Candidate has less than tow months active participation. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a great candidate for adminship in 2-3 months. However, since he's only been active since last month, I have to oppose at this time. Keep up the good work, though. It looks like you're on the right track!
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolph&diff=prev&oldid=90730462 This] is not vandalism. It may very well be wrong, but it isn't vandalism, and calling it such is a slap in the face to the person who added it. 4 WP talk edits is bad, too. -
'''Strong Oppose'''- Too new, not enough Wikipedia discussions and edits (in my opinion, though you have way more than me.), and for other reasons stated above. Keep up the editing, though.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per short active editing time, and not particlarly strong answers to questions (they don't really tell me much). Seems like a pleasant user and should be ready in a couple months, as others have said. --
'''Oppose''' — per CrazyRussian. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' — per CrazyRussian.
'''Weak Oppose''' - Your edit count is good, but if you maybe waited a couple of months (try late January or February) at this edit rate, you would most likely be accepted, since all of the oppose votes are on your 2 month active period.
'''Weak Oppose''' sorry, but I am uncomfortable with the way you are using test warnings. Take a look at [[User_talk:206.123.212.67]]. You issue a {{[[Template:test1|test1]]}} at 19:44, then a minute later you add another test1 (why not a test2?). A few minutes later [[User:Elkman]] adds a test3, then  ten minutes after that you add yet another test1, when test4 would have been appropriate. If this was an isolated case I wouldn't worry, but the same pattern is happening a lot: [[User talk:165.155.128.134]]; [[User talk:64.213.196.4]]; [[User talk:81.187.253.225]]. I'm all for [[WP:AGF]] but  its also important to ensure that warnings are given appropriately. I love the enthusiasm and hard work you are volunteering to the project, I just think you need some more time and sometimes you need to be a little more careful. I look forward to being able to support you in the future. Best,
'''Oppose''' Looks like he could well be a good admin, but would like to see more. Perhaps late winter/early spring. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''', future support probable. Lack of experience, and it looks like when you got popups you stop writing articles. ~
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol.
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian. You need more time here. -
'''Oppose'''. Holy shit, your nominator attempted to demonstrate how worthy you were by attacking [[User:Crzrussian|crz]]? On top of that, too new, too belligerent. Find another nominator, and branch out to putting good work into articles, rather than inducing [[Churning (stock trade)|churn]]. I'd be much more inclined to support then. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' Just a little too new. About another month, month and a half is needed (for experience reasons). I would surely support then. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Oppose''' per Crazy and Gwernol. Also, I'm a bit uncomfortable with your edit stats. I don't think there's enough talk:mainspace edits and the vast majority seem to be project tagging. We need to be able to see how you interact in content disputes and other article issues with people in groups, not just one-on-one on user talk pages. And as others have said, a month or two just isn't enough time to get a solid grasp on policy etc or for us or you to know if your editing is sustainable. I know some people will support after 3-4 months, but I don't think 6 months is too much to ask for and will rarely support anyone under that. '''
'''Oppose''' Insufficient amount of time on the project. Try again in 90 days.--
'''Weak Neutral'''. I was originally going for Weak Oppose, but this is a good candidate so I decided to just stay neutral. This user have really only been active for two months (97% of the edits), and it seems to me that he's rather inexperienced in many fields (image, category, template). The one that strikes me the most is a total '''4''' Wikipedia talk, which is not good. Good user, don't think he's ready though. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Neutral''' I agree with AQu01rius, I think that this user is a great candidate but hasn't been contributing long enough. Chris has recently spiked in edits from virtually none. I would definitely support in a few months. His personal anti-vandalism templates are good though :)
'''Neutral''' Although you're a fantastic contributor to Wikipedia thus far, I unfortunately have to go neutral on your RfA. There's no problem in what you're doing, but more of a concern regarding your experience on Wikipedia. I think if you re-apply in 2-3 months, you'll definitely get the support of almost everybody. '''
'''Neutral, leaning towards support.''' Plenty of edits racked up from reverting vandalism. However, I would like to see a few more months of activity, and more experience in other areas. --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="LightSeaGreen">[[Special:Contributions/Gray Porpoise|Porpoise]]</font><sub>
'''Neutral''' Superb vandal-bopper who continuously beats me to reverts, but this is slightly premature. I'd happily support in a few months' time. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''', good vandal fighter, but needs more time and experience in the admin proccess. It's not only vandal fighting that is in admin work, lots of administrative participation, xFDs etc, handling conflict (Mediation etc.) [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral.'''  You're a great vandal fighter, but I need to see you participate in XfDs ([[WP:AFD]], [[WP:MFD]], [[WP:CFD]], etc), and conflict resolution ([[WP:3O]], etc).  I don't DIStrust you, and therefore this is not an oppose, but you give me nothing to base trust on.
'''Neutral''' There is obviously nothing worth an oppose vote, which is why my vote is neutral. Your contributions and vandal fighting are very valuable, but you only need more time around and participation in XfDs. ←
'''Neutral''' Excellent vandal fight, but just not enough experience. Give it a for more months, and some Project Space contribution and you'll have my support.
'''Neutral'''. Hasn't been a lot of time since his editor review and this RfA. I suggest more time and experience on Wikipedia, this includes getting at least one article [[WP:FA|featured]] or at least a couple articles [[WP:GA|good status]]. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Neutral''' A good vandal fighter but the lack of experience is a concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I'd recommend that you withdraw because you aren't going to get it on this occasion.
'''Pile on Neutral'''&mdash;  There is virtue in exploring enough to understand Wikipedia well before becoming an admin. And many editors pass through like burning stars; admins need to demonstrate some dedication. See you back when you have a few more months with Wikipedia; with the number of edits you've accumulated, it should be easy - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Neutral''' He is an excellent contributor so I cannot vote against him, but I think he is a little too inexperienced.
'''Neutral''' good contributions against vandals, yet I also think that time within in the community is a valuable as ones edit count.
'''Neutral''' - hoping to support in future. Chris is very helpful with setting up in the DYK process. '''
'''Support''' as nominator -
'''Support''' for strong article-space contributions.
'''Support''' per Dbiv.
'''Support''' per Dbiv. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', yep.
'''Support''' opposers' bar is too high (but I respect their opinions)  Good enough.
'''Support''' Great user, excellent potential for the adminship.
'''support''':  Excellent contributor dedicated to building an encyclopedia; good answers to the questions below, especially the line about improving the signal to noise ratio.
'''Support'''.  Awesome candidate, ticks every box.
'''Strong support'''.  Thoughtful, dedicated contributor; can be trusted to enforce community standards.  Good answers.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I also think the opposers' [[Handlebar|bars]] are set too high.  Maybe a stem with a different angle would help.  Cycling puns aside, he looks like a solid contributor and looks experienced enough with Wikipedia.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. A good editor; will be a good admin. --
'''Support'''--
'''Suppport'''.  This person has an excellent track record which dates back to 2004.
'''Weak support''' user appears to be a good editor, would like to see more involvement on talk pages, lotta article, image, category, template edits... minimal on their talk spaces. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support-a-gogo'''
'''Support''' Good user, will make a fine admin.  I think there are plenty of admins discussing policy; I don't see why this has to be a focus for everyone with a mop. &ndash;
'''Support''' on the basis of good contributions to the 'pedia itself.  Seemingly cautious attitude to process suggests user is not at all likely to abuse tools, or charge headlong into controversial closures and the like, so I'm not greatly worried on that score.
'''Weak Oppose'''. User mentioned that s/he would like to handle [[WP:CfD]] but has only participated in a handful of votes which is concerning to me. User also mentioned partipication in reverting vandalism, but I wasn't able to find ''any'' warning on user talk pages or any usage of [[WP:AIV]]. Overall Christopherlin doesn't yet seem to be familiar enough with admin related duties in my opinion. --[[User:PS2pcGAMER|PS2pcGAMER]] ([[User talk:PS2pcGAMER|talk]]) 06:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC) ''Restored deleted vote that [[User:Axiomm|Axiomm]] removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Christopherlin&diff=41706528&oldid=41691544]--
'''Strong oppose''' for lack of project space edits.
'''Oppose''' for now because of lack of wiki namespace edits --
'''Oppose''' per PS2pcGAMER and NSLE above, heavy editor, but needs more process related participation. --
'''Oppose''' More Project namespace edits needed.
'''Oppose''' a above.
'''Oppose''' lack of wiki namespace edits --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE.
'''Oppose''' due lack of wiki namespace edits
'''Oppose''' Lack of project-space participation suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Weak oppose''' because I don't know how he would react in a stressful situation, since as he states he has never been in one :) In other words, needs a bit more experience.
'''Neutral'''. Excellent record of commitment, but needs more project space experience. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Pschemp|Pschemp]].
'''Neutral''' per above. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''' 1xx edits in project space in over a year and a half just isn't enough. Apart from that, very good, hence neutral. --
'''Neutral''' per Kingboyk.
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Neutral''', may support later. -
'''Neutral.''' I can't be sure when you don't have mich non-mainspace experience I'm afraid.
'''(see below) Support''', had this on my watchlist. User has displayed the tact, analytical ability and judgement to be a good sysop. The general test: ''"Will Wikipedia be better if this user has the mop"''; my answer for this candidate is ''yes''. '''
(Mostly moral) support - because I truly believe this is an honest editor, and he would be very careful with the tools to not delete anything he shouldn't. Projectspace count is too low, but I think he would be a good editor anyway. -
Mainspace contributions are good, but they don't show knowledge of policy which admins need. There's nothing ''wrong'' with NP patrollers, vandal fighters, and article authors, but you need projectspace edits too, and you don't have enough. -
'''Oppose''' adminship is not leadership, edit summaries are low, contributions are in two main areas only --
'''Oppose''' For the most part I agree with Amarkov's reservations. Your comment about "leadership" suggests that you view adminship as something which it is not [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not|(an elevated position)]]. In addition to this, your answers to the questions are rather short and generic, and you seem to lack experience in the projectspace. <s>Depending on how you respond I may change my vote in the future.</s>
'''Oppose''' per all the above. See what [[Wikipedia:What adminship is not]]. '''
'''Neutral''' Mostly per Amarkov's concerns. Also, I find your edit summary usage quite lacking, which might impede referential communication to a certain but important extent. <s>However, I see no other problems whatsoever (as of now), and</s> I strongly urge you to improve on these areas. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Neutral''' Answers are disappointing, if they were fleshed out a little more I'd consider a support. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Oppose'''. The first time I heard of him was a few days ago during the userbox debate and he came off as rude and abrasive. Had to be reminded by at least two admins to follow [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]].
'''Oppose''', based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACjmarsicano&diff=33998426&oldid=33919469 this edit], which demonstrates to me that the user does not understand the role of Wikipedia policy and thinks that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia works by voting]].  Edit summary use is very poor, and responses to questions below do not inspire confidence.
'''Oppose''' Too few [[edit summaries]].
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned with several things: (1) Edit summaries; I tend to prefer voting for those who have a large percentage of usage; (2) Your weak answer to generic question #1; we have many admins as it is, but I'll accept more if they're willing to do some good hard work, which your answer does not prove to me; (3) Your comments [[User_talk:Pakaran#No_personal_attack_intended.|here]] and the replies of others [[User_talk:Cjmarsicano#Warning|here]]; your comments may have been in jest, but sarcasm doesn't always travel well through the internet.&#160;—
We don't hand out mops to people [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes&diff=prev&oldid=33569228 with] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes&diff=prev&oldid=33569971 defective] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes&diff=prev&oldid=33571072 buckets]. --
'''Oppose'''. Although I actually think he's correct about the fair use issue (come on: does anyone ''really'' think that sports teams are going to sue Wikipedia over "This user is a [foo] fan" userboxes containing logos?) the abrasive manner in which he has interacted with other contributors raises some concerns about his ability to handle the important dispute-resolution aspect of adminship. <TT>
Not yet.  --
'''Oppose'''. I'm not impressed by the answers to the questions; I agree that this user has been confrontational during the userbox debate, and failure to understand why fair use images can't be put on user pages is a serious deficiency in someone who should be expected to help our copyright issues.
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Blase answers to the questions, rude attitude to other users.
'''Oppose''' Edit summaries and above comments.
'''Oppose''' Poor use of edit summaries, basically not answerings Question #1 below.
'''Oppose''' for his response to other users' opposition. Instead of being accepting and polite, he is being childish and confrontational to the point of not conceding points of arguments by coming up with excuses for his behavior. This leads me to suspect that he might abuse admin powers to win arguments, and the suspicion of that leads me to oppose.
'''Neutral'''. As for the first oppose, I honestly can't see how that edit (updating user's own edit count) means he thinks Wikipedia works by voting. But per the low usage of edit summaries I hesitate to support this user. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' because I don't oppose nominations. I've only had negative experiences with this user (though that is only circumstantial evidence). &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''', it probably has been too soon since the last nom, but, he's done good anti-vandal work, increased his contribs to all namespaces, increased edit summary %, and I think he'd do well with the mop. --
'''Support''', I would prefer to see more discussion on Wikipedia projects as an indication of developing an understanding of Wikipedia policies, however I note user interaction on AfD and user talk pages--
'''Weak Support''' too close to last nom for me to be completely comfortable, but looks like he could use the admin tools.
'''Support'''. I'm guessing this RfA won't go through due to the explanations in the opposes, but I think a strong vandal fighter like this needs the right tools to better do the job and get those vandalism changes that too-often slip through the cracks (even when RexNL is on overdrive!).
'''Support''' per Samir. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Likely to use them well.
'''Weak-ish support''' - You would probably use adminship well, but I am wary of the fact that you've had 2 self-nom RfAs in the space of just over a month. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per Haukur. -
'''Support''' - He's been on the wiki since late '04 and has over 2500 edits. He's unlikely to abuse. --
'''support'''. --
Probably won't make a difference, but '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.&#160;—
'''Support''' I think he has the skills to become an admin.
'''Support''' he is ready for the job.
''' Weak support'''.  Meets my baseline criteria for support, and adminship is no big deal.  That said, would have been a stronger application if it weren't the second self-nom in as many months.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' admin is no big deal and his edits tell me he won;t abuse the powers, so he gets my support.
'''Support''' will use the mop well. --
'''Support'''-- Because admin should be no big deal. Plus I like Gator's response
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong support'''.  The objections in his last nom were having only 2 months experience and low edit summary count.  The editors there advised him to try again in a month.  Now, he has over 3 months of experience, tons more experience vandal-whacking, and 98% edit summary usage.  Adminship should be no big deal, right?  --
'''Support'''. This will likely not be enough, but even though it is soon since the first nom pulled, I see nothing wrong here. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Oppose''' still too soon after last self-nom in which he withdrew from. Will support in a few months --
'''Oppose''' great editor but I want more experience from an administrator.  Will have my vote in a few months.--
'''Oppose''', still far too soon.
'''Oppose''' as above, this is too quickly on the heels of the previous RfA.
'''Oppose''' Too close to last RfA.
'''Weak oppose'''. On the borderline of standards, but I tend to require a higher standard from self-noms.
'''Oppose''': too close to last RfA. My advice: just work on building the encyclopedia for now. In time, someone will nominate you.
'''Oppose'''. I want to see more Talk namespace edits. Admins should be able to deal with other users.
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda and Looper5920.
'''Oppose''' - agree with Aucaman and Jonathunder. Be patient :-) |→
'''Oppose''' Per above.
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Oppose}} put some decent time in at [[Wikipedia:Tip of the day]], and I'll nominate you myself.  --
'''Oppose'''. Too soon since last RfA, which was not mentioned in the nomination as it probably should have been
'''Oppose''' because not ready yet.
<b>Oppose</b> Not quite qualified enough.
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to see more experience. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
User seems pleasant enough to interact with and is co-operative, but a rapid self-renomination hints at a lack of familiarity with the way things work. Then again, I've no reason to think this editor can't improve upon his oppose votes, and would consider supporting on a future nomination.
'''Neutral''' More experience will be better.--
'''Neutral''' --''Signed by:''
'''Neutral''', maybe later. -
'''Neutral''', Need more experience and main space edits. - <font color="navy">
'''Neutral''',  Time is fine, but more experience would be nice. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', maybe next time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''', still relatively new, but promising. At this rate, a shoo-in in two more months.
'''Neutral'''. Just a little too soon. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. A little too soon after first RfA.
'''Neutral''': issues with experience.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''': I opposed last time around. I don't doubt the basic sincerity, certainly one of the "good guys" (IMO), but believe a little more experience is in order. Will almost certainly be supporting next time around. --
'''Neutral''' Computerjoe, keep up the good work, diversify and you'll have my strong support in a few months.--
'''Neutral''' --




First to '''Support'''. All my interactions with him were fine. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''
'''I beat the nominator support!''' *shifty eyes* Anyway, I think its obvious why.
'''Support'''. Good user.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. I don't always agree with ComputerJoe's style or projects, but I have to commend him for always trying. --
'''zOMG! Support!'''
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I've seen the user around quite a bit. An excellent candidate.
'''Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Edit confilict Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support'''. Superb contributor. Adminship is long overdue here.
'''Erm, *avoids cliche* Yeah, Support''' <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''No cliche from he support''' I won't try and be cute --
'''Support''' - Definitely. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Another Rfa cliché #1''' :) <tt>
'''Support'''. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - seems to be a good admin material
'''Support''', appreciate the initiative of Comm. Justice (although it's at the point where it really needs to define its purpose). <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Weak Support''' Just try to improve on what Sean Black brought up and you should be fine.
'''Support''' I actually just commented on one of his old Editor Reviews that I saw go by on RC patrol that I would support his next RfA--didn't realize until now that he already had opened one. In contrast to some of the views posed below, all of my interactions with the user have demonstrated him to be quite level-headed, and I think he's someone I could definitely trust with the tools.
'''Strong Support''' for his brilliant initiatives like [[WP:ER]] and [[WP:CJ]], although I do stress the need for more mainspace participation.
'''Support''' Although I disagree a bit of where CJ is heading and Computerjoe handles things, I completely, fully trust him with these tools and believes he deserves them.
'''Support''' [[WP:ER]] is good stuff.'''
''' Weak support''' Would have liked to see more AfD edits recently.
'''Support'''. [[Wikipedia:Community Justice]] is a little off the mark, but it is causing no harm at all. It is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Although this particular project hasn't been terribly successful thus far, it shows that Joe is dedicated to Wikipedia. All of us have had ideas that the community has rejected. Whether we've created a divisive userbox or nominated an article about a barely notable high school for deletion, we have all made a few suggestions that have blown up in our respective faces. At least Joe was willing to ''try'' to improve the community. He shouldn't be denied adminship for his inability able to fix this whole corrupt social structure. <cliché>After all, adminship is no big deal.</cliché> --
'''Support''' as I did in his first attempt. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' one of the best wikipedians around.
'''Support''', deserves the mop at this time of asking, has waited patiently since last (2) RfAs. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
<b>Support</b> I don't remember how I voted last time, but this time it's definitely a Support. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''' Great user. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Nice user, involved in the community. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' - and to the people who say anyone who is well involved in [[WP:CJ]] shouldn't be an admin - why don't you voice your views properly so people can address them. Being constructive would help things move on a little I think.
'''Strong Support''' This user knows what he's doing <font color="black">
'''support''' he is a great user and he deserves this. <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user:ILovePlankton|Lo]]</font><font color="limegreen">[[user:ILovePlankton|ve]]</font>[[Plankton]] <sup>(</sup>[[User_talk:ILovePlankton|<sup>T</sup>]]<sup>—</sup>[[Special:Contributions/ILovePlankton|<sup>C</sup>]]<sup>—</sup>[[User:Misza13/Userbox_Gallery_Poll|<sup>U</sup>]]<sup>—</sup>
'''Support'''. Well as much as I share sympathy with the views of those down below that the CJ organisation is a bad idea (or at very least hasn't really achieved much as far as I can see), I don't see Computerjoe's involvement in that as impacting his ability to properly use the admin tools. Non-CJ contributions seem to suggest that he won't abuse them, and could make good use of them.
'''Strongly Support''' the guy is a commited, dedicated wikipedian with so much to offer. His brilliant work as chairman of Community Justice and tireless efforts to end vandalism and disruption make him one of wikipedia's greatest assets. Of all the people i have met on wikipedia '''Computerjoe''' is the one who has my greatest amount of respect. He is kind, curteous, '''civil''' (a rare quality), hard working, willing to help people and give them a second chance when they slip up. In my humble opinion it would be the greatest of all tragedies (Oedipus included) if computerjoe did not get in to admin. '''If he is not the perfect wikipedian for admin i don't know who is. Computer Joe - you are an inspiration!'''
'''Thought he already was an admin support'''--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support'''  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Danlina| ]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; the man is an asset to the community.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. From what I've seen of this user, his contributions are solid and they demonstrate a thorough knowledge of policy. -→
'''Support''' per Osbus. --
'''Support''' contributions vastly exceed CJ.  Those merit the mop.  --
'''Support''' per Buchanan-Hermit <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Strong Support''' per Blnguyen. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' The problems raised regarding Community Justice appear to be outweighed by ComputerJoe's good standing. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' seems like he will be a good admin --
'''Support'''--
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Has put a lot of effort into WP and has good initiative with creating CJ -
'''Support.''' Good guy.--
'''Support''' amply sufficient edits.  Contributions to wikipedia of the best possible non-article editing sorts.  Doesn't overly emphasize vandal fighting.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. CJ seems to be a good faith effort, but some seem to forget [[WP:AGF]]. Anyhow, Doc opposes on "myspace" strawman arguments, which is all the confirmation I need that this editor is the right person for the job. --
'''Support''' Excellent guy. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' Idem George money —
'''Support''' Good editor, dedicated to the project, no risk of abusing the tool or any other problems.
'''Support''' I believe he's worthy of adminship. The invention of ER is also a good thing to have on your resume. '''
'''Strong Support'''. I see nothing wrong with this user. The oppose votes seem a little misguided to me in light of recent events, and due to the fact that editors should be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] in their efforts. Editor review was a very good idea, and this user is making more good-faith attempts at self-improvement than I have seen out of anyone else.
'''Support'''.
Seems-unlikely-to-succeed-now-but-he-still-deserves-it-'''Support''' –
Weakly support. Asked some questions on IRC. The clue is there, but it still needs some tending to. If Computerjoe is very cautious with his mop in the first month or two, and talks with people a lot, I don't see much going really wrong.
Spends far too much time on his "[[WP:CJ|Community Justice]]" project [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Computerjoe&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=5], which seemingly doesn't actually ''do'' anything, instead focusing on useless bureaucracy. Supposedly campaigns for civility (but as I said doesn't actually do much) but reacts with hostility when confronted about his own incivility [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/044870.html]. Totally misunderstands [[WP:POINT]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=prev&oldid=54540402] Many comments in debates show a severe adherance to structure and bureaucracy, which is coupled with the whole community justice thing. No substantial work done, no great ammount of effort put into contributions. I don't believe this candidate fully understands the role of an administrator, nor have the capability to use the tools responsibly.--
'''Oppose''' largely per Sean Black. The candidate might know the letter of the law when it comes to civility, but in seeing him around I haven't gotten the impression that he understands the spirit of it. When confronted with an incident where many people (me included) thought he was coming off as incivil, he was more concerned in arguing that he wasn't being incivil than admitting he might have been wrong. The inability to admit an error, and the lack of an understanding of the underlying spirit of civility (it's much more than just following a checklist of policies), I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. --
'''Oppose''' largely per Sean Black.  I keep track of [[WP:CJ]], and I see much more bureaucracy than action there&mdash;see for example the name change process currently on the talk pages&mdash;and I worry that it is an indicator that Computerjoe somewhat misses the point.  However, I may change my view upon reflection and further information; see my question below. --
'''Oppose'''. Proudest contribution appears to be an unproductive timesink; this may indicate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose.
'''Oppose'''.  Third RfA in 5 months, very little activity before these. Also have same concerns as brought up by Sean Black and W.marsh. .:.
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black and Marsh.
'''Oppose''' per SCZenz. Instead of spending his early months here learning how the community actually operates, Computerjoe has been focused on these somewhat misguided projects.
'''Strong oppose''' per Sean black.
Oppose per concerns raised above.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Community Justice has apparently done nothing, and has been his only real contribution to the encyclopedia.
'''No way'''.  My interactions with Joe off-wiki have shown him to be a very clever, likeable bloke.  But get him on Wikipedia and that impression goes all to pot!  Community Justice, in particular, is the worst idea to pop up on this project since that "ranking users" thing (anyone remember that?), and Joe's enthusiasm for that effort is worrisome.  Attempts to build things like {{tl|Tracker}} and suchlike that do little more than enable lynch mobs to form are particularly creepy, and I do not think that ''anyone'' who is heavily involved in this Community Justice thing can be trusted with admin tools at this time.  Perhaps in a year's time, well after this thing has bitten the dust, and Joe has meanwhile attained the amount of Clue his intelligence suggests he should have ''already'', he might be worth considering.
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black. While I respect ComputerJoe's contributions and value him and his work, I don't think that it would be appropriate for him to be placed as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' as per most of the above. What I've seen in the CJ project really seems to show somewhat poor judgment with respect to priorities.
'''Oppose''' Per raised (and earlier noticed by myself) concerns.
'''Oppose''', per most of the above (the Community Justice thing is the obvious problem). --
Sean Black put it well, and answers to questions don't convince.
'''Oppose''' per Sean.
'''Fairly Strong Oppose''' For many of the reasons above. I was met with a fairly dismissive attitude when trying to talk about CJ's name and while his heart is in the right place I don't really get the idea that he understands the spirit of Wikipedia. I think there's some work to be done on his judgment...but I certainly believe other editors when they talk about his smarts so I'd expect a much different result down the road after he re-focuses a bit.
'''Very weak Oppose''' - dump the CJ/myspace nonsense and you'll have my vote. --
I'm uneasy about this case. I get a sense of seeking status or validation, which is not what adminship should be for, and we've had problems in the past with people who have been a little too single-minded about getting it. There's a similar feel of trying to "construct a resume" for adminship, and yet taking the wrong step at every turn in the attempt to do so. I don't know what reasons there may be, or if such things are fundamentally difficult for Joe, in which case I sympathize, but think these privileges would be best not granted at this time. Joe, you're a valuable editor, we all need reminders about civility, and I don't doubt your good faith. Some of the tools are available without adminship, you seem to already be making use of them, let's leave it at that for now. --
'''Oppose''' per many of the comments above.
'''Oppose''' anyone involved in this pseudo-paramilitary "Community Justice" operation.  --
'''Oppose''' for the whole "community will take justice on its hands" that let to CJ (which may have changed focus now, but then I guess we don't need a second esperanza) -- <small>
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black.
'''Oppose'''. Answers are not very convincing and I feel like the last nomination was only a few weeks ago. :/
[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] '''Oppose''' - I've read [[WT:CJ]], and that convinced me that Joe doesn't yet have enough of a grasp of how the [[WP:POL|policies]] and [[WP:DR|Dispute resolution]] systems work.  --
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black. --
'''Oppose''' - candidate seems to think he has the right to tell other people how to base their votes (see statement after nomination).
''' Strong Oppose''' Has made very little contribs to WP except "Community Bureaucracy", as I call it. Boy, I hate it. I have never seen it '''''ever''''' do anything. Oh, and when Jayjg was as incivil to me as he was, and CJ is as great as it claims to be, then they should have done something about it.
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black. Also, I believe most people voting to support him are spurred by the fact he is the founder of their organisation.
'''Oppose'''. Change to oppose. [[Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard]] makes me question his judgement. Sorry. No retorts if possible, please, it's just my opinion. Also not very impressed by the answers. --
'''Oppose'''. Just not ready right now.
'''Oppose''' (changed from Neutral). Is continuing to show misjudgement with the new 'Concordia' project, particularly the creation of [[Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard]]]. Potentially a good admin though, will happily support when he ceases to feel the need to be chairman of things.
'''Oppose'''. The various things that the candidate spends his (and others) time on are not the things they should be spent on. There is enough demonstration of a somewhat peculiar view of what Wiki is about that, for several months, I would not feel comfortable with this user having admin buttons, and the excersiability that comes with them. -
'''Oppose'''. User does not need administrative tools and would not use them in a manner consistent with writing an encyclopedia.
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose''' - If he became an admin, he would go around deleting peoples' subpages, because they are not WikiProjects. So if you had a subpage with a friends list, he would delete it. Also, because of his use of Personal Attacks. --<font size="1">
'''Oppose''' per Kuzaar. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Oppose''' - I have real concerns over this editor's judgement. I am the person targetted by  [[User:Nikitchenko]] for alleged ''incivility'' on [[Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard]]. My concerns are this; <br>1. Computerjoe placed a post on my [[User talk:Stollery|talk page]] stating ''A post regarding your civility is on [[WP:CN]]'' - there was no mention of Concordia, and as the page is named as the '''Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard''' I assumed it was an official reporting board and was being handled by sysops. As such when I saw replies (by the board officials) to Nikitchenko's claims such as "he needs a serious wikibreak before he gets kipped out of Esperanza" followed by "Yes, it seems discussions are taking place over this here." I began to draft a long explanation of the full picture and the tone in which the edits were made, as well as the history of personal attacks and what others discribed as wikistalking by Nikitchenko towards me. I did this because I thought I may be blocked by those responding to his claims. To discover that this board is not anything close to official nor has any administrative power has thoroughly frustrated me as I have worked on a full reply. <br>2. The fact that Computerjoe said that my edits were uncivil in his reply shows he did not fully investigate the situation. Nikitchenko was certainly stalking me and has now been permanently banned. Not a person I'd like to see have ''real'' sysop powers after my experience. - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
'''Firm oppose''' (<small> moved from ''weak support''</small>) The creation of the [[WP:CN|civility noticeboard]], and Joe's contributions thereto, invite too many questions with respect to his judgment, and I cannot say that I would be comfortable giving him the mop, etc., at this time.
'''Strong oppose''',  The creation of WP:CN, and involvement with WP:DN ''during this very RFA'' seems to indict either poor judgement about how to respond to the criticisms expressed here, or disregard thereof.
'''Neutral'''. Not concerned enough to oppose, but do wonder whether such continued attention to WP:CJ is consistant with a requirement for admin tools. May reconsider before close.
'''Neutral''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]] but has active contributions towards recent patrolling. -
[[Image:Symbol_neutral_vote.svg|20px]] '''Neutral''' I can't say no or yes. Any interactions I've had haven't been enough to sway me either way. — <font colour="navy"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|Natha]]
'''Neutral''' Here's my problem.  One half of me says that he's a great asset to the project, espeically in his WP:CJ promoting civility.  The other half has the same question that other's posed: what really does CJ do?  He's got the right motives, but I'm not sure about which way to vote. &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Sean Black and Marsh make very good points.  I've met Joe before on CJ (which I will admit doesnt do much) and he was a pretty nice guy, but I'm not sure if he's admin material.  Sorry Joe, maybe next time.  -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' seems to be a good user... but CJ bothers me a little bit. ---
'''Support'''. Meets my criteria, is a good user and will not abuse admin tools. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''- incomplete nomination (no questions, end time set up incorrectly), RFA shouldn't be used as an [[WP:ER|editor review]], it's about deciding if you should be an admin ''now''.
'''Oppose''', incomplete and malformed RfA.
'''Oppose''' I move that a bureaucrat end the RfA early and that [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] seeks an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] instead.  Admin status is not being requested for the right reason, which is for the improvement of Wikipedia.  This is not a test of a user's standing in the community. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose''' per reasons raised above. Sorry.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Your worst points are in your nomination. Your answer to question 1 doesn't give me the impression that you really need the tools just yet, you pointed out RC patrolling which any user can do. You haven't been here that long and haven't got a considerable amount of edits. You should re-apply in at least 2 months time when you have more experience.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per experience (esp. mainspace edits) and question. Improve on these and come back in at least 2 months. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience in Wikipedia. Needs more experiences.
'''Oppose''' A distinct lack of expereince is a concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Start an editor review instead.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience and please start editor review if you want to know your weaknesses as said above. --<font color="336699">
'''Take to [[WP:ER]]''' I know it might look good to start an RFA to see what you can improve on, but I would have rather seen you at [[WP:ER]] or somewhere else to ask people how you can improve. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose'''. Per above, and a lack of enthusiasm. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Suggesting withdrawal and taking this to [[WP:ER|editor review]]. --
'''Oppose''' per all above. Suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' this half-hearted RfA per numerous reasons above. Please close it.
'''Oppose.''' Too new. I'll support in four months or so.
'''Oppose''' per all above, suggest withdrawal and participation in [[WP:ER|Editor Review]] --
'''Neutral.''' I have seen you patrolling usernames, so I don't think it would be such an unreasonable idea, but your answer to question 1 doesn't inspire me as to your readiness. Also, I've found you to be less than ideal in an argument, which I think is a potential problem in an admin. However, given more time/activity, and more evidence that you can collaborate well with others, I could support.
'''Neutral''', no point in opposing. Have a look at [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|the criteria I use]] for approving admins. [[User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project]] also has a useful collection of standards, if your ultimate goal is to become an admin. Also try editor review.
'''Neutral''' I've seen you around and have seen your work, but using the RfA as an editor review doesn't give me the impression that you're ready for admin YET. -→
'''Neutral''' You have adminship potential, yet you don't really seem to want or need the admin tools yet. Your honesty and humility are admirable qualities - it is extremely rare for a user to point out their own flaws at an RfA. If you became keener, I'd probably support in several months' time. '''[[User:Brisvegas|Brisv]]''
'''Neutral''' - You have few mainspace edits, that makes me think about whether or not you are helping building an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, I believe you can become a great admin if you edit and improve some more articles and if you keep fighting vandalism.
'''Neutral''' has not adequately explained why he needs admin tools.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]

'''Neutral'''. Good user, and like Darth said, I doubt that he will abuse his administrative powers. However, the reasons mentioned above I don't think I can give him a support. [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' Based on the comments on other users, you will most likely fail in your RFA. The reason I am giving you some support is to give you some encouragement. If you try again in about 3 months with at least 2.000 edits, you might become an admin. In the mean time don't lose hope and keep contributing to Wikipedia. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' Keep up the good work, and you'll become an admin eventually.  --
'''Support''' I am not going to oppose since you have the right qualities, however you need some more time. Post a msg on my talk page in 3 months and I'll nom you. You should also do some janorital tasks in the meantime, like Recent Changes patrol and new page patrol. Unsure how to do it? Leave me a note and ill be happy to help!
Sorry, but the experience is an issue here. The edit count stops at 167, and those edits would need to be truly extraordinary if they are to provide sufficient experience. Also, participation on deletion related pages like AFD, TFD and CFD is wanting, the same for policy discussions. Try again after you have contributed a while longer, there is still a lot to learn here I think.
Certainly not. -
Not nearly enough experience, sorry. Of those 167 edits, 36 are to your userpage, leaving 131 other edits, 10 or so of which to talk pages. This is not enough for others to tell how you interact with others, how you would handle conflicts with other editors, etc. You don't need to be an admin to help vandals 'ruin' it, as an editor there's quite a lot you can do and I haven't seen any of that in your contributions. Furthermore, please start using edit summaries while editing! --
Sorry, but definitely no. <s>I'm not even going to bother adding my questions.</s> You have too much inexperience for me to trust you with the extra buttons. If you keep up good editing, get balanced edits, and use edit summaries consistently, and come back in four months, I'd be glad to support.
Nowhere near required experience, name space edit count, edit summaries... Lots of things are missing in this nominee right now.
'''Opppose'''.  As per above.  Also, I'd like to see a higher use of [[WP:ES|edit summaries]].  I suggest withdrawing and trying again sometime in the future.  Please don't let all of the oppose votes discourage you though. You might want to take a look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards]] to get an idea of what voters are looking for in an administrator.  --
'''Oppose'''. Self-nom should really only happen if you truly feel you've been overlooked for a long time and have an impressive history of great edits and contributions. The list of admins with sub-250 edits at time of nomination is ''extremely'' short. Nice to see ambition but a long, long way to go.
'''Oppose''' and suggest the nominee withdraw this. Keep building the encyclopedia, using a descriptive summary for every edit, and in half a year or so consider doing this.
'''Oppose''' no way.
'''Amoral oppose''' It must be frustrating to you to see this string of opposes when you really haven't done anything wrong except vollunteer to take on more responsibilities. However, I think you'll find that if you keep up your strong level of contributions then other uses will be willing to support you sooner than you think.
'''Oppose''' Its mean to pile on, but this will make sure Contagious Truth will understand the qualities needed for an admin are ''much'' greater than what he first anticipated. I recommend a withdrawal as well
'''Object''' – per common sense. --
'''Oppose'''.  Far too soon, and far too few edits to genuinely encyclopaedic topics.  CT, please withdraw, nobody wants to see you humiliated.  And please ''please'' get stuck into the stuff that relies on treeware to document!
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience contributing in most areas of the project. --
'''Oppose''' I'd give it some time kid. --
'''Oppose''' for all the reasons above. --
'''Oppose''' for now, as per above. sorry. --
'''Don't get discouraged Neutral''' It doesn't seem like this RFA will pass, but don't let that get you down.  Keep up your editing, tred into different areas of Wikipedia, and in 3-4 months I'm sure this will go much better :-) --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''More "supportive" neutral'''. I second what Lightdarkness is saying. It's great that you want to be more involved. Get more experience under your belt and try again in a few months. :) --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
Later. -
'''Neutral''', as per lightdarkness and Fang Aili. Get more experience, and then try again.
'''Support'''. I'll be brave and be the first support here. Every little bit helps, and nobody could give a reason to oppose other than "too little edits", so I'm supporting. In the first RfA, the only reason for opposing was lack of procedure and experience, and I'm almost sure he has it right this time. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' as per [[User:Fetofs|Fetofs]].
'''Support''' I would have nominated him in a couple of weeks had he not self-nominated. He's shown a good initiative in getting involved in projects, works well with conflicts of other editors and has performed admin duties. The only objection in the last RfA for him was that it was too close to the last RfA. The objection now that he has not been more active in the past few months is ridiculous, as he had proactively removed himself from (and wisely so, as many other editors did) during a conflict with [[User:Bcatt]]. Following suggested [[Wikipedia:Wikiholiday|Wikiholiday]] guidelines during a dispute can hardly be found as a negative for an editor or admin. Don't penalize him for following Wiki rules. Anyway, he's active again now the conflict seem to be over. I can't imagine any other objections. -
'''Weak Support''' Has been here for nearly two years and I feel that he is very familiar on editing Wikipedia and its policies. Although his edit counts are relatively low, this user has a lot of experience. However, his lack of activity is a hinderance and should be taken into consideration. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Qualified. Prodigious rate of editing not needed.
'''Support'''. per Visorstuff. Additionally, we need admins with a broad range of experience who are committed to the project long term as cookiecaper has definately demonstrated. <font color="#063">
'''Weak support''' The opening of [[WP:HIRE]] without prior discussion is disturbing, but other than that I see no problems with the candidate.
'''Support''', yes cookie you'll do just fine.  --
'''Support'''. I disagree entirely that "admins must be active at all times". Admins should be allowed, and even encouraged, to have a life outside of Wikipedia -- it helps to maintain perspective.
'''Support''' - My reservations concerning WP:HIRE are not pertinent to his abilities as an admin, which I have faith in. CC has shown greater maturity, responsibility and skill since past nominations; his brief period of lessened participation recently needs to be viewed as a pro rather than a con per Visorstuff's explanation above.
'''Support''' Good common-sense editor.
'''Support''' Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1434 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support''' - Adminship should not require constant activity.  Here is a user who has spent his time on Wikipedia productively and has been contributing for over a year.  I don't think he's going to misuse the tools to detriment Wikipedia, and any nomination which starts with such a ballsy opening statement such as "I should be an admin. It's so true." gets my vote. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Extremely Strong Support''' - Admin's don't have to be extremely active. People have a '''social life''' outside of Wikipedia. This user deserves to be an admin.
'''Support'''; unfortunately, this RFA is doomed. Better luck next time. I feel really, really bad for you about this, since you are a very solid, helpful editor.
'''Oppose''', very less active from [[February]]. An administrator should be more active.
'''Oppose''', inactivity (only 3 edits per day) and answers to questions concern me.
'''Oppose''', inactive, admins must be active at all times. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', self promotion. Wikipedia has many "decidely good editors" who don't qualify.
'''Oppose''' too much inactivity '''
I first became acquainted with this candidate's contributions a few hours ago, when he did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mark&diff=prev&oldid=48966637 this]. Further inspection of his history disclosed that yesterday, he created a page called [[Wikipedia:Now Hiring]]. This is a proposal to enable the hiring of editors willing to write or edit articles on topics of the hirer's choice, in return for monetary payment. The controversial page promptly set off an [[Wikipedia_talk:Now_Hiring|animated discussion]]. There then ensued a revert war, with the candidate however stopping at the third revert, demonstrating awareness of the letter of the 3RR if not its spirit ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Now_Hiring&diff=48948742&oldid=48947742 revert 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Now_Hiring&diff=48962236&oldid=48961767 revert 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Now_Hiring&diff=48963065&oldid=48962360 revert 3]). The page is currently listed on [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Now Hiring]], wherein the candidate offers interesting views on the nature of Wikipedia. Reading his answers to the questions below, I cannot say that I am especially impressed with them; they have an oddly flippant quality that is not out of character with those activities of which I am aware. Taken together with concerns about his relatively casual involvement with Wikipedia (~35 user talk messages in nearly two years) and the nature of his remarks on his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cookiecaper|first RFA]], I'm afraid I have to oppose this candidacy. —''
'''Oppose''' Now Hiring suggests candidate does not grasp the meaning of the wiki.
'''Oppose'''.  Not sure he can maintain NPOV (per [[WP:HIRE]] and its MfD), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mark&diff=prev&oldid=48966637 the edit summary on Mark's page] looks like vandalism, even if it was invited on IRC.  Prospective admins shouldn't have to worry about whether they might get blocked.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Oppose''' -- responses here seem argumentative.  I don't want to see an admin whose reaction to community concern is defensiveness instead of listening carefully to that feedback.
'''Weak oppose''' - 3 self nominations really scares me, it makes me think you're a little desperate --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Weak Oppose'''<!--changed per my comments below--> Incivility concerns and conerns due to his edit warring at the now hiring page as well as above that he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to achieve here at Wikipedia. <small>
'''Oppose'''.  I have nothing against self-nomination, but this one is too glib for me.  Nothing in the candidate's answers to the questions below or to the concerns raised above decrease my concern about this.
'''Weak oppose'''. I disagree with his stance on open proxies (see JoshuaZ's question 6).
'''Oppose'''. An experienced an long standing Wikipedian, and shows great improvement from the last RfA. Boost up your involvement, and you will definitely be ready in few months. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Oppose'''. The user's actions at [[WP:HIRE]] indicate he may not be in tune with Wikiculture. Also, while he did not technically violate the letter of 3RR, I feel he ignored its spirit by showing a tendency to revert rather than discuss, sometimes with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANow_Hiring&diff=48962236&oldid=48961767 unhelpful edit summaries]. 3RR is not intended to sanction three reverts. '''<font color="8855DD">
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. --
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' Admins should work towards consensus. In creating [[WP:HIRE]], Cookiecaper made it clear that he was aware that it was a hugely controversial proposal. Regardless of the specific merits of that proposal, given the controversy he should not have unilaterally have set it up without inviting discussion first. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. To my mind, even proposing something like [[WP:HIRE]] displays extremely poor judgement. I don't want to say never, but I would have a very, very hard time trusting the judgment of someone who thinks a proposal like that is a good idea. -
'''Oppose''' - Hasn't really got his/her feet wet in things such as [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:RFA]] which admins are usually very active in.  Also, does not really like to discuss things with fellow editors sometimes, and seems too eager to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Not very active since February 2005. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''In too many disputes, and I'm not really a fan of self nominations <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
Adminship is not a trophy. -
'''Strong Oppose''' A self nomination following the hire page looks like an agenda, and one wikipedia can definitely do without.
'''Oppose''' To many disputes to allow adminship right now.

'''Oppose''' Has been in a lot of disputes. An admin should be the one to mediate disputes. Also, [[WP:HIRE]], and finally contributions as of late have been decreasing.--
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:HIRE]]. - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Oppose'''. The 3RR incident leaves a sour taste in my mouth, as well as the edits brought up by Encephalon and Pagrashtak.
<S>'''Neutral''', for the time being. I've appreciated your presence in the LDS Wikiproject and your level-headedness during debates; your edits are always welcome as far as I'm concerned. Two things I'd like to ask, which I tagged on below.</S>
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a good editor... but has been less active recently. I realise the toolserver's frozen out but less than 50 edits in February and less than 100 in April? I realise this would probably increase were you to get the mop, but it seems pretty pointless giving you something you're not going to use... no reason to oppose though. --[[Darth]]
<s>'''Neutral''' tending to oppose due to low recent edit count. Waiting for answers to Tijuana's questions. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] | [[User_talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]] 11:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)</s> Switched to oppose.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Deskana]].
'''Neutral''' A bit iffy on activity level and question answers. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Neutral'''. I will support later with more experience.--
'''Neutral''' I don't think inactivity is enough to oppose.
'''Neutral''' As stated previously by others, 3 self nominations is scary and overtly self-promoting. If someone else nominated him and he calmed down a bit I would steadfastly support him because he has the experience and determination if anything else.
'''Neutral'''. --
'''Neutral'''. Has had a bad past from triple reverting, 2,000 edits is a lot but I believe a delay should be made to ensure the person can do well. I also didn't like some of the answers to the questions.--
'''Neutral''' -- Not much point in debating this doomed nom. I would like to say that I don't find the creation of WP:HIRE to be damming as many opposers seem to think. I'm much more concerned about flirting with 3RR.
'''Neutral''' -- This nomination is going to get yanked, but regardless, I'd like to say that the user seems to be a little too pushy. He arbitrarily reverts other people's edits to Mormon articles, then creates controversial edits of his own. -
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': because adminship should be no big deal right?
'''Support''' We are building an encyclopedia, not a community, this is the type of admin we need, one who is an editor who wants to be a janator. His edit summaries are 100%, great # of edit counts, the fact that he has so many so fast is because of two things (I think): excitement about the project, lack of anything else to do (don't take offence to that, I am the same way). The fact that he has little/no namespace edits is not important IMO.
'''Support''' [[WP:ADMIN]] says "Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community."  From what I can see, Cooksey meets these criteria with no problems.
'''Strong support''' This user is not at all likely to abuse his tools as admin, and I thnk would perform important tasks at wiki.
'''Oppose''' very little community interaction despite high edit count. Only 98 user talk edits and most of his edits were in December. Since then, edits per month have steadily decreased, with less than 100 edits this month.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough Wikipedia namespace interaction, but I'm also concerned that you were able to manage over 2000 edits in less then a month around December, but have been rather inactive since. —
'''Oppose''', per TheKMan.
'''Strong oppose''' User doesn't have much edits in the area of communication with other users. Would like to see this user more active as he has only been here since December. Edit count is considerably low but thats not a major issue.
'''Oppose''' per TheKMan. It's just too soon, Cooksey. I've had my account since 2002 and I'm not an admin yet. (Of course, I only really started getting active three months ago...) --
'''Oppose''', quite new, and [[User:NSLE/Adminship Criteria|fails criteria #1 for constant activity]].
'''Oppose''', lack of interaction with the community. However, keep up with your article work. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|Standards]]. Sorry, but I feel you needs more interaction before re-applying.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience - although your tendency towards 'janitorial' tasks such as image tagging etc. may make you a credible adminship candidate once you gain more experience.
'''Oppose'''... it was difficult... but all your edits are all tied up in that one month. You've had too little activity outside of that. There's no proof that having got your admin powers you would continue to suffer from the same inactivity. I wish I didn't feel I had to vote oppose.
'''Oppose''' not very much interaction with WP community.
'''oppose''', weak. Two things bug me. First, you're still ''very'' new. Second, I don't feel that "buffy" is encyclopedic. I would be a lot happier if you said you were trying to solve problems with buffy articles (eg merges, list compiling/maintaining). <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''', still very green.  Not enough experience in the Wiki community.  Given a few more months and a little diversification in participation this user will be more than qualified.--
'''Oppose''' Needs to be more consistantly active.
'''Oppose''' Recent signifigant decrease in editing, low Project and usertalk edits.
'''Oppose''', great work with images and buffy, etc., but too little involvement in the project namespace. Only 100 edits to ''Wikipedia:'' pages, and participated in deletion process only eight times. — <small>Feb. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[10:18] <
'''Oppose''', with same comment as Zjins' RfA - too new. Maybe if a user was incomprehensibly stellar, I would vote to support - but in that case it wouldn't have to be a self-nomination. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', low wikispace edits and user talks--
'''Oppose'''. Need more interaction.
'''Oppose''', nowhere near enough edits outside main namespace. Please try again in a couple months.
'''Oppose''', sorry, but too soon. Please keep building the encyclopedia and try again in a few months.
'''Neutral'''.  Not a lot of interaction with others. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I'm tempted to vote support, but more interaction would be better.
'''Neutral''' - I have a feeling this will not go through - perhaps you might consider withdrawing, and reapplying in a few months after trying to increase your participation outside of articles.
'''Neutral''' - you do good work, but I'd prefer more community interaction. Not being consistantly active isn't a factor for me at all; I know you have school and other commitments.
'''Neutral''' - While I believe Proto is not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] with regards to the userboxes and his comments really rise to the level of being a [[WP:DICK|dick]], I must agree that you need a little more time. --
'''Neutral''', seems OK, but I would prefer a little more experience.
'''Neutral''' Thanks Proto, what you pointed out moved me from Oppose to Neutral. Cooksey, get someone to nominate you next time, and never be afraid to say what you want to as long as you're [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Neutral''' while I am impressed and I think that you would make good use of admin powers, I think you should "get involved more", as per other votes. I would echo the preceding vote from Karmafist. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>

'''Support'''. Probably should have mentioned the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool3|first]] Rfa (which the candidate declined), but a quick review of contribs satisfies my requirements. <tt>
'''Support''' yes, I think this RfA is doomed but I think Cool3 has the right stuff. People will oppose on number of edits, I really don't fall for editcountis, but I think you're unlikely to use the tools, adminship is not a trophy its a tool and might as well give it to the people who can use them --
'''Support''' - from his very first edit, he's been demonstrating a sensible and trustworthy attitude to janitorial duties. -
'''Support'''. 1000 edits should be enough for anyone.  Cool3 seems trustworthy and willing to take responsibility, not to mention the perk of a featured article.   He's shown interest in actually expanding Wikipedia, but has wasted time in "vandal fighting".  I can excuse this though, given the FA, and the fact that until we adopt sensible measures (see
'''Support''' per Tawker. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per Tawker.
'''Support'''. Experienced enough in my book. Adminship is ''no big deal''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Seems to be doing well. I'm not taking into account the first RfA, for reasons described earlier. <!--begin Cchan199206 sig--><font face="Verdana">~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <nowiki>{</nowiki><sup>[[User talk:Cchan199206|t]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Cchan199206|c]]</sub><sup><font color="green">
'''Support''' Sadly, editcountitis reigns supreme. However, you're a very good user.
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support''' Gladly support a user who knows how to seriously contribute to the content of Wikipedia. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''', seems unlikely to abuse tools, and the FA cancels out my editcountitis on this one.
'''Support'''.  IMO the whole edit count thing is usually to make sure the contributor is dedicated to what Wikipedia is actually about.  If Cool3 has contributed a featured article and some DYKs, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind.  Didn't BorgHunter get promoted with something like 1000 edits, and Hamster Sandwich with 1500?
'''Support''' per Tawker. +
'''Support''' Over a thousand really good edits, passes 1FA, several other good articles, some experience vandalfighting and AFD etc, courteous and civil to a fault.  Clearly to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''', relatively low number of edits but these are decently spread around the namespaces, participates on [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:AIV]], [[WP:VP]] etc. Nothing to suggest he'd misuse the tools. --ⁿɡ͡b
'''Support''', passes [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -

'''Support''', he's seems trustworthy + good judgement and reasonable.
'''Support'''. I see nothing in Cool3's 1000 edits that makes me doubt his ability to use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' He is an excellent editor and has been a pleasure to work with!
'''Support''' Seems like a good user. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support''' Responsible and competent editor, who can communicate well and  who can be trusted to use the tools appropriately.
'''I would've sworn I'd already voted Support''' per Tawker, RichardCavell, and Tyrenius.
'''Support'''. Many of the oppose votes are very thinly veiled editcountitis: "not enough edits in namespace X" amounts to "not enough edits" when X could be just about any namespace. Look at the contributions, not the numbers.
'''Support''' - so we have moved from editcountitis, through editsummaryitis, now to featuredarticleitis? How about judging people on their merits rather than a worthless number?
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems a good user. '''
'''Support''' - edit count raw numbers are overrated.  You can rack up 100 edits in an hour if you want to - either positively by working recent changes or negatively by using Wikipedia like a chat board.  Cool3 has shown that he can be trusted.  That's what counts in my mind.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience yet. Some good contribs though.'''
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience, looks like a good admin material for the future though
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. Will likely support in the future.
'''Oppose''', sorry.  Will support in a few more months of high activity. --
'''Oppose''' per others, but with more experience will be a much stronger candidate --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' at this time due to experience concerns; will gladly reconsider within a few more months.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits. 1000 edits (including popup edits!) isn't enough in my book. And the three suspicious votes are '''troubling'''. Maybe after more experience. --
'''Oppose''', lacks of edits and experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience on the Wiki.
'''Oppose'''. Nothing personal, just not enough experience yet. --
'''Oppose'''. Maybe when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' I rarely support when the editor has less the 2k edits.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. Will support in a few months. '''''
'''Oppose''' on experience.
'''Oppose''' on experience. To respond to ShortJason, it's not ''showing'' inexperience, but simply not editing articles long enough for us to truly know. I agree that the [[Michael Woodruff]] article (where I first met Cool) is a great article, but RfAs require a lot of time as a skilled editor.
'''Oppose''' – for inexperience reasons, nothing personal –
'''Oppose'''. Self-nomination... hmm! Passes [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|Diablo Test]] but needs experience. Will definitely support if someone else (preferably an established editor who passed the [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|Diablo Test]]) nominates him again in, not earlier than, October 2006.
'''Oppose''' based on my standards; nothing personal.
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with Wikipedia namespace, indicating a probable low level of familiarity with policy. Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Not a case of editcountis but more of that experience is based not simply on number of edits but by the length of time editing. This user needs to spend more time on Wikipedia in order to understand enough about Wikipedia' policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' - More exp' required, per all other opposers.--
'''Oppose''', just not enough experience.  Keep up the good work, though. --
'''Oppose''' Give it more time --<font color="black">[[User:Xchrisblackx|Mahoga]]</font><font color="black">'''[[User talk:Xchrisblackx|n]]'''</font><font color= "green">
Not enough experience.  --
'''Neutral''' The low main edit count sort of scares me, however, As Abakhrarev stated, there is "good admin material," just not for now. I feel split.
'''Neutral'''. Keep your fingers busy for a couple more months. <b>
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but needs more experiance. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Neutral.''' He's a nice guy, and his edits are good, he just needs to make more of them first. I look forward to supporting at a future date, but now is simply too soon. Keep up the good work though. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I don't know much of this user's contributions, but I believe he may be a very nice editor and sooner or later he may become a sysop, however, claiming, in a AfD discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%22Proletarian_Union%22_Committee_of_the_Portuguese_Marxist-Leninist_Communist_Organization_%28in_reorganization%29], that English language is necessary for verifiability shows lack of policy knowledge. Nonetheless, I believe that Cool3 may become an admin if he keeps learning and contributing.
'''Neutral''' - While doing my weekly check of articles involving me and/or my projects, I discovered my page had been vandalized, but Cool3 had already discovered and reverted the page to the correct version.  I haven't ever participated in nominations or adminship or anything, but I am appreciative of his efforts and dilligence.  It's always nice to see someone is looking out for the common good even without being asked to do so.  I dunno if this is qualificatinos for support (hence the neutral vote), but if it qualifies I certainly support him.  thanks dude!
'''Neutral'''. Actually meets my specifications (barely), but I would like to see more interaction with the community. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Neutral'''.  Not enough experience to support.  With more experience... would consider supporting in the future.
'''Neutral''' Would like to support, but there's just not enough history to go on.  A few more months of edits and look forward to supporting. .:.
'''Neutral''' insufficent experience, will support in the future. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' Though number of edits isn't the highest, contributions are weighty and quality. The editor also respects other's opinions, as shown by his willingness to kill his old, psychedelic signature to make way for a simpler one due to concerns raised by other editors; question answers are well written; and again, number of edits doesn't matter that much, as it is the contributions themselves and their quality that makes a difference.
'''Support''', good edits from a good reliable editor that seems trustworthy with the powers of adminship. Seems to make sense to me.
'''Support'''. Experienced and trustworthy enough in my opinion. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">

[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' Great wikipedian. I know him in real life and he is all ways on/working on wikipedia. Give him the mop and see how he does. In my opinion he would do great. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]]'''''[[User:Actown|o]]'''''[[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He really deserves it with all his edits. [[User:General Eisenhower|Eisenhower]] (at [[wikia:c:war|war]] or at [[peace]]) ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject US Presidents|Project]]) (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom, my boy MOP, and, of course, Siva.
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' - quality over quantity.  This user's edits are ''quality''.
'''Support'''. Agree with users above.
'''<s>Weak</s> oppose''' The only thing I have a problem with right now is the relatively low editcount (about 1400). However, the contributions are really good. If you ever get nominated again down the road, I'm likely to support your RfA. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' I'll try my best to avoid the glaring lack of edits; I won't oppose you on those grounds (although I'm ''so'' tempted to). However, you admit in your answers that ''[you're] not really a big writer''. I see many of your edits in the past month are to similar articles - on Japanese characters. I'd prefer to see more involvement in articles. I'm especially curious about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=51684665 this edit summary] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boolean_data&diff=prev&oldid=48961675 this edit summary] (unnecessary cursing) as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=52129709 this edit summary] (I have no idea what it's supposed to mean). I also think you need to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikitruth&diff=prev&oldid=49173881 calm down here]. You say in your answers that ''I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I will never use blocking, rollbacks, insults, threats, rough language, or incivilities when talking to anybody, be it IP, user, administrator, or bureaucrat''. I'm not getting that impression. ''If I ever do, I will have violated the ideal of decency and etiquette which holds this place together.'' Exactly. ''I'd like to be available to users to perform conflict resolution expediently and calmly,'' Again, I'm not getting that impression. This seems to indicate that you have the tendency to lose your cool at times. We are all human, and that is understandable, but admins need to be able to count to ten before saying something they'll later regret. On top of that, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Actown&diff=prev&oldid=53641393 this] could be construed as [[Wikipedia:Vote stacking|vote stacking]] and you say that you'll participate in blocking and unblocking, but I don't see much current involvement in reverting vandalism and, especially, providing warnings to vandals. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per the low main space involvement and also per Joturner
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per Rory096. --
'''Oppose''' per joturner and also very low experience, please try again in three months and get some experience on AFD first.
'''Weak oppose''', does not warn vandals after reverting their changes. To quote TigerShark, ''the <nowiki>{{test1}}</nowiki> warning is more important than the rollback button''.
'''Oppose'''. The user '''is''' on the way to adminship, but '''not''' there yet. CorbinSimpson, if there are occasional civility issues now, wait until you have to deal with an editor who thinks you (are abusing your powers/are out to get me/have no life outside Wikipedia/etc.).
'''Oppose'''. Needs much more experience.--
'''Oppose''' per joturner --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Joturner|Joturner]].  Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=52440812 this diff suggesting "a high level of corruption"] suggests a lack of belief in consensus.  --
'''Oppose'''.Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' per joturner--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]], and due to fairly low edit count, and the general nature of the edits. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Not enough contributions/experience.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' as per joturner + inexperience.
'''Oppose''' - the diffs that joturner have identified leads me to believe that promotion would be unsafe. -
'''Oppose''' the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=52440812 diff] from Elkman demonstrates that this user doesn't understand what they are asking for.
'''Oppose''' per low edit count and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets&diff=prev&oldid=53637078 This Edit] leads me to believe user is not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per joturner. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per above. -
'''Oppose''' Low edit count.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''': foul language in edit summaries make for a poor editing environment and do not well-qualify one for adminship, in my view.
'''Oppose'''. I think a little more experience is required. --
'''Oppose'''. Per joturner and because of the low main space edits.
'''Strong oppose''' for poor judgment, "[[J'accuse]]" posturing, and unsupported conspiracy theories in the recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#User:Thewolfstar_and_the_community.27s_patience affair of User:Thewolfstar], all of it well illustrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=52438486&oldid=52438367 this post] on ANI. It's rather long, but for anybody interested in more light on some of the candidate's views which ''don't'' come out in the Standard Questions, I strongly recommend a read-through. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=52440812 diff]  posted by Elkman above is if possible even more illuminating.
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen and others.
'''Oppose''': I understand folks getting frustrated, but the answer is more careful and open minded discussion, not more furtive glances and rallying of the troops.  I'm concerned that disagreeing with blocks might turn into overturning blocks and additional factionalism.
'''Oppose'''. Low edit count and somewhat unconvincing answers.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Serious concern this user would abuse the tools due to past errors in judgement and association with users involved in the "anti-censorship" undercurrent. .:.
'''Neutral'''. The user has good intentions but could use some more practice before getting the mop. Still, I won't oppose so I prefer a neutral vote. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Neutral''', per Tone. <b>
'''Neutral''', seems close to admin material, but frivilous use of strong language is worrisome. Would like to see a little more sensitivity. Still, not enough to oppose. If such comments are taken onboard and another request be forthcoming, i'll support then.
'''Neutral'''. Not admin material, but nearly there. Has good intentions.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Nominator support''' - An honor to cast the first vote for the reasons listed above.
'''Support''' looks fine to me. I like the smile campaign. Smile! :-) --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' insofar as I can see, everything looks amazing. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.
''':) Support''' - great user who can use the tools --
'''Support''' despite low edit count.  Work at mediation and protection more than overcomes lack edits in  other areas.
'''Support''' And note that edit count here is misleading since Cowman has handled mediations by email.
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Every reason to. <tt>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. No reasons to believe that his edit count is <s>lower</s> higher than his civility and experience. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' His conduct is a good role model for fellow wikipedians.
'''Support''' for the sometimes thankless and much needed Mediation Cabal work, I override my own editcountitis.
'''Support'''(thanks for striking out a support vote for yourself by an anon.) Have seen him almost everywhere on [[WP:RFPP]] commenting about requests, so I think it's time to allow him to take on these - by giving him the mop.
'''Support''' per above. Would make great admin despite lower edit counts.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Appears to be doing very well with the Mediation Cabal and other tasks, and interest in an uncommon admin area will be useful.  Edit counts may be low, but editcountitis (inflammation of the edit count) has its own problems.  --
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', won't abuse the mop. --
'''Support''' per nomination.  Keeping people happy and providing leadership through example is just as important as mainspace edits.  Good answers, too.
'''Support''' as per nom. I've seen the man around and he does some good editing.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''', I think that an admin should have stronger interest to the Article space than his 378 contributions (only 128 major) suggests.
'''Weak Oppose''' due to concerns brought by [[User:Alex Bakharev]] above. Involvement in the actual purpose of Wikipedia (to produce an encyclopedia) seems too low at this point. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Oppose''' per abakharev.
'''Oppose''' lack of contributions to articles.
'''Oppose''' up-and-coming editor, just needs a little more time and edits to demonstrate knowledge of policy, trend looks good though, mediation participation a good sign, I anticipate supporting in the future. --
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari.  Not ready now.  --
'''Oppose'''. Too less contribution to article space worries me. He is level-headed and definitely a future "admin material" (as people would put it). Spend some more time on the encyclopedia editing articles and you will get my support. As I would put it: ''User knows the knife, but not the butter.'' -
'''Oppose'''. Article contributions a bit tow low, along with edits/day. Keep up the good work though. Recognition of errors and POV will increase with time and article edits.'''
'''Oppose'''. Level headed, and definitly future admin material, but too little experience in project space (outside of your excellent work in the mediation cabal) to give confidence that you know the 'ways of the mop'. Some back soon with some good experience of *fd/rfa/drv, and I'd easily support you, but not yet. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. A little more experience shall be better. --
'''Oppose''', pretty much as per above.  This is an encyclopaedia, not a web community, and the paucity of article space edits suggest there'd be too little familiarity with article issues, which is what admins mainly need to deal with.
'''Oppose'''; I don't think this user has put enough effort into the encyclopedia.  I admire his MedCab work, but still can't support.
'''Oppose'''  This nomination is simply too soon: too few article edits and too few project edits suggests lack of experience.  Keep up the good work, and come back in at least three months.
No need for tools. It's likely this will become a pile-on, so I'd advise you withdraw and spend some time editing and learning the ins-and-outs of the site and site policy. Get an [[WP:ER|editor review]], too, before your next request. '''Oppose'''. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' While we appreciate your eagerness, your edit count and amount of experience is simply too low for a detailed analysis of your contributions. I may support after you have had a few months here and have acquainted yourself with Wikipedia processes. As for now, I urge withdrawal. Best of luck, <sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
Less than 50 edits isn't really enough to assess your candidacy, let alone show you have enough experience here. Besides that, admin tools aren't required for vandal-fighting. It's pretty impressive that you've already found AIV. If you want coaching, I'd be happy to help you.--
'''Oppose''' You have not enough history for us to be able assess your ability to be a sysop. At this time you have no need for extra tools. Give yourself at least three more months to become more familiar with Wikipedia process and policies. I too urge you to withdraw.--
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=93068935 No]. I wish I could moral support, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Crawfordknights no]. Withdraw and try again in about 6 months. -
'''Oppose''' - Inexperienced. --
'''Nominator support'''. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A dedicated vandal fighter.  '''[[User:culverin|<font color="darkblue">Culv</font>]][[User:culverin/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' a good editor
'''Support''' looks like a good mainspace editor, although remember to keep a cool temperament.--
'''Support''' a very helpful and friendly user. -- ''
'''Weak Support''' The aforementioned edit summary is less incivil when one realizes it's in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hancock&diff=prev&oldid=94414453 this edit]. (The more appropriate edit summary, Crazytales, would have been less conversational. Sometimes it encourages vandals if they think they are getting a personal reaction.) Hopefully, Crazytales will be more circumspect and less indecorous in the future.
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|fel]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">lib</font>]]
'''Moral support''' I must commend Crazytales on his recent determination to improve despite the collapsing RfA. His vandalfight in the past two days is very impressive and I hope that he won't feel discouraged by this RfA and continue such great work in order to achieve a successful RfA in the near future.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Moral support. I strongly agree with Húsönd. Keep up the good edits, and you'll likely make it next time round. &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''' We can do without edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.119.109.57&action=history this], as pointed out by [[User:Agent 86|Agent86]] below.
'''Weak oppose''' I'm sorry Crazytales, you are a great editor, and your participation in project space is good and varied. However, it only takes a few edit summaries like that to make people angry. The best way to combat vandals is throw bland templates at them until they get frustrated by it all. I understand how you might take it personally, a lot of vandalism I see around here raises my blood pressure a little as well, but administrators have to stay cool under pressure and remain disconnected from the situation. I'm opposing for now, but I think you would make a good candidate in a few more months with some continued work on remaining as aloof as possible. None of us should play the same tricks that vandals do. (Also, why is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.164.253.104&action=history self revert not acceptable]?) <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong Oppose''' That diff that Yuser displayed was too much for me not to, basically I expect potential admins to be civil to those who aren't. If it was older I would remain at support but that was very recent. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose''' I don't like the idea of an RfA while you're running for ArbCom, it looks like an attempted power-grab. I would oppose anyway, though, on the basis of the link and points raised above. '''
'''Oppose'''.  Unconvincing answer to Q1, & ''that'' edit summary.
'''Oppose''' An admin ''has'' to remain civil, and what I see in the edit summary doesn't comply. Sorry. ←
'''Oppose''' Extremely incivil edit summary disqualifies candidate for now.  Irrespective of his age, there are serious maturity concerns here.
'''Weak oppose'''.  Good at fighting vandals, but you don't need to be an admin to do that.  What admins need is civility; this user is civil most of the time, but could use some seasoning and experience to develop it better.  I'd say keep editing, and re-apply after some time passes and more experience is gained.  Also, displaying a userbox in which you claim to eschew grammar will not win you support around here. --[[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Civility is not an optional criteria for an admin. Answers to questions do not inspire confidence. Sysop powers are not necessary to fighting vandalism and in my opinion this user lacks the maturity to use them.-
'''Strong Oppose''' per that offensive edit summary pointed out by Agent 86.  I have now changed to Strong Oppose per the fact that the candidate did not disclose his previous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cchan199206 failed RfA]  under his different name as pointed out by A_Train.
'''Strong Oppose''' per edit summary pointed out by Yuser31415
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, it's not just the edit summary, but the maturity that making such an edit summary shortly after listing your RfA demonstrates.  The cornerstones of adminship qualification in my book are maturity, civility and judgement--I'm afraid you damaged my opinion on all three accounts. --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=94586596] - policies are not the place to express your opinion.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned over the lack of civility being shown in some of your edits which have been pointed out in the above oppose comments. An admin has to remain civil at all times. Please do not take this to heart and address these issues in the next few months. If this is done, I am sure the Wikipedia community would forgive your past actions. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' that diff provided by BigDT did it for me. Don't use policy pages to [[WP:POINT|make a point]].--
'''Oppose''' -- not at this time sorry. Perhaps with a track record of a few good months behind you and I'd reconsider. -
'''Opppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Crazytales is a good, well-meaning editor. Far, far too much hay has been made of that edit summary; even the most level-headed of us has said something regrettable like that and in context it was far from a mortal sin. I am not particularly impressed with the candidate's answers to the questions, although he was sporting in obliging me with answering #6. With due consideration to the answers, I am concerned about consistent enforcement and application of policy. I am also a bit nonplussed by his failure to disclose [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cchan199206|his prior RfA]] under a different username.
'''Oppose''' Quality editor whose personality shows through a bit too often.
I'll have to change to neutral. Too few talkspace and WP talk edits. -
'''Neutral'''. You seem like an excellent and friendly Wikipedian. You participate in XfD's, AIV reports, vandal-fighting, etc. However, I feel you don't have that much experience in the article namespace. Looking over your edits, I don't see you getting that much involved in article discussions and such, and that worries me a bit since admins need to also be reasonably good dispute resolvers/mediators. '''
'''Neutral''' for the moment. I have no concern whatsoever about the drop in your contributions - real life should have priority. I was leaning towards support, however, I cannot do so unless the nominee can explain why he felt it necessary to include [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.119.109.57&action=history this edit summary] when warning a vandal earlier today. Fighting vandalism is one thing, but I don't see why it can't be done in a civil manner.
'''Neutral''' You just need more experience and please avoid lapses in civility, even towards vandals. But you are a good editor and if you reapply after some more work, I will gladly support you.
'''Neutral''' for all of the reasons discussed above.  Get some more experience in admin areas such as XfD and vandal fighting/ reverting.  Holding your tongue when under extreme provocation is ''de rigeur'' for admins - we have to put up with a lot of flack and abuse, so keeping a cool head is vital.
'''Neutral''' per TSO1D and (aeropagitica). Needs some more civility. '''''
'''Neutral''' I see some good things and some bad things in the non-admin AfD closures (nothing as bad as the one I royally screwed up). History of counter-vandalism and reports to AIV is good for someone who will be blocking. I think folks are making a lot more hay out of this edit summary than is really necessary, but that's me.--
'''Neutral''' per [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] and [[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]]. '''[[User:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="red">T</font><font color="green">ennis</font>]] [[User Talk:Tennis Dynamite|<font color="green">Dy</font><font color="red">N</font><font color="green">ami</font><font color="red">T</font><font color="green">e</font>]]''' <sup>(
'''Neutral''' No obvious need for tools.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to see you as an admin one day, but not just yet. Keep up the good work. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Neutral''' It does not reflect on your abilities, but I don't feel that a handle with complicated numbers like you have is a good fit for an administrator.  I'm not trying to be jerky, but people should be able to easily get ahold of or reference someone via name, and with yours, they'd either need to copy/paste it from your sig or have it written down somewhere.  As this RFA seems to be heading in a direction that doesn't result in promotion just yet, I encourage you to consider putting in for a username change request before you run again. -
'''Neutral''' Probably a good editor. As has been pointed out by someone citing an edit summary, civility is important, but I don't want to oppose for now since it's only an isolated incident.
'''Support''' I think that Crisspy would make a good admin. Wikipedia is '''way''' too bureaucratic and Crisspy would stop that.
'''Support''' I'd vote for Crisspy b/c he does 3 strikes instead of 1 strike.
''' Strongest Possible Support''' I think Crisspy is incredibly eligible for admin. He did not realize that no campaigning is allowed, so that would explain the links that the opposing parties show. He gave strong answers to all of the questions, using the three-strike method for promising justice. He has dedicated a lot of his effort, work and time to wikipedia, and that's what makes a terrific, respectable admin. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Strong Support''' I have done some research, and Crisspy is just what we need for an admin: hardworking, respectful, dedicated, and intelligent. He will make sure that wikipedia stays in great condition, and he will deal with rulebreakers with justice and fairness.
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' - not listed properly on the main RFA page, weak answer to question 1, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keithgreer&curid=2101852&diff=65161165&oldid=64118571 spamming user talk pages] with this RFA, general inexperience (only 267 mainspace edits, oldest one at 31 March 2006), odd three-strike proposal which demonstrates lack of basic understanding of existing warning policies and practices. (
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=65225155&oldid=65188943 Malformed] nomination.
'''Oppose''' inexperience as demonstrated by malformed nom. --
'''Oppose''' per ESkog. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong oppose''' sorry, but if you can't follow the instructions to correctly list your RfA, I have no confidence in your abilities to correctly use the mop. The campaigning for your RfA is also a bad idea and you edit count is too low for me to support you.
'''Strong Oppose''' Malformed RfA, inapropriate campaigning, No project space edits outside of RfA, creation of inapropriate redirects to User page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guille_Tin&diff=prev&oldid=62967479], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guille&diff=prev&oldid=62967584], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisspy&diff=prev&oldid=60371210] conclusively demonstrate lack of necessary policy knowledge and experience to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Don't meet my standards and isn't an exception, like ikiroid, but I thought he was a sysop so I voted for him. [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color="red">sta</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|<font color="green">EB</font>]] ([[user:GangstaEB/PenguinLog#Ice Slides|sliding logs]]~
'''Stronger than the strongest possible oppose'''. Can some please de-list this RfA?
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I never like opposing, but less than 1000 edits really is too little for an RfA. Also seems not to know even the bare minmum of policy required for admiship. I'm sure you're a good user Crisspy, why not just wait a bit longer 'till you ask for the tools again? [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per the evidence provided by Eluchil404, Nakonkantari, others. No offence; you seem like a good user, you just need a little more experience.--<font color="#999fff">
'''Strong Oppose''' - Advertising an RFA by spamming people is an auto oppose out of me, vandalistic looking edits trouble me too, in short, no way --
'''[[WP:SNOWBALL]] please, oppose'''
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all above --
'''Oppose''' too new. Please come back when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' and add my voice to the call for a close to this RfA.
I support CrnaGora all the way after I read his article at my friend's house. After reading his articles, I checked what he had on other sites and his information was accurate.
'''Support''' Open minded.--
'''Oppose''' - too few edits, too new, and the mistakes made in getting this request up speak volumes. --
'''Oppose'''. 117 edits, with basically no [[edit summaries]]. Did not even notice the text saying that new nominations go on top. In all, lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Hi there, I hope you stick around and help write some good articles, but with only 117 edits you are not quite ready for the extra responsibilities that being an admin will bring you. Come back in, say, three months when you have added lots of useful words here and there.
'''Oppose'''. Self-nom stuck this down at the bottom of the RfA page, and used the ''vote tally'' to put in todays date (eg. '''(1/14/06)'''). The 1-edit sockpuppet doesn't help either. Too few edits, with most of them within own user namespace, and the very few project edits. Almost no edit summary usage.&#160;—
'''Opppose''' as per above.
'''Oppose''' per above. Also, this user has little understanding of IP law. &#126;
'''Oppose'''. Not nearly enough experience. Suggest you withdraw and come back in around 3 months when you have spread your edits around the various areas of Wikipedia.--
'''Oppose'''.  Barely any edit summaries, very low edit count, no experience in categories,temlates, images, barely any talk items either.
'''Oppose'''. Self-nom plus suck-poppet? Also tooo little time and experience.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal of nomination as clearly premature.
'''Respectfully Oppose''' I believe this is my first ever oppose. To be honest I would like to say "Support" because in the early days all users had admin access and it worked reasonably well. However, due to factors involving such a large project I feel that this guy needs more experience. Nevertheless I hope you stick around. --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Oppose''', reminds me of my previous rfa :). Just needs more experience. I like your thoughts and views concerning the project. -
'''Neutral''' Please use edit summaries at all times.--
'''Support'''. User has fair amount of project edits, and is good with anti-vandalism. I registered around the same time as him, and he is as enthusiastic towards the encyclopedia. However, not much interaction with Users, and doesn't have email enabled '''
--
'''Support'''.  you want conveniance you can have it  -
'''Support'''. I trust this user's judgment.
'''Support'''. This user is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. Please keep up the good work, and do whatever the nitpickers below are suggesting :) Then come again soon if you don't make it this time. -
'''Support'''. This user is a valuable contributor to wikipedia, with a record of balanced, high-quality edits. While it may be argued that he does not have sufficient experience, I do not see that as a problem, because he is not at all likely to abuse admin powers. As Haukur said, just try again in a few months if you don't make it this time, Crotalus. Oh, and you have mail. :) --
'''Support'''. I see no reason to suspect that Crotalus will be a problem as an administrator. The more administrators, the more quickly problems (vandalism, patent nosense) can be reverted. --
--- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Oppose''' Only really active in December, needs a bit more experience --
'''Oppose''' I know quality of edits should be more important than quantity but surely this is not enough for adminship?
'''Oppose''' for now, user seems somewhat inexperienced with Wikipedia procedures. I'd suggest you take part in some more maintenance activities. I'd like to have a better sense of your judgement before I vote support in the future. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' Would like to see more user interaction. and more experience with other areas, such as categories and templates.
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see just a little more experience on talk pages and with the warning of vandals. Come back in a couple of months and I'm sure you'll be set.
Oppose for above reasons, but you're on the right track.  --
'''Oppose''' - needs more experience. Commendable edit summary usage, however. Should hopefully make a good admin at some point in the future.
'''Oppose'''. No user page, limited experience, limited edits except for recently, and limited interaction with other users. None of these would mean oppose by themselves, but together... I do notice a pattern of voting - keep on doing what you're doing and you'll have adminship in six months.
Reluctant '''oppose'''. I've seen this user around and he seems to be all OK, but judging by his contributions, he has way too little experience. Please reapply when you have close to 1000 edits. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' as per Ifnord. --
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose'''. I've only recently come to notice this editor being around, and from my entirely personal judgement I think more experience is needed. There's just ''stuff'' you learn with the passage of time, and being only really active since December is a factor of 3 or more too short by far. Just play around more, explore more, interact more, suggest more, generally come to show us by repeated good judgement that your judgement is thus, and try again in 2 or 3 months if you feel ready. You'll be quite surprised at how much happens in the meantime, and how much you learn in that time. (The amount I've learnt in the last 3 months is quite staggering, really, and I've been an admin for longer than that.) -
'''Oppose''': nothing personal, but I do agree with Splash here.
This RFA was clearly a little premature, especially as you have only really been active for a month. I'd suggest trying again in 3-6 months, since you seem to be otherwise spotless.
I'm certain you can make a userpage that avoids the userbox controversy for now; if you can get that done by Jan. 17th and I like what I see, I'll support you. --
'''Neutral'''. This editor doesn't quite have enough time in the trenches for me to support this month but is clearly in line for the tools.  Good edits, good interaction, even good use of edit summaries.  --
'''Neutral''' Good user, will support in the future with more experience.--
Nominator support '''
'''Support''' Qualified support pending the time to diligently search this out. I must believe that a user with 24,000 edits can be trusted with the mop, regardless of talk page edits.
'''Support'''. I've seen a lot of work from Crystallina over at WPSS and it's all very good work, and that overrides my concerns about lack of talk page edits to a reasonable extent. BUT ''you really need to up those talk page edits!'' If, as seems likely at the moment, this Rfa fails, an increase in interaction on talk pages would make adminship very likely on a future nomination.
'''Support'''.
Abominably low levels of talk abnd usertalk edits. An admin needs to have the experience of interacting with the community, not 20+K edits. - <b>
I reiterate the lack of talk edits.  For someone with over 23000 edits to have less than 300 edits on ALL categories of talk page is disturbing.  Especially if this user is a vandal fighter.  Shouldn't there be a slew of warning posted on user pages? Sorry but i would have to see this user interacting more with others to be able to determine if they are suitable for an admin role. Another issue is that almost all the edited pages are distinct. Is this because of the users contributions to stub sorting?  Crystallina mentions that "''I've gotten involved with a few discussions''".  Are there any diffs for these discussion, they would be useful to see how this user interacts with others?  -
'''Oppose''' For someone with around 24,000 edits to have only 103 user talk edits is absolutely ridiculous.  You need to interact a little more within the Wikipedia community and post more on user talk pages.  Also, a big part of adminship is dealing with vandals, which apparently, you have very limited experience with. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per David D.
'''Oppose''' inasmuch as I'm unable to discern whether the candidate is sufficiently well-versed in policy as to be unlikely to misuse (avolitionally) the admin tools (or is able to know whereof, vis-à-vis policy, she does not know), even as I am confident in her ability to act deliberatively and civilly (per [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my guidelines).  I share CrzRussian's concerns with respect to the nomination; I imagine the candidate ought not to have accepted such a terse nomination&mdash;and, ideally, not to have accepted a nomination from this nominator, of whom I think highly but who has of late, of course, been involved in such situations as to lead some editors to question his judgment (I make no normative assessment of the nominator; I mean only to make an objective observation about that which has happened in the community).
'''Oppose'''. Fails two of [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]], namely article and user talk edits. As mentioned above, the sheer total of edits in ratio to talk edits is disturbing. Acting in consultation is very important, and I would suggest the nom withdraw and focus on some article building and direct user interaction. I will support on re-app once this is done.
'''Nominated has withdrawn'''. -
'''Neutral'''. Blows my criteria out of the water. No charges of incivility. But, per [[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]], there is so little inter-editor communication. I can't oppose this nomination but can not support it either, sorry.
'''Neutral''' I am a little concerned that the candidate talks about thwarting vandalism and working on Afd's but if I look at the last 3000 edits or so (basically the last week and a half) I see about 95% stub sorting. I know I have stuck to AfD's recently, perhaps just currently focused on this, or if I look through 3000 more am I going to see the same thing?
'''Support''' with absolute pleasure! --
'''Support'''.  Looks alright.
'''Support'''. The opposition seems unable to launch a countering argument of sustainable merit :). Wait, this nom just started today...well...hmm, I still vote support.
'''Support''' per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my criteria]].
'''Support'''.  I followed [[Talk:Jesus]] for a short while and was very impressed by CTSWyneken.  --
'''Support''' A knowledgable and experienced editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He and I have frequently been on opposite sides of issues on the [[Jesus]] talk page, but he has always conducted himself in a proper manner in these disputes, and I feel he would conduct himself in the same manner as an administrator. --
'''Support''' per [[User:Amcbride|Allen]] and [[User:Drogo Underburrow|Drogo Underburrow]].--
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse tools.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.  From what I've seen of CTSWyneken at the [[Jesus]] article, he is extremely diligent about providing citations, and I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. It seems that CTSWyneken is a very experienced Wikipedia user and without a doubt I submit my vote of support.
'''Support'''. Always willing to compromise and seek peaceful solutions to conflicts. Stays even tempered works for NPOV. —
'''Support.''' As per Aiden and John k. [[User:Archola|Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring]]<sup><small><font color="green">[[User_talk:Archola|Talk]]</font></small></sup><font color="#404040">
'''Support''' For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support''' His edits always seem pretty good to me.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia needs diversity, people from every walk of life. CTSWyneken has proven that he is eminently able to negotiate. I would ask that the persons that oppose him would please reconsider.
'''Support'''. Why not?--
'''Support'''. --
'''Strongly Support'''. Per Aiden, John K, and Schultz IV. He has always been a calming influence in heated disputes... a necessity for problem resolution. --
'''Support''', clearly an excellent editor and no reason to fear misuse of admin tools.
As one of those who worked with CTSWyneken on a compromise on [[Martin Luther]] and [[Martin Luther and the Jews]], I '''support''' his nomination. ←
'''Support''', a mature editor who I am sure will be conscientious in his use of adminship tools following the guidleines and policies associated with those tools, including the postings of warnings.--
'''Support''' I have eddited with CTSWyneken before, and have found him to be a good editor --
'''Weak Support'''
'''Support''' per john k, though I also agree with Adam's comment in the neutral votes, and hope that that shortcoming could be improved before the next nomination if (as seems likely) this one is unsuccessful.
'''Support''' Very good editor, honest person.
'''Support''' ~
'''Oppose''' Almost strong oppose. (Even if the edit counter is faulty right now) It shows that he only has 29 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Although he might have a little more, maybe around 40, because the editcounter being broken right now I can't tell how many he actually has. Would like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits, at least 200, to meet my criteria for administrator. In addition, his answers to the questions below aren't very convincing.
'''Oppose'''. I had a bad experience with this editor at [[Martin Luther]] and related articles. He seemed determined to delete all mention of Luther's anti-Semitism (which was extreme and unambiguous) from Wikipedia, repeatedly deleting even a link to one of Luther's texts, invoking copyright law because the link led to a translation. In the end I had to stop editing the articles because of his intransigence and revert warring. His partners on the Luther articles were [[User:StanZegel]] and [[User:drboisclair]], who engaged in [[User_talk:StanZegel#Luther_and_Anti-Semitism|this exchange]], with StanZegel expressing the view that: "Jews should learn Christian charity: forgiveness and not consuming hatred. Yes, insults may have been given, injustices may been done, but that happens to everybody. Get over it! Get on with life! Competitive Victimhood is so unbecoming." I'm also concerned that CTSW has almost no project edits.
'''Oppose''' Few project edits suggest that editor is unfamiliar with wiki-process.
'''Oppose'''- mainly due to low Wikipedia namespace edits (only 29), with only a few votes on WP:RfA and [[WP:AfD]]. The edit summary usage is slightly too low, at 81% for major edits and 64% for minor edits. Near 50% of the edits have been on [[Jesus]], [[Martin Luther]], [[Martin Luther and the Jews]], and their talk pages, and the range of editing is pretty narrow, with nearly all pages edited more than once being related to [[Christianity]]. Also, per [[User:Moe Epsilon]], the answers to the questions below aren't very informative. ''
'''Oppose''' per Slimvirgin.
'''Oppose''' Per Above, Only one image, not active enough with the Wikipedia community.  Please fix this and try again.
'''Oppose''' Needs more time.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and Moe.  Nothing personal.  --
'''Oppose''', too narrow a focus, not enough participation in the day-to-days of what it means to be an admin.  If all he's going to do is edit, he doesn't need aminship.
'''Oppose''' CTSWyneken is always polite, and I've worked well with him, but I think his focus is still very narrow.  Broader experience would be quite helpful.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and Jayjg.
'''Oppose''' due to an extremely narrow range of editing and also a lack of involvement in procedural matters.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:AndyZ]] &mdash;<font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Slim, Moe <s>and Jay.</s>
'''Oppose''', too little community participation.
'''Weak Oppose''' a bit more edit distribution would be well recieved. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' Concerns about narrow focus of contributions and answers to the questions aren't convincing. However my main concerns are that for somebody who mentions vandalism fighting as a reason for needing the mop, he has never posted to [[WP:AIAV]] and doesn't seem to regularly post warnings on user talk pages when reverting vandalism.
'''Oppose''' - very low on Wikipedia namespace edits, and, while I don't have a threshold, actual article edits could be higher too. Recent (March 2006) edits on [[WP:AN/I]] suggest unfamiliarity with the warning/block process. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' - very less contribution to wiki space.
'''Oppose''', not enough projectspace edits.
'''Oppose''' per Slimvirgin and Moe --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Oppose''' Lacks diversity regarding article selection.
'''Oppose''' I agree with the assessment of Generic69 regarding the conduct of CTSWyneken: "This is one of the most ridiculous, petty, and vindictive things that I've ever seen here on Wikipedia , and that's saying a whole lot."  He is too "motivated by ... personal hostility and not by any bona fide concern ..."  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AAnti-Semitic_people&diff=37723866&oldid=37571693 ref] Is this conduct you expect from an admin? My experience with CTSWyneken is that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. One of his documented strategies is to enlist other Lutheran editors not as Wikipedians but as Lutherans to assist in his POV wars and prosecution of those who would defy his seemingly insatiable drive to control the content of "his" articles. For example, CTSWyneken says, "could you do me a favor and look in on the Talk page of Martin Luther and the Jews." He continues, "It is proving very difficult, since '''I'm the sole Lutheran voice here at the moment.'''" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rekleov&diff=31414861&oldid=24316079 ref] CTSWyneken, then thanks his mate here for reverting non-Lutheran contributions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rekleov&diff=33442929&oldid=33129967 ref]
'''Oppose''' per Moe. <font color="AE1C28">

'''Oppose''' per the many valid concerns raised by other oppose votes. —
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. This was close, and I almost supported, but in the end I have to agree it would be good for the nominee to have a little bit broader range of editing, as well as increasing the use of edit summaries. Will almost certainly support in the future if this is addressed.
'''Strong oppose'''. I would have loved to support, but the references provided by several oppose voters are highly disturbing and seem to shown an agenda. .:.
'''Oppose''' - admins need to have an even-handedness - a neutral voice. CTSWyneken should be an editor. -
'''Oppose''', likely to abuse tools.
'''Oppose''' -- Talks too much.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] and [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]]
'''Oppose''' and that's a rare vote for me.  I'm not entirely pleased to see the very narrow focus of edits, but even worse there seems to be some serious POV issues.  As diffs above show as per Doright and others, this editor seems to have an explicitly self-identified POV and is interested in pushing it.  An argument that he should be an admin because his POV is underrepresented (this argument was made above) is easily the worst argument I've ever seen made on RfA EVAR. --
'''Oppose'''. That's also a rare vote for me. S/he does not seem to be actively involved in fighting vandalism, assisting new users, or any tasks that may be made easier through having SysOp tools. I feel this editor seeks adminship only to gain an upper hand in disputes, of which s/he has had many. I was bothered by many of the answers to his/her questions below--s/he seems to merely sidestep the question and attempt to provide the answer we want to hear. Most particularly, I was bothered by his/her answer to number 4 (although I strongly detest hypothetical questions), where the obvious answer is "You don't take sides!" The correct solution, IMO, would be to semiprotect the article and aid the users in finding a compromise, or to get the help of others who may know more about the article. Again, that merely affirmed my belief that the user is intent upon becoming an admin merely to help push his/her opinion in disputes. Long story short, though I don't feel adminship is that big of a deal, I truly do not feel that I could trust this user.
Needs more participation in process.
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]].
'''Neutral'''. A great editor, but needs more participation in the community.--
'''Neutral'''. Per Adam.
'''Neutral'''. Per Adam, for me not a reason to actually oppose. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose, per Adam. --


Nominate and support.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Yeehaa, sorry wanted to doe that. 35000 edits! Hell i'm trouble getting to 2000, you'll make a great admin.

'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Weak Support''' Your answer to question 1 is weak. However, I have taken the number of edits you have made under consideration and feel that you are a very experience user of this project. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. Thus the ''weak support'' opinion on my part. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I have seen this user do great template and category work, and I think that he would benefit from the ability to do protected page edits. I don't think this user would abuse the admin tools, but, given his propensity to do tedious work willinngly, I was hoping for a better vision of what he'd like to do with them. At the same time, adminship should be no big deal, so I don't see a reason to hold back my support. —
'''Weak Support''' I'll support since your a very good editor, but your answer to question 1 is weak. Consider expanding.
'''Support.''' OMG ABSOLUTELY!!!! [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I do not have much experience in voting for administrators, but after looking at this user's contributions I trust CyberSkull not to abuse or greatly misuse the tools. I would say that is the most important criteria in voting.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I'm sure he wouldn't abuse the tools. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' as there's no indication CS would abuse the tools, even if he uses them rarely (for editing protected pages perhaps, as TKD suggested).--
'''Support''', looks okay to me. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Ye gods, support'''.  Two years experience, 35K edits, ''no'' indication that this editor has ever been responsible for ''any'' sort of serious conflict or trouble.  We're not electing a president here; the guy doesn't need a policy platform and four-year action plan.  Can this editor be trusted not to abuse the tools?  Looks like yes.  Will he find things to do with them?  Oh, probably.  Does the guy respond politely and constructively to questions, comment, and criticism on his talk page?  Yep.  Would it be silly to force him through ''another'' RfA in six months if he comes up with some specific uses for the tools?  Hell yes.
'''Support''' strong record, I'm not going to fret over undercooked answers.--
'''Support'''.  The fact that he's not planning to go mad with the admin powers is a plus point in my book.
'''Support'''&mdash;Just sit down & read through the Wikipedia namespace & you’ll quickly see that in spite of low-key responses here, CyberSkull understands policy well. Sure it might be nice if CyberSkull promised to go out and solve all Wikipedia’s problems, but CyberSkull does understand & will undoubtedly act, but without overzealous application. We won’t regret giving CyberSkull the powers to delete/undelete/block/unblock. Let’s do it - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' Meets
'''Strong Support''' - been here for almost 2 years and appears to have a full knowledge of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=CyberSkull&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6 image] policy --
'''Support''' hasn't broken anything in 35,000 edits. Not promising the world in his answers is a good sign too.
'''Support'''. Answer to question 4 is better, and I was probably being too harsh anyway.
'''Support''' despite wrong answer to trick question.
'''Support''' user has satisfied my only concern with answer in q4.  Obviously with over 30k edits this user is more than qualified.--
'''Strong support'''.  CyberSkull was one of the first users I interacted with when I started editing here, over at [[WP:CVG|WikiProject Computer and video games]]. He was principally responsible for my deciding to stick around, although I'm sure he doesn't know it.  That's what I like about him, though; he's going around editing like mad, and doesn't stop to sniff the politics.  Even though his answers to the questions are kind of weak, I have no doubt that he would be a productive admin once he got into it, and no problem trusting him with the tools. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Suppport'''.  --
'''Support''' - The first question wasn't exactly answered very well, but I have faith he'll know what to do when the time comes. Repairs to Wikipedia won't be snubbed anyway. '''
'''Strong support'''. Your answer to question four removed any concern from my mind. If even a tiny percentage of this user's edits are devoted to admin chores it will a huge benefit to wikipedia. And finally, if this user thought adminship was a trophy, don't you think adminship would have been requested... ummm... 30,000 edits ago?
'''Support''': seems like a good user that won't misuse the tools.
'''Support''': Agree with "support" consensus.
'''Support'''. New answer to question one satisfies me enough. Clealy not short on experience, and I don't see any other problems.
'''Support''' per nom.  --
'''(edit conflict) Support''' Per Grandmasterka. 0% chance of abuse of admin tools. ——
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no reason not to do so. &mdash;
'''Ye Olde Support''' <strong>
'''Strong Support''' The objections are not very strong to prevent me from supporting this dedicated wikipedian.
'''Oppose''' doesn't appear to know why they want to be an admin.--<font style="background:white">

Personally, I was troubled by his repeated reverts of the templates in [[:Category:Wrong_title_templates]] and his apparent refusal to talk about the issue, as he ignored my posts across multiple talk pages. ([[User_talk:CyberSkull#Hello]], or look at my template talk contribs.) While I'm not sure that my own conduct in that incident was exemplary, his definitely left me with a bad impression.
'''Oppose''' per answer to Question 1, which lists no admin tasks; and Christopher Parham, who cited diff does call into question editor's civility.
[[WP:AGF]] demands that editors be trusted with the tools unless circumstances dictate otherwise. In this case I find the answer to question 1 by the editor suggest that the editor is not aware of what adminship is. Of course I am willing to re-consider my opinion if my judgement is mistaken. —
'''Oppose''' you don't seem to need admin tools.
'''Oppose''' since the question answers don't indicate any desire to actually use admin tools, and adminship isn't a badge of honour.
'''Oppose''' as what the candidate wants to do does not seem to require admin status ---
'''Oppose'''.  I really wanted to support, as I find the "doesn't need admin status" responses off-base sometimes; however, your answer to Question 3 really worries me:  "I also disagree with the restrictions on fair use galleries and preferences for free images over copyrighted regardless of quality."
'''Oppose''' per answers to initial and followup questions.  I just don't get the sense that CyberSkull really knows why he wants to be an admin.  Having as many edits as he does (and remember, adminship is not a reward) and not being aware of the backlogs is, frankly, disturbing.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Yes, 35k edits is wonderful and shows dedication.  However, I don't get the sense that CyberSkull actually wants, much less needs, the extra buttons.  As Cholmes says, a lack of knowledge about the backlogs after two years is rather strange.
The entire point of the Wikipedia project is to make a ''freely redistributable'' encyclopedia.  We don't need any more people with buttons who don't understand that (see response to question 3).  And yes, that was me who was involved in the whole MusicBrainz thing, but that was awhile ago during the whole userbox thing and I don't hold anything against him for that.  --
'''Oppose''' per answers to question 1 and 3. Doesn't seem to need the tools with the tasks you are describing. On question 3, you are in suppor to fair use galleries, and you don't like the preference for free over copyright. We can't just have fair use galleries lying around. Fair use images are there to better explain a certain article, and nothing else. There aren't just lying around for people to put in galleries. -
'''Oppose''' Doesn't seem to need admin tools. A good editor, but adminship is not a reward. While experienced, doesn't seem to understand what it means to be an administrator. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCyberSkull&diff=81875998&oldid=81875734 this comment] has me a bit worried, too. --
'''Oppose''' Have to agree with many above.  I have nothing but respect for almost all of the work Cyber has done, but my main criteria for adminship is looking for people who have a talent for discussions that lead to consensus.  I, similar to [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] above, found his conduct off-putting [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_20#Category:Article_titles_with_lowercase_initial_letters|here]].  Chris and I were trying to solve a problem in good faith.  Cyber's response seemed like a one-person attempt to block consensus.    There are times when a single person needs to try and block consensus, but if they do, they also need to take on the responsibility for explaining their actions and work to convince others of their errors.  --
'''Oppose''': doesn't seem ready yet.
'''Oppose'''. A bit naive IMHO, plus sounds like a big geek to me. --
'''Oppose'''. I would like to support, but I agree with Srose and Cholmes, and also per answer to question 3.
'''Oppose''' No clear need for the tools.
'''Neutral''' can't see much need for admin tools. Expand your answers and I may change to support. --
'''Neutral''' Your answer to question 1 doesn't reveal a requirement for admin tools.  I don't doubt, with 37k edits, that you are a good and responsible editor and would probably make an equally good admin.  I might change my vote if you expand upon your answer to question 1 and demonstrate where and when you would use the admin tools.
'''Neutral'''. I could have opposed this if I didn't think you were a good editor, but you are and my only reason to go neutral on you is per your answer to Q1. It seems like there's no real need for you to even have admin tools at the moment based on your reply. I suggest you either expand your answer to Q1, or think again about what admins are to do.
'''Neutral''' I can't see any cons, but likewise I can't see why would you need the admin tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. You are a great editor, but as many people already said, your answer to question 1 is very weak and doesn't show an urgent need to use admin tools; I'm about to change my vote to weak oppose only due to that answer. Consider expanding and I'll support you. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Neutral''' — Sorry, but i cant see a need at present. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral'''. Excellent user and major contributor to WikiProject CVG, but doesn't appear to need the tools. Adminship isn't a reward, so I don't think it would be appropriate. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. I would like to see a better answer for question one. '''''
'''Support''' answers are good. Best of luck! --
I thought he was one. &ndash;
'''Support.''' I find nothing wrong with his application of WP:IAR, and as much as I would like to oppose for his (in my opinion) extremely over-rigorous RfA support criteria, I find no evidence that this candidate can't handle sysop tools. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user -- I've always found him civil and courteous. Although my personal stance on IAR is to ignore any use of it, per itself, I find nothing distressing in candidate's response on that question.
'''Support''': Oppose 3 is just plain wrong. Cynical didn't oppose because he didn't like the nominator; he opposed because the nominator made a misleading claim in his nomination. There's a difference. Nor does Oppose 1 really impress either; if you put yourself forward for RFA you really should have bothered to have read some of the guidelines beforehand; not to do so is lazy, and you shouldn't be surprised of you wind up with a series of pile-on opposes. Fires of adversity forging a masterwork, anyone? This seems like a good all-round candidate with a healthy editcount break-down and excellent dedication to the project. My only slight qualm is the lack of any GAs or FAs - we are here to write an encyclopedia, after all -, but that's not really a reason to oppose, and there are plenty of reasons to support.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Moreschi's comments. Seems a very good and sincere user as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]], and opposing based on RfA voting patterns strikes me as foolish, at best.  '''ANYONE CAN VOTE AT RfA''' - denying the mop ain't going to change this users voting patterns.
'''Support''' :) --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems okay, and there's something admirable about self-nomination.

'''Support'''. I've taken a bit of time to closely consider the concerns listed below and to look at the nominee's track record, user page, etc. After careful consideration, nothing put forth in the oppose comments really convince me that this candidate ought to be denied the tools. Most of the "problematic" edits given as examples are not as egregious or unreasonable as I think they are described. This nominee demonstrates a need for the tools and I have no problem trusting him with them.
'''AGF Support'''. Not strictly meeting my standards but I'm willing to take and give a chance.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' after reviewing the Oppose section. What the hell a voting pattern on RfA has to do with being suitable for adminship? Nothing at all.
'''Support''' per [[WP:AGF]], and per belief that, barring major cases of incivility or other abusive behaviors, expressing an opinion in a discussion should not be held against anyone. -

'''Support''' per above and specifically Agent 86. Good editor who would work effectively as an admin.
'''Support''' I think Cynical would be a better asset with admin tools than without and is probably unlikely to change his RfA.  Though I disagree with excessive opposals, I disagree that this is relavent to community spirit and adminship.--
'''Support''' Issues on "voting" behavior do not bother me. Wish you best of luck! ——
'''Support.'''   Based on their answer to my question, it likely shows they would be very thoughtful over their decisions as an admin.
'''Support.''' I see nothing alarming in high standards for adminship--particularly since RFA has nothing to do with the tools, and I share some of Malber's concerns about this vote. If Cynical was going for 'crat I might feel differently, but adminship seems perfectly reasonable since RFA has little to do with the tools. I was a little worried by the per nom responses, but the answers demonstrate a thoughtful analysis of the issues concerned.
'''Support'''. So what, the user's made mistakes. Big deal. So what if he opposes votes - he's entitled to his POV. Seems like a nice user. --
'''Strong Oppose - No fricken way'''. On
'''Oppose''' Finding out after the fact that your application of [[WP:IAR]] was incorrect is a bad way to operate and can lead to many potential unnecessary confilcts. I'd like to see a little bit more maturity in the answers to questions to dispute resolution as this is IMO one of the most important functions of an admin. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' generally because of the concerns raised by Glen.  Further, I firmly believe that one should avoid pile-on opposes in RfA.  I'm also concerned by the use a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cynical/RFA_voting_record&diff=prev&oldid=46206647 profanity] to describe the failure of a nominee to properly set up an RfA page, when you could have used more diplomatic words would suffice.--
'''Oppose''' per diff provided by Oleg. Mathbot is a very useful tool, and edit summaries are important.
'''Oppose''' voting record is alarming.--
'''weak oppose'''. Cynical's contribs shows a good range of contribution to vandalism reversion, user warning, afd participation, and particularly prod-watching. However I'm not 100% happy with some of the incivility highlighted above. Boilerplate voting on the buscuit afds (a group of articles about biscuits/cookies that were speedy deleted, brought to deletion review, restored and procedurally nominated at AfD) e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magic_middles&diff=prev&oldid=80707687] was posted to almost all ~30 debates. Yes they were all speedily deleted and restored as a group, but in my opinion comments and reccomendations on AfDs should relate to the article being considered in that debate. If you feel something is worthy/not worthy of an article you should be able to say why, in terms of that article. I'm also troubled by edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Famous_Amos&diff=prev&oldid=80706319]. The community consensus is that AfDs should be consensus driven not votes, and consensus is imho one of the key things an admin should show commitment to - you should be making edits just "to keep the 'afd is not a vote' mob happy", you should be one of the 'afd is not a vote' "mob". When closing sock/meatpuppet infested AfDs, or ones where one side of the debate expressed clear polocy-backed reasons and the otherside vauge "I've heard of it it needs an article" handwavery, you need to be able to back up your closure explaining why you didn't go with the votecount - and you need to do this without hypocracy. I think you will make a good admin, just not yet. If you take on the constructive criticism here then in another 2-3 months you'll probably get my support.
'''Oppose''' per Glen. Your voting record alarms me. You have opposed some of the best admins that we have today and you opposed Taxman, who is doing a brilliant job as bureaucrat.
'''Oppose''', the diffs provided by Glen suggest the candidate is not well prepared to deal with inexperienced users with the necessary patience and provide necessary encouragement. I am willing to be convinced otherwise by diffs to the contrary but Glen's evidence is fairly damaging.
'''Oppose''' per Glen, Christopher Parham, and a few others.
My previous encounters with Cynical do not make me satisfied regarding aspects of his personality and behavior on-wiki that are directly related to the tasks an administrator must undertake.  --
'''Oppose''' per the above. I'm not too happy with the straw man response to Glen, kind of missing the point in response to my question, copy/paste voting on AFD, and general civility issues.
'''Oppose''' per Thryduulf, Radiant.
'''Oppose''' per views on userpage in opposition to notability standards for Wikipedia articles, and for excessive inclusionism in general.
In addition to the above reasons, AfD contributions are all me-too votes to already clear decisions. —
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, for now.  I'd like to see some more contributions that focus on building consensus in tough situations rather than just voting.  Try again in 6 months after doing that and I'll support.

'''Oppose''' per Glen.  I am not opposing quite as vehemently as Glen did but I do feel that he brought up some points that cannot be ignored.  I also agree with Freakofnurture's above statement that "a user's support or opposition of an item should not be based on the quantity of pre-existing votes" but the strength of the arguments. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I would never oppose someone based on their voting record, as long as I felt such voting was done in good faith (which Cynical has clearly demonstrated). Although I am a little concerned about the confrontational nature of this RFA, I am voting based purely on [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]].
'''Neutral''' on the one hand, the cited examples of alleged incivility, aren't especially (as usual). On the other hand, rather weak encyclopedia contributions provide an awkward combination with the excess inclusionism.
You're a fine editor, but I think there are some civility issues which need sorting out. I'm sorry, but an administrator has to be approachable enough for new users to want to come to you with an issue. Nothing really freaks me out here, but I'll probably stay '''neutral'''. &mdash; '''
Content creators should be respected, not opposed. The primary role of admins should not necessarily be seen as futzing around in the project namespace upsetting people.
'''Strong Support'''. D-Day has demonstrated competence and dedication to the project, has been becoming more involved in community discussion recently, and is a very friendly user. (We could use a few more friendly admins.) --
'''Strong Support''' Has demonstrated competence. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
<font color=red>'''Valentine's Day Support'''</font> [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' we need a LOT more admins who will UPHOLD policy rather than ignore or circumvent policy and community consensus
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Weak oppose'''. Seems a little light outside the Article namespace. (
'''Oppose'''.  I've dealt with [[User:D-Day]] in the past, and I think he's a good bloke and a useful editor.  However, I don't think he's ready yet, and some of his edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=39494443], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_12&diff=prev&oldid=39334525], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_12&diff=prev&oldid=39334421], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_10&diff=prev&oldid=39113512] for a quick-and-dirty sample) show a misunderstanding of the rôle of userpages, consensus, etc.  I'm also concerned that he got involved in the userbox fracas in the first place.
'''Oppose'''. What Wikipedia-space edits there are recently seem almost exclusively related to userboxes (usually "speedy keeps", with the associated barbs) or edits to the various BJAODNs. Going further back, they appear to be mainly NASCAR Wikiproject related. I'd like to see some proper demonstration of ''understanding'' of how the project space works before handing the tools to cause and effect there. More depth, breadth and ''less userbox'' mmrpghg (''sic'') would make me feel very much more comfortable. (We are all anti-vandal; I do not really view vandalwhacking as a prima facie reason to grant adminship given the variety of tools available to non-admins in that regard.) The candidate has also not answered the questions; for a self-nom that concerns me as a significant oversight. -
'''Oppose''' Per all the above. —
'''Vehemently oppose''': Insufficient understanding of Wikipedia policy and practices. Utter lack of judgement regarding disparaging attacks. Here are some examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Funny&diff=prev&oldid=35293965], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Template:User_little_boy], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5&diff=prev&oldid=38341993], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_infallible&diff=prev&oldid=33282482], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_infallible&diff=next&oldid=33359449], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Template%3AUser_ego&timestamp=20060115184339], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problems_with_the_deletion_of_wikipedia_articles&diff=prev&oldid=35183069]. Please read the comments below. Also what [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] said above. --
'''Oppose''' per MarkSweep's reasons.
'''Weak Oppose''' Although I take no position on userboxes, the ''manner'' in which D-Day argues for them (in the diffs provided my MarkSweep, for instance) does indicate more time is needed to mature before adminship is appropriate.  Good show on the NASCAR articles, however.
'''Weak Oppose''' per all above. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Weak Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''': not ready. Suggest expanding areas of participation (and remember to use edit summaries).
'''Oppose''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits and needs to expand areas that he is active in--
Oppose. Don't be discouraged, stick around, and learn about the process. I'm sure you'll make it eventually. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I don't think you quite meet the standards. Improve a few things and I think you might well. You need to improve knowledge of Wikipedia policy, use more edit summaries, and perhaps retain a little more neutrality when posting comments.
'''Oppose''' his behaviour over userboxes has been unhelpful, deliberately creating inflammatory boxes such as [[Template:User little boy]] "This user loves [[Pedophilia|little boys]]!" (with picture of Michael Jackson). The section in bold in his statement shows his lack of understanding for Wikipedia policies&mdash;a speedy delete is not contingent on consensus, that's why it's called a speedy.
Work harder on those [[edit summaries]], especially for major edits.
'''Neural''' - While I like him a lot, I don't think he's quite ready enough for me to support. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|es]]</font>

I'm going to support on two counts, one on moral support, and the other that you've been made admin on Wiktionary, that (at the very least) should tell us (or it tells me) that you won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. I have seen plenty of Dangherous's edits and I've not seen any problems with them. My main reason for supporting though is to aide his excellent work in moving articles to Wiktionary - it is certianly needed. That he is a Wiktionary admin proves to me he can be trusted.
User is clearly unlikely to abuse admin tools; hard to imagine bad outcomes of giving him key to the toolbox.
'''Support''' An admin on Wiktionary. Thus proving his capabilities as an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - This editcountitis is driving me nuts. He'd make a good admin. -
'''Support''' It doesn't matter how many edits you made, or how many months you've been on Wikipedia, all it matters is that you make an article that hopefully becomes a featured article someday! I don't know why you people oppose young users with less edits than you, but one thing is certain. ''Big things come in small packages''
'''Support'''; I trust Wiktionary.
'''Support''' Clearly would not abuse admin tools; he's an admin on Wiktionary, after all. Adminship would benefit him. Meets criteria in other areas too. Good user. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', since he's an admin on Wiktionary, why not give it to him here? He will not abuse tose tools. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
I'm willing to accept the risk if he's going to clean up [[:Category:Copy to Wiktionary]].
I don't see any risk involved here (already an admin on Wiktionary) so I'm going to '''support''' this request.
'''Support'''.  Not much risk of misuse.  --
'''Support'''. We ''need'' more admins willing to deal with huge backlogs like "move to Wiktionary", and this is much more important than meeting people's cookie-cutter criteria. There's also some extremely misguided editcountitis going on: people are opposing Dangherous for his edit count, even though he has '''over 3800 edits''' on Wikimedia projects. Don't be blinded by the lack of a single signon.
'''Support''' Candidate wants to help with backlogged cleanup tasks -- this is very good. I see editcountitis has reached new lows.
'''Support''' Wiktionary
'''Support''' Highly useful to have another sysop for both Wikitionary and Wikipedia. I would prefer if he had slightly more experience here, but his record on Wikitionary supplements his work here. The potential benefit to both projects of him being an admin on both is very large.
'''Back from Wikibreak Support'''. Would be a great addition to the team.--Fil[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nomination. Also dosn't seem like a person likely to abuse power. ---
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''', in large part because I think the reasons that many people are opposing are poor and I'd like to counteract that a bit.  This user seems unlikely to abuse admin commands.
'''Support'''. The user has a good record at Wiktionary, and is planning on using adminship in an area that is greatly benefitted by cross-wiki adminship. RfAs are used to determine if we trust users with the mop, and if we're certain that he won't misuse it, there's no reason to oppose. That said, Wikipedia and Wiktionary policies are slightly different; please brush up on this wiki's policies before trying something you're not certain how to do (and checking to make sure that what you're certain how to do is indeed correct). Feel free to ask questions liberally too. That said, [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] isn't an admin here...
'''Support'''. Does plenty of good work, and seems like a responsible contributor. I think the opposition based on the edit count is misguided, an admin with 200-300 edits a month is actually a fairly active one.
'''Support''' [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - Good job on Wiktionary. --
'''Support''' What I think is needed for supporting an admin nomination is evidence that suggests the user has the relevant competency to carry out admin tasks.  Some good evidence here is the adminship on wiktionary.  As that evidence exists, I see no need to have vast amounts of wikipedia edits to find further evidence.  This RfA is the best example I've seen to date of why editcountitis can be fatal.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' to give him ability to delete transwikied articles himself.
'''Support''' per Conscious: there are aspects to the ways in which the candidate has been serviing the Wiki community that will be easier with admin tools.
'''Support''' Seems responsible and experienced, with plenty of Wikitionary experience. --
'''Support''' -- This user's experience is marginal by my standards, but his overall attitude is very good and I like his responses to Question Time. I see a user who is willing to shovel through a lot of dull work: the ideal person to be given tools.
'''Support''' -- Trying to maintain Transwiki: with only half the needed delete buttons is frustrating, to say the least.  It is not a rewarding task to begin with (even [[User:Uncle G]] gave up on it a long time ago!)  --
'''Support'''. I can trust this user's work at both Wikipedia and Wiktionary.--
'''Support''' as per above. --[[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#000000">preschooler.</span>]][[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#E9B901">at</span>]]
'''Support''' A credit to the wiki project.
'''Support'''. A Transwiki specialist will help greatly.
'''Support'''. Changed neutral vote to '''support'''. I agree with BD2412. Wikipedia needs specialists like these. Cannot keep my vote neutral or oppose because he doesn't know how to give "politically correct" answers. -
'''Support'''. He's an admin on Wiktionary (see Wiktionary vote here: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Administrators&oldid=834120] and has been for 7 weeks now. Has over 2000 edits over there as well, which puts him at over 3500 edits in both projects. And if he does cleanup [[:Category:Copy to Wiktionary]], his presence as an admin will be invaluable.
'''Support'''. [[:Category:Copy to Wiktionary]] needs all the help it can get. --
'''Oppose''' certainly enough time, possibly enough edits, but serious neglect of interaction with other users, and very short answers and introduction. Demonstrates inexperience and edit count inflating,
'''Oppose''' 200-300 edits per month is not even close to active enough to become an administrator. Increase that to 500-600 at least. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Oppose''' Inexperience.  --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' low User Talk useage. <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''', not active enough.
'''oppose''' more edits please
'''Oppose''' Twenty-five User talk edits does suggest a lower activity level within the community than I'd like to see.  More time is required to build an adequate record from which to judge editor's temperment.
'''Oppose''', I strongly oppose nominating yourself. it should be an honor to have someone think you are worthy of being admin. i realize you had that honor with wiktionary, but now you must earn it here.
'''Oppose''', doesn't meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|admin standards]]. —
'''Oppose'''. Spend some more time on Wikipedia, and I will support you in the future. It's nice to have someone with connections to Wikitionary.
'''Oppose'''. While I believe you would be trustworthy, you need to spend more time here. Your user talk edits are much too low. Interact with the community more and become more familiar with Wikipedia  and try again in 2-3 months.--
'''Oppose'''. Prefer admins with more experience--
'''Weak oppose''', I'd prefer to see more community interaction.
'''Weak oppose''', just can't support yet given the relatively low experience and community involvement, despite the good intentions for the tools. A couple of energetic months and I'll support.
'''Oppose''' the majority of the things the user wishes to do, he can do ATM. Also, this may seem a little pathetic, but Joshua's fifth question is poorly answered at a spelling POV. Substituting u for you isn't exactly what I'd do when I'm trying to convince everyone to vote for be to become an admin.
'''Oppose''': low overall experience, and not enough interaction with other users. Try again in a while! <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions, we have PROD and AfD now, as well there are plans to have one account for all the wikis. Before becoming an admin here you probably need to brush up on some process issues, ESPECIALLY PROD.
'''Oppose'''. We need less admins in order to triumph over this sick dictatorship. When the number is reduced to less than 200, you MIGHT be elected.
'''Weak Oppose''' mostly because of his answers, seems to unfamiliar with Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Too soon. Patience...
'''Oppose''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' agree with
'''Oppose''', good Wiktionary admin but Wikipedia is a different kettle of fish. Not a lot of interaction, and I am concerned that he may get a bit speedy-happy. You don't need Adminship to transwiki stuff.
Neutral ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Neutral''' per above; inexperience; come back after another two or three months and/or when you double your edit counts/experience, and you'll have my support. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Neutral'''. I quite like the reason for you wanting to become an admin, and am starting to really dislike editcountis. However I also don't really like some of your answers to questions. So this neutral is a reflection of mixed feelings. Note to closing bureaucrat: This is a 'true' neutral, do not read my reason as an oppose or support if this ends close.
'''Neutral''', needs more experience. -




'''Moral and conditional Support''' as somebody who has made a similar mistake (putting up for election as an admin too early) I will give you my support on the condition of candidate withdrawal, make a few more article edits, do some vandal fighting, and then you will be more suited to being an admin. This follows the guide I was given when I put my nomination in too early.
'''Strong Oppose''' User is ''very inexperienced!'' Has only been on Wikipedia 3 months and has only 137 mainspace edits. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' fails almost all of [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]]. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Oppose''', inexperienced user and the spelling errors in his responses to questions don't bode well for the possibility of him being a careful admin.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but with only 250 edits there is no way for us to judge whether you'd be a good admin or not. Most editors who express an opinion on RfAs expect at least 2500 edits over 3-4 months, and some have considerably higher expectations. I suggest you withdraw gracefully and try again later in the year when you have a lot more experience on Wikipedia. You might also try [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrolling]] which gives you a good idea of the issues that admins often have to deal with and good exposure to other editors. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Daniel 123, you should withdraw and have another go at it in a few months. ——
'''Strong oppose''' no way is this user admin material yet. --
'''Oppose''' Try to get at least a thousand edits before trying out to be admin. -
'''Oppose''' Don't take this the wrong way, but is this nom a joke or something?
'''Oppose''' per Eagle 101 and Gwernol. -
'''Oppose''' per above and bad spelling/grammar. Please don't take this offensively, but the way messages are written in discussion namespaces, reflects your abilities in the article namespace, both in quality and attention to detail. In one question you spelled "i" not capitalized, and mispelled "content", "priviledge" and "professional". Sorry, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Strong oppose'''. I'm not a huge edit-counter, but it's funny to remark that if you multiplied all his edits by 10, the nominee would barely qualify most people's requirements (only 17 total edits to Wikipedia namespace is particularly low). Weak answers (Q1 doesn't even explain what tools are being looked for), typos in the nom's answers didn't help either. Please do not be discouraged, continue to contribute and wait perhaps 6 months before accepting such a nomination.
'''Strong oppose'''. Sorry, but you onlly have 250 edits. The problem is that if you only have less than a thousand edits on your account, you need more. It's better that you should withdraw nomination, work on more edits, try to join [[User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof|VandalProof]], and come back in a few months. Thanks. [[User:Bigtop|<font color="blue">Big</font>'''<font color="gray">top</font>''']] <small>([[User talk:Bigtop|<font color="blue">tk</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bigtop|<font color="red">cb]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Bigtop|<font color="gray">em</font>]]|
'''Oppose'''. Let's wait a little longer and see how he measures up to the criteria in maybe 6 months to a year. Inexperienced.
'''Neutral''' Just to avoid a pile on. It will never come to a close vote. Suggest User withdraw.
I suggest withdrawing from this RfA.  If you have any questions on how to become more involved in Wikipedia, please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.  Also, if you want some more experienced advice, perhaps sign up for [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]].  This program will set you up with a mentor of sorts who is currently an administrator on Wikipedia.  He/She will be happy and eager to help you get involved with some "administrative" tasks that any user can perform.
'''Neutral''' [[WP:AGF]] notwithstanding, like [[User:TruthCrusader|TruthCrusader]] supra, I wondered whether this nomination was a facetious one, not least because the article adduced as a significant contribution is, though well crafted, not that which one would hope a user would note as his best work, and in view of the sundry grammatical and orthograpic errors in the question answers.  Assuming arguendo that the nomination is sincerely essayed, though, I'd suggest that, even as the user may be eminently qualified for adminship (as, for example, a pensive and civil contributor well acquainted with extant guidelines such that he would be unlikely to abuse or, through ignorance, misuse the admin tools), the body of his contributions simply doesn't provide one enough of a history from which to apprehend judgment, but that, as others have suggested, should his quality work continue, it's most probable that an RfA in six to twelve weeks should succeed.
Let's kick this off the right way. '''Support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --'''
'''Weak support''' - he's an excellent vandal fighter, but I feel that he needs more time here. --
'''Support&mdash;Weak support, but support''' &mdash; I’d like more experience, quite a bit more experience. But I'm beginning to believe Wikipedia could use folks who are ''administrator-under-supervision''. Folks like this who are well motivated and don’t set off alarms other than inexperience should be given a supervisory committee and turned loose for 3 months, but monitored. If they abuse their ''administrator-under-supervision'' powers, any one of the supervisory admins can recommend they’re gone. If they perform well, they are administrators.

'''Oppose''' Concerned about what I would consider borderline uncivil comments above. In addition I think under 6 months of editing is too soon to be considered for adminship. Lastly comments like "I really don't think that leaving the articles here hurts wikipedia" from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KROQ_Top_106.7_Countdown_of_1980 |this Afd]] as well as the comment "this article does absolutely nothing to hurt the encyclopedia" from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monica_Bailey| this AfD]] are troubling. Comments like "seems notable to me" in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yellow_Pigs_Day| this AfD]] (where if you clicked on the sources you would see very clearly they were not reliable sources), again make me think that the candidate does not yet have a frim grasp on all the guidelines that an admin must deal with on a daily basis. I hope you find some usefull criticism in my comments. <font color='blue'>
'''Oppose'''. User needs to earn the trust of the commnity first. Fighting vandalism is a good thing, but not enough.
Oops! '''Oppose''' per hoopydink and per the response to hoopydink. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per [[User: Crzrussian|Crazyrussian]], who is per [[User: Hoopydink|Hoopydink]], so really... Per [[User: Hoopydink|Hoopydink]] --
Candidate's statement: <blockquote>I keep a level head and don't crack under pressure, I always mind [[WP:CIVIL]]</blockquote> Evidently forgotten in reply to Hoopydink. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''neutral'''. user is a good vandal fighter, but the borderline incivil comments to Hoopydink raies some objection to me. [[user:crazytales56297|<font color="#78abea">»</font>]][[User:Crazytales56297/EA|<font color="#00a060">c</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' You seem like a nice guy and a great addition to the project (as displayed by your eagerness to take on a bigger role).  However, you might want to withdraw this RFA from consideration, as you might become discouraged by the large number of oppose votes that could come.  I suggest checking out some of the recent successful RFA's to see what the community is looking for in an administrator. '''''Cheers!'''''
'''Mid-wikibreak oppose''', too new, malformed RFA.
'''Oppose'''. Way too soon.'''
'''Oppose''' you have only been editing since June 4, and have fewer than 200 edits with very little user of edit summaries. Your RfA was also malformed (placed at the end of the RfA list). I'm sorry but you need a lot more experience both in time spent and the number of edits you have before anyone can fairly judge your suitability to be an admin here. Good luck next time,
'''Oppose''' - has been a member for too little time. I hope to be able to vote "Support" next time =) '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="#A8A8A7">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Oppose''' you've only been editing for 8 days mate, I suggest you read up about being admin and look at successful RFAs.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per above.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Oppose''' per my [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|different standards on different days]]. Most notably: (f) < 1000 edits (and eight days of editing) and (o) malformed RfA. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per comments above.--<b>[[User:SomeStranger|<font color="orange">SomeStrang</font>]]<i>[[User:SomeStranger/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]</i>
'''Oppose''' - Daniel, the standards now are pretty high. I agree that you probably would make a good administrator, but this RfA simply can't succeed. -
'''Sad Oppose'''. Just not enough experience yet. Keep it up, and you'll make a great admin someday!<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Beat the nom Support'''-Great vandal-fighter and contributor. Him having mop powers will be very useful for the Wiki community. [[User:TeckWiz|'''T''']][[User:TeckWiz/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:TeckWiz|'''ckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Nom-Support''' Oh well there is always next time. :) &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support'''. Despite low number of project and project talk namespace edits, this user has demonstrated a thorough and sufficient knowlege of Wikipedia admin know-how. '''
'''Support'''. Always friendly and reasonable as far as I know.  Keep up the good work.
'''Support''' Appears to be a good candidate
'''Support''' - Good vandal-fighter.
'''Weak Support''' I am very pleased with your vandal fighting, but I'd like to see you more involved in other tasks and fields in the project space. ←
'''Weak support''' Although I would have preferred more experience in some areas, I've seen this user's good work too many times and I guess I can support for that. Also, don't think that he'd misuse the tools.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' per Husond's comments. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Doesn't have the largest number of edits, but has done what looks to be some excellent work.  I'd trust him as an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient projectspace participation implies lack of familiarity with process. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Lack of participation in Wikipedia processes shows that the user will have trouble dealing with regular administrative tasks. Last major XfD participation occurred about <s>2 months</s> 1 month ago. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' per Crz.  Feel free to reapply in five months, after gaining more experience in wiki-space.
I agree that you could use some more experience first. (
'''Oppose''' - experience concerns and a lack of quality articles. Vandal-slaying isn't everything, y'know.
'''Weak oppose''' nice guy, plenty of vandal fighting, also answering questions on help page, however lacks consensus building and dispute resolution experience, specifically talk edits mostly involve removing tags. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Dar-Ape&namespace=1] After gaining more experience would support, because otherwise a very good editor.
'''Oppose''' per Crz.
Anti-vandal work is nice, but we can't grant only the admin powers relating to vandal fighting. We have to grant all of them, and you have too few projectspace edits outside of AIV for me to feel comfortable with you having the rest. -
'''Neutral''' - no real reason to oppose, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TeckWiz&diff=prev&oldid=93308649] is kinda ironic considering that you have basically the same level of experience as a user that you opposed for lack of experience.
'''Neutral''' - good and bad combine to create neutrality here. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' You're a very good editor and your enthusiasm is most welcome but you really need to get involved in admin-related tasks. I tracked your contributions back to September and found no participation in XfD or vandal fight. No need for the tools. Good luck though.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - fewer than 1000 mainspace edits.
'''Kindest possible oppose''' - Reviewing your edit history, you seem to have put in considerably more time on your own userpage than on actual articles.  While the social aspect of Wikipedia is important, please remember that we are here first and foremost to build (and maintain) an encyclopedia.  Please also remember to use edit summaries.  --
'''<s>Weak </s>Oppose''' - no need shown, long sig, over a 2:1 user:main namespace ratio. Show us you need it and show us you're here to help, not to chat, and I'll gladly support.
'''Strong oppose''' because of your recent "anger leaking" on [[User:DarknessLord/Rebellion]] (Last edited before blanking Oct. 30), which included a swastika and an argument for allowing Fair use images on userpages. Not only does this show a lack of maturity, it shows a lack of understanding of the need to respect others' copyrights, which I think is very important for an administrator.
'''Opppose''' sorry I have to say "no" on this. Being an admin almost inevitably gets you into stressful situations as you deal with the vandals and the trolls. You reaction to stress is to start calling everyone Nazis and threaten a "rebellion" against Wikipedia's fair use rules. Its one thing to do this on a subpage of your userpage; if you had the admin tools you would have been able to wreak serious damage to the project. Your talkpage is full of similar lapses into personal attacks and incivility. I'm afraid you just aren't ready to be an admin right now.
'''Neutral''' I think that you have potential to be a good admin but at the moment you do not demonstrate aptitude at some of the admin-related tasks.  Two in particular to take note of for the future are participation in XfD discussions, where you can cite policies and guidelines to support your opinions and new page/recent change patrol and concommitant vandalwarning and vandal edit-reversion.  You contribution histories don't indicate participation in either task, all of which are enhanced by the admin tools.  In addition to this, the answers above aren't particularly informative and answer one demonstrates only one use of one of the tools. I would withdraw this RfA, seek an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] and perhaps reapply in three or four months' time when you have participated in some of the above tasks.
'''Neutral''' Like aero said, you have great potential, but I do not think you have that much experience in XfD discussions or even in the article namespace. I know you have made dozens of edits to individual articles, but even so, there are only <800 edits that I see you have made to article namespace. Also, more than half your edits are to your user namespace. I suggest you withdraw this RfA, and run through an editor review. I think if you get more article namespace edits and participate in XfD discussions, your future RfA would succeed. Also, please use edit summaries! I only see that you made an edit summary for 3 of your last 50 edits. I suggest you write a brief edit summary for every edit you make. Most admin candidates usually have close to 100% edit summary usage for minor and major edits. '''
'''Neutral''' A couple of months' time to establish good habits and experience, and I'd probably support. --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="Ultramarine">[[User talk:Gray Porpoise|Porpois]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Don't see any reason not to, have seen editor in the past and left with no concerns about approach.
'''Support'''. His contributions being sporadic, even if they were, which they certainly are not (except for two breaks for about 5 days each in September, I see no breaks in editing. Where do you see this?), doesn't change that fact that he has over 2,000 edits in projectspace, which, looking at the content of them, show that he has a significant amount of experience in how the project runs. Editing and using admin tools is voluntary, you can't hold that against a candidate. This user has quite a bit of AfD experience, though it might not be recent, and would most likely make a pretty good admin. I see no reason to think otherwise. --
'''Support'''. Didn't contribute very much in September, but was a very regular and active contributor for a several months prior to that. Most users need to take breaks from Wikipedia from time-to-time due to other events in our lives, and so I don't hold that against him. Strong record of Wikipedia space contributions (though whether or not this RfA passes, I'd like to see a better balance between main space and Wikipedia space contributions in the future).
'''Support''' per Rory. The concerns below are baseless. See the various sections on [[WT:RFA]] about these pesky RfA regulars. &mdash; '''
'''Weak Support''' Good editor. Cons don't seem very substantial.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' I have a positive impression that this editor can learn fast and do the job well.
'''Support''' Past observations of edits lead me to believe will not abuse the tools. Unless someone can show me a clear-cut example of bad judgment, see no reason for me to oppose. I am, by the way, a "pesky RfA regular."
'''Support'''. Only yesterday I was pondering why you had not yet made a run for adminship. I disagree with the assertion that the comments by <s>the pesky RfA regulars</s> those opposing are "baseless"; however, to me they are insufficient to convince me to oppose, especially since adminship is supposed to be no big deal. You should take the oppose comments as constructive criticism to aid in self-improvement. I am certain you will do that, which means you should perform well with the mop.
'''Strong Support.''' I have seen this candidate around several times in the past and I think the current level of opposition is utterly ridiculous. Admin actions are reversible. Where is the evidence that this user will abuse the tools? I see none. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I see everything I want to see here: extensive work within the project namespace, knowledge of how things go, enough encyclopedia contributions, and a civil attitude. I am convinced that this user would make a fine administrator. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' - While I agree that at least "some" of the AfD responses should have more to them than the "as/per nom". I also know that sometimes that's all that needs to be said.  (I only bring this up since now you'll likely be '''closing''' AfDs rather than just commenting on them.) But I don't see that as enough to oppose. Looking at the page breakdown on this page's talk page, seems fine to me.  And I don't think the quanity of use is a reason to oppose, '''Quality''' is what is in question here: how will the tools be used, not how often!  Be as active as you wish, but do a consciencious, fair, honest job, while following the [[WP:5P]], and that's all we can ask. -
'''May the force be with you''' - <strong>
''''Support''' - per [[WP:AGF]] -
''''Support''' good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' DarthVader is a great user who will make an excellent admin. This is the sort of candidate we should be promoting to admin. The fact that he has a life outside Wikipedia that means he has occasional lulls in editing should not be held against him. Are we really requiring that admins never take a break? That's unfortunate. DV does good work and can be trusted to use the tools well.
'''Support''' May we never reach the day when we require our admin candidates to gussy up their Wikipedia resumés just prior to their nominations... DarthVader clearly knows what he's doing, even if he's concise about it. Sometimes a whole lot just does not need to be said. He has plenty of experience, even though he's not exactly consistent. Things happen. -- '''
'''Support''' per ALR.
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' per Rama's Arrow and RyanGerbil; I am eminently confident that DarthVader will neither abuse nor misuse&ndash;even avolitionally&ndash;the tools, such that I conclude that the net effect on the project of his being an admin will be positive (my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standard]]).
'''Support''', he can be trusted with the tools, DarthVader is a great editor and will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
What the... I thought he was an admin already! &mdash;

'''Support''' I have encountered this user before and have always been impressed. Knows policy, nice guy, deletionist, Jedi. Yep, no problems here :)
Won't abuse the tools
'''Support''' I think 2,000 edits is plenty, as well as his time spent as an editor (since 2005). -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per Dlohcierekim.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''. I don't find the oppose reasons very convincing. No reason to believe the candidate would abuse admin tools.
'''Weak Support''' Seems to want to help make Wikipedia better. My only qualm is that the candidate may be slightly unexperienced.
'''Oppose'''.  Wants to do AfD work, but has a grand total of one AfD discussion edit in the last two months, a speedy keep to a withdrawn nomination.  Without having any recent examples to refer to, and without having objective information as to when he feels closure is appopriate, I'm not comfortable supporting giving the tools over given his area of desire.  I do suggest participating in AfD again once you have more time, getting some recent edits in, and trying again then.  --
'''Oppose''' - Sparodic contribs, if you wont be able to regularly contribute and/or do sysop tasks why would you require sysop tools now? <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' as above - I'd welcome another RfA in 4-5 months when you've got a continuous track record. --
'''Oppose''' per Jeff. [[WP:SNOW]], [[the Force]] is not with this rfa. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - the aim of Wikipedians is write an encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. Basically too few article edits, and for that matter, user talk - how well will you interact with other users? No. Sporadicness (is that a word?) of edits also a minor concern.
'''Oppose''': I would prefer to see more experience first.
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff, who hit the nail on the head.
'''Oppose''' due to way too few main & maintalk edits, per [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]]. Seems really strange to have more than twice as many project edits as main/maintalk without being an admin... Please focus on article building, it's the heart of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff, ais523 and most of all Themindset. I don't see much in encyclopedic contributions, and this is Wiki'''pedia'''.
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Badlydrawnjeff.
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace experience as others have already mentioned.  I would also suggest a username change, I don't think DarthVader is a very appropriate name for an admin.--
'''Oppose''' Idle for nearly two weeks? And come back only to request adminship.. Um.. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' AfD contribs per badlydrawnjeff and ais523; lack of mainspace edits; Siva1979's comments below.
'''Oppose''' per shortage of mainspace edits. - <b>
'''Weak Oppose''' despite the user's extensive work in projectspace, I would like to see more mainspace (>1000) and talk to demonstrate their understanding of encyclopaedia building. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
Oppose per the above.
'''Oppose''' per badlydrawnjeff.
'''Oppose'''. I don't doubt that Darth can get there and make a good admin, but the Sith Lord needs more experience with a wider variety of Wikipedia activities.
'''Oppose'''. 2 months is a long time. I would definitely support you if you were to put up another RfA in a few months or so.
I think you need more time with a consistent track record. I see no standout reason for opposing, but nothing here turns me on enough to support. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' I have full confidence that this candidate would not abuse admin tools but how ''effectively'' would he use them? Do not get discouraged by this and take the oppose opinions seriously and act on them in the next couple of months. If you follow the advise of these users, I have no doubt in my mind that you would succeed in your next RfA. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, I would prefer you have a few more months of experience with a consistent track record of editing.--
'''Neutral''' - edit count a little on the low side, and mainspace (article writing) is a little low. However, I am impressed with all the Wikipedia-space edits, and this leads me to believe you could be an admin of the future. Hence, neutral for now. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Neutral''', needs more experience in process. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Neutral''', per Neutral comments above. You're a great user, though. :) <font color="#0000FF">
'''Neutral''' Self-noms always make me nervous because they are normally tied to lack of experience in key areas that admins and admin candidates are usually quite visable in and such get the attention to be nominated.
'''Neutral''' - I see nothing wrong with self-noms.  That being said, I would like to see some broader experience.  I don't see why I wouldn't be able to support in another 3 months or so.  --
'''Neutral''': Excellent sport on WP maintenance and edit summaries, but everything else has to be worked on a lot. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''': I can't oppose, but I think that more experience is needed. I see that you've worked a lot with AfDs, but you should improve your mainspace edits and your other community-related work. Please try again in 2-3 months.
'''Moral Support''' keep it up, you'll get there!
'''Oppose''' You look like a good user, but there's a few points for which I'm opposing... first of all, you say you wouldn't really use the tools that much, and from your answer to Q1, it seems like your main tasks don't really need them. (There's nothing wrong with that, you can still be a fine user without being an admin.) The other, more strong point (I probably wouldn't oppose just based on admitting to being an infrequent adminner) is your small edit count in the WP space. Admin work takes place mostly behind the scenes, and edits in the WP and WPtalk spaces show a familiarity with policy as well as such work in the past. I'd say keep on doing what you're doing, and if you really want to be an admin, getting more involved in those sorts of things will help in a future nomination. -
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more Wikipedia-space edits so I know you have at least some understanding of policy.  Once you get that count up, I'd probably be happy to support.  Also, as Goldom said, wikification and cleanup don't really require admin tools.  --
'''Oppose''' As I checked your edit counts, I think that you need more contributions and experiences. I personally don't like to oppose him/her for admin. You need more works so that I could support.
'''Oppose''' You sound like a decent editor, but on looking through most of your WP space contribs, I didn't find much information either way about knowledge of policy. I echo the suggestion below to participate in AfD discussions, as they are a good way to learn (some) policies. You might also look at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards]] and come back when you're more in line with some of the regular's standards. I'd also suggest withdrawing and perhaps trying again later.--
'''Oppose''' per lack of wikipedia space edits.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience and both talk page and Wikipedia space edits.
Too new, strongly suggest candidate to withdraw and keep up the good work of editing until sufficient experience is gained.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''': Good editor, but not active enough to garner my support. Please take into account Goldom's comments above - consider involving yourself more in the Wikipedia process, through [[WP:RCP]] or [[WP:AFD]]. I'll happily support you in a few months' time, if you've involved yourself more in the project since then.
'''Moral Support''' - Just so you don't feel alone out here. You have avoided conflict, but you need to edit more mainspace articles. Try getting involved in admin-like things, such as AfD, working on templates, or getting into a Wikiproject. It's good to see you are interested in helping wikipedia, but try again in a few months. --<font style="background:black">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="LightSteelBlue">Shrieking Harpy</font>]]<font style="background:Red">.<font style="background:Orange">.<font style="background:Yellow">.<font style="background:Green">.<font style="background:Blue">.<font style="background:Purple">.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>
'''Moral Support''' Please don't be discouraged by this RfA. Consider withdrawing and reading [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] in order to better understand what's expected in a candidate to adminship.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
<font color="00CD00">
--'''
Sorry but very strong '''Oppose''', less than 1,000 edits, bad answers to questions, vote stacking, vandalized before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Consumed_Crustacean&diff=prev&oldid=62716683]. Please withdraw
'''Oppose'''. 860 edits, 129 to your own user page. NO conflicts ... Sorry, but please come back in some months after you've got some experience. --
'''Sorry, but no''' per all above. Don't care much for answers. What would you enjoy more, blocking other users or deleting pages?  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AConsumed_Crustacean&diff=62716701&oldid=58962624 Calling another user dumb (jaranda's dif above} is probably , well not something I look for in an admin.]
'''Oppose'''  I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would suggest withdrawing this nomination; you are quite unlikely to garner sufficient support given your lack of experience and specific rationale for requesting admin tools.  You may of course try again once have become more experienced, though.  [[User:Dar-Ape|Dar]]-[[User talk:Dar-Ape|Ap]]
'''Oppose''' and suggest with-drawl. Get some more experience with all of wikipedia, then re-apply here.  [[WP:WAIN|Adminship isn't a reward]]. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Oppose''', please withdraw --
'''Oppose''', the user has not been on wikipedai long enough --
'''Oppose''': As per above. After some more experience and some more major contributions then I could see you possibly becoming an administrator. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' due to inexperience and issues raised above. Come back in a few months, also have a look at what other (successful) candidates have to their names. Hopefully will see you back here in a few months with more experience.
'''Sorry, but Oppose'''.  The answer to question #1, along with a small number of edits for a candidate really turns me away from supporting this nomination.
'''Neutral''' Looks like a hard-working Wikipedian. I thank you for your contributions, especially for the Rock Music articles.
'''Neutral''' to avoid a pile-on.  I would just add that your usage of edit summaries is very low.  I recommend enabling the option to require one for every edit.  --
'''Neutral''' Withdraw this RfA as your answers above reveal a lack of knowledge about the role of an admin.  Get some experience in editing articles, finding and citing sources and participating in Wikiprojects as well.  This will assist you in your learning about policies and guidelines, something that all admins should have a working knowledge of. Before you submit yourself to another RfA, try getting an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] first.  You can also go to [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]] for some [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] beforehand. Don't take this as a knock-back, it's really just a learning experience.
'''Neutral''' per Cholmes75. I urge the candidate to withdrawal and contact any of the voters of this Rfa on how to become the kind of candidate we all can support.
'''Neutral''' - (aeropagitica)'s advice is, as always, very sound. You're still a little too new - another few months, and you may be ready. '''
'''weak support''' civil and well rounded wikipedian, however i think some more time under your belt may do you good, also improving minor edit summary usage would help, I belive your on the right track and maybe in one or two months this would be a strong support
'''Oppose''' -- Registered user since this February. Active contributor since April. Needs much more time as an editor. —
'''Oppose'''. First edit was indeed 2 Feb 2006. [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/dbertman (archive)|First RfA]] launched 14 April 2006 at 06.19 UTC, withdrawn 14 April 2006 at 06.24 UTC (yup, that's 5 minutes) after 1 vote, edit count at that point was, according to {{user|TigerShark}} around 60. I still think there's a long way to go here. <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry.  Less than 1000 edits, 13 to project space.  Needs more experience.
'''Oppose'''. I like the enthusiasm, but I do think you need more time editing Wikipedia, that you need more interaction with other users, and that you need more project experience. Maybe I'll support in the future, but I think it's a bit too soon for the time being.&#160;—
'''Strong oppose''', too new, lack of edit summaries, lack of edits, lack of time spent on Wikipedia, etc.
'''Oppose''' too new, suggest withdrawal and re-try in 2 months. --
'''Oppose'''. Zero experience in Wiki space. Practically no experience in vandal fighting. Eight contributions to user talk space (five of which are on his own talk page). You need much more experience than that.
'''Oppose''' introduction and answers to questions are simply [[truism]]s. Lacks sufficient experience, but has potential.

'''Oppose''', lack of project space edits, and needs more experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Needs more time.
'''Oppose''' time and edits. But I wouldn't be able to support you anyway because your apparent copyvio at [[Greenvale Primary School]] suggests you do not understand policy.
'''Neutral''', too early. -
'''Neutral''', ditto. (consider withdrawing and coming back in a six months.)
'''Neutral''' per Jossi, would support in ~3 months assuming more usage of edit summaries. - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Neutral''' Its a shame you didn't create a user account earlier. I am [[WP:AGF|assuming that you are telling the truth]] as to the matter of when you started editing on Wikipedia. Unfortunately we can't tell one way or another when you started contributing to Wikipedia as an anomyous user. Judging by the number of opposes I would suggest you withdraw your nomination. --''Signed by:''
Me of course! --
He would make a great admin. -
'''Support'''.  I've been involved with this user from time to time, seen around on the reference desks, and was even a little involved in the dispute mentioned at Hindu-Arabic numbers.  To be trusted.  (not to mention my barnstar). -
'''Support''', I've seen this user around a lot.   A lot of good contributions.--
'''Support''' A quality editor with great potential. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''. Good contributor all around.
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''. Very helpful and good editor. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''', Great contribution during last 4-5 months.
'''Support''', I see no problems with this user.
'''Weak Support''', his misuse stopped by the time I became active here. He has clearly reformed and deserves a second chance. However, it is concerning that at any point he misused the Wikipedia.
'''Strong oppose''', user has used very abusive [[sockpuppet]]s before along with anon IPs ( such as [[Special:Contributions/130.203.202.156|130.203.202.156]] and [[Special:Contributions/70.105.188.134|70.105.188.134]]) that were used to vandalize articles and several user pages (including mine) and used to make racist attacks (such as these edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mustafaa&diff=prev&oldid=15414939]). One example is [[User:Muwaffaq|Muwaffaq]], who was used to vandalize articles and make racist attacks, including these very racist comments on a vote for my previous Rfa [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAnonymous_editor&diff=26578741&oldid=26578116] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAnonymous_editor&diff=26493014&oldid=26485213] . Of course “Deeptrivia” too voted on that Rfa with an attack which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAnonymous_editor&diff=26494859&oldid=26493014 also as bad]. Evidence of abusive IP addresses can be [[User:Anonymous_editor/abusive_IPs|found here]]. The problem is that I see no guarantee of trusting this user. I see no reason why he still wouldn't express opinions that are strongly racist and won’t abuse his power even if he has stopped the blatant vandalism. I have seen some recent improvement in his/her edits though, but that could be to raise support for this Rfa. One thing I like is that he has changed his user page by removing the huge Nazi [[swastika]] that he had there for several months. Still this user needs more months before he can be trusted. I don’t see any reason why he needs these powers right now or that he won't abuse it. --
'''Oppose'''. Deeptrivia was blocked for a week by David Gerard in October [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ADeeptrivia] after a user check showed he had used a sockpuppet, {{user|Muwaffaq}}, in an RfA to vote against the candidate he opposed (Anonymous editor). He also wrote to the mailing list as Muwaffaq (with the name on the e-mail showing as "Noir Dezzir" and the e-mail address as mknopfler at ...), accusing people who supported Anonymous editor of sockpuppetry, and accusing me of abusing admin powers. Muwaffaq has also engaged in vandalism e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=18429618 here]. If this is behavior Deeptrivia is trying to put behind him, fair enough, but I'm concerned that neither he nor his nominator have even mentioned it.
'''Oppose'''. I must say, the statements made above convinced me. While I can accept that you have put vandalism and sockpuppetry behind you, I do not think that such a short period of time is enough time to be certain. Wait at least another three or four months. —'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Oppose''' - Far far too early from the past events. --
'''Oppose''' - a cleaner record would be nice. --
Oppose per SlimVirgin. Though I am impressed by this editor's article contributions, and his behaviour has improved somewhat, [[Special:Contributions/Muffawaq]] is extremely unsettling. However, what's past is past, so if a consistent pattern of good behaviour was shown, I coould support this candidate at some point in the future.--
'''Oppose'' Can't support per evidence shown above.
'''Oppose''' per above. With that said, good faith ought to prevent us holding a user's past sins against him indefinitely. I am inclined to think this user will make an excellent administrator in six months or so, but right now he hasn't been "good" even for longer than he has been "bad." Users have been denied adminship for minor slip ups: this is an entire history! &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Concerned, based on evidence provided.
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above.  Will be quite sometime before I would feel comfortable giving a support vote for this user.--
'''Oppose'''. Somehow sockpuppets and racism just don't do it for me. Grow up. -
'''Oppose'''. Vandalism is one thing, racist/religious vandalism disturbs me greatly. As better said above, it lets me into what he's thinking - and it's not good.
'''Oppose''' per Slimvirgin. -
'''Oppose''' per Slimvirgin and a.n.o.n.y.m
'''Definitely not without prejudice''' per above.
Perhaps needs some more time on the English Wikipedia to convince those who oppose above. Otherwise, his contributions have been <strike>exemplery</strike> high in the past three months. Should try again in three more months. --'''<font color="#E32636">
Hmm, I was not aware of that, so regrettfully I cannot support at this time. I certainly respect a lot fo the good work. The way that you can "demonstrate how strongly I agree with you, and that I've changed myself completely" is spending more time with great contributions and see what you can do to apologize to anyone you may have offended and improve the issues involved. -
I can't help but notice that a lot of the edit count is made up of repeated edits to the one page, or reverts with no substantive contribution. He's only been 'power editing' since November. Not that there's anything to be ashamed of in any of that. But why the rush to be an admin? Would it absolve him of his sins if we made him an admin? Is the purpose of making someone an admin to give them a standard to grow up to? -
'''Oppose''' 13 total edits.  I strongly suggest you immediately withdraw your self-nomination.  This will get ugly.  There is almost no chance you will succeed in an RfA with 13 total edits.  Please just withdraw.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with your philosophy that an edit count is not a valuable indicator of trustworthiness, etc, but you simply have not shown enough enough experience in policy/process. You have less than 50 WP namespace edits, and this means that I can't be sure that you understand wikipedia's policies. Try participating a bit more in AfD and other forms of deletion as well as other process areas so that you demonstrate the level of knowledge of process that an admin requires. You are currently on the right track. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' too new, needs to work more on articles, please withdraw and try again in 3 months.
'''Oppose''' sorry but with fewer than 250 edits there just isn't enough evidence available for anyone to make a sound judgement about whether you are trustworthy with the admin tools. Also you briefly had another RfA in late May [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=55687912] which I would have expected to see mentioned here. Good luck next time,
Sorry but '''Strong Oppose.''' 238 edits doesn't reflect enough experience. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose after reading Ambuj's link.
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol. Not mentioning your previous RfA and not answering the questions (at least at the time of the first posting) are deal breakers. I'm sorry, but come back another time (and mention this time...please).
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deon555&diff=next&oldid=62346898 Strong Oppose]'''. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per above. According to [[WP:ADMIN]], users may ''act'' like administrators, but they cannot ''falsely claim'' to be one. This also displays lack of experience and professional behavior, which, when compounded with the above reasons, forces me to oppose. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal --
'''Oppose''' Too new and inexperienced...
(Don't want to pile on oppose) - Too new, recommending withdraw. --

'''Support''' A fine editor of Wikipedia - friendly, courteous, and helpful. He has a good record, and I think there's little chance of misusing the tools. I do hope that he can offer further clarification of the questions above, though. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
'''Support''', a competent and intelligent user. If your RfA is successful, I would really like to see greatly increased involvement in admin activities - that is, so that there's a genuine reason to give you the tools - but on the basis that adminship is "no big deal" and a simple assumption that you're willing and able to learn, I see no compelling reason to oppose. Good luck. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Weak Support''', the only thing that gives me pause is a slight lack in article contributions and XfD discussions. Otherwise, I think that you are well-suited to being an admin. <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">'''
'''Support''' This user meets my [[User:Danntm/RFA|qualifications]], and I'm not going to fret over the exact quality of contributions.--
'''Moral support''' You seem like an editor who could use the tools and who won't abuse them. Some more experience would be nice though. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Moral support''' You have the right motivation and may one day make a great admin, but for now I suggest a withdrawal and concentration on experience, especially with encyclopaedia writing in the mainspace, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''' unlikely to misuse the tools `<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''. Helps out users a lot.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' I trust Deon with the tools, but I agree he needs to work on his mainspace edits. My recommendation is he consider withdrawing at this point and wait until someone is willing to nominate him.
'''Support''' I don't believe that this user would misuse the tools. Besides, adminship is suppose to be "no big deal", right? Or has it become ''de facto'' a gigantic deal? -
I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the admin tools, and he's a good-faith editor. --
'''Support''' Good dedicated user, unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' nice guy, works hard, can definitely be trusted.  As is the case with many, myself included, I wish he'd write more articles. --
'''Support''' Great to work with, knows his way around very well, and very trustworthy. Will make a good addition! --
'''Support''' Good editor, diligent, and unlikely to leave us soon.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - admins dont ''need'' tons of mainspace edits to clean up wikipedia.
'''Support''' G
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you appear to have some knowledge of Wikipedia's internal machinery, but your contributions denote that you might require some more experience. For instance, you have been involved with countervandalism only in the hours prior to this RfA. I also see no recent XfD participation. And your edit summary usage is also a bit below of what would be expected. :-( --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose.''' There is more to Wikipedia than vandal wargames. Someone wishing to be admin should at the very least have a strong list of substantive contributions to the actual encyclopedia.
'''Oppose.''' However, if you were to significantly help a few articles reach FA status, I'd be the first to support you.
Per above. I'll also note that before today I've never heard of you (no offence). I have a good number of vandalfighters' pages watchlisted and I've never once seen you, so it's hard for me to make a good judgement on whether you would use the tools well. I'd definitely like to see more article contribs. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more actions in editing aside from vandal warning.
'''Oppose''' I would also like to see more substantive article editing, as well as a little more participation in a ''variety'' of pseudo-administrative tasks.  More edits on the whole would seem in order to show a real affinity for the project as a whole. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Oppose''' Low number of mainspace edits indicates vital lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' I'd hope also to see more article writing as it helps You to better evaluate other articles (speedy candidates). Why didn't You mention Your very first RfA attempt in late May [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=55687912]?
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience with article building. -
'''Oppose''' candidate lacks experience in matters of substance.
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more experience in the actual editing of articles. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Siva1979. A [[WP:1FA|featured article]] of your topic of interest would be the best way to go. -
'''Oppose''', not enough experience with article creation. Per Husond.
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca.
'''Oppose''' per Rebecca and Siva1979 --<font color="#06C">
'''Neutral''' I suggest withdrawing this RfA and seeking an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] instead.  As mentioned above, 400 article edits, the vast majority of which are vandal reverts and spelling corrections, doesn't allow you to demonstrate your abilities to contribute encyclopedic content and communicate effectively.  An admin needs to be able to perform both of those tasks to a high ability in order to interact with other editors and assist them in their article-building efforts.  In order to build up more experience in these matters, I suggest joining projects such as the Featured Article and Good article drives.  These will allow you to express your opinions from the point-of-view of policies and guidelines and also to develop your research and encyclopedic writing abilities at the same time.  I would further suggest assisting new editors at the Help and Reference Desks in order to become familiar with the range of resources available to Wikipedia and the different experience levels of editors - postgrad/doctoral/faculty to high school - and effective means of communication for each.  You can also patrol the new and recent changes pages in order to revert vandals, warn them and finally report them to [[WP:AIV]] or other appropriate place.  This will allow you to become familiar with one of the big admin-related tasks, reverting vandalism.
'''Neutral''' Aeropagitica sums it up for me. Think this user will be a great admin when a little more integrated into the editing of the encylopedia, although personally I'm not insistent about FA involvement. If this Rfa fails and you run again in a few months, please drop me a line on my talk page. --
'''Neutral''' &mdash; I have always seen deon to be a good editor, but there are a few reasons why I can't support at this stage. Firstly, appears to be very (IMO ''too'') eager to get a sysop flag, and has applied previously on [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship&diff=prev&oldid=8835 wikiversity] and [http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&diff=prev&oldid=142088 simple], as well as here. Also, I'm not a supporter of [[WP:1FA]], but I think you should write some articles (not neccesarily featured ones, but stubs always help), because when it all comes down to it Wikipedia is still an encyclopædia, and we need articles. On a more positive note however, your project-space contributions have been quite good.
'''Neutral''' — I'm in no way an advocate of [[WP:1FA|1FA]]; however before I could ever give someone my support I require a healthy ammount of contributions and good use of edit smmarys, come back in a few more months with a few more edits under your belt and i will definitley consider giving you a support. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''' due to not wanting to pileon, but you don't seem to have enough experience of the sort of controversial areas (e.g. Afd) that admins need to get involved in.
'''Neutral''' I'm not one of those "FA or else..." people, but I (and I want to be frank, not to discourage Deon, but simply being honest...) find it disturbing that a self-nom's answer to #2 is what amounts to a really long stub article. In many ways, this is the inverse of many failed Rfa's. Many of the opposes above usually vote nay when they see an excellent writer who isn't involved in the other aspects (Rfa, Afd, vandal fighting, etc.) You've got the hard part out of the way... now go write ! And write some more ! I'll be watching your edits over the next month. Once you show you are willing to help '''write''' this encyclopedia, I will nominate you myself.
'''Switch to Neutral'''  I can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in [[Wikipedia:cleanup]]. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from.
'''Neutral.''' It looks like you've made great strides since your last RfA and I applaud you for it.  Don't think I can support an admin position for you at this point, but please keep up the good work.--
'''Support''', as nom.
'''Support''', looks like a good asset.
'''Support''': You've stayed here long enough, and (regardless of edits per namespace) you must be ready for the mop. --
'''Support'''. Good user, should use the mop wisely. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Edit-conflicted support'''. In this case, time makes up for edit count; this user knows the drill. I also like the answer to Q1&mdash;there's honesty for you. Mop time!
'''Support''', without a doubt.
'''Support'''.  Has been around a long while doing sensible things. -
'''Support'''.&trade; --
'''Support''' Appears to have a good history of use on Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support''' An experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', a good user. Has a good history on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Look good.
'''Support.''' This is exactly the kind of user I am happiest to support.  Experience over edit count. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Looks fine, and a lot of people who express good opinions on an RfA have supported. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. Good user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per above. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' although the points brought up in the oppose section are worth noting. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', considered, sensible, mature editor who will use the mop well, i feel.
'''Support''' Take heed of the opposing voters comments, and you'll be a great admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Edit count is low, but he works  on more than one wikipedia.  Is addressing [[WP:BITE]] concerns. Does welcome newcomers.
'''Support''' Well ok. I've seen this name before, and didn't hear anything negative about him/her. --
'''Support''' per RadioKirk and Jordy, and inasmuch as ''adminship is''--say it with me--''no big deal''.
'''Support''' per other users. --
'''Support''' -- per joe --
'''Weak Support''' -- support per above, weak per below; the en server is a different animal, but experience on the Africaans one will help. Take heed of the [[WP:BITE]] concerns, and you'll be fine. --
'''Support''' It's quite natural to revert suspicious unexplained anonymous edits, preferably with an edit summary requesting a source for the suspicious information.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user
'''Support''' While the user seems to occasionally lose his cool in discussions, Dewet seems to be capable of refraining from translating this into edits. We need more South African admins. -
'''Support''' He has sufficient experience, and is a good editor. No objections here. &mdash; ''
'''Support''' Dewet is a good user and have come across his edits many times on South African wikis. We need more of him. --
'''Support''' A good contributor with a level head.
<b>Support</b> I was pretty neutral, but his answers to the questions below are among several examples I saw of his impressive experience. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''' Dewet has proven to be an editor of note: I have often come accross his edits on South African issues, which he has contributed significantly to. I am sure he will do a good job.  --
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''': per above. He's a great editor, and seems to have ''every'' South Africa-related article on his watchlist. ;-) My (admittedly minor) interactions with him have been entirely positive. -
'''Huge support''' Awesome edits. [[User:General Eisenhower/Magic|<font color="aquamarine">G<font>]]
'''Support''' Dewet has made great to South African topics, and, in my interactions with him, he has never bitten any newbies. I do not think he will abuse his powers. -- '''''
'''Support''' Checked [http://af.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spesiaal:Log&user=Dewet admin action on Afrikaans wikipedia]: seems good, I can't it check tho. Checked user_talk page and archives and their history logs: good. Checked 100 contributions: 2006-04-26t15:10:32z/2006-05-01t07:54:02z: article major: 13, article minor: 14, rv/rm of old vd: 40, article talk: 10, user talk: 5, user talk warnings: 12, wikipedia: 5, wikipedia talk: 1: good, except for the accidental deletions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zimbabwe&diff=prev&oldid=50544984Zimbabwe that lasted for 21 minutes] and was fixed by another editor, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afrikaner&diff=prev&oldid=50576557 at Afrikaner] that messed up the article; should be a strong reminder to check all admin actions afterwards. Checked 6 contributions: 2005-09-08t05:56:02z/2005-09-25t19:54:34z: article major: 3, article minor: 3: good. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirstenbosch&diff=prev&oldid=5790489 1st logged edit]: good. I have see no problem with using [[WP:V]] for anon edits, tho a link to WP:V in edit summary would be better. While I disagree with the categorization as minor for some of his edits, looks like a good candidate for admin. --
'''Support''' this user.
'''Support'''. Although you should check the anon's contrib after you revert it... '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
Cautious '''support'''
'''Support''' For the reasons stated above.
'''Support''' He does really good job in Wikipedia.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  The comments under the oppose heading are good, but overall I see Dewet as a careful and knowledgable editor who understands the comments, will take them to heart, and will properly use the tools. --
'''Support'''. Valuable editor, will make a great admin. I once asked Dewet for help, believing he was an admin. He promtly helped fix the problem without a fuss, despite that we had disagreed over some edits. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)<br>'''Additional comment''' vis-a-vis the [[WP:BITE]] concerns. I have come across Dewet occasionally, and I do not see any need for worry. When the article [[Nelson Mandela]] was close to create a divide between the few but vocal African editors, Dewet, with one edit, calmed the situation. Dewet has, as far as I know, the qualities of a good admin.--
'''Back to Support''''
'''Support''' Looks good, he positively responded to constructive criticism and sought to correct himself.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Cuivienen - this person does not need the rollback button to make this behavior even easier.  --
'''Oppose''', we cannot have an administrator biased against anon contributions, even if "the change seems unmerited or suspicious in any way" (which is subjective until you confirm it by viewing the diff), and "said contributor didn't even bother to include an edit summary" (many anons perform typo or spelling corrections without).
'''Oppose''' Per above concern about attitude towards anons. Furthermore, note that having the comment on the user page where anons who see it will likely be offended/turned off and admins are some of the people who will come into the most contact with new users.
'''Weak Oppose''' Per JoshuaZ; if new users get the impression that anonymous editors are shot on sight, that doesn't really help Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' More experince would be better - low project contributions and looks like a lot of his edits are reverts. --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of Wikipedia space edits, suggests that policy knowledge may not be up to admin standards.
'''Oppose''' Per [[WP:BITE]] concerns.
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:BITE]] concerns --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' after reading [[Talk:Battle of Spion Kop/Archive 1|this archive]] in its entirety. What sealed it were the words "purposely obtuse" (in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABattle_of_Spion_Kop%2FArchive_1&diff=17150225&oldid=11198429 this diff]) directed at a longtime editor who has done a great deal of good work to clarify page naming guidelines.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] above.  Sounds rather stubborn, and I'm concerned he might apply admin tools too aggressively or get involved in a wheel war.  --
'''Oppose'''. As of now, I am concerned about his understanding of the wiki-concept in totality. --
'''Oppose''' if all you want to do is revert, then you don't need admin tools. Popups is perfectly adequate for that.
'''Oppose''' per above; I just have a bad feeling about this user.
'''Oppose''' for admin privileges not needed per answer to Q1.  Keep up the good work as an editor!
'''Oppose''' There are concerns here expressed regarding editor's attitude toward anons and his inexperience in wiki-space.  I believe firmly that rectifying the latter will mollify the former, and so I endorse the view that more time is needed in this case.
'''Oppose''', as I'm convinced there are real [[WP:BITE]] issues.  I might be convinced otherwise if there were extenuating circumstances, but I looked through edit history to figure out how Dewet's attitude toward newbies is reflect in his edits and found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prehistory&diff=50046007&oldid=49963057 this edit].  In my view, edits made with popups with no summary reflect likely edits made with rollback, and this edit seems to be treating as vandalism an effort by an anon to improve the content of the article. Admins have to bend over backward to be nice, even when it takes extra time, and there's too little of that on Wikipedia as it is. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm just not convinced he's right for the position.
'''Oppose''' New users are the life blood of the project, the original text on his userpage was a little over the top and the change came only under some pressure from this RFA. It would have been nice to see the adjustment occur before it drew so much attention. Also, I'm not crazy about this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SCZenz&diff=prev&oldid=54216858 remark], I don't think editors opposing here would agree that they are just following the crowd. And in general I'm also not crazy about all the questioning of votes he and others have done on various opposers talk pages.
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns.--

Per [[WP:BITE]] concerns. Will support future RfAs when there is an improvement in attitude towards newbies. -
'''Neutral'''. More edits at project pages will be better, but I do not oppose.--
'''Neutral''', doesn't really have that many edits for 2 years and bias against anons while hard to avoid isn't a great trait. However I think user could do a good job with adminship.
'''Neutral'''. I've had a change of heart on my oppose vote. I still don't think I can support, but the concern seems a bit petty to me now. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Neutral''', a few concerns here, by no means a bad candidate but would prefer to see the oppose points addressed before a strong RfA #2 in a couple of months. <b>
'''Neutral'''.  Seems sensible, but the [[WP:BITE]] stuff coming from people who usually are of sound judgement, and the fact all he wants to do is revert, make me vote "Go Team Switzerland" on this one.
'''Neutral''' - if it weren't for the concerns about your attitude towards the newbies (remember, everyone was a newbie once, '''''even you'''''), I wouldn't have a problem supporting you.
'''Neutral''' - While I would always like to help out a fellow South African, I am a little concerned. I tend to vote very conservatively when it comes to awarding adminship, so this has nothing to do with the new user controversy. I am more concerned by what Dewet would do with his admin powers if he had them. His post on the topic seemed to indicate that he would not actively participate in some of the activities admins are sometimes expected to partake in. So I suppose I would like clarification before I can vote anything but neutral.
'''Support.''' Seen this candidate around, no problems for me. <tt>
'''Support.'''  per radiokirk.
'''Why not?'''
'''Support''', I don't see anything wrong here. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' number of edits doesn't really impact anything if a candidate is well-versed in policy and is responsible.
'''Support''' The only issue I have is edits outside of vandalism, but I think he would be a useful addition to the admin list.
'''Weak support''' I have concern that the user is overly focused on vandalism and so we have little info about how the Digital will behave if some form of conflict comes up, but overall the impression I get is favorable and I think Digital will use the tools well.
'''Moderate support''' per JoshuaZ (although I should say that I do comment Digital for wanting to be an admin in order to carry out the work of the community in any area in which admin involvement is required; such a sentiment reflects, IMHO, an excellent understanding of the nature of adminship and a desire for the mop, etc., for the right reasons) and RadioKirk.
'''Support''' (edit conflict) Keep on fighting vandalism (and please add [[Vincent van Gogh]] to your watch list).
'''Support''' - is constantly using AIV and a direct link to the block would save a little time for everyone --
'''Support''' Yup. Definitely.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Meets my standards. Will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks good. We need more vandal fighters. --
'''Weak moral support'''. Not bad, though more edits at Wikipedia namespaces would be much better.--
'''Support''' Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Would make a good admin -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' More vandal fighting power to ya! &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Tawker - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
I'm going to '''Wholeheartedly Support''' Digitalme. He's been very active in vandal fighting (we chat while doing so, often) and he's very polite and determined to protect Wikipedia from vandalism. Admins work for free, there's no need to make sure you get your "money's worth" from them being able to do everything. If we have one more person willing and able to tone down the amount of damage to Wikipedia, isn't that worth it? <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Good RC Patroller!
'''Support''' Good at fighting vandalism. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter --
'''Weak Support''' Great vandalism fighter, but not many constructive article edits --
'''Weak support'''. Needs to make more productive article contributions, but otherwise a great user.&#160;—
'''Strong Support''', been here long enough to get a promotion. --
'''Strong support''' - good vandal fighter. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - Vandal Fighters can really use adminship well. Thus I believe it is fine to give this user adminship. '''
'''Support'''- Stats show more than a vandal fighter,100% Admin Material.--
'''Support''' - maybe I should write my own version of the 1FA article - but, in my mind, the only meaningful question is do I trust him with the tools.  And I do, thus, I '''support'''
'''Support''' - Great contributor, I've had a lot of discussions with him through [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E@]]. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for now, I seen digitalme editing and he's a good vandal fighter, but I feel he needs more experince with article writing, the answer for number 3 I didn't like nither. I'm willing to change my vote if this is a close one and I'm happy to support in a few months. Thanks
'''Oppose''' Digitalme's contributions to fighting vandalism are valued. However, I don't see the major contributions to [[Fencing]], although Digitalme says it's the article he/she is most proud of. That indicates that perhaps there isn't much dedication to building an encyclopedia which is, after all, our primary purpose on Wikipedia. My primary objection: the contributions to the Wikipedia project space don't seem to be varied (see [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=Digitalme&dbname=enwiki_p project space history]); I'd like to see more AfD contributions (as of right now, there's only one). Administrators will be expected to make decisions on closing AfDs and therefore they should be more involved in the process. Lastly, although these two items didn't really contribute to my decision to oppose, I'm a) curious as to why April 2006 was your first month with more than 160 edits and b) puzzled as to why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Digitalme&diff=55837252&oldid=55832307 the date was formatted incorrectly] in this RfA. I understand people make mistakes, but I just find that one especially strange. Anyway, like I said, those last two things were more of comments rather than oppose reasons. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Certainly on the rights tracks but far too soon. Started editing in November, but only made 86 contributions from then until the end of February. Only started editing seriously in March (with 150 contributions that month) and heavy editing only began last month. Looks like a good vandal fighter and the regular use of warnings is a very encouraging sign, but needs a few more months of experience and more exposure to activities outside of vandal fighting.
'''Weak Oppose''' Seems to be a good admin material, but to soon. Maybe in a couple of months...
'''Oppose'''. Single-issue vandal fighters do not necessarily good admins make, no matter how much time they spend on IRC. This is not to say that they make bad admins either, but there is more to adminning than pressing 'rollback' and 'block'. In the case of this candidate there is not a lot by way of participation in the community-side of things (where adminning happens, by and large), despite an apparently large number of WP: space edits; they are all to AIAV. Couple that with only about 1.5 months of regular involvement and the experience gains that come with it, and I think that a broader, longer involvement would be needed before handing out an admin bit here. Vandal fighting ''does not'' require admin powers, and I do increasingly get the impression that the preponderance of admins in the CVU IRC channel makes people think that it does. -
'''Oppose'''. Editing articles (and the engagement in content debates which this almost inevitably involves) is an important experience for an admin.
'''Oppose''' A good user in terms of vandal-fighting, but currently lacks the all-round contributions that I like to see for support. In a few months time I would suggest that this user would have this sufficient level, with more MedCab cases under their belt, for example. --
'''Oppose''' does not meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], lacking all-roundedness. -
'''Oppose''' per Splash and TigerShark.  The candidate simply has insufficient experience at this time, especially for a self-nom.  Try again in four or five months.
'''Oppose'''. What Xoloz said. That [[fencing]] article would look great with some more references. -
'''Oppose''' per above.  Insufficient experience.
'''Oppose'''. Not long enough as a consistent contributor. Needs a bit more experience before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Splash. Good vandal fighter but lacks all-roundedness. --
'''Oppose''' per concerns above about lack of all-roundedness. --
Not enough experience and per Joturner.  --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose'''. Good vandal fighter, but the number of interactions with vandals or editors you disagree on content is so low that it is sheer imposible to tell how you wil deal with serious trolling and abusive vandals that you as admin for sure will have to deal with. Sorry. --
'''Neutral'''. I like what i see, and there may be an argument for foisting the mop for vandalism fighting only. But he would also have the power to close AfDs, for example, and there appears to be a real lack of experience in that department. However, since the editor does not seem likely to abuse the mop in an area he is not experienced enough in, i wouldn't like to oppose. So its a neutral from me, with an intention to support should the editor come back with some wider project experience in the future. '''
'''Neutral'''.  Adminship should be no big deal, digital looks great.  I have a higher standard for self-noms, though, so this one's on the fence.
'''Neutral''' User has reverted vandalism tirelessly, which I appreciate, but seems a little too focused on vandalism and doesn't interact enough with other users. I would suggest more talk edits and user talk edits other than vandalism warnings. '''''
'''Neutral''' per Schzmo. I would like to see more variety in activities.
'''Neutral''' right on Royboy... you seem to be on the ball Digitalme... keep'er up!!! - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Neutral, leaning towards support'''.
'''Moral support''' - may be a good editor, just failed to do his research on how to an RfA, which is a shame. -
No, for obvious reasons. &ndash;
'''Oppose''': Lack of any statement showing knowledge of Wikipedia policies and no indication of a requirement for the tools. I'd suggest withdrawing until at the very least such a statement is forthcoming. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose''' sorry for wasting your time guys so how do i withdraw my  request?
'''Strong support''' <s>so long as the nominee removes the image from his sig. Pet peeve of mine. Other than that,</s> I'm really impressed with the answer to Q3 below. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' Give me a break, we're now opposing people for images in signatures?!  Being an admin isn't a position of prestige, the position entails helping the wikipedia world go 'round.  Support, because this person seems capable of that.
'''Support''' Vary well rounded, sensible editor, I also like the image in the sig --Easier to recognise than names.--<font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' A good editor. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' following e-mail correction. Prepared to give the benefit of the doubt as user appears to have been misunderstood at times and has learnt from previous mistakes.
'''Support'''. The reasons for opposition seem to all be out of date or insubstantial.
'''Support''' as above. People seem to just vote oppose and then never look back to see whether their objections were ''correct'' or not. -
'''Support''', seems to be a strong editor, and I am not convinced by the opposers. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't like images in sigs one bit, but I'm not about to oppose an RfA over it.
'''Support''', I change my vote after the candidate has allowed others to send emails.--
'''Support'''. I find none of the reasons to oppose convincing. He made a mistake, and has grown as a result. I find that commendable. --
'''Support'''- His edits are well distributed across name sapces and it suggests familiarity with the processes here. Also, he clearly indicated his maturity by not skirting issues on past interactions with other editors. I give him the benefit of doubt. --
'''support''' as per Ashenai
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per BorgHunter (Q3). Rm image sig, though. No policy against this? [[Image:Big-basin-bird.jpg|32px]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', I see no need to limit this user's capacity to be constructive. <code>// '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Valuable contributor. I like his stance on being open on POV. I didn't like the comment on copyright so much, but I don't think he was suggesting we should actually violate copyright if we disagree with it. And I'm not going to refrain from supporting someone because in their many, many edits, a month ago they used poor wording. --
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' —[[User:Tarquin Binary|Tarquin Binary]] Not just a matter of setting up Portal:London, but the portal was accomplished in a thoroughly good-humoured, unarrogant and collaborative way thanks to Deano organising it (I only did a tiny bit of work on said portal).
'''Support''' Have enough faith in him --
'''Support''' Always had good experience with him.
'''Support''' Seems a very good editor, I could see him being a very good moderator.
'''Support''' a) based on response to my question plus clarifications on user talk pages.   b) review of random edits c) belief that adminship should be supported in general.
'''Support''', changed from neutral. I'm satisfied with the explanation he gave at my Talk page, and I'll readily [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on his part, especially after taking note that he clarified his stance on the civility issue brought up at this RfA long before his nomination. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. Normally I'd be wary of voting for such a relative newbie, but he's got plenty of edits and appears to have a good history of achieving consensus with others. And it will be refreshing to have an admin who's not just a sheep. --
'''Support''' has interacted well with other uses - some of whom have been pushing POVs at [[Talk:United Kingdom]] - coming up with well thought through and considered NPOV compromises. Clearly lost his temper at an early stage - but we've all done that once - and now learnt from it as a level-headed and fair user. Would make a great admin
'''Support''' I don't see any reason why you should not be an admin.
'''Support'''. Need more admins. This one will do fine.
'''Support''', I've seen Deano about and he doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Oppose'''. Candidate is not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia practices, and has expressed attitudes in defiance of policies which could put the project in jeopardy. Choice quotes: "damn right I don't respect US copyright law - why would I? Not everyone here is American, so why should we give a rats about US copyright law?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=34020435] &mdash; "Open POV is the key to NPOV in articles."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=39483728] --
'''Oppose''' per HWSNBN and Mark Sweep.
'''Oppose''': user page said to me he had not yet left a past problem in the past and is not ready yet.
Not just yet due to civility issues as outlined above.
'''Weak Oppose''' I've had positive experiences with Deano personally, but the above concerns make me think that a few more months learning time is not a bad idea.  Will gladly support later, if even necessary.
'''Oppose''' due to abrasiveness. This would be tested further under conflict in admin role.
'''Weak oppose''' I had a miunderstanding with candidate, which was my mistake - and he handeled it fairly well. However, anyone who thinks polemical 'anti-admin' userboxes have a place on wikipedia needs more time to reflect on what we are about. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=39483728] --
'''Weak Oppose''' have to agree with xoloz - this quote from Deano's answers on copyright concerned me the most "If a new article contained only copyrighted material, then I would seek to reformulate it..." Some time will probably hone the idea expressed here to not suggest that creating derivative works is ok. will probably support later.
'''Oppose''', user has numerous perjorative and divisive userboxes on his user page.  Of particular note are: the 3 anti-EU ones, the anti-George Bush one, the many anti-USA ones (particularly the anti-American English one), the anti-Zodiac one, and the numerous polemic political ones.  Will change vote if this is addressed, especially as he has, at least, [[WP:SUBST|subst-ed]] them.
'''oppose''' userboxes
'''Oppose''' - The userboxen don't bug me for the most part, but the more-than-occasional general disrespect for other users does. (
'''Oppose''' civility issues, we have enough incivility at the moment, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=prev&oldid=39360905], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=38983287], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arctic_Monkeys&diff=prev&oldid=37390458].
'''Oppose''' this editors stance on userboxes makes me nervous about giving them admin discretion.
Oppose, per above comments.--
'''Oppose''' someone who calls admins doing chores "abusive" are likely to create more problems than the ones solved. -- <small> (
'''Oppose''' per others, mostly Drini.
'''Oppose'''. as per recent behaviour. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Drini and others.
'''Neutral''' Moved from opposed based on lack of email, still reviewing this request.
Same as Phaedriel, but my concerns aren't enough to make me oppose.
--
'''Neutral'''. What I understood from self-nomination, it looks like the abilities of admin must be split into at least two categories: purely technical and political.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' great answers. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Support''' as per original request
'''Support''' as per original request
'''Support''' Per original request
'''Vote swing''' - I've changed my mind from my original vote. I'm concerned at the userboxes on his userpage that could be deleted as [[WP:CSD#T1|T1]], but they're a minor distraction.
'''Support''' - Looks like we have a lot in common!  The important thing is what he does on the encyclopaedia, not his user page.
'''Strongest possible support''' in light of obvious attack campaign against a perfectly rational editor. --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' I hope that this time the rfa can close at 7 days, per generally accepted standards, or we can get some generally accepted standards that are actually stuck to. <font color="#4682B4">
Moral '''support''', it must suck to not get adminned because of some people's petty war against userboxes.
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Userboxes are substed, so I don't see a problem with them. Great work on [[Portal:London]], and across the encyclopedia.
'''Support''', I don't like excessive userboxes either, but they're not a reason to oppose someone's RfA. -
'''Support'''. I'm shocked that [[User:Grue]] was blocked for his RFA vote. <TT>
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' - I like his edits almost universally.  I am indifferent wrt userboxes. --
'''Support'''. Disgusting to oppose on this issue, tantamount to bullying.
'''support''' as before
'''Support''' as per [[User:Grue]] ---
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Djr_xi&diff=40423831&oldid=40409388] Still need more admins. Still think this one will do fine.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've always thought of 'Deano' as a good editor. I don't see userboxes as an issue at all. - <font style="background: #6fd6f5" face="Monospace" color="#98285c">
'''Strong Support''', per [[User:Proto|Proto]] and [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]]. --
'''Very Strong Support'''--
'''Incredibly Strong Support''' and, like Karmafist, I hope that your RfA lasts for '''7 days''' and ''not'' whenever we feel like closing it. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''. Not afraid to express his opinion and say it like it is, yet respects Wikipedia policy and community. Great editor and contributor. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''.  Should already be an admin.  Very well rounded, one of the more sensible editors still here.--<small><font color="darkgreen">
'''Strong Support'''. As in the first nom - He may be brusque, but he never acts in bad faith. I believe his open stances are being misunderstood by several ''"oppose"'' voters. --
'''Oppose''', as per my original vote - user has numerous perjorative and divisive userboxes on his user page.  Of particular note are: the 3 anti-EU ones, the anti-George Bush one, the many anti-USA ones (particularly the anti-American English one), the anti-Zodiac one, and the numerous polemic political ones.  Will change vote if this is addressed, especially as he has, at least, [[WP:SUBST|subst-ed]] them.
'''Oppose''' per original vote citing civility issues. (
'''<s>Strong </s> oppose''' prone to incivility and personal attacks upon those he disagrees with: assuming bad faith and unsubstantiated personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=prev&oldid=39360905] abuse of other editors ('your all loosers') [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=38983287] (inflammetory references to Americans) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arctic_Monkeys&diff=prev&oldid=37390458]. --
'''Strong oppose''' due to civility concerns and refusal to accept project leadership direction regarding divisive userboxes.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per userbox thing. --
'''Oppose'''.  I won't say why, but it has something to do with large payments of money into Swiss bank accounts by userbox-haters who've convinced me to join their obvious attack campaign.  Alternatively, y'know, it ''could'' be because of the "some idiot" rant on his userpage (yes, I've seen Locke Cole's response, no, that's not the point), or his comment that good user Doc_glasgow "has a history of abusing his admin powers" (if he doesn't know what abuse of admin powers ''is'', how will he go when he's granted them?) ... but that's just too far-fetched.
'''Oppose''' per a general incivility, both with userboxes, and in discussion.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' - due to civility concerns.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Doc glasgow]].
'''Oppose''' for same reasons as before.
I think immediate renominations of borderline cases on RfA are usually about as good an idea as immediate renominations on AfD, so it's puzzling that we're even bothering with this. As to the merits of the candidate, unless he would like to explain why he believes Doc glasgow has a history of abusing admin powers, then he can't possibly be an appropriate choice. We already have way too many people, including a few of our worst admins, eager to assume bad faith and bandy loose accusations about with little basis in reality. --
'''Oppose''' for now, per original nomination. --
'''Oppose'''. The diffs and other problems cited above are ''far'' to recent for support at present. Even though some of them are vaguely repaired (with the exception of the unacceptable edit summaries: an object lesson in not misusing them as they never go away) they are still too recent to convince me that the editor has a sufficient history of trouble-free interactions that demonstrates a good, and well-embedded understanding of both policy and practice. -

'''Oppose''' (same as yesterday,) civility issues, we have enough incivility at the moment, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff=prev&oldid=39360905], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=38983287], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arctic_Monkeys&diff=prev&oldid=37390458].
'''Oppose''' per Rx StrangeLove.
'''Weak oppose''', well, for today anyway. I think admins are just "trusted editors." , so I'm pretty quick to support, but before I do that, It does help to understand what you're actually here for. Wikipedia is a  <free> <encyclopedia>. I think copyright is ok, but needs a bit of a fixer upper after a century or so of use. :) Wikipedia is a [[free content|free (as in speech)]] encyclopedia. We're here to provide part of the workaround for that broken copyright situation.  The second thing is that wikipedia is an [[encyclopedia]]. Sure, please, make it NPOV and tidy and lots of userboxes, but I haven't really seen you discuss things like how to overthrow Raul654. <innocent look> ;-) Ok, ok, so that might be a bit ''too'' high a standard, though I wish! Apart from that,  your answers to questions weren't insane enough :-P (goodness help us when being a decent dude is considered insane.) Hmmm, talk with me a bit maybe, and I'd consider changing my vote this time or more likely next time. I'll leave you a note. In short, nothing solidly bad, but a lot of vague clues that maybe you still need to pick up the basics a bit more here and there, so you'll be fine in a while :-) . <walks off, pondering if a wish to overthrow Raul654 is a proper editing criterium>.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons than before. -- <small> (
Oppose, per Micheal Snow.--
change to '''Strong oppose''' - relisting is a bad idea - see my prior vote for my prior weak oppose reasoning
'''Oppose''', user has numerous perjorative and divisive userboxes on his user page. --
'''Oppose'''. I don't mind the userboxes, but the uncivil comments he has made outside the boxes are enough to swing me in this direction.
'''Oppose''' for civility issues. Inflamatory remarks are not helpful for uniting a community. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Bad temper+incivility+prejudice+userbox fixation+admin powers = wheel-warring+trouble. Uh uh. --
'''Oppose'''. I am not concerned about the userboxes, but civility is needed in admin responsibilities.
'''Weak Oppose''' per first time (which had nothing to do with userboxes, btw.)  Don't think this rerun was necessary, as even 32/10 is below 80% threshold.
'''Oppose''' Not sure why people re-nominate users who have already been rejected as admin candidates, when there are so many other potential candidates. Specifically for this user, "Bad temper+incivility+prejudice+userbox fixation+admin powers = wheel-warring+trouble."--
'''Oppose''' per answer to last question. Very deletionist. --<font color="green">'''
'''Oppose''' Articles are seldom "deleted as you find them". The point of wikipedia is to garner a large amount of subjects and expand upon them. Knowing when to take articles to afd beforehand and garner second opinions is an important skill. -
'''Neutral.''' I have never voted oppose simply based on userboxes and I hesitate to do so now. However, I'm neutral per Proto and broadly agree that the majority of those boxes should go.
'''Neutral''' Can I do anything to convince you to rid yourself of all the userboxes on your page. I want to support and I will if you get rid of the ones that do nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--
'''Neutral'''. Evidence dealing with things that would actually affect admin behaviour disturb me, however, I would like to clarify that I received support despite my polemic stance on my own user page, and although I didn't have userboxes, userboxes are basically a list of views one way or another. I cannot see why people would oppose because that person open declares a very radical political and polemic stance.
'''Neutral''' Can't really support nor oppose this user.
Changing to '''neutral'''. I can't support because of the recent personal attacks. Please comment on content, not editors. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Neutral''', I'm in agreement with the above. --
'''Neutral'''; good candidate, and adminship should be no big deal.  However, a bit controversial for a self-nom; come back in a month, and ask someone else to nominate you.
'''Support''' The nom and questions lay out a fine case toward the proposition that this user is unlikely to abuse/misuse the admin tools and is likely to use the mop, etc., to benefit the project.  Oh, yeah, and I beat the nominator...
'''Support'''! Holy crow, you're not an admin already?
'''Support''' - you were already on my admins list --
'''Beat Nominator Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''', has a legitimate need for tools and has demonstrated that they'll be used maturely.
'''Support''' based upon spread of edits and answers to questions below. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Support''' per above.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Holy-crap-that's-a-lot-of-edits Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Responses to questions are compelling: this is not a crusader but a janitor and a fixer of small, broken things.  Chances of abuse of tools: remote.  Chances of doing good work with them: Strong.  Send out to the mop factory forthwith...
Obvious '''Support'''. Fantastic editor. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Supp[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|7px|cheeky]]rt'''.  Thoughtful answers to questions, lots of good editing and civil talking.  Clearly to be trusted with the tools.  --
'''Strong Support''' I just noticed the colloary to question 4, and I am switching to support. I think a good job will be done.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', long overdue and well deserved, and the project will be the primary beneficiary.
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''.  Thought you were already an admin.  I've come across this user many times and see no indication he would misuse the admin tools. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support''' good answers, good candidate --
'''Weak support'''. I'm inclined to believe that, despite the lack of WP-space edits, having more than 10,000 article edits would make an editor more than sufficiently familiar with policy. I can't say I've ever come across this editor, but we tend to work in very different areas. The answers to the questions are satisfactorily specific for me and so far I have seen nothing wrong about this user. <s>Answers to question one indicate the candidate would use admin tools primarily in areas they would be most familiar with.</s> Great template work as well. So yeah... Weak support.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', more candidates like him, please!
'''Support''' - solid and helpful contributor. I'm satisfied with his answers to the questions.
'''Support.''' Good answers to questions.--
'''Support''' per JoJan. --
'''Support''', superb answers. Despite the low projectspace edits, I can see you're very involved in Wikipedia.
'''Support''' A superb user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
No reason not to. —
It seems that this user should have received adminship a very long time ago. '''
'''Support''' No evidence admin tools will be misused.--
'''Support'''; contributions show dedication to writing an encyclopaedia, and I'm sure giving this user adminship is in the continuing best interests of the articles.
'''Support'''; don't see any reason why not. --
'''S't''' - Yes. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' courteous, attempts to write an encyclopedia, discusses whenever arguments arise.
'''Support''' per Werdna. :-)
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Good editor.  --
'''Support'''.  Good editor, and even if I don't agree with everything he said, the answers to the questions were  remarkably thoughtful compared to the usual. --
'''Support''' Good editor. No reason for concern about the way admin tools will be used.
'''Support''' seems to be an excellent editor
'''Support'''.  A solid contributor whose answers below show a high level of maturity  and intelligence.  I cannot think of a reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' 10,000+ edits makes up for a lack of WPspace edits in my book. Get some more soon though, ok? -
'''Strong support''' Though nom may not have a comprehensive knowledge of policy, I am convinced that in this case, ''lack of policy knowledge is not a problem''. This user understands that he does not fully understand policy, and unashamedly admits his ignorance in attempting to understand it better. In particular, I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=50346706 this edit] to the Village Pump, in which nom says "Am I doing the right thing here or should I have taken other actions?", and to the answer to the last question (Ambuj Saxena's) below, where nom says "When I thought there might be a problem with a speedy delete, I went to project page and double-checked the criteria" and "I erred in the direction of caution". I am convinced that nom would use the same caution as an administrator, and that he would continue being willing to double-check and learn from his mistakes. I strongly urge edit-counters who think his Wikipedia-space edits are too low to consider this rectifying factor. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Support''' per Audacity.  I have looked at DLJessup's contributions (not all 11,000+) and I see no reason to think that he will misuse the tools.  What he doen't know, I believe he will brush up on and act prudently. --
'''Weak Support'''. I started writing an oppose, but changed my mind while writing, and the comments I wrote in that regard are certainly very important: <small>You've got more to learn, I think, in some critical areas.  For example, the answer to the question from Drini indicates a willingness to learn and a good attitude about deletion, but also indicates initial unfamiliarity with one of our most recent, most contentious, and most misused article CSD's&mdash;as well as with the common practice of referring to CSD's by the template name to invoke that CSD.  (E.g. CSD A7 == {{[[Template:db-bio|db-bio]]}}). Also note that "not notable" is not a speedy deletion criterion any more than "vanity" is; they're both ''often'' confused with "no assertion of notability" (A7) because many articles fit all three.</small>  Anyway, despite my concerns, your willingness to learn and to spend the necessary time doing the research needed to do the right thing have, upon reflection, won me over.  --
'''Support'''.
Sorry I'm late here. Reasoned, thoughtful, articulate question answers, tries to learn and get to the right answer, not just a vandal fighter. All goo stuff. Happy to support! Look forward to working with you. Please address the valid concerns raised though... learn on the job. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support''' per above
'''Oppose,''' as I would like to see more Wikipedia: edits. ―'''
'''Oppose''' Sadly, the lack of project-space participation does not give me confidence user understands wiki-process.
'''Strong Oppose''' per sorely lacking WP: and User talk: edits. My compliments to you on being a great contributor, of course. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian.  With that goes the same acknowledgement of your great contributions.
'''Oppose'''. Having a low number of projectspace edits is never good, but I think that your answer to the first question, where you state that you would assist with both the articles for deletion and categories for deletion process, seems a bit odd since you rarely ever post at either of those pages.--<b>[[User:SomeStranger|<font color="orange">SomeStrang</font>]]<i>[[User:SomeStranger/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]</i>
I just don't see the kind of project experience that I'm looking for.  Doesn't meet my [[User:Cyde/Admin criteria|admin criteria]].  --
'''Oppose''' per much of above. For someone with over 12,000 edits, I'd like to see more Wikipedia and user talk edits. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' lack of wiki namespace edits and user talk edits, maybe later
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose'''. On [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]] it states that I like to see participation in the areas you say you want tools for. For someone with 12000+ edits, you have very few Wikipedia: edits, and very little XfD participation this year, which is concerning for someone who wants to close CfDs and AfDs. Otherwise looks good, would probably support in a few months if you get more involved in the projectspace.
'''Oppose''' admins need at least some experience of Wikipedia space.
'''Oppose'''. Appears to be a good editor but I'm really unimpressed with answers to the questions, particularly the editor's statement that he would try to avoid contentious AfD's and expresses a reluctance to use various mop powers. Admin statistics show we already have many admins who are not actively using their tools and that the bulk of monthly admin activity falls to the minority. I don't think we need to confirm any new admins who are reluctant, wary or scared to jump in to such situations before the community even grants them the tools. Also some answers appear to reflect a lack of policy knowledge. I would also like to see some edit evidence of vandal fighting and an interest in policy through WP participation.
'''Oppose''' lack of namespace/user talk edits.  A little more experience wouldnt hurt. --
'''Oppose''' Does not have the all round level of contributions that I look for. --
'''Oppose'''.  Wikispace participation is necessary because of the admin's role in interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy.  User talk participation is evidence of a user's dedication to conflict resolution and coordination.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - it depresses me to oppose. Since becoming an admin myself I've realised that one needs to have had heavy involvement with the wikipedia namespace to be able to do the job competently. There are a few admins who are too heavy-handed, and I think it's because they haven't had enough exposure before passing RfA. You're a good editor, though. -
'''Oppose''', good editor but a shortage of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests lack of participation in mission-critical processes like [[WP:AFD]], which a potential admin desperately needs.
'''Oppose''' per comments above, just too little in the project namespace and usertalk. Shell <sup>
'''Neutral'''. More Wikipedia: edits will be much better.--
'''Neutral''' I would like to support but you have less than 200 edits on pages under the Wikipedia namespace. <font color="green">
'''Neutral''', great editor, though as mentioned above, I  would like to see some more project and user talk edits.--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Neutral''' even though I couldn't see any vandal fighting in the last 1,000 edits.. Been here a long time too.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' Would have like to see more participation in some areas, but other than that, I would have supported. Reapply in a couple of months and you will get adminship for sure. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support'''. Hey, I'll give it a shot.
'''Support''' Candidate appears to be reasonable and well-intentioned. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.--
'''Support''' Seems polite and focused.
Too little activity until recently, lack of project edits may indicate lack of understanding of policies. Too soon.
'''Oppose''' per NSLE --
'''Oppose''' same as above
'''Oppose''' Sorry, so little edits, 1148, so little time. Will glady suport a future nomination if he keeps contributing. —
'''Oppose''' Save as above. please withdraw and come back in three months!
'''Oppose''' per NSLE --
'''Oppose'''. Please stay active, use summaries even for minor edits, and try again when you have more editing experience.
'''Oppose''', I'm not too concerned about edit summaries for minor edits. However, I really think you need a little more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures before I'm comfortable with supporting you. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' not sufficiently active before this month. Try again in the future, though... (and do remember edit summaries, even for minor edits) <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with above.  Only active in the last month.  Also, to me, minor edit summaries are just as important as the major edit summaries.  More project edits would also a big plus. --
'''Neutral''' for now. 3 months of steadily increasing activity, and over 1000 edits, both serve you well - but I share NSLE's concerns about your lack of experience working in the Project (Wikipedia:) namespace. (
'''Neutral'''.  Would like to see more UserTalk/Project work on your ''resume''.
'''Neutral'''. Keep on the doing good work for a couple more of months and try again.
I'm not particularly swayed either way.  --
'''Neutral'''.  I'm conflicted here.  On the one hand, your lack of project namespace edits does look funny.  On the other hand, you have a similar amount of edits and active time to when I was granted admin status, so I can't oppose you in good conscience.
'''Neutral''' Good intentioned, but sorry. Get someone else to nominate you next time, that helps. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Neutral''' It will be better if you have more editing experience.--
'''Morale support''' - Get some more experiance first, also this editor did except his nomination (it was a hidden message which is now unhiden) <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''', awesome user.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' You have been here on this account since August... I see no contributions to ''any'' admin areas whatsoever. You use edit summaries sparingly and you messed up this RfA<s> (you still haven't accepted it)</s>. --
'''Strong oppose''': lack of experience. I have 12 500 edits on hungarian wiki, nearly 4000 here, have admin flag in different projects and I'm still afraid of nominating myself. You have less than 100 edits...
'''Strong Oppose'''. 43 edits total. You said you were close to 100. Sorry, but you need more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose''', malformed RFA.
'''Oppose''': You only have 43 total edits and have been around for almost 2 months. Lack of experience, try again when you have a lot more edits and have been in Wikipedia for a while. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose - why on earth should we avoid a pile-on?'''. Per everyone else: recommend self-withdrawal or a bureaucrat killing this nonsense right now, if that's legal, so to speak. No way.
'''Oppose''' - 43 edits is not enough, and your contributions don't show 6 months experience.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you definitely need to gain much more experience and get involved in administrative-oriented tasks. I suggest withdraw RfA.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' far to inexperienced. Suggest withdrawal--
'''Oppose''' your edit count is way too low to tell if you would be a good editor. I'd be looking for at least 2500 edits to give a good representation of how you would handle the admin tools. I recommend you wqithraw this nomination and come back in several months.
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced.--[[User:Deepujoseph| thund]]<font color="green">[[User:Deepujoseph/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', way too early, low edit count, inexprienced. Don't be discouraged and continue to edit more. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
You need a lot more experience. Usually new admins have thousands of edits. Keep up the good work and try again later.
Avoiding a pile-on.  Doctor Evil, please read through [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] to see what voters look for in a candidate and try again when you have more experience. -
'''Neutral''' To avoid the pile-on. I suggest you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible and analyze successful nominations. Try again after a few months and in the meantime, do not be discouraged by this. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Avoid pile on oppose Neutral''' - We really have no idea as to your true colours yet, please don't take this as a negative, your edits look great, we just haven't seen quite enough to determine who you really are.  Keep up the good work! --
'''Neutral''' You seem to have good intentions and a lot of potential. If you put it into practice, you'll become an administrator someday. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Neutral''' I recommend withdrawing this RfA and going for a [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] instead.  You can use the responses to improve your contributions to WP and try again in ~3000 edits' time. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Your Words article in question 2 contained a copyright violation, I removed it. Maybe later I will support.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Answers to questions are now acceptable, hence my change in vote. --
'''Support''' I agree with the neutral people that most of the tasks you listed arent admin tasks.  Still, you've been here for a while a seem to have made a large number of productive edits...not mostly vandalism reverts either.  That impresses me.  --
'''Support''' - an enthusiastic and constructive editor who I would happily trust with adminship.
'''Support'''. This user is clearly very experienced, and I was going to support initially, but the answer to question 1 left a bit to be desired. However, the candidate has put a fair bit of effort into answering the subsequent optional questions, and I am satisfied now that the user will be a good admin in terms of helping out with AfD. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Most of the opposes and neutrals are obsolete or misguided, seems like a great candidate. --
'''Support''' (moderate) This editor certainly doesn't know all there is to being an admin, but gives every indication of being willing to grow into the role through learning 'on the job'. Existing history shows responsible attitude to doing this. He will be an asset as an admin, not a liability.
'''Weak support''' per answers to optionals. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Weak Support''' per above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. <s>Your e-mail is not activated,</s> Your answers are overly broad and don't indicate an understanding of administator tasks (even the newest answer.) <s>and I generally would like to see more experience.</s> I don't see very much vandal-fighting at all in your contributions, although that's the one (almost) specific thing you've mentioned in your answers. Also, I often forgive <300 Wikipedia-space edits if the editor has a large number of great article contributions, but I don't see any evidence of that... Keep up the good work though. I'll gladly support you if you in a couple months if you address these things. (By the way, I think Myrtone86's oppose is pretty silly too.)
'''Oppose''': not enough experience.
'''Strong Oppose''' experience, answers, my criteria. - <b>
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions are quite weak. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above.  Simply not enough experience.
Answer to first question doesn't even show that he would have any use for the sysop bit.  Does he even know what admins do?  --
'''Oppose''' per Cyde.
'''Oppose''' Lacking experience - and by this I refer not to the edit count but rather due to not having a grasp of basic fundamentals of an RfA; The Simple things like email not being enabled for one, but more that your answers show either you lack experience or (worse) perhaps a lack a desire to make an effort (eg: clear backlogs - which specific backlogs?). If you can't show proper care now (of all times) then when would you? Happy to support in time however -
'''Oppose''', simply not ready; lack of experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, the answers to the questions don't seem convincing enough. -
'''Oppose''' There seems to be a lack of experaince to give adminship now. Answers to questions are not convincing. I would suggest reapplying in a few more months and see. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Oppose'''. Anyone can "assist in wikifying articles, helping newbies, clearing backlogs". Low level of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests possible shortage of policy knowledge. Low level of talk-namespace edits suggests a lack of interaction with other editors, and good interactions are absolutely essential for admins.
'''Oppose''', weak answers to questions.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions aren't satisfying...very low on detail. '''
'''Oppose''' Clear political conflict of interest, has used it to try and gain an advantage for the Liberal Democrats. Had an issue with him on the page [[Paul Offer]]. Not a suitable candidate, as he may find it difficult to stick to NPOV.
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions are quite hazy - I'm not convinced you have a clear idea what admin is.  --
'''Oppose''' fails [[User:Anonymous anonymous/RFA Criteria|my RFA criteria]] <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' as per Stifle.
'''Neutral''' Plenty of time here and edits in all spaces to satisfy me, but answers are unconvincing - most of the tasks you say don't require an admin. -
'''Neutral''' Brief intro and answers to questions don't give much of an impression to me of who you are/what your are about. Answer to question (1) : Wikifying and helping newbies are not admin tasks, you can do them today without admin buttons. "Clearing backlogs" is far too vague. Doesn't indicate to me you have much knowledge of what adminship is about, and why you think you would need/be of value with adminship --
'''Neutral'''. Enough edits, but there is not enough "stuffing" for the answers. If they were longer, then that would be good. The intro doesn't explain ''why'' he/she wants to become an Admin.
'''Neutral.''' Meets a lot of my criteria, but not the most important bit (has been around for a year).
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but weak answers.
'''Neutral''' <S>Wikipedia email not activated.<s> ''done.'' <S>Will consider changing vote after answers question and checks out otherwise.<s> Still thinking about it.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Answer to question 1 is insufficient, as per pgk. Looks good otherwise, so I won't oppose.
'''Neutral''' The answers to the question just feel to bare.  If you answer they optional questions I will re-asses.
'''Neutral'''. Does not meet my "combined 300 edits in main & user talk namespaces" requirement. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="#A8A8A7">Kala</font>]]'''
Interesting answer to Tawker's question #8. '''
There doesn't seem to be too much need for administrator tools for this user. He certaintly has experience, but his answers are also a bit bare and some answers to the optional ones are a bit hazy. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Neutral''' - concerned about some of the edits-- specifically, the uploading an Excel file. I think that was less than good judgment.
'''Neutral''' -- great answers but low edit count --
'''Neutral''' per T-rex, but the other way around. --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Candidate gives me no reason to think he will do anything meaningful with the admin tools. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Not enough comments to other users for me to see if he treats others fairly.  Other than that this user seems like a good contributor. --










'''Oppose''' due to extremely low edit count, and with exception to three edits, all others in the article space are to one article.  There's nothing to base how you'd handle stress or conflict on, or anything else that an administrator has to deal with; and you've participated in nothing else, *fD, wikifying articles, cleanup, nothing.  You need to spend much longer than 43 days as an editor before coming to RfA, and it seems unlikely that you'd need the admin tools at this point.  I think you might want to consider withdrawing this nomination before a pile-on of opposes.  Sorry.  '''<sub>[[User talk:J Di|talk to]]</sub>
'''Support''' He appears to be well-intentioned.--
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Spike in December is supported by January, with roughly 1/3 of December's edits through 1/3 of January. Plenty of edits, great contribution to project, which is spaced out over several months showing a relative amount of consistancy. My comments are below - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]]
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Oppose'''. Although I like the project participation (especially with regards to [[WP:AFD|AfD]]), this user has ''very'' little talk participation ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drdisque?namespace=1 Article], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drdisque?namespace=3 User], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drdisque?namespace=5 Project]). One of the biggest things I like to see in a candidate is the ability to moderate discussions between users, and the appropriate experience with warning vandals (since that's what you seem to be interested in). For future reference, you should check out [[Template:TestTemplates|this template]] and stick it somewhere useful (like on your user page).
'''Oppose''' Low [[edit summary]] usage. Documenting your edits by using an edit summary is the house style and is very helpful for other people who see your contributions. So, putting edit summaries is some time spent by you which saves more time to others.
'''Oppose''' Huge spike in activity from December, Low edit summary usage, would probably support in a month if activity continues and edit summary use improves --
'''Oppose''' for now. Decent activity across the main articlespace and user shows a willingness to perform maintenance tasks. However, there is a lack of edit summaries and lack of Wikipediaspace edits beyond AfD. I think you need some more activity on other Wikipediaspace articles before you're ready for adminship. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' per above, needs more experience --
'''Oppose''' per above, needs more experience and a more consistent use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience and extremely low use of edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:JHMM13]] and [[User:PS2pcGAMER]]. &mdash;
'''Oppose''': nothing personal, but would like to see more experience and use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' Will support whole-heartedly when concerns listed in other oppose votes are satidfied (ie I will probably voting "support" in a June 06 or so RfA for this user).
'''Oppose''' Not many project-space edits, and has really been acive for only a short time. With more expereince, might be a candidate I could well support.
'''Oppose'''--
Not sure yet.  --
'''Neutral''' appears to be a well intentioned user who will make a good admin in the future. Please use edit summaries more.--
'''Neutral''' would like to see more edit summaries, Talk use (communications is important for admins).  Good article edits by random checks, no specific reason to vote oppose.
'''Hometown moral support'''. Suggest withdrawal - you're not ready yet. - <b>
'''Oppose''' - inactivity - user has less than 1,000 edits in over one and a half years. No indication of real projectspace work. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Answer to Q1 denotes unpreparedness. Participation in admin-related tasks is virtually inexistent. Sorry, you need more experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Been here a little while, but their time and number of edits are nowhere near balanced.
'''Oppose''' 661 edits with a total of 7 Wikipedia edits, 18 User talk and 4 Article talk. Suggests withdrawal! This user do have potential however, as there are some thoughtful discussion presented by the user in [[User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 1|here]]. Transfer yourself to [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]], and come back after few months. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Neutral''' I'd have voted support if you were a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DRosenbach&action=history good communicator]. -- ''
'''Neutral'''. Not enough experience. Only 7 wikipedia namespace edits. I see no need for admin tools either. Obviously a good editor but this RFA is premature. I would suggest you withdraw it and come back in a few months. Thanks,
'''Neutral''', too early, wait for a few more months before coming on RFA again. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Withdraw, work hard in the main spaces - articles, User Talk, Policy, new pages/recent changes patrol - and come back again in four months' time.  That should give you enough experience of admin-related tasks to attempt another RfA.
'''Neutral'''. Edit count, participation in admin-related tasks, edit-count use, and a bad edit proportion. You clearly have good intentions, but much, much more work is needed to gain experience. '''''
'''Support'''. I think this candidate deserves some support, after all, from what I can see, Drumguy spends time on building an encyclopedia, and appears to be a civil and responsible contributor. That should count more than a low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace and a low usage of edit summaries. From the answer to Q1 I don't think Drumguy would be a particularily ''active'' admin however, the things he wants to do are things which can be carried out with the regular editting tools, so don't be discouraged if you don't gain adminship this time round.
'''Support''' per Sjakkalle. -- <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support''' per Sjakkalle.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' see [[user:Edivorce#Voting_on_RfA's|voting rational]] --
'''Support''' per Sjakkalle.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]]'''! Strong Support''' - Drumguy8800 has skills, and he has proven his love for Wikipedia.  I had the pleasure of meeting Drumguy on the Main Page redesign project, for which he created one of the drafts under consideration for replacing the current Main Page (competing with the draft I supported).  His draft is now available as a [[Wikipedia:Main Page alternates|Main Page alternate]], and can be seen '''''[[Main Page alternate (regal)|here]].'''''  If you randomly sample his contributions, you will find that he has improved Wikipedia with the vast majority of his edits, and those that were mistakes, he has caught and corrected.  Drumguy is adept with page markup and javascripting, and would be a major asset as an administrator, as he could help on the more technical side of things.  And the fact that he has been involved almost entirely in the main namespace is a good thing.  We need more admins who spend most of their time in the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia, to improve this encyclopedia's vigilance against vandalism.  I feel we can trust him to ban the enemies of Wikipedia, and would be more at ease knowing there is another devoted Wikipedian with the power to do so. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''Wow I can't believe all the oppose votes over edit summaries.  It is not as though Drumguy8800 is refusing to use edit summaries.  Look at his contribs since he learned it was an issue.--
'''Oppose''' few wikipedia namespace edits that are not [[WP:FPC]], and I don't like the answer for question number 1, as they are not admin chores --
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda.  Also, I'm concerned about the lack of [[edit summaries]], although they are not the driving force behind my decision.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' Very low (almost no) usage of edit summaries.  User needs more time to become familiar with best editing practices.
'''Oppose''' nice editor I've seen around, but I must vote oppose due to the extreme lack of edit summaries, and "vandal-type chores"
'''Oppose'''. As per above.  Project space participation helps to give voters a better idea that you have a broad understanding of Wikipedia policies.  Also, edit summaries are a great benefit to people who are on RC patrol and are strongly encouraged.  However, I'd like to point out the number of great images you uploaded.  Keep up the good work and if you participate more in the project space, I'd definitely consider changing my vote.--
'''Oppose''' Sorry
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|my criteria]]. I am likely to support after further Wikispace edits and an increased usage of edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''. Barely any edit summaries. You don't need to be an admin to do what you propose to do in Question 1. Sorry, it just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Sorry, but I do '''oppose''' when edit summaries are this low. Please start using them consistently and try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Per all the above oppose vote.
'''Oppose''', not enoughy wikipedia space edits, user talks and lack of edit summaries--
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda - doesn't seem to need admin powers
'''Oppose'' no edit summaries.
'''oppose'''. none of these listed items require the mop. and not using edit summaries really pisses me off. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''' as per reasons put forth by [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]].--
I'm not going to vote either oppose or support, but I suggest a withdrawal untill you gain some more edits in the project space, and would actually like to do things that require admin-status.
'''Neutral''' This is a fairly clear "Can't tell yet, wait until later" vote. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Neutral''' I agree with the above. You may be a good potential admin, but get some more time under the belt. Everything else looks good; don't take it too seriously if you don't make it this time.  --
'''Leaning oppose''' but [[WP:SNOW]] - please withdraw.
'''Neutral'''. Try again later. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', lacks the use of edit summaries, and project space edits are mainly to FPC. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''', I have to agree with Karmafist.
'''Support'''. You are clearly a good user. Although you have shown only a limited amount of experience in process, you meet my criteria. You will benefit from having admin abilities like rollback. Make sure you understand deletion policy (CSD, etc) however before you start deleting things without going through AfD etc. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Morale Support''' - from the looks of it your RfA isn't likely to pass, I suggest withdrawl and waiting 3 months or so --
'''Support''' - none of JoshuaZ's reasons are fatal. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dallas%2C_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=48828458#Geology This] is not necessary though. Please be careful. -
'''Sympathy support''' It looks like you will fail in your RfA again. Please do not be discouraged about this and keep on contributing to Wikipedia. If I were you, I would wait for at least 2 to 3 months before applying for adminship again. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sorry to be your first vote, but I need to oppose for a variety of reasons. First, you say in your answer to question one that you want to do deletion related work, yet I see almost no deletion related work in your Wikipedia edits. Second, your inability to wait another 400 edits does not speak well of your level of patience. Third, I see no sign of major vandalism work or of much in the way of warnng users so I don't see a strong need to give you roll back and am leery of giving you blocking ability. Fourth, your overall low number of talk edits makes it hard to judge how you interact with the community. Fifth (and related to concern four) your answer to question 3 is highly lacking and is almost uncivil to [[User:SPUI|SPUI]]. Sixth, almost all your Wikipedia edits have been to featured picture image discussions, which while important as one of the most public parts of Wikipedia, is simply not relevant for gaining much in the way of policy knowledge that admins need to know, not substantially assisted by admin abilities, and not something you mentioned as something you intended to use your admin abilities anyways. Incidentally, a lack of diversity in Wikipedia edits was brought up in your last RfA, so not responding to it does not look good. Seventh, your use of the mark- all-edit-summaries-minor option leads to a dillema: if many of those edits were major, then they should have been marked as such and if they were all minor, then they aren't important for editcount(ugh) and similar measures of experience and interaction. You seem to be more impaled on the first horn of the dilemma, judging by your contribs list; I see many edits marked as minor that should be major edits by most standards. Eighth, your article space edits seem to be in a narrow range. Some of these reasons would not be enough to merit an oppose by themselves, but the totality leaves me with little choice.
'''Oppose''' per JoshuaZ. I'm sorry Drumguy, but you should have waited a few months. Please be more positive.
'''Oppose''' per above. Also, your answer to #1 makes me think you would be a deletionist. I think you are a little too eager, let's wait a little while longer.--
'''Oppose''' you should wait a bit more 'til your next RFA. Also, incorrect RFA creation (copied from Snoutwood's but didn't change all the links). <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' Borderline personal attack in your answer to question #3 and other concerns raised above. <span style="font-size:95%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Oppose''' per above, but will support in a few months.  In the meantime, you may be interested in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/AutoAFD.js|this]]. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Oppose''' per [[User talk:Cuivienen|Cuivienen]] & must wait for a few months. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>

'''Oppose''' I'm a bit concerned with some of the reasoning behind requesting admin powers.  Also, Josh raises a good point: no one really knows how Drumguy8800 interacts with other editors (does he work and play well with others?) because of the paucity of talk page edits.
'''Oppose''', per Master of Puppets --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Oppose'''. Lack of Wikipedia namespace edits leads me to believe that you do not have sufficient policy knowledge to be an admin.
'''Oppose''', lacks article Talk and Wikipedia space edits as well as knowledge of an admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>

'''Oppose''', self-noms should jump off the page in terms of knowledge of policy, great plans for the tools and all-round readiness... too many concerns about patience, discussion, policy matters, project contribs, XfD's. Give it a few months now, and remember that admins don't just get more power to deal with their own areas of interest and articles they personally want to delete, they serve editors by using the tools for the benefit of all. The last comment about SPUI in #3 isn't attractive either. <b>
<s>'''Moral support'''</s> '''Neutral''' tending to oppose. The way you mention [[User:SPUI|SPUI]] in question 3 sounds a little [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] and makes me uncomfortable about giving support. Not wanting to pile on, so it's neutral for me.
'''Neutral'''. Better with more experience.--
'''Strong oppose'''. Sorry, with 39 edits and less than a month of activity, you are ''much'' too new and inexperienced for adminship. If you edit long enough to meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]], I may vote support in the future. Right now, I'm sorry to say this RFA seems destined for [[WP:SNOW]]. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Oppose'''. User had one article edit at the time he made this request, which was vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Schmoke&diff=prev&oldid=39081109].
'''Oppose''' - no community experience, would be unable on the basis of his edit record to apply policies.--
'''Strong Oppose'''. Are you kidding me? Not a chance in hell. Is stupidity a bannable offense? --
'''Oppose'''.   Obviously WAY too little exp.  -
'''Oppose''' cute username, though. Get some experience, make some productive edits (that means not the vandalism kind) and who knows? but not now.
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW|Snowballs]]. I suggest you withdraw your self-nomination. -- His Imposingness, the [[Grand Moff]]
'''Oppose'''. Experience.&#160;—
'''Oppose''' Do I need to say why?
'''Oppose''' and asking a 'crat to remove this as dilatory.
'''Oppose''', of course. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' 45 total edits, try again when you get more experience.
'''Oppose''', sorry but you need to actually edit a bit before RFAing.
'''STRONG Oppose''', only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=39081109&title=Kurt_Schmoke article edit] has been vandalism.
'''Oppose''' Heh. --<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Obli|O]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - Due to vandalim.
'''Oppose'''... --

'''Mostly Oppose''' I thought about a vote of support for the sheer audacity of DuctoMan16, but then [[Common sense|this]] kicked in. A lot more experience is needed here!
'''Oppose''' without intending to pile on, but seriously.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', per previous history of vandalism.
'''Oppose'''; originally wasn't going to pile on, but his "if it fails, it fails" comment on his talk page welcomes it.
'''Oppose''' Lets [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Obviously this newbie doesn't understand that there are certain '''''requirements''''' set before anybody is allowed to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per joturner.  --
'''Oppose''' as 100% of his main space edits have been vandalism (i.e. 1/1 of edits).
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say, u need much more expierence to be an Admin (sysop).
'''Oppose''', suggest withdrawal. Nomination statement decietful.
'''Oppose'''. Inexperience, lack of edit summaries, very few project namespace edits, <s>a self-nom with no answers to questions</s>, and only 111 edits (with most of them edits to own user page). I recommend you become an active Wikipedia editor, make some quality mainspace contributions, and get involved with the Wikipedia namespace, for a successful RfA in the future. For now, I also suggest withdrawal. —
'''Oppose''' too few edits.
'''Oppose'''. Edit count isn't everything, but with out edit I can't see how you contribute histroically.  Not enough experience with many areas of the project.
'''Oppose''': except for four edits in March of 2005 and two more in July, all contributions are within the past five weeks. Suggest withdrawal of this nomination; it is premature.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience, please withdraw.
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience (30 article-space edits)  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, very few edit summaries. Suggest that you withdraw at this time.--
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''' - edits and edit summaries --
'''Oppose''' 30 article edits is just too little.  Also, practically no usage of edit summaries is another problem.
'''Oppose''', lack of edits, lack of summary. I know this user from GameFAQs, he's a good person. '''
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience.
'''Oppose'''. Only made five contributions from March - Nov. 05, lack of edit summaries --
'''Support''' - I do not know this user, but I cannot think of any reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Ec5618 has been around here a long time. He or she is not likely to abuse privileges. --
'''Strong Support''' - my interactions with Ec have been excellent; he's a great guy.  I have been impressed in his willingness to enter conversation with thoroughly unpleasant people and remain civil.  I've considered nominatin him for adminship before.  I see no reason to believe tht he would abuse the admin tools.
'''Strong Support''' They just don't get any more neutral than Ec5618. He's certainly earned it.
'''Strong Support''' The reversions are unusual and being taken out of context, IMHO. Ec is a great editor, with sense and respect for others. I concur absolutely with Guettarda about his ability to remain civil when faced with truly unpleasant, not to say obnoxious, people. They don't come any better than Ec.
'''Support''' this guy knows what he's talking bout. &mdash;
'''Support''' EC has what it takes to be a good Admin.
'''Yea''' you seem dedicated and a frequent "wiki".  good luck
'''Support''' EC has appeared (mostly) cool and levelheaded in the midst of possibly infuriating encounters with people who edit with strongly held opinions, perseverance, and little/no appropriate references.
'''Support'''. I'd trust him as an admin.; I avoid controversial pages partly because I don't think that I'd behave as well as Ec5618. --
'''Support''' excellent credentials [[user:
'''Strong support!''' as per [[User_talk:Mathwiz2020#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FEc5618|this discussion]]. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I've seen Ec around on some of the most controversial pages and he manages to maintain NPOV; I trust him to use the admin tools fairly and responsibly.  &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Nominee has given what I feel to be well-thought out answers to the objections raised (in particular per Mathwiz2020 above), has an extensive talk page with good interactions and has been around a while in a lot of spaces.  He was good-humored and accepting of the block [[User talk:Ec5618/Block#WP:3RR violation|here]].  From what I can tell, he spends a lot of time formatting and would like to do so in protected pages as well.  This is slightly unusual, as most "sole reason" nominees tend to imply that they want to salt the ground of deleted non-notable articles with the blood of vandals, but is a perfectly valid reason to desire adminship. -
'''Support''' Would make a good editor. Athough he made a few mistakes in the past, this can easily be rectified. '''No one''' is a perfect user of [[Wikipedia]]! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - The nominee refers to the 3RR below. That's a concern, but the reverting isn't isolated. Nominee changed another user's talk page to contain links to an archive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABensaccount&diff=33750066&oldid=33749563], was reverted by the user in question [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bensaccount&diff=next&oldid=33750066], and then reverted the user's talk page to contain the archive links again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bensaccount&diff=next&oldid=33750319]. Yes, you are "permitted to voice concerns" about another user, but you don't do it by getting into revert wars. I'm concerned about the combative attitude expressed in these revert episodes, and as yet no acceptance of any fault. Advice: modify your behavior, accept your role in these events, and try again in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' - the 3RR block is too recent for me, especially where one of the major motivations for seeking adminship is to be able to "edit protected pages". (
'''Oppose''' per ESkog. --
'''Oppose''', recent 3RR block and bizarre approach to editing protected pages, per WMC. -
'''Oppose'''. I don't feel that one should request adminship to edit protected articles.
'''Oppose'''. I see an edit war which was childish and your behavior on that page where somebody complained about bullying is close to bullying. If a user is that distressed that he makes a poll then you shouldn't kick him when he is down, since it is not the kind of behavior you want see for an administrator.
'''Oppose''', at least for now.  The editor reinserted [[Talk:Irreducible_complexity/Archive_01#Questionable_Claims|uncited challenged material]], despite the fact that the request for a [[WP:CITE|citation]] regarding the challenged material was made over a month ago (after which the challenged material was removed for lack of a [[WP:CITE|citation]] and a small revert war ensued) and that the issue has been through an [[Talk:Irreducible_complexity/Archive_01#Responses_to_RfC|RfC]].  --
I '''oppose''' this candidacy for Adminship. An immature tendency towards escalation of conflict rather than a more mature approach of calming a dispute tells of a personality that very quickly becomes vested in his own point of view. Even on matters (as documented by Durin) in which he has no other purpose other than to have "his" POV prevail. C'mon back after a couple of months of demonstrated more mature behavior. You have much to contribute to this project and you should do so with a greater camaraderie with your fellow Wikipedians.  I'm confident that you will become an Admin, (with my support) within the next several months if you deal with some of the criticism here in a constructive way. I commend your courage in self-nominating, always it seems a risky approach towards adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Being blocked recently for 3RR violation is a very black mark.--
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but worried about how he handles disputes.
'''Oppose''' Handling disputes is a very integral part of being an administrator.  Unfortunately, we have seen in the past few weeks how administrators who get emotional in their enforcement roles can escalate the situation even further.  Thus, I must oppose.
Not sure yet.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Switched from oppose; still considering
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but block too recent.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'' Comments are strange.
'''Neutral'''.  Really want to support, as I think his intentions are good, but getting into edit wars is not clever.  I won't oppose, though, as I think he acted in good faith, but with poor judgement.
'''Strong Oppose''' - I've looked over your contribs, and see that there's been a near-complete lack of civility with your edit summaries. Some of them are outright abusive.
'''Oppose''' no need for tools, and very low edit count. --
'''Oppose''' sorry, but fewer than 350 edits mean there isn't enough long-term evidence to judge you on. Also you almost never use edit summaries and when you do they can be problematic as above;. You have recently been warned for vandalism. I suggest you withdraw this RfA and seek an [[WP:ER|editor review]] instead.
'''Neutral''' — Answers do not suggest a need for tools. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''STRONG support''' from nominator.  Elonka would be an outstanding sysop!  <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:SergeantBolt|S]]</font>[[User:SergeantBolt/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">
'''Support''' — Why should Elonka be a SysOp? Well, I’ve seen nothing but level headed respect from this user, no incivility and lots of friendliness. This user really works to improve the encyclopaedia which is one thing I like in a user. The user seems well versed in every aspect of Wikipedia I can think of. I can’t think of a reason not to make her a SysOp – Just pure benefits to the project. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' tactful, level-headed, clearly working to improve the project... should make a good admin. --
'''Support''' -- If Elonka's foolish (i.e., charitable) enough to volunteer even MORE time to wikipedia land, she's definitely got the chops to do it (IMHO). Besides, it'll keep her off the streets ;) --
'''Support'''. Rock on!! [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|fel]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">lib</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' An incredible editor!  Will certainly not abuse the tools. -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support.''' I have encountered this user on one of her article's FAC noms, and found the interaction pleasant and prompt. Will make an excellent admin. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Support'''. She has the experience and skills required to become an administrator on Wikipedia. She has great article-building skills, and is not scared to discuss her thoughts. Excellent answer to Q3. Shows that the user has changed dramatically since the incident, and that she is not afraid to recognize her faults and previous record.
'''Support''' per nomination. This is one of those candidates where you wonder why it hasn't happened sooner.
'''Strong Support''' Great experience and would be able to use sysop tools wisely. As per Nish, the user is able to recognize her own faults after the incident. (Got edit-conflicted in posting this.)
'''Support''' As a new (< 1 month) user I received a lengthy, helpful, courteous and unsolicited note from the nominee after I had blundered into unfamiliar territory. Need I say more? (Also edit-conflicted in posting.)
'''Strong support'''. Wow, this should have happened a ''long'' time ago. On top of the strong encyclopedic contributions and great insight (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Grandmasterka|my RfA]] for an example) it takes some serious grit to go through the kind of injustice seen in question three and come back to contribute in a very positive manner. An obvious choice.
'''Support'''. In my opinion Elonka has grown a lot as a Wikipedian this year. I think she's ready for the plunger now.
'''Support'''.  Elonka Dunin is a fine contributor and has my full support.
'''Support'''. An impressive user, i havnt seen anyone better suited to be an administrator.--
'''Support''' <s>per Cordesat.</s> Cordesat's concerns are very valid, but I don't think it needs more than a tap on the wrist.
'''Strong support''' per answers to RFA questions and a quite impressive edit history.
'''Support''', seems like a nice person and experience with online communities is a great thing. She has the wiki experience to be an administrator now.
'''Full Support''' per everything above and answers to questions. No doubt in my mind Wikipedia will benefit with this editor as an admin.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Support'''. Anyone who has withstood Danny's abuse and the endless tearing down of her good name, and then stood up to want to continue to help a project deserves a fair shot at doing so. Wikipedia has more than enough locks in place against "Rogue Admins", and Elonka has shown herself both a great advocate of Wikipedia and a person with the smarts to improve it. --
'''Support'''. I have found nothing but respect for her in all of my professional dealings with her.  She is and has always been a class act.  I value her contributions to the project.  --
'''Support''' (changed back from neutral)-- It's time to get off the fence as a neutral and decide -- this RfA closes soon. I've been troubled by some stuff I've read here about Elonka's vanity edits and some of her previous scrapes but I also have been impressed to learn how much she's contributed. To the extent that she was more of a coordinator/volunteer/cheerleader/taskmaster on the "Lost" category of articles than a solo writer, I see that as a plus, not a negative. I know she has a strong ego (the world needs some of these people) and I trust she'll temper it in the future. If not, I am reassured by her answer to question 6 above regarding administrators open to recall. --
'''Support''' excellent candidate, give her the mop. &nbsp;
'''Support''' I don't always agree with this editor, but I cannot quarrel with her energy and thoughtfulness of edits. A hard worker who deserves to be an admin if she wants to take that on.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. The consernes raised by some of the oppose voters don't ruin my impression of Elonka being a fine, mature and hard working wikipedian that I trust will use the admin tools to do even more good for the project.
'''Support''', great editor. &mdash;
'''Strong Support'''. Whew, this is my first vote since China unbanned Wikipedia. (I'm from China). This candidate may have some problems, but we're here to '''select an admin''', ''not'' to select a saint. I mean, she may not be perfect, but that doesn't stop her from qualifying as a sysop! --
'''Support'''; so if you have your own article you are not allowed to edit it? Come on people..--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' valuable contributions time and again, wikipedia needs more editors like here  --
Good editor, nice person, I don't find any of the opposes in the least bit worrying.
I see no problem with Elonka, who is not the only contributor about whom we have an encyclopedia artricle.
'''Support.''' Never had any problems in my dealings with her.
'''Support''' I don't think that editing an article about yourself (as opposed to creating) prohibits adminship.
'''Support''' without reservation, she is a great editor who would be even better as an administrator.
'''Support''' as she seems to be a good editor who would make a fine admin.  --
'''Weak Support''' She is a very good editor. Although she edited a link to her user page, that incident was a year ago. She has matured considerably since then and I feel that it is now time to give her the additional resposibilities. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as her demonstrated character on Wikipedia and elsewhere shows she'll make a good, non-abusive SysOp.  --
'''Strong support'''. I don't much contribute to Wikipedia anymore, but when I did, I had extensive experience working with Elonka, especially during the supposed DreamGuy controversy. Elonka wanted a few personal attacks against her removed, and I found her request reasonable, especially given her value to the project as a knowledgeable contributor. Editors are a dime a dozen around here—'''knowledgeable''' editors, like Elonka, are relatively rare. Having the flexibility and latitude of the administrator tools, I believe Elonka can be even more of an asset. We need to focus more on what is best for the project, rather than continuing the ridiculous drama and power games that Wikipedia has degenerated into. A few honest mistakes early in one's tenure at Wikipedia—and an unfortunate encounter with jerks like DreamGuy—should not keep someone as superbly qualified as Elonka from adminship.
'''Support'''. Editor obviously has experience and skills which would make her an asset to the admin staff, IMO. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Full Support'''.  Elonka has proven her dedication to Wikipedia over and over again.  Great work!
'''Support'''.  Some personal article edits were inappropriate, but I think the editor has made a lot of effort to understand and follow policy.  Overall an asset, and I would trust with the mop. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. Too much of the the opposition is a personality-based vendetta. There's nothing wrong with standing up against an apparatchik.
'''Full Support'''. Has handled extremely difficult situations with restraint when others such as myself would have been less patient. She’s also significantly contributed to 2 featured articles.
'''Support''', good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong support'''. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] aka [[User:Victrix|Victrix]] aka [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] aka [[User:Wik|Wik]] is a menace to Wikipedia. Anyone who has taken the time to try minimise the poisonous effects of his abuse is a saint. --
'''Support'''. Danny's vendetta/attacks against this user are simply bizarre.
'''support''' this person to become a administrator with many months of good work
'''Support''' - The incidents mentioned below happened ages ago.  Get over it. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Strong Support''' - She's done more in her stay here than much of the people complaining about her.
'''Support'''. Powerful editor with additional decency included. A++ //
'''Support'''. I see here a very productive editor who has tried to work with the rules. I don't see any reason to presume she will misuse admin tools. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;
'''Support''' I see no connection between having her own bio and being able to use the tools properly. Abuse of the tools on her own article would be immediately apparent. ''Adminship is no big deal.'' &mdash;
'''Support''', especially per Q5 and the old diffs in oppose section do not convince me of a threat posed by her having the mop and bucket. As a sometimes contentious editor, I would encourage Ms. Dunin to voluntarily place herself in the [[CAT:AOR|recall category]], though I would not oppose if she chose not to do so. -- ''
'''Support'''. Past is past. She deserves a chance, give her the mop! --
'''Support''' per nom and Malber. --
'''Support''' - After a few early mis-steps Elonka has done a lot of fine work in areas that have needed more attention. I am satisfied that she has addressed the legitimate concerns expressed. As an admin she will be an asset to the project.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' This user has made mistakes in his past.Darn.
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' per above --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I came to know Elonka on Wikipedia when she followed some of my edits and decided I needed to learn something more about appropriate Wikipedia protocol.  So she took it upon herself to teach me!  And I feel like a better editor for her efforts.  A dedicated Wikipedian! -
'''Support''' because of two things: 1. superb mediation efforts on [[Talk:Jogaila]] and 2. general clean up efforts on [[Special:Uncategorized]].
'''Suppprt''', echoing Dlohcierekim's statement.  --
'''Support''', meticulously cites her articles, has a long reputation as a consistent and useful editor of Wikipedia.
'''Support''', I support Elonka due to her stated reliance on herself, her stated tolerance of new users- which is a willingness to allow the community to grow and evolve, and her emphasis on harmony.
'''Support'''. I was on the fence regarding this nomination but since having met Elonka in person my doubts about her credibility and worthiness as an admin have been assuaged.
'''Support'''. After reading her responses (quite good answers), and meeting her in person, I believe that she would be a great admin for wikipedia. These attacks are rubbish.
'''Support'''.  per nom.  Seems like a good editor.  <font style="background:#7FFF00">
'''Support''' is a great contributer of wiki. if found unfitting for the position what says we can't revert?
'''Support''' Extremely capable, a good editor and a solid candidate.
'''Support''' Great contributor to Wikipedia and would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' &mdash; the more the merrier.
'''Support''' I think she'll be good for wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''' Worked with her on a mediation and other disputes, one of the more diplomatic Wikipedians.  Good luck.  --
'''Support''' I've worked with her on [[Lost (TV series)|Lost]] articles, and she has proven to be a very level-headed and responsible editor.
'''Qualified Support''' I would encourage Elonka to be open-minded towards areas where strict enforcement of Wikipedia policy might result in inferior content (this is in relation to the deletion discussion surrounding the article [[Danah Boyd]]). --
'''Strong Support''' She'd be good for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''-Really a valuable contributor -
'''Support'''. She has had to put up with more than anyone I have seen here yet, and has managed. Compared to that, the stresses of adminship are minor.
Oppose. Has used wikipedia for self-promotional purposes.
'''Weak oppose''' per Danny. I made the mistake of reviewing the questions first and the contribs and concerns last. Sure, you have a lot of experience here, but heavy work on the articles on yourself and your father border on [[WP:VAIN]] and [[WP:AUTO]]. I'm a bit worried about self-promotion myself. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Oppose''' largely per Danny and my own beliefs that the candidate is not suited for adminship due to a potential conflict of interest and vanity issues
Although I respect this editor, I would feel uncomfortable granting her the admin tools; consequently, I must '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per Danny and Guinnog's concerns --
'''Oppose''' editing your own bio doesn't bother me in itself, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=prev&oldid=28342178 adding] ''a link to your user page''? Granted, it was a year ago, but that's ridiculous.
'''Oppose''' My concerns are greater than Age020 below (neutral section). Wikipedia is not a family album, and as the wikisaying goes: '''if you're important enought to have a wikipedia article, let someone else write it''' -- <small>
'''Oppose''' per Drini.
'''Oppose''' per Danny, Drini, and others.
'''Oppose''' per Danny, and above concerns ——
'''Oppose'''. Mainly because she's a minor celebrity. --
'''Oppose''' per Danny.
'''Oppose''' per behavior at AfD - <b>
'''Oppose''' per above, the edit warring and image issues during the DreamGuy incident are also worrying. (The google search mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive70#Elonka_mess here], for example.
'''Oppose''' per Danny and per contentious unpleasantness displayed during the DreamGuy incident. &mdash;
'''Strong oppose''' for long history of abusing Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, wikistalking (for which she was [[Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AElonka|blocked]] by [[User:David Gerard]]) of those she has disputes with, putting up a website (originally at http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/ and titled "The Block of a Notable Wikipedian" but has since been modified) that demanded that Wikipedia do what she wanted because she was famous and important and knows more than everyone else, systematic erasing of other people's comments on various talk pages whenever she felt she was portrayed in less than a flattering light (when all they were doing was demonstrating her activities and she was consistently saying far worse things about other editors in far more places) and so forth and so on. It'd be difficult to think of an individual who would be more likely to abuse adminship powers than this person.

Strongly oppose, per the two right above me. I will not trust someone who's been blocked this way and still thinks the whole thing was an attack on themselves, with the admin tools. No, no, no. &ndash;
'''Strong Oppose''' - Promo for this purpose shows ignorance or opposition to focus on some project goals -- not something we should hope to see in an admin. --
'''Oppose'''; while the autobiographical concerns are big, so too are Bishonen's claims.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Danny, Bishonen and others. How in heaven, hell and purgatory someone can honestly think she can edit an article on herself, is beyond me. And if there were ever an article on myself and I felt unhappy about anything stated there, I would '''fiercely support''' its deletion were it put on AfD. Pasha from Belgium, --
Reluctant '''oppose'''.  I like much of Elonka's work on Wikipedia, but the [[WP:AUTO]] issues really do concern me.  Also, too much ''certainty'' in evidence for my liking. <b>
'''Reluctant oppose''' per the very recent article (only created last month) on [[Elsie Ivancich Dunin]], who is probably not notable enough to survive AfD, and on which [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] himself had to go in and blank most of the contents as a [[WP:OR]] violation. While Elonka has never directly edited that article, it raises a whole host of questions as to whether or not her entire family is involved in using Wikipedia as a [[WP:VAIN]]-violating promotion machine. If this is adequately explained, I'll revert my vote back to a "support". --
'''Oppose''':  I concur with Danny, but I have noticed that the inappropriate self-valuation has crept into other dealings with users and views on article fitness.
I appreciate Elonka's excellent contribution to Wikipedia, but there is no way I can support this request for adminship. I know January was a long time ago in Wiki-time, but I was disturbed by what I saw of her behaviour and attitude during the DreamGuy dispute. She displayed qualities and personality traits I consider antithetical to adminship. In addition, I find [[User:Elonka/CoS|this]] more than a little disquieting. I understand that it is a few months old, but its mere existence indicates, to me, a fundamental failure to understand policy. Policies like NPA apply to all pages on Wikipedia. If users wish to set up a virtual wrestling ring in order to conduct experiments or have discussions "unfettered by Wikipedia polices" or whatever, that's fine but they can do it on their own websites. And if they don't like Wikipedia policies, that's fine too: they can live with them, lobby to change them, or fork it. But they can't set up their own secret policy free fiefdoms within Wikipedia. '''Strong oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' Self-promotion concerns and DreamGuy incident
'''Oppose''' all too shamefully, in what may be my biggest RFA decision yet, self-promotional concerns pending. The article in question, her very own, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin|dodged]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination)|deletion]] last December and more recently in July. Alas, let me tell you, I've seen the problem [[:simple:Elonka Dunin|persist]] at SIMPLE (where I am [[:simple:User:Slgrandson|also a member]]); [[:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 1#July 2006|it was placed for deletion]] at [[:simple:WP:RFD|this version's RFD page]]. To quote {{user2|Cromwellt}} on the [[:simple:Talk:Elonka Dunin|SIMPLE talk page]]: "This, my friends, is what is known as a vanity page. This is a big no-no, kids. If you are notable enough, someone else may write an article about you, but it is not okay to write an article about yourself, though you can put all of this information on your userpage without any problems". So there: whether involved in a self-advert for herself or not, I can never imagine a promising user like her have the mop for good. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Strong oppose.''' This is not the person who needs admin power. Repeated violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, getting blocked, a vanity page with inappropriate self-promotion, either ignorance of or defiance to project goals, ''removing other people's comments from talk pages!!!'' . . . despite many conscientious contributions, there are too many reasons to withhold admin authority from this individual.
'''Oppose''' per the issues discussed above.
'''Strong oppose.''' An autobiographical article, however professionally inappropriate it may be, is forgiveable. Harassing another editor is not. --
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen. --
'''Oppose''' given the [[WP:COI]] concerns, the DreamGuy incident, plus the answers to questions 5-8 were not as strong as I'd hope for.  Thus, I'm not comfortable giving Elonka the tools.--
'''Oppose''' Self promotion concerns.
'''Oppose'''. Per [[User:Danny|Danny]], [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]], [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], and [[User:Geogre|Geogre]]. [[WP:AUTO]] violations, Bishonen's concerns, as well as Geogre's comment, who I think brought up a valid point. '''''
'''Oppose''' due to vanity and block record.
'''Oppose''': I wasn't going to vote as the outcome seems obvious, but then remembering the Carnildo fiasco when Bureaucrat's (Who we must never again trust) ignored their responsibilities I have decided to risk being accused of "pile on". Having read all the above oppose comments with which I completely concur, and studied the diffs, and Elonka's edits:  I am surprised that Elonka has not already withdrawn.  She does indeed seem to consider herself a "minor celebrity" and her edit warring etc during the DreamGuy incident was more than concerning.  No, I think we have enough admins as it is, we certainly do not need to add Elonka to their ranks.  I fear she would ultimately use the magic buttons for the wrong reasons.  Let's forget adminship "is no big deal" and make it "a big deal" give responsibility to those that have shown themselves not only dedicated to the project, but also responsible.  Elonka has shown neither.
'''Weak Oppose''' per the [[WP:AUTO]] concerns and the recent edits pointed out by Aaron, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Strong Oppose'''. The above incidents demonstrate that Elonka's judgement and behaviour are a concern for any normal user, but simply unacceptable for an admin. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Switch to oppose''' based on concerns over fiefdom and conflict of interest.
'''Strongly oppose''' for self-promotional articles. Additionaly, I do not believe that they would be able to avoid conflicts of interest if granted administrative privileges. <span class="ipa">
'''Oppose''' Suggest a check-user on all contributors to this RfA.
'''Oppose''' per Daveydweeb and others.  Simply to much controversy and baggage - baggage that will no doubt cast a (perhaps unfair) shadow on any of her future controversial admin decisions.
'''Switch to oppose'''. I was quite worried when I saw [[User:Elonka/CoS|The cone of silence]]. Beyond the fact that it shows behavior (along with the [[WP:AUTO]]) that the user feels herself above the rules, it also brings up an interesting point that I don't think anyone else is mentioned: What supposed problem exists (because Elonka said that it was the solution to a problem) that could merit a secret page inviting personal attacks as the solution? Even if it is just an experiment, it shows the user is putting herself in situations that invite personal attacks. Not a good thing. Again, I want to emphasize that this editor has many valuable contributions, but the suspicion of sock (although more likely meat) puppetry has pushed me over the edge.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above, pluse we don't need more controversial admins, though I think she is a fine contributor.
'''opppose''' as per many above, Bishonen & Bunchofgrapes in particular.
'''Oppose''' per Bishonen. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Neutral''' Great user and will use the admin tools wisely. But concerned that the user has contributed to articles on herself as well as her [[Stanley Dunin|father]] and her [[Elsie Ivancich Dunin|mother]] too has an article. I just feel that there is an element of vanity in her. --
'''Neutral'''. The candidate clearly has experience and has made a wide range of useful contributions. However, I am a little concerned by the point raised by [[User:Danny|Danny]] –
'''Neutral''' for now. I am concerned by the issues raised by Danny and Guniiog. I'd like to hear from the candidate about this.
'''Neutral''' There is no doubt in my mind that this editor is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, but there's just something unsettling about the information presented above. But I do have to compliment you, Elonka- aside from your great editing, you don't look a day over 35. Brava! --
'''Neutral''' I'm a bit nervous about [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination)|the 2nd AfD exchange with Danny]], and I ''really'' am not one to comment about editing an article about yourself (don't ask), but not enough to oppose. I think my neutral is more fence-sitting and being interested in the proceedings than anything. If you do end up getting the mop, though, I wish you well. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Neutral''' This is a bit too long ago to actively oppose, but I found her accusations against [[User:Piotrus]] during the "Polish cabal" debate mostly outside of [[WP:AGF]]. I also don't like the mischaracterization that "an admin [Piotrus] had been asked to resign" when it was in fact Elonka herself who asked him to resign. ~
'''Neutral'''. Elonka's robust attitude towards [[User:Piotrus]]'s activities is commendable, but I wince at her facile approach to blocking established wikipedians. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Neutral''' Slightly uncomfortable about supporting. However, Elonka is a fantastic user, and I see no standout reason for opposing. Like Kylu, I'll just observe, and wish you luck if you do get the tools. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Neutral''' Most of the WP:AUTO violations were from fairly long ago, so I'm uncomfortable opposing for those reasons.  On the other hand, my natural RfA conservatism steers me clear of a candidate who has a series of controversial actions in her past.  I have no firm position here.
'''Neutral''' per the above I am a bit concerned, will move into one of the camps above upon newer answers
'''Neutral'''. In the past (May-July '06), I have been involved [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader|in disputes with Elonka]] (as she mentioned above). While it left me with mixed feelings, in retrospective I cannot find sufficient reasons to oppose granting her the 'mop'n'bucket' oh-so-powerful powers :) However since I have not interacted much with Elonka in the past few months, I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge to endorse her candidature. Therefore I feel that the best I can do is to indicate I am neutral and wish her 'good luck'. It is possible that her answers to question by other editors may change my opinion on that (for the better, I'd expect). One way or another, good luck.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral'''.  I have carried out a fairly extensive check and am thoroughly conflicted.  There's an outside possibility that I will change my position after reflection or based on developments on this page. -
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Any editor whose parents are included and whose mother's talk page includes a quote by Jimbo is noteworthy: "Nanusia, if you used a "family tree" and "interviews" to write the article, that is original research.  Every fact in the article needs to be cited to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]].--
'''Neutral''', as I agree with Bishonen's closing remarks above.
'''Neutral'''. Not happy with the way Q3 was answered. --
'''Neutral'''. Got some reading to do here o figure this out, clearly. --
'''Neutral'''. I have changed my oppose to a neutral, my second change, in the light of further reflection and review of Elonka's contributions. Just yesterday she edited to add an uncategorised tag to an article I had written. I found it useful, and, as a bit of a wikignome myself I value this sort of contribution, which I know she does a lot of. I think she has learned from her misunderstanding of [[WP:AUTO]] earlier in her career and will not make this mistake again. I'm still not going to support as I think she should have given a better and less defensive account of her dealings in the Dreamguy incident, but if this RfA fails I will support her after another couple of months of conflict-free editing shows real dedication to civility and collegiality. Her willingness to sign up for recall should also perhaps reassure us. --
'''Neutral'''. Regretfully changed from support due to issues raised above regarding FAs. I cannot, in good conscious, remain faithful to [[WP:BULL]] and still support this candidate. Hopefully next time I can whole heartedly.--
An AfD Wikignome who has courage to speak his (?) mind, and expressed very sound opinions in all the two dozen contribs I checked. I see no harm. '''Support'''. -
'''Weak Support''' - this one was really close, but meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] with exactly 350 of 350 required total talk edits and 1006 of the 1000 required article edits. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support'''. Adminship would really help this user's work on Wikipedia. ~
'''Support''' - no real reason to oppose, user seems fine, has done plenty of things in the Wikipedia space that brings him in contact with others.
'''Lone Star Support''' I think this user has done valuable and diverse work, and its great to have a different working style in an admin. Too many of those machine-produced Wikiholics.
'''Support''' This user has amazing talent as an editor, and making him an admin is far too petty. KING OF WIKIPEDIA, ANYONE? (chuckles) --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''support'''
'''Support'''. Talk edits aren't everything, and your work on AfD convinces me you'd make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support''' A close one, but, doesen't seem like the user will abuse the mop. '''No big deal''', and all... --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
I'll vote '''support'''.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Self nominations are fine, however I think this one may have been a little too early - otherwise, I don't have a problem with the candidate being an admin. --
'''Support''' Perhaps a bit early, but otherwise no problems.
'''Support'''. I don't see anything in your contribs to be even mildly concerned about - you seem to have a great attitude and seem to be developing a well-rounded base of experience.  Keep up the great work! --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' as per METS501. --
'''Weak Support''' A bit new, and not a ton of article edits, but user seems active especially in AFD, and could use admin powers to help out there. -
'''Support'''. I always do. --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''',
'''Support''' - user does a great job as an editor, no reason to believe he will misuse the tools.
'''Support''' - I have no concerns about this user that would preclude me from supporting their adminship, and don't see anything on the Oppose side that is persuasive, either. Will check back before finish, of course. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per the lack of meaningful reasoning of the opposition. "Doesn't smell right"? What the hell?

'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway. Vast majority of talk/user talk edits are also AfD related (and some warning templates).'''
'''Oppose'''. Agree with Tony Sidaway and a bit too new.
'''Oppose''' - per Tony --
'''Oppose''' - per Tony and for short experience. Having 6 months is too short.--
'''Oppose''' per Tony-too new and inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway; not enough experience interacting. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Tony; Too new. <font face="Tahoma" size="1"><font color="#C11B17">Matthew</font> <b><font color="#3366ff">
'''Oppose''' You can accuse me of having editcountitis, but the Usertalk and Wiki namespace edits look a little low to me.  Also, perhaps this is perfectly explainable and justified, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaalov&diff=64920479&oldid=56164125 here] the candidate removed a significant amount of information and just redirected it because another article on the same subject exists.  If he checked to make sure all of the infromation was contained in the other article, that's fine and I withdraw my comment, but if not, that's a serious problem.
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway, just needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' due to concerns raised by recent events.

'''Oppose''', I find this rfa premature.--
'''Oppose''' per Kelly.
'''Oppose''' per criteria. Good editor tho. Will support in due time. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per the above. Self-nominated, yet there is a lack of open communication, and then requesting that Kelly Martin privately inform him, and then a mildly confrontative response to Tony Sidaway.  Those aren't good signs.  Speak up Eluchil404. --
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
'''Neutral'''. My personal standard is that a user be registered for at least 6 months before supporting, but this is not enough on its own to oppose... You seem to have a clear reason for wanting to be an admin, and seem to have done more than enough mainspace and wikipedia edits to be familiar with everything. The only thing that seems a little light is User talk edits, but that doesn't particularly concern me. I will most probably support on reapplication in September.
'''Neutral'''. I usually avoid this vote, but I'm going to have to give it. I don't have any issue with your length of time on Wikipedia, and you certainly have a very high level of involvement in [[WP:AFD]]. I'm a little concerned about what Tony Sideaway is saying. Your numbers are just a little bit strange, particularly the user talk. I'd like to see a little bit more before coming down on either side of this RfA.
'''Neutral''' per Themindset. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' for now -- I was going to oppose until I spot checked 10 or so AfDs; these actually favorably impressed me for the reasons noted in my response to [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] above. I still would like to see more total experience (but then I'm more cautious about RfA votes and editor experience than most voters).--
'''Neutral.''' Good quality, civil editor, but could use some more time experience. WOuld support later nom. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per Alphachimp.
'''Neutral''': The article and WP counts are okay, but you're not having enough interaction with other users. I'm also worried about your work outside those fields. Your chance at the mop has come way too soon at the moment. Please do better and I'll see you again in 4-6 months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral,''' per S1grandson.--
Of course, seeing that I'm the nominator.
'''Support''' New, but excellent user. Already very active throughout all spaces. Great potential for the adminship.
'''Support''' Good editor, nice to work with, quick learner
'''Support''' Has made some great edits and would be glad to work with him <font color="red">
'''Strong support''' The best balance of edits I've seen, and plenty of them.  (We're here to edit, not talk).  Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Solid contributions; adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support'''. He looks just fine. Just because he is lacking on project edits does not mean he isn't familiar with the policies. --
'''Support''' A good users whose contrubutions are very helpful. While he hasn't much experience, this won't stand in his way to becoming a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Weak support''', a bit new, but off to a good start.

'''Oppose'''.  Not enough project space yet. --
'''Oppose''', less than 2000 edits and virtually none in the Wikipedia: namespace.
Per above and [[User:NSLE/Adminship Criteria|criteria]].
'''Oppose''', The lack of project space edits prevents me from justifying whether or not this editor is familiar with Wikipedia policies and methods. Try to get more involded in admin tasks within the project namespace (RFA, AFD, etc) and I'll be happy to consider you in the future. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''', lace of project space, would like to see more involvement on 'the back end'
'''Oppose''' Lack of edits and experience in general, let alone Project namespace.
'''Oppose''', due to lack of edits and experience, and most of all the prjoect space edits. Do try again in future. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' for now per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|standards]].
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and Wikipedia namespace edits.
'''Oppose''', not enough edits in Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' lack of project space edits.
'''Oppose''' not enough edits in Wikipedia namespace, not active enough, and a little too new.
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Weak oppose''' per above.  I don't think project space edits are a requirement, but whole package of experience not there yet. &ndash;
'''Oppose.''' Lack of Wikipedia namespace edits.
'''Oppose''' not enough edits on Wikispace and lack of user talks. --
'''Neutral'''. Keep doing what you are doing for a while longer. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Better have more experience.--
'''Neutral.''' Agree with above.
'''Support'''. Self-proclaimed exopedian, but nevertheless is actively involved in community consensus on articles and vandalism reverts. Has over 3000 some edits.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' A good and active member of Wikipedia. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Very strong support'''. I don't want to criticize oppose voters, but trust me--Emt deserves the mop. Absolutely a great mainspace editor, with nary a black mark (is 116 ''really'' too few namespace edits? Seems like [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|editcountitis]] to me...) Anyways, good luck.
'''Support.''' Looks good to me.--
'''Weak Support'''. You really needed to do even more wikipedia namespace edits than you've done to prove that you are experienced in process. I think that you will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' don't think lack of Wikipedia namespace edits is relevant at all, seems to be a consistently good user, no reason to suspect he'll misuse admin tools
An excellent, level-headed user.  Regardless of Wikipedia space editcounts, has been enormously active with meta-stuff.
'''Weak Support'''<font face="Croobie" color="red">
'''Moral support''', please take note of the objections below, and hopefully you'll succeed next time.
'''Support.''' Looks fine.--
Yes, the candidate might have come on a little too strong when warning anons a few times, but not for the most part, in my analysis.  So I can't subscribe to the present opposition in that regard, per [[User:RickK|RickK]]'s departing statement.
'''Support'''. Looks OK to me.
'''Oppose''' a lack of edits (116) to the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' - A bit too much of an exopedian, not to say that this editor is not valuable in the slightest.  Keep up the good work on that front, but no participation on [[WP:RFA]], hardly any on any of the deletion processes, and not much reversion of vandalism. --
'''Oppose''' -- Please don't consider this a reflection on your personal character or abilities as an editor. You are a valuable member of this community; you may get more basic work done than others. But adminship requires intense community involvement. I might be persuaded to alter my comment if shown ''by another member'' community involvement I have overlooked.
'''Oppose'''.  Nom mentions lots of work done "behind the scenes".  I don't know what that means.  Mentions work in particular projects, but no mention of what those projects may be. -
'''Oppose''' I am concerned that a quick look through the candidate's user talk contributions throws up a lot of instances were he went straight to a <nowiki>{{test3}}</nowiki> warning - including cases were the vandalism was the user's first edit. In fact, I am having great difficulty in finding many that don't match this pattern of going straight to a final warning. Some recent examples are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.7.223.2&diff=47719331&oldid=42319034], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4.252.211.135&oldid=47649751], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.34.20.134&diff=prev&oldid=47342965] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.80.101.82&diff=prev&oldid=47035641]. The edit that lead to the first warning was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Bf_109&diff=prev&oldid=47660859 this], from a dynamic IP with a history of good edits - which hardly warrants a final warning
Per above.
'''Weak Oppose''' need more distribution with edits. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' per TigerShark.  Immediate use of test3 is a little discouraging.  One hopes more experience will help candidate become a bit kinder to newbies.
'''Oppose''' - I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F-86_Sabre&diff=prev&oldid=47003408 examined] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F-86_Sabre&diff=next&oldid=47003408 a] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.80.101.82&diff=prev&oldid=47035641 sequence] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.80.101.82&diff=next&oldid=47035641 of] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ettie_Annie_Rout&diff=prev&oldid=47192175 diffs] in which the candidate assumes vandalism for what is probably just innocent testing. Don't bite newcomers. -
'''Oppose''' per above. Vandalism is easy to change, hard feelings aren't. Would prefer that an admin be willing to [[WP:AGF]] more often, even if the vandalism ''seems'' obvious. Would also like to see some more community involvement. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Oppose''' Due mainly to concerns about use of test warning templates, and am especially disturbed by his claim in question three that he "follow(s) the warning/listing procedure." Otherwise would meet my conditions. Come back in a few months and we'll see.
Reluctant '''oppose'''. The cited instances of jumping to test3 indicate an overly harsh approach to RC patrolling. When someone replaces an article with profanity and disgusting images along with some spam links, I have no trouble with going straight to test3 or bv, but newbie testing the, which adding "good bye" at the end of the article falls under, is specifically listed as [[WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not|not vandalism]]. Indeed, "these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox". I am not confident giving the blocking tools just yet, but keep up the good work, learn from this RFA experience, and try again in a few months. Since you are a good and responsible contributor in general, I will probably support then. :-)
'''Oppose''', too harsh on newbies, as per Sjakkalle.  Some more experience would stand you in good stead.
'''Oppose''', skipping test1 is often appropriate, but skipping both test1 and test2 as a matter of course is too harsh.  There may be cases where it would be best, but they are by far the minority. --
Edit conflict '''Oppose''', not enough Wikipedia namespace edits and harsh on newbies as per Sjakkalle.
'''Oppose''' as per concerns raised by Sjakkalle. Well, we shouldn't be harsh on newbies, we shouldn't [[WP:BITE|bite]] them, more experience needed. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Everyone was once a newbie (clueless or otherwise), so we should make them feel more welcome than coming down hard on them. -
'''Oppose''', don't [[WP:BITE|bite]] newbies, also, I don't see any community interaction, even in those 116 project namespace edits. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Oppose'' basically per everything above, the newbie test issue raises a few red flags, address the concerns, wait for a nomination and you'll fly right in --
'''Oppose''', nowhere near enough Wikipedia namespace edits so it suggests to me that you aren't very familiar with policies. No opinion on the newbie issue. You don't need admin powers to do splits, merges, wikification, cleanup, categorization, or vandalism reversal.

'''Support''' of course! --
'''Support'''.  I am pleased this user has decided to apply.
'''Sure'''. — <small>Mar. 13, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[00:08] <
'''Support'''. Glad to be one of the first do do so.
'''Support''' - Why be nervous, E? I've seen a lot of positive contributions from you... Happily support. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+

'''Strong Support''' it's about time --
'''Support''' — You mean he wasn't already one? —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''  He shoulda been one long time ago, i see his name everywhere and he has done alot for wikipedia.--
'''Support''' --

Due to incivilty [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_ranks_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=37031474&oldid=37014896], strange and unhelpful edit summaries with gratuitous references to other editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised&diff=prev&oldid=38684233] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranks_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force&diff=prev&oldid=37004160], and in general an excessively hostile and unhelpful attitude toward the project, I am not comfortable supporting this candidate. Additionally, user states that he want to use the rollback tool to revert vandalism, but has done very little vandalism reverting at all.--
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> due to misuse of edit sums. (I've reviewed these citations.) Edit sums are important signposts for other editors and not a place to be clever at anyone else's expense.
'''Oppose'''. Encyclopedist uses edit summaries too little, and when he uses them they are not helpful, like "+", "save", "no aprenden nada, y no sabrán nada", "Dude?", "add", "wtf?" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Emancipator&diff=prev&oldid=40970581 ].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forced_into_Glory:_Abraham_Lincoln%27s_White_Dream&diff=prev&oldid=40791630 ], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Army_ranks_and_insignia_of_the_Russian_Federation&diff=prev&oldid=39386285 ] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art&diff=prev&oldid=38812651 ], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutulu_Shakur&diff=prev&oldid=38565672 ], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._RajKumar&diff=prev&oldid=38813512]).
<big>Please withdraw this nomination. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]




In a couple of places you have described your perspective on [[WP:CIVIL|Wikipedia's civility policy]] - for instance, in [[User:Encyclopedist/My adminship standards]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev]]. These discussions are a couple of months old, so: do they still reflect your position?
'''Speedy close''' too soon
'''Oppose''', per Jaranda.
'''Oppose'''. This RfA itself shows an astonishing lack of judgement. &mdash;
'''Strong oppose''' and suggest withdrawl. Back today after being indef-blocked. Not gives any faith in user. &mdash;
'''Strong oppose''' after reviewing these citations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Reid/Sock_attack] as well as one of his last edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_Reid&diff=prev&oldid=52168646] I find these immature activities to be a disgrace to the project, and I now come to discredit that he was much of a good user in the first place.  Also, he does not use edit summaries very well [http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Encyclopedist], and has proven himself unworthy of trust at best.  I also conclude with John Reid on his [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Encyclopedist |second nomination]], in which he noticed his impulsiveness.  I think that this user should be watched under the "eye of a magnifying glass," but should not be negated from his previously beneficial activities (i.e. his work to Military history).  I personally hope that he will work with me on several of my own projects, but I doubt after my vote he will.  I also want to note that several users here that have NO vandal history are NOT admins. Thus, he shouldn't be, nor should he ever be allowed to bring up an RFA again.  I also want to ask is ''this'' the only vandalism he has committed.  I can already tell - by my own intuition - that this case is probably not isolated.  Sorry, but I will '''Strongly oppose''' his nomination, as well as any owns he may add in the future because of this.




Sadly, I must oppose.  I don't doubt good intentions, but this candidate has demonstrated a serious lack of maturity.  Way too temperamental to be an admin.  Admin candidates must demonstrate an uncommon ability to stay cool under stress.
My AGF is run out. The candidate has made just four edits since his last nomination. We are being trolled. &mdash;
Per BoG, and the less than inspiring edit summary percentages. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
Got off an indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry less than a month ago, has done no productive editing since then, and is already making comments about the "Fascist drain" Wikipedia is apparently being pulled into.  [[WP:AGF|AGF]] only stretches so far.
All recent edits (and by recent I mean almost a month ago) have been apologies, and before that, attempting to quit with much drama.  His comment about "Wikipedia is headed toward the Fascist drain" also worries me, as statements like that tend to have an implicit POV. Sorry, but I can't support this. --
That nomination statement is quite tempting, but no. -- '''
Not jack-booted enough to support the emergent fascist clique.
Sorry.  With the events that lead to his temporary exit from the project, he has shown that he is capable of "Losing it", big time.  I just would not be comfortable giving the powers of an admin to someone capable of such.  -
<s>'''Neutral'''.  I don't know this user very well, and judging alone by the statistics above, he would be fine.  His mention of vandalism and incivility does worry me, but he did give a heartfelt apology and seems to have had a change of heart.  This vote may change pending other users' comments. --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L'''<span style="color:green">'''e'''</span>'''fty''']] <sub>[[User talk:Mr. Lefty|''Talk to me!'']]</sub> 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)</s> Check the contribs, Lefty...changed to oppose. --
'''Oppose''' for the moment, but I might be swayed. The answer to Q3 scared the hell out of me (anytime it's suggested that "take me seriously" overrides "for the good of WP", it's worrisome) but the answer to Q4 mitigated that somewhat. Even more problematic, the candidate prefers talk page blanking over archival, and user e-mail is not set up, which is mandatory. <tt>
'''Strongest-possible oppose''', seems to have blanked his userpage and talk page because of accusations from [[User:Bunchofgrapes]] that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eternal_Equinox&diff=54395468&oldid=54389124 Eternal Equinox seemed to be stalking him as well as Bishonen] (still remains blanked even though he supposedly unblanked his talk page),  which violates both [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] and [[Wikipedia:Removing warnings]]. Eternal Equinox also seems to lack civility, such as with his comment on Raul654 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eternal_Equinox#My_return] and Bishonen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eternal_Equinox#HeyNow]. I'm also concerned about his answers to the questions, the claim that he has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eternal_Equinox#HeyNow making up Wikipedia policies], his low amount of edit summaries for minor edits, as well as the fact that he hasn't confirmed his e-mail adress.--<font color="red">[[User talk:User:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per his answers to the questions, especially number 3. He looks like a great editor, and I'm glad to have him around--but if he was set loose with the mop I'd feel very uncomfortable. It seems to me that he seeks adminship only to gain authority over others, which is something that I find quite bothersome.
'''Oppose''' per above.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S._A._Andrée%27s_Arctic_balloon_expedition_of_1897&diff=54402352&oldid=54401401], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_pepper&diff=46811769&oldid=46381618].--
'''Oppose'''. E.E, are you sure about this? I don't think that you would make a great administrator. On the one hand, I have to admit that you are kind, respectful and hardworking. However, I'm afraid that you are ignorant of most of the policies here and you have been in '''far''' too much disputes. Furthermore, you have blanked both your user and talk page, and wasn't it a few days ago that you said you were gonna leave Wikipedia? I'm really sorry if I sound harsh or whatever, but I'd really encourage you to withdraw this before all hell breaks loose.
'''Oppose''' - great editor but just not ready for the mop --
'''Oppose''' per Tawker.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I think more learning with communication skills and restraint needed first.
'''Oppose''' User edits disharmoniously. -
'''Weak oppose'''; a great editor but unstable ("left" Wikipedia a few times) and unfamiliar/"ignorant" of the Wikipedia policies. Will support in a few months if no further issues arise. --
'''Absolutely Oppose''', because His behavior is uncivil, and made personal comment's about Getcrunk's Request for Administrator. So, I strongly oppose him to be admin.
'''Neutral'''.  I'm undecided right now.
First to '''Support'''. Although some users would prefer some more editing time, Eva shows that she knows the policies and would make a fine addition to the community if equipped with the tools. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' - All I've seen are good things from this editor. She always has great input on the heraldry articles that I edit.--Dave
'''Tentative support'''. I certainly can't see anything you've done wrong. :)
'''Support''' Passes [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|the test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support''', meets my criteria. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Meets my criteria. Good editor. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Has enough experience.
'''Support'''.  I loved your answer to Q3.
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful answers to questions, thoughtful edits.  --
Per Tone, Boven, and others. No problems here. —
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks alright and appears to have a cautious approach.  It looks like this user ''does'' as opposed to ''talk'' (based on the large number of main space edits). The lower number of Wikipedia name space edits does not concern me; they don't mean the candidate has not read the policies/understands them.
'''Support''' I don't see much reason to oppose. For those that say that this user shouldn't be admin simply because they have few WP:Space edits, that does not mean that they have not read the policies. '''
'''Strong Support''' Evadb is a great user, and meets all of my criteria. I have no problems in supporting her. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', meets my standards.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support''', because a failed RfA can really get you down, and you definetely need some Wikilove now. Don't be discouraged , Eva - you really are an asset and your hard work is much apreciatted. Next time, and with a little more experience under your belt, you'll make it for sure. Best wishes!
Not enough project-space edits leads me to question if you might fully understand our policies. Fails a couple of points of my criteria, so unfortunately, no.
With regret, does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. I can see that your edits are heading towards this direction though. -
'''Oppose''' Not enough project-space edits.
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't have that much experience, and I'm not convinced he needs the mop. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per 89 WP:space edits - <b>
'''Strong oppose''' lack of non-main edits.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' You seem to be an fine editor & your contributions are undeniably valuable, but the low amount of Wikipedia space & talk space edits & slightly unsatisfactory answers to questions 1 & 4 show that you do need more experience in the non-encyclopedic part of Wikipedia. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Low amount of Wikipedia space and talk edits are a concern. Carry on improving the quality of edits in these namespaces and I will support you in the future. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Cleary a dedicated user, but at the moment I do not feel you have the necessary understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in order to carry out the role and responsibilites. --
'''Oppose''' Too early sorry --<font color="black">[[User:Xchrisblackx|Mahoga]]</font><font color="black">'''[[User talk:Xchrisblackx|n]]'''</font><font color= "green">
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry. Also, email, which is important for admin communication, is not enabled.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose'''; per above and lack of e-mail.
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Oppose''' Too little project-space experience suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' User doesn't seem to grasp everything in the administrator's reading list.--
'''Oppose''' as unfamiliar with admin tools (one should know about them first then get them if required not seek them to learn how to use them) and unanswered questions (even though optional they show a real enthusiasm when answered).
'''Oppose''' How silly to nominate oneself for adminship! They should know better than that, but can only contribute with a basic level of [[Spanish]], as possibly nothing at all in any other lanaguge, except of course, [[American English]] (their native tounge), [[Blazon]] can no more count than the language of music. :-(
'''Oppose''' Too little experience in the project namespace. -- from
'''Weak Oppose'''. Needs more experience, and I wasn't particularly won over by the answer to the question posed by [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]]. Will more likely support if nominated by another editor a few months of experience down the road.
'''Opppose''' per my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]] - four months isn't quite long enough for us to be sure.
'''Oppose''' but only for inexperience in, say, project space.  Will definitely consider supporting in the future --
'''Oppose''' - no response to optional questions, 2 days should have been enough --
'''Oppose''' same boat as Tawker, I think this RfA is being ignored.
'''Oppose''' per Tawker. They are optional questions, sure, but at least acknowledge them... -→
'''Oppose''' per NSLE.
'''Neutral''' Looks like good future admin material, but not enough experience at this time.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. Does not have enough WP namespace edits to merit a "Support". [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Neutral''' took my time to evaluate this candidate.  She's made a forceful start, and I especially like the fact that she contributes extensively to mainspace.  After some more emphasis on project space (perhaps [[WP:AfD]] would be a start?) to understand the project better, she would be a superb candidate --
'''Neutral'''. Candidate appears enthusiastic and hardworking. As with other users, I am concerned about experience, especiallyin dealing with more controversial/grey matters. Otherwise, she is fine. --
'''Neutral'''. Hard to criticise, but just not enough to go on for me to support at this time. Come back with more of the same in a few months and it will be a thumbs up from me. '''
'''Neutral'''.  Great user.  Doesn't meet my criteria for project space edits.  I need to see a greater demonstration of understanding and application of policy '''before''' I vote to give her the mop.
'''Neutral'''. I would like to see more WP-space edits. Also, the user has suddenly gone on an indefinite wikibreak and seems to have given up on this for now, which obviously doesn't bode well. The length of experience and answers to questions are satisfactory, though.









Weak support per [[User:Chacor/RFA criteria|my "second chance" clause]]. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Reason for desysopping was quite weak.  --
'''Weak Support'''. I dont think EK has ever really abused his administrative powers in the past... sure he writes a lot of cruft articles... but I cant hold that against him in an RFA. He's one of the top contributors of all time on wiki, even if 10000 edits were to ashlee simpson related subjects. His block history has more to do with fighting over the deletion/control of his cruft articles than anything else... I say give him back admin powers... but keep him on a tight probationarly leash. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I don't believe the overblown edit war on [[Ashlee Simpson]] or the questionable block for off-site activities overshadow his countless quality contributions as administrator.  His worth as an administrator has already been proven.
'''Support'''. This shouldn't be necessary, as he should not have been desysopped other than temporarily to see what was happening. Everyking has been a troublesome user at times, but he has had a raw deal from the community.-
'''Support''' - I am by no means a fan of Everyking's style, but he was emergency desysopped when it was thought he was in danger of posting deleted content to a public forum. As it is now clear he has no intention of doing any such thing, he should have his adminship restored immediately (without an RfA). The "emergency" for which he was desysopped has passed. If the ArbCom want to remove his adminship permanently then they need to do more than an emergency desysopping. -
'''Support''', I fully expect there to be a tonne of oppose votes because he's rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and I do disagree with some of his actions. I also agree that, given the information available at the time, an emergency desysopping might have been necessary. However, the circumstances behind his emergency desysopping have long passed, and there is no danger now, nor will there be. While I may disagree with some of his actions, this emergency desysop should be removed as soon as possible so that Everyking can have his adminship returned. To be frank, I don't even know why this is going through RfA: ''An emergency desysopping should be temporary.'' The emergency has passed. --
'''Support''', per my nomination above.

'''Strong support'''. In my opinion, the desysopping was premature. As an admin, Everyking has always been of tremendous help to the project and I believe he should be given back his admin powers because he is a reliable, trustworthy, level-headed contributor. &mdash;
'''Strong Support'''. The removal of sysops was controversial, based on a thought crime. Removal of sysops was done unilaterally and no chance for a reasonable defense was offered before hand. Everyking was not even consulted about his suggestion by anyone priod to his desysop. When other users tried to come to his defense, the other users were also criticized for trying to defend Everyking. I.E., fair trial was denied to Everyking, a user who otherwise was a good sysop and still is per his readminship. --[[User:OrbitOne|<big><big><font face="Brush Script MT" color="blue">Orbit</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font face="Brush Script MT" color="green">One</font></big></big>]]  <sup>[<span style="color:red">[[User talk:OrbitOne|Talk]]</span>|<span style="color:gold">
'''Strong Oppose''' Your defense of the situation that led to your desysopping is respectable, but I don't find the incident benign enough to warrant forgiveness at this stage (it happened only a week ago). I'm also concerned about the fact that there really is no mention of the desysop fiasco. Lastly, your block log is quite extensive; as this is a brand new RfA, I feel obliged to hold you to the same standards as I would hold someone who had never been an admin before. -- '''
'''Oppose''' for all the reasons already discussed.
'''Oppose'''.  Everyking has demonstrated that he cannot cooperate effectively with other admins, and is barred from interacting with them on the Admin Noticeboard.  His offer to provide a deleted article revision was ill-considered and showed very poor judgement.  Aside from vandalism rollbacks (which can be done using any number of scripted tools and no longer really require an admin bit), Everyking has barely used his admin powers (in the last six months, he has unprotected one page and had deleted 13 pages), and can function without them.
'''Oppose''' per extensive block log and history of taking aggressive positions. - <b>
'''Oppose.''' I'm not the kind of guy to vote oppose just because someone was blocked once a long time ago, but this candidate actually has current editing restrictions placed upon him! How could anyone be an effective admin if their behavior has necessitated their being barred from certain actions on Wikipedia?--
'''Oppose''' per the very recent desysopping, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
'''Oppose''' as per comments above.
'''Oppose'''—Are you kidding?
(Edit conflicted) '''Oppose''' - per the very long thread on AN/I about his recent desysopping, which I too agree with.
'''Oppose''' Being banned from [[WP:ANI]] (no matter how temporary) is a serious handicap when one is an admin. In another point, admins are to be an example on Wikipedia regarding conduct and discretion, among other merits, and being on harassment parole will tarnish that. And considering that you had a recent ArbCom case against you, I am reluctantly inclined to oppose this. While I judge candidates on their past transgressions (if any) less harshly than many others, I have to say that you will have to wait and redeem yourself before reapplying for adminship. --
Although I am a firm believer in the saying ''"He who cannot forgive breaks the bridge that he himself must cross"'', I feel that one week is a touch too soon. If you had have waited, say, 6-to-8 weeks, I would have had no reservations in supporting, as I recognise that we all make mistakes. However, I must '''oppose''' for now. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''(edit conflict)Strong Oppose''' at least until all current arbcom sanctions have expired. -
'''Edit conflict Oppose'''. I'm not a fan of oppose votes, and I don't take them lightly at all. This is one of my first oppose votes in a long time. I do, however, feel compelled to oppose based on Everyking's offer of a deleted revision publically posted. Articles are deleted for a reason, and if we wanted deleted revisions to be publically available, we would allow regular users to view them. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose'''.  No.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the user's extensive block log. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Everyking]--
'''Oppose''', per all the above.  sorry.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Oppose''' I agree with all the above.  I think you need to at least wait untill the sanctions are lifted before you re-apply, I am not a fan of you offering (or rather at least thinking of offering) deleted information to people on Wikipedia Review, a site which has been used to stalk and harrass other Wikipedia users.--
'''Oppose''' -- Although I agree the reason for de-sysopping was quite weak, I also agree with the reasoning above of "at least until all current arbcom sanctions have expired". Admins can't be effective when their hands are tied. -
'''Oppose''' per Longhair.
'''Oppose''' really too soon.  Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' returning administrative tools to Everyking due to extensive record of problems, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Everyking] per block log. The comments that Everyking made on AN related to his recent desysop show that he can not be trusted to use good judgment in the future.
'''Oppose''' per above.-
'''Oppose''' per reasons above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. The Wikipedia Review affair is troubling.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, it seems too soon. Come back in a couple of months and I think you might get a different result. --
'''Oppose''' Not only is the extensive block log worrying, this RfA is ''way'' too soon after the Wikipedia Review fiasco. I never like voting oppose on RfAs, but Everyking's lack of judgement makes me believe that this is for the best. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Oppose in the strongest terms.''' Everyking has displayed an ongoing and basic lack of both judgement and basic morals and ethics. These are not good qualities for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' It would have been better to wait for all the bans and restrictions to end, show several months of good behavior, and then seek RfA.
'''Oppose''' much too soon to re-apply after what I consider to be a disgraceful incident. RfA is not the place to start the trust building process; you earn back the community's trust ''first'' then apply for tools that require that trust.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose'''. The Wikipedia Review incident is a little worrying, but my greatest concern is Everyking's history of harassing of other users, including myself. This isn't behaviour I'd expect from a "trusted member of the community".
Hmm. On the one hand, the "emergency" wasn't much of one. On the other hand, quit hanging out with trolls; stupidity is contagious. So, '''neutral'''.
'''Neutral''' per Opabinia regalis. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''', again per wise comments above and to prevent a pileon. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. First, I think this RfA is somewhat premature, but that's a logistical quibble. That this RfA would occur at some point is inevitable. Everyking and I don't have a very good history, which can be seen from the block log. I take no pleasure from that fact and would rather things had turned out differently. Everyking is one of our best contributors to the encyclopedia. His efforts at fighting vandalism equal anyone's. These things I admire without reservation. At the same time, I continue to question his judgement as an administrator. During the recent affair, which on the whole didn't amount to much, I never saw him subject himself to honest self-criticism. He didn't seem to understand ''why'' his actions were the proverbial final straw for so many people. I think Everyking can be a good sysop again and regain the community's trust, given time, patience, and hard work. Until then, I cannot support adminship, but I'm not going to join in opposition either.
'''Neutral''' substantially per Mackensen (and I'm not going to agonize over my !vote because the outcome here is clear). I might have advocated another chance if the recent episode were the only issue given his commitment not to do anything like what was suggested there. But given the entire history, including the block log and three RfArs resulting in adverse findings, there is too much history to support re-sysoping at this time or, alas, anytime in the near future. I would support arming this user with the strongest anti-vandal tools available and urge him to continue the fight in this area while making a maximum commitment to civility and the avoidance of edit-warring.
'''Strong Support''' as nom &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Support'''&mdash;
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Mild support'''. Though a civil, helpful contributor, Evocativelntrigue needs some more experience in certain areas. --
'''Support.''' Won't abuse the tools. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I am happy to support you, the number of usertalk edits you have shows that you are capable of communicating. However, more experience is needed. Whilst supporting you in adminship, I am presuming you will work hard to get this experience. However, the way this current RfA is going, I would suggest that you withdraw your application for now, and try again in about 8-12 weeks.
'''Support''' - seemed reasonable when I helped with/asked him about his signature. I very much doubt him abusing the tools. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' Sure, maybe you don't have as many edits or time as might be needed to be considered "experienced", but I think that you've done an absolutely wonderful job for the Birthday Committee, Esperanza, and other articles as well.  I wish you good luck, even if this RfA doesn't pass.  Keep working; you'll do well.  <font color="red">[[User:Thistheman|Thisthema]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' I've had excellent experiences around EI. Although he's new here, and, admittedly not perfect, I don't really see any significant issues standing between him and adminship.
'''Support''' Good user, a fellow penguin, manager of fish catches (last 2 were a joke). [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color="red">sta</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|B]]
'''Moral Support''' An exceptional user so far, it will only be a matter of time until you become an admin. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''. Not every user can make an excellent all round contribution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be an admin for the contributions that they can make. EvocativeIntrigue has clearly helped out a lot on Wikipedia, and I've seen him a lot at [[WP:BDC]] where he's certainly made his mark. He has proved that he can be trusted, in whatever limited timeframe he may have been here, and while he may not have done anything major, such as meet 1FA, 530 WP space edits gives a person some experience, if at least how not to make self references in the main article space. His design work has certainly been acknowledged, and his recent implementation of signatures in templates with <nowiki>~~<noinclude>~~</noinclude><includeonly>~~</includeonly></nowiki> proves that he has a good understanding of the various wiki syntax used. He has some good experience in templates, and has proved to be familiar with the general facets of Wikipedia. It is due to this that I feel I can safely change my otherwise 'Oppose' to a 'Support'. --
'''Support''' per FireFox, Seivad, and Celestian, and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|standards]].
'''Support''' per above.--<font color="808080">[[User:Chili14/Concordia|C]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Chili14|hil]]</font>
'''Support''', too nice to do anything but support. :) -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' A friendly user; won't abuse the admin tools. Meets my 2k edit requirements, and good answers to the questions. This RfA doesn't seem likely to succeed, but I'm voicing my opinion anyway.--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. Dear Firsfron, I couldn't have said it better. EE is a great person, always willing to lend a helping hand and improve his knowledge. Since it is very unlikely you'll make it this time, dear E, I'll gladly make you a few suggestions once it's over for a future attempt, if you're willing to hear my modest input. Meanwhile, keep it up; we all have room for improving, and you're on the right track! Cheers,  [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support''' - a really friendly and helpful editor, who I feel has suffered a witch-hunt below. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2</font>]]—
You are a really good editor, as The Halo said, and even though I '''slightly''' agree with him on more experience, I think, what the heck, being an admin is probably among the best things that you can have heppen for more experience, so I decided to '''support''' you.  —[[User:Springeragh|'''''$ΡЯΙNG'''''εrαgђ]] <small>(-[[Special:Contributions/Springeragh|C]]|</small>[[User:Springeragh/ESP|<font color="green">ε</font color>]]<small>|
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like an excellent person from what i've seen of him.
'''Oppose'''. Your 530 or so Wikipedia space edits are almost entirely to Esperanza's coffee lounge. This, coupled with a relatively short time on Wikipedia (Less than 3 months) suggests inexperience. Also, the vast majority of your mainspace edits are marked as minor, and again, your user talk edits are RFA congratulations or Esperanza related Happy Birthdays, rather than article related discussions. While Esperanza is nice, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encycopedia, and your involvement in that (both article editing and process/policy related things) is, I feel, somewhat limited. --
'''Oppose''' per Steel. --<!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Shreshth91--><span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Indeed, the Wikipedia space edits are quite limited to one area, as Steel said. I find the usage of the ''minor'' designation overdone significantly. And also, I noted that you had a fair-use image on your page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EvocativeIntrigue&diff=64027744&oldid=63809949 quite recently]. However, you're nothing but friendly; I just think you need to become more familiarized with a few things. Perhaps in October. -- '''
'''Oppose''' not ready yet, sorry.
'''Oppose''' too new and per above - and per signature, which you ought to shorten significantly. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I think you're a great guy, but you've not been around long enough. Please do contact me if you fail with this Rfa and then are nominated again in a few months time, as I'm fairly sure that (at the rate / quality you're currently working) I'll vote in favour. Sorry again. --
'''Oppose'''. Esperanza's great and everything, we've run into each other quite a bit at the coffee lounge, but I would like to see some more non-Esperanza-related Wikipedia edits.  Also, you mentioned vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a bit more of that as well.  I'm sure if you follow everyone here's advice, your next RfA will be a landslide. --
'''Oppose'''. Fails two of my criteria (200 maintalk edits, 1000 mainspace edits). Please stick to it, and reapply in a couple of months, I'll be happy to support.
'''Oppose''' for three reasons: most WP edits of his concern [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|EA]], the article edits are not enough (in spite of the excellent total number of contribs), and, besides, he has only been here for almost three months. Wait until next year to renominate. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Weak oppose''' I like the user's responses to the RfA questions (although the nomination itself leaves ''much'' to be desired), and I also like his enthusiasm. In fact, there's a great chance that the user would put the admin tools to good use. However, with so few mainspace edits (and so many of them pertaining to Esperanza), I absolutely think EI needs some more experience (not as far as calendar time, but as far as actual editing) before he should be an admin. --
Once you factor out Esperanza and other social activity, doesn't appear to have that much experience with the encyclopedia. Don't especially trust the nominator.
'''Oppose''' too new
'''Oppose''' Too new and inexperienced, lack os social communicative skills through actual editing and application of Wikipedia policy.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience in terms of both time and editing in the main space and Wikipedia space. Potentially a good admin candidate in the future.
'''Oppsose''', more experience first please.
'''Oppose''', 0FA. Articles listed in Q#2 are of insufficient quality. -- '''
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' per Steel and Miborovsky.
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Weak oppose'''. You meet my 3-month requirment, and you seem like a good contributor, but I really want to see more experience in XfDs and such before I support, especially given that you're a fairly new user. Get a bit more involved there or in some other admin-related area and I'll probably support in a month or two.
'''Strong oppose''' due to nominator.
'''Oppose''' per Mib. Needs more experience too. -
If we could somehow combine this editor with [[User:Ryulong]], we'd have a damn-near perfect admin candidate. However, the laws on human experimentation being what they are, I am forced to '''oppose'''... for now.
'''Oppose''' per Steel. I would like to point out to those that are judging this nomination by the person who nominated it, that we are supposed to make a judgement of the editor who has been nominated, not the person who nominated them.
'''Oppose''' too new.  I'd pick another nominator next time also --
'''Oppose''' Per the reasons expressed above, particularly concerning the breadth of contributions to the Wikipedia project space. --
'''Not just now.''' Sorry, you are a great editor, but a bit new and you want to help at AfD as an admin when your last AfD edit was a month ago (me thinks). I don't feel you require admin at this time but beg you stay and keep Esp going. :) Try again in a few months and you should pass.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' Does not meet my 5-month [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria#Requirements|requirement]] and I think this RFA is a bit premature but I have seen this user around Esperanza and seems like a good contributor. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Neutral''' Gain more experience but your presence here is deeply appreciated. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I can't support yet, but no need for an oppose, either. Just a little too early and too little experience, but should not take long for this nominee to be qualified.
'''Neutral''' I think you need a bit more experience before you're ready for the tool, unfortunatly, because you are a really good user. I'll have no problems supporting in the future. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Switch to neutral to counter oppose based on 0FA.''' I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:DRV]] are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas.
'''Support''' changed from neutral. Good luck! - '''
'''Support.''' I was wondering when this would come along. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Seems trustworthy.  A few of his comments for some reason make me doubt, but support nonetheless. -- <font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support.'''<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Oppose''' Fewer than 500 edits in one year.
'''Oppose''' While it is unfortuante that the political situation has interfered with your Wikipedia experience, I believe I see < 2000 edits total. This is not enough top sufficiently evaluate your suitability for adminship. Once you have a greater track record, it will be easier to support.
'''Oppose''' I am opposed due to Exir's stance on IP banning.  Edit and comment, but banning based on IP is blocking open discussion of dissenting views, which I am opposed to.
'''Oppose''' because of hard and fast IP blocking numbers. Don't assume that such a procedure will serve you in every situation. '''
'''Oppose''' You should spend some time writing articles first. Also I don't like the answer to Q5. We can't just simply send every edit conflict up the hierarchy. ~
Sorry, I'd like to have supported but without any indication of how you would deal with conflict I cannot support. &ndash;
I think with a bit more experience the candidate would be a successful administrator.  The edit count is a bit concerning, but I would support the candidate if a few experienced administrators offered to work with him as a sort of advanced admin coaching.  I believe Exir Kamalabadi has a sincere dedication to the project and can be trusted not to abuse the tools, but the experience issue is what precludes me from supporting
'''Neutral''' You want to be an admin and you don't think that you will encounter any conflict? You also avoid controversial articles.  Can you offer evidence that you understand about the processes of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|arbitration]], [[Wikipedia:Mediation|mediation]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]], along with the associated policies?
'''Neutral''', I understand that while China stopped you editing it severely reduced what your edit count ''would'' be, and that you have thoroughly read the policies regarding admins but somehow I think more edits would be better anyway. I strongly support your strict stance on vandals, as an RC patroller I know that it is ''often'', though not always, the case that banning is the only solution.
'''Moral Support''' - Take the advice of the rest of the comments. Withdraw, spend time in XfD, the wikinamespace, work on more articles, and do editor review -- then try back in 5 or 6 months. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Moral Support''' I thank you for your hard work on this encyclopedia. Please don’t let the outcome of this RfA discourage you.
'''Oppose'''. I suggest you expand your answers and generally gain more experience. '''''

'''Oppose''', but I'll check back to make sure you have a proper chance to convince me otherwise. Your brief answers don't worry me in themselves, but your statement that you would use the tools to "[lock] pages with lots of vandalism" is concerning to me. Such a short answer does nothing to explain under what circumstances you would protect or semi-protect a page, and doesn't demonstrate a sound knowledge of protection itself. I'd strongly recommend that you flesh out your answers to the above questions, and use them as a chance to demonstrate that you wouldn't misuse the tools. As much as I believe that adminship is no big deal, I can't be confident that the tools wouldn't be used inappropriately. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Brad and Nautica. Far too little experience, especially concerning administrative type chores (AfD,RfC,RfA,AIV etc), and your reason for wanting to be an admin is rather worrying.
'''Oppose'''. Not yet experienced enough. Very little participation in the Wikipedia namespace makes me concerned that the candidate does not have a grasp on policy. Some of the answers to the questions above are puzzling. In particular, I have no idea what the third answer is trying to communicate. What in the world does "''start a concensus to prove a point''" mean? With more experience and an improvement in communication skills, I'd likely support in the future.
'''Oppose''' per nominee's answers above. Though they were made in good faith, they reflect some lack of experience in grasping admin duties and tasks. -- ''
'''Oppose''' Not much enthusiasm or effort shown in answering the questions. I think not, adminship should fall to those with the desire and the work ethic.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience. Try again in six months and work on admin-related tasks. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions. Experience needed.
'''oppose''' inexperience
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience and more talk, has poor use of edit summaries, and not much recent activity.
'''Oppose and suggest withdrawal.''' You seem like a good person, but I'd like it if you had much more experience. Try again in six or eight months.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good article editor in the Main Space. But you do not have enough experience behind the scenes in the Wikipedia Space dealing with policy-related discussions to be considered a serious admin candidate at this time. It also concerns me that you're applying for adminship right now, even though your edit history shows that your contribution rate has considerably declined in the last three months - you were much more active up to the end of July. When someone applies for adminship, I'm looking for evidence that they're going to be a consistent contributor in that role who will know how and where to apply Wikipedia policy properly. With more appropriate experience, I could see you becoming an admin in the future. Good luck if you decide to apply again some time down the line.
'''Oppose''' Please take this as a learning experience to not rush into things too quickly. Don't let this discourage you from editing. ''semper fi'' —
'''Neutral to avoid pile on''' don't let this get you down, but please withdraw and spend a few more months gaining experience in editing and learning the customs of the Wikipedia community.--
'''Neutral''' - Requires more experience, sorry. <small>
'''Neutral''' due to lack of experience, sorry (and to avoid pile on).
'''Neutral''' Firstly, withdraw this RfA asap, as it has no chance of succeeding as it stands.  Secondly, get an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] to point out areas in which you can improve.  Thirdly, go and get some [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] after working away at improving the encyclopedia for three or four months.  This will give you a heads-up as to what the role of the admin is all about and some of the tasks that you will be expected to perform. Call back after you have achieved this, say in about six months' time.
'''Neutral''' I admire those who desire to be anti-vandal admins and protect Wikipedia's pages however, I would have definitely liked to see more elaborate answers, they seemed rather short and sysop chores can range from page protection to dispute resolution.  Also it would not hurt to see some [[WP:XFD|xFD]] contributions.  All in all I think you have potential, just give yourself some more time to grow.<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="purple"><i><b>
'''Neutral''' I sugguest you withdraw this RfA, as it seems that you will be overflooded with neutral and oppose votes. This is not an insult to your capability or to the work you have put in thus far in the Wikipedia project, but it is more of a notion that you are not yet qualified for admin tools. Get active in the Wikipedia namespace, and keep up the great article-building efforts. We really appreciate what you have done thus far, but if you want to become an admin, you have to open the covers and see what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. We have XfD's, RfA's, DRV, AIV, etc. Try to get active in these areas, and I am sure that your next RfA (in a few months and with 3000-4000+ edits) will definitely succeed. '''
'''Neutral''' I strongly suggest you withdraw from this RfA and meet the above criteria raised by other users. In the meantime, do not feel discouraged over this nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Withdraw and re-apply in a few months. You will not regret it. Keep doing a good job.
'''Support''' as per the nomination statement I wrote above. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' as a fellow male European, erm, I mean, looks OK given account age and contributions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' see [[user:edivorce#Voting_on_RfA's|rational]]. --
'''Support''' 3000 edits a definite dedicated user [[User:[[User:Mjal|Mjal]] 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]</s><p>Wish I'd be. My first edit was mid-2004, the 6 months only refer probably to the fact that I'm well beyond the nomination threshold. You'll have to reconsider that vote.
'''Support''', Experience should not be a bar to gaining adminship.  All a user needs to do is earn the trust of the community.  As I see no votes which actually call into question whether that trust should be given, I support. Adminship is no big deal, therefore experience of Wikiprocess is noreason to dismiss somone.
'''Support''', we've had candidates with [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Linuxbeak|less experience]], so why not?
'''Support''', no big deal.
'''Support''', no ethical problems with the user and has a committment. "Not enough experience" stuff is smth I never understood in such cases. Obviously not a newbie. As such, ethics and committment is all that matters. --
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lack of experienc with WikiProcess.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, who has gorgeous new signature!  Incidentally, I'm sure Femto will make a terrific admin soon -- just wish for a little more learning time.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more edits in wiki namespace, sorry --
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. Just too soon. --
'''Oppose''' not enough participation in WP space yet, but will likely support a future nomination with more experience there.
'''Neutral''' until more project/process experience (56 edits to project namespace).  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral''' Editing project pages more often will be better.--
'''Neutral''' Would like to see more Project related editing.
Not sure yet.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' lean toward oppose, as per the oppose votes limited activity in the project namespace, otherwise all seems in order. --
'''Neutral''' per above (due to lack of project namespace edits).--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''repeat above
'''Neutral'''. Not going to vote against you but see Radiant's oppose comment. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support.'''. Nice self nom, and thoughtful answers to the questions below. Would do good with the tools.--
'''Support'''. [[User:Kungfuadam|Kungfuadam's]] comment made me read through this answers very carefully and investigate this nom more closely. I noticed my head doing a lot of nodding in agreement. Appears to have what is necessary to be an admin.
'''Support''', great answers.
'''Support'''.  Yanksox is correct that there are many useless projectspace edits, but there are good ones in there too, and though it may not be 900, it's more than enough. I disagree that age alone should mean someone shouldn't be an admin, and the answers below seemed to me to be rather well-written and thought out&mdash; more than I would do. This user appears to be a great contributor and would not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per Kungfuadam.
'''Weak support''' Recapitulating my ''neutral'' (the length of which leads me to question my own command of the English language), I was concerned neither in view of this user's age qua level of maturity (believing that the latter not to be strictly dependent on the former) nor of his judgment (assuming, as I do, that he is well-versed in policies and procedures, etc.), but only in view of his less-than-fluent grasp of the English language, inasmuch as that grasp might be insufficent for him properly to communicate with other users, especially with respect to admin actions.  Having reviewed his recent contributions, though, I'm convinced that his knowledge of English is at least adequate for the task of communicating with other editors, and, having no other major unallayed concerns, I've to support.
'''Support''' seen nothing but good things, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've had good experiences with this user and none of the reasons offered by those opposing worries me greatly. --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. I find the votes based on age incredibly shallow. Age is not a factor.
'''Support''' based on very thorough answers. Both edit count and age are low compared to most admins, but user has convinced me s/he is capable of the job, and willing to do the sort of tasks needed by an admin. -
'''Support''' Looks like a good editor, I think he will make a good admin.  He will certainly be able to deal with RP patrol better with adminship.  Age not a factor here, except I might not have stopped and looked at this RfA if I had not seen the oppose votes citing age as their reason.
'''Support''' Looks very good, I think he will do a great job with the admin tools. --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' seems fine, although I would like to see a bit more experience and professional behavior, but I'm sure this will come with time. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support'''. Thoughtful answers, enough experience for me, and age is one of the factors I never oppose on.
'''Support''' per above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' Per BryanG.  The answers to #6 and #7 are especially well-defined and thought out.  With answers and ideas like those, age really isn't a factor; even some other older admin nominees cannot come up with such good answers.  More power to you, Fetofs, and good luck.
'''Support''' Very impressed by the boldness of A2; he hit the nail right on the head--admin tools don't really help with article writing; rather, they help with ''administrative'' tasks. I am a little bothered by the age factor as most individuals that age are rather bad at admitting fault when they make mistakes (IMO, an important quality) and often lack the interpersonal experience needed. Nonetheless, had his age not been pointed out to me, I wouldn't have known; thus, I'm not letting it affect my vote. My experiences with Fetofs have shown him to be quite civil and willing to help, as well as suprisingly committed to the project for (again) someone of that age.
'''Strong Support''' neither age nor quality of article contributions should be primary factors in an RfA in my opinion, since they don't aren't what admins actually do.  What admins actually do are administrative tasks which Fetofs has demonstrated that he knows policy and would implement it fairly.
'''Support''' You mean he wasn't one already? He's a great user! [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' this user demonstrates the willingness and capability necessary to serve the project in such a capacity. --

'''Support''' per many of above, especially Freakofnurture. Some very good answers to questions. See also [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' - per many above too (but not maybe the per many above directly above) - anyways, age is not a factor in adminship, I know many great people here who are quite young, many of whom can't even drive in the US and they do a great job, I see no reason why Fetofs would not continue in that fine tradition I've enjoyed --
'''Support.''' Age should not play '''any part''' in adminship, unless it affects the maturity of the candidate. Fetofs is a brilliant editor, and he is just as mature as most of the "adult" admins, perfect for the job. — '''''
'''Support''' I don't see much coming from oppose voters that gives me pause. Perhaps the quality of project-space edits is of concern, but the quality of article edits isn't really a big deal to me since that doesn't relate too much to admin work. So overall, I'm satisfied enough the candidate to state support. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' diligent and thoughtful.  --
'''Belated Support''' I should start using ''"Oppose too old"'' as my #1 oppose reason from now on. -- '''
'''Support''' - no reason to believe he would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''.  No evidence of incivility or unilateral action; liked his answers to the questions.
'''Support''' already a trusted member within the community, which is evident in his moderating [[WP:VandalProof|VandalProof]] usage; I also liked that he/she's active in [[WP:HD]]
'''Support''' -- per nom --
'''Support''' I would just like to say that I think age is an ''entirely valid'' basis for RFA votes, since a generalisation that 'people below Age X tend to be immature and therefore not good admins', while regrettable, is entirely unavoidable. Unless you have extensive personal experience with a candidate, then you will always make generalisations that may exclude people who would turn out to be good admins (e.g. editcountitis, editsummaryitis, namespaceitis) and age is just another one of those - no more or less valid than any other such generalisation. I am voting support not because I think that age is an invalid reason, but because ''as far as I am concerned'' the candidate has shown enough quality to ''overcome'' that presumption. As for those calling for this RfA to be restarted - if you want to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor3a increase the chances] that the RFA will fail then you're going the right way about it.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Oppose''' per experience and maturity and my criteria - <b>
'''Weak Oppose''' Namespace edit count is very misleading, no real activity from what I can tell recently. I don't believe this would be a productive admin.
'''Oppose''' per above reasons. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. I see the essential criteria to be determining if Wikipedia would be better with this editor as an admin. Unforunately the edit history and answers to questions don't tell me one way or the other. Need more page patrolling, [[WP:AfD]] activity at least to be able to tell from edits alone if adminship is a good idea. Can't see any issues in the edits I've viewed but am not confident of a support -
'''Oppose''' I originally voted support, but upon realization that the candidate is 13, I'm gonna have to change my vote.  I don't want to offend the candidate, but there are certain qualities of admins that just come with age.  Don't worry--in a couple of years you'll be an ideal candidate.
'''Oppose'''I am changing my vote to oppose, and not just because of age either. He has had particularly low activity in the last two months if you check the graphs on thje toolserver :[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Fetofs&dbname=enwiki_p]. Just doesn't seem to spend enough time here to need any powers. I haven't seen this guy around anyway, i'll check contribs before i say anything more.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough mainspace edits. Of the 900 mainspace edits, more than a half are minor (mostly typo corrections) edits or repetitive cleanups and substitutions. Despite a relatively good work in the prject namespace and some vandalism reversion, I think this user needs some more time around. I also think he should start creating and expanding more articles. After that, I believe he can become a great admin.
'''Oppose'''. Low mainspace edit count, low activity in general, little need for tools. --
'''Oppose''' Per Steel's comments above, and from other thoughts expressed above, to do with editing. I must just make a comment though: age in itself should not be a reason for an oppose vote. I think that such a prejudice, and stereotype is simply quite insulting. And per the logic expressed above by other people I could quite legitamately say I do not support a candidate because they are black, and because I'm a stauch racist (I should point out I'm not!) that I don't feel that black people can be trusted (or something along those lines). It is exactly the same logic, yet I'm sure some people will not agree. If we allow people to simply have such predujiced attitudes when voting I personally think that that is wrong. Alternatively one may feel that in a free society, and thus on an online community that Wikipedia is (to a degree), anyone should be able to vote with whatever views they have. I'm sure on Wikipedia we have KKK members, and so if one was to vote quite openly and blatantly as I suggested above I wonder if our opinions would be different. I'm sure people would perhaps be more critical of "'''oppose''' black candidate". --
Having read the comments, I have a few reservations about this user, not including his age. Age plays no major factor in his ability to be an admin; a 35 year old could be worse than him, but would he then not be opposed on "mental" age? However, I see a few good points against raised.
'''Weak Oppose''' does not quite fit my qualifications --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' Low use of edit summaries, as well as other reasons stated above.  --
'''Oppose'''. The age doesn't bother me, but this nomination still comes a bit too soon for my liking. Also, not enough productive work in the project namespace.
'''Oppose''', low level of experience in article space. Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' - insufficient edits in article namespace. --
'''Oppose'''. -
'''Weak Oppose''' - not enough article space edits, quite possibly would support in a few months
'''Oppose'''. Edit summaries are basic courtesy to other editors.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - needs a little more time, and especially more edits in the article namespace.
'''Oppose''' - needs a great deal more article edits, and not just with [[AWB]] and similar minor changes. Only six "notable" article edits per Voice-of-All's summary.
'''Oppose''' - you have done a great job so far, but you need more experience editing and contributing to great articles. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' - Looks like a nice person, and the responses to the questions are careful and knowledgeable. My concerns are the candidates lack of experience with the cut and thrust of editing and the Wiki community's lack of knowledge of how the candidate will behave under stress. The candidate seems happy enough to bob along in quiet waters. I see no advantage at this point for either Wiki or the candidate of potential exposure to stress. I am unsure from the nomination of the candidate's reasons for wanting to become an Admin, other than to generally help out. The candidate seems uncertain. Perhaps, at this stage, some guidance from others on where [[User:Fetofs|Fetofs]] can help would be more useful than handing out blocking tools.
'''Can't support, can't oppose'''. I appreciate the frank answer to Q2, but that's also where this editor loses me. Along with wielding the mop, bucket and keys to the supply closet, being an admin/janitor also involves giving people directions. If you get in some more work writing articles, you'll be better able to help those who come to you for advice on writing articles. Count on my support then. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Neutral''' He seems to have spent a lot of time at the coffee lounge, hasn't been particularly active this month either, I don't have any specific reason to Oppose apart from the user hasn't been here THAT long and edit count isn't THAT high.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' - I don't know this user as far as I know, so I'll refrain from voting support or oppose. I feel compelled, however, to register my displeasure at people bringing someone's age into this. From my experience, it's actually the younger Wikipedians who have more integrity and are less likely to go mental and quit in a fit of rogue badness. -
'''Neutral'''. More article edits will be better.--
'''Oppose''' troll.  Close this ASAP --
'''Strong oppose'''. Blocked four times in the past for vandalism, page-moves, trolling, and personal attacks via email. This user just got off an indef. block 20 minutes ago.&#160;—
'''Oppose''' Just off an indef block. Request to B'crats to pull the plug on this one quickly.  --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', obviously. --ⁿɡ͡b
'''Good grief.'''
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry to vote oppose. --
'''What?''' "Just got off an indef block" doesn't make me want to have this guy in charge of blocking and protection. [[User:Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''Mr.'''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''L'''</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - concerns over the accounts issue, a little too soon after that incident for an RfA --
Per recent block log activity, plus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netsnipe&diff=prev&oldid=79874847 notifying others of your RFA] is generally a no-go. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) per Tawker and Chacor basically. --
'''Oppose''' [[WP:ADOPT|Adopt-a-user]] is an interesting idea, but right now I cannot see why would you need the tools. No recent participation in AfD, no vandal fight. And the edit count is too low.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. The past history, especially the blocks, are disconcerting to me. I also don't see a whole lot of anti-vandal edits, glancing through the logs, and the reverts that I've found have fairly immature edit summaries, as does a lot of the rest of the contribs. And I would recommend removing that fake new messages bar.
'''Oppose'''; per all the reasons above, also found first few edits were spamming their website own website.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''; too soon after blocking & prior blocks require substantial time & effort to heal
'''Oppose''' per answer to question 4, low participation to Wikipedia namespace and that fake new messages bar.
'''Oppose''' Your user Talk page and archives do not demonstrate a sensible and level-headed attitude that I would expect from someone in an admin position.
'''Oppose''' per all above comments. I strongly suggest you withdraw this nomination and concentrate more on improving the quality of your edits. Do not be discouraged by this nomination and show to other users that you can be a valuable contributor to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', user has greatly improved since his earlier days. However, the problem here is low experience in the XfD debates (AfD, CfD, TfD, etc) and a lack of mainspace and project space edits. Manual edit summary percentage is also low (use edit summaries more often to bring that up). Also, for future reference, replying to every single argument in a RfA is not generally seen as a good idea. I recommend withdrawing for now and working on these problems, and trying again later, though with your track record, your next RfA might also be an uphill battle. :/ --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Can't support a user that uses multiple accounts and has that annoying "new messages" thing on there. I don't want a reply either. --
'''Oppose''' per all above.  Also, please sign your replies.
'''Oppose''' Normally I'd avoid piling-on like this, but in this case I think it is necessary to stand firm. There has been no real demonstration of a need for the tools, but more importantly, this nominee has not demonstrated that he can be trusted with the tools. There is no indication of familiarity with policy. The nominee's "previous shortcomings" ''are'' recent; too recent, in fact. Some real time and effort has to be made to demonstrate that this nominee knows policy and can be trusted. The (unsigned!) responses to each and every comment (so far) is also somewhat irritating and does not indicate that this nominee will do well under pressure as an admin.
'''Oppose''' I hate to pile on, but come on... Flameviper, it's impossible to ignore the fact that you were blocked for three months; moreso, let's say I'm able to avoid that, and I want to judge you as an admin candidate. I'm supposed to be able to do that in the '''two weeks''' since you were unblocked? That's simply ludicrous. --
'''Oppose'''. I will certainly consider a re-app in 6 months. I certainly like the idea of a vandal eventually becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' Prior blocks, need more project contribution, and what was [[User:Flameviper12/Vandal_O4e46jaddr52N_Wasdfasdf455her4trbntjcdawHEELS%21%21%21_is_Comf4345bsffd24ffmunism5465ithgd4_POOOOOOOOOOOOOf434ferf543fwecvdtg54rwOOf3fdsh4wer32fse4r34fOOOOOO345g43fdqwt45hgdq34OOOOOOOOOOOOOO43g343trrseOOOOOOP%2134g|this]] all about? —
'''Oppose'''. I really appreciate the fact that you are a reformed vandal and was going to vote neutral, but then I saw your swath of combative, unsigned replies on this RFA page and now I am pretty sure you do not yet have the attitude needed in an admin. Unsigned replies are always bad form. Keep working on it. Give it time, both in terms of editing experience and thinking before you edit.
'''Oppose''' A look at the contribs demonstrates a lack of beneficial mainspace edits compared to the hoard of userspace and Wikipedia edits (in own userspace or in others). Another point of contention is your answer to question #4, which (according to my interpretation) you seem to want admin powers to "have much more sway in voting," rather than in benefiting the encyclopedia as a whole. However, by far the most important rationale of my oppose vote is your replies to the above votes, which show a flair of disdain and condescension on editors voting oppose. Behavior on an RfA speaks loads about behavior as an admin, and showing disdain and condescension here only reflects on your behavior towards others as an admin. --
'''Firm oppose''' Well, pace everyone else, I'm not particularly concerned by the fake new message bar and am disinclined to ''oppose'' solely in view of the bar's erstwhile presence (FWIW, I don't think anyone has ''opposed'' exclusively or even principally in view of such presence).  Nevertheless, I'm altogether certain that I cannot discern whether this user might, in good faith, avolitionally misuse the tools (I think it can be safely said that the candidate would not untowardly and purposely abuse the tools), such that I can't be sure that the net effect on the project of the user's becoming an admin should be positive (my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standard]]).  I should say that I agree entirely with Irongargoyle and physicq210 that Flame's replies to objections at this RfA have not been particularly helpful; even as he has made the occasional fine point, he has tended toward the unnecessarily combative and has evidenced many qualities the presence of which in a prospective admin is not at all auspicious.
'''Oppose''' due to reasons stated above, attitude during this RfA and weak answers.
'''Oppose''' per most concerns raised above. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose''' due to most of the facts stated above, low edit count, and recent 3 month block. --'''<font color="red">
'''Oppose''' "I deal with edit disputes usually by getting all angry at the other guy and using up both of our 3 reverts" - good grief! --
'''Oppose''' While I hate to oppose any RFA, the expiration of the last block was much too recent. It's going to take a while longer to regain the trust of this community. I'd suggest you wait at least 6 months before trying again. Also, while I'm not against self-noms, a self-nom by a user with an already troubled past on Wikipedia doesn't help your case. Good luck in the future. -
'''Oppose''' - very scary answer to question 3, and answer to optional 4 suggests he wants to be an admin so his opinion gets more weight in 'voting'... bad, bad reason to do this --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Oppose''':  I would avoid the pile on, but the answer to Q. 1 brings out a very active and hotly argued philosophical point.  Administrators are not a "promotion" above "editor."  Administrators should not get more weight in an argument, except that their status merely shows long time participation.
'''Strong oppose''' I'm sorry but I am going to "pile on" here since I have very strong doubts about a user who operated multiple abusive sockpuppets, extensively vandalized Wikipedia and trolled multiple admins. As recently as a month ago. Yes the "poacher turned gamekeeper" [[meme]] is a good one and I would like to see a reformed vandal become an admin - its a good perspective to have. But I will repeat my comment from Son of a Peach's one of the socks) second RfA on September 6: "long history of disruption and trolling from this editor. One month since last unsuccessful RfA which was strongly opposed. Doesn't use meaningful edit summaries. Very inappropriate candidate for adminship." One month isn't long enough to overcome more than a year's worth of disruptive, abusive editing. I normally expect 3-4 months of good work from new editors with no history of abuse. I don't see any reason to expect anything less from someone with your track record.
'''Oppose - and I'm not going to apologise for piling-on.'''. Immaturity, horrific misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy ("admins get more weight..." - OUCH!), and flagrant incivility. And that's just in this RFA. And I haven't even got onto the terrifyingly awful answers to the questions. Can a bureaucrat please close this now?
'''Oppose''' - per poor answers, edit summary usage, recent vandalism, childish jokes and writing style, poor knowledge of Wikipedia, and many many more, I'm not going to even bother to look.
'''Oppose''' per recent block logs and poor answers to the questions.  Also, the fact that you are acting immature and joking around on your RfA is a grave cause for concern because this would be the place to tone that down.  Acting like a child on your request for adminship shows people that you probably act even more incivil and immature (as manifested by your blocks) when not commenting on this page. Sorry to pile on, but you are not ready for adminship. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' so as not to pile on. Also, you've no idea how annoying that fake new message bar is.
'''Neutral:''' Yes, I did give you a second chance (that doesn't automatically mean I'm your best buddy on Wikipedia, just less bitter than most other admins! = P) and you've definitely redeemed yourself, but you're still too green to be an [[WP:ADMIN]]. 116 edits to the Wikipedia: namespace is way too low. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Neutral'''. I have only noticed you once on my watchlist (although that was a good edit), and have not investigated further, hence the neutral vote. However, reading the comments of others (and your replies) I would recommend you withdraw this RFA, participate in some XfD debates, do some vandal cleanup, start/expand some articles, do some work on some backloged tasks that don't require admin tools (e.g. Wikification), etc. This will get you some much needed experience and demonstrate ability and comitment, keep your nose clean and if you are still interested come back and request adminship again. As for how long you should wait, I would recommend a minimum of six months, but with a three month block in your history even that might be too soon for some.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  While I am thrilled you saw the light and have become a constructive contributor, it will take a considerable amount of time before the community can trust you with the times.--
'''Neutral''' enough opposes, no need to discourage the user. It's great that you want to improve, but I think that you need more time. &mdash; '''
--
'''Moral Support''' and suggested '''Withdraw''', I understand you have good intentions but the edit count is very low too low for most less than 300 mainspace is not what RFAers like to see. I will not oppose you for vandalism since everyone makes mistakes and you have moved on past your mistakes. But the answer to Q1 is all that every one needs to see.___
'''Edit conflicted moral support but urge withdrawal''' per Seadog. The candidate's recent edits are definitely on the right track, and I certainly don't want him to become discouraged, but there is a need for more experience and more distancing from prior issues before an RfA can succeed. Withdrawal now in deference to consensus would improve your chances for next time when you really are ready. Not to revive an age-old debate, but I will disagree with the opposer who mentioned age as a negative (though I know it was only one factor on a long list), but in this case there are enough other difficulties that not even the cute puppy on the userpage can push this over the top just yet.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but 256 mainspace edits (out of a total edit count of 1232) [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Flarn2005&site=en.wikipedia.org] isn't enough editing experience at the best of times, but particularly not for someone who has "done plenty of vandalism."
'''Oppose''' per Sarah. '''''
'''Oppose''' per above, and I find the answer to Q1 especially weak. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' A history of vandalism, not nearly enough article work-only a couple hundred mainspace edits, very spotty participation, no claim to enforcement or respect of policy, no history of POV or vandalism combating, no real claimed understanding of sysop (agree that #1 was weak), no history of mediation, is only 13 years old, self proclaimed "computer genius", pride in causing conflict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flarn2005/Overreaction],etc ,etc. [[WP:SNOWBALL]].
'''Oppose''' per those above. Not enough experience (in absolute or mainspace terms) to warrant it. Also the answers to the questions don't exactly fill me with confidence.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but an intermittent 1200 edits is not enough for me, and I think that you have not got a good enough sense for the responsibility of adminship due to the answers to your questions. However, try again in about 3-4 months and I may support you then. --
'''Oppose''' like the person said above, didn't answer the questions in a manner that was good enough for me. also the vandalism is worrying to me, really wasn't that long enough ago. if you are serious about becoming an admin and taking on what that requires my i suggest creating a new account and starting from scratch? would remove the bad memories people could have of your previous edits. and would show only the good side of yourself, or at least i'd hope so.
'''Oppose''' Almost all of your edits are on templates, Wikipedia pages, categories, userpages, and talk pages.  Where are the mainspace edits?
'''Oppose''' The lack of mainspace edits is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lack of mainspace edits. It's more important to have a sufficient amount of mainspace edits since this is an encyclopedia, and we are working towards that goal to be a better encyclopedia. Lacks of experience overall, go and create some articles and we shall see in future. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. History of vandalism is bad, but workable, moving both [[Brainfuck]] to [[Brainf*ck]] and [[Toilet humour]] to [[Toilet humor]] (the latter because "the correct spelling has no u") is worse, but again, workable. But your contribution history seems to show you came back to actively contributing again for a month and a half, and then promptly renominated yourself for adminship. After three or four months of active contribution, try again. However, I'd like to register that I don't care about your low mainspace edits. Encyclopedias need behind the scenes people, too. -
'''Neutral''' I cannot see this having any hope of passing for all the reasons given above so I have gone neutral to prevent a pile on.
'''Neutral''' The candidate's statement and answers are rather weak and the spread of edits is rather low, especially as more than a few are self-confessed vandalism. Not knowing the difference in usage between American and British English on Wikipedia is also cause for concern. This nomination is best withdrawn at the earliest opportunity.  You could try [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] to prepare you for another attempt in a few months' time, along with an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] to highlight areas of your Wiki-work that require improvement.
No hope of passing anytime soon. Please take all the comments given here into mind and work hard at building the wiki. The issues regarding AmE and BrE are concerning. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' I admire the enthusiasm you display, but you need way more experience my friend. ←
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but your lack of edits and some history of vandalism makes me stay neutral.
'''Support''' Assuming good faith here... I hope this process doesn't discourage the candidate. He seems to have positive, productive interactions with people from what I can tell... I think he's on the right track, though perhaps he should withdraw this RfA because it's just not gonna succeed right now. --
'''Support'''. I've had excellent exchanges with this talented editor. He's obviously devoted to building the encyclopedia and has the right ideas, which counts for a lot as far as I'm concerned. Not sure why he wants to be an admin, but he must have his reasons. --
'''Support''' per all above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Good faith '''Support'''. I've interacted with this friendly user on several occasions, and I like his interest in building this encyclopedia. I do think Folajimi needs to work in the "Wikipedia:" space a bit more, but I think given some time, we will have a future RfA candidate we can all support.&#160;—
'''Support''' Meets all my criteria (except edit summaries - keep them up!), which is enough for a support from me. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Oppose''' (edit conflict) Sorry, but your malformed RFA leads me to believe that you aren't quite ready for the adminship role. In addition, your answer to question 1 is not specific enough, and the one specific duty you mention in there doesn't require adminship duties. I suggest you read <s>WP:GRFA</s> [[WP:ARL]] before nominating yourself (or being nominated) in the future. --
'''Oppose'''. To be blunt: you've not given me any reason to think you should be an admin. No logical reasoning behind nominating yourself... especially since the admin jobs you have listed can be done without admin abilities. --[[User:Deskana|Darth Revert]]
'''Oppose''' Among other problems, the candidate's answer to question 8 is in direct contradiction to current policy. Furthermore, I am worried about a defensive tone in a number of the other questions, especially question 6. While lack of knowledge is fine for a general editor, a significant lack of Wikipolicy knowledge is not useful in an Admin. There are a variety of other, smaller problems with this candidate's nomination. I recommend that this candidate try to participate a bit more on [[WP:AFD]] and a few similar pages, and never to be afraid to ask a question when one does not know something. I strongly encourage this candidate to come back in about a 1.5 months with a better understanding of policy and a larger scale involvement with the Wikipedia community as a whole. At that time, I will enthusiastically support.
'''Oppose''' From an answer below, it appears editor doesn't yet know what project space is.  This indicates much learning is needed prior to mophood.
'''Oppose'''. Your edit history and your questions to the questions indicate no need for adminship tools at this time. Please participate in more areas of wikipedia related to admin responsibilities such as fighting vandalism and increased paticipation in the deletion process and try again in three months and you will make it.--
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but I don't think you are prepared, try to learn more things, exploring the project namespace, after that, you'll be a better candidate.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Oppose'''. As per above-- malformed RfA.
'''Oppose''' malformed, above comments. <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''': Sorry, I don't see a reason to support. Your edits are mostly adding {{tl|wikify-date}} to articles and over 80% of your edits are in the main namespace. I would like to see more balanced edits and experience from you.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. Don't like the answer to most of the questions given below especially Q10 by JoshuaZ. -
'''Oppose''' Not enough project related [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=Folajimi&dbname=enwiki_p&sort=num contributions].  —
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. --
'''Oppose'''. Spend more time on Wikipedia, and I will support your next RfA.
'''Weak oppose''', too few project space contributions.
'''Oppose''' lacks of project space contributions. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' prefer editors have more experience and all of the above--
'''Oppose''', potential admin's knowledge of policy & project-space and need for the tools should jump off the page in a self-RfA. Honestly don't see that here.
'''Oppose'''. -
Neutral ([[User:FireFox/voting|S]]). Meets my standards, but due to answers to questions (etc), neutral. <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Neutral''' - For whatever it's worth, I'm voting neutral. This editor's contributions are good, but they don't seem substantive enough for the editor to be called an admin. -
'''Neutral''' Better have more experience and better description why you apply yourself for adminship.--
Well meaning, enthusiastic and good natured, with some experience in the right areas will make a great admin.
'''Oppose''' told me to "cease and desist" when I editted articles he hadn't touched in weeks, but felt that no one else should edit until he was done with them (whenever that was). The attitude that one can reserve articles for weeks or longer on a whim suggests that the candidate doesn't understand [[WP:OWN]], one of the project's fundamental concepts. --
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Does not look like administrative material at all to me. --<font color="336699">
'''Strong oppose''' his remarks right on this page suggest that he will not be able to take criticism of his admin actions well. He goes into the defensive and [[WP:AGF|assumes bad faith]] too easily. To top it off, the candidate has no user page.
'''Oppose'''. I don't have good feelings about this candidate. --
'''Oppose''', extremly hard to work with, very short answers to "Questions for the candidate". --
'''Oppose''' - reviewing talk page comments, I do not feel that the user is yet confident enough of Wikipedia policies and procedures to be effective.--
'''Oppose''' nomination is just saying how the user fixed the problem from their last RfA, so it's not a complete nomination, very short at that. Answers to questions are not satisfactory.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' due to answers to questions below not illustrating a thorough grasp of policy or requirement for admin tools.  Also exchanges such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W.marsh/Archive4#C.26D.], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folajimi&oldid=53085592#inuse], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folajimi&oldid=57765777#Archive_your_Discussions] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folajimi&oldid=59626785#Sectioning_.26_talk_page_length] are not indicative of the [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] tone that all editors are expected to display. Why wait until June 20th to reduce the length of the Talk page when it had been suggested on June 9th? I wouldn't like criticism of my actions to be given in this fashion. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose''' The behaviour mentioned by W.marsh is quite worrying, the answers to the questions below and the entire RfA is quite short, and finally this is a self-RfA (not that I disagree with self RfAs, but everybody that does it should be aware that the standards to met are higher if your self-RfA - at least in my view). [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh and Andeh. --
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh --
'''Oppose''' Lack of civility is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh and my awful experiences with uncivil admins. -
'''Oppose''' per Siva. -→
'''Oppose''' per Siva and my own experience with uncivil editors and admins
'''Oppose''' I don't have good feelings about the candidate ethier. [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]] | [[User talk:ForestH2|+]] | [[Main Page|√+]] | [[Special:Contributions/ForestH2|√]] | [[User talk:ForestH2|√-]] |
'''Neutral''' Because he meets my requirments, but clearly not having the familiarity of policies is something that he is lacking thus far. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Overall just 6% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace, that is less than 1,000 or 10% of total edits. Answer to question one is somewhat weak, administrators should concentrate on more things than just closing AFDs. I have had little interaction with the user in the WikiProject Albums, but always positive. Suggesting candidate to withdraw and others not to continue opposing based on [[WP:SNOW]], [[WP:SENSE]] and [[m:Don't be a dick]]. If not for his reply to the first question, and the fact of readding the {{tl|inuse}} tag to that article, I would have supported. --




Strong Support
Moral Support and suggest withdrawl. --
'''Moral Support''' - suggest withdrawl --
Moral '''support''', suggest withdrawal.  Become more active in project space and try again in a few months. --
'''Moral Support''' - time to withdraw &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' Seems like a good editor. But way too soon. Withdraw now and try later. --[[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Moral Support'''
'''Moral Support''' I suggest you withdraw and apply again in about 3 months. Don't feel discouraged! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Sorry, less than 500 edits with none in project space. Have suggested to user that withdrawal might be appropiate. (and noted that admin tools aren't required for the chores he's interested in) Regards,
'''Oppose''' This user needs a great deal more experience before an RFA, in my opinion. I also suggest withdrawing and coming back later.
'''Oppose''' No moral support here, sorry. For starters, this RFA hasn't even been formatted properly; that isn't a biggy, but you could at least accept under the specified area (note: I moved it for you.) Also, your number of contributions is a bit fluffy, but that doesn't say they aren't quality; they're very much so, just I'm not seeing too much ''quantity''. Finally, your question answers do not state exactly why you need administrative powers (other than saying you'd "help" with vandalism, but you haven't done much of that) and how said powers would help you accomplish your current duties. Again, no offence, but I recommend withdrawal and trying again in a bit when you have more experience under your belt. [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="D70000">_-'''M''']] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help">'''''o'''''</span>]]
'''Oppose''' It seems unclear to me whether this nomination has been ''formally'' accepted, since Foxearth has failed to accept at the top of the page (and I have left a message to that effect on his talk page). However, since the questions have been answered, and the nomination re-added to the RfA main page, I will add my opposition of a user who I feel remains inexperienced, with insufficient edits, not enough use of edit summaries, and no edits to the Wikipedia namespace. That said, Foxearth has clearly made plenty of valuable contributions to Wikipedia articles, and I hope he will continue to do so. Per MartinRe above, admin tools are not required for creating new pages, and expanding existing ones, and I would urge Foxearth to continue to do so. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above, also hasn't properly signed his acceptance, and it's in the wrong place anyway.<font color="red"><b>
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''', I agree with UkPaolo, this user has valuable contributions, especially to areas of Harry Potter interest.  However, I don't think this user needs admin tools to achieve goals -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Strong Oppose''', no projectspace experience and less than 500 edits. Doesn't need admin tools to do what he does. Edit summary usage for Foxearth: 5% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace. That is quite a turn off. Frankly, I feel this was a bad faith nomination.
'''Oppose''' and also suggest withdrawal. Nothing in the user's answers indicates the need for a mop&mdash;yet. Edits and distribution thereof are good, but not indicative of much experience&mdash;yet. User may make a great admin someday, but is not there&mdash;yet. Hope to see this user not get discouraged, and come back in several months.
'''Oppose''' lack of experience
I concur in '''opposing''' at this time. Certainly not a bad-faith nomination, though.
'''Oppose''' No participation in anything such as AFD, RFA, CFD, MFD or reversion of vandalism. --
'''Oppose''' Inexperienced and too little use of edit summaries. Withdrawing is in your best interests.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience, being an admin is just mroe work, there is plenty to do without it. —
'''Oppose'''. You need a fair bit more experience, especially in process. Try to get say 2000 edits (with some in wikipedia namespace) and come back in 6 months if you wish. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' edit count. didnt sign acceptance. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - please spend more time with Wikipedia, and use [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] and have a substantial amount of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks, ''
'''Strong oppose''', without prejudice or intention of piling on. Good points have been raised. I don't think as of yet it's safe to hand you the buttons.
'''Weak Oppose''', almost gave a moral support, but the above ballots have shown me that you may have to work a little harder. I vow to support you on your next RfA, however.
'''Oppose Strongly'''. Sorry, but you simply have too little experience to be an admin. Not even 500 edits yet?
'''Oppose''' per above comments.  Needs more experience. --
'''Oppose''' for too few edits and too little experience.--
'''Oppose''', lacks experience, try again in November. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
<b>Oppose</b> I feel bad doing it, because you're obviously a good user, but not enough to be an admin. This reminds me of my RfA. All I can say is, try again later.
'''Oppose''' not enough edits in the talk/user talk namespaces. Admins need to  be able to communicate with other users. Try again in a few months. -
'''Oppose'''. Now, I don't suffer from editcountitis, but you are very green. Keep plugging, and I should be able to support you later.--
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't pass my personal requirements for adminship. --
'''Weak oppose''', I usually don't care about editcounts but even I must admit that you should get more experience. But your edits are very good and if you continue on the same track and start using edit summaries I will definately support in a few months. --
'''Oppose'''. Normally I emphasize quality over guantity, but less than 500 edits is really stretching things. I'd want to see a little community participation as well (such as at [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]].)
'''Oppose'''. More experience needed in other namespaces besides (main). Also, it would be advisable to use more edit summaries, especially for major edits (in which only 5% are present so far for major).<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
Way too early, needs more experience. Nominate again in perhaps like, after 6 months? -
Foxearth's contributions look good, but needs significantly more experience (in article namespace and WP) before considering adminship. --
Can't oppose, you're making '''great''' edits, but I think it's way to soon --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Weak Support''' intentions seem good enough, and you've been here more than long enough. Weak because of the concerns expressed by Gwernol below.
'''Moral Support''' candidate is to be commended for taking the initiative to step up and offer to take on some extra responsibility.  The candidate seems to be acting in the best of faith and is a good contributor.  The opposition makes some good points, and if the advice is taken and applied to editing, I'm sure he'll get the added buttons at a later date
'''Weak Oppose''' you are doing good work, but I can't support you just yet. Your RfA nomination is weak; I'd like to see more detailed and specific answers to the questions and your answer to Q1 suggests you don't fully understand the role of an admin. You are also relatively new with only about 1200 edits to Wikipedia; it isn't a substantial enough record to get a good sense of what you'd do with the tools. Your use of edit summaries is low - this is something you need to improve. Overall, keep contributing to Wikipedia, get more experience, particularly with admin-related activities like [[WP:RCP|recent changes patroling]], and [[WP:AfD|AfD]] discussions and I think you'll have a much better chance at becoming an admin in a few months time. Good luck,
Per Gwernol. Side question, is "Frank Williams" your real name? Otherwise, it may violate [[WP:USERNAME]] ([[Frank Williams]]). &ndash; [[User:Chacor|Ch]][[User talk:Chacor|acor]] 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Yes, my name is Frank Williams.
'''Oppose''' Needs some more experience.
'''Strong Oppose''': not enough WP edits, doesn't really show a need for admin tools. Seems like a good editor, though: basically a case of "Not now, but do come back later".
'''Oppose'''. Poor answers, particularly A1 seems to state that the nom will contribute to vandalism.
'''Oppose''' per two things. Weak answers to basically all of the questions, and lack of experience. You're doing fine so far, but I suggest you withdraw this RfA and come back after 3,000+ edits and hope for the best.
'''Oppose''', doesn't need tools at the moment, lack of edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. A good editor who needs a bit more experience, particularly in the Wikipedia space, before becoming an admin.
'''Neutral''' please expand your answers. --
'''Neutral''' — This RfA is just to weak for me to assess + sparodic contribs. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''' until answer to question 4, however self nom with weak intro and lack of detail in answering questions has be leaning to oppose. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' Your answers don't provide any evidence upon which to support an opinion as to your worth as an admin.  You need to provide difs and cite examples for each question. Anticipation of assistance implies that you do not currently assist the project in any of the areas stated in question 1.  Please provide examples to refute this. Question 2 - '''which''' articles are you pleased with and '''why'''? A couple of worked examples will be sufficient. Question 3; provide difs of the conflict and explain with reference to policy and guidelines how you overcame it - reporting to [[WP:PAIN]] or [[WP:ANB]]? Mediation? These questions are excellent opportunities to demonstrate your understanding of and contributions towards the project, yet your answers fail to satisfy.  I may change my vote on the basis of evidence.  If you have no evidence then withdraw, request an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] and work towards admin status using the guidance that this will provide.
'''Neutral''' Weak answers to questions. Other than this, a sincere editor. I suggest you request an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] first. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' (edit conflict) weak answers, but a well-intention editor.--
'''Neutral''' per Gwernol and (aeopagitica). You're a good editor, but you might need more time with a more consistent rate of contribution. Also, people's standards are higher for self-noms, so you really should have made a better case for yourself. Up your activity here and try reapplying later. Regards, &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' Not a bad editor, but I'm not sure you're ready for adminship just yet.
'''Neutral''' pending proper answers to questions/noination.
'''Neutral''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' - Damn it. I wanted to beat the nom support. Excellent user. Will certainly pass the "1FA rule". '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support? We don't need no stinkin' Support.''' Franz would make a calm, cool, and collected administrator. I definitely support this RfA.
'''Support''' A civil and great user. Would also not abuse admin powers. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' The user shows a good knowledge of the area where he would do admin work and as far as I can tell, a lack of strong desire to be an admin is arguably a good thing, I'd rather have less power hungry admins.
'''Support''' per Siva and, more importantly, JoshuaZ, with whose observation that those who actively and frenetically pursue adminship are often ill-suited for the task (or, at the very least, not properly motivated) and want all the [[noblesse oblige|noblesse]] with none of the [[noblesse oblige|oblige]].  It is, to me, refreshing to find an individual for whom adminship is ''no big deal'', and who, even as he wants to be an admin because he believes he can serve the project and the community in that fashion, wants primarily to be an editor.  Many here are of the opinion that, where a candidate is unlikely often to use the mop, etc., he ought not to be supported.  I imagine that this conception follows from the idea that, because desysopping is difficult, only those who will actively benefit the project with the mop, etc., ought to be approved; the risk of abuse, the argument goes, is such that the likelihood of positive admin actions must be great.  Here, though, I see no reason to think either that Fritz would abuse the tools or that he would avolitionally misuse them, ignorant of policy.  Where a user is civil, deliberative, and collaborative, he/she ought, IMHO, to be supported; even if Fritz only uses the mop, etc., a few times monthly, his use will benefit the project, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence to suggest that we ought to weigh the prospective minimal usage against the probability of Fritz's acting inappropriately, namely because that probability approaches zero.
'''Support'''. No problems here. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''.  Busy, civil, trustworthy.  Pass the mop.  --
'''Weak support''' - still not 100% sure if you know what adminship entails but you don't seem to be one who would abuse the tools --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nom and JoshuaZ.
'''Support'''. Nothing to suggest they'd abuse the privileges. Should be an admin.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Experienced long-term editor.
'''Strong support'''. Great user --
'''Support'''. I see no big problems.--
'''Support'''. Meets all of my RfA qualities, nothing pointing toward possible admin tool abuse. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support''' - meets my criteria
'''Support''' per Joe. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' anyone with this many edits should be an admin <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''' Passes [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|the test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Rfa cliché #1'''. Seriously. <tt>
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - Is a native speaker of "German" (I'm not sure which dialect) and can contribuite with an advanced level of English. :-)
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' per answer to Drini's question. We need more admins who understand that receiving a mop does not make you a law unto yourself.
'''Support''' this user has his head on straight. May not use the tools often, but will use them productively.
'''Support''' - not a nutter, knows his stuff - the only two things that matter.  Just because he wrote 'accepted' in lower case doesn't make him apathetic.
I was surprised when I realised he wan't one, actually. Would make a tremendous admin - he's probably just being too modest.
'''Support''', meets [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Support'''. For me, lack of desperate desire for adminship is a big plus, as he is unlikely to let the tools go to his head. Has demonstrated commitment also. I would like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits, but its not a dealbreaker in this case. '''
'''Support''' per Joe. --
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Weak Oppose''' Obviously a good user, but I don't think there is a desire to be an admin or knowledge of what it entails. I feel awful, but I just don't think the user will benefit from admin status.
'''Oppose''' not explained why tools are needed, edit summary use - <b>
'''Oppose''' For me the answers to the questions below give the impression the wrong sort of attitude in a potential administrator; and per Yanksox's comments above. --
'''Oppose''' per Yanksox. We have 900 admins, and 20 do 50% of adminning; unless a user gives more thoughtfull responses to questions and demonstrates significant policy/legal knowledge and dedication, I'd rather not support.'''
'''Oppose''' Per Yanksox.
'''Weak Oppose"''' per Yanksox and the following - I think he could potentially be a good admin, but the lack of desire and general apathy towards the RfA is a bit of a flag.
'''Oppose''' While he's done a lot of work here, I don't see any need for admin tools.  There is oodles of standard cleanup-type work to be done that seems to interest this user. Also, the unsigned acceptance and mediocre edit summary usage indicate a lack of attention to detail, which can lead to messy problems with admin tools. <font color="3300FF">

'''Weak Oppose''' per norm.
'''Weak Oppose''' per hoopydink. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
Fails a few of my criteria.
'''Oppose''' For a long-time editor, candidate has very few project-space edits.  I'm concerned about familiarity with wiki-process, and the fact that editor ''failed to signed'' nomination acceptance doesn't help (tiny thing, but if a candidate can't take care to proof-read his/her RfA, I'm a bit off-put.)
'''Weak oppose''' per Yanksox.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Yanksox. It doesn't seem like the editor is familiar with process enough. -- from
'''Weak Oppose''' per Voice of All.
'''Weak Oppose''' Per the questions --<b><font color="teal">
'''Oppose''' per apathy (Q4) and [[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] --
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions - particularly Q3, consensus is king and is only backed up by WP policies -
'''Oppose''' as per Yanksox, Aguerriero, Xoloz and others above. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' for now.  Didn't sign acceptance, and has a rather low projectspace edit count, but otherwise seems like a good user. --
'''Neutral''' - a spike of over 5'000 edits in December makes me a little unsure of how to vote here.
'''Neutral''', project space edits are on the low side. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:crosshair"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''' - a fine and diligent editor, but weak answers to questions lead me to withhold support, for now. --
'''Neutral''' Not sure how admin tools would help him contribute.
'''Neutral'''. Low WP-space edit ratio, imcomplete explanation of how the candidate would use the admin tools, edit summaries are on the fence for me and the user has an irregular edit distribution. However, the user ''does'' have amazing article space contributions that cannot be overlooked, and adminship ''wasn't'' supposed to be a big deal, remember? (Regarding his so-called "apathy".)
'''Support''' Highly experienced user. Long overdue. --
'''Support'''. Has good judgement, will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' -wow thats a lot of info, do I need to copy the bits I'm supporting by (don't want to double pagesize) --
'''Support''' Seems to be an excellent candidate for adminship, a wealth of experience upon which to draw. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Weak Support''' appears to have contributed greatly to a lot of controversial articles and got involved with the discussion of them and other users editing them. I found some edits which I felt FT2 stayed moderately cool in a heaty moment. Bit dissapointed I couldn't find any RC patrolling or [[WP:AIV]] reporting which admins need experience on, thus the weak support.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''. I am of much the same opinion of [[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]]; adminship for this user is long overdue. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' credentials are impressive
'''Strong Support''' seems to be the ideal candidate for adminship
'''Support''' User seems to have a good understanding of [[WP:POLICY]], and the mindset it takes to be a good admin. Give 'em the mop. --
'''Strong Support'''. Long overdue.
'''Support''', this is long overdue, use more edit summaries please. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' He has strange, strange editing tendencies (9 per page), which indicates that his edit count is misleading, or that he is meticulous.  But from what I've read of his editing disputes he seems analytical very familiar with policy.
'''Weak Support''' per answers to questions and checking "force summary", which the user really needs to do.'''
'''Support'''. Great editor, good experience in controversial matters.  He does, however, need to use more edit summaries so people know what kind of edits he made. [[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per above, been here a long time. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support.''' Meets most of my [[User:SushiGeek/My_criteria_for_RfA|criteria]].
'''Support'''. Makes good edits to interesting articles.
'''Support''' Looks good.  Never ran into FT2 as I never edited any of the articles that FT2 edited.  Caveat to use edit summaries more.  Thanks for following through with my demented requests --
'''Support'''.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Weak Support'''. Please click the "force edit summary" button, though. - <b>
'''Support''' - Seems a good contributor. And I believe he will start using edit summaries after this.
'''Support''' - Dedicated contributor and is able to deal well with controversial topics. Knows his way around wikipedia.
'''Support''' - A very experienced user.
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful, busy and very experienced.  --
Turn force edit summaries on, please. Other than that, great candidate and has my full '''Support''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Support''' (was Neutral) Excellent answer to my question. First sentence was enough to change my vote. But please, use edit summaries. -- '''
'''Some support''' I'd like to see some more summary usage (lots more actually) but otherwise you've done everything right.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good contributor.--
'''Support''' One doesn't have to always use edit summaries to be a great editor.  FT2 speaks directly to this fact.  --
'''Support'''- self-nomination sometimes indicate self-confidence, and edit summary is important - but several ones are of no use as they do not "indicate" types of edits done but have de-generated into mechanical excercise. I am talking of exceptions and not the general trend. I have found old experienced editors not using edit summary. One can always improve. Do we have a mechanism to gather data for edit summaries for all edits done since the first edit? I am really curious to know. --
'''Support''', though edit summaries are important. Hope the candidate makes the improvement. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Weak Support'''. Looks like they have made a few mistakes... but overall a good editor and would help the project if they had admin tools. The low edit summary usage is a concern.
A 30% edit summary usage for major edits is just way too low.  I wouldn't hesitate to support you in a month once you've gone about fixing this problem, but really, anyone looking to be an administrator must know that edit summary usage is an important issue (and potentially a deal-breaker).  --
'''Oppose''' as per Cyde. Edit summaries usage is way to low for me.
'''Oppose''' self nominations are silly.
'''Weak oppose''' -- image uploads.  I just deleted [[:Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg]], which was sourced to a website that specified noncommercial use, but the image was tagged with {{tl|PD-100}}, presumably because the subject of the photograph was an ancient object.  A number of other images were uploaded that seemed to come from various websites or .wmv files, with no information about the creator, and tagged as "fair use", in spite of being used as a convenient way to illustrate articles instead of discussing the film or photography[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:M90.org_kangeroo_film_still.png&diff=prev&oldid=59335911].  User seems to be unclear on [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] and [[Wikipedia:Fair use]].
'''Oppose''' for low usage of edit summaries for major edits.--
'''Oppose''' - the use of edit summaries is simply too important to disregard.  When one has to pour through old article histories, looking for specific information or conflicts, the task is made so much harder by editors who didn't use edit summaries along the way. It is a clear message on Wikipedia, not easily missed.  I'll consider support in several months if edit summaries are used.
'''Oppose''' Low edit summary usage is to important to let it slide. Sorry. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Oppose'''.  Edit summaries.&mdash;
Sorry, but I do '''oppose''' when edit summary use is at this level. May support a future nom.
'''Oppose''' per most of the above, edit summary usage is just too low.  Improve that, reapply in three months, and I'll happily support.
'''Oppose'''. I like FT2. I do. But. If [[NLP]] and [[NLP and science]] are any indication, he doesn't have a real good idea of what we are. There is more to this than # of edits. --
'''Oppose''' per item 3 above.
'''Neutral''', low use of edit summaries (especially for major edits), otherwise a great editor--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Neutral''' - edit summary usage is way too low.  Please check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box.  Didn't even use an edit summary when adding his RfA from this page. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' The very low edit summary does scare me off a little.
'''Neutral''' per Yanksox, although excellent contributions and good answers to questions are noted. --
'''Neutral''' In normal circumstances this would have been an oppose vote for the lack of use of edit summaries. However, on reflection this user has contributed to a number of varied areas on Wikipedia (over a long period of time) and so I feel that it would not be appropriate to oppose. I do no however feel inclined to vote in favour as the use of edit summaries is still a serious concern.--
'''Neutral''' I have gone back and forth about this for a couple of days, and think this is an outstanding candidate for admin, '''except''' the edit summary thing, which IMHO, is very important.  --










[[Cultural and historical background of Jesus]] - mediator following editors' RFC, later co-author of new article with



'''Moral Support''' Welcome to the encyclopedia. After you have a few months of good edits under your belt, I welcome you to return and apply for adminship. In the meanwhile, please review our policies on [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. Thanks for your interest!
'''Strong Oppose''' Is this for real?  Your user page is full of racial comments and slurs... You did not fully answer the questions... If this is a test, please place <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki>.  If not, please consider withdrawing this. I also find it unusual that you have less than 50 edits and this is one of your first edits.  You seem like a [[WP:SOCK|sock]].
'''Strong Oppose''' per Cbrown1023.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Cbrown1023. Please withdraw this immediately. Thank you. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Oppose''' per [[WP:BJAODN]].
'''Support'''. Wow. I beat the nominator! Great user and is ready for admin.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Ninjaed my first suppport!!!!!'''
'''Support''' Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin.
'''Weak Support''' The only thing that makes it weak is that Funnybunny is very eager to ask questions and learn, so I would like the user to go through [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]] as s/he would be very receptive to it.  But I have no problems supporting without that.  Friendly editor who gets them vandals.
'''Support''' I've seen Funnybunny around. A good user in general who deserves a chance. -→
'''Support''' Seems to have a lot of connections with anons, as well as established users. Good for an admin.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per Buchanan-Hermit
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|25px]]'''Strongest Possible Support''' Per nom. Keep it up!
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Obviously a great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support'''. Although he doesn't have an enormous amount of contribs and time by today's RFA standards, I'm confident that he'll do well as an admin, unlikely to abuse it. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Strong Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''support'''. i'm willing to give him the benifit of the doubt
'''Oppose''', too few contributions to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''', does not warn vandals after using popups to revert their vandalism. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richie_Kotzen&diff=prev&oldid=53801511], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grazielle_Oganna&diff=prev&oldid=53801449] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Designer_baby&diff=prev&oldid=53798363] are some of his reverts done today that were not followed up with warnings.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience, 50% edit summary use rate for minor edits, linking to RfA on userpage. - <b>
'''Oppose''', I'm not quite sure what the deal is with these two (nominator & nominee) as well as the barrage of sockpuppets and/or "close personal friends" likely to fill out the support section, but something seems really suspicious with this group. — ''
'''Oppose''' based on low edit count and insufficient time, despite strong AfD experience. Needs more time and more well-rounded experience. Although claims vandal fighting as a strength, has less than 3,000 edits. This is rather low for a vandal fighter.  Has been with  Wikipedia less than  four to six months. Needs to warn vandals more consistently. Proposes to discourse with vandals rather than blocking them-- does not need adminship for that.  I’m not sure what is meant by, “reviewing AIV”. Would check with another admin before blocking-- not ready for that tool. Needs more article creation and editing per se.  Just  not ready quite yet. Thanks
'''Object''': Good number of edits, but you're not yet ready. --
'''Oppose''' Has a previous malformed RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=45717950&oldid=45716047 here] that I would have liked to have seen mentioned here. Coupled with relatively small number of edits to namespace and his off-policy answer to Question 1 and I feel I have to oppose. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', number of main page edits.
'''Oppose''', a quarter of his edits are in user space.  We're here to build an encyclopedia. --
'''Oppose''' for not needing administrative privileges per answer to Q1.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience and answers leave me confused whether having him as an admin would help the community. However, I may change my view if he is able to give convincing answers to JoshuaZ's questions. -
No way. Almost everything about this candidate is wrong and making him an admin would be a serious mistake. I wish I could be more constructive, but I absolutely don't think people this aggressive should be encouraged with adminship.
'''Oppose'''- I don't think this user needs administrator priviliges, and I wouldn't quite trust him with them.
'''Oppose''', only 5 edits for Article Talks is not nearly enough.  It shows either an inflexibility to editing or wishy-washy to the same.  Neither is good for an administrator. Vandalism hunting is admirable, but not the only thing that administrators have to deal with.
<b>Oppose</b> Not a good range of edits, and answers to questions are a bit iffy. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. More experience in required. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Maybe in a few months.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''', sorry - not ready.
"Don't be discouraged" '''oppose'''. On the way, but not there yet. Needs more experience, particularly in article writing/creation. Deserved or not, editors look to admins for direction when writing the encyclopedia, and this candidate's direction, as the moment, would seem to be "let's find you another admin." Would be happy to support when this candidate is ready to step up to the plate. :) <tt>
'''Strong oppose''' lack of talk edits.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience. Try again in three months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''', not warning users because you are afraid they will vandalize more is counterproduction.  I'm frustrated with the process (and lack of support from admins), but I do it anyway.
'''Weak oppose''' <small> (moved from ''weak support'') </small> Because ''adminship is no big deal'', I invariably support candidates whom I think to be unlikely to abuse admin tools, even as I may not expect them to do much constructively with those tools; if a user is generally civil and doesn't seem to have a mercurial disposition, I don't mind if he/she has the mop and bucket and doesn't often use them (even a little work closing AfDs, blocking vandals, clearing untagged images, etc., is appreciated).  Here, though, even as I don't think the user likely to abuse the admin tools, I wonder about his/her fitness for adminship (and prospective avolitional misuse of tools), notably in view of his/her answers to JoshuaZ's questions.
'''Neutral leaning to oppose''' per low mainspace count and per Kimchi
Perhaps later. -
'''Neutral'''  a little concerned with the attempts to please allcomers in his answers, but not enough to oppose.
Comment-
You seem to be doing a great job so far, but I feel you just need some more experience.  Try again when you've got around 1000-2000 edits and have a strong knowledge of how things work not only in the article space, but in the Wikipedia space as well. --
'''Oppose''' sorry, but with fewer than 250 edits we don't have the evidence to be able to make a fair judgement of your suitability for adminship. That combined with the incorrect RfA (no answers to questions, no nominating statement, no acceptance) mean you aren't ready yet. Good luck though and thanks for your contributions so far,
'''Oppose''' for now.  Low number of edits (especially in the Wikipedia namespace) and malfirmed RfA show that candidate still has a lot to learn.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the dreaded '''moral support''' here. --
'''Oppose''' You are not there yet, but you will be in a couple of months.--
'''Strong oppose''' Sorry, but with only 283 edits and 5 edits in the main namespace (most of your edits are on your user page), and the fact that you have been a member for only 2 weeks, you are way too inexperienced to become an administrator. '''''
'''Oppose''', this nomination seems... odd. Sabertiger, I suggest you look at previously-successful RfAs  to see the kinds of candidates we're looking for. Gangsta-Easter-Bunny is much too new. --
'''Oppose''' - You have '''5 edits''' in the article space and just a few hundreds in the remaining namespaces. That's not enough. Keep learning and start writing articles. Cheers!
'''Strong Oppose''' Schzmo sums it up nicely: too inexperienced.
'''Strong oppose''' per above.--
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above. I suggest a b'cat closes per [[WP:SNOWBALL]] <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''': too few edits, no edit summary usage. Not ready; keep working, come back when you have 1000+ edits --
'''Oppose & Second Closure''': Per Computerjoe --
'''Support Withdraw''' - sorry, I know you have good faith intentions but you're just a tad new --
'''Strong Oppose'''. I ''strongly'' suggest you to withdraw this RFA. Your current contributions and experience are not sufficient enough for you to become an administrator. Sorry.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per my comment below, the editor making this nomination has been accused a number of times of vandalism and might be making this nomination for less than legit reasons. While I'm assuming good faith, I strongly suggest this RfA be closed.--
With apologies to the nominator and nominee, this may be the '''most obvious [[WP:SNOW]] ever'''. Hope to see you back after several more months of good work on Wiki.
Although it would be interesting to have an admin who claims to be from Mars, I '''Oppose'''. He's a way to green. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Oppose''', of course. --
'''Oppose''', is this some kind of junior high sockpuppet invasion or something? — ''
'''Oppose''': don't be silly.
'''oppose''' and please just close this it now
'''Oppose'''. Not experienced enough. Also is an attention seeker: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test&diff=prev&oldid=50798125], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test&diff=next&oldid=50798125]. I strongly doubt that someone with less than 500 edits would be able to get the highest score on that [[Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test|wikipediaholic test]]. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', can a 'crat close this already and end the suffering, please? I think the candidate has taken the point...
[[Image:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg|25px]] '''Strongest possible oppose''' as per 2 recent vandalisms, <500 edits, not admin material. Admins - even potential admins - are held to a higher standard. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nathanrdotco]]
'''Oppose''' '''oppose''' '''oppose''' '''oppose''' - sorry. --<font size="1">
'''Support''' I don't see a problem with this user. [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Object''' why should (we) trust you with the mop? are you reliable? What is different now from the past? You haven't answered the questions at all.
'''Oppose''' I feel this RfA is a bit premature.  Three months as a Wikipedian is rarely enough time to gain the experience necessary to become an administrator.  I am eagerly awaiting an elaboration of your answers to the questions, as it will help us better understand your desire for the extra buttons and could help you garner support votes for the future, as well as the present
'''Oppose''' weak answers
'''Oppose''' Former RFA nomination as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gangsta-Easter-Bunny|Gangsta-Easter-Bunny]] was way too soon.  Still not convinced user knows his way around wikipedia.  Weak answers to questions and introduction that reads like a parody of someone wanting a lot of oppose votes.  I don't want to see apologies, rather evidence that there are positive edits that suggest these transgression are past.  I would need to see significantly more than 2500 edits and time to be assured this is the case.
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink, David D. and Aranda56. How can you prove that you've changed other than saying "I'm pretty reliable"? Anyone can say that.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid actions speak louder than words.  How have you changed?  Nothing can confirm this.
'''Oppose''' Adminship is about trust and I can't say I trust this user yet.  I'm delighted he got [[FDR]] featured (my favourite president), but what about the sockpuppet concerns from the last RfA, sparked by this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test&diff=next&oldid=50798125]?  It seemed to imply he was a sock of the nominator, who was blocked for being a sock of Willy on Wheels.  We might be adminning Willy here. Was that ever cleared up?
'''Oppose'''. Fails more than one of my criteria. My advice: if you are sincere, then stick around the project for another 6 months to a year and be a consistent, solid, trustable user. Make many edits, make good edits. Do that, and I will promise you my support on the next go-around.
'''Edit conflict oppose''' per 1ne, and answers given are insufficient. '''
per the above users, sorry. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Weak support'''. Not many edits, but is a pretty good user. Great answers to questions. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support''' - The answers are articulate and mature. Wikipedia is in shortage of administrators who have this skill and can fit in the role those niches - "admin WikiGnomes" so to say, where the apparent lack of experience with administrative duties during RfA is not reason enough to oppose. This is a user that knows how to be careful with the sysop bit, and how to learn using it through keen observation. I get the sense it will be used in a measured way, and if anything, would be one of those admins who quietly and effectively do clean up tasks without anyone noticing. The oppose comments in my mind are not convincing. Wholeheartedly support. --
'''Support''' - Per [[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]]. Also, if Gary is to contribute mostly through his school computers and with a handheld device he may make less edits in a certain time period than others. What I see as more important is the attitude shown, particularly in his question responses. While without a personal computer he cannot just trawl through edit after edit, his contributions will certainly be more intelligent, more concise, more informed and far more notable than most people could manage. Size doesn't matter, as they say ;) and surely [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|Editcountitis]] is not a good thing!
'''Support.''' I hereby waive my edit count requirement. I see no reason that giving adminship to this editor will be detrimental. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like a wellmeaning candidate, who will use the tools responsibly.  Plus, he meets my standards.--
'''Support''' - per [[WP:AGF]] -
'''Support''' Not that many edits, but seems like a good user who will use the tools wisely. I'll give him my support.
'''Weak Support''' A low amount of edits for being around a year, but I think he will be a good sysop. -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Support''' Seems like he won't abuse the tools. Possibly a little unexperienced. Good article writing, though.
'''Strong Oppose''' - lack of actual WP edits a major concern and ''way'' too many userpage edits. Pretty userpages are not really what either WP or adminship are about.
'''Oppose''' Good answers, but I am concerned with the low edit count for 12 months. Step up your pace and I will support you next time.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' insufficient answers to questions, blocking attitude, edit count. --
I'm not quite sure what has changed since I opposed your last RFA. The lack of project-related edits, quite crucial for an admin, is unsettling. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Per [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]], not enough mainspace or mainspace talk. Also, I find the ratio of userspace edits versus mainspace edits to be a little strange.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see a larger edit count.
'''Oppose''', no user with less than 3000 edits will ever get a support vote from me. Apply again once you have contributed more to Wikipedia, and if you haven't done anything stupid, I'll more-than-likely support. But for now, oppose. <font face="sans-serif">'''
Edit count isn't really a reason to oppose, but for me article writing is very weak, your best article is a stub with several citation needed tags, so more experince is needed there, '''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' until candidate has more WP-space contributions and smaller ratio of user / main namespaces. Candidate can still be a very valuable asset to WP by article building. I also ''hate'' the fact that the sig takes up almost '''4''' lines of code. shudder.--
'''Oppose''' Not enough WP experience.  <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' I was extremely unimpressed by [[Holcombe Manor]], and the combination of low mainspace and disproportionately high userspace, plus the general lack of WP space, lead me to question the user's experience and grasp of WP, his rationale and well-meaning demeanor aside. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per Tewfik, Aqu01rius, Storkk and others. Try again in a little while with a few more WP edits.
'''Oppose'''. More WP-space edits, please.
'''Neutral''' Lack of Wikispace/ XfA participation & little demonstration of knowledge of policy in answers.  A good editor and on the way to adminship.  Would be happy to support in future with evidence of participation in the community.
'''Neutral''' per aeropagitica's comments. You do not deserve an oppose opinion but the low XfA participation is a concern for me. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''', needs more experience in practical process. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Neutral''' it's not an edit ''count'' thing. Without a significant number of edits, I can't judge accurately whether you actually need the tools or not, and whether you will use them appropriately. Contribute more substantially, and I'm sure you will gain more support !votes in a future request. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral leaning to support''' My thinking mirrors that expressed quite cogently by Riana.  Insofar as, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standards]], the question on the disposition of which my conclusion apropos of adminship depends is whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive, I essay principally to ascertain whether a user is likely to abuse or misuse, even avolitionally (e.g., by acting in an area with the policy and practice of which he is not particularly conversant), the tools; whilst such ascertainment can sometimes be made quite quickly, I can't, from Gary's record, draw a conclusion here.  His knowledge of policy, deliberative temperament, and judgment seem quite fine, but there's not much on which to rest that evaluation.
'''Neutral''', can't oppose, you need more experience in the wiki proccess. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per (aeropagitica).
'''Neutral'''&mdash;after much angst. Things I like: Wikignomeship, edits, general maturity of comments. Things I worry about: limited Wikipolicy work. I could make a case for voting either way. Just about supported this time. Get some more wear on the tires, come back soon & I'll support with pleasure. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Neutral'''. I am concerned about the relatively low number of main space edits.
'''Neutral'''. I can't oppose. Please wait an other 3-4 months, work more and you'll become an admin.
'''Neutral''' - Gary would put in the time and effort to become a good admin but I do not know if he has enough experience. Therefore I shall not support or oppose him. He is a bit sexy too. --
'''Neutral''' apparent sockpuppets [[User:GandalfKirk|GandalfKirk]], [[User:GregoryKirk|GregoryKirk]], and
'''Neutral''' Gary is coming along well as an editor, but needs just a little more experience. Try again in a couple of months and I'll more than likely support. Also, sorry for my oppose vote before - I admit I was a little quick to judge, so I apologize for that. Thanks. --
'''Neutral''' Great answers to the questions. Seems like an outstanding editor interacting with others. Very good, just a little more time.
'''Support''' as nominee. -
I trust Lucky's judgment.
'''Support''' - Good balance of contribs, and I too respect the nominator. (
'''Support''' - Despite some disagreements on micronation article policy, I believe Gene's a good admin candidate, keeps Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and is someone I trust to work to protect and improve WP.
'''Support.''' It's about time.
'''Support''', dedicated, knowledgable and passionate, but not unreasonable.--
'''Support''' as non-nominee.  :)
A very familiar name that I trust.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[user:
'''Strong Support'''. I have worked with GP on vandalism issues and he has been a great help to the Wikipedia Community. The sockpuppet allegation are non-sense and unproven folklore.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Give him a chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. I think it is commendable that you've improved your editing enough that the above editors approve of. But I've seen a long enough history of incivility and edit warring that I don't have faith in your ability not to abuse admin tools. So keep up the good work, but I have to oppose. I do also find the evidence of sockpuppetry compelling. -
'''Oppose''', none of the chores he anticipates helping with actually require adminship, and he has a severe lack of experience with WikiProcess (indeed, hardly any edits to Wikispace that aren't AFD votes).
'''Oppose''': due to conduct in a very long history of edit wars and other battles, I don't think this is wise. I'm sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant! --
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid that it is still my opinion that, largely through the dogged efforts of Gene Poole, Wikipedia's micronation content consists of a festering morass of Through-the-Looking-Glass woo-woo peppered with misleading statements. Poole's aggressive evangelization for his "chosen" micronations and mobilization against his disfavored ones results in coverage that is not even ''reliably'' over-credulous, but rather informed only by "Emperor Cruickshank"'s prejudices. If his judgement permits him to continue to edit in this way despite the resulting degradation of Wikipedia's content, I don't feel it can be trusted in other matters. -
Considering his lengthy and problematic history, not somebody I would consider beneficial to have as an administrator. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant's comments and problematic history. --
'''Weak Oppose''' per Radiant. Once he gets more WikiSpace experience, I'll have no problem supporting. --
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose.''' Michael Snow put it well, and I'm amazed he's been nominated at all.
'''Oppose.''' Past record just shows too many strikes against the user.  Alleged sockpuppetry is also problematic. --
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about POV, sock puppet allegations, and the micronation issue. I've been wading through some of this stuff after seeing it mentioned here, and after stumbling into it from the [[Radio Caroline]] article, and it ain't pretty, folks. --
'''Oppose''' any micronation enthusiast.
'''Oppose''' per unresolved sockpuppetry issue.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per  Nunh-huh. Net minus as an editor, unsuitable to be an admin. Abrasive, and the obvious sockpuppetry ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irate&diff=prev&oldid=10516600 here]) and attempts to deny it (attempt to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irate&diff=next&oldid=10516600 hide slip] one minute later) leads to the obvious question of whether he can be trusted with admin powers. Attitude in comments says, "no way". --
'''Oppose''' per the <s>two</s> <s>three</s> seventeen votes above mine. &mdash; '''''
'''Oppose''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. I don't like making oppose votes here, since adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I don't want to be giving the mop to someone who might use it as a weapon, and the comments above make me fear that this might happen. <TT>
'''Oppose''' per Radiant and lingering sockpuppet worries.
'''Oppose''' Upon further review, I have changed my vote to oppose, per Calton's evidence.  Also, canidate solicited me to vote for his adminship via email, which seems underhanded.
'''Oppose''', I do not see how this user would warrent the admistrative tools and afd voting as the only wikipedia space participation is very troubling. -
Campaigning for adminship using email in which he makes some extremely divisive statements about other editors. This guy should never be an administrator. --
'''Strong Oppose''', per above. I ask the editor to withdraw this RfA.
'''Strong Oppose''', very rude and destructive. Poole has a history of vandalism and personal attacks. My perception is that he is a bitter induvidual prone to snapping, chiding and insulting other users. His remarks below in the Neutral section are a fine example. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">[[User talk: E. Brown|Hurricane]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#000000">[[Special:Emailuser/E._Brown|E]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="FF0000">


I am not sure yet. --
I haven't seen enough for an oppose but, in light of the concerns raised about your obtaining adminship, I cannot support your adminship. Especially considering I have little knowledge of you. --''Signed by:''
'''Neutral'''.  As above.
Changed to '''neutral'''. Calton's evidence is pretty damning, and Gene's being a bit uncivil in his responses.
Also changing to neutral given the sockpuppet evidence and the user's attitude.  Also concerned by Tony's allegation. If that is proven, am minded to oppose.
'''Strong <!--moral--> support'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''I Like Ike''' <s>We need more admins with 100 things in their watchlists.</s> Sorry, that was snarky... I'm going to assume good faith and advise candidate to pay attention to the comments below, not take it personally, and come back here in a few months if they still want to be an admin. --
Please get acquainted with Wikipedia first; I strongly urge you to withdraw (remove the transclusion of this page from [[WP:RfA]]) now. Thanks!
Second withdrawal. Failed to even sign name, I don't believe you know Wikipedia well enough yet for me to trust you with the tools.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but you don't have even 500 edits and you don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy considering you made a article that consisted of only fair use images. Try again in a few months. <font color="#000080">
No. Just, no.
'''Strong Oppose''' I too don't think you're ready for adminship yet - you need to show, through a lot of good,  dedicated, useful work on Wikipedia, that you are ready to use the admin tools. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case yet. Keep editing, and try again in a few months. <font COLOR="#008b8b">[[User:Condem|Con]]</font><font COLOR="#FF0080">[[User:Condem|'''D''']]</font>[[User:Condem/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Didn't even sign your name after your self nom.  Seems to me you are too inexperienced, try again in a few months though.
Oppose.  No moral support here, sorry.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
I don't even think being a [[five-star general]] can save this adminship request. Sorry, dude.
'''Oppose''' - you blanked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=40799808 a page] only two months ago, when you were still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_Eisenhower&diff=prev&oldid=39399519 experimenting]. Nothing wrong with innocent experimentation - someone can just revert your edits. You don't need admin status. Please keep editing. -
'''Strong Oppose''' - It isn't anything personal, but frankly, you're not at that stage of your "WikiLife" yet. I really recommend consideration of withdrawal, as you still don't meet the requirements for administrator status (edit number, you didn't answer the preset questions, and your time on Wikipedia). Sorry. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' I oppose. --<i><b><font color="#5ADD22"><font size="1">[[User:GeorgeMoney|George]]</font></font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">
'''Oppose''' per Flcelloguy.
'''Oppose'''. I don't have very high standards for admins, however you should make about 1,500 edits and get more experience in WP procedures before you put yourself up for RfA.
'''Oppose''', try again in future. Lacks experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' need more experience.
'''Oppose'''. General Eisenhower, I can see that you have the heart for the job. Keep up the good work, and I will be willing to support your RfA in the future. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Oppose''' at this time. Get some more experience and try again in few months.

'''Oppose''' No!!! Heh, not quite ready ;) [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''': low edit count and relatively new user.  Also, learn how to use [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] in your edits.  That said, keep up the good work.  <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">
'''Strong oppose''', per above,
'''Oppose''' Might be a good candidate someday, but nowhere near ready right now.  Please read [[WP:GRFA]] and build up more Wikipedia experience in general before trying again.  You might also look into Esperanza admin coaching ([[WP:ESP/AC]]) for the next try.
'''Strong oppose''' too new.
Um... well I'm not quite sure how this is going to work either, but I trust the user, so '''support'''. '''—
'''Support''' unorthodox, but it's actually not a bad idea... <font style="color:#55BBBB"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><sup>(
'''Support''' seems like a reasonable project. (
As per Firefox...I suppose.  Unprecidented request (AFAIK), but I trust geni.
'''Support''' A novel idea... seems worth a try.  It's not like this new "user" will abuse its powers either.
'''Support''' Great idea
'''Support''' Based on the answers of the Puppetmaster on the talk page.
'''Support'''.  I recognize the scalability issue that Durin mentions below, and agree that: 1.if this works, we need to have a discussion about what to do next, not just have people ask willy-nilly on RFA, and 2.RFA probably isn't the best forum for it in any case.  However, I like the idea and this is why: I can't see the list in question and have no idea what's on it.  But I would be able to see the contributions of Geni's sockpuppet, and thus would be better equipped, a month from now, to talk about whether it's working and how well.
'''Support''' - seems like a decent workaround for the limitations of watchlists, and I trust geni to actually watch the second watchlist.
Support - Geni would use this well, and if there are any problems we can see what they are. Of course, getting the multiple watchlists feature would also be good ... -
'''Support''' in the absence of any dangerous or worrisome aspects of this. &mdash;
'''Support''', harmless. But the technical capacity for multiple watchlists would be a good thing to add.
'''Support'''.  I believe that I understand the objections, but I find that I trust the user to evaluate this experiment realistically.
[[WP:BB]].
[[WP:BB]]. :) --
'''Support'''.  Worth a try, until a more elegant software solution can be created.--
'''support''' its non-standard, but so what? Are we really so hidebound? Worth a try at least
--''Signed by:''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. The user is already an admin, and appears to use his powers responsibly, so I don't see why giving him admin abilities on a 2nd account would be problematic. <TT>
'''Support''' Not standard process but I'm sure this sock would help curb vandalism. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''', although I would have preferred a technical solution. Several such solutions are suggested on the talk page, but they would require software changes and so are unlikely to happen for some time. If this RFA succeeds, I'll probably create my own sock for the same purpose.-
'''Support''' i See nothing wrong with this frankly
'''Support''' Though it would be nice to handle this more elegantly, there is no reason to oppose. Geni can carry out any potential abuse of privileges from the existing account. Conceptually, administrative privileges should be extended to a person.
'''support'''. this is one of the best reasons i've heard yet to request adminship.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Admittedly a tad unorthodox, but if we trust a user with one SysOp account, why wouldn't we give them a second one for a perfectly valid and admirable reason?
'''Support''', but I don't know if this is the process for a sock account. It's not a bot account either, so it makes it tough to figure out. OTOH, Geni's a trusted admin and is clearly declaring this is as a sock account. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
(oppose for now) Seems that the same can be much better achieved by creating a list of articles and using the "related changes" features to monitor them. -
'''Oppose''': (Not for anything have to do with my estimation of Geni) This is, as you note, rather non-standard. I'm not being a procedure wonk by stating this, but I'd really like to see this discussed more with possible alternatives suggested and debated. The fact that a talk page sprang up on this RfA so quickly I think points to a lack of discussion on the merits of this possibility. I can see the utility, but I myself have done as Liberatore has suggested for articles that are of interest to me and for much the same reason. I'm also a bit hesitant on the idea of easy scalability of this concept; what if all admins had sock puppets? Good? Bad? I don't know. Again, more discussion needed. Lastly, [[Special:Unwatchedpages]] exists for a reason. By creating this sock and adding 5k+ articles to it, Special:Unwatchedpages becomes undermined and useless. I'm not comfortable with that, most especially without more discussion on this issue. I would encourage you to withdraw this nomination and allow some opportunity for discussion of this idea outside of RfA. Developers might want to comment on this as well; perhaps adding a feature that allows an admin to see recent changes to unwatched pages is in order. --
'''Oppose''' per Durin
'''Oppose''' for now.  This really needs to be discussed as policy first since there could be dozens of us who would want an admin sock for similar purposes. It would seem more appropriate to hand out such priviledges to existing admins by some responsible authority, rather than have RfA requests by any of us who decide this would be useful. It is a neat idea though.
'''Oppose''' for now, per Durin if this user watches all unwatched pages there won't be any unwatched pages... I can see the goal but not convinced this is the most appropriate way to achieve it. --
'''Oppose'''. Durin has good points. Using a sock admin may not be the best way of doing what you want to do, and may be a problematic precendent.
'''Oppose''' - while the goals are respectable, this sets an extremely dangerous precedent; never before have we had an user have two administrator accounts (well, at least we haven't heard of any.) Does that mean all administrators should get multiple accounts with administrator priveledges? Thanks!
Oppose <s>low edit summary usage</s> ;) Sorry, I don't see the need for this, certainly not this way. It's rather... unorthodox. Oppose per Durin, but if a crat says okay I'd be glad to support.
'''Oppose''' for now - this is a bad precedent to set without prior discussion on the issue.  I'm in full support of the idea in principle, but I'm with Durin on this - I think we need to discuss this first before taking action in this way. --
'''Oppose'''. I have no problem with Geni's reasoning for wanting an admin sock (as long as we were assured that an account with 5000+ pages on [[Special:Unwatchedpages]] would not pose any scalability issues to the software), but I have major reservations with the way the sock is being requested. Most of my objection is per Flcelloguy and Durin, but there's a separate problem I have with this sort of request, which is by far my biggest objection: If approved, it would give admins an entirely new power out of nowhere without even the ''slightest'' bit of policy discussion having taken place. (Please note that I am in no way attempting to allege that I think Geni would somehow misuse this admin sock; it's not Geni that is at issue here, IMHO.) There are tons of non-admin WP editors who are part of the [[WP:CVU]], and any one of them could make excellent use of such a specialized tool as that which Geni is attempting to set up here, but if any of them were to post a similar RfA, they'd be shut down with a vote around 2/84/5 within an hour. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I have a major issue with the way admin duties and rights on WP tend to keep slowly expanding in a [[mission creep]] sort of way, almost subconsciously, and I don't think that's good for WP as a whole. Please, consider punting this over to [[WP:VPP]] and letting the community as a whole chew on it for a few days, so that all the potential problems raised by this can be explored (including the technical ones). Who knows, when it's all said and done, maybe the consensus will be that admins can have allowed such an adminsock without even having to go through an RfA. But I would really, really, ''really'' prefer to see an out-of-the-blue proposal like this go through a more formal process. --
'''Oppose''' -- <s>a BOT with admin powers? This needs to be thoroughly discussed first, as such a proposal would be open to misuse.
'''Oppose''': agree with Durin.
'''Oppose''' - I would like to be [[WP:BB|bold]] and vote support as done by others, but that guideline applies only to updating pages and not for voting on rfa ;). Seriously speaking, I've found some pages that are frequently vandalised and added them to my watchlist - I find that within a 12 hour period some of these are vandalised by different IPs and rollback is very ineffective. Also, oppose per Durin. --
'''Oppose''' per Durin.  Sounds like an ok idea, but I don't think it should be implemented ad hoc by a votes at RfA without a full discussion of the merits/drawbacks at a larger forum.
'''Oppose'''. This may not be a bad idea, but I'm uncomfortable granting adminship to a sock through RfA.
'''Oppose''' per low edit count and 0% edit summaries. Just kidding. Oppose per Durin's concerns, here and on the talk page, and a desire to get more bureaucrat input and policy in place first.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not comfortable with setting this kind of precedent without a policy discussion first. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - for reasons given above, precedent and is it technically necessary being the biggies for me. ++
'''Oppose''', bad idea. No opposition to geni, but sock puppet admins seem to be a bad call. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''', I find Durin's arguments convincing for now (both on this page and talk page).
'''Oppose'''.  A rather clever idea, but I think creating a sockpuppet admin just for this purpose is unwise and unnecessary.  Sorry. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Oppose''': I laud the goals, but I'm against sock puppets in any shape or form, even benign ones, and I think this is a line we can't cross, even if it's for a very good reason.  I'd rather see developers create work-arounds than see two admins for one person.
'''Oppose''' with utmost respect to Geni, I think that what Geni plans to do will break the unwatched pages function, and is really generally unnecessary. &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose'''.  I also feel the same way as most everyone above who opposed.  I'd like to see a community discussion first.  It is possible that an alternate, perhaps better idea could be thought of.  If there is a general consensus supporting this idea, then I would be all for having Geni (and maybe a few other admins) do a trial run to be reviewed in a month or two.  I personally think the idea is a very creative and good one, but it was just sprung on me a little too quickly.  --
'''Oppose''', one admin account is enough per person.
Sure, but if the only issue is to undo vandalism, you don't really need rollbacking for that. You can use godmode lite, and if it's a bot script anyway you can code something creative without requiring the button.
Neutral. Seems like a reasonable request but I think it's too big a change in policy to debate in an RFA. --
'''Neutral'''.  Not really a support or oppose issue; there should be a discussion elsewhere about whether this is a road we want to go down first, and an RFA is not the best test bed for this to be evaluated.
'''Oppose''', 29 edits? Suggest withdrawal. --
'''Oppose''' 1 main space edit.  You really should withdraw this - you won't get to be an admin until you've actually made a significant contribution for people to judge you by. --
'''Oppose''', while you are clearly looking to improve Wikipedia, candidates for adminship generally need a bare minimum of at least one thousand edits to recieve public approval. People will see you as inexperienced at your current state, but if you come back in 3 months after proving you have what it takes and get involved in the community through areas such as [[WP:AFD]], then I will support. I would recommend you withdraw this, as stated above, and work on making more edits until you next run for adminship. Remember that it's not all about numbers though - it's more about the quality of edits, so don't feel the need to avoid the preview button! :)
'''Oppose''' - waaayyyy to soon
'''Strong Oppose'''. Suggest withdrawl.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Thanks for your interest but please withdraw. ( I have over 5000 edits and I feel I have not been around long enough to be admin, please bide your time:-)
'''Oppose''' small number of contributions mean it is not possible to judge your experience with policy and guidelines. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''
'''Neutral'''. Not enough experience. I suggest withdrawal. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Hmmm?''' May I suggest you consider
'''Oppose''' per low edits. Suggestion to withdraw, lest this be removed per SNOW.
'''Oppose''' Based on your last 500 edits, you have not worked on any articles. --
'''Oppose''' - I think it was bad judgement to accept a nomination from a user who registered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Lordhighdumbass three days ago].  Your edit count has improved from the first time you've requested adminship, but your edit summary usage is extremely low (7% for major edits, 0% for minor).  Adminship isn't a normal position given to people who've been here a few months - in fact, as Wikipedia grows larger, I think the standards for adminship are getting a lot higher than what they used to be a year or even six months ago (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D|some of the standards editors have in voting for administrator candidates]]).  Please don't take this personally - I encourage you to keep trying, get involved in the types of pages that administrators are expected to oversee (vandal fighting, XfDs, speedy deletes), join a Wikiproject, and apply for [[Wikipedia:Editor review|an editor review]] once you've expanded your activities to get more feedback.
'''Strong oppose''' "Edit summary usage for Geo.plrd: 7% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 27 major and 0 minor edits in the article namespace." I think that says a lot already. Add in the low editcount and low participation rate, etc... and you get where I'm going with this... -→
'''Oppose'''. User has only been here for only three months and has less than 800 edits, with less than 30 article edits. Needs more time and experience across all areas of the project before adminship can be seriously considered.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - nom statement and questions are the primary reasons, they scream "I'm not ready yet" - in time maybe but not now --
'''Oppose''' Not to pile on, but with almost no mainspace edits, almost no edit summary usage, unbelievably weak answers to questions, barely makes my (very loose) criteria of being an editor for "at least a few months", and a userpage full of userboxes relating to things that I see little proof of the editor actually doing or taking part in, and I must voice my concerns. --
'''Oppose''' - I'll judge the candidate on his contributions. Most of his contributions to articles (there are a couple of dozen) are inappropriately adding templates that clutter the article - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fire_On_The_Mountain_%28Transformers_episode%29&diff=prev&oldid=60242967 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_the_military&diff=prev&oldid=57587453 here]. -
'''Neutral'''. With less than 50 mainspace edits, I feel that you are not experienced enough to be an admin yet. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''.  No need to pile on.  Geo, candidates usually have at least 2,000 edits.  RFA is a grueling process and I don't think you need to go through this right now.  Try again in a few months.
'''Neutral'''. I prefer at least a few hundred mainspace edits. Feel free to reapply in about October. You'd be a decent admin, yet you're still a bit inexperienced imho. Fellow Esperanzian <!--begin crazytales56297 sig--><font face="Verdana">«[[user:crazytales56297|'''<font color="#ff00ff">ct</font>''']]»&nbsp;<small>([[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Oppose''' - from questions no need for admin tools needed. WP is NOT censored (though TB2 seems to think it is, but thats another story) --
'''Oppose'''. The generally accepted ''minimum'' for becoming an admin is at least 1000 edits. You have less than 500. I also question your reasons for becoming an admin (deleting material innapropriate for children). This is ''not'' a good reason for requesting admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Few edits, almost none outside article space. Also, wikipedia is not censored, no matter how much we agree or disagree with that, any more than the Britannica is. Pornographic vandalism is one thing; encyclopædic material another. --
'''Oppose'''. Have a look at [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. Also, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored#Wikipedia is not censored|Wikipedia is not censored]], among many other concerns. On a side note, I don't think other contributors are nice to you because you're from the Southern United States. (There are contributors from every corner of the world on here :-)
'''Oppose''' Far too early in your Wiki-career to request admin status.  The answers to the questions below don't demonstrate a knowledge of Wiki policy or protocols or a contribution to some of the ongoing Wikiprojects.  Take the time to become more involved with Wikipedia before either self-nominating or being nominated by a fellow editor. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' on lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' No concept of one of the basic Wikipedia guidelines. '''Wikipedia is not censored''' --
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia is not cencored. Surely one on RfA should know that?
'''Oppose''' weak questions, appears to only want admin to remove material they find offensive. Poor nom, very few edits in all areas, bound to lack policy understanding.--<font style="background:white">
Of course.
Happy to '''support''', since the user's contributions show no red flags that I can see. The tools won't be misused here, so I see no problem with handing them over. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''weak support''' - see no reason why not --
'''Support'''. Good grief, yes. A frequent and thoughtful contributor to AN and AN/I and a prolific editor.
Is there any reason he isn't already one? &ndash;
'''Support'''. A great contributor.
'''Support''' per above. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support'''.  Georgewilliamherbert has been tremendously helpful on the unblock-en mailing list.

'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Turned down two suggestions to RFA, so respects the tools/doesn't have a god complex. Many sane contribs to important forums, as noted above. I trust Georgewilliamherbert with the mop. --
'''Support''' thoughtful and mature editor, I think we will always need people like that reviewing blocks and available for more complicated problems on AN/ANI. --
'''Support''' looks good.
'''Support'''. Have been impressed by this user's calm good sense.
'''Weak support''' per Can't sleep, clown will eat me, although I would like to see a diversification of the admin-oriented tasks carried out by Georgewilliamherbert.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. Absolutely no reason to think he will cause problems with the admin tools. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;
'''Support'''.  Ling.Nut nails it for me; the lack of a "god complex" and ability to stay [[WP:COOL]] and professional while things get hot are traits becoming of an admin.  The issue cited by MONGO is twisted far out of proportion and I ask that he revisit his oppose with care -- the diffs provided have been grossly misrepresented, as anyone can plainly see.
'''Support''' mongo's completely blown out of proportion oppose has me voting support for this editor. His ability to calmly and rationally look at a situation makes me think this would be a good admin. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Well, I have no major concerns here. This user is also a very calm editor. Will be a very good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support''' Saw some people opposing this person because he assumed good faith too much. Anyone can be ban-crazy and lots of people are, but like this guy's work on the schools stuff, he's a mediator--a rarer and more valuable personality type.
'''Support'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' per nom, answers to questions, comments above, good edit history, contributions on WP:AN and ANI, lack of any reason to believe tools will be misused, and the principle that support on an RfA doesn't imply endorsement of every word the candidate ever wrote.
'''Support''' - good answers, contributions and article writing. Will not abuse the tools.
'''Support''', has shown excellent presence and thought in his actions.  I actually thought he was an admin already. --
'''Support''' per above comments.
'''Support''' meets my standards, and I'm glad he follows [[WP:AGF]].--
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' satisfy my standarts<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support''' - Seems like a good editor who is willing to throw himself into a situation in an attempt to defuse it even though it is likely to cause negative reactions from some. We need more editors who are willing to give their opinion on a matter - regardless of the sometimes 'group thinking' response. I do not think he would misuse the tools.-
'''Support'''; doesn't look like he'll abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' per Localzuk, and in direct opposition to those voting oppose below.  WP:CIVIL is important and not everyone getting a rude response is a troll.
'''Support''' --
The opposes seem to be of a few major themes; first, that he doesn't have enough edits, or enough time on project, or the mix is the wrong sort (these are standard reasons to oppose that we see in many RfAs and I'm tired of them... seriously!!!!)... I am not buying those, they're all flawed editcountitis if you ''actually '''look''''' at George's contributions. Thoughtful commenters will already have discounted those. Second, that because he doesn't have scads of time to devote to adminning, we shouldn't give him the bit and get the benefit of what time he ''does'' have. I think that's flawed too as we should be glad of any volunteer where the cost of giving the bit is outweighed by the contributions, as it is in this case. Third, and most important, the MONGO incident... My questions above were getting at motivations and thinking around how to deal with the issues underlying this incident and others. The answers were impressive. I'm satisfied that George acted in good faith, that his response wasn't completely unreasonable, that he was seeking the best for the 'pedia, and that he's open to criticism and learning from it. While I feel MONGO's pain I think what happened isn't the end of the world for MONGO and I'd hope that admin candidates don't have to be perfect, just good enough and willing to work to get better. For these reasons, then, and because I've seen him in action on the mailing list and am mightily impressed... hearty '''SUPPORT'''. Questions or comments welcomed on the talk page. ++
'''Support''' - user's answers were on the money, opposition to MONGO appeared to be legit (the kind of dispute that is bound to happen among editors), not cuase for concern in candidate. As long as candidate strives to enforce policy over his own opinions (which he appears to wish to do), he will certainly not misuse admin tools. -
'''Support'''. But of course.


'''Support''' insofar as I am quite convinced that GWH is possessed, on the whole, of the deliberative temperament, cordial demeanor, and reasoned judgment the presence of which in a propsective admin are quite auspicious, and I am rather confident that, qua admin, he will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that it seems eminently clear that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|principal RfA guideline]]).  I do share in Newyorkbrad's reservation that one's supporting a candidate ought not to be understood as one's agreeing with every action previously undertaken by the candidate, but there is nothing so egregious here as to merit opposition, and, to that extent, and notwithstanding that RfA is not a vote, I suppose this is, in part, à la [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSam_Vimes2&diff=58847688&oldid=58846911 that] of [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2]] (if perhaps more decorously), a "balance out opposes that I find particularly unpersuasive" !vote (I would, to be sure, have supported GWH's candidacy in the absence of those opposes but might not have happened to partake of the discussion here).
'''Support''' Smart and fair.  --

''Weak Support''' per 8. Wrong about MONGO, but mistakes can be forgiven.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Holding ''everyone'' responsible to Wikipedia's standards of behaviour is to be commended, not denounced. --
'''Strong Support''' -- Having lloked at most of the evidence presented so far against the nominee, he comes across as a very temperate, thoughtful individual with god judgement. True, he doesn't have a perfect batting average and, in retrospect, has not always sized up situations totally correctly, but I'd say he's done a better job than most of us, myself included. I should add that being fair even to abusive jerks can be a good idea from a purely pragmatic standpoint -- they tend to go away faster and they have fewer reasons to stick around gratuitously stoking controversies. --
'''Support''' a good candidate --
'''Support''' - we demand responsibility, not perfection. Just because a situation could have been handled better does not mean this individual can't reliably and competently use the mop and bucket. (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' given the reasonable answer to my question above, we do not require admins to be perfect (thankfully), only to be prepared to defend and be accountable for what they say and do.  So: with all due respect to those who oppose, per George's long history of excellent edits, constructive input all over the place, and of course the No Big Deal clause, I support giving him the mop.  Wikipedia would be a dull place indeed if we all agreed with one another on everything. <b>

'''Support''', possesses all of the qualities I'd look for in an admin.

'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' Articulate, thoughtful and measured in responses, useful and good edits; perhaps not infallible, but then who of us are? IMO rather unlikely to run amok if granted the additional tools and responsibility.--
'''Support''' - per all the reasons above and the fact that I don't expect him to be perfect. There are far, far more .... hm .... intemperate people -- who do less -- currently wielding the mop. --<font style="background:black">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="LightSteelBlue">Shrieking Harpy</font>]] [[Image:Gay_flag.svg|17px]]</font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>

'''Support'''. I would trust this user with adminship. I have seen him to be calm and insightful, and this is a much needed quality in admins. --
'''Support''' -- seems like a fine editor who would make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''.  [[WP:AGF|AGF]] is an asset, not a liability. --
'''Support''' I appreciate and respect the concerns expressed below, however, I believe I can trust George with the tools and that he will be better able to serve us if he has the flag.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I have thought about this a lot and while I recognise the seriousness of the opposers' concerns, I truly believe the candidate has learned from these incidents and will do a better job as a result. The very high quality and thoughtfulness of the candidate's responses has helped me to support; I was going to !vote neutral until one last reading of the evidence. If unsuccessful, I would almost certainly support on a future occasion. --
'''Support''' per Alkivar. —
'''Oppose''' My general impression of Georgewilliamherbert is that he fails to support fellow admins who have had to endure prolonged and repeated attacks by an almost never-ending stream of trolls and harassers. This includes a misrepresentation of a "finding" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=83099633 on an arbcom case] I was involved in and his reponse that it's a "another sad day" seemingly in defense of the person who was repeatedly asking me about encyclopedia dramatica. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive142#Incivility_complaint_re:_MONGO full thread]. But that's not all, of course, as he also seems to not understand that administrators are charged with enforcing arbitration decisions and he misinterpreted the difference between in indefinite block and a permanent banning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=83154668 when he commented here] "A link to the ED homepage is not a link to material that harrasses others", which is not true since that website has used their homepage to post attacks on many people that edit here. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=74642934 argument here] seems to indicate that he doesn't understand editors right to not have their personal information posted. "Posting someone's real life id info online is not a real life attack. A real life attack is being punched or having someone pull a gun or knife on you, or at the very least someone having made a real world information attack such as harrassing phone calls to you, your friends or relatives or employers"...I got news for you...I have had several death threats via email, so yeah, pretty close to real life.--
'''Oppose''', per MONGO, also answer to Q1 says - "''I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to some of the core administrator efforts''" then goes on about fighting vandalism where I don't see huge amounts of vandal fighting (2 edits to AIV) which is what he wants to watch, and also says he wants to carryon taking part at [[WP:AN]]. User seems more like an editor than a mopper. More vandal fighting experience would tempt me to support.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''; my concern is that Georgewilliamherbert seems to be somewhat too willing to take the side of disruptive editors. He is an eloquent and effective advocate in this role, but I think an administrator needs to have the judgement not to be quite so willing to give problem editors the benefit of the doubt. In addition to opposing MONGO's arbcom sanctioned actions, he objected to Tony Sidaways blocking of Template:User satanist deletion review,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=56193117&oldid=56192915] and took the part of an editor that many thought disruptive.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FJersey_Devil&diff=44718945&oldid=44717327][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FJersey_Devil&diff=44764024&oldid=44762287] --
'''Oppose''' per MONGO.  Sorry, but I just don't see where anyone responsible for a personal attack on that scale should be given cover and comfort in any way.  I can't support a candidate for admin who can't see the black and white when it is so obvious. —
'''Oppose''', sadly, for two reasons. First, I think it's quite presumptuous to say that MONGO's harassment wasn't "as bad as MONGO says he believes it is." While it's great that Georgewilliamherbert can separate "real life" from emailed attacks or threats, it's _all_ "real life" to many people. If MONGO was afraid for his life, then he was afraid for his life. Stress like this affects one's health, work, and relationships with family and friends. On top of that, we all know that the amount and quality of information available is far superior to what was widely available 20 years ago, and some people are just insane enough to act impulsively. Georgewilliamherbert's comments trouble me a great deal, and I don't think I could go to him for help if a similar problem happened to me or other editors. That's really my RfA bottom line – trust. The second and less important reason (to me, anyway) is that in practical terms someone who admittedly doesn't have a lot of time to devote to admin efforts probably doesn't need admin tools. Regretfully, I must oppose.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but Krakatoa Katie really hit the nail on the head for me. If you have had a similar experience of online stalking (which then lead to real life stalking), you should have more understanding when it happens to others, not less. If I couldn't come to you, as an admin, becuase I was being stalked and attacked online, without you being blasé about it, then I don't think that you're ready for the responsability of Adminship. Sorry. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for a number of reasons, not the least being those cited by MONGO, and KrakatoaKatie.  And Wsiegmund also hits the nail on the head... I've seen this tendency too. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser%3AStriver%2Fusers_that_view_the_9%2F11_attacks_article_as_govement_pov&diff=56903350&oldid=56873761] Those reasons aside, GWH only has ~1000 mainspace edits.  His "favorite contribution" is [[Washboarding]], which he recently nominated as a [[WP:GA]] which failed.  The article is lacking, with no references.  His answer to the IAR and SNOW question also bothers me somewhat, as he doesn't mention anything about Wikipedia project goals which are the ultimate reason for us working here.   In some uncontroversial situations, rules may get in the way of working towards those goals, and IAR and SNOW can be used.  And, GWH's answer to question #1 mentions "don't have a huge amount of time to devote to some of the core administrator efforts". All of those reasons combined, I'm not comfortable giving him the admin tools at this time. --
'''Oppose''' - per all above oppose comments.
'''Oppose''' I completely agree with KrakatoaKatie. '''
'''Oppose''' per MONGO, KrakatoaKatie, and Riana. Unsuited.
'''Oppose''' per long-time defense of problem editors and ED incident with MONGO. A line has to be drawn somewhere and if a user can not even acknowledge that user's such as [[User:Striver]] have violated Wikipedia policies and go as far as to strongly defend such users on a regular basis how are we expect such a user to hold proper judgement in handling trouble editors as an admin?--
'''Oppose''' The ED incident is disturbing.  There were lots of private avenues for GHW to make his dissatisfaction about MONGO's actions known, yet he chose to give cover to the harassers by publicly opposing MONGO's actions on ANI and other forums.  This showed a lack of judgement for what is good for Wikipedia as his actions would only encourage the problem editors.  He should have privately contacted MONGO and/or the arbitration committee members and voiced his concern without giving encouragement to those trying to evade the ArbCom decision.  He needs a few more months to demonstrate better judegement.  --
'''Oppose''' per judgement shown over the ED incident.  Give it some time.
I'm having doubts about this user's judgment, given that he appears to hold the letter of the 3RR over the spirit against revert warring ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=83544029]), to support cooldown blocks against incivility ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=81124288]) and seems to believe checkuser is the sole way (or a silver bullet) for determining sockpuppetry ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=85133332], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=85140539]). Added to the other incidents mentioned above, I cannot at this time support GWH for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per MONGO and Radiant.  I can't support GWH for adminship with these issues.
'''Oppose.''' Just too many examples of supporting the side of people that aren't helping the project over those that are. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] and Radiant point it out well, and Radiant's last example is of an extraordinarily obvious case where it appeared George was willing to not look into the situation carefully enough before offering an opinion. But I'll note a lot of good qualities too, so keep up the good work, but put some more time into figuring out who really moves this project forward. -
'''Oppose''' I have some concerns here as per KrakatoaKatie and Jersey Devil. The lack of the use of the advanced admin buttons I believe is just as bad as "mishandling" them as well. MONGO took action to block a specific user who was becoming disruptive as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Karwynn block log history] shows. Looks like what he did was a good call per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=next&oldid=65067634 this previous observation.] I realize that there has been much conversation on this in this RfA and on the talk page as well, which is why I am not "comforted" per the answers to the questions above. You may "get the mop" when the dust settles from this. If so – If you are being harassed (or see another editor being threatened), take action and take care of business. Yes, AN/I has its congested traffic; therefore, this is a judgment you will have to make from time to time, and believe me, you will encounter this (meaning blocking a disruptive user you yourself have a conflict with). Therefore, I must be on this side of the RfA at this time.
'''Oppose''' for now, per Radiant and Taxman. It's quite surprising to see a reasonably experienced user claim that "CheckUser is easy", or as Radiant puts it, a silver bullet. I've had much interaction with Centauri, and I believe, even apart from the Gene Poole sockpuppet issue, that the candidate assumes quite excessive good faith from him. I may have had bad luck, but in all my interchanges with Centauri, he's been abusive. His persistent hounding of [[User:DreamGuy]] is a case in point. DreamGuy is no angel, but he's a useful, productive contributor who edits in good faith and has done nothing to deserve all the sneering. Example: Centauri's relentless edit warring to keep the sockpuppet template on DreamGuy's userpage — '''six''' reverts, in defiance of policy, decency, and, as it turns out, irony.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DreamGuy&action=history]. Notice the inexorable edit-summary quarrel with three admins at that history link. FloNight and myself were eventually forced to protect the page—several times—as the link shows. Did you have any advice for Centauri over that, for example? Or have you noticed Centauri's nasty tone to myself, and suggested he desist? I really don't know if his implication [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=82370325&oldid=82329335 here] is that I'm DreamGuy's sock, or his lover, or his mother, but the tone is typical. Note that it's the same tone, to me and especially to DreamGuy, that's also taken by Gene Poole—please see the long thread under Support vote number 51 in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka this RFA]. Gene Poole really hit the ground running with his sock accusations there, and your defence of him there is a very lonely voice.  Let me be clear: I'm not complaining that you defend this/these editor/s; I'd just like to know how consistent this defence is.  Have you ever thought it appropriate to take Centauri to task for harassment and generally poor interaction with other wikipedians? I'd be willing to withdraw my Oppose if you can show a few good examples of that. If you can't, I'm going to have to agree with Taxman that you offer opinions too quickly and too partially to be ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' sorry.  Per KrakatoaKatie. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per KK and others. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Given all the evidence above, I believe that it is likely that this user will misuse (not necessarily ''abuse'') admin tools.
'''Oppose'''.  Standing up for problem users is all well and good, but going too far undermines our ability to run the encyclopedia effectively.  Administrators with such an attitude have the potential to do great harm. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per his responses to [[User:MONGO]].
'''Oppose''' per Mongo. "A link to the ED homepage is not a link to material that harrasses (sic) others" is an unacceptable statement for an admin candidate. Any harassment by anyone, by either linking to a harassment  site or directly is unwelcome here. Any supporter of such action can't be an admin, IMO.
'''Oppose''' after reading all above.
'''Oppose'''per Radiant and Taxman, I too would be interested to see the diffs asked for by Bishonen above.
'''Reluctant oppose''':  I love that the candidate is strong willed, concerned, active in policy, and active in protecting the project from threats.  These are laudable, and they put him ahead of many candidates who hardly notice the world outside of their subset of Wikipedia.  However, I'm concerned that these same entirely wonderful traits have been a little excessive, a little zealous, and a little too strong in the ED case.  It is not that he should not have had the same vehemence, the same acuteness of desire, but only that it was time to hand off, time to consult and confer, time to defer.  I do not believe that this candidate will wheelwar or anything else, but I do feel that we're too close to these unfortunate episodes for promotion at this time.  I hope to be able to support soon.
'''Oppose''' because of the ED affair. --
'''Neutral'''. Needs more experience in main space to understand how the project works. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Neutral''' This candidate strikes me as exceptional. I am very impressed by his responses to the questions above and I feel that it's worth mentioning this. However, in light of the controversy unveiled by other editors, I'm going to have to withold my support at this time. I hope to see this candidate nominated and accepted for a future RfA in the future, after the dust has settled from these incidents. —
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. Strong work within a narrow focus but, then again, I'm still working on my own (grin).
'''support''' Looks good :)
'''Strong Support''' some excellent work in music articles, should be [[WP:100]] easily
'''Support'''. Looks promising. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''' User seems to know what he is doing. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - no problems seen, though the yellow highliter might be nicer if toned down a tad :o --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Looks alright.
'''Support''' Not sure he (she?) needs the admin tools, but I certainly think he's got more than enough experience, has demonstrated civility and competence, and will not abuse his sysop privileges.
'''Support'''. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''I-trust-the-nominator Support'''
'''Support''', I like what I see here: good contribs, respectable levels of involvement in WP space, high editcount... now get your hands dirty and start mopping the floor!
'''Support'''.  An experienced and committed wikipedian who will be of more use to the community with admin-tools.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' - no concerns here.
'''Support''', I just looked at his last 50 contributions and I'm seeing good things.
'''Strong Support!''', Intelligent contributions, smart and calm. Would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' I'll pass on the crunk ;), apart from that, no concerns here. --
'''Support''' per nom. --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Support.''' Would make good use of tools.--
'''Support''', ofcourse. Very deserving.
'''Support''',
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' It is about time as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' will make a great admin
'''Support''' seems well-rounded and prolific.
'''Support''' from a fellow Sens fan! -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' Good mix of contibutions & vandal fighting. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' per above <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Good user
'''Support''', no worries. <b>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' fair and trustworthy ed. --
'''Support''' Helpful and an intelligent contributor. --
'''Support'''. We, the wikipedians, always [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]], and some of us always use this term to confront other editors/ administrators as a weapan. I am supporting this nomination assuming not only good faith but utmost good faith, as I believe that all human beings, in real life as also in the virtual life, should get recognition, and our system may perhaps be having at least few other editors/ administrators who should not be around. --
'''Support''' per Underneath-it-All.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  I've seen this user's work, and we have edited some of the same pages recently (new Janet Jackson stuff), and I beleieve [[User:Getcrunk|getcrunk]] has what it takes to be an admin.... --
'''Support''' I'd also like to note that I think his userbox about pacifists is meant as a joke, and in any case, there is no evidence that it has in at all influenced how the getcrunk has edited.
'''Support''' - slightly concerned that some recent AfD contributions have been "Delete" and nothing else, but balanced with record more generally I'll support. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Support''' per nom and AmiDaniel; I certainly concur in JoshuaZ's assessment that the template is facetious in nature and, in any case, neither has proven disruptive nor has influenced Getcrunk's writing.  Doc glasgow is altogether correct; we must ask whether Getcrunk's user name and user page are likely to have any disruptive (or, more generally, any deleterious) effect.  IMHO, neither will; I cannot imagine that any user who would leave the project (or even be unable to come to Getcrunk for help) in view of GC's user page is a user whom we'd find particularly productive.  I cannot abide the suggestion that we should make inferences apropos of GC's judgment from his recalcitrance with respect to one userbox; even as he might have been well served to remove it, it should be said that the userbox does not appear to have caused a disruption outside of the discursive one here (and tangential disruption of an RfA is, on the whole, not nearly the problem that actual disruption of mainspace is).
"This user thinks pacifists make good target practice."  Another candidate with exceptionally poor judgement.  I cannot support this person. --
'''Oppose''' don't need more admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
'''Strong Oppose''' this pacifist user thinks agressive editors make good candidates to oppose. (Remove the box, and I'll remove this). --
'''Oppose''': I don't like the hostility toward pacifists or the drug reference in the user name.
'''Oppose''' per Thumbelina.  Userpage shows far too much hostility and colour range.
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
'''Oppose''' Not a good tutor.  --
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway.
'''Oppose''' - The userboxes and account name really tell me all I need to know.  And per Tony Sidaway and Doc.  --
'''Oppose''' In answer to question 1. nom described users needing to be blocked as ''troublemakers''. "blocking ''troublemakers'' at WP:ANI & WP:AN3"  This shows a lack of understanding for the reason for blocks.
'''Oppose''' per  Tony.
'''Oppose''' This pacifist votes against all Fascist would-be admins.
'''Oppose''' per TS - <b>
'''Strong Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway. Threats are absolutely unacceptable.
'''Strong Oppose''' User boxes (especially the one on Quebec) are very divisive, and in my opinion, offensive. <small>
TO THE WINDOW!!! TO THE WALL!!! [[skeet (slang)|SKEET SKEET SKEET!!!]] --

'''Support.''' — '''''
'''Support''' per last time
'''Support''' great user. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen your work, you've done pretty well.
'''Support''' per above. --
Supported before, '''support''' again. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' per last time. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per FireFox.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' as in the last RfA (which, for some reason, I thought was successful) and inasmuch as none of the ''opposes'' raises anything that would lead me to believe that overall effect on the project of this user's working with the admin tools would be deleterious.
'''Support''' I've only had positive dealings with this user. Once we give him the mop, can he come over and clean up my bathroom :) ? [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''', why not?--
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
--[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' After reviewing all contributions at the time of the previous Rfa, I voted support.  I still trust Getcrunk with the buttons.  --
'''Support''', but, as others have said below, please provide an edit description if you are reverting something other than vandalism.
'''Support despite being an [[Ottawa Senators|Senators fan]]''' -- as majority of opposes last time seemed to be due to the (false) belief that the username was a drug refference, also most of the reverts complained about appear to be legit --
'''Support'''—'''<font color="Gray">[[User:The Gerg|Th]]</font><font color="Green">
'''Support''', would be easy not to given the stiff opposition below, but I have no concerns that Crunk is sensible enough to keep his eyes open and his finger off the trigger while he gets used to the tools. Give it 2 months, 3 if you can manage it to act on what has been said below, and keep the good faith that your efforts will be recognized. <b>
'''Support''' I can't think of any new support reasons that haven't already been said. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support''' Good admin material. <font face="Courier New" size="2" color="#3A6594">Matthew Fenton [<b>
'''Support''' - satisfy my criteria
&ndash;
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''', Wonderful user, always willing to help and has made a lot of good edits. --
'''Support''', seems fine. --
'''Oppose''' There is a possibility I'll change my mind if other established users can make a case for you, but my issues surround question one and your reversion patterns. I am somewhat troubled by the statement that ''the administrative tools will help me deal with vandalism and vandals directly (instead of tagging and reporting, which can take 10+ minutes to go through)''. <s>That ''must'' be an exaggeration; it does not take ten minutes to revert a page and warn a vandal, even without the use of a program like [[Wikipedia:VandalProof|VandalProof]].</s> Anyway, if you become an admin, you're still going to have to tag and report; being an administrator won't make the process significantly faster. I also get the sense that getcrunk is impatient from his odd reversion patterns, even from edits in just the past four or five days. He will often use an edit summary of ''rv'' when he's not reverting simple vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pussycat_Dolls&diff=prev&oldid=60501094], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Countertenor&diff=next&oldid=60496865], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=prev&oldid=60190441], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=next&oldid=60386630], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_Nite_%28Don%27t_Stop%29&diff=prev&oldid=59816049]). There are also quite a few times where vandalism isn't followed by ''tagging and reporting'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Destiny%27s_Child_discography&diff=prev&oldid=60391472], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pepsi&diff=prev&oldid=59744841], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TLC_%28band%29&diff=next&oldid=59824874], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freestyle_battle&diff=prev&oldid=60067653]). This combined with the fact that this nomination comes less than a month and a half since the end of the last nomination worries me that he may be a little too impatient to exercise the necessary restraint that admins must have. If I see several experienced editors indicating that these actions are out of character and that he is in fact able to exercise patience, I will consider changing my statement to neutral. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Ah..... '''Oppose''' <u>for now</u> per shooting pacifists, ludicrous username, and... I was going to say, too soon, but I am thinking, time may not cure some defects. Nobody should be without a second chance though, so I will watch this RfA closely and look hard for reasons to change my vote. - <b>
Hmmm.  Oppose, I think.  I've seen some pretty trigger-happy reversions and very little evidence of taking the dispute to Talk.  If Getcrunk can show me some conrete evidence of working to resolve a dispute, rather than simply reverting and removing questions from Talk, I might be persuaded otherwise.  The vocal profiles dispute (where, incidentally, removing them was right, since they were uncited) shows no evidence I can see of actually trying to educate the person trying to push them in, other than some rather combative edit summaries. Am I missing something?
'''Oppose''' because Getcrunk claims [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Getcrunk&diff=53180907&oldid=53179876] that his userbox "This user thinks pacifists make good target practice" was a joke. Maybe you're not a bona fide Fascist; maybe you're just too stupid to be an admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose.'''  I can't see a single reason to back this guy as an administrator.  People who work on "pop culture" articles are ubiquitous, and I don't think pop culture contributions are particularly valuable; reverting vandalism on such articles seems to be almost a total waste of time.  Also, getcrunk makes glib and thoughtless AfD comments and makes them far too often.  Most of the time, he'd do us all a favor by not commenting.  Sorry to be blunt, but I'm just being honest.
'''Oppose''' The examples of reverting without warning and reverting edits that are not clear vandalism with a simple "rv" edit summary concern me. I would however like to hear the nominee's thoughts on this, and I may change from oppose if there are good reasons. Even though I am opposing myself, I am not impressed by what I consider hostile comments from some of the other opposing editors - let's keep this factual and civil.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Joturner|Joturner]] and  [[User:JzG|That Guy]]. After reviewing some of the issues, this editor’s work, and talk page, I am a bit uneasy about this editor’s temperament and need for the tools. This editor’s answers are a bit too terse, vague, and wanting (particularly the optional questions). Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I have this nagging feeling that for this editor it is. (BTW, while this is not a reason for oppose, it's bothersome to see this editor's sigs in red - it makes it look like this editor's userpage has not been created yet.)
'''Oppose''' Too close to last nom, and reversion techniques bug me. I hope that he will change his routine and I might support next time. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' for now. --
'''Oppose''' per joturner and others.  Much of what I see speaks of a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that doesn't sit well with me for an admin.  Work on it and try again in 3-6 months. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per JzG, too soon after last nom, and low Wikipedia-space edit level suggests a potential lack of policy knowledge. I tend to operate higher standards for self-noms.
The pacifist userbox thing did it for me ... also, I do not think it is in Wikipedia's best interests to have an administrator with a username of "getcrunk".  At the very minimum, for me to support, I would need to see a username change to something more sensible.  --
'''Oppose''' as per CrazyRussian, Wile E. Heresiarch, TigerShark, and Cyde.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' as per above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Too divise to manage conflicts--a key admin role.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per above. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' per Jo Turner and some of the other concerns raised above.
A little too close since your last one. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' seems to be a good editor, but definitely a bit too soon since your last RfA, per Computerjoe
'''Neutral''' - your last RfA was only a little while ago, and I don't see your need and ability to use the tools increasing significantly since then. I don't see any compelling reason to support, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.
'''Neutral''' per everyone else voting neutral.
'''Fence-sitter'''. Going to have to sit on the fence for this one. The above neutral votes are not what concern me, rather some of the oppose votes regarding reckless reversions. I don't think that any of these issues rise to the level of an oppose vote, but they do make me think twice about supporting. As for the opposers voting based on his pacifist userbox, I think that opposing a candidate based on this is patently ridiculous.
'''Neutral''', too soon since last nom.
'''Neutral''', Same as RoyboyCrashfan.






Beat the nom support! [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support.''' Thought he already was one.
'''Support''' I would like to see more major contributions to articles, but I don't see how that would impede good judgement when it comes to using the admin tools. -- '''
'''Support''', of course. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support'''. I thought he was already an administrator. '''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''' Have seen user around Wikipedia. Adminship is way overdue. Also meets [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' I see him frequently on IRC while we're RC patrolling.  My interactions with him have been pleasant, and he seems to be stable and capable of staying cool during rough cases of vandalism.  Based on reports he made to AIV, he demonstrates knowledge of vandalism and blocking policies, and is very unlikely to abuse the admin tools.  Here's your mop, start polishing!  --
'''Support''' although I'm in agreement with Biswanger's advice.
'''Support!''' Thought you already were one! '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Although I understand AdamBiswanger1's view, I find that GHe already has qualifications for adminship, in my opinion.  A bit low on WP space edits, but he hasn't shown that he ''isn't'' well versed in policy.
'''Support''' - no problems are seen here, Admin status is not a big deal, and I see very little possibility of abuse of the tools --
'''Support''' inasmuch as I am not particularly concerned about the candidate's non-conversance with policy.  The relevant questions for me, are whether the candidate is possessed of a deliberative and cordial personality, such that he/she, as an admin, will interact well with others, will be able to interpret community discussions in order to appreciate where a consensus lies, and will not capriciously abuse the tools; and whether, in areas of which he/she is ignorant, he/she will recognize that ignorance and not act, in order that he/she should not misuse the tools (even avolitionally).  If he/she is qualified only to partake of a small portion of the admin tasks but can be trusted to know that which he does not know and to leave action on such areas to other admins, there is, for me, absolutely no problem; any competent help in the completion of admin tasks, even those that are limited in scope and frequency of occurrence, is to be welcomed.

'''Support''' seems good. I seem him occasionaly while on RC patrol.
'''Support'''. We must remember that not all members are good at everything, and using a member's strengths to everyone's advantage isn't a bad way of doing things. As a vandal figher, the mop will be useful, and I do not see any reason why he should not become an admin, he certainly does not seem like a user who will abuse the mop. --
'''Support''', thanks for helping me out heaps at #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-bootcamp. :)--
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support''' Will use the tools well. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen this user many times on  RCP (and sometimes been a little angry when he beats me to a revert!!! :) ). This is exactly the kind of user who needs the mop.
'''Support'''. You're not an admin? That's news to me.
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support,''' and good work on IRC!--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Thought he was one. --
'''Support''' for vandal-fighting.  Four months is long enough to show he's trustworthy, and his responses to fuddlemark's questions are reasonable and show an acceptable level of understanding of deletion policy. —
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak support''' By and large a good user, although I am still concerned over a general lack of policy knowledge and failure to take iniative. However, overall, I'm convinced that GHe will use the tools well.
'''Support''' looks good! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Support'''; I trust him to use the mop and shotgun well.  Some editors prefer to write articles, some prefer to fight vandals:  GHe is one of the second category, and as such he, and we, would benefit from his being granted adminship.
'''Support''' - Though it would be nice to see more mainspace contributions, we need a cleanup crew, too.  I've run across GHe several times doing that, and doing it effectively and in a policy-compliant and polite manner.
'''JA!''' -→
'''Support''' Just got a gut feeling this one is a good one!
'''TAK!'''
'''Support''' --
'''Cleared''' --
'''SUPPORT''' duh......
'''SUPPORT''' Despite lack of breadth. Meets my
'''Support''', and best of luck.
<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Definite Support.''' Will not abuse tools. That's simply all that matters. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Meets all of [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]]. While some have expressed concern that he might not meet the policy knowledge part of it, his answers to fuddlemark's questions as well as my own experiences have convinced me that he does.
'''Support'''. I'm not really seeing as much XfD experience as I want from admins who want to close them, but the answers to fuddlemark's questions pushed me into the support column. Also meets the rest of [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]].
'''Support'''. I'm confident GHe is on the right track, and he doesn't hide the fact that his speciality consists in vandal-fighting. His thoughtfulness and self-criticism regarding chores and areas in which he intends to become more familiar complement an overall highly positive analysis of his potential qualities as an admin, and therefore, he's cleared for the mop from me :) Good luck, G! [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, plenty of edits (meets my 2k minimum), very civil. Give this man a mop. :)--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' shows he will be a good admin
'''Support'''. I believe that he's unlikely to misuse admin tools.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' The last thing I'll ever do on wikipedia was worth it. :)
'''support''' just in time ['''
'''Not-An-Admin!? support''' Sad to see you go, ILP... But I agree, even if it's not the last thing I have to do, though it might as well be.
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support'''
'''Support''':  editor seems perfectly willing and capable of making good use of the Admin tools.
'''Support'''; while the criticisms are valid, I trust the user's judgement and civility.
'''In under the wire Support'''. I've been mulling this one over (for too long), and I believe this editor could use the tools and will not abuse them.
'''Oppose''' What Wikipedia namespace edits the candidate has are either tally adjustments for RfA (and plenty of them), or "_____ per nom"-type statements.  The candidate's mainspace edits are almost entirely reverts, which is certainly something to be desired of an admin, but I'd like to see more effort on article-related matters. That, combined with the fact that he has only been here for 4 months is quite troublesome, and I am not convinced of a knowledge of policy. Given an increased effort in WP namespace and a few more months, I'd be glad to support.
'''Unfortunate oppose''' - clearly a good vandal-fighter, but that is not all there is to being an admin on Wikipedia. Lack of major edits and the answers to the questions below suggest a timidity and unfamiliarity with process. If this doesn't succeed, please come back later. 4 months and 5000 mostly procedural edits is too little for me, sorry. -- ''
'''Oppose'''.  I prefer a broader range of experience and more substantive article edits.  I am particularly concerned about the candidate's answer to JoshuaZ's first question below; those diffs are definitely not shining examples of either thoughtful commentary or rank-breaking votes. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per Andypandy (neutral) and Adam Biswanger.
'''Oppose''' per Adam Biswanger. In response to JoshuaZ's question below, GHe listed a few RfA contributions — not all of which were particularly inspired — and failed to address his lack of expience in other wiki-namespace processes, including AfD. Nevertheless, he's a good vandal fighter, and I look forward to supporting in the future when he has more project and article-writing experience. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' sad to oppose as per lack of breadth of experience. The Rfa looks set to succeed however, so pleased to wish you good luck. --
'''Oppose''' an '''excellent vandal fighter''', but I see very little in article writing other than [[Don Mills Collegiate Institute]]. I would support in several months with more article writing.
'''Oppose''', contributions listed in answers and intro generally do not show heavy involvement from GHe. In other words, 0FA. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per a lack of experience.--
'''Oppose''' Per above --
'''Oppose''' for mostly the same reasons as [[User:Adambiswanger1]] states. I really wanted to support, but can't convince myself that it would be a good idea, considering the edits he has in the Wikipedia and main article namespaces. It's not always about quantity. -
'''Oppose''' per Andeh. - <b>
'''Oppose''' 4 months' experience and almost exclusively in vandal-fighting do not a well-rounded admin make.  Please take a couple of months and expand your contributions and involve yourself in the other areas of wikipedia.  Even if vandal-fighting is your forte, it's encouraging to see admins with experience in multiple areas, not to mention who have edited more than one or two articles.  --
'''Oppose'''. I want to see broader experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Too soon. I agree that far broader experience is needed. --
'''Oppose''' per Adambiswanger1.
'''oppose''' per Adambiswanger1.
'''Weak oppose''' per Adambiswanger1. I wasn't particularly impressed with answers to questions. If GHe is going to handle CAT:CSD, more substantive participation in AfD should come first.--
'''Oppose''' per AdamBinswanger1.  Although GHe has some project-space edits to his credit, his response to concerns regarding the quality of those edits is not reassuring.  Editor appear to lack experience at this time.
'''Oppose''' Experience at this time is not suffiecient for me to support this candidate's nom., in particular I feel Wikipedia project space edits should show more breadth. --
'''Oppose''' per Xolox.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]] and [[User:Themindset|Themindset]] --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jaranda|Jaranda]].
'''Neutral'''. Does not meet my criteria of 6 months.
'''Neutral''' user states in A1 that they want to help out at [[WP:CSD|CSD]] and AfD, though I agree with the user that this area is always in need of attention from admins. I could only find 24 edits to AfDs, suggesting the users experience there isn't ''that'' great.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''': I place my trust in this user, but his chance has come too soon. He should be ready again come November or early December. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''': I was waivering between Neutral and Support, which is why I chose to ask the question below (JT1).  I was looking for some evidence that you see the conflict of interest.  I would have expected that you would post on [[WP:ANI]] or [[WP:AIV]] for borderline vandalism that was attacking you.  --
'''Neutral''' Tough choice, my interactions with this user are rather low; seems to be a great vandal fighter, but I too would like to see some more contributions to articles.
'''Neutral''' per Slgrandson. '''<font color="Gray">[[User:The Gerg|Th]]</font><font color="Green">
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support; both sides make valid points...--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]][[User:Shreshth91/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Way more experience is needed to become an admin. Made his first edit yesterday. Support next time maybe.
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience per ForestH2; malformed RfA. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You don't have to be an admin to help make the information here more truthful.  Your request here will almost assuredly fail, but please don't be discouraged.  --
'''Oppose''' No main space edits at all, first edits were to editing userboxes, (including updating {{tl|user flags}} with a fair use image which isn't allowed on userpages - I will revert) and adding multiple thereof to userpage. Suggest withdrawal and reading of [[WP:NOT]]. Regards,
'''Oppose'''. Zero main namespace edits.  I suggest you withdraw your nomination, get a few months experience editing, and then if you think you could make use of the tools, come back.  --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' - no need for the tools / way too new --
'''Oppose''' Some userbox and user edits, including ''removing an indefinitely blocked warning message'' on [[User:Dormantsoviet]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dormantsoviet&action=history]. Userpage is all userboxes, no content at all otherwise. Registered on the 27th. I agree with Hughcharlesparker: You may wish to withdraw your nomination for now. With candidate question 2 below, you seem happy with your contributions, but other than userboxes you don't seem to have contributed anything. Sorry. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Most obvious [[WP:SNOW]] ever.''' I dont want the candidate to be discouraged, but part of the purpose in janitorship is being able to help newer users understand policy. Naturally, that's impossible when you don't know it yourself. At the same time, we have no history by which the rest of us can determine how well you'll use the tools. Give it '''several''' months and try again. <tt>
'''Strongest possible oppose''' I urge this candidate to retract this, and attempt this at a much later time.
'''Oppose''' fails my criteria.
'''Oppose'' per above (too new)
'''Strong Oppose'''. Withdrawal recommended. No edits in the main namespace and the account is way too new.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' As said above, needs more experience and positive impact on Wikipedia --
'''Oppose''' - per --
'''Oppose''' per RadioKirk. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Oppose''' respectfully... Please don't be discouraged. It's just that most successful RfA editors have well over 2000 edits. You certainly don't need to be an admin to do fact-checking. Withdraw this and keep up the good work and you'll get there someday.
'''Moral Support''' Excellent mainspace editor, has done good <s>f</s>work for the encyclopedia. Please continue editing.
'''Support''' strongly you are a great mainspace editor, while you need to work on warnings and the Wiki-space I am sure you will make a fine admin. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''<s>Moral</s> Support''' because of your long and quality contribution history. --
'''Support''' - A good [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23&diff=prev&oldid=89712777 sense] of NPOV. -- ''
'''Support''' I don't see why not. Reasonable contributor with some good discussions.
Only 39 Wikipedia-space edits. Sorry. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I believe that you require more experience. No evident need for the tools. Sporadic vandalfight only, not warning the vandals. No XfD. No requests for page protection, an area that you state you would be willing to participate as an admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>

'''Oppose'''. Article building, fixing, and stuff is good, but it ''doesn't need admin tools'', and gives no indication that you can use them well. I don't think very many people understand that. And I don't see this XfD participation you claim to have (the fact that you still call it VfD indicates that you don't really participate, too). -
'''Oppose'''.  May be a fine editor, but has shown relatively little interest in the ''policy'' and ''process'' that are the bread and butter of admin work.  --
'''Oppose'''. Edit count too low, not enough talking to the community. Build it up and come back; I'll be here to support you.
'''Oppose''' Not even 2000 edits.
'''Oppose'''. A fine editor, but averaging around 30 edits a month since this summer. Admins don't need to eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia, but they should be spending more time here than that when they're active.
'''Oppose''' as per Yuser. I don't think edit count is as big a concern, but where those edits are is. I'd say work on anti-vandalism and New page patrol.
'''Oppose''' per Crazy and Husond. I also agree with A Train's comment about your average edits per month and Kicking's concern about your lack of interaction with the community. And I just can't see sufficient editing experience for adminship or any need at all for the tools. '''
'''Oppose'''. Edits reveal lack of experience, especially in dealing with other Wikipedians directly. As to answers to Q1: locking pages is (and should be) a rarely used final solution to a problem. Individual blocks of users involved in vandalism or edit wars should be the main approach. Being involved in vandalism and new article patrol can be done very effectively by non-admins. -
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience yet.  Would have no problems switching to support once experience level rises.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience. Suggest a withdrawl.--
'''Oppose''' lacks in edits and experience. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' until you are more experienced.
'''Neutral''' Withdraw this RfA as it will not succeed.  To use the admin tools you need to work on admin tasks - new page/recent change patrol; new user log; XfD discussions; vandal patrol; reporting vandals to [[:WP:AIV]] when they have passed {{tl|test4}}, etc.  You can also ask for an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] and get some [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] when you have some experience of the above.  Really, if you can get your total contributions-to-date to be your average monthly contributions ~1500 - by doing the above tasks then you should be in a position to reapply in four months' time.
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good editor, but probably needs more experience.  Edit count isn't everything, but it's a proxy for everytyhing. --[[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' so as to avoid pile on. An admin should be more active on a day-to-day basis. Don't know that there is an absolute minimum, but 18 edits a day nets >500 edits a month.
'''Neutral''' You do not deserve an oppose opinion as you are a long time contributor to this project, which must be taken into strong consideration. However, the lack of Wikipedia name-space edits is a major concern here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and work towards this area of Wikipedia. In time, I am sure you will succeed in a future nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - needs more communication with the rest of the community. --
'''Neutral''' Not enough contact with the Wikipedia community to warrent Adminship. Get out there, frequent such places as [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:FP]], and [[WP:Village Pump]], and come back here in 6 months with over 2000 edits. You'll get my vote then.
'''Neutral''' I suggest you withdraw and spend more time getting developing a deeper involvement in Wikipedia.--
'''Neutral''' Siva1979 said it all. You contributing time shows that you won't abuse the tools, but more participation in admin related tasks is neccessary (for my vote).
[[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] 12:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC).  I support this nomination, because I believe the English Wikipedia is enriched enormously by users who are not native speakers and/or are active on other language versions of this project.  Without them, I suspect the English Wikipedia would have an extreme bias towards the USA, England, and other English-speaking countries.  Moreover, the work of such users in copying, translating, and connecting articles across languages is invaluable in giving the project an internal cohesion, so that it is a single project and not 164 different projects.  It does appear that [[User:Haham hanuka]] needs to get a clue or two about formatting, but even my own formatting skills are not perfect, after eight months as an admin.  Give this user a chance.
Agree with David Cannon.  --

'''Oppose'''. Agree with Carrp. I had to fix the self nom of the user to confirm with the guidelines of nominations. His user page is also pretty empty, and his talk page has few comments, two of which are in hebrew, two are disagreements, and one is my request for him to sign his self-nom. In general he does not seem to be familiar with the community or the policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose'''. Clearly not enough experience.
'''Oppose''', lacks the necessary experience.

Oppose for now based on lack of editing experience.

Err... His response to
Sorry, but the user seems to want adminship too much (in a bad way). And to echo the votes above, he needs more experience with disputes, content, policy, and complex tasks. Maybe later. --
I personally do not consider any of the things mentioned by Carrp above to be particularly serious, at least not in the sense that they should cost anyone an adminship.  On the other hand, I don't see anything really special that would recommend this user for adminship either.  The edit count and longevity are respectable but not extraordinary, and I cannot help but notice that while the user has nominated himself and replied to others' comments about his nomination, they still have not completed the three generic questions (below) as of this writing.  Thus, I see not enough evidence to vote either way.
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=56460933&oldid=56447697 Malformed RfA], didn't even nom himself or accept before putting himself on the main page, and this subpage is malformed. --
'''Oppose'''. The user rarely if ever uses edit summaries. Has been seem to label articles as POV without explanation (has done this on many occassions). Has attempted to close AfD discussions despite not being an admin and also involved in the discussion. Getting involved in 3RR and then using anonymous IP address rather than logons to bypass the block. I don't think behaviour like this is what we want in a admin. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose'''. Edit summary use and per Ben.'''
'''Oppose''' Needs to learn to write a paragraph on why they believe they should be admin. Appears to believe that edit count is everything.--
'''Oppose'''. There's no way I can support and RfA where the questions for the candidate are "gone" and are unanswered. --
'''Support''' cool first! this guy needs to be an admin
'''Support''' as nom.
'''Support''' Have seen a lot of him through [[WP:RU]]. He communicates very well, is friendly and overall, a very valuable contributer. I feel he would be a great admin.
I don't think he'll go insane and start deleting swathes of pages at random, which is pretty much my only criterion for adminship, since adminship is no big deal. Seems genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia and doing maintenance. Not to attack other editors, but most of the opposition below seems to hinge upon niggling minor points, like the wording of messages on his Talk page or the number of edits he's made to AfD pages. --
'''Support'''.  It is refreshing to see somebody who has been around a year before getting into adminship.  This shows somebody who is willing to take the time to try to learn how to do things right before jumping in and messing anything up.  It shows long-term commitment to the community.  We need more of this.
Fabulous user. &mdash;
'''Moral Support''' I think you mean well, and I like that you waiting for an RfA.  However, I suggest you withdraw and get more experience in the Wikipedia: namespace.--
'''Support''' He's a dedicated Wikipedian and is definitely to be trusted with the buttons.  Admin-related experience is certainly a concern, but I think that given the opportunity to learn on the job, so to speak, he will certainly rise to the occasion.  I'd be willing to keep an eye on him, as well, as sort of an enhanced admin-coaching
'''Moral Support'''. No one should '''''ever''''' have to answer 20 questions for an RfA (LOL, I'm an admin and I almost just typed AfD there). I feel bad for you. <s>Talk about pile-on.</s> Good luck with your future editing and don't let all the oppose votes discourage you from coming back to RfA in a couple months once you have more experience.
'''Moral Support'''. I agree with Irongargoyle, no one have to answer 20 (its 21 now) questions and discussing a pointless point about typos on RfA (oops, I almost typed AfD too). In my point of view, based on some reading, admin tasks in not just about AfD, and I reckon some people have not understood that. Come again after sometime, and I reckon it will be better if you have been reviewed on [[WP:ER]]. Good luck -- <span style="font-family: comic sans ms">
'''Support''' Good honest user who isn't afraid to make decisions, is forthright and is obviously willing to and I believe can learn from errors (show me one admin who has never ever made a mistake). On the issue of [[WP:CIVIL]], there is no issue. Brusque answers to know-it-alls should be quite acceptable IMHO. Many admins are brusque in their replies, 'tis human nature. --
'''Support'''. This RfA and its 21 questions is an utter disgrace. (See my comments on the matter currently on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]].) Just take a few months and prepare your RfA better and you should be fine.
'''Very strong Oppose''' You admit having little experience doing adminly type things, so what would be the point in giving you the extra buttons? Per answer to Q10 - doesn't know what an AfD is... that worries me a lot. --
'''Oppose''' — "Are you talkimh about this AfD?" – Seriously, was that a joke? <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]]
'''Strong oppose''' per answers to questions, which are very vague and don't indicate a need or even knowledge of what admins do.. Q1: "''I will be happy to help in all of them''" - please, the only people who would say that are people who don't know what admin chores need doing. Mainly though, because of "''Never been to WP:AIV before, but as per previous sentance, this is something I can look to be contributing more to.''". Some of our newer vandal reporters are really lousy, and I really wouldn't want someone reviewing AIV requests when they've never been involved in that area before. --
'''Oppose''' The problem is that the nominee doesn't have enough experience in admin-type areas for me to be sufficiently sure that they wouldn't make mistakes in using the administrative tools; see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hamedog]] for a list of pages that the nominee has edited at least 5 times in the last 2000 edits (for instance, in AfD subpages there are two !votes and one nomination, much less than I would expect for a user who wanted to close AfDs). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 13:07, 23 October 2006 (
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per conversation in this RfA where he told two other editors "''Neither of you have the abliity to understand human error.''" and "''No, you are wrong. WRONG!''" Comments such as those will ceratainly inflame a situation and leads me to question his ability to handle confrontations.
'''Oppose''' per above replies on RfA and general need for more experience. With more time and experience with areas of admn duties I would support with reservation.
'''Oppose''' I am concerned about your replies and conversation in this RfA. Does not deal with confrontations well either, based on your response here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to '''oppose''', the user doesn't seem to grasp [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] based on this RfA, spelling issues (''A: Reinstate the article and put it up for AfD to achieve a better vote. Inform the admin of this decision. If the admin opposed, I would talk to him/her about there decision''), answer to #11, #14, mis-quotes in #15(IAR is a rule, IRA is a terrorist group), answer to #16 shows misunderstanding of [[WP:BLOCK]], per [[User:Slowking Man]], [[User:Alex9891]], and edit summary usage.
From your RfA I truly worry if you would go sid''e''ways with your mop. -
'''Oppose''' per Steel, and answer to question 16.
'''Oppose''' per answers, [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPA]], weak editing demonstration, lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' I didn't mind him not knowing what an AFD is because he could help out in other areas.  However, "''No, you are wrong. WRONG!''" struck me quite a bit.  It's something that I wouldn't want any admin to say to me.  They should be good role models of civility.
'''Oppose'''.  My dealings with this user have shown him to be rude and aggressive. —
'''Oppose''', per above.
'''Oppose''' per the reasoning of others above, particularly SuperMachine, Siva1979 and Stifle. <sub>└</sub>&nbsp;<sup>'''
'''Oppose''' Behavior on this RfA tells me loads about potential behavior as an admin. Regarding your answer to question #17, your "sense of humor" seems more like cynically mocking the opposers more than anything else, which is essentially shooting yourself into your already-bullet-ridden foot. Regarding your answer to question #7, I find it strange that this candidate never mentions [[WP:DRV]]. Reinstating the article will only start a wheel war and may be equivalent to spitting in the face of two admins who arrived to the same conclusion. Regarding your answer to question #11, I want more elaboration on "political." On your answer to question #14, edit summaries should be used most, if not all of the time, regardless of edit count on that particular page. And while I will not nitpick you about this, please do correct your numerous spelling mistakes, as a mistake can lead to an awkward and can escalate an already tense situation. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Very Strong Oppose''' as per Alex and Yanksox, and others.
'''Oppose''' somehow I find it hard to believe that typing AfD instead of RfA was a "typo." More experience needed.
'''Oppose''' enough playing 20 questions; it's already clear that this user needs more experience and better communications skills.
'''Neutral''', <s>I have a good impression of this user and his attitude and abilites. However, I must reserve my judgement until the answers have been filled in, so I can make an informed decision - currently, I'm not 100% sure, but good answers could sway me. <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">'''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel]][[Special:Random|.]][[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|Bryant]]'''</span> 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)</s> I still have a good impression of this user and his attitude and abilites within Wikipedia. However, I require a high level of understanding and experience in admin-related tasks, which you unfortunately don't meet as of now. I would love to support, and would be more than willing to in a few months' time if you have engaged in some more admin-related activities, but I'm afraid I can't at this stage. Cheers, and sorry, <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">'''
'''Neutral.'''  I can understand why people are objecting, but I kind of like his honesty.  Maybe he could learn a little more about admin duties and come back in a couple of months.
'''Neutral''' You are a good editor and I think that you have made a brave move in stepping up to expand in to the admin areas of WP.  What stops me from giving a 'yes' opinion is your apparent lack of knowledge of what it means to be an admin.  Do you patrol the new pages or recent changes at all?  If so, these are your opportunities to revert vandalism, warn vandals and bring them to [[WP:AIV]] for admin attention.  Get involved with the XfD discussions and do some admin-related tasks such as those mentioned and I may well change my opinion in two or three months' time.
'''Neutral.''' User's conduct is confusing. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'' Don't know him well enough to support or oppose, but love the honest replies.
'''Neutral''' I would like to see more admin.-related experience.
'''
'''Swirch to neutral.''' Please heed my advice and then try again. I would recommend an editor review prior to submitting another RfA. You are a good editor. Adminship requires additional skills to those of editor. Don't let this RfA discourage you. Not every nom passes on the first go.
'''Support''' I also suggest an editor review, try again in a few months with more admin-related activity.
'''Neutral''' Would have supported normally, but for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hamedog&diff=next&oldid=83203255] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lost_further_reading&diff=prev&oldid=83202347]  <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral leaning to weak support''', good answers to questions - you obviously have a sound knowledge of policy and politics. However, I do agree with some of the oppose !voters. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Support'''. Yey I'm first! Excellent vandal fighter, been here long enough, and answers tell me he knows what he wants to do, and what adminship is all about. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''' - Been here a while and a great vandal fighter.  Good answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - Favorable impression from AfD discussions, thought he was one. --<font color="00cc00">
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighter, courteous and patient. I'll miss the dry wit of your edit summaries after you recieve the rollback button.
'''Support''' Looks good.  Grab a spare mop and start swabbing the decks!
'''Support''' Time making major contributions (2 months) has been fairly short, but considering the account has been open almost 2 years, I think makes this an exception.  User's contributions are good and has always stood out as being level-headed when I've seen him/her around. --
'''Support''' - I won't claim I "thought he already was an admin," but I have thought for awhile he would and should be one soon, and now here we are. Strong record, no concerns.
'''Support''' Per Renesis13.
'''Support''' for the outstanding overall impression left by his contributions.
'''Support'''.  Experienced; good attitude.  Mopworthy.
Good user. We definitely need more people clearing out backlogs. --
'''Support'''. Excellent, well articulated nomination, instills confidence as to qualifications.
'''Support''' Great work, will make a fine admin.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Definitely a great Wikipedian, and courteous vandal fighter. In fact, I though he was an admin already. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''Support''' Good work, I have faith candidate will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' A very capable editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. A spotless record of doing great work for our encyclopedia. Will do the tools proud. —
'''Support''' Although you're relatively green, [[Wikipedia]] needs Admins and [[Starship Troopers|more meet for the grinder!]] You are qualified to be an admin in every way except your time on here. But I can overlook that due to the quality of your work.
'''Support''' - relatively new, but has gained much experience during that time and can be trusted with the tools.
--
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Great user. --
'''Support.''' This user shows dedication to Wikipedia, and therefore won't abuse the tools. That's my only criterion, mainly because - and I don't mean to bruise people's egos here - It's not exactly difficult to be an admin. All that's really needed are basic personal skills, and the ability to read. If you don't understand or know how to do some admin action, there's [[WP:AHTG]]. We're not certifying someone to fly an airplane or perform heart surgery on our encyclopedia - we're giving them a few extra buttons. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per RyanGerbil and Sharkface. User is awfully new, but qualified. ''Becoming an administrator is no big deal'', while not a blanket to let anyone become an admin, applies very well here. -
'''Support''' - looks fine to me.
'''Support''' User seems dedicated, and is qualified to become an adminstrator.
'''Strong Support''' Heligo has been a very effective spam and vandalism fighter, as kind of evidenced by the volume of oppose votes by users with few contribs.  He is more than just a spam or vandalism fighter though - he has proven to be a thoughtful and intelligent user who has always dealt questions posed to him well, and aided in resolving several disputes and problems on the Wikipedia.  I can think of few others that I would support as an admin more than he. ✎ <b>[[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]]</b> <sup>([[User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon|Talk to Me]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Wizardry_Dragon|My Contributions]])  (
'''Full support''' -- This guy is as trustworthy as they come. He is currently hosting the anti-spam monitoring bot in #wikipedia-spam on the irc network. He has done so faithfully for quite some time now. The ability to rollback and block will be of great use to Heligoland for fighting spam. I have never had one problem with him. '''0%''' of admin tool abuse. ——
'''100% Support''' It irritates me to see all these oppose votes.  People should be granted adminship based on their ''trustworthiness''.  This guy has TONS of edits in the short time he's been here, which shows a dedication to Wikipedia that's rarely matched.  We ''need'' sysops like Heligoland. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Two active months is enough with a long hisory of passive reading to back it up.  I would like to see more Wikipedia and Talk edits though.  There's more to adminship than fighting vandals.
'''Weak Support''' Good edits but not too many of them and needing more talk page edits.  </font></font>&mdash;<font style="background:white" size="1">'''''[[¡]]'''''[[user:randfan|<font face=Vivaldi color=darkblue>Rand</font>]][[user talk:Randfan|<font face=Times New Roman color=darkred>fan</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Great vandal fighter. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support'''. Great at fighting vandals.
'''Oppose''' Despite all that's been said, two months experience on Wikipedia doesn't cut it for me. Also, I need to see more activity in AfD's and Wikipedia policy discussions (4 Wikipedia talk edits). '''
'''Oppose'''. User has only been active since October 1st. Give it a few more months. --
Two months activity is not a long enough period of time and not enough involvement with Wikipedia-space. Otherwise, productive, reasonable contributor. —
DEFINITELY NOT - per above and ridiculous allegation here: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hello32020_2]] - not something I want from an admin, making baseless claims. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience, also per Chacor. And the amount of code in that sig is just ridiculous. Please read [[WP:SIG]] and then cut it down to size.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience (particularly in the Wikipedia space) and more time as an active, regular contributor before becoming an admin. A promising candidate for the future.
'''Oppose''': Not enough time, too little projectspace paricipation. Will be prepared to support in three months. - <b>
'''oppose'''. ''I'm most active looking for and repairing vandalism''. I find it disturbing that somebody who admits to going out ''looking'' for a fight wants to increase their firepower. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Unconditional Oppose''': Too little page discussion, too little maintenance, too much ''time'' lost for this opportunity. Another go-around would be appreciated by next summer. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Weak Oppose''' due to the amount of time actually contributing, 2 months like that are great but I think more time (of contributions) is neccessary. The signature is fixed now (to a good length) so that's not a problem.
'''Oppose''' - not nearly enough time contributing to the project --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I think you need a bit more time of continous activity. (My standards are higher for self-nominations) [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Weak oppose''' less than 100 talk page edits shows insufficient experience of consensus building and mediation. Otherwise a very good editor and vandal fighter.
'''Oppose''' for now, due to only 2 months on the project.  If it had been 6, I would have supported, as he's clearly both sensible and knows what he's doing.  Random point - I've been to Heligoland.
'''Oppose''' Insufficent amount of time on the project. Try again in 90 days.--
'''Oppose''' 2 months is not sufficient time. Also needs more experience with WP and mainspace talk. '''
Too new; you haven't really yet had the opportunity to really mess something up, and if that was going to happen, I'd rather see it happen before you get the buttons.  --
'''Oppose'''. Virtually zero edits before October. The sample size is just too small (I'm not referring to the number of edits). I highly doubt that he'd ''abuse'' the tools, but I do believe there is real potential for ''misuse'' due to inexperience.
'''Neutral''' per the 4-5 line signature, admin candidates should know [[WP:SIG]] by now. Please read WP:SIG and reduce it.
I think it is to your benefit to spend a month or two more as an editor for further experience, before retrieving the mop and bucket. -
'''Neutral'''. Two months activity isn't quite enough for me, and not enough edits in talk, Wikipedia talk, and Wikipedia namespaces yet. Other than that, though, an excellent contributor. &mdash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Neutral''' good vandal-fighter, but insufficient participation on project space, and 2 months of such concentrated contributions leads me to worry about the possibility of burnout as an admin. I might try again in a few months time, Nick. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral'''. per above. So, so close to meeting my
'''Oppose:''' Sorry, while I'd like to support it seems to me your creation of articles like [[David Witt]], and subsequently asking for a DRV on it when it was A7'd, as well as asking for a DRV on a merge/redirect, means you don't have enough process knowledge. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - having looked at your contributions, I see you need to make greater use of the edit summary. Also, your user talk edits are relatively low; as an admin you need to make more contact with other users. Sorry about that - I probably would support another time if you improved these areas. --'''
'''Oppose:''' Sorry, but your lack of participation [[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion]] (3 so far) do not lead me to believe that you have the required familiarity with Wikipedia's notability guidelines or policies to be able to deal with the more borderline cases on speedy deletion. You also don't seem to have experience dealing with vandals or abusive editors from your lack of issuing warnings on User_talk pages. Feel free to come back in a few months time after you've walked a bit on the darker side of Wikipedia (without losing your mind). -- <small><span style="border: #003333 1px solid">
'''Oppose''' 2331 edits since July is quite impressive.  Less impressive is the lack of edit summaries against most of them.  Of those edits, only 52 have been to user Talk pages; you will need to increase this through vandal warnings, advice given/received from other editors, etc.  Talking to editors is a major part of an admin's duties.  The final piece of evidence is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2006_August_22&diff=71286040&oldid=71285812 misuse of the deletion review process].  An admin and an admin candidate should have a working knowledge of policy and procedure or be able to refer to the appropriate pages before taking decisions that turn out to be questionable.  I suggest another [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] to highlight the areas in which you need to improve before returning here in ~3000 edits/three months with evidence to show that you have improved. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' I'll support this as Hello32020 has addressed the criticism given at their last RfA - 1000+ vandal warnings issued and a similar number of contributions to XfD discussions. The tools would benefit this sort of participation in the project.
'''Support''' as nominator. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
He seems to have taken the advice from the previous RFA to heart. Good luck. (
'''Support'''. He has my full support hands down! --<b><font color="#006633">
'''Support''' - good vandal-shooter, lets give him the red button
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  No reason to believe person would abuse power.
'''Support'''. He seems to know what he needs to, and wouldn't abuse powers.
'''Support'''. Well, I see RfAs aren't getting any better. Now there's a suggestion that someone shouldn't be an admin because they make spelling errors. Well, that, in my opinion is plain pedantic. There also appears to be some confusion about what the VandalProof tools do. They don't, for instance, help in making edits in the WP namespace. If the user is active on IRC as Hello is, there's often no need to request a block through WP:AIV, there's lots of admins about in the IRC channels and it's often quicker to request a block there than go through AIV. I don't mind the errors either, unless Vandal and RC patrollers are expected to be experts in every single topic that appears on Wiki and know personally every contributor, then occasional errors will happen, poorly written genuine contributions being mistaken for vandalism (remember most genuine edits being reverted have NO edit summary) and very well written vandalism being ignored, stuff that is quite complex and one or two edits removes some vandalism but reintroduces more vandalism. As long as Hello is quite happy to get stuck in, revert himself and grovel to the users effected, I'll be very able and willing to fully support this candidate. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Support''' I think Chacor's objection is too vague - perhaps emphasizing that Hello32020 keep a learning attitude for a couple of months more. Addressing previous RfA's points shows an ability to improve.
'''Support''' someone with sense - and we could use more administrators with that,
'''Support''', this is a wonderful user in my opinion. --
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|fel]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">lib</font>]]
'''Support''' Per Kazakh.
I'm sorry, I'm not yet willing to support. I have a lot of contact with this user, and I would ''disagree'' with the nom that he "has contributed to many hurricane articles". If any, they have been below what the tropical cyclones project expects, and are, as pointed out below, often riddled with errors, which is not something an admin should be making. I have yet to see much sound policy reasoning from this user; I've yet to see the user anywhere on major Wikipedia space areas with the admin's board. Unfortunately, I seriously think the tools would not be safe... '''''yet'''''... in this user's hands. I do not believe the user is mature enough to handle any incident which may arise from misuse (either intentional or not) of the tools; indeed his actions which led to me opposing his first RFA are still fresh and in my contact with this user, which is quite a lot thanks to IRC, he has not shown any indication that he's able to handle it. You only learn some things after spending a long time at it, and I think quite a few of the supporters unfortunately might not have had enough contact with Hello to realise what I'm saying here. Hello's behaviour in IRC is a good indicator, I believe, of where he currently stands as a potential admin. '''XFD is not all there is to adminning.''' Please don't make me go into the RFA archives to find my rant from earlier this year, I think this applies here quite a lot - a good vandal-fighter (or, in this case, RC patroller) not necessarily = good admin. I'll support when I'm confident this user can handle the tools, related stress, and the shit he'll get when he becomes an admin. Questions have been added. &ndash; [[User:Chacor|Ch]][[User talk:Chacor|acor]] 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [Note... this oppose has been updated thrice, at 00:54 UTC 18 Nov, 04:07 UTC 18 Nov, and 05:57 UTC 18 Nov. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. This user has a lot of potential, and is a good vandal-fighter with experience in XfD, but I don't think he's ready for adminship yet (little experience in other policy-related fields, for instance). Later, perhaps, since he seems working on it. But not now. --
'''Oppose''', per above. Sorry Hello, but you haven't been here long enough to know everything you need. In my opinion, an admin should be a good editor as well. However, in Hello's article [[Tropical Storm Beryl (1994)]], there were at least 19 spelling errors, and several more grammatical errors. He's doing a good job, and has some good qualities of an admin, but for now I oppose him being an admin. Maybe later.
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. Too hasty with VP and started with test4 on this user [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHassanfarooqi&diff=86277973&oldid=80484338] (though it may be due to confusion of earlier personal attack warnings, even so it would be too rash). Also would like to see more Wikipedia related contributions. I'm not saying absolutely not, just not ''yet''.
'''Oppose''' I feel Hello is a little trigger happy. Certainly a valuable member of Wikipedia and should stick around and try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''', though Hello is a good vandal-fighter (thought a bit trigger happy; consequential from using VP). His understanding of policy issues in general seems somewhat lacking; his answer to Chacor's question 2 seems overly confrontational because of the lack of awareness. Try again, once you have a ''broader'' set of policy knowledge.--
'''Oppose''' per question one.  "When WP:SNOW applies" sets off about a thousand warning signals in my head, and about a thousand more when other "voters" note your haste in other areas.  AfD needs responsible closures, not quick ones. --
'''Oppose''' It's too soon. You made your first edit on July 12, which means you have around 4 months experience on Wikipedia. You submitted an RfA two months after you made your first edit, and here comes another RfA just about two months after the previous one. I would have expected you would at least wait 1-2 more months before going through the RfA process. Like Pursey said, you seem a bit too "trigger happy". '''
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. May go Sid''e''ways with mop. -
'''Oppose''' per Chacor & Nishkid64. He's been here for 5 months, which is not enough to prove himself, regardless of how fabulous his edits might be. (
'''Oppose''': Per above. I feel this user has some good edits, however, I do not feel that the user has been around long enough to truly prove themself. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Answers to the questions worry me. I get the impression that this user is not familiar enough with English Wikipedia policies and procedures. I believe the user could benefit from many more months of experience in the areas where he plans to participate as an admin, in addition to taking care of some of these other issues (uploading copyvios to Commons, reverting good faith edits, etc.) Try to take these comments to heart, and maintain a high edit quality, and you'll be well on your way to adminship. —
'''Oppose'''. I had something typed up, but I was basically repeating what had already been said. --
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I know Hello32020 from experience, and, while I think Chacor is overly harsh, his criticisms are true. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Oppose''' per Chacor. User hasn't been around very long and in that time has done questionable things. --
'''Oppose''' per Nishkid64, who pretty much summed up what was going through my mind. There isn't enough to dispel the unease I have about this candidate.
'''Oppose''' per Chacor.
'''Neutral''' Don't know this user from experience. --
'''Neutral'''. Most things are good (perfect edit summary usage!), but I really think more policy discussion is needed. AfD participation is good, but WP talk edits are really needed, and he only has 5. -
'''Neutral''' This user is a valuable contributor to this project. Thus I feel that he does not deserve an oppose opinion. However, considering the strong views in opposing this nomination, I have decided that he deserves a neutral opinion. In the meantime, do not feel too disappointed over this potential second RfA failure and try again after three to six months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per evrik.
<del>Vote for myself.
'''Moral support''', as people piling on is no fun.  I'd urge you to withdraw your request until you have gained some more experience.  Is there a bureaucrat that could close this off?
'''Oppose'''. Only 177 mainspace edits; I think an admin should have significant experience editing articles. |
'''Oppose''', lack of experience, brief/unanswered questions below.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, and seems not to understand some policies well yet (e.g., voted for self above) (
'''STRONGEST OPPOSE POSSIBLE''' Less than 600 edits. Less than 200 on the main namespace. No answer to question 1 on below. No knowledge of Wikipedia policies shown.
'''Oppose''' - Goofy errors, eg, self-voting, not using enough edit summaries, no answer to janitorial duties, not enough article or project/talk communications.
'''Oppose''' - Concerns about lack of experience.
'''Strongest possible oppose ''without intention of piling-on''''' - adminship is not a power position. You seem to want it as a power position. It isn't, it's just more responsibilities and a couple of extra tools to help with the new responsbilities. With you I cannot safely say "user is unlikely to abuse tools", as you're too new for anyone to tell if you would.
'''Oppose''' understanding of WP operations is obviously limited.
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience, lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes.  In addition to the relatively small quantity of edits, the quality of edits also questionable.  &ndash;
'''oppose''' Lack of experiance, and lack of community interaction <font color="red">†</font><font color="darkorange">
'''Oppose''' - far too inexperienced.
'''Oppose'''. you need more time. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I don't normally look at edit count, but in this case it's a clear symptom of a lack of experience. Give it some time, participate in your stated areas of interest: most article merges can be done by ordinary users, and your help with copyright problems will definitely be appreciated. Then, maybe in six months, ask an admin if they think you're ready for adminship. --
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience. &mdash; '''
'''Snowballer.''' Seriously, there is no need for more oppose votes.
'''Support''' — Straight and to the point, i frakking like you {{=)}}! <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''' I guess your nom says it all... who needs questions? --
'''Enthusiastic Support''' he's been around for four years and if he doesn't want to engage an RfA the way it normally is, then it's not really a big deal to me.  If anything, it's a nice change of pace, and he's obviously demonstrated he's to be trusted given his extensive experience here
I approve of Hex. I have put him to the question and not found him wanting.
'''Support'''.  Sure, why not?  I like the attitude.  --
'''Support'''.  Am not familiar with his contributions on Wikipedia; however he is a steward on [[WikiWikiWeb]] and has served in that role with distinction, dealing with some rather agressive pests on a wiki nowhere near as technologically sophisticated as this one.  --
'''Support The crazy man!''' You remind me of me. I like you. I would like to see an admin with a good, straightforward attitude. ~
'''Support''' active since 2003 => meets my criteria.
'''Sympathetic Support''' technically meets my criteria, I just feel sorry you did not fully recognize the norms of RfA.--
'''Support''' Love the extreme devotion to "adminship=no big deal". I actually think that it will be a good thing for the RFA process and the project if you get voted in, it's just too bad you won't.


2002, like the sense of humor, we need more admins like him
'''Strong Support''' meets all my needs
'''Support''' WP needs diversity on its admin level
'''Support''' I like this guy; he has a good attitude. He doesn't have to be the most active admin to be helpful. There are too many admin-criteria arms-races already.
'''Support''' an admin not cut from the same cloth as all the others? UNPOSSIBLE :D Too much group think in the adminship, I like someone who doesn't conform to groupthink
'''Support''' some of what is written in oppose might be valid, but as said before "Adminship is no big deal." but i have to confess ultimatetively his "If you don't like me not answering the questions, vote negative." did it for me. Great attitude.--&nbsp;<span style="background: #fff; font-family:  Tw Cen MT, Futura, sans-serif;">
'''Support'''His work looks good and he's been honest.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Conditional Support''' If related to Kelly Martin somehow.
'''Support''' for his refusal to answer the RfA questions. That stuff has gotten completely out of hand, with every Joe Schmo on Wikipedia dropping their own pre-fab question (or two, or three) into the discussions. This is supposed to be a review of his previous work and suitability as an administrator, not a little circus for everyone's amusement.
'''Support'''.  The questions really are getting out of hand.  Further, I like his "nothing batshit" campaign pledge.
'''Support'''. Reassuringly doesn't take it too seriously. Contribution speaks for itself, shouldn't have to go through intense self-important questioning.
I'm sorry but I must object. Hex has not been a very active editor, making only a handful of edits per day since 2006. More importantly, other than joining a few deletion debates, he has not shown experience with any wikiprocess.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant and the candidate's decision not to answer the questions
'''Oppose''' Lack of contributions, and self-nom smacks a bit too much of [http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2006/10/10-13-06tdc/10-13-06dnews-13.asp this] :-) ~
'''Oppose''' Too few contributions and no answers to questions.
'''Oppose'''. The edit count is nowhere near high enough; particularly only 28 user talk edits is a worry, as we can't really judge how you interact with other users. I'm also worried about a cavalier attitude as the questions have been completely ignored.
'''Oppose'''. He's been here for a while, but that doesn't necessarily translate into knowledge and experience. Only 790 edits, of which 28 were made in the user talk space. As TaE already said, I don't think you're taking this RfA seriously.
'''Oppose'''. per above. What prompted me to get off the sidelines was the seeming lack of understanding of the need for answers to the standard questions and those answers' vagueness.
'''Oppose'''. I can't see a justification for granting adminship to someone with only about 750 edits, and who did not answer the RfA questions until several hours after posting a self-nom. The user seems to be a good editor and his experience as a steward on WikiWikiWeb is valuable, but right now I don't think we can treat him as a serious candidate for Wikipedia adminship. More experience is needed here first. And fundamentally I don't believe that expecting prospective admin candidates to take the RfA process seriously is going "beyond the bounds of reasonability".
'''Oppose''' due to the arrogance displayed in this RfA. To quote the candidate, he should "Lighten up, quit the lawyer games and get back to editing the articles!"
'''Oppose''' I expect a different attitude and more involvement from an admin. [[User:Delta Tango|D]][[User:Delta Tango/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Change to oppose''' Didn't realize the low edit count. --
'''Oppose''', needs to do more admin work. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''  The combination of no specific reason given for wanting admin powers and a self-nom makes me very nervous, especially from someone who completely ignored the standard policy of RfA.  -
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' due to low participation over a 3½ year stay. Good luck in another 6-8 months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' Relatively low number of edits and user's apparent feeling of being above the process. Not the attitude I want in an admin. I suggest answering some questions.
'''Oppose''' Per above. You seem to be a bit uncivil on this page. Adminship is no big deal, however adminship is not nothing at all.
'''Absolute oppose'''. Incivility of the magnitude demonstrated by this user would ordinarily be enough for me to oppose, but without a reasonably large body of work here and some explanation of ''exactly'' how adminship would help with this user's current involvement, I cannot understand how this user's adminship will be of benefit to the project. More importantly, though, this user's painting of well-reasoned expectations (namely, that candidates at RfA demonstrate a genuine need for the tools) as "lawyer games", refusal to demonstrate suitability for the role, and obvious contempt for Wikipedia process give me every reason to believe that the candidate would abuse the tools. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Oppose''' based on my perception of lack of commitment, lack of community participation, and disregard for process (beyond the point I'd consider healthy). --
'''Oppose'''.  I find the attitude that questions from other editors are somehow less important to answer if they come on-wiki to be a very poor leading indicator.  If this is your attitude towards your fellow editors for simply ''asking questions'' I fear what it will be once you have even more buttons.  Maybe that's not how you intended it to be taken, but that's how it has come across.
'''Oppose'''. Per Nandesuka.
'''Oppose'''. Incivility, lack of experience, and a lack of respect for fellow editors all leave me very uncomfortable with this RfA. --
'''Oppose'''. Inexperience, contempt for process, incivility.
'''Oppose'''. Adminship is no big deal: It's no big deal if this user ''doesn't'' get the admin tools.  Considering the level of activity, admin actions won't be much anyway if history is any indication. I wouldn't even have supported myself at this level.  If this user had more experience and ran on these identical terms, that'd be one thing. --
'''WikiOppose''' per Radiant.  Not answering questions might be okay if there was greater participation generally.  --
'''Oppose'''. This cavalier attitude would probably fly if the nom had all the requisite experience that displayed a clear need for the tools; unfortunately, a meagre rate of participation precludes such an approach to an RFA (as far as I am concerned). The low-level incivility throughout this RFA (particularly the dismissive tone of the nom) would not lend itself well to someone in the role of an admin. Also has not displayed any need for the tools... and fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]].
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry, but you don't seem to have enough experience right now, and the history of incivility doesn't help, either. Work on becoming familiar with various processes and become familiar with [[WP:CIV]], and maybe I'll support a future RfA. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Oppose''', per Daveydweeb and Nandesuka. The overall contempt shown to other editors in this RfA alone leaves an unpleasant impression. If you are granted sysop status, you'll have to field questions and criticism from new users, and it won't always be pleasant. But to answer your question in your comment above: What are we looking for? We are looking for someone who can become one of the public faces of a Top-20 website, and become a role model, in some ways, not only an editor or janitor or whatever; we're also looking for someone who doesn't leave us uneasy wondering if he/she'll go bonkers and make a mess, because it takes a while to undo those messes and distracts others from actually editing the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim and because of history of incivility --
'''Oppose''' Refusal to answer questions on this RfA only foreshadows your refusal to answer questions regarding any actions taken as an admin. Your attitude, which I interpret as condescending and contemptuous, does not sit well at all. I take issue out of your responses to Gwernol's and Radiant!'s oppose and Chacor's neutral, which I find your snappy remarks not funny at all, if not insulting. Swallow your pride, bear the constructive criticism, and answer the questions, for what you experience here is only a taste of what one will face as an admin. An RfA is not a place to show off credentials you do not possess. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' as per the above. You haven't told us why you want to have and use the tools of adminship, and they are the only real reason to be an admin in the first place.

'''Oppose'''. As said above, candidate is condescending and contemptuous, rude and snippy and plainly in that class of admin who would immediately set out causing grief and bloodshed. Such things are a big deal. Would recommend not returning to RfA in future. -
'''Neutral''' until questions answered, candidate hasn't pointed out any specific admin chors in self-nom.--<font style="background:white">
Bold enough to run like this, but does it mean you'll be overly bold with the tools, too? &ndash;
'''Neutral''' <s>'''Weak Support'''</s>. I would, however, really have liked to see Q1 answered in the spirit of things. On the other hand, I trust him as an admin and think this is a pretty reasonable application of IAR. --[[User:Storkk|Storkk]] 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral per 390 mainspace edits. Though I'm not a fan of editcountitis, that number is ''really'' low, especially considering a lot are gnome-type activities, judging by a quick perusal. --
'''Neutral''' Lack of answers to questions makes it difficult to assess your knowledge of the policies and guidelines that underpin the project; less than 100 XfD discussions participated in and less than 50 user Talk contributions suggests that Hex requires more time to contribute before attempting another RfA.
'''Neutral''', Not so active contributor.
'''Neutral''' Lack of answers to questions is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''': Hasn't provided enough shrubberies. --
'''Neutral''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral''' I love your self-nom, Hex. I truly, honestly do. I really want to support you, but I can't find a good reason. So you don't want to answer the questions? I'm cool with that. But aside from rarely contributing and not participating in XfDs, I liked your nom considerably more when you just didn't answer the questions than when you gave half-assed answers. Best of luck, and if I'm ever in London (which I would love- I've never been to Europe, and London is at the top of the list), I'll look you up for some tea (I don't drink coffee). --
'''Neutral''' The nom is the most refreshing thing I've seen round here in a long time, but... well, as per [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222]] basically. --
'''<s>Weakish support</s> Neutral''' - Eh, I like ya. I don't know which way this RfA is going to turn, but looking over your contribs tells me you'd do alright with the tools and wouldn't abuse them. It'll be good for us if you get the mop, but it'll be "no big deal" if you don't get them, right? :) &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' Meh, candidate needs to check his attitude at the door, especially when requesting community trust and support, but no point in opposing at this stage.
'''Support'''. Meets my criteria. It looks like the user is trustworthy and experienced, and I don't see any reasons why this user can't be trusted with using admin tools in the correct manner. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Meets my criteria.  I am confident that he has enough experience with xfD to make the admin tools usefull.  Answers to questions demonstrate knowledge of policy and readiness to use tools in specific tasks.  High User and User Talk edits shouldn't be a concern as long as other namespaces demonstrate experience (as they do in this case, IMO).  Welcoming newcomers is a '''good''' thing.
'''Strongish Oppose''' candidate's lack of consistent involvement in AfD process and his/her near, if not complete, lack in participating in [[WP:CSD]] lends to the reasoning that he/she will not use the extra tools as stated in Q1.  Also, while I don't think an addiction to VandalProof or popups is at all necessary, there are relatively few vandalism reverts.
'''Strong Oppose''', I agree with the person above. Also because of your low edit count. A lot of those edits (about 500 or 1/5 of those edits) are userspace. Not a good thing.
'''Oppose''' not enough mainspace experience.  Great job welcoming new users, but would do well with (1) more contributions to articles and (2) more project space participation.  Thanks --
'''Oppose''' - <b>
'''Strong Oppose''' Milo makes a good point (and so do others); the edit counts weigh too heavily towards userspace and user talk-space (from welcoming, I presume). And that issue ''is'' in [[User:Joturner/Different Standards on Different Days|my different standards]]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''', Sorry Hexagon1, but got to admit, Milo (Milan B.) has a good point there. Truely, over 1/2 of your edits focus on user and user talk space, which isn't good. Try getting more edits in the main space and others besides user and user talk. Then try again on an RfA. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Oppose'''. While it's patently obvious that Hexagon is enthusiastic about Wikipedia and would be unlikely to abuse the tools, I don't see that s/he has enough experience to act appropriately. I'd definitely like to see more mainspace edits and involvement in the AfD process.
'''Oppose''' I would have liked to see continued RC patrolling and AfD involvement. You are editing the encyclopedia well, but I don't see any real need for admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per Milo and Samir.
'''Oppose''' Not enough maunspace edits. Try again in about 4 months time. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Milo and Samir. --
'''Strong Oppose''' not enough experience for me, with less than 3000 edits in over a year, I don't know if he has the time to be an administrator. Also, many of the points above have persuaded me. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''', lack of experience and projectspace edits. I don't think you're ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Milo and Samir.
Seems eager to help with tasks. However, projectspace edits are a concern, and also butted heads with Cyde over images in sig.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' With fewer than 1000 edits over four months, many of them to your user page, you don't have enough experience yet. Back in April I gave you a legitimate vandalism warning and you responded with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHezzy&diff=49210216&oldid=49206985 this] extraordinarily [[WP:CIVIL|incivil]] and inappropriate response. That's back at the end of April, but it still doesn't give me confidence that you have the right temprament to be an admin. I need more evidence of calm and civil interactions with other users before I am ready to support. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol
'''Oppose''' --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Lacking experience and it appears that very little thought was put into this nomination. I believe that this user would likely misuse (but not necessarily ''abuse'') admin tools.
'''Strong oppose''', probably a good future admin candidate, but not yet.  Fails mamy of [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]]. —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">
'''Strong Oppose''' - was going to be simply oppose then I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHezzy&diff=49210216&oldid=49206985 this] -
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' learn to be civil at all times, at all times, at all times. Always. There is no bigger jerk than a jerk with power. Stick around though, there's lots you can do without adminship.
'''Opppose''' and speedy de-list please. Recommend that the candidate read through [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards]] to get an idea of the criteria people set for adminship.
'''Neutral'''. Not quite enough experience yet. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Much more experience required by this user before they become an admin, preferably in the projectspace, articlespace and user Talk pages.  Incivility may well be due to lack of knowledge & understanding of protocol. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' as no reason to pile on. Please close this per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral''', also to avoid pile-on. The nominee definitely needs more time and experience.
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. Hezzy's incivility wasn't very cool, but it was in his first fifteen edits and Gwernol's cool response eventually led to Hezzy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHezzy&diff=49212052&oldid=49211574 realizing he'd misunderstood], which is good. Still, he'll get lots of nastier comments as a vandal-fighter and 800 edits isn't really enough to assess knowledge of policy.--
'''Sympathy Support''' Let us stop discouraging this user any further. It takes a brave soul to nominate himself/herself. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak (not pro forma) support''' Having reviewed the user's contributions, I am confident that neither would he volitionally abuse the mop, etc., nor would he, ignorant of policy or unfamiliar with process, otherwise inappropriately use the admin tools (it seems likely that this user will seek the input of others before undertaking actions about the propriety of which he is unsure).  To be sure, my support would be clearer were there a larger edit history at which to look (one complete with involvement in sundry Wikipedia-space discussions), but the good in his work assuages any fears I'd have w/r/to abuse/misuse.
'''Moral support''', per Joe. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''.  Question answered well enough.  Reasonable edit counts, seems trustworthy.  Not at all vandal obsessed.
'''Sympathetic support''' per Joe.
'''Support'''.  I see nothing wrong with promoting this user.
'''Support''' Despite edit count, won't abuse powers.
'''Support''' per Yanksox --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support'''.  Has demonstrated good judgement and faultless civility in editing, vandal fighting, xfd votes, etc.  A further thousand edits would only allow the candidate to demonstrate his evident suitability again.  --
'''Support'' I am convinced he would exercise good judgement and be reasonable as an Admin.  That's all really matters to me.
'''Support''' He knows how to handle things properly and find out what he needs to. He will be a good admin. Note: using VandalProof.
'''Strong Oppose''' Must be here 3-6 months and if that's not the case at least a 1,000 edits. This user has 668 edits the last time I checked. As this user has never been in an edit war, he hasn't reverted much edits which is needed to become an admin. If you nominate yourself or someone else nominates you in 3-5 months I'll support you. Suggest returnal around late July, early Augast.
'''Oppose''', of the four items listed under the admin tasks, three can be done without admin rights. I suggest getting first experience with those before trying again. --
'''Oppose''' You seemed to have made a promising beginnig to a bright wiki-career. But you need to spend more time & gain experience before we can entrust you with the tools. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per reasons stated above. Like MartinRe and Srikeit said, a good start, but more experience is needed.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' <sigh> If only you had more experience. The good thing about a low edit count is that it is easier to sample.  From what I've seen of your talk page and edits, I think you will do ok in about 2,000 more edits. More edits will help assess your judgment. You don't really need admin powers for most of the things you list. The most dangerous/beneficial tools I can think of are the powers to block other users and delete articles. Could you list what tasks on the admin attention list you have in mind?
'''Please [[WP:SNOWBALL]] Oppose''' no where near enough experience.
'''Oppose'''. I would trust the user with admin tools, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Oppose''' I'm worried by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=55451694&oldid=55451372 misplaced RfA]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose'''. Looks to be pretty much the same level of experience as I am, and I would never consider that to be experienced enough for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' - per above --<font size="1">
'''Oppose''' – due to relative inexperience. Nothing personal –
'''Oppose''': A long time with low edits is a matter of serious concern, as either dedication or authenticity may be suspect.  Not everyone needs to be racking up thousands and thousands, but, at the same time, there isn't a great deal of article creation (which can mean slow but weighty edits), either.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient experience.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', mediation doesn't require adminship, and having only 39 edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests you haven't done much of it.
'''Oppose''' Low edit count, and not enough experience of using Wikipedia and its associated policies and guidelines. Come back in a few months time. --
'''Oppose''' per above --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose'''. Nothing personal, just a little more experience and variety in edits shall be useful. --
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience. --
'''Um...No''' not enough experience or edits. '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''Neutral''', needs more experience.  Will support in a few months. --
'''Neutral'''. Not enough overall edits or wikipedia namespace edits. I will support in a couple of months. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Can't support per insufficient breadth, can't oppose per this user's good work thus far. Shouldn't be too much longer. :) <tt>
'''Neutral''' (from support) You seem to have had a good beginning to wikipedia, but# too short on overall experience as yet. Sorry. Regards,
No reason to doubt good faith, competence or desire to help whatsoever, but I'd love to see a little bit more general interaction somewhere. Nevertheless, well done on nominating yourself; it takes balls which, in four incarnations, I've never had. :) '''
'''Neutral''', lacks of experience and edits. Try again in three months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Wikibreak Neutral'''. hasn't been here long enough for me to know whether I want to support, but nothing suggests to me a need to oppose. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Neutral'''.  Too new for me.  More edits and more experience --> support in the future.
'''Neutral'''.  Just a little too new, look forward to supporting in the future. .:.
'''Neutral'''. I like your attitude, and how you have become an active vandalism reverter, but give yourself some time and maybe join a few projects. Also I suggest you become acquainted with [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]].--
'''Neutral''' as per Geogre.  Adminship is no big deal, and your edit count could be ok, but contributions are still limited, and I have a higher standard for self-noms (at least one other Wikipedian should know what a good admin you will make :-).  Come back in a month...
'''Neutral'''. I can tell you would be helpful as an admin, but I'd like to see more experience from you.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor and also a significant number of wikipedia namespace editor. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' per Radiokirk. To Mets501: Mathbot says his edit summary usage is 71% for major edits and 37% for minor edits. I have never understood the "discrepancy"(?) between these 2 tools.
'''Support''', I have seen him act well to a myriad conflicts, and he is a very dedicated contributor. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' He works hard on the pokemon articles. I see no reason to not give him the mop. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]]'''''[[User:Actown|o]]'''''[[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''
Ok, I'll vote '''support'''. BTW, you spelled edited and editing wrong. --<i><b><font color="#5ADD22"><font size="1">[[User:GeorgeMoney|George]]</font></font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">[[User:GeorgeMoney|Mon]]</font><font size="1" color=green>[[User:GeorgeMoney/Esperanza|e]]</font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' Committed editor. Will do well with admin tools. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' A good contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', [[Wynaut]]! :D
'''Support'''
'''Yes'''.--
'''Support''', despite the [[WP:SNOW|snowball clause]] at this point. I don't think Highway means to sound uncivil or stir up controversy, and I could trust him with admin tools. I think he will have a good chance at promotion if he strives to remain civil and work well with other users in the future. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]][[User:TantalumTelluride/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">lluride</span>]]<sup>
'''Support'''. We, the wikipedians, always [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]], and some of us always use this term to confront other editors/ administrators as a weapan. I am supporting this nomination assuming not only good faith but utmost good faith, as I believe that all human beings, in real life as also in the virtual life, should get recognition, and our system may perhaps be having at least few other editors/ administrators who should not be around. In case, the nomination passes, and misutilization of admin-tools are noticed, our system and procedures should be fast enough to de-sysop. --
'''Support''' - Though I may not have agreed with his decisions I have found him to be the epitome of fairness --
'''Weak support'''  Great user, but because of the issues expressed by opposers, I must make this weak.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I rarely oppose candidates, but from my interactions with him, this user strikes me as quite confrontational, and quite uncivil; he does not respond well to criticism, as he has already called users who disagree with him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Celestianpower&diff=prev&oldid=48335001 "a pain"]. Also, a quite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&diff=prev&oldid=48829986 snappish reply] to [[User:Raul654|Raul]] when the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torchic|Torchic FAC]] failed left me with a very bad impression. He also unnecessarily  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza/Advisory_Council_Elections_April_2006#Karmafist inflamed a tense situation], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cool_Cat&diff=51903036&oldid=51902884 these] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Nominations&diff=50328143&oldid=50328000 replies] don't help defuse conflicts. As [[User:Mets501|Mets501]] points out, he is very quick to get into conflicts, and that, combined with the attitude I've seen from seen forces me to oppose.
'''Oppose''' As per Titoxd.  Wikipedia is a community, stubborn individualism only helps drive us apart. <small>
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd, sorry --
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd, and too little time on Wiki.
'''Oppose''' - sorry. I think you're a good editor, but I'm too uncomfortable with some of your answers, especially about vandalism. If you don't make it this time, you'll learn something from the process. I may well support you next time if that seems to be the case.
'''Oppose''', your edits aren't very balanced, need more experience on the project.--
'''Oppose''' Needs more time with RCPatrol as regular user before going at it as admin. Important to distinguish between Vandal and Newbie. Getting reverted as a newbie is painful enough without a block too. Otherwise, looks ready to go from standpoint of edit count and time w/ Wikipedia, though I prefer 6 months. (BTW, I too know the frustration of inadequate vandal fighting tools. Might want to apply for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof VandalProof] and then try again with added experience that brings.
'''Oppose''' as per Titoxd.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''': <s>Since user believes "edit counts are irrelevant", I must go on his time experience, which is not long enough. Also,</s> a very low edit summary usage. Good communication about edits it particularly important. Good luck though,
'''Oppose''' as above. --
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd. Civility is paramount. -
'''Oppose''' for insufficient use of edit summaries. I do not consider 71% for major edits and 37% for minor edits based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace good enough.--
'''Oppose''' doesn't understand many ascpects of wikipedia, and not enough time anyways --
'''Oppose.''' I don't like the tone of the answers to the questions, and I disagree with what I can tell of this user's view on vandalism. --
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per the above.--
'''Oppose''': not enough experience at this time and too few edit summaries. Those are important.
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd. Work on edit summaries, civility, and get a wider range of edits under your belt, and come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd.
'''Weak oppose''' per Titoxd.
'''Sad oppose''' committed editor and user, but a few civility problems as per Titoxd.
'''Oppose''' - Initially neutral per Titoxd's comments and some editing inexperience, but the response to Titoxd's vote seems argumentative. Would likely support this editor in the future after diversifying his edits to more articles, using summaries more often, and AGFing a little better. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
Per Titoxd, and per his responses to that user.
'''Oppose''' Temperance --
'''Oppose''' A bit more restrain needed.
'''Oppose''' per Titoxd and Danaman5 --
'''Oppose''' As my username implies, I rarely oppose Pokemon related users. But I looked into what Titoxd said and found out he was right.
'''Neutral''' - for a number of reasons.  Against him is his poor use of edit summaries for articles (around 50%), limited range of articles that he has edited, only about 3 or so edits at [[WP:AFD|AFD]], and his ability to get into a ''large'' number of conflicts.  For him is his large number of edits to articles, good amount of user interaction at talk pages, and his activity in Wikipedia namespace (mostly about featured articles and WikiProjects relating to Pokemon).  I'm just not quite sure what to do, so I'll stay neutral for now. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I want to support, but I don't quite feel it's right. Sorry.
'''Neutral''', same feelings as Royboycrashfan.
'''Neutral''' but leaning to '''oppose'''. Titoxd raises some important issues which need answers. I am not comfortable with the narrow range of articles edited, and some of the answers below specifically comments like "being beaten to the post by admins, which is somewhat annoying" and his answers to JoshuaZ's questions which are muddled. There's not enough for me to outright oppose yet, but also not someone I can support.
'''Neutral''', great user, helped me out a lot with WikiProject Nintendo, though I am concerned about the issues pointed out by Titoxd. --<font color="red">[[User talk:TBC|☆]]</font>
'''Neutral''', Great user, but I have worries about conflicts. --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Neutral''', leaning to oppose. I would have supported him but after seeing the reasons Titoxd pointed out. We can't have uncivil admins. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral, leaning support''' fantastic user - concerning edit summaries from below stats.
'''Neutral''' suggestion: Leave all the pokemon articles alone for a month. Don't touch them. Instead, work on clean up, categorising existing articles, write some new articles on an obscure river in China, or even copying material from the 1911 Britannica. You, but most importantly, Wikipedia, will be better off for it. I won't vote against you though.
'''Neutral''' I second the comments by Stevage.  Try some new things to get a good feel for the diversity of the encyclopedia.  Come back in a month or two.
'''Neutral''', and this may be the hardest decision I've made at Wikipedia, entirely thanks to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HighwayCello&diff=52217703&oldid=52215722 this edit] from the user, who is taking this personally. It's oft said that "adminship is no big deal", but this cuts both ways: sure, it should be no big deal to "promote" a prospective admin, but it can't be a big deal to the prospective admin, either. Adminship is a mop, a bucket and a set of keys; the "badge" is attached to the pocket of your janitor's uniform with a metal clip; why do you come across as someone who wants it so badly? Is this for you, or for Wikipedia? If you can accept the vote not as a rejection, but as a '''validation''' that you're a solid editor who is on the right course to be a good admin someday, that little extra seasoning and level-headedness will guarantee it&mdash;and I'll be there to support you.
'''Neutral''', no need to pile-on, you know what's required over the next couple of months. <b>
May I offer the first !vote to this fine user. Helpful, if a little hot-headed at times. He's worked hard consistently, showing commitment to the project and certainly deserves the powers. Good luck HighwayCello! &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. Everything [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello|here]] has been addressed to my satisfaction.
'''Support'''. Having seen this user all over the place I believe he would be a useful addition to the admin team. I can't see any evidence that he would abuse or misuse the tools.
'''Support''' meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support'''
'''Most absolutely support''', having often interacted with HighwayCello, I've seen him grow as a Wikipedia editor, both over time and from his last RfA.  He has learned to handle conflicts well, and has certainly dealt with his share of them.  He puts huge amounts of time into the encyclopedia, and contributes to many things in which having admin powers would allow him to contribute even more.  Especially having him seen him request admins to do things that he cannot, I am delighted to suppport. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' on the condition that you are civil in the future. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've found this editor to be only kind and a considerate user who wants to help the community. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana"> ~
'''(moral) Consultant Support''' Imp/: while this one probably won't go through, I suspect you will be an administrator soon enough if you keep up your hard work here.  Suggest/: that you reflect a bit on the opposes, as it seems like an easy enough to fix issue --
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Moral support''', judging by outcome. Please do not get too distressed by this, and take it as a learning experience. -
--[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' (may change to neutral) You're a good canidate, but as noted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEsperanza%2FAlerts&diff=63063391&oldid=63063342 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts&diff=55479115&oldid=55439889 here], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts&diff=47818268&oldid=47778730 here], you seem to run into stress on an unusually high basis. I'll remind you that adminship is no easy task, and often you will run into situations with problem users. If you have managed to stress yourself out those many times, I would worry what would happen during your adminship. I applaud you for your WP work, however. --

'''Strong Oppose''' Judging by the diffs provided above, this user has serious problems with civility, making them unsuitable to act in an admin capacity.
'''Strong oppose''' per Pilotguy and Steel. Emotional maturity and civility are key requirements. Sort those out first please. Your work as an editor is appreciated.
'''Oppose'''.  Enough reasons already given.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' per Steel and Pilotguy; it is not okay to meet incivility with incivility. -- '''
'''Strong Oppose''' per steel. Does not meet my [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria#Requirements|requirement]] on civility and stress-handling (as seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natalya&diff=prev&oldid=64011884 here]). --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Strong Oppose''' per Steel.
'''Oppose''' per Steel.  Sorry, but I see stress-fueled actions and interactions that could become downright destructive if given admin tools.  Your hard work is appreciated, but you need to build more trust here. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose'''. Incivility is unforgiveable, sorry.
'''Oppose''' Per all the reasons expressed above, civility is a key trait of admins, and there is simply no excuse for being incivil.--
'''Oppose''' Incivil incivility.  <s>Oh and check out all of those user edits. (Over 900)</s>
'''Not this time'''.
I'm afraid I'll have to '''oppose''' at this point.  You seem like an excellent editor and your dedication as seen through your number of edits is impressive, but I am turned off by your attitude, language, and temper, as other votes have noted.  If you can eliminate these problems over the next few months, I'd be glad to support you then.
'''Strong Oppose''' sorry, but I think it is absolutely essential that admins uphold high standards of civility.
'''Oppose''' per incivility issues.
'''Oppose''' - An admin being uncivil has the potential to scare off newbies --
'''Oppose''' - I really have reservations letting anyone using the kind of language Steel brought up assume the admin position.
'''Oppose''': stress and confrontation can be infectious. Some people say ''Fight fire with fire'', but I say ''Fight fire with water''. A long period of consistent good humour will help a subsequent RfA.
'''Oppose''' per civility concerns. '''
'''Oppose''' per Steel.
'''Oppose''' all too regretfully. Seemed like a good user whenever I saw his sig, but his constant use of the F-bomb (not allowed in WP edit summaries) worries me right now. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' The lack of civility shown by this user is a major concern for me. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' re issues raised by Steel.
~
'''Strong Oppose''' per Steel. Although the points raised in the comments show the user to be reasonable at times, that raised by Steel overwhelms them.
'''Oppose''' I'm really sorry Highway Cello but looking through the discussion and your edits (and a edit summary directed at me) it seems you don't react to sitations well.  Maybe in a few more months good luck <font color="green">
'''Neutral''' sadly, I cannot support this user right now because of the numerous things [[User:Steel359|Steel]] has pointed out above, even if I don't agree with the way they were presented. I strongly suggest the user withdraw their RfA.--<font style="background:white">

'''Neutral''' I had hoped to be able to support HighwayCello this time around. Sadly some of what has been reported above concerns me. Added a question below and waiting for a response before moving away from a neutral recommendation.
'''Neutral''' per Gwernol. --
'''Neutral''' nothing personal, but right now I'm concerned with how you'll use the tools due to the points above. I hope you understand.
'''Neutral''' There is no doubt that the candidate is both good and productive as an editor and an asset to Wikipedia.  However, I feel that he currently lacks the extreme level-headedness necessary to be an administrator on such a large-scale project as Wikipedia.  I would potentially support at a later date if the civility issues became a non-factor and if he were able to succesfully mediate some controversial issues via MedCab or a similar venue
'''Neutral''' per Gwernol '''
'''Neutral''' I saw him doing some nice work, but the opposers' concerns are not without merit.
'''Neutral''' per opposers' concerns, especially incivility. I don't want to pile on oppose though.--
'''Neutral''' per the incisive ''neutral''s of Hoopydink and Grue and inasmuch as, having been ''neutral'' relative to the last AfD, I don't see that anything significant has happened to exacerbate or allay my concerns.
'''Weak neutral''' use of third person in self-nom :D
'''Neutral leaning toward support''' The whole Steel thing doesn't look too well, but I've seen Highway help new users get started, and Natalya brings up good examples of where he is thoughtful. I am willing to discount the negative incidents listed here in your next RFA....I will definately support you if nothing bad happens between now and you next RFA. FWIW, you have improved a lot. I know that Highway made a lot of these comments out of stress and ''not'' malicious intent, so to a point Highway is right to say they were taken out of context. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Neutral''' leaning to oppose. Highway seems to be learning civility with the users he deals with regularly (as indicated in the examples given by Natalya in comments below). But he doesn't deal with little annoyances from strangers calmly enough to inspire confidence. In response to Q1, he says that he wants to use rollback to deal with obscure Pokemon pages, but his recent history indicates he'd use that ability poorly. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strawberry_Panic%21&action=history revert warred] over an article and [[User_talk:Digisouth14#Your_edits_to_Strawberry_Panic.21|escalated the conflict]] into getting the other user blocked over violations of style guides. Even if his interpretation was "correct", disputes over style ought to be taken to talk. He's pretty harsh with the tags: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloyster&diff=prev&oldid=66022165 silly vandalism] followed by [[User_talk:216.237.212.120|t1 and bv]]; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pikachu&diff=prev&oldid=65279446 profane] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pikachu&diff=prev&oldid=65279244 silly] comments followed by [[User_talk:71.193.71.50|another t1 and bv]]; and [[User talk:85.130.149.251|here]] he started with bv and then went up the line, eventually getting an admin to block for warring over verb number (is/are) in Pokemon articles. Still, he is a prolific contributor who could use the tools for some things like page moves and DYK. Hopefully, in a few months, with more admin coaching and experience...--
'''Neutral''' due to civility concerns, but I'm not harsh enough to tack on an oppose vote. -→
'''Strong support''', not much else to say after that essay up there. :)  Best of luck! -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' First, I think hoopydink does make some valid points, ones you need to reflect on.  You can appear to be too eager and coming back exactly after three months since the last RfA does enhance his point. Nevertheless, you were offered an RfA [[User_talk:HighwayCello/Archive/14#Hey_Highway|over a month ago]] and I assume you declined that offer, so that does show some patience on your behalf. With respect to level headedness, you got extremely frustrated on the RfA talk page on more than one occassion.  I have seen less of that recently and I am willing to bet you have matured as an editor since then. Your contributions seem quite solid at present which is good.  If you get the admin tools please be aware that first and foremost this is an excercise in building an encyclopedia.  Always be aware that you must be as objective as possible. Especially when dealing with situations that involve users you respect or know well.  Good luck
'''Support''' A longtime editor and valuable contributor who has recently made great efforts to gain a better understanding of Adminship. The answer to question 3 also reassures me that while they have experienced some difficulties, this editor is both able and willing to learn from mistakes. I would like to second David's suggestion that there is still room for improvement, but I think Highway is ready. --
'''Support'''. Nomination "essay" summed it up well. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' I have supported this user in the past and will continue to do so. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' just promise not to be the one to put your own articles on DYK.
'''Support''', you with the tools will only help the project.--[[User:Seadog.M.S|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue" size="4">S</font>]][[User:Seadog.M.S/EA|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="green" size="4">e</font>]]
'''Support''': Highway has a colorful personality that may have been stretched by stress ''in the past'', but judging from what everyone is calling his essay above I can see he's done a lot of reflecting on how to edit real well and how to prioritize his agenda (for the lack of a better term I can think of right now). In addition to lots of editing on what would be GAs and FAs, many of his edits that I saw in the past concern vandalism removal, and I think he deserves to have the adminship reversion tool to perform this style of editing more efficiently.
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''. I believe that HighwayCello is significantly more civil and experienced than last time. People keep citing his previous RfAs, as if people never change. They also cite his "want" for RfAs as a reason for Oppose. But is it a bad thing to want to help the community out? When did a user's zealousness to serve Wikipedia become something bad?--'''
'''Strong Support''', a very fine user. From my own experience with you I am convinced that you're easily civil enough to meet my standards, and I seriously thought you were an admin all along. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Super Strong Support'''- Come on, he deserves this.--[[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''SU'''</font>]][[User talk:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''I'''</font>]]
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. A very good editor as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I am for specialist admins who know some area. Lets have an admin in the Pokemon area. It generates a lot of vandalism. HC seems to be a very devoted editor and devoted editors make good admins.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Support''' I have always found Highway to be hardworking, and in my experiences with him, he is always willing to learn and take on new challenges. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''...I thought he's one already?! -
'''Support''' I've seen him around the wiki, and I support 12885 times :)
'''Support''' Seen him around, not sure where but i think he helped me once or twice.  Lots of edits.
'''Support'''. Just to clarify, this is not a !vote because he's a "friend", so to speak. I always have to think about it harder when I'm particularly related to the candidate. First, may I just comment on a few of the oppose !votes. Firstly, having to wait 12 months since uncivil behaviour is utterly ridiculous. Without resorting to the cliché, we need more admins, and this dedicated editor fits the bill. Secondly, I disagree that editors should have experience with AIV and AN before becomning administrators. I don't think I'd even heard of those boards before my nomination. My view is that you need to be a good editor first, vandal-fighter second (though, of course, vandal-fighters are appreciated and useful). I sincerely appreciate his efforts on Pokémon articles (where we interact almost daily) and Esperanza (also where I see him lots). While we disagree from time-to-time, it's always civil. Thirdly, while I'm slightly concerned about his responses to the oppose !votes, he is being faced with being told he must wait 12 months for the past to be the past, so I can understand, if not condone his replies. Overall, he's a useful and hardworking editor, who would make a great administrator. Even if he doesn't use the !powers all the time, every little bit helps. Thanks and kind regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support³*100³'''.  Great editor, handles disputes well, and has an FA, several GA's, and a wikiproject under his belt.  Would still like to see questions answered anyway.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support'''. In terms of civility HighwayCello has improved leaps and bounds since his last RfA, and there are a lot of (IMO) non-opposes below. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -- <b><i>[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:crosshair"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - I've seen Highway around wikipedia, and from what I usually see, his contrib.s are good. He is organizing Admin coaching, and he is civil. --'''<font color="green">
'''HELL FUZZY YES ON WHEELS''' ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I feel that Highway has improved in civility and conduct immensely since the last RfA, and I think that he could do great things with the tools.  The "argumentativeness" below seems like a non-issue: an admin is allowed to have opinions, and oppose !voters are not always inarguably right.  Also, the time period doesn't bother me either.  Overall, what matters is his ability to not abuse the tools, not minor personality traits. --
'''Support'''. He's not perfect, but he'll make a solid mop.
I've finally decided to '''support''', because the candidate has shown enough improvement since the last time around for me. The comment below, which half the opposers are jumping on, is somewhat inconsequential to me... 9 months ''is'' a long time to me, and I can somewhat understand the frustration the candidate would feel from having to wait that long to gain support. I caution the candidate against possible conflicts of interest in DYK and elsewhere, and remind them to always keep a cool head, but I do feel this user would be an adept administrator.
'''Support''', provided you take Grandmasterka's very wise advice into consideration. :) '''

'''Very weak support''', changed from neutral. Well, we are an encyclopedia first. Your good work for the encyclopedia is commendable. I think the opposers havee brought up very good points which you should try to take on board and improve on. I think your responses to some of the opposers was uncivil, but I'm willing to overlook that, if you're willing to work further on trying to keep that temper in check. &ndash;
'''Support''',<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="3">
'''Weak Support''' I'm gonna make a leap of faith here, and trust HighwayCello will be more civil in the future.--
'''Strong Support''' Amazed this user's not an admin yet.
'''Support'''.  Seems reasonable enough. --
'''Support''', friendly user, will not abuse admin tools. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Support'''. Glanced over the last several months of edits and seems to have kept clean with regards to civility issues. Habits do die hard, but I think the benefits outway any potential cost. It's been a while since the past RfA. Not just 2-3 months ago.
'''Support''' - Has done/ is doing a lot of good work. Though I had opposed last time per civility concerns, I think the net effect of his becoming an admin will be positive. --
'''Support''' productive editor and a nice guy to boot --
'''Definite Support''' - In all honesty I have had nothing but absolutely pleasureable interactions with HighwayCello, and Im not going to invoke the RfA cliche but yes, that too (so finding this all of 2 minutes ago '''was''' a surprise! I see nothing but benefits for Wikipedia, fellow users and the nominee himself in his having the tools. Total support with zero hesitation.
'''Support''' G
'''Support''' - Has grown more civil over the past months, good to work with. I just hope he'll be more forgiving with reformed editors such as [[User:Minun|Minun]]. --<font color="Gray">[[User:Gray Porpoise|Gray]]</font> <font color="Ultramarine">[[User talk:Gray Porpoise|Porpois]]</font>
'''Support''' - per Steel.
'''Support'''. I put an awful lot of thought into this !vote, doing my best to make sure Highway met all of [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]]. The only one of these that people have really brought into question is the civility issue. From what I've seen and experienced first-hand, I feel that Highway has truly learned the value of civility in the past months, and will continue to make that one of his top priorities should he become an admin or not. Most importantly, however, I feel HighwayCello passes #1 and 2 of my criteria with flying colors. He is a thorough and diligent contributor to the encyclopedia, going beyond what many of us contribute as far as quantity and quality of content. He may not be a constant recent changes patroller as many of the people we give adminship to, and I really don't picture him using his admin tools more than once or twice a day (with the possible exception of rollback). However, he loves this encyclopedia and improves it daily; similarly, I am certain that every time Highway would use the admin tools, he would be doing so with the full intent of improving the encyclopedia, and isn't that what it is all about?
'''Support''' - Seen him/her around. Seems competant & decent enough to become an admin...
'''Strong Oppose''' for a number of reasons.  First off, please allow me to state that I like and respect HighwayCello.  However, he is not at all well-suited for adminship at this time, in my humble opinion.  With respects to the nominator, HighwayCello ''is'' actually a virtual stranger to [[WP:AIV]] and the various [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboards]].  I counted about 25 total edits.  I also must disagree that he always ''approaches them in a calm and respectful manner''.  I feel that the nomination may have been written through rainbow-coloured glasses and does not depict an accurate assessment of the candidate.  Issues with the nomination aside (not the candidate's "fault", for lack of a better word), I have some serious concerns about HighwayCello's level-headedness and his ability to separate his own personal opinions and aims when potentially using the admin buttons.  My own assessment is that he is rather eager to use the buttons (third RfA in six months) and I don't feel at all confident supporting his use of them at this time.
'''Oppose'''.  First of all, I think the civility concerns that came to light [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello 2|last time]] are still worth bearing.  Secondly, the user's almost exclusive editing on only Pokemon and Nintendo articles (I would bet ~95% of the user's last 1,000 edits have to do with Pokemon, Nintendo or Esperanza, based on looking through recent contribs) makes me wonder about his ability to judge DYK articles.  And third, I don't like the "need" for adminship (3 RFAs in 6 months is a bit much).
'''Oppose''' per reasons mentioned in the previous RfA, particularly the vulgar and hostile edit summaries. To me, they seem to be personal attacks and demonstrate a clear lack of civility. -
'''Oppose''' I've seen this editor around and I think that he's doing a good job, but I see no need for the admin tools. Recent vandal-fight and participation in XfD is virtually inexistent, answer to Q1 denotes that the user might not have a clear definition of the typical roles expected to be performed by administrators.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' due to previous civility and anger-management issues. It's been pointed out that he's much better about being civil than he used to be, which is great, but the old Adam dies hard in most people, especially I think in people as young as HighwayCello. As an admin, you have to expect to receive [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Angr.jpg&diff=next&oldid=3398555 a certain amount of abuse] from people who resent you preventing them from vandalizing Wikipedia, and you have to be able to just stay cool and shrug it off. —
'''Oppose'''. The comment right above here just did the trick. - <b>
'''Regretfully oppose''' - Yeah, me too.  Just so we're clear.  HighwayCello wrote,  "I don't think it's acceptable for me to wait another 9 months to prove I've became civil."  Huh?  What does "not acceptable" mean?  There is something wrong with an attitude that says "it is not acceptable for me to wait".  What's the rush?  I agree 9 months is a long time.  Maybe another 3 months is more appropriate but the key issue now is the attitude.  Lose the attitude, man.  Adminship is not a right.  If people feel you're not ready, accept their opinion with grace and learn from it.  P.S. I wanted to support.  I've seen HighwayCello around and he's a good Wikipedian.  I would like him to be an admin sometime soon.  --
'''Oppose''', sorry, no.  An inability to deal with mild criticism on this very page in a civil and humble manner does not reflect well.
'''Oppose''' especially per Highway's responses to Blnguyen. Highway does not seem to take criticism very well and it now seems quite clear he does not see the conflict of interest evident in Blnguyen's scenario. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per answers to Blnguyen.
'''Oppose''' I am disappointed, but its clear that HighwayCello is not ready. I didn't agree that HC needed more time to prove his change, but this argument with Blnguyen shows he's not there yet. While I recognize that HC is trying to assert that he won't make bad-faith selections, there is a more reasonable way to make that case. Also, Blnguyen is asking for HC's consent on a safeguard - he's not actually alleging that HC would make compromised selections. I think this RfA came a bit too soon. HC would have been well-advised to wait till Jan '07. If this nom fails, I recommend waiting till April '07 - you need to give time and effort to overcome issues and build a solid reputation. Just carry on your great work, adding some experience in dispute-resolution.
'''Oppose''', based solely on ability to take criticism in stride and challenging other's criticisms in this RfA.--
'''Oppose'''.  Based on your interactions with other oppose voters, I get the impression that the candidate's tendency toward incivilty cited in previous RFAs has merely been suppressed rather than genuinely changed. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' usually, when there are a lot of opposes citing nebulous "civility issues", I find them overstated. In this case, though, my overall impression is that this user is just immature.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HighwayCello_3&diff=next&oldid=85643515 this] sneaky violation shows misunderstanding of Wikipedia's discussion rules.
'''Oppose''' - too tempermental. --
'''Oppose''' per the concerns above, particularly doen't seem to have responded to a bit of pressure on RFA well, although many of the questions above are marked as optional you appear to have selectively answered some, fairly or unfairly this suggests you aren't comfortable answering the others which concerns me. .."off the topic of a user's ability sa a syosp, so questions about my behaviour really don't belong there. I'd rather only have questions there about admin behaviour and views on policy.." I don't understand how you can divorce the two, the RFA is in part about trust, of course your general behaviour is relevent. --
'''Oppose'''. Past civility problems which are still fairly recent. Over-sensitive reactions to oppose comments on this page. The candidate may not believe he should have to wait a significant length of time to prove that past problems have been rectified, but I do. Trust is not built up overnight.
'''Oppose'''. Answers to Blnguyen, request that Hoopydink not discuss his behavior here, the removal of comments, and other problems in the recent past do not allow me the confidence I'd need to support. My feelings are basically Zaxem's, directly above. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose'''. Too impetuous. --
This user appears to be too controversial. Sorry, but no.
'''Oppose''' the responses to Blnguyen and Hoopydink make me too uncomfortable.
'''Oppose''' - His troubling responses to some perfectly valid criticism here leaves me in doubt as to how he'd perform under real criticism as an admin.  --
'''Oppose''' per Angr, crz. Maybe in the future with some personal growth and maturity, but not ready yet. (Note that this is not a "never" vote, just a "not yet" vote).--
'''Oppose''' per responses to criticism on this RFA and a history of handling pressure poorly.
'''Oppose''' The ''"I don't think it's acceptable for me to wait another 9 months"'' comment, and the later attempt remove it raise serious concerns about temperament and approach.
'''Oppose''' Just not comfortable with the combination of past incivility combined with the strong desire to be an admin.  Neither are good—I prefer admins who are reluctant rather than impatient. —
'''Oppose''' based on attitude and not willing to wait for the good to outweigh the bad. --
'''Opposed''' I do not think his attitude is well suited for adminship.
'''Oppose''' after reading all above.
'''Neutral''' I opposed last time on civility issues, but the candidate seems to have worked hard and gotten those under control.  On the other hand, the responces to [[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]'s question and [[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']]'s vote are very troubling.  I may consider further.
'''Switch to neutral per michaelas-- removed comments from this RfA.''' Even though the content was then restored and struck, it should not have been removed.
&ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Reverting and welcoming new users does not require admin powers, the answers are short and have terrible grammar, inattention to detail does not bode well for a potential admin. Only 50 project edits indicates that the user is not familiar with process, also 138 user talk and less than a 1000 mainspace edits also fail [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]].
'''Weak oppose''' I think Themindset sums it up well. That said, I think you're a good editor and with more experience you could become a good admin candidate in the future. You might find [[User:Gwernol/AdminTips]] of some use. Good luck,
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a good user, but unfortunately has not yet got admin qualities. Sorry. --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' - He has some nice edits and is an all-round asset to Wikipedia that would be better as an admin. --
'''Edit Conflict with the Mistress Support''' because he does good work, but in the future, please use edit summaries more often, okay? &mdash;
'''Support''' with similar stats to me how could I vote any other way :).
'''Support''' He looks deserving to me.
'''Support'''. Awesome dude. <font>«</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' - vote spam in #wikipedia-de, #wikipedia-fr, most probably in more channels. This is a no-no. --
dito --
dito --
'''oppose'''
'''oppose'''
'''oppose'''
'''strong oppose''' Not only was this user advertising, he made it blatantly clear in the vandalism IRC chat that he didn't even fully read through the pages one is supposed to read through before nomination to become an admin, via asking questions about the process he would have known the answers to if he had read the necessary materials.
'''Oppose''': Recent edit summary usage seems to be well below 10%. Although I'm admittedly unaware of the context, some of his comments (taken at random within the past week or so) seem to exhibit a sharp lack of objectivity: [{{fullurl:User_talk:Zmaj|diff=28521041&oldid=28520599}} Greater Croatian propaganda], [{{fullurl:User_talk:Zmaj|diff=prev&oldid=31747599}} "Why are you making such a noise...?"], [{{fullurl:Talk:Cazin|diff=prev&oldid=32103110}} loss of temper], [{{fullurl:User_talk:Rama|diff=prev&oldid=31311270}} deceipt and ban]. Unfortunately, I don't think he'd use his administrative powers wisely; if he improves on these points, I see no reason to oppose in any future request. //
'''Oppose''' Low use of edit summaries, could use more work in the Wikipedia: namespace.
'''strong oppose''' I think this user is a hard-line Serb nationalist. He used to vandalize many articles that are related to Bosnia and Bosniaks, Montenegro and Montenegrins, and Kosovo. He lied several times about my contribution, saying that I edited some articles that I never did. For instance he said this: ''I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of [[Doclea]], [[Zeta (state)]], [[Rascia]], [[Travunia]], [[Zahumlje|Zachlumia]] and [[Pagania]]. [[User:Emir_Arven]] is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. [[User:HolyRomanEmperor|HolyRomanEmperor]] 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rx_StrangeLove Here].''But I have to say that I have never visited [[Rascia]], [[Travunia]], [[Zahumlje]] and [[Pagania]] articles. As you can see above, he said: "[[User:Emir_Arven]] is changing those articles." He was blocked for breaking 3RR and also tried to brake 3RR asking other user [[User_talk:Obradovic_Goran]] to help him in his nationalistic behaviour. He wrote this: ''Pih, I need to ask you for another favour: History of Bosnia; vandal User:Emir_Arven has (unexplainingly) deleted my edits. Please revert the vandal's change to my last ([4]) I cannot, it would be 3RR violation. The vandal just said "yes" and deleted important info. HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)'' So I think this user should be blocked because he lied and tried to manipulate with administrators about my contribution. --
''''Oppose''' Lack of edit summarries and lack of wiki namespace edits. Sorry --
'''Oppose''' The user can often be friendly but simply is not someone I or many others would trust as an administrator. His edits are virtually exclusive to topics of interest to Serb nationalists and he's been involved in countless edit wars throughout his career. He's flooded the talk pages of numerous users from the region, including myself, with countless questions about nationalist issues and then proceeded to give his own (controversial) views on the matter whether that person has responded or not. Many users have been bothered by this and consider it a provocation. Furthermore, the user often displays bad wiki-etiquette. I distinctly remember that only just recently he lied to fellow users about me breaking the 3RR (when I didn't) in order to get me banned.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Holy.  As much as I may respect you personally you come with a lot of baggage and a constituency that would count on your admin status to push their agenda.  Much more needs to be done in cooperation between our groups before I am comfortable to give you my vote and trust you that it will not be misused.  Also for some of the reasons noted above: opposed.--
'''Oppose''' You already know what I think.  But it will be well to add in passing that you're throwing mud into Joy's face. --
'''Oppose'''  --
'''Oppose''' It will provoke further conflicts and disagreements. He is known for his use of lies as arguments, as i once saw. Evidence is his, i dont know, xy request for adminship. It will be disaster, however. We don't need admins like that, Wikipedia don't need that. It would be dissapointment for me and many others, and failure for Wikipedia community. Yes, he is good contributor, but for adminship '''NO!''' He approaches sensitive articles to often and careless. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose. Very few edits in the project namespace, low use of edit summaries, answer to question (1) seems vague, welcoming new users isn't a sysop chore and good contribution to RC Patrol is not reliant on sysop status. --
'''Neutral''' I too would like to see more use of edit summaries.
'''Nominator's support''' '''
'''Support''' He looks to be an experienced person and I think he would do well for the job. Great answers to questions below. Spelling could be improved but otherwise a great choice for adminship. --<font color="336699">
As per last time.
'''Strong Support''' Great edits on Montenegro-related articles and Balkans history articles. Think he will make a good admin and resolve many of the problems here on Wikipedia. Good luck HRE. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No questions asked. This support does not affect your statutory rights. Cash equivilant for this support: 0.0001p. --
'''Support'''. Seems well-qualified to be an admin. '''
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Brilliant editor'''
'''Support''': I have always maintained that we require specialists to deal with certain issues requiring involvement of administrators with suitable aptitude, attitude and skills. He fits nicely into the job. If we want wikipedia to become a true encyclopedia, we require specialist editors as well as specialist administrators. I would have voted for him last time - but, in April 2006, I could not access wikipedia for weeks due to serious sickness. --
'''Oppose?''' No way, this seems a good editor with needs of the tools. --
'''Support'''.  I've seen nothing but good from HRE.  --
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. Don't let it go to your head! ;) -
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions. No worries at all.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' as I did last time. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' as per all of them --
'''Support''' Good user. [[User:GangstaEB|GangstaEB]] ([[User talk:GangstaEB|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|contribs]] • <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[{{SERVER}}/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username={{urlencode:GangstaEB}} count]</span> •
'''Support''' No problems here. Hezky!
'''Cleared for admin.''' --
'''Strong support''' - per my vote on the previous nomination, have no reasons to change it
'''<s>Get the</s>... hrm nevermind Support''' seriously, he seems like a fine editor who would benefit from the tools per Q1
'''Support''', well-rounded, with great expertise in key areas. Definetely meets my standards.
'''Support''', just like my vote last time.
'''Support''' Like last time. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''. Kept a cool head through those last 3/4 RfAs - I sincerly hope this one isn't plauged with the same problems as your last one.
'''Strong Support''', think will make a very good admin. --
'''Strong Support''', definitely will become admin. Has great edit count and has proven to be a good editor in Slavic-related topics. Good luck. Note to the nominee: get into less conflicts, that way you can earn more support and also work on your areas of editing and also get more involved with Project edits.
'''Support''' - These RfAs have turned into a saga. But none of it is HRE's fault. -
'''Support''' I'm very sorry that you're still not an admin, despite the fact that you've done decently good work here (even if some think you have a "narrow" focus).  I hope this succeeds, and I wish you much good luck.
'''Support'''. Polite and experienced user. Good knowledge of all wikipedia areas. Give him the mop! Regards, [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks OK to me! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' - great user.--
'''<s>[Insert Dodgy comment that will make me fail my upcoming RfA]</s> "Oh no not again" Support'''
'''Support''' ^_^ --<font color="blue">
Strong '''support'''. Anyone who can ask to be temporarily blocked so as to equitably resolve a dispute with another editor has the proper attitude. HRE is very, very intent on being careful and polite to everyone, even those who feel that he hates them because of the circumstances of their birth - which, from our conversations, I can tell he does not do.
'''Support''' –
'''Support''' - [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' like last time --
'''Support''', opposes simply not enough for me. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''', looks fine to me.
'''Support''' per last time.--
'''Support''' as an experienced and often effective editor.  Gets into conflict as a result of editing highly sensitive articles which isn't a reason to oppose in my opinion.  I don't like to see factionalism but I don't ascribe blame for the slavic articles disputes to HRE.
'''Support''' per cliché #1. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Oppose''' per (1) sort of few WP edits, (2) block history, (3) my perception of a very narrow focus on "Slavic" topics, (4) a very high number of conflicts with other users per answer to 3 and per my experience with HRE otherwise, and (5) per the failure of this RfA, by the nominator and by the nominee, to address the Oppose voted in RfA 3a which KofKs admitted to have been partially valid - and they were. A very contentious user is going to make a very contentious sysop. - <b>
'''Oppose''', regretfully.  There is some recent incivility of concern [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emir_Arven&diff=prev&oldid=60010834] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emir_Arven&diff=prev&oldid=59869194] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.240.3.225&diff=prev&oldid=58556645] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=61380596].  I also would have to question [[User talk:HolyRomanEmperor/IncidentLog/CrnaGora]].  There might be a good reason for such a log, but I am uncertain what it could be. Also, though it doesn't bother me too much since I sometimes refer to an opinion expressed on an AFD as a "vote" simply out of lack of something better to call it, this edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flying_Purple_Hippos&diff=prev&oldid=61524849] is worth at least mentioning - please keep in mind it's not a vote and that an admin needs to do more than count heads.  I also, on that subject, note that most of this user's AFD participation is "piling on" when there are already a ton of deletes ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kent_State_University_College_Republicans&diff=prev&oldid=61541711] for example).  Again, there's nothing horribly wrong with that, but it isn't overly productive.  I also notice this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChanging_username&diff=53375786&oldid=53358034] - where he changed a correctly capitalized page to an incorrectly capitalized one.  This is another edit that's a bit strange [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mehmed-pa%C5%A1a_Sokolovi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=61454044] - addressing a single individual on an article page rather than on their talk page.  I'm sorry and I don't question that he's done a lot for articles within his area of expertise ... but there are just red flags waving as far as administrative access goes.  I don't like having to oppose someone who clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, but there's too much here that bothers me ... particularly the recent incivility.
'''Oppose''' per both above. --
'''Oppose''' per first two opposes.
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian.

'''Oppose''' not so much because I fear you'd misuse the tools, but mostly because past conflicts make this nomination too controversial at this time.

'''Strong Oppose'''.This 4th nomination is rediculous. In my humble opinion HRE is one of the greatest Serb nationalist here (although that doesn't have to be the truth, that is just my impression of him). He was ready to use false info/sources in order to achive his goals in some articles. Here are some examples. He keeps replacing the word [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Kotromani%C4%87&diff=61452796&oldid=61430082 Bosniak with word Serb]. I think that is his main role here to prove that some historical person from the Balkans belongs to Serbs, like [[Mehmed-paša Sokolović]] even [[Husein Gradaščević]], native Bosniak general. In my humble opinion, he doesn't know the difference between facts and anachronism or between facts and stories or facts and nationalism, which is very important for someone who wants to become admin in such sensitive Balkan-related topics. He goes from article to article and put the word "Serb" where it should belong and where it shouldnt belong. His strategy is to make friends among Wikipedians in order to become admin. For instance he was even trying to connect Bosnian native ruler [[Stjepan II Kotromanić]] with "Serb Othodox roots" based on [http://www.serbianunity.net/ Serb nationalistic site called Serbian unity], that supports war criminals. It says that [[Draža Mihajlović]], was a WWII hero. Draža Mihailović was sentenced as a war criminal and was executed in former Yugoslavia for crimes that he commited in eastern Bosnia. Draža was [[nazi]] supporter and collaborator. This site also supports [[Slobodan Milošević]], accused for genocide. This site was even quoted by Slobodan Milosevic during the trial. Also for instance he put his thesis in the article (smth about Serb origins etc), when I asked him to provide the source that would support his thesis, he gave me the source, and when I checked it, I found nothing there.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_II_of_Bosnia&diff=41050717&oldid=41004877]<br>As you can see the source was (Istorija srpskog naroda/History of Serb people, by Vladimir Ćorović), and HRE was so self-confident that he said: ''this is a proof that you don't even care one bit about this article; if you did, you would've read it and noticed the source;''. So I checked it and found that he lied. He also had fights with Croat, Albanian and Bosniak user. So he isn't a good choice.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Per Crazy Russian.
'''Strong Oppose''' for the fourth time.  This nomination is getting to be absoulutelly absurd and now it is going under radar of users who frequently edit articles where Holly's contributions have been considered biased to say the least.  While I have nothing personally against him I see this nomination problematic largely because his lack of knowledge or use of heavily biased sources to justify his agenda on Balkan related articles. --
'''Oppose'''. Actually, I don't think "assume good faith" means "pretend someone has never pushed a POV and never will again". Consequently, I have little faith that HRE will be able to resist the temptation to misuse the tools. If he foreswore "Balkan" articles for a few months, and built a record of constructive contribution elsewhere, I'd change my vote.
'''Oppose'''.  Civility concerns.  Seems like a reasonable enough candidate aside --
'''Strong Oppose''' per first two opposes. --
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian and RfA3a... There should be a rule that admin nominations can be repeated only after a year has passed. There is another thing which I consider pretty significant and which could be missed by the uninformed: the two administrators who usually deal with South Slav issues, [[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] and [[User:Joy|Joy]], have voted here. One voted "opposed" and the other voted "neutral"! --
'''Oppose''' due to civility concerns and per Grace Note. I think there are problems here that could be exacerbated by the addition of admin privs.
'''Oppose''' per my vote on the last RFA.  At the time, I described it as (after some finger-wagging from Linuxbeak) a terribly bad and extremely large messy heap of trouble waiting to happen.  I don't see anything having changed in the last two months to dissuade me from that.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think Wikipedia would be improved by HRE becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Grace Note.  Grace describes very well what HRE should do to establish an ability to be neutral.  I would say, specifically, 2 months.
I do not believe this user should ever be made an administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' per Proto.
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian. I am not yet convinced that this user can exhibit the calm, impartial demeanor regularly expected of administrators.  Per Grace Note, more controversy-free editing time is what is required to change my mind.
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is a good rule of thumb for RfAs. While I don't see any POV pushing in the last two months, and I do see lots of good work, there are some little things [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pri%C5%A1tina&diff=prev&oldid=57555403] which make me worried about his temper. Just a few days ago[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kubura&diff=prev&oldid=61192985] he used Serbian on a user talk page, which runs contrary to the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|guidelines]]. In general I am worried about how he would use admin powers. However, I am pleased with HRE's handling of debates for the most part and would like to see him continue his contributions.
'''Oppose'''. I didn’t vote during the last nomination, because I just couldn’t make up my mind. But now I do think that HRE is a gut contributor but he/she is not ready yet to become an administrator.--
'''Oppose'''. There was a lot to address from the last RfA, and I just don't think enough has been done. Incidentally, I don't believe for a moment that the last nom "failed because it had to be restarted" - it failed because a great deal of editors, respectable and otherwise, had a problem with HREs behaviour. It makes the nom sound, imo, extremely weaselly. <b>
'''Neutral''' for now. While the candidate has a lot of interaction with other users through talk pages, he only has 3% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I am afraid he will be a limited administrator who will only apply "corrections" to users in the articles where he is editing without reporting or discussing with other administrators. Also, replies to answers have been basically the same since his second nomination, even though they are outdated by now (the candidate claims ''Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions when someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react.''; however I could not find a report in [[WP:AIV]] nor [[WP:AN3]] from the user since March). Finally, the user does not appear to use test templates to warn users. Added some questions that may modify this vote in either direction. --
Per above.
Per above.
HRE was nominated three/four times in the last six months. Just two months ago, the score of the vote was 50:49:7 (and previous votes were 8/15/2, 4/6/1, 29/15/10). The current nominator says that the previous nomination failed because it "had to be restarted" - I find it hard to believe that it failed for mere procedural reasons; rather, it seems apparent that it failed because there were a whole bunch of discontents. It seems reasonable to try to figure out what the hell happened to the 49 people and their negative opinions. It would be a bit disappointing to find out that all of them are actually sockpuppets or complete morons or something which makes them irrelevant for the present voting just a couple of months later. --
Changing vote to '''Neutral''' per concerns by Czrussian. Perfectly valid concerns in the past RFAs have not been addressed. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Neutral''' per CrazyRussian and the rest. I can't trust editors who crave for adminship that much. --<font color="FC4339">





'''Oppose''' - Although I can say outright that Hurricanehink's contributions to articles on meteorological phenomena is truly amazing, I find the lack of vandalism reverts (despite that being what he would love to do as an admin) disconcerting. Vandalism reversion can be done by anybody (even anons), and I believe Hurricanehink should have some experience with this before becoming an admin. Some experience with xFDs would also be desirable. Also, I am a little concerned with the answer to the first question: ''"I feel they should be punished"'', because warnings/blocks/bans should never be a punitive measure, but rather a preventative one. However, I will be happy to consider supporting in future. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per TangoTango. It seems as though you have demonstrated some desire to help out on Wikipedia. However, as he/she said, your answer to the first question indicates a desire to participate in helping out with vandalism, but you have little participation in that arena. In addition, the range of contributions seems <s>far</s> too narrow for me. All of your edits seem to relate to hurricanes and tropical storms (although they are good). Perhaps if you were to broaden your editing scope and participate in discussions, reverting vandalism, and other actions that relate to admin capabilities, I'll support. Try again in July. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per your answer to question #1.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support. I feel this user is an amazing contributor & is an asset to Wikipedia. Excellent edits to hurricanes & tropical storms. But the lack of vandalism reversion or any other janitorial work, makes me doubt if the user actually needs the mop. I would request Hurricanehink not to be discouraged by any of the oppose votes or comments. Many excellent contributors have been lost due to failed RFA's. Adminship is not the validation of your worth as a contributor. Do keep up the good work & try & get involved in other areas of Wikipedia & I'm sure you can make it in a month or two. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong oppose'''. Malformed RfA, less than 500 edits, seems to be nominating themselves to be a part of a "new generation of administrators" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=49705388] which isn't mentioned in the nomination, suggesting deceptiveness. --
'''Strong oppose''' RFA not following the format. User is too new in a sense of experence. '''17''' main space edits???? --
'''Strong oppose''' per above. Too nclew.'''
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience and edits, especially Mainspace edits. Try again when your edit count rises. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong appose''' 17 mainsapce edits? This user obviously hasn't read any other RfAs before...
'''I don't want you to make the mistake I made when I was younger.''' You '''HAVE''' the potential, my friend, but your editcount is too low. Try again next time. You still have opportunities. Besides, to make it to the sysop list, please answer the questions allocated. That way we can see your capability. Get yourself aquainted to the community. Familiarise yourself. Then, fortify your heart and give it your best shot at adminship.--
'''Oppose''' and recommend withdrawal. Normally editors have edit counts into four digits before requesting adminship. Plenty to work on, I'm afraid.
'''Oppose''' Far too little experience to warrant the use of admin tools.  This person needs to become more involved with Wikipedia and projects in order to show that the status of admin is justified. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Strong oppose''' - Sorry but the admin tools are not ''to play with''. Indeed, there's no consistency in your contributions; you've taken ''long'' breaks away from Wikipedia and then come now self-nominating yourself?! -- ''
'''Neutral (Don't Pile On Neutral)''' You have very low edit count for a user who was a member since August 2005. Sorry about that. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I would usually like to see a little more experience, but I have interacted with the nominee enough to trust him with admin tools. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' excellent user. Has shown his familiarity with Wikipedia policies and can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' The oppose votes are incredibly weak. NBD, right? &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Good user but need more experience especially with articles, More userspace edits than article edits won't help much. In one month I will support --
'''Oppose''' I agree with [[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]].  This user seems to be off to a very good start, but needs more experience before adminship in my opinion.
'''Oppose, weakly''' with a suggestion that the candidate withdraw, and come back in a month. Good work with edit summaries, though.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Please come back in 2 months --
'''Oppose''' -- too many userboxes and in [[:Category:Users who support userboxes]] --
'''Oppose''', a little too little time on Wikipedia and far too many userboxes. Good work with edit summaries though. Please take heart of this criticism and reapply in a month or two. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', too many userboxes.
'''Oppose''', all of the project and template space edits seem to be concentrated on userboxes with very few article edits. I've nothing against userboxes, but he should really broaden his scope. -
'''Oppose''': nothing personal, but some important things about Wikipedia are learned only through experience. Please keep contributing, and consider trying again in a few months.
'''Neutral''' slight leaning towards oppose, I've no doubt this user will be capable as an admin, just needs a little more experience (month or two). --
'''Moral Support''' per all the oppose votes but you have been a good vandalfighter. But sadly this is not enough to grant you the tools right now. Consider contributing more to the project space. I would suggest a withdrawl now. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' 3½ months of contributions is generally not enough. Would be happy to consider supporting down the line tho. - <b>
'''Oppose'''  No where near enough edits and experience. Why does kola need admin powers? '''[[User:culverin|<font color="darkblue">Culv</font>]][[User:culverin/EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Withdraw this RfA and keep up the good work referenced in the answer to Q1.  Reapply around Easter time with that edit history and your case will be very strong.  Minor point - your answer to Q3 doesn't include any diffs.  It is so much easier to assess RfAs when the links to discussions-in-question are provided.
'''Oppose''' per aeropagitica. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
Being generous, you've only been actively editing for four months, and I'm not seeing these "many [[WP:AFD]] discussions". You have 100 AFD edits at most, and that isn't really "many" for four months. -
'''Neutral''' You seem to be doing a good job, but you might need some more experience before being given access to admin tools. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months time.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Way to go, Ice! :) <span style="font-size:100%;"><font color="darkblue">
'''Strong support''' as nominator. --
'''Support''', seen this user around and he's a good guy. [[User:69.214.31.217|69.214.31.217]] 20:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (signing after login <!--[[User:Where/sigContract]];Crazytales56297--><font face="Verdana">~&nbsp;<b>[[user:Crazytales56297/B0x3n|<font color="#8000ff">c.</font>]]&nbsp;
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''', Icelandic Hurricane (a.k.a. islenska hurikein #12 "his alter-ego") seems to have very great potential as of being an administrator, he is an experieneced Wikipedian and has contibuted a ton of great edits (along with a few other users) to make Wikipedia look fantastic.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Oh yes. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' Us [[New Hampshire|Granite Staters]] gotta stick together.
Moral '''support''' but urge that the nominee consider withdrawing at this time. Icelandic, you are obviously very dedicated to Wikipedia. You are a valued contributor and I hope you will stay one for many years to come. Please don't take the Oppose votes here as a negative commentary on the contributions you have to make. Up to now your focus has been on editing the articles and you don't need to be an Administrator to keep doing that (I try to add a couple of articles every day and I'm not an Admin myself). In the future, as you do more of the things that require Administrator access, that will be the time for you to re-apply. Also, I just saw the comment on the top of your user page. I am sorry you are feeling unhappy about some things in your real life, and I wish you all the best at putting them right. As much as it pains me to say it, additional online responsibilities might not be the best thing for you right now. Best wishes to you and see you around the weather pages!
'''Support'''
'''Über Strong Support''' '''<font color="blue">°≈§→</font>'''&nbsp;[[User:Robomaeyhem|<font color="black">Robom</font>]][[User:Robomaeyhem/Esperanza|<font color="green"><b>æ</b></font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Pikachu9000/Userbox|<font color="brown">~</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', edit count isn't everything and neither is your user page. ;) Please read up on [[WP:VAND]] and other maintenace tasks Wikipedians you can get up to before accepting any future RfA's. Get experience on many other parts of Wikipedia that an admin needs to know about. <small>I like Iceland! :)</small> --<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' - go for it, young one!!! I know you will do well.
'''Support''': I speculate that the system of selecting administrators are full-proof without any flaw, and so this will pass only if found suitable, and not because I have supported. I wish him all the best! One Oppose vote may do devastation, one support does not bring more supports as wikipedians are very intelligent. --
'''Strong oppose''' In the last 500 mainspace edits, I could find one instance of vandalism reversion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season&diff=next&oldid=64487300].  The user did not warn the vandal.  Almost 2000 User namespace edits. (1/4 of the his total edits).  The user has only participated in 2 XfDs, one of which was prompted by an internal spammer requesting a vote.  I am disappointed by the answers to the questions, and I see no demonstration of admin capabilities, or even a need for the tools.  I see minimal behind-the-scenes work.  The user also erred in image tagging [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alvan.jpg here], and recently his many subpages were listed for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Icelandic_Hurricane%27s_subpages here].  <s>That, and the user is very young (12? 13? 14?).</s>  Sorry, but I have to oppose
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience dealing with vandals.
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more of a need for admin. tools and participation in XfDs.  Until then, I must oppose.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry buddy, but I personally don't think you have enough experience to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''', I must also oppose.  Edit summary usage (44% for minor edits!) is really a problem, coupled with not a huge amount of Wikipedia space edits (although 359 does meet [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]]). I just can't support.  Also, if you don't mind me asking, did you get almost 2000 user space edits? And also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JG55&diff=prev&oldid=49091778], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JG55&diff=next&oldid=49091778], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JG55&diff=next&oldid=52239504], and many more of that sort worry me. —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">
'''OPPOSE'''.  Based on not enough AfD experience. I am  concerned by [[User_talk:Icelandic_Hurricane#2002_Tampa_Plane_Crash_and_Milan_Plane_Crash| THIS request to vote]] followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2002_Tampa_Plane_Crash&diff=67658599&oldid=67658264 This vote on an AfD.] as well as [[User_talk:Icelandic_Hurricane/July_Archive#2006_Long_Island_Sound_Plane_Crash| This cry for help]] on  another AfD resulting in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2006_Long_Island_Sound_Plane_Crash&diff=63422400&oldid=63413024 This vote to keep.]  The two are of four I found in last 500 edits and do not convince me user is ready for the tools.  I am also afraid that most of us not familiar with Icelandic would not recognize user's signature rendered “íslenska hurikein". Oh, I see opposer #1 already mentioned the 2AfD's. I am concerned that the "internal spammer" is actually a friend of the nom's. This may adversely affect nom's credibility when it comes to blocking or protecting.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, not impressed with answers. --
'''Oppose''': Administrators should use edit summaries more than 64% overall. But yes, Icelandic Hurricane is a strong asset to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|Wikiproject tropical cyclones]].
'''Oppose'''. In addition to some of the above comments, I'm not persuaded this editor needs the tools, especially after seeing his answer to question #1. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, but it's apparent from the answer given that this nominee isn't too sure why he needs the tools - or even if he really wants them.
'''Oppose'''. Weak answers, the statements were neither clear nor definitive. Admins need to be ascertive.
'''Oppose'''. As per [[User:Themindset]]. Definitely not administrator&ndash;worthy &mdash; yet, at least. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Oppose''' per answers to questions.--
'''Oppose'''. Mainly answer to question 1, but also due to inexperience concerns above. --
'''Oppose''' per all above, my main concern is low WP edits, little XfD experience, and lack of edit summaries. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose'''. I have worked with this editor in the past, and though I commend his enthusiasm, I feel that he is still too inexperienced. I also see no indication that there is any need for admin tools. --
'''Strong oppose''', no need for tools; more importantly, ''no knowledge of policy''.
'''Oppose''' per all above.  Also, for future reference to the candidate, spamming talk pages with RfA notices is a big no-no. --
'''Oppose''' due to vague answer to question 1 and lack of vandal reverts. -→
'''Oppose''' Per all above.  --
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions confirm my feelings from my interaction with him in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|Wikiproject tropical cyclones]] that while he is a good contributor, he would likely misuse the tools due to unfamiliarity with policy.--
'''Strong Oppose''' - weak answers to questions, the user does not appear to be familiar with Wikipedia policy and the purpose for admin tools. If he wants pages in his own userspace deleted, he can contact a sysop anyway, he needn't become one. He doesn't seem very familiar with the role of sysops either, and while I doubt he'll abuse the mop, I fear he'll make mistakes. The mop is too powerful. --
'''Oppose''' No experience with AFD's, not familiar with policy. -
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Chacor|Chacor]]. I needn't do any more review than that to see an unfamiliarity with policy that's damaging but, when I see the nominor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icelandic_Hurricane&diff=prev&oldid=69208632 remind the nominee] how to behave like an admin, that's fatal. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Oppose''' ~
'''Oppose''' I was ''neutral'' pending the expansion of the question answers; as Chacor, I was a bit disconcerted by those expanded answers, and, as Draicone, I fear not ''abuse'' but ''misuse''.
'''Oppose''' ~ Not because of the article situation, but i agree with the 25 above me.(Neutral before) You're answers aren't strong for adminship.
'''Oppose''', regrettably. The new answers to the RfA questions really concern me; however, I don't think you would try to intentionally misuse sysop privileges. A few pointers: Take a look at [[WP:CUV]], and see how vandalism can be currently dealt with; Participate on [[WP:AFD]], to get a handle on how deletion policy really works (you may also want to read [[WP:DGFA]] and [[WP:DP]] as well). Also, watchlist [[WT:RFA]], so you can see what is currently expected of admin candidates. Overall, you're a good editor, you just need a bit more.
'''Oppose''' because adminship means more time here, not less. I think you have the stuff that great editors are made of, but you're not quite there yet. With more experience and exposure to RC patrol and WikiDebates, I'll be happy to support in a few months.
Good editor, needs more work outside of article space. '''Oppose''', for now. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per [[user:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]] and other concerns addressed above.
'''Oppose''' per Chacor and Titoxd. I'll gladly support if you can address the issues listed above in a few months. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per everything above.  You need a lot more experience and your answers to the questions are vastly insufficient and lacking substance.  Sorry, stick with it a little longer and I will be glad to support. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - weak answers to questions. May support if more comprehensive answers are provided. '''
'''Neutral''': Passes eight-month minimum and has excellent potential. But she has yet to be involved in a lot of vandal fighting (not to mention summaries), and her answers have been rather short. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral'''. Very good user, as I noted on [[Wikipedia:Editor Review/Icelandic Hurricane|his editor review]], but I'm not sure how to vote. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' A great editor but weak answers to questions. I may support in about three months times. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Neutral''' for now. I'm a little worried about the answers to the questions, as they are not very enthusiastic. Seems to be experienced, but could do more vandal fighting before the next RfA. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Neutral''' Seems like a nice guy, but not right now.
'''It's a little too early to decide'''. Try again later.--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">an</font>]][[User Talk:tdxiang|<font color="gold">g</font>]]
'''Support''' I am a fan of Idleguy's works.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Very strong Support''' as nominator – with utmost pleasure. --
'''Support''' I see a great admin in him.
'''Support''' Had very pleasant interaction with him in many articles. --
'''Support''' Had good interactions with him on the [[Veganism]] article.  He brought a fresh and unusual perspective into a situation that had become a tired, ideologically-driven debate.
'''Support''' 2 barnstars of national merit for work on different countries and on the topics he works that have high controversy potential! Was supposed to nominate or co-nominate him, but... "et tu Bhadani, then just an ordinary vote GB" <dramatic flourish> --
Definite '''support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Excellent contributions, great potential for adminship.
'''Support'''. Great and prolific editor. --<small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Idleguy's confrontations with Anonym and SV are over 4 months old. Since then Idle has matured into a wonderful editor. The arguments were about controversial issues, issues that always develop into edit wars no matter how civil you are.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Editing and trying to bring NPOV to contentious articles is often a thankless job. Idleguy has neither compromised on the quality of his edits nor has he shied away from contentious issues and has tried to bring NPOV to the articles he has worked on thus far.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' but providing edit summaries for minor edits will be much better.--
'''Support'''.  I have been directly involved in a few minor conflicts with Idleguy, and I completely agree with SlimVirgin's version of events regarding his past behavior.  However, I feel that Idleguy has changed, and can be trusted with the admin tools.  I also think that much of the conflict has been due to poor communication on both sides, as well as a lack of respect and cultural understanding. &mdash;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Anonymous editor has done himself "many things that are not acceptable for any editor". I don't know why he brings up these two articles, he is probably thinking that nobody on wikipedia is checking or verifying anything. Anomyous editor has been pov-warring and edit-warring and deleting text in these two articles before Idleguy made these edits that Anon tries to criticize. Some of Anonymous editors diff's in these two articles can be seen here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Talk_pages]. Read also the article history. Anonymous editor was also the first who added a biased description of the pov-tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&diff=23541460&oldid=23410270] , then others added the other pov, and then Anon editor and others were edit-warring over it. Idleguy cites references from both sides (for example in articles about India-Paksitan he also cites Pakistani sources), and he actually cites sources, he doesn't just delete them like Anon editor.  Anon editor could learn a lot from Idleguy, I really hope he would promise to learn from Idleguy instead of making baseless accusations. And as these messages show [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=24700752] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=24973019] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nichalp&diff=prev&oldid=24988801] , Idleguy has tried to discuss the things with Anon editor and with other editors. These messages are just the type of messages that one expects from an editor who is encountering such problems. It would also help to look at other articles like Hamas, London bombings,.. to see that editors who delete text and negative statements about terrorists and terrorism are much more criticized in other articles.  About Slim Virgins objection, I don't know if SV or Idleguy or both are guilty, but the matter is old and it is silly to mention this again and again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Idleguy]

'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' per Pamri, Viriditas, Nichalp, etc. Sympathetic to concerns raised by Anonymous editor, SV, etc. But after reading discussion on talk, IMHO much of the more recent disagreements and much of that from October 2005 arose from cross-cultural misunderstandings, not unilateral trolling/incivility by Idleguy. Impressed by his work at Kargil War, etc. Looking at a few selected diffs from his more recent edit history revealed little/nothing that was problematic/uncivil. Still, I encourage Idleguy to issue a more clearly-worded apology to people who took offense from his behavior in October.
'''Support''' per others.--
'''Strong support'''. Idleguy is involved ''mainly'' in pages that define "dispute" on WP (wars and insurgencies) and his edits have been so tempered and skilled as to preserve him from all controversy. I cannot imagine what greater evidence of having the required admin-skills can possibly be proffered by a candidate. It is galling, a matter of great consternation, that some one-off incident of five months ago, on '''''[[Veganism|a totally uncontroversial page]]''''', is being taken as definitive depiction of his personality. I find it quite impossible to believe that Idleguy (or if I may add, any ''Indian'') is dead-set against vegetarianism or veganism. A great part of that dispute has got to do with culture (the undergrad/grad confusion). Certainly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=35954668&oldid=35954601 this edit] results from misunderstanding; the first sentence of the paper reads ''"In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis argues that the number of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of animals killed in crop production"''. Now this could be one valid PoV, but Idleguy almost definitely thought that, coming (as he thought it did) from an undergrad, the paper could not be all that valuable. He summarily deleted it without realizing that the paper actually ''refuted'' the assertion made in the first sentence. If this is his major transgression in recent months, he is uncontroversial to the point of being insipid. I request people who voted against him to '''just look a little deeper into his contributions and revise their vote'''. The matter can yet be remedied, and I urge taking an overall perspective on this matter. Let our decisions be informed not by vengefulness but by broadmindedness and a more thorough investigation of Idleguy's contributions. Regards,
'''Support''' A great editor who can bring up articles like [[Kargil War]] from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kargil_War&oldid=15080891 this state] to featured status. He's shown his balanced mindset and respect for [[WP:NPOV]] in this article and on many of his earlier contributions. --
'''Support'''. I think most of the editors are in the making at WP. All of us have had our moments of arguments and agreements. I think its sad and unhealthy for WP when talk page troubles [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrorism_in_Pakistan] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrorism_in_Kashmir] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kargil_War] over a topic or two between individuals transition into full-time biases for each other, and the community is ''moved'' on such bases rather than merit. A neutral eye would see 'civility' issues either way on the talk pages, I suppose. I think each party should be subjected to the same yardstick, and thus I have marked ''Support'' rather than ''Neutral''. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">
'''Support''', interesting controversy here. I'll steer clear of it, and just say that you'd make a great admin. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' I can't support him right now. He has done many things that are not acceptable for any editor such as often using personal attacks in edit summaries. An example is one where he attacks me by saying that I "should be rubbished". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=24861941]. He also revert wars without discussing such as this one where he says that an article has pro-terrorist bias without explanation of who/what he is talking about. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&diff=prev&oldid=24618510]. He spent too much time arguing on edit summaries instead of using talk pages until he violates 3rr when he was the one who originally wanted to add controversial information and ''then'' starts using it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&diff=prev&oldid=24832792]. He has also done other things that showed bad faith such as reporting Administrator [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] to [[vandalism in progress]] over a small dispute [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=prev&oldid=25729547] and using a '''test 4 Vandal warning''' on her! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=25728892]. Sorry but I don't believe that Idleguy is ready for this right now. I will support next time if he improves. --
'''Strong oppose'''. Idleguy is rude to the point of belligerence.
'''Strongly oppose'''. Occasionally brusque I could live with.
'''Oppose''' - I observed his interactions with SV on her talk page over the image issues and I found his behaviour overly rude, agrresive and inflexible.  I am disappointed in his failure to mention issues like this in his response to question #3.  He needs to settle down and learn to accept views other than his own.
Oppose. Doesn't yet have the appropriate level of maturity. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' I wish I could support, but I can't. I respect the value of his contributions, but his interactions with SV lead me to believe he is not mature enough to be an admin.  I do realize that people can change, but I'd need more time to believe that he has.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Some good contributions, but seems too hot-tempered to be trustworthy. -
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about civility issues.
'''Oppose'''.  The various examples and diffs above are significant, and his response to them (no apology, and only the faintest of nods in the direction of any sort of admission that his behaviour was appalling), make it seem very unlikely that he's changed.  It's also not clear to me from his answer to question 1, below, why he need admin tools. --
'''Oppose'''.  The concerns over incivility expressed above concern me as well. --
'''Oppose'''. After reviewing this editor's contributions to [[Vegetarianism]], [[Veganism]], and related topics, it appears to me that he has engaged in edit warring, has been dismissive of other viewpoints and editors, and has made major edits without discussion or consensus despite the complaints of other editors. I do not think that this editor is accomodating of other viewpoints, or knows how to "write for the enemy". I do note that he remained reasonably calm despite one or more editors who were apparently bating him. -
'''Oppose'''. Civility is very important.

'''Oppose''' because of concerns about civility.
'''Oppose''' per Civilty not much wiki namespace edits, maybe later --
'''Oppose''' Not suitable. Edit counts and edit summaries are only signs of dedication. Inflammatory assaults and personal attacks are the exact things an administrator IMHO should ''never'' do.
'''Oppose''' on civility and maturity.
'''Oppose'''(with considerable regret in view of positive contributions) per several editors above. Evidence presented, although anecdotal and limited to specific incidents, shows either lack of familiarity with, or unwillingness to follow, accepted policy and practice. Further, Idleguy's responses (and continued arguing of points) show a less than collegial approach to resolving disputes and an unwillingness to accept feedback graciously. (not incivil, just inflexible) <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Oppose''' civility issues and low edit summary usage, an excellent editor, but not ready for admin
'''Oppose''' Civility issues suggest that the user needs more time to learn wiki-love.
'''Weak Oppose''' not enough wiki space edits and user talks --
'''Oppose''' per Lar.
'''oppose'''. adminship is not a prize for being a good user. [[WP:ANOT]]. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''', SlimVirgin's comments and the nominee's responses convinced me.
'''Neutral''': I was going to vote for, but was concerned with respect to [[user:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]]'s comments.  Would like to see a response to my question before I decide. --
'''Neutral'''.  Not so civil. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but lacks [[Wikipedia:Civility|people skills]].
'''Neutral''' per above. Not absolutely convinced he can't deal with conflicts but not absolutely convinced he can.
'''Neutral''' as per above.
'''Neutral''' changed from Support after some more investigation. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Neutral.''' The civility concerns may be from more than a few months ago, but they give me reason to be hesitant in supporting.



'''First Support''' Because there's no reason to vote otherwise. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - An overall good user, I can't see why I should vote oppose. '''''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]]
'''Support''' Not had much contact, but I do know that he is a good, solid editor, and would make a good admin. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' Trustworthy user.
'''(edit conflict!) Support''' per Moe.
'''OMG More Edit Conflict Support'''. "I thought this user was already an admin."<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Wanted to nominate but didn't know candidate wasn't an admin, oh well, I ought as well vote for them anyway because they are an excellent user and yes I want to hold and be remembered for a Wikimedia-projects-wide record for the most bold words in a bolded support sentence, anyway, I guess I will support already and here is my support vote... drumroll please... Support.''' [[user:GangstaEB|<font color="black">Gang</font>]][[user talk:GangstaEB|<font color="red">sta</font>]][[Special:Contributions/GangstaEB|<font color="green">EB</font>]] ([[user:GangstaEB/PenguinLog#Ice Slides|sliding logs]]~
'''Thought you were an admin support'''
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support.'''

[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' Helpful, friendly user. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. <s>RfA voting is cool!</s> :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Ikiroid has shown himself to be a very capable editor, his work on IPA alone is evidence of this, and, what is more, he has given absolutely no reason to believe he cannot be trusted with a few more buttons.
'''Support'''.  May not be overly active in AfDs, but he's contributed a lot to [[WP:AN/I]] and [[WP:AIAV]] and others.  Seems to have an interest in becoming an administrator and I think he's up to the task.  --
The perfect candidate acts like an admin before thinking on filling out the application. Ikiroid has done this, and has my trust. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''', I like what I see. The only arguments against seem to me related to edit count, which are valid but not convincing for this editor. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' First class editor -
'''Support''' per [[User:HighwayCello|Highwaycello]].
'''Support''', definitely deserves the mop.
'''Support'''. Even if he falls short of some of our standards, we sometimes have to make exceptions. It's great having editors who are willing to tidy up the project.
'''Support''' as per above. --
'''support''', thought Ikiroid was an admin already. ~
'''Support''' While the candidate has a low number of mainspace edits, everything else about him is perfect. He has also been in enough disputes that it is clear that he keeps his cool and tries to work out reasonable compromises.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - candidate [{{fullurl:User talk:Hildanknight|diff=prev&oldid=64529960}} knows] what he must know, and is not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' as per '''''excellent''''' answers to my questions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -→
'''Weak Support''' A good editor but mainspace edits are low. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Basically meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. I would've liked to see more AfD participation, but it doesn't sound like that'll be your main focus and the random diffs I checked looked fine.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support.''' My interactions with Ikiroid have been consistently positive, a bona fide contributor, and I'd reckon the number and nature of edits sufficient to be able to assess as highly unlikely to abuse the extra tools.--
See [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Support''' per CJLL, Royboy, Aguerriero, and Rje, to name four, and inasmuch as none of the reasons for which others have ''oppose''d seems at all persuasive to me.
'''Support.'''  A hard worker who looks out for the newcomers.--
'''Switched from neutral to support'''. After watching this RFA, a few things have shown me that Ikiroid is [[Taco Bell|good to go]], mostly based on the optional questions. First of all, Ikiroid has demonstrated that they are smart, which is good, because smart people should run things, as opposed to...the alternative. Second, Ikiroid has shown that they understand all the different aspects of Wikipedia, which is also important, since we're giving Ikiroid more buttons. Finally, Ikiroid has enough edits and has that whole good attitude thing (a nice touch). Besides, my orginal reason for voting neutral is pretty stupid. On a scale from 1 to stupid it's about a 6.5. I hope people understand my change of heart. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Heart and mind in the right place and functioning suitably.
'''Support''', despite the reservations of users below, I think this user has proved he's grown as a user, and his good attitude ("help me improve myself") impresses me. --<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' Absolutely. "More people like this candidate, please." Always a pleasure to talk to, very kind to other users, an excellent editor, more than capable and responsible enough for the tools. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Natha'''</span>]]
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. Fine admin candidate with alot to offer.
'''Support''' along the same lines as Clyde Miller.  Candidate appears to understand the value of interaction over process.
I totlay support you.
'''Support''': prefer more edits (or exceptional work), but honest approach and no disasters a plus. More positive than negative.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Has only about 20 AfD edits--most of the Wikipedia namespace edits are [[WP:AIV]] related.  In a few months with more active participation in AfD, CfD, etc, or some other exhibition of policy knowledge, I'll be happy to support.
'''Oppose''' Fails [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] which calls for 1000 mainspace article edits.  We are building an encyclopedia, after all.  And the low article count was not helped by Ikiroid calling most of his work that of "a wikignome or wikifairy".  A great editor otherwise, however. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Oppose''' per Mets501.
'''Oppose''' per Mackense and because of this user's extremely uncivil comments, close to a personal attack, regarding me on the AN/I board.
'''Oppose''' per to low mainspace edit count
'''Oppose''' per above. I am quite lenient on mainspace edits, but they are an excersise in article policy (not just direct behavoir policy). If a high amount of the edits where large, then I'd be fine, as less edits of high quality can give as much or more experience as many smaller edits, but that is not the case either.'''
'''Oppose''', would like to see a higher mainspace edit count.
'''Oppose''' for Stifle.--
'''Oppose''' per much of the above. Especially VivianDarkbloom's experience. Someone with no or terrible public relations skills should NEVER be an admin, especially here in Wikipedia. --
'''Switch from Neutral to Oppose''' per editcount and VD's concerns. - <b>
I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but the only reason I recognized Ikiroid's name was that he stuck out in my mind for this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blu_Aardvark&diff=58475789&oldid=58446362], where he seems to be encouraging Blu Aardvark, a well-known banned user during his arbitration case, and thanking him for "giving Wikipedia another chance". This causes me to question your priorities (thank ''him'', ''then''?), but also you judgment, as it is clear to me that by that point the editor in question had exhausted his chances with personal attacks, vandalism, and other petty disruption, and I'm not sure what to think of an admin candidate who would think otherwise. Perhaps it was simply ignorance of the case, in any case, I'd like to hear a response. I am also concerned by the statement: "you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away". This apears to me to be both misinformed (we've always had problems with banned users not giving up: Wik, Zephram Stark, Jason Gastrich, Bonaparte, etc.) and an unsettling comment nonetheless, since we desperately ''want'' banned users to go away; I can't think of a less subtle hint. Users are banned for widescale and persistent disruption, or personal attacks, or edit warring, or in this case, all three. I can't understand why that was worthy of encouragement and admiration.
'''Oppose''' mainspace edits are just too low for me, sorry.
'''Oppose'''; lack of real editing and per Dmcdevit.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I must oppose. Not impressed by answers to questions and other comments on RFA. Seems to be blaming Wikipedia admins for harming users while carrying out Wikipedia blocking and banning policies. Sorry, I can not support a nom with this attitude.
'''Oppose''' as I don't see much need for mop. This editor spends as much time on user talk pages as he does editing articles, which shows good communication. But I can't accept the, "I'd write more but it's already been written," argument. I have edited lots of articles, adding to them, outside my fund of knowledge. What I did was research it then write about it, this also allows me to add references as well.
'''Oppose''' the fact they want to close AfDs (as mentioned in answers) whilst they haven't gained ''that'' much experience with them already is quite worrying. I fear their experience may be on the weak side. Also not a huge amount of edits considering they've been here since November 2005, but I would certainly consider supporting any of the users future RfAs. Would recommend user trying again in a few months when they've gained more experience/edits.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Per Andeh above. --
'''Oppose''' per FloNight above, and low edit count.
'''Neutral''' I am wary because the number of mainspace edits is lower than I want, as the main importance of this website is to create the encyclopedia itself. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a good user, but I won't call 17 AIV edits to be numerous. The mainspace and WP space edits  is little low for me. (This is after factoring in the 86 more significant edits shown in VoS's JS). --
'''Neutral''' Impressive candidate from what I can tell from reading current and archived talk pages; less experience than I'd like to see. (I'm cautious about new admins and like to see more experience than most voters). My vote may change as more users share their experiences.--
'''Neutral'''. I believe that 1000 mainspace edits is a good minimum for potential admins to shoot for before accepting nomination. But I do not find anything else out of place... will support on re-app if all is in order then.
'''Neutral''' on the lack of [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and article edits. Good luck in a few more months. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''', lacks of article edits, can't oppose, would really want to support. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I only counted 17 reports to [[WP:AIV]] (not as "numerous" as I was expecting) and his lack of AfD experience is a bit concerning if he wants to start closing them.  I also would've liked him to have a bit more article writing, as that's the primary reason why we're all here. However, I '''really''' like the candidate's attitude (evidenced from his answer to Seviad's Q2) and I think he could potentially be a good administrator.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' The reviews above provide mixed messages...Having not encountered this user, I cannot provide my own evaluation.
'''Neutral''' per Hoopydink. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per Hoopydink, because I haven't encountered Ikiroid myself.
'''Neutral''' Very impressed with the thoughtful answer to my essay question, but have some serious concerns about interaction with BluAardvark per [[User:Dmcdevit]]. ++
'''Neutral'''. I did not find the nominee's answers to the "standard" questions compelling and the "oppose" comments give reason to pause; however, the answer to the optional question was excellent. If only that quality shone through the rest of the answers and reasons for the nomination, I'd lean much more to support. If this RfA succeeds, then fine (as adminship is supposed to be no big deal); if not, I'm likely to support in the future.
'''Neutral''' per Lar --
First support... <_<
zOMG <s>first</s> second person to support (sorry ;-) -Red) '''Support'''. Seriously, ILP is an excellent editor, excellent interpersonal skills, I'm honoured to support him. — <font colour="navy"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|Natha]]
'''Support''' Friendly user, balanced edits; I see no problems. However, I am bothered by the candidate's crunchiness when he is consumed as sustenance; makes for some unpleasent stomach pains...
<span class=votesupport>'''Support before nom support!'''</span> --<font size="1">
'''support''' as per above.
'''Strong support''' <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' per above.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' per GeorgeMoney. [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' per everyone! --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this user around alot, very active, will be a great admin. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Strong Support''' Meets my critera, plus, excellent and friendly user. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[User:Linuxerist/Wikipediholic|A]]/[[Special:Contributions/Linuxerist|C]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Linuxerist|E]]/[[User:Linuxerist|L]]/[[User:GeorgeMoney/potd|P]]/
'''Weak Support''' Tempted-to Oppose Though I really think he's a good user and could be an amdin.
'''Support''', super-friendly user! -- [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' will be a great asset. -- <i>
'''Support''', you show great enthusiasm.
'''Support''' I love ILovePlankton. :) -→
'''Support'''. Great editor. Will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Would make a fantastic admin, kind, helpful, good editor, I can't say enough! <font face="Book Antiqua" color="#FF00FF">
'''Support''' Is friendly editor, no doubt about it. Will make great admin. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Super Strong Support''' A very kind user, know his way round wikipedia, would make a good admin. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''', friendly, helpful, kind and a great user. My interactions on IRC have been always great, I'm very sure he will make a great admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Moderate Support''' From my interactions with ILP, I have determined that he will not abuse his tools and therefore there is no reason for him not to have them. However, he hasn't been here very long, so I hope his knowledge of policy is indeed good enough. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support!!!''' Give em' the mop already!! --<font color="black">
'''Support'''. No doubts for me. <tt>
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Best. User. Evah. OK, well maybe not the best, but you get my point! ;-) --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|What up?]]
'''Moderate support''' per Xyrael, whose explanation is much clearer and more succinct than mine would have been, and so whom you can thank for my terseness.
'''Strong Support''' - has remained civil and kept a cool head despite rather incivil comments from Cyde (see below). We need more admins who are capable of staying calm in such situations.
'''Support'''.'''
'''Strong Support''' - I don't actually know him, but I've seen him around, has a ton of good edits, and deserves it. <FONT COLOR="#800000">[[User:Oreos|O]]</font><FONT COLOR="#000000">[[User:Oreos|r]]</FONT><FONT COLOR="#e6e6e6">[[User:Oreos|e]]</FONT><FONT COLOR="#666666">[[User:Oreos|o]]</FONT><FONT COLOR="#4c1900">
'''Strong Support''' for colorful signatures! <small>but seriously ILovePlankton is a very friendly and dedicated user and highly deserving of the mop</small>
'''Conditional Support.''' I know you are dedicated to Wikipedia, and you are extremely friendly and civil. But if you are given a mop, you need to promise me that you will frequent the [[WP:ANI]] and get more involved with the group of people that manage Wikipedia, not just the people that you fall back on for friendship and support.--
'''Support''' A bit new, but looks like a decent person, and having good [[WP:FAITH]] that the problems below are not intentional. -
'''Support''' Strikes me as a passionate user, but that's a ''good'' thing. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[User:Fang Aili/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. I'm glad this didn't happen during may. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''! He wasn't an admin already!?!? '''[[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]]
'''Support.''' — '''''FireFox <sup>
'''Support.''' Nice person. Give him the mop. --[[User:Actown|Ac]]'''''[[User talk:Actown|t]]'''''[[User:Actown|o]]'''''[[Wikipedia:Welcoming_Committee|w]]'''''
'''Support''' - I thought I voted already. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Strong oppose''' - [[User_talk:ILovePlankton#User:ILovePlankton.2FMy_loyalties_to_my_friends]]; fails my criteria re. project edits.
'''Mid-WikiBreak strong oppose''' per NSLE. I'm uncomfortable with giving the mop to a user who has had such sentiments in the very recent past.
'''Oppose - for now''' It is my opinion and for the record...from recent posts by ILovePlankton on my ([[User talk:KAS|talk]]) page that ILovePlankton appears to me to be impulsive and responds emotionally rather then objectively and in a constructive way.  I’ve seen him write in a mimic style to a Wikipedia editor (me) in “conceding tone” rather then be helpful and handle a situation matter-of-factly.  His interaction with me wasn’t helpful but tended to escalate a situation rather then to deescalate it.  I would think this is a grave concern that this type of emotional and impulsive personality profile would have ADMIN powers.  He may well be a good ADMIN later, but for now I think he needs to work on his style of communication and constructive skills. Example: Such statements, ''With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP" and "What the hell are you talking about?'' I also do not think ILovePlankton has a clear understanding of policies.  My page was blanked after I made a very favorable edit on my USER page and forgot to sign in.  The edit only showed an IP.  Judgment would dictate it was a positive and favorable edit and that perhaps the USER forgot to sign in.  But his way to handle the situation was to take sides and state:  ‘’“With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP"’’ and this in your face tone won’t be that productive on Wikipedia. I think it's not the quantity of the edits he has made but the quality of the edits that are most important, that is "especially" in situations when emotions are escalating. In my view his condescending tone is the worst part of it.  I think if he were to work on not being condescending that would a great start.  Maybe an ADMIN later, but I think, again, he needs to develop his skills on handling adverse situations and show a more objective view frist.  But then again, this is only my opinion, and I am sure the powers that be will look into for themselves and make their own conclusions.
'''Oppose'''. I was considering voting Neutral as ILovePlankton has <s>a good user name</s> done a lot good maintenance work. However, the more I think about it the more concerned I am with the point made by NSLE. Such comments, while reflecting well on ILP as a person, are counterproductive for an admin to have in their user area because it adds fuel to the oft-repeated accusations that we are cliquey and have favourites. I also share KAS's concerns that ILP has the tendency to act emotionally rather than objectively. I could well support in the future if these issues are resolved or left in the past.
'''Oppose for now''' Well on the way.  Just needs more time. Reverts, warns, and reports vandals. Takes part in AfD discussions. However, edit count is a little low given the power of VandalProof. Answer to question 2 does not show strength as an editor. Willingness to be banned in support of one's friends is not a strength in an admin, even if the statement to that effect has been recently removed. A cabal of friends advocating/arguing against opposers does not help even  a little. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KAS&diff=prev&oldid=55433322 The "hell" quote]  indicates incivility and quick temperedness not suitable in an admin. Also, the recent use of a copyrighted image  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AILovePlankton&diff=56056444&oldid=56053295 on your userpage may indicate a lack of understanding of policy.] Cheers

Way too much focus on the "community" aspect and very little focus on the actual encyclopedia.  He seems to think [[WP:SIG|guidelines]] are something that should be flouted, not followed.  --
'''Oppose''' until a little more mature: fix that signature; lose that daft "loyalty" thing (as an admin, your loyalty should be to the wiki as a whole, otherwise your neutrality is hopelessly compromised); fix your user page (so that it actually fits into one screen width—at the minute it looks like something an HTML tutor might use as an example of "what not to do"—I have to scroll rightwards '''five times''' to see the far side) and above all learn to take criticism (as an admin you would expect to receive it by the bucket-load, not drip-wise as you have been doing). HTH HAND —
'''Oppose'''. Friendship is something dearly, but expressing you would get banned to defend them raised some concerns in me about the [[WP:NPOV]] every admin must have. I don't agree with all KAS does, but I agree that the candidate's behaviour left a lot to be desired. The user seems to be good contact with other users through User talk pages, but his 2% of edits in article talks is just too low. Nice to see ILovePlankton started editing summaries, hopefully he will continue doing so. Maybe in a couple of months, controlling his temperament and participating more in article development. By the way, Nathan, you should strike things out, not delete. --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE and Dlohcierekim. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per the above; not confident of this user's maturity and understanding of the project.
'''Oppose''' unimpressed by responses to Cyde above, and as per NSLE.
'''Oppose''', I think this user has learned a lot over the last few months, but he still has a lot more to learn, in my opinion he's not ready for adminship yet. --
'''Oppose''', if only because of his responses to several (IMHO reasonable) criticisms on this page, particularly to Cyde.  Also per Christopher Parham, Sidaway, Dlohcierekim, and Cyde.  Also, number of Talk edits is remarkably low for admin candidate, however, this wouldn't be a dealbreaker if it weren't for the other stuff. --
Not at this point. --
'''Oppose'''. ILovePlankton has a prodigious edit count, but is still fairly new to Wikipedia. I'm troubled by the slightly over-sensitive reactions to several of the oppose votes above by both ILovePlankton and Nathan (whose over-anxious desire to help fight ILovePlankton's battle is troubling given the concerns raised regarding ILovePlankton's past comments on how he'd do anything - even risk getting banned - for friends). I don't think this candidate is ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose'''.  Very good guy, just needs a bit more work on understanding policy and keeping cool. .:.
'''Oppose'''. Considering that people generally try to show their ''best'' side during the week the RFA lasts, I find some of the candidate's responses on this page quite worrying, especially the replies to Cyde.
'''Strong Oppose'''; I don't believe this user understands the "pedia" part of Wikipedia.  Also, behavior on this page and elsewhere is a bit disturbing.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. The reaction to some of the questions here is lacking the grace you might expect from someone whose suitability for administratorhip is being discussed. This, along with some misguided comments in the recent past, leads me to oppose at this time. '''
'''Oppose''', per JoanneB above. Also, I would recommend getting some decent article work under your belt. In my experience, it helps with stress no end, and helps you centre on the goal of the project: that of an encyclopedia. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per NSLE and Tony Sidaway. Maybe later. --
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' per Rockpocket; also I'm not pleased with his attitude towards community guidelines.
'''Oppose''', for now. If you continue maturing at this rate, though, I'd be glad to support you in your second RfA a few months from now. (Also, both you and Cyde said "flaunt" when you meant "flout"; I've fixed that.)
'''Oppose''' just too soon. Matbe in a few months. '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''Oppose''' The Esperanza Election fight is still too fresh in my head. That and lack of time. Sorry, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, Kimchi, and Zaxem.
Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks!
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, Kimchi.sg, KAS. I was going to support, but this sort of stuff can't be done by an administrator. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>

'''Oppose'''.  User [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FTony_Sidaway_3&diff=56272513&oldid=56272362 treats an RfC as a threaded internet debate].  Indignation over signature indicates that the user probably isn't prepared to handle admin-level criticism.
'''Weak oppose'''. Nice guy, and very friendly, but not sure if he's experienced enough for admin tools. Cheerfullness is a plus. "Loyalties to friends" is a forgivable minus. Submission to oppose votes based on signature is a minor minus - minor because it's good to try and please people; I just think there are some things where you have to stand up for yourself. All in all, ILP needs to consider his actions more carefully. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per lots of oppose comments. This RfA has gone horribly pear-shaped and loyal friend Nathan hasn't helped it much. But take candidate's statement, ''"By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him."'' Will be in a better place for adminship when the reply doesn't need the explanation, i.e. when the reply is, "(I'm sorry) I don't understand you."
'''Oppose'''.  I am concerned as to how Iloveplankton woul react, at the moment, in a difficult situation.
'''
'''Oppose''', arguing with oppose votes isn't the way to go. Additionally, low number of edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests poor policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''', to controversial at this time. Also the arguing with Oppose votes doesn't help.
'''Oppose''' Too few edits in the template space, and fails nine months.
'''Oppose'''. The things I've read by him in Wikipedia space suggest he has little grasp of policy. <s>Also his signature is really annoying, I don't know many admins with confusing sigs like that.</s> Okay, you changed it, thank you. Your most recent edit that gave me misgivings is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Civility_noticeboard|here]]- read comments from others on that page for suggestions.
'''Weak oppose''' putting aside the editcountis (Interiot's tool is down for a reason!), this user appears to have little experience with policy or the non-article spaces. <s>With a little more experience, I'm sure that he wouldn't heckle oppose votes so much as well.</s> Actually, to be fair some of the people above deserved it.
'''Oppose''' [[User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends|Friendship is the biggest cause of corruption]]. I would like Wikipedia Admins to be neutral.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:HighwayCello|HighwayCello]] and that entire incident.
'''Neutral leaning support''' I've had many positive experiences, though the lack of edits in the Talk: space is slightly concerning.
'''Neutral''' Less than 100 article talks is concerning.--
<s>'''Oppose'''.  [[Internet Explorer]] is still an 80+% share of the internet and your user page is utterly unreadable in IE.  It is the wrong message to send to visitors.  I brought this up at ILP's talk and he said he couldn't fix it, which in practice means he is unwilling to consider the needs of the readership as a whole in (re)designing his page.  I believe this issue should be immenently correctable, and I will consider other aspects of the nom if this one is addressed.
'''Neutral''', very strong at building community, excellent vandal fighter, but not enough building of articles in the mainspace.  Contrary to those above, I don't think the "my loyalties to my friends" thing is daft; rather, I think the world would be a far better place if more people were as loyal to their friends.  Please edit more substantially in the mainspace (pick a couple of articles, go to the library, and just build them up!) and you will gain the experience to have my support.  --
'''Neutral''' - would support, especially given the user's positive community involvement and support in fighting vandalism, as well as the questionable reasoning from a couple of those opposing, but [[User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends]] worries me ... a lot.  Of specific concern is this - "''I will NEVER attack them or be uncivil towards them''".  On WP, we should not attack or be uncivil to anyone - friend or otherwise.  The mention of this implies, or at least seems to imply, that in the user's view, it is possible that loyalty to friends could be at odds with civility towards others.  I would humbly suggest examining what message you are desiring to communicate here.
'''Neutral''' I have mixed feelings.
'''Neutral''', great editor, though I'm concerned about his low amount of article talk pages edits, his responses to Cyde, and his [[User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends]]. I also recommend more work on mainspace articles and a bit more project involvement. --<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Neutral''' not sure
'''Neutral''' Good name, good sense of humor.  With a bit more time should be a fine admin.  Fix the little problems mentioned in the oppositon votes and I'll support you next time around (remind me--I don't often read RfA). -
'''Neutral''' – not enough problems to merit an oppose, but not sure about understanding of policy –

'''Neutral'''. I've seen good, level-headed comments on AFD and elsewhere from ILP, but three and a half months is too soon - adminship this early is risking the possibility of both burnout and unfamiliarity with some parts of the community. I'm a little concerned about some of the ''oppose'' points, but I think it's nothing that time and more familiarity will fix. A few months from now, a support shouldn't be any problem.
'''Neutral''' This is tough. Has enough contributions and experience, but focuses too much on science. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]










'''Support''', sounds like a nice person.--<font style="background:white">
'''Moral Support''' First off, you're to be commended for your eagerness and willingness to help Wikipedia become a better place.  I believe I can speak for the community in hoping that you stick around, for you seem to be a great user as well as an excellent future administrator.  As Grandmasterka suggested, try an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] if you want more detailed feedback about how you can improve.  I also humbly suggest [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]] which is an Esperanza program that will pair future administrators with current administrators.  This sort of mentoring will allow to become better versed in policies and administrative duties.  Cheers
'''<s>Im</s>moral support''', per Hoopydink. I believe you'd benefit from an [[WP:ER|editor review]], as suggested above, where other users (including myself) would comment on your contributions and ways in which you could improve yourself.
'''Oppose,''' poor nomination, admitted that he did not qualify for adminship.--
'''Oppose''' oh noes, it's an avalanche of NYC Subway people!! :) Unqualified. - <b>
'''Oppose'''... Not even 500 edits at the time of this RfA. See [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]] for what I usually expect from a candidate. You should try [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]].
'''Oppose''' per above. Really way to soon to be considered for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Far too soon to be requesting admin powers; you want to be looking at the [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] section instead. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Far too soon. but do not be discouraged by this. try again after three months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. Candidate is too new and has not participated enough to show that he or she has the experience necessary. Suggest nominee withdraws and joins [[Wikipedia:Editor review|Editor review]].
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]]. Please close this per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Support''', Infinity was drawn into that edit war. That's a very tricky article -- a number of people working on it have been banned. Other than that, I think that he puts a great deal of effort into making Wikipedia a better place. None of us are angels. I'd be surprised if none of you had ever made a few harsh comments or didn't have a few articles that you like to pay a little more attention to than others. --
'''Support''', his infractions are minor and his contributions useful.
'''Support''' Although he has been blocked before, I feel that this user has learned from his mistakes and it is time to give him a chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', looks very unlikely you will win, so this vote means nothing. :/
'''Support''' but having edit summaries for minor edits will be much better.--
'''Oppose''', trolling/troll-feeding (to be fair, I'm not sure which it is) at [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism|oldid=37286383}}]. Not enough experience with administrative tasks. Has 58 edits to AFD discussions and 56 of them are to the same page [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=Infinity0&dbname=enwiki_p]. Averages 7.83 edits per distinct page, which suggests way too much focus on specific topics, which is not a desirable administrator trait. I would suggest diversifying and exploring corners of wikipedia you are presently unaware of. — <small>Feb. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:37] <
'''Oppose'''. Has been blocked for 3RR twice in the past month [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AInfinity0]. [[WP:BITE|Bites]] vandals with edit summaries like "he had a wife you dumb bitch" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=prev&oldid=38653338], and doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with that when called on it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInfinity0&diff=38653910&oldid=38653776]. Someone keen on fighting vandals ought not to provoke them further with profanity. (To be fair, he doesn't seem to have done this since we discussed it, but this is not the only instance of this I've seen from him.) Appears to have too hot a temperament for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per recent 3RR block.
'''Oppose''', with questionable behaviour this month and a 3RR block just yesterday, I'm afraid you're definitely not ready for the admin tools at this time. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Oppose''', Admins should be the example of good editors to the community. With a record such as yours, I do not want you as one of those examples at this time. Due to the past two blocks, I may reconsider in another six months. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Strong Oppose''' - complete lack of civility, bad role model for wikipedia, edit-warring blocks, trolling/feeding.
'''Oppose'''. His edits have been useful, but the conduct is really worrisome. It's difficult when caught into edit wars, I understand. If he tones it down a notch, and shows sustained conduct change, I'm sure he will be reconsidered. --
'''Oppose''' recent 3RRs and, dare I say it, slight hints of immaturity. A bit low on the edit summaries too. --
'''Oppose''' for reasons stated above. Doesn't seem to have much regard for [[WP:CIVIL]].
'''Oppose'''. Needs to show more self control. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per above
'''Oppose''', lack of edit summaries, and I am not sure edit warriors make good admins.
'''DEFINITELY NOT'''.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry but at this point in the Wikipedia project's development I want more from an administrator. I appreciate that your contributions have been positive so far but I cannot in good faith give you my vote. Maybe in another 6 months.--
'''Oppose''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Sorry, but '''no'''. -
'''Oppose'''. I am disturbed by the actions described by [[User:Android79|Android79]]. Expletives have no place in discussions never mind edit summaries.
'''Oppose''': multiple very recent 3RR blocks make this bound to fail. I suggest the nominee withdraw and try to achieve six months of building the encyclopedia, using a civil and descriptive summary for every edit, and without breaking the 3RR once. If he does that, he will have something to be very proud of, and an RfA will be much more likely to pass.
'''Oppose''': Sounds like this editor has been too hotheaded in the too recent past. Needs more time to prove himself before I could support. --
'''Oppose''' per Android79.
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose''' per recent blocks.
'''Strong Oppose''' if it weren't for the 3RR blocks and the vandal biting, this vote would be support
'''Oppose.''' An admin should know better than to break 3RR, whatever the circumstances.
'''Strong Oppose''' NO WAY! The kid is OUT OF CONTROL. See edit histories and some of the articles he works on, such as [[anarchism]]. Multiple ''unreported'' violations of the 3 revert rule. '''Personal attacks''', such as this one against me in an edit summary: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=41362620&oldid=41361844] ("grow up" --and this from a 16 year old). And, he tried to file an arbitration case against me to get me banned from Wikipedia, ostensibly because he couldn't get around the fact that I provide sources that he has no way of disputing. It appears to me that infinity's philosophy is to ban an editor whose edits would otherwise prevail by Wikipedia sourcing policy --so as to preserve the POV that infinity wants presented in an article. Big big mistake if infinity ever becomes an administrator. EXTREMELY unethical. I know EXACTLY why he wants to be an adminstrator.
'''Oppose.''' per above --
'''Oppose''' per (waaaaay too recent) 3RR vios, aforementioned vandal biting, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0&diff=42336628&oldid=42307073 this]. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum in which to vent your frustration. IRC exists for a reason. Or, take a break from your computer. For example, read [[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book)|a book]]. Listen to [[Rush (band)|music]]. Also, I agree with Brian's neutral vote below...this user needs [[more cowbell]]. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Strong Oppose'''. An adminship candidate who violates 3RR and NPA will be a failed adminship candidate.
'''Strong oppose''' not trying to pile-on here, but ''biting vandals'' being different from ''biting newbies'' violates one of the first principles listed on the Rfa page: ''Admins are held to high standards''. That means ''your'' manners, not what you think ''they'' are.
'''oppose'''. does not play well with others. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''' 3RR stands for Three Revert ''Rule''. Generally won't support those who've recently broken the rules.
'''Oppose''' Recent 3RR violations don't hold well for adminship. On top of it all, it doesn't help when you break out into a fight with somebody over a featured article. Give it a few more months, a few more good edits, and less bickering, and you should be there. --<font style="background:orange"><font color="green">N</font>
'''Neutral''' As blocking admin on the recent 3RR ban, I want it noted the user's behaviour was exemplary over the recent ban, but I can't support because of the ban and the edit warring after the ban. The user needs to learn other ways of dealing with disputes besides edit warring; then, I think infinity0 will make a good admin, and therefore cannot oppose.
'''Neutral'''. Not yet, but soon per Hiding.
'''Neutral''' - as per above.
<strike>'''Oppose''' due to 3RR block, trollfeeding mentioned earlier, but mostly because of his comment after his first oppose that he "doesn't look for things to do." As an admin you should be more committed to finding things that need doing, as opposed to waiting for someone to drop work on your lap.
'''Neutral'''. Not enough cowbell IMHO. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">


'''Moral Support''' in advance of massive opposition. --
'''Moral Support''' I'm glad to see that you have shown initiative to nominate yourself, you may want to try again when you're more familiar with Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' - Is this a serious nomination? The user is adept enough with wikicode to fill his user page with userboxes after only 2 days. He makes a few mistakes in convention/style of editing (see his first ever edits). -
No way.
'''Oppose''' - Far too soon. I suggest you retract your nomination as you are inviting an onslaught of Oppose votes.
'''Oppose''' - Needs more experience.

'''Oppose''' - we need to see how well you fare ''here''. Even administrators of other language Wikipedias can get turned down as admins here due to lack of experience.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' because there isn't enough history to assess. If he gives us the username he previously used we will be able to see his history, form a considered opinion, and maybe change votes to Support.
'''Strong Oppose''' too new.  --[[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strongly Oppose''' for insufficient experience and zero use of edit summary--
'''Oppose''' although I know [[John McEnroe|you cannot be serious]] --
'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons. Please withdraw nom, but hold onto that anti-vandalism strategy. We could always use more people at [[WP:CVU]].
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above opposers. —
'''Welcome!''' There's a lot you can do here at Wikipedia without being an admin. Check out [[Template:Opentask]] for some great places to start. Also, I suggest you withdraw this nomination until you realize the challenge, responsibility, and experience required to become one. Contribute for a few months and you may be an awesome candidate! --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''' - Sorry, but two days is certainly not enough time to judge a user as an admin :P  Please don't get discouraged by the votes you get in this RFA, if you reapply after editing for 4-5 months, would consider support vote. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
Moral '''support''' because I don't want this to go down that you got no votes at all and drive you away from Wikipedia altogether, but '''urge withdrawal''' or speedy closure.  There are basic requirements to be an administrator, and as discussed in the Oppose comments below, you don't meet any of them, at least not yet and probably not for awhile.  People who are made administrators have made hundreds or thousands of edits to the encyclopedia, have participated in the activities that are important for administrators, and have interacted with other people on Wikipedia.  You haven't really done a lot of those things yet.  In fact, there are only 15 edits to the actual encyclopedia.  I'm sorry but there is no way you are going to become an administrator right now.  Fortunately, you don't need administrator tools to edit more articles on topics you know about.  I hope you will withdraw your nomination and do some good editing for awhile instead.
'''Oppose'''. Less that 500 total edits and extremely weak answers to questions. sorry.
'''Oppose''' few edits and short answers to questions. As above basically. Sorry. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Malformed RfA, less than 100 user Talk edits, less than 500 edits in total, answers to questions below. Better to go for an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] at this stage and work on weak areas identified there. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose per aeropagitica''' You need thousands more edits and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia polices and guidelines as well as positive interactions with the community. Please try again once you have done this.
'''Oppose''' per Alex9891 and aeropagitica.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Less than 500 edits. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' less than 500 edits. Over half of them are on user pages. Very few article created or been edited by this user --
'''Strong Oppose''' - malformed, questions provide '''no''' indication of knowledge of what admin tasks are.  It's not a status symbol :) - suggest [[WP:SNOW]] --
'''Oppose''' Your answer to q. 3 is highly disturbing. You should never use your admin abilities in an edit war or other dispute that you yourself are involved in. Also your answer to q. 2 is very unconvincing.
'''Neutral''', doesn't seem like they'll do anything very harmful, but I believe the uses needs a lot more experience before becoming an admin.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strongest possible oppose''' Very low editcount, malformed RfA, questions not answered fully.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
Not nearly enough experience.  --
'''Oppose:''' Malformed RfA, doesn't use preview (took two attempts at putting this RfA on the main RfA page). His answers show he doesn't seem to have any grasp of policy, and his actual nom 'statement' has no real meaning behind it. Needs more experience. — '''''
'''Oppose'''. User has less than 250 edits. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
Jake, I would suggest you keep making good edits here and come back when you have more edits (on the order of 1000s) under your belt.  This request is unlikely to be successful and I suggest you withdraw it.
'''Oppose''' A one line nom isn't enough to convince me you'd be a good admin. Answer the questions in a little more detail and I might consider. --
'''Oppose''' Try again in a few months. [[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - Keep contributing and learning how Wikipedia works.
'''Oppose''' too new, try again another time. :-) --<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''. Despite my assumption the nomination was made with the [[WP:AGF|best of intentions]], I find it difficult to believe that this is being taken all that seriously by the nominee. While ''adminship is no big deal'', it should at least be treated like it's somewhat of a little deal.
'''Oppose''' It takes only a few minutes to research what being a sysop actually entails and means. To say that this isn't a joke nomination I find hard to believe. Has this person contibuted to AfD, ever reported anyone on AIV, do they know how to use test and vandal warning templates, do they understand all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? --
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits to be considered, more edits and experience will make for a better candidate in a few months time.
'''Strong Oppose'''. More experience needed.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
The usual '''neutral''' vote to remind everyone to be careful of [[WP:BITE|piling on]] - Jake, please do keep on contributing, and come back in a few months/edits. (
Jake, it's probably a very good idea to withdraw this nomination, as it's unlikely to succeed. Just ask if you need help with that. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', doesn't know what he's doing. --
'''Oppose'''. About 80 edits in three months, not even in the ballpark.
'''Strong Oppose''' this is the user's second attempt to create this RfA today and its still malformed. With under 100 edits there is no way to judge this user's suitability for the admin tools. Please consider withdrawal. Thanks,
'''Strong Oppose''', as what [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] said above --
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but there is no way you are ready.  When it is time the responsibility will come to you rather than you having to go to it. --
'''Oppose.''' Too soon.
'''Oppose''' - even setting aside the number of edits, his last edit before today (7/18) was on June 12, more than 5 weeks ago. That's not admin material. Gwernol is right. Please consider withdrawal.
'''Oppose''', very few edits in User talk: namespace, no edits in the Talk: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, and most of the edits in Wikipedia: namespace are to this RFA.  It's impossible to tell what kind of admin someone would be without reviewing their contributions in those areas.  --
'''Strong oppose''' per Gwernol. I suggest immediate withdrawal.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Recent actions by user demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of Wikipedia conventions, if not outright contempt for the RfA process.
'''Oppose without prejudice''' - As far as I'm concerned, you're far too new here. Please spend a little time, perhaps edit some more articles and make yourself mroe familiar with our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. I'm not saying that you'll never be an admin, but it's kind of hard to support when I haven't even heard of you. —
'''Strong Oppose'''. To new. --[[Image:FBISeal.png|15px]]
'''Strong Oppose''' for all above. Not to be offensive to Jake, but this RfA is startlingly similar to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rock's rock|this one]], but it is better formed.
'''Oppose''', please come back when you have more experience.
I suggest withdrawing from this RfA.  If you have any questions on how to become more involved in Wikipedia, please contact me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.  Also, if you want some more experienced advice, perhaps sign up for [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]].  This program will set you up with a mentor of sorts who is currently an administrator on Wikipedia.  He/She will be happy and eager to help you exlpore new areas of Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Great all-round editor, active in vandal-whacking and mainenance. +
'''Support.''' Meets my criteria.
'''Oppose unfortunately''' As per Darth below you only have 59 wikipedia namespace edits which may indicate a lack of policy knowledge. I would ''normally'' vote Neutral on that basis but I am also very concerned about your answer to question 1, as it effectively tells us nothing to remedy this concern. Also your comment re watching a small group of articles is worriesome - with 800 admins and 1,000,000 articles imagine if all took that road. Finally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJames_Anatidae&diff=61662502&oldid=61662386 this] error tipped me to oppose. -
'''Oppose''' The answers given below demonstrate a lack of knowledge of policy and procedure for admins.  You can learn about these through experience in a non-admin capacity before you resubmit your RfA.  Interacting with other users is also a good thing to do. Twenty-four user Talk edits is quite low.  In summary, more experience required. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose''', doesn't appear to have been active in AfDs, RC patrolling (particularly, placing warning templates on users' talk pages) or similar activities. Very high quality editor, but unfortunately I don't see any demonstrated need for the tools.
'''Oppose''' per WP namespace edits and answers. --
'''Oppose''' doesn't pass my criteria. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' low WP and talk edits. Answers to questions below do not impress me at all. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' Low WP and user talk edits. WP indicating a lack of experience with [[WP:XFD]] processes and user talk indicating a lack of experience with the community and RC patrolling (no/few warning templates set). Although I don't see anything to indicate that you would missuse your tools, I don't see how giving them to you could be much benefit for the community.

'''Oppose''' Lack of Wikipedia edits is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose''' Does not meet my criteria due to a distinct lack of edits on the Wikipedia project space, which does indicate a possibility of too little an understanding of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' low contributions to project and talk namespaces plus unhelpfull answers to questions.
'''Oppose''' 24 User talk edits for an administrator is fatally low, plus small contribs in WP make me very uneasy. Does not meet my criteria for this position. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''', lack of projectspace edits concerns me.
'''Oppose'''. Your talk edits are bafflingly low, your answers to the questions are too vague for me and you don't have enough Wikipedia-space edits.  Have a look at [[User:Grandmasterka/RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Oppose''', per above. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience to judge how he will handle disputes, amoung other things. Please try again when you have more experience! : )
'''Neutral'''. Not quite enough WP namespace edits (only 59) at the moment, which perhaps indicates a lack of knowledge of wikipedia's policies. Your signature's "username" is also a lot different to your wikipedia username (which is slightly confusing). [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Willing to support, although she is not very active. She has certainly been on long enough. I suppose adminship will keep her busy.
'''Support''' good experience, good edits.  looks active enough to me ... people have jobs & lives, missing a month or two just means you're not obsessed.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. I must resist my initial impression that was based solely upon the user's edit count. After reviewing his contributions, I am confident that he has enough experience and can be trusted with adminship. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I see no major problems.--
'''Support'''. Long time user who has decided to get more active recently.  Would be a trustworthy admin.
Per [[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]] below, relative inactivity for many month before this one, I believe needs more experience. Other than the edits seem fairly well distributed so looks good for a future nomination. --
Not too bad, but a few things that lead me to a weak oppose. Just keep up the good work and I'm sure you'll make Sysop in the future. --
'''Oppose''', I'd like to see more activity over a prolonged period of time, unlike what is mentioned below in the neutral section. Keep on editing, and in a few months, you'll be a shoo-in. --
'''Oppose''' per Zsinj above. Seems good, but not active for sufficiently long period of time. Try again in the future, though... <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose''' per Pgk, will support in a few months --
'''Oppose''' as per above. Just not enough done.
'''Oppose''' as per above.  I'd like to see another few months of solid editing before I'd consider supporting. --
I like what I see so far, but considering that almost 2/3rds of total edits have been made in this month alone, I vote '''neutral.''' --
'''Neutral''', per Gurubrahma. Reasonable responses to the optional questions, though some of them (such as question 4) do show that you could use a little more experience. At 1500 edits, most of them made this month, you're a little below my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standard]] of 2000 edits for self noms. Just continue contributing the way you have been and take a look at some of the admin activities, and I'm sure you'll be a shoo-in for your next RFA nomination. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Neutral''' per Gurubrahma. --
'''Neutral''', needs more time and experience.
'''Neutral''', otherwise checks out, but I have to vote neutral per Gurubrahma, as most of the edits are in this month.
'''Neutral''' as per Gurubrahma.  --
Super pre-nom support!  Great user, deserves the mop. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
Great job with everything I've seen, very open and always ready to listen --
Per my nom :-) <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
When I first came on with the CVU, I was very surprized to see that Aranda wasn't already an admin, considering his hard work and dedication to Wikipedia. He has worked very hard and has put up with a lot during my tenure here, and I would look forward to see his work continue as an administraitor. --Pilotguy <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''
'''Support''' same as the last time.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%">'''—
'''Support''' again. --
'''Support''' looks good!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as last time (whichever iteration that was ;) ). --
'''Support''' seen him around, good fellow.--
'''Support''' dedicated and trust-worthy
'''Support'''. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''.-
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''', second-most qualified non-admin at this time. Tough on vandalism, great contributor to AFD discussions, and he has also created and/or significantly improved several sports-related biographical articles, as enumerated on his userpage. Furthermore, he has learned to be the complete anti-thesis of [[m:dick]] without compromising his masculinity, there is nothing to suggest that Jorge would misuse admin tools, and I do not understand the oppose votes below. — <small>Mar. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[00:59] <
'''Strong Support''' like the last two times.  He's clearly qualified and very friendly.  I know few Wikipedians who have not been somewhat frazzled lately, and cannot hold opposer's complaints against candidate.
'''Support'''. Helpful and friendly.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', per all of the above. Helpful, friendly, good vandal fighter, good editor. I've seen no evidence that he's likely to become involved in revert wars, even if he has been previously blocked for breaking 3RR. Requesting the block implies that he saw his error and was truly sorry for it, as shown by his comments below.  [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Support''' an insightful, solid editor, whom I entrust with admin privilleges. --
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''', solid, veteran user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': Good and helpful editor.
'''support''':  Tireless contributor whose recognition with Admin status, evidently, is long overdue.
'''Support''': Good contributor.
'''Support'''; I see him around, and his edits improve articles.
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. Jaranda is very qualified to be an admin. His contributions are good. I would thoroughly trust him with the mop and bucket.--

'''Support''' Jaranda seems to be a valuable contributor whose name I see quite often. I'm confident he'll make good use of the admin powers.
'''support''' personal interactions wih this user has give me an excellent impression
'''Support'''. Good contributor, and withdrawing for a while when one is stressed out is not a bad thing.
'''Support'''. And I hope you take it easy next time when you're under wikistress ;-) --[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' unconditionally.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. In the past I have not felt ready to support Jaranda, primarily because of communications issues.  I have followed his progress and I believe he has earned my support.  I'll admit that I cringe a little when he announces that he is leaving, but taking a break is exactly what he should be doing in those instances, though more quietly and with less finality.  The bottom line, however, is that I think he knows the role of an admin and will handle the job appropriately. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Strong Support!''', per my promise [[User:Idont Havaname/Admin|here]].  Just the fact that he's stuck around here through '''5''' previous RfAs shows that he is much more dedicated than the average user here.  How many people (not bots) can you name that have written over 100 articles, including a featured one?  How good is this guy at reverting vandalism?  Jaranda's many times more qualified than I am to be an admin, and I'm an admin (who he nominated)!  He's one of the most underrated people here. --
'''Support''' as positive member of Wikipedia, lets give him a chance.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I see no strong evidence that this nominee will abuse his admin tools.--
'''Support'''  Although he has claimed leaving wikipedia several times, he was under pressure and he never left, he said that wouldn't happen to him again as an admin and I believe him wholeheartedly. I've seen him around here and there and he's made great edits, I have no problems with him and I wish him the best of luck in the future hopefully as an admin. --
'''Strong Support''', he is one of the best editors on Wikipedia. He also does [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]], he has enough experience on Wikipedia. Its time for him to handle the mop and bucket. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', seems unlikely to abuse admin tools. -
'''That's hot.'''

'''Oppose''' per
Per above, also see new questions below. Also, '''[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aranda56 5|cannot have disruptive admins]]'''.
'''Oppose''', per above combined with the fact of the 6 previous failed RfAs. -
'''Oppose.''' Drew out from a to-be-successful nomination I gave him not too long ago. I don't believe he's ready yet. Also showed impulse behavior to me back in January: He asked me to ban him permanently, then about an hour later told me not to.
'''Oppose''' per above. Great editors don't always make great admins, and believe me adminship can be quite stressful. I'd advise a much longer break until the next RFA (if this one isn't successful) and I might then change to support. --
'''Oppose''' per Lord Bob (thanks for the diffs!!). Jaranda has improved the communication problems mentioned last time around, which I applaud. But his responses to stress, his frequent threats (?) to leave Wikipedia, his claims of being "hooked" on Wikipedia, etc., all lead me to oppose. The candidate says he wants to "use adminship powers in a non-burnout way" but I am not confident that he has the judgement to stay away from that kind of trouble.
'''Oppose''': Yes, he has surely done great work and he is a nice editor, but so many RfAs makes me feel higly uncomfortable. A respectable gap is perhaps required between RfAs. --
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral).  Adminship is not a trophy and I just think this user has not demonstrated the temperament needed for an admin.  I'm also concerned about the response to Titoxd's question below (NLSE #5).  The rambling reply talks about "try to stop and prevent it if I become a admin" and "I am going to have a no tolerance policy on heavy wheel warning" without any indication of what concrete actions this implies.  It makes me think this admin would tend to act first and think later, so I am reluctantly opposing. —
'''Oppose'''. It's hard to predict how a user will behave when he becomes an admin, but Jaranda's behaviour in the past makes me fear what will happen if he starts blocking admins or performing other admin tasks that, even if he sticks to the rules, are contested by other parties. I definitely agree with the 'support' voters that he is very dedicated, and I don't think he'll abuse the tools, but I just don't think he'll be able to handle it, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per the leaving tantrums. User has not shown the maturity to properly handle adminship. -'''
'''Oppose'''. I wish I could support. I really do. However, I don't think he's ready to consistently handle the wikistress of admin duties based on the comments above and his responses below. --
'''Oppose'''.  Per above. --
'''Oppose''' The melodramatics after each of the previous five RFAs seem to indicate a lack of maturity. Clearly Jaranda has the Wiki experience and his spelling has vastly improved, but the monthly RFAs and recent statements like "I feel unworthy and hated in wikipedia, so I'm leaving Bye"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jaranda&oldid=38112444] leave me thinking he's not ready to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''', as an admin, you will only face ''more'' stress than you did as an editor. Perhaps a barnstar would be a better reward for all your hard and stressful work. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Oppose''' per NormanEinstein.
'''Oppose''' (moved from neutral). The more I watch this, the more I realize I still don't want Jaranda to be an admin. He seems to really want adminship as a trophy, but hasn't shown yet that he could handle the stress. I really admire his recent contributions, and this is what made me vote neutral, but I realized that I ''was'' letting adminship be a trophy for good contributions, by balancing his good contributions against my doubt that he could handle being an admin. If he can take a rest from RfAs for 4 months or so and maintain his good contributions, then I'll be more convinced.
'''Neutral''' I don't want to oppose, but I don't want to support either. This makes the ''sixth'' request for adminship in only <strike>seven</strike> six months. That demonstrates desperation rather than real thought over taking on the responsibilities of being an admin. [[User:Joturner|joturner]] 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)<br><s>'''Neutral''' for now.  I want to see the answers to NSLE's questions.  At first glance, it looks like a no-brainer support, but per the Lord Bob and joturner above, I have definite concerns about this user misusing admin privileges when the next wiki-breakdown occurs.</s> —
'''Neutral'''. Per Lord Bob and joturner. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' per above
'''Neutral''' - Somehow, although a neutral vote doesn't count for or against, I think it's right for me to positively vote neutral. Admin status shouldn't be seen as a trophy, although it seems to be seen that way by most people who visit this page, including Jaranda. -
'''Neutral''' Repeated failed request for adminship for short time makes me wonder how reliable this candidate is. Neither support nor oppose.--
'''Neutral'''. Terrific editor. Unfortunately, I can't support for various reasons. Some of the ''oppose'' voters raise some significant concerns. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Has done great work, but so many RfAs makes me feel uncomfortable
'''Neutral''', I have to agree about so many RfAs. However, this can't be a sole criterion to oppose, otherwise his chances of being promoted would weaken every time he is nominated. So my only real concern is the amount of time passed between nominations.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' per JoanneB's oppose. An excellent contributor, but I'm a bit concerned over his past behavior, particularly in his other RfAs. '''
'''Neutral'''. per above
'''Neutral''', drama doth not the sysop bit earn.
'''Neutral''', a good user but the concerns over temperament worry me.
Jaranda's a great editor, and adminship is no big deal... but it can certainly be stressful.  '''Neutral''' for now.
'''Neutral'''. No more drama. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]




Since your behavior under stress has been mentioned, what do you think of wheel warring and how do you plan on avoiding it in the likely situation that an admin decision of yours is criticized? (added by
'''Support'''. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]]. And the user has done a nice job of improving the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. But use more edit summaries. --


'''Oppose'''.  Of the 2000+ edits almost all are minor.  There is practically no contributions to policy discussion.  No evidence of having made any substantial contributions to articles.  The answers to the questions are very vague and lacking in detail.  Very little activity on talk page. All of these make me lean toward oppose.  Convince me I'm wrong. --
'''Oppose'''. Very little contribution to Wikispace or any of the talk pages (not including article talk pages). One of the primary things an admin should do is interact with other users, and just 68 user talk edits isn't enough in my book. This user could also make better use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''. I suggest that you do some more maintenance tasks allowed to non-editors and make more contributions to the Wikipedia: space. Also, your answer to question 1 does not require admin tools. I suggest you look at some of the admin tools and get a better idea of what tasks you want to do and what areas you plan to work on. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose'''. 2000 edits, but only 105 edits since September 2005. Your involvement in Wikipedia seems rather sporadic[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Jasenlee&dbname=enwiki_p]. Also, edit summary usage is very low. While you have been around a while, I don't see anything that convinces me you really need sysop powers.&#160;—
'''Oppose'''. Lack of major edits and low percentage of using the summaries.
'''oppose'''. Jasenlee, i feel you still need more experience working within the en.wikipedia community. continue your hard work, and try again at a later date.
'''Neutral'''. I think you've probably been around "long enough", but I share some of the above concerns that you are not really familiar with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia. Take a look again at the [[WP:ARL|admin reading list]]; there are a lot of places on there where a non-admin like you or me can contribute behind the scenes. (
I'm sorry, Jason, but you have only [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=Jason+Potter 833 edits]. I would like to see your edit count at roughly 2,000 before I could support. At this time, I must '''Oppose'''. Seems like you're on the right path, though. :)--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Oppose''' less than 1,000 edits, and I don't like the answer for number 1, I don't see much AFD edits and I don't see an heavy need for the tools as well.
'''Oppose'''. Far too inexperienced, and the answers to the first of the standard questions certainly leaves the nomination wanting. I also don't expect an essay in the nomination pitch, but something more than "selfnom" is necessary (<s>and I know some people will be picky that the nomination isn't accepted</s>). If such a nomination was unacceptable for a long-established editor (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist]]), then it is certainly unacceptable for a much less experienced nominee.
'''Strong Oppose''' Not too active in Wikipedia. Been registered since 2003 and only 833 edits. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' because of lack of experience and low edit count.--
'''Neutral.''' Answers to questions don't really suggest a need for admin tools, but come on, people. Editcountitis is fatal.
'''Neutral''' on the road to become a great wikipedian. But the little interaction with other users (User talk is 21) and the few edits gives me the feeling the user isn't quite ready yet and is best suited as an editor, for now.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' per [[User:1ne|1ne]] - I can't agree more. May I suggest withdrawal for now, Jason? There will come a time in the future for this, I'm more than sure, but it's too soon now. Don't dispair. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Oppose''' Under 300 edits, virtually no [[edit summaries]], been here for under two months.
'''Oppose''' This is too soon, needs more time.
'''Oppose''' Not so great on the edit summaries, not nearly enough edits.
'''Definite STRONG oppose'''. Edits, edit summaries, time spent, and even a malformed RFA (I mean, come on, if you're going to selfnom at least do it right!). Not enough info in self-description, or rather, none provided. Nothing personal, but you're definitely too inexperienced for this. Your answers to Q3 below are also worrysome.
'''Oppose''' Agree with the stuff about the malformed RfA and the self-description (or lack thereof).
'''Oppose for now''' A look at his talkpage suggests civility issues apart from lack of understanding of WP policies. may support in another 6 months' time. --
'''Oppose''' Experience, lack of description on the RFA. Answer to question 1 seems to suggest user doesn't actually know what sysop privileges actually are. Lack of edit summaries.... --
'''Oppose''' All of the above.
'''Oppose'''.  Edit summaries are a must.  User also doesn't seem to know what he's doing with this RFA. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience.&#160;—
'''Oppose''', too new. -
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''', too few edit summaries, little interaction with other uses, less than two months experience. Also judging from the answer to question #1 I don't see how admin privileges would be of any real use for his job.
'''Weak Support'''. Despite the pile-on to Mcginnly's position, I actually thought the nominee's response to question four was reasonable. The nominee gave an answer supported by his reasons and cited policy to support that answer. I find it a stretch to turn "''I think the rules are set up to be equal for all''" into "''the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors''". My only real hesitation is the low number of contributions given the length of time here, hence my weak (moral) support.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Because the user is interested in XfD, The Wikipedia namespace edit count is good. This user is interested in deletion tasks by the look of it--not vandal fighting--so I think that should be kept in mind when evaluating this RfA. I know that an admin has a wide range of responsibilities, and it seems as though most opposition stems from answers to the blocking questions. I don't think there is anything within the user's past edit history (or within said answers) though, to indicate anything but a calm and fair temperment applied to what ''little'' blocking Jc37 is likely to be doing.
'''Support''' i've been looking over the edits for this candidate and he seems quite communicative and level headed. On the [[Talk:Wizard (fantasy)|wizard talk page]] he kept his cool despite the consensus going against him. Seems to make good use of the user talk pages too. A long series of edits in April on [[User talk:Hnsampat]]  re:TWW categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hnsampat&diff=prev&oldid=46516722 (here is one diff)] seem informed and friendly. A recent discussion with Cyde on userboxes shows initiative [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=prev&oldid=69485790] as well as one on CfD at [[User talk:David Kernow|David Kernow]] talk page.  I could go on giving examples since there are very few fluff edits in his user page edits. this user has a consitent history of working on categories, including categories for deletion. All in all, it seems he could use the tools. While the first answer above might be brief it is valid. I have now problem with his answer to Mcginnly's guestion as outlined below in response to Mailor Diablo.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  I especially like the answer to the blocking an established user question.  Established users and even (gasp) admins are not above the law.  The rules do in fact, apply to them too.  --
'''Moral Support'''. You appear to be a fairly good user, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaveydweeb&diff=78302509&oldid=78111770 message] on my talk page indicates that you're not fully aware of some important - if obscure - facets of Wikipedia. I'm certainly not going to oppose you on this basis, especially since this is not the kind of thing that people draw particularly attention to (unlike ''actual'' policies...), and the obscurity of this particular point doesn't lead me to neutrality either. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Uninformed support.''' I have no real idea what requirements or views a user should have to be an admin, so take my position for what it's worth. But I like Jc's attitude and adaptability, and think that's good for Wikipedia, so I presume it's good for adminship.--
'''Weak support''' Changed my mind again, due to a good response below. Weak because this RfA should not have been advertised and the edit count is a little lower than my standards, but the answers are now satisfactory. --
'''Strong support.''' I wonder how many of the people weighing in on this have looked at his edit history as opposed to going only by Jc37's responses on this page. I have been impressed by Jc37's contributions in many ways and have been particularly impressed by how well this individual handles conflict. In fact, I know of someone who recently solicited Jc37's input on a matter where that individual was trying to avoid an edit war with someone else. Even though the one soliciting Jc37's input had actually disagreed with Jc37 about a key point about the same article, he considered Jc37 the appropriate voice of reason to call upon. Jc37's arguments had been rational and articulate, and Jc37 had shown great patience dealing with an unreasonable user who repeatedly runs into conflict with others.
'''Support'''. Whilst I understand some of the hesitation indicated in the sections below, my experience of and interaction with jc37 mirrors that which people describe above, so I'm happy to support. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. The user did some comment advertising, against [[WP:SPAM]], however, this does not concern me, since the user is repentant and wouldn't do it again.  Lesson learned, policy understood.  A user does not have to understand *all* policy, as this is quite difficult in practice (there is so much, and it contradicts).  It is far more important to understand the policy surrounding the admin tasks that the user is going to specialize in.  --
'''Support''' -
<b>Support</b> I feel that some opposition to JC's RfA is unfair, as his nomination didn't represent him very well. I very much agree with his views on blocking and other admin-related policies, and he has my vote.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions, particularly blocking. I need a more thoughtful analysis than just 'the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors'. 'Cool down blocks' on established users are also rather questionable in their effectiveness on established users in my opinion. --
'''Oppose''' per Mcginnly. --
'''Oppose''': per above. —
'''Oppose''' per Mcginnly.
'''Oppose''' per all reasons above. Please try again after three months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience of encyclopedia building, per low mainspace edit count and preponderance of minor edits (often not marked as such).
'''Oppose'''. Fails several of [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]] and poor answers.
'''Oppose''' per above.  I suggest withdrawling and trying again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per all above, particularly your answers to the questions and low main space edits. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Advertising your RFA is usually frowned upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lady_Aleena&curid=3813671&diff=78303696&oldid=75336162].
'''Oppose'''. Weak answers but I stayed neutral, but advertising for comments is not a good idea. It's against policy. An admin will need to know policy better than that. See the "Canvassing" section in [[WP:SPAM]]. While I admit that this is a grey area, admins need to know policy better to stay away from grey areas.
'''Oppose''' per Mcginnly and RfA advertising, which is heavily frowned upon. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
'''Oppose for now''' I was, I believe, among the first users to interact with Jc37 and I've been working with him/her quite a bit, especially on the various articles related to [[The West Wing (TV series)]]. I think s/he is very friendly and has a knack and dedication for cleaning up and organizing articles. (The current organization of [[List of politicians on The West Wing]] is largely due to Jc37's efforts.) However, I must oppose the RfA for now for several reasons. Jc37 has come a long way since the early days. Back then, s/he could be a bit stubborn (although always very cordial). Specifically, it took a rather forceful, concerted effort on the part of me and [[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] to get Jc37 to be more cooperative in a dispute we had over some West Wing articles. This is not a problem these days. Jc37 has matured as a user quite a bit over the past six months or so, but I feel as though there is some maturing left to do. Furthermore, while Jc37 has worked hard to understand Wikipedia policies and such, I feel as though there isn't enough of a grasp yet to merit adminship. Jc37 works tirelessly and is very friendly, but isn't ready to be an admin yet, in my opinion. Perhaps after some more experience, Jc37 will be ready to be an admin.  --
'''Oppose'''. One's participation in compiling [[List of characters on The West Wing]] doesn't excuse his antagonistic and reckless attitude towards quality editors. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Weak Oppose''' As per Mcginnly --
'''Oppose''' per nominee's lack of mainspace editing experience and, perhaps more importantly, the "appreciation" offered to Ghirla.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] --
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per the above comments.
'''Oppose''' per his comment to Ghirla, which seems to me to rather prove Ghirla's point, as well as per Canadian-Bacon.
'''Neutral'''. Per Moreschi. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Neutral''' per Moreschi &ndash; perhaps try again in a few months' time? &mdash; '''
'''Neutral.''' Jc37 seems like a very friendly, helpful editor, but I don't think s/he quite grasps the nuances of WP policy as it pertains to blocking.  Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] might be a better next step.  --
'''Neutral''' Answers to 1,3 & 4 don't demonstrate a range of experience with other editors or show an understanding of policies.  I suggest that this editor either goes for an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] and/or admin coaching before reapplying in ~3000 edits time. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' You need more experience before I can support you.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Looks like a good editor with good contribs. Just need more experience.
'''Neutral''', this user scored <s>16</s> 19 on my RfA points table, enough to warrant a Neutral. --
'''Neutral''' Weak answers.--
'''Neutral''' Poor answers to questions. The "speedy" stuff?  Please revise them. --
'''Neutral''' The answer to #4 was strong; the rest of them were very weak responses.
'''Neutral'''. This future is bright, but I am concerned by some minor points.
'''Neutral'''. I was flattered to be notified by this user about his RfA, but I don't feel I know enough about the user to contribute to the RfA.
'''Neutral'''. Heart's in the right place and will probably get adminship at some point, just perhaps not right now. --
'''Support''' as per nomination --
'''Strong Support'''. JD UK has been a great editor on many articles and is a key part of WikiProject Big Brother. As [[User:Alex9891|Alex9891]] says, JD UK does a lot to fight vandalism. He always argues his points in a clear, concise and diplomatic way, so for these reasons, and many more, he gets my full support! Good Luck!!
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' due to the way I felt he gave up too easily on Mediation in his case with 9cds.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-06-01_JD_UK_and_9cds&diff=57436659&oldid=57434290]
'''Oppose''' - The whole constant arguing with 9cds and handling of that situations says to me he isn't ready.
'''Strong Oppose''' Again, I may have gotten carried away with this explanation, but I just wanted to be clear. The primary concern is that you don't appear to handle stress well. Your threat to delete your account, as mentioned by Ansell, was not only impossible for you to carry out, but also a sign of grossly mishandling the issue (especially because it appears by that discussion that you were right in that conflict). A week and a half ago, you stated that you were [[User:JD UK/Retired|essentially leaving Wikipedia]] over 9cds and only retracted the message on July 12, when 9cds was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:9cds indefinitely blocked] (that ''can't'' be a coincidence). A couple months after this situation, I might have been okay, but I find it unbelieveable that just six days after coming off retirement, you request adminship (I sense a desire for revenge on people like 9cds). As an admin, you would have the ability to block people and I'm afraid you would be quick to push the block button in disputes that involve you and agitate you just so you can eliminate the stress (instead of bringing the issue to the attention of other admins and asking for a second opinion). Additionally, JD_UK seems to not understand the fair use policy. Looking at his user talk page, he has a lot of messages regarding fair use images he has uploaded. They may be incorrect, but he has uploaded ''a lot'' of fair use images (fair use can't be cited in every instance) and he even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JD_UK/Page1&diff=59293617&oldid=58459641 had one] on his user page quite recently. JD_UK has been [[User talk:JD UK/A1#Talk: Big Brother UK series 7|warned]] about his incivility and revert warring - which he actually mentions in one of his answers below (I'm glad you're being honest). And lastly, I feel JD UK's scope of edits is far too narrow; other than his wonderful vandal-fighting efforts, I see almost solely edits to articles related to ''Big Brother Australia''; that's reflected in his talk page comments as well. I would like to see some more experience in other fields (you'll need to interact with the larger portion of the Wikipedia community as an admin). That's especially perplexing because his issues with 9cds provided a perfect opportunity to take a break from Big Brother related articles and go explore. But JD_UK didn't. And so, based on all this, I must oppose. Return in October with more restraint and more editing scope and I'd consider supporting. -- [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Reluctant oppose''' per Joturner. Also, due to a relatively low project space edit count. --
'''Oppose''' - fails my criteria in the following: ''At least 350 Wikipedia space edits''; ''No edit warring''; ''Acting civil at '''all''' times'' (some of the debates got a bit too heated); and a ''Limited range of articles edited'' doesn't help —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Weak Oppose''' Not cool enough under fire. Also most edits seem to be vandal fighting and not alot else which is fine but IMO doesn't make a good enough editor. --<font color="darkgreen>&nbsp;[[user:tmorton166|Errant]]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User_talk:tmorton166|talk]]</font></sup></font><small>(formerly
'''Oppose''' per joturner. As Jo mentioned, some more time and experience could well lead to a different outcome.
'''Oppose''' per joturner. A higher level of maturity as an editor is necessary; that is generally easy to achieve with enough time and a more varied experience on the wiki. --
'''Weak Oppose''' I agree with Ansell and Joturner that you do not handle stress well and you'll be exposed to more stress by becoming an admin, but you are very active in Wikipedia. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per first oppose.--
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria due to low amount of edits in the Wikipedia project space. --
'''STRONG Oppose''' per Ansell and pschemp.
'''Firm Oppose''' The incident involving JD_UK and 9cds has not left me particularly impressed. JD_UK's unwillingness to properly understand fair use, in particular, is not something I would expect of an admin. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Oppose''' per Joturner. --
'''Oppose''' per Joturner.
'''Oppose''' per Joturner. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Regretful oppose''' great user, but per above.


'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Of course.--
'''Support''', naturally! [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support''' - I see no reason why not. He is a good member, Meets my criteria for a good admin and could use the admin tools. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', having worked with him on WikiProject Peru and several articles, he has been outstandingly helpful.--
'''Support''' Changing vote on the basis that he helpfully stood up to my questions and ''accusations'' ;) without getting offended :D ALthough I will note that you should increase your edit summaries, admins are accountable and need to explain every action, edit summaries are important. --'''Errant''' <small>
'''Support''' On the basis that edit summary usage is inreased when and if admin status is granted.  Otherwise a good all-round user.
'''Mild Support''' I was quite shocked to see Jersey Devil up for adminship, because the whole fiasco involving Striver remains so prevalent in my mind. However, I must agree, like I stated in the request for comment in question, that the RfC was not necessary. Some of the behavior mentioned - which ''may have been'' (not necessarily ''was'') interpreted as wikistalking Striver - was in fact true, but because he stopped at request and weathered the RfC quite well and because the RfC was a full four months ago, I won't make that a huge dark mark on his record. For the most part, I'm satisfied enough to support (although ''please'' use edit summaries more often). -- '''
'''Support''' Seems to have what it takes to become a good admin. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - good solid contributor with knowledge and perspective we need; works well with others.
'''Weak Support''' - Jumps to [[policy|WP:]] links a little quickly in dscussion, particularly for civility etc., but much better to have a strict sense of civility than a weak sense of civility like some admins.  Doesn't seem like the kind of person that would throw his weight around as an admin.
'''Weak support''' Seems like a fine candidate--As long as he starts using edit summaries, I'm fine with this candidate.  It's very easy to get into the habit of not adding edit summaries, and I also suppose that no one warned him or recommended that he do so.
'''Support''' per nom.--
'''Support''' Excellent candidate with whom I personally have had great experiences, hence I will overlook the edit summaries.  However, please '''''always''''' '''use edit summaries''' even for '''''minor''''' edits.
'''Support''' I think I somehow got involved with JD's RfC - but can't remember how! Seems worthy of adminship.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. <s>Cool nick</s> :D --[[User:Terrancommander|T]][[User:Terrancommander/Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' we need more specialiest admins
'''Support''', but please use more edit summaries. They just make life easier for us all. =)
'''Support''', in my experience with this user, Jersey showed tact and patience in dealing with a troublesome editor at [[Democratic Party (United States)]]. &middot; <font color="#013220">
'''Support'''. Seems ready, and I haven't seen anything here or anywhere that really convinces me otherwise. Having had an RfC is not grounds for automatic oppose if he learned from it, otherwise RfC is even more pointless.'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', per nom, opposing voters do not convince me
Change to '''Support''' based on strong answer to 1ne regarding spamming during an Afd. The answer shows a strong understanding of Wikipedis policy and problems enforcing it. I hope the people opposing will read the answer and support this nom.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', helpful, hardworking user, extremely well aware of policy and the meaning of adminship.
'''Yes'''.
'''Support''', a good candidate.--
'''Support''' to conter the votestack of the opposers.
'''Support'''. In my encounters with Jersey Devil, I've seen nothing but good contributions. --<font color="#191970">[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">
'''Weak Support'''. I haven't had much encounters with Jersey Devil, so I can't take a more stronger position. I would be just thankful if Jersey, unlike another particular admin, would be a bit more kind and also a bit more willing to ignore other's faults when the discussion is heated. Not saying he is not so, but just a bit more. --
'''Support''' as a consistently strong editor and member of the community. --
'''Support''' (as I thought I'd already done) per nom and inasmuch as I am altogether confident that Jersey will not abuse or misuse (even if avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and will, if possessed of the tools, benefit the project.
'''Support'' per nom.
'''Support''' Despite the edit summary usage issue I think he'd make a good admin and wouldn't abuse the tools. <small>
'''Support''', opposition is quite unconvincing, and looks like a good potential admin.
'''Support''' to counter the votestacking of opposers.--
'''Support''', I think that he has earned this right.
'''Meets 2/3 support''' <span style="cursor:crosshair;">[[user:GangstaEB/SigDirectory/1|<span style="cursor:crosshair;"><font color="black">Gang</font><font color="red">sta</font><font color="green">EB</font></span>]]</span>~(
'''Support'''. Low chance of pulling a Lord Voldemort and abusing the tools. -→
Yes, please. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm honestly sorry - you seem like a great contributor with a good attitude, but the edit summary usage just sticks in my craw. I can understand leaving it out from time to time when it's your own userpage or something, but I like to get an idea of what people did by looking over histories.  Such poor usage indicates either a lack of attention to detail, or a lack of systemic understanding, neither of which are traits becoming an admin. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' as per above
'''Weak oppose''' edit summaries, conduct at AfD per your RFC. (Not necessarily "wrong", but not confidence-inspiring either) - <b>
'''Oppose''' Per the reasons above; he fails my criterion related to edit cummary usage. --
'''Oppose''' in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInShaneee&diff=64972058&oldid=64971394 recent encounter with him], he did nothing to make me comfortable with the idea of what he'd do with admin access. Has the right idea, but seems too heavy-handed at the moment. --
'''Oppose''' per InShaneee. Could you explain that?
'''Oppose''' as per InShaneee. --
'''Oppose''' It may just be me, but an average of 10 edits per day is a bit disconcerting, as is the weak use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' for low edit summary use. --
'''Oppose''' per Guinnog. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - per InShaneee --
'''Oppose''' per my [[WP:AGF|own personal reasons]] and reasons mentioned above, especially the diff by InShaneee.
'''Oppose''' - In my short time in Wikipedia i have only seen a few posts from him, he seemed eager to get user zereshk blocked. Thus per Inshaneee. --'''
'''Oppose''' I agree with Lingeron.
'''Oppose'''. He's too confrontational, and engages in editorial conflicts too often. He has a lengthy history of editorial wars in the Islam related articles.--
'''Oppose''' per several reasons given above.
'''Strongly Oppose''' per reasons given here and in the Neutral votes. --
'''Oppose''' Those who are granted administrative privileges should be as calm and tranquil as humanly possible.
'''Oppose'''. Good user, but I want to see more time pass and edit summary usage improve.  I also have minor concerns about his understanding of blocking policy, per the diffs given by others. --
'''Oppose''' for now. Low edit summary and rash behavior seems troubling, but can be fixed. --
'''Oppose'''. In my own experience ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SpinnWebe]]), was too ready to engage in ad hominem arguments; his frequent personal attacks in the face of reasoned opposition, constant accusations of "meatpuppetry", etc., finally led me to lose my own temper, unfortunately. Not behavior I expect from an admin. --
'''Netural''' Sorry, I have to give a neutral because of his horrendous edit summary usage.  71% for major edits and 4% for minor edits is no where near that set out by [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Neutral''' - I'm really on the fence ... I can't quite bring myself to oppose, but the conflict situation discussed below bothers me.  I read the RFC and even though I think that Jersey Devil acted in good faith and was not at fault, administrators who are potentially controversial BEFORE their selection aren't a spectacular idea and it would be a good idea to let more time pass. Also of concern is suggesting blocking a user without waiting to see if he responds to warnings. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=64966949&oldid=64966353]
'''Neutral''' per BigDT & FloNight.
'''Neutral'''. Sorry, you're a great contributor, but you don't use edit summaries often enough.
'''Neutral'''. Needs more experience to be an admin. -
'''Neutral''' from above. (
'''Delete''' strivercruft.
'''Neutral''' I changed my vote to neutral because I don't see this as a clique rfa after all, apologies to Jersey Devil and everyone involved for the inaccurate assumptions I made. I also respect the way s/he did not try to alter my vote the way others did. As I haven't seen enough to vote either ''support'' or ''oppose'' I am voting neutral. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">[[User:Lingeron|Sha]]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">
'''Neutral''': Looks like a great user at first, but he's not ready for the admin job yet. It's all in the edit summary usage and his confrontation with InShanee. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' - this RfA has to be a joke, no question replies, "none" for what would you do. I've removed it from the main RfA page as its obvious its not going anywhere --
'''Oppose'''- this RFA is a joke like Tawker said. To little experience.
'''Oppose''' as Tawker said, it seems to be a joke; the reason why he wants adminship is "none", the questions haven't been answered, and the editor has made multiple minor edits to this page alone, showing that he doesn't really get the concept of a Preview button. Sorry.
'''Strong Support''' Jesus On Wheels needs more motivation to edit wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nom. '''[[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User Talk:Fredil Yupigo|<font color="#009ACD">dd</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Fredil_Yupigo|<font color="#6A5ACD">ie</font>]]'''
'''Strong Oppose''' less then 100 edits, and adminship is given to those who can be trusted with the mop, not as an apology for anything. -'''
'''Another strong Oppose''' - Per AKMask. -- ''
'''Very Strong Oppose''' This is almost worth BJAODN-ing. --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]]<sup>([[User talk:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User:D-Day/Templates I'd like to see on Wikipedia|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
'''Oppose''': not enough experience at editing.
'''Strong Oppose''' per above. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]] -
'''Strong Oppose''' this editor is clearly not ready for adminship based on contributions and his/her deleting of much of this RfA when they <s>accepted</s>tried to accept the nomination. I suggest a withdrawal by the candidate or closing by a B'crat. Sorry, [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose'''... Candidate didn't sign and questions are missing...<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Uhh, what..?'''
'''Speedy oppose''' Can some crat apply the [[WP:SNOW]] rule here?
'''Oppose''' No indication whether or not he will abuse the tools; didn't answer any questions; didn't accept the nomination; less than 100 edits; etc; etc... -→
'''Speedy Oppose''' per abakharev.
'''Oppose''': not enough edits, and a highly dodgy username. --
'''Speedy Oppose''' – if there is such a thing. While I have nothing against this user, they lack sufficient experience for an administrative position with only 62 edits, and the nominator should have been well aware of this. I question why the nomination was made in the first place, in the knowledge that it would certainly fail, and suggest the nominator should refrain from making such nominations in the future –
'''''STRONGEST OPPOSE POSSIBLE''''' User was just blocked. I suggest that this RFA end now.
Already has a support... so, no moral support here. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', too new, lack of edits. There is neither a userpage or talk page for this user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - You are, obviously, not ready. Keep learning and start contributing.
'''Oppose''' per above. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''', per above - your only edits in project space were to this RfA; you have never participated in a deletion debate or a policy discussion here; please note that this is no criticism of the contributions you have made - we have hundreds of thousands of users, but fewer than a thousand active admins.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but you're too new to support. Perhaps try and get a little bit more experience and come back in a few months. --
'''Oppose'''.  This user does not respect Wikipedia policies as demonstrated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Werner&diff=prev&oldid=81848284 this diff].  This is certainly not the kind of comment we want from Wikipedia admins.  Also, this user has only 150 total edits with just 101 in the main namespace.  --[[User:Danielrocks123|דניאל - Danie]]
'''Oppose''' doesn't realise there is no such thing as "senior editors". Very low edit count and weak answers. --
'''Strong oppose''' based on the diff provided by [[User:Danielrocks123]]. Wikipedia works by [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Threatening to persistently [[WP:POINT|disrupt]] Wikipedia to force your personal view on others against consensus is highly damaging and completely unacceptable for any editor, let alone an admin.
'''Oppose''' — You talk about your self in [[3rd person]] to much. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - candidate doesn't understand [[WP:POINT]], nearly non-existant use of edit summaries, very low edit count.  Nowhere near ready for adminship --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Oppose''' Fine I withdraw my request for administratorship but I will keep working to save [[James Werner]]'s article. I withdraw my request. Delete this article. --
Moral Support - suggest withdrawing, for there is no history of any one with this low an edit count passing. --
'''Weak Sympathy Support''' The irony of it all! You have been here for more than one year '''BUT''' have only about 12 edits! Try again in about 3 months with at least 2000 edits under your belt. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - way too new, don't get discouraged but a few months and a lot more interaction with the community are needed --
'''Oppose''' too soon, not enough experience --
'''Oppose''' not because of bad qualities, but because there's not enough evidence yet to judge one way or the other.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, no moral support here; I suggest withdrawing and coming back in a few months when you have a few thousand edits racked up. [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="D70000">_-'''M''']] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help">'''''o'''''</span>]]
'''Oppose''', too new.
'''Oppose''' - way too premature. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;and, I hope the editor takes this in the spirit intended. First, 30 edits (and, if there's anything with which I'm not afflicted, it's [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|editcountitis]]) as I type this, and four of them are here&mdash;there's no history by which to analyze whether you'll be the best admin Wiki has ever known, the worst, or somewhere in between. Second, it doesn't help matters that you've failed 'til now to answer the questions below&mdash;again, it's impossible to gauge who you are and want to be at Wiki. Third, there's not even a reason given as to why you'd like the tools. Give it time, show us that adminship is something you'll administer [[WP:AGF|in good faith]], and I'll be right there to support you.
'''Oppose''', only 12 edits and no userpage?? Try again in future. I really suggest you withdraw. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - Bureaucrat please [[WP:SNOWBALL]] this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryland&diff=prev&oldid=50981329 This] demonstrates a lack of [[WP:NPOV]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westminster_High_School_%28Westminster%2C_Maryland%29&diff=prev&oldid=41108658 This] is not appropriate. -
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience.
Suggest withdrawal. -
'''Oppose'''. Too new.
'''Oppose'''. Don't take this the wrong way, but you '''are''' too new to be accepted by the community as an administrator. Looking at your talk page, it is apparent someone said to you "You don't have the power to lock a page". Is that what this is about?  --[[Darth]]
I'd like to add on to the suggestion for a withdrawal. So early on in your wiki experience you will only get moral supports and opposition for being too new. Do try again in about three months.
'''Please withdraw!'''  It's not worth going through this, because no one will vote for you.  Not a reflection on you or the edits that you have made, but simply because you're way too new. --&mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Really, you're too new for us to know you. What you wrote in your self-nom suggests that you don't know what is required of a Wikipedia sysop yet.
'''Neutral'''. The "Questions for the candidate" haven't been answered. I will decide my vote depending on the answers to those questions if they are answered. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Joeferret has been nothing short of a model wikipedia user and has gone above and beyond in his conduct and manner.  His edits are valueable and he always lends a patient and willing hand to newbies unfamiliar with wiki edicate. A great candidate for admin if there ever was one.
<s>'''Support'''.  I lend my full support to myself.
User only has twenty edits, which isn't enough to judge if he'd be a good administrator.  Stick around for a few more months and then give it a go.  <s>I also suspect the nominator of being a sockpuppet.</s> --
'''Strong Oppose''' way too few edits, also a history of creating vandalistic articles [[User_talk:Joeferret#Eugene_verkhovsky]] and doesn't understand the RfA process (supporting his own RfA).
Sorry, '''oppose''' - twenty edits, mostly to either this page or a page that was apparently deleted that this editor created and edited; no indication of knowledge of policy or experience to handle admin duties. Nominator has six edits, one to the AfD page of the above article. Give it a year or so, get lots of productive edits, and we'll see from there.
'''Strong oppose''' way, way too early. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Strong oppose''' Twenty edits, half of them on an AfD and more than a quarter on this RfA? Sorry, admins need way more experience than that. --
'''Oppose''', not enough recent activity and answers to questions don't show you need access to sysop functions.
'''Frak no''' - No, weak answers, rrely contributes. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' - Only 750 edits, with all but 140 in article namespace. Needs much more experience in Wikipedia and user talk namespaces. Answers to questions are suboptimal. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, John, but your answers are quite weak. The one "sysop chore" you list in #1 does not require admin tools, so you give me no reason to believe that you even need them. Your number of contributions does not concern me as much as the editors above, though I do like to see a candidate with a lot of edits to talk pages. Keep contributing, and best of luck. --
'''Oppose''' weak answers, doesn't need admin tools. --
Moral '''Support''', suggest withdrawal. Try again in a few months and a few thousand more edits.  Also, get more involved in the Wikipedia community; do things like [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:WIKIFY|Wikify]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]], etc. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Oppose'''.  Malformed RFA is not good.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator!
'''Support''' eagerness to clean up wikipedia - but also prepared to accept councel --
'''Strong Support'''. Has shown dedication to this project in almost all aspects and in all types of space (e.g., user/main/project/talk/etc.). Should be a fine admin and the community won't have to worry that he will <s>overuse</s>abuse his "mop & bucket".
'''Support'''. Vandal fighter, good length of service and edits. No reason to deny him.
'''Support'''. Per Pepsidrinka. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Large experience and no evidence he would abuse the mop. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' Looks like a great encyclopedia builder. &ndash;

'''Support''' Good editor + won't abuse tools = easy choice.
'''Support''' will be an excellent admin --
'''Support''' excellent candidate [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good editor that will not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Gread editor - Knows what he's doing.
'''Support''', looks OK. Salaam aleikum!
'''Support''' A great contributer. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Has done great work here even outside Islam related articles. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' per nom. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''', great editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Joturner is a honest and reasonable guy. I'm confident he will act impartially in any dispute, or recuse himself if he can't.
'''Strong support''' This user seems to be very level-headed, well reasoned, and makes positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I see no problem in his user page, and having looked over his edits on the cartoon controversy page, I must say that I am impressed. Frankly, I'm somewhat disturbed by what I perceive as the anti-Muslim sentiment shown by some of the oppose votes. I don't want to get into a whole thing, but I don't think that showing your biases on your userpage is a bad thing, and I haven't seen this user's belief's interfere with positively editing the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' <span style="font-size:95%;">'''—
'''Support''' you might have rushed this a little, but support of course. --
'''Support'''. I feel that he is more concerned with helping to build a npov encyclopdia than with converting us all to his religion (its 2006 and I am embarrassed that I even need to say that). Fair, hardworking, and will make editing easier for all of us.
'''Support''', Meets my 100% requrements. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support''' - definitely good admin material.
'''Strong Support''' Wikipedia is "Tragedy of the Commons" writ large on the 'net; and, like the mythical 'Cong village, must be first "destroyed in order to save it" (if it is possible to save it at all). '''Therefore, I heartily endorse every single one of the invading army of Islamist ''al taqiyya'' obfuscating propagandists to positions of Wiki authority''', on the grounds that the faster they are all approved, the quicker this thing will become a 100% Laughing Stock, and burn to the ground.--
'''Support''' - no relevant reason to oppose. We all have our two cents. --
'''Support'''. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' Although I don't know Joturner very well, [[User_talk:Joturner#Regarding_the_Links_in_Muhammad|this 'talk' alone]] leads me to believe that he'd make a very fine admin.
'''Strong support'''.  I think that the POV issue is being over emphasized.  I've seen this user in action on AfD's and RfC's on issues related to [[Islam]] related articles.  He takes a very civil and moderate viewpoint on a number of contentious issues.  I have been very impressed by his ability to stay cool when the heat gets turned on (may I add, far beyond his years, to the user who mentioned age as an issue below) -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''': ''Excellent'' contributions. [[:Image:Cartoonmap-key.png|This graphic]] is particularly good, and I was extremely satisfied with his speedy response when I had a question about it. No evidence of "POV-pushing"&mdash;in fact it appears to be the opposite. I don't see what the fuss is about his user-page. I found it fascinating.
'''Support''' Slight concern over the userpage but his non-userpage edits have been almost uniformily excellent, and his ability to reason with others seems very good. Concerns such as his userpage and personal beliefs should not be nearly as relevant as his edit history which is excellent.
'''Support'''. Looks good. [[User:Aucaman|'''Auca''']][[User:Aucaman/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''m'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Looks like a great editor. The best of luck!
'''Support''' - He is a muslim, so what? I'm an atheist, so what? The only people here showing a non neutral point of view are those who vote against him because of the content in his user page or because he only edits about Islam. I'm Portuguese, am I being non neutral for not creating articles about [[Brunei]]?
'''Support''' Observing his wonderful contributions, I feel that he will make a great administrator. Best of luck to you!
'''Utmost Support''' -- I'm ''highly disturbed'' by the oppose votes I see here. This editor is outstanding, with enviable energy and intelligence. His edit sums are diligent and clear; his comments on talk incisive. I'm particularly pleased with his cool and neutral participation in [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil|a recent RfC]] (and please see his comments on corresponding talk). He's a tireless vandal-fighter ''with'' a good balance of edits in project, template, and image namespaces as well. '''This user is outstanding admin material.''' I can only suspect that opposition hinges on anti-Muslim bias -- ''particularly offensive'' considering that this editor is a model of impartiality in articles that draw much more than their fair share of biased editors. '''Joturner''' should be ''commended'' for walking honorably where others fear to tread.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', Good editor? Check. Most importantly, Good Judgement? CHECK.--
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Assumption of Good Faith Support'''. Never heard of you, but you seem to be unlikely to abuse the tools, and your contributions reflect that assumption.
'''Support''' - user is able to seperate his editing from his beliefs (as should we all), which makes him a useful and knowlegable asset.  We should strive to avoid systemic bias - Wikipedia's coverage of Islamic articles is generally woeful (even the articles that do exist are, for the most part, calamitous).  Voting to oppose someone because he has strong personal beliefs when there's '''no''' evidence of these ever affecting his work on Wikipedia is appalling bad faith.
'''Support''' as per nom [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. I have seen nothing to indicate that this editor will misuse the tools.  He is entitled to air his personal beliefs in his own user space without retribution. --
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' looks good to me. --
'''Support''' per [[User:DS1953|DS1953]].
'''Support''', user says he won't let his POV interfere with his judgment. I see nothing to suggest that his word is not valid. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support'''. Diversity of background and opinion is what makes Wikis work. Religious beliefs and editcountitis are absurd grounds for opposing a RfA. '''Adminship should be no big deal''', so I support any established user experienced with structural and procedural tasks and with no history of abuse or misbehavior.
'''Support'''.  As per GT above.
'''Support'''. That he won't allow his faith to interfere with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is a reason to support, not oppose. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Support''', I've taken the oppose votes on board, but they don't really build a smoking gun.
I was going to sit this one out as I don't have any personal interaction with Joturner, but the ridiculousness of [[User:TruthCrusader|TruthCrusader's]] oppose demands a '''support''' just to cancel it.  That may be the most blatant "I do not trust you because you believe something I do not"-statement I've ever seen on an RFA, and the "I wish you the best" is just patronizing coming on its heels.  Shaking his head in disbelief,
'''Support'''. Generally quite impressed with this editor (and quite appalled by some of the justifications for oppose votes); one big question mark for me was the Koran picture controversy, where I utterly disagreed with has calling an RfC, but I think on the whole his judgement is sound and he appears reasonable and fair-minded, more than suitable to be an admin.
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''' - would be a great admin. [[User:Gflores|Gflor]][[User:Gflores/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I'm sure he'd make a good admin no matter what his religion. <small>
'''Strong Oppose'''. I am concerned that this editor, if granted adminship, might have trouble avoiding a biased or prostelytizing attitude. A review of his personal page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joturner&diff=45177722&oldid=45163121] reveals a very deep [[Islamic]] zeal which I feel does not belong on a wiki user page. However, some reassurances and explanations from him about how he intends to stay neutral on matters of faith, so avoid any editing or admin bias, might cause me to withdraw this oppose. The Bible teaches us that Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no man commeth unto the Father except by means of me" and Islam teaches us "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet". Joturner, what do you say about the issue of keeping faith-based arguments out of the wiki? What can you say to assure me of your standards towards NPOV in this area?
'''Oppose''' -- "for now". I've had differences of opinion with Joturner over what constitutes NPOV in Islam-related articles. As he has spent more time on WP, I think his attitudes have mellowed and his understanding of the "Wiki way" deepened, so some of our earlier differences might not happen now. Still, I'd like to wait a few months before handing him the mop and bucket. This is, after all, a fairly early RFA. I hope that this doesn't hurt his feelings, or reduce his commitment to WP, because he is doing fine work now.
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Strong Oppose'''. I'm an agnostic and so far didn't bother to make that an issue - nor did I expect there'd be a need for it. However, an user page that is almost in its entirety bend on furthering one religion, and, to my agnostic sensibilities, fringes on the zealot, is outright disturbing. Jimbo spoke against user boxes lately, as he feels that display of bias might be contrary to wikipedic goals. I haven't made up my mind so far, as bias while editing is certainly to be avoided - elsewhere it's... just human. So while I don't mind you to shape your page in a way that's appalling to me, your fellow wikipedian, I'd feel more than uncomfortable to see you as admin. Seeing that your editorial interest is centered on the same subject doesn't make it any better.<br /><br />As for Striver's edits, I don't share the view that his "reasonable ones" are "of significant" number. As for the "many short stubs" he has created, if they have been put up for deletion only "in some cases", I'm afraid that only happened due to despair and frustration confronting the overwhelming task at hand. Hundreds, if not thousands merit so. When once trying to add cleanup tags where needed, trying to avoid the hassles AfDs would entail for me and others, I halted after some dozen. I don't share your evaluation and I'm not pleased when finding you among the members of his guild. --
'''Oppose''' - <s>a 16 yr old fundamentalist?  Sorry, but there is no way I can give my support.  Ageism...in this case yes.<s>--
'''Strong Oppose'''. The nomination is premature, unwarranted, and appears to have been rushed through. The edit count reveals only 3 months of active editing with 1,297 out of total 3,808 edits made in March, possibly to boost the count ahead of the nomination. Look at the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=0&user=Joturner&dbname=enwiki_p contribution tree] to see that Joturner has made very few substantive contributions: the most actively edited articles are [[2006]], [[January 2006]], [[Current events]], [[February 2006]], [[2005]] etc. It is quite revealing to hear that he is most proud of his contributions to [[Prophets of Islam]], which is essentially a list of people with brief descriptions. This is not the editing record that enables one to qualify for an admin. The other hugely problematic issue with Joturner is, of course, his religious zeal. Joturner uses his user page to describe how he became a Muslim, but Wikipedia user pages are not intended to flash around our personal religious experiences, which smacks of preaching and is utterly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Here we are all first and foremost Wikipedians, not Muslims, Christians, or atheists. We are here to record human knowledge, not spread religious beliefs. Unsurprisingly, Joturner is a notorious POV-pusher on Islam-related articles, where he seems to have clashed with nearly every non-Muslim editor. To sum up, this is one of the least-justified nominations for adminship I have ever seen.
Too many conflicts based on religious zeal.
'''Oppose''' To many issues concerning NPOV right now, would support otherwise.
'''Oppose''': this editor shows great promise, and I don't agree his user page is inappropriate (I found it interesting, actually) but I would like to see more than three months of serious involvement. Would likely support in future with a little more experience.
'''Very Strong Oppose''', not because I dislike him or his edits – he is a nice editor. However, I agree with all the above comments pertaining to reasons for “oppose” votes. I may also add that  I am afraid that Joturner’s has not afforded the wiki-community a bigger canvass of his contributions, and thus the community (at least me) find myself clueless, and is left with only [[guesstimate]] as regards Joturner’s  ''live experience'' to judge his reactions to different scenarios, scenarios in which an administrator is expected to act, react, and decide. In case, edits done by him during March 2006 are excluded,  he has hardly 3000 edits, and that too to very restrictive areas.  For the first six months (June-December 2005), he remained almost inactive (total 684 edits average 3.80 edit per day), and in during the current month, he became hyperactive (congrats!), compared to those months, and has accumulated around 1375 edits. In the remaining two critical months of January and February 2006, he contributed respectively 933 and 937 edits.  I wish that he remain similarly active for next few months; endeavor to expand his contributions to a variety of name spaces; and try to engage himself in situations requiring discussion and interaction so that the fellow editors may clearly understand his maturity and  ability to wield the administrative tools.  Moreover, the reasons indicated by him to be elevated to the level of administrators are not very convincing:  did he any time face difficulty or delay in getting any thing done which required any administrator’s attention? Persons have continued editing, including me for longer period and with persistent continuity without even thinking of being an administrator. I suggest him to continue for few more months, and I assure him as an administrator that in case he requires any administrative assistance there are 100s of active administrators to assist him. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per Bhadani.
'''Oppose'''. See [[Talk:William Hogarth]], where this editor notes "I failed this article because it is insufficiently referenced."16:47, 25 March 2006. How does one "fail" a Good Article, especially one with nine references? An ill omen for a future Administrator?--
Reluctant '''Oppose''' - not long enough editing history to be admin. <font color="#06C">
'''Oppose''' I agree with Jonathunder and Trödel.  --
'''VERY strong OPPOSE''' I am sorry but your zealous devotion to 'Islam', while perfectly ok in your personal life, has no place in the Wiki community. Despite your best assurances, I would not trust you, nor ANY religious zealot, with maintaining a NPOV. I wish you the best
'''Oppose''' I think you deserve a medal for having the strength to follow your religious aspirations. However, I do not think our userpages should be personal dairies of these events. That said, this actually is not the reason I am opposing you, as I think you have great potential. My opposition is due to an overall lack of experience. Please try again in a couple of months.--
'''Oppose'''. Seems to be a mostly impressive editor based on a perusal of his edits. However, I have a very hard time supporting anyone for admin that is this hardcore in their beliefs, whatever the issue. I also remember him making somewhat of a mess out of a mass of religious list AfD noms that rapidly degenerated. The user page is also a bit over the top, but maybe that is not important. Could possibly support in the future. --
'''Oppose''' changed vote, as per other concerns.
'''Oppose''' per radicalist concerns.
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about the short time he's been here (I sympathise with the concerns about bias, but since I've had no negative experiences of the user I can't comment).
'''Oppose''' - Nothing personal, I just don't think the edit history is developed enough.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Strong oppose''' per above. I don't think Wikipedia should have ugh... radical admins.
'''Oppose''', possible issues with POV among other things.
'''Oppose''', three months of active editing insufficient.&mdash;
'''Oppose.''' I agree that joturner is a good contributor, and although I am also uncomfortable with the zeal displayed on his userpage, I'm not sure I want to hold his honesty in openly displaying his views against him personally. Still, it might not be in the project's best interest for him to be made an administrator; it takes little to imagine a number of newbies or vandals blocked or reverted (quite correctly) by him, looking at his userpage and clamoring in the blogosphere that "Wikipedia has been taken over by the Taliban" or the like. I agree that this would be wrong and pointless, but since there are many other admins who can't be defamed in this way, and since adminship is neither a right nor (IMHO) a trophy, there's no reason to even risk embroiling Wikipedia in pointless online fracases. Together with his low time on the project, this leads me to oppose his nomination at least at the moment.
'''Oppose''' —
'''Strong Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' Purpouses of being an admin not too convincing, seems unexperienced. I have a problem with his userpage and unconforable with this diary thing in a userpage. Sorry.
'''Neutral''' Editor holds strong views - nothing wrong with that - but as far as I can see is most definitely ''not'' a POV warrior (quite the contrary in fact). So, I've no problem there. I would however prefer this editor waited a couple more months and had more involvement in project namespace. I've no idea if this RFA will succeed or not, but if it doesn't I may well lean to support next time. --
'''Neutral''', A dedicated 'pedian but agree with Kbk, spread yourself around a little bit more and this would be support in a couple of months.
As per kingboyk. My interaction with joturner has been very limited (and not exactly positive), but I find most of the reasons given to oppose rather...groundless. (And I say this as someone who interacts with Muslim fundamentalists almost on a daily basis.) My main concern is the short amount of time he's been here and the limited number of articles he's focused on. (It doesn't help that [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=0&article=2006&user=Joturner&dbname=enwiki_p most of his edits to those articles are relatively minor].) The edit count is not an issue; I became an admin with slightly over 1000 edits. Neither is his userpage; I found it quite interesting. However, I'm leaning to oppose because his contributions aren't exactly confidence-inspiring. I'm sure he's a great guy, as his comments below show. But I'm not confident that he's spent enough time here yet. Like kingboyk, I'd probably support in a couple of months if joturner could expand his editing horizons. :)
'''Neutral''' Joturner does not appear to be a POV warrior as others have stated. I would support this editor for admin except that the editor needs a few months more experience (IMHO). I also want to dispute the claims by others that there is something wrong with his user page. To Joturner's credit, he has been very open about who he is and what he believes. There is no evidence that Joturner has made POV edits to Wikipedia and if anything he has been a very good editor. I hope he will come back for another RfA in a few months and that people will not hold his personal beliefs against him. --
''' Neutral''' A little too much of a Muslim bias, but to nice too oppose.
'''Neutral'''.  I think, contrary to the best intentions, explaining one's worldview on userpages makes avoiding edit conflicts about neutrality ''more'' difficult; it becomes a magnet for accusations of bias.  That said, those who self-consciously recognize and make known their potential biases are generally better at staying neutral.  I encourage Joturner to remove most of the religious content from his userpage, but that shouldn't be a cause to vote against him.  I would support based on his responses here, but I haven't dealt with him as an editor so I refrain.--
'''Neutral''' Honestly the anti-Muslim sentiment here is shocking, how is this relevent to Wikipedia? You don't preempt trouble by saying this user might violate policy '''''in the future''''', there is no reason to believe that! However, Neutral, I would prefer one more month of steady editing.
'''Support''' again.  Still see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' And my earlier comments apply, look at his contribution history. Jo clearly has been able to edit very effectively in a NPOV way.
'''Support''' <font color="AE1C28">
'''I beat the Nominator support''' Shh, humor me. Anyway; excellent user, no problems at all.
'''Edit conflict Support''' No problems here. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' per all above,
'''Support''' Wishing you the best.
'''Support''' - I was just checking over failed RfAs and looking for admin candidates, and I was mindful of Joturner; I'm still surprised that he bombed out last time. -
Your userpage is even better now. :)
'''Support''' - per above.
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent user. Will make a fine admin. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]][[User:TantalumTelluride/Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">e</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">lluride</span>]]<sup>
'''Roooowwwwwr, I'm a lion!!!''' Mop? Definitely. --→[[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' Joturner and I have often contributed to the same AfD and RfA discussions. I have sometimes come to the same conclusion as Jo, and at least as often we've come down on different sides of the debate. But his reasoning has always been excellent and made me think again about my position. I have every reason to believe he'll be a fine admin. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' he'll do well with the tools.  I've always been more than pleased with his contributions --
'''Support''' per above
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong support''' Knowledgeable, civil, experienced, and confident--Joturner would make an excellent administrator.
'''Strong support''', we need more admins and this is a perfect candidate. --
'''Support'''. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Co-nom! --
'''Support''' <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">

'''Strong support''' - last RfA showed you can take criticism calmly, which is exactly the type of attitude we need in an admin. You can be trusted with the mop, I'm sure.
'''Support''' - I haven't had much interaction with this user, but I've seen them crop up here & there & have liked what I've seen.  A review of contributions hasn't changed that impression.  Civil and focused on a better encyclopedia, I think that this candidate will make a thoughtful admin. BTW, I am impressed with the user page. It's personal space - I see no need to 'tone it down'. The fact that the content of the user page does not creep into the edits I've seen shows me that this editor has a good grasp of NPOV. [[User:Col_tom|Colon]]<font color="green">[[User:Col_tom/Esperanza|el]]</font>
'''Support'''. Joturner is an editor who has shown that he knows our policies and can be trusted. I was also impressed by the manner in which he responded to his failed nom.  The userpage stuff doesn't bother me, if it serves to remind editors that there is a living, breathing person behind the username that's probably a good thing.
'''Support''': good editor.
'''Rfa cliché #1'''
'''Support'''. Solid user with good contributions on all fields. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Joturner has done a superb job with [[Current events]] and finding [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors|errors]] on the main page, and from what I've seen his edits are well-reasoned, and NPOV.  Below, Joturner notes conflicts with [[User:Striver]]; he's [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil|not]] at all alone in that respect. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>
'''Support'''. This time - a sure support. He has displayed maturity during his talks. --
'''Support''' Quite thoughtful and clearly trustworthy.  I recommend anyone concerned about NPOV problems read the second citation provided by Prodego.
<s>'''Weak Oppose''' Last time I voted neutral, so this time I wanted to be very sure about my vote. I looked through some recent edits, and here is what I found: First, what I didn't like, with the reason why: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCorbinSimpson&diff=53643072&oldid=53642421 could be more civil], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aminz&diff=51203785&oldid=51186597 civility, not assuming good faith (although this (and later comments) refutes Doc glasgow's claim)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.219.226.247&diff=prev&oldid=53248591 no apology for a possible mistake]. And now what I did like, again with the reason: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sa.vakilian&diff=prev&oldid=53458009 helpful]. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)</s> I change my vote to '''support'''. (here is the link mentioned above [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aminz&diff=51203785&oldid=51186597]).
'''Support'''--seems quite serious about doing what's best for the encyclopedia and growing as an editor.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. While understanding Doc glasgow's objections, I'm going to support this nomination. As an agnostic, I'm impressed by the nominee's religious devotion, ''particularly by the articulate and personal manner in which he expresses it.'' Beyond that, he appears to be a good editor.
'''Support''', I've been wracking my brain about where I've seen this user before, but I'm sure it was positive. After looking over this RfA and the user's contributions, I have no reason to believe that he will abuse the admin tools. This user shows general familiarity with Wikipedia processes and procedures, and has a history of good edits to a variety of different topics. --
'''Support''' I stated on this editor's previous RfA that I'd support with the passage of a little more time (and more experience). Seems likely to be a good admin.--
'''Support''' for many reasons, including involvement, helpfulness, just being good for the project in general, but the most hopeful thing I see is this second link of Prodego's.  That was a textbook example of what a Wikipedia editor should do in that situation.  --
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' And I must say you've got the coolest looking userpage.  Ever.
'''Strong Support'''

'''Strong support''' - I was impressed by this editor's attitude on various issues. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''', I couldn't care less about someone's userpage or personal beliefs, and Prodego's link removes any POV concerns I might have had.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support''' The user seems neutral and rational. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Per above and my last support two months ago. <b><font color="teal">
'''Strong support''' as nominator for his first request. Deserves it.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' but with a nod to Taxman's editcountitis concerns below. Joturner is a great contributor and will make a fantastic admin. His userpage is/was fine (or certainly no worse than those of many other editors/admins) and I encourage him to bring back the timeline. — ''
'''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' --
--<font color="blue">
''"Adminship is no big deal"''. -
'''Support''' per DS1953 (#1) and Mackensen (#37). —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''', I'm satisfied that Joturner is an NPOV editor (even editing against his own POV when necessary), understands and follows policy, is respectful and reasonable to others; I'm also impressed by his dedication, bringing articles up to Featured status, and he is quite articulate, especially for 17. --
'''Support''', a lot to consider here but I'm happy to support. Jo, you know a lot of people will be watching your mopping ''very closely''. If you continue to develop as an editor you'll do fine. <b>
'''Support''' His contributions to the articles far outweigh any minor concerns I night have.
''' <s> Strongly </s> Support''' I am also in. --
Strongly '''support'''. Love your userpage as it now stands. I hope you'll put the talent you showed in making it to use more in creating content and less in mucking about with admin powers.
'''Support''', I've followed Joturner's editing style for awhile now and I've found it to be very fair and reasoned. In my experience he has demonstrated a very real capacity for being neutral in his editing on the religious topics that both he and I frequent. Good luck Joturner!
'''Support''', a qualified and considerate editor.
'''Weak Support''', I'm a little concerned about whether he is able to compromise sufficiently (or, at all) in volatile situations.  I believe he is learning, though.
'''Support''' - Easy one. Dedicated to task at hand. -
'''Support''', pleasant, and level-headed.  His religious beliefs have never seemed to impinge negatively upon his contributions to Wikipedia, and there's no real reason why they would in the future.
'''Support''' Great user, will be a great asset to the admin community.. He has very good technical knowledge of the wikipedia as well.
'''Weak Support''' I dont know much about him, but the few times we meet was in opposite sides of disputes. Although we did'nt come to any concensus, i perceived him as reasonable.  --
<small>What!? I didn't already...</small>'''Support'''. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' - No doubt Joturner and I will disagree from time to time, but I'm sure he'll be fair in his admin actions or recuse himself if he can't be.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' He's willing to listen to the community and I think he will be a trustworthy admin. I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm willing to assume good faith on this one. --
'''Support''' - believe this user will rise to the task.
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''' -- Deserved. ''
'''Support''' - For the second time.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Great editor; good person; will make a fine editor.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support.'''  Seems to be a great user in all regards.  The user page is not an issue for me.
'''Support.''' - I can see an editor, who despite having his own POV is able to edit neutrally - OTOH his POV is even needed to balance the adminteam as a whole.
'''Support.''' There are very few Muslims administrators around and wikipedia is POOR when it comes to Muslim related articles. Many articles have many mistakes and few also just a propoganda against Islam. For example see [[Dhimmi]] article. I hope you will help in making such article more ''neutral''.  ---
'''Support''' - I see no compelling reason not to. Strong religious views should not be a bar to adminship. --
'''Support''' - while some of the overt religiousness on your userpage frightens me, I see no evidence that you let your faith lead you to POV, and I see no reason why you should ''not'' have the tools.
'''support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support''' version 2.0. Great user, will be a fine administrator.
'''Support.''' All experiences with this user have been positive. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Hopefully WP:100 support... '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Intelligent and nice personality. Unhesitant to communicate differences with other editors, and wherever reasonable, lead him to compromise. Just as most of us seek the meaning of life and harbour the answer on something else, he is currently found it in Islam. Surely it is only one step of his long journey, so let him grow. For me, his prior version of user page was nothing more than reflection of sincerity. -
'''Support''' - good and neutral editor. Very close to 100. --
'''Support''' - looks like I make an even 100.  Respect for Wikipedia seems another "strong personal view" of this editor, which should allay some people's concerns.  Hopefully Axiom 26 is now in doubt!
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I initially supported last time then got scared off. In hindsight, as I knew from the beginning how he was dealing with Striver, trying to keep NPOV, my reaction to switch was ill-informed,'''
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Support''' only seen good things from this user.--
'''Support''' per Gwernol. --
'''Support'''. I was originally concerned about this user's ability to maintain NPOV in religious matters (mostly because of how his user page looked before the last admin request [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joturner&oldid=43812990]). However, after looking at some of his edits, I am now convinced that he is fully able to edit NPOV. --
'''Support''' I have observed Joturner to be balanced and civil. I think he shows respect and fairness.
'''Support''', good nomination.
'''Support'''.
I added this RfA to my watchlist in order to keep a close track of J's comments and reactions to oppose votes, as well as his general edits regarding this discussion. Since I don't like to switch sides, I wanted more info before actually voting, and I feel I'm ready. Jo, I'm still concerned about the way in which you will actualy ''act'' as an admin, since the sole idea of wheel warring (or other equally dangerous episodes) over religious issues terrify me; but so far I have only seen you take the matter wisely and with good judgement. I'm willing to trust you. Please, honor our trust. Best of luck to you,
'''Support''' - I look forward to more valuable contributions from Joturner.  --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', been watching this one for days before realizing that I forgot to add my own vote in. I admire Jordan both in the context of Wikipedia and what he's revealed about his personal life via his user page (although I would advise shortening it some). Will make a fine admin. <b>
'''Support''', (Changed from neutral) seems like a really open-minded and knowledgeable editor.-
'''Support''' Perfect nominate for the job --
'''Support''' After reading through the objections, it seems that even in the worst light, Joturner comes off as a very reasonable person.  As for his userpage, it seems a little excessive (though not much) but it's mostly his actions that count in my book.  I don't subscribe to the view that we need more Muslim admins though (maybe more Muslim editors, but admins are supposed to serve the community  not impose their views).  Who I think we need as admins (and I believe largely have) are reasonable people like Joturner.  Good Luck.
'''Support'''; no signs of edit warring or incivility, and lots of experience here.  I'm thoroughly intrigued at those who want ''less'' information about a candidate's beliefs&mdash;we all have biases; better to admit them than pretend they don't exist.  Being a strong muslim carries no less bias than being a strong agnostic. --
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' - per above. --
'''Support''' per 25 (Colonel) above, POV doesn't "bleed through" to other areas. The only contrary evidence I could find was [[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_17#Another_Picture.3F|this]], and it's a fairly mild. As to reasonable concerns about his userpage, I would strongly support if joturner would create a personal subpage of his userpage for nonwikipedia stuff. Excellent userpage, btw. He strikes me as exceptionally level-headed even in heated debates about Islam-related topics. --
'''Support''' per [[User:MPerel|MPerel]].&#160;—
'''Weak support''', controversy isn't enough of a reason to deny adminship to an otherwise good user. Just be careful out there.
'''Support''', I don't think someones RFA should be opposed based on their choice of being "agressively religious on their user page."  Most of the opposition votes seem to be deeply rooted in paranoia of having someone "different" as an admin.  I reject it. Also, I don't understand people who state that the candidates improvement in recent months since the previous RFA is just part of a campgaign.  That makes no sense!  IF he did not incorporate changes in his behavior to answer the criticism from the previous RFA, he would be damned.  And apparently, he is damned for doing so too.  Wonderful logic we have going here. --
'''Late Support'''; User page certainly now seems balanced (and quite beautiful), and user has been impressively fair and level headed with regards this RFA, although a wider edit spectrum would be nice.
'''Oppose''' I am sorry to have to do this. Having reviewed the votes at Joturner's first RfA and his userpage, I am struck by the stridency that he displays. I think being a thoroughly religious person is a terrific thing - I am one myself - and though it's fine to declare one's religion on the userpage, Joturner is being very aggressive about it, and it makes me quite uncomfortable.  Joturner, I generally wish you luck in your RfA, and I suspect you need and deserve the tools, but I could not support. If you pass, I hope you are triply careful when dealing with the articles on which you hold strong partisan beliefs. (Finally, I trust nobody will make this into some stupid jew-votes-against-muslim thing. That would be a damn shame.) - <b>

'''Oppose''' per above.'''
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose'''. This editor has issues. Period.
'''Oppose''' -- per Prodego (despite that Prodego is supporting) --
'''Strong Oppose'''. I opposed last time because I disagreed with the approach he had taken to some edits and because he had made a mess out of some AfD noms. The user page, which looked like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Joturner&oldid=43812990] at the time, was not a big factor for me. It seemed a bit over the top to me then, but within acceptable boundaries. However, this user has updated his user page and the new page, I believe, has crossed the line into a level of activism that has no place here. Statements like "''Terrorism should be removed from vocabulary''" or "''A nation will meet its doomsday not long after it begins to forsake the right to privacy and the right to equal treatment. The United States is unfortunately starting to do that in the name of the War on Terror''" are too ideological. An admin needs to be an impartial referee and I no longer believe this user can play that role. I previously felt that Joturner needed more time before becoming an admin. I still think that more time is required. --
'''Oppose''' per Prodego.
'''Oppose''' per all above. --
'''Oppose''' concerned about POV issues.
'''Oppose''' – <b>Message To closing Bureaucra</b>t: What have changed since Jotuner first RFA[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner] ? That he campaigned <u>hard</u>, leaving any user who objected him a message saying how much he has changed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZeq&diff=53004441&oldid=52825750]  (this is duplicated 29 times see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJoturner_2&diff=54038631&oldid=53847202]. In fact, he did not change. Interaction with him is hard. He was very pushy in trying to get his favorite article (mosque) to be featured article and refuse to accept any changes to the article that made it less POV. His "ownership" of that article alone is an example of why more power should not be trausted to him. Giving this editor adminship would just show the weaknesses of the current RFA system. What is wrong with someone being an editor for couple of years, for learning tolerance to otherviewpoints before asking for the 2nd time to become an admin ? I oppose for all the reason stated above.
'''Oppose''', my earlier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joturner&diff=45241579&oldid=45241087 concerns] are still relevant. Seeing that your a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angry_Ayrab#Conversion_to_Islam Salafi] doesn't make it better. Moving contended text to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joturner/The_Full_Path subpage] doesn't help. Asking for a review of one's own user page, editing it to improve chances for a RfA and moving one's editing focus away from Islam as announced, contrary to stated interests, just to further one's RfA, strikes me as bewildering. I don't trust that zeal. --
'''Oppose''' per Tony Sidaway and tickle me.
'''Oppose''' <strike>pending answers to the questions I've posed below.</strike>.
'''Oppose'''. I have no doubt he would make a good admin and have admired his ability to compromise in the past. However, I feel that as a neutral party charged with resolving disputes, such an overt adamacy about his religion would greatly hinder his credibility. —
'''Oppose'''.  I can see J. really wants to be an admin and has taken many steps to achieve this.  He has been quite receptive to all criticism and has written to everyone who opposes his Rfa using very respectful language in an attempt to address their points.  All this makes me want to support him.  When I look at his user page, I feel he is genuine, sympathetic and likeable, and this makes me want to support him too.  However, I am concerned that once he becomes an admin, when he no longer has a goal he wants to achieve that requires broad community support, he may not be so fairminded and responsive.  Over the last two weeks I have unfortunately seen admins act in a very unbalanced way, seemingly motivated by their own biases.  I am not saying that J. would do this, however it is undeniable that he subscribes to a very strong ideology.  I am concerned that J might use his position as an admin to push his ideology here. I would say that J. should continue to be a valued member of the community and produce and contribute to good articles as he has done thus far.  I'm not sure how being an admin would really enhance his ability to do achieve this.
Reluctantly '''oppose'''. I know you're a good editor, but even after an unsuccessful RFA two months ago (this is too short a wait IMHO) which raised these very issues, your userpage makes me feel that you're still not ready to be trusted with the responsibility of being an administrator - because it's not clear to me whether you're going to treat Wikipedia as an NPOV encyclopedia which has rules, or a webhost where people are free to do what they want so long as they stay out of each other's way.
With some considerable regret, as I do think J is a nice guy who means well, but the concerns raised by the other oppose votes are serious. Elizmr said it best, my concern is that with such a strong POV and a history of involvement in contentious articles where that POV leaked through, what assurance do we have that won't recur after the adminship passes? Also some of the votes on other RfAs I find myself disagreeing with enough to wonder if he gets the whole adminship thing. Too much moral judging and editcountitis... Perhaps in some future RfA, after some more seasoning, I would support. '''Oppose''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Oppose''' per POV issues.  I can't say for certain that I trust this user to handle adminship civilly and fairly.
'''Oppose''' per Elizmr, Alphax and Lar.
'''Oppose''' Does not demonstrate the judgement and impartiality of an administrator--
'''Weak Oppose''' per Prodego.
'''Oppose'''. Excellent grasp of policy, very smart and clearly well-meaning. However, even though it is not immediately apparent, this user appears much too anxious and eager to wield the mop. Remember, the mop is not the tool of the brave Wikihero, but the implement of the humble janitor. Cool your ambitions a bit and remember that administrators serve the community. Good luck &mdash; you'll probably make it. - '''<font color="#003399">
'''Reluctant Oppose'''. I just can get past this editor's user page and the fact that, prior to the concerns voiced here, he considered the content a good idea. I like my admins as i like my [[one night stands]] - the less i know about the individual personally, the better it works for me (thats a joke, btw, should Mrs Rockpocket be voicing her opinion here). This, combined with the feeling that he ''really'', ''really'' wants this adminship, leaves me uncomfortable. I'd like to see him let his edits alone vouch for him here. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Corbin, Elizmr and Lar.
'''Oppose''' I have seen Zeq going overboard with cheap shuts, but this time around, I think some of his arguments makes some sense and haven't, at least adequatly, been addressed and which are enough for me to oppose.
'''Oppose''', with regret. Joturner writes well, particularly so for a teenager, but the extensive new-convert ''da'wa'' on his userpage suggests that neutrality is going to be an issue.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. Seems like a quality contributor to the encyclopaedia. However, I share the many POV concerns raised above and this, coupled with an editor who works in controversial topic areas, is too much of a risk for me. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Strong Oppose''' I am still VERY worried about this his user page. I am sorry, I have seen nothing to convince me to change my mind from the last vote.
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above concerns, with specific reference to Alphax's statement.--
Per concerns raised on the talk page, changed from support.


'''Oppose''', changed from neutral per various concerns, inappropriate canvassing. --
'''Reluctant oppose''', essentially per Rockpocket. I respect the high quality of Joturner's contributions as an editor, (that which I have seen), but I still maintain that an userpage, and especially an administrator's userpage, is not the place for extensive, potentially divisive content unrelated to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' User appears to be rallying muslims together to support his adminship. This is irresponsible and behaviour that is not expected of an admin.
Sorry... I really like the guy (he's always pointing out errors on the main page articles, and we appreciate it!) and '''hate''' to see people even bringing his religion up as something to oppose him over, but it hasn't even been two months since his last nomination. I would like to see a bit more patience. I'd say just keep up the good work, and bide your time. Adminship isn't that big of a deal, and neither is ''not'' being made admin. You're a good editor, so continue on the right path, and I would gladly support you in the future. Sadly, '''oppose'''. (And I know this is past the post-date, so BCrats can take it or leave it. Thanks.) --
'''Oppose''' as CrazyRussian. I don't know the candidate, but the discussion here is not convincing--
'''Weak Oppose''' Actually a very good editor, but the embers from his last RfA is yet to cool down. It is barely 2 months since his last RfA. In a couple of more months, my vote could be a Strong Support. Moreover, he seems in a hurry to be an Admin.
'''Oppose''' The user seems to be in a hurry to get the Adminship. It is just a short time since the first RfA.
'''Weak Oppose''' As per above. Though in a few months time, if [[User:joturner|joturner]] does refile his nomination, I may most probably support him.
'''Very Weak Oppose''' The only concern is that he hasn't changed his user page, even though in his last RfA, that did emerge as a major area of concern. otherwise a very good and diligent user, who has mostly maintained a level headedness that is not easily see.
'''Oppose''' I have followed this RfA from the beginning, and am concerned by the candidate's attitude in engaging users who cast oppose votes. While I think Joturner would make good use of admin tools, I look for a less combatitive demeanor. <font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' Joturner's desire to have this RfA closed so quickly when clearly discussion continues leads me to believe that he is too process-bound and too immediatist for me to comfortably support him, especially in conjunction with the concerns raised by other voters.
<strike>'''Neutral''' Per [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]]'s concerns I find this user's userpage very disturbing, but there appears to be little evidence that he has let his beliefs influence his editing. Hence I don't feel able to oppose, but I also don't want to support someone who does appear to see the project as a platform for religious proselytism. --[[User:Ngb|Nick Boalch]] 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)</strike> Changed to '''oppose''' above. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>: I followed Joturner's last request for adminship quite closely, although I don't believe I made any actual recommendations on it. What worries me most is that a large number of substantial concerns were made about his user page, and he has not changed it at all to try and alleviate these concerns. Also, some of his responses to the oppose votes (particularly numbers 22, 26, and 28) concern me. --
This user seems quite impressive, level-headed and unafraid to try to do the Right Thing, which I feel is very important; as such, I can't oppose.  However, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of an admin who dedicates so much of his userpage to personal, unrelated-to-Wikipedia philosophy.
'''Neutral'''<s> '''Support''' Good editor, won't abuse tools. Could use more like him. </s> I've become worried by a couple things that went on here, changed to neutral.
'''Support'''. He's made some excellent contributions to wikipedia, particularly in the context of the Olympics. -
'''Support''' Good edit distribution, though a little light on overall count.
'''Support''': Good edit count and pretty good attendancy in Wikipedia. I'm 80% sure you'll become adminstrator. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support''' per nom. Good editor! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''support''':  Strong contributor who is quite unlikely to abuse admin privileges.  Though relatively inexperienced, conferring admin status in this case should not be such a big deal and a delay doesn't seem necessary.
'''Support''' per Richardcavell and Ombudsman.
'''Support''' Superb contributions to Olympics. He might as well be the '''Olympicbot'''. --'''<font color="#E32636">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support''' - You'd make a great admin.  And I'll vote for you again the next time around (provided I see the nom).  --
'''Moral Support''' - you should probably look at the standards and what your fellow RfA candidates have been doing, anyway, keep it up, you'll get it in a few months.
'''Oppose''' too soon.  Prefer admins to have experience in all areas of the project.--
'''Oppose''' per above; you look like a great editor, but I would give it some more time.
'''Oppose''' "Better safe than sorry" vote only here.  Editor's wiki-career is going well, but this is a little too soon for me -- more article-space experience is a good idea.
'''Oppose''' sorry, a little too soon for my liking. Do stick around and keep contributing, and I would be pleased to support in a few months.--
'''Oppose''', too soon and per comments and actions during the mfd at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Olympic conventions]] has too little experience, and needs more time to get to grips with policy and guidelines, epecially [[WP:CIV]] and [[WP:AGF]]. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AOlympic_conventions&diff=43467329&oldid=43463713] , [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AOlympic_conventions&diff=43459691&oldid=43458541],and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AOlympic_conventions&diff=43500640&oldid=43496522].
'''Oppose''' Still a little new for my standards.
'''Oppose'''. It looks like really only two months of regular participation. I'm sorry, but that's not long enough.
'''Oppose'''. I've been here 3 months as well and there are still Wikipedia policies that I meet that I am unfamiliar with. Give it time. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''', too early. Try again in a few more months. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
I concur; it's too soon. Leave me a message in three months, and I'll vote for you then (unless you've gone insane in the meantime); for now, however, '''oppose reluctantly'''.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  Please do try again in 3 months.  --
I hate to do this... but '''Reluctant Oppose'''. Your contributions have been flat-out astounding, but with the length of time you have here, there no way we can judge dedication or maturity level. Leave me a talk page note in 3 months and you'll have my vote as long as you don't threaten to leave in a huff or trigger any other pet peeves of mine. -'''
'''Oppose''', too early. Not enough contributions. Confusing signature.
'''Weak oppose''' try 1 or 2 months later
'''Oppose''' on inexperience.

'''Oppose''': please keep building the encyclopedia and consider trying again in a few months.
'''Oppose.''' While he has made a great number of edits to the Olympics content, including templates, he lacks a basic understanding of many of the Wikipedia philosophies, including consensus. I would also agree with Hiding about his comments during the MfD process.
'''Neutral''' Under 1000 article namespace edits just isn't enough for me.
'''Neutral''' at this time. It looks like you're heading in the right direction. From Interiot, I see that the majority of your contributions have come in February and March, so while you technically have three months, your first month or so was not very active. Personally I like to see at least three months of activity, so to me you're ''almost'' at that threshold. I'm not as concerned about your ''quantity'' of Mainspace edits because it looks like the majority of your edits are in the Mainspace, so I feel like that's simply a matter of time if you keep going. I also feel that your editing seems to be centered around the Olympics, as almost all of your top edited articles are Olympics related. I'd like to see a ''bit'' more variety and breadth, it's good to wander off to different areas of the project now and again. I'm also concerned because I don't feel you have many contributions to AfD. Since you express an interest in closing deletion debates, I'd like to see a fair amount of contribution to AfD discussion. I think in general, you show great signs, and are moving in the right direction, but I feel you could use a little more time before Adminship. I would reccomend re-applying in two months if you don't gain consensus from this nomination. Best regards,
'''Neutral''' But like Evilphoenix mentioned, you are definetly close in my book.  I liked your project page and your Connecticut Academic Performance Test article.  Keep it up and you'll have my vote next time.  --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Looks good, but I think another month or two is in order.
'''Neutral'''.  On the fence neutral, would like to verify consistancy of edits by seeing more of the same, for a bit longer. —
'''Neutral'''. Good user, but too soon, and the oppose votes have a point.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''. Needs a little more experience. As an aside, could people please stop using fake "You have new messages" boxes on their user or user talk pages? They're very annoying.
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''', better with more experience.--
'''Neutral''', I agree with the lack of mainspace edits. You are heading in the same direction as me (hopefully).
'''Neutral'''. Good balance of contributions to various namespaces, but too new. Keep doing what you're doing, and everything should be ok. — <small>Mar. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:30] <
'''Oppose''' has <s>not outlined any need for admin tools, Questions are unanswered and has</s> fewer than 250 edits, so is inexperienced. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Strong support''' per nom.
'''Support''' good to see a couple of ex-admins asking for their bits back. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''', no reason to say no, I think. '''
'''Support''', very shocking news to me. Nevertheless, you are a great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.'''--
'''Oppose'''. Per several things, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtkiefer&diff=prev&oldid=47886808 especially this edit summary]. --
'''Sorry''', but no. I am extremely uncomfortable not just with the fact that this is technically your sixth RfA and failed 5 RfBs in total, but more of that the processes and statements in the course of all these has really cast doubt to me about your sincerity towards the community. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Oppose''' per number 1. I know there's nothing you can do to take back mistakes on a system that saves every edit, but April was not really a "very long time ago". It's good to know you regret that, but I've opposed for far less incivility than telling other editors to die... -
'''Strong Oppose''' I don't really believe this story, to begin with. You [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pegasus1138&diff=prev&oldid=44470484 opposed] your own RfA? And you ran for adminship on Pegasus while you were running for bureaucratship on this account (in March 2006). That doesn't seem right... But if I were to believe you, you'd have three RfAs (albeit one successful) on this account, five RfBs on this account, and four RfAs on Pegasus. You made a rallying exit from Pegasus, and it's very obvious that the first thing you did upon restarting this account was request adminship. This is entirely too strange for me. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per joturner. This just makes me extremely uncomfortable - sorry.
'''Oppose''' joturner highlights one of the interactions in the opposing of the rfa, there are the both voting in rfa's which are mentioned by Jtkiefer which appear a few days apart so could easily be a genuine mistake. However we also have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=prev&oldid=44153584 this edit] somewhat ironically on  [[Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics]] with Jtkiefer discussing a 3RR issue, one of the participants from a few lines up is [[User:Pegasus1138]], a few minutes before he had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pegasus1138&diff=prev&oldid=44152167 notified himself] of his intention not to block himself for the [[WP:3RR|3RR]].  He also lends [[User:Pegasus1138]] support on a bot approval [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals&diff=prev&oldid=44122127 here]. --
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. Something just feels creepy too me; Am I correct, is your ''seventh RfA?!'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals&diff=prev&oldid=44122127 This] is totally unacceptable - but '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pegasus1138&diff=prev&oldid=44470484 this]''' just freaks my out. Sorry -
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong Oppose''' No way, everything that has been brought up shocks me.  This is your seventh attempt, YOU VOTED AGAINST YOUSELF, and that edit summary from April--definitely not admin qualities.  Why did you oppose your own rfa?  I cannot figure that out.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; My reasons are personal, and prefer not to disclose them to the general public.  I'm sure Jtkiefer can figure them out if he tries hard enough to remember.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but the way you reacted to the failure of your last RfA didn't impress me. I would have been prepared to overlook that, but the behavior listed above is unacceptable. Voting against your own RfA is simply bizarre and is not what I'd expect from a reliable, open, trustworthy admin. Unless you have a very good explanation for this and other cited behavior, I cannot support you having the admin bit.
'''Strong oppose'''.

'''Oppose''', voting in own RfA demonstrates either malicious intent or serious lack of judgement, either of which disqualify you for the sysop bit.
'''Opppose'''.
'''Categorical oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pegasus1138&diff=prev&oldid=44152167 this] is the very definition of sockpuppet abuse.  I suggest taking this to [[WP:AN/I]] and handing out some long blocks here.
'''Oppose''' I supported the latter three Pegasus requests but of course can't support this one, per, to name three, Mailer, Joturner, and Phaedriel, and inasmuch as, as Pegasus, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APegasus1138&diff=66211665&oldid=66211571 tagged] his [[User talk:Pegasus1138|talk page]] with {{tl|db-owner}}, from which one can infer either a nonconversance with policy or a profound lack of judgment; neither quality is particularly auspicious in a prospective admin.
'''Oppose'''. Please spare me the explanation, in fact. This is too much to digest and forgive like nothing had happened. I'm utterly disappointed and saddened by all this. What a shock. [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Oppose in the strongest possible terms.'''  This editor has doublevoted on three RfAs (including one of his own).  He abused my trust by extracting my promise not to reveal his sockpuppet, then running for admin with his sock while remaining an admin on his previous account.  His behavior at Wikimania did a great deal to further convince me that this is not the sort of person who should be an admin on this or any other Wikimedia project.  Perhaps after some time has passed and Jtkiefer has had a chance to develop more personal maturity, we can reconsider his role in this project.
'''oppose''' The reactions of {{User|Pegasus1138}} at the end of the fourth RfA attempt was just too much melodrama. i could get diffs if people can't find them.  Adminships is not a right, and should not be a reward for longevity.  It is a role for those that stear the project in the right direction. Given the recent outbursts i do not trust the user.
'''Oppose'''. This is all too weird.
'''Very Strong Oppose'''.  Based on the RfA nom., as well as my own history with user (see his RfBs), I believe user is not trustworthy.  That's about as kindly as I can put it.
'''Oppose''' - sets a bad precedent.
'''Oppose'''.  I am stunned and appalled.  I used to have considerable respect for Jtkiefer, but now I don't know what to think.  Sad day.
For what it's worth now, '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Holy $#*%! Giving up one's adminship and then taking on a new identity to request adminship (without much behavioral change and actually making "mock" communications & votes between the two accounts) overwhelms me so much that I'm struggling to find the right word(s) to describe this ordeal.
'''Oppose''' Explanation needed? --
'''Oppose'''. It appears [[User:Thygard]] is also another Jtkiefer sock. See [[Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates]] where he apparently forgot which account he used to close an FPC nomination. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Strong strong oppose''' See his fublings over at Featured Picture cantidates [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Promotion_of_the_85mm_lens_image|here]], I don't think he or his sockpuppets know what a consensus is. -
'''Oppose'''. Changed from Neutral below per continuing revelations of abusive sockpuppetry. —
'''Neutral''' I am utterly confused.  Didn't you just run for adminship [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pegasus1138_4]? --
'''Neutral leaning towards oppose''' - I understand that on and off wiki stress and issues hit us all, and I also understand the draw to come back even when we've left (I did a fair bit o browsing during my last wikibreak).  I'm uncomfortable enough with the deception of using the pegasus account that despite my good recollections of you as an admin I don't feel I can support this RFA at this time.  I'm going to think on it for a day or two though.
'''Very strong support''' - [[Juro]] is one of the users that I trust. He is a very friendly, excellent contributor. We need such Admins like him.
'''Support''' - Civilized attitude in "heated" subjects. Highly predictable. --
'''Support''', very knowlegeable and dedicated editor.
'''Support''', a very enthusiastic and knowledgeable contributor, with an excellent temperament.
'''Support''' - I've come across him once and he is calm and works well with other users. Not to mention his good contributions on Slovak topics. He has been accused of being a Slovak POV-pusher, but I don't think that's an accurate description at all. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''
'''Support''' Juro is a very knowlegeable and dedicated editor.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' Too few [[edit summaries]].
'''Strongly Oppose''' However I think Juro a valuable contributor, he is well known as a strong Slovak POV-pusher. I had heated edit wars with him and he made personal attacks against me (see [[Dunajská Streda]]) calling me fascist and chauvinist and making hostile remarks about my profession. I'm not over-sensitive so I not take this too seriously from a fellow-contributor but I think it unacceptable from an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Ignores edit summaries, ignores standard questions&mdash;not a good sign.
'''Oppose''', not enough project space edits, was fairly [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] when requesting a user be blocked.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=30126044#Treaty_of_Trianon.2C_Second_Vienna_Award.2C_Vienna_Award.2C_Greater_Hungary_.28political_concept.29]  --
'''Oppose''' until email set and questions answered. It would be helpful to hear something from the candidate other than "I accept the nomination." --
'''Strongly Oppose''' Well-known Slovak POV-pusher, uses the word 'fascist' to discredit other contributors, qualifies content disputes as vandalism (see eg. [[Treaty of Trianon]]).
'''Oppose'''. No matter how right or wrong you may be, you shouldn't be calling other users ignorant or fascist [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=30040101&oldid=30035071]. A few other things: Edit summary usage is low, and when it was used, it was to try to communicate. Edit summaries are there to help other editors figure out what your edits were about, and if you have to communicate, do it on a talk page. Also, I would also like some answers to the generic questions. —
'''Oppose'''.  Being uncivil is a major problem in my opinion.  Also, the lack of edit summaries doesn't help. --
'''Oppose'''.  Didn't even bother to answer the questions.
'''Oppose'''. Nice answers to the questions... and lack of edits summaries, coupled with the above users' complains about civility.
'''Oppose''', inability to refrain from harsh personal attacks on users his is in conflict with suggests he is likely to use admin powers abusively.
User is too controversial at this time.  --
'''Oppose''', per all the comments above in this section, this editor clearly needs his sharper corners thoroughly rounding off for several months yet. -
'''Weak oppose''', too few edit summeries and controversial edits. But seems to be improving so keep it up. Also, he hasn't answered the questions at the bottom of the nomination page. That should be done first thing. --
'''Oppose'''. Too little project namespace participation. Why does he need to be an admin if all he is going to do is to discuss things on talk pages? I know nothing about this user, but if he would be so kind as to explain himself a bit in the questions, I might change my mind.
'''Oppose'''. POV pusher who I simply wouldn't trust to misuse powers.
'''Oppose''' for now. User hasn't answered the candidate questions. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' POV-pusher. --
'''Strongly oppose'''. Not clear why he wants to be an admin, what special tasks he would serve; too much POV-pushing-like discussions, revertions with personal or racist (anti-Hnugarian fanatic) attacks ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Trianon&diff=prev&oldid=33853930]),   ''in edit sumaries'' ("this an English encyclopedia and not a Hungarian dictionary, nevertheless the Hungarian name is mentioned above, if you want to use Hung. names, you have the Hu wikipedia, even KissL had to correct yo"). Too much problems with him to hold into highly responsible position.
'''Oppose'''. We don't need admins that participate in namecalling. Also, questions have still not been answered and Juro's low use of edit summaries are disappointing.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
Would like to support, but not even having answerred the questions... ah, well. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. The ingredients for an admin are there, however, there are too many lose ends that need to be addressed. For starters, the interest in this RfA is clearly shown by the depth of the answers to the questions below. --Jay '''(
<font face="Bookman Old Style">'''Support'''</font> Of course, as above.
'''Oppose''' Answers show inexperience & lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Also isn't convincing about why he needs admin tools. Your mainspace contributions are great, but gain a little more experience in wikipedia-space & you will get through soon. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Answers to question one are worrisome, display a lack of knowledge and lack of need of admin tools.
'''Oppose.''' Answers to questions seem vague and show lack of knowledge on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, the discuss link is broken, but I suppose that's the nominators fault and not the candidate, so I won't hold that against him. — '''''
'''Oppose''' "welcoming new users to Wikipedia" ''does not'' require administrator tools. Nor does "observ[ing] votes for deletion carefully" - only the closing of the debates does. "If I become an administrator, I will be no different than the other users." I understand the sentiment, but this nomination displays a misunderstanding of what it means to be an administrator. If you want to be "no different than the other users," ''why do you want to be an administrator''? This question needs to be thoroughly answered, and so far it has been barely answered at all. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13&diff=prev&oldid=53065430#Template:User_SNL this vote] displays lack of understanding of Template space. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Oppose''' it isn't "votes for deletion", as above answer to (1) doesn't inspire confidence. Answer to question (2) "I have a knack for memorizing things", does that mean your additions are [[WP:NOR|original research]] rather than [[WP:CITE|cited]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]? --
'''Oppose'''. The answers to the questions do concern me. For example, welcoming newcomers does not require adminship to perform.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions are very poor indeed. Not knowing that VfD is no longer used is a concern. --
'''Oppose''' per original research concerns above.  I wasn't going to oppose because I realized I never talked to him about it before, but after leaving a message on his talk page about inaccuracies he acknowledged being inaccurate a few times, and didn't offer to start using a source (when I wrote on Simpsons episodes I often used [[The Simpsons:  A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family]].)
'''Oppose''' per Srikeit --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Like others, I'm unimpressed with the answers to the questions below, but perhaps more than anything else -- and I hate to say this, but I'm gonna be honest here -- I have to say that the nomination by [[User:Myrtone]] doesn't inspire confidence. That's possibly unfair of me and I realize that I should probably try and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] a little harder, but I have a lot of trouble accepting this as a serious nomination (which, I readily admit, is very likely not JustPhil's fault). In any case, for someone who says that he intends to be involved in the AfD process, I find it a little less than impressive that JustPhil has only made three AfD contributions this year, and the last one was almost three months ago. --
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions demonstrate no understanding of Wikipedia process or policy, something that all admins must have in order to do their job effectively. This user requires far more experience before assuming the mantle of admin. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose'''.  You're doing a great job as an editor.  If you want to be an admin, then get involved with the janitorial side - make constructive comments on *fDs, do some vandal fighting, and generally get busy at the [[Wikipedia:Community Portal]].  --
'''Oppose''' per Hugh Parker.
'''Oppose''' not a huge amount of user talk edits, you don't need admin to welcome new users or observe AfDs for socks like I do. So I don't actually know why you want admin, doing great as an editor.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose.''' Meets some of my criteria, but the answers to the questions worry me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Thoughtful and committed with a good understanding of administrative responsibilities.  I see him as a potent vandal fighter --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' after thorough investigation of User talk, block logs, user log, etc.
'''Support''' using my first "thought he already was one". -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' solid contributor with an obvious interest in the position. I like his attitude toward being frank with vandals and unhelpful contributors, which is something I think we could use more of (err, frankness, that is, not vandals and unhelpful contributors).
'''Support''', As everything above. So, I nominate him for Administrator
'''Support'''. Good user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' provocative unfriendly responses/threatening to block a user; at the bottom of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kafziel/archive4#THIS_IS_NOT_VANDALISM this page]. Not the kind of attitude I want admins around here to have. This was a month ago so I don't know if your attitude is still the same. Sorry.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''; the conversation pointed out by Andeh shows a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes vandalism, how the category system works, and what actions may result in blocks.
'''Oppose''' per Andypandy.
'''Oppose'''.  The conversation cited by Andeh, if you go back and look at the history in [[The Shield]], reveals a number of errors by Kafziel.  First, reverting and then reverting ''as vandalism'' an edit that looks like an effort to contribute; the correct action would have been to ask the user about the edit before reverting. Second, letting VandalProof leave messages that (under the circumstances) were rude.  Third, failing to communicate politely with a user who was frustrated because of the first two errors.  Fourth, demanding an explanation of the "|" symbol in order to "ok" the edits rather than investigating the effects of the edit himself.  Fifth, not apologizing when everything was explained. In short, I see lack of understanding of Wikipedia features, misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, failure to assume good faith, and the potential to bite newbies (whose good-faith edits sometimes look more like vandalism).  As for the continued assertion that the user in question could have been blocked, he couldn't have been blocked any more or less than Kafziel could have been&mdash;they were both reverting with either no explanation or an inaccurate one.  The admins Wikipedia needs least are the ones who, through ignorance or frustration, might turn good-faith users away from the project.  All that being said, some of the answers below indicate you've got the right idea even if you made a mistake in this case. I therefore suggest learning more and trying again later. --
'''Oppose'''. The talk page pointed out by Andeh is a little worrying - I'd hope never to see an administrator stooping to threats (especially unrealistic ones, used simply to bully another user), petty antagonism and the like. I'll happily support you in a few months, provided you cool off a bit and take a more reasonable stance in future conflicts.
Admins can get away with being rude ... but not ''that'' rude.  --
'''Oppose''' I have to oppose based on this user's attitude toward others in the community.  He seems standoff-ish in a way that makes me uncomfortable with giving him more responsibility and opportunity to interact with users.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kafziel/archive5&oldid=53744932#you_welcomed_me.3F this] response to a user's communication on his talk page; to me, it is dripping with condescension. <font color="3300FF">
'''Strong Oppose''' per comments above.  Serious concerns with civility; blocking should never be a threat. Shell <sup>
'''Oppose''' Civility concerns per Andeh.  The fact that one is correct does not justify boorish behavior.
'''Oppose''' civility concerns.--
Meets [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]], but per civility concerns above...Sorry. -
'''Neutral''' I'm sitting on the fence for now.
'''Neutral''' User shows that he is dedicated to this project. However, unfriendly responses seem to be of a concern. I feel that it is not right to oppose him because of this, '''BUT''' I cannot support him at the moment. However, his acknowledgement ''in wording his replies could have been much better'' is taken into strong consideration here. I may have to look at the responses he makes to ''oppose'' votes to change my vote in the near future. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' at the moment. After perusing user talk, I found a number of interchanges that seemed "unfriendly" at best. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObRoy&diff=prev&oldid=53422806]. I am not sure that this is the type of approach that encourages collaboration.
'''Neutral''' for now. Worried about the unfriendly exchanges. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Neutral''' per civility concerns. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support'''. Strong answers to the question and nothing worrying in the user's edit history. [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?site=en.wikipedia.org&username=Kafziel A nice spread of edits too]. I'll keep looking, but unless I stumble on something worrying I have no problems with this user getting the mop. --
'''Support''' Great user, with good answers to the questions.
I'm
'''Strong support''' - I have no single doubt about this valuable user. -- ''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per contributors above. --
'''Support''' his "rules of Wikipedia" are pretty well thought out, and while I don't totally agree with #5, his answer to my question about it is fine. --
'''Strong Support''' per nom and answers.
Nominator - <b>
'''Support'''! Any current concerns over "civility" are over-reactions&mdash;there is a difference between patient but sometimes blunt discussions and real incivility (irrational edit wars/reverts, rude edit-summaries and first warnings, etc.).  We need admins like this user. --
'''Support''' and concur with Renesis13 re: incivility concerns.  I see a conscientious editor that knows how to be flexible in dealing with people - different situations require different approaches. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Strong Support''' - strong because the arguments to oppose are so weak --
'''Support''' Being a little less civil dosn't take away his good work. --

'''Strong Support''' - I see very little in that archive to make me go queasy. When a user has got NPA tags all over their talk, chances are they fully deserve a ticking off. No point in crawling to the trolls.
'''Strong support''' maybe you should've posted this last week ;) I supported last time, still supporting now - well-thought-out answers reflect a well-thought-out approach to editing. (I'm guessing we could easily gather some empirical evidence in favor of his #5.) Said this many times before, but this kind of forthright and direct approach to wayward users is both more effective and more respectful of others' time than lockstepping through a series of warning templates that don't apply to every situation. Kafziel will make a great admin who doesn't take any crap.
'''Support'''. Potential good in fighting vandalism outways any civility concerns. This isn't 2004 and we don't have 200,000 articles and limited page views anymore.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin, I believe. Liked his answers. ←
'''Support''' passes my criteria, like the [[WP:CIVIL]] comment that some guy opposed because of
'''Support''' - passes criteria; opposition below are taking a single comment out of context, the kind of comment that frequently comes from well-established admins. User is qualified, and we need qualified admins on that backlog, as czr pointed out. Most any admin candidates will have a few contributions we can pick on if we look hard enough. -
'''Strong support'''. Telling someone not to be "that guy" is not being incivil. It's telling someone not to be that guy (who I know we've all had problems with on Wikipedia. A misunderstanding of regional colloquialisms?) Very strong encyclopedic contributions, and furthermore, I don't think I've ever run into you, but I really like your style, after reading your userpage and answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - good editor, reasonable wiki-philosophy, have not seen really bad examples of incivility. Good admin material
'''Support''' unless something else comes up. The comment below might fall under [[WP:NOBULLSHIT]] but doesn't cross into [[WP:CIVIL]] when read in context. ~
'''Support'''.  No reason not to.
'''Weak support''' re-evaluated my position. It is weak beacuse I still have mild misgivings (see my struck out oppose) however I have decided to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and give them a go. I hope however, that time does not show my original thoughts to be correct. Thanks and good luck.
'''Support''' per answers to questions and I think the civility questioning is a bit out of proportions.
'''Support'''. He has made excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, with fine photos, a good FA, and a useful guideline. He is rough around the edges, but not mean, even the combative comments he made are below the level exhibited by some respected current administrators. His rules of Wikipedia are those of a skeptic, but note that he's not forcing them on anyone else, they're just his. He's an ex-marine, being tough is part of the job description, but he's not vindictive - read the exchanges, they turn out all right. He may be one of the rare users who will be both a good article writing editor and a good order maintaining administrator. We need more of that combination.
'''Support'''. Competent and committed. I find his communications clear, helpful, direct and human, but not uncivil.
'''Support''' to be honest, a lot of his 'rules' which are causing controversy are a little harshly written but generally quite incitive. "There are some cool people and some cool pages just waiting for you, and it doesn't always have to be a battle" indicates that despite some civility concerns, he's basically a good guy. --
'''Support''', struck neutral. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Support''' We need reasonable and rational people here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm swiching from neutral, I appreciate Kafziel's kind response and I've decided to trust him.--
'''Weak Support'''; civility problems (see Oppose/Neutral below) abound. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' Ergh, this was a tough call for me. However, I think Wikipedia's best interests will be kept here and the 'pedia will be allowed to expand without any damage being done.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks like we can trust this user. He's a solid contributor who contributes a lot of article content. I'm all for it. <font color="#000000">&spades;
Overdue in my opinion

'''Support''' Thoroughly decent sort - will be an asset.--
'''Strong Support''' -- I have read the comments many others have seen as inappropriate and uncivil. When I went through the entire context of these exchanges, I thought they were very temperate, given the provocations. They just did not happen to be written in very formal, dry or stuffy language. I thought "''...Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff.'' was great and cut to the chase.  The person writing on his talk page had just inappropriately accused Kafziel of being uncivil in response to what I thought was a well-reasoned, correct and temperate comment by Kafziel. I think Wikipedia needs more of that sort of genial directness (properly applied as Kafziel did). I'm usually very conservative when looking at RfA candidates and one of the editors most likely to oppose a nomination. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Although civility is important, requesting robotic, constant perfection in this category as a reqiurement for admin status detracts from the project. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I went over the examples of alleged incivility, and while Kafziel doesn't sugar-coat his replies, I didn't find his responses to be rude or out of line. We often let vandals enjoy the benefit of the doubt far more than they deserve, and Kafziel draws the line earlier than some of us, but in all cases I examined  this was well justified. His philosophies, as listed on his user page, are a keen observation on this society, and his ideas for improving things, such as semi-protecting featured articles, are right on the money, although unlikely to be adopted in the current atmosphere. Kafziel will make a strict but fair admin.
'''Support''' - I, too, examined these ''incivil'' incidents. He's a bit rough, but that's something you find in other admins, and despite the fact that lots of people disagree with his ideas, I feel they're in the spirit of improving the community rather than simply accepting the status quo. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' - He has much to offer, and if you accept the grounds advanced by his opponents, you'd have to de-sysop at least 100 current admins!--
'''Weak support''' I'm not really worried about the civility claims that I may note have no been backed up with diffs, but his opinions on WikiProjects concern me. Still, Kafziel is a very productive member and I doubt that he will abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' I can understand the concerns of those who are opposing, and I do agree with most of them pertaining to civility. We do need more responsible and productive admins. Since the candidate is willing to join the category of admins open to recall, this gives me the confidence to give my support here.
'''Support''' - Tells it like it is without bowing down to the civility police. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' - this user seems very adept at distinguishing between civility and passive aggressiveness. Kafziel is a very intelligent Wikipedian who has an aptitude to handle extremely complicated situations on Wikipedia. His approach may appear superficially polarizing, but there is a clean underlying logic to it. The way this RfA nomination has evolved to date is simply not representative of the strengths and capabilities of this Wikipedian. If one seeks to find fault, one can always find it. I'd encourage a closer look at his collaborations, as well as his other archives. Full support. --
'''Support''' Civility matters a great deal to me, so I gave serious consideration to the opposition's objections here.  However, I trust Crz's judgment, and I am encouraged by the candidate's openness to recall.  His excellent editorial skills are not in doubt, and I think he will be an asset with the mop.
'''Support''' why not, seems sufficient.<font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
--
'''Support''' guts and sense.
'''Support''' Per above.
'''Support''' per [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]], [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]], and [[User:Mike1|Mike]] and inasmuch as I am quite confident that Kafziel will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools and will, qua admin, be sufficiently civil as to be able to interact productively and collaborate successfully with other editors, such that it is, I think, plain that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standard]]).
'''Support'''. Very strong support from somebody who has interacted with the user in several different (and not always to either of our liking) circumstances. We may not always agree, but I most definitely trust his judgement. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Support''', you are lucky I just about signed Oppose. The civility problem worrys me but I think if you work on it you will be a fine admin.__
'''Support''' While there are a few areas needing work, I don't think the concerns raised below will hold this user back from being an effective admin. Good Luck! --
'''Weak support''' The civility concerns brought up by the oppose votes are worrisome but most of the relevant civility issues pointed to are simple cases of sarcasm which IMO doesn't constitute incivility per se.
'''Support'''. He's of at least average civility and above-average utility. --
'''Support''' - I did not find the comments pointed out by the first oppose voter to be incivil. Furthermore, I found the responses to the oppose voters to be reasonable and clear, and not combative. Based on the previous support votes, and the candidate's pledge to be open to recall, I support this candidate being given the administrator tools.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' A good editor and a well deserved promotion--
'''Support''' - I think he'll do good &mdash;
'''Support''', I see no problems here, he should be fine as an admin.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' per the candidate's overall record and with my usual caveat that this does not signify agreement with every word the candidate has ever written on the site.
'''Support'''. While I am somewhat concerned about the candidate's civility issues, I feel that it's not enough to deny the candidate adminship, and I'm somewhat confident that now that it's been pointed out to the candidate that he needs to be more civil, the candidate is likely to change his ways. --
'''Support''' I really do trust crz's judgment, despite the concerns brought up below I'm sure Kafziel will do a good job.
'''Support'''.  There are good arguments on both sides but I am swayed to support. --
'''Support'''. Per all above.
'''Oppose''' [[User_talk:Kafziel/archive8|Still seems a little condescending, impatient, and perhaps even imperious.]] The frequent sarcasm laceing this archive raises a question of incivility.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Per responses to other users such as this (last month): "''...Aw, don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do, and you've been around long enough to know that...''". Admins need to be able to deal with trolls and vandals in a calm manner and I don't have confidence that Kafziel is there yet.
'''Very weak oppose''' I do not think this user has gotten past his civility problems. Things like ''don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do'' would really disturb me if I heard it from an administrator. His response is that it's context somehow makes it acceptable, I disagree. You could have said the same thing without name calling. One of the biggest things admins have to do is deal with people who do not understand, or do not want to understand the rules. They must remain civil regardless. <s>I also disagree with his rule #5 as I think it is probably not true, and a little insulting to our anon editors who are helpfull. I would like to ask if you really checked the history of all the main page articles to confirm that?</s>
'''Oppose''' I don't want to be a trendfollower (I set the trends, man!), but Dlohc does bring up some good points. An admin must maintain his cool at all times, regardless of the situation. If you can't keep your calm in simple conversations with "noobs", then how can you expect to be civil to users who will make personal attacks at you (which should be expected if you become admin)? Also, I wouldn't have made this such a big deal had this occurred months ago, but this was just 3 weeks ago! I don't think you can totally morph into a new personality in just three weeks. If it happens, it's only superficial. '''
'''Oppose''' per HighInBC, SuperMachine, and others. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Per Dlohcierekim, SuperMachine and Nishkid64.
'''Oppose''' Way too combative with the oppostion presented in this RFA. Civilty is big with me. ''semper fi'' —
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' An admin cannot be too combative and must be willing to concede ground if need be. Also per concerns raised by Dlohcierekim and SuperMachine. I would be able to support a future try (if any), provided that behavior becomes less...flaming, shall we say. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' - with regrets. I am not an admin, and, because of my occasional combativeness, there is no way I would vote for me if I ran anyway. Not saying that Kafziel is as bad as I am in this regard, but admins should preferably not be very combative, as it could occasionally interfere with their function. I agree he is excellently qualified in all other ways, and maybe I'd be in favor of him in a few months if this tendency went dormant, but my concerns on this point are such that I can't support him now.
'''Oppose''' as per Physicq above --
'''Oppose''' - Unfortunately I have to oppose. I've seen what everyone has said & they have brought up way too much stuff for me to support or stay neutral. I'm sorry man. Maybe in a couple of months you can come back & try if you've had no arguments (as was the case in my RfA... which failed miserably ;) Have a good day!
'''Oppose''' per his very telling archive 8. I seriously want more people who can take the ugly red stuff away from the top of [[C:CSD]] once and for all, but someone who argues that [[WP:BITE|bitingly]] is not the person to do so, IMO. <tt>
'''Oppose''': discussion of this adminship has made way out into Talk pages, and this whole RfA seems more like a political race where Kafziel is trying to appease everyone with answers that don't always seem to be in agreement with one another. This, in my strongest of opinions, is not what Wikipedia ought to be.
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim, SuperMachine and Nishkid64.
'''Oppose''' Per Nishkid64. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' Per Nishkid64.
Oppose. I had some doubts earlier about experience with process other than AFD, but there are simply too many users here concerned about combativeness. (
'''Fully oppose'''. combativeness. does not hesitate to destroy work of others (= attitude which is incompatible with AGF and collaborativeness). wants to get the last word. find pretexts (=excuses) to repeat when his first reason is rebutted. will not in all likelihood to hesitate being similar with admin tools. bad experience. his candidature hereby rejected.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above.  Candidate probably would make a good admin but it's clear that there are a number of people that I respect who think Kafziel needs to adjust his combative and biting tone.  Recall and ARBCOM are "sledgehammers" to deal with egregious behavior.  The RFA is our last chance to make a point about undesirable behavior which is something less than "a federal case".  Kafziel doesn't seem to have gotten the point that the opposers are making so let's have him think about it awhile between now and his next RFA.  --
'''Oppose''' per civility issues.  I held off on this one as I haven't had any interactions with this editor, but felt I needed to look into it based on the number of concerns raised.  Looking at the past interactions, I'm afraid this editor doesn't meet my standards as an admin. —
'''Neutral''' from previous support. As much as I'd like to support you, civility is a fundamental aspect of adminship, and based on the concerns above I don't believe you meet the standard I expect from candidates. I won't oppose, since it's clear enough you're competent and experience enough for the job; however, administrators of all users must take ''extreme'' care to always be civil to users even under fire, and so I cannot bring myself to support. Sorry. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Firstly, I wish to point out that you are a great editor. Moreover, your answers to the above questions were excellent. However, civility is a very important part of adminship and I feel that you have not met the high standards of civil behavior based on the concerns from the other users. You do not deserve an oppose opinion due to your excellent contributions to this project, but I can't support your nomination for the time being. But please do not get discouraged over this. If this RfA passes, I would be happy for you. If it fails, I would like you to try again for adminship after these concerns regarding civility are met. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Kafziel is extremely combative. Although I do not doubt his experience, he does not exhitbit the self control needed to be an Admin. Sorry man.
'''Neutral''', switched from Oppose above. I cannot support because of concerns outlined above, but I no longer view the granting of the administrator bit to Kafziel as something worth my full opposition. Whatever happens as the outcome of this, I hope he gains a little faith in his fellow anonymous users, as they make up a large segment of our work here. -- ''
'''Neutral'''. While I do not think the civility issues are as grave as other editors make them out to be, this candidate is still extremely blunt, which seems to (inadvertently?) escalate situations that could otherwise be resolved with a minimum of stress. I would encourage this candidate to choose his words very carefully from now on, making that extra effort to try to understand other people's points of view and not just callously stating the relevant policies. —
'''STRONG support''' as nominator
'''Strongest possible support''' per NSLE. --
'''Strongest support''' for an admin with the courage and charachter to   tell the powerful the truth.--
'''Strong support''' Per the above ;). Really a great user, and he deserves his tools.
'''Srongest Support Ever Seen on Wikipedia''' Per NSLE, one admin that wikipedia NEEDS.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', and a well-deserved one. -
'''Support''', one of the best editors around. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. I don't agree with everything he does, but this is an easy question. — <small>Feb. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[14:30] <
'''Very Strong Support''' Karmafist is one of the more brilliant users on Wikipedia. <strike>I don't understand why he wasn't made an admin earlier.</strike> He should never have been desysoped, especially when other admins *cough* delete without consensus and barely get a slap on the wrist. *cough* --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]]-
'''Support'''. Sure, he has many opinions, but he is mostly sensible. I have seen much worse than this.
'''Strong support'''. Controversy does not outweigh experience and generally responsible behavior in this case. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)<BR><s>'''Support''' Only had good dealings with him and I stand by Jimbo's view of admins.  Although I respect Android very much.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (considering changing to oppsoe depending on answer to #4, however.)<s><br>(changed to neutral due to encouraging blocked usrs to create sockpuppets to get aorund block.  May change my mind and I will not oppose (got enough of those I think)).
'''Moral Support'''. Doesnt always make the greatest of calls, but is more open to criticism and suggestions than many others. Perhaps he deserves some amount of stuff flung at his head - but not this much. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]][[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">r of War</font></u>]] [[User talk:The Minister of War|<sup><font color="navy">(Peace)</font></sup>]] 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) <br><s>Although I have no detailed knowledge on whether or not Karmafist is a Good Guy, I most certainly think that his de-sysopping was out of order (both in terms of procedure as well as justice). If there were other issues that the Joeyramoney-thing, it should just have gone to ArbCom rather than this ugly, ugly affair. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]][[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">r of War</font></u>]] [[User talk:The Minister of War|<sup><font color="navy">(Peace)</font></sup>]] 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)<br>Striking vote after Karmafist rather bafflingly posted personal information without consent. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]

'''Support''' shouldn't have been desysopped in the first place.
'''Support''', bringing to mind a quote from ''[[The Hunt for Red October (film)|The Hunt for Red October]]''.
'''Support'''. Karmafist is one of the best admins here. '''
'''Support''', has been and will be a good admin.

'''Support'''. In moments like these, I always end up thinking how forgiving we all are of our own faults, yet how inflexible we are upon others'. Before judging you, all of us should stop for a moment and think if we are perfect; and let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone upon you. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Yes.''' <span style="font-size:95%;cursor:crosshair">'''—
'''Support'''. Yes. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Extreme "should never have been desysop'd in the first place" support'''! Excelent and exemplary Wikipedian. Absolutely fantastic! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' helpful and reliable.
'''Strongest Support''' Karmafist has courage, humility, and a respect for consensus.  Any missteps have arisen from following these values to the bitter end.  That may be a flaw, but it's a tiny one. He's so good, I'll break my wikifast to support.
'''Support''' for acting examplarily even in tough situations -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' [[WP:AGF|I have to assume good faith]] after the apology on Wikipedia review, and support.--
'''''VEHEMENT BOLD-AND-ITALIC-AND-ALL-CAPS SUPPORT'''''. With all due respect to Jimbo and the ArbCom, karmafist should have never been desysoped. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''', because undoing Jimbo's block didn't merit desysopping, for heaven's sake.
'''Support''' - should not have been smacked down by the cabal. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>
'''Support''' Please, let's keep the casualties from the userbox wars as low as we can.  Karmafist deserves to be an admin and ''never'' should have been desysoped. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - He should never have been de-sysopped. He is generally very helpful and courteous. He cares a great deal about Wikipedia. &nbsp;[[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|25px|IS]]&nbsp;<font color="#B53C07">'''Guðsþegn'''</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''. If adminiship is supposed to be no big deal then there is absolutely no reason this user shouldn't be one. I add my voice to [[User:SPUI|SPUI]] and Guðsþegn (above).
'''Strongest Possible Support''' This project could go one of two ways and I think I prefer Karmafist's.
'''STRONG NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPPORT'''  - Great Editor, Great Admin, a true asset to the community and the project.  Mistakes made, mistakes forgiven.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' (and good luck in the Esperanza elections) [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Weak support'''. No big deal ;) Seriously, is the candidate less devoted to Wikipedia than other 800 admins? I hope that he won't think too much about adminship. In my experience, he is too given to interfactional struggles to use/abuse his tools in the main space. --
'''Support'''.  Remedy invalid removal of privileges.
'''Support'''. The guy <s>is</s> was a good admin.
'''Support'''. Looking at his log of admin actions I see overwhelmingly good uncontroversial work.
'''Strong Support'''. Has always been very helpful with me, and has great edits. <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">
'''Support''' per NSLE. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Superman Strong Support''' ''(image removed as [[WP:FUC]] violation)'' (lol) This user has worked so hard in Esperanza and Wikipedia, that this user '''needs''' this job. Go KARMAFIST! --
'''Strong support''' for Karmafist and '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote|continued opposition]]''' to the arbitration committee. —
'''Per Guanaco'''.
'''Tentative support'''. He wouldn't have lost adminship, I don't believe, if he had not lifted the Jimbo ban, and based on what I've read, the community believes Jimbo was ultimately wrong there, and therefore, he should never have lost adminship. Tentative due to the oppose reasons, especially a prior version of the <nowiki>{{kwelcome}}</nowiki> template, but since adminship should(?) never have been lost, this would be a vote to restore. --
'''Support''' -
'''Strong Support'''. Very helpful and very nice. Jimbo isn't infallible. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] 05:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)<br><s>'''Strong Support'''; getting desysopped for being '''right when Jimbo was wrong''' is goofy. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 08:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)</s> —vote struck per the whole Phroziac deal.. —
<small><s>In the interests of symmetry, then. [[User:El C|El_C]] 09:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)</s> <s>As much as I'd like to counterweigh GMaxwell's charm, I'm withdrawing my support for now, as per ''[[User_talk:Karmafist/Response#Disclosing_personal_information.28.3F.29|this]]'' [[User:El C|El_C]] 15:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)</s></small> Bah, I changed my mind, again. In the interest of symmetry, again.
'''Strong Support'''. Exceptionally valuable user, whose main error was reverting one of Jimbo's decisions, albiet in good faith. It would be a grave disservice to this project to not have him as an admin. --
'''Support'''  I'm an Objectivist; private property is sacred.  Jimbo and the WMF can do whatever the hell they want with their own servers.  But that doesn't mean I have to like it.  Jimbo needs to decide whether this is going to be a wiki or a normal site with some wiki-like features.  If it's the latter, that's fine; I'm willing to work within that context.  If it's the former, then it needs to be a wiki ALL THE WAY or else it's just a big lie.  This means that Jimbo's word and actions carry no more weight than anyone else's, regardless of what they are.  Jimbo ''claims'' that this is a wiki; thus, his blocks are no more untouchable than any other admin's.  The de-sysopping was therefore unjustified, and this is a way of rectifying that transgression.
Consider him to be a good editor.
'''Cannot support strongly enough''' due to his priorities being firmly in check. It's a danged shame that he won't be re-sysopped; he's a valuable resource to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Should not have lost admin access indefenitely over the whole userbox incident.  Perhaps a temporary desysopping was in order, although enough time has passed since then for my support.
'''Strong support''' - Asset to the community
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Looks like this won't be sucessful, but I'm not afraid to say I support. The Userbox incident was unfortunate, but I do not believe it implicates Karmafist's overall qualifications for adminship.
'''Support''' Even though Karmafist may have done some rash things in the past, I believe that people can change for the better. He's done well on the Esperanza Advisory Council, though it seems that he will no longer be on it after the election is finalized. I hope you do not let us down, Karmafist. For yours, ours, and the Wiki's. [[User:Jfingers88|<font color="darkgreen">Jfing</font>]]
'''Support''' Give Him a second chance. --
'''Support''' In what I would call a surprise move, Karmafist nominated me for my adminship. It was a surprise for at one point, I think he would have preferr that I disapeared from Wikipedia altogether. We had had a number of hostile dispute over content but even though he was probably more right than I ever could have been, he recused himself and broke off engagement from our battle. This wasn't a  sign to me of weakness or that I had "won", it was s sign that he was the stronger one. I am not in agreement with some of Karmafists latest actions but see them as a small bleep on the radar in an otherwise long history of decent work here. Should this attempt for readminship fail, I encourage him to move towards article creation and enhancement and recognize that either way, adminship doesn't make him a better wikipedian or above any other contributor here. You can always refer to yourself as "retired".--
'''Support'''  All admins do not have to be the same.  Actually, it is nice to see someone with the drive to make change.--<small><font color="darkgreen">
'''Strong support''' - <small>[[User talk:Matia.gr|talk to]]</small>
'''Strong support'''.  A bunch of editors, admins, and even Wikimedia board members have acted strangely irrational in connection with the userbox brouhaha.  Karmafist was one of them, but that's a tiny flaw in an amazingly helpful editor and former admin.

'''Support''' absolutely --
'''Support''' Per MONGO. '''''
'''Strong Support''' per Locke Cole. It would behoove you if you didn't add to this (i.e, the note on your user page). But, I believe Jimbo was wrong in desysopping you just because he knew the biased ArbCom would back him up. But let's not get into that now. =)
'''Support'''. He has served his debt to the community. If he abuses admin power again, I have faith that ArbCom will come down like a ton of bricks.
'''Support'''. I just don't see the harm that Karmafist can do. If he does wheelwar with Jimbo (or any admin) again, I'm sure the repercussions will be more severe. Besides that this user is really doing a lot of good for the community. He seems a bit paranoid regarding the "cabal", but again, I cannot really see the harm in that. It's aways good to have those who are sceptical, even if it's not really warrented. Keeps everyone alert. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' no brainer, maybe controversial but would do more good than harm. -
'''Token support''' because this RfA is becoming a bloodbath. Keep up the good work, Karmafist.
'''Support'''
'''strong support''' though for the life of me I don't know why Karmafist ''wants'' to be an admin again - just enjoy untrammeled editorship, man! - but, if adminship's what he wants, that's fine with me.
'''Strong support''' Karmafist makes good edits and is good for the project. Everything needs people who question how things are done. If it wasn't for people like Karmafist there would be no advancements.
'''Strong support''' The only user I've ever given strong support to.  Karmafist is not afraid to do what he feels is right to help the encyclopedia, and we need more admins like him.  --
'''Support''' - Illness gives one time to think. And here's what I've thought. Karmafist was once a good user. That means he has a chance of being a good user again. And for what it's worth, I don't like bearing grudges. Perhaps I opposed for personal reasons, perhaps not. Point is; I was just listening to ''Circle of Life''. And I thought of [[The Lion King|that film]]. You know the part where the monkey whacks the lion on the head, and then says it doesn't matter; it's all in the past? That's kinda where I'm going with this. It's time someone put out an olive branch; said to the die-hards, "ok, it's an encyclopedia" - but at the same time, said to the community, "we've hit one million. We need you more than ever." Never put down he who re-evaluates himself.
I disagree with the contention that Karmafist "almost always acts" in good faith, since a number of pages in his userspace (such as the Wikiphilosophies page) assume bad faith. However, I reluctantly oppose because: 1. I have not seen Karmafist abuse adminship (besides wheel warring with Jimbo, and I prefer giving second chances); 2. I think adminship should be no big deal. If being an admin will do no harm, I don't see a reason to oppose. However, I strongly feel bad faith should not be rewarded or encouraged -- bad faith harms both the community and the encyclopedia.
Certainly not. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Assumes bad faith far too often.
'''Oppose'''. Attempts to bring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Kwelcome&action=history] new users (through nonstandard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Karmafist/Welcome&diff=39325633&oldid=39319164] welcome messages) right into [[User:Karmafist/manifesto|politics]] and [[User_talk:Improv#Photo|plays politics with the content of the encyclopedia]], among a number of other problematic things. --
'''Oppose'''. Yes, he's been engaging in dialog, but he has shown heroically unsound judgement in some recent actions (spamming newbies with welcome messages including ads for his wiki-politics pages, frequent complaints about the "cabal", and, yes, ok, reversing a block of Jimbo's without discussion first). &mdash;
'''Oppose''' As per Johnleemk.
'''Oppose''', per {{user|Bunchofgrapes}}.  I was very enthusiastic in my support of Karmafist last time, and I still think he's a great guy, but I'm not sure his judgement is sound anymore.  Wheel warring (with ''Jimbo'', for crying out loud!) and enthusiastic participation in wikipolitics is bad enough, but encouraging newbies to do the same is terrible.
'''Oppose''' per Bunchofgrapes and Android79. I normally don't vote an opposition in RfA, but I agree the candidate tends to assume bad faith too easily. --
'''Oppose'''.  Karmafist appears to be willing to continue to use any privileges granted to him to pursue an irresponsible political agenda that values iconoclastic exercise of free speech over the survival of the project, and he doesn't appear to respect what little decisionmaking structure we do have in place.  While I'll be the first to admit that our overall decisionmaking processes could use improvement and even overhaul, casting sand into the works of what little structure we ''do'' have in place is hardly a useful means of achieving positive change.  Unlike other admins who were involved in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war|recent unpleasantness]], Karmafist has responded by (i) encouraging banned users to [http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1140365086 create sockpuppets and return to Wikipedia], (ii) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult_of_personality&diff=39439926&oldid=39392294 engaging in Wikipolitics in the article space] (also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guru&diff=prev&oldid=40366695]), (iii) has added a copy of the markup from [[User:SPUI]]'s page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Karmafist&oldid=40899202], for which SPUI was banned for a time, and which yet remains on Karmafist's user page despite several people asking him to remove it, and (iv) is using newbies as a political resource as noted above.  This is not a pattern of behavior of someone who wishes to respect community norms.
'''Oppose'''.  Too scrappy.
History of revert warring in violation of our image use policy.  Editors who expose Wikipedia to legal danger like this should be blocked, not promoted. &#8212;
Regretful '''Oppose'''.  Far too often when I see Karmafist mentioned it seems he's in a fight with someone.  :-(  Regards,
'''Oppose'''. Desysopping Karmafist because Karmafist undid Jimbo's block was too harsh I think (although undoing other admin's block without discussion with the admin in question or at [[WP:AN/I]]  is never a good idea). However, must oppose per Karmafist's welcome template; the links there were not appropriate for welcoming newbies.
'''Oppose'''. I've got no problems with this being accepted 13+ days. However, the points raised by UninvitedCompany are a nice summary of why I don't think Karmafist should be given the mop at this time. The newbie welcome template is a huge one for me. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' As per this http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1140365086 <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', I'm sorry to have to do this, but I feel it important that we have some form of ultimate authority on the site.  Until there is an alternative, Jimbo is it.  I feel I have to oppose anyone who is willing to go against that authority (this isn't to say that we can't, or shouldn't, disagree with Jimo and argue against him as our consciences demand).  I would be more than willing to remove this vote if Karmafist were to say that he would never reverse one of Jimbo's actions again. --
'''Oppose'''. Bringing n00bs into politics really sticks in my craw. --
'''Oppose''' attempting to induct n00bs to become wiki-political partisans in his war was quite unacceptable. --
I think his combination of politics and religion is detrimental to the Wikipedia community. For a more complete explanation of what I mean by this, see the Comments section. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''': I've seen too many intemperate outbursts.
'''Oppose''' as above, and also in agreement with Doug Bell below.  Questions 3 and 4 are vital given Karmafist's history of poor response to stress (often stress he's caused himself through poor judgement) and his [[Citizen Smith|behaviour]] since being desysopped.  I'm also wary of people who spend so much time editing user pages and worrying about who is their friend.  This isn't [[MySpace]].  --
'''Oppose''' I am very shocked by the behavior of this editor towards new wikipedians. I also find the blatent defiance fo Jimbo completely incomprehensible, and your inability to answer your adminship queries below laughable.  -
'''Oppose'''. The Uninvited nicely summarizes the concerns I have with restoring Karmafist's administrative privileges. Especially disturbing are the attempts to recruit new members to his politics and the post on Wikipedia Review&mdash;these are not indicative of adminiship suitability. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Cryptic.
'''Oppose''' with regret, as a fellow Esperanzian. The welcoming template does not only border, in my opinion, [[WP:BITE]], but it also goes against what Esperanza is about. Being involved in wikipolitics should (and can) be optional, and no cause you are trying to uphold by getting as many people as possible to sign your manifesto is worthy enough to justify such a severe lapse in judgement from someone who does know better. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' largely per UninvitedCompany and Bunchofgrapes. I find advising banned users to get sockpuppets and to contact the media with proof of the cabal to be very unbecoming conduct for an admin candidate. His attempts to recruit new people to his crusade and his rants about particular admins that he considers to be part of the cabal are inappropriate and show bad judgement.
'''''Oppose''''' As per The Uninvited, Johnleemk, et al.
'''''Oppose'''''. No.
'''Oppose'''. I just can't do it; We've a lot of great administrators here and those who are de-sysopped really, really need to earn a second chance. Karmafist is a Wikipolitican, and gets new users involved in politics too quickly. Edit summary usage applies to all, too, and 20% for major edits is not enough. I would explain in more detail, but this is an RfA vote and it really isn't the place. Simply put, no. :p
'''Oppose with regret''' per, for example, Uninvited Company.  Karmafist has done some great things, and I've enjoyed interacting with him in the past.  However, the ways he has acted on his WikiPolitical views have sometimes been detrimental to the project, and I don't see much evidence that he has fully disavowed such actions.  If he demonstrates a change to his confrontational approach, I would gladly support in a few months. --
'''Absolutely Not'''. He had his shot, and he blew it. This not a case of trusting that someone will not use admin powers irresponsibly, but a case someon who had and did. What led to his desysopping wasn't a one-off, ust the straw that broke the camel's back: he arguably should have have been desysopped long before then. --
'''Oppose''' Ummm... Either I somehow can't see the answers to the questions below or Karmafist hasn't answered them. If thats the case then he has no initiative to be an admin. Also per all that has been said above.
'''Oppose''', while I agree with Karmafist on many issues I do not particularly trust him to use admin tools in a non-disruptive fashion.
'''Oppose.''' Karmafist doesn't actually do anything that requires admin tools and helps build the encyclopedia - he just uses them to be a general dickhead and play power games. There is nothing to be gained from his regaining the adminship powers he was never suitable for in the first place.
'''Oppose''' per Uninvited Company, Sannse. Simply not trustworthy. --
'''Weak oppose''' per Zero (vote <nowiki>#</nowiki>23) -
'''Oppose'''.  I don't believe Karmafist met a reasonable standard for disengagment, diplomacy, and gentleness when last an admin. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Doesn't include many edit summaries, and has abused admin tools in the past. Answer to #4 is disgraceful.  Just because it's easy to make a sockpuppet doesn't mean you should endorse or encourage it.
'''Oppose''' - Still not ready. --
'''Oppose''' "Karmafist is a brilliant user who's unfortunately gotten a little too involved in unfortunate happenings recently". That says it all.--
'''Oppose''' Reluctantly, as per SCZenz.  I'm convinced of Karmafist's good intentions and good faith, but I feel the wikipolitics, manifestos, and off-site rallies are more determental than helpful to healing the encyclopedia.  Like others, I'd say if Karmafist removes the manifesto and spends more time contributing to the mechanisims for improvement already in place, I'd be happy to ''support'' in the future.
'''Oppose''' per SCZenz and Firsfron.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I'm not entirely happy with the circumstances in which he was de-opped;  as per Raul654's comments on the original case, it wouldn't hurt if JW's role as project leader were made more transparent, in such a way that it was clear when tangling with him was a mop-confiscation matter.  (I asked JW to consider doing so. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=40511544&oldid=40506190])  OTOH, KF does indeed to be pretty "scrap-prone", in a way that's not ideal for admins;  his run-ins with [[WP:WSS]] (the gnome cabal?) are one example, as witness his participation in SPUI's on-going incitement to [[WP:POINT]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASPUI%2FSFD&diff=32552044&oldid=32462679].  I'd be happier with a longer period of non-contentious contributions as a basis for consideration.
'''Very strong oppose'''.  Karmafist actively and explicitly opposes consensus. As per [[User:Karmafist/manifesto]]. I'm very unhappy to oppose here, because otherwise karmafist is a very nice person. :-(
'''Oppose''' per Improv, Uninvited but especially Cryptic.  --
'''Oppose'''. I too find his defiance of Jimbo's actions incomprehensible, in addition to his formerly unwelcome welcome template.
'''Very strong oppose''' per user's repeated refusal of consensus, his "manifesto" and spamming newbie pages, his blatant point of view on many things, and lack of edit summaries.
Not yet, and per Kim Bruning.--
'''Oppose'''. Karmafist is a rude user who blames his unwillingness to play nice on aspergers, much to the insult of people with aspergers everywhere. It seems from his text below and his commentary on Wikipedia Review that he now intends to spend his time on Wikipedia keeping it safe for other abrasive and disruptive users. No thanks. --
'''Strongly oppose''' per UninvitedCompany, sannse, Johnleemk, Kim Bruning, Improv, and Ambi.
'''Oppose''' Too much wikipoliticking; more trouble than positive aspects.
'''Strongly oppose''' Although I have many positive things to say about Karmafist, his welcome template, designed to factionalise newbies, was completely unacceptable, and should instantly disqualify him for adminship. <font color="#08457E">
Very sad, regretful '''oppose'''.  Karmafist is an editor with a strong vision of how Wikipedia should be, and was once one of our most promising editors (his RFA wen't virtually unopposed, with a final tally of 53 to 2!)  However, recent activity has been full of conflict--including a bout with Jimbo, of all people.  The "manifesto" and Wikipedia Review post are also highly questionable, and his ArbCom candidacy was run with a platform advocating sweeping changes.  My advice?  Don't try to revolutionise Wikipedia.  Don't try to fight everything.  It's not worth it, your editing has suffered and, surely, it can't be much fun for you either.  Come back to being the productive, fun, and well-respected editor you were circa September of last year, and after things have cooled down, you'll get your adminship back.
'''Oppose''' as per Uninvited Company. The newbie welcome message demonstrates very poor judgement and is not behaviour consistent with good adminship in my opinion. [[User:Danlina| ]]
'''Oppose''' per the several significant ill-judged decisions in the recent past and the general lack of need to resysop the desysopped without extraordinarily good reason. Having nearly gotten de-sysopped not so long ago by the ArbCom, one supposes Karmafist might have taken a cold shower and tried again. The newbie petition-welcoming is particularly, and uniformly, distasteful and I would oppose ''any'' editor engaged in such. -
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

'''STRONG oppose'''. With edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=41319067&oldid=40980659], I don't even think he should be editing at all unless he apologizes.'''
'''Oppose'''. Seems a little too interested in the politics of Wikipedia. We need more contributors, not power-grabbers. Relatively few Talk namespace edits.
In October, 2005, Karmafist's behavior in escalating a minor dispute over [[Coleshill, Warwickshire]], apparently oblivious of the effect of his actions, gave me cause for concern.  Purporting to mediate the dispute, he proceeded to edit war with another user[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coleshill%2C_Warwickshire&diff=25927953&oldid=25905533],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coleshill%2C_Warwickshire&diff=26038652&oldid=26032396], then block him for edit warring on the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Karmafist&page=User%3APigsonthewing], and when the block expired and the other editor resumed edit warring, he reverted the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coleshill%2C_Warwickshire&diff=26280665&oldid=26264623] and protected it on his preferred version minutes later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Karmafist&page=Coleshill%2C+Warwickshire].    This was some of the most inept sysopping I have ever witnessed.  Since then, nothing in his behavior has suggested that he possesses adequate judgement to make reasonable decisions.  It has been suggested to me by a mutual friend that Karmafist's actions were influenced by provocation by the blocked (now banned) editor, but I see no provocation in this instance, only a very minor editing dispute that resolved itself as soon as, with Karmafist's permission, I lifted protection. --
'''Oppose''', mainly due to the welcome template.
'''Oppose'''.  We have so many admins, and so many new admins every week, that if you lose your admin powers you have to really prove that you deserve a second chance at recieving them again.  Karmafist hasn't done that, in my opinion, and it's way too soon after the incident that created this whole situation in the first place.  As a matter of my own standards I don't think I'd support anyone who got desysopped by Jimbo.  I kind of think you abdicate any privilege to administration when that happens.
'''''Strong'' Oppose''' per UninvitedCompany, Rune Walsh, Sarah Ewart, and Voice of All.  I've got a Wikiphilosophies section and am in a few organizations myself, but he goes way overboard with Wiki politics and incivility, as demonstrated by the "manifesto", the war with Jimbo, and the diff that Voice of All provided. --
'''Oppose'''.  Karmafist has made it clear that he's willing to do whatever he feels is best for the encyclopedia, regardless of policy or consensus.  I don't like unpredictability from admins: it makes it tough for people here, and Karmafist is one of the more unpredictable ones, IMO.
'''Oppose'''. I can't honestly say that I trust him not to misuse admin powers.
'''Oppose'''. Good editor but position on contentious issues doesn't seem consistent with admin. We have enough people with authority pushing their own agendas.
'''Oppose'''. I think karma needs more time as a non-admin. --
'''Oppose'''.  Nice person, but needs more time as a regular editor.  I will consider voting support in the future. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per many above including the Uninvited and Voice of All. And, yes, the many who consider the newbie-welcoming template to show very poor judgment. He "just loses his cool" way too often.
'''Oppose'''; I was surprised and disturbed when I first discovered that he'd become an admin.  I'm afraid that I don't trust him with admin tools and responsibilities. (His edit-summary usage is perhaps indicative of his attitude, too.) --
'''Oppose'''.  I was hoping he learned something from the wheel war.  After reading a little more, like the POTW archive and the block log, I think there's more than just the wheel war involved in Karmafist's history.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Low usage of edit summaries can possibly lead to failure to explain why deleting a page.--
'''Oppose''' May have been hard done by over original incident, but has since shown judgement inconsistent with a position of responsibility (e.g. encouraging sockpuppetry (even if subsequently [http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1140743728&page=1#1140743728 clarified]), lack of balance in introducing new users to wikipolitics, and inappropriate retaliatory references to users' personal lives, as outlined above and elsewhere). Needs to get some perspective. Not at this time, and maybe not ever.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. From what I can gather, Karmafist has learned two things from losing his adminship. He was right in his actions that led to losing adminship, and those who can't see things his way (including Wikipedia's founder) are wrong. Admins are the people those of us who are new to Wikipedia look to for guidance. The first point that stuck in my mind when I started with Wikipedia was that we build Wikipedia through consensus and collaboration. This is completely contrary to the attitude I see at work in Karmafist's actions. [[User:Mikereichold|Mikereichold]] 08:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC) ::WOW. I wrote the above before reading his answer to question three. The perceived hostility in others that he responds to with hostility just indicates he is temperamentally not suited for adminship.
'''Oppose''': needs more problem-free experience to demonstrate he can stay out of fights.
'''Oppose''': user lacks the maturity needed for adminship. Putting the SPUI-supporting template on his user page was unnecessary, and resuming his requests to new users to get involved in wikipolitics was also inadvisable.-
'''No vote''' - I'm not very familiar with Karmafist so I want to understand more throughly the comments made on this RFA so far - it is my opinion that whenever we want to look for instances of actions which do not warrant granting adminship we are always sure to find them. What precipitated this, and why is it so persistent? Likewise, the situation vice versa also applies. If we want to look for supportive behaviour on the part of the user, we are sure to find them. So far, the concerns presented seem to incline more towards a basis of a particular kind of subjective sentiment, and this in itself makes me uncomfortable to lean towards that direction. --
<s>'''The nomination hasn't even been accepted yet.''' Although</s> [L]eaning oppose due to drama and lack of edit summaries. --<font color="green">'''Zsinj'''</font><font color="gray"><sup>
'''Neutral''', not familiar enough with user's previous stint as an admin, although I have a dislike of politicising through Wikipedia.
'''Neutral leaning oppose'''.  Like Essexmutant, I'm not familiar enough with the nominee's previous history, and the politicing is a big negative.  Also, the user seems to be a force for increasing the stress level through his actions as an admin, and I think that's moving things in the wrong direction. Also, the nominee has not answered any of the questions below. &ndash;
'''Neutral leaning support''' I like Karmafist as a user, but too soon after arb-com desyroping, Sorry --
'''Neutral towards support''' I to like Karmafist as a user, but there are a lot of faults.
'''Neutral''' I like the user but can't support for the above reasons.
'''Changed from oppose''': Blantant honesty: I am just opposing to be evil.  No, seriously, I just agree with the others, may change to neutral though :-) [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Regretful Neutral''' - As much as my heart wants to support Karmafist for his boldness in standing up to many things on Wikipedia that I find are crippling the project, I find his tactics in doing so tend to be self-defeating. A clear case of agreement in goals, but disagreement in methodology. Considering his recent apology, if he shows that he has truly changed, I will be ecstatic to give full, honking support. --
'''Neutral'''. I like Karmafist as a user as well, but I do not feel I can support at this time, for reasons stated. '''
'''Neutral''' I hate voting anything but oppose, but I really have a hard time telling blocked users to create sockpuppets to get around blocks. I understnad your reasoning, but it just doesn't justify it for me.  There are rules and policies and if they can be bent or broken when the cause is just is a slippery slope.  I will not oppose and I may change back to support befoire this is all over, but that just gives me a bad taste in my mouth (for an admin). :(
'''Neutral'''. I believe that Karmafist has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and often supports measures which I feel are good - so I won't oppose -  but we've clashed heads too often for me to feel comfortable about supporting him.
'''Neutral''': after browsing through all the opinions so far, I honestly have no idea what to think. I am unable to disregard all the opposers, but neither can I ignore the great work you have done.

'''Neutral''' Is in the middle of quite a lot of politics in WP.  Can still do good work as an editor.
'''Neutral''' - I cannot, in good conscience, vote either in favor of or in opposition to Karmafist, for different reasons, and I also cannot, in good conscience, not say anything.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">
'''Neutral'''. I see many good contributions from your account, but at the same time, you have behaved in ways that are simply unacceptable, and there's no other way to describe them. No matter how much angry or irritated at "the system" you may be, there is no reason why you had to go and recruit new users to the fracas of Wikipolitics. <br> As to the desysopping itself, it is not an issue in my mind. What is an issue is your wheel-warring. No matter how wrong you believed that Jimbo's block was, you had no right to just go and undo it yourself, becuase adminship is not a sheriff's badge, it is just a [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and a [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]] to kill the weeds. I'm saying this not because it was a block ''by Jimbo'', but rather, because it was trying to bypass the ''judgment of another administrator''. I know I would not like to have my decisions overriden, no matter if you think they may be wrong. So, what do you do if you think they are? You discuss it on the admin's talk page, you sort it out with him/her, instead of trying to use the route of most resistance. I haven't seen any indication that you're willing to do that; if you are, then I'll gladly reconsider my position. I urge you to consider [[User:Starblind|Starblind]]'s advice, but until then, I'm neutral leaning towards oppose.
'''Neutral''' Can't bring myself to say yes, can't bring myself to say no. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[User:SFGiants/Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I respect all the editing work that Karmafist has done, and realize that he does all of this with the best of Wikipedia in his heart, but there are too many issues that still need to be resolved.
'''Neutral''' - Whilst I really, ''really'' loathe his ideas for policy reform, and the fact that he thinks Jimbo should have to obey like the rest of us (no he doesn't - he owns the site, and Wikipedia is vehemently not a democracy), that should not be what is being addressed here.  Karmafist was a good administrator, and despite the unfortunately bitey tone of his bespoke welcome messages, was on the whole a benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator.  However, the abject edit summary count drops my vote down from weak support to neutral (as an (ex-)administrator, he should know what a pain it is when people don't use edit summaries).
'''Neutral''' I'm in agreement with [[User:Raven4x4x]]. --
'''Neutral'''.  Thoughtful, if controversial, candidate.  Largely solid record as an admin.  Currently a bit volatile; "adminship should be no big deal" cuts both ways.  The candidate should enjoy not being an admin for a while, and clarify some of his goals and positions re: settling disputes with other admins.
'''Neutral'''. --
'''Neutral'''. —
'''Neutral'''. I had problems with Karmafist back when (almost) no one else did. Since then I think he has '''improved''' a great deal... but a few more people have noticed the issues which bothered me or have issues of their own. Karmafist does alot of good things and works very hard at what he believes in. He just needs to learn to walk away from or tone down conflict rather than escalating it. The person who argues loudest ''always'' loses, even when they 'win' the argument. --
'''Neutral'''.
'''Support''', sounds ok.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong Oppose''' malformed this RfA several times, has never taken part in an AfD. Answers are just too vague. --
Malformed nomination, poor answers to questions and lack of experience. The user also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=70477273&oldid=70476885 twice] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=70479445&oldid=70478150 removed] a question I asked her about an edit of mine she reverted as vandalism. --
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but you really need to put more effort into answering the questions which come with an RfA submission.  --
(edit conflict) Your intentions are certainly good, but I'm going to have to oppose. You want to delete articles, but you have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=250&target=Katieh5584&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=4 no] edits to xfd discussions; I think at least a dozen of these are necessary if you intend to engage in deletion related tasks, which you said you will do in q1. Also, your first attempt to list your rfa was malformed; I don't think you read the guidelines very carefully, if at all.
'''Oppose''' at least five attempts to follow the instructions for listing your RfA before (almost) getting it right do not inspire confidence. Removing valid questions from an established user without answering them, per Steel above, is the wrong attitude for a vandal fighter let alone an admin. Answers are too vague and don't demonstrate an understanding of the role of an admin or of Wikipedia policy. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' per Gwernol. Please withdraw this RFA, try [[WP:ER|editor review]], spend some time at [[WP:AFD]] - and, most importantly, edit some articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The aim of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is of secondary importance.
'''Oppose''' I agree-Too little work in the encyclopediac content proper, and your answers are too vague to the RfA questions. Try actually editing as well as answering the questions fully-voters want to know what you are about here on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Withdraw this RfA. Admins do more than fight vandalism, they have to be good editors too.  Get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] to see where you need to improve on contributions and think about joining Wikiprojects in order to improve articles and to talk to other editors.  Admins have to be able to communicate effectively with editors of all levels of education and with English as a second-or-other language. You also have to demonstrate a working knowledge of policies and guidelines, so participating in XfD discussions and using these to back up your arguments would be a good idea. Try again in ~3000 edits' time, as these tasks should take 3-4 months to achieve with consistent effort.
'''Oppose'''. No article building, malformed RFA, and autocratic behaviour exhibited by deleting valid questions. Nom is advised to review [[WP:RFA/ST]].
'''Oppose'''. You're making a good start so far, but I don't believe you have enough Wikipedia experience to know the ''exact'' duties of an administrator. And like everyone else said, vandal fighting is not the only thing on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Recommend withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' User doesn't even know how and when to use warning templates correctly.
'''Oppose''' Fails [[User:The Bread/Admin|my criteria]]
'''Oppose''' Too little experience. I really am Sorry.
'''Oppose''' quite clear, suggest withdrawal of RFA. '''
'''Neutral''' To avoid pile on. Consider withdrawal or closure per [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  Please withdraw this AfD and spend a few moths in writing articles and particpating in xfDs before considering reapplying.--
'''Neutral''', to avoid pile on. Do withdraw and do some article writing and maintenance work. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', not to avoid pile on (RfA not a vote?) Please edit more substantially in the mainspace and take part in the behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia ([[WP:AfD|AfD]]s, [[WP:PR|PR]], [[WP:FAC|FAC]], etc, etc). Join a WikiProject about a subject that interests you, and help improve articles. Vandalism fighting shouldn't be all you do, you'll burn yourself out. I recommend you withdraw this RfA as it's unlikely to pass, set up over at [[WP:ER|editor review]], and wait some time before applying again. All the best, &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' to avoid the pile on. I suggest you withdraw this nomination and work on the quality of your edits. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Just too few mainspace edits. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per Digitalme.
'''Oppose'''.  [[Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames]] says that "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers" aren't allowed.  As an admin, people are going to need to recognise you.  You seem to be doing a good job as an editor and vandal fighter - head over to [[Wikipedia:Changing_username]] and then nominate yourself again in a month or two.  --
'''Oppose''', good intentions, but under 1,000 mainspace edits bothers me for some reason. Give it a little more time, and create a useful article and groom it up.
'''Oppose''' Too few mainspace edits. Gain more experience first. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Much more editing experience needed.
'''Oppose''' per above.  Will support in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' per Rory096.
'''Oppose''' per all above. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Neutral'''- I'm not opposed to this user having admin powers, but perhaps some more experience first.










'''Moral support''' - You're contributions look good, just try and make some more and carry on doing what you are doing now and you'll get adminship before too long. Don't worry. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
Less than 100 edits here, and no convincing answers to questions. I suggest you withdraw and try again when you have more experience.
'''Super Strong Oppose''' Under 100 edits overall, terrible answers below. A self-nom and doesn't give a reason above on why s/he wants and needs to become an admin. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' all the way.  I think 86 good edits is more than enough to become a decent administrator.  No lack of experience, I support the person that can do a good job.  I am in the minority, but this is the way that is best.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', per [[WP:AGF]].
Obvious reasons.
'''Oppose''', and I recommend that you withdraw this nomination until you have more experience. 84 edits and none on policy matters means that we cannot predict if you will use the admin tools in a responsible manner or how you will handle difficult situations which may arise.
'''Oppose''', as per above.  It is hard to judge a person with so few edits.  Also, I'd recommend you increase your usage of [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] as people who vote often like to see a high usage.  --
'''Oppose''', sorry, at 84 edits (58 in the last year), you are much too inactive and inexperienced on en-Wikipedia. With some more edits, you'll have a much better chance next time. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''', too few edits. --
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, I just don't feel confident in knowing how you'd behave as an admin. -
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Weak Oppose''' per above
'''Oppose''' Simply not enough edits to get a feel for this user, also not enough work across the namespaces.
'''Oppose''' per everything said above. I simply cannot support someone who cannot vote for ArbCom for admin. --
'''Oppose''' Try getting involved in the village pump more, and doing some vandal fighting, please come back when you understand all of Wikipedia.  --
'''Oppose'''. Editcountitis oppose votes are usually bad, but this is an exceptional case. Only 86 edits in two years' time? I think most people who are up on RfA get more than that in a month.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits. I cannot get a feel for what kind of editor you are with such a small amount of work to go off of. --
'''Oppose''' insufficient experience. need to use edit summaries more, too <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
Not yet.  --
'''Oppose''', You've been on the project for two years and you lack a sufficent amount of experience and edits. I strongly encourage you to refractor this nomination. -
'''Oppose''' Nowhere near enough experience to really know how adminship works. Not an admin myself (I'll be applying sometime in March) but I have experience with adminship on some Wikicities, and I no matter how good he is just not enough experience. Period--'''
'''Oppose''' The edit count is too low.--
Edit count is a valid reason to '''oppose''' here. I suggest withdrawing this nomination, but please try again with more experience.
'''Oppose''' I wish you all the best in any future RFAs once you have sufficient experience. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' for lack of participation/experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience and edits. Try again when you are ready. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - far too little experience. --
'''Neutral'''. No "bad" edits, but I think you need to improve (1) your familiarity with Wikipedia on the project side, and (2) your overall edit count - 86 is too few to be an appropriate sample size. Show us more of what you can do and come back. (
'''Neutral'''. You do not have enough experience at this time. I also recommend that you use increase edit summary usage.--
'''Oppose'''. Far too few edits.
Looks like a win-win situation to me.
<s>'''Support'''. A quick perusal of this user's edits suggests a strong knowledge of policy, particularly [[WP:DR]], [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:RS]]. <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #:161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 19:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to '''Neutral''' <tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #:161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> <tt>[[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]</tt> 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)</s> Changed back to '''support''', I'm satisfied with the answers. <tt>
'''Support''' An experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks experienced, sincere and highly motivated. Happy with answers to questions below. Will look further if vote seems close.
'''Support'''. Very experienced user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I was impressed by the answers to the questions. -→
'''Support (moral)''', we need admins that edit contentious articles too.--
'''Support''', good nom.
I very strongly object to this user being made an administrator.
'''Oppose''' involved in current RFAr [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election]] and the answer for number one is just plain bad, I see few vandalism reverts in his edits, lack of wikipedia namespace, maybe later
'''Oppose''' Agreeing with
'''Strong Oppose''' based on this statement "Beyond the non-justicableness of this case, from my prior experience with them, I have no confidence in the neutrality of the arbitrators who have accepted this case." in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election#Statement by Kevin Baas]].
Oppose, per Raul.
'''Oppose''' - I also strongly worry about this users POV habits, he has voted on an issue in [Talk:Iraq_War#Casus_belli] and said simply "popular opinion does not support this association.", however when asked for a survey or even a source of where his information on what popular opinion is he never replied. I worry about this for 2 reasons, its possible he voted in favor of where the majority was voting hence his statement, or he was voting strictly by his opinion and stating it "popular opinion." While voting ones opinion is fine, he lacks any sort of support for it with evidence. This is what makes me worry about his admin abilities as he doesnt support things with evidence, and does not follow up for requests of information regarding his findings. An admin needs to be concise and willing to follow up and resolve issues, not simply throw information around or be unwilling to state why they made such a choice, at least in my opinion. --
'''oppose''' - spending too much time trying to minimise the various problems... particularly dislike the response to the copyvio block... and starting replies with "Ya" is irritating
'''Weak Oppose''' seems to be experienced, but admins and point of view shouldn't be together, at least not on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Raul. --
'''Oppose''' per Raul.
'''Oppose''', -- With a pending RfAr, user all ready seems pretty busy. Seems to feel conflict is a natural part of Wikipedia, rather than not. Lacks anti vandal edits and claims lack of tools. I had  made a couple thousand or so before I got  [[VandalProof]]. BTW, you can get anti-vandal tools without adminship. (I haven’t tried “pop-ups,” but VandalProof is wonderful.) As a suggestion, some time away from contentious articles may give user a needed respite from a stressful situation. Perhaps after the dust settles and after he has more experience RCPatrolling. Thanks
'''Oppose''', I'm only concerned that he doesn't seem to know why he really wants admin tools.  The answer to question #1 is most telling in this respect.  Spend some more time on that, then come back.

Does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' per Raul and Jaranda. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' due to seeing 2004 election articles as an accomplishment.
'''Oppose''' because of his involvement in the conspiracy theory nonsense.
'''Oppose'''. I intended to give a moral support, but I cannot agree what he just called me as personal "attack" while I would like to nake a positive wish in response to disputes above. Wiktionary defines [[wikt:hopefully|hopefully]] as "it is hoped that; I hope; we hope; in a hopeful manner". What exactly is wrong to wish someone getting better? Sorry, but I have to change my vote now.--
'''Oppose''' Per Raul.
'''Oppose''' Kevin's got a lot to contribute, but the history I've read seems to suggest he is most committed to ensuring that his POV is fairly represented in a variety of US politics pages.  That itself a decent contribution to Wikipedia, but not really related to admin duties.  Maybe Kevin could spend a few months cleaning vandalism and/or mediating and re-apply.
Somewhat unstable in conflict, see the results of this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily#Kevin_Baas]. Also, not much reversion of vandalism as mentioned already. --
'''Oppose'''. Per Raul.
'''Oppose'''. I believe Kevin is here mainly to promote a specific POV.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' per Raul.
'''Neutral''' Experienced, put too POV.
'''Neutral''' Neither would I be wholly comfortable giving this user admin tools (principally because I retain concerns apropos of his temperament) nor would I be fully able to justify an ''oppose'' (I'm not wholly in accord with the justifications offered by Raul, et al., and I think it eminently likely that Kevin would use the mop constructively (although ostensibly infrequently), but I can't be sure that he wouldn't use it disruptively (even if avolitionally) on occasion.  That is, I guess, the definition of ''neutral''.
'''Neutral''' There are enough checks and balances in Wikipedia policies to "deal" with any admin that abuses admin tools. With that said, I do not think that Kevin would abuse admin tools. My concern is that Kevin has been with us for a long time (over 3 years) and there are only 750ish edits to the wiki project pages. I would like to see him be more active on RC patrol and Afd discussions outside of his major scope of interest. The is no doubt about Kevin's IQ, as I believe he is exceptionally intelligent and would generally make wise decisions administratively.--
'''Neutral (but could be swayed)''' We have agreed to disagree on a couple of occasions (the Bush Impeach articles, most notably), and though Kevin has certainly been cordial enough in that regard, I don't feel comfortable enough to turn the keys over unless I can see some better "even-handedness" in relation to POV. Perhaps some better examples of NPOV? --
I'm very torn. As may be obvious to some, Kevin and I rarely agree on issues. We have (sometimes very heatedly) debated various topics. In the past I've thought, "Man, I would ''never'' support him if he tried for adminship." However, I am starting to change my mind. KB ''does'' have a strong POV. He sometimes ''does'' let it slip some. But as admin tools do not include an "Insert POV" button, that is a slightly irrelevent point. We ''all'' have a POV, and coming from someone else who edits some contentious articles, it can be hard to maintain perfect neutrality when you see something that is glaring against your POV. We all struggle with it. But does this make Kevin a bad editor? Does it automatically mean he is not ready for sysop tools? Of course not. Kevin is knowledgable of policy and he is a trusted user. Would giving him the power to rollback hurt WP that much? Just about every admin action is reversible. So if he slipped up, we could all be there to help right the ship. I may not like his views (or even find them logical ;-)), but I respect him for standing up for what he believes. So after all of this, I am neutral leaning support, actually.  And who knows, if he messes up, we could always <s>impeac</s>, er, desysop him later. ;-) But seriously, he is unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Not a fan of the arguing with the opposers and the advertising of the RfA, though. --
'''Support'''(edit conflict) extensive work with new users -- the admin tools would be greatly useful in helping those new users with tasks that require admin intervention. I'm also seeing a lot of vandal reverts on the contribution list, for which the rollback feature would be userful without a doubt. 6,000 edits? Why not. - <strong>
'''Support''' - I'm not terribly happy about the self nom on RFA but honestly, I don't think you're going to abuse the tools at all and that's what RFA is about.  Your work w/ new users has been great and I see no reason other than editcountis (which is bad) to indicate otherwise --
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria, sort of 400 (aprox) mainspace edits, just doesn't feel right to support, if you can get 500 Main edits before this thing ends i'll support
'''Oppose'''. You are a great civil user, but I don't see that much article-building from you. All I see is restoration after deletions and vandalism revertions. I don't see a lot of major article contributions amongst the 6,000+ edits you have. I do appreciate all the hard work you put into welcoming new users, but I believe you need more Wikipedia and article experience.
'''Weak Oppose''' You've been doing a good job, but your contributions seem to just alternate between reverting vandalism and welcoming newcomers. I see no recent participation in XfD. And your mainspace count is too low. You are a valued contributor but I believe that in order to become an administrator you really need to diversify your contributions.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I do not hold the lack of non-minor article edits against you, as article writing has little to do with the admin controls. However, the combined lack of Talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk contributions, and the few [[WP:AIV]] reports you have filed combine to make a support vote impossible for me to give in good conscience. In the former cases, the low-to-nonexistant amounts of participation in these areas of the encyclopedia make it impossible for me to accurately judge your understanding of policy. In the final case, the lack of [[WP:AIV]] reports means that for all the test warnings you have given, almost 0 blocks have been done. If you don't get a recurring vandal blocked, how will you be certain they are no longer vandalizing? It's not possible to watchlist a contribs page after all. You are a good welcomer, that's for certain, and a good vandal ''reverter'', but your community interaction with established users and vandalism blocks leave much to be desired. I recognize the tediousness of filing AIV reports, but I believe there are 3rd-party tools that can aid in these processes such as [[WP:VP|Vandalproof]]. So I must regretfully vote oppose. --
'''Oppose'''.  Your handling of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ancient Apostolic Communion]] was, as you mentioned, inappropriate.  However, that incident was only two weeks ago.  Too soon.   Additionally, comments like "Even non-notable churches have their place at Wikipedia" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diamond_Valley_Baptist_Church&diff=prev&oldid=79677873][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sale_Baptist_Church&diff=prev&oldid=79677059][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crossway_Baptist_Church&diff=prev&oldid=79676318] and "Even non-notable ministers have their place at Wikipedia" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J_E_Houston%2C_Minister&diff=prev&oldid=79677716] lead me to believe that you don't have a clear understanding of what Wikipedia is and what is is [[WP:NOT|not]].  Finally, calling Wikipedia "a sham" and threatening to quit if the community decided that the article you created about your church was not appropriate for Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kf4bdy&diff=prev&oldid=79672196] is not conduct I would like to expect from an administrator candidate.
'''Neutral''' The answers above lack evidence - can you provide difs for the AfD discussion and articles to which you have contributed substantially, please. I would also like to see difs for discussions that don't involve welcoming new users and warning vandals.
'''Support''' per myself. --
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''', and actually somewhat surprised Khoikhoi wasn't an admin already --
'''Support'''; meets most, if not all of my criteria. Nice job! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' because he has all that is required to be a good administrator and  for his civil manners.--
'''Support''' - surprised you're not already an admin -
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Support''' - a good editor. I'm waiting for someone to say that his edit count is ''too high'' for him to be an admin. -
'''Support''' - excellent editor who has earned the promotion--
'''Support''' Good editor with an extremely high edit count. As the others have stated, I'm surprised that you haven't become an admin yet. --
'''Support''' Does good! --
Long overdue (see my talk page for details;).
'''Support''' A very good editor who has kept his cool on a number of articles where others would have most defintley lost it.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A fantastic candidate. He always keeps it cool and neutral. --

'''Support''' Per nom! --
'''Support''' per all of his supporters ! He is a great candidate.
'''Support'''. Good user. 5 blocks per 27 thousand edits? i think it just demonstrates 3rr rottenness. --
'''Strong Support''' - Excellent hardworking editor, good mediator, I actually thought he is an admin already.
'''Support''' Great contributor.
Questionable block history, plus I've previously encountered this user revert-warring at [[Germanic peoples]], so until I can be otherwise inclined to change my mind, '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' Edit wars. --
'''Oppose''' He has been in Edit wars since he came here,was banned several times and always tries to push his POV in articles,also always disturbs the Turkish users. (
'''Oppose''' ([[User:Metb82|Metb82]] is right. He always has problems with Turkish editors.
'''Oppose''' so far from the administration--
'''Oppose''' - Edit wars and POV pushing on articles concerning Macedonian issues. --
'''Oppose''' - as Realek.
'''Oppose''' Some sort of edit warring occurred less than two weeks ago.  Not comfortable with promotion yet; more learning time is always good.
'''Oppose''' - This user POV pushes (Greek POV) the articles related to Macedonia.
'''Oppose''' - POV-push in articles regarding Macedonia
'''Oppose''' - Mainly for edit warring and POV-push.
'''Weak Oppose''' - I am hesitant about adminship for anyone who has an easily defineable POV bias, especially a nationalistic one.
'''Strongly oppose''', Unfortunately this user only keeps pushing his POV. I have provided some links below. He facttionalize the discussions. <b><font color="#00aa00">[[User:Xebat|'''X''']]</font>
'''Oppose''' Track-record is in poor shape. --
'''Oppose''' - This user always has problems with Turkish editors.
'''Oppose''' - Ths user doesn't know the difference between a Greek POV and the truth.
'''Oppose'''. I agree that he keeps his cool, but revert wars seem to attract him (or he attracts them). I saw him on [[Persian people]] doing the same. I'm not sure if a person who so quickly takes sides in different disputes would make a good admin. [[User:Aucaman|'''Auca''']][[User:Aucaman/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''m'''</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Does a lot of good work, but edit warring far too recently, and may be a POV purveyor. Also, I am concerned that some of his email correspondences with other editors (mentioned on his talk page) may concern wikipedia article discussions, which would be highly innapropriate. Either way, not ready for the responsibility just yet IMHO. --
'''Oppose''' - I searched this users edits about turkey related pages, which are a lot and i think he is not neutral at all. the most disturbing thing is that this user seems to be '''too''' certain for many subjects which really really contain many uncertainties. i am from turkey and i am not so certain and strict about many turkey related problems which i know and search about for years. i know they are very complicated. i know that many things the turkish goverment and people assert are not true, and many of the opposers are not also. so the only thing this behaviour tells me that whether this user has a narrow view over these subjects or is not trying to be neutral at all.
'''Oppose'''. While I have nothing particular against this user, I am not totally convinced of Khoikhoi's neutrality on several subjects. It is my belief that adminship should require crystal-clear neutrality. Also, I came to recognize this user's name primarily because of edit wars.

'''Neutral''' I do not know anything about this user and I refuse to vote ''oppose'' to a person based on peoples comments presented here regading if he is a pov pusher or not. --<small>




'''Support'''.  <s>Your answers to the questions aren't stellar, but</s> I have no doubt that you have the experience needed to help Wikipedia, and I believe you have the desire to help that is necessary to get the job done well.  I also looked into your work with the user warnings project and am very impressed -- I'm glad somebody has taken initiative to get this going! It's been needed for a long time. --
'''Support''' User refined their answer to Q1. I'm confident Khukri will make a fine admin. '''
'''Support''' per answer to question posed in Neutral vote. User seems to check out.
'''Support''' looks like a well meaning and dedicated user who meats my [[User:Danntm/RFA|candidate guidelines]].  I'm not going to fret about whether the answers to Q1 was subpar, just be sure to read up on the duties of the mop, whichever way this RfA goes.--
'''Support''': Looks solid, with lots of RFA and countervandal activites.
'''Support'''--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Changed as per revised answer to Q1.
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''' Looks fine.  OK, so he's a [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|WikiGnome]] who doesn't do "major edits".  I prefer humility and reticence to cocksure self-assuredness and obstinacy.  Wikipedia needs both prolific editors like [[User:Giano|Giano]] and WikiGnomes like [[User:Khukri|Khukri]]. --
--
'''Support''' A great candidate, but I'd like to see some more "major edits" every now and then. ←
'''Support''' per express use for tools.
'''Support''' - on the basis of this user being very familiar with warnings and vandalism, and wanting to see him have the tools to do even more in that field. However, I think many of us do hope that, at least initially, he somewhat confine himself to his areas of greatest expertise. We can always use more people there, anyway.
'''Support''' I would also like to see some more major edits from this user, but I'll support.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. If mathbot's tool is not wrong, Khukri has only 7 major edits in the  article namespace. I think an administrator should have more experience than that.
Changed to '''weak oppose''' upon realising user went on break. &ndash;
This user appears to be unfamiliar with the "minor edit" checkbox, as 99% of his edits in the last two months are minor. This may sound trivial, but if a user doesn't know how this checkbox works I am hesitant to trust him with block/protect/delete buttons. (
'''Oppose''' Relatively low number of wiki-space edits suggests a lack of familiarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' per inexperience in both the project- and the article-spaces, each one of which would have sufficed. - <b>
'''Support''', seems to be a fine editor.  I haven't visited RfA for a while, but I'm frankly stunned that an otherwise decent editor with 1500 edits over two months would attract this much opposition entirely over edit counts. 1500 edits is more than enough information to judge someone with. --
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.
'''Support''' No good reason to belive admin tools will be abused.
'''Support'''.  I haven't yet seen a person here state they do not believe the user can be trusted.  That's all we are here to decide. Seeing as everyone is indicating trust in the user, I'm going to actually trust that and support. Remember, adminship is no big deal. If people are indicating supporting the candidate in 1 to 2 months, let's just assume those two months have passed.
'''Support''' A good and responsible editor. Editcountits can be ignored for this user as he/she has proven his/her capabilities. -- <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', not likely to abuse admin powers. --
'''Support''', per [[User:Hiding|Hiding]]. -- '''
'''Support''' we need some admins for under-adminned topics.
'''Support''' see [[user:Edivorce#Voting_onRfA's|voting rational]]--
'''Support''' - you'll definitely need it.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Edivorce
Moral '''Support'''. Try again in a few months.
{{User:Drumguy8800/Support}} I agree with Hiding.  I vote to trust this user with admin powers.  Wikipedia is growing so fast that its admin base is not keeping up with the growth.  We need all the admins we can get, and this guy is good.  He's done a fine job editing, and there's no reason to doubt he'll do equally well as an admin.  --
'''Support'''. I've had occasion to see KI's work on Chad-related articles, and I think he has proved to be a user of the highest quality. Even if it may seem early, I think that we shouldn't be shy in making good users admin.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Solid editor, happy to see interest in under-attended African topics, likely admin in the near-future; however, 2 months/1500 edits is a little less than I like to see in a self-nom.  "Better safe than sorry vote", as I think more learning time is a plus in this case.  I look forward to supporting the next nomination in a few months, if that is even necessary.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per Xoloz evidence.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience, Project namespace edits are fairly restricted. --
'''Oppose''' Seems like a great editor, but still relatively new.  Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' You've gotten quite a few edits in a short amount of time, but you still need more edits and more time. Maybe in April I'll support.
'''Oppose''' Need more experience on Wikipedia space --
'''Oppose''': some things essential to this role are learned (and evaluated) only over time. Please try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|Standards]]. Feel free to try again later.
'''Oppose''' (reluctantly) but keep at it for a couple more months.
'''Oppose''': Time as a member and edit count aren't that important but if we are trying to determine if we trust this user we need a bigger sample of work. Very few non-namespace edits indicates a lack of experience where it matters most for admins.
'''Oppose'''. Lack of time on Wikipedia. ''Rate'' of edits is good, and if kept up over a longer period of time I would ''easily'' support.
'''Oppose''' more experience needed
'''Oppose''' narrow experience.
'''Oppose''' Too little time, most project-space edits are RfAs or AfDs. |
'''Oppose''' editcount is fine, length of time isn't
'''oppose'''. too new, sorry. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''' - I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who hasn't been around here that long at all.  --<font style="background: #000000" face="Impact" color="#00a5ff">
'''Oppose''' Just don't believe that user is familiar enough with community after such a short period of time.  Believe more experience is needed.--
'''Oppose''' Needs more time/experience. I'm sure will make a good admin in a few months, based on good contributions so far.
'''Oppose'''  Two months isn't long enough to get the feel for how things happen here.  I hope to be able to vote differently in the future.  Keep the good work.--
'''Neutral''' I'm gonna have to agree with Xoloz, 2/1500 is a bit too early for a self nom.  You appear to be a great contributer, Always using good edit summaries, and great improvements on the articles you've mentioned, but while going through your contribs, there is a large lack of Wikipedia namespace edits.  I will gladly support in 1.5-2 months time, but it's a bit too early. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Neutral''' per Lightdarkness.
'''Neutral''' per all above oppose and neutral votes. Just too soon, my friend. --
'''Neutral'''. Sorry, KI, I have read many of your contributions and you're an excellent editor. I have no doubt whatsoever that you'll make a great admin in the near future, but - not yet. Patience, dear; give it a month or two, and it will just happens smoothly ;) '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Neutral'''. per most of the oppose, I'd suggest: Keeping up your good edits, getting more involoved in the Project Areas, and trying again in a month or two.
'''Neutral'''. keep doing what you are doing and expand into some other namespaces. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Needs more time, though he seems like a reasonable guy and I agree with his political views almost 100%. The biggest reason I can't support is ''too little involvement in the project namespace''... demonstrate some familiarity with administrative processes that can be noticed at a glance and I'm sure you will succeed next time. — <small>Feb. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[06:17] <
'''Neutral''' per both neutral and opposing votes.
'''Neutral'''. Needs a little more experience. Perhaps reapply after a month?
'''Neutral''' Good edits, but probably a little too early. [[User:SFGiants|ςפקι]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">Д</font>]]

'''Support'''. I think that you would be a fine admin. You have been here for a reasonable amount of time and you have made a reasonable amount of good edits. I can't see anything negative that should hinder you from becoming an admin. Answer those followup questions.
Moral '''Support'''. Please do answer the additional questions below. &mdash;
'''Support'''. The quality of his contributions and his moderation guarantee he will be a good admin.--
'''Support''' He has a good quality of contributions and is unlikely to abuse admin tools. We should give him a chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''--
<b>Support</b> I would have been neutral, but after I read his responses for the questions, I was just barely pushed over to the "Support" side.
Moral '''Support''' --
'''Support''', no real reason to oppose.
Your answers have convinced me to '''support'''.
'''Strong support'''. A good editor helping to counter [[WP:BIAS|wikibias]] in a big way. I'm rather perturbed at the oppose votes that say this editor is "too eager"... And the fact that some valid disputes are being carried over onto here. This seems rather unfair. So what if it's "only" been ''a month and a half'' since the last RFA? To me that's a tremedous amount of time for wikipedia. (I think I'm a far more developed editor now than a month and a half ago, even if I haven't gone out looking for new policies to learn! Sheesh.)
'''Oppose''' too soon since last Rfa. Also anxiousness to block some users who weren't vandals, like in his answer to question #3, concerns me. KI is a good editor, but he needs more time. --
'''Oppose''' per above
'''Oppose.''' per anon editor.--
'''Oppose''' would like to see a more varied palate (not just Chad related articles); also only been registered since December. <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' You seem to want adminship a little to much. One should wait 2-3 months before reapplying. I also would have waited for someone to nominate you. Self-noms under two months of your last RFA are usually frowned upon. You barely meet my criteria otherwise.

'''Oppose''', doesnt meet my criteria/you should wait at least 4 months to re-apply. (although IMO, if you lose once, its an indicator of future loss. people will dig up the same dirt...)
'''Oppose'''  Candidate seems to eager and appears to be 10 [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I share a sense that candidate is too eager; two RfAs in five months here is rushing things.  Wait several months before reapplying, and I'm sure things will go well.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not sure who is right and who is wrong in KI's little tussle with Geo Swan.  But a good admin (or the personality of someone who will make a good admin) is someone whose edits de-escalate situations like these.  And although I have not read through the debate in question, I'm also concerned that someone who will fight to rename [[Charities accused of ties to terrorism]] to [[Charities with ties to terrorism]] hasn't internalized [[WP:NPOV]].
'''Oppose'''. (<s>should be #11, ignore the miscount on the left</s> Thanks, Naconkantari) A great start. Read the other users' comments, learn from your mistakes, and I will be willing to support you in another three months. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Oppose''' ''I wouldnt support a user with under 5 months editing... so this RFA is a little hypocritical if not premature.'' (from KI's previous RFA)  Your first edit was on 18 December, and today is 11 April.
'''Oppose'''
'''Weak Oppose''' A tiny bit more experience and time, plus a good time buffer in between this RFA and your next, and I'll gladly vote support. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Weak oppose''' - I think you've gotten a lot better but you're not quite 100% there yet.  You're a good editor but Anon editor has a few points I'd like to see resolved first --
'''Oppose'''. I agree with most of the concerns raised above. Btw, I don't see the relevance of another editor mistakenly thinking you were an admin--I've been mistaken for one before, too, as have many other non-admins. That isn't a valid or supporting reason for actually becoming one.

'''Oppose''' - I was going to construct an elaborate set of reasons, but after seeing the edit mentioned above by freakofnurture, that's all I need to see. Oppose. -
'''Neutral''' Pending followup questions below. —
'''Neutral'''. Shows some improvement over last time but I don't want to support just yet. Also waiting for answers to followup questions.
'''Neutral''' pending answers to additional questions. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''' --
'''Neutral''' You certainly have enough edits, and you have done a fine job in editing wikipedia, but you need more time. Beside, no image uploads?.
'''Neutral''', maybe in a few months time I will support you. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Much too early, registered 9 days ago. I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to a moral support here. Please withdraw. -
'''Oppose'''. Your eagerness is appreciated, but with less than 500 edits I cannot support you. Note that being an admin does not stop or aid you from contributing to stubbed articles. I suggest you withdraw. Good luck. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry it's just too early.
Suggest withdrawal --
'''Neutral'''. So far, you are a very good contributor, and I'm sure you could become an admin in a few months, but you do not enough edits, and not nearly enough experience with the project. Strongly suggest withdrawal. &mdash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Frak no oppose''' — I wasn't going to oppose on the vandalism, but then I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kizzle&diff=prev&oldid=94168293 this]. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' There was enough in my review of this candidate to cause me to be concerned that the tools would be used properly, but the fact that the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kizzle&oldid=94166331 state of the nomination when I came across] it had four "oppose" !votes, all added by the nominee himself, certainly gives me further cause for concern.
'''Oppose''' I suggest that the candidate withdraw speedily and seek an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] instead. The answer to question one reveals no understanding of the roles and responsibilities of administrators or a requirement for the admin tools.  You can also get some [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] too, when you have received feedback from the review.  This way, you will be able to have a structured journey towards the position of being ready for another RfA, perhaps in about six months' time.
'''Oppose''' for vandalism. Also for not anwsering questions the normal way--
'''Strong Oppose''' Adding comments in the name of another Wikipedian is forgery, however well-intentioned, and is neither a bright nor a wiki-friendly thing to do.  That mistake is absolutely fatal to an RfA's chances, in my opinion, especially when it occurs ''on the RfA itself'' (as opposed to some incident in a discussion many months ago.)  Suggest immediate withdrawl.
'''Strong Oppose''' per the above concerns.
'''Oppose''' Putting other's names on the RFA, plus the answer to Q1, seriously indicates you should withdraw and work on learning the community norms.--
'''Oppose''' The user may be well-intentioned but his answer to the questions and his very bizarre addition of comments to the oppose section make me think that he doesn't really understand Wikipedia policies at this time.
'''Neutral'''. Kizzle is a good editor, and it's a shame that the RfA submission was botched with what I can only construe as a truly unfortunate lapse of judgment. I hope that Kizzle comes back next year and tries it again.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[User:
'''Support!''' Been around for 4 years and already has admin status on German Wikipedia. That's friggin' huge!--
'''Support''' see [[user:edivorce#Votes_on_RfA's|rational]]--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Adminship on DE means that we can trust Kku to apply policy correctly; it's just a matter of learning what policy on EN is. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' I couldn't possibly care any less about edit counts; Opposition seems to have editcountitis. Plenty of experience. All meaningful edits. It's no big deal, right? --&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  No offense to you personally, but with only about 20 edits to this wikipedia per month, only 1% of edits in the Wikipedia: space, and < 3% of your total edits here going to Talk spaces, I don't see much in the way of justification to support granting this request.
'''Oppose''' not enough edits for 4 years. Try again later. --
'''Oppose''' per above, too inactive here, being an admin on de is good, but since en policy is likely different... Edit summary usage is on the low side (extremely low side for minors), very brief candidacy statement and terse answers to questions give little more to go on.--
'''Oppose''' needs some more activity.
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per pgk. German Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. It certainly is a resume enhancement that kku is an admin on de, but it can't be the only meaningful experience on the entire resume. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Oppose''' Barely any discussion or project edits, zero edits in areas such as categories/templates, simply not experience across the namespaces.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience right now, but try again later.
'''Oppose''': not enough activity. If s/he does not do much on the English Wikipedia now, why should we expect him/her to do so after s/he has admin powers?
'''Oppose''' per above.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' only 949 edits with only 9 to the project space?  Sorry, but a strong oppose. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Oppose''' as not active enough. Also, too few edits. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' for now. Nothing personal, but despite the long time, lack of activity seems worrying regarding knowledge of English Wikipedia procedures and policies. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Oppose''' due to lack of activity.
'''Neutral''', seems otherwise OK, but isn't active enough on Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''', obviously knows his stuff, but a bad precedent to set - some more experience of en.wikipedia would be very important.
'''Neutral''', I agree on all of Proto's points. More en experience would be better.
'''Neutral''' - while it is clear that you can do the job, I can't see how en sysop rights would help you (or en wikipedia, for that matter), as you aren't really very active here. Stick to administrating de wikipedia, I'm sure you will do a great job there. Auf Wiedersehen... <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
Although I would love for you to be admin many of my views mirror the oppose/neutral comments. Therefore I will be neutral. --''Signed by:''
'''Support''' But suggest withdrawal. The RfA climate here can be harsh.  Given the authors experience on the German wikipedia, we know he isn't going to abuse tools, as long as he makes sure to keep inline with English policy on his admin behavior here, he'll be fine.
'''Strong oppose''', very few edits per month, only like 10 edits to Wikipedia: space, just 1400 edits total.  Answer to 1 makes me think he doesn't need it and the tiny answers to the rest make me think he doesn't want it.  I suggest withdrawal; try again in a few more active months. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Oppose''' - almost NO talk page edits & question 1 does not show a need for sysop tasks, while this editor does make great contribs to articles, a much broader look at the community, and discussion is needed for adminship, keep up the great editing though! --
'''Strong Oppose''' per above two votes. I suggest withdrawal as this will potentially get ugly. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Odd nomination, as no reason for requesting adminship is stated.  In any case, editor's almost total lack of project space experience suggests he/she is unprepared for the mop at this time.
'''Weak oppose'''.  Weak simply because kku wouldn't really be abuseful, but just that he doesn't seem to be too involved with en:wiki. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Strong oppose''' per Joturner.
'''Oppose''' Not enough interaction with other users
'''Oppose''', not enough interaction with other users. Ich habe dein Benutzerkonto auf dem Deutschen Wikipedia mich gar nicht angeschaut, aber es ist nicht nötig, weil bei jeden Wikipedia muß ein Benutzer sich prüfen nur mit den Hilfe von seinen Kontributions zu diesen Wikipedia. O mann, was für ein langes Satz. Ich verstehe, warum Deutsch ein langes und vielwörtiger Sprache zunennt ist. =)
'''Strong Oppose and remove nomination''' Per reasons above and his answer to the questions do not convince me that he needs to be an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. Nomination reveals little understanding of what adminship on enwiki is about. (And is adminship on dewiki really earnt with a nomination of this nature?) -
Indeed, this is not a question of experience, since the user is an Admin on the German wp.  It's that his level of activity on this wiki does not demonstrate a need for sysop status here.
'''Oppose''' per above.<b>—
'''Oppose''', I don't even know what this user is asking for, i.e. admin status or is he just trying to make a [[WP:POINT]]?. And this is of course quite subjective, but any time I hear anyone say "I believe in facts and reason" I become quite troubled.  --
'''Oppose''' nomination doesn't state why this user would be a good admin.
'''Oppose''' - Keep learning and contributing to other namespaces.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I wanted to support you per Howcheng's comment on your first RfA, but your logs show a total of 4 blocks and 4 protect actions in over a year as admin at German wiki. You would do no harm, I am sure, but do you have any need to be an admin here?
<s>'''Neutral''' leaning to sup.  The candidate has enough experience to be an admin on the German wiki, but has almost no non-article space edits here, and it isn't  clear to me that the candidate would need/benefit from adminship here. If the candidate participated a bit in other spaces, I would be support in about a month or so.
'''Neutral''' - because the user does not appear to need the admin tools to do anything that he's currently trying to do. I like his edits. -
'''Weak support'''.  Good editing, but it seems you need to do some more if you want to have a successful [[WP:RFA|RFA]].
'''Oppose''', currently under 700 edits[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=klingoncowboy4], though they appear to be a great editor, I fear the user doesn't have enough experience to be an admin just yet and would suggest withdrawing their RfA. <font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''', without digging deeper than the user's talkpage, it is clear klingoncowboy4 doesn't understand Wikipedia's image policy very well, even though he lists his image contribs as something he's proud of. Also, there are a mere 56 WP space edits, and they are nearly all to things related to afd or userboxes. That, along with a miniscule amount of talkpage contribs, doesn't show very much involvement with communitry. Not to mention the fact the he doesn't seem to understand the rfa process at all: first, it is not made clear enough that this is a selfnom; second, the questions weren't answered before this rfa was posted. I'm really sorry that I have to pile on the criticism, but it is all valid and relevant.
'''Oppose''' too few contributions for me to make a valid judgement about your suitability. Of your 700 edits I count over 160 (more than 20%) are to your userpage. It took you several attempts to get this RfA right, and your answers to the standard questions are weak and non-specific - perhaps quoting a few diffs to illustrate would be good. I know its a long time ago but only a relatively small number edits back you created the bizarre [[Wikipedia_Members_whose_relatives_have_known_Lenin]] article. I'm not able to support you right now. Sorry,
'''Oppose''', needs more contributions and experience, especially on talkpages and the Wikipedia main space. Also, very low usage of edit summaries (around 31% for major edits).--
'''Withdraw''' This RFA has no way of succeeding. Very few edits and self nomination is suicidal over here. --
'''Medium-Weak Oppose''', Sorry, not enough activity, also not enough information about why this person should become a sysop. try to up your activity, come back in a few months. sorry --
'''Weak oppose''', nothing egregious to make me want to say that this candidate should not be an administrator, but simply too few contributions at this point. No prejudice to renomination in the future, and best of luck until then. --<font face="Book Antiqua">
'''Oppose''', not enough experience and low edit count. Try again in future. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. A good editor who needs some more time and experience before becoming an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''', under 300 mainspace edits. Lack of experience anyhow. Even his mainspace edits are very, very far from Wikipedia guidelines, e.g. [[Reader Rabbit 1|this article he created]] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Members_whose_relatives_have_known_Lenin&diff=prev&oldid=14088727 this vote he casted against his own article]. A lot of his edits are unimportant [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CBXFT&diff=prev&oldid=71544288] ; moreover, he sometimes make over 5 continuous edits in the same article, so his factual edit count should be even lower.
'''Oppose''' - the nomination hasn't been written well, the question answers are short and rushed and the edit count is very low. Sorry. --'''
'''Neutral''' tending to '''oppose'''. 699 edits is far too few to suggest that you have enough experience to be an admin on WP.  I suggest that you go for an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] and get involved in Wikiprojects for a while.  Come back again in ~3000 edits/four months' time.  I also suggest that this RfA is closed early to avoid the pile-on above. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Strong support.''' Kseferovic has been doing many useful things, hunting vandalism, making concensus' and has showed to all of us that he really deserves everything that being a sysop gives (vandalism-easy reverting, deleting pages, locking pages and others). Being a sysop would improve his contributions and help him to reach his (and ours) goal: to make Wikipedia better. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' edit summaries have nothing to do with administratorship.
'''Weak Support''' knowledge and position of responsibility on another site is a plus and in my opinion makes Kseferovic a good candidate. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Strong support''' --'''''
'''Support'''--In my opinion based on his contribution by now, I think he is a good candidate.
'''Support''' -- From everything I know of Kseferovic, I believe he would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''-- He is a true wikipedian who has added alot of content improved many articles, mediated disputes and has defended wikipediafor a lackof objectvity on the part of many users and vandalism--
'''Oppose'''- Now then: Not enough edits to Wikipedia and needs more talk and Wikipedia talk edits. Also needs to use edit summaries more.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''', <s>no need for the tools.</s> Mainspace edits are great, but participation in one XfD and no Wikipedia talk edits as of now does not show knowledge of policies and guidelines. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gre]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Oppose'''. User seems to make a lot of edits without dicussion, or at least without explaining them in the edit summary. Lack of XfD participation also worries me, as it shows that this user will have trouble dealing with administrative deletion tasks. He also shows some trouble dealing with stress on regular vandalism reverts[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosanska_Dubica/Kozarska_Dubica&diff=prev&oldid=95401453]. Messeges written in a non-english language[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheMiner&diff=prev&oldid=92351938][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nexm0d&diff=prev&oldid=94225411] are unacceptable for the rest of the community and are against our [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice|talk page guidelines]]. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''', I would like to see more participation in [[WP:XFD|Xfd]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]], [[WP:SSP|SSP]], and policy discussions. Sorry.
<s>'''Strong oppose'''</s> '''Strongest oppose'''. It's nice that you do vandal fighting, but vandal fighting is really a tiny part of admin responsibilities, and I have no reason to trust that you know how to use the rest. And if you don't give edit summaries, you're going to forget to give a block or deletion summary, and people are going to think you didn't have a reason, and you're going to get into Arbcom eventually. -
'''Oppose''' for now. I would like to see more consistent and effective use of talk pages, user talk pages, and edit summaries. I would also like to see a deeper understanding of policy. Come back in a few months!--
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience in the project namespace. If you want to be an admin, you need some vandal-fighting, XfD, and AIV experience, but I see little to none of that. '''
'''Oppose''' per Nish. Sorry, you seem to be doing a very good job, but you do need more experience in admin-oriented tasks. Edit summary usage also far below the least acceptable. I'd be happy to support in a few months if you eliminate these concerns.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' for now for lack of experience. I trust that I will have an opportunity to support in the not too distant future.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>, appears to have completely skipped question 4. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Also, to fight sockpuppets you don't need admin privileges. You either need a good instinct or checkuser privileges (or preferably both). ~
You have lots of experience on other Wikimedia sites, that's always a plus, you want to deal with sockpuppetry, that's always a plus, and you've made a good amount of contributions to articles, that's always a plus. However, I'd prefer that you were willing to undertake a wider array of admin responsibilities, and edit summaries are quite necessary. I think you have what it takes to become an admin, but, because of the things listed above, <s>I'm only able to give '''weak support''' at this time.</s> Good luck.
I'm going to have to reluctantly '''oppose''' per your answers to questions #1, 4, and 5. For #1, all of the actions you listed, though noble, do not require admin tools. For #4, I have to agree with Amarkov above: that being an established editor is not an entitlement to immunity from bans (I have implemented a ban recently myself). For #5, while your transcending of ethnic lines is to be held in high regard (it is truly rare these days), you seem to have misunderstood the need for blocks. Blocks are often issued established users also, often because they have ''exhausted the community's patience'' (read [[WP:BLOCK]] for more info) or have overstepped in other places and hence needing a block. I strongly suggest that you read the English Wikipedia policy pages between the lines, and start engaging more in English Wikipedia processes and using edit summaries more often. Your superb article editing is a great start, but I have to regretfully say that it is not good enough for adminship. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Neutral''' I can't see any vandal-fighting efforts or warnings issued to vandals; tags to articles for deletion; reports to admin noticeboards and only two contributions to XfD discussions.  Use of edit summaries is also low but this can easily be corrected by forcing them in the user preferences.  More participation in these areas is recommended.
'''Neutral''' as per (aeropagitica). --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Neutral''' not sure if he's convincing enough. Yet.
'''Neutral''' per (aeropagitica). --
'''Neutral''' You have the makings of a great editor and good admin, you are not quite there yet.--
'''Neutral''' as per discussions in Neutral and Oppose sections especially lack of edit summary use and lack of experience with XfD, fix these over the next few months then think you will ready for mop.
'''Support!'''
'''week support''' .
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Lambertman appears to have only 800 edits under his belt [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js], appears to have helped create no Featured Articles, does not appear to be a member of the counter-vandalism unit or any other vandal-busting team,  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CoolKatt_number_99999&diff=prev&oldid=64692393 does not appear to know the difference between an RfA and a Request for Arbitration], and even this request for adminship isn't properly listed on the [[WP:RfA]] page. User clearly needs some more time before pursuing an adminship. I hope he will try again in a few months, when he's got more experience.--<font color="#999fff">
Reluctant '''oppose'''. If the candidate had shown some knowledge of policies, I might have supported, but the answer to Question 1 does not seem to include any actual admin tasks. Not experienced enough at the moment, but the candidate is on the right track. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Very very low project-space edits is troubling as to the proper understanding of policy.  Answer to question one seems rather lacking in answering what ''administrative'' tasks will be preformed.  Haven't found anything wrong with the editor by any means.  You look like you are capable of article flow improvements, something I'm not the greatest at.  But perhaps not involved well enough with the project for the mop at this time.
'''Oppose''' far too inexperienced-recommend withdrawal.
'''Oppose'''. You have 9 Wikipedia space edits. Come back in a couple of months when you have a little bit more experience.
'''Oppose'''. You need more Wikipedia edits to display familiarity with the process. Nothing wrong with you, just need more experience, recommend withdrawal.
(Don't want to pile on oppose) - You need more experience, come back again in 2-3 months. --
'''Neutral'''.  Not ready to support, but maybe I will next time.
'''Neutral''' - suggest withdrawl and re-accept w/ more info --
'''Neutral''' The answer to question one indicates no requirement for admin tools.  Reapply in October-November when more experience has been gained. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I really, '''REALLY''' Hate to oppose, so I'll leave this as neutral. I see no reason to beleive that this user would abuse the tools, however, I don't see that the user has a sufficient grasp on Wikipedia policies, and procedures. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Neutral''' per above. --
'''Neutral''', sorry, you have a good basis for being an excellent editor but I dont think you are hot enough  on policy yet. + you question answers a a bit weak (esp: que 1). Finally your edit summary for minor edits is 21% which is pretty bad - I wouldn't normally support someone with less than 80% anyway... --<font color="darkgreen>&nbsp;[[user:tmorton166|Errant]]<sup><font colour="DarkBlue">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User_talk:tmorton166|talk]]</font></sup></font><small>(formerly
'''Neutral''' per all above. Please try again in 3-4 months' time, when you've had more time to develop a strong editing record here. Good luck in the future. :)
per above. Please try again later, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''', this is a great contributor. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Support''' per nom. - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. Has shown great contribs. to the CVG proj. and passes my standards.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.  He looks good to Me.  Even though He might not win on this nomination, I feel He deserves the promotion. --
'''Support''', good contributor, could do more in other areas, but levelheaded.
'''Support''', knows what he's doing, has done a lot of Admin-associable things.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I am convinced this editor will use admin powers responsibly to deal with vandalism. I don't see him bullying anyone.--
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. --
I '''support''' you too.
'''Support''' review of edits convinces me he won't abuse tools, so he gets my support.
'''Support''' I can't see owt that really troubles me and adminship is no big deal.  Looks a good editor.
'''Moral Support''' - It looks like your opposition simply wants you to acquire more experience.  Well, I've got a suggestion.  You could show off your acumen of Wikipedia (and improve it) by proofreading and writing tips for the [[Wikipedia:Tip of the day|Tip of the day]] project.  We launch on April 20th, and are scrambling to create a great collection of tips covering every aspect of Wikipedia's operation, and could sure use your help.  --
'''Support''' I don't understand the strong opposition based on experience here.  Looks like a good candidate to me. &ndash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Why not?--
'''Support''' Good Overall editor and wikipedian contributor.
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support''', this user has made excellent contributions across several namespaces. I strongly doubt this user would abuse the mop. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support'''-- no big deal right,
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' good admin candidate --
'''Support'''- I was a little weak on this first but I decided the user would make a good admin. after all. <font color="#000080">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', A good contributor.
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support''' We're supposed to vote on whether an editor will use Admin powers responsibly. I believe he will. --
'''Support''' Helpful contributions, good editor. --
'''Oppose''' - Needs more experience with the Wikipedia namespace. Most of his contributions in this space have been related to the Wikiproject he mentions. Spend some more time looking at the administration side of things and the policy side of things and I will support you. Try again in a couple of months. -
'''Strong Oppose''' - Worried that he'll edit Wikipedia while drunk. --
'''Oppose''' sloppy, and his answer to question 3 is incorrect.
'''Oppose''' per Localzuk.
'''Oppose''' prefer admins to have broad experience across all facets of the project.--
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience, apparent lack of policy knowledge (under 100 contributions to Wikipedia namespace, which I would consider short ''even if'' they had been to various different areas, which they haven't). You don't need to be an admin to welcome folks, so I'd encourage you to do that and try again in a month or two.
'''Oppose''' per above statements. --
'''Strongly oppose''' per above, and see new questions below.
'''Weak Oppose'''. It isn't anything personal, but you're a bit too specialized; maybe move around a bit, and do some stuff on the rest of Wikipedia. But it's a good start! --[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' I really appreciate specialized content contributors, but you do need more wikispace experience to deal properly with difficulties that arise as an admin.
'''Weak Oppose''', would lean towards support if you come back with a bit more project space interraction under your belt. --
'''Weak Oppose''', your profilic contributions to CVG stuff is good. However, as an admin you need more Wikipedia space contributions. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' all of the tasks he anticipates doing (in the answers to questions below) can be accomplished without admin tools
'''Oppose''' Just don't get the "solid all-rounder" vibe on this one yet. As others have said, broaden your range of contribs and knowledge of policy.
'''Weak weak oppose'''.  I've encountered Larsinio from time to time on CVG wikiproject, and I agree that his contributions there have been outstanding. Seeing Jacoplane's comment below, I went back and did a lot of digging in Larsinio's contribution history.  Larsinio is a great contributor, but I think he is a little short in a few areas that I really would like to see more activity in... User:talk, vandal fighting, WP areas like XfD, and edit summaries. It wouldn't take very much time away from his primary joy of CVG articles to expand into these other areas a little, and push him over the top into an unqualified support vote from me in a month or two. --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aucaman/read/adminship this].
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per NSLE
'''Oppose'''.  I'd like to see more project space participation also, and I am not sure [User:Larsinio|Larsinio]] completely understands [[Wikipedia]] policies.
'''Weak Oppose''' lack of wikispace edits --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' generally thin in non-main body edits, experience wise.
'''Nay''' not on long enough... <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Neutral'''.  I'd like to see more project space participation. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Per Pshchemp.
'''Neutral''' as for now. -
'''Neutral'''I encourage you to contribute more – you are really a nice editor. --
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor, but needs more project and user talk edits.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' short answers and doesn't seem to known how to set up an RfA. Suggest you remove it and put it back after you fix it. Also their are some spelling mistakes. <font color="#000080">
Consider a withdrawal for now, given your short edit history and formatting errors in this nomination, and try again later. '''Neutral''' <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Oppose''' - malformed RfA - only rationale is "I am a good user" --
'''Oppose''', of course, suggest withdrawal. --
'''Oppose''' 21 edits, 14 of which are to their userpage.
'''Oppose''' practically no experience.
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' suggest close immediately under [[WP:SNOWBALL|SNOWBALL]].
'''Oppose''' This is not really that funny.'''
'''Opppose''' Per above.--
'''What a joke'''. --
'''Oppose''' needs to withdraw.--<font color="ff6633"><font face="comic sans MS" size=+1>Joe
'''Oppose''' Come back in a few months with some more experience and try again.  Don't give up, you're just too new for people to know you well enough and determine your trustworthiness.
'''Oppose''' Is this a joke? No experience at all. Please try again after 4 months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - per Siva1979 (when Siva votes to oppose, that's really saying something!).
<small>Moral</small> '''Support'''  Very cute, somewhat obscure Star Trek username.  That's always a plus! ;) Please consider withdrawing for now though, as this request is premature -- 3000 edits/5 months is a median if one wants an RfA to succeed.
'''Irrelevant support''' - Mate, pull this request out before you get a disheartening pile-on. Edit count minimums have gone way up - it's somewhere over 3000 edits now. -
'''Moral support''' - come back in 3 months and 3000 edits. :-)
'''Sympathy Support''' Although you have been here for about 7 months, your number of edits are relatively low. But you get my benefit of the doubt as I personally rarely oppose anyone in RfA. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''''Real'' support''', not moral. Shame about the editcountitis, though. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Strong oppose''' <1000 edits is way too little. Not enough experience. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I hope you will accept this message as that of encouragement despite my vote: you are a positive-minded, helpful editor. But it is critical that you gain more experience on Wikipedia on a variety of things, including writing articles. I can guarantee that you will become an administrator, but be patient and give it, say, 3 months more. Exceed 5,000 edits and come back. I hope you will preserve your passion while learning more about the community, policy and workings, and be as helpful as possible till then. With best regards,
'''Strong oppose''' Way too few edits, too little interaction (5 talk space edits), not great grammar.  Also, only used edit summaries 27% of the time for major edits.  Sorry. [[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' not enough contributions, below my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]]. —
'''Strong Oppose''', waaay below most standards. Not enough experience, let alone in the projectspace, and mediocre edit summary usage (27% for major edits) in addition to other reasons already mentioned.
'''Object''': 670 edits (as it now stands on the editcount) and half a year is not enough. Try again next year, with more contributions, I suppose? --
'''Oppose''' Too little edits, sorry <tt>:(</tt> <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><font size="5"><sub>'''''o'''''</sub></font></span>]]
'''Oppose'''. Very helpful editor. May I suggest joining the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek|Star Trek wikiproject]]? It's a great way to gain more experience with editing, and I'm sure they can use your help. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience.  You might want to look over some of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|guidelines for how much experience is enough]]. —
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I think that you should have at least 1000 edits and at least 100 wikipedia namespace edits. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Too few edits.  Do some more and come back later.
'''Oppose''', come back in three to four months time. I'm sure you will make a great user in this period of time. Also, too few edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Weak Oppose''', too few edits in Talk pages. An administrator needs to be more in contact with other users. --
'''Weak Oppose'''- I don't have any real reson do doubt your intelligence, honesty and reponsibility. In fact, what I've seen of your edit history is quite good. Unfortunately you just haven't got enough experience. Try again in six months or so.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits. Needs much more experience.--
'''Oppose''' - per all of the above--
No reason to doubt this user's competence or good faith.
Keep it up! An upgrade to rollback, etc. will come soon enough. --
'''Neutral''' because I, too, don't want to join the '''Oppose''' dogpile, even if it's the right thing to do. My first "failed", too; my second is going well, I believe, because I understood that it was '''not''' a failure, but a validation that I was moving in the right direction. A quick perusal of this user's contribs shows someone who wants to grow with Wikipedia and, if that growth continues as it exists now, [[User:Lcarsdata|Lcarsdata]] (nice Trek reference, BTW) will make for an excellent admin&mdash;'''someday'''.
'''Neutral''' - I believe this user is competent and acts on good faith, however, I prefer to remain neutral and wait for more good contributions from him!
'''Moral Support''' I fully concur in Jcam's comment below, and urgue to withdraw before this gets any worse.  I also hope y take this advice well, and become a better Wikipedian for this.--
'''Moral support''', because you're a good user and I'm glad to see your enthusiasm. Fortunately, even though you probably won't succeed in this RfA, you can help with the tasks you nominated above without having to become an administrator - they're still accessible to you as a normal user. Please stick around for a few months more and try to make at least a couple of edits each day in that time, and ask for a [[WP:ER|editor review]] every now and again to see how you're going. Good luck in the future! [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Fewer than 500 edits suggests inexperience. Try again in a couple of months. Also, from your answer to #1, I see no need for you to have administrative tools. --
'''Oppose'''.  As Walfuz said, I don't believe you have enough experience yet; though you may have edited from an IP account I think you ought to provide details on that account (i.e. IP number) or I don't see how we can judge you based on what you did before you created this username.  Also, regarding your answer to question #3, you certainly don't need to be a sysop to improve an article.--
'''Oppose''' Your enthusiasm is welcome but you require a lot more experience and involvement with administrative-oriented tasks. Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]]. I suggest self-withdrawal.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose'''.  The only admin tool use for unsourced articles is deletion. The only use for admin tools in an edit dispute or POV problem would be blocking other users or protecting the page. Would like to see you exercise your article and consensus buiding skills a bit more before handing you last resort powers.
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' Try again after you get 2,000+ edits and have maintained a good reputation on Wikipedia. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' - under 500 edits, little experience shown, answers are short.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and the stated objectives don't need the admin tools --
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You have currently made less than 350 edits. Most succesful admin candidates have at least 2000. You only became a registered user in mid-July, and your contribution history indicates that you've only been contributing very consistently since mid-August. (And the IP address you claim to have edited from anonymously before has made less than 20 edits, most of them in July 2006.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.119.242.10]) Successful admin candidates usually have a notably longer track record of consistent contributions than you have. Good luck if you decide to apply again in future.
'''Oppose'''.  I wasn't going to pile on here, but the answer to #3 is concerning.  Administative privledges should not enter into the equation of editing a contentious article.  Just the opposite is true—administrators should avoid exercising their admin privledges in content disputes. —
'''Neutral''' I would say that 325 edits doesn't give anyone enough experience to be an admin here.  Try contributing to XfD discussions, fighting vandalism on the New Pages/ Recent Changes pages, talking to editors through vandal warnings, editing pages and being part of projects such as Esperanza.  Also try contribtuing to the Good and Featured Articles discussions and also assisting other editors at the Help and Reference Desks.  These are only some of the possible places to gain admin-task experience.  You can try again in three/four months or 2-3000 edits' time. As a follow-up, withdraw this RfA and go and open an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]].  This will give you a guide to contributing effectively, perhaps with an eye on adminship in the future.  You can also go to [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching]] at Esperanza for more in-depth assistance.
'''Neutral''' I am sorry, but none of the work the candidate promises (NPOV disputes, Articles to be split and Articles with unsourced statements, restructure this article into a better shape)needs admin tools <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral'''. You can do everything you described in question #1 ''right now''. No admin tools necessary.
'''Please''' consider what I and the other users above are saying in that we recommend that you withdrawal. As I write this, your nomination stands at '''0''' Supports, '''4''' Opposes, and '''4''' Neutrals(including my own). It will likely get much worse. You may get a few '''morale''' supports- but those will be token gestures meant to not make you feel the community is against you, not genuine support. A request for administration is something which many(perhaps even most) of us take very seriously. It's not a trophy given to great editors. It's more like a mop and bucket. I'm not sure if I would ever nominate myself. Edit a little bit longer and should you feel you want this responsbility, there are ways to improve your chances. There is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ER editor review] page so you can get feedback on your contributions. There is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin_coaching admin coaching] on esperanze where you can get help on becoming the candidate people will vote for on this page. There is now even a proposal for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Admin_school admin school] where you can ask questions about the process. But please understand that as of this moment, most of the people here will not support this nomination. btw. I think you might be underestimating your writing ability. You got into [[U Mass]], you can't be that bad of a writer. Should you need help in becoming a better candidate, feel free to ask me [[User talk:Jcam|here]] or ask any of the users above. I know many of them and they would be glad to help in any way possible.
There have been lots of helpful comments made in each section. Please consider withdrawing before this becomes too hurtful (it happens), and take on board the useful advice given above. All the best. '''
'''Neutral'''. As per many above, i can't support due to lack of proven experience, but would not like to oppose to discourage, as i think you have shown no evidence that you would be a poor administrator either. Please just carry on as you have and, in a few months, try again. I'm sure you will have a much more positive experience at RfA. Good luck!
'''Oppose'''. Too new for now. If you wish to become a Wikipedia administrator, I recommend that you stick around Wikipedia for a few months, familiarize yourself with its inner workings, and make some quality article contributions. Welcome, and best wishes. —
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=52753086&oldid=52751232 incorrect nomination], and only 3 edits total. Please note guidelines at [[WP:GRFA]], and stick around with Wikipedia for another few months and gain more experience (and also, please answer the questions below). Thanks, ''
'''Oppose''', strangest self nom ever. User's only 3 contributions are in this RfA. All we know about this user is that s/he is a political ideologue who wants power.— ''
'''Oppose''', of course. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''' - Good editor, should have the appropriate tools to continue developing useful templates.
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
'''Support'''. Way more patient under stress than minimum requirements, good contributions. Not sure admin is needed FOR developing templates per se, but it's 'no big deal', and no reason to oppose. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Support'''—
'''Support'''. Good and experienced editor.
'''Support'''. Please see question.
'''Support''' Excellent editor, well-versed, ready for the mop.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. You shall go to the ball.
'''Support''' reasons for nomination are solid and professional. --
'''Support''' - Good contributor who keeps cool in trying circumstances. --
'''Support''' - Excellent editor. Well rounded and active. -
'''Support''', good admin material! - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
Although I disagree with him.
'''Support''' nice all around, active, and serious when necessary.
'''Yup''' - I've seen good etcetera.
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''

'''Support''' —
'''Strong Support''' -- Please let's ''do'' have more technically competent admins.
--
'''Support''' good user.--
'''support'''  Great dedication to building the Wiki; evidently talented, too.
'''Support''' is very dedicated to improving wikipedia in many ways <span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"><i>&mdash;-- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">
'''Support'''. sure. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Very nice contributions. &mdash; <span style="background-color: #ddd; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 11px; padding: 3px;">
'''Support'''. Dealt with him. Worth having a guy like him as admin. --[[User:hydkat|h]][[User:Hydkat/Esperanza|<font color="green">y</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' as above --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yeah, sure, looks good to me.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' agree with [[User:John Reid|John Reid]] on needing more technically competent admins--
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''': helpful and easy to work with. HTH HAND —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per John Reid
'''Support''', looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' looks good. --
'''Support''' &mdash; Has usually a friendly approach, and that's good for an admin. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">
'''Support'''. Experienced, technically competent. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', of course. -
<b>Support</b> Definitely.
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' 48 votes of support in one day?  It looks like this will defintely make [[WP:100]].  Anyways, Adrian is a really nice Wikipedian.  I've gotten to know him through [[WP:AWB]] and he works tirelessly at everything he does, not to mention that fact that he also ''excels'' at everything, too.  Adrian would make an excellent sysop, and I know that he will use the mop, and everything else, wisely. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''support'''.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' as per nominator, should make a fantastic admin.
'''Support''' because he seems like a nice bloke, and to counter the random pointless oppose vote.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above and ''someone'' has to guard templates! --
'''Support'''; contribution history looks good; should be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Another solid admin-in-waiting
'''Support''' Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Yes. &ndash;
'''Support'''. Looks great. --
'''Support'''. Please give this user the tools to do all the technical things the rest of us don't understand.  [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''<span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''', of course. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' per the off stated remark - I've seen his good work --''
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''', good job
'''Support''' will be a good admin.
'''Support''', bloody nice bloke in my dealings with him.
Feeding trolls, especially in ones RfA, is a bad idea, but this is a good editor, so I '''support'''.
'''Support''' per all above, impressive and very non-trivial contributions. And certainly to support a fellow Swiss :-)
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, defends consensus, great technical contributions. <TT>
'''Support''' I don't fully understand the random attempts to derail this RFA.
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Adrian, I urge you to withdraw your withdrawal.  We need more admins like you.  But you mustn't let a little opposition get you down.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and perhaps you shouldn't treat it as all or nothing.  In spite of the opposition, you have overwhelming support.  --

'''Oppose''' It is not a must for me to give any reason for opposing,although it is general practice.
'''Oppose''' - misses out on some key aspects of the Wiki.  Latest revert war over the categorization of [[WP:AUM]] is a good example.  --
'''Oppose''' for "feeding trolls biscuits" above. Uncalled for behavior; technical proficiency =/= emotional temperment for the job. --
'''Oppose''' Of all places to get into petty arguments. &#126;
'''Oppose''' out of concern for his temper. Otherwise he's a good editor and I would support ''sans reservation.''
'''Oppose'''. dislike self noms. Would possibly have voted support, and ask user not to delete comments, except Netoholic pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=43769434 this diff], to which I have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ligulem&diff=42718670&oldid=42718196 corresponding diff]. I'd happily vote support if the user waited a while and let somebody else nominate. Also, very thankful for help and edits in template: space, but this does not generally require the sysop bit. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Neutral''' not leaning towards support or oppose. Not sure if he has a good working knowledge of Wikipedia policies or not.
'''Moral Support''' Please don't be discouraged by this RfA. Ensure a steady flux of contributions and try again in a few months. You will also have to prove why you need the admin tools. I suggest that you start participating in XfD. And you may also try to explore the wonders of countervandalism. :-) --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spooks_504.jpg] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_Tench_ScreenCap.jpg] -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Liyster&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liyster&action=history]. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' with regret, but all of 13 edits in Wikipedia namespace and a habit of marking all edits as minor does not give me confidence that you have the necessary experience for an admin. ~
'''Oppose''' Just by scratching the surface, less than two months of editing and less than 300 edits is simply not enough experience for adminship. Please wait a few more months, adapt to the multiple facets of Wikipedia, accumulate 2000 more edits (at the very least, others have much higher benchmarks), diversify your editing, and try again then. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' candidate lacks experience required.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have made less than 300 edits - most successful admin candidates have at least 2,000. You've been around since August 2005, but your contributions have been sporadic and a large percentage of them have been made within the last couple of days. Admins are expected to check-in almost daily and contribute much more regularly than you have so far. More edits and a good-length period as a very consistent contributor are needed before you can be considered a serious admin candidate. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future.

'''Oppose''' per above - we've got no way of assessing how you will use the tools until we see some participation in situations where you will use them. --
'''Oppose''', sorry, you are a good editor, take part in more Wikipedia activities and try again for adminship when you acheived these goals. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 1 reveals no requirement for admin tools.  I recommend that the candidate withdraws the nomination, seeks an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] and carries on contributing to the project in the following ways: 1) editing articles for sources, references, factual verification and conforming to the Manual of Style; 2) participating in Wikiprojects such as Featured Articles and Good Articles; 3) fights vandals with appropriate tags and reporting to [[WP:AIV]]; 5) participation in XfD discussions, citing policies and guidelines as reasons for voting - that way we can all see their knowledge of the touchstones of Wikipedia; 6) assists at the Reference Desk or Requests for Help pages where appropriate; 7) joins a Wikiproject such as Esperanza with a view to active involvement.  All of these activities will assist Wikipedia and raise your profile immesurably, making a future RfA application much more likely to succeed.
'''Oppose''' Fewer than 500 edits in over a year.
'''Oppose''' - A good editor, but limited experience, and the limited experience is my only reason for opposing. Doing one or more of the things [[User talk: (aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] outlined above for a fair amount of time could easily change my mind, though.
'''Oppose.''' You're off to a good start. Please don't let this vote get you down. Urge you to withdrawal and come back in a few months.
'''''Strong Support''''' Llama man is humorous and has contributed massive amounts to [[Nintendo]]-related articles and the Nintendo Wikiproject. He is also on the Welcoming Committee and is extremely knowledgeable about Wikipedia and its primary goals.
'''''Support'''''.  Wish I could have been the first to do so, but you still have it.  llama's Nintendo related articles and and humourous edits have not only greatly helped out Wikipedia but have also lightened the mood and made everything much easier for all of us.  He participates regularly (about every day) and is a member of multible Wikiprojects. He is compassoinate (Exempli gratia: [[user:E@L|E@L]]) and creative in every aspect.  Much more do I have to say in praise for him but I can;t really seperate out the thoughts, but a major one is that he is a great Wikifriend and one of my first (our meeting was rather humourous ''':)''').  He's an excellent vandal-fighter and protects the community greatly.   A crime for ages to come it would be, if not a sysop he becomes.  Cheers, and full support.  Good luck!  </font></font>&mdash;<font style="background:white" size="1">'''''[[¡]]'''''[[user:randfan|<font face=Vivaldi color=darkblue>Rand</font>]][[user talk:Randfan|<font face=Times New Roman color=darkred>fan</font>]]
'''Strong Support''', very strong user...funny also. This user is very kind to the newcomers and is willing to help (even when I was one). I have no doubt in my mind that he will be a great admin.__
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, he's been great. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Support''':I keep on seeing Llama Man on my travels and have nothing but praise. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Support.'''
'''Support''': Though the user's made mistakes in the past, he recognizes them and has decided to improve instead of complain about them. He's also a member of Esperanza - though as of right now, for the most part, I don't think that means anything special, his 'welcome' messages prove that he's a user who believes in Esperanza for what it's supposed to be doing, not what it is. Therefore, I put out my support for Llama, and wish him all the luck in the world. --
'''Support.'''  Ive been monitoring his work since I met Randfan (they do seem to be good friends) and have came to a discussion (or agreement, I'm still teaching anglish).  He would make a fine sysop.  Well evening everyone!
'''weak support.'''  I don't know him very well but I skimmed through his edits and found them good for the most part.  A lot of talk page edits and that blocking hurt his chances but I'm here.  I see the note above, Seadog, and I know you will put the same here, but the reason why is because I was grounded (still am, I'm just sneeking on, and will be off for a few more months (probably)) so don't blame me for not editing a lot.  You should thanks Randfan, he's the one who I learned this from, by obsevation.  Okay, gotta go now, good luck!
'''Support''' This guy has done positive things, he'll make an excellent sysop. --
'''Support''' Llama's contributions have been good on many levels, I think he is quite qualified for adminship.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. I was on the fence until I saw [[User:Randfan|Randfan]]'s questions. Those definitly sealed the deal! ;-). But seriously...great contribs to the project and seems to have a fair grasp of policy. I think [[User:Llama man|Llama man]] will be an effective admin. Good luck! -- '''''
'''Support''' Saw this editor around. A good guy. --
'''Support''' Llama man would make a good sysop indeed. I would trust this user with the mop because I have seen he is a good contributer, and is always very welcoming (in more than one sense). | [[User:AndonicO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black">'''A'''</font><font face="Papyrus" color="DarkSlateGray">ndonic</font><font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="2">'''O'''</font>]] <small><sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">[[User talk:AndonicO|''Talk'']]</font> | <font face="Times New Roman" color="Tan">
'''Support''' looks like a good contributor.--
'''Support''' The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A great user, he will make a brilliant Admin.
'''Support''' <s>on wheels!</s> on hooves!
for me it's ok --
'''Strongly'''. I came here in the process of looking at the contribs of the first nominator who is a new user with suspicious behavior; neither nominator is reliable for evaluating admin qualifications ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=King_Toadsworth], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Randfan]). Evaluating [[User:Llama man]]'s qualifications independently of that, there are almost no Wikipedia talk edits—the only non-revert or non-trivial such edit is to report a personal attack on [[WT:NPA]] in August; the greatest number of his "over 400" Wikipedia-space edits are to the Sandbox and various sandbox games—the latest being a BJAODN, most of the AfD comments are in the last two weeks and many in total were empty votes duplicating what others said. There are an absurdly high number of user talk edits and edits to his own user page. The answer to question 1 seems to come right out of the administrator's handbook (read: "admins can block and unblock users", check; "admins can edit protected pages", check; "admins deal with administrator backlogs", check; "admins deal with AIV", check; speedy deletion, RFP, AFD, check, check, check); the diffs provided in answer to question 2 of what contributions he is "most pleased" with are minor edits; his "100+" edits (awesome edit count) to [[Mario]] are a lot of vandal reversions. There are many legitimate fix-up edits and ref additions to this article, but aside from [[Llama]] this appears to be almost the only article he has any non-minor contributions to; half of the few Talk edits[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Llama_man&namespace=1] are vandal reversions and the rest are almost all [[Mario]]. That is, the one article he mentions he is "pleased" with is roughly the only article he edits. Considering that most edits to the main namespace are vandalism reverts and nearly all of the many edits to the user talk namespace are vandalism warnings, and in light of the answers to the questions above, this user's involvement and experience with Wikipedia is not sufficient for understanding Wikipedia policy or the activities of an administrator. Vandalism reverting is helpful, but does not demonstrate the understanding, cool-headedness, or trustworthiness necessary. (Note: This RfA was advertised at [[User:Llama man]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Llama_man&diff=91447192&oldid=91023882]). —
'''Oppose''' per Centrx.  I had already started to build the same impression but had not had the opportunity to research this applicant as thoroughly as Centrx has.  My concerns were low article talk edits compared to high user talk edits.  This is probably due to vandal fighting rather than article writing and editing.  Add this to low Wikipedia talk edits and the overall record starts to raise some questions.  Centrx's analysis raises even more.  There is reason to believe that [[User:Llama man|Llama man]] will develop into a good admin candidate some day but he needs more experience as an article editor and with Wikipedia-space edits in particular. --
'''Oppose''' — per Centrx; and this RfA is just not adding up 100% to me. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
Concerned about block, and not much Wikispace experience. &ndash;
'''Strong Oppose''' per Centrx. What is more, user talk edits outnumber mainspace edits. Wikipedia is not a place for social networking, per WP:NOT. 600 userpage edits is also on the high side. Block isn't really important. Admins must also know how to write quality articles: otherwise undesirable friction builds up within the project between those who write such articles and admins who do not and concentrate too much on process. [[Mario]] is about a million miles off FA status. The supermassive "Characteristics" section reeks of cruft and non-real-world-perspective. See [[WP:FICT]]. WP talk edits are also a worry.
'''Oppose for now''' Needs more experience. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALlama_man&diff=91376461&oldid=91300847 Just yesterday was asked not to make cut-and-paste moves.] An admin candidate shoud know about preserving page histories. On the other hand, off to a good start with RCPatrol and AfD. Needs to better understand his strengths and weaknesses before tackling the blocking of others. Blanking an article was just a test?
'''Oppose''' per Centrx.  Nominator has only been editing since November 25?  Candidate also broke the 'Voice your opinion' link on this page yesterday when he moved the nomination to the correct title [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+adminship%2FLlama+Man] (it left the 'Voice your opinion' link pointing to the edit window for the redirect which was left behind).  Cut & paste move also a concern.  I can't judge very well how this editor would handle and discuss administrative issues; his only two contributions to WP:AN or any of its subpages are a request to have an erroneously deleted userbox undeleted so he could recover some HTML ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=91220059], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=91253703]).  Shows potential, but still needs seasoning at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Centrx and Moreschi, not ready for a whie.
'''Oppose'''. Given the above reasons, I don't believe that this candidate is experienced enough or ready for adminship. In my opinion, it is likely that admin tools would be misused (though not necessarily ''abused'').
'''Weak oppose.''' Answer to question one slightly weak, lack of consensus building on talk pages and poor understanding of Wikipedia procedure shown by cut and paste article moves. Also, insufficient encyclopedia building, no experience of dispute resolution and very poor nomination "it would be a crime for him to go without administrator status". Finally, not sure about wanting to edit protected pages comment. Overall, weak oppose, because good vandal fighter...
'''Oppose''': per Centrx and Chacor. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' - per all above concerns.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Centrx and other users concerns. The incidents he had concerns me whether he deserves the admin tools. Overall lack of experience, lacks article writing skills as this is the most important job of an admin, since we are here to build an encyclopedia. I don't see a balance in the number of edits. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
At this time, I '''would not be comfortable giving this user admin privileges'''. Yes, that's an "oppose".
'''Oppose''' per Centrx. This sounds worrying to pass him the mop and bucket. -
'''Strong Oppose''' per Centrx. Something about this RfA definitely doesn't sit right with me. —
'''Oppose'''- Per Centrx, and I just think you should wait a bit more.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per Centrx. From first glance, I thought this user was qualified to be an admin, but from Centrx's elaborations, I'm thinking otherwise. '''
'''oppose'''. please focus on something other than conflict. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' per Centrx who put it succinctly.--
'''Oppose''' per above. There's enough about the constituent parts of this that looks slightly odd for the whole to look ''very'' odd.
'''Neutral''' He blanked [[llama]], so I really can not vote support, but he has done so many good things, so I really can not vote oppose. --
'''Neutral'''. The block is a non-issue, but most mainspace edits seem to be scripty stuff (i.e. popups). Rather low WP talk edits too. -
I like you, honestly I do, and someone who's had their userpage vandalised 29 times must be doing ''something'' right, but neutral per Centrx. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral.''' I don't think that this user would abuse admin tools, so I won't oppose, but I do not feel enough experience has been put forth, and allegations of cut-and paste moves from so recently are also worrying. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per SonicChao, Amarkov, RyanGerbil. '''''
'''Neutral''' per Centrx.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' per Centrx. I don't think this user is experienced enough. I don't think his admin actions would be malicious but I can't be sure they would be ''safe?''. In other words I'm not sure this user would be ready for the tools.
'''Neutral''' - lack of time with the project, would reasses in 3-4 months --
Muahaha!!!  --
'''The second time I forgot to be first vote today support'''
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Strong support''' <font color="darkred">
'''Support''' after scanning your edits, you appear to be deserving a promotion.--
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Appears to be sane, and active in policy matters. (A rare combo?) &mdash;
'''Support''', I trust Karmafist's judgement.
'''Support'''.  I've read some of the things he's had to say at [[WP:RfAr]] and [[WP:AN/I]].  He looks like he knows policies well and can be trusted with admin tools. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Seen a lot of him lately and have liked what I saw.
'''Support'''. Seems to make good contributions, unlikely to abuse admin tools, no big deal anyway. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' Seen him around, and liked what I've seen. Good editor. '''''
'''Support''' Also seen him around, and liked what I've seen. Good editor, and a polite one at that. Surprisingly rare. Slightly disagree with him on the ''Stub Sorting'' issue mentioned below but otherwise think he as a potentially great admin. If anything the wiki philossphy is too ''strong in him'' for seeing the need for slight control of the structural aspects of stub and categories. Anyhow - I have seen enough to know he is fair and will not abuse the influence or tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' Level-headed guy, I expect him to use the buttons only with much consideration. --
'''Support''' <s>per</s>contra Andy Mabbett. &mdash; '''''
'''Support''' I'd rather have an admin who follows all rules than one who ignores all rules. This candidate seems unlikely to abuse admin tools. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen much more good come from him than anything else. &ndash;
'''Support''' Does anyone really beleive he'll abuse his privileges?  I don't. Convince me.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin privileges, and what else matters?
'''Support''', he's level-headed, helpful, and turns up everywhere.
'''Support''', I'm the more inclined to trust an editor who expresses his opinions on policy matters up front, rather than keeping his head down in expectation of the state of almost-inalienable adminship. I don't see anything wrong with the way he's interacted with POTW either.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Reasonable and active contributor, adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support'''.  From looking at his contributions, seems like a perfectly viable candidate for admin.
'''Support'''. No problems with his dealings with POTW, more of a problem with those who enable his behavior and make his excuses for him. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''.  gift vote.  happy new year
'''Support'''. Seen him doing very good work recently. I certainly don't believe he will abuse admin tools, although I would warn him to be very careful around POTW. He's clearly honest, as evidenced by highlighting the dubious vote above and putting his opinions up front on his user page. I happen to kind of agree with his opinion over fair use in templates, and strongly believe it has no effect whatsoever on his suitability for adminship.
'''Support'''. Solid contributor, good people skills. --
'''Support''' Worthy candidate, which is more than could be said than quite a few admins who already have received the Mop. --''
'''Support'''. Loosk good. --
'''Unenthusiastic support'''. Unenthusiastic not because of your ''credentials'' (impressive), but because of that silly template you have on your user page. Were you really born and raised at [[Washington State]]? (Follow the redirect.) ;)
Good chap, whom I '''support'''. --
Support, even though it doesn't look good. I've had a few exchanges with him and there he brought level-headedness even if I may have come on strong.
Support, due to the oppose voter who cited WP:V.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. --

'''Oppose''' I just don't feel he's ready. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. I have on several occasions seen Locke promote bureaucratic means over commonsensical ones, or suggest polling or strict vote counting over consensual discussion. He seems to not quite understand the difference between a reasonable guideline and instruction creep. Hence, I do not trust his judgment.
'''Oppose''' due to his conduct in relation to [[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]]. I fully accept that Andy Mabbett is a very difficult user to deal with but he has made useful contributions. For his part, Locke Cole took (and takes) an extremely harsh view which simply stirs Andy up even more. This gives me cause to think that he may over-react if given admin powers of block and protect.
'''Oppose'''. I don't think that he is ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' based on attitudes expressed on user page, specifically attitudes toward fair use (which is wholly unacceptable) and toward developers. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (note: [[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Locke_Cole&curid=3538569&diff=33270099&oldid=33233879 removed] the comments upon which my vote is based.  My vote remains unchanged.
'''Oppose'''. Per Kelly Martin and Radiant. I think a few more months of experience would make him a great candidate.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Radiant!]] and [[User:Kelly Martin]].
'''Oppose''', worried about his attitude to copyright issues and consensus over voting. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Radiant!]] and [[User:Kelly Martin]].  Although I personally rather like the chap, I don't feel he has enough of a grip on how things are done around here.
'''Oppose''' deleted his name and several others from my RFAr with the edit summary "kitchen sink".
'''Oppose.''' He's too new.
'''Oppose.'''  He needs further tempering.  Tone and attitude just don't feel quite right for an admin at this time.
'''Oppose'''. There's more than enough stuff mentioned in this RfA alone to warrant an oppose, and the placing of such wholly wrong statements on a user page, is very concerning. The unmentioned removal of them doesn't make much difference; clearly someones understanding of the Wiki-way isn't repaired in a single edit, the summary for which is pretty acidic itself. Not ready for adminship by some way yet, I think. -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per above conduct issues.'''
'''Oppose''' -- Needs more seasoning as opposed to some other comments here, I don't think a person's philosophy about copyrights or what have you enters into the equation about being an admin, admins should be expected to check their personal philosophy's at the door (as humanly possible anyway).  --
'''Oppose''' -- Nose is too brown. Judgement suspect.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj]
'''Oppose''' -- I'd like to see him take adminship and Wikipedia more seriously before I can support him. --
'''Oppose.'''
'''Oppose''' -- While I'll admit that this user is tech savvy, I found his behavior during [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryu_%28Street_Fighter%29#Fancruft_about_Chun-Li_relationship this debate] to exhibit several qualities that an administrator should ''not have''. His adamant stance was that the subject of said debate was "fancruft", yet when asked to explain what in ''policy'' supported this claim, he repeatedly dodged. His other stance (before the vote, not afterwards) was that he had consensus, yet this was only true for the original edit being debated, and not the revised one that he chose to delete anyway. When hearing explanations that contradicted both these stances (as early as the third paragraph), he repeatedly ignored them. When becoming upset, he resorted to an immature and [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]] (''"you're out of your God forsaken skull"''). User seems to put personal whim before policy and doesn't appear capable of admiting to being incorrect about anything (or even considering the possibility), so no, I don't believe Wikipedia needs this particular user as an administrator. --
No. I concur with Kelly Martin on this one. --
'''Oppose''' - I feel user is not ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' - too many userboxes. --
'''oppose'''. To have been here for 3 months and create such controversy - I feel Locke Cole needs more time to prove that he understands the community and can work as an peacemaker and arbiter.
'''Oppose''', userbox fanatic.
'''Oppose'''. He is bureaucratic, abusive, and rude in his use of the [[WP:V]] rule. He need to learn more about [[WP:AGF]] and the [[Golden Rule]] before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''', and will still oppose in the future. --
'''Oppose'''.  For someone supposedly so supportive of [[WP:CIVIL]], he's doing a good job of persuading me otherwise through his inability to deal with criticism in a polite and calm manner.
'''Neutral'''. I cannot bring myself to vote for someone who has been so vociferously opposed to a project which has effectively sorted and organised a previously chaotic and virtually unusable part of Wikipedia (i.e., WikiProject Stub sorting, e.g., [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archive_debates/December#Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting.2FProposals|here]]). Despite this, I believe that in other ways Locke has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, even if he has a blind spot in that one area, and as such I won't oppose.
<small>
'''Neutral leaning to support'' There seems to be a small amount of evidence towards the slim possibility of this candidate abUsing his admin tools. However nothing substantial. Also, adminship is meant to be no big deal. However, due to his disputes with some rather volatile users I am unsure if I can fully support this candidate due to the possibility to settle scores (''See [pDavid|dbiv]], oppose'') of abuse and the impracticallity of determining "who is right"; although I could by no means oppose his nomination. There is also the added concern of little experience; although he has many edits. --
'''Neutral''' Not very long ago I told Locke Cole that I'd oppose if he ran for adminship. I don't agree with the 'needs more experience' votes... Locke Cole knows his way around and has been involved in good ways with alot of things. My concern is with angry reactions, but Locke Cole has shown more restraint in that regard lately and thus I'm neutral for now. --
'''Neutral''' <s>leaning towards oppose for the time being</s>. I would like to hear a definitive answer on the concerns a number of editors have with your supposed opinions on fair-use and cabalism--
'''Neutral''' - not quite support, not quite oppose, just can't support this nomination right now. --
'''Neutral''' not quite sure at this point.--
'''Oppose''' Only 25 edits to Wikipedia namespaces.--
No need for admin tools indicated. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Very weak answers. No recent admin-oriented tasks whatsoever. Wikipedia Space edit count very low. Your enthusiasm is most welcome, but I suggest you to self-withdraw, carefully read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]], and try again in a few months after you've gained a lot more experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' You don't need admin tools to help people; also there are ''no'' Wikipedia-space pages that you've edited at least 5 times in your last 2000 edits, so it's not clear what you'd do with them if you had them. I'm worried that you might inadvertently make mistakes in using the tools due to insufficient experience. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 11:48, 24 October 2006 (
'''Oppose'''. More experience needed. Suggest  withdrawal of nomination.
'''Oppose''', no need admin tools at this moment and lack of experience. Looks like a good guy, but needs more experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' and advise dignified withdrawl. There are many reasons for me to oppose at the moment, such as no use of edit summaries, poor quality of edits, lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures and policies, lack of understanding of what sysop tools are for, failure to learn from mistakes and <code><nowiki><span style="border:2px solid #4169E1;padding:1px;"> [[User:London UK|<font style="color:#fff;background:#4169E1;"> '''London''' </font><font style="color:#4169E1;background:#fff;"> '''UK'''</font>]] [[User talk:London UK|<font style="color:#4169E1;background:#4169E1;">|</font><font style="color:#4169E1;background:#fff;"></font>]] [[User talk:London UK|<font style="color:#fff;background:#4169E1;"></font><font style="color:#4169E1;background:#fff;">'''talk''' </font>]]</span></nowiki></code> the world's longest signature. Please come back in a few months. [[User_talk:Redvers|➨ ]]<b><font color="red">
'''Neutral''' — On the right path it seems and you have good intentions but i dont see an immediate need for the tools, yet.. maybe come back in a few months with a little more experiance {{=)}}? <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''' You are a good editor and I think that you will make a fine admin in time, just not this time.  Two deal-breakers for me are only twenty-five Wikispace edits with less than ten being to XfD discussions, and no vandal warnings present in your user Talk edits.  There is also the case of a distinct lack of edit summaries, so you should force the use of edit summaries in your preferences to prevent this in future.  If you were to open an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]], I would offer the following comments; get involved with patrolling the new and recent changes pages - you will learn to recognise vandalism and how to revert it, warn vandals and report them to [[WP:AIV]] when they persist; participate in XfD discussions - you can use your comments to demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures; continue to interact with editors in Wikiprojects such as Esperanza mentioned above; assist new users at the Help and Reference Desk pages and lastly, keep editing articles with an eye to supplying verified and well-sourced information.  Keep doing and or all of the above and you will be a fine recruit to the admin ranks.  Lastly, I suggest withdrawing this RfA with no loss of face.  You can try again in two or three months' time, giving you plenty of opportunity to build experience that is essential for an admin.
As nominator.
Would be a good admin!  Hand him the mop!  --'''
'''Strong Support''' Great user --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Lotsofsupport'''. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', cliché.
'''Support''', no problems with this user. The criticisms in the oppose vote seem quite minor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I see no major problems with this user.
'''Support'''. I have great faith that this user will comport himself properly as an admin.
'''Support''' The oppose votes are very weakly justified.
'''Support'''.  If the user has amlost a year of experiance, they can be promoted. --

'''Support'''

'''Support'''. IMO, the many Pros outweigh the one con.
'''Support''' with reservations.  try to take the high road.
'''Weak Oppose''' Did not sign the acceptance of the nomination above with four ~'s; short answers to questions - answer to Q.2 is worrying; more importantly, the only time I ran into him was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Did_you_know&diff=29373548&oldid=26826429 here]. He appeared gruff, did not direct his views on the guidelines on the talk page, nor did he respond to my query on talk page. Nor is there any clear suggestion from him as to how one can determine apriori if 66% would like a DYK fact - a poor sense of judgement, imo. --
'''Oppose'''.  I haven't had a lot of experience with Lotsofissues, but the one experience I do recall showed a significant lack of judgment in my opinion.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dragons_flight&oldid=21768045#a_recent_discussion Here], Lotsofissues is discussing an attempt to intentionally mislead an employee of [[Encyclopedia Brittanica]] that happened to be poking around asking questions and making comments.  This combined with his brevity in responding to questions leads me to oppose at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight. That's absolutely unacceptable for an admin. ~~ '''
'''Oppose'''. Per Dragons flight. C'mon.'''
'''Strong Oppose'''. I usually don't oppose people I don't really know, but I'm sick and tired of watching people screw around with others in the name of Wikipedia.  We've already got an image crisis, don't make it worse, thanks.
'''Oppose''' per Dargons flight.
'''Slight Object''' His edit count is excellent! He's a great contributor! However, I fail to see the maturity in him that an admin needs. He advertises less than savoury articles such as strip club & porn convention, which I personally take offense to. If he matures a bit, I'll fully support him.
'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight and Mo0.
'''Oppose''' per Dragon flight.
'''Oppose''', as Dragonsflight.
'''Oppose''', Per Dragonsflight, the explanation below doesn't help. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]].  Answers to questions are also very short.
'''Oppose''' per dragonsflight.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Neutral''' for now.  I would like the nominee to explain the intentionally misleading interactions with the [[Encyclopedia Brittanica]] employee referenced above, which I agree are not very becoming of an RFA candidate.

'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Support''', indicates a general desire to help Wikipedia. No "bad" edits. Seems well-versed with Wikipedia procedure. However, some advice for the future: Firstly, edit summaries. Use them ''every time''. Secondly, your RfA will fail, unfortunately. Try again in two or three months. In general, it's extremely hard to pass without at least 1000 edits, sometimes more. That may seem like a tremendous amount, but you can rack that many up surprisingly quickly. While you're working on those edits, be sure to engage yourself in a variety of activities. [[WP:AfD]] is a stereotypical one, as is [[WP:RCP]]. There's plenty to do, and only doing it will get you the gold-plated mop and diamond bucket. If you have any questions or require any more advice, give me a holler on my talk page. &mdash;

'''Oppose''' until you have more experience.  369 total edits is not enough, and barely any contributions outside of main article namespace.   <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''; less than 500 edits; edit summary usage is poor; not enough project-space edits; not enough info provided in self-description to adequately judge possible misuse of tools. <font color="darkred">
'''Oppose''' You've been here a while, but you need to be more active. I'd like to see at least 1000 edits, preferrably 1500. Use edit summaries at least 75%ish of the time, and be more active in the Project namespace; I like to recognize names of RfA candidates. Also, more info in your self-nom description would be nice. -
'''Oppose''' per above. I would suggest you come again in a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' per above. Just for your own reference, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Luckyluke&dbname=enwiki_p these are your edits] compared to [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sceptre&dbname=enwiki_p Sceptre's], a user whose RfA is passing right now. Note the difference in layout of namespace edits. Come back in a few months, and I'd be sure to vote for you if it looks right.
'''Oppose''', lack of edits. Thanks for the prop JHM, as well
'''Oppose''', for me less than a thousand edits can make an admin, and this is below my criteria. --
Oppose.
'''Oppose''' 1500-2000 edits will give you a chance next time. Use edit summaries as much as you can. Use the Community Portal Open Tasks. Make sure you vote on some AfDs and keep reverting vandals. Read the admin's reading list and the pages on consensus. Apply again in a few months.'''
'''Oppose''' as per all of the above, plus an almost non-existent introduction which tells us nothing about you or why you would make a good admin. --
'''Strong oppose''' 369 edits and only a Wikipedian since October?  Plus, 8% summary usage for major edits?  Read [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards]] and then reconsider why you self-nom'ed.&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Strong Oppose'''.  As per above.  Edit summary usage is way too low.  Also, ~120 edits in the last 4 days and then the next edit is 7 weeks back is just not enough for me. --
'''Oppose''' Come back three months later please.
User needs more experience.  --
'''Oppose''', per all the above. The nomination reasoning speaks volumes to me. He seems unsure of why he deserves adminship. I don't want an admin that will be that indecisive. --
'''Oppose''' for now for the above reasons but if the user reapplies in a few months I might reconsider. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per the above reasons.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' - inexperienced.
'''Oppose''' More experience, more edit summaries, and more support votes. The last one is a given, but still, sysops must be held to a better standard. --Jay '''(
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' He's already been in the fray several times(the first time I saw at [[Ward Churchill]], but that's just the tip of the iceberg), and wouldn't run for admin because of something he said about another user, only to have that user basically say it wasn't any big deal and to forget the past [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&diff=32962383&oldid=32961680]We need more admins of Lulu's integrity. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Edit-conflict support''', trustworthy user with plenty of experience. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' My support is strong.--
'''Support'''. A good guy (and cute too - although the looming half-face in the background kind of creeps me out).
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I honestly thought Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was already an admin. We need more Lotus-Eaters as admins.
'''Support''' good editor to have.
'''Support''' – '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support'''. Some candidates are good, but this one's a Lulu!
'''Support''': seeing him from time to time, including long back on the talk page of [[Jawaharlal Nehru]]. --
'''Support'''.  All interactions have been positive. -[[User:Colin Kimbrell|Colin Kimbrell]] 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (Clarification: All interactions with me, personally.  I know there's some mildly sketchy stuff from early last year, but improved recent conduct effectively cancels it out.)-
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' but please use your edit summaries more.  I realize its kind of a trivial thing, but it doesn't take that much more effort to put *something* there to describe your actions.  All other aspects of my interactions with you have been positive. :) --
'''Support''' Never hurts to be supportive--
'''Strong Support''' for a fellow alumnus, with whom I share a physical resemblance. Oh, he also happens to be brilliant. :)

--
'''Support'''. I know Lulu as an editor who cares about our policies, particularly NOR and V, and I believe he'll make a fine and thoughtful admin.
'''Support'''. Changed from oppose. User has convinced me that his past issues are just that: past issues. With that out of the way, I support.'''
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal, and I'll take him on his word that he'll not engage in any more dubious behavior. [[User:Cookiecaper|cooki]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', I found those diffs in the oppose-section troubling until I realized that they are ''eight months old''.
'''Support''', looks experienced enough to be an admin. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. If this RFA had been six months ago, I would have said no way. Now Lulu has shown that he can be an asset to the Wikipedai and should be a good admin.
'''Support''' We had our run in, but since then I've seen nothing but good editing.
[[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] and '''Support'''. Well-intentioned user who is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Please use edit summaries on all edits though.--
'''Support'''. Good editor. Although I am against users editing their own bios, I don't think this is enough for an oppose vote.
'''Support'''--
Give the user the benefit of the doubt. The opposition so far lists only old/unimportant incidents. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''support''' good user.  plus, we need more people with actual expertise in positions of authority.  also, i am quite unpersuaded by opposition based on self-article.  why shouldn't he edit an article about himself?  no one has quarreled with the content of those edits.  it would be one thing if the article were vanity, but it's been through afd & survived.  should admins never edit articles they are well-informed about, care about, & have personal views about? show me one who doesn't.
'''support''' --
'''Support''': Give him the key to the executive washroom. Or, more aptly, the [[port-a-john]]. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' I am familliar with LOTLE's work on articles such as [[Biology and sexual orientation]] and [[Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation]] where we have both been active contributors.  He has shown himself to be a remarkably sane and useful contributor in a subject area where sensitivity and level-headedness are at a premium.
'''Support''' : Lulu is an honest Wikipedian of some experience and intellect. Has good knowledge of Wikipedia and what would be required of him as an admin. He does very well striving for balance and [[NPOV]] in articles- an excellent candidate. --
'''Support'''.  Strikes me as very unlikely to do anything wacky with admin tools.
'''Support'''. Don't know this editor, but I trust the nominator and others that have. Reading about the silly reasons of some of the oppose votes, gives me confidence that this is actually a '''good''' editor. Great will be the day that RfA's will stop being used to "get back" at editors that challenged you. Vote for the benefit of Wikipedia, not for the benefit of your politics. --
'''Support'''. An experienced, trustworthy user. He's had disagreements with people - many of whom are signing oppose votes below - but from what I've seen he's always been civil and reasonable in these disagreements.
'''SUPPORT''' yes he had many many months ago some issues, but nowadays he's doing a great job, isn't he? Learning about your own mistakes is always a good thing. -- <small> (
'''Support''' Opposing an adminstrative candidate because you disagree with him is lame. Lulu seemed more reasonable than most in disputes.
'''Support'''. Slogged through the Ward Churchill talk pages, and he seems to have managed to engage without running out of the room screaming, which is more than I could probably say for myself. --
My default position on any RfA is "strong oppose".  I've looked hard, and I find the allegations regarding Castro and POV to be nonsensical.  The objections regarding AUTO are within the realm of rationality, but the response is clear and cogent, if slightly sharp.  LOTLE can be curt, his comments on talk pages can be quite frank, and he has exhibited bad behavior.  I was unable to find indication that we was either unaware of this or doing anything other than attempting to improve.  Be good, and remember that admin powers should be used as nicely and politely as posible. '''Support''' -
<s>'''Weak Oppose'''. While I can't remember the primary reason I wanted to oppose, while looking through the contribs, I often saw lots of small edits on the same article. Also, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=prev&oldid=34192343 edit summary] was a bit questionable. Of course, I myself have never done either of these things... *trailing off weakly* --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)</s> I don't like that vote any more. I did some more history reading, and changed my mind. '''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I have several concerns (see the oppose votes), but they are over-ruled by the need for more expert-level sysops on the English wikipedia and the fact that I do not see this user abusing the buttons.
'''Support''' After being contacted by Lulu and reading more of Lulu's comments and responses on all of this, I am more confortable with the interactions this editor has with the Wikipedia community. Seems to be a really good editor who is willing to work hard on controversial articles.--
'''Support'''. We can always do with more IBM guys. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support'''. Seems to be the sort of admin. Wikipedia needs. **
'''Support''', definitely. He brings a strong commitment to accuracy that greatly benefits Wikipedia. His ability and willingness to confront POV extremists is also very valuable. —
'''Strong Support''', He recently made stellar and much need corrections to the once unwieldy "List of Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual People" list and demonstrated a strong anti-NPOV stance in the category as well as helping to enforce references and citations.
'''Support''', I've been mulling this one over for a few days now, expecting there to be some controversy. Having read through the rest of the RFA I've some doubts, but on balance I support. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Support''' —
<strike>'''Oppose''' only because he created an article about himself, which I think should never be done. --
'''Support''',a worthy candidate to assume adminship.--
'''Strong support'''.  Lulu has shown himself to be knowledgable and professional.  -
'''support''' as per many of the opposes...
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Although I've had disagreements with David, it's clear that he is committed to the project and I believe he would only use sysop powers in ways beneficial to the project,
'''Support''' Level-headed and able to see many sides. --
'''Support'''. My interations with him have been positive. Surely he meets the very low bar that we have set for administrator privileges. &mdash;
'''Support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Weak support'''. I'm worried by the many oppose votes and the second RfC, but think on balance he's worth supporting for admin.-
'''Support''', despite the fact that he looks a bit like my ex-boss from IBM. :-)
'''Support''' as I think this user has become a fine, well-rounded and knowledgeable wikipedian who'd make good use of the tools. Also, [[User:CDThieme|CDThieme]]'s Oppose rationale clinches it for me.
'''Oppose''' I can't in good judgment support someone like this--
'''Oppose''' doesn't know how to use preview, edited his own vanity article, violated civility several times, had a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters RfC against him], which lists some other reasons why this user should not be an admin .
'''Oppose''' per Grue, especially the vanity page part.  I also find '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NCdave&diff=prev&oldid=11901659 user page vandalism]''' a troubling quality in a possible admin.
'''Strong oppose''' per Grue and Starblind.
'''Oppose''' No user that pushes a POV in articles that Cuba under Fidel Castro has had free elections since 1976 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dictators&diff=33500408&oldid=33499816] and then proceeds to slanders me unjustly about it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&diff=prev&oldid=33504852] will ever get my vote. In addition, his assertion that Wikipedia can reference itself is disturbing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dictators&diff=prev&oldid=33501693]. ''Note: this was in the past 18 days''.
'''Oppose'''. <s>1400 edits in one year and a half. User is not active enough in my opinion.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''[[User:SoothingR|<span style="color:#AAAAAA;">Soothing</span>]][[User talk:SoothingR|<span style="color:#9AB9EB;">''R''</span>]]''' 21:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)</s>Sorry, that was the result of an unfortunate instance misreading at the nomination paragraph. However, I'm still opposing, as I think the user is not [[WP:CIVIL]] enough (see Starblind's comments).[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Strongish Oppose''' Interactions show he doesn't completely understand Wikipedia and its policies.
'''Oppose''' per Grue & Starblind. --
'''Oppose''' per Grue.  I'd also like to see the edit summary higher (especially minor edits). --
'''Oppose''': it just is not a good practice for a user to be so active in editing the page about himself.
'''Oppose'''. POV pusher and fighter against consensus in CFD. He doesn't deserve admin powers. ''Note: This is one of a few users in 2 years I'm opposing.''  --
[[Talk:Bob Dylan]] interactions with me not good.  He spent a lot of time running down another editor though I asked him repeatedly to stick to the issues.  --
'''Oppose''' I have had no direct interactions with this user but some of his responses on the RfC lead me to question his composure when under pressure. Also, (IMHO) he seems a little over-eager to confront any opposing voters on their talk page, this makes him seem a bit too pushy but also makes me wonder whether he views adminship as 'no big deal'.
'''Strong Oppose''' This person routinely violates WP by habitually engaging in ad hominem personal attacks, making extreme POV edits, and refusing to provide verification for his edits when he is challenged. See his constant personal attacks against me in the Ward Churchill talk page over the past few months. Also see the Ward Churchill: Allegations talk page. (Lulu refactored the Churchill article to exile the critical stuff into a separate article, as part of his POV-mongering.) He admits to being a strong Churchill supporter, and edits with a strong pro-Churchill POV. He refuses to negotiate in good faith, and instead stoops to ad hominem, and accuses people who disagree with him of being a "POV warrior." This is the last type of person you would ever want to have any administrative power at all.
'''Oppose''' per above, though generally a good editor on the basis of the contributions I've happened to see.  I'm less concerned about the autobio issue as such (though it's a pretty blatant instance in terms of self-creation, frequency and total text of edits, marginal nature of notability, and vocalness to keep it) in that it's not a horrible article in and of itself, as with the rationalisations of it.  These seem to involve minimisation, implied equivalency with people whose WP:AUTO contributions are far more minor (and aren't currently nominated, more to the point), and disregard for a guideline that has considerable community consensus.  And, with the lack of any undertaking to refrain from continuing to act in the same way.  Extend such a patterm to, say, the implementation of deletion or blocking, and that would be altogether more serious.
'''Oppose''' RfC within the last 12 months. If he can go for a year without getting an RfC, a [[WP:AUTO]] complaint, or eleciting strong opposition (even from those who he disagrees with), give him a mop. Until then, I'm worried about giving hm a stick to go with the carrot.
'''Oppose''' per all the quoted reasons above.  RfC, vandalism, vanity, [[WP:CIVIL]].  Recognise that he's been behaving a lot more recently, so try again in a few months.  Would have to recuse himself from working on the [[David Mertz]] article, entirely, though.  No problems with his actual editing (the PoV complaints are a bunch of garbage).
'''Oppose''' as I don't think creating an article about himself was a good idea.
'''Oppose''' as mostly per Grue and Starblind. No shortage of admin candidates with much less controversy. -
'''Oppose''' per pthers and for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARonabop&diff=35979669&oldid=35286737 campaigning] for changed votes. I don't really care for that. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. I think Lulu falls short of what I would hope for in an administrator in terms of his lack of civility and inability (or disinclination) to work with others in achieving consensus. Experience with his "list" project suggests he prefers imposing his own opinions as fiats. -
'''Oppose''' Involved in dispute on [[Talk:List of Jewish jurists]] where he criticised editors in an extremely uncivil way for using the [[Jewish Year Book]] as a source describing it as "sectarian" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=28763191&oldid=28762943] and "craptastic" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&diff=29336592&oldid=29336309] even though he self admittedly knew nothing about it, then refused to take part in mediation.
'''Oppose''', per the evidence above about civility and bias in editing. I don't think David contributes for the right reasons, and would not improve WP as an admin. --
'''Oppose''', as per several of the comments above, including Arniep.
'''Weak Oppose''', sorry, but the already mentioned Style Wars are still too fresh for me.
'''Oppose''' per many of the supports.
'''Oppose''', sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Outerlimits and ArnieP.  His attitude as shown for example on [[Talk:List of Jewish jurists]] and his categorical refusal to consider mediation are not appropriate for an administrator. -
Sigh, '''firm oppose''' based on apparent intransigence to other's points of view, incivility and campaigning by self and others. This is not a beauty contest, but rather what should be best for the encyclopedia. --
'''Oppose''' per Grue and Starblind.
'''Oppose''', unfortunately, per many above.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' Lulu uses ad hominem attacks first and rational disagreement second. I know because he did it five minutes ago.--
'''Oppose'''. I've been the target of a long-running string of spurious  personal attacks from this user ever since I wouldn't going along with a position he pushed. Anybody who thinks "I almost certainly know more than you do" is appropriate to use in a dispute here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Dylan&diff=next&oldid=20888111] quite plainly shouldn't shouldn't have admin authority.
'''Oppose'''. I prefer not to give reasons because I don't want to be bickered with by the candidate, which bickering, curiously enough, is one of the reasons for opposing him.
More [[edit summaries]] please. They are helpful to your fellow contributor on whose watchlist or recent changes list you may happen to pop up. :)
I like his contributions to the article space but I have a memory of the styles and honorific prefixes debate from last summer which ended up in a series of revert wars. I don't hold that against LLOTLE ''per se'' but when his conduct was questioned in an [[WP:RFC|RFC]], he responded in a somewhat frivolous way [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&diff=next&oldid=13799959].  He hasn't been involved in serious disputes since then but it gives me cause for concern that he lacks an essential quantity in an admin - willingness to accept that one has made a mistake.
--''Signed by''
'''Neutral'''.  Sorry to bring up ancient history, but I knew I associated this editor's name with an old RFA and I came up with it--[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q]].  At that RFA, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, in fiercely opposing ScottyBoy900Q said, "FWIW, I wouldn't make a good admin either; largely for the same reasons ScottyBoy900Q wouldn't—but then, I'm not nominated, and wouldn't accept if I was :-)."  (See responses to Oppose vote #4 for context).  I think I understand what he meant--he meant that he is a person who must insist on a point he feels to be right, and that an administrator must be willing to walk away and let others resolve a situation.  I take him at his word.
'''Neutral''' I can't seem to vote support at the time. I'm leaning towards oppose based on the facts complied above in the oppose section. —

'''Neutral''' I just can't support someone who creates a vanity article, vandalizes userpages, and issues strong personal attacks. And the RfC... -
'''Neutral''' - I have spent a good deal of time reading the RFC and various other user pages, talk pages, etc. in trying to decide how to vote. I've decided to vote neutral as I do have concerns over the condescending nature of some of Lulu’s interactions with other issues, and I don’t feel that an admin behave in that nature. Even recent interactions show this same condescending nature.
'''Neutral'''  Skimpy on the edit summaries and some questions....like above comments.
<s>'''Oppose'''. As a then newbie, I followed the infamous "Style Wars", and was appalled at the behaviour of LotLE (among others, it must be said), as well as his contemptuous attitude to the RfC process. Since then, our paths haven't crossed, and I'm quite prepared to believe that he's a reformed character, but I just think it needs longer (as per [[User:Ronabop|Ronabop]] and others) before giving him admin powers. [[User:Vilcxjo|Vilcxjo]] 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)</s> On further reflection, my opposition was based on comparatively ancient history. Lulu seems to have done a ''lot'' of good stuff more recently. I'd still have preferred it to have been longer since the problematic period, but the timing of this RfA was not of his choosing so can't be held against him. I also note that some of those who locked horns with him over the Style Wars are now supporters. Can't go that far, I'm afraid, but changing to '''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral'''. For rationale follow my exchange with Lulu in our talk pages. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Comment''': There seems to be an awful lot of counter-campaigning being done in the Oppose section by friends (?) of the nominee. That puts an odd taste in my mouth; will probably come back later to vote. --
lots of people are worried about the bio article.  i'm not.  here's why.  LOTLE created that a long time ago when he saw references to himself added by others in articles created by others.  he didn't ''write'' it, rather he copied it from a p.d. writeup by someone else.  essentially filling in a red-link.  yes, it was inexperienced in wikipedia culture, but that was then. since then he has edited for factual accuracy, which is allowed under [[WP:AUTO]].  at any rate, what does this have to do with whether he might abuse adminship?
'''Support'''. Seems to know the ropes.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I like Mission's work on AfD, article editing and I believe he'll make a good admin. Edit counts are on the low side, but I believe the quality of the work and the wisdom of the editor is what counts. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A solid editor &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Barely support''' and, man, is this one close. Tools, abilities and likelihood that the user won't abuse the mop, bucket and keys just do override the lack of interaction with fellow users, abusive and otherwise, that I'd really prefer to see&mdash;especially now that I've seen a greater share. Still, I'm just this side of neutral.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy user and useful contributor. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Seems ok to me. -
'''Support''', seems good enough. ''Adminship is no big deal'' --<font color="blue">
'''Support'''. A very good Wikipedian who does the tasks that often go unnoticed, but, of course, are very important to our readers. I have no reason to believe that M1ss1ontomars wouldn't make a good admin, unfortunately it looks like we'll have to wait till nest time.
'''Weak support''' per Andy and RadioKirk.
'''Support'''.  Although his experience is limited, he is a good and sensible editor.  Not a deletionist, won't abuse the gift. -
'''Support''' just to cancel out one of the editcountitis sufferers below. — ''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you don't have a sufficient amount of edits, and you've only been here actively editing for about a month or so. Again, nothing personal, but feel free to try again in a few months!
'''Oppose''' - from what I've seen you're a great editor, your contribs look very good.  Mostly this is in the oppose section rather than the one above is due to your (overall / relative) number of discussion edits, I don't really know how well you interact with the community yet and its must for an admin.  Thanks for the great work though --
'''Oppose'''. Well, your edits are fine. However, I'm concerned over your Talk edits - less than five percent in article talk, and less than one in Wikipedia talk: you need to interact with the community a bit more. --
'''Oppose''' per above; not enough experience. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You look like a great editor, but I'd like to see a lot edits in namespaces other than main, most particlarly project and user talk. I look forward to supporting your future RfA!
<b>Oppose</b> per above. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Premature.
'''Weak oppose''' per Nomader.
'''Weak oppose'''. Better get more experience.--
'''Oppose''' per insufficient experience and per persistent use of "randomcrapcruft" as a justification for a delete recommendation in many AfD's. Though the user acknowledged his error and promised to stop when I contacted him about it recently, it demonstrates a lack of good judgment. Deletion is serious business, and I cannot trust him with adminship if he treats it so lightly. Would be pleased to support in 3 months if improvement is shown, as I genuinely believe it will be. - <b>
'''Oppose''' no problems with what the user has done except that there's simply not enough of it.  Way too little activity for my tastes.  I would encourage Mission to come up again in a few months if there is more activity in the interim --
<s>'''Support'''.</s> Looking through his history, with the mark up assistance I have with my edit count tool, he seems to have ''created'' and ''expanded'' a good deal of articles. All around pretty good except talk edits are a bit low. He can learn that as he goes, as it is not ''that'' much of a deficit.'''
'''Neutral''', maintain this level of activity for 2-3 more months, and I will support you next time.
'''Neutral''', needs more experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''', more experience would definitely be helpful. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose, because of the experience issue only. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support, I guess you will have my full sopport in a few months. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Neutral''' I've seen this user doing an excellent job at AfD , RCPatrol, and beyond.  Approaches editing w/ good sense of humor. Uses edit summaries. However, needs more experience. I prefer to see about 4,000 edits. Oldest edit is from March 30. I prefer 4-6 months active use. Thanks,
Per Voice-of-All
I really, really like Mission, and I'm positive we have great admin material here; but echoing above, there's no rush, and some more experience would definetely be desirable. Will ake this a huge support in a whle. Keep it up, Mission!
'''Weak support''' - I'd like to see more evidence of clean-up duties being undertaken, but having said that, I've no reason not to trust this user with the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' -- a little more time to absorb all that is Wikidpedia and I'd be happy to support down the track. A little premature for adminship responsibility now sorry. -
'''Oppose'''. It doesn't matter whether he has 500 edits or 50,000, or whether he's been here 4 months or 4 years. M. Johnson has only 28 edits to the project namespace [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=M%20Johnson&dbname=enwiki_p], none of which are related to administrative processes &mdash; deletion ([[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:CFD|CFD]], [[WP:SFD|SFD]], [[WP:TFD|TFD]], [[WP:RFD|RFD]], [[WP:IFD|IFD]], [[WP:DRV|DRV]]), page protection ([[WP:PP|PP]], [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]]), blocking ([[WP:VIP|VIP]], [[WP:AIV|AIV]]) &mdash; or to the noticeboards, or to discussions of policy. So I cannot in good faith support this candidate for adminship until some familiarity with, or even interest in, ''The Things Admins Do'' is demonstrated. I would reconsider my position gladly on this matter in a few months, or possibly even this week if he is willing to identify the IP addresses under which he previously edited. — <small>Feb. 25, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[10:44] <
'''Strong support''' per comments above. -- <font color=blue>[[User:Ccool2ax|Chris]]<small> [[User talk:Ccool2ax|chat]]<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ccool2ax|edits]]<small>
'''Oh yeah''' -- ''
'''Support''' - Hopefully he learns more <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support''' Meets my standards, although editor should be careful about copyright and participate in xfD.--
'''Support''' I was actually under the impression he already was an admin (cliche but true) and his edit summary usage, while not stellar is sufficient not to oppose. Also, I dislike the notion that every admin should drop in the *fD snake pit. I prefer admins who are experienced in a particular field and if they promise not to step out of bounds before catching up with their knowledge, I see no reason not to support them. Heck, I rarely protect articles yet I still have the power to do so. Same should go for any of the other tools. -
'''Support''' - Trustworthy and dedicated.  I'm sure he'll learn from the mistakes pointed out in the oppose comments.--
'''Oppose''' per the copyvios, and pretty weak answers and I dont like that your sig does weird things to my cursor, i also see no AFD, RFA activity et cetera and also less then 99% use of summarys. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' I don't believe you have a real need for admin tools. Also, I see no recent AfD work. Sorry. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
Changing to '''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mac_Davis&diff=76432954&oldid=76432380 this edit]. Editor adds copyrighted (fair use) image to this RfA. <s>'''Oppose'''.</s> Weak answer to questions suggest the editor is not aware of the admin tasks. Most of the work he suggests diong does not require admin powers. —
'''Oppose''' - I don't get the feeling you understand what adminship is at this point in time --
'''Oppose'''. Per above concerns. Additionally, perhaps I'm being ageist, but I don't feel that even a highly mature and articulate 15 year old is likely to have amassed the experience yet to deal with the conflicts that are part of admin duties.
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Not much in article writing
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''', inexperience. Come back 6 months later and I'll reconsider. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose''' -- premature nomination. Editor needs a little more overall experience with Wikipedia as a whole. Also, the image/RfA thing bothers me somewhat. --
'''Oppose''', addition of fair use image (without a usage rationale, even for the article it is currently used in!) shows a lack of understanding of our [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy|fair use policy]].
Sorry, but *fD is an important part of Wikipedia and every admin must be experienced enough in that area.
'''Oppose''' Attitude to blocking - to say he would only block "iff there was no controversy about the action" - Well the controversy is likely to begin after the block, not before. I'm afraid this user isn't up to handling these situations effectively. Also insufficient erudition, eloquence or article writing.--
'''Oppose''' I think this user could prove a valuable admin in the future, but currently is hazy about the nature of the role and seems a little callow. Mac - don't be put off from the project if this Rfa fails. You seem like one of the good guys. Just not ready yet. --
'''Oppose''' Very brief nomination. Gives no idea what the person is like or what the user works on. Also very weak answers --
'''Oppose''' per no AFD experience and [[WP:SIG#Important_considerations|WP:SIG]].
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phaedriel&diff=75454362&oldid=74886243 this edit] to Phaedriel's talk page.  Mac followed up with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhaedriel&diff=75503281&oldid=75460988 this response], but that doesn't change what I see as poor judgement shown in posting the video. --
'''Oppose''' Changed to oppose per concerns above. -
'''Oppose''' as per above really. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, answers are weak, try again later. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''': age, time in WP and number of edits show us little of an User's value, but I think your use of the edit summary is far too little, and can't see why would you need the sysop abilities to be a better contributor.—
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, your age is why I vote oppose. I don't care how mature or smart you are (and you do appear to be as such), I cannot justify giving you admin powers at 15 over people twice your age with academic credentials or published papers etc.
'''Neutral''' You are a good editor with really good contributions to the Help desk and Reference desks and it is also good that you warn vandals too.  The lack of participation in xfD discussions is the clincher for me.  I would be happy to support a future RfA with your current level of work and reasoned contributions to xfD discussions, where  you can demonstrate a grasp of policy and process. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I'm with aeropagitica – you're close, but you need broader experience. In 4-6 months and more xfD experience, I'll likely support. As Dweller says above, don't be discouraged or hurt – this is just a process, and I agree that you're one of the good guys who could be valuable to the project. You're just not quite there yet.
'''Neutral''' I like the fact that you take the time to write relevant warnings instead of using impersonal templates. However, I don't think you have enough experience yet with the more complex and contentious parts of Wikipedia. You should spend some time with AfD, which would help, and look at some of the controversies that take place. Your response about conflicts, "Conflicts and/or stress concering Wikipedia is ''never'' going to happen for me—editing is just too much fun for that! If there is ever a conflict and opposing parties do not intend on compromising at all, I would just have to give in.", shows that you are quite ignorant about the level of conflicts that go on on Wikipedia, and that especially affect admins, and especially those interested in physics. You post information on who you are on your user page. Would you be comfortable with crackpots harassing your school because you deleted an article on their fringe theory? Would you be willing to deal with users who insist that quantum mechanics/relativity/conservation of energy is wrong, and that their theory should be included as a legitimate theory? Crackpots in physics fields hardly ever comprimise. Also, as another note, you should read [[WP:SOCK]], since you state that you would block an experienced user for sock puppetry. A sock puppet, per [[WP:SOCK]], is any alternate account of a user (terminology which I disagree with), so you stance would lead to you blocking [[User:Dannyisme|Dannyisme]] and [[User:Danny|Danny]], me, all bots and bot owners, and so on. --
'''Neutral'''. I Like the nominee's contributions, think he has potential and ''will'' be a good admin one day. However, just doesn't have the project wide experience just yet. '''
'''Neutral'''. Great contributions, just needs more experience.
'''Neutral'''. Well on the way. I'm sure it's quite hard to decline a nomination from another user when you're relatively new... And why not? And don't we have a [[User:Ilyanep|14-year-old '''BUREAUCRAT''']] on Wikipedia? The ageism just isn't always warranted here.
'''Oppose'''. Fewer than 1000 edits, mucked up this RfA, rushed answers. Try reading [[WP:GRFA]]. --
'''Oppose''' - Very few namespace edits, very few edits at all. The many errors trying to set up this request show a lack of knowledge of wikipedia. Answers are unsatisfactory. Gain some more experience, get to know wikipedia better and try again in some time.
'''Oppose''': At the current time, the user is far from ready. — [[User:Gary Kirk|<font color="#9370DB" face="courier new">G</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#FF7F00">a</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Less than 500 edits, RfA problems, short answers.
'''Strong oppose and urge withdrawal''' Less than 500 edits. Has absolutely no grasp of correct English grammar or spelling. "stop vanderlism"? "acedently"? --
'''Oppose'''; can't support a user whom starts as a vandal[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Madcowpoo&oldid=33512634][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMadcowpoo&diff=33598351&oldid=33543778]. Please try again in 2 years time when you have gained my trust and enough experience.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong Oppose''': and request for removal per [[WP:SNOW]]. Obviously has no intention of using the tools in an effective manner. --
'''Oppose''' and a plea for administrative closure because it was the worst borderline hoax RFA ever. --
'''Oppose'''. This made me lol though. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"><font color="red">S</font><font color="blue">o</font><font color="red">n</font><font color="blue">i</font><font color="red">c</font><font color="blue">C</font><font color="blue">h</font><font color="red">a</font><font color="blue">o</font>
'''Oppose'''. Good start so far, but you're way too inexperienced. Try again maybe after 3,000 edits. Also, use a spellchecker. It's vandalism, not vanderlism. --
'''Oppose'''. Too inexperienced, too many of their small number of mainspace edits have been reverted, spelling/grammar must improve, and horrible answers. —
'''Oppose'''.  Is this a joke? ([[WP:SNOW]] comes to mind here) --
'''Oppose'''. Horrific spelling and I recommend changing the scatalogical username. I recommend withdrawing this RFA right now.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience and the rest above and I also believe [[WP:SNOW]] comes into play here.
'''Support''' as nominator. [[User:Anomo|Anomo]] 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)  I think that the template lame was created in good faith.
'''Support'''. Malber has been very helpful in opposing nonsense from troublemakers, both on and off-wiki. He's got an excellent balance of edits between articles, article talk, user talk, and project space. He's smart, has a lot of common sense, and I think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' the lame thing got completely blown out of proportion. As for the "bad faith nominations" as listed below, theres another side to it... having seen one person failed to be kept, the precident had been set to delete them, so the similar entries were listed for deletion. I've certainly done that myself... that doesnt make them "bad faith". For the record I even opposed Malber on those "bad faith" nominations. I see no reason why Malber couldnt be trusted to use his admin powers appropriately. &nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' Good candidate, clear thinker.
'''Support''' seems to be a competant candidate.-
'''Support''' I would let his prior past go by, his last block was in three months ago, the lame thing wasn't very big, he would make a good admin in my opinion.
'''Support''' Everyone makes mistakes and he has grown to be an excellent and dedicated user.
'''Support''' I think Malber has shappened up, and I think he will make an alright admin.--
'''Weak support'''. The {{tl|Lame}} thing is not a big deal to me and he has ''one 3rr block back in July'' for god's sake. Could use a slightly better temperament and no revenge AfDs for a few months though.
'''Support''' - I though the lame thing was creative even if it didn't fly. Why would anyone have a problem with this? Other than that, he's taken on a lot of unpleasant but necessary tasks as an editor - that's the kind of conduct you would hope for from an admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nom. ←
'''Strong Oppose''' - per creation of <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Lame|Lame]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> and the controversy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=79285218#User:Malber see here]). <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Malber&offset=0&limit=1 Edit warrior], also blocked at least twice before. -
'''Oppose''' Almost getting blocked less than a week before your RFA is not a good sign. Breaking 3RR is not good either. You should have mentioned these incidents in question 3 or elsewhere.
'''Opposing''' due to above concerns. --
'''Oppose''' The problem with the lame template is that admins are supposed to help ''resolve'' conflicts, not stir them up.  Also, I'm not that excited about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=79232496#User:Malber this edit] in response to the criticism s/he received for the creation of the template. Admins are often called on to defend their actions -- not always fairly --  and they need to do so with [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]. I don't think this user would abuse the tools to be deliberately destructive to WP, but I worry about what this user's idea of constructive really means.
'''Oppose''' I believe that making Malber an admin would not be helpful, due to the concerns above.--
'''Oppose''' No, no, no, and no. --
'''Oppose'''. See above. --
'''Oppose''' Answer to question 1 doesn't demonstrate a need for admin tools; a WikiGnome can be just as effective without them.  Also opposing per lack of understanding of [[WP:3RR]] and other policies/incidents mentioned above.
'''Oppose'''. If the nom had mentioned and explained the blocks, I would have certainly considered their nomination.
'''Oppose''' per Matthew Fenton.
'''Oppose''' per most everyone opposing above. —
'''Strong Oppose''' A whole slew of bad-faith nominations ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Kastle|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Budde|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Long|here]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommi Hovi|here]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Finkel (2nd nomination)|here]]), following deletion of an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination)|article candidate wanted kept]]. Should not be given deletion tools.
'''Oppose''' per the noms - retaliatory Afd's are bad enough, and I shudder at what could have happened had this user had the buttons. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Oppose''' per most  above.
'''Oppose''' per what has already been said. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per concerns above. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose.'''  Let me point out that that list of retaliatory AfD noms were from less than 3 weeks ago.  I don't feel like Malber could never become an admin: s/he certainly seems to be improving, but I need to see more time between the nom and errors in judgement like that.  Try coming back in 3 months.  Also, question answers are not inspiring.
'''Oppose''' Maturing judgement isn't there yet. --
'''Oppose''' per T Rex --
'''Oppose''' Not just yet per Mangojuice.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=79256616#User:Malber]
'''Oppose''' Premature - needs to prove himself.--
'''Oppose''' per all above. --
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. Too many negatives. There are enough loose cannons running around with a mop & bucket.
'''Oppose''' per everything above.
'''Oppose''' You have potential but please try again next time. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' As above.
'''Oppose''' per immature and vindictive behavior related to the Brandt controversy.
'''Oppose''' Seemingly unneutral at times when comes to discussion. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by other editors. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per lapses in judgment pointed out by other users. Perhaps in a few months.
'''Strongly Oppose''' as per above No. 2. <b><span style="background:#a00">[[User:S!|<span style="color:#fff">•S</span>]][[User:S!/E|<span style="color:#0c0">e</span>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per what the others have said. Does hard work, but he is much too biased and unfair. I don't see him being promoted anytime soon either.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per above. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
[[image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|17px]] '''Definitely oppose'''. Irongargoyle's points. --
Pile-on - <b>
'''Neutral.''' While I don't think that this user's behavior is worse than the way some of our current sysops act, that's no reason to give someone the tools. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' &ndash; all right, I think he gets it. Is there any need to pile-on the opposes? Malber, I suggest that you withdraw and take very serious note of the concerns above. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' to avoid the pile-on and not to discourage the user further. I too suggest you withdraw from this nomination soon and work on the concerns raised by the other users. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Unnecessarily long neutral''' This certainly isn't a ''pile-on avoidance'' vote <small>([[Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote|voting is evil]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a majority vote|RfA is not a vote]], etc.)</small>&mdash;of those I'm no fan&mdash;but, instead, a comment that reflects my utter inability to reach any definitive conclusion here, which inability is well evidenced by my having, across the pendency of this RfA, opened the window to edit as a ''support''er, an ''oppose''r and as a...''neutral''er.  I am quite sure that, as an admin, Malber would not abuse the tools, but I don't know that I can be certain that the effect on the project of the user's becoming an admin should, on the whole, be positive, principally because I'm not altogether sure that he might not, in good faith, avolitionally misuse the tools; consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], where I don't expect that a user would, even avolitionally, misuse the tools but can't be overly confident, I neither support nor oppose.
'''Neutral'''. I recommend a withdrawl. You still have time to go far.--
'''Neutral''' pile-on avoidance !vote. <font color="#0000FF">
'''Support''' - Why not? He's not going to abuse the tools. -
'''Support''' - Quality over quantity. Especially active with the counter-vandalism squad. -- <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He has worked hard over the past months on Maltese-related articles. And extra brownie points for his fight against vandalism and nonsense articles --
'''Moral support''' - I think in a few months, you'll be fine.
'''Support''' per Roderick and Vodka.
'''Support''' per Roderick. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', it's no biggie.
'''Moral support'''; I see this user around, making good, solid edits. Unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' meets my criteria, good user. -'''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. No, it's not "Just Too Soon". I was made an admin with 1.4k edits.
'''Oppose''' due to massive formatting errors user had in creating this nomination, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TigerShark&diff=prev&oldid=45878270], [[Special:Undelete/Template:Wikiepdia:Requests_for_adminship/Maltesedog3|2]]; suggests infamiliarity with Wikipedia policy and procedure and also carelessness. Try again in a couple months. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Oppose''' - Too few edits and general inexperience, try again later.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced still.
'''Oppose''' per BorgHunter.
'''Oppose''' a little too new to show knowledge of all Wikipedia policies. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months. <font color="#000080">
'''Oppose''', still green, and the questions do not indicate specific usage of admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Inexperience + per BorgHunter's comments.
'''Hang in there''' contribs to date are in good, but you need a few more months to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. --
'''Oppose'''. Much better application this time, but still a bit short of my baseline criteria (too few edits, particularly in WP space). I was also hoping for more substantial answers to the questions below.  That said, feel free to try again later once you have more experience. --
'''Per above'''.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' Not active in the Wikipedia community.  --
'''Oppose''' I like your work on Malta but if I take into consideration that 130 of your edits were to that article and its talk page alone, that doesn't leave a lot for you to gain experience in all the other areas of Wikipedia.  Sorry.  --
'''Oppose''' lacks of experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''  Not enough experience.--
'''Oppose''' It's Just Too Soon.--
'''Oppose''', Need some more experience still.
Needs more experience. -
'''Oppose''' - If you continue working and learning, I'll support you in the future
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient experience.--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per BorgHunter
'''Oppose''' Spend some more time learning your way around and discover things admins do other than rollback; look forward to supporting in the future. .:.
'''Oppose'''. I'd prefer to not need to assess whether or not a nominee is canvassing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simetrical&diff=46002989&oldid=45870820] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ground_Zero&diff=45902513&oldid=45142719]. Peace. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">
'''Oppose''': Nothing personal, mate, but its just a lack of experience. Try again in a bit and I'll gladly support. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]

'''Oppose''', going out and ask users to recast their votes isn't something very appropriate, and things like these have started ArbCom cases in the past.
'''Oppose'''. Per above. Be patient. Your time will come.--[[User:HereToHelp|Here]][[User talk:HereToHelp|'''T''']]
'''Oppose''', gotta say no here.
'''Oppose''' per reasons given above.
'''Oppose''' was going to go weak oppose/neutral, but note that RFA is not an election, and advertising isn't needed. —
'''Neutral'''. Only barely below my standards so far. Keep using Wikipedia and reapply after a couple of months.
'''Neutral'''.  Would normally support due to unlikeliness of abusing admin tools, but as a matter of principle I will generally not participate in a poll when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simetrical&diff=46002989&oldid=45870820 canvassed].  Please note the difference between [[poll]]s and [[vote]]s: polls are supposed to be representative, and while polls on Wikipedia clearly aren't, there's no need to make them worse than they already are.  Since you would currently need 69 more support votes with 0 more oppose votes to meet the minimum 80% guideline, I recommend you withdraw. &mdash;
'''Support''' You seem to want it bad enough to keep asking for it. Give the puppy a chance
'''Support''' The user meets most reasonable requirements for adminship. His history indicates an acceptable understanding of policy, and I am confident that the user will not abuse the tools. Furthermore, the Maltesedog's calm response to 3 failed RfAs demonstrates a level headedness and sense of confidence that I wish more admins had.
'''Support'''. Strange answer to question 1, but would be unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
For now. Four selfnoms; very weak answers, in part copied from last RfA. Adminship is a big enough deal for you to try hard to gain our support. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Your RFA answers were weak. Also, your edit summary usage for minor edits is extremely low. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
I'm sorry, but I feel that you need to spend more time in the WP Talk namespace to improve communications with other users and have an understanding of policy. Apologies, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Weak Oppose''' per HighwayCello. Sorry, but I'd like to see some additional involvement in WP-space editing before I vote to support.
'''Oppose''' This candidate seems a bit too inexperienced, and solely editing articles on one topic is not necessarily best for an admin.
'''Oppose''' I know that focusing solely on the number of edits can be a bad thing but only about 1700 edits shows a lack of experience. That and the fact that this and the other nominations were self-nominations. Sorry, perhaps you should wait a little longer and build up your contributions before begining another RFA.--
'''Oppose''' - questions do not indicate you're quire ready for adminship yet... please take a little time and wait for a nom before trying again --
'''Oppose''' - not ready yet per Tawker. And it's actually your fourth time coming here! Just make more edits and you can try again later... --
'''Weak Oppose''' Maltesedog's calm demeanor is great for an admin (and lacking in some we have already), but he doesn't seem to have any need for sysop-rights, as there are [[WP:CVU#Dealing_with_vandalism|plenty of tools]] for counter-vandalism. Most editing has been fairly minor and it's difficult to assess knowledge of policy from it.--
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria, and per Tawker above. --
'''Strong oppose''' 4 noms and still not ready.
'''Oppose'''. Fails more than one of my criteria. Badly written nom and answers.
'''Firm oppose''' per Crz, Tawker, Tuspm, Computerjoe, and Themindset (that isn't my attempt to be overly critical of the candidate but, instead, to convey that I agree with certain concerns expressed by each of the five whom I name, if only in order that I should have, you know, to flesh out my own thinking...).
I'm voting '''neutral''' at the moment.  You seem like a good editor, but the fact that you have requested adminship roughly every 3 months (and each one being a self-nomination) over the past year, starting from when you had been here just a few months, seems to be an indication that you still have a ways to go as an editor.  You have about 1700 edits, and a cursory look at the most recent ones seems to indicate that they were minor tweaks to the same few articles.  In this same cursory look, I couldn’t find many instances of the vandal-fighting you say that you want the admin tools for.  However – a few positives – your edit summary usages have much improved since your previous RfAs, and your edits are nicely distributed.  I would suggest waiting a good 6 months before you try this again – and in that time, edit more frequently and do more vandal-fighting.  It would help to get someone else to nominate you for adminship, as well.  Right now I don’t see any compelling evidence that you would abuse the admin tools, but I don’t seen any compelling evidence that you need them, either.  You can still be an excellent editor without the mop :).
'''Neutral''' per Fabricationary.
'''Neutral''' per Fabricationary.--
'''Neutral''', Fabricationary put it quite well. I suggest withdrawing nom.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' for now, but leaning towards oppose due to experience issues.
'''Neutral''' per above.--
Moral '''support''' but urge withdrawal at this time.  Please continue contributing, get active in the other activities you suggest, and try again when you have more time and experience here under your belt.
'''Support''', looks like a great user.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Reverting a perfectly viable if unsourced edit by an anon as vandalism shows that you might be on a steep learning curve wrt policies, but you aren't there yet. ~
'''Oppose''' Your willingness to resolve NPOV issues would be greatly appreciated at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]], but you haven't indicated a need for administrator rights to do sysop chores yet (which is a totally different kettle of fish). If you want to become an administrator, you need to get down and dirty [[WP:CUV|vandal fighting]], [[WP:ANI|tracking incidents]] and reviewing [[WP:AFD|articles for deletion]]. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">

'''Oppose''' You seem like a valuable editor willing to help and I am glad we have people like you here at Wikipedia.  But '''''experience''''' is not the same as just ''reading'' the policies and participating in a POV dispute.  You really need to stay here for a while longer and participate in a larger variety of areas to understand everything well enough as would be demanded from an administrator.  For the tasks that you want to help with, you really don't need to be an admin; Wikipedia admins are really more like Janitors rather than some sort of POV-fixers.  I say withdraw from this RFA, get some experience and come back in when you're more experienced.--
'''Oppose'''. You need more experience (at least 3000 edits). Sorry. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
Weak oppose - interesting answers, but I think the other opposers have said what is basically expected at RFA. Keep up the good work though. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too new. Keep up the good work and try resubmitting when you get over 1,000 edits :-) -
'''Oppose'''. Way to new. Keep up the work though.'''
'''Oppose''', seems like a good guy, but too new, keep up the good work, and try again in four months. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' - '''WAY''' too new, too few edits, try again in a couple of months. --
'''Oppose''', inexperience, come back 6 months later. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose''' 202 edits in total cannot result in enough experience.
'''Oppose''' Just over 200 edits and a membership time of not even two weeks is not nearly enough.
'''Oppose'''.  You are on the right track, but you definitely need more experience.  There is a lot more to being an admin than meets the eye; better understanding only comes with time and experience.  You'll see :)&mdash;
'''Oppose''' just 202 edits. started editing a month ago.--
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on oppose. I'd suggest withdrawing this RfA.
'''Neutral''' You seem to be a sincere user of this project. However, I strongly urge you to gain some experience first and suggest you withdraw this nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral Support.''' I assume good faith, so I think Markovich would be a good admin; however, I urge user to withdrawal and concentrate on some of the weaknesses cited in the ''oppose'' and ''neutral'' sections- especially in the mainspace. Write and edit more articles and then you will surely become an administator.
'''Support''' Is a self nom, but I'll make an exception in this case. &mdash;
'''Support''' His determined involvement in Wikipedia (and in his harder work after his last failed RfA) demonstrate that he is trustworthy, and will not abuse the tools.  While his edit count and time spent on Wiki may be low, those two things aren't the only indicator of a potentially good admin.  It's quality, not quantity that counts. -- <font color="dark pink">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|'''P.B. Pilh''']]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.--<font style="background:white">
'''Moral Support''' normally I wouldn't support an RfA if the user had this little experience, but based on what I've seen from Markovich and the fact that he has ammased this edit count in such a short amount of time, I don't see any indication that he would abuse the tools. - <strong>
''' Moral Support''' Eventually, you will have more expereince. Spend a few edits each day welcoming beginners and reviewing articles. Spend a few edits each day RCPatrolling. Find a niche in [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]]-- there are thousands of articles that need improvement. Take part in AfD and other discussions. Seek feedback from more experienced editors and admins. Submit to an editor review when you think you are ready. Heed that advice. Then try again. And ignore hecklers with fewer edits than you.
'''Weak support''' ''(after scheduled time for close but prior to such close)''  Notwithstanding that certain concerns I had upon the commencement of this RfA apropos of the candidate's ability to respond to criticism, especially that which might be rendered incivilly (notably, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that, where an editor is incivil but where such incivility does not particularly disrupt the project, an RfC should nevertheless be essayed), remain unallayed, I am sufficiently confident that the candidate is, on the whole, possessed of the deliberative nature, sound judgment, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin bodes well, such that I am reasonably certain that the net effect on the project of Markovich's becoming an admin will be positive (were this RfA to succeed&mdash;as it will not&mdash;I imagine that, qua admin, Markovich would act circumspect(ive)ly in view of the concerns raised here), and so, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], I support.
'''Oppose'''. There don't seem to be that many mainspace edits in your contributions. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you're doing well but you need more experience. Also, no recent vandal fight.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' More experience is needed here. I suggest you increase your participation in XfD discussions and improve the quality as well as the quantity of mainspace edits. In the meantime, I humbly suggest you withdraw from this nomination and look through past successful RfAs as well as unsuccessful ones. In that way, you would get a rough idea on how to achieve a  successful RfA! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Someone who has been active as a registered user only since late August and already applies for Admin early September (and now again mid October) strikes me as too ambitious. I'm afraid this rash attitude will translate into ill-conceived actions as an admin.
'''Oppose''' Hmm...your edits are just too low for me. I'm sorry. Please consider withdrawing for now and reapplying when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' Needs a few more months.
'''Oppose''', low edit count and experience, please wait for a longer time and try again in future. Try to read more RFAs (failed and successful ones), watch [[WP:AN]] (and other admin areas). --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' i just don't see what this user has done to earn adminship, sorry but you should perhaps work a bit more before trying to become an admin.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Markovich has been involved ina protracted mess on the [[Mahmoud Ahmedinejad]] page, in which he has readily and often dismissed citation upon citation, in order to push a baseless POV that MA is in no form anti-semetic. Depsite an RfA in which he [[WP:BITE|bit]] the Admin, the issue was not resolved. His behavior was offensive and patently uncivil. At any opportunity, he sought to create tension among editors, and sowed discontent. After a while, he started trying to push for blocks on those who opposed his position on the issue, or would simply ignore what they had to say because they did not agree. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting 'la la la la' is not proper behavior for an Admin, so I have to oppose this nom.
'''Oppose''' Markovich292's first edit was less than two months ago. That's just not enough time. He could have the best edits in the world. He could have 1000 edits a day. That's just not enough time to understand the intricacies about wikipedia that I want an administrator to understand. --
'''Oppose''' Give it six month, accumulate a quality track record in the article space, and especially try to reach outside the two articles you've edited so far. I actually had to double-check if I hadn't already voted on this one, your last RFA was so recent. ~
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience with articles
'''STRONG Oppose''' I pity you, Mr. Markovich.
'''Oppose.''' Mr. M. doesn't even have the 1,000 edits needed to vote in RfA, much less become an administrator. Prematurely asking for adminship does not bode well for the future, does not indicate the kind of judgment needed.
'''Oppose.''' Sorry, but I don't think you've contributed significantly to ENWP yet.  Low edit count shows it.
'''Oppose.''' Per [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]].
'''Oppose.''' Appreciate the hint of stance on individual initiative, but not strong enough and no definite anti-deletionist message
'''Strong oppose.''' - in this comment he advises that persons who are waiting for mediation should file two RfCs, which is completely absurd.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08_Nicole_Kidman&diff=prev&oldid=81712241] Definately shouldn't be allowed near the buttons.
'''Strong oppose.''' Still too new.--
'''Neutral''' 734 edits in one year is rather low.  The breakdown doesn't show a lot of participation in XfD or vandalfighting.  I suggest withdrawing and either getting an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] or working areas such as recent changes/new page patrol and reporting repeat vandals to [[WP:AIV]]; participating in XfD discussions, using this to demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; joining one or more Wikiprojects such as Featured Articles or Good Articles - these will allow you to edit articles in a directed fashion and to a high standard; interacting with other editors on article Talk and user Talk pages.  All of these will add value to the project and raise your profile amongst your peers, making a future RfA nomination much more likely to result in a successful outcome. 2-3000 edits seems to be an unofficial minimum for editors to demonstrate some or all of the above. You have lots of potential, so this isn't an outright oppose.
'''Neutral''' Presumably the Q3 answer was about talk regarding the Mahmoud Ahmadine article, such as [[Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Disputes_Resolved.3F|this]], in which case I agree with your assessment, and would further say you demonstrate competence in policy that most users with 700-800 edits usually don't have. Still, your spartan mainspace edits (mostly to two articles) prevent me from supporting. As others say, in a few months... . Good luck.--
'''Neutral''' Looks to me like you would make a great admin, though I don't see very many mainspace (article space) edits. Come back in a few months. Cheers!  ——
'''Neutral''' I'd agree that you ''most likely'' have a clear grasp of policy, but I too would like to see more main space edits as well as larger contributions. I think in a few months, with these things in mind, you'll pass an RfA with strong backing.
'''Neutral''' to avoid piling-on. Spend time writing the encyclopedia first.
'''Neutral''' without piling on, you must realise that encyclopedia-writing should be at the core of any Wikipedian, even if there is also a focus on AfD, RCP, or dipute resolution. I hope you stick around and get more experience. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''' Also to avoid piling on.  I think that you are a great editor; however, a little more experience with article building will make you an admniship worthy editor.  Spend some more time making substantial edits to articles and I will have absolutely no problem supporting! [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''': He's been showing a friendly face in our encounters.
'''Support''' per Nlu. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''<small>moral</small> Support''' - well, it's not going very well. Please stick around, take the recommendations in the oppose section, and move on with editing. Also suggestion to withdraw, unless you're looking for critiques. Seeing what Nlu has said, though, keep doing what you've been doing and you'll be alright. <small>(And not signing the acceptance of your RfA has GOT to be bad luck...)</small> --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' I think you would do good.
'''Support''' It looks great.
'''Oppose''' sorry. His inability to list his RfA correctly gives me pause, also lack of edit summaries for major edits and his low contribution to content.
Per Sarah.
Per NSLE.
'''Oppose'''. Martial Law should try to add more to the encyclopedia, whether it be through RC patrol, copyediting, adding good encyclopedic content, etc. To this point in time his interactions have mainly been through trying to bring issues to the attention of others via talk pages, rather than making many improvements himself. I'll also note he doesn't need admin rights to accomplish his goals for Question 1. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Eagerness is one thing, but skill would be better. --
'''Oppose''' I hate to oppose, seems like a great editor, but his answer to question 1 is a non admin task IMO. I think he might want to get some more experience doing mundane, janatoral tasks such as NEWPAGE patrol (we need more newpage patrolers, between 12 am -4 am i'd say 60% are tagged for deletion).
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, Martial Law clearly means well, and does contribute somewhat to Wikipedia-space, but Bunchofgrapes sums it up pretty well. I've seen Martial Law post plenty of stuff on pages like [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]] that I don't think really belongs there. And, of course, his responses to question 1 don't require adminship at all. Dispute resolution and mediation are things that don't require the adminship tools. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in those ways, you are very welcome to do so without the adminship tools. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Oppose''' Per Deathphoenix, I'd agree, I've also seen posts on [[WP:AN]], [[WP:AN/I]] which (to me at least) are pretty cryptic, good communications  are important. As per others, low edit summary count, answer to question 1 etc. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)</sup> 09:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)  Corrected signed it properly and corrected error. --
'''Oppose'''. While Martial Law has over 5000 edits, they are to less than 350 different pages. It is easy to infer from this that he has never been on RC or NP patrol. I appreciate that he has intervened successfully in a user dispute, but I suspect that he is not very familiar with processes and policies. And as per Deathphoenix, dispute resolution does not require adminship. Adminship does not require great editing skills, but it does require some other things that I and others have mentioned, and I hope Martial Law will work on those before reapplying.
'''Oppose''' as per above, especially as per Stifle.  Also, I'd would really like to see a significant increase in the use of edit summaries.  --
<s>'''Oppose''', needs to use more edit summaries. Needs to have more experience as an administrator. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''.  I get around the project a bit and I've only come across ML a couple of times, which is unusual in an RfA candidate; I also reviewed his edit summaries, and in recent days found him adding how-to content ([[WP:NOT]]), some contributions which were not as neutral as I'd like ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion&diff=40506399&oldid=39383318] whihc appears to assert that alien abductions are real), so I'm not confident he has the necessary grasp of policy; finally, there are not enough edits to real, encyclopaedic articles.
'''Oppose''' 348 page edits and low edit summary usage. Nope.
'''Oppose''' as very premature. Encourage nominee to withdraw and spend a few months actively building the encyclopedia before considering this role.
'''Oppose''' <s>Yikes! Unsigned acceptance of nomination.</s> 8% edit summaries is just hard to wrap my head around. Sorry, I dislike edit-summary-coutitis, but I'm begining to come around to the benefits of users summarizing their edits. If its true that you are a quick learner then I look forward to supporting you in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. His admirable eagerness is cancelled out by immaturity and advocacy of questionable claims as fact. He sometimes gives the impression he is responding to what he thinks is the situation rather than the actual situation, the most recent example being him saying above, '''"Position Accepted"''', rather than '''"Nomination Accepted"'''.  That isn't a good look for an admin IMMHO. The nominator, Nlu, says Martial Law is anxious to learn, so maybe he could come back some time in the future.
'''Oppose'''. His edit history screams "enthusiastic" (which is a very good thing) but definitely not imho "admin material" at this stage. He doesn't need adminship to fulfill his stated goals. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm sure he'll be a fine editor. this isn't an oppose because he's done something outstandingly wrong, just hasn't been around long enough to firm up an admin level editor status.
'''Oppose''' Low use of edit summaries for major edits makes me wonder if this candidate will leave reasons when deleting pages.--
'''Oppose'''. Based on past interactions, I've found no indication that the candidate understands basic Wikipedia policies, [[WP:V|Verifiability]] in particular. I don't doubt his good will and enthusiasm, but he's far too inexperienced for me, and his sometimes-idiosyncratic way of communicating confuses me sometimes – I can't imagine what that would be like for a newbie.
'''Oppose''' per Moriori, sorry. Adminship is not a trophy. -
'''Oppose'''. No hurry for the powertools kid; use your handtools for a little while, then I'll be o.k. knowing that you have the power to block my arse or delete my wedding pictures. You get the point.  --
'''Oppose'''. Due to the problem with [[User:Bumpusmills1]] and general paranoia. --
'''Oppose''', may have over 5000 edits, but lacks the use of edit summaries. He may delete pages without even a reason. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Weak oppose''' lack of edit summaries --
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above. — <small>Mar. 9, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[20:39] <
'''Oppose''', give it a bit more time, learn more about the community, don't take any of this personally like [[User:Nlu|Nlu]] says --
'''Oppose''' per above, mainly the lack of edit summarrys.
'''Oppose''' but not to pile up oppostion. Per all the above oppose votes.
'''Oppose'''As per all the other oppose votes.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with Android above, it's a bad idea to have people who don't know their way around procedures and policies practising on newbies, however eager to learn they are. ML is very enthusiastic and goodhearted, but I'm often quite nonplussed by his communications myself. Also a bit nonplussed by Nlu taking the initiative of nominating him.
'''Oppose''' -- Sorry; edit sums are very important.
'''Neutral''' Martial Law is an interesting fellow and seems determined but I haven't seen much admin type editing...I suggest doing some RC Patrol, participate in Wikipedia namespace discussions and the article deletion pages for some time yet.--
'''Neutral'''. Would like to see more activity in project space. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I would support Martial Law on the grounds that his intentions and heart are certainly in the right place. But I think it's a wee bit premature at this point to be nominated. However, I will watch carefully for his responses to questions and potentially swing to a support. No promises however. --
'''Neutral'''. ML is a very ensthusiastic editor and interesting charachter, no doubt. But unfortunately I cannot support him at this time, for I'm not fully convinced he's not batshit insane. No offense. Some of my nearest, dearest friends and relatives are batshit insane. However, the admin cabal is currently over its quota in this department. So if and until more of those retire or are defrocked, I must plead the Swiss.--
'''Neutral'''. I moved my vote to neutral after a bit of research. I'll probably support it when he is renominated. --

'''Neutral.''' I know his heart is in the right place, but the opinions here have given me reservations.
'''Neutral'''. I'm a bit skeptical about this user.
'''Neutral, leaning towards weak support'''.
'''Neutral''', well I've changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. I believe Martial can be a good contributor without the tools. However, if he wants to be an admin, he needs to use more edit summaries and be more familiar with admin stuff. If he can work on this, he can try for another RFA in a few months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>



'''Support''' - though he does not meet my requirement of 300+ project-space edits, his answers to the questions and his nomination paragraph make me want to support him. '''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Somewhat low on the experience end of things, but I don't see that as a compelling reason to oppose in this case.  Seems like someone who would make good use of the tools. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' Has been active for 3+ months, has 1500+ edits including plenty in project and talk spaces.  Everything I see is good.
'''Support''', I see no reason why he should not be an admin. His number of edits may be a little low but this editor has shown he understands policy and as a result edit number is unimportant. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''', I have been temporarily cured of the [[WP:Editcountitis|flu]]!--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Has a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems like he would be a good admin. Don't care too much about edit count. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support.'''--
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Edit count is sufficient in my opinion. <small>WARNING TO SELF: [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|Editcountitis]] is contagious. </small> --
'''Support''' after a well writen answer to my question. I believe it would be good for you to have the mop. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<sup>[[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]</sup><sup>
'''Support'''.  Edit count doesn't mean much (although there's certainly a difference between 500 and 5000).  I'm pleased with what I've seen from this user and I have seen him around fairly frequently.  He's kind, supportive of new users, and a good vandal-fighter.  Let's give him the mop! :)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per Siva, Sorry, and Srose; inasmuch as, pace BlueValour, with whom I rarely disagree, I think Martinp's understanding of ''merge/redirect'', etc., to be fine, even as I think his procedural handling of the AfD to have been less-than-perfect; and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]].
'''Weak oppose''' as fails my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]] in terms of edits. I would have done a neutral, but someone has to start. Please see [[User:Viridae|Viridae]]'s comments below.
'''Weak oppose''' not ''quite'' ready yet. I would definitely give my support with a few more months' contributions and a non-self nomination. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Oppose''' Edits need to be boosted.  They are a reflection of experience.
'''weak oppose''' Seems like a good editor, but with just 1700 edits and (essentially) only 3 months editing, its a bit early to tell.  come back soon!  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Weak oppose''' - per [[user:CrazyInSane|CrazyInSane]] --
'''Oppose'''. Please read through [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of what most people's standards are, I don't consider [[User:Themindset/RFA|mine]] that difficult to attain.
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria.  --
'''No go for support - oppose''' per CrazyInSane. --
'''Weak oppose''' needs some more experience, should try again soon.
'''Weak oppose''' I'd like to see some more experience.
'''Oppose''' Just needs more experience overall. More *fD experience. More IfD expereince. More editing. I see a lot of welcoming user with vandalproof. Welcoming users is important. However, with only ~2000 edits, there needs to be more substantial edits, more Fairuse image review and cleanup. More vandal warning and reporting to AIV. Try building a stub up to an interesting article-- with a list of refernces at the end. Find a subject that intersts you. Dig up some information and add it to Wikipedia.
'''Weak oppose'''  Nothing at all wrong with gnomish, minor, or semi-automated edits (I'd kinda have to say that, wouldn't I?), ''but'' 1700 edits consisting largely of such isn't really enough to judge someone's suitability in a meaningful way.  Either a lot more of the same, please, or a wider range of editing to judge your "latent experience" by.
'''Oppose''' - needs more experience.--
''' Strong oppose'''. See attempt to premature close an AfD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grassfield Elementary School]]. Applicant quite failed to understand the difference between a 'Delete/redirect' and a 'Merge/redirect'. Further, instead of simply accepting that the closure did not have general acceptance, a vigorous defence was mounted.
'''Oppose'''. 2053 edits is much less than what I expect from an admin. Not only that, but he has more User talk edits than article edits. Try again with about 3-4000 more edits (especially article edits) & don't self-nom. You are a great contributor, but I won't support you until the issues above have been cleared up. '''<font style="background:black">
'''Oppose''' - Per above comments, but mainly noting low edit count in mainspace (600)
'''Neutral''' leaning oppose however. Seems to inexperienced and a self-nomination. Relatively small amount of contributions (little over 600 mainspace edits) and only been here since the end of January 2006 after which the nominee states he was initially inactive for a considerable time (began contributing actively since April 2006). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060716182346&limit=500&target=Martinp23] It will take alot to change me from turning to oppose.--
'''Neutral''' I like your contributions and I can see no reason to oppose. You have involvement with AFDs and lots of RC patrol. I just don't think you have been contributing at this level for long enough. Keep it up, come back in a couple of months And I would be happy to support you.
'''Neutral leaning Support''' I do think some more experience (in the form of editing across all spaces) is necessary, but the candidate has a great track record of vandalism reversion, and the extra buttons would enable to him to be even more effective in that respect.  The candidate (like all RfA candidates) is to be commended in asking for the extra responsibility, as he/she has demonstrated an eager willingness to further help the project
'''Neutral leaning Support also''' - Hoopydink took the words out of my mouth; and will probably change my vote upon newer questions. I will add that my personal interactions with Martin have been very <S>popular</s> grr... '''positive''' - I just cant believe this is his 23rd RfA! ;) -
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Viridae|Viridae]].
'''Neutral''' per above neutral comments.  I would give support in three months.
'''Neutral''' per GIen. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''

'''Support as nominator''' '''
'''Support''' have seen him around loads, seems to me he'd make a good admin <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Cliché support'''. "I thought he was an admin already". --[[Darth]]
'''Extreme support'''  MoP deserves the mop!!! [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course.&trade; --<font color="orange"><strike>''
More like this candidate, please<sup>TM</sup> '''support'''! <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
Thought he was already an admin '''support''' --'''<font color="crimson">
<strike>'''Support''' per nom. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</strike> Changing to '''Weak Support''' after seeing Mackensen's comment. I'd like to see a response to it. --
'''Support''' per all the above, thought he was an ad... nevermind. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Weak support''' only thing holding me back here is [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]]'s comment. ''
'''Support''' I'm going to have to write a standard page about good article editors and admins not necessarily being the same thing (they can be, but don't have to be). Helping out with blocking ([[WP:AIV]]), actually deleting the pages/closing most AfDs etc ''does'' need admin tools. Vandal whacking is a lot easier and more complete with admin tools. To be honest I thought you were one already as well (TM).
'''Strong Support''' Darn it, I was going to nominate this user myself :-). Master of Puppets is truly the nicest Wikipedian around and a pleasure to work with.  This user can easily be trusted with admin. tools. While he may not have the highest amount of article edits he has been a great contributor, a large particapant in the community and has shown an understanding of policy. I strongly support this user's nomination.<font color="#000080">
'''Strong Support''' MoP is very open, very friendly on IRC and (bias alert) did an amazing job renovating my user page, full unreserved support --
'''Strong Support''' definitely deserves the full toolbox!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Give him the MoP!
'''Support'''.  His service to the community as a vandal-whacker will be made easier if he is an admin.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><font color="green">e</font></b>]]
'''Metallica ''SupporT''''' :). Oh, and in response to [[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]], I believe it might have something to do with [[Master of Puppets|this]]. -
'''Support on WHEEELS!!!''' Sorry, it's just the "Master of Puppets" name that gets me! ;-) Seriously, I like MoP. I think he'll be a great admin! --D-Day<sup>([[User:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User talk:D-Day|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
'''Support''' Youre not an admin already?
'''Support''' vandal watching without admin tools just isn't as effective --
'''Strong support''' - Per Jedi6.  To add on, he also goes to take the extra steps of kindness with a patience. —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support your Master! Master!'''-- Strongest possible support. MOP does a great job at stopping vandals. That's why he'd be a good admin. I disagree with the "less than 1000 article space" edits oppositions: MoP has enough to show that he's understands that namespace, and he'll be even more effective vandal fighting: having 2 million constructive article edits has no bearing on whether you can deal with vandals effectively or not. I urge MoP not to withdraw.
'''Support''' of course. Great user and will certainly make a great admin per above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Chop-My-Head-Off-If-He-Don't-Win Support''' The kid is as old as I am, and he definately breaks the mold in the quality of his edits, I give 4 thumbs up.
'''Support'''. Admin tools are not much useful to the content of an encyclopedia. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''. You have done a great job so far. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I've come to know this user fairly well over the past few weeks as he has been helping me out with my [[User talk:AmiDaniel/VandalProof|VandalProof project]]. He seems competent and trustworthy, and he seems to have very good interpersonal skills. I generally prefer more mainspace edits by admins-to-be; however, I think his number of user talkspace edits indicates that he typically takes the time to contact users before making major changes to articles, and it further shows that he is involved in the community and avoids unilateral action whenever possible. His involvement in Wikipedia projects indicate that he would be an excellent candidate to deal with AfD closings and to mediate in disputes. I really hate Metallica, but unlike the album, this [[Master of Puppets]] is on I can definitely support.
'''Support'''. This user is friendly and knowledgeable. Could benefit from the tools, and is not likely to abuse them. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] per EWS23. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]][[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[user:nathanrdotcom|nrd]][[User:nathanrdotcom/CJ|<font color="blue">o</font>]]
'''Support'''. The low number of article and talk edits gives cause for concern but he is working on that and is willing to grow from his mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Master of Puppets would not be trustful with admin tools. I know him and he is civil, patient and friendly and those are excellent qualities in an administrator.--
'''Support''', low mainspace edits? What? I became admin with almost exactly 1000 edits...period. Criminy. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per Dakota's comments. I would prefer a bit more in article namespace edits, but you do not seem likely to abuse admin powers.
'''Support''', I'll give it a shot.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I'm almost sure I've seen him around... Anyway, definete support.
'''Strong Support''' a great user who definitely should have admin rights: he would definitely not abuse them at all and would be great for fighting vandals. --[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' I've found MoP to be extremely civil and level-headed, and committed to Wikipedia. I'm sure he would make great use of the admin tools, and get on well with the admin tasks. -- <font COLOR="#008b8b">[[User:Condem|Con]]</font><font COLOR="#FF0080">[[User:Condem|'''D''']]</font>[[User:Condem/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Deserves to be an admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' And justice for all.
'''Support''': User seems to be willing to work on his criticisms, and is a good vandal fighter.
'''Support''' great user. The main reason he doesn't have many mainspace edits is because he he makes articles in his or other peoples userspace. <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">
'''Support''', I have had nothing but good interactions with Master of Puppets, he has proved his maturity and adminability time and time again. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Support''', and PS, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk :)--
'''Der Übersupport'''--Works well with other users (look at his talkpage), he went out of his way to help me set up my monobook.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I recall when I first saw MoP, I was RC patrolling and I had to log out. So I left a note somewhere, pointing out a suspicious username. Completely true, I wish I could find the diff.
'''Support'''. I suppose I have to, lest I remain unforgiven forever. ... Actually, this editor happens to be a force for good in the wikipedia, and I think I trust him, at least, with the tools.
'''Support'''. Friendly guy and vandal whacker extraordinaire. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''. Because I do. --<i><b><font color="#5ADD22"><font size="1">[[User:GeorgeMoney|George]]</font></font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">[[User:GeorgeMoney|Mon]]</font><font size="1" color=green>[[User:GeorgeMoney/Esperanza|e]]</font><font size="1" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' found to be a very helpful editor <small>—[[User:Porge|porg]]

'''Support'''. Good guy. --
'''Support'''. I've seen this guy around and he has done nothing but good for Wikipedia. He deserves the mop. [[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. After reading the objections and the candidate's responses thereto, I see no harassment or incivility; quite the opposite, he seems genuinely ready to address those concerns leveled. I also find the comparison to in-vote-out-and-done-with-it elections to be oddly strong-smelling oranges. I'm reasonably sure MoP won't abuse the mop (to reuse the bad pun [grin]), and that's pretty much my threshold.
'''Support''', Master of Puppets will make an excellent administrator. After checking his contributions, I noticed he has been reverting a lot of vandalism, which is one of the main jobs as an admin. He is also a very helpful Wikipedian and has helped me with all of my questions on Wikipedia. And yes, I thought he was already admin as well! --
'''Support''' a good user.
'''Support''': I have seen this user around and they have always behaved professionally. Also, I don't think the number of his edits to the main article space is a problem. --
'''Support''' I was altogether certain I'd already expressed my support here, but I think I must have seen the signature of [[User:Searchme]] as "Joe 1" and thought that vote to have been mine.  In any case, Covington, Evan, UKPaolo and Srikeit, inter al., effectively state the as well as I might, and more succinctly at that.
'''Strong Support''' Just because because MoP has a high userspace edit count doesn't mean he does not work in improving articles and to go against the people below who say his name is "too colourful, childish..." I believe a cool sig demonstrates his passion towards helping the project. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' No problems.
'''Support''' a solid user. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Cliché Support''' I thought he was an administrator already.  Also, he's very helpful in the "War on Vandalism."
'''Ultimate Support'''. He will be one of the best adminstrators in Wikipedia, because he has proved to be an excellent user. Surely you would not want to have an excellent user to miss out more chances to contribute to Wikipedia?
<s>Oppose, not enough edits to template talk space using edit summaries that contain the letter 'R' and he has too many commas on his userpage</s> '''Support''', perfect attitude for the mop. --
'''Very strong support''' - I've had personal contact with this user, and know him to be an examplary Wikipedian and Esperenzian. (Unfortunately, it doesnt look like this RfA is going to pass, but I will ceartinly vote support in any future RfA for Master of Puppets.) -
'''Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Support''' A great user, really friendly, will not abuse tools. --<font color="66AAFF">
'''Strong Support'''. I think interacting with the community is just as important for an admin as editing articles. -
'''Support''': seems like a nice bloke.
'''Support''', good user and a vandal-fighter who needs the mop and bucket. --
'''Support'''. It's 5:29 here. The ending time is nearly an hour away. Anyways, he offered to be my mentor but one had to be an admin. I'm glad he's getting RFA'd right now; he'd be a kind, compassionate admin. --
'''Oppose'''. With less than a thousand edits in the main article space, I'm concerned about this user's purpose here. There's nothing inherently wrong with favoring community interaction over article development, but it doesn't require admin tools, nor admin-level access to deleted content. Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. As Mackensen points out, MoP doesn't have a lot of main article contributions. The work you do is important for Wikipedia as a community, but I'm not convinced you need admin tools. I would also recommend that you use edit summaries more often. <font color="AE1C28">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too few article and project namespace edits. - <b>
'''Strong Oppose'''. I am not satisfied that this user has a good understanding of policy and how to deal with disputes.  About a week ago, this user decided that removing "''Please review the discussion in the talk page for Michael Jackson prior to editing; the discussion of the nicknames posted at the top of the article has come to a general concensus that will leave those names present in the article''"  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmagic&oldid=48048972] was the kind of "warning message" that should be preserved at all costs and triggered a grand dispute with [[User:Drmagic]].  Master of Puppets reverted Drmagic's removal of that message from Drmagic's talk page three times before using [[WP:AIV]] to get Drmagic blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=48199189&oldid=48198866].  To be clear, Drmagic has never been a vandal and was not engaged in any vandalism or other ongoing disputes except that he chose to remove those messages from his own talk page.  The blocking admin eventually realized this and unblocked Drmagic with an apology [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmagic&diff=48244233&oldid=48243357].  Several days later, Master of Puppets comes back and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmagic&diff=48611198&oldid=48611120 taunts Drmagic about having had "some troubles"] to a third party.  This precipitates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmagic&oldid=48618942 another a big mess] bordering on harrassment.  The only saving grace in all this is that MoP did eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmagic&diff=48664363&oldid=48637715 reconcile with Drmagic].  All together though, I believe this behavior demonstrates that Master of Puppets is not ready to be given a mop.
'''Oppose''' per Mackensen and Jacoplane.  I would really like to see more involvement in writing the encyclopedia.  And this user hasn't done enough anti-vandal work to make me think about supporting him solely on that criterion (unlike, say, CSCWEM).  --
'''Oppose''' - the evidence from Dragons flight above is very troubling to me, and suggests a need for this user to demonstrate some more maturity before we give more buttons. (
'''Oppose''' too little experience, too many boxes. --
Per Mackensen and Dragon's flight.--
'''Oppose'''. Excluding reversions and minor edits, he has relatively little involvement in the article niche of Wikipedia.  He seems to be a great vandal fighter, but his role in the bullying of Drmagic is extremely concerning as well.  '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' Very little use of user talk warnings following reversion of vandalism. Reverting without warning is next to useless - the user isn't told about other outlets for their testing (i.e. the sandbox) and the warning escalation process doesn't take place, so persistent vandals don't get blocked (until somebody else provides the warnings). <nowiki>{{test1}}</nowiki> is a far more effective tool than the block button. Also the use of terminology like "vandal whacking" always makes me a bit concerned about a user's philosophy towards RC patrolling.
'''Oppose''' I was reading this RFA and started looking at contribs. I did a rough count of the last 500 edits and ~335 of them were to non-IP user/user talk pages, mostly formatting and userboxes. In the same 500 edits there were ~90 vandalism reverts. He's hanging this on vandalism patrol but seems to be much busier working on user pages. If he could reverse that ratio I'd support in a heartbeat because he seems to have a good attitude. I think he needs a little more activity spread around a little more evenly. There are other issues (questioning so many oppose votes for one, and [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]]'s comments) but I think he'll be a good choice after a little more work on the encyclopedia end of things.
'''Oppose''' per Dragon's flight.  First, editor has too little experience in the article-space, which is the heart of the project.  Second, editor admits that it was only a few weeks ago he discovered that all his edits were being marked minor.  Third, the troubling evidence of Dragon's flight suggests editor cannot yet distinguish vandalism from good-faith confusion.  All this indicates that, despite his good intentions, candidate needs much more experience before taking up the mop.
'''Oppose''' per all above, especially low main contribution and puzzling answer to my question.
'''Oppose''' per low mainspace contributions, reversion of vandalism is a mainspace edit as well (and the easiest one)
'''Oppose'''. Although I welcome the vandla fighting, admin tasks require a deeper understanding of WP policies, experience in editing articles, and engaging fellow editors on the Wikipedia namespace. I will support down the line, once user has shown some interest in the community.
'''Oppose''' Over concerns raised by Dragon Flight(which while I think was done in good faith, could have been more politely handled), Jaco's concern over minor edits v. major edits, Tigershark's concerns (although I see nothing wrong with term "vandal wacking"), and especially that of Rx StrangeLove which removes the main basis for my initial support.
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.--
'''Oppose''' per all above and yes, go right ahead and tag this with a comment =)
'''Oppose'''.  The number of edits in userspace substantially exceeds the number of edits in article space.  I get a feeling that the editor hasn't really fully understood the nature of Wikipedia yet. --
'''Oppose'''.  Doesn't meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|admin standards]].  Also, I'm biased against disruptively formatted signatures. Also, some concerns about civility.  Also, the number of comments on people's oppose votes seems to be bordering on harassment of opposition voters. —
The comments above and his general conduct suggest to me that Master of Puppets hasn't sufficiently absorbed Wikipedia values. --
Sorry, but your contributions appear very fluffy and insubstantial to me.  I want admins to have a deep keel in the issues of article space encyclopedia editing.
'''Oppose''' per Mackensen and Dragon's flight. &ndash;
'''An "I'm Sorry" Oppose''' Because you told me that you would wait until July or around that time to run for adminship.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> - owing to the candidate's argumentation with the oppose votes, which could be seen as trying to intimidate or pressure the opponents. -
'''Oppose'''. Master of Puppets is a good user, appears to be polite, and is active reverting vandalism. However, I do not believe he is yet ready to be an administrator. Among and in addition to the above comments, several matters strike me. I prefer editors who talk first and block later; an administrator should familiarize himself with the details of the situation, and if necessary, should err on the side of discussion. The only experience I can recall with this editor occurred when I objected to an administrator about a user he had blocked unfairly, in my opinion. MoP saw this and left [[User_talk:Knowledge_Seeker/Archive8#User:Karatloz|messages]] on my talk page defending the block, for what I consider very dubious reasons. The arguing with oppose votes here is quite concerning, especially that the user has continued this behavior despite several warnings. Finally, a minor point: I consider the user's signature problematic; the very small size of the talk page link combined with the nonstandard pointer style make communication with this user a bit irksome for me. I think Master of Puppets could make a good administrator in the future, if the opposition points here are addressed. —
'''Oppose''' due to lack of main and Wikipedia space edits, particularly Wikipedia space, without which your policy knowledge is called into question.
'''Oppose''' per numerous reasons above.
'''Oppose''' due to evidence of poor conflict management, inappropriate signature.  Do not feel comfortable extending admin trust to this person.
'''Oppose''', not enough projectspace edits.
'''Oppose'''. MOP has great potential as a vandal fighter, but it's too early. Vandal fighters tend to have alot of edits. So 700 in the main namespace in basically 2 months of full time work on the site is very low. Come back in a couple of months. --
Per Mackensen, Dragon's Flight, Sean Black, Meegs, Tony Sidaway, Michael Snow, Silsor, and Kelly Martin, all of whom cover points I agree with completely.
'''Oppose''' per above. Too many issues at this time. --
'''Strong opposition'''.  Several users have cited troubling evidence, and I would have opposed the nomination on this basis alone.  Some of Master of Puppets' comments here are even more troubling.  He compared page-blankers with pedophiles (despite realizing that "it isn't really a good analogy"), and that certainly isn't indicative of the level of tact that I expect from an admin.  Several users criticised him for arguing with so many opponents, and he responded to these new opponents by arguing that this was untrue!  His answers to some of the questions are unimpressive, and I'm stunned by his belief that 64% support for his RfA (as of the time of his comment) constitutes "a close call."  This (along with other comments) leads me to believe that his grasp of Wikipedia policy is insufficient.  &mdash;
'''Absolutely not.''' Worries from above users, combined with this user's hideous signature (yes, I know he changed it; it's still hideous) lead me to oppose.  If you need to express yourself with custom cursors and other features that take up three or more lines in an editing window, you're not mature enough to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per all the above. While there may be a time for adminship, I simply feel that now is not the time. Thanks!
'''Oppose''' I'm really sorry too oppose, but I feel the number of his edits in the main space is too low. Gain experience, and return in a couple of months. --
'''Oppose''' per ''Dragons flight'' comments and MOP response. --
'''Neutral''', this user knows how to interact with people going by his large number of user talk edits, but low number of main namespace edits and the Drmagic incident deter me just this little >< from voting support. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] | [[User_talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]] 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)<s>Changed to oppose, considering the discrepancy between what the candidate says about his user space article creation activity and the move log. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] | [[User_talk:Kimchi.sg|talk]] 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</s> Regarding article creation, I've been informed that the user makes copy and paste moves.
'''Neutral'''. Low edit count in mainspace, among others. --
'''Neutral'''. I've interacted with MoP a little, and I feel obligated to say something here. I think some of the ''oppose'' reasons in this RfA are not very good reasons to oppose, so I'm tempted to "cancel them out" with a ''support''. However, I don't think MoP is quite ready for adminship. Regardless of my opinion, it looks as though this RfA will most likely not succeed. I certainly hope MoP will use the criticism received here constructively. With more experience, he could stand a better chance for promotion in the future. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Neutral''' - I suspect MoP would do OK with the mop, but there are sufficient concerns raised in opposition that I don't feel I can support at the moment. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''' - More main namespace!!  You edit well!  Take interest in an article and go nuts in improving it.  After some main contribs, come back, and I'm sure you'll get the power tools!  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Neutral''' - I admire this editor's vandal fighting and commitment to other administrative tasks, but would like to see a little more participation in the improvement of articles.  As such I cannot go either way. --
'''Support''' - has my full confidence.
In my one encounter, Matt showed a very great level of maturity.  I expect him to fulfill this role very well.
'''Support''' I see this editor around, good work --
With only 79 edits to User talk space, I'm somewhat concerned about your low use of test templates to warn vandals. This issue, however, can be easily left as a suggestion for the future rather than a reason not to give you the tools now, in the light of all the good things you've done in your time here and your obvious Wiki-enthusiasm. Happy to '''support'''. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' Lack of warning vandals is a problem, but can be easily fixed. Good luck. —
'''Support''' with the minor concerns of Phaedriel and SWD316 in mind. Our encounter on [[Running up the score]] a while back was entirely pleasant. (
'''Support''' per Phaedriel. --
'''Support'''. I like what I see.
'''Support''' --
'''strong Support''' though let me point out, there is no point in accepting a self-nomination.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Though I'd like to see more warnings for vandals on User Talk pages, my very positive experiences with this user outweighs those shortcomings.
'''Support'''. Very good wikipedian; should be a very good admin.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I see no problem.--
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Need more admins. -
'''Support''' this guy makes sense!
'''ok''' looks good.
'''Support''' - a good and competent user --
'''Support''' edits seem fine.--
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Supppppport'''.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' clean up wikipedia!  good luck, you'll do well.
'''Support''' - Everyone has occasional lapses in judgment or understanding. I don't know that he'll be perfect, but I trust that he'll evolve with his duties.
'''Support''' - Fear is ruining our society, lets not let it ruin Wikipedia. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|25px]]
'''Support'''.  A user's belief on what Wikipedia policy should be does ''not'' necessarily infer he would be unable or unwilling to abide by it and assist in the enforcing of it.  That's a fundamental lack of good faith, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.  Adminship is not a big deal.   User is smart, polite and helpful.  I saw no breach of civility on the [[Talk:e (mathematical constant)#Important_numbers]], just an editorial dispute which came nowhere near to breachin any standard of etiquette or policies.  To use a editorial dispute to oppose the user being granted an administrative position is misjudged, and unfair.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' per below. Discussion on ''e'' was a tad silly, but nonetheless thought-provoking. &mdash; '''''
'''Strong support!''' as per [[User_talk:Mathwiz2020#Request_for_reconsideration:_my_RFA|this discussion]]. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. See why [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|here]], feel free to ask me for a more detailed reason. Would still like to see more talk page edits per other comments (e.g. warning vandals).
'''Support'''
Strong '''Support''', good editor. Extra points for having experience of conflict and showing maturity in dealing with it. I'm always dubious of supporting users who have spent all their wikitime peacefully contributing away in some uneventful corner (the way I had myself at my candidature, sad to say).  And extra points for the selfnom of course!
'''Support''' I see no problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Adds colour and flavour to the encyclopedia and I'm a fan of self-noms as well.
'''Oppose''', quotes such as "it is not policy until it is voted on" imply a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia consensus.
'''Oppose''', his treatment of [[WP:ENC]] has been disappointing to say the least, showing an absolute insistence on holding outright votes to work out whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or not. In what manner would he close an AfD. Also, for a self-nom, the nomination is uncompelling, amounting to "I want to block the anons"; you can vandal fight without being an admin. -
'''Oppose'''. While I am in favor of everything else the user has said, this seems to be Yet Another User "running" on the grounds of fighting vandalism. The other activities mentioned do not require administrative rights. Please see [[WP:ANOT]].
'''Oppose'''. Per [[Talk:e (mathematical constant)#Important_numbers]]. —''
'''Oppose''' per Splash, and -- more pressingly in this case -- per Ruud.  If one doesn't have an understanding of what transcendental numbers are, one should probably have the good judgment to defer to others' judgments of [[e]], or at least to phrase comments as tentative questions, rather than complaints.  Strikingly poor judgment in that case and lack of humility, the two qualities I hold essential in an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Splash. Also, probably should have deferred on the dispute over [[e]].--
Reluctantly '''oppose''', after reading the discussion on ''e''.
'''Oppose''' Too little time has elapsed since the lapse of judgement in the discussion of the importance of "e".
'''Oppose''' per Splash and Radiant.'''
Oppose. Practice [[WP:COOL]] for a couple months and you should be a "shew-win", as they say. ;)  &ndash;
Oppose. Participation in debate on ''e'' was sufficiently silly to make me uncomfortable with adminship at the present time.
'''Oppose.''' I'm all for a low bar for admins, but you really do need to show the slightest modicum of a clue of how the place works first.
'''Oppose'''. Per Splash and Ruud.
weak '''Oppose'''. I feel uncomfortable both with the discussion about "e", and with the discussion of [[Talk:Phoenix]], see also the behavior at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix&action=history history of "phoenix"]. (Nothing wrong with regular users behaving like that, but not admins).
'''Oppose'''. Per Splash, Radiant, and Ruud.
'''Oppose''' per above, especially Splash and Ruud.
Not swayed either way particularly, good luck though.
Needs more user talk edits. But still does good work. --
Doesn't understand consensus or mathematics. I would suggest that someone claiming that ''e'' is not an important number in math/physics take a few math/physics courses before deciding to revert war on the article in question. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Neutral''' Agreem needs more talk edits.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> I too am not swayed either way particularly. --
'''Support''' as the nominator and first voter! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''support, as before'''. vote early, vote often.
'''Support''' Again. :-D
'''Support''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong "I-was-going-to-nominate" Support'''. Absolutely! Again. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support''' same as the last nom. --
'''Support''' Don't see anything wrong with ya :) <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Support''' I thought he was one already. --
'''Support''' per all above.
'''Support''', great user.
'''Extreme "Not another 'I thought he was one'? Please..." support''' per cliche. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' It is time to give him the mop. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Meets/surpasses criteria; a friendly user. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Meets/surpasses criteria.--
'''Oppose''' Maybe after another month. --
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=60%27s&diff=prev&oldid=45815814 This] and the others you changed should be reverted back. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.92.113.173&diff=prev&oldid=46971120 This] is not proper. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_%28magazine%29&diff=prev&oldid=45813590 This] is unnecessary. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteroid&diff=prev&oldid=45641950 This] template you keep using is broken. You get angry too easily, and you assume too easily that you're making improvements when you act unilaterally. -
'''Oppose''' as per Royboycrashfan, Richardcavell, and TigerShark. --
'''Oppose'''. In many respects Matt is a good editor, unfortunately he falls some way short of the standards of decorum and civility I expect from a potential admin.
'''Oppose'''.  I absolutely '''''hate''''' having to do this, as Matt is a terrific person.  Unfortunately, I don't believe that his level of maturity and understanding of the site are sufficient.  Less than a month ago, he duplicated the template {{tl|for}} with a new template inexplicably called {{tl|funky}}, created with the edit summary "started template. Jigga what? Yep, it's funky."  He never did explain what any of this was supposed to mean, but in <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=43390762 this message], he indicated that he "[couldn't] imagine what would be properly named [[Template:Funky]]."  (So why did he name it that?)  He briefly redirected {{tl|funky}} to {{tl|for}}, but soon decided to undo that change.  As he explained in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=43391529 this message], he wanted to include the word "please."  "Other editors [were] against that," and he felt that forking the template (thereby circumventing the opposition) was a legitimate solution.  (He also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_12&diff=43529881 voted]</span> to keep the template, which eventually was deleted.)  Frankly, as nice a fellow as Matt is, he isn't up to the task of closing deletion debates.  His vandalism cleanup is admirable, but this doesn't require sysop rights.  I'm very sorry.  However this turns out, I hope that you'll forgive me, Matt.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Switched from neutral. I was originally a bit concerned by edit summaries such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Ten_Conference&diff=next&oldid=45459743], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_1%2C_2006&diff=prev&oldid=46425634],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_1%2C_2006&diff=prev&oldid=46424593],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympia%2C_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=47174001] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.92.113.173&diff=prev&oldid=46971120] which could rub certain people up the wrong way. However I have grown even more concerned by other instances of questionable civility and maturity raised by other editors and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calling_All_Engines&diff=47131364&oldid=47115657 this edit], which occured in the very discussion that the nominator put forward as an example of Matt's incresed maturity. I'd prefer to see a month or two of contributions free from such comments.
'''Oppose''' per ample above evidence of civility concerns.
Changed to '''oppose''' per all above. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' as per the civility concerns, and participation in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASPUI%2FSFD&diff=46133050&oldid=45994148 this] exercise by SPUI in [[WP:POINT]]-making agitation against a wikiproject and deletion process.
'''Oppose, As per all above.
'''Oppose'''. TigerShark's edit summaries make an RfA at the moment absolutely out of the question. The other material presented above is also very unfortunate; my impression of the user in general (before this RfA) is of a little too much anger and quickness. But given the very recent, very obviously bad material, now was a very bad time to nominate. -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Some of his contributions already listed above don't make me too comfortable.--
'''Oppose''' per all the rest, but I encourage him to try again in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per above, sorry. -
Sorry, but after reading all of the above and checking the diffs given, I must '''oppose'''.
'''Regrettably oppose'''.  Unfortunately, the nominator's link intended to show Matt's improved dispute skills had the opposite impact on me.
'''Weak oppose''' per RoyBoy and David Levy, with the same sincere regret expressed by David and Massiveego's provisio that support may be more forthcoming upon another nomination in a month or so.
'''Oppose'''. Stay clean for a few months, and I'll happy to support your RfA. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Neutral'''. This is one of the few rare cases that I vote neutral. He certainly does a lot of useful edits, and is a good vandal fighter, but he isn't [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] enough, as indicated by some of his edit summaries,  and he tends to engage in edit wars, so I think he might abuse his powers. I really want to give him the rollback button, but he needs to prove he won't use his powers abusively. --
'''Neutral''', needs a little more time to settle down after the disputes.
'''Neutral'''. I appreciate your apology for the rude edit summaries, but after taking notice of your behavior, I'm afraid I cannot change back to support.
'''Neutral''' - I seriously thought he already was one.  But seeing the history of incivility being brought up on this page, I cannot in good faith support.  I would recommend that this RfA be withdrawn and Matt Yeager try again in a few months, being sure to remain civil at all times in the interim.  I believe he has the potential to become an admin one day but he needs to work on the issues that are being brought up in this RfA.  --'''<font color="#0055aa">
'''Oppose''' Your level of activity is not quite enough for adminship. Please do continue contributing and involve yourself in the different activities of Wikipedia. Also remember spellcheck is your friend! --
'''Oppose''' (via edit conflict) Not enough experience yet.  You want to help rid Wikipedia of vandalism, but I see no reports to [[WP:AIV]].  You don't have enough main article edits, either, and not enough User talk edits.  Please try again for adminship when you have more experience at Wikipedia, and note that time doesn't always guarantee experience. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
Reluctant '''oppose'''. I've seen you around and you are a good contributor; but you haven't displayed a huge need for the admin tools. More experience is necessary. &mdash; <font face="tahoma" COLOR="#C11B17">
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience. -
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Edit count. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough edit counts. Gain more experience first. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Little edit counts. Unexperienced. therefore, I sadly oppose him to be admin.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience.--
'''Oppose'''. A good contributor who needs some more experience before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose'' per above + some more: a) doesn't seem to know how big a page should be before archiving (see [[User_talk:MatthewFenton/Old_1|here]]). b) reading his [[User talk:MatthewFenton|talk page]], found mainly negative/automated comments, but not much "thanks for reverting X page" or "thanks for stopping X vandal". c) signiture doesn't link to his user page, but only talk/contribs. d) activity quite low, could be worse though. e) has only 0% support at the moment, and I have a degree of trust for the users that have voted f) calls wikiquote "wikipedia quote", i dunno what that means but it can't be good. Please don't put me in the blender for opposing another RfA, i'm starting to get sick of it. on the positive side, he's allowed to use vandalproof, but that isn't going to sway my vote.
'''Oppose''' simply not enough edits...sorry...I suggest coming back in a few months when you've got a few more edits under your belt.  '''
'''Oppose'''. An up and coming user who may make a good admin in the future. Based on the indentifiable edits he simply does not have enough experience. He says he has been an editor before become a member and I assume these were IP edits. If there are enough of these and they are clearly attributable to him then I might be willing to reconsider. --<font color="blue">[[User:MarkS|Mark]]</font><font color="#0080A0">
'''Neutral''', remembering not to pile on. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' (edit conflict). Good contributor but I think you need a bit more experience. One of your reasons for wanting to become an administrator, as above says "to help rid wikipedia of vandalism", and another says "to make wikipedia better place, and improove [sic] the content of wikipedia by helping others." You can really do both of these points without being an administrator, anybody can help to achieve this. By the way, for future reference, improve is spelt with one 'o'. I expect you will be a great candidate in a few months time. — '''''
'''Neutral''' While I do agree that quantity does not equal quality, I do think you need more experience participating in process, etc.  Spell check is your friend! --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' You (quite honestly) seem like a diligent editor, and you know what the admin tools are for (which is better than many RfA candidates.) You just need some more experience, and experience in the areas in which you would provide help with the admin tools. Take a look at [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|the criteria I use]] for approving potential admins.
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, seems to be on the right track, needs more&mdash;and more varied&mdash;experience. Keep up the good work! <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Neutral''' ok editor, but needs a lot more experience in all areas. --
'''Neutral.''' not to pile on oppose.--













[[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] is a very dedicated member of Wikipedia, and would be able to sort out conflicts well as of past experience. --
'''Support''' I have seen MatthewFenton mature so much on Wikipedia over the past couple of months and I think he would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' - trustworthy user, with pleanty of experience with a large and decent (recently flawless) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=MatthewFenton upload log] --
'''Support''' - Very strong, but kind user, would not abuse sysop. ~
--
'''Support''' Great person to have around. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
Per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (nom 4)]]. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' is somewhat dedicated member, but one reason to oppose is per Chacor. I also suggest withdraw.
<s> '''Oppose''' <s>Well on the way.  Not quite ready </s>per the speedy delete issue above. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheM62Manchester_Test_Account&diff=74780014&oldid=74771935 told user they were not blocked] when they were IP blocked indefinitely for IP vandalism. Just needs a little more experience to deepen understanding.
Suggest w/d - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience. Suggest withdrawal and examining the advice provided on this RfA.
'''Oppose'''.  Matthew I feel is a productive editor of the encyclopedia, and I wouldn't mind supporting in a few more months.  However, three elements of his behavior make me question his judgement - the clash with Ed_2gs over a 3rr that spawned sections on ANI and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MatthewFenton|an rfc on Matthew]], his nomination for AFD of articles on people who he feels to be non-notable (one of which was [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cynna_Kydd|a front page article]] while it was on the front page) most of which have ended with keeps, and his previous talk page archival scheme which seems to have been [[User:MatthewFenton/testing|moving his talk page to a subpage]] and then asking for it to be speedied.  That all was only in August, and I feel that is too recent to support this RFA in good conscience at this time.
'''Strong, speedy oppose''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (nom 4)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynna Kydd]] and ''especially'' [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton]], which are way too recent to be ignored. Definitely not to be given the delete and block buttons at this time.
'''Oppose''' per recent [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton]].
'''Oppose''' per Feydey.
'''Oppose''' and strongly suggest a withdrawal to prevent this from becoming a bloodbath. [[User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh]]'s said it all. --
'''Oppose''' per all comments above. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination soon. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' as per Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's evidence, unwilling to trust with tools.
'''Oppose''' as per all above.&mdash; [[Our Lady Peace|OL]][[Raine Maida|P]] ''
'''Oppose''' per recent disruption, would support if he avoids that disruption around december, as he is an very good editor at times
User means well but isn't ready yet. Reluctantly '''oppose''', and suggest ending the debate now.
'''Oppose''' Just doesn't seem ready yet. If he continues to mature as an editor I would support sometime in the future.
'''Oppose''' per all the above oppose votes, particularly for recent blocks in August and Afd participation. Strongly suggest withdrawl and trying again later.--
'''Oppose''' per recent [[Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MatthewFenton|block log]] entries.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;Presently you fail to meet my criterion ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/T-Z#W|If you’re going to field the emotional responses of blocked individuals or authors of deleted articles, you need to be rational—not easily annoyed—avoid overreactions & emotional tantrums—show some sense of humor.]]) as illustrated by recent [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton]] entries. Intelligent enough that you should get there, hopefully soon, but I with regret must currently oppose your RfA. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Oppose'''. Nominating [[Cynna Kydd]] for deletion ''after its FAC'' and more importantly ''while it was on the front page'' was a recent extraordinary lapse in judgement. Per this and the above discussion, it's hard to trust such an editor with block and delete buttons.
No way!  I've seen some extreme incivility, bad judgement, and frankly, wikistalking, from this user.  He made life ''very'' unpleasant for some of our admins not too long ago after one of them made a difficult but necessary decision that Matthew didn't agree with and just couldn't let go.  --
'''Oppose.''' There is substantial evidence to suggest this user would abuse the tools. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Looks like a good user who needs to spend more time on the 'pedia. I suggest they withdraw and try again after 3-6 months of AfDs etc. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' despite not wanting to pile on.  Candidate was the uncivil straw that helped me decide to leave esperanza.
'''Oppose''', not now, I can't trust him with the tools due to his uncivil past. -[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' due to recent RFC and incivility. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Oppose'''. I've not come across this user, but there are any number of incidents being cited, any one of which would prompt me to oppose. --
'''Oppose''' - lots of evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. One of the least suitable people that we could make an admin. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">
'''Oppose''', suggest withdrawal. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose''' Not now, or anytime in the near future. The AfD on Cynna Kydd was absurd and I would be troubled with the tools in these hands. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' sorry Matthew. I believe you have good intentions, but your insisting blocks be used as punishment and your attempt to have Cynna Kydd deleted while it was on the main page shows a profound lack of judgement.
'''Oppose''' - I cannot support this. I believe that you would get into some serious trouble with the "trigger-finger" on the advanced tools. I have looked at the discussion on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton]], and I just don’t feel you are ready for an admin role. Sorry.
I multifactorially suggest withdrawal --
'''Neutral''' I'm going to choose neutral because, although the incidents brought up by other users do not sit well with me, they were a while back and I think this user has got the right intentions. These two aspects even my vote out to neutral. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Withdraw this RfA and seek an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] instead.  Reapply in three months or ~2000 edits. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' I can't support and don't see the need to oppose.  I suggest this candidate withdraw.
'''Neutral''' I don't see what all the fuss is about with the Angela issue. We all make mistakes and that was a minor one. Besides, she ''is'' barely notable at best. --
'''Neutral.''' An intelligent user, and dedicated to the project, but sometimes a bit too rigid and rule-oriented for my taste. I can't fault him too much for that; sometimes he strikes me as having the exact same style I might have had a few years ago; but reason and discretion have to leaven the mix. Please continue making your contributions, think carefully about the practical effects of suggestions and nominations you make, and your time will come.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, with the concerns raised by the opposes, I must recommend the User:MatthewFenton withdraw and spend more time gaining more experience and developing himself.--
'''Neutral''' instead of oppose to avoid making this more of a bloodbath. Please read and correct the issues brought up after withdrawing and come back in a quarter or so.
'''Neutral''' Though I find this editor's contributions helpful overall, I don't always agree with him, and do have some concerns about his choices on RfA. However, opposing would be wrong of me, as I believe he can, and eventually will, do good work with the tools. Good luck in the future. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Strong support'''.  - Major contributor.  Along with [[user:Alexwcovington|Alexwcovington]],  they both have contributed to the majority of articles in ND, and western MN. (
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', the distribution of a user's edits should not be a bar to adminship. Let's address the liklihood of the user abusing the trust of the community.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. This person will not abuse the admin tools. —
'''Support''' I looked through MatthewUND's contributions and I found them to be very good. He is always nice, especially to newbies, calmly explaining policy to them, on user talk pages. He has participated in AfD, albeit, not very much, and I think he has the necessary understanding of Wikipedia to be a good admin. And he's actually been here longer than me :-).--
'''Support'''.  I checked his edits and it seems like he uses talk pages when appropriate.  The vast bulk of his topics and edits are non-controversial.  There is no need for chatting just for the sake of chatting. --
'''Support'''.  Very high percentage of trivial cleanup type changes which do not require discussion.  Not everybody needs to be an all-rounder.  Regards,
'''Strong Support'''.  MatthewUND's cooperation and dedication to articles on North Dakota is invaluable.  He has done an absolutely stellar job from the moment I saw him on the scene.  I can't name another user I'd support more for adminship.  --'''
'''Support''' With this much experience this user should have been given the job a long time ago [[User:
For all his good work on articles relating to NoDak, Oz, and other fantastic places, strong friend of Dorothy '''support'''.
'''Support'''.  No big deal.
'''Support'''. He does what Wikipedia editors should do: writes good articles.
'''Support''', no compelling basis for opposition, unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''SuperBowl Sunday Support''' [[Image:SuperBowlXL.png|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Level-headed editor. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''support''':  Certainly dedicated to building an encyclopedia.
'''Support''' Would be a good admin.
'''Support''': seems like a nice person.
'''Support''': Would make a great admin, has helped me really get started. He has been very friendly and welcomed me into Wikipedia as a fellow North Dakotan. --
Oppose based on lack of talk, user talk and Wikipedia edits - not enough interaction with others. Consensus and other policies may not be fully understood.
'''Oppose''' per NSLE. --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, but good answers to questions. Try again in two months. --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE.  I agree editor will make a fine admin in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per NSLE. Generally looks good, but interaction and policy are obviously important areas for an admin, --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, maybe later --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, looks like a great contributor; get some experience in other areas of Wikipedia and you'll have my support 100% next time. —
'''Oppose''' only 44 edits to project space. Difficult to believe he has sufficient familiarity with administrative processes, though I'm sure Matthew is a good writer. &mdash; '''''
'''Oppose'''. Low talk, user-talk, project and project-talk namespace edits, indicating lack of community participation, and infamilarity with Wikipedia processes.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''. I may change my vote later on. Sadly, I can't support you as per NSLE. You have many article edits which is good. Try again when you have more project, project talk, talk and user talk edits. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' until more project/process experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Neutral'''; good editor, but very few Project edits, low edit summaries on minor edits. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Neutral'''; good, well rounded user with an attitude I really admire. I just can't get over the fact that he has ''very'' few Wikipedia namespace edits. ''(Scratches burning [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|editcountitis]] itch)'' -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">[[User talk: E. Brown|Hurricane]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="FF0000">
'''Neutral'''. More experiences with project pages like this one will be better.--
'''Neutral'''. Would like to see more edits in Project space, hard to get a feeling for how you would deal with these areas.
'''Neutral''', per NLSE. Getting more involved with the community always acquaints you with many different policies, et al..
Not sure yet.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. :) -
'''Neutral'''

'''Support''' My interactions with this user have not been uniformly positive; we have on several instances disagreed apropos of grammar and syntax, and I don't know that I've always been treated wholly decorously (see, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FLanguage&diff=51936374&oldid=51935316 here]; then again, I'm not certain that any of us has not erred in some more severe fashion).  Nevertheless, I think it relatively clear that he is possessed of good judgment and a principally cordial demeanor and is relatively conversant with policy, such that I think it altogether likely that he will neither abuse nor misuse the tools and that the [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive]].  I do, of course, differ with Amarkov as regards our granting the tools; we needn't to be concerned, IMHO, about our sysopping someone who intends only to act in certain areas and is not well acquainted with others where we can be reasonably sure that he knows whereof not to act and will appropriately confine his work (although I'm not certain that I see any particular deficiencies here).
'''Support''' Looks good.--
'''Support''' Vandalfighting, AfD, Ref Desk, and encyclopedic content, some experience with conflicts, and confident and civil...mm. Yeah. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''', yep. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I've added the Wikipedia project space edits that are listed by the Wannabe Kate tool onto the talk page. Although the overall total isn't vey high, the edits tick all the necessary boxes.
'''Support''' per all above. --
'''Support''' - Per above. --
'''Support'''.  Lots of community participation, good vandal fighter, and very level-headed.  Seems like a good choice for admin. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs more vandal fighters. '''
'''Support''' looks like a good editor, who will decently wield the tools. Although, as always, policy knowledge is a big plus.--
'''Support''' Clearly an experienced editor who should make a good admin.--
'''Strong Support''' A very good editor and someone who will make a good admin. Deja Vu time, more Opposes because of low WP namespace edit count - My thoughts will be well known to those who read the RfA talk page - Low edit count does not equal unfamiliarity with process and policy, possibly quite the opposite, showing sensible, rational decisions rather than voting without thought, anyway, 314 is a very reasonable amount. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support'''. I am satisfied that this candidate could use the tools and will use them well.
'''Support.''' [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' well basically your mainspace edits do it for me, but please understand that you must get your wikispace edits up, since as Amarkov said we must grant you "all" the tools. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Support''' [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. His wikispace count is't too bad, plus he definitely seems like he'd use the admin tools wisely. --
'''Support'''Yea Baby.
'''Weak support''' I was going to sit this one out, but I can't see opposing over a questionable speedy-tagging. Frankly, I'd think new users would rather have a deficient article flagged as such quickly, rather than two hours later after they've already wandered off to something else.
support, good luck --
'''Support''' Clearly a good candidate, and I would urge those who oppose him to think again.--
His help has been invaluable in maintaining and improving [[Jack Thompson (attorney)]], which had to be rebuilt from the ground up with quality references. That work demonstrates his trustworthiness and understanding of essential principles, and certainly outweighs one disagreement over a possible speedy deletion mistake. Maybe he's too modest for all the invisible hoops people like to set up, but I don't think there's any reason for concern about making him an administrator. --
'''Support'''. Ready for the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Moral support'''. I would rather see more wikipedia namespace involvement but I am happy with your response to my questions. You have my confidence. Regards,
'''Support''' for good answers to questions, endorsement by someone he had conflicts with, praise for major contribution to rebuilding controversial prime potential lawsuitbait article (Jack Thompson), and as per Opabinia regalis
'''Support'''.
Vandal fighting and encyclopedic contributions are nice. Neither show the knowledge of policy that admins must have. We can't only grant vandal-fighting admin tools, we have to grant them all. And you don't have very good projectspace contributions. -
Per Amarkov. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' as per above. -- ''
Sorry, No. I was going to support, but when you mentioned NPP, I went to look through your contributions for declined CSD nominations. Lo and behold, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Section_Quartet&diff=84176684&oldid=84176664 this] will earn an oppose from me every time. An article on a musical ensemble by an inexperienced user, s/his second ever, was tagged for {{tl|db-band}} within one minute of creation, without giving the user a chance to expand it. Worse than that, the article contained a genuine and easily intelligible assertion of notability, namely their participation in the [[Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival]], exempting it from A7 immediately. This is the epitomy of [[WP:BITE]], and it's completely unacceptable from an admin candidate. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Vandalism can be fought without access to admin tools. --
'''Oppose.''' No need to rephrase what Amarkov has already said.
'''Oppose''' per crz. On its own, given that a warning template was placed on the User's Talkpage the incident isn't so serious. However the candidate's answer to crz that, "''I would have thought that being quick to tag articles for speedy deletion would be a positive attribute''" indicates he has failed to appreciate the problem with tagging articles he is not qualified to judge the notability of in their early stages (especially when created by new users). This, combined with the impatience with the [[WP:CSD]] system expressed in his answer to Q1 lead me to conclude that he would exercise sysop powers far too readily. I also share concerns about lack of experience in policy areas.
'''Weak oppose''' per crz.  Not because you did anything wrong on purpose, but because more patience really might have given that user a better impression of Wikipedia and got him to stick around.  Chalk it up to inexperience, and learn more, and I'll gladly support in the future. --
You could use some more experience with process first. (
'''Oppose''' per crz. Although not a deliberate BITE, I would prefer not to have someone deleting an article like that immediately. I'd support again in 2 months knowing that you are aware of this now.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per Crz and Radiant.
Basically per lack of experience. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Crz and Radiant.  Candidate has insufficent experience at this time.
The candidate shows promise, but needs more experience. I'd have been neutral if only considering this candidate, but bearing in mind that there are already too many editors and admins who are over-zealous with CSD, my stance is '''weak oppose'''. Your answer to Q6 suggests to me that you risk becoming jaded on new page patrol, with the possibility of mistaking good faith contributions for adverts. I understand the attraction to NPP and have been there myself, but be careful to see the encyclopedia through all the articles. Consider spending more time improving the low-quality stub articles on NPP that don't qualify for CSD, since most editors either tag them for CSD anyway or just ignore them.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience.
'''Neutral''' - I wanted to support as he seemed sensible enough, then I wanted to oppose, as I don't like the biting stuff, then I thought I'd support anyway but warn not to bite, but then I changed my mind again, and then I realised I was too uncertain to be anywhere other than Switzerland on this one.
'''Neutral''' - Questions are fine, but needs a bit more experience.
'''Neutral''' both sides make good points.
'''Neutral''' A very dedicated editor but the lack of experience is a concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Inexperience. Come back in 2 months and I'll support you. -
'''Neutral'''. Looks like a good editor in general.  Some concern about the [[WP:BITE|BITE]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Section_Quartet&diff=84176684&oldid=84176664] raised by ''crz''.  It was less than 2 months ago... if there had been a little more time btw now and then I'd have supported.
'''Weak support''', I don't see much problems with this user.
'''Weak support''', I see no major problem.--
Unlikely to beat people over the head with the mop.  --
'''Support''' - not likely to harm Wikipedia (ie abuse admin privileges).
'''Support''' - Not a problem with this user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - User has made ammends and is showing good contributions to the project.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He's been around for a long time [[User:
'''Support''' Good edits all the oposses seem unwarranted
'''Strong Oppose''', User could do with an increase in the talk namespace, and the past issues are somewhat troubling. Also, article edits could be a tad more productive. Seems like a good chap, however, and am currently debating over a switch to support.  -
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> less than 100 wikipedia edits over that long of a time is a knockout for me sorry --
'''Oppose''' Per above. May I suggest you remove this nomination and reapply in a few months? I will possibly support a future nomination. —
'''Oppose''' Too little general experience.
'''Oppose''' - is spamming neutral voters with requests to reconsider our votes and change to support. Attempting to subvert consensus like this shows, in my opinion, very poor judgment. (
'''Oppose''': suggest trying again in a few more months.
'''Oppose'''. asking people to change their votes without reason seems pretty uncivilized. -
'''Oppose''': Needs more experience, editcount is low.
'''Oppose''' per ESkog.  I really don't like RfA vote campaigns.  Also, I'd have to agree with the Wikipedia namespace issue also.
'''Oppose''' until more experienced per above comments  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;

'''Oppose''' on grounds of proactive vandal-fighting.
'''Oppose.'''  I was told campaigning for adminship is poor form, after I initially enquired about it. -- <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">
'''Strong Oppose.'''  Instead of self-camapiging for the RFA nom ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Denelson83&diff=prev&oldid=37886072],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=37886836],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ESkog&diff=prev&oldid=37239036],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov&diff=prev&oldid=37240043], etc.), the user should participate in more RFAs, AFDs, vandalism patrol, and talk pages instead.  I'd like to see him contribute more to the Wikipedian community besides minor spelling and spacing edits. Also needs to show better understanding of WP policies (i.e., poor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=next&oldid=37740389 Request for Protection] and [[User_talk:Mb1000#Image_Tagging_Image:Google_gulp_carroty.jpg|image tagging]])  --
'''Oppose''', is begging for votes on Jimbo's talk page.
'''Oppose'''. Per above.
'''Neutral''' Mb1000 has few edits to the Wikipedia namespace.  Perhaps you could become more active in RfAs and AfDs.  Will probably support in a few months. --
Porquoi? We got to get some more edits, people! [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' as per [[User_talk:Zscout370#User:Mb1000]]. While I worked with Mb1000 on an article, the Canadian Hearladric Authority, which became an FA, this behavior that was pointed out to me, and also with the comments here. Sorry.
'''Neutral'''. Definitely shows promise, but I'm not too big on self-noms, and I think this should get withdrawn till the user has some more experience in the namespace.
'''Neutral'''. Keep on doing the good work for a couple more of months, then try again.
'''Neutral'''. Needs to diversify edits into talk, user talk, and Wikipedia namespaces. However, I love to see a user who sees the possibility of losing their job as a positive so that they can contribute more to Wikipedia. ;o)
'''Neutral''' Granted, when I was RfA'd earlier this month, I had about the same number of total edits (2000), Wikipedia namespace edits (90), and editing time (since Feb 2005) as you have now.  However, I feel that, what I lacked in these areas, I made up for in my ability to resolve disputes, communicate with other users, and learn quickly (e.g., within a day, I was participating in AfD very well).  I feel that, with just two months more, if you work at these attributes, you can succeed in another RfA.  (If you decide to self-nom, though, make that three - self-nomming should be more infrequent than regular noms.) Good luck on future RfA attempts! --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Neutral''' same as above comment
Neutral. You would probably make a good admin, but I can't tell yet. Try again in a few months. &ndash;
'''Neutral''', as I usually vote with self-noms. Usually if an experienced user thinks that you're good enough, then you are. If you had waited a little longer then you may well have been nominated, and would probably have been more successful; two unsuccessful RfAs already should have hinted at this. I have a feeling you would make a good admin, though. Persevere; seek and ye shall find... <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Pink Post-It Note Support''' - Mboverload isn't an admin already? —[[User:Messedrocker|<font color="blue"><small>THIS IS</small> M<small>ESSED</small></font>]][[Image:R with umlaut.png]]
'''Support per nom'''
'''Strong Support''' - VandalProof Moderator and a fine one at that -
'''Support''' totally disagree with his userbox position, but he's competent nevertheless, and this guy ''wants'' to do the tedious stuff like fixing typos and whacking vandals and apparently talking to banned users at 3AM, which is far beyond expected levels of dedication. Having a sense of humor and not suffering fools gladly are both ''good'' things in an admin.
'''Support''' Will be a great admin.
'''Support''' - is always needing an administrator to do something or other for him on IRC; it would benefit the project to just let him take care of it on his own.—
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<font color=red>'''Strong Support'''</font> mostly per Opabinia regalis. Wikipedia would be a much jollier place if everyone was more like Mboverload. +
'''STRONGLY SUPPORT''' Great guy and a very good contributor.
'''Support.''' We all lose our cool at times, and I see absolutely nothing in the diffs below that warrants such a hyperbolic reaction from the opposing voters.
'''Support''' Very friendly editor.  Will make a good admin. --
'''Strong support''' the links provided by Cyde show why you will make a great admin. Sadly, it won't happen this time.
'''Support''' per Grue –
'''Support'''. I'm not rearranging deck chairs on the [[RMS Titanic|Titanic]]... I'm rearranging them on the [[Hindenburg]]! --
'''Support''' one of the nicest users I know. P.S. I realize that people are going to bite my head off because I voted support due to someone being nice. As a sidenote, mb, you could do with more edit summary usage. [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - active and useful editor, would do well with the admin tools.  Can't bring myself to begrudge a few flippant remarks here and there.  --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I agree the user needs to be more careful when dealing with humor and how it translates into written messages, but I do not believe it's serious enough to counter all the good work. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''. I like WikiGnomes. I like users with a sense of humor. I'm not persuaded by Cyde's arguments regarding AWB, and anytime Cyde opposes someone on civility grounds I have to take a second look. I also read his commentary on the talk page here, and I think this user would be an asset as an admin. --
'''Support'''. blahibity blahibty blah. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support''' -- not that it matters at this point --
'''Support'''.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong support''' -- "Support" for all the reasons above including civility. <s>It would be "strong" but for</s> It is "strong" in spite of a mild tendency towards flippancy and genial sarcasm (see some of the opposing comments below). From my own experience, I know flip comments can sometimes be misunderstood, especially in such a global work environment such as this.  I must say, however, that the supposed "personal attack" edits of his that I've seen have been much more benign than the way they're made out; if they are his very worst (out of more than 10,000) then he is operating at a higher level of civility than many existing admins. Note: Some evidence presented in Oppose comment #2 needs more context -- see the remarks that I just left there. I'm sorry this RfA will likely fail because of these edits. I will support on another RfA attempt if it comes around again. --
'''Support'''. After reading that AN discussion and reviewing the diffs again, I take my oppose back. While I think Mboverload needs to understand that comments/jokes that may seem amusing to him at the time may not be to others, and look bad later, I don't really think he's too uncivil to be an admin. And the incivility thing was the only complaint I had, so I no longer have any reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' even though he has some civilty issues, he knows wikipedia '''policy''' alot and I don't think he will abuse the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I would like to recognize Mboverload's responsible interaction with [[User:Ste4k]]. If recent behavior is weighted most heavily then I think he would be a good admin.  -
'''Support''', as per Will Beback and others. Civility concerns as expressed by the opposers seem overstated; what I've seen of this user has been positive.
'''Strong support'''.  He seems to learn from his mistakes. I much prefer his silly jokes than the nastiness et arrogance shown by some admin ''(personal attack removed)''
'''Support''', civility concerns seem overstated; more on the lines of trying to be funny in inapproriate ways?  I think the comments here will have an impact and forcing a one-two month wait for a <s>revote</s>reconsideration would be totally unnecessary.
I have generally had good relations with Mboverload, but during a dispute I was trying to resolve, between [[User:Nathanrdotcom|Nathanrdotcom]] and [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]], Mboverload made some less then helpful comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nathanrdotcom/archive10&diff=56743345&oldid=56743045],and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nathanrdotcom/archive10&diff=56741826&oldid=56741659]. This is the type of situation an administrator may have to deal with, and Mboverload's saying "I'm not sure what people are bitching about this time" did not help. If this can adequately be explained I may change my vote, but until then, I do not feel comfortable supporting.

'''Strong Oppose''' per Cyde.
'''Oppose''' I have seen some manuel edits by Mboverload and wasn't too terribly impressived and was concerned somewhat with Wikimaturity. The responses to the TfD seem out of line and recent. I am troubled by this and, unfortunately I can not support this nomination.
'''Strong oppose''' per Cyde. The "Conrad hates women" diff did it for me - a textbook case of assuming bad faith. Please control yourself, learn to [[WP:AAGF|always assume good faith]], and I may reconsider next time. Also consider that remarks made in jest may be easily misunderstood, especially on such a public place as Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. Uncivil. Another recent example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60912357 this diff] in the midst of a thread where a whole string of good editors were saying "sure, block the troll, but there's no need to tell him to f* off, is there?", so Mboverload thought it funny to do just that. This was his sole contribution to the thread. It's not big to tell someone to fuck off and call them a troll, it's not clever, and it is not funny. It is particularly not these things when a whole list of people have explained precisely why; would-be admins need to listen to conversation and then ''not'' decide to pour petrol on its flames. -
'''Strong Oppose''' per Cyde, Splash above. --
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, the instances pointed out against Mboverload have persuaded me to oppose adminship. I have been hurt by uncivil people and don't plan to give admin powers to someone who can sometimes be that way. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as Cyde and Splash. I expect a certain level of decorum to be displayed by admins, we are building an encyclopedia not a community. There is nothing wrong with Mboverload's mainspace edits, I may well support in the future if he can display a greater maturity and civility in his interactions with other users.
'''Oppose'''.  mboverload has contributed very well as a wikignome, and we do need more wikignome-like admins.  My suggestion would be to make a conscious effort to tone down sarcasm or attempts at humour (as I think some of the diffs in question were benign initially, but may have spiralled downward in an attempt at humour), and to continue the positive things that you've done here (as listed above) --
'''Oppose''' for reasons of civility.  Things might seem hilarious when thought of in the heat of the moment, but when considered in isolation on-screen they come across as rude and dismissive.  I wouldn't want to be treated in this manner by an admin. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' the recent block and comments about civility concern me. Show that you can be civil doing RCP and the like for a few months, then I will be happy to support.
'''Oppose''' as per Cyde. i think that a revote should happen in the future if you can show yourself to be professional in the wikipedia namespace. --'' '''
'''Oppose''' per Cyde + Splash's diffs.  Civility?  No.
'''Oppose''' per Cyde, I initially wanted to support, but civility issues raised by Cyde made me oppose. Not yet. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''
'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons. --
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Oppose'''. Thoroughly uncivil as per above. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]] anyway.
'''Oppose''' Lack of civility is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per civility issues. --

'''Oppose''' incivility. --
'''Oppose''' as per Samir.
'''Extremely Strong Oppose''' Had I known that this person was NOT an administrator, I wouldn't have put up with the several times that this person edited my comments, made me a personal issue to attack, nor put up with this person's rude and condescending remarks. Because of this person's actions and the attack on my Talk Page, I have decided to leave Wikipedia until I receive e-mail that my page has been restored. This person has '''no''' respect for other people, doesn't bother to inquire before making a [[WP:POINT]], acts as a rogue, and believes in the "my way" or "no way" theory of butting in without any other knowledge whatsoever. Oh yes, all this was done within an HOUR! Goodbye.
'''Oppose'''(I usually don't oppose), but there was a certain comment in the summary of an edit to [[Child pornography]] on the 21.4.2006, 22:13 which read: ''(What's the purpose of an encyclopedia if you can't use it to find kiddie porn? Reverted edit.)'' If that is supposed to be a joke (which I surmise it is), it is a least not very mature.
'''Oppose'''. The above exchange indicates an excess of zeal which is evident in many other cases noted above.  I can't really point to any single incident which is grossly out of line, but taken as a whole I'd say that this candidate is rather too hasty for my liking.

'''Neutral''' Changed from '''Strong Support''' due to the information provided by Cyde Weys that I had not known before.  I still feel that he's a good editor, although he might not possess the extreme level-headedness one needs to be a great administrator at this time.
'''Leaning toward support...'''  An excellent VP mod, and I have never seen him lose his cool agianst a vandal. I want to wait and see what his response is to critisism.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''', i'd really like to support despite Cyde's findings, but the answer to question 2 just didn't satisfy me, so many edits yet no proud major improvement to any article. <small>Also fails my [[User:Andypandy.UK/RfACriteria|criteria]].:Þ</small>--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' We disagree on AOL blocks but his heart is in the right place about improving WP. I would like to see long answers to my AOL questions below so I can understand him better.
'''Neutral''' Great contributor. But per [[User:Cyde|Cyde]]'s comments (not the comment concerning editcount)I can't support yet.
Neutral as yet, but should be great in a few months. BTW, those objecting that AWB drives up the edit count, uh ... [[Uncyclopedia:Kate|there's an Uncyclopedia article about that sort of thing]]. -
I'm tempted to support, but '''neutral''' due to civility concerns.
'''Neutral''' as well per civily concerns. --
'''Neutral''' From userpage: "Although I write extremely well, I only write for my own enjoyment and not generally for Wikipedia."  What's the matter, don't you like us?  ;-)
'''Neutral''' due to general concerns in regards to actions...




'''Moral support''', leaving a message on mceptiome's talkpage. This isn't going to pass, sorry. :( [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Fewer than 200 edits.
'''Oppose''', too few edits to suggest familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
'''Oppose''', Needs more experiences.
Clear-cut. You're not going to make it, please withdraw. &ndash;
I suggest withdrawing this RfA.  If you're interested in becoming more involved with the project, let me know and I'll be happy to help!
(edit conflict)Based on your background and personality, I'm sure that you'll make a qualified admin someday. However, please withdraw this time. RfAs rarely pass unless a user has more than 2,000 edits. - '''
'''Moral Support''' By all accounts, you appear to be a very talented editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia.  This is precisely why I hope you don't become jaded by the results of your RfA and stop editing.  Spending your valuable time making Wikipedia a better place is commendable and much appreciated.  If you do still wish to become an administrator, I humbly suggest signing up for [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]], which is a program that will pair you up with an administrator who will act as a mentor of sorts to you and will help you become a bit more experienced in the technical aspects of Wikipedia.  Cheers
'''Support''' per [[User:Hoopydink/Esperanza|<font color="#008000"><span style="cursor: w-resize">'''hoopydink'''</span></font>]].--<font style="background:white">
Appears to be too new in terms of edits, virtually no Wikipedia:space work. The candidate will have more chance after more participating in Wikipedia processes (AfD is  a common choice, but some of the more unusual ones are badly backlogged, and of course you can participate in more than one). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 17:02, 3 August 2006 (
'''Oppose''', sorry, just way too new. Less than 1000 edits in total. Only Wikipedia space edits are to wikiprojects. Only admin action he states that he'll perform is closing afds, but his edit history shows 0 edits to the discussions there so far. -
'''Oppose''' per low Wikispace edits
'''Oppose''' not enough signs to show that this user is experienced enough, looking through this nominee's contributions. The only substantive reason for nomination boils down to closing AfDs, but until today this editor has not participated in any AfD discussions. From that, I can only infer this editor does not have the necessary knowledge and experience to be closing AfD discussions; therefore, there's no need for the extra tools as of yet.
'''Weak Oppose''' very sorry to do this, as your work on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Thomas|WikiProject Thomas]] is excellent and your help with the Felix Cheng situation is much appreciated. However, as pointed out above you haven't yet ''shown'' that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is comprehensive and your answer to question 1 doesn't show any real need for the tools. You can create pages without being an admin. I'd like to see you gain some experience by contributing to AfD and RfA debates and doing some [[WP:RCP|recent change patrolling]]. That give you a flavor of what admins do, so you can decide if you still want to be one. It will also give you experience with the policy issues involved and give us more evidence on which to decide on your next RfA. I do believ that with more experience under your belt you will be a good candidate next time round. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' Too little experience of Wiki usage and policy to be an effective admin at the moment.  No harm in trying again in a few months when more experience has been gathered. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose'''. Fails all my [[User:Themindset/RFA|criteria]]. Please continue to contribute positively though, it really is appreciated! Keep on truckin', and then reapply.
'''Oppose''' Less than 1000 edits with little diversity and lack of knowledge presented as to the technicalities of Wikipedia makes me dissent in this case.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. But try again next time. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Mike 7|Michael]]. Not ready per my
'''Oppose''' on experience and edit summaries (29%!). I suggest you withdraw and resubmit in the fall or winter, taking Gwernol's suggestions of activities to get more rounded experience.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but you're edit count is very low and so is your edit summary usage (both fail [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]). Try to get a little more active in Wikipedia and then reapply later. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Aside from the ''very'' low edit count, Mdcollins's self-nom and answers to the required questions do not convince me that he even ''needs'' admin tools. --
'''Oppose'''. Low edit count, next to no Wikipedia space edits, low edit summary usage, and weak self-nom and answers. Not right now, but maybe in a few months.
'''Oppose''' per above - not ready yet because your edit count is low. --
'''Oppose''' inexperienced, doesn't really seem to need admin powers.--
'''Oppose'' Fails to meet my criteria, by a long way. --
'''Neutral''', too inexperienced. Please consider withdrawing your nomination.
Nomination was made by single-purpose account.  Likely sockpuppet.  --
'''Oppose''' you have fewer than 100 edits, this means we don't have enough evidence to know whether you can be trusted with the admin tools. Your talk page shows you don't properly understand our image licensing policy, which is an important area for an admin to have experience in. I would add that accepting a nomination from an editor whose only edits are to nominate you is highly suspicious and speaks to a lack of judgement on your part. Sorry,
'''Strong Oppose''', excuse me if I am sounding rude but you don't even have 100 edits. The questions are very, very weak and the user who nominated you hardly has any edits either. I would recomend withdrawing you RFA.__
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. Your edit count is too low, your answers give us no idea of what you intend to do with the sysop flag.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Support''' as nominator.--
'''Support''' Solid contributor & vandal fighter. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong support''' over 10,000 edits and not an admin yet !?!?! He obviously has a lot of experience here and would make a great admin. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -- witnessed only valuable contributions. -
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Megaman_Zero Blocked] twice last week, once for 3RR and once for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=51251680 incivility] (towards me). Also for an incident where he basically forged an exceptional newcommer award on his user page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megaman_Zero&oldid=41291815#bicycle_award] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=41292223]. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, no. I don't have a good feeling about this candidate.
'''Oppose''', recently blocked. Too soon for an RfA. (changed from support) --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Oppose'''. Two 3RR blocks in the past month makes this poor timing.
'''Oppose'''. Speaking to, or about, another editor in that manner is unacceptable, regardless of circumstance. Megaman Zero is a very good editor who seems to let his emotions guide his editing from time to time, I will probably support in the future if this is addressed.

'''Support'''; good edit history, seems reasonably well versed in other namespaces. <font style="color:#55BBBB"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#77AAAA"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#77AAAA"><sup>(
I note that the quote is only being half read by Karmafist.  It reads "Fuck process. Block time-wasting trolls."  I read the two together; it says that process should be ignored when it involves ''not'' blocking time-wasting trolls.  MegamanZero has my full support.
'''Support'''; i think the guy has enough edits and a long enough history, if he wanted to be bad he would have done it by now, so sure i guess i'll put my vote in support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', seen him around a bit, appears to have his head on straight.
'''Support''' probably a better candidate than some current admins.--
'''Support'''. Zero has shown no evidence of abusing WP:IAR, so I trust him not to use his admin tools to maliciously circumvent policies. He has also satisfactorily addressed my concerns about copyright violations. Give him a mega-mop. --
'''Support''' Has been here for some time. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Need more admins.
'''
'''Support''': Zero's has helped me delete unused images. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.  Those who can't get over the use of the word "fuck" are too prudish. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' I've seen a lot of maturity from this user over the past few months, as well as the adoption of a much more diplomatic tone in the midst of heated debates.  I think he'd be a good, moderating influence as an admin.
'''Support'''.  I agree with some of the comments that Zero still needs to grow into the role but  I see nothing that makes me think he will be a problem admin while he grows. --
'''Support''' I see no major problems, but hopefully he will become better trusted.--
'''Support'''. Has the right attitude. Would be a good admin. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. <s>Give me a few minutes and I'll bring you some diffs. </s>Well, I just find this user a bit immature and uncivil. Too quick to act and speak. A few other things I don't care for: The way handled himself here :[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Aaron_Brenneman_%28second_nomination%29#JJay|1]] [[User_talk:MegamanZero/Archive_2005_1/27#Surnames_in_your_sig|2]] [[Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_40#Neutral|3]]. Just not Admin material at this time. --
'''Strong Oppose''' I asked the question below because I intended to reserve judgment, but Karmafist above drew my attention to that quotation on Zero's page.  Irrespective of one's view on the matter, "Fuck process" (like a bad userbox) is an inflammatory and unwise maxim for an admin or admin candidate to advocate.
'''Oppose'''. No. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, no. --
'''Oppose''' General incivility and process is very important and ignoring rules is what causes most problems.
'''Strong Oppose''' Lack of maturity, I can't recall a positive interaction with this user. -
'''Oppose'''. My current, non-immutable impression of this editor is that he quick to reach an opinion, reluctant to accept persuasion and slow to amend a point-of-view. His userpage until recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MegamanZero&oldid=35838590#Personality said so in terms]. On AN and AN/I he seems to tend to quickly pronounce upon an issue, where a slower pronouncement backed with more careful historical reading would be much more beneficial. My most recent interaction was where he quite specifically and explicitly set aside [[WP:V]] for his own purposes to re-insert deleted material which was very plainly OR and non-V, repeatedly. Into two articles, no less (see [[Talk:SNK Boss Syndrome]], article now re-deleted and [[Talk:List of fighting game terms]] along with the article's history). I think some rounding-off of the corners, and a deeper appreciation of how to do things in general is needed along with frequent demonstration of better judgement before handing out a mop or a bucket here. I also share some of the other concerns expressed above, including the silliness over impersonating others' signatures and a simmering incivility that rumbles away beneath the surface a little too often. -
Per all above, '''weak oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' - My impression, based on his talk page interactions, is that Zero is not yet ready for adminship.  If he can sustain a mature tone and demonstrate an ability to persuade others, to listen to discussion and be persuaded, and to defuse conflicts rather than inflame them, I'd be willing to change my vote for his next RfA.  But for now, I think he needs to brew some more.
'''Oppose''' - agree with Splash's observations on AN & AN/I, and Nandesuka's observations on maturity.
'''Oppose''' doesn't understand Wikipedia policies.
'''Weak oppose''' per NSLE per all above. --
Sorry, but I don't think now is the time; some of the people above have reflected some of my feelings. Please continue with your good work, and I will gladly reconsider. Thanks!
'''Oppose''', per FreplySpang.--
'''Oppose''': last RfA a little too recent, and not enough time for changing the verdict, which is that this editor is not ready now, but may be down the road.
'''Oppose''' Splash makes some good points. Nandesuka has also.
'''Oppose''' I don't like being called a prude simply because I don't like seeing the f-word thrown around where it doesn't need to be.
'''Oppose''', process is not a bitch to be fucked. &mdash; '''''
'''Oppose''' General incivility is what got me. —
'''Weak Oppose''' per Splash. Need more time to build a reputation for civility, etc.
'''Strongly oppose'''. "Fuck process" all too often means "fuck the community".
'''Oppose'''. Civilty should be of upmost importance regarding other users.
'''Oppose'''. I like MegamanZero, but he has a lot of maturation to do before I'd feel he's ready to take on the responsibility of being an administrator on an Internet website.
'''Oppose''' as per Danny, Thumbelina, and Nandesuka.
'''Oppose''', too volatile and quick-tempered to be handed the keys to the mop closet at this time. I believe he has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart however, and might support sometime in the future. --
In MegamanZero's defense, the quote from Tony Sidaway is contradicted by him at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original&diff=prev&oldid=33847917#Outside_view_by_MegamanZero this diff], where he states that such a stance he "would never expect from an admin". I am concerned about this user's handling of images. In particular, he has uploaded a large quantity of images that apparently come from http://www.kawaiidream.net/. On that page, it says "Images belong to their owners...Personal use only. Pictures publishing on other websites is forbidden without consentement". In each case that I saw ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Evil-Ryu.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HolyorderSol.JPG], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krisalid-2nd.jpg], among many others), the link to the source goes to a page that does not contain the image (links to the page have session IDs in them). Thus, we can't verify the source. I question that these images qualify as promotional, and doubt the tag properly applies given the copyright notice on the bottom of that site's page. Further, images such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Normal_HeatGuts.jpg], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basara-portrait.jpg], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Style_custom.jpg] uploaded by this user have no source identified with them. That said, I've yet to find anything else that warrants concern on this user's ability to be an effective admin. I disagree with some of his views, but viva la difference. Given the image tagging problems, I'm voting neutral on this one. I would '''''strongly''''' encourage him to go back and review his image contributions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=MegamanZero&namespace=6]) and fix the licensing and source attributions. --
'''Weak Neutral''' Removing that quote was incredibly mature, we definately do need more users, not just admins, who listen and compromise on Wikipedia as a whole. However, I don't know if it was just bending to try and dissuade those who disagree, or a sincerity. It's unfortunate since I remember having a discussion with Zero awhile back, and he's a good guy, but I still don't think he's ready. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Neutral''' for now as well. A little more seasoning with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I think you'll be fine. —
'''Neutral''', I've seen the user around and he seems to be a good user but Splash makes good points against, and on that basis I will be neutral.
MegamanZero probably wouldn't be a ''bad'' admin, but I'm not sure he'd make a good one either at this stage. We need admins who will consistently be mature and humble. Show more of this, and try again after a while, and I'll vote for you. &ndash;

'''Neutral''' Not to pile on. On various occassions I have seen him take actions which show lack of familiarity with process and policy. --
'''Oppose''' I was going to give Memmke the first !vote as moral support, because it's usually a mauling when a candidate has less than 250 edits at RfA. But given what Memmke has been up to at [[Tanenbaum-Torvalds_debate]], I can't support. Memmke took the same article to AfD three times and to DRV once in just over a week.--
'''Oppose''' per Kchas. Please get a lot more experience and come back, 2000 edits are usually required. Right now, I suggest withdrawal. '''<span style="background:#000">
'''Oppose''' Normally, I like to emphasise "quality over quantity" and point out that a high edit count is not a good indicator of a potential good admin.  However, you really need a lot more experience than you have.  Try again in a few months once you've got your head around the policies and the way things are run here.
'''Oppose'''. "quality over quantity", but I fear you have neither. A few more months of good edits, and hopefully we'll be able to pile on the "supports" instead...
'''Strong oppose'''. Not nearly experienced enough. --<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Strong Oppose''', not enough experiance and very weak answers to the questions...You can fight vandalism ''without'' the tools.__
'''Oppose''' User needs ''much'' more experience. Withdraw this RfA. ←
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, and needs more edits and time here. Wait for another six months or so before coming up for RFA again. Nomination does not explain why you want the tools, so not now. Suggest withdrawal. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Not nearly enough experience, you need to make more edits. I consider tagging me as a sock puppet a personal attack, and looking at your other actions it seems I am not the only one. You need to be much more considerate if you want to be given power, and since you seem to like nominating huge amounts of articles for deletion I don't think it's a good idea to give you the power to delete them. Your replies to the questions speak for themselves, too.
'''Oppose''' per inexperience. You've been here for a little more than two weeks. I suggest you try again after getting 3,000+ edits and/or staying with the project for more than 5 months. '''
Too hasty, no real need for tools, fear of abuse. &ndash;
I just hate to see RFA's like this, were you know that  the user is porbably going to withdraw due to every vote being oppose.  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ac1983fan|My first RFA]] was just like this.  Just get around 1,000+ more edits, and try again.--
Avoiding pile-on. Actually, I am reluctant to support anyone with less than 3,000 edits unless they exhibit stirling qualities. You need more experience editing. There are plenty of articles at [[Wikipedia:cleanup]] that need work. Gain greater familiarity with policies and procedures. Then consider coming back to *fD and RCPatrol. Once you have the hang of things, seek an editor review and heed the advice gained there. After that consider another RfA.
I can't bring myself to give a moral support to someone with only 243 edits, and 47 mainspace contributions, so it'll have to be a moral neutral. -
'''Support''' - outstanding editor. Gracious too. Honoured to be first to support. --
'''Strong Support''' per my comments above as wannabe co-nomm'er
'''Support''' - the usual cliché, could have sworn he was an admin already!
WTF? I was supposed to nominate! - <b>
'''Support''', great vandal fighter and a prolific editor to boot. &mdash;
'''Erm... support''' per Budgiekiller. Excellent user. Good luck! --
'''Support'''. This user often makes reports on [[WP:AIV]], so I believe he could use the extra buttons.
'''Support''', excellent vandal and spam fighter, only good interactions with him.
'''Support''' as one of the nominators- I keep seeing him reporting vandalism, I think he should have the tools to take care of it in the first place.
'''Strong Support''' - one of the best vandal-fighters on Wiki
'''Dammit''' If I'd known you had any plans for adminship, I would've co-nommed you with pleasure. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
Clearly a good faith editor, but I do find a few hasty CSD taggings, after looking into it per Steel's comment. However, it was literally just 2 out of his last 1,500 contributions. Granted it's not very easy to browse deleted contributions anymore, even if some invalid taggings did get deleted, it was obviously by someone we already trust with admin tools. I'd put forward that everyone makes a mistake or two, and often users knowingly tag something borderline for deletion with the trust that the experienced admin will look into it and make the right decision. So that someone tags something for deletion suggests, but doesn't prove, that they'd just straight out delete it as an admin. Same with vandal reports. MER-C is clearly dedicated to the project and I have every reason to think they'd exercise discretion and make a good admin. --
'''Superlatively strong support.'''  MER-C is a fantastic and reliable new page patroller and vandal fighter.  Granting him sysop tools would only help improve our project.  --
'''Strong Support''' I see him all over AIV and he could certainly use the buttons.  Good luck!
'''Support''' - Normally I wouldn't support someone with as relatively little time on the project (I usually like to see at least 6-9 months), but I've seen MER-C all over the place and I think he could have an immediate positive impact.  That said, I would ask that he initially exercise a little restraint on speedy article deletions, per some of the concerns listed in this RFA.  --
'''Strong Support''', good vandal fighter, I see see him around reverting vandalism. MER-C is commited to Wikipedia and will make a great admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''', great vandal fighter, good attitude.
'''Strong Support''' Outstanding user, one of the most common names I see around. Excellent work, will make a fine admin and use the tools wisely.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' Seems like a good vandalfighter.
'''Support'''.  Sem him vandalfighting, been very impressed by it --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Support'''. Excellent fighter of spam and other vandalism.  Only 3 months here, but 18000 edits overrides any concerns there.  He seems comfortable justifying reverts and explaining his position.  I'm certain will be a top administrator who will use the tools effectively. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support'''; partially took part in my [[User:Andypandy.UK/Nom log|spam crusade]].--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong strong support''', I have seen enough of MER-C on RC Patrol. He'd do a good job with the tools. Best of luck, buddy! &mdash;
'''Support''', MER-C's not an admin?  Really? &middot; '''<font color="#707070">
'''Support''', even though you're not a [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi 2|Jew named Putnam from California USA]] ;) [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis|<font color="blue">A</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''', He seemes to be a good candidate and I have seen some of his work, Kudos =)
'''Support''' A very strong vandal fighter and a good editor as well. The added tools given to him would only benefit this project further. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I keep thinking he's an admin, since his name comes up so frequently in RC feeds. Fully support. --
'''Support''' Good user, I;ve had nothing but good experiences with him on AfD.  Plus, I actually borrowed a [[User:Danntm/Directory|template]] from him.--
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter, very supportive of this user. (just got edit-conflicted supporting)

'''Enthusiastic support''' definitely one of our best vandal fighters, I see him on [[WP:AIV]] (and [[CAT:CSD]]) all the time.  There was just a big backlog there yesterday which he could have helped clear - a lot of the reports were his anyway.  I do not think his reports are too unreliable at all, there are occasional ones that I deny because they have stopped, but this is usually due to the delay between him posting and me responding.--
'''Strong support'''. Very diligent and personable.
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. <b>
'''<s>Block, <nowiki>{{impersonator | Can't sleep, clown will eat me}}</nowiki></s> Support, <nowiki>{{Greatest vandal fighter since | Can't sleep, clown will eat me}}</nowiki>'''
Ladies and gentlemen...we have the new [[User:Curps|Curps]]. --
Piling-on '''Support'''.--
'''Support''' for being the quickest non-admin reverter I've seen. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#1198e8">jam</font>]]
'''Support''' Although I am sure he isn't Willy On Wheels worst enemy I am sure he'll be a great admin
'''Support''' Excellent user. I've seen him a lot on AIV. He's not perfect, but, IMHO, he could use the tools.
'''Support''' Thud... Thud... MER-Czilla is coming... Vandals are scared... They are shuddering... they know they cannot escape the powerful MER-Czilla!
'''Strong Support''' This guy is great, Having him as Admin would be great for wikipedia--[[User:Seadog.M.S|<span style="color:red;">Sea</span>]][[User talk:Seadog.M.S|<span style="color:blue;">dog</span>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.  Is this a joke?!  He's seriously not an admin!?  What a fantastic candidate!  I'm thrilled to be able to support.
'''Strong Support''', Surprised MER-C isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' I keep vacillating on what I think about admins having extensive article-writing experience, but in this case I like the extent of his specialization. Wikipedia is like a leaky boat in a river of sewage; we need people to bail out the constant influx of crap.
'''Support''' MER-C is active in AFD and is a great vandal fighter.  He's also helped me handle a possible copyvio where the contributor claims to be the author (see article [[Hyperthermia]]).
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' per Mr. Lefty. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">

'''Support''' Awesome vandal fighter, very unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' I've seen him around while vandalfighting and in AfDs, and I've never seen anything I didn't like. --
'''Strong Support''' MER-C often beats me to fighting and reporting vandals, and I come across MER-C's edits often. By becoming an admin the damage that each vandal can do will severely reduced, if I didn't know better I'd say that MER-C is a tawkerbot offshoot. I was considering nominating MER-C but noticed on the talk page that a nom was already here.
'''Strong Support''' no objections whatsoever, MER-C has deserved adminship for quite some time for his outstanding efforts in vandal fighting.
'''Support'''. Substantial edit history in short period of time. Answer to qwernol's question does not indicate overly zealous deleter. However, 'ware burnout rate.
'''Support''' Antivandal work is excellent! --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support'''. Very dedicated anti-vandalism work, has struck me as a potential admin from some of our first encounters with each other. I'd be happy to work with him in that capacity.
'''Strong Support''' Hell yeah!
'''Support''' Time with project is a reason to oppose? Not for me. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support - thought he was already an admin''' - Familiar face on [[WP:AFD]] .`
'''Strong Support''' I've seen this user tirelessly fight off vandals on my userpage as well as soooo many others, a tribute to the best of Wikipedia, MER-C deserves full admin powers.--
'''Support''' nice kid.  Works hard.  Wish he'd write more --
'''Support''' After seeing this user around, I think they are ready for adminship. It is my view that even if someone has not made many article edits improving articles this does not matter for the administrator - normal users can make edits just as easily as administrators. --
'''Support'''--
MER-C is clearly an up and coming user, and I see him at AIV regularly. However, In my experience I've found him to be a somewhat unreliable vandal reporter. A number of vandals he reports have either not been warned, stopped ages ago, are shared IPs with no recent warnings, haven't vandalised since their last warning, etc. Much the same applies to CAT:CSD. I've found him tagging things as spam which aren't spam, and so on. That, combined with an apparent lack of real encyclopedic contributions, means I can't support this RfA. I also really, really don't think 3 and a half months is long enough. --
'''Oppose''' - per lack of time with the project, and poor answer to part one of question 4 (IAR should not be used to change the requirements for speedy deletion) --
'''Opppose''' per concerns addressed above, and answers to question s.  It is my feeling that this person is not quite ready for adminship.  Most recently I've witnessed this person revert "vandalism" by someone who was trying to remove unsourced libellous remarks.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antelope_Valley_High_School&diff=80168406&oldid=80168374]  As if that weren't enough, MER-C then proceeded to ''warn'' that person for doing so.  Sorry, but there is no way I can endorse this person at this time if they are going to be so careless.
'''STRONG HELL NO Oppose''' if he felt unready to be an admin a mere few weeks ago, I somehow doubt he's ready now. Plus the stuff Silensor and Steel brought up isnt so great. I just dont feel he's quite ready yet... maybe in a few months I would support, but just too green right now and appears to jump the gun alot. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Obviously this editor's vandal fighting resume is impressive. However I have to oppose based on a few factors. First, I'm not comfortable with this editor's position on IAR and the example he gives. Yes, IAR means using common sense, but not at the expense of consensus. Band articles are the most contentious and emotional debates right now at AfD, and I'm not comfortable with an admin who would speedy a band article on the basis of his opinion that it's "hopeless vanity." It should go to AfD where the editors will have the opportunity to clean it up, make it encyclopedic, and cite sources to back up the assertion of notability. Second, the ratio of article talk edits to mainspace edits is quite low (6.9%) which shows little participation with the community in article content discussion. Lastly, editor only has 3+ months of experience. More time on the project will allow for more interaction with aspects of the project other than vandal fighting. &mdash;
Racking up insane amounts of edits in 3 months vandal fighting is impressive (I must assume it's using VandalProof or some such), and appreciated, but does not make someone admin-ready. That, combined with the fact that I am [[User:Themindset/RFA|"one of those"]] users who thinks 6-months is a minimum amount of time with the project leads to my '''oppose'''.
Oppose, reluctantly. I'd like to have supported but I absolutely detest a lack of article writing (even simple start-class articles). I'm not pleased either with concerns brought up above by Silensor and Steel. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' As I went through the contribs I noticed the same thing others did, very little (if any) writing, and didn't follow up reverts with warnings in many cases. But also, he doesn't see to have his speedy judgement very well tuned, I find many cases where he's tagged something as speedy but was overturned. Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mert_Yucel&diff=prev&oldid=82196508][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caesar_grunt&diff=prev&oldid=82192442],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Lutz&diff=prev&oldid=82180992],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katy_Steele&diff=prev&oldid=81967582],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snowbooks&diff=prev&oldid=81202625] I just don't feel like he's ready for the delete button yet. And not to pile on, but he put lot's cleanup tags on articles, it'd be nice if he'd pitch in with some of the cleanup. It'd give him a better feel for content, he has a pretty narrow particpation range at the moment. This is not to diminish his work or attitude, but branch out a little and you're there.
'''Strong oppose''' <s>'''Oppose''', reluctantly, for now.</s>  Although MER-C puts a lot of effort towards vandal fighting I see a bit too much "ready-fire-aim".  Sometimes it is best to slow down and analyze what you are seeing before pulling the trigger.  I'd also like to see at least six months of activity to demonstrate that the user has a long term commitment and not just a passing fancy.  Finally, spread out into a few more activities on the Wiki.  Even if it is just typo and grammar corrections, try to spend a little time on articles.  When you see a short article, consider spending a few minutes on it to clean it up, link it somewhere appropriate, and put a stub tag on it rather than just tagging with CSD or PROD.  Another way to spread out is to get involved in some Wiki-space activities.  With that, I think you can be ready to try again before the New Year.  Good luck. --
'''Oppose'''  If one uses IAR at all, one might apply it to a speedy deletion once in a year.  Candidate's answer indicates poor understanding of "deep and subtle policy"; also, I share above concerns about experience in other areas.
'''Oppose'''. Certainly a good faith user, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per answer to #4.  Answer leads me to believe that deletion is a better alternative than editing in many circumstances where the opposite is true, and the view that IAR "is the codification of common sense" is especially worrisome.  A number of admins who believe the same are/were amongst the worst we have, and I'd hate to see an otherwise positive contributor head down the same road. --
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. I'm worried that giving MER-C the delete button will result in large numbers of articles disappearing without consensus or justification. -
'''Oppose''' <s>Death to Deletionists!</s> -(I apologize, It's the idea, not the people.)
'''Oppose''' per Richard and Chacor. Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per [[WP:BULL]] amongst other things. Another non-writing candidate who doesn't really need nor deserve the mop. Seems unable to understand we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not tear one apart. Is also seems unable to understand the meaning of [[Template:Proposed]], and tries to enforce things such as [[WP:SOFTWARE]] as actual policy when it it clearly not, using it as a thin rationale to delete articles. Abusive admins with poor judgement, along with serial deletionists, are a greater threat to Wikipedia now than vandals.--
'''oppose'''. as i said earlier, it is a [[mop]], not a [[rapier]]. i do not condone promoting users who ''fight'' anyone (including vandals) continuously. write an article or two. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' due to the answer to question four - many recent controversies (need I mention the F word?) have been due to admins deleting articles which do not meet the speedy deletion criteria, we don't need more admins promising to do the same.
'''Oppose''' - reluctantly I have changed my vote. I think MER-C has great potential for the future but to date has been too fast to delete too many times. [[User:Cynical|Cynical's]] highlighting (just above) of his response to Q.4 tipped my decision. I think [[WP:IAR]] should be the answer to "when all else fails ...", (i.e., existing policies and guidelines, forged by consensus, somehow fail to address a situation). WP:IAR should not be used to instead override the community consensus embedded in all this guidance. Furthermore, CSD is a potentially dangerous tool and if there is any possibility any 3rd, uninvolved editor might reasonably think an article should be kept, MER-C should use PROD. PROD is always a better choice for those articles on the borderline of CSD. I encourage MER-C to learn from this RfA, go back to the drawing board, and build a strong track record of more judicious deletions for a few months; I'd be happy to support a second RfA then. I also recommend he actually make substantive additions to some articles. Even if MER-C then never edits again, at least he will better understand other editors' thought processes and values before pulling the trigger. Several hours worth of article-building followed by reversion or speedy deletion engenders empathy for other editors and a sense of personal humility. --
'''Oppose''' - from Neutral after noting issues re: CSD per [[User:Cynical]]. I'm ''strongly'' concerned over [[User:MER-C]]'s deletion stance.
'''Oppose'''.  Nothing personal, the user is obviously a great vandal-fighter, but the lack of any real editorial-type contributions makes me uneasy.  Will support when the user has made major contributions to a couple more articles.
'''Oppose'''.  Three months with no significant article contribs is at best a neutral for me and the handling of the situation Silensor points out tips it.  (Is the response to Silensor ''supposed'' to be a parody of wikilawyering?)  A supporter compares this user to [[User:Curps|Curps]] so I'll run with it.  I first ran into Curps at [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]] when he was adding content, responding to questions on the talk, and otherwise being a mainstay of keeping that article coherent and updated in trying circumstances.  It wasn't until later that I realized that he was also a great vandal fighter. -
'''oppose''' good work against vandalisms but answer to question 4 concerns me and no real editing needs more time
'''Oppose''' I wanted to support MER-C, as I thought his answer to my question was good and he has done some excellent vandal fighting work which has significantly improved Wikipedia. But I am concerned about this comment in response to Steel359 above: "I tagged more than 50 articles for speedy in the last couple of hours and who knows how many in the last 24 hours... I reckon I have a 95% accuracy on speedies". In other words just in the two hours before that edit he had mistagged 3 articles as speedies. Given his amazing edit count, I'd guess that he's tagged between 500 and 1000 articles incorrectly. That's several hundred editors whose good work got tagged for deletion. If your making that many mistakes, you need to slow down and be more careful. At least while you're a non-admin there is someone else checking your work. If you'd had the tools, you presumably would have deleted those several hundred articles without any safety net. Yes, we can undelete those articles, and editors can recreate them, but my guess is that's several hundred good editors we'd have lost if you'd been an admin. Please slow down and take more care about your work. Write a few articles, because then you'll understand the work that goes into it and be less hasty to delete things. I want to support you next time around. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' I think Gwernol hit the nail on the head. Also per Bishonen. To recap; slow down a bit, check page histories before flagging them for deletion, communicate with people better, and above all write some articles. There must be something you can write about here. Sorry, as I know you are a good and well-meaning contributor, and that deletiona nd vandal fighting are important. --
'''Oppose''' per Steel and badlydrawnjeff.
'''Oppose'''. Due to relatively short time in the project, lack of substantial article contributions, and tendency to act hastily (as pointed out by several people above).
'''Oppose''' (was neutral), further evidence of trigger-happy deletion tagging means I cannot trust MER-C with the delete button itself, sorry. Broaden your activities beyond <s>whack-a-mole</s> Vandalism Patrol, please. -- ''
'''Oppose''', unfortunately.  As others have already said, slow it down and explore other areas of the encyclopedia you can contribute to besides vandalism.
'''Very Reluctant Oppose.''' Although you may be one of the best vandal-fighters Wikipedia has ever had, and for that you deserve Barnstars, awards, and every reasonable commendation, Gwernol's reasoning leads me to change my vote. I hope you continue your excellent vandal-fighting and learn to be more careful in the future. You have served, and hopefully will continue to serve, Wikipedia extremely well but I don't think you are ready for the adminship at the present time. I would gladly support in the future, however. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', per concerns about time here, narrowness of activity, and accuracy, none of which are a "red-line" in and of themselves, but don't make a comfortable combination.
'''Oppose'''. Lacks experience. Needs 6-12 months of quality edits. Not swayed by the answers to the questions either. --
'''Oppose''' As noted many places, clearly M-C is an excellent vandal fighter.  An admin need to be more than just a cop though.  Given more time and examples of content-work I would hope I could support. -
'''Oppose''' per Alkabar and A.B.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per Gwernol, Silensor et al.  Great vandal fighter but needs to slow down and consider the situation more carefully.  Also, take time to indicate why you are reverting and take time to warn vandals. --
'''Neutral, leaning oppose.''' — Where are the contributions? - I can not support a user who does not make contributions to the '''encyclopeadia''' - Spending all day reverting just does not cut it for me, i look for several factors in a candidate, one being the balance between contributions and vandal fighting, i see no contributions. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''': A lot of edits, but, although a promising vandal fighter, 3½ months is a little too soon to ask for the mop. The way my standards see it, he should have waited till next March. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''' There's no doubt that MER-C is a terrific vandal fighter. I'm an experienced RC patroller who came to the 'pedia around the same time (late spring/early summer 2006) and I know I still have way too much to learn before I stand for adminship; on the other hand, MER-C may have logged many, many more hours here than I have. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, so on the fence I stay.
'''Neutral''' at this moment, per Chacor. I prefer that you'd did ''some bit'' of article-writing. No, I'm not even asking for an FA here. -
'''Neutral''' with regrets. Sheer lack of editorial contributions would normally be an oppose, but I shift into neutral for your other contributions. ~
'''Neutral'''. I'ld love to support, but not enough mainspace contributions and a few too hasty speedies force me to give a neutral opinion. I just want to point out to the opposers that while MER-C may have erred too much on the delete side, it is quite normal and '''accepted'''[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/035078.html] for new page patrollers to make this kind of error. I have done a lot of new page patrolling the previous months (not this month), and when you look at how much dubious articles (attacks, spam, vanity, hoaxes, ...) are still left after a day (which means that they are disappearing of the radar of most new page patrollers), you can better understand that those manning the gates don't have the time to check all speedies as thoroughly as they should in an ideal world.
'''Neutral''' A little trigger-happy a little too often; go easy for a few months. Incidentally, there's one thing that disturbs me: the comment above ''it could be said that I am Willy on Wheels' most hated enemy (better sprotect this RFA right now :).'' Meant jokingly, of course, but yet another example of the kind of thing that all adds up to aggrandize the bore (or more likely group of bores) called WoW. This kind of thing is what's called ''feeding the trolls.'' Warn vandals curtly but clearly where needed, clear up the damage they do, block their edits if/when you possess the magic wand for the job -- but say as little as possible that they'll later be able to gloat over or show to their chums. --
'''Support, User's making great edits....'''
'''Support''' contribs look good but please answer the questions below.
'''Support'''. Has enough edits and is trustworthy (admin on Wikinews). Please answer the generic questions for the candidate ASAP. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a helpful, trustworthy user. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Has been around a long time, has been a positive contributor, and has useful experience as a Wikinews admin.
'''Weak support'''. Tools are good, time experience seems to make up somewhat for edit experience, "but don't expect me to help out with the very, very touchy issues" bothers me a bit. I'd be more comfortable had "to start with" been included in that sentiment; after all, I'm taking my time there, as well.
'''Support'''. I see no reason not to.
'''Support'''. I am supporting as I believe that all human beings, in real life as also in the virtual life, are nice persons and should get recognition. In any case, our wikipedia may perhaps be having at least few other editors/ administrators who should not be around. In case, the nomination passes, and misutilization of admin-tools are noticed, our system and procedures should be fast enough to effect a de-sysop. --
'''Support''' Now that the three questions have been answered!
'''Support''' This user has a lot of experience despite the low editcounts. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Not to be a victim of editcountitis, but I'd like to see more edits and move activity. Most of your edits don't seem to be very significant. The primary opposal reason is the fact that you didn't answer the questions for your RfA. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' something about your perspective on admin responsibilities doesn't sit well. I think all admins should always be willing to shoulder extra responsibility, be involved in community and able to tackle difficult situations. Per Joturner, you'd have been better advised to wait and diversify your contributions.
'''Oppose''' - on a self nom you would have plenty of time to respond to the 3 standard questions before posting on the main RfA page, this concerns me sorry --
'''Oppose''' Unsettling lack of question answers.--[[User:Evadb/Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for a self-nom, answering the questions is a required part of the process (for obvious reasons a non-self nom cannot answer the questions immediately). If you 'didn't have time' to answer them then you didn't have time to nominate yourself.
'''Oppose''', maybe later. Currently a lack of User talk edits indicates a shortage of the interactions with other users which are critical for admins, and a lack of Wikipedia edits indicates a possible shortage of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - not enough experience--
'''Weak oppose, might still change my mind'''. You make a lot of good edits and have more than I did when I became an admin. In a number of instances I think you've displayed sound judgement and have been involved in a wide range of activities. However, I think you would be better served by keeping up the good work you're doing in this wikipedia for another month or two before becoming an admin.
<b>Weak Oppose</b> Don't worry, this has nothing to do with that whole questions thing. I think that your edit count is low, considering the amount of time you've been part of the project. If you were to try again soon, I'd probably support you. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I'm not looking at Interiot's tool for this, but rather based on this fine user's talk page and contributions history. He seems to have some issues with images policy, and given the touchiness related to that issue I would really like a more solid, proven history with community interaction and a more proven knowledge of policy before I can throw in my support. I think this editor can grow into a very capable admin, given some more time and involvement, and I wish him nothing but the best.
'''Oppose''' "don't expect me to help out" are words that make me very uncomfortable (touchy issue or not), which swing it for me, as not all good editors make good admins. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' I hate to oppose, but you dont seem to be willing to do it. Very Sorry. <span style="border: 0px solid;">
'''Weak oppose''': It will be much better if you reapply after getting more experience here, but do not feel discouraged now.--
'''Oppose''' - about 3 edits a day is not enough and has been periodically inactive for months. --
'''Oppose''' - Doesn't exhibit a firm enough grasp of the English language: when asked about articles with which he is particularly pleased, Messedrocker responded about how he is proud, as if "pleased" and "proud" had the same meaning. --
'''Oppose''' - more edits. :(
Perhaps later. <s>Please answer the candidate questions to assess your potential. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)</s>
Some people are quite picky about the forms being obeyed in one's RfA, and with good reason, it's sort of an acid test... if one cannot get this one process meticulously right, is it likely that other processes will be done right as well? For a self nom, there is ''plenty'' of time to make sure everything is just so before one transcludes it and goes live. There is ''no reason whatever'' that the three questions were not answered well in advance of that transclusion (mine were answered well before I went live, well over a week if I recall correctly). '''Neutral''', tending to oppose unless the questions are answered quickly and well, because while adminship is no big deal it nevertheless should be taken seriously. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Neutral''' I still can't understand why, if you were busy, did you post this on the main RFA page without answering the standard questions, especially with this being a self nom. You could have waited to do the whole process properly when you had time on your hands & saved yourself from a lot of oppose votes. Anyway the questions fiasco aside, your contributions are on the lower side especially considering this was a self nom. But your experience (from being an admin on Wikinews) & civility makes it difficult for me to oppose. So I'll cut you some slack & be neutral. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. A good user, but 250-odd talk edits and under 900 article edits in a year and a half is pretty light. The delay in the question answering's a mild concern, but there may have been good reason if MR was called away. Would like to support, but for now it's too close a call. Certainly don't oppose, though.
'''Neutral''' can't decide to support you yet, maybe in a month or two. You are a good user, though. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Neutral''', per above. --
'''Neutral''', per above.--
'''Neutral''', The answers are not very convincing. Maybe if you give yourself some more credit I could change my mind.
'''Neutral''' per Gadig.
'''Neutral''' - You have the right attitude, but avoiding confrontation can actually be problematic, especially as an admin. At times you'll have to step on some toes, unfortunately. In any case, would like to see some more experience and community involvement before throwing in my support. I feel that you have a lot to offer here, but that the timing for adminship is a little off. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Neutral''', I don't see any reason to oppose now. However, I will support you when you come back in two months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - I almost nominated this editor recently. (
'''Support''' - Very active? Well lets put him/her to an even better use. Very active admins can build and maintain Wikipedia more effectively than very active non-admins. (That is, IMHO.) Good luck in your vandal-hunt! Btw, ESkog, I didn't realize ''you'' already voted here. Small world, isn't it? --
'''Support''' - meets my standards --
'''Support''' - another editor with good [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kajang&diff=prev&oldid=45569726 grammer]. <nowiki></just a playful jab, no hard feelings></nowiki> -
'''Support''' per Shultz and inasmuch as ''adminship is not a big deal''.
'''Support''' I feel it is time to give him the mop. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Support'''. Although you have barely showed an experience in process, I think that you are a nice user and you won't misuse adminship. Having sysop abilities will enable you to deal with vandals and I'm sure you'll eventually get the hang of wikipedia process. Adminship is no big deal. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' This user has worked tirelessly on cleanup and reverting vandalism. '''''
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Sorry for doing this, but just a general lack of edits; very good start, but some more user talk (i.e. social interaction) would be well recieved; also, maybe another month or so of active contributions and I'd gladly support. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' He has plenty of edits for me and is a really great editor but only been here since February, less than 3 months is just not enough time to have the needed experience for administratorship. I'm really sorry -
'''Weak Oppose''' I see no evidence that suggests that Mets501 would not be a fine admin, but I also see very little participation in the Wikipedia space.  This user is only 15.  There is not enough evidence to judge his level of maturity. Given more time and participation in discussions. I would support. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough time editing wikipedia.  Not enough edits.  Not enough user interaction.--
'''Oppose''' per above.

'''Weak oppose'''. A tad too new. Not enough talk and user talk edits.
'''Oppose'''. The user is a nice editor, no doubt. But doesn't give sufficient reasons to convince that he would be a good admin. I would like to see him participate more in Wikipedia namespace. Currently the user has just 34 edits in Wikipedia namespace, and most of them are in Village pump with absolutely nothing in VfDs. Come back after a couple of months with sufficient experience and I might reconsider my vote. BTW, I prefer to attach maturity with edits rather than with age. -
'''Weak oppose''' Just barely fails my criteria. I'd like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits especially AfDs, a bit of [[WP:AIV]], and maybe some others, also slightly more discussion with users would be good. I will probably support again in about 6 weeks.
'''Oppose''' Intentions seem good and can't find anything overly negative. But it is just to soon, give it a couple of months.--
'''Oppose''', needs some more time.
'''Oppose''', very few edits, especially in project space.  Will support in a couple months if you become more active. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong oppose''' per Rory.
'''Oppose''' Probably a great future admin, but this candidacy is premature.  More experience is certainly needed in this case.
'''Weak Oppose''' It is great that you are doing counter-vandalism, but you have few talk and user-talk edits. Wait a few months and get some more experience on all areas of Wikipedia and I will certainly support you.--
'''Weak Oppose''', needs some more time, and more edits in project space. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Oppose''' prefer more experience. Thanks, ''
'''Neutral''', perhaps later, needs more experience. -
'''Neutral''' Not enough time & more edits required. Pease re-apply for adminship in the future. :) --
'''Neutral''' per Mailer Diablo. Look forward to offering my support on a second nom in a month or so if this one doesn't pass — at fifteen, he's smarter than me, has met more interesting people than I have, and writes better articles than I do. ...dang. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Neutral'''. Sub-three months is, as others have mentioned, too little time for Adminship. Keep it up and come back in a few months. --
'''Support''' I believe this user would make a great admin.--
'''Strong Support''', ditto above. Had this page on my watchlist waiting for creation, because Mike42 is a perfect example of a                user who Wikipedia would benefit from getting the tools. '''
'''Strong Support''' - okay, once again need to interrupt my 10+ day thus far wikibreak to support this man. Mike's an class A guy, smart, knows policy, great man and good friend. Bring it on.
'''Support''' I've seen good work (even if his national cricket team are a pain in the proverbial). Same name as an actor I've enjoyed the work of, too, not that that's particularly relevant -  the positive comments on his talk page ''are'' relevant, though, as are his contribs (which look excellent).
'''Support''' I've seen Michael around - seems like a sound guy.
'''Strong Support''' helpful user, always on IRC

Oh come on, that channel was created as a joke. He could have done the same thing on any other server under any other nick. I have been in that channel and Mike definately did not ask me to oppose Rory's RfA. I will lend in my support here for a user I have known since a long time and who has been working his ass off to make wikipedia look good. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good, competent, user that deserves to have the tools.
'''Strong support''' I have seen this user on IRC and his dealings there are anything but "shady".  I was not aware of it previously, but the Rory096 RfA issue has been blown way out of proportion and I see nothing in the incident which makes Mike a "cabalist" or unstrustworthy with the admin tools.  Also I see absolutely no reason to accuse him of dishonesty for his nominator's minor omission of a fact that should not even matter in regards to admin tools!  Now this user has done a lot of good work in areas that would definitely be helped with an extra admin there.--
'''support''' keep up the good work
'''Knife-Edge Neutral lean toward Support''' Golly thats long :P &mdash; [[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[User:Deon555/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub>
'''Support''' per above. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''SUPER DUPER ZOMG SUPPORTZ''' He is teh r0x0r and he needs a mop to unleash his full awesomeness.
'''Edit Conflict Support''' After my block, Mike offered me encouragement and helped me reform into a valued Wikipedia contributor. He's one of the few nice users in a place full of idiots (i.e. IRC). --
'''Strong Oppose''' Candidate has been part small group of users that have engaged to attempt to negatively influence recent RfA's.  Someone that games the system, so to speak, and wilfully disregards fundamental concepts such as consensus is not someone I would trust with any extra responsibilities
Not willing to trust this user with admin tools following that farce with Rory's RFA. &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''' Call it women's intuition but I'm not at all comfortable with this candidate. This feeling was confirmed by his failure to note that though, as his nominator states, his account was created 14 December, 2005, he did not make his first edit until 16 March 2006 and even then his editing was very sporadic until the end of May. I think it's dishonest to allow his nominator to present him to the community as a "Wikipedian since December 14" when that's clearly not the case. I am not willing to trust him at this point.
'''Strong oppose''' — per the Hoopster and Sarah; I also see little encyclopeadia building -- [[:Image:2006 census Australia.png|this also concerns me..]] -> shows a lack of understanding of policys and guidelines imho. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' per the AN/I diff.  Probably started as an attempt at humor, but crossed the line into disruption.  Off-wiki is off-wiki, unless one is talking about and acting on Wikipedia, and one's comments come to public notice on Wikipedia.  This does call into question candidate's judgment.  Besides, I trust Sarah's intuition, having none available myself.
'''Oppose''' I'm assuming [[WP:AGF]] on this AN/I-IRC thing, especially since we don't have all the details. But I do feel this RfA has come a bit too early with respect to this incident - like to see more growth as an editor. All the best,
Offwiki is offwiki, but this '''Strong Oppose''' is onwiki based squarely on what's offwiki. - <b>
IRC lobbying => Probably Cabalism => Going Sid''e''ways with Mop. -
'''Oppose''' adminship is about trust, and even if the incident was blown out of proportion it still affects perception of the masses, and admins must also being perceived as trustworthy in addition to being trustworthy. Don't let that stop you contributing and eventually gaining that trust (again).
'''Tentative oppose''' based on [[User_talk:MichaelBillington/Archive2#.28Untitled.29|apparently reaching a deal off-wiki with an anon to allow a link to a commercial site rejected by consensus as spam.]]
'''Oppose''' I don't think this candidate is ready yet, but will be happy to support in a few months' time.--
'''Oppose''' per the Rory096 RfA thing.
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink and Sarah Ewart.  I worry about maturity.  Sorry --
'''Oppose''' per perceived dishonesty and shady off-wiki activity. --
'''Oppose''' concerned about the IRC abuse going on, not so much about skewing another RfA, though that's pretty dubious, but about allowing spamlinks onto Wikipedia and then trying to prevent them being removed by requesting page protection. Yesterday, there were 6300 links added to Wikipedia - if that continues daily (and it does) that's 2.3 million links per year. The last thing we need is someone who will let spamlinks be added to Wikipedia and the can protect the page from being reverted through the use (abuse) of administrative powers. Sorry, but unless there's some sort of campaign of mis-information concerning Michaels IRC usage, I feel I have to vote against this RfA. As I say, I'm sorry. Best Wishes
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. Although, I must note here that this user is a great contributor to this project. In the meantime, do not lose hope and try again after three months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
I'm also not happy about the whole Rory's RfA thing. --
'''Oppose''' per Siva.
'''Oppose''' per question four and the Rory thing. --
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim and Heligoland. I don't like to oppose, but off-wiki conversations are relevant when it affects the encyclopedia, and these conversations fit that description. The use of the hard work of volunteer Wikipedia editors to support blog traffic and corporate marketing strategies infuriates me. It's not simply annoying – it's a credibility problem that affects the core of the  We cannot allow any editor to negotiate the addition (or deletion) of ELs, off- or on-wiki, and we certainly cannot allow it to be done by an admin. I'm sorry.
Per Mailer Diablo. Not really comfy with opposing, but I'll sit on the fence for now. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]
'''Neutral leaning oppose''' the dual issues of IRC conduct and collaboration with a spammer is too troubling for me to support.--
'''Neutral''', okay guy but Rory RfA issues give me pause. ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Weak support'''.  I'd give him a chance, but know that [[User:OrphanBot|OrphanBot]]'s job is to sort out recently uploaded images.  As it is stated: ''OrphanBot's current task is to sort and remove images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles'' so that the user uploading the page could place the proper [[copyright]] tags.  --
'''Support''' Would make an excellent admin. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup>
'''Strong oppose:''' Ignorance of policy; inexperience; lack of participation in Project namespace; civility; low edit summary usage.<br>The immature rhetoric expressed against OrphanBot, and more worryingly its owner. Using [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Micoolio101&oldid=61801845 Nazi imagery] was bad taste and shows poor judgement.<br>There seems to be an unwillingness to accept advice and follow guidelines. Although I advised him that fair use images were not allowed in user space, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Micoolio101/Micoolio101%27s_Photo_Album&action=history he reverted] without discussion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_JPS/archive3&diff=prev&oldid=56406058#My_photo_album This exchange] was worrying, for instance: the tags he used clearly said 'fair use', so spouting that they weren't was at best carelessness, or, at worst, deceit. Neither admin qualities. Since he chose to interpret my corrections of his misuse of fair use images as vandalism, I suspect he would be very, and inaccurately, trigger happy with the tools.<br>Similar issues, along with civility, were demonstrated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmiDaniel&diff=prev&oldid=56098197#Image:Lars_ulrich_diagram.JPG_OrphanBotm here].
'''Strong oppose''' and suggest withdrawl. [[User:The JPS]] has covered almost all points why he shouldn't be an admin. He lacks experience, is uncivil, lacks knowledge of policies and attacks others. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' dislike users unfriendly tone, not just because of the reasons stated above. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Juppiter&diff=prev&oldid=63574893 spamming users talk pages] Has had a final warning from AmiDaniel regarding copyright problems and has had more copyright misunderstandings after that. User page is quite controversial too.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Didn't sign acceptance, or add RfA to the main listing.  This shows carelessness in regard to following policy, which is an instant oppose.  I've haven't confirmed the things mentioned above, but if they're true, then it's a strong oppose. --
'''Oppose'''. A very rare oppose from me because of the reasons listed by [[User:The JPS|The JPS]]. You will need to change your current attitude towards process/policy and users/bots if you are to become an admin in the future. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong oppose'''. The JPS's summary is excellent. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong oppose''' per nominator and nominees' hatred of Orphanbot. Shows disregard of image copyright issues. --
'''Oppose''' - if you are running afoul of OrphanBot, maybe it's because there are problems somewhere along the line with images you have uploaded. I took a look at your image namespace contributions. You changed someone else's image licensing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mighty_Mouse.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=36348400]. [[:Image:Russel-drumstick.JPG|This image]] is a copyrighted TV screenshot being used to illustrate the person being shown. That's not permitted under fair use. [[:Image:Flaky.JPG|This one]] is tagged as a promo image for a TV show, but comes from screensavers.com. (That can actually be speedy deleted.)
'''Oppose''', user did not sign after accepting the RFA, as per JPF. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' on experience and attitude re OrphanBot.
'''Oppose'''. Does not seem to really understand Wikipedia policy, resulting in stress for himself and others.
'''Strong Oppose''' Civility concerns, lack of appreciation of problems with improperly tagged images, and lack of project space esperience.
No, no, no, and no.--
'''Strong oppose.''' (actually per nom).--
'''Oppose''' per The JPS. --
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal per JPS
'''Strong Oppose''' Fails my criteria on a number of fronts. Firstly the nomination is extremely poor, problems with OrphanBot rings alarm bells, then the extremely low amount of edits (both generally and more specifically to the Wikipedia project space), and finally comments above about the incivility of the user. --
'''Oppose''' Though I have seen the candidate work on a lot of the Futurama articles (which I am interested in), I cannot vote support due to lack of experience. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions don't show a familiarity with Wiki policy and process; severe civility issues in interactions with other editors; general lack of experience that can be gained with time.  I suggest an editor review and perhaps some admin coaching at Esperanza when more experience has been gathered. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Oppose''' per Sean Black. :) --
'''Strong oppose''' per most "oppose" votes, such as Naconkantari. --[[User:Bigtop|<font color="blue">Big</font>'''<font color="gray">top</font>''']] <small>([[User talk:Bigtop|<font color="blue">tk</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bigtop|<font color="red">cb]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Bigtop|<font color="gray">em</font>]]|
'''Firm oppose'''. War against OrphanBot is detrimental to the project and shows unfamiliarity with policies and copyright laws. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Oppose''' per the whole Anti-OrphanBot thing. Likely to abuse tools.
'''Strong oppose''', and I'm wondering if this is a bad-faith nomination.  Either way, use of images with bad copyright status is a problem that could get Wikipedia into trouble.  We don't need people fighting OrphanBot and undoing legitimate actions.  (There are review processes in case someone disagrees, anyway.)  --
'''Strong oppose''', per The JPS (and pretty much everyone else for that matter.) OrphanBot is there for a very good reason and helps keep Wikipedia free of image copyright violations, which seriously undermine the project (more than most other things.) I suggest you withdraw and come back a long time from now when you are willing to abide by policy and be civil in your interactions with other people.
'''Support'''. 2000 edits is quite enough for me. (In fact, it was for everyone only a year ago...) Although you haven't given the traditional reasons for adminship, a sysop who'll devote part of their time to helping newbies is obviously well-intentioned. I'd recommend some more work in the xfd area, though.
'''Support'''. I see nothing but good things in Mike1's contribution history, with a good ratio of edits across numerous namespaces. The ever-increasing demands for off-the-charts edit counts are just making Wikipedia more elitist, which is the last thing it needs. You, sir, get my official [[Kinky Friedman|Why the hell not?]] support vote.--
'''Support''' inasmuch as I see nothing to suggest that Mike1 would abuse or misuse, even avolitionally, the tools, such that I am confident that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (which test follows from my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]]); in sum, as Aaron, in view of adminship's being no big deal, I say, ''why the hell not?''.
'''Support.''' No reason to think giving this user admin tools would irreparably damage Wikipedia. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
''''Support''' - per [[WP:AGF]] -
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but from your contributions I can't see why would you need the admin tools. The edit count is too low for someone who has been an active contributor since January. Perhaps you should step up your pace and try again in a few months.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', no user with less than 3000 edits will ever get a support vote from me. Apply again once you have contributed more to Wikipedia, and if you haven't done anything stupid, I'll more-than-likely support. But for now, oppose. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience per low edit count.
'''Reluctant Oppose:''' You seem like a great editor and I like seeing diffs like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizza_Hut&diff=prev&oldid=78727481 this], but as said above, I would prefer more experience/edits.  Would probably support in a few months.

'''Oppose''' You only participated in 1 AfD. You also have a fair use image on your user page and added the tongue to {{tl|User rolling stones}}. You should read up on [[Wikipedia:Fair use criteria]], especially #9. ~
'''Oppose''' per low editing experience, obnoxious signature, and the observations made by trialsanderrors above. —
'''Oppose''' inexperience. --

'''Neutral''', weak answer to question 1, try again in maybe December and I will happily support you. Also be more involved in tasks that administrators frequently deal with. Xfd, Copyright problems, etc.
'''Neutral''', needs more experience. Come back 3 months later and I'll reconsider. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Neutral''' Concerned about experience but not enough to oppose.
'''Neutral''', you're a great user, and I'll be happy to support in a few months. See no valid reason to oppose, though. Get involved with XfDs and other maintenance aspects, too. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' I have concerns about your experience as 2000 edits is not that much. Try again after three months and do not be discouraged by this failure. Get involved in XfDs more often too. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Need to take part in more adminly things. Would support in a couple of months if this is fulfilled (and the sig is changed) --
'''Strong Support.''' As nominator. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''', per nom this user is  a very, very good user and having him as admin would be great.--[[User:Seadog.M.S|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue" size="4">S</font>]][[User:Seadog.M.S/EA|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="green" size="4">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' Seems like a fantastic user, and has clearly taken on comments from his previous RfA. Good luck, <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Weak Support''' Overall good contributions to articles, but your wikipedia edits are a bit low. You have just participated in around 30 AFD's. I suggest you participate more in these 6 days.--
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Candidate is now ready. --
'''Support''' a good, experienced candidate --
'''Support''' good nominee.
'''Support''' very good strong nominee
'''Support''' I broke my complete Wikibreak to come here to vote for Mike. He'd be a brilliant mop.
'''Strong Support''' I see him around quite a bit and he always carries himself with a very approachable and friendly deameanour.  Seems to have the best interests of the project at the forefront of his editing style, so I can't see any reason not to think he'd have any trouble with a few extra buttons
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' Spot on.
'''<s>Strong Support</s>''' Mike has grown a lot since his last RfA and deserves adminship. I don't think he'll ever abuse of the tools. And he's very friendly and communicative. Good luck! --<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' - Seems like a very solid candidate.  --
'''Support.''' Keep up the good work (hopefully as an administrator!). '''[[User:Iridescence|<font color="#AA33FF"><nowiki>[</nowiki></font><font color="#00EE88">Iridescence</font><font color="#AA33FF"><nowiki>]</nowiki></font>]]'''&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>
'''weak Support''' - it's encourging to see user who opposed your last nom, supporting here --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' helpful.
'''Support''', I have a good impression that this user will wield the mop in a helpful manner. '''
I'm
'''Support''' Has made some good improvements since his last nomination. However, I wish to point out that your Wikipedia namespace edits are a bit low, but I feel that you will be able to rectify this in the near future. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Support.'''  I have to say that I wish you’d waited a bit longer following your first RFA.  Also, I am not as confident as I would like to be about your grasp of blocking policy, per NishKid64's neutral vote below.  However, neither of these affect the good work I have seen you doing-- I am confident in your always good intentions, aware of your enthusiasm and helpfulness, and I know that you will only continue to improve.  Best wishes for the road ahead, [[User:Dar-Ape|Dar]]-[[User talk:Dar-Ape|Ap]]
'''support''' - While not very happy that the period between RfA is so short, I ''am'' happy to see you doing good work, and your good faith, and your cheerful helpfulness. I will say you will be a good admin. --<font style="background:black">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="LightSteelBlue">Shrieking Harpy</font>]]<font style="background:Red">.<font style="background:Orange">.<font style="background:Yellow">.<font style="background:Green">.<font style="background:Blue">.<font style="background:Purple">.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - seems like a great guy. <small>
'''Support''' - I've seen Mike1 around Wikipedia and he seems to be devoted to the project. With the opposition in mind, I still don't anticipate any admin abuse from this editor.
'''Support'''. Looked over it all and I still don't see a potential for abuse. His edit count seems fine to me. He's participated in editor reviews. And he has use for the tools. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Support''' &mdash; no huge problems, another solid user who will learn from the criticism on this page, I'm sure. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Weak support''' As with many other people, I would've preferred that you wait a bit longer since your previous rfa - overeagerness isn't a good trait. However, you've shown a decent understanding of policy, and the more people helping out with page protection the better.
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. While acknowledging the candidate's contributions to the project, I have some reservations, enough to push me from my usual '''neutral''' into the '''oppose''' column. As mentioned by the neutral voters below, Mike did have an unsuccessful Rfa little more than a month ago. People do change(I, a former vandal, am proof of that), and Mike has made much progress in the past month. However the user's votes in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Trialsanderrors this Rfa] makes me question whether the user understands fully the qualifications and importance of the mop. First, Mike gives the user a witty support vote. Which is fine, we all do from time to time, but then Mike strikes the support vote and opposes stating [[User:Trialsanderrors|Trialasanderrors]]' conduct in a controversial Afd as being "slightly uncivil" when anyone (other than perhaps a hardcore World of Warcraft junkie) could see he was very civil, yet effectively arguing his point. Then several moments after accepting this Rfa, Mike changes his mind again, to neutral(which was probably not significant in terms of what it does for the Rfa since it is above 90%). So, going against my instincts which say 'assume good faith,' I find myself wondering if the user is entirely prepared for the mop & bucket and/or whether he sees this as just a trophy/prize/etc. for good editing. So a reluctant, yet firm oppose.
'''Oppose''' with regrets. I think that you're on your way to adminship, which is why I'm not all too happy with this somewhat hasty renomination, only a month after the last one. I think you made strides since then and your answers are more sound, but my concerns from the last RFA, lack of knowledge of fundamental policies, and lack of meaningful participation in WP policy areas, haven't been alleviated. You kept the fair use image on your user page until just recently, clearly ignoring my comment on it in the last RFA. Your AfD participation has been commented on by Húsönd in your peer review, and it really just amounts to a single spurt of !votes, without any debate that reveals policy knowledge. (And just because it seems an ongoing topic, I don't really have any problems that you reconsidered your vote on my RFA, it shows that you're not stuck on a once-formed position, an important quality for an admin to have). You'll certainly get my support in time, but I think this one comes too early. ~
I'm sorry but I have to oppose. I genuinely like Mike and I really want to support him but I just don't feel comfortable with this nom. Two RfAs in four weeks is just too fast for me. Also in that time Mike decided to quit and exercise his right to vanish. I am concerned that his recent change in editing has been out of a desire for adminship, and I cannot help but feel this is a trophy RfA. Also, I'm concerned about Mike's policy knowledge which I think arises from the fact he had very limited WP experience prior to four weeks ago. When asked at his previous RfA to nominate some of the XfDs he's participated in, he couldn't nominate any. I feel Mike needs to gain experience over a sustained period of time; I don't think that four weeks is enough time.
Oppose per above. Too soon; overly eager = not good. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. He failed an [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mike1|RFA]] about a month ago for lack of experience, and I don't see sufficient improvement since then. In particular, in spite of what the nomination states, his participation in process is practically non-existent, except for a lot of RFA votes (accounting for more than ''half'' of his total amount of Wikispace edits). He may be an "up-and-coming" user but he's simply not there yet.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. There's no need to apply for adminship each month: it is sort of annoying. Please recall the main (and only) aim of this project and consider writing a few FAs articles instead. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Oppose''' per Sarah and Radiant.--
'''Oppose'''.  Have amended vote.  I supported because I didn't see a clear reason to oppose, but arguments above and the fact that I still harbour doubts about Mike's temperament and judgement facilitate this amending of my opinion. The temperament issue is best evinced in his exchanges on this page with people opposing.  His discussion with JCam above worries me. Regarding judgement, I have already expressed disagreement with Mike's [[Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Comments|assessment of Calvin and Hobbes]] and related articles for the Comics WikiProject, they are articles he has worked on extensively and I am worried about objectivity and impartiality when it comes to handling the admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per inexperience & policy knowledge concerns. --
'''Oppose''' - Recently used a controversial template in the article space ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBay&diff=prev&oldid=86862854], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPod&diff=prev&oldid=86862714]). Being bold can be an asset, but more experience would be helpful in this case.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Radiant. Still could use more time and experience, including WP: namespace.'''
'''Oppose''' per Radiant, Chacor and Ghirla. Furthermore, the jumping around at Trial's RFA didn't look fantastic, particularly the oppose vote - what on earth did he do wrong bar fight the corner a bit? I'm also a little concerned by the response to question 4. The entire reason why a whole group of editors (me included) spent the whole day reverting+warning the vandals at [[Concerto delle donne]] when it was on the Main Page was because semi-protection of such a high-profile article looks very bad. In fact, semi/full protection negates Wikipedia's whole trick, which is that anyone can edit it. I am concerned that the candidate might be a bit too free with the protect button, in addition to other concerns.
Too soon - <b>
'''Strong oppose''' lacks the temperament required for adminship. I will never support this user's nomination as more experience is not going to change this.
'''Weak Oppose''' I am sorry but two RfA's in 1 month is too many.  Give it some time and take a break from RfA to focus on improvements that span lengthy periods of time.  That will show dedication to the project and not just hasty improvement for the sake of passing an RfA.  [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Strong Oppose''' This is his second nomination in less than a month, user seems to be too eager to become an admin.  Looking at his response to Kazakpohl I don't think Mike1 has the right attitude for the job.
'''Neutral''' User has made substantial improvements since last AfD, but I still have some worries. You can only improve so much in about a month, which worries me, since I don't believe Mike has totally gotten a feel for everything on Wikipedia. Mike has a colossal, yet scary amount of Calvin and Hobbes knowledge, and I appreciate all of his edits to the mainspace. I still don't think Mike has enough experience in AfD discussions, as it doesn't seem that he contributes that much to the discussion (besides the "vote"). All I see is "Delete-looks like spam", "Delete", etc. Anyone can go around Wikipedia and get a feel of how the whole system works in a few days, but it takes a while to fully understand everything there is to know (which is what admins should at least have a good decent knowledge of). Also, I do not see any recent reports to AIV and I have some doubts in regards to your knowledge of the warning and blocking policy (again, something that admins should have a deep understanding of). I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't believe I can wholeheartedly support your RfA at this time. '''
'''Neutral''' - struck support. I might follow this for a while, and rethink it. Sorry about flip-flopping :( '''
'''Neutral''' - Doesn't know our fair use image policy (#3 specifically) well, uploading original copies of good-resolution DVD covers [[:Image:CharlieBrownThanksgiving.jpg|CharlieBrownThanksgiving.jpg]] and [[:Image:CharlieBrownChristmas.jpg]], and using 2 screenshots in [[GoComics]] when one would have sufficed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GoComics&oldid=84638051]. Although this problem can be ameliorated with time and experience, considering also the recentness of the first RfA causes me to refrain from support.
'''Neutral''' While I am glad that you have improved, and hope you continue to do so, I think you Wikipedia: space edits are too focused on RfA, which is not good for anyone.  You should spread out, perhaps get involved in XfDs, wikiprojects, or proposed policies.--
'''Neutral''' Would oppose based on the other recent RFA, but I don't oppose because of that. Sometimes it's best to step away from RFA for a more lenghty time so you can get yourself ready for the future. Now is not your time. ''semper fi'' —
'''Strong oppose'''. You were blocked a month ago. Unless you have a really good explanation, I suggest you withdraw. Also, dismal projectspace participation. -
'''Oppose''' per Amarkov. Sorry but I'm uncomfortable with the recent block.
'''Oppose''', As with the above editors; I have to agree.
'''Oppose''', being blocked for personal attacks recently is bad, and apparent edit warring removing tags is just as. I have a worry whether you could use judgement when dealing with conflicts, as your prior experience has demonstrated. Also, little-to-no Wikipedia:-space participation leaves me worried that you may not understand Wikipedia procedures, policy and the intricacies that come with it. Weak answers, especially Q1 - no demonstration of prior experience in areas that are listed. Sorry, not now. '''
'''Oppose''', suggest withdrawal. The path to showing you've got what it takes is ahead of you. <b>
'''Oppose''' Even if the block is forgiven after your justification, you still have little need for the tools, very low WP space edit count and an extremely low edit summary usage. Sorry.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' vandalised my userpage in revenge for deleting many copyvios he uploaded with his old Mike kelly09 username, that was back in late May, sorry but no
'''Neutral, advise withdrawal''' Your admittance and regret of your past transgressions is to be commended, and I am sure that many have forgiven you for them. However, at this time, I urge withdrawal per concerns raised by the opposers, namely that the incident is too recent and your inexperience with general projectspace. I ask that you begin and/or increase beneficial participation in these areas, and to not fall back into your past. Fear not, a few of our greatest admins have had a spotty past, and as long as the editor changes him/herself, the community will always be there to accept them. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Support''' - looks like a good user, would like a slight expansion on the nomination statement / why you want to be an admin though --
'''Support''' A good user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per NSLE, user seems to have enough time editing but I don't really see any evidence of the policy knowledge I'd expect of an admin candidate. (
'''Oppose'''. Although you are a great contributor to articles, you have less than 100 wikipedia namespace edits, indicating a lack of experience in process. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Active editor in articles, but needs more experience in process. -
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' I know editcountitis can be fatal, but the number of project edits (< 100) and number of user talk edits (~ 50) are not high enough for me. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong oppose''' per Joturner.
'''Oppose''' Per lack of experiance in process of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Appears to contradict themselves in the reasons for obtaining admin and answers to questions. Sorry.--
'''Oppose''' Edits are low, but that's not it;  a self-nomination should give, if not a ''compelling'' reason for wanting to be an admin, at the very least a ''coherent'' one.  Also, as per Andy, the impression given in the nom and the impression given by the answers to the questions seem contradictory. --
'''Oppose''' per joturner.  More experience is required before user can be fully trusted with the mop.
'''Oppose''' per joturner.
'''Oppose''', Malformed RFA.
'''Oppose'''.  Not very active, especially in project space, in addition to bad RfA formatting. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Neutral''' Looks like a good editor but doesn't have quite enough experience dealing with vandalism (which he says he is interested in helping out with). I'd particularly like to see more assistance at [[WP:AIV]] and slightly more edits outside article and talk space.
'''oppose''' To new, to few edits, to little everything. And pretty much all the edits he has done are talk page edits <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''; only 71 edits to 5 different pages, almost all article space. <font style="color:#BB0055"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><u>inch</u></font>[[User:Smurrayinchester/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#AA0077"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#AA0077"><sup>(
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose'''. While I'm sure the candidate's edits to ICOC-related pages have been constructive, the answers to the standard questions indicate an interest in being an administrator ''for a particular and very small set of articles''. If there have been "an increased number of controversial changes by anonymous users that have taken place without any discussion", you don't need administrator tools to deal with that. Discuss changes on the talk page and bring any policy violations to [[WP:ANI|administrator attention]] or perhaps to [[WP:RFC|the attention of a broader set of editors]]. With only 20 edits in article-space to two distinct articles, and no edits to user talk or project-space, there is nothing to show whether or not the candidate is worthy of administratorship.
'''Oppose''' for now per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|Standards]], and recommend withdrawal of nomination per [[WP:SNOW]]. Please feel free to re-apply when you have gained more experience of Wikipedia.
'''Nom support''' per my statements above. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' per Deckiller.
'''Support'''...it's nonsense to think that you have to actively fight vandals and post test warnings in order to be an administrator. I'd like to think that there are admins that don't fight vandalism.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Adminship is supposed to be 'no big deal' I see no reason not to.... --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support'''. Proactive user. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''. Well-rounded and solid editor, shows good judgement. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' per [[User:Vilerage]]. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' - The WP space edit is too low (96 as of now), little bit too low for me to have confidence in the candidate to close AFD votes. Also, no evidence of "test" warnings ever issued and no [[WP:AIV]] reports either, so I am doubting the candidate's need for the admin tools for fighting vandalism. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Winhunter|WinHunter]].--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per Winhunter and Andeh.
'''Oppose''' per WinHunter. 96 WP space edits indicates not more than a passing involvement in any of the [[WP:XFD|XFD]] discussions.
'''Oppose''' per above - <b>
'''Oppose'''- I don't know that you have much experience in AFD because of your low Wikipedia namespace edits.--
'''Oppose''' per WP edits. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' per WP edits. 96 is not alot, Deckiller. ;)
'''Oppose''' fails ''II. At least 350 Wikipedia space edits'' in [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]]. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Oppose''' Lack of Wikipedia space edits is a concern. Try again in about 3 months time. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' as per WinHunter.
'''Oppose''' for very low Wikipedia space edits.--
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to see more AfD participation for candidates who want to close AfDs. A month or two of XfD participation and I'll probably support.
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wikipedia-space edits. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' for reasons given above re: Wikipedia-space edits. [[User:Mipadi|Mipadi]] sounds like a great contributor and should make a good administrator after additional WP space experience. I hope he/she will not be afraid to try again after more experience.--
'''Oppose''' Weak on the Wikipedia namespace edits.
'''Oppose''' I have concerns reagading this candidates knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's polcies and guidelines, due mainly to a low level of activity in the Wikipedia project-space. --
'''Neutral'''. Not quite enough WP namespace edits. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per above.
'''Avoiding pile-on neutral'''. I'll be happy to support him/her once s/he gets those WP edits up. --
'''Neutral''' WP edits ''just'' miss my standards and limited evidence of warning vandals ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_133269&diff=prev&oldid=53721539] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:194.83.233.2&diff=prev&oldid=53695086] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.32.225.208&diff=prev&oldid=24163579] were all I could find) does not show need of admin tools.  Come back in a month or so and I'll probably support.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral'''. Lack of WP edits indicates not enough experience with the inner-workings of wikipedia, which i believe is a crucial requirement for an aspiring admin. Will support in the future once WP participation is up.









Clearly. --
'''Support'''.  Seems to be a conscienscious and civil editor with broad experience.  --
'''Support''' A civil user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' Somewhat narrow experience overridden by what appears to be a strong sense of communication with fellow editors; therefore, unlikely to abuse. <tt>
'''Support''' per Siva and RK. <small> Addition: </small> Having read MJC's lenifying responses to Tawker's questions, even as I don't think all of those responses to be fully correct, I apprehend that the user properly understands the role of the admin, to-wit, to carry out the consensus wishes of the community and to act with deliberation and moderation, and most doubts I had with respect to this user are resolved.
'''Support''' meets my criteria.
'''Support'''. Looks like a hard working and civil wikipedian that I have no reason to suspect would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' The answers to Tawker's questions sold me. I really believe this would be a good choice.
'''Support'''. My interaction with this user has been very positive, and he seems to be a hard-working and consistently good editor to me. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' This user initiated the effort to standardize the many City related infoboxes and continues to participate in the project.  One of many efforts he has participated in to improve and standardize article presentation.
'''Support''' good editor. --<small>'''<font color="red">[[User talk:All in|t A]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Support''' per Yanksox.
'''Support''' - per my questions --
'''Oppose''' for very low edits of Wikipedia namespace and insufficient overall experience. Please use edit summaries more often for minor edits.--
'''Oppose''', too few edits to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' to few edits to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' per
'''Oppose''' per above. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience and no clear need for the tools. Has never posted to AIV, and so has never been far enough through the vandalism escalation process to require the ability to block. The only experience of deletions is a few instances of voting on infobox deletions.
'''Oppose''' too few namespace edits
Admins need to be involved in the community.  --
'''Oppose''', lacks of community involvment and Wikipedia-space edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Fails my criteria. My criteria for min. no of edits at start of nom are 1300; 15% in project space &ndash; both not met.
'''<s>Oppose</s>''' per above, will support in a few months with some more experience. Also, you can help with articles with unsourced statements and NPOV disputes without being an administrator! --
'''Oppose''' per Rory096 and Cyde. --<font color="#9966CC">
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose'''. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' Not enough user interaction, will support next time though. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''', a little light on experience yet.  It's possible to revert vandalism, to work on NPOV disputes, and to work on articles with unsourced statements without being an administrator.  Actually, if you have an interest in those areas, that would be a good way to build up your experience; that way, you'd have more to talk about next time you apply for an RFA.  --
'''Oppose''', insufficient experience with Wikipedia namespace suggests a lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' – doesn't seem experienced enough, more talk and project edits would be a step in the right direction –
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' - need more exp/edits, don't think anyone has gained admin status with so few edits?--
'''Oppose''' on experience.
'''Oppose.''' Someone who posts clear copyright violations should not be an admin.
<b>Oppose</b> I'm sorry I have to oppose, because you really do seem like a great user, but your experience isn't the type of experience that admins need. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per concerns expressed above, by Tigershark and Sarah Ewart. --
'''Oppose'''. Per comments above. (Come back in a few months with a few thousand more edits and we shall see.)--
'''Neutral'''. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Insufficient experience concerns me, but your answers discourage me from voting oppose.
'''Neutral''' on the fence &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a great user, but mainspace edits are lacking. Almost there! [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. You need more significant mainspace edits and better use of edit summaries, and perhaps a bit more overall experience. Would support if these issues improve over the next few months.










'''Support''' -- Looks like a good candidate with positive intentions for the wiki project!
'''Support'''. I think that Mlc409 would make a good admin due to his excellent editing skills and the fact that he would actively use his position to hunt down vandalism and repair it. <font color="Red">
The nominator is a brand new account. His first edit was blatant vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padlock&diff=prev&oldid=91646159]. Mlc409, however, is one of the authors of the hoax article [[Janicism]] and has only made edits to two other articles. <font color="Green">
This RfA was put up by an spa/sockpuppet/meatpuppet. I think someone who can do checkuser could probably find other hoax articles, sockpuppetry and vandalism by this user and the nominee besides what IrishGuy mentioned.
Thier only intention is to create distruption. They don't appear to respect the Wikipedia project (ie: the suspected hoax article [[Janicism]]). Given the majority of their edits are related to this hoax article, and are in no way useful or constructive to Wikipedia (the opposite in fact), they should be banned from editing Wikipedia if anything.
'''Very very strong oppose''' I don't know if this is a joke or not but less than 50 edits including vandalism???
'''Withdraw Please''': The candidate, nominator and both supporters are suspected of being the same person, as far as I can tell. I suspect this may be an attempt to gain administrator rights to protect/recreate the [[Janicism]] article. If the candidate turns out not to be a suckpuppet or puppeteer then I'll happily withdraw my vote from this RfA. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
mlc49 has made untrue claims even in this page.  He did not create [[speedcuffs]], and in fact did not even edit it until [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hiatts_Speedcuffs&action=history December 2nd], as the history page for the article clearly shows.  This alone should disqualify the request.  mlc49 also has a history of putting odd, nonstandard warnings onto people's pages, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:86.137.19.196 here].  For some reason, he has issued himself a warning on his talk page as well, and has more recently blanked it, though it has been reverted since.  It is clear from this that mlc49 does not have an understanding of Wikipedia protocol.
'''Very strong oppose''' Appear to be sockpuppets with a short history, with not much activity other than the hoax article. Suggest an indefinate block for all of them. --
'''Oppose''', no experience and few edits. Mainly vandalism contributions. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong oppose''', after edit conflict. 40 edits? I would expect an admin to have 1000 edits at the very least, usually more. The nominator is a very new user, and started by vandalizing a page. The candidate did not create the Speedcuffs article, has only been active for two months (one of which they made only one edit) despite creating his account six months ago, and has blanked their own talk page. I strongly suggest withdrawal. &mdash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Speedy close''' Sockpuppetry. One edit before yesterday. Period. --
Extreme nominator '''Support'''. -
'''Support''', Overall very great contributor.
'''Strong Support'''. Meets all my criteria, has proven himself as an excellent user, and I just hope admin duties don't cause TOO much deviation from article edits :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong Support''' - he deserves it. --
'''Support''' as evidence of his userpage vandalism count, he isn't afraid to be bold, seems like a good admin here. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">[[User:AzaToth|A]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">z</font>]]
'''Support''' good fellow, valuable contributor to Wikipedia.--
'''Support.''' Good, hardworking editor who will use the tools well. Give him the mop already. :o) [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Moe is an excellent contributor and a great vandal fighter to boot. [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Fifth time lucky support''' <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''. I am not familiar with the history, but over the past three months I've been here, I've seen nothing but good from this editor. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Big support'''. I've admired this user for a while now and I think he's one of those guys who really could use the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' - just please watch the spelling/grammar, Moe. Learn to doubt the way you spell things. -
'''Support''' - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' - well deserved--
'''Support''' - I thought he was already an admin --
'''Support'''. Geez, this guy edits a lot. He would benefit from ''AdministrativePower®''.
'''Support''' see no reason to believe that this editor will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support''' My interractions with and experience of this guy have been fine. However, please lose the fake "You have messages" banner from your talk page. It's childish and irritating. The '''next''' time I see an admin candidate with one of those, I'm going to vote oppose. --
'''SSuuppppoorrtt''' - double support.
'''Support''' Valuable editor, from what I've seen.  I forget who it was who said that you can't become an admin with this many edits...  You deserve to prove him wrong.  (I thought you were one already) --
'''Exteremely Strong Support'''!!!! He will not abuse admin tools and he has the experience for the mop and bucket. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' per Terence Ong. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I'm not going to blame a guy for leaving, even if the dramatics were way over-the-top: People take wikibreaks, and then find this place is too addictive to leave.  Other than that complaint, I don't see much substantive here.  Solid wiki-career, and he has certainly progressed in maturity, even if he isn't perfect yet (who is?)  He deserves a shot at the mop.
'''Support''' David is an insightful, dedicated contributor. I will not oppose a solid editor on the basis of reading [[Deepak Chopra]] or other irrelevant nonsense. --
I hope you understand this is nothing personal, but like Jaranda you have that knack to leave Wikipedia when things don't go right, sorry.
'''Strong Oppose''' This link cannot be ignored [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SWD316&oldid=31521310], he does seem volatile and quick to anger, and even said in his 3rd RFA that he couldn't control his actions, which is not what is needed from an admin. He has resigned from editing on several occasions as of late, including after 2 failed RFAs, which shows a lack of dependability. The bar should be set high for being an admin, and constantly making spelling errors, having a glut of edits on your user page alone and reacting to negative votes is not what we need from an admin.
'''Oppose''' Looks like a good editor, but I'd like to see more edits to the template space.  Templates are an integral aspect here, and I'm concerned about promoting editors who might <s>have to</s> make decisions on TfD without a proper understanding of them.  Keep up the good editing and get some more experience in template space and I'd be glad to give my support. —
'''<s>Reluctant Oppose</s>''' -- Might be a good admin but should we take the chance? ''Staying cool'' is a prime requirement.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Strongly Oppose''' His user page says it all. Not worthy of it. Poor attitude.
'''Oppose''' Ever heard of [[Deepak Chopra]]?  Highly recommand that one reads his books before trying again.  --
'''Oppose''' He seems to lash out with anger and personal attacks at times. The goodbye messages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moe_Epsilon&diff=41402749&oldid=41374468] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moe_Epsilon&direction=next&oldid=31301335] stuck me the wrong way. I don't see much progress between the first message and the second re:stability.
'''Strong Oppose''', though nothing personal in it, and it is for his long term benefit. I am concerned about the problems of maturity and stability – I shudder of a situation when he decides to leave resorting to impulsive action like mass blocks or something similar! Yes, I agree with the concerns expressed by the fellow-wikipedians, we require administrators with utmost maturity, stability and experience to deal with stress – a little stress and leaving us in the “lurch” is not a good sign. We are building an encyclopedia and not playing games kids play, the game of [[Hide and seek|hide and seek]] – coming and going away. We do not  require administrators with such [[Tantrum|tantrums]] – we require persons with ability to manage scenarios requiring utmost maturity and tact, and unflinching commitment to the Project.  Yes, edit counts matter, but not always and I would recall the words of the nominator [[User talk:Mysekurity|Mysecurity]] which he had recently uttered “ I don't care whether you have 6,000 edits or 6,000,000, it doesn't matter...”. Likewise, while deciding adminship, we have to assess whether the editor concerned is capable of undertaking the responsibility without stress. Moe Epsilon has already exhibited a lot of stress, and putting him in a position of further  stress shall be doing great injustice to him. I suggest that he may continue to enjoy wiki-life without taking further stress as he has demonstrated that wiki-interaction has caused him stress from time to time.  We should be humane in our approach, and not thrust upon someone the responsibility, which may cause personal damage to him. Moreover, the reasons indicated by him to be elevated to the level of administrators are not very convincing. --
'''Oppose''' as per above.
'''Oppose''' per John Reid.
'''Oppose''', I agree with [[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]].  I appreciate that he's contributed so much to the project, but I've been surprised by Moe's displays of anger from time to time.  Sorry.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Oppose''' per Samir. Sorry too. If this RfA fails come back after a couple months after you have corrected these occassional anger issues. Best of luck.
'''Oppose'''.  You do not need the admin tools to merge articles, mediate NPOV disputes, fix unsourced material, add categories or create templates (infoboxes).  ''None'' of those are admin tasks.  Furthermore, looking over your contributions, I see less than 100 edits to the Wikipedia namespace.  Of those, there is only participation in two AfDs, one copyright problem, and you reported the same user three times to 3RR over the course of several days.  I'd like to see more evidence that you understand policies.  You have less than 50 edits to Wikipedia Talk which shows little community involvement and you have 100 edits to user talk since 1 July 2005.  None of your edits in user talk have been warning vandals.  Admins do work that you seem to have no experience in.  Some of their tasks include fighting vandalism, responding to requests for intervention and block/ban, protecting and unprotecting articles (and talk pages, etc), deleting pages, and closing XfD discussions.  You have almost no experience in dealing with vandalism and have participated in only ''two'' XfD discussions.  You do not demonstrate a knowledge of policy.  However, keep in mind that adminship is not a "leadership" role, as you seem to believe.  It's not a prize or reward.  It's an extra set of janitorial duties.  You are a great editor and can continue to be a great editor without being an admin; you don't seem to need to be one.
'''Oppose'''. Answer to question #1 does not have anything to do with admin tools. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits in the main space. Adminship is not an award - its more of a burden. You need more experience in all the areas to avoid getting into trouble with the advanced tools.
'''Oppose''' Your answers don't reveal a requirement for additional tools and admin responsibilities.  A competant user with standard tools can do most of the tasks stated. Out of 1973 edits only 115 have been to user Talk pages.  Talking to users is an important part of being an admin, so this number should be increased substantially before you reapply.  Advising people, warning of speedy tags placed on articles, vandal warnings, etc.  All grist to the mill of being an Admin.  I suggest another [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] to get an idea of where the community thinks that you should work on improving before reapplying in ~2000 edits/three months' time. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''': Again, the tasks you list aren't tasks for which you need adminship, except for reverting vandalism quickly. And I don't see a lot of vandal reversion anyway, and that's something an admin should have a great deal of experience at.
'''Oppose'''. Potentially a good candidate in the future. But right now, although you've been here since June last year, you've only become a very regular and consistent contributor since June of this year. More time as a consistent contributor as well as more involvement in the Wikipedia space is needed before adminship can be seriously considered.
'''Oppose''', you seem like a good editor, but I don't think you need administrative capabilities to do what you do. Being granted adminship isn't a reward, or validation, but an extra set of duties, and not always pleasant ones at that. Please read all the suggestions above if you really do want to be an administrator, but if you're happy continuing editing the way you are (and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing), then don't worry too much about adminship. All the best, &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Why should you be an admin.?  I see no solid reason.
'''Oppose''' I suggest you withdraw this nomination soon. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - great editor, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't purposefully abuse the toolbox, but after reading your answer to Q1, you really don't need admin powers for any of those.  I would suggest staying on the same track, and joining Esperanza's admin coaching program.  In the meantime, I suggest withdrawal from the RFA - the [[WP:SNOWBALL]] just keeps rolling...  -
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Zapptastic|Zapptastic]]. --
&ndash;
'''Oppose''' as above, and there are barely 2000 edits altogether. Sorry. --'''
'''Oppose''' - fails to understand the concept of being an admin. It is not to provide leadership. It is to administrate the project.
<s>'''Moral support'''</s> You are an outstanding contributor to the Swedish Wikipedia and you are already familiar with the administrative tasks. And I agree that your multilingualism could prove useful. However, it is my belief that this RfA on the English Wikipedia will not succeed. You will first need to show proof that you are an active contributor. Your current edit count is surely not helping.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support''' I doubt this nomination will pass, but I think that your contributions to various other Wikipedia, particularly the Swedish, are outstanding and deserve to be recognized. You certainly have the experience, despite what your less than 500 edits on the English Wikipedia might say to some editors. They need to recognize that you are a Wikipedian with over 20,000 edits. So what if it's in a different language? -
'''Strong Support''' I have the odd feeling that people haven't really read his responses to the questions. I can trust this user, and he gives a good explanation that he understands how things around here function. MoRsE appears to be a dedicated Wikipedian whom is truly interested in bettering the project, and I think we need more assistance in the admin aspect of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' MoRsE is a special case.  He has broad inter-Wikipedia experience, and is already familiar with the tools, and can readily learn the policies and customs specific to en wikipedia. I further think it would be beneficial to have admins with inter-Wikipedia connections, to help build up the relations between the various Wikipedias.--
'''Support''' I agree with danntm, screw the evil edit count.
'''Weak support'''. Limited experience on English Wikipedia is a problem, but given the broad experience elsewhere it's one I'm willing to overlook. I doubt this RfA will pass this time around, but get some more experience here and I'm sure you'll have no problem next time around.
'''Support''' as long as he starts using edit summaries.
'''Ease-up-on-the-editcountitis-please support'''
'''Support''' the oppose votes fail to provide diffs showing a lack of familiarity with English Wikipedia's policies. Unless evidence demonstrating contentiousness or incompetence on behalf of this user is posted, there is no reason to oppose.
'''Moral Support''' per [[User:Husond]]. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' per Yanksox. I have seen far weaker candidates get the mop. Hell, I've supported far weaker candidates. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' I gave quite a bit of thought about the question "should an admin's record (or a users) from another wikiproject count on the english wikipedia". I think it should - the rules are the same, the problems are the same and how one deals with them are likely to be the same. The problem i have is assessing this users contributions in the swedish encyclopedia because I can't speak swedish. On the other hand I have no reason to distrust what this person tells me and unless evidence is presented to the contrary I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and support. --
'''Support''' per McGinnly. -
'''Weakish support'''.  This user is already an admin on another Wikipedia that happens to be very similar to en.  Edit count isn't anything, and if it were, isn't 20,000 enough, even if it's somewhat spread out?  My only issue with the user is the low usage of edit summaries.  I'd like to see that up quite a bit: 90% overall is reasonable, I believe.  Other than that, this user looks great.
'''Support.''' Let's not start an international wiki-incident. :) [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Per experience with wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Plenty of experience and has shown a true dedication to volunteering on Wikimedia Foundation projects
'''Support'''. I still believe adminship ought to be no big deal. The primary core concerns are need and trust. I thing this nominee has both.
'''Support''', opposition so far is unconvincing. The policy differences across wikipedias at most amount to technical detail, experience at any other large Wikipedia would substantially acquaint you with all our critical policies.
'''Support''' has put in the hard graft and shows commitment to Wiki. Good luck- We need more like you!
'''Strong Support''' translations are a difficult task to do - clearly proves your worth.
'''Strong Support'''-this long time user has great credibility. So i'm supporting him .
'''Support''' The candidates answer to Q2 and with 20,000 edits in another language Wikipedia shows dedication. His breakdown of Q1 dealing with vandals shows a civil minded approach to dealing with others. In my book, civility is the same in all languages. Here is my trust and support.
'''Support''' An impressive candidat; it eems odd to discount his great experience on other wikis.--
'''Support''' A multilingual user with strong admin experience regardless of the language, is a valuable asset to the admin staff. To me, his experience proves he has the basic qualities for a good admin and that's what we should look for; I'd rather choose him over someone with a higher edit count in english but no experience in admin matters or contributions in other languages. Whether or not he has a high edit count on english Wikipedia shouldn't be held against him; after all Wikipedians are encouraged to be adventurous; and I believe his previous experience in SV will also be a factor in him not being bold to the point of misusing his admin privileges. And if at all, our inability to read his contributions to swedish Wikipedia should be held against us, not him.
'''Support'''. He would quite obviously make a better admin than most existing admins (especially me, with my 31% major edit summary usage... maybe I should be de-adminned for that transgression). :)
'''Strong Support'''. Per all above. 20,000 edits, and well-rounded ones too. Being on a wiki with far fewer admins means that an even greater responsibility was there. Impressive answers to the questions.
'''Support''' - trustworthy editor who won't abuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Happy to see an editor from another wiki bring his admin expertise here. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>(
'''Support''', was going to oppose because of the fact that Morse doesn't know the English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia community as well as an admin should...but the fact is, after 20000 edits on another wiki, it is proof that this is a hardworking user who is nothing but an asset to en, sv and whichever other one's he visits. This user is to be trusted, and even after 1000 or 2000 more edits, this user is trusted to be be the same user that we are voting for here. Basically, I trust Morse. '''
'''Strong Support'''. RFA is about trust, if they can be trusted not to abuse the tools on another wikimedia project, I see no reason why we should refuse to extend that trust here. IMHO it wouldn't matter if they had 5 edits here in this case, if they have a legitimate reason to want tools, they should get them. Experience isn't really a big deal here - honest mistakes we can clean up after, malice is a bit harder to fix. -
'''Support''' (This is the first time I've contributed to an RFA) I really think we need more multi-lingual '''admins''' for cases such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sheynhertz-Unbayg|this]] (where a user engages in the same problematic activity on Wikipedia in multiple languages) and [[Talk:Charun/Archive1|this]] (where a content dispute begins on the English Wikipedia, moves to the French Wikipedia, then the Italian Wikipedia, then the Spanish Wikipedia, and for a while I was expecting the miracle of Google Translate to bring it to ALL the Wikipedias).  In the first instance, the user was blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia for a long time before coming to [[WP:RFC]] and eventually being blocked on the English one.  Just recently he's been blocked on the German one as well.  If someone was an admin on all the languages, the disruption to English and German could have been avoided as soon as he proved problematic on Japanese.  In the second instance, the users in question were creating accounts in the other languages just to add their points of view to that specific article.  I believe they may have been using Google Translate to do so.  A multi-lingual admin could have followed them around reverting their disruption and reminding them to keep disputes that began on the English Wiki on the English Wiki. ~
'''Strong Support'''&mdash; per [[User:Mailer diablo| Mailer Diablo]] (yes Mailer Diablo) [[User:Yanksox| Yanksox]] &
'''Support'''. Although I was sceptical at first, after reading the Q&A, and many of the support and oppose statements, I offer basic support for the adminship of [[User:MoRsE]] (with the stipulation that if adminship requests from admins on other Wikipedias with low edit counts on the English Wikipedia becomes a regular occurrence, they will receive much greater scrutiny and scepticism). Basically, I found the oppose aguments unconvincing.
'''Weak Support''' He'll add a valuable viewpoint as a non-native speaker.
'''<s>Support</s>Strong Support.''' (Changed from Neutral) As an admin on another wikipedia, this user has proven that they are reliable, and I trust them to make good decisions.    No one has shown that this user has ever been irresponsible. Any responsible wikipedian can be trusted to understand policy and if they don't understand it, they can just look it up.  Even if they don't do that, then they will easily stand to be corrected when someone points out unlikely mistakes.  This user may only use the ability sparingly, but that's perfectly fine with me. '''Update:''' I didn't read any of the other support comments here before voting support, but after reading them, I changed to strong support, as I agree totally with them (Williamborg, et al). --
'''Support'''. This user is an administrator in another wikipedia, and that gives him a lot of knowledge about admin issues. Though he doesn't have as much experience here, he is still a valuable member and I think that he should become an admin. In my opinion, the experience on every wikipedia counts, not only in english. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' - ''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>'''Weak oppose''' <s>low edit count (it's just the English Wikipedia that is counted),</s> low summary usage and you can deal with vandals well enough without being an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I look at edit counts in the English Wikipedia only, not anywhere else. 300 edits here is not enough to show us that you know the rules, policies, etc. unique to the English Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' per Alex.
'''Oppose''' edit count(254), no edit summaries. no good reason stated. possibly later.--&nbsp;<span style="background: #fff; font-family:  Tw Cen MT, Futura, sans-serif;">
'''Oppose''' per above. I wouldn't mind taking another look at a later time, however.
Reluctant, qualified '''Strong Oppose''' I know MoRsE is a special case, and I respect his contributions elsewhere; but, to grasp English Wikipedia, one needs to edit it.  One language wiki is not equivalent to another.  I know user has the best intentions, but he does not meet my minimum edit floor (which, at 500 edits, is very low in itself.)
'''Oppose''', almost no use of edit summaries, and almost no edits here for that matter.
'''Oppose''' mainly per concerns raised by Xoloz and others above. Unfortunately, I don't read, write or speak any languages other than English, so I'm not able to review the candidate's contributions to non-English wikis and therefore do not feel I can take those contributions into consideration. Also, the different Wikis have different cultures and without MoRsE establishing a contribution history here it is impossible to know if he will be a good fit to the EN or not. I don't think it is asking to much to request that MoRsE establish a reasonable contribution history here before we decide to give him the extra tools.
'''Oppose''', 254 edits. I remind everyone that this is en, not sv. 17,000 edits is great, but I want some contributions to en before I support. But due to the fact that most of us can't speak Swedish, we are unable to assess most of MoRsE's contributions. En is not sv. Plus, answers to questions show a need for adminship on sv, which he already has. Sorry.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Just because you're an admin on sv doesn't mean that you should be one on en.   IMO you just can't become an admin with only 330 en.wik edits. Multilingual you may be but I spotted one or two grammar and spelling errors, which probably explains your meager en.wik contributions. No.
'''Oppose''', being an admin elsewhere shouldn't be justification to be admin on another language wikipedia. If I ever become an admin I don't think I could use that for justification to becoming an admin on say the simple English wikipedia because even though they're one language I have not contributed at all to the other. The edit count on this specific wikipedia is way too low and would have no chance of passing if it was any other editor as well as the lack of edit summaries. &ndash;&ndash; '''
'''Oppose''': The edit count for me isn't high enough. I am glad you wish to contribute to the english Wikipedia, but I feel that just because you have an adminship elsewhere it shouldn't automatically give you adminship somewhere else. I think to get adminship you need to be able to prove that you willing to help on this project. You could be a great help to the community but right now I don't think I can say Support due to the amount of work you have done here. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. Yes, the candidate seems to have extensive experience on the Swedish wikipedia, but he is applying for adminship on the ''English'' wikipedia, and therefore it is experience on the ''English'' wikipedia that is important. And 254 edits is not good enough.
'''Oppose'''. I fully trust that this user has a great record of contributions to the Swedish wikipedia, but this is the English one, and he does not have sufficient experience here. I think having solid editing and writing experience on the English Wikipedia is an absolute prerequisite for being an admin here. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', firstly [[WP:WAIN|adminship is not a trophy]]. Secondly, adminship is not an [[International Drivers License|international driving license]] in which you can simply convert adminship from your native Wikipedia. Finally, [[cultural difference|in Rome do what the Romans do]], please gain more experience in the English Wikipedia as there are several processes which may differ from your native Wikipedia (such as standards, deletion process and RfA itself). - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose'''. More time here, please.

'''Oppose''' for now. Not enough edits.
'''Oppose''' per, among others, Mailer Diablo and Orfen. --
Per Mailer Diablo - <b>
'''Oppose''' - per Mailer Diablo, adminship for en requires involvement and experience same as on sv --
'''Oppose''' per Mailer Diablo. Just because you're one on another wiki doesn't mean you should be one here.The english Wikipedia is incredibly unique. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·
'''Oppose''' per Mailer Diablo. Under 600 edits? and only ~50 in the wp mainspace? sorry.. --[[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub>
'''Oppose''' based on level of participation on en.--
'''Oppose''' Per Mailer Diablo.  Adminship not transferrable from other projects or languages inheirently and not a trophy.  Involvement similar to sv should be shown first.  Thank you for contributing to the english wikipedia, please continue to do so, and reapply when your contributions to the english are of the same caliber, in which case I will support.
'''Oppose''', MoRsE, only scores 14 of my [[User:Legolost|Admin Assesment Scale]], which falls below the minimum of 20 points --
'''Oppose''' as per above. He isn't involved enough here and needs some more experience on the English wikipedia (I think I would be better qualified!). He is trustworthy though. -
'''Oppose'''.  The low edit summary usage - which has been a red area at RFA for many months - tips it for me.  While I think that some of the opposers are overestimating the uniqueness of en (ja norms sound very different compared to those of the European langauges), I would expect to see a distribution of edits that show that, even if the user doesn't have in depth knowledge of policies and guidelines, at least have enough exposure to them to know what he or she doesn't know about the little cultural tics on en.  With appreciation for this user's substantial contributions to sv, I do not see that level of involvement on en and would rather he demonstrated it before he got the mop rather than after. -
'''Oppose''' Extremely low edit summary usage and experience on Swedish Wikipedia does not equal experience on the English Wikipedia.  Sorry. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Sorry you just dont meet my criteria for edit summarys (Less then 15% major and less then 10% minor); Also I do not believe you would require the tools to do what you wish to do. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral; close to Oppose''' nonething much to say, it's per Matt and Alex.
'''Neutral''' You look like a good editor, edit summaries notwithstanding, but the answers to the questions above don't reveal a requirement for admin tools on this Wiki at this time. Article improvements and vandal warnings can be issued by any editor regardless of status. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' per above, as through his answers MoRsE has shown he more or less understands process around here, and is apparently a good contributor on svwiki, even if he doesn't have a gazillion enwiki edits.  Remember, Wikipedia is a multi-lingual project. However, I'm neutral because edit summary use is really quite necessary, and answers aren't that strong.
'''Neutral''' MoRsE seems to be a good editor, but needs a few more enwiki edits and better summary use. Try again in a few months and I might support.
'''Neutral''' per Grand Slam's comments. Moreover, I feel that this user does not deserve an oppose view as he is a trustworthy editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''', good editor, looks like you need more edits is needed on enwiki. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Obviously a trustworthy editor, but I'd like to see more experience with the en.wp project before I can support nomination. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
''''Neutral'''. It's great that he intends to pitch in here more (although I hope sv won't suffer for it), but I'm still not sure why he needs admin tools now on en, while he is still not all that active. --
'''Neutral''' Leaning towards '''Weak oppose.''' The sparse use of edit summaries is only a little alarming. It is good to see that he wants to help out 'the mother ship'- my question is how good is he down in Swedish ? For all we know, he could be the roguest rogue admin there or  perhaps even the best admin they have. Unfortunately, there is no witness here to attest his worthiness as admin on the Swedish wikipedia.
This user appears to have just returned from a ten-month wikibreak (as he has nearly no edits whatsoever between the end of January and yesterday). I recommend that he gives himself some time to reacquaint himself. (
'''Oppose''' tasks of Wikipedia are different from real life responsibilities. You need time to get acquainted with the former. Try again in 5-6 months. <tt>
'''Oppose'''. If the candidate were to become more active again and remain so for a healthy period of time, I'd be more willing to consider the RFA. --
'''Oppose'''. Thanks for putting yourself forward and please don't take this oppose as a reflection on your abilities, simply on the amount of experience. Come back in 3 months with 3000+ edits.
'''Neutral''' Amongst those 1200 edits I see a lot of disambiguation link repair and Afd votes. What I see all seems to be good, but those are high volume edits, and I would expect a much larger contribution from someone whose edits are largely made up of them. I would also like to see more user interataction - your talk page is very sparse, indicating you havent had a huge amount of interaction with the community outside AfDs. I am giving a neutral, because I feel that you may well make a good admin one day if you work on these areas.
Asking for more edits would not be proper. As you can see in his contributions, he has lot of ''disambiguation link repair'' and ''Afd votes''; building up edits will not be indicative of the user's experience. The reason I am not supporting this user here is that his edits have been rather sporadic and as Radiant has stated, he has returned from a ten-month wikibreak &ndash; this probably was not a proper time to go for an RfA. Please make all-round contributions to Wikipedia, which preferably involve more article-writing and vandal-fighting. We would have more reasons to support you. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - While a focus on AfD and Disag is good, I'd need to see more compelling reasons for need of tools before I could vote for support. There is also insufficient focus on other areas of Wikipedia. Try again in a few months. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Neutral''' - Don't want to start a pile on and I think most of what needs to be said has been said.  I agree with [[User:Radiant!]] that it seems more like a 10-month absence instead of 6-7 months.  Returning to any significant amount of contributions for only 2 days after being gone since the beginning of this year is way too little for me to support a nom for adminship, but from what I see you'd be an excellent candidate after a few months of steady contributions. --
'''Neutral''' Withdraw This RfA and go for an [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] instead.  There's nothing wrong with your participation when you were last active; just carry on being as active in the main, project and user spaces with encyclopedic contributions, sources, references, new page and vandal patrols and warnings and XfD participation.  Try again in three or four months' time with consistent edits in the interim.
'''Neutral''' A very bold move indeed, but please withdraw and return when you have gathered some experience. Good luck. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Support.'''
'''Edit-conflicted-somebody-beat-me-to-it support'''. Seen this one around; may involve some OJT (and, what doesn't?), but I'm convinced this editor has the tools to use the tools, and wisely. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' I've seen this user around ANI and AIV, they seem very communicative, and they have a good number of edits in the important areas. I see no reason why this user would have trouble as an admin.--[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Seen you a few times on RCP. Good to get as many vandal fighters in as admins as possible! Good luck!
'''Support'''. Although you're somewhat new, I won't hold that against you because I know you're a great editor. And even if this one doesn't pass, your next one definitely will.
'''<s>Weak</s> Support''' I see no problems, and the 'I'm green, just correct me if I'm wrong' attitude in your [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24 Mail-order bride|first mediation case]] is a good sign (this was as a mediator, not a party). <s>I've never liked the new messages practical joke for admins (as on Lefty's user page), so support is weak.</s>(was removed).--
'''Support'''. Good user.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Well thought out answers, good work, diligent service. What's not to like?
'''Support''' A little new, but looks fine.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.--

'''Full support''' along with [[User:Danielrocks123|Danielrocks123]], this is one of the rare diamonds-in-the-rough.
'''Stong Support''' I'd much rather have Lefty's exuberance than the attitudes that some admins sometimes exhibit.
'''Support''' - Changed from ''neutral'' after Mr. Lefty's answer and double checking. -- ''
'''Support''' per answers to my questions.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. Good user. Been here almost 6 months (longer as an IP) - long enough. --
'''Support''' meets [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
He'll probably be a good admin -
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
&ndash;
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''<small>Right-handed</small> Support''' All I've seen is good from this person.  May be new, but I think I'm safe in supporting the lefty.
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' he is no less experienced than I was when I became an admin, he has also given no reason whatsoever to believe he will misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. Very good track record of editing, mature responses below. User talk page indicates that the user is actively fighting vandalism already. Give the man a mop.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Support''' would benifit from, and not abuse, admin tools.
'''Support'''  good admin candidate --
'''Weak Oppose''' per insufficient experience, esp. given self-nom, but will probably be happy to support in the future. - <b>
'''Oppose''' -- not enough time, as an editor --
'''Oppose'''. Still too new for me, sorry. Also, I wasn't particularly impressed when Mr Lefty got himself blocked for pagemoves by Curps bot. The pages were [[User:GeorgeMoney/movethis1]] and [[User:GeorgeMoney/movethis2]], which were moved to [[User:GeorgeMoney/movethis1 ON WHEELS!!!]] etc. Although I like humour, I thought that was a bit silly, and poking around in someone else's userpages isn't particularly impressive. --
'''Weak oppose''',  a bit too new for me; would also like to see a few more project edits--
'''Oppose''' per TBC, but I add that you are doing a great job editing so far. --
'''Oppose''' per Lord Deskana. --
'''Weak oppose''' per TBC. --
'''Weak Oppose''' as [[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]] & [[User:Tree Biting Conspiracy|TBC]], you are doing a excellent job & most probably be happy to support in the future.--
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]], notice on the users page is a vandalism magnet. The user only started editing heavily in march so the user hasn't reached his 4 month yet. Just too early for an RfA. Try again in 1-3 months(if this RfA fails) and I'll probably support ya.--<font style="background:white">
Doesn't meet my [[User:Cyde/Admin criteria|admin criteria]].  --
'''Oppose''' Mr Lefty, Cyde's are mainly humorous, though I think your reply is incivil.
''' Oppose''' I just don't think you're ready, sorry. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' A little too early for me. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' As others above have said, editor has too little experience at this time.
'''Oppose''' on experience.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experince. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Looking at the recent conflict on [[Clockwise and counterclockwise]], I don't feel that much effort was made to reach a consensus (for instance, renaming the article to [[clockwise and counterclockwise/anti-clockwise]], which is what is listed on [[Clockwise (disambiguation)]]), although on [[User_talk:Lucy-marie#Your_edit_to_Clockwise_and_counterclockwise|Lucie-marie's talk page]] you claimed that Lucy-marie was reverting against consensus. I also do not support the use of block warnings for content disputes, especially one that you (you being the person making the block warning) are involved in. I'm not saying you were uncivil, just that you could use a bit more experience dealing with conflicts, and I am certainly willing to support in the future.
'''Neutral''' I like more experience in my administrators. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''', nothing to oppose for but a little short on experience to support, especially for a self-nom.
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a good editor, but doesn't appear to have quite enough experience yet. Will definitely support in a couple of months.
'''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral'''. Not necessarily to oppose, and support either. But Occasionally, He makes some mistakes so, I could have supported if he didn't move page into page that Deskana mentioned.





Do it! He's a genius and his edits are 100% meaningful!
'''Support''' After reading all the negative opposition, I intially wasn't going to vote, but I felt guilty, as he requested my help in this vote and I once requested his help in a vote against deletion, so it is my obligation to vote in favour.
'''Oppose''', sorry, at 100 edits, you are far too new. This seems to be a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" RfA, though there's nothing explicitly against that. Also, your answers to the RfA questions are ''much'' too short. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''', not enough experience yet.  Also, please make a better use of [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] and consider participating more in the project space so that people who vote can be better assured that you are familiar with Wikipedia policies.  Also, nominating each other at the same time like this looks very unprofessional to me.  Keep contributing and happy editing! --
'''Oppose''' per Deathphoenix. --
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''': very premature.
'''Strong Oppose'''. The swapping RfA nominations thing rules this out.
'''Oppose''', mostly per lack of experience, but also for misuse of process by trading nominations and support votes with [[User:The Fish|The Fish]]. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Oppose''' per above--
'''Oppose''' too new, begging for "votes" [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlistairMcMillan&oldid=38358256]].
'''Oppose.''' Only 65 edits...is this a joke? If not, you need a lot more experience. I don't mean the joke statement to slam you but as the guidelines state, you need at least 1000 edits to be seriously considered for admin.--
Sorry, but I have to '''oppose''' due to a low number of edit counts (only 65, according to Interiot's tool) and a rather contentious debate at [[Talk:Robert "Knox" Benfer]] and [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Robert_.22Knox.22_Benfer]].  I don't think I can trust Mushrambo with the mop in these circumstances.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Elkman.  I don't blame editor, since he's new, but he was contentious at DRV, and his edits are very low.
'''Oppose''' per Alabamaboy.
'''Strong oppose''', of course.  47 edits as of toolserver lag, forging support votes, 2 failed nom attempts.  --
'''This RfA is a total joke'''. --
Somebody delist this.
Per Mackensen. -
'''Strong Oppose''', impersonation of other users, low edit count, lacks of experience. Delist it, bad joke RFA. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strongest Oppose''', per all the above, particularly stuffing of ballot. A bad joke. Consider a block for disruption if bad faith can be conclusively demonstrated.
'''Strong Oppose''', only present for 10 days? It takes months to learn how to work as an admin! Sorry man... --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Speedy Oppose''' (is there such thing ?) Suggest B'Crat early closure, and think pile on oppose votes would be of little benefit, as it all seems to be said in the first few!
'''Strong Oppose''' as per Rory's comments on AN:I. May need a block for disruption aside from this disaster. --
'''Oppose''' One day you may make a fine admin, but it usually takes a few months of time on wikipedia and a few thousand edits before that time comes. You also haven't completed your RFA as you never inserted the time of closing at the top. You may want to consider withdrawing your RFA and reapplying in a few months time. --
'''Strong oppose''' for the same reasons mentioned above; I strongly advise the candidate to withdraw the nomination until a lot more experience has been gained.   [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
as nominator '''
'''Oppose''' Impressive amount of edits for a month, but would prefer to see you here for a month or two longer to see more of how you interact with other users and how you understand policy --
'''Oppose'''. I sometimes bend my 3-month-minimum rule, but one month, busy as it may have been, is simply not enough to absorb the culture and community standards on WP, even for a fast learner like Naconkantari. A good vandal-fighter, but I'm worried by the fact that he is a self-proclaimed deletionist, which may be a bigger issue than the short time here.
Naconkantari is a good vandal fighter, but I would like to see more article edits by him before I can support. He has very few article contributions and only 40 for article talk pages. Also I don't think that one month is enough to become admin so wait a few more months. --
'''Support''' Use of edit summaries is overrated as almost all users who become administrators stop using them. I also find the response to NC's answer for question 1 questionable. It seems a lot like users are desperately trying to find an excuse to oppose. While a lack of communal interaction and familiarity with Wikipedia are valid reasons to oppose, I have not seen any diffs showing this user misusing Wikipedian formatting or abusing other users.
'''Support'''. But please use more edit summaries. --

I want to give him a chance. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Based on edits alone, you have very little interactive experience with Wikipedia. Only 50 project space, 1 project talk, and 6 user talk (4 of which are you blanking your own talk page...a very inexperienced thing to do, especially when you're on RfA and you make other users dig for your old information). The most important thing an admin does is interact with the Wikipedia community in some way or another, and you seem to only have written ''2'' things on other users' talk pages, and outside of FAC, you have practically zero experience contributing to guidelines, policies, AfD, RfA, etc. Getting out of the edits zone, your initial statement is less than comforting to those of us who might want to give you the ability to wield blocking power (and it is from that point of view that I am being such a hard ass about my guidelines here). We can't award you adminship if you have a very inconsistent (and short) track record, because good intentions aren't good enough when it comes to RfA. I agree with most of the information in question 3, but I can only find one instance in your contributions when you confronted a vandal, and even then it wasn't using proper any proper templates. You answer to question 1 looks a bit strange to me as well: "''It is my personal goal to become the vain of adolescents everywhere who find it entertaining to add "l33t haxorz" to every page.''" Not only does it seem like you might abuse the revert powers given to you, but it also seems like you've got something against adolescent members of the Wikipedia community, considering it seems like you implied that most vandals are that way because they are young. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but with more experience (and more than 200 edits every half year), you might be a decent candidate. If you feel like immersing yourself in the Wikipedia community, please look around [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] and [[WP:AfD]] for starters. Come back in a few months and try to decided then if you feel you are ready for adminship. Thanks for reading,
'''Oppose''' - I'll be honest that I don't dig self-nominations, but beyond that, which especially shows in your answer to question 3, all you are saying is 'if that situation came up, I would do this and that', but you obviously have little experience in the matters. It seems illogical to give admin power to someone who has like the person before me said 'little interactive experience with wikipedia'.
'''Oppose''' To few [[edit summaries]].
'''Oppose'''. If you set the goal for yourself to be an administrator, I suggest that you perform some maintenance tasks allowed to non-editors and participate more in the Talk: and Wikipedia: areas. In addition, you should use edit summaries with much greater frequency and have some clear-cut goals with where you want to contribute as an administrator. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose with advice''': Instead of removing old messages from your user talk page, you could [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|archive]] them so that other users can easily review them. --
'''Oppose''' this time around. Nick, I don't doubt your reasons to become an admin. However, I feel that you need more experience working within the en.wikipedia community before I support your nomination. I see no particular examples of work resolving disputes or moderating issues. If there are, can you fill me in?
'''Oppose''': Only around 500 edits. Too little <b><font style="background: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|D]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:DaGizza|a]]</font><font color="yellow">
'''Oppose'''. To little time, to little Wiki policy knowledge.'''
'''Oppose''' Be more active, then re-nominate yourself later. --
'''Oppose''' until you get more experience, especially with chores.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Inconsistant use of edit summaries, barely any use of User Talk shows little direct user interaction.
'''Oppose'''.  As per above.  More experience needed and higher percentage of edit summaries is a must. --
'''Neutral''' Use edit summaries more often and you will gain my future support.--

'''Neutral'''. Your heart's in the right place, but perhaps later. --
'''Oppose''' User is far to inactive to be admin. 107 edits in 3 months is far to inactive. Your opening description of yourself doesn't existent. ''Self'' isn't a very convincing description. You've been here for a long time though, but maybe more activity should be required. You've been here since 2004, but only have 831 edits to your name. I don't usually support a user that has less than 2,000. Low user talk namespace edits, only 45 total.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' It is very rare for me to oppose any RFAs. However, I have to reluctantly oppose this nomination as the user does not seem to have a '''STRONG''' commitment to [[Wikipedia]]. Although he has been here since 2004, his edit counts are way too few. Unless you can convince me otherwise, my vote shall remain oppose. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' because of bad judgment.  Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=29606715 this] and was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shocker_%28hand_gesture%29&diff=prev&oldid=25784422 this] necessary? -
I'm afraid I have to '''oppose'''.  I usually like to see more evidence of commitment to particular articles, and, while he has been here quite a long time, the low number of edits makes me fear less familiarity with policy.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the things you list in your answer #1 do not require adminship. You can be an effective vandalism patroller as a regular editor: take a look at the [[WP:CVU|Counter Vandalism Unit]] and [[WP:RCP|Recent Changes Patrol]] pages which detail how you can be involved and give you tools to help fight vandalism. As mentioned elsewhere here, you have very few edits. Admins need to know a lot about Wikipedia policy and need to show they can work with users to fairly and calmly apply those policies. I just don't see evidence in your edit history or answers here that you have this knowledge yet, despite your long history at Wikipedia. Your answer to question #3 is essentially empty: I would have liked to see some examples of how you deal with difficult situations as that's a core part of the Admin role. Best,
'''Oppose''' per above.  I strongly suggest this be withdrawn to avoid a pile-on.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''oppose'''. I don't want to pile on, but for next time, it strikes me that the candidate's description of his attitude towards AfDs (answer #2 below) does not seem well thought out.
'''Strong Oppose''' User has been here since September of 2004 but has only got 141 edits total. I like you being here for this long but maybe being a little bit more active could help. Lack of Communication with other editors, RFA/AFD/TFD/CFD votes are slim. Did I miss anything?
'''Support''' In addition to my comments in nomination statement, his maintenance work on categories and references as well as on articles within several WikiProjects in which I also am active all indicate good collaborative efforts. He has my strong support.

Insufficient project-space editcount implies unfamiliarity with process. Most of yours are Wikiproject-related, anyway. This nomination is very premature. You should have done a lot more communicating as well. - <b>
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> <s>'''Strong oppose'''</s> <s>'''Stronger oppose'''</s> '''Strongerer oppose''' per Crz. I'm very happy that you're such a good contributor to articles, keep that up. But article contributions show no use for admin tools, and you don't have very many edits not related to article building. Adminship isn't just "good contributor" status. By the way, as a general piece of unrelated advice, don't try to do things only if they're approved by all. Nothing is approved by everyone. -
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' Not enough experience with XfD.
'''Oppose'''- Not enough Wikipedia edits--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' per the disturbing evidence (especially regarding votestacking) unearthed by Amarkov and per the distressing concerns of CrzRussian. And the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=95589525&oldid=95580238 you initially screwed up this RfA] makes me concerned about your knowledge (or lack of) of Wikipedia process. Sorry. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose'''. Though the candidate looks fine, I'm concerned that his goal since joining Wiki has been to become an Admin, and that he is applying subtle pressure on people to vote for him, yet he is unable to provide any convincing reasons as to why he should be given the job. It looks like the Admin status is being sought for its own sake - that is for prestige and power - rather than out of a sense of duty and responsibility
'''Oppose''' Eek, closing your own AfD nomination is wrong and when they are deletes that's bad - It raises concerns over [[WP:NPOV]] and questions impartiality over the AfD process, especially to outsiders. Also, a non-admin closing an AfD is silly- it's not explicitly against the rules but it leaves an AfD closed with the article still present, ideally an admin will delete an article at the same time as closing the AfD. I was edit conflicted voting Neutral and the edit conflict brought to light canvassing by the nominator. I'm now reluctantly opposing. Sorry.  --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose''', sorry, but [[WP:SPAM|canvassing]] related to this RfA, especially with the ''request'' to support, makes this a maleformed attempt to guage concensus. Also, you have not demonstrated experience in admin areas, especially in the project [[WP:NS|namespace]]. Diffs: '''Candidate canvassing:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sushant_gupta&diff=prev&oldid=95620733] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarolGray&diff=prev&oldid=95621489] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarolGray&diff=prev&oldid=95621662] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki&diff=prev&oldid=95622449] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_harrison&diff=prev&oldid=95622855] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPD01605&diff=prev&oldid=95623202] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:20176&diff=prev&oldid=95623461] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPS&diff=prev&oldid=95623930] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Commander_Keane&diff=prev&oldid=95625416] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JesseW&diff=prev&oldid=95625748] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alphachimp&diff=prev&oldid=95628100] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NE2&diff=prev&oldid=95628509] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mets501&diff=prev&oldid=95629166] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rschen7754&diff=prev&oldid=95636144] '''Nominator canvassing:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WCFrancis&diff=prev&oldid=95611050] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomf688&diff=prev&oldid=95611531] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ted_Wilkes&diff=prev&oldid=95612351] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_Grimes&diff=prev&oldid=95613017] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Speedway&diff=prev&oldid=95613596] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sobesurfski&diff=prev&oldid=95614155] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slambo&diff=prev&oldid=95614923] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petaholmes&diff=prev&oldid=95616456] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carptrash&diff=prev&oldid=95616858] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caponer&diff=prev&oldid=95617175] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cecropia&diff=prev&oldid=95617572] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dale_Arnett&diff=prev&oldid=95618239] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eoghanacht&diff=prev&oldid=95618982] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Niteowlneils&diff=prev&oldid=95620221] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hlj&diff=prev&oldid=95620710] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MPS&diff=prev&oldid=95621926] '''
'''Oppose''', for the canvassing misstep. I don't see that as the end of the world, but more of an error in judgment that clarifies poor understanding of norms in wikipedia. Although I remain interested in reading your thoughts on question 4. Also curious about the nominator canvassing now. -
'''No''': All of this candidate's edits since the acceptance of this nom have been votespamming. That's NOT acceptable. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' Your contributions show you to be a good editor but I see some notable omissions, namely lack of vandal warnings issued on user Talk pages and a low number of XfD contributions.  I am also concerned about XfD participation such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Fleming&diff=prev&oldid=68906685 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cambok&diff=prev&oldid=73015877 this], where you closed AfD pages without having the power to effect the 'delete' decision.  I think that with this also being mentioned on your editor review that you have learned that non-admins can only close unequivocal 'keep' articles, yes?  To summarise, I will turn from neutral to support when I see evidence of vandal fighting and associated warnings - perhaps contributions to [[:WP:AIV]] as well, and a demonstration of applications of [[:WP:Policy|policies and guidelines]] at Xfd discussions.
'''Neutral''' per crz. You haven't really done much with the project. Wikipedia Admins need to actively participate in and work with the community. I am only voting neutral because I do not wish to opppose an espiring (and, hopefully, future) Administrator. '''
'''Oppose''' because of time here being only a month. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' You really haven't demonstrated any understanding of what sysops do. True, they fight vandals, but there is more. Come back in a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' with fewer than 250 edits and less than a month of time sent here it isn't possible for us to tell if you'd make a good admin. The fact that you haven't been able to properly construct this RfA or answer the questions below with specifics suggests you should come back in a few months once you've had more time to learn about Wikipedia. Good luck,
'''Oppose''', too new.
'''Oppose''', absolutely not. comments on other RfA's show complete lack of understanding of the sysop duties.
'''Weak Oppose''', until he learns to spell and to punctuate.
'''Oppose'''.  This user "used to be a vandal" and has edited for only a short time since "being booted off Wikipedia."  I'm going to need to see more evidence of familiarity and trustworthiness than what has been demonstrated.  &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose'''. If this person is a self-admitted former vandal, it'll take more than a month to establish a trustworthy reputation, even if one assumes good faith. This nominee's exchange on Gwernol's  [[User_talk:Gwernol#Re_Rfa|talk page]] only further confirms the lack of experience of this user. Nookdog really ought to consider [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] if s/he wants to "get some good advice/comments". Gwernol also [[User_talk:Nookdog#Your_RfA|observed]] the irony of this user opposing Kylu's RFA nomination on the basis that she has been around for too short a time. By his own standards, this nomination ought not succeed.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
I commend your eagerness to further help Wikipedia.  I agree with Digitalme's suggestions and humbly add the suggestion that you sign up for [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]].  This might help you in your desire to help make Wikipedia a better place, as your coach will be able to suggest some great ways to get more involved in helping out without needing the extra buttons.
'''Support'''Meets my criteria and a quick check of contribs doesn't reveal any red flags but does show consistent participation in xfD's.
'''Support''' participates in deletion discussions.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''': A bit light on experience, but my main concern is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=prev&oldid=55451106 this edit] which is a bit uncivil. Continue your good work, and stay civil and you'll do ok on the next RfA. --
'''Oppose''', lack of experience. Only been around for less than three months and less than 1000 edits.
'''Oppose''' per Durin and Royboycrashfan.
'''Oppose''' less than 1k edits total, regardless of xFD activity and with due scepticism of editcountitis, I think more experience is in order. (unconcerned by diff provided by Durin, but not endorsing such language in all cases).
'''Oppose''' per Durin. 2 months too early.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose'''. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you really do not have enough experience. 1000 edits is definitely somewhat of a minimum.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience for an administrator, though the "be bold" line was very thoughtful and I think Northenglish is wise. Maybe after a few more months at this Northenglish will be ready. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki-space edits suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process; also, minor civility concerns per Durin.
'''Oppose'''. Simply not enough experience in many areas, per [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. You're on the right track though. And I admire your use of the word "swimmingly".
'''Oppose''' more exp required.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Besides, you don't need to be a sysop to write good articles. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience. Try again in about 3 months time. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' more experience.
'''Neutral'''. Not quite enough experience. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - I trust that this user would do the right thing, but I'd like to see him on Wikipedia for a bit longer. Nice application of the Be Bold guideline, by the way. —
'''Neutral''' maybe too early. But pretty good-looking right now. --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Seems like a good article creator. Has started quite a lot of new content. Though I would want you to broaden your admin activites. Seems like every potential admin just wants to close AFD's though i have nothing against it. --
'''Support'''. Although I was a bit worried at first when I looked at the number of user talk edits, I saw that the user has contributed to Wikipedia-related and article-related discussions. I have no worries abuot this user.
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per user's exemplary actions at [[WP:SRNC]]. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
Swimming '''support''' per nom. Well done, sir.
'''Strong support''' Remained civil and cooperative during [[WP:SRNC]] and stuff beforehand, diligent worker. --'''
'''Support'''. Civil and cooperative, has contributed a lot to Wikipedia. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' per nom. Couldn't have said it better myself. A great all-around editor and contributor. --
'''Very Strong Support''' per last and this nom.
'''Support''' I will support but I would like to see more vandalfighting evidence with user Talk warnings in the future.

'''Support''' - no reason not to. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Appears to be a well-versed user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' A good established user.
'''Support''' Well, I can't find any reasons not to. A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' solid candidate willing to help clear backlogs.
'''Support''' weel qualified.--
'''Support''' I don't know the user and I don't know about the roads issue, but the answers to the questions are promising, editor looks like a diligent worker, the other support comments are convicing, and I like the answer to my question. &mdash;
'''Support''' per Radiant and Malber. —'''[[User:Mirlen|<font color="coral">Mir</font>]][[User talk:Mirlen|<font color="darkorange"><span style="cursor:help">l</span></font>]]
'''Support''' no evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--
'''Support'''. I'm perhaps a little disappointed not to find the "controversy" the nom predicted in his statement.
'''Support''' - we need more hands at [[CAT:CSD]].
'''Support''' I opposed last time, and I'm proud to say I support now. Good guy, will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Go for it, why not?
'''Support''' I'm not sure where the potential controversy might stem from, as the candidate appears to be a very good user who has demonstrated that he can be trusted with the extra buttons

'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society]], which was the most hellish AFD I ever closed, his thoughts there impreed me.
'''Support''' <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support.''' So he's not perfect. Who is? He's perfect enough by my standards. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom. I doubt anyone's going to come out of the road controversy perfectly clean, but I'm not seeing anything bad enough out of there to cancel out the good work he's done.
'''Support''' per nom. The ''highway controversy'' isn't enough to cancel out this RfA for me; if anything, Northenglish seems to have improved because of it. Lesson learned and applied.
'''Weak Support''' per above. Go for it. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support'''. The Highway Debate is not all-important. '''''
'''Strong oppose''' based on pushing to renew and continue debate in highway naming controversy far past the fruitfull point, even after agreement had been reached, on the Minnesota highways, for example, and "manufacturing controversy" in highway projects--as he admitted to.

Per Freakofnurture.  I am very concerned with his claims of having been involved in all of this highway and SPUI stuff before any of his actual contributions show that he became involved.  There are only two possible interpretations, and neither of them are good: either he isn't telling the truth, or he previously interacted with SPUI using a still-undisclosed "alternate account".  --
"Out of retirement" oppose per freakofnurture. Admins should support consensus, not the imposition of a [[foolish consistency]], even when [[User:Lar|other admins]] wrongly try to do just that. --
'''Oppose''' per question #5, User:Freakofnurture, low number user talk edits and need to warn vandals.--
The incidents FoN raise are too many to give me a good feeling at this time. Perhaps later. '''Oppose''' ++
'''Oppose''' per freak.
'''Oppose''' per FreakOfNurture.  I also have seen light incivility from the editor on occasion, and just don't feel comfortable seeing him with the mop for now.
'''Oppose''' per freak. I don't find Dakota's objections terribly compelling, but this user is far too bureaucratic and legalistic and just plain not nice. We don't need more bureaucracy around here, and we surely don't need more meanness. -
'''Oppose''' per freak --
<strike>'''Neutral''' until question 4 is answered. &mdash;
'''I was going to nominate her soon support''' Excellent user --
'''Support''' In my experience with her on the [[Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy]] page...well let's just say I thought she already was one! &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
I've seen her around, and I'm a bit surprised she isn't an admin.
'''Support'''.  I've seen ''him'' around and I've only seen good things - and good job clarifying your gender on your user page, ''James''. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Support''' don't care if they are a he or she, he still gets my support.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Apart from the fact that he marks '''all''' of his edits minor, I think that he'll be a great asset to the Wikipedia administration.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Support''' as nominator.  Sorry for not doing so sooner, I was called into work and was unable to get to a computer sooner. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]

'''Support''', expanded answer to question 1 swayed me. —
'''Support.''' '''''— <span style="color:black">
'''Support''' - <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#007700"><b>Ø</b></font></i>
Good editor, but unfortunately I think you're too new. Compared to CS,CWEM, I've hardly encountered you at [[WP:AIV]], where most RC patrollers report persistent vandals, and I've not interacted with you enough. Therefore, I have to respectfully '''oppose''' this nomination at this time.
'''Oppose''' Too new...great work, but not been around long enough.
'''Oppose''' User needs more experience; marks too many edits minor.
'''Oppose''', you're a good editor with good intentions, but I have to agree with the above: you need a little more experience and you need to learn a little more about Wikipedia policies and procedures. Also, your answer to question 1 suggests that you don't really know what admins do: the things you propose to do as an admin can already be done by non-admins. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose'''- no offense intended, but based on your question answers you seem to be unfarmiliar with a lot of wikipedia's policies and structure.--
'''Oppose'''. Per Urthogie. Those are not sysop chores, although they are necessary.'''
'''Oppose'''. Actual active time is really rather short. The answers to the questions do seem to show some considerably unfamiliarity with the fairly important details of various things. Even the expanded answer to Q1 is weak. One does not need admin powers to be able to deal effectively with vandalism alone. I think some more time spent swimming around in more pools and doing more things will allow a better demonstration of the editor's good judgement and may also show the editor various, important, things that he hasn't come across yet. -
'''Oppose''' - too new
'''Oppose''' per Urthogie. --
'''Oppose''' nothing against this editor, just too new.  i've seen an awful lot of nominations lately for folks with just a few months experience.  i don't understand it, as we don't seem to be really short of admins.  in my opinion, it takes more time than that to get to know this place well.
'''Neutral''' Upon looking at Ohnoitsjamie's contributions, I see a lot of good contributions to Wikipedia. Pretty active on AFD, but lacks any voting on RFA's and other places. Concerns to how Ohnoitsjamie's been fully active as he's only been contributing heavily since November. It's the same situation with a similar RFA as you are great contributor but have hardly enough time here on Wikipedia to consider you admin material..yet. I think you would feel more comfortable with the admin tools in a couple of months, in which I will support then. Don't let this vote discourage you though, I think your still valuable to Wikipedia. —
'''Neutral''' The answer to question 1 doesn't help, can't non-admins Wikify and Expand articles? How are they admin chores? --
'''Neutral''' Looking at the user's talk page I see a lot of flippant and sarcastic replies to vandals or to people questioning reversions, etc. (I can provide diffs if needed but go from the bottom up, you'll see quite a few). It's my view that it is best to always try to be friendly, even when delivering a message that the recepient may not like. Excessive flippancy or sarcasm in an administrator is not a trait I think is good. So for now I suspend judgement (but am interested in what others think... is my view valid?) I'm also not so keen on the answer to question 7.... coverage does not need to be roughly the same, it needs to be proportionate and appropriate. That may make dealing with NPOV questions harder. ++
'''Neutral''' per all above Neutral votes (or whatever people want to call them). --
'''Neutral''' still seems a bit new, although no reason to oppose given time <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Support''' (being the nominator)
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' Pretty good user, deserves the tools.
'''Support''' Has a lot of faith in the project
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''Never seen anything less than politeness, even graciousness, from Ombudsman. BTW, the idea that users are somehow more NPOV in editing if they have a mainstream pov doesn't make sense to me. All significant viewpoints should be included, and who better to represent a minority viewpoint than a determined, polite, fairminded, and knowledgeable person like Ombudsman? Supporting minority viewpoints is not tendentious. Further, someone below is still not satisfied with his patient acceptance of an arb decision he (very civilly) disagreed with. That someone wants him to agree with it when he doesn't agree. In most cases, that is an unreasonable demand.
'''Reluctantly oppose''' due to indications of suboptimal understanding of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]]. I started off with randomly browsing the articles Ombudsman lists as having created, and I'm concerned that most of those I looked at - including those whose history shows he remains involved in editing - tend to be light on (esp. inline-cited) sources; e.g. [[Stealth-adapted viruses|1]], [[Vaccination schedule|2]], [[Thought Police|3]]. More pressingly, one of his articles, [[Bush Crimes Commission]], was eventually deleted (AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission|1]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination)|2]]) due to, ''inter alia'', NPOV and OR issues. His comments in these AfDs (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Crimes_Commission_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=48178381&oldid=48173971 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Crimes_Commission_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=48315631&oldid=48313745 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Crimes_Commission_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=49006570&oldid=48962149 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Crimes_Commission_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=49059718&oldid=49047366 4]) lead me to believe that he might have trouble fairly applying policy to articles on politically charged subjects. I remain open to be convinced otherwise about the foregoing, of course, but in general I think we should not seek out administrators who have open, strong controversial opinions on ''anything'', as good as they may be as editors.
Changed from support due to the ArbCom case. -
'''Oppose''' per the diffs that Sandstein gives. I actually want to encourage editors to have strong openly held opinions about subjects, but all editors are expected to strictly abide by [[WP:NPOV]], its one of our core policies. If you let your opinions override this you cannot be an admin. Sorry. I realize the Bush Crimes Commission AfD was several months ago, so I'm open to being convinced that this is a past matter, but the Arbcom ruling does not help.
'''Oppose''' per the fact that the user is currently under ''permanent'' ArbCom sanctions. -
'''Oppose''' per Sandstein, I'm not a Bush supporter either but this is troubling "This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US."-Ombudsman ▪◦▪
'''Oppose''' per above
'''Oppose''' because he is under [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Ombudsman_placed_on_Probation|sanctions]] <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Oppose''' Users who can block others and protect pages should not have a history of POV-pushing fringe theories. Also, taking up the cause of one-track-mind extremists sounds like gullibility and lack of critical judgment.
'''Oppose'''. Per Sandstein. I do not think that adding text such as  "Many severe [[Autoimmune disease|autoimmune diseases]] are known or suspected to be caused by vaccines" with an edit summary "restore common sense reference to known side effects routinely listed in disclaimers" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=80856615] with no actual source is appropriate. Ombudsman also has a pattern of interesting edit summaries (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPeter_Fletcher&diff=42994790&oldid=42879837] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPeter_Fletcher&diff=43305687&oldid=43292102]  ). --
'''Oppose''' after reading both the article (deleted but still mirrored) and the recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Paul|AfD]] on [[Don Paul]]. I also share Zoe's concerns about the inappropriate username which affects a role the user doesn't have. ~
'''Oppose''', per concerns raised above. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' The ArbCom case is a major concern here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, the ArbCom case raises serious doubts over the ability to maintain true neutrality as an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Was going to stay out of this to avoid pileon, but the comments at the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Paul|AfD]] raise sufficient doubt along with the '''probation''' to lead me to go ahead and !vote.
'''Oppose''' I'd have to say that the user's point-of-view get's in the way of his chances of being an administrator. In my eyes an administrator should be like a judge, no one should be able to tell what he'll decide to do from his tone but that is not possible here. There is a way of having strong personal political beliefs and not letting that get in the way of how you edit.--
'''Oppose''' Spamming user talk pages regarding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Paul|Don Paul AFD]], alerting only users with same viewpoint as his. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&oldid=78807419] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bov&diff=prev&oldid=78807526] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blackcats&diff=prev&oldid=78807786] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkeenaR&diff=prev&oldid=78808004], and other issues with POV pushing. --
'''Oppose''' ArbCom case is a concern; a prospective admin shouldn't be the subject of any current cases
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised above,
Under ArbCom sanctions worries me a little. -
'''Oppose''', due to being under ArbCom sanctions. If you appeal that successfully and come back, I'd probably support.
'''Oppose'''. I don't feel I can support someone for adminship who is currently under significant ArbCom sactions.
'''O'''ppose. Absolutely not. Treats Wikipedia as Indymedia, history of revisionism in many areas, not collaborative when confronted with accusations of POV editing. Likely to abuse admin powers to further his agenda.
'''Oppose''' due to being on current editing probation.  Yes its an indefinite probation, but that doesnt mean infinite, I'd seek to get that cleared up before going for RFA again. —
'''Oppose'''.  Anyone with a long history of having difficulty interacting constructively with those he disagrees with should not be an admin.  I believe that the likelihood that this user would misuse the tools of adminship is too high.
'''Oppose''' due to current editing probation. Maybe you should have tried after your probation was over?
'''Oppose''' due to indefinitely on Probation.  A good name does not a good admin make --
'''Oppose'''. In previous interactions with this editor was he displayed very poor understanding of [[WP:NPOV]] in pushing fringe science in the [[biological psychiatry]] article. That experience leads me to believe providing him with admin tools would be to the detriment of the project. Sadly nothing in his more recent editing has led me to reconsider '''
This user has been placed on probation by the ArbCom, which I think sends a negative message to many people.
'''Neutral''' I'm going to suggest withdrawing this RfA for the timebeing, as an Admin who is on indefinite probation from ArbCom for [[WP:NPOV]]-related edits isn't someone that I would feel happy having review editors' contributions.  I suggest working on getting the indefinite probation lifted, if possible; performing admin-related tasks such as new page, recent change and vandal reporting wouldn't hurt.  So to would be submitting contributions backed up by reliable and verified sources - no one can argue with those. The lifting of this probation would send two signals - that you thoroughly understand [[WP:NPOV]], having been through the mill, and you have raised your game to aspire to the high standards that we all work to uphold.
'''Neutral'''; agree with aeropagitica.
'''Neutral''': His probation overshadows his potential for adminship (the same thing happened with a new admin, {{admin|Khoikhoi}}, some time aback). --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral, leaning towards oppose'''.  I would oppose on the basis of this User's username, which implies a level of authority which he does not have.
'''Neutral''' Some more time needed (after the ArbComm Case) for Adminship <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral'''. Arbcomm probation. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I'm not happy with Ombudsmans' replies to a couple of Neutral votes above, especially [[User:Scobell302]] where Ombudsman states '''Beyond the fact that the ArbCom may have erred in accepting the case at all, since the matter unreasonably bypassed intermediate dispute resolution steps, requests to review the decicison, e-mailed to two of the committee members, were basically ignored.'''. This, for me, smacks of arrogance, where Ombudsman cannot accept he may have been wrong, that he may not fully understand or want to follow [[WP:NPOV]].
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak support.''' Would prefer more experience, but likely won't abuse the tools. <tt>
'''Support''' meets my criteria.
'''Support''' Participates his share into [[Concordia]], seems an unlikely guy to abuse his position.
'''Support'''. Meets my criteria. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Not likely to abuse his broom.
'''Moral Support''' Give it a month --<font color="black">
'''Support'''. Active member in the community and unlike to abuse admin tools. '''''
'''Support''' per [[User:Babylon5|Babylon5]] --<small>'''<font color="red">[[User talk:All in|t A]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Oppose''', too few edits to the article namespace.
'''Oppose''': With all due respect, I wasn't satisfied with answers below. Doesn't prove a thorough enough knowledge of Wikipedia. Maybe try again some other time down the road, after you've had more experience with edit conflicts and whatnot. :) -→
I am indefinably uneasy about your answers to the questions (in particular, the lack of ''any'' stressful interactions; ''all'' users will come across a few, and the number increases exponentially once you become an admin and other editors start to think you should solve all their problems for them).  That's not in itself enough for me to oppose, but combine it with your involvement with Concordia and I'm far from sold on this idea.
'''Oppose''' The answer to Tawker's first question might have been enough. Why wouldn't you report it to [[WP:RCU]]? Also, isn't AfD a debate not a ballot?
'''Oppose''' Same as other users. Not enough article namespace edits, and I am not satisfied at all with the answers below. Support next time maybe.
'''Oppose''' I was prepared to support, albeit weakly, believing the user unlikely to abuse the tools, but I am not at all confident, in view of the question answers given (by which I am troubled in the same fashion as are Mark, Yank, and Forest), that the user would use the mop, etc., properly; even as I don't think he/she would be intentionally disruptive, I can conceive of situations in which his/her misunderstanding of policy might be problematic.
'''Oppose''' - my question 1 troubles me a bit, I'd like to see some attempts at communication first, I'm also concerned about burnout. Adminship does not really increase one's productivity (it actually decreases it, you get stuck in admin tasks and no real editing :-o ) --
'''Oppose''' per most of the above, and question 5, and edit summary usage.  --
'''Oppose'''would block vandals, but I found no vandal warnings or reports to AIV. I would like to see more experience in doing that. Thanks
'''Oppose''' Has a decent amount of experience & edits, but his answer to Tawker's first question scared me.  I got the impression that he might block first and ask questions later, which is never a good thing. [[User:Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''''M'''''</font>]][[:Image:Ceiling_cat_00.jpg|<font color="Blue">'''''r.'''''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mr. Lefty|<font color="Blue">'''''L'''''</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Opppose'''. Very good user, but the relatively limited areas of contributions and the short answers to questions make me question your practical policy knowledge at the minute. Try again in a few months, the extra experience will do you the world of good.
'''Oppose'''. The answers to Tawker questions 1, 5 and 6 are very wrong. Especially the punitive parts of the answer to #1, the entirety of the answer to #5 and the use of the word "majority" in #6. Given #5 and #6, the answer to the very first question is dubious, since it claims the candidate is well-versed in AfD, when the converse is true. Evidently, the candidate needs substantially more experience of the practises, process and policies involved in some very basic parts of being an admin. Take several months to look around, read around generally "be" around and come back then. -
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience and edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', answers don't convince me. Might support in the future. Also, that's a fair use image on your user page.
'''Oppose''' heart in the right place, but needs more grasp of the nitty gritty to stop suspected sockpuppets from determining an outcome, and take that fair use image off your user page please. Wiki doesn't consider that to be fair use!!!
'''<s>Neutral</s> Oppose''' overall a good contributor, however the low amount of minor edits to the main space (could be increased by looking and tagging articles that need improvment, cleanup, or to be wikified) is a tad concerning. Answer to 1) does concern me a little. I also dislike (although it is likely not the candidates fault) the public spamming on [[WT:CCD]] (which I have reverted), and the notes on user talk pages to people who have ''interacted'' with him. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantar. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience.--
'''Oppose'''. Clearly needs more experience. Has a [[WP:FU|fair use]] image on his/her user page, even though I had reminded him/her of it earlier. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOsbus&diff=50675235&oldid=50663724], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Osbus&diff=next&oldid=50675235]. S/he clearly does not understand copyrights. He/She is indeed a good user but inexperienced. --<font color="#9966CC">
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''', too few mainspace edits. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Oppose''' experience &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' Seems like a nice user.  Will make a good admin in not too long.  Keep up the good work --
'''Oppose''' for now. You seem like you have a level head, but you just need some more experience. -- [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' nothing bad I see, but need more experience. Come back after some more (main) namespace edits. -
'''Neutral''' concerning to see more WP edits than Article. Also, the fact you only have 3 minor edits in the mainspace is concerning. Sorry mate, 3 months and I'll support.
'''Neutral''' per above. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Neutral''' but he did provide helpful commentary through the peer review process for an article I was working on and it was most appreciated.  That's really the only encounter I've had with this editor to my recollection, however. --
'''Neutral'''. Some experience comes with time.
'''Weak Neutral''' Has enough experience and edits, and sounds like he knows what an admin does. But the first question from Tawker makes me feel weird, and doesn't use edit summaries enough. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]









'''Support''' I like what I see from this user, a bit new though --
'''Support''' Of course, I support, I nominated him! -
'''Support''', I've been impressed with the user.
'''Support''' per nom. Good editor. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' although his edit count is on the lower end for potential admins, this editor clearly has potential.
'''Support''' An edit-countitis argument could be made for sure, but for me edit counts are just useful for the edits the actually represent. Looking through this user's contributions, there's enough quality and just enough quantity that I'm reasonably confident he'd make a good janitor. --
'''Weak Support''' Everything fine apart from his marginal edit count and time here.
'''Support'''. He actually has quite a few edits, if you consider that he has made very few edits to his user page, and more edits to wikipedia pages. He has obviously made more contributions to wikipedia articles than many people who have the same edit count. His proportional edit count is probably closer to 3500. He seems very well rounded, with nearly 300 wikipedia edits, and I am glad to support him.
'''Support'''. Patience and desire to reach consensus are essential for admins, and Oscar has demonstrated both at [[Talk:Calvin_and_Hobbes]].
'''Support''' per Feezo. --
'''Support''' looks fine
'''Support''' The edit count is not the piece of information that points to whether a person will use the admin tools correctly -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Feezo. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', A good editor.
'''Support'''. Good AfD contributions, good breadth of coverage, high percentage Mainspace edits. Have a mop. Also, I just worked on a play that had a character names Oscar that is a cat. This amuses me.
'''Support''', looks OK.
'''Support''' per above.  --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''support''' this person to become administrator
'''Support'''. 6 months as an active editor is well enough to justify adminship. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support'''We need to encourage maintenance minded editors. Give 'em a mop, a bucket and a broom. --
'''Support''' and thanks for expanding the questions. Put my mind at ease AND showed you play nice with others :) -'''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Why not?--
{{User:Go for it!/Vote Support}} Seems sensible. I like him.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. In the absence of a lengthy tenure, I read Oscar's answers and liked what I saw. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  Seems to be worthy of the mop and bucket.  --
'''Support''' Just the right number of edits and time here in English Wikipedia, according to my standards. Good Luck. <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Support''' I was torn over this one, but I don't see a strong reason to oppose. He seems reasonable and criticising him for not knowing [[WP:PROD]], a ''proposed'' policy, seems like a pettifogging detail (I didn't know it, and recently put a prod article through AfD, with no harm done so far as I can see). With that said, the nomination was misleading and his signature is obnoxious to look at in the edit window, but these are frivolous reasons to oppose. &ndash;
'''Support''' relaxed users are a valued resource. Competent and co-operative as far as I can see. Answers to the questions a little short, but to the point. Time isn't always important, but cluefulness is.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, just prefer admins who have been around a little longer.  In a few months will definetly have my vote--
'''Oppose'''  Tenure is too brief for my confidence; plus, talk page suggests editor is still learning (he improperly reverted a prod removal yesterday.)  Absolutely nothing wrong with having things to learn, but it indicates more time before adminship is a good idea.
'''Oppose''' Per above. A little to new, more time and I'll support.
'''Oppose''' per above - off to a great start - just needs some more time.
'''Oppose'''.  Right on the edge of my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|minimum standards]], but I'm tipped to oppose instead because of some comments on the nominee's talk page that indicate some learning of Wikipedia process is still needed.  (Also I'm biased against disruptively flashy signatures, which in addition to the candidate, are being sported by many of the support voters.) —
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Oppose''' after considering this for a couple of days and reviewing the comments I am going to have to oppose per Xoloz and Bell. <font color="#F0F">
'''Oppose'''. Nominator: I'd advise against saying the nominee has "very high edit count" and long tenure when facts are otherwise. Nominee: sorry, but please keep editing.
'''Oppose'''--not enough exp., sorry.
'''Oppose''', not enough Wikipedia: space edits yet. Confusing signature.
'''Oppose''' on edit count and experience.
'''Oppose'''; not per edit count or join date, but by some of the commenters above.
'''Oppose''' per Ral315. --
'''Oppose''', majority of edits are marked as minor, and all the ones that aren't were done using popups. I didn't look at the content of each edit, so I'm not saying any of them were bad, but I've concluded that (a) you've made very few major edits, or (b) you've marked a bunch of edits as minor, when they weren't. Also an analysis of your edit distribution suggests comparatively low involvement in the project namespace (''Wikipedia:'' and ''Wikipedia talk:'' pages), and an unfortunately low level of communication with other users. Can't support at this time, will reconsider in the future. — <small>Mar. 24, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:27] <
'''Oppose''' per Doug Bell and freakofnurture.  &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Good user, but would prefer more community participation, i.e. user talk and wikipedia namespace edits.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' Still not impressed by answers. --
'''neutral''' Not just yet. Reverting prod shows some need to expand his knowledge of how things work, but would probably support next time. --
'''Neutral''' Seems to be a good contributor, but would prefer to see a bit more user talk interaction with others per Shreshth91. Good to see that the sig has been toned down though. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Neutral''' as per the other comments above, may support at a later date.



Thanks.
'''Moral Support''' Suggest withdrawl, however. I recently had an RfA that didn't pass and most oppose comments were that I didn't have enough edits, and I have over 2,000. You're a good user and I'm happy to support, but I doubt that this nomination will pass. - <font style="color:#FF7518;background:#000;">
'''Support.''' I have interacted with this user and have faith they would not abuse the tools; however, I urge them to withdrawal and try in a couple of months and 1000 more edits or so.
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=80506723 Malformed] nomination.
'''Oppose''' Less than three months and 600 edits is not enough.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you appear to have good intentions but you need more experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' candidate lacks sufficient experience.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;Sorry, I'm not one for edit counts but 600 is not enough to gain the insight needed. As for the two articles you listed that you wrote, I would have like them to be a little more in depth. &mdash;
'''Weak oppose''', purely due to low edit count. I see no reason why this editor wouldn't make a fine admin after a few months' more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. I think more experience is needed.  While I like the enthusiasm, I think trying for the adminship now is poor judgment because the results are predictable given the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|standards/expectations]] people have.
'''Oppose'''. I suggest the nom take a look at [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of what most RFA !voters are looking for in terms of basic edit levels.
'''Oppose''' Not quite yet. That the user admits to frequently changing usernames is troubling. Stick to one username and come back in six months. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''per above and insufficient answers to questions. --
'''Neutral''' - It takes guts to go up for an RfA, and i dont want to turn this into a blood bath, 600 edits is just not enugh yet, and you are to new [on this account?] for me to consider supporting you, you're on the right track come back in say 2000 edits and around Feburary time and i'll likely support you if you keep up your good work, in the meantime however I really strongly suggest withdrawal to avoid a bloodbath. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''', ditto what Matthew said. Please consider a withdrawal.
'''Neutral''' per Matthew. Please consider withdrawal due to possible [[WP:SNOW]].
'''Neutral''', you seem to have the potential of becoming a future admin, but not for now it's too early. Try again when you have more edits and exprience in the Wiki proccess. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', echoing what [[User:Mike1|Mike1]] and Matthew have said. Keep working hard, and you should make a fine one later. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. Could be a very solid candidate in a few months, just needs more experience in general. You could also pursue [[WP:ER|editor review]]. Great attitude, though!
'''Neutral''' Please do not be discouraged with this nomination and I offer my deep respects for your sincerity in wanting to help out with admin chores. But with less than three months of experience and less than a thousand edits, I suggest you withdraw from this nomination as soon as possible. In the meantime, look through and analyse past successful as well as unsuccessful nominations and get a clear idea of what adminship is all about. Be more pro-active in maintainence-related tasks and improve the quality of your edits. I have no doubt that in the next couple of months, if you follow all these guidelines, you would be a fine admin. In the meantime, best of luck for the future! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Normally would oppose in this situation, but you seem like my kind of admin and others have gone with '''Neutral''' rather than '''Oppose'''
'''Neutral''' per above. Also try to get involved in [[WP:AFD|Articles for deletion]] and other areas which administators are usually involved in.
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Not personal, but [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/P.B. Pilhet|674]] edits is just not enough experience. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Neutral''' Lack of experience would be a handicap.  Withdraw, get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] and work on participation in XfD debates and vandalfighting.  Getting involved in Wikiprojects would be a good idea, as would assisting in the featured article/good article reviews.  Try again in three-four months and ~3000 edits time. You would be a good admin in the future, hence the neutral vote.
'''Neutral'''<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral''' I suggest that you withdraw and try again in a few months when you have sufficient experience, though I like your attitude. - <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
Sorry, no. Weak answers, no self description, this RFA was malformed far too many times. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Due to inexpereince and weak answer to first question. We just had to revert your many attempts to start your RfA, only to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SynergeticMaggot#Delete_a_page delete it]. Will support in the future. Good luck.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawl. Adminship is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced, sorry.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Patchouli|Previous RfA]] closed only six days ago. Not nearly enough time between then and now to overcome the reasons for the earlier withdrawl.  Try again in a couple of months. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''', you haven't even addressed the concerns of the previous rfa. The answers are still weak and there's still barely a self-description, I suggest you look at some other nominations on this very page to see what kinds of things people expect to hear about you (it's mostly about what you do in wikipedia). Furthermore, you can't just withdraw your nomination when it starts badly, start it again in a few days and expect the result to be any different. -
'''Oppose''' per above. I urge a b'cat to withdraw.
'''Oppose''', please be patient and your turn will come soon, pull up your socks. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
No. Far from admin standard. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but please do not take this personally. You have not addressed the concerns of your previous RfA and the answers you gave are very weak. Improve the quality of your edits and have better preparation of answers in your next RfA, which should be at least in three months time. In the meantime, do not give up hope! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Far too recent since previous RfA.  As a side note, awfully low on edit summaries for minor edits. --
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, you haven't been there six months yet. Try again in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. Address concerns raised during previous RFA and reapply again in a few months (and not days). --
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough time here, and the answers do not provide enough.
'''oppose''' inexperience and, speedy renom verges on contemptuousness.
'''Withdraw''' better to come after you have amassed 5000 edits. --
'''Oppose''' Please wait another two or three months before trying again for an RfA, and familiarize yourself with more of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Also, your answers to the questions could be more forthcoming and descriptive about what you'd do as an admin. Happy editing! –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
Per Siva, too soon to tell.
'''Neutral'''.  The last RfA ended too recently and the user has not participated sufficiently in admin-like tasks.  Only 2 user talk warnings?  And the edit summaries are far too low.  Give it a few months and participate in admin-like tasks.
'''Neutral to avoid ppiling on''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Wonderful_%28talking_doll%29&diff=prev&oldid=71481638 Demonstrated lack of understanding of rationale for deletion.] Subject of an article can be worthless to us as people and still be acceptable as an encyclopedia article. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mullahcracy|Demonstrated lack of understanding of rationale for redirect of a neologism that seems specific to a subject that already has an article.]]

'''Neutral to avoid pile on''' I'm sorry Patchouli, you seem like a good editor, but you havn't got enough edits, and it has been too soon since your last RfA. Take some time to get to know all the aspects of the wiki, and come back in about 5 months. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Neutral to avoid pile on''' per Halo (who said it better than I could).--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Experienced enough to be an admin, although you should make sure that you understand policy fully before venturing off into other areas of admin work. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' Has a clear use for the admin tools and clearly would not abuse them.  My only concern is lack of edit summaries.  Consider setting your preferences to prompt on a blank edit summary.  That will get you in the habit of using them very quickly.
I certainly agree with [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]].
'''Moral Support''' I would feel happier if you try to work on your weak points and come back in a couple of months. [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - errr, without looking to condone editcountitis, you have only 324 mainspace edits and I didn't any mitigating reason for this (eg, large edits of multiple paragraphs, edits to technical articles which require precise writing etc). Also, you only have 54% edit summaries, which is also offputting. Also in total, it appears that you have only traversed around 500 different pages. '''
'''Oppose''' seems like an asset at [[WP:PAIN]], but I'm not convinced by argument of experience and familiarity given low number of mainspace edits.  I figure that he'll be asked to help with more than [[WP:PAIN]] as an admin, and I'd like to see more familiarity with the project to ensure that he can help in those areas --
'''Mild Oppose'''. Low overall experience and use of edit summaries is offputting, although this user is definitely an asset to [[WP:PAIN]].
'''Oppose''' the edit count just isn't high enough for me, but I would likely support in future if contributions are improved on.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Blnguyen. Sorry, I really am. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Doesn't currently meet my standards, due to a low mainspace edit count, and a low use of edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''' - doesn't appear to be experienced enough, very marginal - only had to wait about another two months or so for me to consider you "experienced" in relation to this.
'''Oppose''' Mainspace edits are low. Try again in a few months. --
per inexperience - <b>
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' - I'm not quite sure the experience is there yet --
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but the edit summary usage is a big issue. Adminship requires attention to detail, and your edit summary usage illustrates a lack of it. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Strong Oppose''' - The candidate has a ''recent'' (May 06) history of spurious threats of inapprpriate ArbCom actions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=52206339] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=52256035]), overreaching accusations of "personal attacks"([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Aero&diff=prev&oldid=52217544] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=52967093] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=53116790]), removing talk page warnings as "vandalism" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Cyr&diff=prev&oldid=54921292]), as well as zealous POV reverts in the main pagespace (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Aero&diff=prev&oldid=51988682] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Aero&diff=prev&oldid=52168488]), a section eventually included by concensus).  Indeed, I would recommend that all of his edits during the period May 9 - June 8 be examined by any potential voter.  I am willing to accept that he may have started to change his ways, but (much) more time is needed, IMHO. --
'''Oppose''' It was far too recently that I had to warn this user about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pantherarosa&diff=prev&oldid=53771804 incivil comments]; this is not the attitude I want to see in an admin. --
'''Oppose''' for insufficient usage of edit summaries and edit experience--
'''Oppose''' for inattention to detail & lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience and maturity.
'''Oppose''': --
'''Oppose''' per InShaneee. --
'''Neutral''', and open to lean in light of new facts. Seeing the contribution history of the Paul, I see that he is mostly involved in [[WP:PAIN]] and hardly anything else. Even while editing other project pages like [[WP:AN]], his sole concern in [[WP:PAIN]]. I tend to support specialized admins, and hence I am not opposing him. However, I see that Paul has virtually cut off contributing to pages other than what I mentioned above. His article editing is also way below expected. His overall activity is also very low (under 4 edits per day). If Paul were to contribute only to [[WP:PAIN]] as an admin, I would have gladly supported him. But he plans to go beyond, and this worries me because his contributions don't gain my confidence regarding his understanding the policies. Furthermore, he has contributed to AfD only twice since April. Use of edit summaries is also way below expectation. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' per Ambuj.Saxena. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Even though his edit count is a little bit low, work on [[WP:PAIN]] shows a great aptitude for admin functions.
'''Neutral'''. I like your answers, but edit summary usage is kind of low.
'''Neutral''' per above. Keep it up, and in a month or so I'm sure you'll be given the tools. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Neutral''', can't oppose, but needs to use more edit summaries. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' as nominator. Making good edits on medicine.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry to have to oppose, Paul, but your answer to question one shows no reason for being an admin.  You are an article writer and editor, but these types of Wikipedians, while essential to the project, aren't necessarily administrative material.  Also, your experience in the Wikipedia space is very low.  A larger amount of contributions in that namespace are necessary in my eyes.
'''Oppose''' Under 1000 total edits is not enough.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' per all above also. Sorry, paul.
'''Oppose'''  The candidate appears to be a good editor in his niche, but he needs to expand his horizons before seeking adminship. As an aside, the nominator's account was created on September 10 and has only five edits total as of now, four of which are related to this RfA.
'''Oppose and critique.''' A quick glance at your edits shows you are a good editor. However, you don't need the admin tools to perform the tasks you list in your answer to question one. The tools are more relevant to such things as deleting articles, blocking vandals, protecting pages, etc. In order to do these things, you must first have practice with related tasks. You need to take part in [[WP:AFD]] discussions and reverting, warning and reporting vandals at [[WP:AIV]]. I saw you have been reverting vandalism, so you are off to a good start. Continue as you have been and take greater part in these activities. Request an '''editor review''' a few thousand edits from now to see if there are things you need to do better. Then try again lateronce you have ironed out any problems. Choose a nominator who has a reputation for good quality work when the time comes. Hope this helps. Cheers, and happy editing.
'''Oppose'''&mdash; I liked your edits, but agree with BaseballBaby & Thatcher131. Nomination by
'''Oppose''' per all above. I write not to pile on but instead to urge withdrawing the RfA before it turns uglier than it has been. User seems to be a fine editor, and I would hate a brutal RfA to sour any enthusiasm for the project. With appropriate levels of experience, I would very likely support in the future.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, just not enough experience yet.  And as others have mentioned, I'm not sure you ''need'' the mop for what you want to do.  --
'''Oppose''' - reason #1 shows no need for admin tools --
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, and no need for the tools at the moment. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all above. I urge you to withdraw this nomination and gain more experience first. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Wikipedia needs more experts, and your conduct throughout the Tojo mess shows cool levelheadness under stress, which is an important quality for an admin.  While your edits in Wikipedia space are very low, I have no doubt that you would take the time to familiarize yourself with any policies or procedures you needed to know before entering a new area.  In short, I have no reservations that you might misuse the administrator tools, despite your low edit count compared to previous successful candidates.  However, the things you want to do per question one do not require the admin toolbox.  It is generally the case that successful candidates need to show some involvement in meta-issues before seeking the adminship, and it is not enough to be a trustworthy editor who might occasionally need an admin tool to do the good work he is already doing (no matter how sensible that approach might seem).  If you are really interested in the meta-issues as well as editing articles, and demonstrate as much, I'm sure you will easily gain approval on your second go-around.
'''Neutral''' Great editor, who has been here for over a year, but too few edits in that time. Only 768 edits altogether, and only about 270 of them are in the article namesapce. -
'''Neutral'''I suggest that this RfA is closed early to avoid [[WP:SNOW]] oppose votes and that Paul instead goes for a [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]].  The community can suggest areas for involvement and if you still want to be an admin with that information, you can come back to RfA in three or four months' time/~3000 edits. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''': I don't mind if he has few edits. He demonstrates ability and an understanding of wikipedia that is necessary to use admin tools. -
'''Support''': I've no problem with the edit count, and he/she seems to have a sensible head on their shoulders.
'''Support''', this user seems dedicated despite the relatively short time here. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Moral Support''' Good edit counts and unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', is good admin material. Has shown his presence on Wikipedia. Good edit count and a cool head on discussion pages, would make him a good candidate. <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Anirudhsbh|Anirudhsbh]] ([[User talk:Anirudhsbh|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Anirudhsbh|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> Oh, sorry about that --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Support''' per Siva1979 and Anirudhsbh.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Moral Support''' - you don't need to be in such a hurry to acquire admin tools.  There are plenty of other tools for you to use.  Wikipedia is vast, and has vast resources.  I'm still learning them myself.  In good time, you'll be nominated and chosen. In the meantime, keep up the good work.  --
'''Oppose''': Too new
'''Oppose''': Two new (joined less than a month ago) and too few edits (< 1000 edits). You obviously look like you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but wait a couple months and I'll be glad to change my vote to support.
'''Oppose''': Too new (<1m), too few edits (<1000). Give it a few more months.
'''Oppose'''. One month is too soon. Come back in six to eight weeks (and even tell me about it on my talk page), and I'll vote support for you.
'''Oppose''' I suggest a quick withdrawal. Wait for a couple of months until you try again.
'''Oppose''' per my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|minimum standards]]. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' You're too new even if you have a few number of edits. You need to have at least 2,500 to 3,000 edits and be at least in Wikipedia for 3-4 months and learn all the rules [[Image:Flag of Turkey.svg|25px]]
'''Oppose''' Way too new. Try again in about 4 months.--
'''Oppose''' I think this enthusiastic fellow needs to contribute a bit more.  They have less than 500 article edits and a significant number of them (~100 or so) have been with the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]].
'''Strong Oppose'''. You have to wait alot more, give it some time and be patient. You can't expect to be an admin after just starting.
'''Oppose'''. You are too new. Wait a few months and gather a couple thousand more edits. Other than that you are doing fine. <font color="#000080">
'''Oppose''', too new. Maybe next time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. I strongly suggest that you withdraw and wait at least 3 months. Become more familiar with policy and procedure. You are too new and inexperienced to have learned all that is needed for adminship at this time.--
'''Oppose''': To new to be Admin and too few edits. Wait for 2-3 months and increase your edit count until you try again. - [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Oppose'''. as above. You have a good start, keep at it and try again in 2-3 months.
'''Oppose'''. Agree with all the above. --His Imposingness, the [[Grand Moff]]
'''Oppose''' My only interraction with this user was when I noticed questionable use of AWB, which lead me to temporarily remove him from the list of authorised users until he showed me that he understood how to use the tool and what the rules were. Although he was civil and responsive (and quickly restored to the list) I couldn't possibly advocate handing admin tools over ''just yet''. Also way too new, of course. --
'''Oppose''' Too new--
'''Oppose''', Spend some more time.
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Looks otherwise OK but seems to have a little too little experience. Please continue editing Wikipedia and reapply in a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' But it's a weak one.  Just need a little more time.  Keep it up!  --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' per [[Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Temporary_Removal]]. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Mild Oppose''' Not enough project related editing yet. —
'''Weak Oppose''' too soon, I'll probably support next time. <small>
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience in almost all aspects of Wikipedia.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. I'm still learning about Wikipedia policy, and I've been active for 3 months. A good guy, but give it a while! [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Kingboyk|Kingboyk]] and fails my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|personal standards]].
'''Oppose'''. Experience way too limited, edits look to me to be mostly <s>bot</s> AWB generated. Maybe after  this user gains experience in editing articles. --
'''Oppose''' Needs a tad bit more experience. --
'''Oppose''' Less than a month of experience may not be enough.--
'''Oppose''' per many others; way too new.--
'''Oppose''' needs more experience
'''Oppose''' on experience.
'''Oppose''': please spend some time building the encyclopedia by adding good content.
Not yet. I will nominate you myself at the ninetieth day -
'''Support''' My opinion on edit counts and edit summaries for use in testing a RFA is this: they are useless. However time is a consideration, you haven't been here enough, in a month or 3 ill support barring any vandalism.
'''Neutral''', too new really but I don't want to join the pile-on. Try again in a few months.
'''Neutral''', I think the user is a good editor - and I don't want to give him/her discouragement through an oppose - but I don't wish to support. Sorry.
'''Support''', a good editor, would make a good admin. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Moral support''' - amiable Wikipedian yet not ready yet. Please try again in a couple of months :). --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. Has made a substantial amount of wikipedia namespace edits. I consider the length of time on wikipedia to be irrelevant. A good user with 300+ WP: edits to me proves that they have the necessary experience to be an admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I'm assuming good faith here. I think the issues that Splash raises are not fatal to this nomination. -
'''Oppose''', quite strongly. Barely 2 months old is substantially too short, as a self-nom should be very well aware. This is particuarly true, when on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pegasus1138|his first RfA]], less than a month ago, he said "...I will try again in a few months". Suggests very over-eager for the buttons. Also, just 3 days ago, a fairly major error of process and behaviour: [[Template:Future tvshow]] he tagged as PROD (for violating WP:NOT)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFuture_tvshow&diff=49110495&oldid=44846359], that was removed, and so he instead tagged it speedy as "crystal ball",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFuture_tvshow&diff=49125946&oldid=49120750] insisting on ANI, in the face of well-reasoned editors, that anything that WP:NOT is a speedy because it violates policy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=49127477] Having managed to have it erroneously deleted, he went and removed almost 100 usages of it from articles. This gets PROD wrong, CSD wrong, and NOT wrong, not to mention ''listening'' to people when they tell you are wrong. The template is now on TfD where it is being overwhelmingly retained since the template itself plainly does not violate any policy at all. It appeared [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=49153994] that the editor was essentially unaware of the purpose of TfD also. Generally very forceful behaviour on that, coupled with serious errors of policy lead to me conclude that, had he had the buttons, he would have effected this completely incorrect deletion himself, without further consultation. Also a very odd manner of discussion in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=49096729&oldid=49096536 this diff], where, in the middle of a thread about additional questions/peer review for RfA, he suddenly brings up the deletion of VfD from a few months back, for no obvious reason. Not ready yet by several months, I think. This appears to have resulted from the non-existent feedback at [[Wikipedia:Editor review]]. -
I must agree with Splash.  You don't have the necessary experience as it is, and you have had a RfA less than a month ago.  Please, consider withdrawing this, doing good work for sometime longer (a few months, at least) and ''then'' resubmit.
'''Oppose''', per Splash. Part of the duties of an administrator are to try to dissolve disputes, and to be willing to compromise; that thread does not give me much confidence.
'''Oppose''', I more than anyone understand eagerness to participate in a RfA. I made the same mistake as you Pegasus, made a RfA just a few months too early. Now, I'm most likely to get a successful RfA in early June - due to poor timing on my previous RfAs. At the moment, just try to use your normal rights as much as you can!
'''Oppose''' per Splash
'''Oppose''' - dual self nom's less than a month ago worry me a little, Splash has some good points, can you work on addressing them then wait a few months for someone to nominate you, a few months and you'll likely fly on in --
'''Oppose''' Too soon also I remember having some conflct with him before with some April Fools jokes, to the point he was close to breaking 3rr, and rolling back admins [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense%2FWheelation_process&diff=46418865&oldid=46418764] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense%2FArticles_for_wheelation&diff=46420312&oldid=46420193] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJaranda%2FRequests_for_adminship%2F127.0.0.1&diff=46419006&oldid=46418802]
'''Oppose''' - self-nominating in the same week as the TfD debacle doesn't show very good judgement. Perhaps in a few months. &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="green">o</font></span>]]
'''Oppose''' - Per above. You can, however, become a good admin if you keep learning the processes and guidelines of wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Splash.  I, too, have observed unprofessionally aggressive behavior on the part of candidate.  I would strongly suggest that editor open himself to constructive criticism from others, as much must change before he can be trusted with the mop.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above and past unpleasantness encountered with this candidate.
'''Oppose''' per above, and answer to question 1 seems to shout "KILL RAPE BLOCK REPEAT" at me, for some reason. Generally too soon.
'''Oppose''' per Splash, and as with others I've had an unpleasant run-in with this candidate. If he can calm down a bit, take constructive criticism, and spend more time here, I might be willing to change my vote on a future RfA.--
'''Neutral''' I like the user but I can't support on the facts presented by Splash.
Despite concern addressed in comments below, I think his work on Wikipedia is enough for me to support.
'''Support''' despite short time since last nomination (time between nominations doesn't relate to admin abilities) and not-so-long tenure. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' i've seen this person around in a few places, and certainly deem them worthy of adminship. good luck.--
'''Support''' - April Fools is well, April Fools, and not the other 365 days of a year. Will make good use of the tools (and alreayd has the rate NSLE support which is good enough for me) --
'''Support''' Will be great.
'''Support''' despite inability to spell "temperament". ;) <tt>
'''Edit Conflict Support''', meets my standards. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support'''. Great user. Seen this user around and seems very dedicated. :)<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. Meets my standards by a mile. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Just because he was here a month ago doesn't mean he won't be a good admin. --
'''Support''' - good vandal fighter, would benefit from the tools
'''Support'''. Haves seen this user around many times and appears to be ready for adminship. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' per Tango. -?
'''Support''', don't see why repeated self-noms shoudl be held against someone.
'''Strong Support''' I see nothing wrong in repeating self-noms after a one month period. I thought that this was the bare minimum time-frame for RfAs and the bare minimum time-frame for RfB is a 3 month period. This, at least to me, shows that the user is eager to serve Wikipedia in a more broader role. This can only be a positive thing for this project at large. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''
Strong support. If he is a good editor, and he is impatient to help the community; then I do not see any reason for denying him the tools. --<font color="#9966CC">
'''Support''' per Ani and Tawker.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Meets my standards, and per Tawker.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' He helped me with some stuff. Very good at what he is doing. Per Ani and Tawker. [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Support''', does good work. A bit more patience wrt RfA would be nice, though.
'''Support'''.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support'''. He is good editor, and good vandal catcher.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  This editor will make a great administrator one day.  If things do not work out this time, please allow me to renominate you next quarter.
'''Support'''.
Sure.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' -- The main reason to oppose seems to be that he took the initiative to nominate himself. I don't have a problem with that.
March 24... April 23... May 30... Three noms in three months is not too appealing to me. I do like Pegasus (nice, good editor, etc), but seems a ''bit'' to impatient. Other editors have said they would nominate you in good time, yet you still didn't wait. Unfortunately, this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I'd say just keep up the good work and wait a bit longer before another try. Sorry... oppose. --
Per [[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">You Know Who</font>]], the month intervals seem rather disturbing, with them all being self-nominations.  Also in your first one, you stated: "I am withdrawing and I will try again in a few months.", but you haven't waited a few months, you've tried twice in month intervals since then.  You are too anxious, that's not a good quality in an a higher position.
I echo the same concerns already stated. I suppose that makes me a Death Eater. --
'''Oppose''' great contributer, but the power-hungry nature expressed in the three quick self noms leaves me thinking it should be withheld untill the nom can go two or three months without trying. -'''
'''Oppose''' great contributer, but not quite there in term of time and experience.
We're being asked to support this candidate every time there are a few weeks of decent editing. The trouble is that these few weeks are interspersed with serious errors (April Fool's day, and deletion reviews complaining about jokes, heavy-handed deletion of templates that are not deleteable and ignoring numerous editors who tell him otherwise). These things happened just last month! Add to this that these three self-noms in as many months give a distinct impression of chomping at the bit and some impatience, and I feel uncomfortable with supporting an RfA now. Most editors who succeed here have several months of good, reliable editing with usually no substantial errors during that time, and certainly not in the last few weeks. I'd suggest some patience, an accumulation of a reputation for not getting things off-center and a non-self-nom in a couple more months (and not a few more weeks). I know from myself that it is easy to think you have "seen most things/it all" and then, as time goes by, you realise just how much you ''hadn't'' seen. On the up side, I see among recent edits non-contentious AfD closures — getting a feel for more things is an excellent continuation. -
'''Oppose'''. Three nominations in three months is too many (the fact that this is a selfnom makes no difference to me).
'''Oppose'''. I must echo Splash's reasons in their entirety, it is a pity because Pegasus ''is'' a valuable contributor. Unfortunately I do not think he is quite ready for adminship, as is evidenced by the problems with jokes, April Fool's day etc. I will probably support at a later date when Pegasus shows he can act with a suitable sense of decorum.
'''Oppose'''Per Rje's sentiments above. A good user, but just needs more time to show the maturity required for adminship. --
I could only support if this user were to be honest about his identity to the community.  --
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]] (unfortunately...), ''but''...I can see that you are on the right track. -
'''Oppose''' per Splash.  Rapid-fire nominations are not a good sign; also, I share some civility/personality concerns regarding editor, who occasionally seems obstinate and not very open to compromise in deletion discussions.
'''Oppose''' It's not just impatience with RfA renoms; it's impatience with other users. Minimum of 2 months of patience is now in order.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Weakest of weak opposes''' I like the editor, but the RfA noms, especially for self-noms, seem a bit too impatient. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Splash|Splash]] and [[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]].
User is too hasty.  He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willy_on_Wheels_should_be_a_Sysop&diff=prev&oldid=55806055 welcomes] [[User:Willy on Wheels should be a Sysop]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middelharnis&diff=prev&oldid=51870533 calls things vandalism] when they are nothing of the sort (my only guess is "dyke" set off some CVU bot and he duely reverted it without looking), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Nature_Boy%22_Buddy_Rogers&diff=next&oldid=54334123 reverts] an unauthorized bot that changed only whitespace but reverted someone else's edit to do it with an edit summary refering to changing someone's comments? (the bot was doing spelling changes on talk pages--but this was an article and it wasn't a spelling change it was doing), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=53188958 reporting possible errors on the main page is vandalism?]
'''Oppose''' per Kotepho.
'''Weak oppose''' - when I opposed last time, I said I'd consider supporting in a few months and it's not even two since. More haste, less speed... &mdash;[[User:Whouk|Wh]][[User:Whouk/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per last time
'''Oppose'''. Still needs a bit more time and experience.
'''Oppose''' per Kotepho. --
'''Oppose'''.  Only 1500 edits and a few months experience.  Furthermore, 3 self-noms in his/her short tenure here isn't necessarily something that should be encouraged. --
Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks!
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
I think the wording [[User:Splash|Splash]] used sums up the general feeling I'm getting from this user. '''
'''Neutral''' per above. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Neutral''' So many self-noms, so little time.
'''Neutral''' Looks generally good, but very frequent self-nominations concerns me as to how patient the candidate is. Please be patient.--
'''Neutral''' per Jusjih.
'''Neutral''' No major concerns, but a bit too new to the project for my liking and a bit too keen for the mop. I'd suggest coming back in a couple of months, when I think you should easily gain promotion.
'''Neutral''' per Jusjih.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' see above --<font color="black">
I am honestly undecided still. But i would like to give a well meant and unsollicited advise for if it is does not succeed. Wait the next time till someone else nominats you, and sure, that can take 2, 3 4 more months. I am afraid that if you try again yourself in about a month, which would be perfectly valid and such, it will start to push more buttons along the same line of the arguments I have seen here above, which I in part do understand. --
'''Neutral''' per [[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] --
'''First Support''' Experience, behaves like an admin. I see that Pegasus has some previous RfAs....since most of the opposes were based on experience, I'm willing to discount these as any notable baggage. They've been in some conflicts, but they seemed to handle them calmly. A few times, Pegasus has borderlined 3RR, but there was nothing wrong about their side of the dispute (in any case, Pegasus has never been blocked). This editor is active enough in both the encyclopedia and the community that I am inclined to support. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. I think he is really trying to help out around here, and needs the tools to do more.  I don't see any evidence that he would abuse them, and he is willing to help in some areas where help is appreciated.  You can teach tools, but there is no substitute for a good attitude. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. I only wish you had referenced: a) your RfA history (per crzrussian) and b) your [[User:Pegasusbot|bot]].
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' -→
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' though it would be nicer to see a few more substantial article edits. --
'''Support''' I've seen Pegasus around and, although the answers could be a bit a longer, especially for a self-nomination, short answers != bad admin. -- '''
How many times do I have to support this great user? --
'''Support''' hmm... I thought he was one.
'''Support''', oh no a typo in the answers to RfA, and no major article edits. Definately proof this user is going to abuse their tools. You don't need any major article edits to make a reasonable admin, in my opinion anyway.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' It is time to give him a chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Meets most (if not all) of [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]] but I don't like the answers to some of the questions. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Strong Oppose''' per very poor answers, RfA 4 without explanation of RfA history, user closes RfA's - what? - and borderline 3RR's to boot. - <b>
'''Oppose.''' I could barely find any non-minor edits to the article space since early May, and my one previous dealing with this user left me with questions about his competence in editing articles. He's a nice guy, but he really does need to actually do some good work on the encyclopedia itself before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately, per CrazyRussian. So many RfAs so quickly, unimpressive answers, and appears to lack experience in certain important areas (writing articles, per Rebecca).
'''Oppose''' per Crazy Russian.  --
'''Oppose''' Too little time has elapsed since the last RfA.  This means that: 1) there is insufficient evidence that the many problems cited in the previous RfAs have been addressed; and also 2) the user displays an uncomfortably "over-eager" desire for adminship.  What's the rush?
'''Oppose''' per the 4 RFAs in the last 5 months and comments above. --
'''Oppose'''  too many RfA's and not particularly active in the main article space.  This RfA was not really put together very well either hence the confusion of the first oppose voter here. User should wait at least three months and gain experience interacting with other user on the article talk pages while editing.
'''Oppose''' per Crazy Russian and Xoloz. Maybe wait until someone else nominates you next time? --
'''Weak Oppose'''. I had noticed the optional questions and was really hoping to see answers that would persuade me to support this candidate - for some reason I really wanted to have a reason to do so. However, I was utterly unimpressed with the answers, especially to Crazy Russian's question. That was a golden opportunity for the candidate to shine, but there is nothing of substance to persuade me otherwise. I also find the answers to Stifle's questions a bit harsh, if not contrary to [[WP:AGF]] (particularly the reference to "drive by voters" and "people who don't even look into the history of the candidate"). I can understand if this nominee is frustrated, but I am uncertain if this editor has truly learned to be patient. I may still support in the future, but not now.
<s>'''Neutral'''. Roughly the same amount of time and experience here as I have (except nominee has far more "talk" and "WP talk" edits), and by my measure that isn't quite experience enough. My bigger concern is that the nominee didn't disclose or explain the past three RfAs, how he has learned from those, or how he has improved or changed. Looking at the three prior RfAs, they all look pretty much the same in the nomination and the answer to standard question one. Add to that the fact there is barely any breathing room between the RfAs - makes me wonder what the rush is. However, no "oppose" from me as this editor obviously is a good contributor and adminship is supposed to be no big deal. I just can't say "support" and have a good feeling about it. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 05:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)</s>. Changed to '''weak oppose'''.
'''Neutral''' pending answers to additional questions.
'''Neutral'''. Sitting on the fence for now, may change depending on developments including answers to the additional questions. --
'''Neutral,''' what has changed since the last three RFAs?--
'''Neutral'''- not really sure where to go yet. I'll see how this develops. --
'''Neutral'''.  I would definitely consider voting for him, but I would like to see more article contributions as well as the other stuff (that's just a personal view).
STRONG oppose. No description whatsoever, plus multiple failed attempts at adding his nomination to RFA. Question need for tools, as he has only really been editing for hte last 4 days, and at least, form his contribs, 80% of his edits have been to own user page. Definitely not admin material [yet].
'''Oppose''' - no rationale for requesting no description, user doesn't have nearly the necessary experience, sorry --
'''Strong Oppose''' per above. Come back in October or November after several good months of contributing. I must say though that your user page looks spectacular. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong oppose'''. Sorry, but there are multiple problems with this candidate: Malformed Rfa, less than 500 total edits, and a quick perusal of the talk page suggests that the user is unfamiliar with policy and may be looking for adminship specifically to administer blocks. That's not what being an admin is about. Needs months more. <tt>
'''Oppose'''. Candidate had trouble adding themselves to [[WP:RfA]]. Cadidate says they are pleased with their work on [[Hamden Hall Country Day School]] but the only edits I can see are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamden_Hall_Country_Day_School&diff=56224808&oldid=56206837 putting a protection tag on] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamden_Hall_Country_Day_School&diff=56711198&oldid=56603709 reverting a valid edit]. Talks of helping "with any and all sysop chores", but to be honest, seems to have absolutely no idea what that entails, since the candidate clearly thinks he can protect pages by putting {{[[Template:vprotected|vprotected]]}} at the top of them. Sorry, but it's a giant no. --
'''Oppose'''. might support after a while, after a year maybe. i just can't see why you want to be admin immediately, this early. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per all above. Edits are ''way'' too few and the answer to #1 doesn't really explain the need for admin tools.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''', per above. Too few edits, no description, no perceivable need for tools.
'''Strong Oppose''' I suggest you withdraw your nomination and concentrate on making quality edits. If you continue to contribute to Wikiprdia for at least 6 months, I might reconsider. But not now. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''- No way. Sorry.
'''Strong oppose'''. 216 edits as of the toolserver dying is not nearly active enough. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Strong Oppose''' Per less than 300 edits.
'''Support''' - I trust user and believe he would make a good administrator. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support'''. Should be able to do a good job. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Seems to be a sincere and hardworking editor who could only do more good if made an admin.
'''Support''' <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''support''', I like nice admins. But change either the sig or the username to avoid confusion. ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]] - [[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]-
'''Weak Support''' per the first part of Crazytales and [[WP:SNOW]]. Keep your chin up.

'''Oppose''' for not enough experience. 645 edits into the article space is simply not enough by all counts.
'''Oppose''' Partially because of their lack of experience in main space, and partially because of edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annette_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=75773365]. Does not seem to be the right temperament for an admin.
'''Oppose''' the candidate is to be commended for willing to take on a bit of extra responsibility to help Wikipedia, but a distinct lack of experience in the areas in which he/she wishes to use the tools suggests that this RfA is premature and that the candidate might want to try [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]].  With some experience in administrative areas, I can't see myself not heartily supporting another request at a later date.
'''Oppose'''. I do not think Sam is ready for adminship yet. I feel that his answers to several of the questions, whilst revealing his good nature, show him to be probably too trusting of other editors - simply put, I do not think he would be prepared to jump on a clear bad faith account when he sees it. Being nice is a wonderful trait to have, and it has earned Sam many Wikifriends, but sometimes one has to accept that there are some editors who will not be won round with words. I think Sam will be a good admin in the future, but I think he has to take the time to learn the skills that only come with experience.
'''Oppose''' very little in article writing
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda and Freakofnurture.
No way, I have seen some very bad judgement from this user.  For one, he filed an arbitration case on me claiming that I was using a sockpuppet account to get duplicate "votes" at TFD, and only desisted when a CheckUser was performed that showed that the other account was coming from 2,000 miles away in a state I've never even been to.  I really don't like citing [[WP:AGF]], but ... it absolutely floored me that he accused me of sockpuppetry like that.  I'm an administrator and I do not take my role lightly.  I'm very serious about the ethical sides of it, and I would ''never'' use a sockpuppet.  Sure, I get into disagreements over various stuff, but never has anyone impugned my integrity so much as to suggest I was gaming the system by using alternate accounts.  I do not trust his judgement.  --
'''Oppose''' per my philosophy at [[User:Blnguyen/RfA]]. I feel rather disappointed that administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart; they never seem to suffer post-RfA letdown or change negatively IMHO. Article writing is the most backlogged thing on Wikipedia - it's surprising how many prominent people/things never get their article improved despite the availability of people who do know stuff about them. '''
&ndash;
'''Oppose'''. I find it troubling that a potential admin with designs on article deletion duties would makes posts such as in [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 12]] that conflict with established guidelines such as [[WP:NOVOTE]] --
'''Oppose''' While Wikipedia is always in need of compassionate administrators, there just isn't enough experience writing an encyclopedia evident here. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' per above, especially Jaranda and Freakofnurture.
'''Oppose''' - [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Cyde.  I have noted editor's failure to AGF elsewhere as well.
'''Oppose''' concerned about lack of edit experience, but not willing to trust with tools following Cyde & Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose''' as per Jaranda and Freakofnurture.
'''Superlatively Strong Oppose''' per Blnguyen and Cyde.
'''Oppose''' per freakofnurture. All the other opposing arguments are beside the point, IMHO, if you only have 645 mainspace edits. It's just not enough. Nothing personal. --
'''Oppose''' <s>Failed to answer my question.</s> --[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 11:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Attitude to blocking. --
'''Oppose'''. Cyde's comment is very, very worrying. Also reporting AVB to AIV (and the language used) isn't that great of a sign. Without these, I would be neutral, per Blnguyen. --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough project wide experience or use of edit summaries at the moment.. Looks like the editor could be in the right track though, so please consider another request in the future and just chalk this one up to experience. '''
'''Absolutely not.''' This user has little to no article experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Encourage the nom to look at [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of what RFA voters are looking for in an admin. Also, could a bureaucrat please delist this nom?
'''Oppose''': you would block an established editor because ''procedures come first''. Blocking often just pospones a problem and can inflame a situation; I would like to see more creativity applied to resolving any underlying issues.
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Overall I rather like much of your application&mdash;your sense of humor is a plus. I'm going to abstain, primarily due to lack of experience.  One of the indictors, a small one, but a telling one none-the-less, is that your edit summary usage is 63% for major edits and 17% for minor edits. Not a fatal flaw by itself, but a tip off that your still inexperienced, even though you've been around for over a year. Come on back when you've got a little more ''time on the pond'' (say over 1200 main space edits) & you'll have my support ...  [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Neutral''' Due to concerns raised by Cyde and a few other issues.
'''Neutral.''' per Cyde. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' To avoid the pile-ons of oppose votes. Personally, I feel that this user would not abuse admin tools. However, the low edit counts in main namespace is a concern for me. I suggest you gain more editing experience and try again after three months. In the meantime, do not give up hope and look at other successful RfAs as well as unsuccessful RfAs on their reasons for failure or success. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'd like to see more edits before I could support this nomination. Better edit summary usage could help a future nomination. Please continue with the quality of your work and you'll have a support in the future. [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Although candidate meets my standards, the concerns raised by Cyde are still to disconcerting.  I would rather you spend several more months, use edit summaries, and not rub any more people the wrong way.--
'''Neutral''' per siva1979. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid piling on the opposes &ndash; due to concerns raised by Cyde and Blnguyen, among others. Sorry, and all the best. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' first vote.
I'm adding the dreaded '''moral support'''. --
'''Oppose''' - no reasons for requesting adminship, talk page shows no activity whatsoever --
'''Oppose''', very low level of activity (not even 100 edits!) and did not answer the questions. I recommend withdrawing this nomination before it becomes a pile-on.
'''Oppose''' request to 'crats to close early to avoid a pile-on. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. As per others.--
'''Speedy oppose''', I think a crat should apply [[WP:SNOW]] policy. Only 37 edits in the article space, less than 100 edits
'''Oppose'''. [[WP:SNOW]]. Now. -→
'''No'''. --
'''Oppose'''', please withdraw. Try again later. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I would have to agree with [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]], seems like a completely idiotic nomination--
'''Oppose''' a) Appears to have too little experience. b) Gives no good reasons for request.
'''Oppose''' please withdraw. Try again later. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
Don't-be-discouraged-but-easily-[[WP:SNOW]] '''oppose'''. No obvious knowledge of policy, including [[:Image:Tallest.JPG|WP:FUC]], and [[WP:NOT|what Wikipedia is not]], including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piemanmoo&diff=prev&oldid=49558781 self-validation]. 4-6 months, maybe? <tt>
'''Oppose'''. Please get more experience and use edit summaries much more often.--
'''Fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]] -
'''OPPOSE per RadioKirk'''
'''Oppose'''.  Not seasoned enough.  Jump into a controversy or two, then come back.
'''Strong oppose''' questions not even answered.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you need more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Questions not even responded. Sorry.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong oppose''' You didn't answer the questions or give any background information in your nomination as to why you want to be admin. '''''
'''Oppose'''.  I just had to add [[Template:Test1-n]] to the talk page.  Edit more, learn more, then come back.  --
'''Oppose'''.  No user talk edits at all.  I need to see how you'd interact with others before considering you for adminship.  --
'''Oppose''', per everything above. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Please answer the ''questions for the candidate''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Piemanmoo has a good knowledge of wikicode - I wonder where he got it from, because it took me months of editing to work it out. Anyway, the user does not demonstrate an interest in administrator-type work. -
No, for the reasons you yourself have already pointed out. Not enough experience. &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''' Only slightly more than a month's experience, and <100 edits is not what I would expect from an admin. I suggest withdrawal, try again in a few months. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Strong oppose''' first you haven't even bothered to answer the questions before adding your RfA. Your edit count is under 100, half of which are to your userpage. This means that we don't have nearly enough evidence to tell if you are suitable to be an admin or not. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_x_house&diff=92834316&oldid=92127670 This edit] seems pointless and certainly isn't in line with policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creatures_In_Pikmin&diff=prev&oldid=92614376 This edit] creates a redirect to an article that doesn't exist. I suggest you wait until you have at ''least'' 2500 edits and 3-4 months of solid experience, then take an [[WP:ER|editor review]] before trying again. Oh and you just blanked this page which is vandalism: did you even read the RfA instructions?
'''Moral Support''' Your heart is in the right place. '''
'''Moral support''' - see my comment in the '''Discussion''' section above.
'''Moral support''' - this won't pass, but I'd like to commend your enthusiasm.--
'''Oppose''' Not only are your answers a bit too laconic, but you don't seem to have a need for admin tools. And with less than 2000 edits, I am not inclined to support at this time. I suggest withdrawal and continuing with your present pace. I appreciate your realistic outlook, though. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose'''. Defeatist attitude and vague answers to the standard questions. Sorry, Platypus Man.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you haven't demonstrated an actual need for it. You also don't seem to be particularly involved, either; you have just a thousand edits in a year and a half, with a paltry 24 in the Wikipedia namespace. Of everything that you've edited, its been your own userpage that you've spent the most on (62 edits, versus your second most edited article, [[Richard J. Reynolds High School]], with 15 edits). Administrators need to be a ''lot'' more active than you are currently; if you're ''truly'' interested in becoming an administrator, I'd recommend stepping up your contributions in pretty much all areas of Wikipedia. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Oppose''' You seem to be going in the right direction and I am not going to judge on edit count ''but'' the answers and particularly Q.1 is my reasons. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Withdraw this RfA quickly.  Any application for any position that includes ''"I'm not sure..."'' should have the applicant seriously considering why they are making the effort to apply.  If you ''"...weren't seriously considering winning..."'', i.e. gaining the support of the community for the granting of admin tools, then why not talk it through with an admin beforehand?  An [[:Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] is the more appropriate place for this analysis.  I suggest that you contribute more to the main spaces of Wikipedia for the next six months and triple your editcount in so doing before reapplying. Just over a thousand edits is quite low for an RfA application.  Get involved with new page/recent change patrolling; vandal fighting and warning; XfD discussions with opinions backed up with [[:Wikipedia:Policy|policies and guidelines]]; supplying references and citations for articles from [[:WP:RS|reliable sources]] and assisting editors at the Help and Reference Desks.  Doing some, all and more than this will assist in a successful RfA in the New Year.  Also, '''please''' provide examples and diffs when you answer the questions above.  This makes it easier to review the evidence of a good editor.
'''Oppose''', withdraw, decide whether it's something you ''really'' want and, if yes, take (aeropagitica)'s advice above --
'''Oppose''' Edit count is low, and answers to questions, especially Q1, suggest that you are really not certain at this time what you actually want.--
'''Oppose'''Echo Anthony Bradbury's reasons above  '''
'''Oppose''': suggest withdrawing this and trying again with fair bit more experience.
'''Oppose''' get more experience and try an [[WP:ER|editor review]] in the meantime. --
'''Oppose''' need to be more serious about actions. Applying for RFA isn't something to do on a whim and ignorance of the editor review as a more appropriate avenue for this shows user is not ready for admin. --
'''Oppose'''.  If you're not seriously expecting to win, why bother?  [[User:Coemgenus|Coemg]][[User:Coemgenus/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose'''. You lack edits in non-mainspace areas, and it doesn't even look like you want adminship based on your answers. Your edits don't look bad themselves, but you don't have enough for my liking. --
'''Neutral''' -- would give '''Moral support''' for your honesty and long record of good contributions, but at the same time it's disappointing that you didn't put much effort into answering the questions. --
'''Neutral''' - I would also usually give '''Moral Support''', but I need to see something a bit stronger after a year. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Neutral''' per (aeropagitica) (who is opposing). Like others above, I suggest you wait until you know where you would use blocking, page protection, editing protected pages, article deletion, or rollback before asking for community approval to use them--
'''Neutral''' Come back after you can accumulate some more experience, and consider going through an editor review.--
'''Extremely strong support''', way past [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]]. Just one condition though, ''please'' check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences.  Your edit summary usage is just a bit low. —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' but please use edit summaries more.  I always check a candidate's '''first edit''', yours was a single word that greatly improved the paragraph.  Also cogent to judging a candidate is the edits of which you are most proud, yours say a lot for your values of preserving usable contributions, while stabilising the text... sometimes hard to do both.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - my experience with this editor has always been good, and no evidence they'll abuse the tools. Thanks/
'''Strong Support''' - Has the makings of a good admin. I can clearly see that my support is in good hands. Best of luck! --
'''Support''' - I have always had good experiences with this editor, his contributions are very positive, and I'm sure he'd use the tools responsibly.
'''Strong Support''' I like the honesty in Q3 and his learning from the experience to hone his dispute resolution skills.  These skills will serve him well as a potential administrator, as an administrator must be extremely level-headed and often very patient.  The numbers speak for themselves of course, but his answers are what make me confident in his abilities and happy that Wikipedia could have what I think will be a great new administrator.
'''Support'''. Long overdue. Put edit summaries more often though. :)
'''Support'''. Wikipedia will be a slightly better place with this ascertively NPOV editor as an admin.
'''Support'''. While I don't like some of the edits brought up by Ultramarine are (I have no problems with others like the last one), it is quite a while ago. On the positive side is much good work. --
'''Support''', good, experienced, dedicated editor should make a good admin
'''Support''' No major concerns here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' - seems like a good user that is unlikely to abuse the tools. '''
'''Support''' per Hoopydink, TheMindset, and the ever-sensible VofA, and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA criteria]].
'''"Insanely Great" Support''' per above.
'''Support''' - I know Pmanderson as a user who has great merits in upholding academic standards and NPOV on controversial issues, and I trust him to deal responsibly with the admin tools.
'''15,000 edit count support'''
'''Total support''' don't always agree with the guy, but i trust him to make a wonderful admin.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' Per all.  --

'''Support''' I have no problems with supporting this user. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenska]] '''''
'''Support'''. Good work! :)
'''Support'''. Proficient Wikipedian who has demonstrated policy knowledge and other strong qualities from the start. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Weak support'''. I have seen this user out and about and have seen pleasant things; concerns are worth noting and I expect this candidate will do exactly that. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I'm pleased to support this excellent and thoughtful editor's application to become an admin.
Cleared for adminship. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' He has taken the time to do the time-consuming process of book research, especially the thankless task of making sure that people's sources say what they claim.  This is something we could use more of.  I trust that he will refrain from using his Admin powers in ''any'' controversies to which he is a party, not just DPT, combating manifest vandalism aside.
'''Support''' I've always liked his way of dealing with controveries.--
'''Support''': seems like a great bloke.
'''Support''' - per all above, and some below :D
'''Support.''' —
'''Support.'''--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' because if s/he chooses to remain incivil, s/he can be desyssopped and turned into a laughingstock, which I'm sure s/he doesn't want :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Strong Support'''. I believe Pmanderson to be one of the best users I've had the fortune of meeting; an incredible knowledge, and a firm hand on hot issues. Lately, for example, I've greatly appreciated his careful eyes on the banned [[User:Iasson]]'s socks, a particularly disruptive user that through his many socks attempts to infiltrate many subtle and not clearly visible errors, many of which would have remained without Pmanderson.--
'''Support''': I do not know him personally, but so many have supported him so he must be better than most of us! Please do not charge me with [[herd mentality]]. --

'''STRONG OPPOSE'''. I have serious complaints about Pmanderson that are recent--all summer 2006 )the most recent was Aug 11 2006). He has seriously interfered with [[Alexander Hamilton]] repeatedly attacking and reverting edits, primarily to ridicule Hamilton's anti-slavery position. It seems ideological more than anything.  He has not been concilatory but aggressively hostile in insisting on his own positions. He has removed quotations from leading scholars, for example, because he decided based on his original research those scholars were wrong. I strongly oppose giving him Wiki authority.
'''Oppose''' Per all above --
'''Oppose''' as per violations of [[WP:NPA]]. People who lose their temper are not qualified for adminship. &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
'''Oppose''' per Ultramarine.
'''Seriously strong oppose''' - I've had run-ins over the course of several months with this user and it's never been pleasant.  I was originally involved with him as a mediator in which he really wasn't helping.  Then he went on to become a userbox wikilawyer, making all sorts of inane statements.  And then most recently he was doing the same thing except with cross-namespace redirects, making more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&diff=64871270&oldid=64870186 extreme statements] like how getting rid of cross-namespace redirects means we'd have to get rid of all redirects.  He even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&diff=64876659&oldid=64873475 tried to dismiss me] as trying to impose another uniformity on Wikipedia.  Gahhh.  All I've ever seen from him is poorly-reasoned hyperbole and personal attacks of a passive aggressive behavior, coupled with the hypocrisy of calling out other people for incivility.  --
'''Oppose''' userbox wikilawyering, too addicted to rules and process --
'''Oppose''' per above concerns. Doesn't seem like the user is familiar with [[WP:IAR]], or point two and three of [[WP:TRI]] for that matter, which are in my opinion the most important things of understanding for an administrator.  <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Oppose''' per above (switched from support).'''
'''Oppose''' mainly due to negative impressions of this editor formed while Arbitrating the extensive and irritating dispute he had with Ultramarine over the "criticisms of communism" article.  While not a terrible editor per se, I would not trust this individual with the mop.
'''Oppose''' Per above concerns. -
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]]'s concerns.
'''Oppose'''. Unfortunately, I believe it's likely that this user would misuse admins tools (though I doubt he would ''abuse'' them).

'''Oppose'''. I agree with Kelly that Pmanderson isn't necessarily a bad editor, but I feel that his approach to discussion is overly confrontational and can tend to be unconstructive. I am also concerned that given the tools Pmanderson's Wikilawyering might inadvertently go too far, as has happened with admins in the past.
'''Oppose'''. Per Cyde Weys and Kelly Martin.
'''Oppose''' per Cyde.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above, and the small amount of advertising of this RFA elsewhere e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29&diff=prev&oldid=69270683] --
'''Oppose'''. Incivility has been alledged by numerous users above. The advertising (per [[User:Pgk|pgk]]) is against the spirit of these debates.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but too combatitive for my taste.  Also, I strongly disagree that edit summaries only need be used in article space. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per above.
Per various concerns above, and 1FA. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
Oppose, not just because of the dispute with Ultramarine, but because of my observation of Pmanderson's editing elsewhere, Iit is my opinion that he is not at all a bad editor, but one who has too much of a propensity to edit war rather than negotiate or to be too inflexible or short on AGF, personalizing the issue. A good editor, but he has a ways to go before adminship.
'''Oppose'''. as per above
'''Oppose''' all of the above.
'''Oppose''' - per civ concerns --
'''Oppose''' - per incivility. Needs to chill.
'''Oppose''' - Please do not take this as a reflection on your article work; as irriating as such fights can be, they are useful (but I wish you'd do them somewhat more effectively); however, as someone who does such fights, I think it would be better for Wikipedia if you were not admin - I think we can still find enough people to handle the work you said you'd like to help with, although the offer is appreciated.  Again, please don't take this as an attack on what you do here, just as a sad consequnence.
'''Oppose''' per above.--
'''Oppose'''. I have participated in multiple discussions and polls with this editor, and in general my impression is positive.  However, I occasionally find it difficult to communicate with this individual, and have seen some questionable or difficult to understand edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederic_Wood_Jones&diff=68470962&oldid=68451640]. These, plus some of the other concerns outlined above (especially by Cyde) combine to make me reluctant to approve adminship at this time. --
'''Oppose''', although I would certainly reconsider on a future application. -

'''Neu''' questions need improving, and user needs to calm down a bit. I still see this user as a possible admin in the future if they stay around long enough.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' moved from support ~
'''Neutral''': Good edits spread across namespaces, but civility is a concern. -→
Naturally. (
I supported the previous RfA, and am happy to support this one.  I feel certain he will be a responsible mopper and avoid sloshing the bucket.
'''Support''' - looks like a pretty good candidate, and meets my standards, so support.
'''Support''' Does a valuable work and can achieve even more as administrator.
'''Strong support''' per Ultramarine.
'''Support''' I've never voted in an Rfa before.  Are non-admins allowed to vote?  Anyway, I've had my differences with Pmanderson, and he has certainly expressed frustration with many of my arguments about the U.S. city naming convention, but always in a civil and productive manner.  Wikipedia can only improve with this adminship.  --
'''Support'''. Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. I also supported in the previous RfA due to the candidate's good contributions, and see no reason why not to do so again. --
'''Support''' absolutely
'''Support''' He is the best guy for the job. {Happy Holidays |
'''Support''' Looks like a deserving administrator to me --
'''Support''': he's a great editor and would be an asset as an admin.
'''Support'''. Frankly, the 3RR should've been trashed some time ago and I regret supporting the policy change that made it directly enforceable. Reverting in defence of factual, correct encyclopaedic information is no vice.
'''Support''' per Radiant and Mackenson.
'''Support'''. Pmanderson is a good, dedicated editor, and I have found him to be levelheaded and willing to change his mind in discussion, the latter of which in particular is all too rare of a trait. --
'''Support''', I hope people are actually reading the diffs provided. A single 3RR block is unfortunate, yes, but I believe Septentrionalis will be deliberate in usage of the tools. Reconciliation with Ultramarine is encouraging. Neutral on the username change thing (see JzG). -- ''
'''Support'''. I'm confident he'll use the tools judiciously.
'''Tentative support''' I'm doing this partly because users I respect believe we should give him a chance, and also out of sheer amazement at some of the oppose reasons. A sig? Who cares! A procedural failure to list on time? If that makes a blind bit of difference, I'm sure the 'crats will consider it. But I can't see it.--
'''Support'''. Solid contributor and appears to be amenable to reasoned discourse. I really don't understand how people can oppose solely because of a sig -- that's just bizarre.
'''Support''' after having voted neutral and getting an explanation on my talkpage. Good luck. -- ''
'''Support'''.  I thought about this for a long while and decided the 3RR is not a concern for me (Mackensen's comment above sums it up nicely), nor is the sig.  What it boils down to is whether we trust this editor with the mop, and they have demonstrated a firm knowledge that the mop is not to be wielded to win disputes. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' based on strong content contributions in several areas, reasonable knowledge of policy, and ability to wield the mop productively, including stated desire and intent to do admin work in a backlogged area. In a recent (albeit trivial) content dispute to which I was a party, he was able to marshal persuasive evidence from reliable sources that assisted in resolving the dispute, an important and not ever-present skill. The signature is not optimal but is not a major concern; the putative 3RR violations seem borderline and do not reflect a larger problem. Some other comments below are more substantive and the candidate should bear them in mind moving forward whether this RfA succeeds or not, but they are outweighed by the positives of the overall record.
'''Support''' Solid contributor and per above comments.
'''Support''' history of solid contributions, 3RR blocks look marginal to me, and the sig issue is a drop in the bucket compared to the two-font, nine-color, six-lines-in-the-edit-window monsters that some people are sporting.
'''Support''', a great editor, with a good knowledge of policy.--
'''Support''' flexible and understanding editor, will not abuse adminship.
'''Weak Support'''. 3RR block situation discussed; supporting now. '''
'''Support''' I too have broken the 3RR rule. Although I think you're still a bit green to be an Admin, Wikipedia needs more [[Starship Troopers|meat for the grinder.]]
'''Support''', impressed with his contributions to [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] discussions. —
3rr was fairly recent, yes but I wasn't convinced that he should have been blocked and I doubt he would do it again
'''Support''' Good contributions. --
'''Surprising Support'''. I've worked with (try "against" :) him  in [[Macedonia (terminology)]], and he's not that bad once you get to understand him. We fundamentally disagree on several issues, but I have come to respect his knowledge and his opinion. His manners may seem sort of harsh, but he has shown that he responds well to goodwill. Hope you make it Sept!
'''Support''' - I'm more than happy to reiterate my previous supporting comments.
Sure, why not --
'''Support''' sensible, reasonable and civil in my experience.
'''Support''' a good editor. I feel that personal attacks in the "oppose" section are uncalled for and inappropriate.--
'''Strongly Oppose''' Pmanderson|Septentrionalis, having a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=89412116&oldid=89182481|very recent 3RR] ('''Update''': plus two narrowly escaped 3RRs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive32#User:Pmanderson_reported_by_User:Skyemoor_.28Result:.29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive28#User:Pmanderson_4_reverts_reported_by_User:Skyemoor_.28Result:.29] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Madison&diff=92856684&oldid=92841652 continues even now to revert without using the talk page]), has been uncivil and confrontational, pursuing positions for which he provides little evidence, preferring to resort to personal attacks to sway new editors to his position. I have supplied many dozens of secondary and primary references, though he continues his argument from "authority", though he does not have the qualifications. See an example of how he [[Talk:James_Madison#dispute|responds to people who provide several supporting references]]. Some of his comments  violate the spirit, if not the letter, of [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]. <small>[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson 2#Oppose comment from Skyemoor|see talk page for detailed evidence]]</small> [[User:Skyemoor|Skyemoor]] 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)  Updated
'''Oppose'''  I took a bit to look at this as a nom. from Radiant carries some weight with me.  Regardless however, I can't support a candidate a mere two weeks after being blocked for 24 hours for 3RR.  I'm also rather underwhelmed by the responses to the questions above.  I'm not convinced the past civility concerns have been completely addressed.  <s>I have a '''strong''' aversion to sigs that have no relationship to the user name.</s>  And finally, I am concerned that this RfA was allowed to accumulate votes for almost 24 hours, and then was listed after having the timestamp reset, effectively giving the RfA a "running start".  There's just too many things here that concern me, so no. —
'''Oppose''' 3RR. - <b>
'''Oppose''' couldn't care less about the sig (though if they have created the user account which redirects, I'm not sure why they didn't just rename). The recent 3RR is troubling, the answers to the questions not the best I've seen and (propbably unfairly on the candiate) the nominator removing all of the lengthy first oppose to the talk page seems "wrong". (I'm all for keeping the discussions to the point, but leaving at least a stub or summary of the oppose would have seemed sensible and getting someone other than the nominator to do so equally sensible) --
'''Oppose''' for his 3RR vio and pushy, condescending attitude. He has not really put forth any convincing reason why wikipedia will be improved by making him an admin.
'''Oppose''' per the recent block and edit warring. '''
3RR. -
'''Oppose''' - 3RR. Edit/revert warring is very, very evil and pointless. The thought of this candidate being able to wheel war does not appeal.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> Changed to '''Strong oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_R._Dewey&diff=prev&oldid=92536624 This] is not acceptable. Sentences of the form "In reality, X, so person Y is wrong" are blatantly POV, and you can't just restore them saying "POV!" It's not a magic word that makes you right. As an admin, you would have the power to block people making these "POV" edits, which is not good. Repeated edit warring is also not good, as wheel warring is incredibly disruptive. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pmanderson_2&diff=93974881&oldid=93862530 this reply] is just terrible. -
'''Oppose''' per all the above serious concerns. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above and concerns discussed at my talk page. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', same reasons as Doug Bell.  Votes should have been disallowed by the nominator/nominee before the page was transcluded. --
No way.  For a month or two there Pmanderson was wikistalking me, always conveniently "showing up" in situations I was involved in, and inevitably taking the opposite viewpoint.  I don't even remember what I originally did to Pmanderson to make him hate me so much, but he needs to learn better how to simply let things go, rather than unnecessarily carrying on arguments.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' well if the 3 RR was a couple of months ago I would let it past but it isn't. And your sig is somewhat disguising your account/username. Please change if you havn't already. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Weak oppose''' uninspiring answers to questions and 3RR. That said overall fairly impressive. Suggest you wait a couple of months, give better answers, sort out the sig, don't go over 3RR and list your RfA properly and I'll strongly support.
'''Weak Oppose''' I have interacted with Pmanderson|Septentrionalis on two requested moves and one article citations needed.  We have generally had a contentious relationship.  I generally create rough pages in need of editing.  I currently have one ([[Paul Cornell (Chicago)]] that is still tagged as in need of work.  It was his cleanup tag.  The article truly still needs some work.  However, debates on this page were very odd.  Instead of correcting a misspelling he tagged the misspelled word "Plaissance" specifically as dubious.  We went back and forth on this topic.  Oddly, he has been against two of my requested moves. His opposition to the [[Paul Cornell]] move [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Cornell&diff=83521988&oldid=83447414 here] puts words in my mouth.  I don't like the tone of this [[Samuel Johnson]] move [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samuel_Johnson&diff=91644610&oldid=91626786 opposition] although I was opposed almost unanimously.  What troubles me is that both oppositions were made at almost the same time as successful move oppositions for [[Haystacks]] and [[Robert Johnson]].  He seems to only want to take part in hounding me and opposing me and remains silent in my support.  The reason I make this opposition weak is that the article he has tagged on me was in good faith, but with bad tone and similarly the latter move request was in sympathy with the voting consensus.  I think he just needs to be more civil in his opposition and constructive criticism.
'''Strong Oppose''' The recent 3RR is troubling, the candidate seems pushy and opinionated. The nominator removed all of the lengthy first oppose vote to the talk page is not in favor with me. We need admins that are neutral in their views, this candidate is not. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per all of the above concerns.
'''Oppose''' -- I'm afraid that the [[WP:3RR]] vio is too recent for me to be comfortable supporting this user's request for admin tools.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Recent blocking for 3RR, behavior in the article space, and talk page comments indicate that the civility issues haven't been sufficiently addressed since the last RfA. Cyde's mention of Wikistalking is particularly troubling. In addition, responses to the questions are poor. This is a definite no for me. —
'''Oppose''' 3RR --
'''Oppose'''. Great user, but recent violation of the 3RR is concerning.--'''
'''Oppose''' for pretty much the same reasons as last time. In all honesty I still do not feel that I can completely trust this user with the admin tools.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, I cannot overlook the recent 3RR violation.
'''Oppose''' Lots of 3RR violating (whether blocked for it or not) per above. --
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by pgk.--
'''Oppose''' per concerns raised by Doug Bell, Cyde, and the '''still-unanswered question''' regarding the "headstart" given to this RfA in regards to the timestamp. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Oppose''' I just switch from Support. Today he went back to his old tricks of inserting his anti-abolitionist rhetoric (in this case [[John Jay]]), minimizing the efforts of opponents of slavery.
'''Oppose''' per Rjensen
'''Oppose''' per 3RR concerns by editors above. --
'''Weak Oppose''' for 3RR incident.
'''Wholehearted Oppose'''. I must admit I'm rather surprised by the naiveness of some wikipedians here. Pmanderson is one of the biggest POV-pushers and rv-warriors I've ever come across. I don't care if he's been editing 100 articles per day, this is definitely not a criterion for selecting administrators. I'm not even going to get into detail about his poor contribution activity (which includes biased/unsourced/weasel edits, continuous violations of 3RR, NPA etc) that some people here are already familiar with. As sincere as I can be, watching people like Pmanderson getting support for adminship, can be good enough reason for someone to think of quitting wikipedia once and for all.
A question: Why was this RFA not properly listed when the candidate accepted and answered the questions? In effect, there has been an additional 23 hours during which people voted while this wasn't on [[WP:RFA]]. No opinion either way otherwise. &ndash;
'''Neutral'''I would have been thrilled to support. Strong contributor.  I see no recent incivility on user's talk page. The timing of the 3RR incident is unfortunate.<s> Also, please, make the signature less confusing.</s>
'''Neutral'''.  I here vote neutral on Pmanderson's RfA to make it clear that I feel that my previous objections to his adminship were based on what is now year-old information which may no longer be appropriate in light of more recent events of which I am not aware.  I have not paid attention to his conduct in the past year, and have no reason to either believe or disbelieve that he may have changed his practices.  Receiving both Radiant's and Ultramarine's endorsements is a positive development; however, the recent 3RR violation is a negative development.  For the record, I have no objection to the signature issue; it was briefly confusing to me but only for a short time.
'''Neutral''' because the 3RR was an accident, however I still don't feel ''comfortable'' supporting.
'''Neutral''' - no [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Pmanderson&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6 image experience], but given the current opposes, any more would be a disservice to this user and wikipedia --
'''Neutral''' I rarely vote neutral; however, this RfA is interesting. He has a number of good, well-spread edits, but, the 3RR violations have me wondering if this user understands what Wikipedia rules mean. So I'll have to go neutral until I see that he fully realizes what these rules mean, especially to aspiring admins. [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' The recent 3RR--although it is an unduly complicated policy--concerns me that Pmanderson may not yet be ablte to fully grasp and apply policy properly.--
'''Neutral''' 3RR. Sig is not such a problem, per Opabinia regalis. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' per the 3RR violation. I think this user needs more experience in several areas, so not now but maybe later. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Emphatic support.'''  We need more admins with good academic qualifications who work on serious articles.  Poetlister fits the bill.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't have the level of trust towards this person necessary for this role. --
User is just too new.'''
'''Oppose'''.  As with sannse, I am not comfortable extending to this editor the trust requisite with the position of administrator.
'''Oppose''', lack of experience.
'''Oppose''', edit count real low.--
'''Reluctant oppose'''.  Poetlister is, I think, a valuable contributor, but I don't see any evidence that they need the tools, and I don't see enough activity on which to base a firm judgment.  Sorry.
'''Oppose''' doesn't pass my RFA criteria. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and the sockpuppetry concerns outlined in questions (below).
'''Oppose'''. Edit count. --
'''Oppose''' - Several blocks and inexperience.
'''Reminder not to pile on neutral''' - suggest withdraw, most users won't support until they have a chance to really understand who you are and what you're like, keep on editing and sometime you'll breeze on by! --
'''Neutral''' - this user has a knowledge of what an admin is supposed to do, but just doesn't have the experience for the job yet.  Please try for adminship again later, when you have many more edits in the Wikipedia, User Talk, and main namespaces. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Comment''' I can't vouch for the validity of this information, but this may (or may not) shed some more light on the situation behind the blocks: [[User:Zordrac/Poetlister]] -
Oppose, malformed RfA, and though I don't suffer from[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=POLLUX&submit=Count editcountitis], 124 is way too less for me. --
'''Oppose''' While your edits appear to be good, there are too few to accurately judge if you'll make a good admin. I suggest you come back after a few months of active editing. --
'''Oppose'''. while I don't want to attack your contributions, I feel that your answers to the standard questions don't really show a good understanding of what you could do as an administrator. I am also very confused by this malformed nomination. I would encourage you to continue contributing as an editor.
'''Oppose''' Very few edits (less than 500 by a quick precursory look), and much fewer article space edits. Also, malformed RFA--
'''Strong oppose''' far too new, too few WP edits, no nom, broken signature, questions didn't satisfy me greatly either, causing format problems to the oppose section of the RfA.--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong Oppose''' Very inexperienced. Just registered today. Fails almost all of [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Oppose''' your account was created today, please withdraw and try again in 3-6 months and 2,000 edits. Thanks
'''Oppose'''; too new.  Stick around, make lots of good edits, acquire a good reputation, come back after four or five months with several thousand edits.  Don't take this wrong:  welcome to Wikipedia, but adminship generally doesn't come until you've been here for a while.
I think Post Falls Man would help wikipedia alot and I think that we could all benifit from Post Falls Man being an administratior. And befor you judge try looking at the articles he created.
Not enough experience, including almost nothing in the Wikipedia: namespace. Unfortunetly I must recommend withdrawing this nom, as it's unlikely to succeed.
'''Oppose''' per BryanG
I have to agree with BryanG.  Almost nothing to judge.  --
You don't need to be an administrator to improve articles and contact users about them.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''. For, more than anything, the insane run-on sentence in A1.
'''Oppose''' per the first attempt which I untranscluded from the bottom after it the page was deleted a couple of hours ago. This user doesn't seem to have a use for admin tools or even know what they are.—
'''Oppose''' per Kbdank, Andeh, and WAveg.
'''Oppose''' If did remove critical comments, then lacks understanding.
'''Oppose'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose per above'''
'''Oppose''' per all above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' Unfortunately, there is almost no experience, not admin quality. --<font color="336699">
Suggest withdrawl <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Oppose''' and speedy close of this RFA, there is no chance that consensus in favor is going to come out of this. To the user who started this RFA, please build up experience and contributions on Wikipedia before beginning an RFA. Perhaps after some experience is obtained you could have a legitimate shot at becoming a Wikipedia administrator.--

'''Support'''.  Sometimes you have to consider quality over quantity.
'''Support'''. As nominator and per #1. --
'''Support'''. He has 1500 edits to the main page space, the most important space on the site.  He's been here for 8 months, opposing users fail to see those qualities which pass many standards.
'''Support'''. I was a little hesitant about voting support due to the reasons given by the opposers, but after reading the answers about the edit conflicts, I think this user would make a good admin due to experience in that category. And I agree with Sunglasses about the eight months. -→
'''Support'''. I am sure this editor will not abuse the tools; if this RfA is unsuccessful, I encourage him to try again in a couple of months. A civil and intelligent contributor. --
'''Support''' What the hey. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support''' = per Arn --

'''Support''': nice bloke.
'''Oppose''', too few edits to Wikipedia namespace suggests unfamiliarity with policy.
'''Strong oppose''', very few project and user talk edits; needs a bit more experience--
'''Strong oppose''' 25 WP edits - <b>
'''Mild Oppose'''. Doesn't appear to make enough contact with the rest of the community: very few User Talk and Wikipedia space edits, with relatively few Talk page edits. No editor is an island, and no admin in particular: I'd like to see more involvement with others and demonstrated ability (such as RC Patrolling over a long period of time) before supporting.
'''Oppose''' per low WP space edits. --
'''Oppose''' not quite yet.  Needs more interaction with the community --
'''Oppose'''. You need more experience with Wikipedia policy and/or vandalism fighting to ensure you can effectively use the extra admin tools... Your article contributions seem quite nice but the low amount of WP-space edits and user talk edits don't show an in-depth knowledge of policy or how you will communicate with other users given a situation that goes beyond simple article discussion. Try such venues as [[WP:AFD|AfD]] and, if possible, [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrol]] if you want this kind of experience. Also, you don't need admin tools to become a good article writer and a respected member of the community.
'''Oppose''' WP edits far too low, same with distinct page edits. May need more experience too.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' lack of experience.--
'''Oppose''' Looks like a good editor but I can't see any xFD contributions in the last 1000 edits and, of greater concern, the lack of talk edits after reversions where the edit summary indicates vandalism. --
'''Oppose''' not enough edits.
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari and Peripitus. --
'''Oppose''' not experienced enough for me. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' per above. Good editor, not a good administrator.
'''Weak Oppose''' Good editor; '''WILL''' become a good administrator in the future. However, low WP edits is a major concern. Try again in a few months time. In the meantime, do not give up hope. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for very low WP edits--
'''Very weak oppose''' per Siva1979.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' very low WP, User talk and no template edits. A lack of portal to make up for template/WP forces me to oppose. Please broaden your horizons and return with experience and a tiki grass skirt. <tt>;)</tt> [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Try again when you have more depth and breadth of experience, and keep up the good work! --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose'''. Don't take this the wrong way, but WP space edits show knowledge of policy that is important for an administrator. With that number of edits, I can't confidently support. Come back another time.
'''Respectful Oppose''' - For now. I'd like to see this user get a bit more experience then come back here later. —
'''Oppose with no offense intended''' - I believe this user should attain some more experience and be more open to the Wiki community.
''''Oppose''' for now. Low WP and talk edits.
"''Oppose''' for now. too early.
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to see this editor become an admin too, but right now I can't be sure that this user is experienced enough with wikipedia's policies. Less than 100 WP namespace edits suggests to me that the user is not quite familiar with wikipedia processes. Also, the answer to Question 1 is not very convincing at all. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Given your low Wikipedia namespace edit count, I don't think you have enough experience right now. Keep contributing and you'll become a better candidate. Cheers!
'''Neutral''' - while your contributions look solid, they're editor-oriented, not administration-oriented. But the real reason I cannot support is that if you're wanting to cut back on the amount of time you spend on Wikipedia, I would submit that becoming an admin is NOT going to be the way to accomplish that... (however admirable that goal may be). --
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - impressive mainspace edits, but the amount of WP-space edits does not meet my standard. '''
'''Neutral'''. Not enough WP edits, and I find the answer to question 1 underwhelming. But otherwise a good contributor, so I'm not opposing.
'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral'''. Great editor, but not enough WP space edits.
'''Neutral''' Answers to questions and amount of user interaction convinces me that this nominee needs more time to demonstrate admin-like qualities before being given the mop and bucket. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Indubitable support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. I was thinking about nominating him myself, just a few hours ago, in fact. &mdash; '''''
'''Support''' I'm on board -
'''Support''' Wow!  Astonished, genuine "cliche" moment!  Of course, give him mop!
'''Support''' Good choice for Admin.  --
<s>'''Oppose''' as bad faith RfA - you shopuldn't nominate people who are already Admins.</s>3 words: Oh ... My ... God. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under a table. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya about the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, is particularly missed - a lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed. Sorry, I just like that song. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''; helpful and kind. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''
I'm glad to '''support''' a good user who joined in the same month. One note though, in AfDs and other voting pages, please state in edit summary your vote (del;keep;merge;support;oppose;etc) so the closing admin and other users can easily verify your vote. Thanks.
'''Support'''.  Good variety of edits, seems well-rounded. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' would make a great admin. <small>
'''Support'''. Very good answers to questions. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': I thoroughly believe this user will use the tools well. --

Cliché per Xoloz.
'''Support'''. Has never bitten me. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I honestly thought you were an admin already!--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per NSLE. (
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good editor, and I like the chip pan article. --
'''Support''': I think he would handle AfD's properly.
'''Support'''. Even if he suffers from "editcountitis", which is debatable, it shouldn't matter. "Editcountitis" ''is not'' a disability that prevents a good editor from being a great admin. I did find his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCJS102793&diff=29906048&oldid=29785806 2 December 2005 RfA vote] to be patently tasteless, but the fact that it was an isolated event leads me to believe that Proto realized that himself shortly after he posted it. We need more sharp-minded, keen-eyed admins.
'''Support'''. Good work on aged requests. -
'''Support''' good editor, will be good admin --
'''Support'''. Very impressed with how Proto answered my concerns on my talkpage.
'''Support''' Seems to have a fairly well tuned bullshit detector at his disposal. I say, "Lets exploit it".
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Per above. '''''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Browsing through the oppose votes, there are some potentially damaging diffs around. But most of them are basically jokes which just turn out bad in print. You can say a lot of things about him, but he's got humor. And we need more of that around here! Sure, he could have used another word than "batter", and he should definitely learn to think a bit harder before posting something potentially [[WP:BITE]]-ing. Given his record, i'm fairly confident he'll piss off quite a few people more when he's an admin! Then again, i'm fairly confident he'll make a good admin nonetheless. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]

'''Strong support''' should have been nominated a long time ago. Looking over the oppose votes, it always amuses me when users vote oppose to get revenge on their perceived "enemies." Not that I'm naming any names, though I'm curious as to how "editcountitis" is going to get in the way of anyone's admin duties or how voting on RFAs has anything to do with being an admin. Oh wait. It doesnt.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Per all the above.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''', just because I don't think the reasons for opposing have any weight. See "comments" below. -
'''Support''', agreed w/ above, oposition seems too vocal, once an admin he'll become more neutral, it's always the case. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No doubt about in my mind whatsoever that he would be a great admin. --
'''Support''': setting high standards for adminship is no vice.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' What is this editcountitis-itis that is going around?  Proto seems like a great candidate to me, regardless of his dreaded editcounting disease. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Support''' the points evinced below by those who seem to think that Proto is somehow involved in the GNAA are completely off-base.  Helping out Wikipedia by removing blog-related detritus from the project should not be grounds for opposing his nomination, nor should having a sense of humour.  If this fails, it will be a sad day, since Proto's contributions are stellar and the evidence cited by Jjay and others to oppose his adminship is simply ridiculous.
'''Support''' An excellent editor with a good sense of humour. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. I had assumed he already was one.
'''Support'''. I can sympathize with people who turn bad articles into good articles. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''', having read all of the rationales for votes cast here, and taken a cursory look at this editors history, I believe that in balance he will make good use of the tools.
'''Support''' (jumping on the bandwagon).--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' The examples of incivility offered are, quite frankly, not convincing. I would worry more about supporting someone for Admin who had not spoken plainly at least once.
'''Support''' From one poor S.O.B. to another;>--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' You bet you!--
'''Support''' if this is still open. Spot-checked his history, didn't see any problems.
'''Support''' - late but this hasn't been closed yet. --
Person has an extreme case of editcountitis; this will get in the way of admin duties.
'''Strong Oppose'''  I came across this user when he voted delete on a list of Paris streets.  No problem - he was probably right. But I consider someone who would write ''batter creator over the head with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, repeatedly'' as lacking a basic qualification for adminship - common courtesy.
'''Strong Oppose''' editcountitis maximus and terse language on Afd just doesn't sit well with me.--
'''Oppose'''. I'm wary of people who spend this much time on AfD. I am worried about Proto's deletionism, specifically his support for the "war on blogs". I don't think Proto should have the power to delete pages.
'''Oppose''' I'm not crazy about a potential admin involved in a "war" on anything and would hope that an admin would help tone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs&diff=prev&oldid=34629681   this] down rather than making sure it was formatted correctly. Also, not comfortable with his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icebird&diff=prev&oldid=32224306   emphasis] on voting at AFD and a misunderstanding of why the name was changed. Few edit summaries on AFD edits as well.
'''Oppose''', strongly perhaps. I don't know this person, but a comment like this: "''I vote '''delete'''. Let us not forget that the entire process was originally called [[Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion]]. The name changed was to clarify that this process was for ''articles'', not to suggest it was not a voting process''" demonstrates at the very least someone who I'd not want to be closing deletion ''discussions'' (ahem) and more likely someone with a basic misunderstanding of consensus. AFD is emphatically ''not'' a vote. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate his other contributions, but perhaps Proto could address this concern?
'''Oppose'''. When I read that he was going to use his adminship to close AFD debates I had to pause a bit. AFD ''is'' a discussion and not just a vote, and I have some fears that Proto will be closing debates purely on vote counting without paying heed on the arguments presented. This, coupled with an overreliance on "objective" criteria like edit counting in his RFA voting without considering the ''quality'' of edits puts me in the oppose column. Proto ''is'' a good contributor and his answers to the questions are thoughtful and good, but this reliance on hard and fast numerical rules needs to be softened up a little before I can support him becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Dmcdevit and Rx StrangeLove. AfD is about consensus.--
'''Oppose''' as per other comments here. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. This editor has certainly made some good contributions. However, I am concerned by some of the AfD comments already indicated and edit summaries that use the word crap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godcasting&diff=35827137&oldid=35488924]. Most importantly, though, I think any user that not only supports the "war on blogs" but has publicly stated that '''the leader of the GNAA is his hero''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATimecop&diff=34533585&oldid=34469426] is probably not fit for the admin role. The repeated show of support for a "''war''" that exists merely to divide the community is deeply troubling. It makes me wonder which master this user will seek to serve?--
'''Oppose''', lack of understanding of policy and process.
'''Oppose''', for reasons given above, especially #3 (MONGO's detailed analysis). ++
'''Oppose''' per the evidence found by JJay above.
'''Oppose''' this was hard for me and will be my first ever oppose vote.  After thinking about it for some time, I can't bring myself to support here.  The edits I've seen caused me doubt that we won't have another abrasive admin causing more harm than good, but then Proto's constant responses and arguing with oppose votes is poor form (admins need to be able to handle criticism and people simply oppsosing them and their ideas better and simply show restraint when they really want to say something) and bugs me to the point where, unfortunately, I must oppose.  Sorry.  No hard feelings.
'''Oppose'''. Per numerous reasons above. A few more months of experience would likely be very beneficial.
'''Oppose''' Abrasive comments can lead to all kinds of problems (edit wars, vandalism, good users leaving). We need to minimise such comments as much as possible and admins need to lead by example. In that sense, I am not sure that this user is ready.
'''Oppose''', Tempted to cite a support after viewing proto's request to Mr.Sidaway [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=37069808], seeing that he's a person ready to accept critisim and helpful advice regarding behaviour, but the numerous diffs en' masse' provided by MONGO are unacceptable. Civilty should be of upmost importance regarding other users - espescially when you disagree with them. -
'''Oppose''' as per MONGO and JJay. But I'd probably support him in a couple of months if he can show himself a bit more diplomatic in the interval.

Oppose.  JJay has already said most of what I would have said.  Perhaps you've been unfairly tarred with guilt by association, but much of this voting is about intangibles and comfort level.  Timecop's user page clearly says "In early 2003, I have created the Gay Nigger Association of America" and "this user is a template for hate", and this wording was also there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timecop&oldid=34440030 as of January 9] at the time you made your "personal hero" pledge.  It's hard to believe you would have declared someone a "personal hero" without ever having visited their user page.  The "war on blogs" page also contains all kinds of intemperate language like "hundreds of utterly worthless blog-related pages" and "Let's get rid of this crap" and "Is the rest of the shit inane garbage" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs&oldid=34320316 version as of January 9]) and even the "war" wording itself, which runs counter to [[Wikipedia:Civility]], which should have raised some alarm bells about the company you were keeping. --
'''Oppose''' per MONGO and others. I find it hard to believe that you forgot about editing a page named "Gay Nigger Association of America". It's certainly the kind of article that gives one pause even if you come across it at random.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.'''
'''Oppose'''. Too many rude comments and altercations between other users. Can't support. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">[[User talk: E. Brown|Hurricane]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="FF0000">
Oppose. Good editor, but I'm not ready to give him the mop yet. Too much potential for trouble, and it's very possible (though not conclusive) that he lied about GNAA involvement. Try again later. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but inconsistent statements about GNAA make me nervous.
Proto's response on Curps' talk page fails to address the problem, since it doesn't actually give an explanation for the misrepresentation. People who can't be trusted about things that are so easily checked can't be trusted with adminship either. --
torn. good editor overall.  i'm not thrilled with the afd stuff, or the alleged editcountitis (evidence?). ''leaning'' towards support, but not there yet.
Not Sure. The abrasiveness in project space I've seen in the past is preventing my support, but some of the comments of the supporters are preventing my opposition. The two cancel each other out down here. <font color="#4682B4">
'''nuteral''': not sure of judgemnt following some of the links cited previosly
'''Neutral'''. I was all set to support, but after considering the objections of those voting oppose and following some of the links I find neutral best reflects my opinion.
'''Neutral''' Proto is a fine editor, and I liked the answers he gave to questions (he can use them again his next RfA and I wo'n't mind), but I never vote support when there are so many thorough objections. Call it being cautious, or maybe peer pressure.
Not enough contributions.
- <b>
'''Oppose'''. Horribly malformed RfA, incapable of following instructions. Candidate has less than 100 edits. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and reapplying when you are more familiar with Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' 99 edits when I last checked, too new. Also appears to have trouble with wiki-formatting whilst making this rfa.--<font style="background:white">
'''Speedy close''' before the pileon really begins. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you really don't have enough experience. Suggest withdrawal or early close by b'crat. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
''"Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''', suggest withdrawal. --
'''Moral Support''' Please continue contributing to Wikipedia.[[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
'''Support''' - This RfA will likely fail so I so ne reason to dent your morale, I suggest withdrawal until you believe you are ready (2000 edits, 4 months.) <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' misplaced RfA, very weak answers to questions, failed to disclose [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nathannoblet|previous RfA]] which was just over a month ago. Fewer than 250 edits is too few for me to support you, I'd advise you need at ''least'' 2500 and several more months of experience. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' I suggest self-withdrawal. Please read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] and try again once you've gained (much) more experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', not enough experience, try again later. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', you need a lot more experience, I know you tried RFA last month (while having only 20 edits under your belt), but the issue is not with time It's more with activity, I reckon 2000 edits which have plunged you into numerous corners of Wikipedia (RFAs, disputes, AFDs etc) would be necessary. '''
'''Oppose''' per all above. Never thought I'd say for "yearning for adminship," but it's been way to soon edit-wise since last time. When you have a few thousand more edits, have taken part in many, many XfD discussions and reviewed many more new pages, and if you still think adminship is something you want-- try again.
'''Oppose''' - Nathannoblet, your enthusiastic demeanor and willingness to help are strong points in your favor but I agree with most people here that you need more experience to be able to tackle the job; only time (and a LOT of work as a non-admin) will tell whether you have what it needs to be an admin. As I said enthusiasm and a helping attitude are great first steps but you also need patience, discussion skills and a strong sense of diplomacy and I feel your response to the questions left people wondering about these skills. Whatever the outcome of this RfA, your qualities are be a great asset to Wikipedia so please keep contributing.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' -- needs more experience. -
'''Oppose''' more experience, plus needs more answers for the questions above.
'''Strong Oppose''', Nathannoblet only scores 4 at the most 5 on my [[User:Legolost|Admin Assessment scale]]. You need at least 20 points to pass, come back in 6 months. --
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal. It's way too early to even consider giving admin tools to this user.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You have currently made less than 200 edits, whereas successful admin candidates usually have at least 2,000 edits. You've also only been around since the end of June, and have only been contributing consistently since late-August. Considerably more edits and a longer track record as a consistent contributor are needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Good luck if you apply again in the future.
'''Oppose''', Needs more edits and experiences.
Inexperience. Come back six months later with continued participation, and I'll reconsider. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Neutral''' Yes, please withdraw. Need more experience. Thanks -
'''Neutral''' No sense piling on. Keep on editing.
'''Neutral''' Before I could support you, I would have to see where your strengths as an admin lay.  Why not withdraw, get an [[Wikipedia:editor review]] and/or enter in to the [[Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs#Admin_Coaching|admin coaching]] programme and work towards admin status before reapplying in ~3000 edits' time? <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Moral support''' - First of all, I suggest this is withdrawn before it becomes too much of a joke. I don't want to pile on here. You need to address the concerns raised below and in your previous RFAs. If you're dying to help out on XfD, you may !vote speedy delete if appropriate, close the discussions where [[WP:SK|speedy keep]] is applicable and close deletion debates that finished with the speedy deletion of the article (and the deleting admin forgot to close). I suggest you take on some form of [[Wikipedia:Admin coaching|admin coaching]] and come back when your coach thinks you're ready.
'''Oppose''' Just by scratching the surface, you have less than 2000 edits typically required (at the very least) for adminship and <s>fourth</s> third RfA in two months. Your answers to the questions are simply too weak for me to take comfort in the fact that you will use your tools wisely. While I appreciate your eagerness, you are simply not prepared for admin status. Continue your editing, and come back when you have more than 2000 edits. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
And again, no. You're far too eager to be an admin. But you're not admin quality. You took two editors - including an admin - to ArbCom over minor incidents. You claim [[Miami, Queensland]] is one of your best works, yet nominated it for [[WP:GA]] when it was incomplete and full of trivia. This is an encyclopedia, the ultimate goal is ''not'' to become an admin. The answer to question 1 is almost laughable. This is your '''<s>THIRD</s> FOURTH''' RFA this year<s>, and you don't even remember, creating this as a 4th RFA</s>? ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Punk Boi 8_2|2]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nathannoblet|1]]). &ndash;
'''Strong oppose''' per Chacor. I strongly recommend withdrawal, given your past RfAs and your history. Feel free to try again in a few months if you can get more experience. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]]
'''Strong oppose''' per Chacor and Physicq. Please withdraw this nomination and try again when you have at least 2,000 edits – not before.
'''Strong oppose'''. Clearly does not understand Wikipedia policy, as can be seen by users own talk page, <s>as of 2 days ago<s> which was blanked 3 hours ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Punk Boi 8&oldid=85302271]. Numerous incidents of seriously misunderstanding policy and process. Plus, less than 500 total edits. --
'''Strong oppose''' Nathan has shown immaturity and very poor judgement in filing unwarranted arbitration and mediation cases against people who didn't even know he considered they were in a dispute. His arbitration statement in its entirety was: "I am not too happy with Longhair." As self-appointed mediator, he advised other editors seeking mediation to instead skip the dispute resolution procedures and escalate straight to arbitration. He has shown little interest or ability in editing the encyclopedia and appears to view Wiki as a game. I strongly advise this candidate to withdraw his request and reapply when he has developed and demonstrated maturity and an understanding of dispute resolution and Wikipedia policies and goals.
'''Oppose''' Did you even read my comments on your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2Fnathannoblet&diff=71995260&oldid=71992968 first] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPunk Boi 8_2&diff=78247565&oldid=78245974 second] RfA attempts or your [[Wikipedia:Editor_review/Punk Boi 8|editor review]]?  You don't have enough experience as your repeated attempts at RfA demonstrate.  You also fail to understand Wikipedia policies and protocols, either in the formation of articles or interacting with editors.  I don't need to drive all of the nails home, please read the advice at the pages linked to tell you what to do and how to improve.  A bureaucrat should withdraw this RfA soon as it will not achieve consensus and all positive advice has already been given for the moment.
'''Strongly Oppose''' anyone who has three RfA's in three months is just stupid, especially whenyou have '''500''' edits and take somebody to the ArbCom over nothing whatsoever. Please, for the love of God (and I say that as an atheist) withdraw.
'''Oppose'''. Someone who says we can take them to ArbCom because they don't close so many deletion discussions a month is clearly not ready to be an admin yet. --
'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons, lack of statement
'''Oppose'''. This is my first oppose vote in an RfA I think. Your enthusiasm is noted, and it is very appreciated, but I find your lack of knowledge over the dispute resolution process significantly disturbing. You consider the ArbCom as a casual way to solve a problem, instead of realizing that it is the last resort, and NOT something you should just casually play with. --'''
Suggest withdrawal --
Please withdraw. Your previous history shows that you don't understand how to interact within the community, which is a '''''must''''' for an administrator. If I were you, I would not reapply for at least another 6 months, during which you should demonstrate good behaviour and proper respect for WP procedures and protocols. All the best. '''
'''Neutral''' to avoid the obvious pile on. First of all, I wish to state that I admire your attitude of not giving up hope on being an admin. However, allow me to suggest your withdrawal from this RfA soon and reapply again after six to nine months. In the meantime, read up on the successful nominations as well as the unsuccessful ones on how to become an admin. In this way, the quality of your edits would improve and you would avoid further disappointments on any future RfA nominations. In the meantime do not give up hope and continue to contribute in a substantial manner to this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qrc2006&oldid=74355733 Malformed RfA], not transcluded on the main RfA page (at time of writing), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xyrael&diff=prev&oldid=74357569 spamming] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FireFox&diff=prev&oldid=74357450 random] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBKramer&diff=prev&oldid=74357336 users] asking them to vote. Despite having over 3000 edits, for those reasons, I must oppose. —&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I also question the seriousness of this RfA.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' - user is seems unfamiliar with WP conventions, policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' - user personally attacked me in an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emeryville%2C_California&curid=107334&diff=66965569&oldid=66408878 edit summary]. When I spoke to him about it on his [[User_talk:Qrc2006#Emeryville.2C_California_image.|talk page]], he responded with [[User_talk:Zepheus#emeryville|confusing, unapologetic and rude reply]]. -
'''Oppose''' - User isn't familiar with our policies. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' - If he can't fill out the form I'm not about to trust him with the tools. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAscendedAnathema&diff=51890433&oldid=51738189 these 3 edits]. Everything about that diff is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia, and we need administrators to maintain some level of maturity as representatives of the community.
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal or early closure. No demonstrated need for the tools or knowledge of how they would be used or even what they are.  This doesn't mean the candidate shouldn't remain with the project as an editor if he has contributions to make, but I suggest that he withdraw the RfA at this time.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Malformed RFA.  Doesn't even meet my "low" standards for a support.  Likely to need [[WP:SNOW]]. --
'''Oppose'''. I expect a high level of professionalism from admins, even in the details. The details, even in this RfA, including his bolding of answers, terrible grammar and punctuation as well as the cavalier attitude seriously turns me off.
'''Oppose''' Well, the reasons are clear here. I suggest you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible before it piles up. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong oppose''' diffs provided above (by Alex & Alphachimp for example) show manifest unfitness for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per diffs above.  --
'''Support''' I nominated him didn't I?
'''Support''' clearly an experienced and able user.
'''Support''', happy to give a loud "yes!" for one of the best members of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Military history project]] ever. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' Drafted? I just hope thst you do not become inactive for a very long time.--
'''Support''' Infectiously enthusiastic about Wikipedia, knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects and a great contributor.
'''Support'''. Friendly, good-humoured and hard working! Demonstrates a great deal of knowledge on WikiPolicy not by debating them over endlessly (as some of us are prone to do), but by actually putting them into practice. Would no doubt excel as an admin, especially in tough stuff like mediating NPOV disputes where his [[WP:COOL]] is needed. - [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]
'''Support''' - no problems here.
'''Support''', diligent and dedicated. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' - No problems here. A very dedicated user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' fine editor and will be a great admin.
'''Support''', good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' Contributions are just fine.--
'''Support'''
'''support''' per Ghirla. Clearly deserves to join The Police.
'''Support'''. A good editor and will be a good admin.
'''Suppoer''', I'm liking the answers, and I'm very impressed with quality of contributions.--<small>
'''Support''' Hell yea.
'''Support''' (''he is not an admin yet?'' type).--
'''Not informed, thus grrrr late support'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', will be a great help in dealing with problem editors in a nice way.
--
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Need I add a cliché here.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.  I've seen this user's edits/efforts in the past and he has the credentials to be a good admin. --
'''Support'''.  Helpful, knowledgable, and pleasant to work with. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. good efforts, just watch the jokes.
'''Strong support''' - quick, let's crucify another poor SOB for having a sense of humour.  Yeesh.  Awesome editor.
'''Support''' Absolutely, nothing but positive interactions/opinions of the Ghost. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''': --
Support. Welcome aboard, Mr. Ghost. &ndash;
Noting the apology to Chirla, I offer the '''support''' I wanted to offer from the beginning.
Support, ''Pro Ghost'',''Amico carissimo suffargium Filippus dat'' --
Thought he already was one; I was going to nominate him, but thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' We need aggressive administrators User:
'''Support''' good editor, fellow military history buff --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''.
'''Oppose'''. I am not seeing the "good vibe" evinced above.
'''Oppose'''.  To see this person described as "...always ready to help & is extremely sensible" just defies belief. This editor would find in completely impossible to act within the patterns of required and accepted behaviour of an admin.  I have been involved with this editor twice. the first time in a dispute over a failed RFA when his erratic and insulting comments had to be removed, and a second time with in the last month over an objection at FAC, when attempting to prove his point he dragged up again the RFA.  If he has one scrap of decency he will withdraw his name now, in order to prevent the whole sorry business being dragged up again, because the third party in all this is trying, successfully,  to put it behind him and get on with editing which he does so well.  I see, with amazement, he has been asked to mediate in a dispute.  I have reached an uneasy truce with another editor -  is in spite of this candidate's unhelpful stirring from the sidelines.   No doubt people will want "diffs" to substantiate this, so I hope he withdraws but sadly in my dealings with this candidate I have often seriously wondered if he is unwell.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per my above diffs and comments. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - I have seen quite a lot of incivility and aggressiveness from R.D.H., a good example being the insertion of the image just above.
'''Oppose''' Too often sets a poor example. Motivations obscure. I don't expect to be wheedled or harried into changing my vote. --
Comments in this RfA and in diffs do not make me confident that R.D.H. has the temperment to be an admin.--
'''Weak oppose'''.  His [[User talk:Geogre#Cliques Happen|harrassment of Geogre]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=prev&oldid=37891987 this image] do not inspire confidence.  My support above was in the nature of "what could it hurt?", and I think we've been given a glimpse of what it ''could''.  I'm none too impressed by [[User:Giano]]'s behaviour here, either, but then, Giano isn't up for RfA.  RDH ''is''.
'''Oppose'''. Too much hostility, as seen above, poor judgment regarding "troll" labelling. Responds poorly to criticism, from what I've seen on this page alone. Too little involvement in the project namespace, only 211 edits to "Wikipedia:" pages and almost all are candidacy-related, almost zero experience with deletion process. Averages 4.34 edits per page, which suggests too much focus on specific topics, which is generally not an admirable trait for an admin. Does a lot of reverting with nondescriptive summaries, which is okay for vandalism issues, but [{{fullurl:Erwin Rommel|diff=prev&oldid=34127475}} this revert] demands better explanation. Possibility of using admin abilities in an edit war seems too open. Also often reverts OrphanBot's removal of unsourced images. Might reconsider in a few months. &mdash; '''''
'''Oppose''' per my discussion with Ghost at the end of the Questions section (at present at the foot of the page) and also the concerns raised by Freakofnurture.
'''Oppose'''. I'm unfamiliar with RDH but the matters opined on this nomination and his reactions to that make me uncomfortable about supporting him.
'''Oppose''' Candidate's response to opposition has been significantly less than civil. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Oppose'''.  The candidate's response to comments in this RFA has convinced me that they are not ready for administrative tasks, which often involve dealing with strongly-phrased criticism (accurate or not).
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about his responses on this RfA.
'''Oppose''' many civility concerns raised by this RfA. Cannot in good conscience support.--
'''Oppose''', conduct on this RFA is sufficient.
'''Oppose''' per conduct on this RfA and incivility in several of the diffs brought up. --
'''Oppose'''. Administrators are often called upon to resolve conflicts and make decisions about matters over which there is disagreement. Doing this successfully requires (1) some skill, and (2) a suitable temperament, if I may use that word: one has to be patient, well-mannered, and disinclined to taking things personally or calling the other fellow(s) names. I have taken some time to review RDH's contributions. Those to military topics, the related WikiProject, and the histories of wars are impressive: it made me glad to see his industry and ability in this regard. However, I am unable to support this request for adminship, mainly because of concerns related to the above. I view this point especially seriously as RDH writes that he in fact intends to actively involve himself in dispute resolution, quite apart from the many conflicts that will undoubtedly come his way were he a sysop ("''I will take an active role in trying to moderate and mediate disputes before they become full blown edit/flame wars and Rfc fodder..''."). Lastly, I find Freak of Nuture's comments on policy experience to be quite pertinent (although I do not share the opinion that RDH's focus on a smaller number of topics necessarily detracts from his candidacy). Best wishes to all. Regards
'''Oppose''' per temperament issues already described by others.
'''Oppose''' per Geogre and Encephalon.  User has inconsistent history with respect to civility.
'''Oppose''', this is a classic example of someone who is a great editor, but also totally unsuitable for adminship for all the reasons addressed above.
'''Oppose'''. Concerns about incivility.
Ghirla's opposition gives me some pause, as does the response you gave in question 4 in the following section. I suppose I'm a bit worried that your self description as "a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing". While I appreciate editors that have a sense of humour, I am trepidatious at this point about fully supporting your nomination. Which is hard for me because I am fully appreciative of your editing, in the larger part by far! I suppose, at this point I need some more convincing. I will watch this page for other comment, but if I remain unconvinced, I will retain this neutral stance.
'''Neutral''' Reading the oppose comments, above, I am not so sure... --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Neutral''' not sure yet how I will vote. --
'''Neutral''' for the time being, but more inclined to oppose, after spotting a recent sickening talk about "Ghirla's distortions" on the candidate's talk page. What particularly bothers me is the nominator's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FR.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=37946521&oldid=37944652 trollish personal attacks]. After I contributed more than 400 full-fledged articles to this Wikipeida, I do not like being called a troll by someone who has more than 16 times less main-space edits than myself. I confess that I live far from the Yankee world, have never been abroad, and my command of the language is limited. But this is not a reason to call me a troll, especially as I find enough energy to make my new articles appear on Wikipedia's Main Page almost daily (even at this very minute). I believe that Giano, one of the finest contributors to this project, responsible for half a dozen featured articles too, doesn't deserve to be subjected to such attacks as well. I have a long experience of fighting archtrolls but even my patience has its limits. Consequently, I'm going to [[WP:RFC|request the community]] to comment on offensive trolling that has plagued this page. --
'''Neutral''' per questions raised regarding civility and preferential treatment.
'''Neutral''', what KillerChihuahua said --
<s>Will be happy to support based on contributions, but I will be waiting on answers section to be completed.<s>
Please get more familiar with Wikipedia and its policies first; I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thanks!
'''[[WP:SNOW]]'''. User created account today, has 15 total edits, [[User:RAbbott|copied]] another [[User:Phaedriel|user's page]] (thanks, OhNoitsJamie) and gave himself Barnstars. ('''Edit''': this comment was just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship:RAbbott&diff=53411079&oldid=53410479 purged] by the candidate.)
'''Strong Oppose''' First edit today? You need AT least 3-6 months on Wikipedia before becoming an admin. You need to get more familiar with the Wikipedia policies and I suggest withdrawl.
'''Strong Oppose''' Unfortunately, anyone can say that he/she/it is willing to work really hard on Wikipedia, but that person may actually be a vandal. Renominate yourself (or wait for someone else to nominate you) after you've demonstrated devotion to working on Wikipedia, and then I'll change my vote. --
'''Strong Oppose''' One day of editing (which consisted of nothing but vanity edits and copying another user's userpage). <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''Strong Oppose''' - here comes the pile on. Don't undo negative votes on your RfA. That's very wrong. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. I'm sure the reason is quite clear..... I suggest withdrawl.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong support in an RFA I'm sure will reach [[WP:100]]''' Outstanding editor. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Very Strong Support''': I have known him for long. I can certainly say that he is an asset of the Project. --
'''Strong Support'''. He is a [[late bloomer]] — and this flower I am sure will go on for [[WP:100|100 years]]. -
'''Strong and Obvious Support''' - Would've nominated him myself after my RfA was completed :)  Excellent contributor who has been very accommodating, even when I have disagreed with him.
'''Strong Support'''. The amount of edits and valuable contributions by this user is scary. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support'''. How many edits can the human body withhold?--
'''Support''' The very good example of a 'reformed' editor.
'''Support''' Always uses summaries and quality of edits seem good.
'''Support'''. Tremendous contributor. Even in the case lethe points out Nirav simply did his best to gather opinions and discuss a controversial issue. It had not been handled well by others previous to that, and his efforts were clearly an attempt to be helpful. -
'''Strong Support''' per all ten reasons stated above. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''.  Discussion with user ([[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Rama%27s_Arrow#oppose_argument|see talk]]) has convinced me that I misinterpreted some of Rama's remarks, and that Rama is more familiar with and committed to Wikipedia practice than I assumed.  I no longer think that Rama is a nationalist, and I change my vote to support unreservedly. -
'''Support'''
'''Very strong support'''  - As one of the users who interacts with him almost daily. His work on articles like Patel and Jinnah has been extra-ordinary. He is a mature person and a perfect admin candidate. -
'''I beat the nom support'''. You have my support for the 14 reasons above. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  A prolific and energetic editor who has proved to be an asset to the project.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Thoroughly Confused Support''' I could've sworn you were one already. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Very Strong Support''' Did a tremendously nice job on Hindu and Bharat(India) related articles. He would be an asset to wikipedia.
'''Support''' Yezzir! Very happy to support this deserving candidate.
'''Support'''. Strong candidate, whose Wiki-enthusiasm and commitment with the project is clearly out of question. Easy choice.
'''Support'''. Rama's Arrow is a fantastic contributor who has made a big difference in certain area of the project. The answers to the questions below are very good. The answers display an understanding and dedication to Wikipedia that is important in an admin candidate, but also show an ability to recognise his own failings (which is perhaps even more important).
'''STRONGEST EVER SUPPORT, AND I MEAN IT'''. Whooppeeee! Yahhhhhhhooooooo! I've been waiting for this RfA for, like, forever, and finally it's here!!!!!!!!!!--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' great editor, maybe even too active :-) I hope you take a break every now and then. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Trustworthy, very friendly editor.
'''Support'''. We need more like him.
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Will make a good admin. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' not a admin?
'''Support''' Known him for an year or so, great editor. --
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' has given me great advice!
'''Support''' defenitly a good editor who could use the admin tools well <span style="border: 0px solid;">
'''Support''' per cliché #1 and per the answers within the [[User:Ardenn|Ardenn]] discussion. First, [[User:Rama's Arrow|Rama's Arrow]] is absolutely right: a candidate is entitled to know how the voters feel about that candidate's tools and abilities&mdash;or the lack thereof&mdash;and not have to deal with an editor making a general point, regardless of whether that point is made to everyone's RfAs. Second, while this discussion is necessarily confrontational, it remains civil, and '''that's''' what we're looking for in an admin. Deserves the mop.
'''Support''' willing to admit his own mistakes, that's a big plus in my book. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''I can't believe I almost missed this! '''
'''Support''' Nobody is perfect, and this user seems to have potential. At the very least, Rama's Arrow is a committed Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. --
'''Weak support''' excellent editor and contributor. However, responses to "oppose" votes reveals need to be more accepting of the short-comings of others. Too easily offended. Needs to put matters in greater perspective and not waste energy arguing futile points.  Energy would be better spent focusing on project instead.
'''Support''' Good, high quality editor; no sign will abuse tools. --
'''Strong support''', or '''powerful support''' as Nirav would say!  He's a superstar, in my opinion! -- <font face="Arial">

'''SUPPORT''' Especially after seeing his constructive feedback on the Pakistan Talk page
'''Very Strong Support'''. We are in touch for quite a long time. An extremely helpful and wise editor. Has a number of FAs to credit. I would have liked to be the first one to vote. Sorry, Rama...was travelling. Regards.--
Outstanding and brilliant editor. '''Strong Support''' --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Strong support''' There was a time when I thought that I'd have nothing to do with him. Yes, I'm the user on whose contribs he had committed trolling and vandalism. After he apologised, I was still circumspect, but he proved me wrong with great all-round work. Yes, he loses his cool, but he realises his mistakes. From my experience with him, I can say that he holds no malice and is sincere with his efforts in WP. I've recently become inactive on WP but asked him to let me know in case he needed help on his rfa nomination. Had I nominated him, half the oppose votes would probably have not been cast. Knowing this very well, he still went ahead with a self-nom as he wants to stand up by himself and own up to his mistakes. I admire him for that. I don't think he would have accumulated 11k odd edits just to become an admin and undo others' work - also please look at the quality of those edits. If his real intention - as some oppose votes seem to hint at - is to destroy the integrity of WP, I'm sure that the self-policing nature of WP wouldn't let that happen. However, if we deny the opportunity to him to become an admin, the loss would be as much WP's as his. Sorry for a longish vote. --
'''Oppose''' until we get a method to remove abusive admins. I also don't think anyone should get in without any opposition. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Oppose'''.  I was pretty neutral, until I saw the candidate's responses above, which filled me with foreboding (though I should add that I find Ardenn's reason for opposition either frivolous, mischievous, or just wrong-headed).  Rama's Arrow's comments here  confirm dab's misgivings below, and I'd be unhappy to see this editor made an admin just yet. (I was also a little concerned to see a flurry of new-user welcoming just before the self-nomination, but perhaps that was just a coincidence.) --
'''Oppose'''. Self-nomination...hmm! Hindu-Arabic or Indo-Arabic numerals? Anyway, I have an issue with his user name which I believe is either a sign of islamophobia or far-right Hindutva. It looks similar to usernames like ''Sword of Allah'' or ''Jehovah's Gun'', for instance. Stubborn POV pushing (as evident in above conversation) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah&diff=52801537&oldid=52801139 here]. He has reverted the Jinnah article atleast 16 times to his POV in the past 4 weeks. That's more than assertion. That's ideology. Answers below are not satisfactory.
'''Oppose''' - Changing to oppose as a result of this: "I found his criticism of my work as arbitrary and disrespectful. In turn, I was abusive of him, and commmitted few acts of vandalism and trolling" and his own admission: "Unfortunately my talk-edits do sometimes expose any irritation or peevishness that I may be feeling, but I've been very comfortable with receiving criticism and I've worked well with others since."  Frequent examples of incivility abound that I did not look for originally, and concerns about responses above as raised by Mel Etitis. --
'''Oppose''' per Mel Etitis, answers to Q3, dab's misgivings, and harranging of opposes - it all adds up to making me nervous. --

'''Oppose''' per Tony and Doc.
'''Oppose''' per qualms expressed above and hypersensitivity to criticism. Sorry.
Per lethe and Mel.
'''Oppose''' Good editors don't always make good admins, and the reaction to oppose votes concerns me. Admins receive a lot of flak, and the best skill an admin needs is the ability to ignore it, or at least not take it personally. Regards,
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above.  --
'''Oppose'''. It is obvious that Rama is not only an amazing editor, but probably a good person as he's said. He may even work well with peers and seems to be a great editor - however, if you react to a negative vote ''that'' negatively, it's never a good sign. One might work well with peers, however, if you're going to be an administrator, you must be able to show restraint from criticism. It's especially suprising to me, when the majority of people support the user, he attacks most oppose votes as if it's an attack against his being. I've read his comments below, and I understand he respects all votes and is sorry for his comments. However, kind words and apologies do not nullify some actions, especially when it comes down to an adminship nomination. I am forced to respectfully oppose this nomination. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. But I feel that the candidate's responses to other oppose votes above was over-sensitive. Admins need to be able to be more level-headed than Rama's Arrow currently seems to be.
'''Oppose''' Mainly per Mel and Zaxem. The candidate is a good editor but there are two many issues for me to feel comfortable with him as an admin.
'''Very, Very Weak Oppose''' As per Mex and Zaxem. You need to keep a more level head, and thought it pains me to vote this way because you seem like an amazing editor, your reaction above made me change from Support. Sorry,
'''Oppose''' due to childish attitude to other oppose votes.
'''Oppose''' due to his response to prior oppose votes as voiced above by others
'''Weak oppose''' per Knucmo2. Admins get a tremendous amount of criticism and shouting-at, I don't think this user is ready for adminship yet.
'''Oppose''' much of his edits are just doing one thing, like 1000 edits adding a category to pages, another thousand adding a template, and more like that. This shows care only for edit counts. And because of incivility, I don't think he's ready yet. --
I suppose Rama's good deeds more than outweigh his mistakes, so I will not vote oppose here, but I would ask everyone not to cast sheep votes and review the user's history. In my opinion, Rama has often proven too convinced of himself and too aggressively immune to criticism for me to be comfortable about his adminship (see also the Hindu numeral debate above, and Rama's wordy 'refutations'. It is simply not true that he never indulged in pov-pushing, but this is of course not illegal) . My premonition is that Rama as an admin will need watching by other admins. That's not a disaster, but it leaves open the question whether his promotion will be a net benefit. I have no doubt about Rama's basic good faith, but he has repeatedly shown lack of common sense in the past. Of course in the zeal of this self-nomination, he is telling us he has learned from his mistakes and this is all in the past, but what else than the  past do we have to judge a candidate by?
'''Neutral''' - Looks like a good contributor.  However, I am concerned about the discussion related to the first ''Oppose''; thus, I don't feel I can support at this time.
'''Neutral''' as well, worried by the opposes, but not enough info to oppose. - <b>
'''Neutral'''. I'm concerned with the way the nominee handles criticism. However, I do find Ardenn's initial comment as out of place.
'''Neutral''' until the conflicts are better resolved.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, too few edits. {{user2|Ramsquire}}
May support when you have more experience. — ''
'''Oppose'''. Suggest to the nom that he read [[User:Themindset/RFA|my standards]], and read through [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of the basic numbers people expect to see before considering a nominee.
'''Oppose''' too inexperienced, needs more contributions in order to make a real judgment.--
'''Oppose'''. This user is a good editor, but has only really become a very constitent contributor within the last month. That's not long enough to become an admin. The user also needs to get much more involved in editing in the Wikipedia space if adminship is to be considered in the future.
You have been around for quite a while and have contributed greatly even if it was to only a few articles. However, looking through your edit history, I would like to see more consistency in the number of edits you perform over shorter, rolling periods of time, like the last couple weeks for example. Also, there are a lot of "admin" things I would like to encourage you to get involved in that don't actually require ''being'' an admin. You can find a list of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GRFA#Things_to_consider_before_accepting_a_nomination here]. Better luck in the future and happy editing! --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''' ''and urge withdrawal''.  You've been around for quite some time and your contributions are solid.  However, you need to become more active.  Most editors' standards include edit count limits of "2000 or more".  (But remember that edit count isn't important in the least!)  I don't want a great editor like you to get scared off of RfA - some of the comments can get pretty harsh - because you have a very good chance of becoming an admin in the future.  Try to contribute more consistently (at least 50 edits a week, generally) and take part in [[WP:AFD|AfDs]].  In a few months, with more consistent editing, you'll have my support.
'''Neutal'''. I'll support in approximately 500 more good edits. Though Ramsquire is a good editor who would not abuse the tools, xe needs more article edits. --
'''Moral Support''' Seems like a well meaning editor.  But seriously, you should withdraw this RFA and focus building up your editcount and use of edit summaries, and consider reappling in several months.--
'''Strong support''' - if all that the opposing comments can find to bring up are editcount, edit summaries, and not enough vandalfighting, then I don't see that we have any issues of trust here. -
'''Support.''' Assume good faith...
'''Rather Weak Moral Support'''&mdash; I rather dislike bludgeonings; hence the support. I suspect you didn’t do your homework after [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramsquire|your first run at adminship]]; hence the bludgeonings.  With an edit summary usage of only 75% for major edits and only 58% for minor edits, you’ve obviously not been tuned into to recent RfAs, where folks routinely get raked for better scores than this. And with only 1094 Total edits (edits which we can't review have virtually no value) of which 340 are in the Main and 114 are in Wikipedia, you’re still highly unlikely to make it on this RfA. I’d encourage you to withdraw, ponder the messages you're getting here, and come to the [[WP:RFA]] page to comment on potential administrators for a month or three to get a sense of what the passing standards are. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Oppose''' Just over 1000 edits is not enough.
'''Oppose''' A good editor, but not enough edits all round. Also please use summaries for every edit. --
'''Oppose''' - edit summaries, edit count.
'''Oppose''' - a very impressive September contribution list, but there seem to be very few admin-esque activities (e.g.recentchanges patrol, afd comments) before September - even as recently as August the list is nearly dry.  Keep going at actions like September, and in two months time (so three months at that rate total) I promise my support.  Also suggest that edit summaries be used more frequently - you might want to set preferences to force them, because a combined 65% is really low for an RFA.  --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Oppose''' due to edit count, malformed answers, lack of project experience.
'''Oppose''': I believe this user will make a fine admin before too long (contributions to controverisal political issues have been very civil and well thought-out). At this point, the edit count is a bit too low and the user does need to improve use of edit summaries. Suggest also a little more work against vandalism. Then the user should try again.
'''Oppose'''. Good answers, but wait until you have a few thousand edits. That's all I can say. So far you have been making good progress, so just keep it up and you'll be fine in a few months (or whenever you reach 3,000ish edits). --
'''Oppose'''. I'm sure you're a stand up guy - I'll support you when you have more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. The core criteria are need and trust. Regarding need, I find the nominee's answers somewhat weak, but I'm willing to give the nominee the benefit of the doubt because adminship ought not to be a big deal. Where I hesitate is on the trust issue. Part of the trust comes from being satisfied the nominee has enough experience. Some of the subsequent responses by the leave me wondering how the candidate will fare under fire if given admin tools. I was not really impressed that the prior RfA was not disclosed in the nomination. Checking the last 20 or 30 contributions to AfD discussions, only one or two went beyond "per nom" (not to say "per nom" comments are bad ''per se''). Any of those concerns by themselves might not be enought to cause me concern, but put together I am very reluctant to support.
'''Oppose''' sorry but edits are just too low for me.
'''Oppose'''. Per edit summaries on AfDs, user clearly thinks that AfD is a vote, which it is not. --
'''Opppose''', While you have been more active since your [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramsquire|last RFA]], there are many areas of the project that you could use more experience.  Keep up the editing, but look in to '''Wikipedia:''' areas that you may be able to contribute more at, such as the XfD's. —
'''Weak oppose''' My thinking parallels quite closely that of Agent 86 (of course, he expresses such thinking much more cogently that I).  Even as I am certain that Ramsquire would not abuse the tools, I cannot, on the basis of his record, conclude conclusively that he might not misuse (even avolitionally) the mop and bucket, such that I don't believe that I can properly say that I am certain that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (the latter, after all, is my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA meta-standard]]).  I think it is certainly likelier than not, in view of the candidate's ostensibly reasonable judgment and cordial demeanor, that Ramsquire would make a fine admin, but there's not much on which to base such an inference, and there remain, then, unassuaged doubts.

'''Oppose''' What's with the yelling? --
'''Oppose''' Don't take this as a pile-on, but rather as advice to get more experience in the Wiki. I suggest a withdrawal and reapplication when you've managed to demonstrate that you have a good grasp of procedure etc. - <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose'''.  More edits and I'll consider supporting in the future.
'''Neutral''' You seem promising and I liked your answers, but your current edit count is too low and your contribution flow too unsteady. Increase your pace and I will definitely support you in the future.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' You forgot to include a reference to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ramsquire|your previous RfA]] for some reason.  Pointers for improvement; edit summaries with good precises of said edits are essential; participation in XfA is a good thing, particularly when you can cite policy when you give your opinion; interaction with users in WikiTalk, articleTalk and userTalk spaces is essential; vandal-fighting is essential to the smooth running of WP too; participation in one or more Wikiprojects is a good thing; lastly, the primary reason for us all being here is editing articles - join the featured article debates and use your editing/research skills to work articles up to Good/Featured status.  You can also get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] to help you strengthen your current weaknesses.  All of this should take 3-4 months and ~2000 edits.  Reapply for RfA at that point or perhaps someone will nominate you when they see your record of good works.
'''Neutral''' to avoid the pile on. I have no doubts about your sincerity but your edit counts are too low. Try applying again after three to four months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' leaning towards Weak Support. This is a good candidate who considers the ''value'' of contributions important. User is very honest in saying that they would rather build experience with an edit history full of quality editing than "cheap edits" as mentioned. I tip my hat to you for that. And, I thank you for your hard work.
'''Neutral''', I agree with what Junglecat says. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral."  With regard to the expressed concern about edit summary usage, the candidate should consider configuring his Preferences to automatically prompt for edit summary when about to post without it, which is an available setting.
'''Support.''' Seems good to me, and I'm satisfied with the answers to the questions.
'''Support'''. A very dedicated user with a profound interest in creating a good encyclopedia and I believe he has a well developed understanding in how good articles should be written. Wikipedia will benefit from Randall Brackett having access to admin tools and I would gladly have nominated him for adminship myself.
'''Support''' looks fine to me. I'm sure nobody will object because of WP space edits :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' A dedicated user. Although some of his actions such as failing to warn users he is reverting and a minor anomaly in his nomination statement, these do not have a bearing on me to oppose his RfA. His contributions to this project speaks for itself. It is time to give him the mop. Moreover, no Wikipedian is a '''PERFECT''' editor! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per the answer to my question
'''Support''' per answers
'''Support''', commitment and no ethics issues. What else matters? --
'''Weak Oppose''' I see him revert vandalism, but not warning the users he's reverting. And it's not that I'm bothered that it happened once or twice (I personally have forgotten to do it a few times), but it seems to be a steady thing he does which may contribute to the large number of main namespace edits he has. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Weak Oppose''' per above, revert vandalism and warning user should come in as a pair. --
I am concerned about civility, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memoirs_of_a_Geisha&diff=prev&oldid=62802086] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anju&diff=prev&oldid=62723392] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=62632486]. It is not so much the content, these are not all that uncivil, but the volume of such comments. See the [[Special:Contributions/Randall Brackett|recent conrtibutions]].
'''Oppose''' per above.  Fair warnings should always be issued. --
'''Oppose''', very recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memoirs_of_a_Geisha&action=history revert-warring] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keiichi_Morisato&diff=prev&oldid=62241651 frankly inappropriate edit summaries].
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but Kirill's diffs make me doubt the civility and patience usually necessary.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience and to be more open minded. My first contact with Randall was on [[Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning]], and while I disagree with him there that is not my reason to oppose him. Rather, it's the logic he has displayed there and the closed minded thinking. I'd hate to see how he handled disputes as an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Kirill has pointed out a perfect example of revert warring; it's suprising you weren't blocked for violating 3RR (especially because the spoiler templates ''are'' appropriate). I'm really uneasy about the borderline incivility; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memoirs_of_a_Geisha&diff=62802086&oldid=62801891 this summary] regarding the repeated reversions was inappropriate. Try again in October or November and perhaps I'll support. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] and [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]].
Though your experience seems very good and you do make good contributions. I feel you need to build up more confidence per your nomination statement. Also, I would like to see your edit count, and I would do this, but i don't know how it works out with your name change and all. --<font color="336699">
You would make a great admin, but due to the issues brought up by opposing users and the blocks 2-3 months ago, I'm voting '''neutral'''. Damn edit conflict.
'''Neutral''', per concerns raised above. Seems to be an outstanding editor, but I'm concerned about poor use of warnings and potential incivility. Sorry.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' - I've been consistently impressed with all that I've seen this user do: his knowledge of policy, civility, and kindness are exemplary.  His answers to the questions are also very good. [[User:Srose|<b><font color="green">S<i>rose</i></font></b>]] [[User talk:Srose|<font color="hotpink">(<b>talk</b>)</font>]] 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) '''Update''' - changed to weak support in lieu of CrazyRussian's concern, although it doesn't trouble me ''too'' much - I've seen articles tagged within a minute of creation.
'''Weak support''', apparently a hard-working editor, but needs to be a bit more careful with the speedy tags.
'''Support''' good answers, oppose reasons currently seem rather trivial in my view.--<font style="background:white">
'''switch to Weak support after edit conflict''' per Kusma. Of course, the times he was right do not show up in his contribs. [[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| :) Dlohcierekim]] 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)'''Further rationale'''-- In his talk pages, he seems knowledgeable and articulate. I think the Xino affair shows he can handle conflict constructively. I believe if he takes a little more time to think things through he will make the right decisions. Also, with the delay between the time an article is tagged for speedy deletion and the time he'll get to it, the editor of the article will have been able to improve it out CSD criteria. A lot of new articles look like gibberrish. It is not practical when checking new articles to leave an article and then come back to it. If the creator can fix it before the admin deletes it or intends to, there is always the "hang on" tag. As an admin, he can compare the tagged version with the current one and then decide.
'''Support'''
'''support''' <!--begin crazytales56297 sig--><font face="Verdana">«[[user:crazytales56297|'''<font color="#ff00ff">ct</font>''']]»&nbsp;<small>([[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]|
'''Support''' - RandyWang does a great job as an editor reviewer. --'''
'''Support''' good article contributor; willing to deal with the perpetual speedy backlog. Opposes strike me as extremely picky. Everyone - newbie or not, "progressive saves" or not - should have the common sense not to post a blatantly inadequate article.
'''Support'''  Obviously I disagree with Opabinia.  There are a number of good faith attempts to write articles that get tagged for deletion much too soon, which can be very discouraging.  This afternoon, after making my earlier comments, I looked in at CSD and identified 6 articles that asserted plausible notability but were tagged A7.  Four were saved but two were deleted, including an internationally known artist.  The admins at CSD are an important second look and should be especially aware of the guidelines. I'm satisifed by Randy's answers to question 4 that he is aware of this and will be more careful.  (Although I would call example 2 db-nonsense, and point out that while googling to establish notability is a nice extra and I would do it too, it is sufficient to replace a mis-tagged A7 with AfD or prod to give others a chance to look into it.)  I had a conversation with an admin once who tried to speedy, prod and afd an article all less than 30 minutes after its first edit and while the author was working on it. He insisted it was not a case of [[WP:Bite|biting]] because he never posted to the users talk page and his attempts to delete the article were "correcting a mistake" per policy. (It was kept after AfD.) I am glad to see Randy's willingness to think about this issue and not get defensive.
'''Support''' it is very easy to get new pages patrol wrong - a absoloutely horrible new article can be about someone who is very notable. I trust that RandyWang will do some research into anything he comes accross in [[CAT:CSD]] and leave anything he is unsure about alone for another admin to deal with.
'''Support''' -- no reason not to --
'''Weak Support''' Srose echoes my sentiments. That diff is from Crazyrussian is very telling, it puts me on the border of neutral, but everyone makes mistakes and it seems like ultimately no harm/no foul.
'''Support''' as my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/E-K#I standards] met. Civil and helpful to boot.
'''Support''' I understand the concerns raised by the oppose !voters, but for the most part, I like RandyWang's record. He has offered to work on backlogs that the current 990 admins have yet to tackle. We need RandyWang, and if he makes the occasional mistake, another admin can always reverse it. I'm convinced Randy has taken the comments by oppose !voters as a warning, and will be more careful in the future. -- '''
'''Support''' bright, levelheaded and a nice guy to boot. --
'''Support trending to weak support''' Sound knowledge of policy, always civil and good answers to questions. But I sincerely hope you take the oppose voters concerns seriously. Good contributions and a helpful, friendly guy. All the best, <small>&mdash; [[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzasta]] &bull; [[User_talk:Riana_dzasta|t]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Riana_dzasta|c]] &bull; <font color="green">
'''Support''' I agree with Tariq.
'''Strong Support''' - a very friendly, civil and insightful editor. I notice '''some''' of the people complaining about his janitorial services to CSD don't do anything of the sort, but prefer the "glamour work" which count towards their edits (as CSD's don't, if the article is deleted) - maybe they should get out and try to get their hands dirty (in the proverbial), rather than sitting back and picking out a buch of isolated diffs to base an oppose against a user who thoroughly deserves the mop. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Daniel</font>]].
'''Support''' with a couple of reservations - the cases of "shoot from the hip" with NPP patrol worry me, but surely he's learned his lesson from the criticisms below. I'm not too bothered by the username but suggest he give thought to some kind of slight modification (though I'm not sure what to suggest).
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Strong Support'''. I appreciate the diffs provided by the opposing folks below. At the same time, it's clear Randy has learned from his mistakes. He meets my 2K edit and civility requirements, and from my interactions with him, he's friendly and knowledgeable. Also, given our current huge Admin backlogs, and NoSeptember's recent data confirming [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Admin_Growth_chart|the backlogs will continue to grow larger exponentially as fewer admins are promoted each month]], there is no reason IMO, to oppose this user's RFA.<font color="#0000FF">
'''Strong Support''' RandyWang is one of the best users I've come across on Wikipedia: his attitude towards everyone on Wikipedia, particuarly fairly new users, is impeccable. In addition, RandyWang is always well-mannered, helpful and well-conducted. In my opinion, he'll make one of the best Admins around.
'''Support''' An interesting character, he seems to bring much life into Wikipedia.
'''Weak support''' moved from neutral, after the discussion since my neutral I'm fairly convinced that you've learned your lesson about the deletion stuff and hence addressed the only concerns I had that caused me to go neutral. Good luck :) [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' per James. Cyde brings up a good point as well though, the name does make me laugh, I think that put me above neutral.
'''Weak support''' per Dlohcierekim, Opabinia regalis (with whom I don't entirely agree but whose assessment of some of the ''opposes'' as reflecting unnecessarily stringent RfA criteria I join), and Firsfon, and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]].
'''Strong Support'''. He's a good user, level-headed. Shakespeare once said - "What's there in a name?". Also, Crzrussian's concerns are quite valid, but I think Randy will be careful from now on. --
'''Support''': Even one of earliest pages created by me was deleted - that did not deter me: a real wikipedian is a wikipedian from birth and he/she does require support where support is not required. This has nothing to do with biting or hugging! --
'''Support'''. Constructive, helpful, and gives constructive criticism where needed. I hope he passes. --
'''Strong support''' I great user, sure he has done some things wrong, but who hasn't?
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' Strong user, has not committed any egregious policy violations, and I have no rea son to believe he would do so at any point in the future. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' In two minds about this at one point, but Randy is a good, solid contributor who, I believe, can help this project with the tools. I also feel the concerns over his username are unwarented. Good luck Randy. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Began a review of contributions, found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Se%C3%A1n_O%27Brien&diff=71146888&oldid=71146534 this] from earlier this morning. Unacceptable laxity - and biting to boot. - <b>
'''Oppose''' for a few reasons.  First, the diff provided by Crzrussian shows a lack of understanding of very basic notability policies.  For those unfamiliar with Gaelic football and it's representation on Wikipedia, playing in the All-Ireland Cup is a very big deal. While the sport and its athletes are undercovered on Wikipedia, there are at least 100 articles on footballers and managers.  What's more is that Seán O'Brien was already on Wikipedia as a redlink [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_GAA#Cork_Gaelic_Football_Squad here].  This is especially concerning if the user wants to use the admin buttons to deal with the CSD backlog and close AfD's.  Also, half of the candidate's edits have  been made in the past month.  This leads me to believe that this RfA is a bit premature and the candidate would do well to have some more experience
'''Weak Oppose'''. While qaulity on WP is now more important than quantity, lets at least give some new crappy (but not total vandal garbage) pages a shot. Cleanup tag them, and keep an eye on them, then consider deletion tagging. Having your new page deleted when you may have just not finished is very discouraging.'''
'''Oppose''' Obviously a dedicated user, but as I went through the contribs I found more mis-applications of the CSD tag. Other contribs   indicate a lack of nuance when it comes to new articles and new users. I'm sure he'll get there but at the moment I wouldn't like to see him with an unreviewed access to the delete button.
'''Weak oppose''' I've seen him around on AfD, but repeated misuse of CSD tags strikes me as newbie biting.
'''Oppose''' regretfully. Seems like a dedicated and hard-working editor, but his use of speedy tags bothers me.  I don't like the idea of tagging new articles within a minute of creation, at all. It strikes me as a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, which can result in harmful mistakes given admin tools.  Clearly from an example like [[Comedy debate]], RandyWang produces a fairly fleshed out article on the first edit, but he has not created that many articles to understand the writing process very well (at least according to the Created/Uploaded area on his userpage). I do appreciate his response above to [[User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh|Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh]], but RfA is not necessarily the best place to recognize and amend behavior.  I'd rather see some ongoing evidence of it, and then reapply at a later date. --<font color="3300FF">
Per your username.  Wikipedia administrators represent the project to some unofficial extent, and I'm not comfortable with someone named "RandyWang" doing administrative actions that could be picked up on by reporters and then used to portray us in a negative light.  Luckily [[Wikipedia:Changing username]] is just down the hall. --
'''Oppose'''. I really don't think it shows good judgement to have 5 db tag placements in a 20 minute span in your contribution history, since those articles obviously weren't deleted. I'd expect an admin to be less hasty in his decisions, since that will lead to someone else having to do more work. You might've just been caught at a bad time since I can't find a similar spree earlier on your history, and I'd probably support in the future if you fix that problem. -
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Crzrussian]]'s painstaking research on the user. --
'''Oppose'''  Unilateral actions do not belong on Wikipedia <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup>
'''Oppose''' A good editor, but I am concerned about speedy tagging issues.  I would likely change to neutral following a [[WP:CU|change of username]]. While it's true that there are real people named Randy Wang, the nominee is not one of them, so what we have is essentially a Seymour Butts situation.  It's not offensive, but I do share Cyde's concern above. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' Improper CSD tagging suggests lack of familiarity with policy and process.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Juppiter.
'''Neutral''' leading towards support. Some of the speedy deletion tags are used in articles which have some notable content in them. His lack of basic notablility policies is also a concern. But his civility and kindness is outstanding, which cannot be ignored. I also wish to state that users also learn from their mistakes as well (in reference to the speedy deletion tags). Might change to support in the future if this comes very close. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per Siva.--
'''Neutral''' - Crzrussian has a point, but I really can't blame RandyWang for it.  However, it is a self-nom, which although showing guts, requires higher standards.  May change to weak support later, depending on his answers to Yanksox's questions and such.  Good luck though,
'''Neutral''', leaning towards Support, per involvement in the new page patrol. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral'''&mdash;excessive zeal in deletion patrols as pointed out by Crzrussian is to be discouraged. Very dedicated though&mdash;and with a commitment to more thoughtful reviews, I'd willingly support. Will watch and may change to support if compelling arguments develop.
Neutral leaning weak support. &ndash;
'''Neutral'''. I know RandyWany is a top quality and good natured contributor, but given the concerns raised by Crzrussian, I would prefer RandyWang spend a couple of more months familiraizing studying the notability norms, participating in xfDs, and being more carful with speedy deletion tagging before getting the mop.--

'''Neutral''', leaning to support. I'm not too bothered by the Crazy Russian's concern. While the nominee is certainly hasty with the speedy deletes, it seems he is being held to account for the many, many other editors who are guilty of the same behaviour. Therefore, that issue has little to do with my position. I just think this editor is still a little green and could use a bit of brushing up on his policy knowledge. I'll very likely support the next time around.
'''Neutral''' per above.
Moved to '''Neutral''' from Oppose - I'm confident that he's absorbed the lesson about speedying new articles, but still not confident enough in his experience to support. -- ''
'''Moral Support''' and suggested '''withdrawl''', I understand you have good intentions but per below. Work on your weaker areas and try again.__
'''Oppose''', per many civility concerns I have with this user, especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rat235478683&diff=prev&oldid=83897263 an enemies list that used to be on his userpage]. I see you didn't take my advice not to do this. -
'''Oppose'''. You need to start over as an editor first. The list mentioned by Amarkov is too recent to be ignored. Prove yourself as a good editor, then try here again. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Oppose''' - Two things, First: [[Darius_Rose]] was a very recent behavior that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and an apparent unwillingness to use discussion to solve a problem (it's an article that this candidate reposted many times following speedy deletion without any conversation).  Second: The name.  The name is simply impractical and would make interacting with this user in any context other than clicking signature links/etc difficult.  I advise the candidate to change his or her name, acquaint themselves with Wikipedia policy better, then come back with some good experience under the belt. -
'''Oppose'''. Agree with all of the above. I suggest following the advice of Chairboy, especially concerning changing your name to something more manageable. Perhaps go through an editor review in 3 months and apply for adminship again in 6.
'''Oppose''' per comments above. Second chances don't begin with becoming a sysop.--
'''Oppose''' - inadequate nomination and civility concerns. Suggest withdrawal and come back later.
'''Oppose'''. A very new user with less than 500 edits. Your contributions are appreciated, but you need to spend a lot more time on Wikipedia before people will be willing to trust you with admin tools. You should consider withdrawing. —
'''Oppose''' not experienced enough. Less than 500 edits, and no participation in Afd, vandalism reversion and several other areas, and very low edit summary usage.
'''Edit-conflict Oppose''' Very poor answers to questions - diffs for evidence? - and less than 500 edits don't give any confidence that this user either requires or knows how to apply the admin tools and responsibilities.  I urge '''withdrawal''', either by the candidate or a Bureaucrat at the earliest opportunity.
'''Oppose''' Not experienced enough and per the userpage posting.
'''Oppose''' Shocked at this idea of an enemies list. I was going to Moral Support but I can't see anyway to justify that position. I urge the candidate to withdraw this nomination and I would say come back in a year or perhaps even 18 months. I think it's going to take a considerable period for people to be able to trust this candidate, and there will need to be a very strong reason and track record for me to support come RfA #2. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Oppose''' < 500 edits and already with an ''enemies list''!? Wikipedia is not a BATTLEGROUND. We all run into other editors with whom we disagree. Sometimes strongly. That does not make us enemies. Just because people disagree does not mean they have to be disagreeable-- or enemies. Two tireless contributor Barnstars-- from an editor with 3 contribs???  Not to mention all of the other reasons mentioned.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate has less than five hundred edits. Someone who has not even seen AfD yet should not be engaged in speedy deletions.
'''Oppose''' You need more experience on Wikipedia, and need to improve your [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]. You're a good contributor most of the time, but you have to learn Wikipedia policy before you think about even applying for adminship. '''
Certainly,
'''Oppose''' - malformed RfA request, and slightly too new (account created April 06) - from what I can see admin tools are not terribly needed, you can still close clear keep AfD's without being an admin --
'''Strong oppose''' in addition to being a very new user with an edit count thats rather less than I like to make a decision on, it seems that the edits are highly grouped and minor edits. Very little to no talk page or project space interaction. Need more familiarity with Wikipedia policy. .:.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;the last thing we need is another [[WP:ROUGE|rouge admin]]. <pulls tongue from cheek /> Seriously, at this early point in your Wikareer, I have virtually nothing by which I can gauge how well you know policy, how well you interact with other users, or even if you have a general idea of how to wield the mop. Give it several more months of active participation in all aspects of the project and come back then. <tt>
'''Oppose''' Too new and no clear need for the tools (mentions AfD but has only voted once). Judging by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=RelentlessRouge&namespace=0 large amount of very small edits] to the same article, needs to use the [[Help:Show preview|show preview]] button more.
'''Oppose''' To new.
'''Oppose change from neutral''' - fails every bit of my criteria except for mainspace edits. Far, far too new; I do not think a neutral brings out the fact that this user has no need for the tools, and it cannot be told if user will abuse tools if appointed.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''Certainly enough edits, just too few edit summaries, too new, and just not ready. I will be glad to vote for you with some more experience and even more edits. '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''Oppose''' per all and TEKE. Dosen't meet my
'''Oppose''' Malformed RfA, for starters...
'''Strong Oppose''', too new, try again later, even the RFA is not done in a proper manner. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Not enough talk edits, so very little confirmation of ability to solve disputes/make consensus with others, also falls short of total edits
'''Oppose''' Malformed RfA. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' Try again after 3 months and in the meantime, do not give up hope. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - per NSLE's mention of snowballing, and the user's answers to the questions.  RelentlessRouge, you don't have to be an administrator to do any of the editing you do.  Just keep up the good work you're doing now :) I highly recommend withdrawing your nomination and spend some time learning all the policy and Wikipedia related tasks.
You are a good editor, but you need more experience than that to become an administrator. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, I am going to have to agree with Sir Nicholas.  Just enjoy editing for a while and you'll gain more experience.  &mdash;

'''Neutral''' - Cant see a need and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Remember&diff=85038732&oldid=84886960 this] worries me. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' no real reasons given. --
'''STRONG OPPOSE''' - User has 9 edits and answers to questions seem like jokes. --
'''Oppose''' and urge immediate delisting due to the facetious answer to question three. [[User:Fys|Fys]]. &#147;
'''Obvious Oppose'''. Either this is a joke or the editor did not do any homework before nominating himself. Both are good reasons for immediate delisting.
'''Support''' RGTraynor is definitly Administrator material, he knows what he's talking about, doesn't tolerate trollers or vandals. I have full confidence in RG's knowledge of Hockey, when I'm stuck for hockey info, I've always checked with RG to get the RIGHT answers. Having RGTraynor as an Administrator, will make Wikipedia better, more accountable and more accurate. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) The nominee is very knowledgeable & cares about accuracy/accountablilty. Further more, do to his honesty & dislike for Trollers & Vandals, I trust him fully (he has my confidence).
'''Support''' I strongly support RGTraynor for admin. He started editing wikipedia about the same time as me (I started in June of 05) and, like croatcanuck, we had a minor dispute about American vs. Canadian spelling. Since then, I have trusted and respected the guy whole-heartedly. I know that he '''always''' thoroughly researches a topic before making and edit and if there is an anomaly, as there was about the "expansion six", he doesn't give up until he finds the "truth". I have run across a few admins who abuse their power and i honestly believe that RGTraynor would in no way do this. I have been following his edits for almost a year now, and he has given no indication of being the kind of editor who would abuse his powers. To not have him as an admin, Wikipedia would be seriously losing out on a great editor. That is my two cents worth.
'''Support''' with no reservations. In my experience with RGT he's been squarely on the side of the Wiki and has as little tolerance for trolling and vandalism as I do.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', Oy I'm a slow nominator. I got beat by four supports. I'm a failure to the profession. Seriously though, for the reasons stated above by me and others. [[Image:Flag of Croatia.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Absolutely. I encounter RGT upholding NPOV and maintaining concensus on a regular basis. Every one of his contributions can be supported with a fact-based defense (or is it defence?).
'''Support''' RGTraynor has been very helpful, especially with Hockey related subjects.  I've appreciated his help a couple times and think he would be a great admin.
'''Support''' Quick learner and good editor, would benefit from access to administrative tools. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.  Looks alright.
'''Support'''.  I'm unmoved by the examples of non-civility, and in my relatively brief time here, he's never been anything other than reasonable.
'''Support''' You definitely got my vote, per all above.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' user actually does not meet my full criteria but I appreciate his frankness and his steady contributions and he ahs my vote--
'''Support''' This user has shown himself to be honest and rational in times of tension. --
'''Support''' the oppose voters are so full of it,
'''Support''' Does not seem like they will abuse powers, admin is no big deal! I can't support the nom's inclusion of "Go leafs go" in his signature however...GO SENS GO!!
'''Oppose''' Concerns about civility, see the last sentence of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_McHugh&diff=47416267&oldid=47407093 this AfD vote] (which, judging by the answer to question 1, the nominee seems quite proud of). A little too keen to harshly judge the actions of others and dictate who has a right to contribute.
'''Strongly Oppose'''.  [[User:RGTraynor|RGTraynor]] has consistently shown that, although he preaches NPOV, he uses it to his best advantage when opportunity presents itself. As mentioned above, he tends to dictate over other users contributions. Is quick to insult when opinions differ from his own. And is particularly harsh on newcomers who are still trying to "learn the ropes". He needs a few anger management classes before being allowed Admin authority.
'''Oppose''' per reasons above. Not convinced by the answers that he is ready for this. Also would suggest that he review CSD criteria if this nom succeeds [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FYell-Down_War_Hell_Ride&diff=48128764&oldid=48066639]. --
'''Gently oppose''' based on examination of diffs linked above and candidate's generally impatient tone answering RFA questions (the answers are substantatively mostly good though).  This candidate is potentially an excellent admin someday, given his research and evidence skills.  But based on current discussion I think it's too early and he needs further acclimatization to wiki culture.  I'd be likely to support a renomination in a few months, depending on how things go between now and then.  I'm perplexed by the support vote that says that if the candidate doesn't become an admin then we lose a good editor.   He can keep being a terrific editor without taking on the additional responsibilities of adminship, and I hope he does keep editing as well as helping out with maintenance (such as afd participation) pending a renomination.  (Hmm, I'm using "he" and "him" because everyone else is, rather than from knowledge.  Maybe I'll switch to [[Spivak pronoun]]s in the future.)
'''Oppose''' per JayJ.  I was set to support until I saw his diff.  Having the restraint to apply CSDs as written is a skill that comes with time.  Many quite logical reasons for deletion, like notability guidelines and WP:NOT are NOT incorporated into the CSDs.  I'm sure editor will pay heed to this in the future, but I cannot support with confidence until more experience is gained.
'''Oppose''' per TigerShark, sorry. Civility is paramount. -
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACcwaters&diff=48123391&oldid=46537942 Strong Oppose]'''. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Oppose''' per TigerShark and Rory. --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly.  I want to support so badly, because diffs like the one JJay provided make me like him more, not less.  That wasn't a lack of civility, nor was it ignorance of [[WP:CSD|CSD]] - it was common sense, which can be in short supply around here.  But I will always oppose anyone involved in RFA vote pimping (as per the diff Rory provided).  I don't care if Ccwaters would have supported anyway.  Sorry RG.
'''Strongly Oppose''' I don't believe this user is suitable to be an admin on Wikipedia. I have found he doesn't have any respect for NPOV and instead adopts strong personal agendas that he makes totally impervious to argument, especially argument by his own standards of documentation and proof.
'''Oppose''' - he arbitrarily deletes edits which are worthy enough to at least warrant a discussion on a talk page before reverting: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Hockey_Association&diff=prev&oldid=40963524], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Springfield_Armory&diff=prev&oldid=43188180], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Vinatieri&diff=prev&oldid=44161197]. Then he demands consensus: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NHL_All-Rookie_Team&diff=prev&oldid=42011912]! His edit history shows an arbitrary approach -
'''Oppose''' per JJay.  We don't need more ''editors'' bandying about the word "vanity" and misunderstanding the CSD, let alone ''admins''.
'''oppose''' Pro:understands Wiki practices. Con:belligerent attitude. Con wins this time around.
'''Neutral''' Per concerns of civility, but that little bit of evidence is nothing to oppose over.
'''Neutral'' per Moe.
TigerShark makes a valid point about civility.  And yes, RGT, knowledge is critical to writing a good encyclopedia.  But the whole point of AFD is to solicit wider feedback from those who might know more.  A serial abuser of AFD is one thing, but we needn't rebuke everyone who makes a failed nomination.
'''Neutral'''. This is a good editor, but as pointed out there are some issues with civility. Naturally there are some heated comments going back and forth to reach a consensus (demanding a thick skin), but this personal attack [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Ice_Hockey%2FPlayer_pages_format&diff=35614725&oldid=35597125] and accusations of sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInner_Mongolia&diff=41498694&oldid=41468201] are worrying. Also the edit summaries are low. Still, I like his work on hockey articles and this comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JenniCam&diff=prev&oldid=45714580].
<s>
'''Neutral''' I don't want to oppose, but I question this user's civility.--












'''Sympathetic Support''' Spend a several more month gaining experience and acclumating yourself to the policies of Wikipedia. But seriously, please withdraw.--
'''Regretful Oppose''' I am sure you have good intentions, but I think you need to spend a few more months at Wikipedia, I think you need to socialize and do so good article writing, and you'll be a great admin. Get back to the grindstone, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''', attacking other users via their user page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rhythmnation2004&diff=prev&oldid=64764594], which is why I believe you were blocked.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but as recently at September 5th. I had cause to warn this user for removing an [[WP:AFD|AfD]] notice from an article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARhythmnation2004&diff=74048963&oldid=73992127]. This shows a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and a basic lack of respect for Wikipedia's community consensus process. This candidate would not make a good admin.
'''Oppose''' Apart from the above, Rhythmnation2004 has very little experience in the project space, which is a must for administrators. This should probably be removed per [[WP:SNOW]] after another few opposes, if not sooner.
'''Oppose'''. User does not show a specific need for admin tools. Also I don't like the fact they don't seem to have full knowledge of the rules. Sorry. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' Poorly-constructed RfA doesn't reveal a requirement for admin tools.  Which '''specific''' admin processes would you participate in?  Can you provide diffs for edit conflicts?  Evidence is also required for mediation skills, a statement of personal belief is not enough.  Opposing due to a) low edit count (622) b) low user Talk edits (14) c) ignorance of Policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rhythmnation2004&diff=prev&oldid=64840873#Regarding_your_user_page] d) lack of participation in Wikiproject spaces e) no vandalfighting experience.  Withdraw this RfA, get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]], work on participation in Wikiprojects and interacting with other editors and come back again in three months/~3000 edits. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Oppose''' - Trolling of RFA. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''', his last RfA closed the day before yesterday.  <sub>
'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
Quit wasting our time.
'''Oppose''', with the strong suggestion to the nominee that he withdraw his nomination. This sort of action will not help your cause once you've attained the knowledge and maturity to be taken seriously as an admin nominee. --
'''Very Strong oppose''' User obviously has no idea about the rules here. This is my 3rd opinion regarding this user's RfAs. As said, please stop wasting everybody's time and come back when you are ready. Also, please read your previous RfA to see where it went wrong, you might learn something. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' For obvious reasons. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' RfA trolling. --
<del>'''Support'''. I will probably be the only one to support my nomination. Note that I can vote for myself, since the policy (from what I can understand) is that nominees SHOULD NOT vote for themselves, not that they CANNOT.
'''Oppose'''; created under an hour ago, most edits either questionable ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Finlay_McWalter&diff=prev&oldid=43345226] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E._Brown&diff=prev&oldid=43342250]) or vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Lagos&diff=prev&oldid=43341347]). Username also appears to breach [[wikipedia:Username|Username]] policy (based on former Chilean president [[Ricardo Lagos]]). Urge withdrawl. <font style="color:#FF1111"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><u>inch</u></font>[[User:Smurrayinchester/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC1111"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><sup>(
'''Strong Oppose''' Do I really need to say why?
'''Oppose''' - Obvious reasons. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Oppose'''. Vandal. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Lagos&diff=prev&oldid=43332009] --
'''Oppose'''. Don't waste everyone's time. Delist without delay.
'''Oppose''' User stupidly admits to hacking wikipedia( even though they didn't), supports themselves, pretty sure this is a joke delist post haste!
'''Strong Oppose'''. Only article edit was vandalism.
I said that the vandalism was a hack, Smurrayinchester. And Moe Epsilon, please do say why. Regarding my username, I chose "Ricardo Lagos" because that IS indeed my real name. Lagos is a pretty common surname in Spanish and I really don't think I should be forced to change my username just cause another guy has the name name.
If you edited anonymously here for over a year, could you please cite and show us examples of work you did as an anonymous user?  And if you were anonymous, how come you never registered until now?--
'''Moral Support''' Your heart is in the right place.
'''Support''', of course.  The concerns raised below don't really resonate with me.  Frequent updates to the wikification template is an odd habit, perhaps, but not indicative of anything problematic.  The answers to the questions get the point across--not overly verbose, but you don't need to be to do a good job with the work that really needs doing around this project. --
'''Oppose''' per my interactions with the user around the Wikification project.  Rmky87 insists on updating the [[Template:Wikification progress|Wikification progress]] template with a great frequency (over 1400 edits to the template in about 3 months) that is unexplainable.  Some of these updates are to update that one article has dropped from the total in the last 5 minutes.  See relevant discussion [[User_talk:Rmky87#Is_this_necessary.3F|here]] (granted I [[WP:POINT|tried to prove a point]] a little following the response).  But this was after other discussion about it [[User_talk:Rmky87#Updates]].  I am also concerned by the incredibly low edit summary usage.  The 3rd answer also concerns me in that it doesn't really answer what the user does during conflict other than try really hard to prove her point.
'''Oppose''' at least for now. The answers to the questions are definitely not sufficient. And edit summary usage is only 40% for major edits and 26 for minor ones.
'''Oppose'''. Not only are edit summaries woefully low but a glance through Rmky87's contribs suggests she uses them primary to disparage other users eg. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Border&diff=prev&oldid=93936663|Dif 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Off_Broadway_USA&diff=prev&oldid=92077582|Dif 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Photosynthetic_reaction_centre&diff=prev&oldid=94391716|Dif 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casper2k3&diff=prev&oldid=94583395|Dif 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Numismatic_Coins_Issued_by_the_Royal_Canadian_Mint&diff=prev&oldid=92985245|Dif 5] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Reeve&diff=prev&oldid=91919513|Dif 6]. Any of these summaries by themselves wouldn't be a big deal but taken together and being the primary use of edit summaries is concerning. That and the fact that she does not seem to place warnings on users' talk pages about copy violations, which would allow the copyright work to be rewritten as a valid article, reveals an apparent disinterest in WikiEtiquette. I don't think so heavy-handed a user would make a good admin, sorry. -
'''Oppose''' per incivil attitude in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subrabharathimanian]]. Not the kind of attitude one would expect from a candidate for adminship.--
'''Oppose''' per concerns about civility (or lack thereof) and vapid answers. While succinctness is appreciated, completeness is better desired, especially from a candidate for adminship. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose.''' Per incivility concerns. --
'''Oppose''' - absolutely not. Tagged good faith, sourced information (with refs!) as vandalism and possible copyvio with no proof [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GABA_A_receptor&diff=92631313&oldid=92517046 here] and made no attempt to discuss this with the author. Over-zealotry like that isn't needed.
'''Oppose''' as per pschemp. We do not delete things as "possible copyvio". By that rationale, all of Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Nobody knows where it came from!
'''Oppose''' per pschemp and incivility concerns pointed out by others. '''
'''Neutral''', but may reconsider. An incredible number of contributions, but having read the answers above and this discussion on the nominee's [[User_talk:Rmky87#Adminship|talk page]], it seems that the nominee isn't really ready for adminship or have a real need for the tools (other than the copyright issues, and even on that her knowledge of policy isn't entirely clear).
'''Neutral''' as per Agent 86. Good contributions but answers to questions leave me concerned. Another area of concern is low edit-summary usage.
'''Neutral''' Recommending withdrawl. --
'''Neutral''' From a quick review of your contributions, you appear to be a good editor and contributor.  The reason for my neutral stance is that you can improve your standing here rapidly with a couple of simple changes.  Firstly, set your edit summaries as compulsory in your preferences, available at the top right-hand side of your screen.  Secondly, hold in your mind the fact that everything you contribute here is available to an audience of millions - not just today but years hence.  Edit summaries and comments are almost carved in granite.  I think that it was Machiavelli who said; ''"Make your words as sweet as honey in order that you will have something pleasant to eat when you have to swallow them"''.  I know that I mentally cringe when I read some heat-of-the-moment e-mails in my Drafts folder - who wants to receive nasty, vindictive, cynical character assassinations?  Walk away from the screen or do something else before you hit 'save page', as it can make a tremendous difference.  Much better to point out the strengths of any particular person/edit/action and constructively point out how it could be made even better - at bit like this process, don't you think?  You might do well to withdraw this RfA and work on these points before reapplying in three-or-four months' time. Regards,
'''Neutral''', looks like a good editor but certain issues does not allow me to support this RFA. Suggest withdrawal. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', issues in this RfA are troubling. I suggest you take [[User:Terence Ong|Terence Ong]]'s advice and withdraw this RfA. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Support''' Agree because he seems to be one of the more productive members ive noticed. <span style="border: 0px solid;">
'''Weak support''' though having more experience will be better.--
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal. Trustworthy user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Why oppose? Why not support? We "love" so many vandals and POV pushers, and give them repeated chance and opportunities to waste the resources of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and the wikipedians. Our system sometimes fails to keep the contents in order build by the toil of so many of us. Is this nomination so bad? I am supporting him, he shall learn and shall have an "on-the-job" training as an administrator. All the best! --
'''Weak support'''. I have slight concerns that this editor is pining, but nothing fatal to the nom. I just went through his recent [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Vishniac|FaC]] and noticed that he started to get slightly testy at one point, then stayed calm and addressed the concerns, stringent thought they seemed to come across to him; that speaks in his favor. I generally like to see more experience, but I have no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' Adminship is no big deal. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak support'''. We need more "content contributor" admins. This one seems good.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''', as for being the nominator.  --
'''Strong support''' I am extremely impressed with this candidate's conduct. He does not react spikily to challenge but is level-headed and shows maturity. His talk on [[User talk:Speedway]] has been cited against him, but I find it does him credit, showing a great deal of patience and desire to help another editor. I also agree with his points about article space edits being a sufficient criterion (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Specialist_admins RfA talk on "Specialist admins"]).
'''Support'''. I have no problem with admins who aren't going to spend all their time adminning. His thoughtful answers to this RfA itself are enough for me to go ahead and support. That he says he loves ''reading'' policy space suggests he knows enough about it, and from looking I do not believe he would be likely to abuse it. Every little bit of effort helps; I don't think we should deny adminship to a decent candidate simply because he will not use it often.
'''Very weak support''' I suggest withdrawl.
'''Weak Support''' Incredible content editor/contributor.  However, per Elkman’s “oppose,” needs more work in RFAs and AFDs, and to be a little more even-tempered with users. Change from Neutral on reflection.
'''Support''' Has astounding dedication to Wikipedia and has started two complete articles from scratch ([[Roman Vishniac]] and [[Sylvia (ballet)]]), one of which made featured article status. He also came up with the idea for the [http://wiki.stapleshigh.net/ Staples High Wiki] and is an admin there. He is trustworthy and responsible and I don't see any reason why he should not be an admin. --
'''Strong Support''' -- per canidates own blaket statement up top, wikipedia needs to do more to encourage that mentality here.  In my eyes that shows that Rmrfstar could be trusted to activlly contribute and not to see wikipedia as anything more than a really cool encyclopedia --
'''Support''', with the assumption that you will read up on any policies you may have previously missed as a result of low Wikispace edits. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="sandybrown">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="cornflowerblue">
'''Support''' Normally you would not have my vote but I liked the note you added and I agree with what you said and the fact that you had the cajones to say it on your RFA means something as well.  Good luck and keep it up.--
'''Support''' Seems to be a good user. Though he may not extensively right away, I am sure he would use them to their fullest potential as some time goes by.
'''Oppose'''. Your article edits are good — and congratulations on your work in getting up to FAC — but I don't see much of a necessity for you to use admin tools. You mention that you'd use them for AfD's and vandalism, but I see little participation with AfD in the past and few vandalism edits or indication of extensive involvement. I'd like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits as well. However, please don't misunderstand my oppose vote as negative; Wikipedia could use more great editors like you... adminship is not necessarily a sign that a user is a valuable member of the community. If you show more participation in processes which adminship is necessary for in the future, I would gladly change my vote. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Oppose''' per TijuanaBrass.
'''Oppose''' per above; adminship is no prize, believe me. Pardon the cliché, but a little more time is needed in areas like XfD, AIV, etc - a toolset does you no good if you don't have experience with the wood. --
'''Oppose'''. I'm not convinced you're ready to be an admin. You have little Wikipedia space experience and your answers are rather weak. Though you say you want to help fight vandalism, I looked through your user talk edits and you don't seem to have been doing much of that.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> due to lack of Wikipedia space edits, which indicates to me a lack of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose''' - A lack of policy edits does not equate to unfamiliarity whatsoever but I am concerned at the lack of administrative actions in this users history (e. g. Vandal fighting is scarce, AFD etc.)  Given his statement above he sees an RFA's as either praise or condemnation of his efforts, which is not the spirit of RFA, and does not seem to understand that users have different standards for admins (Users are encouraged to look for evidence of "Helping with chores. Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work and debates such as RC Patrol and articles for deletion.")  He's said that: "I don't need the admin tools. I might never use them. But admin tools should still be given to those who are an "active and regular Wikipedia contributor" not realising that "Adminship is, in essence, janitorial duties for Wikipedia."  The editor does write excellent articles, it should be noted.  --
Sorry, but I have to '''oppose'''.  I don't see a lot of work in vandal fighting, although that isn't my main concern.  I checked through the user talk edits, and some of the user talk edits (as in [[User talk:Speedway]]) seem a little short-tempered.  Maybe spend a little more time vandal-fighting, participating in RFAs and AFDs, and be a little more even-tempered with users, and I'd support later.  --
'''Oppose''': not nearly enough experience, sorry. Please just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now.

'''Oppose''' Inexperience --
'''Oppose'''. An excellent article editor, who I hope will continue making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. From his comments above and below, it doesn't sound like he really wants to dedicate his time to the type of duties that admins are expected to get involved in right now.
'''Oppose''' per freakofnurture.
'''Oppose''' seems to think he has the right to tell other people how to vote. And that's BEFORE we give him a nice shiny 'block' button.
'''Oppose''' Per 1) a lack of diversity of mainspace edits and 2) a lack of Wikipedia edits. To be clear: the second is a concern because a) a lack of policy knowledge could lead to an admin making a serious policy mistake or similar problem. b) The candidate states a desire to help out with AfDs- closing AfDs requires a lot of hands-on policy experience and experience with many AfDs, which I don't see in this user's record. I will be happy to support in a few months.
'''Oppose''' I dont' feel the editor is particularly well balanced or has expertise in any one area of wikipedia but I definitely appreciate what he's done for the community and he has plenty of articles that he's worked on to make beautiful masterpieces. The main reason I have to oppose is the users short-temper just from what i've seen in this Rfa, the need to angrily challenge everyone's vote scares me and their tenacity to become an admin. is frightening, if the user was more civil and got more mainspace edits I'd support them. -
'''Oppose''', for several reasons, but mostly because of the responses to earlier oppose votes.  Those responses are so argumentative that I'm not comfortable giving this user the mop. --
'''Oppose'''. I read your note above. Ok, I'll say it then: I don't trust you. Why dont I trust you? Because you haven't done enough for me to fully guage what you stand for. Some of the arguments that you raise in your statement prove that you are not ready for the job. For instance, you say that you do not vote in AFDs because its just not your style, but people should not oppose on such a ground. However, it is by these kind of edits that others know who are experienced and familiar with the policies. If you do not edit in places like these, then people are gonna assume that you simply do not care about maintainance, or you do not recognise a "deletable" (I know its not a word, but bear with me) article when you see one. Moreover, if you simply work on articles without community interaction, how can anyone trust you? There are many people who work well by themselves (some have even written featured articles), but would make very bad Admins because they are uncivil, ignorant, or abusive. Despite your mistaken (and forgive me, but seemingly ignorant) beliefs, "few more edits in 'administrative' areas such as AfD" or "Please just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now" are '''perfectly''' legitimate reasons to oppose. I apologise if I sound harsh, but it's the truth.
'''Oppose'''; harassing users who oppose isn't a good way to get yourself adminship.
'''Neutral''', doesn't need the mop, but wouldn't abuse it. --
<b>Neutral</b> per Rory096 [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''', will gladly support later if you get a few more edits in "administrative" areas such as AfD or vandal-fighting.
'''Neutral''' as per Rory096. Maybe later.
Just a question: I have seen very little activity in the Wikipedia namespace. What are your views on the community and your contribution to community building?
The nominator [[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas'''Turnbull''']] gets first vote (added by
I can't believe he wasn't already an admin. Oh, wait, he was.--
Ditto Bish. -[[User:Mysekurity|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Support''' Everything Nicholas says is true, easy call.
(after 3 edit conflicts) I'm sure he'll make great use of administrator privs and the fact that he acknowledges and is sorry for any mistakes he made in the past makes me confident that he'll try his best to be a good administrator. <small>
''Support''. Well heck, if he wants it back... --
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. He sees his lapse in judgment for what it was and has otherwise been a fine admin.
'''Support''' isn't it -
'''Support''' as per nom. Good egg!
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' After edit conflict.
'''Support''' as per nom.-
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', yeah.
'''Unequivocal Support''' (Did I spell that right?) --
'''Support''' gladly. The heartfelt nature of his apology for the Deeceevoice incident makes me sure he won't ever be doing that again.
'''Support''' Good turnaround.--
'''Fully support'''.
'''Extremely strong support.'''
'''Support''' invaluably experienced, thoughtful editor. --
'''Very Strong support'''It promise to be a very good admin. --
'''Support''', and yes, Rogerd, you spelled that right. &mdash;
'''Support''', Rob is an excellent editor. His quick reversal of his position in the Deeceevoice affair and then his apology demonstrates that amply. Not every admin would do that.
'''Support''' The apology, voluntary desysoping  --
'''Weak support'''. While his actions were despicable, he made amends; and I'm generally in favour of second (and third and...) chances. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' of course.
I have complete faith in Rob.  --
Lets make it 31, then <strong>
'''Support''', we need sysops like him. --
'''Support'''. We all make mistakes. Rob seemed very sincere in his apology, especially since he voluntary de-admining himself. He's already shown himself to be a good admin and I think we should give him his mop back.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' yet again. Rob made a mistake, just as we all can do, and made a very heartfelt apology. He has shown himself to be a very committed and capable admin, and also, perhaps more importantly, a very honest person.
'''Support''' He's even got CVS access now: I think he's trustworthy.
'''Support''' A pleasant user and I see no real reason why not to. --
'''Support''' After looking into his analysis and apology in the Deeceevoice affair. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -
'''Support''' good editor.  He's apologized, so let bygones be bygones and move on, ESPECIALLY since admin is '''supposed''' to not be a big deal.
'''Support'''.  I take civility issues quite seriously, but I don't see that there is one here.  I also see no evidence that he inappropriately used his sysop access.  In short, I don't see a good reason for him to have given up his sysop access in the first place, so I see no reason not to grant it again.
'''Support'''. So what if he made a mistake, he apologized, his desysopping was voluntary, and I see no evidence that he will use admin rights abusively.
'''Support as punishment and retribution'''. Rob did something utterly vile and damaging to Wikipedia. The proper punishment for it is being made to do something utterly vile and useful to Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. The user displays a deeper and more useful understanding of adminship than most, and his scruples around his voluntary desysopping and standing again for RFA do him credit. If I were a bureaucrat I would probably have restored his adminship on the spot, since no move was made to remove these privileges in the first place.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I think his voluntary desysopping shows a certain maturity.  I am deeply worried about his incident with Deeceevoice, but I feel that if others support him and he's willing to take up the mop and bucket again, he should be free to. &mdash;
'''support''' - my thoughts exactly, HoodedMan.
'''
'''Support''' I always have only one question in mind with RfAs: do I believe the candidate is reasonably likely to use the powers for good? On that account I have no doubts here. RfAs are not for punishing any previous sins. --
'''Ab-so-lute-ly.''' Rob is an asset to the site. --
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''. We all make mistakes, Rob certainly will behave in the future. Peace.
'''Support'''. The Deeceevoice incident was quite ugly, yes. He's recanted and apologized. I think it's behind us all. His apology, in fact, was quite humble. Because of all that, he meets my one standard, and so, earns a support. &mdash;
'''Supporting''' on the basis of the actions and words contained in [[User:Robchurch/deeceevoice|this]].
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Has an essential quality in administrators: willingness to recognise a mistake and to rectify it. Absolutely nothing to suggest he will misuse admin powers.

'''Support'''.  Absolutely.
'''Support'''. A responsible person who doesn't make excuses. One incident should not give a person a bad name forever. But please, Rob, don't make the grave mistake of ignoring your opponents. After my RFA failed, my opponents comments have helped me improve more than anything else. Even if you win, you should take all the oppositions to heart and learn from them. Good luck :). --
'''Support''' I like to see bold actions.  I think he's learned from his previous problems, but I like his boldness in dealing with some fair use image issues.
'''Support''', I see a bunch of names I respect on the oppose side, but what can I say, I likee likee Rob, and think he does a lot of good work. That's enough for me.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' Good admin, and I'm less than impressed with the objections, many of which seem to be putting process over common sense and reason.
<s>'''EMPHATIC UNQUALIFIED SUPPORT'''.  We need more who will stand up to editors who behave like this[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence] -[[User:Justforasecond|Justforasecond]] 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)</s>support -
'''Support'''. He doesn't seem to indulge in pov-warring. --
'''Support''' - experienced. Better the devil you know: best to already know someone's faults, then supporting the relative newbies.  Good grasp of image deletion policy. There is too much red tape involved in deleting images which are unavailable to us, and if Rob is willing to cut through it, it will make wikipedia a better place.
'''Support''' - I've had problems with him in the past, but I think he'll be an ok admin. AGAIN. --
'''Oppose''' - I just had a look at the incident with Deeceevoice.  I know that you sincerely apologised for it, but it just seems too recent. -
'''Oppose''' This is the '''<u>first time</u>''' that I have '''EVER OPPOSED''' an RfA on Wikipedia since being here a year. I really hate to play the devil's advocate, but he has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=31873726&oldid=31872137 shown the need to delete] his vitriol and misdeeds.  Such actions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Robchurch/deeceevoice&diff=31654221&oldid=31644466] show down right racism.  I am really upset about the conflict with Deeceevoice.  Before you say anything, whatever [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] policies admins. have to adhere to should be made applicable here.   I do not think this person is suitable to be an administrator, and I will seriously consider leaving the project if he wins, and due to several factors that have caused me to want to leave a long time ago anyway.  Wikipedia has no shortage of admins, so we don't need incivil ones.  Please see that people [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=31857821 who want to give others "a taste of their own medicine"] need help, not power. I hate to say that, but this is true. For the first time in my life I have opposed someone on an RFA, THIS '''IS NOT''' something I do on a regular basis [[User:Boothy443|like others had done]].  I take my opposition seriously, I am convinced this user should '''not''' be an adm., but perhaps should have been temporarily blocked for his actions.  But I guess that's "Wikipedia justice."  If you haven't noticed, al lot of people (especially ''my'' people) have been discontent with this site in general, and some have no longer editted.  By the way things look, I will be soon to follow them.  Again, I am sorry RC, but I am going to '''oppose.[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' While we can all be uncivil from time to time I am bothered by his removal of&mdash;rather tham striking&mdash;his comments. Given its recent status I cannot support his nomnation at this time. -
<s>'''Mild oppose.''' I must admit that I'm conflicted on this. I wasn't impressed with RobChurch's actions regarding Deeceevoice, but I was very impressed when he apologized and then asked for his sysop priviledges to be taken away. The problem, though, is all of this happened only a few weeks ago. The fact that he's back asking to be an admin again so soon is, well, unsettling. If he had waited 6 months or so and shown through his actions that he was truly beyond this, I'd support him. Until then, I'm afraid I must oppose.</s>--
'''Weak oppose''', for pretty much the same reasons that Alabamaboy says. I was very impressed by RobChurch's apology, but this request for re-adminship comes ''much'' too soon after that conflict, and the actions before his apology weigh deeply in my mind. I'd probably support in the near future, but this comes too near in the future for me to support. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' I like and respect Rob, and appreciate his apology.  Too soon, however, for this re-sysop to occur. Come back in three months.
'''Oppose'''. I second the above; it's scant weeks ago.
Weak oppose.  I respect Rob's actions and contrition.  I would support in a few months, but it's too soon.
'''Oppose''' for reasons that have nothing to do with his desysopping. Rob has recently undone or questioned two blocks I had an interest in, one of which was of ApeandPig, who was Enviroknot, a highly abusive user banned by the arbcom. Rob said he unblocked him after having a chat with him on IRC. It's irresponsible to undo blocks when we have no knowledge of the history of the situation, not to mention discourteous to the blocking admin.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin. Rob seems likely to assume poor judgment, bad faith, etc. on the part of other administrators, specifically with regard to accounts that have been validly blocked. &mdash; <b><i>
'''Oppose'''. Although the user asked for his powers to be removed, which was noble, we can't make this a forgive-and-forget in barely two weeks. -- [[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Oppose''': You'd block someone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=32922102] for antagonistic behavior [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIntelligent_design&diff=32642940&oldid=32629969] without trying to discuss the matter with the user or in the very least warn them? Sorry. I don't think this is how it should be done. Please read over [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] and [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. I initially supported Rob but sadly, after he started removing fair use images without going through the proper process, I've seen that maybe he hasn't learnt much at all from the past situation.
'''Oppose''', without prejudice to a renomination after sufficient time has passed.  I concur that it is too soon after voluntary desysopping to step back up to the plate.
'''Oppose''' per recent incidents with various users.
'''Oppose'''. The voluntary desysopping showed maturity, the events leading up to it did not. Perhaps in 3-6 months.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin and others supporting SV's position.
Rude; prone to explosions of temper. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', as per above. &ndash;
'''Mild oppose''', though I could see myself voting support in a few months; I'm bothered by the combo of the DCV affair, though, as well as SlimVirgin's comments above.  --
'''Oppose''', I'm very very conflicted on this because I admire the move that was made to atone for bad behavior.  However, I just don't think enough time has passed to shown that instance was an anomaly, I would support in a few months as others have said.  --
'''Oppose''' He's a good developer and acts in good faith, but with all the things said here, on IRC and in various project and user space i've seen lately, I cannot trust him or anyone like him with adminship.
'''Weak Oppose''' per SlimVirgin —
'''Reluctant oppose''' - it is still just too soon.  He will be an asset as an admin again, in time.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose''' after seeing his views on policy and process as recently expressed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Additional_observation_by_Rob_Church here].
'''Oppose'''. Too soon, concerned about whole DCV mess and concerns raised by SV.
'''Oppose''' changed from support, per OwenX. <font color="darkred">
'''Oppose'''. Even if DCV was acting arragantly or showed reverese-racism, then why would he stand there and attack him/her and get smug and arrogant so much? I try to compress, minimize, and relate to policy my statements to people I see that seem to have  highly questionable good faith or judgement. Why snap at someone so harshly that it will only reinforce her/his views? Is that what admins do? DVC may not have even been unreasonable, or may have been jokink for all I know, I dont care, and it doesn't matter.'''
'''Oppose'''. Incidences have prove too much for me to do anything other.
'''Oppose'''. After a lot of deep thought, this is my inclination at this time. --
'''Oppose''' due to something he said on IRC.
'''Oppose''' - too recent.
'''Oppose''' - His comments regarding the Kelly Martin fiasco are deeply troubling.
'''Oppose'''
'''Neutral'''.  Let's see if He accepts the nomination, since the promotion is up to Him --
'''Neutral'''. If this were a brand new RFA and he had not previously been an admin, the incident with Deeceevoice would have me opposing. But, in fact, he seems to be a good admin, and did not abuse admin privileges in that incident. He seems to understand that he did a lot of damage by driving away an excellent contributor with ill-considered remarks; given that incident, I cannot support at this time, but will not oppose, since I think this was more gross negligence than ill will; I hope he learned from this, but I really can't tell yet. --
'''Neutral''' &mdash; I think I'll sit on the fence on this one. Both sides make a good case and plus, Adminship is, well, you know how it goes. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
<s>'''Neutral''' Celestian and Jmabel hit it on the nose. He definately means well, but i'm not comfortable with some of the things i've heard here.
'''Neutral''' as per most of the above neutral votes.
'''Neutral''' leaning toward oppose. Clearly, Robchurch is a good editor and my personal interactions with him as an admin, though few, have been fine. However, various things concern me: a tendency to act on IRC discussions rather than on-Wiki research (IRC is not Wiki. IRC is not Wiki. Say it again.) A tendency to be pretty brutal ''on'' IRC which, whilst not Wiki is still linked to it and where newbies sometimes find themselves. Then, he self de-sysopped and promptly decided he didn't mean it: either he did or he didn't. It is also clear that the recent happenings would doom any first-time RfA, and I'm struggling to work out how to factor that into a second-time RfA. -
'''Neutral''' -- he's a good editor and made a brilliant admin imo, it just feels too soon after de-sysop-ing himself. --
'''Neutral''' &mdash; for me, his apology demonstrated guts and integrity. Still, the Deeceevoice RfAr thing was very disturbing, and I haven't bumped into him in any other context.
'''Neutral'''. I am reluctantly changing to neutral because of the concerns raised by SlimVirgin, in particular the response "(Sigh) Do what you like."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=31856996&oldid=31826170] I remain deeply impressed by Rob's apology to Deeceevoice, and would like to see him resysopped once I am sure that he will act responsibly when there are disagreements over blocks.
'''Neutral'''.  Exactly what Ann said (except for the changing bit).
First one's free... '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Support'''. He can handle admin tools.&#160;—
'''Support''' I find this user very helpful.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', has shown great growth and maturity - this editor's [[character arc]] would make for a novel.
'''Support''' – he was one before, and the world didn't end then –
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of the strongest nature. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' I'm amazed Rob isn't already (still) an admin. —
Of course.
Well, at least we know he's not pining... ;) <tt>
'''Strong support''', even though he hates me. --
Um, you sure you want to do this Rob? May $Deity bless your soul.
'''Support.''' I do think that the DCV pile-on was a terrible thing, but I also think no one understands that better than Rob.
'''Support'''. Yes, the world did not end there... and moreover we should not "worry about the world ending today. It’s already tomorrow in China". I find his association with wikipedia is remarkable, and he deserves to be re-sysoped. The past should not deter us. --
'''3rd edit conflict support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Editconflict Support''' per Rory096 <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Seen Rob around, and is a solid contributor. I've no promblems with supporting him. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. He can be trusted not to abuse the tools. --
'''Support''', if only to let him edit the MediaWiki pages himself.  (Though I guess he ''could'' always commit a code patch to let him do that...)  What's the point in denying the admin bit from a dev, anyway?  —
'''Support''' A non-sysop developer? Also a great editor.
'''Support''' A solid contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' No point keeping him from the tools. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>

'''Support'''. Robchurch has shown himself to be a very capable admin in the past, and, perhaps more importantly, a very honest one too. Not everybody would have responded the way he did following the sordid business with Deeceevoice.
'''Support'''. Looks good. &mdash; '''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' We've had our differences, but this is the best thing for the community.
'''Support''' - what was it I said before, "all-around good guy"? Yeah, that. Also, learns from his mistakes, and makes great contributions behind the scenes as a developer. If the sysop bit will help him do that, I think he should have it.
'''Support''' made a good admin before and will make a good admin again. <small>
'''Support''' [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Support''' per Pegasus. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' again. --
'''Support''' What do they mean incivil - Rob's always f***ing civil. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
Support. — FireFox (<small>
'''Support'''. He seems like an excellent contributor.
--
'''Support'''- I ''know'' this user will not be misusing admin tools.
'''Dell Tech Support''' You need to reboot. '''
'''Support''' - Gosh, the second person I've wanted to support this week, what ''is'' going on here? We need less qualified candidates so I can ignore this place again --
'''That's scorching!'''
'''Support'', The kinda guy you thought was an admin already.
'''Extreme stabbage Support''':  untiringly helpful, even while he's engaged "stabbing" the system back into shape. Never mind civil: bugs don't deserve civil. HTH HAND —
'''Support'''. We need more <s>rouge</s> good admins, who use common sense but are willing to own up to their mistakes. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', same as the last couple times I supported him, blah, blah, good guy, trusted, could use the tools, had the good sense to know when the screwed up and should get the mop back now.
'''Support''' Why, of course.
''Support''.  looks good to me.
'''Edit conflict support'''. Excellent contributor. Though if we don't re-admin you, will you write more code instead? :) And of course, please work on the civility, if something you want to say seems like it might cause offense, it probably will. -
'''Support'''. Of course.
'''Support'''.  OMG he's not one?  This user does too many important things not to have Admin capabilities.
'''Support'''. Rob has learned the lessons he needed to learn when he was desysopped; he has also been doing very significant work on the MediaWiki code.
'''Support''' --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
I agree with the nominator's opening statement, and my interactions with Rob have all been positive.
'''Support'''. Seems to have a good sense of self-judgement.
'''Unquestioned support'''. Quite a help to the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. Everything I've seen from this editor has been positive, and his hard work is evident in everything he touches. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I agree with Lar, and while there have been incidents in his past, it's to his benefit that he apologized.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', five months is long enough, and Robchurch's contributions in that five months have been positive. --
'''Support''' as I did on his last RfA.-
'''Support''' He desysopped himself, therefore he shouldnt have to go through this again 100% support.

'''Support''' Will (albeit infrequently) use the tools well. --
'''Support'''. He has my full confidence.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He has shown that he is accountable to the community by stepping down when he made a mistake.
'''support'''
'''Syooirt''', great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' He can handle it. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]]
'''''Rob Church hates [[WP:100]] supports'' support'''. :P :P This user is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. His contributions far outweigh the glitches that his system might have ;). The user shows good judgment all around, and though he might be cold and brusque at times, he has always meant well for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia would definately be a better place with administrators like him. Amen. --<font color="blue">
'''Strong support'''. Incredible asset. .:.
'''Support on WHEEELS!!!''' Everything checks out. --[[User:D-Day|D-Day]]<sup>([[User talk:D-Day|Wouldn't]] [[User:D-Day/Templates I'd like to see on Wikipedia|you]] [[Special:Contributions/User:D-Day|like]] [[User:D-Day/sandbox|to]] [[User:D-Day/Userboxen|be]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a pepper</font>]]
'''Support'''. <font color="AE1C28">

What, are you kidding?  I didn't know he was up for it.  We tried and tried to get him to accept it before.  Heck yes, I '''support.'''
'''Support''', History is checkered, sure, but also full of great contributions. Rob knows scrutiny on his admin actions will be close and constant, and I don't think he fancies another big incident. <b>
'''Support''' An A+ Wikipedia user.
'''Support''', dedicated, trustworthy and previous unsavoury events show welcome awareness of his own past failings. --
'''Double edit-conflicted support'''. While I'm fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this RfA and Rob's interaction with the community, I'm willing to give him the chance. Let's not forget that ''everyone'' will keep their eyes on him, and many will raise the matter should any reason to question his judgement or actions as admin ever arises.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' - whilst I agree Rob may have the odd edit summary, I don't think he's one to abuse the tools in any manner that has to do with adminship.  He's not going to screw with the buttons, why not let him have them --
'''Support''' without question --
'''Support''' - I don't think that withholding adminship status should be used as a form of punishment. The purpose of withholding adminship should be to protect the users of wikipedia from rogue behaviour, and only that. I don't think that Robchurch is any more likely to engage in rogue behaviour than any other successful candidate. -
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' for Rob. --
'''Support''' amazing guy too. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' It would be nice if he could maintain a bit more civility, but I have a really hard time imagining him abusing the tools, which is (IMO) the most important thing to consider in an RfA.
'''Crazy I'm 100 Support''' Get's his tools back. -'''
'''Support'''. Sensible person, and a strong record of service to the encyclopedia.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', you keep telling those idiots, Rob.
'''Support'''. A great candidate.--
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. Incivility is obviously not a good thing, but as the nominator says, Wikipedia will probably be better off if Rob is an admin.
'''support'''
'''Support''', as a great editor and developer.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Suppport''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''- no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools.  Those who oppose re-adminning would do well to remember that the only reason he lost his sysop bit in the first place was that he voluntarily gave it up.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' - He's a great developer, a great contributor, has great reason to merit the mop, and, on a more humorous note, he is a veritable [[Capo_di_tutti_capi|Troll di tutti troi]]. ''Butchered Italian intentional.'' --
'''My long overdue resupport''' &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Dedicated developer, no reason why he shouldn't be given the tools back. --
'''Support'''. ~
'''Support''' - Always friendly on IRC, and good user. See no reason for him not to become a sysop again. -- [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Support''' I've seen some of his admin work in situations some time back, and I think it was very good (even if he may lose his temper from time to time, as some people have apparently observed.)
'''Clear support''' per Andy123 and Fut.Perf., to name two.
'''Support''' In my (albeit limited) dealings with him, he was always polite and courteous. His contributions are well-known, and if he feels that the mop-and-flamethrower will help him continue, then I have no problem with that. Good Luck! --
Another '''Support'''. Below concerns about civility seem overstated.
'''Support'''. I'm confused by people citing a totally unsubstantiated oppose (MLA's). Robchurch is helpful, dedicated, and intelligent. Rob may not always be too tolerant with fools but I've found him far less abrasive than Tim Starling who no one complaints about having the sysop bit on Enwiki. We're not electing Rob to be captain of the Wikipedia welcome wagon here... We don't expect all admins to have deep technical understanding although it's important that there are admins with it... so we shouldn't expect all admins to be great people people. What matters is trust. Rob already has it. This RFA should be merely perfunctory and I'm disappointed in the people who are opposing. --
'''Support'''. I have refrained from voting thus far because I didn't want to get involved in any arguments with anyone. However, some of the opposes here seem a bit frivolous. Is Rob Church incivil? That's for you to decide; I go for no, but I'm lenient. Does that have anything to do with his being admin? If Rob had said that he was going to 'welcome newcomers, solve disputes, answer questions, be a friend to everyone, mediate, and talk to everyone', then yes, it'd be a problem. However, all Rob has stated he'd use his sysop powers for is implementing things and editing protected pages (MediaWiki) so he doesn't have to make others do it for him, and then the odd block and delete. It's my opinion that no matter how incivil you may think he is, that has nothing to do with editing protected, site-wide pages. Furthermore, I don't think he'd be going around flaunting the admin thing, and any incivility he had would be his own, not that of the admins, nor Wikipedia. Also also, I find his behavior merely in line with the developer/hacker/whatever brain-mode, with different views on how one interacts with people. Adminship shouldn't be reserved for people persons. We'd miss out on a lot of great contributors that way, and Rob Church is an excellent contributor who would benefit Wikipedia with his sysopping. --
'''Support'''. I don't pretend Rob has had an unblemished Wikipedia career; but I would remark that nor have any of us here on Wikipedia. Show me a Wikipedian who considers himself without fault, and I shall show you an irreflective self-deceiver - Rob has admitted fault on a number of occasions, and apologised. Deeceevoice was quite wrong to assert that Rob Church asked for adminship ten days after his desysopping, as I nominated him for adminship on my own recognisance, not on Rob's request. I felt then, as I feel now, that Rob is an exceptional asset to Wikipedia, and that he would simply be more useful as an administrator to the project. I call on all of those Wikipedians with an interest in our project's success to ignore the cat-calls spoken by those who gravely misunderstand the purpose of this project, and to consider this candidate upon his own merits. --
'''Support'''. His responses have satisfied any lingering concerns. --
'''Support''' per support by all of the right people and oppose by all of the right people.  --
'''Support'''.  Lar's nomination sold me.  Rob's done a lot of good things here and used the tools well before the oft-referred-to incident.  --
Now, as ever.  --[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - a great programmer! :) --<font color="blue">'''
'''Support''' per Nicholas Turnbull and because I truly believe an admin is more valuable the more learning experiences s/he has gone through and the more conflicts s/he has successfully weathered. And because some of (''some'' of) the Opposes are so petty.
'''Support''' Enough time has passed since the Deeceevoice incident and Robchurch has again proven himself to be a good editor.--
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Strong Support''' Great editor and Great Developer
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Has the skills, has the credibility. -
'''Support''' I thought I voted, but guess not. Anyways, Robchurch is definitely worthy of the mop. I've seen him around and his contributions are always solid. In addition to his reponses below, I'm convinced Rob's ready for adminship. -→
'''Support''', absolutely.
'''Support'''. I saw the RfA the first day it was up and didn't vote. I've talked to admins and users in #wikipedia about it, trying to decide if I should get involved or not. Some like the guy, some can't stand him: They call him abrasive and uncivil. The problem is, they also call him an impressive editor. They call him technically excellent. I've yet to see an example of something more than the result of a technically minded person having a bad day and snapping at someone. I do that myself, and I'd like to think I'm painfully friendly on here. Civility is an important consideration for the job, granted, but not all admins are cookie-cutter and made to do the same job. I spoke with him on IRC just a few short minutes ago and have decided that the question at the top has an answer: '''Will Wikipedia be better or worse if Rob Church is made an administrator once again?''' His contributions in the past have already bettered Wikipedia, and with the tools he needs firmly in hand, he will better Wikipedia once again. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support'''. If someone wants adminship, they should get it. It's no big deal. Also, Deeceecee should calm down.--
'''Support''', you havn't ever lost faith. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I think this renom came a little too early but if it doesn't pass, that may make the next one harder.  Rob's contributions as an editor and a dev are enough that I trust his judgement that it's useful for him to have admin bits, and that he understands the need stay cool in things like edit summaries in the future.  I've looked over the deeceevoice stuff and can't make any sense of it (and the most serious allegations appear undocumented), so I'm not persuaded by it.
'''Oppose''', fails the civility test.
Rob showed good judgment in desysopping himself voluntarily, but I still feel this user is too prone to incivility and rashness.  His blocking of slimvirgin here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=32922102] was done without any discussion with the user before hand.  Also, the edit summary cited below by Nickel is frankly aggressive --
'''STRENUOUS OPPOSE''' Yes, I accepted Rob Church's apology -- though he never actually confessed to completely fabricating a vicious e-mail during an ArbCom proceeding which I never sent.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robchurch/deeceevoice],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Robchurch/deeceevoice&diff=31811325&oldid=31809873] The issue here is time [and integrity, given Church's only partial retraction of his admittedly false charges against me].  That ugly incident took place ''less than six months ago''.  When one considers that people can be placed on probation for an ''entire year'' for far less, that someone can behave in so tawdry a fashion as Church did and still repeatedly be recommended for adminship -- and that he would have the gall to even allow his name to put forward -- all within five months of disgracing himself -- is pretty hard to take.  ''The man had the gall to ask his adminship be approved less than 10 days after deliberately and calculatingly fabricating/falsifying evidence before the ArbCom,'' giving the excuse that at the time he believed his actions were for the good of the project.  That, to me, is extremely alarming.  The man shouldn't even be ''considered'' for adminship for at least a year.  The hypocrisy in this is just amazing -- a complete double standard.
'''Oppose'''.  On the one hand is the undoubted technical ability, understanding of the project, and doing the right thing by stepping down voluntarily.  On the other hand, Robchurch is the most aggressive genuine admin candidate I've seen here.  I can't take the voluntary desysopping into consideration as I wouldn't have supported him in the first place.  Other users aren't cut the slack that Rob seems to get in my view.  Possibly it's because he's such a good contributor to the project, but adminship leans much more heavily on civility than editing/technical quality in my view.
'''Oppose''' per MLA.
'''Oppose''' per MLA. The edit summary below is good evidence of what I've seen from Robchurch on a regular basis. — ''
'''Oppose'''  You are a nice person and an asset  to the community in the various jobs that you do now. Your current inability to handle stress does not make you a good candidate for administrator now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=53837766] I’m concerned this promotion will jeopardize the many positive talents that you bring to the community.
'''Very strong oppose''' Admins are expected to uphold standards. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=53837766 edit summary] was left by Robchurch 3 days ago: "It's called MediaWiki, not fucking Wikimedia. I question how you can repeatedly confuse a piece of software with a bloody organisation." I don't think this is the standard that should be set. I fully recognise Robchurch's other valuable work for Wikipedia.
<s>'''Oppose''': Admins must operate under stress and are often called to sort out conflicts. Looking at the discussion and the replies, it appears that RobChurch still has some distance to travel. However, past actions encourage me to re-evaluate this opinion afresh if this matter arises again. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)</s> '''Weak oppose''': OK I'm softening here. I'd prefer it to have someone more even tempered, but I've come across some posts and I'm moving towards taking the risk. Forgive but don't forget.
'''Oppose''' due to actions regarding [[User:Deeceevoice|Deeceevoice]] and other uncivil behavior. As a side note (not influencing my decision), it's kind of odd that 20% (60% of the total of his main page edits) of his edits are on user talk pages. &mdash;
'''Changed to Oppose''' per [[User:MLA|MLA]] and [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]]. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Oppose''' as per Tyrenius.
'''Oppose''',
'''Oppose''' Honorable as stepping down was, the offense was exceptionally immoral and wrong. And the edit summary pointed out by [[User:Tyrenius]] shows you still can you use some improvement. Perhaps I'll support later; September perhaps. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' on concerns of civility, which is quite important among admins. Perhaps in a month or two with a cleaner record?
'''Oppose''' Per Tyrenius. That edit summary was just too recent. <b><font color="teal">
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]], [[User:Kukini|Kukini]] and other users above. Likely would make a good admin, due to technical and project understandings.  But [[WP:CIVIL]] is non optional, it is a necessary for all users (more so for administrators).--
'''Oppose''' per MLA and Tyrenius.
'''Oppose''': too many intemperate outbursts.
'''Oppose'''; civility is absolutely necessary of admins.  Everyone is ignorant of some things, and it harms the project to lash out at those who are ignorant of different things than you. --
'''Oppose''': cursing others in edit summaries, as he has done, including very recently, is just not OK.
'''Oppose''' changing from support. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. A valuable user... but I'm not sure that I'd want you to be an admin again. --
'''Oppose''' per MLA and Deskana.
'''Oppose''' per recent civility issues.
'''Oppose''', civility doens't suddenly become optional just because one is a developer.  Past behaviour on the IRC channel is also absolutely not consistent with the kind of high standards Wikipedia should look for in an administrator.
'''Oppose''' Per above civility concerns.
'''Weak oppose''' as per [[User:Spangineer]] and other evidence. Good faith admin actions and good faith participation in the Wikipedia community are just as important as good faith edits and good work ethic to me. &mdash;
By God, I wish I could support, because I have immense respect for Rob and his contributions here.    Even so, seeing the kind of anger reflected in the edit summary above, I can't help wondering what kind of vitriol would be dished out for vandalism—and though I concede that it's entirely possible that Rob meant it in a humourous fashion, the same would still apply were this true.<br/>'''Short version:''' I firmly believe that their words, as well as their actions, are what give administrators the moral authority to deal with vandals.  <random>(But given the swearing I've directed at myself when dealing with ParserFunctions, what does that do to my moral authority, I wonder?)</random>
'''Oppose'''.  Technical yes, but ''severely'' lacking in the civility department, sorry.
'''Oppose'''. As per all of above. Civility is big deal indeed.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. Clearly you are liked and your contributions are respectable. I admire your willingness to admit when your actions have been inappropriate and to try to make amends. However, administrators need to follow the rules, all of the time, and I don't think you've demonstrated that you are ready to do that given your comments in the edit summary noted above. I think it is too soon for the community to be considering this.
'''Oppose''' per the rude edit summary mentioned above. Such an angy outburst because of a simple mistake is not acceptable.
'''Oppose'''; it may only be one edit summary, but it's an extreme one, and it's recent.  It can't be outweighed by good editing, because good editing doesn't require being an admin. --
'''Oppose''' per Tyrenius and above.  Perhaps I'd support in the future.
'''Strong oppose''' unfortunately, but cannot in good conscience support with such glaring incivility even recently.
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid I don't trust Rob Church to stay civil enough. It's not just that quoted edit summary, it's a general impression from many conversations involving him. I agree with MLA's comment "''Other users aren't cut the slack that Rob seems to get in my view. Possibly it's because he's such a good contributor to the project...''". Great work as a developer, but I think there are others more suited for the admin mop.
'''Oppose''' per MLA.
'''Oppose''' per civility issues. '''
'''Oppose''' per Tyrenius.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]

'''Weak oppose''' per many of the comments above. Will reconsider after more time, and better temper control.
'''Oppose''' civility
'''Oppose''', sorry, but the dcv thing is too much for me to support.
'''Oppose''' this time - while it would be "nice" for Rob to be able to edit the MediaWiki pages himself, he needs to have an actual sense of what he did. The time thus far is not sufficient, in my opinion. --
'''Opppose''' We all make mistakes; but we should all be punished too. Its not Rob's fault that he was nominnated again but he should have turned it down. After a sufficient period without nominations and votes he should reapply for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' (deleting votes is a no-no) Recent interactions with this user don't exactly motivate me to support at this time. -
'''Oppose''' per nathan. [[user:ILovePlankton|<font color="red">I</font><font color="orange">Lo</font><font color="limegreen">ve</font>]][[Plankton]] <sup>(</sup>
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]], edit summary and most of the concerns raised above.
'''Oppose''' I really wish I could support, because I know all the good he does as a developer, but the civility concerns raised are simply too much.  Civility is the ''first'' necessary quality in an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' per MLA and the nominator. Adminship is not a reward for good technical skills, and having more admins who have civility problems is definitely not good for Wikipedia. Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=53837766 editing other users' talkpage messages] and using an abusive edit summary in the process is absolutely unacceptable.
'''Oppose''' reluctantly due to temperment and civility concerns.
'''Oppose''' due to tcivility concerns.
'''Oppose'' reluctantly due to civility concerns. Brevity due to 84 kb long page. --
'''Oppose''' civility is important to me.
'''Week oppose''' The civiliy problems bother me, but otherwise a good user. I would sugust withdrawing this RFA and retrying in 3-6 months. ---
'''Oppose''', too many civility and credibility issues for my taste.
'''Very, very, very weak oppose''' Everything tells me to support you, however, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=53837766|Edits like these] disturb me too much. I am very sorry.
'''Oppose'''.  Rob's done some sterling work for wikipedia, but adminship requires a higher standard of civility.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Civility, in edit summaries and otherwise, is a policy that I expect all editors who have been around long enough to run for administrator to follow.  The diff that Yanksox and others have provided is recent enough that I express great reservations with Rob's becoming an admin at this time. --
Does not appear to meet [[WP:1FA]], but has made significant contributions in other aspects. -
Impressive contributions tempered by scarily uncivil edit summary below = '''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral''' Best of luck; I can't support and won't oppose.  --''
'''Neutral''', more or less per Rockpocket, though I'm leaning very slightly toward support. Obviously, Rob is a very capable and knowledgeable user, and I don't think that admin tools would be abused. However, I do believe that the civility concerns are legitimate, and, taken in the context of being an admin, might give some less thick-skinned users a bad impression. —&nbsp;
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. Pretty much exactly what [[User:TKD|TKD]] said. --
'''neutral''' as per above. Would love to vote support, but some of the comments raised by the oppose contingent are a bit too clear-cut for me to wholeheartedly add a support vote.
<s>'''Weak Support''' per Rory096.'''
'''Neutral''' Eh... I'm not too sure, so Neutral it is. If he succeeds, I recommend watching him closely for 2 weeks to a month. (Hopefully, that was ok to say.) --
'''Neutral'''.  Valuable to Wikipedia either as an editor or admin.  Not quite ready to support, but he does seem to need the tools.
'''Neutral'''.  Valuable to Wikipedia as an editor and more
'''Comment''' I am concerned by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29&diff=prev&oldid=53837766 this edit summary] and have raised a question below.
A comment about the nominating statement, which I've only just now read. (I'm not certain where this goes):  The statement in nominating Church is incredibly disingenuous/misleading and begs clarification.  Church "voluntarily deadminned himself as a way to make amends and to apologise for actions he felt were [[User:Robchurch/deeceevoice|inappropriate]], and after some time, he asked for the community's support again."  For actions "he ''felt'' were inappropriate? That wasn't some magnanimous judgment call on his part.  The man admittedly ''lied'' against a user (me), fabricated accusations and submitted them in evidence in an ArbCom proceeding.  And "after some time"?  ''He waited less than ten, whole days'' and never completely came clean about the full extent of his calculated misrepresentations.
'''Not already one?'''
'''Strong support'''. I've had it in my mind for the last few weeks that I should contact him and offer to nominate him. He's a good editor, always tries to be fair, and is familiar with Wikipedia policy. Also, I know for a fact that he helps other Wikipedians behind the scenes, even though there are no diffs to provide as evidence.
'''Why not?'''; user seems exceedingly fair, and capable: it` s about time.
'''Support''': He knows the Wikipedia rules. He seems thoughtful and mature. -
'''support''':  Thoughtful, conscientious contributor who is unlikely to abuse admin powers.  No big deal.
'''Support''' yes good user, will make a excellent admin --
'''Support'''. Despite relatively few article edits, you seem like a good editor, and I cannot find any reason other than that to oppose your nomination. Therefore, you have my support.
'''Support''' per reasons above --
'''Support''' ditto;
'''Support''' Good editor with an extensive knowledge of wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. Article edits are not the be-all-end-all; some of us use the preview button obsessively, and focus our efforts on keeping the place running, and that's a valid calling. Robert does '''a lot''' of very useful dispute resolution work. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Support''' as per ann [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Aye, go on.  I have to say I'd rather see more article edits, but I'm confident you'll maje a good admin and one more concentrating on the dispute side is very welcome, you'll help balance someone not so keen on dispute resolution, like me.
'''Support''', just needs more article edits. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good contributor. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''100% Absolute Support''' I've been thinking he's admin material for a long time.
'''Support''' -- we actually do need an admin to keep up with ArbCom rulings and contribute to their enforcement.
'''Support''' Enough with this "not enough article edits" nonsense. There are plenty of admins who have made the majority of their edits in some other space (Arbitrator [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] is a good example of this - 48.1% of his edits are in the Wikipedia (project) space, compared to 21.9% in the article space). --
'''Support''' though weakly per Splash; nevertheless seems like would be good admin per other factors. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support''' He seems like a fair, active contributer who doesn't mind getting involved in disputes to sort things out. --
'''Support'''. "Editcountitis can be fatal." --
'''support'''.--
'''Support''' Ordinarily I would be inclined to oppose an editor with so few article space edits. However, what I have seen of this editor is enough to reassure me that he is even tempered and has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. &ndash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' as per AnnH and Joke.
'''Support''', editcountitis is fatal, and I'd prefer 350 meaningful edits to 3500 meaningless ones. Good editor, and more to the point, unlikely to abuse his powers.
'''Support''' While the main article space edit count is relatively low, I'm glad someone is willing to invest so much energy in arbitration matters, which can be exhausting business. <b><font face="Arial" color="#D47C14">[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo]]</font><font color="#7D4C0C">
'''support'''
'''Support''' Meets my standards, and seems like admin material! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support'''. Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. -
'''Support''' - I've always found him to be brusque and succinct, but never beyond-the-pale rude.  Plenty of Wikipedians have done no mainspace editing other than 2000 clicks of the revert button on god mode, posted some fluff with smiley faces on other's user pages, and a few hundred AfD votes, and yet they sail through RfA.  Bizarre, no?
'''support''', i dont follow hard and fast standards i take it case by case, i believe this user would make an excellent admin based on his work, dont let this rfa get you down you are appricated!
'''Support''' Another "not already one"?
'''[[Kawaii]] Support''' --<small>
'''Oppose''' (assuming acceptance of self nomination)  Not enough article space edits to meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards#Doug_Bell|minimum standards]]. —
'''Oppose''' only 250 article edits.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't meet my standards. Only 350 article edits.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't meet my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards#Dustimagic|minimum standards]].
'''Oppose''' The concerning thing is that the percentage of his article namespace edits are have declined over the recent months.

'''Oppose''' Per above --
'''Oppose''' Agree with above, too new for me.--
I am uncomfortable with the notion of adminning someone who says eagerly that he will act as ArbComs' Enforcer. This is particularly true given the fact that this is coupled with dealing with vandals: but with so few article edits, this is clearly something he does not do. Clearly, all admins are charged with enforcing the Committee's decisions, but few of them actually walk around ''looking'' for opportunities to club people over the head with the rulings. I was interested to see that he has, in Q3, ''"dealt with several previous disputes by filing Requests for Arbitration"'' — going to ArbCom is a statement that the dispute ''has not'' been dealt with, and this should not be a first reaction to a dispute. Also in Q3, admins ''are'' empowered to decide who is a troll and a bully but it is left primarily to ArbCom to decide on the cases where this is not clear-cut. In short, the reasons for wanting admin buttons give me an uneasy feeling particularly when coupled with the comparatively small amount of work on the encyclopedia itself. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry you have not yet met my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards#Mmeinhart|minimum standards]].  [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]] [[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Splash. I personally respect this editor's judgment, but I share Splash concern over editor's stated desire for the mop.  Enforcement of ArbCom rulings needs to be done, of course; but editors who are eager to do it give me pause.  Adminship is not a billy-club.
'''Oppose''' Not only does Robert McClenon make wild and absurd accusations like claiming that I and [[User:Melissadolbeer|Melissadolbeer]] are one and the same, but the fact that he has such a small proportion of his edits actually to articles, and that he has so few edits to articles in general, make me think this request is quite inappropriate. --
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' for low article edits.--
'''Oppose'''. While Robert is a very polite and amenable editor, I also can't help thinking he wants to wield a stick rather than a mop. And I have found his editing rather partisan - too ready to back up or take things on trust from editors on his 'side' - eg. fellow Catholics in the disputes at [[Pius XII]]; and I was worried by his deleting of the POV notice I put up there - papering over a dispute is not solving it.
'''Oppose'''. Relatively very few article edits, mostly concerned with getting involved in conflicts.
'''Oppose''' per all of the above (edit count wise)-'''
'''Oppose'''. Robert has made only 349 edits to the encyclopedia in eight months, [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Robert+McClenon&dbname=enwiki_p] yet in the same time has made 1,180 edits to project and project talk pages, many or most of them comments on other people's conflicts, particularly in Requests for Comment and Requests for Arbitration. He often doesn't fully inform himself before commenting, in my view, and I'd worry that this would lead to him frequently commenting on, or undoing, other admins' actions without knowing the background. I'd like to see more experience editing articles and much less interest in disputes before a promotion. Sorry Robert.
'''Oppose''', needs more time in the mainspace, WP is an encyclopedia first.
'''Oppose''', lack of edits.
'''Oppose'''. Rude. Beyond rude.
'''Oppose''' per Slim.
'''Oppose''' Low article space contributions, and per other concerns raised about ArbCom enforcement role. --<font color="2B7A2B">
'''Neutral''' The low mainspace count concerns me.
'''Neutral''' I agree, there are too few mainspace edits.
'''Neutral''' Per above. Not convinced by the answers. Dispute resolution doesn't need admin powers. --
'''Neutral''': per answers to questions.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. Low articlespace edits.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Gah''' RM has what it takes, and the only reason to oppose seems to be article counts. But that count is ''sooo'' low. Robert, go sort 500 stubs to keep the counters happy, and then come back. --
'''Neutral'''. per Doc. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral''' per Doc.
'''Neutral''' lots of work in the rfc/arbcom/etc areas, but would like to see more Main space work —
'''Neutral''', perhaps at a later date.
'''Oppose''' Very few edits outside of Main/Template/Category namespaces.
'''Oppose''' never uses edit summaries, zero interaction with the community, zero involvement in the WP namespace... Its obvious that you know a great deal about TV and Radio, and your contributions there are valuable, but you seem to know absolutely nothing about what is needed to be an administrator, and I strongly suggest you withdraw this nomination.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Oppose'''. Unclear from the answers to the standard questions why this editor requires the admin role. --
'''Oppose''' - Only 5 Wikipedia namespace edits, indicating that user is not familiar enough with the wikiprocess. Edit summary usage is very very low, at 1% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 32 minor edits (also indicates that user should do more [[WP:RCP|RC patrolling]]). Only 17 talk page edits, about .3% of his edits, showing little communication with Wikipedian community. Answers to questions are also too short. ''
'''Oppose''' Among other issues "Television and Radio" is not a sysop chore. While the user has been extensively involved in certain specific topics, he has no experience with in the Wikipedia namespace and seems to have little understanding of what admins do. I suggest he hang out on the AfD board and poke around other WP namespace matters and then come back in 1.5 months or so.
'''Oppose'''. Seems likea  great contributor, but could use a little more community interaction, and use of the preview button as well. -
'''Oppose''' - seems like a great user but questions do not look like user needs access to sysop tools, and I hate to say it but forgetting an edit summary on your RfA doesn't look too good --
Opening remarks and the answer to Q1 indicate that the candidate doesn't fully understands what Adminship is and what an Administrator does.  This probably comes from the already-pointed lack of interaction with the community.  Pattern of contributions shows no reverting vandalism or other sysop-like activities.
'''Strong Oppose''' for several reasons. First of all, you don't explain in your nominaton exactly why you would like to be an admin. Knowing "a lot about television, radio, Dance music and other tidbits" does not say anything. Second of all, an overwhelming majority of your edits are to the mainspace. You have little experience in the projectspace. Third of all, you aren't active overall anyway. And fourth of all, you barely use edit summaries.
'''Oppose''', Response to standard questions is not satisfactory at all.
'''Oppose'''. For the many reasons listed above.
You don't need admin powers to do what you said in Question 1.  You also do not seem to know what it means to be an admin.  Finally, your communication with the community, work on Wikipedia: articles & reverting vandalism (or lack thereof) shows me that you are  just not ready for the mop.  Sorry, but '''OPPOSE'''. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''', answers to questions do not indicate a need for the mop and bucket.
Per above, advise withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' per Kimchi.sg. Also, I feel that this user needs to be more involved with the community in talk pages.<b>—
'''Oppose'''. An excellent editor. I recommend using your editing experience to collaborate with other users and to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Do this for a few months, and you should be in a fine shape to become an admin. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Neutral''' Robert is a valuable contributor in the broadcasting areas mentioned above. However, great editors do not necessarily make good admins. I do not have any specific concerns that Robert will misuse sysop tools, so I won't oppose this nomination. Nonetheless, the way in which he chooses to chip in at Wikipedia does not require the mop. His efforts are still very much appreciated, even if this RfA doesn't pass. --
'''Neutral'''. Fantastic editor but only 5 WP namespace edits.
'''Oppose''' Candidate has only two edits, which create this RfA. The RfA itself is malformed. I suggest the candidate withdraws. Message left on candidate's talk page.
'''oppose''' to gain adminship, the best thing to do is solidly contribute for a few months, get involved in wikiprojects etc
Close this, quickly. --
Please close this RfA for obvious reasons...<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Gah... [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - doesn't have enough experience to know that he/she doesn't have enough experience for an rfa. --<font size="1" color="002bb8">
'''Support'''  Rogerthat has been very helpful in introducing me to [[WP:AFL]] and generally is not a "lazy" admin.
Edit summaries are a joke--the fad criterion of the month. This is a good user. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support''' Roger but strongly advise [[User:TheRealAntonius|TheRealAntonius]] to knock it off.
'''Support'''.  Rogerthat is an excellent editor, and will likely not abuse his admin privileges.
'''Support''' - I have found Rogerthat a pleasure to deal with and has certainly proven himself to be a wiki asset.
'''Support''' I Nominated but understand I can vote as well if not I will remove this if proven not.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I was wondering what "Articles For L..." meant but then I actually went to [[WP:AFL]] and found out that it was something else entirely.
'''Support'''. User has shown willingness to start using edit summaries. Great contributor, won't abuse the flag. <b><font color="AE1C28">
'''Strong''' Rogerthat's contributions never go unnoticed, and he has all of my support.
'''Support''' Throughout my time at Wikipedia, Rogerthat has shown to be nothing short of an outstanding contributor to the project. <font color="#08457E">
'''Support''' A great contributor. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Very good article contributions, not been involved in any serious editing disputes. The requirement for edit summaries is there so we can check contributions and verify that the user is in good standing: where this can be found any other way, I don't see a problem.
'''Support'''.  Reluctant acceptance appreciated.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I can understand his frustration at his huge contributions as an editor being ignored because of a nitpick like edit summary.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', constructive user, no need to limit their capacity to be constructive. <code>// '''
'''Weak Support''' I have seen my fellow AFL fan friend do heaps of great work on Wikipedia, I'm sure that he'll start using the edit summary thing now after the critism below.
'''Support''' for his tireless contributions to [[WP:AFL]],
'''Support''', adminship is no big deal.  Seems a good editor, I don't see lack of edit summaries as indicating a liklihood to abuse the tools, and in the spirit of good faith I'm sure edit summary usage will now increase.  I think it might behoove those people who seem to invest so much stock in edit summaries to mention it on people's talk pages when they stumble across users not using edit summaries, I know I've done that in the past.  A gentle prod early on might stop the issue being a contentious obstacle when they get here.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' A major contributor and driving force on the Aussie collaboration and Portal.
Moral '''Support'''. I like your contributions, although the lack of edit summaries is irritating but isn't a reason to oppose (I can think of some Bureaucrats who don't use edit summaries). We need admins who actually contribute to articles in the encyclopedia, you seem to fit the bill nicely.
'''Oppose''' per lack of [[edit summaries]].
'''Oppose''' due to an ''extreme'' lack of edit summaries, as well as personal attacks being made by his supporter.
'''Weak oppose''' due to edit summary usage. Project edits could be more, but I'm satisfied. Glad to support if you increase use of ES.

'''Oppose''' for user's ill-thought, slightly uncivil appraisal of those he feels oppose him.  User needs to learn, and to temporize his views.
'''Oppose''', his reactions here don't bode well - maybe slow down a bit before responding...?  Maybe next time. --
'''Oppose''', the comments made on this rfa, both in his replies to the comments and his answers to the questions  are enough for me to oppose by. Making random judgemental comments aimed towards pretty much everyone ("other admins see poorly constructed incorrectly as vandalism", "I find various overseas admins are very ill-informed" "people on wikipedia don't like proactive users, mostly preferring the ones who have one or two minor spelling fixes and deleting every article they come across") doesn't seem like a good quality in an admin to me. -
'''Oppose''': good editor, but not yet ready for this role for reasons already discussed on this page.
'''Oppose''', not using edit summaries is inexcusable. So is incivility. -

'''Oppose''' Per Bobet and Petros471. --
'''Oppose''' Per all the above.
'''oppose''' - poor reaction to other oppose votes, e.g. ''people on wikipedia don't like proactive users''
'''Oppose'''. The reactions to the opposers is deeply unsatisfactory raising questions about how this editor would handle the inevitable criticism and/or conflict that can result from taking admin actions and how well the editor appreciates the usual progress of an RfA. Criticism is not all bad; it is possible to learn from it if one does not simply dismiss it. -
Reluctant '''Oppose'''. I don't like to oppose people from receiving adminship. Rogerthat has done an excellent job on getting the Wikiproject AFL up and making a difference. I am pleased Rogerthat seems to be taking on board the criticism he has received here, and if he learns from it, I will be more comfortable voting support in a couple months time. The particular issues for me are lack of edit summaries (makes it difficult to follow article histories, or understand "odd" edits), and an appearance of enthusiasm for the superlative. This combination makes it difficult to be confident that balance and NPOV will be adhered to as an admin. Rogerthat's mature responses to comments and questions here suggest that he probably '''is''' a suitable candidate for admin, but needs to make it easier for people to be certain. --
'''Oppose''': Edit summaries themselves don't tell you much, but Rogerthat seems relatively abrasive based on some of his edits and his responses to the questions that have been highlighted above (see Bobet's comments in particular). Seems like a valuable contributor but does not seem fit for adminship at this time.
'''Oppose''': Usage of edit summaries by this user is totally unacceptable. Way too low, and doesn't seem to respond too well to criticism.  Needs to calm down before he is offered a hat...
'''Oppose''' per Blnguyen evidence, personal attacks are a no --
'''Oppose''' due to personal attacks, unfortunate as the user is a good contributor on Australia-related topics. I advise you to chill out, familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility, and also to stick around because your contributions are necessary and important. Also, try not to use the easy generalization of calling people "deletionists", and especially not to use it as a [[pejorative]] term. You could say I'm a deletionist, but I've also written plenty of new articles. there are two sides to every story.--
'''Oppose''' for lack of edit summaries. I wonder if this candidate will have the same habit when deleting pages with NO reasons left.--
'''Oppose'''. because of his "reluctant" acceptance. AFAIK wikipedia needs admins to clean garbage more than to play politics. I don't believe a "reluctant" person will be useful for the first category of work, while politics players is more than enough.
'''Strong Oppose'''. As a member of the Welcoming Committee, civility is very important.
'''Oppose'''. Various reasons, which I do not want to bicker about and consequently will not give here. I generally very much support making content contributors into admins though, so I'll be willing to reconsider if you've chilled out a bit in a month or two.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. Don't know anything about football and thus can't quantify your contributions there. What really bugs me is the lack of edit summaries. This makes it a pain in the ass to go through my watch list. Really, it's a courtesy thing. Try branching out to other areas of the encyclopedia? Also, I dig the username. Half expect a [[User:Wilco]] to come along now. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose'''. I think civility may be the most important prerequisite to being granted admin powers, and unfortunately, I don't see enough evidence of it with this candidate. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' - I think Roger could maybe benefit from a little research into what the qualities of an admin should be (Fuddlemark's comments below wouldn't be a bad place to start), and try again in a few months, this time asking his friends to refrain from jumping on people for expressing their opinions.
'''Neutral'''. Roger, you ''do'' come off a little belligerent in your comments. While Antonius is certainly not helping your case, I'm not counting that as a strike against you. However, your own comments do make me slightly uneasy. --
'''Neutral''' - the lack of edit summaries prevent me from supporting (and Roger's recent contributions do not indicate that usage has commenced.) As such he does not meet my standards at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards]] which I consistantly adhere to out of fairness to all. This all said, if Roger re-applied after the standard period with a decent edit summary history and without some belligerent comments in his support, I will likely support him.
'''Neutral''' per lack of edit summaries.
I just think I should make a matter of ''principle'' here -- while edit summaries are highly desirable, I see them as a rather pedantic reason to oppose. Adminship should be no big deal, and I can't see why Rogerthat wouldn't start using them frequently after this RfA finishes, whatever the result. On the other hand, I find the thin-skinnedness a bit worrying -- as an admin, you will take a lot of heat, even from other admins who disagree with you. If not for this, however, I would probably support. Adminship isn't a medal, but I don't see why it can't be, and why does it hurt to have more admins if these admins: 1. Know policy; 2. Act in good faith?
'''Neutral''' per lack of edit summaries.--
'''Neutral'''per responses to comments and edit summaries. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. You know what to do now Roger to get your admin stripes, and either way, the footy season starts soon, so I'll expect a stub for every player added to a team by the middle of March. Sound reasonable? :)
'''Neutral'''. Adminship wouldn't do any harm, not sure if it would do any good either. Found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Yeltsin&diff=prev&oldid=36456552 this] in contributions :) --<small><font color="darkgreen">
'''Moral Support''' I've seen you do excellent work on rugby articles, mate.  However, I suggest you withdraw your request, as it's likely to fail and I'd hate to see you become jaded at the potential votes for opposition and stop editing.  You're a valuable contributor and I'd be happy to nominate you myself once you get some experience with handling vandalism (one of your reasons for wanting the tools) and becoming more familiar with Wikipedia policies.  Cheers!
'''Oppose''' for insufficient edit experience and withdrawal is recommended.--
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry, but you have fewer than 500 edits.  Experience is an issue.  Please withdraw.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, sorry. Try again in a few months. '''
'''Oppose'''. Inexperience. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
(Don't want to pile on oppose) - Your edit count is too low, recommending withdraw. --
Avoid pile on. Edit count is too low and Wikipedia space edits are next to none. Also, edit summary usage for ronan.evans: 9% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace. That's never good. Suggest withdrawal.
Anti-Pile on. You need more edits, more interaction in the WP: namespace and more edit summaries for starters.
rory096 is active in #wikipedia and has helped me to fit into the Wikipedia community, as well as inspiring me to fight vandalism.
'''Support''' I think he'd make a good admin and time is not a good indicator of how good of an administrator he would be. <small>
'''Support''', always thought Rory was an admin anyway, always a good sign. --
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' per above. Will probably make a good admin.<b>—
'''Support''' as per above. I have seen him active on #wikipedia and I feel that his edits have earned him the job. :: <em>
'''Strong support'''. I can't count the number of times I speedy deleted a page that was tagged by Rory. He gets what belongs and what doesn't. He is a very active vandal fighter, and I've seen him around on [[WP:AIV]] quite often as well. His recent block from the CVU channels was unwarrented in my opinion. And I don't know why people seem to think that IRC behavior is an indication of how the user is on wikipedia. I act quite stupidly on IRC sometimes (as does a great number of other people) and shouldn't be used against a user on wikipedia.
'''Support'''. He's well-intentioned, friendly (at least to me), and has contributed a lot. Look at his barnstars- those show that he is a really dedicated user. --
'''Support'''. Great user. I thought he was an admin already. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I've encountered the candidate a few times over the past few months and simply don't think he'd misuse admin tools. He's a good faith editor and is clearly dedicated to the project. --
Despite number of edits, he's only been around 3 months. Try again in 2 months or so.
'''Oppose''' Blocked too recently for disruption
Regretfully so. After reviewing the recent incident discussed by Sean Black, I feel Rory needs a bit more time before getting the mop.
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda and Johnleemk.  Let more than ten days pass since a block for disruption before requesting adminship.
'''strong oppose''' rory has not only been blocked for diruption, hes harrased editors on irc, flamed sevral satff members or #vandalism-en-wp and been banned indefently for borderline trolling in there. He has demonstrated to me that he dosent have the patience understanding or qualties needed of an adminstrator
'''Strong oppose''' - Never assumes good faith, acts very immaturely <s>on IRC.</s> --
'''Oppose'''.  Too much recent history of disruptive and incivil conduct.
'''Oppose''' Per recent history.
'''Strong oppose''' - civility issues and apparent trolling --
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black's evidence of recent odd behavior.  Whatever else, now is not the time for the mop.
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda.  Forgiveable, but too soon and too outrageous.
'''Oppose'''. History of assuming bad faith and borderline trolling. --
'''Oppose''' per above. A RfA less than two weeks for a block is just too close, even though it wasn't particularly malicious. Lots of odd edit summaries. Also, while Rory's massive amount of edits is impressive, at the same time, I'm a little worried about editors who may spend ''too much'' time on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I'm grateful for his work in correcting vandalism; should the [[WP:RFR|rollback proposal]] pass, Rory should be the first user on the list to receive them. Keep up the good work, be mindful of civility issues, and you'll have my support. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Oppose'''. He may be a good vandal hunter, but he is also a massive loose cannon. I might support in a few months if Rory significantly improves his all-round conduct.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, Rory, but the incident documented by [[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] below is really immature. Also, I suspect that if you ever find out how many admins ''are'' "perverts" you might freak out on us.
Again, a good enough user, but who just hasn't been around long enough to amass the necessary experience.  Time isn't just important for others to verify how a user handles problems on Wikipedia; it's fundamental for any user to learn how to go about in the project properly.  I am impressed by Rory's enthusiasm, but lots of enthusiasm minus the experience equals all the problems that are earning him all this opposition.  I am confident that Rory will find balance.  Just give it some more time.  But until then, let's not add Administrator tools to the equation.
I've been around him quite a bit on IRC, and he's way too hasty to do things, he overreacts, and I just have a bad feeling he's not administrator material. For example, he kept bugging people to "expand [[Rai University]]" for about a week, even though it was obvious no-one was going to do it. And this is the same guy who said just three weeks ago, "I don't know how to write articles" when I asked him to expand it himself. I just don't think he's administrator material. Sorry :/
'''Oppose/recommend withdrawal''', per many above.
'''Neutral''' for now. This candidate generally looks good to me, but I am very concerned by the evidence provided by Sean Black. I'll await the answer to Sean's question before making a final decision.
'''Neutral''' I know this user is a good vandal fighter, however I am concerned about the Lightdarkness matter.  I disagree with Pegasus1138, time is a very important factor.  Particularly in determining how other users handle conflict.  --
'''Neutral''' per above.
Could you perhaps explain this bizarrely incivil and seemingly completely unwarranted comment <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lightdarkness&diff=prev&oldid=48217565 Difference between revisions] on [[WIkipedia:Requests for adminship/Lightdarkness]].</ref> and/or elaborate on your reaction to when confronted <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rory096&oldid=48233681#RFA_Comment Group of sections of older revision] of









'''I-wanted-to-be-first support'''. --
'''Support''', won't abuse the tools.
<s>'''Strong support'''</s><s>'''Strong oppose'''</s>'''Weak support''' - I suppose I shouldn't hold the redirect incident against him, and we need more people to clear off sysop backlogs. How about we give him a chance and see how much work he does on the sysop backlogs in his first month? --
'''sapport''' we need more admins who will work on backlogs.
'''Strong support''', committed user that would use the tools responsibly. -
'''Strong support''' per nom.--
'''Strong support''' per nom. Rory would use admin tools responsibly. He also has a boatload of experience.
'''Strong support''' would be very productive and an asset as an administrator. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' yea I guess
'''Support''', lovely self-nomination, I stand here until something more comes under oppose. (edit conflict, wow that's a big signature above).--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''', good self-nom, cliched "I thought he was an admin already" support. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''. Will become a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good user, good history.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' although please don't play games regarding blocking if you get the tools - its quite risky.
'''Support''' - for someone who wants the tools this much, I don't see any reason not give them to him. :-) &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' but no Russian roulette with the block button please. ;)
'''Strong Support''' Yes, the whole "bitch" thing was rather immature and inappropriate--but at the same time, isn't it just so ridiculously irrelevant? If Rory096 has not demonstrated through his tireless and devoted work that granting him admin tools would only make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, then I don't know who has.
'''Strong support''', this user is a great asset to the encyclopedia. His last RfA failed due to very valid reasons, but its been a long time since then, and Rory has definately matured. All those diffs presented by the users opposing need to look at them as harmless jokes which were reverted immediately. I think users just need to ask themselves the question &mdash; "How will Wikipedia benefit with this user getting the (sysop) status?" and perhaps they wouldn't be as overly decisive. Just look at the thousands of vandalism-reversions he's made and his contributions to XfDs, are these two diffs enough to undermine his enormous contributions to this encyclopedia? &mdash;
'''Support''' - I don't think Rory would be careless with the mop. The diffs being mentioned look like a joke to me with no lasting harm done. Everyone has some fun at some time. -
'''Support''', Rory won't misuse the tools. Good editor and will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''', has done lots of useful work for Wikipedia. Don't understand how a silly IRC prank is connected with not trusting this good user with the tools.
'''Support''' Good natured admins are in short supply. Jokes should not be construed as incivility, quite the contrary. '''[[User:People Powered/Esperanza|<font color="green">P</font>]]
'''Support''' Not enough admins like him. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Support''', I thought you already were one...--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Strong support'''.  He's a good guy, often helpful, and I trust that he won't abuse anything.  That's all I need. --
'''Strong support'''. Very good user who would be a credit to the admin corps. I don't punish people for jokes that were done (apparently) in good faith.
'''Weak Support''' I think that on balance the encyclopedia would be better off having Rory able to clear administrative backlogs and such, but the points raised by "voters" below, especially [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] do trouble me there seems to be a pattern of taking jokes a step to far which could be quite destructive in an admin.  I [[WP:AGF|assume]] Rory would not do that but would feel much better if he would tone down the attempts at humour.
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to oppose, and particularly not for the reasons cited by most of the "oppose" voters. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', bitch or no bitch. - <b>
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> <s>'''Neutral'''</s> '''Conditional support''', on the basis that Rory isn't stupid with the tools. We need backlog clearers. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''support''' the workings of this encyclopedia would benefit by giving rory the tools, which meets (is) my criteria.  The bitch thing was obviously a joke gone bad, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARory096&diff=75264265&oldid=75235208] and shouldn't be held against him--imho.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support as the blocking admin on the bitch incident''' I support Rory, as I do trust his judgement in admin related tasks, which he often seeks opinions on.  I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Teke&page=User%3ARory096 blocked] Rory for 15 minutes a little bit ago in what is being phrased as the "bitch incident", but it was not a hard block and not related to the encyclopedic funtion of Wikipedia.  Good faith jokes should not be a sole criteria for adminship, or else my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Teke&page=User%3ASwatjester%2Fvandalism joke move] of Swatjester's page should have, inappropriately, sunk my RfA.  I trust Rory with the tools to clear logs and not abuse the admin hat.  The qualifications for an administrator should not be that the user does not engage in practical jokes, especially ones that "victim" is involved in.  We're not a playground, but a silly joke should not be exemplary of performance.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> '''Switched to Weak Support''' &mdash; See comments section. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' As the supposed "victim" of the "bitch incident", I implore any people who have voted against this RfA solely because of the said incident to please reconsider their decision. The said incident was indeed an IRC joke misinterpreted by some and I wish to sincerely apologise to Rory096 for all the grief I have caused him. I trust that Rory096 understands the nature of and responsibilities for the tasks he will be undertaking and I am confident that he will have much to offer the community as an admin. Besides, an admin with a sense of humour is much nicer to have than an power hungry authoritarian one! :) --

'''Support''' great editor, despite everything said here.
'''Support''' good editor who could certainly use the tools to become more productive.  No biggie
'''Support:''' Wikipedia can always take a little more risk. In any case, we have been subject to a number of risks; his actions have been blown out-of-proportion, and we have done this in many RfAs. --
A total workhorse. Rory, do sign on to [[:Category:Administrators open to recall]] so we can take the bit back if you doesn't learn the boundries. But adminship is no big deal, and this user is already making a valuable contribution. Seeing the support of editors I respect '''and''' who are total hard-asses gives me total comfort that only good will come of promotion.  I therefor endorse this product and/or service. -
'''Support''' Good user, can be trusted.  We all make mistakes, do we not? --
'''Support'''. I trust Werdna's endorsement, and am thoroughly unconvinced that some minor silliness is going to keep Rory from doing good work. After all, I put [[Richard Nixon|dicks]] on peoples' userpages but people seem to put up with me being an admin. -
'''Support'''' - I was at first apprehensive about his controversial edits. However his answer to hoopydrink seems to explain the incident. I trust the judgement of the many experienced editors/admins who have endorsed him already. Moreover, the large amounts of vandalism reverts show dedication; and that he can make good use of the extra tools.--[[User:Deepujoseph| thund]]<font color="green">[[User:Deepujoseph/Esperanza|e]]</font>
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>'''Changed to Support''' - I've known rory for awhile now, and I can definitely say that he's gotten a lot more mature from the time of his last RfA. That being said, I think rory still needs to learn when to tone it down. Jokes are fine, but realize that there is a line, and that they can easily be misinterpreted without the context. Otherwise, rory is a fine candidate, and wouldn't abuse the tools.--'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. WTF happened to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]] and "adminship is not a big deal"?? This looks like an American presidential/gubernal smear campaign. Rory is a good contributor who could need the admin tools. So give them to him.
<del>'''Weak oppose'''.  I'm not concerned with the bitch thing, but am unsure about the other user's page, and I generally feel that Rory is presently lacking in good judgment, although his dedication to the project is quite commendable and I like him as a person.  A couple more diffs to add to the above, albeit rather dated: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IanManka&diff=57764808&oldid=57764480] Held against an adminship candidate the fact that "only" about 8-10% of his edits were to Wikipedia: space (discounting Hangman); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IanManka&diff=57775040&oldid=57774314] opposed an adminship candidate for an action taken outside of Wikipedia, that was clearly an honest mistake, and which was entirely unimportant anyway. —
'''Weak Support.''' Upon reconsideration. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' editor manifests the qualities needed for an admin, although the joke might have been childish, i doubt he will act this way henceforth. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''&mdash; An occasional lapse in judgment is hardly fatal&mdash;I certianly make enough to be tolerant to the worst example cited here. I'll support a [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|WikiGnome]]. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''' People need to lighten up.  Obviously qualified to be an admin.
'''Weak support'''. Weak because of the issues raised around, but still, why not? [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
'''Support''' per DanielBryant and inasmuch as I am rather confident that Rory will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I conclude that the net effect on the project of his being an admin will be positive; as I set forth in my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], I think the ''net effect'' standard, at least in such cases as one reasonably can reach a conclusion as to the prospective effect, is the appropriate one at RfA.  As Xoloz, I am concerned about the disruptive tendency of some of Rory's edits (which, to be sure, do not follow from any disruptive intent)&mdash;even if I find a comment to be altogether innocuous and might wonder about those who disfavor such a comment, disruption is disruption&mdash;but I think it fair to assume that such disruption will not persist (for one, jokes must, I suppose, be confined to those whom one knows will not take offense and ought to be situated so as to be relatively isolated).
'''Support'''. I'm sure he'll do well as an administrator.

'''Support''' - He'll be fine.  It's just a mop. -
'''Support''', good user, does unappreciated small stuff, but an awful lot of it. —
Not because I think it will make a difference to the outcome, and not because Rory096 particularly deserves adminship, but on principle, because I think Wikipedia as a whole would benefit from it –
After seeing him campaign hard so recently against Thatcher's RfA, here and on IRC, including misreading of comments, I must oppose at this time.
I strongly oppose Rory096's adminship per this diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jasabella&diff=prev&oldid=74467632]. While I understand that this was meant as an IRC joke, the fact that Rory096 finds calling someone a "bitch" funny makes me question his maturity.
'''Oppose'''. Per lack of real article contributions. It's not much to ask that someone being promoted to a higher rights level on an encyclopedia has actually contributed to it, and can explain and adhere to the various article writing policies. Per the maturity concerns above. Per advertising this RfA on IRC <s>and allowing people to !vote before it was transcluded to the RfA page.</s> --
'''Oppose''' - per Ral315.
'''Strong Oppose''' - sorry Rory I almost never oppose RfAs, but as this is at 77% support I feel I must. The '''REDIRECT [[Bitch]]''' thing was only <s>4</s> <--sorry, '''only 3 weeks ago'''. This is completely unnacceptable for an admin.
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jasabella&diff=prev&oldid=74467632 This diff] - [[res ipsa loquitur]] -
'''Oppose''' per Ral315. If you have any questions, please contact me at [[User talk:IanManka|my talk page]].
'''Oppose''' - That's not all he's been up to, he did this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MichaelBillington&diff=prev&oldid=74468434] on my user page. Per Glen S "This is completely unnacceptable for an admin."
'''Oppose''' On his last RFA, I really wanted to be able to support him in good conscience, but couldn't due to reasons explained there.  I really hoped he's get his act together and listen to the criticisms, then there was the "joke vandalism" incident and his response/defence to it which only underlined how bad things are with this editor (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive135#Rory096|here for relevant ANI archive]]).  Not only can I cannot trust this editor with the tools, but his behaviour seems to be worsening with each successive RFA.  Absolutely no way.
'''Oppose''' per diffs provided by Michael and Ral315.
'''Strong Oppose''' I'll AGF on the story of why the redirect was made, but Michael obviously didn't give permission for the edit to his talk page.  Such an act is, if nothing else, very wasteful of people's time.
'''Oppose''' per Pete.Hurd, Xoloz ~
'''Oppose''' per many above, and per the fact that Rory himself "[doesn't] particularly care" if the RfA is successful. In addition, he's been blocked like a dozen times, but all but a couple seem like jokes. I have a huge problem with admins "joke-blocking" people. --
'''Oppose''' per Ral315, and matthew fenton, misbehaivor
'''Oppose'''.  Maybe later, but not now.  I rarely vote at all these days, and almost never negatively.  However, I believe in the original principle that "adminship should be no big deal."  Granting it to someone who is somewhat controversial could make it a '''very''' big deal, I fear.  As Admins are easier to get than to get rid of, I will vote no this time.  If Rory proves himself (as I trust he will), there will be plenty of second chances later on.  For now, let's not take a risk.
'''Oppose'''. The "bitch" redirect is quite enough to oppose, and coming to RFA so soon after that is bad judgememt. Also, a personal gripe, but this RFA is "IRC this, IRC that". I want to see admins with sterling work ''on wiki'', and I get suspicious when IRC is mentioned more than once in an RFA. --
'''Oppose.''' The diff that Michael provided is dated for September 8th - not even a month ago.  This user, through jokingly vandalizing userpages (at least twice in the past month!), has proven his complete lack of maturity.  Wikipedia isn't a place to goof off with your friends, especially if you're an admin.  Admins cannot vandalize.  What would happen if, as a joke, this user blocked someone from IRC?  Or several people?  Or the ''wrong'' people - those who didn't even know that it was coming?  Bottom line: Admins are the "official face" of Wikipedia.  They have to be mature.  This user simply isn't.  6 months of good behavior, and my mind could change.
'''Superlatively strong OPPOSE'''. This guy vandalises userpages for amusement and we're thinking about making him an admin? It's hard to believe. If the redirect was just an IRC joke, then that's O.K, but the Rory-on-wheels business demonstrates such spectacular immaturity that I hate to think about what would happen if this user got the tools. No way.
'''Oppose''' talented editor, but recent "joke" was not what I expect of an admin.--
'''Strong Oppose'''. A good editor, but one big mistake like redirecting to "bitch" makes me worried about you. Keep up the good work in other aspects of Wikipedia, but seriously take a good look at Wikipedia protocol before applying for adminship again. --
'''Oppose''' The recent redirecting of a page to "bitch" is a major concern here. This is not a behaviour which should be ignored. However, do not lose heart over this mistake of yours and carry on making good edits to regain the faith of your fellow Wikipedians. All is not lost and try again after a few months. I also acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes but your recent "joke" was only about three weeks ago. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', I'm sorry but "BITCH" is not acceptable for a normal user let alone an admin, even if it was a joke. Also does appear to have other instances of very inappropriate "jokes" in addition to the bitch incident as well as being indifferent to the position. My oppose stands.
'''Strong oppose''' per all above. Also I don't see anything in article contributions to the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''': Well, the "bitch" incident is just a bit too much. I can't support in light of such a breach in judgment so recently. Come back when it's a ways in that past; would be more likely to support then.
'''Oppose'''. Regrettable, since Rory has done good work, but two serious and fairly recent breaches of good faith editing is too much.
'''Strong oppose'''. Christ. This guy's a ''*expletive*'' (his behavior is unacceptable). I got the vibe that he was a''*expletive*'' (his behavior was unacceptable) from his opening comments at this RfA and was further convinced when I saw a diff mentioned above where he redirected someone's userpage to "[[Bitch]]". Hell no.&mdash; [[Our Lady Peace|OL]][[Raine Maida|P]] ''
'''Oppose''': Joking around on IRC is all very well, but the 'bitch' redirect unnerves me somewhat.  My oppose, though, is not on the action itself, but more on the level of judgement displayed by coming to RFA within just a few weeks of that, which Rory knew had been on the ANI.  It indicates that he doesn't necessarily take things as seriously as they need.  Also, I'm confused by a self-nom with an opening sentence that "I don't particularly care if I succeed" - particularly in the light of Matthew Fenton's quote below.  There's just too much that's off with this one.  Come back in a few months.  --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Oppose''' Not only for what Pete.Hurd, Jonathunder, and Ral315 said, but when I saw "I have too many edits and too much backlog clearing experience" I realized I'm never going to find a less humble person. Moreover, he has not answered the optional questions, and I think he didn't care about the other users' oppinion. How can I support someone who doesn't care abouth the others and insults them? —
'''Oppose''' A hard and diligent worker, but I am not convinced that giving him the tools will improve the project.--
'''Strong Oppose''' Changed from support. No user should vandalize and make personal attacks, let alone admins.  - <strong>
'''Strong oppose''' because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MichaelBillington&diff=prev&oldid=74468434 this], which occurred less than one month prior to this nomination.
'''Oppose'''. I had intended to support when I saw this listed at the top of the page, but after reading some of the things listed here, I can't do so in good conscience. I don't like the casual vandalism, and I REALLY don't like the focus on IRC. -
'''Strong oppose''' - although he seems to be a rather good editor, many diffs floating around both below and above my comment show what I take to be a ''severe'' lack of judgement. --
'''Oppose''' per maturity concerns surrounding the userpage vandalism. Also, Rory's absence during this RfA does not look good. -- '''
'''Oppose'''. It's unfortunate when one moment of incredibly poor judgement can lead to so much damage to one's reputation, but it's important that we do our best to minimise such things when they come from admins. Three months from now, I propose that the community put this behind them -- for now, I must oppose.--
'''Oppose''' It worries me that Rory could not see the full context of Thatchers banning comment. It worries me even more that he would think lobbying for people to vote against an RfA in IRC is even close to acceptable.  Since I have never been in IRC I don't know how true this is, but from comments here it seems unacceptable. Certainly these two incidents make me wonder if Rory is really astute enough to not rock the boat by misusing the admin tools.
'''Weak oppose''': don't like the Bitch comment, though don't know enough about it to know if it was really bad - a bit risky though. Also, I'm starting to dislike IRC for a place to discuss important decisions, as the record of the discussion is not universally accessible. Also opposed Thatcher131 witch hunt.
'''Oppose''' per Improv, Tariqabjotu, Mike1, Ral315, and John254.
This section I've crafted for people who aren't piling on because of IRC over this supposed "bitch" remark. I can name dozens of sysops who've said worse. Civility is important, but sensible conduct is even better, and the two are at best interconnected without being directly related. I've seen plenty of civil folks exercise ridiculously poor judgement, which just makes it all the harder to explain ''why'' they made a mistake. Civility doesn't equal good judgement. Now, moving on, my opposition is rooted directly in Rory's responsibility for the fiasco which ensued over Thatcher's recent (successful) RfA. He focused a trenchant opposition on one comment, a comment with which the people actually involved in the dispute didn't have a serious problem. Dozens then lined up behind that one comment. If you're going to be the first person to oppose an RfA, and if you're going to do so in strong terms, then there's a responsibility incumbent to weigh the context and give an informed reason. RfA functions as a pile-on because there are, as yet, three places to register preference. Consider this a fourth.
Ditto for the reasoning for my opposition; the bitch comment only further confirmed my concern.
'''Oppose''', I just don't think Rory096 is ready for the mop and bucket yet.  As Mackensen said above, I can think of more than a few sysops who are short on civility and several who are usually civil who have shown poor judgment occasionally.  I still don't see the overall maturity level here that I'd expect from an admin.  From Rory's own statement in the nom request he doesn't even seem to care particularly if this RfA succeeds; which is an odd statement to make on a self-nom.--
'''Weak oppose'''. Weak per the comments from Jasabella above, but still an oppose. This user knows his stuff, I think, but I ''hate'' calculated indifference. If you don't particularly care, don't nominate yourself.
'''Oppose''', not because of the IRC joke in particular but because of an overall lack of even temperment, good judgement, and civility in the face of adverse opinions. Rory could benefit from a bit more of a life and a bit less IRC, in my opinion. -- ''
'''Strong oppose''' The directions at [[WP:SRNC]] were to not leave comments when voting. Rory096 disobeyed this directions and kept putting the comments back in when reverted by a judging admin. This attitude is not acceptable for an admin. (diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1&diff=prev&oldid=71544817], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AState_route_naming_conventions_poll%2FPart1&diff=71676372&oldid=71612602], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1&diff=next&oldid=71676372], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1&diff=next&oldid=71678768], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AState_route_naming_conventions_poll%2FPart1&diff=71683672&oldid=71683155], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AState_route_naming_conventions_poll%2FPart1&diff=71816833&oldid=71814606], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AState_route_naming_conventions_poll%2FPart1&diff=71842157&oldid=71816833]) --'''
'''Oppose''' we can surely do better. No answer to my question (2 days ago). --

'''Oppose''' Per seeing him on IRC, Rory is a nice guy but he is rather immature and doesn't seem to take Wikipedia seriously at all.  The IRC-related-vandalism incident pointed out above, however, has gotten bloated way out of proportion (note that there ''was'' an existing admin involved in this joke, [[User:Teke]], and the block was a "joke" block no matter what has been claimed, I was there).--
Not willing to trust Rory with the tools, IRC stupidity or not. The IRC "joke" only serves to reinforce the thought that he might not use the tools right. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Rory and others involved in this situation here need to understand that adminship is serious business, and is not a joke. Now, I'll admit that people often do stupid stuff on Wikipedia, including me, but that still gives you no incentive to goof off here. Admins who do the above are often severely scrutinized for their actions, and they should be. Maybe it's best you think about your actions in the future before heading upstairs. You have come a long way, though. //
'''Oppose'' I don't trust admins who use IRC. Admins need to use wikipedia and not hide their discussions by chatting in the irc channel. I will support you if you start logging the irc channel or give me a link to the logs. -
Hmm. I came here to support, but I'm not so sure now. I have no opinion on the Thatcher131 RFA - if there's a time to say why you think somebody is not admin material, RFA is that time. However, I find the Jasabella->Bitch redirect and the edit to MichaelBillington's page a little too eyebrow-raising. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] |
'''Neutral''' - I know your a good user but I dont like this attitude on IRC (along these lines "..F*****G HELL! I need to be an admin NOW!") - Also redirecting Jasabellas user page to [[Bitch]] and then claiming "She made you do it.." - I dont like that either, come back in December and you will get my support. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''' &ndash; thought I might support, but the diffs provided above are a little too immature for my liking. &mdash; '''
'''Netural''', great user, though it's a bit too soon for a RfA after that "Bitch redirect" incident.--'''
'''Neutral''' I'm just not happy about pulling userpage stunts such at the aforementioned 'Bitch' redirect. I would lean towards support once suitable maturity has been demonstrated.
'''Neutral, leaning to oppose''' - user doesn't care if the nomination succeeds.
'''Neutral''' per Werdna. Needs more maturity, but I think he's heading in the right direction. Try again in a few months. --
'''Neutral''' per the above comments.
<s>'''Support'''</s> '''Neutral''' I particularly appreciated his (eventually successful) attempts at compromise in [[WP:SRNC]], which was on the verge of falling apart before he came in. I also appreciate him facing his past (aka block log) on this RfA, unlike many others who attempt to sweep it under the rug. However, I share the same concerns with Rschen7754 above, in which under said pretense I switch from support to neutral. --
'''Neutral''' I don't think Rory would abuse the tools, but the fact that he doesn't much care if this RfA suceeds, seems to contradict his self-nom. To say you want to clear backlogs, and essentially show a desire to help with janitorial chores, yet not really care if the RfA suceeds, is substandard in my opinon. Other than that fact, I think Rory would make a fine admin.
'''Neutral''' This should be my last decision. A very good editor, but cannot support due to concerns from opposers. --
'''Neutral''' The practical jokes seem pretty harmless. Still the user will likely benefit from a few more months as an editor. Since this RFA is not a big deal to him, waiting a few more months is the best choice. --
'''Neutral''' Per the comment from Jasabella I'm moving to neutral.  I still question some things here, but I guess that since I don't use IRC yet, I'll never have the background to form a proper opinion on this one. --
'''Neutral'''. This is a tough one. The bitch thing doesn't really bother me, but the overall cavalier attitude makes it difficult to support. Despite that, I find this user's commitment to the project to be immense, and certainly they would be an asset as an admin. Closing bureaucrat can consider me as leaning towards support.
<b>Neutral</b> I feel like the United States choosing not to sign the Treaty of Versailles... (I'm not big on history, is that an accurate parallel?) Anyway, I really don't want to be pulled in to this controversy, and I'm not even sure that I understand it. Though Rory096 seems to be a very hard-working user, I've read things that make it sound as though this user doesn't care so much about sysop duties. If anyone feels as though my remaining neutral is unjustified, and would like to tell me that I've misunderstood anything in this RfA and should vote to support or oppose, please do.

I'm no stranger to silliness myself, but it is ''absolutely essential'' that an admin know when to be serious and when to have a little fun, and Rory does not seem to know when silliness is appropriate.  I didn't oppose because Rory has done some great things, and if he just works out these problems I will definitely support in the future. --
'''Neutral''' Although I think that Rory096 has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, his reactionary statements on irc make me question his volatility. ˉˉ<sup>
<b><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' - Recent good experience with this user, his/her thoughtful consideration of an issue changed my opinion. -
'''Support''' Looks great to me. --
'''Support''' Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' (2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See [[User:FireFox/RfA|my standards]]. —&nbsp;
'''Strong support''' The user seems very competent, has a strong presence on both article and user talk pages (and I'm a big fan of admins who freely use talk pages), has been pegged as an excellent editor by many other editors (as judging from his user and talk pages), and has tons upon tons of edits. I see absolutely no reason Ryulong could not and should not be an admin. --
'''Reaffirmed support'''. I find the nominee's explanation of the Emory diff satisfactory, I don't see him abusing the tools.
'''Strong Support''' per my experiences with the user.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support''' I've seen this user often on RC patrol and I believe the extra buttons will allow him to become much more productive
'''Support''' per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere.
'''Support''' I've seen you around and you're a great editor. You'd be even better as an admin.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' for reasons of my own, though I'd like to suggest being careful with that block button. :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' per nom and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|standards]].
'''Strong support''' Requests for adminship/Ryulong is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that has shown me sound judgement, I have no problems in supporting him, the diff's in oppose fail to sway me
'''Strong support''' - great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor
'''Does this user ever sleep????'''
'''Support'''. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user.
'''Support''', good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' His dedication to this project speaks for itself. Although, he had made a few mistakes along the way (see the oppose comments), it is not right to view them in an exclusive manner. His positive contributions outweighs the negative edits considerably. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support.''' Only positive interactions with this user, plus he has four time my edit count! [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination.
'''Support''' Good user; admin powers will be in good hands
'''Support''' He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Wikipedia for becoming admin.
'''Support''', reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--<font style="background:white">
I doubt he'd abuse the tools, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''', meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes.
'''Support''' take the mop :P &mdash;[[User:Minun/PCP/Entrance|<font color="red">''M''</font>]][[User:Minun/EA|<font color="green">''in''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' ticks all my boxes! A solid user. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''. -
'''Supprt''''.  As per nom.
'''Strong Support'''. I've worked with him in the past and found him to be a good, responsible editor, and a hard-working vandal-fighter (which is why I'm temporarily coming out of Wikibreak to support him). Also, I commend him for not mollycoddling those who come to Wikipedia to destroy its integrity.
Ho-hum. I had been mentally mulling over (granted, I have a tendency to mentally mull things over without actually doing them...) a longish nomination for this user when I see I've been beaten to it. On the "rvv" thing: There are much worse crimes. I've seen it a few times, and it has sometimes bothered me (only sometimes; most of the time they are without a doubt bad edits that should be reverted anyway) and I had been meaning him to needle him about it. So, yes, he's made mistakes in the past, and I'm glad that this RFA has highlighted them; there is no doubt in my mind that he will learn from them. The long and short of it is, however, that he's a good editor who knows what he's doing. As such, he should not be denied use of administrative tools, as far as I am concerned.--
'''Support'''. -→
'''Support''' --
'''[[AFOL|Adult Fan of Lego Support]]''' - Friendly editor, experienced. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2</font>]]—
'''Strong support''' Strong RC patrolling record; appears able to handle things in a calm manner.  Seems to be handling the [[User:YourCousin]] issue well.  A few mistakes are inevitable for a dedicated RC patroller, given the blur that RC edits can become. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' Already a valuable contributor, Ryulong's potential as an admin is extensive. --
'''Strong support''' I have seen him at work shows he is a valuable user
'''Support''' Most of Ryulong's edits that I've personally witnessed have been AFD contributions and RC patrolling, and have mostly indicated to me that the contributor will be a responsible admin. —
'''Full support.''' This editor is a valuable part of the project; I'm confident that now or later, whenever this editor is given the mop and bucket, it'll be a net gain for Wikipedia.  The opposition votes seem overly picky.  Give this editor a mop! [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Strong Support.''' Active vandal-fighter and helpful in patrolling edits on a wide variety of articles. Often I'll go away from a page briefly intending to come back and fix it after a short break, only to find he's already done what I'd intended.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' He'll be a good one.
'''Support.''' Huge asset to counter-vandalism efforts; I will heartily encourage you, Ryu, to work on civility and AGF-ness, because some people have brought up good points in that regard. On the other hand, your effectiveness as a vandalfighter will be dramatically increased by the extra buttons, and I don't believe I've ever seen you !admin for a bad block. Good luck. :)
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' very dedicated editor, i believe he will make a great admin.
'''Support''' active vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Support''' Impressive record.--
'''Oppose''' active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheTruth2&diff=66997689&oldid=66991587] was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emory_University&diff=prev&oldid=67302755] nither. I'll support in 3 months.
'''Oppose'''.  Fails WP:civility and [[WP:assume good faith]].  The [[Emory University]] incident is very disturbing.  If he had the mop, I wonder when he would have blocked the anon user and for how long.  How many potentially good editors has he turned away from Wikipedia?  Looking at his Talk page, I see some other cases of shooting from the hip (reverting content changes).  Large volume anti-vandalism probably does that to you -- but administrators need to be able to step back.  In addition, I have also seen an instance of what appears to be making up rules (anonymous users and user pages).
'''Oppose''' I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident.
'''Oppose''' per the Emery U diff.
'''Oppose'''.  I think that you need a little more time to learn how to identify vandalism accurately.  --
Reluctant '''Oppose'''. You are a ''great'' vandal-fighter, and I see your name ''often'' on the vandalism-reporting boards... but ''rvv''s for non-vandalistic edits stick in my craw. I could be convinced to change my !vote, if there was a good reason, though.--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Oppose'''  Per above.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' I see you on IRC countervandalism channel, you do hard work at fighting vandalism.  But, I'm afraid you too quick to want rangeblocks for long durations for petty vandalism, too quick to use the summary 'rvv' for all reverts, too quick to assume vandalism and bad faith.  When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith.  You've stated on IRC you hate newbies.  There's too much biting on the newbies.  You need to get '''a lot''' more good faith and wikiettique toward people who make newbie mistakes.  Rethink how wiki treats its newer users, who aren't accustomed to policy, and do want to help, but make otherwise silly mistakes. Example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrome_programming_language&diff=prev&oldid=65522967], they didn't know. They may not even know the history exists.  And if they did, they'd likely be driven off by you telling them to go back to their fanforum. Here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998-99_NBA_season&diff=prev&oldid=61577880] where you attack the anonymous editor for mistyping 'meet' into 'meat'.  There's other stuff.  Edit summaries, and lack of real project space edits, tagging images with fair use tags w/o also adding fair use rationales...  I do not believe you are ready, Sorry.
Sorry must '''Oppose''' per these diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrome_programming_language&diff=prev&oldid=65522967], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTruth2&diff=prev&oldid=66997689] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emory_University&diff=prev&oldid=67302755] and other points made by Ted and [[User:Kevin Breitenstein|Kevin_b_er]]. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Wikipedia culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Wikipedia email activated.
'''Oppose''' as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' In addition to the Emory University incident, I noticed that the nominee [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=67470159 reverted this piece of vandalism] (if ''vandalism'' is the correct term to use) and then a whole five minutes later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:134.153.36.112&diff=67471048&oldid=67470978 gave the user] an unnecessarily harsh warning, even though the user had already been warned for the same incident. These kinds of things are appearing to occur too often for my comfort. -- '''
'''Oppose''' based on various oppose diffs.
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda. I was under the impression that only an admin could review an unblock request, so Ryulong had no business reviewing the block.  (Not stopping him leaving his own comment, but to replace the unblock template with the unblock reviewed template was very odd in my book. Especially when it states that the block has been reviewed by an admin. Other things brought up - especially with regard to the attitude to newbies also worry me. I will consider supporting a few months time if you change your attitude.
'''Strong oppose''' at this time for all of the above reasons, with no prejudice against supporting the user for a future adminship once he's a little more familiar with the system. I'm concerned by all of the whack-a-vandal admins we're trying to move up lately. -- ''
'''Strong oppose''' per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules.
'''Oppose''' due to fresh improper rvv use, per above Oppose diffs. Please review our policies. [[WP:VAN|Vandalism]] generally occurs when the editor clearly and ''intentionally'', in his/her own mind, intends to reduce the quality of WP. Just posting something many would disagree with is not vandalism. After you show understanding of this issue for a couple of months, I would support the nomination. We ''do'' need vandalism fighters and thank you for the effort - don't give up!
'''Mild Oppose''' Not good awnsers to the questions, and also per above. Maybe later. --
'''Polite oppose'''. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness.
'''Oppose''' per basically all of the above diffs. I'm concerned about the newbie-biting, I really don't want an admin doing that. Maybe in a few months if the civility problems are resolved.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but just on my rather short observations, I don't feel this editor is ready.
'''Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters.''' That, on top of the aforementioned incivility tips me to oppose. Editor needs to tone it down a bit and develop a more urbane approach. Please note my comments under my stricken "suport" vote. Thanks
'''Oppose''' don't think he is ready yet, my own experience is of being rather too quick of the mark, requests for page protections and blocks which are in my view premature even if they sometimes ultimately prove right. --
'''Oppose''' per Emory and especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheTruth2&diff=66997689&oldid=66991587].  Not only Jaranda's worries about it being 3RR instead of Vandalism, and thus an unblock might have been okay in some circumstances, but importantly, the fact that non-admins should '''not''' be denying unblocking.  The confusion over 3RR/Vandalism was one good reason why admins should handle this, not to mention the actual wording of {{tl|unblock}}, which states that "one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request."  He was not an administrator, and in my opinion, he needs a bit more time before he becomes one.
'''Oppose''' per FloNight and Ral315.  Editor cannot yet be trusted to follow wiki-process, and always to enforce NPOV.
'''oppose''' as per Ral315, and diffs supplied by tariqabjotu, etc
'''Weak Oppose''' per Ral315, and other diffs above.  He's doing valuable vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a slightly more civil tone than I see in some of those edits.  I would support in two or three months if there are no recurrences;
'''Oppose''' constructive criticism: please remember to think twice before reverting as potential vandalism.  --
'''Oppose'''. He is clearly a hard-working editor, and I would not oppose for making a mistake. Heck, not even a BIG mistake, if he owned up to it and learned from it (which he did in his comments).  But I see a poor attitude toward new users to this project, which has an immeasurably larger negative impact than making a revert mistake.  --<font color="3300FF">
Sorry, I know I've gotten a lot of good vandalism tips from you on #vandalism-en-wp, but at this point, given the concerns raised above, I feel it is best that your counter-vandalism actions be filtered through a current admin until you can demonstrate better judgement on how you would use the tools yourself.  --
'''O''' per Ral's diff - <b>
'''Mild oppose.''' He is well intentioned, but I know the user on IRC. He is a little quick to make judgement calls on blocking to give to admins, when blocks aren't merited. I think, if given the tools, some unjust blocks could be made.--
'''Unfortunate Oppose''' for his use of the F-bomb in an edit summary. A similar scenario was discussed in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello 2|recent RFA]] for  {{user2|HighwayCello}}. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
High edit count but '''0 FA'''? :( -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' per the comments above and the incidents reported by Jaranda (above) and Xyzzyplugh (below). These leave me with an uncomfortable feeling about providing this nominee with the extra tools.
'''Oppose''' per above complaints - [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assuming good faith]] is pretty important to Wikipedia, and it looks as though this user clobbered a newbie in the [[Emory University]] incident. -
'''Neutral''' Great vandalfighter.  We're frequently on IRC at the same time and his dedication to keeping vandalism off of Wikipedia is strong.  My only concern is that I've witnessed him being both [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] and [[WP:COOL|uncool]] during intense bouts of vandalism against him ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=66820019] edit summary).  I have no problem with venting in the vandalism channels, as that's one of their functions -- to support each other during the fight.  But when it spills onto Wikipedia it can be a problem.  I do not doubt his intent, but being given admin tools may set the stage for more violent reactions.  I had informed him of the relevant policies on IRC right after he made this edit, so I am reluctant to oppose as he has had sufficient time to read up on stuff like this, and has made no similar edits since then that I can find.  But change doesn't always happen fast either, so I'm also reluctant to support.  Just some advice: when you're stressed out from editing, take a break and do something else -- play computer games, take a bike ride, do some housework, anything.  Staying cool has less to do with never getting riled up, and more to do with recognizing when you are about to explode and finding another outlet for it.  I like to play [[Sauerbraten (game)|Sauerbraten]] and pretend the ogres are vandals.  =)  --
'''Neutral''' per most of the oppose votes. Maybe he could unlearn some newbie-biting habbits while an admin, but maybe a good month of using more good faith and more non-vandal patrolling would be better.'''
'''Neutral''' per opposition thoughts. Looks like a promising frontline vandal fighter, but could do with a few months of higher levels of civility before being trusted with the tools. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Numbers are impressive, history as vandal-fighter shows heart in the right place. But, I can not support when incivility raises its head. If you can convince [[User:TedE|Ted]] then I'll change my vote.
'''Neutral''' Very unsure from above.
'''Neutral''' Very actiuve vandalfigther but oppose votes raise concern. --
'''Neutral''' - I have decided to be neutral on this one. On the one hand, Ryulong is an active vandal fighter and has worked hard to fix the mess they make, yet having seen some of the reasons in the Oppose section including the user's attitude towards new users, I have withdrawn my vote, favouring instead to sit on the fence.
'''Neutral''' I have never participated in a Request for Adminship discussion before, and I'm not sure exactly what the requirements for Adminship should be, so I won't be voting.  However, I have myself observed what I found to be a potential problem with Ryulong.  See [[User_talk:Cute_1_4_u#A_note]].  His introductory note, suggesting that Cute_1_4_u essentially leave wikipedia, I find to be unacceptable.  Then, when she defended herself, stating that she was improving wikipedia and that she writes multiple articles every day, he responded with "Whether or not you create those articles doesn't mean you are improving the Encyclopedia. Those articles can be about nonsense, or they can be serious. You can write an article about a cookie you are eating or you can start an article about something that has just appeared on a national news program. Creating articles and edit counts are not important. You should focus on quality over quantity".  Now, I understand that Cute_1_4_u has been misbehaving, shall we say, she's repeatedly posted copywritten text from other websites, even after being told not to.  On the other hand, she's only 11 years old, and she has created a number of non-plagiarized articles, as well as many hundreds of decent edits to articles, so she is not a vandal, just a kid who needs to be watched over.  Suggesting that she leave wikipedia, or that her articles aren't high enough quality, are both inappropriate and counterproductive.  My concern is that Ryulong, having spent so much time in vandal fighting, has taken on too harsh of an attitude towards those who might be breaking the rules.  Having said all this, though, he's obviously overall an asset to wikipedia, and administrator or not, wikipedia is better off thanks to his work.  --
'''Neutral''' - While I do not think that Ryulong would abuse the mop, I am concerned by several things.  First of all, many of the above diffs are a little worrisome.  However, more concerning to me is Kevin's allegation that: "When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I'm still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith.  You've stated on IRC you hate newbies."  I am concerned that Ryulong may fail to assume good faith (especially in the case of newcomers) and "scare" them off.  The Emory situation is far too recent for my peace of mind.  However, I strongly believe that this user would never purposely abuse the powers and once he gets a bit better at assuming good faith, I will certainly support him.
'''Neutral''' per misuse of that template to try and intimidate someone off the project, and other concerns listed above. --
'''Neutral''' I've tussled with this for days, and I can't decide. He's a terrific vandal fighter - no question. I've made my share of mistakes in reverting, particularly when I first started, so I know what that feels like. But I share Adam's concerns about premature blocks.
'''Neutral''' Ive thought quite a bit about this one (thus the lateness in posting). Ryu demonstrates great tenacity in vandalism reverts and notification, however admins need to display a certain amount of diplomacy and civility above and beyond regular editors, by virtue of their access to the flamethrower (block) together with the mop. If in the coming short-term Ryu demonstrates a bit of mellowing, I'd be glad to support his next RfA. --
'''Support''' as nominator. ~
<s>I see this one daily; strong vandal-fighter, very little by way of error (and even then, it's [[WP:AGF|in good faith]]). '''Hand over the bloody mop, already'''! :)</s> Changing to '''weak support''' per [[User:Sarah Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] and others. I would prefer in the face of this evidence that Ryulong wait at least a few more months and gain a better perspective on when '''not''' to use the tools; still, I remain (barely) in this column as I do not see the editor intentionally '''abusing''' them. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' Has seen this user around a lot on [[WP:AIV]]. Good vandal-fighting skills. Only one snag: please do warn the vandal first before listing on AIV next time. ;) --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Support''', good editor will make a good admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - this user is not an admin already?
'''zOMG Support''' &mdash; Heh, about time!
I'll venture a '''Support'''. You've done good work. I hope you register for recall tho. You don't have to answer that - I am not interested in strongarming you or whatever, but obviously there were serious concerns about aberrational edits leading to a risk of administrative abuse, so it would make a lot of people sleep easier if you did. Good luck. - <b>
'''Support'''. Just remember to use the tools conservatively at first. ;-)
'''Strong Support''' should have been an admin ages ago already.--
'''Strong Support'''. He's going to make an awesome administrator.
'''Support''' - Positive contributor, good judgement of late.  Summon a mop for Halloween!
<s>'''Support''' evidenced by 30,000 edits --[[User:Slf67|Steve]] 05:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)</s> Switched to '''Oppose''' per Sarah's analysis and a trawl through Archive 4 --
'''Support''' you weren't an admin already? Fooled me. Decent edit count :) '''[[User:CattleGirl|<font color="blue">Cat</font><font color="darkblue">tleG</font><font color="black">irl</font>]]''' <sup>''[[User talk: CattleGirl| talk]] | <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''', Wikipedia would benefit greatly from this user gaining the mop and bucket. '''
'''Support''' - very good user, positive contributions.
<small>edit conflict</small>'''Support''' Let he who has not bitten a single newbie cast the first stone... I don't know, we all get stressed. He's a great vandal fighter, and I think he would benefit from the tools. '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana]]_[[User talk:Riana dzasta|dzast]]

[[Trogdor|RYULONG!!!]] RYULONG!!! BURNINATING THE CRUFT!!! BURNINATING THE VANDALS!!! --
'''Strong Support'''. As usual, I always support vandal fighters, as they need the tools VERY MUCH --'''
'''Strong Support'''. Give the man the mop already—he can only do good things with it. Of course editors are going to make small mistakes every now and then, but that's just a remainder of how we're all human. :-) <tt class="plainlinks">
Strong support [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''[[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Contributions|fel]][[User:Icelandic Hurricane/Esperanza|<font color="green">lib</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent user, I believe that he is responsible enough to be more careful henceforth with the trigger-happiness concerns raised by those opposing.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''STRONG OPPOSE''' ONLY 30385 EDITS! NOT NEARLY ENOUGH!
'''Support'''. --
'''support!''' about time he became admin ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Switch to Oppose''' Review of [[User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4]] shows him to still be overly aggressive  and prone to biting newbies just last month. Vandal warnings for newbie mistakes would become blocks with admin tools
'''Oppose''' - It appears that Ryulong dished out {{tl|bv}} tag to a newbie for switching "s" to "z". For a new user, these sorts of things are common and this appears too aggressive. Sometimes when you are an admin, you may face strong dissent, so I am a bit worried about where you might be too authoritarian. Generally, this wouldn't bother me that much, but you appear to be a vandalism specialist, and the non-roundedness would tip things over the bar on the negative side, as I would have liked to see more writing. '''
'''Oppose''' - Good editor, but after reading through the RFA1 and the talk page archives since then I get the impression that Ryulong's trigger finger is still too twitchy[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Irwin&diff=73705062&oldid=73704986][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_biotechnology_in_pharmaceutical_manufacturing&diff=75991392&oldid=75991363] and s/he still needs to take hints about policies from admins. [[Type I error]]s aren't a big issue for a normal editor, but they are pretty much unacceptable for an admin. ~
'''Oppose''' Rapid edits in very short period. I feel everyone should get a hang of Wikipedia b4 becoming admin. 30000 edits may translate to an editing spree rather than understanding the processes involved in Wikipedia. Too much adrenaline. I won't last long. I suggest more time. If it had been 5000 - 6000 edits in such a short time, I'd have supported.  I'm sorry, but I have to oppose. Cheers. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
This was a difficult one. You're a great vandalfighter, but sometimes you act before you think (giving in to an [[User:EddieSegoura|EddieSegoura]] sock over a move of [[Hurricane Ernesto (2006)]] to [[Tropical Storm Ernesto (2006)]] when it was downgraded, for example, when it's obvious it'd still end up with the Hurricane prefix). Not good. &ndash;
'''Reluctantly Oppose'''. Ryulong is a very enthusiastical vandal fighter who saved thousands of articles from defacing. Still he in many cases reported to [[WP:AIV]] newbees who made honest mistakes, victims of the googlebar blanking, edits that are not vandalism. I would like to see more thoughful attitude to the [[WP:AIV]] reporting and then I will happily vote support.
'''Oppose''' leaning to Neutral — My problem is that there is more to Wikipedia then waging a constant war with vandals, I also see numerous instances where you've failed to use an edit summary on edits, annother problem is your approach to newbs. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose'''. I have too many concerns about Ryulong's trigger-happiness, and that counts double given the Javascript speed-reverting tools he uses (trigger-happiness can cause even more damage when you have a General Electric minigun). I was especially concerned when Ryulong reported an anon in mid-September for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Meier&diff=prev&oldid=76336837 this edit] - the removal of some campaign puff from a senator's page. Ryulong used a javascript tool to revert him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Meier&diff=76336881&oldid=76336837 once] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Meier&diff=76336881&oldid=76336837 twice] (the third time he did manage to use an edit summary). (Sample of the material restored by Ryulong: ''"Senator Raymond A. Meier brings extensive private and public sector experience to his service in the Senate... Meier has served as a leader in promoting economic development initiatives and job growth opportunities... A widely respected member of the Republican party"'' etc.) When he did justify his restoration of the material, the reason seemed to be "it's a lot of text" which I don't find convincing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:132.241.245.245&diff=76338899&oldid=76338777]. Even less convincing was his suggestion that inappropriate material should remain in Wikipedia unless someone finds the time to rewrite it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:132.241.245.245&diff=76339556&oldid=76339300]. I hope Ryulong continues his vandal-fighting work, but at the moment I think he should be kept one step away from the block button. --
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate Ryulong's hard work, but I cannot support. He has a propensity to engage in edit wars with both new and established users and often over issues that seem bizarre. When Giano blanked his talk page, Ryulong began edit warring over restoring it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano&diff=73329035&oldid=73328521] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&diff=next&oldid=73329176] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&diff=next&oldid=73329488] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano&diff=next&oldid=73329578] When I left [[User:Kyereh Mireku]] a warning message, Ryulong reverted me.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kyereh_Mireku&diff=next&oldid=81377981]. When I restored my message, Ryulong reverted me again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kyereh_Mireku&diff=next&oldid=81378708]. When I went to his talk page to ask him to stop deleting my talk page comments, he told me he was doing it because Kyereh was blocked before I left the message (he wasn't, he was blocked a few minutes after), but IMO this is completely beside the point. I cannot see any reason to repeatedly delete, from another person's talk page, a non-vandalism, non-disruptive message that has been left by another editor. Forget that I was leaving Kyereh a warning as an administrator, it's not appropriate to do that to any editor: new, established, admin, whatever. Apparently Jimmy has also had some queries about Ryulong's practice of deleting inoffensive comments from other people's talk pages. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=80118708] I'm concerned about his interaction with new people and anons as he has a tendency to use high level warnings when low level ones should be used. He gave [[User:80.6.32.80]] a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.6.32.80&oldid=77976647 blatant vandalism warning] and listed it at AIV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=77976707] because the anon had changed spelling in the [[Globalization]] article from globalization to globalisation. When Ryulong dropped the bv template, the IP had (and still to this day has) no history of vandalism and had made only one prior edit and that was a spelling correction (Septemper >  September). If he listed this at AIV, would he have blocked this user if he had the tools??? After [[Bindi Irwin]] was deleted, Mike Rosoft posted on the talk page saying that the deletion was without prejudice and a new article could be written. So a new editor, [[User: Romtobbi]], wrote an article and Ryulong promptly redirected it to Steve Irwin and gave Romtobbi a vandalism/nonsense warning.  Romtobbi was very upset [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4#Regarding_.22Bindi_Irwin_page] and I think an apology and retraction was warranted, but it wasn't forthcoming, though Ryulong did consent to Romtobbi removing the warning himself ("If Romtobbi wants, he can get rid of the message. I can't do anything after the fact"), then four minutes later Ryulong archived the discussion saying that he had nothing more to say on the matter. I appreciate and acknowledge Ryulong's hard work, but Adminship isn't a reward. I would like to support Ryulong in the future, but most of these incidents have happened in the last month or so and are just too recent for me to feel comfortable supporting at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Frequently posts cases on AIV that should not be blocked; I can only assume that as an admin, he would block them. Archiving his talk page seemingly more than once a day also worries me. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per most of what has been said already like Bunchofgrapes' comments directly above me.  Reporting users like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=82704042] as vandalism only accounts on their first and only edit without even placing a warning at the user's talk page?  I could only imagine that these such accounts would be blocked on sight if given admin rights.  This report, by the way, was from 10 days ago.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but no apparent change in attitude since last RfA. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but few hours ago he went into a contriversial article and re-inserted a wrong quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=84550993] that is currently being disputed by many users on the talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golan_Heights#.22Syria.2C_however.2C_has_not_expressed_willingness_in_making_peace_with_Israel_even_if_the_Heights_are_returned..22] He simply did that, it would seem to push this own POV, even tho only 1 person ([[user:Jayjg]]) was in favor of keeping that statement.(see talk) I'm sorry to say that I dont think that is the action of a responsible editor let alone Admin. Only after he was badgered/hounded by a user on IRC in front of others that he Rev himself[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&oldid=84553905] I'm afraid that as an admin he may abuse his powers to push his POV  into articles.
'''Oppose'''. I was really eager to post a Support vote, per my promise at the last RFA, after hopefully seeing that Ryulong got the message about what is vandalism and what is not. As a vandal fighter, that is one critical point I would hope he could grasp, certainly after a failed RFA for that very reason. Unfortunately, reading [[User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4]], as pointed out by others, clearly shows that even recently and certainly post-RFA he is still trigger-happy in labeling vandalism where there is no clear vandalism present. We do need vandal fighters, but part of the fight is to know the difference between good faith edits and vandalism, and certainly an admin candidate would be expected to know that.
'''Oppose''' per Sam Blanning and Sarah Ewart.  Sorry to say that the above comments indicate Ryulong is (at least sometimes) both a newbie-biter, and unduly argumentative with established users.  In my view, that sort of harshness is an automatic disqualifier for mophood.  I hope candidate's temperment mellows with time.
'''Oppose''', mostly due to the trigger-happiness issues brought out above.
'''Oppose'''. There are many legitimate, non-trivial opposition reasons by users above, including over a dozen diffs. I am not convinced that admins tools will be used properly.
'''Oppose''.  Due to diffs regarding incorrect vandal reporting.  Will most probably support you on a future RFA given that you've learned how to be more careful when patrolling.  Cheers!
'''Oppose.''' per Sarah Ewart's extensive evidence. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' The evidence other opposer have presented have given me serious pause, indicating you may be a bit too aggrevise in the noble task of vandal fighting.  I also am concerned that the number of your edits indicate you may emphasize quantity over quality.--

'''Soft Oppose''': Excellent editcount within a passable 8½-month stay. However, he doesn't always fill in summaries, and his civility issues are cause for concern. There is more to WP than just vandal patrolling, a lot of which he is involved in. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Strong Oppose''' You are a fantastic user and an even better vandal fighter, but I can not support you because of your AIV requests. I have blocked a few hundred vandals in my time as admin, and I see that you usually report a good deal of the vandals to AIV. However, most of them do not even have the proper amount of warnings, or they haven't vandalized after their last warning. It always appeared that you were just inflating your edit count with unnecessary reports to AIV, that are just holding us back from working on other projects. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I really can't support someone who I think would probably do unreasonable bans and start edit wars with other users. We just can't have an admin who will probably block in excess and block users unreasonably.
'''Oppose''' I am too also concerned with his hostility towards vandals, et al. Great editor, but needs to tone things like this down a bit, such as the premature AIV reports. //
'''oppose''' Ryulong has frequently demonstrated, to me at least, that he lumps together new user test and blatant vandalism and treats them all the same, fails to understand that blocks are preventive in nature and not to punish someone and frequently requests blocks that do not have sound reasoning
'''Incredibly Reluctant Oppose''' I've seen Ryulong on IRC sometimes, and I know he's a good vandal fighter. But the difs and newbie biting would just be not a good thing for the [[Wikipedia|project]]. I really hope that you'll take some of the advice from this and your last RFA, and I hope to support next time. -
Per Sarah. -
'''Oppose'''. A good administrator isn't determined by the number of edits and reverts, but by wisdom and knowledge. I am not convinced that this candidate has demonstrated the wisdom and knowledge that administrators should exhibit. Instead, the evidence above tells me that his enthusiasm for reverting vandals will be directed to blocking newbies for minor infractions. -
'''Oppose''' per Sarah's analysis and a trawl through Archive 4 --
'''Oppose'''.  Ryulong appears to have trouble with the distinction between what is blatant vandalism and what is simply inappropriate experimentation.  I watch AIV regularly, and I have seen too many instances of Ryulong reporting users who have stopped after a test1, or sometimes with no warnings at all, to be comfortable with the tools in his hands.  I would fear for the welfare of our newbies were he to have the ability to block users; being blocked as a vandalism-only account after adding "asdfghjkl" to an article once really doesn't send the message we want. He is simply too trigger-happy for me to support at this time. --
'''Neutral leaning Support''' To oppose because of one incorrect vandal template out of 30,000 edits seems to be a fairly extreme position. However, [[User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_4]] does show several cases of non-vandal activity being labeled vandalism, as well as a few newbie [[WP:BITE|bites]]. Before seeing this, I was prepared to give full support, and after a little more of my own research, I may return to that position. I'm very much ''on the fence''.
'''Neutral''' - Excellent vandal fighting however I've noticed when RC patrolling with him, he tends to be a bit too draconian. Also reports some users to AIV, then gives a {{tl|bv}} as an afterthought, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=82982642] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_2007&diff=prev&oldid=82982899].
Leaning towards '''support''', but '''neutral''' waiting for clarifications with respect to concerns raised.
'''Neutral, leaning toward support''' I was a big supporter of Ryulong's last go at RfA, but the problems highlighted by those opposing his adminship have me a bit too worried. --
'''[[True neutral]]''' &mdash; Ryulong is a great vandalfighter (and we always need those) and has an astonishing edit count. But unfortunately, I share the concerns of the many people above that his standards for judging edits for being vandalism or not are truly draconian. You must really embrace [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:BITE]] and start giving people warnings before jumping to "''vandalism-only account''" conclusions. I wish you all the best of luck. [[User:Misza13|M]][[User talk:Misza13|isza]]
'''Neutral''' His dedication to this project is admirable, but the aggressive nature of warning some of the less serious vandals is a concern to me. It is a bit draconian. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Never heard of this user.
'''Neutral''' I did think he was already an admin - a valiant vandal-fighter whom I would hate to oppose but can't support as yet. I'd say re-apply in Feb-March '07 with marked improvement in conduct/attitude.
'''Support''' Has been using Wikipedia for more than 2 years. Deserves to be an admin. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', a good admin on Wikipedia and unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', per Siva1979. -- '''
'''Support''', constructive user, no need to limit their capacity to be constructive. <code>// '''
'''Oppose'''; sorry, I'm sure you're a great user on Wikinews, but under 500 edits per year, with low edit summary usage and almost no Wikipedia: space edits make you unsuitable for adminship on Wikipedia at this time. <font style="color:#FF1111"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC1111"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC1111"><sup>(
'''Strong Oppose''' Only has 1307 edits. Lack of Edit summaries are a problem, but nothing unfixable. I like the fact that he has been with Wikipedia since ''2003'' but his inactivity shows he might have no working knowledge of the current policies.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Lack of familiarity with policy and process aside from a bunch of AfD votes. '''
'''weak Oppose''' simple wikifying does not require admin powers.
'''Oppose''' - Very low edit summary usage, low-ish edit count, and practically no work on Wikispace.
'''Oppose''' Lack of project edits suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' lack of participation in Project areas, low use of user talk (effective communications are important for an admin)
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''': Sorry. Edit summaries and edit count aren't a problem for me but doesn't seem to have much experience in some key areas. Doesn't seem like he would have much use for admin tools or much experience in the areas where they would be useful. Would support later if activity increases.
'''Oppose''' unfortunately. Activity isn't a problem for me but the lack of experience in admin related areas is.
'''Oppose''' 1000 edits in two years isn't good enough.
'''Oppose''' lack of experience Wikipedia space.--
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''': amount of participation and use of summaries too low at this time, sorry.
'''Oppose''': need to broaden participation. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for now per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards|Standards]].
'''Oppose''' Needs to be more active
'''Oppose''' Better have more experience.--
'''Neutral''', user is dedicated to the project edvidenced by the 2-year timeframe, but the amount of production and afd-only participation is undershadowed by these factors. -
'''Neutral''', seems reasonably experienced, but 1300 edits in 2 years looks a bit infrequent. I managed ten times that in half the time, but I'm a Wikipediaholic. =)
'''Neutral''' based on the answer to question 3.  The word bragging doesn't sit well with me, for which I apologise.  I also think a little apology to Dwain would not have gone amiss.
'''Neutral''' clearly a good ''Wiki'' user, but not regular enough on ''Wikipedia''.
'''Moral Support''' Might I suggest withdrawing from this RfA, for if the oppose votes pile up, I'd hate to have you become jaded with the project and leave, as you seem to be a valuable contributor.  Perhaps take a look at some recent RfA candidates who have succeeded in becoming admins to get a feel of what the community is looking for in a potential administrator.  If you wait a while and get a better handle on what an admin is all about, I'm sure you'll see most of the oppose votes turn into supporting votes at a later date.


'''Oppose'''.  Not sure if this RfA is open for voting yet according to policy, which is one of the reasons for this vote. -
'''Oppose''' per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Salman01_RfA --
'''Oppose''' none of the tasks listed are admin tasks, removing opinions is '''not''' the reason to get admin
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' malformed unlisted RfA ([[WT:RFA#Salman01_RfA|see WP:RfA talk]]). Answer to question one shows that candidate doesn't seem to understand what admin tools are for - you can ensure "Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way" without the tools and quite frankly, if that is your only need for them, then you don't need them.
'''Oppose''' per RfA talk.
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Oppose'''.  Suggest withdrawal. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Salman01 block log].  You got blocked on July 1 and you nominated yourself for adminship on July 2?  I haven't checked the allegations to see if they're true, but a potential admin should have a clean record.  --
--
Avoid pile on. Strongly suggest withdrawal.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Voting neutral only to not pile on to the oppose votes. A withdraw would be a wise choice. --<font color="336699">
Neutral to avoid pile on and possible :('edness on behalf of Salman. I strongly suggest withdrawal mate.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=49073916&oldid=49069645 Malformed] RFA request and too few edits to Wikipedia/User talk namespaces.
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari.
Salty is on the right track, but the nomination was premature.  Six months on, just over 1000 edits overall (756 to the main namespace).  It is just insufficient experience.  It would be better to wait until those numbers have about doubled.  Other than that, good work.
'''Oppose''' Malformed RfA requests indicate an unwillingness to read instructions and an overwillingness. Calm down and contribute some more and we'll reconsider soon. &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:black;">Ilyan</span>]][[User:Ilyanep/Esperanza|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;color:green;">e</span>]]
You ARE on the right track. However, nowadays we're concerned about possible misuse of extra tools, and without many edits to the projectspace, it's hard to judge if you understand most Wikipedia policy.
'''Oppose''' Not enough project related contributions. —
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Ilyanep]] <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Clearly has the enthusiasm. Keep on editing and you should be an admin in no time. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Neutral'''. Not enough edits to WP namespace.











'''Strong Support''' as nominator.

'''Strong Support''', I could think of few other editors who deserves this more.
While Sam is often contentious and prone to conflict, I feel like I know him well enough to conclude that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' would not abuse tools, which is the only really relevant criteria with me in these decisions.  I hope he gets it this time.  Enough is enough.
'''Support''', hopefully wise enough not to abuse the admin tools. [[User:Alphax|Alph]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''&mdash;
'''Strong support''' - I have kept an eye on this user for quite some time, and I think that he has matured immensely as a Wikipedian. I have great confidence that he will perform a commendable service as an admin.
'''Support''' seems like he is now a good candidate --
'''Support'''. Every edit should have descriptive edit summary. If there are recent examples of clearly wrong behavior they should be listed instead of fuzzy comments about incompetence.
'''Support''' I have seen nothing in his recent actions to make me think that this user is beyond redemption. People vote to support people all of the time that undertook past actions not approved of by said supporters. For example, no one was seriously concerned that Clinton would spark a big doobey in the Oval Office or that W. would be doing coke at Camp David like in the olden days. I cannot find any problems over the past year (which is ages in wiki years). Long story short: Spade's recent actions make it "not a big deal" for him to have a couple extra buttons on his menu. I'm sure people will be keeping an eye on him, so if he does misbehave (which he likely won't), I'm sure that appropriate actions will be taken swiftly.
'''Here's looking at you kid, Support''' For one of the most venerable and outstanding Wikipedians still with the project. He is particularlly helpful towards newcomers and novices. Opinionated and outspoken at times, yes, but he is not unreasonable. It is highly unlikely he will wield his mop in an abusive or unjust mode.--
'''Support''' - Long tenure, a pile of edits, and not one detractor can provide a recent diff that shows anything to concern me. (
'''Support''' - I'm much happier now with Sam's approach to editor conflicts, which led me to oppose his last nom, and I don't think there is any substantive impediment to his adminship.  He's a very committed WPian and I am confident will use his adminship properly. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>
'''Strongest support possible'''. Despite our differences in POVs in many subjects, I have enjoyed working with on articles such as [[Human]], that we brought together to FA status. We need more editors willing to jump in the fray and edit difficult articles, not less. He may have made some enemies while editing these articles, but surely made some friend too.
--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', seems like a nice person, unlike a couple of those who opposed.
'''Support.''' I will ask you though Sam to please try not to get into too many huge conflicts. I know you do good work, but try to do things the civil way as much as you can.
'''Support''' People are opposing in [[straw man]] arguments.  They need to read the What Adminship is not article.
'''Support''' I trust him --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' not a tough call for me...I expect editors to make a stand on content and I see nothing that supports the argument that this editor would abuse admin tools. This isn't the place to settle old and or petty complaints as ''some'' of the opposition appears to be trying to do.--
'''Support''': Strong history of contributions and I see nothing that would lead me to believe the petty examples from his past on wikipedia would lead him to abuse or misuse his admin powers. Anyone with that many contributions is bound to has run up against other users at least once, and from what I've seen, he's handled it decently.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Your a good man, sister. Would definitely be above average as an admin.....
'''Strong Support''' It is time you '''finally''' become an admin. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''. Deserved to be an admin since a long time! --
While it seems this bid for adminship will fail, I am not afraid to voice my support for this candidate. User seems dedicated to WP (duh) and unlikely to abuse the sysop tools. Does he have some strong opinions? Yes (duh). But does that make him unworthy of adminship? No. We shouldn't judge people's character on the subject area of their editing. If someone wants to edit political or sexual articles, does that automatically deny them adminship? No. Sam Spade has has a couple of problems here, but who hasn't? I'm not naming names, but Sam Spade would make a better admin than some of our current admins. He isn't afraid to speak his mind (something I feel Wikipedia could use more of) and voice his opinion even when he is in the minority. Speaking his mind is now being held against him. We need more admins, but we don't really need more [[Sheep|admins]]. It would be nice to have someone who knows the ins and outs of Wikipedia (both the editing side ''and'' the wikipolitical side) be made admin. Like I said, it seems this bid will fail, but I felt I just had to speak ''my'' mind. --
'''Strong support''' would be good for the encyclopedia as a whole for this nomination to be successful,
'''Extreme skybridge support'''. — <small>Feb. 17, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[16:05] <
'''Support'''  Say no more. ''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] has been with wikipedia for a long time and made tens of thousands of useful contributions. I could not fathom seeing him be marked as unqualified to fulfil this position.
'''Support''', after due thought.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I see no need to limit this user's capacity to be constructive. <code>// '''
'''Support'''. Experience editor who is very dedicated to the 'pedia.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good guy, experienced and dedicated. Has his opinions, but seems reasonable and willing to negotiate. I see no reason at all why he shouldn't be an admin. It's not like he's running for president; all it is is a few petty tools. He's perfectly capable of using them effectively and tactfully.
'''Strong Support''' -- '''
'''Support''', has demonstrated exceptional commitment to this project and to the goals of this project. You don't have to like Sam's politics to realize he would be a good admin.
'''Support'''&#160;—
'''Support''' Excellent contributor. Deserves to be an admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Supoort''' --
'''Support''' per Mongo. --
'''Strong Oppose''', Sam Spade can be an aggressive bully when his edits are questioned, and seems incapable of rising above his ideological biases.
I think Morven had it about right last time in commenting that adminship would only magnify the conflicts Sam gets involved in and make him more of a target than he already is. Also, while his previous nomination may be fairly old, I don't think that either Sam or the issues surrounding him have changed significantly since then, so the same outcome is warranted as before. Both for his own sake in terms of being able to continue editing, and for that of Wikipedia's community atmosphere, I oppose. --
'''Oppose''', sorry Jack, but I have to agree with Michael here.
'''strong oppose''' I always think of him as a less intelligent and slightly ruder version of Ed Poor, and I think he will abuse his position. &mdash;
'''Never''' Belligerent, long-winded, and dull.
I haven't seen any real change in demeanour since his last candidacy.  I have respect for him as an editor, but I can't convince myself that Sam will not make us regret entrusting him, even if he acts without malicious intent.
'''Oppose'''.  Too political.  That's not what we need now (or ever, but especially now).
No.--
'''Oppose''' Contentious, controversial. I'm on the line here between an oppose and a neutral opinion, but the de-adminship process is to vague at this time. Michael Snow and smoddy both offer good arguments. If Sam Spade can stay out of RfC and Arbitration for a few more months, I'd likely support.
With considerable regret, (as wanting the best for the encyclopedia is an admirable goal, but wanting and achieving are not the same thing), I '''Oppose''' ++
'''Oppose''' Has acted '''very''' aggressive, holds grudges when political differences cross his path. In one case <s>uncovering</s> [citing] opponents real-life identity (among other efforts to de-legitimise his argument).  See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Case_against_Cberlet]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_17/Cberlet_and_Sam_Spade]] --<font color="darkgreen">
'''Oppose in the strongest possible terms.''' User is '''very''' hostile to others, and generally unsuitable for adminship. Just because someone racks up thousands of edits doesn't mean they have the temperament or wisdom to be an admin. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow and Essjay.
'''Strong Oppose''' Even if user may have gotten himself into a bit less POV and belligerency trouble as of late, I believe that adminship is a privilege, and not a right. The mere fact that someone has made tens of thousands of edits does not mean that (s)he is entitled to become an administrator. Sad to say, Sam Spade's axe-grinding, as well as his agressive and self-aggrandizing tendencies have not gone away, and it would be very troubling indeed if someone if who often demonstrates such poor judgement and is so prone to pov fights were given the additional status that becoming an admin tends to confer. In this respect, I disagree with [[User:Hamster Sandwich|Hamster Sandwich]], who says "If Sam Spade can stay out of RfC and Arbitration for a few more months, I'd likely support." The very fact that someone has ever been pulled into these fora so often should make one wary of confering adminship upon him or her. I must also beg to differ with uses [[User:Grutness|Grutness]], and [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]], for absolutely no one "needs" nor "deserves" adminship. Adminship requires dedication, yes, and this dedication can indeed be measured, to a certain extent, by the number of one's edits. Yet adminship it requires excellent judgement as well, and Sam Spade, while certainly investing himself in our project, has in the past exhibited beheviour that can charitably called questionable. A thorough review of his edits and quarrels demonstrates that he is unfit for adminship, just as he was 1 and 1/2 years ago at the time of his first nomination. --<font color="black">
'''Strongly oppose.''' Sam Spade, while occasionally on the money at times, is terrible at working with those he disagrees. He's proven himself far more keen to drive his opponents off the wiki than try to reach some sort of common ground - behaviour most unbecoming of an admin. He's also been prone to some catastrophic lapses in judgement - as with the time he added a photo of two topless women in front of a bridge to an article about that bridge ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skybridge_%28Vancouver%29&diff=19991297&oldid=19888423] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive/August_2005#Please_don.27t_vandalise_Wikipedia]), , and vehemently defended its addition. He's far too much interested in wikipolitics and far too little on writing an encyclopedia, and I fear we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing if he becomes an admin.
'''Oppose'''. We don't need administrators who defend the necessity of "AIDS kills fags dead" redirects by saying they find the phrase useful and had often used it themselves; we don't need administrators who have an ''ideé fixé'' about the relationship of Nazism and Socialism and seek to constantly substitute that idea for consensus in multiple articles; we don't need administrators who believe that the best way to illustrate the article on "woman" is by finding "glamour shots" of women with globular pendulous breasts accented by lighting; we don't need administrators obsessed with anal sex. Adminship isn't an award for "most improved": it's easy to improve when you start low. I can't forsee that Wikipedia would be improved by granting admin powers to Sam Spade. -
'''Oppose''' per Ambi, Essjay, and Nunh-huh. Candidate does not have the right temperament for adminship and I fear he would become a very disruptive force if given the extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]. Sam's strong views on subjects would make any admin actions he took in those areas highly suspect.
'''Oppose''' civility issues, argumentative, POV pusher... in the past. I'm sorry while his more recent behaviour may have improved, I just don't feel comfortable allowing him admin privledges. We've had enough wheel warring as it is. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. There are of course reasons a contributor with 32,000 edits isn't already an admin. They're very good reasons. Ambi details some of the best above.
'''Oppose'''.  In the month and a half since I became an Admin, I've noticed that the nature of the task draws you into more conflicts.  While I though of myself as a peacemaker before being an admin, I find it more difficult as an admin to convey an attitude that makes conflicts less divisive.  So I oppose this nomination for the reason that people whose nature is divisive to begin with, will probably not make the best admins.  I have had no personal exchanges with this candidate that I can recall, but I have reviewed his history and do not find that he has the conciliatory nature that would help him become a good admin. --
'''Oppose''': Sam has repeatedly done WP:POINT stuff, has repeatedly tried to place highly partisan language in out of the way places, and his recreation, replacement, and then arguing ''for'' a topless photo in the Toronto Skybridge was a cincher for his either not knowing or, what's more likely, not respecting the policies of Wikipedia.  Having the buttons would mean more delete/undelete protect/unprotect warring.
'''Oppose''' per android79.
'''Oppose'''
'''''Oppose''''' as per [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] et al.
'''Oppose''' While I suppose one could argue that there's been some improvement recently, I can't imagine what Sam Spade could do to erase years of previous bad behaviour.
'''Oppose''' Nope. --
'''Oppose'''.  That he was edit warring on [[Human]] mere days ago shows that he hasn't quite changed as much as he'd need to before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''': as per Nunh-huh and Ambi. Just too much controversy continually seems to surround this editor.
'''Strongly oppose''', I really have nothing against him, but he is too much of a partisan and a troublemaker (by his own admission usually - he admitted that he adds NPOV tags to pages just to create argument, ostensibly to improve the page, which is fair enough) to be an effective admin. I don't see him ever becoming an "objective" user, as if anyone who really gives a shit about anything could be. But yeah, too belligerent, too confrontational, too opinionated to fulfill the job requirements despite whatever you may think about him in general, positively or negatively. So with all that in mind, I'd like to emphatically state that his large body of contributions is '''''totally irrelevant''''' here, everyone. --
'''Oppose'''. Continued POV pushing; frequent lapses in judgement.  Not suitable for adminship.
'''Oppose''', regretfully. I simply cannot support giving him the power to block users. --
'''Oppose'''. If this is "improved", I would hate to see what was considered "very bad". I had forgotten his antics on the Vancouver Skybridge idiocy, and his defense against the editors expressing disappointment at his behavior (''The fact that you expected something different shows that you don't know me very well, not that I have changed. I am still boldly making the edits I think are necessary...'') shows either an astonishing lack of awareness or an active contempt for others. He's gone 32,000 edits without having become an admin?: there's a reason.  --
'''Oppose''' per Michael and Ambi. I don't think Sam has the right temperment for adminship.--
'''Oppose''' due to recent questionable editing behavior (thanks to those who provided diffs).  We need ''fewer'' edit warriors as admins, not more.
'''Strong oppose''', POV warrior.
'''Oppose''' per zoe --
'''Oppose''' per Nunh-Nun and zoe --
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow
'''Oppose, Mildly'''.  While Sam strikes me as reasonable, thoughtful, and generally well-intentioned, he doesn't seem to have a knack for discussion or integration.  Being a relatively new contributor, I can only comment on one experience: he reverted a major revision I had made to [[mysticism]] under a NPOV objection.  That was fair enough, and I subsequently convinced him that the revision was superior to the original version, and restored it on the understanding that he would re-edit it.  However, his re-edit was merely a verbatim re-insertion of a highly problematical passage from original version, with no effort at working it into the new structure.  It seems to me that an administrator needs a greater capacity for '''perspective-taking''' and '''dialectical synthesis''' than this; while Sam seems too decent to actively impose his own POV on a topic, I'm concerned (given his wide range of interests and strong opinions) that the Admin powers might open the door to implicit and unitentional NPOV violations.'''
[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.png|15px]] '''Oppose''' I have serious doubts about his ability to not misuse the mop and buckets at times. <small>
'''Oppose''', no apparent judgement.
'''Oppose''' I was going to stay out of this vote, but as Sam has managed to totally trash the [[Human]] article in just a few hours...uh no...never, nunca, nie, jamais, mai, nunquam, etc.
'''Oppose''', though I very nearly tagged under neutral. [[User:Nunh-huh]]'s summary is close enough as proxy for my own. The FBI photo in [[Human]] didn't help, nor did the bridge photo some time ago.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but must say no.  As Ambi. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Oppose''' per Essjay and Ambi.
'''Oppose in the strongest possible terms.''' I am choosing not to disclose my thoughts at this time.
'''Oppose'''.  Does not seem to present a favourable ratio of likely utility, if his actions as an admin were as modest as apparently intended, and possible problems, if they prove not to be.
'''Oppose''' - too fast to judge and go reverting. Would not solve conflicts, only inflate them.
'''Oppose, strongly'''
'''Oppose.''' --
'''Oppose'''. Just no.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Although he has been in a lot fewer conflicts the past six months or more, I am not ready to believe that the tiger has changed its spots.
'''Oppose'''. Sam Spade has a long history of provocative editing and community interaction.  I remember him making previous public statements that he neither cares about the encyclopedia nor the community here, instead seeing Wikipedia as a sort of nihilistic playground where he can do whatever he finds fun.  I found his participation in an edit war at [[Vancouver Skybridge]] last July, where he reverted the removal of a nude photo to the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skybridge_%28Vancouver%29&oldid=19991297] to testify with particular strength to his lack of judgement and his utter lack of concern about the project's true goals.
'''Oppose''' We can't tempered individuals as admins
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per Mjal, UninvitedCompany and many, many others.

Sam Spade definitely ''deserves'' adminship, considering the solid body of work he has put into Wikipedia. However, I still feel that there are enough concerns not to put my tick into the support column at the moment. I certainly don't feel strongly enough to oppose, though.
I see why he needs adminship, but I also see why he shouldn't have it. Both sides weigh equally - therefore, neutral. --

Very often makes excellent points, and definitely a hard worker. But sometimes he seems angry, and I am not sure how good that is for an admin.
'''Neutral'''. Someone who has been around for that long and has that many contributions deserves adminship, but he seems too controversial at this time.
Massive edits and experience + Titty bridge = '''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral'''. Honestly, I can't decide to either Oppose or Support. '''
'''Neutral''' Haven't ever encountered this user, and there are good arguments for both oppose and support.--
'''Neutral''' I've seen both good and bad from Sam Spade. I am not comfortable opposing, nor am I supporting.
'''Neutral and suggest withdrawal''' I haven't seen anything on this user. But from other's comments I can't decide to support or oppose. It is quite clear consensus in his favour won't be reacher - so I strongly suggest the withdrawal of this nomination.
It's 43/43. I daren't touch the symmetry! Could we perhaps get one opposer and one supporter to remove their support? Then we'd have 42/42. That would kind of rock :-) Even though it's not good for promotion, Sam Spade would still get to take home life, the universe and everything. Decent consolation prize that. :-)
neutral, more or less per Grutness: Sam certainly ''deserves'' adminship, but it is dubitable whether he would ''benefit'' from adminship, meaning that it is likely to cause him more bother than boon, not necessarly through any fault of his own.
'''Weak Neutral''' my only experience with Sam was positive, and it seems that he knows his stuff, but from the diffs, Sam's going to need to mellow out alot before he gets the mop. I refuse to believe that someone is "irredemable" if they want to improve themselves, and if Sam just said "Well, I agree to disagree" a bit more during these stupid little petty fights(most of the fights on WP), he'd be running away with this right now. I'd suggest re-applying in a few months and counting to 10 before talk page edits. Worked wonders for me in January. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Neutral''' - Sam is a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. He can be very funny. He is always interesting. He knows the rules and plays by them. But he lacks judgement. There are admins who are far worse than he would ever be, but the solution is to weed those out rather than to add to the list of every_now_and_then_in_trouble admins. And he does remind me of Ed Poor, another great Wikipedia asset.
'''Support''' - He's been at wikipedia for years, and is still productive. -
'''Support''' 3 years, good time, haven't seen complaints..
'''Support''' as nominator. --
'''Oppose''' 35 wikipedia namespace edits over a three year span is not good, needs more exprience. The answer for the questions is very small also. If you work on AFD's and other wikispace projects, you get my support in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' per Jaranda.
'''Oppose''' He needs better answers to the questions below and I also agree with Jaranda. --
'''Oppose''' Per Jaranda, low project edits, 35 User_talk edits over 3 years, Terse answers to questions gives little more to go on. e.g. Question 1, many non-admins are extremely effective in fighting vandalism. --
'''Oppose'''. I'd also like to see much more project involvement along with a much higher use of edit summaries.  However, please don't let these negative votes discourage you.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience outside of article editing, most of this type of work can be done by anyone.
'''Oppose'''. That's an impressive length-of-service, and I suppose if he's going to go bad it'd have happened already. But that's not the same as being reasonably-versed in how non-article stuff works, which is what admin work is mostly. Clearly trusted at no.wiki, but en.wiki is not the same (I wouldn't expect to made an admin on no.wiki, after all). Answers to questions are very poor indeed, showing either a lack of real interest, or a lack of understanding about what is expected in an RfA and what it is ''possible'' to offer in the answers; the latter may well extend from not having experience of such possibilities. -
'''Oppose''' as per Xaosflux and Anonymous editor.
'''Oppose'''. same as above
'''Oppose''' as above. --
'''Oppose'''. To little time. I know you have been here for 3 years but not enough time being around the community. —
More [[edit summaries]] please.
Fact that he is an admin at Norwegian wiki with mostly project edits drives me here instead of oppose. Still, seems not very active on both no.wikipedia.org and here; will not flat out oppose due to obvious trust from Norwegian wiki (from which this is a whole different animal), and it's not a question of ready or not; just don't understand why he needs adminship here. --
'''Neutral''' as per Jjjsixsix.  --

In my observation, in saxophone-related articles SaxTeacher has always edited with great care and seriousness.
Moral '''support''' based on candidate's good work so far as an editor. However, I urge withdrawal for now and reapplication later after the candidate has greater experience in other areas per the oppose and neutral suggestions below.
'''Support''' per [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]].  It might not be successful now, but try again a few months later and do some more editing, and your nomination will get better results.
'''Support''', a great user.--<font style="background:white">
'''Moral Support''', don't let this RfA discourage you. You're a good user, but people are generally opposing based on a lack of experience - which is the easiest thing in the world to fix, if you persevere. Keep with it, making at least a few edits every day if you have the time, and you'll be in a strong position to start a new request in 3-4 months' time. :)
'''Support''', great wikipedian A++++++++++++++.
'''Weak Support''' per the edits situation.
'''Moral Support''' Good on you for seeing the RfA through!  You seem to be quite a good Wikipedian to have contributing to the project and I suspect that with a bit more experience, you'll sail through your next request for adminship.  On a related note, you might want to sign up for [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]], which is a program run by Esperanza that pairs experienced administrators with users who plan on becoming administrators in the future.  This will allow you to become experienced in some of the administrative areas (closing *fD's, for example) with some help from your coaches.  Good luck! (You should also feel free to contact me with any questions and I'll be sure to answer them or point you in the right direction in a timely manner)
'''Oppose''' - Fewer than 1000 edits and large gaps between edit dates.
'''Oppose''' sorry, you're a very good editor and have made some valuable contributions to Wikipedia. But you've got fewer than 700 edits across both usernames which is just isn't enough for me to form an accurate picture of you. You're edits are very sparse as well: you've only edited on 30 days this year, some of which have only one edit. Your answers to the standard questions aren't compelling either: your answer to Q1 doesn't mention any tasks that require the admin tools, for example. You've had very few interactions with other editors, which is a vital part of being an admin, so its hard to judge how you'd handle the tough situations admins sometimes face. I applaud your contributions, but don't think you're ready for the admin bit quite yet. Good luck,

'''Oppose''' Lack of edits is a major concern here. However, your stay of about one year here is noted. Try again after three months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Less than 1000 edits, not enough talk edits. --
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have less than 800 edits - successful admin candidates usually have at least 2000 edits, with a least a couple of hundred in the Wikipedia space demonstrating policy knowledge, and at least a few hundred talk edits showing community interaction. Also, although you've been here almost a year (which is longer than many admin candidates), there have been some large gaps of time in which you didn't edit. Admins are exepcted to check in pretty much daily with only occassional wikibreaks, so you're unlikely to succeed as an admin candidate until your record shows a long period of consisent editing. Good luck if you decide to apply again in future.
'''Oppose''', not enough edits, come back with a higher edit count, then I'll vote for you. --
'''Oppose''', lacks edits and experience. Come back in three months. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Discounting edits related to filing this RfA, [[Wikipedia:Changing username]]-related edits, and [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] questions, this user's only WP:space edits are to [[WP:RFI]] (and then, only one situation was reported; I've checked the contribs of both the old and the new usernames). The candidate is unfortunately relatively inexperienced and thus would be too likely to inadvertently make errors in using the admin tools. Try withdrawing and getting a better idea of what project-space is like over the next few months. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 10:01, 1 September 2006 (
'''Oppose''' I am sorry; this user has not had enough experience or enough favourable edits to become an administrator quite yet. --
'''Oppose''' Too few edits : try again in a few months after racking up a few more edits and you've got my vote
'''Oppose''' Too few edits, I'm afraid. read up on policy, get some more edits under your belt, and come back in six months or so - I'll be all for it then.
'''Oppose''' very low edit count. The year experience is good, but need more edits. Sorry --'''
'''Oppose''' extremely low edit count; many self userspace edits; less than 500 edits in the '''article''' space.
'''Strong Oppose''', only 618 edits at nomination? Doesn't make me think you have the necessary experience to deal with adminship.. Perhaps in a few months eh? :) --[[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">
'''Strong Oppose''' per above... Few edits.. Seems to not be participating in discussions a lot... Sorry :( --<b><font color="#006633">
'''Oppose''' - Very few edits, and the chores you have expressed interest to do once promoted, do not require sysOp privillages.--[[User:Deepujoseph| thunderboltz]]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">
'''Weak Oppose''' due to apparant inexperience in policy. Give it some time and keep contributing!
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience
'''Oppose''', inexperience. Come back six months later and I'll support. -
'''Oppose''' User has done many great things to help Wikipedia ,but I don't think he's had enough experience at the moment.Once he get's to 2,000 he should be ready.
'''Oppose'''. Great user, but should read through [[WP:RFA/ST]] to get an idea of the number of edits most users regard as basic to becoming an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' MORE EDITS! <font style="background:orange">[[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza||<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', less than 10 Wikipedia-space edits before this RfA which means that it's very unlikely that you are sufficiently versed in the policies and other workings that are often needed from an admin. I won't oppose since this will most likely end up as a pile-on for a good editor, but I'd suggest you withdraw and get yourself better acquainted with the wikipedia namespace if you're still interested in adminship in the future. -
'''Neutral''' per Bobet and wishing to avoid a [[WP:SNOW|snowball effect]]. You are a good editor, though; keep up the good contributions. :) <font color="#0000FF">
'''Neutral''' per Firsfron, you are a good editor and should keep up the good work.  However, at this time, you should probably withdraw this your nomination and focus instead on getting to know Wikipedia and the people on Wikipedia. Best of Luck. --
'''Neutral''' Keep working hard, participate in [[WP:CfD]]'s, etc. Also, watch other's RfA's for points to focus on to get the "mop" one of these days. Thanks for all your hard work. Hang in there -
'''Neutral''' per Bobet <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Neutral''' I became an admin because I wanted the ability to more effectively fight vandalism, so I appreciate the desire here.  Being able to speedy-delete appropriate articles and images is helpful without the need to tag those which can be deleted immediately.  It saves other admins work, and you can *never* have too many admins doing vandalism patrol.  Still, I agree with the consensus that a little more time is needed, and at this point neither a support or oppose vote would change the result anyway. &mdash;

'''Neutral''' &ndash; few more months and I'll be happy to support. &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''' per Bobet
'''Neutral'''&mdash; Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. Saw nothing wrong with your edits or comments; but would like more data to work with. More mileage on the tires will make me a supporter.
'''Neutral''' - Per slightly low number of edits. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Neutral''' - I don't want to oppose someone who is evidently a good editor. Please get some experience in areas away from the main space such as AfDs, so we can get a better sense of you and you can get a better sense of the kinds of debates an admin has to get involved in. Also, do some more intense editing from day to day so, again, we all have a better sense of your approach. If you do that and come back around the end of the year, you're likely to succeed in a second RfA.
'''Co-nom Support''' (after edit conflict) - I've already said my piece :) --
'''Support''' He doesn't seem like the best candidate around, but he could learn from the best Admins we have. Wikipedia always needs more [[Starship Troopers|meat for the grinder]].
'''Support''' Based on this editor's discussion at my user talk page [[User_talk:Durova#Um]] In particular, ''I really think adminship should be about adding drops to the bucket, not accepting a huge responsibility. We have 8 (EIGHT!) active admins on wikibooks. We're all so overburdened that we just shrug off the backlogs. I've been actively campaigning to get more admins, because even if they only used the tools once a day, at least it would be one less thing I had to do.''  This editor approaches the nomination from an unusual perspective - one that makes me grateful I share my admin responsibilities here with more than 1000 other people.  Obviously this is someone who has demonstrated genuine dedication to the Wikipediverse and - I have a hunch - both wishes we'd toss a few more crumbs of participation over at Wikibooks and intends to be a reasonably active sysop on this project: definitely mopworthy. '''
'''Support''' Everyone who isn't likely to abuse the tools, should have access to them. Every little bit helps.
'''Moral-ish support''' I don't think he would misuse his tools. I probably wouldn't have commented either way on this RfA except that so many of the opposes are based on a hypothesis for which I just don't see any evidence. I've never seen one of these mythical newbies whose contributions are meant in earnest but are systematically so incompetent or poorly executed that they are indistinguishable from vandalism. Running through the gamut of warning templates for someone whose contributions consist of nothing but adding "is a buttmunch" after people's names is a plain waste of time, and I support a candidate whose goal is to reduce time wastage.
'''Support'''. Although those that oppose have brought up some valid points, this user has stated that he will mostly use his admin tools for trans-wiki-ing. In addition, he has stated that he will follow Wikipedia policies, even if he doesn't agree with them. This includes warning vandals, and the only reason he hasn't been doing it (on Wikibooks) is that they don't have a policy for it. In other words, if given the admins tools, he would warn vandals (on Wikipedia) before he blocked them. I think we would be doing a disservice to Wikibooks if we did not give him the admin tools, becuase his main purpose is so use his Wikipedia admin tools to help Wikibooks. '''''
'''Support'''. Admin on Wikibooks and Wikiversity; I believe that he'll be able to adapt to the Wikipedia way of doing things. I see that he's struck out his intention to semiprotect "finished" articles (which in my mind seems like a bloody good idea, since a study found that vandalism is about the only edits those articles get), and as for "not warning vandals", I've seen '''existing admins''' who don't warn vandals, revert their other vandalism, or block them! Besides, as Taxman has pointed out above, that was on Wikibooks. <span class="ipa">
'''Support''' - I like this guy and he does a lot of good work.  I think most of the oppose votes below come from the fact that the candidate decided to air some of his ideas about policy, which makes them comments about his positions on policy and not really comments about his suitability for adminship.  I have no qualms about giving him the mop. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' - SB Johnny is a good editor with a cool head and a load of common sense.  I support him wholeheartedly.  We need to be encouraging more people like him to apply for adminship!  &mdash;
'''Support''' Unlikely to misuse tools. Hopefully he will learn more in days to come <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Support''' looks hardworking and trustworthy to me. --
'''Support''' Based on Johnny's comments, his willingness to follow "[[:Category:Administrators open to recall|Administrators open to recall]]", and experience here, and on other Wikimedia projects, I think he's going to make a great admin. --
'''Support''' seems like a nice guy, I don't foresee any problems.
'''Support'''- tho I have some slightly mixed views on this one - I think the candidate has indulged in rather too much dialogue in a reactive way for example.  There are a number of issues here - the spread of the vote suggests that.  The question I guess is what do you want from an admin?  If you are looking for dedicated hard work you have it in spades in this user.  If you want someone who will always toe the line and not speak his mind you might not be fully comfortable with him.  However if all we have is people who toe the line nothing moves forward.  Would he abuse the tools - extremely unlikely.  The very openness to recall makes me far more comfortable with him than people who do not accept this view. For these and a number of the reasons already stated I am happy to support. --
'''Support''' - SBJohnny does a lot of good work on Wikibooks. I doubt he'd misuse the tools. I like his attitude, and he's enthusiastic....if a bit too much dialogue, like Herbthyme said. But he is good at the small details. --<font style="background:black">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="LightSteelBlue">Shrieking Harpy</font>]] [[Image:Gay_flag.svg|17px]]</font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>
'''Support''' a lack of admin-activity from a user is a really, really stupid reason to oppose a nomination. I am unconvinced by the other posted reasons.
'''Oppose''' per "''there's a lot of articles that are quite good ("finished", in a way) that would be appropriate for the autoconfirmed level of protection.''". --
'''Oppose''' per that quote that Steel picked out. Not only is this a bad idea, its against core policy. Having an admin going around judging when articles are "finished" and protecting them is a very bad idea.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but I must oppose. You apparently never warn vandals after reverting their edits, and you acknowledge that you wouldn't be a very active admin (I can't see why would you need the tools then). You're a good editor and your transwiki work is most commendable, but perhaps you need more involvement in administrative-oriented tasks on the English Wikipedia before becoming an admin here.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - semiprotecting 'good' articles? no real statement, why do you think should you be an admin?
'''Oppose''' - as per above. --
'''Oppose''' - I feel terrible when I vote against someone in an RfA but I'm really worried about a couple of points SB Johnny has made.This idea of protecting articles is a nonsense, a total nonsense. IP users updating your so called "good articles" would be barred, as would newly registered users. I'm further concerned by the way you've U-turned on your comments, saying you'll strike them as they are making people nervous. This, to me, shows no evidence of an admission your ideas are against policy and the whole idea of Wikipedia and more of a desperate damage limitation exercise to try to prevent your RfA from failing. I'm further concerned by your civility towards Steel above and what I perceive to be confusion between the policies at Wikibooks and Wikipedia. What is perceived to be vandalism here can simply be a misguided edit or typo error and blocking on site is both against policy and except in the most disruptive of cases, damned stupid and damaging. I do feel terrible in saying this, but not only do I think you don't really need the sysop tools, I feel Wikipedia here would be safer if your not a sysop. As I say, I'm terribly sorry but that's my thoughts anyway. Best wishes for the future.
'''Oppose''' per the above concerns regarding your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Protecting "good" articles is nonsensical, as many times edits help make the good article even better. In addition, I find your snappy remarks on this RfA troubling, especially your response to ST47's oppose. On Wikipedia, as is in real life, sometimes it is better to just stay quiet than to express your thoughts to the rest of the world. Otherwise, your other edits are productive, but your philosophy and attitude makes me unwilling to let this pass. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|210]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' Must you comment on every single oppose vote you get? You're just digging your own grave by getting all worked up and emotional (and incivil) on other people's votes in your RfA.
'''Oppose''' per above. —
'''Oppose''' I thought hard about this one, read it this morning and gave it some time to think over.  Coming back I was able to read some of the replys to concerns  other raised and it just seems to snowball.  I also have concerns regarding your interpretation of Wikipedia policy.  Sorry but comments that you could game the system to get the mop just show a lack of thought before posting and a admin needs to represent the job well when talking to other user about their actions.
'''Oppose''' My main "encyclopedic" reason for opposing is not leaving warning messages after reverting vandalism.  That's very important; how are the good faith editors supposed to know they're doing something wrong?  And if they are intentionally vandalizing, they should be warned so that they can be blocked as soon as possible.  My other reason for opposing is that SB Johnny seems to get overly emotional, at least on this RfA. --
'''Oppose''' per lack of vandal warning.
'''Oppose''' I also hate to vote against people, but I'm a bit worried that candidate shows a fearful lack of Wikipedia policy and practice. I might agree with several of his principles, but they are clearly not Wikipedian, and the fact that the candidate openly spoke them seems to show that he didn't know that such responses would only hurt his cause with the voters. I encourage you to stay a while longer, and read up on policies, and perhaps come back after you're a bit more familiar with policy and ready to contribe. Good luck. -
'''Oppose''' per all the above concerns. I personally do not like to oppose an RfA nomination unless it is for very, very strong concerns and reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and come back again after two or three months. In the meantime, do not lose hope. However, I have to agree that if you are elected as an admin to this project, you definitely would not abuse the added tools, given the similar position you hold in the other projects. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Wikipedia [[WP:ENC|is an encyclopedia]] that [[WP:BITE|anyone can edit]]. -
'''Oppose''' per all above comments. Policies and such differ from different projects, even ones in the same language. We don't want to make wikipedia look like a closed community. Blocking any editor who made a mistake on their first article, simi-protecting "finished" pages. I'm not saying you'll missue the tools per say, but you might need to understand our policies a little better first. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Oppose''' Usually, if I can't find myself voting '''Support''', I tend to either abstain or "vote" '''Neutral.''' Often, I will vote '''Moral Support''' for an "obviously failing" nom which is where this one seems to be heading... So I'm not one easily drawn to the '''oppose''' column (except perhaps when it comes to making [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA bots] admins). And I do find myself in the oppose column for good reason. And not for the comments by the candidate on semi-protecting articles- I think if he were to indiscriminately protect articles he thought were "finished", which seems to be the main concern of many above, it wouldn't take long before he was desysoped. An admin, at times, may be insulted, may be accused falsely, may have their every move scrutinized. This candidate has shown in his numerous comments to the above oppose votes that keeping his cool may be a problem.
'''Oppose''', doesn't really understand the Wikipedia concept, do [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] and don't [[WP:BITE|close the doors to strangers]]. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', I don't think you understand what administratorship is honestly about. I am not fond with your answers to the questions asked at the top.--
'''Oppose''', per Jcam's rationale.
'''Oppose'''.  I always get a bad feeling when someone starts badgering every oppose vote on an RfA.  Doesn't indicate the level of calm and maturity I look for in an admin. —
'''Oppose''' per "To be honest, I'm not going to be one of the most active of admins on wikipedia." I would want an admin who was incredibly active. Sure, a lot of edits can get you far, but if I was to become an admin, I would use those tools to the fullest extent of what I can do. From the answers to the questions, I don't see that.
'''Oppose'''. For [[m:Foundation issues|some things]] can't be compromised with. —
'''Oppose''' From the above comments it appears he has a serious issue with editors who are new or under IP addresses. Not letting them edit, or reverting them because you don't like them is a foundation issue and could result in something worse in your future. Adminship cannot be given to someone with this stance. ''semper fi'' —
'''Oppose''' The aggressive retorts to some of the oppose votes just doesn't sit well with me. Answers to a couple of the questions to the candidate seem rather thin as well.--
'''Neutral''' I hate to reject an enthusiastic and hard-working candidate.  I suggest that he withdraws, does his homework and comes back in a few weeks.--
'''Neutral''' Generally per the above opposes. The excuses so far being that the policy is different elsewhere, well we aren't elsewhere and here is where you are applying. As for I'd only protect if I saw a request, well why shouldn't we just get a bot to respond to requests, in fact why not open up page protection to anyone who can post on the protection page. As an admin you are expected to use your discretion to apply policy appropriately, if you aren't aware of that policy (and general custom) you can't do that. --
'''Neutral'''. I think the candidate needs more experience. I suggest several weeks (months if needed), and the candidate will become a ''oh-so-fine'' admin. Cheers and sorry again, mate. --
'''Neutral'''. This candidate's work on Wikibooks and Wikiuniversity should be commended and treated with highest honor and respect. However, over time Wikipedia-EN has gone through a lot of growth (more than any other Wikipedia project), and thus a highly evolved bureaucracy (and one might even argue government) has developed. We have policies and guidelines that govern how things are handled here, and these have wide consensus among community members. I (and many others) feel that these policies ''must'' be well-understood and accepted by potential admin candidates. While I feel that Johnny is well-meaning, if perhaps a bit overeager to defend his side of the story, his ignorance of "how we do things here" will inevitably result in problems and misunderstandings if he is immediately given sysop tools. Johnny, if you're as eager to help out here as you are on other wikiprojects, you should do just that. Start editing articles on the English Wikipedia, gradually familiarize yourself with our policies and bureaucracy (the deletion process, dispute resolution, etc.), and come back when you feel that you have a good grasp of how things are run around here. I would definitely support you then. —
'''Verbose neutral''' The consideration of the question of whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive has long disposed RfAs for me, and my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|broader RfA guideline]] counsels that, in situations where I cannot with any measure of certainty draw a conclusion as to the nature of the net effect of a given user, I ought to !vote ''neutral''.  Am I certain that Johnny, in view, inter al., of his amiable demeanor and deliberative temperament, would not, qua admin, abuse or volitionally misuse the tools?  To be sure.  Am I certain that Johnny, in view of his appreciation for the ministerial nature of adminship, would not, qua admin, act in a fashion he should think appropriate where a community consensus does not exist for such acting (e.g., as regards the semi-protection of ''settled'' pages)?  Yes.  Am I certain that Johnny, in view of what is ostensibly fine judgment, would not act, qua admin, in areas with which he might know himself, especially upon his being so informed by another, unfamiliar?  Yes.  I am not at all certain, though, that he is sufficiently acquainted with policy and practice as to be able to know whereof he does not know, such that I am not certain that he might avolitionally misuse the tools.  I am not at all troubled by a candidate's profession that he might use the tools very infrequently or might use the tools only in a very specific area, since in either case one might nevertheless be able to conclude that the net effect on the project of his using the tools will prove positive.  Here, though, Johnny doesn't intend to confide himself entirely to one area&mdash;which is quite fine&mdash;and so the infrequency with which he might properly use the tools must be weighed against the frequency with which he might inadvertently misuse the tools and thereby oblige another admin to consume time remedying an error (I'm certain, I should say, that Johnny would readily and civilly correct any error he might make upon his being apprised of his having erred), and I can't well approximate how the relationship betwixt the two and so I am&ndash;regretfully&ndash;neutral.
First support, he's a medium! :O [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="green">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support'''. A very good editor. -- ''
'''Support''' I believe you should have a second chance. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Support'''. Procedural renomination to start with, he was a good admin previously, and nothing has significantly changed in his qualifications. --
'''Support''' as this candidate was a highly satisfactory administrator for several months and I am quite pleased that he is ready to pick up where he left off.  However, I urge the candidate to reconsider accepting an automatic resysopping as alluded to above, in accordance with recent precedent that an admin who steps down voluntarily is given the tools back on request, rather than proceeding with this full-fledged RfA.  Will, I greatly respect your view that you don't believe you should accept a behind-the-scenes resysopping and ordinarily would have no problem with that choice.  However, I fear that as editors come to this page and seek to understand what happened in August that caused you to temporarily lock up your mop-and-broom closet, discussion of sensitive issues relating to those events will be unnecessarily reopened.  This would not be in the best interests of the community or, and I hope this doesn't sound overly paternalistic, of the candidate and the other affected parties.
'''Support'''.  Welcome back.
'''Support'''.  <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support'''. --
<s>Too few projectspace contributions.</s> He just wanted to re-live RfA again. - <b>
'''Support'''. Great user! --
'''Support''' - IMHO no Rfa was needed so an auto support is placed here --
'''Support''' Terrific user, very true Tawker :)
'''support''', no idea he was even deadminned ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]] - [[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]-
'''Support''' Welcome back! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no reason to object to resyopping this editor. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Strong Support'''' Editor resigned adminship over a "wrongdoing" that was more like a "technicality"; such dedication to fairness and impartiality is mark of wisdom and character.  He held himself to the highest standard, and he surpasses even this.
'''Support'''. There shouldn't even be an RfA for this.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I concur with comments made above that restoring adminship in this case should be a given.
'''Support''' No trust, judgement, or editing issues. Will, take that mop back! [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Anyone who made it through what he did deserves to be re-granted adminship.  He was an excellent admin, and he'll be an excellent one again. --
'''Strong Support''' excellent user.
'''Support''' with respect for the candidate's choice of the open process despite the circumstances of his desysopping. Have run across this admin a few times on different pages, has always been considerate and a good worker, from what I've seen.
I agree wit Ann H, not much need of an RFA
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Hate to display my ignorance, but I've no idea why you desysopped, but I'm glad you want the mop back.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —''
'''Support''' - per above
'''Support''' <font color="red">[[User:Sugarpine|S]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Sugarpine|ug]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Sugarpine|ar]]</font><font color="darkyellow">[[User:Sugarpine|p]]</font><font color="orange">[[User:Sugarpine|in]]</font><font color="purple">
'''Support, just close this early and promote him!''' [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
&ndash;
'''Support'''. He was admin before. In last month He was desysoped adminship in last month. But He should become admin again. My opinion on adminship of sceptre is Similar to Musical Linguist.
'''Support'''.  User never struck me as particularly unsuitable for sysop.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' He certainly deserves an additional chance.--
'''Support''' Passes my criteria
'''Suppport''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''', great user, has experience as a former admin and should be given another chance. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Support'''. Rather than try to restate exactly what Tony Fox and Xoloz have already said well enough, I concur with both of them.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Your actions in choosing to hand in the mop shows your judgement. Your decision to ask for an unnecessary Rfa shows probity and humility. I find the so-called "proof" of bad behaviour in Benon's userspace unintelligible and far from convincing. Currently, therefore, you've given me every reason to AGF. I can't ask for much more in a clearly experienced Wikipedian. --
Wow I missed this for a long time. '''Support''' per extremely level-headed action during "the ordeal", although [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sceptre&diff=prev&oldid=73054535 it wasn't completely smooth]. —
'''Support'''.  While I have issue with his handling of the situation in question, his handling of it since then has shown that he's open to owning up to mistakes, and doing things the right way, even if he slips up occasionally.  We need more admins like that. --
'''Support''', great admin, and excellent admission of approach about quiet restore. Shows honour. &mdash;
'''Support''' accusations from the opposing cannot be verified.  I've gone over his work from the past thoroughly and we should incourage the return of good admins.
'''Strong oppose''' Oh boy this is going to open a whole can of worms i never ever wanted to have to do but here goes. Sceptre a while back engaged on a childish imature behind the scenes stalking and harrasment campgain of a nameless but respected admin (they have asked not to be named here and i will respect that) to avoid making a hudge threaded mess i have posted an e-mail from jimbo in my userspace [[User:Benon/sceptre|Here]]
It is with some considerable regret that I find myself speaking out. My dealings with Sceptre have been entirely acceptable. But the material presented by Benon, above, is highly unacceptable. We cannot have users harassing other users in this manner. I have every confidence in the veracity of the material presented and, in fact, have personal knowledge of some of the matters presented there and am appalled. I also have to say that Sceptre's handling of the nathanrdotcom affair was not perfect but that in itself is not that big a deal. I think my theme lately here has been that admins need to stick together and here I find another example of an admin not using his powers wisely, not acting in a manner that is collegial. It is with considerable regret, again, that I add my voice in '''opposition'''. This is not pleasant because there are many supporters that I value highly, and I really mean Sceptre no ill will. But I think there is a good chance that some further opposes may be coming from ArbCom members who are aware of the facts of this matter. At least I hope they find their way clear to comment, within the limits of discretion, on it.  ++
'''Oppose''' per Benon.
'''Oppose''' per Lar and Benon. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' ~
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not convinced that recent events have demonstrated a sufficiently high degree of maturity to deal with the inevitable conflict resolution activities of an Admin.  Also similarly concerned about the apparent social networking approach to the project.
'''Reluctant oppose''' I am not happy about opposing, as I see this user has contributed well to Wikipedia and obviously has the experience.  But I have yet to see Sceptre's justifications per the mentioned events even if in vague terms, I don't think it is appropriate behaviour for an admin to harrass other users no matter for what reason.--

'''Oppose''' - per Lar, Tony, Benon. Unfortunate, but there it is. --
'''Oppose''' per Lar.
'''Oppose'''. I know the thing of which Benon speaks of independantly and his reason is valid. To protect the privacy of the harassed, I will not reveal any more details, but I'm sorry, I cannot support knowing the circumstances.
'''Oppose'''.  Not only is the incident which Benon refers to disturbing and problematic, but I do not believe Sceptre handled himself appropriately in the Nathanrdotcom incident.  While I do not disagree with the ultimate decision to block Nathan, Sceptre was far too involved emotionally in that situation to properly be exercising administrative rights in it.  He should not have used administrative rights there, and yet he did.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems to get himself into arguments involving females on Wikipedia and crosses the line in such situations.
I cannot make heads-nor-tails of the evidence that Benon has posted, and nobody is telling me anything either, so I cannot oppose on that basis.  However, I have another matter that has shaken my confidence in Sceptre.  During the whole Nathanrdotcom incident I was being exceedingly helpful to Sceptre and Snopake and ultimately got rid of Nathan.  However, Sceptre made the terrible misjudgement of forwarding my private conversations with him to other users, one of whom ended up forwarding that to Nathan, which added a whole new dimension of ugly to the situation.  I cannot support for adminship a user who violates the confidence of an admin who is going out of his way, and potentially putting his neck on the line, to be helpful.  --
I object, per the situations mentioned above.
'''Oppose''' per lar --
'''Oppose'''. Per Cyde, Tony, and Lar. You harass someone; you are unfit to be an admin. Ever. That is the cardinal offence.
'''Oppose''' per Cyde.  I don't know all of the details of the [[User:nathanrdotcom|nathanrdotcom]] case, nor do I want to, but it sounds like Sceptre overreacted and made an ugly situation even worse.  --
'''Oppose''' per above, epecially Tony and Cyde. --
'''Neutral''' What Benon links to is incoherent, and I can't imagine those seconding him made heads or tails of his accusation. I suspect all the opposes are sockpuppetry. --
'''Neutral'''.  Unfortunately i'm far too confused about what happened with the nathanrdotcom ordeal to come to any decision.  I've always seen sceptre as a "highly satisfactory admin", as it was put above, but the link from benon and a brief investigation of all of that have left me unsure as to whether or not sceptre should get the buttons back.  (not to say that i've seen evidence he shouldn't; again, i just don't know what went down there, so . . .)  Might change my vote in either direction, depending on what unfolds . . .  Or, as it seems that we don't want to get in to a conversation over what happened with all that, i might just stay neutral and hope for people who know more than me to make good decisions regarding a possible re-sysopping.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Neutral'''.  The link provided by Benon gives me cold feet.  If a member of the Arbitration Committee could provide minimal and discrete insight into this matter it would be greatly appreciated.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose. Quite simply I don't understand this. User voluntarily desysops, then comes back to the community asking for resysopping (which, apparently, he doesn't need to do). But - does he provide any information at all on why he gave up the bit? What's changed? On top of this we get an unintelligible (to me) contribution from Benon, with Jimbo Wales apparently threatening to block this user. We're being asked to read between the lines here and it's not fair. Please either go to the bureaucrats and ask for your flag back, or tell us why you quit, what has changed, and what the Benon business is all about. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Many edit and lots of hard work.--
'''Support''' plenty of experience. '''
'''Support''' An intelligent and thoughtful editor who had done much for this project. Has been here for more than a year too. It is time to give him the mop. I believe that the added responsibilities which would be given to him would only improve the quality of this project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' ''Changed to neutral; see below.'' ''Later changed back to support.'' Seems well-regarded, smart, and highly intelligent. Tons of article edits, which is good; tons of article talk and user talk, which is better. I also really like his userpage, which is one of the cleaner userpages I've ever seen for an admin or admin hopeful (with the exception of [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine's]]. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''', after reading the talk archive, I have no problem assuming good faith about the blocking incidents.
'''Support''' Doesn't seem to be overzealous. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"><sup>
'''Support''' has worked on quite a lot of distinct articles --
'''La Fayette Station Support''' Dudes, this guy can navigate D.C. Metro - he's good enough in moi judgment.
'''Support''', good editor. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Have watched him on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Metro|WikiProject Washington Metro]] for some time and he appears to be a very committed editor.  Explanations below regarding blocks were adequate. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Blocking incidents seem to be long behind him, couldn't find any evidence of bad behaviour since. Otherwise an excellent editor
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim. That "spamming" block was on May 21st. He was also blocked on May 10th for vandalism by the same admin.
'''Oppose''' per fairly recent blocks - ''two'' of them.  They show a misunderstanding of policy and while I'm sure the user has improved, being blocked two times in one month isn't exactly convincing of reformed behavior.
'''Oppose''' per irregularities in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe]], including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060326101016&limit=50&target=Schuminweb&namespace=3 using AWB to solicit votes against deletion].  Also was blocked for spamming for TFD votes, as mentioned above.  I think he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpinnWebe&diff=40765942&oldid=40764128 removed a speedy delete tag] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_1&diff=40783659&oldid=40586565 was warned for removing it] that was posted on the recreation of the same article.  --
'''Oppose''' I'd like to see more than three months after a block which I regard as justified (Since the issue of 'spamming' had been mentioned before on your Talk page).  Also the answer to question 1 is a little weak.  How would admin tools help you do the tasks you currently do better?  Will probably support a renom in 2-3 months assuming you continue to be an excellent editor.
'''Oppose''' - per serious concerns raised by others.
'''Oppose''', Changed my mind.
'''Oppose''' per use of [[WP:Spam|internal spamming]] to sway consensus. Though it was in February the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe|SpinnWebe afd]] shows the user using AWB to sway consenus, something which the user has never acknowledged as wrong. What further makes that afd stand out more than others is that he was in contact, outside of Wikipedia, with the person who owned the SpinnWebe website (that being [[User:Spinn]]), thus the spamming incident shows a willingness to disregard having a real consenus in order to promote a website of someone the user is in contact with. The use of spamming, was as stated before, was used again in another large altercation regarding another afd (See the "Block" section in his talk page's second archive [[User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_2#Block]]). In response to the second large incident of this he stated: ''I'll agree not to, so long as you explain why. That's what I don't get, as I don't consider it "spamming" to send or receive messages pertaining to a WikiProject to participants of that project. This isn't random users by any means, which is what it seems like I'm being interpreted as. [[User:Schuminweb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:Schuminweb|Talk]]) 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_2&diff=54408454&oldid=54404382] This misinterprets what [[WP:Spam]] is. [[User:GTBacchus]] correctly responded by stating ''We define internal spam as crossposting substantially identical posts to lots of talk pages. (See [[Wikipedia:Spam]].) The problem isn't the posts being random, quite the contrary. We've had problems with people using "internal spamming" to flood deletion discussions with "keep votes" that are based on POV and not on policy. This undermines the purpose of deletion discussions, which is to determine the correct application of policy, not the most popular option. Our response to this form of abuse has been to decide that notifications of deletion discussions count as spam, and are strongly discouraged, with blocks if necessary.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_2&diff=54433162&oldid=54408454] Internal spamming hurts the ability to have real consensus on articles, it goes on far too much without any kind of reprimand for it and not enforcing it rewards users who break with Wikipedia guidelines. Considering this user's past I have serious concerns that he will not enforce rules meant to stop the swaying of consensus through internal spamming.--
''' Back to oppose-- "Make my day?!?!"''' to a test 4?!?! This just raises the risk of wheel warring. Plus the spamming thing, it's just too pushy and devoid of respecting consensus. (This back and forth is what happens when I don't thoroughly read all the talks and discussions.)
'''Oppose''' because he tried to implement new content of [[Template:Anarchism sidebar]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Anarchism&diff=69627853&oldid=68278983] claiming that it was a result of consensus, despite the fact that there was no consensus on it. Even after my pointing out that there was no consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schuminweb#Template:Anarchism], he insisted that there was one, engaging in the edit war. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Anarchism&action=history]
'''Oppose''' I was Neutral but the prior Vandalism and reasponse to it in my mind are not qualities I wish to see form a possible Sysop Canidate. I would recomend that he wait for at least 6 months before requesting again due to the nature of the blocks that were set against him. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per above oppose comments.
'''Oppose'''. Vote solicitation is absolutely unacceptable. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per above. Too many concerns.'''
'''Oppose''', not convinced he's sufficiently Cluey.
'''Oppose''' Spamming for votes and recent blocks are both serious negatives.  User would need to demonstrate problem-free editing for at least six months before I could support.
'''Oppose'''. I feel uncomfortable with granting this user administrator privileges, based on past behavior.
'''Oppose''' per past behavior.  As Æon, Xoloz and others have said, I would like to see at least 6 months of walking the straight and narrow before I could consider supporting, in light of this candidate's past behavior.  --
'''Oppose''' per above. -
'''Oppose''' I wouldnt consider those blocks alone enough for me to oppose but from the comments above and from your edit history I think you are a little to rash and over the top in some of your edits. In places you also seem to want to go against policy! I personally disagree with policies here (many of them - it is why I failed my RFA) but wouldnt consider going against an already affirmed concensus. Unfortunately I fear you might do this and so I regretfully oppose, sorry --'''Errant''' <small>
'''Oppose''' Nice edits, but does not have the rule-abidance an admin definitely needs. Having two recent blocks is unacceptable.
'''Oppose''' Per the reasoning expressed above; too many blocks and worrying behaviour in recent months. Would support after 12 months have passed since last block. --
'''Neutral''' as of now, per StuffOfInterest. --
'''Neutral''' - I literally can't support anyone who thought that [[Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis]] was a suitable choice for the article name over both [[Sega Mega Drive]] or [[Sega Genesis]].  I mean, where was the common sense? ([[Talk:Sega_Mega_Drive#Proposed_move]]). - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Neutral''': I need an explanation for [[User_talk:Schuminweb/Archive_2#headgear|this response]] to a {{tl|test4}} warning: "Go ahead. Make my day. I believe that in the end, I will prevail." <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]

'''Neutral''' I haven't really had much contact with this editor, and due to those concerns mentioned above, I am afraid I must vote neutral.
'''Neutral''' With two blocks and vandalism warnings within the past six months, I would have preferred the nominee disclosed those incidents upfront, possibly as part of his answer to question three.  With his perspective, I am left guessing what caused an otherwise easy support to commit such a ''faux pas''.--
'''Neutral'''&mdash;I respect the clear commitment to Wikipedia; a tremendous number of edits. But self nominees are usually held to a higher standard. I'd feel more comfortable with a blockless period of 3 more months.
'''Neutral''' per danntm and inasmuch as, even as I'm confident that the candidate would not abuse the the tools, I'm not entirely sure that he might not avolitionally misuse them (e.g., by acting in an area with the overaching policies of which he might be insufficiently conversant but whilst not fully cognizant of that non-conversance), and thus, consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], cannot support; neither, if only because I don't find the arguments advanced by those ''opposing'' to be wholly persuasive, principally because I don't find any of the deficiencies raised to be necessarily disqualifying, can I oppose.
'''Neutral''' I would love to give out a "support" vote for the hard work, but a neutral vote per above. Oppose seems a bit too strong at the same time. —''
'''Strong Support''': This user has reverted vandalism tirelessly. His contributions are excellent. Administrator status is not an edit-count trophy, it's for people like Schzmo who can use it to do good work. -
'''Moral Support''' Although edit counts are relatively low, this user has been contributing to [[Wikipedia]] for more than a year. He deserves to be given the mop and I feel that he will not abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''': There's no hard and fast rule for edit counts, despite what CrnaGora would have you believe. He's a vandal fighter which, face it, this project needs. He doesn't look like he'll abuse the tools. And besides, admin should be no big deal. Just because he has access to ALL the admin tools doesn't mean he will actually use them in all the categories, so we shouldn't punish him for excelling in certain areas while not focusing in others.
'''Support''' per SWATJester. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' Per swatjester & my new admin requirements at [[User:Onthost/Admin]]
'''Support''' because, let's face it, vandalism is bad, and he would reduce it.
'''Moral support''', I hate [[Wikipedia:editcountitis|editcountitis]]. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' I think he deserves this. He helps fight vandalism which Wikipedia really needs.
'''Support''' He has shown dedication to Wikipedia, as well as a readiness to fight vandalism, which is what admins are for, no? He may not have 2.5k instead of 1k edits yet, but he will probably continue to edit Wikipedia well regardless of that fact.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Moral Support''' - I'm interested in seeing what you do with your next 1500 edits.  If I like what I see (and I expect I will), I would gladly nominate you, or even co-nominate you, myself.  --
'''Support''' He has been a recent changes patroller (like myself) for almost a year. He deserves this.
'''Support''', looks a good contributor but I would have liked to see actual articles listed in the answer to the second question.
'''Support'''; long-time contributor, adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support''' per Richard and Swat [although one imagines that an admin should have a Wikiholic test score of better than 100 :)].
You could use a great deal of more edits divded amoung your respective name spaces. Your talk, main and wikipedian counts are quite low. More experience and interaction would be good for you. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. Sorry, but you are very inexperienced and need alot more edits, especially in wikipedia (try checking out some discussions at IFD and AFD), before you should consider trying for Admin. You just have to be patient; and you can't expect to become admin after just three months and a bit over 1k edits.
'''Oppose''' You need to have more edits.
'''Oppose''': You have a too little edit count, must be at least 2,500 - 3,000 edits to become Administrator. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in the project space (Wikipedia:). All the admin tools come at once and it's important that users have a correspondingly broad experience. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience (generally, and especially in project-space) for me to able to judge this editor.  Premature RfA, but keep up the good work!
'''Oppose''' Good contributor but just not enough there — yet.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose'''. While low edit count may be indicative of problems, the fact is that nearly everything comes from the main namespace. If you're going to be hard on vandal reverting, I'd like to see more ''varied'' experience from you, at least in terms of warning templates on User Talk pages. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' low wiki and talk and user talk edits, not active enough
'''Oppose''' prefer more experience and broad knowledge of the project--
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' Not enough project related experience.  Work on RCP can be further demonstrated without admin rights, as far as blocking users, does not appear to have ever contributed to [[WP:AIV]], a very useful non admin page. —
'''Oppose'''. Please participate more in the community.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Strong oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience and needs more community involvement. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''; too few edits, especially over the span of one year.
'''Weak oppose'''. Too few edits in non-main namespaces. Admins need to be familiar with Wikipedia as a community, too.
'''Oppose''' RC patrol can be done with popups.js, and does not require admin tools
'''Oppose'''.  You look like a great up and coming editor, but your edits are not very spread out and you have only a few months of serious activity.  Continue your good work and try again in 2-3 months. --
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more time with the Wikipedia community.  --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits.--
'''Oppose''' Nowhere near enough involvement in the project namespace or on talk pages. --
'''Oppose''' try again 1 or 2 months later
'''Weak oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' experience.
'''Oppose''' experience.  Looks like you really only began editing about 4 months ago (before then the edits per month are in the teens).  Give it another 2 - 3 months and you'll have a good shot at it.  --
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''' for now for the reasons outlined above, may support at a later date.
'''Neutral''' I'm going to remain neutral here.  It looks like only lately has this user been contributing a fair amount.  I refuse to post an oppose vote as edit counts aren't a good way to judge a user.  Remember it's quality not quantity.  Try a little more communication with other users too.  --'''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. While edit count is low, the edits are good - lots of vandal fighting. But I'm always concerned when the mop is asked for blocking users. A bit more time active and I would support.
'''Support''' I guess.....
'''Support'''. Looks good; I see nothing wrong here. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="sandybrown">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="cornflowerblue">
'''Support'''. Might be pining a bit but, hey, the candidate even has Portal edits! (If you haven't been wathcing recent RfAs... well, pardon my attempt at humor anyway).
'''Support''' - again. -
'''Support''' good contributor. Maybe could use a tad more talk edits.'''
'''Support''', no reason not to. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' A good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak support''' - not a strong feeling either way but I doubt Schzmo would abuse admin tools &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' will make a good admin - has good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak support''' per Mets and Gwernol; where a user is unlikely to abuse admin tools and likely to be of some help to the project as an admin, he/she should, of course, be supported, inasmuch as ''adminship is no big deal''.
'''Support''' per Gwernol. --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per above. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no reason not to. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' I supported last time, I support this time.
'''Weak support''' per Joe - <b>
'''Weak Support''' I have a slight concern about a lack of article talk edits and I would prefer more use of the test templates but other than these matters, the candidate seems fine.
'''Support''', experience isn't the be-all and end-all. I trust the editor.
'''Weak support''', but I am concerned about your lack of talk edits, and other interaction-type edits.--
'''Support''' Most certainly would not abuse admin tools.  Whats the harm? <small>
'''Weak support''', but does need more user talk/talk edits. --
'''Somewhat weak support'''. This editor's count isn't all that great, but should be trusted with the new tools. '''[[User:Fetofs|<font color="blue">F</font>]][[User:Fetofs/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' Although I'd like to see more involvement in the aforementioned areas, there are no alarms going off here to indicate that this candidate is unfit to have a mop. --
'''Weak support'''.  I think joturner and the other opposers have valid points, but on the whole I think that Schzmo has shown that he will use the tools wisely and will improve on the issues raised below. --
'''Support'''. Good solid contributions to Wikipedia. Level of policy knowledge seems adequate for the mop. -→
'''Oppose''' I would like to see more user talk edits (and not just vandalism warnings) and perhaps more article talk edits would help too. They're important in gauging the communication and people skills you'll need as an admin. In addition, your reversions often aren't followed by warnings to the talk pages of the vandals. As a side note, I don't consider January 2005 through February 2006 active months, but perhaps I'm nitpicking on those last few months. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''  per
'''Weak oppose''', doesn't quite meet the standards I hold, particularly for a self-nomination. Id gladly support in a couple of months.
'''Weak oppose'''. It will be much better to have some more experience.--
'''Oppose''' per Joturner.  Try again in a few months --
'''Oppose''' RC patrolling is mentioned as a key reason for wanting the mop, but as far as I can see the user has only posted to AIAV 6 times this year. That indicate to me that he/she very infrequently gets to a point in the escalation process were the ability to block is needed. Also, seems to have a poor record of posting talk page warnings following reverts (I note that this has improved since it was raised by others in this RfA).
'''Oppose'''  per [[User:joturner|joturner]]. Happy to support after building up communication abilities.
'''Extremely weak oppose'''. Schzmo, I really like the way you're doing things lately; but I kindly suggest you to have a little patience and amass some more experience in key areas, like project and (especially) talk and user talk spaces. You are indeed admin material, and in just a few weeks, you'll be a shoo-in, I'm more than sure. Keep up the great work!
'''Weak oppose''' per TigerShark.  I expect I would support another nomination in the future.  --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per Tigershark.
'''Neutral''' not enough mainspace edits for my requirements. Not enough experience in Wikipedia conflicts and conflict resolution. Otherwise looks good.
'''Neutral''' per Alex Bakharev.
'''Neutral'''. I will not oppose as I have no reason to believe that Schzmo will misuse the tools through ignorance, and he appears to be generally a good user. However, I am not totally comfortable with the answer to question 3. This, combined with the above comments by Joturner, suggests to me that Schzmo might not be ready to deal with vandals in an effective manner.
'''Neutral''' not sure
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Support'''. Not all of the activities you described in Q1 require admin tools, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Your contributions look good to me. Meets [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]] (I forgive the ten fewer WP-space edits than my threshold :-))
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' Good answers to questions and a good spread of edits in the last 1500 contributions - particularly strong in vandalfighting and reverting bad edits.  One point to observe, though: when leaving messages on user Talk pages such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xxxxxxxxxxx&diff=prev&oldid=55352416], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iiiiiiiiii&diff=prev&oldid=54929098], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:0000000&diff=prev&oldid=54928870] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ddddddd&diff=prev&oldid=54928614], it is always good to be able to tell a user why they need to do something and how to do it, pointing to policy pages as appropriate.  It's not a dealbreaker, but an admin should be prepared to justify their actions and decisions in an effort to be friendly and not purely doing their job. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Weak Support''' concerns from RfA2 included only experience, and that has now been met. I would have preferred to see you wait for someone to nominate you instead of self-nomming again. - <b>
'''Support'''.  I was close last time, and my concerns appear to be addressed.  --
'''Support''' like I did last time. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I look forward to working with you on RCP.
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' A good editor. Although his RfAs are pretty close to one another, this a minor concern for me. Reason? User is willing to accept greater responsibility in being an admin. It also shows that this user is not discouraged from his earlier RfAs failures. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose.''' Needs to actually write some articles. Or, for that matter, make some sort of original contribution to them.
'''Oppose''', 6 months of activity is still too soon for a self-nom in my opinion.  No predjudice against a later RfA though.--
'''Oppose'''; RFAs too close to each other.
'''Oppose'''. per Isotope.
'''Weak Oppose''' The user is quite a good editor, it seems; however, I'm just a bit befuddled at all the RfA's (three in six months)
'''Oppose''' Three noms in six months does show too much eagerness, I think.  Work on building a record as a solid contributor quietly for several months, then reapply in December, and I'll gladly support.
'''Oppose''' Per Xoloz
I am somewhat troubled by the fact that all three of your RfAs are so chronologically close to each other.
'''Neutral''', <s>RfA's seem to come up every 2 months. Seems a little too eager to be admin. Only been here since January.</s> The user says in question 1 that they'd like to spend time managing ***** for deletion discussions, I assume ***** is AfD, yet I couldn't see any more than 8 edits to AfD's in the last thousand edits. Obviously a good editor but just don't feel they should have the mop just yet. I'd like to support, but just can't. Sorry.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' per above. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral'''. Excellent user with alot of great contributions under his belt, but WP space edits are a bit low and it seems too soon since last nom.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you don't have nearly enough experience. ~20 edits doesn't give you enough time to become familiar with Wikipedia.  Furthermore, you request sysop status to fight vandalism, but vandalism fighting doesn't require being a sysop.  I suggest you withdraw and try again in 3-4 months minimum.  --
'''Oppose''' Reasons are self-explanatory. I asked the user to removed this nomination as it might have not been the best choice to make.
'''Oppose''' - no evidence of real experience on Wikipedia. Please consider using your spare time to get to know Wikipedia and its policies, [[Wikipedia:RC patrol|fight vandalism]], and, more importantly, to work on and improve articles. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' - ''far'' too few edits to be worth of consideration.  --
'''Oppose'''. If you wanted to nominate yourself, nominate yourself. Don't make someone else show up to sign your own nomination. Also opposing on the basis that this was a horribly malformed RfA, and that you have less than 500 edits. You've also not accepted yet. I suggest you withdraw. --
I know I'm on a ''supposed'' wikibreak (I've edited too much for it to be "real"), but article edits are not up to standard either. One has been redirected, the other is very poorly written. You have no use for the admin tools as far as I can see.
'''Oppose'''.  In assessing your request for adminship, contributors will be comparing you with [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#What RfA contributors look for]].  You have four mainspace edits, and hardly any experience - this is just way too soon for you.  More importantly, though, using a [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppet]] to sign an RFA that's not formatted correctly demonstrates that you don't understand how wikipedia works well enough yet.   I suggest you withdraw your application, get a whole bunch of editing under your belt and, once you've got a broad experience and a good solid knowledge of [[WP:POL|policy]], come back and try again.  --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but not quite enough experience. Please follow the advice given in the above votes. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience, below 100 edits, 35 of them on User talk. Feel free to nominate again when the user has more experience and takes an active roll with Wikipedia policy and the like. <strong>[[User:Havok|Havok]]</strong> [[User_talk:Havok|(T]]/
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal per [[User:Deskana|Deskana]].
'''Oppose''' I'm a little confused by the different signing of the nomination, and extreme lack of edits.
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per all the concerns reflected above. --
'''Speedy delete''' per above. Let's not get angry about something as ludacris as this.
'''Strongly oppose''' I looked at just one new article s/he created [[Cattle drives]] (needs a move to Cattle drive, singular), which is a worthy topic. Someone placed a cleanup tag on the original, very poorly written article, and s/he promptly removed it. That's enough for me.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, low edit count, withdrawal suggested. --
'''Strong Oppose''' reccomend withdrawal, by candidate or beaurocrat.--<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Oppose''' - please don't use a sock to nominate and please respond to the questions below before listing on the main page --
'''Oppose''' far too new.--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' - not a neutral vote but a vote for the opposes to stop. Newbie user who may feel bitten if this continues. I've dropped him a note to withdraw and why -
'''Neutral''' per Periptius.  I think we can stop pointing out problems now; strong criticism is not appropriate for a user who clearly still has many things to learn. --
'''Neutral'''. Do you have to keep opposing? I think the point has been made. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Neutral''' Well, the point has been made. Don't bite the newbies! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per all above.
'''Support''', looks like a great user.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''. Only 1000 edits total, only active since July. Admins need much more experience than this. I also had a look into this dispute you've been in recently, and as far as incivility goes you gave as good as you got. --
'''Oppose''' For someone who has been here a year, I surprised you only have 1500. More worrying is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=72504894 this] which is not the reaction to a difficult situation that we need to see from an admin. If you had the tools I'm afraid you would use them badly if this is how you react. Sorry,
'''Oppose'''. Few mainspace contributions and not too many positive interactions with other users as far as I can see. Although vandal fighting is part of an admin's duties, there are already many who do this. Also re. Steel's point about your recent dispute I'd have to agree with him it's too recent. Very sorry about that. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Oppose'''. Good start so far, but too few amount edits. If you get to around 3,000 before you apply again, you can definitely count on my vote (assuming there are no issues/problems). --
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience with project, per edit count of around 1000.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose'''. Although you've been around since September last year, you've only really become a very consistent contributor since the begninning of August this year. Succesful admin candidates usually have a track record of several months as a consistent contributor and, at a minimum, over 2000 edits. A track record of civility in interactions with other editors is also very important for admin candidates. Good luck if you apply again in the future.
'''Oppose''' I agree that Selmo's lack of editing experience and his careless editing and writing skills are sufficient reason to oppose this RfA. An even more important reason is his inability to disagree with other editors without becoming uncivil. Instead of answering their arguments, he makes personal attacks, threatens them, and then files frivilous complaints on [[WP:PAIN]] and [[Wiki:AMA]]. This is not the conduct we need in a Wiki Administrator.
'''Oppose''' per low edit count and limited responses.
'''Oppose''' ''I decided to stop talking with him and reported him over at [[WP:PAIN]] to let someone else deal with it.'' Huh? As an admin, you '''are''' the someone else.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience. --
'''Oppose''' as editor clearly does not understand Wikipedia policies, and complains of "rudeness" when asked if he/she has read them. Administrators must have a thorough understanding of the [[WP:RULES]], and be virtually unflappable in the face of ad homs, rudeness, and certainly minor incivility, of which this user complained on [[WP:AN/I]] - not even the correct venue for this type of complaint. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extremly_rude_user.]
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry; this editor has only 1000 edits and has got into a few disputes. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience despite being here for more than one year. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Good editor, but needs more article namespace edits before I can support. -
'''Neutral''' Is a fairly good editor, but spelling and grammer errors in submission, and low mainspace edits don't let me support.
Changed to '''Support''', [[WP:AGF|AGF]]. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Support''' I am satisfied now.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Rash at times, but this user is a fast learner and a excellent contributor. However, if you really want to a admin, you should dedicate way more time on the answers. I think your answers are too short and is not really convincing (read some of the answers from successful candidates to get a sense). Support anyways. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Weak oppose for now'''. Your recent contributions look promising, but given the outcome of your previous RfA in September, I'd prefer you wait some more months before re-applying. Also, 3'000 edits are at the low end of the practical experience I expect an administrator to have.
'''Oppose''' I did not get any further in reviewing your request than your answers. Your answer to question one does not indicate ''any'' need at all for admin tools. The question asks what administrative jobs you would like to help with, yet everything you mention in that answer (RC patrol, commenting at XfD, tagging pages etc) is done without a need for adminship. I strongly urge you to rethink that answer before too many people review this RfA. Should you do this, I will reconsider my !vote but otherwise I'm afraid it will stand. '''[[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]]''' 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) I'm going to let my oppose stand. I'm really not impressed with any of the answers or the nom in general. You've only been editing regularly for about four months and I'm just not at all convinced that you have enough experience or policy knowledge. '''
'''Oppose''' per above on the answers. Please notify me if you have changed your answers. --
'''Oppose''' The answers above describe a really good editor and if more editor strove to achieve the things to which you refer then Wikipedia would be substantially improved in a short space of time.  The answers don't include anything about being an admin or ideas about how to use the tools in order to improve the project.  On this basis, the candidacy doesn't really take off.  I might reconsider if you can describe your ideas for which areas would benefit from the application of the tools and how you would go about doing so.
'''Oppose''', good editor but does not seem ready for adminship. Wait for a few more months before applying again. You don't seem to need the tools based on your answers. Not this time, sorry. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Neither requires nor seems temperamentally suited for sysop tools.
'''Oppose''' Q1 does not show any real need for the tools and a little too soon from the last RFA for me. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
'''Oppose'''. It's way too early, and you really do not require the tools. Also, your last RfA wasn't too long ago, it's been too short for me. You have, yes, shown improvement, but not enough for a support vote. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Oppose''' per questions, the last RFA was three months ago though which is more than enough time, i remember the guidelines use to be a month or two after a failed RFA
'''Oppose''' per Sarah.
'''Neutral''' no real need for tools. ←
'''Neutral''' per above. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Neutral'''. You're making progress, and that's great. However, I still think you should have waited longer before submitting an RfA again. '''
'''Neutral'''. You should rectract this RFA.
'''Neutral''' per Nishkid64.--
'''Neutral''' per my original weak oppose, but without the WP talk stuff. -
'''Support''' Beat the noms here!  Great track record, keep up the great work.
--
'''Support''' Granted that, within reason, edit count is relevant, timing of contributions should not be. An all round satisfactory contribution satisfies me.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': I feel this user will make a fine admin, even though the experience is a bit low.
'''Support''' - adminship is not a big deal, to quote Jimbo Wales.
'''Support''' Looks OK to me.--
'''Oppose''' very weakly I might add. You seem to be an up and coming user but I think this RFA is a little early. Even though you have been with us a long time you only started editing heavily 3 months ago. Also this has the impression that you are coming here because you have just passed the 3,000 edit mark. Also the Wikipedia space is a little on the low side. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' too early, I'm sorry.  <s>I'm unfamiliar with your nominator as well, but noted that he was recently blocked for disruption, which raises too many question marks for me.</s>  Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. Recent block is of concern. I'd suggest withdrawing the RfA for that reason.
'''Weak oppose''' per you just starting out. Try again in 3 months or so and you'll probably pass so long as you keep doing what you're doing. --
'''Oppose''' due to limited time on the project. I do believe that experience matters along both axes (edit count or variations, but also tenure as a Wikipedian). |
'''Oppose''' Need more experience with mainspace.
'''Oppose'''
'''Another weak oppose''' because I think 3000 edits and 2 months of active contribution are really not enough hands-on experience. Otherwise, no real concerns (the mistaken block appears to be a non-issue, [[User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_4#3RR_block|see discussion]]), so keep up the good work.
'''Weak oppose''' Not enough experience yet, but a great candidate otherwise. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User talk:Llama man|at Llama]]<sup>
'''Weak Oppose''', Solid edit count for RfA, but needs to be here a ''little'' longer. Also, more mainspace edits. Maybe in a few months.
'''Strong Oppose''' - <b>
'''Strongest possible oppose''' This user chose to violate the 3RR despite being warned multiple times not to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASeraphimblade&diff=93345311&oldid=93341088], and then left and angry and accusatory message on my talk page when he was reported [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg&diff=next&oldid=93339732]. He also had earlier attempted to state that he was allowed to violate the 3RR because there was consensus for his actions on the talk page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg&diff=prev&oldid=93339732] (when in fact the majority of editors disagreed with his position, and in any case he would not have been exempt from the 3RR anyways). What makes the matter even more disturbing is the fact that he was able to wiggle his way of out a block by endless wikilawyering despite violating both the letter and the spirit of the policy.-
'''Oppose''' at this time. Would reconsider later with more experience and less controversy. -
'''Oppose'''. Needs to become more familiar with policy.
'''Oppose''' - from examples above and from my own experience with this user, he gives priority to his opinion over WP policies. ←
'''Neutral''' I've seen your name around at AfD; the reason for 'neutral' rather than 'support' is because your contributions have recently spiked upwards towards the numbers that I would like to see in preparation for RfA.  I would withdraw this RfA and try again in March, having built up six months' worth of solid contributions, both in the article space and the policy/user space on admin-related tasks - vandal fighting/warning & reporting to [[:WP:AIV]]; closing unanimous 'keep' XfD discussions; new page and recent change patrols, etc.
'''Neutral leaning support''' I know from my own interactions with you that you can be a good contributor.  However, you could use a little more time getting acclimated to wikipedia's norms.--
'''Neutral''' You have plenty of edits for sure, but just need spend a little bit longer in active editing. Will support in a couple months, if you remain consistent.
'''Oppose''' Please withdraw this now. Thank you. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
(Edit conflict) '''Suggested Withdrawl'''  You need more experience, currently you have 13 edits.  Also, vandalism is a definate no-no (considering you only have 13 edits, we do not know how you have changed).  I suggest you withdraw this nomination.
Adding the dreaded '''Moral Support'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience. Only 18 edits in total with only 1 edit in the main namespace. This move that you did is also pretty interesting: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ShootJar&diff=54419613&oldid=54418955]. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose'''. Not enough contributions/experience and the '''Discuss here''' is malformed. I am also unhappy with the answer to question 2. I suggest withdrawl. Sorry.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' please withdraw and try again in 6 months
'''Oppose''' Please withdraw.
'''Strong Oppose''' Sorry, but the nomination isn't even formatted correctly.
'''Strong Oppose''' You're most proud of your userpage essay? I concur: withdraw the nom. --'''[[User:Fbv65edel|Fbv]]'''[[User:Fbv65edel|65]]''<font color="green">[[User:Fbv65edel/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', of course.
'''Oppose'''. This user may or may not be ready for a sit-down with Jimbo and the developers, but a vision alone does not an adminship make. <tt>
'''Oppose''' For the reasons stated above.
'''Oppose''' per all. --
'''Oppose''' per others, suggesting withdrawal/closure. --
'''Oppose, recommend withdrawal'''-- Before requesting adminship, I usually recommend 3,000-4,000 edits over 4-6 months as a minimum.  An admin needs to have the experience that many edits brings. An admin needs to  have actually taken part in numerous AfD discussions, reverted a significant number vandals, as well as creating and improving a substantial number articles. Thanks,
As nominator.
'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Good question answers.
'''Support.'''--
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support'''
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' - I've interacted with this user: very polite; would be great with the admin tools. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' As the nominator said, Simetrical has a significant number of great contributions to project-space. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' -
Firm '''Support'''. Was pleasant to speak with you on IRC regarding the fair use issue, thank you. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Support''' Why is this guy not an admin yet?
'''Support''' so that Wikipedia can function at its full potential.
'''Support''' per WP:1Portal, just kidding. But seriously, no need for more edit stats, I already am confident in this user without stats.'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support ''' --
'''Support''' Absolutely :-). <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Yes, why not?
'''Support'''. Satisfies my requirements to be an admin. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good, trustworthy editor will make a great admin --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' great editor, moved to support per the response below.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' with a '''Hrm''' as above. --&#160;
'''Definite support'''.
'''support''' duh. --
'''support''' anything less would be criminal --
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' We need more users like him! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Just what I am looking for in an administrator. I know he will do well. --<font color="336699">
'''Support''' per nom, good answers to questions, and insightful essay on adminship on his user page.  --
'''Support''' with pleasure. Everything below (and lots more on your user page) convinces me you'd make a fine admin. Also, I don't think you need to necessarily recuse yourself from AFD just because of your opinions. It would be one thing if you used your admin powers to close AFDs against consensus, but you seem too fair to do such a thing, and assuming you become an admin, the community will have placed its trust in you to be fair in such situations. If you feel you couldn't be unbiased in that case, though, and do avoid them because of that, then that just further convinces me of your honesty. Great candidate, whatever you may use the tools for. -
[[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' Good all-round volunteer; willingness to recuse on AfDs is a good sign of editorial maturity (even if it's unnecessary :)
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' this user will be a fine admin  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Easy support. Plus extra points for great nomination, apply the Simetrical patch.
'''Strongest possible support'''. I was almost sure Simetrical was admin already. ~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <small>([[user talk:cchan199206|talk]]/
'''Support''', great user, unlikely to abuse admin powers--
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
Yes Werdna, Simetrical does look to be the right type. :) --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' &mdash;
<b>Support</b> -
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' Experience in all wikipedian fields and will not abuse the tools. -
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' - <s>I '''honestly''' thought he was already!</s> ''Remove RfA cliche'' Tremendously knowledgeable and extremely friendly - especially when it comes to an IRC n00b. And, I honestly did! :) -
'''Support''' His June 4, 2006 edit summary was detrimental to both Wikipedia and planet Earth at large. Apart from that, everything looks good. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''; --
'''Support''' Good contributor, always assuming good faith.
'''Support''' — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' good answers below, combined with a ''Hrm'' as above. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Seems ok to me.
'''Support''' - Yes. <font color="#007FFF">[[User:Kilo-Lima|Iola]]</font>'''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="#50C878">k</font>]]'''<font color="#007FFF">
'''Support''' Yeah. The opposes are weak and bias'ed at best, in my humble opinion.... Looks good, Good luck! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' --<font color="blue">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' – fully deserves to be an administrator –
'''Support'''. A bold and deserving editor who is not afraid to speak out for what he feels is right.
'''Support'''. A lovely man. Supportive and bold, and not worried about treaduing on people's toes to better the project.<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support''', canidate looks good. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Support''' My experience with Simetrical indicates to me he'd be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' I've had only limited, but positive, experience working with Simetrical.  But he looks good "on paper".  Moreover, none of the evidence presented by "oppose" voters strikes me as any ''actual'' reason to oppose (nor anything that would even make me lean in that direction... at ''worst'' one unclear edit comment, c'mon!). <font color="darkgreen">
'''Weak support'''. I've seen Simetrical around a lot, and have found the user genail; the incident noted below gives me pause, however, especially considering that, as an administrator, you'll catch a lot more flak than you do now and you'll be held to a higher standard of civility. If you're certain you can maintain the detachment you'll need, I endorse your janitorship. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' [[WP:TINC|Cabal!]]
'''Support'''. I think Simetrical will use the admin toolbox with wisdom and restraint.
'''Strong support''' I feel that Simetrical's responses to oppose votes were perfectly calm and civil. Furthermore, Simetrical has indicated that if anyone can point to an example of him/her acting uncivilly, he/she will try to change.
'''Support'''. He searches for answers. Although we might end up on different sides of the fence, he was the only one to respond to my inquiry about [[Wikipedia talk:Image_copyright_tags#Template:Iraqcopyright|Iraqi-Template]]. --
—
'''This-issue-is-very-serious-and must-be-fixed-immediately support''' <code>:)</code>
'''Support''' per support by all of the right people and oppose by all of the right people. -
I came by this RfA by accident via some bullying comments [[User:Werdna648|Werdna]] had left on [[User:Duncharris]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duncharris#Your_vote_on_Simetrical.27s_RfA. talkpage], and saw the controversy surrounding this nomination. I do not support admin nominations for people who attract controversy. Becoming an admin is not a reward, nor a natural progression, nor a status. Admins in a number of senses have a restricted freedom on Wiki. It is the admin's role to be balanced. To offer impartial aid and assistance when requested. To be neutral. Any editor who holds strong views is, for me, a little suspect as the sort of person to take on a neutral role. And for an editor to be nominated by <s>an admin who is using his admin power to</s> [a person who tries to bully] and threaten another editor because he didn't like the way he opposed his nomination gives me grave cause for concern. So. A controversial man who holds strong views and attracts controversy, nominated by an abusive <s>admin</s> [person]. It doesn't look good. But I read carefully Simetrical's comments, and his responses to the oppose comments. His explanations are calm and valid. I like the guy. He is intelligent, considered, balanced, humane, and aware of his failings. I like that he is someone who already helps others. Yes. '''Support'''
'''SVPPORT''' - Simetrical isn't an admin? —[[User:Messedrocker|<font color="blue"><small>THIS IS</small> M<small>ESSED</small></font>]][[Image:R with umlaut.png]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Disaster_movies&diff=56791720&oldid=56791524].--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''  Per evidence from FloNight. Simetrical's aggressive behavior and bad-tempered comments toward others in the BluAardvark debacle, along with his unfortunate habit of rushing to the aid of the attacker, raises concerns that he'll put the personal feelings before those of the community's and unfits him for any position with authority in my opinion.
Per FloNight, FeloniousMonk, and these posts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=41073093][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=41566837].
'''Oppose''' per FloNight, et al. and past incivility. I was neutral leaning towards oppose on the basis of my past interactions, but based on what is presented above I have moved from "not going to vote" to Oppose.
No. &mdash;
'''Oppose''': Given the whiff of a belief that administrators have greater rights, rather than merely greater responsibilities, than others.
Per KillerChihuahua.  It's just a bit worrying.  Also, he seems a bit combative in responding to ''every'' single oppose.  --
'''Strongly oppose'''. At the risk of once again being harangued by Werdna, whose opinions on what makes for a good admin I clearly do not share, I wish only to state that a combination of the reasons for opposing here and Simetrical's unpleasant approach to dealing with these criticisms -- where simply noting them and moving on rather than bickering with the opposers would have been better -- lead me to a firm "no".
Per Sean, FloNight (the bit about fair use is especially troubling, we MUST enforce foundation policy whether we agree or not and I have concerns that would nto be the case), FeloniusMonk (saying MSK shouldn't be held accountable here for the grave damage she has done elsewhere seems just wrong), Geogre, and others, I just have concerns about Simetrical doing the right thing consistently as an admin. I don't have a problem with responding to every comment though. '''Oppose''', with regret, because I hate to oppose people, but it's too important, I think, not to. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]'''
'''Oppose'''. I've had no direct contact with Simetrical that I recall, but I've seen a few things that have troubled me, and I see above that he's claiming the WR people didn't engage in "fairly extraordinary off-wiki circumstances" sufficient to lead to a ban here, which, as one of their victims, I find somewhat depressing.
'''Oppose''' Problems with tone, and not gracious when accepting apologies. -
'''Oppose''' per Flonight.
'''Oppose''' per above - arrogant, untrustworthy, combative, and doesn't understand key policies. <span class="ipa">
'''Oppose''' per Flonight and SlimVirgin. --
'''Oppose'''. Per Geogre, Grace Note and diffs provided by FloNight.
'''Oppose'''. lacks a bit of wikimaturity, and per FrancisTyers. --
'''Oppose'''. There are enough users on here who think fair use is a game we play to make their lives harder. I am extremely hesitant to give anyone the mop who would cater to that viewpoint. Sorry, but it's a deal-killer for me. (
'''Oppose''' per Francis Tyers and Slim Virgin.
'''Oppose''' per ESkog.
'''Strong Oppose'''. His claim that the introduction of additional unfree works does not reduce the freeness of Wikipedia to those who can not accept, or whos applications are not permitted as fair use, is factually incorrect. Unless coupled with a restriction that unfree material can only be used where no free material is possible the unfree material does reduce the freeness of Wikipedia in a material and easily demonstrable manner, quite simply we end up with easily found found on the web content replacing content which could and would be free had the incentive to produce new work not been removed by unauthorized misuse of the copyrighted works of others. Simetrical would have us abandon our primary mission and so long as he holds those fews he can not be granted adminship. --
'''Oppose'''. Too many of the issues raised here make me uneasy.
'''Oppose''' FloNight and others make valid points --

'''Oppose'''. I was disheartened by his approach to the Blu Aardvark saga and found it hurtful.
'''Oppose''' too many legitimate concerns raised above.
'''Oppose'''. Comments by FloNight are a concern. Also, I have the sense Simetrical's style of engaging with others may be less than ideal.
'''Strong oppose'''.  His approach to fair use (we already have too many admins with a poor attitude on fair use; we ''don't'' need more); his combative way of speaking (we already have too many admins with a combative way of speaking, and I'm one of them; we ''don't'' need more); his potentially damaging (if he were an admin) approach to AfD; and the little voice in my head all tell me "no way".  Put them all together, and we ''don't'' get an arrow pointing straight to Planet Clue.  I'm encouraged that he's improved since [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simetrical|his last RfA]], but he hasn't improved nearly enough to become an admin I can trust.
'''Oppose''' Per FloNight, plus concerns raised by other regarding civility and temprament

Weak and uncertain '''Oppose'''.  The large amount of arguing that is happening in-line, it makes me uncomfortable.  Maybe it's just a style thing, but so much of it just doesn't feel right.   It suggests to me that the candidate isn't better than average at understanding where people are coming from and at explaining their own POV in a way that people pick up easily.  And that sort of two way communication is something that we really do need our Admins to be better than average at. And AFD is not a vote.  If a closing admin makes a mistake in evaluating the arguments, as opposed to counting the numbers, well, that's why there's an appeal process.  I may not be evaluating the candidates strengths properly.  If so, apologies, but I just don't feel comfortable.  Regards,
'''Oppose'''. Many legitimate concerns above.  --
'''Oppose''', very much per SlimVirgin's thoughts. While I have never directly interacted with you, Simetrical, and you appear to be a good editor judging from your contributions, your thoughts regarding Wikipedia Review and the role of those who founded it and maintained it at the time of the Katefan0 incident sadden me a lot. My own privacy and RL was compromised because of that website when MSK administrated it, and the consequences still haunt me to an extent - and my case was nowhere near a serious as Kate's. Although I don't have any personal issues with you, and I hope never to, because you strike me as a good person, I can't in good faith and conscience support your request now that I've learned this. Peace be with you,
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''' A productive editor but the concerns raised by FloNight, FeloniousMonk, Slim and KillerChihauha are severe.
'''Oppose''' Not enough evidence of Vandal fighting for me. As I have said on other RfA's, I will nominate you myself if I see some considerable commitmet to the vandal fight. You might like to take a look at the group I have set up for those who commit to the Vandal Fight, at [[User:Abcdefghijklm/VandalCleanup|Vandal Cleanup]].
'''weak oppose''' Good guy, but some issues to be resolved per above. '''
'''Neutral'''.  I am bothered by FloNight's evidenced, and retracting my support.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, but in light of the evidence presented by Flo and recalling said incident, I must change my vote.
'''Neutral''' per the fair use comment.
'''Neutral''' I originally supported this editor but since so much legitimate concerns are raised, I need to retract my support. --
'''Neutral''' I have changed my vote to neutral based on the number and severity of issues raised. Not that the user would not necessarily make a good admin, but I seem to have missed a significant portion of the user's contributions that tend to worry me a bit. The fault is my own. --
'''Neutral''' (changed from support). Previously I had only seen quite reasonable behavior editing articles and pages. But having looked at opinions regarding WR on pages I don't frequent, I can no longer support to become an admin. Views expressed on fair use are also troubling.
'''Strong Oppose''' very low use of edit summaries (7% for major edits) and there's content on your userpage that could easily offend. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Wikispace edits alone.  Also, 7 edits per page?  That's a bit much.
'''Oppose''' i think this is a premature RfA.  First the good points. I worked with Simpsons contributor on the photosynthetic article and made some major changes.  He could have taken ownership but instead did work collaboratively to bring the article to it current state. I agree with Tariqabjotu that the user page shows a naive attitude with regard to the diversity of wikipedians who contribute to this encyclopedia.  One reason for this might be he is quite focused on a few areas and has not really experienced the whole spectrum of the encyclopedia's community.  This is also born out by the low number of edits. There were points where this user expressed a strong need for his article to be a FA. He stated: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_D.&diff=prev&oldid=46798755 I'm desperate to get a featured article to my name!]".  I'm not sure what this was about, but given the barnstar comments above i wonder if he places too much status on bangles and adminship rather than just enjoying the experience of contributing to the encyclopedia. In summary I think this candidate has a while to wait before being ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' apart from the reasons above, you've uploaded a fair-use image of someones head exploding (which is from the movie [[Scanners]]) and placed it on your user page.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' fails all my edit count [[User:Themindset/RFA|criteria]].
'''Oppose''': Inexperienced during his 9+ months so far. Needs more meat with edits, pages <u>'''''and'''''</u> summaries. AndyPandy and Tariqabjotu's concerns about his user page could also hurt this RFA's outcome. And to put in my 2¢: most of his WP edits concern the [[WP:SB|sandbox]], [[WP:RFPP|page protection requests]], [[WP:PR|peer review]] and [[WP:FAC|featured article candidates]]. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support'''.  Seems level-headed, knowledgeable of Wikipedia, and unlikely to abuse admin tools.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support'''. My only dealings with Siva were surrounding the 1911 Britannica import, and the fact that he (unprompted) has acknowledged where he went wrong gives me no reason not to support. --
'''Support''' Little new still, but level-headed and thorough. His mophood will benefit Wikipedia.
'''Support''' very good editor, even if new. - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Support''' Three months is enough experience for me, especially with a good candidate like this one. good luck.--
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. have seen this editor around. --'''<font color="#E32636">
I'll '''support''' ya- interested in the project, the added tools will be good for this editor.--
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''. Three months is sufficient for me. Editor seems to make up for lack of talk page edits with user talk page edits. Everything looks fine to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support''', good editor.  I think he's quite levelheaded.  Sure, he should probably talk page a bit more, but agree as above he user talk pages quite a bit.  I see no problem -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
''"Adminship is no big deal"'' -
'''Cabal support as nom!'''--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636"> 陈</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">鼎</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' - Siva1979 is operating as an admin should, with deep involvement in the wikipedia namespace. -
'''Weak Support''' ''no big deal''.
'''Strong Support''' I leave no comment. What this member did speaks for itself.
'''Support''', ''adminship is no big deal''. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', judging by his contribs, a unique editor and wikipedian who can bring a lot to the table.--<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]]
'''Support''', he helps wikipedia. &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support''', seems very helpful.<small>
'''Super-strong support''' Should make an excellent administrator. Well done! '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' I don't have any 'x months, y edits' criteria. Candidate seems exceptionally nice and helpful in every instance I've seen, I think there's evidence they'd make a good janitor. --
'''Support''' - Likes to tidy up and has been in involved with [[WP:RFA|Adminship]] and [[WP:VFD|VFD]]. --
'''Support''' My only experience with the user is very positive. Managed to make a controversial point diplomatically. Gotta respect that and the desire to clean up vandalism. -
'''Support''' per [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|my criteria]].
'''Support''' For one, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1430 users. I.E., they number at less than 0.1% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --
'''Support'''. He is a very good editor.
'''Support'''. Looks good. --
'''Support'''. Helpful user, good editor. —<i>
'''Oppose'''. Some experience only comes with time. --
'''Oppose'''. Too soon, with not enough evidence of experience. Edit count isn't everything.
'''Oppose'''. I like the feel of Siva. There is a sense of dedication to duty, and a willingness to do routine tasks, such as posting many "welcome" templates. However, there is a sense of wanting to attempt beyond ability in order achieve, as is evident from edits and talk page responses, for example the following:''Hi Siva1979, thanks for your series about German towns. But may I say that the material from that old encyclopedia is, most of the time, so outdated that it's really of not much use. I think it generally would take no less time cleaning up one of those articles than translating one from de.wikipedia afresh (I tried once in the case of Frankenhausen.) You might want to consider if it wouldn't perhaps be more efficient to simply list the topics under "requested articles", and wait for someone to come along and work from the German? Lukas (T.|@) 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)'' The use of old encyclopaedic material has been brought to Siva's attention before that. I think there is a little more learning and understanding that needs to take place, and I hope that Siva will persist, take on board the advice, because I believe he has good intentions, but is not yet ready.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''' Too new to wikipedia.  High edit count doesn't do it for me and this is a good case of why, very narrowly focussed edit counts and a lot of procedural edits (welcoming) as well as the creation of large numbers of stubs including some that I believe should be redirects ([[Leyton-Wingate F.C.]]) as well as edit count inflation on a couple of articles by doing many similar things one at a time.  Not really noticed the importance of this user on AfD. Also the comment on ''thanklessness'' below suggests room for development in the field of community awareness ([[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]).
'''Oppose''': too new, and not much interaction on article talk pages yet to see colaboration. Give it time.
'''Oppose''', moved from neutral. The [[Major League Handball]] AfD below tips the balance for me. Apparently there are several AfDs where there is doubt on whether Siva1979 actually read the article; in this one, he seems to have voted just on the title.
'''Oppose''' -- May be good admin material in time; I hope you'll take positive criticism to heart.
'''Oppose''' right now.  Still too new, and the AfD/apparently not reading the article issue isn't encouraging, though I've noticed Siva1979 addressed it below and admitted to oversight.  I think in another 6 months if Siva1979 continues to do good editing another RfA nom would be in order.--
'''Oppose''' as above
'''Oppose''', sorry.  Too new, and pledging to 'pay attention from now on' is never a good sign.  His heart is in the right place, but needs a little bit more seasoning.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Keep this up, and I will support your nomination in a few months time. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]

'''Weak oppose.''' A little on the new side, although not enough in and of itself for an oppose.  However, after looking at this and thinking about it for a couple days, the reasons given in previous oppose votes tip the balance for me. —
'''Oppose''' per freakofnurture and Doug Bell.
'''Oppose''' Back in February Siva was active at [[WP:MEA]] he created a number of stubs the [[Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics]] list.  This was great except sometimes the info from Britannica and especially from this version, is quite out of date and occasionally racist.  A few examples of the articles he created: [[Conibos]], [[Malleco]], [[Pagri]], [[Flumini Maggiore]], [[Fonsagrada]].  Conibos, is a particular problem which states ''"They have since been converted and are now a peaceful people".'' I like Siva and appreciate his contributions but I don't think poor articles like these should be created for the completions sake.  To be fair he wikified and properly stubbified the articles, but there was no other effort to expand information other than what was in Britannica.  I wouldn't expect these kind of contributions from a more experienced editor.  Check the new non-football articles from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060208070953&limit=500&target=Siva1979] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060201104018&limit=500&target=Siva1979] Wait a few months and continue with your other excellent contributions and I will support you--''
'''Oppose'''. Too new, only three months as a Wikipedia editor.
'''Oppose''': Too new. --
'''Oppose''', enjoy editing wikipeia for some more time.
'''Oppose''': 4000 of the 6000 edits mentioned above seem to be welcome msgs. Regardless, has good potential to reupp in say 6-9 months perhaps.
'''Neutral''' No reason to oppose. Great and valuable contributor on Wikipedia but a little too new for my standards. I can't vote support knowing that he's only been here since January.
'''Neutral leaning support''' another month would be great.
'''Neutral, leaning to oppose.''' A bit too new. Too few (21) talk page edits. &mdash;
Gimme some time to think. Voted changed from above. --
'''Neutral''' would support, but a bit new, and this combined with a noticeable drop in article edits, which should always be the focus, makes me want a bit more time (unless he/she is using show preview a lot)
'''Neutral''' I greatly appreciate the fact that he supported on my own RfA and has made useful contributions to the project and is a very nice guy but his lack of time here and inexperience in certain namespaces prevent me from supporting. <b><font color="teal">
'''Neutral''' leaning very weak oppose per Kimchi.sg.
'''Neutral''', leaning towards oppose. I'm not always sure that he completely thinks through AfDs all the time, per Kusma and Blnguyen's examples. If he's been called an "inclusionist," that's fine, but I'd like to see more reasoning. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral'''. Great editor, but three months doesn't cut it.
'''Nuetral'''. I trust this user with rollbacks and blocking, but closing AFD's? I don't know... three months isn't a very long time... and all the admin capabilities come at once. I can't support, but I have no strong reason to oppose.
'''Nuetral'''. Wait two or three months and I will be glad to support you.
'''Nuetral'''. I will support two months later.--
'''Neutral''' too new --
'''Neutral''' Don't think siva is admin material.
'''Neutral''', too few talk and project talk edits, otherwise no major problems.
'''Neutral''' Too many valid reasons given in the "oppose" section to support. However, I have no strong feelings either way. (Is the plan, by the way, for everyone in Singapore to get adminship?!) --
'''Neutral''' as above.
'''Support''' Hand the mop over already <small>I supported first</small> --<font color="black">[[User:Xchrisblackx|Mahoga]]</font><font color="black">'''[[User talk:Xchrisblackx|n]]'''</font><font color= "green">
'''Support''' He's gained much experience since the last RfA.  I think he can be more than trusted with the buttons --
'''Support''' - a lot more experience and could use the tools (having just come from a 150 page CSD backlog... we need people ... badly...) --
'''support''' looks like a comptetent and trustworthy editor - will be the same as an admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I have seen Siva do a lot of good work of football-related topics, I have absolutely no reason to believe the tools will be misused.
'''Support''' Looks like a great and constructive editor. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' Amazing editor & great guy. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - wonderful editor. Timing's a bit of a non-issue for me: he's (in my opinion) certainly worthy of the mop. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>

'''Support''' good editor, will not abuse his power, and a kind person. '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''A RadioKirk cliché support'''. -→
'''Support ON WHEELS!!''' Helpful editor, constructive criticism. --<tt>'''
Can't think of a reason why not.  Clearly a good user who will use the tools for the good of the project.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' will use the tools well.

'''Strong support''' despite the negative response to question 6, this user can easily be trusted. People shouldn't be expected to know absolutely everything there is to know as a new administrator, and new administrators have learning to do as well. This user can definitely be trusted and has made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. It is also my opinion that lately administrator standards have become much too high, but that's another issue. I say hand him the mop.
'''Strong support''' - A superb user. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''' Siva1979 has been pitching in for a while now. After gaining more experience since his first RfA, I believe that Siva is now better prepared and suited for a mop. --
'''Strong Support'''. Great user and would centainly make good use of the new tools.<b>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' good reliable editor with significant contributions to Wikipedia in his fields of interest. --
'''Strongest Possible Super Ultra Mega Support''' He is the friendliest user I have ever seen, although he doesn't meet my usual nine months.
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' "useless" edits like the one found by Kusma shouldn't be a reason to oppose. At least the other user now knows that there are people in the Wikipedia community who are willing to help him out! --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontom]]<font color="green">[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' "a good user". ;) &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Yeh, this user should be admin :) --
'''Support''' - very good editor
'''Strong Support'''. Definitely. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', friendly and great user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - A very good editor
'''Support''' - Good Editor. '''
'''Support'''. Not really convinced by any of the oppose reasons. --
'''Support'''. A dedicated, committed user across many areas of the project.
'''Support''' as nominator --
'''Support''' per all above and nom. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Absolutely Support'''. How's that for a vote of confidence? :)

'''Support''' per nom. Good user, nice work. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' seems like a great candidate
'''Support''' Everything indicates he would be a great admin.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' this time.  I have some reservations about beliefs regarding Adminship but that's not enough for me to oppose.  I've seen a lot of Siva and all communication seems positive and enthusiastic.  That's more than the min requirement of civil and gets a support from me now.
'''Support'''.  I am a little concerned that Siva may not be fully up to speed in some important areas; but that is far outweighed by his willingness to listen and to be reasonable.  I'd much rather have admins who made a few mistakes and learnt from them, than admins who only make one mistake but refuse to admit they are wrong.  Good luck Siva.
'''Support''' Good user. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support'''. No significant problems with this candidate&mdash;sure, there's more to learn, but we all should be able to say that. <tt>
'''Support''' because this user supported me in a previous nomination.
'''Support''' Would help WP with the tools. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Despite some slightly controversial answers to the below questions, this user is excellent and will make a fine administrator. --<font color="#999fff">
'''Support''' as per nominator. [[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Good Editor, will become excellent admin. -
'''Support.''' I have interacted with this user on FAC before, and have had nothing but a positive experience. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - great editor, will be an asset with the mop.
'''Support.''' Many excellent contributions.
'''Support.''' Adminship is not a big deal. I find some administrators whose contributions to articles have dropped significantly, I do believe that Shiva shall maintain a balance. I also believe that he shall not misuse the tools like some of the existing administrators have been doing to silence the voice and kill the new wikipedians before their take-off. --
'''Support''', excellent candidate. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support.''' All experiences have been positive. [[User:EWS23/E|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]]
'''Forceful support''' as co-nominator.--
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''', active and helpful.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Weak oppose''' - Too soon since last RFA. Otherwise, should be okay, and would support a future, well-timed RFA.
'''Weak oppose''', I am also a bit turned off by completely useless edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Categoriespagetext&diff=55794102&oldid=17250674 this one].
'''Oppose'''- Overall a wonderful editor and good potential admin, but as one who would block vandals, would be hampered by scarcity (total lack?) of vandal revisions and reports to AIV. Otherwise someone I would gladly support.
'''Oppose''' due to Siva's answer to question 6. I can't see any justification for dodging process in this way. It is perfectly possible that on day 4 or 5 of an AfD nomination that has received nothing but 'delete' votes (at which point Siva says he would close the nomination and delete the article), someone may turn up new evidence or rewrite the article in a way that turns the nomination around. For example, [[Alice Barnham]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Barnham|AfD]]) was nominated on April 27 when it was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Barnham&oldid=50386709 tiny stub]. 3 editors opined for delete, 2 for merge and none for keeping. [[User:AnonEMouse|Another editor]] found evidence of notability on May 2nd (day 7), then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_Barnham&diff=51388721&oldid=51250629 massively expanded] the article on May 3rd (day 8), and the article was kept. This is why we hold our fire on non-[[WP:CSD|CSD]] articles for at least five days, even when consensus looks overwhelming. The sky is not going to fall tomorrow. --
'''Oppose''' responses to questions 4,5 & 6 don't convince me that policies and guidelines will take precedence over the editor's gut impressions.  Also past RFA voting pattern concerns me.
'''Oppose'''. The answer to Cyde's question about AfD appears to me to be wrong on approximately 4 seperate counts. -
'''Oppose.''' He seems to be a good, maybe even great contributor, and we should all appreciate his presence here, but I wouldn't trust him as an admin. He seems a bit too hasty on his decision making. Also, he seems to think anyone nominated should become an admin unless they are an incorrigable vandal. --
'''Oppose''' per Pete.Hurd and Cyde's questions.
'''Oppose''' per Ral315 - although I do acknowledge he definitely is a friendly editor! That's not enough for me though, sorry. --
'''Oppose''' A good user, but perhaps not quite ready to be an admin, per Ral315's reasoning above. --
'''Oppose''' per above. A good and dedicated editor, but I think he needs a bit more time to understand some of the principles of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Too soon after last RfA which was not a close call. Lack of discrimination (or excess desire to please) shown by numerous supports in other RfAs. Nice guy, but needs to develop strength of individual judgement.
I was disappointed by his responses to my question, particularly how he emphasized policy, process, and guidelines as more important than goals, when, of course, the goals are the most important things and the other three just help us get closer to those goals.  Policy, process, and guidelines are meaningless if we aren't making progress towards our goal of building an encyclopedia.  Also, he seems to think that Afd is a vote and that Afds can be closed at around three or four days time.  I don't think this is a good idea ... either the Afd is closed within the first day because it meets or nearly meets a speedy deletion criteria or it should run for the full five days.  And finally, this user's blanket supports of so many other requests for adminship leave me to question his motives; does he honestly believe that >90% of the candidates at Rfa would make good admins?  All of these faults can be fixed in time as Siva gains a greater understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia's inner workings and starts to more critically evaluate Rfa candidates, but for now, I must oppose.  --
'''Oppose'''. Per all of above. Answers below and past RfA voting patterns reveal herd mentality. Two RfAs in five months since first edit is a sign of desperation. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose''', don't feel comfortable giving adminship to someone who trots around [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know]] making out-of-date comments. Gives the appearance that he's trying to inflate his Wikipedia namespace editcount. That, plus the answer to Cyde's question 1.
'''Oppose''' per above; policy understanding should be well underway when applying for adminship. Shell <sup>
'''Oppose''' per AfD answer. 5 rather than 3-4, unless it is a speedy; never delete if there is no consensus.'''
'''Oppose''', I don't care about featured articles ([[User:Stifle/No featured articles]]), but the lack of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates to me a probable shortage of policy knowledge.
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with the supporters: he seems like a nice guy, and extraordinarily unlikely to abuse the tools.  However, there are several indications of a lack of policy knowledge and lack of preparation for the difficult choices and strong stances sometimes required of admins.  Answers to 4, 5, and 6 all concern me.  Although I am impressed by his response to Sam Blanning's oppose above, I worry that there may be other critical issues that he hasn't thought of yet; thus it's best to take more time and learn more, I think. --
'''Oppose'''. Discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning) concern me.
'''Oppose''' for discussion about closing AfD above (per Sam Blanning). If an article is nominated for non-speedy deletion, why be so eager to delete any earlier? Without this impatience, I would have considered supporting.--
'''Oppose''' per Cyde and Siva's answer to Q4. He's a very good editor, I would probably support him later, but not now. --
'''Oppose''': answer to question 4 and practice of supporting nearly every RfA show an attitude toward adminship I cannot share or support, sorry.
'''Oppose''', great contributor but recent love-fest for all RfA nominees either shows excessive politicing or poor judgement + big enough mop and trigger finger concerns. <b>
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per answers to Cyde questions. — ''
'''Oppose.''' He needs more edits to actual articles. I went back more than a month before I could find an actual edit that wasn't to user space, Wikipedia space or a formatting edit in main space.
'''Oppose''' per above. -
'''Oppose''', shaky grasp of policy.
'''Oppose'''.  The answers to the questions show an arbitrary approach, rather than a thoughtful approach that understands consensus and policy.  --

'''Oppose.''' Per Pete.Hurd. —''
'''Neutral''', pending answer to question below.
'''Neutral''' has too low standards for sysopship.
Agreed. I have no real reason for voting oppose yet, but something doesn't quite feel right. I'll go with '''neutral'''.
'''Neutral''' – good editor, but I agree with some of the concerns raised above, including answers to the questions below –
'''Neutral''' - can't cite specific reasons for an oppose, but a lot of the answers leave me uneasy. Not enough thought about process, about who makes a good admin, and other things.. perhaps in a while. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Neutral''' - Per Tyrenius, I am worried Siva won't be able to make difficult decisions, per his RfA voting pattern. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with supporting candidates, but I'm afraid Siva is shying away from controversy. However, as I don't want to predict Siva's motives incorrectly, I won't oppose on those grounds. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. This is one of liking someone and thinking he does a good job on many cases, and being uneasy enough about some aspects as policy and the AfD question , that I can not decide. --
'''Neutral'''. Answers convince me to support, but this is too soon since the last RfA.
'''Neutral''' contribution history looks great but answers to questions below are a little off-putting. I would be happy if enough users disagreed with me and this nomination succeeded, but I can't support at this time.
Looking through the past RfAs, he seems to have addressed all the concerns raised.  Good luck! --
'''Support''', I've been waiting for you to run again for months, now. I'm very confident that you'll do an excellent job.
'''Support''', for exactly the same reasons as last time. I believe Siva is a more than capable editor who will not misuse the tools, what more can I ask for?
'''Support''' No obvious problems, a ''lot''  of edits, a lot of time spent here, I have seen Siva around Wikipedia a lot too. Total support '''[[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="black">Viva</font>]] [[user talk:Viva La Vie Boheme!|<font color="gray">La</font>]] [[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/WC|<font color="orange">V</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Concordia|<font color="gray">i</font>]][[user:Viva La Vie Boheme!/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Looks to be a good admin candidate. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support'''. Clearly meets my 2k edit and civility requirements. He's really a nice guy, and he goes out of his way to encourage people. No objections here.--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Clichéd ''I've been waiting'' support''' - but it's true!  What a great candidate - a nice guy and a great contributor to the project.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Great contributions to the project, good answers, looks ready to me.
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support'''[[user:Some P. Erson|Some P.]] [[User:Some P. Erson/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I supported last time (neutral the first time) but feel more confident supporting now.  The user has probably learned a bit from previous RfAs, and both the edit count and the resume going back to January indicate plenty of experience.
'''Support''' as I did in both previous RfAs. Great work Siva1979. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I'm not sure how a misunderstanding about how city councils work should be a bar to adminship. Siva1979 understands Wikipedia enough to be an admin. '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) ''Reconfirm support'' I don't feel it's right to conjecture that Siva's body of contributions, especially since the last RfA, have been resume-building. Siva clearly won't abuse the tools, and I fear that this is a textbook example of the nit-picking that is beginning to go in RfAs. Heck, I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060625161407&limit=500&target=Tariqabjotu a thousand consecutive repetitive edits myself], since I didn't feel like contacting a bot owner. Go ahead; subtract them from my edit count. -- '''
'''Support''' - belongs in the admin group by now. The mistake about city councillors referred to below is just that: a mistake. We all make them from time to time. It's not a reason to think s/he would abuse the admin tools.
'''Support''' I don't see any reason to oppose. Would make a reliable admin. --
'''Support''' per all of above.
'''Mighty Support'''. A fine Wikipedian. -→
'''Support''' seen him around a lot in AfD. Believe he would benefit from the tools.
'''Support'''. I haven't talked to him, but I've seen his editing here and there on Wikipedia, and I'm sure he'll make a great admin. YAY INDIANS!! (Okay, I'm done now.) --
'''Support'''. About time.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support'''. I don't see any indication that the editor would misuse or abuse the tools. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. Definately ready for adminship. An excellent contributor.
'''Support''' Seen him around from time to time in the project space, excellent comments.
'''Support''', for the same reasons as Thatcher131 above.
'''Powerful Support''' HAND HIM THE MOP! He's not leaving until he cleans up this mess...
'''Strong Support''' per Thatcher13, also per edit counting - dedicated editors make good admins
'''Support'''.--
Happy to '''support''' an up-and-coming administrator.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Strong support''' per alex Bakharev.'''
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
Hell yeah. --

'''Support''' You'd have to be mad not to. '''<font style="background:black">
'''Support''' as per the last RfA, an enthusiastic and engaging editor who appears committed to the wikipedia spirit and who vastly exceeds the civility minimum.
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''', great user. :) --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', seems ok, even though I couldn't agree with their signature. Oppose reasons don't bother me.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' seen this user around for some time now, good contributor.  Would do well with the tools.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' will make a gret admin. --
'''Support''' with slight reservation, but swayed by his good temperament and evident hard work, which I trust will be applied to some of those backlogs.
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Good editor who will make good use of administrator tools.
'''Examination study support!''' I'm studying but I support as his co-nominator!--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">an</font>]][[User Talk:tdxiang|<font color="gold">g</font>]]
'''Total Support'''.
'''Support'''.  A mature and responsible individual, with lots of editing experience and a cool-temper.  Yes, in 11,000+ edits it's possible to find poorly chosen wording or bad decisions--but that is true of all of us.
'''Support'''.  Great editor.
'''Support'''. I agree with SCZenz. --
'''Support''' per Rama's arrow.

'''Support''' - "a good user". :p &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per Bogman2, Thatcher131, and, especially, SCZenz; inasmuch as I've long since inferred from Siva's RfA participation that he/she properly understands the nature of adminship; and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my RfA guidelines]].
'''Support''' Meets all of my standards. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Strong support''' One of my favorite users. Dislike some of the AfD styles, but that's nothing to oppose over (opposing over a user with slightly different wikiphilosophy is unprofessional and absolutely uncalled for). Go Siva! &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Looking through Siva's contributions to Wikipedia, he's done much for improving it. Also, he resides in Singapore, which helps since the overwelming majority of English Wikipedians are currently from the United States and England (among others), and this thus it would add another international side to this great community. –- [[User:Kungming2|<b><font color="#0000FF"> kungming·]]
'''Support''' Great editor. <font color="blue">
'''Support''' per Alphachimp. Would contribute quality articles to football. --
'''Support''' a dedicated, honest and well menaing user who would be a credit to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Per Forest H2.
'''Support'''.  This user has shown that he will use admin tools helpfully in q1, and he is definitely civil.
'''Support''' Should help to clear the backlog.--
'''Support''': changed vote after reading further discussion.
'''Support''', don't see why not.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' I like the user's overall [[WP:Civil|civility]] and body of contributions. However, from my experience with the user I have some doubts about how strong he would be willing enforce Wikipedia policy with regard to trouble users. In particular, with regard to his answer to question 1, I have some reservations about how liberal he would be with keeping afd'ed articles for which the consensus to delete is not entirely clear due to internal spamming and other measures used to sway the consensus of afds.--
'''Oppose.''' The state of this RfA says bucketloads about why the RfA process is screwed.
'''Weak Oppose.''' Fails my criteria --
'''Oppose''' per W.marsh, Rebecca, David D., Bobet and Michael Snow. His contributions don't strike me as substantive and I feel his eagerness for adminship is irksome.--
'''Oppose''' - not convinced by the mushy answer to JoshuaZ's question.

'''<s>Weak</s> Strong Oppose''' per W.Marsh - <b>
'''Oppose''', because of edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1987-88_in_Scottish_football&diff=61429585&oldid=61243141], where he tags an article with {{tl|context}}, after he himself had created an empty article an hour before (that was one of 20 similar articles he started that look exactly the same). That makes absolutely no sense to me, shouldn't you have some idea what to put in an article you just started? He also seems to do completely useless edits from time to time, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk%3ASharedupload&diff=66895290&oldid=45945215], agreeing with a year old comment that was already acted on (I know this was mentioned in the last rfa, but this particular event happened 2 weeks ago). He seems like a nice guy but I don't think he has enough common sense to be an admin. -
'''Oppose''' by JerseyDevil and Bobet.
'''Oppose''' for now. Perhaps doesn't follow foundation issues in his answers (assumes bad faith wrt anons?). Please contact me to discuss! :-)
I'm just not sure Siva really understands policy.  He has a very interesting RFA voting history that someone who's done numerical analysis on RFA could tell you more about (ping Kelly Martin if you're interested).  My impression of him is that he just sort of follows the herd.  That's not a quality we're looking for in an administrator.  --
Obviously nice, hard-working, means well, and so on. However, I still have the sense that in doing the right thing as he understands it, Siva1979 doesn't necessarily think through to the whys and wherefores. I'm less concerned about knowledge of policy as the fact that many situations, especially for administrators, involve balancing policy considerations, which means you need a grasp of the underlying principles. The support strikes me as mostly "he's a good guy" stuff, but adminship is not intended to be a status symbol or reward, use barnstars or something. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow and Cyde.
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow.
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow. An admin doesn't need to be able to quote chapter and verse from policy, but they do need to understand ''why'' a policy exists. This is a case where I'm quite sure that the tools wouldn't be ''abused'', but do I believe that they'd likely be ''misused''.


'''Reluctant oppose''' per Michael Snow, David D. ''et al''.
'''Strong oppose''': Behavior raised above is weird and does not show experience. One alarming thing: when voting on RfA, RfA candidates clearly were not considered carefully, if at all. Aside from sheer number, an astounding 350 RfA votes, 317 being supports, numerous times there were votes in 4 RfAs within the space of 10 minutes, and at other times 30 in one week. Answers to questions are somewhat weak (Still proud of the red-link fixing on the very same articles described in the April RfA?) and do not relieve concerns (Applying the dates and numbers MoS shows policy experience? In all maintenance experience of 6 months, never once using prod?). Noticing [[Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen]] and mentioning it in the boilerplate questions here does not entail maintenance experience. So, I looked at Wikipedia namespace edits. I looked at the many RfA comments, the AfD comments, and the handful of FAC comments. They are almost invariably short, repetitive votes, and are often appended to what is already a landslide; they do not demonstrate knowledge or experience that would alleviate the concerns here. Of the last 500, back to June, there are about 200 of the pointless signature-changing edits and the several updates to the vote count of this RfA. There is so much ballot-box voting (i.e., quick, no discussion) so hastily in so many RfAs that he actually duplicate-voted on three of them ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kimchi.sg&diff=prev&oldid=59739478] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mtz206&diff=prev&oldid=59739725] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DLJessup&diff=prev&oldid=59740554]). All of this, and the concerns raised above, at best points to bad judgement and hasty decision-making. —
'''Weak Oppose''' per W. Marsh. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow.
Oppose per last two RFAs and above. Very convincing argument for oppose. Sorry. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' as per the many above concerns. --
'''Oppose'''. My experience tells me that when an RfA is contested this actively, and the nominee expresses this much of an interest in the speedy deletion tool, the nominee's usually not ready to be an admin. Sorry, Siva, but nothing you say here convinces me that you're an exception to the pattern.
'''Oppose''' per Michael Snow and Cyde.
'''Oppose''' Actually, I don't want to oppose his adminship, I would like to support. However, He doesn't show experiences. So, need to consider himself before 2nd adminship.
'''Oppose''' I originally voted to support, but the evidence provided by Michael Snow and Centrx.
'''Oppose''', although I too had been supporting. I thought from the reactions of trusted editors as well as the answers provided by Siva that he had chnaged many of this actions since the last RfA. However, after reviewing the information which centrx provided I was alarmed. I went ahead and looked at Siva's contribs and found that centrx is correct. As a result I can no longer support this canidate. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Reluctant oppose,''' but Michael Snow and Centrx did the homework I neglected.
'''Oppose''' as per Centrx (changed from neutral).
'''Oppose''' per Centrx, Michael Snow, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uppermill Football Club|this comment]]: ''Moreover, the lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy. If we began to delate this article, I am afraid that this would set a presedence in the way no-league football clubs are being delt with on Wikipedia.'' ~
'''Reluctant oppose'''.  Centrx raises valid points; admins need to do more than just have opinions, they need to ''think'' about the judgements they're making. --
'''Oppose''' per David D. Centrix, and Trialsanderrors. I'm not convinced that this user is completely up on his knowledge of policy, and, as SCZenz (among others) stated, Siva has a tendency to simply go along with the pack or act without truly thinking. I have no doubt that Siva is a good and valued contributor to WP, but I just don't think the user should be given the admin tools. --
'''Neutral'''. I supported his first two noms, and there can be no question that he's a good faith editor, but shows some naivety about policy and our purpose, and has that intangible "wants adminship too much" thing going on (which may be unavoidable after 3 RfAs, but I still get the vibe). Sorry... might reconsider on my own before the rfa is over... I hate to not support a clear good-faith editor. --
'''Neutral''', mainly per Centrx and Michael Snow. I might reconsider later if it's still close.
'''Neutral''' changed from support. Centrx's well argued case makes it difficult to support at this time. I will think about it more if it's still close. --
'''Neutral''' Now per concerns raised by Centrix, Snow and David D.
'''Neutral''' Per concerns raised by Centrix, and to a lesser extent by others above.  I have not had enough personal interaction with Siva1979 to override these concerns; on the other hand I don't see evidence of anything strong enough to make me oppose.
'''Neutral''', reluctantly--changed from support, as per concerns raised by centrix.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support'''. Has been around more or less steadily since January, has done some good vandal fighting work, and I see no reason to think he'd abuse admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' too few edits and weakish answers. --
'''Oppose''' - Obvious reasons. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Oppose''' due to lack of edits and weak answers to questions. If you're able to get more experience in the various processes (XfD, for instance), though, feel free to try again in a few months. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''Oppose''' with only about 400 edits, the majority of which are disambiguation of czech, you have little demonstrated experience with the sort of tasks that an admin will undertake. There simply isn't enough evidence yet in your edit history for me to be comfortable supporting you. Continue to work on Wikipedia, perhaps get involved with [[WP:RCP|recent changes patrolling]] and [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions and re-apply in a few months. Good luck,
'''Oppose''' per everyone else.
'''Oppose'''. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. You currently have made just over 500 edits - most successful admin candidates have at least 2,000. You made a large number of contributions in January, February and the first few days of October, but only a few in March-September. More edits and a notably longer period as a consistent contributor are needed before you can be considered a serious admin candidate. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future.
'''Oppose'''.  Too few edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060912130433&limit=50&target=SkerHawx too large gaps] between them.  Definitely has potential, but not enough of a track record yet.  --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]]
'''Oppose''' I appreciate your enthusiasm in fighting vandalism, but you need (much) more experience before I can support you. Also, weak answers.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', you need more experience. I'm sorry, and your enthusiasm is great, but more experience is necessary to assess you properly. Please read the suggestions cited by oppose !voters and (aeropagitica), work on your editing, and reapply in a few months. Best wishes, &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''' Experience. --
'''Oppose'''. Just because somebody wouldn't abuse admin tools doesn't mean that they'd be put to good use. And also, adminship is something you ''earn'', and finally, he only has 400-ish edits and as per almost everyone, he has weakish answers. ~ '''[[User:Flameviper|<font color="CC0000">Flame</font>]][[User talk:Flameviper|<font color="009900">vip</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - policy concerns and the answers provided above lead me to believe you don't quite understand what a [[Wikipedia:Administrator|Administrator]] is --
'''Oppose''' The low number of edits is a major concern for me. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I advise the nom to read through [[WP:RFA/ST]]. [[WP:SNOW]] please.
'''Neutral''' Your edits and answers to questions don't demonstrate a knowledge of policy, which is essential for admins. Pointers for improvement; participation in XfA is a good thing, particularly when you can cite policy when you give your opinion; interaction with users in WikiTalk, articleTalk and userTalk spaces is essential; vandal-fighting is essential to the smooth running of WP too; participation in one or more Wikiprojects is a good thing; lastly, the primary reason for us all being here is editing articles - join the featured article debates and use your editing/research skills to work articles up to Good/Featured status.  You can also get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] to help you strengthen your current weaknesses.  All of this should take 3-4 months and ~2000 edits.
Failure to list selfnom properly originally; inexperienced? Not enough project-space edits (under 100). <font color="darkred">
'''Oppose''' - Very little time - very little is known about the user - <s>very little info in the self-nomination para</s> (fixed). I'll definetly vote ''support'' in spring time. Cheers -- ''
'''Oppose'''. Very good potential in terms of good talk-article ratio, nice edit summaries, almost all edits are single or double-edits, but as was stated above, adminship is not something that should just be given away. It takes a long time and a very good show of dedication to Wikipedia to become an admin. You need to know the ins and outs, and having such a small amount of contributions to project space and their talks means you are probably inexperienced. Come back in a few months with some more experience, and notability, under your belt, and I'll reconsider.
'''Bordering on oppose'''. I'm not a very big fan of self-nomination (to me it shows that one does not yet have enough faith in the community to support you), and although the user has already been around longer than I have, I do not think becoming an admin after such a short time on Wikipedia is desirable. If the user had a little more time, I think he could definitely have what it takes.
'''Em, no'''. Whist I don't believe in edit counting, 200 is NOT enough [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=Slicky]. --
'''Strong oppose''', enjoy wikipedia editing more.
'''Oppose!''' is this some sort of joke relating to April Fools Day?
'''Oppose'''. Inexperience and low edit count (a good number of the edits I've looked at are rather minor, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=prev&diff=44693229&title=Certainty_Principle]). Also, very low use of edit summaries. I suggest you withdraw your nomination.
'''Oppose''', inexperienced user, low edit count and edit summaries. Please withdraw your RFA, at least 2000 edits for my standards. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', 93 of the users 203 edits are in the last month.  If you keep editting at that rate, then come back in a few months, at the moment, you're too new. --
'''Oppose''' Suggest withdrawal, among all the above problems, while the editor has edited for three years, there were strings of months in between in which the editor made zero edits. It is remotely possible that I would vote for someone for admin who had 200 amazing edits. This is not such a candidate. I suggest withdrawing. Come back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' sorry, this candidate has strongly advocated ignoring [[WP:OR]] and does not seem to be aware of basic Wikipedia policies. Not ready for the old mop and bucket yet.
'''Oppose''' - Take this from your biography of [[Jochem Häuser]]. "Dr. Häuser is a german physisist who is amongst other things known to work on Heims Theory." That's one spelling error, one missed apostrophe and a missing uppercase in the first sentence alone, plus the use of the word 'amongst' is open to debate. The English language does not have the umlaut, so his name really ought to be Hauser. The rest of the biography is a list of his publications cut-and-paste from a website. I fixed some of it for you. I can't support you for administrator. Don't take this personally, mate. -
'''Neutral''' My threshold ''is'' only 300-500 edits, but you don't make that yet; and low usage of edit summaries puts me off too. Will support in three months(+) assuming continued activity and higher edit summary usage. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
I have no doubts at present to this user's good faith, but I see an insufficient demonstration of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Incapable of following RfA instructions. Less than 50 edits. Try again in about 6 months when you have about 3000 edits under your belt. --
'''Oppose''', too new, malformed RfA. Suggest withdrawal. --
'''Oppose''', too new. Shouting in RFA, I doubt anyone has aquired adminship with less than 100 edits.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per all above. Also, nearly all of the administrator tasks mentioned do not require admin tools. Recommend withdrawal. —[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]<font color=green>
'''Oppose''' You don't need admin tools to do what you stated below. So, continue doing what you're doing for a few months, and I look forward to supporting you in the future.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't meet (even) my criteria.  Seems to be an excellent user but now is not the time to become an admin.
'''Oppose'''- Too new, sorry.
'''Oppose'''. Malformed RfA. (Ending time not substituted.)<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Does not have enough experience. I hope to see another RfA from you in the future :) '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but beyond the multiple formatting problems with this RfA this user is still far too new. This is important because we haven't seen enough of how you react to all the different situations an admin must deal with to make a fair judgement. Please keep up the good work and come back later. Good luck,
'''Oppose''', too inexperienced and no need for tools.
'''Oppose''' - suggest withdraw - we really don't know enough about you at the moment, get involved with the community, learn from us while we learn from you and in a few months we'll be able to make an educated decision --
'''oppose'''. see [[WP:SNOW]]. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''', user has a low edit count (14) and is likely very inexperienced.  <sub>
'''Obvious Oppose'''. User clearly does not understand adminship. Strongly suggest withdrawal.
'''Strong oppose''' <20 edits is not nearly the amount expected by an admin. User vandalized a page in the last week, and there is no participation in any other mainspace besides user and user talk (excluding the vandal edit). I strongly suggest withdrawal, participate more and come back with more edits and experience in a few months. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
Obvious oppose. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. I really hate it when users do this. I'm sorry, you don't even have the slightest chance. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Oppose'''. You need more experience. '''
'''Neutral''' - Since this RFA isn't going to suceed anyway.  Suggest withdrawal, and build up your experience. --
'''Support''' looks like a strong contributor to the project --
'''Support''' - so long as you don't stop your [[WP:ASUE|ASUE]] work! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' <font size="6">[[☺]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Nothing but praise for your contributions here. Take a mop and bucket.
'''Support''' good worker.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - '''''<font style="color:green;">
About time he got keys to the janitor's cupboard
'''Support''' Now you owe me one--
--
'''Support''', he'll do.
'''Support'''.  Keep on with the vandal-fighting.-
'''Support'''.  7 months is long enough. --
--''Signed by''
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]
'''Full support''' - excellent contributor and good attitude; would definitely make a great admin. Rational thinker, too.
'''Support''' for good edits and attitude.
'''Support''', good edits.
'''Support''', despite him being [[Chester]] scum.  [[Wrexham F.C.|We]] shall crush you when the game is finally rescheduled.
'''Support''' Interactions with him have been pleasant and hence, I do not expect his relative inexperience to be an indicator of abuse of admin tools. --
'''Support''', and not just because I believe in more Brits in Wikipedia. A positive contributor, and a worthy recipient of my vote. <b><font face="Verdana" size="4" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''', as per autonominator.  ;-)
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools, need more admins. -
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.85.15.84] Short tempered, no three warning as per wikipedia policy. --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits to make a valid assessment of suitability as an admin, nor enough edits to adequately learn all the things that even beginning admins should know.
'''Oppose''', 1700 edits in 7 months equates to lack of activity.
'''Oppose'''.  Still too new.
'''Oppose'''. Per Radiant.'''
'''Oppose''', not dedicated enough to become admin.
'''Oppose'''. Please see [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]], especially introductory paragraph. --
'''Oppose''' - too new.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. --
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits. Sorry, nothing personal. --
'''Neutral'''. I've seen nothing but good contributions from the nominee, but I'd like to see a higher edit count. --
'''Neutral''' per TantalumTelluride (and really, Radiant!). —
'''Support''' -- unlikely to abuse admin powers. -- '''
'''Support''': Because admin should be no big deal right?
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' for "inbuilt hatred of IAR".  Impressive wiki-career, admirable nominator.
'''Support''' Based on the fact I see no real strong evidence to disallow his adminship.
'''Support''' per Moe and nominee's long edit history. --
'''Support''' A year and half and over nine thousand edits on Wikipedia... of course.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', well-rounded, thoughtful, dedicated editor. His answers to the questions have also impressed me. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Strong Support''' Unique amazing editor, will be a great addition to administration.--<small><font color="darkgreen">
'''Support''' The type of user meant to be an admin
'''Support''' dedicated Wikipedian, although please remember edit summaries even for minor edits.
'''Support''', I see no major problems. Most of the oppose votes seem to be about one single incident.
'''Support'''. I've always been impressed by SoM's editing and his ability to deal with the conflicts that frequently occur in the comic/superhero articles. --
'''Support''' per JIP. -- <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. The "inbuilt hatred for [[WP:IAR]]" does bother me and I disagree very much with that stand. I have however no reason to believe that the candidate won't be able to function as a responsible admin because of this personal opinion. --
'''Support''' seems to be a great editor.
'''Support'''. Been thinking about this one. Decided to support. --
'''Support''' Won't abuse admin powers, most people who may seem "controversial" don't.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' SoM has been a great asset to [[WP:COMIC]] and would be an even better asset to Wikipedia as a whole.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per Tvaughn, KHM, Phaedrial, etc. &nbsp;[[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|25px|IS]]&nbsp;<font color="#B53C07">'''Guðsþegn'''</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''. As I was walking on the pavement today, February the 25th, in a flash of blinding colour as if of burning petrol, the idea came to do so.
'''Support'''. I don't think the 3RR is a problem.  Sometimes you have just got to stick to a cause.  You've got my support.
'''Support'''. Problems seem minor. Looks like he could do a good job helping out.
'''Oppose'''.  Someone who <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGasoline&diff=15302045&oldid=15301896 hurls unfounded accusations of "very, very bad faith" ("at best") and attempts to wiki-lawyer around common sense], purely to force the use of a term from ''his'' variety of English, '''''is''''' likely to abuse admin powers.  &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Having an inbuilt hatred of [[WP:IAR]] shows a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, or is supposed to work, that I feel would not be appropriate for an admin.  Even though, yes, it should be petrol, not dowdy old "gasoline".
'''Oppose''' as per fuddlemark. The candidate seems to have an unhealthy attraction to "process".
Lack of talk archives make it difficult to evaluate history, but the parts highlighted on this page and rather biting edit sums like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolverine_%28comics%29&diff=prev&oldid=38829320 this] recent one lead me to reluctantly '''oppose'''.
An inbuilt hatred of IAR? Wikipedia is about breaking the rules (including the rule that says "break the rules", ironically), not hewing blindly to them. A healthy respect for both IAR and process is a main criteria of mine for any admin; ignoring one or the other without good cause is a major cause for concern.
'''Oppose'''. I realise that deleting comments off your talk page is not against policy, but I still strongly dislike the practice. As you can see on [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]] I see talk pages as a very important factor to take into account on RfA's. Also while I appreciate you said you wouldn't repeat the "very, very bad faith" comment, I am concerned by the much more recent edit summary brought up by Jonathunder. Talking about edit summaries, they are important for all edits, minor or major. My oppose is based on a combination of these factors, not any individual one.
'''Oppose'''&ndash;has an inbuilt hatred of [[WP:IAR]].

^<sup>'''Strong'''</sup> '''Oppose''', candidate frequently reverts changes to high-use templates to further the promotion of his pet wikiproject in an unabashed, spam-like manner ([{{fullurl:Template:UK-comics-stub|diff=prev&oldid=39435521}}], [{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|target=SoM&offset=20060212181000&limit=4}}]) sometimes with intentionally deceptive edit summaries ([{{fullurl:Template:UK-comics-stub|diff=prev&oldid=39090205}}], [{{fullurl:Template:DC-Comics-stub|diff=prev&oldid=39090178}}]). I am also unsettled by some, but not all, of the other objections raised above. — <small>Feb. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[07:02] <
'''Oppose'''. A lack of understanding of the importance of the name of WP:IAR and the important role it plays in showing policy obsession for the sillyness that it is is a strong signal that the applicant fails to understand the fine nuance of Wikipedia policy. The insulting edit summary in some of his fairly recent edits (200512291447 for example) also bothers me. --
'''Oppose''', blocked within the last two months for breaking rules against reverting thrice.
'''Oppose''', for someone with such a hatred of ignoring all rules, he certainly seems to have broken a few.
'''Oppose''' per freakofnurture.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not 100% about this, as you seem like a good editor. I'm indifferent to your opposition to IAR, it's been abused a lot even if the concept is still sound. But the 3RR violation is still recent, and the revert immediately after being unblocked was a bad idea. Looking through your contributions I don't see much need for sysop powers with what you're doing at the moment, as your answer to Q1 implies.
'''Oppose''' sorry, I'm concerned about your behavior regarding the 3RR block and the insertion under deceptive edit summaries of a plug for your wikiproject.--
'''Oppose'''. I find the 3RR behaviour troubling.
'''Oppose'''  I am definately bothered by the 3RR behaviour as well as the edit summary given during edit wars.  One main things I am looking for in admin canidates is someone who can explain his actions in a educational manner rather than adversarial one. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', evidence to suggest admin powers would be misused. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Neutral''' good editing, but concerns about user page and process understaning. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral.''' Maturity doubts.
'''Oppose'''. I cannot support a candidate with less than 250 edits. Suggest withdrawl and reapplication later. --
Per my block, lmao.  --
'''Oppose''' per a sloppily written RfA, particularly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Son_of_a_Peach&diff=68833241&oldid=68833089 this].
'''Oppose''' - too new. Please give it some time.
'''Oppose''' OK, it appears you are using this RfA in order to recieve some advice. If I were you, I'd get 1000 mainspace edits, join a few wikiprojects, participate in xfDs, and most importantly, show wikipedia you are civil, process-savvy, and dedicated. Your recent block for trolling doesn't really help the situation. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Opppose''' lack of experience/incivility (according to admin [[User:Cyde|<span style="color:#ff66ff;">'''Cyde Weys'''</span>]]. Strongly suggest withdrawal of RfA.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' and speedy de-list please.
'''Oppose''' Fewer than 500 edits and less than one month experience is not enough.
'''Oppose''' this user has been blocked twice in the last 6 weeks for disruption and trolling, has a consistent history of inappropriate edit summary usage (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Tietjen_Stiftung_fuer_Fertilisation_Ltd&diff=prev&oldid=68839347]) and has recently been making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21fuck%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21%21&diff=prev&oldid=68830139 personal attacks]. Plus low edit-count, malformed RfA etc. as already listed. Nowhere near ready to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' I originally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=68832702 removed] the nomination due to the greatly malformed nomination, and previous blocks for disruption. I apologize if that was wrong, but this seems to be a forgone conclusion. Perhaps you should try [[Wikipedia:Editor review]], as someone else suggested. -- '''
'''Oppose''' Candidate is on the verge of an indef block for disruptive behavior. Even assuming good faith, his continued refusal to use coherent edit summaries does not do his reputation any good. --
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more quality experience and less of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petey_Piranha&diff=prev&oldid=65078233 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petey_Piranha&diff=next&oldid=65078233 this].  --
'''Oppose''' I like immature humor as much as the next guy, but ''really''...Put your sense of humor to better use instead of vandalizing, and I'll be happy to support. --
'''The Biggest RFA Oppose...EVER!''' For being a newbie who has been blocked twice for [[WP:TROLL|trolling]] (although I don't mean to [[WP:BITE|bite him]]). Please speedy withdraw this nom ASAP. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose'''. Most comments on his talk page are regarding his poor behavior.
'''Oppose'''. Withdrawl suggested.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' all of the above.  --
'''Oppose''' per all above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Suggest withdrawl <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Strong oppose''' way too new.  Also, your behavior does not manifest qualities necessary for an administrator.
'''Neutral''' Try reading other RfA's and [[WP:ER|Editor review]] for advice on how to achieve admin status.  Best of luck in the future,
'''Oppose''' History of trolling, disruption; conduct during the last RfA was un-adminlike. -- '''
'''Strong oppose''' long history of disruption and trolling from this editor. One month since last unsuccessful RfA which was strongly opposed. Doesn't use meaningful edit summaries. Very inappropriate candidate for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per above and suggest speedy close. I rarely oppose but this is not a serious candidacy.
Suggest bureaucrat speedily close this RfA
'''Support''', I can see no reason why I shouldn't. Spawn Man's easily a good enough editor, and would do a fine job. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support'''. Of course.--
'''Support''' per Daveydweeb. <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
I'm
'''Really Strong Support''' I have been thinking of asking Spawn Man if he wants to run for sometime now, but it seems I was too slow :( No matter. The important thing here is Spawn. Spawn Man is a fantastic editor (need I mention the three FAs or the many DYK suggestions?), who is civil and thoughtful in his contributions. The level-headedness that Spawn Man has shown will transfer itself into making Spawn a wonderful Admin, who would use the tools very well.Spawn once said to me that a person like him could never be an admin, as he concentrates less on the social side of wikipedia, and more on the editing side. Let's prove him wrong :) [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' of course I know this guy, I see him everywhere. Good luck! --
'''Support''' I don't know this guy, but I likes whats I sees. --
'''Support''' - and I don't even know you!
I'm [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] and I '''support''' this user. '''
'''Support''' good contributor. But please keep a learning attitude as many things require some more thought, experience than usual.
'''Support''' There are no major concerns here. However, I feel that the oppose comment given by [[User:Radiant!|Radiant]] is a bit harsh. We must acknowledge that all of us can't be expected to give solid edits 100% of the time. If everyone were to point out the mistakes of every nominee in the RfA process, most (if not all) will fail this consensus. One must also take into strong consideration of the editor's positive contributions to this project as well. If an editor makes great edits consistently but makes a few mediocre edits occasionally, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the nominee. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - zOMG, 3FA! Friendly, level-headed and sufficiently involved. Can't see him abusing the privs. '''
'''Support'''. Very civil user; has done a lot of work fighting against vandalism and improving articles.--'''
'''Support''' Thumbs up.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Support'''. ~&nbsp;'''''
'''Support''', as per my nom. I think that a lot of the oppose and neutral votes have some good points. I also think that Spawn Man in a strong contributor who would ''act in a manner becoming an admin'', or I would not have nominated him. --<font style="background:black">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="LightSteelBlue">Shrieking Harpy</font>]]<font style="background:Red">.<font style="background:Orange">.<font style="background:Yellow">.<font style="background:Green">.<font style="background:Blue">.<font style="background:Purple">.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>
'''Support''' I thought a lot about this Rfa, and wasn't sure where I'd end up. After much review of his edit history and various issues which both supporters and opposers have brought up, it all came down to the 3 FA's. I do have reservations about Spawn Man, but I'm going to go out on a limb here, and support.
'''Support'''. I was in the same state as Jcam. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac15</font>]]'''''
'''Support''' I can't understand half of the oppose votes.The guy has ''tons'' of edits, has always been civil, and appears he will be completely trustworthy with the tools.We look for trustworthiness here, people, not edit count, not if he's perfectly balanced in all the areas he's edited (mainspace, talk, etc.), but ''trustworthiness''.Spawn's been around plenty long enough so that we can see he's adminship material. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak oppose'''. "Keep" comments for an unsourced unprofessional footballer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Callum_Flanagan&diff=86427170&oldid=86157037], minor self-published band [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anax_Imperator_%28band%29&diff=86427622&oldid=85531161] and a neologism that doesn't really explain what it actually is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valdezian&diff=86430070&oldid=85388708] do not inspire confidence in the candidate's ability to adjudicate process.
'''Weak oppose''' per Radiant <s>(never thought I'd say that...)</s> but the diffs he point to show a lack of understanding of [[WP:V]], which I find troubling. Inclusionism shouldn't mean supporting including unverifiable, unreliable information, the removal of which is non-negotiable. --
'''Oppose''': I do not wish to convince anyone, so please forgive my terseness: I am concerned about temperament.
'''Oppose''' Needs better understanding of notability. Votes to keep articles that are clearly deletable. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valdezian Votes to keep the "half notable".] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAnax_Imperator_%28band%29&diff=86427622&oldid=85531161 Believes " people who have even published one book, written one album etc, should still be mentioned."]
'''Oppose''' - here I'm disagreeing with a lot of editors whom I have the highest respect for, but the diffs provided by Radiant are extremely worrying, and that subpage certainly violates the spirit and probably the letter as well of WP:NOT. How about this from Jimbo Wales, particularly when applied to the bios of living people: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.". [[WP:V]] is non-negotiable - and, if I'm being brutally honest, some of the keeps look just ''wrong''. One album confers notability? Ever seen [[WP:DUMB]]? No, that's not a personal attack, but that page says something right about album notability, bullet point No.2. Oh, and Doug Bell's diffs are also rather troublesome. The last thing this project needs are admins with volatility issues, which is what those diffs would suggest. And, of course, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to spend twenty percent of our edits sprucing up our userpage.
'''Oppose'''Answer to question 1 bears no relationship to edit history.First contribution to AfD was two days ago; appears to have never warned a vandal (except the curious case of [[Special:Contributions/24.249.110.99|User 24.249.110.99]]) or requested a sprotect.(Also I'm not keen on the 'new messages' joke, but that's a minor issue.)

'''Oppose''' per the diffs cited by Doug Bell.--
'''Oppose''' per diffs provided by [[User:Doug Bell|Doug&nbsp;Bell]].<font color="blue">
'''Oppose''' the incidents of incivility noted by [[User:Doug Bell|Doug Bell]] are simply too unsettling for me.For the sake of clarity, I like Spawn Man's inclusionist tendencies and that is not the basis of my !vote here.--
Dear Spawn Man, what exactly were you thinking when you said things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Struthiomimus&diff=prev&oldid=73490738], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Struthiomimus&diff=prev&oldid=74067492], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Struthiomimus&diff=prev&oldid=73684236]? Admins can and do block people for this sort of utterances, you know.
'''Oppose''' You threatened another user. Losing one's cool like that is never acceptable for an administrator, much less a user. To me it does not matter how long ago that happened.
'''Oppose'''. Spawn just needs some more time before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Deletion concerns don't really concern me- obviously an entrenched inclusionist but he's entitled to his opinion; there's always [[WP:DRV]] if his actions demonstrably became a problem. By contrast, Doug Bell's diffs ''do'' concern me. Can't support that sort of sillyness, sorry.
'''Neutral''' Potential first-class admin, but 1700 edits (albeit generally good quality ones) seems a bit thin - try again later.--
'''Neutral''' per the attitude expressed at the MfD for the user sub-page.This says nothing about your abilities as an editor but enough about the communication aspect of being an admin to stop me voting ''support'' this time around.
'''Neutral'''. This candidate clearly has great intentions and has matured a lot in his time here, in addition to his excellent contributions to our encyclopedia. However, I'd like to see some more edits from this candidate, and I also think that he could benefit from the extra time between now and his next RfA, if only to assauge the concerns of the community about his previous behavior. —
'''Oppose''' RFA joke. <font color="blue">
per Forest. [[Special:Contributions/Splinter|Neither]] [[Special:Contributions/SpIinter|one]] of your alter-egos have 2,000 edits. Combined they have a dozen.--
I beat the nominator
'''Support''' - so what if he hasn't been around for ages, he obviously can take advantage of the tools and has a low risk of abusing them = my support --
People beat the nominator at supporting because he was in class '''Support'''. Great user, and experienced. Shame to see that people are pulling the "haven't been here long enough" card, though. [[User:Master of Puppets|Mopp]]
[[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20px]] '''There-Is-No-Cabal''' <small>(Yes there is!)</small> '''Support'''. —    <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nathanrd]][[User:nathanrdotcom/CJ|<font color="blue">o</font>]]
'''Support''' Usually I would say too short a time here, but 4100 edits overrides that 100%! &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I've recently gained the perspective that really, sometimes we can be a bit overly harsh on admin candidates. I support this user fully, no reservations, would make a good admin! I hope you get the chance to be! --[[Darth]]
'''Support''' - the user doesn't seem to have much interest in admin-type work, but I don't doubt his integrity. -
'''Support'''. Easily enough experience. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', positive influence on the encyclopedia.
'''Support''' - Nice work in his areas of interest and he is quite experienced, I think we can learn enough in three or four good months.
'''Very Strong Support''', Srikeit is an ''excellent'' Wikipedian. He is actively involved in VFD and is an excellent vandal fighter. He has also welcomed many users and organized or added vital information to articles. Just because he has only been here since January 2006 doesn't mean he needs more experience. My account is two days older than his and I still don't feel like a "good" Wikipedian yet. Excellent work, Srikeit! --
'''Support'''. Four-plus months can often lead to worries that a user is pining, but this one's well-rounded, involved and appears to keep a level head. No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''.  An accomplished vandal-fighter who should be able to block his vandals after whacking them.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Slight concern with a lack of article talk edits, but nothing fatal.
'''Support''' One of the best among the new kids.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent understanding and usage of NPOV, has made significant content enhancements, reverting vandalism, always civil and polite. A lot of the content discussion is centralized at [[WT:CRIC]] rather than individual articles. A lot of the time I myself use [[WT:CRIC]], [[WP:AWNB|Australian Wikipedians Notice Board]] to ask for cricket and Australia feedback because there is about 50x higher chance of feedback than on a random article talk page, which skews the edit-count balance.
'''Cxaxbxaxl support'''. -
'''Editcountitis and wikiservicetimeitis is ridiculous support''' —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' - Impressive work on Cricket as well as with the audio. --
'''Support'''. You seem to be a great wikipedian and i appriciate your understanding of NPOV. --[[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#000000">preschooler</span>]][[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#E9B901">@</span>]]
'''Definite Support''' - inspirational user, would be an inspirational admin. Seems to be a great person as well. Support. '''
'''Support'''- ordinarily the lack of time being a Wikipedian would be aoncern, but once in a while an editor comes along who edits like a seasoned veteran right from the word go. Skrikeit is one of those.
'''Support''', I don't think that much more than a few months is required for adminship, especially if the user is active in different fields. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Very strong support''' - He is one of the most hard-working and tireless contributor to wikipedia. I have seen him make literally hundreds of very valuable edits day after day.
'''Support''',
'''Support''' A lot of edits in a short manner of time, good use of AfDs, and lots of Wikipedia namespace edits.

'''Support''' - I've seen him around a fair bit, and he's struck me as a sensible user who could be trusted to use his powers for good.
'''Support''' per [[User talk:Srikeit#RFA|endorsement from MoppEr]], [[User talk:Srikeit/archive 2#Wow!|endorsement from Master of Puppets]], and [[User talk:Srikeit/archive 2#Thank you|endorsement from Andy123]].  Also has a good record of interactions with other users.  Besides, I just want admins who won't create their own policies, who won't wheel-war, and who won't cause drama and controversy.  4117 edits seems like enough experience to me, and 3 1/2 months with calm interactions looks like a good track record.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strongest possible support''', we need more vandal-whackers like him --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' Go vandal killer!!!! Happy hunting. <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
'''Support''' Will make good use of the tools. - <font color="navy">
'''Support''' I see no problems.  Will use the tools well.  Just get rid of that joke on your talk page.  -- <font color="black" face="Arial">
'''Support''' I like the look of his work.  --
'''Support''' Awesome User!! <font color="66AAFF">
'''Support''' Not afraid to ask others opinion <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. For an exceptional editor, I am making an exception. --
'''Strong Support'''. Good collection of comprehensive edits at his back. --
'''Support''' Of course I have to support :D(
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' adminship is not just a promotion for mainspace editors. In fact, the best mainspace editors may not make the best admins, and vice-versa. If Srikeit has experience doing RC patrol, fighting vandalism, and AFDs, then that's very valuable experience for an admin since that's most of what an admin does. (It also means that he probably has a lot of deleted edits which aren't showing up in the counters, although since I'm not an admin I can't check myslef). As it says at the bottom of Kate's tool's page: ''You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you.'' --
'''Support'''. per nom.--
'''Support''' -- The numbers don't matter to me as much as character, humor, and quality of contributions. In contrast to what others are suggesting, to me Srikeit's joke banner exhibits great maturity of attitude &mdash; he doesn't take himself too seriously. It parallels the irreverent jocosity of the [[Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama|Dalai Lama]]. Overall, very helpful user.
'''Support''' - He is an excellent vandal hunter, I see no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools (or that an extra xxx months experience will make him any better at what he does).
'''Support''' astounding number of edits for someone whose been here for only a few months.
'''Support''' One of the best wikipedians in wikipedia. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''sipport''' why have a bright future admin when we can have a bright admin today!
'''Support'''.  Has done a lot of work. Looks good. I see no need in delaying giving them the mop.
'''Support'''. I would feel silly to oppose simply because he hasn't been here for terribly long. He's got a ton of edits, which more than makes up for supposed inexperience. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Support''' per the answer on my questions
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Exceptional member. For a member like him, I dont think the length of time he's been here matters. He's ready to become an admin. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' Wikipedia needs good solid admins like this.
--
'''Support''' I've been impressed with StrikeIt's contributions to AfD discussions. He'll make a good admin.
'''Support''' I'm willing to take a chance on this one. I would have preferred the nom to be a month down the line with more project space involvement but he seems to be a good user. --
'''Support''' I found him to be level headed in the interactions he was involved. Too sad to see that most oppose votes are about account age but it also means that he'd probly be an easy shoo-in 2 months down the line. --
'''Oppose''' You haven't been here long enough. Try requesting adminship around August. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' same reason as above --
'''Oppose'''. Although substantial edit count, most are from vandal reverting/warning. (Good to see a fellow user of Vandal Proof, though.) Most [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards in Standards] say 3-4 months. 6 would be better. User is not quite there. Has created a number of articles and has been active with reveiwing articles for deletion. Just needs to prove sustainability. I hope to vote for this user in 2 more months.
'''Oppose''' Editor is beginning a fine wiki-career and doing good work as an RC patroller; however, editor hasn't been here very long, has relatively few project-space edits, and could use more time before mophood.
'''Oppose''' You should have at least 3-5 months on Wikipedia before your nominated. Need more time.
'''Weak oppose''' per Joturner. Will ''definitely'' support if you can keep up your impressive contributions for another 3 months.
'''Oppose'''. Two months of editing (16 article edits before March) is just not enough. The future looks bright, though. '''''×'''''
'''Weak Oppose'''. So far your edits and contributions look good, and you may make a great admin., but I need a further month or two before I could feel comfortable in supporting (and I most likely would).  Thank you for removing the image in your signature.  No it is not a crime, but they create additional server load and can (for example if the server "having problems") increase page loading time for users viewing that page.--
'''Weak oppose''', mainly due to lack of edits and activity before March. I would probably support in two months' time. I also think that Wikipedia-space and Talk-space edits are a bit on the low side, which may imply a lack of policy knowledge or willingness to discuss issues.
'''Oppose''': not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' per [[User talk:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi]]. --
'''Oppose''' - please keep going with your current work rate and don't be discouraged.  Another few months and you'll be fine. --
'''Weak Oppose''' too soon, and perhaps a little to obsessed with his own editcount (see userpage) --
'''Oppose''' Far too soon. -
'''Oppose''' A little too new. Maybe in 2 months or so.
'''Oppose''' on grounds of time, on the basis that effective participation seems to have started in early March.  I'd be happy with another month, in that respect.
'''Weak Oppose''' time, edit count = good, but needs at least 6-8 months experience. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Stifle
'''Oppose''' -- not enough time on project, insufficient involvement in and understanding of project process, image in sig. Spend 6 months working in project namespace, try again.
'''Oppose''' not enough time --
Sorry. Will be happy to support in a two months. - <b>
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I have to oppose you, you really haven't been around long enough.--<em>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Not enough time.
'''Oppose''' too new. You need a few more months exposure before a fair judgement of your experience can be made.--
'''Oppose''' Newbie. No solid featured contribution. Try again next year.
'''Strong Oppose''' supports the abuse of Wikipedia userspace for the distribution of [[User:Srikeit/Userboxes|divisive userboxes]], first edit far to recent when combined with his level of community involvement, lots of nearly mindless mechanical edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&offset=20060501000417&target=Srikeit], but little to demonstrate a clear understanding of the important goals of the project. Many instances of high speed bot driven welcomes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060502102200&limit=62&target=Srikeit&namespace=3] which are probably in violation of policy (62 edits in 18 minutes faster as I operate my authorized bot!). Poor ratio of user/user_talk edits to article/article_talk edits mostly due to editcount pumping from welcomes and low activity on actual article work. Frankly I can't tell this user from a bot, so how can I know his judgment or character? Adminship is about trust. If srikeit would like to go up for adminship as a bot (and disclose his source code, and have another admin operate him) then I'd be more likely to consider supporting.--
'''Oppose''' agreeing with Gmaxwell, may not be a bot, but mechanically (even if manually) adding tons of welcomes to bump edit count doesn't strike me as earning adminship approval -- <small> (
'''Oppose''' don't need more admins, and he has an image in his sig. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''No'''
'''Oppose''' per Gmaxwell and Rob Church.  --
'''Oppose''' per Gmaxwell, Jo. Also needs more time.
'''Neutral''' Looks good but haven't really been around here for long enough I don't think <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Neutral''': Good number of edits; but, at this level, you've only been a newcomer so far. Experienced users stay around with that same strength for 8-12 months. --
'''Neutral'''. I usually look for candidates that have been consistently active for at least around three months, give or take some. This is usually a good indication of ones dedication towards Wikipedia and understanding of its policies. (IMO, 8-12 months is an unreasonably long time to keep a qualified user from the mop.) Though, a quick look at his contris showed that the most recent 2800 or so edits occured in the last two weeks. Can't oppose (not with that many barnstars), but I'd like to wait a bit (about a month) before I support (and consider removing that "new messages" box. Argh! =P).&#160;—
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but not enough experience.
'''Neutral'''. Not have been here for long time, but I do not oppose.--
'''Neutral''' A wonderful editor who I know personally and does deserve the job. As others have said, time is an issue though. Talkspace is also a bit on the low side. Remember Adminship is not a reward for Wikipedians. Besides, if you became a administrator that would mean we would see less focus on the great contributions you are currently doing. A couple of months will convert me. All the best. <b><font color="teal">
Changed to '''Neutral''' from Oppose as most of my concerns have been addressed, plus there are some pretty lame oppose votes based on wikiservicetimeitis and I'd like to negate at least one of them (if not cancel it out by going to support). — ''
'''Neutral'''. I really, really wanted to support this guy as he's has done everything right, but length of service is just too short - a couple more months needed at which time I would almost certainly support. (I've procrastinated over this for a couple of days). BTW, fantastic work on [[WP:Cricket]] bios which would have probably never been done without you. You are an asset to WP. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards support. Well-rounded user, but clear lack of time on the project.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Weak Support'''.  I'll say that from what I looked over of your contributions, they seem to be very helpful, and it's my personal policy to support those who are strong on vandalism patrol, because it shows a lot about the type of person.  However, with the short term of experience, it's hard to give a strong support. &mdash;
'''Weak Support''. Per above. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
Too soon - active editing for only over a month. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' sorry, you really need experience here before you can play a role in enforcing policy --
'''Oppose'''. A good editor, but has only been a been a consistent contributor here for one month. Needs a few months more experience before becoming an admin.
'''Weak Oppose''' You are no doubt, a great editor and unlikely to abuse admin tools. But after only one month of experience, it is a bit too soon here. However, your enthusiasm must be commended here. Please do not take this personally and I would strongly recommend you to carry on your good work and re-apply again after two or three months. No doubt, if you perserver, you will get there. Based on my own past experience and RfAs here, it is only right for me to give you encouragement and assurance on this. Just be a bit more patient and I suggest that you withdraw this nomination as soon as possible before it piles up and discourages you. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I really wish I could support but I can't. Having only been here a month, you don't know how much you don't know regarding process and policy. Vandal fighting and Afd comments are necessary, but the main purpose of this place is, after all, to write an encyclopedia. I haven't seen much writing through your edits, and I suggest you get some experience with writing articles. Find a subject in which you're interested and jump in. A good way to start is [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] – take a look through a couple of days worth of suggestions to see what is and isn't acceptable and why, then create articles. It's one of the best Wikistress relievers I've found. With more time, more writing, and more balanced contributions, I would almost certainly support your nomination by the end of the year. Good luck!
'''Neutral''' I think that its a little too early for you, ST47, though you're heading in the right direction. May I suggest that [[WP:ER|Editor review]] might be a good forum for you to learn more about your next steps towards becoming an admin? Best,
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> I second Gwernol's comments.  You seem to be a very good, dedicated editor; however, as you should know, if you regularly follow requests for adminship, many editors prefer candidates who have several more months of active editing.  In your response to Chacor, you ask what he thinks you can't do because of the short amount of time you've been actively editing.  It isn't necessarily that there is something that you don't know or can't do; it is merely that many editors would be reassured if you would continue editing actively for several more months. Good luck.
'''Neutral''' Looks like a great editor. Keep working hard and watch other's [[WP:RfA]]'s. Just need more experience.
'''Comment''', rather in response to the question from candidate above. I would recommend waiting at least 3 more months. Only superb, well-known candidates are sysopped after 3 months activity. I would recommend becoming more involved with policy and Wikipedia discussions, but because you are rather new it is hard to recommend that you focus in any area. You should do what you are interested in, participate when you come across things or if you find something good and if it happens to be in areas where admin tools would be helpful, you can nominate yourself again—or someone else might nominate you. That could be several months, but the admin tools aren't that spectacular and you can participate in administrative and maintenance areas without them. —
'''Neutral'''. You are a very dedicated editor, but as others say it is too soon to become an admin. However, in 2 months' time I would almost definitely support you then. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Neutral''' I would also prefer the editor review option for relatively new editors before they take the RfA route. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Only one month of regular editing is not enough.

'''Neutral'''  &mdash; Plenty of edits, but a lopsided mix. Your initial edits are most fascinating &mdash; very few editors come to Wikipedia for the first time at such a dedicated level of vandal fighting.  Plenty of vandalism patrols &mdash; over 1000 vandalism reverts &mdash; extremely noteworthy dedication &mdash; action on AfD&mdash; clear progression delete per nom to more thoughtful comments citing actual WP standards &mdash; no compelling arguments noted, but solid enough&mdash;no evidence of retrieving an article on its way out by improving it, but you’re not alone there&mdash;nothing fatal. I decided to support if I could find one major edit or a couple of significant contributions!  Looked for major edits &mdash; thought I’d found some before August 16th, but upon reviewing over 1000 edits in main I realized that was when you moved over to the use of [[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups]].  BOTTOM LINE: Please broaden yourself a little further (e.g., spend some more time in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] seeing who gets selected and why), do some serious contributing (create several new articles or research and add to existing articles), Wikify a few of the crummier articles, & I’ll be happy to support you as an administrator.
'''Support'''; first support on an RfA at last!  <sub>
'''Support''' at long last. Good luck! --<font color="002bb8">
'''Weak support''' per nom, but answer to question 3 is not as good as I expected - you will come into conflicts when you use sysop tools - it is just a matter of time. And we need to know whether you've a strategy ready to cope with these conflicts when they arise. <tt>
'''Support''': mais bien sur! Dedicated vandal fighter, will not abuse the tools. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Support.''' I see only dedication. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. This is a dedicated editor who has done great work in vandalfighting, *fD and other processes where administrators are needed. I'm confident that the candidate will make a great admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': Another great user who can make full use of the tools to improve Wikipedia. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Support''' A very dedicated user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Well reasoned answers, good record, appears ready.
'''Support''' - a good Wikipedian with lots of experience on Wikipedia. –- <strong>[[User:Kungming2|<font color="blue"> kungming·</font>]]
'''support'''He has devoted alot of his time to wikipedia.
'''Strong Support''' - Slay vandal, win vote. Admins should be doing the things that only admins can do. --<font face="Verdana">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="SteelBlue">Elar</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<font color="orange">'''a'''</font>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<font color="SteelBlue">girl</font>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|
'''Support''' what a candidate
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' I think you would be a good administrator.

'''Oppose''' — "Stats for the lazy:" frankly that seems rude; I don't see any contributions from you, I'd be willing to consider changing from oppose should you provide some contributions you have made; Remember: We are building an encyclopaedia not trying to fight a war with vandals. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Weak oppose'''. In addition to concerns below, I think you're inexperienced with process. I'd say over 3/4 of your edits are welcoming users or doing re-cat. While this is not a bad thing, I'd like for an admin to have more substantial experience in the processes within Wikipedia. I'd say give it another three or four months with process and article contributions. --
'''Absolutely-Not Oppose''' Notorious [[WP:BITE]]r! Tags newbies' contribs within seconds of creation, repeat declined-CSD offender. I have no confidence whatsoever in his reading with deletion policy, and I find his behavior with newbies strongly reprehensible. Finally, and unnecessarily, "sign your posts if you enjoy life" is not exactly confidence-inspiring. This user is immature. I cannot entrust the tools. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian. The particular incident regarding [[Raw]] only occurred two weeks ago. I have my doubts regarding this user, as he is just one of many Wikipedians who only are here for vandal-fighting. His "average edits per article" is a lowly 1.20, which suggests this user does not have much article-building experience. The diff provided by Moreschi also worries me. Don't take this the wrong way, but failing to see the mistake in your reversion gives me the notion that you are not entirely careful with your editing and you may be a bit too "trigger happy". These are all faults that can be fixed by a few months of hard work on Wikipedia. '''
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian. Sorry but the [[Raw]] incident shows a misunderstanding of the deletion process.
'''Oppose''' ST47 is certainly a valuable warrior in the fight against vandalism but his contributions in other aspects of Wikipedia are limited.  Concerned about points raised by crz and familiarity with Wikipedia policies & guidelines.  A few more months of great work and some broadening of wikihorizons and I will probably support
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, by Crzrussian's evidence indicate that the nominee needs to futher understand the intricacies of the [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion criteria]]. Further, nominee does not meet my [[User:Danntm/RFA|guideline]] of at least six months of experience.--
'''Oppose''' - Other things set aside, let's stick to the basics. This user has only been here 4 months, & despite the 8,000 edits, it's not enough to learn the ins & outs of Wikipedia & gain valuable experience. Anyone can rack up edits, but experience is vital for an admin, experience which ST47 doesn't have frankly. Now delving further, as per the above opposers, his comments & biting (grrr) are worrysome. Although yes, vandal fighters do need the tools, I feel an admin should be all rounded in the field. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose on this one...
'''Oppose''' Definitely doing good work, but links given by crz suggest the possibility for making incorrect calls in the use of the delete button. --
Not admin material. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Czrussian. Nominating [[Raw]] for speedy deletion is...well, wrong. We all mess up but that betrays complete lack of understanding of policy.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid that the diffs Crzrussian provided shows that you still lack expertise regarding the deletion policy. The WP:BITE issues are also quite siginficant. I don't think you are ready for the mop & bucket yet. [[User:CharonX|Charon]]
'''Oppose''', we all make mistakes when it comes to deletionism but crz gave us some good links. A good candidate in my opinion is a civil nice one.__
'''Oppose''' per the Russian. That's some serious biting and failure to understand deletions, especially the first diff. --
'''Oppose''' as per the Russian. The user doesn't display an understanding of the deletion process. --
'''Neutral leaning to support''' Although I share some concerns raised by those opposing, I've witnessed a lot of good work from this user. ST47 might have had a few missteps while tagging articles for speedy deletion, but if promoted I do not expect him to delete pages without being certain that they fall under strict [[WP:CSD|CSD]]. Anyway, perhaps another month or two could dissipate any doubts.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Neutral''' per Húsönd. Recommend a few more months in the trenches. All the best, <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
I '''unreservedly support''' this nomination.  He has consistently been the voice of sanity and temperance over at [[Personal Rapid Transit]], where such qualities are in short supply.  His interventions there cooled down a kerfuffle which had sent several full-fledged admins fleeing.  If he can negotiate with a tar baby like that and still feel like logging back into Wikipedia on the 'morrow, then I figure he can handle most anything. Unless power corrupts, and I doubt in this case that it will, he'll make a stellar admin.
Calming and reasoned approach is perfect at disarming the worst conflicts. I have seen him around a lot getting his hands dirty. In the good sense.
'''Support'''. Appears civil on talk pages, works hard, and contributes to multiple areas.
'''Support''' Good interactions with other editors.  Apears to be a sensible all-round chap and solid admin material. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''', while slightly below my editcounting requirements he impressed me by his answers
'''Support''' Impressive answers to questions. A civil user as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Pleasant cooperation on [[Talk:Mathematics]] and some other articles which I don't quite remember now, I trust Lethe, and no reason not to support, though I admit that his reply to Phr below is slightly worrying. --
'''Support''' Seems to be a clued-up user. Just, please, don't let your business interests get in the way of making the best judgements for Wikipedia. The two should be kept seperate but I'm willing to trust that they will be. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' - There is precicely ''one'' thing that JzG and I agree on: Stephen's worthiness for adminship. JzG and I (and others) had epic battles at the [[Personal rapid transit]] articles, and Stephen was ''the'' moderating influence. Before he arrived it was a war; since he got fully involved, things calmed to the point where there hasn't been a contentious edit there in weeks. He is calm, reasonable, patient, and has a great understanding of what Wikipedia is (or, more accurately, what it aspires to be). If he's not admin material, then nobody is.
'''Support''' I just don't see any merit to the oppose viewpoint.  Althought the wikispace edits are a bit low, Stephen seems capable.
'''Support''' Stable, mature character is fundamental for an admin.
'''Support''' per all of the above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Mainspace edits could be higher, and more disperse, but the editor is good a conflict resolution, which Wikipedia can use in an admin.--
'''Weak support''' per CrzRussian and Danntm and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]].
'''Support'''.  Sounds like a good guy.
'''Support''' I trust him. --
'''Support'''. Has engaged constructively with reasoned criticism and remained cool under fire. Has added external links to interesting videos which most people with computers can view out of the box without seeing any ads, promotional messages or hawking of software. I can certainly forgive him for thinking this was a good thing, much as I consider myself a part of the free culture movement.
'''Support''': seems like a great bloke.
'''Support''': I'm typing this on Debian stable, if that means anything. The candidate sounds like a reasonable guy. I don't think insufficent zeal for free software should disqualify him. The concerns of those who oppose his nomination would lead me to oppose it as well, if he had been unwilling to address them.
'''Strong support''' he is an asset!  When building an encyclopedia, you need people with his credentials.  Quality not quantity of articles, to paraphrase Jimbo... for that you need experts not only contributing to articles, but making administrative decisions to ensure the quality of articles --
'''Support'''. I wasn't going to voice an opinion, but some of his responses in this RFA impressed me. If he's that good at taking advantage of feedback, he'd probably make a good admin, even if it takes him a little while to find his sea legs. -
'''Support''' per nom and well-thought responses to difficult questions, although it's obvious consensus will not be reached here.  I hope that SBS will continue to be part of a discussion of future technologies here, while remaining mindful of the concerns that have been expressed.
'''Support''' I see the force of some of those who oppose, but on balance deserves support.--
'''Support''' [[User:FellowWikipedian|FellowWikip]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' Seems a solid fllow who will help things along.--
'''Support''' Stephen's commitment to Wikipedia is unerring - I should know! He's calm, mature, diplomatic, and is a penetrating and perceptive researcher - exactly what you'd want in an admin.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> '''Oppose''' ''(vote changed and explanation slightly rewritten based on examining the codec situation 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC))'' I take issue with the statement "I have added about a dozen videos to Wikipedia, shot on various camera phones" when what was really added was external links to off-wiki videos with unclear licenses, which apparently need a special patented player applet supplied by the candidate's company (see [[FORscene]]).  I consider the cited edits to be linkspam per [[WP:EL]] no matter how good the videos are.  Referring to this as adding videos to Wikipedia shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's nature as a free encyclopedia.  Adding videos to Wikipedia would be wonderful; that's done by licensing them freely, converting them to a free format and uploading them to Commons, not linking them externally.  Candidate otherwise seems very good.
'''Oppose''' per Phr. We can't have admins who do not understand [[meta:foundation issues|foundation issues]].
'''Oppose''' per above. Serious policy issues and Q1 answer (many non-admin tasks described) bother me.'''
'''Oppose''' -- not enough time with the project --
'''Oppose''' Stephen has been insisting on adding videos and encouraging others[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media&diff=66385145&oldid=65255548] to add videos to Wikipedia via an external video site which uses encumbered codecs embedded in proprietary software. These actions have spread across many pages, now 95 links in total [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&limit=100&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fpro.forscene.net%2F]. Typically when encountering promotion of this magnitude I would suggest a block for spamming, not a grant of adminship. I understand that Stephen wants to help Wikipedia, but I suspect that his position of CEO of forscene is coloring his judgment. Video uploaded to third-party sites in proprietary formats is not a contribution to Wikipedia, and to encourage others to do so is utterly unacceptable. Soon we will have support for an inline (java (GCJ or sun) based, or VLC plugin (Linux, Windows, Mac) based) playback of both Ogg/Theora and Ogg/Vorbis, and none of the video locked up on forscene's site will be able to participate. --
Changing to '''oppose''' per Gmaxwell.
'''Oppose''' due to apparent failure to understand foundational principles which are the reason Wikipedia exists.
No.--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Oppose''' per the above. --
'''Oppose''' per agreement with points raised by GMaxwell and Kelly Martin.--
It pains me greatly to oppose a jzG nom, but the concerns raised by GMaxwell and others about pushing proprietary formats are just too concerning to me, despite the users great contribs to mediation and other areas... I hope Stephen will continue to contribute in these areas but reform his approach on this important issue and align with foundation policy. With regret: '''Oppose''' ++
'''Oppose''' per GMaxwell. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per issues stated above.--
'''Oppose''' per GMaxwell.
'''Oppose'''. Does not seem to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is [[WP:NOT]]not.
'''Oppose'''. Stephen is a very bright person and if he shows that he respects consensus and concerns raised about the "free content" issues raised here, then I'm more than happy to support him in a few months. At the moment, I feel he'd better stay without the admin bits while taking part in the discussion over videos for Wikipedia. I just would appreciate if those that think loudly about issuing blocks to Stephen would refrain from doing so. I also think there should be some explaining pages/policy where non-experts like me can read about this stuff (links/new pages are welcome). I would also welcome a more civil and non-vitriolic discussion from the opposers. If the ideas of Stephen don't fit with Wikipedia, then it's as simple as that. No need to engage in a paranoic witch hunt here. --

'''Oppose''' per Freakofnurture. 5.532 edits is kind of too high for administrators because usually administrators go about around 1.3 pages. --
'''Oppose''' per all of the above.
'''Oppose''' per GMaxwell.
'''Oppose''' per GMaxwell --
'''Oppose''' per Freakofnurture. the issue of the edits has to be sorted out. Maybe in 2-3 months time. --
'''Oppose''' per GMaxwell.--
'''Oppose''' - [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Itiva|this AfD]] for the company "[http://www.google.ca/search?q=itiva "Itiva"] seems to show the user attempting to delete the article of a company in the digital video business, the same business that he is apparently in.  It would have been appropriate to abstain from that AfD, whether it was a legitimate deletion candidate or not.  This user can continue to be a valued WP editor, but I don't believe his interests are well aligned with the nature of adminship.
'''Oppose''' - not only because of the video codec issues brought up ''ad nauseum'' above, but because he's editing [[FORscene]] regularly, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FORscene&diff=60884114&oldid=60878876 adding] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FORscene&diff=60544299&oldid=60537107 material], not just grammar/layout fixes. More than one conflict of interest means no support from me without a long period of self-enforced neutrality, sorry. -- ''
'''Oppose;''' I see a continuing misunderstanding of free-as-in-beer vs. free-as-in-speech.
I am uncomfortable with this user's stance on many topics. A decent editor, but I am concerned that his application of policy would be flawed. Therefore, I must '''oppose'''. Also, Java applets are often a good thing, but they would be hell on accessibility.
'''Neutral''' per Phr. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral'''; to be sure, the answers to the questions were very well thought out, and it is great to hear that mediation comes easily to Stephen.  I am also glad to see him take on disagreements in a very straightforward matter.  As an admin, however, policy can be important, and I think it would be best for the issue with the videos to be ironed out before adminship occurs.  Otherwise, a very well-qualified candidate. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral'''. Can't be sure how to call this one. There are some issues with regard to licensing and foundation matters that I can't ignore, but overall I don't see much else against having him as an admin. I suspect this RFA has come in at the wrong time only.
'''Neutral''' - It disappoints me to see such a good editor in many aspects fail his RfA due to one issue.  However, I have to agree, I think unfortunately his head may be stuck in his corporate interests when on Wikipedia, that head should be pulled all the way out.  I really do think he's a great editor in many aspects, but this one concerns me just a bit too much.  Sorry,
'''Neutral'''. Stephen is trying to do the right thing, and I would like to commend him for that. Free/Open content is a tricky thing to get your head around. There's wikipedia trying to be open on one side, and several traditional  media people on the other side trying to undermine wikipedia at every step. This forces us to be much more strict than we'd like to be. Stephen is the unfortunate person caught in the middle. I haven't asked Stephen my questions, so I can't support right now, hence neutral. In the mean time, basically he should contact one of our foundation copyright experts, and work things out! :-)
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to wait to vote until this video issue dies down. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per above.
<small>moral</small> support as to avoid a shutout. Suggesting withdrawl and trying again later. --
Uh.... '''no'''. Obvious reasons.
'''Oppose''' Your participation has dropped off significantly since December with surprisingly inactive months in between. I would probably support you in June, in about two months, if you stay active.
'''Oppose''': per NSLE, Joturner, and HtH.
'''Oppose'''. No reason given [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' There is no nomination here.
'''Oppose''' Per obvious reasons.
'''Oppose''': Umm, well, the proper format isn't really used, and no information is given; plus, edits and experience seem low; come back in a while and I'll gladly support. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose'''. Is this a joke? --[[User:Deskana|Darth Revert]]
'''Neutral'''. Edit count, edit summary count, and time spent here are low. % of article edits and % of policy edits are high. On the other hand, he seemed so eager to delete pages. I should say that except for a/c/tfds and userspace subpages, most stuff isn't deleted. It's kept as archival material. And it can be undeleted because it is still saved in the server backup archive. Just...make a few thousand more edits, spend another month or three editing...your time will come.--[[User:HereToHelp|Here]][[User talk:HereToHelp|'''T''']]
'''Neutral'''  Agree with [[User:HereToHelp|Here]][[User talk:HereToHelp|'''T''']][[User:HereToHelp|oHelp]] and [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub>.  A self-nomination is commendable and takes guts.  But you really need to properly introduce yourself to others.  Other than that, a few months more of seasoning and you'll be ready.  Might even get nominated at that point.  Who know....  --
'''Neutral'''. More use of edit summaries and experience would be much better.--
'''Support''' - I encountered this Wikipedian when he was working to develop consensus for the automotive barnstar. I found him open, helpful, and eager to discuss. -
'''Support''' - It would help your cause if you mentioned having a [[WP:FA]]
'''Support''' Well meaning, and meet my [[User:Danntm/RFA|criteria]].  However, on a more serious note, you should consider withdrawing and spend some time becoming more familiar with the community.  Best wishes --


'''Support'''. This is one of those cases where you have to ask yourself: Will Wikipedia benefit or suffer if this user is given the admin tools? I say benefit with little to no chance of abuse. Good luck. --
'''Support.''' Was undecided even after a lot of thought and digging through Steve's edits, but AuburnPilot's point was persuasive.
'''Support.''' Isn't going to abuse tools, so no reason to oppose. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Wouldn't misuse tools, has experience and the Mini article is extremely beautiful. -
'''Support''', without a compelling reason not to. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' - I'm not prepared to see a candidate potentially suffer an unsuccessful RfA purely because someone is in a foul mood and has to find someone to vote against. I'm fed up of seeing two distinct camps here shoot down good article writers because they don't do much in the way of admin type chores and I'm fed up of seeing good vandal fighters and housekeepers being shot down because they don't write articles. <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Strong Support''' - per Heligoland. Steve is an '''excellent''' contributor, and I am astounded by some of the people that have been shot down in RfA recently. SteveBaker will not misues the tools, he is a good contributor, and once he has a duty to commit to XfD and other administrative stuff I think he ''will'', and with the same dedication he has to his current actions. --<font style="background:black">[[User:Elaragirl|<font color="LightSteelBlue">Shrieking Harpy</font>]]<font style="background:Red">.<font style="background:Orange">.<font style="background:Yellow">.<font style="background:Green">.<font style="background:Blue">.<font style="background:Purple">.</font></font></font></font></font></font></font><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]</sup><sup>|</sup><sup>
'''Support''' a strong contributor who understands policy and will make a fine admin. I encountered Steve during the problems of [[User:Wiarthurhu]] (who is now subject to a community ban). Despite incredible provocation, Steve remained [[WP:CALM|calm]] and dedicated to Wikipedia policies.
'''Weak Support''' - why not? He isn't saying he's going to change the world, so people are opposing? He's offering to help out with backlogs which require admin privs. 'Nuf said, really... All the same, I think you would make a better candidate given a few more months of solid contributing. Cheers, <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Strong Support''' - experienced, friendly and has an FA.  The only red links in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=SteveBaker upload log] are things moved to commons, and saved me from having to read yet another BS nom statement --
'''Support'''. I see good common sense and a good attitude and approach to the project, and that, in my opinion, is all you need to do the job properly.  The points raised below strike me as irrelevant.  Edit summaries?  Short nomination statement?  Little interest in the "community aspect" of the job? I guess next we'll hear that the candidate has failed on occasion to wear green on St. Patrick's day, and then the opposes will really pile in. --
'''Support''' Definetly, he ''will'' benefit the 'pedia, so why oppose? <font color="LightSteelBlue">↔</font color>
'''Weak Support''' don't see anything very concerning, think he'll probably be ok.
'''Strong support''' per Heligoland and AuburnPilot. The boring tasks need to be done.
'''Support''' positive attitude and commitment.
'''Strong Support''' -- I'm one of the people usually most likely to cast an oppose vote, but I don't see anything here not to like -- Steve has good experience except in some "process-y" areas like XfD that he's not interested in. He hardly seems like the kind who will now suddenly become the scourge of XfDs, widely abusing his powers after slyly avoiding these processes pre-RfA. Steve has a very clear sense of how he wants to help and how he can help, given admin tools. Steve shows no signs of incivility. Yes, some answers to questions were short, but who needs verbose when short will do? In fact, Steve's brevity seems all of a piece with his very focused goals and viewpoint -- there's a backlog of work and time's a wastin. Put him to work. --
'''Support''' my kind of admin - knows there are backlogs and already has the mind to eliminate them. We need more of this type so there will never be unsightly red flags over places like [[C:CSD]] and [[CAT:NS]] again.
'''Support''', seems reasonably sensible and diligent, contributions are fine, willing to improve, learn and assist, can't see any indication this user would run amok with the tools.--
'''Support''' solid contributor who wants to help with the pruning of crap? I'll forgive that messily mixed metaphor and support :)
'''Support'''. A little lacking in experience, but a strong focused editor with good reasoning, willingness to learn and seems to know how he can help without the egotistical subtext to some self-noms. Just squeezes into the support column for me.
'''Support'''. Per Gwernol and Rockpocket. --
'''Support''' just because I like your answers.
'''Support''' - give him his own mop
'''Support''' Plenty of edits and good answers to questions.  We need more admins to do the more "mundane" work. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Low Wikipedia namespace count, but this is balanced by fairly decent Wikipedia talk namespace count. Nothing concerning in editor's history, so unlikely to abuse the tools.
'''support''' why can't he be an admin he seems fit for the job.
'''Support''' - will not misuse tools, has said he will use them for tasks he's familiar with, and he's right: we need more admins right now. -
'''Support'''. I think this candidate can be trusted not to abuse the tools and be an asset to the project as an admin. From his record, I think we can see that he'll be the type of admin who'll avoid wikipolitics and focus purely on janitorial tasks and backlogs. I think there's space for a few more of that type of admins.
'''Support''' for being nice, and per Singopo above. ''Peace''. --'''
'''Support.''' No reason to think he'd misuse the tools. Good balance of edits (talk, namespace, etc.). Sufficient general experience. I don't have any problem with an admin who concentrates in some areas and not in others. Not a rude person. Objections based on his short nomination statement are silly, in my opinion.
'''Support''' - why not show a little trust? He doesn't like WikiPolitics - so what the hell? If he wants the admin tools to actually improve the encyclopaedia for a change, then that's wonderful. His record is good and I see no reason to think he'd go on a rampage.
'''Strong support'''. Let's see: Steve is interested in writing an encyclopedia ([[Mini]]). He's interested in maintaining an encyclopedia (this nomination). The tools would allow him to help maintain the encyclopedia. Seems very obvious to me. Back in 2005, it was unusual to see more than 10 pages at [[CAT:CSD]] at the same time; now this count often runs over 200. [[CAT:NCT]] has over 1000 images listed. I wish there were more admins interested in actual maintainance work rather than wikipolitics. --
'''Support''' - good quality contributions and response suggest to me that Wikipedia would benefit from this user having admin status.
'''Support''' good admin candidate. --
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience in admin-related tasks, such as XfD, vandalism, or requested page moves. Good contributor, but needs more experience in these areas. Also, I'd recommend for you to use edit summaries more often. --
'''Oppose''' per Wafulz.  I would like to see more admin-related experience, too.
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a very good editor, willing to contribute and performing quality work.  However, lack of interest in the community aspect of administrator status, <del>edit summary usage</del>, short nomination statement and narrow answers to #1, #3, and #4 are concerns. Would be a good candidate for deletion tools if such a thing existed on its own, but I'm wary about supporting administrator status as it currently exists. --
'''Oppose''' per concerns above. ''semper fi'' —
'''Oppose''' I hate to use this reason but it actually applies here: "per above." Get involved in some XfDs and vandal fighting and I would consider supporting your next RfA.[[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' on the grounds of insufficient experience as a non-admin in the processes where administration is needed. --
'''Oppose''' As per others --
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Admins must be able to communicate effectively, and have a basic grasp of community norms; the candidate's pithy "nomination statement" demonstrates dramatic failure in both those respects.  Based simply on his conduct here, I'm not at all surprised candidate's conduct has fallen short elsewhere, as the above criticisms show.
Underexperienced and per Xoloz. Moral support tho. Do more adminny stuff, get someone to nominate you and should have no trouble securing the community trust. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Wafulz and Xoloz
Per the very well-reasoned Xoloz. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' I see no problems that can't be fixed, so I expect to support in the future, but for now [[tacit knowledge]] is lacking. ~
I have to agree with Xoloz here. (
'''Oppose'''I agree with the above-he says too little in his responses, and what there is has little to do with anything that necessitates adminship to do. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose'''. Contribs look great, but I'd like to see more pre-admin janitorial tasks before awarding this user the tools. The user should get a good feel for this kind of work before committing to become an administrator. —
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Wafulz|Wafulz]] and [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]].  Also it seems that the candidate doesn't take criticism well, as per his response to [[User:AQu01rius]]'s neutral vote.
'''Oppose''' per Wafulz and Xoloz.  Not enough WP-space edits.  Spend more time hanging around AFD and other xFD discussions.  You look like a good candidate.  Come back in 3 months and I'll support your RFA if you have more experience in admin-related tasks.  --
'''Oppose''' Not for any particular reason, just felt like it. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashi]]'''[[User:Ashibaka/b|<font color="orange">b</font>]]'''
'''Weak Oppose''': The contributions check out for me, however the responses are really small and other reasons as per above. <font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>'''&nbsp;
'''Weak oppose'''. I went looking through Steve's history and found a couple of edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASteveBaker&diff=67824175&oldid=67732098 1] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiarthurhu&diff=prev&oldid=69207104 2]) related to [[User:Wiarthurhu]] that concern me. While I understand that the situation lead to Wiarthurhu being banned and that Steve's temperment was tested, he didn't keep his cool in a way I'd expect an admin to. --
'''Oppose''' I am sorry, but an admin needs to take critisism well, if it is accurate or not. You appear to be taking alot of the critisisms here personally. You seem to be an excellent editor.
'''Oppose'''-Per above comments--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''' I am quite dismayed to see how many spelling and grammar errors were made in the question and answer section. This shows a lack of attention to detail. Administration is a skill that requires good attention to detail.
'''Oppose'''. Your enthusiasm and willingness to help Wikipedia is appreciated. However, I am of the opinion that adminstrators need to be well rounded, and capable of performing all administrator tasks should they be required. Administrators typically cannot just "stay out of the limelight and perform maintenance tasks", as they typically get tied up in other things. This is not to say that they have to perform all tasks (as I myself don't), but I believe that I am capable of performing any task required of an administrator should the need arise. If this user participates more in XfDs and other related items, I will be happy to support him. --
'''Neutral''' for the time being.  I'd like to see the user expand his self-nomination to explain what exactly he thinks he can contribute as an admin.  "I'd be willing to help clear backlogs for a few hours a day" seems a little too vague.  Perhaps the candidate can explain his history with such areas as well.
Inexperience as others have mentioned. RfA is in good faith of course, will reconsider in a few months. -
'''Neutral''' Inexperienced candidate, as above.  Why not go to [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] where they have a good [[:Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching|admin coaching programme]]?  You can also help by patrolling the new and recent changes pages, reverting vandalism found there, or tagging pages for speedy deletion, along with warning editors that this has been done and warning vandals too. Persistent offenders can be reported to [[:WP:AIV]] for admin action.  You can also help at the Help and Reference desks too.  There are plenty of opportunities to gain experience in admin duties without the tools, in order for you to be ready for them when the time comes.  Withdraw this RfA and work on these areas for 3-4 months.
'''Neutral''': A year and a half is good enough for a self-nom, but, boy, do those summaries (32% main/61% minor) need some working on! --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral'''. 6% of the user edits is in Wikipedia namespace. Not impressive for an admin candidate. Once that area is improved, this should be a strong candidate. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Neutral''', lacks of experience. Try again in six months and we shall see. Also, you may like to do more admin work. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' agree with Ter.  This user's skills can be fine-tuned a bit.  Glad to see he's taken the initiative with the edit summaries. I think I'd support in a few months if you start getting involved with the backlogs now. (AFD, for example, dosn't alwase require an admin to close). ---

'''Neutral''', I'd like to see more Wikipedia contributions in XfD but otherwise a good candidate. I don't want to oppose because I think that SteveBaker wouldn't mess up as an admin, but I don't want to support for the lack of pre-administrative tasks (I mean AFD, MFD reporting users to be blocked, CSD things like that) undertaken.
'''Neutral'''.  Needs some more experience, but not so much that I'm going to flat out oppose this nomination.
'''Neutral'''. Agree per directly above. But a good editor though indeed. [[User:DarknessLord|<font color="black">D•a•r•k•n</font>]]•[[User:DarknessLord/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]•[[User:DarknessLord|<font color="gray">s•s•L•o•r•d</font>]]•[[User talk:DarknessLord|<font color="turquoise">i•a•n</font>]]•••
'''Neutral''' The lack of experience is a major concern here. However, I feel that this user does not deserve an oppose opinion as he is an excellent contributor to this project. In the meantime, do not lose heart because of this RfA and try again after three to six months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' - Don't know this user. --
'''Neutral'''.  I think the editor needs to learn a bit more about the process.  The short self-nomination I think-- is one thing that points to what I perceive as a short-coming.
'''Neutral''' Good user, but still needs to improve in many aspects of Wikipedia (as per Oppose comments). '''
'''Neutral''' per all the Opposes.
'''Neutral'''. I'm not happy with the candidate's assertions that Oppose votes '<nowiki>[need]</nowiki> to be better explained', but that isn't important enough to Oppose myself.
I would trust him completly as an admin.
'''Support''' An experienced user. Has been here for nearly a year although his edit counts are not impressive. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Steveo2 is an excellent user on wikipedia.org. He has contributed to the site in many ways and has helped many users find their way around.
'''Support''' - [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>

'''Support''' - adminship of birthday committee gave him enough experience to work as a good admin.
'''Moral Support''' - spread your efforts out a bit, and you'll do fine in a future RfA.  Come back here 1600 edits from now and let us peek at your contrib record again. --
'''Support''' Great contributions to the site.  good user.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' Good start but still to green for my tastes.--
'''Oppose'''.  Steveo2 wants to delete "unnecessary articles" but has contributed to only one [[WP:AfD|AfD]] vote which is concerning.  Also there isn't a lot of editing taking place (only 4 edits a day for the month of February). I'd also like to see more article participation and a more diverse project space participation.  User also messed up the nomination formatting. Edit summary usage is also low.  Please don't take my criticisms too hard and try to learn from them. Good luck!--
Sorry, but I do '''oppose''' when number of edits and use of summaries is this low. Please try again when both have increased significantly.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't quite might my minimal candidate expectations.  Also, per PS2pcGAMER, if you wish to assist in deleting inappropriate articles, participate at AfD and learn the ropes first.
'''Oppose''' Even I think this edit count is too low. For the amount of time that you have been with the project, this indicates extrememly low activity.
'''Oppose''' You have a relatively low edit count for the amount of time you've been here, you need to use more edit summaries, your talk page shows little community interaction, and you rarely use talk pages.  If you improve on these things then there should be no problem with you becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' Doesn't present convincing reasons for why adminship is required. Process can be learned (goodness knows I'm still learning, and I hope we ''all'' are) but at least some involvement in process is needed before adminship can be considered. It's surprising to me that somebody active for nearly one year has only registered an opinion in one AFD debate, for example. --
'''Oppose'''. A bit too new and edit summaries are low. Maybe next time.
'''oppose''' spend more time in article space. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4; width: 52px; height: 16px; font-size: 12px; p { text-align: center; font-face: Times New Roman} ">
'''Oppose''' for now due to relatively low project interaction.
'''Oppose''' Very new, and the deletion questions make me wonder what powers he should have just yet.
'''Oppose''' - Originally, when it came down to it, I was wavering on neutral. The user presents the fact that he's a semi-active user, and makes good edits. However, the user fails to convince me of his reasons for adminship.  But, what made me came to my conclusion are a few other things. This comment was a huge downer: ''"I plan to do such things as placing semi-protection on pages that are constantly being vandalized"'' - this would be horrible. Semi-protection is highly discouraged. Usually, it would simply be one or two users. The vandalizers should just be banned. Only if it's an ever growing problem should the semi-protection be used, and I'm afraid you didn't express that. Another note: '''''"Most importantly''', I plan to advise others that hope to become administrators, if I become one myself."'' - is this suggesting that it's more important to help other users become administrators than to perform the duties of administrators? The fact that he cannot commit over the summer is another down-side. Lack of experience is also a dissapointing side of it all, but definitly not as major as some of the other problems I've read from his answers. Work on articles more, ''(for awhile)'', and maybe with experience, you might have a chance. --<font style="background:orange"><font color="green">N</font>
'''Oppose'''.  213 (or so) of the 900 edits are to his own user page, which also says, "Note that over half of my articles are about episodes of [[Drake and Josh]]."  I'd prefer a little broader range of experience with Wikipedia before recommending for adminship.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Oppose''' as per above.
'''Oppose''' per Elkman and due to low edit count over a period of ten months.
'''Oppose'''. Low use of edit summaries makes me wonder if this candidate will delete pages without reasons.--
Sorry, '''no''' per above concerns. All  are very valid, and I'd suggest you look into them.
'''Oppose''' per Staxringold above.  Don't be discouraged from editing if this doesn't pass, try joining a Wikiproject to get more experience.
'''Oppose''' -- Unfamiliar with wikipedia's goals, policies and setting up the RFA.
'''Oppose''' Too little edits and all stated above.
'''Oppose''' Confusing use of two names on one account and "acceptance" of nomination makes this too much like a self-nomination presented as a third-party nomination. Would very likely oppose a valid nomination anyway per above.
'''Oppose''', inexperienced. Edit count is still too low, particularly when [[User:Elkman|Elkman]]'s concerns (above) are taken into account, and needs to use edit summaries significantly more than 13% of the time, too. More effort could have been taken to develop answers to the RfA questions, too. Although it's not why I'm opposing, I find signing with a totally different name from that of the login confusing and unhelpful. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Strong Oppose''', I want to see more admin-oriented actions. Please use edit summaries. When almost 25% of all edits are to one's own user page, there's cause for concern. Sorry. Come back in a few months after getting more involved in the project-side of Wikipedia. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose'' lack of edit summaries, low wikispace edits --
'''Oppose''' not active enough.
'''Oppose''', lack of edits, edit summaries, Wikipedia: namespace edits, and multiple names. While it's fairly inconsequential for a regular user to sign with something completely different, an admin doing so could prove quite tiresome. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' too inexperienced, too low edit count and summary usage.
'''Oppose''' I believe this is only my second oppose (could be wrong though). Reasoning pretty much as per everyone else. --''Signed by:''
'''Oppose''' Per above
'''Oppose''' - candidate lacks edits and experience.
'''Weak oppose''', needs a bit more experience. Interested question: Why do you not edit Wikipedia on weekends?
'''Oppose'''. It isn't anything personal, but your edit count is just a bit too low. Though I'd gladly support when you improved the count. --[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''' -- Sorry; get more experience and try again. Also, confusing sig.
'''Neutral''' - too new for my taste but I swear I've seen his name somewhere (bouquet of flowers to anyone who can tell me - I'm nonplussed) and that impresses me. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Maybe later'''. -
Per above. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Neutral''', too new, try again later. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral'''. Needs more project space experience. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' you're doing well, keep on contributing --
'''Neutral''' - Come back in a few months? --
'''Neutral, leaning towards weak support''' - will support in a few months assuming higher edit summary usage. -
'''Neutral''' - has been here a while (longer than me actually) but the lack of contributions, especially in the Wikipedia namespace, makes me wonder about his experience in admin type activities.
'''Support''' - <b>
'''Support''' traditional nominator support. --
'''Support''' I believe Stevietheman would make a fine admin. I have seen him in discussions and he keeps good character under strong fire. An impressive edit count also.
'''Support''', strong support. Very experience, needs the tools.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I don't know him but I like his attitude and he has the experience to do a good job.
'''Support''' --<font color="#191970">[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">
'''Support''' A superb editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I think he held his own on Durin's diffs below. Nothing I wouldnt have said.
'''Strong Support''' per SynergeticMaggot.
'''Support'''. Durin's diffs don't trouble me at all.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' no problems here. [[User:Wikipediarules2221|Wikipediarul]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Should make a great admin.
I'm surprised it's taken this long to get him on here. — ''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' Will be a good admin.  Has made great contributions to the project over a long period of time.  Is helpful to other editors, especially newbies.  He understands wiki policies and isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in.  Also, he isn't stubborn and will respond well to logical arguements.  --
'''Support''' per SynergeticMaggot and nom. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Durin makes some valid points, but so does this nominee and I would have to agree that while copyright issues are paramount, the rules do need to be applied evenly...no one is at fault in that situation overall. I would also like to state that this scrolling past a mountain of questions to place a vote is a real pain...what happened to the old system?--
'''Support''' - I like his additude. --

'''Support''' I see no problem --
'''Support''' the reasons under oppose shows that the user does have limits, so? Everyone has limits. The difs seem very trivial to me and don't show any major problem.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' per well-written nom and candidate answers. The situation with the fair use violations is a little misguided, but a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' Overly combative regarding policy issues. Accused me of selective enforcement of fair use violations and singling out project Louisville [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin&diff=67778225&oldid=67777435]. Made demands that since I had removed fair use images from project Louisville templates that I must also remove them from every other city project as soon as possible [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin&diff=67775159&oldid=67773387][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin&diff=67780082&oldid=67778862]. When I suggested he conduct removals of fair use violations on other city projects, he refused indicating that he did not want to be the bringer of bad tidings while accusing me of being unfair and haphazard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin&diff=67781232&oldid=67780577]. When informed in advance of a fair use violation on his userpage per his request to be informed, he described it as "this is getting insane" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevietheman#Fair_use_violation_on_your_userpage]. I believe this user needs to develop a more patient approach to questions of policy, and show considerably more restraint in making accusations against people he is in conflict with. Such behaviors inflame situations rather than calm them. I do not feel this user will be ready to be an admin until such time as they learn these behaviors. --
'''Weak oppose'''.  Looking over Stevie's contributions, I noticed several not-so-pleasing things.  First of all, I'd like to know if he can explain this comment found on his talk page, made to someone he was in a disagreement with: ''I will continue discussing this subject once mediation has begun. As for now, it's taking up too much of my valuable time.''  I think that was harsh and shows that he is not willing to sacrifice his "valuable time" to Wiki.  At the very least, this response was not a good way to deal with the conflict.  Additionally, I am concerned that W.marsh had to tell Stevie what adminship entails no more than 16 hours ago (see [[User talk:Stevietheman#rfa]]).  My last reason for opposing is that I do not see a sufficient level of activity on the candidate's part in XfDs.  This makes me wonder if he is sufficiently familiar with policy.  Most of his Wikipedia namespace edits are to his WikiProject, which is fine - and I'm certainly glad that he was so '''bold''' - but I really would like to see more XfD involvement to prove the candidate's knowledge of policy.  If my concerns are addressed over the next month or so, I will be quite open to supporting the candidate in the future.  If my concerns are addressed appropriately and sufficiently, I may even be convinced to swing to a neutral or weak support.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Durin's diffs indicate that Stevie has a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and how it is enforced.  Well-founded reasonable policies (like our policy on fair use) should be enforced, and any enforcement is appropriate.  However, we are all volunteers here, so any particular person's actions may be "selective."  For example, I may revert one piece of vandalism and not another, depending on how much time I have when I see the vandalism, and I can assume that someone else will cover the hole I left.  There's no reason things should work differently for fair use policy.  Stalking or singling out particular users or wikiprojects is certainly bad, but I'm not aware of any evidence During was doing that.  To say that appearing fair is of equal importance to enforcing policy is completely wrong, except when dealing with new users; experienced users have no reason to violate policy, and no reason to complain if someone chooses to point it out.  Am I missing something here?  If so, I'm happy to discuss. --
'''Oppose'''; per [[User:Durin|Durin]] and [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]]. --
'''Weak Oppose''' per Durin.'''
'''Oppose''', per Durin. Responses in that dispute demonstrate a lack of understanding of the wiki process; responses above suggest that he still feels that Durin acted unfairly in some way, which is untrue.
'''Oppose''' Per above and Fails my [[User:Masssiveego/admin|criteria]].  --
'''Weak oppose''' per Durin and Srose.
'''No, no, no, just no.''' Durin's diffs speak for themselves.
'''Oppose''', per Durin and Srose --
'''Oppose'''.  I share SCZenz and Christopher Parham's view on Stevie's interaction with Durin.  The best response to Durin's notification would have been to have volunteer to help him notify the other wikiprojects; an acceptable response would have been to merely thank him for the education; Stevie's response shows a lack of perspective about the volunteer nature of the project. Notwithstanding, Stevie is a good contributor and generally communicates kindly and effectively with other editors, and may make a good administrator down the road. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose'''. The diffs cited by Durin are just too recent (about two weeks ago). Wikipedia is not required to be consistent, even or "fair" in its application of policy.
'''Oppose''' per Durin.
'''Oppose''' per SCZenz's interpretation of Durin.  I am concerned how he would handle complaints brought to ANI and AN3 given his feelings about fairness and selective enforcement.
'''Neutral''', Durin's diffs of very recent policy issues and further accusations do not give a positive image. Otherwise user looks OK.
'''Neutral''' for this comment; ''"Further, I refuse to be the bringer of bad tidings to other WikiProjects."'' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin&diff=67781232&oldid=67780577]), per
'''Neutral''' since, in view of the diffs adduced by Durin, et al., and in view of the less-than-satisfying question answers, although I am confident that the candidate would abuse the admin tools, I am not wholly sure that he would avolitionally misuse them (viz., by acting in an area with which he might be insufficiently conversant in view of his not being aware of such non-conversance, a problem from which many of us are not immune).
'''Withdraw''' Is this some kind of joke. You just have 6 edits. how can you even be a admin. --
'''Strong Support''' Nominator --
'''Strong Oppose''' clearly an unworthy candidate for adminship. For one, see the user's block log. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Striver] Second, the user has a strong history of pushing a 9/11 truth movement POV on Wikipedia articles and refusing to accept consensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Striver] I don't feel the need to get into specifics, but the user has personally attacked other users such as [[User:Zora]] (going as far as using profanity against this user) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muawiyah_I&diff=39724519&oldid=39715229], he has created [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild|Wikiprojects for the sole purpose of advancing his views]], he has falsely claimed vandalism in edit summaries, at one point he even listed five articles for afd in revenge for another user listing one of his articles for afd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hindus&diff=prev&oldid=40523225] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=40523134] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Christians&diff=prev&oldid=40523094] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_atheists&diff=prev&oldid=40523404] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Buddhists&diff=prev&oldid=40523557]. More deserving of banning for exhausting the community's patience then for adminship.--
'''Strong Oppose'''. No freaking way. An editor with a transparent and unyielding agenda, often blocked, prone to wikilawyering and system gaming. I can think of few people ''less'' suited to become admins. ''Striver is a civil, respectful, mature, level-headed and active wikipedian'': only one of those adjectives is true. --
'''Oppose''', sorry, no. Even leaving behavioral issues and the ideological nature of the POV conflicts he's involved in aside, there's a huge issue of general article quality. Take just those articles he lists above that he's particularly proud of, and then look at what state they were in when he first created them (before others cleaned them up). Random selection: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-Muslim_interactants_with_Muslims_during_Muhammad%27s_era&oldid=18552290], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogy_of_Khadijah%27s_Daughters&oldid=61355902], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_ibn_Abu_Bakr&oldid=18438703]. (And keep in mind that a huge lot of other articles got deleted for being much worse.) I can't trust a person to be a good judge of Wikipedia policies when their own article writing is so poor.
'''Oppose''' per the evidence above, including Striver's own version of the events (at [[User:Striver/Yes, i said "fuck you"...]]).  While it's admirable that Striver detailed his side of the story instead of just ignoring the issue, the underlying events still happened, and don't speak well for being suited to adminship.  I'm also concerned with the "revenge" AfD nominations mentioned above.  Giving admin tools (which include the ability to directly delete articles) to someone who has attempted to delete articles for reasons of revenge seems like an unwise move.
'''Oppose''' obviously, because the candidate says 80% won't support, so I won't support. --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Strongest possible oppose''' -- Take a look at this users contributions - he has created a zillion stubs for every conceivable person who has ever said that the US government caused 9/11 and ever book they've written. Many of his articles have gone through AfD, are going through AfD or have already been deleted.
'''My strongest oppose yet''' 1)answer to Q3 is extremely bad - if you become angry at peoples reacion to your religion and make even a statement like that you are unsuitable. 2) you dont want ot be an admin! I see why youve accepted (I self-nomed for the same sort of reasons) and i think its admirable that you want to improve, I am only voting because I will try and give you some hints on how to do that. 3) Zoe said it best: ''However, I must add that Striver has been a disruptive editor wherever he goes, and that his many edits do not reflect a substantive contribution to WP. His English (a second language) is atrocious and his reading limited to what he can google. He creates useless stubs with abandon and all too many of his articles clog the AfD process. He doesn't seem to know how to work WITH other editors, or how to compromise, and is prone to grandiose schemes and unilateral reorganizations without prior consultation.'' I have never agreed with her before  ( ;-) ) but this says it all, before you can become an admin or even a respected member of the community you need to move focus from articles which you may become personally and emotionally involved. Either that or learn ot compromise and open your opinions. If you would like any more advice feel free to ask on my talk page :D good luck with improving yourself (I found my failed RFA inherrently useful).--'''Errant''' <small>
'''Oppose''' per all above. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' completely not a consensus builder, seems to treat wikipedia like an ideological battleground.
'''Oppose''' if nothing else for this massive [[WP:ABF|assumption of bad faith]] right here in the nom: ''There will be to groups voting "oppose". One of the groups will not vote "support" unless hell frezes over. The other have genuine motives.''
'''Oppose''' and urge speedy close.  The candidate's comment under !vote number 4, by itself, is too troublesome.
'''Oppose''' giving Striver the mop given his track record at AfD would be a bad idea
'''Oppose''' Impossible to support the worst POV pusher I have ever seen in this forum.--
'''Oppose''' Concerned about possible abuse of tools.
'''Oppose''' per the ample evidence given above.
'''Oppose''' per evidence above. Have witnessed instances of POV pushing, POINT violations, inability to assume good faith, build consensus, or maintain civility. Working to temper some of these tendencies would be a good first step towards being a more constructive and respected member of the community. --
'''Oppose''' I have run into Striver so many times in the past months, since maybe January?, on 9/11 articles.  In addition all the above oppose reasons, here's one of the latest examples of his conduct, at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Big_Wedding]].  He keeps citing [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)]], which is a proposed policy.  Look on [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)]] and you can see it has absolutely no consensus.  In {{tl|Notabilityguide}}, he (two days ago) added [[Wikipedia:Notability (books)]] to the list of guidelines [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANotabilityguide&diff=73972562&oldid=67701327], despite it being only a proposal at this point.  He also argues that since "The Big Wedding" has an ISBN number, that's sufficient criteria to make the book [[Wikipedia:Notability|Notable]].  Just about anything published these days has an ISBN number, even ordinary U.S. government publications such as the 108 page "[http://bookstore.gpo.gov/actions/GetPublication?stocknumber=064-000-00031-4 Are You Ready?: A Guide to Citizen Preparedness] by FEMA.  It's silly to think that Wikipedia should have an article on such a publication, yet alone anything or everything with an ISBN number.  I don't think he quite understand's Wikipedia's principle of Notability, with all the many stubs he creates for non-notable books, websites, and videos. Either that, or he chooses to ignore it.  I don't know, but given all these reasons, I don't think Striver should be given the admin tools.  --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]]
'''Oppose''': we've got enough obnoxious admins already, thank you. Plus, I don't like sloppy use of shift key.
'''Neutral''', please expand answer one. Thank you.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' Seems fine to me. <font color="blue">
'''Support'''. [[User:Icelandic Hurricane|íslenskur]] '''''
'''Support'''
'''support''' Keep up the good work
'''Support''' Personally I have no problem with him being an admin.
'''Support''' per SoadLuver. <small><font color="purple">[[User:Treebark|T®]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Treebark/Esperanza|e]]</font><font color="purple">[[User:Treebark|e]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Oppose''' Insufficient answers to questions - questionable understanding of block policy. Poor grasp of grammar and spelling leading to potential communication difficulties. --
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry I feel compelled to oppose, but I share [[User:Tariqabjotu|Tariqabjotu]]'s concerns. The manner of your exit doesn't instill a lot of confidence - what will happen if something similar arose and you had the admin tools at your disposal? I'd be willing to consider supporting an RfA in the future, because I think you're a good editor, but two weeks is just too soon.
'''Oppose''' poor communications skills, strange RfA circumstances, 312-character signature, and fairly light article contributions.
'''Strong oppose''' - several positives, but way to many negatives.  First, the [[User:ForestH2]] exit.  Speaking out so harshly against admins and then requesting to become one is just odd.  Second, no offense, but your English is not great, and that may impair communication efforts.  Third, in my opinion, you have a clear misunderstanding of many elements of blocking.  Although, I admit, being more conservative is better than being aggressive than the tools, you do not seem to understand the blocking of established users.  It is very rare that an account other than a new acocunt or IP will receive all 4 test warnings and then be reported to [[WP:AIV]].  When established users "vandalize", it is very rarely clear vandalism, but usually more of a dispute.  They do not usually receive more than a couple of warnings, and if they continue to be very disruptive, they are blocked.  Blocking of established users is rare, and does not really adhere to the same generic 4-template [[WP:AIV]] thing.  Also, clear vandals do not always need the four test templates, some are warned with a template such as {{tl|test4im}} and are blocked if they vandalize after that.  Fourth, your signature is too long.  Fifth, your question answers are weak, and you do not seem to have any major article contributions, which in my opinion is necessary, as we are first and foremost building an encyclopedia here. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''<s>Very Strong</s> Oppose''' per my comments in the discussion section. <s>But worst of all, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=75703856 reported PilotGuy] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=75704210 Ral315] as vandals. Yes, I know those are IPs, but a look at the history of [[User:ForestH2]] seems to show that that user is indeed Forest; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ForestH2&diff=74330695&oldid=74230472 this], followed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ForestH2&diff=74412927&oldid=74356510 this to confirm the IP]. Not good at all.</s> The comments on AN were not spam, as had been mentioned on your talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ForestH2&diff=74751785&oldid=74584409 once] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ForestH2&diff=74796470&oldid=74751785 again]. You may disagree with those evaluations, but quitting and refusing to discuss your position was not the best thing to do. -- '''
'''Firm Oppose''' per Gwernol and Tariqabjotu's comments.
Oppose - failure to [[WP:AGF]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChacor%2FArchive_03&diff=75704610&oldid=75675820 giving me an unneded test0] without first finding out what occurred. Too rash. &ndash;
'''Powerful Support''' I have faith in Sukh for his persistent and positive work against vandals, POV-pushers on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' A good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Good editor. - <font color="navy">
'''Support'''. Despite needing prodding on Q1, user has the experience and the temperament. Don't forget your edit summaries!
'''Support''' per above <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support''' Will fill vital role.
'''Support''' A very hard worker, will be a plus for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Enough wikipedia namespace edits for me. Trustworthy candidate. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. We desperately need admins with diverse interests and backgrounds and AFAIK we don't have an expert in Punjab/Sikhism/Northern India yet. He was involved in potentialy controversial topics but nobody questioned his neutrality so far, it is impressive. We also benefit from recruting admins who already have experience on other wikis.
'''Strong support''' With the massive expansion of Wiki in all directions there is now a need for "specialist" admins. Concentrating on a particular subject area and knowing it in depth is an asset to be encouraged, not something to be criticised. Likewise admins who specialise in e.g. vandalism are greatly needed. OK, pull yer socks up with edit summaries. Slapped wrist.
'''Support''' per Darth and Tyrenius.
'''Support''' for two reasons. One, we could use more admins; two, though I don't want to seem rude to anyone, when the best evidence that can be brought up is being too focused of an editor and having low edit summaries, I think that we can then trust that editor with some "no big deal" tools.
'''Support''' - It's good to have an area of specialization, that way you can pick up bad edits that CDVF does not (it doesn't pick up deliberate misinformation). Hooray for article writers.
'''Support''' - yes, a definite support to a specialist. We require  editors/administrators  with real depth of knowelwge in particular field/s, as opposed to editors/administrators whose exposure to a particular subject is confined to what he/ she may have read in the wikipedia. During last one year, I have been subject to rather bitter experience of editors/ administrators crying “foul” “foul” about matters they may have heard first time in their life from the pages of wikipedia. We require more [[User:Sukh|Sukh]] (a word used in many [[North India|North Indian]] languages and this word means “happiness” and “bliss”). Yes, for the sake of long term interest of wikipedia, we require administrators like [[User:Sukh|Sukh]]. --
'''Support''' - per above.--
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' Impressed by what I saw at [[Babbar Khalsa]] and [[Khalistan]] - good NPOV warrior. Also, worked on standardising the transcription on WP articles. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - Not nearly enough Indian Admins, and his edits, while the older ones may have lacked in summary, have been solidly good --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', interested in building as well as managing the encyclopedia -- <font face="Arial">
'''Support''', why not? --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''', but edit summaries blah blah blah. Glad to have someone with an intimate knowledge of Sikhism-related articles here. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Weak Support''' Hopefully from this construtive criticism, Sukh will probably use edit summaries much more now. Slighly low Wiki-space edits shouldn't be too much of a concern, he has been punjabi admin for awhile. Except the English Wikipedia is a bigger cyber-jungle. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support''' -
The '''Oye Chak de patte support'''. Praji edits in good faith and my interactions with him have all been positive. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Nice to have an admin watch Indian-related articles for vandalism. =) --
'''Support''' Has an excellent understanding of NPOV & other Wiki-policies. Overall a fine editor. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Moral support'''. Guy can learn on the job. Obviously willing to learn from mistakes (i.e. edit summaries). Good record of fight against vandalism, trolling and POV-pushers. Regards, --
'''Support'''. The nomination itself is enough for him to always use summaries. No need to send the guy through this again over this. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No serious arguments presented by the crowd of opposers. --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' per Bhadaniji. Also, Sukh has had a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalistan&diff=52175938&oldid=52169605 thankless] innings at [[Khalistan]], where he has resolutely upheld NPOV. He has even otherwise had to deal with things like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukh&diff=prev&oldid=49262802 this], and has always [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sukh&diff=49304910&oldid=49262802 reacted] in exemplary fashion. His contributions, which include [[Wikipedia:Enabling complex text support for Indic scripts|this]] page, are very good; the fact that they are specialized, combined with his lack of exhibitionism, makes them little-known but also renders them the more valuble, IMHO. In my experience, Sukh is knowledgeable, urbane, straightforward and eminently restrained. He is sure to be similarly restrained in future and he ought to be better equipped for his job.
'''Support''', no reason not to. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''', primarily on the basis of his own abilities, and secondarily to promote ethnic diversity in the Wikipedia Security Council.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' If he starts using edit summaries, which he's promised he will, I think he'll make a great admin.
'''Support''': nice bloke.
'''Oppose''' - Narrow range of contribution, low usage of edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''' - I am sorry for opposing this but from my experience of interacting with him, I feel that he does not have the prequisite experience yet for adminship.  However, I strongly agree that he is fair and has all the qualities to become an administrator in near future.  --
'''Oppose''' per Knucmo2.
'''Oppose''' With my experience of dealing with him i think he has lot of intellect but on the controversial issues he tends to go by his emotions.
'''Oppose''' due to narrow experience, poor usage of edit summaries, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits, arguing with anyone who hasn't supported him, and answer to question #1 doesn't suggest any need for adminship at this time.
Sorry, but I do '''oppose''' when use of edit summaries is this low. May support in future if this is addressed.
'''Oppose''', see below. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose'''. Has block history on ''Urdu language'' article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sukh] Sign of stubborn POV pushing. Answers below are not satisfactory.
'''Oppose''' Sorry. Edit summaries are a big deal. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Nobleeagle. [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]] yada yada.
'''Oppose''' Only 8 to 10 months? You ought to wait until you've been around for about 2 years. That way we know much more about you. (
'''Oppose''' Increasingly concerned about repeated references to POV pushing, narrow range of interests, and argumentative style in India topics and nominations.
'''Oppose''' until the user has proven history of using edit summaries.  And no, Rama's Arrow, I am not planning on reconsidering because of a pledge to use edit summaries or because of very recent usage.  --
'''Oppose''' all admins should use edit summeries as much as possible. Frankly all users should use edit summeries as much as possible, even if it is only "add link" or some other similar phrase.
'''Oppose''' Very sorry to do this, but the combination of low projectspace edits and low edit summary use really does suggest more experience is needed here.  Candidates must show some time spent in projectspace, as that is essential to understanding due process on the wiki.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above. Also, edit summary usages are quite low: 38% (major)  32% (minor).<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Neutral''', low usage of edit summaries and not warning vandals after reverting changes. Thanks for expanding your answer to question 1.
Perhaps later, needs more experience. -
'''Neutral''' - questions do not seem to show need for sysop tools --
'''Neutral''' . Please try to improve on the problem of '''really low''' edit summary usage and more Wikipedia namesace edits.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' per the person directly above me.
'''Netural''' per the person two above me. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Edit summary use too low and user likely will not use new tools.'''
'''Neutral''' - I haven't come into much contact with this user. But upon entering discussion in [[Talk:Khalistan]] about a week ago I've only found arguments and chaos. I'm not sure whether this can be related to being in the wrong place at the wrong time or whether it has any relation to Sukh. But the latest argument in which he has accused a user of using an IP Address to make personal attacks is rather uncalled for and the 'discussion' is by no means civil. So Neutral from me. '''
'''Strong Oppose''' trying a sock to make it look like a self nom raises serious integrity questions --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience. Too few mainspace & wikipedia space edits. <b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong oppose'''. Has engaged in vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=27627024]; there's an issue about his IP address that I don't understand ([[User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_15#Sockpuppetry]]); and he recently reverted me over a tag on banned [[User:Zephram Stark]]'s user page, for reasons best known to himself. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zephram_Stark&diff=prev&oldid=53154710]
'''Oppose''' per above. I'm all for vandal reform and even voted one in as an admin; but, in the immortal words of Elmer Fudd, "Thewe's somethin' scwewy goin' on awound heah!"
'''Oppose''', less than 1000 edits (manually checked), new user nomination is suspicious (I regard it as equivalent to a self-nom), and his question answers don't encourage me.  For a user once indefinitely blocked, and blocked as recently as April 1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sunfazer], I'd say, wait ''at least'' 6 more months and try to integrate yourself with the community more first.
'''Oppose''' - Even without the other stuff, Sunfazer is too new and too inexperienced, and too prone to messing with policy he seems not to understand.  However, the other stuff cannot be ignored.  Sunfazer began as a vandal and although his own username has not been used for vandalism for a long time, IPs he uses seem to be constantly associated with vandalism and sockpuppetry.  Attempts to find out why have been met with rather unconvincing answers.
'''Oppose''' per general lack of experience (I had to correct the format above to prevent his own comment to be counted as an oppose vote...) Please, be patient and continue to edit and learn for some months, and then retry. No need to rush.
'''Oppose''' All looks very suspicious to me! --
'''Oppose''' You do not have enough experience in mainspace and Wikipedia edits and the vandalism convinces me you are not ready for adminship.--
'''Oppose''' per ALL reasons above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', too few edits.
'''Strong oppose''': these unexplained blanking edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna&diff=prev&oldid=53893876] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna&diff=prev&oldid=53894607] and per all other reasons above. User needs much more time to become acquainted with the WP guidelines. --
'''Strong oppose''' and suggest withdrawl. I could never support a sockpuppet nomination. I did have to chuckle at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sunfazer&diff=prev&oldid=53861429 this] though: "Sunfazer would like to nominate you to be an admin," as it does appear to be the truth here.
Utter oppose per all above.  Friendship, while commendable, does not negate apparent lack of judgment  needed to be an admin. This episode in no ways instills confidence in the face of  a  history of vandalism.
'''Oppose'''. No reason not to, as far as I'm concerned. --
'''Oppose'''. No.
'''Oppose''' for lack of trust with admin privileges.  Thank you for your contributions and RfA!
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose. The user seems to have reformed. However, Sunfazer's total number of edits is low for any candidate, let a long a reformed vandal. I'm also puzzled by a nomination from a user with no edits. I might support this user in a few months if he continues to be productive.
'''Neutral''' but with a strong plea to stop piling on the oppose votes. They are not necessary at this stage, since this RfA is going to fail anyway, and his user page indicates that he is going through difficulties. I know nothing about the vandalism background. He was very helpful in creating the {{tl|Pinktulip}} template. He needs more experience.
'''Support''' - well, it seems like the vandals hate you, and they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend...
'''Weak Support''' - 7 months on Wikipedia is great, and one month extra as an anon is okay, but I have no way of proving of your one moth, and 2000 edits are better for an admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' I like your enthusiasm, but I suggest you get an [[WP:ER|editor review]] instead. --
'''Oppose''' - responses don't give me quite the message that you understand admins do quite yet... editor review might be a better option --
'''Oppose''', Not satisfactory response to the standard questions.
'''Laughing Oppose''' - I LOVE the attitude. I really do. And deleting articles and blocking vandals sounds ''great''. '''But''' - if you don't want to be an administrator, then you shouldn't be. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' - If you want to see what it takes to be an admin, the better approach would be to read more about what admins do, and/or ask for an [[WP:ER|editor review]] as [[User:Alex9891|Alex]] suggests.--
''' Strong Oppose'''- Not enough edits and not enough experience (in my opinion).--[[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''S'''</font>]][[User talk:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="purple">'''U'''</font>]][[User:Atomic-Super-Suit|<font color="blue">'''I'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - you seem like a nice person and a good editor, but I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Strong oppose'''. You seem proud to have had your page vandalized 40 times. You should have reported the user at [[WP:AIV]] and not let them continue vandalizing.
'''Oppose.''' No evidence of experience with deletion discussions, [[WP:CSD]], etc. Also no idea how she handles conflict. In short, doesn't seem experienced enough. Also, comments like "who doesn't want to be one!" raise a red flag. [[:Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators|Lots of people]] don't, and adminship is not a status symbol. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · <font color="green">
'''Oppose'''. You seem nice and enthusiastic, but 700 to 800 edits is really not enough. Also, an RFA is a serious thing, not fun and games like your tone suggests. '''''
'''Oppose''', lack of edits and experience. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I can understand ur curiosity. Even I've felt like that some times. But really, being a sysop isn't much different from being an ordinary user. Except, you'll get more responsibilities. To me, responsibility that is felt within, is more important than assigned responsibility. Try working more time on various aspects of Wikipedia and then you'll know when to go for re-nom. Cheers.--[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose.''' Lack of experience. Weak, brief responses. Compulsory reporting regarding one's own page would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but how do you let someone vandalize your page so much? Lack of major contributions. Need not just more general experience but more experience in adminly activities. Too little to indicate the necessary breadth of Wikipedia policy/guideline knowledge. Recommend editor review after a full year at this edit rate.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient experience.--
<s>Please answer the questions, and I may support.</s> Obviously a well-intentioned user, but I think that she needs to learn a bit more about Wikipedia policy and although I'm not big on editcountitis, 499 edits is not enough experience for me. So I will not oppose this RfA, but I can't bring myself to support it either. I think, as most others here, that an editor review is a good idea. -
'''Neutral''' If you want to know what it takes to be an admin, please read [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators]].  If you chew through that lot and still decide that you want the additional responsibilities, you can then place yourself on [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] in order to find out which areas of editing and administration you need to sharpen up in order to put another RfA together. You can be a superb vandalfighter without having the admin tools using tools such as Vandalproof and CryptoDerek's vandalfigher, amongst others.  Good things to do in order to become an admin are to participate in XfD discussions.  Your participation should ideally take the form of contributions using policy and guidelines for their justification rather than pile-on '''keep''' or '''delete''', etc.  By this we will know that you are familiar with the policies and how they are applied in equivocal situations.  We can face these situations several times a day, depending upon how active we are.  You can also participate in new user/new page/recent change patrols, reverting vandalism and warning vandals in addition to flagging them up to [[WP:AIV]] or other appropriate noticeboard.  Don't forget that you can also contribute to articles - after all, that's why we're all here, isn't it?  Useful things to contribute are sourcing references, cleaning up NPOV statements, grammar, syntax and spelling if your English skills are up to it, categorising and expanding stubs.  You can also participate in the Featured Articles and Good Articles programmes too - I don't mean writing one from scratch! Other things are joining Wikiprojects such as Esperanza and getting together with other editors who have similar interests in order to make effective contributions.  In summary, '''you have potential, but you're not ready yet'''.
'''Neutral, leaning towards support'''. I have run accross this editor before while vandal fighting. She seems to be learning quickly, but I don't think is quite ready yet. More edits, particularly in the Wikipedia namespace (XfD discussions particularly). Needs to keep cool and avoid the antagonistic edit summaries while vandal fighting. So as long as she can stay clean in that respect I would be happy to support in a couple of months/1,500 edits.
'''Very-''nearly''-support''', because as other users have said, you're a good user. However, as low as my standards are, I'd prefer to see you request an [[WP:ER|editor review]] and edit consistently for another couple of months before I'm really confident enough to support. Good luck for the future. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Neutral to avoid pile-on oppose''' - SupaStarGirl, you seem to have very little interest in becoming an admin.  You have little experience in fighting vandals and dealing with policy (as someone else said, experience in [[WP:AFD|AfDs]], [[WP:TFD|TfDs]], [[WP:MFD|MfDs]] and [[WP:CFD|CfDs]] is absolutely necessary.  As RfA !voters, we need to know more about your knowledge of policy - and not just from asking you questions that you can draft an answer to.  We need to see your knowledge of policy in action, and the best way to show that would be participating in the aforementioned debates.
'''Neutral''' You have to learn Wikipedia and get many more edits.--
'''Oppose''' too little experience --
'''Oppose'''. While edit counts is not the most important thing, 209 edits means that  SVera1NY needs more experience.  Also, ''please use [[edit summaries]]''. Would be happy to consider your candidacy again after a couple of months.
'''Oppose''' too little experience and edits.
'''Oppose''' Need more experience.
'''Oppose''' Please withdraw
'''Oppose''' I agree with Olorin28 --
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose'''.Not enough experience. It would be best to withdraw and try again in a few months.--
'''Oppose'''--
'''Strongly oppose'''.Too little experience. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose''' not enough edit experience.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; 214 edits... --
'''Oppose''' Same as everyone else, little experience and poor use of edit summaries.  In a few months, with quite a bit more experience, consider nomination then. --
'''Oppose'''. Much like the others. Needs more experience.
'''Super Strong Support''' as nom --
'''Support''' - does good work.
'''Support'''. Use of [[WP:AIV]] is always good to see. [[User:Feezo|Fe]][[User:Feezo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Will make a great admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - you were on my short list to nominate next, so I suppose I may as well. (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' for me, neither length of service or edit count are as significant as the quality and intent of the contributions, and I like what I've seen of Swatjester's contributions.
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' I personally know this editor and know he can be trusted.--
'''Support'''.  Clear-headed, independent, and judicious.  Also, he has a clear need for admin tools give his frequent work in anti-vandalism.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', does really good work <b>
'''Support''', what, he isn't one yet? Cripes.
'''Support''' Will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. I like what I see! ('cept that flag, but that point is already well made) [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font color="navy">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color="green">e</font></u>]]
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', obviously.  But get rid of the image anyways ;-) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Military history|<font color="#960018">h</font>]]
'''Support''' what's wrong with image in signature? Many users, including some admins, have one...
'''Edit conflict support'''. —
'''Must be a bot Support''' ;-),  Interiot's tool shows a basically flat line across a 24 hour period.
'''STRONG Support''' - The image in his sig does not reflect how he will handle admin actions.  It's frankly silly that people are opposing based on that fact. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''''Res Ipsa Loquitur''''' - <font color="blue"><strong>
'''Weak Support''', There is no such contribution in uploading images. Signature is too long containing image. But a good contributor in article and project space.
'''Support''' - The sig thing is a minor issue compared to what this user has in response (not to say I like fancy sigs) - significant contributions to AFD, RFA, reverting vandalism and other administrative duties.  Very active too. --
'''Support''' of course, though you should take the image out of your sig. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''. This guy has always come off to me as a good editor, with the added bonus of common sense. &mdash; '''
'''Support''' an excellent editor and vandal fighter. He should fix his sig, but its not enough for me to do anything but support.
'''Support''': I have run across Swatjester many many times. He is a level headed contributor, and keeps his cool well at AfD, a place where things often get blown out of proportion very quickly. --
'''Support'''.  The signature image is only 18x13 pixels, 215 bytes, and is already in my cache.  Furthermore, the responses in the RFAr demonstrate cool-headedness and knowledge of the system.  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' - Not been here long, but seems alright. - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support''' a new but good editor. --
'''Support'''. Brilliant user. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support'''.  Good man, trustworthy and exhibits sound judgment.
'''Support''' per Tawker. Also impressive contributions for just four months.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
Surprised he isn't one. Never seen him get into conflicts before.
'''Bullet-proof double-wide shopping cart support'''.  of course!<small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. All my experiences with this user have been great, I think he'll be a good admin. [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Full Support''' Overall work has been fantastic! Make him one NOW!
'''A super-rare, Moe-related, strong support''' I will '''not''' oppose on the silly reasons of his signature or how his it messes up the format of the RFA (which isn't even true). I fail to see how a users siganture will limit to any capacity his ability to use tools.
'''Support'''.  [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  I've seen the user in both a light-hearted and a serious mode.  The admin hat <s>shouldn't</s> doesn't have to be worn all the time lest the user wants it to.  His responses to challenges are serious and level; I assume good faith that Swatjester would not swat newcomers.
'''Support''' Very good vandal fighter. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#ffffff"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' an editor who appears willing to stand up and be counted, and doesn't shy away from difficult positions.  Lots of good work on AfD.  Has a sense of humour.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per above. Have frequently crossed paths with this user and have found him responsible and capable. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Support''' per nom. --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support''' per nom -- see reversal decision below.
'''Support''' absolutely; I've seen SwatJester make great contributions to Wikipedia [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' this user has my full trust.
'''Support''' have had numerous dealings with this editor.
'''Support'''. This RfAs been supported so heavily, there's an article size message at the top of it.
'''Support''', the anti-anon issue doesn't matter much to me (I don't forsee the opinion leading to anything crazy like indefinite blocks for AOL IPs), and the atheist issue I think just isn't that important. And I'm an atheist. I don't see any other issues with the candidate. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' When a user acts like an admin, their obviously ready to be one (and all the data proves my point) <font color="66AAFF">
'''Support'''; we need more admins, and you'd be a good one.
'''Support''' I don't entirely approve of his "hostility" toward anons nor many of his Wiki-politics, but I find it absurd to oppose him for those reasons. Bottom line: Swatjester is an excellent vandal fighter and could stand to benefit from a few more tools to help him out with that.
'''Support''' A great user.--
'''Support''' - per everyone else! &mdash;
'''Support''', gladly.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Support''' <font color="#000080">
'''Support'''. Hard working & great editor.
'''Support''' Experienced user, lots of good contributions--
'''Support''': great editor, and no longer using an image in his signature.
'''Support''' now.--
'''Support''' There are a few small concerns but on balance I think, yes, support. His forthcoming user and talk pages are most excellent by the way, and I took his advice and have just registered my username on the few English language sister projects that I hadn't aready done :) --
'''Support''' This user has been an asset to my becoming comfortable in the WP community. He's been active, attentive and very helpful (both on the project and in IRC!). &#149;&#149;
'''Support''' I've seen this user around a lot, and have only had positive experiences. Should make a decent admin.
'''Support''' Consistent contributor.
'''Support''' good interaction with peers. ←
HUGE '''Support''' His level head and openness in disputes is much needed as an admin. He's been a great example to the community and a good solid editor. -
'''Weak support''' Make sure you don't get too agressive, and make sure you're setting a good example for others. --[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom, Prohibit, Matt Y., and Visor, inter al.
'''Support''' good vandal fighter --
'''Strong Support''' I must admit Sj and I had a somewhat rocky intro(unusually for both of us) regarding a [[Scientology]] related article's editors and what I saw as a possibly hostile reaction, however after requesting his position on his talk page <sup>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester&diff=next&oldid=45233426]</sup>,  he was '''''very polite''''' and explained in full (my hostile impression was wrong) & I immediately gained respect for him. Ever since I happen upon his great deeds, well, everywhere! Great admin potential IMO. - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|n]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter & makes good use of [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' <S>til you get that image out of your signature. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">Proto</font></span></span>]]<font color="#555555"><b>||</b></font><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none"><font color="#007700">type</font></span></span>]]</small> 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)</s>  Oppose vote remains, despite image being removed (thank you), due to posting IRC conversations (see Phroziac's objection below), which is a particularly amoral and ill-judged thing to do.
'''Oppose'''. I've seen this user around, and almost always embroiled in one conflict or another -- and often taking a very aggressive stance. I think Swatjester goes looking for problems. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose'''. Per [[User:Bunchofgrapes]].
'''Oppose''', unhappily.  He's a good editor, but his (abrasive) defense of Jason Gastrich is still too fresh in my mind, and it makes me question his temperament.  I can't support at this point in time.
'''Oppose''' -- Silly sig leads me to question nominee's maturity. Sorry. It even screws up the numbering of an ordered list.
'''Oppose'''. I concur with the above comments by Bunchofgrapes and Guettarda. I also strongly disapprove of any admin candidate making comments such as "I'm an anti-anon user" at the head of his talk page. I believe that this may well discourage legitimate anonymous users from communicating with Swatjester for fear of being ignored (vandals, on the other hand, do not pay any attention to such comments). I may well support Swatjester in the future if he can eliminate the abrasiveness he has occasionally displayed towards other users.
Reluctant oppose, per new concerns raised above.
'''Oppose''' Editor's hostility toward anon. contributors does give me pause.  I'd like to see the editor gain a little more experience, perhaps becoming slightly less agressive.
'''Strong Oppose''' by the text on SwatJester's own "Who am I" page, which tells more than I needed to know to oppose. SwatJester is an avowed deletionist, and the statement indicates that he (she?) will liberally interpret deletion votes, leading to likely improper closings on AfD. There are also serious problems with an automatic assumption of bad faith of new or anonymous editors that I think shows SwatJester as what we all hope new admins will ''not'' become: jaded, cynical and untrusting of others. Not at all what I want to see in an admin. <span style="font-size:95%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Oppose'''.  Recently, SWATJester was peripherally associated with a conflict I was involved in.  Specifically he contributed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmagic&oldid=48618181 this mess], by which a contributor was greatly chastised for removing a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmagic&oldid=48048972 "warning"] about a dispute that had already ended.  Honestly, I don't think SWATJester really knew what he stepped into and I believe that he meant well, but I consider his actions to have been unhelpful.  Because of that mess, I decided to pay closer scrutiny to this candidate, and spent some time going over his contributions.  In doing so, I largely have to agree with the above comments that SWATJester can, at times, be too abrupt and abrasive.  Nor am I thrilled over how the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monicasdude#WP:BITE_issues Monicasdude thing] was handled.  I would also encourage SWATJester to be mindful of the fact that policy exists to help us create an encyclopedia, and that many situations require that policy be treated with a dose of flexibility in order to best achieve that goal.  Lastly, I would encourage him to overhaul [[User:Swatjester|his user page]] which conveys a lack of maturity not desirable in an admin.  Ultimately though, I do think that SWATJester's heart is basically in the right place, and that he is likely to be promoted at some point, but that he would probably benefit from a bit more experience first.
'''Oppose''' per Dragons flight and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bunchofgrapes&diff=49543560&oldid=49538343 Bunchofgrapes]. A good editor, but far too aggressive and confrontational for my comfort. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' per Meegs.  Seems like a good, enthusiastic editor but needs a bit more experience.  Will probably support in the future. [[user:RicDod|RicD]][[User:RicDod/Esperanza|<font color="green">o</font>]]
'''Oppose''', pre RicD and Bunchofgrapes.  Enthusiastic, but needs to smooth his rough edges a bit.
'''Oppose''' per most of the reasons stated above, especially Cuiviénen's comment about deletion. "Ready aim fire" without knowing what's being shot down. --[[User:ElectricEye|<span style="color:blue;cursor:crosshair;">User:Electric</span>]]
While I like how flexible he's been on the many signature complaints, I'm afraid I have to '''oppose''' due to anon philosophy and diffs from Bunchofgrapes.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' reluctantly.  Three months is too short, and the comments about anonymous editors and deletionism are a bit troubling. --
'''Oppose''', due to a confrontation I had with him a month ago at [[talk:SWAT]], where he called a comment of mine "irrelevant and fallacious".  Seemed a bit harsh at the time, and worries me about [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Weak Oppose''' Three months is a short time (but that's not in itself reason to oppose), the concerns raised here are troubling, but not too serious (and not reason in themselves to oppose). But short time + concerns, makes me think that another few months of harmonious editing first would be better. I will probably support next time. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I share Bunchofgrapes' concerns, and am also worried about the attitude to anons; and, no, the arguing about the anon issue on this page isn't persuasive to me. Also I'm worried about the liberal-bashing and the remarks about atheists on [[User:Swatjester/Who am I]], such as "I think there are too many people who hate those who believe in religion, because being an atheist is a "cool" thing to do, somehow it makes you more hip". Nobody needs to point out to me that each such remark is balanced by one that bashes the other side, too; I can see that it is. (For the atheist example, the balancing statement runs "I also dislike people who are blinded by religion, and cannot think for themselves"). But at least to this brainwashed hippy, the tone is noticeably aggressive, emotional, and contemptuous towards ''one'' set of opinions, but not towards the other. Not that bashing both sides would have been a lot better: I'm altogether not a big fan of bashing. Please note that it's not Swat's political opinions as such that I've a problem with, it's the way they're promulgated, and the combination of the opinions with general abrasiveness and being (at least, sounding) so sure of knowing what's right and where others are wrong. That's not ideal for an administrator IMO.
'''Oppose''' -- Bunchofgrapes's evidence concerns me enough that I cannot say that I am 100% comfortable with this user being admin'ed.
Per the above, this user does not seem sufficiently mature or sufficiently level-headed.
The diffs [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] provided concern me.
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Rob Church. Additionally, Swatjester has posted rants about the #wikipedia IRC channel on [[User:Swatjester/Irc]], which includes a log of a private conversation I had with him, which I did not authorize to be published. Totally inappropriate behaviour for an admin. --
'''Oppose''' - very concerned about his judgement.
'''Oppose''' for a number of reasons.  Abuse of the signature feature, persistent abrasiveness, misuse of IRC logs, hostility to the non-logged-in editing feature.  Not, at this stage in his editing history, what I consider to be a suitable candidate.  As always this could change with time and effort. --
'''Oppose'''; very concerned about judgement, as with Mackensen, most obviously expressed in his reposting of private IRC conversations without permission. I have warned him that any further log posting without permission will lead to his permanent exclusion from the Wikimedia IRC channels. Either way, really rather unsuitable behaviour from a sysop.
'''Oppose'''.  Misuse of IRC logs against well-established principle that IRC logs should not be published leads me to question whether he can be trusted to use adminship privileges appropriately and responsibly.
'''Oppose''' a relative newcomer (January) who's hit some bumps in his short road.  Give it a couple months more experience.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly because Swatjester obviously cares about Wikipedia. I just question some of his  choices. I was planning on sitting out this RFAr because I had some of the same concerns Dragonsflight voiced, but nothing concrete enough to make me vote no.  But this business over the IRC logs has convinced me that Swatjester needs a little more seasoning before I'm okay with handing over the keys. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Oppose''' due to concerns about judgement, maturity and civility. —
'''Oppose''' per all of the above, most particularly his logging of the #wikipedia IRC channel.  while per Robchurch, it's not an official channel, immaturity there often infers an immaturity in general, and posting the logs on Wikipedia against Wikipedia rules (which he knew about) is unforgivable.
'''Oppose''' - changing position due to concerns raised about judgement (per Bunchofgrapes, Ral315, Guettarda, and others), especially biting and the inadvisability of posting an IRC conv. in a sub-page.
'''Oppose'''; candidate looks sometimes too confrontational. -
'''Oppose'''; candidate nominated the article [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theater intime|Theater intime]] for deletion when it was one minute old, and took the resulting debate in AfD far too personally.  He seems to think that the fact the he did '''not''' contact the author prior to nominating the article is proof that the nomination was not biting a newbie. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Monicasdude&diff=next&oldid=47033621]  (nominating a one-minute old article by a new editor because it does not properly prove notability is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Monicasdude&diff=next&oldid=47040106 fixing a mistake].
'''Oppose''' This editor needs to learn how to handle difficult situations better. I will support another nom if this editor does this over the next 2-3 months.
'''Oppose''' primarily due to civility and trust concerns.  Needs more time and experience.  Please note that this is the second time I've voted oppose, my original vote was accidentally removed by Tawker.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FSwatjester&diff=49812219&oldid=49808472]
'''Oppose''' - In addition to his confrontational style, I disagree with him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_site&diff=prev&oldid=50100761 about the implications] of the [[WP:NPOV]] policy.  --
'''Oppose'' per Rob Church and others <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose''' Was neutral but concerns raised by Jim and Guettarda as well as concerns about attitude towards anons and concerns about IRC logs pushes me over to oppose.
'''Oppose''' per all above. --
'''Oppose''' Too confrontational, too immature.
'''Oppose''' per Henry Flowers.  See [[Talk:Merecat]] for Swatjester reaction to a personal attack.  He took it upon himself to delete comments on a talk page that was being used by an editor being mentored.  He doesn't understand the difference between policy enforcement, style guide and recommended practices.  This only escalated the problem.  I shiver to think what would happen if banning became part of his arsenal.--
'''Oppose''' because the candidate created a subpage which only had the purpose to ridicule a new user whom the candidate had harassed over politics. [[User:Swatjester/arbcomrapist]]
'''Strong oppose''' per VivianDarkbloom. Mocking other people's attempts to put you on RfAR smacks of incivility. Even if he insulted you beforehand, an person of admin calibre should not respond in kind. To paraphrase your last line in [[User:Swatjester/arbcomrapist|that page]], "I'm sorry but this has me coming out of abstaining to vote oppose."
'''Neutral''', not swayed either way.
Excellent candidate, but I can't support a three-month-old account for Adminship.  The user is enthusiastic (+ 4500 edits in that much time), but that notwithstanding, I really don't believe that it is possible to amass the experience necessary for Adminship in that short a period of time.  This lack of experience is probably the reason why the user may be unaware of the SIG problem.  That being said, I won't oppose given my perception that, with a little more experience, Swatjester would be a prime candidate for Adminship.
'''Neutral''' not sure yet
'''Neutral'''.  Swatjester is an ''excellent'' Wikipedian, but he/she just hasn't been here long enough.
'''Neutral''' I'm just not sure I'm seeing an administraitor out of this person at this point. --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''', though closer to oppose. I believe that SWATJester's work is generally good, but the concerns raised by Bunchofgrapes are legitimate. —&nbsp;
'''Neutral''' I share some of the concerns raised by the oppose voters, but not all of them, and not as strongly. Also, I'd hate to deny admin tools to someone who could make good use of them. Hence neutral.
'''Neutral''' I don't see enough evidence to either support or oppose, but I find the argument over the sig to be redicullous, there is no reason that anyone should use that as a reason to oppose (or support) --
'''Neutral'''.  I agree, the sig argument is absurd, but the IRC repost seriously concerns me - not enough to oppose, but unfortunately enough that I can't support. .:.
'''Neutral'''.  I can see SWATJester making a good admin in the future but I find the (now deleted) IRC repost page a concern.  --
'''Neutral''' - leaning towards support - excellent contributor, but I am inclined to think that a few months of meditation and introspection following this process will redound to SJ's benefit.
'''Neutral''' - not enough mainspace edits
'''Neutral - leaning towards oppose''' - looks not serious enough.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', seen him around, always good edits. Extremely friendly, nice and patient. Will make an awesome admin. - '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Support''' per the old cliche. (
'''Support'''--Good contributor, can be trusted with extra tools.--
'''Support''' - Gladly. Hope your real-life situation gets resolved soon!
'''Support''' per nom. How is this user not already an admin?
'''Support''' absolutely.

'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Great guy, SWD316. '''''
'''Strong Support''' [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - I trust him. He's been through hell on Wikipedia and has still stuck around. That takes dedication and guts. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', sorry. Too soon after last nomination (just over 1 month) and a little oddity in my recollection that I won't bring up here. I like the guy, I just cannot support him at this time. --
'''Oppose''', Agreed that it is way too soon from last nomination, and Freestylefrappe's evidence at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SWD316&oldid=31521310] is fairly strong, and his behavior during the 3rd RFA was quite out of line, basically begging users to switch their votes. He does seem to be more varied in his edits as of late, but just not admin material at this time.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure he's a nice guy, but 1) the diff provided by Freestylefrappe, 2) the editor's allusion to mental health issues as explanations for his behaviour 3) the really childish fake "you have new messages" on his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SWD316/haha] 4) his apparent *need* to have adminship, these all suggest he needs to chill out, get in touch with his inner bong, etc.  While not casting any aspersions on his contributions as editor, and with best wishes to him personally, I vote against for adminship
'''Oppose''' I am in essential agreement with points 1 & 4 raised by Peter above, although bong may not be the ''mot juste''.
'''Oppose''' Pete make a persuasive case. This user seems to be in too much of a rush to become an admin. While this user has many edits, the volume of activity with vandalism, welcoming and other areas such as AFD is noticable. There is a distinct lack of edits ~250 on the article talk pages which suggest that hard core interactions with other users trying to build consensus in articles is not actually occurring. Given an admins job is often one of mediator i wonder if this user is ready?
'''Oppose''', too soon after previous nomination, insufficient evidence of having improved on the issues displayed therein.
'''Oppose''', Pete Hurd is persuasive above.
<s>'''Support''' Freestylefrappe's evidence is from a ''long'' time ago. SWD316 has repeatedly demonstrated competence and civility... though it seems odd he was blocked after his post...
'''Oppose''' From looking at the previous votes he seems quick to anger and acts juvenile  --
I was going to vote support, and was genuinely surprised that he wasn't an admin yet. I guess I know why now. 90 days isn't long enough for me, so '''neutral'''. --
'''Neutral'''...I know that SWD3164 was upset during his last Rfa due to the sockpuppet isse and for good reason, and his coments on his userpage were simply a poor choice of words due to that frustration. My main reason for voting neutral is due to my belief that patience is a virtue and that you should wait longer before trying for admin than you have. However, I think if this should succeed, you will make a fine admin anyway.--
'''Neutral'''. I was going to support, but freestylefrappe's link really got me all shook up. I used to think SWD316 was better than that. But then I thought anybody would be unhappy if socks were being used to influence other users as well as to failing his RfA. He has always shown great sincerity to the project, even though he may act immature. For example after I went past his score on [[WP:HOLICTEST]], he posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShreshth91&diff=36156181&oldid=36112379 this message] on my talk page and then immediately proceeeded to retake he test, something he had neglected to do for months. This led me to believe that his position meant a lot to him. He was also very active in condemning [[User:Qwertysoup]] when he also surpassed SWD316 on the same test (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test#Qwertysoup|relevant discussion]]).--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral'''. SWD316, you're a good guy, very nice, but I really think you should wait for a while (maybe several months) before accepting a nomination, even from someone els. That way, you won't get anymore of those oppose votes based on the fact that your latest nomination is too soon after the last one. If this nom were to fail and someone else comes along to nominate you for an RfA, it's okay to say "No thanks, not until the smoke from my last RfA dissipates!" <s>However, I think since this already comes a few RfAs after, I think Freestylefrappe's diff should no longer be a factor in deciding his RFA: with some exceptions, we should really be looking at the behaviour, and perhaps the length of time, from the last RFA.</s> --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' - works well with other editors even during disputes, discusses thoroughly on talk pages, is open to other editors' positions and sometimes evem changes his position based on well-reasoned arguments. I think I introduced him to AfDs and since then have seen him take on all kinds of tasks beyond what the average newer editor usually does. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' I trust the nominator, and see nothing wrong with this user after a cursory glance of their work.
'''Support''' I originally voted "oppose" on the basis of inexperience, but in viewing the candidates talk page contributions, I found several examples of exceptional skill and maturity, especially in dealing with conflicts, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stella_Matutina&diff=next&oldid=61253784 such as this thread].  I have found enough knowledge of policy, and enough demonstration of capability for me to ignore my usually high standards for time with the project.  Good luck,
'''Support'''. Great contributor, even if most of your contributions are to minor cleanup.
'''Support'''. SynergeticMaggot clearly has both the desire and the ability to help us out, the answers to the questions are good also. I fail to see how we would benefit from making him wait for adminship, he is ready for it now.
'''Support''' Even though this user hasn't been registered for 5 months (as stated in [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]), they have accomplished a lot in their short time here. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Support''' I think he is very skilled in nominating unnecessary articles for deletion.
'''Support''' per Hanuman Das.
'''Nominator's support''', I almost forgot. =P -
'''Support''' As a new member on Wikipedia, I'm impressed by the way he has contributed and helped the newbies. From some of my experiences, he always improves my articles and warn me (not straight to delete it) which is good so I can improve it rather than lose it. So I'm a newbie and I see he is very helpful especially for the newbies and I'm sure he will be a good admin. I also think, quality is more important than quantity, so his time on wiki and the number of edits are not that important (although it is still important), but the most important thing is how he can contribute and help the others with his somewhat small number of edits. --
'''Support'''. I've seen this user around a bit and I'm convinced that this user would make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' excellent contributor for just a 3 month stay, brilliant vandal bopper. Would do well with the tools, although it would be even better if you slowed down just a touch (which you say you've done) in response to what was brought up down below. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support''' I agree with most, if not all, of the positive comments above. -
'''Support.''' Looks good to me.--
'''Support'''. Looks like a hard-working and dedicated editor, and extremely unlikely to abuse the tools.  I see a few incidents of growing pains, but I can't begrudge anyone those. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. A tireless contributor, SynergeticMaggot, despite having had made a couple of mistakes in the past and being a relatively new editor, would most likely not abuse admin powers. --
'''Support''' He has almost 5k edits, how can this not be enough for some people?? He also seems like a good user, so we should be happy to hand over the mop.
'''Support''' —&nbsp;
'''Support''' A good contributor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per above.  Very sensible person, good for AfDs especially. --
'''Support''' Whilst we've had our differences they've generally been personable and productive dialogues.  This user is certainly developing and could use the admin role usefully.
'''Support''' a hardworking editor who already knows his way around.
'''Support''' If Mailer trusts him, so do I. Here's to getting out of Singapore. <font color="#4682B4">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Good users make good admins. I've had some dealings with SM and I'm glad he's running... just a little sad he won't make it this time around. ---
'''Support''': I am sure all intelligent editors would learn! He does not have to learn about [[theory of relativity]], but few policies of wikipedia. Yes, I agree that learning to twist the policies would be difficult! --
'''Support''' Industrious and capable. I have no objection to the username.--
'''Support''' per above, plus appreciation for his having just answered my [[WP:help]] question within two minutes of my having posted it.  Since consensus is not going to be reached, urge candidate to continue as an active editor, address issues raised by oppose and neutral voters, and re-apply down the trail.  No comment on username, but if you do change it, let us know.
'''Support''' very efficent, clears through backlogs like a bulldozer. Yes he is new, but he knows the policy fairly well, and what he does not know he is willing to listen to others. (saw on IRC) ——
'''Support''' why not?
'''Support'''. From what I've seen of him, I think he's a pretty high quality guy. Nobody is perfect, and I've appreciated his help in times past. I realize this probably won't succeed, but I'd just like to register that opinion.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but this candidate seems too new.  Three months is really not long enough, esp. considering edit count.  However, this candidate should, indeed, be re-submitted in the future when he has more experience.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Mike 7 and my own experience and what I see around here.'''
'''Oppose''' sorry, but back in June there were some worrying conversations on your talk page. For example [[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot/Archive_1#Zos_vs_SynergeticMaggot|suggesting]] that you'd only change your confusing signature when you ran for adminship or the mediation cabal. That seems to imply you were aware that this was wrong but would only change it when you believed it was in your self-interest. Later there is [[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot/Archive_1#WP:BIO|this]] where you say you are going to recreate an article that you are aware fails [[WP:BIO]] because you consider guidelines like this something you have to "submit to". You have improved, but these are still relatively recent and you have a habit of resorting to borderline incivil comments such as [[User_talk:SynergeticMaggot/Archive_2#Offending_personal_information|this]]. All together these add up to an oppose from me, although with more time I could see supporting you in the future.
'''Oppose'''. Uses non-admin rollback equivalent for edits that are not vandalism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermetism&curid=390353&diff=66267200&oldid=66267127] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thoth&curid=69035&diff=66267315&oldid=66266969] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermeticism&curid=180786&diff=66267470&oldid=66267343]  Sends vandalism warnings in content disputes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_Vegita&diff=66267962&oldid=66266568] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_Vegita&diff=66268127&oldid=66267962] Those templates are for warning anons or newly-registered vandals who may not be aware of the blocking policy. They are ''not'' intended for established editors during a disagreement over article content. And a would-be admin should know to subst those templates if he is using them. Also, I don't care for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASynergeticMaggot&diff=66385516&oldid=66385047 this] edit. Since you know King Vegita in real life, that comment, if absolutely necessary, could have been made in private.
'''Oppose.''' Needs more time on the 'pedia.
'''Oppose''' per the others above. I don't think it's time yet. --
'''Oppose''' I feel this RfA is a bit premature.
'''Weak Oppose''' "Oppose" per AnnH, especially the misuse of vandalism templates.  Would support in future after more experience, assuming he tempers the behavior observed by AnnH and others above (also see Andeh's perceptive "Neutral" comment below) --
Per Gwernol's notes and the mis use of VP. Sorry, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per above.  Also, I have to add that I do not like the idea of having an admin, who is often perceived as an authority figure on Wikipedia, with a name of "Maggot".  Admins need to set good examples, and be aware of the fact that they are often perceived as representatives of Wikipedia culture.  Having a pseudonym is one thing, but in my mind, this particular name goes a bit too far, sorry.  As such, I would be more comfortable if he created a different handle first. --
Changing to '''Oppose''' per VP concerns - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Premature. I usually think an admin should have one year of wikipedia presence, or six months at a minimum for exceptional cases. Three months is too short and the inexperience is manifested in some of the diffs and AN/I messages recently involving the candidate. --
'''Sorry, must oppose.''' Not confident that nom has a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. 1. Nom marks all edits as minor, and argues that usage is correct per policy. See comments in top thread on this RFA talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/SynergeticMaggot] IMO, few if any of nom's edits should be marked minor. Clearly these edits should be marked major. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=prev&oldid=66767235] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gallery_North_Carmel&diff=prev&oldid=66765437] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_Hermes_%28Mage:_The_Ascension%29&diff=prev&oldid=66443972] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geomantic_figure&diff=prev&oldid=66411289] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manly_Palmer_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=66208140] 2. On July 27, 2006, nom spams talk pages for support of a proposal. 3. Per concerns raised by AnnH, which do not actually involve mishaps with VP as some other oppose comment indicate.
'''Oppose''' per pretty much everything that's been said above. --
'''Oppose''' per evidence of need to learn more of wikipedia policy and guidelines, as well as problems noted above.
'''Oppose''', too new.
'''Oppose''' per use of VandalProof and odd patterns of marking edits as minor. I understand that marking edits as ''minor'' is a matter of personal judgement, but that's not a good judgement call. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per AnnH.
'''Oppose'''.  I have concerns about the maturity and general Wiki-fu of this candidate, in light of the behaviour AnnH has dug up, and his comments here and on the talkpage.
'''Oppose''' per the above. --
'''Oppose'''. SynergeticMaggot would be a good administrator in the future, but he is not ready for the job yet.
'''Oppose''' (I could've sworn I'd already done this yesterday, but I think I was having trouble connecting to WP at the time.) I'm really not concerned with how long SynergeticMaggot has been editing on WP, as I think that can be (although is not always) an unfair criteria. However, I am very concerned with his interactions with other users, I am in no way convinced that the user fully understands WP's policies and guidelines, and marking pretty much every edit as minor is... odd. In particular, Gwernol and AnnH bring up some important points that need to be addressed. --
'''Weak oppose''', username worries me a bit. --
'''Oppose'''. I don't think 3 months is long enough, plus there are too many concerning diffs above that are just too recent to overlook.
'''Oppose''': This user is far too new to be considered an admin. Even 74% for major edit summaries is not enough. And where are the rest of the namespace contribs?! --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' I love his edits, but he is too new, according to my critia. If you put him up in a month I'll support him. --
'''Oppose''': My original encouters with this user were positive, in administrative comments that indicated a reasonable, new user. So, though I was surprised to see an RfA so soon, I was favorably compelled to investigate the user further. Before that, however, newly arrived on an (ancillary) Wikipedia IRC channel, he proceeded to try to give me what I can only describe as an abrasive lecture first on article content disputes and, more surprisingly, on how this low-traffic and otherwise friendly channel ought to be run, and then again the next day. I find his comments there, here, and others brought up here to raise flags on civility and AGF. They also indicate a rather peculiar view of policies and practices: whereas he seems to consider the letter of policy to be inviolate and beyond any independent judgment, he also seems to think that matters not fully and explicitly covered in a Policy page are open to whatever personal notions, regardless of long-standing practice and reasonable implications of existing guidelines. His responses to hypothetical questions on the RfA talk page do not relieve these concerns and otherwise show some unfamiliarity with Wikipedia workings. Such concerns and unfamiliarity in combination with brief tenure and my examination of edits lead me to believe that this user must have more experience before being given the keys. —
'''Oppose'''per AnnH. Marginal on time and edits, but appears unready for the tools.
'''Oppose''' per personal attack at the bottom of the page.  And the attack is incorrect, as I only changed my vote once from oppose to neutral.
'''Oppose''', still doesn't see the need to have changed his signature, argumentative with opposers (and even neutrals) here, marking far too many edits as minor, has only been here three months.
'''Oppose'''. Changed from Support because the candidate keeps arguing with the oppose votes.
'''Neutral''' obviously a hard worker, the stuff mentioned under oppose by [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] were just silly mistakes that is caused by using VP at high speeds. User needs to slow down a little, and understand that having arguments across WP to users whom you personally know should be avoided and ignored. Should wait a little longer (3 months?) and re-apply. I can't support due to the confrontation with a user they know in real life, yet I can't oppose because they obviously have good intentions for WP, and time isn't ''everything''.--<font style="background:white">
<s>'''Neutral''', I would love to vote support but in my dealings with this user I had one niggle: I was the mediator in the [[Wikipedia:Mediation cabal|Medcab case]] [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-31_Golden_Dawn_tradition|Golden Dawn tradition]] (SynergeticMaggot was not involved in this case) which was highly complicated on a very complicated subject. In fairness a certain user was the only one at fault however I was able to get both sides of the story and was working out a way for everyone to be happy. I left for a 2 day holiday (informing the participants of this) and when I returned SynergeticMaggot had merged the disputed article into [[Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn]]. In fairness this was probably a good solution however I saw no discussion that had taken place over the merge and no agreement to it - he was lucky the dispute did not follow the merge. This was all very well and good however what I found slightly annoying (although I am sure he did not intend it that way) was that he had closed the mediation in my absense and did not even inform me, either of the merge or closing the case, on my talk page, on my talk page. I would worry that given admin tools SynergeticMaggot would perform correct and prudent admin functions but without taking the time to notify any users who may wish to know. -</s> I was informed that my impression of events is incorrect, I apologise to SynergticMaggot and am '''retracting both my comments and my vote''' as I feel it would be unfair for me to vote. --'''Errant''' <small>
'''Neutral'''. Does not meet my criteria of 6 months. As this is the only criteria missed, and everything else looks great, I will support on reapplication in October.
'''Neutral''': seems reasonable person, but some mistakes are due to inexperience. Would prefer to see a period without mistakes like these before supporting.
'''Neutral''': per Stephen B Streater --
'''Support'''Would make a fine admin. :)--[[User:Chili14|<font color="blue">Ch</font>]][[User talk:Chili14|<font color="red">ili</font>]]
'''Support'''. Experienced enough in my opinion, and would make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. A trustworthy editor, Tarret is not the type who would abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''. Seems experienced enough to me.
'''Weak Support''' Seems experienced enough, and trustworthy enough not to abuse the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that your activity will pick up a bit, but please consider the comments in the Oppose and Neutral votes.
'''Weak support''' per [[User:Gray Porpoise|phocoena phocoena]] and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|criteria]].
'''Support''', seems likely to make a good admin. --
'''Support''' re user comment on talk page and re [[User:RandyWang|RandyWang]]  --
'''Support'''. Maybe its slightly soon, but he seems like a reasonable, trustable, editor that will stay out of anything he can't yet handle.'''
'''Support'''. I trust him. That's 99 per cent of my criteria. If he makes an error or two, he'll be in good company with dozens of admins, including me. Opposers in any RfA who expect perfection are doing Wiki a disservice IMMHO.
'''Support''' per Moriori.
'''Support ''' no reason to think he'll not be fine --
'''Support''' - solid responses to questions, editcountis is a null and moot point IMHO --
'''Support''' I like his answers to the questions, but I hope he'll consider the comments in oppose/neutral.
'''Support'''. Doubt he'll abuse the tools, and basically meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]]. I do think the oppose and neutral comments are mostly valid (though not enough for me to oppose), and I hope he'll keep them in mind for the future regardless of how this turns out.
'''Support.''' I didn't have to prove to the DMV that I was going to drive every day before they gave me my driver's license. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - reasonable answers to questions show he knows what it takes, though E/C is a bit low. Although this RfA is unlikely to succeed, please continue contributing and maybe you'll be more successful with another RfA in 6 months.
'''Oppose''' Nice start, but too few edits. Needs more exeperience in AfD and RCPatrolling. Cheers.
'''Oppose''', recommend [[Wikipedia:Editor review]] as the process you are looking for.
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid I must decline due to the lack of experience (few edits) and weak responses to questions above.  Keep working and re-submit in several months.
'''Oppose''' Per above.  --
'''Oppose''' While I don't doubt the contributions of the user, his answers to all of the questions are incredibly weak, and from these responses, I don't think he even ''needs'' admin tools. --
'''Oppose''' per few user talk and WP space edits.
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim and Mike 7. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]] for maintalk and usertalk edits (less than 200 for each).
'''Weak Oppose''' per standards. - <b>
'''Neutral''' I wonder whether an editor review wouldn't be a better place to ask for opinions as to your merits and demerits as a Wikipedian rather than an RfA.  Tagging pages and reverting vandalism can be done without admin tools and your low Talk counts need to be increased in order to demonstrate a balanced and neutral point of view, even and perhaps especially in the case of swingeing critcism or outright vandalism.  I'd be happy to support you in future when you address these issues and demonstrate a grasp of Wiki policy too. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' Sorry to just pile on neutrals, but I'd agree with the above. You have a decent amount of contributions, and from looking, you seem like a good editor, but the very short answers for one make it hard to support. It does sound like mostly you want feedback, so you may want to try using the [[WP:ER|editor review]] page. -
'''Neutral''': The edit setup's nice, but...I give my vote here per weak responses to questions above. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''', work on your responses to the questions, and I might support.--
'''Neutral''' - I don't see any reason to oppose, but that in itself is not a reason to support either --
'''Neutral'''. I don't really have a reason why I shouldn't trust you with admin powers, but because of this comment; "I nominated myself because I know that even if I am not granted admin status I will at least learn how I can be a better wikipedian", I'm have decided to vote neutral. It seems as if you're not very motivated to become an admin..it appears that you don't know what you should do with adminpowers and hence you're just nominating yourself for the feedback that usually accompanies an RfA. There's no need for a nomination there, you can just ask someone on #wikipedia how well you're doing, editorwise. '''<span style="color:#000088;">—♦♦ </span>
'''Neutral''' You are a good contributor but your answers to the questions are quite weak. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral leaning Support''' I'm on the fence, but would happily support upon an elaboration in Q1 about how you would use the sysop tools to prevent vandalism and perhaps answering the optional questions, as these venues will help me get a better feel for how you would use the administrator role.  Thanks
Good articles acceptable alternative to FA. Kudos for organisation work, but need to see more actual writing. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Neutral''' - You prove yourself a good editor, but I feel that the answers to the questions are a bit weak. '''
'''Neutral''', weak answers. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Neutral'''. Your heart seems to be in the right place, but your answers are very weak. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Neutral'''. Fails a couple points on [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]]. I've seen your good work on [[WP:GA]] and you've made great contributions to upholding the quality and verifiability of things on Wikipedia. Try editor review.
'''Support'''. He definitely should be an admin. --
'''Support''' -- thought he was an admin already. Has my full support. -
'''Support'''- 7000 edits-WOW! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A trustworthy user and would make good use of admin tools. <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. About 18 months ago, I had 7000 edits and was up for adminship. As far as I can see it, the people opposing would have opposed me too if given the chance. I wouldn't do that to you.
'''Sadly Oppose''' Tawker is a great guy but this is just too soon Almost all edits was last month, few wikiname space experience, needs to create more content, will support in a later date but not now --
'''Oppose''' with a matter of a few weeks of editing, no matter the number, this is just much too soon to be an admin. A bit of experience of the way things flow is very useful, as is seeing the way things change and evolve and that's just not possible to accumulate in 4 weeks. -
'''STRONG oppose''' per Aranda and Splash - this is ''far'' too soon. We are about building an encyclopedia, and yet you don't have many major contributions to articles. People will oppose you for that, and in every future RFA you attempt until you contribute more to article space. Remember my rant - good vandal fighter != good administrator!
'''Oppose''' way too soon.
'''Oppose''' Too soon. Some experience only comes with time. --
'''Neutral'''. I like Tawker a lot, and I think he'll be a great admin sooner rather than later. He does a lot of great development work in the area of bots and open proxy detection, and I am greatly indebted to him for the loan of server resources. However, given that nearly all of his contribs (and what lovely contribs they are <tt>:-D</tt> ) came in the last month, I think it's a bit early. Give us another month like last month, and I'll nominate you myself! <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Neutral''' per Essjay.
'''Neutral'''I too think it is a bit early, seeing as you gain a lot of experience from the amount of time on wikipedia. A month should give you enough time, i will be voting then.--



Support as co-nominator &mdash; '''
Support -
Oppose, switched from neutral. I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&curid=5149102&diff=56631007&oldid=56630419 Essjay got it right here] regarding a similar earlier attempt to have one of Tawker's bots sysopped. &ndash;
'''Support''' of course, he has the right character and attitude to be an excellent admin, I've seen enough to convince me so and believe this will benefit wikipedia. :D --
'''Support'''. I had a similar number of edits when I received adminship. As for the number of user space edits, that is not a bad thing - it demonstrates this user engages in meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians, which should be promoted, not frowned upon. -
'''Support''', he has enough interaction with the community despite the low number of article talk edits, and the article and project space edits are lower than userpage ones. He will be a good addition to the admin family. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  I can see no reason not to trust him.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A fellow [[Singaporean]] vote. Moreover, unlikely to abuse admin tools and is a responsible editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' He has shown no reason not to trust him, and has been around long enough to know what he is doing.  I have no reason to believe he will abuse the tools or use them in the wrong way.  I wish he used more edit summaries though. It looks like you won't get accepted this time, but good luck in the future! --
'''Support'''. A credible user, and gains the trust of many. Even though many oppose for his mistakes, I feel that he should be forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes, and forgive them if possible, especially minor ones. But by and large, his edits and work are credible and we should not exclude the efforts he has put in for wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
Sorry, Ding Xiang, I just don't think you're ready yet. For anyone else interested, I can't find the link to his first RFA. Has more edits to User space than to mainspace or Project space! That is a serious problem.
'''Oppose'''.  I'd like to see more of a contribution to the article space first.  This is an encyclopedia after all.  A more diverse amount of project space would be of benefit too.  Also, please don't forgot about [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] as a lot of people really like to see a high percentage used and they are of great benefit to [[WP:RC|RC Patrol]]. --
'''Oppose'''. His total edits is too few (currently <1,000 edits). Furthermore, he has more userspace edits than mainspace edits. --
'''Oppose''': Just one week ago, the user left Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tdxiang&oldid=40977699] citing his school grades as the reason. Now, one week later, he's back and wanting to be an admin? I'm not comfortable with that. Also, in the answer to the first question, the user indicates they want to help out with copyright problems.  I don't think the user understands copyright issues sufficiently to do this. I note a lack of source for [[:Image:Sgsciencecentreevening.JPG]] and [[:Image:SRajaratnam smiling.jpg]], both of which he uploaded. Additionally, he created a userbox in his own userspace that used a fair use image outside of the main article space [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tdxiang/Babel/Fuhua_Sec_Student&oldid=40275726] which is against policy (I've removed the image now). Also, [[:Image:BSheares.jpg]] contains partial source information, but is most likely a copyright violation as it is taken from a copyrighted website.  In answer to the question #1, user says they want to help out with closing VfDs (it's AfD). Yet, user has just five edits to any AfD pages in their time here. I think more time and experience is needed for this user, and a better understanding of copyright issues. --
'''Oppose''' for now per [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|Standards]].
'''Oppose''' per standards, like Essexmutant. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''', way too short on edits, and edit summary usage is poor also. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' too few edits.
'''Oppose''', not enough edits.
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''' would like to see more process involvement contributions first. If increases, may go for support in 1-2 months.
'''Strong Oppose''' Per above
'''Oppose''', sadly. Tdxiang is a nice guy, but he needs more experience before becoming an admin. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Oppose''', not yet. --
'''Oppose''', per Durin.
'''Oppose''' Considerable failures to have edit summaries for edits may result in leaving no reason when deleting pages.--
'''Weak oppose''' Keep at it, though. You'll make an admin in the future. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Oppose''' as per Durin and Tdxiang's apparent indecision about this RfA.
'''Oppose''' Too few edits
'''Oppose''' Too few edits
'''Oppose.''' Durin raises some concerns, plus a lack of overall experience.
'''Oppose''' - image sourcing problems. An admin should know better than to cite vague sources. It's one of the easiest policies on wikipedia.
'''Strong oppose''' an edit count lower than 1k. I'm WTFing.
'''Weak Oppose''' needs more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose''' edit count is WAY too low.
'''Weak oppose'''. Certainly better than the first RfA, but still not yet there. Answers to questions are rather short and a little vague. Keep practicing.
TDX is a really friendly and helpful editor, I'd love to support, but the number of edits is a little low, I can't really oppose either...'''''
Too early, will support in future. -
As per the others, but leaning to oppose due to low number of article edits.
'''Neutral'''. Try again later. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', would like to see more namespace edits, also edit summary usage a bit low.
Maybe later --
'''Neutral''', as per VegaDark. &mdash;
Answers to questions, esp. #4, turn me off this candidate I'm afraid. Potential's there but it isn't time.
'''Moral Support''' I understand that you mean good intentions but I think you should wait a little longer. You should probably start tackling the wikispace edits such as AFD, MFD, and others. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Moral Support''' per Seadog. Although I think your heart is in the right place, you are by no means ready qualified to have the title and powers of an Admin. Spend more time reviewing Wikipedia policy, more time on [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:RFA]], [[WP:Village Pump]], and [[WP:AIV]]. Do more work patrolling the new pages. Actively find and document vandals. You have the abilility to become an Admin.
'''Moral Support''' I admire your principles and enthusiasm: they will serve you and greater humanity well in the future.  Please do not be discouraged because of the likely failure of this RfA; 12 years of age finds one bursting to fly, though here would be too much like Darius' lesson. You will undoubtedly go on to do great things in life, here and elsewhere.
'''Support'''. From what I've seen of you, you're a great editor: enthuisiastic, civil, helpful, and knowledgeable. I never oppose based on age; I think that the mental maturity needed for adminship shows through your contributions. However, I would recommend getting your edit count up; probably around the 3000 mark would be great per myself. Congratulations!
'''Support'''. Low edit count doesn't equal no knowledge of Wikipedia. I'm quite happy to support this user with no reservations of misuse of powers. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support''' This user has the right attitude, and anyhow adminship is no big deal. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, I must oppose. Although you seem to be doing a good vandal fight, I think that you might require some more experience before becoming an admin. Wikipedia space count is too low, and I see very little participation in XfD.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - rather low projectspace edits. And there's the age thing. How do I say this diplomatically? Admins have to deal with an awful lot of shit, and at 12 do you really have the emotional maturity to cope? It sounds strange but until I've seen you handle a really tricky situation well I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to support. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', due to overuse of JS to revert stuff. Sometimes you have to manually revert things. I wish I could give you moral support, but you simply are too good a candidate to do that. This is very odd. I expected a bunch of supports, as I'm usually borderline paranoid about script edits. -
'''Oppose''', due to lack of widespread experience on Wikipedia.  Still need to spend a bit more time on Wikipedia, and I am sure you will soon have enough experience.  Keep up the good work!
'''Oppose''', You are an experienced vandal-fighter and we really appreciate you reverting vandalism, but you need more widespread experience if you want to be an administrator such as [[WP:AFD|AFD]]. Good luck working on that!--
'''Weak oppose''' I would like to see more experience as mentioned above.  This can be easily fixed with time, though.  On a side note, I also noticed that you sometimes do not warn vandals on their talk pages-- this should almost always be done as it can help prevent future vandalism.
'''Weak oppose.''' Not enough involvement in Wikipedia space; weak answers to questions. —
'''Oppose''', you need to use [[WP:AFD|AFD]] more, and I just don't see enough experience. --[[User:SonicChao/Esperanza|<span style="color:#068E00">S</span>]]
'''Oppose''' Per above. --[[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', inexperience. It's just too early man... keep up the great work and come back in a couple of months and you'll be a much stronger candidate for adminship. There's a lot to learn. –
'''Oppose''', inexperienced in too many areas. <b>
'''Neutral''' I won't actively oppose you as I think that for your age you are doing a great job here.  The only thing that stops me from going to support is the low participation in XfD and vandal fighting.  Keep plugging away at these in addition to contributing to articles and warning vandals and I will happily support you after reviewing the evidence in three or four months' time.
'''Neutral''' it's a bit too soon, TeckWiz, but I encourage you to keep going after vandals, participating in XfDs and other areas of interest, and you should be good to go in a few months' time. You're doing good work, though, so keep it up, and a second RfA should go well. Cheers, <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' not quite enough edits, but I can look past that. However, there is not enough participation in project and project talk namespaces. <s>The external link in your signature is worrying, too.</s> You're a great editor overall, but I suggest more XfDs. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
I don't like to vote against a user because of their edit count, however I have to say that more time would be better. In a few months I would certainly vote in favor.
'''Neutral''' per all the concerns brought up. I hope you try to use this RfA for making a better Wikipedian of yourself. All the best. ←
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on.  Please take the advice from the RfA and use it to improve yourself as a Wikipedia.  Good luck.--
'''Oppose'''. You have only 343 edits, hardly what constitutes as "experience". You have done a good job so far, but I suggest you withdraw the RfA and try again in a few months after a few thousand more edits.
&ndash;
'''Strong Oppose'''- Just the other day, he nominated [[Randy Shughart]] for speedy deletion as "NN-bio". The article had been vandalized to little more than a stub, but it shows that he did not take the time to check the page history before nominating, nor did he do any research to see whether Randy Shughart was indeed a non-notable biography (Shughart was, in fact, a Medal of Honor winner, and one of the main participants in the events of the film Blackhawk Down, and is a highly notable figure in modern US military history). Carelessness like this shows me that the user is not ready for more powerful tools.
'''Oppose''' Far too few edits & answers don't reveal any requirement for admin tools. They raise questions instead - you had a prior/alternative account? Details?  You have VandalProof according to your Talk page but you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TehKewl1&oldid=66104876#Warnings don't/didn't issue vandal warnings].  This is a major omission on the part of any vandal fighter, let alone an admin.  I suggest that you withdraw, get an [[Wikipedia:editor review|editor review]] and work on the weakeness that this review will reveal before trying again in three or four months' time or ~3000 edits. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Too few edits, and I don't think that you are ready for/don't understand what admins do. I think a Bcrat should close this early before it gets piled on.
'''Oppose'''. A good editor who needs some more experience (in terms of time, number of edits, and participation in the Wikipedia space) before adminship can be seriously considered.
Nice guy, but this is too early.  Suggest withdrawal. --
'''Weak-ish Support''', Wikipedia would benefit from this user getting the mop & bucket. Although the answers aren't as in-depth as most noms, I get the general picture, and feel TehKewl1 would do these jobs amicably. Edit summary % is good, and I don't have editcountis, so I'm not going to bother to oppose purely for it; that said, I'd like to see some more, but I think that this could be an exception. I have a very good impression of this user. '''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse the toolS, good vandal fighter (though a bit too brutal at times ;)) I've known TehKewl1 since he first showed up on Wikipedia, and from my experience he would be great candidate for clearing AIV, which I have found to be ever-filling lately.
'''Support''' Even though there have been a couple dubious edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.245.141.50&oldid=80556252 this], but, since I'm assured that that was just a one-off, I'm convinced there won't be any abuse of admin tools... <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Uber Strong Supprot''' Good vandal fighter, and good channel-taker-over-er :) Will be a good addition to the team &mdash; [[User:Deon555|D]]<font color="green">[[User:Deon555/Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:Deon555|on555]]<sup><font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font></sup><sub>
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Weak-ish support per Daniel Brandt (heh, pardon the pun); wish we could set ''TehKewlBot'' loose over Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''support''' just cause I like the dude. ~[[user:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">crazytal</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="mediumseagreen">es</font>]][[user talk:crazytales56297|<font color="steelblue">'''56297'''</font>]] <sup>
'''Support''' from my previous positive experiences with TehKewl1, and I can see no particularly compelling reason to oppose. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''support''' keep up the good work
The nomination makes it seem that you've come here just because you've finally crossed 1000 edits. That's not what I want from an admin. Also, lack of proper article edits. Also lack of project experience. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.245.141.50&oldid=80556252 This] ("Oh and btw.... j00 4r3 p00") was also fairly recent enough to concern me. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', well intentioned, but far too brash. Lack of real article contributions is a major concern. Sorry. —
'''Oppose''' sorry, but while I am ''not'' a supporter of the 1 FA requirement that some people have, I think at least ''some'' experience in actual article edits rather than janitorial work is necessary.--
'''Oppose'''. Good vandal fighter, but only two users reported on [[WP:AIV]]. Four edits on main talk, 41 on project namespace and very little actual article contributions show lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' Candidate has insufficient experience in every area, and doesn't appear to understand that adminship is just a mop, not a badge (or something for which to strive from one's first edit.)  Nothing personal, but the candidate needs to be seasoned a bit more before his next nomination -- wait six months or so at least.
'''Oppose''' Weak answers, needs a lot more experience.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Inexperience in vital aspects. Do some article-writing, perhaps work up a [[WP:1FA|featured article]], and get involved with internal processes say XfD. -
'''Oppose''', way short of required experience levels - see Prolog.
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, weak answers, try again soon and participate in admin activities. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', sorry, fails many personal criteria, this includes edit count, ridiculous question answers and a recent warning.
'''Oppose'''. Good intention? Yes. Suitable? No. If every user with 1000 edits are qualified to apply for adminship, that'll be chaotic. 40 Wikipedia Edits shows your lack of WP experience. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose''' needs more experience and weak answers.--
'''Oppose''' The lack of experience here is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - as others have pointed out, little experience with policy
'''Oppose''' Q3, and I don't even know what the answer to Q5 means. ~
'''Weak Oppose'''. Definitely well-intentioned, but the end of your answer to question 3 is a little worrying. Admins should be aware of conflicts of interest and should avoid using their tools in such cases. The mention of Daniel Brandt is a bit out of left field (but then I'm not sure what purpose question five serves--is it context specific to this RfA? could someone provide clarification?). More experience generally wouldn't hurt. [[User:Irongargoyle|Irongargoyle]] 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)</br>I wrote that question very badly, What i meant was, 'Apart from vanadalism, what would be some of the ''issues'' facing WP, which would show how well he generally understands whats happening. Apologies :)
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but to me, desperation is a sign of volatility and weakness. May be you should try working on other stuff instead of vandal-fighting for some time. Sysopping is a holistic upward movement. You'll see a change in yourself then and look at Wikipedia in a broader perspective. Cheers. --[[User:Chezhiyan | <font color="#0082B8">Ch</font>]][[User:Chezhiyan/Esperanza|<span style="color:#99CC32;">e</span>]]
'''Oppose.''' Lack of experience, lack of variety in activities, inadequate answers. Very little in the edit history to demonstrate breadth of understanding/promotion of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and goals. Lack of involvement in what Wikipedia is ultimately trying to create. Sounds like the user wants admin tools for loaded weapons.
'''Oppose''' per Wryspy.
'''Oppose''' due to insufficient experience --
'''Oppose.''' TehKewl's contribution history shows a general lack of variety in contribution.  S/he does not demonstrate very much knowledge of policy.  I am disturbed by Chacor's diff - that type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable from any user, ''especially'' an admin.  The statement of "maybe things will go better this time now that I crossed the 1000th edit bar and have an archived talk page" reeks of editcountitis and ignorance of other issues raised on the first RfA.  1,000 edits plus archived talk page does ''not'' equal adminship.  TehKewl, please participate in XfDs and come back more civil (per that diff provided by Chacor, civility doesn't seem to be a strong point).
'''Oppose''', I'm afraid per most of the comments above. Aside from what I see as perhaps a lack of maturity, there are some glaring deficiencies: only '''4''' article talk namespace edits, '''1''' wikipedia talk namespace edit, and '''46''' WP namespace edits.
'''Oppose''', due to the fact that your questions seem very, very weak. Please come back once you have more namespace edits.--[[User:Seadog.M.S|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue" size="4">S</font>]][[User:Seadog.M.S/EA|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="green" size="4">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per pretty much all of above. Weak answers, lack of familiarity with Wiki process. Come back in a few months with some more experience. And as a note: Spamming IRC for votes isn't a good idea either. -<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>
'''Oppose''' per lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' due to experience, but please stick at it and don't be discouraged.
'''Oppose''' per all other users. --
'''Oppose''' per Q3 ("''I go crazy when people make fun of Nintendo''"), Q5 ("''...people like Daniel Brandt''") and generally weak answers to the rest of the questions. Optional questions are (obviously) optional, but they're a chance to show that you have understanding of policy and process. --
'''Oppose''' Whilst it is, I think, likelier than not that TehKewl1 is possessed of sufficiently good judgment that he would neither abuse nor volitionally misuse the tools, I can't conclude with any degree of confidence that his temperament and knowledge of policy are such that he wouldn't avolitionally (e.g., by acting whereof he does not know) misuse the mop, etc., and so I think it far from clear that the net effect on the project of TehKewl1's becoming an admin would be positive (my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA standard]]).  The failure to respond to the optional questions, too, is a bit disconcerting; if  the candidate, upon his apprehending that the RfA might not succeed, was not further interested in partaking of questions&mdash;which would, I think, be quite fine&mdash;it might have been better had he said so explicitly.
'''Oppose'''  It is a little early in the game.  I think more seasoning is needed.
'''Neutral''', leaning support. It certainly appears you have all the right intentions, but it might be helpful to wait a while longer and become more well-rounded. (Most admin candidates have >3000 edits and, more importantly, a history of good article contributions on top of the admin-like stuff.) I echo Chacor's concern about coming here just because you have 1000 edits, but then again, you do seem to know what you're doing and have a good use for the tools. I'm very torn on this.
'''Neutral'''. Candidate needs a little more experience... not necessarily contributions to articles, though it would be nice to see some variety –
'''Neutral'''.  Appears to be a good, reliable vandal fighter, but admins should ideally contribute more to article creation/revision, AfD discussions, and the like.  One can easily be an effective vandal fighter without being an admin.--
'''Neutral''' You mean well, but you need to get a better grasp of Wikipedia policy and custom.--
Good user, but not enough experience. -
'''Neutral''' I'm going to with a neutral on this one as I think that TehKewl1 could be a good admin but that the answers above don't demonstrate a level of competence that I associate with admins.  The lack of answers to my supplementary question is also particularly telling, as an admin is required to be aware of policy and guidelines.

'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on, please withdraw, the answer for number three is one of the worst I have ever seen in my time here, number 2 tells that he has no experince in article writing whatsoever, isn't ready for a while.
'''Neutral''' till he answers completely <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">
'''Neutral''' for now.  I think that you have good intentions and I would have kept the name [[User:VandalKilla|VandalKilla]]. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Is a truly great editor, but stick around for longer, seriously. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
Not sure, really. You're a good editor, but I think you need some more time. '''
Nominate and '''support'''. -
'''support''' -
'''Support''' without reservation. --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
<s>Support<s> <s>Neutral</s> '''Support''' Needs to keep a [[WP:COOL|cooler]] head than he did during this nomination on IRC, but I believe he's more than capable of learning this lesson. Good and experienced contributor. --
'''Support''' easy support, thanks.
'''Support'''. Nothing I've seen from this user would lead me to vote otherwise. --
'''Support'''. Agree with all of the above. Seems like a good guy. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.'''
'''Cliché Support'''; honestly thought he was already. <font style="color:#FF7000"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#CC5000"><u>inch</u></font>[[User:Smurrayinchester/Greene|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#CC5000"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#CC5000"><sup>(
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' definitely! - [[User:Wezzo|Wezzo]] <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' will use the mop appropriately. --
'''Support''' Lot of useful work on xfD, such people are much needed.
'''Support'''. Pick your favorite RfA support cliche, all of 'em would be applicable.
'''Support'''. Could use more user talk edits though.
'''Support'''. I like what I've seen of him. Forget the ageism. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''. An active and capable editor.
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''STRONG OPPOSE.... err.. I mean ..Support''' Would like to see Terence with the mop. Although more interaction with users on thier talk pages would be better. Definitely deserves it after a year+ of good-faith editing.
'''Support'''.  Will be an asset to the project. -
'''Support'''. Yeppers, this is a good one.
'''Support'''. Every interaction I have had with him at AfD has been positive, as as such, support [[User:Batmanand/Opinions/RfA|by my criteria]].
--
'''Support'''. I respect Essjay's opinion, but I also feel that adminship is no big deal (he meets my baseline criteria) and Terence is unlikely to abuse the tools. --
'''Support'''.  --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''' - Knowledgable, polite and helpful. Good article contribs also
'''Support'''. Good memory of this editor. Good luck with the mop.
'''Bandwagon Support''' &nbsp;<font style="background: lightblue"  color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''GUÐSÞEGN'''&nbsp;&nbsp;</font>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;<small>
'''Support'''. I've been thinking about this one for a while, and now I've finally decided to support. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Support'''. He's good. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.<s>Long time friend!</s><s>Oh, well, ther IS a cabal here.</s>Haha, joking!--[[User:tdxiang|<font color="#E32636">Tdxi</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#006600">a</font>]]
'''Support'''-- Finally! support.
he has my full support! <font color="red">[[user:ILovePlankton|I]]</font><font color="orange">[[user talk:ILovePlankton|Lov]]</font><font color="lime">
'''Support''' looks fine to me.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' of course. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>[[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|M]]|[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]|
'''Support'''. A positive and friendly user who is a credit to the Wikipedia project.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' I don't like the emphasis some place on 'boy' and 'kid' (we do have administrators who are under 18 and they're doing fine, age means nothing, maturity means everything). I like what I've seen of him - seems to be fairly well grounded (he could be a bit more grounded but there's time for that). Time to hand over the mop. - [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>
'''Support''' <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I do not have IRC, though Essjay's points were a bit concerning. Seems good enough to me though.
'''Support'''. Enthusiastically gets involved in the process stuff.
'''Support'''-- Get to mopping, slave!! [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Shows enthusiasm for the project and interest in learning the nuances; he's been working with several admins as mentors to help understand process.  Needs to not take comments here quite so personally, as evidenced by the IRC debacle earlier, but has shown excellent judgement and restraint in prior disputes. .:.
'''Support'''.
'''Very Strong Support''' I nominated him in his last RfA, but he declined. This shows that he has a high level of maturity. Now, I feel that it is time to give him the mop. The additional responsibilities given to him will only benefit [[Wikipedia]] in the long run. He is also a very friendly user and I am proud to give this user my full support. A very experience user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Insert a comment here from above, that pretty much says what I think. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font><font color="#00FF00">[[WP:ESP|a]]</font><font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support'''.  As an aside, I haven't interacted with Terence -- or ''any'' other Wikipedia user -- on IRC.  Personally, I don't trust myself to use IRC without saying something stupid.  [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2005-09%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=carnally+site%3Aspinnoff.com&btnG=Search I learned my lesson four years ago.]  --[[User:Elkman/Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Support''' what's up with you people? Opposing someone solely based on what happens in some chat room? That's really lame.
'''Support''', worthy of the mop. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font face="Verdana" color="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' Of course --
'''Support''' - hard work should be rewarded with harder work.
'''Support''', Terence will do fine as an admin.
'''Support''' per nom.  -- '''[[User:Mmeinhart|<font color="darkblue">mm</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Definitely. Friendly guy :D
'''Support''' Enthusiastic and definitely qualify on the basis of contribution to the archives of Singapore-related articles. '''Slivestré'''<small> ¦ [[User:Slivester|Pfrt]] ¦
'''Support''' --
'''<s>Weak<s> STRONG Oppose''' per Essjay.  Mild maturity concerns, motivated mostly by ageism on my part; "Better safe than sorry" vote only, which am reluctant and sad to cast.
'''Oppose''', though reluctantly. Although he is a very enthusiastic and helpful contributor, I don't think he's mature and stable enough (yet) to become an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. I know this boy, I've talked with this boy and I think he's a good editor.  I am so sorry I have to oppose, but I share JoanneB's concerns about current maturity. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Strong Oppose''' Mostly per Essjay's neutral below... Terence is a friendly kid, and his work is not bad at all. But adminship is not a reward for being a good editor. Based on interactions on IRC, I do not think this user is ready for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per above; I don't think this user is ready for adminship.  Not because of age, but because of maturity.
After reading the above problem, I have been tipped over into a '''weak oppose'''. Terence means well, and has done great work, but the recent problem highlighted and some of Terence's slightly panicky behaviour over neutral votes has made me just this >< more confident that the maturity most admins have isn't just there yet. This is nothing about age -- I was promoted at the same age myself, and Ilyanep is a bureaucrat at Terence's age (I think; he could be a bit younger/older). But impulsive panicking is just that -- impulsive, and no well-meaning can make up for mistakes made due to impulsive panics. This really saddens me -- almost as much as opposing Karmafist's RfA, but I cannot remain neutral on this. I'm really sorry.
'''Oppose''' - Having seen his comments to KOS on IRC, I was horrified. Ageism? Racism? Assume good faith please. I happen to trust and respect KOS very much and such comments are very uncivil. I don't care what age he is but his maturity certainly isn't up to par with what I expect from an Admin. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Strong oppose.''' I initially voted neutral, citing concerns about Terrance's knowledge of policy. However, on seeing how he has responded to those who have voted neutral/oppose, I cannot in good conscience remain silent. Attacking other users is ''never'' appropriate, and certainly not to respond to oppose/neutral voters with accusations of racism. Additionally, he shows a tendency towards instability that simply cannot be tolerated in administrators; admins are given access to restricted functions in the expectation that they will use them fairly and in line with policy. His comments on this page are evidence of this: ''"Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times."'' Admins are exposed to a great deal of stress and frustration, and promoting a candidate who demonstrates an inability to deal with such stress is simply reckless. It is a desysopping waiting to happen. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] •
'''Oppose''' per Essjay and Celestian's concerns. --[[User:Fang Aili|F]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per Essjay's oppose (not his neutral)
'''Oppose'''. I believe Terence's apology to KOS below is heartfelt. That's good, and bodes well for him. I hope he'll transition into a fine Wikipedian, courteous and helpful, mindful of the unwisdom of his actions today and of the hurt he can cause his friends and colleagues by making remarks such as that and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.52.230.176&diff=44064026&oldid=44062865 this]. All the best. —''
'''Weak oppose'''. Civility and maturity are perhaps the most important qualifications for an administrator, and the evidence of these qualities is not strong enough at this time. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Terence, you're a good editor who has shown, with your apology to KoS, the willingness to atone for past mistakes. However, reading these comments and seeing your impulsive reaction makes me unconvinced that you won't exhibit the same impulsive behaviour as an admin. Demonstrate in your future activities that you won't be as impulsive in the future and I'm sure you'll get a lot less oppose votes the next time you come up for RFA. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|''e'']]
'''Oppose''' per KoS and Essjay. Immaturity during an RfA does not bode well. With that said, be patient, try again in a few months and I'm sure you'll do fine. &ndash;
'''Oppose''', per Essjay and others.
'''Oppose''' per Essjay (his oppose comment above) <font color="#F0F">
'''Strong oppose''', cannot have uncivil admins, plus accusation of racism is severe. Poor handling of a proper edit (as shown below by Kimchi.sg and JoanneB), and subsequent discussion. Not conducive behaviour for an admin.
'''Oppose''', having an admin that supposes a new anon is a vandal, even without clear-cut edits indicating so (refer to the link provided by JoanneB below) doesn't sound good. &mdash;
'''Strong Oppose''' per Essjay. Doesn't give me much confidence in him as an admin, though if he is more civil in the future I may be willing to change if he goes up again. --
'''Oppose''' per Essjay.  Agree 100%--
'''Oppose''', he clearly does good work on [[WP:AFD|AFD]] and is an active vandal fighter.  But against that, he seems to be a bit too forceful in his actions, there are some unpleasent accusations highlighted, and his question responses give a feel of using a hammer to resolve problems, rather than gently nudging things along.  For an admin, I think behaviour is more important than contributions, so that weighs my vote to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|My RfA criteria]] includes a section on "Mistakes/Errors in judgment", which states that its not so much making mistakes that's the problem - it's how they are dealt with/responded to. Apologising for the comments make on IRC seems acceptable (although I wasn't there and don't really know the details). However the comment by JoanneB below, with reference to the Britney Spears revert and follow up on [[User talk:70.52.230.176]] is more of an issue. In addition if ''Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times'', it might not be a good idea to be on the receiving end of more stress and frustration as an admin.
'''Oppose''' for ''ad hominem'' characterization of motives in this RfA.
'''Oppose''' Most of my thoughts have already been said much better than I could. -
'''oppose''' this time anyway, when so many of our most level-headed admins feel this negatively about a candidate, I think it best we at least wait. --
'''Oppose''' unless and until the candidate provides convincing replies to the questions I am asking below.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' He's a great editor and I hope he stays a great editor. But great editors do not always make acceptable admins.
'''Neutral''' per John, Esjay and Xoloz's oppose. I respect their judgement.
'''Neutral''' AfD participation consists of a tremendous amount of "per nom" and the like, but I don't see many (any?) original arguments being made. Also refers to AfD as a vote in his answers, despite his heavy participation I'm not sure how much he understands the underlying concepts. Still, this isn't enough for me to oppose right now. --
'''Neutral''' as per aforementioned comments, particularly Essjay's. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Neutral''' pending some explaination of someone of IRC behaviour. <small>(As with CelestianPower above, someone smack my talkpage with a message if I haven't changed anything by Saturday.)</small> --
'''Neutral''' I am undecided with this vote as I think that there are many advantages that would become of this user being granted adminship but at the same time I wonder about his abilties to put into practice many of the underlying factors of adminship. --
'''Neutral''' but leaning towards support. Terence has been great on the AfD pages, and age is irrelevant if his edits are good. However, the IRC matter is sligtly disturbing. If this comes down to a close vote, this should be considered a vote of support.
'''Neutral''' for now, but have the page on watch and will continue to think about it. I voted against Terence for ArbCom, becaise I truly feel that experience counts in that post. I was of the opinion then and since that I'd happily support him for adminship, a job which a mature ''12'' year old could do quite frankly; we see each other on RFA frequently, and I've never doubted his commitment to the project. So, it should have been an automatic support from me. Sorry to say, though, that making 2 bad calls which cause other editors to doubt maturity in ''the first day of an RFA'' is a very bad and ill-considered start and I'm sorry but I will have to think this through and monitor the debate before deciding if I will support or not. --
'''Neutral''' The IRC incidant makes me doubt this user. <font color="#000080">
'''Neutral''' See him often on AfD and, as has already been mentioned, many of his contributions are ''per nom'' (even in cases which I have felt are far from clearcut).  Clearly a good and committed editor, but I wonder about adminship just yet.
'''Neutral'''.  Changed from support after incivility stuff on IRC, particularly accusations of racism.  If it was on Wikipedia itself, I would have changed to oppose, but IRC is not Wikipedia, so we stay, much like my shitty car, in neutral.
Terence is a remarkable young man; I believe he will join the ranks of [[User: Merovingian|Merovingian]] and [[User: Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] as some of our finest young contributors.  His kind and courteous manner will serve him well as an admin, and his photography shows dedication.  -
'''Support'''. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' – very experienced, will make a great administrator –
'''Support'''. A dedicated, committed editor across many areas of the project.
'''Support''' - he should've had it a long time ago. -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Support''' - sounds highly qualified to become an administrator.
'''Support''', does good work on AfDs. The user is very experienced and he's nominated by NSLE, so no questions --
'''Support''' good work on AfD.  Very civil.  Looks to have learnt since last RfA.
'''Support''' - Clearly an experienced user, should make a great admin. --
'''Strong Support''' Seen him do excellent work at the AFD. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' I have seen him do a lot of good work at AgD, he is without doubt ready for the tools.
'''Strong support''' as per above, as co-nominator.
'''Support =)''' — '''''FireFox <sup>
'''Strong Support''' I have seen him do a lot of good work and even dedicating his whole day to taking photographs of [[Singapore]] and even trying to use a teacher's computer to edit so much to the extent where he is banned on using it. Such dedication should be very useful to the community. He deserves this promotion to adminship [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent editor and great part of the community. Terence has been my role model since I first saw him; I hope to be more like this user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' of course. His involvement in SGCOTW has all of us see through our first Singapore-related [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|FA]]. -
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Tawker --
'''Support''', I think.  Adminship is No Big Deal, and Terence is OK by me, seems polite and tolerant.
''(2 edit conflicts!)'' <span class="votesupport">I '''support''' this great editor. (Yeah, editor! 'Cause he's actually building an encyclopedia here ;-) ) The minor issues raised below, can't convince me he shouldn't be given the mop.</span>
'''Support''' Per Tawker. I find that although in the past he has done some questionable things, I really don't think we should judge him by what he did more than a month ago.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <span class="ipa">
'''Strong support'''. "Voting" delete on most AfDs isn't a reason to oppose.  Most AfDs should be deleted. --
'''Support''' [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Strong support''' of course!
'''Support''' - [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. Good luck, mein Freund. [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">'''haz'''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' - my experience with this contributor has always been positive, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools.
'''Support'''. It's about time we give him the ability to close AFD's, block, protect, etc.
'''Cliche support''' Thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' - Yup! '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Nominator Support''' My reasons are stated above. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per all above. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Support'''. I don't see any convincing reason to oppose. Terence can be trusted to close deletion discussions, and he understands how to deal with vandalism. --
'''Support''' per all above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' for the times he's reverted vandalism on my userpage! &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong Support''' seems like a great candidate
'''Support''' as per last time.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Looks good-- significant contributions. I don't think immaturity is an issue judging by the user page and comments from others. The ''oppose'' arguments aren't very convincing.
'''Support''' a bright light and a brilliant contributor --
'''Support''' I see no big problems.--
'''Support''' why are all the good people being nominated when I'm on wikibreak???
'''Already thought he was support''' :P --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support'''. Excellent contributions to the WP namespace. [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Support''' Seems to be a good guy, especially for the jobs outlined in his answer for the question 1
'''Strong Support''' per all above.
'''Support''' Mature enough to handle it. And passes 1FA. :) -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>
'''Support''' - a wonderful person and contributor. <span style="font-size:99%">'''
'''Support''' as 3rd co-nominator. Terence has proven himself this time.--

'''Support''' Shows expertise and contributes to a broad range of articles.--
'''SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT'''. Excellent contributor, kickass guy, proves to be responsible enough for the mop. -→
'''Support''' A contributor who will help WP with the tools. <b><font color="teal">
'''Support'''. Like last time.
'''Support'''. All my interaction with him, directly or indirectly during another discussion, or just observing from afar, I have noticed his dedication to the project and to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!  [[User:Shreshth91|Shr]]
'''Weak Support'''- I'm just a little troubled by some of the arguments raised in the Oppose camp, mainly that Terence Ong basically just goes with the flow on most things and rarely takes the initiative, but I do believe this user has a good understanding of policy, knows Wikiright from Wikiwrong and won't abuse the tools. The Admin group has room for quiet achievers, and I do not believe that Terence Ong will be too timid to do what needs to be done.
'''Support''' Not only a friendly user, but also one who understands fully what this project is about. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Active, polite, trustworthy to use the tools peopwely and well. --
'''Support''' per his dedication to Singapore articles and anti-vandalism efforts. - [[User:Tangotango|Tangot]]
'''Weak support'''. There's no question he has the tools (and, well, I thought he already had the tools, but...); still, I would ask Terence to get one more: a stopwatch that counts to ten ;) <tt>
'''Support''', good with the mop. --
'''Support'''. Rather experienced editor here at Wikipedia with significant contributions to the community. His maturity level has increased and he's now more qualified for the job since the last RfA. Think he'll be able to do a fine job once given the chance. </br>-
'''Support'''. Solid editor, should do well as an admin.
'''Support.'''--
'''Support''' [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support''' Appears to "speak" several lanaguges, a bonus point! :-)
'''Support'''--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' -- from
'''Support''' I take his criticism seriously but I think he'll be allright. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">D</font>]][[User:D-Day|-Day]] <sup>[[User talk:D-Day|What up?]]
'''Cleared for Adminship''' --[[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pil'''</font>]][[User:Pilotguy/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''o'''</font>]]
'''Support''', great user. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Yes please''' - I havne't been able to write anything for two weeks since RfA and need someone to help delete stuff. All the delete-processing admins seem to have disappeared. I don't want to turn into a delete-processor. My first love is writing. If Terence promises to stick to the clearcut deletes then I hope you folks will change your mind. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The first oppose vote *can't* be serious... &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support'''. Admin's not a big deal, and Terrance seems to do a not bad god with the sweeping brush. I actually read this whole page, came across the racist remarks and then finally worked out that they we're in a discussion I was having with Terrance about Singapore Airport... Terrace immediately appologised, and that was the end of the matter, for me/
'''Support''' In the few times I have talked to him, on Wikipedia, [[MSN Messenger]] and [[Google Talk]], he has shown to be a very friendly person. He knows a lot about Wikipedia and can give helpful advice. Terence is a talented youngster. Being 14 myself, I have experienced much stress in my 5 months here, and I've not handled it well either. --
'''Support''' per nom. --<span style="text-decoration: none;">[[User:Xyrael|<font color="#696969">Xyra</font>]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom
'''Support''' I don't he will abuse tools. Beside, anyone with this many edits should be a admin. '''<font color="Gray">[[User:The Gerg|Th]]</font><font color="Green">
'''Support''', great user, lots of work on AfD, very civil--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Support''' Fantastic editor, I don't really understand the complaints about a "lack of leadership" because he votes delete on bad articles... Plus, admins should only use deletion powers unilaterally (not per a community decision) when the decision ''is'' clear, so do you want an admin who has a history of making decisive, in-your-face deletion votes?
'''Support''' I am always in favor of a Wikiholic! And you sure are one!
'''Support.'''  He's reasonable, and his AfD contributions are generally well thought out, even if I may not agree with a small percentage of them.
'''Support''' per various comments above.
'''Support'''. Terence has a high percentage of edit summary usage (100% major, 74% minor) and his edits reverting tons of vandalism have proven to be very beneficial towards the project, imagine what more he could do with a mop and the position of admin.
Terence is a very friendly person and makes lots of good contributions. That said, I don't support him becoming an admin. Many here use his AfD involvement as a reason to support, and yes he does vote on a lot of AfD's. However, as was brought up in his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Terence_Ong|first RfA]] (see question 2 by Vivian Darkbloom), his AfD contributions are rarely helpful and tend to just follow whatever the general voting trend is at the time, usually consisting of nothing more than a one or two word summary. He was never seen espousing a minority opinion and his response to this concern was basically "Yeah, so what?". — ''
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a good chap, heart is in the right place. But deficiency of initiative and leadership coupled with some previous examples of going off shows a lack of maturity.
'''Oppose'''.  This user has spent a fair while advising other people to assume good faith, but [[User talk:Terence Ong#Your edit to an MFD nomination|this conversation]] shows me that he doesn't himself, and doesn't understand that it's a problem.  --
'''Oppose''' per above. The last thing we need is an admin who does unusual things when stressed. His unusual use of English would not be an insurmountable problem if not for these doubts. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' per above.  No offense to Terence, but I do not think he has the demeanor to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' Users like Terence are always hard to judge due to their original edits being overwhelmed by vandalism reverts. It's great that Terence is so conscientious in vandal fighting but this is a minor role for an admin with respect to the skills required for the job. Reading the comments here, it seems that proactive editing is not the norm. Are all Terences RfA votes really support?  This type of editing worries me as it seems to involve little critical thinking and is a pattern that suggests he is trying to be 'liked'.  Will Terence be able to make the right decisions when his friends are in the wrong? This in itself is not enough for me to oppose, but  after reading proto comments below i really feel i need to oppose.  This comment "''a tirade of racism and abuse via IRC aimed at anyone who voted 'oppose' - was only 3 months ago''" really is worrying behaviour from an admin candidate.
'''Oppose''' - what I've seen from this user in the past is that he does not handle stress very well. In the recent past, since his last RFA, I don't think I've seen anything that proves the contrary to me. I know Terence is very friendly and a good contributor, but being an admin will very likely get him into conflicts, and I think I have reasons to doubt his maturity in dealing with that. Also, I echo some of the concerns above, mainly from David D.: he has shown little independent decision making, which gives me little indication of his behaviour as an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Terence is friendly, witty and is always willing to help, no doubt about it.  What I do doubt is his abilty to come to conclusions that are best for wikipedia and not necessarily for his friends' benefits.  I do believe that past mistakes can be looked over once a user had changed their ways, but with the actions from his last RfA just a few months ago all too clear in my mind, I feel the need to Oppose.--
'''Oppose in the strongest possible terms.''' As has been laid out by those above, Terrence is completely unpredictible when dealing with conflict and especially criticism, something he'll experience on a daily basis as an admin. (His own "defense" of his behavior in the previous RfA makes this clear: "Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times.") He resorts to namecalling and personal attacks in an attempt to discredit and badger anyone who disagrees with him; his behavior on his first RFA was completely inexcusable, screaming racism and ageism at a large collection of very well respected contributors who voted oppose. The last thing we need are unstable and trigger happy admins who easily yield to peer pressure in order to fit in; I continue to believe that he is wholly unsuitable for adminship and that a promotion of this candidate would be reckless disregard for the best interests of Wikipeda. '''Absolutely not.''' <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">'''Essjay'''</font>]] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>[[User talk:Essjay|<font color="#7b68ee">Talk</font>]] •
'''Oppose''' - He's a good contributor, no doubt, but what from what I've seen of him as per Question 3, I have my doubts about his maturity when he runs into edit conflicts. --
'''Oppose''': throwing out wide-ranging allegations of racism, only three months ago, is still much to soon.
'''Oppose''' A good contributor, but I can not support him for adminship per JoanneB and Essjay. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''', per GT; doesn't seem very thorough in investigating articles nominated for deletion.  Just pulling some examples from the last few days: he added throwaway "delete" responses on articles like [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Active_citizenship]],  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T-Shirt_Hell]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Deacon]] where a "keep" consensus emerged after someone actually did some research, and he apparently didn't realize that [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelodiscus]] included more than one article (did he read either/both before "voting"?). This was a concern raised in his last RFA, and I don't see that he's really addressed it in substantial fashion.  I just wouldn't feel comfortable trusting him with admin powers.-
'''Oppose''' As the former anon editor who received [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.52.230.176 this] kind of attitude after making a legit edit, I have serious concerns over his behaviour, particularly during stressful times. I have not seen anything to change my mind and I do not think he is cut out for adminship.
'''Oppose''', per Essjay and JoanneB. User needs to be able to deal with stress better. I hope that he'll take the comments here to heart and try again another time, once he's shown his ability to stay cool under fire and retain his independence better.
Name recognition /= good admin. Length of time /= good admin. Number of edits /= good admin. Erratic/unpredictable behavior /= good admin. This user displays all of these. People saying he "deserves" it should read What adminship is not. Oppose for now. --
'''Oppose''' per Tom Marvolo Riddle (^). There's too much emphasis on contributions and not enough on what will actually happen when they get the tools. I agree with Soutwood in using this as an improvement experience. -
'''Oppose (mild)''' Would like to see more depth of comment on AfD's etc - his research doesn't do itself justice.
'''Oppose''' basically per LV. I really was going to sit this one out because I couldn't bring myself to vote either way, but he put it well enough for me sign on. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Essjay.
'''Oppose''' per Essjay.
'''Oppose''' per AfDs and Essjay.
'''Oppose''' per all the above.
'''Changing to Oppose''' per Essjay.
'''Oppose'''. I too had been leaning nuetral but such vehemently remarks from Essjay make me believe that Terrence is not ready to be become an admin. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
'''Oppose'''.  It appears to me after some very careful consideration that three months is not enough time, in this case, to be confident that Terrence will use the tools responsibly.  Admins who react poorly under stress can be a very bad thing for Wikipedia.  I mislike his answer to question 3; it describes a conflict in which another user was (apparently) primarily at fault, and then describes another conflict in which Terrence made a personal attack and realized he shouldn't do that anymore.  I frankly expect a user who has had severe conflicts and stress to have learned something less superficial than to follow [[WP:NPA]]. --
'''Oppose''' (changed from neutral) - SCZenz and Essjay have convinced me that I shouldn't be neutral on this.
'''Oppose''' admins must, above all else, be able to deal with stress and adversity. I have not seen enough to prove that Terence Ong can do this at all times. -
'''Oppose''' per Essjay.
'''Oppose''' per Essjay and others.
'''Oppose''' per Lord Voldemort and SCZenz.  I do believe that users should be given the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to rise above past mistakes.  That said, three months isn't quite long enough for me to secure that the user has rectified the problems of temperment that plagued the last RfA.
'''Strong oppose''' - as some respected editors before me have mentioned, none of the issues raised during the last RfA have been convincingly resolved, viz. name-calling, mental readiness for the janitorial tasks, and AfD comment behaviour. In addition, although he promises to warn newbies in his answer to question 1, in reality he warns vandals only sporadically despite being reminded to do so. None of his last 40 reverts made with popups were accompanied by warnings. Lastly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Terence_Ong&diff=prev&oldid=57328730] seems to indicate an unwillingness to discuss one of his reverts, wiping out the request using popups, no less. (The only mistake the anon made was to place his comment in the wrong place.) All in all, the doubt factor over this user's suitability for the sysop buttons has only increased since his last RfA.
'''Oppose'''.  As one of Terence's admin coaches, I was incredibly surprised to see another RfA for him after only 3 months; I happened to stumble across it today.  There were serious concerns from the last time around and there hasn't been enough time to address those and show growth.  Terence knows policy well, but still has difficulty in applying or interpreting it. Great contributor and will make a wonderful admin in the future. Shell <sup>

'''Weak Oppose'''. Like many others to say this, I have found Terence to be a great guy who has has made many fine contributions to wikipedia. However, I do not feel that the position of administrator is the best place for him to serve wikipedia at this time. He has plenty of potential as a future admin (per Shell), but not just yet in my humble opinion. -- '''
Reluctant '''oppose'''.  Terence seems like a nice guy, but his comments on AfD and the incivility I see discussed here means that he needs to work on things first.  Maybe in a few more months.
'''Absolutely not.'''  KnowledgeOfSelf was badgered with racism and ageism accusations in Terence's last RFA (I was in IRC at the time).  An admin who resorts to baseless allegations regarding a person's opinions is not an admin I want.
'''Oppose''' per various comments above.
'''Weak Oppose''' Changed vote after seeing several oppose votes. —&nbsp;[[User:nathanrdotcom|<font color="navy">'''Natha'''</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. I was wavering, but didn't have anything with which I could justify opposing until I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Terence_Ong&diff=prev&oldid=57328730 this]. How we deal with vandals, clueless newbies etc. is far more important than how we deal with experienced members, and I see this as an example of newbie-biting. Combined with what has already been said, including a lot of the support votes as well as the oppose, I see an editor who, as an admin, will be much admired by Esperanzans, Wikiproject members and others in the Wikipedia circles he moves in, i.e. those who have already climbed Wikipedia's learning curve. But he is likely to inadvertantly kick some of those who are still climbing off the mountain. Great editor, please keep it up, but not ready for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' as per Essjay.
<strike>'''Support''' per nom. <font color="3300FF">[[User:Aguerriero|Aguerriero]] ([[User_talk:Aguerriero|talk]])</font> 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)</strike> I cannot in good conscience vote support after reading some of the above edits and concerns. For now, '''oppose'''.<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' as per Essjay and most of the concerns raised above.
'''Oppose'''. Excellent contributor, but seems unlikely to make a good admin at present based on all the above concerns. Shell Kinney's comment (oppose #33) in particular carries a lot of weight with me. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Essjay|Essjay]]. --
'''Weak oppose'''. Most of the best admins, in my opinion, are the ones who explain their actions well. I'm not especially warm to people who fail who explain their rationales at all on AfD, even on particularly contentious AfDs. There were many concerns raised on his last RfA that do not appear to be fully addressed. But as an eventualist, I believe everyone deserves a shot at adminship and Mr. Ong definitely deserves more opportunities (given more time and thought.)
'''Strongly oppose'''. Terence's own behavior since his last RfA and his not so forthcoming answers here make the case against giving him admin power even stronger now than it was before.  For three reasons, the same as last time. I won't bother asking the questions; he didn't really answer before, and he hasn't responded to anybody else here. Firstly, he still hasn't apologized to the user he falsely accused of vandalism during the last RfA, and still refuses to even explain why he won't apologize. Second, he refuses to follow himself the standards he wants applied to others. Rather than discussing his own stressed-out misbehaviour, which is well-known, his new response to the question below about behaviour under stress has changed only by going on at greater length about how bad a user he had a dispute was. But Terence's only actions in that dispute seems to have been to make personal attacks against the user and accuser her of bad faith. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMonicasdude&diff=32205136&oldid=32186677], just the behaviour he complained of.  As Sam Blanning pointed out, Terence erases other editor's comments from his talk page without explaining, but complains when others to it to his own. We've got too many admins with double standards for them and their friends on one hand, and the rest of us on the other. Third, since Terence just about always sides with whatever the majority is in any dispute he's involved in, and doesn't show any understanding of why that bothers many of us, I don't think he's given any basis for us to believe that he's got the discretion and judgment admins ought to have. His failure to give significant responses to that issue here is at best uncivil, at worst an admission that he's got no real answer to the problem.
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to do this, but it must be done. Oppose because of the diffs identified in this discussion so far. -
'''Oppose''' if for no other reason than lack of independent insight and judgement on AfDs as per GT, which I have noticed and found frustrating. It would be better to do more research on fewer items. As it stands, the opinion can't be relied on, although goodwill for the project seems apparent.
'''Oppose''' per diffs provided above. '''
'''Oppose''' - <strike> '''Support'''. Looks to be a quality editor per Zaxem and dedicated vandalfighter. Problems identified in the last RfA don't appear to be an issue anymore - [[User:Peripitus |Peripitus]] [[User talk:Peripitus|(Talk)]] 09:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)</strike>changing my opinion based on both the diffs shown and with respect to comments by Essjay and a previous admin coach -
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a very good contributer.. but I can't make up my mind on whether he would be a good admin or not --
'''Neutral''' per GT, unfortunately.  Even today, I'm not confident Terence Ong looks at the articles he votes on.
'''Neutral'''. I've noticed Terence around on AfD and I can't say I have any problems with him on that score. But the comments above regarding unfounded allegations of racism and so forth following his previous nom constitute a serious problem for me. Time does heal all wounds, but maturity (regardless of calendar age, which is unimportant) is something that can only develop over a period (much) longer than 3 months. I see it as the key criterion in an RfA. Simply put, not everyone is cut out to be an admin, however great an editor they may be. <small>This is a 'Neutral' rather than 'Oppose' because I am relying on the statements above and have not actually '''seen''' the comments in question. If this RfA is tight, my contribution can be taken by the closer as an Oppose.</small>
I came here intending to support, because Terence is a nice guy and has grown somewhat since his last RfA, but the strong opposition from people I trust a lot suggests that more growth is needed. Still, I cannot oppose. Please do not despair, Terence, but instead take on board some of the input you've been given, work on being more equanamable, and more thoughtful in your comments, and in time adminship will come. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Neutral''' Nice guy but since he plans to do xfD work, the AfD commentary is rather sparse. I can't hold comments made on another medium three months ago against him per se, but their apparent content is concerning as well.
'''Neutral'''. This is a shame, as I said last time that if Terence ever came up again I would support. However, reading this RFA discussion has made doubt creep into my mind; hence the neutral. Undoubtedly a prolific and active user, but some of the above makes me think maybe not admin material at the moment.
'''Neutral''' I really want to vote Support, but I feel he needs to mature as a person before he is given the sysop tools (which I'm sure he will someday). I think Terrence is a fine editor and a great wikipedian, but adminship isn't a reward. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]]
'''Neutral''' --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Support''' as per nominator. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
Wikipedia-space contribs seem to be '''''too''''' confined to AFD and RFA for the most part. Main talk-space contribs are on the low side. However, I trust him with admin tools, so am going to vote neutral.
Voting neutral, as per NSLE above. &mdash;
No need for tools. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' — Generally no need for them at present. <small>
'''Oppose'''. I would suggest gaining more experience first. '''''
Inexperience. Edit summary usage is rather poor, too. -
Adminiship is not a status symbol. Being an admin makes it easier to do some tasks, which I don't think you are doing or intend to do.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but you need more than 42 Wikipedia space edits to show you're familiar with the policies and such. 17% edit summary uses is bad, too. Try again in a few months, preferably after lots of vandal fighting and XfD. Remember, not being an admin doesn't mean you're not a good article writer; there are many editors who I would never give the mop. It's not because you're bad I'm opposing you, you just don't need the tools yet. -
Hey Terrill, it's really great to see that you want to help out like this. However, your level of activity is a little too low for most people to be able to support you. I think you've been around about as long as I have, but you need to contribute more widely before you can truly understand a lot of processes that take place around here. Administators generally have to be fairly fairly involved in the project space, which you haven't been so far. I'd recommend you withdraw the RfA, maybe get an [[WP:ER|editor review]], contribute a little more heavily and take place in policy discussions and the like, and come back in 6 months. Please don't be discouraged - lots of RfAs fail the first time around but are overwhelmingly successful on the second try! So, hang in there, take a look around the project pages and try to contribute to things you like - [[WP:AfD|AfD]]s, vandalism patrol (which you can do without admin tools, too), deletion debates and related issues will help you gain the experience necessary to be an administrator. Good luck! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
Of course I '''support'''! I have a suggestion though: please watch the way you talk, as it may appear insulting to others, even if it isn't to you. For example, don't call newbies ''noobs'', as many people consider it insulting.--'''
I'm going to go against the flow and '''Support''' here - The Bread may not be amazingly active for 9 months, but he is definitely familiar with the wiki, he has 34 edits to [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates]] and 7 to [[WT:RFA]], enough for me to have noticed him. My only thing is that you have very few edits, but I believe you've been here long enough to "get" how stuff works.
You say you're having eyesight trouble. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this was also your reason for pulling out of the ArbCom nomination race early on. If you thought this would hinder you for the AC, why would you not think that of adminship? I'm not willing to support further based on my criteria. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Hi, Bread. Thanks for submitting your RfA. Off to a good start, but I would like to see more experience in general and XfD in particular. I counted ~60 deletion related edits in your last 2000 edits as opposed to ~150 edits to your user page. Hopefully your health problems won't interfer too much. Also, you might want to check for typo's in your nom statement and throughout your RfA.
'''Oppose'''. Candidate admits in his opening statement that he would not pass his own adminship criteria. While I personally feel that 2100 edits is sufficient for an admin candidate, putting yourself up for adminship when you don't meet your own criteria is simply hypocritical - and I cannot support a hypocritical adminship nomination.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but I have to oppose per the above concerns, mainly the fact that you feel you would not pass your own adminship criteria. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per The Halo.
'''Weak Oppose''' Its election day, so I thought I'd come down to the RfA. I have no problems with the fact that you don't meet your own criteria, (I didn't meet my own before my RfA, nor about anyone else's) but certain specific edit counts bother me. (7 to RfA, but 150 to user page?)
'''Oppose''' Lack of experience (mostly one topic) and Answer 1 bothers me. Are you aware of [[WP:AN3]]?
You're a good editor, but your answers don't really convince me. I'm open to persuasion, though. :) '''
'''Neutral''' - bothered by inablity to properly upload images[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=The_Bread] --
'''Neutral''' per the other T rex, also some of the images you have uploaded don't have any rationale for being fair use. Answers are a bit unconvincing.
'''Neutral''' to quote
'''Neutral'''. Like editor above, I really find it difficult to support a nominee who doesn't meet their own support criteria. It suggests that you do not give others the same benefit that you afford youself, which does not seem becoming of an admin. If you could explain your reasoning for this apparent paradox, then i could be convinced.
'''Neutral''' I've come across your edits and you're clearly a good editor, so I will not oppose your RfA. However, I don't think that you have the required edit count, as described above. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;"><font color="blue">
'''Support''' Reasons stated above
'''Support''' After reading all the negative opposition, I intially wasn't going to vote, but I felt guilty, as he requested my help in this vote and I once requested his help in a vote against deletion, so it is my obligation to vote in favour.
'''Oppose''', not enough experience yet.  Also, please make a better use of [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] and consider participating more in the project space so that people who vote can be better assured that you are familiar with Wikipedia policies.  Keep contributing and happy editing! --
'''Oppose''' per Deathphoenix. --
'''Oppose''' for lack of experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''': very premature.
'''Oppose''' - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Fish&diff=34913735&oldid=34807185 seems to be] trying to take advantage of Wiki software to bump his own sites up search engines. This is not a user who needs more toys on this Wiki. (
'''Oppose''', mostly per lack of experience, but also for misuse of process by trading nominations and support votes with [[User:Mrbowtie|Mrbowtie]]. '''''<font style="color:#22AA00;">
'''Oppose''' per above--
'''Oppose''' per above: lack of experience, lack of usage of edit summaries, and weak responses to the questions.
'''Oppose''' too new, begging for "votes" [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlistairMcMillan&oldid=38358256]].

'''Extremely Strong Support''' As co-nommer. <tt><font color="#FF00FF">
<s>Support</s> '''Strong support''' also as nominator. —[[User:Springeragh|'''''$ΡЯΙNG'''''εrαgђ]] <small>(-[[Special:Contributions/Springeragh|¢]]|</small>[[User:Springeragh/ESP|<font color="green">ε</font color>]]<small>|[[User:Springeragh/love|Ŀ]]|[[User talk:Springeragh|T]]|
'''Weak Support''' seen user around. Should be a great admin. Good luck! :) --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
<nowiki>*</nowiki>gets beaten up for using cliché* Support. &ndash;
'''Support'''The Halo deserves to be an admin. He's a sensible, hard-working guy.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Strong Suppport''' <nowiki>{{RfA-cliche #1}}</nowiki> The Halo rocks. <-- Period. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#CCCCFF">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Support''' No major conficts spotted when browsing his contributions, seems to have a pretty good understanding of the rules, and he's been around long enough.  We certainly have enough info to decide whether or not he is likely to abuse the tools, and it seems he's a safe bet.  Edit statistics are of low importance.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' I myself have been an admin for much more than a year now, and I ''still'' have fewer articlespace edits than The Halo does.  To say that isn't enough would be to place our standards unreasonably high, and relying too much on edit counts we often miss the bigger picture.  I think The Halo would make a fine admin.

'''Weak to Moderate Support''' per nom, and weak due to the critism by the opposers.
'''Support'''. After fixing the formatting of Hoopydink's post and rethinking this, I see no point in staying on neutral. While Halo's main space edits might be low, I do think he can be trusted not to abuse anything. So I'll move towards support. Bean counting is a bit silly anyway. And maybe we can spare us a second RfA in a few months. --
'''Support'''. A low number of mainspace edits really has no correlation to the kind of job he'll do as an administrator. --
'''Strong Support'''. Excellent contributor, eminently worthy of our trust with the admin tools. Administrators are expected to maintain Wikipedia, the amount that they actually contribute to its content is nice but not particularly relevant. If their skills in negotation, their wisdom in judgment, and their understanding of policy are all top class it doesn't really matter how much they do to write articles. The requirement some seem to have that an editor write a Featured Article before becoming admin ignores that your writing abilities are pretty much unrelated to your administrative abilities. For example, a look through the last 500 contributions of [[User:Tony Sidaway]] and [[User:Cyde]] would suggest that they ''never'' edit articles in a non-maintainence fashion. There is nothing wrong with this and I intend no offense to them, but it should demonstrate my point that administrative ability is unrelated to mainspace edits. --
'''Support'''. This sort of nomination is where a measure like edit count will betray those who use it as anything more than a rule of thumb. It's usually true that it will take a user a couple thousand edits and 3-6 months to get policy down and create a track record to give voters a comfort zone. This is an exception. Editing in the main namespace is always a good thing because we are building an encyclopedia, but we need people who focus in other areas to make this more than a chaotic melange of information. The Halo is an example of that other type of user.
'''Support''', despite the slightly-low mainspace edit count - TH is friendly, and Wiki would benefit from him having the mop. <font face="sans-serif">'''
'''Support''' Good judgement and dedicated involvement, no matter what the edit counter says. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Weak Support''' - experience with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=The_Halo&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6 image tagging], makes up for low article space edits and odd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=The_Halo upload log] --
'''Support''' have seen this user contribute from a distance and has always seemed quite civil and helpful. Along with that, the user's activity in afd's in which the user frequently cites relevant policy shows to me a knowledge of policy. The mainspace edit issue doesn't bother me and I don't think that alone justifies an oppose vote.--
'''strong support''' per noms. ~[[user:crazytales56297|crazytales56297]] - [[user talk:crazytales56297|t]]-
'''Support'''. First time I log in weeks, only to check how things are going... but how could I ''not'' have my say here? ;) Now if you excuse me, my wikibreak must continue. Hugs all! [[User:Phaedriel|<b><font color="#00BB00">Phaedriel</font></b>]] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</font></b>
'''Support'''&mdash;I too would like to see a few more actual edits. But I'm in no hurry to return to the rigor of the Diablo Test and there is enough data to confirm you (The Halo) are unlikely to abuse the tools. Use them carefully & thoughtfully - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Support''', we need more [[:Image:Halo smiles.jpg|happy smiling admins]]. :) No, seriously, I would feel completely comfortable coming to him with a problem, and I think that's really important. I think you would use the tools wisely. The low mainspace count may end up being a problem, but for now you have my support. Best wishes, &mdash; '''[[User:Riana_dzasta|riana_dzast]]<font color="green">
'''Weak support''' good user in my experience, though mainspace edits are low.
Per Phaedriel and others, low mainspace edits should not be a complete block to adminship. I have few or no qualms about this user's dedication to the project. '''Support''' ++
'''Support''', I trust this editor, he is responsive to requests and will be careful with the tools, I am sure.
'''Support'''inspite of the few mainspace edits. <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support'''. Yes. — [[User:Gary Kirk|<font color="#9370DB" face="courier new">G</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#FF7F00">a</font>]]
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
--
'''Edit Conflict Support.''' Darn it, all my reasons have been stated.  I particularly agree with Riana's reasoning, however.  Admins need to be kind and approachable.  Additionally, his AFD participation is very good. To address Joshua's concerns below, listing articles for deletion isn't the most important part of the process by any means.
'''Very Strong Support''' A great editor, really deserves to be an admin. Helps out where admins are needed most. Has constantly shown good judgement and keeps a cool head. Eager to help, would be a truly great asset to the community.
'''Support'''. A wonderful editor who is likely to not abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal remember?
'''Weak support'''.  Qualitatively his contribution has been impressive.  The quantity, as several opposers and neutrals note, needs work, hence my ''weak''.  But quantity will come in due course, and so I'm inclined to support now rather than go through the whole process again in a few months.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
'''Support.''' Will not accidentally delete the Main Page. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', editcountis. I trust him with the tools and I hope his edit count in the mainspace will increase when he's promoted. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Level headed and not likely to abuse the tools.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' per RyanG. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' keep up the good work
'''Support''' Positive impression every time I've seen this user around.--[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Massive support''' Fabby user - kind, civil, helpful and generally lovely. Good luck mate! Regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. Great user, very civil. However, I would like to see a few more mainspace edits.--
'''Support''' per noms.
'''Support''' I haven't interacted much with The Halo, but he has struck me as a very reasonable and thoughtful editor.  I think he would be fair with the buttons.  I do encourage him to edit more substantially in the mainspace, as he's very good at it. --
'''Support''' I have been waiting for this one for some time! Hand him the mop <font color="SteelBlue">[[User:Aeon1006|Æon]]</font> <font color="red"><sup>[[User talk:Aeon1006|Insanity Now!]]</sup></font><sub><font color="Green">
'''Support''' with him being around for more than a year, "inexperience" argument looks very much like bullshit.
'''''<u>Support</u>''''' per Grue.
'''Support.''' I trust this user with the tools. Though not relevant to the RfA !vote, I hope the second nominator will stay with us also.
'''Absolute support!''', I can't believe I didn't notice this RfA sooner!  The Halo is an exceptionally hard working and polite Wikipedia, and has on numerous occasions interacted on the same level as administrators, discussion many issues at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:AN/I]], which shows his well-footed knowledge in all things Wikipedia.  -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly]]<font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' Meets my standards, and I have had good experiences with Halo in AfD.--
'''Support''' Go, dude!--[[User:Suit-n-tie|<font color="blue">'''Suit-n'''</font>]][[User:Suit-n-tie/The Bunatrix|<font color="purple">'''-ti'''</font>]]
'''Support''' sufficiently civil, gets stuck in, doesn't over-react even in cases where that could easily have happened.
'''Strong support'''. -- ''
'''Support''', I'm sure he can be trusted with the mop. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
per Grue, and the weirdly large number of very weak oppose votes
'''Support''' Never seen anything negative from this user, and I hate to perpetuate editcountitis [[User:Canadian-Bacon|''<font color="Red">Canadian</font>''-'''''<font color="Black">Bacon</font>''''']]  <sup> [[User_talk:Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Red">''t''</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Canadian-Bacon|<font color="Black">''c''</font>]]
'''Support'''. The Halo is a very helpful editor, a kind one, and always civil. He manages to keep a cool head and disolve disputes with ease. While the edit count could of course be higher, these are qualities we need in our admins. Civility is a must, and The Halo has plenty. -- '''
'''Strong support''', I've always been impressed with what I've seen of this user and don't see the lack of experience perceive by the opposing voters. The Halo is mature, well-mannered and approachable, and I see no compelling reason to oppose. Good luck! [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Weak Support''' Eh.....What the hell.
'''Strong Support''' - There's nothing wrong with making someone whose primary activity is dealing with non-article matters an admin.  From what I can see, most admins have a slight preference to doing mainspace edits, and deal with other matters only because such activities are necessary.  Someone who focuses on and enjoys working on the other non-article side would be extremely valuable to the wikipedia.
'''Weak support''', few mainspace edits, but good character. &mdash;[[User:Nightstallion|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Nightst</span>]]<font color="green">[[User:Nightstallion/esperanza|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">a</span>]]</font>
'''Support''' My encounters with Halo on WP have been nothing but positive. Edit count might be a bit low, but I like what I've seen. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Impressed, despite the fact of low mainspace edits.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, 602 mainspace edit seems little low for me. --
'''Oppose''' as per Winhunter.  --
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience in encyclopedia building, per low mainspace edits.
Not enough experience, sorry.  --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Themindset/RFA|my standards]], encourage the nom to browse [[WP:RFA/ST]] to see what most RFA !voters require before considering a nom.
'''Oppose''' not quite enough edits, but certainly a good start.
'''Oppose''', in a couple of months and a couple of thousand mainspace edits, I will support
'''Oppose'''. Wider experience needed.
'''Oppose''' Per Singopo
'''Oppose''' Nom Springeragh has a confusing signature and his user page has a fake "you have new messages" tag that leads to a "gotcha" page. Not encyclopedic and not in tune with the prevailing admin culture. Doubt that if you were ready to be an adminship that you would have accepted his nom. --
'''Reluctant oppose'''. Certainly a good faith user, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience. On the article edits, it's not like he can't write: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenichi_Sonoda&diff=75964490&oldid=74160208] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leona_Naess&diff=75177952&oldid=72563060] &ndash; involvement with FAs would be even better.
'''Oppose''' per JoshuaZ's comment above. Overall, headed in the righ direction, but just needs more expereince.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' Is the edit-counter broken?  I've seen the editor around, have a generally favorable impression, and am surprised by the low number of article edits. Still, insufficient mainspace edits are a sign of inexperience, and its better to remedy inexperience ''before'' getting the mop.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry.  I hate opposing based mostly on edit counts, but i do think that you could use more mainspace experience.  It's important to have a decent amount of article editing experience to be a good admin, imo; that is where most conflicts develop, where people start arguments, where one learns who is a spammer and who isn't, and where one really learns to work with fellow editors.  so, again, sorry, but you need to spend some more time in the shit.  --<font color="FF0000">
'''Oppose''' Per Xolox. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace edits. I can see that The Halo interacts well with fellow Wikipedians, but I would like to see more contributions to Wikipedia's mainspace. --
'''Oppose''' per above. Sorry. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page.
'''Oppose''' per <s>nominator's signature</s> :) too few mainspace edits. Sorry. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per above due to lack of mainspace edits, needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' Lack of mainspace edits. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''' definately shows a lack of maturity in some of his judgement calls and edits. Lack of mainspace editing, no featured articles created... wikipedia is here for writing, not for mere social aspects (thats why we have an IRC channel). Not to mention I hate it when family members co-nom... I dont approve of meatpuppetry. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Edits and experience. Also seems to be something of a "social user". --
'''Reluctant oppose''', reluctant because I think this is an editor who works for the good of the project and has been helpful; oppose, however, because I don't think this user yet has enough experience to be ready for the mop.  Sorry.  Will certainly consider supporting a future RfA, after some more experience, if this one fails. ---
'''Weak oppose''' for now. urge them to work more in article space and not spend 7% of their time editing Requests for adminship pages before they have enough experience dealing with other editors directly in the process of collaboratively editing articles. <s>No concerns about behaviour though so this is a borderline to neutral.</s>
'''Oppose''' per my philosophy at [[User:Blnguyen/RfA]]. I feel rather disappointed that administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart. In any case the [[Howden]] article is a good job and I think you should definitely write more, as when you think about it, article writing is the most backlogged thing on Wikipedia - it's surprising how many prominent people/things never get their article improved despite the availability of people who do know stuff about them. '''
'''Oppose''' This editor seems like they will one day make a good admin, but they have far too few mainspace edits to really illustrate a proficiency with policy. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Oppose''' mainly because mainspace edits are just too low, but also because I'm really not comfortable with the social side of things and I don't really see a need for admin tools.
'''Oppose''' Attitude to blocking. Insufficient quality editing.--
I oppose this user receiving adminship at this time.  I'm not particularly worried about mainspace edits, but more about the blocking attitude, and I do agree that this is more of a social RFA.
'''Oppose''' per lack of mainspace edits as already noted by others.
'''Oppose''' - Nice guy, but against what other people seem to think, being an admin shouldn't be about who's popular or not! That's why we have highschool! The fact is, Halo has too low an edit count, & we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to make friends & have them vote for you. Nominations should be made on their rock hard contributions. That's my 2 cents... Sorry Halo... :(
'''Neutral''' The low main namespace edits is a concern to me. However, you are a good editor, so I can't oppose here. Might change my mind if this is close. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'm pleased to see participation with AfDs; however, 602 edits in the article mainspace seems a bit low considering how long you have been with Wikipedia... for comparison, I've been here just over half a year and I have 526 mainspace edits. Your distribution of edits is a bit more evenly balanced than mine, though. You seem to be a well-mannered, level-headed fellow, and I would vote "Support" if not for the comparatively low number of mainspace edits. It would be churlish for me to vote "Oppose" when considering all that you have done for the project. Please understand that this is not a referendum about you as a ''person'', and perhaps when you have more article edits, I will vote "Support". Best of luck in the future. --[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikom]]
'''Neutral''' perhaps when you've got a few more mainspace edits i will support you, but slightly premeture at the moment, you are a good editor however so i will not be opposing. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''', I must disagree with the nom, 91 warnings doesn't indicate the user is a "constant vandal fighter". Most users edits are deletes at AfD, esperanza edits, and updating tallies of RfAs. Hasn't been here that long, but certainly a potential admin in the future (if this fails).--<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral''' can't oppose, but I can't support either with only 602 article namespace edits. Great edit count overall, but I only have about 20 less article edits, and I only have about 1,500 edits as opposed to his 3,100+ -
'''Neutral''' Unsure from above.
'''Neutral''' leaning toward oppose. Seems like a nice guy, but I see too much socializing and not enough article writing yet.
'''Neutral''' as admins aren't really here to chat all day long. I would prefer more article writing (I like my admins to have either 1 FA or several GAs), and less Esperanza work and more time on RC patrol. IMO (this is, obviously, disputed), admins should set an example to the rest of us editing-wise as well as maintaining the encyclopedia.
'''Neutral''' per article editing/creation experience (see Blnguyen). I can't oppose based on this though. --
'''Oppose'''. Very concerned with the lack of civility. Whilst being attacked by an anonymous IP, (check the lengthy discussion [[User talk:The Haunted Angel/Archive 2#You Idiot|here]]) he did not come across as calm and polite, which is what I'd expect in an admin. He has a rather obvious hate of Christianity: "Ugh, it's over zealous Christians like you that are ruining the world". On his current talk page, he retaliates to the anonymous user by saying "Also, quite frankly I think anyone who pledges their life to a being who there is no proof to support it's existance is indeed a nutcase". Whilst the IPs were trolling on both occasions, that kind of attitude is far too recent to be ignored. That aside, his edit summary usage is rather poor as well. Try again in a couple of months. --<font color="002bb8">
'''Oppose''' per above, in addition to a slightly malformed RfA. Haste is bad. -

'''Oppose''' Taking up a mocking tone towards other religeons is not something that can be tolerated in an admin. Examples include "''I knew you would ignore everything I said and just start preaching like a mad man''" and "''You have no answer, and I pity you for being so decieved... then again, most people simply allow themselves to be, because they are afraid of how alone and insignificant they are in the universe, and so they look for some imaginary powerful being to seek comfort under. When one thinks about it, it is incredibly childish, and to an extent, pathetic.''". Sorry, you need to be neutral and calm to people with opposing beleifs.
'''Neutral to avoid pile on'''. For all reasons above, I don't think you'd make a good admin. I suggest withdrawal and looking through policies such as [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]].--
'''Support''' Looking over your editor review, Talk page archives and contributions in the various spaces here at WP, I don't see much to object to.  You revert vandalism, warn vandals and contribute to XfD discussions on a regular basis, so the admin tools would be useful.
'''Weak Support''' Well I would prefer a higher edit count which would indicate more experience, but after reviewing your contributions I got a good impression of your work and character.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' Looking at the immediate and persistent ''quality'' of his edits should alleviate any concern about ''quantity''.  He's a workhorse who will probably learn to be a great admin just as quickly as he learned to be a great editor.  Intelligent, perceptive, and most importantly, open-minded and willing to admit mistakes.  --
'''Weak support''' per Tractorkingsfan, though I'd like more WP namespace experience. However, working in the pokemon arena satisfies my desire to see an editor who knows what cruft is and when to get rid of it (and what to keep), and probably has given him some experience in dealing with contentious editors as well.
'''Support.''' Edit count/breakdown is fine. Saying "come back in 3000 edits" is counter-productive and excessive. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good balance of edits, I don't see any problems with The Hybrid collecting a mop and bucket. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Support'''. Per all above.
'''Oppose''' I am not convinced you have enough experience in the WP namespace to warrant becoming an admin. Come back in 3000 edits and you'll be more well versed in both policy and modes of procedure.
In question one, you state that you'll close afds. I found the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_and_Tyson_Tomko&diff=prev&oldid=93691309 diff], which stated that "This is to everyone who doesn't have an account. Just to make you all aware, if you don't have an account, your votes aren't counted." First of all, the articles for deletion process is not a vote. It's a system used to build [[wikipedia:consensus|consensus]] on what to do with an article. Secondly, being an anon doesn't automatically mean what they say is worthless; it means "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette|their recommendations '''may''' be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith]]." (Emphasis mine.) Furthermore, your statement about when you'll speedily delete something doesn't seem to show that you have confidence in yourself about when to speedily delete things. You might be admin material at a later date, but I have to say, I don't think you're ready now.
'''Oppose''' I've been looking through your treatment of vandals and I think you're really too quick on the trigger in a substantial proportion of cases, putting block-warnings for single relatively minor acts of vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:216.55.130.243&diff=prev&oldid=93531376 this] apparently in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Cena&diff=93530770&oldid=93502265 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.69.137.206&diff=prev&oldid=93813433 this] apparently in response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Hybrid&diff=93758831&oldid=93749823 this] which was removed by the anon); I'm speaking from gut reaction to looking at several dozen interactions with anon-ip folks.  Certainly not all of your warnings are heavy handed - they are mixed - but I get the feeling, reinforced by the nature of your user page, that you are undesirably quick on the trigger.  Statements like "You're a vandal, and you deserved to be blocked" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.253.28.60&diff=prev&oldid=93936168 diff]) and "So, User:2wordsforya, how are you?" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.253.28.60&diff=prev&oldid=93693011 diff]) added to an anon talk page ''apparently'' based on the anon's editing pattern don't seem quite right to me (if there were other reasons for making the association, please let me know).  Perhaps I'm 'soft on crime', but I'd like to see a bit more professionalism among the admins.  Regards --User:Ceyockey (<small>''
'''Oppose'''. Nominee is still a little too green and needs to become more familiar with policy. The candidate's answers, including his responses to other editors, gives me concern that more experience is required before this nominee can be entrusted with the tools. There's no need to rush to adminship, a few more months shouldn't hurt - it will do nothing but help. I'm willing to reconsider at that time.
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki-space participation suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' - a little bit too inexperienced IMO. Seems a good editor otherwise though.
Too new, lack of major article edits
Basically per the Support votes but the low wikispace and the opposers make me put me here. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Neutral'''. A good user thus far, I just want to see a bit more experience and involvement in article and project namespaces. You might want to take a look at policy guidelines again, if you haven't done so before. '''
'''Support''', I only had one doubt, and you have proved it is unfounded. i think you'll make a good Admin
'''Support''' per my nom.
'''Support''' Will be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I prefer admins who aren't ideologues, and who can spell.
'''Strong Oppose''', low edit counts, short answers to questions, ''no'' portal edits, hardly any use of edit summaries, and basically overall inexperience. Perhaps next time.--
Uhm... '''STRONG no'''. Poor answers to questions below do not make me certain you wouldn't misuse admin tools.
'''Strongest possible Oppose''' - 1000 edits, 300 are to his userpage, only 250 mainspace. " I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion."  Admin powers are to do work, they are not for wheel-warring and undeleting userboxes unilaterally against will of the community. Question answers are weak. The nom text is very vague and the candidate hasn't added any more information.
'''Oppose''' - more than a quarter of his edits are of his own or someone else's user page, and most of the substantive edits are frivolous. Major problems with the English language too: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Evil&diff=prev&oldid=41029434], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madagascar_Penguins&diff=prev&oldid=29876459], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scaredy_Pants&diff=prev&oldid=28361950] -
'''Oppose''' per TBC. Nomination was hasty; it seems to me like the user doesn't understand what adminship entails, so wait a while and get some experience and maybe in the future my vote will change (though I'd like to see an improvement in writing skills as well).
'''Oppose''' per all above. Only 935 edits since September 21 doesn't satisfy me. (edit conflict)
'''Oppose'''. -
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but that comment about "fighting the war against mass userbox deletion" is extremely worrying. Combined with very low edit count means I cannot support.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough edits, poor answers to questions. —
'''Oppose''' per Doug Bel <font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' 935 edits isn't enough. Also, the edit summary usage isn't good at all
'''Oppose'''. Please use the edit summary box.
'''Oppose''' because of two things. 1) Not enough edit summaries. There's no reason why you can't use edit summaries at least 90% of the time. 4% is absolutely not acceptable and 2) your answer to question 1, ''I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion.'' [[User:bookofjude|Jud]]
'''Oppose''', poor usage of edit summaries, lack of edits and the answers to the questions. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' I believe you'll edit in good faith, and 935 edits meets my criteria, but having said that I think you could do with a bit more experience. Get involved in some Wikiprojects or portals, maybe. And use edit summaries (the only part of my criteria you do not meet - I like 90%+ usage). Keep the good edits up and I'll support in a few months. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' There is no good reason why you should not become an admin, you could have been here for a very long time as an IP (like me). It would also be beneficial to have some newer users as admins, I am sure new users would appreciate going to another newish user for advice.
'''Support''' We live in a society today where quantity is constantly valued over quality. People look at guys like Don Juan or Fonzie or "that dude from college who slept with 57 girls last semester" as heroes. Well excuse me for not being a hero for rather having one woman who really loves me and not trying to find out how many chicks I can shag by going to drunken fraternity parties and using a bunch of cheap pickup lines. My boy Thadman here might only have 32 namespace edits but they're quality namespace edits and really what is 1,000 but a nice-sounding socially constructed milestone? If this encyclopedia is to reach its true potential we must ignore this infatuation of numerical amounts and give admin tools to guys like this.
'''Support'''.  I don't think this user would abuse the mop, and he wants to deal mostly with (protecting) articles, so it's not like he doesn't have experience in what he wishes to do. --
32 Wikipedia namespace edits.  32. Not nearly enough edits overall.  Try back in a few months.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the answers don't indicate a need for the tools, and projectspace count is too low.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Adambiswanger1|AdamBiswanger1]]. Keep editing and gaining more experience and try again another time. :-) --<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' Low overall edit count.--
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons I note [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tuspm|here]]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Oppose''', not enough experience. --
'''Oppose''' Falls well short of my usual criteria. Simply put needs more experience on Wikipedia, and this is usually shown in the form of more edits, especially to the Wikipedia namespace. --
'''Oppose'''. 500 edits since July last year? --
'''Oppose''' fails my rfa criteria. <font color="green">
'''Reminder not to pile-on neutral''' - I think you're a good person but I think you've got a lot you can still do without the sysop buttons, take a look at your bullet list, none of them require anything more than an editor account --
What Tawker said :) There's plenty more 'admin type' work you can do before applying for a sysop account.
'''Neutral''' What you have done makes you an excellent editor - but I don't feel you're the kind of editor who needs sysop tools just yet. Perhaps when you've become more involved in other namespaces. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per those above.  I'd be happy to support in a few months. --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I'd rather not give you a not vote, but you have a little bit too few edits.  Don't be discouraged...just come back in a couple of months when you have a little bit more experience on the site.  --
'''Neutral''' - You seem a very good user, interested in building Wikipedia as a high quality encyclopedia. I'll support in a month or two if you keep your entusiasm, if continue learning how things work in Wikipedia and what is the role of a sysop. Cheers!
'''Neutral'''. Would make a good admin, but maybe in a few months. Sorry, I can't support someone with only 34 Wikispace edits and <600 edits overall.
'''Support''' as nom. --
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' As a entirely green advocate, Steve handled my nervousness well, and pointeed me in the right direction. From my poking-around at the AMA, I've seen how well he has organized it, demonstrating a knowledge of Wikipedia that his edit count may not completely show. The question, if I understand it from my observations of RfA, is "Do we trust him with the tools?" and to that I have to say yes wholeheartedly. --
'''Support''' per Wslack, who states quite succinctly that which I think to be the only relevant question in adjuding a prospective admin (as on [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|my standards page]]) is whether we ''trust him with the tools'' (viz., whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive or negative); I've confidence that the candidate can be trusted with the tools and will be likely, in the completion of admin tasks, to benefit the project.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' No reason to doubt this user. Maybe low on the editcount, but that should not be an issue in this case.
'''Support''' per above.--<font style="background:white">
'''Full Support'''. This user is obviously a ''mediator'', and thus my typical 2k edit requirements do not apply. I am waiving them in this case. A glance at the user's talk pages and other contributions seems to confirm civility, and as ''mediation'', ''levelheadedness'', and ''dedication'' (per nom's excellent examples) are important skills for any admin, this candidate gets my full support.--<font color="#0000FF">
'''Support'''. I'm not at all concerned by Thadman's editing statistics, since he's demonstrated his ability in other areas - while we're here to write an encyclopedia, you don't have to be a writer to contribute to the project. It might be preferable for you to increase your mainspace editing, but I'm satisfied that you'll do a good job anyway.
'''Support''' as has shown responsibility and trust. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' The Thadman has exhibited exceptional civility with contentious users in high pressure situations. His activities as my advocate while simultainously organizing and developing AMA programs were nothing short of remarkable, exhibiting a great capacity for "multi-tasking" in multiple high-pressure zones while remaining personally involved yet neutral and friendly to everyone involved. This exceptional service in developing the community sector of Wikipedia should more than qualify anyone for an adminship.
'''Support''' The Thadman makes sincere, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Low edits in the main space are made up for by a lot of other work he's done in other places. Good luck!
'''Support'''. We could always use another mature, rational, and stable administrator.
'''Support''' if edit count is what it takes, I should be an admin!  Steve's work with the AMA has kept him pretty busy, if you aren't a member it might not be so obvious, but to me it's clear that he can be trusted with a few extra tools.  He has shown an energetic devotion to the task he set for himself coordinating and revamping the AMA.  His mainspace edits, though low in quantity are high in quality.
'''Support''' Per excellent answers to my questions. He wants the tools for the right reasons, giving him the tools will benefit the Wiki and I see no reason that he would misuse the tools out of malice, incompetence or inexperience.
'''Support''' although it would have been nice to have and "edit section" button for the "Support" section, especially for us dial-up users =). &mdash; <sup>`</sup>
Steve appears to be doing yeoman's work organizing the AMA, and someone who deals calmly with disputes has exactly the kind of qualities we need in an administrator. I'm very disappointed to see that virtually the entire opposition to such a contributor is based solely on edit counts. --
'''Support'''.  User has demonstrated the qualities necessary for adminship in the important ways, and has more than 1000 edits, the threshold (barring absurd distribution) above which I believe edit counts cease to be a meaningful statistic. --
'''Switch to SUPPORT''' per JoshuaZ. Why didn't you say  so in the first place.
'''Support''' to fight the pointless editcountitis below.
'''Support'''  I had a good experience with an advocate and wanted to contribute by becoming an advocate.  He made me feel quite welcome and helped me with my first "case."  I appreciate the encouragement. <font color="Red">
'''Support''' Moved to support, because I think the involvement in AMA demonstrates intimate knowledge of the encyclopedia and its workings.
'''Support''' I had about the same number of edits when I was promoted, so what?
'''Support'''.  No one has said anything negative except no featured article work (not a requirement) and low mainspace edits (not a requirement either).  Wikipedia needs more admins who can help with various backlogs; let's give this guy the tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose a rfa based on writing a FA, or on which namespace you edit on. As part of the AMA, he'd have lots of experience for other areas, like protection, and warnings. -
'''Support''': I am very impressed by the answers to JoshuaZ's question as well as with the candidates experience with the dispute resolution process. Would make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support''' An extremely competent Acting Coordinator of the Association of Member's Advocates and a very helpful and considerate user all round. My full support.
'''Support'''. I like your areas of work, and you don't seem hesitant to dive into contentious areas of Wikipedia.  I trust that you will be motivated to learn what you might have missed out on by not having more edits. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''. Seems sane, calm, and reasonable, and is willing to do the unglamorous sort of work required of adminship. Has sufficient edits to be able to have informed judgment.
'''Reluctant Oppose''' although little doubt Steve does great work, the 1700 edits makes me a little jittery, the fact most of those occurred only since last month tilts my vote this way. Maybe 3 more months to be certain? -
'''Oppose'''. This user has done great work, and should be commended. But less than 350 mainspace edits shows little experience in the writting of an encyclopedia... which is what we are here for, after all. I will be anxious to support once the nom has truely gotten his feet wet (by writting/editing more articles).
'''Oppose.''' Main space edits really low. That is the core of the encylopedia.--
'''Reluctant oppose''' - I doubt you'll harm the encyclopedia and you've done a terrific job at AMA (I've considered signing up at AMA myself this week and may do so yet), but I think you need broader experience before becoming an admin. Spend some time with us at RC patrol and decide if you really want the mop - you may change your mind, 'cause it can get... emotional.
'''0 FA''' -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' per low main space edits.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience concerns.
'''Oppose''' I think you are on the right path; however, your low main space edits force me to oppose this nom.
'''Weak Oppose''' Please wait for a few additional months, Mr. Caruso.--
'''Oppose''' per main space edits.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above. --
'''Oppose''' No doubt that this user is a valuable contributor to this project. But the low main space edits is a major concern. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''', [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|0FA]]. Or more to the point, I'd want to see you being involved more actively as an editor in articlespace. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Oppose''', sorry, but your mainspace edits are too low. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for insufficient experience especially article edits.--
'''Oppose''' for clear lack of experience. --<b><font color="#006633">
'''Oppose''' Low mainspace edit count. -
'''Oppose''' - not enough mainspace experience. Should come back in a few months, when I'll be happy to reconsider.
'''Oppose''' - Would prefer broader experience, particularly in mainspace.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits in the main space. We're an encyclopedia, first and foremost.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly but nonetheless.  This user is off to a ''great start'':  good contribution to the community, and definitely has heart in the right place.  However, not enough experience overall, and as many said above, not nearly enough experience in namespace.  In particular, the second and third reasons Thadman gives to question #1 would be helped immeasurably by experience editing articles themselves.  Anyway, like I said, off to a great start, show me 2 or 3 months of the same sort of activity and I'll be very inclined to support.  --
'''Oppose''' not enough experience. --
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria due to the generally low amount of edits, to both the main article space and to the wikipedia project space. --
'''Oppose''' Per [[User:Mackenson|Mackenson]]
'''Oppose''' criteria and signature advertising - <b>
'''Neutral''' I don't think you'll hurt Wikipedia, but it seems like you still don't have enough broad experience. All your work appears to relate to AMA, despite the fact that you want to work in many aspects of administration. Also, I feel it would have been better if you had waited a bit longer since your last nomination. Perhaps in mid- to late-October I'd support. -- '''
'''Neutral'''. Looking through this nominee's contributions, I don't see many in areas where this editor could have gained the necessary insight into important wikipolicies an admin must know. Could benefit from more participation outside the AMA. Get to know the ropes, and I'll have no hesitation in supporting.
'''Neutral''' per concentration of WP edits on AMA. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Neutral''' - a trustworthy user, but I feel the amount of mainspace edits is a tad low. '''
'''Neutral leaning Support''' I appreciate the enormous contributions to AMA as well as the fact that he/she seems like a very eager and trustworthy editor whose only goal is to help Wikipedia.  Having said that, I would like to see more experience in the areas where the candidate wishes to use the extra buttons (as per Q1)
'''Neutral''' to offset the other oppose based on 0FA, per Dlohcierekim. Featured articles are not relevant to adminship.
First support!
second :) --
'''Moral Support'''. Looking over these user's contributions, I am absolutely amazed... he's done so much work for this encyclopedia. While I do not see this RfA succeeding at this point, I would like to express my gratitude for all that this user has done. It amounts to a ton of work that has unarguably improved our encyclopedia. —
'''Moral Support''' based on the candidate's high level of dedication to Wikipedia and his contributions to date. However, I recommend withdrawal of this RfA and attention to the concerns raised in the Oppose and Neutral candidates to channel your efforts in the most productive fashion going forward.
'''Oppose''' because of behavior at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school]] which was less than a month ago.  Also, the answer to the first question is not very specific.
'''Strong oppose''' per Riana and Khatru2. Your behaviour concerning your Admin school and the MfAs was very disturbing for an admin candidate. In addition, I find it very off-putting and concerning that your stated objective for being on Wikipedia is to become an administrator. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Transhumanist&oldid=84935037]. I'm not convinced you're here on Wikipedia or at RfA for the right reasons. And your answer to question one doesn't indicate any need at all for admin tools.
'''Oppose''' per Khatru2. --
'''Oppose''' per Khatru2, not the behavior of an admin. ←
From what I've observed, I feel The Transhumanist is a good-faith editor with good intentions. That said, he seems, to me, to harbor a belief that adminship is some sort of prize or badge of honor. I don't mean to single The Transhumanist out; this is, unfortunately, a widespread idea, and it's harmful to the encyclopedia. Adminship really is "no big deal," and, although Jimbo's quote has been repeated so many times it's beyond cliché, I still feel it's an important principle we need to hold to as a project. I also have some concerns about his ability to accept and respond to criticism, which is a fairly regular consequence of using admin tools. The recent Esperanza MfD and related discussions haven't assuaged that concern, I'm afraid. The Transhumanist may very well make a fine admin at some time in the future—in fact, I hope so—but I believe that he first needs to reexamine his attitude towards some aspects of the project. --
'''Good God, no''' per Sarah Ewart. This user has shown that he sees adminship as a status symbol, and I question how much experience he has actually doing something for the encyclopedia. -- [[User:Steel359|Steel]] 14:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC). '''Extra:''' I'm also a bit worried about his answer to question 1. I get the feeling he would go round changing Mediawiki like mad. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Sarah summarized what I was basically going to say. I also wouldn't like to see a user who responds to almost every single non-support he/she gets. '''
'''Strongest Possible Oppose''' I think Transhumanist is trying to act in good faith, but Admin school and other activities in which he obsessed about adminship is just really, really bothering.
'''Strong Oppose''' Candidate seems like a very nice person, but the Admin School MfD shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what adminship is.
'''Oppose''', sorry but per others.__
'''Oppose'''.  ''Not'', actually, because of the various nasty things Transhumanist said about me during the MfD--I appreciated that those comments were withdrawn.  But there is a more general pattern here--a desire to hierarchize and formalize ''everything'' (content as well as people)--in which adminship seems to play a prominent role in his thinking.  It's been several years now since Jimbo said that adminship is "no big deal," and many things have changed, but let's not have admins trying to make it more of a big deal than it already is or needs to be.
'''Oppose'''.  Most admins never even have to ''think'' about the MediaWiki: space, and Transhumanist is highly interested in it?  Sysopping is much more boring than I think he realizes, with lots of boring articles and thing to deal with.  --

'''Strong Oppose''' - I've seen a fair bit of shoutiness from this user at XfD. What is more, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Transhumanist&oldid=82452603] is deeply worrying. If a user wants adminship that much, the tools should probably be kept away from them at all costs. Adminship is not a status symbol. Nor, for that matter, is Wikipedia a place for Wikilawyering and Wikipoliticking. It's an encyclopaedia. That userpage would suggest otherwise. The Admin School was also a seriously bad error of judgment, and poor judgement is the last thing admins can afford. Sorry, but no. Please take this as constructive criticism - I am not trying to wreck you as a Wikipedian. But there are things that need to be done before an RFA will succeed.
'''Strong Oppose''' per user's response to another oppose vote: "''I have very little interest in the extra buttons. I have done very little vandal hunting. It's not my thing. I don't participate much in clean up projects, etc. They're not me.''"  An administrator doesn't need to have done vandal hunting or necessarily "clean up projects" -- but to actually state one's disinterest in their own RfA totally kills any possibility of support for me.  Administrator != access to protected pages for your own fun. --
'''Oppose'''. Very quick to make decisions and implement them without discussion. We wrote a whole guideline ([[Wikipedia:Discuss and draft graphical layout overhauls|WP:DISCUSS]]) to deal with the actions you repeated at Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Community Portal! (after you ignored the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!|RfC/UC]], which you never actually commented on). <br />You're a hard-working editor; but you have no need for admin tools - {{tl|editprotected}} works just fine. You seem to work by the "forgiveness later is easier than permission now" principle - a bad habit for aspiring admins. Per answer to question#1: You're not an experienced web-developer, so shouldn't be allowed to whimsically tinker with the site's css/js. <br />Lastly, the [[User_talk:The_Transhumanist#Signature|colorful sig]], and the propagation of [[User_talk:The_Transhumanist#Hello|smilies]] certainly doesn't help. --
'''Oppose'''. I hate to pile on, but user clearly demonstrates lack of understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, per all above. Suggest withdraw.
'''Oppose'''- Per above.--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Oppose''': I'm very likely repeating others comments, and I don't like Opposing, but this is the second RfA at the moment I really can't sit back and do nothing about. There's no need for this candidate to be given the mop, further, the answers to question 1 suggest an inherent albeit unintentional danger to Wikipedia from this user. Sorry. Time for a bureaucrat or the candidate to withdraw this before this pileon gets any worse, I'd suggest.  <font face="Arial" color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''</font>
'''Oppose''' per Sarah Ewart, Steel359, Dlohcierekim and others.
'''Vehement and Unwavering Oppose''' mostly per others, especially Renesis and Doug Bell. While your intentions are good, your actions do not seem to reflect that at all, especially on the MfD which everyone has mentioned ad nauseum. I especially find fault — nay, abhor — the fact that you actually submitted a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Admin_school&diff=86172750&oldid=86151866 proposal] to change the name of a longstanding (now defunct?) program to fit your own agenda. You seem to regard adminship as the quintessential goal of a Wikipedia editor (which is hardly true at all) and you seem to want admin tools to edit nonessential interface-related places that bring relatively no benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. Your (seemingly self-righteous) answer to question #4 is extremely troubling. Why are you recycling through 14 accounts when one will suffice? Also, your combativeness on this RfA, though minor, automatically kills any chance of passing on an RfA. I especially dislike people who promote themselves on their RfA which you did in your response to Sarah Ewart's oppose. With the combination of such factors, and others which editors had or will point out, leads me to oppose this nomination. While I hate to say it, [[poetic justice]] is a harsh reality. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' per lack of maturity and incivility. I also dislike this "grooming for adminship" style.--
'''Oppose'''. The behavior here and in the Admin school MFD make me feel extremely uncomfortable. Also, the answer to question #1 just left me sweating cold: ''none'' of those areas should be edited by admins unless there's a need to do so. The reason we have the <tt>editinterface</tt> permission is because we're trusted to maintain things stable, not to go around fiddling with extremely visible portions of the site. Finally, his assertion that adminship is an end contradicts the long-standing cultural axiom that states that "Adminship is no big deal". It should never be the goal of an editor, just a step he naturally reaches.
'''Neutral''' following perplexing behaviour at the Admin school MfD. Not something I like to see in an admin candidate. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''': I am not quite sure why you need the adminship at the moment; you seem to be doing fine at the moment without the special tools so far. However, if there is a good reason, I would probably support. --
'''Neutral''' until the user reads [[WP:SIG]], especially: "In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with colour." A three line signature makes pages hard to read and follow, and those rainbow colours are distracting. Please change Your sig.
'''Neutral''' I'm going to have to go neutral on this RfA as the editor didn't mention the Admin School debacle at all in their application.  I don't think that something like that debate can be brushed over without even an acknowledgement.
'''Neutral''' behavior at DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_13&diff=prev&oldid=87966323#General_Mayhem] (unrelated to admin school) was a bit troubling... doesn't really seem to get that [[WP:V]] isn't optional and sometimes sources just don't exist for an article, and what that means. I don't really think we need more admins who think it's okay to include various hoaxes and unverifiable junk in the belief that maybe someday, somehow, someone will find a source. I can't bring myself to pile on though. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile-on. From what's been mentioned above (including the Genmay DRV), I think you should withdraw and try again in a few months, especially after reading core policies like [[WP:V]] and getting more involved with their use. Also, please change your signature- three lines and multiple colours go beyond the scope of usefulness. --
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on, please withdraw and try again in a few months after fimilarizing yourself with Wikipedia's customs and core plocies.--
'''Neutral'''. You've done an extraordinary amount of work here, and I was personally interested in the concept of 'Admin School' when I first found out about it. As much as I would '''seriously''' like to support, though, I'm worried by your conduct at that project's MfD page. Sorry. :( [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Nice kid.  Heart's in the right place. --
'''Oppose''', very weak answers to the questions, and has only 24 edits. Withdraw very much recommended  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry but 24 edits is simply not enough.
'''Oppose''' - you should withdraw. You only have 24 edits. Many people don't even succeed with 2,000. [[User:TeckWiz|'''T''']][[User:TeckWiz/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:TeckWiz|'''ckWiz''']]<sup>[[User_talk:TeckWiz|Talk]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/TeckWiz|Contribs]]<sub>
'''Moral support''' Just two weeks here, and no article contributions, you have a long way to go yet. Keep up the good work, and reapply in about 3 months/3000 edits. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
'''Moral support'''. This isn't your fault, we're obviously not making it clear enough what people look for in adminship candidates. -
'''Oppose.'''  Sorry, you're far too new at this point, as evidenced by your answers to the above questions.--
'''Obvious oppose''' Sorry, long way to go. Please withdraw this RfA as soon as possible and read [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]].--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
'''Oppose''', inexperienced, try working more in admin areas like xFDs and suggest withdrawal of this RFA. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support''', Tireless and hard-working wikipedian that is one of the most civil and easy-to-work with users I've come across. Give him a mop and bucket so he can get some more work done. -
Why would a The Wookiepedian, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this RfA? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this RfA! It does NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a Wikipedian voting on an RfA, and I'm talkin' about The Wookieepedian! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you bureaucrats are deliberatin' and conjugatin' the consensus and populatiry, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If The Wookiepedian lives on Endor, you must promote! The defense rests. That's a '''Support''', by the way '''
'''Support''', I believe him.
'''Support''', Has contributed heaps to [[film]] based articles!
'''(Extremely) Weak Support''', trusting Linuxbeak on this one, but previous behaviour is hard to ignore.
'''Oppose''' was a key part of all the edit warring on the Star Wars articles recently, earning himself no fewer than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AThe_Wookieepedian 5 blocks] in the process. Conduct entirely unbecoming. -
'''Oppose''' - I think it's too soon. Got into edit wars at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Starwars&action=history Template:Starwars] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Expanded_Universe&action=history Template:Expanded_Universe], for several days without using the talk pages. Not comfortable that he knows what constitutes [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] vs. "user test" or "other view" - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palpatine&diff=prev&oldid=31502513] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=31455994] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond&diff=prev&oldid=31358195] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obi-Wan_Kenobi&diff=33778601&oldid=33778275] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Lucas&diff=prev&oldid=31130974] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boba_Fett&diff=prev&oldid=30704042] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=30653812]. Maybe give it a few more months. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. I feel horrible opposing, since Linuxbeak is completely correct about the quality of his recent work in the Star Wars area (which sorely needs it- curse all those who forced the fork that led to Wookiepedia!); but I'm not convinced he's fully moved beyond the sort of thing that led to Adamwankenobi being indef banned. --
'''Oppose''' demonstrated immature behavior recently.
'''Oppose''' for now, due to edit warring.
'''Oppose''', way too few edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' for now. I will support in the future if nominee refrains from edit warring and uses edit summaries more appropriately. --
'''Oppose'''.  Lack of edit summaries is always a concern for me, but being blocked a number of times even as recently as just two months ago is even more worrisome.  If there are no more similar problems in the future, I'd consider voting differently in 6+ months time. --
'''Oppose'''. Lack of edits summaries and involvement in nuemrous edit wars, along with being blocked numerous times in the recent past.
User is too controversial right now.  --
'''Oppose'''. I'm sure he's a very nice person, but with most of his edits mainly focused on the [[Star Wars]] sections, I feel an admin should be more experienced and involved in other areas of the encyclopedia. Also, his ban history concerns me. Five times for not being able to control his temper wouldn't make a good candidate for admin.
'''Awkward oppose'''. I'd probably give my support if I was judging him by his current username alone, but his past history as [[User:Adamwankenobi]] casts a very long shadow. Still, I have to acknowledge his dedication to the project and the self-improvement he's made since his reincarnation as The_Wookieepedian.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Way to much contraversy for now, and for a while.'''

'''Oppose''' - too much controversy in recent history --
'''Oppose''' Very hard to deal with during content disputes over Star Wars.
While I won't say never, the wookipedian's edit warring is exactly the kind of behavior that would set a bad example to other editors.  Having an administrator with this background so soon after would not be appropriate. Another six (non-warring) months down the line, perhaps it might be time. --
'''Oppose''' - I agree with Tony.  Also, the low edit count usage is a problem.
'''Strong oppose.''' The history of edit warring, sockpuppetry, and abusive vandalism, makes this candidate completely unsuitable. I personally have wasted countless hours cleaning up the messes created by this user's sockpuppet vandals, and while I am all for giving second chances, I don't think adminship should be granted until we've seen a long, long history of positive contributing. The continued edit warring doesn't convince me that he's left his policy flaunting in the past. --
'''Oppose''' - The Wookieepedian does tend, in my experience, to jump in with both feet first when encountering something that runs counter to his views on how some Wikipedia pages should be run and seems to think he has aquired ownership of several pages, the Star Wars ones in particular. He has been involved in several nasty edit wars in recent times and often reverts without considering other viewpoints other than his own. He is a prolific Wikipedian and I believe the community is better with him, however he needs to mature slightly and settle down a bit before obtaining adminship. I believe that as the last six months or so have shown if he had Admin rights it would have gotten extremely nasty. Wait and while and see what happens.
Unless he can answer well my number 4 question. I am aware of the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] [[WP:BITE|principle of not biting the newbies]] and understand that this trouble he has been having could just be mere newbie inexperience. However the concerns raised are nonetheless sufficient to render me unable to support the application. If there are no further incidents I would welcome an application in 3 months time. --- ''Responses to [[User talk:Chazz88|Chazz's talk page]].'' Signed by
'''Neutral'''. I ''do'' like this user's attitude in general and his response to all this criticism. I also like the great improvement and maturing he's done since his last username. However, the issues at hand cannot be ignored, yet I do feel he would mop up without much water getting between the cracks. Come back in about two months when you've got more edits between yourself and controversy.
'''Neutral''' If you use edit summaries more often, you will gain my support.--
'''Neutral''' Kind of torn between this, but maybe my feelings will change if you have a second RFA in a few months or so. --
'''Neutral''' Lack of edit summaries is a killer for me.  Would like to see more activity in categories and project editing to get  a better feel for things like deletion voting; currently only 2% of your edits are in those areas (and yes I know we are building an encylopedia of ARTICLES not of project talk, this is mostly to see see historical attitudes on issues you would face as an admin).
'''Indecisive''' seems like a good contributor, but I'd like for him to go a bit longer without any edit wars. -
'''Neutral'''. I've seen him around, and I was ''so'' about to support, but I feel I can't, in good faith, support an admin who edit wars like this. Please stick around, and then I'll support then. In all honesty, when I saw your name on the RfA ToC, I went to support, but read the oppose comments, and so I'm neutral. Please don't take this personally, and stick around for just a bit more. -
'''Neutral'''. A good contributor and editor with a few black marks in his past. Adamwankenobi is not a concern to me, although the more recent issues with Copperchair are. It looked like a hectic situation, and although there were some attempts to defuse the situation by Wookepedian, his behaviour after these failed was not called for. I'd be happy to support him next time round, but think we need a little more time. -- [[User:Saberwyn|Saberwyn]] - [[User:Saberwyn/Zoids expansion project|The]] <font color="blue">[[Zoids]]</font>
'''Neutral''' Experienced and valuable guy, needs to use the edit summaries and no longer take part in edit wars.
'''Neutral''' Per above.
'''First Support'''. I know it's been said many times, but...may the Force be with you. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Second Support'''
'''Oppose''' - per very weak responses to questions --
'''Oppose''' The answers are poor, and The Wookieepedian doesn't seem to feel it's necessary to respond to requests to improve them. Also, I don't see any RC patrolling to go along with the counter-vandalism unit work in which he says he's going to participate. As a side comment (not a reason for opposing, just a comment), I would like to see you broaden your editing horizons. -- '''
'''Oppose !''' You don't need sysop powers if all you want to do is "work on the counter vandalism unit".
'''Oppose''' You didn't seem to provide enough detail for the questions. Spending time on them may make me think you actually want this position seriously. Plus, looking through your contributions I see there are very few minor edits you make. Of course, some of your edits are minor but you don't mark them. There was one about changing a name from "Indiana Jones 4" to "Indiana Jone IV". I think I would mark that as a minor edit since not much is being changed. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><b>
'''Neutral.''' Work on your answers to the questions please.--
'''Neutral''' and leaning towards oppose. The answer to question one is insufficient... you do not need admin tools to be part of the anti-vandalism unit at all. I echo the request to elaborate on your answers, as an admin you will most likely be asked to answer for you actions from time to time, and this could be seen as quite telling by those reviewing this RFA.
Moral '''support''' but urge withdrawal. Consensus is emerging and let's avoid a pile-on. I urge you to do some good editing and continue gnoming and return when you can satisfy the experience concerns raised by the Oppose voters. You should also edit from just one account from now on to resolve that issue.
'''Support''' per [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]].--<font style="background:white">
'''Strong oppose''' Too new, not enough edits, and sock puppet usage for no reason.  Fails most of [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|standards]]. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">
'''Strong oppose''' for inexperience --
Inexperience. - [[User:Mailer_diablo|Mailer Dia]]'''[[User:Mailer_diablo/B|b]]'''
'''Oppose''' - good editor, but a bit inexperienced. '''
'''Oppose''' - Too few edits. --
'''Very Strong Oppose''' per above concerns, although I don't mean to [[WP:BITE|bite this newbie]]. More experience until next year would be welcome. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' - I'm so sorry, M62Manchester.  You seem to be a solid editor, but your edit count is too low, and most of your edits seem to be in the User category.  Wait a few months, edit more on the Wikipedia and main namespaces, and I can see myself voting for you. :)
'''Oppose''' Too little experience of Wiki policy application.  Continue to apply yourself to Project and article pages for a three or four more months and then reapply. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' Not enough time working on policy issues. Wikipedia namespace edits to meet my RFA. --
'''Oppose''' I've just encountered this user on the AfD for [[Venus Butterfly]], and without giving any rational reason he voted delete and tagged the article as unencyclopedic.  If he doesn't understand the absolutely fundamental principle that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors]], he has a lot to learn before he can become an administrator.
'''oppose''' insufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' Not enough Wiki experience, far too few posts and two months is too little time; I'm afraid I'm not convinced by this user's experience and urge withdrawal and re-application at a later date.
'''Oppose''' Fails to meet my criteria by a long way. --
'''Strong Oppose''' and urge to withdraw. The consensus, including I agrees that adminship is far away from you here, and you just need to get a lot more Wikipedia experience. --
'''Neutral''' I see no reason in piling on more oppose votes. Will change my vote to oppose if it comes close though. Just not enough experience.
'''Oppose'''.  User has only been here a month, and isn't very experienced yet.  Will support in a few months. --
'''Strong Oppose''' per Rory096.
'''Oppose for now'''. You've done a lot in your time here, but you're still pretty new for a lot of people to be comfortable giving adminship to. Also, while you have contributed some good major edits, most of your edits are in the user/user talk areas, with only a few hundred in articles. Keep this up and I'd support in a few months. -
A very promising new editor but unfortunately too new, particularly for a self-nom. I didn't see too many project space edits besides RfA's and AfD's and as an admin it would be nice if you had more familiarity with the other non-voting aspects. Finally, it's a pet peeve of mine when AfD nominators add a vote below their nomination, as AfD's are not (supposed to be) votes or polls, and your nomination should suffice in conveying that you want it deleted and why. — ''
'''Oppose''' most users require that you be here for about at least 6 months in order to experience more of Wikipedia and its policies. --
'''Oppose''', needs more experience and edits. Try again in several months time and I will support you. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. A great new user, but too new to become an admin yet.
'''Oppose''' – a good start, but needs more experience –
'''Gentle Oppose''', but try again in a few months and I'd happily support you. You show a lot of promise.
'''Oppose''' - A bit new; I'm certainly willing to reconsider after a bit more experience --
'''Oppose''' Good work for a new user, but stay on for longer before going in for another RfA.
Unfortunately, you fail my criteria on all counts. You've done well up to this point, so please don't let this discourage you. Up your project-based edits, and not only around AFD or RFA. Don't be afraid to get involved with copyvios and what not, as as an admin you'd be expected to know what to do. Good luck if you try again.
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience since he's only been here a little more than a month.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience.
Moral support at least but you need more experiences. So it's '''Neutral''' from me. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Neutral'''. You are on the right track, but you haven't got many wikipedia namespace edits indicating a possible lack of knowledge of wikipedia's policies and processes. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Very Weak Support''' Although your edit counts are very, very, low, you are a veteran member of [[Wikipedia]] for around two years. I do not know how your RfA is going to end but most users will likely oppose your nomination. Anyway good luck! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I'm uncomfortable with the number of edits, which are less than 500. While this in itself is no good reason to object, as most of these appear to be edits to category-space or userspace, this is very worrying. I see no evidence indicating familiarity with Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, this user has only started reverting vandalism recently; certainly not enough to show familiarity with the nuances of the process. Far too often we get CVU members who only know how to [[wikipedia:don't bite the newbies|bite the newbies]]. I also had to fix this nomination by adding it to [[WP:RFA]], something the user forgot/didn't know how to do. All in all, I don't think adminship is a small enough deal to let this user in. Keep up editing, however, and I'll be willing to reconsider in a few months.
'''oppose''' per johnleemk. Sorry. ([[WP:SNOW|*]]) <font size="-1">
'''Oppose''' per Johnleemk
'''Oppose'''; 250 edits per year are far too low for an admin, I'm afraid. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
'''Oppose'''. Really active only recently, don't see much wikispace participation.
'''Oppose''', keep on doing good work, and come back in a few months. <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', per previous arguments. &mdash; '''
'''Oppose''', I really hate to do this, but you have only been making significant contributions for less than a month and a half. I looked over your contributions, and there does not seem to be enough vandal-fighting or Wikispace activities to convince me that you are familiar with Wikipedia policy. Good job so far though! <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="lime">e</font>]]
Total  number of edits is 472, out of which 332 are in January. Keep on doing good work, and come back in two-three months.
'''First support''' looks okay, and we need more WikiGnome admins - this one's been hard at work wikifying. :D
'''Support''' G
'''Long term support''' meets my standards and I think all substantive concerns can be addressed for the future.  There are, for instance, browser plug-ins that can run basic spellcheck.
'''Very strong support''' - probably one of the most friendly users around. Tom is courteous and insightful, and the Wikipedia community would only benefit if he gained the mop. He always places the progress of Wikipedia close to the top of his priority listing, and is more-than-happy to give up a little bit of his time to help a user in need - I'm still editing Wikipedia solely because of him. The best candidate I have seen (along with GIen, now Glen_S) for a fair while @ RfA. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Daniel</font>]].
'''Support'''. Quality and quantity of edits are sufficient, I think. --
'''Support''' I recall this user's discussions as civil and have noticed its desire to promote a positive and welcoming culture within Wikipedia.--
'''Moral Support''' - he has good intentions and is working to make Wikipedia better --
'''oppose''' -- sorry, fails my current criteria of nine months, try again in six months and would probably support--
'''Oppose''' With less than 2000 edits and only 3 months I would have to be blown away to support a candidate and in this case I am not. Great job wikifying so far, but I personally think it is entirely too soon to be considered for an admin at this point. Would support with current track record in 6 months or so.
'''Oppose''' Per DrunkenSmurf.
'''Oppose'''; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=71364382 23 August 2006]: "No voting isn't evil that is a [[fallacy]], voting is essential for concensus." &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Please do not take this personally. With less than 200 edits, it is difficult to support someone unless he/she had made exceptional edits. Carry on your good work and re-apply again after three months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Nothing personal, as I myself am somewhat inexperienced at Wikipedia, but this is an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias take the time to spell correctly.  I can understand making a typo here and there during the course of editing, but to be so careless to do it in your request to become an administrator?  That shows carelessness in a situation that should require the utmost attention, and thus also shows a bit of irresponsibility.  --
The comment Bunchofgrapes points out demonstrates to me that this user is wholly unsuitable for adminship, as he misunderstands a fundamental aspect of the way decision-making processes work on Wikipedia. His attempts to weasel his way out of what he said only solidify my opposition.--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] |
'''Oppose'''. While I think four months is a sufficient amount of time for most dedicated editors, your lack of edits doesn't convince me that you are ready for adminship. This is not editcountitis talking here either. -→
'''Oppose'''. A good editor who needs a bit more time and experience before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''', sorry. Doesn't meet my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/E-K#I standards] in terms of edits. A little more time...
'''Oppose.''' not enough time here.--
'''Oppose''' insufficient experience, plus comment provided by Bunchofgrapes, and candidates reply even more so.
'''Sympathetic oppose''' - my first issue is just you not having the best English.  Now, this isn't usually too much of a problem for me, and I'm very sympatetic to ESL people, but being an admin requires a very good knowledge of the language.  Now, even then, I really wouldn't care if it was among your WP and U space contribs, but in your own RFA nomination, it requires a bit more.  Other than that, you're still borderline as to whether I'd vote support or neutral.  Anyways, sorry about the alleged sockpuppetry, that same thing happened to [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappa.jake|my RFA]], where new/anon/sock/imposter users (I think like 3 or 4) came and "supported" me - needed a checkuser.  Anyways, best of luck next time.  If English is your primary language, I would suggest using it more carefully in the future, it it's not, I applaud you for being able to speak it relatively well.  Good luck, later,
'''Oppose''' per Zapptastic.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient inexperience.--
'''Oppose'''&mdash;Self nominations must reach a higher standard. And Tmorton166 is rather light on experience; even for someone nominated by others. Finally it saddens me to read, "This page has been protected so that only established users can edit it." Of course it is unfair to attribute this to any individual, but any taint of potential sockpuppetry in the RfA process is saddening. Willing to reconsider later, but not today.
'''Oppose''' too short a time and not enough contributions from which to make a good judgement. Considering the state of this RFA I would suggest you formally pull out and try again when you have built up more contributions to the project.--
'''Oppose''' Fortunately [User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] has written pretty much what I wanted to say. --
'''Oppose''' because of edit count. Sorry. --'''
'''Weak oppose''' - just not enough experience.  Keep up the good work so far and try again in six months.
'''Weak oppose''' - Need more time and experience.  This oppose is on that issue ''only''.  Would probably vote ''Support'' in somewhat near future. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''neutral''' Not a lot of edits, not bothering to spell ("'''wich has'''"). Sounds polite, though.
'''Neutral''', would like to see a bit more edits and overall experience--
'''Pat on the back Neutral''', you want to sort out copvio's and do an awful lot of admin chors, but you don't have a huge WP amount of edits suggesting possible inexperience. Even though I loved your answer to question 1, especially the last bit (always good having honest people around :)) I think you should keep editing and keep participating so anyone voting on any of your future RfA's will be confident to support you. Keep editing for a good few months, get known, wait for someone to nominate you and you should make it. Good luck. ;) --<font style="background:white">
'''Neutral, leaning toward support''' Sure, the editor has been here for just a little under four months, but I think he shows a good grasp of policy. I like that he has a lot of user talk edits, and 1 mainspace talk edit for every 4.5 mainspace edits. Tmorton seems like he knows how he wants to help WP, and could use the tools. I don't think the user would in any way ''abuse'' the tools, but I also wouldn't want him getting overzealous with the ability to semiprotect articles. I am just a bit concerned by how long the user has been on WP, but even moreso concerned that the MINERVA article has been tagged for tone for almost as long as Tmorton has been working on it- if you're so proud of the article, why not do a slight rewrite so that the tag is unnecessary? --
'''Neutral''' - I just don't see a need for the mop and flamethrower at this point.  However, adminship is not a trophy or a promotion; it's merely an extra chore list!  You're a ''great'' user; I've seen you around quite frequently.  You don't really need the tools to do what you're doing, though.  Edit count doesn't trouble me; I think people put far too much weight on that criterion.  Try reverting more vandalism and participating more heavily in AfDs, if you're sure you'd rather be an admin than a gnome (both are extremely valuable to the encyclopedia).
'''Switch to neutral per Bunch of Grapes dif and ratioanle.'''
'''Neutral''' would like to see more edits and much more experience from the user --
'''Neutral''' I too would like to see more edits. With more edits and greater participation, you'll be a great candidate in a few months. Keep up the good work!
'''Neutral''' - I'm not going to pile on and oppose, but he needs a bit more time to get experience and make out his case.

'''Neutral'''. -
'''Neutral''' Keep up the good work, maybe in a few months. --
'''Neutral''' Seems like a good user, but I would like a few more edits and more time on wikipedia to see exactly how this user will use the tools. More experience is needed. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Neutral''' with sympathy for the nominee, who clearly has the best of intentions and is a good contributor.  Just keep up the contributions, make many more edits in various namespaces, and come back in a few months.--
'''Neutral'''.  I had to think for a long time about this, and I still didn't make up my mind.  The candidate seems to mean well, work hard, and go out of his way to communicate with other editors.  The only problem is, reviewing his contribs, he is often difficult to read due to typos and other errors.  He wants to work on [[WP:CP]], which is MOST welcome, but I have found that this area requires a lot of interaction with other editors.  I'm afraid that intent and meaning will get lost in his communications, and as a result, editors will get the wrong ideas or be put off.  I'm willing to be talked into supporting. :) --<font color="3300FF">
'''Neutral''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' looks good to me. I don't consider "only edits Bulgarian articles" to be too narrow, and I'm sure Wikipedia has few active Bulgarian editors so I'm glad for his activity there. Also I don't understand withholding support until he pastes a warning template on a few dozen vandals' talk pages, as this is just grunt work and won't make him into a better candidate than he already is. — ''
'''Support''' A sincere user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. His humility in admitting some of his shortfalls is equally striking. Would definitely be a good admin if given the chance. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moderate support''' per GT and Siva.
'''Support''' Good user. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support''' He passed [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|my test]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Support''', per above reasons
'''Support''', looks fine to me. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support'''. In a user with less commitment, or where I had any concerns about levelheadedness, I'd look for much more substantial involvement in deletion or vandalfighting. However, your obvious commitment is the most important thing for me.
'''Strong Support'''. Firstly he is a great editor, strongly devoted to the project, usually it means he would be a good admin. Secondly, he is a specialist in the area that greatly needs the administrative attention, namely the South Slavic issues. In order to separate vandalism from strong POV from NPOV, etc.; in order to suppress  the edit wars but not improvements of the articles you should have some command on the issues. Todor has this command in the Bulgarian and related (Balkan is especially important) and I am not sure any existent admins could substitute him here.
'''Support''' per [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]].
'''Support'''. Great editor. I probably prefer a few more edits to wikipedia namespace, but will still make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Supports''', a strong candidate. --
'''Support''' per Alex. I don't see anything wrong with specialist admins. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Strong support'''. I'm ashamed at the opposers. They clearly have had limited experience with this wikipedian. If you don't know the editor well, why bother voting? --<font color="FC4339">
'''Support''' per Alex and Khoikhoi.
'''Support'''. A dedicated contributor.
'''Support''' for the above reasons.--
'''Support''' after reading his answer to Q3 and my additional Q.  (seems reasonable).
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - looks like a sound candidate to me. He seems seasoned in the art of article editing, the real point of the encyclopedia. Good luck! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' - Self-nomination, dedication, honesty - all good things.  I agree with JoshuaZ though - I would advise Todor to ease into his new toolbox - don't block users, let other admins do that at first, then you will get the hang of it more.  Good luck, [[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Support''' - Nice guy. Nice contribs. Cool sig too. I wonder who designed it for him! I am changing my vote to '''STRONG Support''', after the responses to my questions below.
Much more impressed with affirmative reasons given than with the rather flimsy arguments for opposition.
'''Support''' as per above.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' - a good editor.--
'''Support'''.  Looks good.  The narrow focus on Bulgaria issues is alright IMHO.
'''Support.''' We need you to be there for NPOV issues on your region, and reasons listed above.--
'''Support'''. For reasons already mentioned (especially by [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]]) --
'''Weak Support''' A pretty good editor. Not a ton of edits though.
'''Support''' As per Khoikhoi and Siva1979. Regards, --[[User:Asterion/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''E  '''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Will be good admin.   --
Unfortunately feel a need to oppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=54900103]  shows that the user clearly has the right attitude for adminship. Furthermore, the user has edited in a few areas other than just Bulgaria related issues.  However, the user has very few Wikipedia space edits. Furthermore, the user wants admin tools for among other things reverting and blocking vandals, but I see almost no history of dealing with vandalism on any significant scale and no edits to [[WP:AIV]]. I also see few edits related to the other concerns for which the candidate wishes to use admin tools. I am not convinced that Todor has the experience or need for admin tools at this time.
'''Weak Oppose''' per JoshuaZ.
Looking through your user_talk edits, I see only a small handful of vandalism warnings, yet your main reason for wanting adminship is vandalism.  I suggest you come back once you've done some more reverting and warning. --
'''Oppose''' Per Tango.
'''Oppose''' - per Tango and JoshuaZ, sorry --
'''Weak Oppose''' - not enough Wikipedia namespace edits. [[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Sorry I must oppose this time around. Wikipedia email not activated. Other concerns as raised by JoshuaZ.
'''Weak Oppose''' Sorry, just can't support at this time.
'''Oppose'''. Not many WP space edits. You say you prefer working on the articles themselves, and there's certianly nothing wrong with that, but there is no particular need to be an admin for the tasks that seem to interest you. As oppose number 1 pointed out, that's a pretty good sign you're the right sort to be an admin - not many people would turn themselves in. I'd support after more WP edits. -
'''Oppose''' with a big vote of thanks.  The answers to the questions and the discussion around them make it plain that you don't have the experience for admin.  Your stated mission, though, is to be a Bulgaria specialist - it seems to me that you're doing a top job at that without admin powers.  Either get some experience of doing some admin chores then come back, or just stick at the good job you're doing.  --
'''Oppose'''. I believe it is clear you have made worthwhile contributions yet I do not see enough Wikipedia edits or the need for the tools to support you at this time. [[User:SorryGuy|Sorry]]
Per JoshuaZ in particular, but some others as well.  --
'''Oppose''' per JoshuaZ and others.
'''Oppose''' per JoshuaZ mainly, needs to create a more acceptable signature too.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''', "vandal fighting" involves informing newbies as to why their edit was reverted.  Some of them then learn what they should be doing, and become good contributors.
'''Oppose''', does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' At the moment lacks the all-round contributions which I like to see in a RfA candidate. --
'''Oppose'''. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]]. Significant edits are unacceptably low - just 12% despite 13 months here.
'''Oppose''' Per Wisden17. -- from
'''Oppose''' per JoshuaZ
'''Oppose''' while Todor is definately one of the more sane users I've had discussions with, I do not see a sufficient edit history in the areas where Admin tools are necessary. -
'''Oppose''' as per Joshua.
'''Oppose''' sorry.  Not enough project edits, and not sufficient rational for needing Admin tools.  Can be a major contributor without them.
'''Neutral'''.  Needs more projectspace edits, and warnings are '''crucial''' when dealing with vandals.  Many don't even realize they're doing something wrong and hurting WP, and stop after their first warning.  If they're not warned, they don't stop. Also, sig is too long, reaching 3 lines easily. --
'''Neutral'''- Ask again in a couple of months.
'''Neutral''' I'm a bit torn.
'''Neutral'''. I would like to support, but Rory brings up some interesting arguments.
'''Neutral''' – good editor, but not sure about adminship just yet. More edits in the <tt>Wikipedia:</tt> namespace would demonstrate a knowledge of policies. Answers to questions are OK; as a few others have commented, warning vandals is important, I suggest you get some experience of that, also. If so, re-nomination sometime towards the end of the year would have my support –
'''Neutral''' Overall good editor, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia: edits. <span style="text-decoration: overline underline;font-family:Segoe;font-size:70%"><font color="black">
'''Neutral''' - I actually think it's good that the user has one focus (Bulgaria).  However, I don't think that the user has enough knowledge of Wikipedia policy with only about 100 project space edits, and an activated email account is crucial for an admin. &mdash;'''[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Per experience in discussion and policy, I will change to support when I see e-mail activated. <tt>
'''Neutral''' for low edits at project pages, i.e. those prefixed "Wikipedia:".--
'''Neutral'''.  Can't support due to the use of "span" and CSS in the signature (per [[WP:SIG]], but it would be a poor reason to actually enter an "oppose" vote.  --
'''Neutral''' His edits are certainly pretty high quality, though I don't see much reason for this user to be an admin do to likely lack of interest. We have too many admins that are either inactive or never really admin. Its good that you focus on articles, and maybe being a sysop is not necessary. Unless an admin is active in admin tasks, its best not to have user's comming to them with issues requiring an admin. On the other had, the occasional use of admin powers is useful for any editor, and he is trustworthy...I might support, but I don't really know...'''
'''Neutral''' lack of RC patrol, NP patrol experience and complete lack of experience with the community.
Appears to "speak" several languages, but this is one of those silly self-nominations. :-O












'''Oppose''' due to low edit summary use and malformed nom.
'''Oppose''' per low edit summary usage and lack of Wikipedia: namespace experience.
'''Oppose''' - per experience issues, "hating vandals" is not the right stance (at least not publicly) - we need to work with them to make them good editors (or ban em, your pick) --
'''Oppose''' per the irony of misspelling 'knowledge'.
'''Oppose''' per above arguments. But don't let that discourage you, come back after you have more experience!
'''Oppose'''. Has a fair use picture on his userpage. While I don't expect admins to know everything about copyright law, they should know enough about policy to know that isn't allowed. --
'''Oppose''' per above remarks.  Low edit summary and inexperience is the main concern, please withdraw and give it a shot at a later time.
'''Oppose''' Too inexperienced, low edit count, low edit summary use, no real devotion or constant usage of Wikipedia (coming on once a month is not fitting of an admin.)
'''Oppose''' per all above. I'm sorry, Tom, but I feel you're just not ready yet.--<font color="#999fff">
I suggest you withdraw your RfA as of now. --
'''Neutral'''. Sensible, nice person who I'd love to see become an admin in the future. Unfortunately not quite experienced enough at the moment. Keep up the good work! [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' passes my criteria and to TBC, why is vandal fighting so important to some people, we already have hundreds of people who do nothing but vandal fight, why is reverting naughty words and removing pictures of vaginas more important than doing constructive edits, creating articles or helping out other people
'''Support''', very good editor who knows what he's doing.
'''Support''', excellent editor with notable contributions to pages listed on his user page. It appears that he will use the tools well, especially for stopping vandals. Concerning his edit count by people opposing below, I would argue he knows his way around the projects and Wikipedia in general and these numbers should increase significantly by this user. --
'''Support''', excellent contributions to Wikiprojects, a heap of edits (even excluding user edits) and nice reverting work. [[User talk:Sp3000|Go]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Sp3000|Futurama]]! [[User:Sp3000|Us]][[User:Sp3000/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">e</span>]]
'''Weak oppose'''. I'd like to see more edits in the project namespace (over 300) as well as some more vandal fighting.--'''
'''Oppose'''. Based on my dealings with him at [[Promontory Point (Chicago)]], I would say he has problems with NPOV and maybe somewhat OWN. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Promontory_Point_%28Chicago%29&direction=next&oldid=81277076 This] was the way the article, largely his work, looked before I tried to clean it up; he left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chowbok&diff=86775336&oldid=86745701 this unsigned comment] on my talk page suggesting I was an outsider and didn't know what I was talking about. (See also [[Talk:Promontory Point (Chicago)|the talk page]].) After my edits he still insisted on re-adding "spectacular view" to the article. I don't mean to suggest he wasn't courteous about the whole thing, but he just isn't acting like he's been around long enough to be an admin. He also seems like he has an axe to grind about the Playboy stuff, and I'm a bit dubious of his "aside". Why is he bringing that up here? &mdash;
'''Opppose''' seems like a good editor, but not ready for adminship; lots of small things that indicate relative lack of familiarity with Wikipedia culture and procedure. Seems to believe that the personal characteristics of contributors is important and/or that the admin ranks should be demographically representative in some way, and gives away his axe to grind on the Playboy issue while denying said axe above. Based on his statement and relative lack of XfD participation, I do not have confidence that he would deal with deletion debates in an unbiased way, without assuming the existence of invisible and inaudible 'morally oppressed' supporters of his personal position. Frankly, the whole statement sounds like 'I have an axe to grind'. Please spend more time participating in article-building and especially in deletion discussions in a neutral way.
Cannot support someone who appears to be taking the confrontational approach by responding to every single negative point made about them. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' - RfA advertising [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cbrown1023&diff=prev&oldid=93719005] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TonyTheTiger&diff=prev&oldid=93718346] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger&diff=prev&oldid=93718469] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nehrams2020&diff=prev&oldid=93716279] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy&diff=prev&oldid=93596452] (considering [[WT:RFA#WIkiproject Canvassing|your question about it on the talk page]], it seems you wanted to know the "line" for advertising.  I think it should be zero.), and low Wikipedia-space edit percentage (mainly due to answer to [[User:TBC]] above). Your nomination statement was a little strange as well; it seemed to deal more with Playboy than with administrative qualifications. I commend you on your contributions, however; it looks like you've been working hard.  --
Switch from neutral to oppose - <b>
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki-space experience suggests an unfamiliarity with process.  I'm a [[person of color]] and an admin, for whatever that is worth.
'''Oppose''' Tony seems to have no understanding of a vast area of Wikipedia policy concerning [[WP:CORP]] and beyond. This comment really worries me ''I concede that with my current experience I would probably not initiate such an article, but geven it is out there I will defend its existence.''. To me, this is saying "Yes, I know the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia but because I wrote it, it should stay". This approach is too inconsistent for my liking, especially in an admin who can undelete work. The blurb about ethnic origin and such leaves me feeling uneasy too and just reinforces my opinion that this candidate isn't admin material at this time. <font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose''' - largely per the candidate's own optional statement. Quite a lot of stuff in this RFA that makes me feel uneasy.
'''Oppose''' The nominee's comments and actions do not instill the confidence or trust that is requisite in being handed the tools.
'''Strong Oppose'''. You shouldn't feel inclined to respond to every person's non-support vote. I also see some testiness in your tone, and I frankly think you don't know how to handle yourself in such situations. An admin should be able to take criticism and handle it in an appropriate manner. Also, there will be times when people will say stuff you may not disagree with, and judging from your reactions to some people's comments on your RfA, I have gotten the impression that you will not handle yourself properly. '''
'''Oppose''' I will not support anyone who thinks they must respond to the majority of people voting against them. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per lack of essential knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' As stated above, it is completely unnecessary to respond to every single oppose vote and draw it out into a long debate. Therefore I am voting oppose based on that and the candidates optional statement (particularly views regarding the deletion process).--
'''Oppose'''. There is something to be said for walking the line between dismissing all oppose votes as irrelevant and asking how you can improve. Please think about this. --
'''Neutral''', <s>leaning support.</s> I don't think he'd misuse the tools, and I believe he'd be a good editor. I've had good experiences with him so far. Project space edits are a little low, but not too low to oppose. I would like to see some sort of statement of intent to use AIV more often and become more active at XfDs as well as RFA. A wikiproject would be nice as well...perhaps [[WP:CLIMBING]] (wink) [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:CLIMBING|<small><sup>On Belay!</sup></small>]] 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Update: After reviewing the candidates answers to my optional questions.....well I really want to support but I just don't think the candidate has a firm grasp of what I consider the major policy issues facing wikipedia: removing warnings, definition of vandalism, etc. Further, I'd like to see more interaction on AN/I . I do like the statement to use AIV more, and I understand why he hasn't used it much, due to not heavy levels of vandalism. I'm ok with that. I do not feel like I should oppose, however I don't feel that I can support at this time. If he applies again in say 3 months with broader experience across wikipedia, with more focus on project space, specifically administrator noticeboard and the sub pages, and does a little bit more vandal reverting, I'd vote support.
One of the things Tony wants to do is handle [[CAT:CSD]]. Tony mentions at the start of A1 that he has been involved in AFDs. Besides the two he mentions in A3, the only one I can find is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Trump|his reasonable nomination of a vandal's parody]]. (Maybe my definition of "involved in" is just skewed by my own experience.) That said, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_19&oldid=88964590#Playboy_Online.2FPlayboy_Cyber_Club this massive DRV submission] is clearly a big drop in the bucket towards what I like to see involving XfD discussion. In any case, I think candidates ought to have more experience either discussing at AfD or new page patrolling (which isn't listed amongst his many contributions on his userpage), before they handle CSD. While I fear his inexperience might lead to mistakes in handling CAT:CSD, I don't have any worries that he'd abuse the bit. I also feel similarly to Swatjester above about some use of AIV before blocking. Neutral.--
Chowbok raised enough questions/diffs to change my mind. Sorry.&mdash; <span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS">
'''Weak Neutral'''. '''''
'''Neutral''' for now.  This is an interesting candidate—not just another groomed edit-count, vandal-fighting candidate.  This is a good thing, but some of the statements and responses, along with some of the concerns raised by the oppose votes have me concerned that there may be too much agenda in play here.  The answer to my question was pretty much a non-answer—I don't necessarily have a problem with a non-answer, but for now I'm going to watch to see how this develops.  I will most likely decide to support or oppose before this closes. —
'''Neutral''' because of the oppose issues brought up, also replying to every opposition is not what I look for. Of course it is allowed and you have remained civil which is good. It is indeed an interesting RfA. I may change my !vote depending on other issues brought up by other voters (or I may not) however for now neutral.
'''Neutral'''. While I think this is a (bad pun alert) Grrrrreat editor, just not quite ready. After some more experience in the areas mentioned in other users' comments, I would give my unconditional support to RfA #2.
'''Neutral''' I think you have a lot of potential, but you could probably use more experience.  Best of luck.--
'''Neutral''' Definately have some good admin-like qualities, but based upon all the above, I change my vote to neutral.
'''Moral support''' for scriptwork, long-term dedication, plus he was absolutely right about the comma. But the candidate should consider withdrawing this RfA and coming back after garnering some more experience with some other aspects of the project.
'''Oppose''' due to relative inactivity - just under 900 edits in two and a half years. Only 102 mainspace edits, which for a productive editor is only a day's work. Just as a comparison, I can go through 100 mainspace edits if the vandals are really coming. You're going to need some experience writing article, vandal fighting, dealing with XfDs and other desired tasks. Sorry.
Needs more experience. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Sorry, Topaz, but since you only made a few edits most months, your relatively low edit count, and inexperience with vandalfighting and other admin chores, I oppose. --[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
Inexperience. Come back six months later and I'll reconsider. -
'''Oppose''' - failure to understand image policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ub-voads.png] --
'''Oppose''' - the obvious reason: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the aim of Wikipedians is to write it. All else is secondary. More article writing necessary. Maybe withdraw - pile-ons are ugly.
'''Oppose''' I really hate to cite edit counts, but with only 102 mainspace edits, you need some more experience. Adminship comes all at once, all the tools at once. More experience with the whole encyclopedia, and I'll support next time. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Oppose''' Your uncertainty of your necessity for adminship worries me. Also, you don't really have that much article-editing experience, and it appears that you have not been that active as of late.
Does not seem to fully understand what an admin does, but I don't see any reason to oppose other than editcountitis. -
'''Neutral''' per Mike1. I can live with the edit count, but I'm not sure the candidate knows exactly why he wants to be an admin, aside from having the ability to edit protected pages. With that said, I have no doubt that Topaz is definitely a good contributor. --
'''Neutral''' Sorry, you currently don't have enough grasp of the community as I would like.--
'''Neutral''' The answers to the questions above don't reveal a deep desire to assist with the admin tasks and backlogs that we have to deal with daily.  I'm not sure that this editor totally comprehends the responsibilities of being an admin.  I suggest withdrawal and an [[Wikipedia:Editor review|editor review]] in order to receive detailed advice regarding what they want to achieve by editing here at WP.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' always adding to TV related articles great contributor been here for quite a while too. Weak support because of the low user talk. Admins need a lot of interaction with other users. The lack of edit summary usage doesn't really bother me though.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' you can improve yourself whether or not this RfA succeeds/fails. I like your work and attitudes, so cheers!
'''Support'''. Can be trusted with admin tools. Great user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' it's not that big a deal and even stronger after reading the oppose aruments below. The editors/admins who put up a set of "their criteria" for adminship and post them on their userpages are just too proud for being the ones who can decide on something, and the whole thing resembles the familiar [[ego]]-[[masturbation]] far too much. Anyway is there any prevention for this tendency-to-egomasturbate effect in communities that are based on rules of being civil, kind to the others, and doing some voluntary work for the whole community?
'''Weak Support''' Am concerned by the seeming focus on the "political" rather than "janitorial" aspects of adminship, also low edit summary usage, but see no evidence that he would actively misuse tools so overall a support.
'''Support''' good user.

'''Support''' cool guy and hard worker! 100% SUPPORT
Fails my edit summary criteria, no real project-space edits except occassionally to AFD - not sure about policies? Given how long user's been here, this is just a '''weak oppose'''.
'''<s>Weak<s> Strong Oppose''' answer to question one doesn't express a complete need for the tools or complete knowledge of policy.
'''Oppose''' fails WP: and Talk/User talk: experience criterion by a mile. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Yanksox.
'''Oppose''' A distinct lack of talk edits is a major concern for me. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' Although a fantastic editor, I really don't that see you need admin powers to help with the tasks you currently set yourself. I can see no evidence of RC patrol and your answer to the first question (I have asked for a clarification - which you don't have to supply considering I am now voting, but which may help other users.) doesn't indicate a specific need for the extra powers. I would also suggest using edit sumaries to help other editors when reviewing the history/changes.
'''Oppose''' - Current edit summary usage: '''6%''' for major edits and '''59%''' for minor edits, too low for me. Also, talk page count and Wikipedia namespace edits are also low. Work on these and try again in 2-3 months. --
'''Oppose''' - fails [[User:Mets501/RfA standards|my standards]] with not enough Wikipedia space edits and not enough combined talk edits. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">

'''Oppose'''Again, too narrow in his edits and needs to supply edit summaries. --<font color="336699">
<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Oppose''': please make more use of Talk and User Talk pages in the future - RC Patrolling can be a good way of getting into the habit, since it's a good idea to place a [[Template:TestTemplates|Test Template]] on vandals' talk pages. This is an important part of warning users, and keeping track of their activities.
'''Oppose''' per the above. Low talk edits, low edit summary usage, very little (if any) RC patrol, no real need for tools. --
'''Oppose''' per above.  Come back when there is a convincing answer to the question of ''where'' admin tools would be useful.
'''Oppose''' per above and the fact the self-nom was in the third person.
'''Weak Oppose''' doesn't pass my RFA criteria. (Doesn't seem to have any vandalism reverts) <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' per above, needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' (was neutral) - I don't like the answer to the questions - You're a great editor, but I think you misunderstand what being an admin means. -- [[WP:ESP|<font color="green">9</font>]]
'''Moral Support'''  per Yanksox.
'''Oppose''' Fails on my criteria related to edit summaries, and wikipedia project space edits are too low a proportion of total edits in my opinion. Needs to get more invovled with the policy side of Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' awful edit summary usage, [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Sad oppose'''. Could use some more experience. Also, remember to use edit summaries more (only 6% for major & 59% for minor), and use the preview button more (averaging 3.475 edits per page is a bit too much). -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''', would like to see some more talk page edits, project edits, and use of edit summaries--
'''Oppose''', mainly per TBC. Have a look at [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Oppose''' per Yanksox. -
'''Oppose''' per above concerns.
'''Oppose''' per very low edit count usage. --
'''Oppose''' Admins are not "authority figures", they are trusted users. In AfD, an admin should use their adminship to carry out community [[WP:Consensus|consensus]], not help form it. (This is not to say that an admin may not help form community consensus, but not with any more privelege than a regular editor.)
'''Oppose''' per Yanksox and Armedblowfish. In my opinion, administrators need to view themselves not as authority figures but as public servants. --
'''Neutral'''.  You are a great editor with a lot of edits, more than twice my number.  However, low talk edit counts and low edit summary usage, and other minor problems don't fit you right into the admin position perfectly yet.  Morally, I support you all the way, but practically, I have to weakly oppose.  Best of luck though, and continue with your great work!  -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
'''Neutral''', I can't see any reason to oppose. Great editor, but needs more experience, try [[WP:ESP/AC|admin coaching]] and come back in a few months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''', no reason to oppose other than that you don't have enough experience yet.--
'''Neutral''' Because I can't oppose. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Support''' This user has saved a number of articles from Afd by virtue of good rewrites. This demonstrates to me a person who honors the integrity of wikipedia in a constructive way. --
'''Strong support''', has done much to actually add to this encyclopedia.  We need more like him. --
'''Support''' TruthbringerToronto has been doing a nice job, AFAIK has always remained civil and I believe will use the admin tools appropriately.
'''Support'''.  A lot of people become familiar with the site in 3 months and there have been many cases of users getti ng promoted 3 months after joining.
'''Support'''. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. OK too inclusionist, but there is civility, willingness to discuss and to accept consensus which is what is really needed in an admin. --
'''Support'''.  Doing something worthwhile for wikipedia.
'''Strong Support'''. Shows a willingness to assist in bringing articles up to meet consensus of notability and non-stubbirooniness, etc. which I greatly appreciate in contrast to editors who are quick to AfD and speedy stubs.  We need more editors like this one.  His adminship will assist in combating the evil dark lords of deletiopilis.
'''Oppose''' Service time, microscopic engagement on article talk pages, and a sometimes baffling eagerness to keep the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Messages|most]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Kristof|spurious]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Bailey|of]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc.|articles]], with "I've heard of it", "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.S. Chathunny|sounds notable]]" and deliberate misreadings of guidelines ("has three CDs on CDbaby") often taking precedence over policy. Not to mention lack of knowledge of  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Gribble|policy]] ("If the info is true" is not grounds for a keep <s>vote</s> opinion, hoax is not a speedy criterion). (Edited to include: barest of vandalfighting activity, no follow-ups on user talk pages afaics.) ~
'''Oppose''' because I am extremely impressed with this candidate, and in order to make full use of his intelligence and independence of thought, he will need to have a thorough grounding in wikipedia's ways, which he should spend the next 3 months doing.
'''Oppose'''. Too early. Shows lack of knowledge on guidelines, and policies above (even on [[WP:CSD]]). Lack of experience, and only seems to want to work with AfD deletions, when there are many other areas an admin needs to be aware of. Will support in the future, maybe in 3 months.
'''Oppose''' AfD participation shows an inclination to keep marginal-at-best articles based on marginal reasoning. This is worrisome given that he wants to do deletion-related work.
'''Oppose''' a bit more experience necessary.  And there are some articles that just aren't worth saving!
'''<s>Oppose </s> My strongest oppose to date per Crazy Russian''' Don't need admin tools to save articles from the fiery pit. And most CSD's are just plain rubbish. That's why they are CSD's.
'''Absolutely not!''' per willingness to keep anything w/o regard to the dictates of policy and per choice of nominator. - <b>
'''Strong Oppose''' TbT's contributions to AfD arguments have been disruptive at times to some discussions and shows no ability to be open to deletion. Every single encounter I've had with this editor has been baffling in how arguments are formed[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_Pointe_Preparatory_School&diff=prev&oldid=70647734],. His opinions on AfDs are always something that I await to see if he actually looks into the article and realizes that you can't keep everything. Alot of administrative work deals with deletion, it appears that he takes everything he can just to stall it when deletion is fairly obvious.
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian's first reason.
<s>'''Oppose''' per above.</s>'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User:AED|AED]] and per  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Orlando%2C_Florida&diff=70722065&oldid=70717007 this].
'''Oppose.''' As suggested by others, a review of TbT's recent contributions reveals that he/she has a weak understanding of Wiki policy and guidelines, particularly [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:EL]]. When an article is nominated for deletion on the grounds that is lacks reliable sources, TbT has consistently added items to the ''External links'' section presumably in an attempt to "save" the article. Examples over the past 48 hours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bascon&diff=70673334&oldid=70603615][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiffany_Paulsen&diff=70670326&oldid=70649583][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cortonwood&diff=70654863&oldid=70645214][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Pointe_Preparatory_School&diff=70647560&oldid=70642708][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_James_Bayer&diff=70637013&oldid=70589492][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croft_No._5&diff=70575185&oldid=70500791][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Gildersleeve&diff=70503113&oldid=70501146][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varol_Akman&diff=70500827&oldid=70481273]. -
'''Oppose''' for now, but suggest RfA from a different nominator next time --
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian, shows little understanding of process and policies. -
'''Oppose''' - Two months' experience makes me queasy. -→
'''Oppose''' per CrazyRussian, doesn't seem to have a strong enough knowledge of process.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Crzrussian, Dylons493 & Buchanan-Hermit. '''<font style="background:black">
'''Oppose''' knowledge of policy seems shaky at best.  And a nomination by a permabanned sockpuppet doesn't help matters much.
'''Oppose''' per ''very'' shaky AfD voting (per my own background in AfD discussions, and per Trialsanderrors) and lack of knowledge of policy. --
'''Oppose''' user often expresses/demonstrates a lack of knowledge of policy.  One such policy/guideline is userfication of articles, I've often seen the user copy and paste articles to people's user space, taking away the GFDL history on it.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Metalhead101/Scott_Wood&action=history] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alanwhit%40pnc.com.au&diff=prev&oldid=61780394] along with this discussion between myself and the user [[User talk:TruthbringerToronto#Userfying biographies]].
'''Oppose''', per Crazyrussian. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' Editor has demonstrated difficulty in grasping basic Wikipedia policies, including WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.

'''Oppose''' per trilasanderrors and several others here.--
'''Stong Oppose''' -- only 3 months is enough for me to oppose anyhow --
'''Oppose''': Lifespan here is too short (3½ months). Try again next year. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Oppose''' per False Prophet. --
'''Oppose''' per above comments. User has a propensity to save just about everything; removing speedy tags from articles that are rather easily determined to be non-notable but not actually doing anything to indicate that notability in the article or any other comments is the wrong way to go about it. Start thinking about doing the research on articles before contesting, removing tags, etc., and consider that editors who have tagged them have probably not done it for fun. Also needs more experience and talk participation.
'''Strong Oppose''' as per Yanksox.
'''Oppose''': Per concerns above about keeping everything in spite of policy/guidelines. --
'''Oppose''' as per trialsanderrors & Crazyrussian.
'''Oppose''' per above comments.
'''Strong oppose''' per CrazyRussian and False Prophet.
'''Weak Neutral''' - leaning on support, but to be honest just a little tentative due to TruthbringerToronto's fairly short time here (3 months). Also salvaging articles does not actually require any additional tools. May change vote upon further comments or answers to additional questions. Thanks -
'''Neutral''' The answer given to question one reveals a limited interest in using the admin powers.  An editor can be 95% as effective with the strategy-as-outlined without the admin powers.  Are there other areas of Wikipedia to which you would consider contributing where the presence of an admin would be of benefit to the community? <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''' - leaning towards support. His answers to the question above shows a small interest in using admin powers. On top of this, his experience to this project is relatively short (3 months). However, the user is a very good editor and I may support this candidate if more convincing reasons are being presented here in favour of this candidate. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Great editor, but 3 months is too short for me. --<font color="336699">
'''Neutral''' - great editor but responses don't seem to show need of the +sysop flag --
'''Neutral''' Great editor, but lack of experience. --
'''Neutral''' First, the user who nominated Truthbringer is a suspected sockpuppet [[User:Ladodgersss]]. But that doesn't take [[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]]  contribs which have saved quite a lot of articles. Even he makes mistakes, because he is quite over enthusiastic in saving every article. But he is a great editor, and I'll vote keep in a few months time. --
'''Neutral''' The candidate seems to be a good editor, but I would feel better with a bit more experience and a more concise realisation of what he/she would do with the extra buttons.
'''Neutral'''.  My experiences interacting with this editor have been generally positive, and although I don't share his inclusionism it doesn't bother me (if anything, I'm troubled by the assertions from trialsanderrors and Alexander about policy on AfD; guidelines like [[WP:MUSIC]] are explicitly not binding, Wikipedians can choose to ignore them if they choose, and this we're-not-binding-it's-just-a-suggestion is far stronger than even the usual [[WP:IAR|"fuck process"]]  Cluey view).  However, I don't think he has the experience or wiki-fu necessary to be an administrator as yet.  I ''would'' like to see him as an administrator at some point, however.
'''Neutral''' as there's no need to pile on.  If this does become close, however, I will switch to oppose per CrazyRussian, Yanksox, Andrew, and Kicking, to name four.
'''Neutral''' candidate, while I admire his dedication to inclusionism, simply has not been around as long as I would like to see an candidate also could consider branching out.--
'''Support.''' Reasons as above.
'''Support'''  Trysha is a very responsible individual and would make a fine admin.
'''Support'''. Appears cordial enough and good contributions.
'''Support'''  Great contributions, very even handed in other admin tasks, good admin selection. --
'''Support'''.  --

'''Support.''' --
'''Support'''. I found her to be very helpful and friendly in the small amount of interaction I had with her. She has good contribs and will make a good admin.--
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Can use mop to block all those darn Dog vandals. --Jay '''(
'''Arf-Arf!!''' Fellow dog lover support --
'''Support''' Knowledgeable in her field. :-D --
'''Support''' Contributions are spread out, no problems noted, please see additional question below.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. A benefit to Wikipedia.

'''Support''' Cursory examination of this editors edits reveal a good egg.
Support. Good user. --
'''Support''' Solid community contributor, good person. Would make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' - I can't remember where we ran into each other, but you left the right impression.
'''Support''' Good specialist editor, would fight doggie vandals.
'''Oppose''' Few edits.
'''Oppose'''.  Since most of your edits are in articles and very few have been janitorial I see no need to give you janitorial powers.  I am also concerned about so many problems we've been having and how it used to be that admins were typically above it.  Now, it seems that admins are just as often the cause of it.  So, I am tending to hold people up to higher standards and think about whether or not giving sysop to the user will help out with some of the back logs.  You seem like a fine editor but I don't think you've proved that you should be an admin.  Sorry.  I do want to add keep up the good work... you seem to be very valuable and all.  I feel mean. :(
'''Oppose''' Too few edits for me to make a valid assessment of this editor, and too few edits for the editor to have learned what an admin needs to know.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits.'''
'''Oppose''' per Blank Verse and Grenavitar. Definetely nothing personal, but I also believe more experience would be desirable. Will surely support next time. -- '''<font color="green">
'''Oppose''' Need more experience.
'''Oppose''' - not enough edits
'''Oppose''' - not enough experiance. Been here for over a year with less than 1500 edits, and far less than 100 in the project namespace. Can't support. -- <font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gold">[[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]]</font><font size="2" face="Helvetica">
'''Oppose''' Ditto to above.  Nothing personal, but I'd like to see a little more experience.  I'd like to see you nominated again sometime in the future though. --
'''Oppose''' Looks like a fine editor, but I'd like to see more experience and more participation in policy, vandal fighting, etc. vs mainly work on articles.
'''Oppose''' until more janitorial experience.  <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Blankverse.  Editor needs somewhat more experience.
'''Oppose''' Per everybody above. Especially needs more edits in project namespace.
'''Oppose''' per above.  Edit pattern does not indicate familiarity with administrative processes.  Will reconsider when edits to "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:" spaces total at least 500. &mdash; '''''
'''Oppose'''--
'''Neutral'''. I do feel you need more [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Trysha&dbname=enwiki_p project namespace edits]. I would be willing to support a future RfA in a few months if you do so, since you seem to be on the right track. I do like your percent usage of edit summaries.&#160;—
'''Neutral'''. Trysha didn't really start to become active until last month. A few more months of experience and I will be in support of an RfA.[[Image:Weather rain.png]]'''
'''Neutral''' Trysha seems to be a good editor, and her answers to all questions (including the one I asked) sound sensible. But on thinkign it over i am trouble by the relatively short time sice Trysha started major contrivutions, and the lack of project namespace edits. I would probably support a later nomination after Trysha  has more experience.
'''Support''', no problems here.
'''Support'''. Nominee demonstrates need for tools and trustworthiness, seems to have taken advice from last RfA very seriously and went above and beyond to address those concerns.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' - per nom --
'''Support'''. The user obviously needs admin tools and is a good editor, who helped with the dog project. --<font face="Monotype Corsiva" size="3,0" color="#FF0000">
'''Support''' per nom and above.
'''Support''' per nom.
Though I've never interacted with her, Trysha seems like a trustworthy editor who will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Passes My Criteria
'''Yup'''.  Needs the tools; has clean nose.
'''Support.''' Meets my criteria as well. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' meets my standards.--
'''Support''' needs the mop to block vandals, nuf said.
'''Support.''' Shows need for tools, has sufficient history, and has learned from previous RFA.  Good candidate.  --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate, plenty of vandalfighting in edit history, so tools would be useful.
Low edit count, but adminship isn't a big deal, so '''Weak support.'''
'''Support''' - No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. -
'''Support''' - go for it.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' Seems like a good candidate. See no reason to believe would misuse the tools.
'''Support'''. No reason not to. &mdash;
'''Support''' Absolutely. Especially since she(?) is not a bot.
'''Support''' Should pass this RFA --
'''Support''', no Portal talk edits.
'''Support''' No reason not to trust this user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I like what I see in the contribs.  Subject specialists admins are a benefit, in my opinion.
'''Support''' I am for specialist administrators having expertise in particular subject area. Lets have an admin specialized in dog-related problems, I guess there are many problems required admin attention there.
'''Support''' Excellent spam fighter, good edits... and adminship is no big deal, right? --
'''Support''' - I accept what this user has to say; we need more vandal fighters as admins. Also, there is enough experience and edits. --

'''Support'''. It's a mop, not a gun. No big deal.

'''Support''' Trysha knows enough to work as an admin. She may not be material for an ubersysop, but that's not what she wants. I'm happy to support. [[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·
'''Support''' --<span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#FF7518;background:#000;">
'''Weak oppose''' - lack of experience with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Trysha images] --
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry, I just don't see either the community involvement or a showing of familiarity with policy that would permit me to support. User participated in seven AfD discussions since February. Of those, apparently all were of user's own starting and all were dog-related. Of the 307 WP-space edits, very few are substantitive - most are to Wikiprojects Spam and Dog breeds, CVU, and WP:List of images. I could not trust the user with deletions or blocks (evidence of spamfighting notwithstanding). - <b>
'''Oppose''' I am in agreement with the CrazyRussian.
'''Weak oppose''' reasons pointed out by Crzrussian. As much as I love vandal fighters and spam fighters such as yourself, please get more experience at AfD and maybe other places related to admin chors.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian. He brings up a good point. With a lack of AfD experience, I am not totally sure how you would conduct yourself in situations like heated discussions regarding blockings and other stuff. AfD experience provides users with a premature sense of what admins experience day-in and day-out. I think if you try maybe in a month, with a few hundred AfD discussion edits, then you can definitely count on receiving my vote. --
'''Oppose''' per Crzrussian and Andeh. I don't see any major encyclopedic contributions besides an infobox.
'''Oppose''' No worries with attitude to blocking - but I need to see more adminlike experience. --
'''Oppose''', the nom fails [[User:Themindset/RFA|my criteria]]. Insufficient article talk edits shows lack of involvement in true article building; and 307 project edits, while technically over my minimum of 300, is mostly wikiprojectdog related and does not reflect a real experience in AfD, DRV, etc etc. I will certainly support on the next go-round if these these points are addressed (which I am sure they will be).
'''Oppose''' lack of necessary experience, particularly in potential administrative areas and contributing to writing articles, which is the most important thing a Wikipedian does
Upon further investigation, not sure how user would handle admin tools with such relative inexperience in the project space. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' as above, lack of experience in substantive matters. Vandal reversion is valuable, but not broad experience.
'''Oppose''' Insufficient wiki-space and process experience, a problem easily remedied by waiting a bit longer before the next application.
'''Oppose''' have to go with the crazyrussian. Too little experience with policy. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I appreciate the editor's contributions on spam removal, but feel encyclopedia building experience is rather narrow.
'''Oppose''', mostly per crzrussian. While it's true that [[WP:AIV]] is sometimes a little slow, I haven't seen it take literally "hours", the slowness is also intentionally built into the system (hence tests1-4) to insure as little [[WP:BITE|BIT]]ing goes on as possible. I disagree with abakharev: just as in most areas of learning, IMHO it's better to start broad and then specialize afterwards. I am not confident that trysha has much wiki-wide experience. --
'''Weak oppose''' per crzrussian and Nishkid64. I see absolutely nothing wrong with your edit history up to this point, but we just don't have any idea how you would act in very many situations requiring admin intervention. Get some experience in AfDs and the like, and my guess is you'll sail through with flying colors in another 60 days or so. --
On the fence for now; I would prefer a candidate with some more experience with the various processes.
No compelling reason to oppose, but I'd like to see you in the maintenance/administrative/process areas a little more, and then apply again. Regards, &mdash; '''
(Moral) '''Support''' - I would suggest a kindly bureaucrat close this, or for you to withdraw, as it's no fun watching people pile on.  Take notice of what the below people say, work on the areas they mention, and retry in a couple of months.
(Moral) '''Support''' - per above. In 2-3 months, when you have, say, twice as many edits and 100 percent edit summaries, and some overall enhanced expeience and knowledge of the wikipedia system, then I'm sure you'd get a good 90 percent support count. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Oppose''' Try again with question 1 - emphasis on ''sysop powers''. The tasks you've named don't need an admin. I'll reconsider if you give a better answer. --
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=60092184 Malformed] RFA listing.
'''Strong Oppose''' Very inexperienced. <s>I know its lagging and stuffed but this is the best [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Tuspm&dbname=enwiki_p edit count tool] available to me until we get the official edit count stuff and this displays 374 mainspace edits</s> Ok now that we've got the official edit count, 602 mainspace edits are still very low out of which most are just one-off edits to different articles. User talk page seems pretty empty for an RFA candidate, but please correct me if I missed some archives. Will still ask questions in case you can change my mind somehow though...Edit summary usage is also inadequate. Answer to question 1 reveals that this user may not fully understand adminship. The article revealed in Question 2 also reveals a lack of experience as most admins have dealed in bigger articles than that. I hope I don't sound discouraging, you probably have potential for adminship in a few months. '''
'''Oppose''' Sorry, looks like a good user who does some good vandal fighting, but low project space edits and low edit summary usage are major concerns at this point.  Try again in 3-6 months and I will reevaluate.
'''Oppose''' A malformed RfA never looks good, per my [[User:Joturner/DSoDD|different standards]]. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per above. On number 1, you didn't list anything that being an admin would help you do. You can do these things now.--
'''Oppose''' for low edit experience and usage of major edit summaries--
'''Oppose''' don't take it too personally.  The things that you want to do with your admin powers are things that you can do perfectly well right now.  Cleanup definitely needs help!  Hang in there and come back in a couple months.--
Don't-be-discouraged '''oppose'''. Doesn't show nearly the breadth of experience I'd need to see, but that could be overcome within just a few months. Keep up the good work. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Oppose'''. A promising candidate who needs a bit more experience, particularly in the Wikipedia Space, before becoming an admin.
'''Oppose.''' I'd like to see more experience time-wise.
'''Oppose''' No apparent requirement for admin powers, based upon answers to questions. <span style="border: 1px solid #800080;">
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, I have to oppose. You don't pass my RFA criteria <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' needs to spend a bit more time, the self-nom wasn't really to my liking. Just explains how the user is needy for admin and not a brief overview of what they do on Wiki. I believe the user needs a bit more patience and a bit more experience before they get the huge admin responsibility thrown at them.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose''' as an admin, '''strong support''' as an editor. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lacks of edits and needs more edits in the Wikipedia namespace. High edit count needed, needs more experience and try again in three months. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' to avoid pile on. Sorry, but you're completely inexperienced and your answers are dissatisfying. I would suggest waiting a few months and getting more familiar with Wikipedia before the next nomination.
'''Suggest Withdrawl''' - questions don't show need for tools / knowledge of what admins do --
'''Neutral''' Does spending a lot of time reverting vandalism prove any qualification for being an administrator? --
'''Neutral''' to not pile on. First of all, you need some understanding of what an admin does. (Your first answer didn't even address what you ''will'' do... Only what you ''have'' done.) Take a look at [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my RfA criteria]] for the pointers ''I'' use in supporting a candidate.
'''Support'''.  Answers to questions could be better, and possibly too new, but I've seen this user around and haven't seem him do much wrong. So (first and faster than nominator) support. --
'''Support''': per my nom. --
'''Support'''.  I like to see more edits in main that aren't anti-vandalism.  That said, I think adminship would make 'em more effective at what they do well.
'''Support'''.  Went above and beyond the call of duty to protect my userpage from a vandal.  The rest of his edits look impressive, and he has my vote.--
'''Support'''. A great choice for administrator. -
'''Strong Support''' Fantastic vandal fighter and all-round editor. <font color="#08457E">
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom. Excellent vandal fighter. --
'''Support:''' He made many reverts of vandalism. --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. I am unsure about this but am leaning towards support.
'''Support'''; the imbalance of edits (nearly two-thirds come within the past month) is something of note, but I'm still going to support as you appear to be a great resource, especially with vandal fighting, here on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' per nom. Also a good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' Tv316 is a resource in the counter-vandalism effort. He would greatly benefit the project with a mop. --
'''Support''' meets my standards! - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Strong Support'''. It looks like Tv316 would make a fantastic addition to the admin team. Lots of wiki edits (nearly 300), and a ton (literally) of user talk edits, which shows that he has great communications with the Wikipedia community, which is a big plus! If that isn't enough, he has been battling vandals tirelessly. The best of luck to you, I hope you make it!
'''Weak support''' but support nonetheless. Take care with content disputes, would you?
'''Support''' comes close to (or meets) my criteria, so of course I'll support :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Support''' Just look at his RC patroling! He sure needs the revert button!--
'''Support''' as per Kingboyk.
'''Support''' A proven vandal fighter, he gets my support
'''Strong support''', Tv316 regularly reverts vandalism, showing a willingness to combat this problem.
'''Weak Support'''. Meets my requirements 100% and all but has about 3,500 total edits and 0 images uploaded. Some user! Should edit more and upload some pictures. [[Image:Flag of Montenegro.svg|25px]]
'''Support'''. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' per McPhail, Exir Kam, and Master Jay, inter al.
'''Support''' per all above --
'''Weak Support''' Would be better if nominated again later [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' Go go gadget vandalism fighter!
'''Support'''. I've seen good things from Tb316, and I'm impressed by the answer to question 3.
'''Support'''. Looks good to me. --
'''Support''' - A very good user. Well done. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<font color="green">K</font>]]'''
'''Support''', no problems here. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' - I can't see this user abusing his powers, causing mayhem or the like. <Insert sadly no longer relevant phrase about big deals in relation to Adminship here>. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Good editor, would make a good admin. --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support'''. Knows what he's doing, helped me get on my feet after my "censor" episode, in fact... I didn't even know he wasn't an admin yet! :)
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Looks good, no major concerns
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aucaman/read/adminship this]. Very low Talk namespace edits. [[User:Aucaman|'''Auca''']][[User:Aucaman/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''m'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''', per above. Only three months of active editing, needs more time. Another three and a few hundred more talk namespace edits and I'll vote for you. Be patient; your time for sysoping will come.--[[User:HereToHelp|Here]][[User talk:HereToHelp|'''T''']]
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per [[User:Aucaman]] --'''<font color="#E32636">
'''Oppose''' per HereToHelp.  Editor has only three months of significant activity.  I'm sure he'll make a great admin soon, but there is more to the wiki than can be learned in such a short time.
'''Oppose'''. Participation in the (X) Talk: and Wikipedia: spaces is important so that we are able to judge for ourselves on the evidence that this editor is good at those kinds of things. The community-pages operate in (perhaps unfortunately) idiosyncratic ways and understanding how best to engage in them is very important in an admin. For every admin surely finds themselves having to get involved there, whether voluntarily or not. -
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' Prefer admins to have more experience throughout the project and more time editing.--
'''Oppose''' Per Zoloz. --
'''Oppose''' Per above. --
'''Weak Oppose''' The lack of talkspace and projectspace unfortunately does me. <b><font color="teal">
'''Weak oppose''' per above --
'''Weak oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose''', needs more experience first.
'''Oppose''', too soon --
'''Oppose''' at this stage, could support with broader experience.
'''Oppose'''
'''Weakest of weak opposes''': I weakly oppose, as the candidate is a very, very good contributor but a bit shy of my expectations. Come back in, hell, 1 month and I'd gladly strongly support (then again, he did steal my <nowiki>{{status}}</nowiki> template... :P) <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Weak Neutral''' Heavily leaning towards support. Tv316, you know I'm your friend but I really can't support 3 months of editing; just wait a couple of months and your will surely make admin. I might change this vote to support.
'''Neutral''' would be support if it wasn't for the relatively small number of articlespace edits
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. I'd like to see a little more experience, especially in project space. --[[User:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#CD6600;">Tantalum</span>]][[User talk:TantalumTelluride|<span style="color:#000080;">T</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. Would likely support this guy in the future. &mdash; '''
'''Neutral''' A couple more months around the place at current energy levels and no worries
'''Neutral''' due to lack of experience. Try again a month or two from now.
'''Neutral''' leaning towards a weak oppose... most editors cross my radar screen at some point - perhaps you are too new to have done so, but I can't shake the feeling that you are not quite there yet.
'''Neutral'''.  People whose opinions I respect are opposing.
'''Neutral'''. Do I think this guy is admin-worthy? Yes. But I don't think he's had enough experience YET. However, if he continues like this for another few months, I'll nominate him myself. Although he's proven himself to be worthy, I think the experience is a little lacking. [[User:Buchanan-Hermit|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: #3366FF;">Buchanan-H</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="font-size: 13px; color: green;">e</span>]]
'''Neutral''', leaning towards support. I think you may make a good administrator, but I mirror the feelings of others that you need a tad bit more time. Spend the next month or so getting versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, learn a bit more about AfDs (other *fDs, and the admin-backlogs), and make some quality contributions, and I'll make sure to strongly support you in your next RfA.&#160;—

'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse admin tools. However, I am afraid your RfA would not be too successful based on comments by other users. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. It is hard to know how to handle your old account, but it is difficult to srutinise the edits by it since there is no proof that it's you. With only significant month of editing under this account, that makes judging your history quite hard. The answer to question 1, however, reveals a misunderstanding of what adminning is. Anyone can do all the things in question 1, and being an admin does not imbue you with any additional capabilities in that regard. Perhaps spend a little longer learning what the additional buttons do and then decide whether you really wnat them. Hint: it's a bit like mopping a dirty bathroom floor for several hours a day. Editing, well, that's like putting in shiny new enamel and repainting and rewallpapering the walls. Much more fulfilling. -
'''Oppose''' - erm, you do not need to be an administrator to work on editing, which is what this user's responses to the questions indicate (s)he would like to do. In addition, I'm afraid reputations follow accounts, not editors around. The "old account, lost password" argument won't hold much water with a lot of people. I'm not discounting it as possible, but it isn't a metric one can use reliably.
'''Oppose''', per Rob Church.
'''Oppose''' per my previous rant about vandalism fighters and admin powers.
'''Oppose''' as the answer to Q1 is very worrying and indicates a lack of familiarity with the operations of wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Also per Rob Church —
'''Oppose''' If you want to do [your answer to] number 1, you don't need admin powers to do so.
'''Oppose''' with the suggestion that you withdraw this RfA.
'''Weak Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose'''. Suggest nominee may wish to withdraw and concentrate on building up a history of contributions, then try again some months from now.
<small>Moral</small> Support as to not be a shutout. Suggestion of withdrawing, and trying again later. --
'''Support''' because it's no fun being piled on with opposes.  Try and increase your knowledge of Wikipedia through getting involved in some projects, and reapply in a few months.
'''Weak Support''' Give him a chance! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong support, both moral and otherwise''' Meets my criteria and is a well-meaning user. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough project related contributions. —
'''Oppose''' too little edits [[User:Leidiot|L]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
No. Not enough information I'd expect of a self nom as well. '''Stong oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' Too few edits, especially in the Wikipedia project space; also, vague request description.
'''Oppose'''. Better get more experience and use edit summaries more often.--
'''Oppose''' Nomination is insufficient in its breadth, per NSLE.  A well-crafted nomination shows respect for one's peers at RfA.  This nomination fails to display that respect.
'''Oppose''' While you are correct, Xoloz, I believe that too is due to the fact that this candidate does not have enough experience.  He's still pretty new.  Be kind.  --
'''Oppose'''... sorry, looks like a fine contributor, but needs more time on the project, per the above.
'''Oppose''', too few edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Please reapply in a couple of months.
'''Oppose'''. It's admirable that you want to help... but you're still a bit too new in my opinion. Please reapply when you have more experience. --[[User:Deskana|Darth Revert]]
'''Oppose''', this user seems like a good user. However, low Wikipedia-space edits as well as low editcount means that he needs more time on the project and try again in a few months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', too few edits to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''', nothing personal, but candidate just doesn't meet expectations regarding edit experience. Try again in a few months and I'll gladly support. <font style="background: black" face="none" color="#FFFFFF"><font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="orange"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="red"><small><sup>'''''<s>o</s>'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Oppose''': too much quotation of policy, not enough enough familiarity with custom and culture of the project.
Wow. Just wow. I am flabbergasted at the level of counterpoint-ing by this user in this RfA. Per my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards]], specifically " Excessive defensiveness in responses to objections raised by others, or in general in your talk, is a clear downcheck as well", '''Oppose'''. Those are my criteria and I will apply them as I see fit. I suggest that you NOT reply tendentiously to this but just internalise what people are telling you. Ruleslawyering is not the way to work with this community. <font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font>+
'''Oppose'''.  Per Lar.  Too much wikilawyering and confrontation.  We need an atmosphere where people can work harmoniously, not acrimoniously. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Too low Wikipedia namespace edits. --
'''Oppose''' -
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral'''. While I must [[Wikipedia:assume good faith|assume good faith]], I'm worried by several things here: giving detailed replies about why the people who haven't supported you are in the wrong, and practically demanding administrative privileges based on the letter of the rules; we should [[Wikipedia:use common sense|use common sense]] and [[Wikipedia:interpret all rules|interpret all rules]] rather than follow them blindly. Back in the days where adminship was requested on the mailing list, the criteria you're running under might have been enough, but in this day and age of vandals, sockpuppets, trolls, and legal threats, we must ensure that our administrators are civil, respected, and know not just what the policies are, but how to apply them. Regards,
'''Neutral''' - Didn't feel like voting oppose. But reason is same as all - more edits required. Also agree with above - Tyrenuis seems to be too eager for adminship. I would advise him too take all comments into account and then improve as per suggestions. If all things go well, he should re-apply for adminship sometime after 3 months. I would be glad to vote support. - Aksi_gr
'''Neutral'''. I'm not going to oppose this nomination because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the candidate, rather I just don't think the candidate is ready yet. Raw edit counts are rarely useful, but over time patterns emerge. In the time Tyrenius has been here, (he? she?) has made some very good contributions to the encyclopaedia. But he/she has also made (proportionally) [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=Tyrenius&dbname=enwiki_p very few contributions] to the project namespace and other namespaces outside the content namespaces. Even if the policy pages on administrators are to be read utterly and completely literally (and I don't think they should be) the nomination still has to show why the candidate is "generally a known and trusted member of the community", and by examining some of Tyrenius' contributions to the [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=Tyrenius&dbname=enwiki_p project], [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=1&user=Tyrenius&dbname=enwiki_p talk] and [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=3&user=Tyrenius&dbname=enwiki_p user talk] namespaces, I don't think this condition has been satisfied. I would, of course, gladly be proved wrong. --
'''Neutral'''. Wikipedia policy isn't what determines votes around here. The people who participate on this page have their own rules, and are not shy about explaining them. Democracy has flaws but since wikipedia is 'owned' by all of us here equally, it's the only way to do it. -
'''Neutral''' Vote changed due to Wikilawyering.
'''Neutral'''. Unfortunately candidate has not quite understood the way Wikipedia works and is therefore not ready for adminship. Becoming an admin is not a reward, but something to assist those who undertake the duty of maintaining the site in their work. It is awarded by the community who assess the candidate based on many criteria, the most important of which is familiarity with the way Wikipedia works, and the most important factor about the way Wikipedia works is that it resists drawing absolute rules. The second most important factor is that we all try to get on with each other as comrades in creating a free encyclopaedia. Nothing wrong in the record of this candidate but needs to relax a little.
'''Neutral'''. Even though Tyrenius withdrew the RfA, the extreme level of [[Wikilawyering]] that Tyrenius engaged in here demands a comment. I would never support anyone to be an admin who believes that this level of detailed response to legitimate objections is called for. I hope Tyrenius sees the downside to wikilawyering and doesn't engage in it anymore. If so, I hope he/she comes back in 3-6 months for another vote.--
'''Moral Support''' Obviously a good editor. I encourage you to keep up your recent editing practices.
There isn't enough evidence in your contributions that you understand current Wikipedia policy; with only 18 user-talk messages, you don't seem to have been very active in CSD recently (although the pages themselves would get deleted, the warnings you would have given would still be in your contributions). Likewise, there's no evidence that you've been involved in vandalfighting before (the only project-space pages that you've edited at least 5 times are VfD and AfD). There's too much of a risk that you would misapply policy in administrative actions. (For evidence for these comments, see the data I've added to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tzaquiel]]; I'd be interested to read a response you might have.) --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 16:19, 15 December 2006 (
'''Oppose'''. Useful edits, but only [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Tzaquiel&site=en.wikipedia.org 403 of them]. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Your edit count has not yet been supplied, but your list of contributions (although stretching back to 2002) has less than 500 entries, about half of which come from this month. This indicates much less practical experience than I'd expect from an administrator. Your low edit summary usage is also of concern to me, and, more importantly, your general characterisation of unnamed other users as "rabidly defending their neologisms and listcruft" is worrying, as it indicates a certain lack of equanimity. Another detail indicative of your possibly insufficient understanding of Wikipedia procedures is your using the word "outvoted" with respect to editing conflicts: [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy|Wikipedia is not a democracy]]. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) <small>(Note: This was an edit-conflicted comment, I see the count has now been supplied.
'''Oppose''' Extreme insufficiency of wiki-space participation (48 edits) suggests that the candidate is unfamiliar with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' and suggested '''withdrawal''', Per above concerns only 200ish mainspace edits and your answers to the questions leave me uninspired. Basically you need to show us why you ''need'' to be an admin. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS">
Not enough experience with policy to make a decision. —
'''Neutral''' Not enough experienced demonstrated by the number and scope of the edits.  A lot more contributions are required in the main WP spaces - new page/recent changes patrolling; vandal reversion and warnings; finding sources and references for articles, etc.  Try again in 2000 edits' time, probably three or four months-worth of editing.
'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Has a whole bunch of good edits, has a good knowlege of policy, and is civil.  --
'''Support''', of course&mdash;excellent user. Should edit more in the WP namespace though. --
'''Support'''. Has a bunch of good edits and  a good editor--
'''Support''' Good user. Also see [[User:Brendenhull/RFA requirements|here]]. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Oppose''', not enough edits to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari. Will support in a few months if user becomes more active in projectspace. Also, I'm not convinced the user needs adminship.  All of the things in question 1 can be done without a mop. --
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari. I hate to come down with a case of ''editcountitis'', as this editor did some excellent work I've seen at [[Impossible Princess]]. Nonetheless, there is little displayed time in the Wikipedia namespace, which is a part of an admins duties.
'''Weak Oppose''' Lack of edits to Wikipedia namespace is a concern to me despite being here for more than a year. However, the quality of her edits are impressive. If user becomes more active in projectspace, I will definitely support her in about 3 months. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari.
Fails my criteria.
I think the nominee would be well served by a different nominator next time, should the nominee choose to try again later, for just as certain nominators are a sign of an excellent worry free candidate, others are a sign that a closer look is warranted. '''Oppose''' '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Oppose''', lacks of edits to Wikipedia namespace. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' - no need for the tools really seen --
'''Oppose''':  Going through the user's contributions, I see him or her beavering away at pop music articles, but no interaction at all with vandal fighting, page moves, AfD, CSD, TfD, etc.  In other words, I see someone editing and fitting in well as an editor, but not someone interested in/engaged in the messy side.  You don't need a mop if you're not cleaning up the messes.
'''Oppose''' per above. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Weak oppose''' per Siva. -→
'''Oppose'''.Changing from neutral to oppose, because of constant tampering and reversions by the nominator to my edit and question below, and failure of candidate or nominator to address my concern.
'''Oppose'''.Does not have any user templates signifing ability to communicate in any non-native lanague. :-(
'''Oppose''' per Geogre and the answers to questions, particularly #1 which gives no indication of the candidate's need for or understanding of the admin tools. [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', weak answers to the standard questions. A1 is about things that don't need adminship anyway, and A3 suggests lack of experience in an area vital to admins (how to comport oneself in conflict or under attack). And, Underneath-it-All, you don't reply at all to the important last part of Q3, "how will you deal with it in the future?" (I suppose you don't mean to suggest that "refusing to respond" is a helpful admin action, but it sounds a bit like it.)  If you were originally in too great a hurry to respond adequately to these questions, perhaps you'd like to add to your answers now? I for one will be prepared to reconsider my objection if you do.
'''Opposes.''' Please spend some more time answering the questions, and perhaps I will support.--
'''Oppose''' Those answers to the questions don't do it for me. --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Neutral'''. Not enough WP namespace edits; perhaps a lack of knowledge about process and policy. Question one seems to indicate a slight lack of knowledge of what admins do. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' I am voting this way since the nom put the nominee in a really tough spot, and didn't allow her the chance to really respond to the questiopns.
'''Neutral'''. Fails to meet my required 150 WP and 300 combined talk & user talk namespace edits. '''[[User:Kalathalan|<font color="blue">Kala</font>]]'''
'''Weak Support''' Although user has been active for only about 3 months, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Could be reading up on Wikipedia policies for the past year, thus the lack of edit counts. Anyway, I feel that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Moral Support''' please don't be discouraged if this RfA fails.
'''Moral Support''' He may not have had enough time for many edits but seems to be a good user. If not this time,I am sure , his RfA will succeed in a couple of months' time. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Moral Support'''Look forward to seeing you patrolling for vandals.
'''Oppose''', only active in recent months and only 9 edits to projectspace (as of toolserver lag). Edit summary usage is "meh" at best, with just 27% for minor edits.  Malformed RfA compounds this.  Become more active with *fD and whatnot and I'll support in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' per Rory. Most of the tasks described below don't require admin powers. I'd also like the user to provide evidence that he has a full understanding of relevant policy and protocol, if possible.
'''Oppose''', the RFA acceptance (no signature), lacks of project spaced edits. Nine?? Do more of xFDs and I will support you when you have the qualifications. Come back in a few months time. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''': Not enough edits to Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces; Poor edit summary usage; Self-nom not a great idea; Only 2000 edits  in 14 months is not a very good ratio; and as stated above by ''Terrance, Badgerpatrol'', and ''Rory096''. [[User:Chcknwnm|'''Ch''']]
'''Oppose''', not active enough in WP projects (at least the log shows that) or voting in AfD. If you improve this, I can support your next nomination. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Oppose''' - questions don't make me think you're quite ready yet sorry --
'''Oppose''', too few edits to Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose'''. Probably has the tools, needs more real-time seasoning. Can't find anything that tells me how this user would handle a dispute. Hope to see you back in a few months, or so.
'''Oppose''', would like to see more Wikiproject experience and edit summary usage.
'''Oppose''': too few edit summaries and too little attention to mechanics of writing in this RFA. Could benefit from more experience.
'''Oppose''': 2 months is not enough.
'''Oppose''' Hmmm, this user has not been here very long. --

'''Oppose'''. Inexperienced and seeking adminship almost desperately. A veiled threat (underneath his nomination) to leave the project does not instill confidence that he has the maturity to handle adminship. Neither experienced time nor project-space edit count are sufficient to know the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Maybe later in May or June?
'''Oppose''' Calling voters crazy in your nom statement isn't going to get you many support votes. --<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Not enough time as a consistent contributor. Reaction to legitmate concerns raised about suitability is also disconcerting.
Perhaps later. -
'''Neutral'''. Not enough wikipedia namespace edits. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''[[First Post]]! Support''' - '''
Whoops. '''Last edit for now Support.'''
'''Support''' I trust in his impartial use of sysop rights; familiarity with policy is a vague concern, but I'm not discomfited. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--Yep, you bet ya this Wikipedian is all but talented. --
'''Support'''--Someday you'll be ready. Even if you don't Succeed, don't give up.--
'''Oppose''' He has less than 1300 edits to articles since he came here in September 2004 with only about 200 edits before December 2005. That seems very low for over 1 and a half years. Also recent edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=35018903&oldid=35018816][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamist_terrorism&diff=35018816&oldid=35018351], a 3rr block, and his impatience over a page move [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslamist_terrorism&diff=35711071&oldid=35709340] has made me oppose. Otherwise he's probably a good editor, but I haven't seen the rest of his edits. --
'''Oppose''' The 3RR block is what did it for me. —
'''Oppose''' 3rr is a big no, try again in a few months --
'''Oppose''' Eek as above.
Cannot have edit-warring admins.
'''Oppose.''' Review of [[User_talk:Urthogie|this user's talk page]] reveals a shaky comprehension of Wikipedia policies, including 3RR, what constitutes spam, and removing AfD tags. Intentions overall seem good, but needs a while longer to have understanding that is required of admins.
'''Oppose''' Controversial as above.
'''Oppose''' per a.n.o.n.y.m. --
'''Oppose''' per 3RR block.  Seals the deal.
'''Oppose''': doesn't appear ready at this time.
'''Oppose''', user needs a bit more time to familiarise himself with some fundamental principles of Wikipedia such as [[WP:CON|building consensus]] and [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]. Consensus must be built through discussion, not revert warring. User has shown some improvement since the 3RR block though, and is now actually participating in discussion at [[Talk:Islamist terrorism]] (the recent AFD tag removal worries me though). Provided there are no more problems like this, I'll be happy to support in a couple of months. -
'''Oppose''' per Anonymous editor.
'''Oppose''', while I hate to make the optional questions a factor in an oppose vote, I have to say that the responses to <s>4, (not anymore)</s> 5, and (to an extent) 6 show that this user isn't too well-versed with Wikipedia policies and procedures yet. Think carefully about how policies are applied and how to approach other people. Also, hopefully this user won't get into any situations that result in a block. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''': Sounds like a good user, but 1,300 edits over 1.5 years means low activity, and I'm not too keen on edit warring, as has been mentioned above. <font style="color:#00BB55"><u><b>s</b>murray</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><u>inch</u></font>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]<font style="color:#00AA77"><u>ster</u></font><font style="color:#00AA77"><sup>(
Not yet.  --
'''Oppose''' for now, lacking experience (as previously mentioned) and the 3RR block doesn't make for a good admin just yet. <sub>└</sub><sup>'''
'''Oppose''' ditto to UkPaolo.  Plus, I'd really like to see a much higher use of minor edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''': Recent 3RR block is too bad. Without it I would support.--
'''Oppose'''  Caused mini-debacle at [[WP:SFD]] recently by nominating a stub for deletion, declaring towards the end of the discussion period he now wished a rename (and actually, rescope, without being in the least clear about this) and then after a short time declaring the existence of a consensus for this, where manifestly there was none.  And finally, unilaterally attempting to implement this, leaving most of the articles at the category redirect he'd just created.
'''Strong Oppose''' Not enough experience and time here on Wikipedia. You've only really been active for 2 months of those 1.5 years. You have only (as of Dec 30) 453 mainspace edits, 273 talk, 187 unique articles, and 367 User edits. '''The total edits are only 1433.''' I am afraid that you are not ready yet. Come back in 6 months with better qualifications and I will be happy to support. '''
'''Oppose''' lack of experience.
Oppose, and uh... [[Special:Contributions/Nimbat230]] - your supporter sure found this RFA quick... &ndash;
'''Support''', as nominator. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—
'''Support''' - This user will not abuse the tools. I personally see no reason to oppose, seeing as I was promoted at 3 months with 3000 edits. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' I am sure this user will not abuse.
'''Support''' --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Firefox. I've seen Viridae a around a bunch, and I've been impressed with the way  he conducts himself. There's just no good reason for me to not support.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' Dedicated contributor who is highly unlikely to abuse the tools. Unfortunately it is quite apparent that few share my POV here & this RFA is quite reminiscent of my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit|first RFA]]. My advice: Relax, let some time go by, keep up your amazing contributions and re-apply again sometime in October-November. I see you as an stellar future admin. --
'''Support''' I found Virdae to be a very helpful user recently when I was making enquiries regarding my edit count at the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)|'Village Pump']].
'''Support'''. Great job so far!  I think the candidate's varied experience to this point likely has given him a firm grasp on policy areas.  I hope he will commit to quickly learning what he doesn't already know.  I don't think arguments based on tenure or edit count are convincing for this candidate. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' 3 months is enough time, lots of users passed with 3 months before
'''Support''' a valuable contributor to ''articles'' plus enough maturity for the mop.  Even if he is not totally familiar with all the weird little nooks and crannies of this place, he can learn on the job--the only irreversible thing you can do with the mop is piss people off and he doesn't show a tendency to do that.
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', seems to be good at dealing with people. --
'''Strong support''' per FireFox and Srikeit.
'''Support''' per nom.  Viridae is ready for the mop.
'''Support''' per above. Would make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' I feel this RfA is a bit premature.  Three months is usually not enough time to gain the experience necessary to become an administrator.
'''Oppose''' per Hoopydink. Has not been here at least 5 months, as stated in [[User:Tuspm/RFA Criteria|my standards]]. Will gladly support if you request adminship again in a few months. --<font color="blue">[[User:Tuspm|'''Tu''']]</font><font color="green">
'''Weak Oppose''' nice editor, too soon. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Two more months in the oven and you have a support
'''Oppose''' Per above, a bit too soon, although would happily support in a few more months. --
'''Weak oppose,''' a little too early.--
'''Oppose''' User would benefit from a few more months of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Fails two of my criteria (less than 6 months, and less than 200 maintalk edits). Will most likely support in November.
'''Oppose''' Too new and lacks a great deal of communicative experience.
'''Oppose''', too new. --
'''Oppose''', just too soon, sorry.
'''Oppose.''' Too soon for me.
'''Weak Oppose.''' Per above.  --
'''Neutral''' More time is required to get to grips with the complexities of Wiki policy and procedures.  Would be happy to support if this user comes up for re-assessment in the near future. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Neutral''', too soon. Come back in a month or two. --
'''Neutral''' per Guinnog. Please continue to contribute; in 3 months another RfA will surely be successful.
'''Neutral''' for now. -
'''Neutral''', too soon.
'''Neutral''': The edits and summary usage are looking good, but he's been only here for almost half the time I'd love to see admins get promoted. --Slgr<font color="#228B22">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|@]]</font>ndson <small>(
'''Support''' I went through the user's contributions and they were very prolific. User has a 'clean' history and I think he has handled his first advocacy case quite well, despite the fact that it's an extremely difficult case.--
'''Support''' Walton is super! He would make a great addition.--
'''Support''' Trustworthy editor, that has made good contributions.
'''Oppose''' The answers to the questions (particularly #1) appear insufficient. Additionally, the candidate has demonstrated inexperience with RfA ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=87366730&oldid=87158097], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tango&diff=prev&oldid=87365610], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Walton_monarchist89&diff=prev&oldid=87366960]). Don't be discouraged, but instead try again around March. -- '''
'''Oppose''' per Tariqabjotu.  I'd like to see a little more experience, and keep in mind that you can preview each edit before it goes through.
'''Oppose''' Not enough experience on Wikipedia namespace or article namespace. Also has weak answers, especially Q1. '''
'''Weak Oppose''' - unfamiliar with policy and RfA, little experience
(after 2 edit conflicts) '''Oppose''' insufficient experience. I don't understand why people are saying he's a prolific editor. Is there something wrong with the edit counter? 124 mainspace edits, 19 WP and 427 total edits...I hate to be the only one with editcountitis, but no. Also unimpressed with answers.
'''Oppose''' The user's answers to all three, not just the first, questions make me think he/she does not understand what an administrator does.
'''Oppose'''. Normally, I'm against editcountitis, but 1 Wikipedia talk edit shows a lot less discussion about Wikipedia than is good for an admin. Also, not enough experience actually vandal fighting. Article writing is good, but admins don't get tools for more article writing. Get involved more in policy discussions, do more vandal fighting, maybe some AfD work, and try again in a few months. -
'''Neutral''' Met Walton Monarchist when s/he did a tactful update of an article which up til then had a lot of "revert nonsense" "restore facts" "rvv" as its recent history. ([[Nobility]], March this year). I was impressed. I would support unconditionally were it not for his/her habit of ignoring edit summaries. They're so important when wading through article histories. This is my single reservation.
'''Abstain''' per [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Walton monarchist89]]. I'd be happy to consider this RfA if it is restarted, if/when this happens. '''
'''Neutral''' I can't in good conscience support an editor with only 425 total edits: its just too few for you to have a good, demonstrated grasp of policy. Admins must have a wide and deep understanding of policy, as they are tasked with enforcing it. Even if you limit your use of the admin tools to just a few areas, such as preventing vandalism, you have to know the wide sweep and detailed application of many of our policies. I won't oppose you however as I remain impressed with the work you've done and believe you have the makings of a very fine admin. I recommend you take a look at my [[User:Gwernol/AdminTips|Admin Tips]] which describes my personal views of what a good admin candidate should do. Its a good idea to get involved with [[WP:AFD]] and [[WP:RFA]] discussions to improve your exposure to policy. After that I'd recommend a [[WP:ER|editor review]] in another few months and if that goes well, come back to us. I have every expectation you will get a satisfactory outcome next time round.
'''Neutral'''
'''I beat the nominator Support!''' (shh, play along now). Anyway, edits may not be the highest ever, but is a civil user and answered the questions well.
'''Support''' Edit count not all that high, but seems like a good user and good admin material. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support''', good user and answers, but I would like to see more edits in future. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Meets my standards, and I would trust the user with admin tools. <span style="color:#252579;font-family:Segoe;">~Linuxerist</span>[[Image:Tux-linux logo.svg|15px]][[Image:Nuvola apps emacs.png|15px]]  <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#a9a9a9;">[[WP:Esperanza|E]]/
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support'''. Meets my standards and appears to be a good user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Has a good number of talk, user talk, and project edits. Even though he doesn't have that many total edits, he is unlikely to abuse admin tools. '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Siva1979.
'''Support''' I just came across an exceedingly positive interaction between the candidate and another user, which led to my reviewing the candidates other contributions and voting this way.  I don't bother with edit counts much; I simply see a good addition to the admin staff who clearly can go above and beyond. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' --<font color="red">[[User talk:All in|t A]]</font><font color="blue">
'''Oppose'''. Ignoring the low edit count, the nominee still needs to participate in some more Wikipedian projects (especially something like [[WP:AfD|AfD]]), and perhaps also help to get an article (or portal/list) to featured status. Doing so would demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, which is essential for admins. Other than that, the nominee seems to be a great editor.--<font color="red">[[User talk:TBC|☆]]</font>
'''Strong Oppose''' way too soon after revert warning in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]] which happened about a week ago. I'm glad he apologized though and Im willing to support in a couple of months
'''Oppose''' Sorry, must oppose. Recently filed arbcom case shows lack of understanding of policy and the potential to be disruptive. Need to put months of good editing between RFA and this incident.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience.  As well as what was already brought up, I saw that your recent use of edit summaries is only 85%.  Admins should be pretty darn close to 100%. --
'''Oppose'''. FloNight refers above to Mike's attempt on May 14 to bring an RfAr against Bishonen, FeloniousMonk, and myself over a very trivial issue. In his defense, he withdrew it and left a gracious apology on our talk pages. Nevertheless, it was a recent incident, and I feel he needs more experience before I could support him. For anyone interested, the situation in brief was that I reverted the post of a banned editor, Mike objected, and then escalated it to WP:AN/I [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Disagreement_with_SlimVirgin_Over_Removal_of_Talk_Page_Comments.2C_Removal_of_Unreplied-To_Comments.2C_Etc.|here]] and then WP:RfAr [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=53190063#WCityMike_v._SlimVirgin.2C_Bishonen.2C_Felonious_Monk here].
'''Oppose'''. I'll admit I haven't investigated any of your contributions outside of the ArbCom thing, which I followed as it happened. Assuming they are all stellar except for that, it's still too soon since that debacle. Kudos, though, for being able to turn around and withdraw the case as a mistake -- many couldn't do such a thing and would rather drive their account flaming into the ground screaming all the way down -- so hopefully we'll see you here again in the future. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Too few main space edits for me.  Also, concerned about the recent incident.  Would support in the future if (1) no further incidents (2) edit count higher and (3) more edit summary use.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience and to demonstrate a better understanding of foundational issues and conflict management before he's ready.
'''Oppose'''. The answer to question four shows that the candidate either doesn't understand policy, or plans to work against it.  Also per FloNight and the associated discussion.  --
'''Oppose'''. For the most part WCityMike is a very good user, and I am sure he will be a good admin in the future. However, the recently filed ArbCom case and the answer to Question 4 suggest to me that he lacks experience working with our policies. I am sure this will come with time, and I will support any future request if he continues to develop as an editor.
'''Oppose''' More edit summary use. Slightly more edits...
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' Should have waited at least two months after ArbCom incident to prove the lessons really had been learnt. Question 4 answer shows serious misunderstanding of [[WP:NOR|NOR]]. But basically well motivated and should get more experience and come back later.
'''Oppose''' - the user's bedbug edit, which has become a big deal and the candidate still supports, demonstrates lack of precision in his judgment. -
'''Oppose''' per [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] above.  Bringing up an RFAr and arguing with administrators doesn't bode well for him becoming an admin.  The potential for wheel warring and further arguing is just too great.  --
'''Oppose''' per above. You could still learn a little more from the ArbCom stuff. Take it easy, and stay out of unessecary problems/disuptes and I'll support next time maybe.'''
'''Oppose''': We have to be careful with dispute, be as Zen as possible, and seek out the center of indifference, and I'm not sure the user is there.
'''Oppose''' Per SlimVirgin.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient edit experience.--
'''Oppose''' per all of above. Fails [[User:Mailer_diablo/One_Featured_Article|Diablo Test]]
'''Oppose''' My only interaction with WCityMike has been through the events outlined at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-21 MDD4696]]. Although I think he acted appropriately, I also think that he let the situation get to him. He spent a lot of time defending himself against a relatively minor incident; I think he should've let the facts speak for themselves. I think it's important that administrators be able to [[Wikipedia:Deny recognition|deny recognition]] in certain instances. People always complain about administrators... it's only when they have a valid point that I think it's worth spending some of my limited time to justify myself. ~
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose''' study up on wiki policy &mdash; '''''[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' minor arbitration disputes and answer to #4 below show he's still learning the ropes.  Seems sincerly intrested in being helpful though so in good time ... -
'''Oppose''' as per above, especially due to low edit count. --
User meets all my criteria re. editing, but oppose voters' reasons concern me.
'''Neutral'''&mdash;can't quite oppose because the candidate definitely is closing in, but the lousy timing of the RfAr and the answer to Q4 below (suggesting a reread of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]) means I can't support yet. Won't be long, though. :) <tt>
'''Neutral''' Wish I could support, but its a rather low edit count, coupled with the oppose voters comments and the answer to Q4 below.  Look forward to supporting in the future. .:.
'''Neutral''' – given relatively little experience plus the concerns raised above –
'''Neutral''' When first I reviewed the user's contributions, I was prepared to support, but the misunderstanding of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]], fundamental precepts of the project, concerned me; Mike, though, has shown on his talk page and elsewhere a great willingness to learn how better to interpret [[WP:EE]] and has been altogether amicable in dealing with those who have questioned his understanding of original research (and it should be said, of course, that his misapplication of policy was not toward a tendentious end, but, instead, in the spirit of disseminating information).  Nevertheless, I can't be wholly confident in this user's grasp of policy, and so, even as I'm certain he would not use the tools malevolently, I'm not certain he wouldn't inadvertently use them inappropriately.  I will be happy to support in the future, though...
'''Neutral''' per RadioKirk --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]

'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=49088563&oldid=49074120 Malformed] request and too few edits.
'''Oppose''' user has 260 edits according to the broken counter, but for me adding up manually, around 450 edits. Also only 3 months where there is any editing.
'''Oppose''' Way too few edits. Green Day and Star Wars have plenty of info, to me anyway .May want to pull out now before you face 7 days of insults and total hell.
'''Oppose''' Way under my experience stadards (see counts below). —
'''Oppose''' - I just don't think this user is ready for sysop yet, please do try again in a bit when you've had more experience --
'''Oppose''' - Far too little experience, fixing up the articles mentioned above does not require admin responsibilities, and a history of block threats, vandalism and warnings that extend to the current month. Spend some more time editing, get involved with some WikiProjects and learn the ropes some more before considering an RfA.
'''Oppose''' - Not enough experience yet–both editwise and timewise. Also, I didn't like how this user responded the first bit of the second question–it seemed like that this user was not able to answer the question with full confidence.<b>—
'''Oppose''' Malformed, time, promoting his RfA as a "vote" on his userpage <span class="plainlinks"><font color="green">[[User:Admrboltz/Esperanza|A]]</font>
Per above, suggest withdrawal.
'''Oppose''' I have a little trouble trusting an ex-vandal with administrative priviledges, but at least some remorse has been felt. Let's see if the edit count goes up in the next 6 months and maybe reconsider.
'''Oppose'''. I have respect for Wikipedians who wants to clean up their acts. Take your goodwill and using it to further improve the encyclopedia. I noticed that you are a part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars|the Star Wars Wikiproject]]. I suggest getting more involved there; I'm sure that they can use your expertise. Increase your involvement, and I will be happy to reconsider your RfA in the future. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Support''' as nominator. —&nbsp;
'''Support''', has improved since last nomination. &mdash;
'''Support''' -- I had thoughts of nominating this editor myself. No need for that now. A good candidate. -
Edit conflict weak support. &ndash;
'''Support''' like last time. --
'''Quadruple Boople Edit Confloople Supportation''' - Seems to know how things work, plus is sane. Sane users make good administrators. Therefore, Mr. Werdna would make a fine and dandy administorator. —
'''Troppus... niagA''' --
'''Support''', He truly deserves to become an admin. Always a hard and diligent worker. -
'''Delist''' - wasting our time on people who are already admins. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
Strong support for this civil, friendly user who has contributed enormously to the project. --
'''Support''' about time. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#3366CC">--'''jam'''</font>]]
'''Support.''' "I thought he already ''was'' an admin!" (pardon the cliché). In all seriousness, Werdna has always struck me as a responsible and diligent editor. I run into his username all the time while fixing vandalism or the like (usually because he's beaten me to it), and I see him frequently in various Wikimedia IRC channels, where he is a responsible channel operator and a fun guy to boot. And to top it off, he runs a bot responsible for thousands of useful edits. What more could you want in an admin? I have no qualms about giving him the keys to the mop closet. --
'''Suppose.''' One of the best there is.
'''Strong support'''. Any user who makes the effort to create a robot to improve the project strongly deserves adminship. Good luck! --'''[[User:Alex9891|<span style="color:blue">Al</span>]][[User:Alex9891/Esperanza|<span style="color:green">e</span>]]
'''Edit conflict-support''' - of course! — [[User:Gary Kirk|<font color="#9370DB" face="courier new">G</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#FF7F00">a</font>]]
'''Support''' same as last time - for the exellent work he does here.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support:''' It's time Werdna moved onto bigger and better things. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''Support''' for his good work and cogent statements --
'''Support''' based on contributions to the project and strong answers to questions (1-3, and <s>I hope soon 4</s> now 4 as well).  The concerns raised on prior RfA's and in the Opposes below are legitimate, however; please make an extra effort to remain civil even to those you strongly disagree with, and use the block tool very conservatively to begin with.
'''Support'''. Seen this user around, good impression.
'''Support'''. I've also seen this user around and i believe he is trustable and could do great things with sysop powers. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support''', very solid qualifications.
'''Support''', [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] •
'''Support''' - FireFox sums it up perfectly, Werdna has a lot more power than most admins on this site atm w/ Werdnabot.  I see no issues in handing over the mop which will help in bot work a bit :) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Per Slowking Man - I seriously thought you were already an admin - as you aren't one yet,  I think you should be, so I support <strong>[[User:Martinp23|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[User:Martinp23/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]]
'''Support'''. Definetely.'''
'''Strong support''' great contributor who's done some great work. As I mentioned in the previous RfA, the objections there seemed unusually insubstantial, and I don't see any substantial new ones raised.
'''Support'''. I can trust this user with the tools.
'''Support''' with the promice asking fellow admins for help when you get stuck on something.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' - good contributor.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' I thought you were an Admin. but seriously Good edirot with experience <font color="SteelBlue">[[User:Aeon1006|Æon]]</font> <font color="red"><sup>[[User talk:Aeon1006|Insanity Now!]]</sup></font><sub><font color="Green">
'''Weak support''', after reading the previous RfAs and oppose reasons they seem rather trivial and shows the user has character. So support.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support!!!''' - He isn't one yet?! [[user:crazytales56297|ct]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>
'''Support''' just like last time --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', of course, would make a great admin. --
'''Support'''.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''' People are opposing due to Werdna's actions in IRC and because he voices his opinion? Those are not reasons to oppose. Why should candidates for sysopping be forced to hold no opinion whatsoever, shut their mouth, and simply fit in with the crowd? I for one, believe that the RFA process has some major flaws that need to be addressed (the Carnildo RFA is addressing some of those problems by showing bureaucrats can have more power). As for consensus, if consensus is damaging to the encyclopedia, [[WP:IAR|ignore all rules]] applies, of course, and understanding IAR is as, if not more important as understanding consensus. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Oppose''' Recently Werdna booted and banned me from #wikipedia with a rude comment that announced his please in taking the action. My entire comment on #wikipedia was saying hello and asking to chat with him later. It is obvious that Wernda is upset about his last RFA because he raises the issue repeatedly on several wikipedia related IRC channels and RFA talk. Unfortunately his rash action shows me that issues related to incivility and poor judgment remain and Werdna can not be trusted with admin tools.
'''Oppose'''. Barely a mention in the nomination of the previous RfA - and not even a link to the RfA's under the old username. Chacor provided, but this really should have been something done by the nominator or the nominee - to say nothing of discussing in detail the objections raised therein. Besides, two months (part of which was a wikibreak) is really uncomfortably short. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. Reading through the previous failed RfA's does not give me confidence about this editor's ability to act as a cool, calm and objective admin. His attitude towards FloNight, regardless of forum, is highly inappropriate. I am interested to read his response above to Dlohcierekim.
'''Oppose''' I have not seen sufficient improvement since the first and second Rfa's to support.

'''Opppose''' I think that Werdna is in general a good and productive editor. Each concern above by itself would most likely not be enough for me to oppose. However, the combination is worrisome. In particular, what happens on #wikipedia should not be a primary concern as per our normal rules about off-wiki issues. However, for adminship candidates it is reasonable to look at outside wiki behavior if it provides insight into what the user is likely to do with admin tools. In that light, the combination of the earlier No-incident a long with Flo's oppose vote and the concerns raised by Kirill above make me conclude that Werdna would be likely to use the tools in a unilateral fashion with little regard to policy or consensus. I therefore must oppose.
'''Weak oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Accused [[User:ALoan]] of 'theatrics' and a "Meatball GoodBye" when he was feeling sad [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=73932251] Considers the concerns raised at his first RFA ridiculous and is still indignant that he wasn't promoted then as Kirill Lokshin's diffs above show. I hope to be able to support in the future if he makes more of an effort to take on board what I think is legitimate criticism of his conduct.
'''Opppose''' as per comments above.
'''Oppose''' per Kirill Lokshin and Jossi.
'''Oppose''' Blanking talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=74273977]  sections [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=74277224] doesn’t indicate to me a great deal of good judgment. Good contributor for sure, but not someone I would feel comfortable with the admin bit. Seems to take consensus less than seriously and also has a problem assuming good faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=73932251]…. Theatrics??? I think Kirill Lokshin sums it up pretty well.
'''Switch to oppose''' per
'''Oppose''', sorry, but there are just too many civility issues for me to support at this time. --
'''Oppose'''. Too many concerns about the user's civility and attitude towards consensus and admin powers. Doesn't seem to have taken on board many of the genuine concerns raised by other users in the previous RfA.
'''Oppose''', still incivil and terse; myriad ''individually'' small concerns lead me to the same conclusion I had in his 2nd RfA; user is not able to discern consensus and deal with stressors well. Continue to be an editor, your stress will be lower, please. -- ''
'''Oppose''' - lack of experience with images [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Werdna&page=][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=100&target=Werdna&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=6] as well as for attacking many of the oppose votes here --
'''Oppose''' per basically everyone above, particularly Rx StrangeLove. Still too many civility problems for me to support right now.
'''Oppose''' per Lokshin and StrangeLove too authoritarian and too much wikidrama and disruption
'''Oppose''' per Kirill Lokshin. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' for now.
'''Neutral''' In his last [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 2|RfA]], I opposed his nomination due to civility issues. I believe that he has improved greatly in his interaction with other users. But I feel that it is too soon to support this candidate for now. But if this nomination passes, I will be delighted for him. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', I'll take Mark's word for it \o/ --'''<font color="crimson">
'''Support'''. Seems like an experienced user. We need more admins closing AfDs. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
While the user is prone to being persistent about things, persistence is often good. Acts in good faith and seems to be hoping to do something useful for the project.
'''Support''' because Mark Gallagher is not going to put up a bad candidate. Also, I'm glad he has contributed to discussion on BBQ; we need more admins willing to do that. —[[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] <sup><s>
'''Support''' I see currently no reason to oppose. And commenting about age as an indicator of maturity is just childish ;) -
'''Belated <del>lesbian</del> nominator support'''.  Who's a silly billy, then?
'''Weak support''', the wording of user's vote in HRE's RfA is a bit harsh, but he did apologise on his [[User talk:Werdna648#HRE RFA vote|user talk page]]. No reason to oppose.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' - age is not a factor --
'''Support''' An experienced user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' having read the oppose votes to this point, and the HRE RFA, and talk pages etc., I trust this user with the tools
'''Support'''. While some of Werdna648's user interactions suggest a mildly underdeveloped sense of decorum, his ability to reflect and (when appropriate) appologize off-sets most of my concerns. --
<del><nowiki><del></nowiki></del>'''Support'''. At least in my dealings with Werdna, despite our...differences, she has been cool, calm, collected, and to the point. I couldn't think of a better canidate who's name starts with the letter W<del><nowiki></del></nowiki></del><sub>''
'''Support'''&trade; --<font color="orange"><strike>''
'''Support''', doesn't seem likely to abuse admin tools. —
'''Support''' Changed from Oppose, I read through question 4 below and read his explanation as to the reason I opposed. I didn't think he was that bad an editor to begin with, but that comment stuck to me for some reason. Since this is effectivly the last RFA I am going to vote at, I want to make a more positive impact rather than negative.
'''Support.''' Committed editor.
'''Weak support'''
'''Support''' per nom, Francis, and Locke, to name three.
'''Support'''
'''Wizardry series support''' per nom
'''Support''' per nom. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''' per me and Werdna's conversation on IRC, people deserve second changes and i am convinced that this comment was a one time thing. Adminship is no big deal and admins are human and do screw up too.
'''Support''' per nom. [[Image:Flag of India.svg|20px]]<b>[[User:Srikeit|Srik]]<font color="green">[[User:Srikeit/Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' for great justice.
'''Support''', by the way -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - changed from oppose after reading his response to the vote on HRE's RfA. — FireFox (
'''Support''' - I agree with you. :) --
'''Support''': reasons for opposing don't convince me.
'''Support''', I don't see any problems with him. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Support''' He is a good editor - aaclarkcdr <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by
'''Support'''; I trust Mark and don't see anything wrong with the user.
'''Support''' Seems like a very worthy candidate
<font color="green">'''Šυррōгt'''</font> per fuddlemark, RobChurch and question 4 –
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': Great user, seems to act responsible for age, so lets go for it, it's about time we show that young people have the talent and to stop putting them down, so all for it! --
'''Support''' as I cant find a reason why not. He isn't perfect... Noone is perfect. --<small>
'''Support''' Good activity all over Wikipedia. Interesting spectrum of supporters, which is a good thing.
'''Support''' we all make mistakes, Werdna has the good grace to apologise for it. He might not make it in this time, but he's willing to work away at the backlog and that's a valuable thing for admins to do. If he could just work on some articles and get them to FA status, I'd give him a strong support. -
'''Support'''. Racist-baiting isn't a good idea... but hey, that's one less mistake for you to make in the future, right? This user would probably help out the 'pedia.
'''Weak oppose''' for now. Nothing personal, but I don't think you should have jumped into the Brandt situation. Also, listing your nom at the wrong end of the [[WP:RFA]] page is slightly concerning; do you not know how RFA works?
'''Oppose''' per all of above.  The problem wasn't "having zero tolerance for racists"; the problem was that you seemed to lump all HRE opposers together as racists.  That lack of discernment, together with the low edits/time ratio, convinces me you need more experience.
'''Oppose''' Requires more experience. --
'''Oppose''' only 500 article edits, and from the userpage it indicates only a few articles?
'''Oppose''' per your recent uncivil comments.--
'''Oppose''' lack of experience, judgement and maturity.--
'''Oppose''', lack of experience. I'd prefer to see more edits all around.
'''Oppose''' needs more experience in main article space and article talk to better understand how this encyclopedia is built. Also I prefer to see an uninterrupted, healthy level of activity for at least 3 months. Could support in a month or two.
'''Oppose''' I've looked at contribs and talk page and he doesn't strike me as admin material. I don't see maturity, I don't see full understanding of process, nor do I see wide community involvement. Sorry. --
'''Oppose'''. A future admin. Spend a few more months on Wikipedia and I will be happy to support you in the future. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''(^'-')^''''']]
'''Oppose''' needs more experience --
'''Oppose''' partly because of the HRE RFA thing but mainly because others, whose judgement I value, are neutral or opposed. Adminship is no big deal, so waiting a few months to be nom'd again is nothing at all.
'''Sad, mega-sorry, dont-hate-me Oppose''' Per some uncivilness and borderline personal attacks on the HRE nom... that said, if you can demonstrate 6 weeks without any uncivil comments, I'll fully support a re-nom. -'''
'''Opppse''' needs more experience --
'''Strong oppose''' I'm sorry, but I can't see how anyone who can leave the note "Get the hell out you stupid racists" in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHolyRomanEmperor3a&diff=50251779&oldid=50245412 RfA] or anywhere else on Wiki is in any position to deal with difficult issues in the best way. I am aware of the apology for it, but the comment was only made 5 days ago. It doesn't matter who it's directed at: it's still unacceptable. I don't accept promises for future conduct; I am judging on a recent reality. Prove restraint and come back later.
'''Oppose''' calling your fellow editors "racists" just isn't right.
'''Oppose''', should not be promoted so soon after a decidedly unacceptable edit.
'''Oppose''': not ready.
'''Oppose''' - Needs to be more civil in future, which is easily done. --
'''Oppose''' try again in 6 months.

'''Oppose''' I find the number of edits to the main space is really too low for an admin, sorry--
'''Neutral'''. Needs a bit more experience.
'''Neutral''' Changed from oppose after user showed maturity in his answer to my question. <font color="FFA200"></font>[[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#D70000"><big>_-'''M'''</big></font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="cursor:help"><font color="#898989"><small><sup>'''''o'''''</sup></small></span>]]
'''Neutral'''. Better with more experience.--
'''Neutral''', not enough experience, hope to see greater involvement and maturity before a successful RfA in a couple of months <b>
'''Neutral''', not enough experience.
'''Neutral''', I like the user but not enough talk page or mainspace edits. Also, there's no category edits.
'''Neutral''', same motivations as [[User:Computerjoe|Computerjoe]].  Werdna648 seems pretty committed to improving the quality of Wikipedia as a project, and I think this will make him a good administrator (be it now or later), but there's really no better way to demonstrate commitment than to invest time and effort into the mainspace, where it's needed the most.
'''Neutral''', leaning oppose.  A committed and enthustiastic editor and in time will be a good admin.  The question is whether that time is now or later.  I lean later, in part because of concerns about judgement as evidenced in the HRE RFA.  [[User:Bucketsofg|<font color="#DF0001"><b>Buck</b></font>]]
Probably unfair that I happened to catch this on RCPatrol, but ... First '''Support'''! Go get 'em Werdna! <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Cleared for adminship''' Per my nom above. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' A well rounded user with heavy community involvement. Easily trusted to not abuse the tools. <font color="DarkGreen">
'''Support''' I swear you already were... I should pay more attention.
'''Support'''. Definitely worthy of the job, and has already contributed greatly with Werdnabot. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]]
'''troppuS''' rof andreW --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as I did last time. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I personally vouch for his trustworthiness and his superb credentials. Andy's an awesome candidate, just the kind that makes you wanna say "I wish ´''I''´ would have been the one to nominate him!"
'''Support'''.... Looks good to me! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' I voted this way the last go-round and I've seen nothing to change my opinion of the candidate
'''Support''' Had a look at your contribs and you seem to be doing a fantastic job. No misgivings at all. Good luck.
'''Support''' Good user.
'''Support''' will make effective use of the mop.
'''Support''' even though the user doesn't have a huge amount of edits like most admins, the answers to the questions seemed pretty good, and contributions mentioned in answer 2 seemed quite significant.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support''' because you're an incredible user who deserves it. --'' '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' I seriously thought he already was one.
'''Support''', RFA cliche #1 '''
'''Support''', strongly.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' - --
'''Support''' - good user. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' good quality edits. <font color="green">
'''Support''', cannot resist the cliche. I always thought he was an admin. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''; Werdna's done a lot of good work and would be a good admin.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', I like his answer to Hort Graz q5. ~[[User:Cchan199206|Chris]] <small>([[user talk:cchan199206|talk]]/
'''Support''' - give him the tools. :) --
'''Support''' Looks good.--
'''Strong Support''' - per my statement and Pilotguy (who is cleared to nominate) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' I've observe'd Werdna's action in the past few days, and I believe it further proves his preparedness to be an admin.
'''Strong Support''' this user has helped me with problems ive had on wikipedia, the wide contribs range is a nice bonus, hence making this strong.

'''Support''' great contributor, especially on the technical side. Also expressing bafflement at the amount of opposition generated by a request for explanation.
'''Support''' Uncivil is only a state of mind man...
'''Support''' Fark the opposers! All hail our new overlords! --
'''Support''' per above.<strong>&nbsp;[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Support''', reliable contributor. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]]
'''Support''', developers need tools. I do not see his RfA's diff as exeptionally uncivil.
'''Support'''  [[User:Searchme|<font color="#007FFF">Jo]]</font><font color="green">
'''Support'''. Despite the concerns below, I think he fully deserves to be an administrator –
'''Support''' hell yeah!
'''Cliche Forgot Your Last RFA Failed Because You Are That Great Of A User Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks like a solid user who is determined to help Wikipedia. I can overlook some minor lapses in judgement and mistakes, as I hope others overlook mine. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme Lesbian Support''' - Nice person to deal with, and I can't get over how awesome his invention is. —
'''Support''': he's a nice bloke.
'''Support''' per "the No incident". Requests for adminship is not a vote, nor intended to be a vote. Pointing out that this is the case was the correct action, for which werdna is to be commended.
'''Support''' per the previously mentioned bot. That thing ROCKS OUT LOUD! Also makes good constructive edits.
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support''' Everthing above.  Incivil comments can be found in everyone's history; we're only human.  The user does not ''have a history'' of rudeness and impropriaty.
'''Support''' per developers need tools, per this user is human and seems to learn from his mistakes, and per ITTUWAA (I Thought This User Was Already [an] Admin). --
'''Support''' I have decided that "incident" isn't an "incident" at all.  Wernda got to the point.  Don't beat the bush, shoot it. --
'''Support''': I do not believe that he/she shall be able to misuse the tools beyond the level the same (admin tools) are being misused currently! Are they really misused? There is surely a system to make the administrators accountable for the misuse as and when spotted. Actually, adminship is not a big deal, and all true wikipedians should be provided with these tools. --
'''Support''' -- seems level headed, fair and an asset to the project
'''Support''' -- I'm pretty sure that the "'No' Incident" has been blown way out of proportion.  --
'''Strong Support''' Werdna648 is a good editor and he would make a great admin. I do not understand how his first RfA failed. [[User:Fredil Yupigo|Fr]][[User:Fredil Yupigo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Per the opposes, which as Werdna pointed out, are worth five times as much. Gotta love Wikipedian logic. <font color="#4682B4">[[User:Karmafist|Karm]]</font>a<font color="#E32636">[[User talk:Karmafist|fist]]</font><sup> '''
'''Support''' per karmafist. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I would trust this user to be a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose.''' I was also annoyed by some of the oppose votes at Simetrical's RFA but the comment "No.", though annoying and unhelpful, is not "exceptionally uncivil" or potentially worthy of a block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duncharris#Your_vote_on_Simetrical.27s_RfA.] The block button is the most sensitive admin tool and maybe Werdna would gain by hanging around here a bit longer to see how it's used in practice. Werdna is clearly a good contributor and I look forward to supporting in the future. I wouldn't even have noticed this issue if it hadn't been for Werdna's link to it so thumbs up for disclosure.
I don't know Werdna prior to Simetrical's RFA, but I find his behaviour there to be disturbing.  Not only did s/he [[User_talk:Duncharris#Your_vote_on_Simetrical.27s_RfA.|challenge Dunc's vote]] in a manner that was incivil and aggressive, s/he also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADuncharris&diff=61947750&oldid=61916601 threatened to block] Dunc for his response.  While he later struck through the text, blocks for incivility are not made "because this user pisses me off".  This suggests that s/he really isn't ready for adminship yet.  Thus, I feel obligated to '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' per "lack of experience, judgement and maturity" as evidenced by 685 mainspace edits, behavior at RfA/HRE3 & RfA/Simetrical, and other admittedly minor misdeeds, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Werdna648&diff=prev&oldid=58521907 this] (I know it's not against any rules, please don't yell at me.) - <b>
'''No'''
'''Oppose''' Per Guettarda. Werdna showed questionable judgement at Simetrical's RFA.
'''Oppose''' I opposed last time and I don't see any reason to change my mind. Perhaps the IRC cartel will muscle him in but I don't see admin material just yet myself. --
'''Oppose'''. I just don't see enough evidence of this person being ready and per Crazy Russian.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, not enough edits for me. [[User:HighwayCello|H]]<font color="#009933">[[User:HighwayCello/Esperanza|ig]]</font>
'''Oppose''' Recent evidence of improper behavior at Simetrical's RfA is too troubling.
'''Oppose'''. I believe the Simetrical situation was handled in a tactless manner, this, along with the limited number of mainspace edits, suggests to me that Werdna is not ready for adminship at this time. I will probably support at a later time if Werdna displays a more even temperament in his interactions with other users.
'''<s>Oppose</s> Strong oppose'''. Werdna has obviously done many good things around Wikipedia, but I am concerned about being able to keep a cool head in confrontational situations.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHolyRomanEmperor3a&diff=50251779&oldid=50245412]  The incident with the Simetrical RFA above also gave me pause, especially because it was so recent. Though I realize that a civil demeanor is not a ''general'' requirement for admins, it is still a requirement for ''me'' to support someone's adminship.  I recommend working harder at civility, and trying again in a few months. --
'''Oppose'''. "No" incident. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. When I first saw this RfA, I wondered why so many people opposed it. After going through the details myself, I can't help but oppose for civility issues. However, at the same time, I also compliment Andrew for doing good work for the community. If he has understood his mistakes and decides to apply again after some time, I would be leaning towards support. &mdash;
'''Weak Oppose''' Firstly I wish to give credit to this user for contributing greatly to Wikipedia. He is a good user and his presence here is an asset to the project. However, the lack of civility is an immense concern. Administrators need to show a high standard of civility. However, if this user learns from his mistakes, I would definitely support him in the future. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Oppose''' Per exacly the same reasons as stated above by [[User:Siva1979|Siva1979]].
'''Oppose''' I cannot overlook the facts presented by the other opposers and I do not believe in uncivil people for adminship. Maybe after these disputes pass and attitude is improved I will think about changing my vote. --<font color="336699">
'''Oppose''' for now. The incident causing civility concern just happened days ago; if the candidate shows sign of improvement then I would probably support in the future. Another small part of my reason is the low edit count in mainspace. --
'''Weak Oppose''' The incident mentioned is enough to make me tender a very regretful 'no' vote, but with great disappointment, as this guy obviously majorly contributes to Wikipedia and after reading about this guy's contributions (and seeing the Werdnabot all over people's talk pages) I ''really'' wanted to vote 'support'.  If there's a third nom and he can show improved civility, it'd be fantastic to be able to vote support next time 'round.  Good luck, man. &mdash;&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Based upon comments relating to Simetrical's recent RfA [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duncharris#Your_vote_on_Simetrical.27s_RfA.], glossed above.  I wouldn't want an editor who had made an honest mistake confronted with that sort of attitude.  Other than this, Werdna648 is a good candidate and I would be willing to offer support to a future RfA when more examples of a balanced attitude are available. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Oppose''' per civility issues. --
'''Oppose''' per Guettarda.
'''Oppose''' per the ''no'' incident. The incident is far too recent to ignore. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per the No thing, which is rather too like the problem with the HRA RFA which came up at the nominee's previous AFD.
'''Oppose''' per the overwhelmingly convincing reasons above and my reading of the various links to the incidents of concern.
'''Oppose''' I don't really think he needs admin tools. He's a good Wikipedian, but wouldn't be a good administrator IMHO. --
'''Oppose''', yes, per the no incident. As an admin, you'll just be exposed to more stress than what you're exposed to now; you need to be able to handle it constructively, and that incident really gives the wrong impression.
'''Oppose'''.  I have concerns about civility.
'''Oppose''' - As per the example[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duncharris#Your_vote_on_Simetrical.27s_RfA.], I feel that the block button might be better placed in cooler hands.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but the above civility incident is way too recent. Would probably reconsider in a month or two assuming civility is improved.
'''Oppose'''. I'm a little worried about that "no" incident, and then it's better to wait and see how it goes. <br>Besides, its not so many edits. --
'''Strong Oppose''' See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Corruption_from_the_IRC_channel]. -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' per Guettarda. It can be debated whether administrators need to be technically skilled, super-experienced at RC patrol, have 2000 edits or whatever -- but they must always be judicious and mature. I'm not an admin myself, just a "customer" of Wikipedia's admins; like police, they are our servants, not our bosses. As editors, we should project no opinions of our own when editing an article; likewise, I believe administrators should never project negative emotions or agendas of their own when acting as admins. A successful Rfa is often, but incorrectly, interpreted either as conferring a mark of community esteem or as selection to some sort of "village elder" status. Werdna648 should know he already has my esteem and is clearly a valued village elder already; if Wikipedia had knighthoods, I'd vote for his, just not to give him a sword right away. Should he come back again with a further, ''lengthy'' history of contributing coolly when emotions are high, then I will certainly suport his RfA.--
'''Oppose''' per most of the above. --
'''Oppose'''. When I vote for admins, I'd like to think I'm ''not'' voting for someone who would get involved in an RFC or an RFAr down the road. He's a valued Wikipedian, this is true, but sometimes I think he's just a bit too quick and a bit too confrontational. Don't get me wrong; I actually ''value'' that sort of thing, but there is a line where I have to say "enough is enough." I simply do not feel comfortable voting support. I hope you realize this isn't personal. :)
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''''Strong oppose''' now, his response to Kim Bruning's question below seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the definition of consensus here on Wikipedia. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i><sub>[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]</sub></i> 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)'' - the insinuation that developers/bot-coders should be "rewarded" with adminship is offensive to me. The incidents listed above regarding civility and interaction with other users give me reason to be apprehensive. I'm sure Werdna does good work, but I don't believe this is the best role for him at this time. --

'''Oppose''' I'll strike since you object and use my other reasons. [[User:FloNight|<font color="darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color="green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC) <s>Per Werdna's answer on this RFA to Q. 4 ...''"I don't really care about being an admin at the moment, and the stress of the RfA process is really not worth another few buttons." Werdna (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)''
I had planned on staying out of this whole thing, but per the latest response to the question pointed out by FloNight, I feel obligated to speak up.  I don't think Werdna ''wants'' to be an admin, so this should help him get what he wants.  --
Change dot neutral, the exchanges above have drawn my attention to some things which undermine my confidence in Werdna; I think this may be a case of give it time.
Neutral for now. Strong contributor, but certain tendency for uncivil behaviour ''on occasion''. &mdash;[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' sorry, I personally wanted to nominate him, but that no thing is way too soon, maybe in two months
'''Cliché neutral''' if it exists.  I even thought he was an admin.  I like this user and see him as an exceptional future administrator, but couldn't support given recent events (diffs as above in Oppose).  --
'''Neutral'''.  The issue about Simetrical's RfA is troubling, but Werdna's reactions make it seem like he will learn from the criticism.  Would consider supporting in the future. -
'''Neutral'''. As an admin, your patience will be tasked far worse than during "The ''No'' Incident", as it's been dubbed. Yes, I believe you've learned from it, but I need to see more of that lesson in application before I support&mdash;and, if so, I will. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Neutral'''.  Per my neutral vote two months ago, more mainspace experience is still needed.  With ~75 mainspace edits in two months' time, I don't feel this has happened yet.  In lieu of extensive articling experience, a potential administrator needs to demonstrate impeccable community skills, and sadly Werdna's been a bit inconsistent here.
'''Neutral'''. I'm not going to oppose because of ''one incident'' in the heat of the moment. However, I would like to see a few more mainspace edits and generally a little more contribution to the encyclopedia. [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|My criteria]] calls for 1000 mainspace edits and/or evidence of heavy contribution... I'm not seeing that just yet.
Switched from support per Kookykman. Ganging up on a good faith user in a hostile way does not reflect well on the IRC op "cabal". — ''







Lastly, if you are not promoted to admin, do you still plan to become one?
In summary, define consensus. Use this page as an example. Is there a difference between theory and practice?
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Oppose''' — Lack of effort in this RfA, lack of knowledge in policy (FU images on User page). <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
You must be kidding me. Nomination smells like trolling. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' — Few articles edited in WP namespace, edited many times: looks like an attemp to enlagre the editcount; very few talks too. No vandal fight. Why does he want to be a sysop?. —
'''Oppose''' both the candidate and nominator have no idea about adminship (see nathannoblet's two self-nominations within a period of about a month). I suggest withdrawal. --
'''Oppose''', very weak answers. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Oppose''', vague answers, no experience, sugggested withdrawal. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' --
'''Strong Oppose''' I came across this editor yesterday, trying to add a virtulently anti-semitic website to the [[Jew]] article. He's trying to justify adding a "controversies" section to that article which should contain the website (because "it is opposed by most Jewish groups") and the Mel Gibson spat. He created [[Mel Gibson and Anti-Semitism]] as a POV fork from the main Mel Gibson article to whitewash Gibson's anti-semitic ranting. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Gibson_and_Anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=81381827]. These edits are unworthy of any editor. There is no way we should allow a [[WP:POV]] warrior with such a lack of historical perspective extra tools. The response to the oppose contributors on this RfA demonstrates an immaturity that would ill-suit an admin and the answers to the standard questions are at best weak.
'''Oppose''' - the day a troll becomes an admin is the day Wikipedia will collapse.
'''Oppose''', extremely weak answers to questions, only [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=WikiMan53&site=en.wikipedia.org 264] edits, only substantial edits to Wikipedia-space are to the sandbox. Annoying orange fake message bar is not good, and that you didn't know how to list this page properly at [[WP:RFA]] shows you are not experienced enough to be an admin. Sorry, but not yet. '''
'''Oppose''' Please withdraw before the sledgehammer of oppose !votes comes slamming down. We appreciate your eagerness, and we ask you to keep up the good work, but you are still not ready for adminship. --<sup>[[User talk:Physicq210|<font color="000000">210</font>]]</sup>'''
'''Oppose''' Please withdraw and come back after a number of months and many more edits throughout wikipedia.
'''Strong Oppose''' your answers to the questions did it for me, please withdrawal. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but you need a lot more experience in all areas. I also find [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dina&diff=prev&oldid=94157187 this] rather disturbing. I strongly recommend self-withdrawal.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>
Too many problems for me to moral support. -
'''Oppose''' You have a very minimal amount of edits on the mainspace, and have shown me you personally adore "power". Come back in 12 months and do a complete lifestyle change, I may consider going to neutral.
I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being [[WP:SNOW|SNOWed]]. [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]<font color="green">
'''Sledgehammer of Opposition''' Your account is more or less two weeks old. You don't have nearly enough edits to Wikipedia. Also, that annoying fake message bar on your page is annoying. If you wish to be an Administrator, first prove to us that you are able. We already know you are willing. '''
'''Oppose''' I don't wish to bite a new user but after the comment on Dina's RfA there's only one possible answer and that's '''NO''' this user is not experienced enough to become an administrator at this time. I'd be quite happy to consider supporting after this user has been around and editing for a couple of months, though support would depend on ability at that time. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''
'''Oppose''' You don't have enough experience with Wikipedia. You have less than 500 edits in Wikipedia with low mainspace edits. You don't participate in GA/FA nominations and you don't participate for article for deletion. you should revert vandalism to some extent because as in admin, you must be able to block/banned users who cause persistant vandalism. You have poor answers in your question, because none of those things require admin position. Please come back with more edits and more experience.--
'''Oppose''', far too soon with only 20 edits / 10 days involvement.  Admin candidates need to have demonstrated familiarity with large portions of WP.  Also, please avoid comments like ''stop being gay'' in edit summaries, that fails [[WP:NPA]] just as surely as the content of an edit proper. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' "Stop being gay" stands out among your decidely low volume of contributions.
'''Strong Oppose''' I really advise you to rescind your nomination Wikipeedio, as your extremely low edit count and inappropriate edit summaries are going to attract a plethora of oppose votes. That would not be in your best interest.
'''Oppose'''. Of course not.
'''Oppose''', sorry Wikipeedio, but you aren't quite ready yet. Perhaps you put up another RFA when you have more experience. <b>[[User:Where|<font color="blue">Wh</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#0AB20D">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  User doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policies as WP isn't censored. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Shepard&diff=43206146&oldid=43205602 The edit in question].  Also, this user has far too little experience.  I strongly suggest you withdraw your nomination. --
'''Oppose''' per. [[User:Evilphoenix|&Euml;vilphoenix]].
'''Strong Oppose''' per Evilphoenix. I recommend immediate withdrawal. Come back later after 2-3+ active months and at least 2500+ edits.
Looks reasonable to me. I was hestitant given that this is a third nomination, but then I saw the second was about a year ago. (
'''BBC Support''' Everything checks out here. Great article-builder (especially to [[BBC]]-related articles), knows policy, is civil, participates in project namespace, and has a great deal of experience with images. Should be useful with those image backlogs. :-P '''
'''Support''' Dedicated, responsible and friendly. Would make a fine admin. [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.m]][[User:Dfrg.msc/EA|<font color="green">s</font>]]
'''Support''' Everything checks out.
'''Support''' Meets all of my criteria- that is, he's a very good editor who has been around for a while and expresses a need for the tools. The little I've interacted with this user before, I have found him to be quite kind and intelligent. --
'''Support.''' Claims of not enough edits are extremely ridiculous. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' while the answers are a little short and the time you have been here is a <sup>long time</sup> <s>little on the low side<s>, I think you will be a fine amin.__
'''Support''' I have to say that I'm disappointed with the editors who have voted "oppose" because of a lack of edits; it's ridiculous, as the guy has over three ''thousand'' edits!  And even though his answers to the ''mandatory'' (not ''optional'') questions are short, they're sufficient. -- '''<font color="blue">[[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilh]]</font>[[User:P.B. Pilhet/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' His edit count is fine, and although he could have given lengthier responses to the question given, I have no problem with his being concise.
'''<s>Weak </s>Support''' per '''TSO1D'''. Meets my
good luck ;) --
'''Support''' You're on air in 5...4...3...2...1...action! [[user:Booksworm|Book]]<font color="green">[[User:Booksworm/Esperanza|s]]</font>
'''Support''' fantastic work at AMA: shows the user can handle backlogs! :P
'''Support''' Three questions are generally enough for any candidate, and I'm assuming good faith he'll do fine. --<font color="002bb8">
What the heck, I was promoted with little more than 3000 edits; and I am more than willing to take Computerjoe's word; which gives an ample indication of knowledge of policies and guidelines; and Nishkid has already vouched for his editing skills on BBC related articles. &mdash;
'''Support''' adminship isn't a big deal and given that he hasn't been in any conflicts so far, I doubt he would misuse the buttons.
'''Support''' Terrific user, has the qualities to become an administrator.
'''Support''' [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' The only thing that really matters is if I believe this user will abuse the tools or help Wikipedia by using them. I see zero chance for abuse, so I must believe Wikiwoohoo will help. -- '''''
'''Support''' I do not see anything to lead me to believe that Wikiwoohoo will be a negative impact as an administrator, and he meets my [[User:Danntm|RFA|standards]].--
'''Support''' I'll support based upon answers to the questions above - adminship is no big deal, right?
'''Support''' I have seen Wikiwoohoo around and he is an excellent contributor with a lot of experience. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools, absolutely no reason not to support. ~
'''Support''' Good question answers, particularly with the non-itchy trigger finger on the block button.
'''Support'''. I see no reason why not, and we need admins doing images. Even though I don't agree completely with all answers (e.g., Q10) I have no qualms about giving my support; after all, I think there is hardly anybody whom I agree with on such a wide range of topics. --
'''Weak Support''' per Dlohcierekim. I don't see any reason why this user would abuse the tools, my only reservations are because of potentially controversial XfD closures and blockings.
'''Support''' No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' I see no reason why Wikiwoohoo would abuse the tools. He will make a great admin! -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·
'''Support'''. Good contributor, and answers to the questions look fine.
'''Support''' Agree...disruptive editors should be blocked always.--
'''Support'''. Sufficient experience for me. I hate it when candidates are picked apart by this many questions... Nobody's going to agree with you on ''everything''. Maybe I'll support anyone who answers 10+ questions from now on!
'''Support'''. questions answered well,
'''Support'''. There's some room for improvement, but who's perfect? I'm satisfied by the answers to the above questions. [[User:SuperMachine|SuperMachine]] 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) <s>#'''Neutral'''. I'm leaning towards support, but I'd like to see the rest of the questions answered first.
'''Support'''. I'm unconvinced by the oppose comments. The nominee appears ready for and in need of the tools, and there's no reason for concern they won't be used for anything other than their intended purpose.
'''Support''' ---*- '''u:'''
'''Support''' -- <b><i>[[User:Bottesini|<font color="blue">ßott</font>]][[User:Bottesini/Esperanza|<span style="cursor:crosshair"><font color="green">e</font></span>]]
'''Suport''' -- I've read the votes that oppose, and am totally unimpressed by the reasons given - quibbles about the number of edits, and objections to an initial answers to a one of the hypothetical questions, above.  If an editor has been around this long, and contributed this much, and hasn't caused problems, and wants to be an admin, then more power to him/her.
'''Weak Support''' Looks good, although a little more experience wouldn't hurt, either. Answers to the questions could be better, and I strongly advise the candidate to thoroughly research precedent and policy before participating in areas he's not familiar with. Other than that though... strong candidate who will zap image backlogs with a vengeance. ;) —
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', No expectation they will abuse the tools.
'''Support''' I've seen some of his edits, good work.  Seems like a good candidate. --
'''Support''' He has helped me with many problems and has great ideas. Thank You and Happy Holidays |
'''Support''' (Changed from neutral below.)  Frankly I don't get the accumulating opposes here.  OK, not the strongest candidate that's ever attempted to run the RfA gauntlet, but come on folks!  Reasonable (not great, but generally good) answers to '''15''' questions (and counting), good demeanor here on this RfA despite being put under pressure, over 3,000 edits (maybe not the ideal mix, and an extended break, but still enough experience to judge).  I just find it odd to have so much opposition.  Mop-worthy. —
'''Support''' per Doug Bell Won't abuse the tools. As for the overload of questions, I remember when RFA had only three questions, this is getting silly frankly.  <small>edit posted by</small>
'''Support''' <font face="Brush Script MT" color="red" size="4">
'''Support''' <s>Would</s> Will make an excellent admin. &ndash;[[User:Llama man|The Gr]][[User:Llama man/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]
'''Support''', was not going to vote, but this is mainly to balance out Anomo's ludicrous and unfair reason for opposing.  Will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Per all above.
'''Moderate support''' per John Broughton and Auburn and inasmuch as I think WWH's to be possessed of sufficient judgment to know whereof he is not well acquainted and where, in view of such non-conversance, he ought not perhaps to act prior to his gaining further observational experience, such that he should neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, and thus that I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive]].
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- Seems to have come a long way since the past nominations.  Also, I'm disappointed in some particularly ridiculous oppose votes (too many similar usernames?) but encouraged by the nominee's calm and reasonable responses to such criticism. --
Just not enough edits. <b>...&nbsp;</b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">
'''Oppose''' I disagree with aa's rationale, but his answers are awfully short.
'''Oppose''' as per aa. --
'''Oppose''' as per aa.
'''Oppose'''. <s>IPs who use personal attacks should be ''indef-blocked''?</s> The answer to 12 is questionable, and 9 seems too much like vote-counting over arguments<s>, but that really is the decision maker.</s> You still seem a bit too eager to block people who commit personal attacks, and that question 9 answer is a problem. Also per below. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. Ignoring pre-long-break contributions, only 2000 recent edits. (Ignoring old contribs makes sense since so much new policy was changed/created since then!). Insufficient projectspace experience suggest lack of familiarity with policy. Nominee also uploaded [[:Image:BBC Matthew Amroliwala.jpg]] yesterday in violation of the first fairuse criterion. And of course the indef-block IP's business is decidedly not good. - <b>
'''Oppose''' Per answer to question number eight and nine. Indefinitely blocking ips. Ips can't be blocked indefinitly unless they are proxies unless I'm mistaken. There are more reasons for permanent  blocks than ip vandals.--
'''Oppose'''.  This seems like a civil and helpful editor, but oddly ignorant of many policy issues.  I'm afraid they might take misinformed administrative actions.  Recommend getting more experience in project space and with policy issues, and try again in the future. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''', does good work with image tagging, but not very many edits overall, and plus I would like to know why lied in the opening statement of his self-nomination. —
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki-space edits suggests unfamiliarity with wiki-process.
'''Oppose''' partly per Crazy, partly per blocking concerns and partly experience. The edit count and spread does not impress me and I fear Wikiwoohoo may not have enough experience to be sufficiently familiar with policy (and just for the record, I opposed Renesis13 for the same reason). Also, I must say that I find the responses to Charlotte regarding the forgotten username rather bizarre and quite concerning. '''
'''Oppose''' The answer to question 14 disturbs me. You repeat that IP's  should be blocked indefinitely. That does not show a basic understanding of policy. --
Inexperience, per Xoloz. Not now, sorry. -
'''Oppose''' Candidate does not have a strong grasp of the policies and the candidate's resposes to the oppose votes only made this clearer. I particularly have an issue with the candidate's claim that he thinks he would not indefinitely block anyone. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWikiwoohoo_3&diff=92069656&oldid=92069244]  We don't need soft administrators, an administrator should be capable of indefinately blocking a user when it is necessary.
Oppose at this time, per inexperience. There are a lot of interesting things you can delve into without admin tools and which you should explore. —
'''Oppose''' due to inexperience/inability to communicate experience adequately. I'm not sure which it is, but I'm not comfortable enabling this person with additional tools until they can answer the concerns outlined above. -- ''
'''Oppose''' Too many admins already have corny names like Wikiwoo, Wikithis, MyWikiBiz (well not this exact name), etc. The candidate should file a request to rename their name.
'''Oppose''', per  concerns by Crz and Xolox. I am just not comfortable with the user having the tools at this time.
'''Oppose''', I oppose because our paths have not crossed and I am unable to speak from firsthand knowledge.  However, a wikipedian with barely 3500 edits to be making his 3rd RfA is a red flag.  I am not sure how well you appreciate the responsibility you covet. Furthermore, all your mainspace experience seems related to the BBC.  I would like to see more diversity.
'''Oppose''' per above comments. [[user:teh tennisman|<font color="darkblue" face="comic sans ms">t</font>]][[user:teh tennisman/Esperanza|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' per Doug. Give me some good answers and I'll give you a shot. --
<s>'''Neutral''' pending answers.</s> <s>Switched to support.</s> Indef blocking IPs still doesn't sit well with me. I'm going to sit on the fence with this one. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">
'''Neutral''' per concerns about his blocking ideas. First he talked about indef blocking IPs, then says, "I do not think I would ever block anyone indefinitely." There are many reasons to block usernames indefinitely; this is a basic point of blocking policy which I feel should be fully understood before giving someone admin tools. I do however want to say that he has contributed much to Wikipedia, is civil, and is unlikely to abuse admin tools purposely, should he receive them. --
Suggesting indefinitely blocking IPs is pretty disconcerting. I bet Wikiwoohoo will be pretty careful about it from now on, and it's not as though we don't have [[Template:Unblock|a mechanism]] to reverse blocks. But the issue is not only whether he'll permablock IPs, but that he apparently didn't understand why not to do so until this RfA. Neutral.--
'''Neutral''' Probably would make a good admin although the "indef block" discussion is still troublesome.  I'm going to study this RFA a while longer before committing. --
'''Neutral'''&mdash;Not a clean enough basis for support at this time. [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''second support''' Why not. No big deal.
Problems listed below were almost a year ago; seems to have shown great growth since. '''Support'''. <tt>
'''support''' Ancient problems
'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Strong oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I must oppose. WillC has been blocked by four separate editors, last in March [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:WillC (block log)]. My personal experiences with him have been poor, primarily at [[The Dukes of Hazzard (film)]], where he broke 3RR removing sourced information; when I warned him, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Dukes_of_Hazzard_%28film%29&diff=37662910&oldid=37636221 said he'd report me for my "vendetta of vandalism and negativity"], that I should [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Dukes_of_Hazzard_%28film%29&diff=37895074&oldid=37893441 "try some diplomacy"], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Dukes_of_Hazzard_%28film%29&diff=37899884&oldid=37897955 etc].  But perhaps most objectionable was his response to my explanation that 3RR is enforced regardless of the "rightness" or "goodness" of any certain edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WillC&diff=prev&oldid=37733095], which was to say [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WillC&diff=next&oldid=37733095 "One man in the right is a majority"]; he further justified by arguing that he was reverting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WillC&diff=next&oldid=37739387 vandalism]. He capped off our exchange about his behavior by telling me to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WillC&diff=next&oldid=37740792 stop "crapping" on his talk page]. Another discouraging comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WillC&diff=next&oldid=38873296 "Talk pages are a free for all."] This occurred in February, and while I'll allow that experience may have made him a better and wiser editor, I'd want to see specific examples of recent good judgment; being blocked 48 hours on <s>May</s>March 3 for personal attacks does not make me confident in any change of heart, but I'm willing to listen to his response (I am not a vandal, and certainly have not been blocked or banned.) &middot; [[User:Katefan0|Ka]][[User:JCarriker/TC|t]]
'''Oppose''' You cannot stand by "Stop crapping on my talk page", dude. And these blocks are relatively recent. Unless you completely cleaned up your act in the last 2 months, I need to oppose as well. --
'''Strong Oppose''' His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:WillC block log] doesn't exactly reassure anybody that he won't wheel war or go off being uncivil. I have seen many comments made by WillC that lack the maturity that goes along with being and admin.
'''Oppose'''. Tendency for personal attacks and he did play a role in escalating a conflict with [[User:Chadbryant]].
'''Oppose''', for now. Not yet convinced that enough time has passed since these blocks, and standing by inflammatory comments isn't a good thing. This RfA was a little premature; would be glad to review things in another month or two. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Oppose'''. Six blocks in seven months! Has made good edits tho, <s>and if he comes back in six months time (with a clean sheet) I'll reconsider</s>. [[User:Moriori|Moriori]] 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my opinion about future support after seeing his addition to candidacy statement. A vote for the sheep over the leopard.
'''Strong Oppose''' per [[User:Katefan0]]. Also, the candidate's reply to her vote appears to indicate that the candidate can't accept a bit of criticism ("backbone" is okay, but you were blocked more than one; surely you did something wrong). In addition, the editing focus seems quite narrow; it consists almost entirely of articles related to the southern U.S. (although I understand that you may have expertise in that field). Lastly, the candidate has very few project edits (although the encyclopedia is the main focus, admins need to be involved in more than just that) and very few edit summaries, which seems to indicate some lack of interest in conveying what edits mean. I'd like to see more user talk contributions too to better demonstrate community interaction, but I'm not too bothered by that point. Perhaps in a few months I'll support. Maybe August. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Oppose''' Needs more project edits like Joturner said......Maybe if he returns in 6 months I'll support him.
'''Oppose''' per above.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' per Joturner.
'''Oppose''' no need for buttons.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per Katefan0.  (And don't come to my user talk page to explain yourself or to ask me to reconsider; the evidence is pretty clear in this case.)  --
'''Oppose''' for the same incident referred to by Katefan0 and for removing warnings from his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWillC&diff=37752446&oldid=37752407] --
'''Oppose''' as Joturner points out above, he rarely makes edit summaries, and when he does they aren't helpful, but are potentially inciteful. His "backbone" seems to lead him to [[Talk:Maryland|continue fights]], though thankfully, he doesn't seem to be starting them. I think we should also know why he wants admin powers and tools. It's not really indicated in the self-nom. --
'''Oppose'''.  I just read through all his edits to [[Talk:Maryland]].  He comes off as someone who knows the '''TRUTH'''.  The arguments get passionate and seemingly quite POV: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maryland&diff=52024028&oldid=52022982] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maryland&diff=52469286&oldid=52450351].  Unfortunately, I think he lost his cool in that discussion.  There is nothing more horrifying than an administrator who knows the truth.
'''Oppose''' per Kate and per WillC's response that he stands by his comments.
'''Oppose'''. Too soon since last block; low usertalk editcount shows little evidence of effective or frequent communication with other users (not necessarily good or bad communication -- there's just not enough evidence to show if it's at a sufficient level). -→
'''Oppose''' per Katefan0. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. In principle, I don't like piling on oppose votes when an RfA is clearly going to fail. If it had just been Katefan0's concerns, I wouldn't have voted. My opposition is based on WillC's statement that he stands by his comments and hopes "to display similar backbone as an administrator."
'''Oppose so this nom gets removed asap.'''
'''Oppose''', per my comment below and Ann's concerns. Your ''"one man <s>on</s> in the right is a majority"'' motto is extremely dangerous and against the very spirit of consensus, which is the non-negotiable ground on which Wikipedia is built.
'''Oppose''' per above and with regard to the block logs.--
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''', per Phaedriel. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Oppose with comment-''' I was not going to pile on. Then I read his NEW statement under his nom. Sincerely, I wish this had been withdrawn or closed early. However, I am convinced this user does not understand that Wikipeida is based on consensus and  collaboration. Wikipedia is not just about who is RIGHT. It is also about  working with others in a positive manner. It is about presenting one’s side in a way that is respectful of the feelings and opinions of others.  One man who is RIGHT is not a majority if he only thinks he is right. And being RIGHT is not an excuse for incivility or edit warring. He has said “I stand by my otherwise objective comments and hope to display similar backbone as an administrator.” By acting in a manner clearly at odds with Wikipedia’s standards for civility and conflict resolution? Will wheel warring replace edit warring? Any user who has been blocked this many times and blocked so recently, and who so protests his RIGHTNESS,  just plain lacks the understanding necessary for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Dlohcierekim. --
'''Oppose, suggest withdraw''' per the new addition in the self nom and various concerns by editors above --
'''Oppose''' Would be very concerned at this user being able to block people so soon after having so many blocks himself. He needs to have a good period of solid editing to Wikipedia without any more blocks etc. to give his nomination more chance in the future. --
'''Oppose''' per above. --
'''Oppose''' mostly because of his above comments. Insulting wikipedia is not a good way to win our support. --
'''Oppose''' I arrived here incidently, and then was concerned at what I read.
'''Strongly Oppose'''.  "''Stop crapping on my talk page''"?  Not cool.  Dissing the opposers who are simply giving you the truth?  Extremly uncool.--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - WillC's behaviour during this RfA, if not before, guarantee that he's not going to make admin for at least a couple of years. Stay as an editor, please. -
'''Oppose''' - I would have remained neutral, but the comment below the nomination demonstrates a disregard for process, other people's time, an overall attitude of beat-the-system and a desperation for adminship. <span class="plainlinks"><font color="#0000FF">[[User:Werdna648|Werdna]]<sub>[[User talk:Werdna648|T]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|c]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose'''. Wouldn't have bothered voting in this landslide failure, but the comment he made in response to clear consensus against him becoming an admin made me annoyed enough to oppose. Otherwise, I cite all reasons above. <!--Cuivienen's signature begins here-->—'''<font color=DAA520>[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color=green>[[User:Cuivienen/Esperanza|é]]</font><font color=6495ED>
'''Oppose'''  Extremely confrontational... My run in with him is documented at [[User talk:Ccwaters#ECHL to AHL]] & [[Talk:ECHL]]...See also [[User talk:Ccwaters#WillC]].
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]. This is one of the very few users that I consider to be too incivil to receive adminship. The conduct of this user during this RfA (especially the part of the statement added at 10:49, 23 May 2006) is not acceptable for admins. Come back in 6 months time if you have changed your attitude. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. I'm not sure yet. Your edit summary usage is tiny (7% for major edits if I recall correctly) and you have barely any contributions outside the article space. I'll wait before making my mind up. --
I'd like to see some explanations of all these [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=WillC&page= blocks] first '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''
'''Neutral leaning to oppose''' too soon since the last block
'''Strong support''' as nom. -- ''
'''Support''' Edit summaries can be raised to 100% in just a couple of hundred edits.
'''Strong support''' Well-read, helpful, diplomatic, versatile, patient and dedicated. The kind of administrator a person could turn to with a problem and feel confident that it would be resolved in a fair and balanced way. Also unassuming, no big ego getting in the way. With more administrators with these characteristics, Wikipedia would be running a lot smoother.
'''Support''' Williamborg obviously wants to tools for a reason, otherwise he wouldn't have acepted the nom. He has enough edits to show that he's levelheaded and a good wikipedian, and I think he'd grow well into the tool. If he wants them, I won't stop him. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">ε</font>]]
'''Support''' We need more speciallist admins

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose Pending Answer to Question''' The primary reason for opposition is your response to standard question one (regarding sysop chores). You don't give a reason you need admin capabilities; you essentially say you aren't going to do certain tasks (taking care of vandalism, speedy deleting articles, etc), but you don't actually say what you ''will'' do. You may be a wonderful editor (I'm not doubting that), but you can be a wonderful editor without being an admin. I find it a bit strange too that you said you wouldn't delete articles tagged for speedy deletion because you're an inclusionist. That's really not the proper approach to articles tagged for speedy deletion, especially since most of them should be deleted for reasons even a standard inclusionist would have to agree with. I'm also a bit perplexed about the comment about the Diablo Test; it may just be a mistake, but you said, "now that I see that it is a prerequisite for Adminship". It's not; even [[User:Mailer diablo]] stopped using it awhile ago. On a side note, your edit summary rates are very low <s>and your e-mail address isn't activated</s> (but I'm not opposing on those grounds). -- '''
'''Oppose''' very low WP-space edits. They may not be neccisary to be a good editor, but policy and project discussion is a primary feature of admin work. Also with the strange comments about not wanting to delete CSD. The explanation above helps a bit, but I don't think even most inclusionists would agree that ''everything'' should be kept, as you make it sound. -
'''Oppose''' sorry, but not enough project space edits and no evidence that he will make good use of the tools.  Keep being an excellent editor and making good contributions, but adminship is not necessary.
'''Oppose''' Answer to sysop chores question suggests there is no need for admin tools for this user, additionally nominators "... deserves to be an admin", adminship is not a promotion there is no deserve/not deserve in it. Let good (or great) editors be just that, no need to side track them into the drudgery of many of the admin chores. --
'''Oppose'''. Please don't take this too personally, but you're reasons for requesting admin don't seem to jive with your contributions. Specifically, you say that you plan on closing AfD's with an inclusionist perspective. That's great, but you've only ever been involved in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_farms_in_Oppland|one]] AfD debate, and it was directly related to Norway. Please come back in a couple of months when you have a little more WP space experience.  (by the way, your other contributions are great!)
'''Oppose'''. You are doing a great job, but you don't have enough experience in the project-side of things.  I appreciate your committment to increase your edit summary usage, but I need to see more evidence of it and other project involvement.  Try again in 3 months and I will gladly support if you have worked on those things. --<font color="3300FF">
'''Oppose''' per Pgk.
'''Oppose''' per Pgk.
'''Oppose''' Fails my criteria with regard to activity in the Wikipedia project space. --
'''Oppose''', fine editor, will make a great admin in future. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' by the outline below of why the user wants the mop in the "SYSOP CHORES" section.  The response to activity in AIV is a ''copy and paste'' expression of disinterest from the RC Patrolling question.  The responses to CSD and AfD are irrelevant; a user's personal feelings are not the same as their actions as admins should be.  If consensus is to delete, the admin has the responsibility of respecting the communities opinion.  In fact, the only real qualification I see is passing Diablo's test, and that's not even a primary part of what an administrator does.
'''Obvious Oppose''' per above.'''
'''Oppose''' - While this user would probably be well suited to adminship, they don't seem interested in admin tasks. I would support a future nomination, but for now I think that theres not really a reason for it. -
'''Oppose''' - not much experience. --[[User:Bigtop|<font color="blue">Big</font>'''<font color="gray">top</font>''']] <small>([[User talk:Bigtop|<font color="blue">tk</font>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bigtop|<font color="red">cb]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Bigtop|<font color="gray">em</font>]]|
'''Oppose'''. You look like a good contributor, but you don't meet my Wikipedia: namespace activity criteria, and also the answer to what you would do with the tools lists a number of things you don't want to do, but doesn't seem to say what you ''would'' do with them. Would probably consider supporting with an additional month or two of experience in the project side of Wikipedia.
Virtually No wikispace edits, but He has been around since last year and I get the sense that he's knowledgeable...still pending.
'''Neutral'''. Loved your answers, but not enough Wikispace edits.
'''Neutral'''. I would love to support, but just not enough wikipedia namespace edits. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Yours is one of the better recent noms, but between your low edit summary usage and the concerns raised by others above, I'm really not sure how to vote. Sorry. :(
<del>A little to soon for me. 2 1/2 months of activity hardly seems like enough time. I would prefer if you had waited until maybe late July/early August before running for adminship. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">[[User:Moe Epsilon|<font color="CD2626">The King</font>]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="CD2626">of Kings</font>]]</span> 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)</del> '''Support''' I feel stupid, I thought you said you joined in April ''2006'', sorry. If you've been here for that long, you deserve it by now. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">
'''Support''' Looks good to me. --[[User:Mr. Lefty|'''Mr. L''']][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="Green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' Please use edit summaries more. --
'''Support'''. Nominee has now accepted and I believe this editor will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' great vandal fighter. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Meets all my critera. [[User:The Halo|Th]][[User:The Halo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', one more member for the Chinese Admin Cabal. Please maintain a good ratio of personal-to-wiki (ie. User: to everything else) ratio. -- '''
'''Support''' contribs look good. Please use edit summaries more.
[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' but work on those edit summaries :D
'''Support'''. Looks like the project would benefit from Winhunter having admin tools.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great user and will make a good admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per question 1, I agree with.--<font style="background:white">
'''Support'''.  Thoughtful answers to questions.  Busy and civil.  --
'''Support''' - He needs the tools.
'''Support''' per his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAudacity&diff=59556770&oldid=59364660 reply] on my talk page affirming that he will work on his edit summary usage. <b>[[User:Audacity|<font color="black">Λυδ</font>]]
'''Weak support'''. You would be great as an admin, but I noticed the low use of edit summaries and the various spelling mistakes.
'''Support,''' looks good.--
'''Support''' Would be a good admin. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''; a positive influence on the encyclopedia.
[[User:Merovingian|M]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
Unlikely to abuse the tools --<b>[[User:Digitalme|digital_m]]
'''Support''' user has everything I look for in an admin candidate, be sure to use edit summaries and you will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Meets [[User:BryanG/RfA criteria|my criteria]] other than the edit summary usage, and I'll buy Voice of All's explanation of that below. Be sure to use edit summaries more in the future.
'''Support''' good, hard-working, conscientious editor at the coal-face, dealing with vandalism. Let's help him to deal with them a bit more.
'''Support''' good at combating those who ruin all of our hard work!
'''Support''' <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Seems to have the right attitude to adminship, with good answers to questions. If you haven't already you might be interested in the option in your preferences to make wikipedia prompt you if you don't enter an edit summary. Also why do you have so many images at the top of your talk page... Those are fairly minor points, and I don't think  they'll stop you being a good admin. See also [[User:Petros471/RfA criteria|my RfA criteria]].
'''Weak support'''.  Good user with a good background.  Edit summaries are the only worrie for me. ---
'''Support'''. Works for me. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (
'''Support''' I really looked at this editor history.  Hardly any problems at all, fair and civil and productive. I think he has good judgement. --

'''Support''' RC patrol, Untagged Images Wikiproject, particpates in *fDs and DRV discussions, help desk... Strong answeres to questions. Is a great Wikipedian: will be a great admin.
'''Support''' Well, I said I'd support if edit summary went up over 50%, I wasn't expecting that to occur during same RfA, but there you go. So changing to support. -
'''Support'''.  Seems civil, answered the questions well, and is open to changing his behaviour when asked (as the edit summary issue has demonstrated).
'''Support'''. I think he would be a good admin. Edit summaries are something which can be easily worked upon. '''
'''Very Weak Support''' I feel that you will get the job done as an admin. However, there is also another aspect about how frighteningly low your edit summary was. It's helpful for other uses whom may have a page on their watchlist so they can see what's happening instead of relying on pop-ups or just clicking the link. Also, I don't think overal edit count is really that high if you take out the [[WP:GUS]]. However, I believe you will be an active participant in the admin community and will be willing to assist in numerous admin duties. So, I weakly support.
'''Support'''. I've looked at the warnings you leave to users after you revert their edits. I like that you generally avoid use of the term "vandalism" for early edits, and that you often provide a link to the edit you reverted.
'''Oppose'''; very low use of edit summaries for major edits (as of now 27%); would also like to see a few more project edits--<font color="red">[[User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy|☆]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Beyond edit summary issues, this user has too few WP: edits. Also, I just don't see enough motivation or demonstration of policy to warrant promotion (in spite of those) at this time.'''
'''Oppose''', fails my criteria.
'''Oppose''', <s>shortage of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests a low level of policy knowledge. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)</s> Wikipedia namespace edits are now satisfactory, but I am not happy with people who implement [[WP:GUS]] which does not have consensus support.
'''Oppose''' for low usage of major edit summaries--
'''Oppose''', too many concerns about project involvement, editing habits and attention to detail. <b>
Sorry, but I do '''oppose''' when edit summary use is this low.
'''Oppose'''. Edit summaries are a demonstration of common courtesy toward other Wikipedians, and one of the most basic elements of editing.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' edit summary use is just way, way to low. I'd also like to see more major edits. We're here writing an encyclopedia, and this user does not seem to contribute much text to the project. -'''
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry I must say oppose, but the lack of usage of edit summaries is rather troubling, esspecially after the removal of RC patrol stuff.  I have gravitated toward a belief that all edit summaries, short of reversion of pure vandalism, should have clear and useful edit summaries(with vandalism having a simple or scripted note about revert).  Please use more edit summaries and make them <strike>more conscise</strike>as clear as possible. <small>(wrong word entirely there)</small>.  Using them makes reading the history all the more easier.  Last, there's more than [[WP:AIV]], have you seen the [[:Category:Administrative_backlog|administrative backlog]] on images?
'''Oppose''' on edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not generally prone to editsummaryitis, but '''27%?'''
'''Oppose''' prospective admins should have at least a 90% edit summary rate --
''' Oppose'''For some of the reasons above
'''Hesitant Oppose''' per combination of edit summaries and lowish WP:space edits - <b>
'''Neutral'''. You are well-intentioned and have a very specific idea of what you want to do (in your answer to question one.) You also have the necessary experience and I see a lot of vandal-fighting in your contributions. However, 27% edit summary usage is simply too low (as I greatly value contributors who explain their actions well.) Also, <s>the very overwhelming number of Userspace edits leaves me scratching my head, and</s> I would prefer to see a little bit more contributing to WP-space. Does not fully meet [[User:Grandmasterka/My RfA Criteria|my criteria]].
'''Neutral.''' More namespace edits, a biggie in my criteria, would be a plus.
'''Neutral''' Wiki-space edits and edit summaries are both below acceptable levels for me; but, I've had positive personal experiences with this editor, so I can neither support nor oppose.
'''Neutral'''. Edit summaries are key, because I am very picky about admins who use rollback for non-vandalism purposes. Edit summary should be used for all edits (with a 5 percent margin for error). I'm not an evil person, I've just become very picky about edit summaries, because admins who use rollback for everything often embarrass other users and show unprofessional behavior. If you can prove that you can use edit summaries well, you'll have my strong support. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]]
'''Neutral''' Seems like a great vandal fighter...but...his response to a question indicates that he values mainspace edits above other types as our aim here is to build an encyclopaedia. But his number of mainspace edits thus far have been rather smaller for my liking. Also would like to see more ES usage, I suggest check your preferences and make it so that you HAVE to provide an edit summary each edit. '''

I had to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FXchrisblackx&diff=38912245&oldid=38626053 fix] this editor's malformed RfA. Without looking at much else, I think it's safe to say anyone incapable of following the instructions [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate|here]] isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia to be an admin.
'''Oppose''': Only 116 edits.  Editcountitis it may be, but 116 edits is far too little in anyone's book.  That said, if you used edit summaries more often and you hit, say, 1500 edits (not a lot, honest!) or something, I might consider.  You are doing a reasonably good job at Wikipedia at the moment.  Keep up the good work, but I also strongly suggest you withdraw.
'''Oppose''', Being active for less than four months, with less than 120 edits, you are much too new to try for adminship. Just keep up the good work, take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|adminship standards]] of some of the voters here, and reapply when you're ready. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''': premature. Please withdraw this and for the next few months concentrate on building the encyclopedia in areas you know about. Don't forget to use an edit summary each time.
'''Oppose''' Sorry but your edit counts are unimpressive. If you have a minimum of 2000 edits, I may consider. Try again in a few months. You are too new for adminship. But keep up the good work! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Oppose''' You seem to have your heart in the right place, but I feel you should get to grips with Wikipedia more before applying again. As [[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]] says, investigate the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|adminship standards]] and you'll see why this is the case.
'''Moral support'''. You may be a great admin candidate two or three months from now. participate more and learn more about Wikipedia. <span style="font-size:95%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">
'''Moral support''' I like the user, but I suggest withdrawal. It is rather early. Get some more experience.--
'''Moral support'''  I have had a fair amount of contact with this user before.  They have been around for a while, and have a fair amount of edits, so I support.  I know I can trust them with the tools - I very much doubt he would abuse them.  However, I know he may not meet many other user's criteria for admin.  For this reason, I morally support, but encourage you to withdraw and wait a couple months.  -[[User:Zappa.jake|zappa.jak]]<font color="green">
Proper '''support'''. You have enough overall and wikipedia namespace edits to prove that you are experienced enough to be an admin. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''HYPERSTRONG SUPPORT''' Seen you in action. you'll make a GREAT Admin.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse tools.
<s>'''Mega Moral Support'''. I know this user very well, and though the edito count isn't quite as high as many admin nominees, he wouldn't misuse the mop.
'''Support''' Don't lose hope if you fail in this nomination. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' No good reason not to. ''
'''SUPPORT!''' I have been on Wikipedia for some time and created an account that was attacked late last year, thanks to xchrisblackx, he fixed my page from the vandalism done to it when I was in my "Wikpedian Infancy" Since then, xchrisblackx has been of great help to me over Wikipedia and I thank him for this.  I have seen him in action when he co-created the Paranormal project and files and I trust him completely.  I know he will do everything in his power to be a great administrator and I have seen that he is part of a great many Wikiprojects and is part of programs suh as the recent changes patrol, welcoming committee, and community justice, xchrisblackx will be a great administrator if given the chance and I think he should be elected a soon as possible. Good luck xchrisblackx, I know you'll make a great admin after you make the vote! --
'''Support''' -

<s>'''Oppose'''. 6 minor edits in the article namespace? I'm sorry, but you've not given me any evidence that you have knowledge of any policies, or anything that I feel would be required of an admin. --[[Darth]] [[User:Deskana|Deskana]] <small>[[User_Talk:Deskana|(talk page)]]</small> 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)</s> Make that '''Strongly oppose'''. My previous comments still stand, and '''you've overwritten your old RfA in creating this one'''. I really don't believe you should be given admin tools if you'd make such a mistake as that. No offense, but you '''really''' don't seem like admin material in my opinion. --[[Darth]]
Not enough experience, IMO.  Please try again in a few months.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' - proud --
'''Oppose''', I would like to see more substansive article edits. I will of course support when you have more experience. --
'''Oppose''' - over half your edits are to user/user talk pages... You need a whole lot more contributions in article and wikipedia namepsace before you can be seriously considered (join us more often at [[WP:AFD|AfD]]! Good way to easily gain visibility and experience in the Wikipedia namespace.) Founding Wikiproject:Paranormal is a good start. Write new articles, contribute a lot to your project and be a part of community discussion and you'll get there. Oh, and edit summaries are helpful.
'''Oppose''' - You'll be good admin material in a couple of months time, but at the moment you're still too inexperienced.
'''Oppose'''. Maybe later. Even though this user has about 1000 edits in all, only about 146 of them are in the (main) namespace.<b>—[[User:GHe|<font color="blue">G</font>]].[[User talk:GHe|<font color="#666666">H</font>]]
'''Oppose''' - At the time I don't feel you are prepared, but keep learning and contributing and you'll be a good candidate!
'''Oppose''' Sorry, need more experience and edits. [[User:Master of Puppets|Mopp]]
'''Oppose''' due to insufficient use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose''', lacks experience and edits, edit summaries also concerns me as well. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''', lack of contributions to the project. —
'''Oppose''', per Xaosflux
'''Oppose''': level of experience and edit summaries both too low.
'''Oppose.''' User is not technically savvy, per Darth Deskana, and some of the replies to questions suggest an uncertain grasp of what adminship powers are for, like "helping the Admin  cleanup articles." Anybody can clean up articles and it's not something that helps the admin especially, but rather the project as a whole. I also find this post on Martial Law's page a little worrying.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martial_Law&diff=51564628&oldid=51387124] The user seems to be afraid that government agents on this site will spook his RFA (because they fear his paranormal interests?). I can't read it any other way and I'm not happy about it. And the answer to the (to me) very important question 3 below is specific yet useless. As for using <nowiki>{{civil1}}</nowiki> to cool somebody down, in that situation, well, there are just more things wrong with that idea than are necessary to enumerate here. Sorry, these things don't look like admin judgment to me. But please bear in mind that it's not necessary to be an admin to be useful to the project and an allround good and helpful contributor.
'''Strong Oppose''' too few edits (under 1000), which is even worse for someone who says they dedicate their efforts towards vandal fighting.  Needs to use edit summeries... and the self nomination doesn't help --
'''Oppose'''. Not long enough as a consistent contributor.
'''Oppose''' for short edit history and frequent failures to use edit summaries.--
'''Oppose''', sorry, but nowhere near enough edits. Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards#Stifle|my standards]].
'''Oppose''': I have a lot of rcpatrol edits too, but I think an admin needs more varied experince. I would suggest spending time reviewing policies, votes for deletion, artitlce improvement drive, etc. Creating and editing articles, apart from rcpatrolling, would help too. Give it a few more weeks. I look forward to voting for this user-- later.
'''Oppose''' More edits that are '''not''' on talk pages  <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
'''Oppose''', per Xaosflux.
'''Oppose''' User edits from a computer in his high school library and lost control of his account when he forgot to log out, someone else got on and took advantage (his school IP address also hosts a persistent minor vandal).  Not enough technically know-how or maturity in my opinion.
'''Super Strong Oppose''' Can't keep his own account secure therefore giving this user admin tools would create a disaster. Also asks for "support and comments" on his RFA which is BIG no no in my books.
'''Strong Oppose''' This should be closed early imho. He has nowhere near enough experience, main space edits (146?!), or project involvement. Please don't be disheartened - you quite simply aren't ready. Good things come to those who wait. --
'''Oppose'''. He is a good user but some topics as unsecured account are too controversial for now. And although I don't really pay much importance to the editcount, 1000 is still very low. Might support in some months, though. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Oppose''' may seem like a strange reason, but you seem to only contribute during the same three hour period every day (14:00 - 17:00 UTC) ± an hour or two. I would like to see an admin who can contribute more than just a set time, or if it is set, a larger time period. Not enough edits, and self-nom means you haven't really impressed upon somebody personally that your admin material.
'''Oppose''', you has too many edits in the User namespace and I don't think that the ~1,100 edits you have are enough. Try to have less edits in the User namespace and more in the main namespace.
'''Strong Oppose''' the quote found by Bishonen is very worrying to me - this kind of paranoia would not be appropriate in an admin; people working for the Government are allowed to be wiki editors and admins and should not be discriminated against. I agree with the other good reasons for oppose given above.
'''Oppose''' don't need more admins. <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">
'''Neutral'''. Like the user, don't like the level of experience to date. Stay on course and I'll support in a few months or so. :)
Perhaps later, needs more experience. -
'''Neutral''' Enough project namespace edits but not enough article edits. Try again in a month or so, and I would definitely "strong support" you. &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' mostly per discussion on [[Wikpedia Talk:Requests for Adminship#Moral Support]]; moved from moral support. --
<s>'''Neutral'''  changed from mega moral support.
'''Neutral'''. You seem to be a great user but you seem to be new and if you keep at it your time will come. --[[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#000000">preschooler</span>]][[User:preschooler.at.heart|<span style="color:#E9B901">@</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Can't oppose, you're a '''''great''''' user, but I don't think you're ready yet. (Heck, I don't consider myself ready, and I've got 2000 edits!) --<font color="66AAFF">
Oppose, has only been here a couple of days. You need a lot more time here to understand how Wikipedia works before we would consider voting for you for adminship. Most people expect a candidate to have been here at least three months and to have 1000 edits. Please try again in April or later, and in the meantime get constructively involved in as many aspects of Wikipedia as you can.-
'''Just plain flat out no'''.  You need to be here for at LEAST 3 months, preferrably 6, before you should ask for this.  We have no way to trust you after just one day, especially when you've just now been blocked for 24 hours for spamming your RfA.
'''Oppose''' You'll need a ''much'' larger amount of experience in both time and edits to become an administrator. --
<small>moral</small> '''Support''', and suggestion for withdrawal of nomination. --
'''Sympathy Support'''. Well, what can I say? You need more experience but do not lose hope! Continue doing more edits, making more useful contributions and reapply after 2 or 3 months. <font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
302 edits, 139 of which were on user/user talk pages.  A little over a month spent here too.  <s>Sorry, I admire your enthusiasm but you've not been here long enough or gained enough experience.</s>  I don't like the answers below either.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, fellow X, but I do have bare minima for edits and time editing, and 300 edits/1 month doesn't meet that basic threshold.  There are so many things to learn when editing the wiki -- give yourself time, and don't expect so much, so fast.
This user is in a huff because they got caught in an auto-block, holds [[User:Curps]] personally responsible for that particular software feature/bug, and is nominating themselves for adminship in order to "change things". See [[User talk:Xerocs#Curps]].
'''Oppose''' sorry but as said above you don't meet the basic threshold. Don't feel bad, work on getting some more quality edits especially in the Wikipedia area (AfD,etc.) under your belt, and try again in a few more months. I suggest you withdraw your nomination especially if what said just above by JKelly is true. RfA is not the place to voice your opinions on Wikipedia/other users.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience editing most areas of the Wiki, adminship is mostly enhanced editing and cleanup tools, but they don't do any good if your not familiar with all of the standard editing methods, as well as processes and policies.  You may want to look in to joining a WikiProject for some experience.
'''Oppose''' - Pretty much per several users above.  Not enough edits, espcially in the Wikipedia namespace.  Stick around another 2-3 months, and become active in the various namespaces, and I'm sure you'll gain more support. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Oppose'''.  Edit count notwithstanding, I'm particular unhappy with the responses to the questions.  The confrontational tone demonstrates a disdain for the Wikipedia community and lack of respect for other editors and admins.  Even if that isn't the intent, it certainly comes across that way.  --
'''Oppose'''. Meets none of my [[User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards|standards]]. --
'''Oppose'''. Doesn't meet minimum criteria, not by a long shot. Insufficient time here, insufficient demonstration of writing/editing, insufficient participation in other areas (AfD, etc.)... The self-nomination looks a little strange as well. Please withdraw and let some time go on to let us judge your work.
'''Oppose''': very premature. Suggest the nominee withdraw and just concentrate on building the encyclopedia for now.
'''Oppose''' per Jonathunder
'''Oppose''' Not to pile on the abuse or anything, but it's not endearing to be belligerent in your answers to questions. Don't do that next time. &ndash;
Oppose- I'd say you've not been here long enough. You fail to meet requirements that I generally set for other users. Can't vote support in good conscience, I'm afraid. I really didn't like the way you answered the questions below- you seem somewhat naive when it comes to Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient experience.--
'''''Very strong'' oppose without intention of pile-on''' - Your attitude to answering question 1 is way off line, it is not an admin quality. I'll also advise you to withdraw, or a bureaucrat will likely do it for you.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:NSLE|NSL]]. -- '''
'''Oppose''', sorry, based more on volume of edits.  Keep on making good contributions, get some experience, and try again.  Thanks.  --
'''STRONG Oppose'''.  <strike>This is not about editcount for me, this is about the completely unnecessary hostility and the mention that this isn't your first and won't be your last RfA.  That just screams "I'm going to keep screaming about this until someone listens", and we don't need that attitude in an admin.</strike>  Changed to STRONG oppose after reading the mailing list.  This makes the second completely inflammatory message you've sent to the mailinglist in a relatively short period of time, and both of them have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, and a refusal to understand that.  You are not admin material. Hands down.
'''Oppose'''.  just plain oppose. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' and suggest withdrawal, too few edits, and answer to question #1 reads like an attack on other admins.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience. Note that I agree with several of your points, especially the one about editcountitis. However, you seem to be far too confrontational; I very much doubt you would be able to effect any positive change with that attitude, admin or not. I did not find the examples on your talk page encouraging. --
'''Oppose''' Per all of the above; will reconsider a future nomination.
'''Neutral'''. I think this editor is well intentioned. Could support in the future after he acquires some more experience.
'''Oppose'''. I don't like your religious beliefs being displayed on your userpage.
'''Strong Oppose''' Unacceptably brief self-nomination statement.
'''Strong Oppose'''. I have far too many doubts about a candidate whose [[User:xiner|user page]] begins with "''Check out my userboxes while you're here.''" and then proceeds to encourage others to "''Vote Halliburton-KBR.''" and "''Fight Wikipedia administrator abuse here.''"
'''Strong Oppose''' Unacceptable brief answers to questions. I'd like to know what exactly are the issues that aren't apparent to other users. User seems to suggest that they are somehow special and that administratorship would be a privilege or a reward of some sort, which it is not.
'''Oppose'''. --'''''<font color="#002bb8">
What you're suggesting in Q1 (participating in [[WP:AFD|AFD]]s) does not require admin tools. Many folks (myself included) don't want to evaluate a candidate on the merits if he/she is not going to use any of the admin tools. I'd suggest you expand your answer to question one (and the others, to be honest) before I would even look further into your candidacy. You might need admin tools for vandal-fighting (there are two aspects to that), but your answer is too vague to tell.--
If there's a time to be verbose, its in an RfA. You don't demonstrate a need for a mop, so I'm not particularly moved to give you one. [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] //
'''Support''' unlikely to abuse administrative powers
'''Support''', there's really no reason for him not to be. &mdash; '''
'''Weak support''', I don't see any major problems here.
'''Oppose''', you need more experience and edits within the wikipedian community. -
'''Oppose''', Edit summary usage and edits to Wikipedia namespace is too low. --
'''Oppose.''' I don't see many (meaningful) edits outside of his personal talkspace. --
'''Oppose''' Edit summary usage very low and very few article space edits. --
'''Oppose''', I deplore editcountitis (1,200 edits and proud of it!) but his contributions seem massively weighted away from the actual task of building an encyclopaedia, including a bizarrely disproportionate number of userspace edits. To me, the encyclopaedia is the most important thing, and his contributions there are acutely unimpressive.
'''Oppose'''.  Only 39 edits to mainspace articles.  This is an encyclopedia, afterall. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Oppose''' and would gently urge the nominee to withdraw and spend a few months working on the encyclopedia (remembering to always use edit summaries).
'''Oppose''' as per all above. I suggest you withdraw this RFA and have more interaction with the community. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per all above. You just have to have some more mainspace experience, even if you eventually intend to spend most of your time on admin chores. --
'''Oppose''': s/he hasn't participated much now. Once s/he has a mop, how do we know that this will change? Needs more experience.
'''Strong Oppose'''. Low overall number of edits. Low number of article space edits. Relatively huge number of edits to his own userpage. Low edit-summary usage. And, in his own words, (s)he ''rarely bother[s] with the preview option on [his] userspace, resulting in lots of mistakes''. Don't see any reason to support.--<span class="user-sig user-Shreshth91">May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' per [[user:tomf688|tomf688]]. The overall edit count may be low (and editcountitis is bad), but this is not in my opinion the main problem. The lack of experience actually writing articles is. -
'''Oppose''' Too few edits, too many to own user page, etc. --[[User:Mathwiz2020|<font color="blue">M</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Mathwiz2020|<font color="orange">@</font>]][[User talk:Mathwiz2020|<font color="red">th</font>]]
'''Oppose''', way too little experience writing articles and the like.
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more experience with the project. &nbsp; &hArr; &nbsp;
'''Oppose''', whilst I like the edits at the reference desk, other than that, there isn't much to evaluate this user on. The high percentage of edits to the user's page is cause for concern, too.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' majority of edits to user pages? not experienced at all.
'''Oppose'''.  Primarily because I feel that the user needs to use edit summaries more and there are so few article edits.
'''Oppose'''. Too many userboxes, many of which are divisive. — '''
'''oppose'''. Looking for a lot more time and contributions. <font size="-1">
Respect both sides comments. But I'll remain neutral. '''Leaning to support''' --''Signed by:''
'''Support''' As nominator '''
'''Support''', I've thought Ynhockey should be an admin for ages. He is a skilled writer and an excellent editor, and willing to take leadership in a controversial situation but doesn't attempt to overly control things. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per [[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]].
'''Support''' A great user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' per nom --<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]]
'''Support''' –
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good user. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. per above. --
'''Support'''. I see no major problems.--
'''Oppose''' I don't see anything special about this guy. Nothing he's done has impressed me enough to give him a supporting vote. --
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=56369979&oldid=56346506 Malformed] RFA.
'''Oppose'''. Constructive criticism. Edit count and time with Wikipedia are good. <s>I see real potential for adminship in the future. </s>I see some revert vandal edits. However,  user needs to warn vandals as well. This educates the educable that they are not making constructive edits. It also helps other RCPatrollers gauge the extent of vandalism from a given user.  I also would like to see reports to AIV. It is really pointless to revert vandalism without reporting to AIV as some vandals need to be stopped to protect  Wikipedia and to save time spent repairing damage. BTW, you can have rollback without admin power by use of
'''Oppose''' per Naconkantari, and image in signature.
'''Oppose''', mainly because of this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes page] (mainly the copyvio and the unregistered users stuff) and the "Copyright paranoia" userbox. --
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> per JoanneB.  "if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain" is NOT true, and admins should have at least some knowledge of copyright law, especially if they show an interest in involving themselves with copyright-related pages. --
'''Oppose''' Per Dlohcierekim's comments above. --
Quoting from [[User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes]]: "However, if information is posted online by anyone, in a public website, it becomes public domain.". No.--
'''Weak oppose''' per JoanneB.
'''Oppose''', IP forgery doesn't help, although granted it may not be your fault.
I'm sorry, but I've got to '''Oppose''' this one for now. The IP forgery NSLE mentions isn't a great start (don't worry, this isn't a vote, the 'crats can check to see whose fault that is) but while admins don't have to be lawyers, they should know enough to at least make an attempt at determining if an article is copyvio or not. Public domain does not ''imply'' a legal term, it ''is'' a legal term in the same manner as Copyright. :( <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (
'''Oppose''' per Sean Black and Kylu.
'''Oppose''' Basic misunderstanding of copyright issues as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes#Copyvio here] and in above discussions indicates other issues could be equally misunderstood.
'''Oppose''' as the candidate doesn't seem to understand the copyright policy or at least the reasons for abiding by it. [[User:Joturner|joturn]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lacks of understanding of copyright issues. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
Changed to '''Oppose''' because of copyright issues. '''
'''Oppose''' - per copyright issues --
'''Oppose''', does not appear to meet [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' per concerned points.
'''Oppose''' per Kylu.--Joe
'''Oppose'''.  The initial copyright issue in itself wasn't too bad, but then to argue with a voter over it when you were wrong worries me.  If you make a mistake you need to be reasonable about accepting that, and not dig your heels in.
'''Oppose'''. I think an admin should at least understand the basics of our copyvio rules, it's the sort of thing we have to deal with regularly. The more serious error, however, was arguing about it afterwards when he was clearly in the wrong; we have enough trouble as it is with admins who are unable to recognise their own flaws without adding another one. All this being said, I may well support in the future if Ynhockey demonstrates a better understanding of policy.
Non-compliance with [[WP:SIG]].  I don't like when people say, "Oh, it's just a guideline, I don't ''have'' to follow it."  To which my response at Rfa is ... "Yeah, and I don't ''have'' to support you, either."  --

'''Oppose''' per JoanneB. -
'''Oppose''' Copyright paranoia is a derogative term used by those who don't understand copyright (usually, misunserstanding the so-called "fair use"). Should such person become admin, he would likely interfere with keeping wikipedia safe in regards copyright issues.  -- <small>
'''Automatic Oppose'''. Ouw! That's never happened before. Ynhockey rejects some of the foundation issues at [[User:Ynhockey/Wikimedia_gripes]]. This is fine, you're free to do so. But of course you can't become an admin or even trusted user in a project you do not support. So I'm going to have to reject out of hand.
'''Oppose'''.  Looks like the user has contributed a lot to Wikipedia. However, I'm concerned about the comments on copyright violation. Admins are a type of ambassador for the project and comments as such I think could create a perception among the public that some amount of copyright violation is tolerated.
'''Oppose''' per all above.
'''Oppose'''. Needs to learn a lot about copywriting. [[User:Dakpowers|<font color="purple">DakPow</font>]][[User:Dakpowers/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''e'''</font>]]
'''Oppose''' sorry to be opposing someone who clearly is committed to the projeect, but its the little things like not warning users in addition to reverting vandalism and not having experience with some of the more basic policies. All of these things indicate a need for more experience in my mind; I look forward to supporting in the future.
'''Neutral''' was oppose --
'''Neutral''' as I was involved in an argument with the User about copyright issues [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BLEACH/Archive_2#fan_pages].
'''Neutral''' I can't decide. &mdash; [[User:Brendenhull|<font color="blue">Brenden</font>]][[User:Brendenhull/Military history|<font color="red">h</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Policy issues obviously need attention, but I can't quite oppose, based on the candidate's other contributions. <tt>
--
'''Moral support'''. I suggest withdrawl, but I think you should get experience in the different areas and policies. Check out places like [[WP:AFD]], [[WP:CFD]], [[WP:IFD]], [[WP:MFD]], [[WP:TFD]], [[WP:DRV]] (this should cover the main deletion places). Make sure to read through [[WP:AN]] to see how admins handle more complex problems. Also, it's never a bad idea to have a read through core policies such [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:OR]], and [[WP:V]]. And finally, be sure to contribute to the encyclopedia through actual article-building, such as joining a WikiProject. This will expose you to pretty much every process, policy, and conflict possible. --
'''Oppose'''  Sorry to start your RfA off like this, but you are unfortunately just not experienced enough for me to feel comfortable giving you the admin tools-- you have been here for less than two months and only have about 2000 edits.  You seem to be on the right track, though.  I would recommend coming back in several months after you have gained more experience.
'''Oppose''' - Sorry, but you have only been active in Wikipedia for two months (First edit: 26 October 2006), which really is not enough. Also, your mainspace contribution is very low, and majority of them are merely fixing typos. You need to contribute to the content of a article sometimes. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>(
'''Oppose'''. Keep doing the things you're doing right now for a few more months. There's nothing wrong with your experience, there just is not enough of it. Your first edit was near the end of October. We just don't have enough to base a support on.
'''Oppose''' - got nothing against you, but 2 months isn't really enough. I would be neutral but I'm not seeing an actual need for the tools. Most of the stuff you mentioned in Answer 1 is dispute resolution-style stuff, but do you have any actual experience of this? Much in the way of Newpage patrol - a must if you're going to keep an eye on CAT:CSD? I'm not seeing any quality articles either - [[WP:GA]] or [[WP:FA]] - and that does count for something.
'''Oppose''' - same reasoning, simply too little time and experience, but you sure are on the right track.--Dmz5<small>[[Special:Contributions/Dmz5|*Edits*]]
'''Oppose''', lacks of experience, needs more time though. [[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[User:Terence Ong/E|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''', lack of experience as others have said. Give it time! --
'''Oppose''', experience concerns as above. <b>
'''Oppose'''. You haven't been here long enough to understand the details of Wikipedia. '''
'''Oppose'''. I hate to rub it in, but you do need some more experience around here. You're on the right track, though. Keep up the good work, and try to interact more with users on article talk pages rather than on their user talk pages (on related issues of course). &mdash;<span style="font: 11pt 'palatino linotype'">'''''
Sorry, but just <s>over a month</s> under two months is simply too little experience. -
As others have said...keep up the good work for a while longer...spend time in as many areas of wikipedia as you can...you should be ready before too long and back with a nomination.
'''Neutral'''. I can't oppose you, but I think you should have waited a bit longer before starting this RfA. Keep up the work and reapply in a few months and I'm sure you'll get adminship. --
'''Neutral''' This could be considered as a moral support. I believe in the saying "better surely than quickly". Elaborating on this would be like "it is better to go on w/ the good work" until you get some more experience. I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACompact_Disc&diff=86415171&oldid=85009542 this move] which was done w/o prior discussion. I know it was a '''bold move''' but it was innacurate and didn't follow neither a policy nor a guideline. You hadn't refered first to [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]]. You hadn't consulted [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles|Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles]] neither because "Compact Disc" (CD) is written and spelled in CAPS wordlwide. So it is "better late than never". -- ''
'''Neutral''' - A bit too early.
'''Neutral''' You're doing well and you're on the right track, but you need much more experience and time around to be more familiar with the community and Wikipedia' policies. All the best. ←
'''Neutral''' per above comments.
'''Neutral''' The comparatively small editcount does not worry me at all, and the short time on WP is only slighty troublesome, but only 17 talk edits is unavoidably low. --
'''Neutral'''- You are a good editor, but I think you should have waited a bit more before running for an RFA--<font face="comic sans ms">
'''Moral Support'''Ah what the heck this RFA is going to fail but I admire your enthusiasm, this will be good down the road. Consider becoming active in the Project mainspace also. Withdrawal '''Recommended'''. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Verdana">
'''Super Strong Oppose'''. You have 300 edits... --
'''Oppose'''. No need for admin tools from Q1, very few edits (usually passing RfA candidates have >3000.) Not much to go by.
'''Oppose''' per answers to the questions. You haven't show any indication that you need the extra abilities admins have. You've not been with Wikipedia long enough to get a good feel of the place. You should withdraw now a give yourself more time and become more familiar and you'll get there.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' I appreciate your ethusiasm and your want to handle disputes in a calm manner but your answers need way more elaboration.  Also, you have only around 269 mainspace edits and a total of 331, which seems like an exceedingly little amount.  I'm not one to overvalue high edit counts but I would expect at least 1,000 mainspace edits to make your qualifications look a little more solid. I recommend that you withdraw this request for now and as long as you keep a good track record try once more in the future.
'''Strong oppose''' Shows no need for admin tools. Very weak answers. Only five edits between late June and last week. Less than a dozen talk edits and less than a dozen usertalk edits. --
'''Support''' - He has many thousands of edits across at least 5 languages. It is preposterous to suggest that he doesn't have enough experience. What ''does'' bother me is that his English grammar and usage are clearly fluent but carry enough mistakes that his English edits require a second look by a native speaker. -
'''Support''' per Richardcavell. And we need more admins! --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', he has a history of good editing, seems a passably swell guy, speaks solid English, has no black marks against him that I can see, and, of course, editcountitis is evil. I'm peeing into the wind at this stage but I can still make a statement.
'''Support''' per Lord Bob. - '''[[User:Wezzo|W]][[User:Wezzo/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Wezzo|zzo]]''' <small>[[User talk:Wezzo|(talk)]]
'''Support''' per Lord Bob.
'''Oppose''' Too few edits for a self-nomination; More experience on ''this'' 'pedia is needed.
'''Oppose''' per edit count and unexplained lack of answers to standard questions, although I like the admittance of past problems in the nomination.
'''Oppose''' Impressive commitment across the board but just not enough involvement in the English wiki right now (and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect me to go check out other wikis, I only speak English, lest anyone suggest I do just that). I say come back when you've built more of a profile here and/or achieved adminship on the Dutch wiki, and I may well support you. Good luck. --
'''Oppose''' - Very few edits. Only 231 distinct pages edited. -
'''Oppose''' - inexperience --
'''Oppose''' - Per my own standards I prefer admins to be more than just vandal fighters--
'''Oppose''' - inexperience + answer to standard question 1.
'''Oppose''', Still lack of experience, need to do some more work before to be an admin.
'''Oppose''', Too few edits (About 700) but just the right number of time on Wikipedia, according to my standards. Comment: EDIT MORE! <font color="FF0000">[[Montenegro|Cr]]</font><font color=green>[[User:CrnaGora|na]]</font> <sup><font color=darkorange>[[User talk:CrnaGora|t]]</font></sup><sub><font color=green>
'''Oppose''' Self-nom is usually not a good thing. Thousands of edits spanning across multiple languages/wikis doesn't make you qualified for adminship on Wikipedia. Good vandal fighter but theres more to wikipedia than that. Keep up the good work though. :-)
'''Oppose''' lacks experience on the enwiki.
'''Oppose''' per Computerjoe, among others; not enough experience on the English Wikipedia. Try again after reaching about 2000 edits and I'd probably support.
'''Oppose''' for insufficient experience here.--
'''Oppose''' insufficient en: activity —
'''Oppose''' Per above. --
'''Oppose''' The reason why you need more experince at the en-wiki is because you need to understand our policies, which differ slightly and also not have edit-wars with the people ''here''. <b><font color="teal">
'''Oppose''' per Kingboyk.
'''Oppose''' per above.--[[User:HereToHelp|Here]][[User talk:HereToHelp|'''T''']]
'''Oppose''' per above, sorry.
'''Oppose''' more time bud. --
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose'''. I would prefer to see more en-article and en-WP involvement, particularly for a self nomination. --
'''Oppose''', I'm concerned by the vandalism/lack of trust issue on the Spanish project.
Vote changed to '''neutral''' after seeing the answers to the standard questions. However I still think there are too few edits on the English Wikipedia.
'''Neutral'''. Zanaq mentions "My RfA on the dutch wiki failed because I "[[:nl:Gebruiker:Zanaq/Avonturen_op_de_Spaanse_wikipedia|vandalized]]" the spanish wiki in december 2005." Since many of us don't read Spanish, perhaps Zanaq could explain what this vandalism was and why he/she puts the word in quotations as if he/she disagrees with having been labeled as a vandal. My vote will depend on what Zanaq states about this episode since I take possible vandalism by people wanting to be admins very seriously.--
'''Neutral''' - Despite having many edits across many different languages, the low Wikipedia editcount on en is troubling. Would support with increased project space edits. --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">
'''Neutral''': enwiki is a different animal than most others, though i will say both nl and es are high-traffic sites as well. Edit more on the enwiki, and it'll be fine. --
'''Neutral''', too few English edits
'''Support''' - I'll assume good faith, and recruiting volunteers to Wikipedia is good.'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Good, experienced user. Did a good job with the community justice elections. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Wouldn't usually support such an inexperienced user, but has lots of experience in new articles, where he plans to use new admin powers. I expect experience to come in other areas before he needs it.
'''Support'''. The user is still pretty new but he has shown devotion and is prepared to work. I think he deserves a chance. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''' Has shown commitment towards the project. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' you need to have more edits and experience. <font face="Croobie" color="red">[[User:Anonymous_anonymous|Anonymous]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="blue">[[User talk:Anonymous_anonymous|_anonymous_]]</font><font face="Croobie" color="green">
'''Weak Support''' I feel on the fence, however, I believe that this user will not abuse admin powers and use them in a respectful and necessary fashion. I am slightly worried about age, but I believe a solid job can be done. I'm being bold and going for the gold.
'''Support''' new pages patrol is a better version of RC patrolling that really needs human interaction.  I'd like to see higher quality (e.g., featured article) contributions, but he has what it takes to be a good admin.
'''Support'''. I am impressed by his contributions, and I have no doubt he would respect the tools. <font color="3300FF">
'''Support''' I see no problems.
'''Support'''. People oppose on the ground of edits &ndash; as a 1,900-er (according to the toolserver), I think that it takes less time than you think to get acquainted with WP policy. Having said that, if you do get adminship, ease into it slowly. (I hope I get paid by the word!) [[User:Haza-w|<span style="font-weight:bold;font-family:verdana;color:#FF0000;">haz</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%;">([[User_talk:Haza-w|us]]
'''Support''' per Haza, MoP, Siva, and Stephen, inter alii.
'''Support'''As I always like to see more knowledged admins who can help delete new pages which shouldn't belong
'''Weak Support''' Certainly enough edits, and I don't see you abusing your powers. I would still like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits. But do to the good argument below, I will have my support limited. This is unlikely to succed, so get involved in some more Wikiprojects, and better luck next time! '''<font color="DarkRed">
'''Support.''' Enough edits for me, and lack of project edits does ''not'' constitute lack of knowledge of policy.
'''Support''' per above. --<i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="#FF0000"></font></i>
'''Support''' I feel that he would do good with the mop <font color="black">
'''Support''' While new, he's an active contributor, seems to handle consensus building well and shows every sign of being trustworthy. Let's give 'em a mop. --
Sorry, just barely fails my criteria, again in project-total edits ratio (my criteria is 15%), by the below count it's around 11%.
'''Oppose''', not enough experience. Rory makes an interesting point.

'''Oppose''' per NSLE and experience.
'''Oppose''' Wasn't concerned about sockpuppetry even before he was cleared, and he handled it with emotional maturity. I just don't think this user has enough editing experience generally. Also, I'd like to see him participating more in discussions of policy, AfD, RfA, etc. His stated aversion to them (in response to JoshuaZ's question below) seems bizarre. Contributing to the ''discussion'' is how we establish consensus (before it becomes a debate). <br> -[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FIran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&diff=48463018&oldid=48409063 This] makes me question intellectual maturity. (see note below)<br> -Two of first three "beliefs" userboxes on user page (anarchocommunism, 9-11 conspiracy theories) concern me slightly (let's not bring up joturner, please). <br> -Most mainspace edits are minor. <br>He makes good contributions and shows tremendous potential; in a few months, perhaps. --
'''Oppose.'''' Needs to show more breadth in editing; bulk of edits consist of tagging articles. --
'''Oppose''' per Madchester  --
'''Oppose''' per Madchester. Need more editing and experience with Wikipedia I'm afraid.--
'''Oppose''' - stick around a few more months and I'd support you then, but for now you seem to lack a broad range of involvement (kinda like me <tt>:)</tt>). The random page is always a lot of fun! Again, not now; but more than likely in a few months. Cheers,
'''Oppose'''. Per all above.
'''Oppose''', fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|1FA]]. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you are doing good work here, but you just don't seem ready yet. While adminship is no big deal, it does require a fair amount of experience before you'll do a good job. I think you'll make a great candidate in another few months if you continue on the path you're on, and I look forward to being able to support you then. Best, [[User:gwernol|Gw]][[User:gwernol/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience, but do not be discouraged.--
'''Oppose''' Thanks for putting yourself forward, but I feel you need more experience. Also because you have an aversion to activities where you might make enemies, you would either be a very limited admin or an unhappy person.
'''Oppose''' but would probably support in a few months. I was neutral until I saw that the user likes "to stay out of policy changes, AfDs, RfAs, and such, because that can lead to making enemies, not friends" (see response to '''Oppose''' #3 above). You have no choice as an admin; the way to making friends is through equitable decisions, and make decisions you must. Otherwise, stay on course. :) <tt>
'''Oppose''' from someone who doesn't suffer from editcountitis. You've been on the project scarcely three months. Very short time to gain experience.--
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience. --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''.  [[Talk:Minnesota State Highway 3|Amicably resolved differences]] over the terminus of [[Minnesota State Highway 3]], and shows good interest, but I usually put the threshold at 2000-2500 edits.  I think more experience is needed before doing speedy deletes, especially since it could be contentious in certain cases.  I also do newpage patrol and flag stuff for speedy deletes, but I'm not sure I have everything completely down yet.  Also, the emphasis on building community through [[WP:CJ]] and [[WP:ESP]], as well as chess, is nice, but all that is secondary to building an encyclopedia.  I'm not seeing a lot of major contributions outside of [[Trinity School at River Ridge]] and related articles.  I'd encourage some more meatier contributions to the encyclopedia space first.  --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits, and editor's own admission is many of these edits are on Esperanza's coffee lounge.--
'''Oppose'''. Not enough expreience; try again in the future.
'''Oppose''' per above (experience, nothing personal). --
'''Oppose''', I've known you to be hasty, rash, and forgetful, both here and in other wikipedias, eg [[:la:Pagina Prima|Vicipaedia]]. I certainly take at good faith that this is mostly due to your youth, and relative inexperience with structured collaborative productive engagement, and not due to any malintent, or permanent inability. Give it a little time, keep learning about procedure, and increase the breadth of your editing, like Elkman said, and I will certainly reconsider. Also, I have to say, it's been [[User:Zappa.jake/chess/Josh_Rocchio|your move]] for quite some time.--
<span class=voteoppose>'''Oppose''' - per above - I believe you need more experience - nothing personal, though :)</span> --<font size="1">
'''Oppose'''. I have rarely opposed editors on RfA. Zap is unquestionably an intelligent young person, but experience is required too. Not just threading through the intricacies within Wiki, but experience to see the wider overall picture. I commented to Zap that he lacked the experience to see that he lacked experience, and I have the feeling he doesn't know what I meant.  Hey, yes, sure, he's only 14, give him a break I know -- but it's not a life sentence and not intended to be.
'''Oppose''' – not quite experienced enough yet, nothing personal –
'''Oppose''' word for word per Gurch ^^ - '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]</sub>
'''Oppose''' per all of above. Fails [[User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article|Diablo Test]].
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with the project. Nothing personal.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience.
'''Neutral''', very few edits, still rather new.  I'd support in a few months if you become a bit more active. --
'''Neutral''', I trust this user though I find his lack of experience slightly worrying.
'''Neutral''', per Computerjoe and Rory096. --
'''Netural''', give it at least 5 months then try again, unless you do something too horrible you should succeed, but only 5 months of Wikipedia is generally not enough for adminship. And I suggest becoming active in [[WP:CVU|vandal-whacking]], adminiship is basically advanced vandal-whacking powers which wouldn't be that useful to a normal editor. +


'''Nominator support.''' Goes without saying, of course. More than meets [[User:EWS23/RFA|my criteria]], and I truly believe he would be productive with the tools.
'''third here suuport, ha!''' --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' A very civil user who is well versed in Wikipedia policies. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''', great editor, very civil and experienced--
'''Support''' Looks good to me.
'''Support'''.  2 months since the last time, and there were no major concerns then other than "not enough experience"?  Now you have 2 months more experience. --
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Meets my criteria as well. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A strong application and a good demonstration of a range of admin skills, especially the judgement shown in the mentoring exercise. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">
'''Support''' – I haven't actually seen you around before (not that I remember, anyway) but you seem like a good user to me. —&nbsp;
'''Support''' -[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. -
'''Strong support'''.  Based on the [[User:Zappa.jake/chess/Picaroon9288|chess game]] we played, and a quick review of his contributions, I find Zapptastic to be a fine Wikipedian, and a good sysop candidate, even if he is a bit young (but we have plenty of sysops around his age, I think). His csd exercise with EWS23 shows knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and I think he has improved (mainly in terms of experience) since his previous (first) rfa as Zappa.jake.  I hope he is approved by the community, as he will make good use of administrative tools.
'''Support''' per above. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' per nom. <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">
'''Support''' meets my standards, just remember that [[WP:SNOW]] is to be used sparingly.--
'''Support''' Agree with the "Support" consensus. ---
'''Support''', on the borderline of experience but answer to #4 suggests he has a decent head on his shoulders and would be capable of employing some common sense.
'''Weak support'''. Not a big fan of using [[WP:SNOW]] to speedy delete articles, but otherwise looks fine. A bit more experience in XfD would get rid of the "weak" next time around if this RfA fails.
'''Weak support'''.  As others have mentioned, [[WP:SNOW]] for speedy delete seems a bit shaky, but I think we can trust this candidate with the tools.--
'''Weak support'''. Trustable and good answers, + per BryanG. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Support'''.  He seems to have a very good grasp on policy, though I agree with others that [[WP:SNOW]] should be used sparingly, if at all, in the speedy deletion process. --
'''Weak Oppose:''' Sorry Zapp, but ~15 AFDs isn't really enough experience for me in that department. It's also great that you've started to post on [[WP:ANI]], but you should also show a willingness to investigate incidents initiated by other editors instead of just reporting your own encounters. Apart from those issues, I'm willing to support a future RFA. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">
'''OPPOSE'''; according to edit statistics, user has only given 69 user warnings indicating lack of vandal-fighting experience, mainly only participating in CSD and not AfD shows they aren't that experienced in the entire deletion scene. Also spamming users talk pages in last RfA[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danbold&diff=prev&oldid=55454665](13 of these). Edit count seems rather inflated from welcoming new users at very high speeds (8+ welcomes a minute)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZapptastic&diff=70961933&oldid=70940833] and playing games. Not providing image sources[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZapptastic&diff=73941049&oldid=73898748]. I won't go on any longer, but I feel the user is best as an editor for now.--<font style="background:white">
'''Oppose'''. Despite the high edit count there appear to be too few substantive edits on articles for the editor to have got a sense of what Wikipedia is about, which I believe is key for the deletion side of adminship.
'''Oppose''' Few AfDs, relatively-low wikispace edits, and tricky answer to Question 4 all suggest candidate is a bit inexperienced in wiki-process.  Speedy deleting per WP:SNOW maybe isn't totally ''evil'', but it isn't something an RfA candidate should be thinking about before getting the mop.
'''Oppose''' somewhat per Xoloz and somewhat per my general impression of the user. Sorry. - <b>
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz and Andeh. I'm concerned about the low *fD experience and snowball comments in Q4.  As mentioned above, he was notified yesterday that [[:Image:Northstar Commuter Coach.jpg]] did not list a source; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ANorthstar_Commuter_Coach.jpg&diff=74015983&oldid=60305000 edit he responded with] is imprecise, does not name the copyright holder, and does not convince me that that we can consider the image licensed under the GFDL. He's good editor, but right now there are still too many signs of inexperience for my comfort. '''''×'''''
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz. Too few Wikipedia space edits. Participate more in AfD's and I'd change my mind. --
'''Weak Oppose''' per Netsnipe and Espresso Addict. At first blush this candidate looks ready for the mop, but on further investigation, including the examples given by the nominee, I was quite underwhelmed and did not see what I expected to see. While I believe this person may be trusted with the mop, I'm not quite convinced of the need or the ability to use it.
'''Weak Oppose''' Zapptastic has limited experience in what the areas in which he wants to apply the administrative tools.  That, plus the fact that I'm also a bit leery of those wanting using [[WP:SNOW]] to circumvent an AfD if CSD doesn't apply, leads me to believe that I'm not ready to support at this time.
'''Weak Oppose''' As much as I hate doing this, I'm a bit fearful that you don't have enough experience. It's good to let the deletion process run its course. It's possible that a lot of work was invested in the article proposed for deletion. Please don't take this RfA as a blow against you personally. You are a great wikipedian and have a lot to offer this project, just not as an admin right now.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Hoopydink and Andeh.--
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz - I'd like to seem more experience in the areas directly related to maintaining/writing an encyclopedia, which at the end of the day is what the mop is for. <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Weak oppose''' I supported the first RfA but was disconcerted by a few issues that arose there, mostly apropos of the user's judgment relative to speedy deletions but also with respect to deficiencies in articles he adduced as representing his best work (for which deficiencies, of course, no one editor is solely&mdash;or even jointly&mdash;responsible); because I've not found anything here to assuage my abiding concerns, I must oppose per Xoloz and consistent with my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]].
'''Neutral'''. Falls well below [[User:Themindset/RFA|my standard]] of at least 200 article-talk edits.
'''Neutral''' Sorry, Zappa. I felt like I was a massive jerk to you on your previous RfA. However, the comments about speedily deleting per [[WP:SNOW]] is not a good idea for anyone to use, even for experienced admins. The rationale for speedy deletion is for blantantly obvious cases where an admin can act without needing a consensus of any kind. However, on anything that appears to be boderline, anything could happen if an editor saw the article. We can't always be sure, trust me, I've been listed on DRV four times, I need to be careful, myself. I think you would be a good admin, but in good time.
'''Neutral''' I don't have enough of an impression of this user to rate him.
'''Strong oppose''' - 1. Failed to create RfA before transcluding from [[WP:RFA]], showing lack of understanding of instructions. 2. Answers to question 1 do not require the usage of administrator tools. 3. Virtually no usage of edit summaries. 4. Less than 500 edits. 5. No Wikipedia namespace edits prior to this RfA. Please try contributing to [[WP:AFD|AfD]], [[WP:RFA|RfA]], and other project-related areas first, then come back in another 6 months and we might support.
'''Oppose'''... Oh my. Less than 500 edits, you don't need admin tools to merge or otherwise clean up articles, and this is a malformed RfA. I strongly suggest you withdraw and come back when you have more experience. Happy editing!

'''Support''', very strong vandal fighter (saw him in action), good editor, seems to be a good admin material

'''Support''' I think you have the qualities, and you will work through the concerns raised here soon enough. Please keep a learning attitude at all times and diversify your work.
'''Support'''. Adminship is no big deal and this user seems trustworthy. [[User:DarthVader|DarthVad]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Good user. --
'''Support''' - Let him be given the admin-tools, and let his learn adminship by way of "on-the-job" training as an administrator. I am sure this shall not expose us to any risk, as wikipedia is perhaps facing greater risk from several others. --
'''Support'''  <font face="Book Antiqua"><b><font color="#008080">
'''Support'''. I'm assuming on good faith that you will make an effort to read any policies you may have so far missed. <span style="font-size:90%;">—'''<font color="olivedrab">[[User:Cuivienen|Cuivi]]</font><font color="darkolivegreen">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|é]]</font><font color="steelblue">
'''Weak support''' (changed from '''Neutral'''). Deserves the chance. :)
'''Support''' seems a good editor. --'''[[User:tone|Ton]]
'''Support''', excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' A good user. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
<b>Support</b> Definitely wouldn't abuse it. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support''' - definitely a worthy user. BTW, I feel that the questions should act as a guide for potential admins to hone their skills and experience in wiki policy, rather than as a barrier to their getting a mop.
'''Support''' seems like a good candidate --
'''Support''', good candidate.
'''Moderate support''' per Dlohcierekim and AmiDaniel.
'''Strong Support''' - Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' per other users. --
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''', great editor, though low amount of project edits (currently under 250) shows that Zpb52 doesn't have enough involvement with the Wikipedian community. Also, I would like to see a greater use of edit summaries.--<font color="red">[[User talk:TBC|☆]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Edit summary use and project talk edits too low...but keep up the good work. I'll support next time.'''
'''Oppose''' per Voice of All, participate more in *fD and I'll support in a few months. Also does not really seem to need admin tools; user uses VandalProof, which has rollback built in (and doesn't support admin rollback, AFAIK), and answer to question 1 doesn't really see any real need for the mop.  Wikification and grammar corrections, while vital to Wikipedia, don't require admin tools.  --
'''Oppose''', low amount of Wikipedia space edits suggests low knowledge of policy; recommend higher participation in AFD. More edit summaries, please. Reverting vandalism, RC patrol, and cleanup don't require adminship.
'''Weak oppose''' per Voice of All.
'''Weak oppose''' per Kimchi.--
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose''' per question 5. I am gobsmacked that an anon editor who has tried to do the right thing in saving Wiki from a copyvio (and even explained it on the talk page so it's obviously not vandalism) would get smacked down with a blank3 (not even a blank1!), when they should be thanked for their action and given an apology for being incorrectly robotically reverted, a warm welcome, an encouragement to keep up the good work and a helpful explanation about the use of copyvio for the future. Well done [[User:Zpb52|Zpb52]] for your vandalism work and I hope you will make an admin in the future, but in the meantime, please think about the potential effects of your actions on the person at receiving end... [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I have struck through "strong" as a gesture to the apology, as I would like to support this candidate for the vandal fighting, but I'm not won over by the explanation ''"I didn't get the feeling that the anonymous editor was "doing the right thing" by deleting copyvio."'' I feel an admin candidate should be able to read, understand and correctly interpret the question. It is also relevant that some very experienced editors edit as anon.
'''Oppose'''.  I don't like his answers to the questions: many of us became admins on the strength of our vandalism-fighting work, but I get the feeling that Zpb52 isn't fighting ''vandalism'', but ''vandals''.  His correction on question 5 worries me more than his original answer; the original one could be (and has been) explained as merely misreading the question, but "Seriously, how many anonymous editors would do such a thing?" shows an attitude towards anons that I find worrisome.  Also, (although this is not in itself a reason to oppose) he seems to share with many users the misconception that using a template (like {{tl|blank3}} or {{tl|bv}} or {{tl|test}}) is synonymous with "warning a user".
'''Oppose''' for much the same reasons as most of those above (his original answer to Q5 also seemed to involve a misunderstanding of how to deal with a copyvio, in that he wouldn't just add the notice, but would first restore the page...).  I'm also worried about the rising trend of editors, including admins, who think that edit summaries are only for things like reverting (and who react aggressively when asked to supply them).  Perhaps with a bit more experience, but not now. --
'''Oppose''' per fuddlemark. Adminship is a public trust and not lightly held.
'''Oppose''' Trust issues.  Inexperience.  --
'''Oppose''' per Tyrenius.
'''Oppose''' per fuddlemark, lacks of experience. Needs more xFD participation, as well as higher edit summary usage. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>

'''Oppose''' per ''"I didn't get the feeling that the anonymous editor was "doing the right thing" by deleting copyvio. (Seriously, how many anonymous editors would do such a thing?)"''.  Many anonymous editors are acting in good faith, and I've seen copyvio notices by anons, etc.
'''Oppose''' - freak of nurture's diff list is pretty powerful evidence that the candidate misses the mark sometimes. His judgment needs to improve. -
'''Oppose''' - per above. --<font size="1">
'''Oppose''' per Freakofnurture and a few other points made above. You've done some good things, but don't think you're ready for admin tools just yet. Keep up the vandal fighting — against actual vandals — in the meantime. <b>[[User:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #FF4500; font-family: Times New Roman; font-variant: small-caps;">Tijuana Brass</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Tijuana Brass|<span style="color: #228B22;">¡Épa!</span>]]-
'''Oppose''' A bit too soon for me, and also lack of edit summaries is worrisome. A bit more experience and i'm sure he'll make a good Admin.
'''Oppose''' Per above.
'''Oppose''', per above.
'''Neutral''': Better use edit summaries more often for minor edits.--
'''Neutral''', perhaps later. -
'''Neutral'''.  Looks like a very committed vandal fighter, but possibly a little too quick to give warnings with VandalProof.  I'll see if I can make up my mind later.  --
'''Neutral''', edit summary usage.
'''Neutral''' because of the edit summary usage and the answer to the 5th question below.  "I restore the page and put a blank3 warning on the anon's user talk page."  Seems a bit harsh if the vandal didn't understand.  Perhaps a more personal note would be much better, explaining what happened, and the Wikipeidia policy on blanking.  &mdash;[[User:Mets501|M]][[User:Mets501/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' You are a good vandal fighter, you can start listing vandals at [[WP:AIV]], get involved with [[WP:AFD]] and other deletion projects, and also, get involved with the RFA. Those projects can get you started on the Project edits(I need to also). Best of all, please start using edit summaries. When vandal fighters are reverting, edit summaries help vandal fighters what to revert to. [[user:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] (<sup><i>[[user talk:Funnybunny|talk]]</i></sup>/<sub>
'''Neutral''' Devoted, but strangely low edit count. --
'''Support''' Because admin should be no big deal, right? ......AND I've run into Zsinj around and I believe he'd do a good job. God forbid a good editor gets some additional tools to make the project better. PS: first support, yay!
'''Support''' Easy one.  2 months is plenty long enough to prove yourself; 2000+ is plenty of edits; enthusiasm is important so relatively new editors should be made admins quickly; editing articles is more important than talking about them  (this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a chat room or message board); I could go on.
'''Support''' per Waggers. Also, <s>he/she<s> he is a good editor. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
''' Strong Support'''
'''Support''' and I hope the RfA succeeds, although it may fall victim to "time-ism" on the part of other voters. I think 2 months is just about enough time, and coupled with the tireless editing, I think Zsinj would make a good admin. [[User:Haza-w|<b><font facefolor="#FF0000">haz</font></b>]]&nbsp;<sub>([[User_talk:Haza-w|user&nbsp;talk]])</sub><sup>
'''Support''' but more experience will be better.--

'''Weak oppose''', lacks of article talk edits, project and project talk edits. I believe you are too new now. However, you may try again in July when you have more edits. --[[User:Terenceong1992|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e]]</font>
While I ''would'' like to welcome our new obese Imperial over-warlord, but simply doesn't meet my [[User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards|standards]]- the real killer for me is the experience and lack of any real interaction as far as I can tell. I am also a little concerned by the fact that while Zsinj does have ~2000 edits, the considerable majority were in January. --
'''Oppose''', too new, and [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_46#Good_vandal_fighter_not_necessarily_.3D_good_administrator|per previous rant]].
'''Oppose''', with a caveat that you are doing a great job so far, and soon will have the coveted mop.  Just too soon. --
'''Oppose'''.  give it another month. <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' as per above, needs more experience, this is too soon. --
'''Oppose''' Two months is too new for me, will support next time if current contributions continue.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, you're too new for my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]]. Please try again in the future.
'''Weak Oppose''' per the above vote by Essexmutant.
'''Oppose'''. Too new. Maybe if a user was incomprehensibly stellar, I would vote to support - but in that case it wouldn't have to be a self-nomination. Sorry.
'''Oppose''' Two months is just not enough time to deduce whether a user is capable of being a admin.
'''Oppose''' per the reasoning of [[Cincinnatus]] and lack of experience.
'''Oppose''': much too soon, sorry, but please keep building the encyclopedia and try again in a few months.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Weak oppose''', please come back in a few months. Not enough experience to date.
'''Weak oppose''' <s>Neutral</s> Reluctantly, because 2 months really is too soon. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 13:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) On reflection, my argument points to a weak oppose. Sorry. Please come back when you have a little more experience. --
'''Neutral''', I'd like to support, but less than two months is just too soon.  Please try again in a month or two and I will support you 100%.

'''Neutral''' with 2 months of history I just can't tell what you'll be like as admin I'm afraid.
'''Neutral''' So far so good but too soon --
'''Neutral''' Unfortunately, it's just too soon :(. --
'''Neutral''' Good contributor, but please wait a few more months before requesting again. --
'''Neutral'''. If there is something I've learned is that more time can't hurt. Keep up the good work and start writing some articles, to balance out your Wikipedia experience.
'''Neutral'''. Looks OK but this RfA is a bit too soon. Please reapply in a month or two.
Inaugural '''support''' for a Wikipedian I only see doing good things around the place. I am sure he won't abuse the tools. --

'''Support'''. Great vandal fighter, will be a lot easier not having to use [[WP:AIV]], I'm sure. <font color="#FF0000">[[User:Haza-w|'''haz''']]</font> <font size="1">([[User_talk:Haza-w|talk]]) <font color="#00FF00">
'''Support.''' —&nbsp;
'''Support.''' Reading of talk page archive convinces me of '''Zzuuzz's''' readiness.
'''Support''' although a little thrown by relatively low project space edits at first, closer inspection shows a lot of AIV and AfD contribs. Combined with a ''heap'' of anti-vandal stuff in mainspace, and promises to dig into some of our bigger sysop backlogs, I'm convinced that giving him the tools will only better the encyclopedia. [[User:Bornhj|<font color="#1198e8">jam</font>]]
'''Support''' per Robdurbar.
'''Support''' per Nom.
'''Support'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''
'''Support''' - good AIV and AfD participation.
Regulation '''Support'''. This guy's got a ludicrously high edit count. If he doesn't know his way about by now, he ought to.
'''Support''' per nom. Good contributor
'''Strong Support''' A great user who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --<font style="background:gold">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">S</font>]]
'''Support''' as nom.  A decent user whose editing pattern proves that admin tools would be of real benefit. --
'''Support''' per Robdurbar and James.  No issues, will use the tools effectively.  Will be second-last admin in alphabetical order.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good enough for me.--
'''Support''', no major issues.
'''Weak Support''', seems like they could really use the mop, but the lack of encyclopedia writing is noted, <font style="color:#22AA00;">'''
'''Support''', I don't find the reasons to oppose given below to be compelling at all. Personally, I can see no limit to Wikipedia's need for high quality vandal-fighters, so I'd be happy to see Zzuuzz receive the mop. [[User:Daveydweeb|Daveydw]]<font color="green">[[User:Daveydweeb/Esperanza|ee]]</font>
'''Support''' I've seen him around, good vandal fighter. Will do well with a squeeze-type mop.
'''Support''', good user. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Per above. Good name.
'''Support''' I am always seeing users run for admin before getting involved in anything related to the position. (My own RfA comes to mind.) However, this user is very involved in such things as reverting of vandalism, and is well-deserving of my support, as well as that of other voters. [[User:Steveo2|<font color="red">S</font>]][[Wikipedia:Birthday Committee|<font color="orange">t</font>]][[User talk:Steveo2|<font color="yellow">e</font>]][[User:Steveo2/1000 Posts|<font color="blue">v</font>]][[User:Steveo2/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[Template:BDC Bulletin 1|<font color="indigo">o</font>]]
'''Support'''. Zzuuzz's vandal fighting is admirable, and it is clear from both the support above and my review of his contributions that he would responsibly use the tools. I trust that he will not jump into XfD or other areas he has limited experience in before he is ready to contribute.
'''Support''' per above. Nothing wrong with specialist admins. --
'''Support''' a dedicated vandal-fighter who will contribute a lot to the project.
'''Support''' Unlikely to abuse tools
'''Support'''. Shows a clear need for the tools, and no real compelling reason to suspect they would be misused.
'''Support'''. Clear need for the tools, experience, and no reason to suspect misuse.
'''Support'''. <font style="background:black" color="gold">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Balanced, corteous editor. Efficient vandalism fighter. Performs a vast array of essential maintenance work.--[[User:Husond|Hús]][[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]
'''Support''' extremely good and dedicated vandal fighter --
'''Support''' per TheMindset, who succinctly states that which I, in my [[User:Jahiegel/Views on Wikipedia/Requests for adminship|RfA guidelines]], assert to be the only relevant question here, viz., whether a user's becoming an admin is likely to have a propitious effect on the project writ large, most prominently with respect to whether a user is unlikely to abuse the tools or to misuse them, even avolitionally, by acting in areas with which he/she is insufficiently familiar; here, the candidate's judgment and knowledge of policy seem quite fine.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--Don't worry about the lack of substantive contributions.  WP needs more help on, well, administration.  Makes sense to make you an administrator.
'''Support'''. I've seen Zzuuzz around Wikipedia a good number of times, and there is nothing I can say negative about him. Seems like a great user. --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support.''' Will not abuse tools. Case closed. [[User:RyanGerbil10|RyanG]][[User:RyanGerbil10/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per above, especially RyanG. —''
'''Support''' vandal fighter needs tools, we need vandal fighters. Try to contribute more to the article space and do not forget that the main purpose of the project is creating content all the other activity are only useful if they facilitate content creation
'''Support'''. &mdash;<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">
'''Support''' Convincing answers to new questions. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 08:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC) <s>'''Oppose''' per above and the 30-ish AfD contributions I checked were all me-too's (including various nominations). Happy to reconsider if JoshuaZ's questions above are answered. ~
'''Support''' fits my rules!
'''Support'''. AIV edits good, AFD edits are not all "me to's", and seemed apropriate. Good responses on talk page. Come on let's give somone the tools who can help out with things without messing up. We can't all do everything on a site this size.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Appears trustworthy and has proven ready to handle the tools
'''Weak Support'''&mdash;You have some very valuable experience and are a good contributor. You meet most of my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards/T-Z#W|criteria]]. However, if you’re going to delete articles, you need to understand how to create articles. Folks who’ve actually edited a bit are best—serious (encyclopedic) articles are good—the more serious contributions completed the better. Suggest you work on contributions before you adjudicate article deletion. Taht said, you'll not abuse the tools & can be entrusted with them.  Skål - [[User talk:Williamborg|Williamborg]] (
'''Weak Support''' - changed from oppose, my concern over the images still stands, but answer to optional question 3 shows that this user clearly "gets it" --
'''Support'''. Seems unlikely to misuse the tools. --
'''Weak Support''' I can't see the candidate misusing the tools, he/she is relatively experienced, and would certainly benefit from having the extra buttons in his vandalism reversions, so sure, why not?  The weak support is for the fact that "per nom" contributions demonstrate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia beliefs in regards to discussion and consensus
'''Support''': A perusal of this editor's work has not shown up any problems. Experiences around Wikipedia show this user seems to be a force for good, even if a mild one. Non-political approach should not cause problems in future.
'''Support''' Lots of vandal reverts. Can definitely benefit from the rollback feature. 9,000 edits is very impressive too. -
'''support''' keep up the good work
Fails my criteria for project edits. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Lack of WP edits along with little contribution to actual encyclopedia writing. Good vandal fighter though.
'''Oppose''' Theres more to Wikipedia than rolling back vandalism. Lack of WP namespace edits and encyclopedia writing. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">
'''Oppose''' I am unhappy with the level of meaningful contributions as well. - <b>
'''Oppose'''. General lack of experience in the Wikipedia namespace. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. Too few contributions to building the encyclopedia, which I feel is a key underpinning to the deletion policy.
'''Oppose''' I strongly suspect him of aspiring to run wikipedia like some kind of madman. --
'''Oppose''' Not enough quality encyclopedic content edits. --
'''Oppose'''. Certainly a good faith user and vandal fighter, but not enough actual writing experience according to my standards. &mdash;
I have to '''oppose''' as well. I'm strongly against the idea that people can waltz in, revert vandalism for a bit, then become the official face of Wikipedia and be able to explain and adhere to all its policies. You simply don't get the experience necessary by endlessly RC patrolling. --
'''Oppose''' per Rune.Welsh.  Significant experience outside of vandal-reverting is an administrative "must have."
'''Oppose''' per Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' - Vandal-fighting is fantastic, we could use more of it.  But while preventing others from detracting from the project is great, I would like to see more experience actually building it up as well.  Would happily support with more meaningful WP edits.  --
'''Oppose''' per 1FA concerns. -- '''[[User talk:Miborovsky|Миборо]]
'''Oppose''' All users have [[suffrage]].
'''Oppose'''. Wider experience needed.
'''Neutral''', under 400 WP edits I feel is far too few if the user intends to get involved in many deletion-related chors. Many of which are just reverts, couldn't find any nominations either. Maybe best as an editor, for now.--<font style="background:white">
I'm not usually one for fussing over low editcount, but Andeh's point about lack of initiations is well taken. However, he's a good enough contributor that I cannot flatly oppose, and would willingly support next time around if he can make up for that particular lack. (Lots of listing articles for speedy would be good too, but that'll be difficult to ascertain without the toolserver working.)  .... oh yes, '''neutral'''.
'''Neutral'''. Vandal fighter-only. Perhaps more project involvement is needed. I'd like all admins to have fairly well-rounded policy knowledge, and that and heavy article contributing is a good way to get it. I don't see enough of that yet.'''
'''Neutral'''. You have a high mainspace edit count, which is good but alot of your edits seem to be reversions, what i like to see in an editor is one that contributes equally as well as RC watch et cetera. <font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/
'''Neutral''' pending answer of my question. --
'''Nuetral'''.  This is by far one of the hardest decisions I've had to come to because one one hand you have a great vandal fighter who has proven his worth to the community.  On the other hand, however, you have *very* little article writing experience.  Is that important?  It is difficult for me to support a candidate that doesn't participate in writing articles, as that shows a certain lack of valuable experience.  There is no way I could oppose because this is a great candidate, but there is no way I could support either.  I'll support any future application only after there is sufficient article namespace editing, as per the concerns listed. --
'''Neutral''' per RM. Tough one because the room for all sorts of Admins in WP's broad church, including specialist vandal fighters. However, i still think there must be some demonstration of wider participation and i feel this editor falls a fraction short for my support. Next time, with a little more experience, a cert. '''
'''Strong support'''.  Pardon the cliché, but I thought he was one already.
'''Support''' strong contributor --
'''Support''' - a consistent contributor who would well wield a mop. --
'''Strong Support''' I knew he wasn't one, but I never understood why ; - ) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &mdash; consestent editor (plus, I trust the nominator).
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''', as per nom  (hope he accepts...)
'''Support''' Very good contributor.
Support.  Amazing work on Star Trek-related articles.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!'''<small><small><small>Disclaimer: <small><small><small><small>This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you.</small></small></small></small></small></small></small> --
'''Support''', strong editor.
'''Thumbs up.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
Great stuff.—

'''Support''', great editor.
'''EXTREME LEX LUTHER SUPPORT WITH EXTRA CRYPTONITE!!!!!''' <small>
11,000 edits? '''Extreme asexual support'''. --
'''Extreme Mexican Support'''. He's done quite a good amount of work here, and has been active in the Wikipedia namespace too.
'''Support''' -
'''Support with extra cheese''' -
'''Support'''  Good editor --
'''Support'''
'''Long-overdue support'''. <font color=green>
'''Support''', great contributor.
'''Support'''
All types of supports are here – I am tempted to add one more: an Indian '''support'''. --
'''Support'''. [[I thought he was one already|cliché]]--May the Force be with you!
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''support''' this really is long overdue
'''Wholehearted support'''
'''Support.''' He's been on longer than me, and I thought he already was one! Here's my support. :-) --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.  --
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support'''--
So am I allowed to say '''Extreme lesbian support''' or am I not?
'''Support'''. Very fine contributor.
'''Dancing support'''. That's right, I'm ''dancing''.
'''Support'''.
I don't know JIP, but gets my '''Furry Alien Support'''.
'''Support''' Good User --
'''Witty Support Comment Here''' &nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme Death''' <small>phoenix</small> '''Support'''. <nowiki>{{cliché}}</nowiki> Give him the mop and bucket already. --
'''23yes'''. And please tell me what happened to the other 22 skidoo?
'''Support'''.
Support.  Great user name, by the way.
'''Support'''.  11,000?  That's a whole lot of  <nowiki>[</nowiki>
Temporarily un-wikibreak-ing to '''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Thought he already was one.
Cool. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''S'port''' good guy (and I like bandwaggons) --
'''Support''' very active.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I've always trusted [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]]'s judgement. --
'''Support''' absolutely!!! <small>
'''Support''' certainly - trustworthy and dedicated.
'''Support''' &ndash; I've seen him around the traps, always seems level-headed and trustworthy. --
'''Support''', good guy.
'''Support''' Agree with above comments.
'''Support''' Lots of edits, so I'll support.
'''Support'''.
Oh yes, '''support'''. I see him all the time on AfD.
Extreme conspirational '''support'''! Very active on AfD.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support!''' Aren't you the guy I yelled at for VfDing gym leaders? :) Looks like things have changed and now you are one of PAC's most active contributors. You're also got a ton of Wikipedia namespace edits, a staple for aspiring admins. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support''', as the admin that unbanned him after Fred Bauder thought he was Plautus Satire =) Since then, he has shong a lot of great work. '''
'''Support'''. He may do a lot of pokemon work, but I see him everywhere else too. Plus I trust celestianpower. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Should make good admin.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''
&#8212;
'''Support''' Very good User. Active and good to work with in VFD --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme lesbian support!''' - I like his attitude about hopeless battles on AFD. However, I would like to see an avoidance of acronyms around newbies, like "nn". It doesn't take that much more effort, and why confuse the newbies when we don't need to? ...Most deletable articles are made by newbies. However, I fully support acronyms in edit summaries, since the space is limited there. --<span style="color:red">
'''Support'''. Very good contributor, I have disagreed with several of his votes on AFD but the civility is impressive.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
'''Strong support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A very good contributor.  If you do improve firearms articles, I'm sure they'll benefit as much as the Pokémon ones have.
'''Support'''- from inital oppose.
'''Sport''' - sometimes [[User_talk:WindFish|talks]] to me which makes me feel existent <3. Also a diligent [[WP:PAC]] worker. --
'''Support'''. Good stuff, this one. -
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Mexican Support'''! (Sorry, I just wanted to say that). Just go outside the pokéworld every once in a while, ok?
<s>Too much focus on one topic (Pokemon), which I wouldn't even consider encyclopedic in the first place. </s>
<s>[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
I have never heard of this user.
Full support.
'''Support'''. I think ABCD has been through enough. Despite all the accusations, he has remained civil and enthusiastic. With his interest in janitorial work, I think he will make a good administrator. &mdash;
Still '''support'''. [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]--
Still '''support'''. --

Still '''support'''. -
'''Support'''. Very well, with his name cleared, ABCD gets my full support, now without reservations, as he meets my normal criteria for admin.
Still '''support''', ABCD is a great janitor. The fact that he is willing to stay with the project after what he went through can only be a positive.
Still '''support''', maintains good attitude under heat. --
Full support, he has handled this bizarre situation quite expertly.
Support, based on dealing with vandalisms. It would be possibly better to have categories of Admins, one of them being ''policeman/judge''.

We can always use more vandal police.


Support, as before

Support, but I want to question on who really has authority to nullify a vote
Support &mdash; the more people dealing with vandalism and with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia, the better. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 23:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)<br>Just to add to my comments, given the present voting situation: there's an awful lot of everyday, unglamorous admin work that needs doing, and not enough hands to do it.  With regard to the flood of page-creation vandalism and advertising, for example, I've often found that an article containing nothing but a bit of childish obscenity, or an advert for some on-line scam, hangs around for quite a while after I've tagged it for speedy delete.  The more admins like ABCD, who want to get on with the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia, without being distracted by other matters, the better.
Support, as before.
Support. Obviously has a real interest in doing admin work.
'''Support'''.  Anyone who wants to turn wrenches on this site as much as ABCD does needs the keys to the tool chest, especially when dealing with vandal stubs and the like. -
Support

Support. OK, so a lot of ABCD's edits are janitorial in nature, but that is basically what an admin is supposed to do- keep WP free of vandalism, disputes and so on --
Support, we always need admins to do the grunt work.-
'''Still oppose''' Does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]]. If he did, there wouldn't have been all this fuss anyway, as people would have seen that he had the project's aim at heart,
'''Still oppose''' Not enough experience.
Oppose. --
I find this to be an interesting nomination.  ABCD's work in organizing and categorizing articles is worthwhile and is to be commended.  However, I find the overall volume of editing effort to fall short of that now considered minimal for adminship.  I find a lack of engagement with the community.  Finally, I am suspicious of self-nominations, since I believe that any editor who qualifies should be able to find someone to make a nomination for them.  I would hope that ABCD will keep up the good work and, in time, become and admin.
I am reluctant to support a nomination for admin for someone with less than 6 months on wikipedia unless there is some really compelling reason, such as an outstanding track record.
Agree with jguk's comments. Number of major edits should be above 0.
'''Oppose'''.  No substantive edits.
<s>Still oppose.</s> Again, keep up the good edits, but I simply don't see a need to be an admin and I believe admin's should have substantial experience contributing content, not just janitorial work, though both are important. And as before the overeagerness (self nominating twice, soliciting votes) does not lend extra confidence. -
'''Support''' [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme Random Support''' 2 Vote out of 80+ Support Votes --
'''Extreme I'm Going To Disney World in 2.5 Days Support!''' Good contributor, I wanted to nominate him but I didn't think he'd accept. (I thought he had been around longer, too... O_O) --
'''Acid burn support'''. <font color=#9999ff>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
<3 --
'''Major support''' --
'''Support''' <small>
Yes!
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Sprt''', no pun intended. -
'''Extreme I-had-two-edit-conflicts-while-voting support.''' ~~ '''
'''Full, 100% Acidic Support'''. A.A is first on my 'list of users I hold in high regard'.
<big>SUPPORT</big> - had to be obnoxious. <font color=#7fffd4>
'''Ground floor support''' -
Strong support from
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support'''. Always seen good stuff from this one.
'''Strong Support''', and let [[User:Func|Func]] beware, this nomination is going to trump his record because of Vinegar's level of activity and good faith in Wikipedia!
'''Dude!''' '''
<s>'''Depressed "my cat is missing" support'''.
'''Support''' Duh. Even Boothy wouldn't oppose the Acid.
'''Support'''. Ah yes, almost a formality now.
'''Support'''. Sounds like a decent editor. --
'''Full, unconditional support.''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Without reservation.  --
'''Extreme jumping on the bandwagon support'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' Strong, extreme. I've been waiting for this. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' We need more "Cool" headed people like me:-)
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. He welcomed me, I guess I've always been fond of 'im. Good man, and good luck. --
'''Support'''. We're going to see '''(100/1/1)''' before the week is over! (Yes, Boothy ''will'' oppose this, since three months is his absolute minimum, if I remember correctly).
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course. -
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support ×''' <math>\infty</math>. Arrgh!!! I was going to nominate him as soon as mine was over! (mmmmmmm... edit conflicts)

Hey! I said the same thing in my RfA and I got booed off the stage! '''Support''', obviously :P
'''Support''' - there's no compelling reason not to.--
'''Support,''' Just keep him away from User:Sodium bicarbonate! --
'''Support''' I am shocked! Appalled! Outraged!! I thought he was an administrator already! of course support, no doubt about it.
'''Delete''', gamecruft. Er, what? Wait, he's not an admin already? -
'''''Of course'''''. Very good one.
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support!''' Where have I been? Riding out the hurricane.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support = very yes''' [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts;&hearts;purpl</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Seen him around Wikipedia doing good work and he was the first user to welcome me when I was an anon. He will be a good one. Buena suerte!--
'''Support'''. Yes, yes please. I can think of a whole list of [[Wikipedia:Requested articles|articles that can be written]], by the way. -
'''Support''' I don't think there's a whole lot more to say, other than I believe that Acetic Acid could be an excellent admin. That is, if the community approves him ;) &ndash;
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', he is a positive contributor.
'''Support''' Feel like I'm piling on, in a good way though. Good editor.
'''Support''', sure. The editor has been quite helpful to the project ever since his joining and I have no doubt that he will find good use for sysop rights. Despite the reduced amount of time he has been active, he certainly appears to have a good grasp of the inner workings of the Wikipedia, so I won't complain about that, despite the fact that I think it wouldn't have hurt to wait a few more months. --
'''Support''' --
C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>O<sub>2</sub> Support.
'''Support''' levelheaded and reasonable.
'''Support''' I thought Acetic already was an admin! A good Wiki-enabler, as I like to say..:)--
'''Support'''. Easy call. --
'''Strong Support'''. Fries wouldn't be the same without you. - <span style="border: 1px solid #00aa00;>[[User:Pureblade|<span style="cursor:ne-resize">Pure</font></span>]]
'''Support'''. I think he'll do well as an admin, I trust him.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>8</sub>O<sub>6</sub> Support''' Good user, good person, goodgasell.
'''Sheep vote'''
'''Support''', I thought I had voted already! <font color="green">
'''Extremely redundant Support'''.  /me likes bandwagons. So musical. --
'''Support'''. If I remember correctly, this is my first vote on an RfA, so that should say something. :) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Now that people are actually opposing I can't be the token guy who opposes.
-- (
'''Support''' - excellent editor, from what I had seen. --
'''Support''' (the non-ridiculous variety).
<math>ax^2+bx+c=0\mbox{ where }a\ne 0</math> '''support''', good editor, excellent interaction.
Throw another '''support''' vote in the pile.
'''Support''' jumping on the bandwagon of support for this very capable candidate --
'''Support''' I tend to see this editors name every where I go, and It's been nothing but positive. Plus answers to questions were good enough to make me support without me seeing him everywhere :-D
My '''Support''' and hope i won't be the last one to. --
'''Clearly Redundant Support'''!  Always seeing good work from this editor.  --
'''Support''' &mdash; <small>
'''Support''' - administrator CH<sub>3</sub>COOH "''in da house''". Or something.
'''Support'''! (This page is now 31 KB long!!!) Go gett'em tiger! -<nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Can't think how I missed voting on this one earlier. --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Very Dilute Oppose''' only because I think [[Acetic Acid]] needs some more ageing. This vote is not intended to reflect any personal opposistion to the candidacy. '''I support AA's adminship, and would otherwise vote support''' I just think that wiki admins ought to be normal users for at least a year.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more time. Come back when you have written a real article, even if it is short. I dont think its a good idea having admins who havent gone through this. Either that or a lot more time.
'''Oppose'''. Editing a large number of User talk pages may gain votes at RfA, but the project is about substantive content. That I don't see. I'd oppose anyone as admin who doesn't have a track record on content.
'''Oppose'''.  I am puzzled by the widespread support of an editor who has been here for only three months.  I consider duration of participation more important then edit counts, and six months has long been a customary minimum, albeit one that has been disregarded at times.  I agree that Acetic Acid is personable and helpful, but three months is not long enough to learn how Wikipedia works.  Further, I have reviewed the user's article contributions and am not impressed.  I don't see ''any'' writing of a paragraph or more.  Maybe I'm missing it, but all I see are categorization edits and some very simple mechanical changes.  Even these are in pop culture areas rather than subjects where we face a more pressing need for editorial attention.
'''Oppose'''. He is not ready yet. Maybe in the future.
'''Extremely XTREMELY weak oppose''', just hasn't been here long enough, (this coming from the editor who nominated himself foolishly the day when he was here for 3 months, when he assumed it was 4). Still have to oppose though, sorry.
Like UninvitedCompany, I place more weight on duration than edit count. It's not that AA has done anything wrong, but I'd like to see 6 months on the project before supporting.
As above. &mdash;
Less than 500 edits in the article namespace is a knockout criterion for me. --
'''Neutral''' Answer to question 2 makes me a bit shaky, considering this ''is'' an encyclopedia.
'''Neutral''' Although it looks like there is a lot of support for Acetic Acid, I still would be more comfortable with a few more months of experience.
'''Neutral'''; I will not vote due to prior RFC filed by Acetic Acid, just comment to say that I am not concerned about him gaining admin powers, I do not think he will abuse his new position. '''
'''Definitely'''. An A1-vandal fighter.
'''Support''' why get in the way of someone who wants to fight vandals more effectively?--
'''Of course'''.
'''Support''' 100% - helpful and reputable.

'''Support''' sounds good. --
'''Support''', good vandal-fighter. &mdash;
'''Support''', I trust Grutness's opinion on this one. Adashiel would indeed wear down the rollback button to a nub. Give the guy the ol' mop and bucket! --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter. --
--
'''Yes''' - Support of Adashiel - Good work regarding AOE3, would benefit from more responsibility.
'''Support''' excellent vandal wacker. --
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse the administrator's toolbox.
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' a very good and supportive editor --
'''Support''' I thought he already had rollback. '''''
'''S'''upport. Solid.
'''Support'''.  I've seen Adashiel around quite a bit in vandal fighting.  He'll do a great job. --
'''Support''' Seen him in action. Good work.
'''Oh yes'''.  Exceptionally fine RC patroller; I often get the "rollback failed because ..." with his name there.
'''Support''', darn Godmode-light, it makes it all more confusing who is an admin and who isn't. I thought he was one already.
'''Support'''.
'''Mega vandalfighter support'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''', frequently-encountered and tireless opponent of the desk-scribblers..makes sense to me.--
Straightforward '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''No brainer support''' ''See id.''
'''Support'''.  I constantly run into him reverting vandalism.  Keep up the good work!
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. We need more people like him. -
'''Support'''. for hekping with the cleanup of ym page earlier today
'''Support''' for sure, without the support of the "fighters", editors can not function. --
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin.
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter
'''Support''' This is why we give admins the rollback tool.
'''Support'''. Spends entire time fighting vandalism? Excellent! (Sorry Zordrac, but, well, ''really''). Seriously, more pointy-staked tools to the best vandalhunters. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. Awesome vandal fighter.
'''Oppose''' - doesn't contribute much to Wikipedia.  Spends entire time fighting vandalism?  Very dangerous combination.
'''Support 100%''', This is a guy that defended another user against "me" and here I am supporting him, why?  Because of his loyalty, determination and dedication to Wikipedia.  He will make a great admin.
'''Super Support''', Awesome User... truly deserves it!
'''Support''', We need more cool heads like this Wikipedian. Glad to support this nomination.
'''Support'''... but dont waste too much time with the <s>turkeys</s> vandals, keep on writing quality articles.

--
'''Sweet user Alabama-boy!, Support''' from Old Europe. -
'''Support.''' &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support''' this nomination for a professional, balanced, reasonable, and extremely polite Wikipedian.
'''Support''' seems like a fair editor, though my personal preference is to allow RfAs to stand on their own without spamming user's talk pages to try and get votes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JCarriker&diff=prev&oldid=26238579] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydnjo&diff=prev&oldid=26238547] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iago_Dali&diff=prev&oldid=26238489] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts&diff=prev&oldid=26238343] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoninah&diff=prev&oldid=26238243] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pentawing&diff=prev&oldid=26238223] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PRueda29&diff=prev&oldid=26238216] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dangerous-Boy&diff=prev&oldid=26238161] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stbalbach&diff=prev&oldid=26238075] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Filiocht&diff=prev&oldid=26238048] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geogre&diff=prev&oldid=26237978] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&diff=prev&oldid=26237936] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darwinek&diff=prev&oldid=26237910]
'''Support''' of course. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' As I nominated him I support him.
'''Support''' Although Alabamaboy hasn't gotten into the political sides of Wikipedia, he also hasn't gotten into the political sides of Wikipedia.  He's levelheaded and concerned with establishing NPOV, clear articles.  Also, it is important that southern literature and African American literature and culture have an administrator angel helping them along.  The mop is frequently needed and the bucket frequently full on those subjects (and the articles stunted).
'''Whole-hearted Support''' I had intended not to vote on any other users' RfAs until my own was closed, but this is one I can't pass up.  One of the best literature contributors to Wikipedia, who keeps his head even in the face of real provocation.
'''Strong support''', has been one of the few people doing solid work on African American topics. --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''', good editor and smart bloke.  I do, however, echo the concerns of Dylons493 and chowells. --
'''Support'''. His constructive approach is a real asset.
'''Support''', but I must urge not to spam user pages in the future.
'''Support''' I've seen him everywhere, I thought he was an adm.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - sorry I took so long to get around to voting!
'''Support''' - Helped with vandalism on [[Indian American]] article--
'''Support''' I have seen him quite abit with the CDVF. I also thought he was already an admin.--

'''Support'''. Good user, give him the buttons.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Seems like a thoroughly pleasant chap.
'''Support''' Sounds good to me, need more of these.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', as per nomination.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''' - recently read a rather interesting article he'd written on DYK.--
'''Support''' - Is enthusiastic about Wikipedia, and has convinced me that he is willing to face the responsibilities of being an admin.
'''Support''' - We need more admins interested in literature, one of the most neglected and sloppy areas.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I want you to wield the mop! <font color="green">
I thought I already voted!
-- (
'''Support''', Alabamaboy is like the user I wish I could be.
--
'''Neutral''' Nothing personal but I'm uncomfortable with contacting users notifying them of one's Rfa.  I objected to this in the recent case of ScottyBoy900Q and, to be consistent, am now opposing again. This slightly different as it's not a self-nom but it would be easy enough to get a nom from someone if one really wanted to be an admin.  Adminship shouldn't be a big deal!
Strong '''Support''' as nominator.
Alai has made many useful contributions to [[WP:LDS]] and is a friendly and good editor. I'm happy to '''support''' this nomination.
'''Support''' - of course. Can I vote twice? Can I, can I? Pleeease?
'''<s>Weak</s>Strong Support'''. He's a good guy and a great user (though I haven't seen him too much) but the nomination completely consists of his edit count. I'd like more elaboration ;-) but after reading his answers to the questions make that a Strong Support. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' see him often.
'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>support-stub<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''
--'''
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Yes, Yes, Yes'''
'''Any time, any day!''' Alai's the man! <font color="green">
'''Why not?''' --
'''Support'''.
sure,--
'''Support''' Holy smokes, that's a boatload of edits!
'''Support''' because we have to put our clocks back.
It's a crime against humanity that Alai isn't a sysop already!  --
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' excellent contribs. Very fastidious contributor.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Everybody, get ready... "This person's not an admin yet?" -
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' Needs to be supported and awarded for so many edits. gets my vote...
'''+6 Two-handed admin stick of Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''''Surrealist'' support!''' :)
'''Support''' Calm and conciliatory in disputes, would be an excellent Admin
'''Support'''. With certainty! Great person, will handle the tools well. -[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Genuinely shocked that they weren't one already Support!''' --
'''Support'''. Archetypal admin. (No, no, I meant that as a compliment, honestly.) --
'''Ahem-ahem''' <speechless>--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Good edits, will likely use tools well.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' user has done extensive stub building. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Level headed, consistent, prolific editor <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' i bet he will make a great admin! [[User:Treacka|Trecaka]
'''Support''' as per nomination.
'''Support''' Another great admin candidate.
'''Strong support''': I've interacted with Alai a few times, who has always been level-headed, pleasant, and thoughtful.
--
'''Sort up'''.  Excellent work.
'''Furry Alien Support''' I found Alai had made corrections to articles I'd started, sound work.
'''Support'''
'''Sure! Give him the mop:>'''--
yet another where I already thought he was an admin. :) [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">♥♥purpl</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support'''. Nobrainer! [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support''' I like the answer about page protection.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', didn't I vote already?
'''Support''': --
'''Yea'''.  I'm going out on a bit of a limb here...  Alhutch has a rather low edit count, somewhat lower than I'd like to see even from a nomination offered by a 3rd party...  That said, I find his record to be impeccable.  I would say that I'd like to have gotten a more definitive response to the question I asked, but at least I didn't get mealymouthism, excuse-making, or anything else but what I have to interpret as "I just wasn't around"ism...with which I can completely identify.  I just hope that if Alhutch decides to take such a hiatus in the future, that he'll make his absence better known on his user or talk page at such a time.  Hint hint, nudge nudge.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
I'm going to give her/him the benefit of doubt and '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Support'''. Seems to have it all together.

'''Support''' Last 500 edits look good, and the answer to question 4 is adequate (I can identify as well).
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', edit history looks solid.
'''Support'''. A good and responsible contributor mixed with good RC patrolling which I like.
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.--
'''Support''' Per all of the above. '''''
'''Support'''. Seems well rounded. -
'''Support'''. I've seen a lot of him, seems to know what he's doing.
'''Support''' would do a fine job.
'''Support''' looks solid. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor and a good candidate for admin --
'''Support''', good contributor. &mdash;
'''Support''', As per Mr. Lokshin :>--
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' -
<font color="708090">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
'''Support'''. I thought he already was one...which, I have recently discovered, is a common mistake on Wikipedia. Is [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] an admin? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]? [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa knott]]? [[User:Raul654|Raul654]]? [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]? One can never be too sure around here.... :)
Strong support.  Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. good candidate.

'''Support''' I wish more peoples' edit summeries were like this guy's.  Q1 answer is kind of odd though --<small><font color="#FF9900">

'''Support''' WTH?  He's not an adm. already?!
Cool.
obviously
10,000 edits in just over a year?  '''Support'''
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
Holy cow!  I've just gotta '''support''' 'ya! <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Enthusiastic Support''' with extra enthusiasm
'''Support''' always found Alistair a good and trustworthy user, who would make a fine administrator. --
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' - yet another hard worker doing lots of categorizing, wikifying, and redirecting. I think that occasional participation in Wikipedia's voting and discussion isn't a major issue, as he shows himself to be a great article contributor and hard worker. Also seems to have an acceptable knowlege of Wikipolicy. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  After 10,000+ edits, has definitely demonstrated he's a reasonable, productive, dedicated Wikipedian and would make a great admin. --
'''Support''' I trust the judgement of the above users, and all seems well for adminship to be given. &mdash;
'''Support''' I've only been here a few days, and, uh, this guy is like a robot! Admin him up! <small>Unsigned by [[User:The_Fish|The_Fish]].
'''Support'''. Much good work.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.
Since I don't know the editor really well, I wanted to make sure there weren't any skeletons in the closet that would come popping out. Having seen nothing to suggest that Alistair isn't ready for adminship, I vote '''Support.''' --
--
'''Neutral''' I feel uncomfortable voting either way for someone I'e neer heard of :-/ Although I do trust the judgement of Func, Bluemoose, and Andrevan, I'm not gonna vote... yet.
'''Neutral''', much as per [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]. The reason you've not heard of him is the extraordinarily small number of Wikipedia: and Talk: (etc) space edits. His talk page doesn't appear to reveal evil-minded tendencies, however. But the answer to Q1 below is rather unconvincing. -
'''Neutral''' I had a negative experience with this user, however they apologized.  Although the user was wrong, the fact that they were big enough to admit it shows that they should be considered for admin status (because we all know how hard it is to admit we were wrong ;) ).  That said, I do not know enough about this user to vote for them, so I vote neutrally.
I'm not thrilled by the sentiment behind the answer below to question one. The user effectively wishes they could have had the sole ability to edit a page on a massive story to ensure they were pleased with how it looked. That might be a skewed look on the answer, but we've had similar comments by admins on the [[George W. Bush]] talk page, and it isn't a good way for an admin to use their powers.
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Strong Support''' Third time the charm ;) --
'''Support''' Good editor. I always take note when I see that sig. -
'''Support''', a very allround user and good guy, already active in admin-type stuff. I quote myself from last time round: "not a great diplomat, but I believe he has learned a lot from the conflicts he's been in, and will be a better admin for them." Come on, are we going to keep doing this until he's [[Kofi Annan]]?
'''Support''' I'm able to overlook the past incivility if you can promise it won't happen when you are an admin. Admins are and should be held to a higher standard of conduct, they are the face of Wikipedia. Also had good experiences with his user. -
Sensible. Recent conduct has been fine.
'''Support'''. While I personally haven't been around long enough to have full knowledge of the candidate's past incivility issues, I do not believe he has shown any incivility towards others between his 2nd and current nomination. Just make sure you use more edit summaries. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''''Support!''''' Has clearly learned from his mistakes. He's not [[Desmond Tutu]], but who is?  He deserves the mop, I think.--
As (twice) before. &mdash;

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Well done, dude. You've learned how to fake it. You can return to being you when you've got the badge, hey?
'''Support''' the [[New England]] Cabal. Whoops, [[WP:TINC]]. I'm surprised he wasn't an admin already, to quote a cliche.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''', I mildly opposed the first time, but I was confident Alkivar would take to heart some editors' concerns about civility issues, and I'm happy to see that he has.  He'll make a great admin. --
'''Support''' Has always been an excellent user in my experience.
I've had positive experiences with Alkivar.  Having myself encountered the user that he mentions in response to Andrevan below, I think anyone would have difficulty maintaining their cool in the face of such persistence.  I also applaud anyone brave enough to continue contributing to articles such as [[Warez]] despite their ridiculous level of anon-edit entropy. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &ndash; forget the past, move on, he's human after all. And his recent posts on Tony's talk was really good.
'''Support'''. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;
'''Support''' I was instrumental in Alkivar's second nomination, and still think he'd be a good admin.
'''Support''' like last time.
'''Support'''.
Does my butt look big in this?
Not just <span style="font-size:75%">75% '''support'''</span>! Energetic, scrupulous; good chap, will go far. So hand him the fairy liquid, the squeegee, and some overalls. --
'''Support''', good editor, I like him, would like him to be an admin.
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support''' long overdue.
'''NERG NERG NERG'''  --
'''Support'''. Edit summaries are not the end of the world, but please try to use them more often.
'''Support'''. It's time. --
'''Support''' this time around. Don't let us down on the edit summaries!
'''Support''' 3rd time lucky, lets hope. —
'''Support''' three times is enough, he's proven himself.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' death to editsummarycountitis. ~~ '''
'''Support''' -- ''
'''Absolutely.''' ``
'''Support''' because he seems to have improved.
'''Support''' for a third time, with pleasure.
'''support''' thought he was already an admin [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts;&hearts;purpl</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''support''' I don't often vote here, but when I do, I only vote No! if it's utterly warranted as no. The accusations of vote pandering are bogus. I don't expect to ever be nominated, so if we should think that voting here is pandering, why should I vote? The editor who accused Alkivar of "buttering up" should be sanctioned. There's no good faith there! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>

'''Support''', go fish.  &mdash;
'''Support'''.
I thought $USER was already one -
'''Support''' - seen him plenty - being civil and a nice. See no reason to think he'd abuse his powers. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''- no signs of bad behavior since last RfA.
'''Support''': yes, ''Once upon a time syndrome'' should be modified as the time passes. --
'''Support''' - after looking over the votes and giving it some thought, am going to continue with my initial impulse to support.  I've never noted any incivility when I see this user around and, despite an annoyingly infrequent use of edit summaries, the overall level of involvement is impressive. - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Xtreme this-vote-is-too-close-not-to support.''' Great contributor, civility issues seem to have been resolved (and I can forgive him for that recent ALL CAPS thing) - but please, remember that everytime you save without a summary, God kills a kitten. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;
'''Dangerously Xtreme Support''', because I love this guy like a brother!
Support -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' great editor - third time's a charm!--
'''Support'''. I am impressed by the progress made since previous nomination which I opposed. This is an experienced editor who I do not think would abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for reasons well-known
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''. a hothead sure but a dedicated wikipedian hothead
'''Support'''. I'm just stopping in briefly to support Alkivar. I've opposed in the past, but I think enough progress has been made.
'''support'''.
Missed this nom... but '''support'''.  Serious and trustworthy user.  And the opposes on the grounds of "not enough edit summaries" baffle me... adminship should be no big deal; and not a style-guide quiz.  If this one fails, I hope Alkivar is renom'ed in less than three months.
'''Oppose'''. The low usage of Edit summaries is bad enough, but the fact that this was already brought up on his previous RfA but didn't affect his behaviour one bit is indicative of his old ''I'll do things my way and the rest of you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Totse&diff=15668954&oldid=15668836 bite me]'' attitude that doomed his two previous nominations. Civilized behaviour is not just about avoiding calling people "''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niger_Innis&diff=11314263&oldid=11314171 morons]''", it's also about following the rules and customs of this community.
'''Weak oppose''' I'm a bit concerned that after 2 RFAs, nominee still hasn't learnt to use edit summaries. However credit to you for learning to be civil. I just feel that summaries are important for admins, as they have to deal with a lot of contentious stuff, and edit summaries are a good way to prevent misunderstanding and needless conflict. Also, in not upping the edit summary count it seems to show nominee's lack of regard of the opinions of those who brought up the "edit summary" objection in the previous RFAs. Admins should be sensitive to the opinions of the community, and I'm afraid Alkivar has failed to fully demonstrate this in his summary count.
I lean towards '''weak oppose''' for now. User seems to lack an edit summary box and a show preview button. See [[Unclean animal]] for example of what I mean. Also seems to set fairly unreasonable standards for adminship IMO. I don't see ''this'' nom failing, so please do try and do better. Thank you. --
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' edit summaries, lack thereof; RFA voting patterns, whilst on the platform Alkivar has supported most of the current candidates, but in the recent past has opposed other candidates — my conclusion is that he is buttering up the other candidates so they will support him. --
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Nothing wrong with adding errors, unless it is deliberate.  However, telling bald faced lies about it afterward is a problem. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alkivar&diff=9909096&oldid=9900400] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiand&diff=9900508&oldid=9900141]
'''Oppose''', I have nothing personal against the editor, but I believe he is a tad too controversial for sysop rights. --
'''Oppose''', much per Sn0wflake. I just get a off-centre vibe from this editor a touch too frequently, and I'm not clear on what has changed since the last nom. -
'''Oppose'''. I'm just not very comfortable with this candidate.
Reluctantly '''oppose'''.  I don't care about edit summaries, but civility is very important (comment Andre highlighted below was enough for me).
'''Oppose'''. He worries me. Not enough evidence that his behaviour has changed, especially if he still doesn't even use edit summaries. His first RfA nomination also implies to me that he would need to have a huge change in personality, the kind that doesn't happen in just 8 months, to make a good admin. Also, he didn't satisfactorily point to a dispute he has resolved civilly since his last nomination.
'''Oppose'''. Civility is a must.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not comfortable with the users edits and policies.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; Alivar certainly is a valuable editor and has improved since the last nomination. However, the edit summary from a week or two ago leads me to oppose. While I understand his frustration, that is no reason to be impolite or rude to anyone. Not only will edit summaries like those aggravate the situation, but it will also increase the tensions. We have other ways to deal with vandals and problem-users; in addition, society is often judged by how we treat the lowest, not how we treat the highest. Continue the improvement, and I will gladly support you in the future. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oppose''' for now since I want to hear more comments before I decide. I'd think about it. --
'''Oppose''', user still has a tendency towards incivility. -
I opposed both of Alkivar's last two RFAs, and while I'm not convinced that anything has, in fact, changed (I still see a lack of edit summaries, and I am still very concerned about this editor's ability to maintain an even temper in conflict), <s>I am not going to bother with what is likely to be an overwhelming pass.  I just hope that he does not live up to my fears and cause trouble in the long run.  '''Neutral'''</s> It seems that the problems haven't been fixed.  Switching to '''Oppose'''. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 19:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC), vote changed
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. For disregarding the use of edit summaries when told to do so in previous RfAs. Otherwise excellent contributor. --
'''Change to Oppose'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Apparently all my incivility concerns were actually before the second nomination (I just checked), so I won't oppose, however, I still find Alkivar to be often unprofessional and at times needlessly jumpy (edit summary from 23:00, October 26, 2005 ''rv... what PART OF DO NOT INCLUDE WEBSITES AND MEMBER NAMES DO YOU NOT GET!?!?!?!?!''). Neutral leaning oppose.
Will support if he commits to using edit summaries. '''Neutral for now'''.--
'''neutral''' edit summaries are a big deal for me
Like some of the other views, please work on your edit summaries.
I'm not ready to support, though I see a lot of positive things. Therefore a neutral won't keep this nom from being successful. What most impresses me is that after 2 failed noms you're still plugging away and trying to make an impact here and improve yourself. On that note, please take note of the requests to use edit summaries. Why not just do it for every edit to get in the habit, even if it's only "rvv", "grmr", or "spelling"? I normally vote straight oppose for lack of edit summaries because I think they are valuable. -
Tough one.  Though I think that his edits to [[Warez]] were justified and I think his contributions have been great, I don't think he's done a great job of reacting appropriately.  In particular, I'm concerned that he hasn't responded to Alistair McMillan's questions.  It's also a little troubling that after two RFAs, both of which harped on his lack of edit summaries, he still is not doing a great job of using them, especially when his edits are as contentious as what has been brought up so far.  Hopefully I'll get a chance to check back into this RFA before its closed and make a decision with more time to look into it. --
After reading everything.
'''Neutral, but with a comment'''.  Alkivar opposed my own [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RoySmith|RfA]] not long ago.  He certainly has the right to vote against me, and I don't hold that against him (which is why this is a neutral), but I found his reason for opposing me rather silly.  His objection was that I didn't have a high enough edit count at the time.  It seems like a very mechanical way to go about making decisions.  I think we want admins who exercise good judgement, not those who add up numbers and see if they exceed some magic threshold or not.  Looking over his contribs, I see things like many (I didn't count, but it's probably over 100) edits to [[List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II]] during a week or so this October.  It certainly gets his edit count up, but in what way does it prepare him for being an admin?   --
'''Support''' as nominator. -
'''Support'''.  He's a stub-sorting machine!  Good work maintaining Peer Review.  Though a bit slim on user interaction, what I've seen has been unfailingly polite. --
'''Support''', a good editor and already does a fair amount of janitorial tasks. Sysop tools are likely to come handy for him. --
'''Support'''. This is a no-brainer (um... the vote, that is, not Allen3!)
'''Support'''. Good user, will be a fine, courteous and thoughtful admin. &mdash;
Cool.
'''Support'''.
Know mainly through his efforts on [[WP:TS]], and came across very well.
Although there are only a few examples in Allen3's edit history where he/she interacts with other Wikipedians, I believe they show a careful, consistent, conscientious, and courteous contributor. Here are some examples of Allen3's contributions which I feel support this sentiment:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beland&diff=prev&oldid=11679094][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dining_philosophers_problem&diff=prev&oldid=12411236][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Turco&diff=prev&oldid=11797753][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/X-play&diff=prev&oldid=11417216][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shauri&diff=prev&oldid=11541450][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_science&diff=prev&oldid=11589359]. It is worthwhile to note that these are some of Allen3's earlier contributions. This for me is indicative of Allen3's dedicated approach towards Wikipedia. I do not feel the small number of written contributions made to articles an adequate or sufficient reason to deny Allen3 the opportunity to engage in Wikipedia's administrative matters. Based on the contributions made by Allen3 to date, if Allen3 were to become an administrator, I trust Allen3 to be an exemplary, mature, levelheaded, and respected one. Finally, I have no doubt the trust and support we are demonstrating here will be positively reciprocated many times over if administrative rights have been enabled for this user. For these reasons, I fully recommend a '''support''' for this candidate.
Very active in janitorial tasks, stub-sorting, and peer review.

'''Support'''. A very fine and valuable contributor.
Support.  Users maintaining a service page should be applauded.
'''Support.''' lots of good stub-sorting work, and HappyCamper's cited examples of good editorhood.
--


—


I thought he was one already.
Great respect for ''Alter Ipse Amicus'' ("a Friend is another Self"). Very good at the Reference Desk and many core scientific topics, as well as clinical medicine material.

Always seems to be intelligent and even-tempered when I'm looking. :-)



significant contribution to medical topics. --
Support. User edits in topics I don't touch at all, and uses the community as all should.
Appears to be a sound user.

He sure knows the doctoring.
I usually don't support anyone <2000 edits, but since he adds lots of good quality material I'm making an exception.
<s>I'd say support but I'm hoping to hear the answers for "Questions for the candidate" before moving my vote that way. --[[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 06:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)</s> Formally moving my vote to support. --
i respect alteripse. however, i feel alteripse needs more experience with the community and wikipedia before becoming an admin.




'''Support'''. I've seen him on Philippine-related articles and he appears to be a knowledgeable and good all-around editor. --
'''Second person to beat the nominator support'''! Does fine work. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Extreme I-wasn't-even-trying-to-beat-the-nominator support'''.  Looks like a reasonable enough user, liked his answers to the questions, and, well, adminship ain't a big deal, right?
'''Support''', prolific editor.
'''Support''' Cool headed editor I see doing fixes all over the place.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom - I'm trying to start a trend of nominators letting the vote develop a bit before voting themselves.
'''X-treme right-after-the-nominator Support'''.  --
'''About freakin' time'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' Great editor, would say speedy if I could!
'''Support''' solid contributions--
--
'''Support''' Nice editor, would make great use of admin tools.
'''Support'''. Experienced editor. -
'''Support'''. "Its no big deal!":-)'''
'''Support'''; speedy promote.  Excellent on all counts.
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' Experienced editor.
'''Support'''.<font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''', and about time, too.
'''Support'''. I can tell the user is a good admin <s>material</s> candidate, especially since has been nominated by BD2412 --
'''Yet another 'I would have nominated him myself' support''' -'''Support in the extreme!''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Remarkable.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' speedy. ;) [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. Looks to be a very solid user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' not already an admin?  --
'''Support'''. You've certainly earned it. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', that was quick :) -
'''Support'''. What an impressive record! --
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates no cause for concern.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. From the contributions listed below, looks a very good editor, and that is good enough for me.
'''Support.''' Lots of solid contributions.
'''Support''' would be a good admin.

'''Support'''. I like your reasons for wanting adminship. Your specific use of the admin tools is a definite case of "no big deal". --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No big deal. I would like to see you continue to use '''edit summaries''' consistantly, and perhaps develop your user page a bit more. Good luck. --
'''Support'''. Great ''modus operandi''.
'''Support''' Good answers, good history, will be good admin --
'''Support''' - what [[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Voldemort</font>]] said.
'''Support''', looks good. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support''' I'm generally opposed to self noms but this guy seems to have the right attitude and ideas of what the job entails. give em the mop already. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support'''
''' Support''' Good attitude, trustworthy.
'''Support'''.  Good answers.  -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems like a reasonable candidate.
'''Support'''.  This guy is great!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - though another vote in favour is hardly needed at this stage!
'''Support''' obviously, as I'm the nominator.
'''Support'''. The man is ready, he merely needs a mop.
'''Mad respect''', nearly 2,000 Wikipedia namespace edits. -
'''Support''', thought you were one.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', you weren't? ~~ '''
Support,
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' Active in <s>VFD</s> AFD, new pages patrol, et al. and would benefit with all the admin tools.
<small>
'''Support'''
Have seen him around, and just been talking to him. Very good man.—
'''[[User:Thrydullf/RFA_clich%C3%A9_no._1|RFA cliché no. 1]].'''
'''Support'''.  He already is one. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' notable "good egg".
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great user and will make a great admin =)
'''Support'''.  Anyone who hangs around with [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky]] and [[User:Paul Klenk|Klenk]] can't have too many screws loose.  (Tears up in laughter as the mental picture of an "android" with "loose screws" comes to mind) Actually, 'Droid. . . Your [[screw]]s are just fine!  Your insightful responses to certain "loose screws" on the Wiki and the janitorial services already rendered give me much confidence my vote will be well-placed.  Give 'em the toolbox so he can "tighten up" the Wikivandals and keep the 'pedia clean!  ''Please promote to wikijanitor.''  --
As one of the aforementioned "loose screws," I have to say '''strongest possible support!'''  (Just kidding about the screw part, Av.)  I simply cannot think of anyone more deserving of the tools to help maintain this site.  One of the very best! -

'''Support''', with customary "he's not?" confusion.
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor and a very sensible participant in debates.
'''Support''', what ^^they said.
'''Extra-strength support''', for an allround good guy, especially at AfD, who helped me fix my user page. --
'''Support''' I see this name everywhere. <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and he does good work.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. This is the droid we're looking for. — '''
'''Support'''. Android is very dedicated to Wikipedia Policy and is not the least bit effected by trolls(an art which I am finally beginning to master). He has even changed my opinion about WP Policy enforcement. Definitely a solid admin choose.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' ITYWO <small>
'''Support'''. Excellent user. All of these quality candidates this week are sucking half the fun out of RfA. Someone nominate [[Scott Norwood]] for balance.
'''Support'''
Yup --
'''Strong Support''' for great work on VfD/AfD and related areas.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support!''' After all, the man ''is'' a machine... ;-) --
'''Support''' - A worthy candidate who deserves the admin tools.  Enjoy the mop :)  <font color="red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Hand him the mop and bucket quick. I have seen a lot of android79's comments of AfD and they have built up my respect for him.
'''Strong support'''. The ''only'' reason I'm not up there at #2 is waiting for my own RfA to finish. The sooner Android79 is an admin, the better for us all. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Another goody.
--
'''Support'''.  Add me to the "I thought he already was one" list.  --
'''Support''' ... me too!
&#8212;

'''Support''' I've seen Android79's work before so I support.
Yes '''support'''. --

'''Support''',

Thought he was one.  --
'''Support'''. Angr is one of a few editors whose contributions I occasionally go and have a look at just to see what interesting stuff he has been working on. Great contributor who also gets involved outside the article space in <s>VfD</s> AfD etc. Will make a fine admin. &mdash;
'''Support''', an ever-interesting contributor.
'''Support''', seems reasonable enough.

'''Support'''-Although I think there are no important things then edit counts, 7000+ shows and outstanding devotion. Ive also seen some of his work and think he will make an excellent admin. --'''
'''Strong support'''. Thought he was one.
'''Support'''. Dependably good quality work from this user.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' why not <small>
'''But of course'''
'''Support'''
<small>
'''Support'''; excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. I really thought he was one! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' Very active on <s>VFD</s> AFD and linguistics related articles.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. —
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''səˈpɔːt'''.
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support''' — interesting contributions ~
'''Support.''' Got skills. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Answered some [[wp:rd]] questions of mine. Thats all i know of Angr. --
'''Support''' Is prepared to go the extra mile when its necessary.
'''Support'''. –
--
<s>Withdrawing until candidate accepts nominations and answer questions. <s> </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''

'''I am appalled''' that Antandrus isn't yet an admin. What was everyone thinking???
I've seen good work.
Keep up with good work. --

The only reason I didn't nominate him months ago was that his user page said he didn't want to be an admin.
of course
Good editor, and good defender against vandalism.
The musicabal strikes again! --

<repeat Taco Deposit's sentiments>
<sarcasm><April Fool's>''Antandrus has been here just a few days''. Not enough experience; therefore, I oppose. </sarcasm></April Fool's> --
'''Support'''. Prolific contributor who has contributed excellent articles.
'''Support'''. His user and talk pages show us he works well with others, as does a review of comments left on discussion pages.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor and will make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
Support.
'''Support'''. I like his/her numerous contributions.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. Quite a few of the articles seem a bit stubbish, but there probably isn't so much more to say on many of these bios. Talk pages show character. Overall, I'm impressed. --
'''Support'''. Good user, good contributions.
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates that Antandrus will use Admin powers in line with policy and to good effect.
'''Support!''' -
Like a life without music, a Wikipedia without Antandrus would be a mistake. --
Awesome editor with tons of experience.  Obvious support.
'''Support''' for the ARTS! - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seen his work:Good. I trust Antandrus not to abuse admin powers.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  With those skills, the job is yours if you want it. --

'''Support'''

2700 edits since September 2004. Looking at his contribs... early on he didn't use many edit summaries, but he's getting better. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateo_SA&diff=prev&oldid=13069583 He] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Nabokov&diff=prev&oldid=11114374 is] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Male1979&diff=prev&oldid=12019344 cordial], a plus, but there aren't too many edits to his talk page. I don't see more than a handful of edits where he was reverting vandalism, but I really like the way he handles himself overall so I have no reason to oppose.
--
'''Support'''-
'''support''' I've seen good music, art, and literature work coming out of this on, and since joining in at VfD his skills at working with the community have become evident.
'''Support'''.  Courteous and clearly committed to Wikipedia, that's good enough for me. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An industrious improver and a diplomatic editor.  I look forward to seeing increased activity at a community level. --

'''Support'''. Lots of good contributions and janitorial work--
I don't see that voting on VfD is anything to do with becoming an admin. It's generally not particularly productive. You're doing fine as you are and I '''support''' you on that basis.
Cool.
Support.
'''Support'''.  I disagree with almost ''every'' stance taken in the nomination statement, but none of those really matter when I consider an RfA.  What matters is time/involvement on the project, ability to interact well with others and level of trust.  Here is a support vote from an anti-sub-stubber/anti-dicdef/anti-highschool/anti-cruft deletionist.  :-)
'''Support''', sure --
'''support'''
Seems productive and competent, and cordial; his insane approach towards the trivial notwithstanding.
'''support''' ---
'''Strongly Support'''. Awesome! You helped with getting the Three Laws of Robotics up to FA status.. and you look like a worthy person. Give this man an admin ticket! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Suppose''' Edits look very nice.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I actually sort of agree on the school issue, but that's irrelevant; this is a productive editor who works well with others. --
'''Support'''; appears to be an excellent editor with an even temper.  Good candidate.
'''Support'''. Edits and Talk comments indicate that he/she will use admin powers wisely.

Seems to be in favour of the arbitary, POV standard of 'notability' for high schools. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, we don't need any POV admins --
Doesn't meet my [[User:Scott Gall/Admin criterion|admin criteria]].
'''Support''' as nominator.

'''Support''' <small>
<p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5 color=turqoise>'''
'''Support''' I commend Asbestos for his openness to full accountability. Fine admin material.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support'''.
Sure.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Checks out and I like his ability to not only take constructive criticism but to welcome it. Admin material, he is. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''.
'''Supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.—
'''Support.''' Most definately mopworthy. --
'''Support'''. Everything looks excellent here. Great question-answering, and as per Bratsche's comments on Asbestos's ''openness to full accountability''.
'''Support'''
'''S'''upport. I hope the username will serve as a flame retardant.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]]. --
'''Support''' Welcomed me and has been helpful since.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''[[:Image:Kool-AidMan.jpg|Oh Yeaahh!]]'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', and not (just) to go along with the flow. You have my confidence, and that of everybody else round here, it seems. :) -
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support''' --

&#8212;
'''Support''' - but please start writing edit summaries as often as possible.
Fine by me.
Sure. &ndash;
Sure. You would be good.
Support. Don't abuse priveleges.--
Vague support.
'''Support'''. I think it would be a shame to lose him for some minor mistakes which he will very quickly learn to avoid.  I believe we need as many multi-lingual and multi-cultural wikipedians on english wikipedia as we can get.  The fact he is already an admin bodes well.--
Sure. -
Lukewarm support.  User really needs to learn how the English Wikipedia works, and start writing edit summaries.

'''Support, some''' people do like self-noms! I always add a few personal extra "points" for a self-nom. Ausir seems like an excellent user, and his placing this page wrong is nothing, AFAIC, especially with the way he explains it. The stats for his contributions to different namespaces look perfect to me, and I agree with Silversmith about the importance of multi-lingual and multi-cultural admins. He says he'll try to provide more edit summaries, and I suppose try is all we ever do.--
Looks like a good editor from what I see, and the fact that he's already an admin at pl: is a plus. Happy to support now, based on answer about using edit summaries for changes to articles.
'''Weak Support'''. The only big problem is the lack of edit summaries, otherwise I agree with [[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]]. The benefit of multi-lingual and multi-cultural admins is that they can help coordinate and manage the translations of various articles across the different wikis.
Now that the edit summary thing is out of the way: '''support'''.

support
Oh yes.
'''Support'''. The arguments about edit summaries, time on Wikipedia and failing to conduct a VfD the correct way are tepid at best. -
'''Support'''.  He's a diligent editor, multilingual, is familiar with cross-wiki issues and a pl sysop.  This is just what we need. --
'''Support'''.  A proper addition to our number of sysops.
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''. I see nothing in his edits to indicate he would misuse admin powers.
Why not? --
Yup.
Support.--
Given the user's apparent inexperience (drawing from both the time, which is marginal, and his putting this page at the top of Bishonen's in the nominated-by-others section), I cannot support this user.  I don't see a great need for admin status, and I think he is a fine user.  Just not admin-able yet.
Great, great user. He has been here since '''February 2004''', not 2005. So this is not "marginal". However, I cannot support because I noticed that many edits have no summaries; also, he forgot to change the UserName to his own name in this RfA page. --
Support unless someone makes a bot to perform the archival. &mdash;
'''Support''', user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools, reasons for opposition are weak at best.
'''Support'''.  Excellent response to my question.  If a Ph.D. wants admin privileges to do some specific tidying, it's fine by me.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin privileges. Let him do his job. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. Good editor. If he doesn't want to use the admin privileges it is his choice.
'''Support''' seems a valid reason.
We are an encyclopedia first, a community 2nd. Wikipedia namespace edits are not necessary to make the encyclopedia great. &mdash; <small>
'''Support''' Users don't have to be uber-active, in my mind, to warrant having the tools necessary to complete the jobs that they see themselves doing.  I believe that every user has a niche that they fit into, and if this user has found their niche, then more power to them!  --
'''Support'''. The candidate may not expect to use admin powers often, but is clearly a good contributor and can be trusted with them.-
'''Support'''.  See my comments below. --
'''Yes, please''' - the objections below are mild and some would say not particularly meaningful, as DS1953 says.
'''Support''' as per DS1953's comments, and my own expansion upon them.
'''Support''' Candidate has shown to be trustworthy, any small amount of admin duties this candidate does will be less that another admin will have to do --
'''Support''' experts should be welcomed here.--
I really don't see the problem with people who focus on articles and plan to use their admin privileges very infrequently. Restraint is, after all, something quite a few of our existing admins could improve upon. --
'''Support'''.  The user explained perfectly clearly his lack of project edits--he is only requesting admin privileges for one specific function.  He's obviously trustworthy, and he does indeed need to be an admin to perform the current events archiving, so I don't see the problem here.
'''Support''' Easy call. Trustworthy editor who needs the tools.

--
'''Support''' This is a good editor, and not every administrator needs to be perfectly well rounded. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', clearly a "trusted user" who could make a more effective contribution with the admin tools. DS1953 sums it up well.
'''Strong Support''' per DS1953's comment regarding tools below.
'''Support''' per DS1953.
'''Support'''. He has made a good case that admin tools will help him to build a better encyclopedia.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor who can be trusted. Also, I agree with Palmiro's and DS1953's arguments below- this isn't meant to be a "big deal". --
'''Support''' per DS1953's comments below.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' Only chore listed would be a once a month duty, not a heavy contributor.
'''Oppose'''- as above
'''Oppose''' as above
<del>'''Oppose'''. The power to block users and delete articles is by definition a big deal, and we don't need more admins. As others have noted, Awolf isn't even offering to handle admin jobs.
'''Neutral'''. Admin tools are not required just to archive pages. Administrators are supposed to work on a lot more things than just moving pages.--May the Force be with you!
<i>[[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]]&nbsp;(<sub>[[User talk:Smoddy|t]]</sub><sup>
Absolutely - friendly, cooperative, and brilliant work on Africa topics.
Unreserved recommendation. Amazing stuff on Central Africa conflicts.
Yes.
I recognize BanyanTree mostly from work on the [[2004 Indian Ocean earthquake]] article, but this user pops up all over the place, and I am happy to support. -
Has produced some superb work, definitely sensible and trustworthy. --
But of course.

Wholeheartedly. &mdash;
A good contributor who works well with others.
Excellent work on much needed Africa topics. -


Support. Thanks for dealing with vandals.
Absolutely. --
'''Support'''. Good editor.

Cool.
Of Course.
Seen good work with CSB --
Absolutely. Excellent contributions, friendly and cooperative attitude. BanyanTree will be a fine admin. [[User:Mark Dingemanse|<nowiki> </nowiki>]]&mdash;



Fantastic user. Great work on African topics. --

Concur with the above,
Support.
'''Support!'''  I'll not yield to the temptation to ask anyone to insert a shock-and-surprise cliché.  Really.  :^P -
'''Support''' --
Certainly.
'''Support'''. Pattern of edits shows familiarity and involvement with many areas of Wikipedia.
Certainly '''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. -

'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  A fine editor who would make a fine admin indeed.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' conditional only on Baron's acceptance of the nomination; they're a fine editor and I'm confident they'll be a fine admin too.
'''Support''' - BaronLarf kept his cool during the battle over [[Jeb Bush]] - that took some doing!
'''Support''' per FreplySpang.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Not a vandal.
'''Support'''; absolutely.
'''Support'''. Active editor who has also been doing a great job as the founding participant of [[WP:WPWI|WikiProject Wisconsin]].
'''Support''', I rarely agree with BaronLarf but I appreciate his level-headedness and constructive approach.
'''What they said'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Of course! <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''--
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support'''. Absolutely. -
Glad to have the opportunity to vote '''Support''' for adminship of this fine editor.
Thought he was one.  --
Level-headedness under pressure from nutters is what swings it for me -
'''Support'''; as others have said, a level head and a good editor.
'''Support''' Notable inclusionist
'''Support''' Another great candidate.
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support'''. Very active and good editor.
'''Support'''. Good contributions to VfD. <font color="green">
Cool.
'''Support''' Level-headedness is key when dealing with other users, and BaronLarf is excellent at that.
'''Support'''. Disagree with his inclusionism, but see no cause for concern regarding admin powers.
'''Support'''. A fine editor, seems to be a reasonable, responsible member of the community. --
Splendid chap. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I thought I already voted!
--
'''No fair jumping the gun! Support''' --
I've found BD2412 to be very reasonable and helpful, even if he does spend an [[WP:AFD100#Full_voting_pattern|unhealthy amount of time at AFD]].  We can certainly use more lawyer Wikipedians, though how one can find time to make 30000 edits and still pass [[bar exam|the bar]] is a wonder to me.
'''Strong support'''. An excellent editor. I thought he was an admin already.
'''Even stronger support'''.  Didn't think he was an admin, but knew he should be.  All due apologies to the community for not having nominated him sooner myself.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', with no reservations.
'''Massive Support''' BD2412 has been unfailingly one of the very best of the good eggs. Admin this one fast, before he changes his mind...
'''Strongly Support''' Everything above clearly sums it up.
'''Support''', Why not!? </sup/><p style="font-family: Arial;"><font size=2.5 color=green>'''
'''Support'''.  I kid you not, I came to this page via [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate]] as I was preparing to post BD's nomination at 00:00 GMT, about 15 minutes from now.
'''Support''' No problems here. Good editor. --
(after edit conflicts)
'''Support''' Wow, just wow. Okay, I'm leaving again.
Lukewarm '''support''' in expectation of an extremely easy passage.
'''Universal support''' - Is this an April-Fool's Day or a December's one?!! I've always thought BDA was the ''president'' of Wikipedia! --
(after ''five'' edit conflicts, this isn't funny!): '''Oppose''', not enough edits. No, seriously, '''Strong support''', extremely active Wikipedian, has a ton of substantive edits to the Project namespace, and I seriously thought he was an admin when I was a newbie.
'''Support''' - Excellent and dedicated contributer.
'''Support'''; he's not one already?!
Cue (yet again) '''I thought he was an admin support'''.
'''Strong Support'''; he's a ridiculously dedicated editor who I've seen around, and been impressed by, many times.  For months I've thought this was long overdue. --
'''Summa cum support''' - Without a single reservation.
'''Support''' I thought he already was one. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' vote is a no-brainer
'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already too.
'''support''' he is a good person
'''Support''', good guy.
'''Support''' I don't believe he isn't an admin. <font color="red">
'''Strong support''' Absolutely. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''; been impressed by this one for a while now.
'''Support''' seen this user around doing good things. And so many edits!!!--
'''Support''' Will make a fine admin --
'''Strong Support''' of course.  Great work at AfD!
Seriously, not an admin?! '''
'''Support''' This is only a formality, and a long overdue one at that. This will greatly enhance Wikipedia's quality level.--
'''Support'''.  Looks like Christmas came early this year!
Geesh. Take a few hours off and look at the '''Support''' pile already.  --
'''Speedy Support''' Just close this already and promote him a perfect canditate for adminship --
'''Strong support'''. Can't believe he isn't... etc.
'''Support'''. Look ma, a bandwagon! Can I jump on? Huh huh please? Thanks! &mdash;
, without a second thought.
Easiest RFA decision ever. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<s>'''Oppose''' I will leave Wikipedia if he gets admin! zomg cabal!</s> erm...I mean.....'''Support''', for obvious reasons. --
'''OH MY GOSH, BD's becoming an admin! Super-super-super-super-super-super SUPPORT''' Yeah, I sorta think he's qualified.  ;)
'''Support''', I guess I can't really add much other than to say that I also very much respect BD's judgment and look forward to his help in admin tasks.
'''Support''' I thought he already ''was'' an admin. --
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Excellent contributor to the encyclopedia and the community.
'''Support''', just piling up here :)
'''Support''' oops, I'm too late.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose'''. He wouldn't stand when I offered to nominate him (pout).
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''. Hey, I honestly thought he was one already. I've had much positive experience with him. He's a sure candidate. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I too must join the "I thought he was one already" bandwagon. Lets see if he can get 100 support votes - he sure deserves them.
'''Support''' - a very familiar name, a very deserving name.
Oh my god you're not an admin yet '''support'''. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''I plead the fifth''' err I mean '''support'''. &nbsp;
'''Disambig Support'''. -
'''Supreme support'''. One of those names that pops up everywhere. --
'''Support''': This has been a looooong time coming. He is the epitome of deserving. I've joked with him before that he kept delaying a nomination so that he could set the record for most supported nomination. I suspect the joke might become true. 59 support votes in ~13 hours. Wow! --
'''Support'''
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. 32000 edits in 9 months is silly, I want proof that he isn't some editing-machine... Bah, see as though it's nearly the holidays, I'll '''Support'''.
'''Support''' we don't always have the same view, but this guy is a great contributor and will use the mop wisely.
'''Strong Support!''' - I've worked with this editor on [[Pizza delivery]] Always helpful, always easy to work with. I'd love to see him get the mop! ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Strong Support''' -  Why did you make us wait so long? ;-) Now we have to figure who will take your role as the best non-admin at en.wiki.
'''Support!''' He has essentially been doing admin work for longer than many admins, and doing a fine job at that.
'''Support'''. Insert lawyer joke here. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Speedy promote''' and delist from RFA.
'''You're not?''' I could have sworn you were.  Wow.
'''It's 'bout time'''
'''Support'''.It's time Looks like a good choice. It's time.--
'''Support'''.
&mdash;
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Why havent I supported yet? The old clichè, I seriously thought he was a senior admin. Great guy, great editor, (will be) great administrator. '''''
'''Support.''' I think he will be a fair admin. Also, I see his name ''everywhere''.
'''Support''' So many edits?? wow, just based on that alone you get my support, good luck.
'''Support''' Very worthy.

'''Extreme "Sorry I'm late" support''' - How could I have missed this? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Y'''eah. Yippee, I'm 80!
'''Duh''' [[Chewbacca Defense|BD2412's so good that I don't need to tell you how good he is, so i'm going to talk about Chewbacca]].
'''Support'''.  Seems like good admin material, and I've encountered this user many times while reverting vandals.  Wait, that didn't come out right...  Honestly, another person who I already thought was an admin. :/ --
'''Speedy promote''' per all above. — '''
You have got to be kidding me.  --
'''Support''' for the guy with the green sig --
'''Support''' I thought he was already, as others have said.
'''Support''' thought he was already an admin, definitely deserving. <small>
&mdash;
'''Support''' - about time!
<big><u>'''TO PILE IT ON!'''</big></u><font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''', BD2412's green sig has been followed by too many eye-catching sigs, also I suspect that this vote was conceived only to catch as many support votes as possible, hmm.
'''Strong support''' One of the greatest Wikipedians.
<big>'''Strong Support'''</big>. Its about damn time.
'''Support''' yayness! --
'''EXTREME SUPPORT!''' I thought BD2412 was a '''''bureaucrat''''' already....wow. How can you have that many edits and not be an admin? :-D I'm glad (and downright proud) to have this support in my contributions list, and to have the opportunity to support you, BD. --
'''What!? He's not already an admin? Support.''' --
'''Gasp!'''
The first time I can truly say '''I THOUGHT YOU WERE AN ADMIN!''' Now all those awkward glances and strange discussions make sense. :) &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''
'''100th Supporter Support''' &#8766; →
'''Support''' This person is arguably the most important person to Wikipedia right now, and if he wants the mop, he should have it.
I don't usually bother voting when an Admin candidate already has a clear majority, but in this case I'll make an exception. '''Support, support, support!''' --
'''Going for the record support'''. He deserves it.
'''. Like he needs this vote, looks like a good bet.--
'''Unnecessary but very enthusiastic support vote'''.
'''Support''', I've seen this editor around frequently; good edits, reasonable, polite. --
'''Support''' How can I not? -
'''Support'''. I never thought I'd utter the cliche RfA words "I thought he was already an admin," but I'll be damned. 108 votes, I love it (go for the record!) -[[m:Wikimania 2006|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[WP:ESP|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''' December is a cold month, this is a [[List of slang used in hip-hop music|cold]] editor, I can see why he wanted to wait until December to stand for adminship.
'''Baaaa''' (-:
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin too.  Very positive contributer.
'''Support'''. Near record-breaking support vote.
'''Support''' I can't believe he isn't an administrator yet.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' may it please the court. -
Support, seems overdue to me.
Support, I thought I had done so after he checked with me on my talk page re our dispute before. I think BD is often a pain in the butt, but usually in a good way. He can be reasoned with and he keeps things cool until the details are worked out. A good editor, no reason to expect he won't be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Promote him! --
'''Support'''.  Seems almost pointless to vote, given the overwhelming consensus, but he's really good. -
'''Support'''. Why didn't I think of nominating this guy? -
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -
'''Support'''. BD isn't an admin? Really? :) --
'''Support''' ... seems a little silly to add myself to this list, but he deserves it. besides, I like getting thank yous. (j/k)
'''Support'''.  Even though we may have some differences of opinion in other RfAs, I bear you no ill will and think that you'd be a welcome and wonderful addition to the Admin ranks.  At this point I think we can call it unanimous and a landslide. LOL --
'''Support''', as "every vote counts". Really a fine editor. --
'''Strong Support'''. You are not an admin?? Absolutely unbelievable. I always thought you were.
'''Support'''.  I had assumed BD already ''was'' an admin. &mdash; <b><i>
'''Support''' regularly see his name.
'''Support''', though this seems like overkill.
'''Support''' Didn't realize he isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' See him everywhere (can't miss that sig can ya?) and it all looks good.
'''Of course'''.
'''Support'''. Great editor. -
Well, when your RfA is 37k long with nothing but support votes, you must be doing something right. '''Support''' &mdash; unnecessary, but shall we shoot for that 208? :-) [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks like a NEW RECORD!!!WOW! Good work :-).'''
'''Miami Brotherhood SSSUUUPPPOOORRRTTT!!!''' It's about damn time! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. It's about damn time, too.
'''Support'''. While I don't usually post to an RfA where the support consensus is clear and I would have voted support anyway, I also have a policy of always supporting users I am very familiar with and have had good interactions with. This is one of them. Bonus points for the Sinatra ref in your answer as well. :)
'''LET'S GO FOR A NEW WIKI RECORD Support''' What they said. Plus it means he'll have one one to thank once he's Sysopped Muuuahahahaha!--
'''Support'''-
'''Support.''' It's the hip thing to do.
'''Support''' after carefully [[Lie|reviewing]] every one of his edits. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - wow, you mean he's NOT an admin? our loss.
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' He's been quite helpful to me.
'''Support'''. Apreciate all the work with link repairs &mdash;
'''Support''' per concerns oppose votes may carry this nom.
'''Support'''. He is an enthusiastic communicator and the green signature has become a beacon for vital and quality discussion. If you'd asked me what his contributions are I'd say he was a full time [[WP:DPL]] repairer, his enthusiasm with the project is unparalleled. Take the new [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates|link repair]] sub-project, the slightest breath of life from BD has resulted in one of the most fulfilling projects I have particpated in. I read above and see that's a minor part of what he does here, amazing. --
'''Support'''. Wow im late.
'''Support''',
'''Support'''. Well I would have supported had you needed it, so I won't not support simply to avoid giving a me too vote. A vote with grammar contortions just short of "the cat I had had had had..." :) Thanks, I'll be here all week, er a long time, er whatever -
'''Support'''. Maybe this is just piling on, but I really did think BD2412 was already an admin.
'''Support'''. One of the leading lights of Wikipedia.--
'''Support''', Not much more to say that hasn't been said already.  Promotoe this user!
'''Strong support.'''  One of the best.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' this pile-on --
'''Support'''. I ought to oppose it just to keep it from looking like and election in the The People's Democratic Republic of Elbonia, but he's definitely one of the good guys.
'''Support'''.  I wrote a [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate crummy alternative to Kate's tool].  Somebody used it on BD2412.  It turns out that BD2412's edit history (via Special:Contributions) is literally a 20MB download.  Good enough for a pile-on, I say.  --
'''Support''' I hate to use a hackneyed expression but I already thought he was one --
'''Support''', man, you won the popularity contest. O_O
'''Support''', with a high number of edits, sure to be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' Not a pile-on, BD is an excellent and respected editor.
'''RfA Cliché #1'''. --
'''support'''. --
Support --
'''Oppose'''. Just because.  This guy seems like a loser. >_< <small>just kidding, of course! '''Support''', duh</small>
"This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."
'''Support''' Long overdue.
'''Support''' per 174 before me. I am glad to give someone I have seen so regularly on VFD (are you sure you haven't closed any yet?) my first vote in an RfA. --
'''Strong Pile-on support.''' I also suggest that this be shown as a link rather than being transcluded. Anyone wants to vote on that? ;) --
'''Me of course support'''. --<small>
'''Guess what……Support!'''
'''Hell yeah.'''
'''Thoroughly unnecessary support''' - but I feel it's deserved anyway...
'''Support'''. He is one of the most helpful, hard working editors I have come across. The way he works has been so thorough and skillful I thought he was already an admin, and surprised to find his RfA! :-) --
Oh well, One more can't hurt.
Coming really late, here's one more vote: '''support''' for a master disambiguator.
'''Support'''. You aren't already an admin? *shock*
'''Support''' For the sake of posterity, I still will support this RfA. :) This gent is one of the best editors at Wikipedia. →
'''Support'''!  Yay!
'''Support.''' Uber-janitor.
Yes, definitely.
'''Support'''. How on Earth did it take this long to get around to doing this?? -
'''Support''', definitely. Should have been in a while ago.
'''Support'''. I can't believe we've overlooked him for this long.

'''Support''' no doubt!  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  You mean he isn't already? --
Please use the recent donations to buy a time machine and make him an admin per last month. I had no idea he wasn't one and would have immediately nominated him if I had known that.
Good grief.—
Aw, I suppose so. Might ''just'' pass muster as an admin. ;) Beland is an A-grade top-quality wikipedian - I guess we'd ''all'' thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''' - even without waiting for acceptance and his answers to the questions!
--
Will '''Support''' after 12,000 edits and 14 months time in service. ;-)
'''Support''', absolutely. Not administrator yet? &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Unconditional support''' - I would have nominated him if he'd put a * by his name on [[User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins|this list]]. --
'''Strongest possible support'''. A finely tuned Wiki-chine, this one is. --
'''Support'''. Surprised Beland is not an admin yet.
Grant him the golden mop. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Should have been one before: lots of useful work, and I really, really like his answer to Question #3.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor in many ways.
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  If there's a shortage of mops he can have mine for a bit; he deserves it!
'''S'''upport. I thought he was already etc etc.
'''Support'''. I do not always agree with the actions that Beland sometimes takes, and we have indirectly clashed in the past. However, Beland is also a tireless contributor to the project, and I recognize his abilities and effort as valuable and meaningful. That's enough for me to support him. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Thought he was one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support''' per the Comment section below. <b><font color=228B22>
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Yep, '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Should have happened a long time ago. --''
Dang! '''Support''' by all means.
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''[[:Image:Kool-AidMan.jpg|Oh Yeaahh!]]'''
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' with no reservations.
'''Support'''.
--
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Almost should have skipped Admin and went straight to Bureaucrat with this one.
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''' - obvious.  Enjoy it.
'''Support''' - Alright, Beland! I'm now voting Support for you since Joolzer and others, such as RobChurch, who said I was being a dick and trying to make a point, and trying to buy my vote off of me, they've finally won! I'm virtually being '''forced''' to support you! So here's another support. You're the man!
<small>
'''Support'''. Long overdue.
<s>'''Oppose'''. I don't see you very much around Wikipedia. --
Me of course!
'''Yay'''. I actually remember welcoming Bhadani! :) One of the best n00bs I ever saw, and even now one of our best. Bhadani has also been a valuable participant in VfD, contributing many good rewrites. Make him an admin already!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. He's nominated by a bureaucrat; he has to be notable!</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''': I've known Bhadani since he has been here. He has been an extraordinary contributor. He has often gone to great lengths to improve many articles I had started, and had left out as stubs. Bhadani's 6000+ edits is also noteworthy; I recall the number was 4000 not more than 2 weeks ago, he has been really busy editing everyday. He will surely be a great admin. --
'''Support'''. Very solid contributor; level-headed; deserving.—
'''Support'''. Great contributor, no reason not to. -
'''Support''', definitely; one of the good ones.
'''Support''': has more barnstars than you can shake a stick at.
'''Support''' Another goody.
'''Support''', gladly. A dedicated contributor with a good attitude toward resolving conflict and building the project.

'''Support''' and only support. -
'''Support''' - solid contributor.
'''Support'''. Having seen his past works, I feel certain he will do a fine job as an admin.
''' Strong Support'''. One hundred percent. Bhadani is a good, responsible and experienced wikipedian--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate. Like his attitude about responding to and addressing conflicts.
'''Support'''
'''Support.''' No big deal. --
'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate and contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Vanakkam! --
[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] said everything I could say.  Bhadani has shown equanimity, writing skill and tact.  He has thrown himself into Wikipedia and Wikipedia is the better for it. We can ask no more of a sysop. --
'''Support''' Very active in <s>VFD</s> AFD et al.
--
'''Support''' - How did I miss this for so long? A friendly, level-headed and hard working contributor, most likely to use the proverbial mop effectively. --
Cool. --
'''Support''' - Adminship should not be a big deal. --<span style="color:red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks decent. <small>
<small>
'''Support'''. Looks good, so into the janitor closed he goes!
'''Support'''. Won over by the nom. --
'''Support'''. For his great work, encouragement to new wikipedians like me and most importantly, for the clear vision he has abt what to do as an admin.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' from the [[Philippines]]! [[Tagalog|Mabuhay!]] [[Ilokano|Agbiag!]] -
'''Support''' - not that you need it... --
'''Support''' creates good content --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Contributions seem reasonable and helpful, see no reason for concern.
'''Oppose''' -- deletionist agenda. &mdash;
--




'''Support'''. The opposition is en: Wikipedia snobbery in my opinion. If we take into account his considerable work for is: (and we should take it into account) then it's clear he knows how the wiki works, and even if he isn't yet familiar with every last detail of en: policy I doubt given his admin experience on is: that he'd take some foolish action. Unless someone can point to evidence of disruptive behaviour I'd err on the side of granting adminship. I think it's highly unlikely any harm will result. As Smári says, the worst case scenario is that he does nothing. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I faintly recall that I'd never touched VfD, RfA, nor any other such page before becoming an admin; why is it different now than it was then?
Support.  Fits my primary criterion: highly unlikely to misuse the abilities or cause trouble.
Fine by me. --
:) &mdash;
'''Support''' considering this user's excellent work and additional experience with Icelandic Wikipedia. I would like to see hir get hirs hands dirty in the other namespaces, though. &ndash;
Support.
'''Support'''.
I think people are pushing the expectations for adminship too high (<s>1000 total edits</s>, 500 to articles, 200 to talk, 100 to user talk, 100 to Wikipedia:, 100 to Wikipedia talk, 100 to category/talk, 100 to template/talk...uh, on second thought, make that 2000 total edits). He's done enough work here to show he knows how to edit in English, discussed enough to show he knows how to collaborate in English. I don't necessarily give credit for work done on the Icelandic Wikipedia, but it does speak for the fact that he can be trusted, which is what really counts. --
Support - Seems active enough and level-headed enough, having a long history in is.wikipedia helps
2208 edits on islandic wikipedia too. People should be made admins as soon as they can be shown to be able to handle the proverbial mop and bucket. We can be pretty sure of Biekko I think, unless someone has found an example of a particularly bad conflict?
'''Support''' Thank you for vocalising how I feel, Michael Snow :-)  &mdash;
'''Support'''.  We need more diversity.--
'''Support'''; trustworthy, experienced; that the experience is on another wikipedia is fine with me.
'''Support''' We need lots of ice. I mean Icelandic experts and total stick tothe fact guys.--
'''Support'''. Experience on the Icelandic project shows an ability to work with others and carry out admin tasks; adminship on the English wikipedia will involve only adjusting to the English-specific policies; he has apparently already shown the requisite temperament and ability to do so. And if he only seldom uses the powers but responsibly, that's fine by me.

'''Support''', why not, no reason to oppose. I strongly support interlanguage wikis, esp. when they translate, BTW! <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> <small>


''Support''. These edit count objections are odd. Are we just after a number or a trusted contributor? 3000 total and 800 on English with no negative behavior at least indicates toward a positive contributor.
Not enough experience on the janitorial tasks such as VfD, TfD, CfD, etc. These janitorial tasks are an integral part at being an admin.
'''Oppose''', I expect to see more community involvement and active janitoring from a potential admin.
Sorry, not enough experience in janitorial work in the Wikipedia namespace.
Needs slightly more experience. Will support in the future.
Biekko seems helpful, but needs more experience here, imho.
Good guy, but will support at 1100 edits.  --
oppose for now, not enough edits. my threshold is 1500+. &nbsp;

'''Comment'''. I will support after this candidate does some more work on the Wikipedia namespace.
Will support in a few months when they have more edits.-
<s>Can you make it clearer your username on the Icelandic wikipedia?</s> These edit count objections are very strange to me if you really have over three thousand edits total. With that kind of experience I'd be inclined to vote support. -
Of course, I '''support.''' As long as he accepts the nomination, of course. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!'''<small><small><small>Disclaimer: <small><small><small><small>This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you.</small></small></small></small></small></small></small> --
'''Strong Support'''. but delist this as per the new RfA rules. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
De-What? '''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
Name sounds familiar.  --
'''Support'''.  A year is more than long enough.  He has been very rational and civil in all the discussions I've checked, and is very respectful of others.  These are ''the prime qualities'' we should seek in admin candidates.  We don't want ALL admins involved in policy discussions.  Should be a most excellent admin.
'''Support''' having taken a look at his contributions
Good one. Hey, everyone, vote for him!
'''Support'''. He's been around a long time and is always civil. Adminship really should be no big deal.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme exclamation mark support!'''  (The cabal made me do it) --
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Extreme Knightmare-fan support!''' --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, but I believe that BillyH has more than met that requirement. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --
'''Support'''. Interactions with him suggest that he knows policy well enough to be an admin, so I'm not concerned about the lack of WP namespace edits.
'''Extreme Mexican Support!'''. Just make sure you get involved in more discussions from now on.
'''Support''', the editcountis crowd needs to chill. -
Strong support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', good editor. Billy doesn't edit much in the Wikipedia space, but from my own interaction with him, I know him as familiar with and interested in wiki policy, practice, and culture. He'll be great with the tools.
'''Support''' This stuff that just because you have not had a lot of talk edits, you aren't qualified is silly.--
'''Undying port of su'''. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' with a suggestion to generally become ''more active in the Wikipedia namespace''.  I appreciate what people below are saying but feel deferring support will just lead nominees to jump through hoops and perhaps revert to being ''themselves'' again afterwards.
'''Oppose''' Based on very low percentage of Wiki space edits. Also fairly low in talk. Keeping your head down and just working on articles is wonderful but I need confidence of familiarity with Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' For the same reasons as said by [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] I must oppose this RfA.
Oppose for reasons above and I've not encountered this user.
--
'''Oppose''' needs more interaction with the community.
'''Neutral''' Looking at contibs Good User but only 79 Wikipedia NameSpace Edits  --
'''Neutral''' we ''do'' need active admins. I think you could wait another month or 2.
'''Neutral''' &mdash;Consistently good editor, but will support another time, given that he becomes more active in the Wikipedia namespace. User does not meet [[User:Journalist/RFA voting criteria|my voting standards]], but he is certainly on the right track. Keep it up.
'''Neutral''', as per others above, the low number of edits in Talk and Wikipedia spaces is troubling. --
'''Neutral'''. Needs more participation in Talk and Wikipedia namespaces. Work on it and then I will be happy to support.
Support, though it's not as if you need more. -
Support.
'''Support'''! 8067 edits in 5.5 month! I'm getting a heart attack. ''(unsigned by
'''Support'''. Lots of good contributions, good interactions, and no negative ones I saw. -
'''Support'''. Ye gods! That's almost 50 edits a day. I'm suitably impressed, as I am with the overall quality of the noms contributions, and his involvement with the stub sorting project. &ndash;
'''Enthusiastic support'''. Absolutely no reason not to support. --
--
'''Support'''
'''Yes''', have had good experiences with this user and I trust xym with a mop.
'''Support''' 8000+ edits in less than 6 months?! Talk about dedicated!
'''Support'''. Plenty of good work.
{{User:Brian0918/Support}}. Most undoubtedly. --
'''Support''' - great editor.

'''Support'''. This 'moose will be of use telling vandals to vamoose.
'''Support''' - no evidence he would go on a vandalism spree once promoted.
Coool.
'''Support'''.
'''Mooo'''.
'''Support wholeheartedly.'''
'''Support''' Have a mop already.
'''Support''' off the back of excellent stuff I have seen Bluemoose do at the Missing Encyclopedia Topics project.
'''Support''' - nothing but positive experiences, especially at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles|WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles]].
'''Support'''
--
'''Neutral.'''  While your edit count may be high, you have still only been here for five and a half months, as you have stated.  I cannot support your candidacy until you reach nine months of contributions.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Agree'''
'''Support'''. YES!!! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
This is ridiculous. BMI"HOWS MY DRIVING"Comp is not an admin? Doh. Full '''support'''.—
'''Support'''.  A great RC patroller. --
'''Support'''- would make great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
He's not? Oh my. '''Suppppppport.''' ~~ '''
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter.

'''Support'''.
'''Speeding ticket.'''
'''Hands Down'''-I have had the pleasure to work with him a lot in the past, and he is not only a devoted vandal fighter, but a great contributor, excellent photographer and an all-around good guy! --'''
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' because... well, because this is Bmicomp we're talking about. --
'''Support''', he will find good uses for admin powers.
'''Support'''. Sooner == better. -
'''Support''' I thought he already was one!  Cliched, I know...
'''Support''' Yep, I support.
'''Support'''Another dedicated vandal-fighter. Give him the rollback button!--
'''Support'''.  A helpful user.
'''Support''', a user who has shown by his actions that he would make a great sysop.
'''Support''', MOO. <small>
'''Support''' Seen this user all over the place.
'''Support'''. I didn't think he already was one. But he should be.
'''Support'''. Not like it matters any more, but how can I not vote for such a great guy. -
'''Support''' this excellent candidate.  Likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent hard worker.
'''Support'''. I hate to be clichê, but I honestly thought he was one until tonight.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. In the rare cases where Bmicomp does something controversial, he'll explain his reasoning and try to work out a compromise--a true sign of a good sysop.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Thanks for working so hard to be a great editor; I'm sure you'll work equally hard to be a great admin.
'''Support'''. With much edits in a very short time that are very varied and of course because of your nature to combat vandalism and the mastering of the Spanish language (that can be useful if you would help in translations), I have no doubts about my vote. --
'''S'''upport. Curious about the choice of username.
'''Serport.''' No Big Deal. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Only reason it took me so long was I thought I already had!
'''Support'''. I guess this is evidence of the IRC (Cabal) effect: if you see the person around in the channel, you are more likely to notice that user's edits in recent changes. As a result, assuming the user is a good user, then you are more likely to trust the user to use admin powers wisely. -
--
'''Support'''. Lookin' good there.... too bad this RfA is so close.... -<nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
Cool. --
'''Support''' - Definitely. --<span style="color:red">
'''Support''' with the usual cliche...  --
'''Support''' in full.
'''Support''' I thought you were one. <small>
'''Support.''' Sweet Mother of Jimbo, BMI isn't one already? (Had to drop in, even if I am on break, to say that.) --
'''Support''' - I have seen BMICOMP around, and have interacted with him. Meets my criteria. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
'''Support''' --
<small>
'''Whack-a-Vandal Support'''. Who can say "rollback failed" with me now?
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Why not?
To '''support''' or to '''support''', that is the question. --
'''Support''' Obviously --
'''Support''' - excellent editor. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' As long as you don't take a right on red. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Honk, honk, here comes the Support-mobile'''. <font color=green>
'''Support''' -- has sense of humor. &mdash;
'''Support''' impressive amount of quality edits in a fairly short time.
'''Support'''. No reason for concern.
'''Support''', per Coolcat. :-)
'''Oppose'''.  Insufficient time.
'''Very Strong Support''' - I know Bogdangiusca and I trust him. His huge contributions proves a very decent, calm and friendly attitude. '''He is a man that won't make compromise to lies.''' He is by far the best of us and '''he was always our model'''. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - I thought he was already an admin. If not, that's strange. He's the best Romanian contributor on Wiki. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - One of the few times I don't even have to wait to hear how the candidate answers the questions. Probably our single best contributor on Romanian-related topics, and a veritable role-model in terms of his behavior. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - The candidate knows his domain of competency really well and is one of the Romanian contributors without a hidden agenda.
'''Support''', given that he accepts the nomination. --
'''Support'''
'''Strongest support possible''' - One of the best users around and by miiiiilllleeeeessss the best romanian user. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' He appears to be well-read.--

'''Support'''. I hope that this will not become the circus as in Ronline's nomination.
'''Support''', level-headed and non-partisan, the sysop tools will be in safe hands.--
'''Support''', handles POV issues well, including in the links [[User:Matia.gr]] cites below.  That said, please use edit summaries more, particularly for non-minor edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chilia&diff=prev&oldid=30969445 this one].
'''Support''',

'''Support''' Has been here for long and has done some great work.
'''Support''', very careful with NPOV and facts--
'''Support'''.  Good bloke.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. We can definitely use more level-headed admins. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' I see no reason to oppose.--
'''Support'''. I have only good experience with him. He will be probably the first Romanian admin here, come on! -
'''Support''' looks fine to me.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools. Reasons presented for opposition raise concern about overall conduct, but not regarding administrative tools.
'''Support'''. On pages where we met, he did a great job. --
'''Support''' Level headed editor.  Will be a good admin --
'''Very Strong Support'''. I've met him a couple of times before, and I'm surprised to learn that he's not an admin, yet. Careful with sources and balanced in behaviour. --
'''Support''' seems good.
'''Support'''.
'''affirmative'''
'''Support.''' Bogdan is a great (and knowledgeable) user in a difficult area, and with basically the only oppose votes being from two nationalists and the new Boothy, I'm most definitely compelled to support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''ε'''</font>]]
Upon reviewing Bogdan's contributions, I change my vote to '''weak support''', although the fact that he is ardently supported by certain trollish creatures still nonplusses me. --
'''Oppose''' - I know that Bogdan has done many positive contribs in WP, however some of his comments on other users (and some times other countries) when he dealt with conflicts at Balkan topics force me to vote against his adminship at the present time. I may be wrong, but I cannot believe that he is ready to become an admin. If his adminship is accepted, I wish that he'll avoid such comments on the future, and I hope that he'll try to be as neutral as possible. If his RFA fails, and in the meantime his actions prove that those were isolated, and perhaps unfortunate, insidents, I'll vote supporting him, at his next RFA.
<s>'''Very Strong Oppose'''. The last thing we need are the nationalist admins, who keep from deletion and frantically defend such disgustingly offensive pieces of propaganda as [[Anti-Romanian discrimination]]. </s> --
'''Oppose''' - Youch not doing any favours with missing the 4 tildes on your own nom, and making overly short answers there.  Might be a good contributor, but needs a bit more skill with Wikipedia before getting up to admin status.
'''Weak oppose''', I am unfamiliar with this user but found the answers below rather unconvincing in their brevity.
'''Neutral''' - While adminship is no big deal, RfA is serious stuff. He should have signed the acceptance of nom using the four ~'s. --
'''Neutral''' I'm sorry, but your answers to the questions are FAR too short for me. Let me know, if you flesh them out a bit. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Neutral''' Don't know user very well, and certainly have no wish to become involved in nationalism disputes where I know nothing, but I agree that answers to questions are spare.
'''Neutral'''. Answers are too short to gain any perspective on the what the user will do if he becomes an admin. I know it's no big thing, but not signing his own comment left me with a sour taste in my mouth.--May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' as well, in agreeance with other Neutral votes.  I think what makes me leery in this case, and hesitant to vote Accept, is the lack of general goodwill I've seen from some voters so far in this vote.  Becoming an admin requires a consensus, and I will not make a decision to join or oppose consensus if I have to wade through the muck in order to get there.  Furthermore, I do not currently have any opinion on the issue of nationalism and I fail to see how it should apply here when we're trying to focus on the merits of the candidate. --
'''Insert assimilation joke here'''. By the way, I support [[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] because everything I've seen from him has been good, and I'm particularly impressed with his desire to fix bad page moves.
Support. Extra admin tools would be useful to him, and unlikely to be abused.--
Opposition is futile, prepare to be '''supported'''. (Hey, someone had to say it. ;)) [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
<s>'''Extreme [[Species 8472]] Oppose'''</s> Oops I mean '''Support'''
'''Support''' edits look good. --
'''support''' I've seen good work, and - as the formerly green and now yellow Mr. Abramson says, bad move fixing is a much-overlooked task that we could do with more helpers on.
'''Support'''.  Becoming an admin will also assist in resolving collateral blocks to poor BorgHunter by his anonip schoolmate vandals. --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' looks good to me.
'''Support''' per ''Golden'' BDA. I normally wouldn't support a self-nom "right at 1000 edits" - I'll be honest, [[Star Trek]] tips the balance. ;)  Good Trekkers understand consensus and harmony.
Resistance is futile. You will be administratorised. Your knowledge will be added to Wikipedia. '''Support''' as a fellow Star Trek nerd (although I can never remember the difference between a Trekkie and a Trekker) and because I have seen him deal with vandals before. &mdash;
'''Support'''. He is a very good editor.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' How can I vote against a fellow [[baseball]] fan?  He does good work.  Give him a mop --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', if no one can come up with any objections other than newness and edit count. &mdash;
--
'''Support''' - He has engaged in rather difficult dealings with disruptive editors, and he was remarkably calm, patient, and mature. While I agree he nominated himself earlier than usual tradition, I believe he will use his power with responsibility and we are not taking much risk here. (And as for my similiar user name: we haven't contacted before at all, and I only discovered him a couple of weeks ago) --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) And, no, I am not supporting him because he is my drone. :-) ''Resistance is futile''. --
'''Support'''.  THere is no reason to think he would misuse the tools. --
'''Strong Support''' He seems ready for the position. The admin tools would be useful for him. --
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''γ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''κ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''υ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''κ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''λ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="a9a9a9">'''ο'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="a9a9a9">'''π'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="a9a9a9">'''α'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''ί'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''δ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''ε'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''ι'''</font>]]
'''Support'''. BorgHunter has impressed me with his mature way of dealing with antagonistic users.
Support. Maybe a bit new a but active. --
'''Oppose''' - talked me out of it (too few actual edits).
'''Oppose''' - too new.  Try again later.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', user shows little indication of familiarity with process. Would be happy to support once he has more experience.
'''Oppose''' sorry, but almost all of your edits are minor.  i'd like to see some more editing/writing experience before i can support. i'm not hung up on edit-countitis, but there just isn't much there at all.  even the articles you created seem to be mostly one sentence stubs.
'''Oppose''' only 2 and half months of activity - not enough experience.
'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash;
'''You made me look up [[Borg]] support'''.
[[Seven of Nine|7 of 9]] may be sexier but you'd make the better admin '''support'''! [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' – Allowing her to rollback vandalism, block persistant vandals and delete unsourced/copyrighted images will greatly help the project, and I do not belive she will abuse the privilege. That's all I need to know.
'''Strong Support''' --
'''Support'''; I've had quite a few interactions with BorgQueen and can say with some confidence that she appears to have the intelligence and temperment needed to be trusted with the Admin tools. &mdash;
--
'''Support'''- good enough, it isn't a big deal.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', resistance is futile <strong>
'''Support''', seems to be a good allround user, and I see no reasons to doubt responsibility.
'''Support''' I have never known about the candidate. However, after verifying now, I found that every article started by this user is '''well referenced'''! It's a sign of ''full moon''; a sing of a '''good admin'''. On the other hand, the user also is already experienced how to deal with ''difficult situations'', as answered below. I love it! Cheers --
'''Support''', but who would win a fight with [[User:BorgHunter|BorgHunter]] and [[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] teamed up against [[User:Evilphoenix|Ëvilphoenix]] and [[User:Deathphoenix|Deathphoenix]]?
'''Support''' I don't recall encountering BorgQueen elsewhere, but her contribs and talk page speak well for her from day one.

'''Support''' as per above. --
'''Support''', user has performed maintenance work and shows a solid work ethic. However, I'd strongly suggest that you participate in more activity (discussions) in Wikipedia-space, such as the [[WP:AN|admin's noticeboard]], among others, before tackling some of the more "heavy" admin tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', looks like a great user, and I always say we need more of both Borg and royalty.
'''Support''' Sounds like a good editor. --
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' I have been assimilated. --
'''Support''' No reason to believe this editor will use admin tools unwisely--
'''support''' and this nomination is pretty funny too
'''Support''' because she has been nominated by BorgHunter. It'll be fun to watch them fight... =) &mdash;
'''Support''': yes, I know her. --
'''Support''', we disagreed regarding [[sleep temple]]s, but due to her polite and agreeable focus on article improvement and civility, all ended well. I think she will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. --
Now there's two of em...? Whoa.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', per nominator.
'''Oppose''', lack of familiarity with process and policy. Please come back when you're more experienced.
'''Neutral''' great articlespace edits, level headed but relatively short history.++
100% '''support'''.
'''Support'''. His copyvio work alone is a big contribution to Wikipedia, and he is always a true professional in dealing with other editors.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I trust thryduulf and el c. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Bovlb's conduct in the matter of the ongoing vandalism of magic-secret articles has been exemplary. Bovlb's dilligent and thoughtful work on [[Talk:Out_of_This_World_%28card_trick%29#Request_for_comment]] helped clarify matters and, I think, cooled some heads. In all of this, Bovlb has shown a strong understanding of what should (and should not) be in Wikipedia, of how consensus decisions are made, and of how decent wikipedians deal with one another and with conflict. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I trust users Rje, Finlay McWalter, Redwolf24, Thryduulf, and El C.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Should make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' '''EXTREME LESBIAN SUPPORT''' finally a candidate who actually wikifies a page instead of just tagging it (for some reason seems to be a minority lately...). Many other good qualities too. <small>
'''Support''' just because of [[User:RN]]'s extreme lesbian support comment. I admit to being too lazy to wikify tagged articles myself.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' I trust everyone above me, including '''
'''Emphatic support''' .  I refuse to state whether I trust any of the editors above me, and base my support on my own observation of Bovlb's diligent copyvio work.
'''Support''' - as per [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] - great guy and will be a great admin. --
'''Support''' we can use a fine user like Bovlb to help in the image-related procedures, as he mentioned he wants to do so at [[Wikiproject:WikiProject Fair use]].
'''Support''' . Exellent work on the help desks
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
Cool.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I was struck by the fairness and calmness of his comments in some dispute that was going on in full rage when I first arrived at Wikipedia. (It was last April, so I couldn't possibly find the diff now.)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Calm and technically knowledgeable
'''Support'''. --
'''Neutral''' I've never heard of this user.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support'''. A very good user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', a very good editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Cooperative, friendly, and excellent contributer. [[:Image:Barnstarmy.jpg|Barney-star]] is proud. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''. Good editor who is willing to take on maintenance tasks and keep a friendly manner. --
[[Image:Alto clef.gif|25px]] --
'''Support'''.  --

'''Support'''. Hits all the right notes.
What's that screeching sound? Oh, wait- just a violist! Hehe, just joking! Proud to '''support'''. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' and resists making a viola joke here ... Excellent editor, even tempered, all the right stuff.
'''Opposed''' to all the mean-spirited (yet funny) viola jokes while '''supporting''' a good editor. Maybe if violists didn't get so much abuse, I wouldn't have quit =). --
'''Support''' -
Cool.
'''Support''' - Maybe by becoming an administrator, he'll play the viola less for the good of mankind (smile).  Just kidding, however, I do trust Mindspillage's jugdement on this one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Has participated in several useful projects already.
I trust Mindspillage's judgment on this one, and I've seen Bratsche's edits enough times to feel comfortable supporting him, and so I do.  '''Support'''.
'''Support''' this [[WP:civil|civil]] Wikipedian. --

'''Support''' Very active in the maintenance tasks.
Support.  Seems to be a good user and I see many I trust supporting him above.
'''Strong Support''' A quick look through contributions shows a great dedication toward tasks such as article categories and the like.  Also shows plenty of user interaction.  I chiefly remember him from VfD, where his contributions have been less frequent but still always good.
'''Support'''. Despite what people hear, all violists aren't bad. Bratsche's one of the good ones. ;) -
'''Support'''. Contributions and Talk: comments indicate Bratsche is a sensible editor who will not abuse powers.
--
Yep, looks good enough. '''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
Good edits, see nothing to oppose from this candidate. -
'''Support'''. Nary a crack in the shell nor a foul smell from this egg.
'''Support'''. Nice edits. Good luck. --
'''Support'''.  Good edits, cleanups, and attitude!
'''Support''' I have seen this user around --
'''Support''' His edits are adding to the place. Very good candidate. -
'''Support''' as per BD. Good egg.
'''Support''' looks fine.--
[[Advanced Life Support|Advanced Life '''Support''']]. Solid editor.
'''Support''' no reason not to. '''

'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' yup.
Sure.
'''Support''', Irish medic? fights vandalism? Writes for the [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]? Gets my vote!
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''. Kill the vandals--kill 'em all! (joking)
'''Strong [[Search and rescue|SAR]] support!'''
'''Even stronger [[Syrian Arab Republic|SAR]] support'''. (sorry, couldn't resist that).
'''Support''', should make a wonderful administrator.
'''Support''' - Time to hand him the mop.
'''Support''' - hope we don't lose an editor in creating an admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - gets my vote, has been very unbiased and helpful
'''Support'''
'''Support''', absolutely.  Have been noticing his good work for a while now.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''',
support
Will having admin abilities cause you to stop writing good content?  I hope not.


Very deserving of adminship.



Meets [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my new admin criterion]],
Alright by me. —

Support. There is no one I know who is more dedicated to Wikipedia. -

Language is a bit colourful but should be okay.
Did a lot of good work on the battleboxes. I thought his "police alerted" messages were pretty funny.
Support - We've worked together well a number of articles, his contributions led to [[Battle of Hampton Roads]] earning FA status, I have been watching (bit not participating) in the article on [[Abraham Lincoln]] and he has done well keeping NPOV on a controversial subject. His battleboxes are a real plus,a nd similar work would benefit other WP projects, which I recently asked him to consider expanding involvement to include. I enjoy collaborating with him. I caught the "police alert, too". Just enough to spook some casual vandals, but nothing more than mild bluff, harmless, but possibly effective, and good for a laugh!
Support.
Strong '''Support'''. In my opinion, the "Police is on the way" edit summaries are not inappropriate, and it shows Brian's sense of humour. --
Strong '''Support''' I have only had good experiences with him, and I agree with Lst27 comment above.
SUPPORT: I have no reason to oppose. "Police on the way" is humourous, not offensive.
Support. --
'''Support''' – I've had the pleasure of working with Brian alot recently, and he's proven to be very creative and willing to work with others. I have no doubt that he would make an excellent administrator. –
fair enough,
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
No user page, and he redlinks his username in his sig - annoying.  Some very inappropriate [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] (''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eminem&diff=prev&oldid=10251919 revert vandalism, IP traced; authorities alerted; police on their way]'' has been used by him dozens of times). Seems a bit aggressive and protective of his work.  Prefer to wait a while, when someone can nominate him again. --
'''Strongly opposed'''. Yeah, that police alerted thing is a bit messed up, and he's done it at least a dozen times!  Other interesting edits include [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABrian0918&diff=9622047&oldid=9471536 the removal of a question on his talk page, calling it vandalism, and asking 3 times in the edit summary for the user to be banned], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Indrian&diff=9625325&oldid=9617193 a sarcastic personal attack], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schleimman&action=history tagging an article a CSD when it should have been made into a redirect], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karnak&diff=7754517&oldid=7754503 tagging an article a CSD without checking the history], etc.
I don't usually vote on WP:RFA, and realize that I'm probably not going to accomplish anything except make an enemy, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=next&oldid=10732155 this post to WP:VIP earlier today] has me very concerned.  The edit he cites could well have been accidental, and calls for a {{tl|test}} or at most a {{tl|test2a}} on Hallosachin's talk page, not a call for a block—a block that, in a few days, brian0918 will be able carry out himself.  While he is a very strong contributor, becoming an administrator is not a reward for good writers. —
I feel that Brian may make a good admin in the future, but I don't think his recent behavior shows that he understands WP policy/procedure. Even if the VIP thing was bad wording, it shows he doesn't understand the basic procedures for dealing with vandalism. VIP clearly states at the top: "Please only use this page for repeated malicious vandalism, not for one-off edits, or newbie tests." He even said when he posted that it was a one-off edit. I believe admins should understand the basic procedure for dealing with vandalism, and it's pretty clear that Brian isn't yet familiar with it. –&nbsp;
Oppose for now.  In the comments section Brian says that he is still familiarizing himself with policies still, and his unnecessary calls for blocks and mistagging as CSDs are a bit of a cause for concern.  The user seems to be an excellent contributor to Wikipedia, though, and I would probably support this user in the near future, provided that more diplomacy and judgement is seen from him in the interim (particularly with regard to useful, helpful edit summaries).  --
The blank user page and red link signature are a bit annoying, but what concerns me is that the "police on their way" edit summaries could be mistaken as threats by some newer users.



EXTREME NOMINATOR SUPPORT!!!! <small>
'''Enthusiastic support''' for a "worker bee" who goes about improving this project in his unassuming way, not to gather applause but to add ''significant'' substance. Please forgive the cliche... but I thought he...etc. I believe that Brian will be an exemplary addition to our dedicated admin staff. --
'''Support''' Brian and all the rest of the [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|WikiGnomes]]. They could use some more recognition around here. <font color=green>
'''Support'''. Hooray for well-mannered and articulate editors who just get on with it.
'''Support'''. Fully deserves the mop and the flamethrower.
'''Support'''


Yes, please.
'''Support'''.  User could make good use of admin privileges.

'''Good support.'''--
'''Support''' - per [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] and above comments. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' good answers to questions, sounds like an excellent editor.
'''Support''' in slight sheep mode: good answers to questions, I don't know Brian but he seems a reasonable being, mop him.
'''Support'''. Awesome. Welcome aboard, [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support''' been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' hell, just pulling a decent NPOV edit of a flamebait target like [[Microsoft]] gets my vote. &nbsp;

'''Support'''. You mean he isn't an admin already? I'm surprised, actually. I'd have nominated him myself if I'd known. :-) &ndash;
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.  <font color="red">
'''Support''', looks like he'll make good use of admin powers. --
'''Support'''. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, but with over 300 non-mainnamespace it is hard to see how others fear hasn't. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --
'''Weak Support'''. I say weak as I still don't know him well enough to full on support, but from (the very little of) what I've seen, he's great :D [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  It's good to see candidates who aren't intentionally combative, such as those who gravitate toward policy discussions.
Cool. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Good editor - this imbalance stuff is silly--

'''Support'''. He definetely deserves it! <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Seems like a reasonable editor, and I don't see at all how edit count would be a problem.
'''Support''' Quite positive interactions on [[Browser wars]] (quite some time ago).  Clearly not a troll or vandal. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' Has been here over a year and a half, and only has less than 3000 edits.
Oppose.
--
'''Neutral'''<s>Oppose</s>. Quite an imbalance between namespaces. (~90% in article NS). Will consider if the nominee explains why.
--
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''' Most edits are very minor and many times doesn't use edit summeries.  That said there's nothing particularily wrong and he does enforce and revert unreferenced edits which is good, plus Brian voted Support. --<small>
'''Support'''.  Good work, non-controversial.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No question.
'''Support'''. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;
'''Support'''.  Do we really even need to vote?  This one seems so obvious...
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--- An excellent editor who has contributed and created many interesting Jewish historical articles.
Sure.  He's done excellent work, and has a good even temperment.  Shouldn't have trouble as an admin if he wants.
'''Support'''.  Intelligent and polite, will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''', a helpful editor.
'''Support'''. Would make a good admin. --
'''S'''upport. Focused on good content, polite, sensible.

'''Support'''.
'''Certainly'''.
'''Support'''. Yes.
'''Support'''; good choice.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Low-key, industrious, and a good person to have around. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.&mdash;
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Solid work, sufficient experience.
'''Support'''. Very active and courteous editor.
--
Never heard of you... I don't feel comfortable voting for someone I've never heard of before...
'''Strong West African RPCV Support''' as nom. --

'''Support''' Solid contributions. Should make a good admin. --

'''Support''', unreservedly. --
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No problems here.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' hope we don't lose a good Africa editor though.
'''Support''', confident he will not abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. I like his work categorizing articles and reverting vandalism.
'''Support'''. Backlogs everywhere - we need more admins. This one will do fine. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -  Well deserved.

'''Support'''
-- (
'''Peaceful Support'''. -
On the whole, '''support''', but I'd like to see you being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jose_Cuervo&diff=prev&oldid=27283332 more careful] in the future.  That, or becoming an alcoholic.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support w/ a caveat''' anyone dedicated enough to work on wiki while in cameroon gets major props. As you've shown a slight bit of "jump the gun"-itis, this support comes with the caveat that you please google anything before you speedy it. &nbsp;
'''Support''', polite and lots of great edits. --
'''Support''',
'''Support''' Seems to be a mature, experienced editor who wants to help with requested moves, and answered the questions very well.
'''Support''' - excellent work on Cameroon-related articles, definitely a trusted contributor.
'''Support'''. Good edits, will use tools well.
'''Definite support'''
'''Support'''. Great editor, more admins watching over Africa articles (and all of wp) won't hurt a bit. I'm sure he'll continue making excellent contibutions, too.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks good!
'''Support'''. Nothing really necessary to add.  I think he'd make a great addition to the Admin-corps! --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''', looks like a trustworthy contributor.
'''Support'''. Am I too late to make a difference.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''. Conscientious, polite, reasonable, highly knowledgeable.--
'''Support'''. Will wield the mop well I believe.
'''Support''' Looks like a good user to me
--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' for a mop-worthy candidate.
'''Support'''
'''S'port''' -Ahh, I wanted to be first -  --
'''Support''' See him around Afd a lot where he shows good judgement.
'''Bright Support''' Good User also see her alot in AFD --
'''Late-breaking nominator support'''.
'''[[Soup|Support]]''' from a [[User:Private Butcher|Kick Ass User]].
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' -
'''EXTREME ORANGE SUPPORT WITH EXTRA PEELS!!''' dedicated contributer. <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A good editor with a cool head who knows how things work. -
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABrighterorange&diff=25018809&oldid=25013258 Old Fashioned Support]''' &nbsp;

'''support''':  Good contributor.

'''Support''' - seen this user lots. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Extreme lesbian support''' and damn the controversy! Brighterorange is very active on AfD.
'''Support'''
'''Orange Furry Alien Support''' have seen plenty of edits on my watchlist and in AfD participation, should be good admin.
'''Orange mustache support'''. One that knowns were to put a semicolon and were to put a comma, and willing to spend time fixing these, gets my vote.
<font color=orange>'''Support'''</font>
'''Support''' - seen lots of him on [[AfD]]. —
'''Support''' see him around quite a bit now, a good editor who could make good use of the mop and bucket. <small>
<font color=orange>Yes.</font>
'''Support'''. Several good contributions in a variety of places.
'''Extreme [INSERT WITTY COMMENT HERE] support!'''. <font color=green>
<font style="padding : 0px 1px 1px 1px; border : 1px solid #FFE7B0; background: #FFFFFF ; color: #FF9600">'''Support'''</font> Very active on AFD and other places.
<font color=orange>'''Support'''</font> --''
Lesbian '''support''' of the most extreme variety!  Seen this user around a bit, always seems responsible enough.  --
'''Support'''.  I have pleasantly encountered this color on several occasions.  '''>:'''
'''Support'''. His leadership in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Punctuation|Punctuation Project]] is noted and appreciated.
'''Support'''. Amazing job in Punctuation project. By the way, it's ok for a non-admin cast a vote here right? --
'''"Yeah Fool. Better recognize -- Check Yo Self" Support w/X-treme Predjudice'''
Cool. --
'''Support'''.
'''Yes''' --
'''Support'''. No reason to think admin powers will be abused.
It hurts my eyes, somehow!





Hasn't been here very long, but his talk page implies inoffensive edits and a willingness to learn.
Cool but four months seems a bit short. But still should be okay.  --
Looks good, plus I respect Neutrality who vouches for him. --
Agree with MPerel.  Neutrality's voucher is good enough for me. -




'''support''' Because his record indicates a likelihood that he will be a productive and non-controversial admin who operates in accordance with consensus.
Looks good to me. --
Well-behaved user who works well with others.

Being nominated by the guy who hectors voters on one side but not the other for reasons (neutral? ahem) is not an endorsement in my books. Neutrality is not my idea of a positive influence in this community, so I can't support his personal friends, I'm afraid.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' I've come across Brookie before and was favourably impressed.--

'''Support''' - met [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] are! --
'''Support'''. I'll be honest, I've never heard of Brookie before, but between his contribs, his answers to the questions, and the other people who are supporting him, I have no problem supporting. -
'''Support'''. Brookie is a good user deserving of adminship.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - good editor.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Will make a great Administrator and I'm proud to say that he is one of my best friends here in Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I've seen Brookie around; he/she is a good editor.
'''Support'''. I liked the answers and the overall behavior of the candidate. --
'''Support''' - useful eidts in relation to Snowtown South Australia and events associated with that town--
'''Support'''.
'''Fer sure'''.
'''Support'''. Slowly but surely the [[User:Dmcdevit#Please_direct_all_vandalism_below_this_line_--_Management|Dmcdevit cabal]] is becoming ''the'' cabal! :-)
'''Support'''. As far as I can tell, good-humored and a good editor who could use his own mop.
'''Support''' this experienced and nice editor. :-) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' another low profile, get on with Wikipedian.
'''Support''' looks good. <small>
'''Support''' Brookie is reliable and consistent in my experience and I think he'll make careful and fair decisions as an admin.
'''Support'''.  I don't personally know Brookie, but seems like an ideal candidate.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''. No plausible reason not to. --
'''Support''', and I still don't get the sig. But who cares, you should be an admin!
'''Support''' Very good contributor
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' and sorry for the b'day mess. ;)
Cool.
'''Support'''.
Obviously. -
Without a doubt -
<s>only, [[User_talk:Bumm13#Adminship|of course]], if he accepts, in which case</s> emphatically
Of course.
Although there are questions about the sanity of anyone who would willingly make dotmaps... support.
Very much.
WHAT? Bumm isn't an admin?
Thought he was anyway, think he should be.
'''Support'''. He, IMO, allows cooler heads to prevail.
How did this take this long?

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.

'''Strong support'''.  --
Definitely.
Obviously yes.
'''<font color="red">''STRONG''</font> SUPPORT'''- Not an admin? He should be...count this as <math>\infty</math> votes :) If bumm doesn't become an admin after this, then I will take a bath in my [[toilet]]. -
Very strong support.
Strong support.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
No way.  No way!  I would have sworn on me great-grandmummy's grave that ol' Bumm was an admin!  He's got to be!  Wow, that's crazy.  Bumm's a great lad.  '''STRONG SUPPORT!'''  <small>P.S.Everyking'soppositionisborederingonidiotic(nottomentioncompletelyfalse)</small>.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I was suprised to learn that he was not an admin yet. Let us fix this shortcoming.
Good user.--
I thought $USER was one already -
Enthusiastically support. It's about time! --
'''Strong support''', There can be no doubt. Finally you gave in eh mate :>
'''Support'''.
Yep. --
without a doubt --
Very verily.
I '''support''' the idea of bumm receiving an adminship. [[User:DO'Neil|DO']]'''[[User talk:DO'Neil|И]]'''
Yes of course.
Support, naturally. (And quick, before he changes his mind and turns it down again!)

Support.
Indubitably.
Support, of course. [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]--
Not an administrator yet? I'm surprised. Strong support. --
Support - great guy! Oh, btw, I'm not here. -
With due admiration. --
Meh. Tepid support. --
Bumm13 obviously has a LOT of experience on Wiki. --
Quite. &mdash;
Well, ''duh''.
Support. Meets my criteria.
Support.
Support.
Support.  Based on edits and history on Wikipedia, there is every reason to believe he will use admin powers wisely and to good effect.  Rationales of Oppose voters do not seem to address any issues pertinent to this nomination.
Support.
Yupsireebob.
...you're not serious.  Bumm isn't an admin?  '''Full support'''.
Yup. --
Cool.

Wow! -
Support.
Support. Good editor, good guy. -
<nowiki>{{thought he was one already}}</nowiki>.  --
Support in lieu of toilet.
No way. I don't have any experience dealing with him on Wikipedia itself, but my IRC experience in dealing with him suggests to me that he doesn't have a suitable personality for adminship.
Hell no. --
As far as I can see, does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
'''STRONG Neutral''' on the basis that bumm has a monopoly on support, and my vote won't matter regardless. :) &nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support'''. The first time I get to be first! This is a thoughtful editor who definitely wants to improve articles. Don't let the modest cheese reference mislead--he knows his business.
Extreme [[cheese]] '''support''' (with [[black pepper]] on top).
'''Support''', yes! Great work for helping me and the others with Eddie, too. <font color="red">
'''Bunches of Support''' - frequently seen this editor actively improving.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' we've talked, I've been paid to support....I mean, great editor.
'''Support.''' Conscientious, level-headed contributor, unlikely to destroy Wikipedia with the mop.
'''Support''' Looks good to me ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">

'''Suport''' &ndash; good FA editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash; happy to support this nomination, particularly in light of the candid response the user has provided to question #3 below.--
'''Support''' this excellent editor. I could oppose, but that would just be...sour grapes. HA HA HA I kill me.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. A good editor who is well thought-out and cool-headed, with good participation in the various namespaces. -
'''Support''' <font color="black">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Э]]'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I've known about Bunchofgrapes since soon after he got here, and he's always been a great editor.  I like how he really emphasizes [[WP:CITE]] in his work, and in my interactions with him he has shown a great degree of [[WP:BOLD|bold]]ness and [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]ity. --
'''Support'''. I've met up with his activities at several occasions and I am impressed with his demeanor in dealing with awkward situations. After having a look at Bunchofgrapes contributions I am delighted to vote for his promotion.
Yummy ... I mean support. --
Support. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Sounds good. --
'''Support'''. I gather that Bunchofgrapes will be pretty level-headed in working out conflicts. &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', mais naturellement.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I've encountered this editor in a few places recently and he's consistently been very helpful and amicable. '''[[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #63f; text-decoration: none;">r</span>]]'''
'''Support'''. An indefatigable editor dedicated to high quality content. ''
'''Support.''' Eh....your experience is a little bit low for a self-nom, but you seem like a talented and already experienced editor. I'll support. --
'''Support''' - keep up the good work!
'''Neutral''': I see you have chosen to drag me and [[Sicilian baroque]]  into your application for adminship I have no opinion one way or the other if you become an admin or not - there are now so many one more is neither here nor there. But, please do not use me to make yourself sound like Mr. Niceguy who mad a little mistake, because the flak I took for exposing that man is as open a wound as if it was yesterday.


'''Support'''.

'''Support''', a valuable contributor.
Cool. This should be no big deal.


Absolutely.
Of course.
'''Support'''-
Yup.
Oh, yeah.  '''Support'''.  No question. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
Ooh, an easy one. '''Support'''.

Good user. -
'''Support''', easily.
'''Support'''. A good editor.
[[Cliché|__________]]!

I am honored to inscribe mine as the first supportive vote.  --
Very active contributor on chemistry-related topics.
Support. Good luck :)
A rarity - a self-nom worth supporting!
We always need more people on cleanup. --
Sure. --
Good editor.
--
Good editor
Excellent editor!

Looks like some great contributions. -
His talk page shows he works well with others.
Emphatically support.
Support.
Well suited to be an admin.
Heck yes. --
'''Definately'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Excellent contribs: welcoming, wikifying, re-directing and creating. Wish I could remember edit summaries as regularly.
'''Support'''. A great editor!  Worth interrupting my Wikibreak to support this candidate.
'''Support''' I constantly see this name attached to good work. I am getting sick of it :)
'''Support''' Have seen lots of good contribs from him! --
'''Support''' goes without saying.  For all of the above reasons and probably some below as well but wiki is not a crystal ball.  [[User:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#00FF00">Dl</FONT><FONT COLOR="#44FF00">yo</FONT><FONT COLOR="#99DD11">ns</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">493</FONT>]] [[User_talk:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">Ta</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00FF00">lk</FONT>]] 14:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC).  This was me - wiki seems to log me out randomly.
'''S'port''' - you can't get too many Canadians in Wikipedia (excellent contributor) --
<span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">You amuse us, CambridgeBayWeather! The only thing funnier... is your imminent adminship!</span>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' seems to vote on every RFA.
'''Support''' Of Course --
'''Support''' Was thinking of nominating him myself. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Yes please! <font color="green">
'''Strong support''' --

['''Support''' I've seen good work etc etc
I haven't had much opportunity to interact, but I do remember a survey on which Mr. Weather was a respondent, and he was very forthright in admitting that his edit count was insufficient to participate.  Despite being unable to vote, he showed thoughtfulness in the comments he made.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. I see on my watchlist that he does very good work on articles related to Canada's North.
'''Support'''. Seen'em, like'em. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support''', as has been said above, I see this name reverting vandalism all the time.-
'''Support'''. Seen him during RC-patrol. Deserves his "Exceptional Newcomer" award.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' The usual ITHWO (I Thought He Was One). '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' <span style="border: 2px solid red;">Stolen off JIP, I admit it</span> [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
-- (
'''Florida Bay Weather Support'''. <font color=#9999ff>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
'''Support'''. Fine and sensible  contributor.
Whoa... First time for me using RFA cliche #1, but... ''I thought this guy was already an admin!''  '''Support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Have noticed him around a lot recently. Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - He often appears on my watchlist doing Goog Things.
'''support''' he is a good contributor
'''Support''' - Only suprises me the 3680 article edits but only 118 article talk pages... but in the end, who cares. :) --
'''Speedy support''', per nom.
'''Support''' Positive contributions to WP. Good egg.
'''Support''' should make good admin.
'''Support.''' &mdash;
'''Support''' '''<font color=#808000>
'''Support''' - I was under the illusion that I had already voted support. Never mind. Better late than never... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
--
Cool. I trust Meelar's judgment.
Could use a mop.
'''Support''' Another person that is a good vandal fighter.--
'''Support''' Canderson7 has a good post history and has been hear a good length of time. I also trust the other voters judgement.
'''Support''', I trust the nominator's judgement. --
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' - fast and diligent at reverting vandalism.
'''Support''' Have seen the name once or twice, and Meelar's nomination counts for a lot.

'''Support''' Returning the favo<s>u</s>r.
'''Support''' A good RC patroller, and I think he'd make a good administrator. -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp ]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support'''. Good RC patrolling and VfD contribution. <font color="green">
I see him all the time catching the vandalism before I do, and without the aid of rollback (yet).
'''Support'''. Excellent vandalfighter.
'''Support'''. I echo a comment above- I also often see his reverts of vandalism appear just as I am about to fix it myself.  I think he would make a good administrator.

'''Support'''. You may label vandals with <nowiki>{{testX}}</nowiki> bit more often.
'''Support -''' good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', excellent contributor/patroller.
'''Neutral.''' I doubt if he has sufficient experience to get that delete button.  Nevertheless, he has still managed to leave a good-natured impression on me, which is why I'm not opposing him. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
Nominator supports.
'''Support'''. Seems pretty sensible on AfD
'''Co-nom support''' from across the Tasman.
Good Lord, '''yes'''.
'''Support'''. Definitely one of the better editors we have.
'''Wiibreak support''' Need someone to support Before I leave wiki for a wikibreak ;) --
'''Supportive support.''' Good editor. ~~ '''
CR makes a habit of punishing people who afd hopeless, barely-coherent stubs on encyclopedic subjects by turning them into top-notch articles.  Cliché though it be, I thought for sure someone would have offered him the mop already. &mdash;
'''support''' --
'''Support''' per above. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Joining the Crowd Support''' He knows his stuff.
'''Support''', of course.--
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support'''.....I guess.
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''. As Cryptic mentioned, Capitalistroadster is amazing at taking stubs I probably voted '''delete''' on and   turning them into well-written, encyclopedic articles. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  --
'''Yes''', darn it!
'''Support'''.  Easiest support vote I've ever cast.
'''Support''' see him round a lot.
'''Support''' WP needs more incusionist admins and less POV warriors.
Full support. Great guy to have on afd and elsewhere.
Cool.
'''Support''', we need more level-headed inclusionists (and I've been accused of being deletionist several times) and he gives inclusionism a good name.
Im sure Ive interacted with this editor...I just cant remember when, and under what circumstances. Anyway, a notable candidate.
&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''', an shining example of a well rounded Wikipedian. Most deserving.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good all-rounder --
'''Support''' definitely adminworthy --
'''Support''' good and trustworthy editor. --

'''Support''': He is an editor of principle.  When he sees the remedial, he fixes it.  A true genius of helpfulness and the kind of person who puts his work where his "keep" vote is.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent work on VfD.  Often rescues bad articles on notable topics.  Very knowledgeable on music and related topics.  Wonderful choice for an admin and has complete support.
'''Holy %#&@!!!''' He wasn't one already? Inconceivable!
'''Support''', I too am amazed that this excellent editor has not been issued with his official mop and bucket already.
SEARCHING FOR SUPPORT<br>?FILE NOT FOUND ERROR<br>READY.
'''Support''' without any reservations.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around and find Capitalistroadster a sensible editor. I like how he often fully explains afd votes and found several of arguments convincing enough to switch my own votes. -
'''Support''', I trust that this user will not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' per MacGyverMagic.  I've seen him around a lot on AfD, and he knows what he's doing.  I'm surprised he's not an admin already! --
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
&#8212;
'''Support''' without reservations&mdash; long overdue. &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks like this is a done deal, but I want pile on, very worth while canidate.
'''Extreme pomosexual support'''. This is one of those times where I'm like, "Wait... he's not an admin?!"
'''It's about damn time Support'''. Cap has a calming effect on contentious AfD debates and often saves articles from deletion by doing extensive rewrites. Definitely a trustworthy candidate. '''''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]]</font>'''''<font color="green">
Oh yes please. And I second Geogre's, Tito's, and Cryptic's remarks.
'''Support''' as per nomination. --
'''Support'''. He ''should'' be proud of his contribution to articles put on AfD (answer #2 below).  Capitalistroadster has turned countless "deletes" into "keeps" by doing real research and editing. Bravo! --
'''Shoot''' as a counter-revolutionary, then promote posthumously.-
<s>'''d, nn.'''</s> '''Keep''' after rewrite by Capitalistroadster.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. If everyone on AfD were like this, I don't think we'd be complaining that it was broken.
'''Support''', strong candidate, strong nominators. --

'''waves hand'''
'''OMG''' he's been around for so long and saved so many articles from deletion and he's not an admin??? Impossible!
<s>'''Keep all schools'''</s> oops forgot this wasnt AFD. '''Long overdue support''' &nbsp;
'''Support''', looks ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --
'''Support'''--
'''Certainly'''.
'''Re-heated RfA cliche support!'''.  "I thought he was one already". --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.  Now I can cross this person off my list of "people to nominate".  Thank you Sjakkalle.  :)
'''Support'''. Good editor, good article saver, no issues.
'''support'''.
'''Support''', strongly. If only all inclusionists worked as hard as he does not just to keep, but actually make articles ''worth keeping''. Capitalistroadsterization (or "troadsterization" as I call it) is due to become a recognized term for the turning of complete crap into a fine article. He should try his hand at alchemy. -
'''Support'''. I have been admiring Capitalistroadster's work at AfD for some time now. Clear-headed and well-reasoned.
'''Furry Orange Alien Support''' Echoing all the above and thanks to the Cap for all the chaff sorting and work put in.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. As someone on the other side of the inclusionist-deletionist divide, I've always found his votes well-reasoned and exceptionally clear-headed.
'''Support'''.  Reasonable in AfD discussions, does his research, and most importantly (as so many have said before) he puts effort into cleaning up borderline articles in AfD.  I've changed my vote on more than 1 occasion due to his efforts.--
'''Support'''. duh.
'''Support'''. Good work.
'''Support so strong it's not even funny'''. Wouldn't miss this for the world. :-)
'''Support''' Need I say more? --
'''Support''' - Have I already voted? A quick scan says no but feel freee to remove this vote if I have. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' The Marine only votes for the '''Best!'''
'''Support''', excellent candidate. --
Quite the most peculiarly phrased acceptance that I remember seeing, but this surely doesn't matter. '''Support.''' --
'''Support'''.
Where's the '''mop'''? =P -
'''Support''' - for the good reasons espoused by Geogre.
'''Support''' - excellent editor from what I had seen. --
'''Support''' - a great Aussie editor who really is deserving of adminship --
'''Strong Suppot''' I would have voted sooner if I had known he was up for adminship. A most deserving candidate indeed.--
'''Support'''. Great user --
'''Neutral'''I like his work to avoid deletions.  How long has he been around?  Will he stand his ground against other admins?--
Edit history looks good, lots of experience with plenty of breadth and depth in the nooks and crannies.  History of vandal fighting and courteous on talk pages.

I'm sure your service to Wikipedia would be even better with a mop and bucket. :) -
Support.

seen carrp around, like what i've seen

yes!
Seems to already do valuable work on VFD.  Admin powers will be extremely useful for him in that regard.  My limited interaction with him convinced me that he is level headed and discusses potential conflicts before escalating or reverting.  --
I was thinking about nominating Carrp earlier, but the incident with Belizian raised some doubts in my mind. Having raised the issue again here, I feel that I should support in order to make clear that the answer below satisfies my concerns. --
All the right qualities. --
I'll support.
Good experience in dealing with the user.
Good user.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I appreciate the help at VfD/Old.
'''Support'''.  Seems like a sensible person. --
Easy decision.
Support:  I wondered where this user came from, who seemed to know our ways.  Now I know it's Carrp (didn't Carbonite kill Lando the Hutt or something?).
Support. A good egg. --
Ohhh, you're Carrp!  In that case, '''Support'''.
Great user, in my opinion. '''Support!''' --
Definitely support.
'''Support'''
I would personally wait until his edits are attributed to his new user name. --
<font size="+2">SUPPORT!</font>
'''Strong Support''' Excellent editor, strong adminship candidate.
'''Strong Support''' He can be a bit confrentational, but I've found him to be friendly. Does an insane amount of work at VfD and is probably the major person making sure the copyright status on images in the featured articles checks out. Also, I thought he already was one... --<small>
'''Support!''' Support! Support! <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;

Has strong views on picture use policy (often seen on FAC) which can seem confrontational, but which ultimately benefit the project by encouraging people to find acceptable images. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''! more image policing!
'''Strong Support''' Darn, I have to use that phrase again: "He's not one already&#8253;&#8253;
'''Mild mannered support'''.  Too much yelling in here. :-)
'''Support''' -
'''[[I thought he already was one|RFA cliche #1]]'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''Strong Support''' He helped me, so I figured i'd return the favor. I look forward to his contributions as an admin.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''', we need more people willing to take a stand on image use. --
<small>

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  He's got his head screwed on.  We seldom see eye to eye but I don't think sysops should be an army of chums. --
'''Support'''. Friendly, level-headed user with strong knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. --
'''Support''' &ndash; does great work in FAC, FLC.

'''Support'''. VfD record speaks for itself. --
How did this fellow get passed over?
'''Support''' - obviously. --
'''Support.
'''Support''' this fine candidate.
'''Support.
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''', good work.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Very good candidate.
'''Support''', [[I thought he was one already|ITHWOA]].
'''Support'''.  --
'''Enthusiastic support''' <crowd cheering>YEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!</crowd cheering> &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Always a welcome addition to any debate at VfD, where he participates frequently. Although I can understand the POV of some editors that he is confrontational, I see it more as straightforwardness. I have yet to see an action on Carnildo's part that I feel is over the line.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' - he does a good job in keeping me in check at every single FAC I submit.
Aggressive and confrontational. My dealings with him have been filled with animosity.
'''Oppose''' too confrontational, too power hungry. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
--
'''Oppose'''. I don't mind confrontational editors but I do mind those who make a fetish of deletionism and those who have personal definitions of "vandalism". Given that you are asking to be empowered with the tools to delete articles and block vandals, these are important issues.
My only encounters with this user have been his blunt objections to nearly all FACs over image copyright status. While this is all well and good, he tends to angrily defend his position when people who don't know this is usual argue about fair use. I am interested to see what else he has to contribute to Wikipedia, and how he deals with users first-hand.
Voting neutral for the same reasons as Harro5. I don't expect him to misuse admin power in this regard, but stubbornness is troubling. --
Absolutely. &mdash;
I can't see why not.
A good editor who has shown a great commitment to this project.
Support. Technology/math related edits look acceptable, there's some admin work too.
'''Support'''. Cburnett does quite a bit of work in math articles, especially probability related (so not just movies :)  I had once a disagreement with him, but he was very curteous during the debate, and said in advance he would follow any decision the community will setlle on.
'''Support'''. Fair and balanced editor.
A committed editor who shows interest in helping to tackle VfD? Yep!
'''Support.''' - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>

'''Support.''' Contributed a lot to probability/statistics articles. --
<s>As of now, I do not see how Cburnett would currently benefit by having access to the admin tools. Currently, he seems to not be very active in the janitorial tasks such as VFD, CFD, TFD, and RC patrol. Also, this user seems to spend more time in the movie and TV areas instead of working on a wide range of subjects.</s>

'''Support.''' Yes, of course.
'''Support.''' Stongly, does incredible work and do check back on article and suggest compromises instead of simply deleting new ideas, that is the kind of work that makes Wikipedia what it is. Continue the good work! --
Sure.
'''Support''', Hey Cburnett remember your "WTF" comment?  It showed me that you are very serious about this project.  I think you'll be a good asset for Wiki as an admin.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''- &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Meets my admin criterion.  --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He's a Star Trek fan. Oh, and I've seen Cburnett's good work around. &mdash;
''Support''---
Support.
I don't think it's needed at this point, but he has my support. Always been reasonable. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  What Ben said.  If we can't give the mop and bucket to one of the most level-headed people on this site, we shouldn't give it out at all. -
True, he's a Star Trek fan; but I won't hold that against him. '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  I've yet to run across Cburnett's name on an edit and felt that it was a bad edit.  Seems to be level-headed enough to be an admin.
'''Support'''. No reason to think admin powers will be abused.
Support.
'''Support'''. I seem to have a habit of posting at the wrong area.
'''Support'''. A calm and very good contributor. Just what we need. --
Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
While I recognize and appreciate the range of Cburnett's contributions here, and I appreciate his ability to remain reasonably calm in disputes (both of these things are very important), I am undecided on his suitability for adminship.  In my very limited contact with Cburnett, I feel as though his interpretations of Wikipedia policy are a little too loose--that the policy documents do not always say as much as Cburnett believes they do.  I am not sure whether or not my concern is important enough to cause me to oppose, especially in light of Cburnett's obvious positives, but I thought I'd register my hesitancy here.

Having glanced over Cdc's contributions, I have found some reverts of vandalism, decent and not overwhelming participation at VFD, and lots of good little housekeeping edits. Seems fine, I support. -

Will support upon user acceptance. Any editor may move my vote to support if CDC accepts the nomination.



Not sure what to make of the lack of comments on CDC's talk page, but edit history looks really good with lots of breadth, involvement, and vandal fighting.

Cool.
Absolutely. --
Ahh...so ''you're'' the one dealing with all hose Indonesia-geo-stubs! '''Support'''.


Quite a good editor.  Support.
Another janitor.  Wheee....  I hope you can handle the monster which is [[WP:CP]].  [[WP:VFD/Old]] is an another monster in itself. --
--


'''Support''' Merovingian beat me yet again.... <small>
<small>
'''Support'''
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor. I'm sure I've dealt with you before, but I can't remember where... -
'''Support''' but please clean up your user page. The WWW is not Microsoft's personal playfield.
'''Support''' Why not? <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Very emphatically support.''' I haven't voted in this forum for a while, as recent nominations have tended to names I haven't recognized.  I'm pleased to see a name that is not only familiar to me, but one for which I have a very high regard.  Cedar Guardian has worked hard to remove POV from Lebanese-related articles, and has taken a strong stand against persistent POV-vandals.  At all times, I have found him to be courteous, fair-minded, and even-handed in his dealings. By the way, what he has on his user page is his own business.  Give him a break!
'''Support'''
OK, I support.
'''Support.''' C-G has an incredible 562 edits in the Wikipedia namespace, and 2410 edits overall as of now.  It's obvious he's interested in organization, and of course, his own geographical area of Lebanon.  My sample check of his edits show C-G to be fair in his editing, but just a bit "out of sync" with knowing some of "the cabal."  That's fine. . . C-G was very nice in responding to [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] from what I saw.  And the time C-G asked the Help Desk on where to place replies to other editors (C-G's space or the other editor's) shows a mark of humility.  I judge C-G as trustworthy, and vote to ''promote to administrator status.''  --
'''Oppose''' for not amending user page to make it visible to people who don't use Internet Explorer. Wikipedia should be accessible to all. Willing to reconsider if this change is made.
--
I have never heard of you. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
User is keen, but perhaps should have a little more experience before becoming an admin.
'''Support''' another great pick by Redwolf24! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Great user =) '''
'''Cabal, er, um Support!''' --
'''Support'''! Good user, civil, and active in the front lines (articles).
Ash Ketchum is to Kanto as Celestianpower is to Wikipedia. '''Extreme Analogic Support''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Extreme Pimp Style Support''' Great User --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Kind user? we need more of those. I say support..
'''Support'''
'''YYYEEEEEAAH!''' I was wondering when this one was going to run/be nominated. Keeps out neoligism and is in general a nice user. <small>
'''CAPS-LOCK KEY STUCK SUPPORT'''.
'''Support''' (after two edit conflicts trying!)
'''Support''' per cliche!
'''[[Soup|Support]]''', even though I said I wouldn't vote anymore, I'm going to anyway I guess. Just so you know, I thought Celestianpower was already an admin.
'''Support''', how can I not? -
'''S'port''' thought you were --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', did i already say support.
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Strong support'''. One of the friendliest and most responsible Wikipedian Ive met. I didnt even know you were running, and once again, Reds was one step ahead of me:)
'''Support'''.  Unconditionally.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've interacted with this user - will be good admin, mop him. Go the musicabal (tinc).
'''Support''' the heavenly power
'''¡Apoyo Español Extremo!''' - [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''', again.
'''Extreme cælestial support with extra dark matter!''' I've had much experience with this user.
'''Support''' Seems eager and willing to do the dirty work. Good luck!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Should have been made a sysop last time, and most definitely this time.
Yes.

'''Extreme [INSERT WITTY COMMENT HERE] support!''' All power to Celestian! <font color=green>
'''Strong Support''' A truly great editor who keeps beating me to vandal reversion. I thought he already was an admin? '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' this time, last time, every time.  Great work on the PAC and related projects!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Enthusiastic and assiduous; deserves it. --
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' this fine user.
Haven't had any prior interaction with this user, but a quick assessment makes me think he'd be a good admin.
Cool. --
'''Support''' a name I see frequently 'bout the place doing good work.--
'''Go for it!'''
'''Support'''. Seems like a good user (though I am hesitant to support anyone who works extensively on Pokemon). I'm going to hold you to your pledge to take care of CSDs though. -
'''Support''' means the rest of us have less to worry about re Pokemon
'''Support''' Absolutely.--
'''Support'''.
'''You think correctly.''' -
'''Support.'''
-- (
'''Support.''' Very friendly, very helpful.  --
'''Support''' - looks like a great editor to me, and puts in loads of top work on [[A Series of Unfortunate Events]] articles!
'''Support''' - A good, and friendly, editor who I can trust to use admin powers well.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' -- The guy is very keen to make Wikiportals history. --
'''Support''' - yes, without hesitation. --
'''Support'''. --
'''HELLLOO!!''' ''Who'' couldn't or wouldn't support? <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
Support. --
-

'''SUPPORT'''. User can admit mistakes and learn from them.
'''Support''' he seems like an excelent user who learns from his mistakes, though an admin needs to be bold. Overall a support.

'''Support'''. While I would have expected more edits over a year, Cesar has done some good work and looks to know what an admin should attempt to do.
'''Support'''. Good user.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around RC patrol as well as *fD and policy discussions. Good work!
'''Support'''.
Cool.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I admire this user's abilty to think before he acts, and admire the ability of someone to wait a year before making an edit. Just don't take that long to delete nonsense on RC patrol!
'''Support'''. I like what I'm seeing here. A good amount of edits is nice, but I'm really liking your ability to admit when you're wrong (as you said yourself with the bad faith). Admins must be able to realize that they're human and that they make mistakes. You've got my vote. PS: Use Gentoo! ;-) [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Support'''; he's been very helpful on RC patrol, where I have noticed him most; mature and civil attitude.
'''Support'''. Very experienced user: excellent contributions in general, plenty of janitorial and behind-the-scenes work. Active against vandals. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Looks like a good bet.
'''Support'''. Good and reasonable contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Appears to be a good user who thinks before he acts.
'''Support'''.  Seems to be clearheaded and capable of admitting his (not dangerously frequent) mistakes.  --
'''Support'''. '''That''''s the worst wrong assumption of bad faith you've made? And you're willing to admit the un-dashing shortcoming of not being bold enough, and you're a selfnom? I want to have your baby!
'''Support'''. And some ''extra support'' for being a [[Debian]] user.

'''Support''' &ndash; always seems to be doing good work.
'''Support'''.

nominator --
'''Suppory'''--
'''Support''' Just read her talk page and it was pretty impressive how potential conflicts on the Taiwan page were not only averted, but the people who had the comments actually complimented Chang after her edits. I don't even need to see the edits, that says it all for me, the work against the sockpuppets is just icing on the cake. As for not being incredibly involved in the community side of Wiki, that's fine. There are alot of specialists on here. As long as Chang contributes, she definately deserves the admin job. I apologize in advance if I got the gender pronoun wrong, Loren sounds female ...;-)
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor, fast vandal fighter. And oh what a fight it's been recently. --
'''Support'''.  I have seen her edits, and have been impressed by her attitude to vandalism. --
'''Support''' - excellent vandal whacker and does wikifying and external link/category fixing. However, there were only 130 Wikipedia namespace edits and she participated very little in VfD processes. But I'll support because I trust Changlc will wisely use the rollback feature and whack vandals with it. &mdash;

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''; an excellent user I have bumped into on vandal patrol; I expect she will be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Experienced wikipedian--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.  Could use Adminship.
'''Support'''. Mop, please...
<small>
<s>'''Neutral''', I will wait for the process to unfold before casting my vote, but I see very little community interaction, which is not a plus. Dual fluency ''is'' a plus, though. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 23:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Support'''. --
--

Appears to be a nice guy, a great contributor to Australian topics, and one familiar with Wikipedia. My only criticism is that he has a tendency to speak in all lowercase letters. I'm not going to oppose on this basis, but I would recommend that as an admin he use proper capitalization.
Useful contributions to Australia-related pages, including a focus on sharper categorisation and making the Wikipedia a more effective encyclopaedia.  Always polite and willing to help. --
&ndash;
Good user, and I think it's not that relevant if a user makes a lot of contributions on a narrow topic like Australia, rather than spreading the contributions out over a broader range. Categorisation is an important janitorial task, and Clarkk has done a lot of that.
Support. --
After reading the candidate's response to the questions, I can see now how he would use his admin abilities to better Wikipedia. He even took the time to create two more questions to respond to some of the constructive criticism we've been giving, which I did not expect. Therefore, I now support. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (Alex)'' </font><sup>(
The answers below look good to me.
Changing from Neutral to '''Support'''. We had a bit of a "discussion" a while ago, but he acted with integrity and showed good admin qualities.  I can see from his responses he will benefit from the admin tools. --
support.
'''support'''.

Great user. '''Support'''.
6300 edits is good enough for me to qualify for adminship--
<s>'''Oppose''' - Clarkk's Australian!</s> :) '''Support''' from across the Tasman.
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''.
me too.


Certainly.  No harm in a subject matter expert primarily editing articles where he knows his stuff. --
Of course.
'''Support''', good contributor and janitor, experienced in the ways of Wiki--
Totally. Works to improve the encyclopaedia.
'''Support'', has made a significant contribution to wikipedia, which shows that he would make enough effort to be a good admin --
Support.

<s>I spent about 10 minutes sifting through Clarkk's talk page and contributions.  One thing that struck me was the percentage of his edits that are minor, most of which being recats. I'd say 80% of his edits are minor, and this can inflate one's edit count. This is not a reason to oppose however.  I do see good things from this contributor and he seems very civil. I agree with a lot of the advice he gives contributors. Also, I'm not questioning his experience, being on wikipedia for almost a year, he knows what's going on.  What I'm mainly concerned about is his narrow scope of editing.  It seems like most of what he does is recat, or fix errors pertaining to the small slice of Australia related articles. He does some good work on Australian suburbs but he hasn't in a while.  I just think he could broaden his scope and contribute more to other areas of Wikipedia. What's keeping me from voting to support is wondering what he would do with his admin powers. How would he use them? Why would they benefit the work he has already done now? Perhaps when Clarkk answers the candidate questions below I'll get a better idea and possibly change my vote to support. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (Alex)'' </font><sup>(
<s>He has amassed a lot of edits by puting articles into categories. It seems to be his main thing. I was going to oppose, but then I re-read the discussion I had with him a while ago.  He was quite reasonable, more open to new ideas than others, and willing to suggest solutions on a win/win basis. A good admin quality. Undecided as yet.--
'''Support''' Great Editor I could have nominated him if I knew he wanted to be a admin --
'''Support''' because it's windy here again.
'''Support''' How many transportation geeks can this place have? :) Contrib log checks out and the answers to the questions are reasonable. See no reason to deny him tools that will make him more effective. -
'''Support''' per Aranda.

'''High Flying Support''' how can I not support someone who likes aviation, baseball, and history!  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I feel that Cleared as filed will make a great admin --
'''Support''', a good Wikipedian and an excellent answer to question 4.

'''Maaad phat support, yo.''' Very active, conscientious, admin-worthy.
'''Troppus Emertxe''' looks good... best of luck to you. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' Based upon answers to questions and contribution log.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrative tools.
'''Support''' seems good.
Cleared for adminship as filed.
Fine editor. Quite satisfied with response.
'''Support''' common sense rules.
'''Support''' per answers, contributions, and being beat to repairs of vandalism a few times. :) --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I can't see anything really wrong here.  This user looks like they are willing, able, and have the necessary mindset to be an Admin. --
'''Support''' - looks level-headed to me. --<nowiki><span style="text-decoration:overline underline">[[User:Celestianpower|<font color="yellow"><span style="text-decoration: blink"><big>☺</big></span> Cel</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Celestianpower|<font color="yellow">stian</font>]]
'''Support'''

'''n00b Support''' &#8766; Cleared-as-filed has been helpful and informative to this Wikin00b, and I believe he would make a fine addition to the admin staff. →
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''', You're cleared and filed and HIRED:>--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- and all the best. --
'''Certainly''', and extra bishpoints for the selfnomination. (Those mean that this counts as 2 1/2 support. :-))
'''Support'''. Come across this user many times, never had a problem with their editing or judgement.
'''Support''' Always see this user doing good work. I say yes!--
'''All clear to take off!''' (and file too...) I happily await working with you on AfD. -[[m:Wikimania 2006|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[WP:ESP|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]

'''''Neutral'''''
As nominator - of course!
'''Support''' looks fine to me.
'''Support''' - seems me to have the right attitude.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support''' - always appearing on my watchlist, doing great work. I may be getting confused but you're a Snicket enthusiast aren't you? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' clearly ready for a mop, and oh well, why not go the whole hog, a good big bucket too.--

'''Support''' Looks good! Lotta edit summaries, seems very civil, let's give 'em the mop! ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>

'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I love that CLW uses lots of edit summaries.. --
'''Support''' Looks fine to me.--
'''Support'''. Everything looks in place, good edits, good edit summaries, Would like to see a bit more User talk: when working on problems from others, but still Support!
'''Support''' Answers to questions appear to be more than adequate I like the backlog comment that always looked like nasty work.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I have seen him do a lot of good work and the answers below are also very good.
Looks like a '''natural''' to me. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. No big deal. --
'''Support''' - see him around often.
'''Support'''. Good choice!
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support''' Yes, definitely. '''''
'''Support''' per the nominator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
'''Support''',
'''[[First post]]''' [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Although I hope you'll be increase your activity here though, since that edit count is pretty low for being here over a year. But I still support.
'''Strong support.''' Cnwb is a very dedicated editor, and certainly admin material; I've never seen him react badly to anyone. I think above all else, the effort he put into proving beyond doubt that the hoax article discussed below was indeed a hoax shows his suitability to be an admin. Furthermore, had I known that he was interested, I'd have happily nominated him myself.
Contributions look good. '''Support'''. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
Yep, '''Support''' per Ambi.
'''support''' quite a lot of very quick research for Davido, and very gracious in trying to encourage a couple of bored high school students to become useful contributors despite having caused all that effort. --
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' Good contributor who would get great benefit from admin tools --
'''Support''', I fully second Ambi's comment above.
'''Very Strong Support''' I was [[User:Cyberjunkie/Contributions|intending to nominate]] you myself. Cnwb is very much a deserving Wikipedian, who will serve the community even better than he does presently with the extension of administrator tools. --

'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
Happy to '''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. What Ambi said.
Support - probably not insane -
'''Support''' per reason why I vote for every qualified Antipodean RfA.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', per nom ;-)
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - has done a lot of work particularly on Australian articles.
'''Support''', agree with all the statements above. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per nominator.  ;-)
'''Support''' Looking good, gets my support
'''Support''' -- a good editor, a worthy candidate for adminship. -
'''Support''' - a great Aussie editor who is ready to step up. Cheers --
--
'''Support''' per Capitalistroadster.
'''Support''' of course!
'''Support''' good work.--
'''Support''' Have had good interactions with this user in the past.--
'''Support''' - I have seen him do great work on disambiguation link repair and but for my watchlist, I'd have not known of the lengths he had gone to in repairing the links. He uses edit summaries almost always with precise and to-the-point text. An admin status would definitely help him do some of the tasks that he has already been doing in a much faster way - and thus improve his productivity. The only complaint I have against him is that he is so humble that he marks most of his edits as minor. He is a trustworthy editor and hence I believe that he would also be an asset to wikipedia as admin. --
'''Support'''&mdash;Ive always seen this editor around.

--
'''Disambiguate'''... er... '''support'''. A fine contributor and project leader who I would have gladly nominated myself!
'''Support''' because it's sunrise.
'''Support''' Sun - we used to have that once.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great work! --
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support''', seems to be a valuable candidate. Good work. --
'''Support''' highly valuable candidate. Robywayne's analysis seems to indicate that not only is Commander Keane's dedication to Wikipedia longstanding, but it continues to grow. There have been a very high amount of edits on some recent days. Good job!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Okay, I know the "ITHAWO" comment is thrown around a lot--but I really did think the Commander was one.  He has always been helpful and courteous in our exchanges.  He is a pleasure to work with and he definitely deserves the key to the janitors' closet.  '''>:'''
'''Support'''.  The commander has been very active on the Disambiguation project.  He seems to have the knack of being able to disagree with somebody without being unpleasant or impolite; an important skill for somebody who is to be entrusted with the mop.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', even though Commander Keen, is better.
'''Support''' And why not, eh?  Seen him around a lot (bloody ubiquitous, he is), seems like a good bloke. --
'''Support''' wow - break out the clichés - I was sure he was...
Yeah.
I've seen a few disambiguations of his sometime ago... --'''
'''Of course'''
--
'''Support'''.
'''support'''
'''Support''', Sure, I think the Commander is pretty Keen :>--
'''Extreme [[Dopefish]] Support with [[Pogostick]] Clusters'''. Heh, now I'm just getting silly.
'''Support'''. No doubt an extremely worthy candidate. --
'''Support''' - he's always disambiguating the [[WP:AR1|stubs]] I start, which makes him awesome.
'''Support''' - if for no other reason than his brilliant name. --
'''Get him!!'''--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' What, not an admin already? <small>cough</small> bring forth the mop.
'''Support'''. Have seen good work from this editor.

'''Support''' and [[safety standards|jump on the bandwaggon of advertising articles that could do with an extra pair of eyes]] as part of the supporting vote.
'''Support''' Strong use of edit summaries. Has demonstrated commitment to housekeeping through disambiguation repair. --
'''Support''' we need more disambiguators. &nbsp;
Super '''Vorticon Support''', solid user. -
'''Support''' - I've noticed good work from this editor. --
--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', no objections whatsoever.
'''Extreme yorp neutrality!'''.
Let me be the first to '''support''', pending Craigy's acceptance of the nomination.  Any British Wikipedian who stays up till 5am to get specific tasks done (a man after my own heart) is good for the job. --
Naturally as nominator I '''support'''.
Has shown real dedication to the project and has also shown himself to be trustworthy.
As a British wikipedian editing in the small hours - support! :-)
Cool.
'''Support''', 3:30, that is dedication.
Yeah why not.  &mdash;
Support.  A monarchist busy adding pictures to Wikipedia.  Sure.
'''support''' perhaps a little light on edits, but his heart is in the right place. &nbsp;
'''Support.''' One finds the nominee very well-qualified. <small> Above unsigned vote made by [[User:Lord Emsworth|Lord Emsworth]]. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''', although i've edited part 4:30AM once or twice.
'''Support'''. Useful and reasonable contributor, should make a good admin. (Supporting despite his following the alarming trend of adding symbols to signatures.) -
'''Blimey!'''.  What's with all the British Wikipedians who insist on having a flag or coat of arms in their signatures?  Oh well.  '''Support''' anyway. --
'''Neutral.''' Just falls short of the required nine months of contributions for me to give a support vote.
'''Strong Support'''  The description says it all.
'''Support''' Edits look very good. Answers to questions are good. Support is good.

'''Support''' as your edits look good.--
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' strongly, perfect admin candidate. -
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' looks fine enough to be an admin (no big deal)
--
'''Support''', I know this man personally and he is serious about his work.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''', per above. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' I have never seen him make a bad edit and many of the pages he edits are on my watch list. I feel he is a trustworthy editor.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''' I always see this user doing good work, especially on hockey articles.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per nomination. —
'''Support'''; mainspace edits are vastly more important than Wikispace edits. And those edits are what validates Croat's admin nomination.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', good editor. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''', lack of familiarity with process, other than a bunch of AFD votes.
'''Oppose''' Very, very few edits when point-and-click categorization edits are not counted. Edits show experience in only a very limited section of Wikipedia. He also has not been around long enough to sufficiently demonstrate his personality (that is, I can't tell how well he'd resolve a conflict). &#126;
'''Oppose''' as per Radiant and Mdd4696.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. I like this Canuck, but my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct would be more comfortable with more wikispace edits by which to judge his qualifications.
'''Oppose''' as per above. &ndash;
Seems like a good editor, but virtually no edits in the Wikipedia namespace (not counting the Hocky Wikiproject) [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Croat+Canuck&site=en.wikipedia.org]. I believe that admins should be more interested in the general running of wikipedia. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
Seems like a fine editor from my limited interaction with him. I won't oppose, but I will suggest getting more involved with different aspects of Wikipedia should this nomination fail (or even if it succeeds). Good luck! —
generally like what i see.  however, has really not been around that long.  i guess i'd support with another month under his belt, so i'll say neutral to mild support.
'''Support''' per above. --
I was so shocked that Cryptic was not an admin I nearly fell out of my chair. '''Very strong support'''. Thanks for doing this, Durin.
'''Support''', yes please, for sure, per Durin. -
'''OMFG You are not a admin Support''' Excellent work in AFDs --
'''Support''' - will make a perfect admin, no question about it.
'''Support'''. <nowiki>{{subst:admin-cliche}}</nowiki> --
'''Strong Support'''. A great user who will be a great admin.
Short, cryptic statement of '''support'''. ~~ '''
'''Support''' but not enough edits ;) --
'''Support''' completely deserves this, I had no idea he wasn't one. -
'''Support'''
Yeah yeah... [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Enthusiastic support!'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Good experiences with Cryptic, no reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''. He isn't one? Really? No, seriously? *jaw drops*--
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' and First person getting my new award!

Wait wait wait... Wasn't him an admin already? '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' excellent user, does good work, Durin's nom was rather convincing. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', RFA Cliche No. 1.
'''Support''' Vote is barely necessary, as everybody assumed he was one.
'''Support''' of course
Cool.

'''Support'''. I trust Durin's analysis, and this guy's bot seems great. -[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support.''' And don't be embarrassed, it's accurate.

'''Support''' this very experienced contributor.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''; believe he would not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' RfA cliché #1 --
'''Clear unfuddled support'''. Again... he's not an admin already?! Wonders never cease. :)
'''Support'''.  Thought you were already an admin, as did many people apparently.
'''Support''' after viewing "worst edit ever".  If that is the worst, and you're concerned enough about it to mention it here, that is commendable for both its transparancy and taking Wikipedia standards seriously enough to regret it.
'''Support'''. This guy is offering to do more work for us. I say let him. Go get those backlogs! :)
'''Support''' without a doubt. --
'''Support''' per amazingly convincing nom.
'''Support'''. Someone who actually ''transwikis'' articles. It was a great relief when he started helping out with that (and I feel more than a little guilty about having stopped altogether).
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', RFA cliché #2 (whatever that is).
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - [[User talk:ElAmericano|ψ]] (
'''Support''' - I like being #50
'''Support''', appears ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor. I have seen Cryptic active in the important transwiki work, which can often be a bottleneck.
'''Support'''. Good editor, no issues, give him the tools.
Have to support a fellow AfDer.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''', support, a thousand times support. Maybe two thousand times. One of the most clearcut should-be admins since [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]]. A taste extravagansa at a reasonable price. Four an a half stars out of five. Coming soon to theatres near you.
'''Support'''.  will be a good admin.
'''Support''' - 'nuff said. --
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme one-more-vote-won't-change-the-outcome''' support. I admit it: I thought you were already one of us.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Yay! Sheep vote! No, seriously Durin, you should nominate more... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Yup, what they said.
'''Support''' Obivously --
'''Support''' most definately. And for good measure: ''thought you already were one!''. :)--
'''Support'''. Lets see now, voting down near the end of this ballotting would make me a "low hanging fruit" but just the opposite by Durin's POV. Whatever, it is a pleasure to pile-on for this excellent candidate.  --
'''Extreme cryptic support''' for reasons already given above.
'''Support''' - Indeed.
'''Oppose''' too much of a deletionist.--

Has done great work adding content and fending off vandals on the Indian Ocean earthquake article.
I'll support, primarily because of contributions, and answers to the questions.
Support. Nice work on Indian Ocean quake.

Strong support. --
Strongly, strongly support. He was indisepnsible in combating Plautus. I was considering nominating him myself.
—


Does a lot of good work, resolves disputes amicably.
Support. --
Definitely. --

Fixed my signature!  What a pal, --








Support.
Support.--

In before <s>sticky</s> nominator.  --
Excellent contributor to Adelaide and Australia-related articles. Frequently noticed having reverted vandalism. --
'''Support''' as per nom, an excellent contributor to work with. --
'''Support''' obviously.
'''support''' - a dillegent and constructive editor. works constructively with others to solve problems, and I've never seen Cyberjunkie involved in petty squabbles (or even more serious disputes).
'''Support''', per nomination. Excellent Australian contributor. --
'''Support''', per nomination. Plays well with others
'''Strong Support'''. Cyberjunkie is brilliant Australian editor whose work is always of a very high standard. Extending administrative privileges to Cyberjunkie will be of immense benefit to Wikipedia. --
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Strong support'''. He should've been an admin months ago.
'''Support'''.  "I thought he already was one!" --
'''Support''' I had no idea that CJ was not an admin.
[[Soup|Support]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  I thought CJ was an admin, too.  I am sure the name tag will give it away in the future.  '''>:'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - not already an admin? Astounding! If I had to start up my own wiki and pick fifty wikipedians to be admins on it, Cyberjunkie would be on that list. Give him one of those special gold-plated mops!
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. RFA has had a lot of candidates lately, huh? Good thing that this one is another of the "excellent" kind.
Default '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' <small>
Is it too late to add one more '''support''' vote? -
Cool. --
Exactly.
'''Support'''. Why isn't he already?
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <nowiki>{{Template:RFC cliche}}</nowiki>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --Seems like he knows what he's doing ;)
'''Support''' —
'''Support''', has done very good work on Australia and New Zealand articles/portals, shows good judgement.-
'''Support''': good candidate.
'''Support''' Cyberjunkie is seen by me around the place and I happily support their admin-ing.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' - of course - a first rate Wikipedian. I'm amazed he's not an Admin' already..
'''Support'''. -
'''Strong Support'''.  ITHAWO.  --
'''Support'''; definitely.
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
-- (
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --

'''Support''', I've been waiting for this one!
'''Support'''. <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
(CTU) 5002 rebotcO 51 ,24:01 [[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]]
'''Support'''. --
-
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Seems good enough.
What Nichalp said.
'''Support'''. a first rate user --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' for an excellent contributor and editor --
'''Support''' Nominator's name is pretty wierd. '''<font color=#808000>[[Image:Smilie.gif|20px]]
First one is always free ;-)
'''Support''', given that he accepts his nomination for adminship.   &mdash;
For sure.
'''Support''' I know him a bit from wikinews,
'''Support'''; a trustworthy and hardworking editor.
'''Support''' he good!
'''Support''' He came in out of nowhere to revert some vandalism at the [[Ilokano language]] article and plus he has a good record. :-D --
'''Support''' I must support him quickly, before he goes and answers the "official candidate questions of doom".
Happy to support. --
Support. Although I'd prefer the standard questions were answered, the information Dan has provided below is the sort of thing I like to know. His response to the Neutral votes below is a good example of his responding to criticism, and I'm confident that he will explain any actions of his he is asked to.
'''Support''' I was very impressed that you took constructive criticism so well. I have no reason not to support you now.
'''Support''', a well qualified candidate.
'''Support'''. I really disagreed with Dan100 on [[weight training]] and didn't think he handled that particularly well (I'll bet he thought the same of me :). But that was a while ago and subsequant edits have seemed to be good, and even in weight training he was editing and arguing in what he thought to be good faith. I also like that he set up a talk archive, since those can be valuable. -
'''Strong support'''. Dan will make a great admin and I'm really glad he's been nominated. He helped me out with a dispute I was involved in, and showed himself to be an ocean of calm and commonsense. He's exactly the kind of editor who ought to be promoted.
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockip?ip=Brian0918&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpBlockReason=spam+vandal+who+abuses+his+admin+powers <font color="#EEEEEE">&#1080;</font><small><font color="#CCCCCC">A</font><font color="#AAAAAA">I</font></small><font color="#888888">&#1103;</font>]</span><small>
'''Support'''. This user... I don't know at all so this may qualify as a sheep vote. However I'll trust the judgement of Hall Monitor and SlimVirgin.


'''Support'''. He is an admin on Wikinews, and does a great job. --
'''Support'''.  Good edits, cool-headed; will put powers to good use.
'''Support'''. Very good contributor.
'''Support.''' Absolutely. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I saw this user in action doing some excellent vandal-hunting.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - whatever the vandals throw at him, he bounces back.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''. [[Slamdunk]], as we used to say. :)
<del>'''Neutral''' I was all set and ready to Support, until I saw your talk page. You blank it. Big minus. I'm sorry.
<s>'''Neutral''', I'm gonna go neutral on this aswell, blanking is a big no no in my book. If he'd set up some archives then I would absolutly support, a great user. [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 10:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)</s> I love these guys :D '''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - good editor. -

'''Support''' - a good editor. -
'''Support'''

'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. No reason to oppose whatsoever. --
'''Support''' &mdash;would make a very good administrator. I also liked his answers.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5 color=turqoise>'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Having gone through his contributions, DanielCD seems to be a fine editor. Not at all sure how 14 months of experience qualifies as "insufficient time".
'''Support''' 14 months is a lot of time.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - He's a fine and responsible editor who will do a great job as admin
'''Support'''. He's been here for a long time and has amassed a large number of edits in that time.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support.'''
with the old cliche - "you mean he isn't already one?" -
'''Support''', everything looks good here.
'''S'''upport. Extremely sensible, heavy content contributions, good administrative skills.
'''Support''' Changed from Neutral. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
<s>'''Oppose''' for insufficient time on project.  Edits are important, but time on project is more important, as it takes a while to run into the variety of personalities and issues that the project offers.  Further, I do not see much activity on the admin-like pages (the deliberation pages).  I have no hesitation about the user's personality, but merely wish to see more time pass and more context established.
<s>'''Oppose''' per Geogre.
<s>'''Oppose''', two months is a little too raw. He hasn't faced a serious dispute as yet. I'd be more happy if he could gain some more experience here and garner some barnstars.
'''Withholding''' Until more dialogue is established. I'll decide how to vote in the next few days. Thank you for taking time to answer my question though!
<s>'''Neutral''' You meet the majority of my criteria, but I have a few reservations. First of all, you don't always use edit summaries. Second, your answer to the first question doesn't say much about the future. Sure, you revert vandalism now, but that doesn't tell us anything about what you will do with sysop rights. I'll support if the first question is either revised or explained further. <b><font color=228B22>
Of course.
'''Support''', as I did for the original nomination.-
'''Support''' --
Give this guy the big red hat! <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.
This should be no big deal.
'''Support''' - Of course. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - works hard, does a lot of work that I also do. Obvious Wikiholic and has a lot of edits for one day. He'll make an excellent admin. &mdash;
<small>'''Support'''</small> &mdash; <small>
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support'''. no problemo.
'''Support''' experienced Wikipedian.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' without reservation.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Very productive, sheesh, over 14,000 edits. --

'''Support'''. About time! &mdash;
'''Support'''. Well experienced user.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''
'''Sure Support''' - from the beginning of my association with wikipedia (24th March 2005), I found Darwinek active at several places at the same time. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looks a good bet, and Grutness is trustworthy in such matters. --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Seems that Darwinek has met conditions that lost him adminship months ago.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems reasonable.
'''Support'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' - A tremendous work ethic, will be well suited for the job.--
'''Support''' - Has done good work in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica project.
'''Support'''. The only name of the current nominations I recognize from my CSD cat monitoring. Darwinek's well-reasoned speedy tags indicate a desire to help keep Wikipedia well-scrubbed, thus deserving of the keys to the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. Active on RC patrol, adding well-reasoned speedy tags. Active cleaning up and maintaining the categorisation.
'''Oppose''': while the number of edits on categories is _huge_, during last months there is no activity on VfD or CfD, no reverting vandals and practically no talking to other users. Admins are supposed to deal with various kind of people regularly.
--



Low edit count, but plenty of article edits, and has been around long enough. &mdash; <small>

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' this is my kind of candidate <small>
'''Support''' because dave souza has answered the questions.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. The low edit count in the Wikipedia namespace worries me slightly, though. -
'''Support'''. Darwinek supports [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]-related articles editor. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', believe he would not misuse admin powers.
'''Support''' - it is good to see a nominee without an inflated edit-count for a change.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I'm basically voting to counteract the oppose, below.  Adminship is about wearing a hat.  It is a fundamentally different activity from editing.  One should support or oppose an admin not based on "does this potential admin hold opinions that differ from mine", but "will this admin abuse his extra buttons, or use them responsibly?"  I see nothing to indicate that [[User:dave souza]] will abuse admin powers.  If the test for becoming an admin morphs into a vote on ''editorial position'', then we are shooting ourselves in the foot and losing a lot of potentially excellent admins.

'''Support''' - [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] like him. --

--
'''Oppose''' too few edits in article space for someone who's been here well over a year, and too few edits in Wikipedia space period. --
A notable contributor, however, 61 user-talk edits shows little interaction; 24 Wikipedia names space edits shows a lack of edits on RFA, VDs, etc. I still consider changing my vote though. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Neutral''' Has been around enough and has the experience, but only has 35 wikipedia edits according to Kates tool.  [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=dave+souza&dbname=enwiki]
'''Neutral''' for now. Based on dave souza's edits over the past few months, and the responses below, I am not totally convinced as to why this user needs access to the admin tools at this time. As stated by the other neutral voters above, this user is not involved enough in janitorial tasks. Also, watching AfD and NPOV lists, or trying to mediate or act as an arbiter to achieve relevance and NPOV, does not require admin tools in my opinion. Nor does reverting vandalism, unless one is very active doing RC patrol and thus the rollback tool would be handy.

--
'''Support''', looks good to me. &mdash;
Sure, why not?
'''Support''' per nominator.  The times I've seen him around, logical and professional.
'''Support'''--
'''Belated Nominator Support.''' Naturally.

"With a name like [Lifeisunfair], it has to be good!" (r). In all seriousness, I love the downer comments on talk pages followed by that upbeat sig :). -[[User:Mysekurity|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
<font color="darkred">
Make life fairer '''suppport'''! [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''
Unequivocal '''Support'''.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' certainly deserves the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' more reasonable than I... possibly. :"D [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support'''. Wikipedia is fairer than life.
<s>'''Oppose'''.  Name-changing sellout! &mdash; <b><i>
'''Support''' per reasonable explanation below.
'''Support''', per fsf's comment below <strong>
'''Support'''. Responses to Radiant's comments show level-headedness and an excellent grasp of policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' per above... --
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support''' -
'''s''' --
'''Support''' addressed my concern; give full support.
'''Support''' Good-natured fellow, who even changed his username to make others happy. A consensus-builder makes a good admin.
'''Support'''. Life should be fair.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.  have had many interactions with Lifeisunfair, almopst all positive. i am suprise he wasn't already an admin. I think objections based on his former usernae are absurd, and i support him under either name, or both.
'''Support'''. --
Not to be confused with [[David Levy (Israeli politician)|David Levy]].
'''Support''' - I even awarded him the illustrious [[:Image:Barnstar_Barnstar.png | Barnstar Barnstar]].  --'''
'''Strongly oppose''' - was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue.
'''Oppose''' - David has made improvements in his social skills, but I still think that he's got the wrong idea about certain policies, is still too quick to revert changes without investigating or following-up enough, and uses edit summaries to converse/argue.  Sorry, but maybe a couple more months may help me change my mind. --




<s>'''Support'''. For his courage to speak like he did on [[WP:AUM]]. See also comments. – [[User:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian]] | [[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Talk]] 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)</s> Changing my vote to '''Neutral''' due to the recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANetoholic&diff=32488976&oldid=32471884 awarding] of a barnstar to Netoholic and especially the comment about the "misguided masses". –


"$user isn't an admin already?" :) --
Good janitors make good admins.
[Insert cliche of choice here]. ;)
He has keeping the VFD page updated, since the change that I added over. --
I thought he was admin already. Hope we see ''Rights for "User:Dbenbenn" set (+sysop)'' soon.

Completely support, excellent choice for admin.
Cool.
Seems responsible; diligent in mastering the not entirely transparent midnite tasks on [[VfD]]; expanding into its /Old is especially worthwhile. --
Seems like a good choice.
Let's hear it for the wikijanitors... (cue [[User:Grunt/Adminship|shameless link to adminship subpage]]) --
Yup.


Yes of course. --
Likely to be an excellent admin.
Definite support.
Support.
I've had nothing but positive experiences in dealing with this user. –
Good nomination!
I've seen Dbenbenn around. Support. -

Very much so. &mdash;


Good Luck!

yep
I've had no positive experience in dealing with this user.


Strong support.
Support. Quite a prolific writer, has contributed a slew of articles. ----

Whilst his support for the Labour party brings his judgment into question, I still support,




Support. Level headed and contributes a lot of material. -
Support. Seems OK. A few good admins have voted for him, so that's a plus. -


Seems OK, but I have never seen this user.
'''Support''' seen him around and was impressed.
Full '''support''', per nom. -
Can't think of a funny '''Support''' line '''support'''. --
'''Support'''. Cue the cliché. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Support''' per Hermione. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.<font>&laquo;</font>
[[User:Dmcdevit/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA cliche #1]].
'''Support''' Maybe I get Phoenixes confused, but <insert cliché here>
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
--
'''Support''' Spooky username, will be a great addition.
Edit conflict '''support'''.  I've looked over some of his recent contributions, and it looks like he would be able to make good use of admin tools. --
'''More Edit Conflict Support''' even if this does add to the general phoenix [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermione_Granger#Wikipedia_is_not_a_fan_site cabal]. --
'''Support''', he's a good worker and I respect his judgment.
'''Support''' per nominator. --
'''Support''' - but only if you can tell me: what ''is'' the plural of Phoenix? Phoeni? Phoenices? Phoenum?
'''Support''' - Of course!
'''Support'''. Evilphoenix nominating Deathphoenix? Coincidence... or something far more sinister? Anyway, I've seen him around, and he's a nice guy. &mdash;
'''Shoooo-in'''.
'''Aye'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''{{tls|Rfa cliche1}}''' (and no, I didn't make it!)
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Absolutely could have sworn he was one...
'''Support''' <b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support'''. Cares about policy and shows lots of common sense.
'''Suppport''' per nominator.
'''Support'''. Good contributor,from a former resident of Phoenix.--

Although I'm midly irritated by the lack of unicorns and werewolves in the cabal, another pheonix should be fine :).--
another phoenix? yea, okay, verily. <font color="green">''This wikipedia needs more <s>cowbells</s> phoenices!'' </font>
'''Support''' sure, looks good.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' per nominator Phoenix. Wow. How many phoenixes are there? --
'''Full Support''' looking good for ya. —
'''Support''' I think the plural is ''pheoxen''!
'''Support''' for great justice!
'''Support''' - Good vandal sniper. Decent sense of what is and is not appropriate for articles dealing with literature. Obviously careful about his edit summaries. I like his comments and his manner of dealing with people when I have viewed his edits in previous months. Nothing really negative strikes me about Deathphoenix, and he seems like the sort of person who will use admin tools for the greater good. --
'''Support'''. A good user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen him before. Give him the mop and bucket! :D --
'''Support''' - he's done pretty much everything I think a potential admin should do (and none of the things they shouldn't do).
'''Strong Support'''. I though ''I'' introduced Evil and Death though... Reasonably sure... [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' Very good editor who will make a good admin.
'''Support''' Ditto above. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks good. --
'''Support''', the above clichés are true enough.--
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor, I guess, and we can ''always'' use more hands working on CSDs. -
Apply '''support''' cliché here. -
Cliché alert!
Moo.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Yesum
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I thought {{{1|s/he}}} already ''WAS'' one... &nbsp;
'''Support''' with fire --
'''Last Minute Nominator Support'''. Just thought I'd throw one more in there.
<s>Poor experience dealing with this user. Also, what does the user name refer to?
'''Support''' I totally agree.  I hope you get it.
'''Support''', I've had a quick look at your contributions, and they seem all OK. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Would have been a good admin months ago.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse the admin toolbox.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' no objections.--
'''Strong support'''. Got great satisfaction out of the success of working with him at [[Layla]] (a featured article largely due to his work) and feel he can only get better as a user when given a mop. I wish I'd gotten around to doing the nom myself!
'''support'''. Looks mopworthy to me...
'''Support''', aye. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' good edits.
'''Support''' admin is no big deal so I'm happy to vote for you.
'''Support''' if only objection is lack of edits in Wikipedia space. &mdash;
'''Support''' fellow guitar player support --
'''Support''' Good edits, admin material -
'''Rockin' Support!'''
'''yep'''
'''Support''' Experienced editor with a good attitude.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', looks fine to me. --
'''Support''', different admins deal with different things.
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''', lack of contributions in Wikispace (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=250&target=Deltabeignet&namespace=5]) imply a lack of experience with process.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.  Sorry to have to do this, but the spareness of the record does suggest more time is needed to be able to judge your qualifications.
'''Oppose''' Lack of wikispace edits. --
'''Oppose''' as per above. &ndash;
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' Even though I agree with Radiant and Aranda. Great contributer. —
'''Duh''' with a capital '''D'''!
'''Keep'''. Notable, verifiable, extensively sourced, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Demi widely linked to].
'''Support''' not an admin? Unbelievable.
'''Support'''. Looks like a valuable admin. Arguably we're under-represented with admins who want to use their powers to restore articles with value and unblock accidentally blocked users.
Sigh.  RFA cliche #1.  Maybe it's because you look like [[User:Denni]].  I should know better than to make assumptions by now. &mdash;
As one of the people who has previously offered to nominate him, of course I '''support'''.
''' Support''' And glad to do it, engaged and intelligent.
'''Extreme "It's a travesty that he isn't one already" support''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''' no brainer.
'''merge''' into [[User:Denni|Denni]]. Wait, wrong page. Er, '''support'''.
'''Extreme Support''' of course --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I also like your comments on your userpage regarding ''Questionable or Offensive Images''--
'''Support'''. My compliments for your extensive and clear use of edit summaries, particulalry the quality! And about the images: just ask [[Wikipedia:Toby|Toby]], no?
'''Speedy Promote''', patent awesomeness :)--
'''Support''': I honestly assumed Demi already was one.
'''Support'''. Whaaat Demi's not already an admin. <small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', will be an invaluable addition to the <censored>. Always glad to support someone who will really benefit from the tools.
'''Support''' looks like a good candidate.
'''n00b support''' &#8766; Mrs. Kutchner has been extremely helpful to me as I slowly begin to navigate my way through the underbelly of Wikipedia, and is a very level-headed individual to boot. →
'''Support''', very helpful user, extra points for the selfnom.

'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''. Experienced user with strong contrib's.
Abso-bloody-lutely, '''support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Undelete''', this article was improperly speedied, clearly asserts notability, and is identified as one of the essential subjects of Wikipedia by the [[WP:1.0]] team. Huh? Oh, shoot, this is RfA... '''Support''', same reasons: clearly notable, as I see him often in Wikipedia, and has been identified as an essentially good editor by everyone above and me.
'''Support''', passes the lightning admin test, and sometimes helps out resolving disputes (my 2 criteria).
'''Support''': this user is unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''': It's great to see someone wait a bit and then ask when the toolset is actually useful.
'''Support'''.  Per above, I think Demi would make a good admin; also a bit shocked you're not one.
'''Support'''. People like Demi make me wonder if we should have a [[WP:CSD]]-esque speedying for noms, he absolutely deserves it, he's helped me several times after asking on IRC. And oh yeah, his helpfulness that i've seen waives [[User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies#Self Voting and Self Nominations|my opinion]] of the negative aspect of self-noms here.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' - fine answers to the stock questions, good edit history - perfect candidate. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">
Un Demi, s'il vous plâit. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. See no issues here.

'''Desperate, clamoring support''' an eminently reasonable fellow, a great Wikipedian, and OMG he's not already an admin?!
'''Support'''. -
They put a gun to my head and made me '''Support''', those bastards.
'''Support'''.  No coercion was necessary here.
Yeah.
'''Support!'''
'''Support.''' Yet another obvious case. --
'''I-thought-he-was-an-admin-already Support''' --
I would like it known that I was the <small>fifty</small> first person to vote in support of Demi. I would also like an explanation why this did not happen months ago?!
'''Support'''. Obvious admin fodder. --
'''Duh'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Supportize''' as nominator. --
'''Support'''  Denelson seems to have modified his behavior since the last RfA.  Go Denelson83!  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support'''. Dedicated user.
'''Support''' Good User I think 3rd time is going to be the charm --
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Seen him around using good judgment and being reasonable.
'''Support'''. What is in the past is in the past. Good luck, Denelson. --

'''Support'''. IMHO, a valuable contributor.
'''[[Soup|Support]]
'''Support'''. Has recognized and worked hard to address past mistakes. --
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' as per last time.
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Strongest Possible Support''' He definately knows his stuff, and despite what he went through, which would have soured many people on the project, he grew from it. I'm proud to be a fellow [[Asperger's Syndrome|"Aspergian"]] and I'm sorry I got beaten to the punch in the nomination process.
'''Support'''. Has stuck around despite the criticism from before, has learnt from it and made changes as a result of it. More admins should do that, and adding a knowledgeable, experienced user to the sysop list can only be a good thing. -
'''Support''', per Splash.  I opposed on his previous RfAs, but he's gone out of his way to improve and seems like he has gotten much better at handling criticism.  Most people would have run away from such objections, but he's still here and has improved.  I think we need to reward him for that by making him an admin; he's earned it! --
'''Sup Port'''. I was neutral last time, since it was still too close to a RFC, but Denelson has kept his nose clean since, and I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' well done on sticking around and working on dialogue.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Though I opposed previously, user seemed very interested in improvement, and has since done so.
'''Support''' byegones be byegones.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I could have sworn he already was an op, he definately has the experience and the attitude to be one. <small>
'''Support'''. After the RfC incident months ago, he has shown an unbending commitment to being civil with other editors, instead of just becoming bitter and argumentative like many other editors would do. <font color=green>
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme Autistic Spectrum Support!''' Having Asperger's too (but being less lucky than you, my temper is getting me on the wrong side of Wikipedia right now), I know what it's like. Denelson83 is a pretty good guy. He has his flaws, but so do I (and I have them much worse, I'll admit it). Nobody's perfect. Overall, Denelson rocks! :D->-< --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''--<font color = steelblue>
'''Support'''--
'''Yup'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. After you gave me your vote I went and looked at your credentials and everything looks good to me. --
'''Support'''.  We all make mistakes from time to time, but after reviewing the recent history of this editor I am convinced this person would make a fine sysop.
Opposed Friday's RfA because the user was once "uncivil" and therefore, says Denelson83, can never have a clean reputation. Needs to learn more about Wikiquette, how it is applied, and how to judge others.
'''Oppose''' per Andre. <font color="green">
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Weak oppose'''. There were quite a number of objections on his second RFA that had not been addressed then, and I see no evidence that they have been addressed now.
'''Oppose''' quite strongly. Denelson, while well-intentioned, is immature, prickly and quick to anger. His behavior on IRC is a consistent source of irritation, and does not demonstrate that he has fully addressed the issues of his RFC. &mdash;
'''Support''' of course.
Good chap. --
'''Support''' - I've seen him a lot and I've always been impressed. And (of course), [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my omnipresent standards]] are met too. --
'''Strong support''' great work on AfD.
'''Support'''. Clear-thinking, thorough and level headed. Well involved in the behind-the-scenes stuff, ranging from policy discussions to all the other stuff. -
'''Support'''. I'd explain all the reasons, but then this page would take forever to load. (by the way, I got edit-conflicted ''three times'' while trying to cast this vote - surely a good sign! ;-)  --
'''Support''', great editor.
'''Support''', solid editor. &mdash; [[User:Lomn|Lomn]] | <small>[[User Talk:Lomn|Talk]] /
'''Strong Support''' - good editor. -
'''Support''' - for all the reasons stated above --
Obvious '''support'''. David is the archetype of a good WP admin: very well-informed, helpful, responsible, and, while he holds some strong opinions on policy matters—and will usually leave you in no doubt what he thinks about an issue!—is very reasonable and open to discussion. That Aubrey-Maturin venture, incidentally, is quite an impressive bit of mergism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aubrey-Maturin_series&diff=19107052&oldid=18818887] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aubrey-Maturin_series&diff=prev&oldid=18818887 originial]). Denying him adminship would be something like denying Dirac a Nobel.—
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' as per all. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Regularly see DES about the place, should make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good Editor normally see him alot --
'''Yup'''. A good one.
'''Support'''. I honestly thought he was already an admin. --
'''What?!''' I hereby command everyone to go out and find one person that should have been an admin a long time ago and nominate them, just like DES should have been.
'''Extremely strong support'''. He's done things all over the place, from the Manual of Style, RC Patrol, the deletion processes, and is very active on all namespaces. I can't say I didn't know he wasn't admin, but I thought a long time ago that he should be given the mop and the flamethrower. Besides, if [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] supports him (even after DES admitted himself that he's butted heads against him), isn't that a good sign?
'''Support''', as I was left with a positive impression of the editor after we had a discussion regarding the changing of a guideline. He was quite calm and made an effort to address all concerns, which is good enough in my book. --
'''Support''' Another fine user that I have seen all over the place
'''Support'''. Very fine contributor.
'''Absolute support'''. In addition to all the reasons above, he's a regular at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]], where he obviously takes the time to give helpful answers to users' questions. What more could you ask for in an admin? <font color=green>
'''Support''' unquestioningly and without the slightest hint of the mere thought of speculating otherwise. There are no reasons not to support, and he meets my standards (which are publicised in the apropriate place but I'm feeling too lazy to link to at the moment). To summarise, he will be a fine admin I'm sure. (oh, and don't worry about the wordiness thing :)).
'''Support''' a sensible type.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''',
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''- --
Cool.
'''Support''', although I am against voting during an ongoing Rfa, I thought I had already voiced my support here, so I will before it closes.  <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''': I've seen him around and he's a good editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' (trusting that you will have taken note of the concerns expressed below) --
<strike>Support Neutral Enthusiam is good, but those speedies might be a little over the top.</strike> '''Support''' ok, on review I think those speedies were good after all, sorry about that. And your commitment to tag and bag is laudable, even if it is perhaps a bit overly time consuming. --
<s>'''Neutral'''.</s>  Edit history looks good, but of course speedied articles don't show up there.  The potential for overuse of the speedy tag to become over use of the delete button has me a bit spooked.  I might be willing to support if, say, editor would only actually delete things tagged by others.  --
'''Support''' JYolkowski is a Wikipedian whose judgment I respect, but I'm satisfied with DESiegel's promise not to delete things unless they've been tagged by someone else.
'''Support'''
<s>'''Support'''. '''Neutral'''.</s> What the hell... '''Support'''.  I believe DES is going to do a good job, even if we do seem to be on opposite sides of policy interpretation more often than not.  Just keep in mind, when in doubt, send to AFD.  ''Extended discussion moved to comments''.
'''Support''' in protest at "I don't agree with you on deletion issues therefore I shall vote against you for adminship regardless of any other issues" votes.
'''Support''' I just saw DES elsewhere arguing ''against'' deletionist tendencies, so any idea that he'd be too aggressive with deletion powers is unfounded.  Any such idea is further unfounded when you consider that he clearly repeats at every turn that he believes in not just deleting articles on his own and would instead tag them for someone else to delete and delete articles that other people have tagged.  How can you argue against someone who so clearly respects consensus as a principle in policy-making?  Looking at WP:RFA today I was somewhat suprised to see he was currently going through RFA, because I would have assumed he was already.
I've seen him tag a lot of things as speedies that aren't valid speedy candidates, so I'm not confident I would trust him with a delete button.
'''Oppose''' His deletionist tendencies tend to run ahead of his research on some topics.  He recently put an article I was working on ([[William Rees]]) up for deletion while I was working on it, ''the day it was first posted''&mdash;this despite the fact that I listed my sources and placed abundant notes as to what I was doing.  There were links in the article, which if he had researched them, would have provided abundant information to convince just about anyone capable of [[NPOV]] of the need for an article on Rees.  It is not as if I am some anon IP or something, he could have taken the time to check out some of the articles I have created.  It is demotivating for a serious editor to have someone do this sort of thing.  He needs to slow down and do his homework, otherwise he could easily abuse admin "powers."  <s>'''He is not ready for admin responsibilities''', IMO.</s>
'''Support''' Long overdue, I've found him helpful in the past, and he could do his cleanup work better with the admin extra buttons.
'''Support'''.  Cooperative user who has done hard work in Transwiki, but has broader experience.  - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''It doesn't get any hotter than this.'''
'''Support''' Give this guy adminship already

Support.
'''Support''' Very active doing cleanup and janitorial work.
'''Supoort''' yes indeed.
'''Support''', great work on transwikis and other janitor tasks, and could make good use of admin tools--
'''Support''' goes around doing lots of good stuff and doing it well. Plenty of time spent in the areas of WP that admins are needed in most. Admin tools in his hands will speed along the improvment of Wiki wonderfully. -
'''Support'''. Excellent janitor.
'''Support''' -
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' Only had good experiences so far--
'''Support'''.  He's a very good janitor, gives useful (though short) edit summaries, has done nice work with Transwiki, and has shown good interactions with other users.  He's not an admin?  Let's fix that! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Most definitely''' &ndash; top notch editor. --

'''Yep!'''  Dedicated to making WP better. &middot;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- I thought he was one already. --
'''Support'''. All together now &ndash; ''I thought he was one already!'' <font color=#00A86B>
Cool.
'''''Support''''' - [[User:Thrydullf/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA Cliché no. 1]] definitely applies here!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', on the condition that the nominee teaches me the mythical secrets of the transwiki process. --
'''Support''' excellent member of the wiki-community.
'''Support''' - shows good judgment & clear dedication to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Looks like a great contributor. Sorry it took so long to get you nominated. -
'''Support'''. Great work, showing good judgement.
'''Support''' Shows good judement and does great work on wikipedia --
'''Support'''. Baaaa...
'''Support'''. Dmc? You didn't tell me you were up for an adminship. Shame on you. Shaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame. :-) --
'''Support'''.
--
'''Neutral.''' Two months short of my personal threshold for supporting potential admins.
'''Strong Support'''. Everywhere I turn these days I seem to find Doc doing great work. He has also dealt with long and protracted debates, such as that over [[Authentic Matthew]], with admirable restraint and good judgement. -
'''Support''' as nominator. Somehow, my earlier support vote did not stick.
'''Support''' I normally see him alot in VFD/AFD and I thought he was a administrador already --
'''Support''' a very fine Wikipedian, knowledgeable, patient, firm on facts, steers a middle course between perspectives. —

'''Support'''. Thorough, patient and with a pleasant sense of humour, he'll make a fine admin. -
'''Strong Support'''. Great guy, and I trust the judgement of Fernando Rizo and Splash. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Of course.'''
'''Support'''.  Seems like a good bloke.  Use the mop only for good, never for evil.
'''Strong Support''', excellent editor in my experience, clear head in conflict resolution.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor in many ways.
'''Support'''. I'm sure will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. My first RfA vote may as well be for a nice guy like Doc.
'''Support''' He has made some excellent contributions.
'''Support''', as we can never have too much of Scotland or Theology! --
'''Support''' enthusiastically.  --
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I keep coming across his posts on AfD and Scottish articles. A voice of moderation and conciliation wherever it's needed. Will make a 1st class administrator. --
'''Support!''' I see doc around quite a bit...  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
&mdash;
Good guy. Level-headed and trustworthy. It's time we sysopped him.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppot'''.  I thought he was one.  Doc Glasgow is a pimp.
'''Support''' <font color="red"><big>'''EXTREME LESBIAN SUPPORT!!!!'''</big></font> <small>
'''<big>SUPPORT</big> I love being obnoxious.
'''Support''', and not just because the Scottish are cool...
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme lesbian support!''' --<span style="color:red">
Support.
'''Eh, what's up, Doc?''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
''Support''', good editor.
What's not to like? As for the (semi) objection(s) below, the time seems sufficient. --
''Support'''. Good man, based on contribs.—
''Rubber duck''. Seen the nominee a lot around WP. -
'''Most certainly.''' --
'''Support''', will make a fine admin.
'''Aye aye!'''
'''Support''' Should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.  I haven't always agreed with him (so what?), but he's struck me as being the sort of person who'd make a good admin. --
Very good chap. Very reasonable, usually seems to know what he's doing. --
'''Support'''. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient time.
--
I just want to be on record as not being ambivalent at all.  I support this user, but I do want more time to pass in order to see the effects of bullheadedness and bull<s>shi</s>...other stuff.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' for an excellent editor - but this will be the last nom under the old rules! (see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship]]) --
'''EXTREME REDWOLF24 SUPPORT'''. The best Dragon Fly I know. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme Miami Style Support''' I thought he was a admin already Great User --
'''Support'''. '''
'''EXTREME DRAGONFLY SUPPORT!!!''' <small>
'''Furry Alien Support''' based on what I've seen from this editor about the place (many times), will make good admin.

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Interactions with this user have been positive. &mdash;

'''Support''' helped me out with a query in AfD with speed and precision.
'''Support''', edit history looks impressive.
'''Support'''. Anyone who drops you a (sincere) thank-you note for reverting their work when they're wrong has the temperment to be a fair and diplomatic admin.
'''Support'''. For sure.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' even though Dragonfly is absolutely disorganized (yeah i'm one to talk LOL) &nbsp;
'''Strong Support''' I've seen quite a lot of good work from this user.
'''Support''': He would be a  ‘nicely perfect’ administrator.  --
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support''', Hes got a fair ,if heavy, hand, and a sharp mind, what more cfould you ask for?
'''Support'''. Reasonable and knowledgeable. (And frankly if disorganization is a disqualification for adminship, I ought to be desysopped on the spot!)
'''That's hot'''.
'''Should've been one a while ago'''. ~~ '''
'''Support.''' Good, intelligent editor. --
Cool. --
'''Disorganized support'''.  Silly admins.  Let them get too organized, and next thing you know, they'll be forming a [[WP:TINC|cabal]].
'''Witty Support'''. I second the comments of Mindspillage.
'''Support''', if only to prevent him adding to the questions section :o) --
What Mark Gallagher said ;)
'''S'port''' absolutely --
'''Support'''. Mmmm, that disorganised thing....., you know. Couldn't be humour, could it?
'''Support''' from college freshman. -
'''Support'''. Good stuff. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Could you help me close AFDs and clear out [[CAT:CSD]]? Sometimes there is a backlog. Thanks.
'''Support''' - a clearly unnecessary vote but just to express my views.

'''Support'''.  Contributions and answers below indicate thoughtfulness and a broad range of interests.
'''Support'''. Just noticed his RFA or would have acted sooner =) But he's pretty knowlegable and an all around nice guy (at least on IRC). Glad to support. '''

'''Support'''. No probs with this nomination.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I would welcome his cool head on my team any day.
'''Support''' only recently came into contact with this user however he appears to be a level headed user who contributes quite a bit to the wiki as a whole. <small>
'''Support''' Woohoo! I'm 50! He's always on IRC, and has seemed very adminlike from on there. I look forward to working with him.
'''Support''' &mdash;
Oppose.  As Alkivar says, seems disorganized--look at the replies to the standard questions for another example.
--

Seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. An actively helpful guy all-around. Great candidate!
'''Support'''. I haven't had much to do with DF, but anyone who fixed the page/section doubling bug deserves every reward the community can bestow. I realise that this doesn't necessarily qualify him for admin (maybe for developer), but he's clearly an example of a very good egg.-
Strong support.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. ~~ '''
'''Definitely'''.
'''Strong support''' (by which I mean support) - anyone who fixed the page duplication bug in Wikipedia should be sainted, not just made an admin for all to jeer at :-)
'''Support''' Seen lots of great work and level headed discussions.  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support.'''
<small>
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', by all means.
'''Support'''. Every edit I've seen has been well reasoned. This is one of those that I wish I had nominated. Maybe that means I should spend more time looking for good admin candidates. -
'''Support''', DF has made some great contributions to Wikipedia. --
'''support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - a huge number of Wikipedia namespace edits and seems experienced. He also has many valuable article contributions. &mdash;
'''Support''' - and pleased to be a co-nominator, even if in absentia (back from hols now).
'''Oppose''' I am somewhat concerned that the 4 co-proposers all come from the far (but not completely extreme) end of one single religio-political POV. If there was someone from the opposing POV co-proposing my view may change. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
--
'''Support''' and nominate --
'''Support''' Bob was really good in answering my question on optics in RD about a year back. (I'm sure he'll have forgotten my question)
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', we could do with a few Bobs. --
'''Support''', looks experienced and reasonable. --
'''Support'''. Dr. Mellish, if you get a chance, can you please have a look at [[Photonics]]? Thank you.

<small>
'''Strong delete''', admincruft.
'''Support''', does good work in optics articles. --
'''Support''' Quality, intelligent edits. Good coverage across name spaces and uses summaries. Helping out at the help desks is a big help!
'''Support''' ''2001?!?'' Good heavens, he's a sure bet.
'''Support''' and fight time/edit countitis. -- (
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
2001? 1900 edits? Surely I'd oppose, but I guess I've changed haven't I? '''Support'''.
'''Support''', if he is not a safe bet, I have no idea who is. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Quality editor, can't see him abusing admin functions.
'''Support.''' Why not?--
'''Weak support''' please increase your inter-user communication levels. Other than that you look good. &nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''', maybe few edits considering his four years here, but they're significant edits, like creating whole articles like [[Cauchy's equation]] and [[Lyot filter]] and [[Filter (optics)]]. --
'''Strong support'''.  Very trustworthy; adminship should be no big deal.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
Support.  Not everyone should have Wiki-obsessive-compulsive disorder.  It's nice to see a sane person nominated.  :-)  Should make a fine admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', shows sufficient commitment to the project.
'''Support'''. When a guy had made nearly two thousand edits but very little user interaction, that doesn't tell me that he's a bad editor, it tells me that he's a good enough editor that nobody gets in raging arguments with him. I think that's decidedly mop-worthy. And I'm not much of an edit-count man anyway, so as per everybody above as well.


'''Support'''. Content is the reason most people come to WP.
'''Support''' Less interaction=less conflict--
'''Support''' belated, thought I'd voted on this already.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Need more admins. This one will do fine. -
'''Support''':Support:  DrBob is doing a valuable job here, but admin. powers are not needed for him to continue in his sterling work, but they seem to be given on request now, so why not.  He has to be better than some of the others, and his edits are at least sensible and useful.
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor who surely will use the tools wisely. --
'''Support''' Adminship should be easy to get.  But only if they are just as easy to get rid off, if they can't handle the temptation of power.  It looks like DrBob is very unlikely to come up for deadminship in the future after a solid history.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''' not enough communal interaction.
'''Oppose'''. I agree. In four years, he's made only 128 posts to article talk and 55 to user talk, which means he's barely interacted with other editors. Also, an overall 1,944 edits spread out over such a long period doesn't show much of an interest in Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. What SlimVirgin said. Low communication levels don't show an inclination to adminship or its tasks.
'''Neutral'''. Everything seems to be <s>pretty good</s> amazing, but only about 50 edits in user talk indicating low interaction.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. As the nominator, of course!
'''Support''', seems like a good candidate, over 1400 edits in main namespace and over 700 in Wikipedia namespace.
'''Support'''. A dedicated RC-patroller. Someone who even bothers to emulate the standard rollback edit summary by hand (or by script?) deserves to get access to the real thing ;-)
'''Support''', seems to have a good eye with regards to maintaining quality. --


'''Support'''.  Great RC patroller. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I was fooled into thinking that Drini is already an admin by the fact that he reverts vandalism with an edit summary as produced by the admin rollback tool. :) By the way, Drini is one of the post prolific contributors to [http://planetmath.org PlanetMath].
'''Support'''. Drini seems to be all over the place doing RC patrol.
'''Support''' Nice work with the new -n templates. --
'''Support''', I actually thought Drini was an admin for the reason Oleg stated. Great vandal fighter.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support'''. One of the good guys.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
<small>
'''Support''' His contributions to tackling vandalism are stellar, and he is experienced with over 3500+ edits.  I hope adminship does not interfere with your gallant battle with vandals! :)--
'''Support''', had me fooled too.
'''OMFG Support!''' --
'''Support''' <math>\times \infty</math>! <font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I really am gonna have to read [[WP:LA]] because I keep seeing people at RfA I thought were admins! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', I have been working with Drini over at [[WP:PNT]] for a while now and have built a very positive impression of him. I am sure that he will make good use of sysop rights. However, please remeber that I am still the admin-in-charge at PNT, even after you are promoted. ;) --
'''Support'''. 4000+ edits since february 2005, comments 99.9% of it. This guy is a vandal slayer. Quality contributions, and obviously an intelligent person. He deserves the extra buttons. -
'''Support''' Good user --
'''Support''' Really did think you were one!  <font color="red">
'''Support''' -
'''Full Support''' per R Lee E; also shared Oleg and Jaxl's confusion because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=100&target=Drini&namespace=0 these]  (helpful) edit summaries.—
'''Support''': Drini is a first-rate vandal-hunter.
'''Support''' - no explanation needed, as the record speaks for itself. --
'''Support'''.  All of my dealings with Drini have been positive.
'''Support'''. Noticed his good handling of vandalism when he was still a newbie, and am happy to support now.
'''Strong support'''. BTW not to steal Drini's thunder or anything, but the edit summaries are from using "godmode light", a script by [[User:Sam Hocevar|Sam Hocevar]] which emulates the rollback function for non-admins, and which I highly recommend.
'''Support''' Per everybody else.
'''Support''' I've noticed Drini's work and value the input he makes.
I thought he was an admin already because of his rollback edit summaries&mdash;he shouldn't be making those, because they're misleading, but nevertheless he seems to do enough vandal-fighting that he ought to have a real rollback button.
'''Support''' I've only seen good things from this guy/gal. <small>
'''Support'''. ITHWO - GHTM!
'''Support'''; truly excellent candidate, and gives me an opportunity to use the cliché (it sure looked like he has the rollback tool!).  Superb contributor and vandal-fighter.
'''Strong Support'''. I keep bumping into Drini's edits all the time: a very trustworthy and responsible user...
'''Support'''. No big deal. --
'''Yup.''' Post Drini at the Wiki gates with the required weaponry. Them vandal varmints won't be crossin' us agin!
--
'''Support'''.  Like FireFox, I keep bumping in to Drini's edits all the time.
'''Support''' absolutely.
'''Support''' - I see Drini RC'ing all the time; he'll make good use of the TurboMop!

'''Support'''. Oh yes. &ndash;
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' unreservedly!
'''Support''' vandals should beware! -
'''Annoying''' as Drini almost always zaps vandals faster than me. -
'''Support''' - very responsible and professional editor. --
'''Support''' - '''Extreme lesbian support!''' --<span style="color:red">
'''Support''' - not that he needs to know this (or indeed my vote), he meets [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]]. --
'''Support!''' Of course. -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support.''' No question in my mind. --
<small>
'''Support''' Gotta get my vote in before the polls close. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''101% Support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''' - go, Durin, go. Now I could recite the old cliché but I won't for the timebeing. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' (Could someone please explain how the hell the "lesbian" meme got started?) Does good work. ~~ '''
'''Support'''. And yeah, what's up with the "extreme lesbian support" votes of recent? A lot of users seem to be using that mantra now.
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash;mmm... thought Durin was one.
Support.
Support.
'''Support''' BTW i hate pedophiles.
'''Support''' should make a good admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; good RC patroller and the answers given below are very thorough.
'''Extreme fake lesbian intended to stimulate heterosexual males support!''' I just wanted to say that somewhere.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A solid editor and a vigilant copyvio hunter.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I thought he already.. you know.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I think we all know Durin knows what makes a good editor and what makes a good admin.  In fact, he knows it in more quantifiable detail than anyone else.  Support, if only for making me daydream for a couple of days about making some kind of machine-learning algorithm to predict which RFAs will pass and which will fail.  Support even more for talking about the importance of edit summaries.
'''Support''' &mdash; see below. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', good work with the RfA graphs, me likey them.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Very strong contributor.  I especially love his graphs.  I think he will make a fine admin judging by his work on RC.
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support'''. An asset to the community and an extraordinary person.
'''Support''' Another good pick by Redwolf24. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support'''
'''Yep'''.  I would support a candidate like this 92% of the time; 99% over the last 30 days.
And here goes my edit number 6400 to '''Support''' Durin: for Durin’s contributions, as also assertion on the user page “I am neither a [[Meta:Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians|deletionist]] nor an [[M:Inclusionism|inclusionist]]”. --
'''Support''' Everything that I've seen of Durin around Wikipedia is excellent.
'''Support'''
'''Extreme Atheist Support!''' Meets my standards. You'll do well with the mop and bucket. :-) --
'''Support'''. Good to see him on RC patrol. He gets the job done.
'''Support'''.  I've crossed his path while doing RC patrol, too.  Always efficient and accurate.  Definite Admin material.  <b>>:</b>
'''Support'''--
'''Extreme male lesbian support''' (I'm male, and I like women). Durin has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good choice. Good luck!
'''Sup''' No reason to do otherwise.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
'''Me too! Me too!''' --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support'''.—
'''99% Support''' I'll ''borrow'' [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]s extra 1% from that vote to make it an even 100% . <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support'''. -
This list is so long :P [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. I've found Durin's contributions to be well-reasoned and helpful.
'''Support''', this person would make a terrific admin.
'''Support''' Good janitor--
'''Support''' excellent editor --
'''Support'''  Have come across him often and always found him trustworthy.
'''Even More Extreme Lesbian Support''' Even though i'm not a lesbian, or a woman for that matter ;-) [[User:Durin/Admin nominee charts|Durin's Chart]] is insanely cool.
Yay, I'm number 60!  --
'''Support''' - and I am at 61. --
<s> I was just thinking of nominating him myself. I would have a strong support, but in the interest of fairness, I'm voting neutral until he accepts and answers the questions. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
Article contributions are excellent, and the Frost allusion equally so. &mdash;
'''Support''' - so long as he signs his acceptance of the nomination. I thought about neutralling but there's no sense in just having to change my vote. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' much needed interest areas
'''Support''', great editor!
'''Yub yub, commander!'''  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. 2400! Great job! Now its time to give him the mop an badge!
'''Support''' Another Good Editor --
'''Yeeeaaaaah! Howard Dean-like Support'''. Great work with African topics. -
'''Support'''. Indeed a good editor. And love your choice of topics! They will help tremendously to change the [[WP:BIAS|wiki systemic bias]].
'''Homicidal Batman Villain Support''' Very good editor, good edits, doesn't talk much though.... Will support even though I dislike those who self nominate.. :) --
'''Support'''. <font color="green">

'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' Sounds good. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - no problem supporting, though it's tempting to start a conflict over the [[Bambara Empire]] just to spite the user's comment below... --
'''Support'''.
'''Total support''' - It should've been automatic! Indeed, El C is confirming it! Dvyost one of the most active editors (if not the most) in all what relates to Africa and many other topics. After a long time waiting for help in [[Gnawa]], he came for rescue [[Talk:Gnawa]]! Congras mate! --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''', [[User:Dvyost]] does good work.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''', great contributor.
'''Support''', a very good user with just the right attitude. I can't help being a little worried though that the admin tools might carry Dvyost away from providing Wikipedia with excellent and much-needed articles. &mdash;
'''Support''', has shown focus as a contributor and helped expand Wikipedia's coverage. I have ran into him several times on DYK. He radiates warmth even through his edit summaries. I hope that his past performance as a contributor is a good indicator of his future performance as an admin. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' and much love
--
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' Looks to be an outstanding contributor--
'''Support''' I'm deeply surprised this person isn't an admin already.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' low edit-summary use is really not a factor in this case, since he clearly has the experience.

'''Support'''.  Let's avoid loweditsummarycountitis when considering dedicated contributors like this.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' very solid --

'''Definitely'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <font color="green">
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' edit conflicts with Francs2000.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' with more edit summaries.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', solid editor.
'''Support''' per above
'''Support'''--
--

A lot of experience. Should have been a sysop a long time ago.
Good user, absolutely ready for adminship.
-
Sure, Edward does good work and has more than enough experience.



I'm convinced, looks like another 'should have been one long ago'.

Valuable contributer. --


of course

Seems sensible and dedicated enough, and shows a sense of humour when dealing with difficult editors
Cool. --
Doesn't strike me as having good judgment. Either he directed his personal (non-/rarely-editing) friends ([[User:Jriddell]], [[User:gordonjcp]], and [[User:Willief]]) to this vote not knowing about the common procedure of us not counting them, or is employing [[Wikipedia:Sock puppets|sock puppets]] himself.
I'm moving my original support vote to neutral for now, in view of Edward's response to Netoholic's Oppose. Sorry, I just think that's a bit little and a bit late. Admins may need more experience of wiki voting culture than it suggests.--


I am skeptical as to whether or not we need another copyright industry stooge as a sysop, but then I have a pre-stated bias on this issue (see my userpage) so I'll remain neutral --
Me, the nominator, of course. &ndash;
Edwin was the one who turned me on to Wikipedia and showed me the ropes. I think he would also make an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. The wait is over!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools, has demonstrated committment to the project.
'''Support''' your edit history looks good.--

'''Sleepy Support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', answers correct, edits good, what more do you want. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Strong support'''; I find the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Phase1 spamming] of talk pages in an attempt to solicit opposition to be in rather poor taste. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 22:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC) <s>'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' per above.
'''Strong Support''' I agree, see below, nominee looks great to me.
'''Support''' Clearly understands adminship duties (I like his responses to the questions below). Edits are substantive and show good work ethic. &#126;
'''Support''' Everything looks good here, and thanks for answering the additional question below.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good candidate --
'''Support''', didn't need to wait ''that'' long!
'''Support''' good contributor —
'''Support''' has shown commitment and unlikely to abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good contributor. --
'''Support'''. A good contributor who certainly has enough experience now. :)
'''Support'''. I noticed this RfA due to [[User:Phase1]] asking users to reconsider their support. I went to investigate; while I can't seem to find the belligerent comments or lack of Wikipedia understanding, I am impressed with his calm discussion, and have come across Edwin's work numerous times before. I am pleased to support his candidacy. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' Edwin accused me of copyright violation on [[December 17]] [[2005]] (when his adminship must have seemed in the bag). His belligerent reaction to my explanation for this uploading of an image of former South African president [[P.W. Botha]] &mdash; see [[User_talk:Phase1]] ''Copyright violation'' and [[Talk:Pieter_Willem_Botha]] &mdash; leads me to fear that he is likely to abuse his new-found powers.[[User:Phase1|Phase1]] 15:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC) In another somewhat idiosyncratic judgment, Edwin has advocated on December 18 moving the [[Pieter Willem Botha]] article to '''PW Botha''' and thus seems unaware of the workings of the wiki "re-direct" system.
'''Oppose''' per Phase1
<s>'''Neutral''' Most everything looks in order, see one Question below.
'''Extreme "Yes! I stole the nominator's place" support'''. 12000 edits, 2.5 years experience. WHOAA!!--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Very strong candidate with a variety of experience.
'''Support''' Hey, I'm not usually this high up.  I think I have a nosebleed.
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''EXTREME SUPPORT TROPPUS EMERTXE''' long overdue for admin powers. &nbsp;

'''Support'''. It never even occurred to me that Egil is not already an admin. --
'''SHAZAAM''' To quote your user page: "My drop-in-the-sea contribution to Wikipedia..."  You should also get an award for modesty! --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', as per nominator.  ;-)

'''Support''' because in the answer to question 2 the word ''geo-ccordinates'' has two c's in it.
'''Support'''. Good project work, and I suppose we could use another vandal fighter. BTW, how do people get edit summary percents?
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  And thanks for your diligence in cleaning up after Rktect.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' we need more admins like him--
'''Support''' per everyone else.
'''Support''' seems to make sense like that and no sense otherwise.  No negative issues as far as I see.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', though he hardly needs another vote. --
'''Support''', overdue. --
'''Extreme-I-Am-Not-Original-In-My-Voting Support'''.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', yes a sure support. --
'''Support''' -
'''Weak Support''', though I still think we need more admins who do things other that reverting watchlist vandalism. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' sounds good.
'''Support''', this person obviously does a lot more than just reverting vandalism, so I don't know where Kookykman (unsigned above) is coming from.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' if the watchlist is 'busy' (has all the heavily hit articles) I have no problem if they ''did'' stick to just their watchlist.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good contributor, loads of experience, no issues.
'''Support''' - of course
--
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
Oh I was missing this one. Great guy, patient, diligent. I coulnd't not support -- (
'''Support'''. An excellent candidate and very well deserved --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Admirable in dealing with [[User:Rktect]] -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''

Calm, even-handed, thoughtful &mdash; how could I not support?
'''Strong support'''. El C is one of our most knowledgeable editors: funny, smart, reasonable, and civil, always willing to listen to the other side of an argument. He'll make a great admin.
&mdash;

'''Strong support'''. A very good, evenhanded editor.

'''Suuport'''. Good and experienced user.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. In terms of ideology, El C and I aren't on the same page, but I have the highest respect for his personal integrity.
Yes, with pleasure. --
'''Support'''. I see knowledgeable editor with stamina to clean up topics after POV pushers.
'''Support''' - I only all admins had his committment to integrity. String support. --
Full support.
Support he might be a [[Commie]] who likes Che, however, I'll overlook it :)--


iViva la revolution!Comrade!--
We need more admins who are willing to ask "Quis custodiet?"; '''Support'''
Cool.
'''Support'''.  Reasonable, thoughtful, and humorous, though I believe his cat is doing all the editing. --

'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
Competent and contributive editor, so support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Calm and knowledgeable editor.  Though his views tend to significantly differ from my own, resulting in disgreements over article content, his responses are always thoughtful.  In my view will make good use of admin powers.
'''Support'''.  Shows evidence of community involvement, restraint, and a willingness to talk out problems.  Good sense of humor, too.  No reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. A good-humoured contributor and worthy of the mop and bucket. His cat will keep him in line. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Solid, genuine contributor. I've been impressed by his work.
'''Support''' ...  &mdash;
'''Strongly Support''' He is incredibly knowledgeable &mdash; wide-ranging and often deep, exactly the kind of contributor we want.  Just as important, I have seen him bend over backwards to avoid POV edit-wars, and to work well with others.  I know that there are some who do not like his "point of view."  I can't say I have followed all of his edits, but anything I have been involved in, including a number where he and I disagreed, he always had facts to support his position, while always taking my views (and evidence) seriously.
'''Support.''' I'm impressed by his edits, and he seems to stay cool. (I comment below on an exception.) --
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''  I was very glad to have his help in a certain long-running dispute that I strayed into;  that and his cautious stance on hierarchy greatly commends his nomination to me.
'''Support.''' I am impressed by the support of good editors who have views significantly different from his. That says a lot.
'''Support'''
'''Support wholeheartedly'''. All my dealings with him have proven to me not only his erudition and dedication to Wikipedia but also his reasonableness and willingness to work to solve disputes.
'''Support'''.  Very knowledgable and keeps his cool despite working in areas of Wikipedia that are more like jungles.  An excellent choice of admin. --
'''Support'''.  Opinionated--which is good.  Listens and responds to the opposition--which is very good.  Cool and waits even when he does not get his way--which is very, very good.  ---

[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/El C|See Talk page]]. <big>'''''
Surely you jest.
<span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
Decent enough user, good edits, but a bit too much of a POV pusher to become an Admin.
IMHO, El C still needs more experience working in this community. only 648 edits to articles - and almost more edits to user talk pages than edits in articles. also, I am not impressed with how El C acts in pressure situations. Maybe I'll support at a later date.
Change vote.
'''Oppose'''. I'm little hesitant to oppose because El C has some very good contributions to articles and is always civil, but reviewing his old dialogue with [[User:Shorne|Shorne]] (all that Comrade nonsense) and other supportive comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=prev&oldid=11308577] about egregious left-wing POV-pushers leaved a bad impression. I'm afraid El C could became a troll-friendly admin.
'''Oppose'''.
Not that being confused with Lord Emsworth is anything to be ashamed of, either. --

''Support'' -German based articles looks very good. We need translators.--
Sure. --
Definitely.
Support. -
I've been very impressed with Ellsworth -- we've had some minor disagreements, and he's maintained a positive and constructive attitude throughout.

'''Support'''. Very valuable contributor.
Cool.

Fine editor.

'''Support'''-
Of course.

Support.
'''Support''' - being a banker by profession, I have remained associated with financial matters and relevant law and taxation. I saw some of Ellsworth's edits and found them 'worthy'.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  He maintains a level head and he deals with articles on ''politics''?  What's his secret? --
'''Support''' entirely. Enochlau has been helpful to the community. --
'''Support'''. This candidate demonstrates a true zeal for this project, along with an uncanny sense of duty and responsibility. I have absolutely no doubt that he will carry out his responsibilities with our community's interests in mind.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.png|15px]]
'''Support'''. I have no problems at all with this user.
'''Support''' because I'm at work and sober.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' never encountered this editor, but he's been around for a long time and that's good enough for me.
''''OMFG Support'''.
'''Support''' this excellent candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Enoch has been a tireless contributor to Wikipedia, and is an excellent candidate for adminship.
'''Support''' --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''' most definately, --

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' <font color="black">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Э]]'''
'''Support'''
Several positive experiences with this user. &mdash;
'''Support''', excellent seasoned candidate with plenty of experience.
'''Support'''- a very nice guy in person; a very good editor on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''.  Give him the mop and broom ... and a bucket and dustpan to boot!. --
'''Support'''. Seen him around before. :) --
'''Support'''.  Very useful contributions re: sydney. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' I think you have been around long enough to deserve this :-)
'''Support'''  see him around regularly.
'''Support'''. Can a nominating person vote? Ah well its just one vote :)
'''Support'''. He does a good job doing RC patrol from what I've seen.
'''Support''', good job with RC patrol, and the admin tools will only help out.
'''Support''' - looks like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, and clearly has the sort of diplomacy skills that I consider important in an admin. &ndash;
'''Support.''' Showed a good grasp of both Wikiquette and policy when dealing with an anon IP (he reverted the removal of talk page comments). --
'''Support'''.  Regular contributor to article space as well as enthusiastic RC patroller.  The mop and bucket should be 'no big deal' for this editor.

--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font color="#3D9140">
Gladly support.
From my observations, a hard-working and friendly editor who will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' the admin tools will be useful for [[User:Essjay|Essjay]]'s RC patrolling and he <s>(or she?)</s> looks pretty dedicated to wikipedia to me!
'''Support''' would use admin tools wisely.
'''Support''' &mdash; would make a great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' he's helped me out before now.
'''Support''' - from what I've seen, he's patient, friendly and diligent. Mopperiffic!
'''Support''' - the little that I have personally seen, [[User:Essjay|Esjay]] has been very polite and helpful to new comers, and doesnt mind helping other users.  Great work with the [[RC Patrol]] and  rv'n vandalism.  Would be a very helpful and useful admin.  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Unequivocally'''.
'''Support''' 1001% - - he will be a ''super'' administrator who will continue to do good things for the community; a fair and friendly editor and an all around good egg.
'''Support'''. Helped me out very nicely at the Help Desk just a few days ago. :)

'''Support'''; excellent candidate, apt to be a fine admin.
'''Support'''!! He's a member of the welcoming committe, is friendly to others (espetially the newbies), and has made valuable contributions.
'''Support''' S.J. is the first theologist I ever get to know. He is not dull, and he is friendly to newcomers. He taught me how to sign my talk. Alas, I must've been so daft.
'''Support''', seems like a good user and would make a great admin.
'''Support'''.  Though I'm unfamiliar with Essjay's work, any potential trollslayer backed by some top editors is good enough for me. -
'''Support''' I'm sure he'll be agood admin. To Essjay:I should probably be named Essjay too. I was named after St. [[Jean-Baptiste de la Salle|Jean Baptiste De La Salle]].--
'''Support'''. Brilliant RC patroller.
'''support''', a conscientious Wikipedian.
'''Support''', Has helped me when asked and even welcomed me 5 minutes after I registered! Will make a good admin.
'''Support''', positive contributor.
'''Support''', a good person when it comes to resolving POV disputes.
'''Support''': diligent, intelligent, and helpful; evident sense of humor a nice bonus. :-)
'''Support''', no question.  --
'''Support''' - all the best, in advance. --
'''Support''' happily. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support!!'''

Made some excellent contributions and does RC patrol.
As an anonymous troll, Essjay is damn good at what he does, I keep vandalizing [[User:Quadell|Quadell's]] page and he's quick to revert!
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' - doing an excellent job welcoming new users, a dedicated Wikipedian :) --
'''Support'''
'''Yes, yes, yes!''' Will be a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Doing a fine job.  --
Cool.
'''Support''' 50 to 1? Sounds fair :-)
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I haven't been around very long, but all of my experiences with Essjay have been positive. Great candidate for adminship. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've decided after a lot of thought, that Essjay is good enough for adminship, and I support this because I think Essjay deserves it now, before I really had no true reason to not I was just angry at myself.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Greets a lot of new users and works hard on the RC patrol. &mdash;
'''support''', obviously.
'''Support''' Very active doing RC patrol and would benefit with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Good active user...Why not? ;) &mdash;
'''Support''' completely - a positive contribution to the admin community
'''Support''' I hope [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] will continue to support newbies in general - and me in particular. I much appreciate his tolerant, easy-going clarity and dedication.
'''Support''' He's a good guy to have on our side!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, a trustworthy editor. <font color=#00A86B>
--
'''Neutral.''' In actually looking through his contributions, Essjay seems like a very enthusiastic person, so I will not oppose his candidacy.  But since he is below my personal threshold of nine months of contributions, I cannot give him a support vote at this time either.
'''Support''', obviously.
Sure.
'''Support''', I have had only good interactions with this user.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Strong support''' I was thinking of doing this meself
'''Yep'''. --
'''Support'''. Nothing but good with this user.

'''Support''' --
Cool.
Go Dutch!
'''support'''
'''Support''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very nice, and good job.
'''Support'''. Valuable contributions and a familiar name (although we never personally interacted) &mdash;
'''Support'''. A good contributor, I trust him with the precious things of the shop.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - seen him in action in [[Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics|2004 Encyclopedia topics]], great user.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' is also good at [[Wikipedia:Wikifun|Wikifun]].
Certainly '''support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''

'''Support.''' Not highly familiar with this editor, but I've only seen good from him. -
'''Support.''' -
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]]. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage,
'''Support'''  ummmmm yeah!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per BDA below. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]


'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support.''' For friends of gays only, if for nothing else. ;)
'''Support'''. Consistent activity over a long time. Highly involved in the project despite low edit count (he's a developer people!) --
'''Yes, please''' - not obviously unhinged.
'''Support'''.  Excellent answer to my question, deserves credit for having been here a long time.  After three years as a Wiki-holic, it's ok -- probably healthy -- for one's edit count to drop.
'''Support''' The use of the edit summarys is very good, I changed my vote based upon the fact that this user has been here for so long and is '''''still here''''' making edits. I've been here for just a few months and I've had small lulls in activity before.
'''Support'''. A trusted user who has been around for a while. It can't hurt to give him admin powers. --
'''Support'''.  He's clearly established his trustworthiness.
'''Support'''.  The length of time you have been here is a testimony to your dedication to this project.  Just remember edit summaries. --
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''', very experienced user.
'''Support''' &#8766; Obviously understands Wikipedia policy, to the point of creating pages two years ago which were accepted as guidelines and are still widely cited today.  Obviously experienced in Wikipedia administration as a consequence of his creation and subsequent maintenance of [[Wikitravel]].  Trustworthiness obviously established.  Obviously not a May-December romance with Wikipedia; he's in it for the long haul.  Will obviously be an asset to Wikipedia itself if given the mop and bucket.  I'm croggled that people are actually debating the frequency of his edits given all of the foregoing. →
'''Support''' low activity is of some concern, but there is zero evidence of bad activity; hence my vote to support.--
'''Strong support''' as a long-term, reliable contributor.  You definitely seem like the type of person who is intelligent enough to familiarize themselves with policy before using it.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' per Extreme Unction.  I am croggled, too, though I had to look it up to be sure. There is absolutely no reason to think he will misuse the tools.  The focus on ''recent'' edits of a consistent long term user makes no sense to me. --
'''Support'''. I thought he was a developer already, and he is, which tells me he is quite involved in Wikipedia, just in different areas that I don't frequent.
'''Support''' I think I was a bit hasty in my formation of my initial opinion.  I think this user would make a good admin and really help wikipedia.  --
'''Support''' of course. Been around longer than most anyone. Low edit counts are reasons against only when it implies newbie-ness, which is obviously not the case here. BTW, his answer to the IAR question should be enshrined in the rule itself. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
'''Support'''.  Low edit rate is not a reason to deny adminship. &mdash;
'''Support'''. If we trust him to work on the software, we should trust him with the content.
'''Oppose''' Fewer that 200 edits in the last year shows you're barely involved in Wikipedia at all.  Additionally, the coverage of your edits over that period misses a lot of the important matters that are the meat of an admin's enhanced role - warning vandals, AfD, copyvio - there's little evidence that you're properly up-to-speed with the rules and mores of Wikipedia as they stand to day (and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:H%C3%BCsker_D%C3%BC&diff=prev&oldid=11079462 evidence] that you aren't).  There's no need for someone to be an admin to be more involved. --
'''Oppose''' Low activity. ^ <200 edits in last year...
'''Oppose''' due to edit summaries and low activity.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' Not a lot of ''recent'' activity, though if your new activity continues would probally support next time; several vandal reverts, but not followed by User talk messages or warnings needed for dealing with repeat vandals.  You want to work on tricky technical parts of wikipedia, but failry low or nonexistent edits regarding categories,templates, and/or their discussions.
'''Oppose''' per lack of activity.
'''Oppose''' lack of  activity. --
'''Oppose''' although user shows experience with old policy and guidelines, alot has changed over time... low recent edit count would definately cause a lack of familiarity with modern policies/guidelines. Perhaps if activity level increased I would support in the future. As for now... I must oppose. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''', lack of activity in last year.
'''Neutral''' You use edit summaries on many of your edits, but not all of them, and although i don't usually base judgements on edit counts, only 200 edits in a year indicates a fairly low level of participation. Also, sort of like Finlay McWalter said, i think the way it works is that you get involved in Wikipedia and then you get admin status, not the other way around.--
'''Neutral''' Not sure yet.  --
Of course. &#8212;
Well yeah. --

For sure.
'''Support'''. Long-time, excellent and very active contributor. --
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''.  A combination of previous experience and the support of some rather well-respected users works for me.  Very nice to see you back. -
Has always seemed like a good editor/admin to me. <big>'''''
'''Support'''. Everyone deserves a second chance and I'm sure you won't let yourself get so badly bitten again.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Naturally. --
'''Support''', we all make mistakes.
'''Support'''.  No reason to suspect any future abuses of admin powers.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You deserve a second chance.
'''Oppose''' - will support when user has 2 Mediawiki, 3 Category, and 5 Help namespace edits. <small>(Disclaimer: thisvoteisajokevote. Iamnotliableforanyemotionalorphysicaldamagecausedbythisvote. Thankyouhaveanicedaykthxbye.)</small>
'''Support''', glad to have you back on the team. --
'''Support''': for sure.  I agree with Sam here, you always seemed great to me.  [[Shit happens]], and we all screw up sometimes.  As long as you've learnt from your mistake, I see no reason to oppose.  Welcome back :-) -
'''Support'''; welcome back; we need good people doing this job.
'''Support'''. Absolutely; I was hoping you'd return.
Support.
'''Support'''.
Sì. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I disagreed with your decision to step down in the first place :) --
Support.
'''Support'''. Even cuter than Slim's poodle.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. I'm positive he learned from the experience.
'''Support''', welcome back. --
'''Support''' Oh goody. I get to be Number 31 in the queue to say ''of course, Evercat''. Glad to have you on board.
'''Support'''. Evercat has showed enough grace to deserve a second chance.
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''. Great Wikipedian, and his sense of accountability is to be admired, too. Now, welcome back!
'''Support'''.


'''Support'''. This Wikipedian has my vote. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (AJ)'' </font><sup>(

'''Support''' - good enough for me! -
'''Support''' - He promised me a hamburger. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
'''Another "of course" case.  Strong support.'''
I feel obligated to tip the scales in favor of '''support'''.  It's not every day that someone "repents" on RFA.
<s>My first inclination was to oppose but the quality of support has given  me pause. Any chance of you giving diffs so that those who are not completely au fait with your transgression can look it up? I'm not inclined to hand out second chances to rogue admins, and I'm probably not alone in feeling that, so it's worth being clear just how "roguish" you were ;-)[[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 01:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)</s> Okay, it would be churlish to oppose an editor who shows such good grace.
'''Support''', and good luck. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
(flips coin) tails. That's '''support'''
Certainly. &mdash;
'''Support''' A very good user in my experiance.
'''Support'''. Has done very good things on Wikipedia.
I asked him about a week ago if he'd like to be nominated, but he wasn't ready then. '''Strong support'''.-
'''Support'''. More of our primate cousins should be administrators. I've seen Evil Monkey do some great work and demonstrate good judgment. &mdash;
<s>Hmm... How safe is it to entrust adminship powers to somebody who is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians by D&D alignment|Lawful Evil]]? [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] 07:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)</s> Hey, it wasn't [[User:Evil Monkey]] who added his name there! so '''Support'''. Great user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. An exemplary editor showing a constructive collegiate attitude. I would like to see edit summaries on minor edits as well as major ones, however. --
'''Support'''-

'''Support'''
'''Support''' - hey, as long as he's not [[Chaotic Evil]], he'll follow the rules... :) &ndash;
'''Support''' Seems like a great wikipedian. --

'''Support'''. Good at working with others to get a good result. Diligent.
''The sad thing is that he wasn't always evil...''
Support.
'''Support.'''
'''MegaSuperUltraHappySupport.''' or whatever the heck that means :) ... really good editor, nuff said. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - Fear not the Dark Side. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &ndash; &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support''' - Yes sure for all the reasons already "revealed", and being lazy, I am not going to invent any new reason.--
Support.
'''Support'''. What Bhadani said. :-)
Oppose, needs more time on Wikipedia before I can support. Oh wait... November 2003... *counts months on fingers*... 1 year 6 months... I guess I'll just have to '''SUPPORT'''. -
Of course. And thanks for writing edit summaries.
'''Support''', though I would have appreciated a more enthusiastic acceptance.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.



'''Support'''.  I remember him as Enceladus too; fine user, will be a capable admin.
He's done some excellent work, '''Support''' wholeheartedly. --
'''EXTREME... erm...''' I've seen good work. '''Sup some port'''

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' without any witty comments.
'''Support''': After a review of your edits, the only one I questioned was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ainslie_Henderson&diff=23170969&oldid=23169958 this one]. A quick Google search would have shown you this individual had a #5 hit in the UK ([http://theinternetforum.co.uk/bbc/fame1ainslie1.html 3rd link on Google search]). Be a slight bit more careful in placing things for AfD, ok? I loved this comment from this nominee "We have no sense of humor here on Wikipedia" ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to be a Hardass Gangsta|on this page]]) Hysterical! Nominee seems to have a solid grasp of policy and is a strong contributor. Participation level is high, and use of edit summaries over the last 500 edits is 96%! --
'''[[Seinfeld|Man-zier]] support'''.--
'''Support''' a good editor and a good future admin. -
'''Support'''. [[User:Dmcdevit#Please_direct_all_vandalism_below_this_line_--_Management|Cabal member 16]] will serve my- er- ''our'' cause well.
'''Support'''. Good-natured guy. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. A very good contributor who has displayed a good grasp of policy.
'''Support''' without prejudice.  Evilphoenix is a wonderful editor and future admin.
'''[[Soup|Support]]
'''Support''' --

'''Simply Support'''. Every time I've run into him I've seen that he has good knowledge of policy.
'''S'port''' --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''  [[User:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#00FF00">Dl</FONT><FONT COLOR="#44FF00">yo</FONT><FONT COLOR="#99DD11">ns</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">493</FONT>]] [[User_talk:Dlyons493|<FONT COLOR="#DDDD11">Ta</FONT><FONT COLOR="#00FF00">lk</FONT>]]  13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) <br> <s>'''scritch''' (that's the sound of me adding one more chalk mark to the support tally)
'''Weak Support''' because he never told me he was running! I would have been glad to nominate! :P Strong support anyway. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
He's not one already?  I guess if I thought he was one before and I didn't have any issues, I could '''support'''.
'''Support''' A great contributor and a reasonable voice.
'''Support''' Strong editor, helpful, should make a great admin.
'''Support''' - another good one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. Good edits, seems to understand policy.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' fellow vandalbuster [[User:Jossifresco|&asymp; jossi fresco &asymp;]] 03:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)<br><s>'''Support''' Removes vandalism  --[[User:Adam1213|<b><big><span style="background-color: #FFFF00">&#9786;</span></big><span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><font size="4" color="#FF9900">A</font><font size="4"><font color="#00FFFF">d</font><font color="#0000FF">a</font><font color="#00FF00">m</font>1213</font></span><big><span style="background-color: #FFFF00">&#9786;</span></big></b>]]|[[user_talk:Adam1213|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] 03:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)</s><br>Replaced and struck through text after voter blanked it from page. <br>See:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Evilphoenix&curid=2852277&diff=25489710&oldid=25486770],
He's got my vote :) --
My only memory of Evilphoenix is this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_ensigns&diff=25402582&oldid=25402553], which was marked "rvv". Since this wasn't vandalism, but a content dispute about moving something to another page, with an edit summary saying "see talk", I feel that more though could have gone into it. The other votes suggest that this is an isolated event, which I hope it is.
The first '''support''' comes free with the nomination. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I would have liked to have nominated Extreme Unction.  This user caught on extremely fast, and has been doing cleanup work and showing that he has the knowledge of Wikipedia policy and temperament for adminship since he started.  When you look at his low edit-count, take a look at the quality of the edits and I think you'll agree that he's earned our trust in a fraction of the time it takes most users.  As he says in question 3 below, he has shown a high tolerance for the abuse of other editors, and has handled conflict with calm and rationality.  Let's give this user the tools that will help him continue to dazzle us. —
'''Support''' Not many edits, but beign an admin is supposed to be no big deal so...
'''Support''' per CaF and Gator. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. Has a strong understanding of online communities; good editing record; plenty of user interaction.
'''EXTREME UNCTION SUPPORT'''. (Sorry. ''Someone'' had to do it.) Another one I was thinking of nominating myself. Has the personality and experience to do this well, caught on to WP quick, and wants to do the grunt work. Works for me.
'''Support'''. A good guy, and the experience (and maturity) described in Q3 will be a great asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - wow 900 [[user talk:vulcanstar6]] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - love your sig by the way.
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.
<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Ξxtreme Support</i></b></font>
'''Quick Make Me A Table! Support'''
'''Support''' Good user in AFD --
<font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''' '''<font color="aqua">
'''Support''', user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. AFD issues don't bother me, the existing rules about who can do what closures are rather foolish anyway.

'''Support'''. —
Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''.  First of all, after reading his response to Splash, I have to definitely leave a Support vote here. (No, it wasn't the Wile E. Coyote quote that did it, but that was nice)  I don't think that someone should be punished in an RfA vote if they realize their mistake and openly and honestly admit that they were wrong.  Too many editors, it seems, are not willing to do such a thing.  If he's learned his lesson, let's give him a chance to do the job that he wants to do.  This person looks like someone who has the potential to be very beneficial to Wikipedia. --
'''Support''' I've never seen such good responses on an RFA.
''' → <font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Sup</i></b></font><font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">port</font>''' per [[User:Martin Osterman|Martin Osterman]] in particular, and all of the above in general.
'''Support'''.  I was on the fence about this because of the low edit count and dabbling in arcane stuff like closing AfDs (OMG STANDARD LEVEL USERS CAN DO THAT?!??!!), but he recognizes his mistakes and is very well spoken in response to criticism. --
'''Support''' Everyone makes mistakes, no reason to hang the man over one.... --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' work with ISP's impressive and may prove beneficial.--
'''Support''', firm grasp of policy. Think he's too green? Then ask yourself this: do you trust him to ask before he does something he's unsure about? I know I do. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Good answers, concerns about editcount and AfD closes seem minor to me. -
'''Support'''. Very competent and ambitious editor, willing to learn from mistakes.
'''Support'''. Not a troll, vandal or idiot; well-intentioned, committed and rational. Less than X months experience? Less than Y edits? Please. Let's not pretend like Wikipedia is so difficult that only an intensive and long-winded study could give you the necessary experience to do the admin thing with care. For some people, this might be true. Those don't become administrators. Many more qualify than some might think, though.
'''Support'''.
Content matters. Supprot.
'''Support'''. Very helpful in dealing with AfD of a new article.
'''Support'''. He may have a relatively low edit count, but per Bishonen he seems competent and ambitious. No doubt ISP abuse skills would help the project, too. His recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UkPaolo&diff=29589187&oldid=29491319 explanation] regarding an AfD convinces me that he does have the required understanding of the process. <sub>└</sub>''<sup>
'''Support''', seems like an alright user, and has a reasonably good understanding of AfD.  I'm fine with non-admins closing non-consensus AfDs, and I think he does a good job with it.
'''Support''', I've seen him around, and he seems OK. &mdash;
Good article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dobie_Gillis_Williams&diff=prev&oldid=30141191 edits], good [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circumcision_advocacy&diff=prev&oldid=30110185 comments], and since when can non-admins only close keeps?  I must go look at history of [[Wikipedia:Deletion process]]. -
Changing vote to '''Support''' per information contained in vote #36. There's nothing to show that he won't make a good administrator even with a lower than usual edit count.Give him a mop and bucket--
It takes something to make me vote.  Extreme is a great guy.  Note to others: there's no better way of getting me to support than opposing solely on the basis of vote count or account age.  I was chosen as an admin after just five months, and Extreme seems happy to do the work, so why not let him?  Do you really think he's going to abuse the tools?  If not, you should support, because we need all the admins we can get.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - not a vandal, troll, asshole, sockpuppet, or idiot, and most of the oppose votes do not give me any reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' - I like this fella's style :) --
'''Support''' - He's been doing good work, and I see no signs that he is hotheaded, unreasonable, or other warning signs.  I have every reason to believe he'll do just fine as an admin.
'''Support''' - For great justice. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Yes it's early but Extreme Unction has shown himself to be of administrator material. I am confident that if he is lacking experience dealing with non-AfD situations, he will quickly gain it and be able to use his admin powers wisely.
Let me first state that I've been extremely impressed by his contributions. I ''very'' rarely support a candidate with less than 1000 edits, but I almost did here. The reason I'm not is because I think he could use another month or two. I am a bit concerned that he's been closing AfDs as no-consensus. I think it's great for non-admins to close obvious "keeps", but it's up to an admin to decide whether there's consensus or not. In a month or so, I will strongly support.
It pains me to oppose, since I assumed he already was an administrator when I first interacted with him, just two days ago.  That interaction was over his close of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Off Dead (Soundtrack)]], where he stated that the merge was already complete, and so the article should be reconsidered for deletion.  However, at the time, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Better_Off_Dead&oldid=28703455 the merge target] contained only "The soundtrack for Better Off Dead was produced by Robert Hine", and the merge source had not been made into a redirect.  Most importantly, the GFDL only allows us to delete merged articles with very great care.  Like how to deal with vandalism, the authorship requirement of the GFDL is something that every administrator needs to understand thoroughly ''before'' they get their extra buttons.  I'd be happy to support, or even nominate, once he has some more experience, since he's clearly on the right track. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I must join Carbonite in his concerns, but I share them a bit more strongly.  I, too, thought you were an admin, because I've seen your "no consensus" closes before.  I think you do a good job, but those closes leave a bit of a bad feeling, so I think more time is needed.
'''Oppose'''. Some misunderstandings of things are ok, we all make them. But that particular one comes up quite often on AfD (several times a day, probably), and a duly experienced editor would already be aware of it. The fact that he is closing AfDs is good, but he shouldn't be closing no-consensi because that's what admins are for, and trusting their judgement in such things is part of why we have RfA. ([[Wikipedia:Deletion process]] is also very clear on the matter; presumably the editor hasn't read this document.) I would like to see a convincingly firmer grip on procedure and policy, particularly in this area since he indicates interest in adminning it and its closely related deletion processes. I would also like more than a few hundred edits to judge consistency and style by (don't start on me). Also, anecdotally, Extreme Unction has only very recently come to my attention: at the risk of sounding self-centered, I see most good RfA candidates long before they turn up here and I was quite surprised to see his name and more surprised to see he is in fact clear of 3 months. I am drooling at the thought of having an ISP's abuse admin as a Wiki admin in the future, however. We should give him [[m:Checkuser]] access now, probably. -
'''Oppose''', <6 months and <1000 edits. I'm also concerned that the user's best contribution to Wikipedia was an argument in an AfD discussion.
'''Oppose'''. Not quite enough edits and most of them are afds . Need to get around more here. There's more than afd. Vandal fight, spread your edits around and try again in a couple of months you'll get it then.--
'''Opppose''' for now, needs more experience.  Will gladly support if and when this person is renominated.
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience --
'''Oppose''' as above
'''Oppose'''. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for Extreme Unction to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' as above: needs a little more experience. See no reason not to support next time, however.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' at this time due to experience criteria, but I certainly do encourage this editor to keep contributing.
'''Eh''', I wanted to support, but I saw the reasons for opposition, so I must remain neutral.
It's simply a matter of time and edits than the person or the person's actions.  I hate to see the insane artifact of "inclusionist" and "deletionist" dragged into RFA, and I believe it has been.  For me, there is solely, "argues and deliberates according to existing policy" and "does not."  If the former, I don't care about "loves [topic]" or "hates [topic]."  The rest of the reasons against ring hollow, for me: Welcoming is something that we should do, but some folks are excellent at it, and some folks not.  Those who are, should do it.  Those who aren't, maybe not.  (Imagine me as the welcomer.  About as cuddly as a caltrop.)  Some people should tag images.  Some shouldn't.  What is requisite in an admin, to me, is awareness of policy, willingness to build consensus, unwillingness to go cowboy when policy is confining, and poise.  ExtremeUnction has shown all of those, but there hasn't been enough time yet to vote for or against, IMO.
'''EXTREME PRE-NOMINATION SUPPORT!!!''' <small>
''No fair, you're not allowed to vote before the nominator!''
'''Support''', excellent user whom I think could make good use of the admin tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Why can't I remember where I know this candidate from.... I'm sure it will come to me. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Tentacle'd Hentai Support'''. Meets my standards. --
'''Support!'''
'''Support'''. Would definitely meet my standards, if I had any. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''[[User:Dmcdevit/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA cliché no. 1]]'''!
'''Extreme Mexican Support'''! Excellent user.
&mdash;
'''EXTREME "LOOK MOM, I'M ON THE BANDWAGON!" SUPPORT'''  --
'''Witty Support Comment #41124591247192471274912749182741659812649124012372x10^E''' &nbsp;
<small>what [[user:dmcdevit|dmcdevit]] said.
'''Support''' good editor.
absolutely ;)
Of course!
'''Support''' &ndash; Brilliant graphics designer!
'''Support'''. Fastfission clearly [[:Image:User-FastFission-brain.gif|has a head]] for the way of the Wiki. --
'''Support'''.  Awesome.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''; I'll avoid the usual cliché and just mention that he not only meets my standards, he's made them into Pb and stable isotopes long ago.
'''Support'''. Committed to clear copyvio backlogs? Here is my vote!
'''Furry Alien Support''' orange fur, mind you.
'''Extreme Death''' <small>phoenix</small> '''Support'''. <nowiki>{{cliché}}</nowiki>. User has shown a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --

'''Support''' --
'''Support' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', great contributor. --
'''Extreme Maddox anti-extreme support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  My interations with Fastfission on various newkulur<!--sic--> type articles lead me to believe Ff has a friendly, collegial style and a commitment to collective authoring. --
'''Support'''. His work on copyright issues alone justifies giving him the extra tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. His well-reasoned and intelligent contributions to the mailing list and his work on copyright issues are enough for me to consider him trustworthy; if I had any further doubts I suppose I could look [[:Image:User-FastFission-brain.gif|inside his head]]. :-) Definitely.
'''Support'''. Absolutely; agree with Kat.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' more admins willing to deal with copyright issues are severly needed.--
'''Support'''. Knows his stuff.
'''Support''', of course. --
It's clear this guy will become an admin anyway, but I'll add my '''support''' vote anyway. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Why not?
'''Support'''  Had good, if minor dealings, with this ed., and I've come across many high-quality contributions that he's made.  (Not to say, what the previous 48 people've said.)
I thought he was one already.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''', thought he was one.  <font color="red">
'''Strong Support'''. Normally don't chime in unless it's on the fence, but sometimes I'm impressed enough by a users work that I feel the need to come out and comment. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Best candidate in a while. &mdash;
'''Bandwagon'''.
'''Support''' A voice of reason and a joy forever.
'''Of course'''.—
'''Support'' Monkey see, monkey do.
'''EXTREME <small>umm...</small> SOMETHING SUPPORT'''. Don't let him get away. --May the Force be with you!
Cool. --
'''Support''' not because he needs the votes at this point in time...
'''Support''' Waiting for [[user:Marudubshinki|Maru]] to give better odds ;-)
'''Support'''. --
--
--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Had good interaction with the user on [[Japanese atomic program]], initial content disagreement was solved quickly and to the satisfaction of both sides. I think he (she?) will make a good admin! --
'''Support''' wow, that's alot of edits, congratulations. Gets my support...
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' - Strong contributor, FF would be a serious admin.
'''CORRUPT JACOB ZUMA SUPPORT''' There you go, I voted using an adjective for support. [[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support'''. Will make an excellent admin.
'''support'''. You're hired :)--
'''Support''' - go fastfission, go! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Since you have spearheaded [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use]], you might as well have the ability to delete those "orphaned fair use images", right?
'''Support'''. An excellent editor who will make a fine admin. -
'''Support'''. I thought I voted already? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FFastfission&diff=24731541&oldid=24730949] --
'''Support''' Another on the band-wagon.
'''Support''' for above reasons, and especially being helpful to others not versed in copyright.  I'm sure admin powers will allow him to clean-up a lot.  --
'''Extreme [INSERT WITTY COMMENT HERE] support!'''. Long, long overdue. <font color=green>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', count me in! <font color="green">
'''Support'''. --
Neutral.  Have never seen this user despite his edit count.
Mais oui!
'''Bien sûr'''!
'''Support''', excellent editor.
'''Support'''. A top class editor.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - I've had nothing but the best of interactions.
'''Support'''.  I really enjoyed working with Fawcett5 on [[Louis Riel]] and related pages.  He did a lot of great work to enhance Wikipedia.  --
'''yeeeuppp''' -
'''Support''' Very nice edits.


Support.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. With pleasure.
'''Support'''--
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Obviously'''.

'''S'''.
'''support'''
'''Support''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - I enjoyed working with Fawcett5 on [[Lord Dufferin]] which we got up to featured status, and I'm sure he'll make excellent use of admin powers.
'''Support''' - meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
'''Support.'''-
'''Support:''' Bien sûr! Awesome editor. Unbiased, courteous, really aware of the policies, makes great use of edit summaries, and really nice contributions.
<b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Strong Support''' I thought he was a admin already. Excellent choice --[[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]] [[User_talk:Aranda56|<sup>wat's sup</sup>]] 22:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)<br>I did too! <b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' a fair and good editor. --
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor to me. --
'''SUPPORT:''' Unbiased, courteous, aware of policies AND THINKS FOR HIMSELF in a positive way - Vote for him, improve Wikipedia :D --
'''Support''' knowledgable and experienced.
'''Strong Support''' one of the most curteous editors I've come across.--
A helpful and conscientious editor. Worthy of our trust.
'''Support''' no reason not to.--
'''Support''' very corteus & reasonalble . So much work in so many languages .
'''Good stuff.'''
'''Support'''. Very friendly and open to new ideas and concepts. -
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', very friendly and fair, unbiased, very good choice.
'''Support''', wakull 3am wa inte bikhair (in case I don't check back before 24 December).
'''Support''' good editor, will be good admin --
'''Support''' - agreed.
'''Support''', yeah. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''', sound judgement. --[[User:JuanMuslim|JuanMuslim]] <sup>

'''Support''' good editor deserves the tools.
'''Support''' I first met Svest back when he was a [[User:Bratsche/Archive01#Copyright_violation|wee Wikipedian]] (one month old). He's now ready to tackle the adminship tasks.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Holy crowley support!
'''Support'''.  Per BDA ;-) [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Good nomination. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' of course. -
'''Support''' seen this user doing good work.--
'''Support''': --
'''Noticed-this-just-in-time-wholehearted-support''' --
'''Oppose''', lack of activity in WikiSpace processes, other than RFA/AFD voting.
I must presently express my supporting tendencies toward this user. :) &ndash;
'''Support''' Nominating user
As I say, "[[that's hot]]."
'''Support'''. A very good contributor. Giving FCYTravis the "rollback" button will benefit the RC patrol.
'''Just'''. Relatively inexperienced (1278 edits), but looking at contributions, obviously would benefit from admin capabilities.

'''Support'''. A good contributor, he has shown himself to be trustworthy and having a firm grasp of policy.
'''Support'''.  I would rather he have more time and edits, but the quality of his participation merits my support.  Some of his reverts could use a bit more explanation in the edit summaries, but this is very minor.  --
'''Support''' Inexperience is the only real drawback I can see, and I only view that as a block to self-noms. --
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' Mopify him.  --
'''Support!''' I'll take ''quality'' of experience over quantity any day. --
--
'''Support''' Very mop-worthy.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', shows consistency and there is always need for additional RC patrollers. --
Cool.
'''Support'''.  Seems to be doing the right thing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Sure.
Indeed: I've seen nothing but good work from him. --
Would benefit from the rollback button, et al.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' --
Oppose, reluctantly.  Have not encountered this user, but 1300 edits seems too few.  I was criticized on this basis in my first candidacy and I had more edits than this.  He has worked on a nice variety of topics, however.  Come back a little later.
'''Support''' for reasons listed above in nomination.
'''Support.''' [[User:Feco|Feco]] has also done a lot of work sorting finance articles into subcategories.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A very good user. Understanding of policy is far more important than pure edit-counting and month-counting. Nine months is a bit much to ask for (I have only ''four''!).
'''Support''' Quality over quantity always. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.72.80.214#Opening_a_dialog Liked this entry a lot]]--
Seems fine.
'''Support''', a great contributor.
Support
'''Support'''. A very good contributor. I'm most impressed by his ability to work on controversial articles and not tread on too many toes (eg. Wal-Mart), and his civilised communication with users over talk pages.
''''Support'''- would make great admin, impressed by tact and diligence! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''. Three months might be a bit early, but I'm impressed.
'''Support''' - Open-minded and reliable user. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' - By all means.  Great admin material.
'''Support'''. As someone else who has had run-ins with [[User:Argyrosargyrou|Argyrosargyrou]], I appreciate how hard it is to remain even-tempered.  3 months is plenty of time; particularly given the amount of material contributed. --
'''Support'''.  Many examples of good behaviour and enough real edits to understand how things work here gets my vote.  --
'''Support''' -

'''Oppose.''' He has not been here long enough.  Potential admins should have been contributing for at least nine months first.
'''Oppose''' Three months is not long enough for me.
'''Oppose'''.  What's the rush?  Will consider after more time.
'''Oppose'''. Great contributor and seems to have good interpersonal skills, however, three months is a little too early. In case nomination fails, ''will support'' in the future. --
<s>Will be glad to support once questions are answered. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk </small>]] 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)</s> Changed vote to support; see above. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support'''. Seems like he's a level-headed kinda guy. --
'''Support'''. Hey, I'm taking a break, but not before I vote yes. --
'''Support'''. I definitely trust the judgement of Slim
'''Support'''. Looks good.  --<small><font color="#FF9900">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Reasonable, rational, objective, consistent, and persistent. That's a real monk.
'''Support'''.  Good judgement, good temperament. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm quite surprised he/she isn't already an admin. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Mature and reasonable. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A highly intelligent editor, and a man of integrity.
'''Support'''.  Seems generally civil, even in dealings with Sam Spade.
'''Support'''. I don't often vote, but I see no reason this should fail.
'''Support'''. Positive experience.
'''Support'''. Strong contributor, generally reasonable even in the face of severe provocation.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=20498305#Skybridge_.28Vancouver.29_and_the_topless_girls_redux Sam Spade and Co.] battleground (Success [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]).
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Incidentally, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] is a troll of long standing; I support every effort to ban him from Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Reasonable, productive editor, will be a fine admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I've often found that FeloniousMonk can keep his head and keep the conversation mature when the arguments heat up. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk </FONT>]]
'''Support'''. If it it's OK to do so while I'm being considered as well.  Monk has some heavy hitters in his corner and the person who nominated him is one of ''the'' true gems of Wikipedia.  There can never be enough vandal slayers. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Regarding the opposition citing conflict with Sam Spade (1) lots of people have problems with Sam Spade and (2) adminship is not a free ticket to "get the upper hand in a conflict".  Incidentally, RfA is not a free ticket to engage in [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]].
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I see no evidence of disruption from FeloniousMonk. Only evidence of him being a fine user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I didn't know FM's work very well before looking into it here, but this is a good editor. Having been in conflict and shown how s/he handles it is one of my admin criteria, and FM's opportunities in that area have apparently been outstanding. AFAICS he has acquitted himself very well.
'''Support''' - Good addition. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]]
'''Support'''.  This is a horrible mess, but FeloniousMonk seems to come out of it well.  He looks as though he would be a good administrator — he has integrity. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' after careful considerartion of arguments from both sides.
'''Support''' - no reason to think that FM would abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]←
'''Strong Support, Finally!''' [[Image:Alexander_cuts_the_Gordian_Knot.jpg|thumb||200px|Somtimes you just need to [[Gordian Knot|cut the knot]].]] Ok. How many folks recall that I actually wanted to nominate FeloniousMonk, at one point in time. Show of hands! Eh? That's not many. Ok, well then. At one point in time, late last year, I wanted to nominate FeloniousMonk. For folks just tuning in, this might be hard to believe, but. Well, he'd just concluded a public informal mediation with Rednblu, with Hawstom acting as the mediator, and all 3 parties had conducted themselves admirably. So, I nominated Hawstom, that went well, and rednblu was #3 on my (random order) list, first let's try Felonious. And that's where I got kinda stuck. There was some kind of impedence mismatch, and I couldn't get through to him what I wanted to see as assurance that he'd do well. Strange experience that :-/ It actually ended up at the mediation commitee, fancy that. Now as it turns out, the mediation comittee has the extreme misfortune of not having counted Slimvirgin among their members. (S)he managed to solve the [[gordian knot]] in oh, I'll wager just under 5 minutes. Thanks ^^;; Right, well, so... why am I supporting? Well, FeloniousMonk typically did do well in negotiations before (just not with me, but that's covered now :-) ), and seems to be doing well elsewhere. And indeed he has amazing integrity and perseverence. :-) Maybe he could try for bureaucrat in a little while.
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Professional edits, has shown a willingness to compromise and (in general) an ability to remain cool in the face of provocation.  --
'''Support'''. I took sometime to think about this: good editor, with good people supporting him.
'''Support''', plenty of merits, all described above.
'''Support''' a scholar and gentleman.
'''Support''' Well. I always supported personally, just didn't want FM to be admined in the midst of entrenched opposition, cause that would've been ugly. It seems to have all gone away. --
Full '''support'''.—
'''Support''' --
'''S'''upport.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Responds well to the hailstorm of criticism from the [[peanut gallery]]. That would be a good quality in a admin.
'''Support'''. Valuable editor, decent person, no doubt a good admin. Who didn't have conflicts? --
'''Suuport'''.  A level-headed and reasonable contributor.
'''Oppose'''. - Highly partisan and sometimes disruptive editor. Exhibits [[clique]]ish tendencies with the nominating administrator that are unhealthy for Wikipedia and may unduly bias the administrator pool.
'''Oppose'''. -- I can confirm his cliqueish tendencies based on his behavior at [[Intelligent design]] where he admitted reverting not on the merits but because others had reverted the same items.  He requested protection for the page, not in open channels such as the official protection page or on the talk page of a neutral admin, but instead by some other undisclosed communications channel from Slimvirgin who is evidently an admirer based on her recommendation here.--
'''Oppose'''. No mention of dealing with vandalism anywhere in this nomination. Seems to be obsessed with [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]].
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Strong Oppose'''. Feloniousmonk might be a good editor, but his character is unfortunately unsuited to adminship. He cannot deal with conflict. Felonious appears obsessed with Sam. Disruptive. Partisan.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but controversy = no support from
'''Oppose'''. I find the opposition persuasive. <small>
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. I don't mind conflict but it shouldn't be your main purpose in being here.
'''Oppose'''. I haven't made an edit in 1 month+, but this is just too much. &ndash;
'''Oppose'''. Your conflict with SS needs some time to cool off before I can support your nomination.
'''Oppose''' Conduct with SS seems to have pushed you over the edge
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, but there are problems that must be addressed.  I'd be happy to support if it comes up again in a couple months and these have been resolved.  <font color="red">
'''Strenuously oppose'''. You have got to be kidding me. This is the editor who told me that Wikipedia is here to record "[[Talk:Human/Archive8#Handling_the_competing_points_of_view|the facts]]", not understanding or eliding that there is disagreement over "the facts" and that this disagreement is what makes Wikipedia different from other encyclopedias. FeloniousMonk does not understand NPOV. He doesn't recognize the distinction between facts and values. He boasts on his [[User:FeloniousMonk#Declaration_of_bias|userpage]] of "opposing irrationality, including organized religion." (Yes &mdash; I know the text is borrowed from [[User:Eloquence]].) That opposition manifests itself in his edits. That is to say: FeloniousMonk is an anti-religous POV warrior. To grant FeloniousMonk adminship is for Wikipedia to take a step away from NPOV. Additionally, his repeated insistence on "[[User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Archive_Apr_2005#Comments_of_mine_deleted_by_Sam_Spade_from_his_Talk_page|justice]]" in the tiff with SS is troubling &mdash; should justice be understood as retribution? --
'''Oppose'''. Argumentative. Conflictive.--May the Force be with you!
Leaning in the direction of opposition.  FM has made (and, I hope, will continue to make) positive contributions here.  However, FM's aggressive style of discussion has, in my opinion, in more than one important case been a pretty severe breach of civility.  I don't have much faith that FM would be able, as an admin, to control his anger at users who have displeased him in the past.  I know FM won't take this well (since, as far as I can tell, he is still upset at me for an incident occurring last fall), but I have to be honest about what I see.  In FM I see an editor who can and does make positive contributions here, but I do not see the necessary care in judgment, the willingness to dialogue openly, and the respect for this site's civility policy that I think of as core to the position of admin.  I'm remaining neutral for now because I haven't seen much of FM's work in the last couple of months, and I'd like to peruse it and see if the issues that concern me are no longer evident.
Neutral for now and await further developments.
<s>'''Support'''. After browsing through his contributions list, it was pretty obvious that he had done a lot of work around here. Edit summaries are great, and the user shows some traits that are suitable for administrating Wikipedia. I'll give my support. &mdash; [[User:Stevey7788|Stevey7788]] ([[User talk:Stevey7788|talk]]) 19:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Neutral'''. Good editor and mature as FeloniousMonk's supporters say, but I'll wait until we figure out about his disputes with Sam and his alleged "disruptions" and incivility. He could be a great admin, though, but I think I'll wait. &mdash;
While I am not familiar enough with FM to make a vote either way, I note that the potential base of administrators would be small indeed if past conflict with Sam Spade were to become disqualifying.
I have no opinion on FM in general.  I hope that people won't let the sam spade mess affect their vote.  From what I've seen, I don't think FM acted wrongly.
<s>'''Oppose'''.  I have no faith that this editor would not misuse admin privileges for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in a conflict.  [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 05:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)</s>Objection withdrawn after consultation with [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]].

<s>'''Support'''</s>. Better late than never. --[[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]] [[User talk:Scimitar|<sup>parley</sup>]] 15:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to '''neutral''' after reading the [[Human]] archive posted above. Still an excellent contributer, but I'm now uncomfortable supporting. --
'''Neutral''' Good contributor but still generates some controversy now.

He's been here for just less than six months.  But since he is very open and acts like a mentor, I will '''support''' his candidacy for sysop-hood. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;


'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Sure'''.
'''Yup'''. ~~ '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A pleasant, helpful individual who is sure to be of high value to the community as an administrator. An important contributor to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology]], Fernando has demonstrated an exceptional level of commitment to the Wikipedia community despite having been on the wiki for such a comparatively short period of time. I have no reservation in offering my support for this user. --
'''Support''' Fully, unconditionally and completely.

'''Strong support'''--
'''Support'''. Thoughtful and helpful.
'''Support'''. A good editor who works with others. Multilingual, too, which is a plus.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I've already run into this guy and he is cool.
'''Support''', no problem. --
'''Support''' happily.
I '''support''' this non-vandal.
'''Support'''; apt to be an excellent admin, from everything I see.
'''Strong support''' Model user --
'''Support''' a thoughtful and level-headed editor.
'''Support''' - Great user. --
'''Support'''.
'''Suppoer''' - Mulitlingual, seems to work hard and has made solid contributions.--
'''Apoyo''' a este señor (I support this gentleman). --
'''Support''' I believe six months is more than ample time to prove your mettle.
'''Support''' I have limited knowledge of the applicant, but from what I do know they are able to place POV on the side and see what is the right thing to do.  That's one of the biggest qualities we want in an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' '''Semper Fi'''
--
'''Abstain''' Six months is a reasonable amount of time, so I won't oppose, but I have to still withhold support.
'''Support''' - I've always trusted the nominator. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' as co-nom --
'''Full MexiCabal support''' -- (
'''Extreme Edit Conflicted Support''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''S'port''' (after another edit conflict) yes no worries with this one --
'''Strong Support'''. Thought he was one. God, I need to study WP:LA.
'''Support'''. I also support the web browser. --
'''Extremely strong support'''. Make this guy an admin and quickly!
'''Support''' --
'''Furry Alien Support''' yes siree, very polite and committed individual, deserves a mopping.
'''Extreme FireFox 1.5 beta 2 Support''' seen him in action, good guy.
'''Support''' per all of the above (and probably below, too). --
'''Support'''. User is unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. One of the top vandal-fighters around, possibly the fastest non-admin one. I'm not concerned with the three-month term; some people are faster learners than others, and FireFox has proven that in these three months he has become as familiar with WP policies and customs as editors who have spent twice as long here.
Need more RC patrol, less IRC filler. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''. FireFox's contributions are more than apparent to me though I've not been around long. Conducts self in a professional manner, too, which is always important.
<b>Support</b>. I have noticed his vandal-fighting efforts and appreciate his presence on WP.
'''Support'''. We need more vandal-fighters.
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' (He isn't an admin already?) --
'''Support''' How come everyone I think is an admin never is? Damn, I need to pay attention.
'''Support'''
'''Extreme [[Internet Explorer|IE 6.0.2900.2180]] Support''', he has a very quick vandal response time, and we could always need more vandal-whackers.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' An admin waiting to be. Does good work here.
'''Fiery Support'''. And guess what browser I am using:)?
'''Support'''. I believe I was one of the first editors to interact with FireFox, and I do think that he is one of the good guys, but only three months of experience is not much to my liking. I support, nonetheless. --
And he isn't already one? --
'''Support''' he deserves it. -
'''Support'''. Extremely friendly fellow. I can't believe I havn't already added my support! -[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Extreme-I-prefer-[[Safari (web browser)|Safari]]-Support.'''--
'''Support'''. Nothing I can say that hasn't been said. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' give him a mop already sheesh! :) &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Due to his commitment to fighting vandalism, he deserves the proper tools to do so. –
'''Support''', great vandal fighter, sets foxes on fire.  A winning combination. -
'''Support'''. Plenty of excellent vandal hunting with fire in the eyes.
'''Uber-Ultra-Mega-Support-of-Doom!''' IMO, he would make a GREAT admin! Very knowledgeable, friendly, smart, resourceful, who could ask for more? ;] --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Extreme-no-witty-comment-forthcoming-Support. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Esperanzan Support'''. -
'''EXTREMELY EXTRA EXTRA STRONG SUPPORT * 1000''' Removes vandalism great and would be good admin + A very fair user. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', Hey what are you looking at?!  --
He's NOT an admin already?!  What is the world coming to?  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' does lots of good stuff, pleasant to deal with.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' Excellent editor. Very active in vandal fighting and would benefit with the rollback and block tools.
'''Support''' We allways need new admins to help keep wikipedia running :D.
'''Support'''. Great user. --
'''Support''' - He's almost everywhere especially with his/her ''mop'' & ''bat'' --
'''Support''' as per nomination.
'''Support''' RfA cliché #1: I thought you were already an admin!  Great contributor and vandal fighter.  Will make a great admin.  --
'''Support''' load up the [[bandwagon]]! --
'''Support'''.
'''Sure 'nuff'''.
'''Support''' even though I object to people having user names the same as browsers.
'''Support''', admin tools would help this vandal fighter. --
'''Support''': I see real potential benefit to Wikipedia in giving this user a mop and bucket.  --
'''Support''' great vandal fighter. '''
'''Support''' He has watched my back many times--
'''I Use Opera But Support Anyway'''. What else can I say that hasn't been said in the four gazillion votes above me?
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. He gave my first barnstar. :)
'''Install extension Support v.105'''--
'''Support!''' Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. Reasons have all been stated above. --
'''Support'''-Three months is usually not long enough for me to give out a support vote. However this is a special case. FireFox is truly an extraordinary editor and fully deserving of admin privileges. Just don't burn yourself out. :)
'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Strong support''' - Highly deserving.
'''support''' , keep up the good work --
'''Support''' - I see him all over... thought he already was.  Go for it. --
'''Support''' from the non-existant MexiCabal. --
'''Support'''. Is good stuff. -
'''Flammable mammalian support.''' A great editor. Plus I just wanted to say that. '''[[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #63f; text-decoration: none;">r</span>]]'''
'''Support'''. Hey, I think... I've seen you around here before... *hic!* --
'''Strong SUPPORT''' <b><font color=black>
'''Support'''. Does a good job at Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
Cool.
Oooh, Fire-y... '''Support'''. --
don't burn yourself out! --
You must be joking me. You're '''not''' an admin already?! -
Great user -
'''Support''' - that someone who can revert so fast ''isn't'' already an admin is a crime! ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support''' Go go request! Let's make it a record!
Support -
'''Support''' your local vandal whacker. --
'''Insert mop and flamethrower here'''. Edit conflicts on manual rollback (even with godmode-lite) are teh suck; having to chase after an admin when there's rapid mass vandalism around isn't easy.
Can we reach a hundred?
'''Support''', Like this guy really needed my vote, however the Marine never fails to see great talent.
'''Support''': 94th is not the last! --
'''Support''': Piling on.
'''support'''.
'''Weak Oppose''' Hasn't really contributed in writting articles(which is very important for me), and never been involved in a conflict for me to judge how he'll handle it. I don't think I'll make a difference, but had he had many oppose votes, I'd probably vote neutral to not influence the result.
'''Oppose''' Can't understand why someone would see speedy deletes as a calling.--
<s>works too hard! Take a break sometimes. </s>--
'''Strong support''' as nominator!
Of course.
'''Strong support''' - Flcelloguy is a friendly Wikipedian who's shown quite a bit of dedication and enthusiasm to this project. Would be a great admin. <font color="#3D9140">

'''Strong support''' - very willing to work together, has done fine work in building the music section. Has carefully helped resolve a standing issue already; I believe he would make a fine admin.
'''Support''' what they said.
'''Support''' of course. Played a long chess game with him.
'''Strong Support''' of course!
'''Support''' eminently respectable editor. -
'''Support.''' This one's a definite. To use the old cliché, "I thought he already was..."
'''Support'''. I love you Flcelloguy. Also a friend of Y0u is a friend of Redwolf24. [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC) <small>pffft not even a thank you for that enthusiastic support? {{=)|sad}}
'''Support'''. And a friend of Redwolf's is a friend of mine (about 3 degrees of wiki separation there). Good edit counts, and he's been around just as long as I, giving ''me'' hope. :) Good luck! -
'''Support''' I would feel a little bit better if you had been here a little longer, but you've got everything else going for you. I see you all the time at [[WP:NOOB|Clueless Newbies]]. You would definitely benefit from [[sysop]] rights.
'''Strong Support''' Friendly and trustworthy--
Cool.--
'''Support.''' Would use admin tools wisely; has more edits than many who have been here much longer. --
'''Support''' - an outstanding wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Most of the time, a short activity time leads me to ponder my vote quite carefully, but this is not the case here. I fully offer my support to this editor's nomination and believe he will become an outstanding admin. --
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already, I see him everywhere.
'''Support''', a valuable contributor who would make an even more valuable admin.
'''Support'''. Hasn't been here long, but I see him helping out doing mop-and-bucket type things all over, and always friendly and civil, too; give him the tools.
'''Support''' as per [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] for many consistent, quality contributions, even in a relatively short time span.

'''Support'''. Plenty of great work.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I like what I see, and this shouldn't be a big deal anyway. --
'''Support''' Time isn't an issue, since edits speak louder than words, and words louder than seniority. Wikipedia would benefit with a mop in Flcelloguy's hands.
'''Yes'''.
'''Support'''. I've seen him on the [[Wikipedia:help desk|help desk]] a lot, answering questions.
'''Support''' as a non-vandal and a fun-loving Wikipedian.
'''Support'''; everything I've seen is good.  Hasn't been here long, but I see him around a lot and I trust him.
'''Support''' per reasons above. -
'''Support''' 3 months is long enough (and a looong time to devote to a free project).  Anyway, supposively you're not really supposed to make many edits to an article at once and use the preview button instead, but then I do the same thing to a somewhat lesser degree so of course I'm going to support :). --
'''Support'''. Friendly and civil, good quality edits.  Nothing indicates any concern about abuse of admin powers.
'''Support'''. Three months is fine.

'''Keep'''. Er, too much time on VfD. You know what I mean. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor to VfD. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. If I recall correctly, I was nominated for adminship just over three months after I started editing Wikipedia, and I had only a thousand edits. &mdash;
Musical '''support'''.
'''Support'''. He's been here long enough to demonstrate he's a good editor, understands policy, and is cordial to others, particularly newbies. --
'''Oppose''' Three months is not enough.
'''Oppose'''. Per Dmn; three months is too short.
'''Neutral''' I would definately vote support, but the user hasn't been here long enough yet.
The user's great work notwithstanding, with less than three months here, just not enough experience for Adminship.  I would support in a while from now, when he's been around for four or five months.  Solid work.
Great contributor but I would still prefer a few more weeks of experience.
'''Neutral'''--
'''Support'''
Second the nominator. <font color="darkred">
'''First-Nomination-Ever and Double-Edit-Conflict Support!''' --
'''Support''' Yes, of course. --
'''yup''' seen plenty of good stuff from this 'un.
'''Support'''.  Great work in reverting vandals.  --
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor and good candidate for admin --
'''Support''' Nothing but good interactions with this editor.  He showed very good composure when I threw him to the school lions without warning.  Will make a perfect admin/mediator.
'''Support'''.  Good janitor, would be even better with more tools.  Don't forget to keep up with UserTalk when blocking ips or users.
'''Support''' contributions look solid.--
'''Support''' I love the answer's to the questions. Last 500 edits look good. Can not find a reason not to support. :-D
'''w00t!'''--
'''Strong support''' I've seen nothing but good edits from this user while on RC patrol, and my recent discovery of his clever customizations of the ever-popular godmode-light script is enough to push my '''Support''' to '''Strong'''. --
'''Support''' will make good use of the buttons.
'''Support''' Looks good to me! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. In addition to article editing and vandalism reversion, F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR<sub>x</sub>TURE</small> also does terrific work in areas that often are overlooked (such as our template setup).  And what a clever username! :)  &mdash;
'''Support''', looks like a trustworthy contributor.
'''Support''', excellent vandal fighter and provides helpful scripting. --
'''Wahey!''' &mdash;
'''Support'''. We need more vandal fighters.
'''Support'''.  Good vandal-fighters.
'''Wholehearted support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Always support a good editor, who is a vandal wacker as well. '''''
'''Support''' edits always seem to be good; a friendly person who would make a great admin. &nbsp;
'''S'''upport.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Another who I have run into often, shaking my fist at him virtually for noticing vandalism before I did. --
'''Support''' See him around sometimes, good editor. --
'''Support''' Need more admins. This one will do fine. A very clever username too. -
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor.
<font color="708090">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''', good stuff with common sense. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. {{tl|rfa cliche1}}--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
Straightforward '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''

'''Support''' --
'''Yet another "what, he isn't already one?" support'''.
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You're not an admin yet? let's fix that. --
'''Support''' Thought he was one. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' - all my dealings with Freakofnurture have been good.  I can see no problems.
'''Support''' - now, you have to be joking. I always thought he was one (goes to double-check [[WP:LA]])... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Cliché support'''. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools, although I would encourage abandonment of the transcluded sig.
'''Support'''. I seem to dimly recall (but can find no supporting evidence of it) that this candidate and I didn't agree over something minor in passing once, possibly. VfD? IRC? Something? Anyway, it probably happened. And he was right. So he must be punished for this with admin duties. Simple as that ;) ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' - Completely.
'''Support'''. A trustworthy user.
'''Support''', excellent answers to standard questions. This user inspires confidence.
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
'''Support''' He helped me with an issue just now, I'll be glad when he's be on the job, since he's already on watch.
'''Oppose''' - Seems to have shown some rather poor judgment related to his signature.  Against the advice of [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Transclusion/template]], he's using a sig page. When asked recently about it, his reply and later actions have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=31100833&oldid=31100790 quite] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_actors_who_have_played_lesbians%2C_bisexuals_and_gay_men&diff=prev&oldid=31166786 disruptive].  I found  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aaliyah&offset=20051205170758&limit=50&action=history this recent exchange], where Freakofnurture edit warred with a vandal, rather than find an admin right away.  Then there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freakofnurture/&diff=31165179&oldid=25901019 this odd statement].  Seems to act a bit too counter-culture and immature to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''' Do not trust user to close AFD, reacts hostily when asked/told to fix his transcluded sig (which is wasting server resources for vanity purposes.)

'''Support''' As nominator, absolutely!
'''Support''' does not fit my opposing criteria. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' RfA cliche #1. -
'''Support''', he seems to do good work.
'''Support''' Can't have too many! And doesn't seem to be an Albanian, Macedonian, Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Ahmadi. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support'''. This user once annoyed me about a joke I did to WikiFanatic after I already apologized days ago, so that rather ignored me that s/he (assume she) was reprimanding me for it after it was over. But otherwise the Frappe is a pretty good editor. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Yup''' (I was ''sure'' he was an Albanian Hindu).
'''Support.''' For sure! '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Give him a mop`! --

'''Support''' would have been easier if the vote here link worked.
'''S'port''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Frappe does good things. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Looks to be a strong editor.
'''Support''' --
-- (
&#8212;
Bring him in, boys! (And girls; no bias here.) <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' '''<font color=#0000ff>

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good history.
'''Support'''.

'''Strong support''' --
'''Support''' editcountitiscountitis is fatal.
'''Support''' &mdash;

'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. I'd have expected this user to have been a bit more proactive in solving edit disputes, especially on articles started by him. Seems to be like he is on his own track offering little assistance to the actual issues on hand. More maturity required.
'''Weak oppose'''. I have no objections against him as an editor, and this is the first time I ever oppose a RfA; but his attitude of contacting other users who, like him, had voted against my RfA based on edicountitis in order to establish a common baseline to oppose other "inexperienced" users from becoming admins [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABahn_Mi&diff=24107556&oldid=24106512], dissapointed me. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''', I am sorry Freestylefrappe, but learning how important you feel edit counts to be, I'd rather see you get more experience, first. If your vote should fail, see that as an opportunity in your personal evolution as a Wikipedian.--
'''Weak Oppose'''. While I can place trust in you, I don't know if you know all the WP guidelines yet. Back in late August/early September in my own RfA, you said that "you cannot become an admin until you have made 1,000 edits". Sorry. --
Oppose per Wiglaf. Places a strong emphasis on edit counts.
"a total of almost 3,000 edits '''for those that care about edit counts'''" (emphasis mine). A rather ironic comment. Oppose. &ndash;
'''Oppose''', sneaky [[dickhead|personal attack]] on the user page?  Not nice.
'''Oppose''' per Proto.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I have to agree with Proto. The "get out the vote" campaigns show poor judgment. Garnering for "oppose" votes on user talk pages shows poor judgment, and it once became an ArbCom issue. The case here is ''much'' less severe, but it still makes me uneasy.
'''Weak oppose''', as I'm not really happy with FSF's response to the criticisms above.
<s>'''Oppose''', per Proto.  Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either.  It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin.  Also, I think that people should use <nowiki>{{subst:test}}</nowiki> as an initial warning on a talk page, instead of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.201.182.98&diff=prev&oldid=24209698], in the spirit of [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]. --
'''Oppose'''.  A confrontational attitude is not desirable in an admin.
'''Oppose''' From weak neutral, after I suddenly found this on my talk page<Please remove "not even Durin...". This is inappropriate and pointless. freestylefrappe 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)> Unfortunately, this confirms, in my mind, the concerns raised here. Much anger is there in this one. Better inappropriate and pointless than confrontational and humorless.  Clearly lacks the temperment to be an effective Sysop.--
Generally, I haven't had a bad experience with him, but he needs to steer clear of taking sides in petty disputes. Aside from that, good work.
'''[[Newt|Neutral]]''' I'm neutral on this one after reading the comments on this users behavior by Lord Voldemort, and Anonymous editor.
'''Weak Neutral'''. Changed vote from oppose. I still am a bit wary of his/her behavior (see my last vote above), but he/she has been a great sport in responding to private emails. I guess it's no big deal. Good luck, my friend. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
<s>'''Weak Neutral''' Although I'm impressed by the contributions, there is something about this candidate's style I find confrontational and perhaps a wee bit vindictive. While I've yet to have any direct dealings with the nominee, I cannot bring myself to support.--

Definitely: trustworthy, reasonable, and would benefit from having the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. CryptoDerk basically explained my opinions about her.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''; gladly. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
Only 3 months? Seems like FreplySpang's been around doing good wikiwork forever! A definite '''support'''.
'''Support'''. No good reason why this editor shouldn't get to use the ''big'' mop.
'''Support'''. Congratulations on fulfilling the first (and only) requisite for joining teh sekret cebal: you were insulted by a vandal! :) &ndash;
'''Support''' Good job!
'''Support'''-Keep up the good work fighting vandals!!--
'''Support'''-


I wholeheartedly agree.
Thanks for using the edit summary field.
Yes indeed.
Absolutly!!!
Oh yes.
'''Support'''.  The more admins committed to fighting vandalism the better. --
'''Support'''. Very useful contributor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' of course --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''; truly impressed so far.  I've noticed her extraordinary ability to be calm and civil with even the worst vandals.

Not an admin already?
'''Support''', A vandal fighter?  That's my kind of baby!
'''Support!''' --
'''Support'''. -
Cliche, I know. I thought he already was one....
Blush? Blush??  [[Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold]]!
'''SUPPORT'''.
'''Support''' in brief contact, has been very helpful to myself and other newbies, very civil--



Support.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support'''. I've not had a huge amount of interaction, but this combined with looking at a random sample of the last 500 edits leads me to support wholeheartedly.
'''Support'''. FreplySprang shows a remarkable maturity and calm when dealing with vandals... a trait that I myself have never quite cultivated.  She would definitely wield a mop admirably. --
'''Support''' Great editor
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- a tireless and fair vandal fighter from what I've seen.  (This is my first RfA vote, by the way, though I watch this page daily.) &middot;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' (not that it looks as though my vote's needed).
'''Support''' for all the reasons above! --
Seems like a good user and a lot of the voters are people I know and trust, but as I've not encountered the user, I must reluctantly vote neutral.
Same; I'm completely unfamiliar with this user (which of course is not necessarily a bad thing) and 3 months seems a little short. --
'''Support''' as nominator --
'''Support''' Another good one. <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Soup ort'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support.'''
'''Extreme [[TGIF]] Support!''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support''' good egg.

'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I can't believe I'm the first one to say "thank God it's Friday". --
'''Extreme [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|FSM]] support''', I need someone to support before I can nominate [[User:GraemeL]] and [[User:JoanneB]].
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support''', so long as he can  keep his objectivity about him, he seems prime meat for the admin grinder... now if we can just find a monkey or two to process him...
'''Support'''. One revert rule, appears to be reasonable when there is a disagreement. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Heartily.  Makes good edits, helpful and full of good advice.  A force for the betterment of Wikipedia; the community should be grateful to have such editors.  As for time-in-service, I know of no such requirement.  Who was it that said adminship is supposed to be "no big deal?"--
Support.
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme [[Federated States of Micronesia|FSM]] support''' (but a different FSM to JIP's.
'''Support'''.
'''Most certainly'''. I'm slightly astonished that [[WP:CIVIL|incivility]] is being proferred as a reason to oppose Friday, of all persons. The quality of Friday that has always stood out to me the most—and the reason I assumed until now that she was a long-time admin—is a certain unshakeable equanimity and poise that she maintains in discussions, even when attacked. We may not require of our admins that they never involve themselves in conflict, but we can expect them to maintain an even keel, have a willingness to entertain different points of view, demonstrate a firmness in upholding policy—and no less the grace to apologise for their errors when these are pointed out to them. Friday is all these; taken with her editing experience, I think she's a shoo-in for administratorship.—
'''Yes''' - seen this editor being sensible and thoughtful in various places.  Good 'un.
Cool. --
'''Support'''. Friday's a great editor, and is extremely helpful and polite. I'm surprised that Denelson83 offers below [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Friday/archive2#Your_lack_of_civility this] as an example of incivility, when in fact it shows the opposite: civility in the face of dealing with a difficult user, which is exactly what's needed in an admin. Friday's just the sort of editor who ought to be promoted.
'''Support [[Robinson Crusoe|our man Friday]]''' The exchange noted below actually shows that Friday can learn from mistakes, and be civil in exchanges.
'''Support''' They opposed me because I had too many article edits, and they oppose her because too few.  --
'''Support'''- A thoughtful person, a good editor and very '''civil'''.
'''Support''' - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', good editor, manages to stay cool when the editing gets hot, as the link in the oppose section shows. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''S'port''' - partly in protest at the discussion below! --
'''Supporting''' [[User:Friday|Friday]] on a Saturday [[Image:Smiley.png|14px]]. --
'''Support''' from one bemused by politics to another.
'''Support''' From one admin candidate to another. I'll work on the edit summaries if you work on the civility issues, both of which seem to be somewhat minor, and fixable.
'''Support''' for civil handling of Gabrielsimon and his many incarnations. Patience with problem editors is a valuable quality. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''' re: civility issues and lack of time... sorry but 4 months is WAAAAAAAAY too short of a time to gain admin. &nbsp;
Oppose.  It is nice that one stays in touch with Wikipedians, but that's not a good enough credential for adminship.
--
'''Oppose''' note enough time.
<s>'''Neutral'''Personally pissed off as hell at this user, but will not let selfish or trivial emotions get in the way, or do something evil like oppose him.
'''Neutral''' For me, four months and only 556 edits in article space is just too little. --
In looking through your user talk archives, you seem to receive the full spectrum of comments, from good to bad.  However, I'm particularly troubled by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Friday/archive2#Your_lack_of_civility this particular exchange].  It seems to suggest to me that you might have a short temper and an attribute of hypocrisy.  On this basis, and since this incident happened only just over a month ago, I shall render an opinion of <s>'''opposition'''</s> '''neutrality''' to your adminship candidacy.  Just so you know, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Denelson83|my most recent adminship nomination]] was opposed on this very same type of scenario, one on which my [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Denelson83|RfC]] was built.  <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
Whole-hearted support!
Delighted to '''support'''. Func's more than qualified to use the tools well; I think his own answers already say it all.
He's not alreafy an admin!?!?!
See line above mine. I mean, what the hell. :P --
'''Support'''. Not a difficult decision at all. --
'''Support''' This is the first time I've had to use that ol' cliche: you mean he's not one already?!?
lolZOMFGSRSLY i thought he wuz teh ADMIN alraedhy
'''Support''', didn't even have to think about it. --
me too
'''Strong support'''. I thought he was an AdmN already. Clearly has strong knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. --
Unconditional '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' absolutely. Although, together with [[User:Malathion|Malathion]]'s RfA, this will reduce even further the entertainment available to me on NP/RC patrol! I'm just going to move to a different time-zone I think. -
'''Support''' with pleasure and without reservation. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' What, he isn't already a sysop?! This guy reverts vandals faster than a roadrunner on crack! Give him the mop! --
Obligatory '''support''' as a brainwashed member of his micronation. =)
'''Strong Support'''.  I can't wait to see him on RC patrol once he has admin powers, although he might put me out of a job :). --
'''Support'''. I quite agree with all of the above..
'''Support''' - for all the foregoing reasons.
'''Support''' functional editor.
'''Support'''. Helpful on the RC patrol and reverts vandalism quickly. &mdash;
'''Support'''. A fine Wikipedian. &mdash;
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. I love you func.
'''Support'''; I sure thought he was one already when he explained to me how to deal with a dispute.  And without a doubt the best answers to the standard questions I've ever read. --
'''Support''';
'''Support'''. I was starting to wonder when [[User:Func|Func]] would get a nom. --
'''Support'''. Very active doing RC patrol and reverting vandals.
'''Support'''.  Uh, I think I know why the cliché is a cliché after all:  I really ''did'' think he was one already.  And he needs to be.
'''Support'''. "Faster than a roadrunner on crack." That's good enough for me! --
'''Strong support'''. Huh? He wasn't an admin? *kerblink*.
'''Support!''' This guy saved my usertalk page from a vulgar vandal last night.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Especially with note to the cliche mentioned above.
'''Strong support'''.  I didn't know he wasn't an admin! --
'''Strong support'''. I thought he was already an admin. <small>
'''Strong support'''. With the greatest of pleasure and a very big smile. I'm just distraught that I'm as far down as #39. I was a bit slow off the mark for you there, Func.
Support. Good work Func... :)
'''Support'''. Should make a decent admin. -
'''Support''', unquestionably. Will make a great admin.
Anyone who survived Irismeister '''and''' Mr. Treason and remains a productive and pleasant human being deserves a much higher reward than this. :-)  '''Wholeheartedly support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ofcourse. -
'''Support''' CRAZY vandal fighter.  Of course I think being an admin should be no big deal... at least I hope its not one of those who require 8 months and 10000 edits :\ --
'''Support'''. This shouldn't be hard at all. ''Forgot to sign.''
'''Support'''. Another vandalhunter who should be an admin.
'''Support''' - I thought he was already... --
'''Support''' - yeah, me too.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Thought he was one already.
'''Support''' - Definitely. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' --
'''101% Support''' *insert sheep vote here* No, but seriously, you answered the questions that way I wish most nominees would. And your sense of humor earns you a bonus point.
'''Support'''.  Good work against vandals, admin powers would be helpful in this.
'''Support''' with the obligatory "I thought he was already!" comment :) --
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''' - yet another "thought he was already" :-)
Thought he was one.  --
Of course -
I'd vote oppose, but he has to break the record :P
'''[[:Image:Kool-AidMan.jpg|Oh Yeaahh!]]''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''

'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.  More than once have I been on RC patrol, ready to revert vandalism or slap a speedy delete tag on a page where I find that Func has beat me to it.  Exactly the kind of admin we need.
'''Hayeuppp'''.
'''Support'''. Good editor with a level head. (Figuratively, of course.) <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Like so many others on this page, had no idea he wasn't an admin already.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I've been impressed by him at VfD.
'''About time'''! Func should have become an administrator long before I. &mdash;
Strong '''Support'''.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support'''!
'''Support''' -- Func has clearly made a positive impact on Wikipedia, and by his editing record, seems to be a good candidate. --
'''Absolutely'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Obviously'''.
'''Still unsure''' as to what it is, or what it is made out of!
'''Support''' Bring in the func!
'''Support''':  Dang, this is what I get for looking at RfA too rarely.  I'm, like, #80 or something.
'''Support'''...I wonder if this vote actually matters at this point...
Hell, nothing wrong with showing overwhemling '''Support''' to a great user.  I RC patrol in the middle of the night so I can have something to do! '''

'''Support'''. How could I not support someone so strongly endorsed by the community? --
'''EXTERMINATE!!!!!''' <small>
Now that my RfA is over, I can support. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support 100%''', by which I mean '''support'''. Let's get this over with so he can start blocking vandals. To be honest... I thought Func already was an admin! -
--
'''Support''' and happy to help try to beat the record.
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>ithoughts/healreadywasone|he}} ;)
'''Support''': I honestly thought he was an admin already. —
'''Support''' (though it worries me that Boothy443 is voting ''for'' &mdash; I thought that his anti-vote was a prerequisite for adminship). --
'''Support'''. Record, what record? Glad to support a great user!
'''Support''' - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]]
'''Support''' - Anyone the vandals dislike enough to create a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=21219262#Doppelgander_vandal doppelgander] must be doing something right. --''
Rude not to.
'''Support.''' --
'''Support''' in light of imposter,
<nowiki>"'''Support'''. Thought $user already was an admin."</nowiki> &ndash;
'''Support'''. Gee I almost missed out on being able to vote on this.
'''Support'''
user.'''support''' = true :)
'''Support'''. Nice to see many of the edits have edit summaries too! --
'''Support'''. --



Cool.
User has good knowledge of wiki software, responds intelligently to questions posed on user talk and article talk pages, and gives out guitar lessons on his talk page?  Sounds good to me. --
Support. Didn't find anything to object. I can judge SW related edits and these are is acceptable. Some edit summaries are insufficient. Finally, thanks for your help with vandals.
Looks good.  --
That link about world domination seems a little controversial (it does show your sense of humor), but overall great user; therefore I '''support'''. --

Very good user, [[User:Furrykef/Plans for world domination]] also shows that he understands the purpose of adminship. :)
'''Extremely strong support'''.  Not just extensive WP participation, but a contributor to numerous other wikis too.  Seems like an all-around swell person.



'''Support''' --


'''Support'''. --
Robot-assisted disambiguation performed on art... whoops. Looks like my botmaster was being stupid... I'll go hang out with Dogmaster4000 over in kind-of-sockpuppet-but-not-really land...

Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
Of course.
-

Strongly.

Sure. --



Easy decision.
I've seen him around and was actually under the impression he was already an admin. '''Support'''.
Absolutely. &mdash;
''If it looks like duck, ...'' Following the previous RfA I've noticed Fvw strenuously behaving like an admin,<br/> ''walks like a duck, ...'' helping out on many of the forums that keep WP tidy,  <br/> ''and quacks like a duck, ...'' and making numerous sensible decisions, <br/>''...then it just may be a duck.'' &mdash; so support. --
Sure.
I assumed he already was an admin. Absolutely support.
I actually asked fvw if I should nominate him for adminship [unfortunate typo corrected] at roughly the same time as SWAdair. Support of course :)

thought he was an admin already (hoping, once you ''are'' an admin, you won't act like an "''uber''admin :o)
Never come across this user in my contributions, but I have looked through Fvw's and was impressed by the variety and extent. He's got my vote. --
absolutely.  a tireless wiki-janitor.  understands & respects policy.  '''very strong support'''
Sure thing.--

'''Strong support.'''&mdash;
Yet another user whose work to keep things running smoothly has been so tireless, I did not realize he was not yet an admin.  Strong support. --
Definitely suport --
I thought he was already.
'''Support'''.  Dude is all over the VfD and the new pages slaying trolls left and right.  He'd also make a great intermediary on VfD regarding articles on the speedy delete borderline until the policies are changed. -
Would make a great admin.

'''[Insert unspeakable RfA cliche here]'''.
In my experience his opinions and actions derive from a very reliable sense of NPOV and the best interests of the project. Support.

Support. --
'''Strong support'''. I've seen a lot of his work over the last month or so, and I'm very impressed.-
'''Ironclad support'''. A great vandal-fighter ''and'' janitor to boot. --
Obvious.  Should be an excellent admin.
Supported last time, and I don't see anything has changed since then.
'''Support'''
'''Very Strong Support'''. Back from grave to support you.
'''Strong support'''. I too thought he was already an administrator, given his incredible work on Recent Changes. Would be glad to see him an admin. &mdash;
'''Support'''. As if you even need my vote! --
I didn't realise you weren't one
'''Superduport'''. &mdash;
Support - he does very good work.
'''Support''', absolutely.
'''support''' I think that added responsibility will make him more calmly.
'''Support'''. I would have sworn he was already an admin, but apparently I'm crazy.
'''Support''' Very impressive statistics.

'''Strong support'''. I'm surprised he didn't become an admin the first time round.
'''Support, with reservations'''. See objections below regarding speedy deletes.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''  Sorry I didn't get to vote sooner - I strongly support this candidate.
I didn't vote here yet? Wow. Of course I support. His RC patrol is great. --
I support based upon the opposition, which I find unconvincing, in addition to my own experience. -
'''Support''' His edits are sane, he's more than willing to discuss, he'd be a great admin --
A bit wary of his deletionism (which is more extremist than mine), but a fine editor otherwise.
Support.
Ditto on assuming he was already an admin. Would clearly benefit from being able to rollback and block vandals. Opposition is unfair: having a specific perspective on deletion is irrelevant so long as he abides by community consensus.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' - fvw has been a great help during my beginning days on the 'pedia.  He has given me good advice on the Wiki way.  Perhaps could do with being a little less abrupt on occasions, but I think he would make a first-class admin. [I believe this vote is by [[User:Smoddy]]; added by
'''Strong support'''.
See comments below. --
'''Support'''
Support despite his deletionism ;-)
Support. Janitorial work is a plus. -



The amount of janitorial/etc stuff he's already doing has impressed me no end.

Do you know I thought he was already... --

O yea --
No doubt. --
Support.
One of our greatest vandal-stoppers I've seen. '''Total support''' --

<s>The concerns of others have me concerned. [[User:Ugen64|ugen]][[User_talk:Ugen64|<small>64</small>]] 03:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)</s> First-hand experience moves me to support.
'''Support''' why not?

Too many occasions where I personally disagree with his decisions. Too prone to simply revert substantive edits without adding to discussion, so rollback access would be unsuitable. --
The evidence of the childish exchange between Fvw and the vandal Mr Avenger indicates that Fvw does not display the maturity required of a sysop on Wikipedia. It is important that adminship on Wikipedia is not treated like a "club" but rather proffered on people who have the necessary skills and maturity to be up to the task. -
I have the same objections as Rob the Bruce and Netoholic.
Nope. He's improved a little but I cannot support anyone a/ whose view on speedy deletion is so far from policy, b/ who talks about "slapping vandals" and c/ tries to write policy by the back door. We have enough of those already.


'''Oppose'''. As Fvw admits himself, all of his time here is spent 'patrolling' RC and tagging things, most frequently fD. He has practically no experience of writing or editing articles, which is actually what Wikipedia is ''about''. It would be nice if, instead of tagging articles and leaving them for others, he actually did some of the work himeself. Further, being a strong 'deletionist', I very much doubt he will arrive at objective conclusions when evaluating consensus on VfD pages.
Still too early (less than 3 months of continuous activity). It's annoying how people are always trying to force this. Whenever an RfA fails, someone will just renominate after a month or so.

I currently '''oppose'''. Fvw needs more time here, and needs to prove a fairer interaction with users and the database.

'''Oppose''', strong concerns expressed....

Gabbe has been here for several years, has made over 5000 edits and doesn't seem to have been involved in any major controversies.
'''Support'''.
&mdash;
This should be easy.
'''Support'''. Definitely an admin given his experience.
Quiet but industrious, it seems. Need more of them!
<s>Neutral for now, due to your answer to question #2. I might change my vote if you change your answer to that question. --[[User:Lst27|Lst27]] [[User talk:Lst27|<font color=purple>(</font><font color=red>t</font><font color=cyan>a</font><font color=violet>l</font><font color=green>k</font><font color=orange>)</font>]] 20:48, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)</s> Support. --

Support.  Good contributor, has been here a long time, and multilingual.  ----

Support, seems to be well experienced and not controversial. -
Support for reasons given by others above.
Support. Ditto other reasons given. --
What everyone else said.
Several years, 5000 edits, and no controversy? Support --

Good contributions to the sights of London.
--

'''Support''' yet another non working vote here link
Enthusiastically. &#8212;
'''Support''' 3573 edits - more than enough.
'''Support''' good work --

-- (

'''Support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Peace be with you. -

'''Support''', will make an excellent administrator. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', good luck.
I was surprised to learn he wasn't an administrator already ... ;-)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
Support. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support.''' /
'''Support.''' Approachable and friendly user. --
'''Support.''' Any user interaction I've looked at has been fine.
'''Support'''. --
My '''support''' too. --
'''yes, of course'''. An asset to the community.
How does one say '''support''' in Aramaic? --
'''Support'''.  I like what I see in his history.  He has had a lot of edits and has been around since 2003.  I think he can be entrusted with additional authority.
'''Strong support''' --
'''Support'''. Blessed are the peacemakers, and, I might add, the ones that provide quality content. &mdash;
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
How could I nominate and not support. --
Absolutely.
Cool
'''Support'''. A good and prolific editor, an even temperament, and makes some useful and well-observed points on his user page. Will be an asset to the sysop pool, we need more people providing for [[WP:DYK]].
Support for the same reasons as Dbiv. Has been qualified for a while, but declined previous offers to nominate. --
I don't recognised any of the other Wikiships-project editors that [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] nominated today, but [[User:Gdr|Gdr]] is a sensible editor I would endorse. --

Excellent choice for an admin! --
Hey, it's the battle guy! Support.
'''Support''' a strong editor/contributor. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
Yes, please.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', level-headed editor. Came across him in November and again in March. Has turned down a nomination in January. Would indeed be a good help at [[WP:DYK]].
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor, a real asset to wiki. &nbsp;

'''support'''
Aye aye cap'n.
'''Support''' &mdash; good editor, steady as she goes.
'''Support'''. User and talk pages show us an editor who communicates well and works well with others.
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Seems to meet [[User:NSLE/Adminship Criteria|criteria]].
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' my experience with GOP2 on the redesign of [[Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar]] was favorable. &nbsp;
'''Support''', Very even-keeled, cooperative editor; I really did think he already was an admin : )  --
'''Support''', Excelent editor
'''Support'''. Entirely appropriate. --
<b>Support</b>, Good researcher of materials, honest mediator, and other attributes make this editor an excellent candidate.

'''Support''' I have had the pleasure of working with Goodoldpolonius2 on a number of articles, including the [[History of Jews in Poland]], and no matter how controversial the topic, he has always kept his cool and could be counted to help with moderation. More power to him! --
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support'''. A great editor who cares about policy and has a lot of common sense.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''; confident this user will not abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Good editor and vandal-fighter. --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, good consensus seeker, will use tools well.
'''Support''' per above comments. Good editor.
<s>'''Oppose''' for 9 more years until you have 10 years experience</s> '''Support''' of course --
'''Support''' If he/she is not deserving, who amongst us is?
'''Support''', <s>good</s> ''excellent'' use of edit summaries, especially to discuss changes in "controversial" articles. Normally I don't vote where I haven't had any interaction with a user, but in this case the contributions speak for themselves.
'''Indubitably''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Great user and even has a sense of humor! My type of admin.. I'll be watching you, Goodoldpolonius2 :-)
'''Support'''. I have seen him interact with a nationalist POV-pusher. He has patience.--
'''Support'''Good editor shows good judgement and will make a good admin.-
'''Support'''. A year is clearly enough time on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Per Piotrus and SilmVirgin.
'''Support''' Everything that I want to say has been said already.  I think he'll be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Trzeba wspierać takich Wikipedystów. Shalom! -
'''Support'''. --
--
'''Support''' with pleasure.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' The Marine has checked out your page and contributions and is very impressed.  Good Luck
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Redundantly strong support'''  Voice of reason on a number of contentious topics.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' never 'met' this editor, but from the comments from people who have, I believe I would have no problem with Goodoldpolonius2 being an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
<s>'''Oppose'''. A year minus two days is clearly too little time on Wikipedia. Wait another two days and then I'll support you.
'''Extreme nominator support!'''
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Extreme "Oh look, the other one I was waiting for" support''' - brilliant user/vandalwhacker. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Extreme Support with Sprinkles'''.  Good vandal fighter, never personally seen him lose his cool. --
'''Support'''. But of course.
'''Support!'''. An excellent editor who truly understands how WP works.
'''Support!'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse the admin's toolbox.
'''Support''' he's Scottish (knows what he's doing - and when he doesn't, he asks) --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seen his good work around, doesn't loose his cool! --''
'''Support''' Cool Wikipedian, for sure!
'''Support''' Use the blocking option with wisdom and restraint. -
'''I'm-back-from-my-travel-support''' -- (
'''Support''' - levelheaded - and good with humour too! --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', I have seen enough of this user to be absolutely sure that he'll be a capable, courteous admin. Oh, and all of the above, too :-)
'''Support''' seen user around and has always been on the ball.

'''Extreme I-just-had-a-Reese's-peanut-butter-cup support'''  --
'''Support''', now when's [[User:Vilerage|Vilerage]] gonna run...? [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Excellent RC patroler --
'''Strong Support''' Great vandal fighter.  Will make great admin.  --
'''Support''' Will be good admin --
'''Support''', seen GraemeL in action and believe him to be very adminable. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - diligent RC patroller, needs a mop. Also, good attitude.
'''Support''' as an apology for all the messages intended for me he gets on IRC :> <!-- yes, and because of all the other reasons too... -->  --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;
'''Support''' - seen good things.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - great vandal fighter, and has helped me out with reverting multiple occurrences of vandalism on a page.  As he said in his answers to the questions, he's already doing admin tasks, so it makes sense to make him an admin. --
'''Support''' Not sure what more there is to add, at this point. '''—
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I thought I already voted here. GraemeL totally deserves it, he helps fight back vandals all the time. -
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.Thought he was already.--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. An active vandal fighter.
'''Support''' Hail Eris! --
'''Support'''. Seen plenty of good work here.
'''Support''' - looks like a good egg
'''Support'''. Aye.
'''Support'''. A very good editor and vandal fighter.
'''I hate exams'''.
'''Support''' A user who drives me nuts because he is forever reverting vandalism seconds before me. I assumed he had the rollback all this time. (I'm sure I'm not alone there.) '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Per above. --
'''Support'''. A fellow vandal fighter that is super-active and pays attention to detail. Most deserving!
'''Support'''. Some good VF, and generally good input.
'''Support'''. No reason for concern, and admin tools would be helpful in vandal fighting.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nomination. Edits to military articles are always of the highest quality.
'''Strong how-on-Earth-it-took-me-so-long-to-notice-this support'''! Another great vandal-whacker.
'''Support'''. Though I think its clear you do a damn fine and fast job of reverting without Rollback!
'''Support'''. Live an learn; he told me about the substing...--
'''Support''' clearly better at fixing html than me :) --
'''Without reservation.''' --
'''Support'''; RC patrols a ton, have had only positive experiences with him.  Was going to support earlier, but he wasn't at 3 months yet :)
'''Extreme can't-believe-I-haven't-voted-yet support!'''
'''Support'''. I didn't support earlier, because I thought I had already supported!
'''Support'''. Lots of vandal whacking, almost always uses edit summary.  Adminship would be really useful for this person because fighting vandalism is a big part of their job.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. sure, good user. <small>
'''Support'''. Had several good experiences with this user. Also trust the opinion of numerous other supporters. -
'''Support''' and allow for organic development.

'''Support''' Often seen reverting vandalism.--
'''Support'''. Excellent communicator.
'''Support.''' of course.
'''Do I have to really put my reasons support'''. <small> per all above and good contributor</small> <font color="#9999ff">[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
'''Support'''.  But can we do something about his first name's spelling? ;-)  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', and only just in time! A good user, good editor and good admin-to-be. -
'''Support'''
Support - I am not supporting twice – am I ? --
'''Boothy443''' cause no adminship should be without opposition :) (then again not like it matters on this one) &nbsp;
'''Strongest possible support''' - excellent editor, strong contributor, been here forever.
Long overdue. &mdash;
'''Support''', good editor. --
'''Unflocinaucinihilipilificative support''', damn the editcounting! ~~ '''

'''Support''' looks good. <small>
'''Support.''' Looks pretty good to me, has enough edits and has been on long enough. --
'''Support.''' Graft has demonstrated a real commitment to the concept of Wikipedia, doesn't shy away from controversial subjects (like Global Warming), but instead makes an honest effort to really work through them and address them thoroughly, in an even-handed way.

'''Support''' I believe he has good reasons to be an admin, and will be of service to WP. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' Make with the mop, Graft by nature...
'''Support'''. Looks good. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support''' been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.  Good users don't need 4000 edits to be worthy.  <font color="red">
'''Support''' Graft is objective, perceptive and tenacious... qualities that serve him well. Give him the mop.
'''Support''' - this user is quite observant and conscientious. I think the admin tools will be used wisely. --
'''Support'''.  I do not believe that a numerically high rate of contributions per day should become one of the myriad prerequisites for adminship.

'''Support'''.  Low use of edit summaries is not quite enough to discount all the other positive factors to consider, but should be corrected as an important courtesy to others.
'''Support''' wants to contribute, has been steady
'''Support''', too qualified be left without a mop in his hand. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Would prefer to see more edit summaries though.
'''Support'''. Cannot find reasons to oppose.
'''Oppose''', this person has been here since 2002, and only has over 2000 edits. Any passive editor could do that in three years. I don't think you're qualified for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Seconded, although this user has lots of time on wiki 50% of the total edit content is talk pages [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Graft&dbname=enwiki]. Perhaps its just me but I think admins should be doing more article editing/creation than just talking. Graft, please dont take this as a personal afront, what edits you do have are very good and quite useful, but it seems very low and very little for such a long time as a user. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''': Nominee has been here long enough to understand policies and their application. Edits look good. Seems a decent candidate with two exceptions; low use of edit summaries and the fact that the user is not on frequently enough to be a successful administrator. Administrators need to be available, in contact, and participating in ongoing discussions/debates. 1.2 edits per day over the last 90 days is just too low of a participation level for me to feel this admin will be successful. --
Oppose for reasons stated above.

'''Neutral''' No excuse in not answereing the questions on a self nom.
'''Extreme Support''' As nominator
'''Support''' as Co-nominator. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Freakishly Strong Support''' based on my positive interactions with this editor in various fora, particularly [[Portal:Law]].
'''HULK SUPPORT'''  --
'''SUPPORT''' --
'''That's hot.'''
The nominator's assertion that he rarely avoids conflicts troubles me. But I will '''support''' anyway!
'''Support''' - have seen some of his edits. Also works, like any other Wiki user would, to revert vandalism. Would be deserved. --
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support!'''

'''Support'''. No-brainer.--
'''Support''' He isn't already?
'''<nowiki>{{subst:ITHWOA}}</nowiki>''' -- (
'''Support''' Very active doing RC patrol.
'''Without reservation'''. --
'''Support''' GregAsche removes vandalism a lot and as a admin he could ban vandalse --
'''Support''', I thought I had voted before, but I hadn't. Good RC Patroller, give him the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]].
'''Indubitably''' <font color="red">
'''Afford him the keys to the janitor closet'''. We need more like him, indeed
'''Strong Sopport'''.
'''Support''', of course!   Seen 'em around on the RC patrol!!  '''>:'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
Great user, just tried to nominate him myself as i didnt realise he already was!
'''support''' it is good to have greg around here
'''Support''' Have seen some good interventions, and being nominated by Redwolf helps
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A top-notch vandal fighter.
'''Support'''.  When it comes to reverting vandalism, this guy is ''the Flash''!
'''Support'''; he's a good RC patroller, and everything I've seen so far is excellent.
'''Hai''' <small>
'''Support'''<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' and congratulations in advance.  :)
'''Support'''. For sure.
'''Furry Alien Support''' - What, not an admin already?
''Support'''
'''Support''' '''<font color=#808000>
'''Support''' I thought he was one.
'''Support'''.  GregAsche is a very ''courteous'' RC patroller and has sufficiently proven his dedication to this project.
'''Supprt''' as everyone above.
--
Yes.  I will cast the first '''support''' vote for you.  With over two years of contributions, and a demonstrated quality of accountability, the admin hat will fit you quite well.
'''Support'''. Lots of hard work editing, looks good to me
'''Support''' I see no convincing reason that the user cannot be trusted with the key to the janitor's closet.


'''Support''' Will be a good sysop--
'''Cool'''.
'''Change to Support'''. Handy user. Sorry for the first oppose.
<s>I find his answers to the questions unconvincing. A self-nom should have clearer reasons for wanting to be adminified. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 08:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)</s> I find his new answers a lot better, so I '''support'''.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support'''
--
'''Oppose''' - very shaky grip of policy. Answer below says he thinks that an admin can delete/rename categories on sight when there's a well established procedure. -
'''Strong support''' as nominator.
'''Support''', but use more edit summaries? :) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I very rarely vote here, but I've met Gren in person (he goes to my university) and I find him very trustworthy.
'''Support''' a good editor --
'''Support'''. That watchlist says it all :)!!!

'''Support''' by a long shot.
-- (
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Go for it.
'''Support''' I've seen good etc.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good one.
'''Support'''. I know I tend to say "RFA cliche #1" a lot, but this time I really, seriously thought Grenavitare was an admin. I can't say I remember having any specific contect with him, but he's one of those users whose comments you see around and think "that's exactly what needed to be said."
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I found myself on the other side of discussions with gren on various talk pages, and despite the occasional disagreement always found gren to be good to work with and a positive presence on the whole.  I think gren'll make a strong addition to Wikipedia's admins.[[User:Thames|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
'''Support''', no question. Great contributor. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. InshAllah you will be an admin soon. -
'''Support''', Without a doubt.
'''Support'''.
'''Infobox conversion Support'''
'''Support''' good user --
'''Support''', ditto all of the above.
'''EXTREME [I'm too lazy to insert a witty comment here even though I have a good one in mind, so could you please do it for me] SUPPORT''' as per all the reasons stated above.--May the Force be with you!
There's nothing else to say, then. '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Grenavitar shows exactly the kind of maturity needed to stop edit wars and other hostility. For example, the exchange on [[Talk:Ali_Sina]] demonstrates his even-tempered, accommodating yet true-to-policy stance against an onslaught of POV-driven attacks. We need him as an admin!
'''Support''' see him around a lot.
'''Support'''. Gren is level-headed, civil even when highly provoked, even-handed, and prepared to seek compromise. He's exactly the type of editor who'll make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Excellent choice. Same reasons as SV. --
'''Support'''. I didn't even know Gren wasn't a sysop, but he should be. He seems to be knowledgeable and civil, and would be a great admin--
'''Support''' That was simple. Mr. Gren obviously has some skill and has passion in all that he does. His sincerity shows through and through with his edits and comments and I have full faith in his dedication and that his adminship will be an asset to farmers worldwide. ^_^
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' as per [[User:OwenX|OwenX]].
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' - The more decent admins the better! --
'''Support'''as per Irishpunktom .
'''Support''' - again, I thought I had done already. Sadly, I was wrong. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - The guy deserves it. As per Shanel, he is a knowledgeable and civil wikipedian. --
'''Support''' -- Gren keeps his temper in fraught situations where I'm losing it. I highly respect his equanimity.
'''Support'''&mdash;like you need another vote!
'''Support''' Another well rounded editor that will do well with the mop.
&#8212;
'''Support'''. Seems to be a great contributor. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
Thought I had '''support'''ed already.
Thoroughly unnecessary and late (but deserved) '''support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I trust Genavitar to use the tools of adminship wisely.
'''THE STRONGEST SUPPORT CONCEIVABLE''' Okay so I really, really, really tried to oppose gren, I mean he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rydia&oldid=20204797 vandalized] my user page, however he was looking over my shoulder while I voted, and well, I just didn't have the heart to say no. Is pity a crime?
'''Support'''
--
<s>'''Oppose''' till user sets/enables his email id.
<s>'''Neutral''' I changed my vote to "neutral". I still don't think there is any reason to believe that Gren will abuse his admin powers, but on the other hand I don't like that he is attacking a list a named Wikipedians on his userpage. I believe such hitlists is not acceptabel, and that Gren should instead file an RfC or an RfA against these Wikipedians, if he feel that there is a problem with their general conduct/behavior. Other such lists has previously been made, and one of the more well-known is the "Elders of Wikipedia", made by a member of the NAZI "Stormfront" website. Admins should be a good example to everybody else here, and I can't recommend that we start to make lists of users that we don't appriciate, in places where they can't respond to the criticism that is being raised against them. --

'''Support'''. No doubt a valuable user - great warrior in the perpetual battle against plain stubs (sounds more dramatic than it really was!)
Hells bells and buggy wheels... you mean he wasn't...?
Strong '''Support''' - mop and bucket candidate if ever there was one! --
'''Support'''. Anybody who's willing to do all that long, hard work on stubs has to be admin-worthy. --
'''Support''', seems like a great user, and yeah, I kinda thought he was already one too. --
'''Support'''. Of course. -
'''Support''', I have had the pleasure of working with this user on the Wikiproject Stub Sorting for the past few months and have nothing but positive things to say about him. He is committed and reasonable. I sincerely believe that he will make an outstanding sysop. Thus, I give him my full support. --
'''Support''' As with [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]], I've worked on the Stub Sorting project with [[User:Grm wnr|Grm wnr]]. He's very proactive with feet planted firmly on the ground. Happy to support!
'''Support''' That's a lot of mop-worthy grunt work, and so a strong support for you. Keep '''being bold'''!
'''Support''', by all means
Cool.
'''Support'''. Indubitably.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' By making the stubs more specific, [[User:Grm_wnr]] makes it easier for people to find articles/projects that suit their particular areas of interest and expertise.  A daunting and worthy project and well-carried out.

'''Support'''.  --
'''Me too!'''. Bless his soul for ridding us of unsorted stubs. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Support'''.  So that's who's been sorting out all those stubs I mark doing RC patrol. :)
'''Support'''. Does good work and shows evidence of being helpful to work with.
'''Support'''. --
--

Excellent editor, -
Ground Zero has made significant contributions to ''Wikipedia'' through his edits, his vigilance and his community spirit.  Would make an excellent admin.
I don't believe the criticisms in the "oppose" section are accurate or valid.  Kevin/GZ has consistently shown good judgement as an editor, and has been scrupulous in the pursuit of accuracy.  He probably should have been made an admin some time ago.
'''Support'''. A good, positive, pleasant communicator on talk pages, this user has made a subtantial contribution to the wiki as a whole through a diverse range of edits made. Shows good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and procedure. Wholeheartedly support; Ground Zero shall make an excellent admin, I'm sure. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Ground Zero.
'''Support'''.

<small>
'''Support''' (assuming he accepts, of course). As the awarder of said Barnstar, I have seen and appreciated the contributions he's made to Wikipedia. Zero has made a lot of contributions to Canadian articles: he has done a lot of "behind the scenes" maintenance work as well as content edits to contentious political articles. I think he can be trusted with the mop and bucket. --
Glad to give Ground Zero my first RFA support. I am certain that he is trustworthy of the admin tools. He is already active in vandal patrolling and is often seen, both in foreground of Wikipedia writing articles, and in the background mopping up, talking out, and working on the structures of WP. In my experience, he is courteous and shows good judgement and patience in dealing with others.
'''Support''' Thank you for bringing my mistake to my attention.
'''Support''' Ground Zero has been a tremendous boost to many a Canadian article serving as an unofficial "administrator" of large projects already with great success. -
'''Support''' We need more vandal patrolling.
'''Support''' - Willing and ablre member of the community. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I like the fact that he concentrates himself in a certain area .. Canada in this instance. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' even though he's a tory ;-) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash;<span style="white-space:pre"><span style="background-color:#4080FF">&nbsp;[[Image:Ca-on-sb.gif|20px|Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada]]&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color:#FFD700">&nbsp;
'''Support''' --
'''support'''
'''support'''
'''Support''' A person who is so dedicated to his country and Wiki deserves my vote
Tends to treat Canadian pages as his own personal property, seems to oppose the notion that Wikipedia is free to edit. I don't think this user would use admin powers wisely.
'''Oppose''' I don't think he can be neutral when acting in an offical capacity. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]]
<s>'''Neutral''' - He hasn't either accepted or answered the questions. I think he's probably a good candidate and so long as there's nothing in the questions that makes me think otherwise, I'd gladly support. --
Seems like a great user who routinely goes to VfD and has contributed many quality edits to Wikipedia. It seems time to hand him the mop- work on the edit summaries, though! :)
It's just a useful thing for me to have a Russian speaking administrator in English WP. Besides I know Grue is a very sober Vikipedician.
'''Support'''. A very good user.
Pro.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''-Seems like a worthy candidate.
'''Support''' - Because he'll eat you if you don't. Grues are like that. --
'''Support'''. Good inclusionist.
Cool.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a '''Support'''. <font color=#00A86B>

Grue is an inclusionist?  Yay!  '''Support''' (of course, not for that reason alone).&mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''mmm-hmmm'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Suppport''' If RickK thinks he is too inclusionist that is worth a vote from me.
'''Support''' Very active on vfd, an inclusionist and a great contributer.
'''Weak Support'''. Very active on VfD, which can be a pro and a con, and i've had a minor dispute with him over [[Radio KoL]] and its importance. However, is a good user and I think could be a good administrator, but its only a weak support due to lack of article namespace activity.

--
Too few article edits. Also pursuaded by the thoughtful comments in the section below, which lead to the conclusion that this editor is not yet ready for admin, but may well be in the future if those areas are addressed.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> - constructive personality, but I'm somewhat put off by the lack of edits to mainspace. We do need organizers and cleaners in Wikispace, but it's important not to lose touch with main.  Changed to '''oppose''' because I see no effort in addressing the issues raised by neutral voters and oppose voters, which would be especially important for a self-nom. Would probably support a couple months from now, though.
In light of Shmucky's comments, I have changed my vote to '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. I won't support anyone, even inclusionists, who concentrates on VfD rather than creating content. Would reconsider in a month or so if I'm reminded to.
'''Neutral'''. Ummm... I'm not against supporting, but I'm not against oppose, either; not ''right'' now, at least. From your contributions, I don't see what you would benefit from if you were granted admin powers. You seem to be extremely active on VFD (which is not bad! please don't take that as such), but I do not see much evidence of RC patrol/vandalism fighting. The thing that's really sinking me from giving you support is the conservative use of the edit summary. You may very well be doing wonderous things, but no one can tell that just from looking at your contribution page. If you want to be an admin, I suggest you participate beyond VFD and balance yourself out with the articles. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
I can't bring myself to support this candidate.  I don't see how administrative powers would be particularily helpful.  Low edit count combined with extreme concentration on VfD does not help matters any.
I would prefer to see more contributions doing RC patrol, CFD, TFD, and other janitorial work besides voting on VFD.
no gripes, but edit count is a bit on the low side for me to support. would willingly support after another 1000 edits or so.


Strong contributor.

I had been watching, wondering when Gadfium would re-extend the offer.  'Glad the wait is over.









I remember reading your articles as a judge in Danny's contests, and was sufficiently impressed. You [[User:Grunt/Adminship|will make a good admin]]. --
Definitely yes --
Sure. -
Wow. 13,000 edits! Definitely support. --
Wow.  Why isn't he an admin already?
Very much so. &mdash;
He has not only organized the stub situation, but managed to gently cajole me into using the new more specific geo-stubs, despite my grumpiness about being slowed by having to learn a bunch of new stuff--clearly not only a good contributor and organizer, but also good people skills; excellent combination for an admin.

Strong support. --





Very much "yes" from me. —
I was very impressed (well) with Grutness participation in Danny's Contest.
Wonderful editor.  —
Well, ''obviously''. -
Wonderful editor. Strong support.
First class. Made a couple of small early mistakes and learned from them and never looked back. Great example of international cooperation.
One of the few, the fine, ''the crucial''.
Most definitely support.
Support, not that you need another though. Keep up the good work, and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite your sources]] :) -

Convinced me!
Yes. --




<strike>Will support at 14,000. --
<strike>He accepted humbly. He shouldnt be humble.
A question: The Wikipedia community expect to trust their administrators. Can we trust you (Grutness) to only make editing changes by your editorial judgement, and not as an artefact of your browser configuration, and to refrain from editing Wikipedia if you are ever not in a position to guarantee this?
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' Dog goneit NSLE beat to the punch support on this one :-D
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' Well articulated answers and a process-oriented approach grab my support. --
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. Let's not keep him from his dream of using the rollback button :) <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''' looks fine to me.--
'''Support''', and yes, that intro change ''is'' decent writing. ;) [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' should be a fine admin.
'''Support''', experienced, seen him around and he seems sensible.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''', very experienced, deserves admin features -
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''!
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. Checks out to be good.
'''Support''' Everything looks fine here.
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">

'''Support''' Seen him around the place. Would be a great admin. (
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Appeared several times recently on my watchlist and all his work looks solid: I'm sure he'll be a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Good guy. Need them. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''' if the only opposition is reliability of participation. &mdash;
'''Support''' I've seen his good work around, easy to support --''
'''Support''' Hope to keep seeing this users edits in my watch list.
'''<nowiki>{{cliche}}</nowiki>'''
'''Support''' - For his Don Quixote efforts to bring some sort of sanity to BC/BCE edit wars.
'''Support.''' An excellent contributor.
'''Support''': some editors can't spend all day, all year online (see Zodrac below). But great (friendly!) work.
'''support''' another goody.
'''Support''' - Seen him around. Good!
'''Support''' - Consistent work in [[WP:AFD]].
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''  I think that there's a tendency to underestimate the value and importance of things like stub-sorting and wikifying.  Nor should a constant presence be a requirement; people have other responsibilities that get in the way.  What's more important to me is a willingness to help the project, and I think that GTBacchus has definitely shown that.
'''Support''' Only recently did I come to view this editor's work here at Wikipedia, as a tangent from a topic of mutual interest. He will do well with Admin tools and powers. I have no worries in supporting this proposal. :) →
'''Support''', will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. Looks fine. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''', should do well.
'''Oppose''' - I was going for support on this one due to the wonderful intro, until I checked his summary [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=GTBacchus&site=en.wikipedia.org].  Sporadic?  Not "really" active?  A good amount of edits in July, huge amounts in October, and a good amount in November.  Reliable?  Probably not.  Basically this is a newbie in disguise.  Looks like he will be good, but just too new for me, and too sporadic.
How could I nominate and not support. --
I've had othing but good experiences; should make a level-headed and sensible admin.

Anyone Dr. C. supports '''must''' have his good points ;-) and anyway he seems to know how to use the tools.
Definitely support.
Strongly '''support''',
'''Support'''-

'''Yesindeedy''' -
'''Support''' Nothing but good edits.
'''Support'''. He's good at dealing with those (e.g. myself on at least one occasion) who aren't as well-informed as he is. --
'''Support'''. A very good user, and a very strong candidate.
'''Support'''. A very good editor, and interacts well with other users.
<s>Seems like a solid contributor, but uses edit summaries roughly half the time and should consider using them more. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 08:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)</s> Addressed my concern, so support.

'''Support''' - He's a well-informed and valuable contributor.
'''Support'''- a dedicated [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]].
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.  consistently levelheaded and balanced editing, and even the guts to leave a message on my talkpage just in case i might want to vote against.  far from it:).
'''Strong Support''' I like that Guettarda takes responsibility for his statements and actions.
'''Support'''. Still waters run deep.
'''Support''', his positive qualities are far more expressive than his negative ones. --
'''Support'''.  Good contribs. --
'''support'''
'''Support'''. Impressed by his ability to argue passionately without abuse.  This shows an ability to confront issues appropriately and I admire that. --
'''Support'''.  Exactly what we need.  &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Strongly support'''. —
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Cool.
'''Support''' - as a new user to Wikipedia, I have found [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]]'s input very informative and well presented and in a respectful manner. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] already appears to be an experienced Wikipedia scholar and I think that this online consortium can only benefit from his clear headed perspective. --
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates he will use admin powers responsibly.
'''Support'''. Arguing passionately for one's position is not inconsistent with responsible stewardship.  The ability to accept disagreement is a fine quality in an administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Seems to know what's what. --
'''Support'''.  I '''very much''' support the idea of nomination for Guettarda to "adminship" status.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor.
'''Support''' -
'''support''' - How'd I miss signing this one? -
'''Support'''. Valuable contributor who gets along well with others. --
Regretfully. I felt he was not willing to even consider compromise on CE/AD, and given the heatedness of the issue, he should have done.
--
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' - again, I applaud Durin for his amazingly well-crafted nomination and there  isn't all that much I can add ;) --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' without bothering to read Durin's essay :-)
'''Support''' Durin's Beard.
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per nom -
'''Support'''. Looks like an all-around good user.
'''Support''' per Durin, whose analysis is trustworthy.
'''Support''' I'm impressed with his interactions with other users. He is smart and not easily provoked.
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Durin's nomination.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' per all of the above. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''  impressive work...
'''Support'''. An impressive effort from a diligent editor.
'''Support''' good editor.  good admin candidate. --
'''Support''' well and truely. If Durin can't find anything wrong with this user, then no-one can!
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Sorry I'm so late support'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Wonderful editor, well aware of wiki system. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' of course
'''Support''' we need more like Gurubrahma!
'''Support'''; likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' Excellent user --
'''Support''' highly qualified user. &mdash;
'''Super strong support''' :-( I wanted to nominate him, but I guess I will write an essay on him despite being trumped on that count by durin. In the seven months, he has shown a ability to quickly grasp wikipedia policy and communicate the same to other users. He is an excellent editor and I really appreciate his insightful additions to diverse articles. He is also quite active in the [[:te:Main Page|Telegu wikipedia]] and helped translate [[economy of India]] to [[Telegu]] on my request. And he is extremely friendly to other users and remains cool as a cucumber despite regularly contributing to some contentious pages. Here's hoping he beats my [[India]]n record of [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pamri|50 votes]]. :-) --<small>
'''Support''' &ndash; wow I'm late! GB is a mature editor and I've seen him handle many situations quite well.
'''Support''', looks OK. &mdash;
'''Yup'''. --
'''Support''' Durin is quite strict with what he considers a worthwhile nomination for RFA, based on his guidelines, I'm gonna have to support this one, even though I have had no interaction with this user. &nbsp;
Oops, didn't notice this nomination earlier. '''Full Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Gets my support, jai hind!
'''Support''' Gurubrahma is tireless in reverting vandalism and he keeps his temper in trying circumstances. I have worked with him on several articles and I have nothing but praise for this Wikipedian.
'''Support'''.  If this person meets Durin's rigid criteria then they have to be worthy of adminship.
'''Support'''.  Good vandal fighter, good contributor. -
I haven't voted yet! '''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''', and I was actually waiting to nominate him - but just could not come here for days. And, I may be late to the party, but feel happy that at least I could come here, and find the nomination. This gives me a lot of satisfaction. I have found him to be one amongst the best, an asset to the Project. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. good editor.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Supoort'''. Gurubrahma's contributions are enviable and he has the ability to emote an aura of progress and acomplishment among those he comes into contact with - in some ways the essense of this project. I am so glad that we can give Wikipedia a gift: Gurubrahma as an admin.--
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
'''Support''' - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Support''' - sure. I think no-one is voting because the edit counter is down, LOL. <small>
'''Support''' the edit counter is down, but I don't really care about that anyway. Looks like a solid contributor with good community interaction, no reason for him not to be an admin. -
'''Strong support''' trustworthy and knowledgeable.
'''Strong support''', good editor. If anyone does care, I count 3216 well distributed edits as of this moment. --
'''Support''' strong editor, will make a great admin.
'''Support''', 3000+ edits with no apparent bad ones satisfies me.
'''Support''' the musicabal. The mop and bucket are in order here. 06:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC) <small>''(unsigned comment from [[User:Wiki alf]])'' <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -

'''Support'''--
'''Support''', no personal interaction with Gyrofrog, but a review of edit contribs looks good. He just barely passes my edit count level though. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. No reason not to support. --
'''Support''' contribs seem solid and I trust some of the previous voters. Haven't come across him myself admittedly.
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' I've run into Gyrofrog several times now (including last night) and always been impressed.  --
Until the questions are answered, I'm staying neutral. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Neutral''', been here for over a year, but only has over 3000 edits, I just don't thinks its enough to warrant support. But I won't oppose.
'''Support''', of course (pending acceptance by nominee). --
Meets my unwritten requirements. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''. Oh good, now the cabal can finally have a good hall monitor to keep track of the little people. But seriously, lots of I've seen good work here.
'''Support'''.  Good vandal fighter. --
'''Support'''.
He's like those kids whose parents named them "Grace" and they became a dancer, or "Hamburger" and they became a fast food magnate. '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Lol Golbez. Anyways, good user and well deserving of adminship. &mdash;
'''Support'''. This user has demonstrated significant commitment to performing vandalism cleanup, requests for sourcing claims etc. which show this user would definitely benefit from being granted administrator privileges. In addition, Hall Monitor has shown significant commitment to the Wikipedia community as a whole and shown civility, politeness and ability to assume good faith in communications. In short, I am certain this user shall use adminship well. --
'''Support''' - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
'''Ab-so-lute-ly.''' --
'''Support'''. The username says it all... would make very good use of a mop and bucket.
'''Support''' Always friendly! Plus returning the favor ;)
'''Support''' We need more vandal patrols.
'''SUPER Support''' You arn't one already?  Good greaf! Insanely great vandal fighter!! --<small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' I've seen you around man, keep up the good work

'''Support''' <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''' Awesome name.
'''duh! support''' good work so far... admin material imo. &nbsp;

'''Support''', has done excellent work on vandal cleanup. -
'''Support''' Talented vandal slayer. --
'''Support''' Active against vandalism.
'''Support''' Very active in editing, carries out a lot of the less glamourous stuff that must be done. --
'''Support'''. A trustworthy vandal fighter and wikifier. Hall Moniter is really helpful and friendly on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why we should oppose. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  I haven't had a huge amount of contact with Hall Moniter but the interactions I have had with him make me confident that he would make good use of adminship. <small>

'''Support''' - Will make a a good admin and vandalbuster.
'''Support''' I've always been impressed with the way he handles himself around the site.
'''Support'''- I hesitated initially because of some vague recollections about listings at [[WP:AIV]] that I felt were overly aggressive, despite appreciation of his vandal fighting.  However, after a little investigation I find a proper caution towards questionable cases, am reassured by his responses below, and am confident he will be measured in the use of his admin abilities. - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
--
'''Support''' - Does great work in fighting vandalism. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' give him the attack mop!
Cool. --
'''Support'''.  Level-headed and determined. --
'''Support'''. Harrumph! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Good, very active editor.  Hand him the mop. --
'''Support''': I've seen him in action on occasion and liked his style. --
'''Support''' Nice contributor and helpful.
'''Support'''. An edit conflict when voting is usually a good sign (glares at Edwin).
'''Support'''.  Helpful editor, and lots of good Article edits despite the short time.  RC patrol is also much easier when he's around.  --
'''Support'''. Good editor. -
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Excellent work
'''Oppose'''. Three months is too short a time to be promoted.
Coolest name ever, by the way.
'''Support''' Trust the nominator. Good work by editor so far, but please increase edit activity a little. :) --
'''Support!'''  I have had good interactions with this editor - he was once spoofed twice by a vandal over two weeks (by [[User:Hamster Sandwich.|Hamster Sandwich.]] and [[User:Hamster-Sandwich|Hamster-Sandwich]]), and I helped him sort that problem out to the extent that I was able. I have observed his contributions since then, and have no fear that he will misuse or abuse the admin tools.
'''Support'''.  Good editor, good sense of humour, sensible voter.
'''Support''', plenty of activity accross the board (with the exception of Image talk ;))and all of it good.
'''Support''' Ditto with DmcDevit.
'''I'm female afterall''' [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', no reason to oppose. <font color="red">
'''Support''', Besides from the fact that I like Hamsters and I don't want to eat them ;-), I think you'd be a great choice from what I've seen of you
'''Support''' Bon appetit!--
'''Support''' Contribs look good, User looks solid. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''' with pleasure.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - solid user. Where might I know you from? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''I'd''' want a hamster sandwich. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I've worked with this editor and know for a fact that he is safe pair of hands. His judgements in AfD have been uniformly good, and balanced. It's unfortunate for Wiki that real-life has been a distraction recently, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the potential admin. -
'''Support''' <font color="black">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Э]]'''
'''Support''' I trust the Hamster Sandwich to use the mop wisely and well.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''': I thought about the concerns voiced below for a while, as I was surprised at the lack of talk and project edits, but then I thought about it some more and came to the conclusion that not having much to say to other users isn't necessarily a bad thing.  From HamsterSandwich's edits and behavior (including stepping right in the middle of some of the fractiousness right off the bat), I believe him to have the poise and calm necessary for the added buttons.
'''Support'''. Geogre said it for me. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Why, it's Hamster Sandwich!
'''Support'''. In agreement with User:Geogre.--
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''With my complete confidence.''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - His contributions merit promotion. I had 1,300 edits when promoted, which means his time-to-edit ratio is better than mine.
'''Support''' - After extensive review, I have concluded that this Ham Sammich will make an outstanding addition to the Jewish Cabal that runs Wikipedia.  (Or whatever pet theory the detractors subscribe to...)  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. A little slim on the edits, but what I've seen has been very good work, so...
'''Keep'''. For a hamster, he's doing very well.
'''Support'''. I remember when he was just a little hamsterling... has shown positive interest in helping Wikipedia work well from the start.
'''Make me a sammich!''' And damn the editcountitis.
'''support''' with pleasure
Need more admins. '''We are an encyclopedia first, a community second.''' &mdash; <small>[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color=black>BRIAN</font></b>]][[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color=gray>0918</font>]] &bull; 2005-12-2 15:11</small> (I removed your first vote since you accidentally voted twice --
'''Support'''.  I see no reason to oppose. --
<s>'''Oppose''' been here for 3 months, right? And doesn't even have 1,500 edits. Say editcountitis or whatever you want, but I just don't think this user has had enough activity around these here parts. </s>
'''Oppose'''. Lack of experience in Wikispace (10 edits to Wikipedia talk, 50 in Wikipedia in the past three months; in the further past, lots of AFD and RFA voting but next to nothing elsewhere in Wikispace). Please involve yourself with process more before taking up adminship.
'''Oppose'''. 3 months experience. Please stay here for a little bit longer before running again for adminship.
'''Oppose''' Too short --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience; needs more time.
'''Oppose''' I'm sure would make a fine admin, but admins need experience.
'''Oppose''', great editor... but needs more experience.
'''Oppose''' needs a tad bit more expeirience.
'''Oppose''' great person, just too inexperienced at the moment. Come back in a couple months and you'll have my support. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  Editcountitis 4 life!
'''Neutral''' been here for 3 months, right? And doesn't even have 1,500 edits. Say editcountitis or whatever you want, but I just don't think this user has had enough activity around these here parts.
'''Neutral'''. On second thought... Sorry, don't want to oppose, what you ''do'' contribute is alright, but I'd suggest you get some more experience first and then try again in a few months' time. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]

'''Neutral''' I whould normally oppose in this situation but he is too good of a user so I wont do that. He havent been editing much lately so thats why im in neutral --
'''Neutral''' Shall certainly support when the user has a few more months of experience, and probably a thousand more edits. Seems he'll make a great admin with more experience.
'''Neutral''' I'm Jaranda here.  Normally, I'd oppose, but this user's record, disposition (and, yes, his choice of name) are just too good.  If not now, Hamster Sandwich in '06!

'''Support''' I thought he had been one already. Yay, I got the first vote after the nominator!
<small>

'''Without...a...doubt.''' --

--
I love the sound of an admin who knows a bit more of the role than just clearing out VfD and rollbacks. WP:CP is forever banked up, and I'd love to see a HappyCamper helping out over there.
'''Support'''.  HappyCamper goes out of his way to be polite and welcoming.
'''Support''' - What I've seen of him, he has always been civil and polite. --
'''S'''upport. Encyclopedic mind, good knowledge of policy. Very dedicated at the [[WP:RD|reference desk]].


'''Support'''
'''Support'''- seems enthusastic
'''Support''', looks like qualified and knowledgeable editor, participates in Wikipedia discussions, deals with vandals, edit summaries, ... etc. Thanks for your work.
'''Support''' for this good-natured and exceptional Wikipedian.
'''Support'''. Has done a lot of good work on [[WP:RD]] for some time now, seems like a bright and considerate person. --
'''Support'''.  HappyCamper plays well with others and if [[WP:RD]] is any idication will make a very enthusiastic admin.  --
-
'''Support''' - Great, helpful, and answers lots of questions at the reference desk. HappyCamper also shows traits that will help make him a good administrator. (vote by [[User:Stevey7788|Stevey7788]], see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHappyCamper&diff=21323887&oldid=21323760]) --
'''Support''' -
I'm a '''happy camper''' with that. (No pun intend... OK, OK. Pun intended.) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' - We need more admins looking over at copvios and and acting upon them. He says that he will  help out with [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] and related VfDs, so he gets my vote!
'''Support''' I've seen you around, you're a good editor :D &mdash;
'''Support''', as per Joyous and the way he answered the questions.
'''Support''' Good luck!
Cool.
'''Support''' Mainspace edit count is a ''tad'' low, but you've done great work. I'll take quality over quantity. :)
'''Support'''. Helps out quite actively on [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]].
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Helpful, knowledgeable, has a good attitude.
'''Support''', gladly.—
'''Oppose''' simply not enough edits.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits according to me.--May the Force be with you!
Sadly enough I've never heard of Happy, and its my policy to vote neutral on users I've never heard of. Sorry, and good luck.
'''Support''' Haven't voted in his other RfAs, but it looks like the objections presented there have been fixed. I don't think he will abuse admin powers, and he seems like a useful contributor. -
'''Support''' main reason for opposition in previous rFa was lack of experience. Certainly worthy of mop now
'''Support''' Looks good ;] --
'''Support''' I worked with Harro5 on the [[George W Bush]] article and found his contributions there to be excellent.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=19706567]--

'''Strong Support''' for helping where needed in less glamorous admin tasks. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support''', aye. [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.png|15px]]
That made me chuckle: <code>leading to a majority being overruled by the minority</code> &mdash; what an intro! He has no chance.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''- I think he deserves now. --
'''Strong Support''' Great guy, really deserves this in my opinion. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Harro5 has seen more action than many  actual admins, and handles conflict with skill and tolerance.
Good guy
Looking good.--
'''Sup''' [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Well earned.
'''Support'''. Good luck.
'''Support''' seems like mop wielding material to me.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''' as I ran into him on my RC Patrol. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' will be good admin.
You must promote him... [[Monty Python's Holy Grail|with a '''herring!''']] &mdash;
'''Support''', 2 times out of 3.
'''Support'''. And I was going to nominate him... guess now I'm just a Johnny-Come-Lately. --
'''Support''', I'm making up for missing RfA voting, I've been doing stuff. Don't yell at me.
'''Support''' on the basis of interaction on Australian articles--
'''Support''' has made a valuable contribution especially on Australian articles.
'''Support''' for all the work he has done on Australian related articles.
'''Support'''; I'd been wondering when he'd become an admin. Good luck!
'''Support'''.  As the lone neutral last time, I wholeheartedly support this time.  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Commonly pops up on my Australian watchlist with good edits. I followed his Request for Comment and it was handled well.
'''Support''' without hesitation.
'''Support''' Article work looks good.
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
-- (
'''Support''' - Alot of things can change in four months, eh? &ndash;
'''Support''' because "''I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button''" is a wonderful line, and because I've encountered him so often on RC patrol. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Persistence is a good trait for an admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Happy to support this fine Aussie editor. Cheers!! --
'''Support''' dedicated to keeping the wiki vandal free, must be mopped.
'''Support'''
Troppus noelip emertxe.
Definite '''support'''.
'''Support''' he took our criticism of his last 2 RFAs in stride, and has shown a marked improvement since then. I think he's ready now. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. His cool and courteous handling of previous constructive criticism makes me wish some current administrators were more like him. &mdash;
'''Cliché support'''. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' No longer does it stand at 50.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- I'm a little late to the party :)
'''"Sorry I'm so late" support'''. <font color="red">
'''Support'''
--
'''Speedy Support''' for the reasons given.  Plus, he's French and likes the kitties.
Hashar is going about this the right way. The request is unusual compared to what we are used to dealing with, but the reasoning behind the request is sensible. And clearly Hashar is trustworthy, so it is easy to support this request. --
Been here for over two years, I see?  Well, that translates to a definite '''support.'''
Seems fine to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''


I am very grateful for anyone with the skills and dedication to be able to contribute to the development of the technical side of Wikipedia.  If this makes life easier for Hashar in that regard, by all means '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Though I've never encountered Hashar here, I've confirmed that this user is a [[m:Developers|developer]]. He could just as easily given himself the sysop access, but didn't. I respect that a great deal. --
'''Support''', of course. If he can be trusted with developer access I think he can be trusted with the powers of a mere sysop. A good, trustworthy fellow who shouldn't have to go find someone else to fix the MediaWiki: namespace.
'''Support''' - I thought developers had admin access by default, but I guess that's not the case.
Goes without saying.
'''Support.''' Anyone who votes against must really hate Wikipedia. And kittens.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Support''' Has a very good and specific reason.--
I thought he was.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Do developers really have to do this? Evidently they do. '''Support'''.
Cool.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', for three reasons. He's a proven good sysop. Admin abilities are useful for a developer. And Nut and Bolt, my two cats, told me to.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - he gets my full support
'''Certainly'''.
'''Support''' - since self-nominations need "super consensus".
'''Mais oui!''' -- Excellent and trustworthy. <strike>[[User:4.156.189.118|4.156.189.118]] 14:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)</strike>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
--
Insufficient reasons for nomination. --
Nominating user
'''Supporting''' with pleasure, Hedley should have got it last time.
'''Yup'''.
I'm pleased to '''support'''. &mdash;
I opposed last time, due to my concerns over Hedley's good faith.  I am now completely convinced, and I was going to nominate myself in a couple of days time.
As before. &mdash;

After a month, I am confident enough in Hedley to '''support'''. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|

Since last time, he has shown that he is worthy.

'''Support''' very much.
'''Support''' I've seen some of this user's work here, and say, sure, hand him the mop.

'''Support'''. Seems like a good and trustworthy user.
'''Support''', why not?
'''Support'''I trust that you will work for the good and harmony of the community. I hope you don't dominate the Child prodigy page and allow others to edit within concensus and policy. Still, I am confident that you will be a good administrator. Condidering also that there are a lot of vandalisms, trolls, etc. out there.--
'''support''' good editor, good contributions in general... may have had some problems in the past sure but who hasnt? &nbsp;
'''Supported''' before, will '''Support''' again. Mop-worthy.
'''Support''' should already have been admined
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
No reason at all to oppose.
Support:  Hedley is sane.  That's important, and it's not all that common.
'''Support'''. Since this is ''right'' on the edge, I'll suspend my non-RFA voting stance for this vote. --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. User lied during previous RfA.
'''Oppose''', it is less than a month after the previous nomination failed (or, technically, was withdrawn). Many of the comments in there were regarding Hedley's lack of experience, so I feel that that still holds now.
Oppose.  Do not know the user, but less than one month since his vocally opposed candidacy does not seem a long enough interim. I also disapprove of his comment on Allen3's RFA candidacy (below) needling someone for not explaining his vote.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Too soon, and Hedley displays an alarming (if somewhat charming) naivety of the complexity of our social interaction coupled with a lot of eagerness to be bold. This could only be a bad thing if coupled with the ability to act.
'''Oppose'''. Please look at the previous nomination. My concern remains what it was then.
'''Oppose'''.  Only one month since the previous nomination.
'''Severely oppose'''. I don't think that Hedley is ready yet to be an administrator. Maybe later - not yet. --
Vote was fairly close last time (I would have voted neutral swaying towards support, had I voted). Henrygb has clearly made good efforts to improve the shortcomings noted - enough to sway me all the way to '''support'''.
Looks fine to me, mind you I'd have supported the old RfA too. --
Earlier arguments against him being an admin didn't hold water --
Looks good.-
Should have been accepted last time.
Support. A solid contributor. I nominated Henrygb last time.


Cool. --
Support, as before.

--
Support.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
I think 7 weeks is a somewhat thin interval period for a re-nomination, but I support anyway.
'''Support''' and comment that it's a tribute to how an Admin nomination can turn a good editor into an even better one.
'''support''' User clearly wants to be an admin
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  --
'''Support'''. Wow, you've got a better contrib history than me! [[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;

'''Support'''. Thanks for dealing with vandals and spammers.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Cares about accuracy.

'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''Support''' Ya-hoo!

'''Support'''. She's been asking all over the place on how to follow procedure properly, which tells me quite a bit about her being suitable for the mop and the flamethrower. You've got my support, just promise that you're going to wander away from [[Harry Potter]] every once in a while.
'''Support''' - In like her concise and convincing answer to my question. I see no reason to doubt that she'll use her newfound powers well. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
I trust the nominator.
I trust her and the nominator but less than 1000 edits overall is a slight worry though. But Im nice and will vote support :) --
'''Full Support'''. I'm confident in her abilities, and when she didn't know what to do, she would ask. So don't worry about edit count. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. I would point out that being useful and responsive on the Help Desk indicates a good admin temperament and intimate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. Low edits may mean inexperienced, but not in this case, and it doesn't look like the opposers have done much research if they really want to say that.
'''Strong support'''.  I have already seen her mediate and defuse a situation between {{user|Albus Dumbledore}} {{user|Chosen One}} and {{user|Draco Malfoy}} vs. {{user|Mikkalai}} and handled herself admirably -- she really helped calm things down.  I look at her earlier edits and see her asking others before doing things the first time, out of an abundance of caution.  Looking at her edits, I see that it is strong on Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia Talk.  She engages the community, which is a great sign.  I might oppose a candidate with low edit count (especially with low on talk pages) because there may be too little indication of how the person interacts with others.  However, I think Hermione1980's editing history gives us ample examples of how she would behave as an admin, and what they show is right on target. --
'''Support'''. Has well-demonstrated all the qualities needed in an admin. --
'''Support'''. From what I see, Hermione1980 has done plenty of good work and has plenty of experience, and that outweighs any concern about the edit count being fairly low.
I've seen her around, and she's a good editor. '''Support'''.-
'''Strongest possible support'''.  Hermione is a prime example of applying editcount criteria for adminship can lead us to make poor decisions.  While the number of her edits is comparatively low, looking through them one can see a few things:  (1) the quality of her contributions is uniformly high.  This is someone who is careful and deliberate, and takes each submit seriously.  Such people are naturally going to have a lower edit count than someone else (like, uh, me) who fires off edits in staccato bursts.  (2) She has been here for a long time, and demonstrated her commitment to the project.  (3) Her willingness to seek consensus (for example, via article RfCs) rather than just hammering her opinions home mindlessly is great.  I think she absolutely shows the temperament and commitment needed to be an admin.  I urge those of you who are voting based solely on the ''number'' of her edits to go the extra mile and actually examine those edits more closely; I think if you do that, you'll consider changing your vote.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. I do like to see 1000 edits from a candidate, but I won't oppose her for being a few dozen short. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with being a low(er) activity admin.
'''Support''', this should be '''no big deal'''! This user has established her trustworthyness to my satisfaction and never before have editcounts have seemed so utterly frivolous... --
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Trusted? Yes. Long term experience? Yes. Good at dealing with conflict? Yes. Quality edits? Oh yes. Has an arbitrary number of edits? Who cares!
'''Alohamora'''. Quality user, and I find the opposition unconvincing.
'''Support'''. Sure, could use a few more edits but it seems churlish to object on those grounds. Looks like a solid reliable contributor. <small>And I hope you don't mind that I ship you with Ginny.</small> -
'''Support'''. Low edit count is meaningless if someone is committed, literate and willing. This candidate has given creditable, clear and concise answers to the questions posed below and seems, well, Wikipedia-minded.  That should do.
'''Support''' I like the answers to the q's.
'''Support'''.  The "low" edit count doesn't concern me.  I like the answers, I like the attitude.  I feel she's demonstrated that she's trustworthy.
'''Support''' I see no good reason not to.
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.  <font color="red">
-- (

'''Support'''. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Hermione1980 over at the Harry Potter WikiProject, but I have nonetheless run into her in a multitude of places across the wiki. She is a mature, thoughtful editor, and I have no doubt in my mind she is completely qualified to be an admin. She has been here for several months, one of my criteria. Personally, I like to see a higher edit count, but in this case, my personal knowledge of the user overrides that, and I can vouch for her that she is an excellent candidate. Wikipedia cannot have too many quality admins, and Hermione1980 would be a wonderful administrator, therefore her low edit count should be overlooked in recognition of the quality work she has been doing for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''  From what I've seen of her, (mainly working on Harry Potter articles back in July), she definately seems to be admin material.
'''<s>Oppose</s> Support'''.  Advertising in one's sig strongly suggests that the candidate considers adminship more than "no big deal".   Further, such behavior suggests that the candidate does not have a full enough understanding of Wikipedia's culture at this time.  Otherwise appears to be a very good candidate.  Please remove the reference from your sig and return in a few short months.
'''Support'''. Normally, I would say there is nothing wrong in seeking a little more experience of pressing save and having to live with the consequences than this edit count implies. However, Hermione1980 demonstrates considerably maturity beyond her edit count, and I have been especially impressed at the responses to this RfA. If this RfA succeeds, she might consider branching out a little from Potter, and should be careful never to use the admin buttons to settle any disputes on those articles. -
'''Support'''. X factor. We require a reasonable edit count to provide the substrate to decide if a User is experienced and suitable. Once that is already clear, a high absolute count matters less.
'''Support''' I have seen some good work done. Good editor. should make a good admin. <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great editor and contributor in all kinds of subjects.
Yes, please.
'''Extreme Wingardium Leviosa Support!''' <font color="green">
'''Support''', it is the quality of the candidate and their contributions which should matter, not quantity.--
'''Support''' Hermoine1980, '''oppose''' editcountitis.
I cannot believe I am going to '''Support'''. What is the world coming to? But seriously, Hermione is a great editor and can be trusted with the tools. A little while back, I was thinking of people that would make good admins and she was one of the first people I thought of (although an even lower edit count prevented me from doing so). --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' The edit count may be a little low, but I have found her to be circumspect and reasonable.
'''Support'''. A fine user, dedicated to Wikipedia's betterment. ·
'''Support'''!  Incidentally, she is now only 19 short of the ''magic number''.  I trust those 19 edits will be good ones!  :)
'''Support''' edit count is irrelevent, user has done tons of good work. '''
'''Support''' upgrade from comment to support...school comes first and surely she'll still have some time to be an admin...Good luck!
Less than 1000 edits suggest lack of experience.
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''' Lacking edits, lacking experience.
'''Oppose''' too few edits.
'''Oppose''' too inexperienced, also the "advertising" in her signature for this RfA I find distasteful. --
'''Oppose''': nothing personal, but this is way too low a level of activity for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Fadix. I'll support in a while. --
'''Oppose'''.  Seems like a very good editor, but not experienced enough in my opinion.  I'd like to see more edits to a wider variety of articles, but beyond that I don't see any reason I would oppose in the future.
'''Oppose''' for the time being until this editor gains more experience.
'''Oppose''' too new, not enough edits... cant predict trends yet... sorry maybe later. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  As others, this is too early.  I also like to see a more regular level activity in admin candidates because the wiki world actually can change pretty fast.  (Though I totally understand and respect the need to devote much of one's time to college.)
'''Oppose''' - too few edits imo --
'''Oppose''', don't really care for edit countitry, but sub 1000 would be a bad precedent
'''Neutral''' with comment below.
<s>'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, this is editcountitis. I have nothing at all against your record.  I am, however, concerned about setting a precedent of having admins with fewer than 1000 edits, which, given the difficulty in removing admins who go on to show questionable judgement, could be a problem.</s>--
'''Neutral''' &mdash; Hermione1980 is a great Wikipedian and has done some valuable work around here, and I have full confidence in her. However, I would like to see more experience. I will gladly support her in the future. And oh, just curious, but what do you do if you ever run across [[User:Lord Voldemort|You-Know-Who]]? :-) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
<s>'''Weak oppose'''. Seems to be a good person, but some of her answers  to the concerns raised here, don't satisfy me. Maybe re-applying in a few months. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)</s> I changed my vote, to contrast this one with my other votes, which were all oppose. And since I believe her to be more "Admin able" than the others I opposed, opposing her would be comparing her with those.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' of courses!
'''Support''' nothing but good experiences with this user.  A good vandal fighter, I think he can live up to the high expectations of an admin.  --
'''Support''' but are you the kid that punches horses or the kid that was punched by a horse?
'''Support'''. A good and experienced wikipede and a ruthless vandal fighter.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''', yeah. Looks good as far as I've looked through his contributions. [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.png|15px]]
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', I thought he was an admin for sure.
'''Support''' per everyone's favourite cliche. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' On condition you stop making it too easy for the kids to do their [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=28968917&oldid=28968862 homework ;-)].
'''Support''', needs more time? Are you crazy?
'''Support''' Per nom --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">Vile</font><font color="grey">Rage</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|<nowiki>|</nowiki>]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Vilerage|<font color="black">C</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support'''. Make it be known on the record that [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] stole this nomination from me, and then went and took the corny support statement I was going to use, grrr. HorsePunchKid is always helping people on the [[WP:HD|Help desk]], and becoming an admin will expand his scope there. He also fights vandalism and leaves some of the best edit summaries going around. Lastly, he's a good bloke, great have around.--
'''Support''' will be a good admin --
'''Support''' RfA cliche no. 1.--
'''Support''' with pleasure.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Edits a diverse range of articles in a professional way. Will do great as admin. Full support!!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' saw him fighting evil vandalism on [[Aishwarya Rai]], even when he did not know the language it was in. --
'''Support''', and I don't do this often -
'''Orange Furry Alien Support''' go the musicabal (tinc)
'''Support''':--

'''Absolutely.'''
'''Support'''. Good interactions, fine edit summaries, cool head, experienced, good WP knowledge.
'''Support''' - will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' absolutely, --

'''Support''' my interactions have always been friendly. I see no reason why this user shouldnt be given the chance to shine. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Very friendly and helpful; active RC patroller. Hope you're not still punching horses. &mdash;
'''Support'''. All I've seen of him was good. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' notable good egg.
'''Support''' Seen this editor around --
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''support'''
'''Support!''' good interactions with this user in the past.--
'''STRONG SUPPPORT''' WITH THREE P'S. <font color="black">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Э]]'''
'''Support'''. Contribution history looks good, will make a fine admin.  --
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support'''. Oops, I forgot, we're not supposed to pile-on.  ;-)  --
'''Support'''.  [insert cliché here]
'''Support'''.
'''Neutral''' needs a little more time.
'''Extreme Nominator Support''' of course --
'''Support''' Great editor.
'''Support''' Good candidate for admin --
'''Support''' Although it pains me to do this...err..I mean..per nomination —
'''Support''' <b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support'''. Seen him around the deletion areas. Has a good idea of the policies.
'''Support''' ''definitely''!
'''Support''' Yupsireebob.
'''Support''' - does lots of good work.
'''Support'''. Very good and level headed contributor.
'''Support''' - He's not one? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
Envious of so much activity in so little time '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' good contributions everywhere.--
'''Support''', thought you were already. Thanks/
'''Support''' Thoroughly wonderful user.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
You betcha!  --
'''Support''', calm and level-headed. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''', dedicated, makes positive contributions all over the place, would continue to do so as an admin.  Insert cliche here, I really thought he was an admin already. --
'''Support''' see him around a lot.
'''I heartily endorse this product and/or service.''' - Howcheng is level-headed and thoughtful, and will make a fine addition to the Janitor Corps.  &lt;mutter&gt;I was going to nominate him myself, but Jaranda beat me to it.&lt;/mutter&gt; &rarr;
'''Support''' - saw some great work on AfD.
'''Support''' he voted neutral on my RFA, so the kindergarten side of me was tempted...buuuut he deserves it and admin is no big deal so why vote anything but support for a guy like this. :)
'''Stinky support'''. User shows willingness to do behind-the-scenes maintenance work, and therefore should be awarded with the wet, stinky mop. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' good work in many areas
'''Support'''.
'''Edit-Conflict Support'''. --
'''Support'''.I have seen his work and he will be a good admin.--
'''Support''' Glad to support.
'''Support''' A visible editor, has had sufficient experience. &#126;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' seen the name around, and haven't seen it behaving anything but well and usefully. -
He really ''isn't'' one yet? <font color="darkred">
'''Support''' - Remember me when you come into your kingdom.
'''Support''' - Of course!
'''Support'''. Hard workers are always needed. Pass along the extra mops! --
'''Support'''.  Howcheng is a name on Wikipedia I am familiar with and know I can trust.
'''Support'''.  Was planning to ask him if I could nominate him next month.  Oh, well, this is even better.
'''Support'''. Very active, good editor. --
'''Support'''.  Seen Howcheng around quite a bit, good work. --
'''Support''' with the quickness, but he needs to remember too many relistings clog AfD (particularly if the decision is an obvious one).
'''Support''' I must be confused with how adminship works.  Howcheng! has been closing AFDs for ages now, and I always feel comfortable with his closings.  Is one of the best, if not THE best, closer going.  And I am sure that everyone here knows how critical I am of AFD closers.  You can trust Howcheng!
'''Support'''. No big deal. If you were planning on thanking me personally, please don't. --
'''Support''' I thought he was a good closing admin, but now I learn he's not an admin.  Obviously he should be.  --
'''Hyper VfD Support'''. I thought he's an sysop already! -
'''Monty Pythonesque support''' I can see a giant rubber "admin" stamp...
'''Support''' OMG bandwagon --
'''Support''', see Mailer's reason <strong>
'''Support''' Very good. --
''Support'''. Does not need my support by the look of it, but nevertheless I do
'''Support'''. Agree with all the above... --
'''Support'''. I loved the fact that recently he went through and found old AfDs with no votes because they hadn't been listed properly, and bumped them to ensure they were properly debated. That screams sysop material. Hope to see him around.
More support than a house of cards (an oblique reference to this being the 53rd vote).
'''Support'''. Solid candidate.
'''Strong Support:''' unless the deck has two Jokers... then I'd be the one to crash the house; the house that support built! - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
Sure '''Support'''. Have been seeing his great work for a long time. -
'''Support'''. Excellent contribution. --
Cue "OMG, you're not an admin?"
'''Support''' Will make good use of the mop, bring it on. --
Level-headed user, so let's join the pileon.
'''Support''' Always leaves a good impression. '''''
'''Strong support'''. Great user; very helpful to me early on.
'''Support'''.  Insert standard "I thought he already was one!" disclaimer. –
'''Support''' - per nom and his comments are insightful without being incite-ful. ++
'''Support'''. Few days go by that he hasn't brought up an orphaned AfD.
'''Support'''.  Good, consistent work, and fair comments on AfD.  I'm surprised he's not an admin already.
'''Support'''. Another solid Wikipedian from California. -
'''Support''' Will be an excellent admin with his involvement with AFD. --
'''Support'''. Of course, he would make an excellent administator. --
'''Support''',
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. Seen him around before. :) --
'''Support'''. I may of voted already though? :p
'''Support'''. #73, #74 says your vote is a unique one; I checked. --
=No Big Deal.  Hfool has been consistently impressive within a short period.
Am I convinced of good faith?  YES.
'''Support''' Good work on VfD, calm and rational, would make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.  Humblefool impressed me greatly when I inexplicably (to him, anyway) reverted his edits twice, in a case of mistaken identity. He was polite then, and I haven't seen anything different since.
'''Support''', I have bumped into the user a couple of times and had no negative experiences; seems to have his head on the right place. --
'''Support'''.  Seems like a good user, has sufficient experience with multiple namespaces, and is a fellow deletionist.  I also like the fact that during the recent [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal|CSD proposal]], he put a notice for that in his signature to remind other people to vote on the proposed changes to policy. --
'''Support''' my usual "fits the criteria on my userpage" reason, that's sufficent information for me to support
'''Support''' I guess he's just [[The Humble Guys|got]]
'''Support''' experienced user.
'''Support''', I was impressed by his conduct during the [[user:Iasson|Iasson]] [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson|RfC]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson|RfAr]] and I've seen nothing since to suggest his other conduct has been any less than what I expect of an admin.
'''Support'''. Familiar with WP procedures, and I agree with Thryduulf. --
'''Support''' I've come across this user's work before and I have no reason to think he'd be anything less than a great admin.
'''Support'''. Always professional and pleasant on VfD. His [[User:Humblefool/Message1|personalized VfD user talk page message]] exemplifies the kind of conduct that is expected of an admin.
'''Support'''. Polite contributor who does good work.
'''Support'''. Good and experienced user. Deletionism is never a worry when I consider candidates.
'''Support'''.  Very impressive work with VfDs and the imageboard-related articles. -
I don't like the bit about being deletionist but I'll have benefit of the doubt.

'''Support'''.  In my humble foolish opinion, we need people involved in the arbitration and new page patrol.--
'''Agree''' with the above.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. We could certainly use more humble admins.
'''Hayupp.''' Deletionist or not, Humblefool does good work.
'''Support''' for the humblest of fools.
'''Support'''.  Despite the fact that I couldn't convince him on IRC to mail me money for this vote, I will vote for him anyway.  [[User:Kmccoy|kmccoy]] [[User_talk:Kmccoy|(talk)]] 03:02, 1 #*<s>'''Support''' Talked to him on IRC, seems to know his stuff.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 04:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)</s> I am invalidating my votes. See my user page for my reasons.--
'''Support'''. Seems to have a history of fine quality editing.
'''Support''' Sharp and level-headed. Would have no problem exercising care as a sysop. --
'''Support''' Good work with VfD, and even though you're a deletionist I think you'd make a fine admin. -
'''Support''',
'''Support''' -
'''Oppose''' 1607 in 13 months isn't very impressive. But edititis isn't why I'm voting against you. You make it known that you are a deletionist. I can respect that. But if the only you want to be an admin is to put pages up for speedy deletion and VfD, I don't think you deserve this job. --
'''Oppose''' Editing speed is so slow that he/she could easily be a sockpuppet. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as Dmn.--

'''Support'''. Always happy to support a fellow Aussie.
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' Definitely, [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. A great contributor on many interesting topics, and a sensible admin candidate.
'''Support''' - and glad to see it's taken off before I even got here!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Always good to have well-qualified sysops in under-represented time zones for mopping up when other admins are sleeping or otherwise occupied.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' seems a worthy candidate, I trust BD, so you have my support on your nomination. &nbsp;
'''Support''' - He seems like the perfect candidate, and his diffs reveal good editing skills.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' - Nothing indicates that he will abuse the tools and we need more admins. -
'''Duuude.'''  --
'''Support.''' Surprised he has 11k edits and is still not a sysop.
'''Support''' Good difs, lots of edits in lots spaces, fine on summaries. I like the attention paid to links and redirects.
'''Support''' about time!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', per everybody. --
'''Support'''. I remember that the first interaction I had with Ianblair23 was to nominate one of his articles for deletion... he handled that case very calmly and civilly. I see that Ian has done a great deal of excellent work with Wikipedia, and I think his answers to Aaron's questions are great. I see no reason not to support.
'''Support'''. Thorough researcher, and has done a lot of excellent work on Australian articles.
'''Support.''' Deserves to have been made admin long ago.
'''Strong Support''' for a wonderful contributor. In fact, nominating Ian was on my list of things [[User:Cyberjunkie/Contributions|to-do]] - and I certainly don't mind being beaten to it; ''he should have been one ages ago''. --
She'll be right. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. -
'''Support'''. Stickler for accuracy. --
'''Suport'''. An excellent user. Courtious & thorough. --
'''Support''' - good editor, thoughtful answers to questions. --
'''Support''' Happy to support longtime editor.
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support''' User is level-headed, slow to anger and a good community participant (active on [[WP:AWNB]]).
'''Support'''. Good edits, excellent understanding of WP. I just hope your movie to film quest is bot-assisted! :)
'''Support''', well deserved! --
Happy to '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. -- May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' -- valuable Aussie editor. -
'''Support''', yep, I've seen him around and don't remember any bad experiences.
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' impressed by the answer to the curly questions also.
'''Strong support'''. Gee, that's the second strong support today. Good going!
'''Support''' A real Aussie battler who seems to be found everywhere.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Nothing really to say that hasn't been said already. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. has amply demonstrated he knows what makes things tick around here. --
'''Support'''. He has been here along time and has done well so he will know what to do. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Not really necessary, but still support. -- [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support'''. Piling on, but I see no reason for concern.
'''Support''' and [[User:Splintax]] please fix your signature file for crying out loud.
'''Support''' too.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.

Honestly, <cue the cliche>.  Veteran user; this ought to have happened long ago.

'''Support''' per nom. I thought we'd already nominated Ian. Best make up for it now.--
'''Support'''
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support'''. &mdash;

'''Support''' Good luck.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The nominator has said it. And I also thought he was one. Here's to another Aussie admin!
'''Support''' -- on the condition that [[Australian cricket team|Australia]] loses some more cricket matches. ;) Hardworking, patient editor.
'''Support''' per nom "way overdue" --
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''support''', <s>though solo he's still to beat that first [[Stone Roses]] album.</s>
'''Support''' It's all been said above, give him the jacket.
'''Support'''; good candidate.
'''Support''' I think it's time you have the keys to the janitor's closet.  --
<font color="darkred">
'''Support'''. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' absolutely no reservations.--
'''Strong Cricketing Support.''' --
'''Support''', no reservations, fine and conscientious contributor.--
'''Support'''. He deserves it. -
Clear '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Support'''Need more like im
'''Support'''. Very nice work. --
'''Strong Support'''  woud be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' for the obvious reasons.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' for the [[Western Australia]]n <b><font color="darkblue">[[User:DaGizza|Da]]</font><font color="lightblue">
--

'''Support''',
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' Browsed contribs a little, looks good. If I am somehow wrong, post objections on my talk page. --
'''Support''' ... but 2009, no Australian child will be without adminship!  Worl, maybe not. But Ian's a good bloke.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' from me too.
'''Support''' because I missed fuddlemark's.
'''Support''' obvious support.
'''Support''' Very good user, glad to support.
'''Support''' Glad to support! --
'''Support''', will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support''' (we really should have a RfA cliche template).--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''': --
'''Wholeheartedly support.'''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Well overdue for promotion. A great contributor, and an asset to Wikipedia.  We need to make him an admin. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''', focused and dedicated contributor. --
'''Support'''. Top-rate Australian editor.
'''Support'''. Meets my high standards.
'''Support''' <b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''' per candidate's answer's to question 1 and 3.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Neutral''' - can't see a reason to oppose with the huge edit count, lots of valid contributions, and likes cricket.  But just not enough activities with regards to such things as AFDs, policy discussion, anti-vandalism or any admin-ish chores.  A great contributor, and an asset to Wikipedia.  No need to make him an admin.

Michael, who has a good nose for potential admins, points out an excellent one here -- I happily support.
Good user.

I've never run into him, but he seems like an exemplary candidate.  Lots of good contributions.  Also, I like his decision to release edits into the public domain.  And support from Michael and James says a lot as well.
I'm sure he'll be a great admin.


Support.
--
Support. 8888 edits, another long-time steady editor. --


'''Support'''
Support

Support. --
This user is one of the few, the fine.

Looks good. --
Will make [[User:Grunt/Adminship|a fine admin]]. --

'''Support'''.
A good choice.  No need to answer questions in '''bold''', though.

Of course, as nominator.
I haven't interacted much with IceKarma, however, he has been around for quite a while, and has made positive contributions to Wikipedia.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
Great guy!! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Yes, please.
Why not?  <font color="red">
Looks like a good contributor (who speaks alot of languages) that could help wp out immensely by being an admin. -
Good enough for me. A friend of Red's is a friend of mine. -<nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Sane, reasonable, and interested in janitorial work.
support
'''Support''', what's not to like?

</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. I have met this user on IRC, and can vouch that this user is a pleasant and polite individual to converse with. In addition, the edit contributions of this user are good, and it has been demonstrated that this user has a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes and procedures. Consequently, I have no doubt in offering this user my support. --
'''Support''' good track record, should make good admin.
'''Support''' Forgive me if I sound more subdued (sp) then the rest here, but I can't but help think about the lack of major edits (number-wise), and the large gaps in editing history (props to durin yet again for the chart).  Anyway, you appear to be a good wikignome.... so I imagine you'll make a decent wikiadministrator :) <small>
'''Support''' because that death penalty map is a thing-o'beauty. --
I'll throw in my support.
As will I.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' - I see no reason against this candidate.--
The cabal threatened to break my legs if I didn't '''support'''. --
'''Support'''.
--
'''Neutral'''. ''Almost'' support. I have some concerns about how active this nominee would be as an admin. 47% of this nominee's edits happened over just 10 days of contributions. 7 of the top 10 days happened in April. If you average this user's contributions per day from May 1st forward, it's 3.3 edits per day average. I personally like to see 10 or more per day average for an admin nominee. 90% of the user's edits are over the last six months, which is encouraging in showing potential dedication to the project, but there's also a disturbing almost complete absence of edits from mid-June to mid-August of this year. Why the absence of editing? Can we expect the nominee will disappear for months when they are an admin? I don't find anything else glaringly wrong; edit distribution is good, uses edit summaries, responses to questions are reasonable, seems focused on performing good work, etc. I just don't like the average edits and major gap over two months. --

Insert [[Cliché|you-know-what]] here.

—

Insert [[Cliché]] of choice here.
Support. We need more admins who actually assume good faith.
I keep forgetting that he's not one already. --
[[User:Grunt/Adminship|Of course I support]]. --
...and I almost uttered the cliché myself.  Excellent choice for admin.

<s>Support. [[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 04:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC).</s> Make that '''strong support'''.
Looks good to me.
For shizzle.
Absolutely.


Support.


Absolutely.  ---

Support.
*blink* He's '''not''' an admin already? (Okay, so everybody already said that....) --

Seriously, my first reaction was: He's....not?
I thought Improv was already an admin.
Good chap, courteous and humorous.  And seemingly tireless. --

Support.
Obvious support. He has more experience than majority of currently active admins.

Support.


I suppose. ;) -
Support, moderate deletionist. —
He's '''not?'''  Wait, somebody must be kidding.  Let me check the [[Wikipedia:List of administrators|list]]...  Whoa!  Seriously, he's not listed.  Support!
He...isn't...an...admin? Wha? This is an outrage! --
I support.

<insert concise and witty statement>
One of the few...


It's nothing personal, but his extreme deletionism frightens me a great deal.

Deletionism has me worried. The rest is good, though: neutral.
'''Support''' as the nominator. -
(nods head)
I'll happily '''support''' Ingoolemo. I haven't worked with him very much, but I've been pleased with the results when I have.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Great user and contributor.
Finally, my ''I was <u>positive</u> he was already one'' virginity is gone! I don't feel any different though.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Fine.
'''Support'''. The article cited below about the [[B-32 Dominator]] impresses me; anyone with the drive and talent to write effectively and at length about an obscure, trivial, but nonetheless notable topic wins my respect, because they clearly aren't doing it for fame/money/sex or other temporal, transient reasons. Ingoolemo is a warrior monk; silent, faithful, humble, and lethal. I like using commas, punctuation marks, I like to write breathless sentences, declarations that have a lot of adjectives, describing words in them, like a [[adder|slithery snake]] made out of words and concepts.-
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
'''Support'''. Looks like a great wikipedian --
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, he stays cool, calm, but firm in his dealings with other editors, in overheated situations.
'''Support.'''-


I RC patrol very rarely, but it seems like every time I do, I get into edit conflicts with him trying to slap a <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> on some piece of nonsense or other. &mdash;

A very good janitor, he deserves the golden mop and bucket.
Support.
Great chap.  Absolute support.
Cool.
I was on RFA anyway, [[Talk:New_York_City#Reorganization]] (near the end), shows how Inter is very capable of solving conflicts. Once he's built up some experience as an admin, he might also consider applying for mediator or arbitrator.
Good janitor, good problem solver. '''Support'''.
I nominated Inter last time, and still support. --
support, good editor if perhaps a bit light on total # of edits. &nbsp;
I remember coming across Inter's edits. He really should be able to rollback. '''Support'''.
Support. Inter would make a great admin.


Support (because people dealing with vandalism are most needed now IMHO).
'''Support'''. -
'''support'''. I am suprised to learn that Inter is not already an administrator.

Yeah. --
Just like last time.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Pavel said it best. -

Support, as before.
'''Suppport'''. Helpful janitor and spambuster.
Does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]], and am concerned when one of a user's two proudest edits is just to add one full stop!
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' All over the place and doing a good job.--
<small>
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] and that's good enough for me. I'm also glad to see him improving in the area of edit summaries. --
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme lesbian support!''' But, i would like to see more edit summaries. --<span style="color:red">
'''Support''', a good vandal fighter. (I also agree with the others regarding summaries)
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' but please use edit summaries.
'''Support'''. No argument.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''-- Worked with him before.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support'''. Great contributions.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - no reason to deny this editor the mop. --
'''Yarr!''' Will make good use of the mop and <del>shotgun</del> [[cat o' nine tails]].
'''Support''' No problem with Ix, has beaten me to rvv a number of times.
'''Support'''.
--
<s>'''Neutral'''; will consider changing. Agree about edit summaries. Also,3300 edits since 2002 is a bit low. ''' </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
<b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support''': will be a fine administrator.
'''Support''': Meets my one standard: Making him an admin would help Wikipedia. The absolutely torrid pace of edits doesn't hurt either. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' Another I thought he was a admin already --
'''Support'''. A first rate vandal-hunter. Despite his relatively short time here, he seems familiar with policy, common practice and the Wiki culture. I'm sure he'll make a great admin.
'''Strong support''' - The user's gained a lot of respect from the community because of all her/his contributions and vandal fighting. I believe we will always see more from this user. --
'''Support''' Maybe I need to start checking  [[Special:Listusers]], but I thought Izehar was an admin!
'''Support'''; I have frequently come across this editor on RC patrol doing useful things and following up on them.  Would make a conscientious admin, I think.
'''Support''' - will make an excellent janitor.--
'''Support''' without reservation a hard-working, respectable contributor. --
'''Support''' Everything seems to be in good order here!
'''Support'''. Strong vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' a very good editor and a fellow vandal fighter. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter.  Will wield a mop and bucket with pride.  &mdash;
'''1 trillion percent support''' Would make a great admin--
He ''is not'' an admin? o.o <font color="darkred">
'''Strong Support'''. Has my full confidence. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' Its high time. '''''
'''Support''' would make an excellent admin--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <cliche>Already thought he was one</cliche> <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''' for good article contributions and excellent vandalism-hunting.
'''Support''' - because I thought I did an hour ago! And because I've had good interactions with Izehar, who has made good contribs as well as done some good anti-vandal work.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''; unlikely that he will abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' Fine, friendly user nominated by fine, friendly user.  Has my confidence.
'''Support''' Daniel Brandt is a two-faced double crossing mongrel, as he just showed today.  He didn't appreciate a single frigging thing I did for him, and instead insisted that I'd "prematurely ejaculated" to use his words, and ruined everything.  So he can go screw himself.  I thought that he of all people would appreciate someone trying to help, but he can't.  So forget it.  He's a mongrel.  Say what you like about him, I won't object.  And as for you Izehar, well, you did the right thing and wrote on my talk page, and didn't over-react, so you did your bit.  I am sorry that I was so vigorously supporting this guy.  I thought that he was just hardly done by.  It turns out that he has no honour whatsoever.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' seems like a good, level headed editor --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
Most definite '''support''', yeah. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Support''' no brainer, great editor.
'''Support''', of course! A certain boon to the ranks of admins.
'''Support''' Strong vandal hunter. A constant feature on AIV. --
'''Support'''
'''<font color=green>Strong Support</font>''' - Pleasant person to be around, good editor, would be a huge asset to the admins. --
'''Support''' fo sho.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Amazing performance. --
You've got to be kidding me. Izehar's not an admin? OMGWTF SUPPORT.
'''Support''' Good track record, should use tools well. --
'''S'''upport.
'''Very Strong Support''' - My friend Izehar - I'm happy for you! Izehar is one of the users that I like most, he is calm, friendly and a good user. I trust him to be one of the best Administrators. We truely need people like him.
'''Support''' See him on the vandal front often. –
'''Support''' Zocky clearly has it in for this user. You should always annoy at least one troll before being considered for adminship.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''. Good editor, knows how to apply Wikipedia's policies to resolve disputes.
'''Support'''.  Will make an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. Lightning-fast "vandal-verter".  Thought he was one :) --
'''Support''' being on brandt's hitlist puts you on my promote list. &nbsp;
'''Support'''; likely to be superb at the job.
'''Support''' Deserving of the mop and the bucket.
'''Support''' per Hall Monitor, Shinmawa and others.
'''Support'''. {{tl|rfa_cliche1}} &mdash; <b><i>
'''Strong oppose''' for the failure to deal gracefully with opposing opinions on this page.
'''Neutral'''. Izehar will certainly make a good admin, I have no doubts about it, but presenting barnstars to the inveterate trolls like Bonaparte is unacceptable, for it encourages them to further trolling. --
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''', trustworthy. Great editor.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor to the CVG articles. Should make a good admin.
'''Support'''. One of the best contributors to CVG articles. <font>&laquo;</font>
Well deserving of adminship by now. And there are more ways to prove good judgment than just Wikipedia space edits.

--
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin.
'''Support''' Good admin candidate --
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. '''
<b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. Perfectly trustworthy, and that's all that is required of an admin. Remember, "adminship is no big deal!"

'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''
'''Support''' admin is no big deal so I won't be nit picky about where he chooses to edit.  User has earned this.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support'''. Seen Jacoplane over at CVG wikiproject, as well as running into him on RC patrol. --
'''Support''' a familiar name. --
'''Support''' removes vandalism and if Jacoplane was an admin Jacoplane could block persistant vandals and when really needed protect pages --<span class="plainlinks" style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' thought he was one...
'''Support''' for short time I'm here in Wikipedia was sufficient to see how important Jacoplane is. Is very educated and excelent mediator/contributor. An example to be folowed. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Don't know the guy, but what they hey.
'''Oppose'''. While it is good Jacoplane has participated in several WikiProjects, he doesn't seem to be familiar (or at least active) in any of the major processes in WikiSpace. Judging by the answers to his questions, he has interest in becoming a Mediator, which is laudable but doesn't require adminship.
'''Oppose''' very short answers to the questions - shows a lack of effort.
'''Neutral'''. A bit more familiarity with wikispace would be appreciated, will likely support next time. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
Naturally.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor. --
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Glad to see a good editor that takes on canadian issues. Wiki can always use more responsible admins.

'''Support'''.
Excellent stuff about Ukraine. --
'''Support''', absolutely.  Happy to see his name pop up here.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No previous familiarity with this user, but since edit counts are a very poor indicator of trustworthiness, I reviewed his edit history. Every edit I saw was good faith and I saw many very positive contributions. We are here to write an encyclopedia, so content creation is to be encouraged. That said, I also see enough community interaction and a pattern of editing that reflects a user worthy of the extra trust, which is what is important for Adminship anyway. -
Unconditionally '''supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Sure'''.  No reason not give him the mop and shotgun.  Uncontroversial, quality editor who won't misuse the tools.
'''Change to Support'''. User has been active as of lately.
Good editor, sensible guy: '''support'''. --
I made it through this process with 1500 edits at most, over the same period of time.
&#8212;

Support -- he's answering my questions about page deletion...I figure I either have to support him or resign in disgrace. :-) Seriously, in my experience he seems very calm, intelligent, and likely to do well in this role.
Support -- Long time contributor, good editor. Number of edits is proportional to quality of work, prefer better quality over high edit count.  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''', I am persuaded out of neutrality. (And I've moved my previous comments down to the 'comments' section.) -
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Wholeheartedly Support''', look at all he's done... wow... ''we need this guy!!!'' Now get ready to swab, sailor! SWAB I SAY! :)
'''Support'''; I've seen many good things from him and expect he'd do well with admin tools, too.
The romantic in me supports (see below). --
'''Support''', excellent contributor. -
'''Support'''. Impressive article-space edits, and an indication that you will help close out VfD discussions can only be a Good Thing&trade;. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Definitely. He's helped me out on RC patrol, and looks like he's highly qualified in the other areas as well. &mdash;
'''Support''' adminship will be a plus in his already remarkable fight on vandalism.-
--
I'm of two minds.  1) James has contributed greatly to many articles and he is keen to improve on existing articles or create new articles.  2) However, if he becomes admin, does that mean he'll be sucked into the black hole that is Wikipedia and I'll never see my fiance again? :)
I'm tempted to remind people that this should be no big deal, but I know better. So Jareth welcomes new users and has been fortunate enough, hitherto, in avoiding conflicts. Are those really bad things? From what I see in Jareth's record he has potential to be a great admin and has been here long enough to become a trusted member of the community. '''Support'''. -
'''Support''' No big deal - and I thought <s>he</s> she was one already, anyhow. The <s>guy's</s> gal's offering to do more work for us, I say we let <s>him</s> her. There's nothing that indicates that <s>he'll</s> she'll abuse admin tools. But if this nomination fails then please keep up the good work and come again soon - we need more admins willing to tackle copyvio backlogs. -
'''Support'''. Quality edits, especially in wikifying and cleanup, and vandal patrolling. We need more editors like him.  -
'''Support''', insane enough to be on [[mail:helpdesk-l|helpdesk-l]]. Go forth and do good stuff!
'''Support'''. In my view, the Talk record shows this user has handled a few thorny issues, which is a good sign. More community interaction would be desirable but I don't see that as a bar to adminship.
'''Support'''  Good editor, will be good admin --
'''Support''': no reason to believe he will abuse admin tools.
'''Enthusiastic David Bowie support'''  --[[User:Merovingian|<font color=#337147><b>M</b></font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=green><i>e</i></font>]]
'''Support''', solid record of editing and vandal-fighting. Lack of talk-page contributions is a bit unusual but not a no-go issue and explanations seem satisfactory.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Kate's tool is back up. He does have over 3000 if you count the 226 deleted edits. His record is good and shows a lot of work. --
'''Support''' due to namespace-countitus in the oppose votes. I don't get many messages on my talk page, and most of my talk edits are due to giving standard template messages to vandals. Users talk over the place, and can not be measured with edit counters. '''
'''Support''' Excellent wikifier and vandal fighter from the looks of things. I don't have a problem with comparing namespaces, but Talk contributions seem less than relevant for a person who busies himself doing the grunt work others don't have patience for.
'''<s>Weak</s> Moderately Strong Support''', only seen him once, and it was good :) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 23:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) After remembering where I remember Jareth for, I remember that Jareth's been quite likable, so support strongly ;-) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''''Strong support''''' After responding to [[Talk:Cyborg#RfC_on_The_Terminator.28s.29_as_cyborg.2C_as_cited|a rather problematic topic/RfC I posted]] and after I solicited additional assistance, regardless of J.'s longevity on Wikipedia, I have found Jareth to be very analytical, conciliatory, [[frolic|pleasant to work with]], and somewhat humorous.  Thus, I offer my unsolicited support for Jareth's RfAdmin.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The links provided by the anonymous user ([[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]]) opposing below convinced me that Jareth should be an admin.  She was calm, polite, and clear about the relevant policies in that interaction.  You certainly don't have to be an admin to cite the blocking policy, which constitutes advice, not a threat.
'''Support'''.  Hard worker.  A look at his/her contribs shows s/he does a lot of gruntwork.  Comments on talk pages are friendly, whether they be welcome messages or politely worded requests to stop vandalizing.  Always uses edit summary.  A good deal of reverting vandalism--so the admin tools would be good for this user.
'''Support'''.  Looks as though this user doesn't allow others to pick a fight with her, helps sort out disputes, and could use the admin tools to make the project better.  —
'''Support''' mainly based on cool-headed dealings with anon in the oppose column.
'''Support''' Everything looks fine to me...little more interaction.
'''Support'''. Despite not having focussed on editing articles in a major way, she has put a lot into the Wikipedia project as a whole by cleaning up. Some people are just more made for that. More importantly, she's made over 260 replies to the [[mail:helpdesk-l]] list, an important point of contact for ignorant members of the public and future Wikipedians alike.
'''Support'''. Has plenty of helpful interaction with new/potential members of the community on helpdesk-l.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  My original opposition was due to what I saw as lack of interaction with other users; however, now that I see Jareth is quite involved on the helpdesk-l, I have no problems supporting. --

'''Oppose'''. Only 31 edits to article-talk pages, which shows too little community interaction.
'''Oppose'''. Only 31 article-talk page edits??? Community interaction is essential to good adminning.
'''Oppose''' Based on the edit imbalance, I feel this user needs more of a record on which to judge his capabilities.  "Better safe than sorry vote", and I look forward to supporting later.
'''Oppose''' After only receiving an admin nomination, Jareth is acting as if s/he is king of wiki. S/he is presently threatening me with suspension, and s/he is not yet an admin.  Please read her/his threatening message here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.55.228.56]  I have never broken the 3RR rule, despite her/his agressive talk.  Make her/him an admin and you will have created a monster. Be warned. --[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 02:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)UPDATE: Jareth wrote that "If either you or 24.55.228.56 continue with the edit wars and reversions today, you will be blocked from editing."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Francesca_Allan_of_MindFreedomBC&action=edit]  Jareth presently has no authority to block anyone. Do you want to give him/her that power?--
'''Oppose'''. Admins must of necessity interact widely with the community. Experience doing so is an indsiputable must, and is also very necessary to be able to carefully judge the temperament of a candidate. -
'''Neutral''' after reading his answer to Q.3 and noticing that the no. of his contribs to user_talk space is less than 50, most of them being either welcome messages or test-warning messages. --
'''Neutral''' per original vote and followup comment.
'''Neutral'''- I saw [[User:Jareth|Jareth]]’s comments on [[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]]’s talk page where I had gone to  post a message. I moved on to learn more about Jareth, and  I found him really fine, and he has all the potentials to become a good administrator very soon. --
'''Neutral''' Too low in talk edits --
'''MODERATE HETEROSEXUAL SUPPORT!''' Oh meh gedz, I thought he was one!!1!!!
'''Support''' -- (
'''Support''' Of course :) <small>
'''FURRY ALIEN SUPPORT''' no prob.
'''Strong sopport''' &mdash; Im gonna use the banal cliché here: Thought he was already one! :-)</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' Great guy and he often edit conflicts me doing reverts on RC Patrol. -
'''GOTHIC [[Type O Negative|TYPE O NEGATIVE]] SUPPORT''' I've seen this guy when i have been watching wikipedia for last few months. He seems good.
'''CRAZY WET OCTOPUS SUPPORT'''- After looking through his pages and contribs, while I am a little troubled by his edit summaries (or lack thereof), he is none the less a superb editor, who has done a crazy amount of work in the time he's been here. --
'''Support''' plenty of edits.--
'''Support'''. \-\3'5 50 1337! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support...Without Question'''
'''SLIGHT VANDALISTIC BANANA SUPPORT''' Definitely.  <font color="red">
'''DEAD ANGIOSERM  SUPPORT''' - couldn't help myself, sorry. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm supporting even though my minimum standards are that the user be on Wikipedia at least 6 months, becuase Jaxl is a deserving user of admin powers and a great contributor.
'''Support''', anyone this dedicated to RC patrol is worthy of support. I also can't resist a good bandwagon. :)
'''MY AUNTY BERYL TOLD ME TO SUPPORT'''. But what does she know - she has a pet ant.
'''Support''', that's a fair number of edits.
'''PLAIN OLD NORMAL SUPPORT'''.  --
'''Admin material.''' - '''
'''Support'''.  A bit new, but has shown remarkable dedication to RC patrol.
'''Bicameral support'''. Ensuring things get deleted is a good thing; since I sure as heck ain't doing it! - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support'''. Seems like a fine user.

'''Support'''. I am satisfied with his explanation on his alleged "deletionism". To be a deletionist, one must vote delete ''against'' the consensus more often than others do. Since 94% of the articles he voted to delete ended up being deleted, it means [[User:Jaxl|Jaxl]] has an excellent understanding of the general consensus and inclusion criteria. We need his help closing AfDs&mdash;give him the mop!
'''Support''' in protest at Dragon flight's oppose vote.
'''Support''' excellent work on the RC patrol. Yes!.
'''MUNoSMMS: Massive Underground Network Of Spies, Mimes, and Madmen Support''' &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I thought your response regarding AfD was very well thought out and sincere.  <b>>:</b>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I cannot find any serious arguements "agin" him. So I concur with my friends Nufy and Kirill. Besides, over 7600 edits in just over 3 months?! Damn!--
'''Support'''. Mop on! --
'''Support''' a lot of work done.  Rather short time but that'll right itself.  Good discussion on Afd.
'''Full Support'''.—[[User:Encephalon|<font color=000077>enceph</font>]][[User talk:Encephalon|<font color=666699>alon</font>]] 19:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC) ''NB''. Some comments on Jaxl's AfD voting patterns below—
'''Support''' brilliant editor, certainly a most trustworthy candidate for adminship. The honesty shown by this user's response to the AfD query is most telling. I am sure that he will make a fair and balanced admin, looking at his communication and editing style, and I certainly have no reservations lending my support. --
'''Support'''. Great to see him in action in the RC patrol.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. '''Neutral'''.  In the course of [[Wikipedia:AFD 100 days|100 days]], you voted on over 400 AFD's, casting keep votes less than 10% of the time.  I consider this level of interest in deletion and deletion processes to be unhealthy for an admin.  If you have an explanation for your unusual level of participation in AFD and voting patterns, I may reconsider.
'''Pre Nomination Support''' Good User --
'''Support''' As nominator. You stole my spot, I thought he had to accept before anyone could vote! '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Any editor of South African pages knows Jcw69
'''Support''' He's a polite and dedicated editor, who has contributed a staggering amount on South Africa.
'''Support''' per Impi.
'''Support'''. Another nomination where the vote here link does not work.
'''Support'''. In looking through your talk page, I see that the Wikipedia community thinks very highly of you.  So, if it's not too premature, welcome aboard. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''', sure. --

'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. As above.
'''Support''' --
-- (
'''Support'''. A good lad, he'll go far--
'''Support'''. A good and experienced editor &ndash; invaluable contributions, particularly in South Africa and related articles &ndash; not much work in the Wikipedia namespace yet, but given the challenge I've no doubt he'll rise to it. --
'''Support'''. It's about time. -
'''Support''' lots of excellent work.
'''Support''' to the guy in the green jersey with the 'bok on it.
'''Support:''' --
'''Support''' -- Great work so far, I only expect it to continue!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
<s>'''Support'''.
'''Very strong support'''.  A true Wikipedian who cares more about NPOV than about promoting his own views.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeschooling&diff=prev&oldid=22197457]
'''Support'''&mdash;I dont know, I just have a good feeling about you. You still need to work on your edit count in the Wikipedia namespace though; please promise me you'll do that. Things you could do include voting here regularly, and voting in [[AFD]]s etc. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - An infrequent admin is better than none at all. I trust you and you meet [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]]. --
More people who want to fight linkspam are always welcome. He needn't ever touch the deletion process for all I care. --
'''Support'''. I've seen plenty of evidence of good interaction and judgment. Also see [[User:Jdavidb/Linkspam]].
'''Suppoert'''
'''Support''' - I can trust you.--
'''Support'''.
Cool.
'''Support''' Obviously a good editor, and one that is committed to the idea of wikipedia, and has a life outside of it.  Who cares if you took a break?--
'''Support''' good and committed. deserves it if anyone does.--
'''Support''', you'll do.
'''Support''' - classic example of outstanding editing behaviour hiding behind the edit count and edit pattern. If you go through ''all'' of this user's edits and diffs (as I have done) you will find that this user is thoroughly conscientious, courteous, and consistent. Many of his contributions are mature, well thought out, and extensive. There are hardly any spelling mistakes; I consider this indicative of one who acts with care, deliberation, and precision. Although there are currently concerns that this user has not contributed to a variety of namespaces, I don't think this should necessarily be a concern here. Based on his edit history, I am confident that none of the administrative functions will be used by this user unless it is essential to the task at hand - whatever that might be. This user also seems to be very well adapted to resolving chronic, subtle problems on Wikipedia - those which take an exceptional amount of time and effort to see through to completion. Perhaps his interests at the moment are different from what I think of as a stereotypical "front line administrator" (one who deals primarily with RC patrol on a daily basis, for example) but sometimes I think we require a diversity of administrative and interpersonal skills on Wikipedia, and so I feel he would be a good fit to the community in this regard. --
Definitely '''support'''.
'''Support''' - seems solid -
'''Support''' per Michael Snow and HappyCamper.

Good edits, good community skills; will make good admin. '''S'''upport.
'''Support'''. Kudos for starting a discussion on your page about link spam and what we need to do about it. Hopefully admin privileges will allow you to drive this more. --
'''Support'''. X factor.—
'''Support'''. Excellent editor. --
'''Neutral''', I think you are a good contributor, but the lack of edits to the wikipedia namespace worries me. Non-admins can and should participate in AfD, RfA, and other community votes. Until someone changes my mind, I'm neutral. -
'''Neutral''': I'm really struggling with this one. As the graph shows, with the exception of just a few days, there was a huge gap of absence from Wikipedia from September of 2004 to July of 2005. Why the huge gap? Bigger concern: less than 8% of edits are in outside of Article/User namespaces. That's rather low; I'm concerned about the experience level of the user in admin appropriate areas. Use of edit summaries is strong at 92%. Average # of edits per day over the period since returning is reasonable (8.6 all days, 12.09 for days when editing). I'd like to see this nominee spend more time in admin appropriate areas. If this is addressed, I'd very happily support candidacy at a later date. --
'''Neutral'''. Ive never heard of this user.
'''Support''' - looks like just the sort of Admin we need :). Plus, I always like people who use the word "Aforementioned". --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. What would the world be without [[Roger Wilco (Space Quest)|janitors]]? And I always like the word [[International Talk Like a Pirate Day|ahoy]].
'''Spoopport'''!
'''Looks good'''. --
'''Support''' Fine editor in my experience.
'''Support''' A little bit of "vandal-crushing" is fine; "process-crushing" would not be, but I'm happy with nominee's response and record.
'''Support''' Good Editor --

'''Support''' but why would you want to put vandals heads on fish? [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)<br><p>Because nothing says "stay away" like rotting mackeral.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''

'''Support''', user will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. I don't really know this editor, but he seems trustworthy, and letting him delete speedies instead of tagging them will make my life easier. -
'''Support''', finally someone I feel as though is ready.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. (see comments below.) --
'''Support''', 250%. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' I notice that this editor does a fine job with [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes patrol]] and I think giving him admin powers would be a huge plus for wikipedia.
'''Support''' seems sound.
'''Support''' vandal-whackers. I even had to revert vandalism on this RFA (check the history), which is a good sign.
'''Support''', takes vandalism seriously.
'''Support'''.
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' Huge amount of anti-vandalism work
'''Support''' and thanks for all the fish.
'''Support''' the aforementioned fine editor.
'''Support''' Good anti-vandalism work, tools would be helpful in that.
'''Support'''. --
'''Shazaam!''' Adminify! -[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' happily.
Sure.
'''Definitely'''. --
Looks good to me: '''Support'''
We need RC <s>cola</s>, patrol work! Keep it up!--
'''Support'''. I have great admiration for dilligent janitors on RC Patrol.
'''Support'''. Looks good, JeremyA. You seem like a clear-headed and responsible editor, and I like what I'm seeing with the RC patrol. You have made more than your share of substantial new articles, and I think that we need people who are both article-writers as well as janitors. Unless I've overlooked something major, your record looks clean, and I have no second thoughts about giving you my support. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. Good history reverting vandalism.
Looks a good user, and would make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.-
Absolutely. Like Joy, I'm quite impressed by Jeremy's vandal-fighting kung fu. --
Of course. Joyous has a good taste for admins ;-).
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - RC patrol 4 lyfe. --
'''Support'''. Someone should design an RC Patrol insignia, or perhaps even a uniform. --
'''Support 100%''' I've always stated that a person with the makings of a great administrator should have a balance between working behind the scenes doing chores and contributing written articles.  JeremyA has proven that he is an asset to the Wiki project and therefore, can be trusted with admin powers.
'''Support''' Awesome RC patrolling. Awesome.
'''Support'''.  Very impressive RC patrolling.  Great admin material. --
'''Support'''. Good edit history.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. No doubt.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''; everything I have seen is good.  I bump into him on RC patrol a lot; give the man the keys to the mop room.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as nominator, of course.
'''Support''' Mindspillage nominated him, so I support per IRC cabal. --
'''Support''' --<small>
'''Support.''' Much maintenance work; easy to get along with.
'''Support''', does good work.-

--
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, he helped wlecome me into the project. -
'''Support''',
TINC.
'''Support''', a good candidate.
'''Support''', absolutely. A fine candidate. &mdash;
Cool.
'''Support''', a wonderful editor.
'''Support'''&mdash; would make a good administrator. ''' ''
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. Good luck! --
'''Support''' Give him the mop!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. Backlog work is tedious but necessary &ndash; thank you. <font color="green">
'''Support''', as per the nominator.
'''Support''' the juggling janitor.
'''A copyright violation hunter?! Support, before he gets away!''' [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''; everything looks good to me!

What they said.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.—
'''Support''', seems to have a genuine interest in undertaking one of the most time consuming admin tasks.--
'''Support''', what else is left to say? --
'''Support''', thanks for the help too.
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support''' but only if you promise to teach me how to juggle. <b><font color=228B22>
'''Support'''. Good candidate.
Acetic Acid, well, I don't know where you live, so I can't teach you in person ;-), but [http://www.jugglingdb.com/articles/index.php?id=22 how 'bout this link]? If you use it, let me know.
Dmcdevit, I'm going to change my sig to [[User:JesseW|Jesse W, the juggling janitor]], as soon as this vote is over.  Thanks. :-) (And, re Linuxbeak - it's not the violations that I hunt, it's the backlogs - I just want to get WP:CP down to a level where I can fill it up again with new ones from Articles_needing_wikifying.  Sigh.  We really should change the {{tl|wikify}} message to say, in big letters - Use The Google Test to Check For Copyvios.
<s>'''Support''' Seems like a level headed fellow --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 06:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)</s> Oops! --
How could I nominate and not support. --
Cool.
Support.
I'd give 'eem sum o' me rum 'ere if'n I 'adn't already drank'n all o' it.  *Burp*  Yarrr.  --
'''Support''' Looks good. I trust Jinian not to abuse admin powers.--

'''support'''.
Not evil, may be trusted with the immense admin powers. --
'''Support'''. User and talk pages show us an editor who communicates well and works well with others.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. Currently this candidate is not active enough doing janitorial tasks such as VfD, TfD, CfD, etc. These janitorial tasks are an essential part at being an admin.
<strike>I am not sure that you have done enough edits in the Wikipedia namespace.</strike>
'''Strong support''', very prolific editor on Finland-related articles (and others as well). [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=JIP&dbname=enwiki Over 6,500 edits], of which more than 2,000 to the Wikipedia namespace. I've dealt with this user quite a lot, but I was still sure that he already was an admin... oh well. :) -
[[Image:Smily.jpg]]
'''Extreme [[WP:CABAL|Cabalistic]] Support'''; possibly one of the first votes where I can honestly say, "I thought you were one".  <font color="red">
'''Support'''. Anybody who was a schoolmate of [[Janne Wirman]] receives inconditional support from me. He also seems to be a fair editor, though. --
--
<small>
Thought you were one.  --
'''Support'''.  A good editor whom I see all over Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. Great editor; meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support''' YEP <small>
'''Support'''
'''Strong support''' as the first person I've mistaken for an admin. ~~ '''
<small>
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''. I've disagreed with JIP before. However it would make me a useless POV cluttered editor if I voted him down for that. As long as he didn't lose his cool, he's good for the wikipedia. Its about the pedia, not about me raising an army of admins who think the same way I do ;) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

"Support" Good contributor... enough to make up for those silly edits on [[Battle of Alesia]] (see below).
'''Support'''. A really good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' cannot resist<p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've been impressed those actions of his that I've seen  around the site.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support'''. -
'''Support!''' I'd have gotten here earlier if I know such a fine crop would spring up today! --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' What, you're not? Quick, pass the m&b.
'''Support'''. JIP must promise that the answers to the question below about uncertainty over deletion guidelines will be replaced by "I'll read the relevant documents before I dive in, and will watch some experienced admins do it too". -

'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' without a moment's hesitation.

'''Support''' Jitse has been doing great service.
'''Support'''. [[Talk:Srebrenica massacre]] conviced me. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' yeah -

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
Impressive. --
'''Support''' .  Good contributor.
'''Support'''. Hope other admins can learn from him in helping resolve disputes in controversial articles.
Your candidacy is recognized and '''supported'''. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
<small>
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Support''', certainly; excellent editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Very impressive. --
'''Support''' Muy bien.
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' though one must be wary of mathematicians, for they think too much! Um, yes. :)
'''Support''' --[[Image:Smily.jpg]]
'''Support''' - seems to have it all together.
'''Support''' I like his responses and I have seen this user around --
'''Support''', as nominator.
'''Support''' good user from what I've seen and three month experience is no problem with me.  Admin is no big deal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. In my experience, this editor is reasonable and thoughtful, and respectful of consensus.  Trustworthy.
'''Support''' Support per Xoloz - he has high standards. -
'''Support''' Makes helpful remarks. Good luck!
'''Strong Support'''. Im not even gonna say "I thought he was one", its too banal... Oh, I just said it.lol. Seriously, I think that Jkelly is a great Wikipedian. I also want to say thank you for giving me the feedback on the [[Celine Dion]] peer review. Good luck in your RFA!
No problems here.--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' sounds to good to be true :-D
'''Support''' per above, good user. -

'''Support''' JKelly would make a great Wikipedia administrator He's excellent at conflict resolution, staying cool when the editing gets hot, and, in three months, he has attained a better grasp on the principles and policies of Wikipedia than people who have been here threee times as long have. --
'''Support''' - I feel that Jkelly will make a fine admin. Cheers --
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support''', looks like an excellent candidate for adminship. --
Wait ... he's only been here three months?  "Thought he was one".  '''Support''',
'''Support''' appears to be a strong contributor.
'''Support''' gets involved in the fiddly areas of wikimaintenance.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
-- (
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' - you mean I haven't voted already? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Fine contributions. Solid top to bottom and no attitude issues raised.
'''Support'''. Good user.
<nowiki>{{subst:User:Titoxd/RfaClicheNo1}}</nowiki>
'''Support'''.  Will make a very good admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' seems fine.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, no reason to think admin tools will be abused.
'''Support''', absolutely &mdash; hard to believe he's only been here three months...--
I thought I aleady voted!
'''Support'''—
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Should make a fine administrator. --
'''Support''' - good editor.
'''Support''' Asset to wikipedia and despite name similarity he doesn't [[R_Kelly#Alleged_Sexual_Indiscretions|urinate on 14 year olds]].
'''Support''' The edit contributions are a testament to the value of this person here at Wikipedia. Admin status is an excellent idea in this case. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Looks like a wash.
'''Support'''.
Well, we need one oppose vote. '''Nothing personal''' but I like to see about a years worth of activity.
--


'''Definite support'''.  Agree with [[User_talk:Jni#Adminship|Fvw's comment]].
--


Support. --
Support.
Support, for the reasons fvw gives. --
Support.  Would like to see more Talk page interaction; however, has been here a long time and does a lot of vandalism control. ----
'''Support'''.
Cannot oppose user opposed by Dr Zen. No, seriously, I've seen jni do great work on RC, and can we please stop with these trollish pseudo-votes and actually judge the people being nominated here on their own merit? --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
Support. I second fvw's comments, and add to it that I like the broad scope of Jni's edits. One TLA supported!
Support. I like the old 1911 Brit also.
-
--
Support; fine editor, likely to be a fine admin.

Support --
'''Support'''.  Somebody grab another copy of the keys to the Wiki-closet, please. -


Cannot support user endorsed by this editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''' it's about time.
'''Support''' very helpful guy.
'''Support'''. Would make a great admin. --
'''Support''', he is hardly going to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''. Thanks/
'''Support''' with cliche in hand.
'''Support'''. A good contributor.--
'''Support''' Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' with pleasure.
...Must....resist...cliché... '''Support'''. <font color="darkred">
--
'''Support''' Good editor --
<b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support'''. He has made quite a variety of contributions to the project, and his assistance at the Help Desk demonstrates his knowledge of Wikipedia. The minor edits thing is forgiveable; he now understands how to use them I'm sure. A nice guy in person too.
'''Support'''.  Radiant's comment below does concern me a little, but it also shows that Jnothman learns from mistakes. A dedicated wikipedia - should be a fine admin.
'''Support''' has been making a fine contribution through help and I'm sure would make a fine admin either now or in the future.
'''Support''' per all the above. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' contributions appear solid--

'''By all means support'''.
'''Support''' no brainer.
'''Support''', appears a good and reliable editor.
'''Support''' Valuable contributor, helpful guy. &#126;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Someone who just rolls up his sleeves and gets on with it, and in my limited experience well-suited to admin duties. --
'''Support''' Solid contributor who will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support'''. Looks fine. --
'''Support'''. Has been nothing short of wonderfully supportive and helpful (not to mention the only one to help me) with [[User:Sputnikcccp/Hebrew_Alphabet|my project]] on categorizing the Hebrew alphabet. Deserves to be an admin and I'm sure will make a great one.
'''Support'''. will make a splendid admin, I agree.
'''Super Hyper Magnificent Extreme Superlative Supportingness!'''.  Agreeing with Nightstallion that RfA is not an endorsement of a user's supposèd flawlessness.  I'd rather have admins who can admit they've made a mistake and be willing to improve, as jnothman's response to Radiant!'s objection indicates he is, than have admins who are incapable of accepting and incorporating honest constructive criticism into their MO.  Given jnothman's response, I think he fits in well with my view of a perfect candidate:  not the personification of perfection, but the personification of a desire to keep working ''toward'' perfection.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''S'''upport.
'''Support'''. He convinced me that the afd helper wasn't such a Bad Thing After All. Insert mopthrower here.
'''Support''' (even though he's Jewish '''and''' a Sydneysider--shock, horror!)
'''Support''' - as long as you continue using the ''minor edits'' tag wisely. <font color="00CD00">
'''Support''' - seems a good, honest user, and I have bumped into him a few times in vandal fighting revert clashes.
'''Support''' - good contributor; will learn the admin ropes quickly... and write lots of user scripts to help with admin chores :)
'''Support''' solid contributions.
'''Support'''.  You're a nice guy who helps at the help desk.  Help with my [[rapping]] article please, hehe!  Grats on admin now!--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', has the right attitude and experience for the job.  Minoreditcountitis is a non-issue.
'''Support''' - need ''more'' Jewish Admins. --
'''Support'''Hes a truely active member <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''', has made only a few dozen non-minor edits to Wikispace or Wikipedia_Talk.
'''Oppose.''' [[User:Jnothman|Jnothman]] supports the actions of known trolls and abusive users, and does not attend to edit summaries and Talk pages prior to taking action.
'''Extreme Mexican Nominator Support'''!
'''Extreme Speedy Support''' Excellent User --
'''Very strong support''', 300% [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme-beat-the-nominee-to-her-own-nomination support''' '''—
'''Extra☺rdinary IRC anti-vandalism supp☻rt!!!''' → [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Strong Support!!!''' Always been level-headed, fair, smart, quick, would make a GREAT admin!!! --
'''Extreme "sorry for being late" support''' - amazing vandalwhacker and Wikipedian. Needs the powers and would use them to great effect. Go JoanneB! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' See above, not much more to add --
'''Support'''. Absolutely one of the most dedicated RC patrollers I have ever seen.
'''Support''' as above.
'''Support''', if nothing else it will stop me having to block for her. Actually, this is not just another one of the CVU RCP's wanting admin - JoanneB has being doing ''far'' more than that - she's done all sorts of thankless grunt work since she arrived, with a high degree of civility and competency.
'''Support''' obviously.

'''Strong Support''' This user is fair helpful and will make a very good admin. --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC;">
'''Damn-it-I-had-exams Support''', I was going to wait a bit longer, but I think she's ready for it. Very level headed, will make an excellent admin, '''plus''' her email is set and she's often on IRC.
'''Support''' Professional, smart, thoughtful and kind, she consistently writes good edit summaries. -
'''Support'''. Based upon her valuable contributions, this user will certainly be a good Admin. --
'''Strong Support'''.  I see her on RC patrol all the time.
'''Support'''
Already preforms admin tasks. He marked hundered pages with cvio and nonsense templates and those got deleted as a result. If he had the power to go ahead and deleted them it would save other wikipedia admins great time, also I am well aware of the level of vandal reverting this user does. --
'''Orange Furry Alien Support''' Hell yeah. Make with the mop guys.
'''Support''' More polite vandal-fighters.
'''Support''', does much work in wikipedia. --
'''Support''' we need more admins like this user.
'''Support''' Very good, very proactive editor. Other users thinking about admin-ship would do well to look at the type of work [[User:JoanneB|JoanneB]] does.
'''Support''' We need more good admins like her.  --
<s>'''Oppose''', needs more cowbell</s> '''Strong SUPPORT!''' of course! Welcome!
'''[[User:Acetic Acid|Acetic Acid]] expects that every man do his duty and vote for this fabulous candidate.''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support'''- always seems to be vandal-fighting (and doing it well), painful without the buttons. Has also been helpful in CVU IRC.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. No questions asked.
'''Support'''. Believe she will use the admin options with wisdom and restraint. -
'''Support''' because I missed this last night and I just got up.
'''Unprecedented level of support.''' Is there any way we can bypass the seven days on this one?
'''Extreme-how-can-this-many-people-have-beaten-me-to-voting support!''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Joanne, nice name. I wonder how you look like... -
'''Support'''.  Despite the length, the user has shown a level of dedication to Wiki that I wish I could emulate. LOL. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Great user. -
'''Support'''. User very active and needs more tools.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I'm surprised that this user isn't an admin. --
'''Extreme I-See-What-You-Did-There Support'''  --
'''Support'''. Is the voting process even necessary? &mdash; <small>
'''Extreme "I was supposed to nominate her!" support!''' I've been waiting for weeks for JoanneB to be nominated for adminship. She's been ready for it for at least a month. Give her ''AdministrativePower®'', and quickly!
'''Support''', of course. --
'''Support''', RC soldier. --
'''Bovine Support''', An excellent vandalism fighter.
'''Suppport''' - We need more female admins to push my agenda...err...oops...TINC.... Seriously though, vandal fighters are exactly the type of admins we need. Editors don't need admin privileges as much as people who work behind the scenes do. And lets not forget that this project wouldn't work if it wasn't for all of us. Even the trolls and vandals are useful. (they keep us on our toes and give us something to laugh about later) --
'''Support!''' A top-notch vandal-fighter. I love her use of edit-summaries; her style should become our new standard!
Of course! -- (
'''Strong Support'''. Seen this user around.
'''Support'''. A true force in RC patrol.

'''Extreme "damnit I wanted to nominate her" support!'''  Excellent user, excellent vandalfighter, excellent ... um ... edit summariser?  Uh.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. Wow.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. An excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support'''.
'''Strongest support'''. Joanne is not only one of the nicest editors around, but she is proficienty on WP policy and active in may aspects of the community. Well deserving of mop and bucket. Give her the key to the janitor;s cupboard!
'''Support'''. Already doing good admin work, now just needs the tools.
'''Support''', as one of the nicest Wikipedians I've met.
'''Support''' a nice person and a nice RC patroller. (And I echo the praise of your edit summaries!)
'''Support'''. Whats the record on total support votes anyway? --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Extraneous, blatant, unneeded Support''' But sincere--
'''Off-the-wall, foaming-at-the-mouth, please-calm-down-Babajobu support''', because Joanne is the most dedicated vandal fighter I've ever met and a generally wonderful person to boot.
'''Strong-but-irrelevant-at-this-point Support'''.
'''Absolutely no doubt in my mind.''' --
'''Support'''.  Actually thought she was an admin already. :/ --
'''Support'''. By all means deserving.
'''Support'''; a great RC patroller, and good person.  Would have nominated myself.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' lets push for another support record. &nbsp;
'''support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Per all of the above, and per comments on vote num. 71.
'''Support.'''
'''Support per above.
'''Support.'''
'''Neutral'''. Absolutely amazing worker. If anything her only drawback is that she has only been editing for 3 months.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' AGREED.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
''' Support'''--

'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''. Agree with all that Shanes said. Joe is helpful to newcomers, reasonable with solving problems, and dedicated to improving this project. He would make a fine administrator.
Yup. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' - sufficient experience, and seems sensible enough.
'''Support''' pass him a mop! --
'''Support''' Has done some good work with templates and is open-minded to the suggestions of others.
<small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''. Based on his contributions, seems fair and impartial with a good knowledge of process. It will be a great boost to have a competent admin who deals with pornography articles.
'''Support''' if no objections are raised other than newness and edit counts (and the topics he chooses to edit). &mdash;
'''Go for it'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose''' - far too new, infrequent edits.  Almost all of his edits are pornography related [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Joe+Beaudoin+Jr.&site=en.wikipedia.org].
'''weak Oppose''' I'd like at least 2,000 edits.

'''Support''' - I've always trusted the nominator. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' - Great guy. [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
-- (
'''Strong support''' - nice and works hard. --
'''Strong support''' - All interactions have been positive.  Great vandalism whacker and faithful shows Wikipedians the [[WP:CCW|Way of the Almighty Jimbo]]. --
'''Strong support''', I trust the nominator, and I support vandal-whackers.
'''Strong support'''. Great editor and overall a really nice guy. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', confident that he will not abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', four months is plenty :-)
'''Support''' four months are more than enough --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per silly oppose vote. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' your local vandal-whacker!
'''Support'''. "four months is not long enough". Why dont we just make a policy that says we need atleast 2 years experience!
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' Great vandal figher, 4 months is plenty. -
'''Support''' per freestylefrappe's oppose.  Just kidding.  Solid record, seems like good match. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I'm wary of this being Yet Another CVU-inspired RfA, but Johann looks like a top bloke, so why not, eh?  Journalist: ideally we'd want 2 years experience, 15k edits, at least one edit war over whether or not George Bush became a Muslim, and a signed note from the user's mum promising that, as far as she's aware, he's never kicked puppies.
'''Support''', four months is plenty enough in my books. I have seen some users with half the time on Wikipedia who would be ready for ''AdministrativePower®'' almost straight away.
'''Support''', I've seen enough to trust this editor will use admin tools wisely. --

'''Support''' would be a great admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''  Enthusiastic and shows initiative.  <font color="#00bfff">
'''Support''' --
''' Support''' Need more people to fight the invading hordes of vandals.--
'''Support''' glad to have you!
'''support'''
'''Support'''. No Big Deal. --
'''Shy cute lesbian support'''... The only reason I can see ''not'' to is the lack of AfD participation, but I have no reason to believe that Johann will misuse his powers in that regard.
'''Support'''. Appears to have done plenty of good work. I don't find the opposition convincing.
'''Support'''. If you succeed then read carefully up on policies before applying admin options. And if you don't succeed then come back in a couple of months 'cause we need more admins and I think you'd do fine :) -
'''Support'''. Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
Thought-I-had-already-voted-'''support'''. --

Great user. Support with extreme prejudice. '''
Weak '''Oppose''' four months is not long enough.
'''Oppose''' just not been here long enough, your on the right track though, support if there is a next time. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' Time is too short, and even after multiple edits to your questions, they are still not formatted correctly. Reinforces the shortness: you need to learn better editing skills first.
'''Weak Oppose'''. Although you have 3000-odd edits, it seems that you're still badly inexperienced policy-wise.  As far as I can tell (by looking at your edits manually) most of your talk pg edits are welcoming other users (not a bad thing, but something that inflates the edit count without actually giving you a lot of experience interacting with others).  You don't seem to have contributed to AfD discussions at all, and from the tone of your answer to question 1, you don't seem to realize that lots of non-admins can contribute to AfD (and even close consensus '''keep'''s after 5 days).  Your difficulty formatting your answers implies to me that you simply don't have enough policy understanding to be an effective admin.  Your answer to question 3 especially makes me wonder (would you go running to a mediator to solve problems?).  This is nothing against you, as you seem like a good contributer, but I haven't seen your judgement in action enough to know that you'd be a good admin.--
'''Oppose''', still too soon. --
'''Oppose'''. My oppose vote is '''not''' related to time issues, as I have seen editors with less time on WP, with an excellent grasp of policy. My concern is one of maturity. From what I have seen, this editor as good potential but needs more time in which by participating in the wikipedia namespace, he can develop a better sense of the project.
'''Oppose''' I only found about 10 edits in the last 1000 that weren't either a revert, a welcome message or related to RFA.  Needs a lot more experience of other facets of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' per Scimitar and time concerns.  "Better safe than sorry" vote, and I'll be happy to support after there is more of a record.
'''Oppose''' While the number of edits in so short a time is spectacular, what concerns me is the answer to the third question.  In my honest opinion, until you've actually been "tested in the fires" of Wikipedia, be it through even a mild conflict with an editor, we have no real way of knowing how you may or may not handle it.  (It's really more a lack-of-experience thing than anything else, sorry)  As other Opposes have said, once you get a bit more experience under your belt, I'll be more than happy to support! Best of luck! --
'''Weak Oppose''' per Scimitar.  Editor appears to be well meaning, but I have reservations about his current level of experience.  --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience, needs more time.
'''Oppose''' per Scimitar and others. --
'''Weak oppose''' I'll commend you on your good work welcoming ppl, but your experience in wikipedia is a bit limited. Spend a month or so visiting other parts of wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Directory]]) for a guide of places to go) and you'll be a shoo-in :)
'''Neutral''' Use the preview button more, it took you like 7 edits to answer the questions.
'''Neutral'''. He is not ready yet (only four months in Wikipedia).
'''Supersize support''' as nominator! <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Shauri's description of the candidate and her trust seal it for me.--
'''Strongly Support'''.  Personal interaction with Johntex and dozen of common watchlist pages that I see him make great edits to daily make me proud to support his bid for adminship! -
'''Support''' without reservations!  Beat me to it. &middot;
'''Support''', I definately trust the nominator wouldn't nominate anyone undeserving, and the person seems deserving according to what I've seen.
'''Support''', good egg.
'''Support'''
Yes.  He has enough experience to get the dustbuster.  '''Supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Hook 'em'''. Thoughtful, well rounded user. [[User:Johntex/Talk01#A_message_to_selected_people_is_not_spam|This]] in particular really impressed me, and is the final reason I choose to support.

'''Support'''.
'''Sure''' <small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' after looking through his contributions. Now I'm off to spam RN about the MC... [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong support''' based on his response to my query below.
'''Support''' I see nothing but good things from/about this guy. Besides, he has an edit count not even Durin can take issue with:>--
'''Support''' <em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
-- (
'''Support''' Have seen him around, always good edits. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I trust the nominator. The editor's good too :).
'''Support'''. Never met him but has votes from a lot of people I respect, including the nominator.
'''Support''', per Evilphoenix.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I think this user would be a great addition to the cabal... &nbsp;
'''Support''' seems civil, reasonable and willing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' An excellent editor. -
'''Support''' Extremely worthy candidate.
'''Support'''
--
'''Oppose''' - This editor has engaged in [[WP:POINT]] disruption in the past (for example, VfD'ing pages in retaliation for editing disputes on other articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Patrick_%28radio_host%29&diff=14302805&oldid=14302335]). He's currently a party to a merged arbitration case involving myself and several other editors that I initiated in late August against another user. This is notworthy because JohnTex joined the arbitration with a countercomplaint against me last month regarding a dispute we had in late May on the [[Houston Chronicle]] article. I had not encountered JohnTex anywhere else on Wikipedia between May and September when he joined the RfAr, nor did he participate any further in the Houston Chronicle article or its subsequent mediation attempts. Thus, I consider it fair to question the timing and motive of his involvement in the RfAr given that he was apparently trying to resurrect an old dispute that he had not even participated in for over three months with an editor he had not even encountered for that same period of time.
<s>'''Neutral''' Not strong opposition, and willing to change to support, but I'd like an explanation regarding you're interaction with [[User:Achilles|Achilles]] and the purported spammming. Normally I wouldnt question this, but there appears to be come controversy.

Since I just offered to nominate him myself, I support strongly.  Great work on taxonomy and plants.  Good editor, pleasant person to deal with.
-
Strongly support. A very helpful wikipedian.
'''Support'''- seems like good [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|Give me a <font color = brown> note! ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''
'''Support''' communicates well with users, does janitorial chores and is a great contributor--
'''Support''' JoJan is a natural choice for an adminship.  He is an ever-constant support to new users, like myself for whom I would have had a much more diffficult time adjusting to Wikipedia from Academy.  JoJan's advice is excellent, honest, to the point, always guiding the  new user to better climb that learning curve on Wikipedia.  As well, JoJan's advice on what a Wikipedia article should be has been a constant beacon of style, formate, structure, etc.  He guides patiently the new user to the right outcome.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  I've recently put one of JoJan's picture contributions up for [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Daisy1web|FP]]. He seems to be a very good, all round contributor. --

'''Support''', Definitely!  Over 8,000 edits with significant article content and image contributions, a prolific and collaborative editor. --
'''Support''': Respectful, collaborative/consensual and extensive contributor who would use his Adminship powers for the betterment of Wikipedia.--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
--

'''Support''': Hardworking, knowledgeable and co-operative contributor
'''Support'''. Sure. -
'''Support'''. Has by gentile persuasion introduced us to new places. Any editor who can do that to my "made-up-mind" has a special talent and deserves to be an Admin. And, we're not easy to "pull along".
'''Support''' - since I nominated, after all. ;-) --
'''Support'''. Jondel has a history of good edits and knowledge of Wikipedia procedures. He's also shown a courteous manner with other users (yes, I am sufficiently confident in this user to vote before reading his answers). --
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''. I'm a little worried about the lack of edit summaries, and am also concerned that their may be a tendency to overuse speedy deletion ([[Alan M. Hantman]] was tagged, for example), but the good ''far'' outways the bad.  Thus I support. --
'''Definitely.'''
'''Sure''' --
'''Support'''; he's been around for a while, does good work, and stays peaceful.  Excellent candidate.
'''Support''', even though the [[child prodigy]] troll sides with him :p Good editor.
'''Cool'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' Better he than me. Hehehe.
'''Support''', shows good characteristics and is worthy of sysop powers. I pesonally enjoyed the acceptance speech, but that might be just me. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I'd like him to start using edit summaries, but other than that I like him quite well.  Plus, he's edited a bunch of articles about the Philippines, and it's nice on such a big site with so many topics to have editors who are willing to lend a lot of knowledge in specific areas. --
'''Support'''. Seen him in action, and liked what I saw. --

'''Support'''. I have no qualms over it.
'''Support''' as a non-vandal.  He also just seems so very pleasant.  It's like a bit of warm sunshine, pooling on the floor on a spring day, with the scent of lilacs floating in the window on a gentle breeze.
'''Support'''. Excellent hard-working editor. Hooray for Jondel. :)
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. A level headed editor.
'''Strong support''' this is one of those "isn't s/he one already?" nominations... I seem to see the name pop up on vandal patrol a lot.
'''Support'''. Pretty good guy, reverts vandalism, but also believes in fun. (Jondel plays in the sandbox regularly with DrZoidberg and Fonzie Fan, but doesn't harm the sandbox) &mdash;
'''Support''', Hell, this guy should make a geat administrator
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Edits indicate no reason for concern.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. No reason he shouldn't have the sacred mop. --
'''Support'''. My bologna has a first name, it's O-S-C-A-R. My bologna has a second name its M-A-Y-E-R Oh I like to eat it every day and if you ask me why I'll say... Cause Oscar Mayer has a way with B-O-L-O-G-N-A. Why did I say that? I didn't want to mimic someone else's comment and I didn't want to be commentless.

'''Support'''
--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' He's not an admin already? &mdash;
'''Support''' make it so.
I give Joolz my full support.
'''Support''' -- <small>
'''Support'''. Just take a look through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joolz his contributions] - it's quite obvious that he will do a great job of administrating Wikipedia with all this work and experience. &mdash;
'''Support''', I think Stevey has said it all already.
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support''',
'''Support''' FOR GREAT JUSTICE! (I've seen some of his edits on RC patrol and they are quite good) <small>
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
'''Support''': Solid contributor, reasonable dispute resolution, nice distribution of edits. I'd be surprised if someone votes Oppose barring any revelations of behavior misconduct. --
'''Support''' '''''THEY SET UP US THE POV''''' --<font color=red>
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Seems like a responsible user.
'''Support''', seems deserving of sysop rights. --
--
<small>
'''Support'''. Another reasonable person who can be trusted to do the job well.
'''Super strong support ''on wheels!''''' I had planned to nominate him myself a few weeks ago. Joolz will make a fine admin. &mdash;
'''''Yup'''''
'''For sure'''.
'''Of course'''.
'''Support''' Solid contributor. Surprised that this user was not one already.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
You supported me, I'll '''support''' you. ~~ '''
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''. Warren Harding approves of this user. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''.
Good man.—
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''. I haven't had much interaction with Joolz, but recently he was remarkably insightful, not to mention friendly. He'll make a fine admin. I'd caution slightly that the best decisions are made in the full flux of on-wiki discussions, rather than on IRC, but as an admin on Commons I'm sure he already knows that. -
'''Support''' no prob with this one.
'''Support''', with a broom, strongly. --

'''Support'''. It doesn't hurt to give the sysop flag to domain experts, and four years meets my time standard ;-)
This has got to be a joke - he's been here four whole years and still isn't an admin!  What?  We'll have to do something about that, won't we!  '''Strongly''' support.
'''Support''', a good user. Although he should remember to archive his talk page and not blank it.
'''Support''', Excellent work on taxonomy.
'''Support'''
An overdue nomination for a fine editor. '''Support'''.
Faaaaabulous. --
Vote moved to support.
As said above, he probably shouldn't blank his talk page, but that aside he's been around for ages and knows what he's doing, so I support without hesitation. —
Sure. --
Good microbiology work, understands the system.
Yes.

I only vote about people I know, and I know enough about Mr Grosse to be impressed.
'''Support''' This user has great judgement.
'''Strong Support''' I wish I had known you wanted to run. I would have nominated you. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support!'''  I thought he was promoted last month... Let's give this great editor the mop now!
'''Strong support''' - No question. I'm glad to have him on my list of "Wikipedians I hold in high regard"!!! --
'''Yes, definitely.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I guess. But you owe me a coke. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Could have sworn you made it last time.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
'''Support'''. Journalist has done excellent work since his last RfA. I've nothing left to do except support him.
'''Support''', I see him all the time at RfA and AfD working to make wikipedia a better place. -
'''Support''', I think he has shown himself to be trustworthy.
'''Support''' Normally see you around alot Good Editor --
'''Support''' Seen around a lot, no probs.
'''Support''', although I think your sig is a little on the garish side.
'''Support''', but '''please''' fix your sig. The linebreak it forces is intensely annoying as it disrupts the flow of any discussion it appears in. -
'''Support''', definitely admin material, but I also hate the space-wasting, garish signature.-
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I was one of the only four original supporters - so I'll support again since it seems you've only improved since last time. My only criticism is that the your wikipedia namespace edits are mostly limited to AfD... but then so are mine :) <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' ..
'''Support''' RfA is supposed to be "no big deal". The person should simply be shown to have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart and be able to work well with others. Journalist meets these criteria -- far surpasses them and then laps them and then helps them up once they have fallen down from exhaustion. There is no reason Journalist should not get it and scads of reasons to support.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''... I could have sworn you were already admin...
'''Support''' after reading your response to question number 4. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''
'''Support''' &mdash; He has vastly improved since his last RFA and I think he can be trusted with sysop power.
'''Extreme BDSM support!''' What, he's not one already?
'''Support''' Should be a good admin - always courteous and was responsive re his sig (which I also disliked).
'''Support''' I always see this user voting on stuff and making good comments. Will make a good adminstrator.--
'''Support''' oh my freaking jebus. How didnt i know you were running.
'''Strong support''' I thought this user was already an admin. Also I know what this user has done so I support.
'''Support''' My previous comment was...''Hi, Journalist. I noticed this nomination in your last edit of the Mariah Carey records page. I've got a question for you below....''And the question has been well answered, so I have to say support. --
'''Support'''After further veiws of your edits i must say they are quite beautiful so my vote is now to support you 100%
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate wholly deserving of adminship.—
'''Support''' - gotta support a J'can!
'''Support'''. Has demonstrated that he has the required experience.
'''Support''' - have always been impressed with this person's contribution.
'''Support''' for conscientious contributions.
'''<big>SUPPORT</big>, I had to support him - even though I said I was getting off the Wiki.
'''Support''', an active editor covering many "arenas". --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. One of the friendliest Wikipedians around.
'''Support'''. Yes, certainly --
'''Support'''. Needs more picturespace edits.
'''Support'''. But I liked the old signature better (at least the font). --
'''Support'''.  This person would make a fair administrator.
'''Support!'''  I'd also like to say I'm glad to see so many edits in the user talk namespace. -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support''' Surprised he wasn't already one.
'''Support.''' Of course! --
'''Support.''' Deserves the mop and the flamethrower.
'''Support with extra fries''' We need more admins like J. -
'''Support''' - extremely talented writer and editor.
<s>'''Neutral'''.</s>  Gah!  I really, really want to support, and would gladly do so with a few more WP namespace edits.  Come on, someone twist my arm a bit...  --

'''Support''' I thought he was one, he appears to be experienced and civil. --
Of course. No big deal. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' good, flexible and attentive editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' An excellent new sig, by the way.

'''Support'''.  Definitely!!  <b>>:</b>
'''Absolutely'''.
Excellent contributor; looks like he'll be up there on [[User:Zzyzx11/RFA nomination records|that nomination record page of mine]].
'''Support'''. Since this is such a close vote it may need my support to tip it over the edge. Hand Journalist a mop.
'''Piling on'''&mdash;I mean, '''support'''. <font color=green>
'''Support'''. I interacted little with him, but I liked what I read. --
'''Support'''. And they complain about my pretty question marks :) <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support'''. Piling on as well :) An excellent fellow, Journalist has made a wide range of quality contributions to Wikipedia, and has behaved with civility and respect to all concerned. I am certain that he will make a good administrator, and it is nothing short of a miracle that he is not already one. --

'''Support''', and it is with pleasure that, with my vote, yours is now the '''9th most supported RfA ever!''' Congrats, Journalist! [[Image:Smiley.png|14px]]
'''Support'''. Of course!
'''Support''' absolutely and without question.
'''Support''' Wow, great work on getting so many votes! It's almost like a cult (in a good way). I've not come across Journalist personally, but all you have to do is look at his contributions to realise it's an absolute must that he become an admin'!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Need I say more...--May the Force be with you!
'''support''' he is a good contributor
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!''' <small><small><small>Disclaimer: <small><small><small><small>This vote is not intended to be offensive. Additionally, this vote should not be used for controlling operations at a nuclear power plant, bank, airport, or hospital. You may not sue me in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey, for any damages this vote may cause you.</small></small></small></small></small></small></small> --
'''Oppose'''. Needs more WP namespace edits. --
'''Neutral''' this section looked a little bare :) Its not as if one more support really matters here :) &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  I'm the nominator.  [[Q.E.D.]], ∎, duh. --
'''Sure.'''

Diligent reversion of vandalism.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Keen and courteous. A fine combination. &mdash;
'''Support''' - does important work, and does it well. --

'''Support.'''
'''Support.'''
<big>'''Support'''</big>!
'''Support'''.
'''support.''' Give the man a rollback button!
Cool.

'''Support''' [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''; this one is obvious.  Look at all the incredible anti-vandalism work he's been doing already.
'''Support'''.  The right nominee, for the right reasons.  Give the man a mop.
'''Support''' - Ride 'em up, move it out - ROLLBACK! --
'''Support''' Would benefit with the rollback tool.
'''Support''' Does a good job of keeping Wikipedia clean.
'''Support'''. Record looks good.
'''Support''' a clear-and-present admin-in-waiting. -
'''Support'''. Savvy in catching POV language and working reasonably with other editors to remove or substantiate, and also seems to make effort to present content in a manner intended to ward off potential POV edit wars.  I noticed this on the [[AIDS]] article for example, but this style is evident on a broad spectrum of articles. --
'''Support''' - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''. Never heard of him, to my memory, but maitenance should always be rewarded. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' He notice a vandalism using an A-Team reference which makes him automatically cool. --
My only contact with Jredmond, as I recall, is a news article about Wikipedia in which we were both quoted, but from that impression alone (and the way he spoke about Wikipedia), it's clear we can trust him with "the keys to the custodian's closet", as [[User:Moink|moink]] would put it.
'''Support''' Has all the admin qualities. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Strongest possible support'''.  A true vandal slayer if ever there was one. -
'''Support''' Vandals quake at the sight of a mop, and will be put into good use!
'''Strong support'''. A no-brainer: Jredmond has been one of the most impressive vandal fighters around, and his responses to the questions below illustrate that he has a given the sort of thought towards sysop protocols that are my greatest concern in adminship votes. &ndash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' a bit late, but I'll add just one more vote, as if it was needed!
Absolutely.--
Mos def.

'''Support'''; good choice.
First time I felt I could judge someone's actions enough to vote. Level head, excellent adminny goodness.
If he accepts. &mdash;
Hey NO FAIR! Other folks managed to get in their support ahead of me!
'''Support'''-
I can think of few more deserving, assuming he wants it.
Yay!
Finally. ;-) --
'''Support''' before he escapes again ! --

'''Support'''.
Strongest possible support.
'''Strong support'''. Absolutely yes. One must be as a newbie to enter the cabal-kingdom of Wikip... er, I mean, JRM is trustworthy, diplomatic, perceptive, and has for a "perennial newbie" an awfully good idea of what Wikipedia's about.
naturally.
Very much so. &mdash;
of course
naturally
'''Support'''
'''Support''', of course.
About time!
'''Support''':  JRM is one of the most precise, educated, and careful of those who work to make Wikipedia a useful and reliable encyclopedia, instead of merely a social club.  (But remembering someone else's grudge only sustains it.)
'''Support'''.  You're trapped now.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Of course; he's a great editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support!''' --

'''Support'''. Excellent user.
Just Rocks Me.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Familiar name, reliable editor. &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Strongest possible support.'''  One of the ''really'' good ones who makes this site so much fun! -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - wow, both Bishonen and JRM up for adminship... glad I checked the admin page today :-)

'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.  It is a pleasure--and, to show the proper frame of mind, I must say, "Because the Queen insists."  :)  Do you remember the Duke and the Lady in the white dress in ''Le Roi de Coeur''?  ---

'''Strongly support.'''
'''Support'''. What more is there to say? --
'''Support'''. <nowiki>{{subst:thought-he-already-was-one}}</nowiki> --
<font color="FF0000"><big>'''YES!'''</big></font>
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Very Strong Support'''. For among other things, for attempting to add some sanity into the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Transclusion costs and benefits]] (and [[ Orange (word)]], of course).
'''Support''', a responsible editor, I thought he was already an admin-
Yes in oranges.
I'll support, even if he's too jumpy when someone gets off the A16 at 130!
'''Support'''. Fine admin material. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Easy decision.
'''Support'''. "$user isn't an admin already?" &ndash;
And a fine soul it is. '''Support'''. [[User:sj|sj]], I believe (signature added by
'''Support''' in the strongest possible terms. All the reasons why are already listed.
'''Support''' for being an "anti-authorist" and a "moderate eventualist". We need more [[User:JRM|JRMists]]. --
'''Support''' for all the reasons above.
'''Support''' Really, wonderful - I read your page twice: like you I also want to remain always like a new wiki. Wish you all the best, in advance, in your role.--
'''Support''', of course
'''Support'''. No question.--
'''Support'''. Surprised that JRM already isn't an admin. --
'''Support''' - As with Bishonen's nomination, through my own interactions and the opinion of others listed above me, I think JRM would make a good administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A quality user all round.
All your base will belong to us -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Whole heartely support''.

Sure. A little too soon after tha last self nom, but you're good overall.

'''Moo'''
'''Support''' I felt bad last time, when I opposed. You now have a little bit more experience, so I support you 100%. Good luck.
'''Support''' - seen him around a lot and have interacted with him. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support.''' And happy to do it. --
'''Support''', and without reservations now that he's been around longer. Actually, as someone who's gone and done things like blocking and deleting after he identified that they needed to be done (and I can't think of a false alarm), give him his own mop already. :-)
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. A fine vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. User is fighting vandalism (in my opinion to well as I can revert as fast as he can). Tagged along in #en.wikipedia.vandalism ;) --
'''Support'''. Seen him around in #wikipedia on Freenode a lot, an EXCELLENT vandal fighter
'''Sounds good'''.
For great encyclopedia.  --
'''Support'''. I supported a few weeks ago and I see no reason to change my mind now.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', for the same reasons as last time.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. Fine vandalhunter.
'''Support''' per same reasons last time :) --
'''Support''' as per last time.
'''Support''' without any kind of reservations.
'''Support'''. Oh yeah! -
'''Support'''.  Hand this dude the mop already.   &mdash;
'''Support''' Good user.  --<small>
'''Support''', I've seen good work, and as per Mindspillage.
'''Support'''. I've seen nothing but quality edits and enthusiastic vandal fighting.
'''Support'''. Absolutely. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Esoppo''' A great guy and would make an awesome vandal fighting admin.
'''Support'''. I think he knows why I'm supporting him ;)
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' I opposed last time as the user account was less than 2 months old, but another month of experience makes Jtkiefer a reasonable admin candidate.
'''Support''' - Full disclosure: Jtkiefer nominated me for my successful adminship candidacy. That said, I think his contributions certainly deserve a mop and bucket.
Cool.
'''Support'''. Thoughtful & conscientious in my experience.
'''Support'''. Jtkiefer is very friendly, helpful, and courteous at Wikipedia. He has many valuable article contributions and does a really good job being an active part of our online community. Support - of course! &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Keep fending off the vandals! -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support'''. Enough time and edits to have experience with janitorial tasks, for that is what adminship is all about.

'''Support''' He's always beating me to reverting vandalism.
'''Support''' <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - [[user:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]] don't allow it. Not enough edits to the main namespace for me and therefore not enough experience of actually writing an encyclopedia. Come back when you've got about 600+ articlespace edits and I'll gladly support. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Opppose''', I insist that you still do not have enough exeperience. Nevertheless, it seems that your nomination will pass this time. --
'''Oppose'''.  Three months is insufficient.
--

Great vandal fighter, but only ~900 combined edits in Article & Wikipedia namespaces, and only ~100 in Talk namespace.  Would probably support with more experience.  --
'''Neutral''' because of those 2600 edits, nearly 1500 have been to User or User Talk pages, and less than 500 have been to Wikipedia articles. Also, this is less than a month after he last self-nom, and the user has been here less than three months (by a little bit). For all that, a solid contributor and I don't want to oppose.--

'''Neutral'''. Too soon after the last self-nomination, and over a third of the total edit count is to User talk:. With more experience in article and WP: space, I will gladly support in the future. <font color="green">
First one, Justinc. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' why not? -

'''Support'''

'''Support''' I don't have ''editcountitis''--
Oh yeah, I '''support''' too, if that isn't already implied by my nomination. :">

'''Support''' has been doing good work on food and drink among other things.  Has some minor weaknesses on the subleties of Irish beer - but he just needs to drink more of it :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I don't know this editor, but maybe I'm not getting out much, would appear to good candidate.
'''Support''' We need more admins working with images.
'''Support''' We do not have enough London admins. We do not have enough East London admins. We do not have enough London images. From what I can see of Justin's ''oeuvre'', he's needed.
'''Support'''.
Cool. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. My only reservations is he coming across as an expert on United States fair use doctrine. I don't know his qualifications for telling other Wikipedians what does and what does not qualify as fair use. --
<s>'''[[Newt|Neutral]]''', has been here a long time, and doesn't have edit as many edits as I would expect. But its not enough to oppose, but also not enough to support. </s>
'''Multicellular nominator support'''.
'''Support''' I have seen this editor around. Good work! --
'''Support''' Good work. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. -

'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', seems reliable. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' seems to be a fine addition--
'''Support''' seems like a trustworthy chap --
'''Support''' ''now with extra protein'' :).
'''Support''' great contributions and is often first to revert vandalism on some articles i have on my watchlist.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' '''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <sub>[[User:SilverSide|&#8465;ilver]]</sub>
'''Support''' -give him a mop
'''Support''' Is this what we do to valuable contributors now? Give them a mop? So be it.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' I've seen you around, doing good work.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen this candidate here and there.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
<del>'''Oppose'''. AFAIK, you don't need admin powers to clean out categories. There is no speedy deletion backlog at all, thanks to tag and bag, and it doesn't hurt if it takes a couple more days to keep or delete AfDed articles. It's good that you offered to help tackle vandalism on the science articles, though. If you intend to actively patrol these articles and not just dump them all on your watchlist, I may move my vote to neutral. (If you just watchlist them, vandalism will likely slip through - most uncaught vandalism would have gone uncaught even if everyone had the rollback feature.)
Support. Funny thing- I was thinking of nominating him today, but it somehow slipped my mind and he beat me with a self-nomination... JYolkowski would make a great admin. He has been relentlessly reverting vandals (see his user contributions) and is extremely dedicated to Wikipedia. In addition, he is polite and professional. He has also been involved in a meticulous picture tagging project. Finally, he has welcomed a lot of new users (including me!) Thus I am honored to give the first vote of support to JYolkowski.
Sure. I haven't run into him personaly, but he seems like good sysop material.
'''Support'''. Vandal hunter? That's my type of guy! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
Excellent user. &mdash;
Support. I've had nothing but good experience with J, and he always explains his actions to the community - the most important quality in an admin in my view.
Decent experience with this user.
'''Support'''. I've seen him on the RC Patrol, he deserves the extra tools.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A great editor (see his FA work at [[Canadian Pacific Railway]]), who has now turned his attention also to battling vandalism.
'''Support''' - I've seen this user revert lots of vandals, the rollback button will serve him (?) well.
'''Support''' Edits show a strong dedication to RC patrol, and a worthy admin candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Why, yes. Good editor, interested in mopping and bucketing, interacts well, and a selfnom, my favorite icing on the cake? Of course!
'''Support''' - I usually disagree with self-nominations, but Yolkowski is a good and levelheaded contributor and so deserves an exception.
'''Support'''. Excellent user and valuable contributor. Will make a fine admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  As others stated above, he is polite and professional, and he explains his edits.  Furthermore, he has contributed to controversial talk pages without getting rattled.
As the nominator, full support.
'''Support''' K1Bond007 is one of the most reliable contributors I've worked with.
'''Support''' on condition he promises to James Bond judo chop all those nasty vandals.
'''Support''' - does a lot of work, participates in VfD, shows experience - suitable for administrator. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=K1Bond007&offset=0&limit=250] &mdash;
'''Support''' The little I know of K1Bond007 is enough to know that he is worthy of administratorship, and the little time I have spent on Wikipedia enough to notice his contributions (especially in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games|WikiProject Computer and video games]]) &#151; and hereby, laud them.
'''Strong Support''' I have nothing bad to say about K1Bond007. Definately deserves adminship.
'''Support''' It's really high time that James gets promoted to administrator. He's gained a lot of experience and has done very much for Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I briefly interacted with K1Bond007 several months ago when I was working on some of the James Bond articles. Was knowlegable and courteous then as he is now.
'''Support''' I've also interacted with K1Bond007 over James Bond articles, very fair and accommodating. Contribution to this subject immense.
'''Support''' .  Does good work.

'''Support'''; I've seen him around video game articles; he does great work on them.
Looking at his contributions, he already seems to act like a good administrator.  But since he isn't officially an admin at this time, I think we should change that.  So, I will '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' I'm not basing this vote purely on edit count, of course... but.... wow.  Just wow.

Three in a row, ah, it's one of those days, isn't it? :)
'''Support''' Good well rounded editor with great NPOV. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support.'''
'''Why not?'''--
'''Strong support'''.  A great help on CfD.  --
<small>
'''Strong support''' I wondered why he wasn't one already.
'''Support.''' -- have seen good work at [[America's Army]] and other video game related articles over a long period of time. -
'''Support'''. Experienced.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' - I've had good interactions with this editor, and have seen him pounce on problems quickly, efficiently, and effectively. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Another more than deserving candidate.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - just go through his contributions list and you can see high-quality edits. &mdash;
--
'''Oppose''' part of an in-group, so be wary of a POV abuse of powers.

--
'''Support''' Theres a mop in my toolshed with your name on it. The pay's not good and the kid's may throw things at you but you'll find it rewarding ;)
'''Support.''' Made a good effort to forge a [[Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting|compromise]] on era styles.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Kaldari.
Cool.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
You're gettin' the green light from me, pal. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
--
I '''support''' for many reasons, not the least of which is that I'm often driven to a support vote by reading the reasons that [[User:Acetic Acid|Ryan]] gives for neutral or oppose votes.  But more importantly, not a vandal, and a nom from Mike Snow doesn't hurt either. :)
'''Support'''. No question. He's a good, dedicated editor and he'll make a responsible admin.
'''Support''' nice tweaking of the Marshall, Texas article series among other things. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Yea'''.
'''Support''', I see no reason not to. Asking somebody for a nomination ''in the open'' is nothing to be ashamed of. Asking by means of e-mail and other personal means, ''that'' is something to be ashamed of, but that's definitely not the case here. --
I have no reason not to now.
Well he doesnt meet my minimum standards of having 100,000 edits, 35 featured articles, 6.3 years experience and be a personal friend of jimbo wales. but what the heck. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support'''. Will make a valuable administrator. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I've seen that this editor has a level-head and can be trusted with authority. -
'''Support'''.  See no cause for concern.
'''Support'''.  I regularly come across Kaldari's edits, and he is a valuable contributor and a reasonable voice in controversial discussions. --
'''Support''' All looks good.
'''Support'''. All does indeed look good.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
--
<del>'''Neutral''' It sort of rubs me the wrong way that you had to ask someone to nominate you. You can have nominated yourself, you know. If you aren't willing to do things for yourself, you might not be admin material. I mean, when it comes to crunch time, are you going to delete the page or wait for someone else to? However, I do not have it in my heart to oppose, as everything else you have done is in your favor.
'''Support''', as nominator. --
'''Support''' There's a flurry of good candidates lately :) <small>
'''Support'''. Noticed user and always noticed judicious participation.
'''Support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' I like the bear-ate-the-barnstar barnstar.
'''Support''' What, you mean he isn't one? I think we need to have a [[MeatBall:BarnRaising|BarnRaising]].
'''Support'''.  Usual cliché. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
Cool. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Apoyo Español Extremo''' <small>'''(Extreme Spanish Support)'''</font> [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''', per above.  Just make sure to use more edit summaries :)  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Great, helpful editor. [[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''[[soup|support]]'''
'''Support''' seen him around many times doing cleanup tasks IIRC.
'''Support''', definately - a good wikipedian.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''', don't expect to abuse admin powers.
'''Support''', nice guy, should make a good admin ... if'n he uses edit summaries! --

'''Extreme [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanzian]] Support!'''
'''Support''' no big deal --
'''[[:Image:Bearbarnstar.jpg|Barn Star Bear Support!]]'''
'''Extreme Acidic Support''' Thank you for providing your explanation at [[WP:MC]]. You've educated me on something I was unclear about. I'll never make such poor judgment again. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Extreme deutsche Unterstützung!'''  --
'''Äärimmäinen suomalaistuki!'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - because what goes around mops around. --
'''Support''' Sounds good to me :-)
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support'''. With over a year of observing Wikipedia, this guy oughta know the ropes by now. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' As I later read all the answers to the questions below, I see that Karmafist regrets our encounter in the George W Bush article...as do I. At that time, we were both relatively new here and politics got in the way of our mutual desire to build a better article. I'll take this opportunity to apologize for anything I may have said to force Karmafist to not edit the Bush article and to wish him well in what appears to be an almost absolute concensus in favor of adminship.--
'''Support. Should make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  We can make good use of another fully equipped ninja-sitter. --
'''Support'''!!!
'''Support''' as per the cabal (which does not exist).
'''Support''' thought s/he was one.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' the musicabal (which also doesn't exist)
'''Yo'''.
'''Support''' Looks good to me - and has worked in some heated areas.
'''Support''', Karmafist is the enemy of vandals. --
'''Support''' because it's good for my karma.
'''Support''' Is it too late to hop on the Karma bandwagon? Hope we don't get pulled over by the Karma Police for being too full:>--
'''Support''', of course!!!  Obvious admin candidate to me.  '''>:'''
'''Support''', for calling [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] a jerk. ;). Just kidding. Support on general principle.--
--
'''Oppose''' Changed my vote, after I have realised that he has added this in my archive, where he calls another administrator a jerk. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fadix/archive2#Re:my_Rfa]
<s>Am not sure that he will make good judgements when Wikipedia policies are concerned. I may have had only few intereactions, and this, in a same page with him, but what I have seen there doesn't satisfy me.</s>
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''. Is this where I say "I thought he/she was an admin already"?
'''Support''', I thought she was one too! ~~ '''
'''Support''' - (same cliche - thought she was one).
'''Support'''. Absoblimminlutely, for all the reasons stated above.
'''Absolutely'''. You finally got her to accept? Great at working out conflicts (Oh, and she is part of the [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit cabal]]).
'''Support''' 'thought he/she was an admin. :)'</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' Overdue, strong support!
'''Support''' without a second thought. --
<small>
'''Support'''. Yet another overdue candidate (there've been loads lately).
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Support'''
<nowiki>[[subst:cliche]]</nowiki> [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Yeah.''' -
'''Support'''.
I give this user the go-ahead. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Katefan0 seems to be all over the place.

'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support!!''' You didn't tell me you were up for a vote! Bad Kate....baaad Kate. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - She is great at keeping her cool and helping to reach consensus in difficult situations.  Both the quality and quantity of her work here is excellent.  As a matter of openness, please note that I am a party to the arbitration concerning Rangerdude.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. An excellent editor. -
'''Support'''. I have only a good experience with her. She will be a great addition to the admins-team. -
'''Support'''.  Good edit count, has experience in several namespaces, and is [[m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians|a deletionist]] to boot! :-) --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Lack of edit summeries is annoying though <small>
This looks like a '''Support''' to me, long live Texas.
'''Support'''. Kate's a great editor, responsible, reasonable, lots of common sense, cares about sticking to policy and using good sources. She's exactly the kind of admin we need.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', but only if Katefan0 agrees to join the cabal. --<span style="color:red">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Remember, there is no cabal.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' - mature, tactful and coolheaded in disputes.
Definitely.—
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.  What a pleasant person.
'''Support'''. I'm just piling on the votes here, but Katefan0 deserves them.-
'''Support''' - Too many users lately where I (and many others) thought they were an admin.  <font color="red">
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.  I don't know this user, but I like his/her answers to the questions below.
'''Support''' an excellent user. If this is as gadfium says just a pile-on, it's one of the few I'm happy to add to. :-)
'''Support''' Katefan has exemplary patience with troublesome users. A model for us all.
'''Support''' Because every time I see someone so well endorsed by the WikiCommunity, and even if I don't know them, I know that they are doing something right.
'''Support''' Without reservation.
'''Support''' Thought, admin, etc.
'''Support''', with the usual cliche.  Katefan0 has shown a remarkable degree of patience in dealing with some of our more vexatious editors.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''  I've watched from the sidelines and have observed [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] conduct herself w/ diplomacy and level-headedness on several article disputes. I think she will make a great admin.
'''Support'''- would make a great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Double, triple my-God-you-didn't-tell-me-you-were-up-for-a-vote Support'''. Katefan0 has shown herself to be a level-headed, calm person, even in heated disputes.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' We need more female admins and I say this with utmost respect. Too much testosterone in WP, IMO. Strong support.
'''Support''' Way, way, overdue for adminship. -

--
'''Oppose'''. Your contributions to [[Texas Rangers Division]] are copyright violations. I don't want that kind of behavior from an admin.
'''Support''' <s>(pending acceptance)</s> - Hard working, does lots of mop-and-bucket tasks.  Since the user does so many management tasks at CfD it would probably be beneficial to have the ability to delete the cats as well.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  I trust Radiant's call on this editor, and concur with his judgement. --
'''Support''' &mdash;
I mistrust Radiant's call on this editor, and I do not concur with his judgement. And that he didn't even cast his vote in support of his own nominee is the greatest insult(!). Which is why I oppose this nominations. Therefore, I '''support.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He once tried to mediate, and yeah, is that required of someone who has already volunteered to do all the CFD by himself?. Amusing he isnt an admin yet! :D --
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support'''. Absolutely! A stub-sorter is my type of person ;-) [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''.  Anyone insane enough to slog through WP:CFD deserves to be burdened with adminship.
'''Support''' - mop and bucket and all that --
'''Support'''. I remember lot of useful work.
'''Support''', does all the hard work which is made easier by adminship.
'''Support'''  More deletionist than I'd like but at least thoughtful about it.  Fine editor everywhere else
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''Support'''. User is an active contributer and would make a grea admin here at the Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. yup.
'''Support'''.  As someone who has experienced both agreements and disagreements with him, I know that he can handle the responsibility maturely.  And he's a workaholic on here.
'''Support'''.  I hesitated at first for three reasons: (1) I didn&#8217;t know him enough to be sure he met my main criterion of conflict resolution. He could have handled one or two cases more calmly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbdank71#Battles_in...], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbdank71#Coast_.26_countryside_cats], but I now realize that these were exceptions. (2) Politically, he&#8217;s too far on the deletionist side for me. (3) I mistrusted Radiant!&#8217;s nomination. &mdash; I feel more comfortable about the latter point since Radiant! didn&#8217;t vote himself. The first two points hint to [[George Washington]]&#8217;s flaws:  He&#8217;s very dedicated and gets things done in an area (categories) that sometimes needs a strong hand. When it comes to holding a mop, he&#8217;s certainly the right candidate. He readily picks up the dirt others (including me) leave behind.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kbdank71#Renaming_categories].  &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Most definitely.
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates responsible adminship.
'''Support''', good worker on CfD ''et al.''.
'''Oppose''' - too deletionist on categories, even eliminating ones that are useful.
--
'''Support''', looks solid enough. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''. Ah, the joy of a well-qualified self-nom! Everything looks wonderful. Hardly any experience of controversies, but I doubt that would change with adminship. &mdash;
'''Support''' - another good one signs up for extra duty!
'''Support'''
'''Obvious Support'''

'''Support''' as per [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]], [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:lightgreen">''BD2412''</font>]] .
'''Support''' good editor --


'''Support'''.  Seems like a good well-rounded editor, and no real reason to oppose him. -
'''Extremely Obvious Support'''.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - well, duh! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Solid record, well-qualified for admin post.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse the administrator toolbox.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. Great contributions. Nice images. Asset to wikipedia.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Edit history does not indicate any reason for concern.


Cool. 7,000 edits is good enough for me.
Surely, not all 400 current admins know how to [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|clean up VfD]] - why is it suddenly a requirement for future admins?
Support.-
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', does not meet my opposing criteria. --
Meets [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
Strongest possible support.  Absolutely cool, level-headed, & scrupulously neutral.  Adept at brokering compromises.  One of the finest wikipedians I have encountered.
'''Support'''.
'''Very much support'''. I'm disturbed to see voters opposing the elevation of editors because they don't edit in the Wikipedia namespace. Why are we asking to punish editors who spend their time constructing an encyclopaedia instead of politicking?
'''Support''' &mdash; need more like him. --

Support.
Even though a number of people disagreed with me in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biekko|a previous RFA vote]], I will basically repeat what I said here: [[User:Khaosworks|Khaosworks]] does not have enough experience on the janitorial tasks such as VfD, TfD, CfD, etc. These janitorial tasks are an integral part at being an admin.
Clearly an excellent user and a valuable contributor, but according to Korath's summary of edits, he has only 73 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and that is a bit thin for an administrator. If he logs more good edits with those pages, I will switch from oppose to clear support.
Quite a many edits do not have summaries. Non-SF contributions are hard to locate so I feel uneasy to form an opinion. Perhaps Khaosworks should describe his non-SF edits in more detail.
'''Major Milkshake Support''' --
'''Support''' this fine user. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. One of my best buddies from college was named Kirill. But that has no bearing on my vote to support here, which is based on [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]]'s excellent editing attributes.
'''Support''' very good user --
'''Yes, please.''' Solid contributions, active on RC patrol, and a [[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|talk page]] full of positive comments.
'''Support''' He isn't already? (cliche I know). -
'''Support'''. Kirill seems talented and I like battleboxes :). -
'''Support''' — Kirill is already involved in all the right places.
'''Wholeheartedly support'''. In fact, was planning to nominate him one of these days!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - per everyone's favourite cliché. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' I'm not sure if anything really needs to be said. An awesome editor.
'''Support''' - Anyone maintaining a portal should be an admin.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. <font color="green">

'''Support'''. I have met Kirill a few times, and it is easy for me to give him my support.--
Say it with me folks, "I thought he was one".
'''Strongbad Support''' I'm in shock...shocked I say..he's not one already. He's been a huge driving force behind [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars]] and is now thoughtfully moving the two towards a much needed merger. Wikipedes, let us act promptly to correct this oversight!--
'''Support''' See him regularly.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. —
'''Support''' but I don't know him. <font color=#7fffd4>
'''Support''' --
--
'''Support'''. I haven't come across him but certainly seems like a very good editor.
'''Support'''. Nice work on battles etc. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
-- (
'''Humorless Support''', RfA's are very serious, if anyone makes light of them wikipedia will collapse remember this the next time you see anyone do something like [[soup|support]], if they do that, they should be blocked immediately!
'''Support''' as nominator, of course.
'''Support''' without a doubt! --
YUO RABID DELETIONISTS WILL DISTORY WIKIPODIA AND ... er, fine by me -

YMHWOA?  '''Support!'''
'''Support''' always assumed he was already an admin since he has been an amazing editor and more than deserves and needs the extra tools that come with adminship. <small>
'''Support''' "thought $user already was an admin" &ndash;
'''Strong Support''' OI! You've been reading RFA Talk, haven't you? You mean you haven't? Oh in that case, um, anyway, you got an automatic pass from me, see if you can detective out why on your own! Have a nice day! :-)
Yes, absolutely.
We need more admins to '''Exterminate!''' the vandals. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', anyone who's involved in wading through copyright mess gets my vote.--
'''Support'''. Great editor. --
'''Support''' Great contributor, especially dealing with [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]].

All '''glory''' to the IRC cabal. --
'''Support''' Falls into the "thought he was already" category.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'' per nominator. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support''' per nominator.-
Cool.
'''Support.''' -
Of course.
'''Glorious eggplant support.''' Without question. An utterly sensible and highly valuable contributor, as well as a sensible and rational mind (an increasing rarity these days). --
'''Extreme lesbian support''' Until I saw this RFA the other day, i thought he was an admin! Anyway, would make a nice specimen for our collection! --
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support''' I don't really know this guy, but based on the glowing supports others made, I guess, why the fuck not.
'''Support''', for the comment below '''questions''' if for nothing else. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Adminship should be no big deal, but even if it was he still more than deserves it.
Unconditional '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Kmccoy is a responsible and sensible participant and Wikipedia would be well served by enabling his participation as much as possible.
'''Support''', excellent contributor.
<s>'''Support''', Has brain. Have interacted. Trust him to respond to mistakes.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 18:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)</s> I am invalidating all of my votes. See my user page for the reasons.--
'''Support''', responsible, sensible edits. Also, great work in achieving consensus in many articles. --
'''Support!''' -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Frog'''.
'''That's lukewarm...lukewarm enough for me to support.'''
'''Support wholeheartedly.''' (and particularly so for ignoring the useless questions template).
'''Support'''. Enthusiastic and helpful. Safe bet that he will be an excellent admin and bring honor to the mop.
'''Strong support'''. Absolutely! He's done great work at [[WP:PUI]] and most of the time I feel I'm the only admin cleaning the thing up. Vive la delete button and I'm sure Kmccoy will put it to good use :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support''', absolutely without reservation. An first-class Wikipedian, both on the wiki and on IRC; a friendly and helpful individual, who is prepared to discuss matters of contention amicably and politely (most notably with myself and Snowspinner over IRC channel policies), which is an increasingly rare quality. Has a good, logical mind, which is something that is always desirable for an admin. I look forward to seeing this user in action as an admin. --
Yeah.
'''Support'''
Support- Meticulous image copyright checker.--
Support- Reasons as above. Wikipedia needs this sort of attention to our copyright issues. Recall good interactions, also.
'''Support'''. Valuable work on copyright issues, no indication admin powers will be abused.
'''Support''' - very friendly, very helpful; excellent admin material.
'''very weak oppose'''. I have only recently had any interatcion with Kmccoy, and that isn't enough for me to form a reliable opinion either way, so normally I wouldn't vote. However, the answers to the questions trouble me slightly - not because I disagree that adminship should be a big deal, but because imho a major qualification for being an admin is about how you deal with your mistakes, because everybody makes them. The key things are that you should be prepared to admit to your mistakes, and be prepared to explain them if this would help, but moreso you should be able to learn from your mistakes. While I see from the contribution history that Kmccoy isn't a vandal, the answers don't give me the feeling that they will be prepared to explain and justify their admin actions and to accept they could have handled something in a different way if the situation doesn't work out how they expected. I will consider changing this vote if the response gives me a better feeling.
Seems like a great contributor, but refusal to answer the questions leaves me uncomfortable.
I was going to support, but [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] removed his IRC ops, suspecting him of being a [[Scientologist]], and thus I can't in my right mind support. --
Good editor, but I find his answer to the questions for the candidate slightly demagogue. --
'''Neutral''' I'm with [[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] on this one. In the question section, you said you had some "bad edits." What exactly is a bad edit? Did you break the 3RR rule? Or does it mean something else? Please clarify. I really don't have much against you, so I will consider changing my vote to Support.
Refusal to answer the standard questions rubs me quite the wrong way.  I'm sure you're a good user, but I think that some respect for the traditions/standards is needed, even if you think it's silly. I won't oppose, but I can't support, either.  '''
1300 edits in one year's time doesn't sound a little low to anyone? --&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>


I was waiting for this user to be listed here.

Of course.
most welcome!



Sure. -
Seems like a constructive and reasonable editor. Support.
Yep. –
You betcha.
Nice to see someone being that good at using the edit summary line.
--
Support.
<nowiki>{{USERNAME}}</nowiki> isn't an admin? ;) --

Support.
Good work. Support.
Support. A thoughtful and careful editor should make a good admin.
I realise I rarely vote to support. I guess I think that there are usually plenty who will. But this is exactly the kind of editor who should be an admin.
Support for outstanding energy and patience. --
Fine and excellent.
Sure.
'''Support'''. [[Image:Cheeseburger.png|20px]]
'''Support'''. Seek thy Knowledge, may the additional tools such as this wonderous mop and bucket aid in your quest. --
'''Support'''.  Some excellent users are supporting you, O Seeker of Knowledge.  That is good enough for this most unworthy one. -
'''Support''' as nominator.
Support. Very good vandal-whacker.--
'''Strooong Support'''.
<font color="darkred">
'''Strong Support'''. Can't believe it's only 3 months. (
'''Support''' Good egg, good contributer.
'''Strong Support''' Excellent vandal fighter --
'''Support''' edits look good.--
'''Support''' Good work dealing with vandals. –
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' I see him regularly on RC patrol. The rollback was made for editors like him.
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, use of tools unlikely to be misused.
Friendly, funny, and rollback-worthy.
'''Support'''. Nice work with the RC patrol.

'''Support'''. <font>«</font>
'''Support'''. We need more admins born on Friday the 13th. :) -
'''Support'''. Have seen KOS around and think he is doing a good job. Seems to be entertaining the community, too: it can't hurt to have a friendly face to adminship!
'''Support''' Great vandal fighter and editor.
'''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Furry Alien Support''' indeed, 'nuff said. --
'''Support''' - no doubt that he would be an excellent administator. --
'''Strong support.''' I have on several occasions thought this user was an admin, then realized he wasn't, rinse, repeat... I'm sure he'll do just fine.
Of course.--
'''Support'''.Good contribs, he's ready for more tools.--
'''Support'''. [[Field Museum]] ahh. --
'''Support''' - Definitely.
'''Support'''.  I think this user will make an excellent admin. —
'''Support'''. User is always friendly, proved himself to be an user with a fair amount of reason..and will probably be a great admin. --
'''Support''' Per above. '''''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
Only here three months. But I feel I know you so well? '''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Another editor I come across often in my articlespace :) --
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support'''.
'''Of course support'''. Fellow vandalbuster, give him the mop.
'''Strong support''' - this user's edits speak for themselves. Very even tempered and knows how to keep cool. Take a look at how personable this edit is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Journalist&diff=prev&oldid=28002552]. What's even more amazing is this -- a ''[[User:KnowledgeOfSelf/Experiments|test page]]'' to practice AfD processing! If you ask me, this user is more than ready to use those extra buttons. --
'''Support''' Will be good admin --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''', excellent track record. --
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''. --

'''Support''', because it's always good to know that someone is self-aware, especially in admins ;). -[[User:Mysekurity|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Strong Support'''.  Fantastic vandal-fighter.  "I thought...," well, you know the rest.  &mdash;
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support''' could have sworn this person already was one.--
'''Support''' per cliché. --
'''WE NEED MORE ADMINS ON NEWPAGE PATROL'''.  --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''', [[Know thyself]] :>--
'''Support''' even if he is impersonating me. <small>(joke)</small> &mdash;
'''Certainly.''' --
'''Support'''. A great asset to the community.--
'''Strong support''', certainly. I don't have any doubts this user is prepared for adminship, and all interaction I've had with him has been civil. I am very certain that he'll know what to do, or ask for help when necessary. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -

'''Strong Support''' KoS is absolutely qualified for this position, I only expect more good things. [[Image:Pentacle_1.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''; everything I've seen is good.
'''Support'''.

Support
'''Support''', enough edits, and has been here for a long time.
'''Support'''. Kwamikagami is a great editor, and thoroughly deserves adminship. [[User:JonMoore|&mdash;
'''support''' - good phonetics, phonology, extra. &ndash;

I find the lack of wikipedia-space edits refreshing.  --
Yes, please.
'''Support''' better 4 sensible edits than 40 just for the sake of an edit count.
'''Support'''
Concur with Tony Sidaway. With regards to the statement Hoary pointed out, I trust you understand that, as an admin, you can't delete the Khoisan language article simply because you want to.
'''Weak support'''. Curiously few Wikipedia namespace edits.
'''Support''' - concur with Tony. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Weak support'''. I'm not sure about the « lack of Wikipedia namespace edits »; by that argument I would probably not have obtained my own adminship. I get the feeling his heart and mind are in the right places, though.
'''support''', what the hell, opposers, here is somebody who is into assuring that there ''is'' something to protect on Wikipedia, and doesn't spend all his time bitching on WP: pages, writes great articles without stirring up ''one'' dispute that would ''force'' him to WP: space, what more do you want? You can get a million WP: edits by adding useless comments to every entry on WP:AN or WP:VP, what's the merit in that?
'''support''', Kwami's contributions are notedly diligent and conscientious, and in my experience he has many times demonstrated an innate respect for consensus and fairness, and an ability to get on with other editors- all needed qualities for an admin. That these qualities have come through without recourse to WP namespace edits, is actually a plus as far as I'm concerned.--
'''Support'''. Sure.
'''Support''' - has done excellent and much-needed work. -
Yes, but more Wikipedia edits needed. [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''support''': adminship is not useful exclusively for the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Support'''. A long history of good edits and helpful participation on talk pages says far more about ability to be an admin than a few hundred one-line grunts on AfD. Even if a lack of experience with Wikipedia-space pages proves to be a problem, any mistakes made can easily be fixed with the right attitude; and Kwamikagami definitely has that. --
Remember folks, even those that don't waste time in the WP: namespace can make effective use of adminship.
'''Support''', for our constructive collaboration on [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]-related articles. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' (insert comment here) <small>
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.  Just because a user may not utilize the AFD pages, etc. doesn't mean that he doesn't need the rollback tool.  <font color="red">

'''Support'''. He has contributed a lot to language articles and he seems to know his stuff. :-) --
'''Support''' Could probably use the extra buttons. Good luck!
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' Seems clear to me that he would be a good admin - just hope we don't lose an excellent editor in the process.
'''Support'''. I don't think a lack of edits in the Wikipedia-namespace disqualifies; to the contrary, I think it is refreshing to have admins who focus on contributing quality stuff (we shouldn't forget that that is one of the best ways to resolve disputes and dissolve vandalism). I'm sure Kwami will put his powers to good use. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' I couldn't care less that he doesn't have many WP edits, he's a solid, good editor, and will be of help to Wikipedia. WP edits are dead, God save articlespace. --
'''Support'''. I have seen plenty of activity on various talkpages, so I don't think lack of experience in interacting with others in the Wikipedia namespace is a big problem. Has done plenty of excellent work, so I support.
'''Support'''. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and only the main namespace directly serves that end. I agree that it is important for an administrator to demonstrate a wide spectrum of interaction, from Kawamikagami's talk page edits we see a greatever involvement than article gnoming. We need administrators from all parts of the spectrum of positive interaction, not everyone has to be a wikipolitican editing primarily outside of the main namespace. --
Cool.
'''Oppose''', While this user is not a bad user. Actually a very good editor, there just aren't enough Wikipedia space edits. Only 5.
'''Oppose'''. Its only 4 if you minus the acception on this page.
'''Oppose without prejudice''' - Lack of wiki namespace edits makes me question this editors familiarity with policy and procedure — I will be happy to reconsider later.
'''Oppose''', I'm not much for editcountitis but his presence in Wikispace is practically nil. But keep up the good work!
'''Oppose''' for the reasons given above.
Per Jobe6.
'''Oppose''' - As per above. Do some work on AfDs, join some WP discussions. Show us that you care not only for good articles (as you certainly do) but for WP as a project as well, and I will support.
'''Oppose''' - needs to participate in Wikipedia namespace (Unsigned vote by
Oppose for reasons already stated.
'''Neutral''' &mdash; Consistently good editor, but only 5 Wikipedia namespace edits.
'''Neutral''' - Great editor but almost no involvement in wikipedia namespace. Get involved in [[WP:AfD|AfD]]s, RC patrol and the Village Pump and then I will be happy to support.
'''Neutral''' I keep seeing his great edits all over wikipedia but 5 edits in wikipedia namespace is very little. --
'''Neutral''' I agree. I'm always happy to see his contributions to language and linguistics articles, but a lot more experience in the Wikipedia space (voting on what to delete and what to keep, giving opinions on policy matters, etc.) is really necessary before one can become an admin. (oops, I forgot to sign! --
'''Neutral''' per lack of edits in WP namespace.  I find it curious that some people seem to think that the things that make a good editor are the same things that make a good admin.  I don't see at all that this is true.  Someone could be a brilliant writer who makes great articles, but this doesn't tell us ''anything'' about what kind of admin they'd made.
'''Neutral''' for now, sorry. I appreciate the answers to my tiresome questions below, Kwamigami is clearly a fine editor and probably fine "admin material" and his low ''percentage'' of WP-namespace edits may indeed be a sign of a healthy set of priorities (as well as being necessary to let him do good work in articles), but the very low ''number'' of these edits is worrisome. I'd like him to spend a little more time where tempers flare and participants aren't all as mature as readers and cowriters of linguistics articles are likely to be, and to see how he does there. I don't want to oppose, as I've a hunch he'd do well, but I can't (yet) support, either. --
'''Wholeheartedly'''
Yes, he should be an admin. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''[[Soup|Support]]''', I think he would make a good admin.
'''Support'''. An ambitious project; fine contributions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', nice contributions, I just spent 20 minutes browsing.
'''Support''' Very active in AFD --

'''Support''' plenty of edits.
'''Support''', seems harmless. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' enough experience, great WikiProject, seems calm  --
'''Support''' beyond remarkable work on the game theory wikiproject,  I've been struck by his patient and constructive dealings with people I'd have dismissed as vandals.  Sharp, long fuse, has my vote.
-- (
'''Support''' Always found his contributions civil and to the point.
'''Support''' have seen this editor about the place, I believe will used the mop wisely.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good, level-headed editor.
'''Support'''.  Have had great interaction with this editor and definitely helps with the necessary cleanup!!  '''>:'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Ran into Kevin a few times in his drive to add [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] links to WP: struck me as a careful and disciplined editor, should be a good admin ---
I second Pete Hurd's sentiments.
'''Strong Support''': I was actually thinking of editors that should be nominated for Adminship, and Slac was among them. From what I have seen of his work, I am greatly impressed, and I think it's safe to say that he can be trusted wholeheartedly with Admin abilities.--
'''Support'''. Responsible editor that I've had good interactions with. Give this man a mop!!!!
obviously
'''Support'''.  Solid, dedicated editor.
'''Support''' - Of course! <font color="#3D9140">

'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor, and I am surprised this editor was not one already.
I will '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' I'm proud to say that this is my first "thought he already was one" vote. I see 'Slac' all the time, and never realized that that wasn't your real username. :P
--

'''Support''', prolific article space editor. --
Happy to '''Support''' --
'''Support''' very good contributor of articles and edits.
'''Support'''- great deal of edits, it'll be good to have an admin capable of doing something other than procedural stuff
'''Support'''. The usual "thought he already was one" business. Also, I'd be inclined to think anyone who can make it all the way through ''Infinite Jest'' has both the patience and the ability to make sense of long-running, complex situations and drawn-out fragmented discussions beneficial to an admin. ;-)
'''Support''', on the condition that we get to know why ''Lacrimosus'' is abbreviated as ''Slac''. Seriously, though, good contributor to VfD.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', why not. --
'''Support''', bien sur.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Edits indicate no cause for concern, positive contributions.
'''Strong Support''' Give him the Mop!--
'''Support''' Slac always seems to make well-considered contributions to talk pages and valuable edits to articles. --
'''Support'''. Edits and interactions with others seem exemplary. --
'''Support'''. Happy to support.
'''Support'''. Yes.
'''Support''', excellent candidate. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Lacrimosus makes a lot of great article contributions and does a lot of work. He has almost 5000 edits now and looks like an excellent candidate for administrator. Support. &mdash;
'''Support''' Good edits, strong candidate.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Lots of good edits. The only person who seems to oppose this also voted against every single other nom. --
--
'''Extreme Support'''

'''Support'''. Seems good. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' - I fully lend support of this user and I know how well he tried to help in the Emico situation below, which caused major stress to him and me. Hope your admin Lbmixpro! —
'''Support 100%''' I recognized Lbmixpro ability to become a great admin a long time ago and I am proud to give him my vote of confidence.
'''Support''' - worked well through a difficult problem, and is continuing to help.
'''Extreme Support''' -Proven performance in battle.  Conscientiously maintains civility and due processe while persistently progressing a dialogue to achieve a good article/neutral point. See [[INC]] talk page.  May not have that much edit counts yet but will definitely be advantageous for wikipedia in the fight against trolls. --
'''Support''' contributions look solid.--
'''Support''' per above. '''

'''Support''' per Jondel.--
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' thought I had already --
'''Extreme Support''' He has dealt with issues in a transparent and honest manner, and I can state on my honour that his efforts have strengthened Wikipedia as well as improved my contributions. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support '''
'''Neutral''', at the moment. I think this user is well-intentioned, calm, and has made some valuable contributions, but can see relatively little participation in either deletion or vandal-fighting, and his edits seem mainly concentrated around a few areas. Wouldn't take much for me to support, though.
'''Ja, Oui, Yes, Si...''' -
Give him a +3 mop of smiting.-
Looks good to me!--

Happy to '''Support'''.
Support.

'''Yep'''.
'''Support''' Another multilingual user who would benefit with the admin tools.
<small>
Yes OUI
'''Support'''/'''Dafür''' And not just because we live in the same city and are both interested in [[Irish language|Irish]], and not just because he already supported me! --
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' wow <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''', com certeza fará bom uso dos poderes a ele conferidos. ;) --
'''Support'''. Another presence I have been impressed with.
'''Support'''. Good man.—
'''Support'''. Hooray for multilingual editors! Also, dependable nominator and support voters.
--

'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''. He's an excellent contributor and very dedicated guy who will surely make a great admin!
'''Support'''. Looks good, based on reviewing Leithp's edit history and a bunch of diffs.
'''Support''', looks good. &mdash;
'''BIG BAGPIPE HEAPED WITH HAGGIS SUPPORT'''. But the nominator has failed to mention the candidate is also co-author of the (hopefully soon-to-be) Featured Article on General Sir [[Richard O'Connor]]. Without his encouragement, help, strategically placed edits and sage advice, I would never have had the courage or confidence to BE BOLD and put it forward. He is a great contributor, colleague and friend, he will make a great addition to the Cabal as well.--

'''Support''' Contributions appear solid.--
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor and good candidate for admin --
'''Support''' - very good user --
'''Support'''. He has done some great contributing to wikipedia. After reviewing his contributions, it looks like he would be a great admin for wikipedia.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a scottish soldier to fight the hordes of vandals threatening our fort!
'''Support''' - Of course.
'''Support'''; good candidate.
'''Support'''; looks like the perfect candidate for adminship. -

'''Support''' I would like slightly longer answers to the questions below, but he sounds like a good editor. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Well, yeah, of course'''.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
Clear '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Support''' Loving the self noms and lack of knee jerkl opposition to them.
'''Support''',
'''Support''', everything looks to be in order here.
'''Support''' seems a well balanced user.  I see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. We can always use vandal fighters. --
'''Support''' <b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' 100 percent, of course
'''Support''' Go linux
'''Support'''. This user is always there trying to solve disputes and trying to deal with vandals. A good user who i'm sure would be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Very helpful with advice and with help with vandalsism
Support. Does well on janitorial stuff the hard way; I see no reason not to make the job a bit easier -
'''Support''', how can you not love this guy?
'''Support'''. From memory, I think we have crossed swords once or twice the past, but that doesn't stand in the way of me recognising Linuxbeak's abilities.
Support.
'''Support'''. The candidate has already produced a FA that's a labor of love in every sense, and has matured impressively as a wikipedian. I asked him about the newbie mistakes he'd made in the conflict with jmabel, and his response convinced me he'll be a better admin for making them. Conflict experience is good, not bad; I always feel a little unhappy about voting where the candidate simply hasn't had any taste of wikistress. Linuxbeak deals well with it.
'''100% Support''', He is well mannered and a very nice level headed person.  His dedicatioon and contributions demonstrate that he has the makings of a great administrator.  The guy already has a featured article under his belt.  He is an asset to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. Has shown himself to be a diligent and enthusiastic contributor, well able to work collaboratively with others and learn from mistakes. (Also, anyone that excited about grunt work like stub sorting needs a mop and bucket before he gets his sanity back.)

Cool.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Great user, very strong candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', a deserving canditate.
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''. --
'''SUPPORT'''
'''Support''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
Thought I'd voted already. Support, of course. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. "Be bold in editing". That's what I've seen Linuxbeak do while doing RC patrol and new articles patrol.
'''Support''', of course!
'''Support'''.  I too remember the Jmabel incident and I'm particulary impressed by his willingness to admit he was wrong ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmabel&diff=14233793&oldid=14175465]); this shows character.  He's likely to be an excellent admin, and I also admire his extraordinary dedication to the project.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' For actions above and beyond the call of duty.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. I couldn't find my vote on here...I thought I had already voted!
'''Support'''--
Of course.
'''Support'''. Hard work is its own reward. ;-) --
'''Support.'''
Strong support.
'''Support'''. Many of the opposition notes below are ridiculous, like accusing him of padding his edit count just because he did some minor (but useful) cleanup edits.  Other than that, he ''did'' get into a few "messes", but they weren't always really his fault, and I think he got through them OK.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', seems like a quality user, and the opposition due to the CAP blanking is IMO <s>ridiculous</s> unfair. --
'''Support'''.  This user seems conscientious and mature.
'''Support.'''-
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Yay! Finally, a likeable moderator... *ahem* a moderator for the PEOPLE! Yay! --
Looks like between 1000 and 1500 of his 2500 edits are stub sorting, but what really sinks this for me is that he puts speedy tags on things that aren't speedies.  Just a cursory look turns up these speedy tagged articles that weren't deleted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bullet_in_the_Head&diff=prev&oldid=13527216], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ko-Gal&diff=prev&oldid=13527724], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rice_king&diff=prev&oldid=13500974], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basel_Sinfonietta&diff=prev&oldid=13401301], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr./Infobox&diff=prev&oldid=12920210], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chontaduro&diff=prev&oldid=13401330].    I won't comment on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_Air_Patrol&diff=prev&oldid=14083644 this], which was related to some sort of legal trouble.  Breadth of contributions outside of stub sorting seems good.
I inherently don't trust accounts which seem to have 1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&offset=2500&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Linuxbeak made a few edits, then quickly starts voting on deletions] and 2) seems to be "stuffing" their edit counts with menial tasks like stub marking.  This user started editing on March 13, and showed from the start a strange ''familiarity'' with Wikipedia processes.  Can't vote support unless we have a [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|acceptable method]] for removing adminship in case this is a mistake. I encourage others to reconsider this nomination in a couple months. --
'''Oppose''' The edits that CryptoDerk has highlighted are '''way''' too recent. Only two weeks ago he page deleted an article based on some rubbish about it not being approved by the subject and his own personal commandant?
'''Oppose''', alas. I agree with all those voting support that Linuxbeak has been doing some wonderful work, however the very incorrect speedy marking doesn't inspire trust that the deletion feature will only be used in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]]. The CAP thing is a smaller issue to me, though it wasn't handled perfectly either. --
I like deadlines.
Looks good.-
Didn't find anything to object. I hope you will also visit VfD, ViP, etc from time to time.
Definitely.

Excellent user, based on personal interactions.

Cool.

I'm not sure what Carnildo is talking about here, but from what I've seen, '''support'''. --
'''Support''', casual sysops needed. --
Main page/ITN editing is a good reason for granting adminship -- you don't need to be a VfD addict or have FAs under your belt, you just need to be trusted not to wreck the Main page (and not to indulge in deletion/protection/blocking wars).

A look at the articles on his user page shows very nice work (props for writing an article on the Ford Nucleon!).  No reason not to support.
''Support'' Looks good--


Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
Oppose. I would like to see another month or two of service.
I dunno about supporting someone who demonstrates that they have trouble reading and following directions. --
'''Support.''' Unquestionably, without a doubt. --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''. Given that you are a trusted, polite and hardworking Wikipedian, I'm shocked you're not an Admin already. --
'''Support'''. That's a LOT of edits, and I'm beginning to trust Essjay's decisions. Good luck admining. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' have seen the user once or twice, and I ''already'' trust Essjay's decisions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Brilliant RC Patroller.
'''Support''' A reliable person. Wonder why she isn't nominated before.--
'''Support''' -- He's not already? --
'''Support''', I am surprised it has taken this long for him to be nominated. Very good editor.
'''Support''', of course.
'''Strong Support'''.  He has over 12000 edits in just over 9 months; he's very experienced with User talk and WP: namespaces but still very involved with articles; he seems like a great user; and I thought he was an admin already. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' under I thought the user was an admin already argument =).
Unconditional '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' 500%. This user is the only user who I see welcoming people as much as (or more than!) myself, and there is no better job than helping out the newbies.
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''. Holy crap, that's a lot of edits! Have seen good contributions from you on VfD. <font color="green">
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Strong Support'''. A very dedicated Wikipedian who deserves adminship --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - a no-brainer.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' it's high time this user became an admin...

'''Support''' is widely active on WIkipedia.--
'''Support'''. I like Australian crime articles.
'''Support''' You've done all the right things. You definitely deserve this.
'''Support''' very active and definately deserves adminship.-
'''Support''' Yet another ''I thought he already was an admin!'' vote.  Serial welcomer, oodles of edits, an all around great editor. -
'''Support''' I have to go with the "What!  You mean he isn't already one?" response here! --
Cool.
'''Support''' I thought you were one! --
'''Support.''' Obviously qualified.
'''Support'''. Very active doing RC and would benefit with the admin tools.
'''Support''' Good RC. I believe Longhair is cut out for the job!--
'''Support'''. Highly qualified.
'''Support''' - Definitely. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''', active and well qualified.
'''Strong Support''' --May the Force be with you!

'''Support'''
'''Support''' I was going to go neutral just to bring some variety to this vote, but what the hey. If both Denelson and EssJay agree on this so closely following their tiff, that's good enough for me.
'''Support''', Definitely. -
'''Support''', without a second thought. --
'''Enthusiastic support!''' for a great editor.
'''Strong Support'''

'''Support''' even though over 10% of his edits seem to be on his own user page--
'''Support'''. Over 1700 article space edits, including creation of many new articles. Decent participation in other areas as well. Please continue to use edit summaries.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Very good work on Wikiproject:Battles, amazing work on Japanese history!--
'''[[Soup|Support]]'''
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' from Japanese history lover. -
'''Support''' from another Japan Fan. --
'''Support'''. Excellent work in articles related to Japan--

'''Support'''.  Referenced and intelligent coverage of a number of Japan-related topics; great creation of new articles.  --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. No big deal. Sounds evil enough. We need to build the House of Lords. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Good quality edits, particularly on Japan. See no reason for concern.
'''Support'''. Count me in! <font color="green">
'''Support''', for the reasons detailed in the nomination. --
'''Support'''.  I'm impressed with Lucky's writing.  I'm impressed with the way he's addressed the issues that came up in his previous nominations.  Most of all, I'm REALLY impressed with the way he has taken some difficult editors under his wing in an attempt to move them from near-vandals to productive editors.
'''Support'''. I was actually gonna nominate Lucky.
'''Strong support'''. I've been very impressed by Lucky, in particular his dealing with difficult newbies, and I would have nominated him long ago but gained the understanding he didn't want adminship because of his experience in previous nominations. I'm glad he's finally willing to try again.-
'''Support'''. Active doing RC patrol and has contributed to a number of featured articles.
'''Support''', and about time, too: a good editor, a fine hand at dealing with vandals, clueless newbies, and suchlike people, and has evident enthusiasm and good humor.
'''Support''':  One of the hard workers, one of the careful.  He cares immensely about the well being of the ''project.''  Given how some folks have shown themselves willing to unilaterally block VfD (or delete it) or form "clubs" in name space to achieve their goals, havinig someone who has the experience and the proven dedication to following the policies and giving a fig about how well things operate would be a revolutionary change in adminning.
'''Support'''; very happy indeed to see this nomination here again.  One of the best of all possible candidates.
'''Support'''.  An impressive contributor.  I too was considering nominating him. --
'''Another no brainer''' (erm - ''my vote'', that is, not Lucky 6.9!)
Unequivocal '''Support'''. For those concerned about his... ''colorful'' remarks to vandals, I believe the extraordinary amount of patience and kindness shown during [[User:SamuraiClinton|SamuraiClinton]]/[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude115]]'s [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton|RfC]] and his subsequent mentorship of him ''more'' than make up for that. <font color="green">

'''Support'''. Good RC work.
Meets my unwritten policies :)  &nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', thought he already was one.
Happy to '''support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Very experienced and committed editor, should have been made an administrator long ago.  The criticisms of his "over-zealous" attitude to speedies apply to many existing admins, and I recognise that this is a symptom of RC patrollers and not adequate grounds for withholding the mop and bucket (one of our best administrators, RickK, sadly departed faced similar accusations). --
Thought he was one.  --
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support'''. Well experienced user who has matured.
I'm impressed with his improvement and think he's a great candidate.
'''Support'''. Longtime editor with solid record. -
'''Support''' This is one of those "isn't s/he one already?" nominations... While not a perfect editor, occacional mistakes are acceptable.
'''Support'''.  As cliché as this may sound, I thought he was one already.
Just give him the admin hat and be done with it! :) <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I also thought he was one already. Just in the last couple days, I've noticed his extreme patience trying to help a problematic new user ([[User talk:Maoririder]]), and was quite impressed. -
'''Support''' A fine, long term editor.  The reasons for oppose are minor.
'''Support''', have good experiences with this editor.
'''Support'''. I often see Lucky do a lot of chores that Wikipedia really needs. Also very helpful on the VfD and copyvio checks. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Everything I've seen of Lucky has been positive. &mdash;
'''Absolute support'''. When [[User:SamuraiClinton|SamuraiClinton]]/[[User:SuperDude115|SuperDude]] first arrived, his [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton|unusual editing habits]] annoyed and alienated a number of Wikipedians. But instead of labeling him a troll, Lucky showed immense dedication, patience and hard work helping him become a better editor. His valuable work welcoming newbies who get off to a rough start continues with [[User:Maoririder|Maoririder]]. <font color=green>
'''Support''' as per the nomination, also I don't think there is an reason to distrust his judgement on deletion.--
'''Strong support!''' A solid contributor on more fronts than I can count. --
'''Support'''. Lucky has been a good editor for a long time, and he has a lot of heavy hitters in his corner. Good guy. :)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I hope that Lucky 6.9 takes note of the some of the criticism, however, and is very careful with image deletion especially (since it cannot be undone).  Better to always tag and let someone else give a second opinion, I'd suggest.
'''Strong support'''. He's a great editor and a delightful human being.
'''Support''' - as per nominator. Hard-working Wikipedian devoted to cleanup. --
'''Support''' per reasons above. -
Lucky can be erratic and a bit touchy...not meaning to offend; those are just characteristics that stand out about him and might not be particularly compatible with adminship. But nevertheless I support. He's been through a whole bunch of nominations now and I figure it's time we finally gave it to him.
'''Keep'''. I rarely vote at RFA&mdash;most of the potential admins I would support don't need my vote. This is an editor who does very good edits, and can be very patient with those who need it. I definately trust that he will do well handling his new mop-and-bucket tasks.
'''Very strong support''', nuff said --
'''Support'''. Wikipedia is better because of you. While it would be nice to have infallible saints as admins it is people like Lucky6.9 who keep it from sinking down due to vandals and trolls. I am very impressed by your work. (What I do not like that you often ignore edit summaries. This makes life of people on RC hard.)
'''Support'''. Lucky has done good, under-appreciated work in all the times I've seen him since we first came across each other.
'''Strong Support'''
'''It doesn't get any hotter than this.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. When I first talked to Lucky a few months ago, I already thought he was an admin.

'''Strong Support''', I like this guy, he kind of reminds me of me.  People don't seem to realize that at first he may have had an atitude but, with time melowed down.  Good luck!
'''Support'''.  I think the comments made here will be taken well by Lucky, and ensure cautious and proper use of admin powers.
'''Support''' --
'''Supprot''' I thought he was an adm already, giving light to another: WTH? He isn't one already?!
'''Support'''. Definitely. I was extremely impressed with Lucky's behavior with SuperDude115. Lucky is an indispensable editor and will make a fine administrator. I trust that he will follow deletion policy to the letter when actually speedily deleting pages. &mdash;
'''Rock Solid Support'''.  Lucky has spent a lot of time on the Wikipedia, far more than I, and though he has had some previous rejected nominations for Administrator status, I still stand by my previous assertion: Lucky has - on balance - the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.  I must say that I am pleased to (in my lurkdom) see the development of a more restrained and civil temperment in moments of stress and potential or real misunderstandings in communication with others here on the Wiki.  I also am impressed in how he has handled the SuperDude115 situation.  That takes real understanding and concern for others here.  Going the Extra Mile.  On that case ''alone'' I believe he deserves support here. It is time!  Yes. . .  Lucky, your nom here got me out of lurkdom status. . . if only for today.  --
'''Support'''. Should have been re-admined earlier.
'''Support''' I thought he was one?! I also trust his judgement. &mdash;
'''Support'''. With over 13,000 edits, he's dedicated enough, and I believe will make a fine admin. --
'''Support''', an excellent editor and a good man for the job. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good editor, and I think that he'll make a good admin &mdash; he's diligent, committed to Wikipedia, and has become much more thoughtful concerning admin-related tasks. --
'''Support'''. Responsible, and all 'round nice guy. Anyone who knows what a W116 is can't be a bad chap.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Wikipedia needs more janitors.  As for the "triggerhappy" accusations, he can't be called "triggerhappy" since he doesn't have a gun.
'''Support''' OHMYGOD I almost missed your nomination! I supported the last 3 times , and same goes here. &mdash;
'''Support'''. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;
'''Support'''. I knew he wasn't already, but it's really, really time he was!

'''Support''' - but only on the condition that he upgrades to '''Lucky 7.0'''. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
'''Support''' one of our best users. '''
'''Oppose'''. I have removed three speedy tags Lucky made in the last ten minutes. One on a recently uploaded image that was neither corrupted nor redundant as far as I could see and no reason was given, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kingjameson.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=20168262], another that Lucky said was "substandard" but cited no actual criteria [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oropouche_virus&diff=prev&oldid=20168540], another for vanity when the article clearly made an assertion of notability as a published author, national speaker, and newspaper writer [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimberly_West&diff=prev&oldid=20168658]. I am seriously not comfortable with seeing speedy abilities in Lucky's hands. --
'''Weak oppose''' I also noticed he's a bit too eager to speedy stubs.
'''Weak oppose''' per Stewart Adcock and Dmcdevit
'''Strong oppose'''. Despite all useful contributions, he just doesn't learn what innumerable people have told him for over a year, including but not only in his three failed nominations; he just continues speedy-tagging perfectly valid stubs ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weinheim&diff=18024679&oldid=18023882 like this]). He previously pledged to stop that but didn't, so, no matter what he promises, with adminship he will not only continue that, but he will directly delete such stubs.
'''Oppose'''. Trigger happy. Several times in just the last week, I've thought "who'd have put a speedy tag on that? Oh, its...". Having previously said he'd stop, and not having done so rather leaves me wondering. And the example cited by [[User:NoPuzzleStranger|NoPuzzleStranger]] is a case in point: if that went to VfD, it's be unanimously kept as a real place, and there is just absolutely no way that can be speedied. -
'''Oppose'''.  See commments.  --
'''Oppose''' Too quick to delete and creates work for others mopping up. If he can keep his promise for a year, reconsider then.
No reason to give adminship to someone who has shown they would delete things that aren't CSDs.  Seems to not use edit summaries much, but even then I could find 2 or 3 instances of bad tags in the last few weeks, not to mention the ones pointed out by others.  The comments (as pointed out below) are also way too harsh.
Regretfully '''Oppose'''. I hope you know I respect your editing skills and effort for the project, but no one needs to be an admin to contribute. I've seen just too much evidence of speedy tagging legitimate subjects. A German town? What would even hint that that would be speediable? If you don't know what something is, just clean it up and let someone else decide. Also the remarks pointed out by [[User:ElBenevolente|ElBenevolente]] are unacceptable no matter who they are to. Even vandals can be treated with civility. That calms the situation down instead of escalating it. -
What Taxman said. I agree that things have improved and I'm glad Lucky is a diligent and valuable contributor, but I think admins encounter enough hostility as it is and it would be better not to fan the flames. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''', agree with [[User:Michael Snow]]. --
'''Oppose'''.  I agree that Lucky has matured/improved a bit, but I've still seen him be a bit too harsh with other users and  quick to call others vandals [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maoririder&diff=prev&oldid=19735578].  He is still quick to tag articles for speedy.  Also, it seems that he feels that some comments left on his talk page constitute an "invasion of privacy", and that users should resort to contact by e-mail instead [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mirror_Vax&oldid=19624256].  He has however contributed a great deal to wikipedia, with the 6 featured articles, and more than 12k edits, I just do not feel adminship is appropriate/necessary at this time.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Oppose'''. I've waited a while to think things through but really, just too trigger-happy. I do not trust him with the delete button.
'''Oppose''' As an editor who consistently creates stubs and marks short articles as stubs, I'm a bit disappointed that such an experienced user persists in pushing for their deletion. You don't seem to think before you act, which will be catastrophic when you can actually delete articles, instead of just targeting them for deletion.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose'''.  Not so much as an edit summary on articles marked as speedy, and many questionable applications of the speedy criteria.
'''Oppose''' - not comfortable for the above reasons.
'''Oppose''', [[Talk:Childlove movement/Deletion debate archive|Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Childlove movement]]: knee-jerk reactions should be avoided.
'''Oppose'''.  Continues to slap articles with creative deletion reasons that don't appear in [[WP:CSD]], such as today's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pictures_of_famous_men_with_facial_hair&diff=20509722&oldid=20509462 "Photo gallery without text, possibly by User:MascotGuy"]. &mdash;
--
'''Neutral'''.  Lucky 6.9's behavior has improved, but he still has a tendency to make rude remarks to users.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.28.252.156&diff=prev&oldid=18767403] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:152.163.100.12&diff=prev&oldid=18621198].
'''Neutral''' Maybe my paranoia dial is on a too-high setting, but I am concerned that [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky's]] deletion powers would be used in cases where he is currently attaching a <nowiki>{{speedy}}</nowiki> tag.  95% of the time these <nowiki>{{speedy}}s</nowiki> are great, but a signifcant proportion probably deserve more attention (I'd also encourage <nowiki>{{deletebecause|blah blah blah}}</nowiki> to be used more often to aid any administrators performing the speedy deletions).  A lesser concern is that [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] seems to rarely provide edit summaries, a trait that I find pretty annoying.  However, I don't think my concerns merit an '''Oppose''' because I have no doubt that [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] is a well-meaning user who could be trusted to act in good faith.
Neutral. I concur with Stewart. He/she is a good user, but the deletion controvesy may cause some concern.
<s>'''Neutral'''. I still have the same reservations, but there's enuf transparency that if it gets to be a problem it will get detected and resolved accordingly. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 04:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)</s> Vote withdrawn, in case neutral votes negatively affect the percentage.
'''Neutral'''.  Does tend to tag non-CSDs as speedies (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Ashley&diff=19605937&oldid=19605437] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loud_As_F%2A%40k&diff=19670958&oldid=19669479] ) but I think there's enough mitigating stuff documented elsewhere in this RFA that I can't justify objecting.
'''Support''' as nominator, if he accepts, that is. --
'''Suh-port'''
'''Mild Support''' responces were a bit short but a good user, third time the charm --
'''Support''' voting thing is fandangled, needs to be fixed, since its just a redirect. But whatever, good user, so I support.
'''Support''', been here long enough and done enough to know how to use admin tools.
'''Support''', mop will be in good hands, I think. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''*Blink* *Blink*''' you mean he's not already an admin?!?!?!?! '''Support of course''' &nbsp;
Sure!  --
'''Support''' Absolutely.
'''Support''' seems good to me.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support''', and damn the editcountitis.
'''Support'''. A good editor, a reasonable fellow, an asset to Wikipedia, a deserving mop-wielder. Also, editcountitis is evil.
'''Support''' Satisfied with the answer to my question.  He's been around for a long time -- he's got a LAW, for goodness' sake. :)
'''Yes, please''' - low activity level or not, good, long-term editors shouldn't be shackled if they want to do sysoppy things.
'''Support''' Users should not be shackled to their edit count nor to their activity level, he'd use the admin powers well. <small>
'''Support''' as per all of the foregoing. →
'''Support''' He will be a good admin --
'''Support''' no reason not to.
'''Support'''. Being relatively inactive is not a good reason against adminship. We most definitely do not demand that our admins put their lives on hold for Wikipedia; likewise, there is no required quota for admin actions: any help is a good help. We should look to the quality of the user and whether adminship can help them help Wikipedia in what they do manage to do on Wikipedia. -
'''Support'''. I like his edits.--
'''That's hot.'''
<nowiki>"'''Support'''. $user is not already an admin?!"</nowiki> &ndash;
'''Support''' on the basis of some of the oppose votes being among the most stupid yet seen.
'''Support''' I quote [[User:Raul654/Raul's laws|his law]] alot lately. Luigi's a guy worth trusting with the mop, IMO.
'''Support''' It's no big deal, right?  Plus, the Everyking situation below seems silly.  We need admins. -
'''Support''', it's time he finally became an admin. &mdash;
'''Support''' regrdless of [[User:Durin]]'s point below. Sorry not everyone is as wikipediholic as some of us. Please no more editcountitism. Even [[User:Kate]], the creator of the tool, finds it somewhat wrong as she was also denied adminship on the basis of not enough edits (correct me if I am wrong). Enough of the RfA cult. --<small>
'''Support''' to counteract remarkably stupid oppose votes noted below.  There is no requirement that an admin candidate spend any particular amount of time editing, and rate of edits is certainly not a valid metric of appropriateness for an admin candidate.
'''Extreme heterosexual man support''' --
Infrequent editors can be admins too.
'''Support''' The important thing is that he will use his power ''well'' not ''often''.--
'''Support'''--block some vandals for me.
I'll '''support'''. -
'''Support''' a trustworthy user. Hoping especially to counteract Everyking's  blackmail attempt below. Offering to withdraw his Oppose vote for the price of an apology when the percentages are tight is ... [sorting through vocabulary ... no ... no ... not that word, this is not an RFC on Everyking ... no ... good heavens, not that one ... no ... no ... no... ] ... is wrong, IMO.
'''Support''' So what if he didnt have many edits in the past month.
Support, of course -
'''Strong support'''. Will not abuse the tools; nay, will make Wikipedia better.
'''Support''' - thoughtful and conscientious in my experience.
'''Support'''. Edit count not indicative of abilities to be an admin. He seems to know what he is doing--
'''Support'''. Would make a good admin, [[IMHO]] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
Activity level is, for me, just too low. 21 edits in the last 30 days, and overall less than 2 edits per day average since your last RfA, where there were a number of people concerned about participation level.  Kate's tool is down right now, so I can't see if there's a bunch of deleted edits to your credit. Your use of edit summaries has improved since your last RfA (66% since last RfA), but it's lower than I like to see. --
I agree with Durin, the activity level is ''way'' too low. Going back 100 edits takes us to 26 September 2005. Going back 500 edits takes us to 9 May 2005. This isn't about his total edit count (not even sure what it is), this is about his level of participation.
Not even 150 edits since his last nomination. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' as above
'''Oppose''' Low activity level
Absolutely not. Made a false accusation against me and tried to get me sanctioned for it.
'''Oppose''' as per Durin's point.
'''Oppose''' per Cryptic, and short answers to the questions below.
'''Oppose''' per Durin
'''Oppose''' as per Carbonite and Durin.
'''Oppose'''. [[User:Luigi30|Luigi30]] has just nominated ''four'' school stubs for deletion, with the only deletion rationale given being "Not Notable".  It is hard to think why he should have done this unless he is either lazy, inexperienced, or given to acting in bad faith.  Whatever the reason - and there may well be one, though I can't imagine what - I really don't think he's ready for adminship.  (See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lux Middle School]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickle Middle School]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lefler Middle School]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irving Middle School]].) &mdash;
'''opppose''' because of what haeleth says
'''Oppose''', user has been mildly disruptive as of late.
'''Oppose'''. Committment is not a just a word. Show me you are serious by participating actively. Then, I will support.
'''Oppose'''. Short answers, coupled with less edit activity do not give me confidence; better-safe-than-sorry vote. --
'''Oppose''' I'm not comfortable with the AFD work, a couple nominations that could have been avoided with a quick Google search [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoss (album)]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Niarchos_III]]. He just doesn't seem to have put much effort into them. Other nominations have very little in the way of reasoning/rational. The comment "Because it's faster to make quick comments on IRC than it is to edit" above makes me wonder where his focus is. IRC ''isn't'' Wiki but we are a encyclopedia first and a community second, spending most of his time on IRC rather than working on Wikipedia makes me concerned about priorities.
'''Neutral''' as per Durin's remarks; 1,500 edits total, minimal activity since last RFA, and a fair use of edit summaries.  Will support in the future if participation improves.
'''<s>opppose</s> Neutral ''' the mass afd of 4 schools right in the middle of the most constructive discussions for a compromise in a long time seems a little counter productive and not a move that it likely to be good with regard to gaining a consensus.  Not really an admin-like move.  Lugio was this an honest mistake, have you not been following recent school AFD's?
<small>



'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' has done a lot of extensive work and has proved to be a good, dilligent editor. How convincing do you want a reply to "please indicate acceptance of the nomination" to be??? He's answered everything accurately and succinctly. That's an admirable skill.

'''Support''' - Metts [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. Plus, I always support werewolves. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor, will use the mop well. --
'''Support''' -- great answers to the "candidate questions", especially.
'''Support''. Please commit to use edit summaries in  '''all''' non-minor edits!
'''Support''' - The pop up navigation tool is incredibly useful. Shows real commitment.
'''Support''' knows stuff well.
<s>'''Neutral''', sorry, but I don't much like the answers to the ''Questions for the candidate''. I would prefer if a little more thought was put into them. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' -- A valuable contributor with Wikipedia's best interests in mind. -
'''Support''', I expect this user to apply admin tools well.
'''Support''' good edit count.
'''Support'''; oppose silly and meaningless criteria.
'''Support.''' Many good contributions. I'm confident that Lupin will use the tools well. But please do use edit summaries (you may put a bit in your JavaScript to remind you if you forget, as I did). --
'''Support'''- will make a great admin.
'''Support'''.  I think Lupin will use the tools wisely. --
'''support''' as Lupin has expanded his answers below. --
'''Support''' No point in me beating a dead horse now. Your willingness to change is commendable. I do hope you were being honest when you said you'd start using edit summaries.
'''Oppose'''- didn't sound very convinving in his response to nomination.
<del>'''Oppose''' My voting standards come down to three things: edit quality, edit quantity and answers to the admin questions. You have the quantity down, but not the quality as you forget to use summaries. You didn't put any thought into answering the questions. I'm sorry.
--
'''Oppose''' for now, but I might be willing to change my vote to support if Lupin (1) answered the questions in more detail (especially if he mentions the unauthorized bot he ran a few months ago in the conflict section) and (2) showed consistent use of edit summaries over the next few days and resolved to continue using them consistently in the future (the last part of which he's almost done).
No edit summaries. Sorry,
'''Neutral'''.  (Changed from Oppose.)  I am not going to stand in the way of this nomination.  I would change to support with a month of you consistantly having edit summaries.  --
'''Support''' as nominator.
[[User:Madchester|Madchester]] has made many, many excellent edits to articles that I watch and he has always been civil in disputes.
'''Support''' Madchester has been at Wikipedia for a good length of time, has a good amount of edits, and his dedication to Live 8 and "Make Poverty History" shows he is a good person.
'''Support'''  Looks like a good user to me.
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Disclaimer: We know each other in real life before we became Wikipedians.'''<br><del>'''Neutral''' for now. Seems a good candidate. Guess we will talk about this in tonight's accounting class.</del><br>I did not see you for tonight's accounting class. However, based on your activity, I moved to support. P.S. The prof gave us back the assignments for the whole term and I have yuor assignments here. Find a time to pick it upfrom me.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
<s>'''Neutral''' for now, as I would like to see this RfA unfold before I cast my vote, but the impression I get from the user is positive. </s> As nothing came up, I hereby change my vote to '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Had seen him around Wikipedia before, looks good. :) --
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''That's hot.'''

'''Support''' without reservation. Great editor. [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]--
'''Support''' He already functions like an admin anyway, so this is a smooth transition. ;) --
'''Support''' for skill, patience and common sense. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Very good experience with this user.
'''Support''' Concur with above, also very friendly with newbies.
'''Support'''
'''Support''',
'''Support''', Mailer diablo has been helpful in mediating.  &mdash;

'''Support'''. Fantastic user.
'''Support'''. - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
Oh, all right, I suppose so. ;)
But of course.
Meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
'''Support'''.  A name I'm familiar with from some of the janitorial work he's done.  I didn't know much about him until now, but the more I look into his edits, the more impressed I am.  MD should make a good admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. New pages patrol is hard work.

Support. Deals with RC. W/o such people Wikipedia is already down.
'''Support'''. Definitely a good editor.
Seems like a great user. --
'''Support'''.  No question. -
'''Support'''

Support.
Support. --
'''Support'''. Good collaboration with other users on noticeboards, etc.
(Added -- I have seen actions and qualities of this person that make me feel they are not a good admin candidate.) Can't give this person the benefit of the doubt unless we had an [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|appropriate procedure for revoking adminship]] in active use. --
As nominator, '''of course!''' -
Grutness is among those whom I trust, and I've seen this editor around. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' wikifies too. <small>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. <font color=green>
'''Support''', though you could use a bit more usertalk namespace edits.
Firm stub-sorting mafia '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Stub-sorters are valuable people and need all the tools they can get.
'''Support''', by all means
'''Support'''
'''Support!''' Good editor. --
'''Support''' Trust [[User:Grutness|Grutness]] on this, contribs look great.
'''Support''', I trust the nominator. Mairi does great work on stub-sorting. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]

Support: very good works. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Mairi was the one to first <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> me.  She seems great.
'''Support''' <s>[[Mr Muscle]]</s> Mairi loves the jobs you hate, hand her the mop.
'''Support''', very active at [[WP:WSS]]. Surprised she's not in [[:Category:User gd]], though, given her name! ;-) --
'''Support''', can't think of anything sexual to write here.
'''Support'''. Mairi has promised that she will interact more, so I take that in good faith.
'''Support'''. In response to [[User:SPUI|SPUI]], ''some'' roads are notable. ;-) --
'''Support''', but you could use more 'usertalk' edits.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', speedy delete all nominations that simply say "nn $crufttype-cruft". --
Cool. --
'''Hand over the mop!''' -- <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Not all admins have to be vandal-fighters. Mairi knows what she's good at, and we will all benefit from letting her delete redundant stubs and categories.
'''Support''' - Great contributor.  Should be handed the mop.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Keep up the good stub work.
Oppose for lack of involvement with others.
--
'''Delete''' nn roadcruft --
'<s>''Neutral'''. Same concern as with [[User:Quale]] above.  +3,000 edits and only 64 on Talk? I would want to see more exchanges with other editors. If he promises more involvement with other editors, I will support.
'''Support''', of course, per reasons above.
Damnit!!! I just wrote IM FIRST!! <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> with speed... but then a conflict came and sasquatch beat me and... yeah who cares.
'''Support''' Nice vandal wacker. --

Good RC patroller, the project will benefit from him having the extra buttons.
Cool.


'''Supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. Though reluctantly: this will mean I have far less to do on RC/NP patrol, and what ''else'' am I going to do with a Friday night? :)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as per reasons already stated.
'''Support''' so that Splash may enjoy his weekends.  :)
'''Support'''. Sterling work.
'''Support'''. Good crop of noms this week! --
'''Support.''' The more the merrier; the cabal gets lonely sometimes... --
'''Support'''. A finer vandal-fighter there has rarely been. Helpful and enthusiastic.
--
'''Support''' per IRC cabal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - why isn't he already one!?
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' (especially since [[User:Malathion/POV|his views]] interest me).--
'''Support''' - I thought he already was an admin! -
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''', a vital part of our community, participates in VfD, and tags articles. Worthy of admim powers. &mdash;
'''Support''', good user. :)
'''Support''' WP can always use another high-caliber janitor. :-)
Could do ''fine'' work with the M-16 recoilless nuclear Gatling mop -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Harrumph!
'''Support'''. No question.
'''Support'''. Great vandalfighter.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Good work so far, will put tools to good use.
'''Support'''. Dedicated on RC patrol. --
'''Support'''. Very fine all-round contributor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia will benefit with rollback in his hands.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' per above. --
'''Support''' per nom. --
'''Support''' per nom. Great vandal fighter
'''Support''' I could have sworn he had a mop already
'''Strong support''' obvious to me.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
--
<font color="darkred">
'''Support'''. Definitely deserves to be an admin.--
'''Strong Support''', Great vandal whacker! Calm editor, would mop in circles instead of back and forth! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''', so he can stop posting to [[WP:AIAV]] and do it himself :).--
'''Strong support.''' Vandals beware.
'''Support''' Looks good to me
'''Support''', that's quite an impressive nomination!
'''Support''' appears to be a strong editor with good contributions--

'''Support'''
Wow - '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Any nomination by Durin shouldbe good enough for anyone!--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' <Insert tired clich'e here> I really thoguht he was one.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support.''' All these great users are making me feel inadequate! Seriously,  Malo has done nothing but good work here.
'''Support.''' Mass annihilates vandals but doesn't insult them. btw, my heart stopped for a second when I did not read the last four words in the previous support vote ;-) --
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
Clear as crystal '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Support'''
'''Undivided support'''.  Excellent, lightning-quick vandal fighter, and, well, I thought he ''was'' an admin. &mdash; <b><i>
'''Support''' great admin candidate --
'''Support''' obviously qualified. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - sounds like me.  Or at least what I think I'm like :).  Huge amounts of edits, very regular, and goes the extra mile.  Way too many links in the intro to ignore.
Support - thought he already was an admin.
'''Support''', people have to start telling me whether they're admins or not, because I really thought he was one.
'''Support'''. We need vandal fighters. --
'''Support'''. Malo gets my support. We need more like him ("malo" means "bad" in Spanish, bad news for the vandals when he gains access to the flamethrower)
'''Support''' for all reasons stated above.  I thought you were already one! :(
'''Support'''. Malo + sysop mop = Bueno!--
'''Support'''. Malo es Bueno!  --
'''Strong support''' per other votes -
'''Support''' per all above. I notice Malo around Wikipedia doing good work.--
'''Support''' per above.--
'''Strong Support''' - anyone that can be that nice to vandals, deserves it.  Good luck and good hunting.
'''Support''' - his talk page pretty much says it all. --
'''Support''' - excellent work so far.  Keep up the good work --''
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support'''. Give him the flamethrower!
'''Support'''.  Does great work.
'''Support'''; excellent work; often encounter him while on RC patrol.
'''Support''', I was thinking of opposing him just because the Oppose part was looking really lonely. But I can't oppose a great editor like this.
'''Strong support''': brilliant vandalwhacker, while I was on RCP last night, he was really active, and beat me to it 50% of the time <strong>
'''Support'''--
'''Durin nomination'''.
'''Support.''' Exactly the type of user we need around here.
'''Support''' Definitely qualified.
'''Durin''' as per Durin.
'''Support''' per above. --
You have my '''Vote of Confidence'''. -
'''Strong support.'''
'''Support''' minutes before the final whistle. Deserves it! --
Lunging, last-second support. Wait for it...TOUCHDOWN!
'''Support'''. Needless to say, I support him, pending his acceptance of his nomination.
'''Support'''. I encourage him to accept. He has been a consistent editor since November 16, 2004, and seems to be exceedingly polite in dealing with other users. It would be useful to have an admin to help do vandal-patrol on Argentine and other South American pages.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy and hard-working, the kind of editor WP needs and the kind of admin I prefer. --
'''Support''' - but most edits are very minor, and sometimes doesn't use edit summeries, and often when the candidate does the edit summery isn't that good, such as "major edits" instead of attempting to explain edits.  That said would make a good admin most definately --<small>

'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. Looks like he'd make a good admin. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support''' &ndash; We've crossed paths on several articles, mostly related to [[Football (soccer)|Football]] and [[Argentina]] and I know we can count on him.

<small>
'''Support''', does good work.-
'''Support''' But like Ryan Norton said, it would help the RC Patrollers out a lot if you used edit summaries more frequently and made them a bit more specific.
'''Support'''. Will be a good admin. -
Cool.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. Could probably use more experience in the WP: namespace, but I feel foreign-language hoax fighting is important work. <font color="green">
Why not?
'''Support'''. Another one that looks good in my eyes. Let me warn you: you WILL get into conflicts, so don't be afraid of them. You seem like a conscientious editor, so I don't see anything wrong with giving you the keys to the janitor's closet. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |

'''Support'''. Everything looks good here. :)
--

'''Support.''' I'm honored to be the first to support. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
Support; Tony is a great editor, and would probably make a great admin as well.
'''Support''' Very busy wikipedian, to say the least. ''
'''Support'''. A very dedicated user, he has created over 250 articles including writing the vast majority of a Featured Article. Adminship should be no big deal, I trust him to use the special things wisely.
Sure. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Absolutely --
'''Support'''. (See comments.)
'''Support'''; good editor, mature and civil, and I expect he would use admin powers wisely.
Support. Has been patient and a good contributor since his previous nominations. His disagreements date back to when he was new to Wikipedia and didn't understand how things worked. He knows how to get along now and I'm confident he can be trusted. --
Support.  Tony has contributed well-researched and comprehensive articles and engages in friendly, productive discussion.
'''Support'''.  Agree with comments by Mindspillage (below).

'''Support.''' I voted for Marine last time, and I have no reason to change my vote this time.  Marine is a high-quality editor whose articles on Puerto Rico are a huge asset to Wikipedia.  This user's promotion is long, long overdue.
'''Support'''.
Quite. &mdash;
'''Support'''; I have read other people's comments, and I believe everyone can get better at what they do, I think Tony has done a great job in wikipedia, and I am sure he will do a great job as an admin.
'''Support''', but I suggest you sign posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> if you're to be an admin.
'''Support'''
<big>'''Support'''</big> of course.
'''Support'''. He's a great user, and has contributed a lot to articles. --
'''support'''. this user has grown and developed into a hard working, fair editor.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' As for temper, there are many fine tempermental admins. I trust that Marine won't abuse his admin powers.
Support. --
<s>Neutral.  Some people I trust are voting in support and I would like to as well.  However, the information presented by the opponents leads me to vote neutral.
'''Support'''. Give this man a mop!
'''Support'''. Great knowledge, should be a great editor.
Support. Edit summaries may be used more.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I actually intended to nominate him myself by now if I hadn't fallen off a bit in my Wikipedia activity. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Suppport'''.
To quote myself from last October - "''Admin candidates need a [[User:Netoholic/Admins|balance]] of work, to show they understand policy and the community.''"  I see no change after I gave this advice, since his participation in the Wikipedia: space is still [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=4&target=Marine_69-71&limit=100&offset=0 quite limited]. Show us you're going to help with the important tasks that admins are needed for. --
Unequivocally.
Absolutely not.  There's no doubt that Marine is a valuable contributor just by the sheer volume of his additions alone.  However, I don't think he has the temperment to be an admin here, frankly.  His interactions with other users leave a lot to be desired, such as when he accused me of being a racist and a vandal over a minor editing dispute. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modesto_Cartagena&diff=4572326&oldid=4571948] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_1#Modesto_Cartagena]  I'm certainly not the only editor he's had a problem with.  His many biography articles are an important edition to the encyclopedia, but he's also added both parent and subcategories to every one of them, leaving a cluttered mess for someone else to clean up in hundreds of articles.  While I certainly don't expect every admin to be an encyclopedia of rules and policies - I know I'm certainly not - I do expect an admin candidate to be able to use something simple like categories properly and effectively.
What Gamaliel said. Well-meaning contributor, but not necessarily suitable for adminship.
When Tony first came on the project, we had a major disagreement that became very heated.  Since then, he has settled down to be a good contributor, but I would rather not vote for now.
Neutral.  I actually was leaning toward Oppose, but I'll wait to see how the evidence presents itself throughout the course of the nomination.  My first experiences with this editor were rather negative, he was extremely territorial about the contents of the [[List of Puerto Ricans]] and took any edits to it (namely removals) almost as insults to his national sense of pride.  I'm referring to [[Talk:List of Puerto Ricans]], in which RickK asked a simple question, and Marine responded with a barrage of rhetoric and a demand that he "drop the issue".  I have not had a lot of dealing with the editor since then, so I will wait a little longer to make a support/oppose decision. --
Neutral. Although the high level of industry inclines me to support, the low level of community involvement pulls the other way.  I will abstain from this but would expect to support a future request. --
[[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
of course! great editor, and keeping cool under stress.
'''Support''', yes, of course! The perfect user: quality article content, courteous and constructive community interaction.
'''Support''', a very good user.
'''Support'''; excellent editor.
'''Support''', of course. A great editor - Wikipedia needs more like him. -
'''Support'''. Excellent editor, certainly worthy of the extra trust. -
'''Support'''. An all-round excellent Wikipedian. —
'''Support''' a fine admin candidate.
Support.
Of course! Mark is one of the finest editors here! '''Support'''.
Strongly support -- even if I'd never seen his work before (and I have -- he's a great Wikipedian), the attitude towards collaboration and encouragement he displays on this page alone speaks volumes.

'''Support'''.
<span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
Support.
Give this man a mop.
And a bucket. -
And the a key to the closet.  --
And another vote. &mdash;
Everything has already been said above. Strongly support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. [[Image:Cheeseburger.png|20px]]
'''Support'''. Courteous, friendly editor. --
'''Support.'''

'''Fuddle Him. Immediately'''
I can't believe Tony beat me to this nomination! Mark has good sense and would benefit from having admin tools; he's done good work in article space as well as helping clear up disputes.
'''Support''' out of strong respect for nominator.
'''Strong support'''.  Very impressed with his boldness when he first came here, and I'm certain he can be trusted with adminship. [[Image:Yemen flag large.png|24px]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Cuddle''' Fuddle.
'''Strong support''' - who ''hasn't'' seen him about the place? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. I've seen him all over the place and I also trust Tony's judgement as nominator.
'''Support''' - a conscientious editor who already shadows many administrative functions. His attitudes to cracking down on image misuse and copyright is commendable. Give this man a mop!
'''Support''', I seriously need to go through [[WP:LA]] and figure out who is an admin and who isn't, because I seriously thought he was one.
Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
<s>'''Oppose''' &#8766; The ruddy blighter thwapped me in IRC.</s> '''n00b support''' &#8766; Mark seems to be a good chap with a square head on his shoulders and a strong desire to improve Wikipedia. →
'''Support'''. From what I've seen he merits it.
'''Support'''. He clearly knows the rules, and will use the admin tools wisely.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Even-headed, open to criticism, understands well the role of an admin. -
'''Support''' per nominator and others who have yet to raise a single solitary objection.
'''Support''' Yes, without a doubt! '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Per all other folks, especally the bit about the square head...we need more of that.
'''Support'''. Passed lightning adminship-exam, and mindspillage showed me an example of conflict resolution here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elvis_Presley&diff=prev&oldid=27845641].
'''Support''' per my reasoning on Ianblair's RfA.
'''Support''' -- confident this user would not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''': Astonishing: I was on IRC with him at the same time (rare for me to be there), and I never heard a peep about this.  That's some good non-spamming.
'''Support''' gladly.
'''Support''' Good lord, you're not one?
Extreme '''support''' per all of the above (and the RFA cliché #1, but Ral already used that one). --
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Extreme fuddle'''.
'''Support''', good work, deserves the extra tools.
Always reminds me of [[Leroy Anderson]]'s ''Fiddle Faddle'' (for the benefit of the musicabalists). --
'''Extreme "Australia are going to the World Cup" support''', heheh. <font color="red">

{{RFA cliche}}.
'''Extreme I-welcomed-him support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. has a good history and needs the tools.--
'''Support'''. Aye. A good man.
'''Support'''. definitely a good user who would make good use of the mop and bucket. <small>
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' for very funny man!
'''He comes from a land down under.'''  --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''. Only know him from IRC, but he seems like he knows what the heck he's doing. ;-) --
'''Support'''. A great guy who'd do a fine job.
'''Support'''. Now there's a bandwagon I'm willing to jump on. We need more admins! -
'''Support''' Answers to questions below are exactly right IMHO. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. One of the most prolific users I've ever seen: I see him around here everyday.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': I am sure real miscreants shall run away for cover seeing this "miscreant". --
'''Support''' see him round often.
'''Fuddle'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong support.'''
'''Support ²'''
'''Fuddled Alien Support''' will use the tools well.
'''Elmer Fudd support'''. ;) [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.png|15px]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support''', oh my goodness me, yes. -
'''Strewth!''', give this chap a mop.--
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin.
Hell yeah.
Of course.
'''Support'''; obvious one.  Good work, good user, will be good admin.
'''Strong support'''. Always turning up on my watchlist. Plus I like the term "fuddle me", it sounds rude :D lol.
'''Strong Support''' should have voted a long time ago, despite the immenent landslide. Wikipedia needs more fuddlemarks.
'''Support'''. It's starting to get a lil tight up here on the bandwagon.

'''Holy mackrel anoint him now Support''' great Wikipedian, great guy, Fuddle will truly be an admin among admins.
'''Support'''. What more can I add?
'''Support'''.  I almost didn't bother checking out the RfA for a Mark Gallagher, who I had never heard of but luckily I did, for Mark is fuddlemark in disguise.  Whatever name he uses, he is a fine Wikipedian and deserves to enter the pantheon of admins.  --
I'm tempted to oppose simply because he told '''me''' that he wouldn't run for admin until January when I wanted to nominate him.  But I won't.  I'll find some other way to get even with him ''(evil laugh)''.
'''Support''' - has made valuable contributions as a user and I'm sure he will make a fine admin.
He isn't an admin? Well I'll be fuddled! I'll add my '''support''' - despite him being an Aussie ;) - for three reasons: 1) Mark's a great wikipedian; 2) he'll make a great admin; 3) Tony's refreshingly honest nomination!
'''Speedy Support''' Of course Outstanding User --
'''Support''' this is going to pass, I'm just doing it for more edits....Mwahahahahahahaha!!!!! Okay, maybe I just want to support, or do I?
'''Support'''. A solid non-fool; well deserved.
'''Strong Support''' - This fine Australian editor has done wonders for this project and I'm extremely happy to support his nomination. Cheers --
'''Hah he said Crickey''' whoops! Should that have been bolded? Anyways, good user and total support. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Did I miss a memo? Is it Long Overdue Nomination Week? --
'''I'll 84th that!''' --
'''Support''' Would be a valuable addition to the admin team ;] --
'''Extreme fuddlecycle on wheels''' support.   &mdash;
'''Speedy support'''  That's right, just close this now and promote him.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributer. Would have voted sooner, but I decided not to vote during my own RFA. --
'''Support''', of course. -
Strewth, I know some say that he doesn't know Christmas from Bourke Street, but I reckon and he's cunning as a dunny rat and he'll be flat out like a lizard drinking clearing out admin backlogs, plus has Buckley's chance of abusing his powers. -
''Strong Support'''
'''[[Wikipedia:Sheep vote|Sheep]] Support''' Baaaa...
Support (just in case)
'''Fuddling him'''
'''Support'''
'''w00t.'''
'''Support'''
'''Someone set up us the support''' &nbsp;
'''Extreme [[Pierre Trudeau|fuddle duddle]] support'''. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Extreme 100 GET support''' --<span style="font-family:monospace">&nbsp;
nominator
Per Jiang. MarkSweep has been very helpful to conciliate, and is cool-headed in contentious issues. &mdash;
You mean he isn't already? --
Instantnood and Carnildo said it already. --
He's not an admin? '''Support'''! -
[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
'''Supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' --May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. Yes, anyone that can keep cool in the Sollog affair gets the benefit of the doubt in my boook. :) -

'''Support''' Whenever we have disagreed MarkSweep is dedicated to using discussion and policy to find a solution.
'''Support'''- would make great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' - He's a productive guy. --
'''Support'''. He added a nice bit of badly-needed sanity to the whole Sollog mess, and does good work both editing and resolving problems.
'''Support'''; a truly excellent candidate.  Contribs and talk pages all show what I like to see.
'''Support''', MarkSweep should have a broom.
'''Cool'''.
Support. Excellent editor, will certainly be an excellent administrator.
'''Support'''. There may be disagreements over content issues, but anyone can see when someone is using his head and not his heart when attemting to find a solution out of sticky issues. Marksweep is clearly one of them. ;)--
'''Support'''. Has demonstrated ability to remain cool under pressure. -
'''Support'''. I agree with Hoary :) --
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Anyone who frustrates a vandal that much deserves to be an admin.
'''Support.''' Ditto.....
'''Support''', excellent line of thought and a fair contributor to the community. --
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''', clearly qualified and would be a valued admin.
'''Support''', this user meets my criterion of not being a vandal.
'''Support''', well-qualified.   Glad to know he isn't a vandal, too.  ;)
'''Support''' Solid user. I don't know if you were aware of this or not, but this nomination was vandalized the other day. A sockpuppet added around 13 fake votes in opposition. I reverted them and posted the sockpuppet on [[WP:VIP]]. He was banned the following day. He (or she, I don't know for sure) demonstrated great hatred towards both you and your nominator, [[User:Jiang]].
'''Support''' previous comments covered it.  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Appears to have the qualities necessary to make a good administrator.
'''Support'''. MarkSweep is an accomplished diplomat when other editors let the tension get to them. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;
'''Support''' Very active in reverting vandalism and would benefit with the admin rollback tool.
'''Support''' with two thumbs up.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Baaa...
'''Support'''. I support even though he has goons that wrote on my talk page.

we haven't met, so this may be a sheep vote.
'''Sopport'''. I've been running into him on the mathematical articles and I saw that he was very helpful, so I'm confident he will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. I've been favorably impressed by his handling of some intransigent editors. --
Although I resent his fraudulent use of my name, '''Support''' because he's a fine Wikipedian. -
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Also an apology to MarkSweep for making a conclusion on a couple of out-of-context diffs --
'''Strong support'''. Anyone who can get [[User:Instantnood]] and [[User:SchmuckyTheCat]] to agree on anything should probably be a mediator, or nominated for sainthood. ;-)
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''. What nonsense. I should not have to vote for this. I'd vouch for him but I'm not sure he wouldn't actually have to vouch for me instead. Fellow [[Sollog]] editor.
'''SupportSweep'''.
'''Support''', I missed this vote earlier. Good editor.
:-O What do you mean he wasn't one already! -
'''Support'''. I've seen this chap around a lot; particularly the whole [[Sollog]] thing, which I was part of as well. In fact, I ditto his comments about maturation etc; I started off quite combatative and mellowed myself, so I feel a supernatural... ''connection'' with this man, a... subperceptual cognitive harmonisation.-
'''Support'''.  Very good and supportive editor, I honestly thought he already was an admin.<small>
Eeek.  Almost missed this one.  '''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' - I am fully aware I am outnumbered here, however I would like to point out that MarkSweep opposed my application of removing personal attacks and did not file an RfC or anything on the matter, but simply went straight for a [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI|requestion for arbitration]] "against" me where he made biased generalizations about my communication instead of taking a full look into my handling of communications by others. --
Can't decide.
I trust the nominator. --[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Because of his work on [[Oh My Goddess!]], it became a [[WP:FAC]]. In order to do that, you must be civil, compromising and deal with many people. This user showed that his conduct is civil and he works well with others. However, I do caution him that with some of the articles he edits, they are under constant revert wars, so he needs to be careful before he starts blocking people and locking articles like [[Bogdanov Affair]]. Nonetheless, I still '''support.''' --
'''Support'''. Nominator is coo, and funny ='s good. --[[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' --(
Thought he was one.  --<font color="red">
'''Support''' I trust that the nominator wouldn't nominate someone bad, so I support. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Furry Alien Support''' All it of orange. --
'''NONDESCRIPT, AMBIGUOUSLY VAGUE AND OBFUSCATED ACT OF LENDING CREDENCE'''. I believe I may have possibly interacted with him in the past, which might have reinforced my opinions of him in a positive manner. --
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''', enjoy adminship. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' the Redwolf24 admin-nominating cabal. ; - ) --
'''Support''' Always nice to see him on IRC too. Shall be a fine addition.
'''Support''' 4600 edits is quite enough and his protectionist leanings are a plus.
'''Support''', Seems quite capable and reasonable.  Sorry, wasn't logged in before.
'''Support''', certainly. This user has proven himself to be a most committed and hard-working contributor to our project, and has made a wide range of contributions in many different areas. Whilst I personally disagree with this user's somewhat protectionist stance, and with a few slightly questionable actions on his part, I would still expect that he would exercise good judgement as an admin and often such matters are opinion based rather than any kind of factual input (Bogdanov Affair is a particular case where protection is understandable, since it has turned into a mud-slinging match between two POV-warring parties). I expect that Maru shall be an asset to our community as an admin. --
'''Support'''. Surprised he was not an admin already....
'''Support'''. Oh, yes, you know I'm down. -
'''Strongly oppose'''. Advocates permanant protection of [[Bogdanov Affair]] on WP:RFAR, showing a lack of understanding of wikiculture and protection policy. --
'''Oppose'''- Further interaction with this editor has left me feeling unsettled as to his abilities and motivations. I will not support. --
On the "oppose" side of neutral re: the [[Bogdanov Affair]] affair for the moment -
<s>'''Neutral''' I'll probably change to support if [[User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards#Why not me?]] is updated to reflect this nomination ;)
'''Neutral'''.  <s>I don't want to oppose, but I personally like to see contributions to a broader selection of articles.  More importantly, I also prefer to see more WP namespace edits before fully supporting.</s>  --
'''Mais bien sûr!'''
'''support''' Looks like a solid candidate.
I'll trust that Master Thief will accept (I see no record of it on his or Grutness' talk page), and I know how good he is as taking care of vandals. Support.

Absolutely.
'''Support''', seems to be a very dedicated user, and devoted to fighting vandalism.
'''j'ai un grand crayon.''' and I intend to use it. Seriously, with all the work that I have seen [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]] do, I was under the impression that he was an admin already.  Good and well thought out edits and comments.  Support. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support.''' Not an admin already? This one's "no big deal." --
'''Support'''. I've been waiting until the Master Thief had been here long enough so I could nominate without being thrown into a cell with [[Graham Capill]].-
'''Support'''. An excellent enthusiastic user, and I really like the humor. :-)
Yes, yes.
Definitely '''Support'''. Will be a good sysop. --
'''Support'' - doesn't seem likely to go on a vandalism spree, seems familiar enough with policy.
'''Support'''.Another great user has drawn me out from my policy not to vote.
'''Support'''. Active on the village pump and in the community. Great admin material. --
'''Support''', good work all around.
'''Support''', definately worthy to take charge of another mop and bucket, I think he would make good use of the tools if given to him.
'''Support''', definitely. An excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''. Great contributor to the Legend of Zelda articles. Should make a good admin.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good contributor, no reason that user cannot be trusted with key to janitor's closet.

'''Support'''  You show great restraint in dealing with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean_Gray&diff=next&oldid=13362083 vulgarities] and have a number of valuable contributions.  --
'''Support'''. Good article-space and VfD contributor. <font color=#00A86B>
'''Support'''.
'''Supprt'''.

'''Strong support'''. A solid contributor. --
'''Support'''; good candidate.  I like what I see.
'''Strong Support''' I don't always agree with Garrett (example: the Pokeprosal), but his work on VfD has generally been great, and overall he's intelligent, stable, and thoughtful.  No reason to believe he won't make a great admin.
As strong as it gets.  Garrett is one of the best Wikipedians I've met.
'''Support''' I wanna be the last guy to vote ;- )
'''Oppose'''. Three months is not enough for me.
'''Oppose''' Great work.  Just keep it up for another few months without burning out or flipping out and I'll change my vote to support then. For now, three months is insufficient.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Opppose'''.  3500 edits is quite commendable but he is still a little too green.  Once he is re-nominated I will change my vote if he keeps on the same track.  &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Three months or so is far too early for a nomination.  I recommend withdrawal and reconsideration in early September. --
'''Oppose'''. Has made a negative impression. No, I won't provide evidence. Supporters are not asked for diffs.
'''Oppose'''. '''three''' months...? ''28 support votes....''
'''Neutral.''' Although he has acted quite commendably in the three months he's been contributing to Wikipedia, it's still only three months.  Before I can support him, I wish to see him contribute for another six months.
'''Neutral''' Great contributor but I would prefer a few more weeks under the belt.
'''Extreme nominator support'''.
'''Strong Support''' Good vandal fighter --
'''Support''' at a cheery -27C.

'''Support''' I think MC was born to slay wiki vandals! Well-rounded contrib's.
'''Strongish support''' Good at remvoing vandalism, could be on a little more often when I am but certain user is on the rest of the time. --
Totally.  --
'''Strong Support''' - perfect candidate. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Seems to be an excellent editor.
'''Support'''. We need more vandal fighters.
'''Support''', per everyone else. I love his username, too.--
'''Support like it's nobody's business'''. I agree with Sean Black, awesome username. -[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''support'''
'''Strong Support!''' All hail masterchef!, scourge of the wikivandals. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
'''Support!'''  In addition to being a top-notch vandal-fighter, this guy truly understands how WP works; his Speedy tags are right on the money, and I've even seen him clean up after admins... The sooner we give him the mop and the shotgun, the safer we can all sleep at night.
'''Support''' per above. --

-- (
'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support'''! --
'''Support''' lower edit count than I'd actually like, but he certainly seems to know what adminship entails. Please spend a little more time creating articles in the future. &nbsp;
'''Support''', please give the Chef the mop.
'''Strong Support''' A valuable member of the Wikiworld already
'''Support''' - I trust him. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - See him around a lot. [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. Keep the the good work. --
'''Support'''. MasterChef beats me to a lot of vandalism reversion ''without'' use of the rollback button. '''''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]]</font>'''''<font color="green">
Cool.
'''Support''', another good vandal-whacker.
Good work. --
Support -
'''Support'''. You're good people. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''supportive gesture'''
'''Support''', great fighter for wikitegrity. -
'''Support''', looks ready to be trusted w/admin tools; great editor. --
'''Support'''. No reason to believe he will abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Lately whenever I go to clean up vandalism, I find that MCMC has beaten me to it, or had reverted previous vandalism. An overall "good guy" --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. One of the best RC patrollers I've ever encountered.
'''Support'''. I'm always happy to see RC patrollers.
<s>Good work, but maybe a little too quick on the revert button? </s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottoman_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=27351469] --

I've seen this user on several occasions and I think they'd make a fine admin. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' one of the finest users on here. ''[[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]]&nbsp;(<sub>[[User talk:Smoddy|t]]</sub><sup>
'''S'''upport. Dilligent in administrative efforts.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' as useful contributor.
'''Support'''.  I trust him. --
'''Support'''. Outstanding editor.
A courteous, calm, helpful, friendly editor who has demonstrated real commitment. For examples, see [[Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 1]]. --
''Support'', no big deal, seems fine to me, --
'''Support''', a great contributor.

'''Support.''' Having witnessed the expert, calm and courteous way Mel has dealt with some of the most implacable, determined POV-pushing trolls that Wikipedia has to offer, my support is without reservation. --
Strong '''Support'''.  Good editor, good diplomat.
Support.
Support.  Give the man a mop. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', give him the mop and bucket. :) -
'''Support''', strong support. Thanks for you work on vandals.
'''Strong Support'''. Well-thought-out [[User:Mel_Etitis#My_attitudes_to_Wikipedia_.28an_excuse_for_some_moans.29|attitudes_to_Wikipedia]]. Even goes the extra mile to welcome new users to the community.
'''Support'''. strong support, from what i've seen a great user!
'''Support'''. Great user! --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor.
'''Support'''.  I keep seeing things he has done, and he does them the right way. --
'''Strong support''' --
Ohyes - a goody.
'''Strong support!'''  He's not only a first-class trollslayer, he's terrific with new users. -
'''Support'''.
Support --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Strong Support''' after reading his [[User:Mel_Etitis#My_attitudes_to_Wikipedia_.28an_excuse_for_some_moans.29|attitudes_to_Wikipedia]]. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- Mel is exactly the sort of editor who will make an excellent admin. In fact he has been behaving like an excellent "admin" more or less since he started editing (as all editors should). All we are doing with this vote is confirming something that is already true, so that he can get the tools to do an even better job. --
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support'''. Mel is one of our best editors: knowledgable, trustworthy, fair, and civil, and he's familar with and respects policy. He'll make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' -- Mel seems to be a great editor, and I expect that we'll see an excellent administrator.
'''Support''':  everything I have seen is good.
'''Support'''  Encountered this user in a number of places, found no reason to doubt the above plaudits.
'''Support'''. Active and able. -
'''Support'''. Has already done some good work.
'''Strong Support''' Repeatedly fights vandalism without "sysop powers", imagine what good he can do wih them. -
...Support''': splendid contributor.

'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''. Excellent editor; cool-headed. --
'''Support'''. His user and talk pages show us he works well with others, as do his comments as I frequently encounter them on discussion pages.
Oops, I had put my vote in oppose section by mistake, following [[User:Juntung]]. '''Of course, strong support'''.
<s>Cool. --[[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 06:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)</s> Indeed, I made the mistake of voting wrongly (insert your Florida jokes here). '''Definitely support'''. --

I've worked with Mel on a few things and just assumed he was an admin already. Sorry Mel, my bad! '''Support'''.
I am a new wiki, but "since addicted" ... '''S'''upport, I found him encouraging.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I'm a bit late to the party, but user has a good grasp of policy, and manner in edits and Talk: indicate he will exercise admin power well.
'''Support'''. I've always found Mel to be highly knowledgeable, fair, and patient with difficult editors.--
'''Support''' Positive, upbeat, and I'm confident he'll be a circumspect admin
Strongly support. A keen and thoughtful user who exemplifies the ideal of editorial grace. --
'''Support''' Excellent.
Oppose, the weird letters in his sig make my browser lock up, and smoke comes out of the back of my computer and it smells like burnt pie.  Just kidding, '''Strong Support'''.
For sure.
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support''' Always willing to compromise.
'''Support''', I've been watching him keep his cool in an argument with a very agressive user. Just the sort of ability an admin needs.
'''Support'''  &mdash;
'''Support''' A very valuable asset to wikipedia, and, just by looking at the nomination, I can tell that Mel's very responsible and won't abuse eir powers.  No reason to oppose, and a multitude of reasons to support.  You leave me no choice ;) -
'''Support''' Funky fresh and on the level.
Strong Oppose, user is so fallacious and difficult as to have repeatedly given me reason to question if he was trolling. For examples, see [[Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 1]]. (

'''Support'''. <font color="red">
'''Support''', good contributor.
'''Support'''' would be an asset.
'''Support!'''Yummy,yummy.Good history bits and bites from Mib...go for it,pal!
'''Of course'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''', been an asset to wikipedia ;-) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' looked over edits and they look good. Made comment below.--
'''Support''' I'd been wondering where Hmib had got to. Now I know. ;)
'''Support''', thou I wish we can see more of him! :D--
'''Support''' counterrevolutionary, capitalist pig-dog, Nazi lover, and imperialist Jesus worshipper. what better can we get? down with the motherland! long live comrade Miborovsky!--
'''Support'''. Keep ''offending'' the motherland, Hmiborovsky! Grr.
'''Support''' He's an ocean of knowledge and a seeker of the truth. Keep defending the motherland, Hmib. 赵奕琨
'''Support'''. Will find the tools usefull.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Good contributor.
'''Support''' strong candidate--
'''Support''' - For great Wikijustice. "insert how was he not an admin cliche here."
'''Support''' - great person for improving Wikipedia and making it a better place. --
Clear as crystal '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support''' per nom! (and no, I don't consider this late support; I've transcended the desire to cast the [[first post|first vote]].
'''Support''', <s>but only after you give up the rights to your name to the [[Microsoft|great empire]].</s> Mike's done a lot of behind-the-scenes work and knows the Wikipedia policies. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''' If BD2412 says so...and Mike Rosoft is a fine editor in my experience. '''''
'''Support'''.

<s>''Strongly oppose'' all lackeys of Bill Gates</s> Support. Level-headed and constructive user.
'''Support'''. Give someone who's been doing lots of cleanup work the official mop and bucket! <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Strong Support''' Excellent work. --
'''Support''' Looks very good.
'''support''' he is a really good person
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' Happy to support fine contributor.
'''Very strong support'''. Dedicated, active for long time, help with unthankful task of keeping all the garbage out. Never saw anything wrong with his edits. I'd say I trust him as much as I would trust myself ;-)
'''support''', despite username :)
'''Support''', of course. I've seen Mike Rosoft around and he's a great guy. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Knows the rules; comments seem honest: will look good with the mop!
'''Support''' He not one al.. oh it's been said... --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''', per BD2412.  Mike seems like he would get a lot of good use out of deletion and rollback tools, and with a year and a half of experience here, I think he's more than ready.  (I had also thought he had already become an admin; I've seen him around a lot.) --
'''Support''', Mike should have been made an admin months ago.
'''support''' a) need more people deleting copyvios b) this will help him do his stuff c) it shouldn't be such a big deal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. Good and responsible contributor.
'''Support''' - good candidate.
'''Support''', good contributor, with significant edits. Helps revert vandalism. --
'''Support'''. Obviously an editor with enough experience. --
'''[[I Can't Believe It's Not Butter|I Can't Believe You're Not Sysop!]] <strong>
'''Support''' as per others.
'''Support''' vandal fighters are our friends --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Productive user who will be a good ally for Wikipedia. Plenty of experience. Thank you for being receptive. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates that he will likely use the tools well.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
<small>
'''Support'''.
Please set/enable your email id and let me know.
'''Oppose''' per the e-mail thing.  I'd like to see all admins have their e-mail address enabled.  Please let me know if you do this, and I'll change my vote back.
'''Support'''.  Oh dear.  The letter had me going for awhile, until I saw your comment.  I have to say, I'm very impressed with what I've seen you do on Wikipedia, so I'll be the first to throw my hat in the ring on your behalf, even if you're from the Barren Tundra to the North. :)  --
'''Support'''. Impressive contributor who was once "mistaken for a bot" for opening 40 tabs at once. Keep up the good work.
'''Support''', wow.
'''Support''', and massively - now, where do I deposit my millions?
'''Support'''. His inflated edit count is due to a <strike>bot-related</strike> [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals|re-stubbing]] project with [[User:Grutness/Ongoing geo-stub splits|User:Grutness]]. He participates in Wikipedia on structural and functional levels as can be seen by his work on organizing [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 5#Categorizing Canadian communities|categories]] and [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Re-structure Canada-related projects|projects]], following up [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#stupid.ca|on AfDs]], identifying potentially [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 5#Canadian roads|unencyclopedic topics in general]], designing a techncially-elaborate, yet easy-to-use structure for the Canadian [[User:Mindmatrix/alpha|collaboration of the month voting system]], and proposals for [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada#Partial automation|using bots to relieve monotonous work]] from other editors. --
Wow indeed. '''Support'''. <font color="red">
Delete, nn Canadian spam-scam-artis-- huh, where am I?  Oh yeah, '''support''', another hard-working editor with whom I've had only good dealings.  And sympathy over the Canadian spelling thing, which doubtless involves periodically getting it in the neck from the US- ''and'' the UK-style zealots.
'''Support''' no arguments from me!
'''Clear and present support of the highest order!''' (Political strife? Those crazy Quebecois!)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''', and my account number is 123-456-789, transit number 5542. If you run into any problems, I'll be glad to fly over to Nigeria without a visa. I trust you will take care of any difficulties I'll encounter. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', clearly. ''(unsigned support vote left by
'''Support''' happily.
'''Support''' Good admin material. --
'''support.'''
'''Support'''. Should be a speedy. :D -
'''support''' looks good. But please consider Nichalps point.
'''Support''' Keep fighting vandalism. --

'''Support''' Needs the mop for all the good work he's doing and he will wield it sensibly. Plus we need admins with a sense of humour.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I want to send you my sincere thanks and gratitude for your kind offer. However, I am in business too, and I make my living transferring large sums of money from and to my friends, relatives, and associates in Nigeria. Therefore, I know that you would agree, that in order to participate in this wonderful opportunity, I must have an advance monetary commitment from you - a good faith gesture on your part - in order to proceed. Therefore, I ask that you deposit just $2,500,000 into my PayPal account as an indication that you truly are sincere.
'''Support''' Wow you are not a admin Wow --
'''Support'''; one of the best requests I've ever read.
'''Support'''.You seem quite ready for that mop and bucket.--
I'm usually leery of supporting self-nominations, but I know and trust Mindmatrix's judgement. So I guess I'll '''support''' this.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - great editor. --
'''Support'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' not least as it's the first RfA which made me laugh! (Oh and he seems like a great editor too!) --
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Heh. I remember that time i blocked this guy. I just wonder if he'll speedy delete 100 pages in 5 minutes. That'd be useful, assuming "he" (or is it a bot!) can make judgement calls that fast. --
'''Support'''. From my experiences he'd make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Positive interactions, though he has a scary habit of occasionally taking over my watchlist with his restubbing. ;) -
'''Support''' ''This RfA is a [[WP:STUB|stub]]. You can help Wikipedia by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mindmatrix&action=edit voting on it]'' :)--
'''Support''' already working on a serious administrative nightmarish task... give em the mop already. &nbsp;
'''Support''' mop-worthy material I'd say, hand it over.
'''Support'''.  I'm fairly new, and he's one of the people that I'm learning the most from.
'''Support''': MM has done some superb writing; is community spirited, technically well-versed and has a keen sense of humour (note Canadian spelling).  He will do credit to the term "Admin."
'''Support'''! Mindmatrix has been very helpfull in every aspect whenever I have the chance to work with him. He is also a very fast and assiduous worker.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great edits. Awesome sense of humor. Would be a great admin.
<s>Same as [[User:Nichalp|Nichalp]]. Notify me too.--May the Force be with you!
Besides, I'm partial to [[double reed]]s. --
'''Support'''--
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.
'''Very, very strongly support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', exactly the sort of Wikipedian an administrator should be.
'''Support''', I second Thryduulf's comment.
'''Support''', very good contributor. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. An excellent editor who understands and cares about policy. She'll make a great admin.
'''Support.'''  Fine contributor (and quite the looker to boot :-P).  My compliments on your signature, as well.
'''Strong support'''; a superb editor with extraordinary common sense.  Hard to find a better admin candidate.
'''Support'''. What they said. &mdash;
'''Support.''' -
'''Support.''' - I have seen her work all over the place and I think she will make an excellent admin.
Very much so. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Her user and talk pages show us someone who communicates and works well with others.
Of course. --
'''The sooner the better'''.
'''Support''', certainly.
'''Support''' seen some of her edits, quality stuff! =)--
'''Support'''. I concur with User:Plato.
'''Support'''. Often seen her edits around and they are always well-reasoned.
'''Very strong support.'''
Thought she was one.  --
Support. -
'''Support'''. You should put <nowiki>{{test}}</nowiki> on vandal's Talk page when you do a revert, to have trail for future block.
'''Support'''. Bla bla bla.
Very strong support.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. Great user. --
Of course.
'''Support''', well liked and her contributions are appreciated by the Wikipedia community --
'''Support''', a credit to Wikipedia, enthusiastic support!  --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', I've seen this user's contributions via [[Special:Recentchanges|rc]] and she's very admin-like in her approach.  In my opinion she's already made the transition. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (AJ)'' </font><sup>(
'''Support''', read your user and talk page, very impressed plus, the comments made by the other supporters convinced me.
'''Support!'''  Already acting like an admin!  Oh, and one terrific trollslayer to boot. -
But of course.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
<strike>'''Oppose''' You have the support of the [[User:Blankfaze]], called a users a "looker", who appears to vote based on his 'like' to other users (see his vote above, and comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Lst27&diff=4711075&oldid=4701648 here]).It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can not turn to yes under any condition, I am very sad to vote no because of this third party, but I am affraid that users like [[User:Blankfaze]] will be able to continue with such behavior.</strike>--
<font color="darkred">
'''Support'''. Awsome vandal fighting skills. --
'''Support''' good vandal-whackers.
'''Support''' Without question, or hesitation. Great vandal-whacker, always calm, and helpful. --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' seems like a good user who uses edit summaries most of the time and is big on vandalism fighting. Go for it!--
'''Support'''. Last week it seemed hard to imagine that reasons for opposition could get more utterly absurd, but the hole keeps getting deeper. Hopefully Mo0 will pass despite this; he is not likely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' good anti-vandal device, works well under fire.
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, we could do with someone to block persistant vandals. --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' - 1,700 edits is 400 more than I had. Vandal-fighters can use a rollback button, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' &mdash; <b><i>

You get your talk page vandalised a lot. I think that's a good enough reason. Aside from that, this is a good user.
--
'''Support''' - <s>Well maybe I should opose because he likes to hurt people, and his userpage is vandalised alot: but I wont.</s> I can't see any visable signs of reasons to not support him, and he seems an overall good and worthwhile member. (Rephrased due to objection/confusion)
'''Support''' - Have seen MoO around anti-vandalism efforts. Always stays calm. --
'''Support''' - Of course!  Great vandal fighting work!
'''Support''' see no reason to oppose.--
Per everybody else.--
'''Support''' Excellent editor.  Single oppose vote poorly reasoned.
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support''' Looks good, give him the mop!
'''Support''' - what a travesty that he isn't already... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Excellent editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' User has been consistently active in areas that always need another admin, and I think it highly unlikely for him to abuse the tools. --
Straightforward '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' 100% -
'''Support''' good enough and really weak oppose vote needs to be neutralized.
'''Support''',
'''Support''', A veritable Power Ranger of vandal-fighting. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. My interactions with Mo0 (usually in AfD) indicate to me he'll make a good administrator.
'''Support''', looks like he is ready.
'''Support''' as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Also, editcountitus is bad; "I've got X more than you so I oppose" is just ''sad''. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' - if number of edits is all that matters, I am up to 2512 [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Zordrac&site=en.wikipedia.org], and I've only had this username for 3 weeks.  I think that you should need a bit more in order to be admin. Also your talk page seems to be vandalised a lot.  I don't think that's a good sign.
'''Neutral'''. Good vandal fighter, with great potential as an admin. Give it one or two months and I will gladly support.
'''Neutral'''. I think this person is possibly too inexperienced to be an admin yet, but I don't know the person well enough to oppose on these grounds.
'''Pre-emptive support''' Great guy, always civil - persistent and thorough with a cool head in controversy. --
'''Support''' - again, I thought he was one. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Absent Minded Nominator Support''' - I used to feel like Lulu, heck I even asked [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] at one point what I could do to stop the POV wars me and him had. That was back when me and MONGO were newcomers. He's a right winger, i'm a left winger. In the real world, we might have disagreements, but on Wikipedia, we're all family: this project supercedes any ideology when you're on here, IMO. I can only hope the rest of the world feels that way about respecting their fellow man someday and rise above their differences.
'''Support''', MONGO is an OK bloke.
'''Support''' good editor and '''will''' be great admin.
'''Support''' On wikibreak but spotted this. All of my experiences with Mongo have left me with a great impression. He is both dedicated to wikipedia and helpful. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' seems good.
Cliché #1.
'''Support'''. Its about time! I was about to nominate him myself.
'''Support''' - excellent vandal fighter. --
'''Support''' Good editor, I have had positive experiences with him --
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' Excellent user another RFA that I got beatin on to nominate --
[[User:Merovingian|<font color=#337147><b>M</b></font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=green><i>e</i></font>]]

'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - won over by the strength of your answer to question #4.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -- I did some research, looked at the answers, and decided that I should be acting in good faith in this matter and voting for support.  Regardless of the user's past, he's explained his actions to a degree that satisfies me.  I am always willing to give someone a chance if they show the proper attitude, and I think that MONGO shows that attitude. --
'''Extreme Cheesehead Support.''' Nice user, level headed (unlike me) and I honestly thought he was one. :-) --
'''Support''', per the answer to question #4. However, I must say, you've got to work on your temper a little bit. As an admin, you'll be on the front lines against vandalism, and some vandals will go to the point of death threats to continue with their lunacy. I'm confident that you'll learn to stay cool even in those situations.
'''Support''', but I second what Titoxd says about your temper.--

'''Support''' Bygones are still bygones.
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' - No-brainer. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Republican senator voting for Justice Breyer or Democrat senator voting for Chief Justice Roberts Support''' I was going to vote neutral, but I am going to assume good faith here and vote to give this user the mop.  I think Mongo will watch his temper and has lightened his POV in recent months.  Also, support votes and/or lukewarm opposition by some wikipedians that have had issues with the user in the past help convince me to vote for a qualified, if controvesial, user.
'''Support''' - I was definitely put off by MONGO's attitude at (then) Wikipedians for Decency, but from what I have seen he has really turned it around. I am happy to support him now.
'''Support.''' I have no reservations. --
'''Support''', agree with ArseJay :D [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - Users who go through this type of controversy are some of the best kinds, they know how to deal with POV, while not forgetting that POV users can add to the project.  I'm convinced MONGO will do a good job.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I think MONGO will be a fine admin.
'''Support'''.  Have always had good interactions, and I believe some claims below are being blown out of proportions. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. Has been extremely helpful, and also courteous, and I've noticed him making very numerous helpful changes to a number of articles. Perfect candidate, has patience with all sorts of contributors, from newcomers to angry ideologues, and good judgment. Definitely support. --
'''Support''' Good candidate.
'''Support''' Most of the diffs below look bad, but they were from ages ago (one I checked was from Janunary!) I think he's grown since then.
'''Support'''. I've rarely read so thoroughly through a user contribs for an RfA as I've done with this one. Agreed, most of the oppose arguments raise my eyebrows, most notably those Mr Tibbs mentioned. Leftist foreigners might also have an opinion worth including. But checking through his last 1,000 or so, there seems to be few POV edits (seemingly none, tho i havent checked them all), or potentially worse, reverts. All the ugly edits seem to date from August or so. Admittedly, this is strange, as you would expect somebody who has been with WP since January to know better. Nonetheless, he seems to have picked up on the criticism. I especially found his remarks on [[User talk:Agriculture]] on everybody just doing their best to reach NPOV very positive (hopefully he includes leftist foreigners in this show of AGF ;-) ), and i find his work since then to be excellent, especially in vandal reverting.

After careful review of his history, I am changing my vote to '''Support'''
'''Support''', should be no big deal.  Seems to have learned a lot since he got here.
'''Support''', 'n stuff.
'''Support''' - His positive contributions vastly outweigh the missteps of his past. &ndash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Humorous and fun, but need to watch out a bit with his humor. :-)  --
'''Support'''. MONGO has done great work on [[George W. Bush]] and other articles.
'''Support'''. Strong and resilient in the face of vandals on Bush's page. Just keep your head in disputes, and you'll be a great admin.
'''Weak support'''.  I have been impressed by the level head he's kept on this RfA, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkGallagher&diff=28568339&oldid=28566707 he has assured me] that his recent offensive edit summaries were meant jokingly.  I've done the same myself (as has [[User:Babajobu]], who I nominated not so long ago).  MONGO can rest assured, though, that I'll be (metaphorically) defeaning him with the aid of a (metaphorical) bullhorn held (metaphorically) at close range if I imagine he doesn't show proper respect for non-Americans in the future ...
Speaking of metaphors, if I'm doing the right deviation thing here, might as well take it the whole the way. With great trepidation, etc.
'''Strong Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks fine to me.
'''Strong affirmative action Support''', a good, helpful user, and conservative rural Americans are an exotic species among admins.
'''Support'''. I appreciate his handling of the talk page of [[George W. Bush]]; clearly one who survives in this environment will be comfortable in easier situations.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seems to have learned from past mistakes. --
'''Oppose'''.  My experience with MONGO was via [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit]], and various talk pages that spun off that, where he was consistently belligerent and confrontational with multiple editors (including myself).  Moreover, much of his confrontation was around him pushing very POV political opinions. A look at MONGO's user talk page shows a lot of further rancor as well. ''(followup: MONGO's below answer shows a growth of maturity; however, additional evidence located by Mr. Tibbs is troubling too.  I think less than 3 months of good interaction is not quite enough; I would support the nomination in another 3 months if those see good cooperation)''
'''Oppose'''. I'm afraid I must object. When the WikiProject for Encyclopedic Merit was originally founded, MONGO spent a lot of time arguing (and edit warring) about which usernames were allowed on its membership roster, leading eventually to the page being protected. I don't find that attitude very constructive.

'''Strong oppose''' as per the reasons above.  Mongo does not have the temperament for adminship.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.  Too controversial for adminship at this time.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. --
'''Strong Oppose''' -- A cursory glance at this user's article edit history reveals many destructive edits. Some of them even with inflammatory statements in the Edit Summary like: ''"It looks like foreigners and leftists wish to control this page....good luck!"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=9457366]. Some other edits following this pattern: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=9456163] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=13857417] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=13865785]. And it's not just the Bush article either, here are some more recent ones: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_Invasion_of_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=21491567] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2003_Invasion_of_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=21513758] --
'''Object'''. Disruptive actions in August are far too recent for me to support now.
'''Oppose'''. I'm troubled by the concerns brought up by multiple users.
'''Oppose'''- offensive username.
'''Oppose'''. Enough volume of troubling concerns raised that makes me not comfortable with MONGO's promotion at this time. A few ''more'' months of trouble free editing and I'm sure you'll be a shoe in. -
'''Oppose'''. The whole ''Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit'' thing just scares me - I'm having trouble seeing past what appear to be bad faith edits and opinions that relate to this project and spill over into the 'pedia proper. Sorry. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. It seems that, for the most part, when MONGO comes to my attention, it's been for the wrong reasons. That could be that he edits under my radar much of the time, but the other oppose votes above suggest this is not the case. The edit summaries from August cast a long, dark shadow over the time since then, and I'm not yet certain that enough water has passed under enough bridges to lend my support at present: any editor with that in their past, and the misbehviour on the project does, imo, need to pass a noticeably higher bar before my fears are satisfactorily laid to rest. One point in particular: do not get involved in situations unless you are prepared to do ''all'' the necessary legwork &mdash; it looks bad, feels bad and, as turned out here, doesn't usually work. Still, I'm sure there's plenty to learn from in this RfA, so a few more months solid, sound editing and good-things-on-the-radar should be in the offing. -
'''Oppose''' Managing to be civil and measured for one week during the RfA doesn't excuse previous actions.
<s>'''Oppose''' per Redvers and Radiant, and I generally agree with Carbonite's past reason for opposing.  One week of good behavior is rather easy to do, but I'd like to see MONGO in the trenches for a few more months before supporting, particularly in light of his involvement with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit]] (the AfD for that brought a lot of concerns over censorship, and [[WP:NOT]] censored.  I was among the editors that said that the existence of that WikiProject went against our policies.).  Also, removing established editors from a WikiProject if they have listed themselves there is wrong, and borders on vandalism. --
'''Strong Neutral''' "I was wrong to remove names" was actually not in your initial response to question 4, which led me to believe you were defending the practice. I'll happily bygones the incident, now.
"Strong support offered."
'''Neutral'''. Yikes. I'm very concerned about those edit summaries, and bishonen also brings up some very interesting points. I personally don't know enough about MONGO to vote support or oppose either way, and I'll be upfront: I'm only looking at the votes and diffs of the supporters/opposers. I will keep a neutral stance for the moment, but as stated earlier, I'm concerned about those diffs above.
<s>'''Oppose.''' It's obvious that MONGO has made huge strides since he first joined Wikipedia. I think he's conducted himself very well during this RfA. However, many of the diffs provided by oppose voters above are too recent for me to support. I'm a strong believer that a "clear the air" RfA is often very beneficial for users whose past may have some blemishes. Assuming there are no incidents in the next few months, I will support any future RfA. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 14:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)</s> I've been impressed enough with MONGO's conduct during this RfA to withdraw my opposition.
'''Support'''. I've seen Moriori's edits here ever since I got involved and they've always been good.-
'''Support'''. Seems to be a good editor and I trust the judgement of the nominator. --
A definite '''support''' for this candidate.  He has been here for over one and a half years, which is more than plenty of time for me to consider this contributor "mature."
'''Support'''. 2500 edits over ~18 months seems slightly slim to me, but the quality of those edits more than makes up for any such concerns, IMO. &ndash;
'''Support'''. A good well rounded editor. ''(''<sub>Donovan</sub>|[[w:en:User:Geocachernemesis|Geocachernemesis]]|<sup>
'''Support''' Half heartedly (I'm just '''kidding'''). I think Moriori had done a good job at making wikipedia a high quality encyclopedia. And Moriori does NOT seem like a person who will abuse his/hers position once an administrator ''(unsigned by
'''Support''' Good stuff.

'''Support''' and good work on [[:Image:Tui_in_flax.jpg]]
'''Support'''; a very fine candidate indeed.
(slaps head) I nominated him, then forgot to vote! '''Support!'''
'''Strong support''' from an editor across "[[Tasman Sea|The Ditch]]" --
'''Support''', although why a user has made so few "nicely balanced" edits makes him a good candidate is beyond me.  I think mine are "nicely balanced" as well, and nobody's bothered to use it as a rationale to nominate me for adminship.  My support vote is based entirely upon ''quality'' of edits and the fact that this user has not become belligerantly entangled in disputes.  (Note: I'm currently entangled in a rather massive dispute, although I hope it's not as a belligerant...)


Cool.
'''Support''' - No evidence that this user would go on a vandalism or image deletion spree.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' As the nominator I support, of course.
'''Support'''.-
Cool.
An outstanding contributor, especially to Minnesota related articles. Works well with others, and should make an excellent admin.
'''Strong Support'''- Over 11 ''thousand'' edits?! Two years?! I'm impressed!

Without a doubt.
Strong support
'''support''' - very impressive, and appears to have some development ideas working too, according to his user page.
'''Support''' Wow. How could I not, looking at the excellent edits? Good job...
'''Support''' (Why did I think he was already one?)
Don't recall seeing him around, but his record's impressive enough that I'll support anyway.
'''No big deal.'''
'''Support'''. Quite impressive record. &mdash;
'''support'''
'''Support''' No big deal! We need more admins who don't participate in wikipedia: too much. --
'''Support'''--
11,444 edits? Dang! '''Support'''.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' with bells on!

Support: Like I said in the nomination, he's very helpful, nice, and will help with alot of things!
'''Support''', looks good to me.
'''Go on, then'''
'''Support!'''
'''Support.''' If BDA is in favour, (s)he can't be bad. [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.png|15px]]
'''Support''', I don't know much about this user, but (s)he seems to be OK, and I just want to support someone named "Mushroom" for adminship. &mdash;
'''Support''' even though I once ate some bad mushrooms on a pizza and got really sick.
'''Support''' seems like he make a good admin --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' long term worthy contributor. (plus it doesnt hurt to have another inclusionist as an admin :P) &nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Works hard around here!
'''Support''', maybe more so because I like your name.--May the Force be with you!
'''[[Psilocybin]]''' support.
'''Support''' <font color="black">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Э]]'''
'''Supporting'''  [[mushroom]], oh no [[User:Mushroom|Mushroom]], a good editor. --
'''Support'''. Wow last 500 edits are stub sorting! Keep working hard and I like your user name. --
'''Support''' as per BD2412.
'''Support''' - shows excellent janitorial skills. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', I was allowed an extention on my computer time, just so I could support her.
'''Support'''. What, you dare vote before the nominator? *grin*.
'''Strong support'''. Ann is intelligent, level-headed, civil, concerned about fairness, sticks to our policies, tries to seek compromise, is a delight to edit with, and will make a great admin. Not only will she benefit from having the tools, but Wikipedia will benefit from giving them to her.
'''Strong support'''. He beat us to it.--

'''Support'''. Interesting that she isn't already one.
'''Support'''. Seems calm in the face of provocation and a worthy knowledgeable editor.
'''Support'''. Another good one...
'''Support'''.  She's clearly the sort of person who's needed as an adnministrator. --
'''Support''' positive contributor.
'''Support'''. Fine contributor.
Kiss me, you're Irish.
Before I go to school, let me say '''Strong Support!!!'''.
'''Super support''' for Ann. A fine, courteous editor who always follows the rules.
'''Support'''.  A friendly and helpful editor. --
'''Support'''  seen her around and would be a great admin.
'''Support''' She brings intelligence, patience, sensitivity, and intellecutual diversity.
'''Support''' As per previous votes.  Nothing new to add here. --
'''Support''' We need more mature, level headed admins like her --
'''Support''' - I swear I voted already... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' She knows her stuff. Will make a fine admin for sure. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' with no reservations.
'''Support''' I think Ann is friendly, couteous and knowledgeable. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''. Finally!  I can't think of anyone I had decided was admin material quicker than I did Ann. &middot;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, with all the qualities that make a great admin., as attested to by those above. --
'''Support'''.  I have disagreed with her on article content, but still found my talk page interactions with her very positive.  Will make a great admin.
'''Support''' Now this is one person I was convinced was already an admin!--
'''Strong support'''
'''Support'''. Looking at her writings I can see that I disagree with her on many things and she'll clearly call some things differently than I would. But I trust her to use the admin toolbox with discretion and restraint. -
Joining the chorus for another member of the musicabal. --
'''Support''' Very kind user, I know we can trust her with the admin tools. -
Geesh, I left for a few hours and now find myself in a position of having to pile-on with this '''Support''' ballot.  Ann will be as fine an Admin as editor and, for full disclosure, we have had our differences.  --
This is what I get for being so insecure... I was *this* close to nominate you yesterday, and now I also have to pile on :( Anyway, I'm sure you'll make one of the greatest admins ever, Ann :) Go for it!  '''<font color="green">[[User:Shauri|Sh]]</font color>'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''<font color="light blue">a</font color>''']]'''<font color="green">
--
'''Support'''. Never had any dealings with the candidate but have seen her around and been impressed with her editing approach.
[[User:Merovingian|<font color=#337147><b>M</b></font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=green><i>e</i></font>]]
'''Support'''--
Strong '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I've been impressed with her considerate and clearheaded approach. (Oh, yes, and the musicabal bit too.)
'''That's hot.'''
'''Strong support'''. My first experience with Ann was rather conflictual.  But since that time, I have interacted very positively with her, and she entirely rose above any prior dispute.  She shows an ability to edit professionally and promote NPOV.
'''Support''' Sound judgment, excellent contributor.
'''Strong Support''' I don't believe that I've ever made an easier decision.--
'''Support'''. She's knowledgeable.
'''Support'''. I only read the first 30 "supports" (in addition to the "nomination" and "opposes"), but I have to say that I agree with all of the comments in those "supports" and in the "nomination." When I became an editor and had questions, she was the single most helpful person on Wikipedia to me. -[[User:DoctorW|<font color="#0000a0">'''Do'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/DoctorW|<font color="#007040">'''c'''</font>]][[User_talk:DoctorW|<font color="#800040">'''t'''</font>]][[User:DoctorW|<font color="#0000a0">'''or'''</font>]]
'''Support''', nothing but positives vibes here...well 90+%, so PILE ON :>--
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', already an admin, why are we going through this charade of an Rf... no, that's not that funny.  Oh, well, too late now.  '''Support''', of course!
'''Support'''.  Ann has demonstrated her unfailing commitment to the idea that consensus and NPOV will ultimately result in a high-quality unbiased encyclopedia.  I've also seen her on many occasions working to soothe conflicts and informally mediate disputes.  She knows how to handle herself in a conflict (she rarely if ever gives anyone genuine reason to have a conflict with her) and knows how to advise others when they are in such a situation.  She also knows how to respect consensus even when it goes against her as well as how to compromise in order to achieve it.  I've been considering nominating her for some time now, actually, though I had planned to wait until next year (and see if it happened in some other way).  Ann has been building experience of late doing the admin "mopping up" jobs that naturally lead to adminship.
'''Support.''' Certainly. --
'''Strong support''', truly the best choice of the pool of non-admins. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support.''' While excessive online time expenditures are bad, and may prove harmful to Ann (I, for example, have retired for now), I support her candidacy (and hope she doesn't burnout by spending too much time online). She is honest but polite and considerate -and knowledgeable on all things Wikipedia by experience firsthand. Also, I can say that I personally have known her for a long time and do not need to rely on a glimpse of one or two isolated edits, in the same way that some people vote on candidates whom they don't know -based merely on superficial information. Ann is human, but she does well anyhow. I support her nomination.--
'''Support''', I was starting to wonder when she was going to be nominated.
'''Support'''; definitely would have nominated earlier.  Absolutely no problem supporting now.
'''Support'''; excellent editor, calm and thoughtful, and I've been noticing her work for a while.
'''Support'''. I have read the whole page and some of her articles and she seems quite capable.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support!''' I have gotten a very positive impression of her and looking at her contributions, this impression is more than confirmed --
'''Support'''. This one is a duh.
'''Support''', conscientious and responsible editor, dives into the pool of conflict and emerges dry.
<s>'''Oppose''' per [[User:EffK|EffK]], '''Free the WP! Winnow the arbitrators !'''</s> Just kidding. WTF? :-)
'''Support''' figured she already was an admin. <small>
'''Support''' as above.  I figured she was an admin, too.  I'm pretty new here, but everything I've seen from her is indicative of a prime candidate for adminship. --


'''Support''', a pleasant and polite user, very knowlegable, and despite her strong views on religion, is able to 'seperate church and state', as it were.
'''sUPPORT''' aRRGGH STUPID CAPS LOCK
'''Utmost support.''' I would struggle to think of a more suited user on Wikipedia. I've never seen her be anything but courteous, and she edits in areas that can sometimes be heated.
'''Support.''' Never thought I'd say this, but I actually did think she was an admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Of course'''.
'''Support''', as very well outlined above.
'''Support''', a courteous, helpful, mediating editor; a real asset. --
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' -
'''Support.''' Nothing more to say at this point. Good luck, Ann.
Yeah.
'''Oppose''' - her articles, especially those related to ''[[Candida albicans]]'' frequently promulgate theories which have no credible scientific basis. An admin should more careful about their sources.
'''Oppose''' . Absolute  shame, for  user's outrageous  apologious editing that  most seriously  emasculates  the  [[Roman Catholic church sex abuse scandal]] User '''rmd'''  31 and   reverted  to ''one'' number of Priests , ''re'' Ferns report, '''rmd''' scandalous governmental  deal made some period ago for Church property against Irish state  payment of the compensation to other victims, '''rmd''' "''and other Abuse of the pontifical secret may lead to formal (automatic) [[excommunication]]''" , see  [[Pope Benedict XVI]] and see my  accusation re ''elision of same subject'' to understand how pernicious  this removal remains  ,'''rmd''' facts of current irish priestly mini-rebellion ''re''   diocesacan  disobedience/ non-collaboration with  diocescan ''letter'','''rmd''' celibacy balance '''rmd''' more  look yourselves   . User is incredible in this  case , and if  the User keeps such company  as people who write , and keep this , '''confronted with a series of allegations concerning sexual abuse of children under the legal age of consent ¹ by Catholic clergy and religious.''' in the preamble ,well , I ask you ''all'' to oppose . I do not want more church war right now, but I wrote to this editor on the relevant  talk requiring sanity . Oppose firmly , despite  User's skills. Sorry  but this represents ''' live editor conflict]]  and I respectfully request the  ''pro'' votders to quickly  arbitrate this user onto the satraight and noarrow, as I do not wish to post an rapid  PoV tag  . Represents execrable apologia of the worst order, as was the BXVI    ''elision'' by a.n.other as of yesterday .Free the WP! Winnow the arbitrators !
'''Support''', ignore that my timestamp says I voted after Dmcdevit... [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. A good choice. I respect Mysekurity's judgment, and he's a cool head. Admin material.
'''Support''' - Yep, hand him the mop!
'''Support''' - Seems okay to me.
'''Support''', of course. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''''Support.''''' Seems like a good chap.--
'''Support''', good egg.
'''Support''' good edit, trust the nominator. -
'''Support''', expect that he will not abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', looks OK to me.
'''Support'''. Very good contributor.
'''Support''', a steady hand and a cool head and a friendly demeanour. Good balance of edits, too, Kate's tool or no. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Redwolf's nominations are normally fine ones, trust him. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' &mdash; looks a good bet. --
'''Adminify'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Joining the parade of happy people. :)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Oh yes, no prob with Mysekurity, have seen about the place many times, no worries.
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.....I guess.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''..He's prompt and helpful.--
'''Extreme support cause no one's opposed support''' keep up the good work. &nbsp;
'''Support.''' Most certainly. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Enthusiastic, cucumber-cool... and sekure :)
'''Support''' Good editor! —
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''[[Extreme sport|Extreme Sport]]!''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
Yes.
'''Support''', with hopes that he will also find time to help with the ever-present CSD backlog. -
'''Support'''. I've seen him perform excellently in many occasions. He deserves it. ╫ '''
'''Simply support'''.
'''Support'''. per everybody else. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' Looks fine.
'''Support''' Leaning towards oppose. He doesn't like my signiture! LOL, just kidding. Great editor. —
'''Support''' All members of the Association of.... whatever it is should receive adminship.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': all said and done. --
'''Oppose'''.
As a nominator, I, of course, fully '''support''' Michael.&mdash;

From what I have seen this user is polite, thinks clearly, and overall seems trustworthy.  I have seen nothing to suggest that he would be anything other than an excellent admin.
I'd question his abidance to the NPOV principles on some topics, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he shouldn't be an admin. I agree with the statement co-signed by Ëzhiki and Irpen.
As a co-nominator, I, of course, fully '''support''' Michael.&mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', a well-rounded editor. Seems to know when to let go and when to actually take a stand, which in my opionion is one of the best qualities a candidate for adminship can have. --
'''Worthy'''.
Cool.
'''Support'''.
'''{{IPA|s&#x259;p&#x254;&#x27B;t}}'''. Nothing but good experiences with Michael Z. &mdash;
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''', good candidate.

Cool.
Support.  A good user.
'''Support''', I believe from what I read and looked at that, you should be qualified enough. So there, you have my support.
'''Support''' &mdash;but need more usertalk edits. Why dont you join the [[Welcoming committee]], you can make many new friends!
'''Yeeeeaaaahhhh!''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. This user has demonstrated a wide range of abilities in a number of areas, and has done a lot of good work in article editing. This user has shown good civility on talk pages, and a definite desire to collaborate within the community. (Also, having a native Portuguese speaker around is always useful!) I am certain this user will make an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' high enough edit count and been here a while. I see zero controversy.
'''EXTREME JOHN KERRY SUPPORT WITH EXTRA VIETNAM VETERANS!!!''' Low-key candidate :) <small>
'''Support!'''. Excellent editor and well rounded. Great janitorial work. We need more like him
'''Support''', good editor with many edits.
As the rumbing increased in intensity, bystanders were amazed to hear it slowly form into a monolithic, monosyllabic, all-encompassing '''YES!!!'''
'''Support'''—
'''Support''' Good editor--

'''Support'''. Very fine contributor.
'''Support''' seems like a good nomination.
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Extreme [[NAMBLA]] support!''' <font color="red">
Support.  Applaud the modesty, which we need more of here.
'''Support''' for the standard and obvious reasons. --
'''Support''' good all-round contributions.
'''Strong Portuguese support'''
Cool. --
'''I want you!''' to join the W.P. Cabal! <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Should make a good admin. Plus, how could I '''not''' support when even Boothy443 does?
'''On the fence''' although user has the time, and edit count, I generally dont like self nominations... but thats not the reason i'm on the fence. Perhaps it is just me, but this username makes me think of [[North American Man/Boy Love Association|NAMBLA]] I know this is odd, but I think it could be a future issue. Would only support with a username change. &nbsp;
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''',

'''Support'''
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''. After having made a study of Nandesuka's contributions I realize that he is an excellent contributor to the encyclopedia, who would make good use of administraor tools.
'''Support'''. The best answer to question 3 all month.
'''Support'''. Whenever I've come across Nandesuka (a thing that seems to happen frequently), he's being level-headed and thorough. -
'''Support''', great editor with lots of contributions in the Main, WP and WPTalk spaces. What I've noticed suggests a responsible individual who is able to substantiate his views reasonably and knowledgeably, and who has that grasp of WP policies required of admins.—
'''Support''', no reason to believe he would abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. After looking through Nandesuka's edit history over the last day, I have found nothing but reasons to support this user's candidacy. Nandesuka has made excellent edits since his arrival here in March, making use of enviably good edit summaries. He has edits spread out through many namespaces and a good number of user talk page edits. It seems to me from a review of contribs and from personal experience that Nandesuka is quite level-headed at VfD/AfD. No reservations.
'''Support''' to counteract some opposition for the wrong reason (If soemone has voted deleted in an AfD discussion they can't close the vote anyway). --
'''Support''': A user who understands and supports the existing policies, and he has been level headed and kept his cool.
'''Support''' thoughtful, intelligent, patient, and altogether a suitable admin.
'''Sapōto desu'''.


'''Support''' - Nandesuka has impressed me with his/her ability to cut to the point of heated discussions of [[WP:TOBY]] & [[WP:ZAP]]. S/he is direct, calm and civil: all good things.
'''Support'''. But please tell me your sex so I can refer to you as him or her rather than they? [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Excellent edits, good common sense. I'm having a [[Masako Natsume|Tripitaka]] moment. -
'''S'''upport. Has a recent update of the common sense plugin, and appears to be getting better at handling wiki-conflict.
'''Support'''. What can I say? I was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHermione1980&diff=23129829&oldid=23126160 coerced] into it!!11!!1 Seriously, Nandesuka seems like a good contributor and I'm happy to support him.
Excellent candidate, right amount of experience.  Nandesuka and I have some very serious points of disagreement, but I have always found his manner agreeable.  He has not displayed serious antagonism, and I think that's impressive.  I value that skill and think he'd be an asset to Wikipedia as a sysop.  I think some of the opposition may be ideological--well I encountered some of that when I was up for sysop (can you say "autofellatio", children?) Such ephemeral issues pass and what matters is how the candidate handles situations. Give him the mop and bucket. --
I am voting largely to counterbalance the weirdly large number of oppose votes that don't really cite actionable criticisms. I see no valid reasons to oppose this user.
Having looked through Nandesuka's contributions in the wikipedia and assorted talk namespaces, I've noticed many statements from Nandesuka that are the statements I'd have made in that situation.  As such, I feel able to trust him as a sysop.
'''Extreme lesbian support!''' --<span style="color:red">
'''Sounds good to me'''.
'''Support'''. After looking through Nandesuka's contributions and talk page, I believe he would make a good administrator. --
<small>
'''Support''' What Andre said.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Very Good in VFDs will make a good administrator --
'''Support'''. An editor's value to wikipedia should not be measured in edit counts. Much more level-headed at dealing with conflicts than I am. '''Go go go!''' --
'''Support'''. The more sarcasm the better, as far as I'm concerned.
'''Support''' After looking through his recent edits, can't see anything bad.  And some of the later Oppose votes convinced me.
'''Support'''. Based on looking through the user contributions and interaction on the (highly stress-inducing) [[Wikipedia talk:Toby]] discussion, I believe Nandesuka presents proper rational comments and motivations. --
'''Support'''.  Good contributor, seems to understand policy well, no reason to think he will abuse amin powers.
'''Support'''. Obviously a good editor. I don't think there is any reasons that he shouldn't be an admin. --
'''Absolutely Support'''. Great editor, easy to work with, does a lot of good work, all mentioned above. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support'''.  This looks like a close one; a good editor, reasonable, I just don't find the opposition compelling. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems up to the job. --
'''Oppose''', disagree with Zoe that this is a good candidate.
'''Oppose'''
'''Weak oppose''', agree with Silensor.
--
'''Oppose''', user is far too enthusiastic to delete and overtly confrontational during the normal course of discussion on VfD.
Moving to '''oppose''' now. I'm not satisfied with the answer I got below (in "comment" section), and he doesn't really seem to fully understand the Wikipedia idea of consensus. You said that you only called them votes because of the old VFD name (which still isn't good), but you recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_5&diff=prev&oldid=22654949 "voted" in CFD], warned someone about having a "vote" count twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinsley79&diff=prev&oldid=22673087]. Also, your "welcome to Wikipedia" remark [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Punggol_Bus_Interchange|here]] to [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] definitely was not "within reason" but extremely condescending, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tinsley79&diff=prev&oldid=22673087 here] where you call a nomination "a joke" (when it was certainly in good faith with a plausible basis). I'd like to see some improvement, and more participation in the Wikipedia namespace outside of deletion debates and I'll support in a couple of months.
'''Oppose'''. Quite apart from the sarcastic comments, Nandesuka hasn't been here quite long enough or made enough contributions to article space for me. --
'''Oppose'''. User has no featured articles that I am aware of, too low of an edit count, not enough effort on editing/creating side of wikipedia. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  He is very very rude and condessending.  He always votes to delete and makes funn of others all the time.
'''Oppose''' Disclosure: This user and I are currently in the middle of a petty dispute. My opinion is that he fails to undertand the nature of civilized discourse -- plenty of civility, or at least well-disguised hostility (which may very well be the definition of civility), but little grasp of rationality. He should be a mediator, not a trustee of factual truth. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Too keen to delete.
No way.
'''Neutral''', Lack of the preview button has inflated count i think.
<s>'''Support''' Know candidate from several VfDs. My opinion is very mixed. IMHO I'd say use the preview button and try back in a couple of weeks. Besides that is a good candidate (uses edit summaries, etc). <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 23:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)</s>'''Neutral''' Can't make up mind... going to sit this one out.... <small>
'''Neutral''' for the time being due to similarly mixed feelings.  May be willing to support in the future if this nomination fails.
'''Neutral''' I have mixed feelings too.
'''Abstain'''.  Seems like a very good contributor and candidate, but does not have sufficient time here for me to support.
'''Neutral''' for now. I would like to see Nandesuka gain more experience to overcome the '''''perception''''' that he lacks integrity because he has had the tendency to violate [[WP:FAITH]].
Obligatory Nominator Support.
'''Support'''! Anarchist, communist, free software lover <3 Surprised i haven't seen you on SU* articles. -
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' Good luck; when you get the admin, breathe deeply and count to 10 before hitting the red button...
'''Support.''' '''''<font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Support'''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Support''' Yes --
'''strong Support''' solid editor.
'''Support''' one of the most interesting (and young) editors around.
Glad to support another Singaporean. <font color="darkred">

'''Support''' First-rate user, very trustworthy.
'''Support''' definitely. <small>
'''Support'''. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support'''. I'm not one who normally says this but ... I thought she already was one.-
'''Support'''. Anyone who creates so much work for the admins deserves to be one. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support''', of course. -- <font color="#FF0000">'''Миборовский'''</font> <sup>[[User:Miborovsky|U]]|[[User talk:Miborovsky|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Miborovsky|C]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Miborovsky|E]]|
'''Support''', looks perfect. -
'''Support''', why not? Its time for your gain some recognition. Just remember to buy us lunches. -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. &mdash;

'''Support'''.
Thought she was one!  --
'''Support'''. After checking contributions, user appears sound
'''Support'''. Tremendous work.
'''Support'''. Let me think ... hmm ... yeah! -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Looks good. :) --
'''Support'''. <strong>
'''Support'''.  She's not an admin?
'''Support''' --
Clear '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Strong Support''' of course. An active contributor to SG articles and other articles. She will make a good sysop. --
'''Santa Support''', of course. I'm glad to see more SGpedians to be trusted by the community to take on the responsbility of mop and bucket. -
'''Support''' Everything looks great,
''' Support.'''
'''Support''' without reservations.
'''Support''' Natalina and [[Anarcho-Syndicalism]].
'''Support''' a very civil, bright, helpful editor.
'''Support''' I almost got a shock reading Boston's comments below, but I am more shocked knowing I have been talking to a she than a he all along. (giving a guage of my true level of "shock"? :D) Anyhow, she has been one of the most active not only in content addition, but also in talkpages, getting involved in disputes, and basically still managing to come out of them with a good reputation (in particular the recent clashes in opinion over [[Nguyen Tuong Van]]). Certainly not an easy feat over a very touchy topic for various cultures.--
'''Support''', although I'm far from being communist, despite what one particular editor might think. &mdash; <b><i>
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
I worked with this user briefly on how to draw the Signapore flag, since she is from there. She was pretty helpful with her suggestions and I was glad she gave me the OK on the drawing. I believe she will make a good admin, dispite what occured below.
'''Support'''. In addition to Freakofnurture's comments; one does not need to agree with someone's political ideas in order to think that he/she will make a great admin. --
'''Support''': --
'''Support''': Will make a great admin. --
'''Support''': Seems like a great candidate to me. Keep up the good work. --
'''support'''; a) don't want the wrong lizard; b) admin shouldn't be too big a deal and she seems to be a good contributor c) looking back into history of talks she seems to communicate well with other users and has done for a long time.
'''Support'''. Appears to have the personality needed to handle Admin tasks well. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' We both like Marx, but with me it's [[Groucho Marx|Groucho]] --
'''Support''' excellent vandal fighter and NPOV editor, just what we need in an admin. Of course, a great content contributor too.  --
'''Support'''. Good contributor and janitor.
'''Support''' —

<s>I have to oppose for now. </s> '''support'''  I too got into a heated discussion with Natalina on the [[Talk:Photosynthesis#splitting_water|photosynthesis page]].  She agressively reverted my edits despite disccusion on the talk page where I was trying to point out the scientific errors she was making in her edits. She finally accused me of making personal attacks because I refused to agree with her interpretation. It took A LOT of discussion to persuade her that her edits were factual errors.  I find it worrying that an editor can be so strong willed when they are editing material for which they do not have a strong grasp. I suggest that rather than digging in and fighting she should review her position if challeneged with reasonable rebuttals. If this had been a one off incident it would not be a problem but her strong personality is coming out on this page too. The many 3RR offenses are unacceptable. On the positive side when she is making edits that agree with consensus she does a good job.  She also makes valuable contributions on the [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science]]. I doubt my oppose vote will stop her becoming an admin but i am still going to vote this way since I hope Natalina will look at her previous actions and learn to be less of a ''bull in a china shop'' when other editors disagree with her. Please take this as constructive criticism.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support.''' Even though this vote seems a forgone conclusion, just wanted to still express my support.--
<s>'''Oppose''' commie</s> '''Support''' -- [[User talk:Wikiacc|«]]
'''Support''' -
The "can't support communists" oppose vote was funny.
'''Bandwagon'''. --
'''Support''' My feeling is that this editor is earnest and observant.
'''Oppose'''I have misgivings about giving admin to this user.  The user engages in revert wars, and has been warned, continued his/her revert wars and was suspended.  The user has been asked to agree to cease this behavior, but has not agreed.  The user has repeatedly failed to give newcomers the assumption of good faith, but has treated them as vandals.  The user does not practice the guidelines of conflict avoidance / conflict resolution.  I think the user could benefit from a thorough review of the Wikipedia guidelines, and I would appreciate from him/her a statement that he/she will abide by such.  Only after a period of demonstrating adherence to the guidelines over a period of time, would I consider supporting the user's admin candidacy.
Sorry, but I can't support communists...
<s>'''Support'''. Very good user, but a little aggressive at times in discussions, so just keep cool when acting as an admin.
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:BostonMA]]. Candidate's behavior in editing disputes, including one currently involving me, is inconsistent with admin responsibilities.
I don't agree that "'' We need more Asian Admins so things get done while us North American Admins are sleeping'' " and " ''This prompted the usual cliche since she ... has had her user page vandalized 76 times, including an impersonation by the communism vandal'' " are valid arguments for the nomination. &mdash;
In complete agreement with Insta, I find the nomination <s>in bad faith</s> rather lacking. &#126;
I don't like communism but then again, Lenin had a good idea before Stalin, Castro and others turned it into a symbol for oppression. I'm most concerned about edit wars. You seem to have gotten into numerous heated edit conflicts. I've heard several good things about you though, so I'm torn. Your beliefs should not be a factor, but Wikipedia being run and largely populated with Capitalists, such discrimination is inevitable. I want to see less edit wars and less personal attacks from you before I support you. --
'''Support''', of course, if only because the nominator spoke so eloquently. ;-)
'''Support''' because work is over for the day.
'''Support''' fine and helpful gentleman I am happy to support. (Please set your email, though; I agree that is important.)
<s>'''Oppose''' Total and complete loser, I'd never support this person, this user needs atleast 100,000 edits to get my vote!</s> Oh....I mean '''Support'''
'''Support''' - agree about email.
We need a few first class, hard core editors with admin rights.  His "Unadulterated rubbish" in nominating [[Chepstow School]] for deletion a few days ago also caught my eye and made me laugh--the article was indeed complete bilge at the time of nomination.  Articulate, intelligent. Give him the mop. --

'''Support.''' Very nice. Would make a good admin.--
'''Support'''. Although I'm not personally familiar with this editor, a quick look through some diffs in his edit history show quite a capable editor, and his answers to the questions are more than adequate. -
'''Support''' An obvious candidate for admin. Great editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Another good candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppoer'''.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' yep -
'''Support''' Don't really know this user, but a good search of this editors articles shows that he makes edits that are conductive to Wikipedia.
'''Support''' Go for it--

[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support''' . Just get these edit summaries going, officer.
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support'''. Definitely admin material. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' another fine candidate.
'''Support'''. Looks like a good contributor, no reason to think Admin tools will be abused.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Some reason all the articles i edit i always see his name and the changes and he does a good job and i think he is very dedicated, he even offered me advice about Military uniform. --
'''Support''' Dedication to detail and NPOV and his good edits lead me to say he deserves Adminship.

'''Support'''. Ngb has been here since November 2003, though he has only accumulated a total edit count of 1300. He seems to do quite a good job on cricket-related articles and has done some wikifying and a little bit of vandalism reverts. There has been participation in VfD and CfD, and he does seem to have basic knowledge on admin-related things. He's not "very" experienced, but at least I think he is suitable for adminship. &mdash;
'''Support''': deals with vandals, participates on VfD, talk with others, writes edit summaries. While the edit count isn't astronomical Ngb looks knowledgeable of Wikipedia and helps in specific area. I think [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biekko]] could be seen as precedent for such situations.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good record, experienced enough. ~~ '''
'''Support''' &ndash; done a lot of work for cricket
'''Support''' &ndash; a very worthy candidate -
This is long overdue.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.

'''Support''': Following his answer to my query in the comments section below, I vote support. --
'''Weak Support'''.  Seems to be a great editor, but number of edits worries me a bit.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''. As far as I am concerned this one is scampering away towards the boundary at deep extra cover, with no fielder in sight.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
Oh, yeah.  Absolutely '''support''' this guy.  He's been here over two years, and he ought to know the wikiropes. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Probably less active then the average admin, but not inactive enough for disqualification.  Good work on VFD and cricket-related articles.
'''Support'''. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
'''Support'''

'''Support''' A trustworthy and dedicated editor. I hope you make it to [[Australia]] one day too!--
'''Strong support'''. This editor has won my respect through his exemplary thoughtful and diplomatic approach to a vfd I initiated against a project to which he was deeply dedicated (see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005]] for details). --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I know him from [[WP:Cricket]]
--
'''Weak Oppose''' For someone with a two year old account, you don't even have 900 Article namespace edits. I'm not sure if you'd be able to put the time and effort into this job.
Well, yeah! -
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!''' ... after 10 minutes of edit conflicts --
'''Extreme Tom Cruise support!'''  <font color="red">
'''Enthusiastic support!'''
I doubt he will accept, but I would like to be on the record as supporting anyhow.
'''Support'''. It should also be noted that he's a contributing member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia|WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia]], which gives few edits to show for very tedious work.  --
'''Strong support''' - Nicholas Turnbull has all the qualities needed to be a team player. He's more concerned with the editing, and with the quality of his edits, than arguing over what he edits/how he edits, etc. Off his own back, he revived the continuing-to-be-a-success Mediation Cabal, managed to avoid burning out on the AI arbcom case and the XAL situation with the Bogdanoff Affair. Nicholas contributes tirelessly and unceasingly to the good of the project as a whole; keeping an eye on the minutae, without losing sight of the bigger picture. I can't really do much more to convince the skeptics of his worthiness, and as I know he doesn't view adminship as a big deal, I know he isn't going to want me to say any more.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I'm a bit iffy, what with suffering a minor case of editcountitis (don't worry, my edit count's about the same as Nick's), but I think in cases of extreme awesomitude we can thrust forth the mop and bucket a little early.  Nicholas has made uniformly good contributions, is level-headed, and frankly sums up "extreme awesomitude" quite well.  It's a rare contributor who gets sysopped with so few edits, but nobody said Nicholas was a dime a dozen ... --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', enthusiastically. Any user who feels compelled to help WP by establishing ways of communication and mediation will always have me by his/her side.
I tried to do this before, but Nicholas wouldn't let me.  Oh well, here we go now.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''', overdue.
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
My concern is that Nicholas will burn out on the project and/or lose interest quickly, but, to tell the truth, I don't think that's a reason to be neutral or, heaven forbid, oppose.  Nicholas has been keen to learn the policies, to work toward mediation when he finds conflict, and to improve the project.  I see no negatives at all, and he keeps his cool and, when he gets frustrated (and we all do), doesn't lash out.  An excellent candidate and a good egg.
'''Support'''. I first met Nichols on the #wikipedia IRC channel, where he is a channel op. He has an amazingly calm online presence and a superb ability to build consensus. Slow and steady wins the race, so I think he'd make a great admin and possibly a mediator as well. He's also man enough NOT to quit the project if his first nomination fails. FWIW, he's the one who convinced me to start listening to UninvitedCompany and to chill out more and respect consensus. We need more newcomers who can 'tame' us oldtimers.
'''Support''', I forgot to vote! meh, let me state he's a great guy, always nice, and nno good reason to oppose. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I've already trusted Nicholas with a lot more than just adminship, so I can't in good conscience oppose here, now can I?
'''Support'''. [[Wikipedia:Editcountitis|Remember that editcountitis can be fatal]].
'''Support''' &ndash; methinks he should also join the wikicricket cabal.
'''Support'''. Say no to editcountitis. <font color=green>
'''Support''' <del>TINIRCC</del>
'''Support''' -

'''Support''', very committed Wikipedian who will use the tools well.
'''Support''', he is quite reasonable and it is easy to have a discussion with him. I fully support his adminship. I hope he keeps in mind that administration is a mop rather than special authority to command others. --
'''Support'' seen around every now and then.... <small>

'''Support''', with my edit number 6800. And, I am sure that he shall shine as an administrator. --
'''Support'''. I'm glad to make my first edit to Wikipedia in several weeks this. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' This editcountitis is becoming a cancer.
'''Support.''' seems good on dispute resolution and that's a rarer skill than spellchecking.  Offline editing is '''a good thing'''.
'''Support''', good experiences with this user, and I think Kim's comment about editcounting hits the nail right on the head.
'''Support''', I don't see the edit count as a problem.
Since David vouches for the quality of his edits and prospects of becoming a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support''' I met Nicholas first while investigating the [[Bogdanov Affair]], and I must say, I was greatly impressed with his handling of the matter. No qualms at all; in fact, it's my honor.
'''That's hot.'''
Cool.
'''Absofuckinglutely'''
Support.
'''Support''' is there a pill you can take for '''editcountis'''? --
'''Support''' good guy.
'''Support'''  It's taken me far longer than usual, because of the low edit count I felt it appropriate to investigate more of his edits than I do for candidates with a longer history.  After my research, I can say I'm thoroughly satisfied that Nicholas Turnbull will be a very good admin.
'''Support'''. Generally I do prefer to see 1000+ edits, just to be sure the candidate knows their way around. In this case, I trust the nominator and see no reaosn to penalize Nicholas for being a quick study.
'''Oppose'''. 700 edits and 233 articles is simply not enough, IMO. Give it some time, maybe a month or two?
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>.  I am one of the ne'er-do-wells who believes that one of the requirements of adminship has to be extended participation and commitment to the project.  Both to gather an understanding of the community's processes and expectations and to provide the community with a chance to get to know and understand the candidate.  I have no firm threshold for edit counts, and tend to adjust my opinions based on the breadth of a candidates participation, the length of time with the project, and the balance of substantial vs. trivial edits.  However, the editting record I have before me is really not what I would generally consider sufficient to meet my standards (and not helped by the fact 45% of your edits are marked as minor).  The argument being made here, is that this deficiency should be offset by his other activities on Wikipedia's behalf (which are of course invisible to me, though I trust the descriptions offered), and because he is argued to be of an unusually good sort.  I am not strongly moved by either of these arguments.  To the first, while I am glad that he works on IRC and email meditiation, I don't really see adminship as a reward for hard work, and I'm not sure these things substitute for participation in the project itself.  To the second, well if he is a good sort (and I have no reason to dispute that), then he would still be a good sort later on with more experience, right?  And it would be easier for all to see.  This comment reads like an oppose, and for the most part it is, but I am going to stick it in neutral for now while I take some more time to consider this.
'''Oppose''' uh, it shouldn't be too hard to make another 300 or so edits...
'''Oppose''' ''for now'' while I strongly trust David Gerard's opinion here, I still think Nicholas is a tad too green for admin. Sorry Nick, maybe in a month or two. &nbsp;
Oppose.  I had at least twice as many edits on my first RFA candidacy and I was shot down for having too few.  I don't see why this should be different.
A lost cause vote, but I do think that while he seems a strong future candidate, current lack of experience (and not just simple low edit count) should mean that adminship is in the future, and not yet.
<s>'''Oppose'''. </s>'''Neutral''' I have been considering this RfA all day now, and have finally reached my decision. Let me make this as clear as possible &mdash; I '''do not''' have any particular threshold for number of edits, nor do I have any amount of time necessary to become an admin. In addition, I beleive that NicholasTurnbull is a great editor and Wikipedian, and will make a great administrator. Also, I truly appreciate his efforts off the wiki in helping out Wikipedia. However, I truly feel that his amount of experience actually on Wikipedia during the past four months is insufficient for becoming an administrator. Perusing through his edits, there are many minor edits (45%, according to DragonsFlight) that involve copyediting; in addition, over 1/8 of his edits (97 of them) are to the user namespace. Also, there are few vandalism fighting edits &mdash; though I do see occasional groups of four or five edits reverting vandalism, I see no evidence that NicholasTurnbull has done extensive RC patrolling. In addition, the majority of the Wikipedia: namespace edits involve either RfA or the Mediation Cabal. This indicates, in my opinion, that NicholasTurnbull has not been completing admin tasks yet, and may not understand all of the Wikipedia principles. Combined with a relatively limited time on Wikipedia (just under four months) and an extremely limited number of edits, I feel that NicholasTurnbull is neither experienced enough nor ready for adminship. However, if this RfA doesn't pass, I will gladly support him in the future, as he has my full confidence. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
On the '''Support''' side of '''Neutral'''. He has done well in my personal experience, and he meets some (but not all) of my [[User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards|standards]]. --
OK, I'll admit it. I have a mild case of editcountitis. However, I do believe that NicholasT would wield the mop and bucket well, but I'm not going to Support. '''Neutral.''' --
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' Seems like a fine candidate to me <small>
Actually thought he was an admin already.
'''Support'''. 'Nother good one.
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support''' this maker of sensible comments—
'''Support''' though we've disagreed at times, I support N unconditionally. He would be an incredible admin.
'''Support''' with pleasure. I've seen Nick get involved in a few conduct- or block-related issues (to help out, not as the object of them), and he's invariably civil, reasonable, and insightful. He'll make a great admin.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' with ease, I know he'll make a good admin --
<small>
'''Support''', good vandal fighter.
'''Support'''; would make a great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''', judging by other's comments, he'll be a good admin. Plus anyone who mistakes me for an admin and runs for an admin himself is a good candidate to vote for.
'''Support''' - Good at making his points civilly/calmly.
'''Support'''. I have disagreed with Nick on more than one occasion. However he never seems to freak out on people or lose his cool. He's a great guy. Good luck to you Nick. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' <font color=red>
'''Support''', will make an excellent admin. -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''; good candidate.
'''Support'''. Plenty of great work.
'''Support''' Excellent editor.
'''Support'''. Great editor. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support''' no reservations whatsoever.
'''Support'''. (Insert superlative here.)
'''Support'''. Give the man the <s>flamethrower</s> rollback button! --
'''Support''' --
'''SUPPORT''' <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Fine vandal-fighter.
Yup, this is a '''Support'''.
'''Upport-say'''. &ndash;
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Fine candidate, seen lots of examples of his work.
'''Support'''... so heavy... can barely... lift. --
'''Support''' You mean he isn't an Admin now? But, but, I was listening to him because I thought he WAS one already!
'''Support'''.  Weird, I thought I already voted to support, but seeing as I apparently haven't, I may as well do so now!  --
'''Support''' I've seen his bot at work a number of times, always doing great work.
i don't know this user, but based on my experiences with people elevated to authority, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Orleans%2C_Louisiana&diff=next&oldid=22362049 just this single edit] portends a potentially abusive admin. was frankly shocked to see this sort of wannabe-cop remark in a wikipedia article. it's not in line with normal administration behavior here. suggest a year or so for seasoning.
--
I would like to hear why you made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Toby&diff=22523545&oldid=22523476 this] accusation of sockpuppetry against {{User|Toby}}, who has made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Toby no contributions] since april 2002.
'''Support''' Good '''consistent''' (not consistant) editor and obviously not such a grammar nazi after all!
'''Support''', yeah, what the heck.
'''Support''' --
I give him the nod. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''[[soup|Support]], Not the most active of users, but that's alright, active enough to have over 2000 edits (Not that I look at edit counts or anything)
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Use edit summaries though please :) <small>
Cool. --
'''Support''' nearly three thousand edits.
'''Support''' sample checked a small amount of edits, good quality stuff on numismatic articles too.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' --
'''Support.''' This user can be trusted.
'''Support''' as nominator. <small>I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes with this nomination &ndash; you know he's a good candidate when three others say "Crap, you beat me to it." The sooner he gets the mop, the better!</small> '''''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]]</font>'''''<font color="green">
'''Strong Support''' I was planning on nominating him myself, but I got beat to it. Great user, I see him reporting vandals all the time at AIV. -
'''Support''' because it's almost quitting time.
'''Support''' this would be a useful admin --
'''Support''', active vandal-whacker.

'''Support'''
''' Late Co-Nom Support'''' Yes Yes Yes --
'''Support''' looks good... best of luck to you. &nbsp;
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' Excellent work on articles about the [[Han Dynasty]].--
'''Support''' [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', most definitely.  Active RC-patroller, dedicated to keeping the Wiki clean of vandalism; calm; good editor.
'''Support''', excellent RC-patroller.
'''Support''' I was going to nominate him soon if no one else did. I'm tired of blocking vandals for him; let him do it himself! :) --
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' Always seems to beat in reverting vandalism, so lets make it even easier for him to do so :-D.
Needs the [[LART]] and bucket.
'''Support''' Wikipedia would clearly benefit by offering Nlu access to the administrator tools. '''—
'''I-was-away-traveling-support''' -- (
'''Support'''. This user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' per Android79 and Aranda56.
'''Support''' - he isn't one already? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Polite vandal-fighters.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Will do an excellent job.
'''Support''' Nlu deserves a mop and will wield it well.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Nothing to really say here. --
'''Of course''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support'''
Has made a positive and levelheaded expression, so yes.
'''Support'''.  We need an infinite number of level-headed administrators.
'''Support'''. user has many quality contributions. was planning to nominate Nlu myself.--

'''Support''' - excellent editor. --
'''Support'''. One of the most active RC Patrollers around.
'''Support''' RfA cliché #1.  --
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e</font>]]
'''Support'''. --
'''Support!'''
'''Hell Yes''' Good editor. -
'''Support'''. Very constructive edits, will make a fine admin.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Ive always seen Nlu around.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Admin tools will be helpful for RC patrolling.
'''STRONG SUPPORT'''. A catastrophic malfunction in HTML Tidy happened. Nlu kept calm in this crisis.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' --
'''''Support'''''  A solid, and candid, Wikipedian who should administrate nicely; should probe more deeply before assessing a situation, however.  Good luck!
Would benefit from being able to push the delete button himself, instead of filling up [[CAT:CSD]].  I've speedied a lot of articles he's tagged over the past few days, and can't recall seeing any that didn't meet the criteria. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' impressive dedication to the project --
'''Support'''. Great guy, per me ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' per that second, handsome nominator.
'''Strong Support''' per nomination. Very great guy, would be a great admin. --
'''Support''', yeah. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Strong Support''' Absolutely, fine editor.  I also noticed the recent kindness Karmafist mentioned, and agree that it shows the best adminship qualities.
'''Support''' good egg for sure.--
'''Support''' --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Rock on'''--

'''Support''' after getting to the bottom of it all, but note that IRC is not Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - He's not one already? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' &#8766; Thought he was an admin. →
'''Support''' if he's not an admin, he should be one.
'''Support'''. I usually look for a minimum of three months here, but NSLE is a fast learner. I've seen him everywhere; he knows what he's doing, and will make a great admin.
'''Support''' - I sense that [[WP:CIV|the force]] is strong in this one.
'''Support''' Per all of the above. '''''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', I know him! I know him! Great user, assumed he was an admin just because I was too lazy to find out if he was or not.
'''Support''' Good User --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good janitor, give him the big push broom!
'''Support''' Handled the EddieSegoura incident quite well. Definitely worthy. --
'''Support''' good editor. --
'''Support''' I was also quite impressed with how he dealt with Eddie --
'''Support''' great editor.
'''Support''' Seen him/her around on IRC frequently.
'''That's hot.'''
<small>^ Copyright vio, ok Mike? [[Paris Hilton|Miss Hilton]] will see u in court.</small> N.E way, '''Support'''.
'''Support.''' &mdash;
'''Support'''. Seen this user around before. :) --
'''Support''' Good anti-vandalism work, should use mop well.
'''Support''' Handled things very well with Eddie.  -
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter in training. :) --
'''Support''' Some very high quality edits and being a vandal fighter without sysop isn't fun (I'd like to see your ''rv'' edit summaries be ''rvv'' when referring to vandalism, but the rollback function should help). Despite short term, already a familiar face.
'''Support''' Good work. --
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''' Good contributions. One minor concern I have is that almost all edits in the project namespace are for AfDs or RfAs. Branch out a little...
'''Support'''.  I'm frankly amazed at how much he's done here in such a short time.  Being a bit of a tropical cyclone enthusiast myself, I've seen much of his work, and it's good stuff.  I also know him from outside Wikipedia, and while I'll freely admit that we've had our differences on occasion, I also know that he is well suited for the job.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He's acted like an admin whenever our paths have crossed. He should stop pretending. &mdash;
'''Support'''. per nom.--
'''Support''', of course. -
'''My watch stopped, that's why I'm late support'''.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' awsome guy!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', NSLE is a good editor. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''': good editor, will very likely be a good admin! --
'''Support''', good editor. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''', per nominator.
'''Support'''. Edit history seem reasonable, no cause for concern.
'''Support'''. I could've sworn you were an admin! :o
'''Support'''. Every contrib that I've seen from him has been quite good.
'''Support''', how come I hadn't seen this one?
'''Support''' <font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''' per above '''
'''Absolutely'''.
'''I suppose''' Even though you left the harsh "Screw you" edit summary on Wikisand and blocked me, I have found it in my heart to support you here.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good egg. Probably not crazy. (The second sentence is comedic relief).
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''SNFA'''.
'''Extreme wossname support'''.  Likes all the right football teams.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Gladly.
'''Support'''. But [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]] rocks [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]]'s socks! &ndash;
'''Yes'''. NSLE's good.Go for it!
'''Oppose''', because Candidate is A. Already going around and thanking users for voting on his RfA prior to it closing, which I find to be poor form, and B. actually using a ''template'' to do this, and C. Not even bothering to type a user's name in, but using <nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}</nowiki> instead [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karmafist&curid=909787&diff=30659779&oldid=30649077]. I know BD2412's already going around and thanking users, but it at least seems like he's bothering to personalize each comment he makes, as opposed to just importing a templated form letter. I know this is probably being anal and nitpicky, but I feel administrators should have a strong understanding of policy, civility, and especially "wikiquette", and to me such actions make me question the latter pretty heavily.
It is a great ''honour''? Great, do we '''''really''''' need more [[Commonwealth English]]-speaking admins on Wikipedia? Good grief. ;)
'''Neutral''': I'm neutral about this person right now.  Had a few rough encounters, but if we get along maybe next time My vote with be positive.  I'm hope to build My own reputation so I can try for this by Passover in April.  --
I guess I must '''support''' as nominator... [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''
Too cute nick to oppose. Of course thats not the reason. --
'''Support'''. Excellent RC patroller. I see his name numerous times when I am on RC.
'''Support''', good work.
'''Strong Support'''. I have never once seen a reason not to make Nufy an admin, and many reasons, in his valiant constant editing and reverting and reasonableness to make him one. --
'''Support''' User page vandalized 68 times? o_O Give this guy a mop already.
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
It is my opinion that users who receive that much vandalism deserve to have their pages protected.  It's not "unwiki", because a userpage is no place for that riffraff; take it to the talk page.  --
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. Good luck! &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support.''' Certainly. --
'''Support'''. Tireless vandal fighter who would only be more effective with an adminship. Everything that I can see in his contribution history suggests that he is humble and level-headed. I have no reservations.
'''Support'''. Provided he doesn't talk about [[WP:IRC|Harry Potter's sex life]].
'''Support'''.  Excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. While I don't think I've seen you in action, after reading your answers and looking over your contribs, I think you'd make an excellent admin. Good luck! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good responsible editor. <small>
'''Absolutely support'''. I see him all the time on RC patrol; he reverts vandalism very quickly. And how could I have awarded him a [[:Image:Flail01.png|vandal whacking stick]] and not support him? :)
'''Support'''. For reasons that have already been mentioned --
<small>
[[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Edits indicate admin powers will be put to good use.
'''Support.'''.  Cool, calm and collected in the face of vandalism.  Would be great to have someone like this to glean out the vandals.
Cool.
'''Support''' Happy vandal hunting!
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - you can bet your bottom dollar that if you're about to revert a piece of vandalism, Nufy8 will have beaten you to it. Very rapid, very dedicated. Hand him the mop at once. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''


'''Userpage has been vandalized over 60 time?!''' Quick, don't let this vandal-fighter escape! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support''' Nufy8.
'''Support'''  Great vandal fighter.
'''Support'''. Looks good.—
'''Support'''. I see his name often on RC. --
'''Support''', Holly Molly, you've been vandalized over 60 times?  Hell son, go and kick some you know what.
'''Support''' that's almost 80 times now his page has been vandalised
'''Support'''. Good RC work.
--
'''Oppose''' &mdash;2400 edits in all of 9 months. That much too small for the long length of time. ''' ''
Enthusiastic '''support'''. Was about to nominate him myself; thanks for allowing me to cast the first support vote. Nv8200p has put tremendous effort into [[WP:IFD]], listing dozens of images each day, and now we need his help dealing with the resulting backlog. ;-) I have reason to believe that has made a lot more than 3000 edits in the image namespace, since most of his recent edits in that namespace consist of adding <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:ifd|ifd]]}} tags to image pages, and those edits are lost and not counted when an image gets deleted. --

'''Support'''
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''. I see this username pop up often on IfD, doing the dirty work. Give him the mop. <font color="green">
<small>
'''Support'''. Nv8200p's name is all over the IFD page.
'''Support''', another easy decision.
'''Support'''.
No question here, automatic '''support'''. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. I'm just jumping on the bandwagon.--May the Force be with you!

'''Support''', not come across him myself but seems like an excellent editor who will make good use of admin powers.
'''Support'''. He deserves the WikiPower :). -
'''Support''', good editor, seems strongly committed to janitorial tasks.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Um, yeah <small>
Yep, tireless image work. '''Support.''' --
'''Support''', sure. --
'''Support'''.  Your help on [[WP:IFD]] will be appreciated.  Just remember not to delete images you nominate.
--
'''Support'''. --

'''Support''', looks like a worthy candidate.
'''Support'''; I really appreciate the people who take on the non-glamourous, tedious, dirty-work jobs.  Very deserving candidate.
<s> Oppose - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_September_7&diff=prev&oldid=22743384 this vote] demonstrates a current misunderstanding about VfD (Images should be deleted even if the VfD is a clear no-consensus even before it was nominated?)</s> '''Neutral''' or perhapas it demonstrats a current misunderstanding about IfD, by me, though this is a policy to change - see my comments on the pump shortly.
I should probably '''support''', shouldn't I? [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
Would prefer 15,000 edits, but what the heck. '''Support'''.
'''Major support''' - This is the first time I can honestly say, "I thought he already was one...". Anyone else with me here? --

Wholeheartedly. Oleg is an applied mathematics postdoc at UCLA, who has made many excellent contributions to Wikipedia. He has been a tireless contributer to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics|Mathematics project]]. He created and has been one of the principle authors of the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)|Manual of Style (mathematics)]]. He was a cofounder of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange|PlanetMath Exchange project]], setting up the original lists of PlanetMath articles for that project (nearly 4000 articles), creating an automated conversion tool, as well as contributing significantly to the content review and merge work of the project. He is a Perl magician and is the creator-owner-operator of [[User:Mathbot|Mathbot]], the bot who helps to maintain the lists:  [[list of mathematical topics]] and [[list of mathematics categories]], and in its spare time periodically spellchecks all the math articles on Wikipedia. He will make a great admin.
'''Support''' -- I've only had one encounter with Oleg, but I was very impressed by his diplomacy. --
'''Support'''. <nowiki>{{admin cliché 37}}</nowiki> --
'''Administratorize'''
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support'''. Oleg will make a great administrator.
Absolutely. This could have happened much earlier.
'''Support'''. Tireless contributor to the article namespace, and has a cool head. What else do we want?
Absotively, Posilutely '''Support'''.  I can't believe you're not an admin already.
'''Support''' I have seen him making many sensible suggestions on afd discussions and other places --
Let <math>x</math> be <math>support</math> for Oleg Alexandrov. It follows that, <math>x \rightarrow \infty</math>—
'''Support'''. My cabal has advised me to support. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Oh heck yeah! '''Support'''. --
He isn't one? He ought to be.
'''Indeed'''.
'''Support'''. By the way, weren't you an admin already? I always thought you were one. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Sensible nomination. --
'''Support'''. Very strong and experienced candidate.
'''Support''' of course. --
'''Support''' an excellent member of the set of mathematics editors.
'''Support'''. We need more mathematician admins!
'''Support''': Good amount of time, a ton of work, reasonableness, and I can count to 20, if I take off my shoes!
Extremely Strong Oppose! Not enough edits by a long shot; try again when you reach 50,000. Oh, wait, he has three times as many as I do? Well, then, '''grudgingly support'''. ; - ) --
'''[[International Talk Like a Pirate Day|Shiver me timbers]]''', I thought he already was one!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Will make fine admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Usually I stay away from politics.  And I think Oleg will have enough support not counting mine.  I just want to show my appreciation for what he has done so far.  I'm sure he will do greater things as an admin.  (I thought he was one already. :)
'''Support'''. Exceptional and dedicated user, will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. Tons of work, all of it good, plus he has a handy bot that makes [[WP:AFD/Old]] a more pleasant place to hang out. -
'''Support'''.  Oleg is an ideal candidate for adminship.  &mdash;
'''Support''' I see this name a lot on my watchlist. Solid contributions.
'''Support'''.  Of course!  <font color="red">
'''Support'''. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''' as per [[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] (#7) above.
'''Support''' - someone I was going to nominate myself, botmeister but also a good guy in seeking consensus, and has undertaken two major projects.
'''Support'''. unsigned by
'''Support'''. Per above comments.
'''Support''' Same thoughts as everyone above.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I was thinking of nominating him myself.  Someone beat me to it.  -
'''Support''''
'''Support''' Another fine user that I see all over the place.
'''Support''' without reservation.  Has in a short time made himself an indispensible member of the WP mathematics effort, and one of the few admin nominations I've looked at where it's clear that the conferring of adminship powers will be put to use (and, naturally in a way that benefits WP).
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems to be a good user, might as well support.
So! You are the owner of [[User:Mathbot|Mathbot]]! I guess I have no choice but to '''support'''!
'''Support'''--
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' The good stuff.
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  --
Seems fine to me. Vandal fighting is a perpetually unfinished task. --
--
Support.
Sure.

All the right reasons.
Indeed, positive motivation.
Looks fine to me.
Cool. --
Support.
Support. Also, please see [[Wikipedia: Village pump (proposals)#Power Users|Village pump]] for a non-admin rollback function proposal.
Support.
Support.  There can never be too many vandal slayers.  The vandal bots are getting totally out of hand.  Also, the support of each and every one of the above users is good enough for me to offer up mine. -
Support
Support. Long stable history of good contributions. --

All the wrong reasons. I can't see granting adminship for self-described personal convenience. --
'''Support''', pending acceptation by the nominee.
'''Strong Support''' I've seen him working on the Bucharest pages, [[Treaty of Trianon]] [[Vienna Diktat]] and others... He is fit to be Admin. He has a very good potential and we all admire his sytle. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - he seems to have good temper --

'''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. He's done a lot of good work on Romanian topics, and I think he would make a good admin. Even-tempered; can distinguish where he is expert, where he is merely clueful, and where he's out of his depth, and act accordingly; etc. Slight hesitation about breadth of experience in Wikipedia, but nothing that actively worries me. In the event that he doesn't make it at this time, we should re-nominate in a few months. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' why not? '''
'''Support''' ditto.
'''Support'''. BTW, I like your username.
'''Support''' Extremely good and hard work on [[Romania]] related pages. I'm particularly impressed with [[Culture of Romania]]. We need a good Romanian admin. -
'''Support'''. Vandalfighters get my vote. We need as many as we can.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Contributions look solid.--
'''Support''' looking good...
'''Very Strong Support'''- He is a romanian. His contributions are very good. We need him.--
'''Support''' We need more ops with knowledge about Romania.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''',
'''Support''':  We can always use another steady hand at the wheel.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''': I have seen his work and appreciate his patience. He is all fit to be an admin. --
<del>'''Oppose'''. We don't need more admins. Most vandalism that lasts longer than a few hours would not have been reverted even if every Wikipedian, anonymous or not, had the rollback feature.
Absolutely, glad to be the first to support. Also, your username makes me think of the [[Pillsbury Doughboy]] &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (Alex)'' </font><sup>(
<del>'''Support''', keep up the good work. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 02:56, 2005 May 19 (UTC)</del> <del>Vote temporarily suspended, I'd like to see a response to Raul's question too. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 16:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC)</del> Right, that works for me. '''Support''' again. --
'''Support'''.  I know the feeling when it comes to those new pages. --
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems level-headed to me.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Fine user.
'''Support'''. I love the sound of an admin who will actively delete rubbishy new articles and nonsense. I spend a lot of my time policing things for [[WP:SD]], and would appreciate an admin who could reduce my workload there.

'''Support'''-
'''Support'''- I've seen some of his edits, extremely dedicated wiki
'''support''' - on the condition that he talks to [[WP:WSS]] first before creating any more stub templates! :)
'''support'''--
'''Support'''--
I've had nothing but positive experiences with Oven Fresh. &mdash;
'''SUPPORT'''.
I'm satisfied with the responses he gave to my questions.
I am positively impressed with how calm OF has been throughout this process, and with the humility, grace, and honest introspection he has exhibited here.
I'm afraid I must '''oppose'''. There are just too many things, minor on their own, which together make him an unsuitable candidate, for now at least. Despite being here for a respectable amount of time, he seems not to have fully got the hang of how things work here (he has an inflated edit count by his own admission). Look through his talk page archive and just about every other message indicates a failure to work well with others, or a failure to follow policy. Not suitable for adminship at the present time. I would consider supporting a nomination sometime in the future, but not yet. &mdash;

Weak Oppose.  I am just not comfortable with the tone of some of Oven Fresh's interactions with other editors.  I think that he is still on the steep slope of the learning curve and gaining speed so I expect to be happy to support a few months from now. This sentence is a speculation so should be regarded as such: I think that the source of the discomforting behaviour may be impulsiveness. --
Agree with Trilobite.
Oppose for now. Some overly sardonic edit summaries like "rollback buttons piss me off" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cvg-stub&diff=13527018&oldid=13526095] and "Removed bitching, added reply" (it was on his talk page, I don't feel like finding it right now). There was also a weird exchange with [[User:ExplorerCDT]] which you can see mainly on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExplorerCDT&diff=7407072&oldid=7406951 this diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExplorerCDT&diff=7407477&oldid=7407359 this one], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ExplorerCDT&diff=7407773&oldid=7407616 this one], and probably several others. So, maybe another time.
'''Neutral'''. <s>Unless/until a very satisfactory answer is given to Raul654's question below.</s> Well I'll go neutral now. I would like to think that it wouldn't have taken that long for you to reallize personal attacks aren't ok on a user page, but we live and learn. Having no other interactions with you keeps me from having a ground to support from, but it looks like you'll be fine, next time if not now. Keep up the good work. -
'''Support''', as nominator. -
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
'''Support''' - Even tells me the time when he'll be on RC patrol to help out! --
'''Support'''.
'''Most certainly.''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good editor.
'''Support''', although the low number of edits given the amount of time he's been here is a little surprising. But I really liked his answer to the question about conflict resolution. --
'''Support''', a few contacts, always positive. rvv'd my user page with a rollback-like edit summary, tricking me into thinking he already was one. <font size=-2>&mdash;&nbsp;
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosic support!''' --
'''Support'''; I see him on RC patrol; he does a great job of it and could benefit from the extra buttons.  Everything looks good to me.
'''Support''' great RC work, and NPOV AfD contribs. Only request that you review [[WP:CIVIL]] due to a few edit summaries like ''get with the program, buddy!''. It's not an issue, per say, just some could find it offensive and become very defensive before they even look at your reasons or comments.  Other than that, full support. <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support:''' OwenX would make a great administrator. I was impressed on how he weighed in on the [[Synergy/DE]] Afd debate. On this issue, a particular user working as a marketing rep for a technology company was posting POV articles about her company and then refused to cooporate with other editors on creating an unbiased article. In a letter to the user's [[User talk:Sde|talk page]], OwenX clearly explained the implications of that article and how it can be rewritten in a form that is acceptable to Wikipedian standards. His actions in this matter have given me confidence that he'll play a fair and consistant role in protecting Wikipedia from commercial exploitation.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
-
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
Solid user.
'''Support''' - 1800 edits is plenty enough to confirm that an editor is serious about improving Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Great job on the RC patrol. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. 1800 edits is good enough for me. --
'''EXTREME DEATH TO EDITCOUNTITIS SUPPORT!!''' <small>
'''Support''', damn editcountitis.  <font color="red">

'''Furry Alien Support''' the above comment about his use of a specific string to add to the temporary "blacklist" impressed me more than his answers to the standard questions.
'''Support'''. Huhum, definitely. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' have come across him several times and always found him accurate and helpful.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Got me on the right track. Seems very helpful and nice.--
'''Support in hopes of a editcountitis vaccine.''' And because he'll be a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Seems to be knowledgeable and active. --
'''Support''' This is a rational person with an interest in the smooth functioning of Wikipedia: exactly what is needed in an admin.
Cool.
'''Support''', although I've had no personal interaction with Owen, by his edits he strikes me as a good person and a valuable editor. <font color="green">
'''Support'''.  For all the good reasons cited above.  I love the consistent use of edit summaries in every namespace, as they are an easy courtesy to provide for those still on dialup and those who don't want to load every single page to get a feel for what's changed.
'''Support'''. A fine editor and plenty 'nuff of them. --
'''Support''' is there a pill you can take for '''editcountis'''? --
<s>Keep this article...</s> Erm, I meant '''support'''! --
'''Support'''.

'''Oppose'''.  OwenX appears to be a friendly person, from what I can observe, but 1800 edits is just too green for me.  I will gladly support him in the future once he has more experience should this first nomination fail.
'''Oppose''', been here for a long time, but only 1800 edits, that's way too little for being on wikipedia so long. I have over 1000 and I've been here for a few months. Maybe if they worked harder, in a few months I'd actually support.
'''Oppose''' sadly not enough of an edit history yet to show user interaction conflicts, how will this person react to an in their face assholish vandal? or an ignorant newbie who trashes their "pet article"? Needs more time and more edits IMO. &nbsp;
Oppose.  Too few edits, never have encountered this user.
Obviously.
--
I would have bet that you were already one!
One of the best contributors I know. He'll also make a responsable admin.
--
'''Yep'''.
Yessiree.
'''Support''' I like the minor vandalism comment. :-D
Ay ay ay, canta y no llores... &mdash;
'''Support''' Seems like a good admin candidate to me --
'''Support''' as above.  --
'''Sure'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
<font color="708090">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''

'''Support''' as I see no reason not to.--
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Soporte''' al Rosariano Pablito
'''Support'''. We need more vandal fighters.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
Straightforward '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''',
Support: --
'''Support''' - I don't know the guy, but edit count looks good.  Not a newbie, contributing well, no problems noted.
'''Support'''. If the nominator is not around to add the first vote, it is not my problem !
'''Support''' because I forgot to sign the last RfA.
''Checks his watch'' &ndash; am I this late!?
'''Strong Support''' because I was just wondering if Pamri is an admin or not; because he put me on to India related links; because his persuasion made me work on the telugu stub of "Economy of India" and because he appreciated my extensive copyedit of K. M. Nanavati article. Most importantly, despite the number of edits to his credit, his edits per page are less than 1.8 - it means that he covers a wide area of Wikipedia, folks!! --
--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Havent worked with him much but has made good contributions to Wikipedia. All the best --
'''Support''' The lack of content on his user page worries me, but the number (~3700), placement, and quality of his contribs looks solid. I also trust the nominator. -
'''Support''' Although the user page (or lack therof) might seem a little worrisome, I think it's better to keep it simple than to load it with too many pictures and too much non-Wikipedia information. -
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.

'''Support''' sounds good.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' &mdash;
'''Support'''  Good contributions, very happy to see the high image activity. Should be even more useful to WP as an admin.
'''Support''', lack of content on userpage is no reason to oppose.
'''''Support''''', per everybody else.--
'''Support''' (but agree that an admin should have an inviting user page).
'''Support'''.
Freshly created Wikipedia admin seeks new Wikipedia admin to keep him company, help fight vandalism, talk about funny stuff and the like. I like long walks on the beach and, erm...
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Me, of course.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': I find him all around, and always in a nice mood. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' bandwagoning, but no reason not to.
'''Support''' Very useful contributor. He can do wonders with Economy related topics. --
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
<s>'''Support'''</s> <s>'''Oppose'''</s> <s> '''Undecided''' </s> <s> '''Sleepy''' </s> Fine I'll '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' I trust Nichalp would not have nominated someone unqualified, in reviewing I see my first instinct was correct... &nbsp;
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' user has a nice smile on other user page [http://kn.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pamri] ;)
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' for a very participatory and inclusive policy towards other contributors.
Vote changed to '''support'''. Very responsive to user concerns. --
'''Support'''
'''Suppport'''. Of course.
'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- he has been really welcoming to me and helped me through wikitechniques too, hands on!
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support like there's no tomorrow'''. (Always trying to vary up the things here--make it interesting ;) )-[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''
Wonderful editor, level-headed and suitable for the "mop job". --
'''Support'''.  Clearly he can wield the mop. --
'''Support'''. Dedicated and sensible.
'''Support''' Good User Good vandal fighther --
'''Support''' First encountered user during the founding of the user warnings project, good stuff. -
'''Support''' Takes the initiative - nice to see!
'''Support''' His answer to Question 3 is probably the best I've ever seen, and his thoroughness in obtain his own edit count shows ingenuity, and respect for the RfA process.  Bravo!
Got my '''support''', yeah. Seems very crafty. ;) [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
Cue adminship cliche. <font color="darkred">
'''Support'''
'''Full support'''.
'''Support''' no good reason not to.
'''Support'''Yes, indeed. '''''
'''Support''': Good user.  Excellent work on Userpage warnings.  Endorse for [[LART]].
'''Strong Support''' Great guy, would weild the mop wisely! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>

'''Support''' good editor--
'''Support''' sounds good. --
'''Support''' - Has a solid record, good grip on policy, and impressive replies to the questions below.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Not that strong Support''' --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
<font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' I keep seeing Pathoschild in IRC en-vandalism, should make good use of the tools.
'''Support'''
'''support''', of course. &mdash;
'''Strong support'''. Paul has been doing great work, has a featured article, a medal for janitorial work, is good at conflict resolution, and has good sense of humor and social skills.
Great wikipedian and contributor.
'''Support''', a solid contributor and janitor; what more can you ask for in a candidate?
&#8212;
'''Support'''. My turn for the stock phrase ("I thought he already was one!"), especially seeing his deft hand on math-related articles.
'''Support''.  I'm very impressed with your resume.

'''Support'''. 8492 edits in ten months? What took us so long to nominate him? Here's a [[Budweiser|Bud]] to you, Pablo. ''
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''support''' --
'''Support'''
Support.
'''Support'''. A mathematician! A glance at this user's contributions shows beyond doubt that he can be trusted with administrator privileges.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor, courteous, always uses talk pages, doesn't shy away from grunt work, and he's of my [[WP:PMEX]] homies.
'''support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. For all the excellent reasons given above. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Everything I can remember about his edits and interactions with me and others is good. A great record. This one is easy. -
Support.

'''Support'''.  Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Gladly! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Support'''. A level head is only a good thing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. An excellent contibuter
'''Support'''.
Still time left to squeeze in another support vote.
Impressive, both by contributions and by Erdos number, so '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I haven't seen the user before, but I'm fairly new, so that's meaningless. Looks like a strong candidate. --
'''Support''' Nice contributions, should be helpful admin.
'''Support''', obviously a wikipediholic, though. Not sure if this is the humane thing to do.
Sure --
Consistently level-headed in my experience. &mdash;



Valuable addition to the WikiTeam.
Cool.

Sure. -
Mild support. Support for of all the work, mild because all edits should have summary.
I've come across this user and have seen nothing but good work. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', good work on science and biographies.-
Absolutely.
'''Support''' one of those "I thought she ALREADY WAS an admin" votes. &nbsp;
'''Support'''. She's a knowledgeable and careful editor, and will make a good admin.
Thumbs up from me too.
Aye.
'''Support''' - She one of those "I can't believe she's not an admins". She would made an excellent addition to the admin ranks. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Her articles are well written and her edits are right no the mark. She would be a great addition to the admin ranks.
'''Support'''.
Enthusiastic support
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Looking through her contributions I see high-quality work, and I think she'd be a good admin too.

Obviously not evil, I support. --
'''Support'''. User and talk pages show us an editor who communicates well and works well with others.

'''Support'''. --
Over 2000 edits, talk page looks good, great vandalism fighting history (some of which can't be seen since page move vandal redirects have been deleted), always courteous on talk pages.  Two thumbs up from me.
Looks very good to me.
Valiant vandal vanquisher. Vote: '''Vupp... erm... support'''.
This looks like adminship material to me.
Meets my standards for granting adminship.
Why not? [[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]] [[User talk:Smoddy|(t)]] [[Special:Emailuser/Smoddy|(e)]]
I've been following Pharos' trail of stellar articles related to New York City long enough to know that I should support for adminship. Good luck! --
Pharos is civil, willing to discuss and listen to other views, cares about supplying references for edits and reading other people's, always cares about accuracy, and would be a very trustworthy admin.

Looks good. -
His talk page indicates he works well with others, and he was courteous in his communication with me. Strong support.
Good luck.
Definitely. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Looks like another good admin on his way.
Doing useful things --
Support.
Support strongly. Pharos is a shining example of adminship and its candidacy. (Sorry, pun intended.) --
Support. --
Absolutely.
'''Support'''.
Me, of course
A horse is a horse <small>
He's ''not'' an admin yet?  --
'''Support''', he has 4 cats, how could i possibly oppose? (good editor as well)
'''Support''' I like the sort of passive admin picture you've painted in your answers. All too often, I see an admin start blocking people the same day they are promoted. I can't imagine you ever abusing those powers. (Not that newly-promoted admins are abusing their powers by jumping right in. I just think it'd be a good idea if they sat back and watched the older admins at first).
'''Support''' - from what I've seen, civil, and by his question answers looks reliable, trustworthy and a good admin in the making. Open and shut case. --
'''Support''', I can't think of any reason either.
'''Support''', since then ''and'' still not an adm. ?
'''Support'''. Very fine editor.
'''Support'''. His contribution history shows a willingness to take on thankless maintenance tasks (well, not completely thankless, since he's getting this RFA). Give the man a mop! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', seems like an editor who will make good use of sysop rights. --
-
'''Extreme ultra support'''. Beyond any question or doubt, Phil is qualified, Phil is trustworthy, Phil is perfect admin material.
'''Support'''. I agree with the bit about the cats.
'''Support''' - everything I've seen has been great.
'''Support'''. Though four cats are not really enough. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - Of course. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' For a user that was welcomed on my birthday ;) Good editor. &mdash;
'''Support''' as per Func.
Cool.
'''Support''', he's been here, like, forever!
'''Support'''. Happy to support. All my contact with Phil has been positive.
'''Support'''. Seems to be calm and level-headed. (It also doesn't hurt that he's contributed to the [http://harrypotter.wikicities.com Harry Potter Wiki]! :-))
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. [[He wasn't one already?!?!?!|Cliché]]--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''', an excellent and more than qualified contributor.
'''Support'''. He isn't one already? I thought he was, and a good one, too.
--

This ''should'' be no big deal. [[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 14:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) To elaborate further on my support: I am happy to assume good faith.
'''Conditional support''' - the condition being that Phils learns how to spell "responsibility" :)
'''Support'''. I'll add to the virtues already described that Phils is a useful and helpful FAC voter, and that s/he gets my extra selfnom points. Edit summaries are important, though, I hope s/he gets into a 100% habit of them real soon.--
'''Support'''

A bit borderline for me, but constant activity since October, good interaction in Wikipedia namespace and an overall good breadth of contributions to various areas.  Nobody's yelling at him on his talk page (though it is a bit thin) and he's not afraid to point out when he was wrong (question 3 below).
'''Support'''. I've not personally interacted with Phils before, but looking at his contributions, he seems impressively dedicated and quite capable. &ndash;
I can see no reason why not.  The user seems friendly, getting on experienced, and, crucially, prepared to admit where he is wrong.
Sure.
Good user. I don't consider the "no edit summary in '''the past'''" to be a problem. As Oleg Alexandrov said, he's done a good job with it lately. --
Sure, why not? <font color=green>
Support. Less than 2000 edits is a bit on the thin side, but plenty of activity on the Wikipedia namespace, and good work otherwise compensate nicely.
Why not?
Mild oppose. All edits should have edit summary, especially those on generic topics. I would also welcome more contributions outside games, as the admins could get involved in anything.
'''oppose''' for the meantime. with so few edits, i don't feel i can get a real grasp of Phils' style and personalit.y
I don't consider a thousand edits to be a low count at all, even for those who think such is important.  (I only post counts to specific namespaces because people are going to be looking at the total with Kate's tool anyway.)  I don't vote support or oppose on users who I haven't had prior interactions with, though. &mdash;
Phils edits and interactions seem great, but < 1500 edits is just really hard to go on.  I also kind of agree with Pavel's comment that the user's edits seem limited to topics on video games, FAC, and VFD aside.  I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing, but combined with the low number of edits, I feel like it would be beneficial to see a few more months of this user's activity on a wider scope of topics.  Keep up the good work though. --
An edit count of (as of this writing) 1167 that is primary limited to video games, FAC, and VFD is not a good sample to judge how Phils effectively interacts with the community as a whole.
Edit summaries are indeed important, and Phils has been doing at very good job at that recently (this to address [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]]'s concerns). But, a higher edit count would be desirable.
'''Support''' as nominator. Good luck.
'''Support''' - Looking through his edit contributions, and judging by his character I'd say Philwelch would be a great admin.
'''Support''' <s>because he's holding a gun to my head</s> <s>he'll give me a vote when I do an rFa</s> because he's an all around nice guy and more than deserves to be an admin.
'''''Support!''''' Rather nice chap.--
'''Strong Support''' Will make a great admin . --
'''Support''' Seriously thought he was one. -
'''Sure''', go ahead, not a big deal.
'''Support'''; Have seen good things from him.  --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support''', Phil is one of my favorite Wikipedians!
'''Support'''. I was considering nominating him myself. :)
'''Cautious Support'''. Good guy, but one specific thing (which I don't say, neener neener) keeps me from strong support. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Speculation does not an oppose make. We are in dire need of RC patrol. &mdash; <small>
No milk today, ta. But could you deliver a pint of semi-skimmed yoghurt on Thursday?
'''Support''' - I wish I knew all of the admins, then I wouldn't feel embarassed about thinking he was one already. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Strong Support''', great user, smart as a whip, very knowledgeable, will make a great admin.
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
Um, weren't he already admined?
'''Support'''.  Hipocrite's arguments below seem a little bit imbalanced.
Thought he was one.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - I've seen good work from this editor, and have faith in his ability to handle the responsibilities of an admin.
'''Support''' with no comments.
'''Certainly'''.
'''Support''', after having a somewhat extensive discussion with the editor (refer to the Comments section), I have changed my mind and believe that he is deserving of sysop rights. --
'''Support''' I see no problems worth laboring over here, except that words a NOT inherenttly POV. The word Terrorist has valid NPOV applications. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
'''support''' you mean he wasn't already an admin? [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts;&hearts;purpl</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' I've seen good work from him. In addition, it seems that [[Template talk:Suicide]] reached a compromise mainly because of him. --
'''Support''' Lots of good edits, long-term contributor.--
'''Support''' The hero of [[Template:Suicide]] due to his leading (perhaps sole) role in brokering a compromise solution that looks like it made everyone go home happy.
-- (
'''Support'''. Reasonable, bold, high-quality editor. The edit war people are pointing at seems to have been very minor and resolved satisfactorily. Incidentally, it's not a show-stopper for the nomination, but please use more edit summaries. '''[[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #63f; text-decoration: none;">r</span>]]'''
Lean toward support.
'''Support'''.  He really helped the [[Template:Suicide]] dispute/discussion come to a satisfying conclusion with everyone pretty much happy.  (I honestly didn't think it would end so well!)--
'''RFA Cliche #1.'''
'''Support'''. Has been a real asset in working with and around problem editors on some Star Wars-related articles. Keeps a generally cool head but isn't afraid to jump in with both feet and speak his mind.--'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.]]
'''Support''' --
'''Support 100%''', edit warring and reversions are part of the learning experiences in Wiki.  The important thing is that the person learn from his mistakes, as I did.  I trust in the judgement of Linuxbeak
'''Support'''. See no real issues.
'''Support'''.  I thought this user was already an admin and I thought he was a good one. —
Cool.
'''Oppose''' - "engaged in edit warring and thoughtless reversion"
'''Oppose''' in light of the disconcerting edit warring discussed above. -
'''Oppose''' per above. -
'''Oppose''' - I recognize that sometimes there can be a lot of contention on Wikipedia while editing, but I found some of the dialogue [[Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings/Archive4#Why_is_terrorist_NPOV_.3F|here]] to be a bit less measured as it could have been when the editing took place. --
'''Oppose''' He has made some good contributions, however due to his constant habit of getting into edit wars I don't think he should be an administrator just yet.  I would however have no problem supporting in the future if he can stop edit warring. <small>
'''Oppose''' I thought, finally someone with some backbone.  Then digging further, it looks like his backbone came from being in the majority.--
My only hesitation is edit summaries.  They're a big deal and make it so much easier for everyone else.
Philwelch, you are a good editor, but I cannot get past the lack of edit summaries, especially on your edits to talk pages. Think of the edit summary on a talk page as a subject line on an email.
'''Neutral''', per the reasons Zzyzx11 and Tedernst.
'''Neutral''' please use edit summaries. Although i saw an editor who only used edit summaries like 30% of the time yet still passed with very few oppose votes.
'''Neutral'''.  Edit summaries are a bit of a concern.  Also, a cooler head [[Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings/Archive4#Why_is_terrorist_NPOV_.3F|here]] (per HappyCamper's oppose vote) would have been helpful.  Edit warring over a neutrality tag (five reverts in half an hour?) is silly; take a day or two to let the issue settle and put the tag on the talk page in the meantime.  Hopefully Phil has mellowed since then; the incident was back in July.  Apparent sarcasm ('Sorry for being passionate about NPOV') is not a good trait in an admin.
'''Neutral''' Not entirely comfortable with this based on what I've read in Template:Suicide talk.  However, he did eventually propose a reasonable compromise which will probably be adopted.  So, I'll neither oppose nor support.
'''Neutral''' some of the things expressed make me nervous, but I dont get a malicious intent vibe from this user. I definately do not think this is the time to approve this user. Neutral because I dont feel strongly enough that he cannot make a good admin, but not strongly enough that he could. &nbsp;
'''Neutral''', really seems like a good editor; however [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=18364475 edits like this] concern me.  Passion is good, but admins need to keep cool heads. --
'''Support''' NOT <small>just</small> because username sounds like [[Prozac]]. --
'''Support'''.
However, I suggest you remember the difference between IRC and the mailing list... :-)
'''Support''' Um, YES! <small>
'''Support'''. She's the kind of admin I wish I had been when I was her age (oh, wait, they didn't even have the web then, and wikis were only invented in ...). Anyway, I hope this endorsement doesn't attract a lot of oppose votes (oh, no, she hangs out with '''who?''').
'''Support''' She's not one already?! &mdash;
'''Support''' another one in a long line of candidates I thought were admins already... :) -
'''Support'''. I have known Phroziac in person for some time now via IRC, and also via her contributions on the wiki. She is a conscientious, pleasant, intelligent editor who has made a high level of contribution to the wiki in a comparatively short period of time. I am sure that Phroziac shall make excellent use of admin tools... and... I'm amazed she isn't one already :-) --
'''Support'''. For being an excellent Wikipedian ''and'' having a username that sounds like Prozac.
'''Support''' - Phroziac knows what she's doing, she knows how to do it and when, and she's got a lot of wiki-experience already. We need admins with the right balance of everything. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
'''Support.''' All-round good girl. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''&mdash; rolled back some of his contributions. Has been a consistent contributor. Also, her focus is on the 'dirty work' instead of simple editing. With the promotion, she could be better able to carryout her task. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''support''' DUDE! I was gonna do this next month! *shakes fist at Coolcat!* Aw well, great girl, blah blah, vote for her =)
'''Support''' - seems solid enough.
'''Support''', thought she was already an admin.
'''Supportize'''. Subjected the subject to one of my not-quite-infamous-yet grillings on wikipedia policy. She passes :-)
'''Support'''.  A mature user who deserves the janitor's mop.  <font color="red">
'''Strong Support''' So, it's finally happened. :) Congrats. I just want to note that in addition to his contributions on Wikipedia, Phroziac also founded her own [http://radiocontrol.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page wiki]. She has already had a taste of sysop rights over there. <b><font color=228B22>
'''Support'''
'''Support''',
<s>'''Support''' [Pere] I think she is completely deserving to be a wiki admin, i could not think of a more suitable website to be given the opportunity to work with such a all american talent.</s><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support'''. Quality of edits goes ahead of quantity.
TINC.
'''Support''', {{RfAcliche}}.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''
Definitely.
Support.
'''Support'''
<s>'''Oppose'''. I'd rather you had more edits. Try again at 1,500. (Yes, I realize I have 700) --[[User:WikiFan04|WikiFan04]] 19:17, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)</sup></s> '''Support.''' --
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I trust her to use admin rights responsibly.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Oui!''' --
Thought she was one already.  --
'''Yep.''' Thought she was one already. She shall be a good admin.
'''Support.
'''Support'''. Definitely.
'''Support''' --
'''Extreme thespian support''' ;-)
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''... I'm torn between "she's not one already?!" and "hold on, she has less than half as many edits as I do!".  I'll support her though, per She's Not One Already?!. :-)  I've seen her around, and she does good work. --
'''Support'''. I've only been here a few weeks, but she has been a constant, level headed, source of information and advice on IRC. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I've seen this girl everywhere <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Support''': She's not an admin?
'''Ja!''' <font color=red>
'''Not one already?''' ~~ '''
'''The Cabal Supports This User'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' even though I don't know this user, voting Oppose at this point would be useless.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. Willingness to not only edit Wikipedia on dialup, but also to ''revert vandalism'' on dialup, shows dedication. <tt>:-)</tt> <font color="green">
'''Support''', I'm on dialup too!
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, and no offense, as I'm sure you're a great editor, but I feel it is important for admins to have experience adding content, and have experience in the ups and downs that come with that, in order to be able to do much of the job effectively. It looks like you'll get enough support though, so you won't miss mine :). Adding an answer that I'm sure you knew wasn't what I was looking for, but you were honest anyway, does raise your stock in my book, so I'd be happy to support in the future given some consistent content addition. -
--
Not enough edits. &mdash; <small>
The fact that you have only really have been here for three months since 3 June (I do not really count the edits you made to the sandbox on 2 June) combined with your relatively low edit count makes me abstain for now. It is just I do not feel comfortable judging what in my opinion is a low sample of someone's experience here.
'''Support''' - looks like a solid contributor to me. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Strong support''' PC has become a mainstay of the chemistry pages.  He contributes excellent content, has a very strong chemistry knowledge, but also manages to understand technical aspects of the wiki software.  He has already done a lot of fantastic cleanup work in stubs and categories.  Disagreements with others have generally been minor and handled very diplomatically, yet his view has often prevailed. I only hope that he doesn't leave chemistry to spend his life tracking sockpuppets...!
'''Support''' because the temperature has just gone above -20C.
'''Support''' at standard temperature and pressure. --
'''Support''' - Everything looks good.
'''Support'''. A mainstay of Translation to English, multilingual and not dead-serious all the time. Definite pick. -
'''Support''', I have confidence that this user will not abuse administrator tools.
'''Strong Support'''. A good knowledgeable contribuant to Wikipedia.

Seriously thought you were one. ([[User:Dmcdevit/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA cliché no. 1]]) Work on PNT is invaluable.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I was thinking of nominating this user just today coincidentally :-) - Physchim62 makes Wikipedia a comfortable place to contribute material. A valuable member of the community who could really make good use of the administrative toolset. --
'''Support'''.
Good experiences with this user. It's a shame about the other 61 psyschims, though :)
'''Support''' <s>[[User:82.26.172.175|82.26.172.175]] 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)</s>
'''Support.''' Looks good.--
No reason to think he might abuse his superpowers. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Fine user.
'''Support'''. We need more multi-babel admins.
'''Support''' en petit-nègre.
'''Support''', great contributions. --
--
'''Support''' Sound candidate.
'''Support''', the editor has done an excellent work over at PNT — where I have personally interacted with him on occasion — and I trust that he will make good use of sysop rights. I would have nominated him myself. --
'''S'port''' and what I want to know is, why the hell did he have to resort to a self-nomination!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Contributions look good, no reason for concern.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I generally dont support self noms but this user is more than qualified. &nbsp;
'''Support''' I 33rd this nomination whole-heartedly.
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Strong Support''' if he tells me what is the pressure of 3.02 [[mol]]s of [[carbon dioxide]] in a closed [[cylinder]] with a [[volume]] of 2.34 [[litre]]s at [[Standard Temperature and Pressure|STP]]. ;)
'''Support''' on account of his answer to the overspecified chemistry problem :) -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''': Am I the last? --

I have disagreed with him about featured article related matters, but he's always polite, genial, and a good editor to boot.
A very good editor, I'm sure he'll make a very good admin.
Support. Just his paragraph below about the name wars convinces me.
Sure.
Support.
Piotrus's response in the Polish/German naming war is admirable, especially considering it was his hometown and he could legitimately be expected to have strong feelings on the subject.  Anyone who can handle that kind of thing is clearly admin material.
What Jwrosenzweig said.
What Johnleemk said.
Agree with the above.
Reasonable in dispute situation. --
'''Strong Support'''.
Agree with Jwrosenzweig - Support --
Support entirely.

Support.
Wholehearted support. --
Yes.



Strong support.  Jwrosenzweig said it well.


'''Support'''. A fine gentleman-scholar to cabal!


'''Support'''



Support based on contributions (see also comment).
Support.

'''Support''', seems like a resonable fella'.
'''Support''', for reasons stated in the nomination text. --

Of course.
'''Support''', completely sane.
'''Support''', lovely bedside manner with the intellectually challenged, see below.
Don't recall seeing much of this user's work, but the answers to questions seem honest and almost self-critical, important virtues for an admin.
Cool.
'''Aye''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support'''. Maximally.  In the ultrastrong topology. He is one of my favorite editors on WP and am thrilled when I see has posted something on a page I have an interest in. I should warn people that '''Pjacobi is the Anticrank'''.--
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''. Great attitude, honest, contributions have meat to them... sure! Give this guy an adminship! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''  Only the True admin candidate would deny, etc, etc.  Also more [[Puerto Rico (game)|Puerto Rico]]-playing admins can only be a good thing.
'''Support''' &mdash; I like Pjacobi's attitude. Real people make good admins. &mdash;

'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]]. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage,
'''Strong Support''' as nominator--
'''Support'''
'''Support, support, support!'''
'''Support'''. I like seeing editors with Featured Articles under their belt.
'''Support'''. --
Come and kneel before my '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. 100% [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Looking good.--
Fellow aviation buff '''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Normally, I'd be happier if there were more behind-the-scenes edits, but what there are look good. There is a slight tendency to use pure-votes on AfD, which is rarely helpful and a lack of edit summaries in many places, which is unhelpful and should be improved as a matter of urgency (right now, not after the RfA). The point about only recently starting to tag speedies, but asking for the ability to execute them is also slightly concerning &mdash; so please tread carefully. But the good contributions and no demonstrations of exploding when under pressure or in disagreement are nice to see. Then, there's the length of service. It's hard, surely, to be around for that length of time and not just 'pick up' the way things work, ''and'' to have managed to conceal any dastardly plots or personality traits. -
'''Support''' user has been around since 2004-12-15 (10+ months check) has 2982 edits in all namespaces (2000+ edits check) seems to be pro-school and has at least 1 FA. I simply can't find any grounds to contest this nomination, keep up the good work! &nbsp;
'''Support'''; I beleive this user would not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' per Splash and Alkivar.
POKE 53280,6:POKE 53281,0
'''Support''' Good, comprehensive contrib's and no indication anywhere of disputes. Some nice article tidy-ups. Just two things: use edit summaries more often as noted and try and avoid the fair use tag on your images. You've worked extensively with pics which is nice, but that's the only tag I'm seeing.

'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Fantabulous Support!''' I see no reason to contest! This user is absolutely phenomenal!  His work is an indispensible asset to the community!
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support'''. He seems to be an experienced user.
'''Hispanic Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Good editor; works within our policies; very civil.
Cool.

'''Support''' edits look good.
'''Support'''. Seems honest and strightforward.--
'''Support''' - Good writing, well experienced, FA credentials are an asset.
'''Support''' sounds good. --
'''Strong Support'''
'''Weak suport '''. Support as in Anonymous editor, weak as in ''"The point about only recently starting to tag speedies, but asking for the ability to execute them is also slightly concerning"'' I have plenty of bad experience from vfd and such :( --
Support -
'''Support 100%''' The featured article does it for the Marine.
'''Support''', looks ready to be trusted w/admin tools. --
'''Support'''. See no cause for concern.
'''Support'''. I actually came to your userpage hoping to nominate you.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I worked with PRueda recently to do a top-down copyedit of the Columbine article before it Main paged. He is very nice to work with. Like Splash I'm a bit concerned about familiarity with admin-related functions, but knowing him, I'm confident he will work to understand them before applying his privileges.
'''Support'''.
'''Neutral''' Seems too agreeable.  Will he rock the boat and stand up for what is right?--
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Totally deserves it, great vandal slayer. My interactions with him have been nothing but positive. -
'''Support''' I thought he was a admin already --
'''Suport'''- Good vandal-whacker.--
Cool.
'''[[toe|Toh]]. [[tuna|Tuh]]. [[Bruce Lee|Lee]].''' Good luck, sir! These tools will keep vandals at bay, and I know you'll use them wisely. -[[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' vandal whackers.

'''Week Support''' - I dont know this user to well. But I am pretty certiant that they remove vandalism a bit --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC;">
'''Support'''. A solid Wiki-contributor.
'''Month support''' OK so he doesn't write many articles? But if he's happy to clobber vandals and let others get on with writing articles in peace - that's fine with me. --
'''Support''' - I've had nout but good experiences with this user - vandalwhacking makes a great pastime as this user hs found out. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>

'''Support''' - different people contribute different things, and vandal-whackin' is a contribution that merits (and would be assisted by) an award of admin powers.
'''Support''' I like that he welcomes newbies and removes vandalism. However I suggest some more article contributions. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; am convinced that he would not abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''
Support -
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Absolutely no reason to deny him tools that will make him more effective at working for us. But be careful to use the blocking option with restraint and discretion :) -
'''Support''' - I've seen him in action. A good vandal-fighter.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Certainly. --
'''Support.''' - A solid Wikipedian.
-- (
'''Support'''.  Never let it be said I can't jump on a good bandwagon as it comes thundering by.
A good guy.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''; I see him on vandal patrol a lot.  Nice work, apt to be a good admin.  In addition he works well with others.
'''Support''', seems to handle tasks well that could be boosted even more with admin tools. --
'''Yes'''.
'''Support'''. No cause for concern.
'''Support'''. Keep whackin those vandals! --
'''Support''' - excellent contributor. --
'''Super-duper extreme support.''' I like vandal whackers!
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per Linuxbeak ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Not all users are going to be doing article revisions, and in my mind as long as a user has found himself/herself a niche within the community and does well in that niche, they should have no reason to be prevented from becoming an Admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' very much as per [[User:Martin Osterman|Martin Osterman]].
'''Support''' Jumping on this bandwagon. --
'''Support'''Seems a good choice and he could use the extra tools to vandal whack.-
'''Support''', of course. -
'''Support''', love the peeps that do the stuff I never want to.
'''Support'''. I was convinced he was one already. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''weak support''' Originally I was opposed but conversations with several users have convinced me perhaps I have been too hasty. Changed to weak support, I'm not sure your ready for it but I'll give you the chance to prove you are. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Given his other activity, the lack of article edits is no problem for me. Psy guy has also kindly reverted vandalism on my user page (from an anon I reverted myself :D). I'm convinced his adminship will serve the community.
'''Oppose''' He seems to eager to please, will he be able to go counter to the admin culture of deference to other admins when it is the right thing to do?--
'''Neutral'''. A majority of his edits are welcoming new users and to his own user page.  Looks like he has a done a lot in the way of attacking vandals.  Would like to see more contributions to articles.  --
'''I'd want to see more of your edits.'''Yes,you're more experienced than I am, but I hope that you can do better.Thanks.Maybe then I'll change my mind.--
Support.
Has been editing Wikipedia far longer than most. First edit: '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASL&diff=prev&oldid=235813 September 2001]'''!
Deserves the dustbuster, unequivocally. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' --
'''Qapla'!'''
The nomination statement alone gets my vote. :)

'''Support''' Have come across him often and always has been pleasant and sound.
'''Support''' --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Strong support''' &mdash;through my interaction with this fine editor, Ive realised that Qaz is friendly, courteous and dedicated. One of the most deserving of sysop powers Ive seen since Ive been here.
'''[[soup|Support]]'''
'''Support''' <small>
Cool. --
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' Good wikipedian, good balance of namespaces for edits, too. ISTR I've seen a few welcome messages from Qaz too. This time, ''It's mop time!'' :)
'''Support''' I've seen this user doing good work on wikipedia. I vote yes!--
'''Support''' in sheep mode, a number of editors I trust have led the way.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' of course - how could I not after all those nice things I just said? --
'''Support'''. 11,000?! Give him the mop AND the bucket.
'''Whaaa?''' [[User:Thrydullf/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA cliché no. 1]]!
'''Support''' {{rfa cliche}} --<span style="color:red">
'''Support''' how come he's not already?
'''Support''', deserves to be an admin.

'''Strong Support''' Great work on VfD/AfD and related topics.  Suprised he wasn't one already, actually.
<s>'''Strong support''' - Continue to be brilliant, R. fiend!!!! <small>(and yes, all of [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] are met)</small> --
'''Support'''. Smerge. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Exactly the kind of administrator we need more of. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A little brusque, but certainly nothing to be concerned about. R. fiend has always struck me as even-handed and I have no doubts about the candidate's fairness. Always insightful at AfD/VfD.
Hearsay does not an oppose vote make. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I hate editcountitis, but surely one with 11,000 edits could be an admin. Go ahead and get the powers.
'''Support''' Very active in <s>VFD</s> AFD et al.
'''Support'''. Just the kind of editor who deserves the proverbial mop, bucket, and bulldozer to keep garbage out of Wikipedia.
'''Sure''' very high edit count, knows his way around, does plenty of community service.
'''Strong Support''' I'll forego the cliched comments. It's all been said.
'''Support'''. After 11,000 edits there are bound to have been some conflicts, but he appears to be a good editor who is undoubtedly ready for the admin tools.
Those of you who have a problem with the phrase "cry me a river" -- give me a break.
'''Support'''. Sometimes you've got to be cruel to be kind.
'''Support'''. Could occasionally do with a bit less deletionism, but overall someone who would use the admin tools wisely.
That he can be snappy on deletions is no reason not to recognise that he'd be fine with the mop -
'''Support''' as per most of the above sentiments.
'''Support''', for reasons that should be obvious, given my own level of AfD participation. --
'''Support''', he's a bloke with clue.
'''Support'''!  He's been here a while, knows his way around, and has legitimate concern with building a great encyclopedia here.  Adminship is long overdue for a user like him! --
'''Smerge''' - I mean, '''support'''. <font color=green>
'''Support'''.  After looking at his edit summaries, R. fiend seems thoughtful and thorough.  The arguments made below that he should not be an admin because people disagree with some of his specific opinions on articles doesn't make sense:  admin tasks are not the same as editor tasks.  The standards for an admin are "will they contribute to admin tasks" and "will they abuse admin privileges."  "Must agree with my personal positions on editing content, such as article deletion" is absolutely a novel requirement for adminship, and while people are free to oppose an adminship for whatever reason they want, this seems like a particularly petty rationale.  I see absolutely no sign that R. fiend will abuse his authority, and every sign that he will be responsible.  Give him the mop.
'''Support''', holding the opinion that Wikipedia articles should meet some kind of reasonable standard is not evil.
'''Support'''
'''
'''Support''' Although I'm... disappointed... that R. fiend's contributed to [[List of songs by name]], I've liked a lot of his contributions, by which I mean things like developing '''smerge''' and impressing me at a great many Wikipedia namespace pages.
Support.
'''Support''' On [[User:R._fiend/Why_VfD_isn't_seriously_broken]]  when responding to ''Hurts new editors with rough comments about articles. '' gives the response ''Cry me a river''. Also hangs out at VfD a little ''too'' much. Closer inspection.... support <small>
'''Support'''. Although some may not like his forthrightness, I believe that R. fiend will be a good admin and will not allow his personal opinions to get in the way of judging consensus. I also agree with Proto's comment above.
'''Support''': A person can make substantial edits and be a good admin, and, for whatever it's worth, the point that he was making with "cry me a river" is one we ought to consider: if a new user makes a mistake and gets on VfD, then we should be as nice as possible.  If a new user tries to game the system, tries to holler his way to a "keep," or tries to play the "I'm just a blushing flower whose soul will be crushed if this is deleted," then we ought be quite unconcerned.  Anyone who will fold after a VfD, whose petals will be crushed, is not going to manage very well in a place where no one gets to own his or her own words.  We don't cease to be a wiki- or an encyclopedia because of the subjective state of the authors and editors. R. fiend has been exemplary in trying to make the system better (working on deletion reform, working in policy, trying to solve edit wars and conflicts) as well as the encyclopedia better (writing as well as voting, contributing as well as tinkering).  This is what we look for in admins.
'''Support''', on balance. I've looked at the specifics within Xiong's objection: at several (though not all) of the diffs he considerately provides. While I see things that could have been done better I see nothing there that alarms me. I've read Owenx's objection: it has merit, but for me it's not strong enough. There are already some gruff administrators (even, dare I say it, bureaucrats), and the pedia is the better for them. Polite, explicitly expressed consideration can take a lot of time; all admins have to make some effort but not all must be very good at this; a certain degree of gruffness is OK if it gives more time for people like Rfiend to do more good work. So Rfiend should be given mop and bucket, together with advice to slow down a little -- not much, but a little. --
'''Support''' - seems would make a good admin. --
'''Support''' on the grounds that I've actually heard of him.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' strong contributor to wikipedia --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Can't believe that I missed this RFA... <font color="red">
'''[[International Talk Like a Pirate Day|Yarrrr!]]''', an expert at [[WP:AFD|swabbing the poop deck]]. --
'''Support''' strong contributor
'''Support''', I don't know this candidate, but voting oppose at this point would be useless.
'''Support''', we always need more vandal fighters.-
'''Oppose'''. This is a tough one. R. fiend's actions are correct: he reverts when something has to be reverted, he marks for CSD or nominates for AfD when the article warrants such treatment. I also share many of his opinions about the VfD process itself. However, being nice takes time, and R. fiend's terse approach can be seen as overly militant, scaring away newbies and adding to an already elevated atmosphere of animosity on AfD. This terseness also manifests itself in his Edit summaries, as mentioned above. Very few editors are capable of productive work at the rate that R. fiend has demonstrated in the year and a half he has been with us, but a good admin needs to be courteous, not just efficient. I am sure he will never misuse his sysop powers, but creating the appearance of power abuse can be very disruptive to the community as well; after all, we have to remember we are dealing with an army of (mostly) well-intentioned volunteers, not chairing a court-martial. I am sure R. fiend can change his manners to appear less confrontational, and once he does that I'll have no hesitation in supporting his promotion.
'''Oppose'''. New content creators, however misguided, should be welcomed. I don't want to empower editors who do not have that view. Also, whatever your personal views on edit summaries, several users have shown a great deal of upset at those who don't use them. It only takes an extra moment, so I think disregarding those users is not acceptable. You're not just a deletionist, by the way. You are a rather unpleasant, pisstaking deletionist -- just the sort of thing that makes the AfD pages a bit of a cesspit.
'''Oppose'''. This user has been extremely hostile to me on VfD before, and seems to be one of our most radical deletionists.
'''Oppose''' for the reasons clearly articulated by OwenX.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' ''for now'' Although R Fiend has the editing credentials... I dont think he has the personality for it he's a tad too hot under the collar at times (and if anyone would know about that its me). At this juncture i'm going to have to go ahead and oppose, however I think its possible he may improve by his second nomination. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' -- no support for deletionists and their destructive agendas. &mdash;
--
'''Neutral''' &mdash; I have mixed feelings after reading everything. I do not want to oppose, but I'm not supporting either. I might still change vote in the future, though.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Neutral.''' Agree with Journalist. I'm going to reserve judgement at this point. R. fiend does seem to do a good job, but his/her style is so antagonistic some times. I have to think about this one. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Neutral''', at least while I consider it more.
'''Neutral''': I'm abivalent. --

Forshizzle.
'''Support'''', apart from anything else, Humanbot is absolutely amazing.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Enthusiastic, collaborative editor who seems good-humoured and reliable.&mdash;
But of course.
[[That's hot]].

Nothing but good experiences while working together on the [[Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce]].  In my experience, he's dedicated to making Wikipedia better. ·
'''Support'''. Kudos to the janitors; they keep the place running.

'''Strong Support'''.  As [[User:Katefan0|Katefan0]] said, [[User:R3m0t|R3m0t]] is a devoted member and a driving force of the [[Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce|Cleanup Taskforce]].  He would be a fine addition to the ranks of admins.
'''Support''' - Absolutely. --
'''Support''' this committed Wikipedian, with extra points for the selfnom and for nice mature handling of Trilobite's concerns on this page.
R3mot shows substantial commitment toward Wikipedia, and making him an admin will help him with developing even better tools to combat vandalism, which those of us who do that need more and more every day.  It would be counterproductive not to '''support'''.
<s>Neutral and tending towards oppose. See comments section for my concerns. &mdash; [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] ([[User_talk:Trilobite|Talk]]) 12:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)</s> Switch to support. &mdash;
'''Support''', even if Humanbot sometimes [[User talk:Humanbot#Thread mode articles|edited what it shouldn't]]. --
'''Support''' Yes, yes, yes! Echoing Kelly Martin.
'''Support'''  Demonstrated strong commitment to improving the quality of Wikipedia.   --
'''Support''', I'm with Kelly's comments.
'''Support'''. Thought he was one.
Support.
'''Support''', despite use of l33tsp33k in username. Give this man a mop.
'''Duh'''. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support''' A strongly committed janitor who would benefit WP greatly with the admin tools.
'''Support''' -- Humanbot is great asset, and so is its creator. --
'''support''' an excellent contributor to wiki &nbsp;
'''support''' Very good user and I think he'd make wonderful use of admin powers. I seem to remember working on one of his projects, but I can't remember which. Oh well. Strong candidate. --
'''support''' Nice jobs. --
'''Support'''. Good editor, no indication will abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. I like bots a lot; brings the automation and sophitication we will undoubtedly need as the project goes mainstream. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support''' Plenty of good maintainence and cleanup work which would greatly benefit from admin tools.
'''Support''', among other things because I'm the nominator.
'''Support'''. All together now: ''I thought he was already one!''.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' with the greatest pleasure. Would have nominated him myself if I hadn't thought he already was...
'''Support'''. Radiant! is a valuable Wikipedian who I feel deserves being entrusted with the provebial mop and bucket.
'''Very Strong Support''' Great work all around, relating to VfD in particular.
'''Support'''. A very impressive amount of work in a short space of time. &mdash;
'''Very Strong Support'''. Radiant! is a very sensible user who will will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. A strong choice, in my opinion. --
'''Support'''. Looks good, and I think we need admins who aren't afraid to deal with controversial issues. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
Seems like a good chap. --
'''Support.''' Radiant! takes part in policy discussions, and seems a generally trustworthy sort.
'''Support'''.  Everyking's endorsement convinced me. --
'''Support''' -- Some of Radiant!'s edits are unpopular, sure, but that's part of being bold. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Emphatically support'''.  --
'''Support'''- Awww... I got here late again. The oppose votes surprise me; in my experience he's always made a good-faith effort in contributing. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Admins will necessarily become involved in controversial topics on occasion.  Radiant! has had some practice in advance. :-)  On a more serious note, I do not foresee him (mis)using the admin tools to further any argument, so there isn't a problem with giving him the keys to the mop closet. --
'''Support''', will make a good admin. :) -
'''Definitely'''.  Anybody who Everyking hates must be a good guy.  :)
"I thought you were already an admin!" &#9786; '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Ditto the above. --
'''Support'''. Heart-clutchingly bold, indeed, but we need a few people like that. (Just a few, though!) I don't agree with everything he does, but I believe Radiant! will continue to be bold, admin or not, and won't abuse the extra powers to further his position.
This should be no big deal.
'''Support'''. Knowledgeable in cleanup and deletion related matters.
'''Strong support.'''
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''.  Has addressed my concerns below.  Thanks!  --
'''Support'''.  Very good at bringing the dregs of Wikipedia into a coherent whole.
'''Support'''. We've disagreed on some issues but Radiant! is unquestionably a very valuable contributor. -
'''support'''
'''Support''', good user, good contributions to policy discussions.
<s>Not sure.</s> Perhaps a little too far into the "pushy" beyond the "bold" stage, and too quick to jump to decisions, but does some great work, too. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 23:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC) <br /> Having see Radiant!'s recent amazing efforts on [[Wikipedia:Schools]], I've decided to vote in favour. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''...didn't I already do this? :S -
'''Support''' - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Support''' - Highly commendable for working hard to resolve differences with certain people. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  I thought I voted yesterday.  Getting absent... uh, oh yeah, minded.
'''Support.''' My experience is that R has bent over backwards to accomodate others rather than "rushing to judgement". Entirely sensible.  Votes against are quite instructive.
'''Support'''. All [[human|persons]] with known [[Heart disease|cardiac condition]], people with [[pacemaker]]s, [[pregnancy|pregnant women]] and small [[children]] are [[advice|advised]] to [[edit]] with [[Warning sign|caution]]! <big>'''[[WP:BOLD|BOLD EDITOR]]'''</big> ''coming through!'' The first of a [[innovation|new]], [[research|improved]] [[breeding|breed]], Radiant ''[[searchlight|lights our path into the future!]]'' :-) <small> ''(And he's a decent editor too.)''</small>
'''Support''' this fine fellow. --


'''Support'''.  Though we had somewhat different viewpoints on the school issue, Radiant, I and others worked together towards a compromise, which Radiant very diplomatically outlined at [[WP:SCH]].  Though he is bold in asserting his mergist principles, I've found that he's willing to discuss differences of opinion, and I would hope this would continue when he becomes an admin. --
'''Weak Support''', although it may be a concern that hes a strong deletionist and may be too quick to delete articles.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. We need strong leaders, iron men with iron wills.-
'''Support''' - strong editor.
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''My contact with him has always been positive.  His handling of others is always for the good of wikipedia.
'''Support'''. I thought he was one already. I think he certainly will be able to handle the increased responsibility.
'''Support!'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I thought he'd been hard-banned? (Well, not really, but it beats "I thought he was one already"). --
'''Support'''. I was put off by one or two support votes (especially [[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]]'s), but they were balanced by some of the oppose votes, and Everyking pushed me into support (actually it's at least as much a matter of his contributions record, etc., but that would have been boring).
Support:  There was a little naivette in the past, but Radiant's views seem judicious in general, and I fully support.
When voting, I rarely take into consideration who supports or opposes a candidate. However, this is one of those rare instances.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I'm going to use the overused: ''I thought he already was one!'' '''
'''Support.'''-
'''Support''' (my first ever vote on RFA). The oppose list makes me more inclined to vote here. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' Sensible, reliable, good communicator.

'''Weak Oppose''' Radiant is a nice guy but he is at times too quick to rush into judgement, and take things personally, and has overly strong deletionist tendancies. I am also not impressed by the hounding of [[User:GRider]], who in my mind embodies the wikispirit. While in do think Radiant would be a good admin, I worry about his judgement in relation to VfD, which is one of the most visible roles of an admin. Too me the fear information loss outwieghs any concerns of an avalanche of cruft.
Emphatically oppose&mdash;attitude completely unsuitable for adminship. Based on what I've seen this user say I think we could expect controversial deletes and blocks on a daily basis.
Although I think that [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] has been a valuable contributor to the Wikipedia, I have also seen an inclination to rush to judgement on some issues. For the time being, I am not ready to hand him the keys to the Wikipedia mop closet.
I've seen too much where this person has acted against common practice, performed major actions without explaination or regard for requests to slow down/hold back, and is quite prone to edit warring.  If adminship is about trust, I would have to see some major improvements.  I would suggest he spend a considerable amount of time working back on the main encyclopedia. --
'''Oppose''' -- This user frequently edits policy and process without consensus (and in my opinion, to further an agenda). This is a gray area, and I admit I sometimes do the same. But I wouldn't support ''myself'' for admin, and I can't support this user, either. I find it significant he has felt compelled to defend himself ''here''; ideal admins do not seek the office. We need cooler heads to hold the keys. &mdash; [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|<font color="#997749">&#29066;</font>]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]
'''Oppose''' - a while ago i was noticing this user tagging/redirecting a lot over at [[Wikipedia:Deadend pages]], which is fine, but unfortunately a lot were done incorrectly, such as adding multiple stub tags and for example redirecting [[Guardian's Office]] to [[Scientology]], when scientology made no mention of the redirected topic. i know these are fairly pathetic examples, but i remember encountering a lot of them. I would never hold anything against anyone, but it frustrates me to see any recklessness.
'''Oppose'''. Although this user is a good contributor, but am not sure that I can support him as an admin at this point.
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
'''Oppose''' because Radiant [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Radiant%21&diff=14791249&oldid=14783740 deleted the discussion of TFD votes] after Netoholic cited it as an exhibit.
<s>Currently I oppose Radiant! for admin</s> 1) doesnt have enough constructive content creation under his belt IMO. Talk pages, vfd and the like (which are very good for community spirit/togetherness) just isnt enough to make an admin. 2) I dont think another avowed deletionist as an admin is what we need. Of course feel free to take this opinion with a grain of salt, since Radiant! and I do regularly oppose each other on VfD issues. 3) I just dont think he has the right attitude overall to be an admin. Of course everyone said that about me too... so *shrugs*. &nbsp;
I believe Radiant is a thoughtful worthwhile contributor. He works through issues with people and there have been occasions I've opposed his efforts and other times I've helped. I'd like to see some genuine reflection into the honest and (mostly) true criticisms made in the oppose votes rather than hasty defenses before I could cast a support vote.
I support Ragib's nomination. --
'''Support''', positive experience over long period of time.
'''Support''' Ragib.
'''Support''' - I have seen  most of his major edits. My interaction with him was always dynamic. I am sure that he will be a good administrator. --
'''Support''' - Absolutely.  Ragib deserves Adminship!
'''Cool'''.
'''Support''' - Though I haven't known him for long, in the short span I've interacted with him and viewed his edits I can vouch for his neutrality and interest in improving subcontinent related topics.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Deserves to be an administrator --
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''' I think admins who specialize in certain areas are important. I nominated a person for Philippine-related article so it's appropriate for one who does Bangladesh-related ones. --
'''Support''' Strong editor whose been here a while.
'''Support''' This user is not a vandal. (Not to mention that I had pleasant dealings with him at [[Talk:Pakistan]], but that's just icing.)
'''Support''' I wholeheartedly support the proposal.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Sure thing. -
'''Support''' - Aside from his other great contributions, Ragib has also done some work in welcoming newcomers. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''  Looking at his contribution history, he seems to be more than qualified for adminship.
'''That's hot'''.
'''Support''' Active in reverting vandalism and tagging new images.
'''Support''' I would generally say that Ragib's a good guy, and thats all I care about. Bob Dole supports this user.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Excellent contributor and will be an equally excellent admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppport'''. Great editor who does a good job, I'm sure he'll do a good job as an admin. <small>
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Seen him everywhere too. Nominator was supposed to do this, but oh well. <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''That's hot.'''
'''That's spicy''' (yes) <small>
'''That's a spicy meatball'''.
'''That's sweet and sour''', and I thought he was one.  --
'''That's... er, support-worthy.'''
'''Support''' &ndash; sensible candidate. Plus doing a lot of good work for WP.
'''Tasty support'''. -
'''Support''' – yes, it is tasty, courtesy Darwinek. --
'''Support''', yes I forgot to add my own vote, here it is.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' --
<small>
'''Support''', before he fires me from the Signpost!
'''Support'''- he he, I'm a special contributor, and immune from firing! ;-) (not really, but...) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''. Mommy, what's men-stru-a-tion? [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Very active doing janitorial tasks, and should benefit with all the admin tools.
'''Support'''. Very good contributor.
Impressed by his initiative at [[WP:POST]]
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">

'''That's enough of the comments'''... and support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' this dedicated contributor.

'''Support''' no prob.
--

'''Support'''. Rama's a great editor and a nice person, always reasonable, sticks to policy, cares about neutrality, fairness, and using good sources, and is always civil.
'''Support'''. Considering it occured to me the other day that maybe I should nominate Rama, how could I not support? A great Wikipedian: friendly, constructive, trustworthy, etc. He will make a good admin. &mdash;
Support. Good artist :)
Generally appears to be a solid contributor. &mdash;
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''.



'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I particularly like "Coming soon: more group sex" on his userpage.
'''Support'''. A quick look at his contributions talls me Rama is a great Wikipedian; a glance at his user page tells me Rama is also probably a great person. :p
Cool.

Support.
'''Support''', Rama is just what we need. Great editor, hard worker, notably polite and conscientious, hand him the mop and bucket!--
'''Support'''.  Very civil, great contributor. --
'''Support'''.  After looking around his stuff I find his contributions very impressive; I suspect he will be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''  Seems to be a very conscientious editor, and clearly more Hindu deities on the mop cadre can only be a good thing.

'''Support'''. I was considering this, but Kim beat me to it. --

'''Support'''. We need more like this.
&#8212;
'''Support'''.  I like the pictures.  ;)  And I am amazed that anyone could be so compassionate in so many languages.  Ahem; I am merely extrapolating to the more than four other languages, am I not?  ---

'''Strong support'''. He has all the qualities we need in an admin and more. <font color=green>
'''Support.'''
Very much so. &mdash;
Have been watching Rama's ability to work calmly with others.
Support.
'''Support'''. Great contributor, great candidate. Trustworthy and knows what collaborative editing is about.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', lest he draw embarrassing caricatures of us. Naw, just kidding; he's got what it takes.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''.
In the interests of clarity, '''yes''', most definitely!
'''Support'''. A valuable contributor. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Yupyupyupyepsirooney'''
'''Support''' "better late than never" - so goes a saying, so being so far behind in this sequence - does not worry me. I would love to see an administrator, knowing so many languages.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  A name I'm familiar with and associate with solid edits, intelligent comments and a polite demeanor.  Excellent admin material.
'''Support'''.  Will make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. My pleasure.
'''Support'''.  Generally good use of edit summaries, some anti-vandalism work.  I'd have liked to have seen a wider range of articles worked on, but perhaps that's just me. --
'''Support'''. Remarkable editor who undoubtedly will accomplish great things here, regardless of the outcome of this.
'''Support'''. Wikipedian of the year.
'''Support''', absolutely.  Adheres to policy, very civil to others, a model Wikipedian, we need more like him.  --
'''Support'''. One of the good guys. --
'''Support''', strongly
'''Apoyo con mucho gusto''' [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''.  Of course.
'''Support''' Great editor. I trust him and the opinions of him expressed above. --
'''Support''', oppose votes are nit-picking (as is their right), nothing gives me pause in my support opinion
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. Good editor, calm and reasoned, helps provide balance by bringing Palestinian position to articles.
'''<s>Weak</s> support''' - Though I read some opposition about his lack of interactivity, I still see Ramallite as a special contributor to the Middle East and [[:Image:Apple-logo.png|20px|]] articles. --
Absolutely. &#8212;
'''Support''', with pleasure.
'''Support'''.  Stays remarkably civil considering the contentious nature of many of the articles he edits.
'''Support'''. Opposition is almost entirely spurious. Keeping away from Wikipedia namespace is a ''plus'' and 250 articles is a very broad contribution. Besides, if Klonimus opposes you, you're probably doing something right.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I must note that we've had a fair share of disagreements but Ramallite had always shown an ability to compromise, good humor and good faith. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;
I now make it two-thirds in favor.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support'''.  Ramallite's [[User talk:Ramallite|talk page]], along with the fact that several people who disagreed with him previously are now supporting him, show that this is a user who is capable of constructively discussing controversal issues --
'''Support''' Good, sensible editor (notwithstanding his personal page).
'''Support''' This should have nothing to do with his politics/world view --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' and I really like his answer to question 4. Do we expect editors who have a science background to write only about the arts?
'''Support''' Good editor with ability to discuss heated topics. --
'''Support''' Displays mindboggling ability to remain calm in the face of adversity. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''support''' Usually I would vote neutral due to insufficient edit count (my rule-of-thumb being at 1500-2000). What is swaying me is (a) support from people I respect, (b) the support he is getting ''from the 'other camp' '', so to speak, something all too rarely seen in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, and (c) the fact that I wish to set a counter-weight to what I consider unfounded oppose votes below.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Polite and calm, stays cool when editing heated articles.
'''Support.''' Excellent editor on controversial topics; Wiki namespace participation is irrelevant.
'''Support.''' seems able to maintain NPOV in difficult areas.
'''Support'''. Many difficult topics suffer from a lack of disinterested people who can edit and administrate in a way that works towards consensus. I hope that Ramallite can help the project. -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. An intelligent, articulate and composed editor who will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. Changed vote, see below. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support''', none of the oppose votes make me think he'll abuse the tools. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
Slightly qualified '''Support'''. My only question is about amount of experience. I am ''certain'' he'd be a good admin, and I'd take the chance on a little on-the-job training. Any POV issues should be completely laid to rest by the support from Jayjg and especially Guy Montag, who are (respectively) largely and diametrically opposed to his views on Israel/Palestine and who have worked extensively with him on articles in this subject matter area. If we cannot get consensus now, please let's come back to this in a month or two. --
'''Support''' .
'''Support''' Excellent choice.
'''Support'''. The cadre of WP editors needs to be diversified as much as possible.--
'''Support''', though I must comment on the user page where it states: "I view a person's choice of using a Mac versus a Windows machine as an indication of that person's intellect." The ''thinking man'' chooses Linux, and the guru one of the BSDs. -
Anyone who can successfully get both sides of the Israel/Palestine free-floating flamewar to approve of them is way too dangerous, will probably follow up by squaring the circle and must be supported. Er, hold on, I'll just come in again -
'''Support''', I'm as impressed as dab and David Gerard by the approval coming in from the freefloating flamewar. I encourage everybody to read the Oppose votes below, I think some of them can only work in the candidate's favor.
'''Support''', There is nothing in your contribution log or your user page that troubles me, Ramallite. I do think Sarah jumped the gun a bit by nominating you so early. After another month of good editing you'd have sailed through with much less opposition. It's not that an editor needs an enormous amount of experience to learn not to abuse the admin tools - it's just that it takes much more effort to evaluate someone with fewer edits. In your case I find that your calm response to the opposition you've got has tested your mettle enough to say that you will use the admin tools with the most important admin quality of all - ''restraint''. Your comment below that there aren't any special admin ''powers'' seals the deal for me. Good luck. -
'''Support'''. Calmness and courtesy are better indications of a person's fitness to have the extra tools than number of edits or length of time here (within reason, of course).
'''Support''' The more good editors the better this becomes. --
'''Support'''.  Keeping [[WP:COOL|cool]] here suggests to me that [[User:Ramallite]] will make a reliable admin.
'''Support'''. The opposition is utterly unconvincing. Ramallite does good work and keeps a cool head. Why's everyone trying to make adminship into a Big Deal?
I support for four reasons. 1) Ramallite appears a good editor.  2) I trust the judgment of many of those others who have supported. 3) Ramallite's contributions here have been impressive. 4) I disagree with voting on account of political opinions, on-wiki or off-.
'''Support''' Deserving. &ndash;
'''Support''' His contributions are constructive. He is knowledgeable about the subjects he contributes with and plays well with others.--
'''Support'''. See comments for reason.
'''Strong Support'''. This is a very kind and polite wikipedian, who had cooperated with me on recording several Hebrew and Arabic audio prunounciations for Israel/Palestine related topics.
'''Support'''.  Although Ramallite has a relatively limited editing history, his contributions have been extremely professional and polite, even when addressing politically contentious topics.
'''Support'''. Changed vote from oppose. Ramallite is bright, knowledgeable, polite, and calm. And he might find a cure for cancer, which would be nice. --
I wasn't familiar with this user previously, but in this case I find the stark contrast between the case for supporting and the case for opposing persuasive. Opposing based on mechanical criteria (time, distribution of edits, etc.) is perhaps understandable, even if I don't care to substitute such measurements for my personal judgment. But for many of those opposing based on "POV issues", Wikipedia would probably benefit greatly if these folks continued shouting into mirrors while leaving the disputed pages to the diverse viewpoints of the crew above. --
'''Cool'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Seems extremely civil and relaxed, with a good understanding the Wikipedia "philosophy", so to speak. And I agree with the above vote: "And he might find a cure for cancer, which would be nice" :->
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', if only for his ability to bring civility and enforce NPOV on Palestine-related articles.
'''Support'''. Most of the oppose votes are there only because the editors don't agree with this user's personal viewpoints. -
'''Support'''.  Looking at Ramallite's history, I think he will use the tools wisely.  While I might like to see a little more Wikispace participation, his work on "New Pages" and "Recent Changes" doesn't make him any less worthy than editors who have a large number of edits on AfD.  There are lots of different needs here and no one needs to try to cover everything. --
I'm mystified as to why [[User:Zeq]] would spam my talkpage with a suggestion that I look at this RfA, but I'm kinda glad he did.  Looks like an excellent user, whose edits, despite his strong personal POV, have attracted praise from all sides of the political spectrum.  I have no qualms about adding my '''support''' to this RfA. --
'''Support'''. Good user, that I've seen.
'''Support''' as above. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. Willing to extend trust to someone who can edit hot-button topics and still remain civil and productive to work with, as it appears this user can.
'''Support'''; on perusal of userpage, edits, and so forth, I'm quite impressed.  In fact, ''extremely'' impressed.
-- (

'''Support'''; by all accounts, fair, meticulous, and unflappable.
'''Reactive support'''.  If I'd come upon this RfA as one of the first few contributors, I'd have certainly voted ''oppose'' or ''neutral'' at best.  Small experiance outside namespace and a provocative user page would have made me cautious, and as becoming and admin is effectivly one-way, I'd have trotted out the old "in a while" chestnut.  However, this editor appears to have reacted with considerable grace under pressure.  Policy can be learned fairly easily, a cool head is harder to aquire. -
'''Support''', At first honestly I almost instinctivley opposed the nomination due to Rammallite's user page, but the fact that he has shown nothing but strength of character and reason in his posts shows me that he is level-headed, intelligent, and rational enough to become an administrator, furthermore the honesty he has exhibited on his user page proves to me he has no ulterior motives as it would have been much easier to not reveal his politics at all.  Ramallite is a true model for correct wikiquette.  I will however say that although I strongly disagree with some people's methods and ideas on this page as a new user myself I do think they have every bit of a right to vote as long as they are not sock puppets or anything.-
'''Support''', while the comments on his user page honestly make me sick, this user has been known to make only good NPOV edits recently. --
'''Oppose''' Wiki namespace participation just isn't there. Twenty one in the main space and nothing in Talk. Also, a relatively high edits per page avg. of 4.5 means that just two 250 distinct pages edited--this is much too low for me. Edit summaries are there and the quality of edits are good so will certainly support with more experiece.
Please get some familiarity with Wikispace and its processes before considering adminship.
'''Oppose''' Although I'm sure he'll make a ''great'' admin soon, I agree with Marskell that I'd like a bit more experience to be certain of this user's judgment.  "Better-safe-than-sorry" vote, here.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more time and interaction. (Seems like a good guy, though :) --
'''Oppose''' per NormanEinstein.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' POV issues, and a general lack of maturity and experience in separating personal veiws from article content. I just don't think that Ramalite does anything that needs admin powers.
'''Oppose''' - POV issues, unexperienced - needs more time to prove himself before he should be considered for admin. I'm also skeptical because there appear to be many POV pushers and persons who are prone to cliqueish admin behavior supporting him. Admins should have proven adherence to consensus building and neutrality in disputes, and many giving testimony in support do not have those qualities.
'''Weak oppose''' Not enough edits on wikipedia namespace. Really, you should hang out in [[WP:FAC]], [[WP:FPC]], [[WP:PR]] or even in the RFA page, you get to meet loads of people and really get to "experience" wikipedia as a community. The stuff they do there may seem like chores at first, but eventually I think you'll like life in the WP community as much as life in the WP encyclopedia (heck, I hardly edit articles anymore, given the time I spend on WP-space :) I find [[WP:AFD]] a little scary myself, but you might like going there as well. I'd support with 100-200 edits in WP-space, and it's not too difficult. Experience WP to the fullest!
'''Oppose''' - POV issues, unexperienced. Ramallite is a nice guy but proven that he has no ability to detach his own POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from editing wikipedia. There are subjects (such as abortion and the mideast) who cause most edit war in wikipedia. To make a person with such attachment to one side an admin will be a mistake. He has tried to insert pure propeganda material as "facts" into his edits.
'''Strong Oppose''', PoV warrior (have you read his user page?), little experience.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits on Wikipedia namespace.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' I am not comfortable in voting to give admin rights to a person who has edited less than 300 distinct pages - I prefer around 500. --
'''Absolutely NO!''' User page comments such as "The Israeli checkpoints and restrictions on movement are an unfortunate necessity to protect Israelis against suicide bombers" along with an "answer" which basically calls the Israeli position a lie, is scurrilous aregumentation at it's worst and de facto proof of anti-Israli bias with intention to stoke discord. Never. Not today. Not tommorrow. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' Anti-Israel bullying should not be rewarded. And, to comment on something I see happening on this page: Just because I may often agree with a particular person on the contents of articles, does not mean I necessarily have to agree with them on who should be an admin. Aren't we each entitled to our own opinion on each issue?
'''Oppose'''I don't trust the judgement of those who are pushing him for this position so soon.  We know about as much about him as we did about Harriet Miers.  How will he deal with admin abuse for instance?  Has he been around long enough to have experienced it?--
'''Oppose'''. POV. Ramallite would have to be a saint to be objective on Palestine/Israel issues, but he isn't a saint and most likely will not become one.
'''Oppose''' not convinced he won't be pushing POV after being promoted. Since we don't have an easy procedure for de-adminning, it's better to be on the cautious side.
'''Oppose'''. POV: His mild critique of the Arab side never approaches the level his rejection of Israel's position.

'''Oppose'''. --
<strike>'''Oppose'''. The statement Ramallite added "Although the Israeli government has said that the purpose of the barrier is to prevent attacks and that any hardship to Palestinians is an unfortunate side effect made necessary by terrorism, the barrier's opponents say the barrier is the de facto future border of the State of Israel."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=25278732&oldid=25222179] shows he cannot check his bias at the door. The word "[[although]]" implies contradiction, in this case that the purpose of the barrier is indeed a de facto future barrier (first statement is false because last statement is true). It's a little Freudian slip, and indeed is hard to notice and many editors might pass it off as neutral, while others will notice the POV but not be able to point it out. This mistake obviously could have been accidental on his part, (he makes no secret of his biases). However, considering the numerous complaints here it sounds like his own bias, accidental or not, is a large problem that he has difficulty coping with, so I oppose his nomination on those grounds. --
Please participate more in the Wikispace so you can be familiar with all of its processes and procedures.
<s>'''Support'''. --[[User:Kefalonia|Kefalonia]] 15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)</s> Changed to '''Neutral'''. I prefer to remain neutral here. --
'''Neutral''' On the negative side so little wikispace experience and very small number of edits overall for an admin. Also, it's a little worrying that an editor who focuses on Arab-Israeli conflict had "I have very little patience for people who defend the Israeli position" on his userpage until part way through this RfA. On the other hand, it ''is'' very impressive that he's generated support from both sides of the aisle in a very polarized debate, so I won't vote oppose. Neutral for now, would probably support in future if wikispace and edit count issues are rectified.
'''Neutral''': For me, it's all about time and edits.  There ''have'' been enough of both to show equanimity and neutrality of point of view, sobriety and care in editing, and I'm not usually an editcountitis sufferer.  I think, with SlimVirgin and others above, that we need more folks with the kind of understanding of the differences between self and project that Ramallite has, and, with Bishonen and others, I am very, very uneasy with some of the names and reasoning offered in the "oppose" column, as some of those folks are just this side of banned users; however, I would ask for more time and more edits.
'''Neutral''' Changed vote from Oppose. Lack of Wikipedia Edits --
'''Neutral'''. Not sure I can properly verbalize why at this point - it's certainly nothing like the shitstorm that erupted with [[User:Tony1]]'s RfA, it's just... I dunno. Some of the unanswered questions, some of the issues of insufficient participation...
Unconditional '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
I've seen a lot of good contributions from [[User:Redux|Redux]] over a long period of time.  I am glad to support.
'''Support''' I think Redux will be a trustworthy and friendly admin. He (or she) made a lot of edits. And the edits are very high quality.--
'''Support''' - Redux is a valuable, polite, and friendly contributer who would make an excellent admin. Hand him the mop! <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' - I worked with Redux on many issues, including the Brazil Wikiportal and various Barnstar awards. He is great to work with, great to know and gives great insight on many issues.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''200% Support''' - one of the very few who listens and tries to work in cooperation without being rude. wish you all the luck and all the best
'''Support'''. Does good work and knows the Wikipedia policies. His work on Barnstars also shows his dedication to the recognition of others. --
'''Support'''.  Devotion to civility is admirable, and a willingness to apologize when he goofs is equally valuable.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Intelligent user.

Emphatic support.
'''Support'''
Support -- helpful friendly user, always willing to communicate with other users. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''',
'''Support''',
'''Support'''; thanks for the work on Brazil topics and for explaining your previous conflicts with other users. --
'''Oppose'''. Redux has shown too much undesirable traits to be trusted with any power over others. I remind that he has not even promised anything about refraining from admin actions on behalf of "his friends". His own admissions already say much about his past behavior - and there has been no apologies from him to persons he insulted or abused then. Redux has sometimes, but however repeatedly, made personal attacks and used abusive foul language. And Redux has repeatedly made accusations of sockpuppetry when he must have understood that there were no more than one username in use (he ''then'' tried to fabricate an allegation of another username, baselessly). Redux has shown himself a possessive nature - one of the examples is him putting a WIP tag into an article, keeping it days (also continued when reminded that the tag is intended for only 30-180 minutes, not longer), and reversed a valid edit by another, when such had been made over half a day after Redux' installation of WIP tag. Redux has even shown some paranoia and certain querulous nature. (Wonder if anyone would really give him admin powers here, after all such behavior.)
'''Overwhealming, Enthusiastic, Unequivocal Support, [[Are_You_Being_Served#Characters|''And I am unanimous in that!'']]''' --
'''Support''' agree completely with nominator.
'''Absolutely'''.  I agree with everything Essjay said about this fine contributor. The welcoming of newbies is particuarly impressive. --
'''Support''' - A mop would certainly complement that Vandal Whacking Stick. :) <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''  I am new to Wikipedia, but as soon as I signed up...bang, there was Red with his kind intro message, letting me know this is a living community.  Keep up the good work.  The more active this becomes, the better the resource.
'''Suppport'''-
Not sure if to '''support''' or oppose, I don't vote neutral as a matter of some ludicrous principle or another.
'''Definitely''' Yeah, I saw his contributions and it is nothing but a bunch of wonderful work of music. I sure do like getting some information. He and I both have the same work, I do work of music articles too. --
'''Support''', seems to be a very good editor, and is great when it comes to welcoming newbies.
'''Support''' I've decided to support you, since you do seem to be a good editor and have made many contributions.
'''Support''' -- While I'm new, Red has was right there to welcome me and provide me with a wealth of information helpful to my WP quest. I'm also impressed with his contributions!
'''Support''' - responsible, polite and hardworking, in my experience.
'''Support''' [[User:Robludwig|Robludwig]] Good member of the welcoming committee, good editor, deals well with trolls, and his talk page seems to be a discussion hub for Wikipedians. Everything needed in an admin.
'''Support''' Does a good job reverting vandalism, very friendly, should be a good addition to the staff.
'''Support.''' A very clear choice, I think -- was considering nominating him myself, but then saw Essjay's offer and decided to just wait and add my assent. :-)  Red's dedication to welcoming and guiding new editors seems to me exemplary of what any admin should be willing to do for newcomers. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 08:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC) <small> HOLY CRAP! a bureacrat said he was gonna nominate me!
'''Support.''' Without a doubt, Redwolf is a great candidate. and has made a real contribution to wikipedia with everything he does from fostering community spirit to relentlessly improving the integrity of the encylopedia's content and organization. He'll be able to do even more good as Admin.
'''Support.''' Completely agree with Essjay... Redwolf gets my vote any day, for being so prompt with a welcome, for being up-front with clear answers, and for being the all-round 'good guy', which really shows through, even after limited interaction.
'''Support.''' Is a diligent cleaner of wikipedia and should be given key to mop-room. Can we have round 3 of untagged images now, please? (This communication does not constitute a bribe.) --
'''Support''', has the busiest talk page I've ever seen, almost all with praise and thanks for welcomes.
'''Support.''' I know Redwolf. He's very Kind and respects others. Demonstrates exellent wikiquette.--
'''Support''' As long as you don't stop with the welcoming. :)
'''Support (strongly)'''
'''Support.''' Very impressive record.
'''Support'''; I've just started noticing him recently, and he's a superb candidate.
'''Support''' A very nice guy, I'm sure he'd be a good admin.
'''STRONGLY Support'''. He'll make a great admin, I'm sure. -
'''Support''' Agree with most of the above, a nice guy. Plus he plays the geetarz!
'''Bing!''' - another vote added to the total...
'''Support''' Deserves it, gave me a lot of help after joining Wikipedia.
'''Support''' A bit light on the edit count, but if current trends continue, will outstrip me by the end of the week... High quality edits, and from a friendly user, who will no doubt make an excellent addition to the admin team.
'''Support''' partly as a belated thankyou for reverting vandalism on my userpage last night.
'''Support''' no good reason not to.
'''Support'''. Friendly face on RC Patrol. Always good.
'''Support''' Fairly new, but great work all around.  Friendly and with strong community spirit.  Great admin material!
'''Support'''.  Yes, he's new, but he already has over 2500 edits, and I've seen a nice collection of newbies that he's welcomed.  He seems like a great editor and a champion in not biting newcomers.  His user page is a good laugh too, and it shows him to be an approachable person; that is an essential quality for admins.  I'd like to see him get more involved with WP: stuff, as I notice only 159 edits there, but I don't think that's enough to detract from supporting him. --

'''Support'''. Anyone who makes it his or her duty to welcome newcomers is deserving of the responsibility of an Administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I must vote yes, and I seem to remember RedWolf saying "If you do not vote for me I will ''take'' power!" (Any [[Ali G]]/[[Borat]] fans out there??)
'''Support'''  ---

'''Strong, overwhelming support''' This issue should not even be an issue.  RedWolf, Administrator, now.
'''Support'''. Nice guy, and does good editing work, especially on music articles. He'll make a great administrator.
'''Support''' Seems like a knowledgeable and kind Wikipedian.
'''Support''' -- This seems quite the ideal candidate. --
'''Support''' He gave me lots of help when I first joined WP
'''Support wholeheartedly''' (as if my voice is needed as well!) Definitely one of those "meh, no big deal"/"you mean they aren't ''already''?!?" promotions. Seems very outgoing and overall a really nice guy. The only criticism I could possibly make is that I don't see many edits in the Wikipedia: namespace. I think that's an important part of being an admin as it lets you learn what's what. No biggie though, you can also learn by just reading instead of taking part. Now lather up well, we'll give you some floors to scrub in a minute! :)
'''Support''' What a friendly, helpful Wikipedian!
'''Support''', a worthy and helpful candidate.
'''Oppose''', and I feel miserly for doing so. However, I do not think that someone who has barely participated in VfD (by their own admission, in the questions), or TfD, CfD, etc (let alone places like [[WP:AN]]) and implies that they don't really know the extent of what admins do can be an admin yet. Evidently hasn't done much RC patrol to try getting on the wrong side (accidentally!) of a few users and handling that. More participation in adminny type things so that you are more familiar with more ropes and I'd be happy to be less miserly. I don't really think that rapid-welcoming of newbies makes an admin...but that's evidently just me. -
I actually recognise this username, which is quite impressive considering [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] is a relative novice.  I am opposing this nomination because I feel that there is insufficient data on which to judge the candidate.  All but 100 of [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]'s contributions have come in the last month.  I am not comfortable supporting someone based on a month's worth of contributions, nor am I comfortable supporting someone who has only been a regular contributor for a month.  [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] was absent for the whole of May and made very few contributions in April.  While his recent enthusdiasm is really impressive, it's not enough to demonstrate a trend of responsbility and trustworthiness.  Moreover, less than 700 of [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]'s contributions have been to articles.  I'd like to see some more involvment in actually building the encyclopedia.  I must oppose for now, but in a few months I would be very willing to change my vote.
'''Oppose''', 3 months is not enough.
I'm kind of sorry to '''oppose''', but while this user show enthusiasm, he has been a regular for only about a month. I do concur with Ace's comments above. Take your time.
'''Oppose''', as pointed out above the user has only been ''active'' for the last month. Needs more time to get exposed to stuff admin should know about like, deletion, transwiki, copyrights and all the rest of it--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 08:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <small> I definately know more than my share on copyrighting now. As for deletion thats not like a basketball skill or anything, theres nothing that, persay, [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] knows how to do at VfD's that I do not. As for Transwiki I'll admit I don't know how to do that.
Weak '''Oppose'''.  I value civility strongly when voting for admins.  I believe that having friendly admins is very important.  However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boobsquish&diff=prev&oldid=18988864 this edit] is an example of him showing unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes.  I feel a little more time would help him understand a bit better.  -- [[User:JamesTeterenko|JamesTeterenko]] 04:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC) <small> yes I was talked to about that, it was a very n00bish mistake of me. Forgive me
'''Oppose'''. I think he could use a bit more time to settle in.
'''Neutral.''' With only three months contributing, I am not exactly sure if you have enough experience on Wikipedia to be an administrator.
'''Neutral.''' I won't push my POV about other people here - that's not what this page is for. [[User:Scott Gall|Scott Gall]] 07:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC) <small>Acutally, this page is precisely about your POV. You should express your ''opinion'' of why a Wikipedian should or should not be an administrator. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Neutral''' This is not to be meant as a negative comment.  [[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] is very friendly indeed.  However, I feel a user should be more well rounded in their edits.  Over half of the edits are stritcly on user talk pages. It is very notable to be a friendly Wikipedian, and even more so to be a friendly administrator.  There is much more to being an administrator than being friendly and greeting users, although I think this is a very good practice. A few VFDs listings is not what I would ''personally'' consider a candidate for admin.  Maybe a bit longer working on more parts of Wiki would be helpful.  At this time, I only wish to voice my ''opinion'', and not cast a vote.  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
I would like to be able to vote support, but Redwolf's experience is all-round enough to make me feel comfortable doing so.
Please use the preview button. :-) Great user, however, so support.
Seems like a good user. --
Great user, works fairly on controversial subjects and is cool under pressure.
Seems to make good edits and is able to work well on controversial subjects.
I remember you from a long ways back from an edit war (involving [[Azerbaijan]], IIRC). I also remember you working well under those conditions. [[User:Grunt/Adminship|This demonstrates to me]] that you would make a good admin. --

Seems OK.

If anything, the discussion between k1 and refdoc, as far as I can tell, reflects well on refdoc. I support this RFA -
Okay, I am willing to support now after convincing myself that Amir1's statements are biased, and that refdoc has handled the situation coolly. --
Tentative support: I've seen this user's name come up in page histories and he/she does appear willing to engage in discussions on difficult subject areas: an essential quality for admins.  However I haven't had time to conduct a thorough browse of their edit history so cannot comment on what other voters have written. --
A person's personal beliefs do not factor into my decisions concerning RfA's -- their conduct on WP is what matters.  Refdoc's manner of handling disputes speaks highly of his character, knowledge of Wikipedia policies and willingness to abide by them.  Support, of course.
After consultation with other users and reading more of the disputes he has handled I feel I can support him.
After taking quite a bit of time going over the available information, I feel confident that I can vote to support.  A good admin is not necessarily one who avoids controversial subjects, but one who can handle them appropriately.  Refdoc will be a fine admin.
For the reasons below.
His history speaks for itself.  He uses Wikipedia to promote his brand of Christianity. Such people by defintion cannot be fair and unbiased although it is natural that they will do their best to hide their intentions and agendas.  --
<s>Great, great user, but needs to put more edit summaries.</s> --
<s>I'll vote neutral for now since Amir1's accusation is quite serious. However, unless it's substantiated in great detail I lean towards support. I haven't dealt with this fellow user so don't know enough to tell. [[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 17:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Further comment is that I would like to have the vote extended to learn more about this issue before casting my vote.) --[[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 18:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)</s>--
'''Support''' Seems like a decent editor dedicated to making Wikipedia a better place. I've had/seen no problems with him. --
'''Support''' Having checked his past contributions, I think he is a hard-working editor appropriate for the admin job. --
'''Support''' &mdash; though I believe that you could use a bit more Usertalk namespace edits.
'''Support''' - He's very hard-working, and has shown himself willing to do the difficult and tedious work all over Wikipedia, not just on a single topic. I've had to delete wikiproject pages that he'd finished up, and I always thought it was odd that he didn't have the ability himself. He should. &ndash;
'''Support''' Works on double redirects and encyclopedia topics.  Spots suitable AfDs. No adversarial encounters AFAIK. What more can we ask. ''
'''Support''' does grunt work.
'''Support''' Seems like a good user nice work with double redirects which is tough --
'''Support''', good editor.

'''Weak Support''' I don't ever give full support to self noms [[User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies|due to my beliefs]], but my main belief is that beliefs should be modified slightly when they don't fit the situation, and this is one of those situations. The edit count is more than sufficient, despite not hitting 2000 because of the Wikiproject work, using CDVF(which is the quintessential admin tool), and the fact that sockpuppets are already opposing him is the clincher. Considering that sockpuppets could be anybody, there is a chance that Reflex could have made the sock on his own(seems unlikely)to gain some more support from people like myself who dislike sockpuppets, but even if that's true, i'm gonna [[WP:AGF]] and say The Karmafist believes if that was true, The Reflex Reaction should earn extra points for creativity ;-)
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' He's a dedicated individual and you can't criticize his edit count because he's one the few who uses previews and edit summaries. Support whole heartedly, good luck! --
'''Support''' per above... --

'''Support''' Wiki-gnomes who do the hard work. Give him the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]].

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Why name reasons when all the above reasons are pretty good? :-)
'''Support'''. <font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' although I don't know 'em. <font color=#7fffd4>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''I support''' the ''Reflex Formatting'' guy. I like the username because it's real! I believe that would remain true after the upgrade! --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[User:Private Butcher|<font color="black">Privat</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]] [[user talk:Private Butcher|<font color="brown">Butcher</font>]] Supports, yes [[User:Private Butcher|<font color="black">Privat</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]] [[user talk:Private Butcher|<font color="brown">Butcher</font>]] is making fun of another user's use of 3rd person. So ha! [[User:Private Butcher|<font color="black">Privat</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]] [[user talk:Private Butcher|<font color="brown">Butcher</font>]] in response to you all.
'''OpPoSe''' Not enough edits for [[User:The Wheelhouse|The Wheelhouse]], [[User:The Wheelhouse|The Wheelhouse]] needs a lot more edits for an admin. Atleast over 2000 especially for as long as this dude has been around.
--
Campaigning should '''not''' be done on RfAs, so I do not feel comfortable supporting, for the reasons given by Dlyons493, but Reflex Reaction seems like a wholly good editor and would make a fine editor, so I'm not willing to oppose.  So, '''Neutral'''.
<s>'''Oppose''' Nothing personal but Reflex Reaction is a self-nom who has contacted users notifying them that he is on Rfa.  I objected to this in the recent case of ScottyBoy900Q and, to be consistent, am now opposing again.</s> On balance I feel opposing is too strong - changing to neutral.
<s>'''Oppose:'''</s> '''Neutral:''' dislike the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATa_bu_shi_da_yu&diff=26531381&oldid=26528912 message] I just got on my talk page: very aggressive when I was just trying to add to the missing encyclopedia project. Could do better with the way he writes messages: I felt pretty slammed for doing what I thought was right. Also assumed that I won't be keeping on adding to the Baker's list, can't see how this assumes good faith. Incidently, this is a bit of pot calling kettle black as I'm a prime offender and an admin, so if the admin/beurocrat doing the counting wants to discount the vote, feel free. I am pretty concerned that he'll ruffle the feathers of newbies badly or react badly. I could be pre-judging here myself, but have concerns. Prepared to wait and see. -
'''Support''' - Knows his way around the [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] USA too!, Has greatly helped me survive possible brutal attacks on Wikipedia. --What a guy!
'''Certainly'''. -
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' now that candidate has accepted. That yellow blob on the map is not far from my mum too.
'''Support''' - Knows his way round Britain, and knows his way round Wikipedia too. --
'''Support'''. Great work.
'''Support'''. Why shouldn't I--
'''Support''' Knowledgeable edits.
'''Support''' Checked the Talk page, looks impressive enough for the job.
'''Support'''. Assumed he was one.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''' Looks like a productive and knowledgeable Wikipedian. --
'''Support''', fair contributor and I trust the nominator. --
'''Support'''.  As per Sn0wflake. --
'''Support'''. Per Grutness, Sn0wflake, and Mel Etitis.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  One of the good ones. -

'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Looks to be a great admin.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good and experienced wikipedian. --May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.
'''Supoort'''. I haven't seen a lot of this editors work, but a quick review of the contribs list shows no reason why adminship for this edior shouldn't be "no big deal." The signatures already in this list confirm this is a great editor we can expect great work from. --
<small>

--
Been here more than a year, has a good number of quality edits. I changed your link on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Iowa|Wikipedians/Iowa]], hope you don't mind. --&mdash;
Absolutely. Excellent WikiJanitorial work. --


Great user. --


Intelligent and hard-working (thanks for the ntoe about Anthropos, by the way -- I always thought well of both of you, so it doubles my support :-)

Looks good! --


Cool. --

He's been a consistantly good editor for a long time, I'm sure he'll be a fine admin.
'''Support'''.

Definitely. --




Great stuff. --
Support.
A strong user.

Support.

Support.
Support.
Support! --
[[User:Grunt/Adminship|Sounds good to me]]. --
Strong support... and insert clichè of choice regarding shock and surprise as to why this guy isn't an admin yet!  -


<s>172 is usually a good judge of character, so I'll back him up on this. Also, this candidate has a minimal number of edits, having only been around 10 months. More experience needed.
'''Support''' --
'''Unconditionally.''' Rick has been here too long and done too much to not be deserving of the mop. --
'''Support''', obviously. -
Most certainly.
He wasn't already an admin?  '''Support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. About time.
'''Support'''; absolutely.
'''Support'''. What can I say, other than ''lots of edits, not an admin....'' ;-)
'''Support''', I definitely see some good work from the candidate's part. --
'''Unconditional Support'''.  I was about to nominate him.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Another one of my rare RFA votes, but someone who certainly deserves it.
Very much. &mdash;
Hard working, pleasant in discussion, gets involved in the stuff admins should.
'''Support''' It's a cliche, but its true- I thought he was one.
'''Support''' Well-written answers + archives talk page + over 1000 edits + over three months experience + nomination from Essjay = Shoe-In
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor and long overdue to be an admin.
'''Support'''.
I usually only vote on the nominations of candidates whom I've had some form of interaction with or at least whose work I'm familiar with, which isn't the case with RB, but looking it over, this candidate's record is impressive. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Yep'''.  Does good work and has earned a ringing endorsement from a trustworthy nominator.
'''Support'''. Time for another <nowiki>{{cliché}}</nowiki>. --
'''Support'''. Do I need give my reasons.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''. if ever there was a possible case for speedy admining, this would be it. Ho w come no-one spotted that he wasn't one before?
Let Rick Block vandals. Let Rick Protect the wiki.
'''[[:Image:Kool-AidMan.jpg|Oh Yeaahh!]]'''

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Plenty of good work.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. Seen nothing but helpful contributions, and lots of them.
'''Support''' on condition the sun rises in the east tomorrow.
'''Support'''
Without hesitation. <small>

'''Support!''' --
Certainly...

'''Support''', an outstanding candidate.
'''Support''' Hes not one already? Hard work should be rewarded.
'''Support''' Sure. --
'''support''' of course. --
'''Support''' Again, I thought he was one already.
'''Support'''; absolutely. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>

'''Support''' a friend of Essjay is a friend of Redwolf24!
'''Support''' --

--
'''Support''', though he hardly needs my vote.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''', yes I am feeling great to record my vote. --
'''Support''', I wouldn't want to miss ''this'' opportunity to vote.
'''Support'''.  A wonderful contributor to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''- ''you mean he's not one already?!!'' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
Support, of course.  His name has been around the wiki a lot lately, and always doing good things.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Essjay's nomination weighs heavily and you have some ''real'' heavy hitters in your corner! -
'''what Flcelloguy said'''. &nbsp;
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Essjay said it all, but this list says even more -- it's like a who's who list of the hard workers here on Wikipedia. Now all we need is boothby to give him support and I think it's safe to say that we could nominate Rick for wiki-emperor if Jimbo ever gets tired of the job...

'''Support''', without a doubt. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - Rick will ''definitely'' make an excellent admin! &mdash;
--
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good user.
'''Support''' for his kindness to newbies and all inclusive demeanor.
Cool. --
'''Support''' everything looks in order here!
'''Support'''. Though it took him three attempts to get his RfA right, I believe that the user has enough edits in all the namespaces. --
'''Go on then'''
Looks good enough to me. '''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">

'''Support'''. Any admin on another Wikipedia is good enough for me. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''', already being an admin elsewhere show his trustworthiness.
'''Support''' - very good editor. I seen you on Simple English as well. Recommended. --
--
'''Support''', doesn't seem even remotely likely to abuse the tools.  In regard to Radiant's comments below, I assume he'd review the relevant policies if he intended to take admin actions outside of his experience. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --I believe that he has enough time to learn the relevant wikiprocesses.
'''Support'''. Trustworthy as shown by being admin on Simple English.
Of course.
'''support''' a) seems good at working with others on talk pages b) admin should not be such a big deal.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor and works well with people. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' I see no strong reason to oppose--
'''Support'''.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''Weak oppose'''. User seems to lack experience with WikiProcesses, other than voting on AFD. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)   (per the explanation below; I'd still prefer some more activity that wasn't a year ago, though).

Lots of edit summaries, VfD and RC participation, plenty of experience. Fully support.
Certainly. &mdash;
Even has a public watchlist, the first one I have ever seen --
Absolutely.

I support. Answers to questions below look good, among other reasons. -
Strong support. --
RC patrol? [[User:Grunt/Adminship|Of course I support]]. --
Good user. Support.


Eeeeeeexcellent. --

Looks good to me.
I'm luvin' the menu color scheme ;"D -

Yes. --

I'll support.
I support.

'''Support''' - of course! --
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support''', I haven't had personal experience with this user, but based on the above, he's a good candidate.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''', on the condition he tells me what "RJFJR" stands for.  I like his answers to the questions, and looking through some of his recent contributions was greatly heartening.  Also, I have a theory that "Wikignomes" make the best admins ... --
'''Support''', I've been impressed when I've seen him in Recent Changes. &mdash; [[User:Lomn|Lomn]] | <small>[[User Talk:Lomn|Talk]] /
'''Support''' Good RC Patroler --
'''Support'''
We definitely need more RC patrolers; we are being overwhelemed.
'''Support'''. -

'''[[Soup]] ort'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' <small>
OMG wikignome! '''Support'''.
Cool. --
'''Support''' Good janitor--
'''Quasi-humungous cranky ol' Kiwi bastard support'''
'''Support'''

'''Support'''
'''Support''' I cannot overemphasise the need for friendly users and administrators.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Lots of good work on Deadend pages. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Oops, almost missed this one.
'''Support'''. Hope I got here in time.  --
Neutral.  Have not seen this user before.


Cool.
Is he a trustworthy member of the Wikipedia community? In my judgment, Yes. Will he misuse admin powers? In my judgment, No. Hence support.
Seems reasonable to me. But ''watch those edit summaries!''
Support; slightly tentative as I would like to see more edit summaries; also, the practice of marking significant edits as ''minor'' needs to be exercised with a degree of caution, as many users have set their "recent changes" preferences to hide minor edits.  Correcting a comma or two, adding category, or realigning an image should count as minor, but adding extra information should not, in my opinion.  Nevertheless, I think there's a lot more in your favour than not, so I'm supporting you.
'''Support'''.  If after more than 7000 edits the only complaints stem from lack of edit summaries - and he acknowledges the fact - this is an overdue nomination. -
Since adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", my only criteria for support are experience and trustworthiness, both of which Rlquall exhibits in abundance.
Excellent contributor. Edit summaries and "minor/non-minor" is, in my humble opinion, a very very very trivial thing. Overdue nomination.
Makes good contributions to local articles and is well knowledged in the history of Middle [[Tennessee]]. --
'''Support.''' Thought you already were one though. :) -

Cool. --
Sounds fine to me. I myself forget to use edit summaries from time to time.
'''Oppose''': almost no summaries for edits. Also why do you ask for admin? I think main advantage of adminship is when dealing with vandals, less for edits.
Not enough edit summaries. --
Marking significant edits as minor may be modest, but it's also misleading and unhelpful to other editors. See [[Wikipedia:Minor edit]]. Also, I'm not quite sure which activities would be enhanced by having admin tools.
The lack of [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] seems to be related to a habit of making lots of edits in a row, as opposed to using [[Wikipedia:Show preview|show preview]]. That's not really a big deal to me, although it may annoy some [[Wikipedia:RC patrol|RC patrollers]] or watchlisters. What's more important to me is that the pattern of edits seems more consistent with an editor than someone moving in the direction of sysopry. I would like to see more edits to the Wikipedia namespace, to demonstrate well-rounded familiarity with Wikipedia, and then I may support in a month.
'''No big deal''' :D [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme Thug Style Support''' He deserves it --

'''OMGS TEH &Uuml;BER ROFLCOPTER SUPPORT.''' Another nomination I got beaten to doing! RN would be a wonderful admin. ~~ '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Seems to be a talented potential admin.--
'''EXTREME [[Vanilla Coke|VANILLA COKE]] SUPPORT!'''  Thought he was one.  <font color="red">
'''Extreme Mexican Support'''. You were part of the group that started the witty support votes, so let's see what everyone else comes up with. Outside of that, you deserved the mop and the flamethrower ''a long time'' ago...
'''Support!''' '''
'''Support''' Of course.
'''support''':  Generally collaborative with tolerant approach, but feisty enough to express contentious points - not a bad combination.
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
Cool. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A reliable vandal-fighter.
'''Support''', every day of the year, every year. Ryan's an awesome editor and an even greater person. (Is this the part were I should say "I thought he was an admin already?") -- <font color="green">
'''Strong Support''', you know, I was actually considering nominating him myself, but Reds beat me to it:)
'''Support''' A fine editor.
'''[[Soup|Support]]'''
'''Support''' excellent Wikipedia presence.
'''Extreme Support Payback''' He voted for me, and he definately deserves adminship more than I do. [Insert Random Clint Eastwood quote about payback here]
'''Support''', human shield.  --
'''Without reservation.''' (And we should really make it more clear when users have a different signature than their username; I didn't recognize "RN") --
'''Support''', without silly modifiers. &mdash;
'''Extreme Athiest Support'''. You've been very nice to me in the past, so here's my support. :-) --
'''Support.''' Absolutely. A fine editor. --
'''Support''' Great editor--
'''Support.'''
'''Extreme Why The Heck Aren't You An Admin Already Support!''' [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''ZOMG DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA SUPPORT'''  --
'''Support''' --''
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''', definitely. --
'''Support''',
'''APOYO ESPAÑOL EXTREMO DE LA ESPERANZA''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''No way''' <small>...am I not going to give him my support.<small> --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support.''' He's friendly, he's polite, he's well-spoken, and he seems to be positively involved with several aspects of the workings of Wikipedia. This place is better for having him around. -
'''Support.''' Looks all very good to me.
'''Extreme (insert witty comment here) support!'''. When he started working on the [[Autism]] article, it was tagged for cleanup and full of non-NPOV nonsense written by random anons. It took him just a couple weeks or so to bring it up to FA standard. As Ryan himself mentioned in another RfA, we have some great candidates lately. <font color=green>
'''Support''' without any frills.  I've seen him around a lot, and I've never seen him do anything objectionable.
'''Furry Alien Support'''
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. Don't see any reason not to support.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Though I have yet to have any direct dealings with Mr. RN, I see a lot of good reasons to vote AYE and none for opposing. --
'''Support''', as I check this person of my list of people to nominate in the future.
'''Supportize'''. Had a bit of a head on collision with this gent. He kept his head on, which probably means he was already ready to be an admin at that point in time.
'''Support'''. I don't think I have ever visited this page before (happened upon it while wandering around), but I'd just like to say that I have had wonderful interactions with RN. He is amiable, enthusiastic in the face of criticism, and has demonstrated a firm understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

'''golden support vote''' for WP:PR and WP:FAC patrol.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'' Lots of valuable contributions. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' another good hand aboard.
'''Support''' yet another great editor who should get admin. <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course you...you...you...
'''Vastustan''' jyrkästi tämän käyttäjän nimittämistä ylläpitäjäksi. Siitä ei koituisi muuta kuin harmia kun muut joutuisivat korjaamaan hänen väärinkäytöstensä jälkiä. (I'm counting on no one understanding this anyway...)
'''Support''' Just realised who he is.
'''Support''' because "RN" is an abbreviation for [[registered nurse]] and ... um ... uh ... Look! A [[canoe]]!!!
'''Support''' I truly thought he was one and yeah, I like his initials. ;)
'''Support'''; seems like a reasonable and dedicated user.
'''Support'''; I thought I voted support here already, but I must not have saved it! Anyway. Ryan has been very helpful and seems to be dedicated to the betterment of Wikipedia.
'''Support''', good contributions, many contributions,
'''Support'''. Thought he was one already. Always keeps cool under pressure.--
'''Support'''. --
--
Why, of course. --
'''[[Soup|Support]]''', I'm supporting, hopefully user will accept the nomination.
'''Support''' again.  Good user, good person, goodgasell!  <font color="red">
'''Support''' Promised myself that I wasn't going to vote until my RfA was over, but Rob deserves my early support. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good egg. Good luck!
'''Support''' exactly as before: "Going by previous interaction I expect he'll treat admin rights carefully and thoughtfully."
'''Support'''; eminently trustworthy.  Should be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Supp Ort'''. I keep seeing him around. ~~ '''
'''Support''' Goes without saying.
'''Support''' he isn't one? -
'''Support''', good editor. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' After reading what others have posted and looking through some of the user contributions I feel this would be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good User --

'''Support''' --
Rob Church isn't an admin?  You gotta be kidding me.  --
'''Support''' --
'''S'port''' certainly --
'''Support''' Seen him around countless times, and he's left a very positive impression.  --
'''Support'''.  And why not, eh? --
'''Support''', same as last time.
'''Support'''.  He wants to delete unused fair use images, so I say let him. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''', per nominator.
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Extreme [[Chav]] Support!''' Administator Rob in da house! [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support'''.  Have bumped into him on RC Patrol and he was doing what I was doing so must be good ;-).  '''>:'''
Oppose, gawd dammit! Nahh, just kidding, '''Support'''! I know him mostly from IRC where he is one of the coolest people around
'''Support''' even though I normally don't like supporting per nom, per nom. <small>
'''Support''', RFA cliché No. 1.
'''Support''' you actually notified redwolf and company of that RfAr... LOL :).<small>
'''Support.''' We've gotten on each other's nerves more than once...but when all is said and done, Robchurch is a well-meaning, great guy. He truly is. :-) --
'''Support''' a good pick for sure.--
'''Support''' dedicated editor. --
Cool. --
Was suitable for admin last time already!
You beat me to nominating him! -

'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oh my, of course''' That's a support from this
'''Support''' again! :-)
'''support'''. Another good candidate.
Fools! Your comments are useless against <span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">us</span>... me! <span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">We</span>... I cannot be harmed! Erm, I mean '''support'''.
'''Support''' Ive seen this user around.
'''Furry Alien Support''' no doubt about it.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
-- (
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''- --
'''Support''' keep up the good work mate. &nbsp;
"'''Support'''.  $user is not an admin?" &ndash;
'''Support!''' -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support'''. I could have sworn that I had voted, but apparently not. This one is a no-brainer. Here ya go,
'''Very strong support''', a very fine editor --
'''Support''' death to unqualified Fair Use!
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support''' seems like a thoroughly decent bloke.
'''Support''', hard worker. <font color=green>
'''Support'''. Enjoy. -
'''Support'''. An excellent editor, contributer. Glad to welcome him into adminship.
'''Support'''. A very fine contributor.
'''Support''': Seems very well suited to being an admin. Only slight concern is what the wikibreaks were about, but I suspect they were unrelated to Wikipedia and more related to RealLife(TM). Uses edit summaries in 87% of edits, average # of edits per day >10. A quality admin addition I think. --
'''Support'''.  Seems like a thoroughly nice chap and ideal Wikipedian.
This should be no big deal.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Support the musicabal! --
'''Support''' the [[harmony|harmonious]] [[Musical ensemble|musicabal]], I think Robert'''G natural''' for [[conducting]] admin duties.
'''Support''' of course.  Hard to find a worthier candidate.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as per Esperanza cabal ; - ) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' - Good nomination in my point of view--
'''Support'''.
Cool.
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' FAC writer can certainly be an admin. Although it might take away from his article writing time.
'''Support''' the musical mensch.
'''Support''' (~hums cheerful counterpoint~)
'''Support''', good work as an editor. --
'''Support'''. I trust the names on this list, and the candidate doesn't look half bad, either. ; - ) --
'''Support''' Am happy to finally find someone I have encountered enough on wikipedia to make a vote for here, welcomed me here and has shown courtesy in all the dealings I've seen him involved with.
'''Support''' Per above. --
'''Support'''. Regardless of that mistake above. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Strong Support''' First off, [[User:Durin|Durin]] basically has RfA as his main focus on Wikipedia, so while his vote might not be as impressive as say, a Support vote from [[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]], or seeing a Delete vote on [[WP:AFD]] from
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''' '''because''' he voted for himself. Everyone has the right to vote on RfA. This kind of thing should be encouraged.

'''Support''' script looks nifty and edit # suffices.
'''Support''' even though he is a U of L guy :)  [[University of Kentucky|Go Cats!!]] --
'''Support''', a positive user with a fantastic capability to contribute to cleaning (eg:[[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|link repair]] - ideal for admin activities. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
<s>Oppose</s> - The self voting does not bother me at all - it is an honest mistake that many Wikipedians make. Excellent, dedicated work on various cleanup tasks - these are very much appreciated here on Wikipedia. I would however, prefer to see marginally more edits to the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespace. There are other areas in need on Wikipedia, such as [[WP:CP]], [[WP:IFD]] and [[WP:RM]]. Should administrative functions be granted to you by the community, would you consider helping out at these places at your leisure? --
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', RobyWayne does great work, and as [[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] noted, he has a very positive attitude. I believe he will make a fine admin. '''
'''Support''' anyone can make a mistake. It's not clear that you must not vote for yourself. It's like on Afds when it's not clear that nominators need not to vote too (the nom itself is a vote unless explicitly stated) -- (
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' self-vote is a single mistake among otherwise well-judged contribution.
'''Support''' --'''
'''Support''', as per HappyCamper and CommanderKeane.

You can't vote for yourself.
'''Oppose''' <S>per Andrevan.</s> Been here actively for only 2 months, most edits are either user categorization and disambig, so I dont see th need for admin powers.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose for now''' - not enough time of heavy involvement in the project --
'''[[Newt|Neutral]]''', Good user, but voted for themself, which isn't good in my book.
'''Neutral''' Not enough effort in article talk and not enough time in yet.--
I want an admin to have at least three months active - IMO it takes that long to become decently seasoned and get a feel for the community. If this round fails, try again in a couple of months ;-) -
'''Strong Support'''- Like I said in nomination, I am strongly support his nomination. He's very helpful, nice, and will help with a lot of things!
'''Support''' --
'''Support''': I trust Ronline to use adminship appropriately. --
'''Support''' the guy who once flooded Wikinews with Romania-related articles :)
'''Support''', looks good. <font color="red">
I '''Support''' and find the comments about the nominator to be out of place.
'''Strong support''' I've seen he did a great job up until now --

'''Support''' Despite who the nominator is, after all, this is based on the user, not the nom ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''', due in no small part to the handling of the questions below.
'''Support'''. What Turnstep said. I, for one, wouldn't have taken those questions as calmly... [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''. I know his good job as a sysop on the Romanian Wikipedia. This argument counterbalances the nominator and the bad timing. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. His responses to the baiting, probing, irrelevant questions below demonstrate that he has the proper temprament for being an admin.
'''Support.'''
'''Strongly Support''' He deserves this nomination and he can be a real help for the other admins.
'''Support.''' He already does a tremendous job as a bureaucrat on Romanian wiki! --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Cool-headed user in many hot disputes. I would like to ask Ronline to promise to fill the [[edit summary]] more often though. And about the nominator, I suspect Bonaparte's motivation is to have a friend with big stick at certain controversal articles, but I don't think Ronline will fall into that trap.
'''Support'''.  Having not been involved in the apparant conflicts, I'm going to side with the majority on this one.  This user shows promise, and promise should always get a chance to prove itself. --
'''Support'''.  I believe he is fair, rational and doesn't resort to ad hominems. I expect him to continue to be so once he's elected. --
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' - I don't get why his religion should affect his chances at adminship. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - Very moderated edits, even in harsh disputes. I do not agree with users arguing that the RfA should be rejected because of who submitted it. This is not about [[User:Bonaparte]], but about [[User:Ronline]].  [[User:Dpotop]]
'''Strong Support''' - He is the right man for the job! --
'''Support''': I don't know the candidate from Adam's Off Ox, but no one could fake tolerance and fair mindedness through all the inappropriate questions below.  Holy smokes, but that takes some equanimity.
Never seen this editor, but by studying the contributions, I must '''Support'''.
'''Support'''. However, for the record I would like to show that I am pretty sure that Bonaparte has ulterior motives here. --
'''Support'''.  Seems like a good editor, and he did a nice job handling the questions below.  I don't really care about the source of the nom, since it's not germane.  -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.''' Ronline's able and common-sense mediation in the matter of the anon Romanian contributor with a prediliction for unjustifiably augmenting Romanian stats demonstrates he's made of the right admin material.--
'''Support.''' Should make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.  Excellent job of handling the inappropriate questions below.  --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  per above. --
<s>'''Oppose'''. I like Ronline. He is a good person, and deserving of adminship probably. But as Zserghei and Iulian U. said, the fact that the nominator is Bonaparte makes this request suspect. If this RfA fails (which it probably won't), I would vote "support" in a new RfA later if the nominator's motives were less suspcious. Now, if it didn't look like this RfA was definitely going to win, I would truly consider a "support" vote because it's Ronline we're talking about, but since it looks like it is with or without me, I'm just registering my opposition here more as a matter of principle. --
<s>'''Oppose''' On the basis of the user to question 6 (which I've just taken the liberty of correcting the numbering of by hand).  Please review [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]] and [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]], fix your answer to be in line with these, and I'll be glad to review this.  [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)</s>  Changing to abstain, following (iterated) modifications to answer, with which I'm now completely happy, pending a closer look at candidate's contribs/developing an actual substantiative opinion.

As nominator, of course.  <font color="red">
'''Support''', and may I suggest that Opera's tabbed browsing makes RC patrol easier? --
'''Support''' - I love your light-hearted approach to Boothy and being a firefox user tips it over the edge (You must have good judgement). (Met [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] are). --
'''Support''' from film lover. -
Absolutely.
'''Support''' I haven't met this user in my wanderings, but have sample checked edits for an overall impression - hand the mop over.
'''Support'''.  He needs a mop.
'''Support'''. if boothy443 bothered to vote, he must be good. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme lesbian support!''' --<span style="color:red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as I see no reasons to oppose this candidade.--
Cool.
'''Support''': sometimes, apart form several other factors, supporting users’ stand indicates nominee’s standing; in some rare instances, opposing users’ stand may indicate the quality and utility of a candidate for elevation to adminship.  I also like RoyBoy’s attitude, and wish him all the best. --
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
'''Certainly.''' --
Adminitrator should be able to administer which is visible in this candidate. WP is not an experiment in anarchy, and silence creating noise is destructive in my most humble opinion. We are here to talk and arrive at some consensus, and not to talk like deaf and dumb people by gestures and gesticulations - these comments are in response to other comments in this voting process. '''A very strong support'''. --
Good editor with lots of experience, showing courtesy and good judgement in my interactions with him. --
--
'''Oppose''' - Based on the candidacy presented here, I think administrative capabilities will be a good fit with this user's portfolio of skills at a later date. An administrator has more responsibility and more autonomy associated with their account. For example, if one "[burns] out quickly" while performing RC patrol without administrative functions, I am inclined to feel they would not be used in an as refined and precise manner as they should be, when given. There is also a strong sense that critique is not handled as gracefully as they can be. Administrators often encounter situations which require diplomacy and more moderation; some of the responses presented at the moment do not seem to highlight adequately level-headedness and willingness to learn. Finally, there are many situations where one will need to evaluate based on introspection alone without external guidance. For example, what purpose did it serve to first use the words "unclean", "dirty", and "wrong"? Certainly, they are somewhat intensifying modifiers and their reception and reaction to them should not be surprising. Respectfully,
'''Neutral''' I've never heard of this user.
'''Only just''', [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''. Looks good. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. Always uses edit summaries, almost daily edits, although participation to AfD has been low lately. Deserves the tools.
'''Support''' been here for a long time and wasn't involved in anything bad.
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''. This edit count inflation is getting out of control. 1600 edits is "''way too low of an edit count for an admin''"? It wasn't too long ago that 1000 was the magic number, then it seemed to rise to 1500. Is it at 2000 now? Not everyone has the time to make 10+ edits a day.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--<font color = steelblue>
'''Support''' And those with editcountitis can eat my [[User:Bratsche's Sock|sock]].
'''Support''', damn the editcountitis.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  I'd rather have a thousand good occasional admins than a single busy poor admin.

'''Support'''. A fine editor with ''plenty'' of edits to prove it. Also, I strongly support the position of others about editcountitis, it may not be fatal but sure can make some for some distorted appraisals. Virtually all of the opposition has to do with edit count and nothing to do with his quality of contribution (except for one who didn't like his comment about edit counts below!).  - --
'''Support'''.  I had fewer edits and a lower rate of edits per day when I became an admin, and find that opposition based on edit count alone to be unreasonable where an editor with 1600 edits is concerned.
'''Support''' The editcountitis below is getting ridiculous.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good response below --
'''Support'''. I'm not worried about the edit count. Like Roy, I believe the correct measure is the total '''''value''''' of his contributions, not the sheer number of individual edits. I was more worried about his self-proclaimed deletionism, but I couldn't find a single case where I disagreed with him on his AfD vote (and I did look!). I am not a deletionist myself, but I ''do'' trust this man with the "Delete" button.
'''Support''' - Has shown his mettle in admin-type functions. Doesn't seem to suffer from editcountitis!
'''Support'''. RoySmith hasn't done anything silly, as far as I can see, and has shown interest in the maintenance side. I'm slightly disappointed with the amount of material he added to the encyclopaedia (at least in the block of edits that I checked), but we need different kinds of editors and also different kind of admins. On the statistics: he's been here for almost a year and took about 4 months for the last 1000 edits; nothing to alarm me. --

'''Support'''. Responsible contributor. --
'''Support''' level-headed interaction with other users.  Edit count largely irrelevant and I empathise with ''Safari surprises me with an auto-fill on the text box''!
'''Support''' as a fellow Mac-user.
'''Oppose''' been here too long to only have 1600 edits. Should be very active on wikipedia to be an admin. I can't support.
'''Oppose''' way too low of an edit count for an admin. Anyone spending "a lot of time reverting vandalism" as user states should have a much larger edit count. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. As the nominee said, 1600 edits/year. It's  a rather small number.
Oppose for reasons stated above.
'''Oppose''' for the way he responded to Durin below.
--
'''"Nominator was late" support''' Keep constructing those highway and road articles. --
'''Support''' I see no reason to not trust this editor with admin tools.--
Although I find most highway articles inherently boring, that's no reason not to '''support''' this user. Should be fine. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' Very good contributor.
'''Support''' looks fine to me.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', oh, what the hey. &mdash;
'''Support''' This user has participated in delete discussions, and talk pages in addition to article space.  So what if most of it was related to highways?  As per MONGO and Christopher Parham, this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. --
'''Late nominator support''' as nom --


'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' - Has made strong, encyclopedic contributions and has done nothing to indicate he would abuse administrative powers.
'''Suppport''' - very good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I stumbled into something I didn't like that had been going on in the California State Route Project, and found [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] willing to work with me despite the fact that it required major rework on 200+ articles.  It's true he works mainly in a specialized area, but admins are needed everywhere --
'''Support''' As several editors said above, this editor is not likely to mis-use the admin tools, which is most of the ball game.
You know what? I'm sold. '''Support''' as above.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. In my interactions with Rschen7754, I've found him to be knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and conventions.
'''Support''',
'''Support''',
'''Support'''
'''Support''',  --
'''Oppose'''. For now, although [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] is doing hard work on state roads and highways, I do not think that they would make a good admin.
<s>'''Weak Oppose'''</s> users' response to question #1 leaves me feeling they are either unsure of what an admins duties are (RC patrolling doesnt really require adminship), or would be sticking mostly to content creation. I just dont get the feeling this user needs the mop and bucket for what they are doing. You can probably persuade me to change my vote, if you gave a more specific reasoning for why you want admin powers. &nbsp;
'''Support''', of course.
A horse is a horse. <small>

'''Support'''. Great vandal fighter. Rx has beaten me to the revert quite a few times, too.
'''Support''', absolutely.  I can't count the times I have gotten his name on that "rollback failed!" page.  Great vandal fighter; everything I've seen is good.
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
"It is not only possible, it is essential."  --
'''Support''' - one of the good guys.
'''<s>Weak</s> support'''. Rx Strangelove, please answer the candidate questions below.
'''Support'''.  As has been said, great vandal fighter. --
'''Support''', I would have nominated him myself. --
'''Suppppppport.'''' ~~ '''
Support.
'''Support''' ITHAWO!
Support.—
'''Support''' This user would benefit with the admin tools.
'''Support''', I second what Zzyzx11 said.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', Meets, and would definetly benefit from admin tools as suggested by Zzyzx11.
'''Support''' What's with all the good candidates lately? Yes :) <small>
'''Support''' without the slightest doubt.
'''Sure'''. No doubt reading the comments and editors above &ndash;
'''Support''' absolutely!
'''Support''' Good focus on RC actions: newbies, edits, vandals + able to see the value of an article in AfD, even it is in a poor state, jump in and make it something worth keeping = priceless.
'''Support'''.  Swift with RC patrol.  Friendly.  Helpful. An all-around good Wikipedian.
'''Support''': Great commitment to the quality and aims of the project.

'''Support''', fighting vandalism is a chore that he does admirably.
'''Support''', reasons: see above.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' A fine wikipedian.  It should also be noted that he has made [http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/ scripts] which are used by many people.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''S'''upport. An old hand. Should have been etc etc.

'''Support'''. Sam clearly knows the rules and should be a good admin, as he is on fr.
'''Yusss'''.
'''Support''', does good work.
'''Support'''. The cliche holds. --
'''Support'''. And so on and so forth --<small>
Thought he was one.  --
--
'''Support'''. I'm embarrassed at how many of my spelling mistakes that Sam has corrected. It must be in the hundreds. Sam is one of our most productive editors, and I'm sure that every tool we can give him will be well-used. -
'''Support'''. I've only seen good edits from him. --
'''Support'''. We need people such as Sam. -
'''Support''' - obvious choice.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Agree with Carbonite on that one ;-) . This said, I am not sure I am even allowed to vote for him. Well, if not, I'll just vouch for his magnificent work on the French Wikipedia.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', no doubts here. Intelligent, diligent, reasonable, and strange; good combination.
Cool.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Also has a funny userpage! (You're the second Wikipedian to make me laugh because of it. ;)) --
'''Support''' obviously. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A man's word is his bond. 'nuff said.
'''Support'''.  Initially I hesitated to vote in this RFA, but have to admire the way in which Sam has responded to Brian0918's objections and wish him the best in his endeavor to persuade members of the GNAA to contribute, not vandalise.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' &ndash;
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' totally.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - so long as xe's aware of community concern with the GNAA, and mindful of dealing with it, there should be no problem at all.  An exemplary record, IMHO.
'''Support'''. I see Sam on my watchlist now and again, and he's always fixing something. His ties to the GNAA don't bother me in the least, nor should they bother anyone else, really.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. Don't let him get away!! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. [[Hewas'ntanadminalready!etc.etc.etc.|Are you serious?]]--May the Force be with you!
'''SUPPPORT''' and yes, I spelled it with three p's again.

'''Support'''.  His tons of edits show that he's very dedicated to this project.  Regarding the RfC - it was ''last year''.  He's made over 24,000 edits; don't judge him based on one thing that he did almost a year ago. --
'''Support''' this character. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. --
'''Strong Support''' I've seen him around, fixing the spelling in my articles.
'''Strong Support'''&mdash; I think that he would make a very good administrator. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5 color=turqoise>'''
Given my micro-hagiography of him on my user page, I can but '''strongly support'''.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; he'd make a great admin.
'''Support'''.  I've only seen him make good edits, and I'll support in light of his reasonable responses to the objections listed below.  --
'''Support'''. Already an admin on fr:, which sort of invalidates most of the gloomy arguments against him; recipient of the [[User:Rama/Nemo of honour|Nemo of honour]], which hopefully indicates that he is helpful.
'''Support'''. I definitely trust the guy for this kind of job and ''not'' cause he's also on fr:.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - based on his track record on enwiki I sincerely believe he would not abuse a position of privilege.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support.''' Excellent work, and a cool temper.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' - Accuse me of stereotyping if you must, but I feel that his links with the GNAA are of some concern. While I almost hate to suggest it; he could be open to peer pressure from the group once he's "in", so to speak. This is not a personal attack; this is me stating that I'm concerned. Even the nicest people can sometimes succumb to peer pressure. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
'''Oppose''' Friend of trolls, admits to trolling (''I find goatse a lot less shocking than many other subjects; from a purely sociological point of view it's interesting to see reactions'') per [[User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar]].
Silsor's IRC logs, coupled with Sam's longtime insistence on having an unlabeled goatse link on his userpage, do not inspire confidence. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' I don't like judging people based on their friends, but for the best of the community, I might have to. How easy it would be for GNAA to peer pressure their admin friend into trolling. <b><font color=228B22>
'''Oppose''', not big on the GNAA stuff. --
'''Oppose'''.  I believe this user is too quick to side with blocked users, and after a lengthy and unpleasant experience with another user who became an admin and then unblocked essentially all users blocked based on admin judgement, I feel I must oppose.
His relationship with vandals from the [[Gay Nigger Association of America|GNAA]] worries me. Even so, I've vowed never to vote oppose, so I'm stuck with neutral. I won't be reading this page, so feel free to spin away. &mdash; <small>
Eh, I'd love to support, but I'm stuck 'cause of GNAA. There's a warning bell going off in a small part of my head, and even though I'm sure there will be no problems, I can't vote support at this time.
<s>Does good work generally, but set up a [[User:Silsor/Sam Hocevar|fake RFC]] on me with a troll (fake as in appearing real, but really made just to troll me).  I don't know whether he'd abuse it or not, so neutral</s>.
<s>'''Support'''. Meets my guidelines. Thought he was one until I saw his username atop the list of non-admins with many edits.</s> <s>Vote changed to '''Neutral''' pending an explanation of the events brought up by Silsor.</s> Not that there's a whole lot of difference between Neutral and '''Abstain''', but I'll change my vote anyway. Based on some odd behavior displayed here, I will just sit this one out. <font color="green">
I have to confess that I am concerned here. Obviously, a lot of great spelling/syntax [[Special:Contributions/Sam Hocevar|work]], (which, based on edit times, I suspect may be at least partially script-assisted), but Sam's ''connections'' to (and perhaps even ''admiration'' of) the GNAA seem quite real, and a number of his non-spelling related edits are worrisome, such as where he reverted [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JacksonBrown&diff=prev&oldid=18730376 here], and where he had this [http://zoy.org/~sam/hello.jpg link] to a "furry" image on his user page, (indeed, he has place a number of not-clearly-marked links within pages in his own namespace that don't seem entirely appropriate to me, even if he was demonstrating what he called a "proof of concept"). I also don't see many edits in the Wikipedia namespace, outside of things like [[Wikipedia:Chess championship]]. In short, I'm not sure that he has what I think of as the appropriate qualifications for adminship on .en.
I am extremely uncomfortable about supporting the adminship of someone with such a close connection to the [[Gay Nigger Association of America|GNAA]].  Additionally, if the examples Silsor cites had been more recent, this would be a strong oppose vote, because trolling is completely unacceptable for someone who represents Wikipedia as a sysop.  However, ten months is a relatively long time (on the internet at least), so I'm '''neutral'''. --
per abbove.
'''Neutral''', any link to GNAA at all worries me.  <font color="red">
<s>'''Support'''. I'd prefer candidates to have 24,000 article space edits, but I guess I can make an exception here. ;) [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 11:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)</s>'''Neutral'''. I can't support due to the GNAA links.
Swithced to '''Neutral'''. It looks like you'll be fine without my support anyway. -
<s>'''Support''', I have been seeing positive contributions from this editor for a long time, and it is of my belief that he will make good use of sysop rights. However, his links to the GNAA do not please me much. I am assuming, though, that this will never come into the way of his judgment, thus I vote Support. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Abstain''', but I will be clear in stating that it has been made clear to all that [[User:Silsor]] is the troll himself here. The information he brought to this request for adminship should be ultimately regarded as [[flamebait]]. Thus, for all purposes, I abstain not out of trust for Hocevar, whom has been upfront about the issue and has proven to have essentialy positive intentions, but as a partial crictic to his connections to the GNAA. Said group, despite whatever relative merits might have in Hocevar's view, have been known Wikipedia trolls. I hope this nomination passes - as it surely will - and that Hocevar joins the Wikipedia team of admins, as it is only fair. --
'''Support'''. Rick said it: shoo-in.
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. --
'''Shoo!''', I mean shoo-in! Shows many positive characteristics of an admin, such as a desire to perform behind-the-scenes janitorial work. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Support'''. per nom. --<small>
'''Support''' in appreciation of his contributions.
Yes!  --
'''Duh''' --
'''Support'''. Contributions look very impressive. --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Reasonable, rational, and did not ask for it, which should be a prerequisite for obvious reasons.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Valuable editor. -
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' good editor, will be good admin --
--
'''Support''' Grand fellow, with good janitorial background.
'''Support''', good editor. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''.  Will be a great admin --
'''Support''' Edits look fine.--
'''Support''' Every thing looks to be in order to me.
'''Support''' -
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' - a discerning and cooperative editor.
'''Strong Support''' - A great choice for an admin! Love the coop, love the grunt work, love the edits.
'''Support''' - Like his work, like his style. ++
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' --
'''I trust Rick implicitly.''' --
'''Where Essjay leads me, I shall follow''' (with limitations of course). -[[User:Mysekurity|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Support.''' I'll be the first to stick my name here; I've run across Sango123 on welcome detail and I think the  work speaks for itself. --
'''Support''' Excelent welcomer and could use admin powers.
'''Support''' User fits my admin criteria.
'''Support''' &mdash; Sango123 is not only a great artist (both in Barnstars and [[WP:MIND]]), but also a great [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]] who would make a great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
Definite '''support'''. I've noticed Sango's name all over the place this week - including cleaning up my mistakes...
'''Support.''' Since I'm a somewhat new user (used and occasionally edited wikipedia when I was anonymous), I needed (and still do need) help. Sango gave me that help.
'''Support'''.  <s>He</s> She handled the [[Devadasi]] situation very well, appears to be a friendly, civil editor, has sufficient experience, and edits significantly across several namespaces.  Plus, that prism picture <s>he</s> she added as a logo for [[WP:MIND]] was so good, I had to vote for it even though I didn't know that page even existed! --
'''Support'''. Absolutely. Sango has shown familiarity with Wikipedia procedures, and puts in a lot of work for image-related projects (especially Barnstars). --
'''Support'''. Very welcoming, very helpful, seems to have a lot of presence around the site and I'm sure she'll use her admin powers to great positive effect. Keep up the good work!
This user has been contributing for only three and a half months.  But when I looked through her talk page, I saw that this user treats newcomers to Wikipedia with profound respect, and she appears to have amassed quite a bit of trust from the community.  She also appears to enjoy improving other users' talk pages.  So I will abandon my nine-month threshold for this vote, and '''support''' this user's application for adminship. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
What the... Denelson voted for you despite that I do all those things (mild jealousy :P) Anyways, this user is amazingly courteous and I don't understand why she's self nominating I mean I'm sure many people would've nominated her. Ah well, this user is funny, nice, and all around a great person. Sincerely,
'''Whole-hearted support''' There is nothing that I have found with Sango that I do not like. A great editor, and Wikipedia will benefit with a mop in her hands.
I hear nothing but good things about Sango. She is very great when drawing images for the Barnstars and she has been a welcome addition to the [[WP:BAP]] since she first started drawing for us. '''Unconditional support.'''
'''Support.''' Sango123 is willing, capable, eager, helpful, knowledgeable, courteous, personable, assertive, and excited about this ongoing project. If Sango123 wants to volunteer, I am confident this community will benefit from Sango123's efforts.
'''Sure'''.  3000 or so edits since March, and I haven't heard anyone complain about Sango123&mdash;so she can probably be given the mop and shotgun.
'''Support''', why not. --
<s>'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''!  Sango123 welcomed me within seconds of my first edit, giving me information that helped me clear some of the initial difficult hurdles associated with joining this vast community.  My only regret is that I did not nominate her to this post. <font color="#99000">

'''Support'''. Always proactive and polite.
'''Support'''. I see a consensus building.
{{User:Brian0918/Support}}. --&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
Apparently does not rile easily. --
'''Support''' Very active in [[WP:WC|WC]], [[WP:KC|KC]], et al.
'''Support'''. Baaaa...
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a valuable contribution to Wikipedia!-
'''Support''' for all reasons stated above. -
'''Support''' valuable contributor to wikipedia. <small>
'''Support''' for Sango's full-hearted ambition and hardwork on pulling disputes into concensus and on modifying wiki policies.
'''Support''' a kind, industrious, and diplomatic editor.
'''Support'''. In addition to the above very good reasons, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndroid79&diff=18771530&oldid=18364328 this note] left for me on my talk page about a dispute shows that Sango123 is willing to listen to ''anyone'', including anonymous POV warriors. Should make a great admin. <font color="green">
Sure.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Many positive contributions to the Wiki. --
--
For the reasons above --
'''support''' because he helped me on IRC far more than he needed to.
'''Support''' - he edits a wide variety of articles, and he's a great help on VfD as well. --
'''Support''' seems like a fine user.
'''Support''' friendly editor with a penchant for housekeeping.  :-p
'''Support''' a man that knows what he's doing.--
'''Support'''. I'm impressed by the answers to the standard 3 questions, and to the pretty off-the-wall additional ones. Lack of edits ''might'' be a concern (but I'll take quality over quantity) and his answer to the first neutral vote is tellingly true (as long you as you promise the double-negative was one of the typos!). Does VfD/RC/copyvio and other editing too so has looked around some. -
Unconditional '''support.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''. This user has shown good evidence of commitment to Wikipedia and has made significant contributions throughout the wiki. A pleasant and helpful individual through my experiences on IRC, and through evidence on talk pages. The answers given to the adminship questions below are honest and provide good evidence of this user's intentions to use administrative privileges well. Sasquatch will make an excellent asset to Wikipedia as an admin, I am sure. I wholeheartedly support this user's nomination for adminship. --
'''Support'''. Great user, I've never seen him around actually but looking at his contribs hes good. Plus Brandonfarb below needs to be caged. As long as its not a straw man sock you got my vote ; - )
'''Support'''. As a matter of curiosity, where do you think the sockpuppets in the Oppose column come from? Have you upset someone on the wiki lately or have they just picked someone at random? &mdash;
Wikifever isn't a reason to deny adminship to you, sir.
Support.
Nothing wrong with replying to comments.  --
'''Strong Support''' The trolls and sockpuppets really seem to hate you... which suggests that you're certainly doing something right.  Great work on VfD, strong vandal-fighter, helpful edit summaries.  Damn fine admin material.
'''Support'''. Sasquatch seems like a sensible good contributor, and I find the arguments of the opposition patently unconvincing.
'''Support'''. I don't recall much interation with Sasquatch, which would normally mean my not participating in the vote, but I knew I'd seen the name somewhere recently. I was the admin responsible for the protection and unprotection in the Star Wars credits dispute. I was most impressed by the way Sasquatch managed to get the parties talking and come up with a solution that meant the articles were only protected for a couple of days rather than the month that seems to be the average. Combined with superb answers to the questions below and responses to the oppose/neutral votes I am more than happy to vote in support.
'''Support'''.  Seems to do quite a bit of good work.  I also like that there is someone else working on [[Harry Dean Ainlay|Alberta mayors]].  --
Support.
--
'''Support'''. Good VfD contributor. <font color="green">
'''Support''' - the sockpuppets swung it for me.
'''Support''' I have met Sasquatch a number of times, notably in VfD and I think he would make a very good addition to the Admin team.-
'''Support.''' I've seen Sasquatch around Vfd, and am happy to place my vote here.--
'''Support.''' Sasquatch's work on VfD and vandalism shows he knows his way around the 'pedia and has the admin spirit. -
'''Support'''. Very fine user.

'''Oppose'''.  Not nearly enough edits and most of them are very recent ones, as if the nominee were "ramping up" for his run for admininstratorship.  His comments on this page border on obnoxious.  And why does he have to respond to each and every comment on his nomination?  Seems a bit creepy to me.  Definately NOT the kind of person we need running this system.  Ick!
Would support after seeing more article edits. Seems like a fairly good editor on what's there so far so I wouldn't oppose him.
Review of his edits and talk page shows nothing remiss.  However, only 60 edits in user talk space suggests that this editor doesn't communicate enough with other editors, and especially shows that this editor is likely not warning the vandals s/he reverts.  I'm therefore not comfortable supporting at this time.  (And I want the option to "show contributions" that lets you pick a particular namespace back!)
Perhaps I would support after seeing more edits, over a period of next few months. I wish him all the best.--
For reasons stated above.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp ]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
Looks very promising, but still a bit short on user interaction.  Keep up the solid work, and I'll support the next RFA for sure.
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor but I would prefer more contributions in the talk, user talk, and Wikipedia talk namespaces.
moved to '''neutral'''. I meet Sasquatch quite often last days and don't want to discourage him. I would still prefere RFA say month from now. <s>'''Oppose'''</s>: the edits I checked are OK but vast majority of them were done during last 6 weeks. This makes me bit uneasy to make a judgement (hence oppose). Thanks for helping with dealing with vandals.
'''oppose'''.  Seems, to me anyway, to take too much of a 'hands on' and personal approach to problems better solved with deliberation and reflection.
'''Oppose'''.  Not nearly enough of a verfiable edit history.  Most edits are minor and of little consequence.  Besides, this user seems to bring out a tremendous amount of ill-will towards him (see above comments).  For these reasons I must oppose.
'''Oppose'''.  I suspect Sasquatch himself is the one behind the "sockpuppets" opposing him, in order to create controversy and inflate his repuation as one who is disliked by sockpuppets (and therefore must be "doing something right.")  Sadly, this underhanded tactic seems to be working . . . (see above).
<s>'''Oppose'''.  Seems like he has a hidden agenda of some kind, ya know?
'''Beating-the-nominator-to-it support''', deserves it. '''<font color="aqua">
'''Support''', as nominator. :)
'''Support''', as neither nominator, nor beating-nominator-to-it regular voter.
'''Support''' --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' as neither nominator nor beating-nominator-to-it voter nor witty third voter nor fourth voter with a polychrome signature. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' -- SCEhardt has made a lot of valuable contributions, especially in the area of images. Coffee beat me to nominating him. :)
'''Support''' we need more people who have the power of delete to clear the backlog of no source images. SCEhardt has shown himself to be capable of this task. I have little fear he will abuse it. &nbsp;
'''Support'''

'''Support''' he does indeed seem trustworthy for admin tools.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' Good image work --
'''Support''' Will be a good addition to the admin ranks --

'''Support''' Great contributions.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''. --
Customary first vote as nominator. :)
'''Support''', without a doubt.  A superb contributor, smart and level-headed, and apt to be an equally superb admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', a courteous, sensible Wikipedian. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. I believe you are ready for the responsibilities of administrator.
'''Support'''. Has done excellent things for the classical music section of Wikipedia; I expect he'll use adminship wisely and well.
'''Support'''. --
Wow, Schissel, you do get around. Enthusiastically '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Worthy contributions to the field of music. --
'''Support''', same reasons as Mindspillage.
--
'''Strong Support''' OMG! I'm the first vote! Very well written answers.
'''Support''' - good editor, active on VfD, has a good grasp of policy.-
'''Support''', a fine editor. He has not been on the project for a long time, but this is a good situation for assuming good faith, it seems. --
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. I really like people who have well-written answers. --
'''Strong support''' for an editor that I would have nominated had I realised his desire. In my experience Jonathan has been good-humoured, sympathetic, intelligent and methodical.  I cannot  think of any way in which he could be better qualified to wield a mop (although I think he might have trouble if he gets his fur in the bucket). &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support absolutely'''. -
'''Mega Ultra Strong Support''' I know this has been said before many a time, but I seriously thought he already was one... if I didn't, I would have nominated him myself!
'''Strong Support''', is an excellent wikipedian, always good work. Also I'd say that his edits, not the time speak for themselves.
'''Support''', no reason to believe he would misuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. ''' ''
'''Support''': I've had disagreements with Scimitar before and been impressed at how placid he has been and how interested to find out the options and work within the structures.  He ''is'' still somewhat new, especially by the elephantine standards of some of us, but a good pick, and he's been very active in his time on project.
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support''' good answers. Seems honest, straightforward. Good luck!
'''Support'''! Scimitar is really active on Wikipedia VfD's and other community activities, which is a sign that he knows Wikipedia policies pretty well and shows himself as a friendly Wikipedian. He also does a lot of much-needed work and helps out a lot. Scimitar will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Good contributions, lots of VfD work, and great answers.
'''Support'''. I've been quite impressed where I've seen him at work. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Lomn|Lomn]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<small>[[User Talk:Lomn|Talk]]&nbsp;/&nbsp;

'''Full support'''. Excellent WPn, 1300 articlespace edits, 1200 WPspace edits, one featured article, participates in sysop-related activites including RC and NP patrol, good participation in VfD with a display of good sense and an understanding of policy, is not "stupid or insane." Unconscionable if he didn't get the keys/mop/broom/other clichéd trope.—
'''Good idea'''.
'''Support'''. A very friendly and active user who has a firm understanding of Wikipedia.
'''Support''' - for all the reasons stated above --
'''Support''' - Will be a fine admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. His patience in trying to deal with [[User:Maoririder]] is exemplary.
'''Support'''. Good humoured and tolerant user.
'''Support'''. Good editor. <font color="green">
'''Support''', will make an excellent admin.
'''Support''' fits admin criteria on my userpage.
'''Suppor''' Change from Oppose to Support after more detailed review of user.
'''Support'''. Sure. --
'''Strongest possible support!'''  OMG, why didn't someone tell me Scimitar was up for an adminship? -
'''Full support'''. Strong editor, helpful, and willing to get his hands dirty. Full support. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
You're 19 and you're not alcoholic, huh? Oppose, then! Only alcoholics can be admins. <small>(Sorry, the apparent non-sequitur on Scimitar's user page amused me. Support, if you haven't figured it out.)</small>

'''Support.''' --
'''Support'''. ''Time in service'' at Wikipedia is usually a very important consideration of mine, as I believe one needs a lot of exposure to really know how things work around here, (actually, I ''still'' don't know how things work around here), but I'm going to make an exception for Scimitar's good edits.
Good chap.  He's been around just about long enough. --
'''Support''' Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. I just don't get the "not enough" reasoning. Not enough against some magic number? It's well enough to make a judgement how good an admin would come out. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Yeah I'm happy with that. Enough time and edits to show trustworthiness. That's all that's needed for me, not edit counts and time limits. -
'''Support''', you'll make a fine admin. -
'''[[:Image:Kool-AidMan.jpg|Oh Yeaahh!]]'''
'''Support'''.  I shouldn't let this one get by without my vote, especially considering the very rapid growth in maturity as noted by the candidate answer to questions #3 & 4.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough time.
'''Oppose''' per Variable and Astrotrain.
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
--
Seems a responsible and calming editor, although I prefer as admins those who do more writing. I like the willingness to explain reverts on talk pages.
Support.
'''Support''' Seems like a legit user who has a huge potential.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. Definitely. I've seen Scott do quite a bit of janitorial work, and the proverbial mop and bucket would be an aid. I'm not too concerned about the ''oppose'' votes below: it looks like he's modified his signature and while I think that working on a featured article is a good sign for potential administrators, I don't feel that not working on one is a point against them. —
Relatively few edits, but what is there is good enough.
Great user. --

'''Support'''.  Another name I'm familiar with from his janitorial work.  His true edit count is certainly much higher than listed (dedicated New Page patrollers always have skewed edit counts due to marking nonsense for deletion).  Seems calm, personable and knowledgeable of WP policies.  To his credit, he prominently includes a declaration of bias on his user page, but maintains NPOV edits.
Support. Same reasons as SWAdair above. The comment for ABCD few items up applies as well.
Seems good enough to me.
A little short on edits in [[User:Netoholic/Admins|my view]].  Dislike that he [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Things to avoid|transcludes his signature]] (a burden to server resources).  Would give the benefit of the doubt, but we don't yet have an [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|appropriate process for removing adminship]] in case he's not ready.  His work so far seems good, so maybe in a month or two. --
As far as I can see, does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
'''Strong Support''' as nominator.--
'''Strong Support''' as seconder(!)--
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' because there's a mini-blizzard.
Mop-itize this guy.  --
'''Support'''. oh, and Merovingian, where are the colors? I miss them :)
'''Support''' About time we had another southern-hemisphere interested admin--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''', as per nomination.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' as per sitting in my chair and seeing that this person should be an admin.
'''Support''' -- a very worthy consideration for adminship. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Looks good.
'''Support''' a level headed editor, should make a good admin.--
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support.'''
'''Support'''.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
More than happy to '''Support'''.  He has been an active contributor to Australian articles. --
'''Support''' --

'''Support''' - I think Scott Davis would be a fair and objective administrator (if he wants to take on the role). -
'''Support''' from across the Tasman. another goody.
'''Support''' - shameless piling on! :-D
'''Support''' fellow vandal buster! Give him the keys to the janitor's cupboard.
'''Support''' Good man. Cheers, -
'''Support''' - Of course!
'''Support''' sounds good to me.
'''Support''' as per CyberJ's nomination. --
'''Support''' as per nomination.
'''Support''' I've seen nothing but good works. --
'''Support''' Fine candidate, will make a good admin.
'''Support'''. See no reason for concern here.
'''Support'''. I've witnessed ScottDavis' rise to glory over the past year or so and his contribution to Australia related content is awesome. He displays leadership characteristics in his discussions, which evolves Wikipedia postively by inspiring those around him. An inspirational candidate. --
'''Support'''. Dedicated and responsible.
'''Support'''. I've found him to be a very level-headed editor. Also the more Aussie Admins the better! –
'''Support''', not so much a case of "thought he was one" as "want to know why on Earth he isn't one, are you people asleep at the wheel?" --
'''Support'''. What he said.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Edit conflict and timeouts Support'''. Grr.

'''Support'''. [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support'''. After reviewing his contribution log and reading his answers to the questions I can support without any reservations. -
'''Neutral'''. The thing about watchlist-reverters is that they tend to miss the more obscure instances of vandalism. -
'''Support.''' (First!) SCZenz was a terrific editor during [[ATLAS experiment]]'s FAC; I've seen him now-and-again since, and have always been impressed. &mdash;
'''Support.''' (Second!) I know about SCZenz edits as I also contribute to physics articles. From what I've seen I think that he is able to act in a neutral way and diffuse conflicts. I'm certainly not supporting him just because he is a physicist. I would, e.g., never support [[User:lumidek]] for this position because of his frequent conflicts here.
'''Support.''' In my experience pleasant to deal with, good communicative skills, and certainly knowledgeable about physics.
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''  A fine editor to work with who really put a lot of effort into his FAC.  (And I enjoyed the [[Oops-Leon]].)  &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''', why not. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''; excellent contributor, likely to be a fine admin.
'''Support''', Looks good, I'd trust him with the extra functionality! ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support.'''
'''support'''

'''Support''' - I've interacted with this candidate on various occasions.  Has been civil and rational, even when dealing with unsavoury characters. -
'''Support''' Excellent, reasonable editor.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good work so far. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - Very Good User... don't know if I still can vote though, but if I can, then SUPPORT. --
I've seen Seabhcan at work on numerous occasions, and I never noticed anything that would make him unworthy of adminship.  '''Support'''.&mdash;
Seabhcan has been an excellent and worthy contributor to Irish articles & has been great to work with. '''Support''' -
'''Support''' From what I've seen, he's been an active contributor and pretty much controversy free -
'''Cool'''.
'''Support'''. Keeps his nose clean, and has been around for ages so we know he's trustworthy. Even if he can't think of specific admin tasks he'd tackle right now (question A), I see no reason not to give him the tools even if they're only used on an ad-hoc basis. -
'''Support'''. A great editor  who deserves the no big deal title of admin for his work on Irish matters alone. The humour apparent in his responses to the generic questions reflects his ability to deal with stress well.
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''.  Adminship should be no big deal.  Even if he rarely uses admin powers, it wouldn't hurt for him to have them.  It's not as though they're rationed.
'''Support'''. I don't see why not.
'''Weak support'''. I'd be more enthusiastic about this adminship if Seabhcan was, but he seems solid enough.-
'''Support'''. Level-headed user, doesn't stir up controversy, useful contributions on Irish topics.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. A review of some edits, user page, and talk page all look good. Seems like someone who works well with others. Should be no big deal in this case.
'''Support'''.  Far less qualified candidates on this page are getting twice as much support.  I can't find a good reason not to support this candidate.

'''Support'''.  No big deal.   --
'''Support'''.  He seems quite qualified for adminship.
'''Support'''. Actions speak louder than words. His actions speak of admin-worthy material.
'''Support'''. I don't know Seabhcan, but an apparent good record and a lack of problematic edits would lead me to think he/she could certainly be trusted with adminship. -
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. He/She is a good editor, and deserves my support. --
'''Weak oppose.''' A long-time contributor with many edits, with a pretty clean history (going by user talk history). However, lack of activity in the Wikipedia namespace and non-answer reply to question 1 suggest a lack of interest in admin duties. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
'''Weak oppose'''. I agree with Gwalla's comments, and feel that while you fulfil the requirements experience-wise for adminship. However, users should not become admins just because they feel they've gotten to a stage where they need to be seen as a sysop. If you want to be an admin, convince us!
Currently, your comments and your answers below do not quite convincingly explain to me why you should be promoted now and how you would help Wikipedia using the admin tools. Please elaborate more.
'''Weak Neutral'''. Can you answer question 1 a little bit more thoroughly? I can't give you an honest answer if I don't know why you want admin powers. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Neutral'''. A, to be honest, ridiculous answer to question 1 needs to be fixed before I can decide.
'''Neutral''', the replies to the standard answers seem to imply some lack of motivation. I think it's also appropriate to read up on what admin powers are before applying for them. (They don't have anything to do with slapping on delete templates, for instance.) Politeness is important for admins, IMO—well, let's say striving for politeness is, at least—and it's not polite to the community to reply nonchalantly.
'''Neutral''' Although his contributions show  his work is strong, they also show reduced activity outside of the article space. Combined with minimal answers to the "generic questions", this makes me wonder what the candidate will do of his adminship.
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' A productive and fair editor.--
'''Support''' good overall work, would like to see them with admin tools. <font color="#9999ff">[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
Yes. <font color="red">
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. [[Andross]]' enemy is ''[[List of minor characters in the Star Fox series#Andrew Oikonny|my]]'' enemy...uh, Red's friend is my friend... (Plus, I've seen you around and think you'll do just fine). -[[m:Wikimania 2006|<font color="black">Mys</font>]][[WP:ESP|'''''<font color="green">e</font>''''']]
'''Support''' and happy to do it! &ndash;
'''Support''' Solid user, trustworthy.
'''Support''' Per all of the above. He deserves the mop. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' from slasher moviez lover. -
'''Support''' I coulda sworn he '''was''' one!
'''Strong Suppoer''' Great user, trust the nominator. -
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support.''' Good luck, mate.
'''Support'''.  Good active vandalism fighter.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' great work on several horror film articles.
'''Support''' looks good and, of course, I've been brainwashed by [[User:Redwolf24]].
'''Support'''. Calm and rational. &mdash;
'''Support''' as a fellow troll. &mdash;
'''Support'''. All my personal interactions with him have been positive, his answers below make me believe he'll use the admin toolbox responsibly and we need more admins. It's an open and shut case. -
'''Support'''; this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
Yup.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Blimey I haven't stated it already.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' per nom.
--
This user will never, ever be an admin while I'm here. I guess I'll just leave then '''Support'''.
'''Support''' cool person (or so it seems ;) --
'''Support''', good record, will be a good match for the job. -
'''Support'''.  A fine fellow, deserving of the office. —
'''Support''' Lookin' good ;] --
'''Hayupp'''. A ''little'' low on the article-space edits, but editcount ain't everything, so everyone keeps saying. Has shown good skills since he's been here, so I'll add my scrawled X in the plus column.

'''Support''' - no objections from me. --
'''Support'''. Should handle admin duties with aplom. --
'''Support'''. I've seen him in action; he'd make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Per nom. Good record--
'''Yes'''. Exceptional newcomer, an asset to Wikipedia. -
'''Support''', I would have nominated him if I had know he wasn't a member of the [[Wikipedia:Revert|mop]] and [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|flamethrower]] [[Wikipedia:Administrator|federation]].
'''Support''' - I thought he was an admin already O_o
'''Support''': --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.per nomination.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Well I was going to vote oppose but it seems he reached 2,000 edits...'''Support!''' (just in case you didn't know I was kidding about the 2,000 mark thing)
'''Support'''. --
'''Boothy443''' err yeah whatever :) (No one should go unopposed) &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Sometimes passionate but very reasonable to deal with.
'''Support'''. Don't always agree with his POV, but seems very reasonable to deal with, and unlikely to abuse admin privileges.
'''Support''', not only a talented editor, but also a natural born leader. I've seen him organize very interesting initiatives by himself, like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina]]. <font color="green">
'''Support'''
'''[[Soup|Supp]]ort
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. there can't be enough. and I think he is a good guy :-)  --
'''Support''' I've come across him on the [[Falkland Islands]] page, and his edits relating to that subject have impressed me. He seems reasonable, considerate and (from what I've seen so far) a really nice guy.
'''Support'''. Is the kind of person that wouldn't abuse of the Admin status.
'''Support'''- friendly user, with good approach to editing.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Friendly, no-nonsense guy. Number of edits is just a matter of time. --
'''Support'''. Displays great leadership in the Argentine group.  --
'''Support''', Friendly user!!!
'''Support''', very polite and at the same time objective, has kept his cool even when others haven't, knowledgeable in the areas of his interest, etc., etc., etc. --
'''Support''', I never ran into the guy however I am very impressed with his style after checking him out.

'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''',
'''Support''', I've been impressed w/his edits and reasonable interactions w/users on contentious pages. --
Support: --
'''Oppose''' 4 months and 1374 edits is not enough. I am sure that eventually, he will make a good admin--
'''Oppose''' per Rogerd.
'''Oppose''', nothing personal, but four months is just a little less than I feel is needed to really evaluate.

A careful and productive editor as well as a good member of the community. -
I've seen his edits on some topics I keep an eye on, and they've always seemed good to me.
Support.
This should be no big deal.
Support.  I was impressed recently with his balanced and temperate response to some very unpleasant personal insults.] in response to what seemed to me to be impeccable editing.
Support. Absolutely.


Support. My experience with Sessel edits is quite good. I don't think the ''issue'' (see comments bellow) over lists of dictarors and fathers of nations is much of importance in voting here - I am glad Sesel took care and the problem is general.


Support, in line with my position that admin status should be easy to obtain, and rather quickly withdrawn with zero tolerance of any abuse for personal reasons rather than use in the service of the community.  Based on his editing tastes, Sesel appears to likely to increase admin coverage in some of the more obscure nether regions of wikipedia.--


Support.
Support.  I've seen quite a lot of this user around the place.  As his political opposite, I kept an eye on him for quite a while to watch for POV, but he passed that test with flying colours.  He does a ''very'' good job of keeping his opinions out of his edits, and I am prepared to trust him fully with the keys. By the way, I would have nominated him myself had I realized he wasn't already an admin.
Great editing record. And I like the [[Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_Strike_Back#List_of_Disneyworlds_in_Andorra|List of Disneyworlds in Andorra]].
Does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
I have very negative experiences of Sesel. I see him as someone who prefers to engage in edit wars rather than discussion on the talk page, which is very inappropriate for an admin. I haven't found the few edits I've seen have given me faith either in his ability as an encyclopedia writer or as someone into NPOV. He put an external link, is to give a bad link which the reader then has to find the 2 connecting links, ploughing through SOAB watch, in order to eventually find the tiniest of paragraphs stuck at the bottom of a page. It felt like he was advertising SOAB watch to me; perhaps he is different when not dealing with [[El Salvador|El Salvadorean]] politicians?  --
Oppose. He didn't respond to the matter Squeakbox raised at Roberto D'Aubuisson, and although it may be a minor issue responsiveness and accepting responsibility for one's actions are key attributes in an admin. --
'''Support''' user has a crazy large edit count and seems to be doing everything in their power to make wiki better... &nbsp;
'''Support''' - I'd trust [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]]'s nod even if I didn't happen to know that [[User:Sfoskett|Sfoskett]] has all the ingredients of a positive admin force for Wikipedia.
'''Support'''.  Stephen's modesty is really something to admire.
'''Support''' deserves the recognition
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' - giving admin powers to someone who will barely use them isn't a problem; we should be concerned only if they'll use them inproperly.  15000 solid edits tell me that he won't.--
'''Support''' - he has made a very solid contribution to Wiki and it appears that admin powers will only assist him to continue to make a contribution. --


'''Support''' The answers to the first question are reasonable and show honesty and sincerity. Has a huge track record of solid contributions and whenever he breaks away from adding content to this Encyclopedia and performs some admin duties we'll be the better for it.
'''Support'''.  We're much better off having a careful and honest admin than someone who feels they have something to prove.
'''Support''' So what if this nominee isn't planning on hanging around [[WP:AfD]].
'''Strong Support''' we need as many trusted, experienced users to be admins as possible, even if they don't use it much.  If in his normal article editing, he sees something that needs an admin, he will already be there with the power --
'''Strong support, with milk''' Dear god, we should be ashamed of ourselves, not having given this guy adminship before! Who cares if he spends hours vandalhunting, if he blocks one vandal a month, that's one user left the rest of you guys need to deal with.
On one hand, why give him admin privileges if he won't use them? On the other hand, why not?
It's better to have a person that we trust being an admin just in case. We don't "need" vandal fighting admins (though it is a great help) but that's not all adminship is about. The spirit of adminship (IMO) is that the community trusts you enough to give you extra power to help deal with situations that might require them. Hell, the more admins we can trust, the better. '''
'''Support'''. I do symphatize with his position on the use of admin powers. --
'''Support''' Better to underuse admin powers than to abuse them.
'''Support'''.  User has over 15,000 edits and the only complaints, as I far as I can see, are that he feels like he can make most of his contributions to Wikipedia without additional powers, which I feel that most users should be able to do. If the User finds his admin powers useful when dealing with vandalism on some of the many articles on which he works, then it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to give him the extra powers, even if he is not required to use them often.--
Can definitely be trusted with admin-tools.
'''Support''' - It is amazing to see that we have a number of volunteer administrators who essentially work "full time" on this project. Sometimes it is nice to have more administrators who can dedicate that sort of time and energy to the project. However, we have to remember that we are primarily promoting users who are trustworthy, who can be ambassadors for the community, and who can help out whenever they can at their leisure. 17,000 edits is a tremendous amount of dedication to the project. This user is a thoroughly competent and trustworthy Wikipedian, and there is no reason to suspect that any of the administrative functions if given would be misused. This is a user who is exceptionally observant, and would clean up after the dangling ends we may occasionally miss or forget sometimes. For example, it could be things like adding missing protection tags to pages, deleting unsourced pictures, fixing page histories, and processing requested moves. --
'''Support''' Seems like a very reasonable candidate, I'm not concerned about not using admin powers often.
'''Support'''. Obviously. If he only seldomly blocks and protects, then so what? As already said, better underused than abused. He is trustworthy, period.
'''Support''', though please do keep in mind what Mendel said in his vote.  While normally I'm not likely to support users with few WP: namespace edits, his edit count is impressive, and being active here for 17 months and >17000 edits shows tremendous dedication to this project. --
'''Support'''; good lord.  Not doing a ton with the tools doesn't mean that they don't deserve them.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''. If six oppose voters haven't yet managed to come up with a good reason for opposing, it's safe to say there isn't one.
'''Support''' Per IRC cabal --
'''Support'''.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' although I don't know 'em. <font color=#7fffd4>
'''Support'''. No convincing reason was given to oppose. Admins have access to some tools, they are not obligated to use them. Let's see if there are any good reasons to support..., plenty of good work, has demonstrated trustworthiness and has a great amount of experience.
'''Support''', thought he already was one and I want to cancel out one of the oppose votes.
'''Support''', per Chris Parham, Sjakkalle and Happy's comments. I am particularly mystified by suggestions that his recent break should in any way be counted against him—the guy has made 17,000 non-harmful edits, and in my book he's perfectly entitled to take a break for personal reasons momentarily. The only possible area of concern is his extremely limited participation in the WP namespace, involvement in which often indicates interest and familiarity with the workings of WP and related policy matters which are important for admins. However his positive attributes and obvious good sense convince me that he'll spend the necessary time to learn up these things before employing any new buttons he might receive.
'''Support''' - the desire not to use the admin powers once gained doesn't bother me, after all adminship is not supposed to be a big deal --
'''Support'''. I didn't express interest in using admin powers much either in my RfA, but ended up using them rather extensively. We need all the help we can get, and if the powers are used seldom, nothing was lost.
'''Support'''. I actually thought Sfoskett was an admin from when I first came here, but now that I've seen that he isn't a mod and has made a large number of edits, I support him. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Using the admin tools appropriately ''once in a while'' is better than not at all, right?
'''Support'''. He deserves the tools whether he uses them as much as others or not. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Just because someone won't be a terribly active admin doesn't mean they shouldn't have the powers.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Giving more people more tools to make this place better can only make this place better, even if those tools aren't used all that often by a particular person.  There is no harm in less-active admins.
'''Support''' - using them occasionally is enough. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per Durin's comments. Plus, I dont think that I can support someone who isnt necessarily desirious of sysop powers; we need more active admins. You ''can'' decline the nomination until you feel you are ready.
'''Oppose''', sorry I've changed my vote. I guess I didn't read clearly since I just saw "I accept this nomination, somewhat reluctantly.  I did not seek admin rights, and will not use them much, but would appreciate them.", we don't need admins that will barely use admin powers. Admins are needed to be active and stop trolls, vandals, etc.
--
'''Oppose''' based on the bizarre answer to question 1.
'''Oppose''', no offense to the editor, but if you're not going to use the powers "much at all" then I don't see a point or a reason to give them to you at all. Good editor to be sure, but why should we bother here? It's like telling the coach of a basketball team that you'll play, but if the ball is passed to you, you might not shoot it.
'''Respectful oppose'''. Awesome contributor, but why force adminship on someone more interested in making the encyclopedia better than defending it from vandals and such? -
On one hand I'm not sure that a less-active admin wouldn't still improve Wikipedia, but I'd be concerned that without actively adminning it would be easy to miss out on best practices and policy refinements. &mdash;
'''Support''' edit history looks trustworthy enough to support.--
'''Support''' Looks to be more than capable.
'''Support'''. Need more vandal fighters. --
Would be a good help. <font color="darkred">
Good vandal fighter.  --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>

--
'''Support'''
'''Very strong support''' --
'''Support''' - No changes made to my prior vote [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shanel|around 2 months ago]]. ''I see Shanel very active with her ''mop'' w/o injuring or leaving any wet liquid on the floor or any victim behind her. Applies WP rules gently!'' --
'''Support''' Good job fighting vandals, ability to block and rollback would be VERY helpful.
I saw you on fr: :)
'''Support'''; good work; at first I even confused her with [[User:Shanes|Shanes]].
'''support''' as her nominator last time --
'''Support''' Great candidate for admin -
'''Support''' Nice range of activity, great example for other potential nominees.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.Good history and can use the extra tools.--
Straightforward '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' Strong vandal-fighter/fastidious record.
'''Support''', excellent vandal-whacker.
'''Support''', a few teething errors easily outweighed by demonstrated involvement and commitment to the project.--
'''Support''',
'''Support'''. '''
'''East Support''' great editor will be great admin.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. A look at her contribs shows lots of welcoming new users, reverting vandalism, and the like.  Always friendly in all discussion I looked at.
'''Support''' Sounds like a good vandal fighter. --
'''S'''upport.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Good vandal fighter. --
'''Strong Bandwaggoning Support''' will use the tools well... --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
Levelheaded and trustworthy.
'''Oppose''' - total newbie.  Wait a bit longer.
'''Neutal'''. I am wondering why she has 600 deleted edits. That's not necessarily a good thing. Has she been writing bad articles that get deleted, or has she been doing AFD noms and tagging articles as CSDs? -

Yes, yes I'm very familiar with his RC work.  He could certainly make use of that rollback button. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (AJ)'' </font><sup>(
Excellent choice for admin.  I'm particularly impressed with his cool-headedness in dealing with vandals and trolls.
'''Support'''-
'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Shanes&limit=500&offset=0 Support]'''.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' with both hands. Thanks for dealing with vandals.
'''Support'''.  Apparently humble and mopworthy. --
Shanes has done excellent work dealing with vandals and trolls. But he does not have access to the admin Rollback feature that would help him even more.
'''Support'''
Support.
Support.
'''Support''': does good work that would be much-aided by admin abilities, and I look favorably on anyone who deals regularly with reverting vandalism and still believes in treating newcomers kindly and patiently. (OK, I approve of the Erd&#337;s number bit and the not waking up early, too, but that doesn't influence my decision here. :-))

'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. A good all-round contributor.
'''Support''', not reason not to. --
'''Support''' for reasons listed above.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' I like your atitude and I respect the opinion of some of your supporters.  Good luck.
My rare appearance in this page as Im usually working writing articles. 27 edits in a span of about eight hours says it all. Likes to be nice to newcomers, something that a lot of wikipedians werent to me three years ago, with the exceptionof a few like [[User:Maveric149|Mav]]. Loves to revert vandalism. With all that said '''Definite Support''' "
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''. Appears to be an editor who works well with others.
'''Support'''. Great RC patrol work that could definitely benefit from rollback. And good use of edit summaries. &mdash;
''Support''--
Cool.
'''Support'''. Diligent in vandalism control. --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Support.
Support.
Support.
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
Oppose. No offense meant in this at all. i just feel that shanes needs more experience working in and with the community at large. i imagine i would support at a later date.
Oppose. Doesn;t meet the [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]] of Jguk's.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. zOMG feamele1! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Sorry about before. Left the computer sitting too long and it logged out.
'''Support'''.  I first met [[User:Shauri|Shauri]] shortly after seeing [[Spring Heeled Jack]] appear on [[Special:Newpages]].  Since starting that article, she has shown a determination to improving Wikipedia and commitment to working with the community.  Should make a fine admin. --''
'''Sopport''' a contientious editor
'''Support''' no question.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' extremely intelligent and beautiful.
'''Support'''. Although [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]], as usual, brings up good points, but the response was good, and [[Spring Heeled Jack]] is an interesting and informative article.--
'''Support'''- quite frankly, I don't think any of the objections indicate that Shauri will not be a good administrator; while I would like to see more time on the project, her answers to the questions impressed me. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' - extremely talented writer and editor.  I have seen no contentious behaviour that would make me think she would abuse her admin powers.  To the contrary, I think she will use them well for the betterment of the community.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' despite the low count, I can see that valuable contributions come from this editor and see no reason why she'd be different as admin.
'''Support''' great editor. Grace Note's arguments are not convincing at all.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a fine user, most Wikipedians will have periods of time away from the project now and then, so that is not a worry.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I think she is doing good things here.
'''Support''' and great work on Spring-Heeled Jack.  I added some stuff to that awhile back.
'''Support''' I don't see why taking [[Wikipedia:Wikiholiday|wikibreak]]s once in a while means she's untrustworthy.
'''Support'''. Looking at her contribs, this is a great editor. I fail to see why her "jumping right in", so to speak, should be counted against her, even if she was doing it because she wanted adminship. As for her short tenure at Wikipedia, that would normally dissuade me from supporting but this seems an exceptional case. --
'''supporting''' an editor who combines above-average editing skills with above-average community-skills: we need more editors, and more admins, like her.
Yes, please.
'''Support''' , Of the most enthusiastic kind. I admit, I'm biased...but my bias is based on her proven abilities, personality and all around good judgements. All essential qualities for an admin. All of which go far beyond simply how long one has been an active Wikipedian, or sheer volume of edits or articles started. This is a clear case of quality over quantity, and it is my privillage and pleasure to vote '''AYE'''! for quality. --
'''Support''', I'm unfamiliar with Shauri but I find the supportive arguments here far more convincing than the opposing ones.
'''Support''', Well, I've only come across Shauri through seeing her edits, which have impressed me; the [[Spring Heeled Jack]] article was fascinating - I'm sure many people worked on it, but it was her "child". I am also convinced by the argurments used up ^ by supporters who know her. Her edits seem responsible, well thought out and valuable. \m/
'''Support.''' The only important criteria for an admin is trustworthiness in following policies and improving the place. The answers below are impressive, and in comparison the objections are minor. I'd like to see a longer period of consistent activity too, but there is enough to show trustworthiness and that she has the best interests of the project in mind. That should seal it. And a Valenciana? Cool. -
'''Support.''' I don't see why not. :) --
'''Support''' - Great contributor, great communicator. --[[User:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]] 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC) <small>What's really interesting about her edit history is that this is the first RFA where I can actually determine quite readily the "rate of increase of her enthusiasm" on the Wiki. See [[:Image:Shauri.PNG]] for example, although if you wish for an explanation, leave a message on my talk page please. --
'''Support'''. Too many illustrious names above for me to withold a non-illustrious one. In particular, HappyCamper's and Taxman's remarks seal it for me.—
'''Support''' - per [[user:HappyCamper|HappyCamper]]. --
'''Support'''. Breaking my usual practice of not supporting anyone I wasn't previously familiar with for a close nom. It looks as though Shauri has both the familiarity with Wikipedia and the temperament to use adminship well. This should be no big deal.
'''Support'''. Wel rounded editor. Some gaps in participation, but that is not a big deal.
'''Support'''. This user has shown both a commitment to being even-handed and pleasant on Wikipedia, and to the use of communication to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. Despite Oppose comments below, I am confident that this user will make an excellent Wikipedia administrator. --
'''Support''' without hesitation. A good, conscientious, balanced editor, who shows courtesy on the talk pages. Personally, with my Celtic and Anglo-Saxon background, I feel slightly shocked when strangers end their comments with "Hugs" but I suppose that's ''my'' problem, not hers! ;-)
'''Support''' An excellent editor who is very responsive. I support her strongly.
'''Support''' --
&#8212;
Ok, '''support'''. I am not giving any reason as sometimes silence is more musical than music. --
'''Support''' &ndash; I've not seen much of her, but FA writers are rare, and have to really bend their backs at FAC. :)
'''Support''', good editor. I found [[Spring Heeled Jack]] to be a very well-written article. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]

'''Support''' a good contributor.
Support, a nice lady - will be a nice editor. --
'''Support''', clearly.
'''Oppose'''. Looking at her contribs, going back a week or two, there's a flood of votes on VfD, a host of welcoming messages for noobs and loads of edits to her own "workspace". The first looks too much like pumping up her namespace total because some vote against candidates for not editing Wikipedia (something I think is very misguided) and is mostly a bunch of "me too" delete votes from what I can see (which I don't care for because it's my belief that AfD should be a discussion, not a pile-on), the second, well, okay, maybe she was feeling that kind of feeling and the third, well, do it in Notepad, why not? There are also lots of minor edits that are suggestive of an editor who doesn't use the preview button (something many of us, me included, fall foul of from time to time). I don't want to be too critical: she seems okay and it's ''just'' this side of neutral for me.
'''Oppose''' active for one month, then a long hiatus, then very active for another month. Will support after a couple more weeks of activity. (for reference the reason I'm opposing is a combination of the gap and activity, not the lack of activity by itself) <small>
'''Oppose''' Not a lot of edits for someone that has been on wikipedia for such a long time.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]].
'''Oppose''' per Grace Note.
'''Oppose''' as Ryan Norton.  I think you are generally good contributor, but I expect candidates have a couple months of consistent activity preceeding their nomination.  Don't get discouraged though, cause Wikipedia does need people like you, and if you can keep it up for another month or so, I'd probably support you then.
'''Oppose''' too new, too low of an edit count. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''': nothing personal, just a bit too new to really evaluate. I'm sure in a couple of months she'll be a shoo-in.
'''Neutral''': See my prior oppose vote (now cancelled). --
'''Support''' we need more admins doing what he's already demonstrated he wants to do.  Would be good admin.
'''Support''' [[User:Thames|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' A quick check in the contribution log turns up nothing troubling and shows fine use of edit summaries. See no reason to deny tools that will make the user even more effective. -
'''Support'''. Does good work.--
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' only first saw him yesterday, and I liked what I saw. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''', looks like a good user.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Delete''', self-admitted nn candidate.

'''Support''' giving him the mop would only make his work easier.
--
'''Support''' because the voices in my head tell me to.

'''Support'''. Although the oppose votes below have raised valid points, I feel that people often loose touch of the fact that adminship should be "no big deal".  I see only reasons to support and none to oppose.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  As previously stated in [[User:Psy Guy|Psy Guy]]'s RfA, not all Wikipedians are going to be editors or contributers to articles.  Just as a research center needs both the scientists who do the research and the cleaning crew who makes sure that the place looks nice, Wikipedia needs Admins to do article work and Admins to keep things nice and shiny.  This user falls under the category of the latter (and there was no offense intended with my remarks. LOL) --
'''Support''' Edits and their distribution have "janitor" written all over them. Perfect example of someone who would save time and save everyone else time if given the tools.
'''Support''' Enjoyment derived from janitorial tasks and commitment enough to already do so. Thats a reason to support if I ever saw one. -- [[User:The Minister of War|<u><font face="Garamond" color=navy size="2">The Minist</font></u>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<u><font color=green face="Garamond" size="2">e</font></u>]]
'''Support'''. We can '''always''' use more janitors, especially of such a high quality.

'''Support''' good cleaner-upper.
I must '''oppose''' based on response to question 2. User states not much actual editing, I personally feel this is a major point of contention, admins are supposed to lead by example... if all we do is cleanup work this encyclopedia doesnt really go anywhere. You should be familiar with all aspects of wikipedia to be a good admin, that includes FAC as well as AFD. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''. I'm concerned about Sherool having only 85 posts to article talk pages in six months. Admins need more community involvement than that. I'll support in a couple of months time if he does something about that, and as Alkivar said, makes more substantive contributions to articles.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.
'''Oppose''' per Alk and Slim. I note that most of the support-votes are of the regular "sure, why not" kind, and do not address these issues.

'''Support''', seems sensible, level-headed, and able to resolve disagreements peacefully.
Good editor.
Supppppport. ~~ '''
'''''Support!''''' Surprised he wasn't one.--
'''Support'''; concur with nominator. (Indeed, I hadn't realized he wasn't one until the comment about not being able to edit the Main Page.)
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' per above; also, I trust Michael's judgment.  Remember to use edit summaries, though.
'''Support'''. Very fine contributor.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' Good editing, knowledge of WP. Thanks for answering the questions in detail.
'''Support''' because there's an aeroplane on the runway.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', per nominator.
'''Strong Support'''. Great guy, has my trust (Yes, I've been watching from afar). [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --


'''Support.''' He could use a rollback button to help with his mass RvV's. -
'''Support''' fine candidate.
'''Support'''. Admin tools would help vandal fighting, see no reasons for concern.
'''Support''': Lots of time on project, consistent in his work to understand policy and to follow it.
'''Support''' - You mean they're not an admin already?
--
'''Support'''. --
Oh yeah, like a Twix commercial. (That means support.) &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Cheers. &middot;
Looks good. '''Support'''. <font color="red">
DAMNIT THAT WAS MY [[first post]]! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' &ndash; Yup! Done quite a lot of work around.
'''Support''' Good editor and good temperament.--<small>

'''Support'''
'''Support''': Yes I am supporting him. And, I feel guilty – I should have nominated him. Anyway, now, it is ok. The meaning of his name in [[Sanskrit]] and many languages of [[North India]] means ‘the best’, and during my inter-action with him for last several months, I really found him to be one amongst the best. All the best to him. And, may the Force be with Shreshth, now and always! --
'''Support''' Looks like a great cantidate for adminship! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''' I was thinking about nominating him for adminship acually. Good editor --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' without any reservations. Has done some wonderful work on a wide range of articles.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Good editor --

'''Support.'''
'''support'''

'''Support'''. You were the first to vote on my first RFA. Your vote was "Oppose--too inexperienced" :) That, somehow, started a plie-on. Now, Im gonna support you, mainly as a thank you for allowing me to step back and gain the experience that I needed to become a Sysop. I know that you will do a good job. "May the force be with ''you''!"
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' A very good candidate for adminship. --
happy to '''Support'''' -
Of course, as nominator I support! --
After watching him in action tonight during my first big RC push, '''Strong support''' would be too weak. --
Active in opposing vandalism, and would do well with a mop.
Good at keeping vandals in [[check (board game)|check]]. Support!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
'''Obvious support'''.  [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] has impressed in many ways, but I think the deciding factor for me was his moderation in the face of personal attacks on VfD. Oh, and the fact that he likes chess ;). --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', definitely. Another use of the tired "I thought he already was one!", though I guess I should have figured out that he's only been closing the keeps on VfD...
'''Support'''.  Mopworthy. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', anti-vandalism is great, and the article writing is a plus too. --
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support'''. A assiduous courteous editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I seem to have run into Sjakkale on several occasions - I nominated for deletion two articles whose VFD debate is mentioned on his user page, and I also put [[Queen's Gambit Accepted]] on the suggestions page for [[WP:DYK|DYK]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=12303459&oldid=12296932 diff]). Might disagree with him on some VFD topics but he's a good author and knows Wikipedia principles - very much deserves to be an admin.
Not an admin already?
'''support'''
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Very good at detecting subtle vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sperm&curid=27638&diff=0&oldid=0] --
'''Support'''.  Although we may need to establish a rota for VfD closers before long so we don't clobber one another. :)
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You deserve to be promoted to adminship  because of your dedication to the project.  Good luck
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support'''. I've seen Sjakkalle doing various RC Patrolling activities and closing VfDs. This person would make a valuable admin. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. And the mop goes to... --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. Easy decision.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.--
'''Support'''.
Having just seen Sjakkalle chasing up a vandal, it seems an excellent time to vote '''support'''...
'''Strong Support''' great work on VfD
'''Support'''. <font color=#00A86B>
'''Support'''. Edit history indicates responsible adminship likely.
'''Support'''.
--

Looks good, and Michael's endorsement goes a long way.
[[User:Slambo|Slambo]] has been a ''warrior'' on the rail-related pages - he has made at least a minor contribution to virtually every one, and has more or less single handedly created three feature articles that I know of - [[John Bull (locomotive)]], [[Franklin B. Gowen]]  and [[Pioneer Zephyr]]. He is the undisputed king of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains]], and has been unfailingly courteous on talk pages

A hard-working editor who has shown he can work with others.
Definitely.  A strong editor who should make a good admin.
Support. Slambo's a conscientious, hard-working editor who cares about accuracy.
Definitely. --

Strong support. He is very honorable about respecting other people's work and has great organizational skills. An earned step with additional power which I am very confident will only be used to enhance WP.
Excellent participant in writing contests :)
Our train master. --
Support.
'''Support'''.  Offered constructive criticism on one of my train articles.

As I'm a distant relative (by de facto, at least) of [[William Hedley]], how could I not support?
Support.
Meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
'''Support'''.
Yep, he deserves it. '''Support'''.
Support. -

Support. A very good example of a very good Wikipedian.
Support. I like his user and talk pages, which show us he is polite and works well with others.
Absolutely '''support'''.  Eight thousand edits and a number of featured articles in the course of six months is enough for me.  He's also a helluva nice guy. -
Support.

'''Support'''.

Absolutely. SlimVirgin is an excellent editor in many ways, but I'm particularly pleased with her thoughtful attitude and her dedication to verifiability. [[User:Mark Dingemanse|<nowiki> </nowiki>]]—
Very thoughtful and conscientious contributor.

'''Support'''.  Good addition. --
She's been active enough that I recognize her even in my own semi-activity.  Her contributions show lots of activity on talk pages, which is a good thing for an admin.
Oh '''definitely'''. Her potential admin abilities even make up for the fact that she likes [[poodle|long-legged hamsters]].
Support. -
Absolutely. Remains courteous and reasonable without compromising her position on the quality of the encyclopedia.
How can I say no? She has shown a great ability for working with others and an understanding of policy.
Impossible for me to leave without some loose ends to tie up. Most definitely support! -
Without a doubt. —
Very good editor.-
Soitenly. --
yep.
You mean she isn't already? --
Sure.
Certainly.

Another name I recognize. -
Obviously.
Sure. Certainly. Obviously. Any cliche will do.
Oh, i thought you already were. Well, then it ain't too late.
SlimVirgin is everywhere!  Now seriously, I've seen SV doing some really top-drawer edits.  '''Strong support'''.  --
Slim who? Oh, there she is!
No, my vote's not needed at this point, and yes, it's a cliché, but I thought she was already, too. —
'''Support''' and feel free to add the cliché of shock and surprise of your choice.  Still, I like these easy votes. -
'''Strong support'''.
'''Support'''.
chiming in
All edits I've seen are good.
'''Strong support'''.  I can't think of anyone more suited to being an admin; she's not only a dedicated editor, but brings a cool head and a conciliatory approach to difficult situations.

Stress-tested, reliable. --
'''Keep''' Trivia: the user's name comes from an awesome petrified Javanese princess and not a yucky smelly cigarette.
'''Support'''; never seen an edit by this user that wasn't npov and for the good of Wikipedia. ''This'' is the kind of person I want to have admin powers!
'''Strong support'''.  Will make a great admin.  I am especially impressed with her ability to handle conflict situations.—
A no-brainer. This vote is, I mean. Of course. '''Support'''. --
'''Total support.''' Companions of Arctic Snow Poodles are alright with me. --
You ''know'' you're doing something right when the database is locked for part of the day and you still get 41 support votes the first day alone.  This is an easy call -- Support.
Everyone's said everything already.
I have always found SlimVirgin to be a fair and generous editor, given to productive discussion rather than unnecessary conflict.  These qualities become a good administrator, and SlimVirgin will surely serve with excellence.--
'''Support'''. I agree with the statements above.
What do you mean I never check RfA anymore?  See!  I do too check it.  Support.
'''Support''' -- Doesn't look like she needs my support.  You'll be a great admin!  I'm just worried you'll ban me for forgetting to cite a source! --
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor, good conflict resolver, stronge supporter of Wikipedia policy, very clear-headed comments on Talk: pages.
--
Support. --

Definitely, for patience and panache. --
'''Support'''. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]←
Absolutely. Very concientious editor. -
Sure.
Hell yeah!
Agree with all the above.
'''Support''' -

'''Support''', strongly. I'm glad SV finally accepted the nomination. -
This vote is not needed, but still...
Support--
Absolutely. Very clueful about Wikipedia's social structure in general. In particular, she handled the harrowing battle with the LaRouche POV-pusher brilliantly, and brought the ArbCom a very usable case -
Support emphatically. Slim is a dedicated and officious editor with a mind towards the maintenance of community standards and the blunting of attempts to corrupt the project's NPOV. I believe Slim will be an unqualified success as an admin.
Oh, surely.
'''Support'''. A very good user. Amply qualified to be an admin. Good luck.
Strongly support.
'''Support''' strongly. A gem of an editor, brandisher of the NPOV sword with a gentle touch. We need more like her around. --
'''Strong Support'''.  Excellent editor, and creative problem solver with wiki troublespots. --
Problem solver is right.
Absolutely.
Yes, yes, yes. --
Top quality Wikipedian. —
'''Support'''. Consensus and accuracy minded
'''Support'''. SV is beyond patient and works hard for consensus.--
Meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
Yup. [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
Seems to have too aggressive and determined an attitude against other POVs, which is troublesome when someone on the other side has been ''banned''—does that mean people who disagree with her end up going to the ArbCom? Not a good sign. The best articles are the products of collaboration with people who represent a variety of views.

Good 'janitor'.

My direct experience is positive. I didn't find anything in history to reject. Thanks for dealing with vandals.
Almost anyone who is a janitor gets my vote.
'''Support'''. Good janitor, interacts well, extra points for the selfnom.--
Mais certainement.
Looks good.-
Seen positive good work.
Support.
'''Support''' Seen this user on cricket-related articles

But of course.
A good chap, he is obviously passionate about what he does

'''Support''' -

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. He dealt with [[User:Irate]] in an exemplary manner, and is also a good janitor, how can I not support?
'''Support'''.
'''SUPPORT'''. I'm new here, and Smoddy helped me find my feet; I've also had a little [[User_talk:JMBell|chat]] with him and I have concluded that he is a very responsible Wikipedian. Admin material. Good record. Etc, etc. I've checked his history and dealings with the user [[User:Irate|Irate]]. Pretty laudable for a 16-yr.-old. A very good friend to have and a '''very reliable''' ally. Very passionate about Wpdia. Responsible chap, etc. etc.
'''Support'''. Reasonable person and good janitor.
'''Support'''. I thought he was an Admin
'''Support''' - I just now read his Featured Article, nice work, I can say, as I have been a student of international law 'one generation' before. And, Smoody is only 16, that is today's news for me. All the best to Smoddy: me, the oldest of the lot voting for the youngest amongst most of us.--
'''Support''' - someone who goes through the "What links here" of a disambig page and corrects them all is a dedicated janitor. --
'''Support''' - Strict and stern, but controlled and fair too (in his dispute with [[User:Irate]]). Just like an admin should be.
[[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. Looking good! :) -
I didn't vote here yet? Wow. Strongly support. --

'''Support'''--
Of course.
Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]], (though, of course, if [[Mark Butcher]] and [[Alan Knott]] were truly comprehensive, they'd be up to FA status too! :)
'''Support'''.
'''But of course!'''
'''Support''', Great work at the stub sorting project, a thoughtful and fair editor.
-
'''Support'''- seems like a dedicated [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|Give me a <font color = brown> note! ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' - user recategorised Stubs, good enough for me :-)
'''Support'''. The concern I noted has been adressed. An excellent user, and I'm happy to support.
Cool.
'''Support'''.  --
Uh-huh! -
'''Support''', likes to do chores, lots of maintenance work, nice job.  --
[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]

'''Support'''.  Would do well with the tools, and a great music editor (which seem rare here) to boot.
Looks good, and I'd like to thank you for your stub-sorting. --
'''Support''' -- endless stub sorting.
'''Support''' - good edits and stub-sorting. --
'''Support''' of course. An excellent mentor. Worthy in our opinion to be a good Admin.
'''Support''', great user, would benefit from admin powers.
'''Support''' The go-to-guy when it comes to stub-sorting.
'''Support''' - Strong contributions in all aspects of Wikidom. --
'''Support'''. The interaction with [[User:Sjakkalle]] is much more telling than the interaction with [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]].
--
'''Oppose''', I felt he was rude when I interacted w him, see [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_genres#heavy_metal]].
'''Oppose''', on account of the above two exchanges. If Sn0wflake can't model [[WP:COOL]] and [[WP:civ]] on RfA, I don't have much reason to expect him to do so when using the admin tools. An excellent Wikipedian by all other accounts; I especially appreciated Sn0wflake's revision of [[Sonata Arctica]]. --
'''Oppose''', I dislike the above exchanges too. The least I expect from an admin is to be civil.
<s>I fully realize Sn0wflake's great dedication to this project. The reason I am withholding my support is that I have one concern, the speedy deletion tagging of [[Mother-in-law joke]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother-in-law_joke&diff=13465739&oldid=13456854] which I feel displayed some uncertainty about what "patent nonsense" is, and what the criteria for speedy deletion are. An administrator has the ability to delete nonsense on sight, and must be careful not to speedy delete things which don't meet any of the speedy criteria. Sn0wflake did drop me a note which acknowledged that this tagging was incorrect, but this is still a (slight) concern. If I can have this concern addressed I will be happy to support.
'''Strong Support''' as nominator, --
'''Strong Support''' as seconder, ---
'''Strong Support''' also. His edits on Australian and Western Australian history are top notch and he's always helpful and friendly to other editors. A worthy recipient who will add-value to Wikipedia with the admin tools. --
'''Support'''. Has made a strong contribution especially in the Australian related articles.
'''Support.''' One of the best editors I've ever seen, with a temperament to match, even in the face of some serious wikistalking from disgruntled anons.
Funny that he hasn't been nominated yet.  I guess everyone assumed he already was one (ZING!  Weren't expecting the template to show up just yet, eh?).  '''Strong support''' &ndash; he's a top bloke, a conscientious editor, and, of course, an Aussie.
Contributions look very solid. '''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Austria.png|15px]]
'''Support''' after hearing from [[User:Cyberjunkie|Cyberjunkie]] abt a query I had. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''', Drew is a great contributor.
'''Support''' good editor, will be a good admin --
'''Support'''. Btw. we should create more articles on lakes of Western Australia. There are many big lakes there which doesn't have articles here. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' excellent contributor! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support'''  once you get over the fact that his username sounds particularly unappetising, he is an excellent editor who would make a very good admin.  --

'''Support'''
'''Support''' another valuable Australian editor, especially for WA and plants. --
'''Support'''. He may have managed to escape the RfA for long, but  he should not be “allowed” to escape now! --
'''Support''', although... strewth, I fear the Aussies are taking over!
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Regularly appears in my watchlist with good edits.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Sounds good. --
'''Support''' per everyone else.
'''Support.''' SnottyG's impressive diligence, eye for fine detail, and consultative nature make for a commendable admin.--
'''Support''', and yes the Aussies are taking over. --
'''Support''' -- Worthy candidate -
'''Strong Support''' - A very worthy candidate --
'''Nominator Support'''. Obviously.
'''Support''' per nom - good admin in the making.
'''Support'''. Good contributor who will benefit from having admin tools.
'''Support''' will be good admin --
'''Support''' per above. '''
'''Support.''' Will be useful as an admin.

'''Yeah'''. Will be good. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''', amazingly meticulous and dedicated.  Will make a great admin! &mdash;
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support''' A quick look at last 300 edits looks good. Answers to questions are good. Therefore support is good.
'''MEGA, ULTRA, Leithp and 10 others beat me to it, SUPPORT''', In addition to being a meticulous and dedicated contributor and vandal fighter he's also a helluva cool dude. It is a honor to call him my friend and a pleasure to wholeheartedly support his elevation to adminship, for which he has clearly demonstrated his worthiness.--
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. No reason not to support a fellow editor that is committed to this project.
'''Support''' - Devoted and reliable editor. Also, the comparison between your internet connection and "a one-legged turtle on sleeping pills" (question 1) was the best I've heard in a while. :)
'''Support''' -
<font color="darkred">
'''Support''' Looks like a fine contributor.--
'''Support''' as per nominator.
'''Support.''' I've seen you around, doing good work.  --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' a very good and supportive editor --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
'''Support''', --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
User has made almost 7500 edits, about 100 in early September 2004 and the rest since 2 Nov. Most of the edits are categorisation. This puts me to shame, as it took me several times as long to achieve a similar edit count by similar means. Warm support.-
Sure. An uncontroversial, behind-the-scenes worker. --
This guy is the RickK of CFD :)

--
-






Doing good work w/categories. --
-

And as nominator, I guess I ''have'' to '''support'''. :) --
'''Support'''- great job on [[Welding]]--
'''Support'''. Had nothing but positive experience of this user.
Cool.
Writing for ''The Signpost'' makes me naturally sympathetic, but it's in working on the encyclopedia that he's proven himself qualified. --
'''Support''' - Would make an excellent admin. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' Everything looks good: edits, user/talk page, general attitude.
'''Aye''' Full support from me. Deserves this post.
'''Yes''', good experiences with this user.
Had great experiences with him as well. Great user! -
Nothing but positive experiences.
'''Support''', good work. [[Image:PhoenixSuns 100.png|20px]]
'''Yep'''. Spangineer is an editor who works tirelessly to build an encyclopedia. --
Saw his work on [[welding]].  Seemed like a decent guy. Happy to support.

'''Support'''. A lot of good work and mopworthy.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' - a good Wikipedian, very responsive to vandalism --
'''Support'''- yes sure.--
'''Support''' Would benefit from the admin rollback button, et al.
'''Support''' Definitely. --
'''Support'''. Always a good sign for me when I can totally respect the contributions and attitude of an editor whose world view is diametrically the oposite of mine.
'''Support'''.  --
Support.
'''Support''' He's got the qualities of a good wikipedian. Opposes vandalism and tries to make this a better place.  --
'''Support'''. Edits raise no concerns regarding abuse of admin powers.
'''Support'''. Seems like a trustworthy and dedicated editor.
'''Support''' great work on featured lists--
'''Support'''. Wikipedia needs admins like him.--
'''Support''', Welcome aboard!
'''Support'''. Familiar name. Good and trustworthy contributor. Admin. &mdash;
'''Support.''' Great work on the ''Signpost'' and elsewhere.
'''Neutral.''' You are one month short of the required nine months to get a support vote out of me.  But since you have shown significant dedication to Wikipedia, you don't get an oppose vote from me either.
'''Support'''. Splash has shown a great deal of good work during his three months here, with well rounded contributions and levelheaded participation in VFD debates.
'''Support''' Wouldn't have nominated if I didn't support.
'''Support''' Remember you from the crazy AfD debate... I honestly thought he was already one, so I'll have to vote support.  Just remember to try to detach yourself when you use the new tools :) <small>

'''Strong support''' - not only did I think he already was one, I was absolutely certain of it. Very very very good contributor. -
'''Support''' ITHAWO
'''Support''', competent and level-headed user.
'''Support''',
'''Support''' no worries with Splash --
'''Strong Support''' Don't worry about the relative newness: Splash is a prolific, dedicated, and intelligent contributor with a strong sense of policy.  Great work all around, but on VfD specifically.
'''Strong Support''' Ditto to what ulayiti said. I see you at VfDs so much, I figured you were an admin, just waiting to close them. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Strong Support'''.  Great contributor to many areas of Wikipedia. --
'''Strong support'''.  --
'''Support''' AfD work speaks for itself.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I too was surprised to discover that he wasn't already an admin.  --
'''Support''' Very solid.
'''Nominate'''. It's been eight hours and I'm #18. Hmph.
'''Support''' Splash has been doing awesome work at VfD (or shall I say AfD now)
'''Support''' Contribs look great.  Very hard worker.  8000+ edit, adminship seems long over due! Also, if [[User:Acetic Acid|Acetic Acid]] says support that is good enough for me.

'''Support''', long overdue.
'''Strong Support''' &mdash; thats over 8000 edits in three months! Rolled back his edits; a very notable candidate. I also like the 'essay type' answers to the questions :) You would make a very good admin. Good luck! </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Yes, I '''Support''' too. --
'''Support'''.
I've seen you around. Support.
'''Support''' - although I'm not familliar with this user, his responses to the questions were excellent. He's obviously given a lot of thought to the admin position, and I believe he will make an excellent one. -
'''Strong Support'''! Heck yes! A very helpful and useful user. Good luck with your admin duties :) -<font color="yellow">'''
'''Strong support'''. I like to see a little longer with the project, but excellent record of contributions shows Splash is trustworthy, which is the most important thing. -
'''Strong support'''. Trustworthy, as well as effective at RC patrol.
'''Support''', good all-around editor
'''Support''' - as I said I would, once you had a few months experience.
Simple '''Support'''. -
'''Strong support''', absolutely. Just look at the way Splash answers the "Questions for the candidate" section so throughly and professionally. He does a lot of excellent judgement on VfD and other Wikipedia processes and is quickly one of Wikipedia's "backbone" members. It really is time for him to get admin status. Great guy, and great work on Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Strong support'''. What? Isn't he already an admin???? Then he surely deserves to get the broom and the flamethrower. No objections from here. --
'''Support'''.
--
<small>
'''Support''' Fully, unconditionaly and completely! I'm only sorry I wasn't first on this list.
'''Support'''. Absolutely, without hesitation; can certainly be trusted with the mop and bucket.
'''Strong Support'''. He will make a great admin, in fact I thought he was one already!
'''Support''' as per all above.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Wow, really thought Splash was an admin.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
WT...? Splash ''is not an admin''? Well, then it's about time he was.—
'''Bing!''' - yes folks! That's the sound of yet another vote being added!
'''''Of Course'''''
'''Support''', thought he already was an admin.
'''Strong Support''' I absolutely hate using ye olde RFA cliche, but again, I'm forced to: thought he was one already.
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support'''.  He's sober, thoughtful, and thorough.
'''Support'''.  Appears to be a strong deletionist, but I'm confident that he won't abuse sysop powers.
'''Support'''. Extremely active in janitorial tasks.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I've seen this guy in action during RC Patrols; he knows what he's doing!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You are the only person to vote oppose on my RfA who I would vote for. You've caught my mistakes and helped me fix them before the community found em many times ;) You've been helpful to me and I hope I have been to you but now you get your own SysOp :) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', even though it's not needed.
'''Support'''. I notice Splash regularly doing RC and A/VfD. He is clear and helpful.
'''Support''' Contributes a lot
'''Support''' I thought he was an admin already.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support'''.  In my brief return, I have been impressed by Splash's work.  I don't understand how it was Splash's fault that '''''13''''' other people opposed an RfA.
'''Strong support'''. Of course, Splash gets nominated while I'm out of town. Pity; I had a truely moving bit of prose in the works for my support vote, now it would just be a waste of pixels as this deserving nominee appears to have near-unanimous support. Splash will be a great admin.
'''Support''' I tried to nominate him before. : ( <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Support'''. I've been waiting to support Splash, I'm glad to see this nomination.
'''Support'''. A reliable editor. -
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', I don't know him all that well, but he had a minor disagreement with me on a VFD i closed today, and I really like the way he handled it. Obviously not an idiot, :) --<span style="color:red">
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''' Showed extreme good sense in the Lame 'upper middle income' edit war in [[Malaysia]]. Blaming him for Rls departure is harsh btw.
'''Support'''. Dedicated contributor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. We need more like Splash. -
'''Support'''.  Mmm hmm.
'''Oppose''' ironically because of dodgy voting in RFA: started a trend, the outcome of which was detrimental to the wiki.
Naturally, I'm the nominator! --
I've seen Andrew around a lot; seems like a fine contributor.  Have a mop!  (Could use more edit summaries, though.)
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''! You're freaking kidding me - Andrew's not an admin? Must fix that immediately! --
'''Support'''.  Levelheaded and concerned about WP. &middot;
'''Support''', because I thought he already was. Good contributor, and solid reasonable person.
Articulate and wise.
'''Support'''.  All major concerns addressed.  <small>(More edit summaries, please.)</small>
'''Support'''. Addressed for me too. --
'''Support'''. Plenty of good of good work and fit for adminship. Incidentally, about deletionism (which in my opinion is ''not'' a thing which makes anybody unfit for adminship), there is at least [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Fans|one case]] where Starblind cast the single dissenting non-delete vote.
'''Support''', I've always found him to be reasonalble, I also see no evidence to suggest that there would be a conflict of interest for any admin that votes on vfd and closes vfd. --
'''Support''', had the same concerns as Unfocused, but his research and Starblind's explanation/diffs have addressed them adequately.  Thanks for your work on VfD! --
'''Support''': civil user who makes high quality edits.
'''Support''' While I can't say I agree with the deletionism, that's not the issue here- Starblind can simply be trusted with the keys to the janitor's closet.
'''Support'''.  He's answered my concerns about VfD and low numbers of article edits. --
'''Support'''.  Comments below. --
'''Support''' per comments on his low edit count below. Andrew's involved in many aspects of Wikipedia combined with his deceptively low edit count of the main articlespace. --
'''Support''', looks like valuable admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' I see nothing wrong with a user who has a large focus on VfD debates. A mop in his hands would be a helpful force.
'''Support'''. Good grasp of policy, interest in and reasonable comments on VfDs - just the kind of editor who will make good use of admin abilities.
Full frontal '''SUPPORT''' Cause Starblind, he da man... that's right I said it
'''Support'''. I encounter Starblind often in VfD, and while I don't agree with him a fair amount, he obviously puts thought and effort into his votes. I was hesitant to support with only 222 article edits, but it appears most of those edits are "major" edits, and I consider 222 such edits (including quite a few new articles) much better than 1500 more useless edits, like sorting stubs, bypassing redirects, or over-categorizing articles. I think he understands Wikipedia well enough to be an admin. -
'''Enthusiastically support!'''  One of the hardest working cleaner-uppers here. -
'''Support''' Very active in VfD, et al. As mentioned by others, he frequently seems to use an offline editor and only saves his final drafts here on WP.
'''Support''' - very good editor --
'''Support'''. I have bumped into the Starblind quite a few times while on VfD; no negative experiences. Will make a good admin. --
'''Support''' - One of the users I was most impressed by when I first arrived at Wikipedia. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
Support.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Imho, Starblind is in the top echelon of WP users.
'''Support'''. This seems to be a good example against edit-counting. Starblind has made more of a contribution to article space, text-wise and quality-wise, than someone who simply adds a stub tag to 1500 articles. (One of his edit summaries is "New article. 10 paragraphs.") I see nothing to suggest he wouldn't be a fine admin; I'd expect him not to close VfDs he voted in, which despite his activity there still leaves plenty.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''  He has some very solid edits to article space, appears to have a good grasp of policy, and is willing to contribute to VFD cleanup.  Go for it.  --
'''Support''' - Understands WP policies, upholds the integrity of the encyclopedia. --
'''Support''' - Hard worker on VFD, valuable contributions. Expect he will do a good job as administrator, helping to deal with some of the workload there (more hands are sorely needed).
'''Support''', yes indeed.  Not everyone's willing to labor in the slum of VfD and I respect those who do.
'''Support'''. I have no doubt that Starblind will be a good admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' without hesitation.
Oppose.  Looked at user contributions and it seemed like three-fourths of them were to VFD pages.  Please come back when you have worked on more articles.
Oppose&mdash;I think I'm only familiar from VfD, but I remember a lot of strong deletionism and also some hostility towards me.
Oppose.  Too few edits in article space.
Oppose. Insufficient edits to article space, excessive concern with Votes for Deletion and a too strict interpretation of policy which fails to give appropriate flexibility in individual circumstances.
Oppose. Too few edits in article space and too inflexible.
It's all been said.
'''Oppose.''' He has only been here for just over six months.  Potential admins must have contributed to Wikipedia for at least nine months.
'''Oppose'''. Reverse proportion of edits between VfD and articles. I'd be keener on this guy becoming an admin if he ''promised not to'' close VfDs. He's way too interested in deletion all in all.
'''Oppose'''. I oppose anyone who spends that much time on VfD, even if he is a good and reasonable editor in general. The result would be an administrator with a ''very'' distorted view of Wikipedia, because he sees only the worst of it the majority of the time. It'd be like electing a hobo who lives in the sewers as mayor of a city.
'''Oppose'''.  Starblind seems to be a very active contributor, but I'm wary of the practice of spending the majority of one's efforts on deleting content rather than providing it.  It's much easier to remove than it is to add, and I think an admin should make a positive contribution. In short: insufficient work on article namespace; please try again later.
I don't have a ton of experience with this user, but the one event that stuck out in my mind was when he voted to [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/S&P CNX Nifty|delete an article]] because he thought the name was silly.  He obviously hadn't done any research into the subject matter, or he would have discovered that "Nifty Fifty" is a common economic term.  However, this was a couple months back, so I don't feel strong enough about it to actually oppose.  --
Neutral. Great editor but only 219 edits to the article namespace. Won't oppose as his conduct is good, but the vast majority of edits being VfD means I have to stay neutral here.
I'm not exactly inclined to want to vote for someone with so few edits on article (granted they are not just tiny change a word edits).  I think he is more or less good but I was worried about his simple vote for deletion on Edip Yuksel because I don't think an admin should react so to the user's self-promotion but should research his notoriety which I feel because of his Turkish works he is notable enough.  A good admin I think should be able to see past an annoying user's self-promotion to see if the article belongs regardless.
'''Neutral'''.  I really like Starblind as an editor; he's great on VfD.  But even though most of my edits are also to VfD, I have more edits in the article namespace (779 in articles to 729 in WP:, and over 600 of the WP: are in VfD).  I think that it's useful for all editors, particularly prospective admins, to contribute relatively evenly over several namespaces.  I'd certainly support him if he did that. --
I support him. He sounds good enough. --
Sounds good to me.  --
I support it !!!. -
good user
Support.
Good nomination. --
'''Support'''. --
Oh yes.
'''Support'''. Makes WP more international/multicultural.
'''Support''' I have seen this name quite a bit when reading Indian related articles.
Yes ... Nomination has my '''Support''' - I find Sundar has been extending  support to wiki concept --
'''Support''', of course. But he should be required to help searching more Admins for the Tamil Wikipedia, even if he didn't want't to become one himself, for technical reasons, I understand. --
Very Good Candidate. '''Support'''  --

'''Support'''--
'''Support''' : Sundar appears to be a cautious kind of editor who avoids conflicts, strives for factual accuracy, and works well with other users.  A random sampling of his contributions reveals a user of the kind that we could do with more of.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good user --
'''Support''' I'm biased (we've known each other ten years), but what the hell.  I introduced him to wiki and now he's even more active than I am. :) --
'''Support''' I've interacted with this user often at the funhouse that is Recent Deaths, and have found him level-headed and of sound judgment.  Certainly mop-worthy.

'''Support''' good editor --
Crazy username (I am still trying to make sense out of it :) ), loves to tell people when they voted twice on their RfA's.  I say '''support''' <font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''

'''Support''' everything looks fine to me.--
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''' Looks ''U.S.A'' A-OK to me :-D
'''Sure'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' &#8766; Wikipedia will benefit from giving Syrthiss the mop and bucket. →
'''Support''' - Solid record.
'''Support:''' I see him around doing good things. A lot of vandal reversion and tagging, welcoming, and editting. Worn out as it may sound, I assumed he was an administrator. --
'''Support''' hope to see you doing good work, but I am confident that you will.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
'''Support''', nominator. &mdash;
Damn you, Knowledge Seeker!  I was going to do this ''tomorrow''.  Ah well.  As big a '''support''' as is allowed.
'''Support'''. In the past month since he withdrew his nomination, he has helped get [[Windows 2000]] and [[Architecture of Windows 2000]] to featured article status.
'''Support'''. He's an excellent editor, and was a great admin too, always willing to look at both sides of any situation, and amenable to persuasion without getting into entrenched positions. He could have continued with his last nomination, but he did the honorable thing and fell on his sword, another plus point.
'''Support'''. I agree with Slim.-
'''Support'''.  I was ''sure'' he already was one... --
'''Support''', I think we can allow someone to make a mistake. He was a great admin in the past, and will be one again in the future.

'''Support'''--
'''support again'''-
'''support''' , what, again? Sometimes I wonder if we don't go overboard on this procedure stuff. We all know ta bu shi da yu isn't going turn into tbsdyzilla overnight and "Destroy The Wiki!" Sheesh!
Welcome back, Ta bu shi da yu.
Support.
'''Support''', of course, and I believe your nomination a month ago would have passed in spite of your mistake.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', of course. --
'''Support''' Supported last time, support this time too.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', (<s>well, pending acceptance, of course</s>).
'''Support''' --
'''Of course'''. TBSDY is one of the most humble people here, and a prolific contributor. --
<s>'''Never! Never!''' He vandalised an article once!
'''Duh'''. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support''' &mdash;
'''Support''' once again.
'''strongly support''' -
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Of course.
Give back to him the place that's always been his.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' For great wikijustice. --
'''Support'''. Nothing bad's happened in the past month to change my stance from the previous RFA. --
'''Support''', so long as he doesn't take this RfA as permission to go on another vandalism spree ;-) --
'''Support''' It took guts to withdraw from the last RfA.
Forshizzle.  All opposers are dumdums.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I assumed he was already too. (Back when I didn't know how to make redirects, he - maybe coincidentally, but it did help a lot - made one that un-orphaned a page I'd created. Good first impression and not made worse...)
'''Support''' His statement above shows that he is again ready for adminship.
'''Support'''.  All my support for this fine contributor.  --
'''Support''', but of course, for the umpteenth time : ) --
'''Support'''. TBSDY shouldn't have mucked around with the [[dalek]] article, just as nobody should muck around with any article, and yes, daleks deserve a serious article -- but hang on, this wasn't [[Curtis LeMay]] let alone [[Adolf Hitler]]: daleks are funny, and TBSDY's version of the page made me smile. (If I'd seen it when it was "live", I'd have rushed to revert it to an earlier, informative version, and with a harrumphing message to the perp -- but with a twinge of regret.) Daleks aside, TBSDY is a hard-working guy with excellent judgement. I don't quite follow what he's saying above about Christianity, but anyway his point is that he's going to avoid problems there too. So what, except for one, ahem, error of judgement, is not to like? '''Support.''' --
'''Support'''. I accept his explanation for the [[Dalek]] incident as a lapse in judgment. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' encore.
What, again??!? And we're to take processes seriously?!? [[Dalek|Exterminate all humour]]! (Or is that humor?). Wholeheartedly '''support''', of course.
Absolutely.
'''Support'''.
the Dalek thing? give me a break, that was just funny and hardly even qualifies as vandalism. Plus, he was sincere enough to ''ask'' for de-admining during his wikibreak, not something that is done very often. What are you attempting here TBSDY, going down in history as the person elected admin most frequently? :)
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  The guy even takes responsibility for past mistakes rather than taking the interpersonal warfare route, a rare trait amongst Wikipedians.
'''Support''' but I think the community's patience would be tested if there is another RfA.
'''Support'''. He sure straightened '''me''' out in a hurry, with one swift samurai-swordstroke. I just assumed he '''was''' an admin already.
'''Support'''. He wasn't one already? :) --
'''Support'''. Whatever he did, I'm sure [[:Image:Crazy guy.jpg|this]] explains it.
'''Support'''. Storm in a teacup - should be more like him.
'''Support''' -- objective and fair, my kind of admin.

I oppose strongly, and support mildly. Or is it the other way around (?) &mdash; you decide! '''*[[audience wave|wave]]*'''
In the immortal words of [[Stacey Stillman]], "You changed your vote!"
YES!!!  Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.  Did I happen to say yes?  Tabu is one of the clearest, kindest and most insightful voices on this crazy site.  One little joke...oh, heaven forfend!...and you'd have thought it was the end of the world.  Real trolls don't get excoriated like he did.  I ''knew'' there was a good reason that I listened to the little voice egging me on to return as an active editor.  When the keys to the closet are returned to Tabu, I owe that voice a drink.  Bottoms up!! -
Again: '''WWTBSDYD?'''
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. Please stay this time. Your calm is legendary and has brought the project much good.
'''Support'''. TBSDY was a fine admin before and I find no reason to think that he should not have his adminship back.
'''IN SOVIET RUSSIA, ADMINSHIP SUPPORTS YOU!''' Vodka! Vodka today?
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' Strongly!
'''Support, support and support.''' <font color=green>
I'm not sure even more '''Support''' votes are needed, but I'll add mine anyway.
'''Support''' Tabs &ndash; A little late on this one.
'''Support''' - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]]
'''Support strongly.''' I can't understand what all the fuss is about.  I've made errors of judgement, as have the great majority of admins, and to expect TBSDY3 to be an exception is totally unreasonable.
Support, dammit! -
'''Support'''. He's a nice guy, and I don't think lightning falls twice in the same spot.
'''Support'''. Again. --
Welcome back! '''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' TBSDY of course. Welcome back. Heidi & Joe ''will'' be watching you as usual. You have helped us round out our opinion about this project in the past and as an Admin you will continue to teach by your example.
'''Support''' - Do the oppose people realize he has over '''17,000''' edits, and only one or two lapses that were not even malicious? If he hadn't withdrawn his adminship voluntarily, he would be an admin by default. And what he did would not have gotten him desysoped. With the recent departure of [[User:RickK|RickK]] over a minor infraction, I fear we're eating our own young here. Sheesh.
'''Support''' TBSDY. &mdash;

'''support''' See if he can get the 105 votes needed to make a new record! --
Yes, for the third time now, '''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Regardless what has happened recently, if he hadn't asked to be desysopped, he'd still be one. --
'''Support''' <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''. Too easy. --
'''Support'''. -
'''擁戴'''. 魚不太大.
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' -- This is good time to come back. First edit in a while for me, a pleasue to give it to tabu. However, it seems that tabu has been wasting a lot of our time, with the whole first 2 wp:rfa's, then the big "goodbye" affair, the whole "welcome back" saga et al. But this man is the popularest dude on here. So Go on, sir, edit with your steely knife --

'''Support''', again.
'''Very strong support''' --
I believe that few admins could get redadmined after having served for some time. You get involved in many things and inevtiably you make some bad choices. TBSDY's recent FA is enough for me to vote yes.
'''Support'''. While the edits in question were thoughtless and show some questionable judgement, on the whole they pale in comparison to the good edits tabu has made. And it is clear a lesson has been learned. Welcome back. -
Bah!  I don't get to be number 100.  Nuts to you, Taxman!  On a more serious note, TBSDY is an excellent Wikipedian; I'll take someone who can admit a mistake any day over someone who hasn't made any yet.
'''Support!'''
Full, strong support.
'''100% support'''. A first-rate editor who ''needs'' to have a mop and bucket.
Hey, i guess he pips the other dude at the post then. A "privilige" to be no. 105, at least as far as Wonderfoom is concerned --[[User:Expurgator|Expurgator]] 02:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)  (<small> I'm pretty sure that this voter is [[User:Wonderfool|Wonderfool]] after a few glasses of whatever. ;-)
'''Support''' Go do your thing!
'''Support.''' Just what a Wikipedian should be! --
'''Support'''
Happy to support a great user, and please note that with this very vote of mine, Ta bu Shi Da Yu now equals the previous RFA record of 109 support votes (and is obviously going to break it)! I was hoping I'd get to do this. :-)
'''Support''' - please note, with this vote, TBSDY now has the record for RfA support votes. &ndash;
Not that he needs it, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to give him my '''support'''. :) --
Strongly '''oppose'''.  Ta bu shi da yu is an example of the worst of administrators.  He has arrogated power to himself that no one was ever supposed to have.  He deliberately and disingenuously ignores written policies that are intended to limit administrator power to specific tasks at community instruction.  Ta bu shi da yu writes his own instructions, using editorial discretion that should be used only for editorial work.  He will get the power again, of course; but he will not deserve it, and he ''will'' abuse it. &mdash;
I'm still concerned about his behavior during our past dispute; I wouldn't worry about it ordinarily, except that recently he explicitly stated that he still believed himself to be in the right about it. Since the matter specifically pertained to an important admin power (blocking), I think that leans me toward oppose.
<span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
I changed my vote last time, believing I had been wrong about him. Apparently I wasn't. &ndash;
--
'''moderately'''--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 09:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)  I found Ta bu a bit anal.  Too into form rather than substance, e.g., he is a big critic of bullets, and makes snap criticisms the clumsy language in articles, ignoring the history that shows the language to be delicate compromises agreed to by the community.  He thus, unwittingly it seems, is like a bull in a china shop. Here is a link to some of that past experience.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/February_2005#Intelligent_design]--
'''Oppose''' I find the behaviour outlined in the RFC mentioned above too disturbing to be able to trust Ta bu bi shi yu with restored adminship. I have also found this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoroastrianism&diff=15047128&oldid=15007004], which indicates he/she is too quick to judge, especially considering the response to his actions here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZoroastrianism&diff=14952798&oldid=14913694] and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZoroastrianism&diff=15047249&oldid=15015156]. I am also quite disturbed by the manner in which a sudden influx of editors supporting his/her point of view appeared - see the history here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoroastrianism&action=history], as if a bullying tactic was being attempted. I feel that admin powers would make this attitude worse, and more menacing.
'''Oppose''' with a somewhat heavy heart. Not convinced his recent contributions match his previous good record. It's unlikely this nomination will fail, but if it does, I'm willing to reconsider in a month or so, because I like Ta bu, but my respect for him has diminished a little bit.
'''Oppose''' I thought ta bu shi da yu was already an admin, and when I thought this, I didn't like that notion. So, no, oppose adminship. --
'''Oppose''' - I'm sorry to oppose, but it was only very recently that the last RfA was withdrawn and I'm still worried about the whole vandalism thing.  It seems to me it was a major error of judgement, very harmful to the project, and while you can assure us you won't vandalise an article on the main page again, you can't really assure us that your judgment won't lapse again.
'''Oppose''' - After reading the comments both support and opposition as well as neutral, I feel I have to weigh in on the opposition.  I'm certain that [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] is a nice person, but nice is not, in my opinion, reason enough to be an admin.  I apologize for my opposition, but I believe an adminship requires more calmness and even-handedness than the candidate has demonstrated in recent months.  The candidate seems to also take any opposition far too personal, seeming overwhelmingly too eager to become an admin.  ''It's just not that important!'' That being said, on Ta's behalf, let me qualify that by saying I would oppose any nominations for adminship for myself, given my current inability to think out my responses on heated debates, until I could manage a level head over an extended period of time.
'''Oppose''' I believe in forgiveness, but the transgression is a little to recent for my taste.  Trust, once lost, is difficult and takes time to regain.  --
他不是大鱼 seems like a great guy and everything, but one of the main reasons for not giving admin powers to everyone is the risk of childish vandalism.  And guess what he did at his last RFA.  There are plenty of people who on principle would never do that and who are denied adminship.  I'm undecided.  &mdash;
I abstain presently, but may vote support or oppose depending on how this nomination is conducted. [[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|15px]]
Would have prefered a longer break between RfA nominations.
'''Support''' as nominator --
Great work on [[WP:TS]].
'''Very strong support''' pending Talrias' aceptance of this nomination --
'''Support''' -- One should not look upon his dispute on the [[phpBB]] page as a sign of a bad admin. Talrias was right in his indication that the number of links needed to be cut down. His edits (after I reviewed them in a calmer state) made sense. He has shown to me that he has a clear head when it comes to improving articles, and that he is more than ready to discuss things. Thus I think he should be considered for adminship :)
'''Support'''. Has quite strong views on various Wiki issues, but is a good user.
'''Support''' very trustworthy and a good writer of pages. So what if he's proposed changed to the adminship system? Doesn't mean he's ignorant of existing procedures.
'''Support''' this user who seems to take an interest in improving wikipedia, and can propose new ideas without trying to push them on everyone without consensus. Interactions with other editors look to be productive and helpful.
'''Support''' - good hard working chap.
'''Support''' for lot of useful work. Reform of Wikipedia mechanisms is different and orthogonal to RfA.
<s>Neutral</s>. Everyking has a point. If Talrias believes that a user should have a mentor before being adminified, then he should find himself one. But given Talrias's sensible response below, I'll move to '''support''' anyway.
'''[[That's hot]]'''.
'''STRONG Support!''' - Great user, I see no reason why he could not be trusted with sysophood. --<b><font style="background: black" color=white>
While I disagree with this editor on some issues, none of those disagreements have been anything other than cordial.  No reason to believe that he would miswield the mop.  '''Support'''.
I agree with Mindspillage and also note that I'm impressed at his regret expressed below for so small a fault as briefly engaging in a tit-for-tat edit war. --
'''Support'''.  I see no reason that he could not be trusted with Admin rights.  --
'''Support'''. Seems ''responsible'', dedicated (UK COTW), comments his edits well and makes solid contributions to articles. Certainly no reason for him not to get admin privileges. --
'''Support'''. Has a solid plan for what he'd do with admin status, and looks to be the sort of user who would benefit greatly from the ability to grab a mop and bucket on vandalism watch.
'''Support'''.  [[User:Everyking|Everyking]]'s statement does less than dissuade me (in fact my vote probably exemplifies  [[User:Talrias|Talrias]]' rationale). This only suggests that [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] is someone who looks to improve the functioning of a system, the wiki in particular, which I see as only beneficial.
'''Support'''.  While I strongly disagree with his adminship proposal, his edits and comments themselves are exemplary, and indicate to me that he will use admin abilities well.
Definitely reasonable and thoughtful.
'''Support''', absolutely. Dedicated, insightful, contributes well to policy, ''etc.''.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Per [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]].
'''Support''' A little low on the edits but I agree 100% with Jdforrester.
'''Support''' Despite my disagreement with his proposal I think he has a generally good attitude and shouldn't be judged just on his one proposal.

'''Support'''. I disagree with his proposal, but he was very civil throughout the entire discussion, something I find as a mark of maturity. Making the proposal is certainly evidence he is willing to take the heat in order to improve Wikipedia, which is also important. Objecting on the basis of his proposal is ludicrous. Disagree of course if you like, but proposing something in obviously good faith is far from making him a bad admin candidate. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. You may not have too many edits but its quality over quantity :)
He has a proposal developed whereby adminship would be granted according to what's apparently a simple good ol' boy system, apparently without any voting at all. This sort of belief scares me, as it suggests a lack of respect or faith in electing admins by community majorities in which everyone, including non-admins, gets a vote. If he doesn't have any use for votes, what does he need mine for?
'''Oppose.''' One month shy of the nine-month threshold, and according to Kate's tool, only has just over 1500 edits.
'''Oppose'''. With the exception of the one on votes, which are evil, I couldn't support anyone who does not generally embody Everyking's principles and points.
'''Oppose''', i know its quality not quantity, but at 653 article edits (1574 total) i dont think anyone could be experienced enough for admin duties. (sorry)

'''Support'''.
Seems like a goody.
'''Emphatic, overwealming support!''' Ten has been extremely helpful to me personally, and I haven't seen anything anywhere to suggest he wouldn't make a great admin. --
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  I have found that opposition by Everyking on the grounds of personal disagreement over admin actions is a good sign that the user is worth considering for adminship. --
'''Support'''. We need diplomats.--
'''Support'''. Great user.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Agree w/ Carnildo. Diplomatic and friendly comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TenOfAllTrades&oldid=14978213#Everyking] suggest Ten will make a great admin.
'''Support''' would be a perfect admin
Er, what? Ten is not an admin already? My world hath been shattered! '''Support'''.
I am proud to vote for him. -
'''Extremely Strong Support'''
OMFG '''support'''. --
'''Support''' - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
Cool. --
Thought he already was one.  --
'''Support'''. <nowiki>{{cliché}}</nowiki>. Ten's been involved with many aspects of Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. <font color=#00A86B>
'''Support''',
You mean he's not already?  Oh dear.  '''Support'''.
'''Unequivocally'''.
'''Support'''. A reasonable person who does excellent work; happy to support.
'''Support'''. Good work. --
'''Support'''.
Sincerely, I thought he was an admin already. '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Of course.
'''King'''OfAllTrades

Support. My encounters with TenOfAllTrades have been entirely pleasant and productive.
'''Support'''. Have noticed a good approach to resolving disagreements.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Well deserving of adminship, especially lately.  --
'''Support''', excellent editor and likely to make an excellent admin. --
'''Support'''. I noticed him positively before (and liked his sense of humor, too). His handling of the Everyking case El C cites below was appropriate. &mdash;
'''Support''' - I've seen several occasions where Ten has been a calm voice of reason  dealing with potentially difficult conflicts. And I thought Ten already was one.
'''Support''' - I can't say it better than those who came before.
'''Support''' Seems like a great user.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I've had positive encounters with this user in the past, although slightly weak on edit count... I will support for admin. &nbsp;
'''Support'''.  Consistently helpful and polite editor.
'''Support'''. Nothing but good experiences with this user. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Contributions and Talk: page comments indicate good admin material.
'''Support'''; Looks good to me.
'''support''': Good to see the voting is going well for this reasoned and seasoned candidate.  Noting Ten's POV seemed to be opposed to dissent from medical establishment authority, it was refreshing to observe Ten's restraint, rationality, and efforts to make useful contributions thereafter.  The ability to grow and overcome one's own bias is a remarkable and unusual quality for defenders of prevailing paradigms, indicating Ten actually practices what he preaches about rationality.
'''Support''', Very reasonable, and I specifically recall his diplomacy on the talk page of the [[Thimerosol]] article. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''  I've seen nothing but good faith efforts on his part. &middot;
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''.  If El C's example of a "poor experience" with TenofAll is indicative how he handles disputes, he's both an excellent contributor ''and'' decent with diplomacy.
Poor experiences dealing with this user.
--

'''Support''' plenty of edits, and satisfactory answers.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good user. --

'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. If he doesn't have time to use his powers, will it really do any harm? The candidate's amount of time available to spend on Wikipedia in the future shouldn't be a primary consideration in granting or withholding admin powers.--
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''', good user, reasons for opposition so far are weak at best.
'''Support''' I simply had to oppose those who oppose on grounds of the user's lack of time.  This is, in my opinion, one of the very worst reasons I see for opposing adminship.  It does not mean that the project would not benefit from a user having sysop access nor does it imply that one is at all untrustworthy, uncivil, or not knowledegble about policy (although it may mean that these things take longer to show.)
'''Support''' A part time, trustworthy admin is worth having --
I actually like the honesty of admitting not having much time. Why is it that worse than people claiming that will fix everytihng on wikipedia even if they won't?{{spaced ndash}}(
'''Support''' - Lot of dedication in vandal fighting{{spaced ndash}}
'''Support''' - Harmless. And many an intention to concentrate on school in favor of Wikipedia has gone awry ;)
'''Support''' user's on statements regarding lack of time show levelheadedness and honesty... passes my bar. &nbsp;
'''Support''' deserves the recognition.
'''Support''' - I don't see how not having a lot of time to do stuff means that you should not get admin tools - having lots of people fixing stuff now and again is surely healthier than having a few obsessives working flat out. A solid editor by all accounts.
I think it's refreshing when a potential admin admits that he won't be on the Wikipedia 24/7. People who use that against him trouble me. '''Hot support.'''

'''Support''' good admins are always useful, even if they don't edit all that often.
'''Support''' He can have the mop, even if he doesn't use it much.
'''Support'''. Opposing due to warning that he won't be an active admin is new to me. There are several very good contributors here who have admin tools but don't use them much, [[User:Camembert|Camembert]] is one I can think of off the top of my head. The good work and experience is enough for me to support, even though I haven't interacted with Thames much, just reviewed his contributions.
'''Support''' per Scimitar.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  Inactivity shouldn't be a problem.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  I don't understand the insufficient activity concerns.  If an editor is suitable for the tools, give them the tools.  Another admin doing janitorial work once in a while is better than none at all, right?
'''Support'''
'''Oppose (reluctantly)''': The answer to question 1 below is curious. You want to be an admin (you accepted the nom), but doubt you'll have time to do admin things? Why do you need the tools then? The things you say you'd like to spend time on do not need admin tools. Use of edit summaries is a touch lower than I like to see (59% overall, 76% over last 500 edits), and activity level is a bit lower than I like to see (7 edits a day over last 90 days, and that average has been slowly but steadily dropping for the last six months). Your intention of beginning a PhD program means this average will drop further. Also, I am a bit concerned about possible overuse on your part of the {{tl|fairuse}} tag on various images that you have uploaded. About 1/4 of the images you've uploaded have been tagged with this tag, which really shouldn't be used if possible. Lastly, 352 of your last 500 edits have been marked as minor. Are you perhaps over-using the minor edit box? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaborations_of_the_Week/Six-party_talks&diff=prev&oldid=21366265 This edit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Collaborations_of_the_Week/Six-party_talks&diff=prev&oldid=20852456 this edit], for example, do not seem minor to me (but I readily admit this is subjective). Convince me as to why you need/want admin tools when you won't be using them, and I'll probably change my vote. All the best, --
'''Oppose.''' User admits to not having the time to do admin chores. Also, with the projects that he/she wants to be involved in, no admin powers are needed. User is a good editor, though. I will support when he/she is "ready".
'''Oppose''' WHats the point of having admin powers if you don't have the time. And if you did't want to be nominated you could have just declined.
'''Remaining neutral''' - this is a good user who could benefit from having admin abilities, however openly admits to not having the time to actually do admin things.{{spaced ndash}}
I would like to quote dab in a recent wikipedia talk comment, since he has wise advice that deals with admins that can't commit that much time to Wikipedia. Context is found here: [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F]]
Since I'm not familiar with the candidate, no vote, just a comment: what does it matter if he won't have much time to do admin chores? It's not as though promoting him takes up a place someone who has more time might get; there's no limit. If he also does a little, that a little less work everyone else has to do. I don't believe there's any reason to deny a trustworthy editor admin rights.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thames/new&oldid=25623542 Getting somewhat ahead of yourself, aren't you?]
'''[[First Post]]!''' seen this editor around and always thought he was sensible. Good egg in my estimation.
'''Support''' active on talk pages and wikipedia namespace, and uses edit summaries nicely, which is a big plus. not likely to abuse admin tools.--
'''Massive dose of support'''. He's pretty good.
I went out on a limb in his ''last'' RfA and '''supported''' him. I thought I was going to be the only one. This time I already know I won't. I will, however, reiterate some of what I said then, "''Level-headed? Check. Civil? Check... Heading in the right direction? Check. Can have (most) errors corrected? Check. No big deal? Check. I think I'll go out on a limb and support for now. Just do try and be more active.''" --
'''Support''' - everything seems good.

'''Support''' '''
'''Support''' We need more admins watching where the money goes... I mean watching economic topics.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' We need more admins, issues in last RfA seem addressed. -
'''Coming back from Wiki-break to support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' has proved himself. No big deal.
'''Support''' --

'''Support'''. Seems like a good user, from his edit history and what I've seen of him at AfC.
'''Support'''. A good contributor, with well rounded contributions both with articles and with janitorial work. Looking through the contributions I see a responsible editor who I think would do well with the admin tools.
'''Support''' &#8766; The Land is level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable.  Wikipedia will benefit from giving the mop and bucket to The Land. →
'''Support'''Good editor. '''''
'''Support'''.  Even though I have never worked with him, the fact that he has had 500 edits since his last RfA is merit enough in my books.  I didn't vote in his last RfA, mostly because in October I was just starting to take interest in this side of Wiki.  With that said, I'd say let's go for it.  --
Kinda disappointed he self-nommed (I could name half a dozen people who'd probably be happy to nominate him), especially so soon after his last RfA.  That said, he ''is'' a Top Bloke with a level head and the ability to shoot laser beams from his eyes, so I don't really have any choice in the matter.  '''Support'''.
Probably was good enough last time, just not active enough for people to see it. Under the circumstances, waiting over a month to re-nominate is plenty long enough. --
'''Support''' Because he's always been a nice guy to me, and we need more nice admins.
'''Strong support'''; oppose votes go against long-standing consensus that RfA renominations do not need to wait for arbitrary periods.
'''Support''' Seems competent and sensible enough to use admin tools for good. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''', seems like a good, upstanding Wikipedian. So why wait to give him the mop.--

'''Support'''.  In this user's previous RFA, many opposed because The Land had been idle for a while and had a "low" edit count (hahaha).  Now, people are opposing because The Land, after fixing those problems, presented the solution "too soon".  In both RFAs, so far, not one person has opposed for any other reason besides these two.  Nobody has been able to come up with any reason why this user could not make perfectly good use of the extra abilities.
<font color="708090">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Close''' but not too soon for me to oppose. Hmm, that didn't come out right.
'''Support''' per silsor.  The Land had not a single oppose vote based on anything he ''did''.  He withdrew after a few days and waited almost seven weeks before renominating himself.  He has shown fine judgment in biding his time and even if you think that an editor who has things to "fix" should hold off for 2-3 months to show improvement, that seems to be inapplicable here. --
'''Support'''.  That he was turned down recently doesn't mean he has to be turned down now. &mdash;
'''Support''' as per [[user:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]].
'''Support''' as per last time.
'''Oppose''' RfA's should not be re-considered for 2-3 months --
'''Oppose''', barely over a month since last RfA. Am opposing now because I don't feel I'll get guff now.
'''Oppose'''. Nothing against the user, but let's not set a precedent of quick re-consideration bids.  Take a little time to work things out. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. For the reasons listed above, and the low edit count.
'''Oppose''' I do favor a longer waiting time between nominations, but I'll be glad to support next nom.
'''Oppose'''. Too soon after last nom.
'''Oppose''', too soon after previous nomination. No evidence of having addressed the criticism mentioned in that RFA.
'''Oppose''' I feel pretty much the way the other opposers do, not enough time to see if this user has taken previous criticism to heart. Perhaps in the future I will support... but not now. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' as self-noms should be spaced further apart. Will most likely support in future, but still too soon.
'''Oppose''', need a little more time since last RFA.
'''Support''' almost 6,000 edits.
'''Support'''. Deserves adminship to better and more easily accomplish any task he chooses. Not every admin has to be a janitor or Walmart greeter. &mdash; <small>

'''Support''', seems to have enough contributions, and getting a contribution noted in a newspaper is a good thing too.
'''Support'''.  The 'Badger has been around for a while and all my interactions with him have been positive.
'''Support''' I believe this user won't go rogue with his admin powers.
'''Support'''.  Does good work creating an encyclopedia; I can understand why he doesn't have time to muck about in the Wikipedia: namespace. :D
'''Wholeheartedly support.''' I was one of those that offered a year ago to nominate Badger, and I stand by that 100%.  Badger is a fantastic editor and contributor--I understand that the focus these days is on new admins who will do work on Wikipedia upkeep projects, but back in the old days if we had a good editor who contributed a lot to the project and didn't cause trouble, I recall us giving them admin privileges if they wanted them.  I can foresee only benefits if we give Badger admin privileges--if for no other reason (and I can think of many others) than that a user who has made as many good, well-written, high-quality contributions to this project as Badger has deserves to have that recognized.  Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal"--in a perfect world, all wiki users would have admin privileges.  We restrict them because there are people who will abuse the privileges -- I can't believe there's any concern about Badger in that respect.  Sorry for the long note, but I've been wanting to nominate this editor for a year, and I can't believe there are so many oppose votes right now.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.
'''Support'''. Good editor and a great username too.
A user I recognize and respect. &mdash;
'''Support''', I decided to research him after I saw his nomination removed (strange that) and he seems like a good user. I hope I don't regret it!
Support, but if Hallett Smith is such a "noted Elizabethan scholar" shouldn't we have an article about him? --
'''Support''' first few oppose votes about setting up RfA wrong seem a bit harsh <small>
'''Support''', excellent editor, would make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. A name I've seen associated with nothing but good edits. A longstanding good user ought to be given adminship even if he will use it only rarely: long experience without problems suggests he is suitably acquainted with policy despite lack of interest in its creation.
An exemplary editor who deserves a mop even if it's for occasional use.
'''Support''' The Musical Mustelidae has clarified my worry (personally being somewhat inclusionist, if there's a chance that an article ''is'' under the apparent junk - I was concerned that he might not scratch the surface before hitting the delete button).
Support: Not a very social person, but a good article author and editor, and we need people whose idea of content extends beyond format (as well as the people whose idea is format....not trying to pick another fight).  In particular, he satisfies a need, as Wikipedia has too few folks working on Renaissance British literature.
'''Support'''; I'm also partial to people who mainly contribute content to the main article space.  Everything I see is good, and I see no reason to oppose.  Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. The only thing that might mitigate full support is the relative paucity of WP and WPTalk space edits (currently 44 and 4 respectively). However, the quality of his (her?) work is so good, and the interactions which I ''have'' seen so positive and thoughtful, that I think this objection is easily overcome. This badger deserves all the accoutrements (s)he asks for.—
--
'''Strong Support.'''  After perusing Kate's Tool, looking at the classification of edits, looking at his (yes, you're a he!) user page/user talk page, and looking at a (judicious) sampling of his edits over the last few months, I have come to the conclusion that [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] is correct.  This is an editor that not only knows how to rewrite and expand articles (a complex task at times) but owns up to prior mistakes in article entries (and corrects them himself).  He reverts obvious vandalism on sight when he sees it, and gives room for not knowing everything about a topic (thinking gray: see my own user page for context). To top it off, he has a very ''delightful'' sense of humor.  Just because he is more interested in adding article content does not mean he does not know how to interact well with other editors (I've checked that too).  Admins are ''trusted'' members who happen to have a set of tools at their disposal, not ''perfect'' or ''all-encompassing'' folks who participate in everything. . . I know I as an editor here follow my own fields of interest, as does TSB.  I see no reason ''not'' to promote him to Administrator status.  He's been trustworthy to date. . . and he, I believe, will be trustworthy with the Admin buttons.  Correcting the [[William Shakespeare]] article for his correct signature - the one from his will - is the icing on the cake for me.  Knowledge gathering and contributing like TSB's are simply marvelous.  Promote.  --
'''Support''' as per [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]].
I apologize. I misunderstood your comment about the newspaper article, which, combined with the small amount of trouble you had formatting this RfA, gave me a bad feeling. Since the issue of the article has been explained, and based on UC's comment below, I will support your request for admin powers.

'''Oppose''', too few Wikipedia namespace edits. Also the problems you had with setting up this RfA show that you're not familiar enough with procedures yet to be an admin. Your edit count looks promising though, and with a bit more participation in the community I'd definitely support in a month or two. -
'''Oppose''': Failure to follow instructions in submitting his self nomination [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=22583866&oldid=22583777] shows a potential trait to not follow policies that admins need to know. Answers to question 1 below indicate desire to revert vandal behavior. I'm slightly concerned that in the last five months and 1,000 edits this nominee has reverted edits a total 38 times, or <4% of his edits (judging by edit summaries, searching for "rv" and "revert"). Lastly, over the last 100 edits, edit summaries were not used in ~40% of edits. Show more interest in what it is you want to do as an admin, use edit summaries more frequently, and do your self nomination properly the next go around (if this one doesn't pass) and I'll gladly shift to support. --
'''Neutral'''&mdash;might need a few more edits in "wikipedia", and "wikipedia talk" namespace; shows little interaction.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Neutral''', I too am concerned by his limited interaction with other users.
<s>Please come back to RFA after you have interacted more with other users.</s>
<s>Too little involvement in discussion (245 talk edits, 62 user talk, 36 Wikipedia, 2 Wikipedia talk). I really appreciate your article contributions, but administrators need to have a lot of community involvement as well. Start participating on [[Wikipedia:Village pump]] and trust me, you'll like it. Then come back after racking up a few hundred Wikipedia:/Wikipedia talk: edits, and you'll have good luck. ~~ '''
'''Neutral''', I like SB but he doesn't have enough interaction for adminship. Will support, in a blink of an eye if an effort is made to interact more often.
Normally, this would be an '''Oppose''' vote due to a low number to Wikipedia: and User talk: edits. However, several respected editors vouch for you. Also, 6000 edits in main is nothing to sneeze at.
<s>'''Neutral'''. I would like "deleting rubbishy new pages" clarified as it is my only concern with The Musical Mustelidae.
'''Support''', despite whining about '''''the''''' Yukon being different. :-) Lots of good edits, lots of good category cleaning up work recently. Will wield the broom sensibly and is respectuful of consensus. Will be a good administrator.
'''Support''' -- The Tom has been around for a while and has made nearly 8000 edits with a good spread over the talk and project namespaces. I'm very pleased with the category work he has been doing. The only complaint that I have is the lack of information on his userpage, but that is just what I prefer to see. Otherwise, I see no reason why The Tom shouldn't become an admin. --
'''Support''', but please use edit summaries more often. Also, try to 'talk' more. You have only 69 usertalk edits, about .9% of your total edits.

'''Support''' No reason to believe that he can't be trusted with admin tools.  --
'''Support''' 8000 edits and a solid history with "janitorial" tasks; I can't hold the 200 edits against him when he was cleaning WP's house at the time.
'''Support''', good record of janitorial work.
'''Support''' work on those edit summaries but I don't think that should ever be a reason not to support someone. Just because it's harder to evaluate the editor?  Other than that, a lack of edit summaries aren't a good enough reason to vote oppose when being an admin is no big deal.
'''Support''' Use Edit summaries!:) Ohterwise, Gator is right, being an admin is no big deal. Good luck!--
'''Support.'''

'''Support.'''
Always being sensible at [[WP:CFD]].
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''', seems like a good and dedicated editor.
'''Oppose'''. I don't know this user personally, but from looking at his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The_Tom&offset=0&limit=250 last 200 edits], it is very hard to find an instance when The Tom put an [[edit summary]], and just a bit more often he uses the minor edit button.
'''Neutral''' Must use Editsummarries but other than that everything is ok --
Will support if I see more edit summary usage by end of RFA, this is a big pet-peeve of mine, especially for an admin. Other than that, I have seen the work you have done and support you as an admin. <font color="#9999ff">[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
'''Strong Support''' as nominator, --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''. I'm surprised he isn't already an admin - having recently met the chap, I can report that he is a dedicated and enthusiastic editor, with an excellent knowledge of the wikiverse.
'''Support''' - jaw drops, cliche kicks in.
'''Support'''. Worked hard on Australian articles in particular.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -- I'm surprised he isn't already an admin. -
'''Support''' December's dawn brings a beauty crop of new admins.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support.''' Should've been an admin months ago; I really should check to make sure people like him actually get nominated when they deserve it. Kudos to Cyberjunkie for seeing that that happens.
'''Support'''. Them Aussies are taking over. Uruguay, then the Windies, next... Wikipedia!
'''Support'''.  Now that I have met Bainer and he knows what I look like, it may not be wise/safe to vote against him.  Fortunately, he is a very good contributer who will probably be an excellent admin.  --
'''Support'''. Will make a good admin. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''support''', valuable editor &nbsp;
'''Support'''. Good contributions and helpful discussion.
'''Support'''.  Glad to support someone who was very helpful to me when I first arrived.
'''Support'''. Another talented Australian editor.
'''Support''' He welcomed me here and has substantially written/contributed to a majority of Australian law, ecspecially edits, designing info boxes and always being helpful. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' good edits.
'''Support''' We need more of Australia, gets my support :-)

<font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''' --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - per nom. Cheers --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''!
'''Support''' Thanks to [[User:Cyberjunkie|Cyberjunkie]] for bothering to check whether the editors we value every day have actually been made an admin. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' per nominator.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' as above.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.good editor.--
'''Support'''.  Looks like he'll use tools well.
'''Support''', looks good.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around the place, good contribs.
'''Support'''. A very interactive, hard-working Wikipedian.
'''Support''' per nominator.
<small>
'''Support''' - I've seen you around and you've always been civil but the thing that really made me nominate you is your answers to the questions. IMO, They were really well written and portrayed your point really well. This shows diligence as a writer and there is no doubt in my ming that you would use the mop well. Good luck! --

'''Sumasang-ayon''' I mean, '''Support'''. Yes, you're more than qualified plus we need more Pinoy admins. :-D  --
'''Support!''' He's a great editor, answered the questions very well (2000 pages on your watchlist?!  Wow!), and he's given me a lot of help with Philippines-related articles.  Plus, his contributions for the cities articles are a very huge task for one non-bot editor to do.  I was somewhat surprised to find he wasn't an admin. --

'''Support''', wonderful contributor.
'''Support''' anyone with 2,000 articles on their watchlist and that does not have an ax to grind gets my vote. We need more of those around.
'''H'''e's '''N'''ot '''A'''lready '''O'''ne?
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', great contributor. --
--
'''Strong Support''' very dedicated contributor
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. *wakes up and smells the coffee*
'''Support''' Anyone who would become so undignified as to take pictures of a Rubik's Cube deserves adminship.
'''Strong support''' - Would make an excellent admin. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', 2000 pages on your watch list, that must read like the recent changes page!
'''Support''', seems to be a fine editor. --
'''Support''', partly for those beautiful cubes!
'''Support'''
Cool. --
'''Support.''' Again, better him than me. :-)
'''Support.''' Perk up your wikipedian life with brewed coffee!--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - and sorry it took so long! --
'''Support'''. I really like your work. --
'''Support'''. Nice work, experienced. Meets my standards.--May the Force be with you!
'''Support'''.  Had an opportunity to check out his work, and was quite impressed.  Liked his measured answers to the candidate questions. Good luck!
'''Strong support''' for calm contributors. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Support'''. Your editing looks very nice.
'''Support'''. Should be given super powers. :)--
'''Support'''. What an impressive candidate. This should have been done long ago.—
'''Support''', (I wish I had thought of a coffee-related user name....)
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Good participation. --
'''Support'''  How could I oppose with a user name like that? [[Image:Coffee_cup.JPG|50px]]. Folgers - good to the last drop?
<strike>'''Support'''
Excessive off-topic ranting by myself moved to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Conflicts_as_a_sign_of_potentially_good_RFAs]
Yes! Intelligent and friendly.
Really ought to vote for my own nominee.
'''Support'''-
Okay!
Support -
'''Support'''. Strong candidate.
'''Support'''. --
'''Absolutely support'''. Helpful, civil, and intelligent. Should be an excellent admin. --
'''Support''' - I look on RFA for the first time in a while and there's a familiar name at the top, which is always cheering... Excellent candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Soitenly'''.
'''Support'''--very friendly and open to advice, and a fine article writer.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' - Excellent contributions to the community --
'''Support''' - Considerate, helpful, and very friendly. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''- [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[Image:Bass clef2.gif|25px|Cello today?]] <small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|Give me a <font color = brown> note! ]]</font color> [[File:Eighth note (crop).gif|15px|d.c. al fine?]] <sup>

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' this obviously qualified candidate.  Capable janitor and has shown the clear capacity to moderate, rather than enflame, conflict.
'''Support'''. Reasonable, courteous, and and a valuable editor.
'''Support''', most definitely. I'm sure I owe him a pint, too.
'''Support'''.  Give him the mop. --
'''Support'''. Seems like a good editor to me.

Absolutely! -
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' wisdom and wit. &mdash;
'''Support 100%''' - great editor, feel that this person will make a great admin! -

Cool.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  History indicates responsible adminship.
'''Support'''. "Thought he was an admin" moment.
'''Support''', great edits, great at communicating with other editors, great attitude. --
''' Support''' For reasons already mentioned.--
--
'''Support?''' ''Of course'' I support!
'''Support''' - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not out to get you! (elected to an adminship, that is).
'''Support''' and give him the stub-sorting barnstar. No problems I can see.
'''Support''', clearly deserving of the extra buttons.
'''Support'''. Hand him mop and bucket. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support''' - per everybody's favourite cliche. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' per Grutness.
'''Support'''. An excellent editor and stub sorter. He really deserves it.
'''Strong Support''' I thought he was a admin already --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''  Hard-working type who does all sorts of janitorial-type tasks already.
'''Support''' but contribute more to the talk pages, otherwise everything looks excellent.
'''Crazy 2am Caffiene-induced Support''' ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''' --
You're-not-paranoid, it's-just-that-everyone-is-out-to-get-you '''support'''.
'''Support''' baa.
'''Support''' interested in janitorial work.

'''Support''' Of course I'll support, we need more admins. And he's a great guy, really. --
'''Support''' '''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Э]]'''
Over 14,000 edits and not an admin? '''Support''', so long as he enables email, per below.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' anyone willing to tackle Dead end pages gets my support! Now if only you'd tackle [[:Category:Cleanup by month]]... &nbsp;
'''Support''' How many edits?? gets my support
--
14,000 edits in a year? Damn! '''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' as nominator.

'''Support'''.  Sounds good.
'''Support'''. Seems fine; has been interacting well with the community. But a note that, as the [[WP:3RR|3RR]] page says, it does not apply to clear vandalism when you aren't an admin.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Seems to have listened to all suggestions from his first RfA. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">

'''Support''', bring forth the mop forthwith. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Every thing looks to be in order here :-D
'''Support''' immediately!
'''Support''' Great editor, deserves the mop.--
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' Great user.
'''All My Support Is Belong To You'''. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''' - Of course!
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' -
'''Strong support''' - ''[[As seen on TV]]''.  Cheers -- ''
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]]
'''Support''' edits look good.--
'''Support''': --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' good editor, good admin candidate --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', he is very careful with his contributions about video game articles. --
'''Support'''. Good editor and should make a good admin. --

'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Dirty wet mop support'''. A good judge of articles that need to be deleted and obviously shows a desire for janitorial tasks. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]

'''Mild Support''' I only have a few minor concerns as per the views expressed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thorpe|his first nomination]]. However they seem to be quite trivial regarding the time since his last nomination and this candidates positive contributions so far. --
'''Support''' absolutely.  &mdash;
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience; does lots of good work. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', no objections from here. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] -

'''Support'''.
'''Support''', as he seems to be a great editor.
'''Support'''; seen this user around plenty.
'''Yeah!'''. Seen this editor around.
'''Support'''.
'''w00t support!'''. -
'''Support'''. --
Extreme [[Smark]] '''Support''' --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
'''Support''' Dear me, you weren't an admin already? Let's rectify this as soon as possible.
'''Support'''.
'''Harrumph!''' --
'''Support''' - I've rarely crossed paths with this editor but I certainly trust the nominators judgement. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - I, too, haven't really crossed paths with Thorpe, but it looks like he's a good editor...he won't abuse the admin tools, IMHO. --
Mais bien sûr!
'''Support'''.  A very industriuous, thorough and committed editor whose enthusiastic vandal defence would surely benefit from rollback.  I am impressed that Thryduulf explicitly drew attention to my comment about his recent intervention with an uncommunicative editor.  I believe that his handling of that case was inappropriately harsh but it was only just so; I understand how he got into that position and it is clear from his response to previous suggestions/criticisms that he learns fast and is unlikely to repeat that error (as I see it). --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - not one already? I have been particularly impressed with his work on the Village Pump and the way he participates in policy issues like [[Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal]].
'''Support'''. Thryduulf makes a good balance of contributions to articles, talk pages, and policy issues. Happy to support.
'''Support'''. A well-rounded editor.

I just had occasion to single xim out for praise, and now this. Seems like an omen.
'''Support'''. I've seen Thryduulf involved with many edits and discussion in the main and Wikipedia namespaces and was just thinking today that he should be in line for an adminship soon. May the [[User:Iasson|Iasson]] sockpuppets fall trampled beneath the Earth! --
'''Support''', enthusiastically. What everyone else said.
Not an admin already?
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' He wasn't already an admin?!?!

'''Support''', good user
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' Not a threat to schools.
'''Strong support'''. It's funny; just last night I was just considering nominating Thryduulf for adminship&mdash;I planned to ask him today. Grutness, you beat me to it! &mdash;
Of course!
Makes good additions to [[Wikistory]], albeit that he's the main story-writer [-
'''Very Strong Support'''
Vaguely.
This user offends me - he has more votes than my RFA! But then again, I could have sworn you were an admin already. '''Emphatic Support'''. (btw I was just kidding :) &ndash;
'''Support'''.  <small>You mean he isn't one already?</small> --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. His maintenance would benefit from admin abilities.
'''Support'''. Another one who I assumed was already an admin! Certainly qualified. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Seems to be mostly an admin already. &mdash;
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Looks good! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Support'''; expect him to be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.  Helpful, knowledgeable &mdash; should make a good admin.
Definitely.
Oh, yes, '''definitely'''.
'''Support'''.  Seems to have his head screwed on. --
'''Support''' yes sure.--

'''Support'''. I should have gotten here earlier, but now I guess I'll just have to got to the end of the line and wait my turn to say: "What?! You're not ''already''?" --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. As has been expressed above, I'm surprised this chap isn't already an administrator.-
'''Support'''.  Had a good time with while daeling with a mad (crazy) user. And ignore the socks. '''
'''Support''' I withdraw previous opposition.
'''Support'''. --


'''SUpport'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' &ndash; seen nothing but positives whenever I've seen the name.
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', of course.
'''Support''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
Emphatically oppose. Makes a point of defending all sorts of questionable sysop actions. That does not give me confidence in what he would do if he was an sysop himself.
Oppose. He is a brown noser. He'll get an admin because of it. [[User:BeBop|BeBop]] 18:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC) <small>Stricken by [[User:Gkhan|gkhan]] 22:12, May 29, 2005 (UTC) Undone by
Nothing to say Thryduulf doesn't deserve adminship, but nothing to say he does either. No major accomplishments on the Wiki, and numerous little conflicts in his history. Do some quality editing and forget the little wars with other users and I'll support in the future.
'''Support''' 5300 edits, almost a year, good contribs. definately.
Support.
'''Strong support''' Certainly.  See my admin criteria on my userpage, which this user passes with flying colors.  I had considered nominating this user myself.
'''Support'''. This user is a good, active contributor to Wikipedia, and has made important contributions to  Computer and video games article groups. Evidence of good communication and civility shown on talk pages. I do not hesitate to vote that this user should be given administrative privileges; I am sure that this user will make good use of them. --
'''Support''', seems to be a good editor, so why the hell not. --
'''Support''' - Has the needed experience and would benefit from a mop. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' good history of vandalism fighting. The extra button will be a good addition to that fight.-
'''Support'''; lots of good edits, and does great work on video game articles.
'''Support.'''  I see a lot of solid work and dedication to the project.  Certainly has the experience for the job.  Also lots of edits to revert vandalism.

&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''' --May the Force be with you!
'''Full support.'''

Contribs and talk pages look OK to me.  *grumbles about sparse use of edit summaries*
Certainly.
Good user, also the author of the [[Wikipedia:Announcements November 2004|400,000th article on the english Wiki]] --


Seems fine to me.




Support.



Based on the overwhelming support, I support as well "
Okay.

—
THWAAA. A very constructive editor who has contributed some excellent articles.
'''Support''' I don't really think that sparsely using edit summaries should keep anyone from being an admin, especially such a strong editor.
Needs to give more edit summaries.
'''Support''' as nominator
'''Support''' per nomination. --
'''Support''' will make an excellent admin --
'''Support''', this user has left me with a good impression every time I've encountered him. Just venture a little bit more into the Wikipedia namespace every once in a while.
'''Support''' plenty of experience, went through his archives and cant find any scandals.
'''Support''' 9000 edits in a year is most impressive. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' as per nom.
'''Yes'''

'''Support'''. <font color="green">

'''Support'''. I have ran into him before, and in each case he was either reverting vandals, making good edits, or engaging in civil discourse.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' although I don't know 'em. <font color=#7fffd4>
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''.  It's been a pleasure working with him on various articles and was one of the first individuals that helped point me in the right direction when I was a newbee.  Will make a fine admin. --
'''Support'''. Won't abuse admin powers.
'''King of all supports'''. His contributions to Wikipedia are immense. He has a lot of talk page edits (every talk page I visit seems to have a post from him on it). That is amazing. I probably see Tom on talk pages more than anybody else. He is civil, knowledgable, helpful, and extends a hand to everyone who asks for it. Hats off friend.
'''Support''' Over 9000?? this should be clear...
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Not come across him, but a brief look at his contributions looks good and I trust the other supporters.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
--
Sorry, but the 160 edits in the Wikipedia namespace is way too low for me because it shows that you have not been very active in the various janitorial and procedural tasks. I would like to see more participation on [[WP:AFD|AFD]], [[WP:TFD|TFD]], [[WP:CFD|CFD]], [[WP:HD|HD]], [[WP:VP|VP]], [[WP:PR|PR]], [[WP:FAC|FAC]], or any other tasks listed on [[Wikipedia:Maintenance]]. I would be more comfortable if you have more proof that you are well versed on all of the policies and guidelines before handing a mop to you.
I think he's "mopworthy".-
He's handled disagreements I have had with him in very civil terms.  I also like his strong support of [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]]


Wow, thought he was one already.  Unquestionable.
Support for now. After more research about the things Everyking has pointed out, I may change my vote. --
100% '''Support''' Damn fine editor, damn fine person, and he'll make a damn fine admin.
'''Strongest Support Possible'''. In my experience, Tony has been incredibly hard-working and has displayed an almost uncompromisingly open-minded and positive attitude. I knew he's been involved in content disputes, and although some may disagree with him (they were quite contentious disputes), I hope all can agree that he was often the force behind resolving disputes when all the rest (including myself on occasion) were frustratingly and unproductively at a stalemate. He has a great knowledge of the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. Unlike User:Jag123, I perceive his edits to consist both of talk page discussion as well as many substantive namespace contributions.
'''Support'''. I strongly disagree with some positions he's taken, in particular those regarding explicit pictures; but I've got strong opinions too, and it doesn't stop me from properly doing the dirty work of cleaning up the little turds the trolls, children, and morons leave behind. I'll fight him on "remove personal attacks", and I'll fight him on explicit pictures -- but that's irrelevant to adminship. --

He's not already an...? Yeah....
'''No-brainer''' - support. -
Looks like a goody - '''support'''

'''Strongly Support'''.
Wait, he's '''not''' an admin? Well, give that boy a mop and bucket and put him to work. Fair-minded to a fault, he'll do a great job. --
I don't see any reason not to support. The incidents that have been mentioned seem to be few relative to the number of edits.
'''Support'''.   At the risk of being unoriginal, I thought he was. --
'''Support''', he has always shown good faith and is a fine user.
Good user.

Good user with excellent knowledge of how the Wikipedia works.  I don't think that he should be opposed for 1) his opinion on the inclusion of possibly offensive images or 2) his acknowledgement that the Wiki environment can be agonizingly frustrating for actual domain experts.  --
'''Strongly Support''' He has always tried to keep an open mind in edit discussion, tried to compromise and reach consensus in NPOV, tried to resolve issues rather than revert to edit war. I think he cares about the integrity and future of Wikipedia and has a firm grasp of the concept of the encyclopedia. The reasons levied in opposition to this nomination do not hold water to me; I have seen him repeatedly trying to avoid negativism and try to work with others.

Eh, why not.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  He has strong views and speaks his mind.  And?  He gets involved in contentious issues to ''resolve'' disputes, not further them.  He is courteous more often than I am (and I try).  He already holds himself to higher standards than is required by policy, and I presume will be even more careful as an admin.  He does a lot of janitorial work around here and seems ready to take on more.  Hey, hand him a mop and bucket.

'''Sure'''.
I could have sworn Tony Sidaway was an admin, but since he isn't, he should certainly be made one. —
'''Support'''. Had a somewhat unpleasant run-in with him recently, but the problem was sorted out on the talk page rather quickly and politely. While I don't always agree with him, I believe I can trust him with the additional admin powers. --
I thought $user was already an admin.
Even though Tony and I have had stark differences on a few issues here or there, I respect his opinion and intellect, and offer him my most fervent '''support'''. —
'''Support'''. I've seen him around for some time, and his judgement seems sound. --
'''Support'''.  While I tend to disagree with him many issues, and often end up debating him, I still think he would make a fine administrator.
A sensible editor, for the most part.  No problems whatever with handing over the keys.  <span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
Excellent.
Not that my vote is needed at this point, but '''support'''.
'''Support''', definitely. --
I would trust Tony to be playing with those toys a lot more than I do some people who already can. --
'''Support'''. Every time I had interactions with him or even saw his work from a distance, Tony seemed a reasonable, moderate, cool-headed person. He constantly displayed the qualities and attitudes which I have come to expect from administrators, and, I daresay, from ''good'' ones.
'''Support'''. On the whole I think he does good work and acts in good faith, and makes an effort to address concerns.
'''Support''', I'm rather suprised to learn that he's not an admin already.
'''Support'''
I don't know Tony very well <s>, but what I've seen of him (mostly on the mailing list, I'll admit) makes me share some of the concerns of the oppose voters above.  I am partially of the opinion that Tony may be a very fine contributor who, for whatever reason, is too consistently hardline and unwilling to compromise to be an effective admin.  We have a number of editors whose contributions dwarf mine (Tony is likely one of these) but who don't have an admin temperament, and I think they should be valued but not promoted.  That said, I don't know Tony well enough to be sure about this, so I won't oppose, and certainly many people whose judgment I trust support his nomination, so perhaps I am simply jumping to a wrong conclusion. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 22:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s>  After posting my neutral vote, however, Tony left me a few comments on my talk page that I have considered.  I've also had a brief spin through his recent contributions.  Tony strikes me as a generally quality Wikipedian, whose opinions I often do not share, but whose fundamental commitment to this site is easily the equal of mine.  I cannot, therefore, do anything but support him -- I would caution him to be very self-aware about areas where his strong opinions may cloud his judgment (and to be careful when dealing with "semi-policies"), but that's good advice for anybody, and shouldn't pose a serious obstacle to his being a productive admin.  Sorry for the novel.  Best wishes, Tony.
support
'''Support''' - if anyone can be deemed to have served their "apprenticeship" it's Tony, and I can't imagine anyone who deserves it more.
'''Support'''. I'm an infrequent RfA voter, but the apparently baseless opposition, and especially the complaint that he agrees with close to 40% of those voting on the in-line photo, make it mandatory that i vote on this one. --
Very strongly oppose, based on my experience in dealing with him: tendency to get involved in disputes, uncompromising and negative attitude, support for explicit pictures displayed on articles (as opposed to being linked—the dispute over [[autofellatio]] being perhaps the most notable example), a stated belief that Wikipedia is no place for knowledgeable experts to work alongside ordinary contributors, and extreme deletionism.
'''Oppose'''. Posts to wikien-l suggest he would take a heavy hand as an admin (see [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/018858.html] for example). Other posts to wikien-l indicate an arrogant and condescending attitude. (see [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019670.html] for example). These examples are by no means isolated, but I'm not going to spend any more time digging through the wikien-l archives looking for more.  I recognize Tony's numerous contributions but I don't want someone with his attitude with the "mop and keys".
Oppose --
'''Extremely strongly oppose'''. Agree very much with James Everyking's analysis. If a user was doing this ''on purpose'' you'd call him a troll. This is in no way based on my disagreement with him on one issue or another -- I wouldn't oppose him for that -- but for his anticonsensual approach and the character flaws James mentions.
Oppose. Posting a gawd-awful picture of [[autofellatio]] to see how long it would last seems awfully close to disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Moreover, user nonchallantly speaks of forking the project and writing articles for "stability" rather than consensus. I find consensus to be a non-negotiable value for the project and am hesitant to support a user that feels differently.
Oppose. No pun intended, but his behaviour at autofellatio left a bad taste in my mouth, and is far too close to being disruptive-in-order-to-make-a-point than I'm comfortable in endorsing in an administrator. (P.S. The autofellatio article ''still'' sucks....)  -
Oppose.  Agreement with Everyking.
Oppose, but not gladly. I think Tony has a bit of work to do before I'd support his nomination. His tone is at times aggressive in a way that I don't think appropriate for an admin, especially given to whom its been addressed. --
'''Oppose'''. :/
'''Oppose''' at this time. He answered many requests to move articles in WP:RM only with the curt reply "pointless move". That just doesn't seem helpful to the requestor. He does seem to be a generally good editor in most other ways, however, so I may support in future.
Oppose. Too soon, maybe in a few months. --
Oppose. I see some benefit in making him an admin, but I also agree with Everyking, Jonathunder and Cool Hand Luke.

'''Extreme first support vote'''. I was going to nominate him myself, but I am a lazy slacker and I kept forgetting. Sorry.
'''Strong support'''.  This user has put in an amazing number of edits (not to fall victim to editcountitis, but over 16,000 edits shows strong commitment to the project).  I don't see any problems with giving Tregoweth the mop.  <font color="red">
Aw, nuts!  I forgot to '''support''' my own candidate! -

'''Strong Support''' OMG 16,000 edits Top VandalSlayer and not a Admin Im in shock --

Strong support.

'''Support.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' fellow vandal slayer
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', although I am not sure why it took so long.
'''Support''' it's about time --
'''Support''' Access to the rollback tool would be a benefit.
'''Support''' with the quickness.
-- (

'''Support'''.  --
'''EXTREME COPYCAT SUPPORT'''. RfA cliché--May the Force be with you!
'''Support''' I hold any great vandal slayer in high regard, especially this one. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Oh, such a cliche, but still quite true:  You mean he's ''not'' already an admin?!  Yes, full '''Support'''; level-headed and even-handed and good vandal-fighter. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' if he teaches that picture of Johnson, on his userpage, how to read. <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Support''' /me hands you a Vorpal Sword of Vandal Slaying +6 &nbsp;
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''First-time-ever-voting-on-an-RfA-support''' <font style="color:#5A3696;">♥
'''Absolutely'''
'''Support''', good work.
'''Get them kid!''' <font color="green">
'''Support''', strong contributer.
'''Support'''.
'''Furry Alien Support''' will make fine admin.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
Definite '''support'''.
'''Support''', good editor and patroller --
Support. If I recognise a name on RFA nowadays it must be a good candidate.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Answers to the questions set below are very short.
Im the first :). Everything seems to be in order. Im a bit surprised that someone hadnt nominated you.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''', looks reasonable enough.
'''Support''' by all means
Have a mop.  It'll come in handy. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' his name pops up on my watchlist quite often, good editor.

'''Support'''.
'''Support.''' This is my 2000th edit. You better make it worthwhile. Don't go all crazy on us now. :) --
'''Support''', looks like a worthwhile contributer, no reason not to. -
'''Support''' Would benefit with the rollback tool.
'''Support'''.  Normally I like to see more WP space edits, but his edit history looks good.  --
'''Support''', has shown himself to be a trustworthy editor who would benefit from adminship.
'''Support'''. Seems alright to me.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Impressive article-space credentials.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Solid contribution record. --
ITHAWO.
'''Support''' - Meets [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]]. Simple as. --
'''Support'''--
Cool. --
'''Support''' - I know this user from a mini caba...err...'''''TINC'''''... --<span style="color:red">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' a great contributor. -
<small>
'''Support''' Sure, everything looks good for this potential admin. Remember, there is no cabal. Really.
'''Support'''. I like how he organized his talk and archive pages so much, I boldly stole part of the format.
Sure, I'll support. But, please add a user page template of some kind to the top of your user page, it's a bit too much like the Main Page IMHO.
'''Support'''.
--
I '''support''' although I would like to see more wiki-interaction. Visiting the COTW or TWID would be nice but of course it isn't a requirement.  You have a good amount of edits, and we need more admins good a clean-up.
'''Support''' - I think the [[User:Triddle/stubsensor]] project is a wothwhile intitiative and has been conducted with respect for other editors by using humans to edit articles detected by the scripts and encouraging collaboration to improve the wikipedia.--
'''Support'''.  There are many ways to contribute significantly to Wikipedia besides authoring articles, and in only five months, I see quite significant contributions by Triddle, including a slew of images, and his creation of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject help desk|WikiProject help desk]] which demonstrates his constructive and helpful attitude.  Admin privileges would allow him be an even greater asset to the project. --
'''Support'''. Hey! I would have nominated you. To some extent, I think good, diligent cleanup work is more admin-worthy than any amount of prose. Otherwise, what good are the tools? But maybe that's just because I'm self-conscious about my own prose. Triddle will use his admin powers wisely. --
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''. Great image contributions, I've found them very useful. -
'''Support'''. Good article contributions and stubsensor is very useful.
'''Support'''.  Does good work, and I see no evidence that he would misuse admin rights.  --
Support.

'''Support''' User shows good evidence of trustworthiness, this is all that is needed for my support.
'''Support'''. I have some experience with Triddle, and as far as I am concerned, he is a polite and pondered editor. His project is also a very good initiative. I believe he would make a mighty good admin. --
'''Support''' (no qualification).
'''Support''' Does very good work, great addition.

'''Support''', agree with all of above.
No trouble with Triddle.  --
'''Support''' - appears to know policy, no evidence he would go on a vandalism spree once promoted.
'''Support''' - Excellent contributor to cleaning up wikipedia, which is imo the main sole of admins. Hates invalid stub notices => axiomatically good person. --
'''Oppose''' Although there are a large number of cleanup edits, there are very few, if any, substantial article contributions. It is thus impossible to judge the potential behaviour of this editor when it came to conflicts, and thus there is insufficient information to determine whether they are trustworthy. I am not keen on the balance of editing according to Kate's tool either.
--
'''Neutral''' at the moment. As [[User:-Ril-]] says, there is little interaction in the WP: and talk: spaces to judge a potential admin by. There is some evidence of good contribution to articles (though golden prose is not really a requirement, here, IMHO) however, so he at least seems not to inflame people on the spot. Also, his talk page reveals that he messed up the self-nom (wrong section) which does seem to bely unfamiliarity with an important part of WP procedure. All that said, his work on the project he mentions is clearly significant &mdash; hence my neutrality-
<s>'''Oppose.''' You need</s> I would like to see nine months of contributions out of potential admins.  You have only five.
I happily offer my support. Good luck! &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (AJ)'' </font><sup>(
Happy to be one of the first to support this.
Defintiely support.  A good editor, and more importantly, is interested in admin-type chores.
Seems very dedicated to the tasks which are made easier by adminship, strong support.
Oh, yes.
Cool.
Looks sound.
'''Support'''. Talk pages and contributions show he's level-headed editor, who deserves the mop and bucket.
'''Support'''. (Some edits are missing edit summary.)
'''Support''' (I thought he already was an admin!)
Yes.
Support.-
For sure.

I have seen only cooperative and productive contributions by this user. - [[User:BanyanTree|<nowiki></nowiki>]]

Seen lots of good work from this one.
Oh no, rholton is an admin and now trilobite will be an admin. I am rhobite - hilarity ensues. Support.
Excellent, easy-going contributor. --
I always liked [[trilobite]]s. And [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]]'s ancestors. OK, seriously, I've run into Trilobite often and seen him doing good work, especially tackling vandalism. He'll make a great administrator. (Although he could use edit summaries a bit more often.) &mdash;
I see this name all over the place, always doing good work.  Easy support.
Support. Easy decision.
'''Support''', valuable and very well experienced contributor.
'''Support''' - good resume with no signficant negatives.
'''Support'''. <font color=green>
'''Support''', great contributor and janitor--
'''Support''', great arthropod.
'''Support''', definitely. I've seen good contributions all over, and good evidence of communicating and working well with others.
'''Support'''.  Everything I've seen from Trilobite has been good, so I will shamelessly add a "me too" vote.
'''Support'''.  Strong contributor and likely to be an excellent admin.
'''Support''', why the hell not? --

'''Support''', Seen you everywhere, lots of good work and tons of contributions. Kudos from a green  contributor.
good user!
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Bit worried about the "extensive cutting back", but I think we should trust him given his excellent track record.
'''Support'''.

'''Support''''. Fine contributor.
'''Support'''.
Support.
Would it be moot to '''support''' at this point? :^) -
"Wikipedia is an unruly jungle that grows with vigour but requires extensive cutting back of overgrown vegetation." Mmmm, I don't much like the sound of that. I know what that means.
'''Oppose.'''
'''Oppose.'''
Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
'''Nominator Support'''. '''''
'''D'oh!''', assumed he was one. '''Strong support''', lots of great contributions, thoughtful and intelligent edits. Will be a great admin.
'''Support''' Good User --
'''Support'''. Good edits, good answers. --
'''Support'''. Well deserved!
'''Support''' and I also thought he was an admin.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''; most definitely.
'''Hell yes!!!'''
'''Support'''; seems an excellent Wikipedian the few times our paths have crossed. I feel confident he would make a great admin. <sub>└</sub>''<sup>
'''Strongest Support Possible'''. He does a lot of work, and so what if a lot of edits are to user talk? He still passes the bar in other spaces, what, would you support if he had 500 LESS talk edits? User talk edits means he interacts well. But anyways why'd he wait so long to run? He supported my RfA 4 and a haalf months ago and he already had 4000 edits! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', with pleasure. A very good editor and a nice bloke.
'''Support'''. Tomer's definitely worthy.
'''Support'''-
<font color="darkred">

'''Support''' Banes is my new hero, and if he says so... plus, Tomer is a great editor.
'''Support''', clearly. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. User is a longtime and valuable contributor, and, after all, adminship [[Wikipedia:Administrators|should be no big deal]].
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support''' fine editor.
'''Support'''. Good editor, makes good use of Talk: pages.
'''Support''' - Nice interactor (well at 95%). So I support. --
'''Strong support'''. Great editor, very considerate and funny, willing to seek compromise, and always able to lighten a tense atmosphere. He'll be a great admin.
'''Support'''. Great contributor all around.
'''Support''', a fine editor who collaborates well with others. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be quite reasonable and mop-worthy.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Have seen some great contributions in discussions and in implementations.
'''Support'''Good editor will make a good admin.--
'''Support''' seems to be a good editor --
'''Support'''. I have known Tomer since he came upon the scene, even though we do not agree about everything, nevertheless he has vast knowledge about many subjects. He is erudite and makes working on articles an enjoyable experience.
'''Support''' per nom. '''
'''Support''' Looks to have a good interaction with the community. Can not see a reason to oppose but, I see quite a few reasons to support.
'''Support'''. One of those 'I thought he was an admin' cases, at least for me :) Mop'n'bucket power to him!--
Who? Oh, Tomer! Definite '''support''' then!
'''Support''' Plenty of talk page interaction, and uses edit summaries.--
'''Support'''. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, likely to do good work. From what I remember, a little too much tendency to stir shit up for the heck of it on talk pages (I hope that's not a case of mistaken identity in my saying that), but I don't see that as having a bearing on being an admin, since none of it has been meanspirited. --

'''Strong Support''' Much good work already, more to come I'm sure.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Good user who could well benefit from the mop and bucket.
'''Support''' A fine editor who actually explains what he is doing on the talk pages.
'''Support''' Go for it
'''Support''' Fair and fine.
'''Strong support'''. Solid editor who has displayed a good sense of fairness in all situations I have observed. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - agree with those who thinks that discussing edits is a plus. &larr;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' —
<s>'''Oppose'''</s> '''WTH Support''' I had to look too hard to find this user on the RFA page damnit! &nbsp;
'''Strong support''' - how'd I miss this before?
'''Support''' - keep up the good work!
'''Free drugs!'''
'''Oppose'''. Most of your contribs are to user talk pages.
'''Oppose'''. Potential for abuse outweighs need. Rude and too closely tied to abusive wikiclique.
'''Oppose''' for reasons stated. I'm not sure this user is ready for admin status.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]]
He'll make it anyway, but I'm still going to '''oppose''' based on the rude and offensive tone I see cited above and below.
'''Neutral'''. The first time I saw Tomer it was on the Administrator's noticeboard making unfair (or at least excessively incivil) attacks at Everyking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=18246838] . I also have a certain feeling that Tomer was quite rude towards those he disagreed with. I see some improvement over the past months, but I will prefer to sit this out.
'''Neutral'''. The several incidents of incivility are a concern, and even when made apparently in jest (such as Tomer's recent comment re "hairy-chested Spaniards" on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpain&diff=29469417&oldid=29436654 Spain's talk page]), demonstrate some poor judgement on occasion. I'd also prefer to see less in the way of POV commentary on article Talk pages. However, Tomer's other work and interactions seem to be on the whole relatively ok, and has also shown willingness to mediate and be mediated. Hence the neutral vote for now.--
'''Neutral''' I cannot oppose, for the user's mass of edits and vocal support from respectable parties indicate he is generally of good character.  However, I join with Sjakkalle in expressing concern over incidents of incivility.  I urge Tomer, especially in his capacity as an admin, to exercise calmness and caution in making any analysis.
You robbed me of the honor of nominating you and thus completing the circle.  Oh well.
Of course. &mdash;
Good job, kid.

'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. Would be glad to have you back. &mdash;
'''Support''' - How can one so young have such maturity when many older than him do not? One of the mysteries of Wikipedia. -
'''Support'''-
'''Support''', looks good to me. --

'''Support'''.


Of course.
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Was a fine admin in the past, nothing has changed.

'''Support''' - thoughtful and reasonable whenever I've encountered him.
'''Support''' 100% Great person to work with

'''Support'''. Was wondering when you'd finally give in!
'''Support'''.
Support.
'''Support''', of course, but as Raul says, it's standard to let people take up their status again if they requested it be taken away in the first place.
'''Support'''.
I'm kinda pissed off that he's not still beaurocrat... <big>'''''
'''Support''' I thought I had already voted support for him. I guess not. Support! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''SUPPORT'''.

'''Support'''.

Cool.
'''Support'''. Great contributor, IMO --
'''Support'''.

Of course.
'''Support'''.
Support.
'''Support'''.  Of course.
'''Oppose.''' Based on [[User_talk:FeloniousMonk#Current_comments_by_other_editors|my past interactions]] with him, I have doubts that he can distinguish between actual bad behavior and the responses of those wronged, respond to it adequately, and remain neutral.
'''Oppose'''.  See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK]].
Often too lazy with the edit summaries to get my support, but looks good in other respects.
Seems unlikely to cause harm; needs to write more edit summaries though. --
'''Support''' Looks good. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support strongly!'''  Over 200 vandalized pages reverted in the last week alone, not counting numerous nonsense pages speedy-deleted away. This guy is a vandal-fighting machine...imagine what he can do for us with the ''Rollback'' and ''Block'' buttons enabled! We need more people like Ulayiti.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We need more vandal fighters...
'''Support'''
'''Support''', <nowiki>{{Sockpuppet|Willmcw}}</nowiki> [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[User:JCarriker/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Yup'''. ~~ '''
'''Support'''. Seems like an excellent vandal fighter.
'''Support''' SMOOTH! <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
--
<small>

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I trust a mop in his hands.
'''Support'''. Hand this user the rollback tool.
I know him from IBscrewed, so I know he's a good one. '''Support.'''
'''Support''', and not just because he reverted vandalism on my user page :)
'''Support''' we need more inclusionist admins.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. Good vandal- and troll-fighter. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. Excellent contributor.
'''Support''' <p style="font-family: Comic sans, Comic Sans MS, monospace;"><font color=turqoise>
'''Support''' emphatically.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
--
Only half-heartedly '''support''' (Just kidding. What do you ''think'' I vote?) --
'''Support'''.  I really though he was one! '''
Support, of course. (assuming acceptance) - I'd thought he got through last time. Hmm.
Support. The only reason I opposed him last time was the user page. I guess what he has now will work, and I've seen him around more.
Support, of course. He should had been made an admin way long ago. --
'''Support'''. The user page question seems academic, really. --
The userpage flap was silly then and it's silly now. &mdash;
Previous nom says it all. —
'''Support'''. As I said last time, I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker and janitor. He has also been a diligent admin on [[wiktionary:Main Page|Wiktionary]] and [[wikinews::Main Page|Wikinews]] and I think being an admin here too would be a huge benefit for all of us.
'''Support''' - red link issue is gone, therefore absolutely no reason to object.

'''Support''' red link issue is gone, and it wasn't a reason to object last time anyway.
'''Support:''' A good user, active on vfd, and has a lot of good contibutions.
'''Support''', just as before. <font color=green>
'''Support''' - I count his experience on sister projects as a major plus for Wikipedia! --
'''Support'''. One of the top Wikipedians. &mdash; '''
I like the way this man thinks.  I '''''happily''''' support now that the pesky red link of yore has been fixed.
'''Support'''.  -
'''Strong support''', excellent contributor, both level-headed and patient.
'''Support''' --
Support.
Support.
'''Support''' although ~7500 edits (~4000 in the articlespace) just barely squeaks by for me. Just kidding. Uncle G has a huge amount of knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and contributes to many areas. --
'''Support'''. If he doesn't accept, force him into servitude. --
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor, intelligent and patient.  Will undoubtedly put admin abilities to good use.
'''Support'''. A great contributor that should have passed the previous nomination --
'''Support'''. Should have passed the first time. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
I am satisfied that Uncle G is probably not an axe-murderer.
'''Support''' as I did last time. --
'''Support'''.

'''Support''' - active in areas that benefit from adminship.
Emphatic '''Support''', assuming he accepts the nomination. Level-headed with a great knowledge of Wikipedia procedure, that of sister projects, and of ''stuff'' in general. <font color=#00A86B>
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' a strong candidate with plenty of solid contributions, especially to VfD.  Uncle G has contributed some of the all-time great VfD votes, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chewbacca_Defense], which was so good it was later preserved on BJAODN.  I'm a bit concerned that Uncle G hasn't accepted his nomination yet, but I see no reason not to vote (an non-acceptance will obviously void all votes anyway).
'''Support'''; excellent contributor and likely to be an equally excellent admin.
'''Support''' Thorough, knowledgeable source whom I also thought was already an admin!
Benefit of the doubt.
'''Support''', as before.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Excellent wikipedian. We need more like him. -
'''Duh'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' of course. (I'd merely be waiting for Uncle to say yes.) --
'''Support''' - Strong contributions to the community. --
'''Support''' - My objections have been assuaged.
'''Support''' - Good contributor, even if he dislikes Bible verses. -
'''Support''', but I'd really prefer it if he'd find the few minutes to answer the questions. I'd also express some concern over some recent VfD examples (e.g. citing [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com] as an encyclopedic source), but the overwhelming majority of what Uncle G does is impressively thorough, good work. And I'm sure his administries on other Wikis will be of use here, too. -
'''Support'''.  My only concern prior was having an admin with no user page, but I am impressed that Uncle G was willing to listen to a large segment of the community who was bothered by this and create one, despite his personal feelings about it, demonstrating his collaborative good will. --
After accepting the nomination, I '''support''' wholeheartedly
'''Support''', moved my vote from ''Neutral'' following Uncle G's acceptance of nom. --
'''Support'''.
<s>If/When</s> <i>Since</i> Uncle G <i>has now</i> accept<s>s</s><i>ed</i> I <s>will be</s> <i>am</i> more than happy to vote support adminship for a valuable Wikipedian that puts principals before power (now, if only this was a request for presidency of a large nation in the western hemisphere...).
'''Support'''- changed vote from neutral. Seems like he would make a valuable admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' now that this excellent contributor has a user page. &mdash;
Support.  He's done great work on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal]].
'''Support'''. --
Moved from neutral.  I am satisfied with his answers below.
'''Support''', moved from neutral, since he does he indeed accept.

Far too concerned with deletion, rather than contribution.  His user page is as useless as the previous red link, so I don't see any improvement in that regard, considering the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G|feedback he got before]]. --
'''Oppose.''' Nomination is three months premature.
Strongly
'''Oppose:''' too short-tempered in many dealings with many editors.
'''Oppose'''.  His not accepting or rejecting the nomination, nor answering the questions, after three days just pushes me (somewhat reluctantly) over from neutral to weak oppose.  It's no good saying that he's busy writing an encyclopædia &mdash; if he wants to stay busy doing that, he doesn't need to be an admin. --
My only interaction was extremely negative, so I must oppose, not having seen anything to change my mind.
Too many negative interactions with too many good contributors.
'''Strong oppose''' overly prone to using VFD; concerning Bible verses-group VFD, I would say abuses it.
'''Oppose'''. A bully.
I supported Uncle G last time, but there is one situation since then where I feel his conduct was more stubborn than I would like to see from an administrator. The situation was the deletion/undeletion saga of [[Mahajana High School]]. It was originally VFDed under the name [[Maha Jana High School]], where there was a no consensus result, however Uncle G left a late vote that this school didn't exist and the closing admin, paying attention to this, decided to replace the article with a redirect which was deleted a few weeks later. During the undeletion debate and subsequent VFD debate, Uncle G got into some lively exchanges with Tony Sidaway where Uncle G continued to insist that the school didn't exist, in spite of evidence to the contrary (whether the school was named "Mahajana" or "Maha Jana" should have been beside the point.) The relevant debates are [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&oldid=13552510#Maha_Jana_High_School the undeletion debate], and [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mahajana High School|the second VFD debate]]. In light of this, I cannot support for now, but otherwise Uncle G's contributions are good and I am therefore not opposing either.

When I've seen Uncle G around I've tended to be impressed, and I was planning to vote support, but his attitude doesn't inspire me with confidence. He was stubborn about creating a user page last time, and this time he appears to have ignored his RfA and not bothered to turn up and accept the nomination, despite having been notified of it and having edited extensively since. &mdash;
Nominator obviously supports.

He'll be a fine admin.

Support. I recognize the name and the answers to the questions below looks good. -
Very supportive and encouraging of new users. Been a source of inspiration for many. Definitely support.


Cool.
Fantastic user, full support.




Admin for Utcursh should be a formality. A very active and enthusiastic contributor on India related issues.


Support 100%, I checked this person out and I'm very impressed with what I've seen.
Seems like he'll make a good admin. --
Definitely. -
All hail the Copyvio King. Harsah!
Good contributor, good history, good talk page.
User has excellent taste in women.  Oh, and he's a good contributor, I guess.
About time. --
Good user.
[[Macbeth|Hail to thee, thane of copyvios. Hail to thee, thane of speedys. Hail to thee, King of Wikipedia!]] Wholeheartedly support; user is a great editor and will be a great sysop.
'''Support''', has been doing some wonderful work. --
Wholeheartedly support.
Support.
Sure.
''Strong support''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Good work w/copyvio and cleanup. --
Willkommen im Kabal! ;) --

'''Support''' with extreme prejudice.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - of course.
'''Support''' -- quite proud to stand behind you, Vague! -
'''Support'''. I don't know you personally but such strong support is good enough for me. --
'''Support'''. I thought he was a sysop already.
'''Support'''. I did too.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I'm very impressed with how much work the vagrant does in keeping our encyclopedia free of copyrighted materials. Now if only we could figure out how to stop people from just dumping web sites into articles... —
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' it's not often I vote, but for Vague... --
'''Support'''.
Polite, well-behaved, does a lot of dirty chores...why not?
Yes, more janitors!
Support of course.

A true custodian of this site in every honorable and praiseworthy sense of the word.
I've seen Vague Rant around. Support. -
Support, very hard working.

Support. You have a very impressive list of supporters here. Keep up the good work. -
Support, definitely. Great user, never had a bad experience with him.
'''Support''', truly respect his work.

Support. --
Support

Support. Try not to be too cynical though :P -
Support, although we really need ''less'' of the vague ranting in the admin ranks. :)

Another support vote for this great contributor will not hurt.
It's always good to have more reliable people willing to work on VfD-and-related maintenance. -
Obvious.  Strong support.  Everything I have seen is good.
This point may be moot, but I'm givin' the Rantster the Official Lucky 6.9 Holy Mother of '''support!!''' -
Support. Seems to fit right in --



Meets [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my new admin criterion]],

Wow.  Just... wow.



He can't be human! --
Great user! --
Cool.
Go for it
His talk page is a wonderful example of collaboration.  Add in all the other positive traits that are so clear from his contributions and this is an easy Support vote.

Of course I support!
Support.
Support. --

Support --


His help with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains]] has been instrumental in moving more rail transport articles to Featured status.
Absolutely support. -
of course.

How much clearer does it get?
What's not to support? Excellent user.
Oh dear oh lor' yes indeedy. And a train-buff too!
Appears to be an excellent editor.
Not that he really needs more support ;)
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' - I've seen him about the place being civil and nice. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''', seems like a good user, and will be a good admin. But first, I have more edits than you ha ha!
'''Support''' of course. <small>
'''Support''' -

--
'''Support'''!
'''Support'''I like this editor and think he/she is one of the best mannered editors on the Wiki. I see Adminship as "no big deal" but encourage Voice of All to try and contribute more on RC Patrol and to heed friendly advice from well regarded admins that offer it.--
'''Support''' Polite editor, with many good contributions. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">'''Support'''</span>
'''Support''', with e-mail enabled.  Thanks for doing so.  <font color="red">
'''Support''' --
Voice of Support(

-- (
'''Support''' --
Looking at his talk page, VAMTG appears to have a very high spirit.  '''Supporting.''' <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' devotion is more important than clicking "random article".
'''Support'''.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Very knowledgable, very helpful, very mature. This user knows a lot about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy. He leave insightful and meaningful comments on the discussion page. And his contributions are solid. My vote thus reflects this opinion. --
'''Support''' '''<font color=#808000>
'''Support'''. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Oppose'''. Many minor edits to only a few articles, and use of edit summaries is ''very'' poor.
--
(posted after edit conflict with the wub) '''Oppose''' &mdash; while Voice of All(MTG) is a great contributor, I recently came across this edit posted by him on [[User talk:Redwolf24|Redwolf24's talk page]]: '' [[user:boothy344|boothy344]] has voted no on every single RfA without explanation. This is not only suspesious, but against RfA guidlines. This is possible trolling warranting RfC. I wonder if the beaurocrates even count such silly votes. This is just ridiculous.'' (sic) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedwolf24&diff=26133107&oldid=26132596]) As far as I'm concerned, I would prefer admin candidates not to call someone a possible troll. Not only will this usually flame a conflict, but it may be considered a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. Though I don't agree with Boothy's votes, he is a respected Wikipedian in good standing and should not be called a troll. The rest of the comment, along with his response to Boothy's vote above, also makes me hesistant. While it's OK to question Boothy's votes (many have done so, and I'm sure many will do so in the future), it's certainly not OK to call someone a troll. Combined with a low edit count percentage and diminishing edits on the project (see the chart; your overall contributions have leveled off since 9/16), I just don't think you're ready yet. You're a great Wikipedian, VOA, so please don't be discouraged by my comments. If this RfA fails (which it looks like it won't), I'd gladly support you in the future. Best wishes, and thanks for your understanding. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Strong oppose''' The fact that you are in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit]] the former [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]] concerns me as well as <s>calling</s> assuming boothy a troll.
'''Neutral'''- Few edits on Wikipedia name space, and only 209 distinct pages edited. I would suggest a bit more grunt work and then I will support.
'''Neutral'''-  per Jossifresco --
Obviously -
'''Support''', a teacher by profession, and it shows in his interactions.
Cool.
Without a doubt. Vsmith is an invaluable editor and a pleasure to collaborate with. He'll make good use of an admin's mop. --
Support. Without doubt, an excellent wikipedian.
'''Support'''
'''Yeah''', vandal fighting etc., great candidate.
'''Support'''.  His discussion page indicates to me that he Works Well With Others.
'''Support''', same reasons as those above.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Definitely a specialist in one area, but that's really quite a good thing.  Article edits and interaction all seem first-rate.
'''Support''', great editor --
'''Support.''' Great work an would be trustworthy I'm sure. I'm not sure what value for adminship purposes it would add to edit outside your expertise area. Good contributions are important, not topic.  -
'''Support'''- would make great admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|

'''Support''' &ndash; When he sees something that needs fixing; he fixes it. That's an admin you can count on. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
A candidate I can definitely '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Solid editor; great contributions. --
'''Support'''. Candidate has all the qualities required for adminship. Expertise is definite bonus. --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' He has been on Wikipedia for the requisite nine months for me to give such an endorsement.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  I see a lot of good.  I don't see any bad.  --
'''Support''' Many good contributions, no conflicts. Definitely deserving of adminship.
'''Support'''.  Good contributions, no indications he would abuse admin powers.

Neutral.  Seems like a good user and I'm sure he'll make a good admin.  Though I have a fondness for geologists, I'm voting neutral because I see almost no contributions outside the world of geology and I think admins should be a bit more catholic in their work.
'''Support''', <s>pending accepting of the nomination.</s>
'''Support''': Wow. All that cleanup...that requires some immense patience. Definitely worthy of adminship. &mdash;
'''Support''': Dedicated editor, deeply involved and pleasant to work with. --
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support''', great contributor. Keep on rollin'! [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Seen the user in AfD mostly, works on RC, NA. I would like to see You <u>voting</u> on AfDs, not only nominating. Overall this will be an excellent admin.
'''Support''' support per kind words above.
Full '''support''' Excellent contributions + a credit to WP. <small>&mdash;''the preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment is by''
'''Support''' Excellent contributor, fine work at AfD.
'''Strong Support''' I wanted to nominate him. --
'''Support wholeheartedly'''.
'''Support''' Excellent nomination--
'''Support'''. &mdash;

'''Support'''. If I tried to complain about this user I could not.
'''Support''' - excellent user.
'''Support''' - a very enthusiastic janitor; needs keys to the cleaning closet.
'''Support''' - looks like he will make a great admin. —
'''Support''' - He's already been doing the cleanup a non-admin can do, and is exceptionally good about doing due diligence.  He's got a level head, good judgement, and errs on the side of caution.  All good qualities for an admin. &rarr;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong Support''' a top bloke amongst top blokes.  Works hard for the encyclopaedia, keeps a level head, learns from his mistakes.
'''Support'''. Good editor. --
'''Support'''. I've taken a look at a few of your edits and it seems you really grind away at this project we like to call Wikipedia. Here's to hoping you don't snap and start blocking everyone on Wikipedia, eventually becoming so powerful as an admin that you out-block Jimmy Wales. Whoops, there goes my imagination again.
'''Support''' I've had good experiences working with W.marsh resolving disputes before they became significant.
'''Support''' a good vandal fighter, and experienced too.  --
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' - a few bad run ins with this fellow.  Not admin material.
'''Oppose''' per Zordrac.




Of course!

I'm happy to support.




Cool. --


seems level-headed
Needs a bit more time interacting and getting involved with Wikipedia: discussions to learn the ropes. Recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=4&target=Waltpohl&limit=500&offset=0 Star Trek episode delete voting] leaves me worried he's not clear on inclusion standards. --
Agree with Netoholic. Wikipedia is not lacking in admins.
'''Support''' as the nom :) <small>
'''Support'''
'''Support''' for no obvious reason.

'''Support'''. He has shown a firm understanding of our policies, and I am sure he will use the tools wisely. Copyediting is a vastly underrated task in Wikipedia, Wayward is a prime example of a user making a very valuable contribution without necessarily adding reams of content.
'''Support''' copyediting is more relevant to administrating than writing is. 2000 edits is more than enough.
'''Support''' Good editor.  Give him a mop.  --
'''Support'''.  Copyediting is a much-needed task, and users shouldn't be looked down on for focusing on it. --
'''Support'''
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''. Stereotyping "acceptable editing behaviors" for adminship seems counterproductive. Besides, Wikipedia needs better writing more than it needs new articles.
'''Support'''. Seems unlikely to cause destruction. --
-- (
'''Support.'''
Good candidate.  Nice to see a normal editor for a change. --
'''Support''' so long as you work on using more usertalk, especially in dealing with vandals:)--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
An admin should ideally contribute more to articles than simple copyediting. I think more experience of writing articles from scratch, or contributing to existing articles is necessary attribute for an admin.
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''' Same reason as given by Astrotrain.
An admin should not regularly violate Wikipedia policy.  In this case, the nominee's besetting sin is a lack of respect for previous editors' national spelling. Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acetic_acid&diff=24039785&oldid=24031266] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Makuria&diff=22213691&oldid=22197359] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&diff=prev&oldid=23095360]
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Journalist|Journalist]] 7 talk page edits way too few --
I really want to support, as he is a very good editor (plus I trust the nominator), but 7 usertalk namespace edits are just too few.
Per Journalist.
I '''support'''.
'''Support'''. I agree with the nominator ;) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Obviously.
'''Support'''.  Definitely.  <font color="red">
'''yupsireebobfersure'''.
'''Support'''. Who works extraordinarily hard on extraordinarily dull but important tasks. He takes some flak for it quite regularly and responds easily and with a knowledgable backing in policy. It's just a pity that he can't finish off what he starts yet. It'd also be great to speed his vandal fighting, which he is already very effective at. Will Who benefit the Wiki with the admin buttons? Oh yes, most certainly. As an added bonus, we have a rare case of a rhyming RfA page-title. -
'''Support'''. Of course.
'''Support''' As distracting as those damn question marks are, I don't think they'll affect your judgment as an admin in any negative way. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support''', for all the reasons given by the nominators.
'''Yes yes yes yes yes.''' Can't support any stronger than this.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''', strongly.
'''Extereme non-generic support'''
'''Who?'''
'''Support'''. Great contributor.
'''Support''' unconditional.
'''Support'''. [[User:Dmcdevit/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA cliché #1]]. Though, I would recommend toning down that neon green in the sig. <small>my eyes hurt</small>.
'''Support''' but the user name looks odd.--
'''Support'''--<font color = green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|E]]</font color>
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - No question. --
'''Support'''.
'''Who''' is '''Who'''? -
'''Support''' I have seen him around.  I just ass/u/me/d that he already was an admin!  He has been helpful and friendly to me, and I have no trouble supporting him.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' a notable "good egg".
Should be no big deal :)</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''', changed from neutral.  He's a good guy, and hopefully he won't sick his attorney on me for giving him a hard time.  :-)
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We pot smoking baseball players will soon UNITE!!!!!!
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' I've seen Who's work, so I support.
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support''' I'd almost say the nominator should take a wikibreak :\. <small>
'''Support'''. thought he was one.
'''Support''' --
I '''support''' he who is who.—
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|15px]] '''Extreme Phroziac support!''' -- (
'''Support''' without the obligatory ''Who'' joke. -
'''Support''' - ''[[User:Dmcdevit/RFA cliché no. 1|RFA cliché no. 1]]!''
'''Duh''' -
'''Support''' does admin work, so he would find the tools useful.
'''Support''',
'''Support'''. Good work on templates and categories, I'm sure he'll do great as an admin.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''EXTREME JAPANESE SUPPORT'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - long overdue.
'''Support''' for protection of my Userpage. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Yes!''' -
'''Strong Support'''.  He'll be great.  --
'''Strong Support''' because [[User:Who|Who]]'s on first! --
'''Support''', I'll jump on the bandwagon.
'''Wha?''' How come Who isn't an admin already?
'''Support<font color=#00Ff00>!</font><font color=#FF00FF>&iexcl;</font><font color=#0033FF>!</font>'''  -
'''Who?''' aka support =) '''
'''Support''' not that 61 to 1 support really requires my joining, but I always like to see more good janitors.
'''Support''' I've seen him doing lots of support work for the admins, which is always nice. I won't hold my pet peave of people using font tags in their signature against him! :)
Give the man a PhD <small>and a TARDIS</small>. '''Support'''.-
'''Support'''--
'''[[First baseman|First base]]''' er I mean '''[[Abbott and Costello]]''' er I mean '''Support''' (for those unenlightened see: [[Who's on First?]]) &nbsp;
'''What'''?
'''Who, What, Where, When, and How'''. Excellent editor.
Who's this? Snort, snigger, giggle. I thought he already was. [[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''.  Who would have thought he wasn't one already!?
'''Support''', wholeheartedly.  I thought he was one already--and here I was trying to <s>flatter</s>immitate!  :-)  <b>>:</b>
'''Support'''. Will be a fantastic admin. --
Who isn't an admin? '''Who''' is now.
Please see question below. I will move to support if the answer below is satisfactory in my view.
sysop subito!
Of course!
&#8212;



Sure. I've only seen good work from him, and he is cool-headed.
Sure. &ndash;

'''support'''


'''support''' Down with the trolls!--

Yupsiree. Wiglaf's worthy.
Cool.
A fine editor.--

'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''. A prolific and versatile editor who demonstrates a satisfying ability to learn. --
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''.
'''Unqualified Support'''. I've worked with Wiglaf and have always found him reasonable and pleasant, even when we have (temporarily) disagreed.

Wiglaf has a tendency to lose his temper when he is faced with opposition which makes it difficult for administrators to mediate. Calling opponents "amateur historians" is not helpful.
An obvious '''Support''', as long as he accepts the nomination (which I'm sure he will, since he said he would.) --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''--
'''[[soup|Support]]''' Sure, why not?

'''Support'''
'''Weak support''', I seem to remember seeing this user somewhere.
'''Support''' lots of image work and user interaction seems civil.  No evidence of campaigning (which, I've only just realised, creates difficulties for me).

'''Support''', though I haven't seen this user around.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.  I checked out a bunch of his edits to User Talk pages, and was uniformly impressed with how he dealt with other people.  I'm still trying to figure out why [[User:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] stepped in and answered my question for the candidate (see below); I was interested in how the candidate answered, not a third party, but that won't stop me from giving my support to what looks like a fine candidate. --
'''Support''', I liked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiacc&diff=23073844&oldid=23072124 this comment] on your talk page. Seem to be able to keep a cool head, a highly valued quality in my books. --
-- (
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' because you are not [[User:Witkacy]]...
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Yes, Wikiacc will be a fine admin. &mdash;
I'm curious about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nudity_in_sport&diff=prev&oldid=9277936 this edit].  Why did you think the picture was inappropriate?  It seems apropos to the article to me.  --
As nominator. ~~ '''
'''Support''' Plenty of contributions, courteous.  Would be a good admin.
'''[[Soup|Support]]''' Sure, does a lot of editing to articles, so I support.

'''Support'''
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --

'''Extreme BOFH support'''.
'''Support''' seems reasonable candidate for the mop.
'''Support''' I met user here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post_Pattern], from what I've seen Wikibofh seems to be a conscientious user. --
'''Support'''. Good admin material. <font color="green">
'''Support!!!'''
Cool. --
'''Support''', nice editor. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''', <s>obviously pending answers to questions.</s> <font color="red">
'''Support''' You're not allowed to beat the nominator to it! (**blocks NSLE indefinitely**) --
'''Support''' of course.
'''Support'''. This user has greatly improved as a community member and I think he's ready for the mop and broom.
'''Support''' Good User --
'''Support''' Good user, active on IRC and would make a good admin. Will be easy to contact when an admin is needed. I think WikiFanatic will make a really good admin. Have a look at WikiFanatic's contributions and you will find many reasons to vote support like me. Also it would help if WikiFanatic could delete pages as WikiFanatic is involved a bit with closing afd's  --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support''' Hey, he nominated me. One good turn deserves another. He's improved a vast amount over the past few months, and he's always on IRC to help anyone who needs it. His only real weakness IMO is that he's too nervous, but after this start I think that'll be changing soon.
'''Support''', this user is unlikely to abuse the admin toolbox.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' yeeeah.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
Ayup. Good contributions. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support''' looking good, but ramp up the editing a notch would ya? &nbsp;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - ooh, how exciting! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' who cares about edit counts?
'''Support.''' What the heck. You opposed me (the only one to do so), but Im not one to hold a grudge and I believe that you can do it.
'''Support''' I don't care how long he's been an editor or how many edits he has I have interacted with him quite a bit both on the wiki and on IRC and I trust him not to abuse the extra tools if given to him. <small>

'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''' Everything seems in order ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support'''; Despite low edits, WikiFanatic has shown his dedication to the project, and improved significantly since the last time he was up for nomination.  After talking to him on IRC, I have no objections to speak of.
Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''.  Never been a fan of editcountitis.  Quality over quanity.  --

'''That's hot'''.
'''Support, yup.''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Definately. &mdash;
'''Support''' as per Ral315.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. '''[[User:Jaxl|<font color = "darkblue">Rob</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color = "green">e</font>]]
Eh, '''sure'''. We had a long conversation on IRC about what he does, what he's done, and what he can do, and I'm persuaded.
'''Support''' as a person, I know he can be annoying at times(especially on irc), but on wikipedia, He is perfectly capable of handling the admin tasks he's requested. Many of the oppose'ers are going on his edit counts or his actual edits. granted, they may not always be perfect, but for doing basic cleanup of people who put "OMG WHAT A FAG" on pages and closing AfD's I find him perfectly fit for doing so. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' Just saw how quickly he created the [[User:WikiFanatic/Wales interview transcript|Wales interview transcript]], his other contributions are good too.
'''Support''' Support. Contribs show no obvious signs of insanity, and reasonable judgement on AFD cases. Dedicated and enthusiastic, and not overly involved in controversy and so on. --
'''Support'''. We're always in need of more young, knowledgeable, admins. Good times. --
'''Support''' - after a small interview with WikiFanatic, he appears to be capable of this administrator position. The best of luck to him. —
'''Support'''. We need more admins, not less. —
'''Support'''.  For a dedicated contributor to become an admin should not be a big deal.  Stop worrying about it and be a good admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. WikiFanatic has improved a lot since I last looked over his contribs. WikiFanatic does have a few personal issues which have led to some issues relating to civility and interpersonal relations, but generally and for the most part he is a very good, well-meaning fellow, even though he does have (as we all do) our darker moments. Indeed, he has worked around those issues to an exemplary degree in recent times. He has, as evidenced by his contributions, done good work around the wiki on many occasions, and has more recently demonstrated a good level of responsibility and judgement. I do think that, since adminship is such a minor matter, it would be quite wrong to deny this user administrator privileges. --
'''Support''' Looking over his contributions, looks like he makes good, helpful edits and would make a good administrator.  --
'''support''', needs to RC patrol even more tho :P --<small>
'''Support''' - no compelling reason to oppose.
'''Support''' -
'''Weak Support'''. I said I would support him several months later if he didn't flip out in the interim, and here we are. So... --
'''Support''' Definitely.
'''Support''' He's a good user on the other wiki I go to. --
'''Support''' Same with me, good user on other wiki, awesome guy in general, very responsible..etc.
'''Support''' Strong edits, and same as the users above me. --
'''Support''' Long history on Wikipedia, likely to use admin tools effectively.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', knowledgeable and helpful user, exactly what an admin should be. --[[User:YixilTesiphon|YixilTesiphon]] <sup>[[User talk:YixilTesiphon|Say hello]]</sup>



'''Oppose''' - 1355 edits in over 18 months is not very much.  I don't care if he's active on IRC. IRC is not Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' - exactly what I was thinking, too little edits in over a year and a half.
'''Oppose''' - I just don't think he's ready yet. He's still going around with this "Well ... did ... to me, you should do ... to ...." stuff.. --
Nothing about my interactions with this user, who is an IRC regular, suggests that he is adequately prepared to handle the mop and broom. --
Having examined this user's contributions, they do not achieve the level required of adminstrators.  For example, on [[History of Mississippi]].  While this ''was'' two months ago, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samkon_Gado&diff=prev&oldid=28366324 later] edits show he now understands the basics, I am simply not seeing enough to convince me. -
'''Weak oppose'''.  It feels to me like we are applying a lower standard to WikiFanatic because he is active on IRC.   I'm sure he's a nice guy, but that feels really, really ethically wrong to me.  We've rejected admin candidates with more edits and experience, and I feel like WF is getting a pass here because people like hanging out with him.  We should judge people based on their contributions '''on the wiki''', not based on whether we enjoy hanging out with them on a chat system.  Collegiality is important, but I don't see the standard being reached here.  Sorry.

'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience, needs more time.
Clearly a well-meaning and enthusiastic contributor, but unfortunately a bit unpredictable. The bulk of my experience with WikiFanatic has occurred on IRC, from which he is regularly banned for being a mild pest. I have no doubt that he has the potential to make a fine administrator, but he seems not to have reached that point yet. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' as per Phroziac.
'''Oppose''' as per brenneman.  --
'''Oppose''' Not enough edits. And IRC is '''NOT''' Wikipedia.
'''Strong support.''' --
'''Support''' - On balance, I think this user's contributions are overwhelmingly positive.  At one time I was a bit irritated by what I thought were superfluous prefaces added to articles about every political party he could find, defining what a political party is, but as I've seen more of his work, I've realized that this is a user that we need to see more of.  By the way, he's a Dutch politician - the only professional politician that I've seen in Wikipedia, and as such brings much-needed inside knowledge of the political field. [[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (''BTW: I am not a professional politican by profession, but am and was an elected official inside resp. an European political party (Bureau member [[ELDR]]) and a Dutch party (international secretary [[D66]]. Wilfried Derksen =

'''Support'''.

Support. This should be no big deal.
support.
&#8212;
<s>I do agree you're a great user. But, you see the rectangular box that says "edit summary" below the edit box? I cannot support you until you put information in there for most of your edits. --[[User:Lst27|Lst27]] [[User talk:Lst27|<font color=purple>(</font><font color=red>t</font><font color=cyan>a</font><font color=violet>l</font><font color=green>k</font><font color=orange>)</font>]] 22:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)</s> Ok. Sounds good enough to me. --
<s>Strange... I'm agreeing almost word for word with Everyking... It's a pity though, because other than the edit summaries Wilfried seems to be a very fine editor.<s> Given Wilfried Derksen's assurance that he will start using edit summaries, I'm changing my vote. (Hm - I'm trusting a politician here :)
Support. Productive editor.-
<s>Edit summaries are important, they save people on RC patrol a lot of time. I'm not going to oppose such a good user for this reason alone, but at this time a cannot support either. If this small matter is fixed I will most definitely support next time. </s> In light of the assurances made by Wilfried, I am now willing to support.
<s>Excellent user, but I find the lack of edit summaries very disturbing. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] | [[User talk:Zzyzx11|Talk]] 23:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)</s>. Wilfried Derksen assured that he will use edit summaries more, so therefore I will support him.
'''Support'''.  A fine editor who will be made finer with the keys to the kingdom! -
'''Support''' &ndash; He has shown his suitability by making a conscious effort to improve himself and the quality of his contributions. &ndash;
'''Support'''.  Edit summaries are handy and to some extent important, but I can't condone witholding adminship from an otherwise-great editor on that basis alone.
Support, though I suggest sticking to one username instead of having one username redirect to the other to avoid potential confusion. --
Support.  No substantial reason to oppose.

Supporte.
Support, looks like a good user, and I like his emphasis on neutrality. <big>'''''
'''Support'''. I haven't met up with this user often, but my experiences have been positive.
I'm pretty slack about edit summaries too, so I can't really blame him for that, but not marking minor edits seems weird, and gives a false impression of doing more work than one actually has. Occasionally I'll make a minor edit and accidentally forget to check the box and then feel a little guilty. I can't imagine never using it at all.
Because of my own interest in politics, I'd like to support, but as I've not encounted the user and out of concern for the statements re lack of edit summaries, I cannot at this time.  But I won't oppose him either.
A pleasure.
'''YES!'''
'''Strong Support'''. It's that old cliche "I thought he already was one," comes to my mind. Nine months, 10,400+ edits, and having a reasonable  and civil behavior makes this user highly qualified.
'''Support'''. He has, together with [[User:Zappaz]] and others, done an impressive work on [[List of purported cults]], managing to find a consensus which turned an unavoidably POV article (a list of everything at least one editor thought could be called a [[cult]]) in a well-sourced NPOV article (with clear rules for inclusion). --
'''Support'''. Excellent candidate.
Cool.
'''Support''' - great choice for an admin.
An obvious choice. &#8212;
'''Support'''. Anyone who can keep me in line while I am editing a Lyndon LaRouche page (I am a critic) deserves an adminiship. Fair, calm, reasonable, constructive.--
We're getting a lot of good names up here lately... '''keep...er...support'''
Of course &mdash; another case of "but I thought he ''was''...".
'''Support'''. Obvious choice for admin.  Unfailingly polite and thoughtful, excellent grasp of policy, and an eminently sensible editor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support''' has made very sensible edits and de-escalating comments on the talk page on extremely controversial and sensitive subjects such as [[list of purported cults]], [[guru]], [[cult checklist]]. (I made major contributions to the latter two articles.)
'''Strongly support'''; an excellent choice indeed.  Funny I was just about to nominate him myself.

'''Support''' very happily.
'''support''': Happy to endorse Willmcw for adminship, this time with one of those familiar refrains: ya mean he wasn't already?  However, as an aside, in keeping with the spirit of the [[Brown Act]], is there yet a running tally of just how many admins there are?  Wikipedia is rife with many excellent and more than competent editors to fill the bureaucratic ranks, like Willmcw, but someone needs to keep an eye on the balance between the number of admins and the number of posts/editors, lest the bureaucracy become topheavy and vulnerable to collective [[administrative incompetence]], [[groupthink]], or worse.  Hope Willmcw will support such notions.
'''Support''': That way he can fix my stupid page moves, in addition to the all the other corrections he makes to my contributions. Having Will around is like having my own personal copy-editor!
'''Support''', Over 10,000 high quality edits, and a reasonable collaborator. --
[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''. Very level headed (very southern-Californian) ;-)
'''Support'''. --

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' wholeheartedly.  Unfailingly calm and polite, equally dedicated to Wikipedia's policies and vision. &middot;
'''Support'''; somewhat of a zealot but excellent technical knowhow.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. All of my interactions with him have been quite pleasant, and he has often shown more patience in the face of POV pushers than I have myself been able to do. All in all I think he's a pretty reliable editor. --
<s>'''Support'''

'''Strong support'''. Willmcw, in my experience, has been a good and conscientious contributor. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''-
'''Support'''. The allegation below of cliquishness is obscure. That of "stalking" is at least lucid, but I followed the links, examined some of the claimed examples, and saw nothing to worry about. --
Support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''  --
'''Support''', I regularly check out the contributions of editors who I fear may be making bad edits, that's not stalking, that's diligence. --
'''Support'''. Besides our obvious differences, and after reading his response to my concern,  I have no doubt that Willmcw will be a great admin, therefore my support is hereby stated. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Excellent editor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I see no evidence of stalking; rather, it looks like someone doing RC patrol or newpages patrol. --
'''Support''', and highly honored to do so. --
'''Support'''. Seems like he'd make a very good admin. --
'''Support''', looks a great diplomat.
<s>'''Conditional support'''</s>, while I didn't neccesarily agree with him on all of the issues relating to [[CARM]] and [[Matt Slick]] he was patient with all of the annons, and new users and discussed every issue brought up. He seems to be a good user. However I would like to see a response to the stalking accusations.
'''Support'''.  I'm surprised he isn't one yet.  I've found him great to work with and quite resourceful. --
'''Support''' Of course.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' &mdash;
'''Strongly oppose''' - this user has engaged in personal harassment and wiki-stalking of me over the course of several months. (evidence is documented here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rangerdude#Notable_Cases] and includes over 50 separate articles and 28 distinct cases of stalking from February to June 2005) I have been informed by other editors that he behaves similarly elsewhere, and believe that this behavior in general constantly violate's wikipedia's injunction to assume good faith, which he often does not. His political beliefs are too strongly exhibited in his editing practices to fulfill the neutrality demanded of an administrator.
'''Oppose''' - changing my vote based on apparant stalking behaviour outlined at the above RFC
'''Oppose''', for now.  I think I'd like to see the RFC dealt with before promoting this user. --
--
Great work in several areas including Spoken Wikipedia, but I am concerned about this person's clique membership.  &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - lean oppose but will vote neutral for now.  While overall he is a prolific editor and seems to be making a good faith attempt at level-headed neutrality on difficult subjects (such as the Lyndon LaRouche topics) I have severe questions about his ability to remain NPOV on topics related to immigration, overpopulation, and the Sierra Club.
Same reasons as Kaibabsquirrel.  --
'''Support'''. I had actually been thinking of nominating Woohookitty, but I just nominated Spangineer. He's done a lot of impressive work in "keeping the site clean of crud," and so, I think, would make great use of admin powers. --
'''Support'''.  In my experience working with Woohookitty on the [[Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce|Cleanup Taskforce]], Woohookitty is an asset to Wikipedia and dedicated to making it better. &middot;
'''Support'''. Woohookitty has been volunteering for my cleanup projects since I've started them and has consistently contributed above and beyond the call of duty. Additionally I believe that Woohoo would be a fine admin and I enjoy being able to cast my support for them.
Support.  Good work on redirects, something a lot of users don't think to create.
'''Support''' Very active in cleanup and thus would benefit with the admin tools.
'''Support'''.  Woo hoo! -
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Seems to relish a lot of the drudgery tasks - which is always a good thing in an admin.
'''Support'''.  As with [[User:R3m0t|R3m0t]], is an active member of the [[Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce|Cleanup Taskforce]], and a pleasure to work with.
'''Support'''. Plenty of good work at cleanup. Administrator tools will be very useful.
'''Support''' she's a dedicated janitor already :) --
'''Support''' impressive cleanup work, strong dedication to the project.
'''Support''' for showing dedication towards doing a lot of behind-the-scenes work, which suits the mop and bucket perfectly. --
'''Support'''.  <nowiki>{{cliche}}</nowiki>
'''Support''', give him the mop and bucket! :) -
'''Support''', yeah, yeah :)
'''Support''', I like what I see and hear.  I think you'll be an asset to Wiki.
'''Support''' - Indeed. :) <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', hard worker.
'''Support''', a force for the good of Wikipedia.
'''Support''', I've seen him/her around for, oh, ages, generally tidying things up. --
'''Support'''.  Doing good work.  --
'''Support'''.  Lots of good cleanup work, solid track record, no indication powers would be abused.
'''Support'''. Tremendous work on [[death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan]]. --
'''Support''' and hope to see you at [[User:R3m0t/Reports]] soon! ;) <s>[[User:84.92.241.33|84.92.241.33]] 5 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)</s> Ooops.
'''Support''' appears to be a good editor who would make good use of the mop and bucket.  I am generally impressed with the quality and quanity of edits.

'''Support''' - you've done more in seven months than most do in 12! --
'''Support'''.  Likely to be an excellent admin from everything I've seen.
'''Oppose.''' You have only been here for seven months.  Any potential admin must have at least nine months of contributions before I can endorse him or her.
<s>Sorry. By the time I saw my mistake in putting it in the wrong section, it was too late. I apologize. --
Since it looks like the vote is going to be successful, I just want to thank everyone for the support. It's much appreciated. I didn't know that people admired my work as much as they apparently do and it's a nice gesture of your part to give me this position. I appreciate it very much. Thanks. --
Of course, I support my own nominees!
I think we should keep it real. -
I know this user from WP:FAC, and I'm afraid I can't agree with [[User:Everyking]]. Worldtraveller has always diligently addressed other users' concerns about the (excellent) articles he submitted to FAC. And, in case he didn't agree with objections, he has always explained why. Support.
[[Cliché|He isn't one already]]?  You ''cannot'' be serious.  Extreme double-plus support. &mdash;
Support. I've seen great work from Worldtraveller, and should have made the nomination myself. -
Support, the number of featured articles he has produced speaks for itself.
Definitely support, great editor --
Support.
Support.  Worldtraveller's edits and dealings with other users look great. --

Support.  Seems to be quite civil in dealings with even obstreperous users. --
Support.  Anyone who's willing to edit in the Ashlee Simpson Empire, and can do so without resorting to revert wars, would seem to have what it takes to be an admin. --
Support. I see lot of help with dealing with vandals, thanks.
'''Support'''. Set this mop and bucket to stun.
Certainly support.
'''Support'''.-
Definitely.

Very much so. &mdash;
I have been trying to think of a good way to say "me too", without saying "me too". I am useless. Me too!
Of course.
Adminship is long overdue.
'''Support''' - one of Wikipedia's best editors &mdash;  his writing and scholarship are always of high quality, and he is a responsive collaborator. He would make a good admin.
Good dealings with this user. '''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Based on edits, appears this editor will make good use of admin powers.
'''Support'''.  No reason to believe this is anything but a good idea.
'''Support'''. Thoroughly deserving of adminship, and I saw him on TV the other night! &mdash;
'''Support'''.  A TV star, wooo! Appears to be scholarly and consensus-oriented.  --
'''Support'''. Undoubtedly qualified.
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''. His work in the ''Signpost'' shows he knows policy, and he seems fair, balanced and knowledgable.
'''Support'''. Valuable and trustwrthy editor.
'''Support'''. If Worldtraveller isn't considered qualified, the rest of us may as well resign right now.
Support.
'''Support'''. Very good editor.
'''Support''': You betcha.  He does great work.  (How can someone be a "deletionist" when they write articles that are not only good, but featured quality?  That makes no sense.)
'''Support'''; an obvious one.  Likely to be a superb admin.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' - A great editor who would likely make a good admin.
'''Support''' &mdash; little doubt that he'd make a very good admin.
'''Hello World!'''--
'''Support''': great editor, works well with others, and donates lots of lovely photos as well.

'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looking at his edits, I like him a lot better than I like myself for admin.

'''Support''' - I may be away, but that won't stop me voting for these two. --
'''Of course!'''
In my experience, he's contentious and stubborn, and also strongly deletionist. Despite weeks of effort I was unable to get him to make even the slightest concession in a long-running content dispute. I think an admin ought to at least show some sort of willingness to compromise, and not be utterly intractable. We have a few admins already who think it's either their way or the highway, and I find that kind of attitude doesn't suit adminship very well.
How could I nominate and not support. --



'''Support'''. Solid, reliable editor.
I'll support, excellent editor. Handles conflicts fairly evenly and with relatively cool head.

I've seen a lot of high-quality work from Wwoods.
Switch from neutral to support. --
support.
Positive contributions on many issues.
'''Support''': Very observant and open to suggestions; his contributions have been very good as well
'''oppose'''. I oppose the adminship of anyone who does not understand what the term "[[Machine-readable|machine parsable]]" means. Especially when the means to understand that term are readily available to them. This to me shows a lack of due diligence, which is a primary characteristic of an administrator.
Quite a many of edits don't have edit summary. People doing RC check do lost their time over these.
The lack of edit summaries makes me abstain for now.
Agree with the above. I cannot support people who rarely give edit summaries. --
'''Very strong support'''. -
'''Support'''. I have seen his work and believe he would make an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. I've come to know and trust his opinion and judgement on Vfd, and I feel he would be responsible and helpful.

A definite.
'''Support'''. User and talk pages show us an editor who communicates well and works well with others.
'''Support'''. Seen him in VfD.
'''Support'''. Great contributor. Admins are made of such stuff.
I always thought the name was some sort of play on Elizabeth. So I guess I was completely wrong. I see now [[Xezbeth|what it means]]...I hope the user doesn't take after his namesake any.
Thought he was one.  --
A fantastic contributor who works well with others, I have every faith that he will be a good admin.
Easy decision.
'''Support'''. An excellent user.
'''Support'''. I would love to have such stamina.
'''Support'''.  Everything I have seen is quite good.
'''Support''' he makes good edits and is very well liked --
'''Support''', not that litotes are particularly explanatory but I have no reason to oppose. :)
'''Support'''.


'''Support'''--
'''Support''' - Great work on categorization. -
'''Support'''  Feel we Gnomes ought to stick together.
'''Support'''
Enthusiastically '''support'''.  Fantastic editor! -
11,000+ edits?!  '''Support'''
'''Strong Support.''' Only ecountered her recently but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Robertson&action=history this revert] proves, for me, that she has what it takes. An hour of work would have been lost without her. Thanks. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Very Strong Oppose'''
'''Support''' User greets new users and also is a chief combatter of vandalism.
'''Support''' Great user, fights vandalism AND newbie-friendly.
'''Support'''. To me Y0u seems like a fine RC patroller who would make good use of administrator tools.
'''Support''' Great user who would make good use of the extra tools while RC patrolling and helping users.
--
'''Support''', at one period of time I see him to have the potential of being a great RC patroller. -
'''Support'''. Okay; I've been convinced. Here's my support! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. RC patrol is no fun when he beats me to it. :/
'''Change to support'''.  Did a little more research, I liked the responses to objections and issues raised. --
Why haven't I supported yet?

<s>'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but I have a rule: oppose a self-nom that fails to place the nomination in the self-nom section. To not place the nomination in the correct box shows lack of care. This isn't anything personal; I just don't think that was very graceful for an admin-prospect. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] | [[User:Linuxbeak/Desk|Desk]] 21:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Neutral. Okay, that's been fixed. However, I'm not seeing enough experience. You do a lot of good things, like welcoming and such, but convince me that you are admin-material. Answer the generic questions for admin prospects, as well. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
<s>'''Neutral'''. I may change my mind depending on what other people bring forward, but I like to see admins have some experience with article development, something that in my opinion is at the heart of Wikipedia. That said, you seem to do a lot of good things.<s>--
'''Neutral'''. Even as recently as a month ago I've seen some indication of lack of knowledge of basic policy. That's not the end of the world, but I would reiterate the request to read the important policies (starting at [[WP:SR]] to make it easier would be fine), and especially the admin reading list. If you don't get promoted this time due to lack of support, I'm sure you will next time. -
'''Extreme duh.''' --
Answers to questions are good, and the nominator rocks :).--
'''Support''' I seem to remember this user from somewhere.
'''Ooh - yes please'''.
'''Support''' Four edits per day is fine. We shouldn't make terminal wiki-addiction a requirement for the mop :) -
'''Support''', looks good to me. &mdash;
'''Support''', been around a long time and knows the rules. Should be no big deal.
'''Obvious Support'''  No brainer.
'''Support''' Good editor --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' per Rje and Haukurth.
'''Support'''. Good editor, knows her stuff, editcountitis is the root of all evil.
'''Support''' I serisouly thought he was one (so cliche). -
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''', obviously. I thought Yelyos was one until I saw otherwise at [[WP:LA]]. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Weak Support''' Doesn't meet my admin criteria cause of 4 edits a day and wiki namespace a bit low for my taste but I see him editing more often and he whould benefit with the rollback button --
Would someone fix the vote here thing? I haven't the time.

'''Support''' it's about damn time... &nbsp;
'''Support''' Yep --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' All my interactions with this user have been good and even though he doesn't meet certain users' editcountitis standards, I feel comfortable that he'd be a good admin. <small>
'''Support''' Some folks just deserve it, there's more than enough of a track record here to support. Good, level headed editor.
-- (
'''Strong support.'''
About bloody time.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Friendly, lots of vandal whacking.  I doubt she would abuse admin privileges.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', promising user. She promises and promises... just kidding, fine upstanding editor.
'''Support''', and I've corrected everyone's spelling.
Yup,
'''Support'''. See no cause for concern.
'''Support''', not only do I not see any cause for concern, I also think this user will do well as an admin! --
'''Support'''
'''P'''art of the furniture. Should have been adminned months ago.
'''Support'''. Notable. --
'''Support'''. --
I've just gone through his previous nomination, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yelyos]]. Since then, the user has mustered around 1000 edits (including deleted edits) which translates to less than 4 edits per day - this is on the lower side for a would-be admin. The only reason for which I am not voting oppose is the 222 deleted edits he has - mostly copyvio tags and delete tags. --
I found this statement from him on his talk page: "People are generally more likely to change their mind if you let them do it in their own time." That piece of wisdom alone is deserving of adminship. --
'''Of course'''.
'''Support''' Great user.
'''Support without hesitation.''' (as much as we have often disagreed).
'''Support'''.-
'''Support''', valuable contributor and organizer.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Totally :) --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Ditto'''.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Strong support''': If anyone thinks that we need an inclusionist for "balance" or something, this is the vote.  Zocky and I disagree profoundly about when and how often things should be deleted, but Zocky works within policy, works to actually get compromises (and not just to flood a vote), and he has never sworn that the matter is settled because he has made up his mind.  He represents good writing, good ethical behavior, and an even temperament.  I've been urging him to go RfA for ages and would have nominated him, had I known he would agree.
'''Support''', what Geogre said, and a self-nom too!--
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support.'''-
'''Cool'''.

'''Support.'''
'''Support'''. Fair-minded and a good editor.
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]]. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage,

<font size="+2">Support!</font> (Yay obnoxious attention seeking habits!)
'''Support''' Very active in janitorial tasks, including RC patrol.
'''Support'''. I've seen good work with this one, and I definately support. Give him the mop! --
'''Support'''; mopworthy indeed.  Good candidate.
'''Support'''. I've worked with Zach on a couple of articles. He shows a lot of commonsense, is enthusiastic, works hard, and explains what he's doing on talk pages. He's a good editor and he'll make a responsible admin.
'''Strongest support possible''', by which I mean '''support'''. -
'''Support'''.
<big>'''SUPPORT!'''</big> About time he accepted nom.

As a co-nominator, I of course '''support'''. --
[[wikt:agree|я соглашаюсь]] - Very good editor, cool headed. I also admire him for being; '' Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent'', and trust most who have walked this path.  <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
Certainly.
'''Support'''. A very good user who has done plenty of very good work.
'''Ofcourse'''
'''Absolutely'''. After all of five and a half hours I'm number 15, how did that happen? :) --
'''Support''' Everyking supports this nomination? Wow. --
'''Support''', definitely. --
'''Definitely''', yes --
'''Total Support'''. --
'''Support'''.
'''Yes, please'''.
'''Unconditional Support''' - There are no questions about Zscout370's qualities as a contributor and a person.  He is always proactive, polite and insightful, not to mention a great graphic designer.  If there was ever an user who deserved Adminship, it is Zscout!
'''Strong Support'''. Does excellent work.
'''Strong support'''. Nothing more needs to be said. --
'''Support 120%''' - An ideal contributor who would make an great admin. <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support.''' As much as I hate the idea of joining a bandwagon, this editor deserves a bandwagon. --
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''. 'Nuff said above. --
'''Strong support''' Glad to see he's finally accepted a nomination; I would have nominated myself a few months ago had I not seen that he had declined a nominaton in the past.
'''Support'''.  Sensible editor, good grasp of policy.
'''Support'''. I've seen him around the Wikipedia and he strikes me as a good editor. 'Though my vote seems unnecessary at this point, you have it anyway. --
'''Support!''' --
&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No doubts. --
'''Strong support'''. I actually thought that Zscout370 would make an excellent admin, I had once even thought about nominating him for admin. Now that Redwolf24 has put him on the RfA, I will give my support. Excellent user, does a lot of work on Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Support''' Never seen you before, but I've seen GNAA, and well... :) Only article I've ever seen go directly from VfD to Featured Article nomination. Good work. And, I guess it's a good thing when admins fight over who got to nominate you. :P
Emphatic '''Support'''. Great overall contributor, and a nice guy. <font color="green">
'''Support''',
'''Support''', especially as per SlimVirgin and Ta bu's comments.
'''Support''', we need more like this one.  ''—
'''Support''', long overdue.
'''Support''', wholeheartedly.
'''Support''' Sure.
'''Support''' Harrumph!
'''Strong Support''' I had assumed he was an admin already.... -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Definitely totally unconditional strong absolute support''' (did I miss any adverbs, adjectives or adjuncts in there?).  Very level-headed user.  One more for the cabal!
'''Strong support''', would make a great fellow Cabalist (if there's such a word).
'''Strongest possible support''' If everyone was like Zscout, Wikipedia would probably be the absolute best site on the web. Welcome to the cabal-club!
Wow, first time I get to exercise my democratic Wiki right and vote, for someone whose work I am, admittedly, not very familiar with, but I'm familiar with him on other non-Wiki projects.  He has the attitude of a good Wiki admin on there, so I think he'd make one hell of an admin where his attitude is actually good for something.  Zscout370, you got my '''support'''--


'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - better late than never: I am sure, I am not the last to support. --
'''Support'''. Constructive, courteous, does good work all over the place.
'''Support'''. I don't know him to well, but I see his name everywhere and every time he is doing something usefull.
'''Support'''. I don't think there's anything left to say that hasn't already been said.
'''Support'''. I thought he was an admin already. --
'''Support'''. Are you sure you weren't already an admin, and were too busy doing good things to notice?
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. Exceptionally courteous and patient, takes time to help everybody and respond even to the obvious comments...hmm...this comment supposed to be obvious. &ndash;
'''<font size="+2">Support!!!!</font>, Yet another WTH ? He is not an adm. already ?!''This shouldn't be an issue, make him an adm now!
'''Support'''. Without a doubt. &mdash;
Cool.

'''Very strong support'''.  One of the best Wikipedians I've come across.  Courteous, conscientious, responsible.  Will make a great admin.
'''Support'''. Fine editor. -
'''Support''' --
Gee, I thought I had registered my vote on this application already... Oh well, '''support'''. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
Making it an even (3)70 :-P
'''Support''' Great editor, strong admin material.
'''Support'''.
EXTERMINATE! <small>
Ding. '''
'''Support'''. "I thought $user already was an admin." &ndash;
'''Support'''. I run across his edits all the time, great editor, will make a fine admin. --
Never heard of him, therefore, I '''support'''!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' -
Support as this person never tramped me although we intervene each other regularly.
I '''Support'''. This guy's definitely fit for the job, and I want to see him break the record for the most votes supporting someone going for adminship.
'''Support''' not that it makes much of a difference at this point. <small>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  I'm a bit late to the party, but better late than never. --
'''Support'''. From his obvious talent and level-headedness, I had assumed he ''already was'' an admin. --
'''Support''' How come nobody tells me when there's a party? - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
'''Support''' Pardon my being so late. :P --
'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support support support support . . . ''' Of course Zachary should be an admin. I always presumed he was. If we had the option of speedy admin creation to match our speedy deletion options, Zach would be top of the list. Oh, have I said that I support his nomination? lol
'''Support'''&mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Strong support!''' -
'''Support''' It appears Zscout needs a little nudge to put him over the top, so here it is.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  <font color="red">
'''Support'''.  Must....follow...crowd. (does seem like he'll make a good admin though).
'''Support''' -- A worthy editor who has established trust. For sure.
'''Support''' - it's about time he accepted. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
--
'''Oppose''', <del>user has exposed templates with section headers to breakage by not substituting them. At present lacks the technical knowledge required to be an effective admin.</del> Will support provided he goes and substitutes them all...
'''Support'''. As before, I support. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (Alex)'' </font><sup>(
'''Super Support''' I was going to nominate him myself in a few days.
'''Mais certainement'''. Seems I would have been in a queue to nominate!
'''100% Support''', This users dedication and contributions are enough to demonstrate that he is an asset to Wiki and would make a great adminstrator.
'''Support'''. Friendly, considerate, and diligent; I trust him to have good judgment as an admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia needs more inclusionist admins who abhor information loss.
'''Strong Support'''. I agree completely with every voter here. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. Yes!
Cool.
'''Support'''. Glad to see you back, and would be glad to see you an administrator. &mdash;
I certainly see no reason ''not'' to support a more mature Zzyzx11 when I supported him last time. Very strong candidate.
'''Support''' as in his previous RFA.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. My experience of this user has always been positive.
'''Support'''.  As I predicted, a month has moved me from a weak oppose to a straightforward support.
'''Support'''-
'''Support''', ditto.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. I've worked with him in a limited capacity in regards to ''[[The Young and the Restless]]'' article and I was pleased, on the whole.
'''support'''. as i said last time, "I hope that Zzyzx11 takes seriously the reasons people oppose this nomination, and I hope that Zzyzx11 can change his/her behavior accordingly."
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.

'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - strong editor.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''--can't believe it took me this long to notice and jump on the bandwagon.
'''Support'''. --
Happy to '''Support'''. --
'''Support.'''-
'''Support.''' -
'''Support.'''.

'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]]. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage,
<strike>I, of course, support myself in this self-nomination for Adminship. -[[User:^demon|^demon]] 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)</strike> Removed, per Linuxbeak. -
'''Oppose''' 250 edit?!  See the unofficial standards for adminship.  I'm sure you'll be great one day, but more experience is needed.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry; you're obviously well meaning, and you have had an account for several months now. However, you have only recently started heavily editing, and as of this vote you only had around 80 mainspace edits. I'm not one for editcounting, but you have not been active enough to be able to make informed administrator decisions. Come back when you have some more editing and community experience. Also, as a sidenote: self-noms do not get a "nominators vote".
'''Oppose''' for now. From what we have to work with, you seem competent and all that. But the reason for wanting some level of edit count is so that we have a large sample of your work. Come back in a few months and I'd be happy to support. (
'''Oppose'''.  Slightly editcountitis, and my only brush with the user was a premature CSD (in my opinion) on an article by an experienced editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Rollings_and_Ernest_Adams_on_Game_Design].   --
'''Opppose''' for now, more experience is needed for consideration.
'''Oppose'''. Far far far too early to tell candidate's fitness.
'''Oppose'''. While good-intentioned, this has very little likelihood of passing. Further pile-oners will be shot on site. I urge ^demon to withdraw this nom. --
'''Oppose''' Not being a pile-on, as freedback to the candidate should always be helpful.  It appears that you do not have enough experience across the areas of wikipedia to be ready yet (e.g. categories, templates, projects).  A good way to get more experience would be to join a WikiProject to work on something.
'''Oppose''' highly suggest candidate withdraws.
'''Oppose''' ^demon is an ok user but try reappling in about 2-3 months. Try to get you edit count up and keep on making good contributions and I will support one day. —
'''Neutral'''. Fails to meet my minimal standards for adminship (1000 edits, 3 months on Wikipedia), but otherwise seems OK. I will perhaps support him if he gets more active and reapplies in January or February. &mdash;
'''Not yet''', sorry. Try again in a few months, when you've got at least thousand edits; good work up to now, though. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''', obviously, as the nominator of Ævar. --
'''Support'''. If someone has direct access to the database, it means that we have already placed more trust in him than we place in admins. I don't see why he can't be trusted with tools much less powerful than the ones he already has. As for the image deletion problem, everyone is allowed to have a bad day.
'''Support'''. Great guy. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Argh...titoxd took the words right out of my mouth!!!!!!! (add about 15 more exclaimation marks ;)). Anyways... &mdash;
'''Support''' - Ævar has been persistently helpful whenever I've encountered him, the old image-deletion thing appears done and dusted (and I thought he'd been readminned afterwards... hmm.) and I'm sure he's sensible enough to discuss anything similar in future after what happened last time. (Would be happier supporting if he didn't transclude his .sig, though)
'''[[soup|Support]]''', My extremely high standards are less now, before this user would of had to have like 5,000 edits, but close enough anyway. And edit counts don't really matter, just seems like a good user, so I support. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Yeh.''' The image thing was a long time ago, and, as someone else says, everyone has a bad day... but (wags finger) ''don't do it again!''  :)
'''Support'''; the issue which led to his desysopping was grossly overblown, and Ævar remains thoroughly trustworthy. &mdash;
'''Support''', per [[User:Rdsmith4]]. -
'''Support''' Thanks for all the hard work on the development side (in addition to your en:wiki work). --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <small>
'''Support'''.  Contributors from small countries need a lot more representation, and I've seen enough of Ævar to know that he's definitely adminship material.
'''Support''' I've known AEB for a long time.
'''Support'''. This is the first case where the RfA cliché #1 is actually true.
'''Support''' Forgive and forget --

'''Support''' There clearly are issues and Ævar needs to be clear on which hat he's wearing at any one time.  Given that he's prepared to keep that in mind, let's try again.
'''Support''' -
'''S'port''', see comment section. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]

'''Weak support''' I am concerned about the self-sysopping, but I'm sure it was done in good faith.
'''Support''', I think a second chance is reasonable here.
No reason to deny the mop and broom to a developer. --
'''Support''', those comments about sysop-ing himself and mass deleting images are silly.  Yub, plain silly.  However the prick deserved deopping because he himself is silly.  Of course that is a silly argument and the sillyness of this is far to great for me to comprehend.  So by all means give him sysop status. --
'''Support''' --

'''Strong Support.''' I am feel bad that I am opposing the votes of such heavyweights. For example, such as Kate, who created Kate's tool and offers solid logic, but anyone is entitled to a few mistakes (and his actions may ''not'' have been inappropriate?? -his explanations seem reasonable). Additionally, a person who has developer privileges is trusted to a higher level than is an admin. Editors are making too much of a "big deal" out of these details, I think: Denying '''Ævar''' admin status would be like telling a general that he doesn't have basic security clearance to be on base. Obviously, a general ''does'' have earned trust to do the most basic of things, exposing this logic as flawed. Therefore, I strongly support.--
'''Support''' I know Ævar as reasonable and willing to help person. --
'''Support''' Trustworthy on the whole, unlikely to repeat past actions, and others have already pointed out the incongruity of a developer not having admin status. --
'''Support'''.  A developer without admin rights is, well, wrong. -
'''Still hot.'''
Oops, bugger. Your admin bit should have been switched straight back on IMO -
'''Support''',
'''Support''', let's not be churlish about this :) -
'''Support''' Good, friendly user who deserves adminship. '''
'''Support''' sometimes a bit too quick on the draw, but i'd trust him to look out for the best interests of wiki. &nbsp;
'''Support''' -
'''Support'', proved himself reliable in good faith with his development work, was out-of-touch and didn't know how Wikipedia was supposed to work, now he does.
'''Support''', this user deserves a second chance.
'''Oppose'''. Per my comments above and below. I couldn't find a document saying what devs should and shouldn't do, I suppose it lurks in devdom somewhere. But Kate said it above.  I'm ''deeply'' unhappy that you sysopped yourself today for no good reason in a completely non-emergency situation. It feels like having realised that being an admin is fun, thought you'd do the process retrospectively. That doesn't show the good judgement I'd like, I'm afraid. And there seems to be a little bit of immodesty, too, in your comment below, although you wouldn't be the only admin with that problem. (Minor point, but devs of all people shouldn't be transcluding signatures.) -
'''Oppose''' From what I've seen of Ævar, he is a great developer, but I feel I must agree with Splash. The sysopping thing ''really'' bothered me, especially since you said that you couldn't wait for an admin to do it. That doesn't make any sense to me, you could just have contacted any one admin who was active at the time and had them do it. It wouldn't have taken long, and sysopping yourself is just way out of line. Also, I'm afraid, the image deletion is just way to much for me to be able to support (and it wasn't that long ago, it was in may for crying out loud). You don't need to be an admin to contribute either content or code
My impression of Avar is that he often acts on impulse, without considering the consequences of his actions, which is not a desirable trait in an administrator.  Regardless of his motives for these image deletions, he did (as I understand it) delete several images which were being used in articles, creating a significant amount of work for other people who had to restore these images from archives, or find replacements.  His mass deletion of anon talk pages seems somewhat strange; I could understand a proposal to delete, or perhaps blank, old anonymous users' talk pages, but wholesale deletion of them seems somewhat excessive--particularly since Avar only touched pages which he himself had edited.   Furthermore, I felt Avar's block of
I found all the business leading up to de-sysopping to be uncomfortably mysterious and inexplicable, despite attempted explanations.
'''Oppose''', for the excellent reasons cited above (the mass deletion of images, the mass deletion of anonymous users' talk pages, the deletion of his own talk page, the self-sysopping, and the overall pattern of poor judgement).  I see no reason why someone with such a spotty record should be trusted to effectively function as an admin (which, as Kate noted, is not comparable to being a developer).  &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  Aevar has abused his position and should not be honored for it.

'''Oppose''' The above users make good points, and I echo them with one addition. I believe that deleting one's own user talk page seriously undermines the transparency of the Wikipedia process. You could simply blank it, and "purge" it into the page history. With adminship, one is often dealing with users who do not understand the entire Wikipedia process due to their newness, stubbornness, intent to vandalize, etc. In answer to the image questions, you say that you'll go through the proper channels before deletion. But Ævar has shown to us quite recently by temporarily re-sysopping himself that he does not intend to constantly follow procedure. Actions speak louder than words, and while I respect his contributions on the Mediawiki and Icelandic side of things, but I'm afraid that his trustworthiness on en is yet to be determined by his actions.
'''Reluctantly oppose'''. He has many good contributions, and I don't want to discourage him, but I also must weigh the comments above and below showing this might be a bit hasty. Most specifically, recently using developer powers to delete his user pages, including all history. This has since been restored, but that action troubles me enough to oppose this nomination at this time.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; the above users make good points. In addition, you haven't answered my question completely. If you deleted your user and talk pages to "archive" them, why didn't you explain so at the time? Why are telling that to us now? In addition, you haven't clarified exactly ''why'' you deleted your comments from IP address talk pages. You write "Furthermore I removed some old welcome messages of mine to anonymous like ''[[User talk:61.240.135.180|Nice work on William Farr School, You might want to create an account to get all the benefits of registered users]]'' and ''[[User talk:66.248.2.54|Quite impressive work on Rudy LaRusso you might want to create an account to get all the benefits of a logged in user.]]'' as well as old ban messages like ''[[User talk:66.144.4.4|You are blocked for the next 24hrs for repeted vandalism on Richard Stallman]]''." Why? While I think you do excellent work as a developer, I don't think that you are ready for re-adminship by the community yet. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oppose''' &mdash; When I tried to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_feces&diff=20515480&oldid=20279678 compromise] on a controversial edit, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_feces&diff=next&oldid=20515568 spurned] my attempt at compromise.  This is not the kind of behavior I expect from someone who is going to be an admin.
'''Oppose'''.  After being neutral for a while (see my comments in that section), I've decided to change my vote to oppose.  There's no single item that bothers me enough to do this, but the combination of things all adds up to a pattern in my mind of ''I'm above the rules''.  I'm willing to say the image removal was all just an honest mistake, and the re-sysop-ing was probably completely harmless and done in good faith.  I still don't understand why he removed stuff from other user's talk pages, but there's probably no major harm done there.  The one that really gets me is deleting his own talk page.  Again, by itself, that probably wouldn't have convinced me, but it all adds up to a bad pattern.  --
'''Oppose'''. Pretty much per Kate's response to [[User:Titoxd|Tito]]'s vote. Adminship should be granted to anyone trustworthy, and developing and being an En admin are different. Actively giving reasons not to deserve that trust as has been done shouldn't be rewarded with adminship. Please keep up the development work, but giving yourself admin powers when not needed is over the top. -
'''Oppose'''. It might be a language barrier: I don't understand his mixture of Icelandic and English in his responses, and I'm not sure he understands peoples' concerns above when he responds to questions about deleting his pages by saying he "achived" them. It contributes to his difficulty on this Wikipedia, I think.
'''Oppose''': for a number of reasons noted above. A developer is not a superset of an admin, or vice versa. He might make a fantastic developer yet not be a good admin, or vice versa. Exhibited behavior both here on this RfA and elsewhere is not encouraging. --
'''Oppose'''. The three problematic actions taken together indicate that, unfortunately, the user should not be an admin.
'''<!-- Extreme Lesbian -->Oppose'''. Developer ~>= Admin.  Once promoted, I'm constantly trying to get them to [[WP:IAR]], but this history of behavior seems above and beyond even my fairly loose admin standards. -
Oppose, reasons stated by others.
'''Oppose''' The opposition is persuasive. --
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. I like Ævar as a person, but he seems to be prone to acting rashly at times.
'''Oppose'''--
'''Oppose''' per Samboy.
'''Oppose''', not enough quality edits (as I said once before).
'''Oppose'''. I agree with most of the opposition reasons above. I believe that a pattern of poor administrative decisions has been shown.
'''Oppose'''. Someone who thinks that deleting a talk page is a valid way of 'archiving' it should not have access to a delete button. --
'''Oppose''', for all the reasons above but mainly his self-resysopping. --
'''Oppose'''.  For the most part, I'm totally baffled by what happened with his de-sysoping, even after reading through the old logs, but I'd want to see evidence of good behavior in the recent past.  Re-sysopping himself is definitely not a good sign of that.  Given his disregard for other processes in the past and GDFL concerns with images, I would expect more caution from him.  I'd recommend that he reapply after a few months of good behavior.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I'm especially concerned about the talk-page thing;  the dubious precedent of deletion of talk page comments is getting to be pretty well-established:  the use of admin, or indeed, ''developer'' privs to do so really ought to be very strongly discouraged.
'''Oppose''' per Splash. This action really bothered me, I try to review all the actions of a RfA candidate, and rarely vote oppose. Being a developer is a serious responsibility, if we can't trust that one won't give permissions w/o prior approval, then I definately can't trust them as a sysop. Even though sysops have little power, it's not a power to be abused, there is always an alternative.  <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>
'''Neutral''' I say wait a few weeks/months and see what happens. From what little i've seen and I know of this situation, it seems like we're too close to it to make a truly objective decision here. However, this vote is just a cursory one from looking at this page and some of the links from this page regarding the situation, I readily admit that I'm open to hearing more from either side of the dispute.
<del>'''Oppose'''</del> '''Neutral'''.  (I'm not going to go through and strikethrough or edit comments because I simply don't have time, but the main issue I raised has been answered almost to my satisfaction, enough so that I don't feel comfortable having my name continue to reflect opposition.)  Originally I honestly came here with intent to vote Support or not vote at all.  But I decided to read through the entire discussion.  I found many things that made me want to support and several things that made me want to oppose, or at least vote neutral.  But in the end I saw something that I felt I really must speak out about.  Ævar, you state about deleting your user talk page that "when it's large and all the discussions on it are old, it's my way of archiving it."  Ævar, I recognize we may have a language barrier and I do not wish to put you unfairly on the spot, but do you know the exact definition of the word "archive"?  Archive does not mean "get rid of."  It means something more akin to "put in storage, out of the way, but still accessible for retrieval if necessary."  '''Deleting''' a page absolutely does not in any way archive it.  Moving it archives it.  Copying it elsewhere archives it.  I'll even accept that blanking it archives it, because it is still accessible in the page history.  But you absolutely just cannot call deleting a page "archiving" it.  It '''is''' important for everything that has transpired on your talk page to be accessible to any interested lookers.  That is a very important and cherished Wikipedia tradition.  You just cannot glibly say "I was archiving it" without doing severe injustice to the meaning of the word and, mor importantly, your credibility on Wikipedia.
'''Neutral''' I am torn between your contributions and the reason why you were de-sysoped.
'''Neutral''' Same Reason as Zzyzx11 --
'''Support'''. Don't see a reason to oppose this good editor. --
'''Support''' He is an admin and bureaucrat on Serbian wikipedia, so he should be trusted with the tools here. --
'''Support'''.
Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support''' reasons for oppose are somewhat frivolous IMO.
'''Oppose''': Becuase I normally vote against self-noms, your user name looks like it'd be fairly hard to pronounce for anyone outside of the former Eastern Bloc(no offense, but it might cause problems for users looking to you for assistance, you might want to use roman characters in addition to cyrillic in your signature),you only have 169 edits on .en[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki&user=%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5%20%D0%94.%20%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B], and as of this edit, it says you have 12 people supporting you when I see nobody. That might have been a typo, but i'm afraid I have to be safe rather than sorry here.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits, lack of [[edit summary|edit summaries]].
'''Oppose''', in spite of the fact that I am a big fan of cross-wiki pollination.  Firstly, your edit count here at en: is low enough that I find myself with no real idea of you as an editor (being unable to read Serbian).  Secondly, your nomination attempt took [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=29254129] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94._%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B&diff=prev&oldid=29254679] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94._%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B&diff=prev&oldid=29254755] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94._%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B&diff=prev&oldid=29255318] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=29255435] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94._%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B&diff=prev&oldid=29255548] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94._%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B&diff=prev&oldid=29255573] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=29255593] tries, representing all but one of your Wikipedia-space edits.  I'm afraid that I cannot say that I have confidence in your understanding of policy.  I hope that you will continue your translation efforts, and reapply at some point in the future.
'''Oppose''' per Jkelly.
'''Oppose''', <s>if you aren't an admin on Sr, I'd suggest you try there.<s> <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' Per jkelly as well --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Oppose''' You have not answered if you are an admin on Serbian Wikipedia. Your talk page directs to your Serbian Wikipedia talk page. Your signature should be in English here. You need to be with English Wikipedia longer.--[[User:Pomegranite|Pomeg]][[User talk:Pomegranite|ranite]] 08:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)<br><br>I am an Admin on Serbian WIkipedia. My user name is in Cyrillic, but my signature is in Roman alphabet. And I'm with English Wikipedia since July.--
'''Oppose''' for above reasons.  --
'''Oppose''' per above.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. I'm sure Djordje (I can't type his name in native letters) is a great guy and a good admin at the Serbian Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean he has to be an admin here too. His talk page shows very little interaction and his contributions show a very narrow area of interest. I don't think he needs ''AdministrativePower®'' just to add information and correct mistakes in Serbia-related articles. &mdash;
'''Oppose''': agree with JIP.
'''Oppose''': The person is simply unknown to en: community to make a fair judgement. Nothing personal, sorry, simply too early.
'''Oppose''' as per jkelly, JIP and Kelly Martin's comments.
'''Oppose''' per JIP. --
I'm not concerned with your username.  I am concerned with your lack of edit summaries.  Please start using them consistently and I'd be glad to support you next time around.
'''Very Strong Support''' - I know Bogdangiusca and I trust him. His huge contributions proves a very decent, calm and friendly attitude. He is a man that won't make compromise to lies. He is by far the best of us and '''he was always our model'''. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - I thought he was already an admin. If not, that's strange. He's the best Romanian contributor on Wiki. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - One of the few times I don't even have to wait to hear how the candidate answers the questions. Probably our single best contributor on Romanian-related topics, and a veritable role-model in terms of his behavior. --
'''Very Strong Support''' - The candidate knows his domain of competency really well and is one of the Romanian contributors without a hidden agenda.
'''Support''', given that he accepts the nomination. --
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''' He appears not to be interested. --
'''Support''' Apparently well-intentioned. --
'''Oppose'''. Very few [[edit summary|edit summaries]].
'''Oppose'''. Not to sound editcountitis-stricken but this user has only [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=80-MAN&site=en.wikipedia.org 368 edits] per Interiot's new tool. There is a total lack of edit summaries. Has only '''1''' Wikipedia namespace edit apart from editing on this RFA (which took him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/80-MAN&action=history 10 tries] to get right).--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' Not an editcount person generally, but there is a lower limit lurking somewhere in the back of my head as an unformed notion, and 400 edits is below it.  Strongly suggest nomination withdrawl to candidate; edit more (perhaps by becoming active in copyediting and maintenance), and make a new request in six months.
'''Oppose''', talk page has only three comments (it went almost a full year without any comments), almost nonexistent use of edit summaries, 368 edits in a year and a half is too little. &mdash;
Sorry, no. Too little, not good enough yet. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Oppose''' for now. On the right track. Doesn't warn vandals.
'''Oppose''' fro above reasons. Low edit counts and not enough edit summaires.
'''Oppose''' for above reasons.  --
'''Oppose'''.Far too low an edit count, not enough edit summary usage, only four comments now on talk page. Please wait, get around Wikipedia more and then try again in a few more months.--
'''Oppose'''. I'm not one for piling on, but your lack of edit summaries is close to disturbing - when fighting vandalism this is not helpful to anyone who may also be watching. Lack of warning vandals is not good either if you're tracking vandalism, so I cannot say I'm surprised by your answer to Q1 ("so far I have not come across many individuals who are determined enough to authorize blocking"). Lack of Wikipedia space edits does not neccessarily mean anything, but I don't think you're ready for adminship ''just'' yet. <font color="darkred">
'''Oppose'''. Has never used a User Talk, not even their own.
'''Oppose''' for now; needs more time and experience first.
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a fine editor, but not nearly enough edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Should be more involved/interested in general running of Wikipedia if he's interested in being an admin. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
'''Support'''; too many vandals, not enough admins. Why not?
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with policy and process.
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki namespace edits. --
'''Oppose'''.  Does not meet my experience criterias regarding User Talk, Categories, Wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. As stated above, I don't think this user has enough experience. As an admin, you need to have come across all kinds of things in the past so you know what the policy is to deal with it.
'''Oppose'''. Only 615 edits in total, and only 400 in the Article namespace. User needs more experience. —
'''Oppose''' I suggest the candidate withdraws and reapplies when his editcount is around 2000.
'''Neutral''': Doesn't seem like a bad editor, but seems to lack experience as evidenced by the mistake or two on formatting his RfA (which I fixed). I don't have any grounds to oppose, but I can't support without more experience. You're on the right path, though. Try again in a couple months. &mdash;
'''Neutral''': Good editor, but you need more experience. Use of warning templates and warning vandals in general is rather lacking. You also seem to have no experience being on the receiving end of personal attacks, which is something you will eventually have to deal with as a admin. I'll gladly support you in a few months though. -- ''
'''Neutral'''. Given some more time and experience, I will support.
'''Neutral''' for above reasons.  --
'''Neutral'''. Get more experience, try again later. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
As nominator, of course.  <font color="red">
'''Extreme DeCSS support''', of course! I have seen this user around a lot.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - A clever, diligent editor --
I've seen a lot of ALTTP.  --
'''Strong Support''' - [[User:A Link to the Past|A Link to the Past]] is [[WP:RFA|dedicated]] to improving the quality of the encyclopedia. A few people would do well to remember what our goal is here.
--
Too few edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' The discussion on [[Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back]] ''really'' disturbes me. I believe that comments such as the one A man in black cites ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStar_Wars_Episode_V%3A_The_Empire_Strikes_Back&diff=24683943&oldid=24616426]) and others on that page (such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back&diff=next&oldid=24705060] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back&diff=next&oldid=24706217]) is unacceptable for any wikipedian, let alone an administrator. And yes I realise that the discussion was frustrating, but an admin needs patience in boatloads, enough to be able to handle these things. However, from what else I have seen of A Link To The Past, he seems like a very good user, and I am willing to change my vote in a few months if this RfA fails (barring any similar incidents, naturally).
An excellent editor but a little too rash to be an admin at this point. Needs to have his edges dulled a bit. For example, this quote from August 25 regarding [[User_talk:Adamwankenobi|Adamwankenobi]]: ''I also see you're sixteen years old. That would explain it. Oh well, at least school will help keep you from burdening Wikipedia anymore. I'm trying to help Empire Strikes Back, and you put that shit back on. I have encouraged admins at the wikipedia channel to not take vandal shit from you, so I suggest you fix up your act, or your ass is going to be torn.'' Admittedly Adamwankenobi was a bad faith user, but admins must keep their cool. Regrettably I must oppose at this point. Sorry!
'''Oppose''', per Andre. Needs to keep a cooler head.
'''Oppose'''. Following some of these links, there's just no way. ''So, yeah, blow me. I don't want to change it, so what? Are you gonna have a fucking heart attack over it? This is just Wikipedia.'' Just two days ago.
'''Oppose''': Lacks the patience and temperment to be an admin. --
'''Oppose''', per above.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, ALTTP. Though he's generally a great editor and I'm always on his side in disputes, he's far too rash and prone to getting into heated arguments and revert wars (some of which have led to pages being protected). He's a great editor (I love the [[Wario]] and [[Lakitu]] articles)... but I don't think he would make a good admin, especially when dealing with [[User:Adamwankenobi|frustrating users]].
'''Oppose''', his recent outbursts of temper are just way to recent to be ignored. And for an 18 year old to mock a 16 year old for his youth, well, that's just the pot calling the kettle black. --
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''' seems too angry to be an admin. I don't believe he'll make a good one I oppose.
'''Oppose''' Needs to keep a cool head more. -
'''Oppose'''An admin ''must'' be polite and calm at all times.
'''Oppose''' per GregAsche. --
'''Oppose''' excellent editor, tireless contributor, and all-around good bloke.  However &ndash; darnit &ndash; needs to pay a '''lot''' more attention to being patient, civil, and avoiding personal attacks.  Promising to clean up one's act is all very well, but I don't think anyone should be up for adminship just '''four days''' after swearing at another user?  It's not enough to make good edits; an admin should be cool under fire. --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' too hot headed, from my experience. --
I must admit to moderately heated disagreements with ALTTP recently over stub categories. Not strong enough to oppose, but I'm a ''little'' wary of supporting.
I'm a bit ambivalent, too, although the timing is unfortunate, as I'm currently engaged in a fairly heated debate with him. (If anything, his patience in that dispute is a point in his favor.) I have mixed feelings about his tendency to edit without edit summaries and his occasionally confrontational tone in talk pages and edit summaries (particularly when dealing with confrontations by other editors). If it weren't for that, I'd be inclined to support. -
I must admit that I don't like the answer to question 1 below at all;  if you're not ready to use ''Brainpower'' before deleting, blocking and especially closing AfD's or others.... I don't know what to say about this, but: are you taking the admin-stuff seriously at all? (and I don't mean to offend here, that's why I 'voted' neutral)
I think that ALTTP is now making a good effort to be a more calm and civil editor, but I would like to see him demonstrate it over a few weeks at least. I appreciate his willingness to learn from this experience, and I look forward to supporting his next RfA.
'''Neutral''' Good Editor but troubled by comments maybe in a few months --
'''Neutral'''. There's already enough opposition so I'm not going to pile on, but I do think that taking the advice from this RfA would be beneficial.
'''Neutral''' I'd like to thank the candidate for answering my questions. Candidate is obviously a great editor, but like the opposition here I agree the candidate needs just a tad more time working out the personal part (which can be hard :-(). Its also obvious that the candidate is making a commendable attempt to get better at it too, which is good :). <small>
'''Support'''. Believe Aaron would not abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. Arguing less and being more circumspect would be a good idea, but he's not over the line now, so objections to him I feel are somewhat overblown. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
'''Support'''  Obviously.  One of the people with the clearest idea of what Wikipedia should be.
'''Strongly Oppose'''. In my opinion, Aaron is wholly unsuitable to be an admin. He has a long list of uncivil behavior culminating most recently with outright rulebreaking and vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IgnoreAllRules]. I recognize that he has apologized for his vandalism, but the very fact that he committed this egregious offense in the first place is a clear demonstration that he lacks the maturity to act responsibly if given additional powers at WP. Aaron's use of the racial epithet "'''nigger'''", and the phrase "...even '''they''' call each other that..." (presumably, "they" in this context is in reference to the "niggers" in question) in an AfD debate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bartlett_High_School%2C_Bartlett%2C_Illinois] demonstrates a horrible display of racial insensitivity, at the least, and arguably racism at the worst - even though his subsequent claim was that this racist term was used to prove a point. I do not think that tossing racial epithets about in the course of AfD debates is appropriate behavior for an admin. He frequently assumes bad faith and shows little if any regard for [[WP:AGF]], there really are countless examples of his assuming bad faith [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2005_09_18#List_of_female_porn_stars].  His chronic bloodthirstiness to see [[User:Tony Sidaway]]'s adminship removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Pull_your_thumb_out] (and other places) borders on inexcusable. These and other innapropriate behaviors and comments are really far too many to document in the context of this vote. It should also be mentioned that these incidents are '''recent''' occurrences, not some ancient, buried offenses way, way back in this editor's history. These are only a few egregious actions within the last 2-3 months. Thinking that he was already an admin is no reason to nominate him. I fear for Aaron's future victims if he is awarded special admin powers.--
The [[Special:Contributions/IgnoreAllRules|sockpuppet incident]] that Radiant! mentions is very recent (October 18th -- barely two weeks ago), was an intentional disruption of Wikipedia in a badly misguided attempt to make a point, and exhibited a serious lack of judgment on his part.  I cannot, in good faith, support him at this time.  '''Oppose.'''
'''Oppose''': Use of sockpuppet, abusive behavior, and vandalism all very recent events. I think this user has some good intentions, but being an administrator would not be an appropriate role for him. --
'''Oppose.''' As per Kelly and Durin. Would like to see more evidence of ability to handle disputes without losing his temper and it's too soon after the sockpuppet incident.
'''Oppose''' but weakly...behave yourself for 90 days and then I will change my vote to support in all liklihood.--
'''Oppose for now''': the sockpuppetry has me worried, and Aaron is a bit controversial.  He's a good editor, though, and I would support in the future.  --
'''Oppose''' per Mervoingian.
'''Oppose'''. Although I am gladdened to see that [[User:Aaron Brenneman]] has apologized for the sockpuppet incident, that it happened at all must push me to oppose.
'''Oppose''', as he did vandalism in the past.
Oppose, per [[User:Kelly Martin]], and to some degree, [[User:Nicodemus75]], who has worded his comment far more strongly than I would have. The comments of [[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] are a worthy counterpoint to some of Nicodemus75's comment. <small>(I will no longer use a '''bold''' font for my oppose votes, no matter how strongly I feel, because it seems like it has the potential to be unnecessarily insulting to the candidate, and because I hope my comments are more important that the generalized summary of them in the form of a vote) </small>
'''Oppose ''' all of the above--
'''Strong Oppose''' per the fact that I hate Sockpuppetry and the tone of the response made on the afd mentioned were completely unacceptable for an admin, regardless of how you feel about the words "Deletionist" or "Inclusionist"(I agree with [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] on that argument, by the way, and have a similiar view with editcountitis).
'''Oppose''' per above comments.
'''Oppose''' polarisation among admins has always at minimum resulted in unnecesary stress. User seems to have problems with [[User:Tony Sideaway]], until this and any other dispute have been resolved its inaproporate at this point. Also if the "vandalsim" accusations are acurate, I would me most certainly less than inclined to hand delete powers. --
I think Aaron could make an excellent admin (partisan, yes, but that's nothing new for admins) - I just think he needs a more time to elapse after the self-admitted sockpuppetry foolishness, before community trust could be restored. I think this nomination is very badly timed by [[User:Radiant!]].
I may switch this vote before this RFC concludes, as I intend to vote as a spoiler to bad arguments. I lean oppose because user supports the nomination of schools that are doomed to no consensus, support because he's not a dick about it most of the time and it's not really bearing on his adminstrative duties, and because he's willing to try to work to a third solution. If the N word incident is a substantial oppose vote block, I will support.
'''Neutral'''. I am a bit ambivalent about this. I too am concerned with the recent sockpuppet vandalism, which were rather serious and disruptive, and also of a quite mean-spirited nature, targeted against another user. I acknowledge that Aaron has apologized for it, and I appreciate that but the incident is uncomfortably recent. On the other hand, such behaviour was really very un-Aaron Brennemanlike. In fact, my dealings with Aaron have been very positive, sure, I have disagreed with him on many issues, but I am convinced that he means well for the encyclopedia. The "nigger" comments which people point to here are pulled wildly out of context, after reading the comment I see absolutely ''no'' evidence of ''any'' racism of any sort, in fact I would say it is more to the contrary. Nor will I forget that Aaron was one to offer some comforting words of support during a time and incident when I was under a lot of stress, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASjakkalle%2FJuly_and_August_2005&diff=19783229&oldid=19782629 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASjakkalle%2FJuly_and_August_2005&diff=20769374&oldid=20766561 here]. I don't see that this RFA has a big chance of succeeding, and the concerns expressed here mean that I cannot support it, but Aaron is a fine editor. With some more skills at managing stress, and some more time to let the sockpuppet incident blow over, I see myself gladly supporting some time in the future. I would recommend backing a bit off from conflict when you get too upset; it is very easy to take the conflicts here way too personally. When people are behaving like morons, and they bug you up to a point where you feel that you've had it, either take a wikibreak, or do some work in the calmer waters of the main article namespace on less controversial issues.
'''Neutral''' I honestly thought he was a admin but those latest issues are too problematic --
'''Neutral'''. I think Aaron can be a good admin when a little time passes and it is clear that his lapse in judgment was an aberration.  I only hope that he has extremely thick skin since this ill-timed nomination is bound to be unpleasant.  It is unfortunate that the side effect of a nomination is to publicly pillory an editor whose contributions to Wikipedia were considered valuable enough to merit a nomination to carry the mop. --
'''Neutral''' This has to be the worst timing ever for an RfA nomination.--
'''Neutral''' I really like Aaron, and want to support, but I must say that I do find this use of [[the N word]] (previously unknown to me) a bit offensive, and I cannot in good conscience support at this time.  Wait a few months.
I thought he already was an admin which normally means that I'd support, but I'd like to have a bit of a wait following recent events.
Support. I trust that ABCD will not abuse his admin powers, and a penchant for grunt work (not to be confused with [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] work) is always useful.
I'll support, based on contributions. I would like to see more edit summaries, though.
I'm assuming good faith.

No substantive edits, and too early in any case.
To me, 2.5 months is good enough. But however, I have to agree with Brockert: ABCD rarely leaves edit summaries. If you want to come back, PLEASE start leaving edit summaries. Thank you. --

Get more involved.
Since you haven't left edit summaries before January 15, 2005, it is hard for us to know about the nature of your work. Also, I would like to see more interaction with other users. Come back after a few months, and I will support you.
Oppose, though likely to support in the future with more experience, good edits, and preferably more content creation. Also, please consistently use useful edit summaries. -
Too new, I suspect this account is not their only one.  First edit was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=7042939 vote on Nov 1], rest of their edits are just runs of grunt work, likely done to increase edit count quickly and move towards adminship.  I'd consider changing my mind if I'm proven wrong in this interpretation. --
Too new. Oppose.
I would like to see more Talk page entries to get a better feel for how you interact w/other editors, though I suppose if your goal is janitorial tasks it may not be as pertinent.  Still, since Wikipedia is a collaborative project... --
Maybe. Registration time is short but I think a few people I've voted for recently had only been active since around that time. --
Will support in a month. [[User:Nathanlarson32767|<nowiki></nowiki>]] —
It is always a bad sign when a candidate fails to answer to *all* of the standard questions or answers with one or two sentences. On the other hand, Ugen64 is probably right. I will support in 2-3 months.
Support. We need more janitors.
Support. I've supported ABCD in Januari, and still do.
Just like last time.  --
Good faith, though I would have preferred that ABCD wait to be nominated by someone else rather than self-nom again.
Support. I was thinking of nominating this user in April. There is absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry. Good janitor.
Support for his janitorial work. Will do better with a mop and bucket. :) -
Sure
'''Support''' Janitorial work is needed in Wikipedia. I'm sure this person will need adminsip to help him or her with such work.
Support. I believe I opposed last time because of not enough edit summaries, and I have seen this ameliorate. By the way, <big><big>ABCD is not a sockpuppet of me, and I am not a sockpuppet of ABCD</big></big>. --
'''Support'''.  This whole "sockpuppet" thing seems rather silly. --
'''Support'''. He is a good janitor. I have seen no evidence for him being a sockpuppet, merely Netoholic's hearsay, and I do not find his wanting to be an admin overly excessive.
'''support'''. good user, the only issue seem to be sockpuppet concerns. assume some good faith, people! I don't know the Alex case, but you can't hold it against Jonathan that he uses the same ISP! Jonathan showed good faith by disclosing his name and location. He stated that he is not Alex (and this vote is obviously based on the statement. Should it turn out that he is, after all, Alex, it will be arbcom time. But I don't expect that to happen). Thank you for your useful work, ABCD, and thanks for sticking around after your previous request was turned down. I do think people with a penchant for cleanup rather than article-writing are perfect admin material (myself, I spend too much time editing articles to be much use as a janitor)
'''Support'''. The only problem seems to be the sockpuppet issue, and I don't think he is. --
'''Support'''.  I see evidence only of positive motives by this editor for wanting adminship to further abilities to contribute to Wikipedia. --
'''Support'''. I have seen his work on VfD and consider he deserves to be an admin. --
'''Support''' , switching stratagems takes some guts. Alright, fine by me :-) Note however that I'll keep an eye on ABCD.
I'm going to go with oppose, sorry. Overeagerness to become an admin isn't bad in and of itself, but doesn't lend extra confidence either. The note on your talk page re: archiving people's comments is a bit immature in addition. If you want to be an admin, should you model yourself after one that is under constant controversy or those that more or less are not? (Not necessarily pointing to myself here. I'll consider moving to at least Neutral if the preponderance of the evidence is that all of your edits are in good faith and there haven't been any obvious transgressions, but I don't have time to look through all the diff's right now. But overall, no offense, keep up the good work, just not sure you need admin powers just yet. -
Oppose, as before. Previous vote at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD.09]] (moved there by ABCD, not sure why).  I remain convinced this is a new account of the person known as [[User:A<name removed>|A<name removed>]]/[[User:Alexandros|Alexandros]]/[[User:Greenmountainboy|Greenmountainboy]]/[[User:Sennheiser|Sennheiser]]/[[User:Alex<name removed>|Alex<name removed>]]/[[User:Perl|Perl]].  Also, I don't like that he's self-nominated again and also tried [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=ABCD&hideminor=0&namespace=3 soliciting votes].  --
I must oppose yet again. I am very uncomfortable with the vote solicitation, and I have sock-puppet concerns.
Oppose, I don't think that's enough time editing, really.  I am also a bit concerned about overeagerness.
Not enough time editing.
Does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]]. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social club,
<s> '''Support'''. If there is actual evidence that he's a sockpuppet, take it to the ArbCom. The fact that ABCD lives within 100 miles of another user is not convincing. He's enthusiastic and wants to help with cleanup tasks. That's good enough for me.
It's hard to not support somebody named after a Frank Sidebottom album, but something about this cadidate doesn't sit right with me.  A user since Nov, with lots of minor edits and self-nommed twice already... just seems to me like the user is a little ''too'' eager to get into adminship.  I don't know why, and I'm still assuming good faith, but that plus the sockpuppet accusation prevents me from casting a support at this time.
Neutral.  I wonder why there's objections to soliciting votes.  When I ran for admin I contacted the twenty or thirty people I'd had some dealings with and asked them for their support, just as a candidate for public office would.  I certainly can't fault a candidate here for asking for support.
''Mea maxima culpa''. Apologies to ABCD and Alex. I have no opinion one way or another. —
1337ness!!! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme lesbian support''' --<font color=red>
Despite the dispute we had on my RfB, or perhaps because of it, I feel I can confidently support Acetic Acid. Good luck.
'''Support'''. My watchlist tells me he's very in the community and policy related pages.
'''Support''' Hmm thought you were one.
'''Strong Oppose'''. While he is a notable candidate, he has only been here since July 23. That, according to the standards that others have been judged on, is much, much too short. Secondly, only about 200 edits in article namespace; his edits count is high mainly because he welcomes others; no sysop powers are needed for that. All in all, he still needs about a month more  experience. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose'''.
A good dude, but not enough article edits. --
A month and a half isn't enough experience even if you have ten thousand edits. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', like the others said, not enough experience. Acetic Acid, please answer the candidate questions below.

'''Neutral'''. Too soon, too soon. Everything else says "yes", but not yet. If this fails, try again after October 23, and things will be different.
'''Support''' Although new account, he has done good job cleaning up. No Vandalisim. Had one copyright issue but cleaned it up after complaint about it. good job! --
'''Oppose''' Should have created a User account earlier. Give it a few months. I also dislike the incorrect capitalisation of 'i'.
'''Oppose''' Way too new, less than 125 edits and only a few days old his account. Try again in 3 months sorry. --
'''Oppose''' Looking at your edits just from this evening I have considerable difficulty believing you've been around for two years as an editor.  Come back in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' <strike>Please review [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|unofficial standards]] and re-apply in 2-3 months.  --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] 04:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)</strike> User is clearly not even close to being ready for adminship --
'''Oppose''' Did you only create an account to get up for RfA?
'''Oppose''' Writes copyvios and tries to hide them up.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Strong Oppose''' Account is not "fairly new", but utterly new. Edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_Crime%3A_NYC&diff=30798032&oldid=30790207] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jody_Thompson&oldid=30880287] are written in the first person, contain vast amounts of misspelling and grammical errors, do not follow Wikipedia style, do not use sections, and are written in the perspective of game guides as opposed to encyclopedic content. Therefore, user's claim of 2 years of editing experience is highly doubtful, and user cannot be trusted currently with admin responsibilities.
'''Oppose''' and suggest delisting. '''Three days''' on Wikipedia is clearly not enough experience for adminship. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Znode's research.  Delisting would probably be a good idea.
'''Neutral''' This user does not seem to understand some parts of wikipedia policy very well. I don't think they are ready to be an administrator. That said, I also believe the user is acting in good faith, and I don't think it is necessary to pile on and be negative in this space. It seems clear to me that Activision45 just doesn't understand some things about how wikipedia works. For this, he/she can be pardoned.--
'''Neutral''' Rather than pile on another oppose this user clearly isn't ready. The effort it took to list this RFA seems to show a lack of understanding of how wikipedia works, the article history for [[Any Way You Want It]] indicates initial authorship by someone else wih the user adding one sentence. The answer to question (1) again reveals little understanding of wikipedia policy. Little use of edit summaries. I would suggest the user withdraw the nomination and try again when they've gathered more experience. --
This candidate might be doing a good job at removing vandalism, but I doubt  he is ready enough for administrator powers. Try again in several months (not [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam1213/old|in one week]]).
<s>'''Oppose'''. I hate to come off the bat with this, but I feel like  not enough time has passed since your last RfA, which is listed below. I think the more appropriate choice would have been to create a new RfA page, but link to this one. Either way, I think it's still too soon. [[User:Evilphoenix|&Euml;vilphoenix]] <sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Evilphoenix|Burn!]]</b></sup></small> 06:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC) </s><br>'''Strong Oppose'''. User blanked my oppose vote the first time I posted it, amongst re-factoring this page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Adam1213&diff=next&oldid=25489011]. User has also been engaging in asking for support on IRC, which I object to.
'''Strong Oppose''' My interaction with this user (realtime on irc)  has shown me that he's a little bit immature. His reaction style can also be seen at
'''Oppose''' I don't think that Adam1213 has shown the understanding of Wikipedia policies and practice needed to be an admin.  Fighting vandalism is commendable, but it isn't a good way to pick Administrators. --
I feel awful writing this after having been in a personal dispute with the user mere minutes ago, but I don't think he's quite experienced enough yet.
No good reason to oppose. --<span style="color:red">
'''Oppose'''- 1000 edits overall, less than 500 to article namespace. In my opinion, not yet experienced enough to be an administrator.  Sorry. --
Good start, but more experience is needed.  --
'''Oppose.''' Maybe later. --
'''Oppose''' until you format the description properly.
'''Oppose'''. [[User:Admiral Roo|Admiral Roo]] made a comment in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina|AfD for Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina]] that leads me to question his understanding of the AfD process, a key aspect of Wikipedia for any administrator to fully understand. Specifically, he wrote "For keeping, we have 27. For deleating, we have 32. Sorry keepers, you're so far outweighed." This seems to imply that he thought a simple majority vote constitutes consensus to delete. Please note that this vote is ''not'' based on any feelings I might have about that Afd - I have voted to support many admin candidates who have cast AfD/VfD votes against me (including at least one who I voted for shortly after he had voted to delete in this very same AfD). --
'''Oppose''' - Couldn't manage to set up his self-nom correctly, a bad sign for someone who would like to be an admin. A bit more experience in the "Ways of the Wiki" is required.
'''Oppose''' Lack of [[edit summary|edit summaries]]. Also, use the preview button a bit more often.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;shows inexperience in that he hasnt set up his nomination conventionally, nor has he accepted his own nomination. Also, the "one sentence" answers to the questions doesn't show that much thought was put into them. A good editor nevertheless. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose''', You're off to a good start, but you only have 1000 edits, and a quarter of those are at User pages. I am close to support, but you need more edits, and next time, give better answers to the questions, and format your request properly. -
'''Oppose;''''. Notice how he says he would ban or block users? Admins should know <big>that we can't unilatterly ban someone</big>. We need ArbCom or Jimbo... An admin should at least know the meaning of 'ban' in my opinion... [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
--
'''Weak oppose'''. A good editor and contributor, but a bit too little experience. Also agree with BD2412, Journalist and Redwolf24.
Good user.  I see no reason to oppose.  My general test is <code>if ($potentialgain - $potentialharm => 0) then support, else oppose</code>.  However, I don't think Admiral Roo would do any harm; I am sure of his good faith.  However, I am not convinced he could technically handle the tools, given the problems he seems to have had nominating himself.  For next time, a better self-description would help.
Please come back when you have closer to 2000 edits and some experience in a few admin type jobs (reverting vandals, [[WP:AFD]], patroling [[WP:NP]] etc...) then there will be no problem at all.
Trustworthy but inexperienced editor. Expand your work in article space and take on some admin-like duties ([[WP:AFD]], [[WP:NP|new page patrol]], for example) and I'll gladly support in a few months. I have no doubt you'll make a good admin, you just need more time. <tt>:-)</tt> <font color="green">
I have to be honest, I had had no real dealings with the User, but when I went to his User page, the cartoon there offends me.
'''Oppose'''. [[User talk:AfC#Blocked for image vandalism|Recent vandalism]], and [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=AfC&dbname=enwiki 159 edits]. I've asked the user to withdraw the nomination for now. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Image vandal; not anything like enough edits to have become familiar with WP policies; and does not answer the questions to admin candidates properly. I have to say I think it may be a bad faith nomination.
'''Oppose'''. Far too early! See my comment below, but AfC doesn't have enough experience, and this likely a joke nomination - look at his answer to the questions below.
'''Oppose''': not enough experience, no serious answers to questions for candidate, vandalism, possibly sock puppet.
'''Oppose'''. ''Way'' too early, and the other comments are worrying me. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''. Why waste more words? --
'''Strong Oppose''' Joke or not, user ripped off an Eisenhower speech when answering below, and that alone is behaviour unbefitting an admin.  The image vandalism and very low edit count provide even more reason.
'''No.'''
'''Absolutely Not''' Words and actions on this RfA alone show that the candidate is not nearly ready for the position and responsiblities that go with it.
'''Oppose'''. Not only is the edit count low (and always forgetting to sign in is not a good mark of an admin either), but the various responses and contributions of this user lead me to believe that this user would not make a good admin, and I wonder if this is a joke nomination as well. --
'''Hurrr'''. I'm disappointed in those of you saying you WONDER if it's a joke nom. Assume bad faith sometimes, sheesh. --
I'm sorry, but with 331 edits, no discrtiption of yourself, and still finding your way around, you are too new for the mop. Try again in a few months. You seen to be doing ok.
Wait 2 months and 1000 more edits,
Not to start a clobbering parad, but yeah, too soon, no description, and you don't need to be an admin to edit soccer pages. --
Sorry, but you don't have enough edits or experience to be an admin here.  I'd recommend waiting till 1000 edits (2000 is safer), and waiting for another editor to nominate you (since people who have nominated themselves more than once [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies|haven't usually been very successful]]). --
The numerous spelling mistakes in answering his questions here suggest an amount of sloppiness that is inappropriate for an admin.
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> '''Strong oppose'''  Calls [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=19521391 deletion of] legitamtely VFD'ed articles vandalism. [[User:Y0u|Y0u]] [[User talk:Y0u|(Y0ur talk page)]] [[Special:Contributions/Y0u|(Y0ur contributions)]] 19:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)  Also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cryptic&diff=prev&oldid=19523317 vandalizes] a userpage.
'''Oppose''' The diffs pointed out by [[User:Y0u|Y0u]] (above) are surprising, and not at all what one should see from a potential admin.  I recommend waiting a good long time before trying for adminship again.
'''Oppose'''. I wasn't going to vote as there was no need, but those diffs from [[User:Y0u|Y0u]] mean I must vote so that I can condemn vandalism and suggest a ''very'' long wait before trying again. -
'''Strong Oppose'''. User also just called us all bullies and left Wikipedia. "Blah".
'''Support''', over 400 edits in the Wikipedia namespace is quite enough, and you seem to be familiar with policy. I like your answers to the questions below, and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be an admin. One and a half months of heavy editing is enough by my standards. Just remember to use edit summaries consistently and you'll be a fine admin. -
Needs more experience. First edit was only about 7 weeks ago. Looks to be a good start though.
'''Oppose''' per Carbonite. Will support in two more months. One suggestion for the future - please use edit summaries more frequently. It helps the RC Patrollers out a lot. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
--
Will support in one month.  --
So far, your edits look good, but you need to spend some more time here. A couple of months later (barring anything catastropic) the vote will probably be changed.
'''Oppose''' You need a few more months under your belt before I can support. Whilst you seem to be a very promising contributor, I don't feel you've been exposed to Wikipedia long enough for us to see how well you will cope in conflicts. --
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient experience.
'''Oppose''' &ndash; too new and no email ID specified.
'''Oppose'''. Too new.
'''Oppose'''. Not sufficiently experienced with less than 2 months here. --
'''Oppose''' for now.  Albert you are on the right track.  Keep up the good work and in the future I'll support you.
Looks like hes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mingaladon_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=22220867 biting the newbies] ''oppose''
'''Extreme Oppose of UltraDoom''' to anyone who bites a newbie. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme Oppose of Inexorable Doom''' cause 7 weeks is ridiculously too little time editing.
'''Abstention.''' Permanent record indicates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Denelson83&diff=21784926&oldid=21464323 minor conflict] with this user over [[Template:Idw]] being put on my user talk page regarding [[:Image:Bcferry.png]], but this user subsequently apologized, so I will neither support nor oppose. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
Not enough edits or time. &mdash; <small>
Strong support, obviously.
<big>'''YES!'''</big>
Support--
Yes, Mr. Raver.
As promised. —
He's extremely raveriffic.  —[[en:RaD Man|'''RaD Man''']] (
I very rarely agree with his opinions (especially on VfD), but after reviewing his contributions, I don't see any reason not to support. Since he's aware that he can run a bit hot at times, that doesn't really concern me.
Quite. &mdash;
Other than trying to have me arbitrated for a ridiculous reason and going a bit over the top at times you are a definite wiki enthusiast, and there is plenty of work to go around --

Fair and involved.
Support.
Support. If RickK can be an admin then Alkivar obviously can.
Concur with AngryParsley and others.
'''Support''' An impressive editor.
'''Support'''. Worth adminship. -
'''Support''', good user.--
'''Support''', Alkivar is a good user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. All round good guy and an asset to Wikipedia.
Meets my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]] (though unfortunately it seems doing lots of minor edits is more important if you want to become an admin rather than writing good quality articles),
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' --

'''Strong Support'''.  Alkivar is one great guy.  →
Sorry, but I don't think someone who calls people who disagree with him "morons" in an edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niger_Innis&diff=11314263&oldid=11314171] will make a good administrator.  Perhaps in time (that edit is only three days old), but I can't support currently.
Oppose, user has in past added falsified data [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BeOS&diff=9894789&oldid=9886309], backed up with unprovable statements, has removed discussions (although this got a bit heated, as you'll see from this edit) from his talk page about this information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alkivar&diff=9909096&oldid=9900400], and has at other times messed with other users user pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alkivar&diff=10533406&oldid=10533370]. Doesn't seem suitable for an admin for much the same reasons I'll never be suitable.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Does not believe in Wikiquette.
Strong oppose, mainly based on repeated run-ins on VfD that did not display the maturity I expect out of an admin, although there are other reasons as well (obviously).
I think Alkivar is a very good editor but unfortunately has a tendency to make personal attacks. Sorry.
Reluctantly oppose. Good editor, but bad "people skills".
On the basis of above comments, and the grammar and spelling of the acceptance, Oppose.
For the most part Alkivar is a great editor, unfortunatly he has displayed poor people skills. I will support in the future if he shows more civility in conflict.
Oppose. Seems to get hot under the collar rather too easily.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Hesitant oppose'''.  Excellent editor, and very active in community stuff (such as VfD), but he does tend to have a somewhat short fuse.  Will support in the future, if this problem is dealt with.
I've seen him get pretty worked up on VfDs that he disagreed with and insult the nominators. Seems like a good guy otherwise, if he calms down a bit maybe I'll support.
'''Oppose''' user can get pretty rude to those he disagrees with.  That's not exactly an endearing trait for an editor, and a nightmare as an admin.
'''Oppose'''. I don't know Alkivar, but judging by his interrogation of the people opposing him here, I am not entirely confident that he would be a level-headed admin. If you want to prove me wrong, Alkivar, I'm happy to be disproven. -
'''Oppose'''. I'm voting against because of Alkivar's response to [[User:Kelly Martin]]'s oppose vote (''Pardon the seemingly rude question, but, who are you exactly? I have NEVER seen your sig before today'') and his response when I queried it (''I even asked in the nicest way possible ... If this is to be construed as rude and abrupt well then I guess I just dont [sic] know what a civilized conversation is''), when even a glance at Kelly's contributions show she's a legitimate editor. This is exactly the kind of aggression an admin should not display. I'll vote for Alkivar in a couple of months or so if he can show he's taken steps to go a little easier on people.
Reluctantly '''Oppose'''.  I've had brief but positive experiences in the past with Alkivar.  However, he's demonstrably too hotheaded to be an admin.  That said, not everyone needs to be an admin to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and Alkivar is an excellent editor. --
'''Oppose''' based on a review of many exchanges with other editors. I endorse what the voter directly above said.
'''Oppose''' per recent personal attack on VfD page, in spite of his promises below.
Definitely he's done some good work, but I've had enough poor experience in dealing with him that I have to oppose for now.
'''Oppose'''. Alkivar's done some great work for Wikipedia, but administrators should deal with others with more civility. His comments on this page alone, especially with respect to Kelly Martin (and also to Radiant) are enough to push me to oppose. I'd definitely support in the future if he can slightly modify the way he interacts with users he disagrees with. &mdash;

I like that he supports an [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|appropriate procedure for de-adminship]].  I'll move to support if he stops [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Things to avoid|transcluding his signature]] with a /sig (which is worse than an image in some respects). --
I haven't editing the Wiki very much, due to poor internet connectivity and general attention leakage, so I don't consider myself qualified to judge Alkivar's contributions, or vote had I the time to analyse them. However, I do consider myself a very good judge of character, and have spoken many times with Alkivar on IRC. In my experience, he is ''intelligent'', ''articulate'' and ''passionate''. Intelligence and articulation are relatively neutral descriptors, they rarely detract from a person's suitability for Adminship. Passion, however, can have both positive and negative effects, as has been recognised in some of the reactions herein. Sometimes our passion makes is uncautious, saying things we perhaps wouldn't say in another situation, or react to people in a way we'd normally know isn't conducive to co-operation. However, these are - in my opinion, at least - the exceptions: the norm of Alkivar's passion is in his dedication to the Wikipedia and the article he believes he can best contribute to. So, I guess what I'm saying is don't be afraid of passion, without it none of us would be here.
I agree with both the support and oppose votes, so I vote neutral. --
Alkivar is awesome.
'''Support''', great guy.
Certainly. &mdash;
We've had our differences, but since he's been willing to put them behind us, I will happily do the same.
'''Strong Support'''. I've had nothing but good communications with Alkivar.
We've had our disagreements, but over time my opinion of Alkivar has improved.
'''Hey!''' I'd already told Alkivar I was gonna nominate him at the end of the month (i.e., tomorrow!) no fair! (Oh, and '''support''', BTW)
Nicer than most admins I have ran into. --
'''Support'''. Alkivar has improved since last nomination.
'''Support'''. Seems like a good user.
'''UM, YES!"  :D
'''Support'''. Very helpful user.
'''Support''', good and hardworking user. Not a great diplomat, but I believe he has learned a lot from the conflicts he's been in, and will be a better admin for them.
'''Support'''. I think we should keep it real. I belive that Alkivar will be a good admin, despite of being controversial user. -
'''Support'''.  Based upon this user's edit summary, it appears that he would be an excellent addition to the staff.  My earlier question about the nominator seems moot in light of the fact that Grutness, a well-known contributor, was eagerly looking forward to nominating Alkivar for adminship anyhow.
'''Support'''. Hardworking and plays well with others.
'''Support'''.  Three months overdue.  &mdash;
'''Of course.'''  The oppose votes are wholly baseless.
Weak support. I see respectable people voting for and nothing problematic in edits. You should make edit summary for every contribution to save time of people on RC patrol (hence the ''weak'').
'''Absolutely support''' if you don't support, you just haven't made an effort to research him.  I don't care who nominated him, I'd nominate him myself.  He sent me, (a total stranger) at his own expense and carefully packaged a whole bunch of material from NASA that's becoming the [http://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=NASA_Facts NASA Facts collection on wikisource], what's there at present is barely the tip of the iceberg (the stack is about 2 inches thick of reports lovingly hoarded for just such a purpose) the delay is my fault, I don't have that much time that I can use the scanner, because I have to borrow it.  Anyway, he contributes well and makes good edits and is genuinely concerned with keeping wikipedia a great thing, and has done a lot of work and seems to me will be a good admin. see my comment on ''bite me'' below. And ask yourself how many articles you have shepherded to FA status, Alkivar has several.
'''Support'''. Good edits, strong contributions, appears to understand policy.
'''Support'''. Changed my mind, I was far too quick to pass judgement.
'''Support'''. I actually thought he was an admin! --
See [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alkivar|first adminship nomination]], from 3 months ago.
Many of his edit summaries come across as rude and/or condescending. I would probably hate to read his justifications for speedy deleting pages.
I gotta vote no. If you go to his talk page, he literally told someone to "bite me" about a week ago. And looking at his other edits, I still see a short fuse. --
'''Oppose''' &ndash;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Totse&diff=15668954&oldid=15668836 This edit] does not convince me that the issues of civility from the last RfA have been dealt with. Even though Alkivar has done much good work, some lack of good faith does not show a readiness for adminship.
Too soon since last nomination to be able to show significant improvement given the concerns last time.  I'm additionally concerned that a two day old user who has done little besides use Wikipedia to play chess (?!) is nominating someone to be an admin.
I've reviewed much of his activity since the last RfA (what there is of it, which isn't much), and what I see is a disturbingly high percentage of article edits without meaningful edit summaries (including a big long string of summary-less edits on [[Daniel Ruettiger]]).  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Totse&diff=prev&oldid=15668954 "bite me"] comment doesn't help matters either.  And if he is going to "stay away from VfD" as he promises and is just going to be doing "vandalism patrol", he can use just use godmode-lite for the rollback button (or request rollback separately, if and when we get a procedure for that).  Sorry, not enough time has passed since the last RfA and it looks like he spent most of it away from Wikipedia.  There just isn't enough evidence that he's changed in any way.  '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. As the recipient of the comment in question, I of course found it less than civil. Bigger than that though was the lack of an apology, and that the comment is just one more in a pattern of similar behavior. Admins are subject to greater scrutiny and civility does matter. Obviously Alkivar makes positive contributions, so please keep doing that, but I just don't think adminship is warranted. -
'''Oppose''' While "bite me" is pretty mild when it comes to angry remarks, I think admins must always avoid being inflammatory.  It's a minor quibble, but I oppose.--
'''Oppose'''. I find I completely agree with Kelly Martin.
'''Oppose'''. Concerned about civility issues.
'''Oppose'''. User has disregarded consensus in the past. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Kelly Martin and because of the last RfA, which I found disturbing.
'''Oppose'''  I see enough evidence of poor behavior to vote against. --
'''Oppose''' for now, because of civility issues and inconsistent use of edit summaries. Maybe later.
'''Oppose''' some significant contributions, but he needs to show some common courtesy and self-control. Maybe in a few months.

'''Oppose'''. Lack of civility.
<s>Vote pending acceptance and answers to questions. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk </small>]] 30 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)</s> Vote still neutral. While I do beleive that Alkivar has learned from his mistakes in the past and that he is a valuable contributer, the edit history still shows signs of a quick temper. With more time and signs of improvement, I will be happy to support. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Neutral''' When important suggestions are solicited, one expects the user to reply. Alkivar did not.
'''Neutral'''. I still don't feel strongly enough to support or oppose.  Sorry. --
'''Neutral'''. Still generates too much controversy for my tastes.
This user removes vandalism a lot. As an admin they could help more by banning users that continue to vandalise. --
Strong support.
'''Support''' for a very dedicated Wikipedian, who's active in the community. I hope any who decide not to support this candidate can manage to be polite and fair.--
Oops, I forgot to support.  Pv.-h4p5 1 |>0|\|+ |-|@\/& 13375k!11z 4|=73.- 411
'''Still Support'''. Good guy, won't abuse em. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Extreme Wisconsinite Now Living In Illinois Support!''' I seriously, honestly, truly thought you were one already (no joking). --
'''Support''' the oppose votes are ridiculous (no offence intended :))
'''Support''' '''<font color=#808000>
'''Absolutely support.''' And for the record, the start date is September '''2004''', over a year ago. --
'''Extreme [[Thunderwing]] support''', I've seen this user active on AfD.
Alphax enjoys my full '''support''' -
'''Support'''!--<font color = steelblue>
Support. BTW, it pisses me off that an admin nomination gets a pile of AFD politics shoved onto it. I don't have to agree with Alphax to trust him with the tools -
Sadly concur with David Gerard.  I strongly advise against inclusion of that extremely divisive question in future RFA's, and if it is included, I strongly caution all candidates against answering it, lest another stupid pile-on should result.  This is a very strong admin candidate and those opposing him without good reason should ask themselves what good it does to the wiki to exclude good candidates on the grounds of AfD politics.  --
'''Support'''.  I fear it's mostly symbolic, now, as the votes pile up.  Frankly, if I didn't already know Alphax and know that he is a lot smarter than this AfD would suggest, I'd be seriously considering opposing, too. --
'''Support''' - I like the fact that he expresses opinions, rather than hides them until after the election.  Good answers on the extra questions!
'''Support'''.  I am tired of being asked by this guy to do various admin things.  Let him do them himself.  And let me add my voice to those objecting to the interrogation of candidates about deletion policy.
'''Support''' Echo thoughts of earlier support votes.--
'''Support''', seems sufficiently familiar with policy, the hordes of people opposing notwithstanding.
'''Delete''', nn admincruft...I mean, '''Support'''.
'''Support''' He will be OK.  --
'''Support''' The arbitrary addition of AFD quesions to this RFA is absurd. --
'''Oppose'''. The answers to questions 5 and 6 strike me as naive. It's an unfortunate feature of AfD that most debates get, say, a handful of participants unless they are controversial or on high profile articles. A lot of the articles that go to AfD are frankly not worth much more than that. It would be verging on the absurd to close such debates as no consensus because they behave like the average AfD debate. The RfC noted in Q6 is frivolous and the defense given of it here is insulting to a large number of people including many who do not participate on AfD. If that's the most level-headed this editor can be, then they aren't ready for adminship for a while yet. The answer to Q1 is thorough, but finishes with something of a personalised mission statement re AfD/VfU &mdash; we have enough people on missions as it is, and I though the RfC is specifically to ''condemn'' those who currently pursue one. -
'''Oppose''' Slash said it better then I could. Well, slightly harsher then I'd say it too. <small>
'''Very weak oppose''' I agree with Splash on all he says, so here's my very weak oppose. I do think starting the RfC was bold, but also quite frivoulus. And we have way to many bold admins already.
'''Oppose'''. I thought the RfC was an interesting idea, but the concept of closing Afd's with less than ten votes is ridiculous and completely unworkable.--
'''Oppose'''. The RfC was somewhere in the grey area between [[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be Bold]] and [[WP:POINT]], but with the jumping on the bandwagon of the totally misunderstood, and quite frankly sad, editcountitis debate as well as his comment on consensus make me think that the RfC was geared more towards [[WP:POINT]] and future actions will head towards that way as well. However, he did make me laugh in a good way with his comment on Redwolf24's RfB, so much so that I [[User:Karmafist/son of jimbo award|created a user award for it.]]
I have to oppose based on question 5. If he's not going to call a vote with 9 votes to delete and 0 to keep a "delete" because it lacks 10 votes then we have a problem. Most debates on AfD don't get 10 votes. More than half are unanimous deletes, but they usually have more like 4 or 5. -
'''Oppose''' per reasons given before.
'''Strong Oppose''' Clearly Don't like the answers for 5 and 6. I dont trust this user with AFDs --
'''Oppose''' based on current answer to closing AfD.  As I understand it closure is left to the judgement of the administrator.  Disregarding a vote on the basis proposed does not seem appropriate.  The voter would have indicated his/her views with the vote and may feel that reasons are adequately covered above - for example, in the nomination if supporting deletion.  The approach proposed seems inconsistent with the community approach generally; in this forum, support votes on RfA are not queried when they give no reason.--
'''Oppose''' on AfD grounds, particularly as AfD procedure ''specifically'' encourages participants [[WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette|not to "pile on"]] when the outcome is clear.  Expecting 10 votes for a unanimous consensus is tacitly expecting Wikipedians to ignore this policy.  &mdash; [[User:Lomn|Lomn]] | <small>[[User Talk:Lomn|Talk]] /
'''Very strong oppose.''' Alphax is a good user, and makes a lot of good contributions. His comments below, however, suggest that he'd make a terrible admin.
'''Oppose''' I'm sorry, but I haven't been crazy about this user since I read the AfD RfC. Alphax's view on deletionists and inclusionists is clouding his judgment about consensus, as seen in Q5. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Oppose'''; do not trust on AfD.  <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', purely because he's being rude to people exercising their right to vote 'oppose' if they wish (see the above vote).  Not conduct becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Proto. Admins need to defuse, not enflame. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  If a user wants to start a debate over policy (such as AfD), they should do so in a talk forum, not by trying to become and admin and unilaterally implementing a new policy themselves. The discretion given to admins on things like AfD closings, blockings, and speedy deletions is on a ''case by case'' basis, to keep Wikipedia running smoothly; as reactions to previous incidents have shown, it would be an abuse of administrator powers to use them in an effort to spark or influence policy debates. From the answers below, I think that is what this user intends to do. --
'''Oppose'''- rude and arrogant.
'''Oppose'''. I wholeheartedly agree with Alphax that AFD is in need of reform, and would be happy to hear his suggestions. However, until we have an alternative, it is improper to unilaterally use the process in a way that is such a far cry from what is generally agreed upon.
'''Oppose''' per Proto. Admins should try and adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Civility]] and [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] policies. If a user cannot do so even on their own Requests for adminship (a time when people are on their best behaviour), then that strikes me as a very bad sign indeed. Don't give a fig about AfD views, though.
'''Oppose''' - Proto put it well; imho Alphax needs to calm down some before I can trust him as an admin. --
'''Oppose''': I'm bothered by the "how lame" comment above. I'd oppose for other reasons too, but others have already commented on those sufficiently, I think.
'''Oppose''' If I'm reading his response to Q5.1 (below) correctly, he's saying he'd close an AfD with, say, 8 or 9 unanimous delete votes as a keep?!  That's way out of step with policy and community standards.  Since there's every reason to believe this user could not be trusted to close AfD, I must vote to oppose.
'''Oppose''', mostly for reasons already listed by Proto and Acetic Acid.  Filing an RfC against all inclusionists and all deletionists is, as already pointed out, a mix of being overly [[WP:BOLD]] and breaking [[WP:POINT]]; and I noticed from reading Wikien-l last month that his views on the RfC are rather extreme.  Threatening an RfC against a user is a rather serious matter, whether you yourself have had any interaction with that user or not.  Don't file an RfC against a club of users, especially if you've only had minimal interaction with most of them.  A lot of the "inclusionists" and "deletionists" do not do blind voting for keeping or deleting articles just because they are in a specific category; the summaries that they give at [[m:AIW]] and [[m:ADW]] shed more light on that; there's not really a "bloc" mentality among them, aside from the most radical ones at either end of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum.  Also, very few AfD's get 10 votes or more, as already mentioned, and waiting for 10 votes would only make our AfD backlogs that much more serious. --
'''Oppose''' due to the candidates stance on needing 10 votes to close an AFD.
'''Oppose''' -- we don't need another admin who just does what he likes on AfD regardless of rules or the outcome of the votes.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Lomn's research in the comments section and for incivility. A large portion of AfD deletion results are unanimous with fewer than ten votes &ndash; vanity that wasn't quite speediable vanity, spam, band vanity, etc. Closing admins get wide discretion, but any personal closure guideline that would provide an automatic keep for so many articles that are regularly deleted &ndash; and rightly so &ndash; through AfD would be disastrous. Calling someone else's good-faith vote "lame" ''on your own RfA'' is inexcusable. '''''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]]</font>'''''<font color="green">
Your [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AfD|RFC]] and your views on AFD makes you too controversial for my tastes.

'''Neutral'''. In fact the RFC filed against the entire inclusionist and deletionist associations was OK with me, in good faith, and ''did'' bring attention to a problem which has affected deletion debates: factionalism. The reason I cannot support is that an admin closing debates with 8 deletes, 0 keeps, as "no consensus" because of a quorum demand of 10 votes will seriously affect the AFD system. Even articles which clearly and ''objectively'' must be deleted (hoaxes are things even hardline inclusionists don't usually want kept) usually get less than ten votes, and keeping them because of quorum demands is bureaucratic and can ultimately hurt the integrity of the encyclopedia. Alphax is indeed a valuable contributor to the project, and my objecton is only that one, therefore I am definitely not putting my name in the oppose column.
'''Reluctantly Neutral'''. I thought you already were one, and wish you were, but I just can't support your views on closing AfDs. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to hold that view (and it has its merits) but actually pushing it in practice would go clearly against all deletion policy and border on [[WP:POINT]]. Don't get me wrong you're a great editor and I didn't have a problem with the RfC, but admins should at least have broadly similar standards for closing AfD debates.
'''Neutral''' at this stage. However, I am curious about what you think your stance re AfD might be in six months time if you were nommed again. IOW, might you mellow a little, or cling to your current convictions?
Oppose Islamophobic tendencies; '''support''' Anonymous editor.
Oppose for now.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=26319016 This] edit summary removing a POV check tag, and with an accusation of trolling against an, erm, anonymous editor, who explained his reasoning quite well on the talk page, looks wrong to me.  Some good edits, though.  Also, ditch the username. --
Neutral.  I do sympathize with some concerns raised about POV issues.  I also agree with Idonthavaname's concern regarding AfD process.  That said, I am equally concerned that some oppose votes may be motivated primarily by a POV-battle in which I have no involvement, and no wish to become involved.  I will be interested to see how user's conduct is modified in response to issues raised here.
Neutral. There is so much written on this that it is difficult to form a balanced judgement.  Certainly some opposition appears to be POV-war influenced and some of the diffs I've spot-checked appear to be arguable either way.  In no case that I've seen, has this candidate descended to the level of personal abuse of some editors that one comes across.  So I'd certainly hope to be able to support in a few months.
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Great job removing vandalism. Edit counts should not matter. This user has shown that they can do a good job and also in the wikipedia-en-vandalism chat room. --
Appleboy is a wonderful user and will be a great admin. --

I'm no fan of editcountitis, and Appleboy is a good user, but only 40 edits, and literally only 7 article edits...that's not near experienced enough.  Certainly with a bit more activity I'd reconsider, but not at this stage.<font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. May I ask? but are you insane?  40 edits?  --
'''Oppose''' 40 edits in 11 months.  Come back when you have had some experience here.  --
'''Oppose''' for above reasons.  --
'''Oppose'''. I do not normally oppose for editcountitis reasons, but '''this''' is an exceptional case. Only 40 edits, of which the vast majority are to his own userspace? That is clearly too few.
'''Oppose'''. I'd like to mention that a few days ago, on the IRC channel <nowiki>#wikipedia</nowiki>, AppleBoy kicked [[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]], a regular user, because he thought he was a "spammer". Someone who would take such rash action against another user really isn't ready to have blocking powers on Wikipedia, edit count or no edit count.
'''Oppose'''. User has good participation on IRC, but not enough experience in the wiki itself.
I'm sorry, but if this is a joke nomination I am not in on the joke. --
'''Support'''.  Already starting to gain trust. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''' Due to time and mistagged speedies etc. this may not succeed, but I like this user. <small>

'''Support'''
'''Support''' because he is clearly not cowed into not expressing dissent from "established views" --
'''Support'''. Great guy, despite the oppose votes. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' for now - numnber of edits isn't a problem for me, but lack of time on wiki is very short.  I'd expect to support in a couple of months.
Too new - account is only a month and a half old. &mdash;
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''', account a month and a half old, very active user, but just too soon, maybe in a few months.
'''Oppose''' too new --
'''Oppose''' per Rogerd
'''Neutral''' - Looks like a good candidate but can't have much experience with AfD or policy discussion as if he did, he would know the lack of consensus to delete school articles. Would someone please twist my arm? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Neutral''' -- Aranda56 is a great user, and will definately make a good admin some day. While I'm not much on edit counts or time since arrival as an indicator of an editor's readiness for adminship, I think a few more edits and a few more weeks would be of benefit. Don't lose heart, JAranda, and don't let this slow you down; rack up more edits and a bit more time, come back, and you'll have my full support. --
'''Neutral''' per Essjay. If this was a few weeks from now or another 1,000 edits away, i'd definately be in the Support Column.
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', at least so he can unblock himself when hit with AOL blocks. Outside of that, I've seen him very active ''reverting'' vandalism, so my statute of limitations on those first "clueless newbie" edits has expired.
'''Support''' because my grandson drooled over the oppose keys.
The bucket to the mop, come on.  --
'''Support''' I am absolutely convinced of this user's earnestness and sense of fairness -- judgment and a dash of humility are qualities an admin needs that can't easily be learned.  Spelling isn't everything :), and doesn't have much to do with mopping up and ''respecting consensus'' which I see as an admin's two main jobs.
'''Support''' Good Editor
'''Support''' — we need more admins, this is a positive editor.
'''Support'''.  Diligent is the word.  --
'''Support''' - I see the user very active in reverting vandalism. That's what is needed!
'''Support''' - I see him active all over the place. The oppose reasons seem very weak to me. We want people who want to be admins. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - [[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support'''
I'll have today's sandwich, and may I have a look at the wine list?
-- (
'''Support''' great vandal fighter, give him the tools. -
'''Support''' it is afterall, "no big deal".--
<s>'''Support'''.  He's been impersonated by vandals ''9 times'', including WoW twice?  He must be doing something that the vandals don't like! ;-) --

'''Support'''. --
'''Oppose'''. Obviously a dedicated RC patroller, but I think two and a half months is too early. Some experience only comes with time. --
'''Oppose'''. Too short a period. Not much difference in the wording of the first and second noms (looks like copy-paste). Just as I would not trust an editor w/o usage of good English, so is the case with an admin. belive, contribte, serge, consern, busket - 5 spelling mistakes in a self-nom coupled with bad grammar leave me with doubts if this is serious. --
'''Oppose''' Too soon. In the previous self-nomination you stated: ''Withdrewing I'll let someone nominate me later around late November when I reach 3 months just too soon.'' That was on 8 October. You seem  a little impatient. You are doing work however, so I'll be glad to support later on.
'''Oppose''': Today, he removed a number of red links from [[List of male singers]] (example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_male_singers&diff=prev&oldid=27147781]). Some of these were people who are linked from a number of articles. For example, removing [[Mark Murphy]]. Doing a quick google test for "Mark Murphy" and jazz returns 98,300 hits ([http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Mark+Murphy%22+jazz&btnG=Google+Search]). Another removal of a red link ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Default&diff=prev&oldid=26276276]) was to a perfectly valid term in tennis. There's a reason for red links; they help show what articles are most needed (see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery|Red Link Recovery]],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles#General]). Removing these links can actually disrupt Wikipedia. Placing this in juxtaposition of the [[Rod Strickland]] article created by you with redlinks ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rod_Strickland&diff=prev&oldid=26279859]), your handling of redlinks seems very unusual, and perhaps too casual. I am also concerned about the removal of [[Abdul Kalam]] from [[21st century]] labeled as "Reverted POV" in edit summary ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=21st_century&diff=prev&oldid=26240043]). This person is the president of the 2nd largest (by population) country in the world. I have a hard time understanding how inclusion on a list of influential people in politics could be considered POV pushing. Dr. Kalam is still missing from that list. More care in deletions is needed; your impact here was negative and ongoing. There's also a curious deletion of content on the [[Nelly]] article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelly&diff=prev&oldid=26224711]). The edit summary says only "revert". The content deleted is very similar to the line right above it in the version where it was not yet deleted ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelly&diff=prev&oldid=26223194]). On what grounds did you delete the content? I also have some mild objections to improper stub sorting ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girvan_Dempsey&diff=prev&oldid=26313685], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kelly_%28U.S._politician%29&diff=prev&oldid=27022545]) which was later corrected by others ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girvan_Dempsey&diff=next&oldid=26313685], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kelly_%28U.S._politician%29&diff=next&oldid=27022545]), and improper speedy tagging of [[Lenny and Squiggy]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lenny_and_Squiggy&oldid=26314158]) which I feel was premature, and was corrected a few hours later ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lenny_and_Squiggy&diff=26324526&oldid=26314158]). If you're not familiar with a topic, you should be careful before tagging it, much less speedy deleting it. Any of these things by themselves would not be sufficient for me to vote oppose. But, taken as a whole, I feel there is a pattern of behavior that shows the nominee to be too quick to judge, and less careful than needed for an administrator. I do feel the nominee's heart is in the right place. Given improvement in carefulness of their approach to deletions of articles and content and a few months time, I may be inclined to support. --
'''Oppose''' - too soon, be patient and go forth and produce edits.
'''Oppose''', way too soon. There is no need for rush, so maybe you should wait at least a few months before nominating yourself once more. --
'''Oppose''', previous RfA was too recent. Patience is a virtue, and adminship isn't going anywhere. I've been here years without trying to get get the mop, I'm living proof that it's possible to last a few months!
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
'''Oppose''' too soon after old nom. Seems a bit over eager for adminship, and also per Durins reasons.
'''Oppose''' My understanding was that this re-nomination would happen in late November and, if it had, I would have supported.  Adminship isn't a big deal, there's no hurry.  I expect to support early next year.
'''Oppose''' Durin makes a very convincing argument here. I simply do not feel this user has enough experience on wikipedia yet. Also renominating for RFA less than a month later strikes me as showing lack of experience with the typical RFA process. In a few months I might consider supporting but for right now I have to say "oh hell no" &nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. It seems this guy would be good admin, but it seems he is really in a hurry - resubmitting rfa only in 2 weeks... I would recommend to wait another 2 weeks at least. --
Really these quickie admin nominations are not good for the candidates.  I won't oppose or support because I honestly don't think the candidate has been around for long enough for us to get to know him. --
Seems like a great user, thus I don't want to oppose, but the others have made a valid point about the swiftness to re-nom yourself. Please, ''please'' try again later, but come back when a little time has passed. Thanks and good luck, [[[[User:Mysekurity|User:Mys]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I know that you mean well, and you actually try to improve Wikipedia. I am also for young people being interested in Wikipedia and applying for adminship and all that, myself being in that position. However, on the other hand, there are some areas I'd like to see improvement in before I vote for approve. The spelling and grammar for one, and more time on Wikipedia for another. Reading of the articles in the Wikipedia namespace would be a plus; some users have complained about red links, and I've noticed that. If these questions are addressed I will be more than happy to vote for your adminship. --'''
What is the rush? Give it some time so that you can demonstrate to the community your commitment to the project. Two months from now I will gladly support.
'''Neutral'''.  I initially supported, since he is very good at fighting vandals, but I'm changing my vote in keeping with how I have voted on previous multiple self-noms.  While he is a good editor, I think that multiple self-nominations (plus similar wording among them) show that he might be too eager for adminship. --
'''Obligatory Nominator Support'''
'''Support''' per nom (and because [[User:Aranda56|Aranda56]] with admin tools would be a '''good thing''' for Wikipedia).
'''Support''' <font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support'''. Looks good enough by now. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' with pleasure
'''Support''' Looks good! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
'''Support''' good vandal fighter, general household waste remover, could use a mop.
'''Support''' Per last time.  Regarding spelling, JAranda is well aware of his limits, and I imagine knows what are good things for him to do, and what aren't.  He's a great janitor, however, and I'm impressed by his willingness to discuss and learn.  Humility and devotion = good admin.
'''Support''' '''<font color="aqua">
'''Support''' no reservations.--
'''Support''' was very positive even when I opposed him last time round.
'''Support''' Good vandalism reverter! Don't forget the importance of User_talk comments on vandals when speedily cleaning them up in the future!
'''Support''' Great activity and reverting vandalism.
'''Edit Conflict Support'''.  I was neutral before, due to the multiple self-noms, but since another established editor has nominated him this time, I think that's taken care of.  He's a great, dedicated editor, and people like him who are very good at reverting vandalism are people that we need in the admin ranks.  He also seems willing to learn about how to improve, and he's willing to help other editors.  He knows his limits, and I think he'll use his admin powers wisely. --
'''Support''' -

'''Support''' I don't forsee abuse.
Now, if I call ''proper spelling'' "the submission to the tyranny of tradition", I wonder how many would still rate it so highly. &mdash; <small>
'''Support''' His grammar is no worse than his detractors'... :) --
'''Support'''.  Its empowering to know one's faults and work to overcome them.  I've run across JAranda several times, and believe the user will continue to do good work.  Time to give them a mop. --
'''Full Support'''.
'''Support'''. Grammar nazism is bad. If you see a grammar or spelling mistake, stop complaining and fix it yourself.
'''Support'''.  I've gone through Aranda56's contributions for the last several weeks.  I see a good understanding of WP policy and a desire to improve things.
'''Strong Support''' Enthusiastic, an asset to Wikipedia. Will make a good admin (will I get de-sysoped because that's sentence fragment?)--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' my English is even worse!
'''Support''' from a spelling and grammar nazi. "This should be no big deal." &mdash; Jimbo Wales. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrative tools. Generally mpressed with his handling of this nomination and the previous two.
'''Support''' --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC; padding: 1px;"><b><font color="#FF9900">[[User:Adam1213|A]]</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Shocked SUPPORT''' He's not one?  I'm shocked... --
'''Support''' Much improvement lately.. I've noticed a change in the grammar for the better. --'''
'''support''' he really removes a lot of the vandalism on here so we should help him with the rollback tool
'''strong support'''I hope she will use the power as admin especially for those vandalising in an right extremist way (fascists) the page [[vienna award]].
'''support''' per nom.  --
'''Strong support''' - I was sure I'd already supported... Oh well, better late than never. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' per nom and above. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.  Can use some maturity, but so can we all.  Dedicated vandalism-fighter who needs the tools.  --
'''Support'''-
'''Support''', Anthere's English isn't fantastic either! (no disrespect meant to Anthere, she's great) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' per Redwolf24. Great user, I've always liked you and thought you would make a great admin, Aranda56. You'll go places, trust me. :-)
'''Support''' - your fixed your "vandalism" mistake mentioned below very quickly. You are obviously committed to the WikiCause - go for it!
'''Support''', seems OK to me. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' - Good luck! --
'''Support'''. The extra responsibilities of an admin require courtesty, fairness, and a willingness to help. They don't require better spelling and grammar than would be required of ordinary editors.
'''Support''' - a good user --
'''Support'''. Good contributor, I agree with AnnH.
'''Support''', excellent contributor. --
'''Support''', good vandal whacker. I thought I had done this before, but apparently I hadn't.
'''Support'''. Already a great vandal whacker, the mop and flamethrower will make him even better. Not perfect, but then who is?
'''Support'''. This user does a lot of good work, like fighting vandalism.  Though Aranda should make an effort to be clear and offer to clarify things when communicating with users, I don't think poor writing skills should necessarily preclude adminship.
'''Support''' Active fighting vandals and no matter what some people think that is a huge problem and I think Aranda would be a huge plus in that cause.
Support -- <small> (

'''Oppose''' Aranda is a really, really, nice person... but rspeer makes a very valid point. Admins are supposed to be an example of wikipedia to the community at large; as such, admins should at least be able to spell and punctuate properly (I'm not as big of a grammar nazi since we have british, australian, american, etc... grammar rule systems in place here). It is rather hard to take someone seriously when their signature includes "watz sup" as a link to their talk page, and when they are spelling quite atrociously. Sorry Aranda, I'm glad you know you need help, but I just don't feel making you an admin is a good idea at this point. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. His intention to delete "vanity articles" and the like is worrying when he nominates AFDs like "nn roadcruft d". --
'''Weak oppose''' because of lack of submission to the tyranny of tradition. Aranda is a pretty good editor, and if he were a ''great'' editor I'd support regardless, but I'm just pushed over the edge by the poor English.
'''Oppose''' per SPUI.
'''Moderate Oppose'''.  It's taken me part of an afternoon to come to a decision on this one.  Unfortunately, I cannot in good faith vote Support.  I agree with many of the reasons that have been given in this section.  Perhaps it's just me -- I have a penchant for trying to make sure that I am understood and that I understand people -- but the colloquism style that this user chooses to employ in his pages makes me a tad uncomfortable.  We hold Admins up with high and mighty standards -- proper grammar and word usage is among those standards, in my mind.  My apologies to Aranda and to Karmafist. --
'''Oppose'''. Martin's comments perfectly summarize my feelings. --
'''Oppose''' I hate to say this, but this "I also voted delete because I dont know if its exists" kind of bothered me, if someone doesn't "know" about something maybe further research or not voting might be more appropriate. The second to last sentence in the sock explanation (I normally vote the opposite of what annons do unless its something true) is confusing and doesn't show a lot of thought. Good vandal fighter/attitude...a little more focus and I'd love to support next time if this doesn't work out.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Aranda56 has been doing good work, and I hope he feels welcome to continue making these valuable contributions, but his problems with communication make me reluctant to give him more power. It's hard to tell how well he thinks things through, because he doesn't explain his thinking clearly.
'''Oppose'''.  I hate to hold someone's poor English skills against him, but I'm compelled to do so.  An administrator must be capable of dealing directly with other users (to discuss his/her administrative actions, explain how the site operates, et cetera).  Jorge's relative lack of communication skills would prevent him from properly carrying out these responsibilities.  I would be willing to tolerate some typos and misspellings, but Jorge's misused words and unintelligible syntax are likely to confuse (or even offend) fellow editors.  &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per false accusations of sock puppetry and false reverts of vandalism and general lacking of [[WP:AGF]].  Not to mention <s>existence of multiple accounts,<s> self nominations, and this being the 3rd such self nomination.  We don't need admins that act like that.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sorry to oppose but there are three reasons I have to do this. Firstly, I have severe misgivings about nominating someone with such bad grammar, as per [[User:Lifeisunfair]] above. If Jorge showed even a small inclination to improve this would not be an issue but he seems to wear it like a badge of honor. After freakofnurture had cleaned up some of the bad grammar he changed it back with the following edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aranda56&diff=29974358&oldid=29972985 ''I like my old version better thanks anyways kept some of your editing though''] (specifically look at what he did to the section ''==What I Do Here=='' on line 67). At the end of the day this is a resource for the whole world.  The lingo that Jorge uses is fine in his neighborhood where all the locals have grown up with the slang but how will users without English as a first language deal with such poorly constructed sentences?  Secondly, I am also worried by his reaction to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aranda56&diff=27388445&oldid=27383562 stressful situations].  He seems particularly susceptible to baiting from vandals.  Will this overreaction happen when he dealing with difficult editors? Thirdly, Jorge seems to want adminship too much.  His first two unsuccessful nominations were self noms, the last one being less than one month ago. In my opinion Jorge needs more time to get to know all the ins and outs of editing.  He spends a lot of time fighting vandals and that is great, but it is only through editing that he will learn how to collaborate with other editors and learn how to deal with the more subtle differences of opinion that appear when editing pages.
'''Oppose''', although somewhat reluctantly. For one thing, it still seems a little soon after he nominated and withdrew himself from two previous RfAs, the last only a few weeks ago. I'm not horribly concerned about the spelling and grammar (as he says on his talk page, he attends the "worst school on earth", so that may be the cause of it! :), but I do expect a little more care to be taken. If he were a non-native speaker of English that would be one thing, but the mistakes show either a knowing willingness to not use proper English (such as the talk page, which would be fine if it was confined there), or they show he does not want to spend the time to improve things. Looking over his edit summaries ("uptated", "sppedy delete", "acually") I can only surmise it is the latter, as you manage to spell these words correctly at other times. The spelling and grammar alone would not make me vote delete, but the fact that on the one hand you seem to want the adminship badly, but on the other can't be bothered to take a little extra time to write things properly (especially on important pages such as this very AfD), combined with some of the other concerns voiced above, makes me vote oppose at this time.
'''Oppose''' based on the language skills seen no only in past edits, but on this RfA... basic sentence structure frequently gets mangled. This is not what we should be putting forward as one of our Admins.
'''Oppose''' English Wikipedia does NOT need another emotionally unstable admin. <s>Sorry, kid!</s>
'''Oppose''' Too soon after last self nom, aslo quitting because of a comment is very questionable in admin behavior. What if you got into a dispute of somesort, would you user your powers to win? I can't be certain fromt he asnwers given.
'''Oppose''' for now. Not enough time since last RFA.
'''Oppose'''. Not yet, maybe later.
'''Oppose'''. I am so sorry, but I oppose for now.
'''Oppose''' for the time being. Keep at the vandal-whacking and take a shot writing some articles.
'''Neutral''', because of [[Bad English]]....I mean because of poor writing on wikipedia, as in "Im" instead of "I'm", etc.
'''Neutral''': Text on a wikipedia page can always be changed later, to clean up grammar, spelling, etc.  Unfortunately, edit summaries like the one on [[Recruitment]] seem to be permanant, though I am likely guilty of the same things, so I cannot justify opposing solely on those grounds.  I would support if the incident mentioned by Rspeer had been less recent. &mdash; <b><i>
'''Neutral''' for the time being.  I'm less concerned about grammar and more concerned about wrongly attributing contributions as vandalism.
Neutral : I have no opinion on this user as an admin in general. I would like to point out that bad grammar and spelling is not so important to an encyclopedia as it is to a dictionary. In an encyclopedia it's more important to get the facts right, than it is to get the spelling of those facts right. :-P
'''Neutral'''. Good potential. Will support in a month or two, after concerns raised by oppose votes can be addressed by Jaranda.
'''Neutral'''. I don't have one overwhelming reason but the sum of the comments in the "Oppose" section and the fact that there are so many spelling and grammar errors in his answers to the questions in this RFA leaves me with the distinct impression that Aranda acts quickly and without sufficient attention to the results.  I do expect more of an administrator.  I'd prefer to see some improvement before giving him the tools.  I think that in the situations that administrators often encounter, being able to express themselves clearly and with authority is critical to resolving the situation. In those situations, poor writing can lead to misunderstanding, a lack of credibility or both.  If he gets the tools, I would hope that he realizes that with his level of writing skills, he should leave those situations to admins who are better equipped to handle them and he should concentrate on those functions where the ability to express oneself clearly and credibly to another user is less critical. --
Im in support u. Your articles are greatly structured and have great content. You seem to contribute a lot of minor articles and with admin powers u should b able to move onto larger edits.--
'''Oppose'''- sorry, Ari... I'm happy to welcome another Sydneysider, but it is clear from your articles that you are not yet familiar with the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] here at Wikipedia, which is very important to know when editing articles. Further, you have not made that many contributions or had enough experience in the moderation and discussion side of Wikipedia to be an administrator yet. I'm sure with some time and enough further experience you can try become an administrator.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with [[User:jnothman]]. You've only made 49 edits to the article space.
'''Oppose''' There is no nomination statement, the user has few edits, the request was not formatted, the nomination was not accepted... the editor didn't put the requisite thought into this.  Come back in six months.
'''Oppose''' per above. User has little edits and need more experience.
'''Oppose''', per above <strong>
'''Oppose''' per above, and requesting delisting.  --
'''Neutral''' Could someone delist this nomination please before a major pile on comes. Thanks --
'''Forget it''', sorry. Do come back once you're more experienced, however. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
--
Oppose. Too few edits. I'd advise a withdrawal too. <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. Lack of edit summaries. Under 500 edits.
'''Oppose''', too soon, too few edits, lacking edit summaries, etc.
Oppose per [[User:NSLE|NSLE]], [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]], and [[User:Private Butcher|Private Butcher]]. Try again in a bit perhaps ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Oppose''' per above.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. See the edit history of [[English words of Persian origin]] for why I oppose this request.
Don't want to oppose, but... Please withdraw. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
Good Wikipedian.

'''Oppose''', as he seems to have little familiarity with basic policy. More edit summaries would be nice too.
'''Oppose'''. Too inexperienced at the moment. Good editor, but needs to become more familiar with policy before becoming an admin.
'''Not this time''' - possibly later. Joyous's comments cover it well - you also clearly don't realise that any Wikipedian can vote on vfd, not just admins. Actually, you seem a little too keen on the whole deletion business for my tastes, to be honest. Overall, you seem to have potential though, but - well, as I said, not this time.
As far as I can see, does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],

Not at this time.
Not yet.
Oppose. No summaries for edits.
certainly a good faith editor, with a fair number of edits. Some more experience and community involvement would seem desireable. I suggest you do some vandal-fighting / RC patrolling, familiarize yourself with policy, and try again in a month or two.
Will support in two months.  --
You seem like you will make a great admin someday, but you need more experience before I can support. However your enthusuiasm makes me inclined to remain neutral rather than oppose. Keep up the good work, and maybe in a few months. -
<del>'''Oppose'''</del> as nominator.  No, wait, that's not right.  '''Support''' ... ah, that's better. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' because there's no more coffe left.
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' decent guy.
'''Support''' Need more RC patrol. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''. (This page also has a [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Babajobu|talk page]].) --
'''Support''' Considering all the hard work it takes to work on articles related to the Middle East and other contentious topics. Babajobu puts in alot of work, and remains neutral even though he often has strong opinions about any given subject. He is not unidimensional editor like some people, but instead works on all area's of wikipedia functioning. In many ways Babajou is the sort of Admin I would like to become. '''Someone who can openly have an a opinion, yet be counted on to be fair and balanenced.''' Unlike some people, Babujobu, is not secretive about where he stands, nor does he turn tail and then complain about things. Instead he seeks a concensus based upon evidence. I strongly urge RfA voter's to consider babajobu's total record, and to vote based on the merits, and not out of some sense of political considerations.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - without a doubt.
'''Strong Oppose''' - During my rfa, he tried to negatively influence people to gather opposition against me and when certain voters supported me he tried to '''discourage''' them and to '''change''' their vote to oppose '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=26604561&oldid=26597033]''' behind my back. The sad thing about this was that I had never even met him then, so it was very shocking for me to see an editor I had never had any dispute with before go to such lengths to gather opposition.  He also takes sides with a certain group of editors, many of which push an extreme POV on Islam-related articles. Sorry, but I think giving him admin powers at this time will do more bad than good. --
'''Oppose.''' A close call. Obviously a good editor, and certainly knows Strunk & White backwards and forwards. A cursory examination of his work, however, reveals evidence of a certain lack of tact. I’m talking specifically about edit summaries that read “your hateful behavior”: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Idleguy&diff=prev&oldid=20334681] and brisk dismissals of competing viewpoints as “preposterous”: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_grammar&diff=prev&oldid=21811314] and “ridiculous”: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_grammar&diff=prev&oldid=21805242] Not quite the level of poise I would associate with an admin. I had to do a lot of thinking on this one, but it’s a no.
'''Oppose''' - in light of his conduct regarding [[user:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]]s RfA. --
'''Weak Oppose.''' I share the concerns of AE and Brandon.--
'''Weak oppose''' While I'm sure you will concentrate on edit summaries now that it has been pointed out, I think it's a habit that needs to be in place ''before'' the nomination.
'''Oppose''' User has a history of abrasive conduct (especially with regard to grammar, eg the Village Pump discussion on spelling numbers of below one hundred.)  I could support one day, if the user shows more flexibility and a greater spirit of compromise in future.
'''Oppose''' ,
'''Oppose''', I am not incredibly impressed with the editor's behavior, regardless of the AE incident. Good as an editor, but I do not believe I would ever vote Support for him. --
'''<s>Strong</s> Oppose'''. Sandpaper edit summaries, somewhat POV edits, tends to take jokes too far. -
'''Oppose''' for reasons above, but would still like to learn more about sandpaper edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' for reasons above.
'''Neutral''', not sure about this one, from a few things I've seen. So I'm just being neutral.
Not sure yet.  --
'''Neutral''' &mdash;per above comments.
'''Neutral''': Whenever I see Babajobu on IRC, I feel like i'm looking at [[Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde]]. Half the time he's a funny, nice guy, the other half of the time he's rambling on about some disturbing far right-wing thing or apparently trying to create some kind of WP cabal. Looking at some of edits and the comments on this rfa, I get the same feeling. [[Talk:Saddam Hussein#Good ol' Saddam|The decorum here]] worried me, As did the POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yusuf_al-Qaradawi&diff=prev&oldid=23334496 here], and the edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cindy_Sheehan&diff=prev&oldid=22175578 here] , among the other negative comments on the page are the Mr. Hyde portion of him. <br>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&diff=prev&oldid=19674651 This edit] and almost everything before late June seems to be the Dr. Jekyll portion of him. Baba reminds me alot of [[user:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]], and I voted neutral during his last RfA, and I'm going to vote neutral here too.
'''Neutral''' per above. [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts;&hearts;purpl</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' seems earnest in responses to oppose votes.
'''Neutral''' - I've had little contact with Babajobu and I think he is a good editor. However, I have some concerns about him not being serious '''consistently''' as per some oppose votes. --
'''Neutral''' A good faith and productive editor, with a good sense of humor, but I'm not confident that he takes the project seriously enough that he won't think it's funny to use his admin powers for other purposes. --
'''Neutral''' Like Ryan said, a good faith and productive editor, with a good sense of humour (which apparently most people don't get). But while I don't believe he would abuse admin powers, I don't think he's "ready" (lacking a better word) to be an admin right now. I feel he needs to be a bit more serious and clear when dealing with WP issues. I'd probably be glad to support him on any future nomination, though. ☢
''''Neutral'''' this user has expalind their actions that it was not their intendiont and tried to fix everything. --
'''weak chaotic neutral''' -- everything about him "rings" admin-worthy, and I appreciate his apparent integrity. Also, I do not think his AE-RfA related comments outrageous; they were, after all, in the open, and not trollish. I wish all 'anti-Islamic' editors could show that level of countenance! I still share some concerns of the opposers and would be more at ease with Babajobu being a non-admin.
Sorry, but your user account has too few edits (310) on too little time (about a month). Course this is coming from the guy that...I'll spare you the story. If you stuck around for a few more months and rack up at least 750 edits (not that I'm saying this is an absolute number, it just sounds right ;)) then I'd vote for. &mdash;
Oppose due to lack of experience. Bancroftian only 310 total edits [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Bancroftian&dbname=enwiki]. Also, the nomination was wrong in many aspects and had to be fixed by Illyanep (see comments). Finally, since this was a self-nomination, the questions should have been answered when this was first posted.
Irregularities in placing the RfA as described in comments show that the user could benefit from a bit more experience first.  But by all means, do try after you get more edits under your belt!  --
Sorry, but I think you're too inexperienced to become an admin. Come back when you've made two or three thousand edits and shown that you are familiar with everything an administrator needs to be familiar with. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits, too little time...--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' If you had a few more, i'd vote neutral, but sorry bud, the intro tipped me into the oppose column. Come back in a thousand edits, and keep up the good attitude.
'''Strongest Opposition Possible''' Has no idea what administrators do. Look at the answer to the first question. Admins are just fancy editors. They have other duties. Plus, you could use a few hundred more edits.
Bancroftian is on the right track, but needs more experience.  --
'''Oppose''' ditto. --
'''Oppose'''  Has not even accepted self-nomination.
'''Oppose'''- as above
I would oppose for the reasons given above, but more oppose votes would be piling on at this point. Bancroftian, don't let this process scare you away. Keep working on building up good contributions, using edit summaries, and in a few months someone may nominate you for admin.
Good User, 1000 edits is a little small but I'm willing to overlook it--
As long as his last name isn't Simpson.  ;)  --
Edits seem useful and I recognize the name. I support. -
Looks good to me.
I generally expect users to have 1,200 edits before requesting adminship, but I can be flexible. 1166 edits is good enough. And I like his work. --
Cool.


Heh, I started editing when I was 12, became admin when I was 13...
I am hesitant.  3 months and 1000 edits is a pretty quick promotion in general.  But this chap is in 6th grade.  I'm sure he's a fine and responsible fellow.  But for someone still in elementary school, I'd rather see a somewhat longer history & evidence of behavior in tense situations.  Another couple months.  Nothing personal at all, I suppose I'm just an age bigot.
I looked through his edit history.  Over the past few days he's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_geary&action=history put a speedy tag on something up for VFD] (presumably he didn't check the edit history when it was vandalized, instead just slapping a speedy tag on it &ndash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gianni_Versace&diff=prev&oldid=7655787 something that happened before, as well]). I also found numerous grammatical errors when reverting, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesli_Kay&diff=prev&oldid=10277266] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Live_Killers&diff=prev&oldid=10279682].   All this, combined with listing [[Fruit Brute]] for deletion (the article was vandalized, but the history of the article was still there and the article itself still had content establishing its notability), and the other objections raised lead me to believe that he's not ready for adminship yet.  I'd likely support later.
'''Oppose''' the hell out of this one. this user not only has been editing for 2 months, is one of the youngest users of  wikipedia being in 6th grade, I do not feel this user has the maturity level to handle the power. This can be seen by his "not notable" reasoning of an item produced before his birth, that he put up for VfD without even a simple google. If people like this become admins, I'll become an ex-user. &nbsp;
Maybe after more edits. <span class="internal" title="View my user page" style="white-space: nowrap;">--
He's on the right track, but 2 months of activity and 1100 edits just isn't enough. What clinched it for me was the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fruit Brute|Fruit Brute VFD]]. A Google query turns up over 1000 hits. With a bit more experience, I will support.
'''Oppose''', and extremely so.  Maybe after a few more years of schooling and experience, but placing adminship responsibilities in the hands of someone who has yet to reach middle school is not a wise idea.  Also agree that his edit count is somewhat inflated due to minor copy editing.  Granted, minute copy editors are needed, but that does not convey to me that the person is ready to handle admin responsibilities.  Furthermore, this person has not displayed the maturity level that I would expect to see on VfD and has made several unnecessary listings.  Closing comments: keep up the good work and try again a few years from now.   &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|'''RaD Man''']] (
'''Oppose'''. Adminship is not a reward, it is a position of responsibility.
'''Oppose'''. I'll want to see evidence of a longer editing history at Wikipedia before I can consider supporting.  As [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] said, I may be an age bigot (I teach 6th grade, you see), but a user as young as [[User:Bart133|Bart133]] will need to demonstrate considerable maturity before I can see myself supporting a vote for adminship.
He seems to be an exceptionally solid and mature contributor for someone his age, but I'm yet hesitant to offer my support. This is mainly because I agree with [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]]'s comment above and my personal editcount/time minimum standard is above 2000 edits/four months. Will likely support in future.
I'm also hesitant to offer my support, mainly for the same reasons as Jni. When the questions below are answered, I will re-evaluate and may change my vote to support.
<s>I'm waiting to hear his answers to the questions below; see also my comments. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 20:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Moved to support. --[[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk]] 02:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)</s> Back to neutral on this one.  Still seems to need seasoning; a little too prompt to <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>, and I didn't notice the month on hiatus. Check back in a couple of months. --
<s>Waiting for his responses. --
I am uncertain to vote either way.  His praises have some merit, but the caution urge from others certain has me concern.  I think I slightly agree with the fact that this request for adminship comes premature.  I do not wish to discourage either way, therefore I wish to remain neutral. --
Editcountitis may not be good, but [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?hash=7f40f6e535fff5f291e4fb4fca1b50584e3e3d9b&user=Beau99&dbname=enwiki 561 edits] in over a year is a too slow edit rate for an admin to have. Also, this user doesn't use edit summaries very often (almost never). His interaction with other users is almost nil, with just 6 edits in user talk and 27 in Wikipedia namespace. Keeping your head down and working may be good, but not good enough for adminship.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. Ok this turned into quite the speech, but I want to be clear on my reasoning. My general baseline is four months and 2,000 edits. However, I'm willing to bend that in cases where one of those being stronger makes up for one being less, particularly on the time side, or in cases where I know the user well enough to get a sense of their suitability. However, I have not had any opportunity to interact with you, and I generally am strongly disinclined to support with anything less than 1,000 edits. Considering that that number is also over a year-long period, that shows a level of participation that I do not think is enough for adminship. Part of why I feel that way is I am concerned that with infrequent participation, you may not be able to keep up with policy. This came up in another user's RfA recently, and in that case I felt confident with both that user's participation level and attention level to policy. However, I note a couple things in your RfA: First, you use the term "Votes for Deletion". VfD has in the past few months been re-named "Articles for Deletion". I myself am still getting used to that change, but I have a hard time being convinced you will be able to know policy well with that kind of error. Second, your user signature does not seem to link to your user page. I believe it is important for an admin to have a clear signature that easily links to both their user and talk pages, to facilitate communication. Third, you describe in your answers to the questions below that you would attempt to resolve disputes off-site. I question the wisdom of this. One of the advantages that we have with the wiki process is that ''everything'' is completely transparent. Nothing that we do on this site is hidden, and every edit, comment, and action is reviewable, and for the most part, reversable. If you attempt conflict resolution offsite, there is absolutely no evidence of what transpired. Having that evidence is helpful in that it may serve to protect you, should you be wrongly accused of mis-action by another user. Also, in your introduction, you state that you have more edits than you can count, which in my first read made me think that you were claiming to have a large edit count, however that is not the case. I am sure that was not intentional, but I want you to be aware of the impression that I got. I'm sorry this is such a soapbox, but I like to be clear in my reasoning. I hope that you will continue to provide an excellent contribution to the project. Best regards,
'''Oppose'''. Per Shreshth91.
'''Oppose'''. The edits seem to be good (apart from the lack of summaries), but there aren't really enough of them over such a long time period. You also mention you want to help oversee VfD, yet you have only contributed to three discussions on it.
'''Oppose''', per Evilphoenix. I am the last person to get a case of editcountitis, but I don't see enough experience with Wikipedia policy and such to qualify a support vote. Also, misspelling "privileges," while it doesn't affect your potential performance as an admin, really leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Sorry. --
'''Oppose''': Near complete absence from project over the last 90 days (just 34 edits in that time period). Large gaps over time in contributions. Why would you want the admin tools if you're rarely here? --
'''Oppose''' for the third time today, per reasons above.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; per above.
'''Oppose''' per above --
'''Oppose'''. Do I need to say "per above"?
'''Neutral''' Editcountitis sucks.  Believe me, I know how hard it can be to convince folks to look at quality over quantity of edits.  It was the primary issue on my own RfA, and I rarely vote against anyone over edit count alone.  However, participation in the past ninety days is too low to ignore, at roughly 1 edit every 3 days.  I also have some concerns that you wish to oversee "VfD" with almost no prior participation in it, not to mention that it hasn't been called VfD for some time now.  I believe you're a good editor with some solid contributions, but this just isn't the right time.  Edit a bit more and then come back for another try.
'''Support''', very good edit history, will support wikipedia's NPOV. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good candadite, great edit summaries. Too many with editcountitis around here [[File:Sad.gif|20x20px]] <small>
'''Support''', good editor, understands NPOV, head seems firmly screwed to neck.-

'''Support''', I like his idea of exploiting the time zone advantage to revert vandalism. I will support again if his 'inexperience' makes the community withhold consensus now.
'''Support''' how 18 months is not enough experience is beyond me. Editcountitis are bad.
'''Oppose''', excellent history, but not enough edits for me, otherwise, try again after 1,500 edits and I'll support.--
'''Oppose''' I don't care about your edit count as a whole, but your lack of edits in the Wikipedia namespace indicates a lack of experience in terms of RFA voting, VfDs, etc. I'll gladly support in a few more months. <b><font color=228B22>
'''Oppose'''. You've got only a few Wikipedia namespace edits, so you might not be familiar enough with policies and practices yet to be an admin. The overall edit count is not a problem in my opinion, but you need to show that you're familiar with Wikipedia's structure to get votes here. Other than that, you sound like a good contributor, and I'll definitely support after a few more months and, say, 150 Wikipedia namespace edits. -
'''Oppose'''&mdash; 900 edits in 17 months is a bit few. Needs to be more consistent with edit summaries. Lastly, shows limited grasp of Wiki policy if he calls [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_Clark&diff=prev&oldid=22215596 this edit] 'reverting vandalsim'. Seem like a consistent editor nontheless; come back in a few months and youll have my full support. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose'''. I'm not too worried about where you edit (Wiki namespace or just article space), but I am worried about the number. Even 1,000 over 18 months isn't that much. I'd like to see an admin have more than 50 edits a month. That isn't ''too'' much more than one edit a day, on average. Perhaps later I could support. --
'''Oppose'''.  It's great to have editors that are passionate about certain topics, but I'm not sure that the narrow focus on New Zealand-related articles is grounds for the admin mop.  In addition, I would prefer to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace before I would feel comfortable supporting.  --
--
Will support in one month.  --
'''Oppose''' not enough edits.
'''Oppose'''. Too new.
'''Oppose'''. Looks like a good editor, but what's wrong with waiting a bit? I think there is nothing wrong with maintaining that admins should be more experienced. Keep editing as you have and adminship will come in time.
"edit-countitis" ''tempered with judgement'' is not a vice. While you shouldn't ''promote'' somebody purely based on an impressive edit count, there is nothing wrong with telling a good user to keep editing for a little while before re-applying. I will wholeheartedly support after another month or so of steady editing.
'''oppose''' not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' per MONGO,
I'd love to support another kiwi for admin, but 920 edits is just a wee bit too few. Once you've racked up another few hundred there should be no problem, since that is the only reason I'm stalling.
'''Neutral'''; I agree with Grutness. Good edit history, but you need a bit more edits, especially in the Wikipedia namespace.
'''Neutral''' I've similar sentiments to Grutness.--
Not enough edits. <small>
Neutral to anyone who I don't know. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
Hard to effectively judge this user's proficiency with the low edit count, especially regarding janitorial tasks.
Would suggest user go on RC patrol to prove that he can be effective and reverting vandalism =) Would support with another couple hundred edits.
'''Support''': not an especially voluminous record of contributions, but appears unlikely to abuse admin tools based on his established committment to the project.
'''Support''' per Christopher Parham.  I see no reason to deprive this user of the tools. He (or she) has been here almost a year and has been averaging over 250 ''mostly substantial'' edits per month since September.  This is obviously someone who has been devoting substantial time to Wikipedia and has not made a notable misstep.  Let's give him the tools to do the job better. --
'''Support'''. After having a good look through his contributions, he seems a very decent editor and most worthy of being an admin. I certainly see no reason not to trust him with admin priviliges.
I get the impression that most of the neutral and opposing comments ultimately go back to various forms of edit-counting. Evaluating the quality of contributions, on the other hand, shows that this editor eminently understands Wikipedia's aims and can be trusted to advance them. --
'''Support'''. The key is he won't abuse his powers.
'''Support''' no reason to vote oppose has been presented.
'''Support''' We need more admins (see that [[WP:RM|backlog]]?) and nothing indicates that this candidate would abuse the tools. Come back soon if you don't make it this time :) -
'''Support'''. While I agree with the comments of the opposers and the neutrals, I think Bkwillwm can do a lot of productive work as an admin in the areas with which ''he is'' familiar. I don't see him chasing sockpuppets or closing AfDs in the near future, but there are other people to do that. Not every admin has to be a jack-of-all-trades, and I don't see any risk of him abusing his power as an admin.
'''Oppose'''.  You '''do''' make good edits, but appear to be lacking in areas of the project, notably: Interaction with other users, projects, and policies.  Making use of User_talk is an essential part of dealing with vandals.
'''Oppose''' per Xaosflux (who has excellent taste in names!) While I respect your fine record thus far, I need more project interaction before I am comfortable seeing you as an admin.
'''Oppose'''. No problem with any edits I see, but I echo the need for more involvement in the project namespace and more discussion on user pages, especally if you are reverting vandalism (Look at the {{tl|test}} messages, for example). &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
'''Oppose''' Less than 50 wikiname space edits --
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with process, as remarked above.
'''Neutral'''. You seem to be a very good contributor, with good use of edit summaries, but with less than 50 edits in the project namespace I'm not sure you're quite experienced in the administrative side of Wikipedia. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Neutral''' Good use of edit summaries as lordVid has mentioned, but I'd also like to see more RC and new pages patrol.
'''Neutral leaning towards support''' Good contributor, has enough time under his belt but what worries me is the low edit count. Even though I have seen admins with lower edit counts, it would be better off having more. —
'''Neutral''' per LordViD and Xaosflux. I think you would do well to participate more on the Wikipedia: side of things. Also, if you are reverting vandalism, you should always try to warn the user in question to leave a paper trail for dealing with future vandalism. (
'''Neutral''' great editor, but I'm not sure you'd be a great admin at the moment.
[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="000000">'''γ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''κ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''υ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''κ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''λ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="a9a9a9">'''ο'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="a9a9a9">'''π'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="a9a9a9">'''α'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''ί'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''δ'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="808080">'''ε'''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="696969">'''ι'''</font>]]
'''Neutral'''. Won't oppose, but more user interaction would be good. Will support next time if user participates more in project namespace. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
Almost!  --
'''Neutral''' More experience needed to be ready to become an admin. Will most likely vote next time.
'''Neutral'''. If you come back in a month after you learn to use some of the template messages and get more experience, I'll definitely support your bid.
Obviously a joke nomination! Less than ten edits! And look at some of the ones he has made - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punk_rock&diff=prev&oldid=14249349] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moog1&diff=0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Energybone&diff=prev&oldid=14248052] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=14248187] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wonderfool&diff=prev&oldid=14249050] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Energybone&diff=0]. '''STRONG OPPOSE!'''
Oppose and speedy remove nomination. &mdash;
Needs a lot more experience.
'''Strong oppose'''. Fails to answer nomination questions, too few edits and obviously not well-versed in wikipedia policies and janitorial tasks.

No reason not to.
'''Support''', seems like a good bloke.
'''Support''' Not having seen bob ruling around the same places I've been, I smaple checked some of bob's contributions, seems to be fine and see no reason not to support.
'''Support''' Bob_rulz is an asset to Wikipedia. If he hadn't self-nom'd, I'd have nominated him myself. He contributes to numerous articles, and is the type of user who contributes content which needs alot less editing. If more Wikipedians contributed as much quality content as Bob_rulz, there would be alot more articles written much better. [[User:JonMoore|&mdash;
'''Support''' Valuable edits and contributions to dispute resolution.
'''Support''' - I see no reason against this candidate, but providing edit summaries would be much better.--
'''Support''' as long as you use more edit summaries--
'''Oppose''': Only 3% of the user's edits are outside of user and article name spaces. Lack of contribution in other namespaces is problematic. Uses edit summaries just 22% of the time. I like to see a minimum of >80% and prefer 90%. --
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Durin|Durin]]. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose''' More community interaction is needed for successful use of admin powers.
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, since your article work is good. But the other namespaces, Wikipedia: and wikipedia talk: in particular are very different beasts to the articles. Also, there's not a lot in User talk:, which makes one-to-one interaction tough to guage. A little more experience behind-the-scenes would do the power of good. Also, don't underestimate the importance of providing an edit summary at least 99.9% of the time, including minor edits! It makes RC patrol less painful, and studying ones watchlist more productive. In the meantime, keep up the article stuff! -
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Your article edits are good, but more Wikipedia: and User talk: namespace edits are needed.
'''Oppose'''. Ignoring edit summaries makes RC patrolling that much harder on the rest of us.
'''Oppose'''. Too few Wikipedia space edits.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, far too few WP namespace edits to make me comfortable supporting.  --
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience and other reasons cited above.
'''Oppose''' Good writer/editor - but paucity of edit sumaries is troubling.
I can't really see any problems in Bob's contributions, although edit summaries could be used with more frequency. I don't remember much interaction with Bob though (neutral), good contribs (positive), under use of edit summaries (mild negative) and little community interaction (mild negative for an admin) = a Neutral vote.
'''Of course!''' - after all, I nominated him!
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', of course. What took you so long?
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''  No Bot could do his job, probably wouldn't want to either.
'''Support'''. Gnomes like this are a treasure. --
'''Support'''  -- till he came and '''&nbsp'd;''' some of my articles, I had no idea there was a MoS. May he keep up the good work behind the scenes. &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support''', definitely. I have entertained the notion of nominating him/her myself several times in the past. &ndash;
'''SUPPORT'''. i have reviewed the opposition votes, and bobblewik's work. i see no reason to oppose this nomination.
'''Support'''. I have agonised about this. Bobblewick is courteous and thoughtful and extremely assiduous. However, I think his/her rather strict and pedantic changes to SI units can be very annoying and disruptive, for example m&sup2; where hectare would be more appropriate and km&sup3; where billion m&sup3; is more comprehensible. Some professions and industries habitually use units that are not not metric and others use metric units that are not SI. However, a move to  standardisation of units is helpful to an encyclopedia. Being human rather than a bot (!), I hope Bobblewick will restrict to (1) making SI units only an alternative rather than replacing the previous units and (2) not intrude on the "flow" of a well-written narrative. In my experience Bobblewick has not reverted when his/her changes have been removed.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Some disagreement we have over hectares are hardly a reason to oppose. A very pleasant person to work with, remarkably courteous, always willing to explain and discuss the reasoning behind changes.
'''Support'''. I have found Bobblewik to be a courteous and intelligent editor, and open to discussion on any edit they make.  While I am not sure that the admin powers will be used very much, this has never been a requirement for adminship.
'''Weak support''', with much the same reservations as [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] above. I don't agree with Bobblewik's across-the-board standardisations (hectares, yards and so on ''can'' be the most appropriate units to use occasionally), but nevertheless I feel that the sheer amount of donkey-work he's put in is admirable. If he were to be just a little less rigid on the matter of units, and accept that in some cases clarity is more important than total consistency, my support would be whole-hearted.
Cool.
'''Support'''. --

'''Conditional Support'''. Bobblewik, my hat off to you to making a huge dent in the 'pedia! However, I will only support you if you are a little more cautious in your edits (see Klonimus' oppose vote). However, in the spirit of the Wiki, I will [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and give you my support! [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |

'''Oppose''' due to use of misleading edit summaries and overuse of minor edit checkbox.  ''All'' of his edit summaries are "units" or, more recently "units, possibly using google convertor" and marked minor, even for non-minor, non-unit changes.
'''Oppose'''. Bobblewik consistently adds, and re-adds (and re-adds!) conversions to articles in a way that prioritizes the conversions over quality of writing or commonsense. Even when his conversions are deleted, even when they make little sense (like adding hundreds of thousands of meters to a number of acres), and when he's asked to stop, he keeps reverting. The [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] is not policy, and it specifically states that these conversions are not mandated. It further states that the usage of the country the article relates to should prevail, so he should not be making these changes at all in some articles. Both of these points have been made to Bobblewik, but he just ignores them. I'll add more to the comments section later.
Reluctantly oppose.  Like SlimVirgin, I've never seen him except with his metrification labors.  A good contributor, certainly, one who I've called upon before, but I'm hesitant to give powers to someone with so little breadth of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Bobblewik changes units for fields which he knows little about.  He changed billion m&sup3; to km&sup3; in several petroleum related articles with complete disregard for industry and common use standards.  Billion m&sup3; albeit confusing is in common use for the measurement of natural gas volumes.  I appreciate his help standardizing units, but he is anothr case of a user modifyin articles in fields which they have little experience.  Not helpful...--
'''Oppose''' Bobblewik changes units for fields which he knows little about.  In [[Town Gas]] he changed the normal units for expressing the caloric value of a gas (Btu/scf (Btu per standard cubic foot) to MJ/m3 which is not the industry or common use standard. As well some the conversions got garbled resulting in the some of the information in the article now being incorrect. I appreactie the spellchecking and cleanups, but not the metrification campaign. Certain encyclopedia subjects use units that are metric but not SI, or conventional, or even a mixture (I.e canning/autoclaving, 121*C at 15psi pressure).  that needs to be resepected, and not clobbered.
'''Oppose'''. Looks like a valuable contributor, but ingoring repeated requests to use conventional units does not seem like admin material to me. Add the metric units if needed, but don't replace them. Beyond that a total lack of balance in editing and no edits that would require adminship would lead me to say just keep contributing and don't worry about adminship unless you want to go out for more balance in editing and be responsive to requests. -
'''Weak oppose.''' His unit conversions are valuable, but he is often insensitive or stubborn in cases where it is not clear what the proper usage is. He is uncompromising in his beliefs that whatever he believes to be the most technically correct SI unit should always be used.  He seems to be more interested in what is "correct" than in what is most helpful to the reader. In discussing these matters, he is civil, gives cogent rationales for what he does, and is obviously well-informed. Nevertheless, I feel that in these matter he is pushing a point of view. It is not an unreasonable point of view, but he pushes it.
'''Oppose''', Bobblewiki seems dedicated to units, but I don't actually see much participation in other aspects of the Wiki which I think is necessary for an Admin--
'''Oppose'''. I have found him completely unwillingly to consider opposing opinions with respect to the use of hectares and unwilling to attempt to build consensus. He has very little experience in areas outside of his quest to insert his favorite metric units - irregardless of way units are used in practice.
'''Oppose'''. As pointed out above, Bobblewick's contributions are a nuisance as often as not, as he does not appear to consider, or care about, context.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems like an excellent user, but I can't overlook the concerns of so many other editors that this user does not play well with others.  Willing to support in the future.
Unfortunately oppose. Bobblewik obviously does some important work, but as far as I can tell it's very limited in scope. Normally that wouldn't be very important to me, but that such a large percentage of his work has been fiddling with measurement numbers (and has apparently managed to provoke some controversy in the process), however useful that is, pushes me into the oppose camp.
'''Abstain''' for now. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]]'s work here indicates he is worthy of being an admin but he should be given a month or two to address some of the concerns by the users who oppose him.
'''Support'''
'''Oppose''', I don't think so.
'''Oppose''', Boothy wants to oppose all of us, let us return the favor.
'''Nuhu, no way, no how''' Hell is still hot as, well, hell, and this week contains only one thursday.
Um... No.

While Jason seems to be a good editor, his RFC is way too recent. If he were to adjust his attitude towards the project, and could be good for a while, I would support him. --
'''Oppose''' - noting the RfC, this guy's upset too many people lately.
'''That's so ''not hot''.'''

'''Oppose''' No way, Hell hasn't frozen over quite yet, he has a very bad attitude when it comes to admins and people with authority as well as the fact that he has an open RFC which I would not use as a reason to oppose except for the fact that he appears to be entirely blowing it off with no regard for his fellow users. <small>
Here's a good Boothy quote for ya: "STOP LYING ABUSIVE ADMINS, QUESTION AUTHORITY, TRUST NOBODY, EPICALLY ADMINS".  Anyway, I think not. --
It's extremely unlikely that he'll accept the nomination. I'm curious to see what his answers to the questions will be if he does.--
I doubt he'll accept, and the timing is unfortunate, to say the least, with rfcs flying around.
'''Strong support''' User has contributed to a number of pages, and done good work in the Userbox project - [[User:ElizabethEeyore|ElizabethEeyore]] 16:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) <small>User's 3rd edit. →'''
Too few edit summaries. Use more the preview button.
'''Oppose'''. I have come across him deliberately adding fake data into an article. An IP editor and [[User:Omi007]] created a vanity page called [[Omer Sheikh]]. When I put it up for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Sheikh]], Bourbons, apparently in an attempt to save the article, added content to the article to the effect that Sheikh has played international [[cricket]] matches for [[English cricket team|England]]. No such player has ever appeared in international or domestic cricket in any country. An admin can check the old contents of this article and corroborate what I have said.
'''Oppose''', because of the answers to the questions below. —
'''Oppose''', His attitudes in his edits to [[RuneScape quests]], few edit summaries, little if none vandalism fighting.
'''Oppose''', for several reasons. First of all, his presentation of himself in this self nom: those "roughly 3 months"  are not even 2 (first edit was November 8) and the near 1000 edits are closer to 600. Second, the support vote he got was by someone with a 4 day old account with two previous edits. Third, his nomination (and his sig) has a lot of spelling and typing errors. Wikipedians don't have to be perfect but it doesn't lead me to believe that this user is careful enough to be a trustworthy admin. The nature of his edits and his lack of edit summaries add to that feeling even more. And last of all, the last sentence in his answer to the last question makes me pretty certain that this user is either trolling or doesn't grasp much of the way things are (or should be) done  here.  --
'''Oppose''' per all. Sorry. →'''
'''Oppose''' - I just found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape_Quests&diff=33021595&oldid=32994842 this cut and paste move] made five days ago: when it was reverted by [[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] this user re-reverted with the edit summary ''DO NOT REDIRECT, THIS IS ORIGINAL AND PROPER PAGE FOR INFORMATION''.  I have therefore changed my vote from neutral to oppose. --
'''Neutral''' While I'd be perfectly happy supporting this nomination, I do not feel comfortable doing so because of the objections raised. This is more of a "better safe than sorry vote".

--
If Ed can support him given their history, then I see no reason to oppose.
support, from first hand experience.
BYT will make a fine admin. --
support --
'''Very Strong Support ''' . -- From first hand experience , he will make be a great admin . And seeing that he & Ed have resolved their disputes , I think he will do really good .
Support. [[User:IFaqeer|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Support. Even in the heat of a dispute, he worked within and respected the dispute resolution system, so his being an admin will work out fine.
'''Highly Support'''. Great editor who has consistently promoted NPOV to the highest manner in many different articles and has reverted vandalism in many articles by anon IPs. I highly recommend him for this post. --
'''Support'''. In my experience, he has been extremely level-headed and calm in his editing, even under great provocation. -
'''Support'''.  Very good editor who keeps cool under the hundreds of personal attacks EnviroKainKabong and his sockpuppets have leveled at him.
'''Support''' apart from being a good editor, if Ed Poor nominated him then I can only support. -
'''Support''' I support because of ''"complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation against Ed Poor, most of which Ed Poor himself quickly deleted while transferring it to a talk page"''
'''Support'''. Works on controversial articles that are infested with very motivated POV pushers and generally improves them. I think all you should need to become an admin is to generally be in credit, and Brandon is.
Clearly Ed Poor didn't make this nomination in good faith. Unfortunately he seems to be succeeding with his set-up.
'''Support'''.  He has strong views, but he's been good at applying them to maintaining NPoV, rather than allowing them to overbalance articles in the other direction.  I'd trust him as an admin.
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Should be "no big deal". --
'''Support''' POV biases are worth noting, as they are in the case of Mzajac, who shows a strong Ukrainian nationalist bent in his edits, but they are no reason to oppose the nomination, just as they are not in the case of Mzajac; admins are not editors.
'''Support'''. I have decided this nomination would have been better at another time, however I'm assuming good faith. -
'''Support'''. Not sure if this is too late, I only Checked my talk page just now.  he works well and neutrally with a healthy respect of the Guidlines and wikipedia policy. --
Looking at his user page I'd rather '''oppose'''.
Looking at his user page, I'm surprised Ed Poor even nominated this guy at all.
I'd prefer that candidates aren't engaged in ongoing disputes...even with their nominator. Strange.
'''Oppose'''. Brandon left a note on my talk page saying his nomination was connected to resolving a dispute between him and Ed, which sounds a bit odd. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=0&oldid=15578675]
'''Oppose''' because almost his entire user page deals with ''"complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation against Ed Poor, most of which Ed Poor himself quickly deleted while transferring it to a talk page"''.
'''Oppose''' His user page is too confrontational.
'''Oppose''', 1070 edits is not enough to be comfortable with all aspects of Wiki, seems to be at war with other users, does not appear user would actually benefit from admin capabilities. probably a good user, admin no way.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose'''.  Doesn't respect important Wikipedia policies, not suitable as an admin.
--
'''Oppose''', Generic reason:  I don't think that 1081 edits (''editcountitis can be fatal'') many of them not being major edits is enough for qualification for adminiship.  Specific reason: I have found with Brandon a willingness to espouse very Sunni centric material, on the [[Talk:Hadith#Reply_to_Brandon.27s_edits|talk page of Hadith]] I found him to be someone difficult in not wanting to show alternative material (not that it is nearly as notable as the Sunni view).  He's not a bad user by any means, but with his relative inexperience and me not being convinced that he'd keep NPOV and resolve problems well I must oppose.  If he's nominated later down the road I'd consider changing my vote.
'''Strongly Oppose''' BrandonYusufToropov has repeatedly gotten involved with Yuber's antics.
'''Oppose''' Brandon's edits show a strong pro Islam slant/ agenda of which he is entitled to but this does not speak well of the attribute of impartiality which is highly important and which we would expect from an admin.--
'''Oppose.''' &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose'''. I have observed this nomination unfold over the course of the past few days, and have decided that I can't vote support. One of the reasons for this is the user's lack of experience on the Wikipedia; I am by no way questioning the quality of his edits, but he still needs more time in activity to qualify as an admin. Secondly, and much more serious in my opinion, is the way the user has let other editors defend him during this RfA, instead of giving clean answers to editors who questioned his actions. [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]'s disappearance after the initial nomination also leaves me with doubts. Thus, I oppose to this user not due to his merit - or lack of - as an editor, but by the way he has reacted and by the events that lead to this RfA. Will likely support in case he is nominated once more in the future. --
'''Oppose''' - While I initially had never heard of this user, as I have never edied any Islam related subjects because it is not where my interests or expertise lies, I find the possibility of having an administrator with a bias over a highly controversial subject to be upsetting. While everyone has a bias about something, some are more or less likely to ever result in any kind of rising of tempers. I also have never considered the fact that someone has contributed a lot to Wikipedia to be grounds for being an Admin.
'''Oppose''' Even though I feel that someday he'd make a fine administrator at this time I do not feel comfortable supporting an administrator who is involved in an ongoing dispute, has unresolved issues with other users and has such a confrontational style.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits. --
'''Oppose''' Devious editor- If you look at his edit trail , he is totally intolerant of other POVs. Not Neutral in any sense of the word.--
'''Oppose''', the "[[jury]] is still out", not enough is known about this user to justify an admin position.
'''Oppose''' I agree that he's made some good contributions, but from what I've seen of him in discussions, he doesn't seem to deal with others well enough to justify adminship. I think he deserves acknowledgement for his contributions, but not with an adminship.
'''oppose'''. not enough edits. Seems to be in dispute with others. Admin nomination is no way to end disputes.
'''Oppose'''. Too confrontational.
'''Oppose''' until ongoing conflicts are (at least partially) resolved.
'''Strong Oppose''' Constantly engages in content wars with other editors on islamic topics. Users has a ''''very very very strong pro-Islam POV''' (He's a recent convert to Islam) that he can't seem to disengage from.
'''Oppose''' Too controversal.
'''Mild Oppose''' for now.  I see potential in BYT as an admin, but he's still a bit rough around the edges.  It's been less than 2 weeks since this business with his User page started, and by his own admission, he put the materials there because of his unfamiliarity w/ the logistics of WP.  This isn't a ''bad'' thing, but it's not a ''good'' thing for an admin, especially when Ed's rationale is so that BYT can do everything he (Ed) can.  In addition, while BYT has been exceptionally diplomatic here, this has not always been the case in his discussions with other users on various talk pages, where he has sometimes been openly confrontational.  Finally, I am somewhat concerned by what I regard as his possibly dubious grasp of NPOV on issues close to his heart.  (The thing that bothers me the most is the ongoing "lone wolf" business at [[Terrorism]]...but this isn't really the appropriate place to air laundry.)  That said, I am confident that some work on this, along with another couple months of quality editing will change my "mild oppose" to "strong support".
'''Oppose''' I've witnessed how he handles disputes and i'm not particularily impressed. Definite POV problems that can been seen in his User Page. --
'''Oppose''' I cannot support a candidate who has been the cause of several revert wars in sensitive articles. For example, [[terrorism]].
A decent editor, but controversial.  I have not been in any confrontations with this user.  --
'''Almost an oppose'''. Like others, there are a lot of issues here to look at. Relative inexperience only serves as a barrier (in my mind) for self-noms.  However, the fact is that our admins should not have so many questions and issues surrounding them, such as this recent POV dispute, and the reasons for the nomination.  The principle reasons I'm not opposing are a)there is opposition already and b) some geniuses figure it would be good to have no Muslim ("Islamist") admins, which is religious bias.  Therefore, '''neutrality''' is the order of the day. --
'''Abstain''' This user currently generates too much controversy.
<s>'''Neutral'''.<s/> Something just doesn't seem right here, so I'm remaining neutral until/if I figure out what it is. If it was not someone like Ed Poor who nominated him, I would suspect a bad faith nomination. Since Ed Poor wouldn't do such a thing, it makes the matter even more puzzeling to me&mdash; Perhaps the oddness of this nomination is sipmly in its timing? It is worth noting that Brandon has made a step of good faith in removing the hostile tone from his user page. -
'''Neutral-Almost a Support'''. My experience with BYT has been with attempts to find NPOV solutions to controversial issues of religion and politics. He played a very constructive role. My hesitation is simply with the fact that one gains experience over a longer period of time. We all get into conflicts over the long haul, what matters is how we deal with them. Also, just a note, some of the comments here make me concerned about religious bigotry. --
'''Abstain'''. Obviously there is a great deal of contention going on here, and we may in fact be dealing with a good user who will make a solid administrator.  However, I think that this might not be the best time or the best circumstance for promotion.  I do not like the idea of hanging one's dirty laundry on one's user page, and I am fully understanding of the small sins we may commit due to frustration, but I think that a convenient gesture of good faith now is good, but not necessarily meaningful without some time to bear it out.  Perhaps this would be best revisited later.
'''Neutral-almost a temporary mild oppose''', but I definitely foresee supporting in the future, Brandon is a high-quality editor with all the right intentions to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.  There are just a few rough edges that need to be ironed out first when it comes to [[Wikipedia:Civility|Civility]] toward other editors in contentious articles. --
I don't oppose, I just feel I can't support at the moment.  Come back in a couple of months' time. --
He's been here since mid-March, and has made fifty edits (including five here), all of beginner-level quality at best, some approaching vandalism (such as simply adding his signature to articles). I'm also a little worried by the fact that in nominating himself BugzPal deleted all the other nominations and self-nominations, and failed to notice or correct the mistake.  It's difficult to believe that this is a serious self-nomination.
It should be noted that BugzPal didn't delete all the other nominations. [[User:202.156.2.218|202.156.2.218]] did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=12924878&oldid=12924810].  However, the way he added his self-nomination back on doesn't really show that he is aware of vandalism when he sees it nor can he follow directions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=12925064&oldid=12924878].  --
Oppose. Only 50 or so edits, and one of them was incorrectly adding April 29 information to the [[April 28]] page. --
Oppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_96_District&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=12923917 This diff] shows BugzPal plagiarizing [http://www.sctravelold96.com/BC8CF48EEC774488BCA020B16146F025.asp this web page]. ''Be less bold'', BugzPal, much less bold. --
'''Oppose''', from going through his contributions, it seems he went through [[Wikipedia:Most wanted articles]] and placed copyvio material on every article he created - not exactly desirable behavior from an admin --
What everyone else said, and didn't format this RFA correctly...

Oppose.
'''Strong oppose''' for plagerism and lack of experience.
'''Oppose''' needs to make more positive contributions and to gain more experience.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits.
'''Strong oppose''', not enough experience and posted numerous copyvio materials. Also, nomination was misplaced as it isn't a self-nomination.
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as everyone else. I'm also concerned that the only supporter, the anon [[User:202.156.2.218]] appears to have a pattern of edits simular to BugzPal.
'''Strong oppose''' I normaly vote support and don't think edit counts are important, but 50 is ''way'' too few. Also I like to see admins doing janitorial work, this user has done none.

'''Definitely oppose''' since he couldn't even be bothered to answer the questions below.
'''Mega oppose''' I wouldn't want to beat a dead horse so see above comments. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (Alex)'' </font><sup>(
'''Oppose''' User has no user page.
'''Oppose''' Normally, I don't vote, but this user only has 38 edits, no user page, and I think that it's too early. &ndash;
'''Support''' - Let me be the first to support this fine editor. --
'''Support''' - Bushytails would make a great addition to the Wiki team --
--
'''Support.'''
'''Support.''' I don't believe this user would abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' If Phroziac nominated, that's already a huge plus, she's a well respected editor. That plus a quick scan of your contribs (alot of vandal reverts and edit summaries, ol' [[user:Durin|Durin]] would be proud), and I think Bushy definately deserves the mop. Edits be damned.

[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' Lots of good work, level-headed.
'''Support''' vandal-whackers.
'''Support''' Fantastic fellow. Can't think of a better admin candidate. Personally, there aren't nearly enough dildos on the main page..:).--

'''Support''' Should make a good admin, level headed, cool under fire and with a lot of good edits/contributions. &mdash;
'''Support''' worked with this kind and diligent user before.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - per [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]]. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Extreme Strap-on Dildo Support!'''.
'''Support''' nice name --
'''Support''' per nom.
'''Support''' per nomination. --
'''Support''' User would make a fine admin ;] In reference to [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]]'s comment, I don't see anything wrong with the comment made on that talk page... --
'''Support'''.  [[WP:NOT]] censored for the protection of minors.
'''Support'''.
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Enthusiastic Support''', Bushytails is one of the best things about Wikipedia. -
'''Support''', what another dildo among friends?  Seriously folks, tackling a subject like that is decidedly not easy and deserves some recognition.  Beyond that, sometimes it seems we're entirely too hard on people.
'''Support'''. What's wrong with strap-on dildos?
'''Support''', will make a good admin. --
'''Support''', lots of good quality writing and reasoned responses to the arguments against '''that''' DYK entry. Would make a good admin IMO.
'''Support'''. What's wrong with dildoes?
<small>
[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 16:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Nothing wrong with a good dildo.
'''Support'''. Don't really understand the Oppose votes. I can't see how any of this makes him unlikely to be a good admin.
'''Support.''' To some of the oppose voters: Please stop treating adminship as some prize to hand out to people you like. It's about whether the candidate is willing and able to use administrative privileges. If you disagree with Bushytails on whether the Wikipedia Main Page should be "family-friendly" or not, discuss it with him. An adminship nomination is not the place for that discussion. The concerns that the user may abuse their privileges based on this incident are far-fetched at best, and in any case, almost any damage is easily undone. Expressing a controversial opinion should not be grounds for denying a user adminship; indeed, courageously and honestly speaking one's mind (while making an effort not to be hurtful) should be rewarded.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Oppose''' In regard to the strap on dildo comment - I question the maturity of this user.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=25759766&oldid=25759113 this comment] suggests that the user doesn't appreciate the need for "sound editorial judgement"<small><sup>[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027352.html]</sup></small> in some matters.
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Weak Oppose'''. Although I largely agree with him on the substance of the Dildo discussion (and find the article itself rather good though more detailed than i can bear), I think he has dealt with the controversy in a rather undiplomatic way. Reactions to the criticism with comments such as "this really made me laugh out loud", and then ignoring the content of the criticism, does '''not''' make one level headed or cool. Instead, it makes you look arrogant and only serves to enrage others more. Remember, [[m:Don't be a dick|dont be a Cock]] ;-)
'''Oppose''': agree with Snowflake.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]].  I edit from work, and I know many others do as well.  I have concerns about this editor's judgement.--
'''Oppose''', unfortunately; seems like a nice guy. [[Strap-on dildo]] reads like a [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an instruction manual|how-to]] (indeed Bushytails refers to it as a "guide") and is a bad example of non-[[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]. It's not a bad place for an article to start but I'd like an admin to be a little more familiar with applying those policies.
'''Weak Oppose''' per Scimitar.  I think Bushytails is a fine contributor, but I am sensitive to others' concerns.  This is really a "better-safe-than-sorry" vote; I'd like more of a record to evaluate his judgment, in light of the concerns raised here.
'''Oppose''' per antidildoism above, and 1400 edits isn't that many.  It would have been if the candidate is able to appear level headed and sensible, but the dildo stuff makes me think that this is not the case.
'''Oppose''' it is not a "fallacy" to express the view that the main page should be work-safe, it's an understandable concern.
'''Oppose''' due to maturity concerns and a very low edit count.
'''Oppose''' Per the many reasons already given. Sorry.
'''Oppose''', also stemming from the DYK Strap-on incident. See below under Comments. --
'''Oppose''' insufficent edits, insufficent experience, no understanding of [[WP:NOT]].
'''EXTREME OPPOSE''' Extremely immature, oppiniated-to-the-point-of-neglecting-everyone-else's-opinion, defensive, agumentative, mean, makes personal attacks, allows swearing on his articles & allows gross links too. Will never change my opinion. Thanks,....
'''Analytically opposed''' After reviewing a few edits and his profile, I find his maturity and objectivity absolutely in question. Not to mention his odd animal fetish seems borderline pathological.
'''Object''' I don't think he demonstrates enough tact to be an admin.
'''Neutral'''. User seems like a good, level headed editor. I have two things I want to comment about. First, I can't really decide how I feel about the [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_45#Dildo_discussions_do_not_belong_on_the_main_page|discussion]] of [[strap-on dildo]] being featured on [[WP:DYK|DYK]]. Second, you commented in [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ninth_Day_of_Creation|this AfD]] (which I happened to close) ''"Delete. And remind people that keep votes from no-contribution anons should be deleted as well."''. Do you feel that anonymous keep votes should be ''deleted'' from the discussion, or simply tagged as unsigned anonymous votes?
'''Neutral''' Looks like a good editor to me, and I know edit counts are not that important, but user has been making edits since 2004-12-30 and only has 1404. That tells me he might not be active enough to be a admin
'''Neutral'''. I honestly don't know what to vote on this one, so I'm going to give one of my rare neutral supports. I want to make this clear: while I admit that the entire furry "thing" is a little... well, odd... it plays no part in this RFA. I certainly hope that isn't the case with the oppose votes...
'''Strong Support''': Most users below brought friends into mix over Veganism article dispute.  (Note- I have been using wiki for a long time, however anon. through NAU libraries.)  Figured I would through in my support for someone not part of the wiki elite. [[User:redpatcher|redpatcher]] 10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) <small>(User's [[Special:Contributions/redpatcher|first edit]] <font color="darkred">
'''Strong Oppose''': User just violated [[WP:3RR|3RR]] today in the article [[Veganism]] (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=30204443&oldid=30203158], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=prev&oldid=30201442], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=prev&oldid=30199701], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&diff=prev&oldid=30190139]), showed extremely belligerent attitude in the ensuing edit war, leaving edit summaries like "Fixing the ignorance of Idleguy" while blanking whole sections. With this attitude, I don't think the user is ready/suitable for adminship. --
'''Strong Oppose''': He's actually close to a block for harrassing [[User:Idleguy|Idleguy]] and got general uncivility on the [[Veganism]] article. I have a feeling he wants to become an admin for the wrong reasons. --
'''Strong Oppose''': He has actively sought to edit articles and remove large sections which are clearly cited with sources and has been very negative on me as stated by above admins. I would not want to see him as admin anytime soon.
'''Strong Oppose''': In addition to harassing [[Idleguy]], he has harassed me for making changes to [[Veganism]] that violate his POV.  He uses multiple IPs to the point of sockpuppetry and, in general, has a negative and taunting attitude.  He edits in bad faith and has a complete misunderstanding of NPOV.
Clear '''oppose'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Oppose'''. as per all of above.--
'''Oppose''' - essentially asserts that he will use admin powers in his own conflicts.
'''Oppose''' for reasons cited above.
'''Oppose''' - should not use admin powers in own disputes. Willing to change vote next time.--
'''Oppose''' less than 500 edits despite almost a year in Wikipedia. And reasons stated above.
'''Oppose'''.  "Close to a block" and "admin candidate" in the same sentence doesn't sit well with me.
'''Oppose''' -
'''Oppose''', Low ammounts of edits, very low use of User talk, need more interaction.  Your '''contributions to Wikipedia, (of) which you are particularly pleased''' article below is a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery|Red Link]]
'''Oppose''' all of the above --
'''Oppose''' - not convinced that user would make a good admin --
'''Oppose''' - only a small (<500) number of edits. --
'''Strong Oppose''': User fails to endow reasonable confidence for correct behavior as admin. --
'''Oppose''': gave the wrong answers to the RfAd questions (I didn't even realize that was ''possible''!)
'''Strong Oppose'''  Somebody call a bureaucrat to close this already. Everything I think has already been said above.
'''Oppose''' Answers to questions...seem...questionable. As per Woohookitty (below). --
Not to pile-on, but please withdraw? <font color="darkred">
''Please?''' &#126;

'''Support''' been around a looooooooooooong time --<small>

'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. Just because he won't be able to allocate as much time to the project doesn't mean he'll stop. He looks a responsible user and won't use his powers badly if slightly more infrequntly. No reason in my mind to oppose. Good luck! --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', good candidate. The nominator's newness should not reflect on him, and he has both the number of edits and the time here required by most people's standards.-
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79#Administrators|my guidelines]]. <font color="green">
<small>
'''Support''' His answers are well considered and have the ring of truth.
'''Support''', no reason to oppose.
'''Support''' I'm having a hard time finding any reason to oppose. Limited involvement once school starts should not be held against you. There are over 400+ admins, most of them active. If you can only come on once in a while, that's fine. ''Wikipedia will not lose anything if this user becames an admin.''<b><font color=228B22>

'''Oppose''' reluctantly. I think this nominee's heart is in the right place and is a good candidate except...more than 60% of the nominee's edits were done on 10 days. 10. Ok, maybe he is contributing huge amounts in single edits. That's certainly possible. There's also the note below in his answer to question 1 where he says he available time to work on Wikipedia will go down as he starts grad school. I have real concerns about a lack of day to day, week to week involvement in Wikipedia that he would most likely have as an admin. I would like to see the nominee clarify just what his level of commitment to being an admin is, and whether he truly thinks he will have time to wield the mop. If adequate explanations are forthcoming, I would consider changing my vote. --
'''Oppose'''. I don't do rigid guidelines on RfA, and I prefer quality over the various quantities. But there isn't enough experience in Wikipedia: space and Talk: space and the like, and given the length of time that's really not so many edits &mdash; the graph also shows rather sporadic participation. And while we have the rather unfortunate nominations process, the nominator might give some consideration to offering that kind of nomination &mdash; although it is not among the reasons for my opposition. -
'''Oppose''', agreeing with the above. Lack of experience in Wikispace.
'''Oppose''', the second edit of his which I checked was an error (marked as '''minor''') which I had to fix: compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drag&diff=prev&oldid=21849469 his diff] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drag&diff=22142923&oldid=21849469 my diff]. If it wasn't made by an admin nominee, I'd be thinking about issuing a vandalism warning. Three isn't two!
'''Neutral''' as of now. Share concerns of [[User:Durin|Durin]]. Would definitely support if Casito demonstrated that his edits can be in a variety of topics, thereby connoting that he'll keep his eyes on a variety of topics once an admin. &ndash;
'''Neutral''' ditto. --
'''Neutral'''. Same as other neutral votes; that's all that needs to be said. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Neutral'''. Um firstly is this a joke? The nominator on his user page has many articles he has written that were put up for votes for deletion and/or speedy deletion. Not to mention templates for deletion. The nominator is also a recent vandal having warnings dated August 14 at earliest. The nominator is too sketchy for me to give complete support.
'''Support''' hereby given. --
'''Support'''. Seems to be a friendly and helpful contributor.
'''Support'''. Seems a good contributor.
'''Support'''. Sorry, I forgot to log in.

'''Strong Support''' for his contributions as a voice of reason on VfD, as well as considerable contribution to the PAC, in which he's expanded some 20+ stubs into full article status.  I'm not sure I understand the logic of the opposition here: I guess a hypothetical ideal admin candidate would be active in all parts of WP and familiar with every possible duty, but most wikipedians (even the best ones) find their niche instead and do what they do best.  Celestianpower has already found that niche for himself, and he's a damn fine contributor.
'''Strong Support'''  Per Starblind. By the way, you meet your criteria. :)
'''Support''' 2000 edits in 4 months low?  Good grief. The only reason I have a lot of edits for my time here is because I spend like 10 hours a day at this place... --<small>
'''Support''', see no indication he would misuse admin powers.

'''Support''' - Once again, I thought you were an admin already. :) -
'''Support'''. I agree with Starblind.
'''Support'''.  Celestianpower certainly tries to be helpful, although they aren't always technically able to answer my questions.
'''Support''' Pretty much any editor meeting my criteria gets my vote, but I think this lad shows a lot of promise.  Someone needs to deal with all the Pokecruft, but I'd like to see what else he has up his sleeve.
'''Support'''  I think Starblind puts it best.  He is a good contributor, particularly with his activeness in [[WP:PAC]].  I think he would use his admin powers well.
'''Support'''
'''Support''', adminship is no big deal. Someone who only does a few admin tasks is better than someone who can't do any at all.
'''Oppose'''. CP seems like a worthwhile user, but his contributions are rather one-sided, and he doesn't seem overly interested in cleanup or maintenance work. Good candidate for a barnstar, but not for a mop.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems pleasant and a worthwhile contributor to certain areas, but I share concerns about overspecialization in his contributions, and am also concerned about the tentative language regarding the closure of VfD's and the banning of IP addresses.  Both of these tasks are key ones performed by admins, and this user does not appear ready to assume the responsibility that goes with making tough decisions about deleting and banning. &ndash;
'''Oppose''', regretfully. There isn't anything "wrong" with you, please understand that. However, administrators are heavily expected to get down and dirty, especially in the case of vandalism patrol. I feel that you're not sure enough of yourself to handle this at this moment. I suggest going to [[WP:CDVF]] and do some vandalism patrol work. You might find it not at all difficult. If you're not elected administrator, come back after "expanding your horizons" a bit, and then reapply. You're a good editor, so keep it up :-) [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''.  More time, wider experience. -
'''Oppose'''. More time.
--
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
'''Oppose''' per Aaron Brenneman, Variable, and The Jps.
'''Neutral'''. 2000 edits over 4 months is not much, especially with relatively scant participation in the Wikipedia namespace. Will gladly support in a few more months if participation picks up and broadens. --
'''Neutral'''. Seems like a good editor, but too little experience in the WP: namespace. Will gladly support in the future if participation and experience in this area grows. <font color="green">
'''Neutral''' I changed my original vote from an Oppose. I am certain (based on the candidates various comments) that he is a very likely candidate for an adminship. If unsuccesful in this attempt, they could use the extra time to contribute to articles and study policy as applied to the wiki.

'''Support'''.  We need people like [[User:Chamaeleon|''Chamaeleon'']] to help combat certain systemic bias on Wikipedia.
'''Support''' I've rarely worked with Chamaeleon but from what I've seen I'd class him as the best editor I've come across. Especially commendable is the way he has dealt with [[User:TDC]] while working on [[Noam Chomsky]]?
'''Support''', there's plenty of POV-warriors on wikipedia, and we need more people like Chamaeleon to counter that.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|<nowiki></nowiki>]] <small><small><small>[http://www.revolutionaryleft.com Revolutionary Left]</small></small></small> |
'''Support''' - good editor, adds valuable skills to Wikipedia.

'''Support''': I would trust Chamaeleon not to abuse admin privileges. I think this is probably a similar case to Jayjg, who can be a bit contentious at times as an editor, but is a very evenhanded admin (actually, since becoming an admins, he's mellowed a bit as an editor. I suspect the same would happen here). BTW, unmentioned by any of the above is that Chamaeleon is a very multilingual contributor, and a real go-to guy for difficult work involving Spanish or French language. -

Support.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia needs translators. Same as Jmabel, I trust Chamaelon not to abuse admin privileges. --
'''Support''' being opinionated doesn't mean he isn't fair and can't distinguish his own POV.
'''Support''' - Gotta love [[Domestic AC power plugs & sockets]].
'''Support'''
Chamaleon mentions that he would like to act as a mediator for disputes. However, his edit summaries reveal a rather abrasive editing style. Examples: ''"No offence, but only idiots think that ''reductio ad absurdum'' means a "silly conclusion..."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky&diff=prev&oldid=10829830], ''"Who but right-wing POV warriors trying to score points wants the long version?"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-globalization&diff=prev&oldid=11800844], ''"are you all illiterate?"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=11613313]. Admin must often interact with other editors and I'd like to see candidates be a bit more restrained.
The edit summaries mentioned by Carbonite are too recent to be ignored. '''Oppose'''.
User is too distracted by his visions of "right-wing POV warriors", "American bigotry" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chameleon&oldid=8235100], and "Yank spellings" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mineral&diff=6357464&oldid=6290301] to mediate conflict or perform sysop duties effectively and without bias. &mdash;
His previous departure came after being inappropriately blocked by his opponent in an edit war, as I recall (before 3RR enforcement was adopted), and certainly had as much to do with that as with any criticism Chamaeleon received. The reaction is understandable and shouldn't be held against him. His overall temperament is not presently well-suited for adminship, however, and his responses in this debate aren't necessarily helping his cause. --
'''Oppose'''.  Does not appear to have a good grasp of policy, particularly [[WP:NPOV]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research]].  Has on a number of occasions deleted properly cited content and/or inserted original research in its stead on political grounds, and then edit warred to maintain his deletions/original research in an extremely combative way without any apparent recognition of the need to respect Wikipedia policy. Not tempermentally suited to adminship.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noam_Chomsky&diff=11146176&oldid=11145630 this one] (there are others) show an understanding of NPOV which is radically different to [[WP:NPOV]].
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a good editor, but I have to agree with [[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]].
A good contributor overall, but I really don't like the insults, especially recently.  --
'''Oppose''', generally a good editor, polyglots are always useful, but unfortunatly I cannot support someone who makes the comments he has. I will support next time if he mellows his language somewhat.
'''Oppose''', seems to be a valuable contributor, not to mention the great eyelashes; however, the pattern of abrasive, insulting interactions with other editors makes Chamaeleon an unsuitable candidate for admin. --
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> '''Strong oppose'''. He seems not to have understood [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] or [[Wikipedia:No original research]], and takes POV-pushing to extremes. He wrote today that: "I have never seen a statement from the ADL ([[Anti-Defamation League]]) condemning anti-Semitism, only ones condemning leftists," which is absurd. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANew_anti-Semitism&diff=11844891&oldid=11844857] I'm also opposing because of his combative responses to other oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote as they see fit without being challenged by the nominee. And I'm not keen on his sour-grapes-in-advance comment underneath his nomination. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FChamaeleon&diff=11845905&oldid=11845827]
'''Oppose'''. Unquestionably a very valuable editor, but perhaps a little bit too jumpy for an administrator right now. Since, according to some, "adminship should not be a big deal", I would like my opposition to be seen as a suggestion that some more time of practice of negociations and editing in troubled waters will be usefull for Chamaeleon to come to a more serene state of mind. I am confident that the "misunderstanding of the NPOV policy" will face away with a growing peace of mind.

Oppose, and I am considering an RfC based on actions like "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-globalization_and_Anti-Semitism&diff=11874371&oldid=11874269 this], pages like [[User:Chamaeleon/Sandpit5]] and statements like "I suggest you go take your pills". (
'''Oppose'''.  ''the main thing that I would do differently if made an admin is to act as more of a mediator rather than a participant when there are disputes''.  I have no idea how Chamaeleon is as an editor, but from reading his responses here I can see how he'll be as a mediator.  -
'''Oppose.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANew_anti-Semitism&diff=11856396&oldid=11855108 "Um, all the Jews in their big conspiracy"] - An 'ironic' statement indeed. Ironic that the VfD he spearheaded against new anti-semitism utterly failed. As a left-wing POV warrior himself, I am not suprised he hates right-wing POV warriors.<!--oppose, oppose, oppose! --> His atrocious attitude displayed in this RfA and elsewhere (including apple pie edit warring lame-o-rama) clearly signals the further damage he could do if given the blocking/page protection "mop and bucket". Will reconsider at the [[heat death of the universe]]. --
'''Oppose''', he seems to  spin guidelines to suit his POV. I doubt he understands NOR, as anything but a weapon.--
'''Oppose'''. The thought of such a user with admin powers makes me shiver uncontrollably.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Emphatically oppose.''' Adminship is supposed to be no big deal.  I fear that granting it to a user like Chameleon would MAKE it VERY big deal, as it would hand him the tools to do more easily what he already does far too much of - edit warring and reverting, with his POV.  His not-too-subtle antisemitism doesn't endear him to me either.
'''Strongly Oppose'''. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]←
'''Oppose'''.  Too confrontational to be a mediator, and his political position, though not always completely coherent, is too prominent in his editing and interactions with other editors.
'''Oppose'''. Chamaeleon states on this page that (s)he wants to be a wikisoldier. We've had wikiwarriors before. Didn't work out. Most have left now. Don't need/want new ones. ''See also'': [[m:WikipediAhimsa]]. Say 100 [[User:Jimbo Wales|hail jimbos]], and try again in 3 months or so.
<s>I would vote yes</s> but I really do not like the talks about ''warriors'' above. Wiki should stay encyclopedia, not become battlefield. Recent comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith/Vote&diff=prev&oldid=10586064] says about problem with keeping trail (I don't mind language but links are missing). Some edits lack summary. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 22:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) <br>Reading links above I changed my mind to <b>oppose</b>. Power-plays would destroy Wikipedia as it is now. (The solution to trolls is to have better technical infrastructure for contributors, IMO).
'''Oppose'''. I actually didn't plan to vote on this, but followed the discussion nevertheless. However, I've come upon several messages sent by Chamaeleon to other people (for instance [[User talk:Tothebarricades.tk]], section Solidarity; also Che y Marijuana's talk page) whose sole purpose is to circumwent the 3R rule. I find such a behaviour very unethical and not worthy of an admin. Therefore, I decided to take part in this vote.
<s>I'll support in a couple months if Chamaeleon tones down the warrior rhetoric, which I think is quite likely.</s>'''I no longer think it's likely.''' However, I do think it's a waste of a real good editor for him to spend time administering...I sometimes think we should make people admins as a form of punishment. --
What [[User:Jpgordon|he]] said. &mdash;

good user, we ''do'' need to people to stand up against the pov warriors, it's just that C often seems to exhibit confusing or belligerent behaviour. So seeing that we're not desperate for more admins, at the moment, I think his promotion would do more harm than good. Admin privileges are not useful for pov issues. Rather, admins have to be able to withstand the temptation to use them inappropriately.
Well said Dbachmann -- Chameleon would be hindered by being admin. Go free Chameleon, run wild and frolic and so long as your fights are for the betterment of Wiki-articles; I'm somewhat ambivalent to the tone used. Sometimes folks... unwanted toes need to be stepped on; or at least have a door closed on them to see what happens. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
Um, no.
Not yet.  Maybe in six months or so. --
'''Oppose'''. I admire people who "test the waters," but only if they have some fighting chance. Because Chanting Fox has only been with us for a month, this user has no chance now. Come back when you have more experience.
'''Oppose''' for now. keep up the hard work and try again in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. I've noticed your RC-patrolling, but you need to get much more overall experience in simple editing and how stuff works on WP (knowing how to make a redirect is a really, really basic thing that I read on your talk page that you don't know how to do yet.) Try again in 2 months.

'''Oppose'''
Come back in a few months when you have substantially more experience.
Impressive edit count for being here a month, but just too new.  Good to see someone interested in fighting vandalism though, and I'd probably support after a few more months of similar activity.
'''Support'''. Lot of help with vandals. You may sometimes put <nowiki>{{testX}}</nowiki> on their Talk pages to establish track for the future.
'''Support'''. Pretty much what Pavel said. I've been doing some RC patrol lately (well, within the last month) and CF has been fixing stuff before I can get to it on several occasions. Give the man his mop :)&mdash;'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.lawson]]'''&nbsp;(
'''Support'''. Taking a little time off from my Wikibreak to support an excellent vandal hunter.
'''Support'''. An exceptionally great newcomer when he just went here and started quality vandalism reverts. He'll make a great admin here on Wikipedia. A rollback feature may give him some more convenience! &mdash;
'''Support'''. He may only have about 1800 edits but they were quality edits. <b>We really should judge people based on their edits, not the number.</b>
'''Oppose'''. He reverts and calls edits vandalism too quickly without thiking and without even bother to reply to queries about his revert left on his talkpage.  He reverted a NPOV edit on a <i>temporary article page</i> calling it vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mel_Etitis/JTF&diff=18109860&oldid=18109796) <s>[[User:168.209.98.35|168.209.98.35]] 4 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)</s>
'''Oppose.''' You're not ready for adminship, as you've only been here for just under three out of nine months.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not much for editcountitis but you're below the four-digit mark. Also, don't bite the [[user:Fishpaste|newbies]].
'''Oppose'''. I disagree that you haven't been here long enough, but some of your actions have shown an unfortunate lack of grace and tact. Give it a month or two and I may change my vote. --
'''Oppose'''. Below 1,000 edits on articles (at the time of nomination) and hasn't edited for enough of his time here. Also didn't sign his nomination which isn't impressive.
'''Oppose'''.  Not enough experience and has made a few poor judgement calls.  --
'''Oppose'''. Not well-rounded: only reverts vandalism. Doesn't seem to understand the wikipedia interface or protocols, judging by his self-nomination "speech". Seems to have good intentions, but not yet trustworthy... --
'''Oppose'''. Needs more time here. 1,000 edits isn't enough. --
Oppose.  Please come back later.
Oppose. for now. Bit too green.
Sorry to have missed my chance to oppose him. Could someone alert me if he renominates himself any time soon? Chanting Fox, try doing more work on articles and read the article on [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assuming good faith]]. Make it your credo and I'd change my vote.
'''Neutral''' for now.  Chanting Fox will make a wonderful administrator/vandal fighter, but he still seems a little new and unsure of procedures. In a few months, not only will I probably support, I'll be happy to nominate.  I'd recommend reading over all the "how to do stuff" pages during that time, in addition to improving articles and keeping vandals quivering in fear.
Good at fighting vandals. In RC patrol he often gets to things before I do, and it takes dedication to do RC patrol without the luxury of rollback. On the other hand the objections I see seem reasonable.
Probably will make a good admin someday, but needs more experience in general.  A wider variety of contributions will also help.
'''Oppose''' - don't want to surface editcountitis, but 113 edits is VERY little, if you've got more edits on other Wikis why not try there? Also, failure to answer questions. --
'''Oppose''', Per NSLE, but let's not start a pile-up, okay?--
'''Oppose''', per NSLE, keep up the editing and try again in a few months. --
'''Oppose''' per NSLE.
'''STRONG Oppose''' user is simply way too green, as said above, if you have so much experience with other wiki's why not ask for adminship there? I strongly suggest you bow out now and renominate in 6 months. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' &ndash; email is not set.
'''Neutral''' - doesn't meet any of [[User:Robchurch/Admin|my criteria]].
Allow me to be the first. Editcountitus is teh sux, and the one who invented the editcounter realizes this. Did Kate post that message for no reason? Did she convince no one? Because he is under 2000 (Angela made it with 68, and I guess she's an alright editor...) does it mean he'll abuse the tools? I trust that he'll ask when he's not sure what to do. The only reason to oppose someone based on edit count would be in the unlikely possibility that they could be some troll, and looking at Chowells edits, he must be one damn good actor if he is one ;-) [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Cautious support''' per Redwolf. ~~ '''
'''Support''' '''<font color=#7fffd4>
'''Support''' with no reservations, I trust Chowells very much. -

'''Support'''. No reason to believe this candidate would abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''. I've seen good work, and edit counts aren't the be all end all. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. From zero to hero. [[Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test|Are you a wikiholic]]?
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Chowells removes a lot of vandalism. As an admin Chowells could use rollback + ban users that keep vandalising. --
'''Tentative Support''' - I would have recommended beforehand waiting a couple of months before self-nominating though I have nothing against this editor's nomination at this moment in time. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' I checked and he is good vandal fighter, which is an evergrowing problem. I think we nedd lots of them No problems.-

'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Weak support''' --
''' Strong Support''' Major bonus that he created articles from stratch, I do that myself alot and it takes a ton of work and energy to learn a topic well enough to make a decent page, his time on Wikipedai isn't a problem, way past 3 months and  usually the edit count is extremely overemphasized by the voters so that doesn't matter to me as long as he has over 500. --
'''Strong Support, la!''' - Prolific against vandals and overall good contributions. I'm sure he'll make a great admin!
'''Support''', no reason not to.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' Good range of articles, nice use of edit summaries and POV fighting, starts new articles.
-- (
'''Support''' - I sure could do with some help on the vandalism IRC channel... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support''' - According to Raul654, we only have about 10-20 people on RC patrol at any time. This user is active on RC patrol. 10-20 people to control 37 billion edits per second is not enough. &mdash; <small>
'''support'''
'''Support'''. Decent guy, no reason not to support.
'''Oppose''', too soon. --
'''Oppose''', only 4 weeks real activity, no matter how intensive, is not enough.
'''Oppose'''. Spend some time contributing in the WP namespace. Come back in a month or two and I will support.
'''Oppose'''. He is not ready yet. Mayebe in the future.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too soon.
'''Oppose''': Sorry, too soon.
'''Oppose''', 4 weeks real activity is significantly too short. It may feel like you'll be ok by then, but there's just stuff that happens that it takes a bit longer than that to pick up on. Even after the three-month golden line there's plenty to learn (trust me!). I would also like to see more Wikipeda: and related space edits. Editcountitis is only teh sux when you merely think, "oh, he's below Xthousand". Looking at edit count numerics is simply asking that a user have more experience of pressing save, having to live with the consequences and being able to patch things up when they make a mistake. This is particularly true in Wikipedia: space where conflicts too often flare up. Keep up the good work for a couple more sets of 4-weeks, and I'm sure you'll be fine. You'll be surprised at how much more you learn between now and then. -
Sorry, but I think you're still too inexperienced.
'''Oppose'''. For the reasons listed above.
'''Weak oppose''', seems like a good editor, but has been active on Wikipedia for too little time.
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' Splash says it well.
'''Oppose''' per Splash. &mdash;
same as Nickptar. Three months of solid editing would be good - your record's fine, but only minor editing until recently is a concern.
'''Neutral'''. He does have over 700 article edits, a good chunk of the 1200. Not sure though.
'''Support''' blah blah, editcountitis is bad, speak to him on IRC, blah, teh bestes, extreme lesbians, [[WP:Editcountitis]], blah
While you've been here for almost [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki&user=CJS102793 one year], you only have five edits in the Wikipedia namespace not related to this RFA. Adminship requires a substantial degree of community involvement, so I'm obliged to oppose. Come back when you have had more experience dealing with other users.
'''Oppose'''. Per Titoxd. Plus you show very little use of edit summaries which makes it problem-matic for RC patrol. Give yourself another couple months to become more involved and try again.--
Oppose. Please use edit summaries when you contribute, and the preview button. All that is making it easier for other people to understand your contributions. Remember, you are not alone in here.
'''Oppose''' Please consider contributing more to wikipedia before re-applying.  Several other users have posted [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|unofficial standards]] they consider will qualify potential admin candidates.  Although this is unofficial, this is a good guideline of what will qualify you in many users' eyes --
I concur with other above. Limited Project edits and no user-talk edits will cause many to oppose.
'''Oppose''' since I can't say per above, I won't say anything at all, since I can't give more advice than what's already given.
'''Oppose''', indeed, being here a year doesn't count for anything. You'll need to get more involved with the Project and community side of things. <font color="red">
'''Oppose''', lack of edit summaries, not a large history of vandal fighting vs your fighting vanadlism reason.
'''Oppose'''. Should be more active, take more time to familiarize her/himself with Wikipedia, then try again. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Oppose'''. I know editcount isn't everything, but you've got under 150 edits in total, with virtually none of them being in the Wikipedia namespace (i.e., very little community involvement). You really need to be involved in the community side of Wikipedia to have the necessary understanding of the beast to be an administrator of it. I'd advise you to have a look at the standards that some of the more frequent RfA voters suggest a potential candidate needs, [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|here]].
'''Strong Support''' His dedication to the project has demostrated without a doubt that he is an asset to Wikipedia.  Besides, he's a hell of a nice guy.
'''Support''' - he meets [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] so long as you commit to using edit summaries. You seem like a very nice guy. --
'''Support''' - Definitely!!! --
'''Support''' - good editor, solid contributor.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', seems like a good editor.
'''Support''', even if you did use caps in anger. ;-)
'''Support''' - I see no reason against this candidate, but providing edit summaries would be much better.--
'''Oppose''' After a little more research, I noticed you rarely use edit summaries and lack edits in the Wikipedia and User Talk namespaces. Leaving a summary helps out the RC Patrollers use that they don't have to check if you are vandalizing an article. Few Wikipedia and User Talk edits indicate lack of admin-esque work and lack of communication, respectively. I'll support in the future provided you expand your horizons beyond just writing articles. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>

--
'''Oppose''': Toward the end of the naming dispute at [[Talk:Guns N' Roses]], you began "yelling" and excessive criticism of a revert-warrer. He deserved it, I admit, but an admin needs to tread softly in every situation.
'''Oppose''': Lack of edit summaries is problematic; uses them 21% overall, 32% in the last 300 edits. I prefer seeing >80% minimum in an admin nominee. Participation has increased since joining Wikipedia, but average edit count is 5.4 per day for all days, 7.6 for contributing days over the last month. I prefer see >10 edits per day average for an admin nominee. The dispute noted by [[User:DDerby|DDerby]] wasn't ''too'' bad, but throws up a tiny red flag. Participation outside of Article/User name spaces is 15% of total edits. Not a ''really'' low percentage, but slightly low. --
'''Oppose''' need more non-article edits.--
<del>'''Neutral''' I'm not sure if you understand what adminship is about. In the answer to the first question, you said you are interesting in working with POV and minor vandalism. Both of those can be corrected without sysop rights. Edit wars can also be settled without adminship, unless you were referring to page protecting. I'm curious if there are any admin-only tasks you would participate in if you were promoted. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
Do you plan to enforce a user block?
Use [[edit summary|edit summaries]] more often.
A chart showing this user's edits along with an total # of edits line is available here: [[:Image:Coburnpharr04-edits.gif]]. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --
<s>[[User:Cognition|Cognition]] 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)</s> Nominees may not vote for themselves. --
I've added '''Oppose''' here, because this seems to have been set up without the use of the normal template. I oppose creating admins who are on a POV mission, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. And I have little doubt about which category this user falls into.
'''Oppose'''. The inclusion of gross incivility bordering on personal attacks in this candidate's own self-nomination does not bode well. Stated intent to be trigger happy with blocking is of concern. Likely to violate LaRouche ArbCom decision, too.
'''Oppose''', an administrator's function is not to go out to block other administrators, or to have an agenda against them, and the [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] written above leave me with quite a bad impression of the user.
Per all of the above, plus you voted for yourself. [[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Oppose''', per above, and from past exposure to Cognition's POV pushing and bizarrely unhelpful edits.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not sure if this RfA will get off the ground, but it's not even necessary to look outside this page for evidence of unsuitability as an admin. The personal attacks and accusations against other editors ''in the nomination'' leave me baffled.
'''Oppose''' per reasons mentioned above. Relatively low edit count as well. --
'''Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a missile silo for personal attacks.'''
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia propaganda free? What about [[Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians]]?
I could swing either way on this one. Let's see ... joined Wikipedia to promote [[Lyndon LaRouche]], has no understanding of [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NPOV]], or [[WP:V]], has been blocked seven times in two months, has caused multiple pages to be protected, is abusive to other editors, engages in [[WP:POINT]], believes the Beatles worked for British intelligence, and that the Queen is a dope-pusher. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cognition&oldid=18183135] Yikes, I can't decide. '''Oppose''' for now.
My sources tell me the temperature in hell is still unseasonably warm.
Oppose - not admin material.
'''Oppose''' per above, and, what the hell, you voted for yourself!? --
This is the most ill-conceived RFA I could have imagined. One thing I will never understand: ''Pete Camejo?'' I mean, ''Pete Camejo!'' <small>''Really, [[Peter Camejo|PETE CAMEJO]] is a fascist?!''</small>
'''Oppose''' What's so bad about H.G. Wells, anyway?--
'''Oppose'''. Description includes inflammatory statements and answer to question 1 makes me concerned about impulsive reactions. Motivation for nomination seems to be retaliation at current admins. I do not trust this user to administer fairly on Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' In my personal dealings with him, I have found Cognition to be reasonable and open to argument, so I truly like him. However, he has an undeniable record of questionable and troublesome edits, so I must oppose. Also, voting for oneself is bad form.
'''Oppose''' per TenOfAllTrades and Xoloz.
'''Oppose''' based on the above... looks like this entry deserves an early removal to stop the pile-on. &nbsp;
Comeuppance? --
'''Oppose''', but I'd be all about blocking Cognition.
May I invoke [[WP:RPA]] and remove this nomination? No? In that case, will somebody please invoke the snowball clause on it? It's a needless pileup by now. Thanks.
I don't see that his nomination comments are quite personal attacks. See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Cognition|talk]] for explanation.
Strong '''Oppose''' only 286 edits.
'''Oppose for now''' - too few edits imo.  Would make a fine admin of the future though. --
'''Opppose''' - "Most of the work that I have done on Wikipedia is actually more in the line of administrative duties such as reverting vandalism, NPOV disputes, etc. Also, I am more involved in making minor corrections such as syntax and POV fixes than in the creation of new articles and major content additions" - These things can be done as a regular user. Until you prove yourself with more articles and edits, I cannot support you.
'''Oppose''' for now.  You need to edit more. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose''' for now, but user knows what (s)he doing, and is on the right track.  --
'''Oppose''', not enough edits.

'''Oppose'''. ''SEVEN DAYS AFTER'', ''bored a lot'', ''please support my nomination'', ''don't believe that I am likely to abuse admin privileges'', voting for yourself. That's left me with a bad taste in my mouth.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' I'm uneasy about self-noms who vote for themselves, especially when the vote is deleted rather than struck out.  The non-voting instruction was only recently bolded to make it obvious and admins need to be aware of policies like this.
Was neutral until vote got removed instead of struck out. --
'''Oppose''' user is still too green for adminship. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' as per Shreshth and Alkivar.  --
I've had good experiences with this user. However, I think he/she needs to follow our RfA policies and procedures more closely, and respect the process.
'''Oppose''', I'm pretty sure this is just a joke RfA.
<s>You voted on your own RfA for yourself. I'd normally oppose, but your contribs look good. --
'''Neutral''' til Q 4 below is answered.
Was going to oppose, but I'd rather [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. ''SEVEN DAYS AFTER'' and ''bored a lot'' are certainly a poor omen. We need sysops that are able to make the effort to go the extra mile. -
'''Neutral'''. I believe that you are a good editor, but try to obtain a litle more experience. Branch out a little, and continue on the good work.
'''Neutral'''. I consider voting for oneself a minor ''faux pas'', and removing instead of striking the vote even more minor. Nevertheless, I think the candidte should pull a Harriet an withdraw, trying again in a month or so. -
'''Support'''. Good history of reverting vandalism. Good luck
'''Support'''. Hg + NaF + Ti + K<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub> + Ag + C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>8</sub> &rarr; extremely good work in my opinion.
Anyone who can make someone be bothered to write that (eyes skyward) out must be worth adminship.  I '''support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I trust you will be a proud and active mop-holder.
'''Support'''.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.
Cool. --
Frighteningly abrasive personality.
A troll.  &mdash;
Sorry. Learn how to use talkpages and I might change my mind.
--
'''Oppose'''. Not enough contributions considering how long Darrien has been a member. --
I am a bit concerned about [[User:Darrien|Darrien]]'s zealousness in editing Linux related articles; it seems to me that he is pushing a pro-Microsoft POV in some of those edits.
Agreed. I took some time on this one, but zealousness and abrasive manner aren't great traits for the face of Wikipedia. My interactions were long ago, so I'm not sure about opposing, but recent edits look somewhat similar. -
How could I nominate and not support?




&lt;AOL!>
The borderline copyvio stuff is not good, but I'll chalk it up to newbieness, and since we're only now mentioning it, I think it's fair to see if he jumps to clean it up quickly. (Sort of like a ministerial candidate fixing up tax liabilities :-) )
The copyvio thing is not a big problem. See '''comments''' section. --
Support. I'm satisfied that [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] understands that posting copyvio stuff is a mistake and that he hasn't done that recently and won't do it again. Posting PD stuff is OK of course, although I would advise [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] to make liberal use of license tags and comments to make sure the origin of the material and its legal status is clear.
I believe that the copyvio issue has been addressed and that Darwinek will make a good admin.
This should be no big deal. --
I'm sure this editor is a very good user overall, but I simply can't support an administrator whose contributions include copyright violations and posting public domain material without including the original source. [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] is bursting at the seams with listings, and we should have administrators who fight against this problem, not contribute to it.
Maybe later. Efforts to improve underdeveloped areas of Wikipedia are laudable, but "posting public domain material without including the original source" is [[plagiarism]]. Also, I generally like to see more community involvement (including housekeeping) of prospective janitors.
Concerned about copyvios, especially in light of commments about failure to correct them by marking them as copyvios. Also, the blanking of talk pages without archiving is not something I condone. —
Agree with the above. Keep up the good work, just not admin material yet. -
An admin must know the meaning of [[plagiarism]].  "Since now I will be citing my sources."  Not good enough—go back and provide sources for text and images you've already uploaded.  Clean up your own mistakes.  Then come back here.
Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my new admin criterion]],
Though I greatly respect Darwinek's huge contributions of content to areas of Wikipedia that are much more underdeveloped, I hold reservations about this user because of large numbers of copyvio articles that he has created with content from websites (most particularly the Athens 2004 site) being plagerised and simply reordered. See, for example [[James Beckford]] from[http://www.athens2004.com/en/ParticipantBiography?pid=360427&rsc=ATM061101]. There are a number more copyvios, but still probably a minority of this users contributions (some are copied from PD etc) I have any objection to. I have been unable to look at many of the contributions -
He looks like a good user but the copyvio issue concerns me, as does the brevity of the answers below. Also I'm not too sure that I like his citing an unmodified, save for wikification, PD upload, Christian Fleetwood, as one of his contributions he is particularly pleased with. I may well change my vote in a few months if he gets more involved with the community and makes more original contributions.
I would support later but not now due to the copyvio issues.
Concur with Rje and Juntung.
Both the '''Fenian Swine''' and '''Davetunney''' seem to just be getting started as editors. --
From his own talk page: ''I am a newbie when it comes to Wikipedia''. He only started on 15 July, and has less than 50 edits (from what I can see). If you stay here for a few more months and rack up about 700 edits (at least) you'll look a lot better. Also, candidate hasn't accepted yet. &mdash;
Candidate has only 41 edits.  Submitter has only 272.
'''Oppose'''. This does not seem to be a serious nomination. Any objection to removing it?
'''Oppose''': Too new on WP to have built up editing experience. Maybe try at a later date? -
I have had good experience with this user. He says he will be more careful when he has permanent deletion powers, and remember that nothing an admin does is "permanently permanent" anyway. His work on the [[Layla]] article really impressed me. He came in and picked up a piece to greatly improve it - which he has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Layla&diff=0&oldid=10485732] - and I feel this is the sort of stuff that shows he is ready to be an admin.
This should be no big deal. Benefit of the doubt.
1000 is a bit low with just 4 months... A couple of improper speedy tags, one of which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seacrest%2C_Out&diff=prev&oldid=13687081 a gimme redirect], and the other of which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Hebrew_Israelites&diff=prev&oldid=13908252 was a bit POV, but clearly not a speedy].  Just eyeballing it, about 1/3 of the edits have no edit summary.  Very sparse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deltabeignet&action=history talk page].
'''Oppose'''As of now, only has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Deltabeignet&hideminor=0&namespace=3 26 edits] to the user talk namespace. This does not show a sufficient amount of user interaction for an admin.
--
'''Oppose''', regretfully. In my opinion, self-nominations require an even more compelling case than other people's nominations, and 1000 edits isn't that high.  Give it a little more time, and I'll change my vote. --
'''Oppose''' [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
Nothing obviously wrong with this candidate, but I am reluctant to support a candidacy for an editor with such low Talk: (63) and User talk: (14) edit count.  Only has 75% use of edit summaries in article space, too.  Further, we have lots of people doing speedy deletes (usually when I sit down to do them there are maybe ten to do, and anyway I prefer the "tag and bag" approach to CSDs where the admin finding the page isn't the one deleting it) and being an admin isn't necessary to do RC/vandalism patrol.
I have had no interaction positive nor negative with this user and those won't vote either way, however I do not agree with edit counting as a qualifier, though I do feel that this request should be scrutinized due to apparent hastiness of some edits and the lack of justificating summaries for edits which though not sloppy by itself causes some concern.
'''Support'''
<s>'''Support''' [[User:Y0u|Y0u]] [[User talk:Y0u|(Y0ur talk page)]] [[Special:Contributions/Y0u|(Y0ur contributions)]] 16:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC) '''Weak support''' I am concerned about the recent RfC and do see some communication problems (possibly in civility,) so I change my vote slightly. [[User:Y0u|Y0u]] [[User talk:Y0u|(Y0ur talk page)]] [[Special:Contributions/Y0u|(Y0ur contributions)]] 20:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)</s>'''Strong support''' On another second thought, while ths user may not be the best at interacting with others, I can tell that the user tries hard to do so, and I vote for admins based mostly on demonstrated good faith.  I therefore change my degree of support.
'''Support'''. Has a lot of edits, really helpful around Wikipedia, and is a really great person. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Appears to be a good, active contributor to Wikipedia, and has shown considerable commitment to the project and to the maintenance of articles. Valuable edits, evidence of a wide range of contributions, and evidence of some fair communication skills would show this person to be a valuable admin in the future. I notice that there are areas which this user could improve by his own admission, and I would hope that this user would do so after receiving administrative privileges. --
'''Support'''. The candidate's approach to issues which have been raised regarding his behavior has been quite positive. I am not refering to this RfA in specific, but rather, for example, to when an user explained why he thought it was unfair that Denelson voted oppose when a candidate didn't meet his time-based adminship criterion. The answer you would expect from an average editor? "It's my rating system, so screw you, have a nice day". Denelson's response, on the other hand, was to change his opposes to neutrality from that point on. Good judgement, will likely make a good admin. --
'''Support'''. I'm voting in support because Denelson seems thoroughly dedicated to wikipedia. He has also addressed the problems raised in the RFC with the "wikimood" indicator.  Also, even though he takes negative comments too harshly, he still heeds their meaning.

'''Support''' It takes enormous skill to compensate for aspergers. As long as Denelson83 is capable of functioning more or less normally socially, his other skills are likely to be utterly fantastic. Since adminship does require some social skill, I think Denelson might take a little longer than average to learn to use the additional buttons (due to the social side effects).  Aside from that, a good pick by Pall here :-)
I feel thet s/he won't be as civil as wee'd like to see in an admin.
'''Oppose''', as I'm concerned that, everything taken into account, there could still be serious interaction problems. You'll get far worse than you've had on your talk page so far if you become an active admin, I'd have thought, and just removing the comments isn't the way to go. If sensitivity to comments can be measured on a 21-point scale, that's too much sensitivity for me. The new policy box on the talk page was also added just ''after'' the posting of this RfA so is an ultra-recent change not yet tested in practise. I'm not too interested in the previous RfC since that's been addressed. -
I was thinking about ignoring my gut, but this one's just too big of a feeling to pass up. I don't feel right about supporting, and there's simply too much evidence to go neutral, so I'm going to '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''.  Quoted from the standard admin questions below: ''"On the RfC, I expressed that I have an attribute of volatility. But I hope that I can keep that in check if I am given admin status."''  While this certainly shows an uncommon amount of honesty, volatility is not an admirable quality to look for in an admin.  Other points against include the user's bizarre talk page policy--keeping paths of dialogue open is highly important for an admin in particular, and that RfC isn't exactly ancient history.  My advice: keep up the good work in article space, lose the volatility, encourage talk-page communication, and come back when the RfC ''is'' ancient history.  At the moment, there's just too many negatives to seriously consider supporting this candidate.
'''Oppose'''; his votes on other RFAs are based solely on the length the candidate's account has been active, which to me indicates he has a tendency to generalize issues and overlook the nuance - that's not a good quality for an admin.
'''Oppose'''; General agreement with the case as stated by Starblind. --
'''Oppose'''.  Granted, I haven't seen all of this user's RfA votes, but the ones I have seen were based almost solely on longevity rather than on contributions, dedication to making WP better, or interaction with other users (except in the most obvious cases, like DrZoidberg's last week).  Also, I'm a bit leery concerning the "Wikimood" promise, as there would be little accountability for him to make sure that he only used admin powers at appropriate times. --
--
'''Oppose'''. The removal of negative comments from your talk page is still a concern, even with the stoppage of the behavior described in the RfC. Administrators can potentially run into a lot more abuse than other editors, and describing yourself as "volatile" only leads me to believe that there will be problems in the future. Also, administrators need to be transparent in their actions. Removing legitimate complaints from your talk page, even if they are phrased in a non-friendly manner, will only muddy the waters when trying to figure out if administrative powers have been misused or abused. One shouldn't have to retrieve deleted comments from talk history in order to piece together a conversation or a dispute. I also echo Radiant's concerns about your longevity-based criterion for administrators. <font color=#00A86B>
As per above.
'''Oppose'''
'''Strong  oppose.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Denelson83&direction=prev&oldid=19129019 This notice] on his talk page suggests to me that he's not ready for admin powers. ''"I have '''considerable difficulty understanding the full substance of what other people say to me''', and I may have very prematurely interpreted your comment as negative, demeaning, and/or frightening, and consequently removed your comment to help purge the bad feelings that it would cause me"''??? If he can't 1) differentiate between neutral comments and neagative comments, and 2) deal with negative comments, then he doesn't need to be an admin.  What happens when the block button is right there on the screen, and it would be so easy to stop the negative comments by just blocking everybody that posts to the page? Or maybe it would be easier to just protect the page so nobody can contact him! This is an [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration|RfAr]] waiting to happen; '''absolutely, positively no way this user should be an admin.''' -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] ·  [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 17:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC) <span style="color:#fff; background:#090">.... later:</span> It's been suggested that perhaps I was harsh in my comments; I would just like to clarify that I don't have any problem with mental illness, particularly considering that I have [[Bipolar disorder|bipolar]]. The point is, if his disability is going to interfere with his ability to accurately judge a situation, then he doesn't need to be given the ability to abuse admin powers. His disability has no bearing on his adminship outide its relevance to his ability to effectively and properly use admin powers. I think his own comments demonstrate that he isn't s up to the job. --
Oppose. To take a fairly random example from 16 June (hardly over a month ago), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Denelson83/Archive_page_4&amp;oldid=15304243 his/her user talk page] starts off by telling us "n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted, and '''may not be reviewed'''. Any attempt to influence my behaviour on Wikipedia using those past revisions will not be tolerated. To review past messages, see the archive subpages." If this isn't tongue in cheek (and no evidence suggests to me that it is), then it strikes me as bizarre, and pompously expressed to boot. (Oh, and that precedes another warning.) When asked about this, Denelson83 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADenelson83%2FArchive_page_4&amp;diff=14598788&amp;oldid=14417955 simply deleted the question], which ended ''I'm just curious about how you claim that a record which is easily and freely available under the GFDL "may not be reviewed". Curiousity, that's all. Feel free not to respond if you don't want to.'' While Denelson83 was within his/her right in deleting the message (on 29 May), this unwillingness to answer a question is not the sort of thing I look for in an administrator, especially when the question is amicable and about an apparent misunderstanding of one aspect of the nature of this project. Denelson83 seems a good editor and in ''some'' ways an attractive candidate for administrator; but I'm not going to vote "support" until months (rather than mere weeks) after odd behavior such as attempting to dictate that past revisions of a page "may not be reviewed", compounded by refusal to explain this. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 03:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC) <span style="color:#fff; background:#009">PS</span> a comment prompted by Woohookitty's vote immediately below: I don't think anyone here has commented on Denelson83's deletion of anything from any talk page other than his/her own. In itself, deleting stuff from one's own talk page is ''not'' a big no no. (Or I hope it isn't: on occasion, I've deleted particularly inane comments from my own talk page.) But it's something that should be done exceptionally, if at all: polite questions should in general be answered, and politely so. --
'''Oppose'''. Note to people who want to become admins. Do not say ANYWHERE that you can be volitile. Denelson, you aren't a bad editor but deleting stuff from talk pages is a big no no. I'd stop doing it if I were you if you ever want to be an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. No positive history with this user. Is also clearly desperate for adminship, which is a bad thing.
'''Neutral''' Voting neutral is absolutely pointless. I want to vote oppose based on his past behavior and how he cant handle attacks of any sort. However, as he voted neutral, rather than oppose, on me, he gets a neutral from me as well. On a lighter note, its good to see he stopped judging people based on 9 months more/less.
'''Neutral'''. I very much appreciate many of the arguments offered for support, and it is with a heavy heart that my vote is down here and not up there with them. I like that Denelson is a good veteran, and I'm sure I'd enjoy working with him. However, while it seems he's moving away from many of the objections raised so far, I would have liked to see more time between RFAs so as to better judge this canditates true change and stability thereof. I will therefore likely support in 2+ months time if all goes smoothly, but cannot bring myself to do so now. --
'''Neutral'''. Overall, I appreciate Denelson's work on Wikipedia, but I am loath to vote support this soon after a RFC. Like Dmcdevit, I feel that a couple of months could make the world of difference.
'''Neutral''' Though I definately think that Denelson is a good editor and a good contributor to wikipedia I agree with many of the points brought up in the oppose votes and would feel more comfortable voting for him after a few more months. <small>
Guess I'll have to, eh? [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support'''
'''Sure, why not?'''
'''Support'''. Although I've only come across him via [[WP:MIND]], rather than on articles, I've seen nothing that suggests to me he shouldn't be an admin.
'''Support'''. When I've come accross him, he seems to be level-headed and a good editor.
'''Strong Support''' His help with me on [[Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia]] was above and beyond the call of duty. I'm going to vote for him 10 times, but you don't have to count the last 9. ;-)


'''Support''' - dedicated to the project. No reason in my mind that he wouldn't make a good admin. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''extreme support'''--
'''Strong support.''' He is very active and dedicated. --


'''Extreme Heterosexualist'''(sic) '''support'''. Did stupid things once in a while, but he has always proven himself humble enough to apologize and learn from them. Has shown himself willing to listen to people's concerns rather than behaving stubbornly, which IMHO should be the #1 criterion for adminship.
Cooperative.
'''Oppose''' I just don't believe this person would be a good admin, from what I've seen.
'''Oppose''' The "Support Me" signature smacks of campaigning, which I find distateful. --
'''Oppose''' I generally hate to do this but all this campaigning isn't a good use of judgment in my opinion, putting so much time in on [[WP:MIND]] when there's so many backlogs concerns me. I don't see much RC patrol/vandal fighting...I guess I'd like to see a broader particapation. Great energy and very positive though!
'''Oppose'''. I strongly dislike campaigning for adminship &mdash; an editor that has earned the trust of the community and edited enough for the Wikipedia community to be aware of him or her should be able to pass RfA without campaigning, and choosing to campaign when it should be unnecessary shows poor judgment (actually, it was the user's campaigning that brought me to this vote page). Additionally, the points brought up by the neutral and other opposing users give me further doubts about this request. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' still WAAAAAY too green in the political/user interaction aspect of the job of administrator. I dont know if this comes from his non-native use of the english language, or perhaps just inexperience, in either case I dont feel this is the appropriate time to promote him... perhaps in a few months. &nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  I like your enthusiasm, but think it's a little too early.  You seem to act before reading the guidelines on what you're doing, like with those FAC oppose votes that people have mentioned, and I think that campaigning for support votes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deryck_Chan&oldid=24448393 this blatantly] was another example of this.  I understand that you don't repeat your mistakes once they're pointed out, and there's plenty in your favour - eg going out of your way to welcome new people - but I'd rather you spent a few more months on here before becoming an admin.
Oppose for reasons already stated.  I don't oppose campaigning, but I don't like these complicated signatures.
Please refer to my comments on the user's talk page.
'''Oppose'''. I can't say it better than was said by Juntung. <s>The user's talk page is also revealing with it's quid pro quo dialogue with another admin candidate.</s> --
'''Oppose''' I don't like the idea of campaigning. This isn't an election. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
Neutral for now - I think he just needs a couple more months' seasoning and showing consistent cluefulness. I think his dedication to the project is obvious -
'''Neutral''' - Difficult candidate to evaluate - most of the edits in the past 500 are all in the mind benders... which while neat doesn't help me evaluate at all. Also doesn't use edit summaries much. <small>
'''Neutral''' - needs more variety on articles he edits. aOnly 528 distinct pages is not enough IMO. Once he gets up in that counter, I will be happy to support.
'''Neutral''' for the time being. I can see the overwhelming effort made by Deryck, particularly in Hong Kong- and science-related articles, and he's indeed a gung-ho wikipedian. But sometimes this young man might be too reckless in communicating with other contributors (maybe he should mind his language every now and then). I'll wait and see, trying to make my vote later on. Good luck! ;-) --
'''Neutral''' for now, would be happy to support in a few months barring further incidents.  <font color="red">
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. I was trying to remember why I had such a negative impression of Deryck, and then it occured to me that it originated with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FNorman_Borlaug&diff=17896991&oldid=17892197 this] and similar FAC edits he made in June (which he mentions in his answer to question 3).  Additionally, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDeryck_Chan&diff=24406922&oldid=24404764 voting for yourself] doesn't show an ideal understanding of process, and despite a massive amount of Wikipedia edits, the total is misleading since the majority of them are connected with Wikipedia:Mind Benders, and he rarely seems to enter the really contentious areas.  His contributions to Wikipedia:FAC recently seem obsessed with pictures only, and he rarely uses edit summaries.  His edits also indicated some difficulty with English, and although this isn't a reason in and of itself to oppose, it could pose problems as an admin.  If this sounds harsh, I should offset it by saying that I believe he's a good editor, but that I just can't trust him with adminship at this point in time.  I'm also curious as to an example of an article that he thinks was "protected unreasonably". --
<s>'''Oppose'''. Use of transcluded signature is Major Bad Mojo.  If editor replaces signature, will reconsider. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] 20:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)</s> Editor has stopped transcluding signature; however, still have concerns about campaigning.  '''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral''' this time as per the reasons cited above, but mostly due to campaigning.
'''Neutral.''' Only 31.5% of his edits are to articles; even if you add Talk pages in the article namespace, that only brings it up to 39%. The number of edits shows his dedication to Wikipedia, but it concerns me that he puts more effort into discussing policy than editing articles. Also, the number of distinct pages he's edited is currently only at 541 - considering the number of edits he's made to non-article pages, it seems like the number of actual Wikipedia articles he's touched is probably very low. -
<s>''Oppose'' - transcluding signatures is a drain on the system. Campaigning in that signature is not good form. Voting for yourself is not good form, either.
'''Neutral'''. Per reasons stated above. Would possibly support in a few months.
Has tremendously improved various articles on local history, transforming them from stubs to articles the WIkipedia can be proud of. Has more than enough experience to become an administrator. As to the objections, a request to remove nonsense is appropriate, certainly more appropriate than edit-warring, and is hardly an example of unsuitable temperament. Wikipedia is sufficiently complicated that there is no one who knows how ''everything'' works, so thanking someone for helping him fix an image is hardly evidence that he shouldn't be an admin... -
Not many admins have been here for 1.5 years... no reason to oppose.

Support. No reason to oppose. --
Fewer than 1000 edits (although he has been here for 1.5 years), lacking some community involvement (about 10 edits on Wikipedia: namespace), don't see any vandal fighting, and some edits like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vardion&diff=9548753&oldid=9547298 unsigned demanding edit] are just strange, not to mention his acknowledgement of a lack of understanding of how some things work: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evercat&diff=prev&oldid=9059797], as well as this page wasn't created right, and he put his RFA in [[User:UserName]] (which I have since deleted).
Needs more experience in using Wikipedia and working with other editors. Length of time since account creation does not necessarily equate to experience. Sorry. --
dinopop, please continue working hard here. your work is commendable. as of yet, though, i don't think you have enough experience with the community or with wikipedia. sincerely,
Get some more experience.
Not enough experience or community involvement.

Not enough experience on the janitorial side of things.
This user does some really good work. The only reason I'm voting neutral is not enough edits. Support after 1,200 edits. --
Ditto.  --
Too few edits, hardly any community discussion. I'll probably support a next time.
This user has done some great work on the articles he created (see above). I have two reasons for opposing: 1) Low edit count. I don't expect a user to have 4000 edits before RfA, but I would like to see more than his current 425. 2) Lack of experience dealing with controversial situations. I took a look at [[Talk:Olavo de Carvalho]] and wasn't very impressed with the comments in the "Author here" section. I'd prefer that WP admins didn't end comments with "Thanks, morons".
Quick check of his talk comments: Most seem to be OK, but the [[Talk:Olavo de Carvalho]] mentioned by Carrp is not so hot. In any case, there are not enough edits --
Great user, but he hasn't made enough edits.  As much as I hate edit number standards, I have to oppose this user.  However, if you come back later with more edits, I would definitely support you.
I'm not a huge edit counter, but I expect more than 425 edits from a prospective admin. I will most likely support when the user has more experience, both in terms of edit number and interaction with the community. --
Not enought experience yet, sorry. --
Yes, I can see you've been around for a while, but I don't see a consistent level of dedication to the project during that time (there are significant gaps in time between some of your contributions). I do not consider this to be [[User:Grunt/Adminship|characteristic of a good admin]]. --
--
I don't like the "Thanks, morons" comment. I may support later but definitely not this time.
Not yet --
Agree with above.
Never. Many of your contributions are of very doubtful usefulness (I still remember "Quarto do Chefinho" from VfD) and you fail at the task of placing a simple image on an article ([[The Underdog Project]]). Strong opposition. --
I base my decision on JuntungWu's comment about skills (below).  --
Not enough experience.
Am I allowed to vote for myself?  &nbsp;
Not enough edits outside of the sandbox. In addition, he has '''zero''' edits in the article namespace [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=DrZoidberg&dbname=enwiki].
I concur with Carbonite. I manually checked through all of his edits since he joined last november, and every last one was for sandbox/history, his talk page, someone else's talk page, or (once the sandbox/history page got moved into his userspace  and VFD'd) the VFD for the sandbox/history page.
At the risk of sounding like an evil cabalist I am tempted to just place an indefinite block on this user. He has about 1000 edits to the sandbox and not one in the article space. He has contributed nothing to Wikipedia, merely wasted countless billions of valuable electrons by messing about. We shouldn't really be tolerating his presence unless he does something productive. &mdash;
I'm thinking [[WP:POINT]]. Bad faith nomination.
Oppose and permanently block.
I quite agree that this is a bad faith nomination, but I can't understand the calls for a permanent block, either. In terms of "tolerating his presence," I don't see how there's any problem doing just that: he's not polluting Wikipedia at large, and though it would certainly be nice if he were to do "something productive," there are plenty of inactive users who haven't been doing anything productive either that no one would suggest we ban. By sticking to the sandbox, he's not exactly participating in the spirit of the project, but he's not harming it either. '''Oppose''' this nomination, and, for what its worth, '''oppose''' the calls to block. &ndash;
Oppose.  I am pleased that DrZoidberg confines his editing, for the most part, to the sandbox.  Since there is generally no reason to move, delete, protect, or unprotect the sandbox, and since there is rarely reason to block users who vandalize the sandbox, I offer the observation that adminship may not be particularly useful to DrZoidberg.  Insofar as DrZoidberg is a part of Wikipedia culture, at most a minor nuisance, and for the most part willing to constrain his unusual pattern of editing so that it is largely within community norms, I believe that calls for a ban are premature.
Ah, I know Zoidy well. In fact, I've known him from his first edit. So I think it's not too presumptuous for me to say that this user is, without a doubt, one of the most suitable people to honor by keeping them as free spirits, rather than burdening them with the terrible responsibilities adminship carries. With this in mind I'm happy to oppose this nomination.
'''Oppose'''. Well put, JRM. I don't support calls for a ban from an RfA. A more revealing count of how many non-Sandbox edits he made came when he moved the Sandbox to another article (DrZoidberg's Super Fun House, I think it was). When that article (with its history) was deleted, his edit count dropped to about 150 (he currently has a total of ~1000). Since he has made huge contributions to the Sandbox (some 850 edits), I agree that DrZoidberg should not be weighed down with a mouldy old mop and a bucket full of dirty water.  --
'''Oppose'''.  [[Wikipedia:About|Wikipedia]] is an [[encyclopedia]].  I do not believe that this user gets that.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Playing in the sandbox is all well and good, but user has NO experience outside of sandbox-related edits.  If you wish to be an admin, please do some things outside of the sandbox for a little while and I may support.
'''Oppose.''' If I had voted just according to how long you have been present on Wikipedia, I would have voted neutral.  But given the nature of your contributions, this is how I am voting.
'''Oppose''' I  agree with the previous votes, sandbox edits are all well and good but I can't see the need for a mop and bucket in a sandbox.
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg! --
'''Oppose''', but gently.  No edits outside the sandbox.  Zoidy...do an article or two.  Then we'll talk. -
'''Oppose'''.  '''Zero''' edits to articles?  "Sandboxian"??  Maybe this nomination belongs in BJAODN!  --
Ummm...no.
I had issues with this user before, mainly with edits in the Sandbox. All he does is trolls the sandbox, and perhaps, with a few other names/socks/whatever. I oppose.
'''Oppose''' any user with such narrow edit scope and such childish self-nomination and behaviour in general. -
'''Support''' as nominator, btw. --
'''Support''', agree with nominator (just tone down the language a bit every now and then).
'''Support''', agree with nominator, the most informed person I have ever met on the history of hurricanes.  --
'''Support''' He is worthy--
'''Support''' I have to agree with all of the above comments, Eric has made many fine contributions to this site. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. He seems civil and highly knowledgable. His edit history looks pretty good, plenty of edits, and plenty of edit summaries. Overall good candidate.
'''Support'''. I'll take a solid Wikipedian who's new to adminship over a proto-admin who's not so much about the encyclopedia-writing any day. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Does a lot of work on hurricanes to the detriment of, say, everything else, but seems informed, intelligent, active, and well-spoken, and frankly that's good enough for me.
'''Support'''. I like that he has tons of "article talk" edits, for me it means that he plays well with others (or maybe not, but still discusses things rather than rushing into edits).
'''Support''' I was pretty set to oppose due to low wikipedia namespace edits until I read his comment below. That swayed me, I'd rather have a dedicated contributor who did a bit of admin work once in a while than one who did none at all. He deserves it. -
'''Support''', despite lack of WP-space edits, because of his commitment to discretion.  That's something we could use a bit more of around here.--

'''Support''', per GregAsche. No doubt he will not abuse admin powers.
'''Support'''. From a look at his contributions, an extremely good editor, and that is good enough for me.
Yes, please. Lack of wikipedia namespace edits indicates a healthy reluctance to be dragged into interminable pointless disputes.
<small>
'''Support'''. (see below. And good point, Lupin!)
'''Support'''.  Have had a good deal of interaction with him on the hurricane pages, and he has always been helpful, informative, and polite. --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
'''Support'''. His extensive involvement in the project settles it for me. As for the alleged flaw in lack of edis to Wikipedia, I like Lupin's way to explain it a lot. <font color="green">
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Although I live in Florida and '''HATE''' hurricanes (especially the ones from Miami:) with a red hot passion, I support this candidate.--
'''Support'''  --
'''Support'''.  Seems levelheaded, and there is no harm in having a few admins who spend most of their time editing hurricane pages; procedual issues requiring an admin, like moves-over-redirects, arise everwhere, and frequently require more knowledge of things like "local" consensus on the affected pages than they do general policy knowledge. --
'''Oppose''', no edits to wikipedia, most edits to the same pages, not a lot of variety. If this person's just working on hurricane and storm articles, do they really need admin powers?
'''Oppose''' Very Very few Wikipedia edits if any --
Sorry, but '''oppose''' per lack of experience in Wikispace (<50 edits in WP, zero in WP talk). Please join some discussions at FAC, RFC, ANI or (shudder) AFD and see what it's like.
'''Oppose''' per above. Simply not enough Wiki edits.
--
'''Uhhpose''' Needs more edits to wikipedia. It shows that the user is active in the community and otherwise it can;t be seen as easily.
'''Oppose''' due to lack of experience.
Not saying you're not a good editor, you have done a lot of hard work on the Hurricane articles and such. However, you need to round out your WP experience, and spend some time on discussions outside the realm of the articles you work on. Keep up the good editing. <font color=#9999ff>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
'''Weak Oppose''' Apologies, but I've come down with a severe case of editcountitis due to some other RFAs, and I don't think I can vote for any other way for anyone under 2,000 edits until I get to the Wiki-Pharmacy for my illness or the climate around here changes. Low Edit Summaries and a lack of experience in [[m:Metapedianism|Metapedianism]] clinch it(Question #3 seemed too vague), although I do think he'd be more than ready in a few months
'''Oppose.''' Variety is the spice of life, and Wikipedia space edits are a must.
'''Oppose''' Wikipedia edits a must to show understanding of how WP works.
'''Oppose'''. It really is necessary to have a good grip on how the various processes and things work and how the community behaves behind the scenes (and how admins behave...). Experiment a little between now and your next RfA, and you will learn a lot. -
'''Neutral''' In looking over your edits, virtually all of them pertain to Hurricanes in one fashion or another. While I think your contributions there are probably second to none, I would need to see a lot more involvement in the type of janitorial chores expected of admins, and to use edit summaries with almost every contribution to help out RC Patrollers.--
<s>'''Neutral'''</s> Although I dont entirely agree with the idea that you should engage in sysop chores ''before'' you are admin, I am curious whether or not you would actually enjoy doing the admin chores. You seem to be the kind of person which would much rather be a valuable contributor than having to do all the (''necessary'') boring work. Feel free to comment.
'''Neutral'''. Good editor, but more variety and involvement is needed. Here are a few good links: You could help out in the  [[Wikipedia:Untagged images|Untagged Images]] section, vote frequently on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RFA]]s and participate on its talk page, vote on [[Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion|AFDs]], make it a duty to watch the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=500 Recent Changes] and revert vandalism, warn editors and report incessant vandals on [[Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress]]. You could also watch and tag [[Special:Newpages]]. After familiarizing yourself with these, and continuing editing articles, you should be all set :).
'''Neutral''', as the Project namespace edit count is low. I don't see a need for a mop and bucket if most of what you're doing is hurricane stuff, and though I'm heartily against editcountitis, admins have to have edits in the Project namespace. But I don't think you'd make a bad admin either, merely that adminship seems unnecessary. Your edits are very good, and you have an abundance of edits in the Talk namespace, which is a good sign. I could easily support if there was evidnece of more sysop chores going on. --
'''Neutral'''.  Your expertise is very good, but I'd like to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, not for editcountitis but just to make sure you have experience in tasks that most admins spend a lot of time handling.  If you take care of that, then I will support your next nomination in case this one doesn't go through. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)  (In addition, the previous Neutral voters have given very good advice in this RfA, and it would do you well do follow it. --
'''Neutral for the moment''' - I would like to see more variety in this user's editing before they are renominated for adminship. --
'''Changed to Neutral''' per E. Brown fulfilled my request. The recent participation in administrative tasks is a huge plus, but it's still too soon to support. If your continue making help edits in the Project namespace for another month or so, someone is sure to renominate you. The results will be in your favor then. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Oppose''' as you have only been here for three days. You need some more time.
'''Oppose''' I rarely oppose, but you need more time to learn.
'''Oppose'''. Hi. I'm going to have to oppose for now, for three reasons: 1) there is no way to ''confirm'' your experience based on the edit history of your account; 2) you have made a few errors in this RfA that lead me to question your knowledge of Wikipedia editing - in particular, you have typed your responses to the above two "oppose" comments with flush lines instead of indenting them, which breaks the numbering of the list (I have fixed this), and you placed your nomination in the middle of the RfA page, instead of at the top where new nominations are directed to go (I have fixed this also); 3) per your answers to the questions below, you state that you intend to help out by "Correcting mistakes, adding new facts as they become available", but this requires no admin powers (there are plenty of users who have racked up thousands of edits worth of quality contributions of that nature without having any interest in becoming admins). Also, I'd like you to clarify your answer to question 3 below, for reasons I will explain there.
'''Very strongly oppose'''. This editor created, I presumed accidentally, [[Eddie Segoura]]. I speedy userfied it per CSD A7 (I could have just gotten rid of it). He left me an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASplash&diff=29005433&oldid=28962937 extremely patronising] {test1}, telling me I was "experimenting with the delete function". He then recreated the article, after removing it from his user page. Needless to say, I deleted it again (only once: the deletion log is the victim of my impatience with the deadness of Wiki). He is unfamiliar with the standards of the encyclopedia, patronising, recreates speedy material, Q1 says he doesn't understand what adminship is about and Q3 openly admits to intent to take actions tantamount to vandalism, and which would certainly earn him a block if repetitiously carried out. He didn't answer the questions in the first draft of this RfA, didn't add it to the page until prompted, and then added it to the wrong part of the page. I would normally suggest that a new user try again in a few months, but I wouldn't wish to mislead, so I won't. (Oh, and he appears not to know how to use the indentation features properly &mdash; somebody has had to fix it for him. And don't lecture me on biting, since I'm not, and he says he's far from new.) -
'''Oppose''', for all the reasons stated by others, and the answers to your questions below. —
'''Oppose''', too inexperienced.
'''Oppose''', you may be willing to accept the job, but we aren't willing to accept you. Too inexperienced. Nothing more to say.
'''Oppose''' - more proof of inexperience is he fact that an RfA lasts SEVEN, not TEN days. And deleting these votes is [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]]. <font color="red">
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose'''. Admins should have some basic knowledge of Wikipedia editing, including the fact that we don't use <a href> or <img> tags.
'''Sorry'''. This candidate has not provided sufficient reason that we should support him.
'''Oppose''' - let's see. First, we have a case of insufficient time. He's been here less than a week; certainly not long enough to learn any policies, and from what I gather, he's made no attempt to. Second, casually mentioning fiddling his Oppose votes. That's just not helping whatsoever; and demonstrates, as I noted in point one, a lack of understanding of how things work here. Third, his answer to question one makes me believe he doesn't realise that he doesn't need adminship. Fourth, his answer to question three, which ''I'' read as, "I've ordered people to vandalise Wikipedia in the past, for my own entertainment" - that doesn't strike me as responsible, nor helpful. All in all, a clear-cut oppose vote - this is not someone I would trust with adminship.
'''Neutral''': There's not enough information to go on. Would you please list the IPs you have been editing from? --
As nominator, of course I support

Support.
Support. To Edwin's detractors: Edit counting is silly because it completely ignores the quality of the edits. Can anyone just take the [[diarrhea]] approach to Wikipedia and spray around thousands of edits and be considered a guru for it? Saying you can't consider Edwin because he hasn't been on long enough is silly, you can see for yourself the quality of his work and dedication as proof that he is committed to Wikipedia. Maybe I don't get the good-old boys' club that makes up the Wikipedia elite. I nominated Edwin previously when we were both kinda new, I admit that I jumped the gun a bit. However, I think he has proven himself, and has inspired me to keep at it as well.
Support. Time on Wikipedia results in experience, and experience is what an admin needs. Making zillions of tiny edits of fanatical recent changes patrolling does ''not'' imbue experience.
718 edits (of which ~300 are minor), the vast majority of which are since December 6, 2004. Only 6 reverts. I'd support if he keeps up the active editing like he has been doing over the past few months and reaches 1300 edits or so.
Good user, but he hasn't the neccesary experience or commitment to janitoring for me to support.
Needs more experience.
A wikipedian needs to spend time here to become an administrator, ''not'' the other way round. Admittedly, adding religious comment without stirring up controversy is good - perhaps at a later date.

Too new.
Needs more experience; will support at 1200 edits.  --
Too few edits.
Please get 1,200 edits before requesting adminship. --
I don't understand. You want to make him an admin to have him spend more time here? That's a bit weird. Adminship might not be a big deal but is it a carrot?
He's doing great work in potentially sensitve areas and as I said last time, I'd love to support a fellow Lutheran, so I won't oppose. However, I'd like to see more cleanup and housekeeping work before he is made an administrator. The kind of work he currently does (and is good at, it seems) wouldn't really benefit from having sysop powers. -
a very valuable contributor, no doubt, but I won't support candidates with <1000 edits. hope to see you re-nominated in a month or so!
Seems to be a good copyeditor, but nearly all his contributions in the Wikipedia namespace are related to this and the previous RfA.  I'm not sure that a user with relatively few total edits and little (demonstrated) interest in Wikipedia maintenance and administration needs the mop and bucket right now. His answer to Question 1 below—while showing a commendable attitude toward NPOV—doesn't shed any light on why he should have or would use admin privileges. --
A "hobby user", in my opinion, by definition is not the sort of user who has a need for admin tools.  There's nothing wrong with this user, and being able to NPOV-edit religious articles is a plus (hence, my vote is neutral rather than oppose).  But I think admins by definition should be users who consider Wikipedia something more than just a hobby.
All my support.

From what I've seen, she has made quite a contribution to WP. She also has uncommon views and a strong personality.  All the more reason to support her.
A very nice person.
Sure. &ndash;
Support. Eequor's insights and comments might be a bit leftfield from time to time (downright strange, at times, in fact), but her work seems exemplary. we need a few admins who think not just outside the square, but as if the square didn't exist, and I think Eequor fits that bill. Also, I daren't object to anyone whose user profile sounds scarily like my SO, Alice...
Support, 7 months is a lot of time.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. --
''' "Support." ''' -
'''Support''' - Sampling of edits shows attention to detail, and a penchant for cleaning things up.  Talk interactions look friendly, sometimes sharp but not snide or derisive.  I find the edit summaries amusing - it's not like she's adding made up words to article space.  I see no rule that says admins must be 100% serious, all the time, no fun allowed - what a dreary place that would be. --
'''Support'''. What mobilized me was that I can't believe that anyone would oppose her on the grounds of inventing words like "bulletize". She doesn't quite fit my criterion of good conflict handling. ("I really don't like conflict" doesn’t sound like that’s her strong point, and I didn’t find any good evidence.) However, I like her reply to RickK’s "cabal" question. If Grutness, the <nowiki>{{curly}}</nowiki> boxing champ, endorses her thinking outside of the box, she must be good. &mdash;
support. This is not a [[Wikipedia:Sheep vote|sheep vote]], but a calculated investment of trust (see comments below, I may still change back if ''really'' condemning diffs are shown).
'''*This*''', ladies and gentlemen, is prime wikipedia admin material. Humorful, resiliant, hard worker, playful, creative, intelligent. I think a number of people should review what wikipedia stands for, then come back and think about their vote again. This is the kind of person we ''need'' as an admin. So '''''adminize''''' already!
'''Support'''. She demonstrates the rare capacities of both tact ''and'' humour simultaneously and would thus would be an asset to the community even ignoring the excellent work she does on actual articles. If she believes even half of what she states [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eequor#Wikipedia_philosophy here], she'll be a better admin than most of the those we presently have. The fact that she's stuck around and been as active as she has even after suffering all the ''ad hominem'' attacks by prominent wikipedians in her last RfA speaks volumes to her ''true'' maturity. -
'''Support'''. I believe she would become a great administrator. --

Not suited to adminship.  Which is why we need her so much.  &mdash;
[[User:SethIlys|Seth]] (and others) have convinced me.  '''Support'''.  May the gods have mercy on our souls.
'''Support'''.  I find her different ideas refreshing.  I worry about Wikipedia going stale, only promoting those to adminship who are the sort who don't bother anyone.  I'd like to see more people who have different views of how this project could be improved to be promoted to administrator.  In Eequor's case, I'm hoping it will give her a bit more legitimacy, rather than the attitude I see here of dismissing her in thinly veiled ad hominem arguments.  I've seen some very disappointing things in this RFA from people for whom I have a lot of respect, and have seen few things about Eequor which worry me.
'''Support'''. She is capable and not a destructive force on Wikipedia.
'''Support'''. If she had switched to a new account half a year ago, I don't think there would be any objections to her adminship and people would be commending her hard work. Bygones.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support''', since she has shown the ability to acknowledge past mistakes.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Support'''- 7 months of quality editing seems enough. Nothing wrong with being different! :) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|Give me a <font color = brown> note! ]]</font color>|
I will come out of hiding to '''support''' this one.  Knowledgeable, hard-working, good-natured, much more so than many current admins.
'''Support'''. Eequor is contrary and often holds a minority opinion. Which I consider a good thing! The only problem with it is that she often rubs people the wrong way, but it appears she's making an effort to acknowledge and handle that lately rather than inflame it. Nothing at all objectionable&mdash;far from it&mdash;about her article editing, and as per Seth, that she's stayed around and continued to edit just as much as before after her previous failed RfA speaks well of her. (Minor detail: I find the neologisms perfectly understandable.)
'''Support'''. For all the normal reasons, plus her edit summaries are appropriate, understandable, and more detailed the comments left by some admins on the side of oppose [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Raul654] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Ambi]
'''Support'''.  A great contributor who is obviously very committed to Wikipedia.  As [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] said, there's nothing wrong with being different.  I rather like the edit summaries. --
'''Support''' - Happy with the response given by the questions I previously had. Therefore I can support. --
'''Support'''. Radiant's reasoning is quite convincing. Seven months ''is'' a long time, and I believe that Eequor has matured into a user who will make a fine admin.
I hereby and with a most happy of hearts '''supporterize''' the administratitude of this fine lady person. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Firstlyizedly I would like to ''on my knees'' beg Eequor to not stop editing wikipedia, no matter which way the adminship vote goes. This place should never become a uniformity-driven community. Secondously I would ask of her that if she does get the adminship (a thing devoutly to be wished for); she will prove all those who supported her adminship correct. I will not comment on the oppose votes, as I do not wish to embarrass people I respect, nor dignify those who I do not. --
'''Support'''.  Excellent editor.  --
'''Supportize'''. Good idea about the edit summaries, I think I'll start using them too&mdash;I can't figure what the problem is there. But mainly, I checked out recent edits and that's a '''good''' editor. And vote 34 on a pogostick is enough to melt any remaining ice in my heart.
--
I think Eequor is a borderline case but one look at the opposition, some of whom make a lot worse admins than Eequor ever will, inclines me to strongly '''support''' her. Her edit summaries are about the best thing about her: harmless fun.
I completely disagree with her opinions but I don't think those would make her a bad admin.  There are some examples of bad decisions in her edit history but I can't find anything recent so I'll [[WP:FAITH|assume good faith]] and '''support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Tentatively support.''' Kim Bruning vouches for her, and I trust his judgement.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. I'd only oppose if I found any evidence that she would be likely to abuse her admin abilities. Well, yeah, she did make a silly edit to [[Astrochicken]] back in January, but that's over and done with. Most of the objections to her adminship seem to be variations on "I don't agree with her". I [[There is no cabal|don't always agree with her views]] either, but I don't vote for RfA candidates based on whether I agree with them. Eequor is an excellent editor and a dedicated janitor, and her adminship would do no harm and a lot of good. <font color=green>
'''Support'''.  I've reviewed the complaints of those who oppose, and her recent contribution history.  I don't see anything since the last RFA worth denying adminship over.  Also, contrition demonstrated and suffering loads of criticism while remaining active here are good signs.  Further, although I'd never support the use of them in the articles themselves, I found the neologies in the edit summaries as helpful as my own overly wordy edit summaries most of the time.  They could be improved, but at least she's using them.     --
Agree with Grace Note.
Disapprovize. The neologisms are still there, and still as unhelpful as ever.  --
'''No way'''.
Yep. Continues to leave useless, made-up-word, edit summaries.  That alone shows a profound disrespect of other contributors. --

Decided to oppose after reading through previous RfA and doing some research.  I suspect that (if I don't mention it), someone will point out that "7 months is a long time" or something similar.  In my opinion, though, 7 months really isn't a long time, and I'm not prepared to believe that this user has completely turned themselves around during that very short time, especially considering the observations of Mrfixter and Netoholic above.
Still don't trust Eequor. --
<s>Eequor is a good contributor, but in the past, she has shown some seriously bad judgement (a look at the old RFA nom is telling...) which makes me very, very concerned about the prospect of her being an admin. Func claims that she's improved since then -- I'd like to see some concrete examples of good judgement calls she has made since then. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 01:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) </s> Since no one has made any effort to respond to my comment, I'm switching to oppose.
After some consideration, oppose - she's a fine editor, most of the time, but I don't want to see her as an admin. Too unreasonable at times. --
English Wikipedia needs admins, but reliable and psychically stable ones. Sorry, I '''oppose'''.
'''Oppose''' I'm not very convinced of the suitability of this editor, by the list of his supporters.
'''Oppose'''.  History does not inspire confidence that Wikipedia policy is well understood.
'''Oppose'''. It's regrettable this discussion has gotten so polar. But that's part of what bothers me. Few other good editors would arouse such vehement dislike from so many otherwise reasonable people. Responses here seem more like trying to whitewash past issues than admitting mistakes. Recent editing is said to be much better, so great, keep that up. But such erratic past behavior leads me to believe more is to come. People change, but not often quickly and usually only for ''very'' strong reasons. If there were a simple process for de-adminning, I'd be fine with giving her a shot, but as it is the risk isn't worth it, especially when considering she doesn't need admin powers to do most editing. -
'''Weak oppose''', I see good and bad in this contributor. Unfortunately, she attracts far too much controversy for Adminship; her actions, whether right or wrong, would cause polarisation.--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
'''Oppose''', sorry. Just seems to have some odd ideas.
'''Oppose'''.  There is an idea brewing among supporters that she has mended her ways since her (failed) nomination seven months ago.  I do not agree.  Looking back to six months ago we can see one of Eequor's typical inflammatory edits[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Sam_Spade&diff=8009399&oldid=8009258] where she removed all comments in opposition to Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination.  To be fair, I have to say she removed Sam Spade's one supporter along with fifteen of his detractors.  I do agree with the supporters who say [[re-education]] is possible, and a bad editor can become a good editor, perhaps even one who can one day be an admin.  But I do not think a few weeks is good enough.  For me to support Eequor's nomination, I think more time has to pass, I think she needs to show she is making a contribution to Wikipedia and not stirring up a hornet's nest (as she has done in the past, many times), and I think she needs to convince people she has turned over a new leaf.  Not enough time, nor effort, has passed for her to be considered admin material.  Just six months ago, she was mass deleting the comments on fifteen users for a matter I was concerned with, Sam Spade's ArbCom nomination, and she was wrecking havoc in other areas more recent than that - five months ago vandalizing Astrochicken[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrochicken&diff=9033071&oldid=9032779] and so forth.  A few weeks of calming down is not good enough, more time, and more effort are needed.  I personally think we've made a mistake in electing a few of the existing admins, and this is not a mistake that should be repeated.
I'm all for neologisms in edit summaries, but some of the edits linked above worry me. --
Will support [[iff]] she removes the image from her signature.
I did not participate in the last RFA discussion, but have now reviewed the material.  I see a theme of aggravating behavior in the name of drawing attention to something.  (e.g. Rambot Vfd nominations, FAC nominations, rude comments about developers on meta).  Employing this sort of attention-getting strategy seems incompatible with adminship.  If she still regards such tactics as proper and fitting, there is no persuasive reason to suppose that they won't be repeated.  Without further comment on the topic, I can't tell whether she has reounced such tactics or has merely been lying low.  &mdash;
'''Abstain''' She is still too controversial for my tastes.
'''Abstain'''. I find myself agreeing with arguaments on both sides of this debate. I think the crux of the problem is that Eequor is a hard-working, and friendly user, who on the whole makes quality edits, but she is also highly unpredictable on occasion. She is a great user, but I do not think she is neccassarily ideally suited for adminship. I'd suggest changing the sig too, it does not work on all browsers (like mine).
Seven months is a long time in Internet time but not in real life.
'''Abstain''' user appears to still be highly controversial (*looks in mirror*) but I'm not convinced there has been enough change made since the last nomination. Eequor still appears to be rubbing salt in a few old wounds... maybe next year. &nbsp;
'''Abstain''' for the moment. I'm not comfortable with Eequor as an admin, but judging from the quality of support this time around my concerns may be ill-founded. Also, my browser doesn't render her signature correctly which produces fnordish-discomfort.
[[Image:Stoli.jpg|100px|thumb|Good friends drink and edit!]][[Image:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg|150px|thumb|left|AH! MOTHERLAND!]][[The Party]] is to be degreeink we subterfugink small uprising in [[Cambodia]] against [[capitalist|Kapitalist]] [[There is no Cabal|WikiKabal]]! We too buzy to be lookink on Eequor promotink to [[comrade|Administrative Komrade]] right now, so we are '''abstainink'''. But we promishink to be askink [[Stalin|Father]] about this. We givink her [[vodka]], the Red Flag of the [[Motherland]], wishink her good luck and leavink her with this Russian sayink: '''IN SOVIET RUSSIA, ARTICLE EDITS YOU!''' [[comrade|Komrade]] Eequor, we shallute you! Da!
This RFA gets more interesting every time I look at it... I'll have to vote neutral here because I haven't seen enough of Eequor's editing to make a judgement on whether she'd make a good admin; the few times we've interacted have been nothing but positive, but that's not enough to go on. I don't know how she acts in conflict, and that's what I'm really interested in for admins.<br />I do get the impression the opposition is mostly hung up over past issues, and in fact seems likely to remain hung up over them forever and ever. Is this some sort of unwritten policy on Wikipedia, that every single action counts to your karma and it can never be cleared, no matter if you make attempts to amend? I'm starting to suspect that it is.
'''Neutral''' after further deliberation and conversation with other users.
'''Neutral.''' I still have a few concerns, but Eequor has shown good will in this, at least to me, and she has earned the respect of people I respect, so I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
After reconsideration, I now change my vote to neutral.
Neutral (I hate this option). Seems like Eequor is a good editor (don't care about edit summaries so much), however don't know enough about the editor. If weighted, this neutral tends more to support than oppose. -
'''Neutral'''. It's obvious that there are still some concerns and perhaps this RfA can clear the air.
<s>Must '''oppose'''<s> in light of the comments above. Also, the vandalism of [[Astrochicken]] shows otherwise in the question of candidate maturation.
Oppose because of rude and inconsiderate comments against developers and cabal fantasies. Willing to reconsider if she elaborates particularly on [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki_1.3_comments_and_bug_reports/Archive&diff=55137&oldid=55136] (apologies if she has already done so). The attitude of "being polite hasn't worked for anybody in a long time" she expressed in a follow-up comment isn't particularly helpful either.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
I strongly support him, because I don't think it matters how many edits one may have, but their devotion to Wikipedia is what matters. I know that EinsteinMC2 has graciously helped me and I to him, he deserves this. - CalculusStudent23  <small>user's first edit. Vote should not be counted
'''Oppose'''. Needs '''way''' more experience. 223 total edits, with only 23 being made to article namespace [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?hash=c614cb98f6838b051bf3491a45c05c7ef5869a60&user=EinsteinMC2&dbname=enwiki]. Half of his edits have been to his own userspace. Also, he didn't really become active until about a week ago.
Strong '''Oppose''' a lot more experience needed
'''Oppose'''. Welcoming sockpuppet vandals isn't a terribly good idea: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RhiannonH&curid=2978623&diff=26297178&oldid=26271671], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A172_sysop_status&diff=26297842&oldid=26247731] --
Three months? No way. [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts;&hearts;purplefeltang</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''.  Just not enough experience.--
'''Oppose.''' Normally I wouldn't pile it on, but I just think you need some advice: 1) Creating other accounts (CalculusStudent23) to vote for you is strongly disapproved of. 2) Using formal, self-promoting, college-essay-type language, while it may come naturally to you, is unusual on Wikipedia; the atmosphere here is relatively informal, and people will look at you strangely for using the kind of phrasing you do. But you're perfectly welcome to make good contributions and accrue some more experience that will let you become an admin. ~~ '''
'''Oppose''' per Nickpar Just not enough experience 223 Edits WAY to few and that sockpuppet kills it --

'''Oppose''': Did not follow instructions in creating RfA (I corrected it). Engaged in vandalism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Extraordinary_Machine&diff=prev&oldid=20837739]). Last edit before submitting his own RfA was an AfD ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Goetz&diff=prev&oldid=24229840]) for an article that should be tagged for speedy deletion. Nominee did not follow instructions on this edit either, as he did not create the AfD page, just added the AfD tag to the article. Uses edit summaries just 22% of the time. I won't be doing a chart for this one. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree with the points brought up by Durin. Good editor, but needs more experience.
'''Oppose'''.  Fewer than 1000 edits, many of which are minor in nature.  A shade more than two months experience.  Still no user page, which will annoy some people.  Might support in future with further seasoning.
'''Oppose''', per Kate's tool (which is working for me right now, see [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Empty2005&dbname=enwiki here] and above comments.  I don't think edit counts are that big a deal, but the lack of experience is obvious from it.  No article talk edits, 6 Wikipedia edits.
'''Oppose''', per Durin. I believe you are a very good editor who does hard work, but please just get a few more edits in there. Here are a few links: [[Newpages]], [[Recent Changes]], [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]] etc. Also, try to get involved in the community. You could join [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign]] and you could vote here and participate on the talk page. All the best and Good luck!
'''Oppose''', way too few Talk namespace edits, and engaging in blatant vandalism only a month before requesting adminship doesn't look good at all.
'''Oppose''': Not even remotely within a cannon shot of the standards, and the very self-nom here is nearly a sign of contempt for our processes.
'''Oppose''' not enough edits, hasn't been here for long enough, engaged in vandalism, needs to use edit summaries more, needs a bit more than '''7''' wikipedia namespace edits. You are a good editor, but correct what I just listed and re-apply in a couple months and I'll gladly support. -
'''Oppose''' because of all the reasons already mentioned.

'''Oppose''' Sorry.  I'm not normally into editcountitis, but -- for folks who want admin powers to close AfD's -- I expect over 1000 edits, because they should know AfD very well.  "Better-safe-than-sorry" vote here, and I'll be happy to support with a little more experience.
'''Oppose''' until the editor has more experience. <1000 edits is too few.
'''Oppose''' too few edits.
'''Oppose''' per above --
Sorry, can't really decide on this one. Generally good contributions, but not even a thousand, so... Mh. I might yet reconsider, but for now, '''neutral'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

The edit count is low, but he does mention that this wasn't his first account. My main reasons for opposing are several statements on his user page that implies he's seeking a forum to voice his strong opinions and also the lack of participation in VfD and RC patrol.
More solid experience needed. -
I'm with Taxman.  --
For now.
Needs more time and work, maybe in the future.
I await answers below; would like to know if user wants to be an admin and why, as [[User:Grunt/Adminship|this is important for my support]]. -
Not participating enough.  Also, does he want to be an admin?  -
Looks like a good user, but the failure to answer the questions below makes it difficult to gauge the user's attitude. Also it gives the impression that the user isn't too fussed about being an admin.
You could probably do with more interaction but I don't see why you shouldn't be an admin.
I voted Support back in July; I'm glad I stopped by here so I can vote '''Support''' again. Falcon is a great user, and his work on the Dewey Decimal System is profoundly appreciated. Generally, I don't support people with less than 1200 edits; however, I believe Falcon is good enough to be an administrator. --
Not enough experience. Been around a long time, but a sampling of edits shows nearly all to be minor. Userpage shows a general lack of maturity (having nothing to do with age), as does editing pattern on [[Vampire lifestyle]]. Of course, keep up the good you do, but I'm not sure you need admin rights to do any of it. -
Needs some more seasoning and a ''sustained'' effort.  Editing has been very sparse since the last adminship self-nom a year ago: very quiet, then nearly four hundred edits in the last week.  (With respect to those, it would be helpful if Falcon made more use of the ''minor edit'' flag.)  More examples of interaction with editors would also help. I quite like the work on [[Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System]]. --
I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote oppose. Besides not having much user interaction (a must for an admin), I feel like the way he discussed the [[Vampire lifestyle]] with another [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]] was somewhat inappropriate. Though I'm not saying which side was right, the inability to come to a civil compromise worries me. However, I '''do'''' believe that you (Falcon) are (is) a dedicated [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]- keep up your good work, especially in the [[Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System]]! Given a few months and more interaction with the community, I'd be happy to support your adminship. Thanks! :)
Voting '''oppose''' for now; I think you can become a great user, but you're not to the point yet where admin privileges are necessary. <font color="red">
--
'''Oppose'''. Lacks the edits to be administrator, and in my opinion an admin should have more than 1,100 edits in a year. Could be a good user, but needs to interact more I think.
'''Support'''. I note about 1295 edits, fairly well distributed (nice work on templates, and in AfD). Yep, this'un is ready.
I agree. '''Support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]


Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''. Excellent job on spotting and reporting rv's and POV's.
'''Support'''. I like his edits.--
'''Yes'''.
'''Support'''. The more vandal-fighters and banners, the merrier.
'''Support'''. We need more vandal fighters - not everyone needs to focus primarily on writing articles.
'''Support'''. Excellent mix of Wikipedia-namespace and article-namespace contributions. Great mission statement.
'''Support''' - Long time, no see! Good luck Firebug. --
'''Support'''. Being an expert on fair use is not a requirement for adminship, being prepared to discuss with others ''is'' a requirement and Firebug has indicated he is willing to do this. I see no reason to oppose based on this, and I've not had any problems in my interactions with him meanign that I am happy to support.
<font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Support''' '''
'''Support''',
'''Support''', good vandal fighter.
'''Oppose''', with regret.  While [[User:Firebug]] seems to be an excellent vandal-fighter, I am concerned about this editor's stance on [[:Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg]].  [[User:Firebug]], after [[User:Extraordinary Machine]] tagged the image as lacking proper copyright information, made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AExtraordinary_Machine&diff=29746377&oldid=29745945 this edit], which pasted a number of images to [[User talk:Extraordinary Machine]] (accidentally, [[User:Firebug]] fixed it quickly), with an argument that seemed to be "Other people have failed to follow [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], so there is consensus to not do so".  The lack of familiarity with wiki-markup, and lack of familiarity with [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] are of less concern to me than the fact that the user's response was to attempt to argue that other problematic cases meant that [[:Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg]] must also be okay, rather than immediately researching the issue and attempting to minimize any risk of copyright infringement.  That attitude concerns me.
'''Oppose''' per JKelly.  In the final analysis, I actually think Firebug was probably right about the fair use claim (which stems from the content's fame as widely-discussed news item, and doesn't require attribution ''to the holder'' if attribution to the disseminating news service is given.  However, I think Firebug's argument was less than thoughtful; that, in combination with the low edit count, tips the balance to a "better-safe-than-sorry" vote.  I will happily support in a few months, and I'm sure Firebug will be much more deliberate with copyrights after this issue.
'''Oppose'''. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for Firebug to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs.
'''Oppose''', worried about depth of knowledge. Fair use is fairly obscure in terms of what I'd like an admin to know, but I'd want them ''not'' to make statements that are incorrect (such as rationales not being Wiki practises) because it belies not having read up properly before pronouncing.  -
'''Oppose''' for now. Too few edits.
'''Oppose'''. I can't support someone who a deletes a benign and self-evidently true statement like this by calling it "original research": [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Postal_Service&diff=30414723&oldid=30273793] An adminstrator should know better.
'''Oppose.''' Sorry. JKelly and others raise some good points. Just try to keep up editing and make sure you always use edit summaries, and I will support you in the future. --
'''Oppose''' - He chose to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Firebug&offset=0&limit=500&namespace=10 edit war] on the wrong side of the meta-template problem, and was extremely rude to me in the process.  I have no doubt that he wants adminship just so he can wield a bigger stick. Also, he called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xiong&diff=prev&oldid=13364212 this] vandalism... --
'''Oppose'''. No evidence to show that he has reformed from his earlier, rub-you-the-wrong-way ways.
'''Oppose''' - seems to be too POV.
'''Oppose''' - A number of encounters with this user have made me uneasy. Also, his very first edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AY-3-8910&diff=prev&oldid=13792976] shows prior knowledge of Wikipedia, and I'm concerned about the several-months-long gap until November 23, but then asking for adminship within nine days of returning.
'''Oppose''', as per SlimVirgin, and all of the fair use talk.  --
'''Neutral''', low edit count, so eh.
'''Neutral''', See a bunch of template ''issues'' you've gone through on your talk page (Thank you for not blanking them!) but don't see that you've ever used template talk pages re: your templates.
'''Oppose''' Only 65 edits --
'''Oppose''' Per Aranda.  Get a few hundred or few thousand edits under your belt.  I'd also like to strongly encourage you to remove your application just so you don't get barraged with oppose votes... --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">
Sorry, '''no'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
Only ~450 edits.  Good breadth of contributions so far.  Don't see much evidence of vandalism fighting, though it could be that I can't tell from the very few edit summaries.  I like what I see, but it's just not enough.  (BTW: frappes are yummy).
Too often does not put edit summaries.
Good so far. But I'd like to see a lot more work done by Freestylefrappe.
Too few edits, and too many of those have no edit summary. Also, there isn't much to see on user or talk pages. I may well support a future nomination if there has been progress in those areas.
Edits not really high enough and doesn't even bother to answer questions below. [[User:ImpalerBugz|ImpalerBugz]] --
Not enough demonstrated experience (less than half of my own, and I don't think I'm experienced enough to be an administrator either).  Not answering the standard questions is also worrisome.  Apply again in a few more months.
Will support heartily at 1000 edits.  Mmm, caffeinated delicacies!  --
A look through his contributions shows a good trend, but I don't think he's quite ready yet.  Not enough experience here.  I would trust him not to deliberately misuse admin abilities, but I'm not sure he would know our rules and customs well enough to use them correctly.
Healthy start, but only 463 edits. If you continue as you are doing, I don't think I'll see any reason not to support you ''at a later date''.
Neutral.
Neutral, you're on the right track but you haven't got enough experience just yet. Come back in a month or two and I'll almost certainly support. Answering the questions next time will help too.
Neutral. Questions not answered.
'''Support''' Good longtime user with many good contributions to wikipedia.
[[That's hot]].
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', fine user with good reasons for wanting adminship. As for the fury, I haven't noticed any.

Looking through contribs, obviously good user, but does not appear would benefit from admin powers at all, plus doesn't leave edit summaries frequently.
'''STRONG OPPOSE''', failed to do RfA self nom properly, which I had to fix (and got caught in an edit conflict with Deathphoenix, trying to fix). Failed to list ending time. <s>Failed to answer questions</s>. Too little time on pedia. Too little edits. I sense a pileon. <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. (triple edit conflict) Sorry, at 271 [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Garykirk&dbname=enwiki edits] at less than two months of activity, you need some more time (and much more edits) to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. With time, you'd be a good user. Even with this RFA, there were a few problems: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=29207963&oldid=29201374 Inserting] a space before a line of text results in that text being displayed as a fixed width font, not as the Wikiformatting. You should "subst" the RfA template, otherwise when other people try to edit your RFA page, they get to the template page instead. Finally, self-nominators should already answer the candidate questions before putting themselves up for nomination. Come back when you have more experience (I might as well register my vote before perusing the now-answered questions, before I enter into yet ''another'' edit conflict). --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose'''. He needs to do more editing before requesting for adminship. 271 edits is not enough. --
'''Oppose''' Do a lot more here over the next few months and try again.  (Can someone end this?) --
'''Oppose''' per reasons already given, too soon, more edits, etc.
'''Support''' without reservation and as nominator--
'''Support''' without a reservation, because I don't ''need'' a reservation, my table is waiting.
'''Support'''. My only reservation was this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo&diff=30371290&oldid=30360049] puzzling "easy support" vote in an RfA for a user with less than 70 edits. No reason to oppose Gator1, though, and I think he'll make a good admin.
'''Support'''.  A regular at [[WP:AIV]], which is where I think I first encountered Gator1.  He was light on the edit summaries when he was new, but use since perhaps early November has been great. :) --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' - with two cats on his user page, he ''must'' be a worthy admin.
'''Support''' Good vandal fighter, I think he'd be a valuable addition to the sysop ranks.
'''Support''' Normally I would wait until 5 months of experience, but I think that this user could do good as an admin. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I remember Gator1 from when he first came here, then sometimes a bit too eager to kill off newbies or vandals (it's often a fine line). But in my opinion he's grown to a good and very dedicated wikipedian who has learned his ways around here and now would be a fine admin. And I belive wikipedia would be a better place if he becomes one.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. Gator is a regular at [[WP:AIV]] and is a dedicated vandal fighter. He is helpful to newbies and courteous all around. He has brought a number of issues to my attention that required admin intervention; his handling of those events leads me to believe he can be trusted to handle problematic situations with his own administrative tools.
--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' this is a good, well intentioned user and also, I trust BD2412's judgement.--
'''Support'''.  Gator is thoughtful, earnest and a truly decent Wikipedian.  He's got a solid head on his shoulders to boot.  Certainly not perfect, but I've never met a WP who is.  We should be so lucky as to have him as an admin.  ''(I do recall that he, like I, was "announced" by BD777 to have permission to "police" his page, but I don't recall that he ever gave BD an advance okay for that (I myself didn't), nor that he did much, if any, actual policing.  If he did ever delete vandalism, attacks, or snide remarks from BD's page, he was not only entitled but obliged to do that.  So I'm not sure how or why that should be held against him.  In l'affaire BD, I also recall that Gator thought for himself, did what he thought was right, and maintained behavior far surpassing some of BD's loudest and most obnoxious accusers.)''  Gator is qualified to learn the ropes of the admin's duties, and to carry out those duties.  I predict he will be better than average at the job, that he will learn from others with humility, and that he will continue to think for himself and not be driven to conform.
'''Support'''. Good contributor. I have looked at the concerns regarding his defense of BigDaddy, but it is perhaps more a sign that he assumes good faith further than others.
'''Support'''-'''''
'''Support''' - I have had only positive interactions with Gator.  A great addition. - <font color="red">[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]]</font><font color="blue">[[User Talk:Texture|&#964;]]</font><font color="red">
'''Support''': Forgive and forget. Does good work. &mdash;
'''Support''' I see no reason not to support at this time.  Good editor. --
'''Support''' per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777#Outside_View_of_Gator1]].  I think that it is wonderful that he is able to see the good in everyone, and we could use more people like this.  Not at all trigger happy and seems to be a genuine contributor who will help others.
'''Support'''
I'm going to be bold and support.  A little conflict is healthy, and Gator1 seems to be a decent fellow.  --
'''Support''' per [[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] and [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]].  I just had an interesting [[User:BigDaddy777|history lesson]], and I came away from it impressed with Gator's gutsy opposition to what he saw as a witchhunt in progress.  There are some really ugly dynamics that develop way too easily at web communities like this (I remember some nasty incidents at h2g2, back when I lived there...), and I like having admins around with a sensitivity to that.  The impulses that he was acting on there, tempered by the time since that he's spent learning more about Wikipedia and being a good vandal fighter, convince me that he'll make a fine administrator. -
'''Support''' --
'''Orange and Blue Support''' for a fellow [[University of Florida|UF]] alum...GO GATOR(s)!--
'''Support''' Dealt with an anxious contributor nicely, and I admire his willingness to defend someone against what he saw as an unfair situation.
'''Support'''. Responsible, already does a lot to improve Wikipedia, would do far more as an admin. --
'''Support''' per nomination. —
'''Support'''.  I've read all the oppose votes and most of the materials that they linked to,  Although it is obvious that Gator1 stepped into something he clearly regrets, I do not see it as an indication that he will misuse the tools.  Hand him the toolkit and wish him good luck. --
'''Support''' per nomination.
'''Support''' I trust both the candidate and nominator. --
'''Reluctant Oppose''' per the concerns of Katefan below.  I too got a bad vibe from Gator when he was a new user.  I understand that he's probably reformed, but my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct prevents me from supporting now.  Happy to support in two months, even, as long as record stays fair.
'''Oppose''' I looked through this user's VfD/AfD comments and they all seem to be "'''Delete''', per nom". A little more variety would be helpful...
'''Weak oppose''', I seem to remember him being too involved in the BigDaddy777 controversy. &mdash;
'''Oppose''':Gator1 fits the time cap of 3mos, however, I would like to see more edits, say, 3000, before I would consider promoting to a full janitor post.--Jay '''(
'''Oppose''' Too confrontational 1-2 months back, will support in 3-4 months time.--
'''Oppose'''. Needs to have a few more months yet. Right now, memories of his efforts to support BD777 are with me. Give it a few more months. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, nothing against you personally; I believe you that you got caught up in the BD777 affair and that you had no ill intentions, but I'd advise you to wait a few months before applying again, in case this fails. I'll gladly support then&ndash;your edits are good, and your record is only marred by this one single issue in my opinion&ndash;but it's too soon now, sorry. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Oppose''', as per above and below. Come back in 3 months.
'''Oppose''', due to the BD777 issue. As I recall, he became a little too combative in that dispute--I think that he is a little too excitable. I would be very apprehensive about his becoming an admin.
'''Oppose''' per Katefan, and users subsequent behavior at the censorship project.
'''Oppose''' as per Katefan, and my personal experience with this user, who defended BigDaddy777 in very unproductive ways, even while the user was blatantly violating policy and creating bad will. Gator1's welcome to continue to edit, but I have major concerns about him becoming an admin, based on what I've seen of his impartiality and approach to conflict resolution. --
'''Oppose''': (strongly) come back in 6 months with an examplary record and i'll say yes. here's a few examples off his talk of why i think it's too soon.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gator1&diff=25440531&oldid=25440407][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gator1&diff=25439932&oldid=25439764][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gator1&diff=25442852&oldid=25442791][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gator1&diff=25437604&oldid=25369536][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gator1&diff=23101707&oldid=23101464] [[User talk:Gator1#My opposition|lengthier explanation]] of present opposition given on Gator's talk page.
'''Strong Oppose'''  During the BigDaddy777 debacle Gator1 made '''numerous''' personal attacks. and supported BigDaddy's personal attacks on others. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gator1/Archive/#This_is_TOO_Rich]. In fact during the BigDaddy777 incident Gator1 specifically instructed BigDaddy to ignore the RFC about him, and repeatedly stated that there was nothing wrong with BigDaddy's behavior. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777]. BigDaddy777 has since been not only permanently banned, but has multiple restrictions on top of that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777] --
'''Oppose''' with a strong inclination to vote '''Support''' next time around. --
Shows an appropriate attitude in responses to the questions below, but since Gator1 has only been around for a relatively short time, past problems are not sufficiently distant. --
'''Oppose''', but am optimistic about supporting Gator1 next time around.  Given his recent good contributions I didn't want to vote oppose until I'd had a chance to look through the [[Laura Schlessinger]] page he referenced.  There are a few comments there, but nothing that would rise to the level of the significant conflict resolution I was hoping to see.  Because I have yet to see how Gator1 would handle himself in another partisan conflict, I must officially vote oppose.  I was reluctant to bring up specific diffs from the past because he seems to be doing a fine job these days, but I fear that others voting yes have not adequately assessed the past situation.  Gator1 may have been defending someone as a knee-jerk reaction to feeling he was "ganged up on," but the manner in which he did it was not all right for any editor much less an administrator.  I would be reluctant to support someone for admin with this short amount of time on Wikipedia regardless of who they were; combined with this past incident it makes it impossible for me to support.  I look forward to Gator1's next nomination, before which time I hope to see him in action in another dispute, and moreover I hope there are no hard feelings here. (Addendum to my comments at "Neutral" below) · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience.

<s>I am not sure I'm ready to support Gator1 as an administrator.  My initial thought when I saw that he had been nominated was to vote oppose; the only reason I haven't is because he seems to have done some good things lately and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt for those recent edits.  However I remain concerned enough about his past activities on Wikipedia, around late September/early October (alluded to below under conflicts), that I can't in good conscience -- for now -- vote yes.  Gator1 publicly helped to egg on an extraordinarily disruptive user ([[User:BigDaddy777]]), now banned. In doing so, Gator1 made very combative and unbecoming statements in support of this user.  It hasn't been that long since this happened, and while I see that he's made some valuable contributions, I'd like to see more evidence that he can handle himself and others in a conflict without behaving as before. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>
'''Almost Support'''. I would support, but I really like to see people be around here for awhile longer, first. IMO, the BigDaddy issue is long, long past. Gator has been doing good work here.
'''Neutral'''. I like the work Gator1 has done around AfD, but it's a little too early for my tastes. Will happily support in a few months.
'''Support''', I see only good edits, no reason to oppose. --
'''Support'''; edit count is only a guideline by which I oppose (i.e. 10 edits is out of the question, as is 100, but 600 is adequate).
Only 740 edits, with a considerable amount towards [[Wikipedia:Wikifun]].  More than half of his edits have been in the last month, and 15% of his edits have been in the last 3 days.  Little interaction on his talk page.  I do like what I see, but I'd like to see more.
Nice guy, but needs more article experience.  --
Needs to get more involved with the project as a whole, his edits to date make it very difficult to judge whether he merits adminship. Particularly lacking is interaction with other users. He has made a good start though.
Not yet.
Support after 1200 edits. --
Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]],
Oppose. try again in six months. it is still too early.
An edit count of (as of this writing) 746, with a considerable amount towards [[Wikipedia:Wikifun]], is not a good sample to judge how Gkhan effectively interacts with the community as a whole.
While the edit count isn't impressive, I really like Gkhan's help with vandals. Please keep with your work.
Nice work so far, but not enough edits in talk and important janitorial wikipedia namespace pages.
I'll echo the sentiments of the others in the Neutral section.
'''Support'''.  I came across this vote not via RFA, but by checking out this user who has put some work into making VFD work well (in the particular case I was checking out, [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fjact]]).  User has 1706 edits spread over different categories, and has been around since June 2004 (becoming regularly active in November 2004).  Most of the opposition to the RFA acknowledges Gkhan has been around since 2004, has 1300+ edits in non-article space, and has made a positive contribution to Wikipedia.  The main reason for opposition seems to be due to his focus on namespaces other than articles.  We have a division of labor in real life, and if someone is not the world's best article writer but does a great job on lots of thankless tasks around Wikipedia, and everything about them is admin-worthy except for what some might perceive as a lack of article name-space contributions, as far as myself, I consider them admin-worthy anyhow.  What I've seen of Gkhan has been positive, and if the only objection is lack of article namespace contributions, it's not enough of one to send me to neutral, or oppose.  My main concern is preventing "rogue admins" who will push POV, block people and protect pages willy-nilly causing many people to complain about them and the high bar set to de-admin someone.  I don't have this sort of fear with regards to Gkhan.  And that Gkhan's main contributions are outside of the article namespace is not enough of an objection to remove my support.
'''Support''' I've reviewed some of Gkhan's recent edits and it looks to me like he/she has made a positive contribution across the board. Polite and focused in interactions with other editors, and doing a lot of detailed work on janitorial tasks. Wikipedia is a big place and there is plenty of room for specialization.
'''Support'''. A good user who seems to be well experienced in how Wikipedia works.
'''Support''' one doesn't need to contribute a lot to main namespace to be a good admin.
'''Support'''.  Agree with Grue.  --
'''S'''upport. Non-namespace work gave me the impression Gkhan was already an admin. While making contributions is a great way of getting admin-related experience (e.g. settling content disputes) there are other ways of acquiring these skills.
'''Support'''. You can be a good admin without being a good "scribe", and I think of at least a couple of existing admins who contribute very little to articles but lots to adminny things and help the 'pedia out just the same. -
'''Support''' I'm impressed with his edits to the talk spaces, which is where I think the admin role really comes into play.  Communication with other users: very important for an admin.
'''Support''' You don't necessarily need lots of article edits to be an admin - communication skills are much more important. Besides, newpage patrol is ''really'', ''seriously'', underrated, since edits on deleted pages don't show up in your editcount. -
'''Support'''. Gkhan has shown himself to be both dedicated and trustworthy. Adding content to articles is important, but so is welcoming newcomers and going through the new articles. If Gkhan has recognised that editing articles is not his strong point, I fail to see how asking him to reach certain arbitrary edit counts helps Wikipedia when he could help by doing things which he is good at.
'''Support'''
--
'''Support''' - as Splash said, a large number of article contributions is not absolutely necessay. Gkhan now has almost 2000 total edits and has over 500 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. He is resonably mature and helps out around here, and is suitable for admin. &mdash;
'''Support'''. A great person and someone I think we would be able to trust with admin rights. More edits would make more people happy, but my personal interaction with him leads me to believe that he's fit for adminship. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''. Only 367 edits to article namespace.  Ultimately, this work is the whole point of the encyclopedia.
'''Oppose''' Gkhan is clearly here in good faith, but I reckon is a little inexperienced as yet.--
'''Oppose''' I'd love to vote for you, but I don't think now's the time. --
'''Oppose'''. Borderline but you could insert cats, sort stubs, fix bad articles lots of things that don't involve having talent as a writer. I agree with you about Ed Poor though, so your attitude is commendable. If you fail, come back in three months and drop me a note.
'''Oppose''' I have an edit standard that is nearly 3x higher than your current total. Also, I get the feeling you are fishing for compliments by basically trashing your own work in your nomination. A few more edits and a little more self-confidence is needed.
'''Oppose'''. Man, you need more experience. If you don't have 2000+ edits, I wouldn't bother applying here. --
'''Oppose'''. Edits to article namespace are a must- the heart of this encyclopedia is its articles, and 367 edits don't meet my admin standards. Sorry. --
Will support at 1000 mainspace edits.  --

--
'''Oppose''' not nearly enough edits.
'''Neutral''' - Seems like a level-headed and nice kind of guy but his lack of article space edits worries me slightly, not enough to oppose but enough not to support. I feel he needs a more varied approach to his activities here otherwise he is not getting the experience he needs to be an admin. He needs to find a topic that interests him, and if he finds it difficult to write well, then he could do the legwork so that other people just have to copy edit it. --
'''Neutral''' - I utterly respect the fact that we need many different things done, and perhaps an editor can contribute greatly to Wikipedia without ever touching an article - but 1700 edits over 13 months is a bit thin for an admin irrespective of how many of them were in what space. --
good user, but with the  distribution of his edits (among namespaces), and as a self-nominator, he would need about twice as many edits for my support. Editors can do a lot of good without ever touching an article, but on my ideal Wikipedia, the admins are also active editors.
'''Neutral''': Active on village pump, VfD, RfC, RfA, Deletion reform, Reference desk, Arbitration policy, stub-sorting, and vandal fighting. I do not see that the low # of contributions is a reason ''not'' to vote for this candidate. Admin responsibilities are not in creating and adding content to articles. User has been here for over a year, and has been generally active for the last six months. I see no reason to not trust this user. My only reason to oppose is the average number of edits per day is low, at just over 4 per day. We need active admins, not passive ones. If you contributed a large amount of content to articles, then the average # of edits might be "artificially low", but your low number of article edits does not tend to support that assertion. With these factors in mind, I vote neutral. --
'''Neutral''' - I'd like to see a lot more article namespace edits; 1000 would be good.  He seems like a great editor though; I've seen his work at [[Wikipedia:Deletion reform]] and his RfC against Ed.  A non-admin filing an RfC against a senior admin must be pretty bold in his own right, and I think that given what that RfC was for, he did the right thing, and I think that's what really put him on the map here.  I'll support with more article edits; it looks like this nomination won't pass, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you're running again in a few months (ideally, nominated by another user, if possible; multiple self-noms don't usually go well). --
'''Neutral''' - It's hard to say since I haven't seen him around a lot... but, he might be a good user to do cleanup and newpages patrolling... and non-controversial-article related problems... but, I don't think admin is just for that.
Did a good job chasing a vandal from my user page [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
Sorry, I think you need much more experience, I'm sure that given time you will make a good admin though!
'''Oppose'''. [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?hash=871d1075f78dd88194a13375b79712a22c4cd8d5&user=Goeagles4321&dbname=enwiki Only 227 edits.] I'd recommend that you review [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards]] to see the kind of experience level most people want to see in potential sysops.--
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, you need to have been around a little longer than this.
'''LAST oppose'''. Please do not pile on any further. --

Welcome back!



'bout time.
Of course. --
Yep.

Supported then, still support now. --
I retain my support of him.
--
Support, on looking back in history at how Guanaco lost his adminship I can only compare it to a [[penis panic]].
Support as before.

Yes.
yes
I definately support Snowspinner's nomination.
Support, I believe he's learned from his mistake.
Support.
That Guanaco was able to accept the removal of his admin status speaks well of him. --
Hard worker, can be trusted with privileges IMO.
Definitely. -
Support.
Support, and furthermore support -
'''Support''' Fixed term de-opping would have been fairer in my opinion. --
I assume good faith.  --
This is a no brainer. Support.
Good user.--
'''Support''' There are some Wikipedians who should learn to forgive... We are humans, we all make mistakes.
Support - slightly tentative, but in the absence of a probation option, I'm prepared to give him the chance. I do trust that Guanaco will take note of the reluctance of such respected figures as RickK and Ambi to give their support, and act a little more cautiously from now on.  I think he can be trusted.
Support - can't see why not --

Support.
Support. While I understand concerns about possible misuses of sysop status, the[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-March/020427.html 172/Ed Poor fiasco] has shown these as a widespread issue that can only be addressed by continued political oversight.
What's the issue with Willy on Wheels?  Clearly he ought to be hard-banned.  Apparently he isn't. (Is this true?)  Guanaco explains that he edited a page to reflect this fact.  Maybe the fact ought to be changed, rather than Guanaco chastised.

--
Support. Never should have lost it in the first place. -
Whatever his past transgressions, I strongly consider three months enough time for him to have realised them and resolved to do better.  Guanaco has impressed me in the past, and I voted against his de-sysopping for that very reason.
[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) One of my last acts as an admin and a contributor on this site. Let them back. -
Support.  I'm a little shocked at the opposing comments, particularly the ones that advocate "making an example" of Guanaco.  I for one am pretty impressed that he is taking up the neccessary work to regain the trust of the community; think how much easier it would have been to create a new account from scratch with a clean slate.  However, he is taking the harder route, to clear his name in front of the people who originally de-sysopped him, and I find that pretty respectable.  This clearly shows that he has an appreciation for the Wikipedia community and policy.  I have to support that. --
'''Support'''.—
Give him another chance. --
<span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
No.
Not only no, but ... well, no.
Oppose. A loose cannon for a long stretch -- a few months of keeping one's nose clean isn't enough to make up for that. Still a troll protector [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=10735847&oldid=10735767]; if Guanaco had the power to unblock [[User:The Recycling Troll]] he certainly would have done so.
Oppose. I gave away some of my own rights to have him de-admined. —
Three months is a pretty short time, and the edit history of the last months would hardly have motivated a candidacy. Can Guanaco do more good than bad for Wikipedia as an admin? The answers below may seem tough or cool to some and arrogant to others. In the context of the pre-history, I find the attitude far too arrogant. It worries me that a long list of the more involved Wikipedians great Guanaco back as if this attitude is what we need and wish for.
I was going to vote "neutral" until I checked his contributions and saw his most recent edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=prev&oldid=11047802], which was removing '''all''' information on "Willy on Wheels" from the banned users page (it was reverted soon after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=0&oldid=11047802]). I do not want an admin to display this erratic behavior.
<s>Maybe. Can "support" voters put forth a more substantial reason why you're supporting now, especially if you previously voted oppose? [[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 13:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)</s> No [[Wikipedia:Bots|bots]] in user accounts. Period.
Quite frankly, I'm afraid I can't support.  And I'm a little bewildered as to why '''so many''' people have changed their vote from just three months ago.  Has Guanaco done something terribly worthwhile or noteworthy that I've missed?  I am weary of Guanaco's behaviour, and maybe it has changed, maybe not.  But as hard as it is to deadmin people around here, I'm not keen on finding out.
I am not very familiar with Guanaco or his history, so this vote is more based on a general observation.  It seems to me that if sysopping is "not a big deal", de-sysopping is.    It hardly ever happens; so if an admin so misbehaves as to be required by the AC to go through RFA again, and 22 people oppose it after having had an opportunity to observe the person in action as an administrator, I am not sure that person should ever be an admin again, or if so, it should be after a much longer period of redemption than two or three months and a relatively small number of edits.   I wouldn't assume that a person would mature very much in three months; so I would really want to have seen a lot of good edits in stressful situations to feel that trust in him as an admin was again warranted.  If the slate was wiped clean after the de-sysop, he should at least show as much good activity as a new user who joined the site that day would be required to have in order to be supported on RFA --- as if, for example, he had simply created a new account and had been working all this time to establish a new persona.  That hasn't happened.  --
<s>Neutral for now but leaning towards oppose.</s> ~500 edits, most of which are minor tweaks, since his de-sysopping is not sufficient to inspire confidence that his previous erratic behavior does not continue. Given we have enough fresh, qualified candidates for adminship, I'd prefer supporting them instead. Also seems to be running a bot on his main account (see my question below). [[User:Jni|jni]] 10:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Vote changed from neutral to oppose; someone who defends [[User:Willy on Wheels!]] ''can be'' all that bad.
Oppose at this time, because it seems to me Guanaco ought to be willing to demonstrate plenty of actual good activity before expecting his admin privileges back. Mere absence of bad activity, in the sense that, as RickK says, he's hardly done ANYTHING, doesn't give much indication of how he'd use the privileges next time round.
Strongly oppose (moved from neutral). It is now abundantly clear with his attitude towards dealing with The Recycling Troll and even Willy on Wheels that he has not changed in the least. RickK clearly has a point - he needs to actually show a good deal of good behaviour before we trust him again.
Oppose (moved from neutral). Removing Whilly on Wheels from the list of banned users [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=11047802&oldid=11046414] should have been done in combination with a discussion on the talk page. However, talk page comment was added only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users&diff=11104003&oldid=11067254] '''after''' Carrp commented on this when he changed his vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco2&diff=11058072&oldid=11057341]. This seems to be exactly the behavior that got him in trouble last time. (Note: The Whilly on wheels was removed by Guanaco again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&diff=0&oldid=11100946], this time with talk comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_banned_users&diff=0&oldid=11104778]).--
Oppose. What RickK said.
Oppose. Sorry, but there are still too many question marks around his previous and recent behaviour for me to support his reinstatement.
Oppose.  Sorry, Guanaco -- there are some good reasons to have you back, but comments on [[Wikipedia talk:List of banned users]] make it clear to me that you are still seriously out of step with the community on what does and doesn't constitute blockable behavior.  It might be a good risk to have Guanaco an admin, but the fact that it '''is''' a risk, coupled with the fact that we have dozens of excellent admins (and no apparent shortage of good candidates) who are far less risky, make opposition my choice after careful thought.
Questionable judgment, reckless unilateralism, and refusal to admit mistakes are bad enough in an editor. Guanaco's behavior before his desysopping demonstrated why no-one with these traits ought to be trusted with adminship, and I have no confidence (yet) that he won't immediately resume his old behavior. (And the way he tagged this vote for speedy deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco2&diff=11152084&oldid=11152064] after it turned unfavorable just clinches my doubts.) —
Three months of very little activity doesn't give a lot to base an opinion on.  Recent activity, however, reminds me of the comments from three months ago. Also, as a candidate for adminship, he marked his RfA for speedy deletion instead of withdrawing in the normal fashion.  As a former admin, and a current candidate, he surely knows the CSD criteria.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Guanaco&diff=8117415&oldid=8109703 Not much has changed] -- Sigh...  Oppose.
Oppose.
Oppose due to the current Willy on Wheels debacle.  The silly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels poll] reads like something Iasson would write.  I quote: ''"Votes for a hard ban will count toward a soft ban and votes for a ban of longer duration will count toward a ban of shorter duration."''
<s>Still unsure about him. The edit history doesn't show trouble since his de-adminship. However, since d-a he has only ~ 10 edits on user talk pages, ~10 edits on article talk pages, 3 edits on Wikipedia talk pages, etc, including some vandalism reverts and poll votes. Not quite enough for me to make myself a picture. Also, his talk page is blanked, as is [[User talk:Guanaco/archive]]. There also seems to be a ''user controlled bot'' running under his account. None of these three points validate an objection, but they do not instill confidence either. I will keep on watching this nomination, and may change my vote in the future.<s> --
'''Extreme nominator support'''
'''S'''upport warmly. Have previously been impressed with Guanaco's admin work and have no doubt he will perform again.
'''Support'''. He has been an admin with no problems in my part of the encyclopedia, to my recollection. --
'''Ground floor.''' --
'''Support''' He's been away long enough.
'''Support''' time to bring back this experienced user.
'''Support'''.  I believe people are capable of change as well.  Give him another chance.
--
'''support'''. About time, too.
'''Support''' - Mopify every Zig. You know what you doing. Mopify Zig. For great justice.
'''Support''' - he has been an excellent admin before, and will no doubt be an excellent admin again. --
Sure.  --
'''Support''', it's about time he was given another chance.-
Support with trepidation. Some people seem to be on a kick to rehabilitate banned users lately. That's nice if it works, but the benefits to the encyclopedia are not all that great when balanced against the potential to dissipate our energies. Rehabilitating former admins strikes me as a much more useful proposition. Based on his comments here, Guanaco has acknowledged and explained his previous conduct in a way that suggests he recognizes the problems with it. I hope therefore that these scenarios will not repeat themselves. --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong Support'''; Guanaco made some mistakes, for which he has apologized, and has promised to work on.  He's done a lot of good work both before and after deadminship.  Let's not deny him adminship for something that happened nearly a year ago.


'''Support''' did he do anything bad as of late?
'''Support''' Let by-gones be by-gones.

'''Support'''. Agree with Snowspinner on this one.
'''Support''', again. -
'''Support'''
'''Support''' What he did wasn't even bad.
'''Support''' -- albeit only moderately.  I assume good faith on the part of this user and I'd give him a second chance.  However... if events repeat, I won't be as kindly with my vote.  --
'''Support'''

'''Support'''. We should forget about his past mistakes (he has apologised for them), and move on. --
'''Support''' There is a lot to read here and after digesting the entire thing I see that I can think of no reason to not assume good faith.

'''Support''' the kind of attitude displayed in the oppose votes below is why I rarely vote on RFAs these days. Forgive and forget, I had one of my old account's userpage vandalized by this user but that was over a year ago! If we can't forgive, then the core values of Wikipedia are comprimised and the vandals will have striked a major victory. '''
'''Support''' Unquestionably. One of the old ''[[Ronin]]'' -long time editor/admin. --
'''Support''' warmly, a great Wikipedian he is.
'''Support''' having read comments and assuming good faith--
'''Support''' per Arktos. Guanaco's answers below seem adequate and sincere and I'm all for second chances. But I can understand that people want to see a few more weeks of problem-free editing so I look forward to supporting again soon :) -
'''Support.''' I believe in second chances. I can't quantify whether or not he'll do these things again, but Guanaco's responses below strike me as sincere. I don't think that the belief that he will be difficult to de-admin (if necessary) holds water: he was de-adminned once, and the second time will certainly be easier. Give the man back his mop. I, for one, trust in him enough that he will do well with it. It's time to move on: mistakes happen, and it's pointless to keep a man in the mud after an apology and a promise not to do it again.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose'''. Some comments from previous nominations don't bode well (" A loose cannon for a long stretch", "I do not want an admin to display this erratic behavior", "Has Guanaco done something terribly worthwhile or noteworthy that I've missed? I am weary of Guanaco's behaviour, and maybe it has changed, maybe not. But as hard as it is to deadmin people around here, I'm not keen on finding out", "he needs to actually show a good deal of good behaviour before we trust him again", "Questionable judgment, reckless unilateralism, and refusal to admit mistakes are bad enough in an editor. Guanaco's behavior before his desysopping demonstrated why no-one with these traits ought to be trusted with adminship", "as a candidate for adminship, he marked his RfA for speedy deletion instead of withdrawing in the normal fashion", "Has repeatedly done dubious things in regard to admin powers, and has often been recalcitrant when asked about them", "I believe that admins who are willing to take unilateral actions&mdash;actions which may or may not be in accord with the will of the community&mdash;should be ready to explain themselves and discuss their reasonings when the inevitable questions arise. If their actions are repeatedly challenged, they should stop. Guanaco did not, to my knowledge, show himself to be open to discussion of his controversial actions, nor did he stop after several challenges from other users" , "He frequently abused his privileges, and acted with disdain toward community consensus. He makes no effort to "play well with others," and the ArbCom decision should be considered carefully", "He's unblocked users who there was consensus to block (such as impersonators), misused blocking powers in other ways, he's unprotected pages without the slightest regard for what was going on on talk, causing edit wars to unnecessarily restart - and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head", "Admins should act with consensus and be held to a higher standard", "Guanaco seems to be a blazing loose cannon" -
'''Strongly oppose.''' I agree with Ambi above. User has a history of problems. —
Per Ambi, and per my comments the last two times around. &#8212;
'''Oppose''' we need to be tough on rogue admins imho. I expect to see a clear sustained pattern of excellent behavior before I'd consider voting support.
'''Strong Oppose''' per Ambi.  Rogue admins are an increasing problem, and readminning this editor would send a very bad message.  Simply too little to gain, too much to lose.
'''Never''' Guanaco used to use admin privileges to protect trolls. I'm not interested to find out if he/she has gotten over that.
Oppose due to concerns stated above, particularly Ambi's.
'''oppose''' per concerns above --
'''Oppose''' Changed my vote to oppose because of what I've seen.
'''Oppose'''. I'm quite willing to vote as if the slate was wiped clean after his last RfA. There's really only been two weeks of consistent editing since his last RfA in March (with sporadic edits in the interim). Given that it's a long, difficult process to deadmin a user, I'm going to need to see a longer period of good editing.
'''Oppose'''—Since his last RFA, Guanaco has done nothing to change my opinion. (In fact, it doesn't look like he's done much of anything.)  <span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
'''Oppose'''. Why should I support a candidate that tried to get his previous nomination speedy deleted and has since then accumulated only very few edits? Too little to gain, too much risk involved letting Guanaco run amok again. We have much better candidates in line waiting for the mop.
'''Oppose'''. I am certainly willing to discount past issues and let bygones be bygones. However, discounting his history, I must note that there's hardly any ''recent'' history to judge him by, as he made hardly any edits from april until the end of october. So I oppose for lack of activity.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant and others.  We seem to have have a nearly endless supply of good admin candidates who have no history of bad actions whatsoever... so why would we re-admin someone whose major claim-to-fame is abusing admin privledges and getting de-adminned for it?
'''Oppose''' pretty much per what Radiant said, but also because your characterization of the situation in your answer to question #4 below is pretty far from the mark. You weren't deadminned for blocking Cantus, you were deadminned for consistently controversial use of admin tools. An answer that whitewashed indicates you don't really understand the problem. -
'''Oppose''' per reasons given above.  With no usable way to de-admin people, I have extreme reservations about giving the tools to those who've been known to abuse them.
'''Oppose''', disagree with nominator that now is the time.
'''Oppose'''. Toughie. Second chances are definitely good. Proven abuse of admin tools definitely bad. So the question seems to be: "would he do it again?". This is hard to judge from recent edits; certainly some good RC patrol in there, but also more reverting than constructing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=28351599 this edit] demonstrates he reverts rather quickly, without reading the full extent of the edit. Tricky. But then my eye catches question 4: De-adminned for reverting one person after 26 hours? Judging from the answer on question 4, Guanaco doesnt seem to have gotten the jist (sp?) of the case against him. And how can you learn from the past, if you dont acknowledge what went wrong? As such, judging from the (admittedly little) information available, the answer to the above question would seem to be: "he might". Hence I oppose.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant. <s>[[User:82.26.164.114|82.26.164.114]]</s>
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose''' per Radiant.
'''Oppose''', previous admins should have a higher bar than regular users, and by that standard, there is just too little to go on at this time.
'''Oppose''': agree with Turnstep. If it weren't so hard to get something done about unaccountable admins, it would not be such a big deal, I think.
'''Strong oppose''' to anybody who had a hand in the reinstatement of [[User:Michael]] into the Wikipedia community.
'''Strong Neutral'''... don't know which way to go. Ambi and Snowspinner both make excellent points, so I'll take the middleground. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Neutral''' Tough one.--
I am also forced to be very neutral. On the one hand, Guanaco has done good work fighting vandalism and working on deletion. I want to assume that he would handle the role well and uncontroversially.  On the other hand, he has had significant problems in the past. The majority of the work that he wants to do(other than acutally pushing Alt+D) can be done by all users, so I think it unnecessary to give him these tools. I wouldn't be particularly worried if he were to have them, but I am by no means certain enough to support him.
Guanaco has given me his word that we won't see a repeat of last time, so in the interests of assuming good faith I'm moving my vote to neutral.
I cannot in good faith support or oppose. I believe Guanaco means well, but some of the objections raised worry me. Maybe next time.
[[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] 12:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC).  I support this nomination, because I believe the English Wikipedia is enriched enormously by users who are not native speakers and/or are active on other language versions of this project.  Without them, I suspect the English Wikipedia would have an extreme bias towards the USA, England, and other English-speaking countries.  Moreover, the work of such users in copying, translating, and connecting articles across languages is invaluable in giving the project an internal cohesion, so that it is a single project and not 164 different projects.  It does appear that [[User:Haham hanuka]] needs to get a clue or two about formatting, but even my own formatting skills are not perfect, after eight months as an admin.  Give this user a chance.
Agree with David Cannon.  --

'''Oppose'''. Agree with Carrp. I had to fix the self nom of the user to confirm with the guidelines of nominations. His user page is also pretty empty, and his talk page has few comments, two of which are in hebrew, two are disagreements, and one is my request for him to sign his self-nom. In general he does not seem to be familiar with the community or the policies and guidelines. --
'''Oppose'''. Clearly not enough experience.
'''Oppose''', lacks the necessary experience.

Oppose for now based on lack of editing experience.

Err... His response to
Sorry, but the user seems to want adminship too much (in a bad way). And to echo the votes above, he needs more experience with disputes, content, policy, and complex tasks. Maybe later. --
I personally do not consider any of the things mentioned by Carrp above to be particularly serious, at least not in the sense that they should cost anyone an adminship.  On the other hand, I don't see anything really special that would recommend this user for adminship either.  The edit count and longevity are respectable but not extraordinary, and I cannot help but notice that while the user has nominated himself and replied to others' comments about his nomination, they still have not completed the three generic questions (below) as of this writing.  Thus, I see not enough evidence to vote either way.
'''Strong support.''' I am proud to be the first to support Halibutt.  On the issues with which we have interacted (though I have not participated in the discussions mentioned below), I have seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics, in addition to his skills as a researcher and map creator.  Even when we have disagreed (as has happened occasionally) I have found him to be both reasonable and persuasive, and have learned a lot from his points. A great candidate for a mop. --
'''Support''', as above.
Cue '''I thought he was an admin support'''! I've never had the opportunity to interact with him, but I've been impressed with many of his edits. Should make a really good admin!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Strong Support''' [[Image:Flag of Poland.svg|20px]]. Wikipedia potrzebuje więcej zdolnych biało-czerwonych adminów. - [[Image:Flag of Poland.svg|20px]]
'''Support''', seems harmless enough. —
'''Support''' Seems like he would make a good admin --
'''Support'''—good contributor with a good sense of humour.  ''—
'''Support'''. Critics have raised legitimate concerns and I feel Halibutt has responded to them adequately. -
'''Support''' I have no problems with this user and the fact that he has enemies doesnt change that fact.  Admin is no big deal!
'''Support'''. Being Polish nationalist and stubborn in some cases are not very serious arguments against adminship. In my experience, he respects serious arguments. IMO he is a pretty mature person and I don't expect him abusing the privileges, which are pretty much limited and '''accountable''', by the way.
'''Support'''
'''Weak Support''' did not have to interact with him too much, but overall looks like knowlegeable user, I do feel some of his tendencies are not very good and infringe on other users, but I do not believe he will ever misuse the tools, or will he? –
'''Support'''. Great contributor to Wikipedia.
'''Support'''.  The scale of the contributions by Halibutt is quite impressive.  True, he has strong views on certain subjects and some of his actions were unconventional, but this should not exclude him from adminship.  If we were as a rule to exclude admins who made controversial edits, we would be excluding many excellent Wikipedians.
'''Support'''. I do admit that Halibutt's statements and actions left me consternated at times (esp. in the context of the VfD against the "Polish Black Book" or in several naming disputes). However, that was mainly against the background of a solid body of undisputedly constructive edits, which easily qualifies him for adminship. --
'''Support'''. There are times when Halibutt can be hard-headed during arguments, but he should make a fine admin (and if hard-headedness was a stumbling block for adminship, I'd have been de-adminned ages ago!)
'''Support''' To comment on some of the opposition, I was probably the very first active editor on Wikipedia to challenge some of the site’s "Russophobia," so I understand where they are coming from. I am not a Russian nationalist or a Russian myself (I happen to be of Polish Jewish descent). But at times I felt compelled to do so because a counter-balance was needed in order to ensure WP:NPOV, and no one else was providing it. Otherwise, "Russophobia" is always going to be pervasive in an English-speaking online community because of the legacy of the Cold War. Therefore, at times I have been in strong disagreement with Halibutt. But I was able to reach a understanding with him during our first encounter, and all of my run-ins with him since then were quite cordial. Halibutt may have a strong point of view shaped by personal and family experiences with the oppressive end of Soviet and Russian imperialism, but so what? ''Everyone'' has a point of view.  Unlike the POV editors unsuited for adminship, however, Halibutt is able to work constructively with editors whose worldviews starkly diverge from his own, and he is able to compromise. There are really no compelling reasons to oppose his nomination at this time.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Although Halibutt can be involved in disputes (see Comments below), I have confidence that he would not abuse admin abilities. He is approachable, productive, and would be a worthy administrator.
'''Support''' Strong views, but willing to discuss, productive, reliable, concerned with the project.
'''Support''' as per 172.
'''Strong support''' I watched Halibutt contributions in Lithuania and Vilnius articles and also have had discussions with him by myself. Halibutt has strong views, but discuses them and accepts consensus. Also, he is one of those who seems having strong ethics. I think he will be able to separate administrator duties from his POV, so I trust and support him. --
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Strong character, vivid views, good editing--
'''Support''', having and expressing strong views should not disqualify someone from becoming an admin. Unless it can be clearly demonstrated such views might interfere with their fair judgement. From all I've seen and read this is not the case with Halibut. So let's '''assume good faith''' and extend the mop to this fine candidate from the former Soviet bloc:>--
'''Strong support'''. What?! You seemed like one already! A committed Wikipedian, definitely deserves the mop 'n' bucket.
'''support''',
'''Support''' If anything Halibutt (and especially Piotrus) have played a role in reigning in Polish nationalism on the [[Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board|Polish Notice Board]], by encouraging the use of English there [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=18264983&oldid=18261255][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=17892951&oldid=17892818]and moving opinions out of the project space and into talk[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Polish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=15035464&oldid=15034971]. -
'''support'''
'''support''' I am no longer participating in wikipedia activelly but I hope my vote counts. Halibutt adds valuable information to the site and I disagree with the accusations that his views would not permit him do adminship well, in fact, unlike some other users, Halibutt is very able to understand opinions of other people and to go to compromises. As well, he visits wikipedia often. I think he would thus do well as admin, especially if he will not try to enforce his own opinions using his admin rights; I think however that he will not, thus I vote in support of his adminship.
'''Support'''. I have not seen his nationality cloud his judgement at all. All it has lead to is insight from a different point of view, which is needed for a true NPOV. Halibutt gets my full support.
'''Support'''. Like [[172]], [[User:DeirYassin|DeirYassin]], [[User:Anárion]]... Halibutt is a devoted and eager to help and discuss community member. I've observed a bit [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo's]] crusade against some Polish contributors and all this buzz and I don't really get it. It's very easy to accuse someone for nationalism because we all ''have'' some cultural background but it's really hard to fight with such an accusation.
'''Strong support'''. Who said an admin should not have and opinion of his own ? My first contact with Halibutt was our conflict on a town naming ;-). Since then I've been meeting him frequently on many edits and respect him for his willingness to discuss and ability to reach consensus. Although he is a difficult opponent. I'm convinced of his strong ethics and am sure his adminship would be to the benefit of wikicommunity. --
'''Support'''. Halibutt is dedicated wikipedian, who contributed a lot of articles and is always able to reach and respect the consensus
'''Support'''. I've only interacted with Halibutt briefly, but after that experience, it is my belief that he's an open minded, well-mannered and collaborative editor. Far from pushng single minded edits, I've seen him mediate in disputes in which he could have easily sided with a particular position closer to his own personal beliefs, yet he worked hard in order to achieve consensus and a neutral and encyclopedic agreement. I believe that highly qualified and friendly Polish users like Halibutt, Piotrus, Lysy et al should not pay for the questionable activities of a few another (and very different) users of the same nationality, against which in fact they often intercede in pursuit of a true and scholar NPOV. '''<font color="green">[[User:Shauri|Sh]]</font color>'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''<font color="light blue">a</font color>''']]'''<font color="green">
'''Strong support.''' I second the comments above, especially Haukurth.  --
'''Nominator continuing support'''. In case there is any doubt as to were I stand... :) --
''Support'' despite there are problems but, IMO, unrelated to adminship (see my comment in the "comments" section). --
'''Support'''. I haven't read any of the above or below comments, but in my experience Halibutt is both thoughtful and conciliatory. He has demonstrated that he respects Wikipedia and his position in the Wikipedia community. I am certain that he would do nothing to compromise that as an administrator. I hope that anyone who votes against Halibutt based on his dealings with me will consider that my vote here is ''support''.
'''Support''' –&nbsp;

'''Support''', as per [[User:Shauri|Shauri]]. Her judgment is always enough to convince me.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''; I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here, assume good faith, and base my vote on his recent history.  I remember the little brushfire over adding Polish names to German cities a few months ago, but when I put that incident in perspective with his ''extensive'' good contributions and obvious dedication to the project, I believe he will make a capable admin.
Sure. –
'''Support'''
Nationalistic tendencies are disturbing to me, the comments from my own nominator (dab) seem especially poignant, relating to another vote I just cast. Still, support votes from many editors whom I respect lead me to support. I hope to see the candidate refrain from administrative measures in areas pertaining to his/her point of view, which has been my modus operendi here. With great trepidation.
'''Support'''.  My favorite kind of editor (because it best promotes Wikipedia's purpose) is one who has a strong POV but knows how to compromise w/opponents and work toward consensus.  We *need* these solution-oriented editors/admins on controversial topics.  All that I've seen of Halibutt indicates he falls into this category. --
'''Support'''
Change from '''oppose''' to '''support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' People seem to think that if an editor merely has a POV then that automatically means he will be bias in every article he edits.  This could not be further from the truth, and Halibutt is an example of why.  He may want to edit something to make sure the views of his side are correctly defined, but he can still work with other people to make sure an article turns out NPOV.-
'''Support''' Is anyone not allowed to have strong opinions anymore, or should we only have robots as administrators? I am surprised that an editor who has contributed so substantially is not an administrator yet, so he gets my full support.
'''Support''' -
'''Support'''
From what I've seen, '''Support'''. --
'''Support''' Has done a lot of good work on difficult topics. --
'''Support'''. Seems to possess common sense; is simultaneously opinionated as hell and cognizant of the workings of NPOV. --
'''support''' - I realize there is bad-blood against Halibutt, and I cannot discern how much of it is deserved, and how much of it is projection. In examining Halibutt's response here to his opposition, I interpret that response as level-headed, collected, articulate and well-thoughtout. Overall, in reviewing random edits by Halibutt, I think he's reasonable and interested in the health of this project.
'''Support'''.  I think the accusations of "nationalism" are overblown just a bit. —
'''Support'''. Halibutt is clearly very dedicated to this project. Wiki will further benefit from his contributions in the adminship role.--
'''Support''' He's a good guy
'''Support''' - his contributions to Poland-related articles are great.
'''Support''' -he is neutral, willing to discuss any changes and in wealth of information.--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. '''
'''Strong Support'''. He has greatly given insight into great articles such as that on Josef Pilsudski, and [[Poland]] in general, aside from that, he has done many other worthwhile things for the Project.
'''Support''' long time committed / clearly reasonably stable and knowlegable / has shown willingness to move towards a consensus he doesn't agree with (e.g. the proposal that Warsaw Uprising, his "baby" should be split up).  He does show patriotism.  Taken too far I could have some problem with that.  However, after following some of the links listed elsewhere, the accusations of nationalist (==racist/xenophobic probably including anti-semitic/anti-russian in the case of a Pole) behavior don't seem to be true and I specifically reject the use of the term as close to being a personal attack.  I'd ask that he avoid being the admin that acts against Russians or Germans during disputes about pages involving Poland and its historical interactions with those other countries.   --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I don't think Halibutt is ready for adminship. He is a fierce Polish nationalist who takes pleasure in gratitiously bullying Russian editors. His Russophobic sentiments are too well known to enlarge upon it there. Just two days ago he declared that "if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian" (see [[Talk:Russophobia]]). I don't think it's a proper way of admin's behavior. No need for further comments. --
'''Oppose'''.  Unfortunately, Halibutt does have nationalistic tendencies at times, if ever so slightly.  I regret to not be able to support this otherwise productive contributor.—
Absolutely not.  Has no respect for consensus, even when it's overwhelmingly against him. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)<br />To be clear, my opposition stems entirely from the dispute over [[Template:Support]], as mentioned below; I haven't encountered him in the main namespace.  While I freely admit that my own handling of the situation wasn't ideal, Halibutt's continual re-creation of the template in the face of an 80%+ decision to delete on TFD shows that it wouldn't have made any difference. —
'''Oppose'''. The few times I've interacted with him, he's made the impression on me of being a stubborn nationalist, with a striking inability to recognize consensus. He was responsible a few months ago for bringing the Gdansk naming controversy to completely unrelated pages, such as [[Mainz]], [[Aachen]], [[Dresden]], (see Talk pages) and even a large number of pages like [[Johannes Vermeer]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Vermeer&diff=14748369&oldid=14745970]. This was in June, but when he stopped, he did so with the threat of starting all over again ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainz&diff=prev&oldid=15253870]), when the consensus was clearly against him. And then there's the [[User:Halibutt/Black Book|Polish Wikipedian's Black Book]], started by him, which was described by some (IMHO accurately) as a witch hunt.
'''Oppose.''' This user has an enormous amount of edits spread across the wiki, but in going over the Support Template thing I unfortunately must oppose. Re-creating any page ''six times'' <s>(and never, apparently, going to VFU)</s> shows very poor judgement. If there's one thing I can't stand it's calling vandalism that which isn't. This seems to be what the user did with the deleting admins who were looking at a valid G4 under CSD. I must also say the Polish Black Book is (ahem) idiotic.
'''Oppose''' per Cryptic and Radiant.  Much too controversial to be trusted with adminship.
'''Oppose''', per Cryptic.--
'''Oppose''', an edit summary for recreating a legitamately tfd'd template [[Template:Support]] "reinserted the template after User:ChrisO vandalized it." Calling it vandalism is just out of line, and it was less than a month ago.
'''Oppose''' Good editor, but better safe than sorry.
'''Oppose''' as per Ghirlandajo et al.

'''oppose''' per Radiant. Everybody has a pov, it is silly to require "only neutral" editors shouold be admin. However, admins need to be capable of separating themselves from theirs when acting as admins, and this is more difficult the more unshakeable your own convictions. Halibutt doesn't convince me he is capable of this. Nationalist editors are a scourge on Wikipedia, and I will only support adminship of nationalist editors who have proven again and again their above-average skills at civility, fairness, soothing effect on their more radical peers, capability of seeing the other side etc. etc. The "support template" thing alone is sufficient to show that Halibutt is not very strong in these areas.
'''oppose''' per radiant.
'''oppose'''. Halibutt doesn't seem neutral and objective, most of his editings are being made from ultra-conservative Polish poitn of view and aim at whitening the Polish nation. This is not a basis for being an admin.
'''oppose'''.  Halibutt bullheadedly went and moved [[Anti-tank rifle wz.35]] despite several failed attempts to achieve consensus for the move. He showed no respect whatsoever for the [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] procedure.
'''Oppose'''. Between his actions regarding <nowiki>[[Template:Support]]</nowiki> (less than a month ago!) and various Polish nationalist axe-grinding over the Gdansk/Danzig notices (demonstrating a certain contempt for consensus) and the Black Book page, I gotta say no. And if it's "no big deal" to be made an admin; well, then, it's no big deal if you're NOT made an admin, ennit? --
'''Oppose'''. Halibutt is a great editor and a "reasonable" patriot (compared to many others). All the more it hurts me to see all this controversy, an enourmous handicap for a new admin. Also, he doesn't seem to have the traits an admin needs to work properly.
'''Oppose''' Halibutt is not admin material. He makes mostly good contributions, but he has also generated lots of trouble for the community by means of [[WP:POINT]], leading to revert wars merely to demonstrate a point. I am worried about having him pushing [[WP:POINT]] with admin powers, and cannot support his adminship --
'''Oppose''' per Ghirlandajo.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm sure he would do some good work, but too many things (the support template and the "Kb ppanc wz.35" debacle in particular) put me off.  Sorry.
'''Oppose'''. We all have biases, but episodes such as the repeated recreation of the support template leave me concerned that the editor's strong opinions are not sufficiently controlled. I hesitate to grant administrative powers to candidates such as these, and the great difficulty in removing administrator status, recently exemplified by the still-in-progress [[WP:RFAr]] case, leave me wary. The difficulty in persuading him to delete the "black book" is also troublesome. Finally, the nominator's campaigning on the Polish Wikipedia and recent unblock warring leave the candidate without the traditional confidence usually granted by support of a long-time or well-respected editor. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 04:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)  I should add that it appears Halibutt is a high-quality and prolific editor, and I thank him for the hard work he has put into Wikipedia. My opposition now will not preclude me from supporting in the future should the current concerns be addressed. Deletion of the black book was a great step. —
'''Oppose.'''  Eugene van der Pijll refers to Halibutt's "widening" the Gdansk dispute, but I'm not sure he really indicates [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Halibutt&offset=20050607&limit=300|the scale of it].  About 200 edits purporting to apply the results of the Gdansk vote (admittedly highly problematic in itself, but that's another day's work) to some pretty unrelated-looking articles, including at least one 3rr violation in the process, and ignoring repeated attempts to desist.  This seems as clear an example of [[WP:POINT]] as one could wish to see (or rather, be dismayed at), and one I wouldn't care to see replicated with the use of the extra buttons.
'''Oppose''' per reasons already given.
'''Oppose''' For all the long and defensive commentaries towards oppose votes. If he can't handle criticism during an rfa, no way he's going to be able to handle all of the hassles that go with being an admin.
Cześć! Tak?  Nie?  Nie.  '''Oppose''', dzienkuje. There's more than enough evidence on this RfA alone to suggest that the user's temperament is currently not suited to admin status.
'''Oppose'''. False accusations of vandalism are unacceptable.
'''Oppose'''. For all the reasons given, mainly the Black Book, and also because of the many responses from Halibutt to the oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote against without being confronted.
No ''([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt&curid=3173230&diff=29059996&oldid=29057773 personal attack removed])''
'''Oppose'''.  Handling of 'support' template issue demonstrated poor judgement.  3RR violations over naming disputes also are troubling.  If he keeps his nose clean, I could probably support his next RfA—particularly now that the Black Book is finally gone.
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>. I had a quick look at your contributions, and I think that they are extensive and show a high degree of commitment to Wikipedia. Also, your discussion at [[WP:FPC]] is always reasoned well. However, I'm a little disappointed in your continued use of the <nowiki>{{support}}</nowiki> template at FPC despite its deletion, your previous ignorance of the speedy deletion rules and the continued recreation of the aforementioned template (see [[Template talk:Support]]). I would also suggest using the edit summaries a little more.
'''Neutral'''.  Although I have had strong disagreements with Halibutt in the past on a number of subjects, I would be happy to support him for adminship based on most of my encounters with him.  One incident, however, inclines me to remain neutral, which is Halibutt's incredibly vast violation of [[WP:POINT]] of some months ago, when he decided that he would add the Polish name of just about every German city in order to demonstrate what he saw as the absurdity of the results of one part of the [[Talk:Gdansk/Vote]] fiasco.  I feel that this was a problematic display, and as such, I'm not ready to vote in support.

I really don't know about this user - but judging by his edits he seems like an amazing individual! You might want to count this as more a neutral that is siding with support, but as I haven't encountered him before I really can't in good faith vote support or object. The fact that Piotrus nominated him speaks well for him, though. Also, Grutness seems to think he's OK, and he's a pretty good judge of character. However, Radiant is also a good judge of character, and he voted oppose. So '''neutral''' for me. -
I'd support his request if it weren't for his bizarre Dresden/Aachen/Mainz edit war last June.
I'm not convinced. Halibutt is somtimes pushing his POV too hard... like admins on the "other side" of those "conflicts"
Because of the lengthy and mature explanation Halibutt posted on [[User talk:Radiant!|my talk page]], and because he requested deletion of the alleged attack page in his user space, I have withdrawn my opposition.
'''Neutral''', Halibutt has generally appeared to be a good and reasonable editor when I've come across him. However, I wasn't aware of the Black Book prior to this RFA and I think that it shows a serious lack of good judgement to have kept it on his user page. I'm glad to see it has been deleted but somewhat bemused by the way the talk page has been kept and the rather grudging manner it was done.
'''Neutral''' I am changing my vote from '''Oppose''' to '''Neutral''' since the Black book  is deleted and it appeared that he was not the main author of this item. I have read a few hundreds of the recent Hailbutt edits and they all appeared to be in quite a good faith and many show deep knowledge on a wide range of subjects (especially of European History) that would never hurt any administrator to have. He is not unlike in this regard to his major opponent [[User:Ghirlandajo]].  On the other hand I still have some rezervations about the Book history (IMHO an ideal administrator should try to eliminate such things, not to support them, especially if they come from the people of his own POV) and the history of the template - having the interests of his petty edit war over the usability of the Wiki. So my present vote is '''Neutral'''.
'''Neutral''' Glad to see that he removed his Black Page. Hope this means that he is beginning to behave more like an admin. --
'''Neutral'''  Halibutt is an interesting and very knowledgeable guy. Unfortunately, I believe his knowledge to be less than balanced and his point of view to not be neutral or disinterested on issues involving Poland and its history. I won't call him a "nationalist," since he indicated above that he finds the term offensive, but he has demonstrated innumerable times a tendancy to take a partisan, pro-Polish POV, particuarly on questions involving the formerly German areas that are part of today's Poland. I'm sure he would deny being anti-German, but his own family history, which includes the Nazi death camps and the Holocaust, gives him cause to be personally prejudiced against Germans. I do think this strongly colors his judgment. If I did not have an instinctive liking for Halibutt, who in cyberspace at least seems to be a charming person, I would oppose him. But I've come to like Halibutt despite often being opposed to him on Wiki, and so I will merely voice strong reservations about giving him authority over aspects of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I have reservations about any non-native English speaker being an administrator on the English-language Wikipedia,
'''Neutral''' Changed my opposed to neutral, because even though his bias in his actions seems a strong argument (which might not have influenced only the opposers and unsures), his offensive behaviour seemed more like an exception.
'''Neutral'''. There's a lot of decent contribution from the user, but there's also a decent amount of controversy -- when people are made an admin, it should be because it's obvious to almost everyone that it should be. That's not yet the case here -- recommend coming back in a few months without having any controversy generated in the meantime and without Piotr babysitting every aspect of the nomination. If that happens, I will probably support. --
'''Neutral''' — I would have wanted to support, but Halibutt's occasional misconduct does worry me. I should note that I wholeheartedly approve of reasonable notification of possibly interested parties about ongoing RFAs, as I do not personally monitor the RFA page. I have seen some of Halibutt's work, and it is good, but the few controversies surrounding him are enough to worry me.
'''Neutral''' this time, but I may well support next time around. Halibutt is generally a very good contributor, by the nature of some of the articles he edits it is inevitable that he will attract a few critics (this doesn't bother me).  What does bother me slightly is his behaviour at Template:Support, although I do understand why he did what he did. Ignoring consensus, even if you believe the consensus to be wrong, is not the right thing to do. Although people on both sides were at fault, I think this was too recent for me to support. I suggest that Halibutt comes back in a month or two, assuming he respects the rules in this time, I will be happy to support then.
'''Neutral.''' Hallibutt does quite a bit of good work, but the [[:Template:Support]] debacle and other things make me a bit nervous about his becoming an admin. I had previously abstained from voting, but having been asked to give my two cents, I can only really vote neutral on this one.
'''Neutral.''' While the user does have a great deal of experience in Wiki, I again see a lot of conflict here that I can't settle with at the moment.  One of the functions of an administrator is to build consensus, and I'm just not quite seeing it yet.  Sorry! --
Alright, here we go. Harro5 is a good user. Good luck! [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] 06:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)  Even with the prank (see comments) I will maintain support.
'''Support'''. Your work and interactions with other Wikipedians look good. I have one suggestion, however: please remember to always use [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]].
Cool.
I can't see why not. &mdash;
'''Support''' although I understand concerns of 'too early'.
'''Oppose''', too early.
'''Oppose'''. Too early. Contribs list shows that he's a dedicated editor, and active "behind the scenes" in the Wikipedia namespace (which is good), but also that he hasn't quite got the hang of policy in those pages. Also seems a bit pushy WRT speedy deletion. Try again later. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. A valuable user, but I don't want to hand over the keys to speedy deletion--many of his nominations are clearly not speedy candidates (see e.g. [[small penis humiliation]] or [[Michael Collins (Irish patriot)]], which should have gone to Vfd and Rfd respectively. Every admin needs to understand that speedy deletion is ''only'' for the specific cases mentioned in [[WP:CSD]].
'''Oppose'''. Nothing personal, I just don't think you've been here long enough. Also, the comments by Meelar are worrying. -
'''Oppose'''.  Overall, I think many of your contributions are valuable.  Your recent vandalism of [[Melbourne Grammar School]] and poor judgement with speedy deletes and encouraging vandals shows in my mind that you need more time before being trusted with admin rights. --
'''Oppose''', for now. The time's too short and that "joke" too recent. The excuse below about assuming the joke would be quickly reverted and then forgetting to delete it yourself bothers me more than the joke itself (though, quickpoll, do people laugh at these jokes?). One can forget stuff, sure, but, how can I put this, if you put in a sneaky autofellatio redirect, you need to make a '''note''' to go back and check on it. Set your PDA or something!
'''Oppose'''. Not enough edits and hasn't been on long enough. Try again in a couple of months
'''oppose''' try again in a month or two. imho, you need more experience here.
He's been here since March 14, 2005, but really started editing regularly on April 9, 2005. It's a bit early for my taste. Keep up the good work, though!
For the second time today, I'll have to agree with Lupo. While I find your school article great work, and while I love your friendly and civil interactions, it's just a little too early. I will support fully in a month's time or aerlier if overwhelming vote-changing evidence turns up. Keep it up! :)
I would prefer another month under your belt.
I would support at a later date, for now he seems to still be getting the hang of things --
'''Neutral'''. I agree with Lupo. I like what I'm seeing, but I'm hesitant to vote for you just yet. Get another thousand or so edits under your belt and maybe another month and then you're golden. Also, do you have a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]]? I suggest you get one; even new editors that have had a major part to do with getting an article up to featured status tend to get much more attention. If you do all of this, I will not hesitate to vote support for you. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Neutral'''. (see above)
Per the users above. Will probably support in a few months, since your edits and work look good.
'''Neutral''', see above explanation.
'''Neutral'''. Sorry.  On a side note, I'd recommend waiting a couple of months, because it looks bad to apply for adminship three times in three months, especially when they're self-noms. --
I'll support you again.
<s>'''Neutral'''. While Harro is committed and does good RC patrol, he is too lenient in dealing with articles. For example, Harro uses the verify and userfy tags too much, even when vanity is obvious (although I guess the article will be deleted soon, here is a diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Murdoch_Wilkinson&diff=prev&oldid=17820133]). This leniency concerns me, although i'm willing to be convinced to support here. [[User:Hedley|Hedley]] 1 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)</s> '''Support''' now, although if the adminship passes i'd like Harro5 to be more bold in speedying vanity.
'''Support''' A calm softly-softly approach is always a good thing.
'''Support'''- though I voted neutral last time, the only reason was because the "joke" (i.e. vandalism) was too recent. Now that time has passed, I beleive Harro5 would make a good admin. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''' &ndash; active in FAC where I patrol mostly.
'''<s>Weak</s> support'''. Good use of edit summaries, good edits.  My concern lies mostly with the fact that some editors would never do joke vandalism, and also some of your actions show activity based on a lack of knowledge. (For instance, [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jehovah's Witness Co-operative Alliance|here]], you voted to delete based on a false premise (you seemed to think this was a JW organization, when a cursory glance at the talk page showed it was an anti-JW organization). That's just one example where I remembered running into you.  Mostly good job; just be sure to use your judgement- and it has improved substantially since last time. --
'''Support'''.
He seems responsible enough.  --

'''Support'''-
Support.
Seems to me that most of the oppose-voters on his previous RFA do so because of Harro's lack of experience. In my opinion, that means he should not renominate himself so soon, thus '''oppose'''.
Too soon since last nomination. Will consider in the future.
Immature [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melbourne_Grammar_School&diff=14403132&oldid=13969895 vandals] make poor admins. Try back in a few months when you have someone respectable to nominate you. --
'''Oppose'''. Vandalism does not stablish a good background for candidates. You shoud wait at least a few months before applying for adminship again. --
I opposed last time because I felt that he had shown poor judgement on a few occasions and may show poor judgement on sysop tasks.  I will bump it up to neutral for this vote.  He has a bit more experience and seems to be using better judgement.  However, it is a bit too soon for me to upgrade my vote to a full support.  The picture in his sandbox also seems to suggest a little immaturity; but that is just my opinion.  --
'''Support''', since I am nominating him.--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', an authority in Norse matters, great contributor and Wikipedian. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I know this editor personally and I am certain that he will be a dedicated and reliable admin. I also think the history of his actions on Wikipedia recommend him highly.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' Good at what he does.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' We really need people who work in a peteculiar field and improve it dramatically its a lot better than a guy who checks 50 pages a day for grammatical errors or for linking.
'''Support''' Quality work, veteran user, absolutely trustworthy.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''

'''Support''' much needed type of editor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Patman2468 needs to be nicer to the WikiGnomes, though.
[[User:Thames|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
'''Support'''. Not much quantity, but certainly quality.
'''Support'''
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''', seems to definitely be worth of sysop rights. This editor will be a welcome addition to Wikipedia's administrative team, no doubt. --
'''Support''', Wiglaf's endorsement is usually enough to convince me. But Haukurth's contributions, in quality and quantity, seal the deal this time.--
--
Looks like a fine candidate.
'''Support''' happily. --
'''Support'''.
I thought $USER was already an admin. -
'''Support'''. Maintains friendly banter while revert-warring.
'''Support''', changed vote, I don't know what's going on, but I just don't really remember doing the vote on this. I think I was thinking about a different user when I did this. You should be an admin, you'll do just fine.
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. From what I've seen, Haukurth argues patiently, politely and rationally, even in the face of unpleasant opposition. A user with this disposition cannot go far wrong with adminship. Frankly, I think the "oppose" votes based on the Amalekite affair are a little petty (politics, yuck), and not relevant to this adminship. While not wishing to dig all that up again, Haukurth was opposing a ban which seemed to have &mdash; at the beginning &mdash; been imposed outside of the provisions of banning policy. For Haukurth to have argued that admins should act according to policy is a tendency we should encourage in admins, and is certainly not a sign of bad judgement.
&#8212;
'''Support''' Good man.
'''Extreme Loki > Thor Support'''. User checks out good and I like what I see.
'''Support'''. I also strongly support Matt Crypto's and Haukurth's point of view in the block controversy. I believe the blocked user was respecting policy and acted in good faith. &mdash;
'''Strong Support''' his honest opposition to a wrongful yet popular and "feel good" block despite the powerful clique lobbying for it was a breath of fresh air, giving me a renewed respect for the wikipedia and those who edit it. If he isn't admin material, no one is.
'''Strong Support'''.  Haukurth has not only proven to be willing to defend his views politely and completely in the face of withering criticism, and unlike several others here, he's also been very consistent in his view that adminship grants him no ''super special judgement powers'' to permanently ban or unban someone without a full discussion of all the issues involved.  His repeated expression of willingness to defer to the consensus view on Wikipedia is proof that he's already better at this than anyone could reasonably be expected to be in order to qualify for adminship.  Regarding the Amalekite issue, there is absolutely no excuse to deny adminship to someone for arguing their views politely and fully, as long as they've proven willing to yield to consensus in the end, which is '''''exactly''''' what Haukurth did.  Modesty in use of power, even in the hypothetical case, is to be commended.  Further, ''no single admin or admin candidate'' can ever be held responsible for being proactive in blocking an "Amalekite2"; whichever admin first finds the threat to be credible will make the initial block, and then we'll have our discussion starting there.  We cannot deny adminship on the hypothetical that he wouldn't be the first.  <u>It is foolish to deny adminship based upon a hypothetical situation ''as if he would be the only admin on Wikipedia'' because we've never demanded admins all hold a single view on blocking; in fact, I ''thought'' (until I saw some of the opposition on this RfA) that we encouraged them to think for themselves...</u>
'''Support'''. I firmly believe in (and have personally witnessed!) this user's devotion to Wikipedia, its quality and neutrality.
'''Support'''. To me, Haukurth's stand on the Amalekite issue is an extremely good reason to support him becoming an admin. We need more admins like Haukurth who think about the issues and are ethically responsible.
'''Support'''.  I believe one's vote at RFA should be based entirely on one's belief as to the user's future behavior as an admin.  Nothing I have seen or heard (even reading all the below) gives me any indication that [[User:Haukurth]] will abuse admin functions. Voting as a 'protest vote' because of a user's opinions and arguments is against the spirit of this, IMO.
'''Support'''. Free speech for everyone, including Nazis. I also defend your right to knock them down for it, ''pace'' Johnson. The rules apply equally to everyone, including Nazis. Anything else is a step down the path to their world, and I don't want that. I'm astonished to see some of the names of those who do. I don't think Amalekite made a threat, although I can understand that some found his list threatening. It's alarming though that we are to have a political test for editors, although again it's understandable that some want it. I don't feel it's fair that Haukur should be denied adminship though because he made a spirited defence of what he takes to be the values of Wikipedia. It's very sad that he is opposed for ''disagreeing with other editors'' but that's how it is here. You go with the herd or you're punished, and we're calling that "consensus" these days.
'''Support''', seems to be a reasonable candidate for adminship.
Support. His stand on the Nazi blocking issue was a sign of integrity. It takes a lot of integrity to defend someone you disagree with and whose views you find repugnant for the sake of fairness.
'''Support''' based entirely on the observation that the nominee has kept a level head and pleasant attitude in the face of criticism and provokation on this page. He appears to respect Wikipedia policy and a '''NEUTRAL''' point of view in Wikipedia, despite clearly having his own POV (as do we all). --
'''Support'''. Need more admins. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Eth and thorn are English, and the blocking issue discussed below is a matter of valid difference of opinion, hardly poor judgment.
'''Suppport''' It's his coolness under fire that impresses me. He argues his views reasnably enough, though I don't entirely agree with him.
'''Support''' - The wikicliques are opposed to this one in near unison, so he must be doing something right!
Although it's a little late to do so, a reading of the sincere and deeply held votes of opposition, with which however I strongly disagree, convinces me that I should support this candidate.  He is entitled to his views on orthography, with which I disagree.  I find myself in agreement with his moderate approach to the amalekite affair and I think this shows a man who can trust his own judgement and remain true to it in the face of opposition. I don't see many strong admin candidates these days; this is one of the few. --
'''Oppose'''. Pushes page moves to non-English titles with non-English letters. Has too much of an agenda to have article names conform to ancient, non-English spellings. Not willing to give him admin powers to move pages.
'''Strong Oppose''' on account of the Amalekite/Stormfront issue - I cannot support a user for adminship who does not seem to see the need for Wikipedia to be proactive in protecting editors against off-Wikipedia threats based on their Wikipedia activities.  Off-Wikipedia actions which could amount to physical harm being done to editors ''is'' grounds for perma-blocking.  If you can't see that a neo-nazi posting a "hit list" of Jewish Wikipedians to a neo-nazi board as deserving of sanction, I don't think you have the judgement to be an admin.
'''Strong Oppose'''. I was not going to vote at all, but I concur with Guettarda who insightfuly brought to my attention that I should voice my protest against Haukurth's actions during that affair here, and that it is, in fact, important wrt to his compotence as a prospective admin (though I do trust him to not violate policy in a procedural sense, is what I ''mistakingly'' had in mind as per my hitherto position).
'''Strong oppose'''. It's not that Haukurth disagreed about Amalekite, it's the vehemence with which he did it. I lost count of his posts to the mailing list and to talk pages. He also stated that he found Amalekite's posting of a list of editors believed to be Jewish to a Stormfront forum "amusing," rather than offensive.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Above, Guettarda wrote, "If you don't see that posting on Stormfront as a danger, you show a serious lack of judgement. I don't think you're a bad person, the thought of you unblocking Amalekite never even crossed my mind. It's a matter of trusting your judgement - past experience says I shouldn't, and your present comments say that my past impression is still valid," and I share this view entirely.  That Haukur Þorgeirsson would respond to G by writing, "The post was clearly silly, semi-delusional and in very bad taste - I don't contest any of that. The only thing I don't think is accurate is that the post represented a real life danger to the people behind the Wikipedia user names," is enough proof to me that, regardless of his intentions, Haukur is naive, reckless, and dangerous.  Above Matt Crypto writes that Haukur may have been offended as well as amused by Amalekite's posting (the fact that one of Haukur's supporters ''still'' doesn't actually know whether Haukur was offended or not itself speaks volumes).  But given Haukur's most recent statement, it wouldn't matter to me if he were offended as well as amused. Everyone has an excuse for being naive &mdash; that is just our state prior to knowledge.  I don't balme Haukur for initially not taking Stormfront seriously, we all make mistakes.  But for him to disregard the postings of several well-informed and responsible editors, for him to ''resist'' learning something new takes us from naivete to irresponsibility.  And no, Matt Crypto, I am not trying to punish someone who has in other ways been a good contributer because he took an ''unpopular'' stance.  Even if the stance were popular, I would still object.  It has nothing to do with it being popular or unpopular.  It was a reckless and thoughtless stance regarding a very serious matter.
'''Weak oppose'''.  I mean, just this side of neutral &mdash; if the issue that's dividing opionion were a little less important, that might have shifted me over into weak support.  In most things I'd have little concern about Haukur Þorgeirsson being an admin; in fact, probably in everything but the sensitivity to Wikipedians' safety (real or perceived) I'd be enthusiastic.<br>If someone had posted a list of, say, Flemish editors to a Walloon Web site, and asked Walloon activists to watch out for a Flemish bias to Wikipedia, I'd not have been overly concerned, largely because Walloons are at worst a bit rude to their Flemish compatriots (and ''vice versa''), and I should probably have taken Haukur Þorgeirsson's line.  Anti-Semites, however, do genuinely threaten the physical safety of Jews, and to post to a list of people identified as Jewish to an anti-Semitic Web site, especially one that has all the hallmarks of being read by the sort of drooling cretin who might actually take violent action, can't credibly even be dismissed as naïve.  I'm concerned, given the concerted assaults on Wikipedia from groups such as Stormfront, at a failure to take such threats seriously.  I have no doubt that Haukur Þorgeirsson is not himself racist in any way, and the same is doubtless true of most of those who defend him on this ground, but that's not the issue.  Admins aren't meant to be Wikipedia's stanfing army or even police force, but I'd hope that editors feeling themselves (with good reason) threatened by other editors should be able to count on us for support and help.<br>Again, if Haukur Þorgeirsson had made the initial mistake, but then had realised his error and apologised, I'd have had no worries &mdash; but it seems to me that he still doesn't really see the problem.  He's been gracious enough to apologise for the way he expressed himself, and for the impression that he might have given some people that he took racism lightly, and that's good &mdash; but there's no indication that, if the same thing happened again, he'd approach it with a different attitude (even if he expressed himself more clearly). --
'''Oppose''' for reasons listed above, particularly those regarding his responses to the Amalekite incident.
'''Oppose''' While he might not unblock Amalekite, there will eventually be an Amalekite2.
'''Oppose''' per Guettarda and El_C.  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin.  I have concerns about him rationally handling NPOV situations as he has previously ardamently supported inclusion of neo-Nazi POV.  Encourage him to remain an editor, but not an administrator on the site.
'''Oppose''' for reasons stated above.  Someone can be an extraordinary editor on certain subjects but still how poor judgment on issues that admins deal with.  We have enough marginal admins to begin with; we don't need more of them.  --
'''Oppose''' for reasons stated above.
'''Oppose''' for reasons of ethical integrity and Wikipedia’s academic credibility. --
'''Oppose''' per Guettarda and Olve.
'''Oppose''', good editor, but judgment concerns me. --
'''Oppose'''. I have to agree with MPerel here. I am also concerned that it appears this editor has begun to list this RFA in other places to gather support.
'''O'''ppose. As per Slim, Jay and Olve.
'''Oppose''' per above discussion.
'''Oppose''' per above discussion. This was poor judgment.
'''Strong oppose''' per reasons stated by others opposing.
'''Oppose.'''
I have to change my vote again to '''weak oppose'''. From the developing discussion it seems clear that Haukurth still doesn't understand the danger of Amalekite's actions, and I find this very disturbing for reasons I've stated above.
'''Oppose'''. That's all I'm going to say on this editor. –
'''Oppose''' per above. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;
'''Oppose''', because of the Amalekite incident.
'''Strong oppose per SlimVirgin'''
I trust Hedley to be responsible with his powers. 1500 edits is not that low at all, and really I think that edit counts is a poor way to measure admin-qualities.
Yep. &mdash;
Cool.
His apology and clarification shows that this user is responsible, and his edits show he is dedicated to the Wikipedia.
'''Support''', active and useful editor. I don't even see any need to chew over what exactly his involvement was in the fake article business—whatever it was, newbies have certainly been excused worse behavior. It's assumed that noobs haven't seen the wiki light. As long as Hedley became a trusty user after the incident, which I'm convinced of, just forget it. Extra points for the selfnom!
'''Support'''.
Changing my vote to '''support'''.
Support.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I thought I had already voted, but I guess not. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. Well yes I'm new to wikipedia. I can still vote, I'm already contributing. I believe wikipedia needs more dedicated persons like Hedley.
Party! &mdash;
'''Support'''. Yay Hedley!


'''Support'''--
Slightly '''Oppose'''. Personally I find Hedley's politics concerning some articles based on personal bias. --
<s>I really want to oppose, but I'm clearly biased, due to my contact with [[User:David 5000]]</s> Oh, what the hell, A qualified '''oppose'''. This user didn't get to a good start. [http://www.coolclarity.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28458&st=40&#entry725024 This post] from an external forum suggests that the reason he informed Wikipedians of his fake articles was to get other users in trouble: he was trying to get back at certain people. Anyway I don't think he's been a member long enough and he doesn't have enough edits to his name.
'''oppose for now'''. i'd like to see a few more months of activity with the community and the software.
'''oppose for now'''. I have to wait and see. --
'''Oppose'''. Before anyone dismisses this as simply being vindictive, please read to the end, my opposition is based on more than the vandalism incident.  As has already been discussed, Hedley and I (and others) were involved in a game on the CoolClarity message boards - both of us made two or three vandalisms, nothing more.  About a month later I found that I had been blocked, after Hedley decided that he needed to drop someone else in it to save his own skin.  This is the text of a private message that I received from him on the CoolClarity message board on 20th March: ''"If you want to know the whole truth, in this PM, I was just trying to impress the big guns in the Wikipedia room by coming clean by adding Zakir Raman to VfD. When I supplied them the info on the link to here, they noticed you and I guess I spoke to some strict admins about it because they put you up on the RfC. I don't intentionally mean to grass anyone up, but I wasn't gonna say that on Wikipedia.. Thing is, I didn't want to get a block, so I was defending myself. No intention to be hostile toward you or anything, but I was stuck in a situation where it was defend you and get blocked, or go on the side of the admins and come away fairly clean.."'' I don't think someone who is willing to twist the truth like that to further his own Wikipedia career is suitable to be an admin. My other objections revolve around the two occasions that I have encountered Hedley while making edits on here.  The first involves the page [[Nelson Piquet, Jr.]], which I created in October.  In March I was informed on [[User_talk:David_5000|my talk page]] by Hedley that ''"Hey, your article Nelson Piquet, Jr. was a duplicate of an existing article on him, so i've changed it to a redirect. You'll find there was an article of more depth already at Nelson Angelo Piquet."''  Of course if you compare the history of both pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Piquet%2C_Jr.&action=history 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Angelo_Piquet&action=history 2] you'll see that Hedley was wrong: my page was there five months earlier - when I questioned him about this on his talk page I didn't receive a response.  The second issue is about the page for the racing driver [[Mathias Lauda]].  Hedley created the page with the incorrect title 'Matthias Lauda', but when I renamed the page he quickly reverted it to the incorrect version without checking whether he was correct.  Again my questions went unanswered.  These experiences make me think that <u>Hedley is inclined to make comments and edits without checking his facts first</u> - I'm concerned that Wikipedia would give moderator powers to someone who acts without checking whether his actions are justified first.
Reluctant '''oppose''' for now. Seems like a very nice person on IRC, and does have many good contributions. I would like Hedley to stay involved. However, past vandalism must be balanced by a long good history, in my opinion, and the history here, while high enough to regard as a good contributor, is just a little bit too low to balance yet for admin status yet.
'''Oppose''' the incident being discussed suggests the user is lacking a a level of maturity that I would expect from an admin. --
Hrm.  I like Hedley, but 1500 edits is a tad on the low side for me.  I like the breadth of contributions, though there is an issue with respect to edit summary usage.  He pointed out the fake article contest he was involved in ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/David_5000#Response|more info here]]).  Some decent vandal fighting, but I can't reward the actions regarding the fake article creation.  If I hadn't encountered Hedley before, I'd probably oppose.
Tentative '''neutral'''. I've just read the whole "fake page" incident ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/David_5000#Response|read it here]]), and it does seem that Hedley has "come clean" and was truly just following in on a joke. However, the latter part of the page (the outside opinion by DMN) does somewhat worry me. However, we've got to give him the benefit of the doubt- he has made many quality contributions since then and has not been vandalizing again. One should not be punished or scarred forever for one incident. The reason I'm voting neutral is because I feel the length of time since the incident is a little bit short. The incident was about 2 1/2 months ago (the responses were all dated 3/19/05). Hopefully Hedley has not done any more vandalizing since then, if you haven't, Hedley, give it another month and then I'd support you. Thanks for your contributions though!
Something is telling me this user has done something before that I didn't like. But I can't remember what.
While recent edits seem like he is on a good path, with few edits and questionable practices in the past, I must be neutral. However, in another few months, with no further issues, I see no reason why not.
The concerns of concerned people concern me. &ndash;
Hedley, you probably need another month or so under your belt at the currently level you're going. Right now, those questionable edits <s>take up a very noticeable percentage of your overall contributions.</s> happened 2 1/2 months ago, which is a bit little too early for me.
While I am fairly certain that this user is trustworthy, I think I would prefer to see some more time editing first, to confirm good faith. This is not a slight on Hedley, just to say that I want to see more editing first.  A month and I would probably support.

--
Over 3700 edits, all good. --
Privacy is not a crime.  --
I would like to see more edit summaries, but the blank user page doesn't bother me at all. Of course, this is the opinion of someone with a blank user page (I'll get around to it eventually).
Useful editor.
I do understand the neutral voters' sentiments, but in my opinion, this user's good faith, wikiquette, and hard work outweigh those issues :-). (and yes, I am biased, because I have a habit of not leaving edit summaries... sorry -_-)
Support. Not having a user page doesn't concern me.  --
User page is unimportant.  Edit summaries, the other big concern, are something to work on, but no reason not to be a sysop.
Support anonymity.  Edit summaries and discussion page are far more important than a user page.


No userpage.
I oppose for a couple of reasons. I don't really care about not having a user page, although I do find it a bit strange. I find the answers to the questions below either very short and uninformative, or non-committed. As Henrygb noted above it is "not something I am particularly concerned about."
No userpage, no edit summaries, we expect Admins to account for themselves and activley communicate with others.
Lack of edit summaries is worrying.
I prefer admins who want to do admin tasks. Will support if and when user clearly wants to be an admin
Oppose. It pains me to oppose a hard worker. But thusfar, I feel the lack of edit comments and the edit war discredit Henry. I'd like to see Henry work harder and try again another time.
No user page, rare/uninformative edit summaries.
not having a userpage says nothing. I will change to support once Henrygb accepts the nomination and answers the questions below.
I don't really care for no-userpage users, but at least he has a blank page.  I voted against [[User:ScudLee|ScudLee]] because he/she had none at all, and thus her name showed up as a red link.  So I won't ''oppose'', but I can't really support ''someone'' who doesn't really have a userpage.  Also I'd care to see more edit summaries.
Second Silsor's comments <del>(below)</del>. I won't vote support for people lacking user pages.
Agree with Silsor. --
If "it's not something [he's] concerned about", I am [[User:Grunt/Adminship|hesitant to offer my support]]. --

She may be a good writer, but her conduct on [[WP:FAC]] at the moment is so incredibly unbecoming of an administrator that I'm gobsmacked she's even been nominated.
Oppose per her comments on [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl]], specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl&diff=next&oldid=30063398], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl&diff=next&oldid=30111749], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl&diff=next&oldid=30144561], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl&diff=next&oldid=30156143], and most of all [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl&diff=next&oldid=30149227]. I might also mention that I find the general tone on this page absolutely hilarious and this is my second ever vote on [[WP:RFA]].
'''Oppose'''. User has only been here since November 5. I also note a suspicion that this is a sock puppet or reincarnation of {{User|Winnermario}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&diff=prev&oldid=27580686] and I didn't like these comments. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&diff=prev&oldid=27581863] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mel_Etitis&diff=prev&oldid=27582424] I've  no idea whether the sock puppet concern is correct. Perhaps the candidate could comment.
Oppose as far as I'm concerned, a bit too little Wikipedia-related (MFD, RFA, RFD, AFD etc) discussion. <font color="darkred">
'''Oppose''' per Ambi and Talrias. I'm pretty taken aback that anyone would say what she did on the Hollaback Girl FAC, much less someone who would like to be an administrator. Would have to see a good bit of effort toward being more courteous before I would support.
'''Oppose''' based on FAC behaviour and account age.--
'''Oppose''' per links provided above illustrating user's conduct.  Also the comment "when I want something, I get that something" in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hollaback_Girl&diff=30152955&oldid=30149227 this edit] gives me very serious cause for concern. --
'''Oppose'''; user behavior has been sketchy.
'''Oppose''', please see my comment below to the standard question "do you feel other users have caused you stress"?
'''Oppose''' Comments at FAC indicate editor is far from ready for adminship.
Inappropriate behavior. '''
'''Oppose''' per Telrias Diff #5, although the comment made me laugh think of "What Lola wants, Lola gets", of course if it was directed at me don't think I'd be doing much laughing.  --
'''Strong Oppose''' per all diffs. Inapproriate conduct and behavior on WP:FAC.
'''Oppose''':  On FAC, she has been a helpful voter some of the time, but when her own issues and articles are at stake, she seems to have an inappropriate temperament.  This is a specific issue, as the ability to keep one's poise when one's favorite issues and articles are edited/deleted/rewritten is important when one has the revert, delete, and move powers.
'''Oppose''', per all '''
'''Oppose''', pretty much per all, but in particular because of the candidate's thoroughly inappropriate position regarding copyright violations and plagiarism.
Neutral leaning towards support, I always support pressganging people into adminstrative service, but I'd like to see how she handles this RFA first.--
Being an admin is a different kind of task from being a good editor.  Needs to get to know the community better.  HW - keep up the good work.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Strong Support''' - He has some nice edits and is an all-round asset to Wikipedia that would be better as an admin. --
'''Edit Conflict with the Mistress Support''' because he does good work, but in the future, please use edit summaries more often, okay? &mdash;
'''Support''' with similar stats to me how could I vote any other way :).
'''Support''' He looks deserving to me.
'''Support'''. Awesome dude. <font>«</font>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' - vote spam in #wikipedia-de, #wikipedia-fr, most probably in more channels. This is a no-no. --
dito --
dito --
'''oppose'''
'''oppose'''
'''oppose'''
'''strong oppose''' Not only was this user advertising, he made it blatantly clear in the vandalism IRC chat that he didn't even fully read through the pages one is supposed to read through before nomination to become an admin, via asking questions about the process he would have known the answers to if he had read the necessary materials.
'''Oppose''': Recent edit summary usage seems to be well below 10%. Although I'm admittedly unaware of the context, some of his comments (taken at random within the past week or so) seem to exhibit a sharp lack of objectivity: [{{fullurl:User_talk:Zmaj|diff=28521041&oldid=28520599}} Greater Croatian propaganda], [{{fullurl:User_talk:Zmaj|diff=prev&oldid=31747599}} "Why are you making such a noise...?"], [{{fullurl:Talk:Cazin|diff=prev&oldid=32103110}} loss of temper], [{{fullurl:User_talk:Rama|diff=prev&oldid=31311270}} deceipt and ban]. Unfortunately, I don't think he'd use his administrative powers wisely; if he improves on these points, I see no reason to oppose in any future request. //
'''Oppose''' Low use of edit summaries, could use more work in the Wikipedia: namespace.
'''strong oppose''' I think this user is a hard-line Serb nationalist. He used to vandalize many articles that are related to Bosnia and Bosniaks, Montenegro and Montenegrins, and Kosovo. He lied several times about my contribution, saying that I edited some articles that I never did. For instance he said this: ''I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of [[Doclea]], [[Zeta (state)]], [[Rascia]], [[Travunia]], [[Zahumlje|Zachlumia]] and [[Pagania]]. [[User:Emir_Arven]] is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. [[User:HolyRomanEmperor|HolyRomanEmperor]] 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rx_StrangeLove Here].''But I have to say that I have never visited [[Rascia]], [[Travunia]], [[Zahumlje]] and [[Pagania]] articles. As you can see above, he said: "[[User:Emir_Arven]] is changing those articles." He was blocked for breaking 3RR and also tried to brake 3RR asking other user [[User_talk:Obradovic_Goran]] to help him in his nationalistic behaviour. He wrote this: ''Pih, I need to ask you for another favour: History of Bosnia; vandal User:Emir_Arven has (unexplainingly) deleted my edits. Please revert the vandal's change to my last ([4]) I cannot, it would be 3RR violation. The vandal just said "yes" and deleted important info. HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)'' So I think this user should be blocked because he lied and tried to manipulate with administrators about my contribution. --
''''Oppose''' Lack of edit summarries and lack of wiki namespace edits. Sorry --
'''Oppose''' The user can often be friendly but simply is not someone I or many others would trust as an administrator. His edits are virtually exclusive to topics of interest to Serb nationalists and he's been involved in countless edit wars throughout his career. He's flooded the talk pages of numerous users from the region, including myself, with countless questions about nationalist issues and then proceeded to give his own (controversial) views on the matter whether that person has responded or not. Many users have been bothered by this and consider it a provocation. Furthermore, the user often displays bad wiki-etiquette. I distinctly remember that only just recently he lied to fellow users about me breaking the 3RR (when I didn't) in order to get me banned.
'''Oppose''' Sorry Holy.  As much as I may respect you personally you come with a lot of baggage and a constituency that would count on your admin status to push their agenda.  Much more needs to be done in cooperation between our groups before I am comfortable to give you my vote and trust you that it will not be misused.  Also for some of the reasons noted above: opposed.--
'''Oppose''' You already know what I think.  But it will be well to add in passing that you're throwing mud into Joy's face. --
'''Oppose'''  --
'''Oppose''' It will provoke further conflicts and disagreements. He is known for his use of lies as arguments, as i once saw. Evidence is his, i dont know, xy request for adminship. It will be disaster, however. We don't need admins like that, Wikipedia don't need that. It would be dissapointment for me and many others, and failure for Wikipedia community. Yes, he is good contributor, but for adminship '''NO!''' He approaches sensitive articles to often and careless. --
'''Neutral''' leaning towards oppose. Very few edits in the project namespace, low use of edit summaries, answer to question (1) seems vague, welcoming new users isn't a sysop chore and good contribution to RC Patrol is not reliant on sysop status. --
'''Neutral''' I too would like to see more use of edit summaries.
Since this is a good contributor, s/he certainly deserves some support. RC patrol is a very useful task if sometimes tedious. Keep up the good work and you will be an admin in a couple of months.
I know there are low edit count problems but I will give the benefit of the doubt. --
'''Oppose''' for now.  This editor is well-intentioned and likely to be mopworthy in the future.  Not enough information available about how he interacts with other editors; most contributions in the User Talk namespace are {welcome} messages.  Needs more seasoning in Wikipedia style conventions (his article [[Incomplete Pass]] was created with incorrect capitalization, for instance).  Would like to see more experience and interaction before we give the keys to an editor interested in heavy use of blocking and speedy deletion tools. --
'''Oppose''' Even though I'm normally against judging people on number of edits I have to agree that we don't know enough about his work so I'd say it might be better if he waited awhile to either self nominate again or be nominated by somebody else. <small>Vote made by
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but it is too early. The edit counts are very low and there needs to be more interactions with users other than the welcome messages.
'''oppose''' keep up the good work, and re-nominate yourself in a few months. an admin should have a longer basis of experiences with the software and the community and the policies and the procedures.
'''Oppose''' not because you have done anything wrong, but becuase of a lack of experience. In fact, you seem to be off to a ''very good'' start, less than 1000 edits is too little... To paraphrase the <nowiki>{{test3}}</nowiki>-template: Please continue. If you continue with your fine work, you will be promoted to an administrator of Wikipedia.
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]]. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage,
Will support when edits reflect a greater inclination to admin tasks. Probably will support in a few months. Keep working for a better Wikipedia!

Not right now. What I have seen so far is good but not enough edits, and not enough contribution to the article space in the form of new writing. Keep at it, and I can see myself supporting in a few months.
Doing well so far, but too few edits. Come back later, I'm sure you'll be able to get more support (as well as mine). ;) -
You have my vote -- Michael Dobrowski
My interactions with Howabout1 have been wholly positive. He has a keen interest in admin duties, as exemplified by his answers below. I trust him. (For those opposed because this is his second self-nomination, I will only point out that he did wait the customary month.) --

'''Support''' good job with RC patrol.
'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
Borderline '''Support'''.  I was close to voting neutral on this one.  However, the friendliness shown to newcomers is a very good quality in an admin.  I believe that you will use the admin powers wisely.  --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. I opposed last time due to lack of experience, but I see Howabout1 has continued making good contributions, and I feel that he will make a good administrator now.
'''Support.''' Now that my RfA is over, and I haven't seen any evidence of serial killer tendencies, I say, give him the mop. --
'''Oppose.'''  I apologize, but with an edit count less than 2000, only six months contributing, and the fact that I have never seen you before, I cannot really support you.
Sorry, no. This is not particularly about your dispute with me over your proposal for disruptive users. I simply think you lack the maturity to be an admin.
--
This editor is trying too hard to become an admin.  Will support if not a self-nom.

<s>I'm going to vote neutral for the moment; I've definatley seen Howabout1  around doing good work, but I'd like to see what may come up in the course of voting. Provided he doesn't have a history of high crimes and misdemeanors, I'll change to support before the end of the week. --
I was opposed but will probably go with neutral now.  I'd suggest using more substantial edit summaries; sorry for my comment about the 7 reverts; I didn't look at the diff and just assumed that "rv" as the entire edit summary meant a revert that the 3RR applies to - that's a case in point about edit summaries being confusing. :-)  As I said in my oppose vote, I'm generally against self-nomination anyway, particularly multiple ones.  I wouldn't mind having you be an admin in the future after you've used better edit summaries for a few months.  I'd prefer that you get a nomination from a different user in the future if this one doesn't go through, though, so that it doesn't seem like you're knocking on the door asking, "Can I be an admin now?". --
I am neutral becuase I think the user would be a good admin, but dont know him/her well enough and haven't seen all but one conflict resolution.  I would prefer to wait and see after several major projects to the editors name and some cool resolutions to the most diffcult vandal-troll-sockpuppet users.  Other than that, I think the user is a great person.  Just not everyone can be an admin.  I, myself, would never dare try and do it. -
I supported his previous RFA out of encouragement for his sheer enthousiasm, which I believe is a very important quality. However, I do think that two self-noms in so short a span of time make him a bit overeager. I believe Howabout should keep up his good work and wait for someone else to nominate him (as will undoubtedly happen) and I will certainly support then.
Although I don't recognise the nominator, I'm going to vote '''support''' this time too.

'''Support''' - <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' as per last time.
'''Oppose in the strongest possible terms'''.  Editor is trying way too hard to become an admin.  Nominator didn't sign the nomination, which is questionable, and I don't recognize the nominator as trustworthy.  In fact, it's quite obvious that [[User:Howabout1|Howabout1]] put [[User:Anti-Anonymex2|Anti-Anonymex2]] up to putting up the nomination solely in order to comply with previous requests that he not self-nom again. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnti-Anonymex2&diff=19412348&oldid=19412302] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHowabout1&diff=19528840&oldid=19520176]
'''Oppose'''.  Although I supported last time, I believe that such a quick re-nomination is silly.  --
I am very surprised that the nominated user accepted two days after he had withdrew his self-nom. This is an abuse of process. I am sorry, but his accepting this nomination tells me he will not make a good admin. It is doubtful I will ever vote for him now. He has my sincerest apologies.
'''Oppose'''.  Abuse of process.  Either you are serious about withdrawing yourself from consideration while you improve your resume, or you aren't.  Even if we assume there is no collaboration between you and the nominator, then we are left to assume that you saw the only problem with the last nom was that you nominated yourself.  Your excess of enthusiasm makes me wary.  The fact that you would, in effect, game the system by allowing a vote to restart only two days after you closed a previously losing vote makes me question your judgment and pushes me over to oppose.
I would gladly support in the future, I did not have time to vote on last RFA. However, I share the concerns of others about another very quick RFA, 2 or 3 days is too short to start one again IMHO. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''Support''' as nominator. &mdash;
Looks like Imaglang has done some good work but I'd like to see more than 200 edits before I support a Rfa. With more time and edits I would support.
Nice start.  Come back after 3 months and 2,000 edits :-)
Might make a good admin in the future, but it's too soon for me to support until I see more edits, interactions with other Wikipedians, and the test of some more time. Agree with Blankenfaze. --
20 article edits...
What they said.
Good user. But not at this moment. If you come back with at least 1,200 edits, I'll probably support. --
Sorry, but I'd like to see more experience. --
Looks like a great contributor, but I agree with others, needs more edit history.  --
'''Support''', of course. <font style="background: white">&nbsp;--&nbsp;</font>
'''Support''', as he's contributed lots of Hong Kong related articles, and also the HKWNB and COTW for Hong Kong. --
'''Support''' Solid editor and writer. Opposition irrelevant, as he states that he will not exercise any admin powers in PRC- and ROC-related disputes.
'''Oppose''', and very strongly too. While it is not expected for all admins to have a NPOV in all issues, his conduct when it comes to dispute resolution and naming conventions has led to a record of one RFC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood] and two ROA [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood%2C_et_al.], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2], the later of which is still on-going. Contrary to this claims, he has proven himself to be critically inept in dispute resolution. Irrespective of the Arbcom's outcome, I have little confidence in his ability to demonstrate maturity, fairness, and tact in his dealings and general conduct on wikipedia.--
'''Oppose''' I'm supposed to be on [[Wikipedia:Wikiholiday|wikibreak]] now, but I think I'll vote on this one. Instantnood has been involved in plenty of edit wars, including some really trivial ones (should category HK literature be put under or merely linked to Chinese Literature? See [[WP:LAME]] for details). I just don't think he has the right temperament to be an admin.
'''Oppose'''. The behaviour of this user proves that he does not believe in consensus; in fact, he'll either ignore it or try to get around it. I find it difficult to believe that someone who games the system by using carefully-spaced reverts to avoid 3RR, or sneaks in controversial changes by marking them as minor, would actually abide by his word and never use his admin powers on the one topic in which ''almost all'' his edits are. This is a one-track editor with a clear POV and mission, as proven 16,000 times over. I will reconsider my vote if ArbCom clears him of any wrongdoing.
'''Oppose''' Even if it wasn't me personally involved with many of his disputes, I'd still oppose, for the same reasons that Borisblue and OwenX detail and a thousand other reasons that a good look over the edit history reveals.
'''Oppose''', involved in renaming controversies and other disputes, I'm not sure that he would work harmoniously with others.  There was an earlier RfC: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood]]. --
'''Oppose''' per Curps.

Count is low, but distribution is nice. <small>
support. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' Yes. A little early... OTOH would make a good admin so why not <small>
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' He would make a good admin, in my opinion. --
'''Supporte''' He would make a good admin and is very hepful and cool (he is from South America like me too!).

'''Support''' He would make a good admin and is very helpful and trustworthy (
'''Support''' He helped get all my history back for my account.  It was deleted before and now I have it back.  thanks to him! (
I believe that this user has not been editing for long enough as a non-vandal. My standards state 3+ months, and though I am willing to support those who do not meet them if they have other redeeming qualities, I don't see enough in this user to do so. Additionally, past history of vandalism gives me some pause. '''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Too few edits in too little time.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''', too little experience.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but 3 months is my magic line (except once).--
'''Oppose''' per Andrevan,
'''Oppose'''  It's not because of your past, though. I trust that you have reformed. I've seen it happen before. But since you have only been productively editing since June 25, I've support you after September 25, as you get the good three months in there. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Oppose'''. I find it hard to support anyone with only two and a half months of quality edits. Past history of vandalism sets the bar even higher. (But you deserve props for being frank about it and reforming.) --
'''Oppose''', nice edit count, but a very short time. -
--
'''Oppose'''.  Besides being a former vandal and taking off six months (I checked), your user page strikes me as being a bit uncivil.  "Political s***" and "Kick "a** links" for headers just don't sit right with my understanding of [[WP:Civil]].  Yes, you have been making reverts and helpful contribs, but you're too self-centered and absorbed to be an [[ambassador]] to new users of Wikipedia.  My advice: become more civil in your use of the English language, learn more new words in the language to help self-expression, and ''learn from more experienced, respected editors'' here on the Wikipedia.  Find an area of interest you don't know much about (other than bands and music) and learn and contribute to it.  '''Then''' come back and see about adminship.  I hope I've said this in a gentle, constructive way. . . that's my intent here.  Thanks for listening.  --
'''Oppose'''.  Only ten weeks of good editing, preceeded by a six month break, preceeded by minor vandalism? What's the harm in waiting? Keep doing good editing, use edit summaries each time for article edits, and in a few months let's re-evaluate for adminship after considering the friendly criticism above.
<s>Neutral. I added a question for you, though, which I would like you to answer.
'''Support'''. Journalist does good work and I like his answers to the questions below. One little thing: please remember to consistently use edit summaries.
'''Support''' - meets [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my standards]]. So long as he doesn't contribute like a jornalist... LOL! --
'''Support'''- would make a good administrator. Journalist's contributions to Wikipedia have been impressive.
'''Support''' already took above into account.... eeeexxxxceeeelllllent --<small>
'''Oppose'''. Too inexperienced in my opinion. --May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose''' Hasn't been here for very long. Only has 12 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. That shows you don't vote on RFAs very much. I don't think you should become an admin unless you take part in the process.
Will support at 1000+ edits.  --
'''Oppose''', work mainly on female singers, doesn't follow or contribute to [[Special:Newpages]] or [[Special:Recentchanges]], VfD, CfD, Copyright Problems... For simple editing no admin powers are needed. Also a low editcount.
'''Oppose'''. Two months is much too short, not to mention the lack of experience.
'''Oppose''': Does not use edit summaries very frequently. Also, I'm a bit troubled by some rapid {{tl|nonsense}} tags added today (August 22) to a couple of pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thoughts_on_Various_Subjects%2C_Moral_and_Diverting&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons_Company&action=history]. I recommend the nominee add pages they think might be nonsense to their watchlist and come back to them when a user familiar with a given topic has had a chance to work on the article in question. If this user addresses these concerns and is up for nomination again after a couple of months have passed, I will support. Everything else looks to be good. --
'''Oppose, regretably'''. I remember feeling a similar way in June after I'd been here a month- but I've learned since than that I simply hadn't had enough experience in wiki-conflict to be a good admin.  I'm sure you're a conscientious and helpful wikipedian, but give it a few months, please. If your contributions to the project remain so positive, I will support.--
'''Oppose'''- not been on here long enough
--

'''Oppose'''. I hate to be a party pooper, and I get no enjoyment out of casting an oppose vote. However, I don't think you're ready yet. This is me talking from an administrator's stance: I don't think you've sufficently learned the ropes yet. I think if you learned how to apply applicable Wikipedia guidelines to your article edits, you'd be much better off in the long run. Come back with improvement and I'll support you. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Neutral''', my brief interaction with the editor while I mediated [[Mariah Carey]] was quite positive, but I still feel that he needs a few more months of participation before he is given sysop rights. --
Total edits: 1,230; edits in Article space: 795; edits in Image space: 111.<br>I think that he'll make a good admin when he's been here a bit longer (I don't insist on a minimum of 1,000 edits, though...).  I certainly see no reason to vote against, it's just he needs more experience in order for me to support him.  --
'''Neutral'''. Good contributor, but I will support after more Wikipedia namespace edits. You're on the right track, though; I liked your answers to the questions.
'''Neutral'''. Will support at a few more Wikipedia: namespace edits. -

Well, I just support zis guy, you know?
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''. Kappa was the user who finally convinced me to register here. Excellent janitorial work, and has done the often neglected task of salvaging countless articles form the Speedy deletin category. Excellent work throughout!
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''support'''
'''support''' &nbsp;<font color="#0082B8">=
'''Support''' Based on my experience with this person on [[Bemani]] articles (btw, ever considered bring [[Dance Dance Revolution]] to a featured article?)
As per Radiant. I trust him to use his powers only for consensus, never for evil.
'''Support'''. Disturbingly good with a mob and bucket.
'''Support''', a good contributor who can definitely be trusted with speedy deletion.
'''Strong Support'''. I often find myself having an opposing viewpoint to Kappa on VfD, but the user's civility has been noteworthy, and the user is anything but trigger-happy with deletions.--

'''Support'''.  We disagree on many things, but Kappa should certainly be allowed to wield the mop and bucket. --
'''Support''' from me, too. One of the more rational voices on vfd.
This should be no big deal.

'''Support'''
'''Sure thing''' With Kappa, all articles are safe.
'''Support'''. Great user, trustworthy, and very helpful. As long as you're not a [[Kappa (mythical creature)|mischeivious water imp]]. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Keep up the good work!--
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.  In general I don't like self-nominations, but Kappa is a good exception to a general rule.  --
'''Support''' - strong editor.
'''Support'''. Sure; adminship is no big deal. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. &ndash;
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' extreme inclusionist :) We need balance or something.
'''Support''' The votes opposing Kappa for adminship have spoken even more eloquently of his good qualities than those in favor. To call him an extreme inclusionist is simply incorrect.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FAlisonfire&diff=14740578&oldid=14733019] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Saga&diff=14732009&oldid=14731901]  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.chowk.com&diff=prev&oldid=14439289].--
'''Sypport'''
'''Support'''
Sorry, I don't see enough substantial contributions to articles to merit adminship yet, and the two articles cited as examples of his contributions are not much better than stubs.  Willing to support in the future should this change.
'''Oppose'''.  Extreme inclusionist.
'''Oppose''', I agree with RickK and I also don't see much participation in areas outside the school debate and vfd--
'''Oppose'''. If there's a balance outside the schools/VFD vote, I would like to see it.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I agree with the Oppose votes above, and also note that two of the four things Kappa wants admin powers for seem to be housekeeping tasks that anyone can perform (delete copyvios and post "test" messages).
'''Absolutely not''': The reasons for wishing admin status ring false, and Kappa routinely ignores existing deletion policy on VfD.  One should not become an admin simply to try to pull articles out of deletion.  You can already remove speedy tags, already ''add content to articles'' to keep them from being speedies, and already go to VfU and argue for restoration of improper deletions.  Reaching into the deletion log and undeleting articles is not valid by anyone.  VfU is required for every single one.
'''Oppose'''. I have the same concerns as mentioned by others here. I will also note that Kappa is extremely inclusionist on [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion]] and [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion]], and some types of categories and templates can be, sometimes, more disruptive to Wikipedia (in the sense that they affect far more pages) than many individual articles that are listed on [[WP:VFD]]. &mdash;
I agree with many of the concerns listed above.
'''Oppose''' Does not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]]. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage,

I expressed concern earlier about Kappa's lack of response to his talk page. If he had addressed that matter, he would quite possibly have persuaded me to support his RFA. However, as he hasn't responded to it, I feel I have to oppose, as I think communicating is a very important part of adminship.

Oppose. Either pushing an agenda, or simply a troll. Routinely wastes other peoples' time with frivolous VFU nominations.
'''Oppose'''.
I'm not ready to vote in support. On examining recent VfD's, some of Kappa's comments are annoying responses that really amount to nothing more than "Keep, because I think this article should be kept." Others, however, are well-articulated and move the discussion forward. He is not a robot-like inclusionist by any means. In response to my comment below he gave examples of some good short articles he contributed, and he has over 3000 edits in the main namespace, but on looking at them it seems to me that he mostly does minor touchups. However, becoming an admin is not supposed to be a big deal and I don't see any particular reason to oppose, either.
'''Strong support''' - one of our most dedicated editors. --
'''Strong support''', agree with nominator.  ;-)
'''Very strong support''' - very strong and dedicated editor and highly unlikely to abuse his powers. I see no reason that being an "inclusionist" as a bad quality in an admin. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' 16,000 edits is more than enough.
'''Support'''
'''support'''
[[Image:Wolverine on rock.jpg|25px]] '''Support with my pack of wild wolverines''' While Kappa is a bit too inclusionist for my tastes, politics is no reason to keep a qualified candidate out of adminship. I see no evidence that he will, for instance, go around doing rogue undeletions. — '''
'''Support''' per BD2412 and Hall Monitor. Hardly likely to abuse powers.
'''Support''' we're on opposing sides of the inclusionist scale, and I still respect his viewpoint and carriage.  Would make a great admin.
'''Support''' hopefully Kappa changes his mind... he'd make a good admin. &nbsp;
'''Support'''
'''Support''' and sincerely hope that he reconsiders his declination.
'''Oppose'''.  It looks like the main reasons that Kappa's nomination failed last time were his excessive focus on VFD and his strong, predictable, and often perplexing inclusionist streak.  I don't see that this has changed, as he still seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on VFD, and I still personally think that he votes to keep many things that seem like clear candidates for deletion to me (i.e. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qui-Gon Jinn 12" Inch]]).  Sorry. --
'''Weak Oppose''' There is nothing wrong ''per se'' with an inclusionist streak, unless it leads to frivoulous editing, such as his [[:Category:Elf schools]]. Has in the past voted for keeping categories and templates that were so crufty that they verged on disruptiveness. I'm just not sure I trust his judgement... Others do have other opinions however..
'''Oppose, with caveat:''' While I agree that Kappa is worthy - and I certainly have no objections to an inclusionist - I'm concerned that it looks like he's being forced into this vote when he's reluctant. I don't think people should be forced to be admins if they don't want to be, so unless there's indication that he's happy to be an admin, I'm opposing.
'''Oppose'''. If he doesn't want to be an admin, don't make him one. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. While he's a good contributor, Kappa has issues with civility. When people disagree with him, he is far too quick to make snide remarks, or accuse them of bad faith, or of breach of policy - e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Falldown&diff=24080575&oldid=24079816], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Information_Technology_Channel&diff=24074664&oldid=24072026], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desmoplastic&diff=23965704&oldid=23965534]. Also, he seems to have a misunderstanding of CSD ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=prev&oldid=23188415]) and has very little edits in Wikipedia namespace other than AFD discussions.
'''Oppose''', per above.
'''Strongly oppose''': Same issues as last time.  Few actual contributions to the body of the project, constant campaigning on VfD to prevent deletion, pretending that there is a consensus, or even policy, for his views when there isn't, badgering people who nominate for deletion and vote for deletion.  You have to either agree with the policies or agree to abide by them, and certainly not misrepresent them, to be an administrator of the policies.
'''Oppose'''. Would strongly support if candidate showed interest.
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience with policy.
'''Oppose''' till user sets an email id.
'''Neutral'''. I would support, only that he didn't accept the nomination!
'''Support'''. --
<s>Absolutely. [[User:El C|El_C]] 22:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)</s> &mdash; <s>I'm a concrned with his responses, and I note some of the comments bellow. Therefore, I'm withdrawing my support vote, which I may or may not reinstate. [[User:El C|El_C]] 00:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)</s> &mdash; With some pressing items having been clarified to my satisfaction (and also with the hopes that Kils will continue contributing to WP), I am restoring my '''support''' vote.
'''SUPPORT'''. after much deliberation, i believe that Kils did not make sock puppet ''oceanographer'', and i feel that Kils deserves another chance.
'''Support'''.  I really had to do quite a lot of research on this one, but I feel quite confident in my decision.  The problem from 2003 is serious indeed, but it is ancient history by wikipedia standards, and the intervening two years without sysop status has been punishment enough.  As far as the recent business with Oceanographer, only Oceanographer knows for sure what's going on, but I feel we should give Kils the benefit of the doubt.  A student writing a vanity page for their professor is not unlikely... in fact it happens all the time!  I'm inclined to believe Kils about that.
Tentatively '''support'''. This one, like what Starblind said, was a tough choice. I looked through all the old records, read Uwe Kil's response at my [[User_talk:Flcelloguy|user talk page]], and looked at his edit history. Though his count is overinflated because of his responses to users, he does have over 1500 edits. Looking at his article edits, he has contributed a lot of quality substance, including multiple pictures, graphs, and data. Also, I believe that he has learned from the past- regardless of who is to be blamed. Note that the old logs claimed it was "temporary" de-sysop-ing (is that a word?); one year seems to be more than enough for a "temporary" period. Also, we must give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the sock puppets... I'm sure there are kids out there who will do that. And the blanking of user pages? I'm sure that was a rash action that he won't repeat again. If he does, though, we can always de-sysop him again. One year seems plenty of time for a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]] to regret his actions (presuming that he is responsible for those alleged actions). For now, though, we should give him the benefit of the doubt and re-admin him. However, this is only a '''tentative''' support- no one opposing him has responded to my comment or has given a clear, concise (one paragraph or less) view of why he should not be re-admin-ed (again, is that a word? lol). If someone does (which would make it a lot easier rather than trying to piece together tons of different sources with different views on what happened) I will reconsider my vote and make another educated decision. Thanks! (Whew, what a long support vote!)
'''Support''', good Wikipedian.
'''Weak support'''. I'm concerned that if given sysop privileges again Kils will again use his position to remove articles that he deems offensive, that being said I think that he should be given another chance.
'''Weak support'''. I'm afraid I wasn't here when this first controversy happened, but I am willing to accept his statement that he will not abuse his powers.  Furthermore, having been involved in the Vfd (minorly), I really don't think those users are sock-puppets of himself.  My support is only weak because I don't have first-hand knowledge of the previous controversy. --
Tentatively oppose. The timing is peculiar at best in light of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=14261583#Oceanographer_and_Kils Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Oceanographer and Kils]. While sockpuppets are not forbidden, the fact that it played a role in his desysoping makes continuing use of multiple accounts worrisome. Also, if Kils is returning to a greater level of activity and proposing to resume adminship, I am concerned about his familiarity with present community norms. I'm not sure the answer to the third question below can be considered sufficient, and I think we need Kils to elaborate a little more. --
'''Oppose'''. The sockpuppet allegation is not good, but I am also worried about this user's poor spelling and English (see his comments about his de-sysop and how he answers the Admin questions).
Regrettably '''Oppose'''. Unilaterally "cleaning" wikipedia and removing the discussion it generates did not and does not inspire confidence for suitability as an admin. But don't take it too hard, all the interesting stuff on wikipedia can be done by non-admins; The flip side of ''adminship is no big deal'' is that ''not'' being an admin isn't that big a deal either. --
'''Oppose''' I am afraid. This user appears to take criticism too personally, this makes me question whether he has the right mindset for adminship. Also I find his answer to question 3, if not dishonest, is at least circumventing the truth, I cannot support a candidate who does not operate with complete transparency.
'''Oppose'''. Something's fishy here (pun fully intended).
'''Strong oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''.  There's nothing specific I can point to, but I don't have a good feeling about this person as an admin. --
'''Oppose'''. Prof. Kils is very welcome to step up his contributions to this encyclopedia again, but he doesn't need to be an admin to do that. I count exactly 83 contributions from Nov 1, 2004 to May 22, 2005, and basically no involvement with housekeeping tasks. I am kinda sorry that the old de-adminning story keeps haunting him, but he'll have to ''earn'' our (or, at least, my) trust again first.
'''Oppose'''. [[User:Lupo]] has already worded my feelings perfectly.
'''Oppose'''. I agree with [[User:Lupo|Lupo]]. The current lack of involvement for the past few months does not convince me that there is a need to be promoted again.
Vague oppose. I also had to do a lot of research on this (as I thought about supporting him), but feel that the benefit of the doubt should not be given. If anything goes wrong it will be difficult to de-sysop him again (for good).
'''Oppose'''.  I'm a little worried about his English, and more worried by his rather snappish responses to criticism. Reading through his replies, I'm unable to work out what he means sometimes (e.g., "I am not [[user:oceanographer]] - I made them"), and if he can't keep his temper here, when one would have expected him to be on his best behaviour, then there are definite concerns more widely.
'''Oppose'''. I would have remained neutral on this issue, but this users contradictory responses, their comments on [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils|vfd/Uwe_Kils]], and their replies to issues raised here, all give me concerns as to their interpersonal skills and suitability for adminship.
'''Oppose'''. Responses on this page make me uncomfortable.
I remembered the events that lead Kils to be unsysoped. It was necessary to do so, and if he is made a sysop again, I would caution him to be extremely careful in his actions. He could possibly be given another chance though ? What worries me here however, is that he seems to take the comments of editors remembering of such events quite strongly. And that does not seem to preclude good things imho.
I fully endorse Antheres words, and would add that although it has been made clear to Uwe that his desysöpping was not in the nature of a punishment, and that his legitimate contributions are highly regarded by most all, he appears constitutionally unable  to not raise his hackles at the slightest crosswise word. This is not an impediment to sysophood in itself, there are plenty of prickly roses among the adminhood; most likely pricklier than he was at the time of his desysopping. He should take the constructive advice he has been given to heart. Also, I would say as a side comment that his denigration of editors who have not chosen to edit with their real names is a bit rich, considering that he has spurred the creation of two highly pseudonymous (even communal) usernames, which to say Vikings and Oceanographer. If he wishes to condemn those users, he can easily do so, privately, off-wikipedia. Personally I don't see anything wrong with psaudonymous editing, as long they don't borach best practises. --
'''Neutral'''. I will change my vote to support if Kils can present us with a statement that proves that he is of the mindset that is suitable to become an admin again. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
'''Oppose'''. While I appreciate Kmweber's recent article-space contributions and vandalism reversion, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalator Productivity|this AfD discussion]] revealed some extremely radical views he has about policy: the idea of consensus is "flawed," and the core policies [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NOT]] are somehow invalid. I also recall some bizarre, idiosyncratic edits regarding [[Mojo Nixon]] a while ago that some might consider vandalism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=prev&oldid=15434492] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_J._Fox&diff=prev&oldid=15427586]. Note the edit summaries, which are "spelling corrections," when the edits are anything but spelling corrections. <font color="green">
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Android79|android79]].
As an admin one must act on consensus, sometimes ferret out what might be consensus instead of  making policy. I had no problem with curtness or the occasional outburst in several recent admin candidates, but the statement "'consensus' is as flawed as the policies it creates" in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalator Productivity]] convinces me that [[User:Kmweber]] will push an agenda.
'''Oppose'''. The statement-verging-on-manifesto above makes pretty plain that Kmweber has an agenda that he will likely push. Being an arch-inclusionist is fine (if a little unhealthy), but not then re-interpreting policies to meet those ends. As for suggesting that deletion is a form of vandalism, well, it is hard to be more wrong; it is merely cleaning up. Even if an agenda wouldn't be pushed, the interpretation of policy leads to some fairly clear judgement errors: On [[WP:VFU|VfU]] at present is [[The Olmos]] which, prior to speedying, said ''"A Yearbook of unprecedented quality."'' &mdash; Kmweber has requested its undeletion "because it exists" (a largely unverifiable fact). To wanting to undelete as a result of VfU, well, VfU undeletes (at a stab of a guess) an article a week or so so you'll get little catharsis there. I'm also given to understand that Kmweber is kicked from the IRC channel fairly regularly which must mean he can be more than a little irritating at times. Finally, there's that spate of vandalism quite recently (in RfA terms) &mdash; when I took a resulting article to VfD, you can guess what sort of accusations were left on my talk page &mdash; much the same as those regarding deletion above. If you're just after the rollback button, Sam Hocevar's [http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/ Godmode lite] will give you that 'for free'. -
'''Oppose'''.  Kmweber uses misleading edit summaries to mask vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_Rivers&diff=15519882&oldid=15420831], doesn't respect consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKmweber&diff=18422244&oldid=18411054], and declared that "I derived no value from performing mundane tasks that were MUCH beneath me in "cooperation" with what were mostly utter incompetents who had no respect for the creative power of the human mind" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKmweber&diff=18439838&oldid=18423232].  So far, Weber seems like a [[Wikipedia:Role account]] enacting his interpretation of Ayn Rand's philosophys, most notably, that consensus opinions are weak.  Extremely unstable, horribly unsuited for adminship.  --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Bandwagon'''. --
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]], vandals shouldn't be editors, not to mention admins--
'''Oppose''' per above. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose''', too controversial for me.
'''Oppose'''. Please reconsider this stance that almost all deletion is vandalism.  [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 05:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, after reviewing the first link cited by DropDeadGorgias, I'll change my vote to '''strongly''' oppose. That was sneaky vandalism.
'''Oppose'''.  His comment that "all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere" is bizarre in the extreme.

'''Support''' Editor since Sept. 2003.  Relatively low edit count, but a diligent history of template maintenance.  Seems a solid "janitorial" wikipedian, and we need the cleaning around here.
'''Support''' template editors should be able to be admins.  There is room for them and I don't see that as a reaosn for an oppose vote.  Seems arbitrary to me.  Wii edits aren't any more better or more important than template edits when being an admin is no big deal.  Could use an admin like this user.
'''Support''' Solid and trustworthy worker.
'''Support.'''
'''Oppose.''' Edit summaries are basically non-existent. This plus just 7 wiki edits (looking through contrib's there is little diversity generally) is enough to oppose. The work in templates is excellent though, and the user seems to want to help. Use summaries and move around the wiki and you get support next time!
'''Oppose''' 7 wiki edits are Way too few. Try editing more in AFD and RFA and u will get my vote next time --
'''Weak Oppose''' Wait a few months. Good attitude and the CSS knowledge will ensure approval then, but right now I think he's a bit too unseasoned.
'''Oppose''', per [[User:Aranda56|Jaranda]].
'''Oppose'''. Looking through your contributions, it seems that you made your first edits on 27 September 2003, then one edit on 4 October 2003, 9 edits on 9 November 2003, 17 edits during December 2003 and then nothing for six months, until you returned in late May 2004 and were very active through to 26 July 2004. You then took another break and didn't return to active editing until 2 April 2005, where you then edited through to 26 April 2005. It seems you then took another long break until 10 September 2005. However, from that time through to now I'm glad to see that you have been active and have done some great work on the succession templates. <br> However, the reason I oppose at this time is for you lack of edit summaries of which they are the exception rather than the rule. The other reason I oppose is your current lack of communication with other users and your current lack of edits in the project namespace. <br> Please don't feel disheartened by my vote. Get yourself involved in the project namespace, remember to always write an edit summary and continue to actively edit over the following months and I will gladly support your nomination. --
'''Oppose'''. I couldn't have said it better than [[User:Ianblair23|Ianblair23]]. Keep up the good work, and please work on your weaker areas.
'''Oppose''' per Ianblair23.
'''Oppose.''' I have no memorable interactions with this user, but the fact that he listed his nomination in the wrong place [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=246057&diff=19581843&oldid=19572157], has voted for himself (which is... unorthodox), and has made many typos and errors in his acceptance and answers shows a lack of familiarity, understanding, and respect for the process.  Furthermore.  I would think that an admin should at least make sure to read the instructions on a page, follow conventions, and be meticulous with editing, particularly for something as difficult as a self-nomination.  --
'''Oppose'''. Opening statement and answers to the standard questions do not indicate a familiarity with what administrators typically do. Managing [[Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive]] shows dedication, but you appear to have litle experience doing admin-like activities (VfD and its counterparts, vandalism reversion). The "checkered past" is also of some concern; elaboration on this would be most helpful. <font color="green">
'''Weak Oppose''' primarily based on two things, both from the acceptance message above: you've had ''twenty'' VfDed articles!?  I mean, one or two is okay, but twenty?  That strongly suggests that you're out of step with the sorts of articles should have.  What sort of articles were they, anyway?  Also, the part about ''"the power and the prestige (such as it is) of adminship"'' also rubs me the wrong way.  I suspect that it was intended jokingly (hence the "such as it is" part)...  though if that's the case, why insult a position you're simultaneously seeking?
'''Oppose''' Bunch of reasons. First of all, 1,700 edits is nothing for someone who has been here for that long. Plus, 20 articles going to vfd is a ton for someone without that many edits. Like was said earlier, one or 2 is ok but 20? Plus, I'm not sure he knows what admins do. I would strongly suggest reading the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_reading_list|Administrators reading list]] so you have some understanding about what admins do. Reading the answers to the questions, it sounds like the user thinks that being an admin is something you should be given for good deeds. It doesn't quite work that way. It's more of using it for things such as vfds or for conflict resolution. It isn't really a reward for goodness. You need to show that you will use the powers and use them well. And also, the "checkered past" bothers me as well. I appreciate the honesty, but that indicates a willingness to get into conflict. Admins don't have alot of powers but what they do have could cause problems in that kind of situation. --
'''Oppose''' per Starblind. --
'''Oppose''' You haven't mentioned anything about stopping vandals, which, in my opinion, is the point of being an admin. You just haven't got your priorities in the correct order.

'''Support''' - who steals the nominators spot while the nominator is away notifying the nominated?
'''Support''' - all my encounters with him have been excellent but my main reason is he edited my user page. I admire that. Plus, [[User:celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] are met. Will make a great admin. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', I see him revert vandalism and do great work at [[George W. Bush]] all the time, and he seems like a great contributor. -
'''Support'''. Voldy is a trustworthy character<small>, ironically, </small> with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful.
'''Support''' I really don't understand why JETFA is being held against him. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support''' Everyone else has said it all, really.--
'''Support''' [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' Just edit the freakin' article I say :). I'm willing the candidate the benifit of the doubt when comes to the personal attack reform, as most of them seem to be from over two months ago. <small>
'''Support''' -
'''Support''' - I've seen nothing but good contributions, and he is clearly committed to the goal of creating an encyclopaedia of the highest quality. (Further comments in the comments section).
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Great user useful in vfd --
Yes, please. I'm happy to take the candidate's word that the personal attacks are over.
'''Support''' [[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', those personal attacks aren't nice but they're several months ago and he has been a worthwhile user other than that incident.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' the oppose reasons are ridiculous.
'''Support'''. The personal attacks, while regrettable, are far enough in the past for me, and having been involved in the Gabrielsimon incident(s), I have seen how that particular editor can bring out the worst in people, including myself. I admire the Dark Lord's work on [[George W. Bush]] and AfD. I think he can be trusted with the mop. <font color="green">
'''Support''' byegones be bygones.
'''Strong Support''' even though he killed Harry Potter's parents :-)--
'''Support'''. The personal attacks are indeed worrying but it appears to me that Voldemort was learning to get to grips with how the community works and I trust him not to do it again (I'm assuming that there were no personal attacks after those quoted by fvw). I see no other reasons to oppose (JETFA echoes my own concerns). --
'''Support''' - I'm familiar with Lord Voldemort as a helpful contributor at [[WP:FPC]] and have no objections.  Comment: I was prompted to come and see this rfa after stumbling across what I considered to be an unfair request on a user talk page for an oppose vote here.  Having read the lot, as well as several more user talk pages, I think the way LV has responded to all of this demonstrates commendable maturity and restraint ~
'''Support''' --
'''support''': no reason to oppose. as far as I know, adminship does not bring with it a "make personal attack or immature page button."
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  Notable objections have been raised, but what I have seen of this editor has left me with a favorable impression.  I believe that Lord Voldemort can safely be entrusted with admin powers. --
'''Support''',
'''Support''', the personal attacks don't add up to much, and his contributions are undisputed.
'''Support'''. From his namespace span, I can see that he's dedicated at both article-writing and relationship-building. Can see that he will become a good admin.
'''Support'''. I'm willing to trust LV. Everyone deserves a chance, especially after an apollogy for previous mistakes has been offered.
'''Support''', if he continues his personal attacks, he can always be desysoped, and Shauri's trust is a good reason.--
'''Support'''. Your choice of username does not inspire trust, but as a kid I used to assemble plastic models of the Wolfman and if that's good enough for a [[Top Gun]] pilot's call sign ... anyway, if you block someone wrongly, the rest of us can always unblock them, so: best wishes!
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''. also, I think that there's anything wrong with your name.  It's a character from [[Harry Potter]]!!! --
'''Support''' - if you pay attention to the annoucement board, you might see why me supporting his nomination might be significant (goes to make annoucement)
'''Support'''- meets my standards. The personal attacks, while worrying, seem far enough in the past we don't have to worry. --
'''Support''' from neutral based on intelligent, earnest, good faith confrontation of issues against. Right "disposition" proved to my mind.
'''Support''' - if one is actively trying to look for poor editing behaviour, one will most certainly find it. The opposite holds true too - this user is willing to learn and mature, and this makes all the difference. --
'''STRONG SUPPORT''' or that lesbian crap. lol.  He claims to be evil!!! I like it!  Just playing : )
'''Oppose''' JETFA is a perfect example of the immaturity that seems to be creeping into Wikipedia. I am increasingly seeing users make offensive comments when voting, and editing in general. In addition to the "extreme" votes, other users have been voting neutral just for the sake of voting with ridiculous comments ("'''Neutral''' until candidate answers the question" or "'''Neutral''' I have not interacted with this user"). I see JETFA as inextricably tied to this voting pattern.
'''Strong Oppose''' I agree, JETFA is an extremely immature sort of diversion.  While [[User:Lord Voldemort]] has some strengths as an editor, his weaknesses are such that I do not believe he is fit for adminship. Add to this his history of personal attacks and he is not a good candidate.
'''Oppose''' - Although he has done good work on [[George W. Bush]] and other articles, this user has a history of personal attacks.
'''Oppose''', [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Voldemort&diff=15206302&oldid=15206287 making] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Voldemort&diff=18599057&oldid=18468572 personal attacks], and then when someone removed those attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Voldemort&diff=18600285&oldid=18599729 attacking] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Voldemort&diff=18601305&oldid=18600285 that person] is not indicative of the right disposition for adminship. --
'''Oppose''': The personal attacks violate ''Wikipedia'' norms for [[Wikipedia: Civility|civility]] and are not indicative of a potential administrator--at least not right now.
'''Oppose'''. Although admins are no more than regular contributors with a few extra buttons, they are often seen as representatives of Wikipedia, especially by new people. Because of this I cannot support someone who resorts to abuse rather than entering into a dialogue when he has a problem with a fellow Wikipedian. Also, although I believe it was created with good intentions, JETFA is, in my opinion, unhelpful.
'''Oppose''' based on the above comments, lack of time, and low edit count. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as Alkivar.
'''Weak oppose''' the difs shown above and other discussion of personal attacks don't look good. I'd be willing to support in a few months.
'''Weak oppose'''. There is some reason for concern so I sugges waiting a few more months just to make sure. '''
'''Oppose''' - let's just wait a bit on this one to see how things develop re. the propensity for personal attacks.
'''Oppose''' as per above --
'''Oppose'''.  Administrators have to have a certain disposition.  Regardless of whether he apologized for the personal attacks in question, I expect an admin candidate to have never made them at all.  May support in a few months, but not now.  <font color="red">
'''Weeeak oppose''', I'm slightly concerned about some of the user's behavior.  --
Oppose.
'''Oppose pro temps'''.  Don't recall having interacted with this user, but this seemed close enough to merit peering at a few links.  Am concerned enough by several of the issues raised to prefer to wait a while longer, especially given the relatively short time here anyway.  But seems willing (and able) to learn from his mistakes, so I'd be inclined to support at said later occasion, if that indeed continues to prove the case.
'''Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lord_Voldemort&diff=18601305&oldid=18600285 No] This shows very poor judgement. It's easy to apologise for something after the fact, but good judgement comes in not calling someone a Homo in the first place. I'm sorry, but the apology should have come way before this nomination. You certainly have the forgivness you ask for but I think the extra buttons should wait a while longer.
'''Oppose''' Calling someone a "homo" is not acceptable behavior.
<s> Neutral until questions are answered (see above) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>|  [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) </s> Still neutral. While Lord Voldemort is a great editor, I'm voting neutral because of the personal attacks (combined with a relatively short time on Wikipedia). Because I do see that you have apologised with sincerity and have not engaged in personal attacks since, I would gladly support you in a month or two. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
Moved vote to '''neutral''' because Lord Voldemort apologised for the personal attacks. I'm not familiar with him enough to change my vote to support yet.
Hmm. This is a hard one for me. I'm not holding the issue with Gabrielsimon and Rhobite against him; he's a good contributor (accumulating more edits in a week than I get in a month, I think); and I've interacted with him on several occasions. However, I really think he needs to stick around a little longer. Three to four months really isn't long enough. Try again in another three to four months and I'll definitely support. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e''</font>]]
'''Neutral''' not familiar with him and concerned somewhat by the perosnal attacks reported.
<s>'''Neutral'''.</s> To support. I followed some of the links and it should be noted '''personal attacks occurred on the user's own user page'''. Now, this doesn't fundamentally absolve the person of attacks but I do believe in leeway on your own page. Has he launched attacks on other talk pages? I'm neutral for this reason. I don't particularly like JETFP or whatever it is, but it isn't a vote-changer.
'''Neutral''' I think that Lord Voldemort has reformed (although this [[Voldemort|doesn't make sense]]) of the personal attacks. Evidence pointing to this are things like his apology, and involvement with projects such as [[WP:ESP|Esperanza]]. However, I am not positive, and JEFTA really doesn't seem necessary, since editing the articles is the whole point of Wikipedia. Give one more month on Wikipedia with some good, strong editing, and I will support.
'''Neutral''' Lord makes good edits and will be a decent admin when the time is right...see you in a month or two.--
Neutral solely for time.  Personal attacks on user pages are nasty, but they're not exactly a sign of how a person is going to interact with others.  As for JETFA, am I the only one who gets it?  There is an implicit criticism of those people who chalk up 1,000 edits by ''not editing,'' but rather in ''tagging.''  The idea is, "the same energy you used to tag it could have fixed it."  It's a "sofixit" that reminds us that tagging it ain't fixing it.  That, to me, is a gentle chiding and a very encouraging thing.  To me, that looks like someone trying to make us less tagged and more fixed, which is a cause of celebration.  Still, the time is too short at this point, and the interactions are still too few.
Neutral for now, but the kid's basically pretty good. Take the gentle comments in this RFA on board, come back in a month or two and I'll probably support -
'''Neutral''' for the time being based upon the reasons expressed by others.
'''Neutral'''. [[WP:JETFA]] is childish and the user has a history of personal attacks. But he is experienced. I'll remain neutral.--May the Force be with you!
'''Neutral''' as per [[User:David Gerard|Gerard]], [[User:Geogre|Geogre]],
About damn time.
All this sockpuppet stuff is baloney.  Can you say ''filibuster''?  Whether Lst27 is Alex <removed> or not, we're NOT dealing with a troll or a vandal.  I also supported ABCD, who is also said to be Alex <removed>.  Lst27 hasn't done anything in his main namespace edits to make me dubious of his abilities.  --
Good point. (

'''Support''', he has shown himself to be a good user. As for the Alex <removed> thing: if he hadn't admitted to being Alex he would have faced further months of hounding.
I support this nomination.  I know there have been allegations that got kicked around like a football, but that's old hat now and I think it's neither fair nor helpful to recycle unproven accusations this far down the track.  At any rate, this is an English-language encyclopedia, and "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental principle in every English-speaking country that I know of.  This user is a good editor; to be sure, he's had a few run-ins, but I'd be hard-put to name a user who hasn't.  Give the guy a break, for goodness sake.
Support. Given that the last [[User:Alex<removed>|Alex<removed>]] edit was 29 Jun 2004, I just don't see how the [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sock puppet]]ry accusations, even if true, are relevant to this RFA.
'''Support''', after careful consideration. I give him the benefit of the doubt. If anything goes wrong we can always de-sysop. --

Support. The issue of identity has been resolved to my satisfaction. --
<s>The who is or isn't who should get resolved first, before RFA . I noted that lot of edits lack summaries.
This user first claimed in no uncertain terms '''not''' to be Alex <removed> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALst27&diff=5911050&oldid=5907962], then turned around and claimed that he '''was''' Alex <removed> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALst27&diff=6154395&oldid=6153369].  Thus, he has made false statements about his identity on at least one occasion (it's not clear to me what he claims now, or what the truth of the matter is).  Also, actions such as putting up a public listing of users he would not support for adminship [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALst27&diff=9490705&oldid=9490385] suggest a lack of the maturity one would hope for in an admin.
Sorry, Alex <removed> has been trying to get an adminship under I can't remember how many different names now, and whether Lst27 is or is not Alex <removed>, he either lied when denying he was Alex <removed>, or else he lied when he said he ''was'' Alex <removed>.  Either way doesn't give me warm fuzzies.
<s>See comments. Will change to support if it turns out to be a misunderstanding.</s> Oppose firmly. Alex's behavior as [[User:Perl|Perl]] is highly suspicious: I can't see why it took him four months to ask Lst27 to stop claiming his identity, nor can I see why he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lst27.09&diff=next&oldid=9205307 removed] all instances of the name "Alex <removed>" ''only'' from [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lst27.09]], even though it's linked from [[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Alex<removed>|numerous other places]], and still visible on [[User:Perl/contact]]. That is suspicious, to say the least. Even if Lst27 isn't Alex (and I've been wrong about this [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD|once before]]), it is a bad sign that he maintained the claim on his userpage for six months, and even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ABCD&diff=11376290&oldid=11376243 strongly implied] that he was Alex as recently as 22 March. (See comments below for explanation of this diff.) Either way, I have to oppose. &mdash;

Oppose. Even if the preponderance of evidence is of a fine and harmless editor, the admin corps is not important enough either that he needs to have that pin on his lapel, or that we can't do without him.  I don't care what all the wierdness and all the persistance about adminship means; adminship isn't important enough to justify wading through all that to a situation of confidence. --
Ultimately, the question is one of trust. Developing trust for someone who has lied ''in the past'' is challenging, but conceivable. Developing trust for someone who is in the act of lying ''at the present time'' is not rationally possible. <s>In this case, I believe the truth to be in the "Freudian slip" pointed out by Mirv, and not the present denials, and therefore I oppose.</s> --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 23:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) Reconsidering the evidence, temporarily moving vote to neutral. --
Support.
He possesses copious free time and energy, and my interactions with him in the past indicate he's not the kind of guy to go out on a limb and do something stupid with administrative priveleges. He is also quite afctive in the community, especially on IRC (my stats report him as. -
Aren't you the same guy who was digging around for arbitration "violations" on me and eagerly reporting them?
Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''', not enough experience, although I would support after a couple more months --
Although you do some good work, I'm going to echo the votes above and say that you need some more experience before asking for adminship.
Not enough experience.  --
Sorry, but no. Maybe in a few months.
Should we create a rule to prohibit RfA requests for users with less than 1000 edits? --
Will support later. Lacks experience. Sorry.
I've already told him that 500 would be too little for RFA before he submitted, so I have to oppose.
Too new. --
Luigi's edits so far haven't generated a lot of traffic on his Talk page, so I don't have a lot to go on in evaluating his interactions with other editors, particularly contentious ones.  --
He's a bit light on the edit count, but is getting there. I predict he'll pass without problems in a month or two. Probably someone else will nominate him in that timeframe -
Me, of course.
See comments to Jobe's oppose. --<font color=red>
I asked him a question about deletionism on IRC. He replied, "I've purposely avoided the inclusionist/deletionist thing; I don't like partisan politics." Strong support.
'''Support'''. Luigi has demonstrated intellegence and tact, which are traits we really need from administrators. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support''' Super Mario! Having over 10,000 and not being an admin I dont believe in edit counts mattering. --
Excellent candidate.  Committed to unglamorous work that is however essential. --
'''Support'''. Sweet yams! [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' this candidate, '''oppose''' editcountitis. <font color=green>
Been around a bit, clueful, not insane -
'''Yes, please''' - as per David Gerard.
1333 edits in a  year, thats not much activity, lack of edit summaries and spends too much time on Chess.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; I agree with [[User:Jobe6|Jobe6]], needs more edits (only 500 edits in article namespace). We need to know he is 'not an idiot', but we also need someone who is 'involved'.  </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Will support at 1K article edits.  --
I'm pretty sure this guy insulted me at some point in the past.
'''Weak oppose'''. Luigi30 doesn't seem to have enough experience to be an admin.
'''Oppose'''. There's nothing wrong with encouraging would-be admins to get a little more experience first. Please keep editing, start using edit summaries consistently, and in due course you will be a shoo-in.
'''Oppose''' not enough experience.
'''Oppose''' more time and will support,
--
'''Neutral''' Almost never uses edit summeries, and mostly does extremely minor things like changing stub types.  OTOH I'm not going to oppose because smoddy's judgement is quite good and I don't see any reason that the candidate wouldn't be a BAD admin. <small>
Edit countitis is bad. Still I require some minimal number of edits ''before'' I consider the 'soft' criteria. 1300 edits is borderline: It would certainly have been enough a year ago or so, but with the growth of WP, and the admin pool, I think it is reasonable to ask for a little more activity. I have no objections to the user as such though and will not vote oppose.
I agree with the other neutral votes. There's nothing that makes me think he'd be a bad admin, but there's also very little to make me trust him. In addition, it makes it really difficult to judge a candidate when they interact more on IRC or the mailing list than on Wikipedia itself. There's nothing wrong with interaction outside WP, but I think adminship should be based solely on contributions that ''everyone'' can view. Finally, I strongly encourage Luigi to use edit summaries on a more consistent basis.
Not enough edits. &mdash; <small>
I don't oppose, as Luigi30 is a longtime contributor and probably wouldn't be harmful.  It wouldn't hurt to come back in a month or two after his activity picks up, though.  I'd also like to see more edit summaries.
<s>'''Oppose''' Only about 300 edits since the last RFA makes it hard to judge how this user has improved. And it makes it even harder when there are not enough edit summaries.</s>
'''Support'''. He seems to have done some good contributions. Although this is his second nomination, i still support him. --
'''Support''' meets my admin criteria on my userpage.  More edit summaries would be nice, but I do not consider that grounds to oppose.
'''Support''', if the only objections anyone can come up with are edit count and edit summaries. &mdash;
'''Support''' No one has offered any evidence of bad behaviour. This editor seems willing to learn from his previous errors, and seems eager and willing to contribute as an admin. Seems distinctly non-crazy. Give him the mop!
'''Support''' per Hamster.
<b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Oppose'''. Firstly, the user neglected to tell us that this is his '''second nomination'''; the first can be found [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/maltesedog|here]]. Fortunately for him, he misspelled the page on that first nom, so he didn't have to use "Maltesedog 2" as the current nom page name (but it still took the help of another editor to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&curid=2609425&diff=30826102&oldid=30825838 set this one up]). Secondly, while I'm not bothered by the fact that this user has under 900 edits (using his registered name), it does bother me that usage of edit summary is '''''under 30%'''''. This was brought up in the first nomination, but didn't seem to make much of an impression on Maltesedog.
'''Oppose''' Lack of edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of edit summaries and < 1000 edits. --
'''Oppose''' per above.  Please consider withdrawing this nom., and returning in six months or so.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' lack of edit summaries, recomend greater use of the preview button as well.
'''Oppose''' edit summaries and low edit count.
'''Oppose'''. Edit summaries, sleazy behavior.--
'''Oppose''' - per Interiot's tool here [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=Maltesedog&site=en.wikipedia.org] is a total newbie with minimal contributions to regular articles, spends a lot of time discussing policy and AFDs.  The fact that they failed their first RFA so abysmally and then still came in for a 2nd one which they are failing badly shows guts, but not wisdom.  I think I do that many edits per day.  So a big time newbie in my book.
'''Neutral''', time on Wikipedia and number of edits seems satisfactory, but use of edit summaries is way too small, almost nonexistent. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' will support in six months, but he has to use edit summaries and work on his VfD skills! But I think he'll do fine in about three months, would support then. <font color="708090">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''
'''Neutral''' Would support in a month or so assuming more usage of edit summaries! :-) -
Try again later, use edit summaries more consistently. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Neutral''' Try again next month. Use edit summaries religiously! ;] I hear there's a script that forces you to do so ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">(</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">|</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>
Only been here a bit over a month and only has 63 edits. Not nearly enough material to base the administrator trust decision on. Would need a really strong argument to overcome that. And the butchering of the RFA template isn't helping, either.
<s>'''Very strong, über oppose'''. Only has 63 edits, messed up the RfA template, accepted his own self-nom, has no user page, doesn't have the idea of Wikipedia yet and in general has to go through the learning curve yet. Way too early to become an administrator. [[User:Hedley|Hedley]] 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)<s> My previous concerns still stand, but having seen quite a few IP edits (albeit without edit summaries) and some moves such as creating a user page, i'll now just '''oppose''' due to lack of time as a user, and lack of knowledge of Wikipedia (practically no involvement in the Wikipedia namespace, VfD, etc. aswell).
Has not been around long enough to show if he is trustworthy or not. --''
'''Oppose'''. I'm sorry, but you're way too green. Come back, show some good contributions, stick around for roughly three months, and reapply. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''. A new user who should have familiarised himself with the usual standards we expect of candidates before nominating himself. If you wish to battle vandalism there's no need to be an admin to do so. Come back after a few months and several thousand edits. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Much too soon.  His edits are not only too few (and very narrowly focused), but tend to need cleaning up, and his understanding of Wikipedia is weak (he made something of a mess of the self-nomination.  In a few months, maybe.
'''Oppose'''.  While the user seems to be a good contributor, much too new to Wikipedia.  Still, I encourage him to re-nominate himself in a few months.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry, not enough edits yet. --
'''Oppose''' Sorry, but the edit count is WAY low, even if we count earlier anon edits (below).  Would possibly support after more interaction and experience.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, even the anon edits (which shouldn't be counted, since they could be anyone) don't add up to enough experience for you. You are a good faith editor, so definitely come back when you have more edits under your belt, and more experience in the Wikipedia: namespace. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but too soon. What work I've seen is good, but, as Deathphœnix and others have said admin now would be too hasty. If you keep going as you are I've no doubt you will become an admin, just not now.
Oppose, too new.
Oppose, way too new. I would suggest trying again in 3-4 months when your edit numbers are closer to 1 or 2,000. I would suggest joining one of the major cleanup projects, like wikification or the Cleanup Taskforce or possibly a WikiProject. --
'''Oppose''' way to new
'''Oppose''' on the grounds of being too new, but please continue to contribute to Wikipedia.  One day you may make a fine admin.
'''Oppose''' He's still a youngling (pretty much like me) --
'''Oppose''' Extremely few edits - definitely unable to determine suitability.
'''Oppose.''' Applying for admin status after only two months of contributions indicates anxiety.  There is no such thing as an anxious admin.
Will support when sufficient dedication to Wikipedia is shown. Please try again later, or wait for another's nomination.
Don't worry, do not rush into a nomination.  It's still to early and there is  still alot for you to do , such as editing, chores and contributing articles before you even consider becoming an admin.  Look at me!  It took 260+ articles originated by me, over 5,000 edits and a featured article before I was promoted to admin.  Just work hard in the project and in the furure you can count on my vote.
As nominator..... --
'''Strong support.''' Excellent user.
"Why do we need an admin who isn't going to help out with administrative chores? That's what admins do, by and large." Yeah, okay... Support. &ndash;
Why do we need an admin who isn't going to help out with administrative chores?  That's what admins do, by and large.  I also question whether an editor with only 306 mainspace edits (a sizable chunk of which appear to be just adding portals or creating redirects) has sufficient community experience to be an admin.  No evidence of participating in RC patrol; only minor evidence of participating in VfD.  Spend some time doing janitorial work, come back in three months.
Useful effective editor but lacks experience and shows no commitment to admin tasks. --
To be a admin, one must accept all of the responsibilities, and then take on all of the jobs as well. Will support when interest in administrative tasks is shown.
This editor does not appear to understand the prime purpose of admins, and as such cannot be promoted to such a level.
Reluctantly oppose.  Seems like he means well but 300 edits is a bit too few.  Please, come back a little later.
Agree with the above. --
There's a reason why this is a self-nomination - this user is obviously unknown in the Wikipedia community. Thus, not appropraite to be named admin.
Doesn't seem to want to do any of the real duties of an admin, only to muck about with the HTML on one page --
Being an admin is more than just working on the main page.
Sorry mate. Only 300 edits to the article space. I failed an adminship nomination because of that once (only 360 edits in total at time of nomination.)
Inexperience and over-eagerness are the sticking points for me.--
Based on the "not a big deal" principle, I see no reason why someone with admin status ''must'' seek out janitorial tasks, but with only 2 months here I suspect that the user may be too inexperienced to function effectively as an admin and is a bit too much of an unknown.
I don't see why anyone would want to edit the main page. What if he destroyes it? --
Will support at 1K edits; otherwise, he has a willingness to work and take on admin chores.  --
Seems like a good user unfortunatly, Mar has too few edits to become sysop in my book although I'd gladly change to support when he reaches 1000 edits.--
I'm telling all of the people who I vote for the same thing: I think the edit count is a poor way of determining admin ability, so if you only have half a thousand edits, I don't think that's a problem. However, let me give you some advice: participation in a few things such as VfD would be very helpful. Looking at your edits, I'm not sure if you've helped out in a major way in terms of getting an article up to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|Featured Article]] status. If you can find yourself an article, dedicate about a week's worth of time and effort, and get it up to FA status, I will immediately change my vote to strong support. Of course, this vote will most likely be over within before that, but when you're ready to go back up for RFA again, I will make good on my word. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] |
Inclined to oppose because of short time here--my first candidacy was rejected though I had far more edits than the instant candidate--but comments above regarding overreliance by voters on sheer numbers has made me reconsider to vote neutral.  Have not encountered the candidate, but if defeated I'd urge him to follow the same advice I was given:  come back a little later.
'''Oppose'''. User seems good-natured but only has around 650 edits. Also, the "articles i'm proud of" barely extended past being stubs.
'''Oppose''' (for now). So far has insufficient edits to determine suitability.
'''Oppose'''. Too early. If you don't have at least 1,000 edits, you don't have much of a chance. --
'''Oppose.''' Only five months contributing.  Wait another four months and I might support you.
'''Oppose'''.  Not yet. --
'''Oppose'''. You're a bit green still, but you look like you've got good intentions. Pretty much everything that needs to be said has already been said. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
Good intentions, but not enough time yet. Try to create a few more articles, get involved in a WP-space activity (eg. VfD, RC patrol, stub-sorting) and come back with about 2000 edits. As long as you don't have any problems by then, you should become an admin.
'''Support''' We now know what the candidate will look like. I feel that the candidate is well intentioned, if not too active. Also creates a lot of stubs which is annoying, but there does not appear to be anything that would cause one to vote against, although lack of wikipedia namespace edits may cause concern to some. Also, it seems that those who vote "not enough time" may very well do the same even six months from now due to low edit count. So, it almost appears as if this is another case where a vote now may be an indefinate vote due to somewhat unchanged patterns. <small>
'''Support''' - I trust his judgement and if he uses his powersw rarely, it doesn't bother me. Why has no-one seemed to vote? --
'''Support''' definitely well intentioned. seems like a good editor.--
'''Oppose''' not enough time. Copyright violations also detract.
--
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a nice guy but needs more experience. --
'''Oppose'''. You really need to be over about 3,000 edits to have a shot here. You are still not even halfway there. --
'''Oppose'''. Copyright problems, [[Josh Quittner]] and [[Adam Horowitz]] for example.
'''Oppose'''. Copyright violation=bad. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' due to low edit count, copyright problems, lack of experience, et cetera.
'''Neutral'''&mdash; Good editor, but too few edits in Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk and User talk namespaces. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
A little more community action would be nice, as that is crucial to admin-ness. Will support in a month.
'''Neutral''' - Better with more experience and I will reconsider later.--
'''Neutral''' while I have worked with this user on the article [[Canadian Heraldic Authority]], which is a [[WP:FA]], the comments about not enough time being here and the copyright issues needs to be worked out. I will support when he decides to go through this route again a few months down the road.
'''Neutral'''. per Journalist.
'''Oppose''' Less then 500 Mainspace edits, almost all of which are minor edits (?).  Looks like a little more use of the Preview button would be in order too.  Lots of good image work though!
'''Weak Oppose''' Good editor, but you need to learn more about wikipedia. To start, you didn't sign your self-nom or acceptance (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), and the answer to the first question makes me wonder if you know what adminship entails. You don't need to be an admin to edit articles, we need admins to clear AfD backlogs, block vandals, do speedy deletions, protect/unprotect pages, and a whole host of other things. You are a good editor, come back in a month or two with more understanding of wikipedia and I'll gladly support. -
'''Oppose'''. The amount of edit summaries this user ever typed can be counted on one hand.
'''Oppose''' User has never participated in the AfD process. &#126;
Sorry, '''no'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose''', needs more experience.
I want to support with all of my heart however you need to be exposed to wikipedia just a bit longer. --<small>
I'll second that; and after having had a little interaction with you, I would say that you're on the right track. --
I really want to vote for you from what you say and believe, (especially because I'm a fan of Sonic and Megaman) but I feel you don't have enough credibility and you aren't as bold as other admins.  I feel you need to become more firm with the five pillars of Wikipedia, then you'd be set to be an Admin.
A little more editing and I'm sure you'll have my full support.
I definitely support minghong as an admin --
I think minghong should learn from the concerns expressed by Adrian but he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit of the doubt. I assume good faith.
Support.
Support.-

Talk page looks good, contribs look good, and I like how he handles himself in  situations where so many others might get upset and start yelling.
Talk page and contributions look ok. Doesn't look like he'll abuse admin power.
He seems to be very active and has made contributions to a number of articles.  Will make a good administrator.
Support. Would be a welcome and fresh addition to our current crop of administrators.
Support.  Yes, has shown himself to be a trustworthy and active community member, understands policy, plays well with others. --
'''Support'''. Looks all right to me, and he seems to respond to rational discourse. --
Oppose.
'''Oppose'''.  I have nothing against him as an editor, but his deletionism is too intense for me to be able honestly to support him for adminship.

'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. This answer below concerns me: ''It would be great if I can revert bad edits and delete improper contents.'' Any editor can revert bad edits, but delete improper contents? That answer, together with the comments of others here, leads me to reluctantly oppose this time.
'''Oppose''', like Jonathunder, his answer to question #1 doesn't tell me that he knows what an admin does.
'''Oppose'''.  I have to agree with Jonathunder.  --

I've become even more convinced that Wikipedia requires community awareness and restrained boldness from experienced editors, and even more so from administrators. Rash actions are mostly more harmful than inaction. --
I <s>am</s> was quite disappointed about minghong's bold deletions on [[List of UML programs]]. The list once contained short descriptions of programs. Minghong then did a massive "cleanup" (as he told it) by deleting all descriptions and replacing entries with internal links to (nearly) all non-existing articles for the programs. He did this without any prior discussion on the talk page. This created quite some pressure to start new articles for each and every program, which in turn are now accused being plain advertisement articles. He also quickly and boldly reverted my edit (adding external named links) without any attempt to discuss it or to consider my argumentation or presenting arguments himself. The list itself now has no info besides the names of the programs (in the form of internal links to mostly non-existing articles) and some unnamed external links (which are deemed very bad style according to [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]]) - but he only tolerates these on entries for which no article exists. Quite disappointing behaviour. For me, minghong behaved in this case as he were the master of the article. --

I've not directly encountered the alleged "intense deletionism", but the comment about "deleting improper contents" is rather open-ended in a way that could give rise to some concern.  (Hopefully what's meant is "carry out admin tasks on VfD"?)  I'd be more enthused if there was a fuller answer on sysop tasks in general -- isn't that what we're promoting people to do, at least in theory?
I've looked at his edit summaries and talk page, and he seems to be a deletionist. I don't want to give the power to delete on sight to a deletionist who might occasionally delete something good. It's my personal bias so I'm not acctually opposing him.
He currently seems a little bit too far on the side of deletionism. I might support him later if he moves back towards the ways of mergists or inclusionists.
'''Support''', been through the contributions and talk, this user is hardly a threat. If he wants the tools, he may have them. --

'''Oppose''' - from his statement at the top and his answer to question 1, he seems to know little of what adminship entails and from his lack of edits to talk namespaces, he seems to have interacted little with the community at large. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose''' I rarely oppose, and I think this is only the second or third time I've done so for a non trivial issue. I would like to know why you want to be an administrator? Is is to get the rollback function and block users while working on your favourite article who have conflicting interests? You've been here since 2003, and you have 1300+ edits, and hardly anything in namespaces other than the main namespace. Please explain with a valid reason why you have a diparity in distribution wrt time. Since you contribute in the main namespace I have some questions: I've checked your upload log, but I still need some answers, how well do you know about image copyrights? Do you know the correct formats to use? It seems to me that you don't know anything about [[Fair use]] and copyrights. Can you prove me wrong?  I also checked out the [[Mohegan Sun]] article. Do you know wikipedia's target audience? The article is slightly larger than a stub; why do like the article so much? Are you aware that driving directions are not considered encyclopedic?
'''weak Oppose''' well, his reaction to the first oppose makes me wonder if this user can handle disagreement: "''I'm sorry I won't allow you to try to bring me down. [[User:Misterrick|Misterrick]] 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)''" ??? Besides, adminship isn't needed to improve articles and correct misspellings. -- (
'''Oppose''' your edit count and distribution seems okay, but your reasons for wanting adminship are misguided. You have done scant RC patrol, you haven't been active in voting here at RfA at all. You have been active at IFD and AFD, which is good. Your edit summary usage looks fairly high, which is good. Stay active at IFD/AFD, do more RC patrol, vote more in community events such as RfA, and next time, give us a better reason of why you need the admin tools and I will have no problem supporting. -
'''Oppose''' per '''''Drini'''''...woops...got a little confused there...
'''Oppose''' per Drini.
'''Oppose''' per everyone above&mdash;especially his reaction to Celestianpower's vote.
'''Oppose'''. If that ''was'' the intent of Celestianpower's vote, it appears to have worked. Also, the answer to Q1 misunderstands the nature of adminship. It is not the role of admins to monitor Wikipedia's articles any more than other editors. They are not moderators, they are janitors. -
'''Oppose''', per all those reasons given.
'''Oppose''' Don't like the reasons he gave. --
'''Strong Oppose''' His response to Celestianpower showed to me that he's unable to deal with disputes in a constructive way, his edit count is low, the response to answer #1 shows a complete misunderstanding of admin duties(regarding asking for consensus before doing ''anything'', which almost sounds like someone would need to babysit him), and the final nail in the coffin was the self nom per my views on them at [[User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies]].
'''Oppose''' I've seen Celestianpower here for quite some time, and he neither baits nor bites. The above response seems to assume bad faith.
'''Oppose'''.  Sorry to pile on, but he's hung himself.
'''Oppose''' - agree with Celestianpower and Drini. User seems naive in the ways of Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose''' for reasons already stated by Drini and others --
'''Oh Dear God No!''' waaaaaay too green of a user to even ponder the chance of rollback and blocking powers, responses to some of the above opposition votes makes me wonder if this person can take criticism at all without considering it a personal attack. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''', which I don't think I've ever done, as per the response to [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]]. Immediately going into a defensive stance and violating [[WP:AGF]] because of criticism is a disqualifier in my book. If you become an admin, you'll be faced with vandals with much less scruples than an admin has.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry about piling on, but I have to agree with Celestianpower and Drini. Needs more experience first, and we'll see what happens.
'''Oppose'''. Response to Celestianpower is worrying.
<s>'''Support''' per Bjarki--[[User:Rogerd|Rogerd]] 04:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Oppose''' after reviewing responses, I have changed my mind--
'''Neutral'''. I oppose this candidate's becoming an admin, but he already hasn't a snowball's chance of succeeding, so I didn't think it was worth the bother to pile up on the oppose votes.

'''Support. '''
'''Support''' <small>
'''Weak Oppose''' I'm a little bothered by your user-interaction, specifically the lack of it (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Monkbel&namespace=3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&offset=0&limit=50&target=Monkbel&namespace=4] and of course, [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Monkbel&dbname=enwiki kate]). You seem like a really good user, and with some more community contribution, I will certainly support in the future (a few months or so).
'''Oppose''' Only 19 wikipedia namespace and 19 user talk edits and less than 1000 overall u look like a good user but probaly in a few months I will support, but not now --
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''' Per reasons given above.
'''Oppose''' Lucks good communication skills (as from my experience in Belarusian Wikipedia). Sometimes pushes POV. Makes policy decision without discussing with other contributors (Byelorussia/Belarus, Belarusian łacinca articles names). Doesn’t understand image copyrights issues well enough. --
'''Oppose'''- too inexperienced
The vote thing.
'''Oppose''' per above.
Yesterday at WP:RM you claimed "vote has been held and there is general approval" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=25133076&oldid=25132756] for a move you requested ([[Daugava]] → [[Western Dvina]]).  But I checked this and found a 2-2 tie [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daugava&direction=next&oldid=23614767].  Can you clarify this? --
I worked with Monkebl on a few Belarusian articles before, but I am going to sit on this one.
Kate's tool counts  [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Mrmattkatt&dbname=enwiki five edits] in three destinct pages (1 article, 2 user, and 2 user talk edits) &mdash; this might be because the first edit was made September 14, 2005! Please come again in 3-4 months when you have atleast 1500 edits in atleast 10 different namespaces. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose'''.  I was a bit confused by the 5 edits also.
'''Oppose''' and this should be '''removed'''.  The original nominator was an anom and now is a user with Zero edits.  Also, the nominee has 6 edits now and apparently has not been here for awhile, at least not under this username.  So the nomination is based on a lie.  The intent is to scam.
'''Oppose''' [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?hash=4e50e5c9f650e66b69dc10cdf9cbe861e19195c2&user=Mtmdem&dbname=enwiki 50 total edits] is simply not enough.--
'''Oppose''' only be editing for 6 days on very few articles --
'''Oppose'''. Too green, with red talk page.
'''Oppose''', not ready by any means.
'''Oppose'''. Needs to demonstrate the claimed depth of knowledge, preparedness to deal with the grunt-work, and ability to interact with other users. --
'''Oppose'''.  Mtmdem started out editing articles pretty much the same way I did and seems to have many of the same interests.  If he sticks around, I'm sure he will be a valuable asset to Wikipedia.  However I have over 3 times as many edits as he does and would not even consider nominating myself at this point.  Someone with 50+ total edits is not ready.
'''Oppose''' some months too early.
'''Oppose''' as above
'''Oppose''' as per reasons above. Is this actually serious?
'''Weak oppose''' This user really needs more experience on Wikipedia.  However, I've seen a good start.  I would reccomend re-nominating yourself in a month or two months if you want to be an admin and really feel that you're ready now.
'''Oppose'''I'm sure this guy will at some time make an excellent admin, giving him the authority right now would be a bit like electing [[Carnell Williams]] to the [[NFL Hall of Fame]] today: its just way too soon.

No user page, less than 50 edits. &mdash;
'''Nominator has only ten edits'''. This nomination doesn't make much sense.
Pfffffffffft. See comments below.
'''Oppose''' - Agree with above. <font color="#3D9140">
'''This nomination is hot...like Antarctica.'''
'''Oppose''' - Agree with above.
'''Oppose''' - nomination is presumably a joke, but I'll vote oppose anyway... edit summaries including "''Why dont you get some brains and write your own article, dumbass????''" (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ainu_people&diff=prev&oldid=18970092 this edit] prove this user is not mature enough for adminship (despite being "elderly" according to the nominator).
'''Oppose'''. I am sorry, but this candidate has not filled in the questions below, and so I am unable to determine what the candidate intends to do with administrative privileges - or, indeed, whether he is a suitable individual to receive them. Edit summaries do not demonstrate a knowledge of common civility, and I cannot see any evidence of substantial contribution from him. --
'''Oppose'''. No user page.
'''Oppose'''.  Not nearly enough edits, has insulting edit summaries, and he doesn't have his own userpage!  This nomination was probably a joke. --
Cabal,erm...GO FOR IT!!Amen...[[User:Tdxiang|
Definitely. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
I support him fully.
I definitely would support this decision.
I believe NickBush24 has the potential to become an excellent administrator!
Heh. If your userpage gets vandalised 50 times, you're doing something right.
[[Soup|'''Support''']]--<font color = steelblue>
Support: the response to the antics of [[User:NickBush24isgay]] seals it for me.
My '''support''' too. --
'''Support''' I beleieve NickBush24 would make a good admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', a bold fighter of vandals.

[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
<s>'''Support'''</s> Vote change to '''Weakest Possible Support in Wikipedia History''' A good RC patroler but Im very worried about incivilty. In December maybe  --
'''Support''' - most certainly.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Yes, definitely. A great RC patroller. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''[[Soup|Support]]''' He isn't already?
'''Support'''. Good vandal hunter.
'''Definitely''', seen him, liked him, protected his pages. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>
'''Continue to support.''' Nick has been here for quite a while, and his first task was to begin RC patrol on a full time basis. If civility is a concern, I volunteer to be an informal mentor to Nick to help diminish this problem. --
'''Support'''.  I've seen his edits and he also reverted vandalism on my own user page.  -
'''Strong Support''' was helpful at GF, still helpful now.
'''Support''' this guy needs the tools! --
'''Support'''. No ''wonder'' your name sounds familiar.. I've seen you all over the GameFAQs boards. :p
-- (
'''Support.'''
'''Extreme [[Wikipedia:Revert|Mop]] and [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Flamethrower]] Support!''' Vandals are dreading the day Nick gets those two tools.
'''Support''' Go get the vandals! --
<span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">We are power incarnate!</span>
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
<s> '''Support''' </s>.  Excellent contributor.
'''Support'''. Good edits :).
'''Support'''. Unfair to accuse him of incivility. The vandal personally attacked him and said that he "hated" him. The response was perhaps a bit immature, but not really so bad.
'''Support'''.  Being rude to a newbie who'd made a test would be unacceptable.  Being rude to a persistent vandal when you're getting the hassle this guy has is considerably less serious, and imo is outweighed by all the excellent work he's done.  I trust him not to abuse his admin powers and find it hard to imagine someone more deserving of the rollback button.
'''Support'''. Everyone has their limits, and I've definitely seen worse reactions to persistent vandals. --
'''Support''' because of the odd opposition votes below.
'''Support'''. Some conflict is inevitable. Excellent editor. --
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. The diffs presented in the oppose column are regrettable, and it would be better if those edits had been made differently. But they are certainly not the ''worst'' reactions to vandalism which I have seen here, it does not seem to show a long ''pattern'' of incivility, and they are not severe enough to push me into the oppose column. Indeed the history of vandal-fighting and other good work puts me here, among the supporters.
'''Oppose''' I know this RfA will pass even with this oppose vote. I'm making it because of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A129.15.120.186&diff=24711656&oldid=24711607 diff that I find clearly unacceptable] for an admin to make. I don't really care what the provocation is, how immature a user is or what the situation is, mocking a user is never an appropriate reaction for an admin to take. This is completely unacceptable. Nick, you'll pass this RfA as it is 36-1 currently. But, please promise you'll never engage in activity like that again. --
'''Oppose''', Durin is right, it wasnt acceptable and this was only what..about a week ago.
'''Oppose'''. I would really, really like to support, but I have to agree with Durin's comments. I cannot support a user who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:129.15.127.254&diff=24784520&oldid=24784387 taunts vandals] and seems to have a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reisio&diff=prev&oldid=22063202 short] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NickBush24&diff=21692689&oldid=21673780 temper]. '''
'''Oppose''' per Durin.  Temperament is a consideration of utmost importance for admins.
'''Oppose''' per Jaxl. Too many incidents of incivility.
'''Oppose''' this time round.  Thanks to [[User:Durin|Durin]] for above note - I'd checked for incivility but missed any (which probably means it was just an off-day; we all have them).
'''Oppose''' as per Durins (and others) comments above. Vandalism and such can be frustrating but I would expect a much higher standard of any admin. If this were a year ago I'd give the benefit of the doubt but it was this month! --
'''Weak Oppose.''' I am so torn. He's a good vandal fighter, but overall attitude seems harsh and unwelcoming. I believe this RfA will pass, but please be aware of your tone in the future. You note in question 3 that you have never been in conflicts over editing, but that seems to be what a lot of this RfA is about. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Weak oppose''' (changed from "support", after reading above) - your abrasive attitude is probably at least half the reason you are vandalized :-/ Seeing your excellent cleanup work, I want to give you a mop, but please using for scrubbing, not hitting.
'''Oppose''' - a noticible fraction of edit summaries in your history are a bit over the top for me, and I feel needs to be toned down before the mop is given. --
'''Oppose''' --
''''Oppose'''. I just can't feel comfortable adminning someone with this history of incivility, especially given his stated lack of experience in and techniques for dealing with conflict with other users. With all due respect to Essjay's offer of mentorship, I'd rather see a change in his conduct ''before'' making him an admin. -
'''Oppose''' too many people have pointed out stuff that makes me uncomfortable with this nominee... perhaps later. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' &mdash; While I feel NickBush24 has done some good work, I expect all admins to be civil and not insult other [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]s. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Very reluctant oppose''' mmm... tricky one. Definitely be a vandal's worst nightmare if he got the tools, but not too sure about his temperement. That's what's difficult about tempremental vandal-fighters- Giving admin tools may bring both great good and great harm to Wikipedia. I'd like to see more WP-space edits in an admin, though and I guess this pushes my vote toward oppose.
'''Oppose''' per reasons given above
'''Weakest conceivable oppose'''. I fully adhere to [[User:Borisblue|Borisblue]]'s and [[User:DDerby|DDerby]]'s comments above. Incivility is not a matter to be taken lightly, and stirring the fire when dealing with vandals is the best way to ensure that they'll keep on hitting you and us all.  I'm sure you'll make a great admin, but not just yet - a little more time and more control over your reactions and I'll gladly support you. <font color="green">
'''Oppose for now''' - incivility towards another user in recent edit history.  Also I've been an admin since March 2004 and my user page hasn't been vandalised anywhere near as much as this user's, which may also be a telling sign. --
'''Oppose''', familiarise yourself with [[WP:BITE]] and retry.  Great apart from that.
'''Oppose''' I wanted to support this, but the evidence of incivility was too much.  Keep your record clean, then try again later.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly, as per the incidents recently brought to light surrounding issues of incivility.  Please do not let the vandals get the best of you.  Will gladly support in the future if these actions are not repeated.
'''Oppose''' for now. I'd very much like to support him, but the civility problem and the lack of communication (as per Lord Voldy) is making me leery. On the other hand, the outburst certainly wasn't unprovoked: please refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NickBush24&diff=prev&oldid=24710638 this diff] to understand NickBush24's reaction. All of us have their bad days. All the same, I'd feel better about this if this wasn't such a recent event. I am hoping that NickBush24 will consider the impact of his uncivil reaction on this discussion, and reform. I would like to see him re-apply in a month; if he can continue his good work with no similar occurences, he'd definitely get my support then. --
'''Oppose, for now''', despite excellent work on the whole.  My problem is much the same as those above, although I can definitely understand the reactions.  I would advise NickBush24 to read about[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity Soft Security], which is the preferable way to deal with vandalism.--
'''Changed to Neutral''' per the incidents mentioned in the Oppose section. I don't think Nick will abuse his admin powers, but I don't feel comfortable supporting someone with a history of uncivility. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Neutral'''. I would have supported if not for the incidents of incivility. Assuming he keeps his temper, I'm sure he'll make a great admin.
'''Neutral''' The RC good portions were cancelled out by the incivility, but not enough for an oppose vote. Wait a bit, chill out, and keep up the good work against the vandals and you'll have a landslide.
'''Oppose'''. User has demonstrated a great deal of difficulty in following instructions. --
'''Oppose'''. No excuse for self-noms not answering the questions. Other than that, relatively no edits and no major contributions. The fact that you need to cite adminship at a message board screams, "Come back in six months."
'''Oppose'''. To cut it short: user has yet to answer the ''candidate questions'', has only very few edits outside of the, <code>Article</code> and <code>User_talk</code> namespaces, and does not sufficiently use the edit summary box.
'''Oppose'''. People above me said it best.
'''Oppose'''.  User has a commendable dedication to the project, but needs more experience.  --
'''Oppose'''. Maybe later. As it says at the top of the page ''Most new admins have at least three months of participation and 1000 edits.'' 209 is way too few. And none of those edits are to Wikipedia-space pages, so there's very little interaction with the community so far (vital for an admin). Continue the good work and you'll probably end up an admin. But not just yet. As to what to do to become a more likely candidate - get involved! Join a WikiProject. Add your voice to the votes on vfd, cfd, tfd, sfd. Try to help out newbies on the Village Pump. The moreyou interact with the community, the more likely we'll all be able to tell how good an admin you'd be.
'''Oppose''', sorry. User is too new (if well intentioned), and failure to follow the proper procedures just adds weight to this. --
'''Oppose'''. 4 months is lots of time. 209 edits, on the other hand, don't showcase your talents enough.  Also, not answering the candidate questions shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. --
'''Oppose'''. Please take your time to answer the candidacy questions first. It is an important criteria before anyone considers any support for you. -
'''Oppose''', for reasons already noted.  --
'''Oppose''' I am normally against using edits or time for use as a qualifier in RFA's but I think that 4 months ans 209 are a little low, I would also be interested in seeing you answer the questions so that we know what you like editing and what you are planning on using the extra tools for.
'''Oppose''', not enough edits.  Try again after about 1000 edits total and a couple hundred in the WP: namespace. --
'''Weak oppose'''. I generally don't look at edit counts at all when deciding on an admin vote, so much as frequency and quality. The nom performs well in both senses, but there's simply not enough for me to judge what his general attitudes/philosophies are, and without the candidacy question answers, I really can't say I know enough about the nom to be able to support him in clear conscience. Will consider changing my vote if answers are provided for said questions (no promises, though). &ndash;
<s>'''Oppose.'''  How is the community going to trust you with only four months of edits?  You're not even halfway to my expected nine-month threshold.
'''Support''' does good work.  Would be an asset.
'''Support'''. Lack of interaction just shows effective noncontroversial work. I'm not convinced the people with full talk pages are the best Wikipedians.

'''Support''', doesn't seem likely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support''' Opposers are too circumspect on this one.
'''Support''' In agreement with the User Smit. Talk pages of most people are  like the same 3 or 4 talking to each other like chat. Not much work done just chatting with the buddies. The candidate has a  good work record.--
'''Oppose'''. 1000 edits in 6 months is not much. Not enough involvement in maintainance and deletion-related procedures (more specifically, not enough involvement to convince me that this user is sufficiently familiar with Wiki procedures). And I would have liked to see more thought put into the guide questions, especially considering this is a self-nomination.
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Editor sounds quite nice, and article content is paramount, but some substantial experience with project space is needed.  "Better safe than sorry vote" until editor has a record in that area.
'''Extremely weak oppose'''. 1000 edits and 6 months on Wikipedia is all fine, but what I find strange is the low activity of the talk page. When I was sysopped, I also had been here for 6 months, and already had close to 40 topics on my talk page. This is a sign of lack of interaction with other Wikipedians. If the candidate replies to this I might change my vote. &mdash;
'''Oppose''', per JIP.--
'''Oppose'''. Seems like a nice guy, but with no community interaction, it is difficult to assess the candidate's communication skills. His answers to the questions below make me think Niz would have some trouble dealing with day-to-day admin tasks. Perhaps try again in a few months?
'''Oppose''' for now.  Seems like a nice fellow, but concerned about newness combined with lack of community interaction.  Needs a little more time and activity on Talk: pages.
'''Oppose''' no community interaction, only 1000 edits in 6 months, etc. I just don't believe Niz to be ready, sorry.
'''Oppose'''. While I generally hold admins to a high standard, I hold self-nominating ones to an even  higher one. Your short answers to the questions are therefore not good. In particular, some examples for question #3 would have been nice, plus a little more than "etc" for question number one.
I think that you are a really good editor, but you have too few usertalk edits. A potential Admin should have more that 100. Why dont you join the [[Welcoming committee]] or [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]? You can meet friends, and you could gain trust from the community.
'''Neutral due to conflicting signs''' I would disagree with my fellow Wikipedians who vote Oppose based on the number of edits or Talk Page edits, since I personally believe that not all admins are going to be alike in either scope or personality.  I was ready to vote for this user, but after reading the answers to the questions below I have a harder time voting Support.  I feel that in situations like this, where you're new to the community, you have to do something that shows how important this position is for you.  Answering these questions shows us, the voters, why we should or should not give you this very important power called "being an Admin".  If you're newer (by this I mean very new), you're going to have to demonstrate a lot more that you deserve to have these powers.  I hope this makes sense. LOL (Then again, I'm a fairly new user myself, so I really don't have much grounds to talk if I choose to do an RfA.) --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Much respect to helpers of WikiProject Missing Articles.
'''Support'''

'''Support''' -  Fits [[User:Celestianpower/Adminship|my criteria]]. &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>
'''Support'''. Fine user.
'''Support''' Tons of edits for someone who has only been here three months.
'''Support''' Even closes VfDs and not even an admin yet!  Like some kind of strange preminition.... --<small>
'''Support'''
Seems to me like a good user.
'''Support'''. Not bad at all. I myself started off as an anonymous editor for months on end, and then I got crazy enough to register a username. Before I reached my 3rd month mark, I was nominated and elected for adminship. I don't see why you shouldn't be any different, given the fact that you're an active editor and vandal-fighter. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''- hasn't been here long enough.
'''Oppose''' per Astrotrain.
'''Oppose''', lack of experience, barring answer to question below.
'''Strong Oppose''' &ndash; The user has not specified an email ID as of this post. If he blocks someone, how is that person going to contact him?
'''Oppose''' An Administrator must not be deterred by vandals, no matter how many.
'''Not sure yet'''.  Relatively short time editing balances the number of edits.  Seems like on the right track with comments, though I'd like this see them fleshed out a little better.  Would likely support a few months down the line. &ndash;

I've had very good experiences in working with him (we both edited in articles relating to actress [[Hunter Tylo]] who is a born-again Christian). I support gladly.
'''Support''' I do not believe in a self-nomination and a sponsored-nomination, they are both the same. I have not seen this user do anything bad and trust that he or she will use admin powers to good use.

Support.  I note from experience the difficulty in being a Christian Wikipedian, and would characterize many of the religion articles as third-rail issues that frequently lead those who touch them to burn out on conflict.  In contrast, "Salient"'s efforts have been factual and evenhanded.
Support. I found One Salient Oversight useful both in terms of information about Christianity and how things work at wikipedia when I was encountering problems with a Christian who I felt was putting very strong biases into [[Javier Solana]]; he was supporting me the self confessed non-Christian who actually didn't want any subtle religious elements coming into what should be a straightforward political article. I haven't read any of his edits; I would imagine he could make a quite contentious admin, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. --
Oppose. Heavy POV is unsuitable for adminship.
As far as I can see, does not meet my [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|admin criterion]],
No summaries given for edits.
'''Oppose''' for now, no edit summaries, subtle religious POV, unconvinced on whether he really changes his mind as claimed.
Would probably make a fine admin. However, banning users is dirty work, and a heavy POV--even a controlled one--does not lend itself well to such matters. [[User:Scott Burley|<nowiki></nowiki>]]--
Neutral for now, until I do more research about this POV thing. --
'''Support''' for reasons listed in nomination.
'''Support'''. Yes, tireless with fighting vandals, in addition to making excellent contributions, will be a valuable admin. (and I guess I'm jumping the gun before he even accepts) --
'''Strongest possible support'''.  I'm jumping the gun as well.  Pavel tags and bags more copyvios and vandals than the freaking FBI.  I would ''love'' to be there when he blocks the particularly egregious ones. -
'''Support''', I see Pavel patrolling constantly, and he does great work. He will need to acknowledge that admins must follow due process in warning vandals several times before blocking, and must block for short periods (up to 24 hours) for first offences. I say this because he often asks for vandals to be blocked permanently, and that is not usually appropriate.-
'''Support''' - his handling of vandalims is superb --
Nuclear wessels for everyb- oh, wait, wrong guy.  :/  --
'''Support'''. Benefit of the doubt. Assume good faith.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. One of Wikipedia's best bouncers at restraining vandals.
''Support'' the policemen!--
'''Support'''. Opposition appears to be coming from POV-pushers, several of whom I've run across myself.
'''Support'''; has done excellent work versus vandals and POV-warriors.
'''Support''', has done some good work. --
'''Support''', good editor, will make fine admin
'''Support''', based on above and below. <big>'''''
'''Oppose'''.  Vozenilek casts his net way too wide for what he calls vandalism.  While he does cite real vandals, he also accuses people of vandalism if they do not, say, agree on his assessment of Czech politics.  Vozenilek already is abusing his authority as a user, I can imagine how it would be if he was an admin.
'''Oppose'''. Of course Pavel should be thanked for patrolling but his views on blocking are unacceptable. I strongly believe that we should not surrender our tolerance and warmth out of fear of vandalism. I'd definitely want to see more sign that Pavel can control the itch in his trigger finger.
'''Oppose'''. Accused me of vandalism (actually listed me on VIP) because I removed a "pseudoprotected" template in an article where it was obviously misplaced as no one had voluntarily ceased editing.
'''Oppose'''. Concur with NoPuzzleStranger.
'''Oppose'''. I've been watching Paul engage in a number of edit wars (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Le_Duc_Tho&action=history], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandramukhi&action=history]) over the past few weeks.  Both sides seem to be POV-warrioring and both sides have come close to (but not, as far as I can tell, violated) 3RR, and Paul has been characterizing as "vandalism" edits he merely disagrees with.  I am concerned that Paul would misuse administrative authority to win these edit wars.  I am also bothered by the fact that he will make the second revert without first attempting to communicate with the other editor via either article or user talk pages; clearly his communication skills are not up to administrative standards.
'''Oppose'''. I don't like his views. He is not tolerant on Wikipedia. -
'''Oppose''', I have never encountered this editor but I don't like the complaints I read here.  He's apparently one to paint vandalism with a broad brush and his comment of "I may help to stop vandals earlier as admin." does not sit well with me at all.  To me, that means he's willing to take action against vandals and I don't like his definition of vandalism so I can't support the action to put him in a position to exercise an incorrect definition of vandalism.
'''Oppose''', As a user that has used Wikipedia for some time without being registered, and now finally registering to add my articles additions to the site. I feel that it is beyond important to have unbiased admin. And as his history has shown, he has very strong personal biases. That he expresses in edit wars.
'''Oppose'''  Not much direct experience of this user, but extremely concerned about the apparent over-readiness to label edits as vandalism.  (Of course, by no means unique in this respect.)  I think vandalism's clearly an issue on WP, but that argues ''for'' scrupulous adherence to an agreed definition, not for using the term over-liberally, esp. in the context of edit wars.  Would be glad to support on a future occasion if such issues are resolved.
'''Oppose'''. It didn't take much to convince me of Pavel's exceedingly quick vandal-accusation trigger: just his most recent posting at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#213.42.2.22|WP:VIP]]. His only comment to the editor is accusation of vandalism, after the editor made changes such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devanagari&diff=prev&oldid=13027313 this], which for all I know might well be correct. Unless there is some other information I don't know of, this is clearly not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith.]] --
'''Oppose'''. ''Way'' too fast on accusations of vandalism; "asking for a block" after [[User_talk:198.236.13.33|an IP]] hasn't received a single message in two months, [[WP:VIP#211.31.77.168|Reporting]] a new anon making a mixed bag of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=211.31.77.168 good and misguided edits] for vandalism, etc. Enthusiasm and dedication to the project is fantastic, but I can't see entrusting blocking power just yet; I'm very sorry.
'''Oppose''' for now.  Nothing personal, but from my limited observations of this user, he appears to lean a bit too heavily towards the [[m:deletionism|deletionist]] position.  I'll change my vote next time if I'm proved wrong.
'''Oppose'''. Needs a few more months to mellow.
agree with Charles.
I do assume good faith, but it is very important that admins know and respect the narrow definition of "vandalism" current on Wikipedia. You may edit-war if you must, but don't confuse edit-warring with vandal-fighting. I would recommend Pavel re-apply after a month or so of showing he knows and respects policy. Pov warriors with admin privileges are problematic, no matter how useful otherwise. I suggest as a golden rule, never block in anger (and when angry, let somebody else do the blocking).
Haven't seen this user before.  People I respect are on both sides of the question, so I'm neutral.
I remain neutral unless Pavel Vozenilek can sway me by answering my question under the comments section.
Strongly support. Pedant is a solid, reliable, trustworthy user.
--
Raul's support is enough for me.
'''Support'''. I can't say I'm happy with the Abu Ghraib article situation, but Pedant calls that the exception, not the rule, below, and we should, within reason, be flexible to different approaches in exceptional circumstances. Even looking at the situation very pessimistically, a mistake, or even a handful of mistakes, is not enough for me to oppose. -
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''

<s> Netoholic's opposition is enough for me. </s> now come on! that's not a real reason to oppose!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Don't drag editing disputes into RFA. I don't like the fork myself, but the important point is that Pedant is able to build consensus, not that everybody agrees with all he says.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', Xtra's point is enough for me.--
'''Support'''. Looks good. --
'''Support'''. Fully agree with dab --
'''Support'''.

Sorry, no.
Not reading the instructions on RfA and forking articles are both worrying behaviors. &mdash;
Neutrality's support is enough for me.
No, not at this time.
Not yet convinced
--
I strongly disagree with your statement below that ''"There are extremely rare times when a stated policy needs to get bent, in order to fulfill the needs of the community."''  If you haven't yet found ways to find solutions to common problems within current policies, or gone through the proper steps to change these policies permanently, then I think you might need some more time getting used to Wikipedia. --
I'd like to know more. --
Generally tend to be supportive of this, but not sure I know enough.
Support. I don't see why it's a necessarily a virtue to involve oneself on others' talk pages. We're building an encyclopaedia, not a chatroom. I urge the others to change their votes. Admin=no big deal, remember?
If Peter had asked me, I'd have proposed him without hesitation. He's a self-confessed [[Wikipedia:Wikipediholic|wikipediholic]], and has a track record of respecting both the rules and his fellow wikipedians. In addition, he brings to the job professional skills as a journalist and a record of being an effective mediator in other Internet arenas. His edits include starting and polishing articles in a wide range of fields, starting many new articles and showing himself prepared and competent to do painstaking and uncomplaining repairs to less skilled work by others. He's caused little if any controversy, a born collaborator if ever there was one. I met him face-to-face for the first time last weekend when I visited [[Canberra]] where he lives; Wikipedia and an unrelated email list to which we both contribute were the main reasons we arranged the meeting. An ideal candidate.
Support. --

Weak support. With some reluctance.
He can definitely be trusted with adminpowers.
Give him a chance. We can always de-sysop if something goes wrong. --
Of course.
Has established himself as a trustworthy contributor, also Wikipedia is not a chatroom and I like users with high ''substansive contributions/talk'' ratio. --

Peter is a good editor, but possibly hasn't interacted enough with other editors. Out of 1,408 edits in over a year, 64 appear to have been to article talk pages, and 14 to user talk pages other than his own. (Correct me if I've got the figures wrong here, Peter.) I'll definitely support in a couple of months if Peter can demonstrate a bit more interaction with others.
Like Slim, I'll support in the future if Peter gets more involved with the community.
We're not building a chatroom, true, but the lack of interaction with others makes it hard to see how he'd handle admin responsibilities.
Hasn't participated in the Wikipedia namespace enough. Is a good editor, but without interaction with others it is hard to tell whether he would be good admin.
Interacting with others is a major part of being an admin. Therefore, the lack of interaction makes it difficult to see how he can handle it.
Close, but needs more community involvement. Get involved and there should be no problem supporting next time.
What Grutness said. My extra points for the selfnom can't quite outweigh lack of community involvement, and I'm thinking especially of Peter citing "I've NOT got caught up, when I could have, with several quite vociferous editors" as his best involvement in dispute resolution. --
with no personal offense to Peter, I current '''oppose''' this nomination. i'd like to see many more edits so I can get a better understanding of his personality and style.
More experience is needed. Less than 100 edits right now. Please keep up the good work, try to use edit summaries more often and reapply in a few months.
Premature ... RfA ... I do not believe in edit counts however I need proof of admin worthyness... --
'''Oppose''', seems to have too little experience. Talk page only consists of a welcome message, user has less than 100 contributions (according to contributions list), and doesn't use edit summaries.
Sorry, I think you need much more experience.
'''Oppose''', too little edits, too soon, etc. Sorry, there is no reason to support you what so ever.
'''Oppose'''. A total of '''''3''''' edit summaries so far. Can we close this before it becomes a pile-on?
'''Oppose''', everything that needs to be said has already been said.
Oppose but no vote to avoid pile on per oppose votes above, can we stop this RfA?
'''Weak support'''. See comment below.
I support: although the line between bot and script is a fine one, going over contributions does not reveal anything too worrying, and convinces me in favour of granting sysop access now.


I find the explanations given above and below sufficent. A script, if used correctly, cannot be used to deter adminship. Peter's done some good janitorial work. It doesn't matter how it's not, as long as it's done.--
Support, though I'm taking a punt on this. That script seems OK, but I think it would be wise for Peter to listen to others and make another account and run it from there even though his discretion is probably OK. He seems like an OK contributor. -
Would suggest that the bot be run under a different account, but failure to do so is no reason to oppose adminship.
Oppose. Mostly for running a bot on his main account.  Also, seems to have made some very poor deletion choices (speedy tags and votes).  His [[User:Poccil/Automation.js|bot code]] seems to include functions which can be activated if the user has sysop rights to do certain activity ("function deletepage").  I consider bot-handled sysop actions extremely dangerous. --
Poccil still needs more time IMHO to get in tune with the way the community works here. i would reconsider this at a later date, depending on the track record.
The <s>bot</s> script doesn't seem to understand the deletion policy.
Not really sure what the difference is between a script and a bot from a program standpoint. Regardless, I do not want an automated deletion script to exist on an administrator account, and will only support when I am sure this won't happen.
I do not think scripts/bots should be run from any account, and definatley not an admin account...
&mdash;
Simply not good enough.
No problem with the bot/script thing.  My problem is his self-admitted "intolerance for British spellings".  British spellings are correct; American spellings are corruptions.
I have some reservations regarding the behavior and possible applications of Poccil's script. --
dont like the idea of a bot on a sysop account. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 06:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) reposted
<s>Support. A good user.</s>. -
Sticking with my previous vote.  --

Good contributor with what looks like a solid record and wants adminship for constructive reasons.
Sure. &ndash;
Looks good to me. Maybe a little early, but a solid record. --
Fine by me. Given the continuously rising standards for an admin, I don't think this RFA will pass. However, I believe a second nomination in a few months time would likely be successful.

'''Strong Support''' 1200+ edits isn't all that early in my opinion, and he appears to be a quality editor.  I'd like to see him become an admin.
'''Oppose'''....but only because I feel it is too early. I'd like to see more activity - more experience with the peer groups - more examples of acting well under pressure. I will probably support at a later date.
'''Oppose''' at this time - Poiuytman seems to be a very good editor, but it takes more then editing skills to be a good administrator. As [[Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list]] says, "Sysops must have an intimate understanding of Wikipedia policy". Also, interpersonal skills are very important, if not MORE important then knowing how to edit. As an administrator, people are going to come to you with problems whether you want to deal with them or not; you have to be ready to deal with angry people from time to time. If all you want to do is edit, then being an administrator will most likely be a distraction from what you really want to do. Poiuytman, you do seem like a level headed person who could become a good administrator someday.... So I think that, you if still want the hassles and responsibility of adminship after reading this, then you most likely will become one eventually. -
'''Oppose''' - Administrators should not merely be 'good' or 'acceptable'; they should be 'great'. Poiuytman seems too narrowly focused for my liking, and I've seen little negotiating or moderating experience like a good adminstrator candidate should have.  Wait a few months, Poiuytman. --
'''Oppose'''. Poiuytman, based on what you answered on question #1 below, here is what I suggest you can do to gain more experience: participate on the VFD discussions, do RC patrol more to help spot vandalism, and contribute to the discussions listed on [[WP:RM]]. You might also want to help out with the discussions on [[WP:CFD]], [[WP:TFD]], and help out on the articles listed on [[WP:DA]].
~1200 edits, talk page is pretty thin, limited contributions to Wikipedia: space, only a couple of cases of vandal fighting that I can see.  Didn't format this RFA correctly and even had to be bugged on his talk page because he didn't create the subpage after including it on the main RFA page (though this is really a fairly minor issue for me).  I like his contributions to articles, as I'm a fellow video game freak, but I'm trying to stay unbiased here.  I like what he's done so far, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PrettyPretty&action=history this is just a bit weird]... Few more months and a few more edits and I'll support.
Not enough evidence of involvement in the general Wikipedia community (as suggested by extremely low edit count of articles in Wikipedia: space) for me to be comfortable that this editor has the required communication and negotiation skills.  Would prefer to see more evidence of having done RC patrol and/or involvement in VfD; neither is evident from edit history.  But no strong reason to oppose, either.
User has shown himself to be a good editor thus far, so I am not going to oppose. However, I feel he has limited experience inasmuch as he has not really contributed too often to the areas I would expect from an admin (RC patrol, wikipedia namespace etc.). Keep doing what you are doing, and show your face a bit more in the community pages and show a greater commitment to vandal hunting and I will almost certainly support next time.
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
Tags speedies, reverts vandals, welcomes users.
'''Support''' Edits well-placed across namespaces. Friendly and thoughtful whenever I've noticed a comment.
'''Full Support'''.
'''Support''' - seen him lots + experience always good = support --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. He's seriously involved in the project, his intentions are good and he has what it takes to be a great admin. He's perfectly suited to wield the mop. <font color="green">
'''Support'''. I trust Shauri's judgment.--
'''Weak Support''' Mistagging speedys are a concern  but I think you deserve the rollback button and become a admin. --
'''Support'''.  [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] & [[User:Shauri|Shauri]] wouldn't be behind him if he didn't have what it takes.
'''Strong Support.''' This editor has tried very hard to make [[Wikipedia]] a better place, and, had he not nominated himself, I or another person would have nominated him. The only two "negatives" I would hypothesize are (1) That he may spend too much time on a volunteer project to the detriment of "real life" responsibilities, and (2) He is human, subject to human error, but otherwise, he is a good neighbor, seems to meet and exceed the requirements for Admin, and thus gets my vote.--
I like you as a user, but there is a big reason why I feel I can't. You used to have the username [[User:The Fascist Chicken]], something which I feel is wildly inappropriate. You're suggestion for a new username (when you decided to change it (the discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive3]] near the bottom) was The Wandering Bastard, something which I also find wildly inappropriate. I'm sorry, but that is enough for me to oppose your rfa.
'''Oppose'''. I do seem to find myself in frequent disagreement with some of your philosophies, and I'm sorry to say that leads me to oppose. Best wishes,
'''Oppose'''. I've seen you around (but mostly on RFA), and think that more time is needed to gain familiarity with WP. --
'''Weak oppose''' for the moment. It is PB's bad luck that the first of his edits I have noticed was adding &#123;{db|movie review}} to [[Invisible Child]]. Since when was ''movie review'' a criterion for speedy? --
'''<s>Weak</s> Oppose''', I don't know exactly why, but I have a bad feeling about this RfA. I don't like the message placed on [[User:Private Butcher]]. Also, a good number of articles he speedied are still in existance (suggesting poor judgement).
'''Oppose'''. I don't think you have been around long enough. Your constant edit counting bothers me (sample comment: "1950 edits, ha ha!"), as does the self-nomination. The first article I clicked on that you edited was [[Rita Wilson]], which, while small, was wrong. The [[Carl Radle]] article is nice, but there seems to be little else of substance except for lots of user page editing. You also state below (question 3) that you have "high standards for Admins" but self-nominate yourself after exactly 3 months?
'''Oppose'''. This editor appears, from his userpage, to have left Wikipedia in the last few hours, apparently as a consequence of some criticism received here. Criticism is part of the deal, whether an editor or an admin, and having mistakes pointed out when they are made is a fact of life. If Private Butcher returns, after a few months of balanced editing, I imagine an RfA would be much easier. (PS: It's helpful to mention an old username. I didn't see Private Butcher around till very recently, but I would have recognised Fascists Chicken at once.) -
'''Oppose''' I'm not sure if this user is mentally stable enough for adminship. Not so long ago he had a quite disturbing message on his user page about his RL happenings and this makes me think he wouldn't be able to bear the stress that the adminship gives.
I just don't know how familiar Private Butcher is with Wikipedia policy. There are zero edits to Wikipedia talk and virtually all edits to Wikipedia namespace are for AfD and RfA. Also, I do usually like to see more than three months of activity.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I just kind of get a bad vibe from you. It really isn't big enough for me to oppose, but I can't suppport. The whole Soup/Opera/Newt thing kind of bugs me too. -
&mdash;
Obviously you don't meet the requirements for adminship (edits, Wikispace experience, general know-how, good faith, etc.), but don't stop trying. I'm sure a few months of editing will be greatly beneficial and stand you in good stead for a run at adminship. Just to help us voters, could you please link to you page of contributions under an IP address. Thanks.
Simply not enough information about this editor to make an informed decision.  Also doesn't help that he hasn't answered the Standard Questions.
Nowhere near enough edits or Wikipedia experience, and being an editor of a high school newspaper shouldn't be criteria for becoming an admin. Get more experience, come back in a few months and I may consider supporting.
Definitely '''oppose.'''  With only ''one day'' of logged-in contributions, this user has effectively no experience on Wikipedia at this time, so (s)he does not qualify for adminship at all.  I suggest that (s)he try again in nine months.
'''Oppose'''. I applaud the enthusiasm, but - as it says at the top of this page - three months and 1000 edits is the usual bare minimum. Also, editing articles is fine, but admins do far more than that, so it's worth getting involved in and finding out about some of the other facets of wikipedia before trying for admin status. If your enthusiasm is anything to go by, I'm sure you'll eventually get to admin status - but now is far too soon.
'''Oppose''' - 6 edits??  I'd recommend waiting a few months (and about 1000 edits) and withdrawing the nomination. --
'''Oppose.''' I was only the copy editor. :(
'''Strong support'''  Just look at her sterling record, folks
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=prev&oldid=18936263 No.] &mdash;
'''Oppose'''
Sorry 466 edits [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Purplefeltangel&dbname=enwiki] is no where near enuf. Highly recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination, as it's sure to fail, and only can serve as a distraction to the nominee (and anyone else visiting this page). Note: Nominator only has 19 edits[http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Rainbowwarrior1977&dbname=enwiki]--way too soon to be nominating users here (also doesn't even know where to leave messages[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Purplefeltangel&diff=prev&oldid=19209618])(also seems to have trouble determining gender--"gentleman" v. "her").
As per Cryptic, I have to '''oppose''' this nomination.
--
'''Oppose'''. Our edit counter stops at 466, and considering that one of the edits is vandalism, there is no way that I can support this.
'''Oppose''' edit count is ''much'' too small.
'''Oppose''' Cannot trust him now because he has only 466 edits. I'll vote for you if you edit more and become more familiar with wikipedia--
'''Weak oppose''' I'm sorry, but I see quite a few questionable-at-best edits in the contribution history which lead me to strongly suspect that the user has a very poor knowledge of policy (I would consider letting the edit that [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] pointing out slide if it were the only questionable edit, but it seems to only be the worst example.)  Not so much the edit count, though.  If re-nominated later, I will consider supporting.
'''Oppose''' vandalism is never funny. Especially not when you do it right before an RfA. There's also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:856b6ab0.jpg this] helpful contribution, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parallel_world&diff=prev&oldid=18434880 this] hidden away in an HTML comment, which I have just reverted. I wonder about the seriousness of this nomination, to be honest, given the nominator's 48 hour exisntence and the nominees behvaiour. -
'''Strong Oppose''' ''I am the nominee'' and I have never met this person before. I have no idea who he is and why he's referring to me as a "gentleman." I think this was not a good-faith nomination. And [[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] is absolutely right; I have vandalized a page, so why should I be an admin?
'''Neutral'''. I'm not entirely sure this is a good-faith nomination; the candidate wasn't even told she was being nominated. I'll wait until she has a chance to answer the questions before I vote. --
Agree with Scimitar, though 466 edits is below my threshold to support.
As nominator --
[[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''', considered nominating her myself, actually! --
'''Support''' yupsiree.
'''Support''' recognizes her mistakes and has corrected her demeanor and actions. Great editor, and easy to get along with. <font color=#9999ff>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]]</font>
'''Support''' I saw some potential during the last RFA, but then the vandalisms and such were too recent.  Now, it's been longer and the user seems to have learned.
'''Support''' I was thinking of nominating her as well a few days ago, but she wanted to wait a little bit. Apparently, the demand was too great considering that a few people have wanted to nominate. She is the epitome of [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|Wikilove]] from my dealings with her, if anything she's too nice and will need to thicken her skin a bit, but i'd much rather have an admin who needs to be a little less nice than a alot more nice. This is a perfect opportunity for anyone who claims editcountitis to be a problem to rectify that situation. Her experience far exceeds her edits in my opinion, but if that doesn't count, I think I'd have to go harder onto the 2,000 edit minimum. Comment on the vandalism and previous RFA situation below.
'''Weak Support'''. She is a bit young, and the 2 month old vandalism did happen, but she probably is ready. But please make sure you always use edit summaries for non-minor articles changes. Some people even demand 100% edit summary use, although that is often unecessary.
'''Support'''. This user shows all the signs of having learned from her actions - come, now, worse vandals than her have been forgiven. Mike Garcia anyone? As far as I can see, her actions lately have been civil, constructive, and definitely worthy of administrative powers.
'''Support''' - more and more I'm seeing people on RfA who I've interacted with/seen about the place doing good work and 2 months is definately, in my opinion, long enough in the past. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''. I liked her contributions to [[Pro-ana]] a lot, and encouraged her to keep up the good work when she felt it was unworthy and submitted it herself to AfD, which was an act of intellectual honesty I had hardly seen before. She deserves the chance, and her past history of vandalism is long gone. Please, guys and girls... we have a nice and dedicated person here, let's act from our feelings for once. We'll never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy! <font color="green">
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support'''.  I believe Purplefeltangel has learned from her mistakes and that they do not negate her overwhelming number of good contributions.
'''Support''' I think that, in the spirit of no-big-deal-adminship, that this user deserves a [[WP:FAITH|good faith]] vote. Echoing Shauri...
'''Support'''. I don't see her abusing admin powers.
'''Support'''. This RFA would have been an easy promotion for Purplefeltangel if not for her actions on a single day. She's a mature, useful and friendly editor.-
'''Strong support'''  This person is doing an excellent job here. Those oppose votes purturb me. <font color=#7fffd4>
'''Support'''. A good lass, she'll go far. -
'''Support'''. She has made a good impression on me.--
'''Support'''. I'm willing to give PFA a vote of confidence here. — '''
'''Support'''.  A display of vandalism as newbie is not enough to convince me that she won't do good work as an admin.

'''Support''', that vandalism was more than three months ago. In that time, she's made good edits, as [[User:Shauri|Shauri]] points out. Everyone is a newbie once, and is allowed a bad day in my opinion.
'''Support''' this good editor.
'''Support'''. '''
'''Support''' Per above. Very kind editor. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''. Agreee with the nomination. A newbie test/vandalism early on in the career should not mean a life sentence.
'''Support'''. Support, although I like mathematics and anime. Comparing this here with other nominations for example on this page, I have to say that there seems to be an obvious double-standard for votes. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support without reservation'''. I don't think this will pass now, but I'm more than willing to let some fleeting vandalism go in this case.--
'''Support'''.  She has always been fair and bright in AfDs in which I have seen her involvment and I forgive her vandalism.  She potentially could be a good admin on wikipedia for the next 60 years.
'''Support.''' Per everybody above. Wonderful user.--
'''S♥pport'''.
'''Strong oppose''' Vandalized too recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince&diff=prev&oldid=18936263 here]. Nominee even strong opposed her own rfa saying "''I am the nominee and I have never met this person before. I have no idea who he is and why he's referring to me as a "gentleman." I think this was not a good-faith nomination. And Cryptic is absolutely right; I have vandalized a page, so why should I be an admin? ♥purplefeltangel 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)''". User talk space could use a little more activity.
No, sorry. Vandalism too recent.
'''Oppose''' Vandalizsed a high profile article right after the book came out this does she know how many people might have seen that?  If this person can be an admin so cann I since I never "vandalized" any pages like not alttering their contenxts with ''malfeasance'' (I just learned that word in English). I swear if this goes through she must repay me the favor and nomminate me for admin I think I have about 1200 edits (I think).
'''Oppose'''; the vandalism kills it for me. As for the counter-argument that this "pretty much bans anyone who's ever messed up from adminship", I agree; Wikipedia has hundreds of admins, and hundreds more waiting to take their place. As for Wiki brah's vote above, this can be disregarded; the user is a waste. The last I heard it was a sockpuppet of the banner user Rainbowwarrior1977, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive48#Rainbowwarrior1977.2C_Wiki_brah.2C_.26_Shelburne_Kismaayo] although in the non-transparent way that Wikipedia tends to do this kind of thing it's not apparent if this is still the general opinion. Should be banned anyway, and will never, ever be an admin.-
'''Oppose''' she has been a decent editor as of late, but still not enough time passed. Also template used for a signature is a Bad Thing. I endorse her dislike for Harry Potter though.
'''Weak oppose'''. I hate to do this but I have to agree that this vandalism is not that good... it kinda makes me question the maturity of purplefeltangel (though I still think she's an awesome person from what I've seen on the Wiki and on IRC). Anyways, I dislike Harry Potter three =) But just try not to let your personal opinions dictate what you do on the Wiki and that'll be enough for me. '''
'''Weak oppose''' per [[User:Grue|Grue]]. --
'''Oppose''' Doesn't seem to be serious about the project. --
'''Oppose''' per vandalism.
'''Weak oppose''' - sorry, from 'poacher to game-keeper' in two months is just too much for me. But keep up the good work (and you are going great work) for another couple of months, and I'll be delighted to change this to a strong support. --
'''Oppose''' The vandalism was just too blantant, and done to a rather popular page. It does not matter how long ago it was to me. People who have vandalized and then "learned from their mistakes" should set up a new account.
'''Oppose''' vandalism too recent.
'''Oppose''' There are plenty of good editors who would love to be admins that haven't vandalized. -
'''Oppose''' Too soon.  To me there is a [[statute of limitations]] for vandalism, but not yet.  Maybe you could ask [[Santa Claus]] for adminship for [[Christmas]] --

--
Better reapplying a little bit later.
'''Oppose'''. I find the vandalism to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince particularly bothersome, as that has been a page very heavily vandalized lately, and one that I personally have been involved in trying to protect, so I do find it a little annoying that ''that'' was her selected target. However, I might be willing to look past that, however some of the comments I have seen in this RfA to other users has demonstrated to me a level of maturity that I do not personally feel suits adminship.
'''Oppose''' - I personally feel that anyone using a transcluded signature hasn't taken the time to appreciate the drain it puts on our servers. I'm afraid that, reading through all the comments so far, I find Purplefeltangels' editcountitis to be far too extreme.
'''Oppose'''. The vandalism is troubling, but not the only problem I have supporting this nomination. Purplefeltangel seems to be overly emotional. I like to poke fun at other wikipedians from time to time, but she seemed to take any sarcastic comment about others as if she was personally insulted. Add to that the fact that she's only 14 and I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. Don't take it personally Purplefeltangel.
'''Oppose'''. The vandalism really destroyed her chances, showed that she needs more experience.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. Without comment.
'''Oppose''': the statutue of limitations, as it were, on vandalism may toll with enough experience and time. Not yet.
'''Oppose'''  for the reasons I stated above for [[User:Anonymous Editor]]. As a new person, I'd like admins to be here a while longer before they are admins.
'''Oppose''': I worked on the Harry Potter page she messed up. If she only did that once you could call it an experiment, but she kept doing it after she was warned and asked to stop. That was only a few weeks ago. She needs to grow a bit and undo more vandalism before being given admin powers, in my opinion.
'''Oppose''' &mdash; while Purplefeltangel does good work around here, the vandalism thing is too recent. Though we must all forgive and forget, less than three months, in my opinion, is insufficient time, given that there were multiple vandalisms that occured even after warnings. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oppose''' - a dislike of Harry Potter is certainly not a bad thing, vandalising the article however within recent editing history is unforgiveable. --
'''oppose''' Cannot support sucha recent vandal.
'''Oppose'''. While promoting this editor might prove to be an interesting investment, the timing for the nomination is clearly not the best. Also, while I do not have any particular qualms concerning the age of editors in general, it is of my belief that it does not act as a pro in this case. Maturity is a highly relative concept, but regardless of how mature one is, emotional maturity does depend a lot on age and life experience, and that's generally the kind of maturity an active admin needs. To put it in a clearer manner, I do not fully believe that she would be able to deal calmly with a highly stressful situation. Why rush things over? Try again in half-a-dozen months (I'm certain you'll be re-nominated earlier than that, though). --
'''Extreme Oppose''' Recent vandal, dosen't help new users (see: [[User:Prodego/spelling|''trade secret'']]), and that was after our argument ended peacefully, however she forgave me for my argument with her so I have to say '''Weak Oppose''' (this is not based at all on my past argument with  purplefeltangel) Edit:She entered what! 8 year olds read that article! Changing to extreme oppose <font color=darkgreen>
'''Oppose, NOT weakly.''' Only weeks ago this candidate repeatedly inserted [[penis]] into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince because she doesn't like them. She continued to do this after FOUR separate talk page warnings and only stopped when told she was going to be blocked. She had been here over a year when she did this recent vandalism, much more than long enough to know this is not OK. She picked an article especially popular with young people to vandalize in this way, knowing other children would see it. I could support a 14 year-old editor who acts more mature than her years, but we have enough admins who act less than their ages already.
'''Neutral''' while I consider. I need a very good reason why someone who vandalised because they were bored might not find themselves bored at some point in the future, but have some more entertaining buttons to de-bore themselves with. On the other hand, the nominee does seem to make good edits in a variety of places (though a little thin in User talk:, and yes I ''am'' allowed to look at edit count numbers), so perhaps that was a one-off. -
'''Neutral'''. This editor seems to have a strong dislike for Harry Potter (thats not why Im opposing, though :)). Anyway, I really can't support a person who is a recurrent vandal. If it was once ,I would say, "OK lets forgive and forget", but this has happened repeatedly. I think she might be a little immature to be a SySop.
'''Neutral''' I've been reasonably impressed with this user lately, so I'm not going to oppose; however, her vandalistic efforts were a little too recent for my tastes.  A dead cert next year, for what it's worth. --
'''Neutral''' Certainly a very nice person.  And while it's no bad thing for an admin to not be entirely too uptight, edits like her "wickerpedia" addition to What Wikipedia is Not have me a bit concerned at the moment regarding too much lack of seriousness.  I'm going to abstain from expressing support or opposition for the moment.
A fairly positive neutral. She's good value, impassioned about the project, will be ideal with a bit more seasoning. A near-certainty in another three to six months. Seeing how she takes the comments on this RFA will be key to her success next time around -
'''Neutral'''. A few more months of good editing should clear the air. Just needs to become a bit more serious.
'''Neutral''' Needs a couple more months of experience to redeem herself.


Good [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintainance]] work.
--
I've seen some work before, including some of the NGE work mentioned below, and I'm happy to support. -
I have seen some of his edits, and they seem good enough for sysop access. We can always use janitors.





Great work so far, but i still think Pyrop needs more experience working in and with the community here. i will probably support at a later date, once more experience is acquired.
Second Kingturtle. Pyrop needs more experience. --
I think you handled Kris45 badly as I explained in the RfC talk page. I think you need a much stronger commitment to dialogue and an understanding of what wikis are. I don't see that you have any broader problem so this is a very weak vote against and if you remind me in a month, I'll reconsider, check your talk page and support you if you don't make it this time.
Not keen on the way this user uses lower case i as a word in his acceptance.

'''Support''', I saw some of the edits. --
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
'''Support''' Has enough edits, has been here long enough.
An ideal admin.
Sounds good to me. I think a user's contribs speak broader than his answers to the standard questions here, and should note that Uncle G got a plethora of support votes before answering them, and have seen no reason to regret adminning him.
Far too many Wikipedia namespace edits, too early.  I suggest a long period of article editing to improve this editor's editing experience and broaden his perspectives. --
'''Oppose'''. Over the past two days, despite being active here (over 150 edits since his nomination!), this user has ignored this RfA, even after repeated notices on his Talk page. If he's not interested&mdash;that's fine, but the civil thing to do is let us know, one way or the other. Would people seeking his help as an admin also expect to be ignored this way?  Note that only 1.5% of his edits are in the User_talk namespace.
'''Neutral''' for now and  until I see his answers to the questions below. I would also want to what happened that with 4,000+ edits you only have 115 on Talk namespace. That is a concern as it shows little engagement with other editors.
I have had ''excellent'' experiences working with Quale. I will be delighted to support when I see his acceptance.
'''Neutral''' until user accepts nomination and answers the questions. I can't support anyone who hasn't, unless I've nominated them myself.
'''Neutral''' I don't remember seeing this editor about the place, so will wait for answers.
'''Neutral''' until nomination is accepted and questions are answered. Will probably switch to support.
Shifting into '''Neutral''' - user has not accepted the nom despite several nudges on his talk page by various editors, leading me to suspect he'd rather be left alone. --
'''Support''' - RadioKirk is a hard working member of the Wikipedia community who has been strongly involved in reverting vandalism and helping to make articles better. I think by making him a SysOp, it will allow him to better protect Wikipedia from vandalism.--
'''Support''' admin is '''supposed''' to be no big deal so I support him/her.
'''Support''' - He'll be a great sysop.
'''Support''' - We need more vandal-exterminators with admin powers. This user seems to have a good feel for what's vandalism, whats NPOV and seems to know the difference between vandalism and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. --

'''Support''' --
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience, sorry.

'''Oppose''', for now. You make good use of edit summaries, decent vandalism-spotting, and demonstrated a good sense of what's notable (and what's not). Having a narrow focus on articles isn't a problem, but you need some more experience before being made an admin: I suggest that you participate a little more in the Wikipedia-space, and continue doing what you've been doing. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' Few wiki namespace edits. --
'''Oppose''' Lacking experience in project related areas such as categories, templates, and policies.
'''Oppose''' RadioKirk does indeed do good work on a collection of articles, but it is a fairly narrow set of articles (as he says himself), relatively few edits (around 500 in total) and there's not much in the Wikipedia namespace either: http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate?username=RadioKirk&site=en.wikipedia.org Perhaps better to wait for a while, get more under your belt? Thanks/
'''Oppose''' This user seems to be an excellent editor, who, I am sure, will eventually make an great admin.  I see from his response below, that he is taking the opposition in the spirit it is intended.  Please continue to do good work here, as being a good editor is more important than being an admin.  I too had my RfA rejected 3 months ago and  am striving to continue to contribute to the article namespace as well as participating in the Wikipedia namespace.  --
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Neutral''': Nothing in the Wikipedia namespace, sorry. Seems like a good editor in all other respects. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Despite my initial reservations about this user when (in one of his earliest edits) he used profanity in an edit summary to express his opinions at the time about one of Wikipedia's style guidelines, I think that he has since developed into a solid editor and has demonstrated a firm understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I particularly admire his contributions to the [[Lindsay Lohan]] article, making sure that it is NPOV, factually accurate and succinct; both he and {{user|Yamla}} are assets to that article, and Wikipedia as a whole. Once RadioKirk has notched up a little more experience and some more edits in the Wikipedia namespace, I would be happy to wholeheartedly endorse his adminship.
'''Neutral''' for the above reasons. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Neutral''' --
'''Oppose''', not nearly enough experience on Wikipedia. I note that your user page says you are 15 years old. That in itself is not a problem, but it makes it rather unlikely that you have a law degree (or that you are married to Pamstar), and lying on your RFA application doesn't go down well.-
'''Oppose''' - Less than 30 days, and I am concerned about these edits which were made in the past 3 weeks: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casito/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=19457557], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casito/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=19354956]. In that I don't expect to see rfa candidates labelling other people's user talk pages as candidates for speedy deletion. --
'''Oppose''' due to recent virulent conflict with [[user:Casito]]... basically, the same reasoning given by [[User:Mysidia|Mysidia]], plus the answer to question 3 below seems to me indicative of a temperment wholly unsuited for the powers an administrator is equipped with.
'''Oppose''', user has just started out.  --
I am glad that is user is eager to help Wiki, to short of timespan to be nominated, and doesnt meet the ''at least 1000'' edit mark, which is more important for experience and not edit counting. Also, any editor can do these: ''Fact-checking information, dealing with vandals and trolls'', which I think are notable admirations, and hope they still have them when they return wim more exp. <font color=#FF0033>[[Special:Contributions/Who|&infin;]]</font>
'''No.''' Looking at the candidate answers and profile, this needs no explanation.
I have to agree with Harro, looking at the responses below to the questions asked makes me feel a bit uneasy giving this user the keys to the Wikikingdom.
'''Sorry''', but less than 100 edits (let alone 1000), one month, and - well - somewhat dubious answers, leave me with little option.
'''Oppose''' and '''delist'''. This nomination is nothing more than trolling, and anyone who follows Rfa should remember [[Rainbowwarrior1977]]'s previous badfaith nomination of [[User:Purplefeltangel|Purplefeltangel]]. --
'''Oppose in the Strongest Possible Terms.''' (Just in case.) User lacks the experience and knowledge of policy necessary to be an admin, and if his interactions with other users over this RfA are any indication of his ability to communicate with others, he lacks the communication skills necessary to be an admin. '''De-list''', and if there is a pattern of such activities (as is indicated by the commentary above) '''refer to appropriate authorities (ArbCom?) for disciplinary action.''' --
'''Oppose''' and delist. Spurious attempt that cheapens the process,
'''Oppose''' wholly inappropriate given the answer to (3) [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] |
'''Oppose''' An administrator coming in with the agenda noted in question 3 is far too great a risk. It reminds me of a Senator who stood up with a list of 200 names. --

For a minute I thought the Playboy model on Sepia tone was you. Obviously not - your image there has been removed. Anyway, as per Denelson83, but I will oppose until you rephrase this nomination properly.
'''Oppose''' Interesting description. In fact, it was just last night that I asked myself, "Why don't more Playboy bunnies contribute to Wikipedia?" [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Oppose''' The nomination is strange and the contributions don't seem specially significant. As for Playboy models, one Finnish Playboy model is a very prominent novel and screenplay writer, so why shouldn't Playboy models contribute to Wikipedia?
Oppose. Lack of edit summaries. You could have at least bothered to put an edit summary when nominating yourself.
'''Oppose''', for now. Answer to standard question #1 indicates that the candidate doesn't have a good idea of what he's applying ''for'', and the content and general tone of the nomination indicates he's not taking this very seriously, which is rather puzzling. If this changes, I may reevaluate my vote. <font color="green">
'''Oppose'''. User self-admittedly has 'no idea' what being an administrator entails, has only a few edits to the Wikipedia and Talk namespaces, and fails to follow the syntax for setting up RfAs. Also, your 'summary' of yourself is a bit excessively long, you could move most of that onto your user page. You should read up a bit more on policy and participate more in the community, and I'd happily support in a few months' time. -
<s>Until you give a general description of yourself, I shall abstain from this vote. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;[[User:Denelson83|Denelson]][[User talk:Denelson83|'''83''']]&nbsp;</span> 04:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Opposing''' this candidate for his non-standard application. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Oppose'''.  This editor appears to mean well, but does not appear to understand what adminship involves.
'''Oppose''' per Friday.  He also seems to be too verbose (this is an RfA not a user subpage), and I'm always a little leery of people who need to debunk every one of their oppose/neutral votes. --
'''Oppose''', per everyone, especially [[User:Ulayiti|Ulayiti]]. Wow, what a long profile :) </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose''' Actions speak louder than words, and you have too much on this page.
I must be missing something...but after looking at the images in [[Sepia tone]] I thought, oh well, never mind.--
I won't oppose because of these grounds, but please make a serious nomination if you really are planning to become an admin. The current state of the nomination is "colorful", to say the least, but it doesn't say much about who ''you'' really are. At least it doesn't say what you would like others to think.
'''Neutral'''. I'd like to see a better explanation of exactly what janitorial work the user wishes to participate in. OH, and for all of you who are wondering, check the edit history (summarized as "more relevant image") for the original (correctly gendered) photo.--
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', I'd say being here a year and having over 5,000 edits is experience enough... nothing in contribs suggests he would misuse admin priviliges, which must be the only consideration.
Need more admins. This is an encyclopedia first, a community second. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''support'''. Per Brian. His encyclopedia edits cancel out his low WP space activity.
'''Support'''. Plenty of experience.
'''Support'''. I was looking at this nomination to see if it should be removed early. But looking at Mr. Norton's reasoning for wanting to be an admin seems like a fine (if small--but many bricks make a wall) contribution to the overall advance of historical writing. Unless someone can show me that think he will abuse adminship, I wish the opposers would reconsider. --
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Strong Support''' - This guy is a great editor, an ambassador for wikipedia.  He may not have the usertalk or project edits, but he actively speaks to people outside of wikipedia for permissions and for research purposes.  Too much, I see wikipedia as just being a regurgitation of things that can be found on google, we need more of these editors.  If he believes adminship will help him in his contributions, then I think he should get it.  I would hate for him to switch over to RC patrol or CVU to get more "community" edits.  Keep on doing what you are doing.  Like Cecropia above, I wish opposers would reconsider. -
'''Support''' per above.
'''Support''': you don't need to be a computer geek with the ability to properly list your RFA the first time in order to be an administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Very Strong Support''' He's a cool guy. He will be a good Admin. Let's vote for him! --
'''Techno-illiterate Geezer Support''', I'd rather have an admin who can COMMUNICATE effectively, than an inarticulate, semi-literate techno geek. Besides, the admin corps has enough Wiz Kidz with 133t sk1llz. It needs more Geezers who can write.:>--
'''Support''' User has made some valuable contributions, and seems quite unlikely to abuse tools. --
'''Support''' - this is the first editor I have seen in a while who has even mentioned copyright and sourcing in articles on an RfA. We need more help at [[WP:CP]]. If the community is not ready for this user to become an administrator this time around, then I earnestly hope that the next time around, it will be. All the concerns listed here can be rectified given enough time and patience. --
'''Oppose''', inexperience shows when he tried to list his self-nom - check [[WP:RFA]] history. <font color="darkred">
Richard is doing better than he did initially, but I'm not ready to say I trust him with administrator privileges. --
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki namespace edits and talk edits --
'''Weak oppose'''. The user recently blanked his talk page. Please explain why you did this. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. I realise that this user has heaps of encylopedia edits, but with only '''9''' project edits, the user probably wouldn't be able to do any admin tasks anyway. I will support in a couple of months if the user makes way more project edits.
'''Oppose'''.  He appears to be a solid editor, but with hardly any WP: or talk participation, I don't think he's been tested in interactions with other users very much.  Although, with all of his contributions to images, helping other users navigate the jargon at [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] might be a good place to start, along with the usual AfD, CfD, RfD, and TfD areas.  Given more participation there and more consistent use of edit summaries, I would probably support in a few months.  (I like your user name also!) --
'''Oppose''' - see [[:Commons:Village_pump#Is_this_Commons_material.3F]] just an illustration of his unfamiliarity with the project. The user contributes great and well researched articles (sometimes maybe too obscure). But I don't believe he needs admin powers for that.
'''Oppose''' - User does excellent edits, but should enter the policy namespace and get comfortable there before beginning to operate as an admin. Would happily support in a few months if he has done so. Learn to ride a regular bike before you hop on a motorcycle. --
'''Oppose''' per Improv. '''NB:I realize that I had voted before, and that vote was stricken without good reason or notice to me.  See my comment below.  I ask the striker please to account'''.  User needs more namespace experience.  Great article writers who are very unfamiliar with policy don't make good admins.  Happy to support in future if his projectspace participation increases.
'''Oppose'''. The tone of this RFA gives me a great deal of pause regarding whether this user would be a suitable admin. The supposition that you need to become an admin before you can get your feet wet in "admin-type-tasks" particularly makes me think the user hasn't looked around a lot outside the space of his articles. &mdash;
'''Neutral''' - This isn't a support because I'm concerned you haven't contributed at all on the Wikipedia: side of things. But I don't really see how anyone can argue with over one year of experience and nearly 5000 edits on the "too new, not enough edits" level, so I don't see the point in piling on. (
I'm in favour principally, but more user interaction would be nice. Will likely support next time. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
That has to be the strangest candidate statement ever. I'll vote neutral because the RfA wasn't posted in a way which makes me comfortable with your abilities with the Mediawiki software/Wikipedia policies at this time. Also, seems his replies have messed up the numbering in the oppose section. I'm not comfortable that he's good with the Mediawiki software yet.
'''Neutral''' Not enough experience with Wikipedia: namespace, User interaction (Talk or User_Talk)or work with items such as Templates. Edits look promising, would support next time if items above increase.

This seems like one of those "Hey, i'm a new user, so being an admin would be cool since it's no big deal appparently" rfas. Come back in a bit. Also, would he need a username change when he dies?
'''Support'''. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C5%99i_o%C5%99%C3%AD%C5%A1ky_pro_Popelku&diff=prev&oldid=20682103 edit] where Rl caught a spam hidden under seemingly valid name serves as example why.
<small>

Unequivocally '''support'''. A highly committed (insert joke here) and responsible user who would make a fine admin. He's being particlularly helpful to me dealing with a vandal. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 10:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)<br>Oh, and willingness to admit potential deficiencies/problems demonstrates maturity that the wiki desperately needs. It is admirable that he has declared what he is uncomfortable with. Opposing honesty is absolutely disgraceful.
'''Support'''.  We need more hands, and this is a safe pair in which to shove a mop. --
'''Support'''. Looks like a good and experienced wikipedian.--May the Force be with you!

'''Support''', good editor, wikipedia will be better off if he has admin powers.
'''Support'''. He knows his way around and is trustworthy.
'''Support'''. Great editor, hand this fellow a mop.
'''Support''', not least for the wiki-fascist label. If the idiots are shooting at you, you know you're doing something right. --
'''Support''', see no good reason to object.
'''Support''' Good editor, carries himself very professionally. &mdash;
'''Support'''. Some phenomenal catches, including, most recently at the [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]] article.  And making the awful into the readable is an important goal.
'''Support'''.
'''Suppport'''  Yes I spelled it with three p's on purpose.
'''Support'''.  Earlier today I was browsing past here and didn't vote because I didn't really have an opinion, but later looking at my watchlist I noticed that RI just categorized an article I rewrote.  I like to think that my revision left it somewhere above awful, but at least now I know it's good ;-).
'''Support'''. >5000 edits to article space, does enormous amounts of good work on RC patrol, has knowledge of policy, and, to use the memorable characterization above, is "not stupid or insane."—
'''Support''' I endorse Rl's view on consensus.
'''Support'''. Good editor.
'''Support'''. Good contributions, and I appreciate his honesty in answering the candidate questions.
--
'''Support'''.  Editor clearly understands Wikipedia policy far better than the hordes opposing him.
'''Support''', agree with Kelly Martin's comment.

'''Support'''. Checks out as a good editor. The "misunderstanding the notion of consensus" is in my opinion minor and fixable. I'm happy to support this candidate. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''. Answer to Hamster Sandwich ''fundamentally'' misunderstands the notion of consensus. It's not the same as unanimity. Answer to first question sounds like he's not very keen on doing admin-related things. Doesnt' really sound very pro-active, either. Supposed to be no-big-deal, but ''some'' interest would be nice! Whilst VfD closures are often controversial, it is surprising to list a single debate which didn't go the 'right' way as an important conflict. -
'''Weak Oppose''' I endorse Splash's comments completely. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told another candidate last week. In your answers, you trash yourself and your work. You're fishing for compliments, or rather, support votes. Plus, your comment that "Everyone does it [revert vandalism]. My English always warned us about using words such as ''all'', ''never'', and ''every''. I doubt vandals revert vandalism.
'''Oppose''', user has too weak a grasp of Wikipolicy.
'''Oppose'''. Great contributions and fine edit summaries, but I am also perturbed by the candidate's interpretation of consensus. I don't like the statement: ''"I freely admit that I wouldn't be comfortable closing a contentious VfD"''.
'''Oppose''' - consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. -
'''Oppose''' Whether the admission of discomfort with the prospect of closing a contentious VfD reflects a lack of confidence in the ability to do it well or a lack of desire to do it at all, I don't know.  Both possibilities, though, strike me as a sign of not being cut out to be an administrator.
'''Oppose''' strange understanding of cosensus.
'''Oppose'''. I'd prefer not to oppose, but his comments aren't really what I want to see from a candidate. I'd like to see more willingness to make mistakes and also to admit them.
'''Oppose'''. Agree with comments above.
'''Oppose''': I think Rl is a fine editor, but he needs to research policy if he doesn't know it (with reference most especially to [[Wikipedia: Consensus|consensus]], but also evident in other remarks by him).  Perhaps we could have another look at this in a couple of months if Rl delves into policy a tad more.
'''Weak Oppose'''.  The 100% concept of consensus allows a ''liberum veto'' for POV warriors and trolls.  Will change vote to Neutral if candidate can explain that this eccentric view of consensus will not intefere with admin role.
'''Oppose'''. Consensus, etc. -
'''Oppose''' Sorry to say, but I waited till I was able to guage the comments that have been coming in concerning my question. If you had said 65% or 70% or 75%, some concrete number, I might have voted for your promotion. Adminship should be at least partially about accountability to the community.
'''Oppose''': As much as I hate the "consensus" terminology that has been introduced in VfD closures, there is a lot more here:  It is ''necessary'' to get rid of trash, to revert vandals, and to '''obey''' consensus (66% is the threshold used by US legislators).  This is not because of "deletionism" or "inclusionism" or any other dadblamed "-ism."  This is because encyclopedias are tertiary reference sources, and anything that gets even a large delete vote is probably not suitably dead and cold to be part of an encyclopedia.
[[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
<s>'''Weak Support''' (waiting for user to answer candidate questions).  <font color="red">
Why, of course. --
'''[[Soup|Support]]''', I'm supporting, hopefully user will accept the nomination.
'''Support''' again.  Good user, good person, goodgasell!  <font color="red">
'''Support''' Promised myself that I wasn't going to vote until my RfA was over, but Rob deserves my early support. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' Good egg. Good luck!
'''Support''' exactly as before: "Going by previous interaction I expect he'll treat admin rights carefully and thoughtfully."
'''Support'''; eminently trustworthy.  Should be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''.
'''Supp Ort'''. I keep seeing him around. ~~ '''
'''Support''' Goes without saying.
'''Support''' he isn't one? -
'''Support''', good editor. '''
'''Support'''
'''Support''' After reading what others have posted and looking through some of the user contributions I feel this would be a fine admin.
'''Support''' Good User --

'''Support''' --
Rob Church isn't an admin?  You gotta be kidding me.  --
'''Support''' --
'''S'port''' certainly --
'''Support''' Seen him around countless times, and he's left a very positive impression.  --
'''Support'''.  And why not, eh? --
'''Support''', same as last time.
'''Support'''.  He wants to delete unused fair use images, so I say let him. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Support''', per nominator.
'''Support''', per nom.
'''Extreme [[Chav]] Support!''' Administator Rob in da house! [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>Ac</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color=00CD00>e</font>]][[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=0AC92B>tic</font>]][[Special:Random|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support'''.  Have bumped into him on RC Patrol and he was doing what I was doing so must be good ;-).  '''>:'''
Oppose, gawd dammit! Nahh, just kidding, '''Support'''! I know him mostly from IRC where he is one of the coolest people around
'''Support''' even though I normally don't like supporting per nom, per nom. <small>
'''Support''', RFA cliché No. 1.
'''Support''' you actually notified redwolf and company of that RfAr... LOL :).<small>
'''Support.''' We've gotten on each other's nerves more than once...but when all is said and done, Robchurch is a well-meaning, great guy. He truly is. :-) --
'''Support''' a good pick for sure.--
'''Support''' dedicated editor. --
Cool. --
Was suitable for admin last time already!
You beat me to nominating him! -

'''Support''' [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oh my, of course''' That's a support from this
'''Support''' again! :-)
'''support'''. Another good candidate.
Fools! Your comments are useless against <span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">us</span>... me! <span style="border: 2px solid #00aa00;">We</span>... I cannot be harmed! Erm, I mean '''support'''.
'''Support''' Ive seen this user around.
'''Furry Alien Support''' no doubt about it.
'''Support'''. -
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''
-- (
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''- --
'''Support''' keep up the good work mate. &nbsp;
"'''Support'''.  $user is not an admin?" &ndash;
'''Support!''' -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
'''Support'''. I could have sworn that I had voted, but apparently not. This one is a no-brainer. Here ya go,
'''Very strong support''', a very fine editor --
'''Support''' death to unqualified Fair Use!
'''Support''' - Good edit count.--
'''Support''' - as per [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]]. --
'''Support''', unless there is some basis for opposition that I am not finding.
'''Support''' - Plenty of edits, answered the questions.--
'''Support''',
'''Support''' - I'm going to assume good faith based on the response below to [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] that the num is familiar w/ policy and will further his efforts there (note: I am in no way saying that good faith is not being assumed elsewhere -- I'm just impressed by the response to a valid concern) &mdash; [[User:Lomn|Lomn]] | <small>[[User Talk:Lomn|Talk]] /
'''Support''' Looks good. <small>
'''Support'''. Good editor, member of the [[Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project|''Elements of Style'' improvement project]]. ;) --
<s>'''Oppose''' till user specifies an email id.
'''Oppose'''. I think that an admin-to-be should have good experience of admin-related areas before being given the tools to effect decisions in those areas. The edit count really is just too low on ''all'' the interaction areas, from User talk: to Wikipedia: to be able to judge how the candidate responds in a crisis or when under attack (as he most surely will be as an admin!). If you don't currently feel "comfortable" with the tasks you'd be able to carry out, I think it'd be better to wait until you ''are'' comfortable and then ask for the tools. I imagine if you come back in a couple of months with some presence 'behind-the-scenes', you'd have a pretty easy ride here. Meantime, you can grab Sam Hocevar's Godmode lite and get a one-click rollback that way. -
'''Oppose'''. Per Splash and the fact his answers here are extremely cursory.
'''Oppose''' Your lack of edits in the User talk: namespace is quite low, and you have only had 18 sections on your own talk page. If you can show community interaction, I will support in a few months.
'''Oppose'''.  Article edits seem fine, but far too few WP namespace edits for me to support.  --
'''Oppose''' for now due to lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. Conversational skills are crucial for an admin. Lack of Talk/User_talk edits and his terse answers below indicate someone who may be a good editor but avoids interaction as much as possible. Admins are public figures around here; I think [[User:Rogerd|Rogerd]] would have a tough time handling the barrage of questions, debates, taunting and accusations that admins face on a daily basis.
'''Neutral''' &mdash;High edit count, but 85% of them are done in article namespace. No edits in other namespaces have reached 100. The lack of community involvement slightly worries me. I see no reason to vote oppose, so Im stuck with neutral. Will consider changing in the future, though.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Neutral''' As with Journalist, the lack of participation on talk and community pages makes me uneasy.  In reviewing a selection of the few changess you have made in the Talk and Wikipedia spaces, I don't see any problems, but it give me little basis for judging whether you are well-acquainted with policy and community norms.  Unless I miss my guess, I suspect you are here basically because you want a rollback button?  If I could give you just that option, I wouldn't hesitate, but there is more to the mop and the bucket than that.  As an admin, people may approach you to deal with vandals and explain policy.  Are you going to be comfortable/equipped to do that?
'''Neutral''' sadly have to neutral vote a baseball fan, but you dont have enough edits in the Wikipedia space.
'''Neutral''' I do not know this user.
'''Support''' as nominator.
'''Oppose''', only slightly over 1000 edits, and only 16 in the Wikipedia namespace. Also most edits seem to be minor, without edit summaries.
'''Oppose''': Salvag has wiped his/her talk page twice (last week and again today) without ever having replied (on a talk page, at least) to any comment left by anyone.  Most of the removed comments were critical and requested an explanation or action. Salvag, I'm not implying it was done in bad faith because I can see you did '''act''' on some of the suggestions made, but it still doesn't provide evidence of the sort of participation in the Wiki community I  expect from an admin. Only 9 edits total in the ''User talk:'' namespace. ~
'''Oppose''' as above.
'''Oppose''', as per Veledan.  --
As per Veledan.
'''Oppose''' per everyone. Also, user talk pgae is blank :( </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
As per Veledan. --
'''Oppose''' - <s>too soon</s> <u>you have too few edits in the time you have been here</u>, and talk page concerns are discouraging. In time, you'll get into the flow of talk page discussions. --
'''Oppose''' - As per Veledan.
--

Not enough edits. &mdash; <small>
<s>'''Oppose''', did not answer any of the questions for a self-nomination.  I am concerned over the fact that Salvag has not followed directions in how to place a self-nomination, which may indicate he or she may not follow the Administrator's guidelines. --
As the nominator it will suprise nobody that I think Sam is worthy of the proverbial mop and bucket.
I second it

Good job on the cricket articles.
I don't usually vote for folks I have no interaction with, but jguk saying it'd be useful for cricket, fine with me. And tat template rule nonsense below?  That's exactly what templates should be used for.
'''Support'''.  Obvious dedication to Wikipedia, handled himself quite well in the VFD.  I doubt there would be any issue with giving him admin rights.  --
'''Support''' --<small>

'''Support''' &ndash; He has done a lot of work in the cricket realm.
'''Support''' A dedicated and responsible editor. --
'''Support''' - see comments below. --
'''Support'''. I've reviewed his user pages and checked through some of his contributions, and I conclude he's ready. (Plus, we Norwegians have to stick together.)
Cool.
'''Support''' The rational used by those voting oppose seems weak at best.
'''Support'''.  An all round good guy. --
'''Support''', has sufficient experience to say he will be a good admin.
'''Support'''. A good writer of articles.
'''Support'''. Meets [[User:Android79|my guidelines]]. Lack of WP: edits is a concern, but Sam's answers to the standard questions and responses to comments lead me to believe he will make good use of the mop. <font color="green">
'''Support'''.
The whole thing about rules is really not applicable here. He violated a convention, and a not terribly important one at that. Support.
I ask one question when voting on RfAs.  "Would Wikipedia lose anything by the promotion?"  I don't know how much WP would gain by Sam's being an admin, although I hope it would be a lot, but I do know that WP would not get worse.  He has my confidence.  And he's the Norweigan cricket fan.
'''Support''', to counterweigh against the oppose votes of the wikilawyers and the deletionist society.  Sigh.
'''Support'''. Seems to be a fine user. I couldn't make much sense of the oppose votes.
'''Yes please'''. --
'''Support''' - [[User:Celestianpower/Voting#Adminship|my standards]] like him. --
'''Srongly oppose''':  "even if there were some rules broken" pretty much says it all.  We need less of that.  Get the rules changed, if you believe in it strongly.  Otherwise, obey them, because when administrators start trashing rules for their own ideologies, we get the nastiest wars of all.
'''Oppose'''- strong focus on only editing cricket pages suggests that he does not need admin powers.
'''Oppose''', somewhat reluctantly. A good contributor, with a prominent nominator. I oppose not because of "the rules" thing, since that's minor. However, with only 100 or so edits to Wikipedia: space and the same to Wikipedia talk: space, he has only a passing acquaintance with what admins do. Answer to question 1 doesn't seem to show particular enthusiasm for doing what admins do, either. Nothing wrong with discussion on VfD pages, by the way! -
--

'''Oppose''' for lack of experience in Wikipedia namespace. However, I do want to state that the "rules broken" issue about templates was in fact a good-faith attempt by Sam to streamline a number of articles, so I would ask people to not hold that against him.
'''Oppose''' but more for the reasons given by Encephalon and Acetic Acid in their neutral votes, than for much of the dicussion above this line.
'''Very strongly oppose.''' I'm all for low standards for adminship, but when someone writes articles like [[England Women v Australia Women 24-27 August 2005|this]], it says to me that the author has no understanding whatsoever of NPOV ''or'' the Manual of Style. Such a person really should not be an administrator, at least at this point in time.
'''Oppose'''. I have to agree with Ambi.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm agreeing with Ambi too.  He doesn't seem to have a good grasp on the differences between Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, namely Wikinews.  He's written all of these articles on regular-season cricket matches that are much better suited for Wikinews (and I've told him this on VfD discussions for those), yet he and the other cricket editors insist on keeping them here, when that level of detail in covering a cricket season is not really that necessary in this wiki.  Nevertheless, I do think it's a good idea to have admins who have fields of expertise to which they are willing to contribute a lot (I've supported several candidates based on that reason); but I also think that he should explore other namespaces, such as WP:, and articles on other topics. --
'''Oppose'''. Yikes. Wasn't planning on voting until I saw [[England Women v Australia Women 24-27 August 2005]]. Written like a news article, certainly not presented in an encyclopedic fashion ("a paltry 131"? "tail-end heroics"?). I'm not sure this "article" is even appropriate for Wikipedia, but that's another matter. In any case, I cannot see how one so unfamiliar with Wikipedia practice and policies (or who is familiar but chooses to ignore them) could be considered a suitable candidate for adminship. If I had come across this on RC patrol I would think it the work of a new/anonymous user, not think it the work of someone seeking adminship. &mdash;
<strike>Pending some answers</strike>.'''Neutral'''. Thank you for your responses, Sam. This is my first non-support vote, and I make it reluctantly but with the confidence that you could make a great admin some day, but not quite today. Very best wishes—
'''Neutral''' This vote was really hard to decide, so I'll stay neutral for now. I can overlook the template usage rule, as your justification of breaking that rule is endorsed by [[WP:IAR]]. But, your lack of posts to the Wikipedia namespace and to talk pages is a little disappointing.


[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] and [[User:Splash|Splash]] raise an important point about rule-breaking. In your response, you indicate that you (apparently) broke rules in editing articles because that made it "simpler... for me as an editor." That's as honest an answer as any, I suppose. Nevertheless, I was wondering if you might tell us which rules you feel may be broken because they make things easier to do, [[WP:IAR]] notwhitstanding? Best wishes—
I think a lot is being made about SV's edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I checked the recent sucessfull candidates and they have edits in the range of about 200-300. I'm sure being off by 100 does not make a candidate less worthy! One of last week's candidates had just '''five''' edits to the wikipedia talk namespace! Why wasn't it brought up then?
[[User:SamuraiClinton|SamuraiClinton]] almost never puts [[edit summary|edit summaries]], see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=SamuraiClinton&limit=500&offset=0]. There are many other reasons to oppose Samurai's candidacy, but this one is close to my heart (close enough to not even wait for Samurai to even say if s/he desires the adminship).
'''Oppose'''. Too suspicious nomination. No edit summaries, no answer to candidacy and seems to be conflictive. --
'''Oppose'''. (I'll take the answers to the questions below as an implicit acceptance of the nomination.) Many reasons are listed at his [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton|RfC]]. SamuraiClinton either does not understand the concept of consensus or chooses to ignore it when it doesn't suit his needs, as evidenced at the VfD discussion for [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autosexuality|Autosexuality]] (in particular, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FAutosexuality&diff=12254081&oldid=12253938] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FAutosexuality&diff=12261269&oldid=12254081]).
'''Oppose''', per all the above; no need for repetition. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. I believe that an Admin needs to exhibit a sincere and helpful state of mind. This can not be expressed in words but in deeds. I ''do'' think that  [[User:SamuraiClinton|SamuraiClinton]] has this potential but is being influenced by others. Too bad. Be yourself and grow. Stupid me if I'm wrong on this.
'''Oppose'''.  Nothing personal, mind you.  Sam is currently the subject of a rather lively request for comment on behavior that can best be described as idiosyncratic. -
'''Oppose'''.  Needs to do more edit summaries; idiosyncratic behaviour described in RfC suggests that SamuraiClinton is still getting the hang of Wikipedia operation. Answers to questions below seem to indicate a lack of interest in adminship anyway. --
'''Oppose'''. SamuraiClinton might be a good admin some time in the future, but right now he simply lacks the maturity and common-sense required (see the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton|Request for Comments on him]]). I also have very great reservations about the motives of the nominator. Finally, his answers to the candidate questions are not very good. --
'''Oppose'''. This is an absurd nomination.
'''Oppose'''. SamuraiClinton is eager to contribute, and full of good intentions, but he has made a fair number of blunders. He needs to settle down a little.
'''Oppose''', all my reasons have already been said.
'''Oppose'''.  Seems like basically a good person who tries to add good content to WP, but his articles are often VfDed or speedied, particularly as neologisms, which suggests he needs more time to get used to WP before adminship. Also, a nomination by an anon/new user is worrying, though I'm not sure it should be considered a sock--there'd be no reason for it, as self-noms are allowed.  In addition, responses to the questions below indicate that Sam is only interested in editing and creating articles, neither of which need admin privileges.
Specious nomination.  The nominator should be censured.
'''OPPOSE'''. Sorry for screaming but this vote is not difficult. I've looked into [[User:SamuraiClinton|SamuraiClinton]]s contributions and have decided that this person is '''not''' one with which to trust with administratorship at this time. It's lt's nothing personal, it's just business.


'''Oppose'''. While I'm still prepared to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] and regard SamuraiClinton's contributions as not malicious, the points raised in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SamuraiClinton]] clearly indicate he's not yet mature for adminship.
'''Oppose'''.  Sockpuppetry, unauthorized closure of VfD, and a slew of absurd contributions.  Erratic to say the least.  I think he's shown a rather selective lack of comprehension and deserves no good faith presumption at this point, but of course even that presumption would not sustain this nomination.
'''Oppose''', because of reasons stated above. --
'''Oppose.''' SamuraiClinton's contributions to date do not yet indicate a good understanding of Wikipedian consensus, or good technical skills with respect to editing or following procedure. He should not be proposed for sysop until he is generally regarded as a reliable '''contributor,''' which at this writing he is not. Generally speaking I would not think people should expect to be appointed admins while they have an active RFC criticizing them.
Is  [[User:SamuraiClinton|SamuraiClinton]] the same person as [[User:SamuraiClinton|GoofyGuy]]? I should review ''all'' of this user's contributions before voting. Any other aka names that I should look at ?
'''Abstain''' since user is on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton|RFC]].
'''Bludgeon''' the nominator with rotten vegetables, since luring SamuraiClinton into being pummeled seems to have been the only point of this exercise. --
'''Neutral'''--
Come on, guys. If a vote is like 0-10, there's no reason to keep voting with simply more damaging remarks. And anyway, isn't this '''exactly''' the reason why half of you guys voted against [[WP:RFDA]]? "Oh dear, [[User:Ugen64]] might get harassed by a request for de-adminship - I can't elaborate further because I have to go pummel another troll on RFA." If there were no policy against personal attacks, I would use take the words "hypocrite" and "some of you", combine them, and make a meaningful sentence. The meaning of this hypothetical meaningful sentence shall never be known, because, as you all know, there is a policy against personal attacks.
Support <small>NazismIsntCool didn't give the customary free first vote, so I'm placing it here for him. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
Support. You need a good administrator before you can have a good wiki - and you shouldn't just take any candidate.
'''<s>Oppose</s><s>Strong Oppose</s>Very Strong Oppose'''. I'm really sorry, I hate starting off an RFA like this. Scott, I think you show potential, but I can't justify voting support when you've got virtually as many edits to your user page as you do to articles. Plus, you haven't made much use of the edit summary at all, which in my book (as well as others) is a big no-no. You obviously have been here for a while; it also appears you are the creator of [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion policy]] (which is good!). If this nomination fails, come back in a month after doing some more stuff, use that edit summary much more liberally and break 1000 edits. I will most likely vote support for you then. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose'''. Not only does he not meet [[User:Jguk/admin criterion|my admin criterion]], I think all the comments about vandalism, etc. do not make me believe Scott will exercise good judgment and maturity as an admin. Sorry Scott - keep up the good work, but I don't think you'd be a good admin,
<s>'''weak Oppose'''</s> I can't put my finger on precisely why, but I just don't have a good feeling about Scott as an administrator. I was tempted to vote neutral, because I'm haven't had huge amounts of interation with him, but his edit count is on the low side and the comments from other users in this and the previous request don't encourage me. This isn't an al-time vote, so when you have more experience and a higher profile, I will gladly recondisder in any future request.
'''Oppose''' I can't put my finger on it either, but something just seems like he won't use good judgement.
'''Oppose'''. From his [[User:Scott Gall|user page]]: "If I ever get sysop status, I will chase down every vandal and make sure they pay dearly for their actions". In my view, blocking powers and such are simply to prevent vandalism to Wikipedia, not punish vandals. Vandals should be encouraged to reform their behavior, not be punished. Also, Scott, could you explain your [[User:Scott Gall/Admin criterion|admin crtieria]]? You've used them [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vikreykja&diff=prev&oldid=13904475 more] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Apollomelos&diff=prev&oldid=13877053 than] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vikreykja&diff=prev&oldid=13904475 once], despite the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arcadian|objections]] (scroll down) of other editors. As you note, you don't meet your own criteria and I do not believe I could vote for someone who doesn't believe he would make a good administrator ("''This means I oppose myself.''") Don't get me wrong, Scott&mdash;I'm glad you're helping out Wikipedia, and you're doing a good job. I just don't think adminship is right for you; there are other ways in which you can better help out. &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. I can't support someone who doesn't meet his own admin criteria.
'''Oppose'''. This is where your admin criterion is really gonna bite you in the ass. Also, I really didn't want to know that you're uncircumcised. That's a bit too much [[TMI]]...shows a lack of maturity.
<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. Your admin criteria shows an extreme lack of [[WP:FAITH|good faith]].
Strongly oppose due to the hate list.
'''Oppose'''. Besides the comments made by the other opposing votes, this user has yet to answer the question I [[User talk:Scott Gall/Admin criterion#Question about your Admin criterion|asked here]].
'''Oppose'''. A cursory glance at his user page shows that his politics are as dubious as they were last time. I do not believe this user can act with impartiality or carry out policy (he seems to think that personal attacks are acceptable, for example).
'''Oppose'''. From user page, [[User:Scott Gall|Scott Gall]] writes: "[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Point of view]] should be allowed in moderation in articles where some parts are unknown. [[Wikipedia:Edit war|Edit wars]] should also be justified in this case." Clearly does not understand the fundamental principle of Wikipedia.
'''Very strong oppose'''. Vandalises other language Wikipedias.
'''Oppose''' --
'''Oppose''' I wouldn't have minded a 'reformed vandal' so much, but the fact that you keep [[User:Scott_Gall/Museum_of_vandalism|a list of your vandalism]] around is quite childish. Also, you don't fit your own standards for becoming an admin. --
'''Oppose''', the above comments are troubling.
'''Oppose''', and now I hate you too.
'''Oppose''' Our friend here needs to gain some maturity and a firmer grip on reality before requesting adminship.
'''Oppose''' Was this even a serious nomination?
'''Oppose'''.  Userpage is confrontational and shows immaturity.
'''Oppose'''. this guy actually is proud of being of vandal..he keeps a "museum" of his stupid vandalism.
Most of the opposing votes are quite unnecessary - what the hell is the point of voting 20 oppose votes, half of which are quite hostile to the nominee, when it's obvious the nomination will not pass? Scott Gall is not as deserving of an RFC as the nominator, for certain (who is either an obvious troll or has less of an idea how things work than Scott Gall - his signature's even broken), and he is probably less deserving of one than some of the people opposing. &ndash;
Grant him the mop. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;

'''Support'''
'''Support''' Not all admins have to be active all the time.  There are over <s>1000</s> 500 of them, and some of them are not very active.  It doesn't mean that they don't do good work.  There is no reason that any user who has some experience in wikipedia and has shown that they can be trusted shouldn't be an admin. --
'''Support''' 2200 edits is more than enough.
'''Support''' because we need more good admins! '''
'''Support''', confident that he will not misuse admin powers.
'''Support''' I don't know this editor much, so I sample checked some of their edits and all seems fine to me.
'''Support''' ScottyBoy's edits speak for themselves. His edits are quality and while he has quantity going for him as well, it is the quality of his edits that wins my vote of support. --
'''Support''' as per Caponer, Alf.
'''Support''' Scotty just sent me a request on my own talk page about supporting his adminship. --
'''Support''' I see no reason to not support him.
'''Support''' We had a slight disagreement recently, but he was most reasonable about it. I'm sure he will be an excelent admin and try to do what is right.
'''Support''' Really good user and I often find his analysis of a photo on FPC exactly what I would say. Very nice guy, and I certainly don't think that his edits are not enough. You ''can't'' expect someone to always to be active - most people (I think) have a life aside from Wikipedia and can't be expected to be glued to the screen 24/7 (not that such users aren't extremely valuable). Anyway I agree totally with his idea's on diagrams on FPC - in my opion they don't belong. --
'''Support'''. I'm confident that he will be a valuable addition to the ranks of administrator.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''... after all, he's from Wild, Wonderful, [[West Virginia]]! &ndash;
'''That's hot.'''
'''Support'''
'''Support.'''  No substantial reason to oppose.  "Campaigning for a delete vote", I have to say, is quite routine and desirable admin behaviour.
'''Strong support''' per Slac; putting in extra effort should be rewarded not punished.
'''Support'''. Self-awareness and humility, as expressed in reaction to the opposition's comments below, is how I know that an admin will strive to act responsibly, and will work to correct mistakes.
'''Support'''.  I think I was too hasty and harsh opposing.  After taking a closer look at this editor's record, I see a long time contributor who generally interacts well with others. --
'''Support'''. See no substantive current issues.
'''Support'''. ScottyBoy900Q has rightly and judiciously raised questions about editors working on articles about themselves, a very difficult issue that a lot of us haven't had the guts to touch.  I don't see that as a reason to oppose.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support''' User meets my admin requirments on my userpage.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. Guy who's leading the opposition is retaliating. No spurious AfD, almost half responses say he's non-notable or borderline case.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. With respect with the AFD incident, everyone is allowed to have one bad day. And while RFA campaigning is a [[bad thing]], it does not strike me as a reason to oppose a candidate.
'''Support''' Seems like a good editor, reasons for oppose are lacking to say the least.
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''' <s>Been here for over a year, and only has over 2000 edits, user doesn't seem active enough to me, to be an admin.  [[User:Private Butcher|Privat]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]] [[user talk:Private Butcher|Butcher]] 16:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)</s> I now oppose for reasons that have been brought before me.
'''Oppose'''. A recent spurious AfD is a bad sign (and doesn't reflect knowledge of notability guidelines). (restored per Fawcett5)
'''Oppose''' - I withhold judgement about whether the above mentioned Vfd vote was spurious or not (the old Vfd vote was a resounding keep). However, when ScottyBoy900Q set up the new Afd, he simply overwrote the archive of the old discussion instead of creating a new Afd article. This to me clearly indicates that he has insufficient knowledge of administrative procedure at this time. I would be happy to reconsider my vote in a few months when he has demonstrated more knowledge about "the way of the wiki".
'''Oppose'''  I rarely oppose a nomination, but feel I need to in this instance.  What drew my attention in the first place was the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz]] incident.  While one can see reasons for putting the article up for deletion, I wan't very happy with the tone of the nomination and there is some evidence of [[User:ScottyBoy900Q|ScottyBoy900Q]] campaigning for a delete vote which is unbecoming in a potential administrator.  Also this is a self-nomination and there is evidence of campaigning for support - allowable, but it bothers me a little.  All in all, oppose this time round, but hope to be able to support in a few months time.
I'm not a big fan of RfA campaigning, if this one fails I'd be happy to vote in support in a few weeks on an RfA without it. --
'''Oppose''' I think a prospective admin should have enough involvement in the community that they don't have to spam users talk pages soliciting votes,  It looks to me like bad form to cut and paste notes asking for support. It comes from a fairly narrow particapation history, I think an admin needs to have wider experience to have the backround to act on policy. There isn't much work on some of the activities listed in the first question, most don't need any admin powers to at least pitch in, no reason to jump on in some of those backlogs! Vote reinstated after reading [[User:Flcelloguy]]'s qoute and realizing that nominee challenged six of the voters, he just doesn't show that he has any real grasp of policy/pratice here.
'''Oppose''' For spamming of user pages alone. Is the RFA process turning into something akin to a US presidential campaign? --
'''Oppose''' Votes for self in self-nom and a cutnpaste AFD.
'''Oppose''' for vote-pimping.
'''Oppose''' based on comments above. &nbsp;
'''Oppose''' &mdash; not only do the AfD and the self-vote worry me, but this comment from above to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: ''People can see for themselves when looking at your arguments and the way you talk down to everyone what kind of person you are.'' It doesn't matter how heated the argument is or how frustrated you are, but I don't expect admins to insult other [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]s or to infer that someone is a bad person. While I feel you are a good contributer, I just don't think you're ready yet. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oppose'''. I wasn't the b'crat who extended this (though I believe the extension merited) and I won't be the promoting or removing b'crat, but as often happens with extensions, nothing definitive has happened. Voting as an editor, not as an admin, I believe that the substantive objections in both content and number indicate that this nomination should be brought up again at a future time. --
The cut and paste was unfortunate, but was certainly an error, and can presumably be undone by an admin if necessary. I don't think this RfA should be turned into an RfC on the AfD &ndash; what a lot of abbreviations! In my view, the timing of it showed poor judgment from a would-be admin for his own sake, but if it had been done in bad faith, he would surely have waited until the RfA was over. It's worth noting, also, that ScottyBoy is not the only one to recruit votes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Private_Butcher&diff=prev&oldid=25306810]. I would hope that anyone who feels that the [[David Mertz]] article should be kept would vote accordingly in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz|appropriate place]], rather than here. By the way, I'm voting neutral because I don't know enough about ScottyBoy to decide whether or not he'd be a good admin. One piece of advice I'd give is that you need to use edit summaries more frequently. Your nomination will probably pass next time. Good luck!
'''Support''' per nom.
Positive contributor.

'''Evil Support''' He's been here since June (where did the 2 days idea come from?) and has more than 3000 edits.  He's also self-described as evil (see [[User:Shaddack]] for his excellent logic).  That's enough for me.--
'''Support'''. I think you did yourself a disservice by allowing an unknown member of the community to nominate; when people don't know you directly, they often use the reputation of the nominator as a vouch for your good behaviour/intentions. Nonetheless, you seem to do a lot of good work. Good luck. --
'''Support'''.  I see nothing in this editor's history to give me any pause.  NormanEinstein: it was clear that Ian13's nomination was a surprise to Shaddack, so I don't think it's a question of 'allowing'.  Be that as it may, we should evaluate the candidate on his own merits, nobody else's.
'''Support''' Be bold!
'''Support''' Looks ok to me. Could edit more when feeling has good content to contribute. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
'''Support''' Seems fine, was helpful with my request.
'''Support''' This is a spoiler vote in opposition to those who oppose a nomination based on the nominator and not the nominated. There is currently space for an additional 8 spoiler votes.
'''Support''' - the reasons for opposition here are weak. We need more admins.
'''Support''', no reason to believe this user will abuse admin powers.
'''Support''' weak reasons for opposition to position that is "no big deal." I think user will be a fine admin.
'''Weak oppose''' - A very good editor. However, I'd have supported if Shaddack were more interactive with other users and in talk pages as well. I am also surprised by the action of the nominator Ian13. He's just joined 2 days ago! I'll follow up the comments here as this is may not be my definitive vote. --
'''Oppose''' as per Svest. --
'''Oppose'''. Good mainspace contributions, and reasonable Wikipedia: space contributions, but extremely few of them. Kate's tool isn't relevant here; I can count them by hand. They are a few V/AfD edits and not much else. One of them is a merge during an otherwise deleting AfD. This is allowed, per WP:BOLD, I very well know, but I don't like it being done since it renders all the other editor's opinions irrelevant, unless someone is going to un-merge after the AfD. I think only one or two of them were 'engaging' edits i.e. not actually discussing but just stating his opinion. This is fine, and what most people do in AfD, but some debating/discussing is essential to be able to see how an editor conducts themselves. So I think I'd like to see considerably more user and community interaction, just because there is too little on which to judge how Shaddack may respond when under pressure or in disgreement etc. Broaden your scope of participation a little, see which behind-the-scenes stuff you do/don't like and how it does/doesn't work. -
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' per Splash
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' due to extremely odd nomination: produced by 2-day old account, and did not sign their own acceptance. Sorry, but that last point seems to show a lack of Wikipedia knowledge or attention to detail, both important traits for an admin.
'''Oppose''' for now. I would like to see him interact more on the talk pages.  It is important to be able to see how he interacts with others in discussions.  This probably explains his answer to number three below.  Conflict with others is not a bad thing, it is how you resolve the conflict which is what I want to see, a key attribute of an admin. --
'''Oppose''' per Splash.
'''Oppose''' This is a spoiler vote in opposition to those who make spoiler votes in opposition. There is currently space for an additional 0 spoiler votes.
Too few Wiki namespace edits particapate in AFD and RFA more --
'''Neutral''' user seems on the right path to adminship, but I will not oppose based on lack of talk page communication. &nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. ''Oppose because of'': curious nature of nominator (obviously an old editor come back and it all seems a little odd); almost total absence of Wiki edits; somewhat spotty use of summaries, i.e., using them regularly and then forgetting for 10 or 12. ''Support because of'': an exceptional number of distinct articles hit relative to over-all edits; an excellent attention to categories and attempt to sort things out in this regard; some good clean-ups to obscure topics. In sum, I am neutral.
'''Neutral''' concur with much of above.
Very good editor, but too few Usertalk, Project, and project talk edits.
Come back in a couple of months, show some interest in the Wikipedia namespace, get involved in discussions and I may support.
'''Neutral''', good editor, but still needs some more experience. I will certainly support in the future. --
'''Neutral''', editor looks good; I would just like to see some more talk page activity so I could better ascertain how he would handle conflict situations. --
'''Support''' seems competent and level-headed.
'''Support''' Has been friendly & helpful with the Wikipedia 1.0 project.

'''Support'''. Excellent answers to the questions, and seems very level-headed and trustworthy. Good on edit summaries. Highly unlikely to abuse the admin powers. Seems like they would be very useful to her. And, all in all, a quality contributor. I see no reason to oppose. --
'''Support''' Edit count is low but sufficiently diverse to my mind. Not a lot on WikiTalk but enough on Wiki itself. Particularly impressed by 1.19 average edits per page and the number of article edits relative to over-all amount. Shows she gets things right and that she hits a diverse number of pages. Nice answers to questions.
'''Support''', no qualms.
'''Support.''' Discussion edits are kinda low, but adminship is no big deal, right? ~~ '''
[[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
As nominator, vote of support. --
'''Support''' - where has the problem with talk namespace suddenly leapt from?  That was certainly not a hoop I had to jump through when I became an admin... --
'''Support''' - I see Shanel very active with her ''mop'' w/o injuring or leaving any wet liquid on the floor or any victim behind her. Applies WP rules gently! --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' lack of experience with conflict doesn't mean she's not ready to be an admin, she doesn't have to get involved in conflicts if not comfortable wtih them - give her the tools to be a more effective editor, which is what she wants to be
--
'''Oppose''' Not much interaction in the talk spaces. Will support if you become more active in the community.
Oppose, insufficient interaction with the community for me to have confidence in her. It doesn't help that the nomination comes from a user whose behavior has been extremely erratic. I would reconsider if she was being endorsed by people I know and trust. --
Try again in a few months - you need more experience in Talk and such.
'''Oppose''' Not enough interaction with the community via talk pages. I need more proof that you can actually handle negotiation and mediation while maintaining [[WP:CIVIL]] at all times.
'''Weak Oppose''' per ZZyzx11. I need more of a record to have confidence in this user.
'''Oppose'''.  Needs more time, experience, and interaction with others on Wikipedia first.
'''Oppose''' Sorry, too soon.
'''Neutral'''. Based on what the supporters and opposers say, and by my own judgement, I've been unable to come to a conclusion. Cannot wholeheartedly support, but can't wholeheartedly oppose either. --
Support''' need more admins who take on the vandals.
'''Support'''. A quick review of his contributions shows an intelligent, articulate editor, and a true encyclopedist. His interactions with others show an even-tempered attitude (with rare exceptions, as MONGO pointed out) and good understanding of consensus. I'd be happy to see more consistent edit summaries, and an expansion beyond the topic of the [[:Category:Participants_in_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks|19 hijackers]], but I have no problem trusting him with the ''Block'' button. It is also refreshing to see another editor eager to ''save'' articles on [[:CAT:CSD]].
'''Support''' As an editor Sherurcij has made intelligent, interesting, fair-minded contributions.  I am sure they will prove to be an intelligent, fair-minded admin.  --
'''Support''' Seems to be a good editor and vandal fighter.  --

'''Support''' Exchange between myself and [[User:Sherurcij|Sherurcij]] on his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherurcij#Tongue_in_cheek.2C_re:_your_Rfa talk page] tell me this editor is smart and patient with blunt questions and doesn't hide his true sentiments. Hence my vote change to support.--
'''Support''' seems ok.
'''Support''', seems unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''', We need admins with participation on wide range of subjects.

Yeah man! You're being opposed by all the right people.
'''Support''' I like the idea of re-cat'ing the 'NPOV Disputes' category, and adding templates. We are, as I userstand it, encouraged to [[WP:BOLD|Be Bold]]. I also don't see why one should oppose based on a couple (actually from here it looks like an iffy '''one''') factual errors on '''one''' article. I would encourage you, however, to tone the rvv edit summaries down a little bit, some of them are somewhat extreme (this is the only thing keeping me from voting '''Strong Support'''. The merge thing to me, as well, sounds exactly as [[User:Sherurcij|Sherurcij]] explained it. And I probably would have expected the [[2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage]] article to contain at least something about George Alexander to be considered a '''Merge'''. (at least, in my mind, that makes sense.) I probably would have also thought it vandalism following this comment: "Hahahahahaha, impolite to him? He's dead! He didn't even do anything besides having those pretty zeros. --SPUI (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)". I also applaud pointing out your failings and faults right there in the nom, and the fact that you seem to have invited your detractors to your RfA ;] Anyhow, Good luck, I think you would make a fine admin! --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">Vile</font><font color="grey">Rage</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|<nowiki>|</nowiki>]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Vilerage|<font color="black">C</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support''' Does some good work and is dedicated. Good admin material.
'''Oppose''' <s>for now, but I want to be fair and I'll reconsider depending on Sherurcij's response.</s> I had some problems editing with him at [[Shehzad Tanweer]], one of the 7/7 London suicide bombers. Sherurcij edited a number of mistakes into the article (factual, spelling, and grammar) and insisted that using an image of Tanweer about to board a train before blowing himself up was POV, which was bizarre given that [[Scotland Yard]] had confirmed Tanweer was one of the bombers. Sherurcij also fiercely opposed saying in the intro how many had died overall in the bombing (56 dead, 700 wounded), arguing that Tanweer should be associated only with the number he had actually killed (7), even though the police had confirmed the four bombers acted as part of a joint enteprise, and that it was a matter of chance exactly how many each man had actually killed. (And in fact, in his first preferred version, he didn't even want the number of people Tanweer had killed directly to be mentioned until the very last paragraph. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shehzad_Tanweer&diff=18995997&oldid=18993971]) He also uploaded a number of images without tagging and sourcing them, and even though he was warned they'd be deleted and was asked to find the source (I offered to find the right tag if he would just tell me where he'd found them), he ignored the queries, and the images were of course deleted, then he didn't go back to delete the red links. All in all, it was irresponsible editing, in my view. See [[Talk:Shehzad_Tanweer#Reverting]] until the end of the page, and here's his first revert of my edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shehzad_Tanweer&diff=19038829&oldid=19037923] where he has a brief intro saying Tanweer is a suspect (even though the police had already confirmed), but with no details until the very end of the article, and with odd writing like "his suspected death." However, Sherurcij may have moved on since then, so I suppose that's my question to you Sherurcij: have you? ;-)
'''Modest oppose'''. While I have not slogged through your differences over content, SlimVirgin's comment on images led me to check yours: while tagging has improved since your arguments in July you are slipping too much fair use in here, particularly from news organizations. While I'm willing to be corrected, you can't just upload from Reuters and call it fair use--their policy is quite clearly all rights reserved. This would normally lead me to neutral, but weak edit summaries and a rather inadequate reply re. "shut the fuck up" lead me to oppose.
'''Oppose'''. Per Marskell and SV's points.
'''Oppose''' - concerned about actions at [[Shehzad Tanweer]], and responses regarding those actions, and some concerns about images as well.
'''Oppose''' per SlimVirgin's posts above and below. I applaud the stated "NPOV-addict" goal, but am dismayed at the insulting/amusing edit summaries.
'''Strong Oppose''' Today he removed POV tags from two articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=28976029] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities&diff=prev&oldid=28976039], marking his edits as minor and using the deceptive edit summary "''updating template/cat''". He's also made such edits without comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_attitudes_to_racism&diff=prev&oldid=28975568] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_interpretation&diff=prev&oldid=28975575][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_pluralism&diff=prev&oldid=28975588] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexuality_and_Christian_Art&diff=prev&oldid=28975592] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi%27a_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=28975607] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shia_view_of_the_Sahaba&diff=prev&oldid=28975629] This is completely unacceptable behavior and shows complete disregard for Wikipedia policy.
'''Oppose'''; [[User talk:SPUI#Vandalism of George Alexander article|has called]] my merge of [[George Alexander (US Army soldier)]] into [[2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage]] vandalism. --
'''Oppose''' at least this time around, per Slim and Carbonite...  To quote from the RfA page, ''Admins have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities.''  I am one of those who holds self-nominations to a somewhat higher standard, but in this case I would've had to have voted "oppose" even if it weren't a self-nom...  [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
'''Oppose'''. Recently, for some odd reason, Sherurcij actually came onto my user discussion page and "warned" me to "watch my step" because in ''his'' view I was being too "POV" in an article (see "...watch your step a bit..." at [[User talk:IZAK#Kadima]]). He must learn to tone down his attitude/s before being granted more "powers" whereby, I can just see it, he would run around and warn unsuspecting Wikipedians to "watch your step...or else..." This is not what Wikipedia needs right now.
Sitting on the fence for now - but I must commend him for a very honest self-nomination. -
<strike>Your ending comment "please shut the fuck up" made [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sherurcij#Right_wing_vandal here] hopefully is tongue in cheek.
I'll second the comments of the perceptive Haukur, and add that -- if your friends really know so little about the world (per your userpage) -- you should get more friends, especially among WPians, who are stuffed with knowledge! :)
'''Neutral''', I don't know.
'''Neutral'''.   I see too much conflict here for me to vote one way or the other.  I applaud your honesty, but the issues raised here and now are too great for me to actually side with Support until such time as I see them as not as important as they are now.  I definitely urge you, should this RfA fail, to reapply in the near future.  Best of luck! --
'''Neutral''' Because all the cool kids are in [[Switzerland]]. Too much doubt here either way.
Support but I expect many to oppose based on no of edits:time spent here ratio... <font color="darkred">
'''Support'''. Contributes on various technical cleanup projects and dealt with a minor edit conflict appropriately.
'''Support'''.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools.
'''Support'''.  Sounds like this editor will put the tools to good use. With nearly 2000 edits and a year on Wikipedia, I think Simetrical has shown that he is unlikely to misuse the tools. --
Clear '''support'''. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support'''. Seems mature and level-headed, willing and able to communicate when required, and unlikely to abuse the admin tools. --
'''Support''' admin is no bg deal so, no problem supporting.

'''Support''',
'''Support''' the low edits don't bother me as I see a potential long term commitment anyway.--
'''Support''' After a deeper look at this user's contributions, I think the postive edits, outweigh the lower edit count.
'''Support''' good editor --
'''Support'''
'''Support''': Good edits. Good editor. &mdash;
'''Strongly support.'''  An honorable editor with integrity, who respects policy and the restraint of power. &mdash;
<b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Oppose''' - too new, not enough contribs, not ready.  Come back later.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACategories_for_deletion&diff=31419741&oldid=30874035 Thinks deletion debates are votes]. -
'''Oppose''', insufficient grasp of policy. User has potential but needs some more experience.
'''Oppose''', making up policy as he goes along, claiming that Wikipedia has no policy forbidding the creation of articles about non-notable people, despite the [[WP:CSD]] '''''official policy'''''.
'''Oppose''' - per Zoe. Based on his AfD votes, I do not feel Simetrical has a sufficient grasp of article deletion and inclusion policies, and do not at this point feel comfortable with his ability to make impartial judgements on consensus if given the power to close AfD discussions. I don't expect administrators to agree with all current policies, but I do expect them to respect the policies, and I'm not sure if the candidate in question does.
'''Oppose''', per comments below.  A little too radical for an admin in 2005; could use more experience with the consensus model, too. -
'''Oppose''', per reasonings above and some comments below. Notability requirements should not be too exclusive, but to keep Wikipedia from becoming a personal webhost and spam/advertisement/link-farm we need notability- and inclusion criteria. The fact they're sometimes used to restrictively doesn't change that. -
'''Oppose''' per Zoe and FCYTravis. Needs more understanding of how policies are applied before implementing them.
'''Oppose''' per Zoe.  To paraphrase Mr. Parham, I fear this user is ''likely'' to abuse admin tools if he gets them at present.
'''Neutral''' Less than 100 wikipedia edits. --
I've been impressed with his edits and commitment to janitorial tasks.
Has been here over a year, and has nearly 4500 edits.  As I've often come across this user having fixed typos and redirects (sometimes beating me to it while googling for particular typos, curses!), and never engaged in an edit war, I'd judge his self-description as a [[Wikipedia:WikiGnome|gnome]] is fairly apt.
Support.
Support. What personal attacks? Few isolated angry comments are not enough reason to oppose. My impression so far is that his good contributions outweight the few questionable ones by wide margin.
lots of good work.  i'm not terribly worried about two pretty minor incidents of crankiness.  but i do worry about losing the contributions a hard-working editor like this could make as sysadmin.

A cursory look at his contributions indicates insults and personal attacks, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Taricani&diff=9983025&oldid=9982977 this] (for which he was warned and later apologized) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&diff=prev&oldid=9645052 this] (which he was nice enough to point out was an insult).
Attitude problem.  --
Cryptoderk's links show me this user has an attitude problem. I don't want to risk the next 'angry comment' being followed by an illicit block. Therefore oppose (for now at least).
There are rarely instances where such anger (again looking at Cryptoderk's links) or insults are needed. Take some time to calm down and try again later.
Crypto's links leave me wondering if you'd be able to effectively handle a dispute calmly when you have admin tools at your disposal.
Take the proverbial chill pill.
'''Support''' Looks to be a very good user, who would make great use of admin tools.
--
<s>Wha..?</s> '''Support, of course'''.
'''Support'''. His wording above was unfortunate, but looking through his contribs I see no reason why he cannot be trusted with admin priviliges. Remember, adminship is "no big deal".
'''Support'''. Granted, his contributions are good. In the future, I'd advise him to re-read important things before posting them, so that misunderstandings like this one don't happen. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''', given his contributions and answers below. --
'''Support''', am happy with this editor's contributions, clean ups are good. --
'''Support''', see no problems here.
Three months is quite short. Also your comments "I would like the tools to wipe Wikipedia clean of articles and media that do not meet the standards" is a bit worrying. Many articles do not make the standard because they are badly written, and need a clean up rather than deletion.
'''Oppose''', lack of experience with policy and process.
'''Oppose''' based on comments made in self-nom. We need admin that make bridges, not one that burns them.
'''Oppose''' Even taking into account the revised statement, the poor choice of words in the original is a sign that more experience is needed.  If an admin said that in closing an AfD debate, it would cause unfortunate distress for many.  I'll be glad to support in three months.
'''Oppose'''. This guy's approach to improving Wikipedia seems to rely too heavily on the "delete" button that he's trying to get. In addition to his deletionist comments above, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1564&diff=prev&oldid=26888503 here] is an example of him attempting to speedy an article that clearly doesn't qualify under CSD (and eventually was cleaned up nicely) <s>and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ljubob&diff=prev&oldid=31474450 here] he is marking a User page for speedy deletion (carelessly, if not deliberately)</s>. I'm also puzzled by his comment "''...no to mention the "good-faith" edits by new users.''" &ndash; which tools is he after for dealing with those good faith edits?  His comment regarding "''the huge number of almost ancient vfd-discussions that are still awaiting their closure''" is strange; we have eliminated the backlog on AfD; the oldest one currently open is from 8 days ago, not "''the first half of 2004''". We don't need a trigger-happy deletionist to "''wipe Wikipedia clean''", "''deal with''" new users, and block the authors of articles that meet CSD, as he promises to do in his first answer. I'd rather go with a candidate who wants to save articles and guide new users.
'''Oppose'''. The thing about VfDs from early 2004 is weird. They just haven't been templated is all, and the debates were usually just copied to talk pages and [[Wikipedia:Archived delete debates|deletion log archives]]. First draft of answer and redraft both indicate a need to swim around rather more yet and establish proper familiarity with common processes before offering promises about them. -
'''strong Oppose''' user accepted his own self-nom - clearly inexperienced.
'''Oppose'''. User sounds controversial in the self-nom reasons.
'''Oppose''' per above. User seems a little too controversial to be granted adminship this soon. Next time be a little humbler when introducing yourself and dealing with other users.
'''Neutral''' Statistically you meet my normal approves, but can you elaborate on '''"I would like the tools to wipe Wikipedia clean of articles and media that do not meet the standards"'''.  Do you advocate deletion over other forms of cleanup?
'''Neutral'''. A little too early for my tastes. Also, if the above comment was simply a poor choice of words, perhaps the candidate should take more time reflecting on his writing, especially in a request for adminship. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Neutral''' Self-noms aren't good, and the [[nightwish]] comment sounds like [[WP:OWN]], but from a skimming of the contribs, he seems to be on vandal patrol alot. Come back later.

--
'''Strong Support''' May need some coaching, but a definate good faith user who has excellent admin potential. Who amongst us (myself included) can hope to be the one without sin who casts the first stone? --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Strong Support''' Active, friendly, factual, articulate and honest Wikipedian.  I feel that it is in the best interests of our community that we get more helpful admins onboard like this young addict.  :)
More levelheaded than a lot of Wikipedians I've interacted with - but still just a human like the rest of us. '''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' He has been here awhile, and made many sound contibutions, however, edit summary use could be better. '''''[[User:Banes|<font color="darkblue">Ban</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support.''' Another fine editor from the land of the Moose.
'''Support''', for all the reasons given above.
You spin me round and round, like a record baby, '''support'''.
'''Support''' - go4it--
'''Support'''.  I see him during RC patrol and he does good work.  My concerns below have been addressed by him, so I think he could do a good job w/ the mop. -

'''Support''' worked with him before and I think he is a fine user, the links below do not change my mind a bit.
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support''', although I think Spinboy could improve aspects of his editing and community interaction per many of the oppose voters, I feel he would employ admin tools responsibly.
'''Support''', Spinboy has been very helpful to me and is the one who initially welcomed me.  He'll make a great admin.
'''Oppose''', I think, although I'm reasonably willing to debate that. Doesn't quite have the temperament for it is my feeling. See the edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunt_Club_Road_%28Ottawa%29&diff=prev&oldid=26403950 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Ottawa&diff=prev&oldid=26395525 here] for example. Those are among the ''very few'' times he uses edit summaries at all. I've noticed him principally on CfD where he seems to oppose even the simplest of renames without offering a reason at all (he's allowed to oppose of course, but see for example [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 12#Category:Political parties in Canada|here]]: note that another user expresses what I just said because it is far from the first such oddity). Also has a habit of voting without reason in the deletion processes, which is rarely appropriate and suggests he views such operations as pure votes rather than discussions-with-polls e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Los_Bastardos&diff=prev&oldid=24362755], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Garfield&diff=prev&oldid=24215906], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Daniel_Engels&diff=prev&oldid=24215886], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_15&diff=prev&oldid=25615780], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aberdeen_Street&diff=prev&oldid=24610656], and the stubborness in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006]] isn't great, either (although there are users more stubborn by far). These are a pretty random result of a trawl through contribs to see if my gut instinct was borne out: they have to be random, because it's impossible to tell from edit summaries what might be in the edit. -

Oppose. Dedicated worker, but far too volatile. You're supposed to keep to the civility policy [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony_Sidaway_2#Outside_view_by_Spinboy|even if you don't feel like it]]. God knows it's hard to deal with people you consider destructive idiots as if they aren't, but it's pretty much a requirement of working on the wiki. (See also [[User:UBX/du-1]].) This particularly applies to someone wanting to be an admin. May calm down in the future; ask again in six months -
'''Oppose''' per Splash and Tony Sidaway. I've found other incidents of incivility as well. --
'''Oppose''' per Tony's excellent comments.
'''Oppose''' This editor is excessively possessive of articles related to Ottawa.  For example, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Parkway1.jpg&diff=next&oldid=23768576 reverted] my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AParkway1.jpg&diff=23768576&oldid=17489890 tagging] of a photo as "replaceable fair use" for no good reason, and became [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff=23768750&oldid=23426992 argumentative] about it on my talk page afterwards.  In addition, I'm not comfortable supporting until I better understand what his role in the [[Freemasonry]] dispute is (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer]]). In general, not a good candidate for adminship.  Finally, I disapprove of images in signatures.
'''Oppose''' I am not well acquainted with the gentleman in question, but the comments brought up by Splash and Tony, as well as a check of his edit history, do cast his temperement in a rather poor light. Anyone who is not capable of garnering the respect of his peers should not be an admin, in my opinion.--
'''Oppose'''. The links provided by users above show an unfortunate lack of civility.
Reluctantly '''oppose'''. Spinboy has done a great deal for Wikipedia and his enthusiasm for improving it is remarkable and in good faith, IMO -- but an administrator has to be trusted to use the mop to clean up spills, not beat the person doing the spilling, and I think at this point it would be a license to continue the behavior detailed above. (Replying to a question about intent below with an edit count is not encouraging, either.) &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Splash and Tony Sidaway. Also, not convinced by the candidate's answers in "Questions for the candidate". --
'''Oppose''', reluctantly, per Splash.  I like Spinboy, but I too have noticed too many AfD votes and edits without explanation.  Admins need to have reasons for these things, and need to be comfortable routinely expressing them.
'''Oppose''' per civility problems as stated above.  An admin cannot be uncivil.
'''Strong Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Ottawa&diff=prev&oldid=26395525].
'''Oppose''' for the reasons cited by Tony Sidaway.  Needs time to work out issues of civility.
'''Oppose''' For not being civil and for not using edit summaries nearly enough.--
'''Oppose''' per Splash and Tony Sidaway maybe later not a big fan of this user espcially over some conflct in AFD lately over Toronto Roads --
'''Oppose''', spelt vandalism with a Z and has an image in their signature. AfD seems to have turned another potential admin bad.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per things above.
'''Neutral''', after reading everything.
'''Extreme Neutral''', the editor is certainly prolific, and his constant activity in improving wikipedia ought to be encouraged.  However, he uses very few edit summaries, and they're rarely all that descriptive.  Creating a harmonious environment amongst editors is important. [[User:Thames|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
'''Neutral''', I've read the comments here and some of the links from the oppose votes.  I don't have time to do the verification myself at the moment so can't agree or disagree with the criticisms.
Sure. &ndash;
I must oppose on the grounds that this user's activity on Wikipedia is far too sparse and I personally feel that administrators (at the very least new ones) should be very active (20+ edits a day, 5+ days a week). &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (Alex)'' </font><sup>(
IMHO, this user does not yet have enough experience in the community.
Only 642 contributions in 1 year is a very, very low commitment here. Come back when you are more active.
Will support at 1K edits.  --
Must oppose at this time. I'm not sure how many edits is enough, or even if there can be a hard and fast number, but 642 contributions is not enough, in my view. Keep working though; may support in future.
642 edits in a year works out to less than two a day.  A reasonable enough count for an editor, sure, but this doesn't seem to be an editor in desperate need of the admin tools at the moment.  Give it more time, though, and I'll support.
1.7589041095890410958904109589041 edits a day? No.
Good editor, but does not have the commitment to either this project or to adminship that I expect from a proposed admin.
No problems with editorial behaviour but with such a low level of activity and no sign of any interest in the extra tools this nomination seems premature. --
'''Oppose'''. With close to 900 edits under my belt, I still feel like a newbie and wouldn't even consider going for admin at this stage. I also amassed those edits in about a month, so I don't think Spottedowl has put much effort in.--
I'm not a strict "must have ''x'' amount of edits" guy, but the 642 edits within a single year isn't exactly "active", either. My suggestion would be to join the Cleanup Taskforce or do stub sorting; that will bump up your edit count dramatically. If you can prove you're committed, I will change my vote to support.
Agree with Linuxbeak; Getting involved with fixing up articles on VfD is also a good way to boost edits and helps you develop a more nuanced approach to VfD.
Neutral because of the lack of acceptance and the questions remain unanswered. See comments.
Per Linuxbeak and Bratsche.
</strike>'''Support''' - I've seen his work all over the site and wonder why he isn't an admin already.  However, I would like him to explain how, as he states on his user page, he "elevat(ed) His Imperial Majesty [[Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia]] to the status of [[Almighty God]]" without violating NPOV. --

<s>'''Support''' Solid work, especially in fighting vandalism.
<s>'''Support''' More than qualified.
Reluctantly '''oppose'''. Squeakbox has been involved in a couple nasty conflicts with POV pushing users. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but his approach to these conflicts has caused them to escalate. For example he posted notes on Cumbey's blog, escalating his dispute with that user. Squeakbox sometimes brings animosity upon himself, such as a couple weeks ago when he said to another user, "Fuck off Nazi scum" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zapatancas&diff=18900583&oldid=18820093]. Granted, he removed his personal attack within minutes but the user found it in the page's history and continues to harass SqueakBox about it. You've done great work on articles but I think you need a thicker skin to be an administrator.
Unfortunately '''oppose''', for his over-zealous attempt to delete [[Afro-Latin American]] and [[Afro-Mexican]] articles and his attempts to block any edits to improve these articles when they were on VfD. Also his handling of conflict at the [[Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero]] ("Stop talking bullshit" and comments about "left-wingers" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero&diff=prev&oldid=19653716]). Like Rhobite, it's mostly about the thicker skin, he's a hardworking fellow though, I admit it and has good intentions. --
'''Oppose''' per rhobite and vizcarra
Must oppose given his unfortunate behavior re [[Rastafarianism]] and elsewhere.  Pushes his own POV in the name of NPOV, and gets downright childish when he doesn't get his way.  <span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
'''Oppose'''. User appears to believe writing "fuck off you Nazi troll" can be described as "mild in comparison". I am not confortable with the way [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zapatancas_and_User:SqueakBox|this incident]] was handled.
'''Strong oppose'''. Absolutely not. Has an agenda - came to [http://www.batpedia.com Batpedia] and tried to set up Haile Selassie and Javier Solana as gods (see [http://www.batpedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SqueakBox contribs]). Admittedly, that encyclopedia is full of bullshit (it's a Wikipedia parody of sorts), but he apparently thought it to be serious and said at one point, "The article is too pro Solana to be legitimately at Wikipedia. I used the basic frame (which I had put a lot of input into over there), but frustrated at not being able to express my own point of view at wikipedia I rewrote it."
<del>'''Oppose'''. After reading arguments on both sides, and seeing examples of racism in some edits, i must say no.</del> Removed due to my misunderstanding of the circumstances.
'''Oppose'''.  I was supporting him initially, but after seeing his not-quite-[[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]] and ''definitely not [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]'' replies to the oppose votes ("it is not a serious wiki. It is a gay porn site run by Fundamentalist Christian anime-obsessed crack-addicted termite-farming leprechauns who are physically incapable of telling a lie."), and the arguments presented in those votes, I will now switch my vote to oppose. --
Changed from Support to Neutral after reading the comments from [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] and [[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]].
I'd really like to support, because [[SqueakBox]]'s edit record is so good, but I can't given his inflammatory handling of POV disputes.  Sorry. --
'''Neutral''', for the reasons listed above. <span style="border: 2px solid #ba0000;">&nbsp;
'''Neutral'''. Squeakbox obviously knows about the Wikipedia procedures and giving him the rollback button would certainly help his anti-vandalism efforts. However, his record of conflict is troubling. I'd support in the future if he handles conflicts better between this RfA and the next (if this RfA fails). --
'''Neutral''' While I'm not 100% opposed, I changed if after reading the above comments.
'''Neutral''' Changed my vote, as per Thunderbrand's comment.  I'm open to changing it back to support, depending on how the discussion above is handled by the candidate.
'''Support''' You have been active in many different parts of Wikipedia, and seem to have a good understanding of its policies. I was looking at some of the comments you left on user pages, and they seem level-headed enough. <strike>However, I think that your nomination would be stronger if you had a specific conflict to talk about; it would've given me a more specific idea of how you act diplomatically.</strike> Also, I hope that not being an admin hasn't kept you from "help[ing] out more seriously" around here! --
'''Support'''. I have to stress, though, that the points raised by [[User:Cleared as filed]] below are valid and important to me, too. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]

'''Oppose''' for now.  I could be convinced otherwise by stories from others of working out problems with a reasonable and calm attitude, but my own limited experience with this editor has been fairly testy (for example, he reverted a change I made to the content of an article with "''rvv''" in the edit summary, despite the fact that I had left the rationale behind what I was doing in my edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tecumseh%27s_curse&diff=27008649&oldid=26441843]).  That, actually, was one of the few edit summaries he left on an article I was looking at — most of them appear to have no edit summary at all, something particularly important when you're making changes that other people might disagree with.  So my personal experience, combined with the comments of [[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] below, the limited answers to the questions, and relatively short Wikipedia history compel me to oppose.  —
'''Oppose'''. Yes, I have no doubts that Stax is a well-intentioned user, but the points raised by [[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed]] and [[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] show me that Stax is a little too new or unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies to be a good admin right now. A quick glance of contributions also shows an underuse of edit summaries. I'm sure you'll make a great administrator if you take the comments and concerns raised in this RFA. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
Per Cleared as filed.  Someone who can't tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute should not have a rollback button. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' per Cleared as filed.
'''Oppose''' Exactly the same thing as Cleared as filed happened to me with this editor. He reverted my revert of someone who was making unexplained removals in an article by saying "rvv". Better understanding before reverting is needed. Otherwise, please keep reverting vandalism if you see it and good work. --

'''Oppose''' per Cleared as Filed.  Questionable reversion history prevents awarding of rollback button at this time.  Learn from the above criticisms, and I will be happy to support reapplication in several months.
'''Oppose''' for now, per the above. <sub>└</sub>''<sup>
'''Neutral''' Stax is a good editor, and I think administration should be in his future.  However, in regards to question three, I believe the candidate is not being entirely truthful.  His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_skew_theories_for_The_West_Wing&oldid=27598992 lack of diplomatic word choice] in a recent AfD, recent [[WP:BITE|newbie biting]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WestWingTheory&oldid=25960197 here] following an edit conflict, and use of CAPS and put-down edit summaries lead me to believe that this editor may have to choose his words more carefully as an admin.  However, all this being said, ''his actions have never been malicious'', just sometimes angrier than I would hope to see from an admin.  I will vote support if Stax can show me that these sorts of issues will not occur in the future. -
I have the same reservations as Scm83x, but Stax is overall a good contributor, and I would be happy to support him next time.  --
'''Neutral''' I see one (or maybe two) cases of bad judgement, but not a pattern.  Please start using using edit summaries more. --
'''Strong support''' of course, as nominator!
'''Strong support''' a friend of Y0u is a friend of mine :)
'''Support'''. Friendly users on RC patrol are great to have as admins. Regarding Splash's concern in the oppose section... I once thought the same way ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khaosworks]]), but I have come to appreciate that good-faith contributors will be cautious about using their powers in areas they have little experience. Limited experience on VFD might even be a sign of sanity...
Support. I've reviewed some of Stevey7788's recent edits and he seems to be careful and focused, qualities which I'd like to see in an administrator.
'''Careful support''' - user is a good editor but needs to relax as far as how SPUI points out.  I don't like cuss words either, but it's impossible to remove them from an all-inclusive project.  --
'''Support'''.  Seems to make lots of valuable edits.  I don't believe that any lack of familiarity really matters at the end of the day, so long as the user is acting in good-faith.  Also, the fact that he gets offended by offensive user pages is probably a good sign.
'''Support'''. Based on Stevey7788's responses here, I am moving my vote from ''neutral'' to ''support''. His polite responses, willingness to admit mistakes, and ability to modify his actions are all important qualities for an administrator. I hope he now understands the importance of discussion, and of seeking feedback, for controversial actions. &mdash;
'''Support''' I think the opposers' concerns are totally off the mark.
'''Support'''. Demonstrated good commitment to the Wikipedia project, and has made good article content contributions. I would like to see more deletion related activity (e.g. VfD/TfD), however, when this user receives administrative privileges, and I would also like the user to bear in mind the issue over objectionable user page content in the future. However, I am confident that this user would use administrative privileges well, and seems like an affable and reasonable individual; I thus have no qualms about offering my support. --
'''Support'''.  Stevey's right, gratuitous offensive material is unnecessary.  His method of addressing the situation was misguided, but he has apologized, which is good enough for me. --
'''Oppose''', too little experience of admin-related things. In amongst a healthy edit-count and good article work, there is next to no participation in VfD/TfD/CfD etc (though appeared on VfD a little while ago today) and I see only a little evidence of RC/NP patrol in the last 1000 edits (judged from edit summaries). The bulk of the Wikipedia: space edits are either to the sandbox or to things related to the sandbox. The talk page edits are a mixture of template welcomes and interaction: the interaction appears to be uniformly pleasant, which is good. I think that, given the user's slight reluctance and current inexperience in the spikier areas of WP, a month or two trying out some new things would be healthy. -
'''Oppose''', removes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASPUI&diff=18621025&oldid=18609597 "offensive content" consisting of text from user pages] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fonzie_Fann&diff=prev&oldid=18621400 the word "fuck" from messages when not used as a personal attack]. --
'''Oppose''' for the reasons above. --
'''Oppose''', per [[User:SPUI|SPUI]]. <s>The Wikipedia doesn't need pseudo-moralists, thank you very much</s> I do not agree with the user's line of thought. --

'''Oppose''' users should edit for a lot longer before applying for administratorship. A simple editcount is not a good evaluation of a user's sincerity towards the Wikimedia...users should be "time-tested".
--
'''Oppose''', to short a time, not enough involvement. Unenthused by the accusations of attempted censorship.--
'''Oppose''', reluctantly. Wikipedia is not censored. &middot;
As per above. Maybe next time.
'''Oppose''', death to censorship.
'''Neutral.'''  Contribute for four more months and then you'd get my vote of support.
I do not find the reasons given for opposing convincing.
Nor do I.  --
I'm willing to support, too.
Looks like a fine user. That signature issue seems to have been a long time ago.
No way. --

'''Oppose'''.  I can't support someone who's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supercentenarian&diff=prev&oldid=10651112 used their sig for panic-mongering] for admin. --
'''Oppose''' per Carnildo
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' I too dislike the panic-mongering
'''Oppose''', suspicious about his POV orientation, based on past interaction.
'''Oppose''' per IZAK and Carnildo. --
'''Oppose''' I have serious concerns about the possible uses of this power if given and I agree that stub sorting doesn't really show a need for the extra capabilities unlike say vfd, quick deletions, or other functions that are greatly helped by having the increased functional abilities, though since administration is no big deal I would have no problem supporting your RFA in the future if you have shown that you would benefit from acess to the increased responsibilities of administratorship.
'''Oppose''' - for many of the same reasons above.
'''Oppose''' based on panicmongering. The sysop who did this in the past deserves to be desysopped; someone who tends to it already certainly should not be made one in the first place.
'''Oppose'''.
I want to Support, as I like Suslovans, but I don't see stub sorting as a reason to give someone an admin.  Sure, it's necessary gruntwork that needs a reward, but I keep seeing it as a reason to make someone an admin.  For what other reasons should I vote for Suslovans?  I'm sure I'll eventually move to support but spell out why I should, please.
'''Neutral''' - per Sn0wflake. --
Are you the same one who called me a vandal? If I'm mistaken I apologize. It was either you or someone with a similar name.
'''Abstain''' until the questions are finished.
No accepto, no voto. --
I'd like to support as this user appears to do quite a lot of leg work - their stub sorting may not be an admin job, but it does show a willingness to do boring, repetitive stuff, and a lot of admin chores can be boring and repetitive.  However there is some evidence of this user panic-mongering in the 'oppose' section (above), which needs accounting for before I change my neutral vote to a support vote. --
'''Neutral''' until the questions are answered. Stub sorting is good, but I'm detecting POV pushing. This is one RFA that isn't a clean-cut yes/no situation. I will need to think about this more before supporting or opposing. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
Neutral, gotta see them questions answered proper-like! :-)
I know he's a good guy, but how can we support when questions are so badly answered.
Abstain.  I do agree with Netoholic that we shouldn't have to justify a vote either for or against.
<s>'''Neutral''' until the editor answers the standard questions. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)</s> <s>'''Oppose'''. I am deeply sorry to oppose, but I don't find this nomination to be taking a positive course. Suslovans has provided terse answers for only two of the mandatory questions and doesn't seem to have addressed any of the concerns brought forward by other editors. I do not think that he is ready for adminship yet. Will look into this with fresh eyes in case he is nominated once more in the future. --
Most edits don't have an [[edit summary]].
Wow.  Almost 1,000 edits to his user page...in a little over a month...out of over 4,000 edits total.  I've been here almost two years, and I haven't topped 500 edits on my user page.  Sorry, just not enough experience.
Agree with RadicalBender. Also needs to learn to use the preview button more often.
Not yet. Glad to have you on Wikipedia, but I don't think you're ready to be an administrator. I think the questions should have been answered already, for a self-nomination. Also, use of the {{tl|vprotected}} tag on your user page is not appropriate; this should not be placed on unprotected pages. You have a very high edit count, but it seems it takes many edits to accomplish one thing, such as the seven edits to [[WP:RFA]] to place this nomination. Increased use of the "preview" function would be helpful, I feel. Try to become a little more familiar with Wikipedia policy if you would like to become an administrator. Other than that, keep up your good work. &mdash;
Nope.  Probably an okay user, but the questions have not been answered, not enough use of the preview button, and the incorrect use of the protected template all bother me.  Also, while I like your enthusiasm on the sport of Wrestling, I feel you're too focused on this one area; also, I'm not a fan of how most of your articles are short stubs that don't really assert notability.  I might support in a later nomination, but not now.  <font color="red">
'''Oppose'''. Even though I have had a good experience with SWD316, I do not feel that he is experienced enough to be an admin. He also inflates his number of edits by saving without previewing.--May the Force be with you!
'''No'''. Lacks edit summaries. Hasn't even accepted own nomination or answered the questions yet. Plus, has only been here for five weeks.
'''Oppose'''- not experienced enough ----
Will support in 1-2 months.  --
'''Oppose'''- membership in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency|Wikipedians for Decency]] causes some concern as I'm not sure that group is fully aligned with Wikipedia principles and policies.
Neutral leaning towards oppose.  You need to use the Preview button more, and use edit summaries.  And answer the admin questions.
Please be around for some more time, and someday you shall surely be one of the administrators. --
'''Extreme "Ha! I beat the nominator" support''' - always been impressed (though I can't think of anything in particular I've worked with him on). Plus, it's the nominator's birthday today! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Strong "Duh" support''' Curses, I forgot to vote. My reasons for supporting are at the top of this page. '''''
'''Support''', good user, active vandal-whacker.
'''Support''' second time is charm for me.
'''Support'''; unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support'''. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Strong support''' edits look fine, and seen you around and you do good work.--
'''Support''' - He's gained a lot more experience with Wikipedia since his first RfA. Although his edits are concetrated in one area, his conduct and knowlege about the Wikipedia community makes up for it. --
'''Very strong support''' - I'd have nominated him myself but someone beat me to it! --
'''Strong support'''. Looking good.--
This'll do, this'll do just fine...  --
'''Strong Oppose''' - Doesn't have a single mainspace edit outside of professional wrestling articles. Once edited my user page without asking. Accused me of being a sockpuppet vandal (which is false). Even made remarks that I was a "poor editor", which I feel violates various Wikipedia conduct rules. He has an inflated edit count, as he has about 2,000 edits on his user page alone. Even has elements of his user page mispelled and sloppily done, despite the massive amount of edits on his userpage ("Vandalizing againts"?). He comes off as unprofessional and immature. I feel that he may abuse his proposed moderator powers and that he does not handle his stress well on the site. Maybe he has done some good, but look at the facts before you make your decision.
'''Oppose''' - He needs a bit more experience.
'''Oppose''', a litle too controversial for this time, should spell check his user page, it left a poor impression on me.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Inconsistent use of edit summaries (although this has improved lately). Very few edits in Wikipedia namespace outside of the [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling|wrestling WikiProject]] pages. I'm not convinced you have any working knowledge of policies. A quick glance through your contributions reveals a lack of any experience of reverting vandalism or reporting copyvios, and a continuing neglection of the preview button. I'd like to see edits among a wider variety of topics, or working with categories, or any of the administrator-type work you'll be asked to do (requested moves, CfD, TfD, etc.).
'''Oppose''' Vast majority of edits are talk pages or wrestling pages. His comments here aren't encouraging.
'''Oppose''' I agree with Howcheng. Hardly ever fights vandalism. The arguments and aggressive tone  with mcfly isn't helping either.
'''Oppose''' Inconsistent, no mainstream articles really outside wrestling. Remarks here seem to indicate inflamatory style, does not bode well for potential admin.
''Moved from Oppose''.  I'm still concerned at perception of SWD316's comments above; upon re-reading, they still appear inflammatory to me.  That said, I'm willing to accept they were made in good faith.  Please be careful with phrases such as "you can be blocked, fair warning"; the Internet makes it hard to determine intent.  &mdash; [[User:Lomn|Lomn]] | <small>[[User Talk:Lomn|Talk]] /
'''Neutral''' I would normally oppose in this situation but some of the silly oppose votes remind me of my failed RFA a little too much. I agree with Howcheng however as I think he needs more experience in a number of areas including fighting vandalism and AFD's. If that's taken care of, I would gladly support in a few months. --
'''Permanent strong support''' - Trustable, and if sockpuppetry is used in his RfA, and he's denied, I'll support him on his next RfA. <strong>
'''Strong support''' - I trust you to be a responsible admin.
'''Strong support''' - he deserves it.
'''Support''' yes I agree, would be great admin.
'''Strong support''' absolutely and the info about McFly appears to be correct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Mcfly85]--
'''Support'''.
In spite of annoying pastel box and tons of pointless user boxes on user page, this use deserves my '''support'''.
'''Strong support''' as before - brill user! --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
'''Support''' Admin material; chances should not be ruined thanks to sockpuppetry. -
'''Support''', (s)he deserves it. He should control his temper a bit more at times, though. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Support''' I supported the first one, still do.  Some of you may have noticed that I have consistently opposed RfA re-nomination unless 2-3 months have passed, but I feel like in this case the first one was not given a fair shot --
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Support'''.He does deserve it.--

Yet again.--
Another bipolar admin? I guess since I'm gone, somebody has to take my place! --
'''Support'''. Need I say why? Same reasons as last time. '''''
'''Support'''. <font>&laquo;</font>
'''Support''', trying to counterbalance somewhat the opposition over SWD316's "I quit" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASWD316&diff=31426974&oldid=31301335 tirade]. It ''is'' a tirade, but all it shows about SWD316 is that he's human. McFly's unscrupulous sockpuppet attack on SWD316's RFA:2 is about the worst I've seen on this page, and I'm sorry SWD didn't get more support from the community, including myself. :-(
'''Support''' --
Support. <b><font color="#000000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]
'''Still a strong Support''' --
Need more admins. &mdash; <small><sub>[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' <s>Woah, your nomination was withdrawn yesterday. Dont you think that just one day is enough time between adminship requests?</s> Oppose also per censoring McFly's user page regardless of him being a vandal/troll/sock whatever he's called.
'''Oppose'''. Inconsistent use of edit summaries (although this has improved lately). Very few edits in Wikipedia namespace outside of the [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling|wrestling WikiProject]] pages. I'm not convinced he has any working knowledge of policies. A quick glance through his contributions reveals a dearth of any experience of reporting copyvios, working with AfD/CfD/TfD and a continuing neglection of the preview button. Furthermore, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SWD316&oldid=31426974 his response] to the sockpuppet-infested previous nomination demonstrates a lack of levelheadedness that an administrator should have. At this point in time, I'm worried he'll fly off the handle and block someone undeservedly or unilaterally delete something he disagrees with.
'''Oppose''' per the thorough vote of howcheng.  The corruption of the previous vote is unfortunate, but this user needs more experience and would have been better advised to have delayed this re-nomination. (I realize he didn't self-nom, but it might have been wise to have declined Nlu's generous offer.)
'''strong Oppose''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASWD316&diff=31426974&oldid=31301335 no way].
'''Oppose''' I was not influenced by the sockpuppets' votes in the beginning. My voting was due to SWD316's lack of edit summaries and lack of vandalism fighting. <s>His claim that he was "rolling back vandalism" when I "typed in that SWD316 never roll back any vandalism" is false after checking his contributions page. He never rolled back vandalism while I was adding in my oppose vote. I am stupid enough to listen to sockpuppets? No, I am not, and I am not screw-ups either. </s>
'''Oppose''', due to the inappropriate and seemingly immature tirade cited by [[User:howcheng|howcheng]] and [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]]. &mdash; <b><i>
"Gay little sockpuppets"? Wikipedia admins should be more grown-up than this.
'''Strong Oppose''' This user has demonstrated a total lack of maturity and stability to be an admin.
'''Oppose''' per above.
'''Oppose''' per above. Would reconsider in a few months.
'''Oppose'''. His immature, homophobic over-the-top response three days ago is the opposite of what we need to see from an admin. Sockpuppetry is an everyday fact of life here, and if you don't know how to deal with that in a mature, even-tempered way, adminship is likely not for you.
'''Oppose'''. His withdrawal message is far too impulsive and immature. Using "gay" as an insult is step toward being on RfC, not RfA. '''[[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #63f; text-decoration: none;">r</span>]]'''
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASWD316&diff=31426974&oldid=31301335 link provided above.] --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Freestylefrappe|freestylefrappe]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASWD316&diff=31426974&oldid=31301335 evidence of immaturity and lack of civility]. —
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Freestylefrappe|Freestylefrappe]]'s evidence.  Although I haven't had much contact with SWD316, his reaction to his previous RfA showed him to be quite volatile as an editor, and possibly prone to abusing admin tools.  While I'm a firm believer in no double jeopardy and would be willing to reconsider in several months, this edit was only 3 days ago - much too recent. --
'''Oppose.'''  Administrators need to be models for the Wikipedia community.  Using hobophobic terms in discussion, no matter what the context, is simply unacceptable for an admin.  Not to say that we shouldn't forgive -- I definitely made some mistakes when I first started out -- but a few days is just too short for me to forget.  I fully support redoing the VfD, though.
'''Oppose''' per [[User:Freestylefrappe|Freestylefrappe]]'s evidence and [[User:TacoDeposit|TacoDeposit]]'s statement. Admins need to be able to handle adversity and stress, and I do not feel you can do that well enough to entrust blocking powers with. - [[User:Pureblade/Main|<span style="cursor:ne-resize">Pure</span>]]
'''Oppose''' User takes adminship too seriously --
'''Strongly oppose'''. Using "gay" as a put-down is really annoying and offensive.
'''Oppose''' I've decided to change my vote to oppose, based on Freestylefrappe's evidence and CDTheime's comment above - Using "gay" as a put-down is typical and saying sorry does not make up for it. This user seems to keep making up excuses and reasons for what he has done in the past. —

'''Oppose''' Not fit to be an admin for the aforementioned reasons.
'''Oppose''', because adminship shoudl be "no big deal". This user took it all too personally, resulting in his infamous outburst. I urge you to think of the good things you can do on wikipedia without the need for admin tools. They're just a bunch of tools that make some things simpler, after all. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT>]]
As mentioned, I don't know him well enough; the RfA is brought to remedy the wrong that has been done.  --
'''Neutral''' per last time. I agree with Howcheng as I think you need more experience in a number of areas including fighting vandalism and AFD's. If that's taken care of, I would gladly support in a few months. --
'''Neutral''' I think that as of this moment this user is a little to controversial for me to vote support.
'''Speedy promote''' --
'''I agree''' --
'''This doesn't need a vote'''.
No issue here - put Ta bu shi da ya back on the list.
'''Support''', obviously. Glad to have you back! &mdash;
'''Support'''
<s>'''Support'''</s> <s>'''Strong support'''</s> '''Support'''. Adminship should be no big deal. Re-granting adminship to someone who was manifestly worth it even less so. I think TBDSY can be excused for thinking he left Wikipedia for good, and if he did think that, the de-adminning is only sensible.
'''Of course!'''
<s>'''Unconditional support'''.
"longish" break? don't fool us, you failed rehab, and are back to ride the dragon, eh, the sunflower.
'''Absolutely!!!''' Welcome back, Ta bu shi da yu --
One of the ''few'', the ''fine''.
'''Without a doubt'''. Welcome back!
'''Support''', No need for this.
'''Support'''. (See my comment below)
'''Support'''. From what I gather, TBSDY was a good admin, and should get the admin privileges back.
'''Strong support'''. Recreation of previously deleted adminship. --
'''Welcome back'''. --
'''Strong support'''--
'''Support'''. A fine wikipedian, and an inspiration ever since I've joined. --
'''Support'''.  Indeed.
'''Support''', Welcome Back.
'''Support,''' of course. -
Thar she [[exploding whale|blows]]! --
'''Absolutely''', TBSDY is a great editor and admin. A comment: I wasn't aware you had been de-adminned, and I oppose de-adminship for sysops taking Wikibreaks. &mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support''', obviously.
'''Support''' of course.
Duh.
'''Speedy'''
'''Support'''. Great contributor! --
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''.
<s>'''Strong oppose'''. &ndash; [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 22:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Rationale: generally unfriendly, in my experience. It is also difficult to support someone for adminship when he has a previous history of admin abuse - and I would definitely consider spamming user talk pages, being blocked, then unblocking oneself a history of admin abuse. Finally, this user is about 30% of the reason why I asked for removal of adminship. &ndash;
And thar blows my vote record too, I bet. Oh, no! Does this mean I'm gonna have to pass on the honor of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=13791772&oldid=13791332 Pufferfish] of Most Conceited New Admin to Ta Bu Shi?? :-( --
'''Support''', naturally
'''Who?''' Yeah, I guess.
It hadn't occurred to me that he wasn't an admin. '''Support!''' --
'''Support''' one of the very best.
'''Support''' -WELCOME BACK!!!--
Go TBSDY! --
'''Support''' - Brookie - he say Yes -
'''Break out the fatted template''', the prodigal son has returned!
TBSDY is a great editor and admin and I was shocked to see him leave in the first place. As long as he feels relatively sure about staying this time I'ev got no quabbles about giving him back his admin powers.

Obviously.
'''Support.'''
Welcome back. -
'''Support''', obviously -

'''Support'''.  I wandered over anonymously and felt the need to temporarily suspend my own self-imposed exile to cast my vote for this truly remarkable individual.  You da bomb!  Back to [[Elba]]... -
<s>Of course!
Certainly.
'''Support'''. You know you can't stay away from this place : ) --
'''Support'''. Redundant as all get out, but might as well throw my vote in.
'''Support'''.  OMG, welcome back!
'''Strong Support'''.
'''Speedy support''' under general criterion 4, reposted Wikiholic who tried to quit and lasted an amazing two months before coming back. ;) I join everyone else in welcoming you back, TBSDY! <font color=green>
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. I suppose we can give him a shot, although I just don't know how he'll handle the responsibility...
'''Support''' Of course.
*must not follow crowd* ... whatever. Support; you deserve it. &mdash;
This vote is ridiculous.  --
'''Support'''-
[[Image:Flock of sheep.jpg|thumb|Baaaa!!!!]] '''Baaaaaaaa!!!!''' --
Obviously :) -
'''Strong Support'''. Infact, I don't see the need for waiting three more days.
'''Support''' for all the above reasons &mdash; particularly Baaaaaaaa!!!! --
'''WWTBSDYD?'''
Just having learnt of TBSDY's blessed return, I most hotly '''s'''upport his re-adminship.
Obviously '''support'''! Welcome back! ;) -
<nowiki>{{Rubber Stamp}}</nowiki>.
'''Support''' - I've seen this user a number of times, and like what I see.
'''Support.''' I thought this user was already an admin. ;-) --
'''Support''' - This isn't a bandwagon, it's a steamroller, but I'm jumping on anyway.
It's a redundant move by me to add my '''supporting vote''' now, but may I just say that I will certainly look to TBSDY as one of my first admin contact points. Articulte, balanced, fair...this is what we need in all our admins all the time. Congrats on your soon-TBC adminship Version 2.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' No question. Welcome back, Ta bu.
'''Support''', though a little concerned about recent edits to [[Daleks]].
'''Support''', a pleasure.
I am sheep, sung to the song [[I am cow]].
'''Support'''. Don't be silly, ta bu. A blanking of an article that remained for 3 minutes is not something to get worked up over. A lot of other users (including current admins) do things that are far more disruptive to Wikipedia, like revert wars on popular articles. As for everyking, ignore him. His latest disruption tactic is to oppose for no foreseeable reason on RfAs. You should be flattered he hasn't opposed your RfA, he must really like you.
'''Support''', of course.  And cheer up about the Dalek thing.
'''Oppose'''. No way, we're going to keep ''"the good stuff"'' out of your hands until you've well and truely kicked the habit! ;-)
<s>His rabid inclusionism frightens me :)
<s>Support His prior record speaks for itself.  Welcome back! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)</s> Switch to '''oppose''' until there is an explanation of today's article vandalism on [[Dalek]]. I cannot be confident that this is the same editor who was formerly an administrator. --
I personally don't like his attitude. Good deeds aside, it smacks of arrogance and it has consistently rubbed me the wrong way. I feel like I'm pretty much the only person on this earth who feels that way, but that's my vote.
<s>'''Oppose''' until we get a ''good'' explanation of the recent vandalism. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 21:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)</s> Support in a month or so, assuming TBSDY doesn't do anything else that spectacularly idiotic in the mean time. --
<s>'''Support''' without a shaddow of a doubt. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 11:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)</s>. <s>'''Oppose''' Until an explanation is forthcomming regarding the apparent vandalism. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 21:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC). </s> I've read the explanation now, and while we do all need a bit of light releif now and again, this wasn't the way to do it. Having said that, when he was an admin before he did a lot of goog work and he wouldn't have been de-admined (I don't think) just for that. On balance, I feel the fairest vote is '''oppose for now'''. When he's firmly back in the swing of things and has gotten this sort of joke out of his system, then I'll probably vote support if he's nominated again.
'''Oppose''' as per other users. I don't know why TBSDY would vandalize [[Dalek]], esp. when it was a featured article. "Showing people how it works" could be conducted in the sandbox, which he was surely aware of.
'''Oppose''',
I supported, but now i '''OPPOSE'''. Because of recent actions by the nominee. I recommend that all people who voted to support look into Ta bu shi da yu's [[Dalek]] stunt.[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 00:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. For those who do not know, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalek&diff=14094757&oldid=14094669 intentionally blanked an article] - it was a feature article - and it was a feature article being featured on the main page. He followed it with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalek&diff=next&oldid=14094757 this edit]. This is behavior beneath my expectations of an admin candidate.
Leaving the project doesn't require being de-adminned, so why did you do that? Surely you expected maybe you would come back before long? I don't think a person should be so mercurial about adminship. I also disagree with the view that this doesn't need a vote. You give up your adminship and you're the same as anybody.
Whoa, TBSDY, can you explain this edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalek&diff=prev&oldid=14094765]?  It definitely seems uncharacteristic for you.  It looks like a joke, but it involved the blanking of an article and the replacement of most of the content.  Is it possible that your account has been compromised, as suggested by [[User:Phils]] on your talk page? Please respond.  --
'''<s>Strong support</s>Neutral'''. The vote is appropriate, though.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 09:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC). Changed to neutral after vandalism of [[Dalek]]. May change again once an explanation is provided.-
I am changing my vote from support following the vandalism of [[Dalek]].  However, I will happily change my vote back if an acceptable explanation is offered. --
Until an explanation fo recent events is given.
I'm in this line.  An explanation is required.
<s>'''Speedy promote'''. An admin who is de-sysopped entirely of their own volition (i.e. didn't resign amidst controversy, or jump before they were pushed) should be able to be restored on request, unless the rules have changed significantly while they've been gone. That said, Ta bu shi ya du is of course worthy of adminship and has my full '''support'''. May animals [[exploding whale|large]] and [[exploding hamster|small]] explode in celebration of your return! &mdash; [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] ([[User_talk:Trilobite|Talk]]) 16:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)</s> I know the self-nomination has now been withdrawn, but I still feel the need to withdraw my own vote to support as a result of the vandalism. I don't know why someone who has put so much work into Wikipedia would want to do that. &mdash;
'''Support'''.His disambigs and the contributions he have made are all very good.
'''Oppose''' till user specifies an email id.
'''Oppose''' until user actually completes the nomination.
'''Oppose''' - will rethink when he's told me ''why'' I should support. --
'''Oppose''': Edit summary usage only 31%. Averages just 2 edits per day (6.7 for contributing days). Distribution of edits is promising, but the overall experience level is, I think, too low for adminship at this time. I also like to see self nominators follow instructions and examples in putting forth their nomination as it shows an ability to follow directions and thus policy; this was not done in this case. --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry. At the very least, you should fill out all the questions below, including ''why'' you want to be an admin and what you intend to use these admin tools for that you can't do right now (and want to). Also, at only [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=tdxiang&dbname=enwiki ~260 edits], I think you are much too inexperienced to be an admin. After some more experience, you may get more support. :-) --
'''Oppose''' Lack of [[edit summary|edit summaries]].
'''Oppose''' Too few edits.
'''Oppose'''&mdash;promising editor, but too few edits. Please try again when you have atleast 1000 edits (atleast 10% of which should be in the Wikipedia namespace). I guarantee that you will have widespread support then! also, here are a few good links: [[Recent Changes]], [[New pages]] and [[AFD]]. You could also participate in community discussions on a regular basis, and vote here. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose'''. Too little experience. Questions not answered. BTW, how do you guys know his percentage of edits without summary? --
'''Oppose'''. Consistent disregard for form. Ignored the questions, rarely bothers with edit summaries--not the type we want as admin. Doesn't need it either, according to his description.
'''Oppose'''. Taking pictures of yourself is not someothing you need admin powers for. Neither is being the "Disambiguation" guy.
Seems well intentioned, but not enough edits and experience.--
'''Oppose''' Less than two months of activity is far too short a commitment to Wikipedia for you to become an administrator. Also, your edit count is pretty low, with too little talk and Project space edits. I would consider supporting in another 3-5 months.--
'''Oppose'''. Well for one, you can start telling who you are! With such a short track record, a bit more elaboration on the questions below, and why ''you'' are especially qualified to become an admin would be nice, despite your lack of commitment.
'''Oppose'''. It's you. We know that. Can we know more? Also, 650 edits is far too little, although I'm trying to stay away from editcountitis. --
'''Oppose''' Self-nomination too brief, almost flippant.  Normally, I'm not an edit hound, but in the context of that nomination, 650 is too low.  This will still be an oppose if nomination is expanded, as the first posted brief content showed poor judgment on nominee's part.
'''Oppose''', too little time on Wikipedia. Try again in a month or two.
Vanity, delete... oops, wrong page. '''Oppose''', out of touch with the community.
'''Oppose''' Too new and 650 too low --
'''Kindly oppose'''; user is on a good road, but some more contribs and community involvement is needed.  --
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, Tedernst. One suggestion would be to get reaquainted to Wikipedia (I see you've been registered since 2002) and learn how the process works. "It's me, what can I say?" is quite frankly a turn-off for voters, and seeing that this is a self-nom, you need to be extra-cautious towards making the right impression.
'''Oppose''' the shortness of the answers coupled with the shortness of time actually editing are not a good combination. However, in a couple of months I would be willing to re-appraise. I notice that you were able to merge [[Buiteraptor]]. Good one. Thanks.
'''Oppose''' &mdash;Your nomination description show that your are not quite ready for it. If you really want to became an administrator, here are a few good tips you could follow: Try contributing more; spend more time on Wikipedia writing articles ad interacting with others; you will get experience. Also here are a few good links: Vote '''here''' on a regular basis. Others are more inclined to vote for you when they see that you parttake in the process of adminship. Secondly, vote on [[AFD]]s ect; show others that you have an intimate understanding of Wikipolicies. Try contributing to [[Recent Changes]]&mdash;revert vandalism, warn editors using the ''{{tl|test}}'', ''{{tl|test2}}''/''{{tl|test2a}}'', ''{{tl|test3}}'', and ''{{tl|test4}}'' as appropriate, and welcome others using ''{{tl|welcome}}''. you could also go on [[Special:Newpages|newpages]] patrol and tag speedy deletions ect. Make sure that you interact a lot on AFds and RFA talk, user talk etc. By doing all these, others will see that you are working hard, they will trust you and you will be successful; when you return in 1-2 months, you will be a shoo in. PS:And next time, if you are nominating yourself, show that you want the extra tools and responsibilities. Put thoughts into the questions

[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 09:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC). I see no reason to hinder your desire to help with the janitorial work, here.
Yeah, '''support'''. It was mainly length of time here that foiled the last bid. Tedernst is still keen and has shown dedication to the 'pedia, so go for it.
'''Support''', should be fine with admin tools. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]]
'''Support''' No problem.
'''Support''' Looks good! ;] --<big>[[User:Vilerage|<font color="blue">негідний</font><font color="grey">лють</font>]]</big> <sup><small><font color="#0000ff">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar|(]]</font>[[User_Talk:Vilerage|<font color="black">Reply</font>]]<font color="#ff0000">[[User:Vilerage/noclickbar||]]</font>[[Special:Emailuser/Vilerage|<font color="black">Spam Me!</font>]]<strong>[[User:Vilerage/norealspamplease|<font color="#ff0000">*</font>]]</strong><font color="#0000ff">
'''Support'''
'''Support''' no big deal...I'm not inclined to think you'll vapor lock and turn into a lousy contributor in another month, and see no reason to discourage you from continuing to be a good contributor by making you run for a third nomination.--
'''Support'''
'''Support''' <font color="MediumSlateBlue">'''[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ε]]'''

'''Support''': unlikely to abuse administrator tools, reasons presented for opposition to date are not compelling.
'''Support''' these oppose votes are stupid and do not have a legitimate rationale.
'''Support''' per Mongo. Why get in the way of someone who wants to fight vandals more efficiently?--
'''Support''' Has been staying cool under provocation.
'''Support'''. Go forth and block some vandals.
'''Oppose''' I don't think any RfA should be re-considered in less that 2-3 months. --
'''Oppose''' Its been barely over a month, too soon especially for a self nom and you seem over eager for admin status. Plus you have yet to reach the 3 month mark. Also while you have a high edit count, over 4000, i dont really see any one edit with real content adding. While im saying that dab and link repairing arent bad, they are not enough in my opinion to become an admin. Your on the right track, maybe have someone else nom and I will support then.
'''Oppose''' I must admit that Tedernst is a very good dismbig link fixer and gives always an edit summary. Still after going through the edits made between the nominations I noted that: 1) last 3 Afd votes were made on 10 November, 5 November, 4 November 2) ~94 % of edits between nominations are on Stub-sorting tags, dabs, fixing link order -tags -- all minor edits and lastly 3) during the month November 39 reverts, ~1/day (rough count of rvv and revert Edit summaries) were made. Although a huge jump in edits has been made between the self-nominations (650 - 4000), most of the edits have been minor and little  participation to AfD, NA or RC can be noted from his editing pattern. So I wouldn't say that he "dabbled in different areas of Wikipedia" between the nominations. Also I support the opinions of [[User:Rogerd|Rogerd]] and [[User:Jobe6|<font color="red">Job</font>]][[Special:Emailuser/Jobe6|<font color="green">e</font>]].
'''Oppose''' per feydey.
'''Oppose''' only because last nomination was just over a month ago, per RogerD.  March '06 will bring my support, if that is even necessary.
'''Oppose''' Too soon.
'''Sadly oppose'''.  If this RfA had come at a slightly later date, perhaps after the start of the new year, I would gladly give an accept vote.  However, after doing my research and looking at things, I have to cast my vote as it is.  Give yourself some time, do some more work, and come back in March or April -- I'll probably change my vote then! --
'''Oppose''' as being too soon (both in total time and since last RfA), and the concerns of Jobe6 above.
<del>'''Oppose'''. We don't need more admins. Most abusive users are blocked quickly, and if they aren't, admins are easily contacted. Most vandalism that slips through wouldn't have been caught if every user had the rollback button.
'''Neutral''' per Jobe6 --
'''Neutral''' ditto --
'''Neutral''', has clearly more experience now, but I'd still want to wait a bit longer before supporting. &mdash;
Level-headed? Check. Civil? Check. Editcountitis happening in oppose votes? Check. Heading in the right direction? Check. Can have (most) errors corrected? Check. No big deal? Check. I think I'll go out on a limb and '''support''' for now. Just do try and be more active. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Support'''. Read the first thing Kate's edit counter says nowdays. Kate's rather dissapointed in the editcountitus around the wiki because of her counter, and I don't blame her. A great guy is being opposed based on his edit count. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' in order to oppose editcountitis.  I wouldn't vote, but I feel compelled to do so just to work against those who oppose based on edit counts.
This land is our land.
'''Support'''. Not everybody needs 100 lessons to pass their driving test.
'''Support''' --
'''Oppose''' User has only 816 edits since April, 2004.  Needs to participate more to understand the community and how it works. Should have minimum of 1,500 to 2,000 edits. --
'''Oppose''': You've only recently returned from a very long break dating back to late last year, with only a handful of edits during the interim. Your activity level has heavily spiked since your return, which is good. A quick review of user interactions seems to show level-headedness, which is very important. I think you're headed in the right direction, but keep it up for another 2 months and I think you'll be ready. Also, please keep improving your use of edit summaries. For now, I oppose. --
'''Oppose''', per Durin. Less than 1,000 edits, and a long break from the project. I agree with Durin that you seem to have the right idea. Do keep contributing, build more experience, check out what's happened with the wiki in your abscence, and do re-nominate in the future.
'''Definate Oppose''' per reasons already given.
'''Oppose'''. I would hope for him to get a few more edits to renominate. Editcountitis is very very bad but is also a sign of experience. Less than 1000 in more than a year IMO is too low
'''Weak oppose''' very short answers to the questions concerns me...if the answers were lengthened a little more, and a little more editing, I would support.
'''Oppose weakly''' per reasons already mentioned. --
Try to keep your chin up and not take this too hard, ya' hear? <small>
--
Will support when user has a bit more involvement in the project. A good editor nontheless. Keep it up, youre on the right track.
'''Neutral''' good editor but I have to agree with the opposers but I dont feel like opposing maybe in 2 months --
'''Neutral''', and I agree with Journalist.  --
'''Neutral'''. A little more experience could'nt hurt. You should RfA again in a few months.
'''Neutral'''.  Seems like a reasonable user that would not abuse admin capabilities.  WIll support if up again in a few months.<em>&mdash;<font color="Indigo">
'''Neutral'''. Hope to support next time round.
'''Neutral''' I think I got that bout of editcountitis under control,so no opposing, but I think the best thing here is to keep on the course you're on and you'll have no problems. Too early for adminship.
'''Go on then'''... I would have hoped for more detailed answers to the questions but still, good editor.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse admin tools. Not sure where Svest's questions are going, the answers seem pretty obvious.
'''Support''' Good editor. This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools --
Benefit of doubt '''support''', good enough. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''.  Good editor whom I think will not abuse the tools. --
'''Support''' Clearly does a beneficial job for Wikipedia, and an efficient one. I am only bothering to add my positive vote, though, in order to attempt to cancel out the arrogance which can be seen below me in the form of the opposing voters.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Support''' - It's painful on the fence and I've occasionally run into this user and found them amiable - no reason to assume that they'd abuse ''AdminPowers<sup>TM</sup>''. --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[WP:ESP|e]]</font>
Objection, lack of experience.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not really sure that the motivation given in the answers below makes the grade for a self-nom. Anyone can get rollback button by installing godmode lite. There are only a couple of hundred Project: space edits (so count the edits, see if I care) and very very few Talk and User_talk: edits. Edits in those latter two are especially important since a demonstrated ability to reliably interact carefully is important. I think I slightly wider experience base is a good thing to seek from a would-be admin, and that will also reveal to the candidate the lack of depth in his answers to the questions. -
'''Oppose''' per Splash and his accepting his own self-nom shows his inexperience.
'''Oppose''' per above and his answers to the question.
'''Oppose''' Lack of wiki namespace and talk edits. --
'''Oppose'''. An acceptable number of edits, but that's never definitive. Get a little more experience and you'll pass for sure.
'''Oppose''' per Splash.  Gain more experience, return in six months or so.
'''Oppose''' FSF's sense of humor aside, I don't think lb4 understands the whole score yet in regards to being an admin. Head over to [[user:WikiFanatic|WikiFanatic]], he likes to help with building up experience and understanding for rfas.
'''Oppose''', you've done a lot of good work but adminship is a big responsibility and it's for more than just reverting.
'''Oppose''' -- please set/enable your email id.
'''Neutal'''. I'm on the fence here, still considering, Would like to see more interaction with other users (User_talk)and more work on Project Talks.
'''I'm sittin' on the fence, and its a givin me splinters''' <strong>
'''Neutral'''. Good user but he states he wants the tools to be able to revert. There are plug-ins like popup-assisted reversions (which I don't use personally, but still) which can give him this capability without being an admin. I hardly ever use the rollback button either. You can help out on AfD without being an admin, too. No problems with user but maybe needs more experience with the processes that we need admins for at the moment. Admins beating you to the revert button isn't a bad thing.

As the nominator. --
Extremely rude in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK/1|his previous nomination]], an almost arrogant response to the questions, no admin goals (doesn't even know the name of the deletion page and could fight vandals now), and no reason to become an admin. '''Strong object.'''
I must regretfully '''oppose'''. While I have no doubt that ThomasK is a valuable editor, his relatively few edits in Wikipedia: and User talk: (about 100+ each, see [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=ThomasK&dbname=enwiki the full Kate's Tool results]), along with the sparse interaction with other editors on his user talk page (even with the multiple removed comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThomasK&diff=22317853&oldid=22317543]), combined with the brief and unconvincing replies on the questions, lead me to oppose his nomination. However, I would suggest that you be more active, and then try again in 2 or 3 months. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Oppose''' per [[user:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]].</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose''' per [[user:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]], and I have concerns about the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThomasK/1|previous nomination]] as well. It will take a few months of contributions, in my opinion, to show that things have changed. Should not have renominated again so soon.
'''Oppose'''. The answers given below do not impress me, nor does the attitude Thomas displayed last time around. Thomas appears to be a perfectly competent editor, unfortunately I do not believe he has shown the necessary ability to communicate constructively which is so important for an administrator.
'''Oppose''' I was going to abstain from voting on this, but I'm opposing due to ThomasK's responses to votes on this very RfA. Admins need to be able to take criticism in stride.  -- [[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]],
Support. This should be no big deal.
'''Oppose'''. Not really enough evidence of good interaction with others. The replies given on his talk page are so brief and brusque as to be on the thin edge of politeness, and one of them was only answered today despite being posted in April. One example says just "never mind" as a clear dismissal and others don't indicate a tendency to engage in a friendly manner. There's an alarming lack of use (and lack of proper use) of the edit summary, too and some odd choices over what constitutes major (e.g. inserting an image) and minor (e.g. removing a link), both of which could be controversial actions. Whilst I don't think golden prose maketh an admin, the selected pages on his user page are all stubs or slightly-more-than-stubs and I'd like to see ''some'' sort of deeper contribution. Finally, there is a very small amount of work in the Wikipedia: and talk: spaces and thus, I think, insufficient interaction in the more spiky parts of the 'pedia at the moment (esp. when coupled with the sparse, brusque talk page). This all sounds like I hate him despite not having 'met' him. I don't mean it like that at all; being the first 'oppose', I figured I should just be thorough. In short: come back in a while, having patched the gaps I mentioned, and with a higher, more balanced edit count, and I'll be supportive. -
'''Oppose'''.  Like [[User:Splash|Splash]] I see a sparse use of edit summaries, and [[User:Thorpe|Thorpe]]'s interactions with other users seem a bit on the gruff side ([[User_talk:Thorpe#Need_more_info|example]]).  He also fails to display a particular commitment to janitorial tasks, which I feel is very important for an admin. --
'''Oppose''' for now.  Concur with Splash's comments.  Still seems a bit too "green". --
'''Oppose'''. I agree that this user has yet to reach the level of experience that adminship demands, as per the comments above. Regarding edit summaries: while at times justification of an action is given, more often than not, the user fails to summarize what edits have actually been made, and although there can be seen an improvement in marking edits as ''minor'', or ''major'', some instances are still questionable. Perhaps it would be  good to peruse: [[Wikipedia:Minor_edit]], [[Wikipedia:Edit_summary]], and [[Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend]] may be useful as well. The answers to the candidate questions suggest that the user, while may have good intentions, only has a vague knowlegde of Wikipedia procedures. Potentially suitable for sysopship, but not at the current time.
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with much of what has been said.  --
'''Oppose.''' Three months short of my support threshold for potential admins.
'''Oppose''' because of the talk page and lack of edit summaries.  (I don't have a "time since joining" restriction; those are way too rigid.) --
'''Oppose''', admins need much better user interaction capacities. --
I queried
'''Extreme How-Dare-You vote before the nominator support'''. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Super strong omgwtfbbq lollergazm support'''. Absolutely.
'''Support''': Genuinely attempts to improve WP articles, and I like his attitude of attaining "featured article" status as his goal.
'''Support!'''
'''Support''' --
'''Support''',
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. Though it seems a bit more edit summaries would be nice.
'''Not fair!''' '''Not fair!''' Redwolf... arrrgh!!! I wanted to nominate Tony myself.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. I have been impressed by Tony's handling of a dispute at [[United States]]. I think he would make a fine admin. '''''<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]]</font>'''''<font color="green">
'''Support''' A good lad, he'll go far--

'''Support'''.  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|FAC]] work indicates a commitment to the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole.
'''Support''', I have no reservations.

'''Support''' Wiki needs more comma's.
Most certainly '''''yes'''''. Tony1 truly deserves being called an 'editor'; I've been impressed ever since he helped the wikidocs get [[Asthma]] featured. Does fabulous work—this guy is one of Wp's best copyeditors, and I think he saves a lot of our work from being painful embarrassments. Very good manner, good dispute resolution skills; X factor. Furthermore, in David Gerard's immortal words, "is not stupid or insane"; I'm sure that he'll take the trouble to learn up on those areas he's not currently familiar with before using any special buttons. Gets my strong support.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''
[[User:FireFox|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font face="Berlin Sans FB" color=green>e]]
'''Support''' Sounds like a guy who does fabulous work :) --
'''Strong support''' for the ''Featured Guy''! --
'''Just Came Back from Hurricane Wilma Support''' Sure --
'''Support''' of course.  --
'''Support''' Good contrib's across namespaces, as nominator notes. No problems with this user.
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' --''
'''Support'''.  The more prose-watchers we have on pedestals, the better WP becomes.
'''Support''' —
'''Support''' -- Tony has been helpful and courteous, and has a valuable contribution to make --
'''Support'''. On articles I've worked at the same time as Tony, he has always explained his changes in edit comments and consulted on talk pages before making significant changes. Both important aspects many editors seem to ignore. (voting late to redress an earlier deliberate abstain - Tony doesn't deserve the dumping he's getting further down this page). --
'''Support'''. No brainer. His work on FAC has been indispensable, and I really like the fact that he explains even minor copy edits, often without being asked. We can all learn something from this user. Give the man those admin buttons. --
'''Support'''. &mdash; <small>
'''Support'''; Tony is excellent at what he does, and therefore asserts himself with confidence, which others can construe as impertinence or aggresion. A little more forebearance on his part might be beneficial, but this is a good editor with the project's best interests in mind. --
'''Support''' Seems like a nice & capable editor... So I'll support.
'''Strong Support''', and through this support express my '''STRONG OPPOSITION''' to the [[Trial by ordeal]] the '''Rfa''' process seems to be degenerating into. This is how we lose so many excellent, talented and thoughtful contributors. '''Are none of us entitled to express our strong opinions without running the risk of incurring a personal, political pile on?!''' Do we not have the right to defend ourselves when we feel we are under unfair attack?! Can we not even be bothered to '''FORGIVE''' some percieved slight?! Or '''to extend to our colleagues the benefit of the doubt rather than to doubt their benefits?!''' If one of my dear friends were to nominate me today, '''I would DECLINE''' rather than face running such a disgraceful gauntlet as that which unfolds below. I wonder how many of YOU would fare facing such a barrage of negativity. '''Would you be able to sit quietly and smile, while your honor, your integrity, your personal charachter is being smeared in the mud?''' I think those who would DO NOT deserve to be admins. Those are the very ones who merely want some small crumb of status/reward/power/influence. Who will use their position as a personal '''TOY''' rather than a '''TOOL''' to make our encycleopedia and community better. Tony, you may not win the vote this time, but you've kept your honor though you may have lost your temper, and you have my [[Ali G|'''respect''']], Sir!--
'''Support'''. Tony is a great copyeditor who has helped me with several articles that I have been working on. From my personal experience, I have not had any unpleasant interactions with him.
'''Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeak Oppose''', just doesn't seem right to me. I don't know, I just feel as though this person isn't ready, more time I feel is needed. Atleast another month or so.
'''Weee...eeak Oppose II'''. Try again in a few months and you'll pass by a landslide. (vote by
'''Oppose.''' Can be quite difficult to work with on occasion and shows a general unfamiliarity with some elements of policy. I can see him making a good admin in the future, but he's just not ready yet; see below for some reasons why.
'''Oppose.''' At first I couched my doubts about Tony's readiness for adminship as a comment rather than an oppose, see below, to give him a chance to modify or distance himself from the tantrum I linked to, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FSicilian_Baroque&diff=26585685&oldid=26579432]  but he emphasizes that he stands by every word. OK. Other things too about his response make me dubious about adminship at the present time. I'm sorry, I've never opposed an RFA before (that I can remember), but the way Tony dismisses my concern and refuses the information I ask for  makes me wonder how he'll treat people who challenge him when/if he's an admin.  I may well support at a later date, but I'd just like to see a little more absorption of the best sides of wikiculture first.
'''Oppose''': Possibly by Tony's supporters I am seen as the villain of the piece, which is why I have hesitated before voting.  Let it be quite clear I do not oppose because his wild threats here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sicilian_Baroque] have been acted on anonymously here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Sicilian_Baroque] I'm sure he would not be so stupid as to act anonymously, even if his behaviour inspires such actions in others.   However, his behaviour does concern me.  I was not too lazy, as he suggests, to integrate his changes, I had just spent nearly a full day attempting to do so, before deciding I just didn't like them.  This is the crux of my objection oppose his views and see what happens.  At best, it seems to me,  his behaviour generally borders on the bombastic.  Doubtless he has talents, but at the moment I feel it would not be wise for him to have  powers, which could possibly be misused if he is crossed.  Besides which he seems to attempt to run the FA page quite well without them.
Yeah, I can't say I'm so confident that he won't throw a tantrum again while the editing is hot. '''Can't trust the admin powers to him'''; sorry.
Errrr. This really doesn't feel good - my gut says to vote yes, because he's a good editor, but my brain says to vote '''oppose''', because he has a ''bit'' too much trouble with other editors. And my brain is the one that votes. Maybe if he can get through another three months without substantial conflict?
'''Oppose'''.  I am not happy with what I see here.  Editors who cannot handle conflict well are not admin candidates, and I am not even pleased with the way that Tony has handled the conflict of this RfA itself, let alone the conflicts he's been in over on FAC/FARC.
'''Oppose''' without prejudice.  Tony1 is a good editor and a valuable part of FAC, but I'm concerned about 1) time on project and edits in multiple spots so that we can see how he handles those who disagree, 2) a passion for correcting things that might override the need to be courteous and considerate.  Much of the time, Tony1's criticisms of mistakes are legitimate, and some of the time they are preferences; such is the case with all of us.  What worries me is that he doesn't allow enough for differences of opinion, for the legitimacy of others' views.  None of this is to cast any doubts whatever about Tony1's value to the project.  He's a first class contributor and editor, but I'm concerned that we don't yet know enough to assess what he'd do in a case of belligerant edits and serious differences of opinion.
I realize that both this and the featured article process can be stressful, but tantrums are not acceptable. With some more time and an opportunity to cool off, I trust that Tony1 will be able to earn my trust in the future. --
'''Oppose'''. Would like to see activity in vandalfighting, dispute resolution or other admin-related areas before supporting. If Tony1 wants to stick to editing and FACs - which is certainly valuable! - he doesn't need the mop & bucket. Also, being an admin makes it more likely that one will be "attacked" in various ways, which seems like a problem. Finally, I don't understand Tony1's explanation of why he cannot provide diffs or even article names for the conflicts he mentions in Question 3. Everything in Wikipedia is public, so there is no privacy issue, but if we don't know what article we're looking for, combing through months of his contribs is pointless.
'''Week oppose'''. per many of the reasons above. Still needs a little more time and more edits.
'''Oppose''' and ask that you reconsider quitting the project when this RfA closes. I believe your contributions to FAC are valuable, just adminship isn't right for you right now.
'''Oppose''' not ready quite yet, Tony please dont take everything as a personal attack. Hell i've failed 2 RFA's myself. &nbsp;
'''Reluctant oppose'''.  From the endorsements above and what I've seen personally, Tony's clearly a great editor, and normally would be exactly the kind of person we need on the project.  At the same time, I feel I have to vote oppose to anyone adds to their RfA that "I now hate WP with a vengeance."  This statement's understandable; the candidate's been provoked and feels under serious pressure.  At the same time, though, can we really give the admin buttons to somebody who currently hates the project?  I'd join Cyberjunkie in urging Tony to withdraw his nomination until he's feeling better about things.  He's clearly future admin material, just needs a little cooling off and a few cold ones. --
'''Oppose''' - in complete agreement with Dvyost. I'm also afraid that Tony's little display here does indicate that he's not ready for adminship either. "Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and '''patience''' in dealing with others"...
'''Reluctantly oppose''': nothing personal, and I certainly do not want him to leave the project, but the above interactions show this user is not ready at this time.
'''Strongly oppose'''. The outbursts in green above are thoroughly unbecoming of an admin, and the sentence somewhere below about "I hate conflict" just isn't going to make things work when the vandals and so on descend upon you. Then, when you face your first disagreement on AN/I, things will spiral out of control quickly. Anyone who threatens to leave WP over the outcome of an RfA simply isn't level-headed and cool-enough under fire to be an admin. Try again in a few more months if you can round off the rough edges. -
'''Oppose''' I am concerned with what he say in his answers in green. He sure seems to be a good contributor, but he must learn that good contribution alone(even though very important) is not the only skill that takes to be an Admin, and that those that opposes him do not put his perceived character, maturity, and personality on trial.
'''Oppose.''' This is painful. If we could go back in time and never nominate Tony1, we'd all be a lot better off. If we had something else we could nominate him for, like "outstanding and important contributer", we should have. Unfortunately, this RFA still has to be dealt with. And I have to change my vote based entirely on Tony1's edits to this RFA. This isn't "petty", it's responding to new data. Tony is showing a compliete inability to deal calmly with controversy, but worse, is interpreting virtually every negative comment as a personal attack. Viewing anybody's comments here as a personal attack seems like a heck of a stretch to me. This isn't admin temperment. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' would have been willing to support but for Tony's behaviour on this RfA [[User:Purplefeltangel|<font style="color:#5A3696;">&hearts;&hearts;purpl</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]]
'''Oppose'''. A look through his list of contributions shows that Tony has been an excellent editor. Admin status is self-evidently not required for this. It is required for such matters as the dispassionate application of rules. And for that, you need to demonstrate a certain coolness (perhaps even humor) when under stress, in addition of course to a pretty good understanding of what the rules are or at least an awareness that the rules might not be obvious and might need looking up. I don't see this demonstrated in the green text above. I don't think it's necessary to show this with examples, but if Tony insists, I'll reluctantly do this. However, two things that Tony writes in  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTony1&diff=26781078&oldid=26779217 one of his edits] (which, as I write, still stands) merit quick and simple response. He says: <span style="color:#020; background:#fef">''But in just a few days, WP has turned from highly productive fun to utter misery for me; this process has succeeded in destroying a valuable Wikipedian. No doubt, Giano, Hoary and Bishonin, whatever she calls herself, will take delight at this; but it's very bad for WP. Having been very loyal, I now hate WP with a vengeance.''</span> (1)&nbsp;No, I take no delight in any aspect of this RfA or Tony's described or promised reactions to it. (2)&nbsp;I'm not going to entrust the administrative mop, broom and kryptonite to anybody who says he or she "hate[s] WP with a vengeance". And lastly, I second [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTony1&diff=26781770&oldid=26781078 Cyberjunkie's suggestion above], and hope that Tony rereads it and reconsiders it. --
'''Oppose''', after viewing edits here at this RfA.  Frustration over [[Sicilian baroque]] seemed entirely appropriate to me.  The above doesn't.
Changing again, per:  "''The nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier,"'' along with the other complete overeactions exhibited.  Sorry, '''Oppose'''. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''
It is with regret that I '''oppose''' this nomination. I'm very sorry Tony but your comments on this very RfA are ''not'' up to admin standard. I do hope that you continue with this great project and I can support your nomination at a later stage. -
'''Neutral''' for now. I would want to know more about what '''sysop chores''' Tony1 will be inclined to contribute to. To correct prose, one does not need to be a sysop. Question: Is Tony1 willing to pick up the mop and bucket, or not?
'''Neutral''' withdrawing my support, but still enough goodwill left over to prevent me voting oppose.  Tony's little tantrum on that linked FAC, and his reaction to the opinions proferred by [[User:Bishonen]] and [[User:Giano]] on this very RfA, do '''not''' inspire confidence.  I'm aware that Giano threw ''his'' tantrum first, but it's my understanding that admins have to deal with that sort of thing a lot, and I'm no longer sure that Tony will deal with it properly when it happens. --
'''Neutral'''. Tony does fine work as an editor, but I can't support for adminship, on a closer look at the below comments.
'''Neutral''': I stand by my earlier comments, but I can no longer support. It's clear that Tony isn't quite ready for adminship - three months is too short an experience, it would seem. I would support in a few months.--
'''Neutral''' Your responses on this very RFA do not inspire confidence. Perhaps you should have a few more months of experience to redeem yourself.
Changed to '''Neutral'''. I am extremely sorry that it has come to this, Tony. I really apreciatte your work, and we've had the chance to collaborate in a highly constructive way in the past, which makes all this the more painful. Just like you, I had a rough time at my own RfA, so I understand the Wikistress you must be going through right now. However, this has gone too far, and I saddens me a lot to see you in this state of mind, understandable as it may be. I am ''very'' disheartened by your last phrase, "''the nasty drubbing that I'll be giving WP on the net, with my insider knowledge, will just start a few days earlier"''. I hope you stay with us and reapply in a while, and rest assured you'll eventually get to admin; but these outbursts and threats are more than I can take from anyone, Tony. This is truly difficult and painful, and I'm sorry, but for now, I cannot support you anymore. <font color="green">
''Strong Decline''. Your attitude is not up to admin standards. Unfortunately, your over-sensitivity to oppose votes is not something I would look for from someone who is looking for the power to delete pages and ban users at will. -
In your answer to the first of the generic questions for the candidate, you cite [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html a particular ''Guardian'' article] as support for your view that the quality of its prose is WP's weakest aspect. The comment within that ''Guardian'' article about [[Bob Dylan]] (as it then was) does indeed support you. As a whole, however, I don't think the articles says what you appear to claim it says: the contributors seem more worried about inaccuracies, glaring omissions, etc. Are you confusing this ''Guardian'' article with another? --
Tony, could you please supply some diffs for the interactions you mention in your response to question 3, so we can see them more directly? (Diffs, please, as opposed to subsection links of the kind you provide elsewhere, since those  don't work. If you right-click on a "last" button in the History tab and select "Copy this link location", you get a diff = a unique and durable link to a post.) In the recent [[Sicilian Baroque]] disagreement between you and Giano on FAC, you're IMO  rather quick to be territorial about your stylistic edits, and to attack. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FSicilian_Baroque&diff=26585685&oldid=26579432 this retort]—posted in installments—there's even a pre-emptive threat to list the article on FARC—Featured article removal canditates—'''if''' it should become Featured without your assistance, and several other statements that I think short on civility and forbearance. Even under some provocation, an admin should treat other contributors respectfully, and try to see their side of things. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sicilian_Baroque&diff=26561799&oldid=26506566 Here]'s the post from Giano you were responding to).  But I should disclose that I have a bias here, as the nominator of the article, so perhaps I'm blowing a single instance out of proportion; I hope others will take a look for themselves. I can tell from the Support votes above that you're a very fine editor and much appreciated by the community, especially for your FAC work; this is not about that, but a query about your demeanour in disagreement.
Sometimes, I find User G's comments on his talk page elliptical enough that they could end in "Grasshopper", but...everyone needs a friendly uncle.
In the interactions I've had with Uncle G, I can't remember a single instance where I've thought his conduct less than exemplary.
Fine.
'''Support''', good contributor who works well with others. Userpage doesn't bother me in the least.
[[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 22:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC).  Good editor, manages to proceed through the minefields of VfD without becoming sullied.
'''Very Very Strong Support''' - I've recently worked pretty closely with Uncle G on tranwikification of articles to Wiktionary, and he's very level headed and a great contributor to Wikipedia. People who oppose Uncle G because he doesn't have a user page need to "...un-learn the false inference that they are making about people with no user pages...".
'''Support'''. a careful user. all this "get a user-page" mumbo-jumbo is silly.
Support. User pages are nice trivialities, not anything essential. -
Support - lack of a userpage is irrelevant
I'd go neutral because of the lack of a userpage, but Uncle G is a very hard worker.  --
'''Support'''. I have seen Uncle G's work and it seems like he is a hard worker. I think the lack of a userpage is irrelevant because he can slap something on in less than a few seconds.
'''Support'''. Surely, there are more useful reasons for opposition than lacking a userpage?
'''Strong support'''. I thought he was already an admin. --
'''Support'''. [[Ditto (Pokémon)|ditto]] --
'''Support'''. -
'''Support''', hey, it's my nomination. I'd create a redirect from his userpage to his talk page if people think that'd help.
'''Support'''  &mdash;
&mdash;
Userpage objections are nonsense. &mdash;
He's not evil, my requirements are met. --
I have accepted his reason for having no userpage. Uncle G is level headed and helpful, and we need more such administrators. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] 06:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Affirming vote.
'''Support.''' Good user.--

Would be a shame for this nomination to fail for reasons as trivial as someone not having a user page.
'''Support'''. It would be nice to use ''minor edit'' checkbox sometimes (the one on the left, single click is enough, really) to give hint to people on RC check.
'''Support''' (<small>if I've enough contrib's to vote here</small>:) A user who reminds us all that one should not judge a contributor from the colo(u)r of hir user page link. This red link is a "face to the community" - albeit not a standard one. Who said it had to be?
'''Support'''. Although I mostly know this editor through [[Wikinews]], from what I've seen over there he'd make a great admin here. Not having a user page is of no practical consequence.

'''Support''' - Good contributions and there is nothing wrong with not having a user page. -
'''Support''' Boatloads of good work, and the lack of a user page (until forced) was more than fine, suggesting that vanity doesn't override decisions. (and nice workaround to the "problem" now that I look closer :) --
'''Support''' -- Good editor, knowledgeable of policies, already involved in various areas of cleanup.  I would feel comfortable handing him the keys to the janitor closet.
'''Support'''.  Trollslayer extrordinaire who is a vital part of VfD.  Also, he's left one of the most eloquent and even-handed statements I've ever read over on SamuraiClinton's RfC page.  Just get a user page.  Become the "blue Uncle" we know you can be. -
'''Strong support'''. I say this with all due respect to those who oppose the nomination. The nominee is clearly not an opportunist: Despite knowing that much of the opposition will cease if he creates a user page, he continues not to have one. This behavior indicates that Uncle G would probably not change his personal view merely to obtain more votes. --
'''Support'''. Uncle G comes across as patient, fair-minded and good at explaining things. I think he'll be good with a mop.
'''Support'''.  Will he misuse admin powers?  I strongly doubt it based on what I've seen of him and on the endorsements above, and that's good enough for me.
'''Support''', I don't think the user page is a big deal, and that seems to be the only oposition to his promotion, he is a good editor--
'''Support'''. I note that many of the oppose votes are caused by the lack of a user page; while this is unusual, it is not grounds to decline adminship. Uncle G's enabling of his email shows he is responsive to fair comment.-
Uncle G has now linked to his explanation below from the top of his talk page, which is good enough for me. &mdash;
'''Support'''.  Frankly, I'm stunned that so many people are opposing simply because Uncle G doesn't have the equivalent of "Hi! My name is: Uncle G"  --

'''Support'''. The lack of a user page is quirky, and probably an error in judgement, but I don't see any other evidence that Uncle G would be anything other than a good and helpful administrator. I actually admire the fact that Uncle G has ''not'' created one, given the obvious fact that he could create one, assuage the discomfort of those opposing him solely because of this, be made an administrator, and then delete his user page. Good sense of both independence and honor there. --
I'll support him for the same reason others were opposing me :)
'''Support'''The quality of one's edits and work here on the Wikipedia should determine if one should be an admin, not just a simple user page. Maybe he likes the color red?
'''Support'''Uncle G exceeds all material requirements for an admin. We do not expect nor do we require admins to be yesmen, or to toe the party line for matters unrelated to their ability to function as an admin. That a missing userpage complicates RC monitoring is a sign we need to improve our software and not a reason to punish valuable contributors.--
Support.  I don't feel that the issue of a lack of a userpage should make or break Uncle G's adminship.
'''Oppose'''. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. If this user creates one, I will almost certainly change my vote. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 17:06, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC) Or create at least a redirect to the talk page. For an admin to have no user page at all would be confusing to new users, and I respectfully don't agree that is a trivial thing. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 19:24, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC) The main reason I now strongly oppose is not the user page but the whole pattern and style of communication. See the comments below.
'''Oppose'''. My experience with this user at [[Category talk:Move to Wiktionary]] was disappointing, to put it mildy. It seemed he purposely took comments out of context to make himself look right, and his stubborness to continually delete his user page is pathetic. If Uncle G wants to be independant/special/wild card/free spirit/whatever, then great; he can continue being that way as a regular editor. The contributions he selected for the answer section below are underwhelming. His edit summaries of "Rewritten from sources" ([[Albert Mackey]],[[Emmett Ashford]]) lead me to believe he rewrote sections from sources, not that what he was removing stuff because it was copied from sources. Frankly, from the way he handled the issues with his user page (by CSDing it) and the examples he selected from his contributions, I don't think this person really cares if he's admin or not. We have enough admins as it is, we don't need to force it on people who are hemming and hawwing about it. --
To me not having a user page marks you as someone who has been on for a week or a vandal with a user name. I patrol the new pages list a lot, and  I mostly check the pages of people with no user page of no user name.
'''Oppose''' for now.  I originally thought that the lack of a user page wasn't a big deal, but it's starting to bug me.  Though I don't like to support broad generalizations, it is useful to distinguish between red names and blue names when going through my Watchlist or "Recent Changes".  While I don't expect that EVERY user create a user page, our admins should definitely be expected to support the best practices on wikipedia, and I believe that a user page is one of those practices.  His refusal to even create a nominal user page is troubling, indicates a stubbornness to a degree that is inadvisable when dealing with admin powers, and seems almost like a disruption of wikipedia to prove a point.  I hate to do it but i'm going to have to oppose. --
No user page. --
'''Oppose'''. I hate to do this, but the more I think about it the more it bothers me. Administrators must interact with the community and a user page is part of the face one presents. It need not be complex (mine was two short sentences for months), but administrators are trusted members with additional abilities and I feel they should make ''some'' effort to connect with the community by posting ''something''. Not to do somehow doesn't seem in the spirit of openness and transparency that I feel administrators should promote, especially regarding themselves. And it seems unprofessional. I also am concerned that Uncle G made no effort here to address this concern or even to explain why he thought it was irrelevant. Administrators should be sensitive to concerns regarding their behavior. However, I understand his lack of comment, as from his answer to question 1 and his comment on Radiant's talk page, it appears that adminship is not something he strongly wants nor is it very helpful to the types of activities he normally does. Of course, some would argue that the best administrators are those who aren't crazy about pursuing adminship, but between my perceived lack of benefit to him and the lack of a user page, it's enough to push me to oppose. If Uncle G wishes to stand out from everyone else, he is free to make his signature red or whatever he likes.  &mdash;
'''Oppose'''.  The lack of a user page troubles me. There isn't of course a rule that having one is mandatory for an admin, but at the same time, that this user lacks one gives me enough pause to oppose this nomination.
With great sadness I feel I have to oppose this nomination, which also means I will not decide on this nomination, leaving it to another bureaucrat's discretion. I say "with great sadness" because Uncle G seems like a fine, decent and principled editor. However, I feel that it sets a bad precedent for an ''Administrator'' not to have a User Page as opposed to an ''Editor'' not to have one. That is because admins are the public face of Wikipedia and where others turn for help and advice. It is not a good thing for an admin to not have a user page that at least announces that he/she is an admin and expresses the admin's commitment (or lack thereof) to engaging the community and perhaps state those areas where s/he feels s/he can be most helpful. Therefore, I '''oppose''' this nomination. --
I am afraid that the only interaction I have had with this user resulted in his descending into a rant at me for not having read through several long discussion pages.  I am not certain he is of sufficient mentality to have this distinction.  ''[[User:Smoddy|Smoddy]]&nbsp;(<sub>[[User talk:Smoddy|t]]</sub><sup>
'''Oppose'''. Having an empty user page is not good. I find the explanation for that below unsatisfactory.
Oppose. Lack of a userpage is inconsiderate for anyone given the time it wastes for people on RC patrol. If someone doesn't want to be an admin, that's their choice. For an admin, a voluntary postion to be part of the visible face of Wikipedia, its unnaceptable. -
'''VERY strongly oppose'''. Clearly Uncle G doesn't accept community consensus, because he still refuses to create a userpage. To me, the arrogance of not listening to the community is worse than not having a userpage. And, in turn, it's not the lack of a userpage that bothers me as much as the red link and its implications on Recent Changes, votes, polls, and other such things. It's disruptive and it wastes everyone's time. [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point|We're here to build an encylopedia and be part of a wiki community, not to make an ideological point]]. <font color="red">'''If Uncle G simply redirects his userpage to his user talk page, then I would support'''</font color>.
'''Oppose''' for now, and I do so reluctantly. From what I've seen of Uncle G's edits he's a good contributor an' all, but it's hard enough to form an impression of the people we're working with when we are all interacting pseudonymously over the internet even when they ''have'' user pages. Admins, I feel, should present a face to the community. Even if he were to create a fairly uninformative or out of date user page like mine or countless others' it would at least be an improvement on a red link. &mdash;
I read Uncle G's lengthy explanation below and it, by itself, is enough for me to vote no.  I can appreciate the fight against the stigma of a blank user page, but the fact of the matter is that it does make things easier for other people.
'''Oppose'''.  It's fine for editors to contribute without a user page, but it's not fine for admins.  It rather seems like a policeman or any other official insisting on performing the job without wearing a uniform to identify himself properly. Uncle G needs '''neither''' user page '''nor''' adminship to continue his great work. --
'''Oppose'''  Similarly, I'm concerned by the lack of a user page.  Well, not so much ''concerned'', as he certainly has the right not to have one, and doesn't seems in any way to have sought adminship; but nontheless, I would be uncomfortable with an admin without one (as it'd preclude identifying himself as one, which I feel ought to be if not a formal requirement, then at least a general expectation).  I'd also be in any event disinclined to actively support without some stronger statement on performing admin tasks (again, understandable in an "unsought" nomination, and not a reflection on him as an editor in any respect).
'''Oppose''' due to lack of user page. I respect Uncle G's right not to have a user page and his desire to be judged on his contributions alone, but when weighing up whether users should be given admin powers I need to know more about the candidate. I would extend that to those who deliberately have obscure userpages. Perhaps it should be a requirement for Admins to have user pages.
Great contributor, but I have to '''oppose'''.  A simple redirect to his talk would take care of a very annoying red link.  I echo Neutrality's comments especially, as well as Dbiv's.
'''Oppose'''. He does not have a user page; also please see his comments on [[Talk:Teenybopper|"Teenybopper"'s talk page]].
'''Oppose''' on the grounds that I cannot agree with the following comment made by [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]] as part of the nomination - <i>"Also has been friendly with explaining the relevant processes to new users."</i>. When I was a new user who was trying to do the right thing by speedying certain articles, he made comments that came across as curt and a little condescending. I won't debate whether his comments were correct, but I still feel that his approach was inconsistent with the attitude I would expect to see from an Admin (such behaviour greatly increases the risk of bad reactions from both valid contributors and vandals). If he could prove that this flaw no longer exists, then in all other aspects he seems fine.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. The lack of userpage is no big deal for me, but Uncle G is being quite rebarbative and quick to take offense in some of his responses on this very page. I do like to see admins ready to assume good faith, and to work towards defusing rather than escalating or even initiating quarrels, especially on their RfA page (considering that that is the one time and place people are likely to be as nice as they know how).
Although his contributions are very good, I, too, am a little thrown by the lack of a user page. Red names are usually red flags for new users, which is not an association one wants made with administrators. &ndash;
Would like to see the user get a user page, and answer the questions before deciding.
'''Support''' as nominator.  Molotov is extremely geneous with bestowing Barnstars, more proof of his good nature toward Wikipedia and Wikipedians. -

'''Support'''. Dealt with well before, really like him, thought about nominating him myself. ~~ '''
'''THE STRONGEST SUPPORT A PERSON COULD ACTUALLY GET''' &mdash;Its about damn time :). I would have nominated him myself, but I read somewhere that he was waiting a bit. Great guy, Wikipedia will certainly benefit. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' -
'''Administratsysoptorise'''
'''Support'''!
'''I SUPPORT YOU!'''
'''Support''' great editor who has made some great contribs on Russia-related articles. perfect person for adminship. -
'''Support''', sooner or later I would have nominated him myself.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Please get that preview button under control though :).... there are sometimes five edits within a single minute (!) with the same (unfortunately unuseful) edit summary.  Slightly more careful edits + better edit summaries == happy me.  Other than that looks good. <small>
'''Support''' No prob with Molotov, should make a fine admin.
'''Support''': I do believe that he shall be a successful administrator. --
'''Support''' -
'''Support''', a very useful addition,
'''Support''', calling someone an idiot one time should not rule him out of adminship. Besides, this [[jeff merkey]] guy seems to stir people up ;)
'''Support'''. Of course. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support'''--
'''Support'''.  Will be a good admin.  <font color="red">
Someone below cited angry outbursts, but outbursts don't bother me much. What's really important for an admin is to generally have the right course.
'''Support''' He'll do a good job.
'''Support''' Of course...
'''Support''' Even though i dont normally agree with u in VFD u will still make a great adminirador --
'''Support'''
Regrettably I'm going to have to '''Oppose'''. As an admin you're going to have run-ins with lots of unpleasant people, if you can't keep your cool in such cases (or even worse, feel [[User_talk:V._Molotov#NPA|entitled to break the rules because people are mean to you]]) you might want to concentrate on other aspects of wikipedia. --
While the frustration is understandable in such circumstances, I feel that a personal attack made so recently is sufficient reason to '''oppose'''.  I think that admins definitely need to be able to stay cool under trying circumstances.  Again, [[User:V. Molotov|Molotov]] is a fine editor, and has IMO far more positive contributions than negative.  However, he's young and perhaps too excitable at this point.
'''Oppose''', per fvw and Friday,
'''Oppose''' - fvw and Friday's comments ring very true for me. Also, in January and April of this year this user engaged in a campaign of harassing [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]]. (See [[User talk:24.164.211.25]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=12586090&oldid=12585895],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreamGuy&diff=12549273&oldid=12542655] for a small sample) He has repented and mended his ways since then, but not enough time has passed for me to support him. Also, I don't put much weight on Barnstars and welcome messages. They seem to make people happy, which is great, but they are unrelated to admin work. <s>Because of the enthusiastic support above, I am wavering between Oppose and Neutral, but</s> I don't feel confident that his interpersonal skills have matured that much in 5 1/2 months. [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 04:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) ''After seeing the link that [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] posted below, I am not wavering any more.
'''Oppose'''. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gadugi&diff=prev&oldid=23353267] is just not acceptable; I don't care how provoked it was.
'''Oppose'''. Sorry, but I am forced to agree with Fvw and Dragons flight, those outbursts just days before your adminship request gives a very negative impression. An admin must be at least somewhat gracious in the face of adversity.
'''Oppose'''. The recent unacceptable conduct cited above is the reason I'm opposing. Assuming this was an isolated incident, I would support in a few months.
'''Oppose''': Per [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]]; Admins must be able to keep a cool, level head. This behavior clearly shows the opposite. I can not in good conscience support a nominee for admin when they exhibit behavior live that. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 15:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)   Addendum: Seeing the notes below, I remember now that I have had interactions with this nominee before. The harsh attack as noted by [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] is not isolated. When the user was relatively new to Wikipedia, he got involved in a vandalism war against a user that he had a dispute with. I attempted to mentor him, and he appeared to want to contribute in more effective ways. He was thankful at the time for my belief that he could become a better editor. I had hoped he would maintain a level head moving forward from that incident a long time ago. I'm disappointed that has not been the case. While I strongly encourage the nominee to continue to strive to be a better editor (and he has become better), I can not see any reasonable basis for this nominee becoming an admin. --
Oppose, the link provided by Dragons flight confirms my discomfort. By way of observation and advice, the nominator's adminship was long delayed, due significantly to a few similar outbursts. He finally received it after demonstrating his continued dedication to Wikipedia, improved behavior, and above all, willingness to take and act upon constructive criticism. As a further note, I think the new username is a poor choice, as it gives the appearance of attempting to encourage/justify this sort of behavior (it's also a little borderline under the [[Wikipedia:Username|username policy]]). --
Oppose, after reviewing some of the editor's contributions, including the link provided by Dragons flight above.
Oppose, for reasons cited above.  "Courtesy in the face of any insult" should be the first goal and guiding principle of all administrators.  Candidate should review [[m:WikipediAhimsa]] for a general idea of what I'm referring to.
<S>'''Neutral'''.  He's a fine editor, but may lack sufficient understanding of policy.  He seems to get flustered at vandalism at times, to the point of saying he's leaving the project, so I'm not sure why he'd want to be an admin.  If he sticks around, I believe in time he could be a fine admin.
'''Support'''.
Weak support. Software related edits look OK to me. Dealing with vandalism is tough: the user should be thanked for it, not get suspected. I wrote ''weak'' support because (a) not all edits have edit summary, (b) some activity on ViP, VFD etc would be helpful for future admin.
Support. &ndash;
Support. CryptoDerk brought up a heated exchange we had. It was a mere misunderstanding in which I deleted something he had put some time into. Personally, I would have preferred that he just told me what I deleted straight out (obviously I didn't know), but we long since resolved the issue and he apologized to me. But anyway, I think he's good enough to support.

No way.  Took a cursory look at his talk page.  Following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerri_Schiavo&diff=12201387&oldid=12201349 these edits] which appear to be cosmetic, Vikreykja reverted saying it was vandalism, then Mark said they were good faith edits and Vik responded with ''I was in no mood to assume good faith ... If you continue, I am afraid you may well be RFCed''.  And if that's not enough, right above it is a heated exchange with TheCustomOfLife!
'''Oppose''' Not that I'm saying that someone who does something like that should ''never'' be an admin, but it should require some sort of cooling off period (like a few months and a few hundred edits) --
Not no forever but no for now. We have to always assume good faith, not just when the mood takes us.
'''Oppose''' for the reasons stated above.  See comment below.
'''Oppose''' for two reasons: the conflict stated above, and you don't meet my other [[User:Scott Gall/Admin criterion|admin criteria]].
'''Oppose''' I'm afraid.  I don't know Vik and wasn't going to vote until I saw the exchange concerning Alterego's edit on [[Talk:Online poker]].  Aside from the unnecessary hostility, it shows a ''very'' unhealthy attitude toward policy pages: Vik asserts that "the rules" should be upheld even where they are obviously counterproductive.  This shows a basic unfamiliarity with how things are done on Wikipedia.  Or at least, I hope that's not how we do things on Wikipedia now...
'''Oppose'''. Will reconsider in the future after a lot more edits. --
'''Neutral'''. Since I am one of the users being discussed here, I thought I might make a comment. Vikreykja did revert a good-faith edit of mine with "reverting vandalism", which wasn't very nice. All I'd done was shift wikilinking from an archive content list (which remained) to a floating box at the top right. Vikreykja also threatened to RfC me. However, I was indeed heavy-handed in threatening to block Vikreykja if he continued that sort of thing, so his reaction is more understandable and I do not hold it against him. Everyone makes mistakes. Besides, I'd completely forgotten about this 'conflict' until it was pointed out to me today. I couldn't believe it when CryptoDerk told me I'd flatly threatened to block a user - I like to think it's not my style. So I'm not too proud of it either. Anyway, I'm not voting support or oppose on this RfA because I don't have any more experience than that in dealing with this user. Those who have interacted with Vikreykja more often and more recently are better equipped to decide if he is fit for adminship. If Vikreykja does get promoted to adminship, I request that he answer messages on the other user's talk page -- I only read his response to my posting today! -
This is not a user with whom I have consciously interacted so I can only go on what is presented here, his/her talk page and a cursory examination of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vikreykja Special:Contributions]. I am uncomfortable with what I see. To my mind Vikreykja is an assiduous and skillful editor. Interactions with other users, particularly over reversions, can be harsh, however, and I feel that this is inappropriate behaviour for an admin. I note his/her apology and I would hope that future behaviour would be more appropriate. --
Agree with Theo.  I would hate to think that a couple of nasty remarks would forever prevent an editor from becoming an admin.  On the other hand, the activity cited by CryptoDerk is quite extreme, and not exactly ancient history, either (just over a month ago).  Apologies do count for a lot, but I cannot vote to support at this time.  Perhaps Vikreykja's best course of action is to wait until it ''is'' ancient history, and then try again.
I don't wish to oppose you, because most of your edits seem worthwhile. But for an admin, good faith is something that one will need even more, due to the various tasks entrusted to that particular class of users. I believe I will support you in a few months.
I would support you Vik, but unfortunately you haven't been at Wikipedia long enough to deserve adminship. I have seen you do some very good work, but when I consider that you only have 40 more edits than me (albeit, mine are often minor or on WP:SD) I know you cannot possibly be experienced enough to be an admin. Hopefully, both you and I will be able to work together as admins in a couple of months time, but for now...'''neutral'''.
'''Nominate and support'''.

'''Support''' for a very fine contributor. Shows a willigness to strive for 100% criticism-free performance.  --
'''Support''' and please do use edit summaries
'''Support'''. Lemme get this straight, his 60% use of edit summaries means... he'll abuse admin tools? Heh, how very asinine. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Support''' positive editor.
'''Support''' A pleasant, positive and helpful editor, likely to be civil in any use of admin tools, see no reason to oppose.
'''Support.''' I also feel that adminship applications should not be used to enforce rules of conduct beyond the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars]], so I find the edit summary discussion to be entirely irrelevant to the nomination.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
'''Support'''. We need more admins. &mdash; <small>

[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|(?)]] 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC) seems good enough - and has promised to use edit summaries in future --
'''Support''' How could I be more eloquent than [[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]? --
'''Support''' just because I want to.
--
'''Support''' Good edits, level-headed on talk pages. I'm sure as an admin they will be more diligent about edit summaries.
I see no reason why edit summaries would make such a big difference?! It's utterly stupid! On that note, I better start using edit summaries pronto!!
'''Support''' Jimbo=[[User:Jimbo Wales|"The Outlaw" Jimbo Wales]] founder, benevolent dictator and god emperor of the Wikiverse. Image-tagging and lack of edit summeries are STUPID reasons to oppose someone. It makes editcountitis look sensible by  comparison.--
'''Support'''. The edit count is not that bad. Besides mine was even lower, yet it is over 85% for my last 100 edits. And I will keep trying to get it up.
'''Oppose''' scant use of edit summaries.
'''Oppose''' per Durin note on image-tagging.  Need more time to learn finer points of Wikiprocess.
'''Oppose''' per others.
'''Oppose''' as per Freestylefrappe.
For mine, edit summaries alone are not a reason to oppose (tho' I agree they're important).  However, the combination of few edit summaries, lack of care with images, and advertising your RfA on other users' talkpages (or, in one case, harassing an oppose voter) lead me to one inescapable conclusion ... '''oppose'''.  Sorry, dude.
'''Oppose''' per [[User_talk:MarkGallagher#My_RfA_2|comment]] on fuddlemark's talk page.  I don't personally believe that ANY comments should be made by an admin candidate about people's voting.  Trying to get someone to change their vote is extremely questionable.
'''Oppose''', per Ral315 above, and OwenX's point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wackymacs&diff=27279840&oldid=27275261 here]. I find the user's argumentative approach to Oppose votes quite worrying, not least the way he argues with Fuddlemark well-considered comment, below, that his argumentative approach to Oppose votes is actually "kind". No, it isn't. Let me note preemptively that I would not like to be asked to consider withdrawing this vote, or to receive any message about it. I have already thought about it quite carefully.
'''Oppose'''. If he makes such a bad impression in his ''nomination'', how will he deal with the responsibility of being an admin? '''[[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #63f; text-decoration: none;">r</span>]]'''
Difs I've looked at are good; edits across namespaces are fine. But eeewww, you need to pay attention to edit summaries. Thus a neutral. Willing to have my mind changed.
'''Neutral.''' Good guy, but needs to groom his Wikiskills a bit more. Will Support in one month if things improve.--
Please work on your edit summaries.
edit summaries are VITAL [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b>
'''Neutral''' per the Private Butcher/Dutch Highwayman issue, plus a discomfort I have with the nominee's response to hydno above where he wrote "But if you do really want me to brag and be someone I am not... then yes I will most certainly use the summary edit box 100%".  I'm troubled by this because it reads to me as if he's saying "well, if you want me to say it, I'll say it".  While I think the 64% edit summary rate over the past 500 has been perfectly fine, the fact that he promises 100% and doesn't deliver reinforces my concerns listed above.  I really hate doing this, but my gut feeling is no longer what it was. -
'''Neutral''' He seems like a nice guy, but he needs to work on his editing skills, most notably citing sources. For [[Apple Macintosh]], an article he largely contributed to, he only cited one source on a '''huge''' article.
'''Support''', unlikely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' He's a ''bureaucrat'' in nl-wiki, fer cryin' out loud. I think we can trust him with the tools, even if he won't actually be using them much in en-wiki. The precedent exists... see [[User:Jasonr]]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color: #33C;">howch</span>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#0F0">''e''</span>]]
'''Support''' It's not about how much you can do with the tools, it's having the sense to use them appropriately.
'''Support''' - experience on NL and has a good reason for wanting the tools here. (
'''Support'''. If we can't trust bureaucrats (from other Wikipedia editions), whom are we ''supposed'' to trust? [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">
'''Support'''. I already put my comment here (see below) and see my reasoning confirmed.
--
'''Support''' This user is one of the founders of Dutch wikipedia, where the admin procedures are similar to here.  There should be no question that he can be trusted with the admin tools here as well.  --
'''Strong Support''' - though some have opposed because of the number of edits, Walter is a dedicated Wikipedian who has long earned my trust. Though not particularly active here at en:, he is extremely active at meta and nl, and is one of the most trustworthy Wikipedians.

'''Support''', we have other admins for technical purposes only.-
<font color="darkred">
Certainly trustworthy. --

'''Support'''. I think there should be some kind of accelerated process for those with high permissions on other Wikimedia projects since the normal ways we use of assessing worth on the English Wikipedia (particularly edit count) give a misleading impression.
'''Support''' Good guy, won't abuse rights, why worry?  He might possibly do something useful, which is enough for me.
'''Support'''. No reason not to.
'''Support'''. Questions anwered. Also, I believe that sysop status should carry over somewhat, but not entirely. He does have to make sure he is familar with en. policy. Still, sysops are not much different elsewhere. He will quickly learn anything he still needs to here. Note that I would normally oppose for low sysop activity, but he is also a bureaucrat, so there is not much too lose. '''
'''Support'''. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] summed it up well.
'''Support''' per above.  Just because a user won't use it much doesn't mean it isn't worth giving it to them.
'''Support'''. A ''different'' case indeed, and I was inclined to agree with silsor below (can install MediaWiki), but not everyone ''can'' install MediaWiki and it is relatively a hassle. Ultimately, Walter can be trusted as a Wikipedia user, adminship is generally meant to be ''no big deal'', and local policy has breached by admins before- I get the impression this is much less likely with someone like Walter, who is bound to be careful.
&mdash;
'''Support''', convincing explanation, was previously not convinced of the need earlier. --
'''Support'''. Give the guy a promotion.  Just because He wants to ''experiment'' with the new tools doesn't mean He'll abuse 'em. --
'''Support''' Smart, trustworthy user who is not likely to abuse administrator tools.
'''Support''' Trustworthy user, no big deal.  [[Image:Yemen flag large.png|24px]]
'''Support'''. Assuming good faith here, though I still don't quite get it. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''. A valid, if unusual, reason for wanting access to the admin toolbox. Seems unlikely to abuse it. -
'''Support'''
'''Strong support'''
'''Support''' &mdash; '''<font color="#11278F">
'''support'''
'''Strong support''' Walter has proven to be very trustworthy. In all his years on Wikipedia-nl I have never seen him perform any action that was disputed. He never misused his moderatorpossibilities and he is very active in informing the dutch community in international wiki-affairs.
'''Oppose''', you'll need to do more on en-Wikipedia and demonstrate that you are familiar with its procedures before getting access. Also, if you don't anticipate doing sysop duties, you probably don't need access to the sysop tools. --[[User:Deathphoenix|D]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''e''']]
'''Oppose''' as well. As Deathphoenix said above, f you're not going to be doing real sysop stuff on en-wiki, then by your own admission it's not necessary for you to have access to sysop tools.
'''strong Oppose''' per the above comments. I ''strongly'' suggest the candidate withdraw his nomination.
'''Oppose''' per above. User does not seem to be active here.
'''Oppose''' per above. Lack of activity.
'''Oppose''' I'm concerned about wanting the tools for '''"experiment''(ing)'' whit the cool new functions"'''.  Combined with low ammounts of project interaction (User Talk, Policies/Proceedures).
'''Oppose''' - ''I'm nominating myself, because '''I would like to have access to the sysop functions of this Wiki.''''' -
'''Oppose'''. I'm profoundly uncomfortable with the tone of the nomination, the answers to the questions and the experience here on en:. The nom and answers seem to reveal some considerable misunderstanding of that nebulous concept of "how we do things" &mdash; and a fairly natural grasp of it is important for an admin. He's a trusted user elsewhere, but seems to need some more mileage here before being adminned. Sysop buttons are not cool new toys for the playing with; please don't put that kind of thing in your next nomination. -
'''Oppose''' However compelling the reason to test the new stuff out here on en beforehand, I still do not think that warrants admin ship, and believe it is the wrong way to go 'bout it.
'''Oppose'''. If Walter wanted to be an admin for reasons other than testing, it would be a different matter (and I probably would not vote either way). To be an admin purely to play around with the MediaWiki software is a poor reason to apply to be an admin. You can install MediaWiki on your laptop/desktop if you really want to play around with it. It's not that hard to install (and installing multiple mediawiki on one system is pretty easy too). --
'''Oppose''' per the above.
'''Oppose''' Given the concerns raised by others, I feel this nomination should not succeed.  If Walter reapplies later with more thorough answers to the questions, and with a real sense of wanting to be an admin at En for reasons other than experimental whimsy, I will glady support.
'''Oppose''' very mildly. I just can't get over the grammatical issues. I think that administrators should be chosen above all for the quality of their entries, and your self-nom frightens me.
'''Oppose''' It's pretty much been said above. Grammar, self-nom(a negative mark in my book), him saying that he hasn't really contributed anything on English Wikipedia, etc. He might be great on .NL, this is .en -- the big show, baby. You'll have to do better than "I want to tool around with sysop powers" to convince me that you're ready for the job.
'''Oppose, with complete respect'''.  I looked at this RFA and did not recognize the candidate's name.  The reason for this is now quite clear. Despite his strong presence on the Dutch Wikipedia, Walter seems to be only a casual contributor to the English one. Walter edits in short spurts, then disappears, sometimes for weeks, with a net average of one edit per three days. &mdash; <b><i>
'''Reluctantly oppose.''' Sorry Walter. I support your very hard work on Dutch Wiki, and would be very pleased to support you in future, but I'd like to see more involvement on en first. --
To test the new features and describe them to your readers, [http://wikipedia.sf.net download MediaWiki] and set up a test server.
'''''<font face="Trebuchet MS">
'''Stuck in Neutral'''.  I have every reason to believe Walter won't intentionally abuse sysop functions, so I won't oppose.  But at the same time, wanting to "experiment with the cool new functions" is probably about the lamest serious reason for requesting access that I have ever seen, so I am not going support either.
I almost voted support since I think that sysop functions should be available to those who can be trusted and would find them useful; some of the the oppose votes seemed a bit mean, but could you please convince me why you couldn't just install a Fedora core release on a computer and then download the latest wikimedia to that?  It's definitely the best way to to experiment effectively.  I have done this for referencing experiments myself.  Once you have Linux installed it takes about ten minutes and is incredibly easy.
'''Support''' questions are little different then I expected (its not about who wins, BTW).. and you should accept up there... anyway sure why not :) <small>

'''Support'''.

'''Support''', lots of Wikipedia namespace edits ([http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Water+Bottle&dbname=enwiki edit counts]), so probably familiar with policy and procedures. Seems like a good editor. -
'''Support'''

Based only on the questions below: It takes two to edit war. Anyone who needs to use [[WP:3RR]] instead of [[WP:HEC]] or [[WP:1RR]] is not suited for adminship by my criteria (see comments for motivation) . If you can provide a later situation which you resolved more amicably, I'm willing to change my vote. In other news, the edit criteria by the neutrals below are really too high.  They might want to reconsider their position. (1500 edits and 3 months is already insanely difficult to achieve: you need to be a top 1000 editor to do that).
'''Oppose'''. Insufficient evidence of admin qualities at this point in time. With a further three months or so of editing and contributing to Wikipedia, my vote would probably switch to support.
'''Change to Oppose'''. There are 26 headings at his talk page and 0 archives. I don't vote people based on headings or anything, but he's been around since November and thats all teh interaction there's been? I think the #1 quality an admin must possess is the ability to interact well with other users. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
'''Oppose''' 65 edits to the user talk namespace doesn't give enough one-on-one user interaction to judge from. Will support in a month or two. &ndash;
--
'''Neutral''' &mdash;1800 edits in 10 months is a bit short. Only 37 edits in usertalk namespace;we need an administrator who interacts more. Doesnt seem to contribute to Recent changes etc.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Not enough edits. &mdash; <small>
'''Neutral''' not enough interaction as said by [[User:Journalist|<span style="color:darkblue">Journalist]].
<s>'''Neutral'''. Who are you?? [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]
<s>'''Oppose''' A low edit count to all of the talk namespaces makes it hard to judge how this user interacts with others, which is an essential element of being an admin.</s>
I assume good faith!  --
I appreciate his answer on the edit summary question. '''Support'''.
Support.

Two things lead me to support:  Firstly, Raul's endorsement.  Secondly, his defence and championing of proper English spelling and grammar.  And by that I mean British English.
'''Strongly oppose'''. 1) Arbitrarily changes grammar and spelling (systemically and ''en masse'') from [[American English]] to [[British English]]. 2) Almost never leaves an edit summary. 3) Doesn't have a userpage that tells anything about him or his wiki-beliefs. 4) Has never shown an interest in the project namespace or administrative chores. 5) Copyediting is not an "admin chore"; Wereon listed it as a "sysop duty" below.
'''Oppose'''. I'm not happy about planned blocking of IPs.
'''Oppose'''. The comment about IP adresses below concerns me, as does his talismanic wielding of the Manual of Style (which is not policy). I do not believe he has shown enough community interaction, janitoring skills, or understanding of policy for me to support.
Activities such as copyediting would not be aided by admin powers. I'm also concerned about the proposed blocking of public IPs.
'''Strongly oppose''' due to proposed IP blocking.
'''Oppose'''. *shudder*
'''Oppose'''. I'm not keen on the Manual of Style rigidity (it's not policy, and even those who edit it don't agree with much of its content), the proposed blocking of IP addresses used by libraries (some people may have no other way of editing), or that many or most of his edits are minor.
'''Oppose'''. Banning people in ''libraries'' from editing an ''encyclopedia''? --
'''Oppose'''; interesting attitudinal link between IP and MOS comments. We need more flexibility, not less.
Oppose for various reasons also given above.
'''Oppose'''.  Nothing personal, but I think this user needs to learn to be more of a team player before being handed the keys.
'''Oppose''', due to the issue of banning libraries from editing.  You could use the same argument to just completely block AOL from editing. --
'''Oppose'''
Umm, don't ban public IPs as a "pre-emptive strike," don't consider copyediting "admin powers," and basically don't do anything you said you'd do in the section below, and I might vote for you next time.  '''Oppoze'''. --
'''Oppose'''.  Directly from the ''Manual of Style'': "Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules".  Also, consider responding to the criticisms without attacking.  I certainly wouldn't want that treatment from an admin.  -
'''Oppose''', seems apt to get into editing fights over minor issues.
An example of the worst possible candidate, in my opinion.  <span style="font-family:Garamond,Times,serif">
'''Oppose'''.  As someone who has done everyone of his 5000+ edits at public library terminals, I'm bothered by his notion that libraries should be blocked.
Also love his userpage motto --
Cool.
Excelent user.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.-
'''Support'''. A keen and communicative user who'd make good use of admin tools. --
He annoys me sometimes, which is why I am opposing is request for adminship. Therefore, I '''support.'''
I normally wait for the candidate to accept, but I'll make an exception here. Come on, Weyes, accept and help maintain the excellent [[WP:AIV]] you made ;-).
'''Support'''. Deserving, hard-working Wikicitizen!
'''Support'''. Sure; welcome to the cabal. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Support'''. RC Patrol could always use new people. --
'''Support''' - The more RC Patrol, the better. --
I had asked him if he wanted to be nominated about 20 days or so ago.  He's very good at fighting vandalism.
'''Support'''.  --
'''Support''' A worthwhile nominee to be the first one on whom I've voted in four months.
'''Support'''.-
I still strongly oppose this nomination, which of course means, I '''support!'''
'''Support''', RC patroller ''par excellence''.
'''Support'''. The problem with IP address etc is that spamers persistently add their links here. While this was has been solved effectively for articles like Game or Real Estate, those people selling IP tools ignore any warnings or recommendations put there. I once wrote HTML comment into Externals links section asking people to describe new links and avoid redundancies and it didn't work for long. So until the reasonable set of links gets agreed and enforced periodical cleanups are useful.
'''Support''' -- the same way I voted for on the previous nomination that Weyes turned down.
I wish I had had the honour of nominating him.  It would be really cool to give a user both their welcome message and their adminship nomiation.  Oh well.  It's great to see that you've come this far, Weyes!
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. You're not escaping the mop this time.
'''Support''' quick, before he escapes again!
'''Support'''.
'''Support''',
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  --
Warmly support Weyes, especially for his RC work and his quest to make Wikipedia's external links less random.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''-
'''Support''' I think Weyes will be a fine admin.
'''Support''' I read the opposition below, but I think I'm going to side with Weyes on it.  It seems a little gruff, but that's what some users (newbies included) seem to understand best.  He's usually pretty good at researching the situation before he jumps to a conclusion.  I think the man needs a mop.  --
'''Support'''. I can understand if a vandal hunter becomes a bit shortheaded sometimes, as the people who oppose state as reason. I assume that Weyes will learn from any mistakes he makes in that area.
'''Support''', having read this discussion I find the supportive arguments more compelling than the opposing arguments.
'''Support'''. What Thue said.
'''Support'''. Great RC patroller. --
'''Strong Support''' I wasn't entirely sure about supporting someone who declined adminship so recently, but all the right qualifications seem to be there, and a look through some recent edits showed impressive results.  Strong support.
'''Support'''. Edit history suggests to me he will use his admin powers responsibly.
Gets my '''support''' vote.
'''Support'''. After careful consideration, I see Weyes would get a lot of benefit from the admin tools, and would use them for the good of Wikipedia. --
'''Support''': Please see below (in the "Neutral" section). [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] [[Image:Bass clef2.gif|25px|Cello today?]] <small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|Give me a <font color = brown> note! ]]</font color> [[File:Eighth note (crop).gif|15px|d.c. al fine?]]
El C made me vote yes (see below), although I have no idea what he means by "Please reconsider your votes, and very strongly oppose his nomination. By which I mean, '''support it!'''" :p
'''Support'''. We need more wikijanitors, especially ones that will brave external pruning. Although I'd like to see some more tempered words to newbies and probable vandals alike, almost all of us are guilty of poorly choosing our words and failing to assume good faith from time to time.
'''Support''', dedicated RC patroller, any doubts I may have had have been allayed by El_C's comments below. --
'''Support'''
'''Support'''--
'''Support''' More wielders of the mop is fine by me. --
'''Support'''.
'''Weak support'''. Weyes' curtness towards new editors is indeed an issue, and I hope that this will improve (it might be an idea to refer explicitly to the edit which is causing problems, though I appreciate that this takes time), but it is not enough of a problem for me not to trust Weyes with admin privileges. His behaviour towards external links is not an issue for me. PS: My first vote on RfA, prompted by Cecropia's plea. [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 14:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) <br> I have to add that I am not very happy with his comment on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quantum sort2]] though, iterating that the result of the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quantum sort|previous vote]] was ''delete''.
'''Support'''.  Looking through his edits, he shows an indefatigable willingness to clean up vandalism and other abuses (such as link spamming).
'''Support'''.
'''Support''' --
'''Support'''. The opposing arguments ring disturbingly hollow on all counts in my view.
'''Support''' with reservations - some of the arguments below concern me (Squeakbox's, for example), but they are balanced by a lot of good work too.
'''Support'''.  Active in reverting vandalism.
'''Support''' thoroughly, wondering how I missed this one earlier. &mdash;
Support. Will be good. May I say also that anyone who get out the sockpuppets on the 'oppose' vote must have something going for them -
'''Oppose'''. Confuses guidelines with policies, mass blanked external links at [[BitTorrent]], [[IP address]] and [[Whois]], the latter 2 because I had pointed them out as 2 of the many sites containing such external links; only stopped edit warring his blanking after an admin told him to stop. This action left the sites temporarily wide open to spammers by removing the competition, but he wasn't watching the sites to remove the spamming that his actions had allowed. This all occurred very recently and shows he is not ready to be an admin,
'''Oppose'''. Behaviour with Ozdusters was totally out of order. Chasing off newbies who are creating content should be deprecated, not rewarded, even if that content is borderline. I don't think that people should be made admins ''just because'' they are willing to do RC patrol. There seems to be a feeling current that it's okay to be badly behaved so long as you're doing that, whereas, in truth, this is the area where the best behaviour should be employed, because it's so often the interface with newbies.
'''Oppose''' Well, because this just occurred a few hours ago, I'd like to suggest that the interaction recorded [[User_talk:Ozdusters|here]] may not exhibit the kindness and assumption of new user good faith that we usually expect from administrators. <s>On the other hand, I assume this was mostly a miscommunication, so I won't oppose just now.</s> [[User:Cdc|<small>CDC</small>]] [[User talk:Cdc|<small>(talk)</small>]] 19:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (See also the discussion [[WP:AN/I#Ozdusters|here]]. - [[User:Cdc|<small>CDC</small>]] [[User talk:Cdc|<small>(talk)</small>]] 19:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))  Moving from neutral to oppose; I'm now persuaded that Weyes would be too sharp with good-faith new users; several comments on [[WP:AN/I]] from others hasn't elicited any indication that Weyes recognizes s/he might have been off the mark.
I saw him reiterating the line about how we put up with too much nonsense, which sounds to me like a scary thing for an admin to say.
'''Oppose''' I commend his vigilance, however I have seen this user undo several perfectly good edits with no explanation.  Also has a tendency towards antagonisation of members he disagrees with. -
--
'''Oppose'''. What Grace Note said. &ndash;
'''Oppose''' Oppose because of strict opposition to external links. --
'''Oppose'''.  I've seen this editor appear on my vandal monitor far too many times to support his candidacy for adminship.  People who are frequently reverted by administrators are not likely to be administrator material.
'''Strong Oppose'''.  Far too new, far too abrasive.   Virtually no positive article space contributions, seems only interested in deleting and reverting.  Anyone doing RC patrol is appreciated, but any Admins doing RC patrol need to be much more diplomatic, even when dealing with vandals.  Treat people like dogs, they act like dogs.  It's a self-amplifying circuit I'd rather see in the hands of someone who wants to lower the hostility levels rather than raise them.  Would also like to see much better use of edit summaries. --
'''Oppose''' on several grounds: Abrasive style, frequently uninformative edit summaries, and deletion of useful links. All these build a picture of questionable judgement.  I have no doubt that Weyes is an asset to the project and is well-intentioned.  I would expect to support a nomination after a few months of courteous interaction, consistent edit summaries, and more cautious link removal. Consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lexmark&diff=next&oldid=15471073 this edit] in which Weyes removes a link to Lexmark's company profile at ''Computer Business Review'' with the summary "rv spam". It is one of dozens of similar deletions made yesterday. I understand that CBR sells more detailed reports than those it publishes on its web-site (and is, therefore, a commercial site) but this is no different to linking to ''Stuff'', the ''Daily Telegraph'', or one of the many other publishing sites that sell subscriptions. Inappropriate deletions like this have been flagged to Weyes repeatedly. To be persisting with them after such warnings and while such behaviour is being discussed at RFA is not the behaviour that I seek of an admin.&mdash;
'''Oppose''' seems a bit too abrasive.
'''Oppose'''.  I agree with Theo.  --
'''Oppose''' for now, may support in the future. Before next nomination, I'd like to see more descriptive edit summaries, a user page with something meaningful, and a bit more diplomacy toward newbies.
'''Oppose''' - Better to wait a while, especially because we don't have any [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|reliable way to revoke adminship]] in case promoting was a mistake. --
'''Oppose'''. Too abrasive. --
'''Oppose'''. I agree that he seems a little too abrasive. --
Moving to '''Neutral'''. '''''Oppose'''. Looks like a lot of great work, but simply way too abrasive with newbies. Assume good faith and be civil. Take the information given on this vote into account, and I'm sure you'll be a shoe in admin next time. If you do get promoted, doubly take it into account. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 15:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)''. I'm moving to neutral to balance out a few very questionable oppose votes and Weyes has made a lot of good contributions. I still feel the behavior relating to Ozdusters was out of line.  Even given it was a known problem user, civility is still important. Keeping it civil, even when dealing with vandals keeps your hands clean. So like I said, please keep that in mind in the future. -
'''Support'''; deserves the rollback button for his work on RC patrol alone. Good contributor.
'''Support'''. A good RC patroller who would benefit from the admin tools.
'''Support'''.  His contributions and grunt work far outweigh the (largely removed from context) two points being brought against him. <s>'''Tentatively neutral'''.  Was there ever plain comment from ''Weyes himself'' on that "[[User talk:Ozdusters|Ozdusters]]" newbie incident?  I don't like all the rhetoric from the last round's opposition, but would like to know his take.</s>
Support (and as this is likely to get long, I've added headers. I wanted to add support last time, but the file was just too damn long to edit).

Hope he makes it this time. Weyes deserves our support. This vote is also not a battleground for policy discussions.
Support. No undeniable evidence says that I should oppose Weyes' nomination, and I have only had good experience with him in the past. He has done very good work in the WP namespace, and should be given a mop and bucket to carry out this behind-the-scenes work.
'''Support'''.  Seems to do good work. --
'''Support'''. Yes, there are two or ten examples of Weyes having behaved more grumpy than prefered among his thousand dealings with newbies, but it's human and I think he knows when he hasn't been at his best and has learned from them. Anyway, they are very few cases that don't ruin my picture of Weyes as a hardworking, civil and well meaning wikiholic who would clearly benefit from having a mop.
'''Support''' once more.
'''Support'''. Same as last time.
'''Support'''.  He shows an indefatigable willingness to clean up vandalism and other abuses (such as link spamming).  I note some of the worries expressed by [[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] below, and I hope that Weyes will pay heed &mdash; but on the whole I think that he'll make a good admin.
'''Support'''. Good RC patrol effort, and mistakes made were easily fixable newbie mistakes. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Strong Support''' just like last time.
'''Support''', as before: Notwithstanding valid issues brought up at the previous vote, I have enough trust in Weyes for him to be given admin privileges.
<u>Third</u> time now that I've voted both for and against this candidate (shush, JRM!). That actually means I voted SIX times! Which is pretty sweet, if you ask me, which I hope for. (still on break, btw, just wanted to see how his RFA was doing, and to my surprise... SIX times!).
'''Support''' -- extra support for fighting link spam --
Still '''Support''', as per the last RFA.
'''Support''' again.
Same as before.  I should note that at the end of the 7 days last time he had right at 80% support if you disregard the sockpuppet votes, so I think he should have been promoted then.
&mdash;
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. As before.
'''Support''' Again.
'''Support''' -

'''Support''' As per previous vote.
'''Support''', as per previous vote, and note this revoting thing looks too much like [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time|a certain VfD]]. --
'''Support''', per previous vote. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Support''', excellent RC patroller.
'''Support'''. I trust him.
'''Support'''--
Seems friendly
'''Support'''
'''Support'''. No need to convince me this time El. --
'''Support''', still convinced he would make a fine admin. --
'''Support''', I have seen his committment to reversing vandalism in action.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support''' --
'''Strong support'''. Wikipedia needs such active users as admins to keep the whole ship from sinking down.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.
Simply put: '''I trust him'''. RC patrol is a hard slog and Weyes has professed his commitment to it. This should be encouraged. --
'''Support'''...once again. --
'''Support'''. I trust him.
'''Support'''. Knows how to deal with vandals, friendly to normal users.
'''Support'''.  Good chap.  I can't make any sense of the opposing statements. --
--
'''Oppose'''  As per previous vote.  --
'''Oppose''' as per reasons set out in my previous vote. --
'''Oppose''' because I still do not trust this candidate's judgement despite the support now and earlier by people whose opinions I respect. I note that Weyes' edit summaries have become more explanatory and I appreciate that.  I also admire the good humour which he has displayed throughout this battering process. I remain concerned, however, about Weyes' tendency to remove external links wholesale and the apparent lack of doubt or reconsideration when the invalidity of a link is questioned.  Similarly potentially misleading oversimplification in debate worries me.  All this was covered in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2|previous vote]] so I will not rehash details here. I still see Weyes as a valuable industrious editor but I do not feel comfortable handing the delete button to someone with these behavioural patterns.  I would be happy to support a renomination after a few months of demonstrated discussion before wholesale reversions, informative accurate edit summaries, accurate argument, and consistent courtesy.&mdash;
'''Oppose'''. Again. --
'''Oppose''' again.  Same reasons as Theo, same reasons as previous vote.  I think Weyes needs more time to soften his edges and temper his judgements.   --
'''Oppose''' As stated earlier. --
'''Oppose''': what Theo said.
'''Oppose''' as per previous vote. I am very unhappy at this tactic of restarting the vote on a new page, especially given that the people who voted before have not been informed. If Weyes is successful on this vote I would try and get it declared null and void. Dirty tactics and a complete farce,
'''Oppose''' - Better to wait a while, especially because we don't have any [[WP:RFDA|reliable way to revoke adminship]] in case promoting was a mistake. --
'''Oppose'''.  I just found him starting off on a IP with {{tl|test3}}.  That seems a bit harsh.  Just reinforces the issue with overly harsh treatment of newbies.  (Also needs to learn to use subst:.)
'''Oppose''', per Theo's arguments.
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not so much against the idea of Weyes becoming an admin; I like the guy and think he'd be good at it.  I'm opposed to it happening this way.  [[User:Unfocused|Unfocused]] makes some good points on [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Weyes_extended]].  I think this whole thing is too much "let's just keep voting until it comes out our way."  We should let things cool off for a month or two and then revisit the issue. --
'''Oppose'''.  It's funny, because everybody says that adminship is "no big deal", but everyone acts like it is, particularly here.  The simple fact of the matter is that blocking users is a big power, and not everyone should have it, perhaps even (dare I say it) some of our current admins.  [[User:TheoClarke|Theo]] makes some good points, and I was surprised that on the original debate, sockpuppets weren't just discounted and the votes tallied, which would have resulted in Weyes application being rejected. I don't doubt that they ('''edit:'''the bureaucrats) acted in good faith, but it casts an un-needed cloud over Weyes application nomination. I would suggest letting it cool down, and coming back in a month or so.  After all, if it's no big deal anyway, what does it matter if there's a bit of a wait? --
'''Oppose''' Too abrasive.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. This is my third oppose vote ever (as far as I can remember) but I feel the need to move on procedural grounds. I don't like the diffs that [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] had pointed out.
Oppose because irregularities in the vote make me wary of promoting him.
'''Neutral'''. I'm on the fence now. I do recognize the same concerns Theo points out and the Ozdusters incident, was out of line, ''even with a known and seemingly obvious problem user''. But, I have seen impressive maturity from Weyes during this debate, which is the best example I can think of to see what an admin would do in tough situations. So I would ask Weyes to take the reason's behind the opposition (the well thought out ones at least) to heart, and doing that, you'll be fine. -
I voted support during last vote, but I'll stay '''neutral''' this time, because this re-voting thing attracts needless controversy. I'd prefer a renomination after a month or so, which would've given Weyes enough time to adress concerns of those who opposed his nomination.
I have previously supported but I want to record a neutral vote not as a criticism of Weyes but because of the ''ad hoc'' procedure adopted in this case. This needs further consideration.
'''Support''', I like the candidate's light hearted style and positive attitude. In this case the Agecountitis cancels out the Editcountitis. He clearly [[Grok]]s what we're all about. Does'nt seem to be an office seeker or Apratchnik, but is level-headed and has a sense of humor. True, striving for the holy grail of NPOV is every good, upstanding Wikipedian's duty...but so is vandal fighting. Which nearly every candidate lists as their top priority for wanting the mop, when they would do just as well on this score to simply ask for the RollbackButton instead. Besides, we live in an unusual world...if a horse can be a Senator, then why can't EmperorNorton be an admin? --
'''Support'''good enough for an admin, it's no big deal.  (I like your name by the way and would NEVER vote against someone because of it).
'''Support'''. I like the cut of your jib.
'''Support''' Good name for an admin.
'''Strong Oppose''' Given that you were just welcomed to the encyclopedia yesterday, I'm afraid there isn't much reason to trust you with adminship.  While Emperor Norton was a cuddly chap, and Caligula is an immortal hero of dark comedy, your support of these two figures isn't especially reassuring as a sign that you'll follow consensus.  Edit some, then come back.
'''Oppose''' Low edit counts and low activity. (Sorry, 60 edits in one year is just way too low...)
'''Oppose''' Very low edit count, with only 26 mainspace edits, virtually no use of User Talk, needs much more experience interacting with other users IMHO
'''Oppose''' Low edit count and low activity --
'''Oppose''' due to this whole thing reeking of a joke.  April is 5 months from now!  Seriously, I'm not a subscriber to editcountitis, but less than 75 edits sounds WAY too low to me.
'''Oppose''' per above. --
Clear '''oppose''', sorry. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]

'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Get involved, show us that you care. Once you do that you will get tons of support votes, but not before.
'''Oppose''' Activity is to low needs more edits and experience.
'''Oppose'''. Not enough experience. No comments on talk page shows little interaction with other Wikipedians.
'''Oppose'''. Inexperienced.--May the Force be with you!
'''Oppose'''. Far too few edits.
'''Oppose''' for now. Get some more experience.
'''Oppose''' I'm not usually an editcountitis person, but [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki&user=WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo 63] edits is too little, and 16 in combined talk namespaces indicates little interaction with other Wikipedians. --
'''Neutral'''.  Currently, you have 61 edits total for the year you've been registered.  6 Edits have been dedicated to this adminship, 9 have been to your userpage, 15 have been to talk pages.  This means that you have a total of 31 edits on the main wikipedia namespace.  About seven of those are fighting vandalism (as far as I can tell from your edit summaries).  The content of your edits is mostly good (from what I looked at), but it doesn't show enough participation and this isn't going to fair well with other users.  I suggest you instead continue to edit frequently, fight vandals, and get more involved then request adminship again in a few months when you've gotten your edits into the quadruple digits. --
I'll be the first :)
'''Strong support''' - Second! :) <font color="#3D9140">
'''Support''' I was sure he was an admin.
'''Support''' I thought he was one already. (And no, I am not part of some kind of RfA nominating scheme!) --

'''Support'''. Does a lot of good work, especially in CfD and TfD, and having the ability to finish it off makes natural sense. With an apparently natural like of grunt-work, the final link in the chain makes all good sense. -
Who's an admin? What's a bureaucrat? And I don't know about developers...
'''Support'''. [[User:Who|Who]] will make a great admin and always greets new users warmly. He has also done a great job here on Wikipedia. &mdash;
'''Support''' There is not enough reason to belive that this user would not make a good admin.  While I am mildly concerned about behavior regarding [[Template:Reqimage]], this is not sufficent to lose my support.
'''Strong support'''.  Helps out tremendously on Cfd.  Not concerned enough about the Template:Reqimage situation brought up below to not support: You can't not engage in conflict when dealing with certain people.  --
'''Weak support'''. I still have concerns over the [[Template:Reqimage]] fiasco, but other than that, [[User:Who|Who]] does a bunch of scut-work that I doubt anyone else wants to do (mass recats, for instance) and contributes usefully in the article namespace.
'''Support'''. Exactly the kind of person Wikipedia needs most to keep at least some quality.
'''Support'''.  He would make an excellent admin.

'''Support'''. I have seen him do some excellent work around the Wiki and think he would benefit from admin priveleges.
&mdash;
Most certainly.  Have seen much good work.
''Support''--
'''Support'''.  Who is a great editor and will make an even better admin. -
Too easily engages in conflict, particularly on [[Template:Reqimage]], where he created an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Reqimage&diff=15184608&oldid=14883456 awful "box" format] version of it and has been holding up people from improving it.  [[Wikipedia:Ownership|Ownership]] is not a good admin quality, neither are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=19006499&oldid=19002526 3RR violations]. --
Evidently, [[User:Who|Who]] feels empowered to [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Who|invent exceptions to the three-revert rule]] and apply them to himself.  He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Reqimage&action=history reverted] the template cited above four times in less than seven hours, but claims that he [[User:Lifeisunfair#Template:Reqimage|"was not in violation,"]] for a variety of nonsensical reasons.  I don't mean to discount [[User:Who|Who]]'s contributions (which hopefully will continue, irrespective of this discussion's outcome), but someone who attempts to unilaterally override official policy isn't cut out to be an admin.  Also, I'm rather troubled by his belief that revert warring is an appropriate way to "avoid a RV war" and his sense of entitlement to three reverts per page, per day.  ("The actual ''edit'' war was the last 3 edits&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;")  &mdash;
'''Oppose'''. --
'''Oppose''' - Admins shouldn't do things that would get them blocked in any other circumstance.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''' Behavior on [[Template:Reqimage]] does not augur well for this user having the keys to the janitorial closet. [[User:Bkonrad|Bkonrad]] 21:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC) -- addendum, I haven't had a lot of interaction with Who, and, apart from some possible indiscretion dealing with reqimage, Who seems to be a solid contributor. I well know that interacting with certain other users can be extremely aggravating and may sometimes result in less than optimal actions.  If this is vote is not successful, and if Who continues to show improved judgement, I could easily support for adminship the next time around.
'''Oppose'''.  I wanted to support him, as he has for the most part been a good editor, but just the facts that, for one thing, the Template:Reqimage situation landed him a 3RR violation, and for another, he's taken his conflict with [[User:Lifeisunfair]] and shifted it over to his RfA, where they appear to be continuing to fight, make me somewhat suspicious to support his adminship candidacy. --
'''Oppose''' Although I find the user to be polite and approachable, <strike> I'm rather concerned at how he was bold with a particular contentious subject (the directors TFD) without asking for a consensus first. Although being bold is usually encouraged, it was, in this instance, poor judgement that could bias the decision of the closing admin on the TFD.</strike> More experience and I'm sure he would be OK. Too soon.
--
'''Neutral.''' Only three months contributing.  In my opinion, this user is not experienced enough to be an admin.  If he waits another six months, I could support him.
'''Neutral''' at present. Although though personal experience with Who I find him to be extremely polite and helpful, the issues surrounding 3RR and certain actions prevent me from voting support at this stage. Also, I wouldn't usually support Adminship for an editor who has been a member for so short a period (although, as pointed out above, his edit count does somewhat mitigate this position). I may well vote support after further consideration.--
DOWN WITH EDITCOUNTITIS!!! -
'''Support''' - I don't see why not. Adminship should not be solely based on edit counts, which happen to be a very poor indicator of activity. Adminship is simply removing some security restrictions because we know the guy is not an idiot. --
'''Oppose'''. As I write, only 665 edits, and only 130 or so of those to Wikipedia: space, with very few indeed to the various Talk: spaces. Not enough 'stuff' to judge interaction on, which is important for admins. Article work appears ok, but at least several of those on the user page are single-sentence stubs. Some of the others have never been edited by this username, so presumably as an anon. Not really able to consider the edits as anon, unfortunately, since no means of attributing them. Also doesn't use edit summaries nearly enough, and the answer to Question 3 ''"small-time users or IPs who like to futz around"'', leaves me feeling very unsure. Do you mean vandals, or just editors whose edits you think are "incorrect"? In any case, come back in a well-distributed thousand edit summaries' time or two, and I'll consider afresh. -
'''Oppose'''.  Good editor, but too few edits.  <font color="red">
A bit <s>new</s> short on edits; was told to wait by some but decided to self-nom anyway. Voted to keep [[Coq Roq]] and then nominated [[The Subservient Chicken]] for deletion citing Coq Roq: [[WP:POINT]], confusion, or just pandering? Either way, '''oppose''' for now. Try again soon.
'''Oppose''' you cannot become an administrator until you have made 1,000 edits.
'''Oppose''' &mdash;700 edits in 19 months is just too few. Also, needs to use edit summaries more often. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not comfortable with the editor's grasp of Wikipedia policy based on the relatively low number of edits in the WP namespace (most of which are VfD edits).  Also, the lack of edit summaries is discouraging.  --
'''Oppose'''. Needs more experience. More edit summaries would also be helpful.
'''Oppose''' now. Needs more experience.
'''Oppose''', hyperbolic confrontational style demonstrated below is not productive, seemingly belies his statement that he is "not one to burst out at other users."
<b>ABSOLUTELY NOT</b>.  Not only is this nomination in the wrong section, but he has harassed me on Wikipedia and on IRC about things I didn't even do.  He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CryptoDerk&diff=14425638&oldid=14425633 blanked my talk page], then told me he'd only stop if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACryptoDerk&diff=14454527&oldid=14425668 I talked to him on IRC].  (The topic he is discussing is related to when he was repeatedly quieted, kicked, and banned, by at least 3 different ops in IRC.  The specific incident he is referring to I had nothing to do with.)
<s>Support</s>'''Oppose'''. WikiFan, I'm sorry to do this to you but those links that CryptoDerk posted are rather damning. I think you need to have some more time editing and learning how to deal with stress a little better before you run for admin again. You're a good editor, but you apparently need to work on getting along with others more. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] | [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|Talk]] |
'''Oppose''' per CryptoDerk's comments. More experience is needed.
'''Neutral''' - meets most of my [[User:Robchurch/Admin|criteria]], but I haven't interacted with him a lot, save for today. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]'' | ''
'''Neutral''' - The user is obviously a productive Wikipeidian, but more experince might serve him. I think he would be found useful though if given Adminship. --
'''Neutral'''. WikiFan04 is on the right path, but could benefit from more experience in terms of interacting with the community.  This is not something easily quantified in terms of time or raw edit counts. --
'''Neutral''', needs more community interaction and edit summaries.
'''Support'''. By AGF, I should assume that this user's claim as having an old abandoned account as true.
Sorry, you really need '''''a lot''''' more edits and you haven't really been here long enough. [[User:FireFox|<font color=black>Fir]][[WP:ESP|<font color=green>e]]
Yes, you need about an order of magnitude more experience. --
'''Oppose''' per [[User:FireFox|FireFox]] and [[User:Rick Block|Rick Block]]. Maybe in about four months' time. --
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''. Its very good that you want to become an admin to help Wikipedia, but Im afraid that you dont have enough experience. Please continue to be a dedicated and contientious editor, and come back when you have amassed over 1000 valuable edits, and have shown yourself capable of handling admin tools. Good luck.
'''[[Opera|Oppose]]''' because of reasons given above.
'''Strong Oppose''' and '''Delist''' too few edits --
'''Oppose'''.  User is on a good road to being a strong contributor.  --
'''Oppose''' Sorry Wikiwoo, but you have fewer edits than me, & I don't have a lot. You are a great editor however, but you need more edits. Re request after you have at least 2000 edits, (Which is the norm for admins).
'''Extreme les...''' sorry. '''Oppose''', too little experience, as the low edit count and previous malformed nomination show.
'''Neutral''': The first seven votes on this RfA under oppose are '''all''' about editcountitis. This nominee has been on Wikipedia before, and took a long break. His contributions since his return, while light, have all been in good faith. He has been courteous to users, and shows no sign of losing his cool under pressure. I think he can be trusted with the tools of adminship. I have no reason to oppose him based on edit counts.  My only reasons for opposing are his activity level per day being lower than I normally find acceptable, and his edit summary usage is lower than I like to see. If someone is going to delist this RfA, I suggest coming up with better grounds than editcountitis for doing so. An RfA is useful for instructing a nominee on how they should improve to become a better nominee in the future. So far, the oppose votes are speaking just one lesson. Let this RfA stand. If Wikiwoohoo wants to delist it, he can withdraw the nomination on his own. --
As of now, I am '''neutral''' to this nomination. I have kept my options open for some future time when I shall be able to form an opinion based on his<s>/her</s> activities with the present user name, as I do not have any clue to his<s>/her</s> earlier edits. I also welcome him<s>/her</s> back to wikipedia. --
'''Neutral'''. I won't oppose of do anything like that. Your contributions show that you're a good user, but the thing is, we need to know how you've helped around here in order to consider you for adminship. Your edits appear to be in good faith, but without the rest of your contributions, I can't know how you'll behave with the mop and the flamethrower. I can't know if it is true that you did in fact have another account, but I'm believing you because I [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. That said, keep up the good work a few more months and you'll have no problem rounding up support.
'''Oppose'''. Without even checking how long he's been here, just judging by the hard time he had getting this RfA set up properly ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship&diff=28140412&oldid=28137609], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=28140412], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=next&oldid=28140597], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FWikiwoohoo&diff=28140026&oldid=25341483], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikiwoohoo&diff=next&oldid=28140026], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikiwoohoo&diff=next&oldid=28140118], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikiwoohoo&diff=next&oldid=28140390]) and linked to ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwoohoo&diff=prev&oldid=28142668], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikiwoohoo&diff=next&oldid=28142668] and still wrong!) leads me to the conclusion that he's still not ready. I did not oppose Wikiwoohoo's previous nomination, but the dismissive way in which he refers to those who did ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=prev&oldid=28141887]) is a red flag. "''Agecountis''"?!  Ten respectable Wikipedians opposed Wikiwoohoo for very valid reasons. At the very least he should treat them and their opinion with civility.
'''Oppose''', too soon after previous nomination. No evidence of having addressed or ameliorated the issues presented there.
'''Oppose''' OwenX summed it up. Self-noms are usually a warning sign.
'''Oppose''', lack of experience. First edit to an article (and fourth overall) was a month and a half ago on [[25 September]]. Has only 163 total edits to articles (fewer than 500 overall), almost entirely focused on a very narrow range of subjects. Many of these may not be marked as minor, but still are not terribly substantial. No particular edit-counting or account age standard is required to tell that this user isn't nearly ready. --
'''Oppose''', needs more time and experience.
'''Oppose.''' Not ready yet. I also note that people declaring "agecountitis" fail to mention that editing time standards have actually been ''dropping''. While it was once rare (not too long ago) to see a user promoted to admin after only three months of editing, that happens quite often now.
'''Oppose''' more time needed.
At least one more month of work should be sufficient.  --
'''Weak Oppose''', needs more time and experience. But let's not pile it on, okay?--
Too soon after old nom and I needed to create this nomination for him so lack of RFA experience --
Almost a support, I know this user a little but I am certaint that if I knew them better it would be a support --<span style="border: 2px solid #0000CC;">
You're doing fine. I look forward to supporting you in another month or two. -
Perhaps give it a bit more time and wait for someone else to nom next time? --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color=green>[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>
Without a doubt.
'''Support'''. He wasn't perfect in the dispute but everything I read that he wrote showed that he was editing in the best of faith and putting up with a lot of abuse for it. -
'''Support'''.  I agree with Taxman &mdash; but no-one's perfect in a dispute (I'm certainly not). --
'''Support'''. I trust Ed Poor will also cast a positive vote, despite his differences. After all, "it's no big deal". --
'''Support'''.  He has made a strong contribution to ''Wikipedia''.  He is even-handed and aware of his own POV, invaluable qualities in an admin.
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''-
Absolutely &mdash;
'''Support'''; I've admired his work for a while now and I think he'd be an excellent admin.
'''Support'''. His contributions speak for themselves and while he can get heated when dealing with the POV pushers on climate change articles, that demonstrates his humanity and I for one think 'there but for the grace of god go I'.
'''Support'''. His "faults" seem only normal to me, and I think he edits in good faith and would not do anything but good with administrator abilities. --
'''Support.'''
'''Support'''.  Read userpage, RfA, RfC. A user who has had problems in controversial subjects he actually knows about and tends to draw...um...[[kooks|alternative viewpoints]].  Seems logical, and recognizes adminship requires him to be restrained in these areas.
I shall '''support.'''
'''Support!''' William is a scientist and a strong defender of a group of controversial science topics that have been ''under attack'' by POV pushing skeptics and pseudoscience ''believers''. Wikipedia needs more ''expert'' editors and administrators who understand science. Given that, he also understands that admin. ''powers'' are not to be used to ''win'' arguements and disputes as he noted below. -
'''Support.'''
'''support''', with my thanks for putting up with WP, great and tedious as it is.
'''Support'''. Seems like a fine user. Also, I cannot see how the [[William Connolley]] article can be described as a vanity page.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' - I am utterly amazed that defending the consensus on climate change is grounds for opposing him.
'''Support''' --
'''Support.''' Avoiding conflict when dealing with a topic like global warming over a long period of time is almost impossible, so that there have been some conflicts should not in itself be a criterion of exclusion. Conflict avoidance is a valid strategy, but if all good users avoided conflicts, then any aggressive user who wants to promote a certain ideology could easily do so. I don't believe William is likely to abuse his sysop privileges (nor that, if he did, it would actually help him), I do think he now understands and will try to follow 3RR, and I get the impression that his behavior is generally reasonable and sane, if perhaps a bit confrontational. I do believe William genuinely understands his edits to be a valid interpretation of NPOV policy, particularly the section on pseudoscience, with its remarks on proportional representation and clear attribution. I don't think a disagreement among reasonable people over what is and isn't NPOV can or should be grounds for denying adminship. I will apply the same standard to people from the opposite point of view, of course. I will reconsider my vote if someone shows me recent abusive comments or edits which are otherwise in clear violation of policy.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
Moved from neutral to '''support'''.
'''Support'''. Wikipedia is a learning process for all of us and it'll likely be helpful to have one more admin who can recognize a pseudo-science on sight (even if a couple of months ago I did walk away from a conversation with a UN specialist on global warming that left me rather ''less'' convinced they've shown a correlation... although CO2 emissions should be cut anyway IMO).
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. &mdash;
'''Support'''.
To paraphrase previous voters: NPOV does not mean ''all'' POVs should necessarily be given equal time, and William has done a good job of keeping our climate articles grounded in reason. Furthermore, I have absolutely no cause to believe he would abuse his admin powers. --
Cool. [[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 9 July 2005 10:19 (UTC). To elaborate further, I agree with Eloquence.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Looking at the evidence here and in the RFC and RFAr, he does sometimes get overheated, but not unacceptably so as far as I have seen. I also did not find him pushing his POV too much, noting that on a scientific issue, the opinion of the majority of scientists should be given prominence. I trust he'll not use his admin privileges to settle wars on climate change. --
'''Support''', although somewhat hesitantly. Whilst I support his contributions and efforts, I fear that his having sysop abilities would generate antipathy and unwarranted controversy, and perhaps even lead to his downfall - which would be most unfortunate. However, I'm willing to take a chance.--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]
'''Support'''. Simply, I trust him.
'''Support'''. A polite editor who continues to make good use of edit summaries and respects the 3RR. I don't there will be abuse, in any case. --
'''Support'''.  Carbonite's point, above, doesn't sway me because on a couple of occasions Connolley was consciously trying to avoid the 3RR.  Some of the reasons given below for opposing his candidacy &mdash; well, they either puzzle or disappoint me.  That some may consider his user-page a "vanity" page is just silly.  People put all sorts of things on their user pages, and shouldn't be limited to pictures of dogs and quotes from Hermann Hesse or Buckminster Fuller.  More importantly, Connolley did not come to Wikipedia in order to promote himself (e.g. through his user page); he has been an active contributor to articles covering topics he has knowledge of.  Isn't this the character of the ideal wikipedian?  Has he been in edit-disputes?  How many people here have not?  I actually think there is something at stake here.  We all want wikipedia to be open to all users, meaning, one need not have a PhD. in anthropology to write on an anthropological topic.  No one has ever disputed this.  But some people interpret this to mean that people who actually have demonstrable knowledge of an area should somehow be penalized for contributing to Wikipedia.  My vote is not only ''for'' Connolley, it is ''against'' those people who hate having their cherished views challenged by someone who knows more than they do.
'''Support''' even without answer to question below. Real academic expertise here needs to be encouraged. It is all to easy to wonder why we are bothering to argue with the ignorant over issues of fact (as opposed to opinion).
'''Support'''. He's trying to uphold encyclopedic standards. That's bound to lead to conflict, sadly.
'''yep''' i'm not sure why his scientific expertise is relevant to ''adminship'', though we desperately need more ''editors'' like that.  however, i do agree with slim that the conflicts on the climate change articles should not be held against him.  i support, since he seems to me a mature & trustworthy editor who will use adminship judiciously.
'''Support''' As with many expert editors WMC showed less patience that many would like, but has over time raised the quality of articles and participation. The "One Revert" agreement which he participates in is an example of the kind of creative use of wiki methods to produce better articles.
'''Support'''. Good contributor.
'''Support'''. A long history of conflict, but that's regrettably inevitable when one works in a controversial area. -
'''Support'''. It's a great plus having expert contributors, not to say that experts are necessarily always correct, but certainly it raises the level of content and discussion in the areas of contribution.  Since William M. Connolley's edits demonstrate collaboration with other editors even in contentious areas, I feel confident he'll be a good admin. --
'''Support''', it's a big advantage for an admin to have experience of editing in high-conflict areas and to have shown that he can stand the heat. I've held off voting for a few days to see if anybody's going to provide diffs showing actual examples of any the accusations made against the candidate, but it's not looking like it.
'''Support'''. I don't believe he was completely cool under fire, but then again, he was getting a hell of lot of it whilst trying to uphold standards. --
'''Support'''. As a scientist who years ago retreated from the newsgroup sci.environment under the increasingly shrill barrage of anti-intellectual junk from both flanks of the greenhouse debate, I always admired WMC for being one of a tiny handful who calmly hung in there and presented the scientific perspective.  sci.env became unreadable, and it is largely to WMC's credit that the same has not happened to the climate-related pages here.  That he has attracted conflict is no great surprise, rather it is impressive that so little of it has followed him here.
'''Support'''. He can handle it. -
'''Support'''.  Level-headed and a staunch voice for science as opposed to pseudoscientific claims.

'''Support'''
'''Support.''' Right-wing pseudo-science needs to be checked; we're not a conduit for corporate climate lobbyism.
'''Support.'''
'''Absolutely'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''.  A knowledgeable, effective contributor who'd be an asset with the tools.
'''Support''', Wikipedia needs such knowledgeable people not only as editors but to perform admin functions as well.-
'''Support'''. '''G8''' was listening, world. :-)
Changing my vote.  --
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''.  Anyone who has the experience and knowledge to spot pseudo-science absolutely needs the mop and bucket.  It only adds to Wikipedia's credibility. -
Unflinching commitment to protecting the accuracy of controversial scientific articles is exactly what we should be looking for in administrators.
'''Support''' - deserves community recognition for editing in the teeth of silly attitudes, and the worst thing I know about him is thaty he once said I played [[go (game)|go]] like a Pascal programmer.
'''Support''' - commendable work attempting to maintain NPOV on climate change and global warming articles. If we oppose nomination for bias then we should similarly remove adminship from a variety of admins.
'''Support''' - Handy guy I must say.
'''Support''' --
'''Support''' - WMC is an intelligent guy who will not, I'm sure, abuse admin powers.
'''Support''' - one of the most knowledgeable Wikipedians I know
I oppose on the basis that I do not feel that he has demonstrated extremely poor [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Wikiquette]] with regard to his [[vanity page]] at [[William Connolley]], created by [[User:Ed Poor]] in order to further their position (which I nevertheless agree wholehearted with) on [[global environment change]].
'''Oppose''' because he allows his POV to damage Wikipedia.  There will be fewer limits on his behavior, as a minimum on his shown reversion behavior.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#Temporary_injunction]  He deletes material which conflicts with his beliefs and participates in ad hominem attacks. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Statement_of_the_dispute] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Statement_of_the_dispute]  As he mentioned, he is currently slashing [[Global warming]] and removing material which contradicts his beliefs.  For example, over an hour ago he cut two paragraphs about problems computer simulations with an edit comment ''"Climate models - (potentially controversial) remove two paras, on the grounds that solar and clouds are already mentioned, and detail is not needed here - should be in GCM article."''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&curid=12399&diff=18347649&oldid=18347434] but he failed to move the paragraphs to the GCM article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=18352003&oldid=16051489]  He has used the same burn-instead-of-move method before. (
I agree with many of Ed Poor's points [Note: now in the neutral section, below]. In short, although I think WMC is an excellent editor, there's far too much conflict surrounding him. Looking over his recent contributions, there are numerous reverts, accusations of POV or "junk science", and rather snide edit summaries.
Strong oppose.  WMC is rude, condescending, shows no respect for NPOV, and has demonstrated no desire or ability to cooperate with others to build a neutral encyclopedia reflecting various perspectives.  He is one of the worst candidates I could imagine for adminship.  He is already on a revert parole (a fairly mild treatment, considering the events) for these behaviors, and you want to give him adminship?  [[User:Cortonin|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
Oppose, does not support NPOV.
Let's wait a [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles|few months]]. --
'''Oppose''' Too many issues. POV warring on Climate Change, and anti-Tesla bais over at [[Nikola Tesla]]. I'm sure WMC is a good editor otherwise, '''but why does he need admin powers?'''
'''Oppose''' edits too much in the area in which he is professionally involved - i.e. issues around original research. If most of his substantial editing was in neutrally reporting/expounding the views of people other than himself as to what matters are on subjects other than the ones in which he has a professional/ideological involvement, I would have no objection.
'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose''', unless I misunderstand his RfAr finished about 2-3 weeks ago, and resulted in parole, which period has barely begun. Given the amount of thunder and lightning surrounding the user at present, I think perhaps try again ''after'' the effects of teh RfAr have died away and there's been a period of reasonably equanimous interactions. -
'''Oppose'''.  Still under penalty from the ArbCom.  May support once the revert parole ends. --
'''Oppose'''. No way should an editor who had to be put under revert parole be given the capability to roll back edits, no matter what he promises. If he had shown the good faith then that it requires to believe him now, he never would have needed the censure in the first place. Among other reasons, as stated.
'''Oppose'''.  The right thing to do while under revert parole would have been to decline the nomination, and ask the nominator to consider it again later.  Accepting the nomination shows unwillingness to put one's own interests aside temporarily for the greater good of the project, or oversight of a greater obligation that should be obvious to admin candidates.  This is further evidenced by the fact that the RfAr case was primarily about revert warring.  Had this been an RfC, I would not feel so strongly about it, because any two editors could then filibuster any potential administrator candidate.  But since RfAr cases are much more rare, and accepted RfAr cases are even more rare, the correct path was to decline the nomination.  We cannot ''demand'' that admins hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than the general editing public, but I will certainly ''request'' them to do so.
'''Oppose''' Needs to show more balance. --
'''Oppose''' If he applies to the ArbCom to have his reverting-rigths restored I will consider (and probably do) support, but giving rollback to a guy under reverting-parole.....well....doesn't matter how great a user he is, that just doesn't sit right with me.
'''Oppose'''.  WMC certainly looks like a knowledgeable contributor in the area that he edits, but his censure by the Arbcom can't be ignored at this time.  His defense on the arbitration page was to go to his credentials, which, though they may uphold the veracity of his edits, do not excuse his violation of revert rules and disregard for wiki procedures.  --
'''Oppose''' I know nothing about this editor's history, as we never frequent the same articles, and I havn't been doing RC patrol recently, and never ran into him there. I understand however, that he is under ArbCom sanction at the moment, so I am forced to vote oppose, I cannot in good concience allow someone currently under sanction to gain adminship.--
'''Oppose''' I have no particular axe to grind with him on global warming, but I had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a reversion war with him on what would normally be a relatively dry, non-controversial topic: the [[Roche Limit]].  He violated the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule]] by readding the word "orbiting" to a figure on the Roche Limit page four times in one 24-hour period, at 21:53, 2 September 2004, 22:10, 2 September 2004, 08:46, 3 September 2004, and 16:50, 3 September 2004.  I followed the 3RR and waited, posting to discussion, before reverting a fourth time at 02:04, 5 September 2004.  A third party, [[User:Doradus|Doradus]], requested that we both stop the revert war at 02:27, 5 September 2004.  William M. Connolley then ignored this request and reverted a fifth time at 09:40, 5 September 2004.  Rather than defend his view in talk thereafter, as would be appropriate under the circumstances, he simply stopped responding on the talk page after a web reference to the original source was found and quoted on the archived discussion page at 16:56, 8 September 2004.  Both the page and the talk page were dormant after my post to the talk page from 9 September to 12 October 2004, in spite of the assurance that the dispute would be resolved in discussion- much to my frustration.  As (unlike him) I honored the cease reversion request, the page was to his liking and so he felt no need to justify his actions on the talk page.   He violated the 3RR rule, then he violated a cease reversion request, and he didn't even bother to respond on talk about the subject.  I do not think that someone who behaves in that manner is an appropriate choice for an administrator role. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by
'''Oppose'''.  I do not believe that it would be right for someone who is under probation to become a sysop.  --
'''Oppose'''.  I've never had any contact with this user, but since he's had an RfAr against him and gotten revert parole, and a lot of his edits are tied to his work, allowing him to be an admin is asking for trouble. --
'''Oppose'''. I don't like the idea of someone on probation becoming an admin. After the probation period is up, I would consider lending my support.
'''That's so not hot.'''
'''Oppose'''.  I'm not in favor of giving the rollback button to someone who is still under Arbcom censure for having engaged in edit wars and inappropriate reverts.  Once the parole is up, or Arbcom lifts the parole, I'll reconsider.
'''Oppose'''. Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too. --
--
'''Oppose''', user is on probation.

'''Oppose''' Acts too controversially to be given admin powers.
'''Oppose''', evidently has issues with Wikipedia policy, which is not a good quality for an Administrator.--
<s>Neutral until questions have been answered. Also, could someone provide a link to the RfC and RfAR? Thanks. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>|
'''Switched to neutral''', thanks to the 3RR case clarification provided to me by [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]]. I'm still leery, for a number of minor reasons, of supporting, but I won't oppose either.--
'''Neutral'''  I am not at all leery about his POV. I commend anyone who is willing to push back against pseudoscience and quackery - even if he got some 3RR doing so. If that was his only sin, I'd support without question. That he seems to be willing to edit war over such minutae as to whether dab pages should be case sensitive [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=sar&action=history] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SAR&action=history] gives me serious pause to question what he would do as an admin.
<s>Oppose</s> Neutral. (A) Dr. C. is constantly pushing the United Nations' POV on [[global warming]] while dismissing as "[[pseudoscience]]" all findings which contradict the UN - even those published in peer-reviewed journals. (B) He is perennially in conflict with other editors. (C) He has reverted innumerable changes to climate articles, on the ground that those changes were "vandalism" - simply because he didn't want to allow the [[Wikipedia:POV|POV]] which those changes accurately and fairly to described, to be in the article. Giving him the "rollback" feature, which he intends to use to do this more easily, would not help Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]] policy. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still honored by the presence of a ''bona fide'' scientist at Wikipedia, and Dr. C. is much more polite than the average contributor. And I trust him to move or correct my edit comments; I had forgotten how helpful that can be :-)
'''Neutral'''. I'm not really convinced his POV is the problem, and he's shown himself to be both qualified and courteous. ''However'', I'm concerned about several things that [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] brought up, and I'm fearful that the nominee is a little too confrontational in his approach (though not combatative!). Given my lack of personal experience with the nom, which is how I would generally resolve my own uncertainty in situations such as these, I'm sitting on the fence here. &ndash;
I like him--
Strongly oppose, at this stage.
1400 edits, sparse use of edit summaries.  Some strange edits like saying in an article that something was "really cool", redirecting the Angela article to User:Angela (deleted now and replaced, so it's not in the history).  That "Onefool" business is a bit weird, too.
His edits to this page alone do not fill me with confidence about his potential ability to be an effective admin, let alone some of contributions and the Onefool thing.
Hasn't really made the case for becoming an admin, and has exhibited some bizarre behavior on occasion, so I oppose at this time. --
Wonderfool, I don't feel you're ready yet. Try again in about six months - and use that time to prove your mettle.
Oppose for all the reasons above.
Oppose for all reasons mentioned.
Oppose.  Come back later, please.
Oppose for all reasons above.
Oppose for all reasons above.
Oppose.  Why? The others have said it all.  I think you have to hang around for a while and take on the Wiki-"culture" to a much greater extent than you appear to have done.  I'll be prepared to support you later if you make progress.
'''Oppose'''. Cya later...
Make a load of good edits, and come back in a couple of months.  &mdash;
What's my name doing here?  I guess it's just [[The Humble Guys|got]] [[User_talk:Onefool|connotations]].  Anyway, come back in a few months and a few more edits, Wonder. '''

'''Oppose''', if a little reluctantly. Your nomination - both the opening text and the questions - have failed to impress me in any manner. --
'''Neutral'''. I think you have improved since the last nomination process, however, Im still doubtful that you would make an exemplary admin. You could put a bit more thought into your answers to the questions, and it would also be helpful if you give a little description at the top of the page. I might still consider changing my vote, though.</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Oppose''' more time, more work, etc. Just work on it, stay around.
'''Oppose'''.  I'd like to see more consistent participation and more edit summaries (you really don't use them often).  Less than 1000 edits is quite low, given how long your account has been registered.  You do seem like a good editor, though; with a few more months of consistent, good work, I will probably support your next nomination. --
'''Oppose''' Needs more experience. --
'''Strong Oppose''' Besides the lack of experience, user's nomination statement is, well, very bad.  Please take the time to say something about yourself, and why you want the job.  I know that's what the questions are for, but I consider the nomination, "This is me", to be flippant, and that is a bad quality in admin.  Next time, put a little more thought into this.
'''Oppose''' not enough edits.
'''Oppose'''. Way too low an edit count 1) for us to make an accurate judgement on their suitability for adminship and 2) for YHoshua to have the knowledge of the ins and outs of the Wikipedia that an admin needs.
'''Oppose''' i've recently been making a few contributions and have been surprised at both his lack of people skills and at times his editorial judgement. he also demonstrates an authoritarian style that would not be well suited for a collaborative environment such as wikipedia.
'''Oppose'''. A few more months, a couple hundred more edits, and a mission statement explaining your desire for adminship, and I'll change to support.
'''Oppose'''.
'''Oppose'''. Seems like you want to be an admin "just because."
'''Oppose.''' I'm sure this user's great, but such a lacksiedaisical self-nom isn't a good teaser of what we could expect from this contributor.  --
I think you have great potential, and you've made good edits, but I'd like to see you stay involved at this level for another month or so. On the other hand, I have nothing against you becoming an admin, and wish you the best of luck.
I'd personally say another two months would be better, but yeah. Wait a little and try again. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]]
'''Neutral''' as per the two. However, your self-description is pretty bare, and may attract oppose voters. <font color="darkred">
Keep up the good work.  --
per above.
use edit summaries more often and you will gain my support.--
'''Neutral''' Would like to see a little more work, low ammount of User Talk edits, needed for effective vandal tracking and handling.
'''Support''', my comments, above.
'''Support''' &mdash;please promise me that you will get more "involved". While you have over 5000 edits, you have only edited about 500 distinct pages. What made me support however, was that you had over 200 edits in Wikipedia namespace; that shows you participate in VFDs etc. </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
'''Support''' With over 5,000 edits?

'''Support''' Please use edit summaries more often though :).  Great candidate. <small>
'''Support''' &mdash; Over the years, he has demonstrated an enthusiastic effort to ensure open religious views and a continuous requirement for clarity.  While he tends to be very agressive, his position has always been clear. An excellent candidate.--
'''Support'''. Zappaz has demonstrated an admirable level of restrain in dealing with a barrage of personal attacks and frivolous complaints that are most likely to be politically motivated than anything else. In my interactions with him, I found Zappaz to be one of those editors that actually ''researches''  a subject before editing, with a passion for providing copious and solid sources for his edits. If more editors had that passion, Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia. I would like to express my concern about a voting process in which editors votes are not based on the capabilities of a nominee to becoming a good Administrator, but on the voter's antagonistic POV: this seems to be a perverse exercise of "revenge" against a nominee who has created and contributed to countless articles and discussions. We  need more editors involved in helping with controversial articles, not less. Let's not penalize Zappaz for his involvement in controversial articles. --
'''Support''' --
'''Support''', and kudos to jossi for the thoughtful nomination. Zappaz stands firmly for NPOV in the face of untiring abuse by [http://www.google.com/search?q=Andries+Krugers+Dagneaux+-wikipedia&num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&c2coff=1&safe=off&as_qdr=all&filter=0 Andries Dagneaux] who shamlessly abuses Wikipedia as an outlet for his anti-religious activism.  --
'''Support'''. I've read through all the opposing comments so far, and read through the articles where Zappaz has been involved in controversy, and have found no reason to oppose his adminship. --
'''Support'''.  I'll echo what I said below, on dave souza's nomination:  Adminship is about wearing a hat. It is a fundamentally different activity from editing. One should support or oppose an admin not based on "does this potential admin hold opinions that differ from mine", but "will this admin abuse his extra buttons, or use them responsibly?" I see nothing to indicate that Zappaz will abuse admin powers. If the test for becoming an admin morphs into a vote on editorial position, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot and losing a lot of potentially excellent admins.

While hesitant due to some of the concerns brought by the opposition, as well as some of the support votes (new user directly above, for ex.), not to mention that I want ''more'' anti-religious bias, not less(!), still, somehow, I '''support'''.
'''Support'''  I support without reservation the appointment of ZappaZ to admin. I have seen his careful edits, precise use of language, and a clear understang of the pitfalls that collaborative projects require. He seems to have a high degree of tolerance in dealing with somewhat obsessed agenda-driven people, no small feat. I strongly urge his support.
'''Support'''. In fact, I dedicated 15 min of our wikitime to have an idea about you and your nomination. I'm happy that I haven't wasted any of that WT. You deserve an Admin seat as long as your interests are of ancient nature (few people are interested in that). Please remember, I voted positive in order to push you to contribute more than using your admin powers ;). One pertinent advice; promise yourself to correct some of behaviours noted by some our wikipedians below. Good luck. --
'''Oppose''', behavior on [[List of people who have said that they are gods]] was unnaceptable all around. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 05:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC). I'd like to add that I am reasonably uncomfortable with the behavior of some of my co-opposers. The scattershot commenting on this RFA all over is totally uncalled for. The attacks on this individuals motives are totally uncalled for. The poor behavior of others does not address my serious concerns about attention to detail and keeping a level head. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC). Additionally, I swear before someone that I've never heard of Prem Rawat before this RFA.
'''Oppose''' Zappaz has no sense fairness and uses double standards when pushing his POV that I consider extreme. I have been in constant disagreement and conflict with him since he entered Wikipedia on a number of articles, including [[Prem Rawat]], [[Criticism of Prem Rawat]] (on the list of most edited articles), [[guru]], [[post-cult trauma]], [[apostasy]], and more. And it is not because I am a narrow-minded anti-cult activist: user Ed Poor who is a Unificationist wrote that I am knowledgeable and fair about New religious movements. I disagree with Jossi: criticism of gurus, cults, new  and alternative religion has very little to do with freedom of religion or lack of tolerance. And besides since when is the stated aim of Wikipedia to promote religious tolerance? I will soon compile a long list of inappropriate, biased, or erroneous comments and edits by Zappaz.
'''Oppose''', i have seen Zappaz as extremly double standard when envolved in controversial topics.
'''Strong oppose''': Zappaz has been put on the administrator's noticeboard for violating 3RR, and uses double standards when involved in disputes. --
'''Strong oppose''': When Zappaz first appeared as an editor of the Prem Rawat articles, I did a search of Wikipedia to determine what other articles he had been involved in and there were almost no non-Rawat articles, and yet he was clearly an experienced Wiki-editor. It has been suggested that 'Zappaz' is a new identity of an existing editor created especially for his pro-Rawat work. It has also been suggested that Zappaz has been paid by the Rawat cult for this work. I would just like to add that if these allegations are true, then Zappaz has earned every penny as his dedication to portraying this cult leader in a positive manner is a credit to his professionalism. --
'''Strongest possible oppose!'''  Zappaz has shown over and over basic untrustworthiness -- I would point you at the sordid fiasco of [[Hate groups and new religious movements]] for perhaps the prime example.  Zappaz kept trying to insert into [[Hate group]] the fact that [[Elan Vital]] claims the former members it calls "ex-premies" are a hate group.  Other editors such as myself believe the material should be removed, because nothing about that fact really illuminates the subject of hate groups in general.  At one point in the editing, Zappaz finds himself at his limit of three reverts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_group&diff=8405205&oldid=8402318], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_group&diff=8406184&oldid=8406081], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_group&diff=8406726&oldid=8406713].  So what does he do?  Does he respect the spirit as well as the letter of the three-revert rule?  No -- with his very next edit, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_group&diff=8408001&oldid=8406847 creates a new article on the spot], starting it with a cut-and-paste of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements&direction=prev&oldid=8406786 ''his'' preferred version] of the section under dispute.  Do we really need an editor who will look for new, sneakier ways to game the system?  For a further illustration of why this editor cannot be trusted, read the arguments he made during the above revert war, that "if any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well", and compare with his comments in a recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2&diff=prev&oldid=19438243 VfD] about how a list article is too POV and deserves deletion because the items of the list are "a one sided POV expressed".  If you find yourself tempted to vote for Zappaz because at one point you saw him (supposedly) disregarding POV to act on principle, take a closer look at his history and you'll probably see him upholding the ''opposite'' principle when that's what suits his ends.  Wikipedia needs admins with integrity enough not to abuse their power.  For that reason it ''doesn't'' need Zappaz as an admin. --
'''Oppose''' as above.
--
'''Oppose for now.''' I have been a Wiki editor for approximately 3 years, and was also once (20+ years ago) a student of user Zappaz's current spiritual teacher, Prem Rawat.  Also, I was the original founder of the organization ex-premies.org, towards which Zappaz appears to be most animately opposed, but which I have not been active in for approximately 10 years.  Zappaz's very first article-text edit shows him deleting a critical link to his spiritual teacher at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=4524031 Zappaz's first article-text edit].  For this deletion his only editorial explanation was: ''Maharaji in the Press - rv - not relevant to section''.  The section that the link appeared in was the external links section.  Does this mean that to Zappaz, any criticism of his spiritual teacher is ''inappropriate''?  This does not seem to me to be consistent with Wiki NPOV policy.  In Zappaz's last major article-text edit, again he did not appear to be following standard Wiki policy.  This was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=22782383&oldid=22747336 Zappaz's last major article-text edit on 09/07].  In this major edit, he inserted reams of undocumented assertions, presenting all of these as fact, all apparently aimed at undermining any potential criticism of Prem Rawat.  In this edit he also again erased critical external links, such as the link: [http://www.geocities.com/maharajiwd/ Gateway webpage] explaining this deletion with the cryptic comment, ''mv to refs''.  All of these edits seem to me to show that Zappaz somehow places the priority of his need to defend the reputation of Prem Rawat over the need to let the simple facts plainly speak for themselves.  When Zappaz demonstrates the understanding that in Wiki facts should always be allowed to speak more loudly than personal agendas, consistently demonstrating this over a significant period of time, then I will gladly support his nomination if asked, but not sooner. -
'''Oppose'''. I have the impression, that ZappaZ does not always recognize his own bias (though he honestly tries to). Also there have been several instances where ZappaZ made a revert (and even a repeated revert) instead of discussing the matter and where ZappaZ did go against consensus of other editors. I do think that ZappaZ works at improving himself, but from an administrator I'd expect above average abilities in interaction with other users, and that's not (yet) the case with ZappaZ - which is also visible in some of his reactions on the votes here. --
'''Oppose'''. While I didn't have any personal dispute with him yet, I noticed his activities in the [[Rick Ross]] discussion page. The thought that he would be an admin and thus have more control on these areas (where I also edit) is scary to me.
'''Strong oppose'''.  Completely throwing away all of the other reasons not to support, you have attacked, in one way or another, at least three of the oppose votes against him.  I don't really care if you're a Wiccan, a Scientologist, a member of Heaven's Gate, a murderer, or Richard Simmons.  The question is, do I think that I can trust you with the administrative tools?  At this point, I can't.  <font color="red">
Oppose, I'm afraid. It was going to be "neutral", but his reaction to "oppose" votes on this RFA is itself enough reason to seriously doubt about his ability to keep a cool head in controversial circumstances. (For a comparison, I'm thinking of the RFA for Tony Sidaway, who is highly opinionated and happy to wade into controversy - but he took on board "oppose" criticisms so well that he converted many to "support" over the course of the seven days.) Six to twelve months down the track, maybe? -
Oppose as per David.
'''Oppose'''
Vote moved to '''neutral''' after reading Andries's and Thomas h's comments. Zappaz has enough experience but seems to be too controversial.
Currently too controversial for my tastes.
Between the controversy and the odd distribution of edits, I'm not comfortable supporting at this time.  --
Like Zzyzx said, too controversial.
Really concerned about limited focus: not only only 400-some distinct pages edited, but well over half (at least 2775 of 5294 total edits) are among the dozen or so articles/pages with "guru", "cult", "Rick Ross", or "Prem Rawat" in the title. Titles containing "Prem Rawat" alone counts for 561 of the user's first 794 edits (over a 4-1/2 month period).
'''Neutral''' based upon the comments of everyone in this RFA.
Strong '''Support''' as nominator.
'''Support'''
'''Support''' Puts great effort in to wikipedia articles. --
'''Support''' -

Seems to have issues with civility and little concern for copyright issues, both of which are necessities for a Wikipedia admin.--
<s>'''Neutral''', candidate makes very sparse use of edit summaries. --[[User:Sn0wflake|Sn0wflake]] 22:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)</s> '''Oppose''', it bothers me that the editor can't even use wiki code properly. Definitely needs more experience. --
'''Oppose''': While the comments by the nominee here might not strictly violate [[WP:NPA]], they do violate the spirit of [[WP:CIVIL]]. I don't think this editor is ready for adminship. --
'''Oppose'''. Absolutely not. I don't like seeing the candidate being uncivil on his own RFA.
'''Oppose''': I have a ''lot'' of respect for Zereshk and his ''many'' excellent contributions, but I am seriously dismayed both by his repeated copyright violations and his complete lack of insight into the inappropriateness of these. Indeed instead of dealing with the fall-out he has tended to shoot the messenger. Unless there is a serious change in attitude and behaviour I feel he should not be an admin.
'''Support''' Not a vandal+reasonable knowledge of policy+good faith+reasonable civility=my support.
'''Support''' &nbsp;<span class="plainlinks"><small>
'''Support''' What Y0u said.  Should use edit summeries (PLEASE DO THIS... most of yours (actually all I saw) were EMPTY, which forces you to look at the diffs even on simple edits which is annoying), and maybe use the preview button a bit more but the latter does not appear to be as much as a problem as Pavel indicates... maybe he could cut the post count down by 1/2 if he did (for the record I sometimes do the same thing - although there is a difference between that and deciding to add stuff later too). Also, the claim about VfD seems dubious as I don't find that much in its history, but that hardly concerns me... --
'''Support'''
'''Support''' I changed my mind. I think that you will be a good admin. Really, it should be no big deal. You're a solid contributer. I'm sure you'll learn as you use more of your admin powers.--
--
Edit summaries are commonly used by vandals to try to disguise malicious edits, so they're not foolproof.  --
'''Support''', I have had only positive experiences with Zxcvbnm and I am confident in his leadership
'''Oppose''': should you be using preview button number of your edits could be easily reduced to 1/10. Majority of your edits are related to sci-fi+games; I see only little participation on VfD, reverting and other admin associated activities. There's not much of communication with other users. You do not use edit summaries making it harder to people on RC. That said, I didn't find any edit of yours being questionable.
'''Oppose''', I largely agree with [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]]. The claim in the opening statement about VfD work is true enough, but only really applies to the last 7 days &mdash; before that I don't see much work there at all. There appears to be none in TfD/CfD and I presume only incidental reverting (though without edit summaries it is hard to tell). Editcountitis is not too important, but there are an awful lot of save-without-preview edits, so I have to wonder about how carefully things are checked before pressing the button, which is important in an admin. I don't fully understand the additional claim in this regard in the extended opening statement &mdash; is this a widespread problem? -
Oppose, I observe little interaction with other people in the course of Zxcvbnm's contributions, and some of what I see leaves me concerned about whether certain principles about Wikipedia have been absorbed. I don't normally care about edit counts, but the inflated number here suggests to me that perhaps more experience would be appropriate. --
'''Oppose''' Blanks talk page, doesn't use edit summaries, and most importantly, tried to pull a fast one by stating that the nomination would end August 8, '''1508'''.
'''weak oppose''' we're not desperate for admins, and I would prefer Zxcvbnm to take some time to consider the issues brought up here. I will certainly reconsider should he re-apply in a month or so.
'''Strong oppose''' because of his reactions below. Although it is unrelated to my vote, I must point out that I strongly object to my actions being quoted out of context here as an example of how not to do things.
'''Oppose'''. Per Splash, Pavel, and Michael Snow. The response to Radiant does not leave me feeling convinced on [[wikipedia:civility|civility]].
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] and [[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]].--
Talk page goes back only one month, which gives us little interaction to look at. May support a future nomination if talk page has been archived and if edit summaries are used more in article space edits.

'''Oppose'''. [[User:Zxcvbnm]] is a good editor, but I don't think adminship is appropriate for him, at least not now. Would support user in future if 1) learned to interact more civilly with other users, 2) archived rather than blanked talk pages, and 3) used edit summaries consistently. See my comments below. &mdash;
'''Oppose''' doesn't have the temperament to be an admin
'''Oppose''' - I don't feel he is civil enough. I would support in the future if they were a little more civil. --
'''Neutral'''. While I don't fully oppose, many times I see this user throughout video game articles and I am constantly asking myself why he does not use edit summaries. As said above, you need to use the preview button more. Also I am concerned about the user blanking his talk page, as it looks like you don't other people to see it. I understand that it is your talk page and you can do whatever, but it is a concern to me.
<s>'''Neutral'''. He is a solid and knowledgable contributor, but I cannot vote support because he has little experience with admin related stuff, and also blanks talk pages. I might change my mind if he reapplies for adminship after he gets more experienced with admin related stuff--
'''Neutral'''. Plenty of article edits, edits a lot for one day, helpful around here, but Zxcvbnm doesn't seem to use edit summaries, blanks talk pages, or participate very much in some of Wikipedia's activities. I do not think that he's not suitable for an admin, but I will vote Neutral. Overall, great person and works on articles. &mdash;
'''Neutral'''. Not enough experience with admin-like activities, and responses to concerns laid out here are a bit on the confrontational side. <font color="green">
'''Neutral''', mainly because of lack of edit summaries, but also due to the sarcastic answer to [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]], which is not what would be expected of an admin. --
'''Neutral''', if it weren't for the civility issue, i'd vote in favor. His edit tally is certainly impressive, bugs or not. He should come back in a month or two and i'd be glad to support then.

I still think that more experience is required. Zxcvbnm seems to be a very good contributor but needs to take more time to learn procedures. For example, even with some advice, it took 13 edits to add this RfA. Also, the last RfA ended only a few weeks ago. Will likely support in the future.
His handling of the previous nomination was not impressive, and is still quite recent. Seems overeager for adminship, which suggests a misunderstanding of what it means; it's a few additional technical/housekeeping functions, not a trophy. I'm happy to assume good faith, but that's not the same as having earned my trust, which is the standard for adminship. --
'''Oppose''' Has not yet addressed issues raised in his last adminship, such as ''consistently'' using edit summaries and he still seems to take an inordinate amount of edits to make minor changes to an article.  I will reconsider in the future, but his last nomination is still too recent.--
His last nomination is indeed to recent.
'''Oppose''', at the time of his last nomination he had a problem with civility. That was only a month ago and I haven't seen evidence of improvement yet.
'''Oppose'''. Hasn't made that much improvement since last time. Too early to submit a re-nom.
'''Strong Oppose''' You've shown no improvement since your last nomination. You still blank your talk page. And this line is extremely shady: "and if i am elected I ''will'' use edit summaries on every edit." ''If elected''? Elections are for arbitrators, not admins. Plus, you shouldn't wait until you have sysop rights to start using edit summaries. [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Oppose'''. Problems from previous nom do not seem to have been addressed.
Not so soon after last time.
--
'''Oppose''' &ndash; No email ID too.
Oppose: Unspellable, unpronounceable username makes it hard to remember his identity. Promises to change '''after''' getting sysop rights is ridiculous: should build up a track record first.
'''Oppose''' as per Uncle Ed Poor. Let me know when you're on RFA again and I'll seriously reconsider, if you use edit summaries. --<font color=red>
<s>'''Support''', you look like you've improved since your previous nomination. However, seeing the problems you had with adding this nomination here, I have small reservations about it, but nothing serious. (Yay, I get to be the first one to vote!) :) - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 15:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)</s> I've changed my vote to '''neutral''' as per the objections above. Will support at some point in the future if the user acquires more experience. -
'''Neutral'''. Pretty good article contributions, does good work, but the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Zxcvbnm&action=history edit history] of Zxcvbnm's former RfA page shows some recent edit war problems. The former RfA also shows that Zxcvbnm wasn't always too patient, though he never got "really" mad. However, his contributions list displays a lot of excellent work that he did on Wikipedia. Anyways, I'm neutral for now, because I don't think his negative side outweighs his positive side. &mdash;
</sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''
Support -The above and your talk pages are convincing. Hope you don't abuse admin powers.--
'''Support''', with pleasure.
'''Support'''. But for the record let me state my disagreement for self-nomination. That aside, I see nothing but good things coming from Zzyzx11. &mdash; <font color="#cc0000">''oo64eva (AJ)'' </font><sup>(
'''Support''' - lot of admin work and that's what matters now most. The <nowiki>{{...}}</nowiki> tags were on really bad pages. (I can be convinced otherwise seeing such tag on fully developed and reasonable page.) Preview button should be tried from time to time, there's nothing wrong with it. Bit longer time on Wikipedia would be better for self-nominee. (I see 2005/February/02, did you use anonymous IP before?)
'''Support''' I thought he was already an admin. I've seen him a lot doing helpful things.
I thought you were one!  --
'''Support'''.  Zzyzx has taken it upon himself to do the dirty, seamy work of reverting vandals, warning them of their behavior and voting on VfD on a regular basis.  He has more than earned the right to revert the tide of booshwah in a direct fashion. -
'''Support'''.
I've been impressed with Zzyzx's work, as an editor and as a janitor.
'''Support'''. --
'''Support'''. A good janitor.
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. Although I am concerned with Zzyzx11's sometimes over-zealousness in regards to deletions, I think that Zzyzx11 would make a useful admin. I hope that Zzyzx11 takes seriously the reasons people oppose this nomination, and I hope that Zzyzx11 can change his/her behavior accordingly.
'''Support'''. Good janitorial work, and although I usually oppose deletionism, Zzyzx11 is level headed and sensible in discussions.
'''Support'''.  I thought Zzyzx11 was already an admin, to be honest.  Good janitor, has helped to rescue a number of pages that were borderline on VfD.
I note Tony's concerns. They worry me enough to oppose this user. I don't think it's a good idea to give the ability to delete to an editor who is so keen to rid the encyclopaedia of protista. I very much oppose the notion of "notability" as something we should subjectively decide, particularly when it is doubtless true for each of us that our ignorance far exceeds our knowledge (a reason we do this together and don't each write our own ;-)).
Needs more time.
I may support on a later occasion, but I'd feel worried about having admins who make a habit of popping a <nowiki>{{explain-significance}}</nowiki> and whatnot on articles about world famous viola players, great entomologists and the like, and then list them for deletion if nobody complies within a couple of weeks.  Putting <nowiki>{{move-to-wiktionary}}</nowiki> tags on an article about a whole phylum of protista also betrays a basic ignorance that worries me.  This user should acquire and demonstrate more discrimination and a greater willingness to do basic research for himself, rather than sticking "not known at this address" labels on everything he doesn't happen to recognise in this, our vast Library of Babel. --

'''Oppose''' &mdash; Maybe next time.--
'''Oppose'''. I have the same worries about his attitudes to deletion as those above.  As with other voters, I might well vote 'support' in a month or so if there's improvement on this.



I am moving my vote to neutral after carefully considering Tony Sidaway's point about this. Please come back in a one month or so and I'll support. This is really not personal.
Seems cool-headed (would you expect otherwise from someone from Iceland?) --
Support - good choice.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (gotta love the name) has been around since February, is approaching 1,000 edits, and is an active member of the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine admin. -- [[User:Danny|Danny]] (taken from nominating statement,

Assuming that Ævar, son of Bjarmi, is not related to Halfdan the Half-troll, by way of Erik Njorl, son of Frothgar... --

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --
A user who receives support from Wik, something seen on this page about as frequently as [[Invisible Pink Unicorn|the deity Ævar worships]], has probably the most ringing endorsement one could possibly get. In fact, the sense of humor rather makes me wonder what impersonator got a hold of Wik's password. Anyway, I find nothing wrong, and the shortage of substantive edits is compensated for by the work on images. --

Support firmly.
Cool, cool-headed, nice [[insanity|hair_=)]]  --
I suppose you'll tell me he wasn't one already.


Agree with John. :-) Also, no big deal if he hasn't done a lot of content writing, as long as he's trustworthy and wants to pitch in on site maintainance.
Support. Notwithstanding 5/t typing errors. -
Support.
Support.  Good image work.
Support.
I'd want to see more substantive edits.
Have to agree with Charles Matthews. Has about 800 edits but not enough breadth for me. About 100 of these concern [[Little Belt Bridge (1935)|Little Belt bridge]], about 50 [[Flag of Iceland]]. --
Not yet enough community experience, IMHO.
[[User:Neutrality|
In my experience, an excellent contributor, and one whose edit count is not an accurate indication of the level of contribution to this site.  Should be a good admin, if not a proactive one, methinks.
Support. --
Agree with Jwrosenzweig.
Anyway, Frazzydee has less than 2000 contributions and has a practically unanimous nomination...
[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Agree with Jwrosenzweig. If you read through his userpage, you'll discover that he also has contributions as an IP (nearly 200 more). You might also get a good idea of just how impressive an accomplishment his overall edit count really is under the circumstances. --
Checked through his edit history; I feel he's a very strong contributor. Potential to be a good admin here. Support.







Tireless & trustworthy, imho. &mdash;



Numeric standards considered harmful. -



Absolutely.
Of course.
Great contributions over a fairly long period.
<s>Not at this time.  Will probably support after 2,000 edits.
I would like to see a bit more community involvement. This may just be me, however. --
Who? --
After reviewing his work, and considering his circumstances, I honestly believe him to be a great if not exemplary user, and if not for the user's inexperience in interuser relations in the community, I would be willing to waive my usual minimums and support.  However, I'd like to see this user come back after getting more acquainted with user relations and disputes.  Will most likely support in the future.



Very good choice - glad he accepted.



Support.  I believe AlainV's careful, detailed, fact-based edits to truly encyclopedic articles are uncommonly valuable.
Far to few edits thus far.

You could have said more, but from the user's edit history, I doubt there will be trouble.
Alex is a solid contributor, and deserving of adminship.



Support.

Of course.
I've seen him around, and I admire his work in stub sorting.

Very dedicated. It appears that he would find a lot of use for  the rollback function. And he's a fellow Southern Californian, so this would assist in our plot to conquer the world.--
SURE! Looks good to me! --[[User:JonMoore|
No objections here.
Looks fine to me. --
Definitely support, good anti-vandalism work --
Yep! --[[User:Whosyourjudas|
<s>Hmm... is that hummingbird sitting on marshmallows or something? ^_^</s> (support)

Go for it.
User hasn't been on wikipedia that long. Would prefer people be on here longer before admin. --
[[User:Neutrality|

Very responsible, friendly, and hard-working.
[[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="teal">&#x273;&#x209;&#x010d;&#x1e29;&#x00e5;&#x1e3d;&#x1e57;</font> | <font color="magenta" size="+8">[[User talk:nichalp|&#x2709;]]</font>]] &nbsp;Need more copyeditors like
Definitely... I thought you were already a sysop...
Aha, COTWs: the sure sign of a grunt worker. :) --







[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])


A collaboration ''machine''! --
Not a name I know, but a trawl through his work and his involvements leads me to believe he would make a very useful admin.


Strong support.






'''Strong''' support.




<cliche> I thought she was one! </cliche> Seriously though, I had noticed her good contributions to policy and administrative-type discussions.

A fantastic contributor, she commands my respect. -




Strong support! [[User:DO'Neil|[[User:DO'Neil|DO']]'''[[User talk:DO'Neil|&#1048;]]'''
Most nominations that Lir would attempt to sabotage should be supported. --


Definitely. [[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]








Support. --
A valuable custodian. --




Absolutely. Longtime contributor, and a fellow video game aficionado to boot! --








We can always use more grunt workers. --



I oppose anyone who's so confrontational that they can start arguments over articles about invented, non-existent deities. Listing my vote in the support category is a valid surrealist technique. --
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]

Ah, what the hell, might as well.  You should feel special, because, having evactuated for Sir Ivan, I am without a broadband connection, and am using some of my precious time on this dreadfully slow dialup connection to support YOU.  Fie.




Been here since August and made over 1450 edits.

[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 18:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC), nice stuff on Penang. I remember clearly from last year. --
Jiang likes him. And I like people named Yong. Support. (Whimsy, thy name is jengod.) :)
Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --
Support. Looked at his edits and realized that Wikipedia could use someone like this.--


Users who stay out of trouble are exactly the people we want as admins.

Andrew has done a lot of good work on [[Mahathir bin Mohamad]] and other Malaysian topics. --
Far too few edits thus far for me to determine how he responds to different situations.
I only looked at a few edits, but they didn't seem very good. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
I like what I've seen of Andrew's work and I have absolutely nothing against him personally. However, he's stuck to fairly narrow and uncontroversial topics (not that that's a bad thing) and hasn't interjected much on content disputes or policy issues (not that that's a bad thing either, he doesn't seem to have gotten into disputes, no doubt in part because of his consistenly solid and thoughtful contributions). But I can't support because I don't see that he has the experience implementing Wikipedia policy in the cases where admin power is applicable, and, additionally, because I don't believe that we need him as an admin. <br/><br/>He certainly wouldn't do any ''harm'' as an admin, and I think that Andrew's continued work should be encouraged and praised -- but that said, I don't believe that we should grant admin status simply because we like someone or because they've done good work or because they've been around for a while. We should elect people admin because we expect that they will use their admin powers to substantively improve the project. I don't see Andrew using admin powers much, and therefore I don't see a need to support him. --

Andrewa is one of the few I often see taking care of those ''someone-should-do-it'' type chores that I got too lazy for once the novelty wore off. Excellent choice, I actually thought he was a sysop already.

Support. Good contributor, and I think he'd make a good admin.
I agree with Mkweise

Support.
I thought he was one already too... --


A very good contributor.

Ya. Very good, helpful and active Wikipedian.
Yup.
A user whose initial experience of wikipedia was somewhat rocky, but who showed great character by transforming that experience in ways that benefited the culture of wikipedia to positive long term effect. Definitely one of the best of us. --
Support. He has shown good judgement. --
No objections at all.

Support.
Support.

Support.


No objections here.
Oppose.

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --





Seems to have a sound edit history --
ditto. --

Support.


Looks good. Hard-working and equinimanou... equinamio... fair.

Support, looks like he knows what he's doing

Although this user has made a lot of contributions, he has only been a logged in user for 18 days. I will definitely consider supporting him for adminship after more time has passed.
Agreed with Mirv.....although I might have to wait till 8 weeks on principle. :-)  Still, an excellent user with an incredible track record already.
[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
I agree, its too soon, but please try again after another six weeks.
Too soon -- will certainly be renominated after a bit.
No way. AndyL completely disrespects my work and I shudder to think of the retribution he would bring down upon me if he was an admin.
Andy may become a good candidate, but this nomination is premature. I concur 100% with Jwrosenzweig's comment, above.
Rude, assumes bad faith, and appears unable to debate in a polite manner.
Nothing wrong with a little patience. --
[[User:Mirv|No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']] 13:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) If anyone deserves an early adminship, it's him; however a little bit of seasoning and experience never hurt anybody. I'll be the first to support after another <s>six</s> three weeks or so. [I hadn't realized how long he had been contributing. Anyone agreeing with me was agreeing with a previous version of this comment] &mdash;
Agree with Mirv.
What's the hurry?

[[User:John Kenney|john]] 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC).  I'd note that while the [[User:AndyL]] has only been about for 18 days, he posted for an additional 20 days or so before he, by his own account, forgot his password.  But still, perhaps, too early - nevertheless, I think he definitely could do the job.
Has Andy accepted the nomination yet?  I hope he requests his old contributions be moved to his new username, for the purposes of future discussions like this.
His comments in declining earned him a lot of credit in my book, though.
Good user with excellent potential, give it time.


[[User:Neutrality|

See comment below.
I get concerned when the summary trumpets VfD as something good without going into detail.  However I see that Aranel is a balanced user in VfD, and has made many good contributions :o).

Good luck, Aranel!
An excellent choice.
Aranel recently displayed superhuman patience in a public dispute.  Good qualities for an admin. ''&mdash;

A good range of work in many parts of the project
Count me in.
Most def.
Oh yes. I've been noticing her everywhere in Wikipedia's "back corridors" lately. Hard worker. --
Very responsible editor [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;



Impressive... most impressive. --

It would be pretty strange for me to oppose a woman who studies physics and is into Tolkien.... :) <tt>


Yep. :-)
Absolutely
Already working hard as a Wikijanitor, and doing a good job.  An excellent candidate. --
Helped mucho in the Southern notice board. Support 100%.
Why yes.
Absolutely. Comes across both very friendly and productive.
Strongly support. Very rational, level-headed person who considers what she says before she says it, and knows what she's talking about. Fantastic person to deal with.

[[User:Rhymeless|


Full support. I think Aranel will make a great sysop. --
She appears to have a responsible view of policy, and has her mind in the right place. The thing that worries me is that most of her edits (overwhelming majority) appear to be category edits. I would prefer to see some more article content contribution first (I don't care about percentage, just about raw bulk). If she'll come back in a few months with that under her hat, I'll vote yea. --
I have an extremely favorable impression of Aranel.  She has been reasonable, level-headed, and balanced.  She has sought merges of isolated (and, in my opinion therefore lost) material, shown a good understanding of the issues of granularity, and been temperate.  My neutrality is simply a matter of time on project.  I don't measure contributions much, but I do think folks need time to run across the vicious, vitiating and vitalizing alike so that we have a sense of what the person does when the stresses mount.  I will absolutely support her upon next nomination, barring something unforseen, but cannot vote for her at only the 3 month interval.
After having gone through the request for adminship process (only about 3 days before I withdrew), I began to think of what I would want from an admin. Prior to that time, I had contributed little to community pages and had little interaction with other users. Now, it is a whole new world and is definitely more difficult. I have to agree with [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] on this one. Since I would otherwise support the user, I will not oppose on these simple grounds, but I must abstain and be neutral.




As far as I can see, there's no reason to oppose.
Right. --

Yeppers.
Isn't cable great? Support.
[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("
"cable" or "cabal"? ;-)
Another very fine choice for admin.  Strong support.





United in diversity!
Sure. --

Mike H's support is enough for me. [[User:Neutrality|







An exemplary example of the type of person that a good Wikipedia contributor and would be a good sysop. --

Good person to have around - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]


Too bad Chad Pennington will kill him before he gets to use any of his real powers.  (Arminius will understand this).  Support

I am very impressed with Arminius.  I've been impressed with his work since I first saw it.  I have nothing but support for the work he has done.  I do feel, however, that simply not enough ''time'' has passed to vote for him as an admin.  This isn't a matter of getting more of a record, but of going through some of the ups and downs of Wiki-involvement that just come along with time.  I hope for a re-nomination in 4-8 weeks and a chance to vote for.
Agree with Geogre.

An excellent contributor
I'm surprised he wasn't nominated sooner.
Seems a most sensible user.
More Indians is good.
--

--
--
--
- Support. Angela's right. I'm not only surprised that he wasn't nominated sooner; I was under the assumption that he was. Great work on mathematics and Indian history.




Gladly.


Oppose. I dont like Sally Field because of Legally Blonde 2. Just kidding.

Support, would make an excellent admin --




An obvious one!--
For sure. &mdash;

Yep.
I kinda miss my old user name, but... what the heck. ;-) <tt>

3 months + 4000 edits + good nature = my support. ;) --



Support. --



Yes. [[User:Anárion|{]][[User_talk:Anárion|<em style="font-family: Code2000, 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-style: normal">&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628;</em>]]
Very much so.  --
By all means.
My interactions with him have been positive.  Seems stable. -
Support.
Absolutely.
Hard working, level-headed, works well with others and requires ''three'' personal sandboxes.  Um... Yes.
Sure. --


[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

Met Benc a number of times, and found a person with a good deal of initiative.  Support all the way![[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&bull;</font>]][[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&rarr;</font>]]
About damn time.  I can hardly think of a better candidate for adminship.
Doing good work. PS original signature
<strike>Oppose.  Don't appreciate personal attacks on the motives of people making VfD listings.</strike>
Although I've seen nothing but good contributions from [[User:Benc|Benc]], he's only been active for two months despite signing up in December 2003.  Moreover, most of his edits are minor "formatting" or "management" edits, such as adding categories.  This isn't bad, of course; willingness to do such administative work indicates that [[User:Benc|Benc]] will be a very productive administrator.  But it prevents me from getting an comprehensive view of [[User:Benc|Benc]]'s dealings with content-related matters.  As such, I am neutral.
Changing my vote to neutral.
I concur with Acegikmo1. -


Three cheers.
Thought he was one.

Seems like a fine [[Wikipedian]].
I've had some disagreements with him, and the experience was painless. He seems like a good candidate for admiral/emperor/whatever this is for.
Heh  --
Yesyesyesyesyes. :)

Older may not equal wiser, but calmer does equal better, at least for sysops, and Bkonrad has shown a level head and good judgment in abundance. --

Wonderful.


[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
You mean he isn't already? --
Support, of course.

All for it.




Keep.  Er, wait&hellip;


Sometimes a [[Ikhthus|fish]] is just a [[cigar|fish]]. In any case, we have many admins with strong personal views about both politics and religion. The important thing is that they respect the NPOV policy and not use their position to promote their viewpoint or suppress opposing views. I don't believe Blankfaze will do this, so I support. --
If we asked our admins not to have opinions--or even not to make them clear--I can think of dozens who wouldn't be admins any more.  Blankfaze has always behaved well in his interactions with me, and would make a good admin. [[User:Meelar|


Good nomination - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]





Hope you like this support ;-P

Support






<strike> Because of the fish :D. We need people working on this to not take '''everything''' so seriously, we are creating an encyclopedia, but none of blankface's edits are biased and his parody is quite amusing.</strike> Just read the comments. Never mind. Strong support nonetheless.


Blankfaze, you're an excellent fellow, and you'll make a good sysop. By the way, I'm Vasco on IRC.
Not yet enough experience here yet for me to get a full picture of how said user reacts in various situations.
Blank is a good contributor, but he's been here less than three months - this is premature. I think I'll support if he is nominated later.

Support. --
Support.
Support
Support.
Definitely support the [[Irish theatre]] originator. :) -
Support, will use it well. --
Support, definitely a good wikipedian.
Support, [[User:Bmills|Bmills]] is a wonderful contributer. --

We can always use more wiki-janitors who are willing to do these kinds of little tasks that all add up.

Fine by me.
Support.
Fair enough, then.


Yes.
Support.
Support.  I think his comments on [[Talk:Felching]] show admin-level sense of taste and restraint.  I like to see editors take on "hobby tasks" (Sinead O'connor, etc.) that nobody else is doing and I think this user satisfies most of my standards for admins.
Support--[[User:Marie Rowley|''
I like what he says above. Support. -
Support. Seen good things from him. [[User:Rhymeless|
Looks good, Support. --
Support.  Ben and I had a misunderstanding some time ago, but I'm not basing my vote on that at all.  He's a fine contributor who's willing to tackle the craziness of certain aspects of this site.  Anyone who is eager for the grunt work is worthy of the keys to the kingdom. -
Support.
Support
Support




Support, although 800 edits is a little weak.
Seems like a good contributor.
Support.
Looks active enough to me.


--
Not enough experience here yet, IMHO.
Not enough edits, but I suppose a good worker.  --
Agree with Merovingian --

Support -- a quick view of her contributions convinced me she is definitely qualified.  One note--if she was accepted via the mailing list in May, should we even need this vote?
Support -- I don't think there's any need to vote here, since she was accepted in May
Support -- If mav says yes, I say yes (he has my proxy). --
Support.
Support.  Thought she already was one.  Does a great job. -
Support. Same as Hephaestos I'm surprised that you aren't one already. You deserve it just for the work we did on Atlas Shrugged...
Support.
Support strongly. -
Support. She will be good. What kind of irony is it that she was adminified over over a year ago but is still not a admin? :-) O the Bureaucracy of Wikipedia! --
Support.
Support. --
Support.
Support. -






I don't think the guidelines for sysophood are too important. Cecropia is a good example of why you don't need x number of edits to be a sysop.


[[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - He has probably been the most constructive contributor in the (generally well-behaved) discussion over [[terrorism/draft]].  Maintains civility.  A pleasure to work with.
If Isomorphic trusts him, I do.
A solid contributor.
I'm seriously missing something here.  If there is a negative POV in an article and a user solicits a counter POV, that's supposed to make the article NPOV.  That doesn't mean that the user who contributed the counter POV is inherently POV him/herself, it means they're trying to "neutralize" the article.  All in all, I've seen nothing but proper civility here at this discussion and feel that Cecropia has handled himself admirably.  This is a rare case where I wasn't going to vote but was impressed by the user enough to vote in the positive.







As much as I hate to agree with the two people who appear to be my archenemies, support. A useful editor, and time here is not an issue (Can [http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights the UDHR] be applied here?). -

Remarkably level-headed and open.  As with Dec, 'the perfect temperament' to be an admin.




support this guy looks like he knows what he's doing, he looks like he has the time as well--


--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
Support
Support, I finially got around to looking into him, and I can't see what the hold up is!
Support, after looking over his work; appears well qualified.
Support.  Made long-overdue articles for ''[[Fall of the House of Usher]]'' and [[Jukes and Kallikaks]].
Support. Although I would not support him to admiralship. *grins* -
Not yet enough experience here, IMHO. This is nothing personal. I will most probably support at a later date. Cecropia is a valued contributor.
This user set his personal support for George W. Bush over the interest of an unbiased community in numerous cases. E.g. he frequently used valuing expressions like "the argument is countered", and even included a lengthy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=2813129 paragraph about "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" in the GWBush entry].
I find it funny how Cecropia is being nominated for "keeping it cool" with the George Bush article, when (s)He has been just as POV as the rest of them (pro-Bush POV).  I don't claim to be any better, but at least I don't try to pretend not to have any bias when my edits show completely otherwise.  "Supporters of the administration counter...", removal of the accusation that the war broke international law, , etc.  Heck, at least I can point to a couple edits that I did that were favorable to Bush.  What have you done, at all, that wasn't favorable to Bush?  No offense to Cecropia personally - this is an article for which it will be very hard to find anyone who doesn't have a POV.
Does not follow NPOV. --
I have some issues with the various discussions above.  I would be more comfortable at a later date when I've seen more. -

Oppose.
Oppose.
Oppose. Does not always follow NPOV; tries to discredit users opposing his position with polemics (e.g. labeling  seriously meant contributions by [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] as "comic relief" in [[Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_5]])
Oppose.

Support. Chancemill has edited some contentious topics and remained calm in his discussion of them. Seems to handle conflict well.
Angela never lies.  --

I especially regard it important to have admins with knowledge about topics that are not among the most common ones the mainstream user tends to contribute to. To me it seems that [[User:Chancemill|Chancemill]]'s interest in Indian and Hindu topics as well as a variety of others are very valuable for wikipedia.


--
Excellent contributor,balanced, very friendly, sensitive, good flair for writing.




Though English is his second language, he is *very* good in English; and also very *helpful* in correcting grammar and polishing articles. Also, very knowledgeable in Tamil, Sanskrit and Hindi. --
Polite and easy to deal with, a fine wikipedian.
Far too few edits thus far, IMHO.
Agreed.  Sporadic edits to few distinct articles.
Support. -
Support, if he is interested
Support. His good work goes way beyond maths.
Support.
Support. --
First post.  PS, it's me, Mero, from #wikipedia!!  --
Support wholeheartedly. I actually thought about nominating you a few days ago, but didn't get around to it. Sorry about that. Now show up at Chalmers damnit :)
[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;



If people I trust support him, I see no reason not to. And adminship should be no big deal anyway. [[User:Anárion|{]][[User_talk:Anárion|<em style="font-family: Code2000, 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-style: normal">Ⓐ&#8469;ά&#8475;ℹℴɴ</em>]]
[[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 14:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Self-noms should be given the same consideration; as long as they have at least one supporting vote, it's almost the same thing, no? And as Ananrion notes, adminship is no big deal, as desysopping is frequent and easy to achieve. [Reinserted after [[User:33451]] removed my vote.


<tt>
Although I waited too long and missed the opportunity to nominate him myself, I'm glad to see he uses this opportunity to make a point I support about self-nominations. --
Yes, ofcourse. [[User:Sverdrup|<span style=" font-family: Optima, sans-serif; border-bottom: 1px solid blue;">
[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
Wasn't he already an administrator????? '''Strongly''' support. --
Indeed.
[[User:Neutrality|

Support strongly.





I could have sworn I had already voted support, but I'm not seeing it in the list.  Well, here it is now.  Support.
Support
Well this is a nobrainer.


Hopping on the bandwagon, and anyone that Mr Grinch opposes, I endorse. --
Good user.
Great user. -
Nice user.
He's accused me several times of trolling and sockpuppetry, without any grounds for such accusations. [[User:33451|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;






















--

Support.
Support.



Support.

Support.
Support.  He's done a lot of great work with new users.
Support. Did a complete rewrite of [[Kosovo War]] that was really needed, and has handled himself well with those that brought it to that state.
Support. Chris appears to have a good understanding of Wikipedia and would make a good sysop.
Support.  Immense patience shown.
Support. A really good contributor and works towards NPOV on controversial articles on central/east european topics.
Support
Support; nothing but net, as far I can see...
Support.  I've known Chris O since the early days of the [[Scientology vs. the Internet|Scientology Internet war]].  He has treated this infamously controversial subject with honesty and lack of bias, and he has contributed enormously to those subjects here along with many others. --
Support. I've seen nothing but good from Mr. O. --
Support, welcome aboard!
Support.
Support. He's done a fine and much needed job on the Kosovo related articles, and seems sensible....
Support. Primarily because Wik trusts him. --

Absolutely.  --
More edits than Ambi? That's quite a feat. :) --
Of course! He's a great contributor. --
Most certainly. [[User:Neutrality|
Definitely!... His or her contributions to Australian-related topics are remarkable!... and someone in which I think would be a good sysop

Given my boundless respect, admiration and affection for Our Ambivalently Hysterical One, if she says Chuq is admin material, that's good enough for me.  Support. -
I trust the judgement of other voters.
[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

&mdash;

Did not appreciate the attempt at suppressing real info and making a joke of it --



Seems a strong user.
A very strong user - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]








-



Expecting to have seen lots of involvement in Wikipedia's debates only biases the process against the levelheaded kinds of people we need as admins. His reasonable tone and excellent work shows that he has internalized well the policies relevant to editing, and I have no doubt that he can internalize the policies related to admin privileges as well. --

I recognize him (well, his name, anyway) from several other Canadian political forums (can.politics and the Election Prediction Project, for two) and can attest that he knows his stuff.


Will support after 2,000 edits.
Cannot get a clear picture on community involvement. Hard-working, certainly, but I have no real way of knowing the level of CJ's knowledge of policies at this point in time. --
I agree with Grunt. I certainly don't think CJCurrie will misuse admin powers, judging by the quality of his edits. However, he has very few edits to pages outside of the Main namespace, and, since his user page consists solely of his name, I have a hard time judging his views on Wikipedia. I certainly don't think that every admin needs to be a mean, lean, policy-writing machine like Angela, but I do think that admins should at least be familiar with resolving conflicts and have some sort of involvement in metadiscussions. --
Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|
[[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 00:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) - I cannot, in good faith, support someone who is willing to take editing to "the next level". (just kidding, guys, don't jump on me, now)... actually, I'd like to echo Grunt's concerns.

Very strong support. User puts significant effort and ''content'' into his contributions. Seems to work well with others too.
Big content contributor. Content almost always gives both sides of controversial issues - not afraid to be neutral in edits. Even though I don't always agree with the amount of detail of what he adds, it is generally best for the topics he edits. Support. -
From my observation, truly committed to NPOV ideals and knows how to write neutrally regardless of personal feelings on the subject matter. --
I've seen nothing but good from this user.
Strongly support. --
I agree with all of the above -- an excellent contributor.

I know next to nothing about the history of Mormonism, but I can see the amount of effort put in, and I'll trust other people's judgement that it's all good editing. Excellent work.
Will support after 1336 edits.  Oh, wait a minute... --


Scope of work seems a little narrow [[User:Netoholic/Admins|in my mind]], and religious topics tend to make involved editors very over-protective.  Also doesn't seem to be a very active editor - 1335 edits over the course of one year is pretty low for someone who wants to be an admin.  I don't see COgden participating in any routine maintenance efforts, either.  Would support in a couple months if he can become more involved, but right now I don't see evidence that admin privilege is well-placed here. --


Definitely support!
Strongly support.
Support.
Absolutely.



I smell a grunt worker.. excellent candidate for adminship. --
Looking over the contribs, I see nothing bad & lots of good.
What Stormie said.




Fair enough. --

OK.
Yes.  Seems Cool Head Luke and business-like.  <s>Haven't personally seen him under fire</s>Dealt with him amicably on [[Reformed Egyptian]]; I imagine he is good at staying cool.
Support. --
Happy to. Even moreso considering the shoddy reasoning for opposing.


You rock, dude.
As long as Luke's Cool Hand stays cool when the editing gets hot.


I'm extremely happy to support Cool Hand Luke here. He's a great user and has helped out a lot with a whole bunch of topics.
Yup. Adminship is no big deal, and CHL is a valuable contributor.
'''Support''' --
I admire the user and his work, however, he does not currently meet my [[User:Blankfaze/admin|personal standards]] for admin candidates.
[[User:Netoholic/Admins|Mine]] either. User is short on edits, ''very'' short on edits for a self-nom, and recent edits have been extremely minor &ndash; adding categories and image tags, voting on VfD.  No, I'd not consider until he performs more significant contributions '''and''' that he can convince someone to nominate him. --
Too few edits.
[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) My "personal standard" is about time on project, rather than edits, and that's mainly so that I can see whether a person has interacted with some of the nasties and, uh, committed people we have on Wikipedia (and some of them are administrators).  So far, I've seen Luke to be an even tempered person and a quality editor.  I lean toward support, but I would like to hear about the things that he's seen that have bugged him.  ("We can dress like Minnie Pearl."  I do get them confused with King Missile sometimes.)  ("Sometimes nothing's a pretty cool hand.")

Looks good to me. &mdash;
Good enough... Good user... Good edits... Good person... Gets good vote
He passed every question of mine except favourite drink (the correct answer was 'tea', not 'coke'). Regardless, he is a decent user. -



Strongly support. --

Good-natured and a good grunt worker. --
By all means.


[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])


I'm impressed by CryptoDerk's gruntwork, and we all know that Wikipedia couldn't be what it is without contributors of that type.  For sheer dedication alone, the nomination is deserved.  [[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&bull;</font>]][[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&rarr;</font>]]
I come out of the darkness that is post-[[Hurricane Ivan|Ivan]] [[Pensacola, Florida|Pensacola]] solely to support you!  In all seriousness, though, good, responsible, cordial, delightful user.
CryptoDerk is adminnable

I've seen nothing but good edits from this user, many of them anti-vandalism maintenance. Will make a good sysop.
<s>


Strong support. A high-class contributor who sets himself perfectionist standards in an impressive range of areas (from [[quantum computer]]s to [[economics]] through [[logic]]). Intellectually tough but peaceful.


I don't know him/her that much, but as far as I can see, CSTAR is a great contributor and deserves my support vote. --


Sure. --
Good contributor. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;
Yes.  CSTAR is one of the more able mathematicians among regular Wikipedians.


Well, I don't have any objections, maybe I'll find one and wish I had've before.


[[User:MikeX|





I'm sure I'm an odd man out, but I think the user page together with the strange user name give hints that do anything but evoking my feelings of confidence. Sorry! /
-

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --

A shoo-in.
Strongly support.
6 months and 1140 edits is '''''a lot''''' of experience. Support. --







IMHO, not yet enough experience here.

Support. Good user, and I must protest the inevitable coming of the marauding edit count warriors.
Last time I said "he has done good work, and is more active than most in discussing matters in article talk pages. Good admin material, imho," and that seems even more true now. &mdash;
Support. Opposing based strictly on edit count seems pefectly silly to me.

Support.  Overdue.  "Too new" - he's been here since Sep '02!
Has plenty of experience in time, if not edits.
Happy to support now (did I last time? can't remember). --
Sure. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
Good nomination. Support. --
I don't generally support cruelty to cyborgs, but.... ;-) <tt>


I supported last time too, and see no reason to change that. --

A low number of edits but they are good.

Would prefer more edits, but can hardly oppose in the above respectful company.
I agree with Jfdwolff.  --
Yo, Cy...you got yourself some REAL heavy hitters in your camp.  Good enough for me.  Support. -
I opposed his self-nomination, but that was mainly because I'm inherently skeptical of self-nominations. Strongly support. --
I don't believe that those who do non-controversial editing on non-controversial topics are any less deserving of adminship.
172 -- you forget the first... I dunno, twenty admins, who most definitely had less than 1000 edits...

Oppose.  User has less than 1000 edits.  Over 150 of those edits are on his own user page - [[User:CyborgTosser]].  Also those edits often break down to many edits on one page (looking recently 14 for [[Symbolic combinatorics]], 8 for [[Semi-empirical mass formula]]).  This user has mostly editted pages on music he likes, science fiction and electrical engineering.  He has not been involved at all in pages like this one (requests for adminship), votes for deletion or any other page which shows him having much interaction with other Wikipedia users.  This is something Johnleemk brought up during his previous self-nomination, and I concur with him.  We have no idea how he would act as an admin, since his interaction has been limited, and admin privileges are all about how he deal with interaction.  He edits pages in his fields of interest, occasionally posts on a discussion page, and once in a blue moon has a discussion on a discussion page.  Due to his limited number of edits, which are on his user page or the same pages multiple times in a small number of fields, and his lack of interaction with other users which is what admin power is all about, I oppose this nomination.
Oppose, for the reasons listed above. I've seen nothing that suggests that this person is cut out to be an administrator. The mostly non-substantive comments in support of this nomination have done nothing to persuade me to vote in favour. I have to wonder what qualifies a person for a position of authority who has not even interacted with the community in any significant way. The standard should be higher than that.
[[User:Netoholic/Admins|Too few edits]], and with only two days left has not accepted the nomination '''nor''' answered the candidate questions.  Lack of participation on this nomination page makes me ''very'' unimpressed. --
Oppose. Too few edits.
While I agree with the arguments above and as under "Neutral", I do not really understand the reasons why people then say they are neutral to the candidacy. :-> /

Why do you want to become an admin?
<s>Support -- a good contributor.</s>  172, I don't know what you're talking about -- many admins were promoted with less than 1,000 edits (I think a significant minority or a majority of promotions from 7/2003 - 1/2004 were in that category), and I was promoted with less than 500 edits.
<strike>Oppose.</strike> [Changing my vote to neutral in light of info provided to me by Jwrosenzweig [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk%3A172&diff=0&oldid=6762299]] [[User:172|172]] 02:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) User has less than 1000 edits... I don't recall a circumstance in which someone has been promoted with less than 1,000 edits... I don't see a compelling reason for breaking an established precedent and waiting a bit longer for adminship, as I did with [[User:AndyL]], [[User:Snowspinner]], and [[User:Neutrality]] (who were here for less than three months when I nominated each of them, albeit on those occasions unsuccessfully) out of consideration of the huge scope of their contributions in a short time span.



He's done plenty of good maintainance work. I strongly support anyone willing to do that stuff on a regular basis. ;-)




I know it's a cliche, but I thought he was one. Support.




Very active.  Support.





<s>Support if he writes something more substantial that "Just some guy." on his user page and specifies an email address in his user preferences.



Thought he already was one.
Has been an excellent contributor in sports articles.



If this is what he does working "only in spurts", his contributions put most of us to shame.


Thought he already was one. Seems to have similar interests to me!
Very productive, good choice. -
Consistent, completist, etc.
.




Ok. --



Support.
The first three "support" votes are enough to satisfy me.


But of course.
Yup.



Support of course! It's great to have you back. :)
Support. --
Support.
Support
Support.
Support.
Support enthusiastically.  Wish he'd never left in the first place. -
Support.
About 2500 edits, btw.









Excellent choice; intelligent and fair editor.




There you go! --


Support. Excellent contributor, and brings a lot of experience from usenet in dealing with controversial issues. -
--
Support, David's a man you can rely on to do a good job as an admin. &mdash;
Support.
Support.

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --
Yes, no question.


I was going to wait until the end of the month to nominate him, but what the heck. [[User:Mirv|&#8212;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']] 03:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)  :-D -

Definitely.

I know it's becoming a cliche to say this here now but I thought he already was one. Support.
DG is ok. --
Support.  Known him online since before I knew of Wikipedia.
I also thought he already was one.... Level-headed, clear, friendly, and helpful -- will make an excellent sysop. --

Support. Met him at the London [[meta:WikiMeet|WikiMeet]] and he seems a nice enough chap ;-) --
--[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
An excellent choice who perceives with real clarity the issues at this site.
Support.

Patiently not taking crap from MNH wins him my vote.


Showed good judgement and restraint when dealing with MNH.
Haha, I thought he already was one.

--












Support. David has guts&mdash;he isn't afraid to stand up for other users. (pumpie)
Support.
Support.
Support.
I dont think that fixing your own mistakes is enough of a reason for wanting adminship.
--
Good solid work and a lot of it!
Though people who speak [[Esperanto]] frighten me, Dave is an excellent worker and has a well-measured temperament. --



--











I've known from first-hand experience that David has the type of calm and cool-headed personality suitable for adminship. --


:)

Support. --
Support
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support.
A worthy candidate who would have had this earlier had he succumbed to peer pressure more readily. ;-)  Glad to see him ready to take on the glory and tedium that is being an admin.
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --
Good contributions, deals with minor disagreements coolly.







Clean track record. Fair-minded.
Yes!
From what I see, support.


Maybe now he'll buckle down to his ''real'' work and ditch that "schoolwork" come the fall. [[User:Meelar|






Wait a minute... you're DaB. Of course support.  --
Dab.  Ok.
Add another to the list who didn't recognise the full name as being dab.

Once you connect the username with the signature, this is a no-brainer. --



dab has what it takes -- when I see his sig, I always stop to see what he's saying, as it's almost always on target and perceptive.


Of course.
Support.
+disambig, I mean +dab, I mean Support.


User seems to be very clear-headed and calm, especially considering the heated topics he seems to frequent (e.g. religious). However, I would prefer to see a user with more participation on community pages (other than article or user talk pages). Nothing personal and best of luck.

Support. (Unrelated note - sysops are no longer allowed to perform SQL queries).




Your edits are of excellent quality. --




Support, even if Plato does too. -
Yay.

Not yet enough edits, IMHO.

Support. Decumanus' work has been huge. I know he'd be a plus!


By all means, support!
Absolutely.  I was about to do this myself.
Despite some reservations about Quickpoll votes, he deserves it.


Support
Support.
Support with absolute confidence.
Support strongly.
Ashamed of myself for not nominating Decumanus -- the ideal temperament for admin!

Support




Support.



A perfect fit. --
Oppose.

.

Fine by me.

Ok. --
Absolutely, (even though the guy is obsessed with BASIC) ;-) <tt>
That Derek Ross has not already become an administrator is surprising. --

Indeed.
<cliche>He's not an admin?</cliche> --
3 years and not yet an admin? Surely [[Wikipedia:Be bold|be bold]] should apply for nominating yourself for adminship! I especially like the modest and no nonsense replies to comments.
Support.
You mean...wow...

Absolutely.
Support --
Honestly never heard of him, but I have no reason to oppose from what I can see on a quick one-over. --
[[User:Plato|
Strongly support. --
Support. -
Support. -
obviously

[[User:Spencer195|Spencer195]]&ndash;
Support from me, too, and I agree with JW's comment. --

Ok. --
We can always use more vandal fighters. --



Certainly; as a side note, is "vandalisation" a word?
Looks good to me; as a side note, is "ugen64" a word? ;-)
Sure; veterenesque isn't a word though?

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --



I thought he already was one. It must be in his blood.






Seems like a good user to me.

[[User:MacGyverMagic|
Dude, you rock! Outstanding contributions on a variety of topics. Wikipedia truly needs more people like you. Hey, I spent the 80's in Portland, how about you? Rock on,


--
Certainly.
Support. &mdash;
The nomination blurb above is a little sketchy, but seems to be a strong contributor. Support column has several heavy hitters.
Support, comment below.--[[User:Bishonen|
The phrase "I don't know what I would do with it" does not seem to me to indicate the level of commitment and understanding that [[User:Grunt/Adminship|I feel is necessary]] to understand exactly into what you're getting here. --



Excellent choice. (As usual, "I thought he was one already!")

Excellent choice.



Support. Seen naught but good edits.


Agreed!






Support.
Another one whom I'm surprised they're not already... --









Good user.
Well, all right, if Wik called you a moron and a vandal, you'd probably be a good admin.
--
All of us who have been attacked by Wik should stick together.
Mon Dieu! If both Sam Spade and Gzornenplatz opposes you, you can't be all wrong! /
I think it's fairly safe to say that Wik's view can be discarded in considering who would make a good admin.
Seems like a good guy.  And the fact that he said "Enjoyed working on Kylie Minogue" below - I almost wet my pants laughing.  --

'''support''', and despite trying my best to find it alarming and sinister, I am completely untroubled by him leaving a silly comment (wagga wagga) on someone's talk page back in April.
having said "wagga wagga" back in April is no reason for me to object. If the 'repeatedly' part of the 'inanities' allegations is demonstrated, I may change to neutral (or even object). I also  like the fact that he is not aggressively defending himself here, letting people make up their own minds.
Yes. Just one "mistake" of saying "Wagga Wagga" does not affect my support. [[User:Squash|
Support.
Wik doesn't make things up. Dmn repeatedly posted inanities like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Wik&diff=3314886&oldid=3313987 this] on Wik's talk page. The "nasty things" Wik said, which Dmn complains about below, were apparently ''after'' Dmn started behaving like this. No sysop material.
[[User:Neutrality|
Adding "wagga wagga" to Wik's talk page does not seem the most damnable action I can think of.  Neutral b/c I don't know anything about this user except that he (like me) was on Wik's hitlist.
I've been thinking just about the same thing as VV:  "wagga wagga" is hardly major vandalism, and, well, if everyone who got into a high blood pressure situation wrote "wagga wagga," we'd have fewer ArbCom decisions.  It seems like a great deal less than what most folks do.  I have wanted to vote for support, but I'm pretty neutral.
I'll change to a neutral stance due to lack of info. [[User:Sam Spade|









Excellent choice - I should have thought to nominate him long ago.




Great record along with opposition from anthony, your perfect :)

[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]


I know I'm not the first to say this, but I love the username. --
Hear, hear -- both to the compliment on the username and Michael's assessment of DDG's suitability. :-)  Strong support.
Finally someone I'm familiar with to vote for. An excellent choice.
<cliche>He/she is not already an admin?!?!?!?!?!?!</cliche>  Seriously, this is a big surprise to me!  Strong support.
I thought you already were an admin. Jeez! :)--


Great contributor





Unbelievable. I thought you were already an admin.
Support from the gender neutral





In my interactions with this editor, I have been deeply impressed by his commitment and lack of stubbornness. I feel he is both responsible and committed. -




[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]



'''Strongly support.'''  [[Soda can stove]] is the best article ever (or at least since [[exploding whale]]).




I hope you're as great an administrator as you have been an editor. --
Support. I quite liked Soda can stove and it got to the front page. Seems like a good editor, not too controversial. Should be OK (fingers crossed!) -
Support. I haven't encountered this user before, but his list of contributions shows lots of good edits.
Looks good, lots of maintanance work.   --
Support. The quality of this user's work suggests sufficient knowledge to help other users, as well as a commitment to the encyclopedia.
Good [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance]] work. Will be good as admin.
Duk is an awesome user! [[User:Neutrality|
Sure, why not? A fellow April 2004 registree. :) --
An X-mas eve admin if it is up to me.
'''Support'''
'''Support'''.
'''Support'''. (why do we write "support" when there is a separate section for opposing votes?)
'''Support'''.
Support
Sounds like a great admin. Go for it.
Support.





I am a little hesitant on the "spam" issue, but Dunc wasn't responsible for it, and I do note that the comment I saw didn't openly campaign for a vote either direction.  While I don't care much for advertising, I do grudgingly accept the right of people to publicize a RFA vote (though I wish they wouldn't do it on talk pages).  Anyhow, I've always had positive experiences with Duncharris, and I think he would make an excellent admin.
Has done lots of good work. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 00:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC). Moving back to support, a single incident in so many edits doesn't seem such a big deal now I think about it.
--

I have no reservations.  I have fought against him; I have fought by his side; I have learned to respect this guy greatly--particularly when we have disagreed--because in fighting against him, he has helped me learn about many pieces of history, philosophy, and science which I value highly.  Incidently, I also appreciated finding the advertisement--which as a matter of fact had already been thoughtfully removed and was buried in the history file.  But for the buried advertisement, I might have missed this opportunity to vote for a great man! :)) ---
Dunc isn't an admin?  Why?  This makes no sense.  Support, and I can't think of any reason anyone would even be neutral.  Strong user, contributor, and mediator.
Somebody set up us the nomination. --
Make it so. -
Support.
Thought you already were one.  Strong support.
Support.


Excellent service record.  Strong support.
Support.

Dunc, enjoy. Pleasant to work with. And almost 9000 edits is really great.
Support. -
Dunc is a trustworthy, reliable, genial user, and would make a fine admin.
Support
support.

Support.
He's not an administrator yet? --
Support because of the organized, frothing-at-the-mouth opposition.  And would someone tell Sam Spade to stick to one name instead of changing his name at whim, so we know who he really is?

What RickK said.

Graham is a pillar of Wikipedia. It's unconscionable that he is not a sysop. '''Full support'''!
Calling a liar and a pov-pusher a liar and a pov-pusher is not a flaw (although the bullshit thing went just a little far).
Holy crap, you mean....Duncharris' not an admin? Well, this is something we must certainly remedy right away!
Support.

Yeah, admin material.
I oppose, because he calls the return of the a Constitutional Monarchy in Vientam '''silliness''' and '''ridiculous idea''' also he called me a '''liar'''. I have been contributing articles relating to Vietnamese Royalty, and the Vietnam War. I am a neutral person has been researching this since I was in College. A person should not be a Admin, if they are using words like this to a Wikipedia members. This is not acceptable. please see evidence of his non-neutral position on the issue. I have never used any words concerning articles that he has presented as ridiculous or silliness and never called him a liar. I feel that this is not right nor it should be tolerated here on the wikipedia community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nguyen_Phuc_Buu_Chanh  also please see "Please don't paste drivel onto my talk page. I'm just going to ignore you. I have better things to do. You're a aggressive pov-pushing crank. I'll make it easy for you, bugger off  and don't come back. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)"--
I am opposing because of the way he is treating Jimmyvanthach.  I realize Jimmy has been a nuisance and a POV pusher who needs to be censured, but administrators are held to a higher standard of diplomacy.  Diplomacy factors heavily in my voting, so I have to ask Dunch to practice it a bit longer.  And, Dunc, I will continue to enjoy working with you on the Jimmy problem.  p.s.  With friends like me, I realize you don't need enemies, what with the "spam" and all.  My sincerest regrets.
Oppose due to treatment of Jimmyvanthatch, [[Wikipedia:Civility]] is a keystone policy in my book.
Civility issue pushes me to negative as above.
Evidently my concerns expressed in my neutral vote weren't worth a reply, so I change my vote to oppose.
<s>Why is there spam regarding this vote @ [[Talk:Atheism]]? '''''
Need some more information.  Why do you want to be an admin? [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
I'm not sure what to make of the whole Jimmyvantach issue, so for now, I'll remain neutral on this. --

<s>S</s>he was nominated by Jwrosenzweig, <s>s</s>he does great work, ''and'' <s>s</s>he uses my email signature.  How can this go wrong? [[User:Meelar|


[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]







Support, pending links from Kevin Baas. Well spoken recently on foundation-l (even though I disagreed). Taking part in mediation shows that Denni is willing to compromise and build consensus. --






Sorry for the delay, I was away from my computer for several days! Me too, of course.
-
Kevin Baas' arguments and links below thoroughly convinced me. Support. -
I concur with David Gerard
--


Does not work well with others.  Violates policy.  Obstructs transparency.  See his talk page ''history'' - he deletes user feedback on his talk page, so that noone else can see it.  He is currently undergoing a user dispute mediation for making personal attacks. (see the mediation page)
Support - someday we will get all those Ontario communities finished!
An ideal nominee, as best I can tell.
Total support.  Earl is a great worker.  --
Support - I've been very impressed with his work. -

Support: Made a random check of his 2000+ edits, very solid and good work, nice ''stub patrol'' --

Support, although I wish he'd make more use of the edit summary.
Support.

Not what I would conciter admin material.--



Yes.


[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --

[[User:Avala|
[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]





I've reviewed many of his edits this month, and he looks like he'd make a good sysop to me.

I seem to recall supporting her last time.  She doesn't seem like she'd abuse her powers, and she's pretty easy to work with.
No more vacations for you. --
Glad to see her accept this nomination. --
She turned down an earlier nomination because she felt she wasn't ready yet. Glad to see her back.


Support strongly


Yay for Elf.
Ditto.  --


[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --
Support. &nbsp;&ndash;
Support
--



Support - It's the song! ;-)


Of course.
Strongly support.
I seem to be late to the party - an enthusiastic support for Elf, whose positive demeanor and valuable contributions are an excellent model of Wikipedian behavior.
Approve
Support --

Support strongly.
[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Support.
Support.
Support strongly. Anybody who is so gung-ho about WP that she wrote [[User:Elf/TempSong|a song]] must really care about our project!  And the tips she offered on her userpage show that she really knows what she's doing :-) --
<s>[[User:JRR Trollkien|JRR ]][[User talk:JRR Trollkien|Trollkien]]










Very active.  Support.
Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Support enthusiastically.  Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted.  However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs.
Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. --
Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin --
Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for '''not''' deleting something? :) -




Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. --
Support. In my experience with Exploding boy, he has not only shown himself to be a good contributor but quite reasonable as well.
NEWCOMER RIGHTS! - [[User:Calmypal|W]]


A keen contributor who seems communicative and collected. --
I have agreed w him, and disagreed w him, but I have never found him to be anything other than polite and reasonable, definitely not one to lose his cool, or be other than polite.


Support.



I think it is a good thing for there to be some admins who are willing to take risks. The best growth happens at the edges, where risk is taken. -
As a father who has problems bringing up children in the era of [[MTV]] and [[Nickelodeon TV channel|Nickelodeon]] (yes, Nickelodeon) I have some problems with ''some'' of the material EB writes and edits being in an openly-available web encyclopedia; i.e., I wish there could be a separate section. However, I've reviewed EB's material, in terms of the usefulness, quality and fairness of his work, so I am disinclined to throw out [[the baby with the bathwater]], as it were, and therefore Support.
--
Support.  Inasmuch as we have a longstanding policy of permitting and even encouraging articles such as [[fuck]], [[felching]], and the photographically illustrated article [[clitoris]], it seems unwise to penalize this user for largely similar material at [[Finger fucking]] or especially the relatively tame, fact-based entry at [[Collar (BDSM)]].  If we do not wish to have such articles, let us develop a policy prohibiting them before we act against their creators.
[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]]
All encyclopedic information should be in Wikipedia, not just the information that's safe for little kids and revivalist missionaries. Support for adminship.

1) I've seen good things from EB, and 2) any candidate who can unite the various corners of this site's political spectrum as seen in the votes above is obviously a good choice.
Has shown he can work with others even on controversial subjects.


Exploding Boy is creating innapropriate articles like [[Finger fucking]] and [[Collar (BDSM)]].

I like Exploding Boy (love his name), but I think he needs to be here for a while more.
I certainly support him.
Support. He's done an amazing job at the Russian WikiProject. -

We need more multilingual sysops.
Definately. [[User:Ilyanep|
Sometimes, the admin rights are handy for those who trying to keep the consistency. [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]
Everything looks terrific. &mdash;
Very impressed with these edits.









&#1085;&#1077; &#1074; &#1101;&#1090;&#1086; &#1074;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103;.  User is a TERRIFIC editor, terrific, terrific, terrific.  But 1200 edits IMO is just too inexperienced.  In other words, I don't think someone with 1200 edits is quite "jaded" enough for adminship.  Will gladly support after 2000.

Absolutely support.  A true pleasure to work with.
Support. We need more bean-shaped editors!
Support. 4 supporting votes within 10 minutes - this is looking positive!
Support. Above reasons.
Support.  Very active contributor and editor.
Support. I thought he was sysop already. He also understands the use of the summary field. :-)
Absolutely --
Support.
Support... you beat me to it.
support.  whats he gonna do wrong (if hes been here 3 months) that he wouldn't have already done?  Nothing.
Support, mostly b/c yay fabi, and in part because I'm against having vaguely defined time requirements. There either needs to be a "law" regarding required tenure, or people's qualification for admin should be based on overall performance.
Support wholeheartedly

[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] - Support, the edits speak for themselves. --
This is very difficult for me, as I agree with Angela and Dori that I would have much preferred to wait a month.  However, I asked myself what the standards are for--they are to ensure that we promote admins who are truly devoted to how we do things here and not about to cause trouble.  Fabiform has done a tremendous job of gaining my trust here, and I have no doubts about integrity or dedication.  Therefore, I (carefully and in considered fashion) set aside my general guideline for an exceptional case.
Support.  A very friendly and dedicated contributor.
Support. Good people are good people. The time limit is only a guideline, not an iron-clad rule to chain us.
Support -
No question - I'd put forward a small idea on W:FPC and Fabi jumps in and does the hard yakka coding it - Thanks mate -
Users like Fabiform are a perfect example of why I dislike fixed time/edit requirements for admins.
I've changed my vote from neutral to support. Never mind about silly rules like 3 months. Fabiform will be a good admin whether made one now or next month.
Support -
Support.
Support. Has definitely given me a good impression.
Absolutely support.
Support. -
Support
Support- dedicated contributor (as a newbie, completed the whole list of authors abandoned by me:-)
Support-
Support. Fabiform is a great, dedicated editor. -
Support.
Support.
[[Pro forma|Pro fabi]] support -- excluding unusual and nonrecurring actions.
Fabiform is embarassed that she has unanimous support, and she requested that I oppose him to balance things a bit.
<s>Oppose.  Power corrupts, and administrator power corrupts stratospherically.  I like fabi and her non-spherical shape just the way they are.  Say NO to corruption -- vote for the status quo!
I believe that fabiform would not be a good candidate for admin. However, let me begin my essay by first noting that I am a bureaucrat and a sysop. There. Now, I shall begin. Firstly, I must adjust my tie. Ok, there we go. Firstly, fabiform is bean-shaped. I do not like people who are bean-shaped; rather, I generally eat them. Unless they are beans, which cause a large amount of flatulence and are generally unhealthy. Bean products are okay, however, especially those containing peanut butter. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are good, but not those they serve at my school's cafeteria. However, I digress. Secondly, fabiform does not know how to speak Korean. I discriminate against those who cannot speak Korean. Third, <s>he</s> she has actually helped me, and I hate people who actually help me. Fourthly, <s>he</s> she spells <s>his</s> her name with a lowercase 'f', which is copying my signature. Fifthly... <s>he</s> she participates on the IRC channel. Sixthly, I am hypocritical; however, that does not mean that fabiform should be an administrator. Seventhly... I wholeheartedly, unanimously, Canadianly, oppose <s>him</s> her adminship as a fervent antidisestablishmentarianist. Eighthly, she's a girl :(.
I would support, except that the time here is a tad short (I am trying to stick to my vote of at least 3 months, and 1000 edits). He's done excellent work though.
<s>Exactly what I was going to say!
I would support because of so many contributions, but would also like a personal reminder about '''Neutrality''' - that dreaded ''saeva necessitas''  :O) - bean shaped nose, of course :O) -


Although he is relativly new to Wikipedia, I support. Good to work with.
Fennec's stats may not look impressive, but he is very active on the IRC channel, and has helped fight off vandalism and contributed to policy discussions on multiple occasions (notably helping to document the Bird/Brain affair) -- being consistently thoughtful, humorous, inquisitive and courteous. I was going to nominate him two couple weeks ago until I saw how new he was; but RfA votes should be based upon reputation and past actions; based on those criteriaFennec will make an ''excellent'' admin. --
Definitely.
Fennec is relatively new, but he has been very active in that time and appears to have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policies.
Support.  Nice to have you.
Support. I know him from other IRC channels too, and his Edit history looks good too. He won't wreak havoc for sure. --
Again a good case for flexibility of guidelines. Unlikely to act any worse, no matter how long we wait. --
Support. Confident that he'd do well.
Support. Looks good to me. --


It is a little early, but my opinion of them, and their behaviour, is unlikely to change.
Definite support!  --



Maybe some young sysop blood will help everything
Sure, he's pretty new.. but I think he's both friendly and trustworthy.
Changed vote to support after checking (solid) edit history.
Fennec pointed me to Wiki's that are much better than this crappy old one, so for that I'll vote for him/her/it/whatever.
I support him, Fennec's an effective syop, and i like him--

Support.

Amiable. Promising contributions. I'm starting to sound like a [[horoscope]]. Support!

[[User:Mendel| ]]&mdash;
Too new. --
Too new.
At a later date, I will most probably support. It is just too soon, according to my personal gauge for this. Still too few edits. P.S. I love the [[:Image:Lovebirds.family.jpeg|birds]].
Too new, will support if nominated again in a month or so --
Too new. Do we urgently need new admins?
Changing my vote to Oppose. His insertion of an unfunny "April Fool's Joke" on this page today demonstrates to me that he doesn't have particularly good judgment.
What's the hurry, is there a shortage of admins?  Why not wait 4 more weeks and nominate then.
Argh, once again I am hesitant.  I had just looked at Fennec, thought "Hmmm, only 2 months here....I'll nominate in 3-4 weeks".  2 months is well below the guideline most of the community supports....I'll have to think about this, and am neutral in the meantime.
I like the fox, but a bit too early.

Whoops, forgot to vote here! As the nominator, I of course support!
Yes.
I thought he was one already, definately support. --
Also support.
Support, impressive vandal hunting.
Hear, hear. --

Seriously, however much of a cliché, I can '''not''' believe Ferkelparade wasn't already, etc.--
Absolutely: A good amount of time on the project, exposure to the tough spots, maintained poise throughout, good judgment.

Support, rollback functionality needs to be used by people like he.


Yes and yes.


Yes, rollback for FP.
Support.

He's seen so many (other peoples') adminship requests go by so many times that he well deserves one for himself now. :) --

Yes, let's have more admins who don't keep a watchlist. It's all too easy to use it as a crutch to article ownership. --

Support.

Happy to. Even moreso considering the shoddy reasoning for opposing.

Support. Btw why the double Ff?


OK, I can overlook the bizarre double-F.  Seriously...strong support! -
Excellent contributor. Enough edits for me. --
I'd ''prefer'' nominations to come up after more time on the project (time, not edits) to see the user in interaction with disagreeing and disagreeable folks, but I've already seen ffirehorse in situations like that, and he or she has responded reasonably.
Support. Good contributions, committed, good attitude. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;

I like how you patrol cleanup. Support.
'''Support''' --
I admire the user and his work, however, he does not currently meet my [[User:Blankfaze/admin|personal standards]] for admin candidates.
Has not been here long enough.
120 edits is too low, IMO. --





[[User:Rhymeless|

Very strong '''''support'''''. Extremely likeable, easy to interact with, articulate editor. Supremely amiable, even regarding differences of opinion on [[Talk:Mysticism_in_Nazi_Germany#Why_mysticism.3F|the very most controvercial of subjects]].
I get the impression of friendliness and collaboration.. good traits for an admin. --
Support. --
Sure. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
Sí. --
Flame on!
Support. I found his interference in the dispute between Sam Spade and me balanced.
Yep --
Yes - I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'll vote in favor of Fire Star  - (
Absolutely. We need more friendly admins.

Sure.
Well, I haven't looked at him enough, but I've become irked by the amount of double articles he has created (We do not need two of the same kind of article for each romanization system), but other than that, I have no opinion on him.

Support.  Vandal fighting should be rewarded.

Support. Great WP custodian.
Support.  Most of his edits are housekeeping duties.  Exactly the sort of person who should be an admin as soon as possible.
Support -

Support. Excellent choice for adminship.
Support.
Support.
Support. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Francs2000 will be a useful and good admin.
Support. The few times I've encountered him here, he seems to be doing very good work.
Support. Seems sensible
Support. Francs2000 speaks modestly; he is a prime candidate for sysophod. --
Support. Good edits. Interest in thwarting vandals. No history of edit wars or trolling at all.
Support.
Support.
Support. (web of trust thing) --
Support
Support.

A very mature and responsible editor. Just gave me his advice on adding a new picture to [[Church]], in fact. Strongly support. --



[[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;
[[User:Neutrality|


Very responsible editor. Known him since the age of 5. Wholly deserving.
Lots of good work on reverting vandalism, cleaning up pages.



[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Oh boy, I was about to nominate him. :) --
Enthusiastically support.  Frazz has shown nothing but class, empathy and clear, level-headed thinking.  He's also shown some real friendship.  I'd vote twice if I could!! -
Support, even if he tried to delete my articles :) (He was right at that time)

Strongly support! -
Already working hard on speedies.
Support. --

Support, very intelligent and hardworking person from my conversations with him in private messages, Wikipedia and the #Wikipedia channel. --

Frazzydee's honesty in correcting his edit count alone say much to recommend him.
Another obvious support vote.  Keep up the good work Frazzydee.


Certainly.


I can vote as well right? Not that he needs it.--
Very smart and very friendly, who could ask for anything more?
Helpful and patient with new users and our inevitable mishaps :P--
[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;




[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --

All my experiences with Fredrik have been good ones.




[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
I've already commended Fredrik for his almost mechanical diligence and cool demeanor.  No doubt he'll be a great admin.
[[User:Meelar|
I have no doubt that Fredrik can handle being an admin.

My god...he has over 7000 edits and signed onto an account a few months after me...
My edits have just crossed paths with his ([[WP:FAC]]). Support. -







--
-

--






I've been here about as long as you have, but I don't have nearly as much edits as that. I'm wondering how much time you spent online to reach that count... [[User:MacGyverMagic|
That's almost as impressive an edit-to-time ratio as I have - hard work abounds. ;) --
Old proverb: "Wikiholics makest worthy administrators". Gadfium then definitely deserves it!
Of course! --



Certaintly.  By the way, your edit-to-time ratio is terrific, haven't seen one that nice since [[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]]'s.

--

The candidate's janitorial work deserves high respect -- this is the kind of stuff that constantly improves Wikipedia in a lot of small ways, eventually combining into the overall effect of giving readers a serious impression of the 'pedia (which, in its turn, it certainly deserves). Support. --
Definitely. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Support. Gadfium's minor edits have improved Wikipedia in major ways.
Support.
Yea, verily.
Definately. [[User:JonMoore|

No question.
Support.

[[User:Neutrality|


I like what I've seen.



Neutrality sums it up well. --
--


Anyone who can draw so much hate from Rex must be an ideal admin candidate. --

Great user! --

Support.  Gamaliel has earned my admiration for keeping cool under fire.  --

Yes.
Obviously.
Support. Sometimes I wonder if I vote for people who are going to come after me someday. What do I know? Well, it would be funny if it happened.
No. Simply put. Candidate has history of erasing worthy pages without putting them on VfD first, and who knows what he would do as a sypop. If he shows me signs of having matured, then ,maybe Ill change my vote. "
-

Support gladly. Gaz is a true gentleman and a pleasure to work with. I should have nominated him myself.

Support.
Support. Helping via [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates]] to encouragee WP image makers and photo takers to do their best.
Support.

Less than 1000 edits. That is not many considering the amount of time the user has been here. Also, usage has been sporatic, including a 2 month hiatus. Gaz didn't really catch fire until February 2004. Try another nomination in May 2004, IMHO.
<s>Gaz has done good work here, but it's about 5-6 weeks too early to be nominating yourself.  I suggest waiting, Gaz: the reason we draw a distinction between self-nominations and other-nominations is that we have a lot of users who arrive with seemingly the singleminded goal of being admin, which is almost always a very bad idea.  I don't think this is the case with you, but I don't want to set a bad precedent.  If you're not an admin by the second week of April, I'll nominate you myself.
<s>

'''Support Strongly'''.
Mhmm.

Previous comments were several months ago. Users change their minds. Patton is a good user.
I think people can change, especially in concern to their early days at this project.  I've seen a lot of good out of GeneralPatton, and I think he'd make a fine admin.


He may be a disputant on and off, but he knows how to deal with those disputes in a calm, collected fashion. --

I don't vote here all that often, but Patton has my wholehearted support. He's a trustworthy user who has done a lot of good work here for a long time.




Easy descision. [[User:Sam Spade|
Has been polite when I have observed him; I see no reason to oppose.
Support.
Yes. [[User:Squash|

Support.&mdash;

Support. Seems like a good user. -
Support.

Good nomination. I don't really care about the comment he made over four months ago. ''Adminship should be no big deal.'' --
I am confident that GP has the project's best interests in mind. He has been extremely active in metawork (e.g., policy), and communicates admirably well for a non-native English speaker. --
Support. Friendly and courteous user who seems actively interested in wikipedia policy.
Support.
Support. Has been very helpful when I've hopped on IRC with a question about arbitration.
Support.  I've been intermittent touch with Patton for several months, in which I have seen him grow from someone who I'd be wary to give adminship to (like the general he's taken the name of, he was a bit brash and impulsive), to someone I feel can be trusted with the duties and responsibilities of administration.  His more recent contributions have often centered around adding hard to find details (always with a source) and often attempting to remove the POV in articles which usually generate them naturally.
Support.
Support.
You have my full ''support''. We would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia by denying such a helpful and dedicated user admin powers&mdash;
Absolutely (I thought he was already). I'd like to note that the username thing is selectively enforced&ndash;that, or no one realizes I named myself after [[August von Mackensen]] (granted, that was sixteen months ago). I do agree that he should take [[User:Lupo|Lupo]]'s advice.
Support
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support.

'''Strong Support'''. I checked a number of his edits, his interactions with other users and grilled him over them on irc. I could find no ''current'' flaws, so he has my support. He then answered some truely tough questions from me, and gave me his opinion on a hypothetical scenario. His answers were very much to my liking, so that earns him a ''strong'' support.
'''Support''' [[User:BrokenSegue|
Last we talked, the devil told me the temperatures in hell were still unseasonably warm.
My first and only experience with the General has not been good: apparantly he got [[:Image:Vaginal syphilis.jpg]] deleted without any process (that I have found), he then uploaded the same image at [[:Image:Vaginal syphilis(disturbing image).jpg]] without any comment or description. He has replaced small thumbs  in the [[Syphilis]] article with links, disregarding former discussion (or making any comments himself) and not using the "edit summary". The result is two paragraphs starting with a line with an image link and thumbdescription. While I know the comlplaint doesn't really belong here I suspect others would be asking if I didn't give my reasons. --
It is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. Nor one who uses Croatian insults in edit summaries ("pickica" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_Croatians&diff=3629580&oldid=3621463], "serem ti sliku kralja petra" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_Croatians&diff=3636404&oldid=3636399]).
'''Strong oppose.''' I don't think he's a bad guy but we've butted heads over his inability to understand what NPOV means even in the most basic sense. As reference, see our discussions on [[Talk:Robert Oppenheimer]] (a few months ago), [[Talk:Wernher von Braun]] (a few months ago), and [[Talk:Nazi Germany]] (last week, when he suggested, and defended, his use of a self-described holocaust/historical denial website as a valid source for resolving a minor squabble). I think he is an earnest contributor but I don't think he has very good negotiation skills, good historical reasoning, or good methodology. And I think he has some legitimate conceptual problems with understand what NPOV means in any applicable sense. If you want to see this in practice, again, view my frustrations on [[Talk:Robert Oppenheimer]]. Sorry, GeneralPatton, nothing against you personally, you seem like a nice enough guy, and I don't think you ''mean'' to antagonize, but I think you often just don't ''get'' what Wikipedia articles should be about in a very fundamental way, and I haven't really seen any improvement in this, to be honest. I haven't seen you use good editing judgment or communication skills. These seem to me to be rather important for any administrator position, even with as lack-of-status as it is supposed to be. Even if the user has reformed since last July (which my latest disagreement with him suggests to me that he has not), I see this as being a somewhat provisional state and definitely not compelling a vote for adminship. (I'm someone who sometimes has strong opinions about uses of historical sources and statements, so please read the discussions linked and decide for yourself, don't just take my word for it.) --
Poor (nil) use of edit summaries and "Show preview".  I don't see any effort to perform routine maintenance.  Has some well-documented biases, and is friends with some the worst POV warriors around here.  I also don't like that it looks like he's using friends from IRC to do favors for him (re: the syphillis image). --
Oppose.  Does not make proper use of edit summaries.  &mdash;
Oppose.  I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges.  I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away.  The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship.  Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes.
Serious reservations, <s>not enough to oppose as of now.</s> [[User:VeryVerily|Very]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>Verily</font>]] 07:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Opposing.
Oppose
I guess I'm not really opposing, I'm just not very confident in this user. Moved to neutral.
Request an explanation of how GeneralPatton reconciles accepting this nomination with the quote I have placed in the comments section below. --
Insulting language isn't acceptable for prospective admins.  However, event was 6 months ago.  Moved from oppose to neutral.
I'm impressed by the patience I've seen from him in discussions with some problematic editors that shall remain unnamed here. GP's edits seem generally good, sometimes a tiny bit over-enthusiastic, but nothing serious. But please, use edit summaries, provide sources for images you upload (even if they're WWII images!), and try hard to avoid pointless insinuations (like the one on Nov 16, 2004). Shouldn't be too difficult, given that you managed to keep your temper on far more controversial subjects. Other than that: good luck to you.
Whohoa! I get to be the first to support!
Why not?
Seems like a good user to me. --
[[User:Neutrality|
OK.
Support.

Support. [[User:MacGyverMagic|

Support to break the tie. Anyone with more than a 1000 edits is good for me.
Support. I can't find a reason why not.
Support. Down with edit-counting. -
Support. Sure, no real reason that I can see for this user not to be an admin.
Support, as Yelyos.
Support, extra points for the self-nomination. Down with expecting self-noms to exceed the standards.--[[User:Bishonen|
Support.
I let this go an extra half-day to see if anything new would develop or another bureaucrat wanted to make a decision, but the voting stands where it did since before formal closing. I considered the formal objections (nature, quality and strength), I looked at the Thimerosol page that ElBenevolente cited, I looked at a sampling of Geni's work and I read over Theresa Knott's explanation of the nature of Geni's "edit warring." Taking all into account, Geni's apparent temperament, and length of time here, I find that, this falling into the "grey zone," there is no compelling reason to withhold adminship, therefore I am supporting and promoting. --
[[User:Netoholic/Admins|Short on edits]]. Evidence of "RC patrol" only within the last 3 days.  They should become more active in the maintenance area, and then check back in a couple months (hopefully with a full nomination).  --
Oppose. Seems like a good user and I would support in all liklihood with some more experience.  RC patrol is good, but I would like to see more content creation. Self nom's should exceed the standards by a good margin. -
Oppose.  User has very strange understanding of NPOV, claiming that "mercury-based" indicated a POV in the [[Thimerosal]] page (see [[Talk:Thimerosal]]), despite the fact that thimerosal is clearly mercury-based, and that this assertion is even supported by proponents of thimerosal.
Wanting to delete things is a bad reason for adminship. [[User:Sam Spade|
Good editor, but I agree with Sam on this, particularly for speedies.  Sorry.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying "Speedy delete {delete} is becoming annoying." Do you mean you'd rather delete than just tag them? Could you clarify? Also, edit war activity leaves me doubtful. I am aware of Health's, Iris's, and Treason's, ahem, backgrounds, but I don't see why good contributors should get into edit wars. Just request protection and walk away for a while; if the other persists, use the dispute resolution process. --




Definitely support.
Holy crap - he's not one already? Support 100%.

Absolutely. :-)
Yup.
Excellent edit history -- plus I always have an added measure of respect for users who post their real names. ;-)

[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]







[[User:Mike Storm|[[User:Mike Storm|Mike]]<font color=red>[[User talk:Mike Storm|&infin;]]</font>
Strongly support. This user does allot of important work on wikipedia including cleanup and voting regularly on VFD. From my interactions on irc and from what I have seen from his edit history he seems to have the proper temperament and abilities to be a good administrator.
He has been very helpful to me in my quest to write sound articles. Support.
I agree with all of the above.




[[User:Dpbsmith|
I havn't seen many edits by this user, but am impressed by the "Questions for the candidate" statement.
Level-headed, hard-working, active contributor with a good understanding of policy and a proven desire to improve the Wikipedia.  That would be a "YES!"


Strongly support. --



--



A conscientious editor who does not see adminship as an ''important and ponderous privilege'' but as a responsibility.

Support.
Geogre would undoubtedly be a great asset to the administration of  Wikipedia, our paths have crossed only a couple of times, but his professional dedication to the project has been very evident.  If elected he will probably be glad he has a sense of humour.

Support. Geogre seems decent. -
Support.
After spending some time with him on IRC, I think he's a downright jolly good fellow. Support.



Gee! Ogre! -
Reluctantly oppose.  While I have no doubt about the integrity and good intentions of this user, and it's obvious they care about Wikipedia, I do not feel comfortable voting for someone with whom I have such strong and fundamental disagreements regarding what Wikipedia should be and how it should be run, at least while people consider adminship to be an ''important and ponderous privilege'' (to borrow someone else's words: but I feel this is quite a widely held sentiment).  [[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;



This is my time to say, "He isn't an admin already?"








Young? Is he unusually young for a college student or something, blankfaze? The average college student probably falls near the middle of our age demographic. In any case, regardless of chronological age, Jerry has demonstrated plenty of maturity to qualify for adminship in my opinion. --
After seeing some of his incredible work on articles like [[Alan Keyes]], how can I say no? -[[User:Frazzydee|

[[User:Dpbsmith|
I'm not sure how I've failed to ever see Gerald's name before, given his large number of edits, but he seems like an excellent editor, and courteous and helpful in discussions. Definite support. &mdash;

[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]

Of course.


Unsure about his knowledge experience with the Wikipedia community. Is certainly polite with others, but I am not sure if he has a complete grasp of all of the policies in place here. Plus, what would he do as a sysop? --
<s>If I'm not mistaken, isn't he a bit of a ''young'' chap?  Seems to be a good contributor, but I would worry about inexperience, maturity, and the like, perhaps.</s>  Oops.  Not that young after all.  8750 edits?  Wow, impressive.  But if Sir Grunt is reluctant to support, so then shall I be!
Looks like good work from a reliable editor to me. &mdash;
Looks like a good one. [[User:Anárion|{]][[User_talk:Anárion|<em style="font-family: Code2000, 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-style: normal">&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628;</em>]]


Hey, this guy's all right.  Way too few controversial or political posts, but good enough. -

Sounds like a good grunt worker to me. --
Support. --
Great editor, great supporter, great help.  Support! -
I've been noticing him around for a while, and I'm quite impressed.  Support.

[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

Strongly support - great job on the Hurricane pages, for one thing.
Support. ~
Youbetcha. [[User:Rhymeless|



Does lots of grunt work. -
Seen him in action.  Impressed.--
Less lazy than I am. Also a superb contributor. As Grunt might say, "Grunt." --
Indeed.
Much valuable.
AAAAAAH!  AWESOME!  ''~* Blankfaze tnurGs''  --  and supports!
WHAT? Grunt is not already a sysop?! Along with mav, he's one of the hardest working users we have here. [[User:Neutrality|

Hmm, I needed about a week to get that much votes. :-)
Definitely. A good person. Very even-handed. :)
Definitely.
I wholeheartedly support.  Grunt has been an invaluable addition to Wikipedia.  I was incredibly suprised when I first saw his contributions, since I assumed that he had been here for much longer! However, regardless of his time at Wikipedia, he has proven to be a great asset. -
I too am quite impressed.  [[Alignment (role-playing games)|chaotic good]] is the only way to be in life, LOL.
tnurG.


[[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]

Highly deserving. He also passed my patented personality test. -


[[User:Ilyanep|
That'll do, Grunt. That'll do.

Ha, I was going to nominate him this week myself after seeing his tireless RC patrol work, Danny beat me to it by a couple of days. &mdash;
A thoroughly appropriate username nobody can object to. Like Stormie, I was looking forward to nominating him, though I was waiting until he'd at least been here three months. Still, has already done enough to show he would make a good admin. --
Definitely.

Would make a fine admin, ''snort''.
Adminship is way overdue.
* /me grunts.
[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Excellent contributor.




Strong support, based solely on seeing his speedy tags--one of the most prolific taggers, and they're always unquestionably deletable. When Grunt becomes an admin, the number of articles that I end up deleting will drop by close to half.
Oogachaka.  --



oh go on then ...
A totally horrible 45th level thief mage with tailor made special items not found in the original Baldurs Gate....  Oh, yes.  By all means.  We need more grunts.
Go, Grunt!  Yeah! -

Yay! 50th vote! Erm.... [[flame bait]]
Why he hasn't been nominated already is beyond my comprehension. --
Strong agreement.
Absolutely. &mdash;

YES! [[User:Neutrality|




Does plenty of important work with categories, Vfd, and such, as evidenced by his edit history. --
[[User:Frazzydee|

Of course.

Definitely.
support.
support
Support. --
[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;







Support! -
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Support on grounds that he has an unpronouncable name.
A thousand times yes... erm, Support.
Definitely support.


Here for too months, and I've seen good work.
Good contributor and I am not sure 3000 edits is a fair or often applied metric for adminship.
Masses of vandalism control, I thoroughly approve and support Guanaco's nomination. --

Support - but recommend Guanaco follows the recommendation to provide edit summaries. - [[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --
Seems to understand the criteria for speedy deletion, at least. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]

What I've seen from him is good. Helpful in watching recent changes.





Absolutely. Good work with VfD.--
Not here long enough. Not enough edits.
Too new. --





Certainly a good grasp of policy as evidenced by VFD contributions. Also note that his edits prior to about August were completely VFD-free, which makes up for any bias against him for this reason. For the record, he ''does'' have more than 2000 edits. --
Seems solid. Since he's done so much VfD work, I took a close look at it&mdash;his votes seem to be much in line with community consensus, and on more controversial topics he justifies his opinion well. &mdash;
I've had numerous interactions with Gwalla, and all were positive. Very reasonable and hard-working editor, perhaps with a mild VfD addiction, but I've seen nothing but excellent article-related edits too.

If anything, the VfD work is a plus -- VfD is one of the 'policy areas' of Wikipedia, and mature contributions there, in addition to the more general areas of the site, are a plus. I feel Gwalla has contributed well to Wikipedia. --

Go Gwalla! Support! And endorsed by Heresiarch as well. -

Examined a number of user's edits in main and talk namespaces; all are good as far as I've seen.  Appears willing and able to explain himself when necessary, to distinguish between his personal interests and the good of Wikipedia, and to resolve disputes amicably and according to policy.  Level of attention to VfD is abnormal, but an examination of voting patterns does not suggest an agenda (especially since the number of articles he ''nominates'' is relatively low), and a willingness to participate in this administrative task seems like an argument for adminship, not against it. [[User:Triskaideka|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;

All of the user's edits seem to be in good faith.  If one of the detractors could cite concrete examples of a frivolous deletion, it might make more sense.  --
Absolutely.  I also think people opposing on the basis that he thinks most of the VfD nominators are correct are missing the spirit of the project.  Our users nominate for VfD wisely, for the most part, so it's not surprising to see mainly "delete" votes.  Will Gwalla be a good administrator?  Absolutely.
Strong support. Being a deletionist is not a valid reason to oppose adminship.
<s>Slightly overzealous VfDing gives me a lack of clear sense of this user.</s> Vote moved to support. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
<s>Weak oppose. I am primarily concerned with his eagerness to delete articles without even trying to improve them.-[[User:JCarriker|JCarriker]] 05:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)</s> Support. Gwalla has addressed my concerns. -
Good edits, including in VfD. No evidence of serious conflicts with others. <tt>

Good unbiased edits in VfD.
Approximately 70% of his recent contributions have to do with VfD. Oppose. Sorry. --
I'm with Lst on this one. Over 1000 VfD votes logged in the last 2 months, vast majority are deletes. With no significant edits outside of VfD and a lot of repetitive minor edits, not sure how we can gauge his readiness for adminship. ([[User:Netoholic/Admins|my views on admin noms]]) --
I agree.  User is a bit too VfD-zealous.  Any way, not enough edits in my book.  Would possibly support after 2,000 edits and a branch out in his contribs.
Too little edits, too many deletions.
I agree with both blankfaze and Grunt. Come back in three weeks or so. [[User:Neutrality|
Hey, I check Vfd often as well, but I think Gwalla spends a little too much time doing so. I'd like to see more and larger-scale edits to articles. As of now, I have a hard time evaluating how he interacts with other users. --

The time period is shortish, but hard to imagine that I would think differently two months for now.
Support gladly. He's very attentive and responsive. This gemmologist will make a friendly admin. --

I too am concerned a little about the briefness of time here, but I think it's borderline enough that Hadal's good record of edits and combatting the occasional vandal makes him a wise choice.
I think his edits prove him trustworthy.

Support, along the same lines as Metasquares.
--

--
Support. Thought he was one already.
Support. Newish, but a good sense of balance.
Support. Good edits, and has been here longer than I had when I became an admin. --
Count me as neutral. I do think Hadal is a good choice for adminship, but I'm worried about the fact he's been here less than three months.
I'm neutral too. I agree with Angela, while noting he has been very good so far.
It is simply too soon. We should not set this precedent. I will gladly support Hadal in a few months.
Oppose solely on the grounds that Hadal hasn't been here long enough.




[[User:172|172]] (Strongly) Totally concur with Viajero's comments above.

I concur.




I checked and discovered he wasn't an admin yet. ;-)

I'm pretty familiar with his work on Wikipedia, and he's a really good, NPOV contributor, particularly on religion issues. He's devoted to Wikipedia policies, and he's been actively involved in resolving a number of significant POV disputes; for good examples, see [[Talk:Mormonism and Christianity]] and [[Talk:Human]].

Tom has fewer edits, in my opinion, because he works on contentious articles, and, unlike so many of us, he works slowly and carefully to establish a consensus version of a contentious passage before adding it.  Rather than accumulate edits in the article space by hammering out a version in back and forth, he accumulates those edits on the talk page -- preferable, in my opinion.  Another fine editor with the perfect demeanor for admin who should not be penalized for his careful style simply because it generates fewer edits than those of us who forget to hit "Show Preview".

You've got the right idea. I apologise, I thought you'd been around since September 200'''4'''. ;) --
[[User:Neutrality|
I've worked with Tom and find him to be a patient, knowledgeable, and effective consensus-builder. If sysops are to be wikipedia's diplomats, Tom is a top-notch candidate. He edits, reverts, and adds impressive content to explosively POV subjects. His mine-walking should be acknowledged.
I like what I see.


[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

I know that my vote here will have no effect on how he treats what I say. ---
Knowledge and courtesy are okay in my book.
Should have been done a long time ago - Tom gets my support. -
I was originally going to oppose because most of Tom's article-related edits are focused on religious topics. It's generally a good thing to have admins with broad interests. But then I remembered that religion is a ridiculuously huge target for POV warriors; [[WP:RFC]] attracts Zionism like a magnet. In Tom, we have a reasonable, thick-skinned editor who prefers religion as a topic. On top of this, he follows the NPOV policy,  acts as a mediator, and has said "''I would most likely not initially use my administrative privileges at all''". Whoa. Tom has my full support.
Skimmed through his history, and I'm impressed: consensus builder, and dedicated to NPOV. Also answered question 3 well. <tt>

Support.
Seems like a very nice user, prone to discussing things rationally and with courtesy. Problem is the 1356 edits; of those, 457 are in Talk:, 370 in User:, and only 23 are in Wikipedia:.  The rest of edits in a very narrow scope surrounding the religion subject. Sorry, doesn't meet my [[User:Netoholic/Admins|personal standards]], since we can't gauge readiness. --
Agree with Netoholic. --
Far too few edits by my standards.  Would probably support after 2,000 edits and a wider variety in topics edited.
Based on my recent experience with Hawstom mediating an [[User_talk:Rednblu#Allegations_against_User:Rednblu|dispute]] over a user's alleged POV campaigning in bad faith, I can not recommend Hawstom as an Admin. Though I do not doubt his initial intention to remain objective, in the mediation he publicly slipped a number of times in being overly deferential to one party and made several explicit and implied statements favoring one party in the mediation, both on User talk pages and by email. His NPOV in the dispute was far from complete/optimal. Hawstom also was unaware of the wikipolicy on [[Wikipedia:Refactoring#When_to_refactor|Refactoring]], a policy central to the allegations, and only became aware of it when I pointed it out. His method for resolving the dispute was lengthy, inefficient and did not produce tangible results. Questionable tactics employed by one party in the mediation went unchecked by Hawstom, as did a number of ad hominems. Additionally, Hawstom failed to respond/reply to my 5 emails sent in reply to his contacting me. When asked about this, he promised to respond to them but still has not. In defense of Hawstom he had a prior friendly working relationship with the defendant, so remaining genuinely neutral would have been a real struggle for anyone. But that also causes me to wonder why Hawstom initiated the mediation (I did not seek it), and that he mediate it, in the first place.--


Having worked with him, I can say that HCheney is a model contributor.  If anyone deserves this, it's him.  And I can understand being disillusioned--that was a confusing, frustrating and unpleasant situation for all concerned.  However, that was in no way due to HCheney him(?)self.
Support.
Support.
Support.


Support.  Having reviewed a random selection of his edits, I found nothing to complain about and much that was good. A thoughtful and responsible editor.

Support.

Support --
Hold up, hold up... You mean he wasn't one already? -
I've disagreed with Hcheney, but I believe he is a conscientious and well-intentioned contributor.

Support: good, responsible editor. [[User:Mirv| ]]&#8212;
Support: only seen good things.
Support.  Wik's objections are invalid.  As much as I dislike Grazingship, Hcheney has nothing to do with that.
Support.
Support --
Support --
Support.
Support. I was working on a Perl parser to help me analyze User contribution pages using HCheney's contributions as test input. Then I realized that I'd better vote for him before I finished, because his time is running out. Nice work! --
He did not act impressively at all when previously nominated and withdrew his acceptance not "when it became obvious that foul play was occurring" but only in the last moment when it became obvious he would not get a consensus (when the vote stood at 15-9). His "impressive" reaction actually consisted in making a pretense of leaving [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Hcheney&diff=3011484&oldid=2907317], which lasted about a week. He also said "The entire RfA process has completely disillusioned me" which is strange - if he wasn't requesting adminship himself, why would he care so much about it? I still suspect that Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are the same person and he cares too much about adminship, much like Alex Plank. --
Vandalized my website (see [http://www.mcfly.org/wik/Natalie_Paff] if you care).  Lied or at least was not forthcoming about Grazingshihp last time he was nominated (and Grazingship is in my http logs reading his vandalism right after he created it, clearly they were closer than he is admitting).  I'd support given a bit more time, and a bit more explanation as to his previous actions, as he has kept a low profile since withdrawing his nomination, but it's a bit too soon, IMHO. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Still not enough experience with the community, IMHO.
Enough weirdness with the whole weird thing from before that I think it might be a good idea to hold off for a while.
Support. I think Hemanshu can be trusted with sysop responsibilities.
Support. --

Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. -
Support --
Support -
Support. Seemed like a nice guy on IRC (as Statcrazy). Non-aggressive. --
Support. Despite a somewhat rocky start, Hemanshu has steadily improved and I think he can be trusted with sysop responsibilities.
Support.
Support -
[[User:UninvitedCompany|uc]] 03:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (''I'm going to assume that uc wants this here. If not, please remove it. --
You! Of course! --
Hyacinth is a model editor: productive, motivated, and imperturbable no matter how noxious the provocation. -
Excellent hardworking editor.
Definitely.
15 months, 10,000 edits, and isn't widely reviled? Well, I'd say he's a sure bet for adminship, then.
Will make a great admin, methinks. --
Musicians of the world, [[unison|unite]]! --
Yes!!! --
One of the things I like about Hyacinth is that he makes his biases clear on his personal page, and he goes to lengths NOT to push them in articles.  This shows great integrity.  Excellent editor; I don't agree with him about a lot of things, but respect him immensely.  In addition, he's ''amazingly'' even-tempered when attacked.  I believe he would be a superb admin.

[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Willingly to learn and graciously to teach.



Fantastic user, would be a great addition to the admin community. [[User:Rhymeless|
Huh? I always assumed Hyacinth was already an admin. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
I also thought Hyacinth was an admin. Strong Support.

Whaddayamean he's not an admin already? --
Certainly.

[[User:Neutrality|

I thought Hyacinth already was an admin.

Hyacinth was the first person who greeted me on my homepage, and ever since I seem to find his edits wherever I go on Wikipedia.  I've been hoping that he'd becomes an admin.  He's even handed and open minded.  His rigorous scholarship is an inspiration.  --

I'll just jump on the bandwagon here. --
10,000? Wow...

Yep!
Sure, Hyacinth deserves it. --
Make it so.
Seems very neutral and amiable, often a voice of balance.
Like he said.
Band wagon jumping. Good history.
Definately support.  Hyacinth is a great editor with a lot of specialized knowledge, and would make a superb admin.  -
Wow. --
I don't think Steven Zenith's concerns are likely to cause Hyacinth to be a bad admin, though perhaps I am a bit too optimistic.  I am slightly concerned about the fact that this user has not explained why ey wants admin powers, but I'll support anyway.  Adminship should be no big deal, after all.  [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
I support.
Yes and yes.
Support.
Pardon the cliche, but...you mean he's ''not'' an admin with over 10,000 edits under his belt while managing to stay out of harm's way?  Everyking said it best further up the page.  :)  Way overdue.  Support. -
Duh.
Good work.

Woefully short answers in the "Questions for the candidate" section.  Ignoring the most important one completely. --

Well deserved :)











[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --




Support.  I think he can handle it.
Support
Support -
Support - [http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/thumbnail420.html I Like Ike!] --
Support -
Support
Support
Support
Support. .<sup>.</sup>.
Support. I thought he ''already'' had sysop rights; just humble, I guess. --
Support
Perl '''edit:''' I also just noticed that Isomorphic is a member of the new user welcoming committee.
Excellent choice.
Just now I was checking Isomorphic's edits while I was considering an adminship nomination :)
Yes, strongly - in the light of his efforts to mediate with Plautus, I was considering nominating him myself. Very good choice.



Should Isomorphic accept the nomination, I am certain he'll make a great sysop.
Support.  Good work on the welcoming committee.
Definitely support. Isomorphic is a great contributer to Wikipeda - as well as fighting vandalism he helps out newcomers and had the great idea of creating the user-friendly [[Wikipedia:Tutorial]] (he has written most of the content thats currently there as well).
Support. Has been helpful to new users.
Support. Great work with new users.
Support. --
Support. --
Support. Kindly supportive of me when I first joined up --
Support. --
Support -


[[User:Rhymeless|


OK
Good grasp of policy, and excellent demeanour. --

Absolutely. --

[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])


[[User:Noisy|

Support wholeheartedly. -
Always keeps cool, and always (thoroughly!) explains the reasoning behind votes. Support.
[[User:Eequor|

Of course! [[User:Neutrality|

Oppose.  Jamesday seems to think that nothing is copyrighted.
Support. I say he's definitely been involved enough. But what ''is'' his legal background? --
Support.
Support. --
Support - appears to have a talent for puting up with the unputupwithable. --
Support.  Whether or not his legal views are accurate is something I can't really judge, and is not relevant in any case, as I believe he's a trustworthy contributor who will not use his sysop powers to do anything anti-consensus. --
Support. As yet another non-lawyer, I am sometimes concerned that Jamesday's copyright opinions are not fully accurate (though never enough to be concerned about him as an editor--besides, I know far less than he does about copyright law), but I am always pleased by his thorough and generally clear reasoning in such discussions.  Also, I do not believe that granting him sysop status will affect the copyright concerns at all--he will be no more or less likely to promote the stance that RickK objects to, and as noted above, I'm not convinced there's anything wrong with his stance.
Support. Mr. McWalter, methinks thou havest une penchant pour le creatizzle of new wordages.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support. I have found him to be nothing but pleasent, friendly and helpful. Find a few more like him if you will, sharp eye Angela.
Support. -
Support
Support.
Support.

Support.
Support. Good contributor, friendly.
Support.
Support.
Support because Angela supports (see: [[web of trust]]) --











Voting FOR Jayg because Xed is against him.
I have decided to change my vote because I have noticed how polite and gentlemanly Jayjg is. I don't think I knew enough about him before, but his professional attitude is such a breath of fresh air, I think that he will make a great admin!
I'm changing my vote. I stand by my reasoning below (which has more to do with WP procedures than Jayjg personally) but Jayjg's behaviour here has convinced me that he's capable of seperating his personal POVs and admin tasks, so I trust Jayjg. -


After hours of searching, I found only '''one single instance''' of Jayjg stating something to the effect of ''his POV being NPOV,'' when I thought it wasn't, which is why I feel confident in supporting his candidacy. His manifest civilty is a strong additional plus! --


Hey, wait a minute! I know who you are! :P --

Would make a great admin.

I orginally voted neutral, but this is a borderline case and adminship should be no big deal. [[User:Neutrality|
I agree.


[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 05:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Slightly mixed feelings here: Jayjg is a bit of a POV warrior, and I'm not sure all of his contributions have been positive, but I am sure that he understands and cares about the difference between what he does as an editor and what he would do in the capacity of an admin. I trust him not to abuse the latter. --

I believe him to be biased on several important topics, to the point that I question his ability to remain neutral in disputes and use powers such as protection responsibly and without bias.



From what I've seen so far, I haven't been too impressed. Would perhaps reconsider at a later date.
If he isn't aware of "how rogue admins are reigned in" then he needs to do more reading before becoming an admin. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
I think I'd like this to come back for reconsideration in another month or so.
Jayjg has made some fine contributions. However, he seems to be a bit confrontational in some of his edits and explanations. I do not think that he is rash; indeed, he has handled volatile articles rather calmly, such as those related to Judaism and Christianity. I'm not ''against'' him recieving adminship; I just think that Jayjg should attempt to be a better communicator, especially if he becomes an admin. --
Agree with Pir basically. As long as adminship is given out as a life tenure without possibility of recall, I can't support someone with a strong POV like that. Despite all the "janitor" talk, adminship in the present system is a position of considerable power, and power tends to corrupt. But as I have not seen particular misbehaviour on his part so far, I won't oppose; and I would readily support if there was any real, functioning mechanism for de-adminship in place.
I really like what I've seen of Jayjg.  He has seemed to be calm, rational, and persistent in his view without being exclusionary of the views of others.  The whole thing with Xed's votes is a bit moot, as Xed surely does seem to be new and a little too motivated.  The only reason that I'm not voting for Jayjg is that I want a little more time on the project before the nomination.  I.e. barring anything really disturbing happening, I will vote 'yes' on the next nomination, which I hope is made in 8 weeks or so.
I just reviewed his edits on Yasser Arafat and basically I agree that he passed over that fine line of POV in his edits, even by so very little. However, is this reason to fear adminstrator abuse? I don't know.


[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]... even though adminship is just receiving flak and having a whole bunch of red buttons on your console you can't touch. --


















No offense personally to JCarriker. I just want to see more interactions with the community before I support.





Support
Support.
Support unconditionally. --
Support.  Quality work.
Support.  Good balance of dedication and positive attitude.
Support. Jengod has good taste in television programming.
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. I thought she already was one.
[[User:Taxman|Taxman]] (presumably -

Absolutely support - he's a great editor who absolutely deserves to be an admin.
There should hardly be a need for a vote to reinstate an adminship that has been voluntarily dropped, especially not when the editor has remained up-to-date with policies.
Right. --

[[User:Neutrality|


Rubber stamp this one in.

Strong support. -
Support.

Strong support

Support
Support.  Hard to find a lower-risk nomination than a former admin.
Support.
Support. Does great work around [[WP:FAC]]

Support. Great work on explaining is view on [[WP:FAC]]. [[User:MacGyverMagic|
Jeronimo! --
I while ago, I nominated [[B-29 Superfortress]] on the [[WP:FAC|FAC]].  Several users gave brief statements of support, but Jeronimo gave me 25-line list of nine items he thought should be fixed.  I was impressed.  [[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&bull;</font>]][[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&rarr;</font>]]


Seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia.
[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]


Fair, even-minded. Interesting in custodial activities.

Bien sur!



Definitely.
Oddness is an asset.
I like openness. What's the worst that can happen? --

--
I have never been this amused by an acceptance of a nomination.
Some day, people will give this man awards just to hear his acceptance speeches.  Everything I've seen from him is good.
At the risk of sounding clichéd, I thought he already was one. -
Support.  Fabulous choice!



Support. He's done some great work organising the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine]].
Bummer, I wanted to nominate him myself. Support.










We need more [[User:Jfdwolff/WikiDoc|Wikidocs]] --



Just looking at the number of edits does not do Jfdwolff justice, as he tends to make large edits rather than trivial ones. A solid record of contributions.
Not enough edits yet, IMHO. Therefore, not enough experience yet, IMHO.
Never heard of em. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]


"Thought she already was one."
Goodness, yes!  Jmabel's work on [[Wikipedia:Translation into English]] alone (both setting it up and doing translations) is worthy of a barnstar.  Ashamed I didn't think to check if he was an admin.



What jengod said.

A qualified contributor who doesn't really want to use admin abilities, especially blocking, is all the easier to support. --
No need to use those abilities, but I'm sure you'll find them useful on occasion. Support.

Great editor. Support.


A talented and diplomatic polymath --



OK by me -
A solid, relatively long-time contributor that I believe could handle sysop duties easily. --

I too believe in quality over quantity and your contributions definitely have quality. -
Qualified, has shown a good grasp of policy and etiquette.
Quality over quantity. Calm and well-spoken in exchanges with other editors.
While he doesn't quite have a comfortable quantity of edits, I trust him and I hope sysoping him can boost his contribution.
Quality over quantity, indeed.
After consideration an review of your edits, I've decided to support.  Not that it matters.  You have a healthy amount of support already.  Quality over quantity, I concede.  I just hope you're more active in the future!
Seems a good contributor, and certainly VfD needs more people willing to maintain it (IMO).

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --
Seen good work on many articles.

No offense to Johnleemk - but for now, I oppose. I think it is still to soon to judge.

This may sound unusual, but I'm neutral only because of this user's relatively few discussions on his talk page and other talk pages. While this is probably a good sign, I feel it's important to be able to gauge how a prospective admin relates directly to other users, as well as editing articles.


Fair enough. --




Good work with the Salt Lake Olympics bid article, and candidate is also a model of non-confrontational concensus-building -- all in all top notch wikicommunity behaviour. Support. --
support
Definite support.
[[User:Neutrality|
Support.
Just the sort I enjoy supporting.
Looks to me like an involved, devoted contributor. --


Certainly!
Full support. --

Her edit history shows that she understands the alphabet. :) <tt>
Ok. --
Dude, she wasn't one already?
Certainly. --
Support.

Support. -
Support. --
Support. [[User:Dpbsmith|
Support.

Yes, yes, yes and yes.  Did I happen to say "yes?"  If not, YES!! -

[[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (

Support.
of course.
Oh, and I was just waiting for the three-month mark to nominate him myself. Shows excellent understanding of policy and calm temperament. --



What Antandrus saud. --
Seen him from [[CAT:CSD]]. Seems to known what a speedy is. Support.
I buy this! (Despite a possibly somewhat short time of presence and a too limited exposure to ugly wikipedia fights.) On a gut-feeling (or [[personal chemistry]]) level, JP resonates with my soul. /
[[User:Neutrality|
Support. I see no good reason to oppose. -




Seems to be a nice and thoughtful user, also  someone whose life would be easier if he could use a revert-button :)
Damn it!  Ok, so I'm a hypocrit.  During the RfA process, he has stayed cool.  No self-promotion, no querulousness.  Besides, if there's a bandwagon, I need to be on it.
Edit count means nothing to me, I think we need more good admins, it would make my job much easier.  '''Support'''
<s>Support after 1200 edits. --
[[User:Leif|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<tt>'''~'''

Yes, definite support, has picked up key concepts quickly and proved himself effective.
Nice, reasonable guy
Just two months and some days here.
Account is too young. Come back later, and we'll see. --
I have been favorably impressed by Jpgordon and pretty much every turn and have no suspicions or hesitations about the qualities he has shown so far.  My neutrality is based on time on project alone.  Jpgordon has been in some of the high stress areas of Wikipedia already.  He hasn't lost his cool there.  I'm not one to track edits, but I do care about there being enough time to see how one reacts not just to the unreasonable people, but the people who are programmatically unreasonable.  Everyone can surive a duck peck, but when that flock of ducks keeps pecking every day, you get annoyed by the dullness of the thing.  Fully support on next nomination, barring the unforeseen.<s>

[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]


[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --





[[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 18:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC) Respectfully oppose.  This nomination is premature.
Too early.
I don't oppose, but I would rather wait another month before supporting. Two months seems a little early in this case.
(originally under neutral) [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Support. I've always seen good work from Kaihsu.
Support. From what I've seen an excellent contributor. -
Support
Support.
Support. Seems to be a consensus, so I'll jump on the bandwagon. --

Another excellent choice.
Agreed. --
Seems very mature. --
Lots of work on potentially hotbed topics without a whole bunch of people rushing to vote oppose speaks as highly of him as anything I could say.
Definitely.
Yep.  --
Great user! --
Support, but would like to see answers to generic admin questions.
Good enough. Support.
OK.

Solid contributions.




Strong support! [[User:Neutrality|
Can't think of a better admin. &mdash;

My interactions with Kate have been very positive and productive (well, ''she'' was productive).--


Quite the witty gal this one is, and a diligent worker to boot.


''Most'' definitely. Kate's understanding of the responsibilities of a sysop -- and the limits of sysop power -- are right on target.

Most certainly.

Yes. I feel she would make a good sysop. -
One of the most excellent contributors I've seen in a while. Diligent, dedicated, fair, and a whole bunch of other positive adjectives. --
[[User:Frazzydee|






[[User:Meelar|

Few people work as hard as she does; she runs a mailing list and made many thousands of edits to fix external links headers. --
Support: Kate has been very helpful in redirecting all the [[cricket (sport)]] disambigs to [[cricket]].
Strongly support. --

Very strongly support. A++++ would buy from again!!!elevenone11.
Wholeheartedly endorse.

Kate's attention to detail on title conventions (and a more easily spelled username) get my vote.  I have seen nothing but good out of her since I've been around.  --

Strong support! -
The Featured Article email custodian.



When I saw "11,496 edits" my mouth dropped to the floor. [[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;

I'm pretty sure we disagree in many fundamental ways about the way Wikipedia works, but I don't think that's a reason to oppose.
[[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason/|Arnfjör<eth>]] [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Ævar Arnfjör<eth> Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason]
"''menial cleanup tasks''" are the most important! <tt>
Kate's not a sysop already? Tsk.

Definitely.

Of course! -
Hopping on the bandwagon. :) --
Wait for me! - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Uhh... oppose, on grounds that she has db access... errr wait. no... make that support, on grounds that she's nice and deals with problems... nicely? Uhh... right.
Amazed by this user's edits, have seen much of hir work from afar. Easily support.

[[User:33451|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
Ridiculous charade. She's already a developer. Why is there no vote for this? Developer is clearly a more important position than sysop, and there is not even an announcement, it seems to happen behind the scenes. How can you possibly trust someone with developer powers before the person is even here long enough to meet the minimum standards for adminship?

Not enough support votes at this time. Willing to support at 60 support votes. (Feel free to move this vote, if I forget to do it myself, am kidnapped by aliens, or if this sentence is false.) <!-- What's the point of waiting for the voting period to end, when there are a quadrillion supports, no (serious) oppositions, and they already have more dangerous abilities..? -->
strongly oppose.  ends IRC name with non-alphanumeric.  just say "no" to punctuation terrorism.


--
"
[[User:Rhymeless|



Of course. --
Another great nomination by uc. uc's really on top of things!
Anyone who loves to fight vandalism can't be all that bad (Smile).  Let's kick some vandal b--t!
All your vandalism are rolled back by us. --

-
Yes.

All right, no objections.
/


I agree.
Ditto.--
Skill in dealing with challenging community members is one of the most important requirements for an admin.
--
Good edits


The patience shown working with WHEELER is truly exemplary.
Support. Kim's interactions with other users are exemplary.  He/She's great! (j/k) -
Ability to deal patiently with difficult users is one of the best possible qualifications for adminship. --


Support. I've come across Kim's comments here and there and am impressed. Kim seems to be one of those uncommon folk who are an oily influence (as in troubled waters), and that influence is sorely needed. To the extent Kim can share it, WP would benefit. Awesome admin powers would not be amiss in this case, I think. Lack of edits (see below) do not seem to me to be an impediment, in this instance. Let's hope Kim's temperament survives a year or so of WP intact, eh!
'''''Support''''', one of the very best.


Yes! Spent an hour or so checking the history, and I'm impressed. Calm and level-headed, and I particularly liked the "Editing on Wikipedia should be ''fun''. Why else do it for free?" (Quoting from memory).

I rarely care enough to vote, but Kim is certainly going to be a good admin.


[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]


More edits!  (But you are a swell contributor.)
Support. Quality contributor.
Support. --
Support.
Support -
Support -
Support
Support
Support --



Looks good to me.
A good contributor
Yet another prime example of a qualified individual here. --
Strongly support. TO BLANKFAZE: I believe 1500 edits is enough for adminship, and there is '''no''' reason to oppose someone because you aren't familiar with her. --
Support. Has a nice username, too :)
Support. Well Blankfaze is an admin, even though I don't know him and he's got [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits less than 2000 edits] in the main namespace (assuming the statistics are right).  So what? I've heard no complaints about his admin performance. I see no reason to oppose adminship for Lachatdelarue any more than for Blankfaze.
The user's talk page indicates that she has been very friendly and helpful to other uses and makes valuable maintenance and cleanup contributions.
Doesn't meet my [[User:Blankfaze/admin|personal standards]].
Not enough edits.

Support. I thought he already was one.
Support -
Strongly support --
Support.
Support. I thought he already was one.
Support

Support.

Support, dedicated contributor, work is extensive --
Support, frequently appears in my watchlist :) --
Support, a large body of solid work.  (But still no [[Worshipful Company of Thieves]]?) --
Support.
Support. Lord Emsworth is the sort of contributor we need more of here at Wikipedia. -
Support
Support
Support enthusiastically.
Support. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, .<sup>.</sup>.
Support.  The good earl is tireless and unfailingly polite.
Support. Made good edits in Wikibooks, as far as I remember. [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support.
Support -was the first to complete an intital draft of a book in wikibooks.
Support. Hughly interesting contributions.
Support.  Tireless contributor, extremely polite, works toward consensus. -
Support.
Support.
Support!!!!!!!
Support. It ''is'' 2003, where I live at least... --
Also support.  Does great stuff. -
Support


--







Nice person. Active participant. Interested in cleanliness.




Happy to, particularly considering the opposition of the marauding edit counter.

Of course. --



Support.  Glad I wandered by this page and noticed his nomination.  He did good work on the [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] when we were first putting it together.

Smart, level-headed, and well-tempered.  A good candidate.
Support.  Hard-working, even-keeled and a true asset.  Even more so as an admin! -

There is no Irish cabal.... ;-) <tt>
Support.  Reasonable looking edits, obviously intelligent and cool-headed.
'''Is ea (support)'''. Is é useadoir go han-mhaith. --

Has done lots of good work.
Of course! --

Admire his work on Sherlock Holmes stories and Irish topics. Support.
[[User:Neutrality|

I've come across his work, and I consider Ludraman a competent editor. '''Support""". [[User:MacGyverMagic|



Yes indeed.

Nothing personal - you don't quite meet my [[User:Blankfaze/admin|personal standards]] for supporting an admin candidate right now.
Too few edits.




"A statement of trust and appreciation." Indeed.
[[User:Avala|

Very good at maintenance.  --

Seems just what an admin should be.
Patient and polite character when dealing with problematic users is just what an admin should have. Also very good contributions and maintenance. --

Positive record, no abuses. [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]


I strongly supported Lupo's failed nomination in March, and I strongly support his (I'm glad to see successful) nomination today. He is an asset to the project. --


Advertising his adminship is a bit odd, but I have no doubt that he'd make a fine admin.
I think he'll make a very good, solid administrator. I support. -
Definitely support! Excellent person with excellent contributions. I wish Mac good luck on the nomination. - "
Support
<nowiki>{{AssumedHeAlreadyWasAnAdmin}}</nowiki> --
[[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (

Of course. [[User:Neutrality|
I remember looking at DYK and thinking - "Oh gads, these are all stale." I can't say that's happened recently due to Mgm's commitment to it. Support. -
I have to admit to being a bit unimpressed by the advertising of this vote on user talk pages: a decision here should be based on merits alone from people who regularly visit this page.  However I do not have a problem supporting this user, who's edits are well above reproach. --
He's good user. He will be good admin. He can perfectly explain some Wikipedia specific problems to newcomers.  [[User:Darwinek|
I didn't get an ad, but he's a good editor in my view. Uses cleanup. We need more of that.
Support. (BTW: The ads don't worry me because if nominees have no merit or borderline merit then their ads will backfire and cause people to vote against them; And if you have enough merit that ads will work for you, as in this case, then I say "best of luck to you!") --
Absolutely.
I don't find it a bit odd that someone who works quietly behind the scenes (as does MGM) goes unnoticed long enough to need admin power before somebody else nominates them.  I doubt that any of the better editors will oppose this self-nomination.  I '''support''' it.


I didn't already vote, huh? Well, OK, I support.
Support, I don't really know much about you but, I trust the judgement of some of those who voted for you and whom I'm familiar with.
I am in favour of his adminship.
Support.
Support.
Certainly.
Support most definitely.
Support. -
Support. Where I've seen him work, Mac's always been a diligent and dedicated fellow.
Strongly suport.
Support.
Absolutely. Well deserved. Have no reservations at all.







I hate to say it, but this is starting to look like the Ukraine election <tt>;)</tt>  --

Seems to be the right sort of person to be an admin. --

[[User:Neutrality|

Looks good to me.
Good user, for European related articles.

The self-control required not to lash out at 33451 is impressive enough ;-).
Great user! --
''See my extensive comment below''. --


[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

I agree with Emsworth's comment. &mdash;
Seems like quite the excellent user, and the stupid reasons for opposing inspire me to vote.

User needs more experience.  Editing-wise, and also in the community.  Will possibly support after 2,000 edits, if user obtains said experience.
Don't know this user personally.  But edit history looks good; no red flags.  Quite a bit of vandal fighting.  Fairly active recently.  Seems like a worthy admin candidate.
Of course.
Support. I haven't encountered this user previously, but his edit history looks good.
People who don't have their username in their signature are <u>so</u> confusing. Still, '''Support'''.   --
Support. User's history of vandal-reversion and cleanup suggests his contributions would be enhanced by adminship.
Yes, support.  But please try to address your signature and user page oddities.
Whoever aims for consistency across Wikipedia, has my full '''support'''.  I do not see any reasons why Mackeriv would not become a great admin.  Pretty good edit history, too.&mdash;
Looks good. Decent history, vandal-fighting a plus. --
Never heard of you until today.  You seem to be not that active, but increasing activity lately.  Hope you will continue to be an active contibutor.  You seem suitable as an admin, though, and since you do the 'chores' you should probably have the tools you need as well.
I like what I see.
'''Support''' I like your style, you seem honest

You seem to be an OK person, but you nominated yourself instead of being nominated. In addition, you said "I've considered the idea of becoming a sysop" which makes it sound like it's something you yourself get to choose. My conditions are not met. Sorry.

Support.  Anyone who's put up with vandalism for so long deserves a medal to go with the sysop privileges! -
An impressively consistent trickle of good edits, which adds up to lots of work when you've been around as longs as Malcolm Farmer. Support. --
Impressive! Enthusiastically support.
<insert perceptive comment here>!
Support
Someone who's been around this long is likely to still have the original goals of Wikipedia in sight. Also, a good user. Support.
--

Support.

Wow, I didn't know that he had been around for ''this'' long. --

Support.  Would like to see this user be a touch more active, but see no reason whatsoever not to award adminship.
Around since March 2001? Now ''that's'' impressive context. Support.
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --

Mark Ryan?  Of course I support.

Of course.
About time.

If Raul supports him... ;)
Wow!  2001, I'm impressed.

Mark Ryan from IRC? Support, naturally!

Support.
Of course, though i am dismayed to hear that you let your studies and personal life take precedence.



[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]




I'm supremely happy to see Mark has finally accepted a nomination, and for this opportunity to give my support. --
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]



I believe the extent and breadth of his contributions speak well for him.


The guy's a little new but hey, he looks like he knows what he's doing! :o)
Lotsa good contribs.  --
Full support for a highly-qualified user.


Two and a half months is plenty for an active user.








[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --



I've seen some lovely, patient work.  And the cabal needs more blonds.







No offense meant toward Mark. But IMHO, I feel he still needs more experience in our community.
Lots of experience but over a comparitively short time. Certainly a few months from now I'd support

Wow, quite impressive work on cryptography articles!  Support.--



As part of the crypto cabal, how can I vote no?  Seriously though, this is a no brainer.  I thought he already was an admin.


<tt>
OMG crypto cabal, time to put you on RFC! (support)

Even more contributions than me? I'm so surprised. (Just kidding) Strongly support. --

An excellent nomination. -

I've seen him around, and he did some great work. [[User:MacGyverMagic|
I've never voted on RFA, but I feel I need this time. Support.
Very nice credentials.

Looks like a very hard worker and will make a good quality admin. --
Aye, support.
Absolutely. Very impressive, high quality edits. -
This is easy. ''Amceohrsuhy Uegdahwahcuriyebian-caht'' [[User:Rhymeless|
Hell yes. &mdash;

[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
Yet another stellar admin candidate. --

uc sums it up well, as usual. --





/


Strongly support.  Maximus Rex is an excellent contributor.
Also support. -
Support. --
Support. He's done some excellent work, both in terms of editing and in fighting vandals.
Support, excellent contributor.
Support, of course.
Support.
Support. Excellent contributor.
Support. From what I've seen of his work, I like it. --
Support. --
Support.












Support - he has done good work -

Support: good contributor.
Support. Good choice Raul.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support.


Support
Absolutely support.
Support.
Support. I've seen nothing but solid work. --
Support. --
Support.






Would have had my vote earlier, but I prefer to wait until nominations are accepted before chiming in with my opinion.

You're kidding me, he's not an admin?  Wholeheartedly support.
He seems quite omnipresent, that is, appears in such a wide variety of topics. Certainly is an asset to Wikipedia -

Sure. A good guy.


I love snow, it's all white and cold and stuff :-P.
Support most violently. --
Agree w Cimon
I'm shocked and awed that he was not one already. --
Ditto -
Ditto -








Fabulous contributor. Support.
Woohoo! --
He would make a GREAT admin (though he was one). Support strongly!

I thought I already voted yes! --
Support unreservedly.
Repeat all of above, except Uncle Ed's comment. - [[User:Calmypal|Woodrow XXIII<sup><small>II</small></sup>, ]]

Support.
Support
Support. I found this user to be able to discuss contentious issues in a reasonable manner, showing respect for sources, as well as differing opinions. I think they will use any authority granted them in a cautious, and judicious manner.
Support cautiously. I think he's a fine user with a good track record, but he hasn't been here as long as I'd like. But, with the new de-sysop option, I'm more encouraged to support him.
Strongly support! I totally concur with both of JackLynch's statements above. He'd make a great member of the conflict resolution team as well.
Support.
Support -
Support. --
Support--

Mirv has done a lot of good work on Middle East topics. --

Mirv aka No-One Jones is a great editor, and a good user I will fully support him for sysop!
I always thought he already was one.
I like the idea of an admin named '''M'''ultiple '''I'''ndependently targetable '''R'''e-entry '''V'''ehicle... Not to mention ey are an extremely well qualified user. --











After reviewing the question raised, I still support Mirv. Mirv has a long history of fairness and dedication to the project.







I support Mirv.









Showed great composure and balance in the [[Creationism]] debate a few months back.

Heartily support. --





Fair, knowledgable, affable and indispensable. Wikipedia is fortunate to have him as a regular contributor. His compatriots on religion articles, [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] and [[User:Visorstuff|Visorstuff]], would also be good admins if they are willing to accept the responsibility.
Support.
Support. --
Support. We need more admins in his interest areas and he's great. -
Support. On top of the qualities already listed, he's a good writer, and knowledgable.






Has made useful edits on a wide range of subjects. Happy to support






Support.  I see that this is almost done, since I'm one of the few American bureucrats (who will still be awake) would anyone mind if I pulled the trigger after having voted?




I'd swear that I already nominated you, but I guess I havent. Who is moink competition was very cool, and the name moink is cool too.
Support.
Support. And the contest was great, btw.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support!


Support -


Support.



Support. Like fabiform, there's no reason to wait 7 days before making her a sysop :-).
Support
Support
Support. (But why don't we have at least one iconoclast casting a lone oppose vote. I can't remember the last time someone did this well in a poll on this page.)
An excellent choice! --
Good choice.
Support.
support.
Good choice.
Support.
Support.

Excellent choice.




Support.  I'm getting tired of cleaning up his speedy deletes today.  :)

--
As it should be.

He's a great worker, but I'd wait another month.  I'd support him then.  --
Support. (although I sometimes confuse you with [[User:Morwen|Morwen]])
Support: I'm surprised you're not one already
Support: Why aren't you one already? :)
Support.
Support. This Morwen-Morven ambiguity is '''''SO''''' confusing. And they're both English! Although Ven = Men, and Wen = Women. But then when the users are ok people, I'm ok with the immense confusion. --
Support. He writing my sort of articles.
Support.
Support. FYI, the edit-count is greater than 1400. --
Support. -
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support - although it would be nice if you considered a username change to something subtly different (Morven99 or BigHairyMorven or something). --
[[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (

Absolutely.

Wikipedia needs more people like Mustafaa.
Strong contributor.
Friendly editor. --
We could always use more sysops with the ability to stay neutral when things get hot.
If only I could write edit summaries like he does... '''Support'''. [[User:MacGyverMagic|
Absolutely. [[User:Mark Dingemanse|<nowiki> </nowiki>]]&mdash;
I must admit he is remarkably neutral when it comes to those controversial articles, especially considering how infested with POV warriors (and a POV warrior admin, even) they are.
Strong support. Very cool headed, often diffuses conflict, and edits in an NPOV way regardless of personal POV.
Yes! I have worked with him on controversial articles and even though we often do not agree, he is always polite and even-tempered, and tries hard for consensus.
Da. --
I'm pretty sure I once offered to nominate him, and he declined. But if he's interested, I'm all for it. --
'''Yes. of course!''' --
Yup, I nominated him a while ago. Glad he finally accepted.

Pro consensus, so I'm pro Mustafaa.

An easy one.
Adding my voice to this considerable chorus.  Haven't worked on the same articles as him, but I've been a witness, and everything I've seen is good.
'''Strongly Support''' What is this, the 3rd time that Mustafaa has been nominated? *smile* --
Respectful of multiple viewpoints; great consensus builder.  If we could only clone Mustafaa...  --
Support. --
long overdue!
Support.
Support --
Impressive work. Account is a bit young, but I'm willing to overlook it for this user. --


Support.


Another vote for Mustafaa.
Bravo. --
Ditto!  Terrific contributor. -
Give in to wikiholism! Support. --
Keeps cool when things get hot; dedicated to scholarly treatment of controversial subjects.  Support.
Absolutely. Cool and level headed under pressure. I think he's pretty fair when it comes to working out consensus. I strongly support!




Nice writings. --
550 edits is plenty for me, esp. when they're of quality.

A review shows generally calm and composed behavior while working on the alternative medicine articles.
Contributor since December 14, 2003. I'm not concerned with frequency or number of edits: He's been around awhile, and he produces quality work. I support 100%.
Much excellence.

Calm and thoughful.

Wikipedia is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --


I don't know what 200-300 more edits would tell me that the excellent 500+ haven't already -- there's been plenty of time for Myk to get into trouble if that was coming. Does very solid work, in my experience.
His work so far is good enough evidence of qualifications. Let's not set our edit count expectations so high that people have to make Wikipedia a full-time job for six months to become admin. --
Support. Supersolid, involved contributions. Good choice.

Support. User has ~= 650 edits. He takes pictures, too! :) -
Support.

Far too few edits, IMHO.
Maybe in a couple more months.






Strongly. One of the best contributors.



OK, but please get a more neutral username

Without a doubt. --
I support this user on a basis of his kindness and good edits, but I'd also like to make the following statement: a username should have NOTHING to do with one's request for adminship. [[User:Mydogategodshat]], whom I have cited before, had the same problem, and that's quite possibly the most illogical reason (other than a few I've advanced, such as "this vote was disregarded") to oppose a nomination...
Voting against him when your behavior isn't really spotless yourself...and then citing his USERNAME is just cockamamie.
I whole-heartedly support!!  He has got to be one of the hardest working Wikipedians I have ever met!!  Not to mention an excellent writer and actually has tact when dealing with others.  Might I add he's quite the sweetheart once you get to know him.  --
The username criticism is just silly.
Of course I support! He should have been made an administrator back in July. --
By all means.
'''Incredibly strong support'''.



[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

Support -- Neutrality's obviously deserving and dedicated.  I would offer a bit of advice, though -- had Mydogategodshat become an admin, I think he/she would have had to be careful in working with religious issues (I didn't object to the name at all, and supported adminship both times).  For the same reasons, I don't think Neutrality should feel forced to change his/her name, but I hope N. will consider being extra careful when interacting with new users, especially if admin powers are invoked -- despite my firm belief that N. should keep his/her name, I do feel there is a possibility of confusion for new editors.  I trust Neutrality to keep this in mind, and have great faith in N's ability to be a trustworthy admin.
Of course! --
Yes. :-)
Yes, about time! :-)
What? What?! WHAT??!! He is not an admin yet??!!  Strongly support.--
Have seen some of his great work. An excellent user. Also, I see little reason to be concerned about his username. --
Yes, I strongly support this nomination.

Strong support.


Support.



Is clearly qualified if Netoholic, Rex, Gzornenplatz and Xed all oppose.
[[User:Meelar|


I've stumbled across his edits fairly often. Don't see any reason not to vote yes. --
I've seen him a few times on [[IRC]] and on wiki, i've even had some sight problems with Neutrality, but overall he/she should be a sysop--[[User:Plato|
'''Support''' - excellent contributor! -
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]]
Me, I like the name. Names himself after something he (and we) theoretically strive for. That's a good thing.
-

I see no reason to oppose.

Support --
Support. --
Support. -
Support. See my comment. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (
Support, definitely.
Support. I also responded to one of the Comments.
Support
Has done a lot of good work, and I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments. &mdash;
Support --
Support -- has done good work on variety of articles, and seems to be responsible on policy. --
I supported him last time, but he has behaved rather erratic lately. For example, by apologizing to a third party for something I supposedly did (which I didn't actually do, and even if I did, what business would it be for him to apologize for me?). Also turns out to be far from neutral; the flags on his userpage speak for themselves.

This guy is the very antithesis of his user name in my opinion. A competent contributor but not in my opinion an admin for all the reasons already stated.
BIG mistake!
[[User:Noisy|
I told Neutrality before that I would never support him as a sysop for one reason. This simple reason is the fact his name is confusing to new users. Otherwise, he is OK and has always been civil to me. --
Ditto #3.  --[[User:Eequor|
Given the importance of the neutral point of view in Wikipedia, I can't support a username of Neutrality, let alone allowing an admin to have it. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''χ''</font>]]
'''oppose''' [[User:Rex071404|
'''oppose''' - User is likely to become another rogue admin like [[User:Jayjg]] ---
'''Strongly oppose''', mainly due to his disregard of the Manual of Style and habit of not giving a description of his edits. Likely to ignore consensus and act in his own interests. &mdash;
Hasn't shown what I consider to be good judgement in fights, and hasn't been much of a good example. His POV should be irrelevant, his ways is all that matters. ...and then the handle!
Seems to be too much stress on deleting stuff, and no one should be proud to have any involvement in driving a user away from the project.


Oppose. His comments here alone show that when confronted by someone of a different viewpoint, he's too excitable and offends easily, for my taste.

Changing my vote to neutral in recognition of Neutrality's response below. I continue to have concerns about his approach, but I appreciate him taking the time to answer and will defer to the community consensus on this one. Neutrality: I would implore you to always make liberal use of edit summaries and talk pages when using admin powers, regardless of what you think of the personalities involved.
Unfortunately oppose. Neutrality's deliberate unwillingness to discuss a change despite repeated requests to do so at [[Talk:Orca]] leaves me no option but to believe his unwillingness to communicate would make him a poor administrator.




Two featured articles in about 1000 edits is indeed impressive. Appears to interact well with other users and will probably serve well as a sysop. --

Yes. [[User:Anárion|{]][[User_talk:Anárion|<em style="font-family: Code2000, 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-style: normal">&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628;</em>]]

[[User:Neutrality|
Nicholas is very good in English. Also, he got '''exceptional''' patience to explain petty obvious facts in talk page to convince ignorants. Let the world be benefitted more out of his work. --

I'm moving to support.  --
[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])






Good work on VfD.
Turtles move very deliberately, I am told, so if Kingturtle approves, he must be here long enough. Besides, he has some gray hair, which indicates wisdom. --










Support. &nbsp;&ndash;
I agree with Meelar, Jfdwolff, and Snowspinner. --




Certainly support.  Good work on the tutorial.
Strongly support.  Far from being a deletionist, he has saved ''many'' articles from VfD by researching / improving.
It's a little earlier than I'd like, but I support reservedly.



[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]

--




[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
A fine choice.


Of course. Long overdue. About time someone gave him a "hat" :-) --
Duh.  --





[[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|&#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;]] 00:33, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) Has my complete support. Plus, anyone who has cats named Force and Balthasar (&#12487;&#12499;&#12489;&#65381;&#12501;&#12522;&#12489;&#12521;&#12531;&#12489;&#12398;&#12454;&#12455;&#12483;&#12502;&#65381;&#12469;&#12452;&#12488;) has earned my support ;-) --
Support. The hat does not make the man. One minor point against for POV support for the Forces of Good in his acceptance comment. (On a tangent; capability for crisp rhetoric as preclusionary criterion would eliminate 85 percent of current admins.) --








Good contributor as far as I know, but I'm really voting because of Kokiri's comment below.
Thought he already was! --

--


Blessed are the hatless.





I had once a problem with Nohat when he changed the spelling of a romanization (''Hangul''/''Hangeul'') on some pages without engaging in any discussion beforehand. Nohat now approached me to give me an opportunity to bring this up here on RfA (''see'': [[User_talk:Kokiri]]). I had already forgotten about the incident, and just wanted to say that I thought it was a very noble thing to approach me.
Support.  I've seen you around, seem a good contributor, edit history good.
Support.
Support.  I've seen good work.
Support. --
Support -

And I don't feel that having an informative user page--or any at all--should be a requirement for adminship.
Definitely --
Looks to produce good work to me. -
[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]






--

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --
Of course!
Looks good, but i am still curious about a user page --
Why not?  --
Solid contributor.






Oh my yes.
Appears to be a considerate user. If he keeps on this track, I will support at a future time. But, IMHO, not fully experienced here yet.

Support.  [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] has also made good contributions to articles about strategy games and works of science fiction.

[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --










This user has done really good work recently. Support.




[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --









[[User:Meelar|
Oldak's a great chap who has done some great work, and I gladly support him.
--[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]



Support.
Support
Support.  We can use someone around here who knows Greek.
Support.
Support. An excellent contributor. -

Fine by me.
Yes of course.

Have had nothing but good experiences with this user. Personable, knowledgeable, responsible. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;


Superb editor, glad to have him around; he'd be a great admin.

Very much so.
Ok. --
Support enthusiastically.
Having met him in person at the Boston meetup, I can say that he's trustworthy and personable.
Again, he isn't an admin? --

Support.
Absolutely.  Been here since long before I showed up, and never had a problem as far as I know.
Support! --

Slam dunk is the term being used, I believe.
Absolutely. His integrity, talent, quality of judgement, and dedication to the project are beyond question.
Agree with Kosebamse. --
Ample street cred one way or another.




The opposition last time, including my own, was almost entirely of the "come back later" variety. It's later. --
Support. But who's this Atque Vale person, and why do you keep on telling him to go away? -
I voted oppose last time, but now I recognize the username and associate it with positive contributions to Wikipedia.  As such, I support.
Absolutely.  I wanted to support last time, too, but felt that the nomination came too early.  It has been plenty of time, and I enthusiastically support the nomination.
I'm proud to '''strongly support''' him for adminship.  --

Support.

Support.
Support.
Support.
Agree with Michael Snow. Great nomination, I support! --
Support. BTW, please try to update the tally when you vote -_-.
Support. Especially given the conduct of those opposing. [[User:Neutrality|
Didn't this go through last time? *blink* --
I see no reason PS can't be trusted with adminship (which last I checked is still supposedly no big deal).
I, also, opposed last time (time on project), but now vote Support.  Continued positive contributions, without conflict.  More [[User:PedanticallySpeaking/Archive3#Admin_Nomination|caretaker]] activites would have been a plus but are not a requirement.  I see no reason not to trust PS with adminship.
It's later.
Support. &mdash;
You don't seem to need my support this time, but I give it freely in any case.
Support, and Ave.
*gasp* You're NOT an admin?
Support.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. Oh, and '''support''' strongly.
Eh, why not. As I said last time (with my neutral [or was it oppose?] vote), anyone who uses Latin that much can't be bad. Alea iacta est. --
Support, even with multiple edits he's a good contributor.
Absolutely.
I know it's cliched, but I thought he already was one.
Support.
Support. [[User:Ram-Man|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash;
Insert shock and surprise clichè of choice.  Extra credit if it's in Latin!  This rant means '''support''', by the way. -
Seems like a good user.  Support.

See below. --
Agree with Netoholic. The way he tracks his own edit count on his user page leads me to believe that he deliberately fails to use the preview button in order to boost his "ranking", as if he could win a prize for that.
See comments below.
'''Oppose'''. I do not feel that having the stated intention of using admin powers to guard pages you have worked on is anything I can support. I also feel that if you nominate yourself for a position, you should have the good sense to do so at a time when you will be able to monitor the process.
Oppose. -
<s>[[User:Netoholic]]'s comment below gives me enough concern to not vote yes, but not enough to vote no.  I'd like to hear a response from [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] first.</s> Response heard.  Changing vote to Support. [[User:Ram-Man|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash;
Agree with Ram-Man.
<s>Answers to the usual questions seem to be missing from old RfA. Could PS please answer them? In particular, what does he want to do with his superpowers?</s> Silence is its own answer.
[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] I do not in any way oppose this nomination. I accept his/her explanation of the frequent edits, I've had similar difficulties on my own computer.  The save early/save often mantra is one I myself use when I edit on a system with less resources.  However, I would like to see this editor performing more 'chores' such as watching for vandalism, cross-referencing, etc. I think that this editor would not abuse sysop priveleges, but I'd like to see admin candidates do more of the grunt work as well.  A possible question I might ask is ''"Do you feel '''hampered''' by your lack of  admin powers, or do you just desire recognition of your value to the community?"''  If it is the latter, let me say that your edits certainly seem appropriate and valuable.  I hope that you use your new powers to do more of what I consider admin chores.


Does plenty of necessary work with templates and project pages. Seems like he will treat the "keys to the mop closet" well. --



Of course. [[User:Neutrality|
Ah, Mr. Opentask is up here... I of course support. --




Strong support.










Definitely support. Pfortuny will make a great admin.
Support. --
Support --


''&iexcl;Como no!''


Active contributor.
Support.
Support.


Support
Support.

Support.
Support (again). --
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --
Support.

[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Yep.
Absolutely. Welcome back in advance ;-)


Not necessary at all.  Admins in good standing who voluntarilly gave up their status should be able to return without a vote. Oh, and he's a good contributor, by the way.
As there was no reason for him to lose it in the first place, I see no reason he should not have his adminship back.

I thought he already was one.  Oh wait, he was :).  [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Definitely. --
Why not? -


Support.






Well deserving: I saw the name and thought instantly "why didn't I think of nominating Pollinator?!"






Support.


We need more plant reproductive admins.

Seems to be an excellent user.  Active in article, talk, and wiki spaces. Moved from oppose, per Cyrius's comment on the date.
See no reason to oppose.  Good user with a varied history, no significant problems; clearly knows the ropes.
Support.
Certainly. --
SUpport.


All in the cabal!
Support: no questions your honor :)
Support, why not?
Support
Support
Support.
'''Support''' strongly.
'''Support'''   --


Support, self-nomination.
Support.
Support.
Without question.

Oppose, self-nomination.





We can always use more grunt workers! :) --

[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
Of course! Great contributor. --

[[User:Neutrality|

Yes. [[User:Anárion|{]][[User_talk:Anárion|<em style="font-family: Code2000, 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-style: normal">&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628;</em>]]
Oh, wow, I just assumed...
Support.
Absolutely...
Of course.

Strangely, it would appear that a nominator may support a nomination he or she has made ... --

Sure, I support, seems like a good editor to me. Nomination, self-nomination, who cares? There's no difference.
There's nothing wrong with having a friend nominating you, we just didn't know who London was. You seem to be a good user, though.
Support. --

Edits looks ok. -
I'm okay with the self nom.
Support, looks like a good user to me.--[[User:Plato|

Normally, I'd want more edits for a self-nomination, but PZFUN seems knowledgable and a good editor. I trust he will make an excellent admin. --
Originally nominated by an editor with 20 edits, then moved to self nomination, that makes me uncomfortable. I'm willing to reconsider the vote if the nominee is willing to answer a number of questions.
I've nothing against this user, but a self-nomination is supposed to exceed the usual criteria by a good measure, and they really don't have the experience. I'll support if they are nominated again later.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] [[User_talk:Gadfium|(talk)]] 06:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Moved from Oppose to Neutral, after reflection)-




Handles tight spots (delicate subjects) very well.  --

[[User:Elf|Elf]] | [[User talk:Elf|Talk]] 04:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC). In my limited dealings with Quadell, my general impression is of someone who is flexible, cheerful, agreeable, a quick learner, & willing to go exploring to find out more about Wikipedia.






[[User:OldakQuill|

<s>Looking through contributions, a lot of them - several hundred at least - are minor edits, mostly adding categories to articles. That's no criticism: it's all necessary work. But it does mean that you perhaps don't have as much experience as some others might have with the same number of edits. Combined with the fact that this is a self-nomination, I'm inclined to oppose, for now, but would certainly reconsider in a couple of months.[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] is right, adminship should be no big deal. On that basis, and on the basis of what Quadell has said here, and on the basis that other Wikipedians who I greatly respect seem to have no problem, I'm moving to neutral. </s> As with at least one other here, I have found myself in all three camps over the course of this nomination. But unlike [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]], I've ended up in Support, I've read carefully over all aspects of this issue, and Quadell's response to it. He demonstrates maturity and a commitment to NPOV (regardless of his own point of view). Supporting - and hopefully this will be the last time I move my vote! --[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
My concerns have been addressed. [[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --
Ditto what Dick said.

Hopefully the last time I move my vote :-)

Your response to the threatened libel action on [[Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz]] doesn't give me confidence that you have the maturity needed.
I agree (to oppose). A paragraph [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] wrote on [[Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz]] has created a much greater threat to Wikipedia than the original article. I suspect Quadell does not know why. If [[User:Elf|Elf]] is correct that Quadell is ''flexible, cheerful, agreeable, (and) a quick learner'' then I guess I might change my opinion in a few months time.
I've never voted against anyone before, usually I abstain if I choose not to vote positively. But in regards to [[Khalid bin Mahfouz]], as well as Quadell's user page, I must agree with Moriori, as it troubles me to think of the consequences if  something like this happened repeatedly.
Wow, this is the first time I've ever voted in Support, Oppose, ''and'' Neutral on one person.  But seriously:  I was originally only going to withdraw my support vote, by I am really concerned with the [[Khalid bin Mahfouz]] stuff.  I don't think you're ready for this.  Get a clear head and come back in a few months.  Nothing personal.

Although Quandell's comments on the aforementioned talk page are troublesome, I sympathize - I suspect he is n ot completely off the mark in his assesment of the person in question, and I think it very unfortunate that Wikipedia needs to let itself be bullied by people who have enough money to spend threatening British libel cases against anyone who says things about them that they don't like. That said, the situation required tact and care that he didn't display. Adding more potentially libelous statements to Wikipedia was not entirely helpful. I do not think this incident is a reason to oppose, however it combined with the relative newness and the sense that it is perhaps too soon for a self-nomination, I am at least concerned enough to withhold support until a later date.

Very impressive history. Great images uploaded. Thorough edits. Well-thoughtout redirects. Battles with vandals. No edit wars. Likes baseball.
I'm quite impressed by his user history as well. He's been quite a diligent and active copyeditor.

Quality contributor.






Good, level-headed contributor.


Seems to be both active _and_ unusually reasonable.  Doesn't seem to heat up easily either, which is always a plus.


Excellent work on China-related topics. Strong support.






Of course. --
Absolutely. Responded very quickly when I needed help communicating with a problem Chinese contributor whose English is not so good. --
Ok. --
Great work, seems to keep cool when the heat is on.


Yep. Fluency in Chinese is a plus, too. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Support.
I hope Ran has "truly learned what NPOV means", but I'm not convinced yet.   On [[Tibet]] he seemed to have trouble recognising that other viewpoints should be mentioned, and with using the talk page to negotiate changes where topics are controversial.   I think more time is needed.
[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]






As long as he agrees not to knock minor edits ;)







[[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;
[[User:Neutrality|
[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])


--
IIRC, I met this guy on IRC and he made a good impression.
-
No reason to oppose, and stupid reason for opposing prompts me to vote.
Seems reasonable, level headed and hard working -
I've seen a great many edits and have a good impression of the user.

<s>Never seen this editor but adminship is no big deal.</s> Came across edits, definitely support now.
Very solid contributor; I've had nothing but positive interactions with him.

Good edits, and plenty of good vandalism reversion. &mdash;
Oppose.  ''Might'' support after 2,000 edits.

Support. (Based on above, haven't verified... somebody please verify) --
Support.
Support, able to discuss and explain self as well as act.


[[User:Neutrality|

Aye. --
I support.


[[User:MacGyverMagic|






I support.

Absolutely. -
Seen only good work on RC patrol, other edits look good too. Support. --
Support. -
[[User:Rhymeless|
Support.  &mdash;
Account is pretty young. Come back later and perhaps I'll support then. --
The nominator, of course. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (


Yes, a good choice.


--
Yes. --


Sure. -
Support.

Absolutely. [[User:Neutrality|
Yes, user may have opinions but is not blinded by them, Glad to compromise. Progress orientated.
Hard worker and knows how to work collaboratively. --
Definite support. p.s. [[Dick Morris]] looks just fantastic, hard to believe its only been touched by one editor so far. &mdash;
Such incredibly strong '''support'''. In fact, if I may quote myself, Rhobite is "a model of NPOV and consensus building", and you may quote me on that. :) <tt>
Definitely. A valuable contributor and I believe he'll take adminship very seriously. -
Conscientious, hard working.



<insert something witty and intelligent here>
Any admin-nominated contributor who is described as a model of consensus building gets my unqualified support.
Strikes me as being good admin material. --



On second thought, yes: '''support'''. --

Helpull person!, protects users from abuse

I and my sockpuppets give unswerving support. -
Support. A model of NPOV editing. If he can watch so many controversial articles for POV without going nuts, he's unflappable. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
Support.  As it says above "a model of NPOV and consensus building".

Strong support.
Too few edits.
Short on total edits (I [[User:Netoholic/Admins|prefer]] 2000+).  Also, some unresolved accusations of sock puppet use in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 10#User:Chuck F and User:Rhobite|Request for mediation]] that involves this user. It can't hurt to wait some more time to see the outcome. --



Hard-working contributor with a good deal of experience. He may only have registered four months ago, but that does not preclude him from adminship. And, anyone who makes 1600 edits in four months' time definitely seems devoted to me. --





I can't see any issues with his becoming an admin. --


Strongly support.





But would probably support at a later date, with more edits.
Looks good to me.
Rlandmann has my full admiration, I would have nominated him had I knew that he&#8217;s still not an administrator.
A definite support. Rlandmann does a LOT of work here, especially at for the aviation pages.
Looks solid, did not see any signs of trouble --



Well if Anthony voted against you, then I feel pretty darn safe voting <u>for</u> you.  Please do make sure you are familiar with all [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]], especially the [[Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion|speedy deletion policy]].


Strongly support. --


Haven't noticed Rlandmann before, but a quick check reveals great contributions, courteous and helpful talk page discussions, and good work on [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. Definite support. &mdash;



Seems like an excellent contributor to me. -

Yet another data point for my argument that self-nominations are '''not inferior''' to "regular" nominations. Just look at all the people above, several of whom regularly look for good people to nominate, and all of whom overlooked this overqualified contributor. And myself, just as guilty as the rest. As my penance, I support. --
You weren't a sysop already? Oops.
Been here longer than me.  Edited more than me.  Hasn't gotten into any fights.  Isn't an admin yet?  Correct this, we will.





I thought he was already an administrator. --

More Rlandmann, please.


We shouldn't be deleting mistakes in page names, we should be redirecting them. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Sorry - to clarify what I meant by deletes - I meant both deleting to make way for a move, but I also think that some pages are irredeemably badly named. For example, [["alan dower blumlein"]]. Forgetting the fact that it's apparently a copyvio, I don't see any point in keeping that particular redirect... but please someone correct me if I'm wrong... --


Wow.  I know this is a cliche here on RfA, but I really, '''really''' thought you were already an admin.  REALLY!
Support. --
What Blankfaze said.
An excellent choice I'd have nominated long ago if I'd thought to check.
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --
Certainly.


I didn't know Rmhermen had been around for quite this long, but even if I was only considering what I've seen of Rmhermen over the past few months, it's quite enough for me to support. --
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]







Por supuesto.






support.
Support, copious contributor.  (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) -
Support.
Support. I have seen him insert a quality NPOV compromise into a troubled POV debate/altercation regarding a passage, and thereby resolve the circumstance. He appears to have just the sort of judicial approach that would dignify adminship with his inclusion.
Support. It's about time, and I hope he accepts. --
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support. Kind of assumed he already was a sysop.
Support. --
Support. I think it is safe to assume that Roadrunner hasn't actually seen this nomination yet, and possibly doesn't know he has a talk page. In his about 5000 contributions, I count 3 edits to User talk pages (and more than 3 to User pages). Lots of edits to regular article Talk pages. [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support (I thought he was)
Support.
Support. I thought that Roadrunner was an admin a year ago!!!!!  It's about time! He is one of Wiki's best contributors.


Good edits indeed.

Absolutely


Seems like a thoughtful, balanced contributer to me.
Support, the quality is definitely there, even if the quantity is low, and I think Robin is a very helpful, friendly and level-headed contributor. &mdash;

(See below).

A quality contributor. Being a sysop elsewhere doesn't automatically make you a sysop here, but I trust Robin is familiar with our policies, since it's probably been necessary to draw from them in the effort to build the Maori Wikipedia. I also don't expect admins to necessarily be highly active in that capacity, so I'm not concerned with how Robin divides time between here and there. --
In my experience, Robin would be deserving of "important and ponderous privileges" if we had any to offer here -- in the absence of them, I heartily approve of entrusting Robin with the few abilities of an administrator (and their attendant disadvantages). :-)

No big deal. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]

Sorry, seems like a genuine and good contributor, but far too few edits for me.
I'd just like to point out that a person's edits are not and should not be the only factor in adminship decisions. Certainly, they are an important indicator, but it should be asked as well what a prospective admin will do for Wikipedia. No offense, but it seems like Mr. Patterson is quite involved with the Maori Wikipedia, and, as he himself has stated, "may not actually ''DO'' anything with the position." Perhaps more people need to view adminship as an important and ponderous privilege rather than a social title. --
Support.  I've always seen positive contributions, and certainly Rob's been here a '''very''' long time. :)
Support. A productive veteran.
Support.
Support.
Support -
''Hemayat kardan'' (support).

[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
Reviewed edit history, liked what I saw. Seems like a good candidate.
We need more sysops from the Axis of Evil. --
Support. -
Support. Roozbeh has been amazingly calm considering the personal attacks 69.111.53.180 has made against him.

Support
Support.
Very much agreed with Angela.

Support! We need a sysop like him
IMHO, still needs more experience here.
I have reservations, as I would lean more toward support if he has 1000-2000 edits since December.  If somebody can persuade me to change my vote to support, I'd be more than willing to comply.  --
I concur with Merovingian, although Roozbeh's knowlegable and sedate handing of the anon's complaint below does him much credit. --


Strong support. Was planning on nominating myself once the stats page showed a few more edits. Clearly understands the deletion policy, and will follow it with a more literal interpretation, instead of the more liberal interpretation of some admins. Also unprovokable, and a firm believer in hearing both sides of an issue before taking a stand.


[[User:Neutrality|




How did we miss this one for so long? [[User:Meelar|

Of course.


What Meelar said.










Support, based on Rossami's argument for giving articles time to grow on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty]].








I don't agree with Rossami but I definitely want him/her to be an admin based on the calm, clear response I received. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Anyone who wades through the cesspool of VfD while remaining calm (unlike myself) deserves a support vote. -
--
I'm changing my vote.  I had initially voted Support, but Rossami's recent contributions to VfD in which he feels that any and all garbage is worth keeping on Wikipedia calls into question his fitness for sysophood.
<s>I have to go in the Oppose section since Rossami has not addressed RickK's comment or the comments of supporters who agree with the sentiment.  I'd like to see some explanation.  Where are the usual questions asked of the admin candidate? - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Support, definitely.  Salsa Shark handles vandals extremely well already, and has from way back. -
Support. I have seen only good contributions from him.
Support, blanks pages and points out vandals - would put admin powers to good use. --
Support.
Support.  I have seen Salsa Shark appear frequently on my watchlist, making excellent contributions to articles I care about.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support, over 1000 edits, going back to March 2003.
Support
Support,
Support. Solid. --





Impressive contributor.









Good choice, SimonP.  --



--

Woohoo!
I'm down with that.

Support.
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support. Great idea.
Support
Support.
Support. -

I supported Seth last time. I will this time too.
Support. We could use dedicated admins now more than ever.
Support. Seth appears to have a very good understanding of Wikipedia despite his short time here and I think he is more than capable of being a good admin.
Support.
Support. Assuming he doesn't intend to refuse this nomination. ;-)  Excellent editor, will make a fine admin.
Support.
Support. I have frequently followed him around deleting stuff he has added the delete msg to...so he'd be good for that kind of work, for sure!

Support. Already thought he was an admin.
Support.
Support.
Support. Seems quite helpful, hard-working and sympathetic.
Support. Excellent editor and picture finder. -
Support.  Very good editor.
Support.
Support.
Support. Seth has a great attitude and work ethic. -
Support. Definitely an asset to Wikipedia.
Support.
Support.
Support -
I'm re-moving my vote to support. Seth Ilys is a very good Wikipedian, and I might be better off taking up my nit-picking issues with him on his talk page.
Support. --

Support.  Excellent editor and contributor.

<strike>Support>




The mere fact that David Cannon is responsible for the nomination lends credence to the user. Reviewed, and this seems like a very nice user.
Of course! I've come across he's works quite often and saw only patience and the ability to keep cool even in the midst of heat. I remember when he first came aboard WP, he was surprisingly receptive to advices and suggestions. He still is very amicable. In addition to his good rapport with the community, he offers us with the excellent and much-needed English info on the wonderful Korean culture, history, and geography (basically, him and Kokiri are the only people working on that subject now). And, the nominator, David, is somebody whose opinion I trust, since I supported him myself as an admin.  --

I'm not familiar with Sewing, but David Cannon's nomination, Menchi's comments on his demeanor, and Sewing's own actions in notifying users who might oppose his nomination all speak very highly of Sewing.  Anyone that honorable has my trust.







I say no more. After reading, I am convinced. I support the nomination. --


Absolutely. Shallot will make a first-rate admin.





Good work.--


A reasonable contributor. [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]







Good contributor, also diplomatic.
Of course! He has been here for a really long time, he should have been an administrator 3 months ago. --



[[User:Avala|



Strongly agree with Zocky's opinion already stated above. --
I'm neutral because this voting is becoming a xerox of Enver Hoxa's/Hafez al Assad's elections with 100% approval.

Agreement.
Oh yes.--





Certainly.

[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) A steady guy who follows his convictions without failing to listen and consider.


Very responsible editor. Strong support.

Support! -






[[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;


[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Strongly support.



Sj would be a good choice, I believe. And villainous is hard to spell. ;-)


[[User:172|172]] 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Excellent choice. I had no idea that Sj wasn't an admin already.

Most definitely.
--



He wasn't one already?

Obviously.
Support.





Emphatically. (I truly thought he already was one!)



Support, fun stuff!
Thought e was one already! -
So did I
Can't spell ''[[User:Sj/villianous|villainous]]'' right. --



For sure.  --
Of course, great guy. :-) --

Some names just give that feeling of a trusted editor.
WHAT? SLOWKING IS NOT AN ADMIN? Seriously, I've seen him forever on the IRC channel, and I never doubted for a moment that he (subst. she if female) was a long-standing administrator, who undoubtedly received a unanimous RFA, only to discover that he was on RFA at this moment... very long-winded and most noble support :)

Agree with Ugen (at least, for the first sentence! :). --
Definitely.

I, too, thought he was already an administrator. --
By all means.

I would have bet the house that he was already one!  Even more surprising is his low edit count.  But I will waive my standards here, coz I ''like'' the chap.

Absolutely.
Of course! [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])



"[[Margarine|I can't believe it's not a sysop!]]" (TM) [[User:Neutrality|
[[User:Rhymeless|

[[User:Noisy|
I think Slowking is trustworthy.

Completely agree with Mark. I had actually considered nominating him a few days prior (no, really!) but feared his relatively low edit count would be a criticism (one which I do not hold). He does great work. --
Checking edit history...  hmm, further back...  further... Mop! Bucket!  Keyring!  Now!  :-)
Man, he should be working double shifts with Kingturtle.

At the risk of sounding cliche...whaddayamean he ain't an admin?!?  There.  Cliche has passed.  I still support! -




-
Looks like he has the makings of a good admin, but I have to have doubts about whether his judgement of article value has developed enough.  Short on edits (~1550), with a large number of those spent on VFD and RFA and on very simple fixes.  Viewing his contribs, and excluding minor edits and all non-article namespace edits, gives about 500 entries.  Those entries are mostly simple "Recent changes" wikify and <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> insertion.  Sorting his contribs another way (by article title) shows no long-term committments to any - rarely more than 2 edits at most.  I would support at 2000 edits if he spent some time away from Recent changes (*gasp*) and worked on the main focus of the project - the encyclopedia articles. --


I thought he already was an admin! Full support, of course.
<strike>I do believe Snowspinner is a he.</strike> Either way, I support.
It's still very early for my tastes (just above my personal minimum) but my interactions with Snowspinner convince me he'll make a fine admin.

I said I expected to support after he'd been here 3 months, and ... --

Support strongly.
-"- --


Most definitely.

Couldn't agree more.



About time.

Yes. An exceedingly worthy Wikipedian. -
I supported last time, so I guess I had a good reason for doing so :). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
This guy's okay in my book. -
Support --
Support


Of course he should be an administrator. He is so nice...


--

Definitely.

-
Darn. I wanted to be one of your top 3 supporters. Missed [[Slashdot subculture|first post]], I guess. -

Support, just because I don't want to be in the same group as Avala; fractured logic like that could be contagious.  j/k, snowspinner's great. -
What the...you're '''not''' an admin yet? Unbelievable! An excellent Wikipedian who carries himself well and makes great edits.
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]


Love your work. &mdash;
Support.  I'm sorry I overlooked your nomination earlier, Snowspinner.  You have my unqualified support.




Yes, of course.





Support, while I agree w much of the criticism, and feel SS is an opinionated, strong willed individual, who is capable of being wrong or exaggerated on occasion (who isn't), his obvious integrity and deep focus on neutrality and fairness more than make up for any mistakes he has made (which don't ad up to much, BTW). IMO the ability to admit when we are wrong, and the sincere desire to be right are far more important than a specific error or two.


Support.
Support
Support, of course.  -
Support. User is obviously qualified if Lir and Plato are opposing. --
Without question. --
[[User:Avala|[[User:Avala|Avala]]|[[User talk:Avala|<font color=#882222>&#9733;</font>]]]] 10:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - You have support of the GP, who calls other users "cunts", and uses fascist abbrevations. It is outrageous and I can`t get over it. My vote can still turn to '''yes''' but not under any condition, I am very sad to vote '''no''' because of third party, but I am affraid that users like GP will be able to continue with such behavior. [[User:Avala|
I oppose solely because people are jumping on Avala for opposing. Who cares? If he feels like opposing, then allow him that privilege. Frankly, I don't care what his reasons are. And anyway, Snowspinner has 40 votes in favor... I do expect people to jump on me for this one as well. And Cribcage -- have you even read the personal attack page? If I were to say, "articles written by Cribcage are dumb", that's obviously a personal attack... or, "every article written by ugen64 is racist"...
Oppose. [personal attack removed by Ambivalenthysteria].
Oppose. sorry snowy maybe next time!--
Reluctantly oppose. After reading [[User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence]], in which Snowspinner includes as "evidence" against Avala that Avala opposed Snowspinner's previous nomination here, and that Avala ''nominated'' a candidate Snowspinner finds unworthy, I'm worried that Snowspinner doesn't clearly enough distinguish between his personal opinions and Wikipedia policy, and is too likely to see mere differences of opinion as actionable "rule breaking". I say this as someone who also finds Avala difficult, and as someone who had planned to vote for Snowspinner both here and for ArbCom.
Oppose, based on the tendency for confrontation and rash judgement evident on his edits to this page.
It is a reluctant opposition and does not reflect any personal feelings I might have toward Snowspinner's past or continuing contributions to the site and project.  However, I reviewed the evidence against Avala, and I felt that there were a number of occasions when an appeal to a broader community might have easily forestalled the animosity.  Avala's English is not fluent, and he is a citizen of the former Yugoslavia.  Consequently, some of his arguments were hampered by the language barrier, but, additionally, many of Snowspinner's misunderstandings were caused by not seeking out other, more fluent, English speakers from the area to help negotiate opinions.  After a certain point, it seems like the fight was about the fighting, and not about any particular issue, article, or decision.  That it reached such a point without outreach, without seeking the aid of neutral parties, does reflect somewhat poorly on Snowspinner's reactions to a belligerant fellow editor.  Finally and ultimately, though, I feel that Snowspinner's time on Wikipedia is simply too brief.  I say this not because I believe there is a magic number of days or edits, but because the motivation to move to administrator quickly worries me.  If one's desire is based upon getting one's will, then it is bad.  If one's desire is based upon changing the course of the project, that, too, is bad.  If one's desire is to particpate in a social world of admins, then, I feel, the motivation is suspect.  Only if the desire is based upon duty and a belief that the project is far more important than any of the project's participants is it appropriate.  I do not in any way whatever mean to imply that I believe that Snowspinner's motives are bad.  In fact, I think Snowspinner is a reasonable, intelligent, and dilligent contributor to the project who has shown himself of the highest commitment.  Instead, I oppose because I feel that it takes a great deal of time as a regular user to show a person's continued perseverance and to establish how such a person will react to others in opposition.  I do not think there is enough of a track record.  Hoping by all means that I offer no offense and provoke only thought,

I don't think Snowspinner has enough editing experience. Yes, he has over 2,600 edits, but looking at his last 100 contributions there are only about seven edits to ''articles''. He may only have a few hundred article edits altogether. Paradoxically, this appears to be the very reason he has received so much support as opposed to the other nominees on this page - at least I can find no other explanation (if I'm wrong, maybe some who supported Snowspinner but not the others can explain their voting) other than that he is simply better known, and this is because the average "Wikipedia:" page is more widely read than the average article (and article edits are not signed). I find it troubling, however, that this way we tend to create a class of "professional sysops" who are merely supervising the actual editors who work on the articles. And I note that Snowspinner is already running for the Arbitration Committee, which I don't see as a good sign. Everyone here should be an editor in the first place, and the administrative tasks should be shared among editors, not entrusted to a separate class who does little else but administrating.
<s>Well, after some consideration, I am compelled to oppose here.  I do not often vote in such things, but I am not at all certain I agree with many of this user's views on WP administration, particularly regarding resolution of disputes without recourse to enforced procedure and regulations.  Specific examples include Avala's RfAr evidence (which, while not containing any specific objections which would on their own disqualify a user from adminship, exemplifies my general feelings), and an opinion that mediation is not helpful; however, I also have a broad non-specific objection to hir general attitude and opinions in such matters.  While adminship should be something bestowed upon anyone willing to enforce the community's decisions, rather than an ability to enforce one's own views, there is at present a certain status associated with adminship and it does result in one's own opinions, however inadvertantly, carrying more weight than a normal user's.  I therefore cannot personally support adminship for those whose desired procedures differ so much from my own. [[User:Lady Lysine Ikinsile|&mdash;''Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile'']] | [[User talk:Lady Lysine Ikinsile|Talk]] 00:27, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)</s>  Having considered this further, I am changing my vote to neutral; not because my opinion has changed, but because I do not feel comfortable opposing a nomination on the grounds that I personally disagree with the direction the community is taking.  The solution to the exhalted admin status seems to be in having more admins, not less.

He surely is experienced and respected enough, but he is maybe too bold and therefore I'm unsure that he won't make something wrong by the negligence. [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]
Nominator.
Not an admin?!?! '''Extreme support'''! [[User:Neutrality|

[[User:MacGyverMagic|
Support. -

Support - but aren't we all [[Solipsist]]'s sock-puppets?-
Easy decision.
Of course. --
I'd oppose based on the corny intellectual humor on his user page, but I've been guilty of similar offenses a few times. --
I personally find the userpage humor funny - but I'm weird like that.  --
Seems level-headed and judicious.
Support. -
Dangit, I thought you were an admin already!

Support, seems to be well-liked.
Support. We could use more admins like Solipsist. [[User:Rhymeless|
Hard working, intelligent, and plays along when I leave notes on his/her talk page asking whether I am a fictional creation in the universe Solipsist alone inhabits or Solipsist is a fictional creation in ''my'' solitary universe.  Just the right combination of whimsy and wit to make an excellent admin --
(insert your favourite cliché here) --
[[User:JonMoore|
Support.

'''Support''' Is there a way we can make a list of these people who somehow keep going unnoticed?  Solipsist is in my opinion one of the very best!
Support.
Looks good.
I'll jump on the bandwagon here. --
[[Support|Arch, beam (structure), column, console]].

Kind of young account, but good work! --
Ooh, look, a bandwagon, I want on! But seriously, good work, has definately shown his worth. --
Support, obviously.
Strong support.  If nothing else, Solipsist has the craziest electronic signatures on all of Wikipedia!  Anyone who dons the virtual Groucho glasses while maintaining the integrity of this site is OK by me. -

I see no reason to oppose. --

Productive, indeed. --


Support. --

[[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;


Uploads nice images. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
[[User:Neutrality|

[[user:zanimum]] Despite a reluctancy, brought on by never hearing of him until now, I can't find any major criticism of him. Good work on the number of edits. --





[[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason| ]]










[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --

A reasonable and pragmatic contributor, amenable to discussion. --
Just one niggle: when you become an admin, ssd, you should probably refrain from deleting stuff from Talk pages - not that I mind, because I can see that your intentions are honest and you are just trying to save space, but it sets a bad example for others. :-) --


















Support. "I thought he was one already." (I know, I know, how unoriginal can one get :P  --
Support. Coped well with Lir on DNA and has made some great contributions.
Support. --
Support -
Support
Support --
Support -- anyone who can get Angela and Lir both to like them, must have something extraordinary. This I got to see! --





--


















Absolutely. A perfect fit for the job. --



[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]

Impressed by his diplomacy in resolving the Joaquin Phoenix dispute. --
Son, we'll give you the job if you cut your hair and put on some decent clothes. Just kidding, I wholeheartedly support.
Excellent work all around. Support. -



Süppørt ;-)
Support -- I've seen good work.
Support.
Support.
[[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup]] will make a great sysop.
Support.  I'm normally wary of self-nominations, but I think Sverdrup is one of The Overlooked - those so clearly qualified for sysophood that we forget they aren't one already. --



Support



100% support. --
Have no problem supporting --
Total support.  I'm only sorry that you had to nominate yourself - one of us should have done it.



Strange that he wasn't one already.




Um, I really thought this guy was an admin.
Edit history looks solid to me.
In that case (see comments), I support.
I, too, am surprised that he is not an admin already.  Strong support for a dedicated and involved editor.

Absolutely. I was planning to nominate him myself.
So was I. Strong support. Knows his way around here, active on RC patrol and VfD and copyvios, welcomes new users. His help would be an asset.
<s>Agree with Blankfaze.</s> Certainly, then.
Weren't you already an admin? [[User:Neutrality|

What [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] says below in comments. Shows a good understanding of the difference between speedy and VfD material.
Responsible contributions on VfD  are a big plus. --
Support.
Mhmm. --
Of course. --


[[User:Bobdoe|<font color=D10000>

Thoughtful VfD contributions are as important as content creation. --
I've seen him around, no problems that I know of.  Time on VfD isn't a problem;  someone needs to do it, and people who do that kind of community and maintainance work will make more use of the admin functions anyway. Maybe he'll help with the backlog.
Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Support --
Support.  I have to echo many others when I say "He isn't ''already'' an admin?"  He certainly has the qualities that a good admin needs.  --
Yes! In my experience SWAdair is thoughtful, pleasantly communicative, and certainly has shown interest in janitorial duties. As Isomorphic said of VfD, someone needs to do it; I think such ''good faith'' commitment to behind-the-scenes maintenance should be lauded rather than criticised. --
Of course. I don't see why his activity on VFD is a problem when we have people complaining about those who don't edit anywhere but the main namespace when they are nominated.

Anyone with a name good enough to fool me to believe he/she is actually involved with [[Swiss International Airlines]] is good enough to be an administrator here. Besides, I have seen his contributions, and this contributor is "going high places" "
Great person to deal with. "
Yep. :-)
Indeed.

Definitely. -
Support, very active on VFD. &mdash;

Not an admin yet?? Hmmm.
Strong support--assumed already was one. Hardly a deletionist, brought [[General Maritime Corporation]] to my attention as needing to be turned into a proper article, rather than taking it to VfD[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Niteowlneils/Archive1#GENERAL_MARITIME_CORPORATION]. Shows an interest in keeping Wikipedia tidy, and good judgement of what is encyclopedic, two of the most important qualifications for an admin, IMHO. According to the comments of some of those opposed (and neutral, even), I should be de-admin-ed, as I almost never add content, but spend almost all my time on 'housekeeping', which I believe is sorely needed[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump#Category:Years_in_fashion]. Wikipedia has plenty of "writers" contributing 6 word articles <u>(and poorly translated articles that make little sense to a native English speaker)</u>, and direly needs more "janitors".
'''Support'''. -
'''Support.''' [[User:Dpbsmith|
'''Support'''.  Looks good to me.  I also appreciate anyone who takes the time to volunteer in the slums of VfD.
VFD regular ('''well''' over 1/3 of his edits), and an extreme deletionist. I don't see any effort to ''contribute'' - just a desire to remove content. Anyone that has such a desire to regularly remove content (and uses the insulting label "fancruft") doesn't show enough respect for fellow contributors work and granting the ability to ''more easily'' remove content would be ill-placed here.  "Janitors" are fine and all, but this site also needs writers. ([[User:Netoholic/Admins|more]]) --
I have found that 1/5 (407) of this user's total (2104) edits were with the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.  As well a little under 1/2 (1003 out of 2104) of the edits were actually edits not on articles, meaning the other 1/2 were on articles.  I will vote to oppose for the time being. See comments for my figures. --
I do believe someone with such a long record on VFD isn't the best possible admin material. Administrators contributions should clearly concentrate on writing new stuff, so they have not only the experience of writing new stuff but the idea of what it feels like for the person whose job is being wrecked when its deleted. This would make our administrators not only more professional, but better in human issues as well. --
The history indicates that the user is too deletionist and not bent enough towards fixing articles rather than doing VfD politics instead. Admittedly a political vote. No to deletionism.
I'm torn between my belief that adminship shouldn't be a political position and the reality that it is one. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] Thought he was already an admin.  Does do a lot of 'grunt' work and chores, which I think is an important qualification.  I tend toward support, with the reservation that he often uses the term '''fancruft''' in a way that seems insulting.  I'm sure he has seen [[User:Pedant#call_this_a_rant_on_deleting|this rant of mine]] in a discussion we had, but have not seen a response.  I would like to see this user take more of a 'long view' on wikipedia (as seen from a perspective of someone 25 years in the future or more) as I feel certain wikipedia will be around a long time.  If he showed a notch more tact, however, I would support his nomination.  I'd like to see this editor ''spend more time writing new material and adding to articles'' and less time "stamping out fancruft"  Definitely a familiar face in every area of wikipedia, knows his way around.  [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] might make good sysop, with a little more effort toward contributing material and tactfulness.

I come accross Taxman and his work every so often, and this guy has left a good impression on me. A courteous and diligent worker who is a real asset to Wikipedia.
Support, but please make sure vandal hunting doesn't take too much of your time, I like your ideas on referencing and peer review much better. :-) [[User:MacGyverMagic|
Yes. --
Certaintly.
I thought he was an admin, actually. Seems like a good guy.

I've seen so much good from Taxman.  I had no idea he isn't an admin!
Taxman's work on Sealand was a model. Wholeheartedly support.


Strong Support. We may not always agree, but he's made some fine contributions. He's also a man of principle.

Yet another case where I am utterly surprised as to the candidate's real user level status. Strong support.
Sure.
Support. -

One taxman I wouldn't mind paying. :P --
NOT AN ADMIN? WHAT? ;) [[User:Neutrality|

Support.
Should've nominated him myself.

Support. Not aware of trouble, and meets my [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards|standards]]. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Support.
Support.
Support. Taxman is very taxing on [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]], but I think that's a good thing :) --

Support.  An invaluable asset to the WP.  -
Support.
Support. Never really noticed you before, but after lookingthrough your contributions I see I should have.  This is a good example of why we maybe need some mechanism for 'automatically noticing' good editors long overdue for adminship.  Thanks for noticing yourself and '''being bold''' enough to self-nominate.  Surprised that you aren't listed as a member at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|factcheck]].  Your [[User:Taxman/Featured articles with references problems|unreferenced FAs]] list interests me, how was it compiled? -
Support. A good user, worthy of adminship despite his username giving me nightmares. ;)
You have my vote :-) [[User:Squash|
Support.

--



Has been alert and careful in spotting vandalism. --

participates in lots of general maintenance. Is involved heavily in VfD. It would help him and us if he could delete VfD results too.
Support--solid and positive contributor.

--
Support. Doing a great job already.

Support.

Support. Has been helpful to new users.
Support. --
Considers trolling humour. --
Ok, I hope I don't upset anyone by putting my two cents in.  In a recent disagreement with [[User:Anthony DiPierro]], I agreed with Texture.  However, constant reverting of [[Votes for deletion]] was not the way to handle the dispute.  I like Texture, but he seems easy to bait into silly actions.
Of course. &mdash;
STRONGEST SUPPORT EVER.  More than 7,000 edits and 300 articles to his name in less than three months.  One of the best contributors to come through Wikipedia in a while.
Edit history looks good.  Talked with him, too. I support.
Definitely. To the extent that Wikipedia is a soap opera, what better man to document it. For those not getting the joke, Mike has tirelessly documented almost the entire US soap opera sub-culture, and to a great extent, has done so with succumbing to the temptation to "break-out" irrelevances that we see in [[Pokémon|some other]] [[Star Wars|popular culture subjects]].
EXCELLENT. [[User:Neutrality|
I also support Mike's evil twin brother Hank, who (when he regains his lost memory and returns from Darkest Peru, intending to frame Mike for his own murder) would also make an excellent (if evil) admin. &mdash;
Good edits, good articles, good person. I've been talking to him a lot recently. Good soap opera edits. Maybe if I revamp ATWT I could have a similar honor... ;)
Absolutely. &mdash;
[[User:Frazzydee|
Absolutely, unquestionably and enthusiastically support.  I cannot adequately express my enthusiasm about this guy.  Mike is a responsible, knowledgeable, hard-working and highly motivated user.  He's also one helluva nice person who cares deeply about this project, its people and its success.  We need more Mikes! &mdash;
Certainly. He would use it responsibly and politely. [[User:Meelar|
For sure. &mdash;
Speaking as one of the only real wikipedia contributors to have had a conflict with Mike (over what was essentially an administrative misunderstanding), I feel that I am uniquely qualified to say that I support his nomination with no reservations whatsoever.  In his time here he has proven himself to be a prolific contributor and will no doubt be a great administrator with the best intentions for Wikipedia at all times.  Congrats Mike!. &mdash;
Very much so.
To beat the Rfa cliche further into the ground, "He isn't an admin already?" &mdash;

Strong support.
What they said.
I have not greater pleasure than to endorse the nomination of Mike. A perfect user; expert in his field, polite, cooperative and humourous.
Dedicated editor - will be good admin



[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Strongly support, would make a fine admin.
Great contributor. Support. --
I give my support.  [[User:Poccil|

Mike was very welcoming to me and worked out a good compromise to my complaints that he wasn't including PBS in his network TV schedules.  I think he will have a lot of good to contribute.
Absolutely! I'm so glad he accepted the nomination. He'll be an entirely advantageous addition to the cabal. ;) &mdash;


Mike is a good guy, lacking any particularly strong opinions but perfectly trustworthy with the keys to the Closet.


[[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash; [[User:Ilyanep|<font color="grey">Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;</font>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<font color="#333333">(T&alpha;l&kappa;)''']] 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Woah...I forgot to add my name. Wholehardedly support. [[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;
Most violently support! --
Of course yes.--
[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;


I hereby declare my support for Mike H as an admin :D

I suppose at this point, my vote is a mere formality...
So long as his uni work doesn't suffer... -


oh yes! -
a little odd, but a good guy!
Support.  He's a nice guy, even though he does look down on RfA self-noms. [[User:33451|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;

Very much support.  One of the things I very much enjoy at WP is it's a place where all kinds of people may contribute what they know.  Mike and I have a quality about ourselves that others tend to despise - a mind predisposed to trivia.  We have different fields of interest, but the more the better!  He's a constructive, caring guy (though I've never previously told him that in any prior communication)  Mike deserves our full support, and may many more like him come as well.  --





Seems reliable and rsponsable. Always seems to be around. Fair play to the man.----

He has good Wikipedia sense and will be good with adminship. --
By now, this is a mere formality, but he certainly has my vote as well.

He has my vote, certainly.
I think Mike has the project's best intentions at heart.
He wants to speedy delete perfectly legitimate stubs on no other basis than they "get on his turf" - he thinks he somehow owns the entire soap opera section of the encyclopaedia. When I removed the speedy delete tags, he told me: "I think removing these tags is really counterproductive and it aggravates me to no end. Personally, this guy is causing much trouble for me and my work and you're just aiding him. [...]  I work in this section. I've written probably 100 (or more) legitimate articles on soap actors that I'm quite proud of. When I see things like this, it undermines the work I have done, and I feel like I am obligated to clean them up, to bring them up to my other articles. Sure, I don't HAVE to, but let's be honest, would you like someone shitting on things you liked to do?" I replied: "That doesn't make any sense. First of all, factual stubs are in no way "shitting". How do they undermine your work on different articles? You are not obligated at all at improving them. You're not responsible for the entire section of soap actors." Whereupon he said: "Apparently you're just not choosing to get how I feel about it, so there's no use talking about it anymore." Apparently he thinks his "feelings" should be the law of Wikipedia.
Oppose. Sorry, but the whole attitude towards substubs/stubs/ incompetent users does not befit an administrator.
I strongly dislike the angry warning at the top of his user talk page; no admin should have such a hostile attitude towards discussion. I also strongly disagree with the idea that the substubs are vandalism and should be speedy deleted, but since he promises not to speedy delete them until/unless consensus on the matter is reached, for now I won't oppose outright, given his impressive number of contributions.




[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --
[[User:Meelar|
:-)









According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Tillwe will be a useful and good admin.
Thought he/she already was an admin! --
Agree with Delirium...when I saw "support tillwe" at RC, I thought tillwe was asking to be made bureaucrat! :-)
Absolutely support.
Sure, he sounds responsible and probably won't go loco like so many others have. --






--

--
--
Totally.

--
--
Definitely.
Absolutely.

Support, of course.
Support.
Support very much. I've disagreed with him many times at [[Talk:FOX News]] and found him fair and levelheaded.





Support, good admin material.

No objections.

Although Tim has been here for a long time, I don't feel he has participated enough with the community to be ready for adminship. i would support him at a future date, however, after i feel he has enough experience working with and in this community.

[[User:Rhymeless|

--

-
Most helpful user. --



Sure. --
A positive contributor to Wikipedia.  [[User:GRider|
His articles are very nice. [[User:Darwinek|
A cursory scan of his/her edits seems to indicate a good user. Support.
Strong support.

Support.  It's important that admins have aproject they work on regularly, see [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes]] -- and also important for admins to be able to work calmly in the midst of controvers: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binational_solution for an example of his style in a conroversial discussion
Support.
Support.
Support. Keeps a cool head under duress
Support.  He's been working with me to resolve our differences over citation formats in the fish articles.  The very fact that he references his work should mean something! --
I'll support this.

Looks good to me.
Strong support, Good editor and a nice guy.
What General Patton said.
Support.

Support.

[[User:Aranel|


Adds good content, interested in administration (as demonstrated by his thoughtful discussion on how best to implement the AOTW idea,) and generally good guy.
Sounds excellent. He'll be a good one.
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. --



[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Nothing personal here. I simply don't think Tom- has enough experience in the community yet. I will definitely support in a few months, if his track record continues.
I too feel this is premature.  Tom does not yet meet the [[User:UninvitedCompany/becoming|objective criteria]] I try to follow when voting here, and I share Kingturtle and Angela's sentiments.
Tom has done some great work setting up the article of the week, but I'm not convinced he yet has enough experience with other areas of Wikipedia. I certainly don't oppose his adminship, but I feel it's slightly too early to support.



Topbanana's handy reports alone are an impressive qualification for adminship. --





Impressive.--
Of course.


A great contributor. Support. --
I am delighted to finally have the perfect opportunity to say "You mean you're not already an admin?? Support!!" &mdash;

Swell user.  Support.
Has done great maintenance work.  --


Strongly support.
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]







Support, slightly tentatively, but I think he can be trusted with admin powers.
I find it amazing that he isn't already one, and it would be one of the many examples of a bad decision by majority rule if he isn't promptly voted in.


--


Cautiously support.
Support.  His comments below seem reasonable, and what I've seen from him was good.  And I trust the judgement of those who voted in support before me.
UninvitedCompany's comments are good enough for me. I'll add that I think admin status should depend on length of stay and quality of contributions, but not on frequency of visits.


Although, I'm against the use of multiple accounts, I still feel that UC would make a good admin. Therefore, I support.
Support. Low activity levels are not a reason to withold administrator status. -
Support. I don't see any problem with the change of user name, and I don't see any problem with the activity level. Comments below and elsewhere seem to indicate UninvitedCompany is a thoughtful, reasonable person.
Support.
Not active enough. 500 edits in over six months? That's less than 3 per day. And what does Martin mean with "under this account" - does he have another? --
<strike>Sorry, not nearly active enough. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 22:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)</strike> I opposed Aplank on the grounds that his maintaining multiple accounts that didn't clearly say they all related to the same person was dishonest. It would be hypocritical of me to fail to oppose this user, who also has multiple undeclared personae. --
Concerned about activity levels.
[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
Pleasure to be the first vote. Lots of very helpful edits, good communication, and I like the answers to the candidate questions. --
I nominated him.  Does that make my vote redundant?  --


Over 4000 edits in two languages? Wow. Besides, we always need more vandal fighters. --




I've never seen this guy before, but his 2-wiki editing impresses me enough. [[User:Rhymeless|


Seems a good user.
Support. Having an admin that can speak 2 languages is quite a useful thing I think. -


I've never seen the user, and editing on en alone does not convince me. But I don't oppose this nomination either.





A wonderful choice, and one I should have thought to nominate earlier!

Let's see, what's that line... "Thought he already was one."  I've never seen anything but good from him.

He's not?? I'm shocked and appalled.
Support. Has done a lot of work welcoming newcomers.
Support.


[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]



Yes, of course! I'm sorry I didn't nominate him myself. --
I'm going to jump on the "I wish I nominated him bandwagon and point out that I was going to in early February or so, but decided to wait until the end of the month, then forgot.
Ok.
This guy is known to leap into a just-created article and make grammar and punctuation corrections. Definitely the kind of dedication we want to see.










I came here to nominate him, dammit!
Yes! Friendly, willing to discuss, and works hard. --
Mee too! Surprised he isn't one.
Is anyone NOT supporting? -
Looks unanimous -- let's all say in unison: "I thought he was '''already''' an admin!" --
--[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]





[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --



[[User:Meelar|




"This is a dumb world. In my world there are people in chains, and we can ride them like ponies." (Support.)




--


"Bored now." :D --
ditto.

Very helpful and amicable.

One of the greatest users ever, in my opinion. He did such a great job defending Wikipedia. Here is an example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Violetriga&diff=7007294&oldid=7004390 This] is what he said when an anon put him on "final warning" about removing the anon's votes. Very, very, very strongly support. --



Wonderful. --
Support: contributions speak for themselves, user page content is not a criteria for adminship.
Looks good. --
Very much so.

What Shane King said. '''Support'''. -
Of course.  --
Good articles, great person!

All of my previous issues (see [[user_talk:Cynical|my talk page]] for details) were cleared up by the Violetriga. Emphatic '''Support'''. --
Wikipedia is ''littered'' by Violet's good edits. :) <tt>
Most definitely yes. --

This user seems to be everything I would wish from an admin. The user appears to have a clear head, civility in the face of anger, participates in the community pages and adds contributions to articles as well. What more can we ask from an admin? I offer my '''strong support'''.
Excellent candidate for adminship. -

Yup - valuable asset to Wikipedia.
Has been a complete pleasure to work with. Name suggests Estonian background?





Full support from me.
Purely to offset 216.153.214.94, but I'm sure you're qualified --
Strong candidate. Support.

Gotta ''support'' those annoying users... :)

I'll support.  We disagreed on one occasion, but Visorstuff was very communicative about the whole thing and it was a positive experience overall -- the type of person who ought to be an admin.
It looks we're on a kick to nominate admins for the religion sections. Perhaps it's good to do a bunch at the same time, so they can monitor each other as well. Not that I foresee any problems from this crew, just that the presentation of religious subjects has a high risk of provoking people. We need admins to help each other tread carefully. --
Support. Working together was constructive, and educational for me.
Support. He doesn't have vvery many edits, but that can be a good thing (he doesnt get into edit wars etc).
Support
Not a vote, but I just wanted to point out that you don't need to be an admin to help new users.

What, he's not an admin yet? Support. --

Support, but I'd like to see you answer the generic admin questions.
Support.
Strong community presence. --
Support. This is one of the "how is he not an admin yet?" ones. --
I've seen good work, particularly the illustrations. --
I agree with Michael.



Support!

never thought I'd say this, but ... He is not an admin yet??? --

Hard worker. Good guy. Support. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (
Agreed. --





You mean he isn't already?
Most surely.



Support.
Agreed.
Very, very strong support. I've seen his contributions, and this user is fantastic!!!! -
Support.
Support: courteous, helpful, and unflappable user.--


You mean with all the Wikipedians out there, there's not one iconoclast with a dissenting vote?  Wapcaplet must indeed be a fine candidate and it is refreshing to see a candidate get such support.
Support. --
Support.  Good contributor who handles disputes very amiably (see [[Talk:Architectural_style|here]] for example).
Support. -
Support. Good contributor to political and geographical articles.
Support.
Support.  Valued contributor, does a lot of unglamorous work.
Support -
Support.
SUpport.
Support --


I've never had the pleasure of bumping in to Wernher, but judging by the edit history, a valuable asset to WP. Lots of good copy editing, all edit-summarised. Support. --
Sure, I'm happy to support.
I'm in support as well.
I support the candidate as I know Wernher for the nitpicker he is :)
Support
Support --

As someone who campaigns constantly for accurate edit summaries by trying to lead by example, I can't but support Wernher.
--


--
I heartily support Wernher's candidacy

Support.


Great nomination.
Anyone with this many edits and no controversies must be a good user. --

Went through a bit of Wernher's contribution history just now & what I saw seemed solid & appropriately tidy w/o any obvious and untimely controversies. Seems like a solid candidate to me... :) --
--
This is exactly the type of editor I feel strongly deserves adminship

Support . -

Wesley is an excellent contributor.
support.

Need more consensus builders
He is able to work on articles concerning religion and ''not'' get into edit wars, name calling, or arguments. A model citizen with a keen eye.
Support.
Support. --
Support.
Support. He uses talk pages how they were designed. Works well to build consensus.  -
Support. Excellent work

Way overdue. Excellent sense of judgment on religon, a notoriously difficult realm to be neutral about.
Support.
Support.
Respects what makes WP great.  Support.

Support








Support, no question.

[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
Good contributor.

About 600 article name space edits, but high quality math stuff, including major contributions. Also active on [[VfD]] --
--
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]]. <strike>Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club.</strike> --
Support strongly.

Support with extreme prejudice.--


Many excellent contributions






Not yet enough edits from Wile E, IMHO. User still needs more experience in this community before I can support.
Bad judgment shown. --
I concure.  I am not sure how long this user has actually been here, but from looking at their user page, not long.  However, I could think of worse nominations.







Why not?

support. &mdash;

I don't know her edits myself, but I see no reason to oppose, and she seems liked enough.

Support!  Woggle away!! -
Definately, a great help in battling off the more persistent vandals. --

I like what he did with the [[Tonkinese cat]] stub.
Good edit history.
I haven't come across this person myself but appears to be a good candidate --
Definitely a solid edit history. Support.
Nice work in crypto.
Great contribs to (at least) cryptography articles; has always been exemplarily polite and reasonable when I've had disagreements over articles with him.
Great crypto editor.

Support
The little I've encountered Ww, I've been impressed.  Good choice.
Don't know him personally, but edit history seems good.
Solid.

Strongly support. Wikipedia's crypto section needs work, and Ww has done quite a bit of it. --
Support.

To have been here that long, with that many contributions, and yet I've never seen him work tells me two things -- one, we must either have different interests or else his edits are minor, and two, he must not get into trouble.  And with that many edits without trouble, I can't see not supporting this candidate.
I've certainly seen him around the Wiki.  I haven't ever seen him involved in any problems or disputes, so I support.








Jwrosenzweig says it better than I.
Very worthy, support.
He is around here for ages; should definitely be an admin. --



Definitely support. And I note editing from the [[PRC]] as well...
Support. --
Support for sure. He is very responsive when you bring up matters with him, and he tries his best to get to the bottom of the issue if possible. --
Support. Very responsive and responsible.
Support. Solid edit history. --
Support. He seems friendly and trustworthy - I don't see him getting into too many edit wars or anything of the sort.

If Gboy = Yacht then '''support'''. --
Support. Very friendly in tough edit climates.
Support.
Support.
Support

Support, of course. Great editor.
Support.
Support. WP need more people like him.
Support.  If people engage in edit wars with him, he can now protect the page and make the needed changes.
Support.
Zero has a hard edge that he would do well to remediate. I disagree with some of his writings, but that is not what this is about. I'm impressed with his intelligence and skill and would like to hear an expression from him that he would "count to ten" before crafting his talk responses and admin duties. So, cautiously support.
Support.
Valuable contributor, support --
Support, though I think he will need to be careful not to use admin powers in articles he is involved with.

Fully Support we need people who know middle eastern history!
Support, if he can write neutrally on the Middle East. On the other hand, given my Jewish heritage I must question MY OWN ability to write neutrally on that subject. :-)) --
[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]

--
Support. I've looked over some of his article edits and some talk page edits. Seems knowledgeable about subjects that really need someone knowledgeable. Doesn't appear to have an agenda. I don't see that he has any problems communicating with other editors.
Good ''enough'' record all things considered

Sure, why not.
He's a good contributor.
Too many edit wars. I feel this user is contentious.
[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
I get a bad feeling about this person. He was a very emotional and non-considerate arguer: [[Talk:Permutation]]
Agreed with Kingturtle and Hfastedge. --
Oppose.  I appreciate his attention to detail, as well as his knowledge and writting talent in his major areas of contribution, as do those that support him, but adminship has nothing to do with that, nor will adminship or lack thereof effect his ability to perform in these areas.  The skills that are relevant to adminship are interpersonal communication and critical thinking.  I am not confident with him in these respects, in concurrence with the assesments of those above. See for example, [[Talk:Permutation]]
Oppose. Involved (rightly or wrongly) in lots of edit wars and such. We need admins who are upstanding non-controversial wikipedians, regardless of what swell guy people think he is.
Neutral - but I do want to say that I think [[User:Hfastedge|Hfastedge]] has it quite wrong.
Has a highly specialized editing pattern and  Too new. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Zero0000&limit=500&offset=0
Hmmm.....I've heard good things about Zero0000, but everytime I've seen him in action, I see a user who seems to be working behind the scenes to "rally troops" and coordinate efforts in order to win edit wars/discussions.  Now, I know that can happen for innocent reasons (sometimes a troll needs to be handled collectively), but it makes me nervous to see it as what I perceive to be a natural state of affairs for Zero.  I'd like to see some examples of cool and calm behavior?  I can see myself being convinced, but I need more than normal "great guy" comments to commit -- I'd like it if both sides pointed to instances.  Thanks. :-)

8,500 edits? Of course I support. --

'''support''' good editor, this kind is the meat and potatoes of wikipedia.
Support.
Kleggetch sounds Yiddish.
-


I'm glad to support, we need more people who are here to do good work and aren't interested in battles.



I fail to see how picking a few fights so that you can be "tested" would improve wikipedia for anyone. If picking fights makes people "tested", we need more untested admins and users.
Good work






[[User:GRider|
Not picking fights unfortunately also means ''not tested under stress.''/
Aim to avoid the controversial means we haven't seen how he may handle contentious issues should he run into them. --






Zoney is a great contributor and fun to work with.

<tt>
Good user.

[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]

Agree with Ludraman. --

[[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;


I know you... --


Good contributor, will make good admin



Second John Collison's thought above.  The Zonester will serve Wikipedia well!  He also shows curiosity about topics outside his native Ireland - he's dialogued with me about California transportation topics in [[Ridge Route]], and added to that article by his questions.  --
Blah, blah, support, blah, blah, leprechaun, blah, I can't believe he's not an admin already!
Blah, blah, support, what he said.
[[User:Noisy|










Yeah yeah, let's get on with the [[Special:Makesysop]]...
Not a huge contributor, but knows what he's doing and has demonstrated impartiality and calmness in POV disputes.
Agreed. -
Support.
Support.
Support. Adam seems to know what he's doing; the fact that he's been with the project for 1-2 years is a plus--
Support.
You seem like a good guy, and I like what you said in your nomination.  Please renominate yourself (or remind me to nominate you) when you get to 1000 edits or so.  437 just isn't enough for me.
All users should have the ability to revert quickly.
I agree with moink and have issues with any request for adminship directed solely at article you edit on.  (Else, why the reference to "co-authors" that you are seeking admin status?) -
Not enough edits --
From his edits, he seems like a solid and cautious contributor that can be trusted not to abuse his power.  He also seems a little too new.  I'd prefer to wait for a renomination in a few weeks before I support.



<s>Oppose until I see enough evidence that Anárion is not a sockpuppet of Jor. --
[[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 19:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) <s>Er....I like Anarion, and would normally have supported, but Jor's vote is odd, considering it's his first edit in a long while (and that Jor's user page seems to imply he's editing under a different name now).  I always liked Jor in the contexts we interacted, so this isn't me bashing either Jor or Anarion.  I just have to think about this for a while.</s>  I've seen enough sockpuppet weird stuff around here that I trust my own judgment to a good extent -- this just doesn't have the feel of that sort of thing.  I trust Anarion, and believe that adminship is well deserved.
Neutral > Support.  Even if he is a sockpuppet, he hasn't been disruptive.  Sockpuppets may be "uncool", but Anarion hasn't acted Jorish.  --
Vote moved from neutral to support.
Support. He's been nice, helpful and contributing, in the couple topics and discussions I've happened to meet him.

I'm not convinced. It doesn't help that Jor votes here suddenly, although he hasn't edited articles since April (when his RfA failed, and at the very same time Anárion started editing - '''Jor's last article edit (apart from three isolated ones in May) took place on April 23, ''two hours'' before Anárion's first-ever edit''' - coincidence?). Also, Jor's user page makes it clear that he is still editing under another name - if that other name isn't Anárion, maybe Jor could tell us what it is. This again is, given the lack of de-sysopping procedures, too much of a risk. It is also interesting that Anárion made about half his edits in the last week only, and they're almost all de-facto minor edits, though not always marked as such. As to Jor, he clearly holds Nazi-sympathetic views like this expressed on [[Talk:Erika Steinbach]]: "A peace treaty was made impossible because Poland's allies immediately declared war on Nazi Germany, and it is rather pointless to speculate what might have been had England not taken the invasion of Poland as an excuse to declare war on their economic rival."

Agree with 172.

I've been asked to review the technical evidence regarding any connection between Jor and Anárion. Although their most recently used IP addresses don't match, their interests appear to be very similar. I think I'd prefer to step on the side of caution. --
I think this is like an "inverse court" where you are guilty until proved otherwise. Since the evidence above definitely brings doubt, I also oppose. Anarion, please don't take it personally. I am not saying you ''are'' a Neo-Nazi. I am just saying that this is one of the possible explanations of the facts above, and until this is ruled out ''without doubt'', I oppose giving you administrator priviledges. If you are interested in the good of Wikipedia, you should agree that caution should be first, even if that principle hurts you personally.
[[User:Neutrality|
I too like Anarion, but this Jor business is sort-of dubious.  Neutral for now.
Dubiousity. -
Cannot see any real positive community involvement; cannot really see any community involvement at all, actually. Agree with Fennec on dubiosity note. --
I support. -
Without expressing my opinion on the truth of [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]]'s allegation (which, coming from him, is quite amusing :), I will say that I don't think it matters: even if Anarion is who he's accused of being, he has been a model editor and has avoided the problems that brought his alleged former account into disrepute. If he should change his behavior upon becoming an admin, well, we have a new Arbitration Committee and some established precedents for dealing with power-abusing admins. Therefore I cautiously support him for adminship.
Agree with Charles P., well spoken.
I would support Anarion or Jor.
Consider Anárion supported. [[User:Rhymeless|
Geez, if this guy's sockpuppet has >2000 edits, his normal account must be [[User:Mav]] or something...
Aye. --

Of course I support. He should have been an administrator last time.
Like ugen said. Anyway, Anarion is a great contributor.
mainly opposing the unexpained opposition. sockpuppetry is not a valid accusation against a user with so many edits. I will change to oppose only if offensive edits by ''this'' user are shown.

I don't care who he really is.  If this account has been active since April and hasn't caused any trouble, I'm willing to support.


Looking over the other votes, I have a strong [[gut feeling]] that I should support. -
'''Support'''. No reason not to, and he's been doing a lot of maintenance. [[User:Nathanlarson32767|<nowiki></nowiki>]] —

See last nomination. Nothing has changed.



Agree with Gzornenplatz.

Agree with Gzornnenplatz.
Looks like I would have to do extensive research to understand the stances of both sides involved here. I will remain neutral on the question.


[[User:Meelar|
Prefer if it was possible for people (in general) to see deleted articles.
No, no, no, no, no, no. Maybe when hell freezes over. This user has repeatedly gotten in trouble for trolling. So I suppose we should set a good example and reward it by making him an admin.
If Anthony does not desire to be an admin for any purpose other than to view deleted articles, and he is able to use Kate's tool, mentioned below, to do so, then I see no reason to give him admin status. --
Why does Anthony merit this unusual treatment? Vfd has become a scary place.
Strongly oppose. This request requires monitoring and enforcement and further taxes the time of other Wikipedia editors. There is no reason for a user to deserve this kind of unusual treatment, and it would create a bad precedent leading to other, even more unusual requests. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
No. I'm happy for a compromise to go ahead along these lines, but not involving giving him adminship. Why can't he use Kate's tool?
Definitely no.  Anthony has a difficult time resolving his perspective with group consensus, and often seems not to care if his comments go unexplained and merely appear contrary.  I do not think we have any basis for believing we can even understand what this arrangement would mean to him, or how he may try to rationalize any kind of action under it later.  It would just mean a monitoring headache and endless circular arguments over what exactly was agreed to.
I can't, in good conscience, vote to support something like this.
No, for many reasons.  McFly is a distraction that doesn't further any Wikipedia-related purpose.  Anthony DiPierro has made a pest of himself on numerous occasions here and does not respect limits or community.  And offering deleted material to a mirror for republication may create problems for us particularly since it includes copyright violations.
I am often editing Supreme Court case articles, so maybe my views are a little twisted, but I can see this vote as nothing more than a precedent and it would be a bad one in my opinion. While I often support new ideas, exceptions should be made for exceptional Wikipedians. I have not seen anything from this user to think that he should be made an exception to any rule. I'm sorry.

Oppose.
'''VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE.'''
[[User:Bobdoe|<font color=D10000>

Strongly oppose. Anthony has shown a pattern of agreeing to cease trollish behavior, then starting right back up again after a little time has passed. I don't doubt that he would pull the same sorts of shenanigans if he was given admin privileges and "promised" not to use them for anything other than viewing deleted articles. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Anthony should not get special rights. [[User:Neutrality|
Under no circumstances whatsoever should this user be given any rights as admin; I would however be supportive of an indefinite ban.

So far no comment or acceptance from Anthony DiPierro, or did i just miss it? In any case, the tool mentioned below should be enough for his needs --
I have to vote no. Though I would definetly like to commend the users who decided on bringing this matter before the community rather than making a decision behind the scenes. I also have no objections to Kate Turner's technocratic solution.
In light of the tool, If the tool can't do the job, oppose, otherwise support.
I left a suggestion on Anthony's talk page the other day encouraging him to start his own wiki for the school listings he enjoys defending.  Being totally ignorant of some of the more subtle aspects of a move like this, would his priviledge extend only to deleted '''original''' articles, like the school stubs? -
The tool can do the job it seems. Otherwise I'd support. --

-
- Specifically considering [[Wikipedia:administrators|administrators' rights and responsibilities]], I cannot see how the Ceqli question is relevant at all; all the more so in view of the dubious vote counting that first led to the deletion of that page. -
I don't find the Ceqli business to be particuarly troublesome. I believe what BRG was getting at is that whenever we create an article, we're in fact "promoting" that subject. Since we tend to create articles we know about, we tend to promote what's important to us by simply editing. I see no problem with holding that view, it seems logical to me.
Agree with Ar and Shane King.
[[User:BRG|BRG]] has used Wikipedia for the promotion of [[Ceqli]], a minor [[Constructed language|conlang]]. Leaving aside the question of the notability of Ceqli, promotion of any kind is quite inappropriate for an administrator. For reference: some of my remarks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=6451274&oldid=6451112] and some of his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=6703340&oldid=6702230] concerning Ceqli. --
[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) Unfortunately, the "there is no rule against promoting things" argument ''for'' promoting causes worries me.  I usually don't care if someone utters a dirty word or gets frustrated, but the more dangerous thing, to me, is the belief that a real life cause must be supported and fought in our pages.
Why does that [[Ceqli]] link look blue to me? Don't tell me it got through VfU. Oppose, and relist [[Ceqli]] on VfD if that's what it takes.
The Ceqli business is troubling, and he seems rather ambivalent about becoming an admin.
[[User:Neutrality|
I too find the whole affair with Ceqli an unsettling reflexion on how this user will operate as an admin.
Too interested in promoting his own agenda.
/
I wasn't aware of this Ceqli business. Oppose. --
Candidate attributes opposition to him to a "cabal". We don't need paranoid administrators.
No. No, no, no. No.
Anyone who honestly and sincerely thinks a cabal exists does not need to be an administrator. Also see [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]. --


Agree with UC. --
Agree with UC. --
A wikipedian who knows how to use the summary box - make him a sysop quick!
My experience with Calmypal has been very positive.
Support.
Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at [[Template:Uspresidents]] ([[MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents|talk]]).
User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --
While it's nice to have hyperimaginative folks such as yourself around, and I personally find your antics entertaining, I think boring people tend to make better sysops.
Not enough experience yet with the community.
Oppose strongly. After he unilaterially added the USpresidents footer, he re-added it despite having no consensus to do so and commented "As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it". His comments at [[MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents]] indicate that he is either dumb or trolling. He did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki_talk:Uspresidents&diff=2825009&oldid=2824966 this] after being criticized for signing his name as "wikipedia".
Oppose, due to controversiality reasons indicated below.
Too eccentric and unpredictable, in my opinion, to make a reliable admin at this time.
Tends to get into the middle of edit wars.  Not to mention the ice cream fiasco, and interesting signatures.
Oppose. Much too green.
I cannot support the adminship of anyone from Pennsauken that styles himself as a king. I have a weird gut feeling I know you IRL. --
Reading all the comments, I can't support yet, but I see he has worked on a goodly number of useful subjects, so I hope he'll buckle down and that we'll see him here again in a few months and will have earned a better opinion.
I am not to sure 6 months seems a little new, i need to look at his contributions--
Support.
Oppose.  He does not seem to understand how the deletion process works (see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Winter Sonata|WP:VFD/Winter Sonata]] and recent history for [[Winter Sonata]] and [[Winter Sonata (drama)]]) or what vandalism is (see his [[User talk:Chan Han Xiang|talk page]]).  I'm also disturbed at his stridency on a subject he clearly doesn't understand at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)]] (note that many of his comments there are unsigned). &mdash;
Oppose.  Maybe after he has a better understanding of GFDL requirements (move vs. cut/paste to retain history), the definition of vandalism, etc.  I'm sure he's well intentioned, but he is currently insufficiently knowledgeable about the administrative side of things for me to support.
Oppose strongly. Chan Han Xiang has developed a pattern of insulting other users as well as threatening them. Just one sentence from [[User talk:Gtabary]]: ''I tell you, dog, do a proper article on [[Johor Jaya]], since you act those things as a barrier for comment or you'll be blocked.''. Even after being advised about the inappropriateness of it, he's used [[WP:VIP]] to list other another editor with whom he is having an editing disagreement. He has changed other editors' signed comments (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FMedical_Specialist_Centre&diff=8118050&oldid=8118015http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FMedical_Specialist_Centre&diff=8118050&oldid=8118015]). He has created spurious entries on [[WP:VfD]] out of spite. He still hasn't figured out how to use "show preview" or <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. I don't get any sense that he understands how the social structure here is supposed to work. He threatened me ("DO NOT UTTER RUBBISH. I DEMAND YOU TO RESTORE THE VFD OR I BLOCK YOU.") when one of his spurious VfD entries had simply expired with a consensus to keep. I do appreciate how hard he's been working, but he needs to learn better how to get along with others here. --
Oppose. Maybe another time.
A very hard worker, but I think his attitude towards other users is seriously lacking for a potential sysop.
Oppose very strongly. User reverted my edit to this page, and does not understand Wikipedia policies. --

What David Cannon said.
Oppose for now. Not only do I second David Cannon's comments here, but the intent to delete 'substubs' has me worried. I see substubs as potentially good articles, not 'speedy' material.
I haven't seen a great deal of incivility in my dealings with this user, but he does seem to be a bit unfamilar with the way things work around here, including in some important areas such as copyright and NPOV.

Support, of course! I wanted to nominate him for adminship almost three months ago! --
I've read over the contretemps (see below). It seems irrelevant to the question of whether chocolateboy will misuse admin privileges.
Support, sorry to disagree with some others whose opinions I generally respect. Yes, discussions with Chocolateboy have gotten heated in the past, even over seemingly pointless trivia and yes, his tone can be agressive. But he takes the time to argue his cases in talk pages, without reverting to name calling or what I would call verbal abuse - and in my opinion he brings up strong and good arguments. Ultimately, he has also stepped down on issues such as the [[Miss Kitty Fantastico]] "chocolate box" link. He is passionate, but in my judgement based on what I've read of his heated interactions, he does not let his passion carry him past the red lines, and he is capable of compromise. He strikes me also as intelligent and pedantic in the good sense. I see nothing in his behaviour that leads me to believe he will abuse his administrative powers, and I've seen several current administrators who are more argumentative and agressive than this user.
What Cyan said.
What they '''''both''''' said. C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it. (BTW, who the hell is Kitty Fantastico?)
Too few edits IMO, will possibly support after 2000.
Oppose.  His ridiculous edit war at [[Miss Kitty Fantastico ]] and abusive posts when questioned about it show he is not admin material.
Oppose. Having read the rant, I can't support elevating him to admin, and feel compelled to act in opposition. (Was that humorless enough?)-
But can we put the Miss Kitty Fantastico edit war on lamest edit wars ever?


Are you the same user as [[User:Chocolate bar]]? You have a similar username and discussion pattern.
In the third day of this nomination, the candidate has neither accepted nor answered any questions. --

Good nomination. I support.
Support, the user looks as though he started out rough, but has made an effort to do good and work things out.  I say it is worth a try for this kid.
He has put in his fair share I think he at least deserves a chance.
fully support, ('''I think RickK should be De-sysoped for vandalism'''), This kid looks like he knows what he's doing!
You can't be serious.  With his aggressive, confrontational style, and his POV attitude, and his refusal to acknowledge the existance of copyrights?  Strongly oppose.  Not to mention that he hasn't been here long enough.






I recall this user incessantly lying about some image on the Al Gore page, claiming he had taken it himself when in fact it was identical to a Reuters or AP copyrighted photo. This stubbornness and refusal to collaborate with others leads me to believe he would not be the best person to place in the position of an Administrator. So oppose. -
I've witnessed Chris do too many rash and irresponsible things in Wikipedia. He has exhibited a short fuse and a harsh lip. I need to see many many months of him practicing good behavior before I can endorse him.
Of course not.  [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
I was neutral until I was lobbied, because it made me believe that Chris isn't yet ready to accept the community's decisions. Perhaps in a while, but not now. --
His statement in support of Zero0000's nomination, quoted already by Anthony above, shows a serious misunderstanding of our protection policy. --
Would not have voted, but I must agree with Michael Snow and Anthony that that statement is problematic.

Mildly oppose. Caveat: the only thing that I know about this user is that he felt the need to spam my talk page with a request for a `yes' vote.
I was neutral until reviewing history. His statement supporting Zero0000 is troubling, and his user page contains an ad hominem attack. An admin should be experienced, respectful, and cooperative. Chris is not, yet.
Oppose
Oppose.  And I don't like all this campaigning on the tally page - and on people's personal pages.
Oppose. ChrisDJackson started out as a problem user, and over time his actions and style on the Wiki have improved greatly. He's still a bit confrontational, last I checked his edit history, but he's coming to understand how things are done around here. A few months as a consistently civil and thoughtful WikiCitizen would change my mind, but I haven't seen it yet. I'd very much like to see him stick around and improve his style; I think it's very useful for Wikipedia to have contributors who have come around from being difficult to work with at first; it's a testament to the power of the Wikipedia community. Chris seems to have some *very* strong interests and beliefs, and even agendas -- we all do, actually, and I commend Chris for making his motives and biases very plain; I wish other editors would do the same. Like jwrosensweig below, I'd like to see him be involved in defusing disputes rather than instigating them before I could support an adminship nomination. Try again in three or four months. --
not yet.  spammed my talk page (was unknown previously), engages in some rash behavior.  note that the "anthony" user is not reliable on this matter, as the two vandalize each other.  jackson seems likely to become responsible over time.
Stongly oppose, hasn't been here long enough. --
Chris seems to have improved a lot, which is awesome, but I'd like to see some more time between his rebellious teenage years and his becoming a grand old man of Wikipedia. If his improvement in behavior continues, perhaps adminship will make sense, but I don't think this is the time.
Evidence to oppose seems rather damning, though i have not seen it myself.  Try agains in a few months. --
Couldn't be more neutral.  In his defense, Chris has changed a lot from the person he was when he arrived here: I appreciate all he's done to adapt to the way we work here, and I think that needs commending.  But on the flip side, Chris had a lot of issues when arriving here (for a few days I thought we had [[User:JoeM|JoeM]]'s counterpart), and his great strides have not yet completely resolved things for me.  I still worry that Chris seeks out articles where he is most biased, thereby putting himself in the way of edit wars.  I worry also about the copyright issues, which Chris still seems far too nonchalant about to me.  And I will say that, while Chris is much better about avoiding disputes, I have not yet seen him be active about defusing disputes, which is an important difference -- an admin should not simply be "mostly not in trouble", but show some skill at preventing trouble (of course, Chris may be doing these things, but I haven't seen it).  I believe Chris, in a month or two, would be a good choice, but at this point I am not fully comfortable supporting him.  Hang in there, Chris: a couple more months should put a lot of the opposition behind you, especially if you try to address the concerns being voiced.  And should the vote go Chris's way, I'll take that as a sign that my concerns have indeed been addressed, and I just haven't been around to see it happen (I haven't interacted much with Chris in the last 3-4 weeks).
I'm voting Neutral here because I can't give this nomination the time it deserves right now for a fully informed opinion. I sense that ChrisDJackson has the potential to straighten up and become good admin material. I don't see any way he can overcome so many negatives, so I think it might be a great idea to give it a rest, work diligently and come back in a couple of months, and perhaps he will get a much different reception.


Good and promising editor, not but ready yet, IMO. Many breaks of weeks or longer in editing, and many of the 700 edits are from failure to Preview or mark as Minor. Would like to look again in a few months. --
What Cecropia said.
Oppose, due largely to insightful comments by Isomorphic below. If this guy has alot of expertise w topics thats great, but w his lack of free time and small number of edits its hard to imagine he aught to spend what little time he spends here w the chores of being an admin. Its not ment to be a status symbol or badge of merit, but rather an added responsibility.
Not enough experience here.
Oppose.  Not enough experience.

Support. Good user, and I must protest the inevitable coming of the marauding edit count warriors.
Last time I said "he has done good work, and is more active than most in discussing matters in article talk pages. Good admin material, imho," and that seems even more true now. &mdash;
Support. Opposing based strictly on edit count seems pefectly silly to me.

Support.  Overdue.  "Too new" - he's been here since Sep '02!
Has plenty of experience in time, if not edits.
Happy to support now (did I last time? can't remember). --
Sure. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
Good nomination. Support. --
I don't generally support cruelty to cyborgs, but.... ;-) <tt>


I supported last time too, and see no reason to change that. --

A low number of edits but they are good.

Would prefer more edits, but can hardly oppose in the above respectful company.
I agree with Jfdwolff.  --
Yo, Cy...you got yourself some REAL heavy hitters in your camp.  Good enough for me.  Support. -
I opposed his self-nomination, but that was mainly because I'm inherently skeptical of self-nominations. Strongly support. --
I don't believe that those who do non-controversial editing on non-controversial topics are any less deserving of adminship.
172 -- you forget the first... I dunno, twenty admins, who most definitely had less than 1000 edits...

Oppose.  User has less than 1000 edits.  Over 150 of those edits are on his own user page - [[User:CyborgTosser]].  Also those edits often break down to many edits on one page (looking recently 14 for [[Symbolic combinatorics]], 8 for [[Semi-empirical mass formula]]).  This user has mostly editted pages on music he likes, science fiction and electrical engineering.  He has not been involved at all in pages like this one (requests for adminship), votes for deletion or any other page which shows him having much interaction with other Wikipedia users.  This is something Johnleemk brought up during his previous self-nomination, and I concur with him.  We have no idea how he would act as an admin, since his interaction has been limited, and admin privileges are all about how he deal with interaction.  He edits pages in his fields of interest, occasionally posts on a discussion page, and once in a blue moon has a discussion on a discussion page.  Due to his limited number of edits, which are on his user page or the same pages multiple times in a small number of fields, and his lack of interaction with other users which is what admin power is all about, I oppose this nomination.
Oppose, for the reasons listed above. I've seen nothing that suggests that this person is cut out to be an administrator. The mostly non-substantive comments in support of this nomination have done nothing to persuade me to vote in favour. I have to wonder what qualifies a person for a position of authority who has not even interacted with the community in any significant way. The standard should be higher than that.
[[User:Netoholic/Admins|Too few edits]], and with only two days left has not accepted the nomination '''nor''' answered the candidate questions.  Lack of participation on this nomination page makes me ''very'' unimpressed. --
Oppose. Too few edits.
While I agree with the arguments above and as under "Neutral", I do not really understand the reasons why people then say they are neutral to the candidacy. :-> /

Why do you want to become an admin?
<s>Support -- a good contributor.</s>  172, I don't know what you're talking about -- many admins were promoted with less than 1,000 edits (I think a significant minority or a majority of promotions from 7/2003 - 1/2004 were in that category), and I was promoted with less than 500 edits.
<strike>Oppose.</strike> [Changing my vote to neutral in light of info provided to me by Jwrosenzweig [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk%3A172&diff=0&oldid=6762299]] [[User:172|172]] 02:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) User has less than 1000 edits... I don't recall a circumstance in which someone has been promoted with less than 1,000 edits... I don't see a compelling reason for breaking an established precedent and waiting a bit longer for adminship, as I did with [[User:AndyL]], [[User:Snowspinner]], and [[User:Neutrality]] (who were here for less than three months when I nominated each of them, albeit on those occasions unsuccessfully) out of consideration of the huge scope of their contributions in a short time span.
Three months, lots of edits, and involvement in meta-issues (VFD, etc.). Good enough for me. --
Support. Does some great work.
Of course! He seems like a good user to me. Agree with Slowking Man. --
Support.
I dislike bot-phobia.
It's good that he's wanting to become an admin because admins are there to chase any vandals who assail the castle that is Wikipedia. I'm not into vandalism. I congratulate all the nominees, and I envy them.


plenty of experience. helpful. agreeable.
Seems to be including more edit summaries. The previous lack of summaries was causing me to lean towards a neutral vote.

All those album edits are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TUF-KAT&diff=prev&oldid=8762788 generated programatically], not hand-edited, and no source is given for the album cover images.  Almost all of their edits lack [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]], which are important for communication.  Very little (any?) time spent doing any routine maintenance.  The communication aspect is most important, because without it, I don't know much about how they'd be as a sysop.  For instance, as of writing, user has only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=DCEdwards1966&hideminor=0&namespace=3 9 edits on other user talk: pages].  Sorry. --
I'm going to have to agree with Netoholic. Maybe in a few months.
for no other reason than not here long enough.
Oppose: No edit summaries
Oppose. I'm glad he's started using edit summaries, but I'm not so sure 3 months is quite enough for a full understanding of Wikipedia's machinations. I'm perfectly willing to support next time. -
No real "red flags", but never using edit summaries is worrying...  There doesn't seem to be any indication of what kind of sysop this user will make. Three months isn't very long... &#8212;
I have to agree with Tkinias.  --
Just to point out that, since the above comments were made, he HAS begun using edit summaries and adding lots of cleanup tags and such. Still, 3 months is a bit soon, and it remains to be seen if this behavior will survive the RfA process. I think it will, which is why I'm not voting oppose. --
User is showing good signs to improve, which probably means I will support next time.
He is reformed and should be given a chance. --


115 edits, one month, a history (based on talk page) of vandalism, and, ya know, you don't ''have'' to be an admin to write new articles. --
way too early, especially after having introduced himself with acts of vandalism
I cannot in good faith support someone with hardly any edits and who writes uppercase. [[User:Anárion|{]][[User_talk:Anárion|<em style="font-family: Code2000, 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-style: normal">&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628;</em>]]
Too new.
I am <u>quite</u> sorry.  I rarely vote for ''oppose'', but there are too many detractor's on EDGE's record.  First is his ''snits with other users'' and when andy said that EDGE has ''introduced himself with acts of vandalism''.  Second, and I say this to EDGE himself, you do not need to be an administrator to write articles on ''azmatology, poetic terrorism, and pirate utopias''.  Third, EDGE has underestimated what kind of experience is asked of him as an administrator.  Fourth, he has a very fresh view of how the community works.  I doubt that he read the rules on nominating himself in much depth, or he wouldn't have voted for himself, much less neutrally so.  I would like to say to EDGE that you may want to consider a re-self-nomination after ''at least'' 1000 edits.  Good luck!  --
User created a lot of nonsense articles on "poetic terrorism" a few days ago, moved user and talk pages to random locations, and caused general mayhem.
Too new, and too much odd stuff. A month or two of good, solid wikipeding may change my mind.
A reformed vandal, which EDGE admits being, faces a significantly higher bar in terms of earning the trust of the community. --
Too new + not enough experience + vandalism = strongly oppose. Sorry! --
Not on your life.  He is NOT a reformed vandal -- he refuses to discuss his edits, but prefers to delete discussions from his Talk page rather than to deal with them.
I'm going with RickK on this for my first-ever admin opposition vote.  In less than a month he's raised quite a bit of contention, especially with a respected user like Rick.  If EDGE can prove himself like DJ Clayworth suggests, I too would be willing to change my vote at a future date after a lot more good-faith edits and a lot less contention.  Just not yet.  That third-party comment about the intuition raised my eyebrows a notch or two as well. -
What they said. --
Um... I keep encountering very strange <s>edits and</s> comments made by this user. It is difficult to know if he is really ''reformed''. <tt>[[User:Func|func]][[User_talk:Func|(talk)]]</tt> 00:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (actually, the recent edits to articles have been ok). <tt>
[[User:Ilyanep| ]] &mdash;
Strongly oppose. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
[[User:Micahmn|Micahmn]] (''added by
I am not an edit counter.
I am not an edit counter, but you only have 165 edits. Sorry!
May be next time... --
Just 165 edits suggest you have little experience with Wikipedia, maybe next time. [[User:MacGyverMagic|
Ditto above. [[User:Neutrality|

I don't count edits, but this user does not have enough experience, and the nominator is a bit suspicious.
I'm not sure I trust this either. Maybe later after a few more edits and if nominated by someone a little more trustworthy.
Right now you have 213 edits. I will support you when you get to '''''1'''''213 edits. --
In terms of interfaith relations, it's nice to have a Lutheran and a Mennonite getting together, and I have no problem with the few edits I glanced at, but under the circumstances, this nomination is too premature to be seriously considered. --
Too few edits. Nominator not trustworthy.
Nothing personal, just a bit too soon.
Way, way, way too new; come back here in a couple of months and I'll be happy to support. --
Far, far, far too new, and far too desirous.
'''Very strongly Oppose''' the editor who nominated this candidate has 9 edits to a 24 word article, including the addition of a copyrighted photograph.  I won't waste my time looking further. Come back later when an actual good editor nominates you. (if you meet my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards standards] I'll nominate you myself).  It seems really fishy to me that the only support you have is from an anonymous editor and CheeseDreams.  Adminship should be no big deal, but it's not something given lightly either.
[[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
See no reason to oppose. Eequor's comments on the link Kate provided were right on target.
Looks quite constructive, I see no evidence to the contrary in fact, especially contribs to reference desk and so. Very decent admin material from my quick look through contribs. Oh yeah, and [[TINC]]! ;-)
Support! --
Obviously not going to succeed this time. Opposers below appear confused. They should read more Karl Popper -
'''Support'''.  Eequor makes useful contributions to articles, and has responded clearly and politely to the concerns raised by objectors here.
'''Support'''. Eequor may be insane, but does that nessecarily mean Eequor is insane? Anyhow, support on the basis that while Eequor has done some somewhat questionable things, they've mostly just been too hyped up. For example, what Raul said about what Eequor said about rules is a typical thing one might expect to hear from a stodgy sysop who has spent too much time enforcing rules, but really what Eequor said is in complete agreement with Wikipedia policy and it should be recognised that we are meant to obey the SPIRIT of the rules, and not to follow them to the letter - thus good contributors don't get banned for repeat vandalism if they can offer up a good explanation (if they revert it themselves, nobody usually pursues action against them). Good job Eequor. --
Eequor is a multitalented editor who usually uses her powers for good. :) If she is granted adminship and then abuses it, I will be the first to start an RfC on her, but I don't think she would do that.
Thought she was one already. -
I see absolutely nothing this user has done that would justify the cruel words being levelled at her.
She's a little quirky, a little different... all the more reason to support.
The "rules" are not a substitute for using your head and embracing the spirit of the place. Too many people here use the "rules" to browbeat other users instead of as a means of facilitating a great encyclopaedia. Let's have more admins who believe that fighting for a great encyclopaedia is more important than fighting for the status quo.
Although Eequor and I have had disagreements in the past, a variety of viewpoints is useful for the wiki. Support this nomination. [[User:Rhymeless|
Support. I see: No respect for authority. Completely opposed to everything I believe in. Sanity questionable. I'm surprised Eequor isn't admin already. --


[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki_1.3_comments_and_bug_reports/Archive&diff=55137&oldid=55136]
Not a chance.
No. -
Not a constructive user. --
This just about says it all about Eequor - ''"Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naïve and insular position"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Eequor&diff=6174589&oldid=6174566]
Amen to most above opinions.  [[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&bull;</font>]][[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&rarr;</font>]]
What target did Eequor hit, exactly? Let's see - she makes out that in a massive project like Wikipedia, the fact that the cabal can't be everywhere at once is proof that there is a cabal. You just have to love the rhetorical skills that allow someone to prove the existence of a thing by its absence. I'm sure that kind of logic would greatly simplify the long-running dispute over [[Atheism]]. --
I cannot see a possible justification for that comment for someone that would be fitting for the role of an administrator. --
While I believe I've shared some of her view points in the past, Eequor took a possible hoax about a Bulgarian radiant leak from the reference desk, and put it as front page news today. Not responsible. --
I'd really like to support because I think complaints about her fixation with the "cabal" are silly, but editing "In the News" to repeat an user's heretofore baseless claims is reckless.
I normally dont interfere on this things but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Elagabalus&diff=3858403&oldid=3857436 this edit on Elagabalus](note the recategorization) makes me wonder about Leah Q's sanity (with all due respect) and her use as a sysop.
A lot of fine pharmacological work but also a lot of bias against traditionalist religion (a POV forcefully stated on her userpage).
No --

I'm surprised no one has cited [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]], a proposed policy with which I agree very much. Such inanity as listing rambot articles on VFD is counterproductive, and not the way one should start discussion on the matter. [[User:Rdsmith4|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
I've decided to remove my opposition, as really my concern was over the way Eequor has caused other people to react to her, not her behaviour per se. Therefore it's probably unfair of me to oppose. I think one day Eequor will make a good admin, although I think time (as in heals all wounds) will need to pass first.
the stuff linked to above would make me tend towards 'object', but I haven't researched well enough to really be comfortable with a negative vote (and the cause seems doomed, anyway). I suppose the ideal admin is a much more boring person (janitor) than Eequor.
I'm only responding here because my vote was solicited on my user page.  I do not normally participate in these votes, and do not intend to start now.  Most of my recent work has been on other projects to the extent that I have not followed the behaviour of any candidate on Wikipedia to a sufficient extent to be able to cast a vote on his/her suitability as an admin on '''this''' project.

I think we need to try hard to get many different points of view among administrators, however I am hesitant in supporting this particular user due to reasons which I will not mention here for fear of being offensive. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Eequor does seem intelligent, but has also appeared gratuitously belligerent.  It doesn't seem like mere tempermental hotheadedness.  See [[User talk:Eequor/vs. MIT]].  She wants to claim to have defeated [[MIT]] in an argument and make an issue of the matter.  The fact that her argument lacks merit doesn't help either.
<s>Sorry, Falcon, but you have not made that many edits. I will support you after you make 600 edits. But you are doing great, and keep up the good work! :-) --[[User:Lst27|Lst]][[User talk:Lst27|''27'']] 17:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)</s> I think we should give him a chance. 480 edits is good enough, considering the quality of his edits. :-) --
Will support after 750+ edits.  Sorry.  In the meantime, take Chris 73's suggestion, or if something needs to be deleted right away, put <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> at the top of the page.  --
I agree with Merovinginan; Falcon has simply not been a contributor long enough for me to support a self-nomination. As the section heading states, self-nominators should exceed the normal nomination standards by a goodly amount. Also, I am concerned by a claim on this user's talk page that he is not "at all tolerant of pro-corporate POVs, or even a hint thereof." I would find it unsettling to have a sysop who claims to have such an extreme bias. --
Oppose - Falcon, I'd personally suggest you set out how you would go about restructuring these pages in your user page somewhere, or in a suitable article's talk page. Then hopefully a current admin can perform the changes for you (if they think they can be done without going to VfD). Later, when you've more experience like the others are discussing you can (be nominated|nominate yourself) for adminship. We'd be setting a dangerous precedent otherwise.
Not yet enough experience here. Keep working and keep participating :) Try again this autumn. Also, if you need help deleting articles, just tell me what you need done.
Not long enough IMO. But I think the above has established that if you have administrative stuff needing to be done, there are people who will help -




[[User:MacGyverMagic|

I feel a kinship with Fvw. We patrol together.



Seems ok. -
From my somewhat limited experience wtih Fvw on the RC patrol front he seems great. Just lay off on the VfDs a bit though...
Support. Does good work.
As a regular VfD reader I agree with Fvw's assessment below. Fvw does list a lot of articles, and although there have been a few that were borderline, most were clearly worth listing, and you have to look at it as a percentage.

It might be good for Fvw to be more cautious about vfd, but this isn't a big deal, imo. So long as he wouldn't speedily delete articles outside of policy, it doesn't bother me. And he certainly doesn't seem too new to me. Are these the only objections? Support. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (
Regular contributor only since October 13 (prior to that a total of about 50 scattered edits).


Too new. Nothing personal. --
Much too new, too many ledgit articles put up on VfD that turned out to be keepers.  Five minutes of forethought saves hours of peoples' time on VfD. --
Oppose. Not an editor I'd be comfortable with allowing to speedily delete articles. I disagree with Shane, I'm afraid. I think you should only list articles you are ''sure'' should be deleted. Yes, Fvw listed some obvious vanities etc, but it's my belief that deletion policy is aimed at not hanging the innocent rather than rewarding those who execute a few of the guilty. I'm particularly alarmed by Fvw's listing "Kirkegaard Associates" as a candidate for speedy deletion while it was still under discussion on VfD.
Oppose! this IGNORANT FOOL wanted to delete the [[Lil Jon]] article. because Lil Jon, MULTI-PLATINUM CRUNK LEGEND, is somehow "not notable." what the fuck? this playa-hater should be BANNED, not promoted.
With respect to the Lil Jon VfD either fvw didn't bother to check the edit history/old versions or didn't bother to check about notability -- both of which should be standard prior to listing on VfD.  Everyone makes mistakes but combined with the other objections raised I must oppose.
'''Oppose''', and sorry that I have to.  To keep this area neat, I have placed my reasons for my vote under the "comments" section.
Good user, but not enough experience. I will support if he is renominated in one month. ''(
Too new. Sorry. Support with more experience.  --






Continued support. --
Certainly.
Also continued support. --
Strong support.
Support.&mdash;
Support. &mdash;
Support.
Support. -
Support.
Support.


YES--[[User:Plato|

Support giving wide leeway to administrator discretion, which I believe Guanaco has still fallen within the realm of.
But try to use a bit more care in making decisions.
Of course. I am refraining from commenting on what I think of this vote.
Support.  I tend to disagree with most of Guanaco's positions, but I am also dismayed that this vote is even taking place.
Support.
He's not a bad guy. We're all human, humans make mistakes, even if he really is bit of a rouge admin, I won't name names, but there are far worse out there.
Support.
Support. Try to lay low and use some restraint for a while. [[User:Ram-Man|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash;
Has repeatedly done dubious things in regard to admin powers, and has often been recalcitrant when asked about them. He may have once been a fine admin, but in the last few months, he's become a rogue admin.
Not enough activity lately (18 edits in all of November).
I regret having to agree with everything Ambi says. Furthermore, I believe that admins who are willing to take unilateral actions&mdash;actions which may or may not be in accord with the will of the community&mdash;should be ready to explain themselves and discuss their reasonings when the inevitable questions arise. If their actions are repeatedly challenged, they should stop. Guanaco did not, to my knowledge, show himself to be open to discussion of his controversial actions, nor did he stop after several challenges from other users. This kind of rash unilateralism in the use of sysop abilities is unsuitable, to say the least.
Criticism of Guanaco has hardly been limited to "the Cantus matter." He frequently abused his privileges, and acted with disdain toward community consensus. He makes no effort to "play well with others," and the ArbCom decision should be considered carefully. The mistake of his original election should not be repeated.
Ambi's assessment of the situation is quite true, I find. I can't support a history of conflict like that.
No. Admins should act with consensus and be held to a higher standard. We value all editors, but I don't believe this one should have sysop powers.
I now oppose after Guanaco's inexplicable unblocking of HistoryBuffEr. [[User:Neutrality|
I have to oppose to this nomination.
Oppose.

Weak oppose. I don't get his need to unprotect user pages, which leads me to not trust him. There are better things to be doing as an admin. I think it might be a good idea to have all admins re-apply after a certain period, but I don't like that Guanaco is the only one having to do so. I don't feel like reading all the ArbCom matter, but if they felt he needs to reapply, they might as well just deadmin and let it be that.
Sorry, Guanaco.  I think you're generally a good guy.  But your unprotecting of user pages gets on my nerves.  And your unblocking of Historybuffer's IPs was out-of-line, in my opinion.  I agree with Cribcage that you shouldn't be using your admin powers during this vote.  Also, your banter with Neutrality and Cribcage above is, I don't know, unsavory.
Oppose, agree with Ambi.--[[User:Bishonen|
I cannot in good faith support for continued adminship someone who believes that blocked users should feel free to evade their blocks by anonymous editing, and who even goes so far as to hinder other administrators attempting to enforce the block.
Cannot support unilateral actions and do not believe admins should have "leeway": that's a licence for roguery.
Not the worst admin we have, but that said, we need to de-admin people who don't show wisdom in the use of their powers. It may not happen in order of merit, but it has to start somewhere. Here's to precident.
Oppose: Guanaco seems to be a blazing loose cannon.
Oppose, reluctantly, since I am not an admin and don't feel it's necessarily appropriate for me to vote against an admin, but I really feel strongly that admin powers, any and all of them, should be reserved for folks who are to a great extent beyond reproach, and who take pains to accurately assess and follow consensus.  I wouldn't oppose renomination if it seems suitable at a later date.
Oppose
Oppose.
Oppose - community confidence not there.
Christmas comes early this year.
Um... I know very little about Guanaco, but I have seen him unblock users, who should have remained block, for no appearent reason, and I found his placing RickK on Vandalism in Progress to have been extremely strange, since RickK was clearly following policy with regard to (then) hard-banned user Michael.
Agree with Func.
I feel that the point has been made and that stripping adminship in addition is senseless, but I am only aware of a few of the cases of disputed behavior, so I'm not confident enough to support.  Sorry.

I don't have an opinion about Guanaco yet. There are certainly several users whose opinions I trust voting "oppose", but no one has yet provided any difs or other solid evidence to convince me. [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &ndash; [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) (

Weak oppose. Not a problem user but not quite sysop material either --
What Chris 73 and VeryVerily said.
Very Strongly Oppose. A puppet of troll/vandal user Lir. --
Request disciplinary action against nominator. -
Nominee has shown refusal to answer basic questions about understanding of administrative responsibilities, regrets not edit warring more, and his best contribution is not actually an article in the encyclopedia he is seeking administrator status for. Furthermore, I am unsure how he could have been an admin a year ago when he didn't even post here a year ago. This nomination is as much of a joke as Fifth World nations and parallel Internets.
Tricky, given that the account was created in May. Doesn't even have 50 edits and most of those are troublesome. --
Hmm. Let's see. "Authentic fifth world expert" (e.g., person who creates articles that should be on speedy delete). Likely is sockpuppet. Has fewer than 50 edits. Of course I enthusiastically support! </sarcasm> Oppose.


Looking at user's edit history I am very strongly opposing --
Bizarre, ranting, time wasting moron. This nomination is further evidence of disruption of WP on the part of [[User:Lir]].
Total waste of everyone's time.


All of Lir's nominations on this page are jokes.  As is Lir himself.


--
What a jolly jape.
Nope. --
Under 100 edits, no evidence of the skills needed to be a good administrator. Keep working at it.

What a way to get everyone's attention. Well, you got it! Here's my no vote! *giggle*
Ban them all.
Strongly oppose, for reasons mentioned above. --
Don't do this, Lir.  --







--
Support.
Don't see the harm. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Deletionism is not a reason to oppose adminship, and this contributor has shown no other reason to do so.
1/3 (226/734) of his edits are VfD-related. Rest are fairly minor &ndash; long runs of category (Sep 6) and redirect bypassing (Nov 5).  Politics around deletionism (or inclusionism) is probably over-blown on RFA, but [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians&diff=74027&oldid=73997 participants] in  [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians&diff=72903&oldid=72879 ADW] are a different matter.  Contributions he's made adding content to Wikipedia are over-shadowed by this. I also note a lack of [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summary]] use. Maybe in a couple of months. --
Too few edits. Should have more than 2000.
New page patrol is great, but he has a very broad definition of a speedy delete, (see [[Sundissential|1]], [[Hugh Lawrie|2]], [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Homestyle|3]], [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mote Prime|4]], [[Nick Valensi|5]], [[Caddo Parish Middle Magnet School|6]], [[Sun King|7]]&mdash;this one got to me because it was obviously a newbie's atempt at a redirect, ect). Failed attempts to speedy appear to consitute a shocking portion of his non-VfD edits. Granted, much of this stuff is garbage, but they don't fit speedy criteria. He hasn't done it in the last week and a half, but I would much prefer to have other admins review his deletion judgement for the time being. Aside from that, he has great contributions and I'd almost undoubtably support him next time around.
Lack of edit summaries makes it almost impossible for me to assess his contributions. Not tagging your edits shows a basic lack of courtesy to other editors. Start making an effort to tag edits please, and maybe I can support. I'm neutral on the deletionism charges: politics shouldn't play a part in adminship. The number of incorrect speedys is impossible to pass judgement on without knowing the number of correct speedies: it may be a very low error rate for all we know.
Agree with the above: Some of the speedys show poor judgment, and no edit summaries. Furthermore, too few edits. I'd prefer to see more value added rather than just deletion of articles. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
Agree with the above. Please try again in three months. --
I've found him to be thoughtful and concerned, and I think it takes conscience and a desire to improve the project to go through RC, to tag speedies, and to go through VfD.  He thinks about the bigger issues, and this is very good.  As for Netoholic and others who think that VfD voting makes one inelligible, I will say nothing except that it is a very strict minority view.  My neutrality is based solely on time on project.  I am in favor and supporting him and will absolutely support on a re-nomination.
Support. Itai has made over 2200 edits since the start of December and seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia.
Support - A brief glance through the user's history shows nothing but good edits.
Support, on the condition that he harms no carrots. [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Oppose for now on the grounds given above - and I'd also like to know what the "illumination" that Itai feels this is a step towards is.--[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]
Oppose until user clarifies cryptic message.  -
Support. Nicely edited a lot of esoterica and is dedicated.
Support.  Thought he already was one. :)
Great contributions, and, in my experience, a very personable person. Also, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Jor's having the bizarre 'Inserted by a true Eldar' comment at the top of their talk page never ceases to amuse me.
Support.
Speaking from my experience with Jor, he is an excellent editor and a reasonable person.  I've not been involved in the apparently controversial Polish/German issue, but I am confident based on what I've seen that he would do well.
Support. Excellent contributer. Go Jor! --
Support.  I've dealt with Jor/darkelf on several subjects and found him (?) to be reasonable, levelheaded, and conscientious.  I for one have been around this particular block enough not to fall for the tired old "he's a nazi/he's a zionist/he's a commie/he's a homo/he's lefthanded" line. In such namecalling the seeds of tyranny lie. --
He has allot of contributions and responded promptly to an inquiry.
Has done 5 times in 5 months what I have done in 6. :-) Clearly a dedicated contributor. -


Well, everything ''I've'' seen from him is just fine. While I see some users I respect voting against him, the sock-puppetry and such going on below suggests that if I'm to judge him by his enemies, he's probably a good apple.

I looked into this, and could only find good edits. I think his detractors make a poor case, but if they can improve it perhaps I'd change my vote. As is the reverts I see him having made don't involve revert wars, but rather correcting poor edits.
Support.
Support

Support, a bit tentatively.  I don't know much about Jor, but we had a conflict some months ago and it was resolved amicably due to what I felt was good faith on his part, which is more than I can say for many ''current'' admins.  Many of the reasons for oppose below (such as Ruhrjung's and Moncrief's) are not compelling.  In the German/Polish battle he did seem to me aggressive at times, but I can understand the frustration of dealing with, e.g., Wik, etc., and what I've seen indicates he is more reasonable than to abuse admin status to win edit wars.  And if he does, I'm sure he'll get the full treatment (a la [[User:168...|168...]]) from the vocal critics below. --
Strongly oppose. Rude German-reactionary POV pusher who asked me "Does this appease your Polish nationalism?" when I tried to call Szczecin by its current name. And later regarding &#346;winouj&#347;cie: "I merely shifted them because known vandal User:Wik insists on adding 'former'" and "Screw this, I've better things to do than try and fix Wik's vandalism." See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Swinoujscie&dummy=1&diff=2392366&oldid=2392307 here] how Jor changes the correct names &#346;winouj&#347;cie and Szczecin, referring to the ''present Polish cities'', to the old German names Swinemünde and Stettin! --
Cautiosly oppose. A person who takes as his own task to "remove from count" votes against himself[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=2966676&oldid=2966674] does not seem to have sufficient trust in other wikipedians &mdash; seems too eager to protect his own prestige and too eager to become administrator.--

[[User:John Kenney|john]] 02:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) lots of German-Central European POV pushing. And I'll note that while I myself have been involved in disputes over Central European article naming issues, I've spent a lot more time fighting against the sock puppet types who've been hurling abuse at Jor than I have against Jor (or Nico).  But I'd vote against any of them being made admins.

I remember Jor being involved in edit wars, having problems with NPOV, calling opponents "problem users" and "vandals" and so on. He should show that he can do better before being granted adminship. --
Oppose. Edit wars, rude bahaviour. Far away from NPOV.

Oppose - we don't need combatants in Polish-German wars as admins.
Oppose. [[User:Wik]] is right on.
Oppose.  I have to admit that some of my trepidation is due to the fact that he is taking such an active role in the voting process for him here.  Yikes. (Someone will no doubt point out that there's no rule against doing so.  Fine, it's just a personal preference then that those being voted on should back off from constant edits and justifications on the tally).
Oppose. However, if more time passes and Jor seems to be getting along with the other kids on the block and staying out of POV trouble, then I think he'd make a great sysop. --
Oppose. POV-Pusher.
Better safe than sorry&mdash;we shouldn't hand out guns to combatants on either side of any major POV conflict.
Controversial. Concerns regarding his views on POV.
[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 05:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC).  I didn't even realize that this Gdansk/Danzig German/Polish thing existed.  In retrospect, this whole thing needs to calm down before I'll support adminship for ''any'' participant.  Can't you just let the other side push their German/Polish POV for a week while this whole thing cools down? Some of us have an encyclopedia to write.
'''Support'''. [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Leonard+G.&dbname=enwiki Over 10k edits], although curiously few in Wikipedia or User namespace. Having read the talk page, Leonard G. seems like a good candidate.
'''Support'''. 10k+ edits and not an admin? Seems like a great guy, I have no problem supporting. -
'''Support'''. Looks good.
'''Support''' for rather the same reason that Thorpe is neutral. Anyone can contribute information to articles -- someone who wants to fix things and clean up after vandals is exactly who ''should'' be an admin. --

Diligently took care of all my obj in his SF-OB FAC nom.
'''Support''' Kate's Tool is down at the moment, so I can't see just how few Wikipedia namespace edits you have. However, since I can't judge you on that, I'll have to support you based on your intelligence and peaceful behavior. :) [[User Talk:Acetic Acid|<font color=00CD00>Acetic</font>]][[User:Acetic_Acid/Gifts_and_Awards|<font color=FFFFFF>'</font>]]<sup><font color=FF8247>
'''Support'''.  I only vote on people I have worked with.  I collaborated with Leonard on the our [[San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge|recent featured article]] (appearing on the front page in a few days).  Leonard is a pleasure to work with.  He is always respectful and diligent. --
I see no reason to oppose this user.
I see no reason to oppose this user, either.--
'''Support''' - Sure! --<span style="color:red">
'''Support''' One of the better candidates this week. <small>
'''Support''' solid contributor --
'''Support''' I fully support, for many of his QUALITY photo contributions. --
'''Support''', I was wondering where I'd run into him before, and then I recognized a few pictures of his that have helped out articles I like. Solid user, deserving of adminship for sure. -
These opposes are absolutely ridiculous. <small>
'''Support''' After 10,000 edits, what namespace you edit in is totally irrelevant. ''This should be no big deal'', remember? A good candidate for a good cause ;).
Support. I see absolutely no reason for punishing an editor for not involving himself in policymaking or the swirling, stinking BS that passes for it, nor for avoiding the petty politics and borderline warfare that some Wikipedia namespace articles host. It would probably be much more beneficial for Wikipedia if we ''discouraged'' it, given that we already have more than enough policy to go round when [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|this]] would actually suffice.
'''Support''' due to his high volume of quality articles, [[bridge]] in particular. Pleasant to work with.
'''Support''' due to the quality of his contributions.
'''Support'''.
'''Oppose''' Its nothing against Leonard G. I looked at his contributions and I've decided to oppose.
'''Oppose''', and quite strongly too. Article stuff is good, I'll say that up front. But the contributions to the admin related areas are really very small. Only 93 Wikipedia: edits is just too few for me. Also, the answers to the neutral votes below do appear to reveal some lack of clarity on what adminship brings in terms of additional abilities and responsibilities. His response to Angr is seriously misjudged and Angr's reasoning was perfectly civil. I don't fully understand the response to Scimitar at all; it appears to be a railing against the whole structure of Wikipedia, along with some things he'd like to see changed. Unless I misunderstand, Scimitar hadn't asked for a wishlist of technical features. This seems to me to be another misjudgement of a comment. The response to Encephalon includes alarming responses regarding what amounts to a "hardly every delete" with little or no reference to policy. It is not for admins to decide they don't like a policy and thence to sidestep it. I'd suggest spending some time in the areas you'd plan to help out in with your admin duties (you don't say where that would be very clearly), and see what kind of discussions take place there. Once you've got something like several hundred Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: edits, you'll be far more sure of how to judge this kind, and other kinds, of discussion. As an added bonus, you'll have a clearer picture of whether you'd be happy doing admin things. Meantime, keep up the excellent article work. -
'''Oppose''', as per Splash. —
'''Oppose''' as per [[User:Splash|Splash]], [[User:Angr|Angr]], and [[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]]. Leonard G.'s answers here demonstrate a poor understanding of administrative functions as well as WP policies. I am also concerned with the escalating tone of his replies, the last few of which sound outright hostile. Mind you, Leonard G. has every right to be angry at the comments he reads here; he has spent countless hours doing valuable work for Wikipedia, and in return he gets criticism about what may seem like a superficial issue of form and manners. However, as an admin, he will face criticism like this on a daily basis, and must be prepared to deal with it in an even-tempered, consensus-building manner.
'''Oppose''' as above.  Too few WP space edits for me to support at this time.  --
I really not too sure on you being an admin. I know you help clear up the place and fix things but you don't contribute information to articles, you just fix errors and such (which is good). I would say you need to help improve articles by adding information to them as well. --
I disagree with [[User:Thorpe|Thorpe]]; I think the contributions to article space are impressive and definitely go beyond mere copyediting/proofreading. I'm also impressed by the contributions of images. But I'm worried by the relatively few contributions to Wikipedia space; it means you're not contributing much to the ''administration'' of Wikipedia (deletion discussions, policy discussions, etc.) So that's why although I don't oppose your becoming an admin, I can't really support it either. --
'''Neutral'''. I was about to support a first-rate contributer in [[User:Leonard G.|Leonard G.]], but then I read his last answer. It, in my opinion, misunderstood admin powers.  It isn't just the one-button revert, it's also the power to delete articles and images, judge consensus and administer votes, and enforce policy. It's hard to jump right in and do a good job of it without some policy background.  However, I would still have voted support, but his last comment seemed angry, and frankly, out of proportion to [[User:Angr|Angr]]'s comment.--
'''Neutral'''. I had precisely Scimitar's reaction on reading the exchange with Angr, and am further puzzled by the latest answer— it does not address Scimitar's concerns, nor is it delivered in a tone that is particularly helpful. I will not oppose, as I do not believe [[User:Leonard G.|Leonard G]] poses a clear threat to WP were he to become admin, but I am concerned that he is not quite ready for the role— and that he does not appear to realize or concede this possibility. If, as is likely, he is sysoped, I hope that he will take these expressions of concern in the right spirit and seek a fuller understanding of adminship in WP. With best wishes—


I don't think the talk page should have been blanked, but since it was off-topic, it wasn't wildly inappropriate or anything.
Having browsed LGagnon's edits, particularly appearances on talk pages, I cautiously support this candidacy. I'm eager to give him access to the roll back feature, but not quite convinced with regard to his maturity. A pity that the opposition below seems pretty numerous. (Yes, I disagree with the opponents.) /
I'm supporting for a number of reasons: a) It appears to be an isolated incident (one contentious edit in a history of 5000 is still very good), b) it's probably within the letter of the law, and c) I think that this conversation is enough to make him aware that following convention is sometimes as important as what is explicitly written in the rules. Other than this one minor issue, what is left is a very good contributor.
Support. [[User:LGagnon]] was correct to attempt to refocus the discussion on [[talk:Stephen King]].
Deleting the discussion may be a little improper, but certain users are blowing it way out of proportion.
I agree with Rhobite, ShaneKing and Tuf-Kat. It seems that some (not all, however) of the objectors here have been blowing this way out of proportion in order to pursue an ideological dispute with this user.
Support.--[[User:Bishonen|
Support. -
[[User:Neutrality|
I think he'd make a good sysop. The Steven King case isn't something I'd care to weigh in on at this point. --
User has 5000 edits and removed conversation of questionable relevance in one of these. -[[User:MikeX|
Support --
Oppose '''strongly'''.
<s>Blanked</s> ''removed'' an article related discussion on [[Talk:Stephen King]]. Not a good sign.
He didn't blank any pages, but he removed discussion. Bad idea.
'''Strongly''' oppose. Two reasons. 1. I plan to use my admin status to block users is not promising. I wouldn't vote for anyone who saw this as the primary goal of adminship. 2. I firmly believe consensus is built on talk, not reversion and forcing your POV. I am not so much worried by his blanking the talk page as his general attitude that he will decide for himself when people need "censoring". Contrition and a repeated commitment to consensus would have been far more persuasive than being adamant that censorship is a valuable tool for an editor. I've changed my vote to reflect the further discussion with LGagnon.
Oppose&mdash;as I understand it, convention is that we leave talk pages alone ''unless they are our user talk pages''; obviously, in this case, the talk page in question was not LGagnon's user talk page.
Oppose. Candidate's argumentative self-justification is not what I look for in an administrator.

I '''oppose''' for reasons stated by Dr Zen. [[User:GRider|
Not sure about the talk page blanking business. Investigating further. --
-
Entirely neutral, because I don't really know the editor's work, but this bit with Sam Spade is frightening -- frightening that people are voting to oppose on this basis.  Trimming chatty adolescent panting from a talk page is not a reason to oppose.  If anything, it's a janitorial function to keep talk pages on topic.  No, it isn't necessary to go and ask someone to remove their own comments.  That's a courtesy, of course, but it's hardly a requirement.  Talk pages are not IRC, and they are not a forum.  They're supposed to be places for talking about concerns with an article and the "Lesbians make me happy" is inappropriate in so many ways as to be beyond counting.
Strongly oppose.
Oppose, unfortunately. There are too many questionable events in this user's past.
I must agree that there has been a marked improvement in Lst's behaviour. I support. &mdash;
‘"This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said.’ (per [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]). Recent edits would appear to be good admin material.
I'd have nominated him myself; he's a good editor and committed to the project, so he ought to be an admin by now.
He expressed interest to me in being nominated last week, but I was so busy that I didn't respond to his email or recommend him. I would have, however. I support.




I agree with Chmod007.  --

I don't estimate any evil from him. [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]

Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|
assume good faith --


Oppose.

Oppose.
Very strongly oppose.
Oppose.  See comments section for reasons.
Oppose.  --
Oppose. Not a bad user as such, but the same old issues still remain.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=4208363#Lst27_.283.2F11.2F3.29 Oppose]--



Strong support. I feel that in Lucky 6.9, we have an editor who will most definitely do much to make Wikipedia a place to be proud of, even more so than it is now.

Lucky does a lot of work with sub-stubs. I think the ability to delete them would be extremely handy for him.

I couldn't be happier to see this listing and to see that Lucky has reconsidered his decision to leave Wikipedia. Definite support. &mdash;
Seconding all that has been said previously. I'd have nominated him myself, but Rick beat me to it.



[[User:Dpbsmith|
I don't entirely know how the admin's diet of death threats, slanderous "cabal" bleating, and miscellaneous underinformed moaning from the project's gin-soaked mailing-list geriatics is going to ''improve'' Lucky's satisfaction-quotient, but my concern for Lucky's happinesswellbeing isn't a material reason for Lucky to not be an admin.  Lucky is an even tempered, productive, forebearant, and dilligent wikipedian, in whose calloused hands the keys to the wikipedia mop&bucket cupboard can safely be placed. --
Just STAY AROUND long enough to use these powers!!!

Strong support.  I'm glad you couldn't stay away, Lucky.
I cannot express the strength of my support enough.  In the "B-movie bandit" episode, Lucky was tireless at ''cleaning up'' the mess left in his wake.  If you look at Lucky's contributions, you will not find them in meta or in tables and borders.  Those things are important, but Lucky's contributions are in the articles, giving Wikipedia content, endlessly rescuing orphaned items from the Clean Up list, thinking carefully about how he can improve our site.  I have never seen Lucky fail in his principles, his energy, or his desire to make us a better project.
I was gonna nominate him if he came back, but Raul beat me to it. I support full-heartedly. [[User:Ilyanep| ]]&mdash;
[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Lucky has proven himself to be a responsible user, if somewhat, uh, rash. However, I believe in demystifying the position of sysop, and I think Lucky can handle this position well enough.

I have every confidence thwt Lucky 6.9, as demonstrated on his numerous VfD contributions, will not abuse admin powers.
Huh??? I thought Lucky 6.9 was already an administrator. Strongly support. --
He has helped me multiple times. Strong support.
Always been impressed with the gruntwork he does.
I trust Lucky's judgment, let's give him reasons to stay. Burnout can be prevented by community support rather than denying him the sysops right clearly due to him.


Ralph is a good guy, and will make a good editor.


I was going to abstain. I know Lucky can be a little hot headed. I know I can be. For some poeple, extra responsibility/power leads to the dark side. For others, it has a sobering effect: the knowledge that it can be taken away, the shame that can bring. I think Lucky is one who will be sobered by the trust we place in him. -

--
His work is good, but we need a commitment to stay with Wikipedia, and not to quit every time the going gets tough.
Good editor, but I don't like statements like this on the Childlove VfD page: "Let's get off the POV/NPOV bandwagon and just speedy delete this. No redirect, no nothing except for maybe reporting this pervert to the proper authorities. If this stays, I go for good and I hope that others will consider doing likewise as well." He needs to be less hot-headed and stay on the NPOV bandwagon, especially as a sysop, when he has the power to actually speedy-delete pages he finds offensive.

With all due respect to [[User:Finlay_McWalter|Finlay McWalter]]'s vote, I think it's ridiculous to describe this user as "even-tempered."
It's nice to see that he keeps coming back, and I have no complaints to make about his work. However, he's just barely returned from his latest departure, and under such circumstances I can't endorse him for admin right away when he keeps leaving out of frustration. Needs more time, not to learn the ropes in this case, but to show he can hang on to them. --
Having never dealt with Lucky personally, I can only attest to my superficial impression of him as a loose cannon.  I'm apparently not alone in my concern over granting this person deletion powers.
Given past experience with user on VFD, and noting the nominator, I fear that he may may also consider niceties like <nowiki>{{subst:test}}</nowiki> and other warnings as "too mealy-mouthed". -
I'm afraid I must oppose. Lucky is a great contributor, but is not suited for adminship--I've warned him multiple times about zealotry in using the speedy deletion template, as have other users. Some users are simply more valuable contributors ''without'' adminship. No mark against him personally, but strong opposition. [[User:Meelar|
Good user, but not ready yet, IMHO -- perhaps in another couple of months.
Opposed, for reasons 1, 2, and 9 above.  -

Lucky is a great guy, but he seems to take disagreements personally too often. I'm willing to reconsider sometime in the future.
Oppose for reasons 1 and 2 above. --
Oppose. Lucky appears to be a student of Rick's bull in a china shop approach to adminship. I'd rather not WP went further down this road.
Oppose. Way too eager to delete things and not discuss things out. --
'''Oppose'''. After an outburst like: ''"'''Unilateral censorship?!?'''  Fuck this whole thing once and for all.  Keep your precious article.  Damn you.  Sysops, please delete my pages just as soon as I'm through blanking them. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 06:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)"'' (retrieved from [[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Childlove_movement]]), inviting this editor to admin amounts to nothing more than [[appeasement]]. --
Regretfully, I think Lucky is a little too hasty at times, and would decide by emotion rather than judgement.
I'm not too concerned with oppose #1, per se; the stated reasons may be questionable, but the net effect is similar to counting to ten to cool down before you continue a conversation, which can be a good thing. A minor related issue is it seemed to me like at least one departure was somewhat overly dramatic; I'm more concerned about his willingness to try to sway VfD voting by ''threatening'' to leave, but that isn't enuf to get me to oppose, since it's not related to admin duties. I'm a bit more concerned about #2, and while in his answers he indicates a desire to abide by the group's consenus, I have concerns about whether he would be able to do so in one of his more, um, Wikistressed moments. I don't disagree with #12, but in the long run/big picture, I think that will have more negative effects on Lucky's joy of life/state of bliss/whatever, than on Wikipedia. But my biggest concern, and the reason I've been hoping this vote wouldn't happen, is #8, as I am one of the "other users" that expressed similar concerns on Lucky's talk page. Thus I again have concerns about good intentions losing out to exasperation. For example, I don't believe this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Machi&diff=5135876&oldid=5135523] is a speedy candidate--it says what (who) the article is about, what they are notable for, and where they are noted for it--and I have to assume that Mattingly23 must have come to a similar conclusion. More recently, <u>when, to my knowledge he wasn't in Wikistress mode, he speedy</u> tagged this '''eight sentence''' article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Teoti&diff=5175375&oldid=5175189] (which I thot more of a VfD candidate, and later Guanaco found it to be a copyvio, but I think that speaks to its coherence). I should point out that, like Meelar, I think Lucky is a very admirable and valuable contributor, and I'll add that since I became an admin and started hanging around the speedy cat, I think I see more {delete} tags from him than anyone, except maybe Grunt (but I also know that timezones heavily affect who sees whose activity), and the strong majority are clearly deletable, so whatever the outcome of the vote, I hope he continues to find them however he does it. (FWIW, this is the first time I've felt strongly enuf about a nomination to cast a vote.)
I usually don't oppose nominations, but I am seriously concerned abouth Lucky's lack of regard for both [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Wikiquette]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|Wikilove]]. These are qualities that are essential to be a leader/[[sysop]] in a tolerant community. Perhaps, if he changes his behavior I can support in the future. -
Oppose as per above comments.
Changing vote from neutral; this user's new "b-movie bandit" template is just too much for me.
My only concern is that Lucky keeps leaving Wikipedia. I'd like to see that he's not going to let himself get overly stressed out again. --
Seems to have done a lot of good work - but sometimes appears to lack objectivity, and has shown occasional poor tolerance for opposing viewpoints. I'd like to see greater consistency before supporting.--

This user wants to become an admin in order to delete poorly written stubs, isn't that right? I tend to object to that on principle, but maybe there's more to it?
As above.


Yes, a thousand times yes. (feel free to count that as 1001 distinct votes.) [[User:Rhymeless|
Support.
Strongly support. Reasons should be obvious. --
Good longtime editor.  My concerns have been addressed.  This is long overdue, really.
Mhmm.
Lucky is a good, trustworthy contibutor. I support.
I'll echo Rhymeless' vote.  ;-)  Definite support.
Supported last time, still support this time! &mdash;
Gzornenplatz should learn that merits should be taken into account and not politics based on whether or not you think we should all have peace and love and accept the ugliest of substubs.
ABSOLUTELY. That is all.
Absolutely:  Lucky works harder than about anyone here, and he has shown consistent dedication.  He has demonstrated a concern for the quality and health of the project.
'''''Strongly support'''''. He's one of the most dedicated patrollers you'll find around here (even if the stress does get to him sometimes). --
No problem supporting, much better candidate than most other users we get on here and RC Patrol can be a very wikistress-raising place. --
Support.  Lucky, on balance, is a real asset to the Wikipedia community.  I have faith in his putting on his best face to new Wikipedians, and he has been a pleasure to work with in creating new articles.  I believe Lucky has shown greater maturity over time, not less.  He has stuck around and not left for good. Lucky can be trusted with the keys to the  "janitor's closet."  He has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.  --

Support, appears to be a very dedicated member of the community -

support for keeping the crap out of wikipedia. --
'''Support''' Our man in the [[Coachella Valley]]. --

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! [[User:Neutrality|
We're Lucky to have him. Warm, no hot support. Recommend burnout prevention, but this is no impediment to adminship.

[[User:Frazzydee|



Always high-strung and gets burned out far too easily.  Same person who, about a month ago, requested his user pages be deleted because he was leaving &ndash; and then returned a week later.  I think we need admins who are more stable and reliable. Maybe next time. --
I'm still concerned about edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Slagelse&diff=6738103&oldid=6704463 this]. He has to learn to leave valid stubs alone.
Reluctantly '''oppose'''. Lucky has made major contributions to the Wikipedia, both content-wise and as a member of the RC patrol. I respect him for this. The vast majority of his interactions with other users have been extremely constructive and positive, with Lucky using tact and patience to get his point across. And his points are generally good ones; Lucky always has the best interests of the Wikipedia at heart.<p>However, as an RC patroller, I have seen the occasional angry, abusive message left on anonymous users' talk pages. For example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:24.29.6.115&diff=0] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.113.84.98]. There are others. I don't care how bad a vandal these users are &mdash; there is ''never'' any excuse for such abusive [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]. I understand that Lucky may get frustrated at vandals from time to time. (Who doesn't?) Getting frustrated is one thing. Exploding over it is quite another.<p>One of my personal standards for administrators is that candidates must never violate the [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility policy]]. Admins must represent the most hard-working, trustworthy, and friendly face of Wikipedia. Lucky fits the profile well except for these periodic outbursts of anger. Incivility is not to be tolerated under any circumstances &mdash; and certainly not from our admins. Therefore, I cannot in good faith support Lucky for adminship. Sorry.
<s>He should have been an admin long ago.</s> I have changed my vote to oppose. Recent edits that contain extreme personal attacks such as "''Yo, fucktard.''[...]''Get a life, buttbleed''" that were brought to my attention above have tainted my otherwise high opinion of Lucky. Being high-strung is ok, but insulting users, even worthless vandals, is unacceptable, especially by admins (or prospective admins). I cannot support Lucky, as much as I feel he is an otherwise good user.
After reading posts on IP address user talk pages (where it is unlikely the vandal will even see it) that contain profanity and uncivilized conduct, I have to seriously consider the user's value as a contributor. Blatantly breaking Wikipolicy once can negate 5-10 strong contributions to the community in my POV. Since the posts in question were as recent as 2 days ago, by this logic, I find it possible for the user to actually be in the negative numbers. I cannot support this in a user, much less an admin. I; therefore, '''strongly oppose'''.
I would love to be able to vote for Lucky.  He is an excellent contributor, a tireless workhorse of Wikipedia, doing many thankless tasks.  If this was a vote concerning whether or not Lucky deserved thanks and honor for this work, I'd support hands down.  Sadly, though, Lucky's temper, especially with newbies, is seemingly incompatible with the role and responsibilities of an admin.  I am very open to the possibility that Lucky will find better ways of communicating displeasure, and gentler methods of working with new users -- I opposed Mike H, way back when, out of a concern for the way he handled disputes, and I'm now pleased to say I think he's very good at it and I was happy to support him when he was renominated.  I fervently hope that Lucky takes a similar path.  Until Lucky consistently respects [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikilove]], though, I'm afraid I will continue to oppose, and simply thank him sincerely for the many hours of work he does here.
When I noticed Lucky 6.9's nomination here, I was very excited and couldn't wait to add my name to the list of supporters - I have long admired his tireless work right there on the front line of quality control on the pedia. However, it is with '''''extreme''''' reluctance that I have to agree that the recent highly abusive comments left on anons' talk pages make him an unsuitable candidate ''at this time''. Lucky, I see the undertakings you've given here that you will work to curb this behaviour, and I believe that you will honour those promises. If you don't make sysop this time, I'll be looking forward to supporting your nomination next time, when you'll be able to point out that such behaviour is well and truly in the past. --
Oppose: too quick to tag things for speed delete, volatile in interactions w/ other editors. That said, Lucky has made a lot of worthwhile contributions.
Seems as if Lucky likes to put speedy tags on articles which may be notable or those which are precedented as VfD material.  His over-zealousness alone makes me cautious, but coupled with very recent insults on talk pages - ''"Yo, fucktard. Take your cute, little, fluffy doggie and stick him where the sun don't shine. Get a life, buttbleed."'' - just drives the nail in the coffin.
I hate opposing nominations here. But i agree 100% with Jwrosenzweig.
I also agree with [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]]. I'd like to see more [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|wikiquette]], less questionable speedy delete-tags and less temper first. --
Oppose on the basis of the valid objections noted by other users. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;

I too concur with, Jwrosenzweig. [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wikiquette]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikilove|Wikilove]] are essential, perhaps the most important, qualities of an admin. I would be willing to support if Lucky became more mindfull of his behavior toward other users, no matter how frustrating.-
Darn. I like the guy, but his temper gets in the way, especially after seeing the abovementioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:24.29.6.115&diff=0] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.113.84.98]. '''Oppose''' -


'''Oppose.'''  Lucky69 could not resolve his conflicts and then up and quit a few months ago.  From what I remember and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Childlove_movement/Deletion_debate_archive read here] his posts were very POV, to the point where he wanted to do away with discussion and just speedy delete articles he did not like.  I fear he will do as he suggested and delete things without going though the proper process.
'''Oppose.''' I have not seen any marked change in his behaviour since the last time he was up for adminship. Too much of a loose cannon, bellicose. --
Oppose with regret. Good user with a short temper, as by the comments above. --
'''Oppose''' He or she has a short temper... Dont be mistaken, I have NEVER voted to oppose someone. But sorry..
I have changed my vote to '''Oppose''' with regret. An admin cannot afford to have a short fuse.
Oppose, reluctantly, for now.
I don't think I oppose outright, since he does do a lot of useful deletion work, but Lucky seems way to high-strung, and too personally offended by vandals. Recent things such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:24.29.6.115&diff=0&oldid=6688376 this] do not help, in my mind. And what if he just takes off again? (Not that it would matter technically, but still...)
Neutral. I echo the speedy deletion concern above. I've noticed quite a few questionable speedy deletion taggings by Lucky. He does tremendous RC patrolling, but double-checking of <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>s by an(other) admin is still needed. &mdash;
I don't really care if Lucky has a few choice words to say every now and then, but he has a very liberal idea of what qualifies as a speedy deletion candidate, and that makes me a bit uncomfortable with the idea of him having the power to delete articles. I also wish he wouldn't redirect things like movie stubs to actor articles.
Ultimately a very good contributor. But recent statements and actions (especially causing drama on missing wikipedians) stops me from supporting.
I'd really like to support him for the way he fights the vandals, but because of his broad understanding of speedy deletion material and the abuse highlighted above, I regretably can't support.

Strongly.
Mmhm. --
Strong support: I like what I've seen.
Trollhunter! Vandalslayer! Take thy rightful place among [[User:Grunt|Grunt]] and [[User:Hadal|Hadal]]! #[[User:Neutrality|
About time. This guy has spent so much time fighting vandals (and writing featured articles) - he certainly deserves it. Furthermore, I believe the issues that caused some to oppose before are indeed solved now.
This is long overdue; however I will echo my concerns from the last RfA - I want to stress to Lucky how important it is that he '''strictly''' abide by [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]] and [[Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion]].
Excellent user. Short temper, and I opposed last time due to a particularly bad comment to a vandal (something like "put your fucking doggie where the sun don't shine" but I don't remember specifically), but he has expressed regret for the comment and that's enough for me.

Why do people have to force these things? How many failed nominations does it take to get a clue here? Lucky has unfortunately ''not'' changed his behaviour and continues to redirect valid stubs to other topics that don't have the information, or to mark them for speedy deletion (which I'm quite sure he would not even bother with as a sysop - he would just delete them).
Still [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|bites newcomers]].  Last RfA was held less than one month ago, and I'd not fault Lucky if he graciously withdrew this current RfA and let some time pass. --
Oppose for the same reasons I did three weeks ago.  Please give some time between rerenominations; three weeks is certainly not sufficient.
It hasn't even been a month since Lucky 6.9's last RfA. Have things changed that much in so short a time? --
I'll never support his nominations because of his deletionism regarding B-Movie Bandit stubs, but I guess other than that he might not be a bad admin.
I don't have an opinion either way at the moment, but I'd point out the last RfA ''was'' more than a month ago: This one starts on the 25th Nov, the previous one started on the 20th Oct.
''
Not <s>near</s> enough experience. --
Needs more experience (Maybe DarkHorizon overstates it by saying 'Not near enough' however)
Sorry, but even with the "Adminship shouldn't be a big deal" policy, (nothing against him personally) this user is far below requirements (-500 edits, barely more than a month as a registered user).
Not enough time here, especially when the number of contributions is not particularly high. I would give the nomination far more consideration (that is, take the time to evaluate the quality of contributions) if it came from a more disinterested party. --
Good work as an editor, but has no activity at all in the Wikipedia: namespace, and no interaction on Talk: pages, so no way of telling whether he would be a good admin or not. &mdash;
I'm about of an age with ''Marine'' (call me Army 67-69) and I'd be flattered if one of my daughters nominated me so nicely, but this is way too soon in terms of time, edits and variety. Hope he'll be back in a couple of months when we know him better. --
I'm very sorry, but I must agree (not enough edits) although Marine is a good, decent user.
He seems like a nice person, but just not enough experience to qualify.
Good user. Try again in a few months.
Minimal experience in time (3 months min is my guideline to see user interaction, etc) and in edits (only 3 digits). Worries me also that nominator appears to be a family member. Maybe someday, but not yet. --

[[User:AntonioMartin|AntonioMartin]] (I'm assuming the nominator supports.
I voted no last time, but Tony has done so much editing since then, including a very high proportion of new articles, so this time I support. &mdash;




Good User--[[User:Plato|

[[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 05:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to '''support''', for similar reasons to Davidcannon's vote.
<s>I can't support someone who rarely tags their edits, as this practice makes it very difficult for people reading the history of the page. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 00:18, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)</s> I see he's responded to my comments and has been tagging his edits. Great work, it's a good quality to be able to take criticism and work to improve. I now support!

His acceptance of this nomination is only his 2nd edit in the Wikipedia: namespace. Admin candidates need a [[User:Netoholic/Admins|balance]] of work, to show they understand policy and the community. --
Oppose for now. Not just the Joaquin Phoenix incident mentioned by Ambi, but a similar conduct in a dispute over [[Agustín Stahl]] and [[Tomás Batista]] thereafter. I haven't observed any problems since and might reconsider at a later date, but please have somebody other than Antonio nominate you next time. --
Oppose.

Maybe in a couple of months.
Oppose.  Needs to do more of the wiki-chores that "nobody notices"; provide edit summaries when editing; and show up more in the 'back corridors' of the wikipedia.
<s>Alright, seems like a decent user.</s> Based on the arguments in the oppose column I am moving my vote to neutral.
Most of his edits are in Main, but he seems to have a grasp of Wikipedia policy and such. I am a bit concerned about his recent conflicts over articles, but not excessively. I am ambivalent. --

Looks good.






Beat me to it!
Far too few edits thus far.
Excellent contributor, but he's only been here for two and a half months.  Can we wait a while longer?
I'd like to see more work, too. Happy to consider again later.

'''Support'''.
'''Strongly support''' - Maurreen has been doing a lot of important household chores for Wikipedia, and these are often thankless tasks, like tightening up policy pages, for example on original research; exploring ways of improving the quality of content through the enclyopedic standards and Wikipedia 1.0 initiatives; and developing consistency in the Style Manual. Whether it's a policy page or an article, a text is always improved by Maurreen editing it, both in terms of quality and consistency of content, and in terms of the writing itself.
'''Strong support'''.  The comment below from jguk seems to be motivated by some run-ins with Maurreen.  I did quite a bit of looking around the pages he mentioned and I can find no Wikiquette issues.  Maurreen does quite a bit of discussion, chores, etc.  She uses logic and doesn't appear to be hostile.  She's not afraid of confrontation and when faced with it I found her to be very civil.  Talk pages look good, contributions look good.

Weak oppose.
'''Strong oppose'''. Unfortunately this editor does not understand Wikiquette. There are numerous instances of her not assuming good faith. Where debates are not going the way she wishes, she overreacts - always taking the debate further rather than stepping back and moving on (see the history of [[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]). She deliberately increases the heat in a discussion, even arguing strongly about the omission of the word "good" in an article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&diff=7991009&oldid=7989777]. In a discussion on the  Manual of Style she even proposed deleting all the comments in favour of a proposal (which outnumbered those taking the "oppose" stance she strongly believed in), whilst implying later on in the page that since there was not any support for that proposal it should be dropped. She also promotes alternative policies: such as (in my words) "consensus is necessary for textual changes to an article"; "let's fix some 'good' articles on the version they are now on". She also places "NPOV" tags onto articles without explaining why. Taken as a whole, it is clear this editor is not ready to be trusted as a sysop.
'''Oppose''' now, but might support later.  Not clearly a 'bad' candidate, just needs a little more polish and more work on 'admin chores'.  Would support this candidate if Maurreen demonstrates a better understanding that wikipedia needs more lubrication and less friction. (bear in mind that I myself do not meet my own [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards standards for admins])  Maurreen is generally a good editor.
'''Oppose'''. Far too soon for adminship. Moreover, those things which she has done would not be enhanced by adminship.
Account is too young. Would prefer to see more Wikitime under their belt. --
From what I've seen here... I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe another time. --
What Lst27 said. Maurreen's a good editor, but could brush up on her etiquette a little.
Let's give it another month or two.
Support. Less than 500 edits -- but they date to October 2003, and they all look good. I know Kingturtle prefers to see 3000+ edits from admin nominees, but I think promoting different personality types is helpful. There are some who can afford to spend upward of four hours every day working on Wikipedia, but that's one certain type of personality -- and I don't think that personality type should dominate the admin staff. I'd like to see different types of people among the admin ranks, and Misterrick appears an ideal candidate.

Support. Wikipedia is not Kingturtle's exclusive country club. --
Less than 300 edits. Also, the nomination text seems to be copied verbatim from an earlier nomination of Alex <name removed>. --
Oppose without prejudice. Really too few edits over seven months and many of those minor or corrections of corrections. Everyone can't be on the ball all the time but it wouldn't better if a sysop could have more presence here. Happy to look again in a few months.
Far too few edits for me to judge this users candidacy.
Looking at his contributions, Misterrick seems more interested in becoming an admin than anything else. This is the fourth time he's nominated himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1684310#Misterrick] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2120208#Misterrick] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=2323583#Misterrick]. --
Frequently-repeated requests for adminship make me leery.
Too few edits. If he has 300 now, how many did he have when he first nominated himself? --
No. --
I agree with Cyrius.
Haven't run into Nathanlarson32757, but the most unpleasant thing I can find in his history is [[pet skunk|some skunks]], so he has my full support.   --
Strong Support. Trustworthy.
Way too early, and he can't use the preview button, having made some 150 edits to [[Pet skunk]] over two days.
I will support in one month. --
Show preview is your friend.
I'd prefer admins having a little more Wiki-time under their belt. I will support in three months.
Good editor, but still very new.  User wants to help in vfd, but I didn't notice any vfd votes (glanced at the last 1000 edits).  Would support after a bit more experience.
Consider having a sysop nominate you in a couple of months.
Again I agree with Michael Ward. Sorry, a bit too soon for my support. --
I apologize, but you haven't been a user long enough for me to support. Get more experience first. --
Sorry, too little experience. Also, hasn't done much janitorial work yet. [[User:MacGyverMagic|
Has shown self to be a good editor, but hasn't yet really done policy-related work yet. --
Not yet ready for prime time. -
Needs more time in the fleshy underbelly of Wikipedia. --
Oppose.  I'd like to see more backstage activity and a wider edit base.  Not a bad editor at all, but I prefer to see editors be active in doing 'chores' before becoming an admin.
2 main reasons: a) "Needs more time in the fleshy underbelly of Wikipedia"; b) self-nomination. --
[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) way too early, though I really like his [[pet skunk]] article :-)
I agree with Ta_bu_shi_da_yu; will support in one month.  --
agree that the account is too young for a self-nomination. add to that the suspicion that preview was 'overlooked' to accumulate lots of edits more rapidly.
A shame the wiki/personality politics play such a role in the votes against.
Someone with more opposition than me.  I'm impressed.  Support.  Adminship should be no big deal.  If Netoholic uses his admin powers in ways which are not representative of a consensus then he should be deadminned just like any other admin. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
Clearly a hardworker devoted to adding more and more knowledge to the Wikipedia--not a deletionist devoted to removing more and more knowledge from it. This request obviously won't succeed this time, but I suggest it be submitted again in a month or two. I'll definitely support or nominate.
User's initial antisocial behavior has certainly improved&mdash;but not enough. Maybe later.
I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation&diff=6845946&oldid=6845633 this comment] just about says it all.
Oppose strongly.
Has proven that he is wont to make controversial decisions and then act on them unilaterally, with minimal discussion. I can't support an admin that will very well be rogue.
Antisocial to the extreme. Regularly does controversial things unilaterally. Would very likely end up a rogue admin.
Netoholic consistently acts in his own interests rather than the community's and seems unable to cooperate with othetrs in the spirit of a true Wikipedian. He consistently rubs users up the wrong way by acting unilaterally and lacks the humility to to accept a majority views that opposes his own.
Good heavens, no! (for reasons mentioned above)
(Self nomination huh?)Excessive
'''VERY''' strongly oppose.
VERY, VERY, strongly oppose.
Repeatedly called me a "fuck" in private IRC messages, and lied about it publicly. Not now, not ever.
I don't have any personal beef with him, but his consistent oppose votes on this page <s>and overwrought inclusionism</s> make me consider him to be a poor candidate at this time. Maybe in the future.
<font color=D10000>

'''Oppose.''' -
<del>Mildly '''oppose'''</del>'''Neutral'''
Has mellowed out of late and may be admin material in a couple of months or so, but not yet. --
I was actually starting to think that I was mellowing with age, and that I could laugh off actions that could be put down to the callowness of youth. That all went out the window when Netoholic made me explode with rage, and James F and ed2gs were unluckily caught up in the blast (- the causes of which they had been trying to avert).  It'll take me quite a few months to live down that embarassment: pity the same can't be said of Netoholic.
Sorry, but I, too, am concerned about Netoholic's short fuse. I disagree with him on numerous issues, including standards for admins and notability of articles, but this has nothing to do with my vote. However, his argument with Raul on #wikipedia and other behaviors prevent me from supporting his nomination. Admins have to be especially careful when dealing with other users, and I am not, at this time, confident that Netoholic can do this. --
User troubles me greatly I'll '''never''' trust him with adminship--
Sorry.
Very strongly oppose.  Wanting to change the system is a good thing, but defying the existing system because you disagree with it is quite another.  Netoholic has been helpful and a good editor, but he has (now?) decided that the system of deletion is wrong and has allowed his frustration to lead to quarrelsome actions that were "bold" to the point of vandalism in at least my opinion.  I respect his intelligence and his principles and passion, but I cannot support him as an administrator when he has shown already that he is willing to disregard the wishes of the community to pursue his own vision of the way things ought to be.
I oppose adminship for this fairly new user.  I feel he needs to learn people skills and not talk down to people if he wants them to obey his bidding.
Absolutely not. A history of fairly extreme <s>uncivil, </s><u>(I don't have any of my own specific examples to cite, don't want to spend any more time trying to find what caused my general belief that this was a concern, and tend to agree that 'piggy backing' on other's comments is unfair. Also, I will add that I have seen many people say things on #wikipedia that they would never say in a more permanent forum--if people think VfD gets rough sometimes, it's still like a Quaker picnic compared to what can go on at #wikipedia, and I don't even want to try to imagine what probably goes on during private chats.)</u>unilateral behavior, and ignoring of consensus, even if brief, <u>IMHO </u>needs to be followed by a '''LONG''' history of <s>civil, </s>community-minded behavior, which is more like at least six months, not two. BTW, where are the 'questions of the candidate'?
Reluctantly oppose. He's too abrasive. -
Not now, maybe in the future-
Oppose. &mdash;
Oppose. Seems inflexible and contentious in his approach to inclusionist/deletionist discussions. (Unsigned vote by

I think it's clear he doesn't vote to keep out of politeness. Netoholic is quite snippy. Netoholic's more inclusionist than the norm, but&mdash;as he points out&mdash;that makes him much safer than someone with a deletionist bent. <s>Would list as</s> '''N'''eutral due to his antisocial tendencies, but he's a good contributer. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] [[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|<font color="purple">Luke</font>]] 07:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) Moved to neutral.
He's made some good contributions, but he needs to learn to work with the whole community if he wants to undertakes the tasks of an Admin.  [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;
I have no personal experience to lead me to vote against him, and he seems to be a good contributor, but I can't possibly in good faith vote for someone who has caused so much bad blood. I hope he'll mend the bridges he seems to have burnt, take the criticism to heart and retry again at a later date, because he obviously cares about the project.
Reviewing his record on voting, I find him too eager to keep every article, no matter how unencyclopedic the topic. Some of this is done in the name of being kind to newcomers, but he reads it entirely wrong. It is possible to be polite, and yet still delete articles added by newbies, and I feel that this is what the "don't bite the newcomers" policy is all about, not keeping things that don't belong purely to keep them happy. It is similar to how all sorts of bad laws are passed in the name of "family values". It's a pity that this glaring flaw is present in an otherwise extremely good candicate, as he has done a lot of good work in non-policy-related parts of Wikipedia. Still, as it's there, I must oppose his adminship. --
<s>Good user, he welcomed me in Simple Wikipedia, but I'm kind of concerned about his behavior. --[[User:Lst27|Lst27]] 23:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)</s> I move my vote to neutral. --
My interactions with Netoholic have been peripheral at best. I recall that he opposed my RfA, but only on the grounds that he opposes other RfAs, and I respect that. My concern is that Netoholic is still too abrasive when dealing with other users. Given his good edits, I would be willing to support in a few months if the controversy dies down.

From what I've seen, I couldn't agree more.




[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]]


If you've got [[User:Hcheney|Hcheney]]'s support, you've got mine.

Strongly support.



Great work nearly single handedly creating [[Charles Graner]].

I can't believe I totally missed this! Of course I support.
Novelty a mediocre reason to oppose. -
--

Support. -
Has been a logged in user for less than 2 months.
I can't answer for Maximus Rex, but I can give you an answer. In two or three months we'll know you better, and see more of your work and interaction with the community. I would also point out that the controversy surrounding '''Quadell''' which caused several, including you, to vote against him, did not occur until he had been here the three months. This seems to me reinforce the idea that three months perhaps '''should''' be a hard minimum. Therefore, I oppose for now. --
Here for under 2 months.  Has far less editing experience than sheer number might suggest; most edits have been minor, and to a small number of articles (for instance this cumulative diff for  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dennis_Kucinich&diff=3709165&oldid=3688918 '''101''' consecutive edits] to [[Dennis Kucinich]], only 43 of which were marked as minor).  Not always careful about '''wikiquette'''; see for instance this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3ACharles_Graner&diff=0&oldid=4483767 blanking] of [[Talk:Charles Graner]] (an article Neutrality had self-nom'ed on fac), uncharacteristically marked as minor.



Since this nomination couldn't attract enough votes to pass during its original term -- and since even I felt compelled to qualify [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=4671758&oldid=4671081] my '''Support''' for this user -- I'm switching to '''Oppose.''' This extension is ill-advised. Reasonable objections were raised, and [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] should improve those areas before renomination.
As I don't think we should have extensions, and there clearly isn't consensus. I don't have an opinion on their behaviour as our paths haven't crossed - I don't edit on US topics.
Please renominate yourself in a couple of months time, when you are more experienced. ==
Might make a good sysop, but I'm sick of seeing talk pages being blanked. I saw this user do that twice to [[Talk:Calvin and Hobbes]]. Talk pages are an important record to complement an article.
Between the talk page blanking issue and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=4645358&oldid=4645214 Neutrality's statement in voting on Chocolateboy's nomination], I am concerned that this user is still learning the ropes and needs more time. I don't think edit wars are okay, and believe that sysops in particular should find better ways of handling disputes. Normally I don't vote neutral, but since Neutrality will probably become a good sysop with a little more experience, I hesitate to oppose outright. --
I'd be willing to consider you in a few months, but you need some more experience when it comes to blanking talk pages and also the edit war on FOX News (which is what I've seen only).





Strongly support.











I've seen nothing but good from this individual. --






Defending yourself is only what should be expected.










[[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 21:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Until this user develops a better understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality policies and working with other editors, clearly oppose.  He had been involved in chronic edit wars on several pages in only the last few days, usually provoked by repeated reversion of others' edits with little cause and also due to a clear political bias.  (I also want to add something about N's judgement.  See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=John_Kerry&diff=5173111&oldid=5173090 this revert], part of a long war, in particular the ''edit summary'' he uses to justify it.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] 23:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) There is currently an Arbitration case pending, in which [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] is named as both a complainant and a respondant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404]. As strongly as I can possibly say, I feel that Neutrality is not qualified for Admin. Should he attain that role now, it would I feel, bring discredit on and loss of respect for, the title of Admin. Please be advised that at the begining of that Arb case, Neutrality took the extremely inappropriate step of actually deleting my facts from the case page! He was strongly reprimanded by Fred Bauder for that. Also, Neutrality has an Rfc [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Neutrality] pending against him for the misleading nature of his user name. Also, Neutrality recently reverted me 9 times on one article in one day [[John Kerry]] and when I opposed him on that article over time, I was the one who got banned from editing it! Neutrality also has his fingerprints all over the squabbling at [[George_W._Bush]]. Neutrality recently used vulgar language against me and just now today, taunted me on my talk page (an entry which I deleted). He constantly reverts people with false and misleading edit summaries. He refuses to dialog. And he quite obviously holds grudges.
I wasn't going to vote on this matter, but Neutrality's conduct on this page worries me greatly.  All of us encounter opposition to our views, some if it from users who many find turbulent.  The views of all non-banned, non-sock puppet users count equally, and Neutrality's belief that common sense dictates against counting Rex071404's vote doesn't square well either with policy or my sense of fair play. I've had my run-ins with VV myself, but VV's opinion counts too, whether or not VV has a "grudge" against anyone. It appears that Neutrality is intent on having the last word with his/her critics, which often isn't the best strategy toward ensuring long-term wikipeace. Lastly, it's important that the record of discussions such as this be as accurate as possible, and even subtle changes such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&diff=5230097&oldid=5230021 this edit] make me uncomfortable (I'm fine with strikeouts, however).  --

Please no. Just because someone makes a lot of edits does not qualify a person to become a &#8220;sysops&#8221; user. I have seen some of Neutrality&#8217;s not so neutral edits and I do not think he should get anymore power than what he has now. He goes around deleting pages and makes them re-directs for no other reason then his personal bias. Just his idiotic responses to anyone who votes against him proves that he is not up to the position. Also, since he claims he is not interested in power in his inflated egotistical gabfest of an acceptance speech and that he only wants to be a Wiki-janitor doing mundane tasks, he doesn&#8217;t need anymore authority to do that. He should stay as is until he can respect other peoples contributions and grow up a little bit. [[User:Pitchka]] 16 Aug 2004 (Removing obvious sockpuppet vote. [[User:172|172]] 03:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)) (Unstriking.  The ''evidence'' that this is a sockpuppet can be considered by the bureaucrats, and his ''opinions'' and ''reasons'' are valid in either case.
I'd like to wait a few more months until I support Neutrality. At least because of editing disputes I have seen him in, and because of his assertions that votes are invalid (lemme guess, mine is too?) [[User:Ilyanep| ]]&mdash;
Oppose due to nominee's conduct during this vote.
Oppose for now. Nominee's conduct during this vote has been totally dismissive of criticism. Moreover, he is in the middle of controversy over [[John Kerry]] in which, although Rex has been banned (and perhaps with good reason), Neutrality has been less  than.... neutral. Aside from Neutrality's actual performance  wrt [[John Kerry]}, it does not make sense to elevate someone to sysop in the middle of a POV conflict in which he or she has been a main player. This needs to cool off first.
Oppose. As far as I can tell, this user has valuable contributions, but much too short of a temper. (Yes, I only have 47 or so edits and two months, but I've been reading the political (and other) talk pages out of curiosity.)


Oppose, lacking in neutrality and embrace of certain policies/project ideals. A great deal of recent conflict of a nature unflattering to himself.
'''Oppose'''. Bad conduct here, and the annoying habit that he practically never describes or explains the changes he makes, whether minor or major. He just recently switched the flag in the [[:Template:United_States_infobox]] twice without explanation.  And in case you are wondering I have about 1670 edits.
Pattern of conduct does not inspire confidence that he will use his powers solely in a janitorial manner.
As I said above, I'm very sorry about this, but I need to oppose his nomination. His attempt to disenfranchise fellow Wikipedians (I'm not talking about sockpuppets, but Rex - 'This vote is invalid' with the "justification" of a past conflict) is out of order and destroys all confidence I had in his ability to use admin powers responsibly. This does not dominish him in any way as a Wikipedian - he's a very good contributor, and I like his user page a lot.
I have had limited experience with this user, however the experience I have had with him, in the [[John Kerry]] article leads me to believe that he would not use his new found powers responsibly, since he hasn't used the powers he currently has responsibly. Until he can show a little more restrant, I can not support him becoming an admin. [[User:Mbecker|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash;
Although the nominee appears to write some good articles, I find his/her behaviour on this page extremely inappropriate if not sometimes disgusting. I dread to think what would happen if he/she had the power to delete pages.
More heat than light in this RFA. Not a good idea to spend more time on it today. Lets try again in a month or two when tempers have cooled. I'm sure Neutrality would make an fair admin, but I know *I* wouldn't want to become an admin with a vote like this.:)  When things have cooled down, we'll be able to judge in all neutrality. ;-)
Not really sure about the nominee's eagerness to pronounce votes invalid. [[User:Kate|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
I see both pro et contras. I'd like Neutrality to be a bit more neutral and accurate in his actions, but on the other hand I don't any reason to expect that he would abuse the admin power. I'd also like to the previous nomination: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=4685735#User:Neutrality_.2821.2F8.2F4.29_Ends_04:27.2C_17_Jul_2004_.28UTC.29 Neutrality] [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]
I agree with [[User:Klanda|Klanda]] that Neutrality's reaction to criticism has been less than ideal. This vote is one example, and I had seen similar behavior before, on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality]], where N [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FNeutrality&diff=5216771&oldid=5214862 posted a response] and ''immediately'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=5217636&oldid=5214922 delisted the page] in an unsummarized minor edit. However, Neutrality's editing has otherwise been top-notch, and two incidents of misbehavior do not a pattern make, thus the neutral vote.
At present, I am neutral in this.  I agree with Neutrality's stance in the edits over [[John Kerry]], as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have made clear (as well as ongoing "books" coming from the partisan side), there really is a war over such words as "minor wound."  These words, which by themselves seem innocent of all intent, are massively POV in the current environment, because some folks on the right are trying to get all the media to talk about the factuality of the wound or the medal/ribbon toss or whatever else, rather than service vs. non-service.  However, the fact that the partisan debate in the outer world so quickly became a pitched battle in this virtual world -- one that has continued here -- and the readiness of both sides to employ fictional users or dopplegangers, makes me say that the truth of Neutrality's abilities are obscurred so thoroughly that I cannot support or oppose.  If all Neutrality's opponents were wrong, it would, in a sense, make no difference, because he has become a polarizing actor.  If the problem is with his opponents, then the ArbCom rulings will sort that out.  Until then, the amount of heat surrounding this debate is enough to dissuade me from voting support.
Support off course [[User:Avala|
I will forgive for the edit war; he lives in Serbia!  --


Of course not this time, but I suppose he might become a sysop. It's not a political office, and Nikola would be a good "garbage collector". Read '''comments''' for details. [[User:Drbug|D'''r''' B'''u'''g]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Drbug&action=edit&section=new &nbsp;]
Support --
[[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 16:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC) Dori's comments below, combined with quality of judgment usually showed by nominator makes me exceedingly wary.
Oppose, based solely on the fact that I don't like the nominator.  (Avala should understand this one!)
I am really not liking this situation. I'm sorry. Oppose.
He's made some good contributions, and I hope he continues to work as an editor.  Unfortunately, I think his strong feelings on the topic of Kosovo may hurt his ability to use his admin priveleges wisely.
Oppose. Is this a joke? I have no confidence at all that this user would not misuse admin privileges.
Most definitely not.
Hilarious.--
User Nikola is a Serb nationalist hard-liner who along with his friends Avala and Igor is promoting a Serb radical POV through wiki. The nominator, user Avala has been a problem maker for a while [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Avala]].--

Oppose. This nomination is dumb, too.
Opposed. Apart from being a Serbian nationalist (IMO, not  a disqualification per se), Mr. Smolenski doesnt bother to explicate his views which are Serbocentric to the extreme. Thanks to his "contributions" (not only his), the articles on Kosovo, Greater Serbia, various histories of neighboring countries....are distorted and very flawed in the passages where his handiwork can be detected. So, what could we get with him ? Serbian POV on ramapage. Censorship in favor of Serbian nationalist agenda, and enmity towards Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians as such. Not to mention that SYSOP should (I may be wrong) have a broader view on things, more general knowledge and interests- and, the vital point: more tolerance towards opposing views. No, it wouldnt be a good choice.


Oppose because of a history of confrontational editing. I completely agree with Shallot's comment below.



I'm sorry, but I'd rather stay neutral for now.




Well-qualified.
Good edits! I have seen Norm take care of a vandalism spree and trust he won't misuse admin powers. (btw: would've fixed the vote link but got an edit conflict ;-))
[[User:Neutrality|
I'm sold.

Of course. --
And I haven't heard of you? Hmm. Ok. Whatever. ;) --
Go, Norm, go.

Certainly. --
Fight the vandals.
Wary support. Reformed vandal, but seems to be doing a good deal of vandal-fighting of his own, so, I guess it is canceled out.
Support. Though I do wish he'd stop his anti slashdot campaign.
Norm a.k.a [[User:Krik|Krik]] is anti-[[Renault]] and has made many POV edits. He also vandalized the [[Renault]] article several times with my name and french profanities. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Renault&diff=3392468&oldid=3387427] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Renault&diff=3396547&oldid=3392468]. I say this as someone who knows him outside of Wikipedia. He also likes vandalizing logged out a lot[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Transmission_Control_Protocol&diff=3482944&oldid=3482817]. When you support Norm, you are supporting a vandal.
Self-admitted vandal, below -- gee, he was a vandal five months ago, but he's "learned a lot about how vandalism is dealt with" due to the vandalism he did in his earlier days? I see no remorse, no suggestion that the vandalism was inappropriate; simply "I've since made many good edits". That's all well and fine, but I'm pretty sure we don't want someone with the impulses of a vandal to have anything other than plain-old-editor status. --
Cannot support someone who was a vandal only five months ago and who is now self-nominated for adminship. --[[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
What jpgordon and Lowellian said. --
I would support, except for the fact that you only admitted to your past once someone else brought it up. The clincher for me opposing is that the edits happened during the time frame you used to support your bid.
I can spend time putting my thoughts into words, but [[User:Jpgordon|Jpgordon]] already read my mind. -- [[User:Solitude|
Have to agree with [[User:Lowellian|Lowellian]] and [[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]] .... &mdash;
Withdrawing my vote from support to neutral.  My support was lukewarm in the first place, and some of the arguments offered by oppsing voters has led me to reconsider, though not to the degree that I outright oppose.

Why not? [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]
As Sarge Baldy said, I don't understand why edit count is so important. More edits do not necessary make someone better..
1.5 years + grunt work = a relatively consistent support. --
Seems a strong candidate, though I think would do better with a regular nom.
I have some minor concerns here and there, but nothing serious enough for me to withhold my '''support'''. I really like the [[World Wide Web]] diff given below. -
User does good work. I don't automatically hold self-noms to a higher standard, being one myself. I suspect a lot of nominations are based on deletion doctrine anyway, and I see nothing wrong with his almost nonexistant participation in VfD. He does appear to watch new pages occassionally, and his copyediting is scattered enough I can only assume he does significant browsing and random page edits. I count P3d0 as an honest and high-quality editor who is not going to leave the project. His duration alone attests to that.
Good user. --
<s>Neutral for now. I've looked at your edits and they look like good work. However the number of edits is fairly low for an admin candidate, especially the number in the Wikipedia: namespace. This isn't necessarily a reason for me to say no, but I'll await your answers to questions and any further comments before making my mind up. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 07:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)</s> I'm satisfied with those answers.

Excellent contributions.
I do see you doing a lot of very nice work on articles, and glad to see you've returned more consistently.  Unfortunately, I [[User:Netoholic/Admins|think]] that you haven't quite spent enough time "behind the scenes", such as discussing or voting on policy, or dealing with maintenance.  That knowledge is very necessary to being an admin, and right now I can't really tell enough about you. Get a few more edits and some exposure to the [[Wikipedia:Project namespace|Wikipedia: space]], and I think we'll see you fly through this in a couple months. Sorry that now isn't the time. --
Good work, my friend, but you do not quite meet my [[User:Blankfaze/admin|personal standards]] for supporting an adminship candidate.
Not enough edits. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
600 edits is nice, and it's very good to see you contribute to Wikipedia, but I think you should collect some more experience first, so I'm voting against you now. Sorry - try again later when you have more experience, and I'll support you. --
What I've seen has been good, but I haven't seen enough. Try again in a month or two.




Very good contributor, would support at a later date, see comments.

[[User:Acegikmo1|Acegikmo1]] 22:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC).  I haven't seen this user on any of the "administrative" pages yet, nor do I recognize him/her from edits any of the >1500 pages on my watchlist.  Considering that [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] has only been here for a month and a half, I feel that the user does not have sufficient experience to be an administrator.  I am entirely willing to alter my vote in a future nomination.
Has not been here very long, so I could not support unless this was a truly exceptional candidate in terms of edit quality, community involvement, and even temperament. The inflated edit count is not a disqualification, but means there is less substantive evidence to judge these things. Please come back later. --

I would like to echo all of the positive comments, above.  Would support after he has more time here and more involvement in administrative-type tasks.  (I've left links on his talk page to indicate how he can become active in that area).  Looking forward to supporting at a later date.
Not yet. Perhaps when you have more of a feel for the 'pedia... --
I echo most of Acegikmo1's comments, but vote neutral instead of flat out oppose. Anyone who uses Latin that much can't be bad. Sorry. --
There's no harm in waiting, oh, six weeks.
He has done some great work. I will support him after two months. --
''Ave atque vale!''  --
Edit count means nothing to me. In my opinion PedanticallySpeaking has made unquestionably valuable contributions and edits.  I accept his/her explanation of the frequent edits, I've had similar difficulties on ''my own computer''.  I would like to see this editor performing more 'chores' such as watching for vandalism, cross-referencing, etc., however.  I think that this editor would not abuse sysop priveleges, but I prefer adminship to be reserved for people willing to do more of the grunt work as well.  Have seen this user to be active on the discuss page of several pages that have  had active discussion. (no relation)


A self-admitted former troll - this is a joke, right? [[User:Plato/red faction]] - that's about all I have to say. (For the record, this page has now been changed to reflect on Plato better. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Plato/red_faction&oldid=4397263 Here] is what it looked like when I posted that link)
I think plenty of checks exist for sysop vigilantism without needing to grant sysophood to people who have actively supported some of the worst Wikipedia users I can think of.
I think Plato means well enough, but I don't believe him to be mature or sensible enough. I don't trust him. When MNH started a RFC on me Plato signed it because (as he later said on the mailing list) MNH and lir and irismeister all pushed him into doing it. Someone who will cave in to pressure like that is not likely to make a good admin IMO.
A frivolous nomination. He was nominated less than a month ago and failed by a huge margin. How often are people able to renominate themselves? -
--



Utter nonsense.  Plato is not a '''''former''''' troll, he is a repeated, recurring, continuing troll.  And this nomination just reveals Adam/Lir for what he is -- a troll himself.
Oppose. I would, however, support a permanent ban of both nominator and nominee. Frankly, I consider it long overdue.
After researching this user, I withdraw my neutral status and change to oppose (see above) <strike>For now, I remain neutral (and skeptical). Some questions for Plato; A) What are your Wikipedia tendencies? Do you consider yourself to be a deletionist or an inclusionist? An eventualist or an immediatist? B) What is your alternative philosophy for dealing with trolls, vandals, and problem users? Under what circumstances '''would''' you block a user? C) Can you say with complete honesty that you can perform sysop duties without alienating users?



I ignore this "Red Faction".  --
Heh.
Request disciplinary action against nominator. -
Anyone who starts his own cabal while complaining about cabalism can be all that bad. --

Unless Plato is an admirer of Groucho, Zeppo, or Chico, I could not in good conscience vote for a Marx admirer. Plato is also a known associate of troll/vandal Lir. --
Stop associating with all this Red Faction BS, and you could really be a good user.
The fact that he continues to accept spurious nominations gives me little faith that he's even begun to understand how Wikipedia works. Oppose.

Oppose. Also agree with Fennec's request for disciplinary action against nominator.
Agree with the above comments and concur with Fennec's and 172's request.


Guanaco is becoming more and more bizarre.  What he's doing in this company, I don't know.  Oppose, of course.  Ban all of them.


--
--

Knock off the nonsense and focus on helping to create an encyclopedia. In a few months, I'll support.
Oppose, for now. However, if Plato became a better contributor in future, I might reconsider. --
<s>Don't do this, Lir.  --


I don't believe I voted in previous editions of this nomination, but since someone apparently needs it made utterly clear... the answer is no.  Plato seems like a decent guy, but he needs to demonstrate better judgement.


I agree. Red Faction is so dumb. It's very sixth grade.
Danny and Blankfaze said it well. If he disbanded the Red Faction, I'd change my vote to support.
Not a bad contributor from what I have seen. I do not understand why he would want the position considering his distaste for what seems to be much of current wikipedia policy. There also is some question of the nominator. I suggest user:plato try again when he agrees more with wikipedia's goals or the policies that he opposes (and will most likely not enforce as an admin) are changed.


I don't think the nominator has anything to do with it. People seem to be following the herd.




<s>Assuming we get a trolling policy sorted out. After the last vote this is a clear case of trolling.






If it's possible, yes, of course!


The nominator is obviously either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Lir, and should be banned as a troll. --



Seems too quick to judge. I'd like to see a bit more experience in terms of length of time as a member, too. --
A quick glance at Poccil's [[User_talk:Poccil/archive1|archived talk page]] convinces me that this nomination should not be approved.
I agree with BCorr above. Most of the complaints on the [[User_talk:Poccil/archive1|archived talk page]] are more than a month old, so one could argue that Poccil has learned from her/his mistakes, but there's also a very recent complaint about British/American spellings despite the fact that the relevant policy had already been pointed out to her/him. So I'd propose to wait a little to see whether Poccil is willing to stick to community policies before reconsidering the nomination.
Yes, there is a strong contribution base. Yes, you've been here long enough to be an administrator by most Wikipedian standards. However, I am wary by your description of "wanting to edit Wikipedia more efficiently", and I don't see as much community involvement as I would like to see in an administrator. --
Agree with Grunt. --
There are detractors and credits to be given.  --
Talk page archive has me worried.

No, no, no, for obvious reasons: look at his [[User talk:Pumpie|talk page]] and [[Special:Contributions/Pumpie|contributions]]. I believe that Pumpie is enthusiastic and sincere about contributing to Wikipedia, but it's readily apparent that he knows neither what he's doing nor what he ought to be doing, despite many attempts to teach him. I do not think he has demonstrated the skill and good judgement necessary for the use of sysop powers.
Pumpie seems to have trouble communicating with others here.

Absolutely not. Pumpie has absolutely no regard for other editors and constantly causes more harm than good to Wikipedia, whether intentionally or not. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pumpie]] for details. &mdash;
No. --
If he's such a genius, he ought to know better than this. Isn't he the one behind all those horribly translated articles?
No. Has no regard for other users. Merely pumps out very poor translations of articles on other Wikipedias with no regard to the original or to converting them into grammatical English. His many many contributions are in incredibly poor English too. This just creates lots of work for others.  Look at his last sentence below: it's not even grammatical. His answer to question 6 below is disingenuous (see his talk page and the RfC page). I doubt strongly that he has a high IQ or is a genius. I have no confidence at all that he would exercise proper judgment as a sysop.
See comments.
I think he's really trying to improve, but he's not there yet. "I'm brilliant" is not a helpful response to questions and concerns. I understand that translation is not easy and respect his attempts to improve, but I'm concerned that his English skills may result in misunderstanding of policies and difficulty in communicating those policies to others. -[[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("
In spite of assurances that he's a "genius", his poorly translated location substub-with-taxobax articles don't reflect his alleged brilliance. In spite of numorous requests that he stop making empty articles and concentrate of fixing his own mess, he continues to create work for other admins. Honestly, I wonder if Pumpie is not committing subtle vandalism. He should be rejected like he was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pumpie&oldid=7268729 last time] (in the history of this article.)
Aside from the fact that I think his work is shaky, I don't see his answers on the generic questions to be very encouraging. He can do that sort of thing now. If he's brilliant, I'm the [[Queen Elizabeth II|Queen of England]].



Strongly oppose.  Sorry.  I have tried to reason with this guy in a calm, rational and friendly manner and he simply ignores all attempts at contact.  So have others and he ignores them as well.  As I write, he's posting more of those malformed geographic substubs.  He's also oblivious to the fact that he's currently on the RfC page.  I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his intentions are good, but I simply can't do so anymore. -
Oppose. I have tried to work with this user many times in the past, and though I know he works hard, I'm not sure how having admin access would help wikipedia at all. I am unsure of his ability to follow Wiki policies, and question his willingness to communicate with or compromise with other users. Sorry, Pumpie. [[User:Rhymeless|
Strongly oppose. I've tried to communicate with Pumpie multiple times (see his talk page), and it has always been unilateral. He refuses to participate in constructive discussions about his work. Also, I think that the storm of "machine translations" (or really, really, really poor human translations) is part of his plot to become an administrator. He'll probably soon realise that it was not a fruitful tactic...(Pumpie has self-nominated for adminship half-a-dozen times over the course of a year). &mdash;
Hell, no. [[User:Neutrality|

I tried to think of a unique way to say no, but I have to admit, everything that can be said about this request has already been said.
Agree with [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]], he said it already --
Zero evidence of change since last (self-)nomination. --
Oppose for many reasons, already stated by others.
Strongly oppose. A prolific but disruptive contributor, he could at this stage become even more disruptive with administrator rights.
"Having a high I.Q." and wanting to "fix links" aren't exactly convincing reasons for adminship, at least for me. Also, he doesn't seem to be good at communicating with others, judging from the animosity that he's generated and from his lack of contributions to pages outside the Main namespace. Maybe someday, but not now. --
I'm having trouble assuming good faith with this user because I find it hard to believe that someone could really fail to understand the numerous (numerous!) attempts by a diverse range of users to communicate with him. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
I also no longer extend the benefit of doubt, nor assumptions of good will.  What he has been doing is not brilliant at all, unless the aims are to bog down the project in a paroxysm.  It is not ''whether'' he is English-fluent that's at issue, but whether he is self-aware enough and disciplined enough to understand his limitations and to not attempt things that he cannot do.
Emotional and intellectual (if not chronological) maturity is of primary importance in evenhandedly administering a sysop's editorial functions. And constantly restating that he or she is brilliant implies (to me, at least) that Pumpie feels somehow the rest of us aren't.
No way. --

A solid contributor who has never allowed a contentious issue to afect her treatment of the article.



Wikipedia is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --

Changing my vote from neutral after discussion on Rei's talk page. I think she'll be fine.
After careful review, I support.
Support. I have faith that the user can be trusted to refrain from using administrative powers in a controversy. -
Support.
Support.   Cecropia and Rei should balance each other nicely. ;)


I can not strongly enough express my opposition to Rei as an admin.
Not yet enough edits, IMHO.
'''Respectfully''' oppose. I think that Rei is a well-intentioned user, but she's not ready for admin status. This should be of major concern. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq&diff=3352229&oldid=3349134 1] Her edit summary here was, "Vote being taken on the talk page. Protecting until then." However, this would be more disconcerting had she been an admin to begin with, given that it was an attempt by her to prevent changes to an article on which she was actively editing. I also question her understanding of how an encyclopedia is supposed to be organized. She misunderstood my arguments [[Talk:Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq#Title and content in article don't correspond|here]] consistently on [[Talk:Human rights situation in Saddam's Iraq|2]].
I was reserving judgment until I saw how things played out during the ''ad hoc'' mediation/revision attempt at [[Oil for food]], but after Rei's posting today on the [[Oil for food|talk page]] I have to oppose for similar reasons as 172.
Respectfully oppose.  Seeing as how there's no clear consensus, I read through Rei, TDC, and Cecrophia's edit history to try to get a sense of what's going on.  I haven't encountered Rei before except seeing a brief edit of hers at the D9 cat page.  Upon reviewing the edit history, I am concerned.  While Rei has a number of excellent edits, the most valuable of which are on mushroom-related topics, most of her recent edits have been at politically charged current-events articles, such as [[Oil for food]], [[George W. Bush]], [[Israel]], and various Iraq-related topics.  These articles offer an editing experience that is quite outside the mainstream of Wikipedia. And since Rei has only been active since January 20 (plus a one-month period in August 2003 and a handful of edits in between), I question whether she has had the opportunity to internalize the Wikipedia "way of doing things."  I would hope that she would be nominated again after she gains more experience with the project.

I think Rei will make a fine admin and hope she works on some non-controversial topics and is nominated again in a few weeks.

A few valid concerns have been raised.
I think the instance 172 highlights is enough to make me wary.  Whoever was in the right in that edit conflict, putting a page protection notice on an unprotected page that you are in the process of an edit war on is just bad form.  I'd want to see some explanation/apology for that before I support.
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:37, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Changing my vote to "support." [[User:Rogper|Rogper]]'s answers seem adequate to me. His Swedish contributions are at [http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Rogper] and he seems to have about 3000 edits and to have been quite active since Sept. 2003. I don't understand any Swedish at all, but I didn't see any patterns that looked like edit wars or anything like that. Rogper needs to understand, work around, and help us to work around, the limitations of his command of English. First, he needs to be alert for possible ''social'' miscommunication, which may have happened with his initial request. Second, if he personally needs to rewrite or add whole sentences or paragraphs in English-language articles, he should alert someone who can help smooth out any problems in his English writing, which is clear and easy to understand, but not up to the standards people expect in an English-language encyclopedia. In some cases maybe he could put his rough draft in the Talk page, then let someone else move it into the main page. I'd be glad to be one of the people he can call on for such assistance.
His self-introduction is just misunderstood, as far as I can tell from his explanations below: He wants to remove ''his own'' incorrect pictures, and edit ''non-controversial'' locked-up pages (in order to do interlink). Everybody just got all paranoid when seeing the words "remove" and "locked"! Relax! <br> He sounds sincere and has a weird sense of humour. I don't think he's harmful. As regards to his competency, he ''really'' is an admin from [[:sv:Wikipedia:Administratörer|the Swedish WP]]. If the Swedes can entrust adminship in him, we can do! Despiting having their bodies frozen from August to March in snow, I'm sure the Swedes nevertheless possess high standards like we do too, as long the permafrost haven't advanced to their cerebrums. ;-) --


I now understand Rogper's reasons. I have reviewed his work in this and the Swedish versions.
Support strong! Please ignore the fools below who obviously doesn't know what they are talking about.


Support, good contributor to the WP community.
Support --
Support --
Seems particularly trustworthy to me, why do we need to vote on admins from other wikis?

[[User:Texture|T&#949;x]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=red>&#964;</font>]]
[[User:Misterrick|Misterrick]] - It seems in my opinion that


I believe that the English Wikipedia has a different culture and different norms than most of the other MediaWiki projects due to its size and longer history. While I can understand Rogper's frustration with being unable to add interlanguage links to protected pages, there are in fact fewer protected pages in the English Wikipedia than there are admins here who would be willing to add such links if notified of the need.
Agreeing with Angela -- I'm sure he's done good things for the Swedish WP, but I'd like to see a little more familiarity with en. practices and policies first.
Oppose, not real reasons.--
Not enought time on Wikipedia and not good enough reasons for seeking an adminiship.  Power hungriness is no real reason, as stated above, to become a administrator.
Oppose.  I have concerns about his motivations for wanting to be an admin, and I'm not certain his English is good enough to be effective.  Personally, I also cannot stand it when people being voted upon come here and nitpick and respond to every critique.  Let us vote without these sorts of distractions.  Although it's not against the rules to do so, it's enough to tip my hand to Oppose in cases such as this one.  My vote, my choice to feel that way.
I agree with Moncrief, fluency in English is important. For example, I should never be an admin on the French Wikipedia because my less than fluent command of  French would cause far too many misunderstandings and mix-ups. --
[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 00:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC) unless we change our policy to automatically grant adminship to admins of other wikipedias, this should be no exception to the rule. He can post a note on the article talk pages if the need is present to add interwiki links. --
Sam Spade is a jaded and grizzeled wikipedia veteran, and based on his behaviour up 'till now, he wouldn't abuse admin privileges. (see also comments)
Agree with Kim. Sam Spade ''is'' contraversial at times, but I've never seen him do anything that would make me suspect he would abuse admin powers.

While we maybe don't share many common views, Sam has always been a gentleman and a class act to me, and as far as I have seen, everyone. He does have his twirks and quirks, but who doesn't? If somebody has his unique view on things, I&#8217;m fine as long as he doesn't push it down other peoples throats, and Sam doesn&#8217;t, he accepts compromise.
Yes, of course.

Joined just 4 days before me! --


sam spade has always been a very kind guy and i support his adminship. --
<tt>
I had to think carefully about this.  Sam and I have amicably disagreed on a great many things.  However, upon consideration and a brief exchange with Sam, I do feel that Sam would follow policy as an admin, and I have every confidence that he knows the exact boundaries of those policies.  I know he has been in conflicts in the past, but I believe that those days are largely behind Sam, and frankly I think that a great deal of the animosity towards Sam has been an animosity towards his frequently unpopular political and social opinions.  Again, after very careful consideration, '''support'''.
We should give him a chance. I agree with Jwrosenzweig. Support. --
Support. Whether or not people agree with his views (I do not always) he is thoughtful and responsible. He would be a credit to the role. I see no evidence that he would abuse the authority involved.
Seems to me that his controversial past has to do with being on the wrong side of some very bad people. Anyone who can pull that off should have a shot at being a sysop, as they've got at least ''some'' of the right ideas. Also strikes me as generally being quite friendly. --
I have had many conversations with this user on MSN Messenger, and while he may be controversial to some people at some instances, overall, I think he is a very civil character, and as good (better, in fact) an administrative candidate as I was, way back when :-). Additionally, his statements regarding his prospective use of the admin powers strikes me as honest and well stated, and I seriously doubt that Sam Spade will misuse his admin powers, if this vote receives a bit more consensus, that is...

[[User:Neutrality|

[[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 13:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Has made some questionable edits and judgement calls in the past, but overall is civil and responsible and I do not believe he would misuse admin privileges.

Sam has indeed helped me with a few issues in the past and I've always had well-mannered contributions from him in discussions.




A couple of months ago, I would never have believed myself voting this way. However, my compromise needs more work. I would like to see it discussed as a general policy. I would also like to demystify sysophood as much as possible. I also think Sam will act responsibly. I therefore give a vote in support.

A prodigal son comes home. --
Yes, Sam seems like to err on the wiki philosophy side of things rather the abuse of administration powers side, unless we want the blandness of Worldbook that is the way to lean.--


Sure, Sam's okay. Adminship is supposed to be not a big deal, anyway. -

''This should be no big deal''. This is not a popularity contest. My experiences with Sam Spade have been very positive and I feel, although there is some controversy surrounding, that he would make a very good admin.
I detest Sam's opinions on a lot of things, but I don't honestly think he would make a bad sysop. -
I find Sam to be a good person an A+ contibutor, he would make a wonderful Sysop--[[User:Plato|
*Support - I wasn't going to vote here because from the time I first saw the vote it has been clear that consensus isn't going to be reached this time round (and I very rarely vote here anyway). But with the recent posts to various talk pages - something I can only describe as a smear campaign - I have decided to belatedly add my support for Sam.  I disagree with his views on many subjects but do not doubt his good intent and believe he would be fully capable of separating his views from any admin duties.  --
[[User:Meelar|
No. [[User:Mirv|&#8212;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|<sup>(m)</sup>]] 23:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) And after seeing his threats to abuse admin powers&mdash;to "block . . . based on violations of civility" and to "block well liked and respected people who consistently violate policy" (neither of which is a responsibility delegated to administrators)&mdash;below, double no.

Sorry, No.
Sorry. I'm inclined to agree with Ingoolemo and Grunt.
Oppose for various reasons, including the following remarks: (1) "the problems on the wiki will be best solved by eliminating the status of admin, not by the appointment of more people to the position"; (2) "the only benefit I can think of in adminship would be the "prestige" of community support"; (3) "I wouldn't really have any use for the added abilities"; (4) "its highly unlikely I'd win, and would be of no more than symbolic benefit if I did."
I must oppose because of Sam's continuing patterns of behavior. I have found him to be extremely argumentative (IMHO often for the sake of arguing), and while he hasn't broken any rules in a long time, he often is skirting the edge of those rules as closely as possible, and manages to stay just barely shy breaking them. Here is a good example: [[User talk:Bcorr/Archive 200407#.95 Mediation request: Herschelkrustofsky and AndyL]]. Also see the comment I made [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Sam_Spade#Moved_Comments_section|here]] for more information and links to examples.
Troll.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call him an outright troll, but sometimes he does seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, even if he has no real idea about the subject. I haven't had a dispute with him myself for months, but from what I know about his attitudes and opinions I don't think adminship is a good idea. Besides, he can continue to be friendly and greet users without being an admin.
No, no, no, a THOUSAND times no.  Sam Spade is a troll with a hair trigger.
No, at least not yet - a POV editor, reticent to admit making a mistake or to be self-critical. Seems addicted to conflict. Does not abide by standards he expects of others (ie violates the same rules of "harmonious editing" he promotes). Tendency to be vindictive and petty. Not irredeemable but needs to show a track record of improved behaviour before he can be given anything like an adminship.
Seems too volatile and too prone to seeing only one side of an issue.  I would rather not give Sam the extra rope to hang himself that adminship would provide.  He has in more recent times shown more ability to stick within the letter of the Wikipedia "law", but I'm not sure we need an admin who constantly pushes almost to the edge of abuse of powers, which I fear he would.


[[User:RK|RK]] 23:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) At this time, I do not see granting Sam Spade this position to be a proper decision.

Unfortunetaly, in my experience, he has certainly ''not'' been a good compromiser. Sorry Sam. --
I'm sorry, I am.  I ''like'' Sam, personally, and I've had many a good chat with him.  But I'm not at all sure that Sam could use administrator powers fairly... he's just involved in disputes ''too'' much.
Opposed absolutely!
Oppose. Sam has failed to respect others and has not sought compromise.
Oppose.  On some topics, Sam can be stridently POV and unbending.  Not a good idea to give him more powers.
Oppose, reasons similar to [[User:CryptoDerk]] and [[User:Exploding Boy]] above (I'd like to point out that I have no reason to doubt that this user is a valuable and trustworthy contributor).
Oppose, as above. Useful contributor, not an admin imo.
Oppose, I've been here only a very short period of time but I find Mr.Spade's lack of NPOV to be a slight problem. I read about adminship, and I don't really think Mr. Spade is up to it '''yet,''' but nevertheless I think it's still possible that he could become an administer for wikipedia, but not today ^_^--
No.
Strongly oppose. Never have I met such a persistently eristic user. --
<!-- [[User:132.239.16.160|132.239.16.160]] -->
I've seen him quick to reference policy and threaten to block/ban, and seen him in one too many heated point of view arguments to feel comfortable with him as an admin [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''&chi;''</font>]]
Oppose at this time. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;
Oppose.
Can't support a troll for adminship.[[User:Doug Danner|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&rarr;

Oppose. Too disputed to be appointed as admin.
Oppose absolutely, for most of the reasons listed by others above.
Oppose. I like Sam Spade as a person but I think he has superficial knowledge or biased opinions (I am not sure which of the two) about e.g. Nazism, but he still has made substantial edits to the article. As an example Sam Spade wanted to add a relationship to Chinese communism to the article to which I opposed.
Oppose. Worried about enforcing POV disputes.
No, same reasons listed by Grunt, Ingoolemo, et al.  Looking back at his history, a good, regular contributor though. His own comments about admin'ing make me worry about POV enforcement.  Since that's the thing I've always been most concerned about on Wikipedia (potential POV enforcement), I'm automatically against.  Nothing personal.  And please, everyone, quit trying to label him a troll.  He's really not.
Oppose. --
From what I have seen, Sam has generally acted in a perfectly correct way and really strives to do so (but see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racism&diff=0&oldid=6320994] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Racism&diff=6321661&oldid=6321232]). I agree with Kim's [[PITA]] comment though. I would support Sam if there was a simple, realistic way to take admins to account when they give in to the temptation to stray from the best admin conduct.

I've seen him a few times and liked what I saw, but just reading this RfA and his responses to it instills doubt in my mind. Not enough to vote oppose, but just enough to be unsure. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
I've been avoiding voting here. I haven't had a lot of direct interaction with Sam--my initial encounters some time ago left me with a not entirely flattering impression of him. His comments at the time seemed deliberately obscurantist (a sort of ersatz obi-wanna-be). First impressions are hard to shake, and I've seen a few instances that have reinforced my skepticism. However, I have also seen Sam make some really admirable contributions--both to individual articles and to the community as a whole. So even though I just don't feel right about supporting Sam for adminship at this time, I have come to have considerable respect for him and I don't want to oppose either.
MMMMMMmmmaybe. He's a fine old Wikipedian, but he's hot on the trigger. Hmmm.
From his record, I can't decide either way for Sam. From his contribution level however, he would be a good admin, but his precedent suggests he might enforce his POV.


Ok. But you really should consider making a userpage, even if it's just a redirect to your talk page or something similar. --

<s>Great work! I will support you after you create a user page. --

Well I think you should create a user page, but I'm not going to oppose you because of it. That's kind of silly.
I am considering blanking my user page in protest over the opposing votes.... <tt>


Support. Don't consider not having a user page to be a reason against adminship...
I don't see such a mild eccentricity as reason to oppose, since it does not in any way suggest that ScudLee would abuse his capabilities. I've never had any problem with the edits of his that I've seen.
Support. What Cyp said above. -
While I would ''prefer'' Lee to have a userpage just cos the red link looks weird, I respect his reasoning below.
Won't support users without a user page. I don't like being forced to look twice if it is a newbie or not.
Will support if user creates a user page (even if it's just a redirect to his talk page or something similar).
I find this nomination, at a time when there was no user page, as either significant of a lack of respect for fellow wikipedians or of a lack of understanding for the workings and social codes of wikipedia that after all is one of the most basic requirements for an administrator. A later construction of a user page won't change this perception. There might be other reasons to oppose this candidacy too, but I see no reason to investigate further. /
Opposing, for the same reason as the above three.
Adminship is as much a social issue as anything else, imho.  User pages are useful for finding out about someone's habits and beliefs on Wikipedia, and for someone with admin responsibilities, there should at least be a few words on it. [[User:Siroxo| ]]&mdash;
Oppose --
Same reasoning as [[User:Anárion|Anárion]], above. [[User:Lowellian|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;
I know nothing about him, and after looking at the deletion history of his userpage I see I never will. Oppose. -
Wikipedia works because its contributors mostly respect its social norms and "soft" limits.  While there is a place and time to challenge the status quo, this isn't it, and I am singularly unimpressed that in the comments below, ScudLee considers the relatively low-content user pages of certain other pseudonymous low-profile contributors to be disingenuous.
Same as three. I've simply never head of him. --
Didn't he have the vote go on for a while last time, only to have it turn out he had no intention of accepting the nomination?
Obsession w/ pop culture trivia shows a lack of judgement. Otoh I think [[User:ScudLee|ScudLee]] rocks for not having a user page.
Yay, self-nom! I didn't have a clear image of this user, but the introduction and answers to questions were encouraging, and a quick review of the edits confirms that he's a good user. &mdash;
A very worthy self-nom. A rare pleasure indeed, support fully.
Good user.
I've only ever seen good edits by him, and he sounds cool-headed.

Works for me. --
Good user. -

You mean he isn't... --
Impressively dedicated to civility and the wiki process.


Without the slightest hesitation.
Definitely.  [[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&bull;</font>]][[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>&rarr;</font>]]
It's about time.  His dedication and the way he deals with situations is what being a good Wiki administrator is all about.
A totally responsable contributor who is friendly and keeps it cool at all times. Definitely a yes! "
Candidate appears to be a very level headed individual and has my vote of support.
[[User:Rhymeless|

notwithstanding his support for sam spade, i still think he would be a good admin

[[User talk:TPK|T.]]
Oppose. I question the judgment of this user considering his endorsement of Sam Spade (see [[User:Spleeman/Sam Spade]]) for arbitrator. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements#Endorsements_from_Shane_King] Seems like a good user overall, though.
Oppose. For the same reason as 172.
Seems his active periods add up to less than two months.

While normally hesitant to support those with less than 1000 edits, this user (male or female? dunno) is a hard worker, and I somehow doubt that this user would violate Wikipedia policy or do any bad work as an admin - the user has done good work so far, and I don't see a sudden and unexpected change in that behavior anytime soon :-). It might help, though, if i knew what gender the user was...

[[User:Neutrality|
Excellent reasons for why you want to be an admin. Your edits are ok I think.
To hell with edit counts. [[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])
I almost voted "neutral" until I took a close look at the quality of this user's edits. These aren't just a spelling-fix here and a comment addition there; these are some serious writing that has enriched the Wikipedia. I don't think the raw count is meaningful in this atypical situation.
Quality of work looks good so far, but can't support with only 589 total edits.  --
Too soon, and being able to revert edits with one less mouse click isn't reason enough to become an admin.
Great start! I will support after 1000 edits. --
No.  Too early.  However, user seems to be a good contributor.  Will probably support after user has been around a bit longer.
Agree with the sentiment above. --
Your heart is absolutely in the right place, and you're headed in the right direction. Your request is too early, though. Give it another month or two, and I will most likely support you for adminship &mdash; or even nominate you myself.
You seem like a decent sort. From what you you say here you appear to be suitable for adminship. But you are still a bit new IMO.
I concur with Theresa.
I'm neutral. The quality of this users edits are quite frankly excellent. If you give him a bit more time (say a few months) to see how he deals with conflict then I really believe that Skyler1534 would make an incredibly useful, productive and worthwhile admin. I just think that this user needs a bit more time on Wikipedia (I don't honestly care about how many edits that this user has done. I think that the number of edits is a dodgy and unfair metric to judge whether someone is worthy of becoming an administrator... but that's just me). -
I'm with ta.






Support strongly.
Support. &nbsp;&ndash;
[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] --






[[User:Hcheney/Support|Support]] [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]]

--



[[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]
Support- highly dedicated to fighting trolls and vandals such as that one below calling him a "lap-dog". -
Support. -
Recent actions by Snowspinner and certain other users has caused me to overcome my "too soon" objection. --
Support.  Snowspinner's contributions have consistently been well written and well thought out, and, generally, has been instrumental in helping to resolve conflicts, especially on contentious issues.  -
Support. Snowspinner is a dedicated user. I do not think the minimum time thing is very relevant any more, especially with the number of sysops there are already. This user has had the opportinuty to prove himself to the Wikipedia community, and I believe he has done that. -
Support.



Too early.
<s>Not even a month and a half yet.</s>
Far too new, would likely support in future with different nominator.
Far, far too new. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this user been involved in conflicts with other users?
Just a wee bit too new. Sorry, Snowspinner.--
Oppose.  The user has not been here long enough and is not up on all the rules or past events.
Way too new. --
Not yet, but in another few weeks, I think so.
Oppose. Don't like at all how he behaved in the edit wars on [[Heteronormativity]] and his precious Critical Theory article series box. Maybe in a year or so, but right now, not even close to the stuff admins should be made of. --
Just as we have a 90-day requirement before one can vote in the current election it seems sensible to retain a 'qualification' period for holding any other position such as admin. One needs that full 90 days of history to base a decision upon. --
Not willing to listen to the other users. Does not understand word consensus - ''general or widespread agreement among'' '''all''' ''the members of a group'' --
No, <s>[[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]], [[User:172|Abe]] and [[User:GrazingshipIV|GrazingshipIV]] work way too close I worry about these users getting together as Sysops, makes me wonder who is cabal that they often cite.</s> Ok, ok snow, i'll admit he is not in the "cabal" but he's still too new for me.
I have now reviewed this user's edits, and find his behavior on [[Heteronormativity]] problematic. [[User:JRR Trollkien|JRR ]][[User talk:JRR Trollkien|Trollkien]]



Sure. If you're dreaming about it, you must want it badly enough to do something useful with it.
Certainly.
You know, you can download the mediawiki software if you're so interested in what the admin interface looks like that you dream about it ... ;)
Without a doubt! --
Doh, an enthusiast! --

Very impressive user. [[User:Norm|
Support. The admin interface is not very special, btw -_-. Sorry if I ruined your dreams... ^_^
Great user. --
Sure, why not?  He must be a good user;  he uses edit summaries.
I thought you were a French woman... ;-)
May be some would believe that Squash is a bit immature, but still, Stephen deserves adminship.
'''Support.''' People claim that he acts immature. I disagree. Wikipedia needs some lighthearted admins, and Squash would be an excellent admin.

Suppport, Squash is qualified for Adminship--[[User:Plato|
I was initially unsure about this one due to the comments below. However, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in Squash's contributions (that I could see) indicating that he would be a bad admin. No revert warring, no POV pushing, no insults or flaming. He seems nothing but dedicated to Wikipedia, and it would be a disservice to taint that with guesses at his character. If he acts immature on IRC, so be it. I don't act the same in casual chat as I do on Wikipedia, and it would be hypocritical of me to expect otherwise from this nominee.
<strike>I would previously have automatically supported you, Squash, until I read the controversey about your candidacy. I do not want to play a part in promoting a user who will turn out to be another dud sysop. So I'll remain neutral on this, unless you persuade me otherwise (on IRC or my user talk page). For what it's worth, what I have seen of you in the IRC channel suggests to me you are a good person (plus you're an Aussie), but I recognise that IRC is separate to Wikipedia and I should not base my choice on what transpires outside of the realm of this site. </strike> '''Support''' -
Squash has been a nice person and very helpful for a newbie like me. I have never seen anything immature of him here at Wikipedia. --
Not a strong opposition, but suggest that user lacks the maturity we traditionally expect of admin candidates.
Strongly agree with Mr. Hair after having witnessed a few of squash's tantrums in real-time in the past.
From what I've seen, would not be a very good admin.  Seems to be a bit too immature in my experience - seemingly "random" actions make me not trust him.  Definitely should wait a couple months, until someone nominates him.  Big edit count is tempered by the fact that many edits are minor and/or repetitive, like image tagging or changing "External link" to "External links". --
I've had to think hard about this, and would likely have had to think harder were this not a self-nomination, but as it is, I will have to oppose. While it may be true that IRC and Wikipedia are separate places, and a different manner is used in each, I don't think one can explicitly state that they are not at all related. The banner of NPOV does a great deal in changing the way in which a user acts, but we've all seen that fall away under the right (wrong) conditions, and I'm concerned that this could occur here. -
Seeing squash execute what I consider an act of vandalism to Jimbo's page is enough for me to vote no.
Negativo.
Apparently, not much contributions except for cleanups in photo copyright tags... I'd like to judge on content if the candidate, for instance, is likely to push some particular POV. Plus, weird behavior on IRC gives me additional doubts. Premature, probably.
While I like Squash as a person and have talked with him much on IRC in the past I have to oppose.  The maturity issues raised are valid ones.  His approach to consensus building is a bit shaky, as I've seen through various VfDs and other discussions.   That being said, Squash has very good intentions but sometimes they just aren't realized in a manner consistent with policy and precedence.  I would definitely support at a later date if Squash shows good judgment in the near future.
I agree with Reene and Vague Rant.
No. Squash needs to grow up - a lot - before I'd support.
I was going to support, but having read the stuff in the object section, I'm not too sure any more. You seem ''slightly'' immature, but you've also done good work.
I am unsure whether squash would make a good admin. I'm concerned that he seems to be fixated upon gaining adminship, which I think is a bit of a negative thing. I've seen mostly good behavior from him, though, so I can't really decide. --
Neutral here, would like to see more significant contributions first.

--

Seems like a fantastic user. But, given that the user has already turned down adminship twice, this RfA seems like a waste of time to me.
[[User:Andrevan| ]]<nowiki>&ndash;</nowiki>[[User:Andrevan|<b><font color="mediumblue">Andre</font></b>]] ([[User_talk:Andrevan|<font color=royalblue>talk</font>]])

User has more edits than I had when when I was made admin.
[[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 21:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Give the kid a chance. After all, we have a well-known and easy to use mechanism for de-sysopping bad sysops.


Too new, IMO; especially so for a self-nomination. Come back in a couple of months :)
'''896''' is too few edits.  <s>(And claiming "about" 1,000 edits is misleading and detrimental to your request.)</s>  Should return after getting a better feel for the comminity and the job. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]]



[[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 01:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) Anybody who supports EDGE for Adminship is suspect.
Users interactions with RickK and support of problem user are cause for concern.
Come back after some more edits.
A long-time user, for sure, but has edited rather sparingly. Will he be able to keep up-to-date with the project? --
Has done an excellent job of convincing me not to support his request for adminship. &mdash;
I concur with Stormie. And it never helps to argue with those voting against you in the middle of the list of votes....
I will support you after more edits, on both the English and the Chinese Wikipedias. --
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this user join within the last two weeks or so?
At the risk of being a little hypocritical&mdash;I'm inclined to agree with Raul.  (But having spoken to him a few times, I think he'd make a good sysop later).
I think there will very likely come a time when Mike H is a worthy candidate, but it is far too soon.  I have had good conversations with Mike here, but I am also a little nervous because I worry that his style of dispute resolution is confrontational and leads to hostility.  I will need much more time to observe Mike's approach to disagreements and conflict before I am comfortable casting a vote to Support.



OPPOSE.

Way too early. His first two edits were in mid-February, and his third on March 21.
WHEELER has been here barely two months, yet already has been involved in several heated conflicts. His remarks (''"This place is a joke"'') hardly suggest admin material.
A review of his edits would suggest that he may not yet fully understand the Wikipedia culture.
Strongly oppose.

Strongly oppose.
NO.



Strongly oppose. WHEELER often cannot distinguish between POV and NPOV, and I'm not sure whether it's because he is prejudiced or whether his poor English expression  does not allow him to apply quotes or other "distanciation" devices where they should. It may be possible that he is consciously pushing his political views. It's almost impossible to have a discussion with him on the talk pages, for he's often incoherent; besides, he's very thin-skinned and routinely engages in gratuitous personal attacks.

Seems [[Ent|too hasty]]. -
'''Strong support'''
Likewise.
(insert you-know-which-cliché here) --
Good contributor in my experience, really level-headed guy. Need more admins like that.


Glad to support her for admin.
Admins are trusted members of the community.  Yes, Yelyos has fewer edits than most, but I can say with 100% certainty that Yelyos will be an excellent admin, and that she won't abuse her abilities.  Although Yelyos doesn't have very many edits, it must be noted that she has been editing since '''November 16th 2003'''.  In my opinion, this is more than enough time to be familiar with how Wikipedia works. -[[User:Frazzydee|

Nomination is likely premature (given that it looks unlikely to get up), but I still think yelyos would make a good admin. I hope if this does fail, that we'll see a renomination at some later date.
Support.
Support, however I hope Yelyos does become more active when he or she receives adminship. [[User:Squash|
Yes. Definitely.
Good history, nice person.

[[User:Neutrality|
Less than 400 edits.
Urgh!  I hate to do this.  I like Yelyos.  I've got no problem with him.  It's just that, as he says, he's not that active on Wikipedia articles.  Long may he thrive, but I have to actually vote oppose on admin status at this point.

I'll support when renominated in 2005.
Good user, however does not meed my [[User:Blankfaze/admin|personal standards]] for support by any stretch of the imagination.  BE MORE ACTIVE!
Nothing personal against user, but in my estimation s/he does not qualify for adminship at this time. IRC activity is irrelevant.
Support after 1200 edits. --

Would support after a bit more editing work
The exact number of edits ought to be no obstacle for a candidacy, but the number of valuable encyclopedical contributions is most definitely. Having browsed the user's contributions, I must agree with Uninvited Company's comment below. /
Not enough edits. Edits are ''necessary but not sufficient'' to adminship. --
normally I would say, far too few edits. but seeing that every pov-pusher has lots of edits, that might not be a useful criterion. I'll wait for the replies to the questions below and may move my vote to support.
Support 2³&times;3&times;7... [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support -- a good contributor.
Support. --
Support.
Support.  I've never seen 168 do anything but really good stuff. -
Support - I thought you were already a sysop! :) -
Support. Weird handle, but not the weirdest I've seen.
Support. Does good things with maps. --
Support. Gotta love good maps. --
Support.  I especially like his edit summaries.
Support. --
Support if he thinks he'll use it.  If not, I oppose.  I don't think it's necessarily good to have inactive sysops.  (He is definitely active enough as an editor and has sufficient experience for me to support otherwise.)
Support, --
Support, I think that Estonian Wikipedia also needs a sysop. Also, I found that Andres is available there almost all time (24/7) and thats the main. Also He is the founder of Estonian Wikipedia, if I may say so. --
Support. -
Support. --
Support.  S/he'd make a great admin. --
Supported. --
Support. I'm sure Arwel would be a great admin.
Support. Coins, stamp, spelling fetish. Good things. --
Also support -
Support - just recently I had occasion to notice Arwel's attention to detail and was most impressed.
Support: a solid contributor, I'me surprised he isn't one already
Support. I've known Arwel elsenet for quite a while, and he's sensible and calm. (As a side note, if we de-sysop'd everyone who's ever been in an edit war, there'd be almost no sysops left, and Ed wouldn't be one of them. I probably wouldn't either.)
Support. About 1000 edits going back to February.  Re: edit wars, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
Support. Looks good.
Support. *blush* Ah, the sadness of irony! :-( I utterly misconstrued Arwel's point and hereby reverse my hasty vote. I can already feel [[Treebeard]]'s eyes on me... --
Support. Brian has made excellent contributions and spent a lot of time mediating the [[2002 Gujarat violence]] page. He will make a great sysop.
Support. --
Support. Why do I always assume the regulars already are sysops..? [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support --
Oppose... no, just kidding. Support. --
Support. BCorr would make a great admin. -
Support, thought he was one already! --
Support, I agree.
Oppose! I discriminate against those named Brian! *gets flamed by developer Brion* err... Support! -
Support. One of the statesmen of Wikipedia, if there were any. -
Support
Support: Nice biographies he wrote. --
Support. --
Support.
Support. --
Support. (There was some weirdness with his user page due to a redirect.  I couldn't seem to navigate to [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Chris_mahan his user contributions], although they are there.)
Support. He graciously responded to advice and offers of help, in regards to changing his username. --

Support: Seen him copyediting and updating materials around, and he seems to be the "light housekeeper" type. --
Support. Good contri-list. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support: thought you were already a sysop. --
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support (''Originally nomination''): Good writer, cleans up Newbie's weird stubs (see [[E. E. Evans-Pritchard]]'s history). S/he only experiences massive deliria off-Wikipedia. --
Support. He has great linguistic knowledge and is quite polite and mild-mannered. [[Talk:Compound verb]] is an example of a nice discussion with him. --
Support.
Support. A great contributor.
Support. --
Support. --
Support. A sensible level headed contributor --
Support. --
Support
Support.  Good work editing, stays NPOV, polite, etc.  I agree that anyone already doing so much housekeeping/clean-up would probably be a helpful admin.  Although only a member for a while, the contribution record speaks for itself.
Support. I'm surprised he/she hasn't been made an admin yet.
Support
Support: I just deleted a page blanked by <strike>him</strike> her.
Support. --
Support, of course!
Oppose. Let those who voluntarily leave the sacred order of the sysops burn in hell for heresy against the great god Jimbo, and make an example of him so no sysop ever dares leave again! ... *Gets turned into a small rodent in a flash of divine lightning for badly misunderstanding the Will of Jimbo...* Ok... Support. [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support, of course, and this has inspired me to create [[Prodigal son]] as well, so something good came of this.
Support enthusiastically, it'll give the other admins that much less work to do. :) -
Strong support, seen some excellent edits from this person!
Support. An excellent wikipedian who is not too easily swayed by the opinions of others. Although, perhaps he will need a name change..  Evil? ;) --
Support: Friendly. --
Support.
Support
Support: Fantasy = A non-[[Klingon|hostile species]] living with an understanding [[wife|humanoid partner]] and a cute [[Whippet]] in the [[Alpha Quadrant|Wiki Quadrant]] with a commendable Wiki-passion. Therefore, [[Mr. Spock|it is llogical]] to deny him SQL uses and application onto the [[Starship Enterprise]]. --
Support from me :)
Support
Support.
Support - why do I think the old users are all sysops?
Support. And not just because he reverted vandalism to my userpage a short while ago ;) His contributions have been constructive throughout, and his votes on Vfd have always been either on the mark, of darn near it. --
Support --
Support
Support gladly. --
Support.
Support.
Support. By the way, how old are you? The [[Jesus Christ|&#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962;]] article about you doesn't give your exact year of birth.
Support. --
Support: '''''However''''', you have a bad tendency to not describe anything about some of the photos you've uploaded (a specific source, that is). If you become an admin, you need to correct that obvious flaw, or other people will think that even an admin do such a thing, then they can do it too. (I trust that you're uploading non-copyrighted images, but but others can easily make that claim to, and why should we trust somebody we don't know on serious matter like this?) Admins can make mistakes (we all can), but we must follow clear policies, such as copyright/copyleft attribution. --
Support. --
Support: I read his entire [http://www.jdforrester.org/biography.shtml biography], admittedly short, to see if he's a sicko. And apparently he's not. Just ''another'' computer scientist geek (Yes, probably like ''you''!) who likes to walk around (probably stalking people!!) and studies in the department of a renowned university. Although he seems to have a minor Anglocentric tendency, and a weird one at that, to spell our name as "Wikip[a]edia" on his webpage. :-D <br> He's a [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrat]]. WP doesn't explain their ideology, but assuming from the name, it's not a racist, homophobic crap-party? (No idea) <br> In addition to his seeming intelligent and unbiased life, he writes pretty good too. I like his one-paragraph explanation of the the Brit secondary education system, very encyclopedic. <br> So, I'd say he'll make a good admin so he can do those tweaks he'd like. --
Support despite or because of his dramatic nomination. And his good work. --
Support. We sincerely apologize for not nominating you sooner ;-) --
Support, I always thought he was one anyway!

Support. [[User_talk:Fantasy#Thanks!]] and other of his actions/comments indicate that he would make a great addition to Wikipedia Adminship. And: I could not find nealy any thing he did without Summary. I like that ;-) --
support.  I didn't realize this user has been here for a while. <s>Reject</s><s>Too new</s>.
Support. Khym seems to know what he's doing and has managed to avoid any conflict since he joined in August.
Support. Seen him before. And we do have an insufficient amount of guardians over medieval stuff (I don't know why it sounds so bad the way I said it). --
Also support; Llywrch has been here for ages and done nothing but good stuff that I've seen. -
Support, for the same reasons as everyone else.  Also, Menchi, it sounds bad because we have an insufficient ''number'' of guardians over medieval stuff. :) --
Support --
Support. Does some valuable work, very knowledgeable - but I'd like Michael to stick with some conventions like instead of visible inline comments, use HTML comments or the talk page.
Support, of course - thought he already was. Even checked [http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&action=history&limit=500&offset=0 history] to see if he was just accidentally removed from the list somehow... [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support. Wanted to nominate, but had already nominated two others recently. --
Support of course. I'm astonished Michael isn't a sysop already. I ''always'' presumed he was. How did we miss out someone so obvious for so long?
Support.  Does a great job of correcting newbie mistakes.
Support. (Even if superfluous given the above, apparently any user can comment!)  Michael contributes excellent articles and constructive criticism.  We have disagreed, and will (no doubt) continue to disagree, on a number of points of style, but such is the wonder of our diverse global society!
Support. Michael will make a great sysop.
Support. His command of the language is impeccable, this should make it even easier for him to fix things. -
Support, I also assumed he was an admin (I guess I assume anyone who has been here longer than me is an admin :))
Support. --
Support: Prolific. --
Support. I've thought about nominating him/her myself --
Support. Sensible edits and corrections (and lots of them!) --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support from me too :)
Support most enthusiastically; via edit conflict, couldn't be the first seconder :-(
Support most affirmatively.
Support.
Support, of course!
Support.
Support, excellent nomination.
Support from me too :)
Support: 150 + 400 = 550, not bad in such a short time. I also like his willing-to-learn attitude (i.e., not arrogant) exhibited in the Talk pages, so I'd recommend he be Wikiquote sysop as well. Seems like I'm abusing one-vote-per person system. CIA will come after me! :-o --
Support for WikiQuote, but I haven't seen enough evidence yet to add my support for his Wikipedia adminship.
Support. --
Support: He has an interest in historical stuff that we appreciate having here, among other things. --
Support: Olivier's organizational skills and patience are evident in him wikilinking virtual orphans, and the maintenaince of some ever-growing large lists. And the ''5th'' [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits|most active]]! --
Oppose. Has not demonstrated ability to investigate matters in a fair way, by accusing me of having a "hobby" of edit warring etc. --
Support (and not because Wik opposed), since I've noticed Pakaran striving for quality in articles, and is active in keeping an eye out for vandalism.
Support. Pakaran has shown an excellent understanding of Wikipedia and has worked on many controversial topics whilst avoiding getting involved in edit wars over them.
Support, why not be an admin, while getting more experience? [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support. From the very start, Pakaran has shown good sense about avoiding conflicts and has actively tried to calm things down a bit. This is a no-risk decision. --
Support. I deferred last time because I figured Pakaran was too new, but I've seen enough good actions from him/her now to firmly support. -
Support (changed decision after speaking to Pakaran on the IRC channel._<s>Defer. This user has not been here long enough('''only 574 edits!''') and does not understand all the policies.</s>
Support. Seems a sensible contributor.
Support. He doesn't think he'll be using his powers as much, but I have a feeling (and the vandals will back me up on this) that he'll be racking up edits once he becomes a sysop *cue evil laughter*

Support: Friendly guy. --
Support. --
Support: His edits and copyedits are great. He has added to the intro some of the most fundamental info we overlooked. --
Support.
Support. --
Support
Support: He's one quick Rick. --
Support: For what it's worth, he has been helpful and polite to me.
Support: The force is strong with this one (just to get away from Star Trek quotes :) --
Support for all the reasons above
Support from me too, Rick is one of the good guys.
Support. --
Support.
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support. --
Support - you've always been a pleasure to work with on Canada-related articles.
Support --
Support.
Support. Though at least ''one'' line in the User: page would be nice. :)
Support.  Been here longer than I have, anyway. --
Support.
Support. I thought that Snoyes already ''was'' a sysop! --
Support. --
Support.
Support.
Also support. -

Support. --
Support: a quick view of his contribution history shows plenty of dedication and no worries, in my opinion.
Support. --
Support.
Support.
Support.
Support. [[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']]
Support. I wanted to nominate him, but he disappeared off my radar for like 3 months.
Support. Timwi is a decent person. -
Support.
Support.
Neutral stat: 150 edits in 9 months (since Dec 2002). --
Support.
Support. --
Support.
Support. -
Support. --
Support.  I have no reason to believe that ugen64 would not make a good sysop.   Quite the opposite.
Support.  Didn't have enough information to support last time, but do now (300 non-minor edits in the last two weeks alone, many of them very good ones). --
Also support; seems like a good contributor. -
Support: He has recently defended [[Nuuk]], against some person very stubbornly and wrongly insisted it to be "Godthåb". --
Support. --
Support
Support.
Support. --
Support.  Age has nothing to do with maturity.  --
Support - anyone who can write so much, and so well, about [[Sesame Street]] deserves help^Wsupport! --
